|
|
Previous Article | Table of Contents | Next Article 
Blood, Vol. 92 No. 6 (September 15), 1998:
pp. 1957-1966
The Zinc Finger Transcription Factor Egr-1 Activates Macrophage
Differentiation in M1 Myeloblastic Leukemia Cells
By
Kandasamy Krishnaraju,
Barbara Hoffman, and
Dan A. Liebermann
From the Fels Institute for Cancer Research and Molecular Biology,
and Department of Biochemistry, Temple University School of Medicine,
Philadelphia, PA.
 |
ABSTRACT |
We previously have shown that the zinc finger transcription factor
Egr-1 blocked granulocytic differentiation of HL-60 cells, restricting
differentiation along the monocytic lineage. Egr-1 also was observed to
block granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF)-induced
differentiation of interleukin-3 (IL-3)-dependent 32Dcl3 hematopoietic
precursor cells, endowing the cells with the ability to be induced by
granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) for terminal
differentiation along the macrophage lineage. To better understand the
function of Egr-1 as a positive modulator of monocytic differentiation,
in this work we have studied the effect of ectopic expression of Egr-1
on the murine myeloblastic leukemic cell line M1, which is induced for
differentiation by the physiological inducer IL-6. It is shown that,
unlike in HL-60 and 32Dcl3 cells, ectopic expression of Egr-1 in M1
cells resulted in activation of the macrophage differentiation program
in the absence of differentiation inducer. This included the appearance of morphologically differentiated cells, decreased growth rate in mass
culture, and cloning efficiency in soft agar, and expression of
endogenous c-myb and c-myc mRNAs was markedly
downregulated. Untreated M1Egr-1 cells also exhibited cell adherence,
expression of Fc and C3 receptors, and upregulation of the myeloid
differentiation primary response genes c-Jun, junD, and
junB and the late genetic markers ferritin light-chain
and lysozyme. Ectopic expression of Egr-1 in M1 cells also
dramatically increased the sensitivity of the cells for IL-6-induced
differentiation, allowed a higher proportion of M1 cells to become
terminally differentiated under conditions of optimal stimulation for
differentiation, and decreased M1 leukemogenicity in vivo. These
findings demonstrate that the functions of Egr-1 as a positive
modulator of macrophage differentiation vary, depending on the state of
lineage commitment for differentiation of the hematopoietic cell type.
© 1998 by The American Society of Hematology.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
THE COMPLEX PROCESS of blood cell
formation provides a profound example of cell homeostasis that is
regulated throughout life, whereby a hierarchy of hematopoietic
progenitor cells in the bone marrow proliferate and terminally
differentiate along multiple, distinct cell lineages, including the
proliferation and differentiation of myeloid precursor cells into
mature granulocytes and macrophages.1-5 The murine M1
myeloid leukemic cell line proliferates autonomously and can be induced
with the physiological inducers interleukin-6 (IL-6), leukemia
inhibitory factor (LIF),6 or conditioned media of mouse
lungs (LUCM), containing both IL-6 and LIF,7 to undergo terminal differentiation and growth arrest, which culminates in programmed cell death.8
To identify genes that may play a role in the regulation of
hematopoietic cell differentiation, we have isolated cDNA clones of
myeloid differentiation primary response (MyD) genes, activated in the
absence of de novo protein synthesis, in HL-60 and M1 cells after
induction for macrophage or granulocyte
differentiation.7,9,10 In the course of this work, the gene
encoding the zinc finger transcription factor Egr-1 (Krox24, NGIF-A, or
Zif268 Tis8) has been identified as a myeloid differentiation primary
response gene, specifically induced upon HL-60 macrophage
differentiation.10
Egr-1 was initially identified as an early growth response gene in
cultured fibroblasts11,12 and was subsequently shown to be
induced in response to B-cell maturation as well as during differentiation of nerve, bone, myeloid, and erythroleukemic
cells.10,13-17 Recently, Egr-1 also has been shown to be
involved in cell proliferation,18-20 negative regulation of
cell growth,21,22 and apoptosis.23 The Egr-1
protein has been localized to the nucleus and shown to bind
specifically to the consensus sequence 5 -GCGGGGGCG-3 as well as to
transactivate a promoter containing this sequence.24-29
Egr-1 was found by us to be a macrophage differentiation primary
response gene that restricts the differentiation of human HL-60 cells
along the monocytic lineage10 and potentiates macrophage differentiation of the hematopoietic precursor cell line
32Dcl3.30 Egr-1 is induced in M1 cells immediately after
stimulation with physiological inducers IL-6, LIF, or LUCM, and
blocking Egr-1 expression by antisense oligonucleotides results in
repression of monocytic differentiation.10 These findings
raised the possibility that deregulated expression of Egr-1 in M1 cells
may predispose the cells for terminal differentiation. To test this
hypothesis, we studied the effect of deregulated expression of Egr-1 on
macrophage differentiation of the murine myeloblastic leukemic cell
line M1. It was shown that ectopic expression of Egr-1 in M1 cells activated the macrophage differentiation program and included the
appearance of morphologically differentiated cells. In addition, the
cells were sensitized for further induction of terminal differentiation by IL-6, and a higher proportion of M1 cells became terminally differentiated under conditions of optimal stimulation for
differentiation. Ectopic expression of Egr-1 in M1 cells decreased the
leukemogenicity in vivo.
 |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
Cells, mice, and cytokines.
The differentiation competent murine myeloid leukemic cell line M1 has
been described previously.31 The cells were cultured in
Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (DMEM; Cellgro, Mediatech Inc,
Heyndon, VA) supplemented with 10% heat-inactivated horse serum (HS; GIBCO-BRL, Grand Island, NY) plus 1%
penicillin and streptomycin (Cellgrow) in a humidified atmosphere with
10% CO2 at 37°C. Conditions to stimulate the cells for
terminal differentiation were described in detail
previously.31 Briefly, the cells were seeded at 0.15 × 106 cells/mL with or without IL-6 at 1 or 50 ng/mL,
as indicated. For RNA extractions, cell concentrations were adjusted to
give a final density of greater than 0.25 × 106
cells/mL at the time of extraction. Viable cell numbers were determined
by trypan blue dye exclusion. Experiments were repeated at least three
times. PA317 (American Type Culture Collection, Rockville, MD), a
retrovirus packaging cell line,32 was cultured in DMEM
supplemented with 10% heat-inactivated newborn calf serum (GIBCO-BRL)
plus 1% penicillin and streptomycin in a humidified atmosphere with
10% CO2 at 37°C. PA317 cells were periodically selected in HAT (hypoxanthine, aminopterin, and thymidine)
medium to maintain their packaging function. For M1 leukemogenicity
assays, 4- to 6-week-old CD-1 homozygous nude mice were obtained from Charles River Laboratories (Wilmington, MA). In the leukemogenicity assay, nude mice were intravenously injected (tail vein) with 104 or 105 cells prepared in 200 µL of
1× phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) for each cell type. Control
animals were injected with the same volume of 1× PBS. Recombinant
human IL-6 was a generous gift from Amgen Inc (Thousand Oaks, CA).
General recombinant DNA techniques, expression vectors, and DNA
probes.
Plasmid preparations, restriction enzyme digestions, DNA fragment
preparations, and agarose gel electrophoresis were performed as
previously described.31,33,34 The retroviral plasmid
expression vector, MSCV EB neo, used in this study was a gift from Dr
Robert G. Hawley (University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario,
Canada).35 The 2.3-kb BamHI and Sal I
fragment of the full-length murine Egr-1 cDNA10 was cloned
into the Xho I site of the MSCV EB neo retroviral vector by
blunt end ligation. DNA probes for murine c-Jun, junD,
junB, MyD88, c-fos, Icam-1,
c-myc, c-myb, b-actin, ferritin, and
lysozyme have been previously described.30,31,33,34 stat3 cDNA was excised from pRcCMV-stat3 plasmid by ApaI/NotI digestion (James E. Darnell Jr, Invitrogen Inc, Carlsbad,
CA). The probes were labeled by random priming (GIBCO-BRL;
RadPrime DNA labeling, catalogue no. 18428-011) to a specific activity equal to or greater than 109 cpm/µg. Genomic DNA
extraction and Southern blot analysis were performed as described
previously.10,30
Establishment of M1 cells that ectopically express the Egr-1
transgene.
Virus was generated from the plasmid forms of retroviral vectors, MSCV
EB neo (as a control) and MSCV EB neo Egr-1, by transfection of the
packaging cell line PA317 using calcium phosphate-DNA
precipitation.36 Transfected PA317 cells were selected
using 800 µg/mL G418 (Geneticin; 400 µg/mL; GIBCO-BRL) in growth
medium. Several clones were expanded and the viral titer of the
supernatants (viral conditioned medium [VCM]) was determined to be
0.8 × 105/mL by infecting NIH 3T3
cells.37 The VCM was passed through a 0.4-µm
filter and immediately used to infect M1 cells. Infection of M1 cells
was accomplished by resuspending pellet of cells (0.5 × 106 cells) in 4 mL of VCM in the presence of 8 mg/mL
polybrene for 4 hours. After infection, the cells were washed once with
growth medium and incubated for 48 hours. For neomycin-resistant colony selection, infected cells were seeded at 100 cells/mL in growth media
containing G418, and 1-mL aliquots were dispensed into 24-well trays.
After 10 to 15 days, cultures from wells containing surviving cells
were expanded. The infectants were maintained in growth media
containing 200 µg/mL of G418. Four independent clones with different
integration sites were detected using Southern blot analysis as
described previously10,34 and used throughout the study.
All experiments in this study were initiated with nonadherent M1Egr-1
cells, and the results of all experiments represent the mean of at
least three independent determinations, with standard deviations
indicated in the appropriate figure legend.
Assays for differentiation-associated properties.
Morphological differentiation was determined by counting at least 300 cells on May-Grunwald-Giemsa-stained cytospin smears and scoring the
proportion of immature blast cells, cells at intermediate stages of
differentiation, and mature macrophages.7,9 Immature blast
cells are characterized by scant cytoplasm and round or oval nuclei;
cells at intermediate monocyte stages of differentiation are flattened,
with a larger cytoplasm to nucleus ratio, and contain irregularly
shaped nuclei and few interspersed or no vacuoles; mature
macrophage-like cells are flattened; and spread out cells are
interspersed with numerous vacuoles in a greatly enlarged cytoplasm. Fc
and C3 receptor assays7 and cell adherence were determined
as previously described.9 Agar colony assays were performed
as previously described.33 Colonies in soft agar were examined after 7 days and scored after 14 days.
RNA extraction, Northern blotting, and hybridization.
RNA was extracted using Trizol (GIBCO-BRL) reagent according to the
manufacturer's specifications. Total RNA (10 µg/lane, equal amounts
of RNA in each lane were confirmed by equal intensity of ethidium
bromide staining of ribosomal RNA bands) was electrophoresed on 1%
agarose formaldehyde gels. Northern blots, using Duralon-UV membranes
(Stratagene, La Jolla, CA), were prepared and UV
cross-linked (Stratalinker; Stratagene) before baking at 60°C under
vacuum for 2 hours. Blots were hybridized in 50% deionized formamide, 10% dextran sulfate, 1 mol/L NaCl, 1% sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), and 100 µg/mL sheared salmon sperm DNA at 42°C with
106 cpm/mL of probe for 12 to 16 hours. Blots were washed
at room temperature twice for 5 minutes in 2× SSC, 0.1% SDS and
at 60°C twice for 30 minutes in 0.1× SSC, 1% SDS and exposed
to x-ray film at 80°C for 48 to 72 hours. Stripping blots of
probe to rehybridize was performed as described
previously.9,30,34
Reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction
(RT-PCR)8.
Primers for murine IL-6 and gp130 genes were selected with the aid of
the program PCRPLAN (PCGENE; Intelligenetics Inc, Mountain View,
CA). The primers corresponded to bases 1946 to 1966 (5 -3 sequence of primer) and to 2964 to 2985 of the murine gp130
gene and bases 27 to 48 (5 -3 sequence of primer) and
656 to 675 of the murine IL-6 gene. To detect the transcripts
encoding for gp130 and IL-6, RT-PCR was performed on aliquots of RNA,
essentially as described previously.34,38 Briefly, 3 µg
of total RNA, extracted using Trizol reagent, was reverse transcribed
(RT) with the GIBCO-BRL Superscript preamplification system (catalogue
no. 180-89-011), used according to the manufacturer's instructions, in
a final volume of 21 µL, using oligo dT as primer. For PCR, 2 µL of
cDNA was taken from each RT reaction volume and samples were diluted to
50 µL with buffer (Boehringer Mannheim Biochemicals [BMB], Indianapolis, IN; 10×), yielding 0.1 mmol/L dNTPs,
0.5 mmol/L MgCl2, 10 mmol/L Tris (pH 8.3), 50 mmol/L KCl;
each primer, at a final concentration of 0.1 µmol/L, and 5 U Taq DNA
polymerase (BMB) were added. Samples were covered with 50 µL mineral
oil, heated at 94°C for 5 minutes, and subjected to 15 cycles of
PCR in a Perkin-Elmer thermal cycler, using 1 minute of denaturation at
94°C, 1 minute of annealing at 62°C, and 2 minutes of
polymerization at 72°C; finally, 5 minutes of polymerization was
performed at 72°C. To monitor for efficiency and reproducibility of
PCR amplification, -actin transcripts were amplified using murine
-actin amplimers (Clontech Laboratories Inc, Palo
Alto, CA). After extraction with CHCl3, 40 µL of PCR
products was electrophoresed on 1% agarose gel, blotted, and
hybridized with gp130 and IL-6 probe or -actin probe
(Clontech; catalogue no. 9800-1; within the amplified PCR region).
Control samples not reverse transcribed were used to monitor for
possible contamination with genomic DNA.
 |
RESULTS |
Establishment of M1Egr-1 cells ectopically expressing the Egr-1
transgene.
M1Egr-1 and M1neo cell lines were established via infection of M1 cells
with the retrovirus derived expression vectors MSCV EB neoEgr-1 and
MSCV EB neo, as described in Materials and Methods. As shown in
Fig 1, the M1Egr-1 clones expressed
exogenous Egr-1 transcripts, whereas parental M1 cells or M1 cells
infected with the MSCV EB neo vector carrying the selectable neo marker
did not. Southern blot analysis of M1Egr-1 cell lines confirmed that each clone was an independent isolate, as evident by the distinct integration sites of the Egr-1 transgene in different M1Egr-1 clones (Fig 1B). Four distinct clones of M1Egr-1 and four clones of
M1neo have been established.

View larger version (65K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
| Fig 1.
Establishment of cell lines that ectopically express
Egr-1. (A) Northern blot analysis of Egr-1 expression in M1, M1neo, and
M1Egr-1 clones. Ten micrograms of total RNA was analyzed by Northern
blots as described in Materials and Methods. (B) Southern blot analysis
of genomic DNA from parental M1, M1neo, and M1Egr-1 clones. Genomic DNA
(10 µg) was digested with EcoRI, resolved on a 1% agarose
gel, transferred to Gene Screen Plus membranes (NEN, Boston,
MA), and hybridized to a murine Egr-1 cDNA probe.
|
|
The effect of constitutive expression of the Egr-1 transgene on the
growth and differentiation characteristics of the M1 myeloblastic leukemia cell line was studied both in untreated cells as well as in
cells treated with IL-6. Results are shown for representative M1Egr-1
and M1neo clones and are similar to what was observed with the other
clones tested. The number of clones used in each experiment is
indicated in the appropriate figure legend.
Ectopic expression of Egr-1 in M1 leukemic myeloblasts activates the
macrophage differentiation program.
Ectopic expression of Egr-1 in untreated M1 cells was observed to
markedly inhibit the growth of the cells.
Figure 2A depicts the growth kinetics of
untreated M1, M1neo, and M1Egr-1 cells analyzed in mass culture. M1
cells expressing an exogenous Egr-1 transgene exhibited a
significantly slower growth rate than the control parental M1 and M1neo
cells (Fig 2A). Starting with a culture of nonadherent M1Egr-1 cells,
the cells grew in aggregates and after 3 days about 50% of the cells
adhered to the culture dish and exhibited an elongated morphology,
characteristic of monocytic differentiation
(Table 1 and Fig 2C). Analysis of
morphology by May Grunwald-Giemsa-stained cytospin smears showed that
greater than 90% of the untreated M1Egr-1 cells differentiated into
either intermediate or mature macrophages, with fewer than 10%
retaining blast morphology (Table 1). In contrast, none of the
uninduced M1 or M1neo clones grew in aggregates, adhered to the culture plate, or exhibited the morphology of differentiated cell types (Table
1 and Fig 2C). It should be noted that, while establishing the M1Egr-1
cell lines, some of the clones could not be expanded in culture,
because most of the cell population underwent differentiation.

View larger version (80K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
| Fig 2.
Growth characteristics of M1, M1neo, and M1Egr-1 cells in
mass culture. (A) Growth kinetics in culture medium in the absence of
IL-6. (B) Growth kinetics in culture medium in the presence of
different concentrations of IL-6. Cells were cultured in the presence
of varying concentrations of IL-6 for 3 days. The results are presented
as the percentage of untreated M1 cells (% control). For (A) and (B),
data presented are the mean of three independent determinations, with
standard deviations up to 13%. Cells were seeded as indicated in
Materials and Methods and viable cell numbers were determined by trypan
blue dye exclusion, with counting in a hemocytometer. All experiments
were initiated with nonadherent cells. In each experiment, four M1Egr-1
clones were used; all gave similar results, and data are shown only for
two. Similarly, in addition to parental M1 cells, 2 M1neo clones were
used. All control cell lines gave similar results. (C) Representative
photo-micrographs (original magnification × 100) of M1 and M1Egr-1
cells in mass culture. Cells were seeded as indicated in Materials and
Methods and cultured in the absence of IL-6 for 4 days.
Photomicrographs were taken before and after washing the plates with
DMEM; thus, after washing, only the cells that remained attached to the
surface of the tissue culture plate are shown.
|
|
Consistent with the proliferation and differentiation characteristics
of the M1Egr-1 cells in mass culture, the average cloning efficiency in
soft agar of uninduced M1Egr-1 cells was 37% of that obtained for
control M1 and M1neo cell lines (Table 2). Furthermore, about 30% of the colonies formed by the M1Egr-1 cells displayed a diffuse morphology at 7 days, characteristic of colonies with differentiated cell types. In contrast, no diffuse colonies were
observed with the M1 and M1neo cells (Fig 3
and Table 2).

View larger version (69K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
| Fig 3.
Photomicrographs of M1 and M1Egr-1 colonies in soft agar.
Representative photomicrographs (original magnification × 100) of M1
and M1Egr-1 colonies 7 days after the cells were seeded in soft agar,
in the absence or presence of IL-6. The number of colonies for the
different cell types is presented in Table 2.
|
|
The proto-oncogenes c-myc and c-myb are expressed in
proliferating M1 and other hematopoietic cells and are downregulated during terminal differentiation.31,39,40 Analysis of
c-myc and c-myb transcripts showed that the expression
of both of these proto-oncogenes was appreciably reduced in untreated
M1Egr-1 compared with parental M1 cells
(Fig 4A), consistent with the reduced
proliferation and the differentiated state of the M1Egr-1 cell
population.

View larger version (48K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
| Fig 4.
Analysis of expression of the proto-oncogenes
c-myb and c-myb (A), MyD genes (B), and late genetic
markers (C) before and after stimulation of M1 and M1Egr-1 cells with 1 and 50 ng/mL of IL-6. RNA was extracted from the cells at the indicated
times after stimulation with IL-6. The RNA was resolved on
formaldehyde-agarose gels and transferred to Durolon nylon membranes
for Northern blot analysis. These data were generated using two RNA
blots prepared at the same time from common RNA samples. Blots were
stripped and reprobed as described in Materials and Methods.
|
|
The effect of ectopic expression of Egr-1 on activation of the
macrophage differentiation program was further investigated by analysis
of the expression of Fc and C3 receptors, early markers of M1 myeloid
differentiation.33 As shown in Table 1, 28% to 39% of
M1Egr-1 cells displayed Fc and C3 receptors, compared with only 2% of
the M1 and M1neo control cell lines.
Further characterization of the effects of constitutive expression of
the Egr-1 transgene on the myeloid differentiation program was achieved
by examining expression of the myeloid differentiation primary response
(MyD) genes c-Jun, junD, junB, MyD88,
Icam-1,6 and stat3,41 which are
induced in the absence of de novo protein expression after stimulation
of M1 cells for terminal differentiation. As shown in Fig 4B, untreated
M1 cells expressed low basal levels of junD, whereas expression
of MyD genes cJun and junB was undetectable. In sharp
contrast, all of these MyD genes were highly expressed in M1Egr-1
cells, at levels comparable to their expression in M1 cells induced for
differentiation by IL-6. However, expression of MyD88,
Icam-1, and stat3 remained undetectable in untreated M1Egr-1, similar to M1 and M1neo cell lines.
The expression of late genetic markers associated with M1 myeloid
terminal differentiation, namely ferritin light chain and lysozyme,31,42 was examined as well. As shown in
Fig 4C, expression of ferritin light-chain and lysozyme
mRNAs was undetectable in unstimulated M1 cells. In contrast,
unstimulated M1Egr-1 cells expressed high basal levels of both
ferritin light-chain and lysozyme mRNAs, similiar to
what was observed in M1 stimulated with optimal concentration (50 ng)
of IL-6.
Taken together, these observations indicate that ectopic expression of
Egr-1 in M1 cells was sufficient for activation of a subset of early to
late cellular, biochemical, and genetic markers of the IL-6-induced
macrophage differentiation program.
Ectopic expression of Egr-1 increases the propensity of M1 cells to
be induced for macrophage differentiation by IL-6.
The growth response of M1, M1neo, and M1Egr-1 cells after treatment
with varying concentrations of IL-6 for 3 days is depicted in Fig 2B.
It can be seen that low concentrations of IL-6 (up to 1 ng/mL) did not
inhibit and even somewhat stimulated the proliferation of control M1
and M1neo cell lines; in contrast, proliferation of M1Egr-1 cell
lines, which was markedly inhibited in the absence of IL-6, was further
suppressed (compare Fig 2A and B). Consistent with the effect of low
concentrations of IL-6 on growth inhibition of M1Egr-1, low
concentrations of IL-6 (1 ng/mL) further increased the percentage of
M1Egr-1 cells that adhered to the culture dish compared with untreated
cells (60% to 65% compared with 52% to 57%), whereas at most 10%
of M1 and M1neo cell lines were adherent (Table 1). Analysis of cell
morphology showed that, at low concentrations of IL-6 (1 ng/mL),
control M1 and M1neo cells retained predominantly blast-like morphology
(94% to 96%). In sharp contrast, low concentrations of IL-6
further increased the percentage of M1Egr-1 cells that differentiated
into mature cell types compared with untreated cells (65% to 69%
compared with 33% to 39%) and decreased the percentage of cells at
intermediate stages of differentiation, with not more than 5% of the
cells retaining the blast morphology (Table 1). These data are
consistent with the notion that ectopic expression of Egr-1, in
addition to allowing M1 cells to undergo differentiation in the absence
of any exogenous stimuli, also renders M1 cells responsive to low
levels of IL-6 that have no or a minimal effect on parental M1 or M1neo
cells.
At 50 ng/mL of IL-6, the optimal concentration of IL-6 for M1
differentiation,33 M1Egr-1 cells exhibited more pronounced inhibition of growth compared with M1 and M1neo cells. In addition, 80% to 90% of M1Egr-1 cells adhered to the culture dish, whereas only
60% to 62% of M1 and M1neo cell lines were adherent (Table 1). At the
optimal concentration of IL-6, 78% to 82% of the M1Egr-1 cells
terminally differentiated into mature macrophages, whereas only 67% to
71% of the control cells displayed a mature
morphology7,9,34 (Table 1). Thus, ectopic Egr-1 expression
allows a higher proportion of M1 cells to become terminally
differentiated under conditions of optimal stimulation for M1
differentiation.
Consistent with the results in mass culture, all of the colonies formed
in soft agar by M1Egr-1 cells in the presence of 1 ng/mL IL-6 displayed
a diffuse morphology at 7 days, characteristic of differentiated cells,
compared with 30% for untreated M1Egr-1 cells. In contrast to M1Egr-1,
no diffuse morphology was observed with similarly treated M1 and M1neo
cells (Fig 3). For all cell types, colony formation was inhibited with
increasing concentrations of IL-6 (Table 2).
To corroborate and extend our findings, further analysis of markers
associated with the differentiation phenotype was performed. These
markers include the proto-oncogenes c-myc and c-myb, Fc and C3
receptors, myeloid differentiation (MyD) genes, and the late markers
ferritin and lysozyme.
The proto-oncogenes c-myb and c-myc were completely suppressed in
M1Egr-1 cells after treatment with 1 ng/mL of IL-6, yet this
concentration of IL-6 had little, if any, effect on c-myb and c-myc
expression in M1 (Fig 4A) or M1neo cells (data not shown). These data
are consistent with the observed growth suppression of M1Egr-1 cells.
Analysis of the expression of Fc and C3 receptors showed that, at low
IL-6 concentrations (1 ng/mL), the percentage of M1Egr-1 cells
expressing Fc (56% to 58%) and C3 (63% to 64%) receptors increased
compared with untreated M1Egr-1 cells, as well as compared with
similarly treated M1 or M1neo cells. After treatment with the optimum
concentration of IL-6 (50 ng/mL; Table 1), the percentage of cells
expressing Fc and C3 receptors was similar for all cell types.
Analysis of MyD gene expression has shown that the low concentration (1 ng/mL) of IL-6 was sufficient to induce cJun, junD, junB, MyD88,
Icam-1, and stat3 in both parental M1 and M1Egr-1 cells (in which
expression of c-Jun, junD, and junB was already increased in untreated
M1Egr-1; Fig 4B). However, the levels of MyD88, Icam-1, and stat3
decrease at later times in M1 cells, but not in M1Egr-1 cells. Egr-1
was only transiently induced to barely detectable levels by 1 ng/mL
IL-6 in M1 cells. At the optimum concentration of IL-6 (50 ng/mL), all
seven MyD genes assessed are stably induced in both M1 and M1Egr-1
cells (Fig 4B). Thus, it appears that induction of MyD genes in itself
is not an indicator of induction of the differentiated state of the
cell.
Finally, analysis of the expression of the late genetic markers, ie,
the ferritin light-chain and lysozyme, has shown that 1 ng/mL of IL-6 further elevated the high basal expression levels of
ferritin light-chain and lysozyme in the M1Egr-1 cells
(Fig 4C). In contrast, in M1 cells, 1 ng/mL of IL-6 induced very low expression of these genes (Fig 4C), and it should be noted that, even
with the optimal concentration (50 ng/mL) of IL-6, expression of
ferritin light-chain and lysozyme was lower in M1
compared with M1Egr-1 cells, either untreated or treated with the low
(1 ng/mL) concentration of IL-6. Expression of these late markers reflects the differentiated state of each cell population.
Ectopic expression of Egr-1 decreases the leukemogenicity of M1
cells.
M1 cells are leukemogenic when injected into syngeneic or nude mice,
and their leukemogenicity is lost after induction of differentiation in
vitro or in vivo.33,43 It has been shown that constitutive
expression of Egr-1 in M1 cells activated the monocytic differentiation
program, in which a substantial portion of the cells underwent
differentiation in the absence of external stimuli, reduced the growth
rate, and allowed the cells to be highly responsive to low levels of
the differentiation inducer IL-6. Therefore, to better understand the
relationship between these acquired traits in vitro and leukemogenicity
in vivo, the leukemogenicity of the M1Egr-1 cells was compared with the
parental M1 cells. As shown in Fig 5, 12 control nude mice injected with PBS survived for the observed 12 weeks,
whereas all nude mice that were injected with 104 M1 cells
died within 7 weeks. In contrast, only 2 of 12 nude mice injected with
the same number of M1Egr-1 cells died within this time period. Even
when the nude mice were injected with 105 M1Egr-1 cells,
only 4 of 12 animals died during the 7-week time period, in which the
surviving nude mice showed no sign of leukemogenicity. Also, 5 weeks
after injection, no myeloid leukemic cells were recovered from bone
marrow of animals injected with M1Egr-1 cells, as determined by growth
autonomy and differentiation characteristics.8 In contrast,
during the same period of time, leukemic myeloid cells were recovered
from the bone marrow of nude mice injected with M1 cells. Thus,
constitutive expression of Egr-1 decreased the leukemogenicity of the
cells in vivo.

View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
| Fig 5.
Leukemogenicity of M1 and M1Egr-1 cells in nude mice. For
each cell type, 12 nude mice were intravenously injected (tail vein)
with 104 or 105 cells prepared in 200 µL of
1× PBS. Control animals were injected with same volume of 1× PBS.
The experiment was terminated after 12 weeks. All surviving mice were
asymptomatic. ( ) PBS; ( ) M1 (104 cells); ( )
M1Egr-1 (104 cells); ( ) M1Egr-1 (105
cells).
|
|
Effect of deregulated Egr-1 on the expression of IL-6 and its
receptor subunit gp130.
Multiple cytokine- and second messenger-responsive elements have been
located within the 5 regulatory region of the IL-6 gene, including
AP-1 binding sites that are recognized by the AP-1 transcription factor
complexes encoded by proto-oncogenes of the fos/jun
family.44,45 We have reported that constitutive expression
of a c-fos transgene in M1 cells, which increased the sensitivity of M1fos cells for differentiation by IL-6, resulted in
stimulation of endogenous synthesis of IL-6 and higher inducibility of
the IL-6 gene.33 These observations led us to explore
whether Egr-1 mediated the activation of endogenous IL-6 and/or
upregulation of expression of its receptor gp130, thereby contributing
to the predisposition of M1Egr-1 cells for terminal differentiation.
To explore this possibility, we have used quantitative PCR to determine
the mRNA levels of IL-6 and its receptor subunit gp130 in M1Egr-1 cells
compared with M1 cells, before and after stimulation for
differentiation. No difference in the levels of IL-6 and gp130 mRNAs
was observed between M1neo and M1Egr-1 cells (data not shown). Taken
together, these data indicate that the Egr-1-mediated predisposition of
M1 cells for terminal differentiation is not due to either induction of
IL-6 or upregulation of the IL-6 receptor signal transducer gp130
subunit.
 |
DISCUSSION |
Egr-1 was found by us to be a macrophage differentiation primary
response gene that is essential for and restricts differentiation along
the macrophage lineage.10 More recently, it has been shown that Egr-1 potentiates macrophage differentiation of the hematopoietic precursor cell line 32Dcl3.30 In the present work, it is
shown that ectopic expression of Egr-1 in the myeloblastic leukemic cell line M1 resulted in activation of the macrophage differentiation program, rendered M1 cells responsive to low levels of IL-6, allowed a
higher proportion of M1 cells to become terminally differentiated under
conditions of optimal stimulation for differentiation, and decreased
the leukemogenicity of M1 cells.
Constitutive expression of many differentiation associated
characteristics was observed in the absence of IL-6 treatment, including the appearance of morphologically differentiated cells. Ectopic expression of Egr-1 in M1 cells decreased the growth rate in
mass culture, the cloning efficiency in soft agar, and leukemogenicity in vivo and, consistent with these observations, expression of endogenous c-myb and c-myc mRNAs was markedly
downregulated. Untreated M1Egr-1 cells also exhibited cell adherence,
expression of Fc and C3 receptors, and upregulation of the myeloid
differentiation primary response genes c-Jun, junD, and
junB and the late genetic markers ferritin light-chain
and lysozyme. Whether any of the observed changes in gene
expression is regulated directly by Egr-1 is under investigation.
Interestingly, most untreated M1Egr-1 cells exhibit either intermediate
or mature monocyte morphologies, yet all the MyD genes normally
associated with differentiation of both normal myeloid cells and M1
cells are not expressed. Therefore, these monocytes represent cells
that have not undergone complete macrophage differentiation despite the
mature morphological phenotype.
The ability of Egr-1 to activate the macrophage differentiation program
in M1 cells is contrary to the situation in HL-60Egr-1 and 32DEgr-1
cells, in which ectopic expression of Egr-1 did not result in the onset
of spontaneous differentiation along the monocytic lineage. Ectopic
Egr-1 expression blocked the dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO)-induced granulocytic differentiation of HL-60
cells10 and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor
(G-CSF)-induced differentiation of IL-3-dependent
32Dcl3 hematopoietic precursor cells, endowing the cells with the new
ability to be induced by granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating
factor (GM-CSF) for terminal differentiation exclusively along the
macrophage lineage.30 Interestingly, in 32Dcl3 cells,
expression of Egr-1 increased expression of NSE and ferritin in
unstimulated cells, whereas no evidence for Egr-1-induced activation
of macrophage markers was observed in unstimulated HL60
cells.10 The difference in the reponses of unstimulated M1,
32Dcl3, and HL-60 cells to expression of an Egr-1 transgene may be
attributed to their state of lineage commitment for differentiation. Unlike M1 cells, which are predetermined for terminal monocytic differentiation,7,9,31 and 32D cl3 cells, which are
predetermined for granulocytic differentiation,46 HL-60
cells are bipotential and capable of undergoing differentiation into
macrophages in response to phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate
(PMA)47 and into granulocytes in response to
DMSO.48 Also, HL-60 cells respond more strongly to
nonphysiological inducers (PMA and DMSO) than to physiological inducers
of differentiation.49 The results of the present work,
thus, extend our previous studies, demonstrating that the functions of
Egr-1 as a positive modulator of macrophge differentiation vary,
depending on the hematopoietic cell type.
In M1 and HL-60 cells, the proto oncogenes c-myb and
c-myc, which are expressed at high levels in proliferating
cells, are downregulated upon induction of differentiation subsequent
to the induction of Egr-1 expression.10,31,50 In this
study, we have shown that enforced expression of Egr-1 downregulates c-myb and c-myc mRNA. In view of the reported findings
that EGR-1 protein interacts with the promoter regions of
c-myb51 and c-myc genes,52 it
is possible that Egr-1 may be directly involved in downregulating the
expression of c-myb and c-myc genes during M1 myeloid
cell differentiation. In contrast, in HL-60Egr-1 cells, in which
ectopic Egr-1 expression was observed to block DMSO-induced
granulocytic differentiation, c-myb expression was markedly
upregulated compared with its expression in the parental cells.10 Thus, it will be interesting to study the
relationship between Egr-1, c-myb, and c-myc in M1
compared with HL-60 cells to understand the mechanism of interaction of
these genes during myeloid cell differentiation.
Ectopic expression of Egr-1, in addition to allowing M1 cells to
undergo differentiation in the absence of any exogenous stimuli, also
renders M1 cells responsive to low levels of IL-6 that have no effect
or a minimal effect on parental M1 or M1neo cells. Even with an IL-6
concentration as low as 1 ng/mL, M1Egr-1 cells displayed all the
morphological characteristics and stably expressed early and late
genetic markers associated with terminal differentiation. The increased
propensity of M1Egr-1 cells for differentiation was not due to the
upregulation of IL-6 or its receptor signal transducer gp130 by Egr-1,
because there is no detectable induction of transcripts for these
genes. However, ectopic expression of Egr-1 has a profound effect on M1
cells, activating the macrophage differentiation program, and any one
or combination of the Egr-1-mediated changes may account for the
increased sensitivity to respond to IL-6.
It should be noted that all the MyD genes that were assessed, with the
exception of Egr-1, were induced in both parental and M1neo cells using
low levels of IL-6. This suggests that expression of several MyD genes
is not sufficient to activate the differentiation program. These data
further implicate Egr-1 as a major player in regulating myeloid
differentiation.
Previously, we have observed that, whereas c-fos and
Juns (cJun, junB, and junD) are stably
induced during normal macrophage and/or granulocyte
differentiation, only the Juns are induced upon macrophage
differentiation of the M1 cells.33,53,54 Because it has
been demonstrated that M1 cells ectopically expressing c-fos
exhibit some differentiation associated markers and respond to low
levels of IL-6 in a manner similar to M1Egr-1 cells,33 it
was of interest to ascertain if c-fos is expressed in
M1Egr-1. No c-fos expression was detected (data not shown). It
is possible that the high levels of constitutive expression of
cJun, junD, and junB in M1Egr-1, which is not
observed in M1fos,33 may substitute for c-fos
and contribute to the increased susceptibility for induction of
terminal differentiation by IL-6. The marked reduction in the expression of c- myc and c-myb in M1Egr-1 cells,
compared with parental cells, may also play a role in increasing the
propensity of M1Egr-1 for induction of terminal differentiation by
IL-6. Clearly, it is of future interest to determine whether any one or
a combination of these molecular events may be responsible for the
Egr-1-mediated increase in the sensitivity of M1 cells to be induced
for terminal differentiation.
Recently, it has been reported that stat3 is essential for and
induces M1 myeloid cell macrophage differentiation in the absence of
Egr-1 induction.41 On the other hand, our results
demonstrate that enforced expression of Egr-1 predisposes M1 cells and
activates the macrophage differentiation program in the absence of
stat3 expression. These observations raise the possibility
that Egr-1 and stat3 may use distinct pathways to induce
differentiation.
The Icam-1 gene, which was recently identified as an Egr-1
target gene in primary B lymphocytes and B-cell lines,27
was not among the genes induced in response to ectopic expression of
Egr-1 in unstimulated M1Egr-1 cells. Thus, Icam-1 appears not to be an Egr-1 target gene in M1 myeloid cells. However, our findings do not rule out the possibility that Egr-1 may play a role in maintaining the stable expression of Icam-1 during myeloid
differentiation. Additional experiments with M1 cells, as well as other
differentiation-inducible myeloid precursor cell lines, are needed to
determine whether Icam-1 may be a primary target for Egr-1 in
myeloid cells and/or whether Egr-1 may contribute to the
regulation of Icam-1 expression during myeloid differentiation.
Our results demonstrate that ectopic expression of Egr-1 impairs the
leukemogenicity of M1 myeloblastic leukemia cells in vivo. Consistent
with these findings is the report that deletion of the Egr-1 gene on
human chromosome 5 results in acute myeloid leukemia.55
Furthermore, many tumor cell lines express little or no Egr-1, and
enforced expression of Egr-1 suppresses the growth of different types
of tumor cell lines in vivo.21,22
Recently, it was reported that macrophage differentiation was not
affected in mice lacking the Egr-1 gene, suggesting that Egr-1 may not
be required for macrophage differentiation in vivo.56 However, it has been reported that the Egr family members, Egr-2, Egr-3, and Egr-4,12 share a high degree of structural and
functional homology with Egr-1, including the DNA binding domains. This
suggests that proteins of the Egr family may be capable of substituting for Egr-1 function in the control of macrophage differentiation; this
possibility currently is being investigated.
In conclusion, the findings reported here increase our understanding of
how cell differentiation and its associated growth control is regulated
by Egr-1 and how these phenomena influence the leukemogenicity of
cells. This work extends our previous work demonstrating that the
function of Egr-1 as a positive modulator of macrophage differentiation
varies, depending on the state of lineage commitment for
differentiation of the hematopoietic cell type.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
Submitted December 3, 1997;
accepted April 17, 1998.
Supported by National Institutes of Health Grants No. 1R01CA59774
(D.A.L.) and 1R01CA51162 (B.H.), by the core program on carcinogenesis
(5P3CA12227), and by Amgen, Inc. (Thousand Oaks, CA) (B.H. and D.A.L.).
Address reprint requests to Dan A. Liebermann, PhD, or Barbara Hoffman,
PhD, Fels Institute for Cancer Research and Molecular Biology and
Department of Biochemistry, Temple University School of Medicine, 3307 N Broad St, Philadelphia, PA 19140; e-mail: dan{at}sgil.fels.temple.edu.
The publication costs of this article were defrayed in part by page charge payment. This article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" is accordance with 18 U.S.C. section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGMENT |
The authors thank Dr Arthur G. Balliet for his critical evaluation and
comments.
 |
REFERENCES |
1.
Metcalf D:
The molecular control of cell division, differentiation commitment and maturation in hematopoietic cells.
Nature
339:27,
1989[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
2.
Quesenberry PJ:
Hematopoietic stem cells, progenitor cells, and growth factors
, in Williams WJ,
Beutler E,
Erslev AJ,
Lichtman MA
(eds):
Hematology.
New York, NY, McGraw-Hill
, 1990
, p 129
3.
Cowling GJ,
Dexter TM:
Apoptosis in the haemopoietic system.
Phil Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci
345:257,
1994[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
4.
Liebermann DA,
Hoffman B:
Genetic programs of myeloid cell differentiation.
Curr Opin Hematol
1:24,
1994[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
5.
Liebermann DA,
Hoffman B:
Differentiation primary response genes and proto-oncogenes as positive and negative regulators of terminal hematopoietic cell differentiation.
Stem Cells
12:352,
1994[Abstract]
6.
Lord KA,
Abdollahi A,
Thomas SM,
DeMarco M,
Brugge JS,
Hoffman-Liebermann B,
Liebermann DA:
Leukemia inhibitory factor and interleukin-6 trigger the same immediate early response, including tyrosine phosphorylation, upon induction of myeloid leukemia differentiation.
Mol Cell Biol
11:4371,
1991[Abstract/Free Full Text]
7.
Lord KA,
Abdollahi A,
Hoffman-Liebermann B,
Liebermann D:
Dissection of the immediate early response of myeloid leukemic cells to terminal differentiation and growth inhibitory stimuli.
Cell Growth Diff
1:637,
1990[Abstract]
8.
Selvakumaran M,
Lin HK,
TjinThamSjin R,
Reed JC,
Liebermann DA,
Hoffman B:
The novel primary response gene MyD118 and the proto-oncogenes myb, myc, and bc1-2 modulate transforming growth factor hI-induced apopotosis of myeloid leukemia cells.
Mol Cell Biol
14:2352,
1994[Abstract/Free Full Text]
9.
Lord KA,
Hoffman-Liebermann B,
Liebermann DA:
Complexity of the immediate early response of myeloid cells to terminal differentiation and growth arrest includes ICAM-I, Jun-B and histone variants.
Oncogene
5:387,
1990[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
10.
Nguyen HQ,
Hoffman-Liebermann B,
Liebermann DA:
The zinc finger transcription factor Egr-1 is essential for and restricts differentiation along the macrophage lineage.
Cell
72:197,
1993[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
11.
Sukhatme VP,
Kartha S,
Toback FG,
Taub R,
Hoover RG,
Tsai-Morris CH:
A novel early growth response gene rapidly induced by fibroblast, epithelial cell and lymphocyte mitogens.
Oncogene Res
1:343,
1987[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
12.
Gashler A,
Sukhatme VP:
Early growth response protein (Egr-1): Prototype of a zinc-finger family of transcription factors.
Progr Nucleic Acids Res Mol Biol
50:191,
1991
13.
Milbrandt J:
A nerve growth factor-induced gene encodes a possible transcription regulatory factor.
Science
238:797,
1987[Abstract/Free Full Text]
14.
Suva LJ,
Ernst M,
Rodan GA:
Retinoic acid increases zif268 early gene expression in rat preosteoblastic cells.
Mol Cell Biol
11:2503,
1991[Abstract/Free Full Text]
15.
Cheng T,
Wang Y,
Dai W:
Transcription factor egr-1 is involved in phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate-induced megakaryocytic differentiation of K562 cells.
J Biol Chem
269:30848,
1994[Abstract/Free Full Text]
16.
Li C,
Mitchell DH,
Coleman DL:
Analysis of Egr-1 protein induction in murine peritoneal macrophages treated with granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor.
Yale J Biol Med
67:269,
1995
17.
McMahon SB,
Monroe JG:
The role of early growth response gene 1 (egr-1) in regulation of the immune response.
J Leukoc Biol
60:159,
1996[Abstract]
18.
Perez-Castillo A,
Pipaon C,
Garcia I,
Alemany S:
NGFI-A gene expression is necessary for T lymphocyte proliferation.
J Biol Chem
268:19445,
1993[Abstract/Free Full Text]
19.
Hu RM,
Levin ER:
Astrocyte growth is regulated by neuropeptides through Tis 8 and basic fibroblast growth factor.
J Clin Invest
93:1820,
1994
20.
Hofer G,
Grimmer C,
Sukhatme VP,
Sterzel RB,
Rupprecht HD:
Transcription factor Egr-1 regulates glomerular mesangial cell proliferation.
J Biol Chem
271:28306,
1996[Abstract/Free Full Text]
21.
Huang RP,
Liu C,
Fan Y,
Mercola D,
Adamson E:
Egr-1 negatively regulates human tumor cell growth via the DNA-binding domain.
Cancer Res
55:5054,
1995[Abstract/Free Full Text]
22.
Liu C,
Adamson E,
Mercola D:
Transcription factor EGR-1 suppresses the growth and transformation of human HT-1080 fibrosarcoma cells by induction of transforming growth factor, Bl.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
93:11831,
1996[Abstract/Free Full Text]
23.
Muthukkumar S,
Nair P,
Sells SF,
Maddiwar NG,
Jacob RJ,
Rangnekar VM:
Role of EGR-1 in thapsigargin-inducible apoptosis in the melanoma cell line A375-C6.
Mol Cell Biol
15:6262,
1995[Abstract]
24.
Christy B,
Nathans B,
Nathans D:
A gene activated in mouse 3T3 cells by serum growth factors encodes a protein with "zinc finger" se |