Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-nzzs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-15T12:06:41.351Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein β: its role in breast cancer and associations with receptor tyrosine kinases

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2009

Cynthia A. Zahnow*
Affiliation:
The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, The Bunting-Blaustein Cancer Research Building, 1650 Orleans St, Baltimore, MD 21231-1000, USA. Tel: +1 410 955 8506; Fax: +1 410 614 9884; E-mail: zahnoci@jhmi.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The CCAAT/enhancer-binding proteins (C/EBPs) are a family of leucine-zipper transcription factors that regulate gene expression to control cellular proliferation, differentiation, inflammation and metabolism. Encoded by an intronless gene, C/EBPβ is expressed as several distinct protein isoforms (LAP1, LAP2, LIP) whose expression is regulated by the differential use of several in-frame translation start sites. LAP1 and LAP2 are transcriptional activators and are associated with differentiation, whereas LIP is frequently elevated in proliferative tissue and acts as a dominant-negative inhibitor of transcription. However, emerging evidence suggests that LIP can serve as a transcriptional activator in some cellular contexts, and that LAP1 and LAP2 might also have unique actions. The LIP:LAP ratio is crucial for the maintenance of normal growth and development, and increases in this ratio lead to aggressive forms of breast cancer. This review discusses the regulation of C/EBPβ activity by post-translational modification, the individual actions of LAP1, LAP2 and LIP, and the functions and downstream targets that are unique to each isoform. The role of the C/EBPβ isoforms in breast cancer is discussed and emphasis is placed on their interactions with receptor tyrosine kinases.

Type
Review Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

The CCAAT/enhancer-binding proteins (C/EBPs) are a family of b-ZIP transcription factors that are exclusively eukaryotic and bind as dimers to sequence-specific, double-stranded DNA to regulate gene transcription. The C/EBP family has important roles in cellular proliferation and differentiation, survival and/or apoptosis, metabolism, inflammation and transformation, and oncogene-induced senescence and tumorigenesis (Refs Reference Cao, Umek and McKnight1, Reference Diehl2, Reference Poli3, Reference Zahnow4, Reference Ramji and Foka5, Reference Sebastian and Johnson6). They share a highly conserved, C-terminal, leucine-zipper dimerisation domain, adjacent to a basic DNA-binding region, together referred to as b-ZIP (Fig. 1a,b). The N-terminal domain is less conserved, but contains three short motifs, referred to as activation domains (Refs Reference Kowenz-Leutz7, Reference Williams8, Reference Angerer9, Reference Williamson10), which interact with transcriptional coactivators (Ref. Reference Mink, Haenig and Klempnauer11) and components of the basal transcription apparatus (Ref. Reference Nerlov and Ziff12) (Fig. 1a). Numerous regulatory regions that hold C/EBPβ in an intrinsically repressed state and inhibit its transcriptional activity have also been identified. For example, seven conserved regions (CR1–CR7) have been described, and two of these motifs, CR5 and CR7 (Fig. 1a), are known to interact with the N-terminal activation domains to inhibit the transcriptional activity of C/EBPβ (Ref. Reference Kowenz-Leutz7). In addition, two inhibitory regulatory domains (RD1 and RD2) have been identified; RD1 constitutively inhibits the transactivation potential of C/EBPβ by inducing a closed conformation that prevents access to the activation domains, whereas RD2 inhibits C/EBPβ binding by inducing a conformation that interferes with the ability of the basic region to interact with DNA (Ref. Reference Williams8). Phosphorylation or deletion of these inhibitory domains leads to activation of C/EBPβ and increased transcriptional activity (Refs Reference Kowenz-Leutz7, Reference Williams8).

Figure 1. Structure of CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein β. The position and size of the activation domains (AD) (orange), the negative regulatory domains (RD) (pink) and the conserved regions (CR) are approximated. The basic DNA-binding region and the leucine zipper are indicated in green and yellow, respectively. The amino acid numbers on the left refer to the position of the relevant initiation codon within the open reading frame of the mouse sequence. The full-length LAP1, and smaller LAP2 and LIP isoforms are shown.

The C/EBP family consists of six members: C/EBPα, C/EBPβ, C/EBPδ, C/EBPε, C/EBPγ, and C/EBPζ that were renamed using Greek nomenclature to indicate the chronological order of their discovery (Ref. Reference Cao, Umek and McKnight1) (Table 1). The protein for the founding member C/EBPα, was purified from rat liver in the mid-1980s by double-stranded DNA-affinity chromatography and interactions with the CCAAT box DNA motif (Refs Reference Graves, Johnson and McKnight13, Reference Johnson14). The cDNA for C/EBPα was cloned soon thereafter (Ref. Reference Landschulz15) and led to the identification of the second member of the family, C/EBPβ, (Refs Reference Descombes16, Reference Chang17, Reference Akira18, Reference Poli, Mancini and Cortese19) and an emerging family of C/EBP proteins.

Table 1. Genes encoding CCAAT/enhancer-binding proteins in rodents and humans

Abbreviations: AGP/EBP, α-1 acid glycoprotein/enhancer-binding protein; CBF, core binding factor; Chr. no., chromosome number; CELF, C/EBP-like factor; C/EBP, CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein; CHOP, C/EBP homologous protein; CRP, C-reactive protein; DDIT, DNA-damage-inducible transcript; GA, locus GA15; GADD, growth arrest and DNA-damage-inducible gene; GPE-BP, G-CSF promoter-element-binding protein; IL, interleukin; NF, nuclear factor; TCF5, transcription factor 5.

C/EBPα, C/EBPβ, C/EBPδ and C/EBPγ are encoded by intronless genes, whereas the genes for C/EBPε and C/EBPζ contain introns. C/EBPδ, C/EBPγ and C/EBPζ (CHOP, C/EBP homologous protein) are each translated as a single protein, but C/EBPα (p42, p30) and C/EBPβ (LAP1, LAP2 and LIP) are translated as multiple proteins, either by leaky ribosome scanning and the alternative use of multiple translation initiation codons in the same mRNA (Fig. 2), or via regulated proteolysis to generate LIP (Refs Reference Descombes and Schibler20, Reference Ossipow, Descombes and Schibler21, Reference Calkhoven, Muller and Leutz22, Reference Xiong23, Reference Lin24, Reference Welm, Timchenko and Darlington25). C/EBPε is also expressed as multiple isoforms (p32, p30, p27, p14); however, the mechanism involves differential splicing and the alternative use of promoters (Ref. Reference Yamanaka26).

Figure 2. Structure of mRNA encoding CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein β. C/EBPβ is translated into several distinct protein isoforms (LAP1, LAP2 and LIP) whose expression is regulated by the alternative use of several in-frame translation start sites (Ref. Reference Descombes and Schibler20). The 5′ end of C/EBPβ mRNA contains a 5′UTR of 298 bases with a GC content of approximately 73%, which has the potential to form complex, stable secondary structures that can interfere with scanning ribosomes (Refs Reference Kozak188, Reference Raught189). An upstream AUG (uAUG) and a small open reading frame (uORF) are also located in a hairpin loop of 5′ C/EBPβ mRNA between the translation initiation sites for LAP1 and LAP2. This region is crucial for the translational control of the C/EBPβ LAP2 and LIP isoforms (Refs Reference Lincoln190, Reference Calkhoven, Muller and Leutz22, Reference Xiong23, Reference Baldwin, Timchenko and Zahnow102). LAP1 is translated by initiation of the ribosomes at the LAP1 AUG codon. LAP2 is translated by leaky ribosome scanning through the uORF AUG followed by initiation at the LAP2 AUG site. Initiation at the uAUG and translation of the uORF may prevent ribosome reinitiation at the LAP 2 AUG because of the close proximity of the uORF AUG to the LAP2 AUG. However, in some instances, immediate reinitiation after translation of the uORF may occur and this has also been proposed as a potential mechanism (Ref. Reference Calkhoven, Muller and Leutz22). LIP is then translated by leaky ribosome scanning over the LAP1 AUG, followed by initiation of the uORF AUG, and ribosomal reinitiation at the LIP AUG (Ref. Reference Xiong23). Although LIP expression is often regulated by the 5′UTR/sORF (Ref. Reference Calkhoven, Muller and Leutz22), there have also been reports that LIP expression can be regulated in a manner that is independent of the 5′UTR/sORF and that LIP protein stability may be regulated by an undefined post-translational mechanism (Ref. Reference Li191).

The C/EBPs must dimerise to bind DNA (Refs Reference Vinson, Sigler and McKnight27, Reference Agre, Johnson and McKnight28), and in the presence of DNA, the basic region assumes an α-helical configuration and the protein structure becomes stabilised (Ref. Reference Moll29). Because the bZIP domain is conserved, all the C/EBPs are capable of forming intrafamilial homodimers or heterodimers with each other. With the exception of C/EBPζ (CHOP), all C/EBP dimers bind to the same DNA consensus sequence, RTTGCGYAAY, where R is an A or G, and Y is C or T (Ref. Reference Osada30). Although C/EBPζ can dimerise with other C/EBPs, it contains two proline residues in the basic region that disrupt its ability to bind to DNA at the C/EBP consensus site (Ref. Reference Ron and Habener31). Consequently, C/EBPζ normally acts to inhibit the binding of other C/EBP family members to DNA; however, C/EBPζ–C/EBP heterodimers can activate genes during conditions of cellular stress via the consensus sequence PuPuPuTGCAAT(A/C)CCC, where Pu represents a purine (Ref. Reference Ubeda32). Thus, C/EBPζ can either inhibit or activate gene transcription depending upon the cellular conditions. C/EBPγ can also inhibit gene transcription, but in a manner quite different to that of CHOP. C/EBPγ lacks the N-terminal activation domain and can still dimerise and bind to DNA, but blocks gene transcription in a dominant-negative manner by forming inactive heterodimers with C/EBP family members (Ref. Reference Cooper33). Similarly, of the four C/EBPε isoforms (p32, p30, p27, p14), the 30 kDa product has a lower transactivation potential than the 32 kDa form, and the 14 kDa isoform lacks the N-terminal activation domain and thus serves as a dominant negative (Refs Reference Yamanaka26, Reference Lekstrom-Himes34). This pattern of decreased activity in the smaller C/EBP isoforms is seen with C/EBPα. The C/EBPα 30 kDa isoform has a lower activating potential than the larger 42 kDa protein (Ref. Reference Ossipow, Descombes and Schibler21). The C/EBPβ isoforms will be discussed at greater detail later in this review. The smaller LAP2 isoform (34 kDa) is normally a stronger transactivator than the full-length LAP1 (38 kDa), and LIP (20 kDa) lacks the N-terminal activation domains and often functions as a dominant negative. Several reviews on C/EBP structure and function have been published (Refs Reference Zahnow4, Reference Ramji and Foka5, Reference Grimm and Rosen35, Reference Vinson36, Reference Takiguchi37).

Taken together, this information demonstrates that the transactivation potential of each C/EBP isoform can be quite different, and that heterodimerisation among C/EBP family members can result in a myriad of regulatory effects on gene expression. Moreover, the participants in a C/EBP heterodimer or homodimer are subject to variability and are dependent upon the availability of each family member. Species-specific and tissue-specific differences in C/EBP expression, physiological or pathophysiological stressors, and extracellular mediators that acutely regulate C/EBP expression might all play a role in regulating dimer composition and formation.

This review will focus on the family member C/EBPβ, the regulation of its activity by post-translational modification, and the individual actions of the C/EBPβ isoforms (LAP1, LAP2, and LIP). This review will also consider the role of LAP1, LAP2 and LIP in breast cancer and their associations with receptor tyrosine kinase signalling. Unfortunately, numerous published reports included in this review, have not specifically identified the C/EBPβ isoform(s) in their study as either LAP1, LAP2 or LIP, but simply refer to them as C/EBPβ. In these cases, the authors are probably referring to the more abundant and active LAP2 isoform, but might also be examining both LAP1 and LAP2 without discrimination.

Post-translational modifications of C/EBPβ protein

Phosphorylation

Post-translational modifications such as, phosphorylation, acetylation, methylation and sumoylation, play crucial roles in the regulation of C/EBPβ binding, transcriptional activity, protein–protein interactions and subcellular localisation (Fig. 3a and Table 2). C/EBPβ is normally maintained in a repressed state by negative regulatory domains, which sterically inhibit its transactivation domains (Refs Reference Kowenz-Leutz7, Reference Williams8). Phosphorylation within the inhibitory domains can abolish this repressive effect, and in many cases, leads to an increase in the transcriptional activity of C/EBPβ. C/EBPβ phosphorylation occurs on numerous residues and is regulated via numerous signalling pathways, which include: Ras–MAPK (Refs Reference Nakajima38, Reference Zhu39, Reference Mo40), growth factors and glycogen synthase kinase 3β (GSK3β) (Refs Reference Liao41, Reference Piwien-Pilipuk42, Reference Tang43), Ca2+/calmodulin-dependent protein kinase (Ref. Reference Wegner, Cao and Rosenfeld44), ribosomal S6 kinase (Refs Reference Buck45, Reference Buck46), protein kinases A and C (Refs Reference Metz and Ziff47, Reference Trautwein48, Reference Trautwein49, Reference Mahoney50, Reference Chinery51), and the cyclin-dependent kinase pathway CDK1–CDK2–CCNA2 (cyclinA) (Refs Reference Shuman52, Reference Tang43). For a list of the phosphorylated residues, effectors and cell types see Table 2.

Figure 3. Post-translational processing of CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein β. The structural domains of C/EBPβ are identical to those shown in Fig. 1. (a) Phosphorylated serine (Ser) or threonine (Thr) are indicated with a vertical line and a number that denotes the approximate position of the phosphorylated amino acid in either the mouse (M), rat (R) or human (H) C/EBPβ protein sequence. Acetylated lysine residues are depicted as circles labelled Ac below a lysine (Lys), indicating its position in the mouse (M) sequence. The sumoylation site is represented with a red triangle, and the position of Lys residues in mouse (M) or human (H) is shown. The methylation of Lys39 is shown as a large green circle labelled M in either the chicken (C), mouse (M) or rat (R) sequence. (b) The location of the cysteine residues and the resulting disulfide bridges are shown for the mouse C/EBPβ protein sequence.

Table 2. CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein β phosphorylation sites

Abbreviations: CCl4, carbon tetrachloride; DKO, double knockout, GSK 3β; glycogen synthase kinase 3 beta; HSCs, hepatic stellate cells; MAPK, mitogen-activated protein kinase, TGF-α, transforming growth factor α; TPA, 12-O-tetradecanoyl-phorbol-13-acetate.

Acetylation

Acetylation can also regulate the transcriptional activity of C/EBPβ (Fig. 3A) and C/EBPβ-responsive promoters are often differentially sensitive to different C/EBPβ acetylation profiles (Ref. Reference Cesena53). For example, growth hormone stimulates acetylation of C/EBPβ at Lys39 (Fig. 3A), which increases the ability of C/EBPβ to mediate transcription of Fos (Ref. Reference Cesena53), whereas deacetylation of Lys39 by histone deacetylase 1 (HDAC1) decreases the C/EBPβ-mediated transcription of target genes involved in adipogenesis (Ref. Reference Cesena54). Moreover, during glucocorticoid-stimulated preadipocyte differentiation, C/EBPβ is acetylated at Lys98, Lys101 and Lys102 by the acetyl transferases GCN5 and PCAF, and this leads to a decrease in the interaction of HDAC1 with C/EBPβ (Ref. Reference Wiper-Bergeron55). By contrast, acetylation at Lys215 or Lys216 decreases the binding activity of C/EBPβ on the DNA-binding protein inhibitor ID1 promoter, but deacetylation by HDAC1 can restore its transcriptional activation (Ref. Reference Xu56).

Methylation

The Lys39 residue in C/EBPβ not only serves as a substrate for acetylation, but also as a target for methylation. The histone lysine N-methyltransferase, H3 lysine-9-specific 3 (G9a) has been found to interact directly with Lys39 (Fig. 3A) in the N-terminal activation domain of C/EBPβ (Ref. Reference Pless57). This interaction results in methylation of Lys39 and repression of C/EBPβ transcriptional activity (Ref. Reference Pless57). Phosphorylation of C/EBPβ seems to disrupt the interactions with G9a and to antagonise methylation. Lys39 thus serves as a target for either methylation or acetylation, is conserved in mouse, rat and chicken C/EBPβ, and appears to serve an important regulatory role in C/EBPβ transcriptional activity.

Sumoylation

Sumoylation is a reversible, post-translational modification that involves the covalent attachment of a small ubiquitin-like modifier (SUMO) protein to its substrate. Sumoylation regulates gene expression by altering the subcellular localisation, nucleocytoplasmic trafficking, stability, activity and interactions of target proteins in both the nucleus and cytoplasm of most cells. Sumoylation of transcription factors most often leads to repression of transcriptional activity, but enhanced activity has been reported. C/EBPβ is a SUMO target and modification by sumoylation usually impairs its transcriptional activity. A conserved, five amino acid motif (I/V/L-KXEP), located within the first inhibitory domain (RD1) of C/EBPβ, contains a lysine residue (Lys132 in mouse, Lys173 in human) (Fig. 3a) that is the covalent site of attachment for SUMO1 and SUMO2/3 (Refs Reference Melchior58, Reference Eaton and Sealy59). SUMO2/3 targets only the full-length C/EBPβ-LAP1 isoform, and impairs the ability of LAP1 to activate the cyclin D1 gene (CCND1) promoter without altering the subcellular location of LAP1 (Ref. Reference Eaton and Sealy59). In murine T cells, sumoylation of C/EBPβ and redistribution of nuclear C/EBPβ to a more pericentric heterochromatin location, interferes with the C/EBPβ-mediated repression of Myc expression but has no effect on the C/EBPβ-mediated activation of the IL4 gene (Ref. Reference Berberich-Siebelt60).

Actions of C/EBPβ

C/EBPβ regulates the development of many tissues, and genetically engineered mouse studies have provided much insight into the diverse biological actions of C/EBPβ. Unfortunately, few mouse models have been developed to study the actions of the individual C/EBPβ isoforms. For example, C/EBPβ-knockout mouse models lack all three C/EBPβ isoforms, and although 50-70% of the homozygous C/EBPβ mice are viable on a mixed-strain background, these mice exhibit defects in numerous developmental processes (Table 3). By contrast, mice lacking only the 34 kDa LAP2 isoform have fewer developmental defects than null mice that lack all three isoforms – LAP1, LAP2 and LIP (Table 3). This finding is surprising in light of the fact that the LAP2 isoform is considered to be the most transcriptionally active of the C/EBPβ isoforms (Ref. Reference Williams8) and suggests that LAP1 and LAP2 might have distinct actions, and that LAP2 is not essential for C/EBPβ-mediated development in most tissues. The distinct actions of LAP1 and LAP2 are discussed below.

Table 3. Genetically engineered mouse models provide insight into the actions of the LAP1, LAP2 and LIP isoforms

aC/EBPβ−/− mice lack LAP1, LAP2 and LIP. Abbreviations: C/EBP, CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein; WAP, whey acidic protein.

Distinct functions of LAP1 and LAP2

The LAP1 and LAP2 isoforms differ from each other only in 21 amino acids at the N-terminus (Fig. 1b). This truncation of LAP2 is the result of internal translation initiation from the LAP2 alternative translational start codon, which is downstream of the LAP1 start codon (Figs 1 and 2). Numerous studies report that LAP2 is a stronger transactivator than LAP1, but the molecular mechanisms for this are unclear. The functional relevance of these N-terminal amino acids is still emerging, but the data thus far suggest that the N-terminal region may differentially regulate the activity of LAP1 and LAP2, in part via regulation of C/EBPβ protein tertiary structure and unique N-terminal protein–protein interactions.

The N-terminal region of LAP1 is important for recruitment of the nucleosome-remodeling complex SWI–SNF, which activates silenced genes via chromatin remodelling and increases access of transcription factors to their binding sites (Ref. Reference Kowenz-Leutz and Leutz61). Specifically, it was shown that the N-terminal region of LAP1 interacts with the vertebrate SWI2 homologues, hBRM (human brahma) and BRG1 (brm/SWI2-related gene), which comprise the functional core and mediate the assembly of the SWI–SNF complex (Ref. Reference Kowenz-Leutz and Leutz61). Although the LAP isoforms are known to cooperate with Myb to activate myeloid-specific genes such as mim-1 (MER1-repeat-containing imprinted transcript 1) (Refs Reference Ness62, Reference Burk63), the recruitment of the SWI–SNF complex is now suspected to be important for the LAP1–Myb interaction and the consequent regulation of a subset of myeloid genes (Ref. Reference Kowenz-Leutz and Leutz61).

Disulfide bond formation is also an important determinant of tertiary protein structure and protein activity. Murine LAP1, LAP2 and LIP contain six, five and two cysteines, respectively, which participate in disulfide-bridge formation (Ref. Reference Su64) (Fig. 3b). Specifically, the N-terminal, 21 amino acids of LAP1 contain a cysteine at position 11, which can form a disulfide bridge with Cys33. It was demonstrated in the murine macrophage-like cell line P388D1(IL1) that disruption of the Cys11–Cys33 disulfide bond by redox modification or reducing conditions alters the protein structure of LAP1, and enhances its DNA-binding activity. Thus, LAP1 is selectively activated through a redox switch to regulate the lipopolysaccharide-induced expression of the IL-6 gene, whereas LAP2 and LIP appear to be insensitive to similar changes in redox state (Ref. Reference Su64).

Pro-inflammatory stimuli such as LPS, IL-1β, IL-6 and TNF-α also induce the potent antioxidant enzyme, manganese superoxide dismutase (MnSOD), and C/EBPβ is important in the IL-1β-dependent regulation of MnSOD (Ref. Reference Qiu65). Specifically, LAP1 has been shown to activate MnSOD, whereas LAP2 and LIP block the IL-1β-dependent induction of MnSOD (Ref. Reference Qiu65). Moreover, LAP2 but not LAP1, is known to activate the CCND1 (cyclin D1) promoter (Ref. Reference Eaton66). The mechanism responsible for the differential activation of CCND1 by LAP2 involves sumoylation and inactivation of LAP1 via SUMO2/3 (Ref. Reference Eaton and Sealy59).

Specific N-terminal protein–protein interactions between LAP1 or LAP2 and other non-b-ZIP proteins are also important in the regulation of LAP1 and LAP2 activity. The N-terminal region of LAP1 contains a consensus motif that can interact with the EVH1 (enabled/VASP homology 1) domain of the Homer protein family (Ref. Reference Ishiguro and Xavier67), which is important in synaptogenesis, synapse function, receptor trafficking and axon pathfinding. Homer-3, which is expressed in thymus, interacts with its EVH1 domain to reduce the transactivation potential of LAP1 (Ref. Reference Ishiguro and Xavier67). Another example of the N-terminal 21 amino acids and their regulation of C/EBPβ–protein interactions is provided by the preferential binding of the transcription factor, Nopp140 with LAP2. The lack of a Nopp140 interaction with LAP1 results in a more active LAP2 and transcriptional activation of AGP1 (α1-acid glycoprotein) (Ref. Reference Lee68).

These data demonstrate that LAP1 and LAP2 have unique actions and that in specific cellular contexts the LAP1:LAP2 ratio may be important for regulation of gene expression. The lack of developmental defects in LAP2-null mice also suggests that LAP1 or LIP can functionally replace LAP2 during development.

LIP normally acts to repress transcription but can also serve as a transcriptional activator

A few mouse models have analysed the actions of LIP via tissue-specific targeting in transgenic mice. For example, targeted expression of LIP to the mouse mammary gland leads to hyperplasia and tumorigenesis (Ref. Reference Zahnow69), whereas expression of LIP in stromal or osteoblast cells results in osteopaenia, reduced bone formation (Ref. Reference Harrison70), malocclusion and incisor overgrowth (Ref. Reference Savage71). Although it was hypothesised that LIP acted as a dominant negative in these studies, transcriptional activation was not ruled out.

As a consequence of translation from a C-terminal AUG start codon, LIP lacks all of the activation domain modules (AD1, AD2, AD3) and much of the negative regulatory domain (RD1) normally found in the larger C/EBPβ-LAP isoforms (Fig. 1). LIP can thereby function to inhibit the transcriptional activity of other C/EBPs by competing for C/EBP consensus binding sites or by forming inactive heterodimers with other C/EBPs as a dominant negative (Ref. Reference Descombes and Schibler20). However, emerging evidence suggests that LIP can serve as a transcriptional activator in some cellular contexts, then the mechanism might include the interactions of LIP with other, non-C/EBP, transcription factors, such as glucocorticoid receptor, NF-κB, progesterone receptor B and the runt-related transcription factor Runx2.

LIP activates several genes involved in the acute-phase response. The lipopolysaccharide-mediated acute-phase response in mouse liver leads to a dramatic elevation in LIP, an increase in the LIP:LAP ratio and a LIP-mediated increase in transcription of the acute-phase gene ORM1, also known as α1-acid glycoprotein (AGP1) (Ref. Reference An72). Analyses have demonstrated that LIP preferentially binds to the acute-phase response element of the AGP1 promoter with an affinity that is higher than that for LAP (Ref. Reference An72). Early studies of the AGP1 promoter identified and mapped C/EBP consensus sites in the region of the glucocorticoid response element (Refs Reference Williams73, Reference Ratajczak74), and others showed that LAP and ligand-activated glucocorticoid receptor interact directly via protein interactions with the bZIP structure to synergistically transactivate AGP1 (Ref. Reference Nishio75). It is therefore possible that LIP activation of AGP1 gene expression occurs via protein interactions with the glucocorticoid receptor; however, this has yet to be confirmed.

C/EBPβ is also known as nuclear factor for interleukin-6 expression (NF-IL6) (Table 1), and was originally identified as an IL-1-induced transactivator of the IL6 gene (Refs Reference Isshiki76, Reference Akira18). Studies have shown that the bZIP domain of LIP is important for the LPS-induced transcription of an IL-6 promoter linked to a luciferase reporter in B lymphoblasts (Ref. Reference Hu77). Moreover, an intact NF-κB binding site on the IL6 promoter was found to be necessary for C/EBP activity (Ref. Reference Hu77), which agrees with an earlier study showing that C/EBPβ and NF-κB can synergistically activate the IL6 promoter (Ref. Reference Matsusaka78). Numerous studies have demonstrated an interaction between the leucine zipper region of C/EBP family members and the Rel-homology domain of NF-κB (Ref. Reference Stein, Cogswell and Baldwin79). Taken together, these data suggest that LIP may in part, activate the IL6 promoter via an interaction between the Rel-homology domain of NF-κB and the leucine-zipper region of LIP.

Another example of LIP as transactivator is the functional association of progesterone receptor-A (PR-A) and progesterone receptor-B (PR-B) with both LIP and LAP in endometrial stromal cells (Ref. Reference Christian80). LIP and PR-B physically bind and cooperate to activate luciferase reporter constructs containing progesterone-response elements (PREs) (Ref. Reference Christian80). Although LAP was unable to enhance PR-B-dependent transcription of PRE-responsive promoters, PR-A was found to enhance LAP transactivation of C/EBP-responsive promoters. Consequently, a predominance of LIP and PR-B will activate PRE-driven promoters, whereas increases in LAP and PR-A favour expression of C/EBPβ-dependent genes (Ref. Reference Christian80). Although interactions have been demonstrated between the progesterone receptor and RelA (NF-κB–p65) (Ref. Reference Kalkhoven81), it is unknown whether LIP or LAP cooperates with NF-κB on the PR-A or PR-B gene promoters.

LIP has also been shown to transcriptionally activate genes involved in osteoblast differentiation via interaction with Runx2. LIP expression is upregulated during osteoblast differentiation (Ref. Reference Hata82) and downregulated during adipocyte differentiation (Ref. Reference Tang, Otto and Lane83). During osteoblast differentiation, the LIP isoform interacts with and coactivates Runx2 to induce osteoblast differentiation while inhibiting adipogenesis (Ref. Reference Hata82). Because LIP lacks a transactivation domain, it requires an interaction with Runx2 to function as a transcriptional activator of genes involved in osteoblast differentiation, such as the osteocalcin gene [BGLAP, bone γ-carboxyglutamate (gla) protein]. Consequently, LIP is unable to promote osteoblast differentiation in the absence of Runx2, whereas the LAP proteins are capable of driving differentiation in a Runx2-independent manner (Ref. Reference Hata82).

Long-standing evidence suggests that LIP functions as a dominant negative on many promoters. However, evidence is emerging to support a role for LIP as a transcriptional activator of gene expression.

C/EBPβ in breast cancer

The gene encoding C/EBPβ (CEBPB) is not mutated in breast tumours. Few mutations have been identified in CEBPB, and those that do occur are not believed to contribute to epithelial cancers (Ref. Reference Vegesna84). Similarly, the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute Cancer Genome Project (http://www.sanger.ac.uk/genetics/CGP/cosmic/) has identified CEBPB as a gene that does not contain somatic mutations in human cancers. CEBPB may, however, be amplified in a small subset of breast neoplasia. A gain at chromosomal 20q13.13, which contains CEBPB, has been found to be associated with lobular carcinoma in situ of the breast (Ref. Reference Mastracci85).

The expression level of C/EBPβ mRNA in cancer was queried using Oncomine Research, a cancer-profiling database (http://www.oncomine.org/) (Ref. Reference Rhodes86). Data analysis performed with the Oncomine 3.0 array database demonstrated that expression of C/EBPβ mRNA is not altered in breast cancer or in breast cancer cell lines compared with normal breast tissue. Other gene expression studies have also shown that C/EBPβ mRNA is unchanged and not altered in breast cancer upon stimuli such as oncogenic ErbB receptor activation (Refs Reference Alaoui-Jamali87, Reference van't Veer88). However, differences in C/EBPβ mRNA expression are observed among a few breast cancer subtypes. For example, Oncomine analysis showed that a significant, but modest increase in C/EBPβ mRNA is observed in oestrogen-receptor-negative breast cancers versus those tumours that are positive for the oestrogen receptor (Table 4) (Refs Reference Gruvberger89, Reference van de Vijver90, Reference Yang91, Reference Saal92, Reference Finak93). Additionally, an elevation in C/EBPβ mRNA is associated with metastatic breast cancer (Ref. Reference van de Vijver90), a high tumour grade (Refs Reference van't Veer88, Reference Ma94, Reference Finak93) and an overall poorer prognosis (Table 4) (Ref. Reference van de Vijver90).

Table 4. Oncomine Research Cancer-profiling Database

Abbreviations: C/EBP, CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein; ER, oestrogen (estrogen) receptor.

It is interesting to note that C/EBPβ mRNA levels are not elevated in most breast cancers compared with normal tissue, but are increased in a more-aggressive subset of tumours versus the less-aggressive tumours. These data are somewhat surprising given that CEBPB expression is primarily regulated via post-transcriptional mechanisms, and mRNA levels would not necessarily be expected to be regulated in breast tumours. Moreover, these data suggest that transcriptional control or regulation of mRNA stability may be a mechanism for CEBPB expression in more aggressive breast cancers. Finally, increases in C/EBPβ mRNA can lead to increased translation, increases in C/EBPβ isoform expression and significant elevations in the LIP:LAP ratio, all of which have been observed in oestrogen-receptor-negative, aneuploid, highly proliferative breast tumours that are associated with a poor prognosis (Refs Reference Zahnow95, Reference Milde-Langosch, Loning and Bamberger96). An increase in the LIP:LAP ratio has also been linked to a defective transforming growth factor β (TGF-β)-dependent cytostatic response in metastatic breast cancer cells (Ref. Reference Gomis97). In pleural effusion samples isolated from patients with metastatic breast cancer, this study found an elevation in the LIP:LAP ratio in proliferative tumour cells that had lost their TGF-β cytostatic response, whereas LAP expression was in molar excess in those samples with a normal cytostatic response to TGF-β (Ref. Reference Gomis97). The forced overexpression of LAP2 in cells expressing an elevated LIP:LAP ratio restored the TGFβ cytostatic response, and led to a significant reduction in the proliferative activity of these metastatic cells. The mechanism of LAP2 overexpression involves an association with the forkhead box protein FOXO and SMAD (mothers against decapentaplegic homologue) proteins to facilitate the activation of the cyclin-dependent kinase CDN2B, as well as the repression of Myc. Because an increase in LIP expression antagonises LAP2 activity, a high LIP:LAP ratio favours the inactivation of p15INK4b, activation of Myc and proliferative behaviour in metastatic breast cancer cells (Ref. Reference Gomis97). Taken together, these data suggest that C/EBPβ has an important role in aggressive, high-grade metastatic breast cancer and that C/EBPβ expression in these more-aggressive tumours might be regulated in part via changes in C/EBPβ mRNA and alterations in the translational regulation of C/EBPβ protein isoform expression.

Studies in genetically engineered mice have also identified a role for C/EBPβ in mammary gland development and breast cancer (Table 3). Transgenic mice that overexpress LIP in the mammary gland develop focal and diffuse alveolar hyperplasia as well as invasive and non-invasive carcinomas (Ref. Reference Zahnow69). Moreover, mammary glands from mice lacking C/EBPβ exhibit delayed ductal outgrowth, distended ducts, decreased branching, reduced secretory activity and decreased levels of the milk proteins β-casein and whey acidic protein (WAP) (Refs Reference Seagroves98, Reference Robinson99). Ductal epithelial cells from the C/EBPβ-null mice also showed decreased proliferation and an increase in the percentage of progesterone-positive (PR) cells compared with wild-type mice (Ref. Reference Seagroves100). Interestingly, no deleterious affects in mammary gland development were observed in C/EBPβM20A/M20A mice, which lack LAP2 expression (Ref. Reference Uematsu101). This result suggests that LAP2 is not essential for C/EBPβ-mediated mammary gland development and that LAP1 and LIP might be able to compensate for the loss of LAP2.

Moreover, in cell culture studies overexpressing LIP in mouse mammary epithelial cells (Ref. Reference Zahnow69), or fibroblasts (Ref. Reference Calkhoven, Muller and Leutz22), LIP overexpression leads to a lack of contact inhibition, resulting in proliferation and foci formation. Although we and others have shown that both LAP1 and LAP2 are expressed in non-malignant, human mammary cells such as MCF10A cells (Ref. Reference Baldwin, Timchenko and Zahnow102), and in tumours from breast cancer patients (Refs Reference Zahnow95, Reference Gomis97), others have shown that LAP1 is predominantly expressed in normal mammary cells, whereas LAP2 is restricted to dividing cells in both normal and neoplastic mammary epithelial cells (Ref. Reference Eaton66). Moreover, it was shown that overexpression of LAP2 in MCF10A cells leads to epithelial–mesenchymal transition and transformation (Ref. Reference Bundy and Sealy103). However, in light of the results in the TGF-β study, it appears that LAP2 expression can also induce senescence or growth arrest when expressed in breast cancer cells containing elevated levels of LIP (Ref. Reference Gomis97). Taken together, these data suggest that aberrant expression of the C/EBPβ isoforms can lead to aggressive breast cancer; however, the precise role of each individual isoform remains to be resolved.

Finally, C/EBPβ might indirectly contribute to breast cancer progression via regulation of aromatase expression in breast stromal tissue (Ref. Reference Zhou104) and multidrug resistance (Refs Reference Combates105, Reference Conze106, Reference Chen107). The multidrug transporter P-glycoprotein, encoded by MDR1, is associated with clinical multidrug resistance and a poor prognosis in breast cancer (Ref. Reference Leonessa and Clarke108). This gene is regulated by C/EBPβ in HepG2 hepatoma cells (Ref. Reference Combates105) and in MCF7 breast cancer cells (Ref. Reference Conze106) via an inverted CCAAT box (Y box) (Ref. Reference Chen107).

A role for C/EBPβ in cell survival, apoptosis and senescence

The role of C/EBPβ in cancer might be partly mediated via its actions in the regulation of cell survival and apoptosis. For example, C/EBPβ is important in the survival of hepatic stellate cells that have DNA damage as a result of CCl4-induced free-radical formation (Ref. Reference Buck46), and in macrophages, which require C/EBPβ expression for survival in response to Myc–Raf transformation (Ref. Reference Wessells, Yakar and Johnson109). C/EBPβ has also been shown to promote cell survival by reducing p53 expression and activity in response to DNA damage (Refs Reference Yoon110, Reference Ewing111). Reduced levels of C/EBPβ can thereby sensitise cells to apoptosis, as observed in C/EBPβ-null mice, which display resistance to DMBA-induced skin tumorigenesis via increases in apoptosis (Ref. Reference Zhu39).

In addition to its role in apoptosis, numerous studies have demonstrated that C/EBPβ has a role in oncogene-induced senescence. Senescence is a state of irreversible growth arrest and can act as a barrier to malignant transformation. It has been demonstrated that forced expression of LAP2 can lead to cell cycle arrest in hepatocarcinoma cells (Ref. Reference Buck, Turler and Chojkier112), keratinocytes (Ref. Reference Zhu113) and fibroblasts (Ref. Reference Johnson114). C/EBPβ also cooperates with RB/E2F to implement Rasv12-induced cellular senescence via an irreversible cell cycle arrest at the G1–S boundary (Ref. Reference Sebastian115). Finally, oncogene-induced senescence has been shown to involve C/EBPβ-dependent expression of a proinflammatory cytokine or chemokine secretory programme (Refs Reference Acosta116, Reference Kuilman117). In summary, C/EBPβ promotes the survival of some transformed cells while inducing growth arrest in others. Clearly, the regulation of survival, apoptosis and senescence by C/EBPβ is highly context specific and worthy of further investigation.

Receptor tyrosine kinases, C/EBPs and breast cancer

Receptor tyrosine kinase signalling contributes to the development of numerous cancers and the epidermal growth factor (EGF) receptor, fibroblast growth factor (FGF) receptor, insulin receptor (IR) and insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-I) receptor subfamilies in particular, have important roles in mammary tumorigenesis. The interactions between C/EBPβ and the EGF, FGF, IR and IGF-I receptor families and their relationship to breast cancer is discussed below.

Epithelial growth factor receptor family

The EGF family of receptor tyrosine kinases (ErbB1/EGFR, ErbB2, ErbB3 and ErbB4) are membrane-bound receptors with intrinsic ligand-activated, tyrosine kinase activity. Numerous growth factors bind to these receptors to initiate receptor dimerisation and the initiation of a kinase signalling cascade (Refs Reference Schlessinger118, Reference Hynes and Lane119, Reference Zahnow120). Both the ErbB receptors and ligands play important roles in mammary development and in breast cancer and each of the ErbB receptors, as well as numerous ligands, are often overexpressed in breast tumours (Refs Reference Walker and Dearing121, Reference Di Fiore122, Reference Allred123). In general, EGFR–ErbB1 signalling leads to increased LIP and LAP expression. In cultured mammary epithelial cells and in transgenic mice, ErbB1 (EGFR) signalling leads to an increase in C/EBPβ-LIP protein expression (Fig. 4a) by a mechanism that includes the increased binding and activation of the RNA-binding protein CUG-binding protein 1 (CUG-BP1) to C/EBPβ mRNA (Ref. Reference Baldwin, Timchenko and Zahnow102). In a rat model of secondary hyperparathyroidism, activation of EGFR via TGF-α leads to elevated LIP expression, an increase in the proliferative activity of parathyroid cells and a decrease in the expression of the vitamin D receptor (Ref. Reference Arcidiacono124). In human bronchial epithelial cells, lysophosphatidic acid activates EGFR signalling, which increases C/EBPβ-LAP expression and leads to expression of cytochrome c oxidase (COX2) and prostaglandin release (Ref. Reference He125). Unfortunately, LIP expression was not examined in this study. Taken together, these studies demonstrate that ErbB1–EGFR signalling can regulate the differential translation of the LAP and LIP isoforms, resulting in elevated LIP expression and an increased LIP:LAP ratio. Elevated LIP then contributes to the mitogenic effects of ErbB signalling by promoting proliferation and a more aggressive disease state. It remains to be determined whether LIP and LAP feedback to regulate EGFR expression.

Fibroblast growth factor receptor family

The FGF receptor family contains four receptor tyrosine kinases (FGFR1, FGFR2, FGFR3 and FGFR4) and 22 ligands that bind to and activate the various receptor isoforms (Refs Reference Dickson126, Reference Eswarakumar, Lax and Schlessinger127). FGFs are different from other growth factors in that they bind to heparin sulphates as well as an FGF receptor to form a ternary signalling complex (Ref. Reference Klagsbrun and Baird128). Strong evidence exists for a role of the FGF family in murine mammary tumorigenesis, and evidence in human breast cancer is slowly emerging (Ref. Reference Dickson126). In mouse studies, aberrant FGF signalling leads to hyperplastic growth and neoplasia (Refs Reference Tsukamoto129, Reference Welm130). Moreover, numerous FGFs and their receptors are overexpressed in malignant human breast tissue (Refs Reference Penault-Llorca131, Reference Dickson126, Reference Zammit132, Reference Tamaru133, Reference Theodorou134, Reference Reis-Filho135, Reference Meijer136, Reference Luqmani, Graham and Coombes137, Reference Hunter138, Reference Easton139).

Mapping studies have demonstrated that two single-base-pair changes in intron 2 of FGFR2 lead to increases in the binding of C/EBPβ (LAP) and Oct1/Runx2, and result in increased FGFR2 mRNA expression (Ref. Reference Meyer140) (Fig. 4b). Elevations in FGF2R expression are observed in oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer (Ref. Reference Luqmani, Graham and Coombes137) and an FGFR2 locus was recently found to be associated with a small, but significant increase in the risk of developing breast cancer (Refs Reference Hunter138, Reference Easton139). LAP and LIP also regulate the FGF-binding protein (FGFBP1) promoter in response to EGFR and p38 MAP kinase signalling (Ref. Reference Kagan141) (Fig. 4b). Binding of LAP to the FGFBP1 promoter results in increased promoter activity, whereas LIP inhibits promoter activity (Ref. Reference Kagan141). The binding actions of FGFBP1 lead to increases in the activity of FGF1 and FGF2, and cell lines expressing both FGFBP1 and FGF2 are more tumorigenic and angiogenic (Ref. Reference Czubayko142). Consequently, C/EBPβ appears to be important in the EGFR regulation of FGF activity as well as the regulation of FGFR2 expression in breast epithelial cells (Refs Reference Kagan141, Reference Meyer140). However, it is not yet known whether FGF signalling alters the LIP:LAP ratio.

Insulin-receptor family

The insulin, or insulin-like growth factor, family consists of three members: the insulin receptor, the insulin-like growth factor type 1 receptor (IGF-IR) and the insulin-receptor-related receptor (IRR). Both the insulin receptor (Refs Reference Papa143, Reference Holdaway and Friesen144, Reference Milazzo145, Reference Finlayson146) and the IGF-IR (Refs Reference Pekonen147, Reference Foekens148, Reference Bonneterre149, Reference Surmacz150) are activated and expressed at elevated levels in malignant breast tumours and in breast cancer cell lines. Similarly, elevated serum levels of insulin (Refs Reference Goodwin151, Reference Pasanisi152) and IGF-I (Ref. Reference Pasanisi153), which are ligands for the insulin receptor and IGF-I receptor, respectively, are associated with breast cancer recurrence and a poor prognosis. Although the insulin receptor mediates mostly metabolic effects and the IGF-IR mitogenic effects, both insulin and IGF-I are capable of inducing metabolic or mitogenic effects depending on tissue distribution, and concentration of receptors and ligands (Ref. Reference Papa, Costantino and Belfiore154). Additionally, there is substantial crosstalk between insulin and IGF-I with either ligand binding to either receptor.

C/EBPβ regulation of insulin levels and insulin receptor expression

Regulation of insulin

Expression of the insulin gene is controlled primarily at the level of transcription and C/EBPβ has been shown to be a glucose-induced inhibitor of insulin gene transcription in pancreatic β-cells (Refs Reference Lu, Seufert and Habener155, Reference Seufert, Weir and Habener156). Exposure of pancreatic β-cell lines to high glucose concentrations leads to an upregulation of C/EBPβ-LAP expression (Ref. Reference Lu, Seufert and Habener155) and a reduction in insulin expression (Fig. 4c). Likewise, in the pancreatic β-cell line RIN-5F, increased expression of LAP inhibits insulin expression, whereas expression of LIP has no effect (Ref. Reference Shen157). However, in non-β-cells the reverse is observed, and C/EBPβ-LAP expression stimulates insulin promoter activity and transcription via a C/EBPβ consensus binding motif (Fig. 4c) (Ref. Reference Lu, Seufert and Habener155).

In animal studies, C/EBPβ expression is upregulated in pancreatic islets during the development of diabetes mellitus in two rat models, the Zucker diabetic fatty (fa/fa) rat and rats subjected to 90% pancreatectomy (Ref. Reference Seufert, Weir and Habener156). The elevations in C/EBPβ expression, observed in response to sustained hyperglycaemia or hyperlipidaemia, appear to have a role in the downregulation of insulin gene expression during the development of diabetes mellitus (Fig. 4c). In mice, deletion of C/EBPβ is associated with increased insulin action and decreased fatty acid mobilisation in skeletal muscle, lower fasting blood glucose levels and an overall increase in whole-body insulin sensitivity (Ref. Reference Wang158).

Regulation of insulin receptor

In addition to insulin, C/EBPβ can regulate transcription of the insulin receptor (Fig. 4c) as part of a larger nuclear protein complex containing the transcription factors HMGI-Y and Sp1 in HepG2 cells (Ref. Reference Foti159). Taken together, these data suggest that C/EBPβ regulates insulin sensitivity via regulation of insulin levels or regulation of insulin receptor expression.

Insulin regulation of C/EBPβ expression and activity

Increased insulin signalling has been shown to regulate C/EBPβ expression in liver, adipocytes and muscle tissue. For example, treatment of fully differentiated 3T3-L1 adipocytes with insulin leads to transient increases in expression of LAP and LIP (Fig. 4c) (Refs Reference MacDougald160, Reference Le Lay161). Moreover, in liver tissue, both C/EBPβ LAP and LIP isoforms are rapidly increased in H4IIE rat hepatoma cells treated with 10 nM insulin (Ref. Reference Duong162); however, in diabetic mouse liver, LAP expression is downregulated by elevation of insulin concentration (Fig. 4c) (Ref. Reference Bosch, Sabater and Valera163). In vascular smooth muscle cells, an increase in insulin signalling can lead to the upregulation of nuclear C/EBPβ-LAP expression primarily via PI3K signalling (Ref. Reference Sekine164). Insulin signalling can suppress C/EBPβ-LAP activity (Fig. 4c) via a mechanism that includes the Akt-mediated phosphorylation of p300/CBP, followed by the disruption and removal of p300/CBP from the activation domain of C/EBPβ and a loss in the transactivation potential of C/EBPβ (Ref. Reference Guo165). In summary, C/EBPβ participates in a complex relationship with insulin signalling. Not only does C/EBPβ-LAP regulate insulin levels and expression of the insulin receptor, but insulin can also regulate C/EBPβ isoform expression and activity.

C/EBPβ regulation of IGF-I

In contrast to insulin signalling, less is known regarding the relationship between C/EBPβ expression and IGF-I signalling. For example, it is not known whether C/EBPβ regulates IGF-I receptor expression; however, loss of C/EBPβ (LAP1, LAP2 and LIP) expression has been shown to lead to a disrupted IGF-I axis in rodent studies (Ref. Reference Grimm166). In the mammary gland of C/EBPβ-null mice, the levels of IRS-1 are decreased and the expression pattern of IGF-BP5 and IGF-II are altered compared with wild-type mice (Fig 4D) (Ref. Reference Grimm166). Similarly, it is not known whether IGF-I signalling alters the LIP:LAP ratio; however, studies have shown that LAP expression can regulate IGF-I ligand levels. For example, in transformed bone-marrow-derived macrophages isolated from the C/EBPβ-knockout mouse, IGF-I expression is decreased in response to the loss of C/EBPβ expression (Fig. 4d) (Ref. Reference Wessells, Yakar and Johnson109). Similarly, in hepatocytes, the addition of C/EBPβ-LAP to the human hepatoma cell line Hep3B increases IGF-I expression (Ref. Reference Nolten167). Overexpression of LIP alone appears to have no effect on IGF-1 promoter activity, but does abolish the transactivation induced by LAP (Fig 4d) (Ref. Reference Nolten167). In HepG2 cells, the protein kinase C (PKC) pathway has been implicated in the control of IGF-I gene regulation via a C/EBP site in the IGF-I promoter (Ref. Reference Umayahara168). The mechanism involves the PKC-mediated activation of C/EBPβ at both the transcriptional and post-translational level followed by binding of C/EBPβ to the IGF-I gene promoter to induce transcription (Ref. Reference Umayahara168). The C/EBPs also have a role in the regulation of IGF-I expression in bone cells, and might act as transcriptional coupling factors to coordinate bone remodelling in response to osteotropic hormones (Refs Reference Umayahara169, Reference McCarthy170). In summary, the C/EBPβ isoforms, and in particular, LAP, play a positive role in regulating IGF-I ligand expression as well as various members of the IGF-I axis.

Figure 4. Generalised interactions between CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein β and receptor tyrosine kinases in several tissues. (a) EGFR (ErbB1) signalling leads to an increase in LIP expression and an increase in the ratio of LIP:LAP. (b) EGFR signalling regulates the binding of LIP and LAP to the FGFBP1 promoter and the ratio of LIP:LAP regulates FGFBP1 expression levels. FGFBP1 in turn can increase the activity of FGF1 and FGF2. LAP also binds to the FGFR2 promoter in a complex with Oct1–Runx2 to increase expression of FGFR2. (c) LAP expression reduces or increases insulin expression in pancreatic β cells and non-pancreatic β cells, respectively. In liver, LAP has been shown to regulate transcription of the insulin receptor as part of a larger complex containing the transcription factor HMGI-Y. In adipocytes and muscle, insulin signalling leads to increases in the expression of the LAP and LIP isoforms; however, in diabetic mouse liver, LAP expression is downregulated by elevation in insulin. (d) C/EBPβ-LAP upregulates IGF-I expression in liver, macrophages and bone. Overexpression of LIP alone has no effect on IGF-I gene promoter activity but can abolish the transactivation induced by LAP. The IGF axis is dysregulated in the mammary gland of the C/EBPβ-null mouse, and IRS levels decrease in the absence of C/EBPβ. Abbreviations: EGF, epidermal growth factor; FGF, fibroblast growth factor; FGFBP1, fibroblast growth factor binding protein-1; HMGI-Y, high-mobility group protein HMG-I/HMG-Y; IGF-I, insulin-like growth factor I; IRS, insulin-receptor substrate.

Clinical implications

C/EBPβ is considered to be a potential candidate for therapeutic intervention in epithelial cancers because of its role in the regulation of cell proliferation and differentiation, its associations with cancer and its non-essential cellular functions (Refs Reference Nerlov171, Reference Brennan, Donev and Hewamana172). However, transcription factors such as C/EBPβ are difficult to target because they belong to protein families with redundant, overlapping functions and numerous binding partners. Moreover, C/EBPβ acts as a convergence point to regulate numerous gene expression profiles and because of these wide-ranging cellular effects, target specificity remains a major challenge to the development of C/EBPβ therapies. Specificity issues have, however, been successfully addressed for numerous transcription factors or enzymes that have similar broad-reaching actions. In fact, many of these drugs are currently showing promise in clinical trials and are not eliciting the expected off-target effects. Examples of these agents are enzyme inhibitors to histone deacetylases (HDACs) (Ref. Reference Minucci and Pelicci173), histone acetyl transferases (HATs) (Refs Reference Liu174, Reference Zheng175), Erk signalling (Ref. Reference Kohno and Pouyssegur176) and PI3K–Akt–mTOR signalling (Ref. Reference Yuan and Cantley177), as well as inhibitors of the transcription factors NF-κB (Ref. Reference Gilmore and Herscovitch178), p53 (Ref. Reference Dey, Verma and Lane179), Stat3 (reviewed by Ref. Reference Mees, Nemunaitis and Senzer180) and the Notch pathway (Ref. Reference Rizzo181). Because C/EBPβ activity is regulated via post-translational phosphorylation, acetylation, sumoylation and methylation, numerous kinases, deacetylases, acetyltransferases, demethylases and methyltransferases, as described above, might soon become valuable targets in the regulation of C/EBPβ activity.

Another difficulty in targeting and regulating C/EBPβ activity is the lack of specificity in the interaction of C/EBPβ with DNA. The C/EBPβ DNA-binding site is a dyad symmetrical repeat, but substantial variations in sequence are common in most promoters and are well tolerated by C/EBPβ. To make matters worse, the CCAAT box motif is not specific to C/EBPβ, because most of the other C/EBP family members also bind to the same consensus sequence. Although specific targeting of the C/EBPβ binding site might prove to be one of the more difficult targeting strategies, agents have been designed to block transcription factor binding to DNA. As an example, a high-throughput fluorescent microscopy screen has been used to identify several small molecules that bind to the basic region of C/EBPβ and inhibit its binding to DNA (Ref. Reference Rishi182). The off-target effects and specificity of these agents remain to be examined. Despite the difficulties, advances in the targeting of transcription factors are being made, and several small molecules have been identified that successfully target the dimerisation of transcription factors, such as Stat3 (Ref. Reference Turkson183) and Myc (Ref. Reference Berg184), or protein–protein interactions, such as those between p53 and the E3 ubiquitin-protein ligase MDM2 (Refs Reference Vassilev185, Reference Efeyan186), and HIF-1α and the aryl hydrocarbon receptor nuclear translocator ARNT (Ref. Reference Olenyuk187).

Outstanding research questions

Since the identification of the C/EBPs nearly 20 years ago (Ref. Reference Landschulz15), numerous studies have revealed that the C/EBPs have pivotal roles in the control of cell fate, tissue development and malignant transformation. However, much still remains unknown regarding the individual and overlapping functions of each C/EBP family member and their protein isoforms. For example, the precise roles of LAP1, LAP2 and LIP in metastatic breast cancer are not clear and this makes it difficult to determine which isoform would represent the most effective therapeutic target. Mounting evidence suggests that LAP1, LAP2 and LIP have separate and distinct functions on some gene promoters and this is fascinating in light of the fact that all three bind to the same DNA-recognition sequence. Differences might exist in the binding partners for each isoform and the affinity or specificity of their binding to specific promoters. These questions will need to be addressed using endogenous genes and chromatin immunoprecipitation techniques coupled with proteomic analyses.

Studies in mice that either overexpress a particular C/EBP family member or are deficient for that C/EBP isoform have been crucial to our understanding of the importance of C/EBP in physiological and developmental processes such as metabolism, inflammation, immunity, haematopoiesis, diabetes, reproduction and cancer. Clearly, however, conditional knockouts, regulated knock-ins, and knockouts of more than one C/EBP family member will be necessary to decipher the functional redundancy that exists between C/EBPs as well as to identify the full range of actions for each C/EBP isoform. Progress has been made in our understanding of the molecular actions of the C/EBP superfamily but additional research should continue to focus on the characterisation of interacting proteins and transcriptional targets.

Acknowledgements and Funding

The author is currently funded by NIH grant R01 CA113795, the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Program, the Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute, the Hansen Foundation and the Johns Hopkins Breast Cancer Program. The author is grateful to Peter Johnson and Jeffrey Rosen for critical review of this manuscript and to the anonymous peer referees for their constructive comments. I apologise to all those authors whose work was not included in this review due to space limitations or oversight.

References

References

1Cao, Z., Umek, R.M. and McKnight, S.L. (1991) Regulated expression of three C/EBP isoforms during adipose conversion of 3T3-L1 cells. Genes and Development 5, 1538-1552CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2Diehl, A.M. (1998) Roles of CCAAT/enhancer-binding proteins in regulation of liver regenerative growth. Journal of Biological Chemistry 273, 30843-30846CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Poli, V. (1998) The role of C/EBP isoforms in the control of inflammatory and native immunity functions. Journal of Biological Chemistry 273, 29279-29282CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Zahnow, C.A. (2002) CCAAT/enhancer binding proteins in normal mammary development and breast cancer. Breast Cancer Research 4, 113-121CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Ramji, D.P. and Foka, P. (2002) CCAAT/enhancer-binding proteins: structure, function and regulation. Biochemical Journal 365, 561-575CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6Sebastian, T. and Johnson, P.F. (2006) Stop and go: anti-proliferative and mitogenic functions of the transcription factor C/EBPbeta. Cell Cycle 5, 953-957CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Kowenz-Leutz, E. et al. (1994) Novel mechanism of C/EBP beta (NF-M) transcriptional control: activation through derepression. Genes and Development 8, 2781-2791CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8Williams, S.C. et al. (1995) CRP2 (C/EBP beta) contains a bipartite regulatory domain that controls transcriptional activation, DNA binding and cell specificity. EMBO Journal 14, 3170-3183CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9Angerer, N.D. et al. (1999) A short conserved motif is required for repressor domain function in the myeloid-specific transcription factor CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein epsilon. Journal of Biological Chemistry 274, 4147-4154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Williamson, E.A. et al. (1998) Identification of transcriptional activation and repression domains in human CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein epsilon. Journal of Biological Chemistry 273, 14796-14804CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11Mink, S., Haenig, B. and Klempnauer, K.H. (1997) Interaction and functional collaboration of p300 and C/EBPbeta. Molecular and Cellular Biology 17, 6609-6617CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12Nerlov, C. and Ziff, E.B. (1995) CCAAT/enhancer binding protein-alpha amino acid motifs with dual TBP and TFIIB binding ability co-operate to activate transcription in both yeast and mammalian cells. EMBO Journal 14, 4318-4328CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Graves, B.J., Johnson, P.F. and McKnight, S.L. (1986) Homologous recognition of a promoter domain common to the MSV LTR and the HSV tk gene. Cell 44, 565-576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14Johnson, P.F. et al. (1987) Identification of a rat liver nuclear protein that binds to the enhancer core element of three animal viruses. Genes and Development 1, 133-146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15Landschulz, W.H. et al. (1988) Isolation of a recombinant copy of the gene encoding C/EBP. Genes and Development 2, 786-800CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16Descombes, P. et al. (1990) LAP, a novel member of the C/EBP gene family, encodes a liver-enriched transcriptional activator protein. Genes and Development 4, 1541-1551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17Chang, C.J. et al. (1990) Molecular cloning of a transcription factor, AGP/EBP, that belongs to members of the C/EBP family. Molecular and Cellular Biology 10, 6642-6653Google ScholarPubMed
18Akira, S. et al. (1990) A nuclear factor for IL-6 expression (NF-IL6) is a member of a C/EBP family. EMBO Journal 9, 1897-1906CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19Poli, V., Mancini, F.P. and Cortese, R. (1990) IL-6DBP, a nuclear protein involved in interleukin-6 signal transduction, defines a new family of leucine zipper proteins related to C/EBP. Cell 63, 643-653CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20Descombes, P. and Schibler, U. (1991) A liver-enriched transcriptional activator protein, LAP, and a transcriptional inhibitory protein, LIP, are translated from the same mRNA. Cell 67, 569-579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21Ossipow, V., Descombes, P. and Schibler, U. (1993) CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein mRNA is translated into multiple proteins with different transcription activation potentials. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 90, 8219-8223CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22Calkhoven, C.F., Muller, C. and Leutz, A. (2000) Translational control of C/EBPalpha and C/EBPbeta isoform expression. Genes and Development 14, 1920-1932CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23Xiong, W. et al. (2001) Regulation of CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein-beta isoform synthesis by alternative translational initiation at multiple AUG start sites. Nucleic Acids Research 29, 3087-3098CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24Lin, F.T. et al. (1993) A 30-kDa alternative translation product of the CCAAT/enhancer binding protein alpha message: transcriptional activator lacking antimitotic activity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 90, 9606-9610CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25Welm, A.L., Timchenko, N.A. and Darlington, G.J. (1999) C/EBPalpha regulates generation of C/EBPbeta isoforms through activation of specific proteolytic cleavage. Molecular and Cellular Biology 19, 1695-1704CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26Yamanaka, R. et al. (1997) CCAAT/enhancer binding protein epsilon is preferentially up-regulated during granulocytic differentiation and its functional versatility is determined by alternative use of promoters and differential splicing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 94, 6462-6467CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27Vinson, C.R., Sigler, P.B. and McKnight, S.L. (1989) Scissors-grip model for DNA recognition by a family of leucine zipper proteins. Science 246, 911-916CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28Agre, P., Johnson, P.F. and McKnight, S.L. (1989) Cognate DNA binding specificity retained after leucine zipper exchange between GCN4 and C/EBP. Science 246, 922-926CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29Moll, J.R. et al. (2002) Magnesium is required for specific DNA binding of the CREB B-ZIP domain. Nucleic Acids Research 30, 1240-1246CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30Osada, S. et al. (1996) DNA binding specificity of the CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein transcription factor family. Journal of Biological Chemistry 271, 3891-3896CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31Ron, D. and Habener, J.F. (1992) CHOP, a novel developmentally regulated nuclear protein that dimerizes with transcription factors C/EBP and LAP and functions as a dominant-negative inhibitor of gene transcription. Genes and Development 6, 439-453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32Ubeda, M. et al. (1996) Stress-induced binding of the transcriptional factor CHOP to a novel DNA control element. Molecular and Cellular Biology 16, 1479-1489CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33Cooper, C. et al. (1995) Ig/EBP (C/EBP gamma) is a transdominant negative inhibitor of C/EBP family transcriptional activators. Nucleic Acids Research 23, 4371-4377CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34Lekstrom-Himes, J.A. (2001) The role of C/EBP(epsilon) in the terminal stages of granulocyte differentiation. Stem Cells 19, 125-133CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35Grimm, S.L. and Rosen, J.M. (2003) The role of C/EBPbeta in mammary gland development and breast cancer. Journal of Mammary Gland Biology and Neoplasia 8, 191-204CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36Vinson, C. et al. (2002) Classification of human B-ZIP proteins based on dimerization properties. Molecular and Cellular Biology 22, 6321-6335CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37Takiguchi, M. (1998) The C/EBP family of transcription factors in the liver and other organs. International Journal of Experimental Pathology 79, 369-391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38Nakajima, T. et al. (1993) Phosphorylation at threonine-235 by a ras-dependent mitogen-activated protein kinase cascade is essential for transcription factor NF-IL6. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 90, 2207-2211CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39Zhu, S. et al. (2002) CCAAT/enhancer binding protein-beta is a mediator of keratinocyte survival and skin tumorigenesis involving oncogenic Ras signaling. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 99, 207-212CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
40Mo, X. et al. (2004) Ras induces mediator complex exchange on C/EBP beta. Molecular Cell 13, 241-250CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
41Liao, J. et al. (1999) CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein beta (C/EBPbeta) and C/EBPdelta contribute to growth hormone-regulated transcription of c-fos. Journal of Biological Chemistry 274, 31597-31604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42Piwien-Pilipuk, G. et al. (2001) Growth hormone regulates phosphorylation and function of CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein beta by modulating Akt and glycogen synthase kinase-3. Journal of Biological Chemistry 276, 19664-19671CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
43Tang, Q.Q. et al. (2005) Sequential phosphorylation of CCAAT enhancer-binding protein beta by MAPK and glycogen synthase kinase 3beta is required for adipogenesis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102, 9766-9771CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
44Wegner, M., Cao, Z. and Rosenfeld, M.G. (1992) Calcium-regulated phosphorylation within the leucine zipper of C/EBP beta. Science 256, 370-373CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
45Buck, M. et al. (1999) Phosphorylation of rat serine 105 or mouse threonine 217 in C/EBP beta is required for hepatocyte proliferation induced by TGF alpha. Molecular Cell 4, 1087-1092CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
46Buck, M. et al. (2001) C/EBPbeta phosphorylation by RSK creates a functional XEXD caspase inhibitory box critical for cell survival. Molecular Cell 8, 807-816CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
47Metz, R. and Ziff, E. (1991) cAMP stimulates the C/EBP-related transcription factor rNFIL-6 to trans-locate to the nucleus and induce c-fos transcription. Genes and Development 5, 1754-1766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
48Trautwein, C. et al. (1993) Transactivation by NF-IL6/LAP is enhanced by phosphorylation of its activation domain. Nature 364, 544-547CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
49Trautwein, C. et al. (1994) Protein kinase A and C site-specific phosphorylations of LAP (NF-IL6) modulate its binding affinity to DNA recognition elements. Journal of Clinical Investigation 93, 2554-2561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
50Mahoney, C.W. et al. (1992) Phosphorylation of CCAAT-enhancer binding protein by protein kinase C attenuates site-selective DNA binding. Journal of Biological Chemistry 267, 19396-19403CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
51Chinery, R. et al. (1997) Antioxidant-induced nuclear translocation of CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein beta. A critical role for protein kinase A-mediated phosphorylation of Ser299. Journal of Biological Chemistry 272, 30356-30361CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
52Shuman, J.D. et al. (2004) Cell cycle-dependent phosphorylation of C/EBPbeta mediates oncogenic cooperativity between C/EBPbeta and H-RasV12. Molecular and Cellular Biology 24, 7380-7391CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
53Cesena, T.I. et al. (2007) CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein (C/EBP) beta is acetylated at multiple lysines: acetylation of C/EBPbeta at lysine 39 modulates its ability to activate transcription. Journal of Biological Chemistry 282, 956-967CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
54Cesena, T.I. et al. (2008) Acetylation and deacetylation regulate CCAAT/enhancer binding protein beta at K39 in mediating gene transcription. Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology 289, 94-101CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
55Wiper-Bergeron, N. et al. (2007) Glucocorticoid-stimulated preadipocyte differentiation is mediated through acetylation of C/EBPbeta by GCN5. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104, 2703-2708CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
56Xu, M. et al. (2003) STAT5-induced Id-1 transcription involves recruitment of HDAC1 and deacetylation of C/EBPbeta. EMBO Journal 22, 893-904CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
57Pless, O. et al. (2008) G9a-mediated lysine methylation alters the function of CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein-beta. Journal of Biological Chemistry 283, 26357-26363CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
58Melchior, F. (2000) SUMO–nonclassical ubiquitin. Annual Review of Cell and Developmental Biology 16, 591-626CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
59Eaton, E.M. and Sealy, L. (2003) Modification of CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein-beta by the small ubiquitin-like modifier (SUMO) family members, SUMO-2 and SUMO-3. Journal of Biological Chemistry 278, 33416-33421CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
60Berberich-Siebelt, F. et al. (2006) SUMOylation interferes with CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein beta-mediated c-myc repression, but not IL-4 activation in T cells. Journal of Immunology 176, 4843-4851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
61Kowenz-Leutz, E. and Leutz, A. (1999) A C/EBP beta isoform recruits the SWI/SNF complex to activate myeloid genes. Molecular Cell 4, 735-743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
62Ness, S.A. et al. (1993) Myb and NF-M: combinatorial activators of myeloid genes in heterologous cell types. Genes and Development 7, 749-759CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
63Burk, O. et al. (1993) Synergistic activation of the chicken mim-1 gene by v-myb and C/EBP transcription factors. EMBO Journal 12, 2027-2038CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
64Su, W.C. et al. (2003) Differential activation of a C/EBP beta isoform by a novel redox switch may confer the lipopolysaccharide-inducible expression of interleukin-6 gene. Journal of Biological Chemistry 278, 51150-51158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
65Qiu, X. et al. (2008) Distinct functions of CCAAT enhancer-binding protein isoforms in the regulation of manganese superoxide dismutase during interleukin-1beta stimulation. Journal of Biological Chemistry 283, 25774-25785CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
66Eaton, E.M. et al. (2001) Characterization of C/EBPbeta isoforms in normal versus neoplastic mammary epithelial cells. Journal of Cellular Physiology 189, 91-105CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
67Ishiguro, K. and Xavier, R. (2004) Homer-3 regulates activation of serum response element in T cells via its EVH1 domain. Blood 103, 2248-2256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
68Lee, Y.M. et al. (1996) Transcriptional induction of the alpha-1 acid glycoprotein (AGP) gene by synergistic interaction of two alternative activator forms of AGP/enhancer-binding protein (C/EBP beta) and NF-kappaB or Nopp140. Molecular and Cellular Biology 16, 4257-4263CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
69Zahnow, C.A. et al. (2001) A role for CCAAT/enhancer binding protein beta-liver-enriched inhibitory protein in mammary epithelial cell proliferation. Cancer Research 61, 261-269Google ScholarPubMed
70Harrison, J.R. et al. (2005) Col1a1 promoter-targeted expression of p20 CCAAT enhancer-binding protein beta (C/EBPbeta), a truncated C/EBPbeta isoform, causes osteopenia in transgenic mice. Journal of Biological Chemistry 280, 8117-8124CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
71Savage, T. et al. (2006) Mandibular phenotype of p20C/EBPbeta transgenic mice: Reduced alveolar bone mass and site-specific dentin dysplasia. Bone 39, 552-564CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
72An, M.R. et al. (1996) Evidence for posttranscriptional regulation of C/EBPalpha and C/EBPbeta isoform expression during the lipopolysaccharide-mediated acute-phase response. Molecular and Cellular Biology 16, 2295-2306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
73Williams, P. et al. (1991) AGP/EBP(LAP) expressed in rat hepatoma cells interacts with multiple promoter sites and is necessary for maximal glucocorticoid induction of the rat alpha-1 acid glycoprotein gene. Molecular and Cellular Biology 11, 4959-4965Google ScholarPubMed
74Ratajczak, T. et al. (1992) Multiple elements within the glucocorticoid regulatory unit of the rat alpha 1-acid glycoprotein gene are recognition sites for C/EBP. Journal of Biological Chemistry 267, 11111-11119CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
75Nishio, Y. et al. (1993) A nuclear factor for interleukin-6 expression (NF-IL6) and the glucocorticoid receptor synergistically activate transcription of the rat alpha 1-acid glycoprotein gene via direct protein-protein interaction. Molecular and Cellular Biology 13, 1854-1862Google ScholarPubMed
76Isshiki, H. et al. (1990) Constitutive and interleukin-1 (IL-1)-inducible factors interact with the IL-1-responsive element in the IL-6 gene. Molecular and Cellular Biology 10, 2757-2764Google ScholarPubMed
77Hu, H.M. et al. (2000) The C/EBP bZIP domain can mediate lipopolysaccharide induction of the proinflammatory cytokines interleukin-6 and monocyte chemoattractant protein-1. Journal of Biological Chemistry 275, 16373-16381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
78Matsusaka, T. et al. (1993) Transcription factors NF-IL6 and NF-kappa B synergistically activate transcription of the inflammatory cytokines, interleukin 6 and interleukin 8. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 90, 10193-10197CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
79Stein, B., Cogswell, P.C. and Baldwin, A.S. Jr. (1993) Functional and physical associations between NF-kappa B and C/EBP family members: a Rel domain-bZIP interaction. Molecular and Cellular Biology 13, 3964-3974Google Scholar
80Christian, M. et al. (2002) Functional association of PR and CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein beta isoforms: promoter-dependent cooperation between PR-B and liver-enriched inhibitory protein, or liver-enriched activatory protein and PR-A in human endometrial stromal cells. Molecular Endocrinology 16, 141-154Google ScholarPubMed
81Kalkhoven, E. et al. (1996) Negative interaction between the RelA(p65) subunit of NF-kappaB and the progesterone receptor. Journal of Biological Chemistry 271, 6217-6224CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
82Hata, K. et al. (2005) A CCAAT/enhancer binding protein beta isoform, liver-enriched inhibitory protein, regulates commitment of osteoblasts and adipocytes. Molecular and Cellular Biology 25, 1971-1979CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
83Tang, Q.Q., Otto, T.C. and Lane, M.D. (2003) CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein beta is required for mitotic clonal expansion during adipogenesis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100, 850-855CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
84Vegesna, V. et al. (2002) C/EBP-beta, C/EBP-delta, PU.1, AML1 genes: mutational analysis in 381 samples of hematopoietic and solid malignancies. Leukemia Research 26, 451-457CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
85Mastracci, T.L. et al. (2006) Genomic alterations in lobular neoplasia: a microarray comparative genomic hybridization signature for early neoplastic proliferationin the breast. Genes, Chromosomes and Cancer 45, 1007-1017CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
86Rhodes, D.R. et al. (2004) ONCOMINE: a cancer microarray database and integrated data-mining platform. Neoplasia 6, 1-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
87Alaoui-Jamali, M.A. et al. (2003) Regulation of multiple tumor microenvironment markers by overexpression of single or paired combinations of ErbB receptors. Cancer Research 63, 3764-3774Google ScholarPubMed
88van't Veer, L.J. et al. (2002) Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer. Nature 415, 530-536CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
89Gruvberger, S. et al. (2001) Estrogen receptor status in breast cancer is associated with remarkably distinct gene expression patterns. Cancer Research 61, 5979-5984Google ScholarPubMed
90van de Vijver, M.J. et al. (2002) A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 347, 1999-2009CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
91Yang, F. et al. (2006) Laser microdissection and microarray analysis of breast tumors reveal ER-alpha related genes and pathways. Oncogene 25, 1413-1419CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
92Saal, L.H. et al. (2007) Poor prognosis in carcinoma is associated with a gene expression signature of aberrant PTEN tumor suppressor pathway activity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104, 7564-7569CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
93Finak, G. et al. (2008) Stromal gene expression predicts clinical outcome in breast cancer. Nature Medicine 14, 518-527CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
94Ma, X.J. et al. (2004) A two-gene expression ratio predicts clinical outcome in breast cancer patients treated with tamoxifen. Cancer Cell 5, 607-616CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
95Zahnow, C.A. et al. (1997) Overexpression of C/EBPbeta-LIP, a naturally occurring, dominant-negative transcription factor, in human breast cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 89, 1887-1891Google ScholarPubMed
96Milde-Langosch, K., Loning, T. and Bamberger, A.M. (2003) Expression of the CCAAT/enhancer-binding proteins C/EBPalpha, C/EBPbeta and C/EBPdelta in breast cancer: correlations with clinicopathologic parameters and cell-cycle regulatory proteins. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 79, 175-185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
97Gomis, R.R. et al. (2006) C/EBPbeta at the core of the TGFbeta cytostatic response and its evasion in metastatic breast cancer cells. Cancer Cell 10, 203-214CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
98Seagroves, T.N. et al. (1998) C/EBPbeta, but not C/EBPalpha, is essential for ductal morphogenesis, lobuloalveolar proliferation, and functional differentiation in the mouse mammary gland. Genes and Development 12, 1917-1928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
99Robinson, G.W. et al. (1998) The C/EBPbeta transcription factor regulates epithelial cell proliferation and differentiation in the mammary gland. Genes and Development 12, 1907-1916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
100Seagroves, T.N. et al. (2000) C/EBPbeta (CCAAT/enhancer binding protein) controls cell fate determination during mammary gland development. Molecular Endocrinology 14, 359-368Google ScholarPubMed
101Uematsu, S. et al. (2007) The C/EBP beta isoform 34-kDa LAP is responsible for NF-IL-6-mediated gene induction in activated macrophages, but is not essential for intracellular bacteria killing. Journal of Immunology 179, 5378-5386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
102Baldwin, B.R., Timchenko, N.A. and Zahnow, C.A. (2004) Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Stimulation Activates the RNA Binding Protein CUG-BP1 and Increases Expression of C/EBPbeta-LIP in Mammary Epithelial Cells. Molecular and Cellular Biology 24, 3682-3691CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
103Bundy, L.M. and Sealy, L. (2003) CCAAT/enhancer binding protein beta (C/EBPbeta)-2 transforms normal mammary epithelial cells and induces epithelial to mesenchymal transition in culture. Oncogene 22, 869-883CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
104Zhou, J. et al. (2001) Malignant breast epithelial cells stimulate aromatase expression via promoter II in human adipose fibroblasts: an epithelial-stromal interaction in breast tumors mediated by CCAAT/enhancer binding protein beta. Cancer Research 61, 2328-2334Google Scholar
105Combates, N.J. et al. (1994) NF-IL6, a member of the C/EBP family of transcription factors, binds and trans-activates the human MDR1 gene promoter. Journal of Biological Chemistry 269, 29715-29719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
106Conze, D. et al. (2001) Autocrine production of interleukin 6 causes multidrug resistance in breast cancer cells. Cancer Research 61, 8851-8858Google ScholarPubMed
107Chen, G.K. et al. (2004) CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein beta (nuclear factor for interleukin 6) transactivates the human MDR1 gene by interaction with an inverted CCAAT box in human cancer cells. Molecular Pharmacology 65, 906-916CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
108Leonessa, F. and Clarke, R. (2003) ATP binding cassette transporters and drug resistance in breast cancer. Endocrine-Related Cancer 10, 43-73CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
109Wessells, J., Yakar, S. and Johnson, P.F. (2004) Critical prosurvival roles for C/EBP beta and insulin-like growth factor I in macrophage tumor cells. Molecular and Cellular Biology 24, 3238-3250CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
110Yoon, K. et al. (2007) Decreased survival of C/EBP beta-deficient keratinocytes is due to aberrant regulation of p53 levels and function. Oncogene 26, 360-367CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
111Ewing, S.J. et al. (2008) C/EBPbeta represses p53 to promote cell survival downstream of DNA damage independent of oncogenic Ras and p19(Arf). Cell Death and Differentiation 15, 1734-1744CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
112Buck, M., Turler, H. and Chojkier, M. (1994) LAP (NF-IL-6), a tissue-specific transcriptional activator, is an inhibitor of hepatoma cell proliferation. EMBO Journal 13, 851-860CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
113Zhu, S. et al. (1999) C/EBPbeta modulates the early events of keratinocyte differentiation involving growth arrest and keratin 1 and keratin 10 expression. Molecular and Cellular Biology 19, 7181-7190CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
114Johnson, P.F. (2005) Molecular stop signs: regulation of cell-cycle arrest by C/EBP transcription factors. Journal of Cell Science 118, 2545-2555CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
115Sebastian, T. et al. (2005) C/EBPbeta cooperates with RB:E2F to implement Ras(V12)-induced cellular senescence. EMBO Journal 24, 3301-3312CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
116Acosta, J.C. et al. (2008) Chemokine signaling via the CXCR2 receptor reinforces senescence. Cell 133, 1006-1018CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
117Kuilman, T. et al. (2008) Oncogene-induced senescence relayed by an interleukin-dependent inflammatory network. Cell 133, 1019-1031CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
118Schlessinger, J. (2002) Ligand-induced, receptor-mediated dimerization and activation of EGF receptor. Cell 110, 669-672CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
119Hynes, N.E. and Lane, H.A. (2005) ERBB receptors and cancer: the complexity of targeted inhibitors. Nature Reviews. Cancer 5, 341-354CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
120Zahnow, C.A. (2006) ErbB receptors and their ligands in the breast. Expert Rev Molecular Medicine 8, 1-21CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
121Walker, R.A. and Dearing, S.J. (1999) Expression of epidermal growth factor receptor mRNA and protein in primary breast carcinomas. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 53, 167-176CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
122Di Fiore, P.P. et al. (1987) erbB-2 is a potent oncogene when overexpressed in NIH/3T3 cells. Science 237, 178-182CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
123Allred, D.C. et al. (1992) Overexpression of HER-2/neu and its relationship with other prognostic factors change during the progression of in situ to invasive breast cancer. Human Pathology 23, 974-979CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
124Arcidiacono, M.V. et al. (2008) EGFR activation increases parathyroid hyperplasia and calcitriol resistance in kidney disease. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 19, 310-320CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
125He, D. et al. (2008) Lysophosphatidic acid-induced transactivation of epidermal growth factor receptor regulates cyclo-oxygenase-2 expression and prostaglandin E(2) release via C/EBPbeta in human bronchial epithelial cells. Biochemical Journal 412, 153-162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
126Dickson, C. et al. (2000) Tyrosine kinase signalling in breast cancer: fibroblast growth factors and their receptors. Breast Cancer Research 2, 191-196CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
127Eswarakumar, V.P., Lax, I. and Schlessinger, J. (2005) Cellular signaling by fibroblast growth factor receptors. Cytokine and Growth Factor Reviews 16, 139-149CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
128Klagsbrun, M. and Baird, A. (1991) A dual receptor system is required for basic fibroblast growth factor activity. Cell 67, 229-231CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
129Tsukamoto, A.S. et al. (1988) Expression of the int-1 gene in transgenic mice is associated with mammary gland hyperplasia and adenocarcinomas in male and female mice. Cell 55, 619-625CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
130Welm, B.E. et al. (2002) Inducible dimerization of FGFR1: development of a mouse model to analyze progressive transformation of the mammary gland. Journal of Cell Biology 157, 703-714CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
131Penault-Llorca, F. et al. (1995) Expression of FGF and FGF receptor genes in human breast cancer. International Journal of Cancer 61, 170-176CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
132Zammit, C. et al. (2002) Fibroblast growth factor 8 is expressed at higher levels in lactating human breast and in breast cancer. British Journal of Cancer 86, 1097-1103CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
133Tamaru, N. et al. (2004) Estrogen receptor-associated expression of keratinocyte growth factor and its possible role in the inhibition of apoptosis in human breast cancer. Laboratory Investigation 84, 1460-1471CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
134Theodorou, V. et al. (2004) Fgf10 is an oncogene activated by MMTV insertional mutagenesis in mouse mammary tumors and overexpressed in a subset of human breast carcinomas. Oncogene 23, 6047-6055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
135Reis-Filho, J.S. et al. (2006) FGFR1 emerges as a potential therapeutic target for lobular breast carcinomas. Clinical Cancer Research 12, 6652-6662CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
136Meijer, D. et al. (2008) Fibroblast growth factor receptor 4 predicts failure on tamoxifen therapy in patients with recurrent breast cancer. Endocrine-Related Cancer 15, 101-111CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
137Luqmani, Y.A., Graham, M. and Coombes, R.C. (1992) Expression of basic fibroblast growth factor, FGFR1 and FGFR2 in normal and malignant human breast, and comparison with other normal tissues. British Journal of Cancer 66, 273-280CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
138Hunter, D.J. et al. (2007) A genome-wide association study identifies alleles in FGFR2 associated with risk of sporadic postmenopausal breast cancer. Nature Genetics 39, 870-874CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
139Easton, D.F. et al. (2007) Genome-wide association study identifies novel breast cancer susceptibility loci. Nature 447, 1087-1093CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
140Meyer, K.B. et al. (2008) Allele-specific up-regulation of FGFR2 increases susceptibility to breast cancer. PLoS Biology 6, e108CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
141Kagan, B.L. et al. (2003) Complex regulation of the fibroblast growth factor-binding protein in MDA- MB-468 breast cancer cells by CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein beta. Cancer Research 63, 1696-1705Google ScholarPubMed
142Czubayko, F. et al. (1994) Tumor growth and angiogenesis induced by a secreted binding protein for fibroblast growth factors. Journal of Biological Chemistry 269, 28243-28248CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
143Papa, V. et al. (1990) Elevated insulin receptor content in human breast cancer. Journal of Clinical Investigation 86, 1503-1510CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
144Holdaway, I.M. and Friesen, H.G. (1977) Hormone binding by human mammary carcinoma. Cancer Research 37, 1946-1952Google ScholarPubMed
145Milazzo, G. et al. (1992) Insulin receptor expression and function in human breast cancer cell lines. Cancer Research 52, 3924-3930Google ScholarPubMed
146Finlayson, C.A. et al. (2003) Enhanced insulin signaling via Shc in human breast cancer. Metabolism 52, 1606-1611CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
147Pekonen, F. et al. (1988) Receptors for epidermal growth factor and insulin-like growth factor I and their relation to steroid receptors in human breast cancer. Cancer Research 48, 1343-1347Google ScholarPubMed
148Foekens, J.A. et al. (1989) Prognostic value of receptors for insulin-like growth factor 1, somatostatin, and epidermal growth factor in human breast cancer. Cancer Research 49, 7002-7009Google ScholarPubMed
149Bonneterre, J. et al. (1990) Prognostic significance of insulin-like growth factor 1 receptors in human breast cancer. Cancer Research 50, 6931-6935Google ScholarPubMed
150Surmacz, E. (2000) Function of the IGF-I receptor in breast cancer. Journal of Mammary Gland Biology and Neoplasia 5, 95-105CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
151Goodwin, P.J. et al. (2002) Fasting insulin and outcome in early-stage breast cancer: results of a prospective cohort study. Journal of Clinical Oncology 20, 42-51CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
152Pasanisi, P. et al. (2006) Metabolic syndrome as a prognostic factor for breast cancer recurrences. International Journal of Cancer 119, 236-238CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
153Pasanisi, P. et al. (2008) Serum insulin-like growth factor-I and platelet-derived growth factor as biomarkers of breast cancer prognosis. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention 17, 1719-1722CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
154Papa, V., Costantino, A. and Belfiore, A. (1997) Insulin receptor what role in breast cancer? Trends in Endocrinology and Metabolism 8, 306-312CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
155Lu, M., Seufert, J. and Habener, J.F. (1997) Pancreatic beta-cell-specific repression of insulin gene transcription by CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein beta. Inhibitory interactions with basic helix-loop-helix transcription factor E47. Journal of Biological Chemistry 272, 28349-28359CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
156Seufert, J., Weir, G.C. and Habener, J.F. (1998) Differential expression of the insulin gene transcriptional repressor CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein beta and transactivator islet duodenum homeobox-1 in rat pancreatic beta cells during the development of diabetes mellitus. Journal of Clinical Investigation 101, 2528-2539CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
157Shen, C.N. et al. (2003) Glucocorticoids suppress beta-cell development and induce hepatic metaplasia in embryonic pancreas. Biochemical Journal 375, 41-50CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
158Wang, L. et al. (2000) Increased insulin receptor substrate-1 and enhanced skeletal muscle insulin sensitivity in mice lacking CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein beta. Journal of Biological Chemistry 275, 14173-14181CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
159Foti, D. et al. (2003) A nucleoprotein complex containing Sp1, C/EBP beta, and HMGI-Y controls human insulin receptor gene transcription. Molecular and Cellular Biology 23, 2720-2732CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
160MacDougald, O.A. et al. (1995) Insulin regulates transcription of the CCAAT/enhancer binding protein (C/EBP) alpha, beta, and delta genes in fully-differentiated 3T3-L1 adipocytes. Journal of Biological Chemistry 270, 647-654CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
161Le Lay, S. et al. (2002) Insulin and sterol-regulatory element-binding protein-1c (SREBP-1C) regulation of gene expression in 3T3-L1 adipocytes. Identification of CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein beta as an SREBP-1C target. Journal of Biological Chemistry 277, 35625-35634CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
162Duong, D.T. et al. (2002) Insulin inhibits hepatocellular glucose production by utilizing liver-enriched transcriptional inhibitory protein to disrupt the association of CREB-binding protein and RNA polymerase II with the phosphoenolpyruvate carboxykinase gene promoter. Journal of Biological Chemistry 277, 32234-32242CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
163Bosch, F., Sabater, J. and Valera, A. (1995) Insulin inhibits liver expression of the CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein beta. Diabetes 44, 267-271CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
164Sekine, O. et al. (2002) Insulin activates CCAAT/enhancer binding proteins and proinflammatory gene expression through the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase pathway in vascular smooth muscle cells. Journal of Biological Chemistry 277, 36631-36639CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
165Guo, S. et al. (2001) Insulin suppresses transactivation by CAAT/enhancer-binding proteins beta (C/EBPbeta). Signaling to p300/CREB-binding protein by protein kinase B disrupts interaction with the major activation domain of C/EBPbeta. Journal of Biological Chemistry 276, 8516-8523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
166Grimm, S.L. et al. (2002) Disruption of steroid and prolactin receptor patterning in the mammary gland correlates with a block in lobuloalveolar development. Molecular Endocrinology 16, 2675-2691CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
167Nolten, L.A. et al. (1994) Expression of the insulin-like growth factor I gene is stimulated by the liver-enriched transcription factors C/EBP alpha and LAP. Molecular Endocrinology 8, 1636-1645Google ScholarPubMed
168Umayahara, Y. et al. (2002) Protein kinase C-dependent, CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein beta-mediated expression of insulin-like growth factor I gene. Journal of Biological Chemistry 277, 15261-15270CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
169Umayahara, Y. et al. (1999) CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein delta is a critical regulator of insulin-like growth factor-I gene transcription in osteoblasts. Journal of Biological Chemistry 274, 10609-10617CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
170McCarthy, T.L. et al. (2000) Time- and dose-related interactions between glucocorticoid and cyclic adenosine 3′,5′-monophosphate on CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein-dependent insulin-like growth factor I expression by osteoblasts. Endocrinology 141, 127-137CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
171Nerlov, C. (2007) The C/EBP family of transcription factors: a paradigm for interaction between gene expression and proliferation control. Trends in Cell Biology 17, 318-324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
172Brennan, P., Donev, R. and Hewamana, S. (2008) Targeting transcription factors for therapeutic benefit. Molecular Biosystems 4, 909-919CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
173Minucci, S. and Pelicci, P.G. (2006) Histone deacetylase inhibitors and the promise of epigenetic (and more) treatments for cancer. Nature Reviews. Cancer 6, 38-51Google Scholar
174Liu, X. et al. (2008) The structural basis of protein acetylation by the p300/CBP transcriptional coactivator. Nature 451, 846-850CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
175Zheng, Y. et al. (2004) Selective HAT inhibitors as mechanistic tools for protein acetylation. Methods in Enzymology 376, 188-199CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
176Kohno, M. and Pouyssegur, J. (2006) Targeting the ERK signaling pathway in cancer therapy. Annals of Medicine 38, 200-211CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
177Yuan, T.L. and Cantley, L.C. (2008) PI3K pathway alterations in cancer: variations on a theme. Oncogene 27, 5497-5510CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
178Gilmore, T.D. and Herscovitch, M. (2006) Inhibitors of NF-kappaB signaling: 785 and counting. Oncogene 25, 6887-6899CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
179Dey, A., Verma, C.S. and Lane, D.P. (2008) Updates on p53: modulation of p53 degradation as a therapeutic approach. British Journal of Cancer 98, 4-8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
180Mees, C., Nemunaitis, J. and Senzer, N. (2009) Transcription factors: their potential as targets for an individualized therapeutic approach to cancer. Cancer Gene Therapy 16, 103-112CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
181Rizzo, P. et al. (2008) Rational targeting of Notch signaling in cancer. Oncogene 27, 5124-5131CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
182Rishi, V. et al. (2005) A high-throughput fluorescence-anisotropy screen that identifies small molecule inhibitors of the DNA binding of B-ZIP transcription factors. Analytical Biochemistry 340, 259-271CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
183Turkson, J. et al. (2001) Phosphotyrosyl peptides block Stat3-mediated DNA binding activity, gene regulation, and cell transformation. Journal of Biological Chemistry 276, 45443-45455CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
184Berg, T. et al. (2002) Small-molecule antagonists of Myc/Max dimerization inhibit Myc-induced transformation of chicken embryo fibroblasts. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 99, 3830-3835CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
185Vassilev, L.T. et al. (2004) In vivo activation of the p53 pathway by small-molecule antagonists of MDM2. Science 303, 844-848CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
186Efeyan, A. et al. (2007) Induction of p53-dependent senescence by the MDM2 antagonist nutlin-3a in mouse cells of fibroblast origin. Cancer Research 67, 7350-7357CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
187Olenyuk, B.Z. et al. (2004) Inhibition of vascular endothelial growth factor with a sequence-specific hypoxia response element antagonist. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 101, 16768-16773CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
188Kozak, M. (1991) An analysis of vertebrate mRNA sequences: intimations of translational control. Journal of Cell Biology 115, 887-903CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
189Raught, B. et al. (1996) Expression of a translationally regulated, dominant-negative CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein beta isoform and up-regulation of the eukaryotic translation initiation factor 2alpha are correlated with neoplastic transformation of mammary epithelial cells. Cancer Research 56, 4382-4386Google ScholarPubMed
190Lincoln, A.J. et al. (1998) Inhibition of CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein alpha and beta translation by upstream open reading frames. Journal of Biological Chemistry 273, 9552-9560CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
191Li, Y. et al. (2008) Differential control of the CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein beta (C/EBPbeta) products liver-enriched transcriptional activating protein (LAP) and liver-enriched transcriptional inhibitory protein (LIP) and the regulation of gene expression during the response to endoplasmic reticulum stress. Journal of Biological Chemistry 283, 22443-22456CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
192Sterneck, E., Tessarollo, L. and Johnson, P.F. (1997) An essential role for C/EBPbeta in female reproduction. Genes and Development 11, 2153-2162CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
193Millward, C.A. et al. (2007) Mice with a deletion in the gene for CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein beta are protected against diet-induced obesity. Diabetes 56, 161-167CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
194Carmona, M.C. et al. (2005) Defective thermoregulation, impaired lipid metabolism, but preserved adrenergic induction of gene expression in brown fat of mice lacking C/EBPbeta. Biochemistry Journal 389, 47-56CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
195Croniger, C.M. et al. (2001) Mice with a deletion in the gene for CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein beta have an attenuated response to cAMP and impaired carbohydrate metabolism. Journal of Biological Chemistry 276, 629-638CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
196Liu, S. et al. (1999) Hypoglycemia and impaired hepatic glucose production in mice with a deletion of the C/EBPbeta gene. Journal of Clinical Investigation 103, 207-213CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
197Greenbaum, L.E. et al. (1998) CCAAT enhancer- binding protein beta is required for normal hepatocyte proliferation in mice after partial hepatectomy. Journal of Clinical Investigation 102, 996-1007CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
198Tominaga, H. et al. (2008) CCAAT/Enhancer-binding Protein {beta} Promotes Osteoblast Differentiation by Enhancing Runx2 Activity with ATF4. Molecular Biology of the Cell 19, 5373-5386CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
199Tanaka, T. et al. (1995) Targeted disruption of the NF-IL6 gene discloses its essential role in bacteria killing and tumor cytotoxicity by macrophages. Cell 80, 353-361CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
200Screpanti, I. et al. (1995) Lymphoproliferative disorder and imbalanced T-helper response in C/EBP beta-deficient mice. EMBO Journal 14, 1932-1941CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
201Tanaka, T. et al. (1997) Defective adipocyte differentiation in mice lacking the C/EBPbeta and/or C/EBPdelta gene. EMBO Journal 16, 7432-7443CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Further reading, resources and contacts

Information about breast cancer treatment, prevention, genetics, causes, screening, clinical trials, research and statistics from the National Cancer Institute can be found at:

White, A.W., Westwell, A.D. and Brahemi, G. (2008) Protein-protein interactions as targets for small molecule therapeutics. Expert Reviews in Molecular Medicine 10, 1-14CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
White, A.W., Westwell, A.D. and Brahemi, G. (2008) Protein-protein interactions as targets for small molecule therapeutics. Expert Reviews in Molecular Medicine 10, 1-14CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Figure 1. Structure of CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein β. The position and size of the activation domains (AD) (orange), the negative regulatory domains (RD) (pink) and the conserved regions (CR) are approximated. The basic DNA-binding region and the leucine zipper are indicated in green and yellow, respectively. The amino acid numbers on the left refer to the position of the relevant initiation codon within the open reading frame of the mouse sequence. The full-length LAP1, and smaller LAP2 and LIP isoforms are shown.

Figure 1

Table 1. Genes encoding CCAAT/enhancer-binding proteins in rodents and humans

Figure 2

Figure 2. Structure of mRNA encoding CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein β. C/EBPβ is translated into several distinct protein isoforms (LAP1, LAP2 and LIP) whose expression is regulated by the alternative use of several in-frame translation start sites (Ref. 20). The 5′ end of C/EBPβ mRNA contains a 5′UTR of 298 bases with a GC content of approximately 73%, which has the potential to form complex, stable secondary structures that can interfere with scanning ribosomes (Refs 188, 189). An upstream AUG (uAUG) and a small open reading frame (uORF) are also located in a hairpin loop of 5′ C/EBPβ mRNA between the translation initiation sites for LAP1 and LAP2. This region is crucial for the translational control of the C/EBPβ LAP2 and LIP isoforms (Refs 190, 22, 23, 102). LAP1 is translated by initiation of the ribosomes at the LAP1 AUG codon. LAP2 is translated by leaky ribosome scanning through the uORF AUG followed by initiation at the LAP2 AUG site. Initiation at the uAUG and translation of the uORF may prevent ribosome reinitiation at the LAP 2 AUG because of the close proximity of the uORF AUG to the LAP2 AUG. However, in some instances, immediate reinitiation after translation of the uORF may occur and this has also been proposed as a potential mechanism (Ref. 22). LIP is then translated by leaky ribosome scanning over the LAP1 AUG, followed by initiation of the uORF AUG, and ribosomal reinitiation at the LIP AUG (Ref. 23). Although LIP expression is often regulated by the 5′UTR/sORF (Ref. 22), there have also been reports that LIP expression can be regulated in a manner that is independent of the 5′UTR/sORF and that LIP protein stability may be regulated by an undefined post-translational mechanism (Ref. 191).

Figure 3

Figure 3. Post-translational processing of CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein β. The structural domains of C/EBPβ are identical to those shown in Fig. 1. (a) Phosphorylated serine (Ser) or threonine (Thr) are indicated with a vertical line and a number that denotes the approximate position of the phosphorylated amino acid in either the mouse (M), rat (R) or human (H) C/EBPβ protein sequence. Acetylated lysine residues are depicted as circles labelled Ac below a lysine (Lys), indicating its position in the mouse (M) sequence. The sumoylation site is represented with a red triangle, and the position of Lys residues in mouse (M) or human (H) is shown. The methylation of Lys39 is shown as a large green circle labelled M in either the chicken (C), mouse (M) or rat (R) sequence. (b) The location of the cysteine residues and the resulting disulfide bridges are shown for the mouse C/EBPβ protein sequence.

Figure 4

Table 2. CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein β phosphorylation sites

Figure 5

Table 3. Genetically engineered mouse models provide insight into the actions of the LAP1, LAP2 and LIP isoforms

Figure 6

Table 4. Oncomine Research Cancer-profiling Database

Figure 7

Figure 4. Generalised interactions between CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein β and receptor tyrosine kinases in several tissues. (a) EGFR (ErbB1) signalling leads to an increase in LIP expression and an increase in the ratio of LIP:LAP. (b) EGFR signalling regulates the binding of LIP and LAP to the FGFBP1 promoter and the ratio of LIP:LAP regulates FGFBP1 expression levels. FGFBP1 in turn can increase the activity of FGF1 and FGF2. LAP also binds to the FGFR2 promoter in a complex with Oct1–Runx2 to increase expression of FGFR2. (c) LAP expression reduces or increases insulin expression in pancreatic β cells and non-pancreatic β cells, respectively. In liver, LAP has been shown to regulate transcription of the insulin receptor as part of a larger complex containing the transcription factor HMGI-Y. In adipocytes and muscle, insulin signalling leads to increases in the expression of the LAP and LIP isoforms; however, in diabetic mouse liver, LAP expression is downregulated by elevation in insulin. (d) C/EBPβ-LAP upregulates IGF-I expression in liver, macrophages and bone. Overexpression of LIP alone has no effect on IGF-I gene promoter activity but can abolish the transactivation induced by LAP. The IGF axis is dysregulated in the mammary gland of the C/EBPβ-null mouse, and IRS levels decrease in the absence of C/EBPβ. Abbreviations: EGF, epidermal growth factor; FGF, fibroblast growth factor; FGFBP1, fibroblast growth factor binding protein-1; HMGI-Y, high-mobility group protein HMG-I/HMG-Y; IGF-I, insulin-like growth factor I; IRS, insulin-receptor substrate.