| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
ARTICLES |
Harold and Margaret Milliken Hatch Laboratory of Neuroendocrinology, Rockefeller University, New York, New York 10021; and the Department of Psychology, Princeton University (P.T.), Princeton, New Jersey 08540
Address all correspondence and requests for reprints to: Bruce S. McEwen, Ph.D., Rockefeller University, Box 165, 1230 York Avenue, New York, New York 10021. E-mail: mcewen{at}rockvax.rockefeller.edu
| Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
within cells
that resemble interneurons in the CA1 stratum oriens and radiatum (8, 9). CA1 pyramidal neurons, on which the synapse formation is occurring,
do not have detectable levels of ERs by either of these methods. In
view of possible nongenomic mechanisms of estrogen actions, and
considering that intracellular ER levels might be too low for detection
by present methods, one strategy to identify the intracellular
mechanism of synapse induction in hippocampus is to use nonsteroidal
estrogen antagonists that bind to the intracellular ER, but do not
block the rapid membrane effects (10, 11). Antiestrogens also have
another use, namely to discriminate between the response elements that
the ER uses to activate transcription. Nonsteroidal antiestrogens bind
to ERs and activate transcription via activating protein-1
(AP-1) response elements (12) while blocking transcriptional activation
through the classical estrogen response element (ERE) and not producing
any agonist effect via this pathway (13). Nonsteroidal antiestrogens
such as tamoxifen and CI628 block transcriptional activation of the ER
via both the ER
and -ß and the classical ERE (13, 14). It is
presumably through this pathway that antiestrogens of the tamoxifen
type, including CI-628, reduce estrogen induction of progestin
receptors in hypothalamus as well as activation of sexual behavior in
female rats while at the same time demonstrating a low level of agonist
activity (15, 16). To investigate the role of intracellular ERs in
estrogen induction of synapse formation, we took advantage of previous
studies in which we and others had shown that estrogen antagonists
block estrogen induction of progestin receptors and lordosis behavior
(15, 16), and we used one of these antagonists that crosses the
blood-brain barrier, CI-628 (15, 16, 17), to study whether it would either
mimic or block effects of estradiol to induce excitatory spine
synapses. | Materials and Methods |
|---|
|
|
|---|
-(4-pyrrolidinoethoxyl)phenyl-4-methoxy-
-nitrostilbene]; 10
mg/kg BW; n = 11; Parke-Davis, Ann Arbor, MI) or the
vehicle (vehicle 1, sterile distilled water; n = 10) for 3
consecutive days at 14001500 h. Half of the rats in the CI628 group
and half of the rats in the vehicle group were injected sc with
ß-estradiol benzoate (EB; 10 µg/kg BW; Sigma Chemical Co., St. Louis, MO) on the second and third days, whereas the
remaining rats in each group were injected with the sesame oil vehicle
(vehicle 2). As a result, there were four treatment groups: 1) both
vehicles (n = 5), 2) vehicle 1 plus EB (n = 5), 3) vehicle 2
plus CI-628 (n = 5), and 4) EB plus CI-628 (n = 6).
Twenty-four hours after the last injection of 17ß-estradiol benzoate
or oil, the rats were deeply anesthetized and transcardially perfused
with 4.0% paraformaldehyde in 0.1 M phosphate buffer
containing 1.5% saturated picric acid. The brains were removed from
the skulls and postfixed overnight at 4°C in the perfusate before
Golgi impregnation. All animal experimentation was conducted in accordance with the NIH Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (NIH Publication 8523, revised 1985). The animals were maintained on a 14-h light, 10-h dark cycle and provided with food and water ad libitum.
Golgi impregnation
One hundred-micron coronal sections were cut in a bath
containing 3.0% potassium dichromate on an oscillating tissue slicer.
The sections were then incubated overnight in 3.0% potassium
dichromate. On the following day, the sections were rinsed twice in
double distilled water and mounted onto glass slides. After all of the
excess water around the sections was removed, glass coverslips were
placed over the section and glued in place with Krazy Glue (Borden
Inc., Columbus, OH). The slide assemblies were then incubated in
a Coplin jar containing 1.5% silver nitrate for 2 nights in the dark.
The slide assemblies were removed from the silver nitrate, and the
coverslips were detached with a razor blade. The sections were rinsed
free floating in double distilled water, dehydrated in a series of
ethanols, cleared with Americlear (Baxter Diagnostics, Deerfield,
IL), mounted onto gelatinized slides, and then coverslipped
under Permount (Fisher Scientific, Pittsburgh, PA).
Data analysis
All of the slides were coded before quantitative analysis, and
the code was not broken until the analysis was completed. For each
animal, six cells from the CA1 pyramidal region that exhibited dark and
consistent impregnation throughout the cell body and dendritic tree
were selected for analysis. For each of the cells selected, the number
of spines on at least three segments of the apical dendritic tree was
determined (see Fig. 1
). No primary
dendrites were analyzed, and all of the segments selected for analysis
were 1) 10 µm or greater in length, 2) located 150200 µm from the
cell body, and 3) not located at the terminal of a dendrite. Camera
lucida tracings were made of each of the dendritic segments, and the
length was determined using a Zeiss Interactive Digitizing Analysis
System. The data were expressed as spine densities (number of spines
per 10 µm), the mean values for each animal were determined, and the
data were subjected to one-way ANOVA with Scheffes F test
post-hoc comparison.
|
| Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
As summarized in Fig. 2
, the
administration of CI628 alone had no effect on spine density, whereas
EB produced a highly significant increase in spine density that was
incompletely, but very significantly, blocked by the combination of
CI-628 and EB treatment. Administration of CI628 alone had no
significant effect on spine density.
|
| Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
We used a specific dose of sc CI628 and a treatment regimen that we and others previously found to block estrogen induction of progestin receptors in the hypothalamus (15, 16), thus providing a benchmark for evaluating the effects of CI628 on spine synapse induction by EB. Our present results show that CI-628 blocked the induction by EB of dendritic spines on CA1 pyramidal neurons, and that CI-628 by itself has no effect on spines. This regimen of CI628 produced an incomplete, albeit highly significant, antagonism of the estrogen effect on spine induction, which was of a similar magnitude to the partial, but highly significant, blockade of progestin receptor induction reported previously (15). This result is consistent with the involvement of the ERE rather than the AP-1 site, as progestin receptor induction involves the ERE (23).
Nonsteroidal antiestrogens such as tamoxifen and CI628 block
transcriptional activation of the ER via both the ER
and -ß and
the classical ERE (13, 14). It is presumably through this pathway that
antiestrogens of the tamoxifen type, including CI-628, reduce estrogen
induction of progestin receptors in the hypothalamus as well as
activation of sexual behavior in female rats, while at the same time
demonstrating a low level of agonist activity (15, 16). However, it
should also be noted that there are other reported estrogen-like
actions of CI-628 in brain, namely to reduce monoamine oxidase activity
in amygdala and to increase choline acetyltransferase activity in
preoptic area-basal forebrain (17). These may involve a different
pathway, possibly involving the ERß and AP-1 site (13, 14), as will
be discussed below.
Had CI-628 not blocked the estrogen effects to induce spines on CA1
pyramidal neurons, there would be reason to suspect such a mechanism, a
response element other than the ERE, or a nongenomic membrane action.
This is because some antiestrogens such as tamoxifen bind to ER and
activate transcription via the AP-1 response element (12, 14).
Moreover, another response element, the raloxifene response element
(24), has been described for the agonist-like effects of the
tamoxifen-like nonsteroidal antiestrogen, raloxifine. According to a
recent report (14), ER
and ERß show opposite agonist/antagonist
profiles via the AP-1 site, with estradiol activating transcription and
antagonists blocking transcription via ER
, whereas the opposite is
true for ERß (14). According to this result, an ERß-AP-1
interaction in the hippocampus would have meant that CI-628 would have
induced synapse formation and EB treatment would have blocked it, which
clearly did not occur.
Regarding the ER
and -ß in hippocampus, we mapped the ER
by
immunocytochemistry and found it to be expressed in scattered
interneurons (9) that are known to interact with the CA1 pyramidal
neurons where synapse induction occurs (25). We found no evidence of
immunoreactivity for the ERß in CA1 hippocampal neurons (Weiland,
N. G., S. E. Alves, and G. N. Lopez,
unpublished observations), although under certain conditions the ERß
may be present in the CA2 pyramidal neurons (26). The failure to find
any [3H]estradiol-derived radioactivity in CA1 pyramidal
neurons by quantitative autoradiography, under conditions that reveal
[3H]estradiol retention in the interneuron population (7)
in which we see ER
by immunocytochemistry (8, 9), argues against
there being large amounts of either ER
or -ß in CA1 pyramidal
neurons.
That we found an antagonist effect of the tamoxifen-like antiestrogen,
CI628, on estrogen-induced synaptogenesis also argues against
involvement of several known nongenomic, membrane actions of estradiol.
The two known membrane actions of estradiol involve modulation of the
-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazole propionic acid (AMPA)
receptor and of calcium currents, respectively. Tamoxifen failed to
block the direct effects of estrogen on the AMPA receptor (27)
and had agonist-like effects, mimicking estrogens actions, to inhibit
calcium currents in striatal neurons (10). Thus, the two known
nongenomic membrane actions of estrogens do not have the
pharmacological characteristics as far as the effects of an estrogen
antagonist vs. estrogen that would have implicated them in
spine induction on CA1 pyramidal neurons.
Not every estrogen antagonist gets into the brain. ICI182780 (28) does not enter the brain (Wakeling, A., personal communication), and RU58688 has been reported to enter the brain only at high doses and with difficulty (29, 30). In contrast, CI-628 enters the brain, judging from its reported ability to block in vivo cell nuclear uptake and retention of [3H]estradiol in hypothalamus, preoptic area, and amygdala by 87% at 18 h after CI-628 treatment (17) as well as by the incomplete, but highly significant, blockade of both progestin receptor induction (15, 16) and dendritic spines (this study) and the induction of estrogen-like changes in brain monoamine oxidase and choline acetyltransferase (17). In view of the results of the present study, failure of some antiestrogens to enter the brain may be advantageous to avoid possibly deleterious estrogen-blocking effects in the central nervous system of agents that can cause potentially beneficial estrogen-like peripheral effects, such as promoting bone calcification and lowering serum lipid levels (31).
Concerning target genes that may mediate the actions of estradiol on synaptogenesis, NMDA receptors are known to be up-regulated by estradiol in the CA1 region of the hippocampus (4, 32, 33) and to be required for estrogen-induced synaptogenesis (22). The phosphorylation of cAMP response element-binding protein is also reported to be up-regulated by estrogen treatment in a cell culture model of synaptogenesis (34), and recent evidence from our laboratory indicates that estrogen induction of cAMP response element-binding protein phosphorylation is blocked by CI-628 treatment in a similar cell culture model (Kimonides, V., C. Li, and B. S. McEwen, unpublished). Thus, there are several specific estrogen-regulated gene products upon which to target future studies of estrogen-induced synapse formation both in vitro and in vivo.
Given the location of estrogen receptors in interneurons (9), what role
might they play in estrogen-induced synaptogenesis on CA1 pyramidal
neurons? First, it should be noted that basket cell interneurons in the
hippocampus have large fields of innervation that may include as many
as 1500 pyramidal neurons (25, 35); thus, a single estrogen-sensitive
interneuron is very likely to have a powerful influence on many
pyramidal neurons. Second, given this type of widespread influence, the
most plausible explanation for the transneuronal influence has been
offered by Murphy and Segal (36), who showed that estrogen treatment
causes a transient reduction in the expression of
-aminobutyric acid
in estrogen-sensitive interneurons; they have proposed that this might
create a period of disinhibition during which increased expression of
NMDA receptors would be able to occur on the pyramidal neurons. As
noted above, NMDA receptors are up-regulated by estrogen treatment on
CA1 pyramidal neurons (4, 32, 33), and blockade of NMDA receptors
prevents synaptogenesis (22), although the exact pathway for NMDA
receptors to facilitate synaptogenesis is not known.
In conclusion, CI-628 blocks estrogen-induced spine formation on
CA1 pyramidal neurons, and this together with other information
summarized above argues strongly for mediation via the ERE by the ER
that is found on interneurons in the hippocampal formation. Additional
approaches, using ER knockout animals and other estrogen antagonists
that enter the brain, are required to further support this
conclusion.
| Acknowledgments |
|---|
| Footnotes |
|---|
Received June 23, 1998.
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
and ERß at AP1 sites. Science 277:15081510This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
R. N. Pechnick, S. Zonis, K. Wawrowsky, J. Pourmorady, and V. Chesnokova p21Cip1 restricts neuronal proliferation in the subgranular zone of the dentate gyrus of the hippocampus PNAS, January 29, 2008; 105(4): 1358 - 1363. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. B. Jelks, R. Wylie, C. L. Floyd, A. K. McAllister, and P. Wise Estradiol Targets Synaptic Proteins to Induce Glutamatergic Synapse Formation in Cultured Hippocampal Neurons: Critical Role of Estrogen Receptor-{alpha} J. Neurosci., June 27, 2007; 27(26): 6903 - 6913. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. Ito, Y. Hirooka, Y. Kimura, Y. Sagara, and K. Sunagawa Ovariectomy Augments Hypertension Through Rho-Kinase Activation in the Brain Stem in Female Spontaneously Hypertensive Rats Hypertension, October 1, 2006; 48(4): 651 - 657. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. D. Romeo, D. Staub, A. M. Jasnow, I. N. Karatsoreos, J. E. Thornton, and B. S. McEwen Dihydrotestosterone Increases Hippocampal N-Methyl-D-Aspartate Binding But Does Not Affect Choline Acetyltransferase Cell Number in the Forebrain or Choline Transporter Levels in the CA1 Region of Adult Male Rats Endocrinology, April 1, 2005; 146(4): 2091 - 2097. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. N. Rudick and C. S. Woolley Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators Regulate Phasic Activation of Hippocampal CA1 Pyramidal Cells by Estrogen Endocrinology, January 1, 2003; 144(1): 179 - 187. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
B. McEwen Estrogen Actions Throughout the Brain Recent Prog. Horm. Res., January 1, 2002; 57(1): 357 - 384. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
B. S. McEwen Genome and Hormones: Gender Differences in Physiology: Invited Review: Estrogens effects on the brain: multiple sites and molecular mechanisms J Appl Physiol, December 1, 2001; 91(6): 2785 - 2801. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. N. Rudick and C. S. Woolley Estrogen Regulates Functional Inhibition of Hippocampal CA1 Pyramidal Cells in the Adult Female Rat J. Neurosci., September 1, 2001; 21(17): 6532 - 6543. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. H. Price Jr., C. A. Butler, P. Webb, R. Uht, P. Kushner, and R. J. Handa A Splice Variant of Estrogen Receptor {beta} Missing Exon 3 Displays Altered Subnuclear Localization and Capacity for Transcriptional Activation Endocrinology, May 1, 2001; 142(5): 2039 - 2049. [Abstract] [Full Text] |
||||
![]() |
W. G. Brake, S. E. Alves, J. C. Dunlop, S. J. Lee, K. Bulloch, P. B. Allen, P. Greengard, and B. S. McEwen Novel Target Sites for Estrogen Action in the Dorsal Hippocampus: An Examination of Synaptic Proteins Endocrinology, March 1, 2001; 142(3): 1284 - 1289. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. B. Dubal, H. Zhu, J. Yu, S. W. Rau, P. J. Shughrue, I. Merchenthaler, M. S. Kindy, and P. M. Wise Estrogen receptor alpha , not beta , is a critical link in estradiol-mediated protection against brain injury PNAS, February 1, 2001; (2001) 41483198. [Abstract] [Full Text] |
||||
![]() |
B. S. McEwen and S. E. Alves Estrogen Actions in the Central Nervous System Endocr. Rev., June 1, 1999; 20(3): 279 - 307. [Abstract] [Full Text] |
||||
![]() |
B. S. McEwen The Molecular and Neuroanatomical Basis for Estrogen Effects in the Central Nervous System J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., June 1, 1999; 84(6): 1790 - 1797. [Full Text] |
||||
![]() |
D. B. Dubal, H. Zhu, J. Yu, S. W. Rau, P. J. Shughrue, I. Merchenthaler, M. S. Kindy, and P. M. Wise Estrogen receptor alpha , not beta , is a critical link in estradiol-mediated protection against brain injury PNAS, February 13, 2001; 98(4): 1952 - 1957. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Endocrinology | Endocrine Reviews | J. Clin. End. & Metab. |
| Molecular Endocrinology | Recent Prog. Horm. Res. | All Endocrine Journals |