(Hypertension. 1999;34:534-538.)
© 1999 American Heart Association, Inc.
Hypothesis |
From the Division of Research, Alton Ochsner Medical Foundation, New Orleans, La.
| Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Key Words: intracrine peptides nucleus memory differentiation
| Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Subsequently, evidence supporting intracrine action has been developed
for a large number of peptide hormones and factors (for example,
insulin, growth hormone, prolactin, nerve growth factor,
interferon-
, fibroblast growth factor [FGF], Tat protein,
platelet-derived growth factor [PDGF], epidermal growth factor
[EGF], parathyroid hormonerelated protein [PTHrP],
endogenous opiates, angiogenin, among
others).12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Although the intracellular actions of
steroid hormones and their receptors have been studied intensively, the
implications, if any, of intracrine peptide hormone action for normal
or abnormal cellular physiology remain unclear.23 Indeed,
the default view appears to be that if such intracellular
binding/action of peptide hormones exists at all, it represents
a vestigial or unimportant aspect of biology.
This view, however, is beginning to change as evidence mounts for the binding of a large number of peptide hormones to nuclei and other intracellular structures and for biological change associated with that binding. It would therefore appear useful at this time to reconsider the possible implications of intracrine peptide action.
By way of review, one can note that peptide hormones have been reported to act intracellularly in the following ways: (1) binding to receptors in the endoplasmic reticulum soon after synthesis and generating second messengers, eg, PDGF-B/v-sis24 25 ; (2) binding to intravesicular receptors after internalization, with subsequent generation of second messengers, eg, EGF in the absence of its membrane-anchoring domain26 ; (3) binding to receptors on the nuclear membrane, with the subsequent generation of second messengers, eg, insulin17 27 28 ; (4) binding to nucleolar components, eg, FGF, PTHrP, angiogenin13 18 20 ; and (5) binding to chromatin, eg, angiotensin II, PTHrP, nerve growth factor (NGF), EGF, and PDGF.3 12 18 21 29
Given these observations, it appears important to determine the actions
of intracellular hormones, whether they are synthesized intracellularly
or internalized. More important is the determination of the
physiological relevance, if any, of these
intracrine effects. The possibility that intracrine hormones are
homeostatic regulators of the intracellular milieu operating to
stabilize the intracellular environment in ways not yet appreciated has
been proposed.1 2 11 23 However, it also is possible that
considerable complexity could develop in these intracrine systems,
leading to the assumption of additional
physiological functions. The following additional
physiologically relevant intracrine actions of
peptide hormones have been proposed or readily come to mind: (1)
providing information essential for the transcriptional and other
effects of hormone binding to cell-surface receptors
(angiogenin20 ); (2) providing information necessary to
modulate or "fine-tune" the actions of hormone bound to cell
membrane receptors; (3) providing information to regulate the
production of signal-transducing elements, such as hormone
receptors, nuclear transcription factors, and downstream mediators of
hormone action (angiotensin II30 31 ); (4)
reinforcing or mitigating (either in intensity or duration) the effects
of hormone binding to cell-surface receptors (PTHrH,
angiotensin30 31 32 ); (5) regulating nucleolar
and/or ribosomal functions and thereby cell functioning (FGF, PTHrP,
angiogenin13 20 29 33 ); (6) altering intracellular calcium
fluxes so as to generate a physiological signal
(angiotensin II34 35 ); (7) causing
cell-surface receptors, either alone or in association with ligand, to
generate intracellular effects, such as the transport of JAK/STAT
transcription factors to the nucleus (interferon-
36 );
and (8) producing differentiation of some target cells
In fact, there is experimental evidence to support most of these possible modes of action in the case of specific peptide hormones. For example, angiogenin produces the endothelial cell proliferation necessary for angiogenesis only if the hormone reaches the nucleolus.20 Cell-surface binding is insufficient to generate this physiological effect. Thus, this observation suggests perhaps the most robust function for intracrine action proposed thus far: an obligate role in peptide hormone action. The mitogenic activity of another angiogenic growth factor, a modified acidic FGF, displays a similar requirement for nuclear translocation of growth factor.37 Although it does not appear that intracrine action is a required component of all peptide hormone or peptide growth factor action, this possibility cannot be excluded at this time. The example of angiogenin demonstrates that at least in some cases, such a requirement for intracrine action does indeed exist.
In considering the other proposed modes of intracrine action, one can note that EGF, after artificial modification by removal of its membrane-anchoring domain, stimulates the generation of second messengers in cytoplasmic vesicles after hormone internalization. Similarly, intracellular insulin can stimulate nuclear membrane receptors and result in the generation of second messengers.17 28 Intracellular angiotensin II has also been shown to interact with intracellular receptors and generate second messengers.34 35 These observations suggest that in some cases, the intracellular action of a hormone can modulate or amplify a signal at the cell surface, because the intracellular hormone is seen to release the same (or similar) second messengers as binding of hormone to cell-surface receptors.
Yet another reported intracrine action involves the modulation of
components of the intracrine system itself. Intracellular
angiotensin II, for example, has been reported to
upregulate the transcription of components of the
renin-angiotensin system itself as well as downstream
mediators of angiotensin action. Also, in cardiac myocytes,
inhibition of
-opioid receptor ligand binding to its nuclear
receptor by the antagonist dynorphin B is associated with
increased opioid gene transcription by these cells. This effect is
mediated by nuclear protein kinase C. These actions of both
angiotensin and the opioid ligand have the effect of
influencing the strength of the respective intracrine
system.19 30 31
A more complex intracrine role is illustrated by the action of PTHrP. This protein has been shown to stimulate mitogenesis after binding to vascular smooth muscle cell nuclei, but it inhibits mitogenesis after cell-surface binding.32 Possibly the nuclear action of PTHrP could mitigate, in either time or intensity, the growth-inhibiting action of PTHrP binding to cell-surface receptors. This observation of discordant effects of nuclear as opposed to cell-surface binding also raises the possibility of truly dichotomous functioning of the protein (as opposed to simple mitigation at the nucleus of effects induced at the cell surface), because the protein can apparently be synthesized either in forms destined for extracellular transport or in forms lacking the sequences required for secretion and therefore destined for retention in the cell.
Angiogenin and FGF operate at the nucleolus, and it has recently been suggested that nucleolar physiology can regulate overall cell function.13 20 33 Like extracellularly administered angiogenin and FGF, extracellularly delivered PTHrP migrates to nucleoli. Indeed, readily detectable amounts of PTHrP can be found in the nuclei of some cells even in the absence of external administration of hormone.18 29 This nucleolar hormone probably results from synthesis of forms of the protein lacking a secretory signal and therefore confined to the cell interior. However, secretion and reuptake with subsequent localization of hormone to the nucleolus cannot be excluded. Although these and other peptide hormones are frequently found in nucleoli after extracellular administration, and although arguments have been advanced regarding possible nucleolar effects on cell cycling, ribosomal physiology, and protein synthesis, it is also important to note that in most studies showing nucleolar hormone localization, some chromatin localization is also seen, raising the possibility that a direct effect of internalized or locally synthesized hormone on nonribosomal gene transcription could also be occurring.12 18 29 38
Alteration in calcium transport has been shown to be an important mediator of hormone action at the cell membrane, and similar findings have been reported in relation to intracrine hormone action. Intracellular angiotensin regulates calcium influx via a protein kinase C pathway in cardiac myocytes and also stimulates inward calcium flux in vascular smooth muscle cells.34 35 These findings suggest that agents that affect calcium transport could in some cases influence both cell membrane receptormediated and intracellular hormone action.
Recently, a novel role of internalized hormones has been suggested. It
has been proposed that some hormones (eg, interferon-
) use nuclear
localization signals on their cell-surface receptors to translocate
transcription factors, such as STATs, to the nucleus.36
That is, the internalization of hormone and receptor that is produced
by ligand binding appears to be capable of causing the binding of
transcription factors to the hormone-receptor complex, with subsequent
transport of the entire complex to the nucleus. In this process,
putative nuclear localization signals in the hormone receptors are used
to effect nuclear translocation of the associated transcription factor.
In this way, transcription factors lacking nuclear import signals could
be delivered to the nucleus as a consequence of hormone binding to
cell-surface receptors. This could provide a mechanism by which
internalized hormone could influence gene transcription.
Finally, some evidence for an intracrine hormone role in differentiation is provided by the finding that nuclear angiotensin causes changes in chromatin conformation consistent with gene transcription and/or differentiation.4 Similar findings have been reported for PDGF, NGF, and EGF.12 Of perhaps more relevance, however, is the observation that constitutive expression of a nucleolar-localizing form of PTHrP in a chondrocyte cell line inhibits terminal differentiation and apoptosis.29 Also, stable transfection of keratinocytes with a retroviral vector expressing PTHrP antisense blocks the differentiation of these cells.39 Whether this results from the loss of PTHrP intracrine action, as opposed to cell-surface receptormediated effects, is unknown.
One interpretation of these findings is that intracrine peptides can function in a wide variety of ways reminiscent of the actions of hormones at the cell surface. However, one might ask whether there are any underlying principles of intracrine action.
| Hypothesis |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Recently, the so-called "emergent properties" of biological signaling systems have come under investigation.41 It is contended that the multiple secondary messengers generated by hormone binding to receptor can interact, with the result that persistently high levels of some mediators are generated by interactions between signaling systems. It is assumed that this behavior can account, at least in part, for the learned behavior of some biological systems. One possible problem with generalizing this formulation is that the nonlinearity in the concentration of secondary messengers necessary to produce these emergent properties appears to be inconsistent with the precision and specificity with which many hormonal systems operate. The localization of mediators to one or another intracellular organelle adds another layer of complexity to the proposed system, but it does not eliminate this concern.42 An intracrine hormone system, however, could serve as the substrate for these emergent properties without grossly interfering with hormone action as usually assessed.
For example, in hepatocyte nuclei, intracrine angiotensin II appears to upregulate angiotensinogen as well as renin gene transcription and in the presence of angiotensin-converting enzyme could cause intracellular angiotensin concentrations to increase.30 31 Thus, exposure of cells to angiotensin would set up a cycle in which internalized angiotensin II exerted an intracrine effect to enhance endogenous production of angiotensin II in a positive-feedback fashion. The effect of this would be to change the set point of the intracrine system such that cellular angiotensin II would remain above basal levels for some time after external angiotensin concentrations had returned to normal. Thus, a memory of the initial angiotensin exposure would reside in the cells. In the case of parathyroid hormonerelated protein, variable amounts of hormone have been detected in the nucleoli of cells unexposed to external PTHrP. The frequency with which nucleolar PTHrP is detected in unexposed cells suggests that the PTHrP intracrine system is set at a high but variable level in many cell types. Vascular smooth muscle cells synthesize PTHrP and possess PTHrP cell-surface receptors.32 Binding of hormone to surface receptors inhibits proliferation, whereas intracrine hormone arguably offsets this action by stimulating proliferation. PTHrP-secreting vascular cells whose intracrine PTHrP system is set at high levels could be protected against the antiproliferative effects of PTHrP, whereas target cells lacking such exuberant concentrations of intracellular PTHrP are more susceptible to the antiproliferative effects of the protein. The vascular cells possessing active intracrine systems could be said to be in a different state of responsiveness (resistance) to the hormone or in a differentiated state from other target cells. These examples cannot be precise because the detailed workings of either the angiotensin II or the PTHrP intracrine systems are unknown. These scenarios are offered to sketch in a conceptual way the possible workings of intracrine systems according to the hypothesis proposed here. They lend support to the notion that intracrine hormone action can affect cellular function over time in a fashion similar to receptor regulation and other established mechanisms influencing cellular responsiveness. It is also interesting to note that another level of complexity could be introduced into intracrine hormone signaling by the interaction of intracrine hormones. For example, angiotensin II has been reported to stimulate PTHrP gene expression in cultured vascular smooth muscle cells, and exogenously administered PTHrP has been reported to blunt the mitogenic response of the cells to angiotensin II.43 44 The effect of exogenous PTHrP is most likely mediated by cell-surface receptors, but it is possible that PTHrP synthesized endogenously by the cells operates in an intracrine fashion at the cell nucleus. This possibility and the possible interactions of intracrine PTHrP and intracrine angiotensin are potential areas for further study, as are the possible interactions of other intracrine hormones. Finally, although the hypothesis that intracrine peptide hormone action can produce long-lived alterations in cellular responsiveness has been advanced here, it is also possible that steroid and thyroid hormones and their intracellular receptors could operate in a similar fashion.
If this hypothesis is correct, biologically active hormone (whether synthesized locally or internalized), along with an intracrine signaling system, will most likely be found in every cell responsive to a given peptide hormone. Moreover, the elimination of intracellular hormone (or the elimination of the intracellular action of a hormone) would be expected to lead to altered cellular responsiveness to that hormone (and possibly to others) over time. In other cells, such interruption of intracrine systems could be manifested as loss of memory. It is likely that this idea will soon be testable, given the ongoing development of novel hormone inhibitors, some of which may be effective inside cells. Also of note is the possibility that in certain circumstances, the augmentation of intracellular intracrine loops could restore or improve some forms of biological memory.
| Footnotes |
|---|
Received April 23, 1999; first decision June 7, 1999; accepted June 14, 1999.
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
R. N. Re and J. L. Cook The Basis of an Intracrine Pharmacology J. Clin. Pharmacol., March 1, 2008; 48(3): 344 - 350. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
F. Gobeil Jr., T. Zhu, S. Brault, A. Geha, A. Vazquez-Tello, A. Fortier, D. Barbaz, D. Checchin, X. Hou, M. Nader, et al. Nitric Oxide Signaling via Nuclearized Endothelial Nitric-oxide Synthase Modulates Expression of the Immediate Early Genes iNOS and mPGES-1 J. Biol. Chem., June 9, 2006; 281(23): 16058 - 16067. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
E. D. Frohlich Left ventricular hypertrophy: a "factor of risk": Mass is reversible, but is the risk? J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., June 16, 2004; 43(12): 2216 - 2218. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Stanton, C. Jensen, J. Nussberger, and E. O'Brien Blood Pressure Lowering in Essential Hypertension With an Oral Renin Inhibitor, Aliskiren Hypertension, December 1, 2003; 42(6): 1137 - 1143. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
F. Gobeil Jr., S. G. Bernier, A. Vazquez-Tello, S. Brault, M. H. Beauchamp, C. Quiniou, A. M. Marrache, D. Checchin, F. Sennlaub, X. Hou, et al. Modulation of Pro-inflammatory Gene Expression by Nuclear Lysophosphatidic Acid Receptor Type-1 J. Biol. Chem., October 3, 2003; 278(40): 38875 - 38883. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
B. Hu, S. Wang, Y. Zhang, C. A. Feghali, J. R. Dingman, and T. M. Wright A nuclear target for interleukin-1{alpha}: Interaction with the growth suppressor necdin modulates proliferation and collagen expression PNAS, August 19, 2003; 100(17): 10008 - 10013. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. N. Re Intracellular Renin and the Nature of Intracrine Enzymes Hypertension, August 1, 2003; 42(2): 117 - 122. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. N. Re Implications of intracrine hormone action for physiology and medicine Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol, March 1, 2003; 284(3): H751 - H757. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
L. G. Navar, L. M. Harrison-Bernard, A. Nishiyama, and H. Kobori Regulation of Intrarenal Angiotensin II in Hypertension Hypertension, February 1, 2002; 39(2): 316 - 322. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. L. Zhuo, J. D. Imig, T. G. Hammond, S. Orengo, E. Benes, and L. G. Navar Ang II Accumulation in Rat Renal Endosomes During Ang II-Induced Hypertension: Role of AT1 Receptor Hypertension, January 1, 2002; 39(1): 116 - 121. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. N. Re On Not Being the Last to Give Up the Old or the First to Adopt the New Hypertension, October 1, 2001; 38(4): 759 - 760. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. N. Re On the Biological Actions of Intracellular Angiotensin Hypertension, June 1, 2000; 35(6): 1189 - 1190. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. L. Cook, Z. Zhang, and R. N. Re In Vitro Evidence for an Intracellular Site of Angiotensin Action Circ. Res., December 7, 2001; 89(12): 1138 - 1146. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hypertension Home | Subscriptions | Archives | Feedback | Authors | Help | AHA Journals Home | Search Copyright © 1999 American Heart Association, Inc. All rights reserved. Unauthorized use prohibited. |