Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
PPAR Research
Volume 2008, Article ID 762398, 10 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2008/762398
Review Article

A Novel Mechanism of PPAR 𝛾 Regulation of TGF 𝛽 1 : Implication in Cancer Biology

1Department of Pharmacology, Institute of Biomedical Science, College of Medicine, Hanyang University, Seoul 133-791, South Korea
2Department of Medicine, College of Medicine, Chung-Ang University, Seoul 156-756, South Korea
3Innovative Drug Research Center for Metabolic and Inflammatory Disease, College of Pharmacy, Seoul National University, Seoul 151-742, South Korea

Received 20 February 2008; Revised 28 April 2008; Accepted 9 June 2008

Academic Editor: Dipak Panigrahy

Copyright © 2008 Chang Ho Lee et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor- 𝛾 (PPAR 𝛾 ) and retinoic acid X-receptor (RXR) heterodimer, which regulates cell growth and differentiation, represses the TGF 𝛽 1 gene that encodes for the protein involved in cancer biology. This review will introduce the novel mechanism associated with the inhibition of the TGF 𝛽 1 gene by PPAR 𝛾 activation, which regulates the dephosphorylation of Zf9 transcription factor. Pharmacological manipulation of TGF 𝛽 1 by PPAR 𝛾 activators can be applied for treating TGF 𝛽 1-induced pathophysiologic disorders such as cancer metastasis and fibrosis. In this article, we will discuss the opposing effects of TGF 𝛽 on tumor growth and metastasis, and address the signaling pathways regulated by PPAR 𝛾 for tumor progression and suppression.

1. Introduction

Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor- (PPAR) as a ligand-activated transcription factor belongs to the members of nuclear hormone receptor superfamily. PPAR is implicated in a wide variety of cellular functions, regulating the expression of gene networks required for cell proliferation, differentiation, morphogenesis, and metabolic homeostasis. The transforming growth factor isoforms (TGF1, 2, and 3) as the members of the TGF superfamily are ubiquitously expressed cytokines [1, 2]. TGF exerts multiple functions with differential expression pattern in organs: each form of TGF has similar biological activities [3]. Among the TGF forms, it is recognized that TGF1 plays a major role in the regulation of cell proliferation and differentiation. In this review paper, we will discuss the role of PPAR on TGF gene expression.

Accumulating evidences suggest that the interplay of PPAR and TGF contributes to the regulation of cell proliferation, differentiation, and their associated cellular functions. For instance, the interaction of PPAR signaling with the proteins affected by the activation of TGF receptor determines the outcome of the breast tumor progression [4]. Many studies have shown that agonist-induced activation of PPAR interferes with TGF/Smad-dependent or Smad-independent signaling in different cell types [512]. The crosstalk between PPAR and TGF can be achieved not only by PPAR-dependent modulation of the propagation of TGF/TGF receptor-mediated signaling pathways, but also by the regulation of TGF1 expression itself and TGF1-inducible target genes. Hence, suppression of TGF signaling by PPAR could be counteracted by the inhibitory action of TGF on the PPAR-mediated signaling [1315].

The TGF1 expression is regulated at multiple levels. Diverse transcription factors are involved in the transcriptional regulation of TGF gene expression and post-translational modification makes precursors bound with TGF1 binding proteins mature to TGF molecule [16, 17]. The role of PPAR activation in TGF1 gene repression has been examined by the experiments using thiazolidinedione PPAR agonists [18, 19]. These studies on the regulation of the TGF1 gene and the molecular interaction of ligand-activated nuclear receptors for the activation of responsible transcription factor(s) brought insights into the transcriptional control mechanism. The research results showed that PPAR activation might transrepress the TGF gene, interfering with TGF signaling and thereby altering the expression of TGF-inducible target genes [18], substantiating the fact that ligand activation of PPAR modulates TGF receptor-mediated gene regulation.

2. TGF and Cancer Cell Biology

TGF1 exerts its diverse biological effects by acting on distinct combinations of type I and type II receptors and recruiting downstream signal transducers including Smads, consequently regulating a group of target gene expression responsible for a specific biological activity. Smad proteins are classified into R-Smads (receptor-regulated Smads: Smads 1, 2, 3, 5, and 8), Co-Smads (common mediator Smad: Smad 4), and I-Smads (inhibitory Smads: Smad 6 and 7), and these play roles as the transcriptional regulators for the superfamily of TGF1-inducible target genes [1, 2, 2022]. Smad 2 and Smad 3 are the specific mediators of TGF1, whereas Smad 1, Smad 5, and MADH6/Smad 9 are crucial for bone morphogenic protein signaling [22]. In particular, Smad 3 is involved in the TGF1 gene regulation, which is crucial for the autocrine function of TGF1 [23].

Following the activation of the TGF1 receptor by TGF1, TGF1-induced receptor kinase activation rapidly phosphorylates Smads proteins and initiates formation of functional oligomeric complexes. The resultant oligomeric complex translocates to the nucleus to regulate target gene expression. Briefly, the type I TGF1 receptor kinase phosphorylates serine residues at the C-terminal SSXS motif in the MH2 domain of Smad 3 (or Smad 2) [24]. Phosphorylated Smad 3 (or Smad 2) forms an oligomeric complex with Smad 4, which is crucial for the maximal transcription of diverse TGF1-inducible target genes [25, 26]. The oligomeric complexes of Smad 3 (or Smad 2) and Smad 4 recognize DNA binding element tetranucleotide (CAGA) or GC-rich sequences, and several copies of which are present in the promoter regions of many TGF1-responsive genes such as plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1), 2(I) procollagen, and type VII collagen [25, 27]. It is well known that the protein products encoded from these genes promote the accumulation of extracellular matrix and that abnormal accumulation of the proteins may lead to fibrosis, which represents a form of the epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT).

Moreover, TGF1-activated kinase-1, a member of MAPK kinase kinase family, activates its MAP kinase pathways [28, 29]. It is accepted that TGF1-activated ERK pathway synergistically enhances Smad signaling of the TGF1 receptor due to the positive cross talk between the ERK and Smad pathways [22, 30]. Serine phosphorylation of Smad 3/2, but not phosphorylation of the C-terminal motif, was decreased by MEK-ERK inhibitors [31]. Smad 3/2 are differentially activated by TGF1 in hepatic stellate cells as a result of the differential phosphorylations of the Smads. Smad 3 plays a key role in TGF signaling, which is strengthened by the observation that the loss of Smad 3 interfered with TGF1-mediated induction of target genes [32, 33]. In addition, activation of CCAAT/enhancer binding protein (C/EBP) is also involved in the inhibition of TGF1 expression [34].

During the process of carcinogenesis, TGF action can be either tumor suppressive or tumor promoting, depending on the stage of tumor development [3537]. In an experimental cell model, TGF could induce cell growth arrest and promote apoptosis of carcinoma cells [1]. The antiproliferative action of TGF in epithelial cells, for example, is essentially attributed to the cell cycle arrest and the apoptosis concomitantly induced. It is well known that cell cycle arrest induced by TGF occurs at G1 phase through enhancing transcription of cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors, p 𝛾 and p 𝛾 , while suppressing the induction of c-Myc, a progrowth transcription factor, and of 𝛾 , the inhibitors of differentiation [3843]. In a model of gastric adenocarinoma, TGF-mediated apoptosis contributed to tumor suppression, which resulted from TGF-induced caspase-8 activation [44]. Moreover, it has been shown that TGF reduced the expression of antiapoptotic Bcl-2 family members in prostate cancer cells [45].

By contrast, TGF may also lead to tumor cell proliferation as a consequence of EMT process [4648], which is a cellular phenomenon characterized by a loss of polarized epithelial phenotype with transition to a mesenchymal or more migratory phenotype. Studies have shown that diverse signaling pathways are involved in the TGF-dependent EMT process. Initiation of EMT by TGF receptor activation is mediated by either Smad-dependent or Smad-independent pathway [1, 49, 50]. Downstream of the TGF receptor activation, the Smads activated by the TGF receptor kinase promote transcription of the genes, which eventually play crucial roles in the process of EMT. The responsible transcription factors primarily include Snail, Slug, and LEF-1 [1]. In addition, TGF also activates the non-Smad pathways, which include Ras, phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K), and Par 6. These molecules regulate the expression of Snail and the activities of glycogen synthase kinase 3 (GSK3) and RhoA, respectively [51, 52], thereby enhancing the process of EMT. It is now accepted that the EMT phenomenon of primary cancer cells promoted by the action of TGF may increase cancer metastasis.

TGF acts on tumor cells directly, playing a role in cancer cell migration and invasion. Diverse TGF-mediated signaling pathways are responsible for this process. In glioblastoma cells, siRNA knockdowns of TGF1 and TGF2 resulted in the inhibition of cell motility or invasiveness [53]. As a same token, TGF released from tumor tissues might facilitate glioma cell migration and invasion via an autocrine signaling [54]. Several lines of evidence also support the concept that TGF-induced Smad signaling is responsible for the invasiveness of cancer cells [5558]. This is explained in part by the TGF-dependent induction of matrix metalloproteases, which are known to be responsible for cell migration and invasion [55, 5962]. Activation of ERK and JNK by TGF and their association with focal complexes may also contribute to cell migration, as shown in the case of breast carcinoma [63]. Moreover, it has been shown that the activation of p38 MAPK pathway by TGF facilitated invasion of head and neck squamous epithelial cells [61].

In addition to the double-edged effects of TGF on cancer cells, TGF may alter cancer growth by suppressing the growth of multiple immune cells, which compromises the overall immune functions. Studies have shown that the proliferation and activity of T cells are suppressed by the TGF blockade of IL-2 production and expression of T cell effector molecules [6468]. Also, TGF attenuates the activity of natural killer (NK) cells by inhibiting NK production of interferon- (IFN-) [69, 70]. Another study showed that TGF inhibited the antigen presentation function of dendritic cells through suppressing the expression of MHC class II and costimulatory molecules [71]. All of these results support the alterations by TGF in immune functions, which would impair immune surveillance or attack against cancer cells.

In summary, action of TGF1 on cancer cells switches from tumor suppression to tumor promotion, depending on the stage of tumor progression. For instance, during the early phase of breast tumorigenesis, the TGF signal inhibits primary tumor growth via cell growth arresting and promoting apoptosis. However, at later stage, cancer cells acquire a capacity to escape from the tumor suppressive effects of TGF1 via induction of EMT. Interestingly, the aforementioned conflicting functions of TGF might go through the same TGF receptor complex and the associated signaling pathways involving Smad transcription factors [1]. Probably, there should be certain stage-dependent modifications in cellular signaling system including changes in receptor function and downstream Smad signaling cascades. Taken together, it is concluded that TGF may not only induce growth arrest of cancer cells, but also increase cancer dissemination [1], supporting the concept that the cytokine serves a dual function in tumor development and progression (Figure 1).

762398.fig.001
Figure 1: A scheme showing the opposing effects of TGF on tumor growth and metastasis.

3. PPAR and Cancer Biology

PPAR has been extensively studied as an anticancer target in preclinical and clinical settings [72]. The anticancer effects appeared to be cancer cell-specific. A knock-out or loss of function mutation in PPAR can be an important risk factor for the incidence of cancer [7375]. In this sense, PPAR has been considered as a novel target for designing new anticancer drugs for chemotherapy. This is further supported by the finding that PPAR activators exert a potent tumor-suppressing activity against various human cancer cells [7678]. As a matter of fact, PPAR activators such as troglitazone and ciglitazone exert antiproliferative activities in epithelial cancer cell lines or animal models, which presumably results from the activation of PPAR receptor and the PPAR receptor-dependent pathways [76, 7983]. Nevertheless, other anticancer pathways have also been recognized in association with PPAR, which might be PPAR receptor-independent [84, 85]. Multiple PPAR-independent anticancer targets of PPAR agonists have been suggested in several cancer cell types. The mechanisms may comprise a variety of pathways such as the blockade of G1-S phase transition by inhibiting translation initiation [86], activation of JNK-dependent cell death pathway [87], induction of the early growth response-1 (Egr-1) gene [88], inhibition of Bcl-xL and Bcl-2 function [85], counteracting TGF release by tumor cells [54], and induction of cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor p 𝛽 [89]. However, the precise antiproliferative mechanisms of the PPAR agonists remain to be further studied. On the contrary, there are also other reports available on the opposite effects showing that PPAR signaling promoted carcinogenesis [90, 91].

It should be noted that the antitumor effects of PPAR may be explained at least in two different ways. One mechanism involves cell growth regulation [4], which should be further clarified, whereas the other mechanism includes cancer chemopreventive effects mediated by the induction of antioxidant enzymes [92]. It is well recognized that PPAR affects cell survival, growth, and differentiation by acting on the peroxisomal proliferator-response element (PPRE), thereby modulating an expression of a group of genes controlling cell growth and differentiation pathways [93, 94]. The PPAR homodimer and PPAR-retinoic acid X receptor (RXR) heterodimer have the specificities of DNA-binding with preferential binding of the latter to DR1, which is a PPRE DNA binding site. SRC-1 is a coactivator of PPAR [95]. Binding of the ligand-activated PPAR-RXR heterodimer to its DNA binding sites stimulates the interaction between PPAR-RXR and p160/SRC-1 [95].

A number of studies support the concept that cancer chemoprevention is accomplished by the induction of antioxidant enzymes. The results from our laboratories indicated that oltipraz and flavonoids as potential cancer chemopreventive agents activate C/EBP in the antioxidant genes such as glutathione S-transferase (GST) A2 [96, 97]. In addition, treatments of cells with PPAR activators induced the nuclear translocation of NF-E2-related factor 2 (Nrf2) and C/EBP, and activating Nrf2 and C/EBP bindings to the antioxidant response element (ARE) and C/EBP response elements, respectively [92]. Moreover, the Nrf2 and C/EBP genes contain PPRE sites, which account for the induction of the target antioxidant proteins by PPAR activators. Both the ARE and the C/EBP binding site have crucial roles in transactivating the GSTA2 gene by PPAR and RXR ligands [92]. Therefore, Nrf2 and/or C/EBP inductions(s) via the PPAR and RXR heterodimer binding to the PPREs in the promoter regions of the target genes contribute(s) to the antioxidant capacity of cells (e.g., GSTA2).

A result of our previous study indicated that specific mutations of these nuclear binding sites in the GSTA2 promoter, which are present as a three-PPRE cluster, caused the complete loss of its responsiveness to PPAR activators [92]. All of the putative PPRE sites comprising DR1 were functionally active. Therefore, the binding of the activating PPAR-RXR heterodimer to all of the PPRE sites appeared to be crucial for the inducible gene activation, showing that the PPAR binding site cluster is the functionally active PPRE-responsive enhancer module (PPREM) [92]. This study on the regulation of gene expression by the PPAR-RXR heterodimer at the promoter containing multiple DR1 elements brought additional insight into the transcriptional control mechanism of the antioxidant enzymes. The identified molecular mechanism would shed light on the contribution of cell viability and cancer chemoprevention as a consequence of the induction of antioxidant targets genes by PPAR activators.

4. TGF Regulation by PPAR-RXR and Cell Signaling

Activation of the PPAR-RXR heterodimer represses the TGF1 gene through dephosphorylation of a transcription factor called zinc finger transcription factor-9 (Zf9), which has been shown to be induced by phosphatase and tensin homolog deleted on chromosome (PTEN)-mediated p70 ribosomal S6 kinase-1 (S6K1) inhibition [18]. Because RXRs are modular proteins with a highly conserved central DNA binding domain and a less conserved ligand binding domain [98], activation of the PPAR and RXR heterodimer contributes to the gene regulation. The role of PPAR in repression of the TGF1 gene was further evidenced by the effects of thiazolidinediones, and also by the reversal of TGF1 repression by the dominant negative mutants, supporting to the novel aspect that PPAR activation contributes to TGF1 gene repression and that RXR is necessary for the full responsiveness in the gene repression. In fact, the inhibition of TGF1 gene by the PPAR and RXR heterodimer might account for either tumor suppression or tumor promotion [18]. Also, as an effort to identify the molecular basis of TGF1 repression by PPAR activators, the effects of PPAR and RXR activation on the TGF1 gene transactivation, that is regulated by the proximal DNA response elements, have been examined [18]. The potential regulatory sites responsible for the TGF1 gene expression have been explored by using the luciferase reporter gene assays, which identified the putative PPREs located at the multiple sites upstream from −453 bp of the promoter region [18]. Promoter deletion analyses indicate that neither the putative PPREs nor the activator protein-1 (AP-1) binding sites are directly regulated by PPAR activators forthe gene repression.

S6K1, a ubiquitous serine/threonine kinase, controls the translational efficiency by phosphorylating ribosomal S6 protein [99]. S6K1 functions as a multifunctional kinase for the phosphorylation of ribosomal S6 protein [99], CREM [100], BAD [101], and the eukaryotic elongation factor 2 kinase [102]. Rapamycin, a well-known mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor, inhibited liver fibrosis and TGF1 expression in rats bile duct-ligated or challenged with toxicants [103, 104], with a concomitant decrease in S6K1 activity. It is well recognized that rapamycin inhibits S6K1 activity via mTOR inhibition [105]. Yet, other pharmacological agents that modulate S6K1 activity have not been reported. The mechanism of PPAR-RXR heterodimer-mediated repression of the TGF1 gene has been elucidated in terms of the modulation of S6K1 activity (Figure 2).

762398.fig.002
Figure 2: A schematic presentation of the multiple pathways regulated by PPAR for tumor suppression, progression, inhibition of metastasis, and cancer chemoprevention.

The PI3K-mTOR pathway regulates S6K1 for the regulation of transcription factors involved in the TGF1 gene transactivation. A study identified the inhibition of S6K1 activity by the PPAR-RXR, which contributes to TGF1 gene repression [18]. Another signaling molecule, PTEN, antagonizes the PI3-kinase-mTOR-S6K1-mediated signaling cascade [106, 107]. Thus, it has been elucidated that PPAR activators upregulate PTEN, which leads to the S6K1 inhibition, consequently causing TGF1 repression [18].

5. Transcription Factors Responsible for TGF Repression by PPAR-RXR

In the promoter region of the TGF1 gene (Figure 3), the putative binding sites for PPAR-RXR seemed to be neither active nor responsible for the gene repression by the activated PPAR and RXR heterodimer. It has been claimed that the effects of PPAR or retinoid ligands on TGF1 gene expression might be mediated in part by AP-1 inhibition [108, 109]. Nevertheless, such a result that deletion of the DNA region containing both AP-1 sites still had the capability to repress the gene by PPAR activator suggests that the AP-1 binding sites might not be a major regulatory target in the TGF1 gene repression. Rather, the target molecule altered by PPAR-RXR-activated cell signal may be involved in the interaction with the protein recruited on the AP-1 DNA complex. It appeared that the TGF1 gene repression may have not resulted from the direct inhibition of AP-1, but other mechanistic basis [18].

762398.fig.003
Figure 3: The human TGF1 promoter region.

Another study showed that the mechanism associated with the inhibition of TGF1 by PPAR activators involves the regulation of c-Fos [108]. In the study, thiazolidinediones inhibit high-glucose-induced TGF1 promoter activity. A suggested mechanism was raised based on the observation that treatments of thiazolidinediones reduced high-glucose-induced, activated PKC and c-Fos-mediated TGF1 gene expression in mesangial cells [108].

Zf9 as an immediate early gene reduces cell proliferation with the induction of p 𝛽 and the enhancement of c-Jun degradation [110, 111], thus functioning as a potential tumor suppressor gene. The transcription factors that interact with the known DNA binding sites on the region downstream within the −323 bp of the TGF1 gene include Zf9, NF1, and SP1. It is noteworthy that Zf9 activation induces TGF1 during the activation of hepatic stellate cells [112]. Also, Zf9 regulates TGF receptors and collagen 1(I), promoting accumulation of extracellular matrix [113]. Studies have shown that Zf9 phosphorylation enhances its nuclear localization and transcriptional activity [111]. Zf9 as a transcription factor plays a crucial role for the induction of TGF1 [113]. Thus, phosphorylation status of Zf9 may contribute to the promotion of its target gene expression [114]. Identification of the partners of Zf9 or phosphorylated Zf9 for the TGF1 gene regulation and their molecular interactions would be interesting to pursue. The constitutive Zf9 phosphorylation by S6K1 strengthened the important role of S6K1 as a multifunctional kinase for the transcription factor regulation of target genes [100102].

The TGF1 gene contains the DNA response element interacting with Zf9 [16] that regulates multiple genes involved in tissue differentiation. Activation of Zf9 includes its phosphorylation at serine (or tyrosine) residues [114]. Thus, phosphorylation of Zf9 leads to transcription of its target genes [111, 114]. Although the kinase catalyzing Zf9 phosphorylation has not been completely identified, the inhibition of Zf9 phosphorylation by rapamycin that inhibits S6K1 activity via mTOR inhibition supports the role of S6K1 in Zf9 phosphorylation [18]. More importantly, the role of S6K1 in regulating TGF1 gene and the associated molecular mechanistic basis have been clarified in terms of Zf9 dephosphorylation [18]. In view of the previous observations that Zf9 is crucial as a transcription factor for TGF1 induction in hepatic stellate cells [113] and that a phosphorylated form of Zf9 plays a role in the transactivation of the target gene promoter [114], the potential ability of PPAR activators to inhibit serine phosphorylation of the transcription factor has also been investigated. Thus, it has been demonstrated that the inhibition of the TGF1 gene by the activation of PPAR-RXR includes Zf9 dephosphorylation [18]. Therefore, TGF1 gene repression by PPAR activators appears to be related with dephosphorylation of Zf9, supporting the conclusion that the PPAR-RXR heterodimer causes TGF1 repression via S6K1 inhibition, and that the inhibition of S6K1 activity provides a central mechanism, by which PPAR-RXR regulates Zf9-dependent TGF1 gene expression (Figure 2).

Moreover, it has been shown that PPAR activation induces PTEN, which serves as a PI(3,4,5) 𝛽 lipid phosphatase and antagonizes PI3-kinase-mediated cell signaling [106]. Functional PPREs located in the PTEN promoter have been recognized [115]. The induction of PTEN by PPAR activators may result in TGF1 gene repression following S6K1 inhibition. Furthermore, PPAR activators inhibited phosphorylations of Akt, ERK1/2, p90 ribosomal S6 kinase-1 (RSK1), and mTOR, downstream of PTEN, indicating that PTEN induction by PPAR activators leads to S6K1 inhibition via the pathways of ERK1/2-RSK1 as well as Akt-mTOR. In conclusion, the result showing that PPAR activation upregulates PTEN, which has also been implicated in tumor-inhibitory or anti-inflammatory actions of PPAR [106, 115], gives credence to the concept that PPAR activators induce PTEN during S6K1 inhibition, and consequently causes TGF1 repression. Therefore, the inhibition of tumor proliferation by PPAR activators may be explained in part by PPAR-dependent TGF1 repression (Figure 2), supporting the concept that the PPAR activators may be applied for controlling TGF1-induced cancer metastasis and fibrosis.

Acknowledgment

This work was supported by the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation (KOSEF) grant funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), South Korean government (no.R11-2007-107-01001-0).

References

  1. R. A. Rahimi and E. B. Leof, “TGF-β signaling: a tale of two responses,” Journal of Cellular Biochemistry, vol. 102, no. 3, pp. 593–608, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  2. E. Piek, C.-H. Heldin, and P. T. Dijke, “Specificity, diversity, and regulation in TGF-β superfamily signaling,” The FASEB Journal, vol. 13, no. 15, pp. 2105–2124, 1999. View at Google Scholar
  3. A. B. Roberts and M. B. Sporn, “Differential expression of the TGF-β isoforms in embryogenesis suggests specific roles in developing and adult tissues,” Molecular Reproduction and Development, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 91–98, 1992. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  4. M. H. Jarrar and A. Baranova, “PPARγ activation by thiazolidinediones (TZDs) may modulate breast carcinoma outcome: the importance of interplay with TGFβ signalling,” Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 71–87, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  5. M. Fu, J. Zhang, X. Zhu et al., “Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor ? inhibits transforming growth factor ß-induced connective tissue growth factor expression in human aortic smooth muscle cells by interfering with Smad3,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 276, no. 49, pp. 45888–45894, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  6. W. Wang, F. Liu, and N. Chen, “Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-γ (PPAR-γ) agonists attenuate the profibrotic response induced by TGF-β1 in renal interstitial fibroblasts,” Mediators of Inflammation, vol. 2007, Article ID 62641, 7 pages, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  7. C. Zhao, W. Chen, L. Yang, L. Chen, S. A. Stimpson, and A. M. Diehl, “PPARγ agonists prevent TGFβ1/Smad3-signaling in human hepatic stellate cells,” Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, vol. 350, no. 2, pp. 385–391, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  8. Y. Li, X. Wen, B. C. Spataro, K. Hu, C. Dai, and Y. Liu, “Hepatocyte growth factor is a downstream effector that mediates the antifibrotic action of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-γ agonists,” Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 54–65, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  9. S. Zhou, S. Lechpammer, J. S. Greenberger, and J. Glowacki, “Hypoxia inhibition of adipocytogenesis in human bone marrow stromal cells requires transforming growth factor-β/Smad3 signaling,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 280, no. 24, pp. 22688–22696, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  10. X. Liang, T. Kanjanabuch, S.-L. Mao et al., “Plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 modulates adipocyte differentiation,” American Journal of Physiology, vol. 290, no. 1, pp. E103–E113, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  11. S. Redondo, E. Ruiz, C. G. Santos-Gallego, E. Padilla, and T. Tejerina, “Pioglitazone induces vascular smooth muscle cell apoptosis through a peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-γ, transforming growth factor-β1, and a Smad2-dependent mechanism,” Diabetes, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 811–817, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  12. B. Guo, D. Koya, M. Isono, T. Sugimoto, A. Kashiwagi, and M. Haneda, “Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-γ ligands inhibit TGF-β1-induced fibronectin expression in glomerular mesangial cells,” Diabetes, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 200–208, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  13. J. Han, D. P. Hajjar, J. M. Tauras, J. Feng, A. M. Gotto Jr., and A. C. Nicholson, “Transforming growth factor-β1 (TGF-β1) and TGF-β2 decrease expression of CD36, the type B scavenger receptor, through mitogen-activated protein kinase phosphorylation of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-γ,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 275, no. 2, pp. 1241–1246, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  14. S. Ahdjoudj, K. Kaabeche, X. Holy et al., “Transforming growth factor-ß inhibits CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein expression and PPAR? activity in unloaded bone marrow stromal cells,” Experimental Cell Research, vol. 303, no. 1, pp. 138–147, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  15. S. Zheng and A. Chen, “Disruption of transforming growth factor-β signaling by curcumin induces gene expression of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-γ in rat hepatic stellate cells,” American Journal of Physiology, vol. 292, no. 1, pp. G113–G123, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  16. S.-J. Kim, A. Glick, M. B. Sporn, and A. B. Roberts, “Characterization of the promoter region of the human transforming growth factor-β1 gene,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 264, no. 1, pp. 402–408, 1989. View at Google Scholar
  17. R. Öklü and R. Hesketh, “The latent transforming growth factor β binding protein (LTBP) family,” Biochemical Journal, vol. 352, part 3, pp. 601–610, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  18. S. J. Lee, E. K. Yang, and S. G. Kim, “Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-γ and retinoic acid X receptor α represses the TGFβ1 gene via PTEN-mediated p70 ribosomal S6 kinase-1 inhibition: role for Zf9 dephosphorylation,” Molecular Pharmacology, vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 415–425, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  19. C. Weigert, K. Brodbeck, A. Bierhaus, H. U. Häring, and E. D. Schleicher, “c-Fos-driven transcriptional activation of transforming growth factor β-1: inhibition of high glucose-induced promoter activity by thiazolidinediones,” Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, vol. 304, no. 2, pp. 301–307, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  20. Y. Inagaki, T. Nemoto, A. Nakao et al., “Interaction between GC Box binding factors and Smad proteins modulates cell lineage-specific a2(I) collagen gene transcription,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 276, no. 19, pp. 16573–16579, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  21. Y. Inagaki, M. Mamura, Y. Kanamaru et al., “Constitutive phosphorylation and nuclear localization of Smad3 are correlated with increased collagen gene transcription in activated hepatic stellate cells,” Journal of Cellular Physiology, vol. 187, no. 1, pp. 117–123, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  22. J. Massagué and Y.-G. Chen, “Controlling TGF-β signaling,” Genes and Development, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 627–644, 2000. View at Google Scholar
  23. E. Piek, W. J. Ju, J. Heyer et al., “Functional characterization of transforming growth factor ß signaling in Smad2- and Smad3-deficient fibroblasts,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 276, no. 23, pp. 19945–19953, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  24. J. L. Wrana, “Regulation of Smad activity,” Cell, vol. 100, no. 2, pp. 189–192, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  25. L. Vindevoghel, R. J. Lechleider, A. Kon et al., “SMAD3/4-dependent transcriptional activation of the human type VII collagen gene (COL7A1) promoter by transforming growth factor ß,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 95, no. 25, pp. 14769–14774, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  26. X.-H. Feng, X. Lin, and R. Derynck, “Smad2, Smad3 and Smad4 cooperate with Sp1 to induce p15Ink4B transcription in response to TGF-β,” The EMBO Journal, vol. 19, no. 19, pp. 5178–5193, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  27. S. Dennler, S. Itoh, D. Vivien, P. ten Dijke, S. Huet, and J.-M. Gauthier, “Direct binding of Smad3 and Smad4 to critical TGFβ-inducible elements in the promoter of human plasminogen activator inhibitor-type 1 gene,” The EMBO Journal, vol. 17, no. 11, pp. 3091–3100, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  28. R. S. Frey and K. M. Mulder, “Involvement of extracellular signal-regulated kinase 2 and stress-activated protein kinase/Jun N-terminal kinase activation by transforming growth factor β in the negative growth control of breast cancer cells,” Cancer Research, vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 628–633, 1997. View at Google Scholar
  29. H. Watanabe, M. P. de Caestecker, and Y. Yamada, “Transcriptional cross-talk between Smad, ERK1/2, and p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase pathways regulates transforming growth factor-β-induced aggrecan gene expression in chondrogenic ATDC5 cells,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 276, no. 17, pp. 14466–14473, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  30. T. Hayashida, M. Decaestecker, and H. W. Schnaper, “Cross-talk between ERK MAP kinase and Smad signaling pathways enhances TGF-beta-dependent responses in human mesangial cells,” The FASEB Journal, vol. 17, no. 11, pp. 1576–1578, 2003. View at Google Scholar
  31. F. Furukawa, K. Matsuzaki, S. Mori et al., “p38 MAPK mediates fibrogenic signal through Smad3 phosphorylation in rat myofibroblasts,” Hepatology, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 879–889, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  32. M. Uemura, E. S. Swenson, M. D. A. Gaça, F. J. Giordano, M. Reiss, and R. G. Wells, “Smad2 and Smad3 play different roles in rat hepatic stellate cell function and α-smooth muscle actin organization,” Molecular Biology of the Cell, vol. 16, no. 9, pp. 4214–4224, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  33. X. Liu, W. Wang, H. Hu et al., “Smad3 specific inhibitor, naringenin, decreases the expression of extracellular matrix induced by TGF-ß1 in cultured rat hepatic stellate cells,” Pharmaceutical Research, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 82–89, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  34. K. W. Kang, Y. G. Kim, M. K. Cho et al., “Oltipraz regenerates cirrhotic liver through CCAAT/enhancer binding protein-mediated stellate cell inactivation,” The FASEB Journal, vol. 16, no. 14, pp. 1988–1990, 2002. View at Google Scholar
  35. R. S. Muraoka-Cook, N. Dumont, and C. L. Arteaga, “Dual role of transforming growth factor β in mammary tumorigenesis and metastatic progression,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 937s–943s, 2005. View at Google Scholar
  36. R. Derynck, R. J. Akhurst, and A. Balmain, “TGF-β signaling in tumor suppression and cancer progression,” Nature Genetics, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 117–129, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  37. M. J. Truty and R. Urrutia, “Basics of TGF-β and pancreatic cancer,” Pancreatology, vol. 7, no. 5-6, pp. 423–435, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  38. G. J. Hannon and D. Beach, “p15INK4B is a potential effector of TGF-β-induced cell cycle arrest,” Nature, vol. 371, no. 6494, pp. 257–261, 1994. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  39. M. B. Datto, Y. Li, J. F. Panus, D. J. Howe, Y. Xiong, and X.-F. Wang, “Transforming growth factor β induces the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor p21 through a p53-independent mechanism,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 92, no. 12, pp. 5545–5549, 1995. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  40. J. A. Pietenpol, J. T. Holt, R. W. Stein, and H. L. Moses, “Transforming growth factor β1 suppression of c-myc gene transcription: role in inhibition of keratinocyte proliferation,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 87, no. 10, pp. 3758–3762, 1990. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  41. M. G. Alexandrow, M. Kawabata, M. Aakre, and H. L. Moses, “Overexpression of the c-myc oncoprotein blocks the growth-inhibitory response but is required for the mitogenic effects of transforming growth factor β1,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 92, no. 8, pp. 3239–3243, 1995. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  42. Y. Kang, C.-R. Chen, and J. Massagué, “A self-enabling TGFβ response coupled to stress signaling: Smad engages stress response factor ATF3 for Id1 repression in epithelial cells,” Molecular Cell, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 915–926, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  43. P. M. Siegel and J. Massagué, “Cytostatic and apoptotic actions of TGF-β in homeostasis and cancer,” Nature Reviews Cancer, vol. 3, no. 11, pp. 807–820, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  44. S. G. Kim, H.-S. Jong, T.-Y. Kim et al., “Transforming growth factor-ß1 induces apoptosis through Fas ligand-independent activation of the Fas death pathway in human gastric SNU-620 carcinoma cells,” Molecular Biology of the Cell, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 420–434, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  45. J. E. Chipuk, M. Bhat, A. Y. Hsing, J. Ma, and D. Danielpour, “Bcl-xL blocks transforming growth factor-β1-induced apoptosis by inhibiting cytochrome c release and not by directly antagonizing Apaf-1-dependent caspase activation in prostate epithelial cells,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 276, no. 28, pp. 26614–26621, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  46. A. M. Arias, “Epithelial mesenchymal interactions in cancer and development,” Cell, vol. 105, no. 4, pp. 425–431, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  47. J. P. Thiery, “Epithelial-mesenchymal transitions in tumour progression,” Nature Reviews Cancer, vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 442–454, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  48. H. Hugo, M. L. Ackland, T. Blick et al., “Epithelial-mesenchymal and mesenchymal-epithelial transitions in carcinoma progression,” Journal of Cellular Physiology, vol. 213, no. 2, pp. 374–383, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  49. A. Gal, T. Sjöblom, L. Fedorova, S. Imreh, H. Beug, and A. Moustakas, “Sustained TGFβ exposure suppresses Smad and non-Smad signalling in mammary epithelial cells, leading to EMT and inhibition of growth arrest and apoptosis,” Oncogene, vol. 27, no. 9, pp. 1218–1230, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  50. K. Pardali and A. Moustakas, “Actions of TGF-β as tumor suppressor and pro-metastatic factor in human cancer,” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta, vol. 1775, no. 1, pp. 21–62, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  51. D. Medici, E. D. Hay, and D. A. Goodenough, “Cooperation between snail and LEF-1 transcription factors is essential for TGF-β1-induced epithelial-mesenchymal transition,” Molecular Biology of the Cell, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 1871–1879, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  52. L. Van Aelst and M. Symons, “Role of Rho family GTPases in epithelial morphogenesis,” Genes and Development, vol. 16, no. 9, pp. 1032–1054, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  53. M. A. Friese, J. Wischhusen, W. Wick et al., “RNA interference targeting transforming growth factor-ß enhances NKG2D-mediated antiglioma immune response, inhibits glioma cell migration and invasiveness, and abrogates tumorigenicity in vivo,” Cancer Research, vol. 64, no. 20, pp. 7596–7603, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  54. R. Coras, A. Hölsken, S. Seufert et al., “The peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-? agonist troglitazone inhibits transforming growth factor-ß-mediated glioma cell migration and brain invasion,” Molecular Cancer Therapeutics, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 1745–1754, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  55. S.-K. Leivonen, R. Ala-aho, K. Koli, R. Grénman, J. Peltonen, and V.-M. Kähäri, “Activation of Smad signaling enhances collagenase-3 (MMP-13) expression and invasion of head and neck squamous carcinoma cells,” Oncogene, vol. 25, no. 18, pp. 2588–2600, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  56. S.-K. Leivonen and V.-M. Kähäri, “Transforming growth factor-β signaling in cancer invasion and metastasis,” International Journal of Cancer, vol. 121, no. 10, pp. 2119–2124, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  57. M. Deckers, M. van Dinther, J. Buijs et al., “The tumor suppressor Smad4 is required for transforming growth factor ß-induced epithelial to mesenchymal transition and bone metastasis of breast cancer cells,” Cancer Research, vol. 66, no. 4, pp. 2202–2209, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  58. Y. Kang, W. He, S. Tulley et al., “Breast cancer bone metastasis mediated by the Smad tumor suppressor pathway,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 102, no. 39, pp. 13909–13914, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  59. W. Wick, M. Platten, and M. Weller, “Glioma cell invasion: regulation of metalloproteinase activity by TGF-β,” Journal of Neuro-Oncology, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 177–185, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  60. H. K. Rooprai, G. J. Rucklidge, C. Panou, and G. J. Pilkington, “The effects of exogenous growth factors on matrix metalloproteinase secretion by human brain tumour cells,” British Journal of Cancer, vol. 82, no. 1, pp. 52–55, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  61. N. Johansson, R. Ala-aho, V. Uitto et al., “Expression of collagenase-3 (MMP-13) and collagenase-1 (MMP-1) by transformed keratinocytes is dependent on the activity of p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase,” Journal of Cell Science, vol. 113, no. 2, pp. 227–235, 2000. View at Google Scholar
  62. S.-W. Lin, M.-T. Lee, F.-C. Ke et al., “TGF ß1 stimulates the secretion of matrix metalloproteinase 2 (MMP2) and the invasive behavior in human ovarian cancer cells, which is suppressed by MMP inhibitor BB3103,” Clinical & Experimental Metastasis, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 493–499, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  63. K. Giehl, Y. Imamichi, and A. Menke, “Smad4-independent TGF-β signaling in tumor cell migration,” Cells Tissues Organs, vol. 185, no. 1–3, pp. 123–130, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  64. M. O. Li, Y. Y. Wan, S. Sanjabi, A.-K. L. Robertson, and R. A. Flavell, “Transforming growth factor-β regulation of immune responses,” Annual Review of Immunology, vol. 24, pp. 99–146, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  65. J. H. Kehrl, L. M. Wakefield, A. B. Roberts et al., “Production of transforming growth factor ß by human T lymphocytes and its potential role in the regulation of T cell growth,” Journal of Experimental Medicine, vol. 163, no. 5, pp. 1037–1050, 1986. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  66. A. Ma, R. Koka, and P. Burkett, “Diverse functions of IL-2, IL-15, and IL-7 in lymphoid homeostasis,” Annual Review of Immunology, vol. 24, pp. 657–679, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  67. S. H. Wrzesinski, Y. Y. Wan, and R. A. Flavell, “Transforming growth factor-β and the immune response: implications for anticancer therapy,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 13, no. 18, pp. 5262–5270, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  68. M. Ahmadzadeh and S. A. Rosenberg, “TGF-β1 attenuates the acquisition and expression of effector function by tumor antigen-specific human memory CD8 T cells,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 174, no. 9, pp. 5215–5223, 2005. View at Google Scholar
  69. A. H. Rook, J. H. Kehrl, L. M. Wakefield et al., “Effects of transforming growth factor ß on the functions of natural killer cells: depressed cytolytic activity and blunting of interferon responsiveness,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 136, no. 10, pp. 3916–3920, 1986. View at Google Scholar
  70. G. Bellone, M. Aste-Amezaga, G. Trinchieri, and U. Rodeck, “Regulation of NK cell functions by TGF-β1,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 155, no. 3, pp. 1066–1073, 1995. View at Google Scholar
  71. F. Geissmann, P. Revy, A. Regnault et al., “TGF-ß1 prevents the noncognate maturation of human dendritic Langerhans cells,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 162, no. 8, pp. 4567–4575, 1999. View at Google Scholar
  72. C. Grommes, G. E. Landreth, and M. T. Heneka, “Antineoplastic effects of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor γ agonists,” Lancet Oncology, vol. 5, no. 7, pp. 419–429, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  73. G. D. Girnun, W. M. Smith, S. Drori et al., “APC-dependent suppression of colon carcinogenesis by PPAR?,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 99, no. 21, pp. 13771–13776, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  74. T. Ikezoe, C. W. Miller, S. Kawano et al., “Mutational analysis of the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor ? in human malignancies,” Cancer Research, vol. 61, no. 13, pp. 5307–5310, 2001. View at Google Scholar
  75. P. Sarraf, E. Mueller, W. M. Smith et al., “Loss-of-function mutations in PPAR? associated with human colon cancer,” Molecular Cell, vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 799–804, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  76. T. Kubota, K. Koshizuka, E. A. Williamson et al., “Ligand for peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor ? (troglitazone) has potent antitumor effect against human prostate cancer both in vitro and in vivo,” Cancer Research, vol. 58, no. 15, pp. 3344–3352, 1998. View at Google Scholar
  77. G. G. Chen, J. F. Lee, S. H. Wang, U. P. F. Chan, P. C. Ip, and W. Y. Lau, “Apoptosis induced by activation of peroxisome-proliferator activated receptor-gamma is associated with Bcl-2 and Nf-κB in human colon cancer,” Life Sciences, vol. 70, no. 22, pp. 2631–2646, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  78. J. A. Brockman, R. A. Gupta, and R. N. Dubois, “Activation of PPARγ leads to inhibition of anchorage-independent growth of human colorectal cancer cells,” Gastroenterology, vol. 115, no. 5, pp. 1049–1055, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  79. M. Kato, T. Kusumi, S. Tsuchida, M. Tanaka, M. Sasaki, and H. Kudo, “Induction of differentiation and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor γ expression in colon cancer cell lines by troglitazone,” Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology, vol. 130, no. 2, pp. 73–79, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  80. K. Ohta, T. Endo, K. Haraguchi, J. M. Hershman, and T. Onaya, “Ligands for peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor γ inhibit growth and induce apoptosis of human papillary thyroid carcinoma cells,” Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, vol. 86, no. 5, pp. 2170–2177, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  81. P. Sarraf, E. Mueller, D. Jones et al., “Differentiation and reversal of malignant changes in colon cancer through PPAR?,” Nature Medicine, vol. 4, no. 9, pp. 1046–1052, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  82. J. Yu, L. Qiao, L. Zimmermann et al., “Troglitazone inhibits tumor growth in hepatocellular carcinoma in vitro and in vivo,” Hepatology, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 134–143, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  83. A. P. Heaney, M. Fernando, and S. Melmed, “PPAR-γ receptor ligands: novel therapy for pituitary adenomas,” Journal of Clinical Investigation, vol. 111, no. 9, pp. 1381–1388, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  84. C. Day, “Thiazolidinediones: a new class of antidiabetic drugs,” Diabetic Medicine, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 179–192, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  85. J.-R. Weng, C.-Y. Chen, J. J. Pinzone, M. D. Ringel, and C.-S. Chen, “Beyond peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor γ signaling: the multi-facets of the antitumor effect of thiazolidinediones,” Endocrine-Related Cancer, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 401–413, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  86. S. S. Palakurthi, H. Aktas, L. M. Grubissich, R. M. Mortensen, and J. A. Halperin, “Anticancer effects of thiazolidinediones are independent of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor γ and mediated by inhibition of translation initiation,” Cancer Research, vol. 61, no. 16, pp. 6213–6218, 2001. View at Google Scholar
  87. M.-A. Bae and B. J. Song, “Critical role of c-Jun N-terminal protein kinase activation in troglitazone-induced apoptosis of human HepG2 hepatoma cells,” Molecular Pharmacology, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 401–408, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  88. S. J. Baek, L. C. Wilson, L. C. Hsi, and T. E. Eling, “Troglitazone, a peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor γ (PPARγ) ligand, selectively induces the early growth response-1 gene independently of PPARγ: a novel mechanism for its anti-tumorigenic activity,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 278, no. 8, pp. 5845–5853, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  89. A. Sugimura, Y. Kiriyama, H. Nochi et al., “Troglitazone suppresses cell growth of myeloid leukemia cell lines by induction of p21WAF1/CIP1 cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor,” Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, vol. 261, no. 3, pp. 833–837, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  90. A.-M. Lefebvre, I. Chen, P. Desreumaux et al., “Activation of the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor ? promotes the development of colon tumors in C57BL/6J-APCMin/+ mice,” Nature Medicine, vol. 4, no. 9, pp. 1053–1057, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  91. E. Saez, J. Rosenfeld, A. Livolsi et al., “PPAR? signaling exacerbates mammary gland tumor development,” Genes and Development, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 528–540, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  92. E. Y. Park, I. J. Cho, and S. G. Kim, “Transactivation of the PPAR-responsive enhancer module in chemopreventive glutathione S-transferase gene by the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-γ and retinoid X receptor heterodimer,” Cancer Research, vol. 64, no. 10, pp. 3701–3713, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  93. F.-S. Chou, P.-S. Wang, S. Kulp, and J. J. Pinzone, “Effects of thiazolidinediones on differentiation, proliferation, and apoptosis,” Molecular Cancer Research, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 523–530, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  94. E. A. Thompson, “PPARγ physiology and pathology in gastrointestinal epithelial cells,” Molecules and Cells, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 167–176, 2007. View at Google Scholar
  95. Y. Kodera, K. Takeyama, A. Murayama, M. Suzawa, Y. Masuhiro, and S. Kato, “Ligand type-specific interactions of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor γ with transcriptional coactivators,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 275, no. 43, pp. 33201–33204, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  96. K. W. Kang, I. J. Cho, C. H. Lee, and S. G. Kim, “Essential role of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase-dependent CCAAT/enhancer binding protein β activation in the induction of glutathione S-transferase by oltipraz,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, vol. 95, no. 1, pp. 53–66, 2003. View at Google Scholar
  97. K. W. Kang, E. Y. Park, and S. G. Kim, “Activation of CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein β by 2-amino-3-methoxyflavone (PD98059) leads to the induction of glutathione S-transferase A2,” Carcinogenesis, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 475–482, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  98. S. M. A. Holmbeck, H. J. Dyson, and P. E. Wright, “DNA-induced conformational changes are the basis for cooperative dimerization by the DNA binding domain of the retinoid X receptor,” Journal of Molecular Biology, vol. 284, no. 3, pp. 533–539, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  99. P. Jenö, L. M. Ballou, I. Novak-Hofer, and G. Thomas, “Identification and characterization of a mitogen-activated S6 kinase,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 85, no. 2, pp. 406–410, 1988. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  100. R. P. de Groot, L. M. Ballou, and P. Sassone-Corsi, “Positive regulation of the cAMP-responsive activator CREM by the p70 S6 kinase: an alternative route to mitogen-induced gene expression,” Cell, vol. 79, no. 1, pp. 81–91, 1994. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  101. H. Harada, J. S. Andersen, M. Mann, N. Terada, and S. J. Korsmeyer, “p70S6 kinase signals cell survival as well as growth, inactivating the pro-apoptotic molecule BAD,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 98, no. 17, pp. 9666–9670, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  102. X. Wang, W. Li, M. Williams, N. Terada, D. R. Alessi, and C. G. Proud, “Regulation of elongation factor 2 kinase by p90RSK1 and p70 S6 kinase,” The EMBO Journal, vol. 20, no. 16, pp. 4370–4379, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  103. J. Zhu, J. Wu, E. Frizell et al., “Rapamycin inhibits hepatic stellate cell proliferation in vitro and limits fibrogenesis in an in vivo model of liver fibrosis,” Gastroenterology, vol. 117, no. 5, pp. 1198–1204, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  104. E. Biecker, A. De Gottardi, M. Neef et al., “Long-term treatment of bile duct-ligated rats with rapamycin (sirolimus) significantly attenuates liver fibrosis: analysis of the underlying mechanisms,” Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, vol. 313, no. 3, pp. 952–961, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  105. D. M. Sabatini, H. Erdjument-Bromage, M. Lui, P. Tempst, and S. H. Snyder, “RAFT1: a mammalian protein that binds to FKBP12 in a rapamycin-dependent fashion and is homologous to yeast TORs,” Cell, vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 35–43, 1994. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  106. K. S. Lee, S. J. Park, P. H. Hwang et al., “PPAR-gamma modulates allergic inflammation through up-regulation of PTEN,” The FASEB Journal, vol. 19, no. 8, pp. 1033–1035, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  107. J.-L. Liu, X. Sheng, Z. K. Hortobagyi, Z. Mao, G. E. Gallick, and W. K. A. Yung, “Nuclear PTEN-mediated growth suppression is independent of Akt down-regulation,” Molecular and Cellular Biology, vol. 25, no. 14, pp. 6211–6224, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  108. C. Weigert, K. Brodbeck, A. Bierhaus, H. U. Häring, and E. D. Schleicher, “c-Fos-driven transcriptional activation of transforming growth factor β-1: inhibition of high glucose-induced promoter activity by thiazolidinediones,” Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, vol. 304, no. 2, pp. 301–307, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  109. G. Salbert, A. Fanjul, F. J. Piedrafita et al., “Retinoic acid receptors and retinoid X receptor-a down-regulate the transforming growth factor-ß1 promoter by antagonizing AP-1 activity,” Molecular Endocrinology, vol. 7, no. 10, pp. 1347–1356, 1993. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  110. G. Narla, K. E. Heath, H. L. Reeves et al., “KLF6, a candidate tumor suppressor gene mutated in prostate cancer,” Science, vol. 294, no. 5551, pp. 2563–2566, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  111. D. A. Slavin, N. P. Koritschoner, C. C. Prieto, F. J. López-Díaz, B. Chatton, and J. L. Bocco, “A new role for the Krüppel-like transcription factor KLF6 as an inhibitor of c-Jun proto-oncoprotein function,” Oncogene, vol. 23, no. 50, pp. 8196–8205, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  112. V. Ratziu, A. Lalazar, L. Wong et al., “Zf9, a Kruppel-like transcription factor up-regulated in vivo during early hepatic fibrosis,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 95, no. 16, pp. 9500–9505, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  113. Y. Kim, V. Ratziu, S.-G. Choi et al., “Transcriptional activation of transforming growth factor ß1 and its receptors by the Kruppel-like factor Zf9/core promoter-binding protein and Sp1: potential mechanisms for autocrine fibrogenesis in response to injury,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 273, no. 50, pp. 33750–33758, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  114. V. G. Warke, M. P. Nambiar, S. Krishnan et al., “Transcriptional activation of the human inducible nitric-oxide synthase promoter by Krüppel-like factor 6,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 278, no. 17, pp. 14812–14819, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  115. L. Patel, I. Pass, P. Coxon, C. P. Downes, S. A. Smith, and C. H. Macphee, “Tumor suppressor and anti-inflammatory actions of PPARγ agonists are mediated via upregulation of PTEN,” Current Biology, vol. 11, no. 10, pp. 764–768, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar