THE JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY© 2000 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.

Vol. 275, No. 40, Issue of October 6, pp. 31078 –31085, 2000
Printed in U.S.A.

Promoter Analysis of the Mouse Sterol Regulatory
Element-binding Protein-1c Gene*
Received for publication, June 20, 2000, and in revised form, July 25, 2000
Published, JBC Papers in Press, July 28, 2000, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M005353200

Michiyo Amemiya-Kudo‡, Hitoshi Shimano§¶, Tomohiro Yoshikawa‡, Naoya Yahagi‡,
Alyssa H. Hasty‡储, Hiroaki Okazaki‡, Yoshiaki Tamura‡, Futoshi Shionoiri‡, Yoko Iizuka‡,
Ken Ohashi‡, Jun-ichi Osuga‡, Kenji Harada‡, Takanari Gotoda‡, Ryuichiro Sato**,Satoshi Kimura‡, Shun Ishibashi‡, and Nobuhiro Yamada§From the ‡Department of Metabolic Diseases, Faculty of Medicine and the **Department of Applied Biological Chemistry,
Graduate School of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of Tokyo, Tokyo 113-8655, Japan and the §Department ofInternal Medicine, Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1 Tennodai, Tsukuba,
Ibaraki 305-8575, Japan

Recent data suggest that sterol regulatory-binding
protein (SREBP)-1c plays a key role in the transcriptional regulation of different lipogenic genes mediating
lipid synthesis as a key regulator of fuel metabolism.
SREBP-1c regulates its downstream genes by changing
its own mRNA level, which led us to sequence and analyze the promoter region of the mouse SREBP-1c gene. A
cluster of putative binding sites of several transcription
factors composed of an NF-Y site, an E-box, a sterolregulatory element 3, and an Sp1 site were located at
ⴚ90 base pairs of the SREBP-1c promoter. Luciferase
reporter gene assays indicated that this SRE complex isessential to the basal promoter activity and confers responsiveness to activation by nuclear SREBPs. Deletionand mutation analyses suggest that the NF-Y site and
SRE3 in the SRE complex are responsible for SREBP
activation, although the other sites were also involvedin the basal activity. Gel mobility shift assays demonstrate that SREBP-1 binds to the SRE3. Taken together,
these findings implicate a positive loop production of
SREBP-1c through the SRE complex, possibly leading tothe overshoot in induction of SREBP-1c and its downstream genes seen in the livers of refed mice. Furthermore, reporter assays using larger upstream fragments
indicated another region that was inducible by additionof sterols. The presence of the SRE complex and a sterolinducible region in the same promoter suggests a novel
regulatory link between cholesterol and fatty acidsynthesis.

Sterol regulatory element-binding proteins (SREBPs)1 are* This work was supported by the Promotion of Fundamental Studies
in Health Science of the Organization for Pharmaceutical Safety andResearch and Health Sciences Research Grants (Research on Human
Genome and Gene Therapy) from the Ministry of Health and Welfare.
The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by thepayment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked“advertisement” in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely toindicate this fact.
¶ To whom correspondence should be addressed: Dept. of Internal
Medicine, Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1
Tennodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8575, Japan. Fax: 81-298-53-3053;
E-mail: shimano-tky@umin.ac.jp.
储 Recipient of a fellowship under the Postdoctoral Fellowship Program for Foreign Researchers from the Japan Society for the Promotionof Science.
1
The abbreviations used are: SREBP, sterol regulatory elementbinding protein; SRE, sterol regulatory element; kb, kilobase(s); bp,
base pair(s); PCR, polymerase chain reaction; CMV, cytomegalovirus;

transcription factors that belong to the basic helix-loop-helix
leucine zipper family (1, 2). In contrast to other members of thisfamily, SREBPs are synthesized as precursor proteins thatremain bound to the endoplasmic reticulum and the nuclear
envelope in the presence of sufficient sterol concentrations.
Upon sterol deprivation, the precursor protein undergoes asequential two-step cleavage process to release the NH2-terminal portion (3). This mature SREBP then enters the nucleus
and activates the transcription of genes involved in cholesteroland fatty acid synthesis by binding to sterol regulatory elements (SREs) or to palindromic sequences called E-boxes
within their promoter regions (4, 5). Currently, there are threeforms of SREBP that have been characterized; SREBP-1a and-1c are derived from a single gene through the use of alternate
promoters and SREBP-2 from a different gene. SREBP-1a is
the more common isoform and is a stronger activator of transcription with a wider range of target genes than SREBP-1c
because of a longer transactivation domain (6). Transgenic
mouse studies have shown that SREBP-1c plays a more activerole in regulating the transcription of genes involved in fatty
acid synthesis than those involved in cholesterol synthesis,
whereas SREBP-1a activates both (6, 7). SREBP-2 is known tobe actively involved in the transcription of cholesterogenic enzymes (8). It has been shown that all cultured cells analyzed todate exclusively express SREBP-2 and the -1a isoform of
SREBP-1, whereas most organs, including the liver, express
predominantly SREBP-2 and the 1c isoform of SREBP-1 (9).
Lipogenic enzymes, including fatty acid synthase and acetylCoA carboxylase, are a group of genes involved in energy storage through synthesis of fatty acids and triglycerides (10, 11).
Excess amounts of carbohydrates taken up by cells are converted to triglycerides through these enzymes in lipogenic organs such as liver and adipose tissue. The lipogenic enzymes
are coordinately regulated at the transcriptional level during
different metabolic states (10, 11). Recent in vivo studies demonstrated that SREBP-1c plays a crucial role in the dietary
regulation of most hepatic lipogenic genes. These include studies of the effects of the absence or overexpression of SREBP-1
on hepatic lipogenic gene expression (6, 7, 12), as well as
physiological changes of SREBP-1c protein in normal mice
after dietary manipulation such as placement on high carbohydrate diets, polyunsaturated fatty acid-enriched diets, andfasting-refeeding regimens (12–17, 27). All these in vivo data
established distinct roles of SREBP-1c and -2 in hepatic lipo-

DMEM, Dulbecco’s minimally modified medium.

31078

This paper is available on line at http://www.jbc.org

Mouse SREBP-1c promoter

31079

genesis and cholesterogenesis, respectively. The similar coordinated changes in SREBP-1c and lipogenic gene expression at
fasting and refeeding were also observed in adipose tissue (18).
In the fat tissue, SREBP-1c/ADD1 appears to be involved inadipocyte differentiation and insulin resistance (19, 20). Recent
studies suggest that insulin-facilitated glucose uptake mediates lipogenesis through SREBP-1c induction (21–24). In addition, insulin supplement in streptozotocin-induced diabetic animals caused marked induction of SREBP-1c mRNA in the liver(25). DNA microarray analysis of ob/ob mice suggested that
leptin might regulate expression of SREBP-1c and its downstream genes in adipose tissue (26). These data suggest that
SREBP-1c plays an important role in fuel metabolism involving
a multi-organ and complex milieu of metabolites and hormones. Previous reports on the regulation of SREBP-1c haveall demonstrated the induction to be at the mRNA level (13–18,
21, 22, 24, 27). Up regulation of hepatic SREBP-1 was observedin rodent livers on a fasting-refeeding regimen, a chronic highcarbohydrate diet, and in primary hepatocytes with a highglucose medium. Meanwhile, down regulation of SREBP-1c
was observed in livers from fasted rodents, insulin-depleted
diabetic rats with streptozotocin treatment, and mice on a dietcontaining polyunsaturated fatty acids. In contrast to
SREBP-2, which mediates sterol regulation completely at thecleavage level through interaction with SCAP and site-1 protease, SREBP-1c seems to control the transcriptional regulation of lipogenic enzymes by self-regulating the nuclear concentration of its mature form, which is highly correlated to its
precursor and mRNA levels. These observations prompted us
to analyze the promoter of SREBP-1c to understand the regulation of SREBP-1c itself and, thus, that of lipogenic enzymes.
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

Materials—Standard molecular biology techniques were used. We
obtained cholesterol and 25-hydroxycholesterol from Sigma, Redivue[␣-32P]dCTP (6000 Ci/mmol) from Amersham Pharmacia Biotech, andrestriction enzymes from New England Biolabs. Plasmid DNAs fortransfection were prepared with EndoFree Plasmid Maxi kits (Qiagen).
Mouse Genomic SREBP-1c Gene Promoter and Construction of Luciferase Gene Reporter Genes—A SacI fragment of mouse SREBP-1
genomic DNA that contains most of 5⬘-flanking region of SREBP-1cexon 1 was sequenced from the transcription start site that was tentatively assigned from 5⬘ rapid amplification of cDNA ends of mouse
SREBP-1c (28). A BamHI-AvrII fragment (0.55 kb) extending from5⬘-untranslated region to the promoter region was subcloned into SmaIsite of pGL2 basic vector (Promega) (pBP1c550-Luc). The adjacent
upstream BamHI fragment (2 kb) was further cloned into pBP1c550Luc to generate a 2.6-kb fragment construct (pBP1c2600Luc). Other
constructs were produced by PCR using this construct as DNA templateand subcloning the PCR products into the pGL2 basic vector. The
primers used for PCR were as follows: 3⬘ primer, 5⬘-TAAGAGCTCGGTACCTCCCCTAGGGC-3⬘; 5⬘ primer, pBP1c400-Luc 5⬘-GGGCCAGGAGTGGGTAAA-3⬘; pBP1c150-Luc, 5⬘-GGGAGAAACCCGAGCT-3⬘;
pBP1c-90(NESSp)-Luc, 5⬘-CTGCTGATTGGCCAT GTG-3⬘; pBP1cESSp-Luc, 5⬘-CCATGTGCCCTCACCCGA-3⬘; pBP1c-SSp-Luc, 5⬘-CGCTCACCCGAGGGGCGGGGCA-3⬘; pBP1c-Sp-Luc, 5⬘-CGGGGCACGGAGGCG ATC-3⬘; pBP1c-mE-Luc, 5⬘-CTGCTGATTGGCAAAGTGCGCTCACCCGAG-3⬘; pBP1c-mSRE-Luc, 5⬘-CTGCTGATTGGCCATGTGCGCTACACCGAGGGGCGGGGCA-3⬘; pBP1c-mES-Luc, 5⬘-CTGCTGATTGGCAAAGTGCGCTACACCGAGGGGCGGGGC A-3⬘; and pBP1c-mSpLuc, 5⬘-CTGCTGATTGGCCATGTGCGCTCACCCGAGTTTCGGGGCACGGAGGCG-3⬘. The primers were tailed with SmaI site (5⬘ primers)
or KpnI site (3⬘ primer). The PCR products were digested with SmaIand KpnI and subcloned into the pGL2 basic vector.
Transfections and Luciferase Assays—Human embryonic kidney 293
were cultured in Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’s medium containing 25 mM
glucose, 100 units/ml penicillin, and 100 ␮g/ml streptomycin sulfate
supplemented with 10% fetal calf serum. On day 0, cells were plated on
a 12 well plate at 4.5 ⫻ 104 cells/well. On day 2, each luciferase reporter
plasmid (0.5 ␮g), and an SV-␤-galactosidase reference plasmid (pSV-␤gal, Promega, 0.5 ␮g) were transfected into cells using SuperFect
Transfection Reagent (Qiagen) according to the manufacturer’s protocol. In some experiments, expression plasmid (CMV-SREBP-1a, -1c, or

FIG. 1. DNA sequence of the 5ⴕ-flanking region of the mouse
SREBP-1c gene. The sequence of a BamHI-AvrII fragment of
SREBP-1 gene (28) is shown and numbered in relation to the putativetranscription initiation site. This DNA was used for the luciferase
reporter gene construct designated pBP1c550-Luc (Fig. 2). The TATAlike box is located at ⫺25 bp. There are two putative Sp1 sites andE-boxes and a p300 site. At ⫺90 bp, there is a region with high probability of being an SREBP target, designated SRE complex that is composed of an NF-Y site (inverted CCAAT), an E-box, an SRE3-like (31)sequence, and an Sp1 site.
-2 or their respective YR mutant versions) (0.5 ␮g) or basic plasmid
CMV7 as negative control (29) was also co-transfected. 5 h after transfection, the cells were incubated in the condition as indicated for an
additional 16 h prior to harvest. For the suppressed condition, DMEM
with 10% fetal calf serum with cholesterol (10 ␮g/ml) and 25-hydroxycholesterol (1 ␮g/ml) was used to suppress endogenous SREBP activity.
For induced condition, DMEM with 10% delipidated calf serum with 10
␮M pravastatin was used. The amount of luciferase activity in transfectants was measured and normalized to the amount of ␤-galactosidase
activity as measured by standard kits (Promega).
Gel Mobility Shift Assay—The DNA probe was prepared by annealing both strands of the SRE complex, TGCTGATTGGCCATGTGCGCTCACCCGAGGGGCGGGG, and was labeled with [␣-32P]dCTP by Klenow enzyme, followed by purification on G50 Sephadex columns. The
labeled DNA was incubated with a recombinant SREBP-1 protein (100ng) in a mixture containing 10 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.6, 50 mM KCl, 0.05
mM EDTA, 2.5 mM MgCl2, 8.5% glycerol, 1 mM dithiothreitol, 0.5 ␮g/ml
poly(dI-dC), 0.1% Triton X-100, and 1 mg/ml nonfat milk for 30 min on
ice. The DNA-protein complexes were resolved on a 4.6% polyacrylamide gel.
RESULTS

Mouse SREBP-1c Promoter Sequence—We sequenced andanalyzed 550 base pairs upstream from the transcription ini-

31080

Mouse SREBP-1c promoter

FIG. 2. Promoter activities of SREBP-1c genomic 5ⴕ-flanking fragments with different sizes as measured by luciferase reporter
gene assay in 293 cells. Each promoter genomic fragment of the mouse SREBP-1c gene was prepared as described under “Experimental
Procedures” and was subcloned upstream of the firefly luciferase gene of the promoter-less plasmid GL2 basic. The size of the promoter fragment
is shown. The relative position of functional units (Sp1 site and the SRE complex) is shown. The 293 cells were transfected with each reporter anda reference plasmid, pSV-␤-gal, and thereafter were cultured for 24 h in DMEM with 10% fetal bovine serum. Luciferase activity was measured
in and normalized by measuring ␤-galactosidase activity elicited by a cotransfected pSV-␤-gal. The values are the means of three independent
experiments.

tiation site of the mouse SREBP-1c gene (Fig. 1). A computerassisted search (the TFSEARCH program based upon the
TRANSFAC data base (30)) of the 5⬘-flanking region of themouse SREBP-1c promoter revealed some elements that havepotential roles in its transcriptional regulation. It did not pickup any TATA box; however, there was a TATA-like sequence(CTTTAAAG) 25 bp upstream from the putative initiation site.
No CAAT box has been found to lie within the expected distance from the start site. Two Sp1-binding sites were found at⫺102 and ⫺59 bp. Adjacent to the downstream Sp1 site, there
was a sequence highly similar (9 of 10 bp) to one of classic sterol
regulatory elements, SRE3 (CTCACCCCAG), which was foundin the farnesyl diphosphate synthase gene promoter and was
extensively analyzed in terms of sterol regulation (31, 32).
Interestingly, this SRE3-Sp1 sequence was directly connected
to an E-box (CATGTG), which was found as a core sequence ofthe two SREBP-binding sites of the fatty acid synthase promoter (33). Following the E-box was the NF-Y-binding site
(inverted CCAAT box). Thus, this cluster consisting of the
NF-Y, E-box, SRE3, and Sp1 sites has a very high probability of
being SREBP-binding and activation site and was tentatively
designated an SRE complex.
Basal Promoter Activity of the Mouse SREBP-1c Gene—To
determine the location of functionally essential sequences required for maximal promoter activity, especially in relation to
the SRE complex, we utilized deletional analysis using luciferease gene reporter assays in 293 cells. As shown in Fig. 2, theluciferase gene fused to the 2.6-kb flanking fragment, the longest of the promoter fragments used in this study, gave substantial luciferase activity in 293 cells. The SREBP-1c promoter
activities of different length promoters were compared in thecells cultured at subconfluency in DMEM containing high (25mM) glucose and 10% fetal bovine serum without addition ofcholesterol derivatives as a basal condition. Shorter versions
containing 0.55, 0.4, and 0.15 kb of the promoter showed essentially the same activity as the 2.6-kb fragment. The 90-bp
construct containing the intact SRE complex but not the upstream Sp1 site showed approximately 50% of the activity of
the 2.6-kb construct. This suggests that although the first Sp1
site contributes to some considerable promoter activity, the90-bp promoter region contains nearly maximal activity in thiscell culture condition. The deletion of the NF-Y site completely

abolished the basal activity, demonstrating that this NF-Y site
is essential for basal promoter activity of SREBP-1c.
SREBP Activation of the Mouse SREBP-1c Gene Promoter—
The SRE containing promoters analyzed to date in sterol-regulated genes contain NF-Y or Sp1 sites adjacent to SREs, andthese cofactors were shown to be indispensable for sterol regulation (32, 34 –37). The initial deletion study suggests that thecomponents of the SRE complex are crucial for both basal
activity and sterol regulation. Therefore, we focused on the
90-bp construct. We constructed sequential deletion and mutant versions for each component, the NF-Y site, the E-box,
SRE-3, and the Sp1 site and measured their promoter activities
to evaluate their contributions. First, each luciferase construct
was tested in presence of nuclear SREBP-1a that was highly
expressed by cotransfection (Fig. 3). Medium was supplemented with cholesterol and 25-hydroxycholesterol to minimize the effects of endogenous SREBPs. As predicted, coexpression of SREBP-1a robustly (20-fold) increased the luciferease activities of the intact 90-bp construct (NESSp-Luc). Deletion of the NF-Y site (ESSp-Luc) caused a marked reductionin the basal activity and a complete disappearance in the
SREBP-1a induction, suggesting that NF-Y is indispensable for
SREBP-1 activation. Deletion of both the NF-Y-binding site
and the E-box (SSp-Luc), leaving just the SRE-3 and the Sp1site also caused a complete loss of both basal activity and
SREBP-1a induction, indicating that the SRE3 and adjacentSp1 sites, which would appear to be a complete functioning
SREBP target site, are not sufficient for SREBP activation.
Interestingly, mutation of E-box (mE-Luc) caused a 3-fold decrease in a basal activity but retained a high induction level
similar to that of native 90-bp construct after SREBP-1a overexpression, rendering this E-box mutant construct the highest
responder (40-fold) to SREBP-1a induction. These data demonstrate that the E-box is involved in some basal activity by afactor(s) other than SREBP. In contrast, when a mutation was
introduced into the SRE3 site (mSRE-Luc), the basal activity
was minimally affected, but SREBP-1a induction was completely abolished. Additional mutation in the E-box (mES-Luc)
did not cause any further change in SREBP-1a induction. Finally, introduction of a mutation in the Sp1 site, which abolished Sp1-binding (mSp1-Luc), caused a substantial decreasein the basal activity but did not affect the fold change by

Mouse SREBP-1c promoter

31081

FIG. 3. Activation of the SREBP-1c promoter by SREBP-1a co-expression in luciferase reporter gene assay. The luciferase reporter
gene pBP-1c90-Luc (NESSp-Luc), which contains the SRE complex, and its various deletion or mutation constructs where each putative bindingsite was deleted or mutated were constructed as described under “Experimental Procedures.” Each reporter gene was cotransfected with areference plasmid, pSV-␤-gal and pCMV-SREBP1a, expression vector of nuclear human SREBP-1a (6), or empty expression vector CMV7 (29) into
293 cells. After transfection, the cells were incubated in DMEM with 10% fetal bovine serum supplemented with 1 ␮g/ml 25-hydroxycholesterol
and 10 ␮g/ml cholesterol (suppressed condition) to suppress endogenous SREBPs for 24 h. The luciferase activity was measured and normalizedby ␤-galactosidase activity. Indicated values are fold changes of the values from SREBP-1a expression experiments relative to controls. The values
were means of two independent experiments.

FIG. 4. Activation of the SREBP-1c promoter through the SRE complex in absence of sterols (an induced condition) in luciferase
reporter gene assay. The same set of experiments was performed as for Fig. 3 except that the cells were incubated in induced or suppressed
condition. The induced condition consists of DMEM with 5% delipidated fetal calf serum plus 10 ␮M pravastatin, and the suppressed condition is
DMEM with 10% fetal bovine serum and 1 ␮g/ml 25-hydroxycholesterol and 10 ␮g/ml cholesterol. Relative fold changes of values from induced
condition versus suppressed condition are shown. The values are the means of three independent experiments.

31082

Mouse SREBP-1c promoter

FIG. 6. Transcriptional activities of nuclear SREBP-1a, -1c,and -2 on the SRE complex in the SREBP-1c promoter in luciferase reporter gene assay in 293 cells. The luciferase reporter gene
pBP-1c90-Luc that contains the SRE complex was cotransfected witheach CMV promoter expression vector and a reference plasmid, pSV-␤gal, into 293 cells as described under “Experimental Procedures.” The
expression vectors used were pCMV-SREBP-1a, pCMV-SREBP-1c,
pCMV-SREBP-2, and their corresponding mutant plasmids in which a
conserved tyrosine residue in the basic region was replaced by arginine.
The luciferase activities were normalized by ␤-galactosidase activity
and the values are expressed as fold change relative to that of control
vector (pCMV7).

FIG. 5. Gel shift assay for SREBP-1 binding to SRE complex. A
double-stranded DNA fragment corresponding the SRE complex (Fig. 1)
was labeled with [␣-32P]dCTP and incubated in the reaction mixture
with (lanes 2– 8) or without (lane 1) recombinant nuclear SREBP-1c
protein. Specificity of SREBP-1 binding (indicated by the arrow) to theSRE complex probe was confirmed by a supershift after the addition of
SREBP-1 antibody (lane 6). In competition assays (lanes 3–5), a 1000fold molar excess of an unlabeled SRE complex DNA (lane 3) or mutated
DNA in which E-box (lane 3) or SRE3 (lane 4) was modified to abolishbinding to leucine zipper proteins or SREBP. Mutant probes in which
E-box (lane 7) or SRE3 (lane 8) were also tested for SREBP-1 binding.

SREBP-1a activation. Together, these data clearly demonstrate that SREBP induction of the SREBP-1c promoter iscompletely attributed to the NF-Y site and SRE3 and not to the
E-box or the Sp1 site. Meanwhile, both E-box and Sp1 sites
contribute to the basal promoter activity independent of
SREBP.
Next, the promoter activities of those constructs were compared in transfection studies in which the cells were cultured insuppressed and induced conditions for sterol regulation to see
the effects of endogenous SREBPs in the cells. As shown in Fig.
4, the promoter activity of the basic 90-bp construct (NESSpLuc) in induced condition was three times higher than that insuppressed condition. The same set of deletion and mutation
analysis in this endogenous regulation gave essentially thesame data as from SREBP-1a co-expression, confirming theimportance of NF-Y and SRE3 for SREBP activation. The only
exception was that mutated E-box construct gave the same foldactivation in induced versus suppressed condition as the wild
type construct.
Luciferase reporter assays for the 90-bp construct indicatedthat SREBP-1a can activate the SREBP-1c promoter activity
through the SRE complex. To demonstrate the direct binding of
SREBP to SRE complex, gel mobility shift assay was per-formed. Fig. 5 shows that the SRE complex probe was shifted
after the addition of SREBP-1 protein (lane 2). The specificityof the binding was confirmed by its supershift by SREBP1
antibody (lane 6). In competition assays, the shifted band disappeared after addition of excess amount of the unlabeled SRE
complex probe (lane 3) or its E-box mutant version (lane 4). In
contrast, addition of the same excess amount of SRE complex
probe with a mutation in SRE3 did not compete binding of
SREBP-1 to native SRE complex probe (lane 5). Furthermore,labeled E-box mutated probe bound to SREBP-1 (lane 7), but
the SRE3 mutated probe did not (lane 8). These data areconsistent with the results of the luciferase assays and indicatethat SREBPs activate the SREBP-1c promoter through binding
to the SRE3 in the SRE complex.
Nuclear SREBP-1a, -1c, and -2 were compared in the transcriptional activities for the 90-bp construct of SREBP-1c promoter. Interestingly, all SREBP isoforms elicited similar activation when overexpressed in 293 cells (Fig. 6). Replacement ofarginine for the conserved tyrosine residue in the basic regionof SREBP family has been shown to abolish SREBP binding to
SRE and not to E-box (5). The effect of this mutation on the
90-bp construct activity was estimated in each SREBP isoform.
This mutation in each SREBP isoform essentially caused themto lose their activity, supporting that activation of native
SREBP is mediated through binding to SRE3 and not to E-box(Fig. 6).
Upstream Region Responsible for Induction of the SREBP-1c
Promoter by Sterols—The basic 90-bp construct contains an
SRE and seems to be involved in activation of SREBP-1c expression by SREBPs and also in sterol regulation. To see
whether the sterol regulation of this construct can be reflectedin the longer and, thus, more physiological promoter, we estimated sterol regulation of longer versions of endogenous andexogenous SREBPs. Interestingly, in suppressed conditions
with both cholesterol and 25-hydroxycholesterol in the medium, the longer promoter (400 bp to 2.6 kb) constructs showed
5-fold higher activity than the 90-bp construct in both
SREBP-1a co-expression and induced/suppressed experiments(Fig. 7). This contrasts to the observation in the experiment
done in just fetal bovine serum without cholesterol where thedifference was only 2-fold (Fig. 2), suggesting that sequence
upstream of the SRE complex (between ⫺400 and ⫺90 bp)
contains some promoter activity that could be induced by ste-

Mouse SREBP-1c promoter

31083

FIG. 7. Dissociation of responses of
the SREBP-1c gene promoter to nuclear SREBP and sterols. The
SREBP-1c promoter luciferase reporter
plasmids(pBP1c2600,
pBP1c550,
pBP1c400, and pBP1c90) were transfected with a reference plasmid, pSV-␤gal, into 293 cells. The left panel shows
the results from the experiments performed in cotransfection with pCMVSREBP1a and incubation in suppressed
condition as described in the legend to
Fig. 3. The right panel contains the results from induced and suppressed conditions as described in Fig. 4. The values
represent fold change relative to suppressed condition.

FIG. 8. Presence of sterol-induced
region upstream of the SRE complex
in the SREBP-1c promoter. The DNA
fragment upstream of the SRE complex(between ⫺150 and ⫺400 bp) was subcloned into a luciferase reporter plasmidthat contains SV40 promoter (pGL2 promoter vector). The plasmid was transfected with pSV-␤-gal into 293 cells andcultured in DMEM with 10% fetal bovine
serum in presence or absence of sterols (1␮g/ml 25-hydroxycholesterol and 10
␮g/ml cholesterol). Empty pGL2 promoter
vector was also transfected as negative
control.

rols. Co-expression of SREBP-1a increased luciferase activity of
the 90-bp construct approximately 20-fold. This fold increase
was substantially reduced in the 2.6-, 0.5-, and 0.4-kb constructs (6 –9). This tendency was more clear in induced versus
suppressed conditions (Fig. 7, right panel). In suppressed
condition, activity of the longer version was three times
higher than that of the 90-bp construct, whereas there was no
essential increase in the activity by addition of upstream
sequences to the 90-bp construct in induced condition. These
data suggest that there is a regulatory sequence between⫺400 and ⫺90 bp (upstream of the 90-bp construct) that
activates the promoter activity in suppressed condition and
not in induced condition. To confirm this, the promoter DNA
fragment between ⫺400 and ⫺150 bp was fused to SV40
promoter containing luciferase reporter gene (pGL2 promoter). As shown in Fig. 8, luciferase activity of this construct
was increased 6-fold by addition of cholesterol and 25-hydroxycholesterol, demonstrating that the region contains anelement(s) that confers sterol inducibility.
DISCUSSION

Positive Loop Activation of SREBP-1c—The current study
clearly demonstrates that mouse SREBP-1c promoter contains
a sterol regulatory element and can be induced by SREBPs andleads us to the speculation that nuclear SREBP-1c protein can
autoregulate its own SREBP-1c precursor. In short, as long as
cleavage of SREBP is active, it can further activate SREBP-1c
expression to form a positive feedback loop (Fig. 9). This positive loop may partially explain the overshooting phenomenon of
induction of lipogenic enzyme genes in the refed state. Refeed-

ing with low fat/high carbohydrate diet after fasting causes amarked induction of SREBP-1 mRNA and active protein (17,18), resulting in the activation of most hepatic lipogenic enzyme genes, often referred to overshooting. The molecular identity of the initial lipogenic signal is currently unknown, although it is likely to be some glucose metabolite. Once it starts
induction of SREBP-1c, the autoregulatory loop of SREBP-1c
induction could cause the overshooting. It is also possible that
another factor or system could be responsible for the overshooting of SREBP-1c and downstream lipogenic genes. However,even if so, this positive loop should contribute to the supply of
precursor protein to maintain the overshooting of SREBP-1
and thus, lipogenesis. Supporting this idea, SREBP-1 knockout mice, in which induction of hepatic lipogenic genes is severely impaired, also exhibit substantially low level of hepatic
aberrant SREBP-1 mRNA, which is derived from an intact
SREBP-1c promoter of the disrupted SREBP-1 gene (12). Studies with a knock-in animals in which only the SRE3 in the
promoter is disrupted would be required to test this hypothesis.
An autoregulation mechanism has been known in the modulation of gene expression of C/EBP family members (38), whichplay an important role in adipogenesis where SREBP-1c might
be also involved (5).
Concomitant Presence of Sterol Inducible and Regulatory
Elements in SREBP-1c Promoter—The presence of an SRE in
the promoter of SREBP-1c places SREBP-1c expression at least
partially under sterol regulation. The current transfection
studies with the 90-bp construct in induced and suppressed
conditions for sterol regulation supports this. However, the31084

Mouse SREBP-1c promoter

FIG. 9. Autoloop effect by SREBPs
and dual opposite effects by sterols on
the mouse SREBP-1c gene. The presenceof the SRE complex in the SREBP-1c promoter makes it possible to form a positive
loop expression of SREBP-1c as long as
SREBP cleavage is active, possibly playing arole in a nutritional regulation of its target
lipogenic genes. Sterols should have a feedback regulation of SREBP-1c expression
through the SRE complex, whereas sterols
can activate SREBP-1c expression throughan unknown upstream sterol-inducible
region.

extent of sterol regulation for SREBP-1c expression seems limited in vivo. The longer versions that reflect more physiologicalregulation showed much less sterol regulation (Fig. 7) becauseof the concomitant upstream sterol-inducible element. Consistent with these complex results from the current promoter analysis, hepatic SREBP-1 mRNA is not decreased (or even increased) by feeding mice a diet enriched with cholesterol andcholic acid, which causes huge accumulation of cholesterol in
the livers, a situation that mimics a sterol suppressed conditionin cultured cells and abolishes the SREBP-2 mature form.
Therefore, the physiological relevance of the SRE complex in
the SREBP-1c promoter may be inducibility of SREBP-1c by
SREBPs rather than sterol regulation.
Current transfection studies comparing sterol regulation of
the 90-bp construct and longer versions suggest that upstreamof the SRE complex in the SREBP-1c promoter, there is a
cis-element that induces SREBP-1c expression in suppressive
conditions, presumably by cholesterol and/or oxysterols. The
region somewhere between ⫺400 and ⫺150 bp seems responsible. This would explain why sterol regulation of SREBP-1c
expression in vivo is obscure, because there are both sterolsuppressive and -inducible elements in the promoter. Currently, the physiological relevance of two elements in the samepromoter that have opposite ways of cholesterol regulation is
unknown. It can be speculated that sterol regulation by the
SREBP cleavage system, which potentially inhibits lipogenesis, can be counterbalanced by this element and ensures lipogenesis even in the presence of sterols. Currently, studies areunderway to specify the exact sequence of the cis-element andtranscription factors responsible for this new regulation of
SREBP-1c. This will help in understanding of the mechanism
by which both sterol and fatty acid regulation are linked
through SREBP-1c transcription.
Carbohydrate Response Elements in the SREBP-1c Promoter—An important question remains to be answered about thehigh carbohydrate diet-responsive element in the SREBP-1c
promoter. It has been shown that hepatic SREBP-1c mRNA is
induced by high carbohydrate diet and refeeding regiment after
fasting. Although our finding of possible feed-positive loop of
SREBP1c induction might partially explain the robust andprolonged induction of SREBP-1c in vivo, there must be amechanism of transcription that responds to the initial lipogenic signal. We could not detect a significant induction of
SREBP-1c promoter activity by increased glucose concentration in the medium in HepG2 cells and saw only a 3-fold
activation in 293 cells, which hampered further analysis ofpossible carbohydrate response elements. There are some possible reasons why we could not reproduce the dietary in vivo
observation in reporter gene assays in cultured cells. The
2.6-kb promoter that we currently used might not contain the
responsible element that could reside far upstream or downstream such as in an intron or the 3⬘-flanking region, or the
dietary response of SREBP-1c might be partially post-transcriptional. It is also possible that in luciferase assays, theconsiderable amount of transfected DNA containing SRE complex consumed endogenous SREBP and prevented the autoloop
formation, which would indicate that reporter gene assays are
intrinsically inappropriate to detect this kind of autoloop phenomenon. To address this question, further studies includingtransgenic mice harboring different longer SREBP-1c promoter
reporter genes or finding a better cell culture system are
required.
The current study revealed that the mouse SREBP-1c promoter contains multiple and complex regulatory elements
through which both cholesterol and carbohydrates might beinvolved in the gene regulation of SREBP-1c. Further analysis
on these elements might open up the new aspect of linkage
between cholesterol, fatty acids, and fuel metabolism.
Acknowledgments—We are grateful to Drs. Joseph L. Goldstein andMichael S. Brown for continuous support of the project.
REFERENCES
1. Brown, M. S., and Goldstein, J. L. (1997) Cell 89, 331–340
2. Brown, M. S., and Goldstein, J. L. (1999) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 96,
11041–11048
3. Sakai, J., Duncan, E. A., Rawson, R. B., Hua, X., Brown, M. S., and Goldstein,
J. L. (1996) Cell 85, 1037–1046
4. Wang, X., Briggs, M., Hua, X., Yokoyama, C., Goldstein, J., and Brown, M.
(1993) J. Biol. Chem. 268, 14497–14504
5. Kim, J. B., Spotts, G. D., Halvorsen, Y. D., Shih, H. M., Ellenberger, T., Towle,
H. C., and Spiegelman, B. M. (1995) Mol. Cell. Biol. 15, 2582–2588
6. Shimano, H., Horton, J. D., Shimomura, I., Hammer, R. E., Brown, M. S., andGoldstein, J. L. (1997) J. Clin. Invest. 99, 846 – 854
7. Shimano, H., Horton, J. D., Hammer, R. E., Shimomura, I., Brown, M. S., andGoldstein, J. L. (1996) J. Clin. Invest. 98, 1575–1584
8. Horton, J. D., Shimomura, I., Brown, M. S., Hammer, R. E., Goldstein, J. L.,
and Shimano, H. (1998) J. Clin. Invest. 101, 2331–2339
9. Shimomura, I., Shimano, H., Horton, J. D., Goldstein, J. L., and Brown, M. S.
(1997) J. Clin. Invest. 99, 838 – 845
10. Goodridge, A. G. (1987) Annu. Rev. Nutr. 7, 157–185
11. Hillgartner, F. B., Salati, L. M., and Goodridge, A. G. (1995) Physiol. Rev. 75,
47–76
12. Shimano, H., Yahagi, N., Amemiya-Kudo, M., Hasty, A. H., Osuga, J., Tamura,Y., Shionoiri, F., Iizuka, Y., Ohashi, K., Harada, K., Gotoda, T., Ishibashi,S., and Yamada, N. (1999) J. Biol. Chem. 274, 35832–35839
13. Kim, H. J., Takahashi, M., and Ezaki, O. (1999) J. Biol. Chem. 274,
25892–25898
14. Worgall, T. S., Sturley, S. L., Seo, T., Osborne, T. F., and Deckelbaum, R. J.
(1998) J. Biol. Chem. 273, 25537–25540
15. Thewke, D. P., Panini, S. R., and Sinensky, M. (1998) J. Biol. Chem. 273,

Mouse SREBP-1c promoter
21402–21407
16. Yahagi, N., Shimano, H., Hasty, A. H., Amemiya-Kudo, M., Okazaki, H.,
Tamura, Y., Iizuka, Y., Shionoiri, F., Ohashi, K., Osuga, J., Harada, K.,
Gotoda, T., Nagai, R., Ishibashi, S., and Yamada, N. (1999) J. Biol. Chem.
274, 35840 –35844
17. Horton, J. D., Bashmakov, Y., Shimomura, I., and Shimano, H. (1998) Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 95, 5987–5992
18. Kim, J. B., Sarraf, P., Wright, M., Yao, K. M., Mueller, E., Solanes, G., Lowell,
B. B., and Spiegelman, B. M. (1998) J. Clin. Invest. 101, 1–9
19. Kim, J. B., and Spiegelman, B. M. (1996) Genes Dev. 10, 1096 –1107
20. Shimomura, I., Hammer, R. E., Richardson, J. A., Ikemoto, S., Bashmakov, Y.,
Goldstein, J. L., and Brown, M. S. (1998) Genes Dev. 12, 3182–3194
21. Foretz, M., Guichard, C., Ferre, P., and Foufelle, F. (1999) Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci. U. S. A. 96, 12737–12742
22. Foretz, M., Pacot, C., Dugail, I., Lemarchand, P., Guichard, C., Le Liepvre, X.,
Berthelier-Lubrano, C., Spiegelman, B., Kim, J. B., Ferre, P., and Foufelle,F. (1999) Mol. Cell. Biol. 19, 3760 –3768
23. Koo, S.-H., and Towle, H. C. (2000) J. Biol. Chem. 275, 5200 –5207
24. Hasty, A. H., Shimano, H., Yahagi, N., Amemiya-Kudo M., Perrey S.,
Yoshikawa, T., Osuga, J., Okazaki, H., Tamura, Y., Iizuka, Y., Shionoiri, F.,
Ohashi, K., Harada, K., Gotoda, T., Nagai, R., Ishibashi, S., and Yamada, N.
(2000) J. Biol. Chem. 275, 31069 –31077
25. Shimomura, I., Bashmakov, Y., Ikemoto, S., Horton, J. D., Brown, M. S., andGoldstein, J. L. (1999) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 96, 13656 –13661
26. Soukas, A., Cohen, P., Socci, N. D., and Friedman, J. M. (2000) Genes Dev. 14,

31085

963–980
27. Xu, J., Nakamura, M. T., Cho, H. P., and Clarke, S. D. (1999) J. Biol. Chem.
274, 23577–23583
28. Shimano, H., Shimomura, I., Hammer, R. E., Herz, J., Goldstein, J. L., Brown,
M. S., and Horton, J. D. (1997) J. Clin. Invest. 100, 2115–2124
29. Andersson, S., Davis, D. L., Dahlback, H., Jornvall, H., and Russell, D. W.
(1989) J. Biol. Chem. 264, 8222– 8229
30. Heinemeyer, T., Wingender, E., Reuter, I., Hermjakob, H., Kel, A. E., Kel,
O. V., Ignatieva, E. V., Ananko, E. A., Podkolodnaya, O. A., Kolpakov, F. A.,
L., P. N., and Kolchanov, N. A. (1999) Nucleic Acids Res. 26, 364 –370
31. Ericsson, J., Jackson, S. M., Lee, B. C., and Edwards, P. A. (1996) Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 93, 945–950
32. Ericsson, J., Jackson, S. M., and Edwards, P. A. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271,
24359 –24364
33. Magana, M. M., and Osborne, T. F. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 32689 –32694
34. Sanchez, H. B., Yieh, L., and Osborne, T. F. (1995) J. Biol. Chem. 270,
1161–1169
35. Jackson, S. M., Ericsson, J., Osborne, T. F., and Edwards, P. A. (1995) J. Biol.
Chem. 270, 21445–21448
36. Xiong, S., Chirala, S. S., and Wakil, S. J. (2000) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
97, 3948 –3953
37. Magana, M. M., Koo, S. H., Towle, H. C., and Osborne, T. F. (2000) J. Biol.
Chem. 275, 4726 – 4733
38. Timchenko, N., Wilson, D. R., Taylor, L. R., Abdelsayed, S., Wilde, M.,
Sawadogo, M., and Darlington, G. J. (1995) Mol. Cell. Biol. 15, 1192–1202