Báo cáo khoa học: The influence of heterodimer partner ultraspiracle/retinoid X receptor on the function of ecdysone receptor pot

The influence of heterodimer partner ultraspiracle/retinoid X
receptor on the function of ecdysone receptor
Subba R. Palli
1
, Mariana Z. Kapitskaya
2
and David W. Potter
2
1 Department of Entomology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA
2 RheoGene Inc. Norristown, PA, USA
Steroid hormones, ecdysteroids, regulate insect develop-
ment, reproduction and several other physiological
processes. The most active form of ecdysteroids is 20-hy-
droxyecdysone (20E). The 20E transduces its signal
through a heterodimeric complex of two nuclear recep-
tors, the ecdysone receptor (EcR) [1] and the ultraspira-
cle (USP), an ortholog of the vertebrate retinoid X
receptor (RXR) [2–4]. Both EcR and USP are members
of the nuclear receptor superfamily [5] and exhibit a typ-
ical modular structure comprising the N-terminal
A ⁄ B domain, the DNA-binding or C domain, the hinge
or D domain, the ligand-binding or E domain, and the
C-terminal F domain. The ligand-binding domain sup-
ports ligand-dependent dimerization and transactivation
functions. A ⁄ B and F domains support ligand-inde-
pendent transactivation. The DNA-binding domain and
the N-terminal region of the hinge region are known to
support dimerization of two receptors.
The EcR:USP heterodimers bind to the ecdysteroid
response elements (EcRE) present in the promoter
regions of ecdysteroid response genes and regulate

their transcription. Most of the nuclear hormone
receptors, including EcR, are modular and function as
ligand-controlled transcription factors, a characteristic
that renders these receptors or their key regions (e.g.
the ligand-binding domain) suitable for gene switches
Keywords
gene switch; ligand-binding domain; nuclear
receptor; steroid hormone
Correspondence
S. R. Palli, Department of Entomology, S225
Agricultural Science Center, College of
Agriculture, University of Kentucky,
Lexington, KY 40546, USA
E-mail:
(Received 14 July 2005, revised 26 August
2005, accepted 3 October 2005)
doi:10.1111/j.1742-4658.2005.05003.x
A pair of nuclear receptors, ecdysone receptor (EcR) and ultraspiracle
(USP), heterodimerize and transduce ecdysteroid signals. The EcR and its
nonsteroidal ligands are being developed for regulation of transgene expres-
sion in humans, animals and plants. In mammalian cells, EcR:USP
heterodimers can function in the absence of ligand, but EcR ⁄ retinoid X
receptor (EcR:RXR) heterodimers require the presence of ligand for activa-
tion. The heterodimer partner of EcR can influence ligand sensitivity of
EcR so that the EcR ⁄ Locusta migratoria RXR (EcR:LmRXR) heterodi-
mers are activated at lower concentrations of ligand when compared with
the concentrations of ligand required for the activation of EcR ⁄ Homo
sapiens RXR (EcR:HsRXR) heterodimers. Analysis of chimeric RXRs con-
taining regions of LmRXR and HsRXR and point mutants of HsRXR
showed that the amino acid residues present in helix 9 and in the two loops

on either end of helix 9 are responsible for improved activity of LmRXR.
The EcR:Lm-HsRXR chimera heterodimer induced reporter genes with
nanomolar concentration of ligand compared with the micromolar concen-
tration of ligand required for activating the EcR:HsRXR heterodimer. The
EcR:Lm-HsRXR chimera heterodimer, but not the EcR:HsRXR hetero-
dimer, supported ligand-dependent induction of reporter gene in a
C57BL ⁄ 6 mouse model.
Abbreviations
CfEcR, Choristoneura fumiferana EcR; DMSO, dimethylsulfoxide; 20E, 20-hydroxyecdysone; ECD, ecdysteroid; EcR, ecdysone receptor;
EcRE, ecdysone response element; G:CfEcR(DEF), GAL4:CfEcR(DEF); RLU, relative light units; RXR, retinoid X receptor; SEAP, secreted
alkaline phosphatase; VP:Hs–LmRXR(EF), VP16:HsbRXR (helices 1–8) LmRXR (helices 9–12 + F); V:MmRXR(EF), VP16:MmRXR(EF);
V:CfUSP(EF), VP16:CfUSP(EF); V:LmRXR(EF), VP16:LmRXR(EF); USP, ultraspiracle; WT, wild-type.
FEBS Journal 272 (2005) 5979–5990 ª 2005 The Authors Journal Compilation ª 2005 FEBS 5979
(ligand-dependent regulation of transgenes) in various
biotechnology applications. Several nuclear receptors,
including the glucocorticoid receptor (GR), the pro-
gesterone receptor (PR), the estrogen receptor (ER),
and the EcR are being used to develop gene switches
for applications in medicine and agriculture. Because
the EcR and its ligands are not found in vertebrates,
they are attractive targets for the development of gene
switches for applications in humans. The EcR gene
switch is being developed for use in various applica-
tions including gene therapy, expression of toxic pro-
teins in cell lines and cell-based drug discovery assays
[6–14].
EcRs function as an ecdysteroid-dependent tran-
scription factor in cultured mammalian cells [15,16].
No et al. [17] used DmEcR and human RXRa to
develop an EcR gene switch and demonstrated its

function in mammalian cells and mice. The EcR gene
switch was improved by using a nonsteroidal ecdysone
agonist, tebufenozide, to induce a high level of repor-
ter gene transactivation in mammalian cells through
Bombyx mori EcR (BmEcR) [18,19] and endogenous
RXR. Later, Hoppe et al. [20] combined DmEcR and
BmEcR systems and created a chimeric Drosophila ⁄
Bombyx EcR (DBEcR) that had combined positive
aspects of both systems so that the chimeric receptor
was capable of binding to modified EcRE and also
functioned without exogenous RXR. Saez and
coworkers discovered that the RXR ligands enhance
the ligand-dependent activity of EcR-based gene swit-
ches [21], and Wybroski and coworkers [22] developed
methods for expression of both EcR and RXR in a
bicistronic vector.
Although the current versions of EcR gene switch
possess several fundamental features that confer great
potential for enhancement, they do not satisfy all of
the criteria desirable for a generally useful gene regula-
tion system. To improve the EcR-based switch, we
tested several combinations of GAL4 DNA-binding
domain (GAL4 DBD), VP16 activation domain
(VP16 AD), EcR and RXR and found that a two-
hybrid format switch, in which GAL4 DBD was fused
to CfEcR (DEF) and VP16 AD was fused to Mus
musculus RXR (MmRXR) EF was the best combina-
tion in terms of low background levels of reporter gene
activity in the absence of a ligand and high levels of
reporter gene activity in the presence of a ligand [23].

However, the ligand sensitivity of this two-hybrid for-
mat EcR gene switch is not very high and requires a
micromolar concentration of ligand for induction of
genes. To improve the ligand sensitivity of EcR gene
switch, we tested insect RXR and chimeras between
human and insect RXRs as partners for EcR and
discovered that the partner of EcR affects functioning
of EcR in gene switch applications. The ligand sensi-
tivity of EcR gene switch was improved by  100-fold
by replacing HsRXR with a chimera between HsRXR
and an insect RXR from Locusta migrotoria
(LmRXR).
Results
Use of invertebrate RXR improves the function
of EcR in mammalian cells
Alignment of USP and RXR sequences showed that
the RXR homologs, USPs from lepidopteran and dip-
teran insects fall into one group and the RXR homo-
logs identified from insects belonging to other orders
(e.g. Heteroptera, Locusta migratoria and Coleoptera,
Tenebrio molitor, as well as from crab and tick group
with vertebrate RXRs) (Fig. 1). In other words, the
RXR homologs identified in insects belonging to
orders other than Lepidoptera and Diptera as well as
from crab and tick are closer to vertebrate RXRs than
to their counterparts in lepidopteran and dipteran
insects.
As shown in Fig. 2A, use of USP from the lepidop-
teran insect Choristoneura fumiferana [V:CfUSP(EF)]
as a partner for EcR from Choristoneura fumiferana

[G:CfEcR(DEF)] resulted in the expression of a repor-
ter gene in the absence of ligand and showed low levels
of ligand-dependent induction. In contrast, use of
Fig. 1. Phylogenetic tree of USP ⁄ RXR ligand-binding domain
sequences. The phylogenetic tree was prepared using
DNA STAR
(DNA star Inc., Madison, WI). The sequences used are Homo sap-
iens retinoid X receptor (HsRXR) [26], Xenopus laevis retinoid X
receptor (XlRXR) [27], fiddler crab Uca pugilator RXR homolog
(UpRXR) [28], Locusta migratoria RXR homolog (LmRXR) [29],
Amblyomma americanum RXR homolog (AmaRXR) [30], Bombyx
mori USP (BmUSP) [31], Manduca sexta USP (MsUSP) [32], Choris-
toneura fumiferana USP (CfUSP) [33], Drosophila melanogaster
USP (DmUSP) [34–36], Aedes aegypti USP (AaUSP) [37], Chirono-
mus tentans USP (CtUSP) [27].
Influence of RXR on EcR function S. R. Palli et al.
5980 FEBS Journal 272 (2005) 5979–5990 ª 2005 The Authors Journal Compilation ª 2005 FEBS
RXR from Homo sapiens [V:HsRXR(EF)] or RXR
from orthopteran insect, Locusta migratoria [V:Lm-
RXR(EF)] as a partner for G:CfEcR(DEF) showed
low background levels of expression of the GALRE-
regulated luciferase reporter gene in the absence of lig-
and and the luciferase activity increased after exposure
to the ligand, RG-102240 (Fig. 2A). The increase in lu-
ciferase activity occurred in cells that were transfected
with the G:CfEcR(DEF) and V:HsRXR(EF) con-
structs and exposed to a 5 lm or higher concentration
of RG-102240 (Fig. 2A). By contrast, the increase in
luciferase activity occurred at 200 nm or higher con-
centrations of RG-102240 in cells that were transfected

with the G:CfEcR(DEF) + V:LmRXR(EF) switch,
showing that the ligand sensitivity of the G:CfEcR-
(DEF) + V:LmRXR(EF) switch is higher than that
of the G:CfEcR(DEF) + V:HsRXR(EF) switch. Pro-
teins isolated from 3T3 cells transfected with
V:LmRXR(EF), V:CfUSP(EF) or V:HsRXR(EF) were
analyzed using western blots and VP16 antibodies. As
shown in Fig. 2B, all three fusion proteins are
expressed in similar quantities suggesting that the dif-
ference observed in ligand sensitivity of LmRXR,
HsRXR and CfUSP switches is due to structure of
these proteins rather than due to differences in their
expression levels.
When the green fluorescence protein (GFP; placed
under the control of GALRE) and G:CfEcR(DEF) +
V:CfUSP(EF), G:CfEcR(DEF) + V:HsRXR(EF) or
G:CfEcR(DEF) + V:LmRXR(EF) constructs were
transfected into 3T3 cells, the cells transfected with
G:CfEcR(DEF) + V:CfUSP(EF) switch constructs
showed GFP fluorescence in the cells treated with
dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO), 1.0 or 10 lm RG-102240
(Fig. 3). Low levels of GFP fluorescence were detected
in 3T3 cells transfected with G:CfEcR(DEF) +
V:LmRXR(EF) constructs and exposed to DMSO.
However, upon exposure to 1.0 or 10 lm RG-102240,
these cells showed higher GFP fluorescence (Fig. 3). In
contrast, the GFP activity was not observed in 3T3
cells transfected with G:CfEcR(DEF) + V:HsRX-
R(EF) constructs and exposed to DMSO. Upon expo-
sure to 1.0 or 10 lm RG-102240, these cells showed

GFP fluorescence (Fig. 3). The data show that
G:CfEcR(DEF) + V:CfUSP(EF) switch supports the
expression of the GFP gene placed under the control
of GALRE even in the absence of ligand. By contrast,
G:CfEcR(DEF) + V:HsRXR(EF) and G:CfEcR-
(DEF) + V:LmRXR(EF) switches induce the expres-
sion of GFP placed under the control of GALRE in
the presence of ligand, RG-102240. In addition, the
G:CfEcR(DEF) + V:LmRXR(EF) switch is more sen-
sitive to ligand than the G:CfEcR(DEF) + V:HsRXR-
(EF) switch. Thus, the data from these experiments
confirm the results observed with the luciferase
reporter.
Amino acid residues present in helix 9 and in
loops on either side of helix 9 of RXR are
responsible for increased activity of LmRXR
As shown in Fig. 2A, LmRXR performed better than
HsRXR as a partner for EcR in ligand-dependent
induction of reporter genes in 3T3 cells. To determine
AB
Fig. 2. (A) Transactivation of reporter gene by EcR + HsRXR, EcR + LmRXR and CfEcR + CfUSP gene switches. 3T3 cells were transfected
with pRLUC, pFRLUC, G:CfEcR(DEF) and V:HsRXR(EF) or V:LmRXR(EF) or V:CfUSP(EF) for 4 h. The transfected cells were grown in med-
ium containing DMSO, 0.04, 0.2, 1 or 5 l
M RG-102240. At 48 h after addition of ligand, cells were harvested and assayed for luciferase
activity. The fly luciferase activity was normalized using Renilla luciferase activity. The values presented are mean ± SD (n ¼ 3). (B) Twenty
micrograms of proteins from 3T3 cells transfected with V:LmRXR(EF), V:CfUSP(EF) or V:HsRXR(EF) constructs were separated on
SDS ⁄ PAGE, transferred to nitrocellulose and analyzed using VP16 antibodies. The position of 50 and 37 kDa bands form Bio-Rad Precision
plus protein standards is shown on the left. Arrows point to 32, 38 and 36 kDa fusion protein bands.
S. R. Palli et al. Influence of RXR on EcR function
FEBS Journal 272 (2005) 5979–5990 ª 2005 The Authors Journal Compilation ª 2005 FEBS 5981

which regions of LmRXR are responsible for this
improved activity, we prepared five chimeras of
LmRXR and HsRXR by sequentially replacing helix 6
with helix 12 of HsRXR with the corresponding
regions of LmRXR. The chimeric RXRs, HsRXR and
LmRXR were assayed as partners for CfEcR in
ligand-dependent induction of reporter activity in 3T3
cells. The luciferase reporter gene regulated by GAL-
RE (pFRLUC), G:CfEcR(DEF) and V:HsRXR(EF)
or V:LmRXR(EF) or VP6 fusion of each Hs–
LmRXR(EF) chimera shown in Fig. 4A were trans-
fected into 3T3 cells and the transfected cells were
exposed to RG-102240. Luciferase activity was
measured at 48 h after addition of ligand. The
G:CfEcR(DEF) + V:HsRXR(EF) switch induced lu-
ciferase activity at 1 lm or higher concentration of
RG-102240 and the G:CfEcR(DEF) + V:LmRXR-
(EF) switch induced luciferase activity at 0.2 lm or
higher concentration of RG-102240 (Fig. 4A). Repla-
cing RXR with Hs–LmRXR(EF) chimera containing
helices 1–7 of HsRXR and 8–12 of LmRXR or helices
1–8 of HsRXR and 9–12 of LmRXR resulted in an
increase in ligand sensitivity of the EcR switch. Luci-
ferase activity was induced with a 0.04 lm or higher
concentration of RG-102240 (Fig. 4A) in the presence
of these chimeras. The other three chimeras performed
similar to HsRXR. Proteins isolated from 3T3 cells
that were transfected with chimera constructs were
analyzed using Western blots and VP16 antibodies. As
shown in Fig. 4B, fusion proteins for all five chimeras

expressed well, suggesting that the differences observed
in ligand sensitivity of gene switches containing chime-
ras are due to structure of these proteins rather than
to differences in their expression levels. The data sug-
gest that the amino acid residues present in the region
of LmRXR that spans helices 8–9 and loops between
helices 7–8, 8–9 and 9–10 are responsible for the
increased activity of LmRXR.
Comparison of amino acid sequences present in the
ligand-binding domains of HsRXR and LmRXR
showed that most of the differences in the amino acids
between HsRXR and LmRXR are found in helix 9
and in the loops on either side of helix 9. To confirm
the results observed in analysis of chimeras as well as
to identify the precise region of LmRXR that is
responsible for the increase in its activity when com-
pared with HsRXR, we performed site-directed muta-
genesis on HsRXR and changed the amino acid
residues of HsRXR that are different from LmRXR to
the corresponding amino acid residues present in
LmRXR. The amino acids changed are shown in
Fig. 5. The performance of the mutants was compared
Fig. 3. Differences in the transactivation of GFP reporter gene by EcR + HsRXR (HsRXR), EcR + LmRXR (LmRXR) and CfEcR + CfUSP
(CfUSP) gene switches. 3T3 cells were transfected with pFRGFP, G:CfEcR(DEF) and V:HsRXR(EF) or V:LmRXR(EF) or V:CfUSP(EF) for 4 h.
The transfected cells were treated with DMSO, 1 l
M or 10 lM RG-102240, the cells were photographed 48 h after addition of ligand.
Influence of RXR on EcR function S. R. Palli et al.
5982 FEBS Journal 272 (2005) 5979–5990 ª 2005 The Authors Journal Compilation ª 2005 FEBS
with the parent RXRs in supporting EcR gene switch
activity in 3T3 cells. As shown in Fig. 5, the mutants

in which HsRXR amino acid residues were replaced
with LmRXR residues in helix 9 as well as in loops on
either side of helix 9 performed better than wild-type
HsRXR as partners of EcR in supporting ligand-
dependent induction of reporter activity. One partic-
ular mutant, in which three amino acids present in the
loop between helix 8 and 9 of HsRXR were replaced
with three amino acids present in the same region of
LmRXR (D450E ⁄ A451V ⁄ K452R), performed even
better than LmRXR as a partner for EcR in ligand-
CH6 CH8 CH9 CH10 CH11
A
B
Fig. 4. (A) 3T3 cells were transfected with
pRLUC, pFRLUC, G:CfEcR(DEF) and
V:HsRXR(EF) or V:LmRXR(EF) or VP6 fusion
of one the Hs–LmRXR(EF) chimeras. Trans-
fected cells were exposed to DMSO, 0.04,
0.2, 1 or 5 l
M RG-102240 for 48 h. The cells
were harvested and assayed for luciferase
activity. The fly luciferase activity was nor-
malized using Renilla luciferase activity. The
values presented are mean ± SD (n ¼ 3).
(B) Twenty micrograms of proteins isolated
from 3T3 cells transfected with V:Hs–
LmRXR(EF) chimera constructs were separ-
ated on SDS ⁄ PAGE, transferred to nitrocel-
lose and analyzed using VP16 antibodies.
Arrow points to fusion protein bands.

Fig. 5. Sequence of chimeras between HsRXR and LmRXR. The amino acids that are from HsRXR are shown with a pink background. The
amino acids from LmRXR are shown with a green background. The amino acids that were mutated are shown with a yellow background.
S. R. Palli et al. Influence of RXR on EcR function
FEBS Journal 272 (2005) 5979–5990 ª 2005 The Authors Journal Compilation ª 2005 FEBS 5983
dependent induction of reporter activity (Fig. 6A).
However, the performance of this mutant is not as
good as Hs–LmRXR (EF) chimera 9 (Fig. 4A) sug-
gesting that not only these three amino acids but also
other amino acids that are different between HsRXR
and LmRXR in helix 9 as well as in the loops on
either side of helix 9 contribute to the improved activ-
ity of LmRXR. Western blot analysis of proteins iso-
lated from 3T3 cells that were transfected with RXR
mutant constructs showed that the fusion proteins for
all nine mutants expressed well suggesting that the dif-
ferences observed in ligand sensitivity of gene switches
containing chimeras are due to structure of these pro-
teins rather than due to differences in their expression
levels (Fig. 6B).
To confirm that the amino acid residues present in
helix 9, as well as in the loops on either side of helix 9,
are responsible for improved performance of LmRXR,
we produced a chimera in which the region of
LmRXR containing helix 9 and the two loops on
either side of helix 9 were replaced with the corres-
ponding region present in HsRXR. The performance
of this chimera and two parent RXRs, LmRXR and
HsRXR was evaluated as partners of EcR in ligand-
dependent induction of reporter activity in 3T3 cells.
As shown in Fig. 7, The G:CfEcR(DEF) + V:Lm-

HsRXR(EF) chimera switch induced the luciferase
activity with 1 lm or higher concentration of RG-
102240. This is similar to the ligand sensitivity of the
G:CfEcR(DEF) + V:HsRXR(EF) switch, but lower
than that of the G:CfEcR(DEF) + V:LmRXR(EF)
switch in which the luciferase activity was induced with
0.2 lm or higher concentration of RG-102240 (Fig. 7).
These data confirmed the results that the region of
LmRXR containing helix 9 and the two loops on
either side of helix 9 is responsible for improved per-
formance of LmRXR as a partner for EcR in ligand-
dependent induction of reporter activity.
123456789
A
B
Fig. 6. 3T3 cells were transfected with pRLUC, pFRLUC, G:CfEcR(DEF) and V:HsRXR(EF) or V:LmRXR(EF) or mutants of HsRXR. (A) Trans-
fected cells were exposed to DMSO, 0.04, 0.2, 1 or 5 l
M RG-102240 for 48 h. The cells were harvested and assayed for luciferase activity.
The fly luciferase activity was normalized using Renilla luciferase activity. The values presented are mean ± SD (n ¼ 3). (B) Twenty micro-
grams of proteins isolated from 3T3 cells transfected with V:HsRXR(EF) mutant constructs were separated on SDS ⁄ PAGE, transferred to
nitrocellulose and analyzed using VP16 antibodies. The arrow points to fusion protein bands. Mutant 1, D450E ⁄ A451V ⁄ K452R; mutant 2,
S455K ⁄ N456S ⁄ P457A ⁄ S458Q; mutant 3, V462L; mutant 4, S470A; mutant 5, T473E; mutant 6, C475T ⁄ K476R ⁄ Q477T ⁄ K478T ⁄ Y475H;
mutant 7, E481D ⁄ Q482E ⁄ 483P; mutant 8, A495S; mutant 9, A528S.
Influence of RXR on EcR function S. R. Palli et al.
5984 FEBS Journal 272 (2005) 5979–5990 ª 2005 The Authors Journal Compilation ª 2005 FEBS
To determine whether the region of LmRXR
(helix 9 and two loops either side of it) that improved
EcR performance would also affect RXR perform-
ance mediated through 9-cis-retinoic acid, we com-
pared the performance of HsRXR, LmRXR and the

two chimeras, Hs–LmRXR (helix 1–8 of HsRXR and
9–12 of LmRXR) and Lm-HsRXR (helix 9 and two
loops on either side of helix 9 of LmRXR were
replaced with the corresponding regions form
HsRXR) in transactivation assays. As shown in
Fig. 8, 9-cis-retinoic acid induced reporter genes
through G:CfEcR(DEF) + V:HsRXR(EF) switch at
0.2 lm or higher concentration of ligand. However,
25 lm concentration of 9-cis-retinoic acid was needed
to induced reporter gene via the G:CfEcR(DEF)
+ V:LmRXR(EF) switch. The two chimeras per-
formed similar to parents in this assay. The
G:CfEcR(DEF) + V:Hs–LmRXR(EF) chimera switch
supported reporter gene induction at 0.2 lm or higher
concentration of 9-cis-retinoic acid and the G:CfEcR-
(DEF) + V:Lm-HsRXR(EF) chimera switch suppor-
ted reporter induction at 25 lm concentration of
9-cis-retinoic acid. The data suggest that the chimeras
prepared by swapping helix 9 and the two loops on
either side of helix 9 do not affect 9-cis-retioic acid
activity through RXR.
To determine whether the influence of USP ⁄ RXR
on the EcR function is mediated at the level of
heterodimerization between EcR and USP ⁄ RXR, we
performed pull-down assays. Bacterially expressed
fusion protein of GST and CfEcR(DEF) was used
to pull down in vitro translated HsRXR(EF),
LmRXR(EF), CfUSP(EF) and Hs–LmRXR(EF) chi-
mera in the absence and presence of 1 lm RG-
102240. There was no difference in the amount of

CfUSP(EF) pulled down by EcR in the presence of
DMSO or 1 lm RG-102240, suggesting that EcR
and USP can heterodimerize in the absence of ligand
(Fig. 9). In contrast, the amount of HsRXR,
Fig. 7. Comparison of two parent RXRs and Lm-HsRXR(EF) chi-
mera in transactivation assays. 3T3 cells were transfected with
pRLUC, pFRLUC, G:CfEcR(DEF) and V:HsRXR(EF) or V:LmRXR(EF)
or VP6 fusion of Lm–HsRXR(EF) chimera (LmRXR helix 9 and loops
on either side of it were replaced with the corresponding region of
HsRXR). The transfected cells were exposed to DMSO, 0.04, 0.2,
1or5l
M RG-10240 for 48 h. The cells were harvested and
assayed for the luciferase activity. The fly luciferase activity was
normalized using Renilla luciferase activity. The values presented
are mean ± SD (n ¼ 3).
Fig. 8. Comparison of two parent RXRs, Lm-HsRXR(EF) and
Hs–LmRXR(EF) chimeras in 9-cis-retinoic acid induced transactiva-
tion assays. 3T3 cells were transfected with pRLUC, pFRLUC,
G:CfEcR(DEF) and V:HsRXR(EF) or V:LmRXR(EF) or VP6 fusion of
Lm-HsRXR(EF) chimera (LmRXR helix 9 and loops on either side of
it were replaced with the corresponding region of HsRXR) or
Hs–LmRXR(EF) chimera 9. The transfected cells were exposed to
DMSO, 0.04, 0.2, 1, 5 or 25 l
M 9-cis-retinoic acid for 48 h. The
cells were harvested and assayed for the luciferase activity. The fly
luciferase activity was normalized using Renilla luciferase activity.
The values presented are mean ± SD (n ¼ 3). Asterisks on top of
the bars indicate significant difference from DMSO-treated cells at
P < 0.5 determined by t-test.
Fig. 9. GST:CfEcRDEF and [

35
S]-methionine labeled Hs–LmRXR chi-
mera (C) or HsRXREF (HsR) or LmRXREF (LmR) or CfUSP (CfU)
were incubated in binding buffer containing DMSO or one lM
RG-102240 and the complexes were precipitated with glutathione
agarose beads. The pellet was washed and resolved on SDS ⁄ PAGE
and the gel was dried and exposed to X-ray film.
S. R. Palli et al. Influence of RXR on EcR function
FEBS Journal 272 (2005) 5979–5990 ª 2005 The Authors Journal Compilation ª 2005 FEBS 5985
LmRXR and Hs–LmRXR chimera pulled down by
EcR increased after addition of 1 lm RG-102240.
The increase in amount of RXR pulled down by
EcR in the presence of ligand was maximum in the
case of HsRXR and minimum in the case of the
Hs–LmRXR chimera, and LmRXR was between
these two (Fig. 9). These data suggest that the EcR
and USP can heterodimerize in the absence of lig-
and. In contrast, EcR:RXR heterodimer stability is
increased by the presence of ligand.
The EcR:Hs–LmRXR chimera switch is ligand
sensitive and functions in mice
Based on the data, we selected a RXR chimera that
contains helices 1–8 from HsRXR and 9–12 from
LmRXR and evaluated its performance as a partner
of EcR in gene switch applications. The EcR:Hs–
LmRXR chimera switch initiated the induction of the
luciferase reporter activity beginning at 0.04 lm
RG-102240 and the luciferase activity reached peak
levels in the presence of 1 lm RG-102240 (Fig. 10A).
This is a significant improvement in ligand sensitivity

when compared with the EcR:HsRXR switch that
requires 1 lm RG-102240 to initiate induction of the
luciferase reporter gene and the reporter activity rea-
Fig. 10. Dose-dependent induction of reporter gene by gene
switch receptors. (A) 3T3 cells were transfected with G:Cf(DEF),
V:Hs–LmRXR(EF), pFRLUC and pRLUC. The transfected cells were
grown in the medium containing 0, 0.04, 0.2, 1 or 5 l
M concentra-
tion of RG-102240. The cells were collected at 48 h after adding
ligand and reporter activity was quantified. The fly luciferase activity
was normalized using Renilla luciferase activity. The values presen-
ted are mean ± SD (n ¼ 3). (B) 3T3 cells were transfected with
G:CfEcR(DEF) + V:HsRXR(EF) gene switch. 3T3 cells were trans-
fected with G:Cf(DEF), V:HsRXR(EF), pFRLUC and pRLUC. The
transfected cells were grown in the medium containing 0, 0.2, 1, 5
and 25 l
M concentration of RG-102240. The cells were collected at
48 h after adding ligand and reporter activity was quantified. The fly
luciferase activity was normalized using Renilla luciferase activity.
The values presented are mean ± SD (n ¼ 3).
Fig. 11. (A) Time course of induction of reporter gene by gene
switch plasmids. (A) 3T3 cells were transfected with G:Cf(DEF),
V:Hs–LmRXR(EF), pFRLUC and pRLUC. The transfected cells were
grown in the medium containing 1 l
M concentration of RG-102240.
The cells were collected at 0, 1, 3, 6, 12, 24, 48 and 72 h after add-
ing ligand and reporter activity was quantified. The fly luciferase
activity was normalized using Renilla luciferase activity. The values
presented are mean ± SD (n ¼ 3). (B) 3T3 cells were transfected
with G:Cf(DEF), V:Hs–LmRXR(EF), pFRLUC and pRLUC. The trans-

fected cells were grown in the medium containing 1 l
M concentra-
tion of RG-102240. At 48 h after addition of ligand, the cells were
washed with fresh medium and maintained in the fresh medium.
The cells were collected at 0, 1, 3, 6, 12, 24, 48 and 72 h after
transfer to the fresh medium and the luciferase activity was quanti-
fied. The fly luciferase activity was normalized using Renilla luci-
ferase activity. The values presented are mean ± SD (n ¼ 3).
Influence of RXR on EcR function S. R. Palli et al.
5986 FEBS Journal 272 (2005) 5979–5990 ª 2005 The Authors Journal Compilation ª 2005 FEBS
ches peak levels in the presence of 25 lm RG-102240
(Fig. 10B). The reporter gene regulated by the
EcR:Hs–LmRXR chimera switch was induced begin-
ning at 1 h after addition of ligand and reached peak
levels of 19 000-fold induction by 48 h after addition
of ligand (Fig. 11A). The turn off of reporter activity
after withdrawal of ligand is also fast. More than 50%
of reporter activity was reduced by 12 h after with-
drawal of ligand and by 24 h after withdrawal of lig-
and, most of the reporter activity disappeared
(Fig. 11B).
To evaluate the performance of the G:CfEcR(DEF):
V:Hs–LmRXR(EF) switch in vivo in mice, reporter
(secreted alkaline phosphatase regulated by GALRE),
G:CfEcR(DEF) and V:Hs–LmRXR(EF) chimera or
V:HsRXR(EF) plasmids were electroporated into the
quadriceps of C57BL ⁄ 6 mice. The animals were
treated with 5 mg RG-102240 ⁄ 50 lL DMSO ⁄
mouse by intraperitoneal injection at three days after
electroporation of plasmids. Secreted alkaline phos-

phate (SEAP) in mouse sera was evaluated at various
time points after ligand administration. The G:CfEcR-
(DEF) + V:Hs–LmRXR(EF) chimera switch induced
SEAP activity that reached peak levels at five days
after the administration of ligand (Fig. 12). By con-
trast, the G:CfEcR(DEF) + V:HsRXR(EF) switch did
not cause induction of SEAP activity up to 25 days
after the administration of ligand (Fig. 12). Thus, the
G:CfEcR(DEF) + V:Hs–LmRXR(EF) chimera switch
but not G:CfEcR(DEF) + V:HsRXR(EF) switch is
sensitive enough to support ligand-dependent induction
of reporter gene expression in vivo.
Discussion
The EcR heterodimerizes with the nuclear receptor
USP, binds to ecdysteroids and ecdysone response ele-
ments and regulates the expression of ecdysteroid
responsive genes. Because ecdysteroids and their lig-
ands are absent in vertebrates, including humans, they
are being developed to regulate transgenes in various
applications including gene therapy, functional genom-
ics, drug discovery, and biopharmaceutical production
[24]. In mammalian cells, the CfEcR and CfUSP het-
erodimer induces the expression of reporter genes regu-
lated by EcRE even in the absence of ligand; therefore,
they are not useful for gene switch applications. Ver-
tebrate RXR such as human or mouse RXR have been
used in the place of USP in all EcR gene switches
developed to date. One of the major limitations of cur-
rent versions of EcR gene switches is the requirement
of micromolar concentrations of ligand for induction

of gene expression. In phylogenetic analysis, Locusta
migratoria RXR (LmRXR) falls into vertebrate RXR
but not insect USP group (Fig. 1). We hypothesized
that unlike the CfEcR:CfUSP heterodimer, the
CfEcR:LmRXR heterodimer does not induce reporter
genes regulated by EcRE in the absence of ligand.
Furthermore, compared with the CfEcR:HsRXR het-
erodimer, CfEcR:LmRXR heterodimers may induce
reporter genes regulated by response elements at lower
concentrations of ligand. We tested these hypotheses
by comparing the performance of CfUSP, LmRXR
and HsRXR as partners for CfEcR in induction of
reporter genes regulated by GALRE in 3T3 cells and
found that both hypotheses are true. Pull-down experi-
ments showed that the CfUSP heterodimerizes with
the CfEcR in the absence of ligand (Fig. 9), there-
fore, CfEcR:CfUSP heterodimers can induce gene
expression in the absence of ligand. However,
CfEcR:HsRXR heterodimers are at very low levels in
the absence of ligand and upon addition of ligand,
increased quantities of HsRXRs were pulled down by
CfEcR suggesting that CfEcR:HsRXR heterodimers
increase in the presence of ligand and induce gene
expression.
We created chimeric receptors comprised of regions
from HsRXR and LmRXR and mutants of HsRXR,
and evaluated their performance as partners of CfEcR
in ligand-dependent induction of gene expression.
These analyses showed that the amino acids present in
helix 9 and in the two loops present on either side of

helix 9 are responsible for improved performance of
Fig. 12. In vivo comparison of human RXRb and Hs-RXRb –Lm-
RXRb fusion protein in a C57BL ⁄ 6 mouse model. The gene swit-
ches, composed of plasmids containing pCMV ⁄ GAL4-pCfEcR(DEF),
pCMV ⁄ VP16-Hs-RXR(EF) (s) or pCMV ⁄ VP16-HsRXRb(H1-8)-
LmRXRb(H9-12) fusion (m), and 6xGAL4RE-TTR-SEAP, were elec-
troporated into the quadriceps of C57BL ⁄ 6 mice. Animals were
treated with 5 mg RG-102240 ⁄ 50 lL DMSO ⁄ mouse by IP injection
three days after electroporation of plasmid. SEAP in mouse sera
was evaluated for up to 17 days after ligand administration. Values
are the average from seven animals ± SD.
S. R. Palli et al. Influence of RXR on EcR function
FEBS Journal 272 (2005) 5979–5990 ª 2005 The Authors Journal Compilation ª 2005 FEBS 5987
LmRXR when compared with the performance of
HsRXR as a partner for CfEcR. Structural studies on
EcR:USP and RAR:RXR heterodimers showed that
helices 7 and 10, present in two nuclear receptors,
form heterodimerization interfaces and play critical
roles in heterodimerization [25]. The data presented
here showed that besides helices 7 and 10, amino acid
residues present in helix 9 and in the two loops present
on either side of helix 9 play critical roles in hetero-
dimerization of EcR:USP ⁄ RXR. In fact, there is only
one amino acid each in helix 7 and helix 10 that is dif-
ferent between HsRXR and LmRXR. Replacing these
two amino acids in HsRXR with the corresponding
amino acids present in LmRXR did not increase the
performance of HsRXR as a partner for CfEcR. In
contrast, replacing HsRXR amino acids present in
helix 9 and in the loops on either side of helix 9 with

the amino acids present in corresponding positions in
LmRXR resulted in an increase in the performance of
HsRXR as a partner for CfEcR. Particularly, repla-
cing three amino acids (DAK) located in the loop
between helices 8 and 9 of HsRXR with the amino
acids (EVR) present in the corresponding positions of
LmRXR resulted in a HsRXR mutant that performed
even better than LmRXR as CfEcR partner. Examina-
tion of structures of EcR and RXR indicated that,
when compared with the aspartic acid (D) residue pre-
sent in the loop between helices 8 and 9 of HsRXR,
the glutamic acid (E) residue present in the corres-
ponding region of LmRXR is located at a more favo-
rable distance to interact with the arginine (R) residue
present in helix 7 of EcR [25]. Taken together, these
studies conclusively show that the amino acid residues
present in helix 9 and in the two loops on either side
of helix 9 contribute to the heterodimerization of EcR
and RXR.
The diacylhydrazine nonsteroidal ligands of EcR
are not highly polar, therefore; higher concentrations
of these ligands or highly sensitive gene switches are
required for in vivo applications. Because the
CfEcR:HsRXR switch requires micromolar concen-
trations of ligand for the transactivation of genes, it
does not function very well for in vivo applications.
However, the CfEcR:Hs–LmRXR chimera switch
requires only nanomolar concentrations of ligands
for the transactivation of genes and functions well
in vivo. The RXR chimeras containing most of

HsRXR and helix 9 and the loops on either side of
helix 9 from HsRXR or mutants of HsRXR with a
change in just three amino acids (D450E ⁄
A451V ⁄ K452R) will definitely help in the develop-
ment of gene switches, especially those that require
in vivo applications.
Experimental procedures
Constructs
The construction of GAL4:CfEcR(DEF) [G:CfEcR(DEF)],
VP16:MmRXR(EF) [V:MmRXR(EF)] and VP16:CfUS-
P(EF) [V:CfUSP(EF) has been described previously [23]
VP16:LmRXR(EF) [V:LmRXR(EF)] was constructed by
amplifying EF domains of LmRXR using primers contain-
ing EcoRI and BamHI sites in the forward and reverse pri-
mer, respectively, followed by cloning of the PCR product
into EcoRI and Bam HI digested pVP16 vector (Clontech
Inc. Palo Alto, CA). pFRLUC reporter plasmid was pur-
chased from Stratagene (La Jolla, CA). pRLUC is reporter
plasmid expressing Renilla luciferase under the control of
thymidine kinase promoter (Promega, Madison, WI). The
GST fusion construct of MmR(EF) was made by cloning
MmR(EF) domain into pGEX-5X-1 vector (Amersham
Pharmacia Biotech, Piscataway, NJ) forward and reverse
primers, respectively.
Ligands
RG-102240 [N-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-N¢-(2-ethyl-3-methoxy-
benzoyl)-3,5-dimethylbenzohydrazide] also known as
GS
TM
-E and RheoSwitchÒ ligand 1 (RSL1) is a synthetic

stable diacylhydrazine ecdysone agonist synthesized by
RheoGene Inc.; 9-cis-retinoic acid was purchased from Sig-
ma Chemical Co. (St Louis, MO, USA). The ligands were
applied in DMSO and the final concentration of DMSO
was maintained at 0.1% in both controls and treatments.
Cells and transfections and reporter assays
3T3 cells were grown to 60% confluency. Fifty thousand
cells were plated per well of 12-well plates. The next day,
cells were transfected with 0.25 lg of receptor(s) and
1.0 lg of reporter constructs using 4 lL of SuperFect
(Qiagen Inc., Valencia, CA). A second reporter, Renilla
luciferase, expressed under a thymidine kinase constitutive
promoter was cotransfected into cells and used for normal-
ization. After transfection, cells were grown in a medium
containing ligands for 24–48 h. The cells were harvested,
lyzed and the reporter activity was measured in an aliquot
of lysate. All transfection experiments were performed in
triplicate and the experiments were repeated at least three
times. Luciferase and Renilla luciferase activities were
measured using the Dual-luciferase
TM
reporter assay sys-
tem (Promega).
Construction of chimeras and mutants
Site-directed mutagenesis was carried out using the
QuikchangeÒ site directed mutagenesis kit (Stratagene).
Mutations were verified by sequencing. RXR chimeras
Influence of RXR on EcR function S. R. Palli et al.
5988 FEBS Journal 272 (2005) 5979–5990 ª 2005 The Authors Journal Compilation ª 2005 FEBS
were constructed using the Seamless cloning kit (Strata-

gene).
Western blots
3T3 cells were transfected with V:LmRXR(EF) or V:CfUS-
P(EF) or V:HsRXR(EF). Twenty micrograms of proteins
isolated form these cells at 48 h after transfection were sep-
arated by SDS ⁄ PAGE and transferred to nitrocellulose
membranes. After blocking with 1% dry milk powder,
the membranes were exposed to VP16 primary antibody
Clontech and peroxidase-cojugated secondary antibody.
Peroxidase signals were detected using enhanced chemilumi-
nescence kit (Amersham BioSciences, Piscataway, NJ,
USA).
Pull-down assays
CfEcR DEF domains were cloned into pGEXT vector
(Amersham Pharmacia Biotech) and expressed in
pLysS ⁄ BL-21 Escherichia coli cells. The GST fusion pro-
teins were extracted as outline in protocol supplied by
Amersham Pharmacia Biotech. Hs–LmRXR chimera,
HsRXREF, LmRXREF and CfUSP proteins were labeled
with [
35
S]-methionine using TNT kit (Promega). Labeled
Hs–LmRXR chimera, HsRXREF, LmRXREF and CfUSP
were mixed with GST:CfEcR(DEF) and incubated in bind-
ing buffer containing DMSO or 1 lm RG-102240 and the
complexes were precipitated with glutathione agarose beads
(Amersham Pharmacia Biotech). The pellet was washed
and resolved on SDS ⁄ PAGE and the gel was dried and
exposed to X-ray film.
Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by NIST Advanced
Technology Project Grant 70NANB0H3012 to Rheo-
Gene Inc. and RheoGene Inc. research grant to SRP.
This is contribution number 04-08-075 from the Ken-
tucky Agricultural Experimental Station.
References
1 Koelle MR, Talbot WS, Segraves WA, Bender MT,
Cherbas P & Hogness DS (1991) The Drosophila
EcR gene encodes an ecdysone receptor, a new
member of the steroid receptor superfamily. Cell 67,
59–77.
2 Thomas HE, Stunnenberg HG & Stewart AF (1993)
Heterodimerization of the Drosophila ecdysone receptor
with retinoid X receptor and ultraspiracle. Nature 362,
471–475.
3 Yao TP, Forman BM, Jiang Z, Cherbas L, Chen JD,
McKeown M, Cherbas P & Evans RM (1993)
Functional ecdysone receptor is the product of EcR and
Ultraspiracle genes. Nature 366, 476–479.
4 Yao TP, Segraves WA, Oro AE, McKeown M & Evans
RM (1992) Drosophila ultraspiracle modulates ecdysone
receptor function via heterodimer formation. Cell 71,
63–72.
5 Mangelsdorf DJ, Thummel C, Beato M, Herrlich P,
Schutz G, Umesono K, Blumberg B, Kastner P, Mark
M & Chambon P (1995) The nuclear receptor super-
family: the second decade. Cell 83, 835–839.
6 Albanese C, Reutens AT, Bouzahzah B, Fu M,
D’Amico M, Link T, Nicholson R, Depinho RA &
Pestell RG (2000) Sustained mammary gland-directed,

ponasterone A-inducible expression in transgenic mice.
FASEB J 14, 877–884.
7 Zhou Y & Ratner L (2001) A novel inducible expression
system to study transdominant mutants of HIV-1 Vpr.
Virology 287, 133–142.
8 Fussenegger M (2001) The impact of mammalian gene
regulation concepts on functional genomic research,
metabolic engineering, and advanced gene therapies.
Biotechnol Prog 17, 1–51.
9 Yarovoi SV & Pederson T (2001) Human cell lines
expressing hormone regulated T7 RNA polymerase
localized at distinct intranuclear sites. Gene 275, 73–81.
10 Yam JW, Chan KW & Hsiao WL (2001) Suppression
of the tumorigenicity of mutant p53-transformed rat
embryo fibroblasts through expression of a newly cloned
rat nonmuscle myosin heavy chain-B. Oncogene 20, 58–
68.
11 Sparacio S, Pfeiffer T, Schaal H & Bosch V (2001) Gen-
eration of a flexible cell line with regulatable, high-level
expression of HIV Gag ⁄ Pol particles capable of pack-
aging HIV-derived vectors. Mol Ther 3, 602–612.
12 Patrick CW Jr, Zheng B, Wu X, Gurtner G, Barlow M,
Koutz C, Chang D, Schmidt M & Evans GR (2001)
Muristerone a-induced nerve growth factor release from
genetically engineered human dermal fibroblasts for per-
ipheral nerve tissue engineering. Tissue Eng 7, 303–311.
13 Pacchia AL, Adelson ME, Kaul M, Ron Y & Dough-
erty JP (2001) An inducible packaging cell system for
safe, efficient lentiviral vector production in the absence
of HIV-1 accessory proteins. Virology 282, 77–86.

14 Lin G & Stern R (2001) Plasma hyaluronidase (Hyal-1)
promotes tumor cell cycling. Cancer Lett 163, 95–101.
15 Christopherson KS, Mark MR, Bajaj V & Godowski PJ
(1992) Ecdysteroid-dependent regulation of genes in
mammalian cells by a Drosophila ecdysone receptor and
chimeric transactivators. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 89,
6314–6318.
16 Yang G, Hannan G, Lockett T & Hill R (1995) Func-
tional transfer of an elementary ecdysone gene regula-
tory system to mammalian cells-transient transfections
and stable cell-lines. Eur J Entomol 92, 379–389.
S. R. Palli et al. Influence of RXR on EcR function
FEBS Journal 272 (2005) 5979–5990 ª 2005 The Authors Journal Compilation ª 2005 FEBS 5989
17 No D, Yao TP & Evans RM (1996) Ecdysone-inducible
gene expression in mammalian cells and transgenic mice.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93, 3346–3351.
18 Suhr ST, Gil EB, Senut MC & Gage FH (1998) High
level transactivation by a modified Bombyx ecdysone
receptor in mammalian cells without exogenous retinoid
X receptor. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95, 7999–8004.
19 Swevers L, Drevet JR, Lunke MD & Iatrou K (1995)
The silkmoth homolog of the Drosophila ecdysone
receptor (B1 isoform): cloning and analysis of expres-
sion during follicular cell differentiation. Insect Biochem
Mol Biol 25, 857–866.
20 Hoppe UC, Marban E & Johns DC (2000) Adenovirus-
mediated inducible gene expression in vivo by a hybrid
ecdysone receptor. Mol Ther 1, 159–164.
21 Saez E, Nelson MC, Eshelman B, Banayo E, Koder A,
Cho GJ & Evans RM (2000) Identification of ligands

and coligands for the ecdysone-regulated gene switch.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97, 14512–14517.
22 Wyborski DL, Bauer JC & Vaillancourt P (2001) Bicis-
tronic expression of ecdysone-inducible receptors in
mammalian cells. Biotechniques 31, 618–620,622,624.
23 Palli SR, Kapitskaya MZ, Kumar MB & Cress DE
(2003) Improved ecdysone receptor-based inducible gene
regulation system. Eur J Biochem 270, 1308–1315.
24 Palli SR, Hormann RE, Schlattner U & Lezzi M (2005)
Ecdysteroid receptors and their applications in agricul-
ture and medicine. Vitamins Hormones in press.
25 Billas IM, Iwema T, Garnier JM, Mitschler A, Rochel
N & Moras D (2003) Structural adaptability in the
ligand-binding pocket of the ecdysone hormone recep-
tor. Nature 426, 91–96.
26 Mangelsdorf DJ, Ong ES, Dyck JA & Evans RM
(1990) Nuclear receptor that identifies a novel retinoic
acid response pathway. Nature 345, 224–229.
27 Vogtli M, Imhof MO, Brown NE, Rauch P, Spindler-
Barth M, Lezzi M & Henrich VC (1999) Functional
characterization of two Ultraspiracle forms (CtUSP-1
and CtUSP-2) from Chironomus tentans. Insect Biochem
Mol Biol 29, 931–942.
28 Chung AC, Durica DS, Clifton SW, Roe BA &
Hopkins PM (1998) Cloning of crustacean ecdysteroid
receptor and retinoid-X receptor gene homologs and
elevation of retinoid-X receptor mRNA by retinoic acid.
Mol Cell Endocrinol 139, 209–227.
29 Hayward DC, Bastiani MJ, Trueman JW, Truman JW,
Riddiford LM & Ball EE (1999) The sequence of

Locusta RXR, homologous to Drosophila Ultraspiracle,
and its evolutionary implications. Dev Genes Evol 209,
564–571.
30 Guo X, Harmon MA, Laudet V, Mangelsdorf DJ &
Palmer MJ (1997) Isolation of a functional ecdysteroid
receptor homologue from the ixodid tick Amblyomma
americanum (L.). Insect Biochem Mol Biol 27, 945–962.
31 Tzertzinis G, Malecki A & Kafatos FC (1994) BmCF1,
a Bombyx mori RXR-type receptor related to the Droso-
phila ultraspiracle. J Mol Biol 238, 479–486.
32 Jindra M, Huang JY, Malone F, Asahina M & Riddiford
LM (1997) Identification and mRNA developmental pro-
files of two ultraspiracle isoforms in the epidermis and
wings of Manduca sexta. Insect Mol Biol 6, 41–53.
33 Perera SC, Palli SR, Ladd TR, Krell PJ & Retnakaran
A (1998) The ultraspiracle gene of the spruce budworm,
Choristoneura fumiferana: cloning of cDNA and devel-
opmental expression of mRNA. Dev Genet 22, 169–179.
34 Henrich VC, Sliter TJ, Lubahn DB, MacIntyre A &
Gilbert LI (1990) A steroid ⁄ thyroid hormone receptor
superfamily member in Drosophila melanogaster that
shares extensive sequence similarity with a mammalian
homologue. Nucleic Acids Res 18, 4143–4148.
35 Oro AE, McKeown M & Evans RM (1990) Relation-
ship between the product of the Drosophila ultraspiracle
locus and the vertebrate retinoid X receptor. Nature
347, 298–301.
36 Shea MJ, King DL, Conboy MJ, Mariani BD & Kafa-
tos FC (1990) Proteins that bind to Drosophila chorion
cis-regulatory elements: a new C2H2 zinc finger protein

and a C2C2 steroid receptor-like component. Genes Dev
4, 1128–1140.
37 Kapitskaya M, Wang S, Cress DE, Dhadialla TS &
Raikhel AS (1996) The mosquito ultraspiracle homolo-
gue, a partner of ecdysteroid receptor heterodimer: clon-
ing and characterization of isoforms expressed during
vitellogenesis. Mol Cell Endocrinol 121, 119–132.
Influence of RXR on EcR function S. R. Palli et al.
5990 FEBS Journal 272 (2005) 5979–5990 ª 2005 The Authors Journal Compilation ª 2005 FEBS