Search tips
Search criteria 


Logo of nihpaAbout Author manuscriptsSubmit a manuscriptHHS Public Access; Author Manuscript; Accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal;
Thromb Haemost. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 October 25.
Published in final edited form as:
PMCID: PMC2963177

Integration of non-SMAD and SMAD signaling in TGF-β1-induced plasminogen activator inhibitor type-1 gene expression in vascular smooth muscle cells


Overexpression of plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (SER-PINE1, PAI-1), the major physiological inhibitor of pericellular plasmin generation, is a significant causative factor in the progression of vascular disorders (e.g. arteriosclerosis, thrombosis, perivascular fibrosis) as well as a biomarker and a predictor of cardiovascular-disease associated mortality. PAI-1 is a temporal/spatial regulator of pericellular proteolysis and ECM accumulation impacting, thereby, vascular remodeling, smooth muscle cell migration, proliferation and apoptosis. Within the specific context of TGF-β1-initiated vascular fibrosis and neointima formation, PAI-1 is a member of the most prominently expressed subset ofTGF-β1-induced transcripts. Recent findings implicate EGFR/pp60c-src→MEK/ERK1/2 and Rho/ROCK→SMAD2/3 signaling in TGF-β1-stimulated PAI-1 expression in vascular smooth muscle cells. The EGFR is a direct upstream regulator of MEK/ERK1/2 while Rho/ROCK modulate both the duration of SMAD2/3 phosphorylation and nuclear accumulation. E-box motifs (CACGTG) in the PE1/PE2 promoter regions of the human PAI-1 gene, moreover, are platforms for a MAP kinase-directed USF subtype switch (USF-1→USF-2) in response to growth factor addition suggesting that the EGFR→MEK/ERK axis impacts PAI-1 expression, at least partly, through USF-dependent transcriptional controls. This paper reviews recent data suggesting the essential cooperativity among the EGFR→MAP kinase cascade, the Rho/ROCK pathway and SMADs in TGF-β1-initiated PAI-1 expression. The continued clarification of mechanistic controls on PAI-1 transcription may lead to new targeted therapies and clinically-relevant options for the treatment of vascular diseases in which PAI-1 dysregulation is a major underlying pathogenic feature.

Keywords: SERPINE1, PAI-1, TGF-β1, epidermal growth factor receptor, EGFR, Rho kinase, SMADs, MAP kinases, transcription, pp60c-src, cardiovascular disease

PAI-1 and cardiovascular disease

PAI-1 (SERPINE1) is the major physiologic regulator of the plasmin-based pericellular proteolytic cascade, a modulator of vascular smooth muscle cell (VSMC) migration and a causative factor in tissue fibrotic and cardiovascular disease (19) (Fig. 1). In-vivo studies in PAI-1-null mice confirmed the role this SER-PIN in arteriosclerosis and vascular fibrosis(2,3,1012). More-over, transgenic animals engineered to overexpress PAI-1 spontaneously develop arterial thrombosis and perivascular fibrosis as a function of age (13) consistent with the emergence of PAI-1 as a significant biomarker and predictor of cardiovascular disease-related death (14, 15). PAI-1 expression is also linked to neointimal expansion, as development of a VSMC-rich neointima is significantly reduced in PAI-1−/− mice (compared to wild type counterparts) in response to oxidative stress-mediated vessel injury and in the balloon-catheterized carotid artery (6, 16, 17). The decrease in neointima formation is particularly striking in the context of combined ApoE/PAI-1 deficiency (8, 16). Such findings in animal models of vascular injury have relevance to recent clinical observations. Indeed, post-transluminal coronary angioplasty PAI-1 activity was significantly greater in patients with restenosis compared to those without clinical recurrence (18). The actual role of PAI-1 in VSMC accumulation, however, is likely to be complex. Transgenic overexpression of PAI-1 in VSMC (using a SM22 promoter) promotes smooth muscle proliferation through FLIP-mediated activation of the ERK1/2 and NF-κB pathways (19). There is also considerable evidence that PAI-1 expression actually protects VSMC from plasmin-induced apoptosis/anoikis (e.g. [20, 21]), likely by suppression of caspase-3 activation (22, 23), suggesting that PAI-1 modulation of neointimal growth is a consequence of both increased proliferation and reduced apoptosis. Plasmin-mediated VSMC apoptosis both within the aortic wall or in culture is initiated by plasminogen activation (by either tPA or uPA) and is effectively impaired by PAI-1 (24, 25). Furthermore, VSMC isolated from PAI-1−/− mice are extremely sensitive to plasminogen-induced apoptosis compared to wild-type, tPA−/− or uPA−/− VSMC reflecting a >10-fold increase in conditioned medium plasmin activity (23, 24). This anti-apoptotic effect of PAI-1 is not restricted to VSMC or to plasminogen-initiated cell death. PAI-1 effectively inhibited both spontaneous and camptothecin-induced apoptosis in human prostate cancer and promyelocytic leukemia cell lines (26) and rescued human keratinocytes from plasminogen-mediated loss of cell viability (27). PAI-1 may also have anti-adhesive and pro-apoptotic activities, at least in the setting of vascular cell attachment to vitronectin, a matrix constitutent on which PAI-1 affects adhesion via the proximity of uPAR/integrin binding sites in the SMB domain (28, 29).

Figure 1
Potential contribution of overexpression of PAI-1 to cardiovascular disease (CVD)

TGF-β1 and PAI-1: Links to vascular disease progression

The available data in vascular and non-vascular cells strongly suggest that induced PAI-1 expression occurs as part of a primary response to fibrogenic growth factors, among the most prominent of which is TGF-β1 (3033) (Fig. 1). Indeed, TGF-β family members are fundamental in the pathogenesis of several cardiovascular and vascular fibrotic diseases including hypertension, pathogenic restenosis, atherosclerosis and cardiac hypertrophy/fibrosis by impacting the expression of disease-relevant genes (e.g. PAI-1, connective tissue growth factor) (3437). TGF-β1-induced neointimal growth is effectively suppressed by PAI-1 ablation implicating PAI-1 as a major target of TGF-β-associated vascular pathology in vivo (31, 38, 39) stimulating interest in the TGF-β/PAI-1 expression control axis as a potential therapeutic opportunity. TGF-β ligand neutralizing antibodies, soluble TGF-βRII receptor constructs, TGF-β type-1 receptor (ALK5) inhibitors, TGF-β/PAI-1 antisense/siRNA-based therapies and small molecule PAI-1 inhibitors (e.g. TM5007, ZK4044, PAI-039) are currently in either preclinical or phase I evaluations (e.g. [4046]). The consistent implication of PAI-1 andTGF-β1 in neointima formation and vascular fibrosis (6, 16, 30, 31, 4749) supports the likelihood that clarifying the signaling network underlying TGF-β1-induced PAI-1 expression may well provide novel, perhaps selective, targets to address TGF-β/PAI-1-dependent cardiovascular disease.

Role of src kinase/EGFR signaling inTGF-β1-induced PAI-1 expression in vascular smooth muscle cells

TGF-β1 stimulation of quiescent VSMC results in phosphorylation (at Y416) of the non-receptor tyrosine kinase pp60c-src and the rapid activation of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) atY845 (a src-target residue) (37, 50). EGFRY845 phosphorylation is specifically dependent on the catalytic activity of c-src (51). Indeed, pretreatment with the highly specific src family kinase inhibitor SU6656 effectively blocked TGF-β1-stimulated EGFRY845 phosphorylation; pEGFRY845 activation in response to TGF-β1, moreover, was detected in wild-type fibroblasts but not in their counter parts genetically deficient in the src family kinases c-src-, c-yes-, c-fyn (SYF−/−/− cells) (37). Demonstration of c-src/EGFR complexes in the EGFR-overexpressing A431 cell line as well as inTGF-β1-stimulated VSMC established linkage between src family kinases and the EGFR (50, 52, 53). The functional significance of such interactions, at least with regard to the PAI-1 response to TGF-β1, was confirmed using a molecular genetic approach. A DN- pp60c-src construct completely blocked TGF-β1-initiated PAI-1 induction while TGF-β1 failed to stimulate PAI-1 expression in SYF−/−/− fibroblasts; importantly, PAI-1 expression was restored in SYF−/−/− cells engineered to re-express a wild-type pp60c-src construct (37). While the mechanism of src regulation in response toTGF-β1 is uncertain, p130CAS is involved in src kinase signaling (54) and the adaptor protein Shc, specifically the p66 and p52 isoforms, is important for both src activation and formation of (Shc-dependent) EGFR/c-src complexes (5557). Another model suggests that c-src associates with the EGFR upon ligand binding via interactions between the c-src SH2 domain and the EGFRY992 residue resulting in EGFRY845 phosphorylation and initiation of downstream events (51). Regardless of the precise mechanism, pharmacologic blockade of EGFR signaling (withAG1478), use of site-specific dominant-negative (DN) or mutant EGFR constructs (e.g. kinase-dead EGFR K721A, EGFRY845F) and genetic ablation of EGFR1 effectively inhibited TGF-β1-initiated PAI-1 transcription confirming participation of the EGFR in PAI-1 gene control (37). Although the EGFRY845F mutant is an EGF-responsive kinase with retention of at least some downstream signaling ability (58), it is, nevertheless, an effective inhibitor of EGF-/transactivating agonist-induced DNA synthesis, indicating that Y845 is required for mitogenesis (51, 59). Since the EGFRY845 site regulates several distinct signaling pathways (reviewed in [51]), the requirement for both a functional EGFR and, in particular, an intact Y845 residue in TGF-β1-initiated signaling strongly suggests that the EGFRY845 residue constitutes a platform for bifurcation of downstream events with specific impact on TGF-β1-induced PAI-1 transcription. TGF-β1 stimulated ERK1/2 phosphorylation, moreover, in EGFR+/+ but not EGFR−/− cells consistent with prior observations that TGF-β1-dependent ERK1/2 activation is downstream of EGFR signaling (32).

Involvement of Rho/ROCK signaling in PAI-1 expression inTGF-β1-simulated vascular smooth muscle cells

EGFR−/− as well as SYF−/−/− fibroblasts are fully capable of responding to exogenous TGF-β1 as SMAD2/3 are effectively phosphorylated in both wild-type and EGFR−/− fibroblasts. Similarly, TGF-β1-induced SMAD2 phosphorylation is not altered by EGFR blockade either pharmacologically (with AG1478) or molecularly (by expression of EGFRKD or EGFRY845F) (37). While the MEK inhibitors U0126 and PD98059 completely blocked TGF-β1-induced PAI-1 expression as well as ERK1/2 phosphorylation(32), SMAD2 activation was not impacted (37). Collectively, these data indicate that SMAD2/3 are efficiently phosphorylated in response to TGF-β1 in both EGFR+/+ and EGFR−/− fibroblasts as well as SYF−/−/- cells, suggesting that TGF-β1-directed SMAD2 phosphorylation (at the carboxy terminus) is EGFR/MEK-independent. Indeed, recent data clearly indicates that TGF-β1 stimulates PAI-1 expression through two distinct but cooperating pathways that involve EGFR/pp60c-src→MEK/ERK signaling and EGFR-independent, but Rho/ROCK-modulated, TGF-βR-directed SMAD activation (37). Rho/ROCK are critical elements in the progression of cardiovascular disease (reviewed in[6062]) particularly in the context of TGF-β1-induced vascular fibrosis (34). Balloon injury-induced neointima formation is, in fact, suppressed by Rho/ROCK inhibitors (63) and angiotensin II-induced perivascular fibrosis in ROCK+/− mice is significantly reduced compared to wild-type littermates (64). Importantly, PAI-1 expression in response to various other fibrogenic stimuli (e.g. C-reactive protein, hyperglycemia) is also largely Rho/ROCK mediated suggesting that targeting this pathway may have multi-level therapeutic implications (6567). Activation of RhoA in response to TGF-β1 preceded optimal PAI-1 induction; pretreatment with C3 transferase, transfection of a dominant-negative RhoA (DN-RhoAN17) construct or incubation with the ROCK inhibitor Y-27632 ablated PAI-1 induction in response to TGF-β1 (37) similar to the requirements for smooth muscle α-actin and connective tissue growth factor expression (68, 69). Recent findings suggest a more complex control of SMAD function by members of the small GTPase family than may have been previously appreciated. While TGF-β1 receptors phosphorylate SMADs downstream of growth factor engagement, the Rho/ROCK pathway modulates the duration of SMAD2/3 phosphorylation (37). How Rho/ROCK impactTGF-β1-initiated SMAD2/3 activation and sub-cellular localization is not known but this pathway may function to provide efficient SMAD2/3 activation for extended periods impacting, thereby, SMAD-dependent transcriptional regulation of target genes including PAI-1 (7072). Alternatively, Rho/ROCK signaling may be required to inhibit negative regulation of SMAD2/3 function via the inhibitory SMAD7 or by inactivation of SMAD phosphatases (e.g. PPM1A) sustaining, thereby, SMAD2/3 transcriptional actions (e.g. [73, 74]).

Cooperative SMAD and non-SMAD factors mediate PAI-1 gene induction byTGF-β1 in vascular smooth muscle cells

While SMAD2/3 activation may be necessary it is not sufficient for TGF-β1-stimulated PAI-1 expression in the absence of EGFR signaling. One model consistent with the available data (29, 32, 37, 50, 75, 76) suggests that SMADs and specific MAP kinase-targeted transcription factors occupy their separate binding motifs at the critical TGF-β1-responsive PE2 region E box in the human PAI-1 promoter (29, 32, 7779). Indeed, the available data strongly suggest that complex formation at the PE2 site requires cooperative signaling by the EGFR→ERK (USF) and Rho/ROCK (SMAD) pathways (Fig. 2). A similar required E-box motif (CACGTG) maps to the expression-regulating HRE-2 region in the rat PAI-1 promoter (80). Extract immunodepletion and super-shift/complex-blocking experiments confirmed one PAI-1 E box-binding protein to be USF, a member of the basic helix-loop-helix-leucine zipper (bHLH-LZ) family of MYC-like proteins (75, 77). Dominant-negative interference with USF DNA-binding ability significantly reduced TGF-β1-mediated PAI-1 transcription (29, 32, 79). Since MAP kinases regulate the DNA-binding and transcriptional activites of USF (32, 76), TGF-βR signaling through SMAD2/3 may actually cooperate with EGFR/MEK-ERK-activated USF to attain high level PAI-1 expression (50, 76). SMADs can interact with other E box-binding HLH-LZ factors such as TFE3 at the PE2 site in the PAI-1 gene at least in one cell type (72). There is evidence, in fact, to suggest that such interacting complexes impact PAI-1 gene control since USF occupancy of the PAI-1 PE2 region E-box site, which is juxtaposed to three SMAD-recognition elements, modulates transcription in response to TGF-β1 or serum (29, 32, 37, 79). Such potential promoter-level co-operativity is supported by the realization that SMADs interact rather weakly with their SMAD-binding elements and that interactions with other factors are necessary to initiate gene expression. Recruitment of this multicomponent complex likely requires participation of the TGF-β1-stimulated EGFR→MEK/ERK and Rho/ROCK pathways for the optimal response of the PAI-1 gene to TGF-β1. This has significant cardiovascular implications as USF levels increase early after balloon injury to the carotid artery (81) where it regulates expression of pro-atherogenic genes including osteopontin (81, 82) and PAI-1 (6, 18) as well as genes involved in the etiology of familial combined hyperlipidemia and the metabolic syndrome (83).

Figure 2
Model for TGF-β1-induced PAI-1 expression

Recent findings have highlighted the increasing complexity of SMAD-non-SMAD protein interactions in TGF-β1-dependent PAI-1gene control. Members of the p53 family are critical elements in a subset of TGF-β1 responses due, at least in part, to the ability of MAP kinase-phosphorylated p53 to bind SMAD2, forming transcriptionally active multi-protein complexes (8486). DNase I fooprinting/methylation interference and oligonucleotide mobility shift analyses confirmed that p53 binds to a recognition motif in the PAI-1promoter (87). DNA-binding activity was associated with both p53 sequence-driven reporter gene transcription and induced expression of the endogenous PAI-1 gene likely utilizing the two p53 half-sites (AcA-CATGCCT, cAGCAAGTCC) at −224 to −204 bp relative to the transcription start site (88). TGF-β1-induced expression is significantly attenuated in cells in which p53 levels are reduced by siRNA (85) and, in p53-deficient lung tumor cells that express little or no PAI-1, engineered re-expression of p53 rescues both basal and inducible PAI-1 expression (89). One mechanism suggests that p53 interacts with SMAD2 (90). In TGF-β1-stimulated cells, binding of USF to the PE2 site, which is juxtaposed to three SMAD-binding elements, may facilitate DNA bending. Phasing analysis revealed that certain bHLH-LZ of the MYC family (including USF) orient the DNA bend toward the minor groove (91), which could potentially promote interactions between p53, bound to its downstream half-site motif, with SMAD2 tethered to the upstream PE2 region SMAD site. Similarly, the transcriptional coactivator p300/CREB-bindingprotein (CBP), a histone acetyltransferase, interacts with and acetylates SMAD2/3 in response to TGF-β1 resulting in enhanced PAI-1 transcription (9294). RAP250, a protein with no intrinsic enzymatic activity but effectively recruits histone acetyltransferases and methylases to chromatin complexes, also interacts with SMAD2/3 and is essential for maximal PAI-1 induction in response to TGF-β1 (95). At least one recent review provides insights into the determinants of TGF-β-Smad signaling including a critical analysis of selective interactions between the SMADS and other signaling pathway components (96).

E-box motifs are platforms for TGF-β1 regulation of PAI-1 expression

There are at least five E box-like sequences in the human PAI-1 promoter; only E boxes E4 and E5 are classic consensus sites with E4 (the PE2E-box motif)andE5(thePE1E box) flanked by the 5′ adjoining ATT trinucleotide “spacer”/SMAD-binding elements and the 3′4G/5G polymorphism, respectively (77). USF proteins are major PAI-1 E box-binding factors (97) and competitive occupancy of the PE1(E5)/PE2(E4) sites by distinct USF homo- or heterodimer pairs has transcriptional consequences (e.g. [98]). Indeed, chromatin immunopreciptiation (ChIP) confirmed that the PAI-1 gene PE2 E box is, in fact, a USF target in vivo and that function-disrupting USF mutants inhibit PAI-1 induction (79). Site occupancy and transcriptional activity, furthermore, require conservation of the PE2 core E-box structure as the CACGTG→CACGGA and TCCGTG dinucleotide substitutions (in the rat gene) and a CACGTG→CAATTG or TCCGTG replacement (in the human gene), with retention of PAI-1 flanking sequences, resulted in loss of both competitive binding and growth factor-dependent reporter activity (77, 80). ChIP assessment of the E-box site in the PE2(E4) region of the human PAI-1 gene, moreover, indicated a dynamic occupancy by USF subtypes (USF-1 vs. USF-2) as a function of growth state (79). An exchange of PE2(E4) E box USF-1 homodimers with USF-2 homo- or USF-1/USF-2 heterodimers, moreover, closely correlated with PAI-1gene activation. Indeed, USF-2-stimulated human PAI-1 promoter activity in HepG2 cells required the PE2(E4) and PE1(E5) sites and, importantly, the E box-like hypoxia response element (HRE) CACGTACA at nucleotides −194/−187; PE2(E4) or PE1(E5) sequence mutations attenuated PAI-1 promoter activity while HRE mutation completely abolished reporter signal (98). While both USF-1 and USF-2 bound toPE2(E4)andPE1(E5) target probes (32,98), USF proteins did not bind directly to the HRE target sequence; thePAI-1HRE was bound by an ATF-1/CREB-like protein suggesting that HRE binding factor(s) may interact cooperatively with USF-occupied E4/E5 to affect transcriptional output (98). DNASTAR program alignment of the human and rat PAI-1 promoters indicated that the PE1(E5) and PE2(E4) E-box sites differed in homology by 1 and 2 bases, respectively (99). Mutational analysis, moreover, confirmed that the PE2, as compared to the PE1, E box was important in TGF-β1-directed PAI-1 promoter activity (77). Such sequence differences in the rat versus human PAI-1 gene likely dictate expression levels as a consequence of the nature of the associated transcriptional complexes and the particular conditions of stimulation (e.g. 100–102).

The CACGTG hexanucleotide “core” is a target for occupancy by at least seven members of the bHLH-LZ transcription factor family (USF-1, USF-2, c-MYC, MAX, TFE3, TFEB, TFII-I). USF proteins, however, have a MgCl2-dependent preference for C or T at the −4 position (103). The human PAI-1 gene, in fact, has a T at the −4 site of the PE2 region E box as well as a purine at +4 and −5 and a pyrimidine at +5 (A−5T−4C−3A−2C−1 G+1T+2G+3G+4C+5), all of which facilitate USF binding (103). In this regard, the CACGTG→TCCGTG mutation is particularly relevant, since bHLH-LZ proteins with E-box recognition activity have a conserved glutamate important for interaction with the first two nucleotides(CA) in the E-box motif (91). These data are also consistent with the known hexanucleotide motif preference (CACGTG or CACATG) of USF proteins(104106). Successful PAI-1 probe competition by a CACGTG “core” flanked by non-PAI-1sequences(but with retention of T at −4 and a purineat+4) and the failure of specific E-box mutants to similarly compete (or to produce band shifts when used as targets) further indicate that a consensus hexanucleotide E box at the PE2(E4) site in the PAI-1 gene is both necessary and sufficient for USF binding (77). This contrasts with the highly cooperative constraints for E-box recognition by other bHLH-LZ proteins (e.g. TFE3, MAX) that utilize accessory factors (e.g. SMADs) for optimal residence on the PAI-1 promoter (72, 107). An additional restraint on motif recognition and protein function resides at the level of protein phosphorylation. USF andTFE3 are phosphorylated at consensus MAP kinase target residues (108, 109) which initiates a conformational switch that exposes the DNA-binding domain (110). DNA binding and transcriptional activity requires USF phosphorylation (79, 108, 110, 111). At least one phosphorylation site (T153) is juxtaposed to a potential MAP kinase “docking” sequence (108). The recent identification of USF/ERK1/2 complexes and the requirement for MEK signaling in TGF-β1-dependent ERK1/2 activation and PAI-1 transcription suggests a possible functional interaction between USF and one or more MAP kinases (32). DNA-anchored USF-1 could also complex with translocated MAP kinases (via kinase docking sites located within or closely juxtaposed to the USR) (e.g. [32, 78,79,109]) resulting in the hyper-phosphorylation of USF-1(at secondary residues) potentially releasing E box-bound USF-1. USF activity may be further modified by either a recruited co-activator at the E-box site (112,113)or, potentially, at the HRE(85) (e.g. USF-2, CREB) or direct replacement of USF-1 with USF-2 homodimers. By analogy, the HPV-16 oncoprotein E6 activates telomerase reverse transcriptase (TERT) transcription by c-MYC induction and release of USF-dependent repression at the −34 to −29 E-box site (114). Collectively, these findings suggest that the transcriptional effects of USF family members are context-dependent (112, 115, 116). USF-1 may function as a “basal repressor” of PAI-1 (or TERT) expression occupying E box sites to inhibit access of strong transcriptional activators that recognize the CACGTG motif (i.e. MYC, USF-2).


PAI-1 has emerged as an important causative factor and biomarker of cardiovascular disease. The continued definition of specific controls on PAI-1 transcription is important to realizing the potential of PAI-1 expression disruption (at both the transcriptional and intracellular signaling pathway levels) in the design of targeted, clinically-relevant, options for treatment of vascular pathologies (occlusive disease, neointima expansion, perivascular fibrosis) associated with TGF-β1-induced PAI-1 expression. Recent data suggest that specific defined PAI-1 promoter regions, including PE1/2((E5/E4) and the HRE, may function as molecular “switches” that modulate PAI-1 transcription during cell “activation” by fibrogenic factors. These results, coupled with the success of small-molecule inhibitors of PAI-1 bioactivity, genetic-based approaches to attenuate PAI-1 expression at the mRNA transcript level or by interference with the involved signaling pathways, encourage speculation that PAI-1 disruption at various levels may have some promise in the manipulation of specific aspects of the atherogenic response. Indeed, suppression ofPAI-1activityhas proven effective, incertain settings, in slowing disease progression (9, 117). The recent realization that complex cooperative EGFR→MEK/ERK and Rho signaling is an essential aspect of TGF-β1-stimulated PAI-1 transcriptional control is not only novel but underscores the potential diversity of new molecular targets (including members of the USF family of bHlH-LZ transcription factors) that can be exploited to disruptor regulate PAI-1 expression levels for therapeutic benefit.


The authors thank all the present and past members of the Higgins’ Laboratory for their contributions to the work reviewed here.

Financial support:

This study was supported by NIH grant GM57242 to PJH.


activin receptor-like kinase 5
basic helix-loop-helix/leucine zipper
chromatin immunoprecipitation
extracellular matrix
epidermal growth factor receptor
extracellular signal-regulated kinases
hypoxia response element
mitogen-activated protein kinase/ERK kinase
Rho GTPase
Rho kinase
nuclear factor-kappa B
serine protease inhibitor
Sma/Mad homologues
tissue plasminogen activator
urokinase plasminogen activator
upstream stimulatory factor
vascular smooth muscle cells


1. Kohler HP, Grant PJ. Plasminogen-activator inhibitor type 1 and coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:1792–1801. [PubMed]
2. Sobel BE, Taatjes DJ, Schneider DJ. Intramural plasminogen activator inhibitor type-1 and coronary atherosclerosis. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2003;23:1979–1989. [PubMed]
3. Vaughan DE. PAI-1 and cellular migration: dabbling in paradox. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2002;22:1522–1523. [PubMed]
4. Petzelbauer E, Springhorn JP, Tucker AM, et al. Role of plasminogen activator inhibitor in the reciprocal regulation of bovine aortic endothelial and smooth muscle cell migration by TGF-β1. Am J Pathol. 1996;149:923–931. [PubMed]
5. Agirbasli M. Pivotal role of plasminogen-activator inhibitor 1 in vascular disease. Int J Clin Pract. 2005;59:102–106. [PubMed]
6. DeYoung MB, Tom C, Dichek DA. Plasminogen activator inhibitor type 1 increases neointima formation in balloon-injured rat carotid arteries. Circulation. 2001;104:1972–1977. [PubMed]
7. Degryse B, Neels JG, Czekay RP, et al. The low density lipoprotein receptor-related protein is a motogenic receptor for plasminogen activator inhibitor-1. J Biol Chem. 2004;279:22595–22604. [PubMed]
8. Bhoday J, de Silva S, Xu Q. The molecular mechanisms of vascular restenosis: Which genes are crucial? Curr Vasc Pharmacol. 2006;4:269–725. [PubMed]
9. Eddy AA, Fogo A. Plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 in chronic kidney disease: evidence and mechanisms of action. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2006;17:2999–3012. [PubMed]
10. Weisberg AD, Albornoz F, Griffin JP, et al. Pharmacological inhibition and genetic deficiency of plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 attenuates angiotensin II/salt-induced aortic remodeling. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2005;25:365–371. [PubMed]
11. Eitzman DT, Westrick RJ, Xu Z, et al. Plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 deficiency protects against atherosclerosis progression in the mouse carotid artery. Blood. 2000;96:4212–4215. [PubMed]
12. Eitzman DT, McCoy RD, Zheng X, et al. Bleomycin-induced pulmonary fibrosis in transgenic mice that either lack or overexpress the murine plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 gene. J Clin Invest. 1996;97:232–237. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
13. Eren M, Painter CA, Atkinson JB, et al. Age-dependent spontaneous coronary arterial thrombosis in transgenic mice that express a stable form of human plasminogen activator inhibitor-1. Circulation. 2002;106:491–496. [PubMed]
14. Wang TJ, Gona P, Larson MG, et al. Multiple biomarkers for the prediction of first major cardiovascular events and death. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:2631–2639. [PubMed]
15. Alessi MC, Juhan-Vague I. PAI-1 and the metabolic syndrome: links, causes, and consequences. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2006;26:2200–2207. [PubMed]
16. Zhu Y, Farrehi PM, Fay WP. Plasminogen activator inhibitor type1 enhances neointima formation after oxidative vascular injury in atherosclerosis-prone mice. Circulation. 2001;103:3105–3110. [PubMed]
17. Ploplis VA, Cornelissen I, Sandoval-Cooper MJ, et al. Remodeling of the vessel wall after copper-induced injury is highly attenuated in mice with a total deficiency of plasminogen activator inhibitor-1. Am J Pathol. 2001;158:107–117. [PubMed]
18. Prisco D, Fedi S, Antonucci E, et al. Postprocedural PAI-1 activity is a risk marker of subsequent clinical restenosis in patients both with and without stent implantation after elective balloon PTCA. Thromb Res. 2001;104:181–186. [PubMed]
19. Chen Y, Budd RC, Kelm RJ, Jr, et al. Augmentation of proliferation of vascular smooth muscle cells by plasminogen activator inhibitor type 1. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2006;26:1777–1783. [PubMed]
20. Meilhac O, Ho-Tin-Noé B, Houard X, et al. Pericellular plasmin induces smooth muscle cell anoikis. FASEB J. 2003;17:1301–1303. [PubMed]
21. Michel JB. Anoikis in the cardiovascular system: known and unknown extracellular mediators. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2003;23:2146–5214. [PubMed]
22. Chen Y, Kelm RJ, Jr, Budd RC, et al. Inhibition of apoptosis and caspase-3 in vascular smooth muscle cells by plasminogen activator inhibitor type-1. J Cell Biochem. 2004;92:178–188. [PubMed]
23. Rossignol P, Anglès-Cano E, Lijnen HR. Plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 impairs plasminogen activation-mediated vascular smooth muscle cell apoptosis. Thromb Haemost. 2006;96:665–670. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
24. Rossignol P, Lutten A, Martin-Ventura JL, et al. Plasminogen activation: a mediator of vascular smooth muscle cell apoptosis in atherosclerotic plaques. J Thromb Haemost. 2006;4:664–670. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
25. Rossignol P, Ho-Tin-Noe B, Vranckx R, et al. Protease nexin-1 inhibits plasminogen activation-induced apoptosis of adherent cells. J Biol Chem. 2004;279:10346–10356. [PubMed]
26. Kwaan HC, Wang J, Declerck J. Plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 may promote tumour growth through inhibition of apoptosis. Br J Cancer. 2000;82:1702–1708. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
27. Providence KM, Higgins SP, Mullen A, et al. SER-PINE1 (PAI-1) is deposited into keratinocyte migration ‘trails’ and required for optimal monolayer wound repair. Arch Dermatol Res. 2008;300:303–310. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
28. Al-Fakhri N, Chavakis T, Schmidt-Woll T, et al. Induction of apoptosis in vascular cells by plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 and high molecular weight kininogen correlates with their anti-adhesive properties. J Biol Chem. 2003;384:423–435. [PubMed]
29. Allen RR, Higgins PJ. Plasminogen activator inhibitor type-1 expression and the pathophysiology of TGF-β1-induced epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition. Recent Res Devel Physiol. 2004;2:355–366.
30. Vaughan DE. PAI-1 and TGF-β: unmasking the real driver of TGF-β-induced vascular pathology. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2006;26:679–680. [PubMed]
31. Otsuka G, Agah R, Frutkin AD, et al. Transforming growth factor β1 induces neointima formation through plasminogen activator inhibitor-1-dependent pathways. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2006;26:737–743. [PubMed]
32. Kutz SM, Higgins CE, Samarakoon R, et al. TGF-β1-induced PAI-1 expression is E box/USF-dependent and requires EGFR signaling. Exp Cell Res. 2006;312:1093–1105. [PubMed]
33. Boehm JR, Kutz SM, Sage EH, et al. Growth state-dependent regulation of plasminogen activator inhibitor type-1 gene expression during epithelial cell stimulation by serum and transforming growth factor-β1. J Cell Physiol. 1999;181:96–106. [PubMed]
34. Ruiz-Ortega M, Rodríguez-Vita J, Sanchez-Lopez E, et al. TGF-β signaling in vascular fibrosis. Cardiovasc Res. 2007;74:196–206. [PubMed]
35. Schiller M, Javelaud D, Mauviel A. TGF-β-induced SMAD signaling and gene regulation: consequences for extracellular matrix remodeling and wound healing. J Dermatol Sci. 2004;35:83–92. [PubMed]
36. Grotendorst GR, Duncan MR. Individual domains of connective tissue growth factor regulate fibroblast proliferation and myofibroblast differentiation. FASEB J. 2005;19:729–738. [PubMed]
37. Samarakoon R, Higgins S, Higgins CE, et al. Cooperative Rho/Rock and EGFR signaling in modulating TGF-beta induced PAI-1 expression in vascular smooth muscle cells. J Mol Cell Cardiol. 2008;44:527–538. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
38. Otsuka G, Stempien-Otero A, Frutkin AD, et al. Mechanisms of TGF-?1-induced intimal growth. Plasminogen-independent activities of plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 and heterogeneous origin of intimal cells. Circ Res. 2007;100:1300–1307. [PubMed]
39. Khan R, Agrotis A, Bobik A. Understanding the role of transforming growth factor-β1 in intimal thickening after vascular injury. Cardiovasc Res. 2007;4:223–234. [PubMed]
40. Prud’homme GJ. Pathobiology of transforming growth factor beta in cancer, fibrosis and immunologic disease, and therapeutic considerations. Lab Invest. 2007;87:1077–1091. [PubMed]
41. Pennison M, Pasche B. Targeting transforming growth factor-β signaling. Curr Opin Oncol. 2007;19:579–585. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
42. Flanders KC. Smad3 as a mediator of the fibrotic response. Int J Exp Pathol. 2004;85:47–64. [PubMed]
43. Liang A, Wu F, Tran K, et al. Characterization of a small molecule PAI-1 inhibitor, ZK4044. Thromb Res. 2005;115:341–350. [PubMed]
44. Izuhara Y, Takahashi S, Nangaku M, et al. Inhibition of plasminogen activator inhibitor-1: its mechanism and effectiveness on coagulation and fibrosis. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2008;28:672–677. [PubMed]
45. Baxi S, Crandall DL, Meier TR, et al. Dose-dependent thrombus resolution due to oral plaminogen activator inhibitor (PAI)-1 inhibition with tiplaxtinin in a rat stenosis model of venous thrombosis. Thromb Haemost. 2008;99:749–758. [PubMed]
46. Kutz SM, Higgins PJ. Plasminogen activator inhibitor type-1 expression targeting: new therapeutic approaches to regulate tumor growth and angiogenesis. Recent Res Devel Cell Sci. 2004;1:1–10.
47. Kaikita K, Fogo AB, Ma L, et al. Plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 deficiency prevents hypertension and vascular fibrosis in response to long-term nitric oxide synthase inhibition. Circulation. 2001;104:839–844. [PubMed]
48. Owens GK, Kumar MS, Wamhoff BR. Molecular regulation of vascular smooth muscle cell differentiation in development and disease. Physiol Rev. 2004;84:767–801. [PubMed]
49. Singh NN, Ramji DP. The role of transforming growth factor-β in atherosclerosis. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev. 2006;7:487–499. [PubMed]
50. Samarakoon R, Higgins CE, Higgins SP, et al. Plasminogen activator inhibitor type-1 gene expression and induced migration in TGF- β1-stimulated smooth muscle cells is pp60c-src/MEK-dependent. J Cell Physiol. 2005;204:236–246. [PubMed]
51. Ishizawar R, Parsons SJ. c-Src and cooperating partners in human cancer. Cancer Cell. 2004;6:209–214. [PubMed]
52. Sato K, Sato A, Aoto M, et al. c-Src phosphorylates epidermal growth factor receptor on tyrosine 845. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1995;215:1078–1087. [PubMed]
53. Sato K, Sato A, Aoto M, et al. Site-specific association of c-Src with epidermal growth factor receptor in A431 cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1995;210:844–851. [PubMed]
54. Kim JT, Joo CK. Involvement of cell-cell interactions in the rapid stimulation of Cas tyrosine phosphorylation and Src kinase activity by transforming growth factor-β1. J Biol Chem. 2002;277:31938–31948. [PubMed]
55. Sato K, Kimoto M, Kakumoto M, et al. Adaptor protein Shc undergoes translocation and mediates up-regulation of the tyrosine kinase c-Src in EGF-stimulated A431 cells. Genes Cells. 2000;5:749–764. [PubMed]
56. Sato K, Nagao T, Kakumoto M, et al. Adaptor protein Shc is an isoform-specific direct activator of the tyrosine kinase c-Src. J Biol Chem. 2002;277:29568–29576. [PubMed]
57. Sato K, Nagao T, Iwasaki T, et al. Src-dependent phosphorylation of the EGF receptorTyr-845 mediates Stat-p21 waf1 pathway in A431 cells. Genes Cells. 2003;8:995–1003. [PubMed]
58. Tice DA, Biscardi JS, Nickles AL, Parsons SJ. Mechanism of biological synergy between cellular Src and epidermal growth factor receptor. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1999;96:1415–1420. [PubMed]
59. Boerner JL, Biscardi JS, Silva CM, et al. Transactivating agonists of the EGF receptor require Tyr 845 phosphorylation for induction of DNA synthesis. Mol Carcinog. 2005;44:262–273. [PubMed]
60. Shimokawa H, Takeshita A. Rho-kinase is an important therapeutic target in cardiovascular medicine. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2005;25:1767–1775. [PubMed]
61. Loirand G, Guerin P, Pacaud P. Rho kinases in cardiovascular physiology and pathophysiology. Circ Res. 2006;98:322–334. [PubMed]
62. Deindl E. Arteriogenesis; A focus on signal transduction cascades and transcription factors. Thromb Haemost. 2007;98:940–943. [PubMed]
63. Sawada N, Itoh H, Ueyama K, et al. Inhibition of rho-associated kinase results in suppression of neointimal formation of balloon-injured arteries. Circulation. 2000;101:2030–2033. [PubMed]
64. Rikitake Y, Oyama N, Wang CY, et al. Decreased perivascular fibrosis but not cardiac hypertrophy in ROCK1+/− haploinsufficient mice. Circulation. 2005;112:2959–2965. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
65. Nakakuki T, Ito M, Iwasaki H, et al. Rho/Rho-kinase pathway contributes to C-reactive protein-induced plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 expression in endothelial cells. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2005;25:2088–2093. [PubMed]
66. Rikitake Y, Liao JK. Rho-kinase mediates hyperglycemia-induced plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 expression in vascular endothelial cells. Circulation. 2005;111:3261–3268. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
67. Takeda K, Ichiki T, Tokunou T, et al. Critical role of Rho-kinase and MEK/ERK pathways for angiotensin II-induced plasminogen activator inhibitor type-1 gene expression. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2001;21:868–873. [PubMed]
68. Chen S, Crawford M, Day RM, et al. RhoA modulates Smad signaling during transforming growth factor-β-induced smooth muscle differentiation. J Biol Chem. 2006;281:1765–1770. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
69. Kita T, Hata Y, Kano K, et al. Transforming growth factor-β2 and connective tissue growth factor in proliferative vitreoretinal diseases: possible involvement of hyalocytes and therapeutic potential of Rho kinase inhibitor. Diabetes. 2007;56:231–238. [PubMed]
70. Derynck R, Zhang Y. Smad-dependent and Smad-independent pathways in TGF-β family signaling. Nature. 2003;425:577–584. [PubMed]
71. Dennler S, Itoh S, Vivien D, et al. Direct binding of Smad3 and Smad4 to critical TGF-β-inducible elements in the promoter of human plasminogen activator inhibitor-type 1 gene. EMBO J. 1998;17:3091–3100. [PubMed]
72. Hua X, Liu X, Ansari DO, et al. Synergistic cooperation of TFE3 and smad proteins in TGF-β-induced transcription of the plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 gene. Genes Devel. 1998;12:3084–3095. [PubMed]
73. Itoh S, ten Dijke P. Negative regulation of TGF-β receptor/Smad signal transduction. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2007;19:176–184. [PubMed]
74. Lin X, Duan X, Liang YY, et al. PPM1A functions as a Smad phosphatase to terminate TGFbeta signaling. Cell. 2006;125:915–928. [PubMed]
75. Wilkins-Port CE, Higgins CE, Freytag J, et al. PAI-1 is a critical upstream regulator of the TGF-β1/EGF-induced invasive phenotype in mutant p53 human cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. J Biomed Biotech. 2007;2:85208. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
76. Higgins PJ. TGF-beta1-stimulated p21ras-ERK signaling regulates expression of the angiogenic SERPIN PAI-1. Recent Res Devel Biochem. 2006;7:31–45.
77. Allen RR, Qi L, Higgins PJ. Upstream stimulatory factor regulates E box-dependent PAI-1transcription in human epidermal keratinocytes. J Cell Physiol. 2005;203:156–165. [PubMed]
78. Qi L, Higgins PJ. Use of chromatin immunoprecipitation to identify E box-binding transcription factors in the promoter of the growth state-regulated human PAI-1 gene. Recent Res Devel Mol Biol. 2003;1:1–12.
79. Qi L, Allen RR, Lu Q, Higgins CE, Garone R, Staiano-Coico L, Higgins PJ. PAI-1 transcriptional regulation during the G0→G1 transition in human epidermal keratinocytes. J Cell Biochem. 2006;99:495–507. [PubMed]
80. White LA, Bruzdzinski C, Kutz SM, et al. Growth state-dependent binding of USF-1 to a proximal promoter E box element in the rat plasminogen activator inhibitor type 1 gene. Exp Cell Res. 2000;260:127–135. [PubMed]
81. Malyanker UM, Hanson R, Schwartz SM, et al. Upstream stimulatory factor 1 regulates osteopontin expression in smooth muscle cells. Exp Cell Res. 1999;250:535–547. [PubMed]
82. Bidder M, Shao JS, Charlton-Kachigian N, et al. Osteopontin transcription in aortic vascular smooth muscle cells is controlled by glucose-regulated upstream stimulatory factor and activator protein-1 activities. J Biol Chem. 2002;277:44485–44496. [PubMed]
83. Shoulders CC, Naoumova RP. USF1 implicated in the aetiology of familial combined hyperlipidaemia and the metabolic syndrome. Trends Mol Med. 2004;10:362–365. [PubMed]
84. Piccolo S. p53 regulation orchestrates the TGF-β response. Cell. 2008;133:767–769. [PubMed]
85. Cordenonsi M, Dupont S, Maretto S, et al. Links between tumor suppressors: p53 is required for TGF-β gene responses by cooperating with Smads. Cell. 2003;113:301–314. [PubMed]
86. Cordenonsi M, Montagner M, Adorno M, et al. Integration of TGF-β and Ras/MAPK signaling through p53 phosphorylation. Science. 2007;315:840–843. [PubMed]
87. Kunz C, Pebler S, Otte J, et al. Differential regulation of plasminogen activator and inhibitor gene transcription by the tumor suppressor p53. Nucleic Acids Res. 1995;25:3710–3727. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
88. Riley T, Sontag E, Chen P, et al. Transcriptional control of human p53-regulated genes. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2008;9:402–412. [PubMed]
89. Shetty S, Shetty P, Idell S, et al. Regulation of plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 expression by tumor suppressor protein p53. J Biol Chem. 2008;283:19570–19580. [PubMed]
90. Dupont S, Zacchigna L, Adorno M, et al. Convergence of p53 and TGF-β signaling networks. Cancer Lett. 2004;213:129–138. [PubMed]
91. Fisher F, Goding CR. Single amino acid substitutions alter helix-loop-helix protein specificity for bases flanking the core CANNTG motif. EMBO J. 1992;11:4103–4109. [PubMed]
92. Simonsson M, Kanduri M, Grontoos E, et al. The DNA binding activitues of Smad2 and Smad3 are regulated by coactivator-mediated acetylation. J Biol Chem. 2006;281:39870–39880. [PubMed]
93. Tu AW, Luo K. Acetylation of Smad2 by the co-activator p300 regulates activin and transforming growth factor β response. J Biol Chem. 2007;282:21187–21196. [PubMed]
94. Das F, Ghosh-Choudhury N, Nenkatesan B, et al. Akt kinase taragets association of CBP with SMAD 3 to regulate TGFβ-induced expression of plasminogen activator inhibitor-1. J Cell Physiol. 2008;214:513–527. [PubMed]
95. Antonson P, Jakobsson T, Alml of T, et al. RAP250 is a coactivator in the transforming growth factor β signaling pathway that interacts with Smad2 and Smad3. J Biol Chem. 2008;283:8995–9001. [PubMed]
96. ten Dijke P, Hill CS. New insights into TGF-β-Smad signaling. Trends Biochem Sci. 2004;29:265–273. [PubMed]
97. Riccio A, Pedone PV, Lund LR, et al. Transforming growth factor β1-responsive element: closely associated binding sites for USF and CCAAT-binding transcription factor-nuclear factor I in the type 1 plasminogen activator inhibitor gene. Mol Cell Biol. 1992;12:1846–1855. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
98. Dimova EY, Kietzmann T. Cell type-dependent regulation of the hypoxia-responsive plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 gene by upstream stimulatory factor-2. J Biol Chem. 2006;28:2999–3005. [PubMed]
99. Fink T, Kazlauskas A, Poellinger L, et al. Identification of a tightly regulated hypoxia-response element in the promoter of human plasminogen activator inhibitor-1. Blood. 2002;99:2077–2083. [PubMed]
100. Kietzmann T, Samoylenko A, Roth U, et al. Hypoxia-inducible factor-1 and hypoxia response elements mediate the induction of plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 gene expression by insulin in primary rat hepatocytes. Blood. 2003;101:907–914. [PubMed]
101. Dimova EY, Moller U, Herzig S, et al. Transcriptional regulation of plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 expression by insulin-like growth factor-1 via MAP kinases and hypoxia-inducible factor-1 in HepG2 cells. Thromb Haemost. 2005;93:1176–1184. [PubMed]
102. Dimova EY, Jakubowska MM, Kietzmann T. CREB binding to the hypoxia-inducible factor-1 responsive elements in the plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 promoter mediates the glucagon effect. Thromb Haemost. 2007;98:296–303. [PubMed]
103. Bendall AJ, Molloy PL. Base preferences for DNA binding by the bHLH-Zip protein USF: effects of MgCl2 on specificity and comparison with binding of Myc family members. Nucleic Acids Res. 1994;22:2801–2810. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
104. Littlewood TD, Evans GI. Helix-loop-helix proteins. Protein Profiles. 1995;2:612–702.
105. Ismail PM, Lu T, Sawadogo M. Loss of USF transcriptional activity in breast cancer cell lines. Oncogene. 1999;18:5582–5591. [PubMed]
106. Samoylenko A, Roth U, Jungermann K, et al. The upstream stimulatory factor-2a inhibits plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 gene expression by binding to a promoter element adjacent to the hypoxia-inducible factor-1 binding site. Blood. 2001;97:2657–2666. [PubMed]
107. Grinberg AV, Kerppola T. Both Max andTFE3 co-operate with Smad proteins to bind the plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 promoter, but they have opposite effects on transcriptional activity. J Biol Chem. 2003;278:11227–11236. [PubMed]
108. Galibert MD, Carreira S, Goding CR. The Usf-1 transcription factor is a novel target for the stress-responsive p38 kinase and mediates UV-induced Tyrosinase expression. EMBO J. 2001;20:5022–5031. [PubMed]
109. Weibaecher KN, Motyckova C, Huber WE, et al. Linkage of M-CSF signaling to Mitf, RFE3, and the osteoclast defect in Mitf (mi/mi) mice. Mol Cell. 2001;8:749–758. [PubMed]
110. Cheung E, Mayr P, Coda-Zabetta F, et al. DNA-binding activity of the transcription factor upstream stimulatory factor 1 (USF-1) is regulated by cyclin-dependent phosphorylation. Biochem J. 1999;344:145–152. [PubMed]
111. Providence KM, White LA, Tang J, et al. Epithelial monolayer wounding stimulates binding of USF-1 to an E-box motif in the plasminogen activator inhibitor type 1 gene. J Cell Sci. 2002;115:3767–3777. [PubMed]
112. Qyang Y, Luo X, Lu T, et al. Cell-type-dependent activity of the ubiquitous transcription factor USF in cellular proliferation and transcriptional activation. Mol Cell Biol. 1999;19:1508–1517. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
113. Xing W, Danilovich N, Sairam MR. Orphan receptor chicken ovalbumin upstream promoter transcription factors inhibit steroid factor-1, upstream stimulatory factor, and activator protein-1 activation of ovine follicle-stimulating hormone receptor expression via composite cis-elements. Biol Reprod. 2002;66:1656–1666. [PubMed]
114. McMurry MR, McCance DJ. Human papilloma virus type 16 E6 activates TERT gene transcription through induction of c-MYC and release of USF-mediated repression. J Virol. 2003;77:9852–9861. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
115. Luo X, Sawadogo M. Functional domains of the transcription factorUSF2:atypical nuclear localization signals and context-dependent transcriptional activation domains. Mol Cell Biol. 1996;16:1367–1375. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
116. Carter RS, Ordentlich P, Kadesch T. Selective utilization of basic helix-loop-helix-leucine zipper proteins at the immunoglobulin heavy-chain enhancer. Mol Cell Biol. 1997;17:18–23. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
117. Huang Y, Border WA, Yu L, et al. A PAI-1 mutant, PAI-1R, slows progression of diabetic nephropathy. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2008;19:329–338. [PubMed]