Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Fast Forward
    • Latest Articles
    • Archive
  • Information
    • Instructions to Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • FAQs
    • For Subscribers
    • Terms & Conditions of Use
    • Permissions
  • Editorial Board
  • Alerts
    • Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Virtual Issues
  • Feedback
  • Submit
  • Other Publications
    • Drug Metabolism and Disposition
    • Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
    • Molecular Pharmacology
    • Pharmacological Reviews
    • Pharmacology Research & Perspectives
    • ASPET

User menu

  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Pharmacological Reviews
  • Other Publications
    • Drug Metabolism and Disposition
    • Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
    • Molecular Pharmacology
    • Pharmacological Reviews
    • Pharmacology Research & Perspectives
    • ASPET
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Pharmacological Reviews

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Fast Forward
    • Latest Articles
    • Archive
  • Information
    • Instructions to Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • FAQs
    • For Subscribers
    • Terms & Conditions of Use
    • Permissions
  • Editorial Board
  • Alerts
    • Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Virtual Issues
  • Feedback
  • Submit
  • Visit Pharm Rev on Facebook
  • Follow Pharm Rev on Twitter
  • Follow ASPET on LinkedIn
Research ArticleSpecial Issue IUPHAR Compendium of the Pharmacology and Classification of the Nuclear Receptor Superfamily 2006

International Union of Pharmacology. LXII. The NR1H and NR1I Receptors: Constitutive Androstane Receptor, Pregnene X Receptor, Farnesoid X Receptor α, Farnesoid X Receptor β, Liver X Receptor α, Liver X Receptor β, and Vitamin D Receptor

David D. Moore, Shigeaki Kato, Wen Xie, David J. Mangelsdorf, Daniel R. Schmidt, Rui Xiao and Steven A. Kliewer
Pharmacological Reviews December 2006, 58 (4) 742-759; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1124/pr.58.4.6
David D. Moore
Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas (D.D.M., R.X.); The Institute of Molecular and Cellular Biosciences, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan (S.K.); Center for Pharmacogenetics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (W.X.); Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Department of Pharmacology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas (D.J.M., D.R.S.); and Department of Pharmacology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas (D.J.M., D.R.S., S.A.K.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Shigeaki Kato
Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas (D.D.M., R.X.); The Institute of Molecular and Cellular Biosciences, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan (S.K.); Center for Pharmacogenetics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (W.X.); Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Department of Pharmacology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas (D.J.M., D.R.S.); and Department of Pharmacology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas (D.J.M., D.R.S., S.A.K.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Wen Xie
Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas (D.D.M., R.X.); The Institute of Molecular and Cellular Biosciences, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan (S.K.); Center for Pharmacogenetics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (W.X.); Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Department of Pharmacology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas (D.J.M., D.R.S.); and Department of Pharmacology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas (D.J.M., D.R.S., S.A.K.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David J. Mangelsdorf
Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas (D.D.M., R.X.); The Institute of Molecular and Cellular Biosciences, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan (S.K.); Center for Pharmacogenetics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (W.X.); Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Department of Pharmacology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas (D.J.M., D.R.S.); and Department of Pharmacology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas (D.J.M., D.R.S., S.A.K.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Daniel R. Schmidt
Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas (D.D.M., R.X.); The Institute of Molecular and Cellular Biosciences, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan (S.K.); Center for Pharmacogenetics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (W.X.); Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Department of Pharmacology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas (D.J.M., D.R.S.); and Department of Pharmacology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas (D.J.M., D.R.S., S.A.K.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rui Xiao
Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas (D.D.M., R.X.); The Institute of Molecular and Cellular Biosciences, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan (S.K.); Center for Pharmacogenetics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (W.X.); Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Department of Pharmacology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas (D.J.M., D.R.S.); and Department of Pharmacology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas (D.J.M., D.R.S., S.A.K.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Steven A. Kliewer
Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas (D.D.M., R.X.); The Institute of Molecular and Cellular Biosciences, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan (S.K.); Center for Pharmacogenetics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (W.X.); Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Department of Pharmacology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas (D.J.M., D.R.S.); and Department of Pharmacology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas (D.J.M., D.R.S., S.A.K.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

The nuclear receptors of the NR1H and NR1I subgroups include the constitutive androstane receptor, pregnane X receptor, farnesoid X receptors, liver X receptors, and vitamin D receptor. The newly emerging functions of these related receptors are under the control of metabolic pathways, including metabolism of xenobiotics, bile acids, cholesterol, and calcium. This review summarizes results of structural, pharmacologic, and genetic studies of these receptors.

Introduction

The 48 members of the nuclear hormone receptor superfamily can be divided into approximately equal-sized groups of conventional receptors with known ligands and orphan receptors that lack them (Willson and Moore, 2002). The conventional receptors can be further subdivided into comparably sized subgroups of classic receptors, whose ligands were well known before their cDNAs were cloned, and new receptors that are often termed “adopted orphans.” The majority of the new receptors are in the NR1H1 and NR1I subfamilies.

An intriguing functional theme has developed for the new receptors as a series of RXR heterodimer partners, first the PPARs and then the LXRs (NR1H2 and NR1H3), FXR (NR1H4), PXR (NR1I2), and CAR (NR1I3), have emerged as key regulators of metabolism (Lu et al., 2001; Willson and Moore, 2002; Francis et al., 2003; Shulman and Mangelsdorf, 2005). The PPARs, receptors for fatty acids and the clinically important antidiabetic thiazolidinediones (PPARγ) and antihyperlipidemic fibrates (PPARα), are described elsewhere. A full analysis of the metabolic regulatory roles of the NR1 receptors is outside the scope of this brief review, but the endogenous ligands, primary functions, and sites of expression of the these receptors are summarized in Table 1.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

Endogenous ligands and primary biologic activities of NR1 subgroup receptors NR1H1 is the insect ecdysone receptor.

The LXRs are receptors for oxysterols, oxidized cholesterol derivatives that accumulate when cholesterol levels are elevated. LXRα drives cholesterol catabolism in the liver, whereas LXRβ activates reverse cholesterol transport from the periphery to the liver (Tontonoz and Mangelsdorf, 2003). The bile acid receptor FXR functions as the major regulator of bile acid homeostasis (Lu et al., 2001). This includes direct activation of pathways that repress bile acid biosynthesis and also induce bile acid export from the liver. The xenobiotic receptors CAR and PXR mediate a chemical defense response to potentially toxic foreign compounds and also toxic endogenous compounds by increasing the capacity of the liver and other tissues to metabolize and clear them (Willson and Kliewer, 2002). The vitamin D receptor (VDR) (NR1I1) is the final member of the NR1I subgroup and the only one that had been characterized before the isolation of its cDNA. VDR is primarily associated with calcium homeostasis, not lipid metabolism, but it has recently been identified as an additional bile acid receptor (Makishima et al., 2002).

It should be emphasized that the NR1H and NR1I receptors do not function in isolation but cooperate to coordinate inter-related metabolic responses and also that each has additional important functions. For example, LXRα activation in liver increases not only cholesterol efflux but also triglyceride production by inducing expression of the lipogenic transcription factor SREBP-1c and its target genes (Joseph et al., 2002a). This is consistent with coordinate release of both cholesterol and triglycerides from the liver in lipoproteins. FXR activation regulates cholesterol and triglyceride metabolism in the opposite direction of LXRα, inhibiting both cholesterol conversion to bile acids and triglyceride production (Lu et al., 2001; Claudel et al., 2003). The LXR and FXR responses share some key target genes, such as cholesterol 7α-hydroxylase, CYP7A1, and SREBP-1c, but are mechanistically quite distinct, with LXR directly activating both, at least in rodents, whereas FXR acts indirectly via induction of the repressor SHP (NR0B2).

Characterization of these new receptors has also revealed novel links among metabolic pathways and between these pathways and other responses. Thus, recent results show that LXR agonists can have unexpected but potentially beneficial effects on glucose metabolism by both down-regulating expression of gluconeogenic target genes in liver and increasing expression of genes involved in glucose uptake in the periphery (Laffitte et al., 2003). More broadly, LXRs (Joseph et al., 2003) have been found to have anti-inflammatory effects. VDR also has a substantial impact on immune function (DeLuca and Cantorna, 2001), although some of the effects may be secondary consequences of alterations in calcium homeostasis (Mathieu et al., 2001).

Structures

LXRα and β

Structures have been solved for LXRβ bound to the natural agonist 24(S),25-epoxycholesterol (eCH) and the synthetic agonist T0901317 (Hoerer et al., 2003; Williams et al., 2003). The ligands are retained in the pocket primarily through hydrophobic interactions that orient the A ring of eCH toward helix 1 and the D ring and epoxide tail toward the C-terminal end of helix 10. Distinctive features include a long helix 1 and a relatively large ligand-binding pocket (∼800 Å3) compared with the classic steroid hormone receptors. Both eCH and T0901317 stabilize the AF-2 helix in the active configuration through a histidine-tryptophan switch that involves hydrogen bonds between the ligand and the His-435 imidazole ring, which in turn makes an edge to face interaction with the Tyr-487 on the inner surface of the AF-2 helix. LBD structures have been determined for LXRα bound to the synthetic agonist T0901317 and GW3987 and are very similar to that of LXRβ bound to T0901317 (Svensson et al., 2003). All of the amino acids that line the ligand-binding pocket, including the histidine trigger and the AF-2 tryptophan, are conserved in the two LXR isoforms, so the mechanism of ligand activation seems to be identical.

FXRα

Structures have been solved for FXRα bound to the agonist bile acids 3-deoxychenodeoxycholic acid and 6-ethyl-chenodeoxycholic acid and the synthetic agonist fexaramine (Downes et al., 2003; Mi et al., 2003). Unlike all other steroid-nuclear receptor interactions, the bile acids occupy the ∼700 Å3 ligand-binding pocket with their A rings facing the AF-2 helix. The A rings activate a histidine-tryptophan switch that stabilizes the AF-2 helix in the active configuration. Agonist-bound FXRα can interact simultaneously with two LXXLL coactivator motifs: one occupies the primary coactivator binding groove, whereas the other binds to an adjacent site in an antiparallel manner. This second binding site enhances the binding affinity of the coactivator.

VDR

The first reported VDR structure was for an LBD derivative of the human receptor (VDRΔ) in which a 50-amino acid segment between helices 1 and 3 was removed, based on secondary structure prediction programs suggesting that this region was disordered (Rochel et al., 2000). VDRΔ was crystallized bound to 1,25(OH)2D3. The ligand-binding pocket is ∼700 Å3 with vitamin D occupying ∼60% of this volume. Vitamin D is oriented with its A ring toward the C terminus of helix 5 and its 25-hydroxyl group close to helices 7 and 11. The interaction between vitamin D and VDR involves both hydrophobic and electrostatic interactions. The AF-2 helix is in the agonist conformation and makes two direct Van der Waals contacts with a vitamin D methyl group. The AF-2 helix position is further stabilized by two polar interactions and several hydrophobic contacts. Recently, the structure of the intact zebrafish LBD was solved in complex with 1,25(OH)2D3 and an SRC1 peptide (Ciesielski et al., 2004). The region deleted in VDRΔ was not visible in the electron density map, reflecting its disorder. The binding pocket is identical and makes the same interactions with the ligand seen in the original VDRΔ structure.

CAR

The structure of the CAR LBD has been solved in complex with the agonists 5β-pregnanedione, CITCO, and TCPOBOP and the inverse agonist androstenol (Shan et al., 2004; Suino et al., 2004; Xu et al., 2004). The structures suggest that the constitutive activity of CAR results from several features including a short helix preceding the AF-2 helix, helix 12, which combines with a salt bridge between C terminus of helix 12 and helix 3 to stabilize the AF-2 helix in the active conformation. The CAR LBD is stabilized further by an extended helix 2 that makes contacts with helix 3. The CAR LBD contains a well-formed ligand-binding pocket of ∼600 Å3 but lacks the sequence motifs that allow the flexible expansion of the PXR pocket. A single residue difference in the C-terminal region of the mouse versus human CAR is proposed to account for the strong species selectivity for some agonists. The CAR-androstenol complex shows that this inverse agonist sterically interferes with the positioning of the AF-2 helix, preventing CAR from interacting with either coactivators or corepressors.

PXR

Like VDR, PXR contains an ∼60 amino acid region between helix 1 and helix 3. However, in PXR this insert creates an extended five-stranded antiparallel β-sheet and a 13- to 20-amino acid stretch of disordered residues adjacent to the ligand-binding pocket (Watkins et al., 2001). These features generate a ligand-binding pocket with an apo volume of ∼1300 Å3 that can adjust its shape to accommodate ligands of distinct size and structure. Twenty-eight amino acid side chains line the pocket of PXR, of which eight are polar and capable of forming hydrogen bonds with ligands. All ligands examined to date, including the cholesterol-lowering drug SR12813, the antibiotic rifampin, and the St. John's wort constituent hyperforin, form a combination of hydrophobic and polar interactions with PXR ligand-binding pocket residues (Watkins et al., 2001, 2003a,b; Chrencik et al., 2005).

Endogenous Ligands

LXRα and β

The endogenous ligands of the LXRs are a series of oxidized derivatives of cholesterol termed “oxysterols” (Janowski et al., 1996, 1999). Arguments for oxysterols as physiologic agonists for LXRs include their ability to activate the receptors at concentrations comparable with their endogenous levels, the fact that the natural stereoisomers are more active than synthetic variants, and the clear cholesterol-related phenotypes of LXR-null mice. Potential LXR agonists include 24(S),25-epoxycholesterol, which is generated from the cholesterol precursor squalene and is relatively abundant in the liver; 22(R)-hydroxycholesterol, which is a transient intermediate in steroid hormone synthesis; 24(S)-hydroxycholesterol, which is present in the brain; and 27-hydroxycholesterol which is found in macrophages. The two LXR isoforms are very closely related and the endogenous and synthetic agonists characterized to date activate both.

FXRα

It is now well established that FXRα functions as a bile acid receptor. It can be activated by a very wide range of bile acids, including the primary products cholic acid and chenodeoxycholic acid, and their secondary glycine and taurine conjugates (Makishima et al., 1999; Parks et al., 1999; Wang et al., 1999). The affinities are not equivalent, however, and it seems likely that distinct bile acids may have somewhat different functional effects on FXRα and also the other NRs that they activate, including VDR, PXR, and CAR. Bile acids are produced from cholesterol via a complex series of enzymatic steps that are organized into two main pathways. The initial and rate-limiting step in the classic or neutral pathway is catalyzed by cholesterol 7α-hydroxylase, CYP7A1. Expression of this key enzyme is powerfully repressed when bile acid levels are too high by a nuclear receptor cascade in which the activated FXRα induces expression of the orphan receptor SHP, which in turn shuts off the activity of another orphan receptor, liver receptor homolog-1, which is essential for CYP7A1 promoter activity (Shulman and Mangelsdorf, 2005).

VDR

In contrast with the recent linkage of the other NR1 receptors with their ligands, the active ligand for the VDR has long been known to be 1,25(OH)2D3, and both its production and the mechanisms that control its levels are well defined (DeLuca, 1986). 7-Dehydrocholesterol is a vitamin D precursor that is synthesized from cholesterol and is converted into vitamin D3 by UV light in the skin. Of course, vitamin D is also a nutrient present in the diet as both vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol) from plants and vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) from animals. The active hormonal 1,25(OH)2D3 is generated by sequential enzymatic steps. The initial step in the liver is dependent on cholesterol 27-hydroxylase, CYP27, which produces 25(OH)D3. 25-Hydroxyvitamin D-1α-hydroxylase (1α-hydroxylase, CYP27B1) generates the active hormonal form in the kidney.

Levels of 1,25(OH)2D3 are tightly regulated to maintain calcium homeostasis. VDR plays a central role in this process by both repressing expression of the proximal activator, 1α-hydroxylase, and inducing expression of the inactivating enzyme CYP24, which produces 1,24,25-trihydroxyvitamin D3.

Based on their discovery that hydrophobic bile acids are also potent VDR agonists, Makishima et al. (2002) proposed that VDR has an additional function in the protection against the toxic and carcinogenic effects of these endobiotics in the gut.

PXR and CAR

These two related receptors are most commonly considered to respond to a wide range of potentially toxic foreign compounds, or xenobiotics. However, they can also be activated by a number of potentially toxic endogenous compounds (endobiotics). For PXR, bile acids, particularly more hydrophobic and toxic examples, such as lithocholic acid, function as direct agonists (Staudinger et al., 2001; Xie et al., 2001). PXR activation by elevated concentrations of such bile acids results in induction of cytochrome P450 enzymes that hydroxylate them and thereby decrease their toxicity. Murine PXR can also be activated by oxysterol precursors of bile acids (Goodwin et al., 2003).

CAR has both direct and indirect mechanisms of activation based on either conventional agonist binding or a still poorly characterized pathway of induced nuclear translocation (Swales and Negishi, 2004; Qatanani and Moore, 2005). In the latter case, the constitutive transactivation function of CAR results in induction of expression of appropriate target genes. There are no known endogenous agonists that directly activate CAR in physiologic pathways. The first CAR ligands identified were the endogenous androgen metabolites, androstanol and androstenol, which are inverse agonists that can block the constitutive activity of CAR (Forman et al., 1998), but this requires micromolar concentrations that are far above those reached in vivo. CAR can be activated indirectly by high concentrations of both bile acids (Zhang et al., 2004) and bilirubin (Huang et al., 2003). Both of these pathways result in detoxification and induced clearance of these endogenous toxins. For both CAR and PXR, normal physiologic concentrations of these endobiotics cannot effectively activate the receptors. Instead, both function to protect against the consequences of pathologically elevated levels.

Synthetic Ligands and Selective Modulators

LXRα and β

The majority of the studies of the effects of synthetic LXR agonists have been carried out with a single compound, T0901317, which activates both isoforms (Schultz et al., 2000). A number of effects have been reported for T0901317, primarily in mouse models, but the best characterized is an increase in reverse cholesterol transport. In this process, LXR activation in macrophages induces expression of the ATP-binding cassette transporters ABCA1 and G1 and increases transport of cholesterol to the acceptor apolipoprotein A1. The result is inhibition of atherogenesis in mouse models (Tangirala et al., 2002; Levin et al., 2005), and a similar beneficial effect has been described for another LXR pan-agonist, GW3965 (Joseph et al., 2002b).

Although LXR activation has desirable effects on reverse cholesterol transport and other potentially desirable effects, it also increases serum triglycerides in mouse models. This increase is believed to be related to the induction of SREBP-1c in the liver and is also thought to be primarily an LXRα function, raising the possibility that an LXRβ-specific agonist could retain many of the beneficial effects without the undesirable triglyceride effect.

FXRα

FXRα responds to bile acids at their physiologic concentrations, in the range of 10 to 100 μM (Makishima et al., 1999; Parks et al., 1999; Wang et al., 1999). This is a much lower affinity than that of classic steroid and thyroid hormone receptors and is associated with decreased specificity, which allows responses to structurally diverse conjugated and unconjugated bile acids. However, it also means that FXRα is a relatively nonspecific receptor that can respond to a wide range of additional compounds. It is therefore relatively easy to identify novel modulators of FXRα activity, but the large majority of studies on synthetic FXRα ligands have focused on a single compound, GW4064. This potent FXRα agonist binds with high affinity and apparently good specificity, although its spectrum of effects on other potential targets remains to be established. More limited studies have been carried out with another synthetic agonist, fexaramine, and the synthetic bile acid derivative 6-α-ethyl-chenodeoxycholic acid. Like the LXRs, FXRα is a current target for the development of therapeutic agents. The effects of GW4064 and some other agonists in animal models provide support for potential applications in lowering triglycerides (Maloney et al., 2000) and protecting against liver damage in cholestasis (Liu et al., 2003) and cholesterol gallstone disease (Moschetta et al., 2004).

Consistent with the apparent flexibility of FXRα, other ligands seem to have more selective modulatory effects. The naturally occurring phytosteroids E- and Z-guggulsterone were initially described as FXRα antagonists (Urizar et al., 2002) but may be selective modulators with different effects on different targets (Cui et al., 2003), and the synthetic ligand AGN34 reportedly also functions as an agonist or antagonist in different gene contexts (Dussault et al., 2003).

VDR

1,25(OH)2D3 itself provides a simple means for VDR activation and is clinically used in treatment of osteoporosis, psoriasis, and secondary hyperparathyroidism. However, the undesirable hypercalcemic effects of higher doses complicate these and a wide range of additional potential therapeutic applications in diverse areas that include immunology and cancer. In marked contrast with the other NR1I receptors CAR and PXR, VDR is a highly specific receptor. Thus, substantial effort has been directed to developing selective, noncalcemic 1,25(OH)2D3 analogs (Nagpal et al., 2005). Although progress has been made, this problem has not been solved, and clinical use of selective VDR agonists is not yet widespread.

PXR and CAR

These two receptors are unique among the NRs in that they are specifically designed to be nonspecific (Willson and Kliewer, 2002). They are not activated by specific hormones but instead can recognize and respond to an enormous range of relatively small, hydrophobic exogenous compounds. Direct binding of such compounds is the dominant mechanism of activation of PXR, which has a larger and more flexible ligand-binding pocket. PXR can be activated by an unknown fraction of the total number of relatively hydrophobic organic molecules with molecular masses roughly <1000 Da. Although the likelihood that a particular compound is a PXR agonist may be small, the enormity of this chemical space means that the number of such compounds is essentially unlimited. As noted above, CAR has a more restricted ligand-binding pocket and has a much more limited range of direct agonist ligands. However, this restriction is complemented by the indirect translocation mechanism in hepatocytes, which can be triggered by elevated levels of a very wide range of structurally unrelated compounds. These two receptors function together to regulate common target genes to promote xenobiotic detoxification, and their distinct mechanisms of activation are thought to facilitate response to an especially diverse range of xenobiotic stimuli.

Another unusual aspect of ligand binding by PXR and CAR is the high divergence of their ligand-binding domains between species, which leads to quite different ligand profiles. Thus, the antibiotic rifampicin is a potent agonist for human PXR but does not bind the rodent receptor (Lehmann et al., 1998). Similarly, the human CAR agonist CITCO is inactive against murine CAR (Maglich et al., 2003). As expected, “humanized” transgenic mouse strains expressing the human PXR or CAR instead of the endogenous receptor respond only to appropriate human agonists (Xie et al., 2000; Huang et al., 2004). The agonists most commonly used in studies of mouse PXR and CAR are PCN and TCPOBOP, respectively. Nuclear translocation of both human and mouse CAR can be induced by the widely used CAR activator phenobarbital.

Antagonists of PXR have not been well characterized. As noted above, however, the first murine CAR ligands identified are inverse agonists (Forman et al., 1998). More recently, the antifungal agent clotrimazole (Moore et al., 2000) and the antinausea agent meclizine (Huang et al., 2004) have been identified as human CAR inverse agonists. The functional divergence between species is highlighted by the fact that meclizine is a potent agonist for mouse CAR (Huang et al., 2004).

Genetics

LXRα and β

The genetics of the LXR isoforms in humans remains unexplored, with no hereditary diseases associated with LXR defects and not even any published reports on LXR gene polymorphisms. In mice, however, both the individual and the double LXR gene knockouts have been well studied. Loss of LXRα function results in a defect in cholesterol elimination, with the LXRα-/- livers accumulating much greater amounts of cholesterol than wild-type livers when the mice were challenged with a high cholesterol diet (Peet et al., 1998). The loss of LXRβ does not result in a similar defect, but the combined loss of both isoforms exacerbates the cholesterol elimination defect of the LXRα-/- mice (Laffitte et al., 2001).

The role of LXR isoforms in reverse cholesterol transport was confirmed in mice with selective loss of both isoforms in macrophages, which was accomplished by transplant of double knockout bone marrow into irradiated hosts. In atherogenic models, animals receiving the mutant cells developed much more atherosclerosis than those transplanted with wild-type cells and were also, resistant to the antiatherogenic effect of the LXR agonist T0901317 (Tangirala et al., 2002; Levin et al., 2005). Atherogenesis is associated with inflammation, and similar transplants also revealed direct functions for LXRs in inhibiting expression of proinflammatory genes and activating innate immunity (Joseph et al., 2003, 2004).

The other major role of LXR isoforms is in lipid homeostasis as evidenced by resistance to diet-induced obesity seen in LXR double knockout mice (Kalaany et al., 2005). This phenotype is due to loss of hepatic triglyceride synthesis and the uncoupled burning of dietary fat in the periphery.

FXRα and β

The mouse genome encodes two FXR types, FXRα and FXRβ (Otte et al., 2003). Remarkably, human FXRβ is a pseudogene, with numerous nucleotide changes that preclude expression of the intact protein. Essentially nothing is known about the function of mouse FXRβ. A further complication is that the conserved FXRα (generally termed FXR) gene encodes four protein products (Zhang et al., 2003). Because of differential promoter usage, FXRα3 and FXRα4 have 37 additional N-terminal amino acids that are not present in FXRα1 and FXRα2. Because of differential splicing, FXRα1 and FXRα3 have an additional four amino acids in the hinge region that are not present in FXRα2 and FXRα4. There is evidence for functional differences between these very similar proteins, but their potentially distinct physiologic roles remain to be determined.

As with the LXRs, human genetics of FXRα is in its infancy. However, loss of FXRα function in mice results in profound defects in bile acid metabolism, notably a failure to suppress their production in response to elevated bile acid levels (Sinal et al., 2000). The FXRα-deficient mice also have defects in cholesterol homeostasis (Lambert et al., 2003) and accumulate lipids in the liver and in circulation (Sinal et al., 2000). Recent results indicate that the elevated liver and serum lipids result in insulin resistance (Cariou et al., 2006; Ma et al., 2006; Zhang et al., 2006).

VDR

The vitamin D receptor was the first NR gene for which human mutations were identified (Hughes et al., 1988) and remains the only member of the NR1 subgroup for which clear loss of function mutations have been characterized. Disruption of VDR function due to either VDR gene mutation or the absence of the 1,25(OH)2D3 ligand leads to rickets (Kato et al., 2002). The disease has a number of manifestations associated with dysregulation of calcium homeostasis, including muscle weakness, growth retardation, and bone deformity, along with secondary hyperparathyroidism and aminoaciduria. Some patients come to medical attention because of convulsions or tetany. VDR mutations are the molecular basis for vitamin D-dependent rickets type II, which is also known as hypocalcemic vitamin D-resistant rickets. Patients with vitamin D-dependent rickets type II have elevated circulating levels of 1,25(OH)2D3, and because of the receptor defect, physiologic doses of 1,25(OH)2D3 are unable to resolve the disease in its most severe forms. Less severe forms associated with decreased rather than absent receptor functions can be treated with elevated levels of 1,25(OH)2D3.

VDR knockout mice have been generated by multiple groups (Li et al., 1997; Yoshizawa et al., 1997; Van Cromphaut et al., 2001; Zeitz et al., 2003). These mice are relatively normal until weaning but show a wide range of phenotypes also observed in vitamin D deficiency. Thus, the knockouts fail to thrive and show alopecia, infertility, hypocalcemia, and severely impaired bone formation. Female mice have uterine hypoplasia and impaired folliculogenesis. VDR-null animals generally die before 4 months of age. Remarkably, however, the pathologic impact of the loss of VDR function is substantially ameliorated by feeding diets rich in calcium, phosphate, and lactose (Amling et al., 1999), indicating that many of these effects are due to dysregulation of mineral homeostasis.

PXR and CAR

Polymorphisms that may have functional effects have been identified for both PXR and CAR (Koyano et al., 2004; Ikeda et al., 2005; Lamba et al., 2005) but genetic variation in humans has not yet been associated with specific phenotypes. Mouse knockouts for PXR (Xie et al., 2000) or CAR (Wei et al., 2000) show the expected deficits in specific xenobiotic induction of drug metabolism and are also sensitive to elevated levels of endobiotic stress. Neither the single knockouts nor the double knockout exhibit obvious phenotypes under basal circumstances, indicating that these receptors function primarily to respond to chemical stresses.

The induction of drug metabolism is an undesirable drug side effect because the activation of this process by one therapeutic agent can dramatically alter the biologic activity of others that are coadministered. The divergence of the xenobiotic receptor ligand binding domains means that such drug-drug interactions relevant to humans cannot be reliably studied in standard rodent models. As noted above, however, lines of “humanized” mice expressing the human receptors instead of their mouse counterparts can be used to identify such effects (Xie et al., 2000; Zhang et al., 2002).

Tables 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 summarize the functions, biologic activities, structural properties, and ligands of these receptors.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 2

CAR

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 3

PXR

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 4

FXR

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 5

FXRβ

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 6

LXRα

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 7

LXRβ

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 8

VDR

Footnotes

  • ↵1 Abbreviations: NR, nuclear receptor; RXR, retinoid X receptor; PPAR, peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor; LXR, liver X receptor; FXR, farnesoid X receptor; PXR, pregnane X receptor; CAR, constitutive androstane receptor; VDR, vitamin D receptor; SREBP, sterol regulatory element binding protein; SHP, small heterodimer partner; eCH, 24(S),25-epoxycholesterol; AF, activation function; LBD, ligand-binding domain; 1,25(OH)2D3, 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3; CITCO, 6-(4-chlorophenyl)imidazo[2,1-b](1, 3)thiazole-5-carbaldehyde-O-3,4-dichlorobenzyl)oxime; TCPOBOP, 1,4-bis[2-(3,5-dichloropyridyloxy)]benzene; PCN, pregnenolone-16α-carbonitrile.

  • The authors are supported by National Institutes of Health Grants DK067158 (S.A.K.), DK62434 (D.D.M., D.J.M.), ES012479, and CA107011 (W.X.), the Robert A. Welch Foundation (S.A.K. and D.J.M.), and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (D.J.M.). D.J.M. is an investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.

  • Article, publication date, and citation information can be found at http://pharmrev.aspetjournals.org.

  • doi:10.1124/pr.58.4.6.

  • The American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics

References

  1. ↵
    Amling M, Priemel M, Holzmann T, Chapin K, Rueger JM, Baron R, and Demay MB (1999) Rescue of the skeletal phenotype of vitamin D receptor-ablated mice in the setting of normal mineral ion homeostasis: formal histomorphometric and biomechanical analyses. Endocrinology 140: 4982-4987.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    Cariou B, van Harmelen K, Duran-Sandoval D, van Dijk TH, Grefhorst A, Abdelkarim M, Caron S, Torpier G, Fruchart JC, Gonzalez FJ, et al. (2006) The farnesoid X receptor modulates adiposity and peripheral insulin sensitivity in mice. J Biol Chem 281: 11039-11049.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    Chrencik JE, Orans J, Moore LB, Xue Y, Peng L, Collins JL, Wisely GB, Lambert MH, Kliewer SA, and Redinbo MR (2005) Structural disorder in the complex of human pregnane X receptor and the macrolide antibiotic rifampicin. Mol Endocrinol 19: 1125-1134.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    Ciesielski F, Rochel N, Mitschler A, Kouzmenko A, and Moras D (2004) Structural investigation of the ligand binding domain of the zebrafish VDR in complexes with 1α,25(OH)2D3 and Gemini: purification, crystallization and preliminary X-ray diffraction analysis. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 89-90: 55-59.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. ↵
    Claudel T, Inoue Y, Barbier O, Duran-Sandoval D, Kosykh V, Fruchart J, Fruchart JC, Gonzalez FJ, and Staels B (2003) Farnesoid X receptor agonists suppress hepatic apolipoprotein CIII expression. Gastroenterology 125: 544-555.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    Cui J, Huang L, Zhao A, Lew JL, Yu J, Sahoo S, Meinke PT, Royo I, Pelaez F, and Wright SD (2003) Guggulsterone is a farnesoid X receptor antagonist in coactivator association assays but acts to enhance transcription of bile salt export pump. J Biol Chem 278: 10214-10220.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    DeLuca HF (1986) The metabolism and functions of vitamin D. Adv Exp Med Biol 196: 361-375.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. ↵
    DeLuca HF and Cantorna MT (2001) Vitamin D: its role and uses in immunology. FASEB J 15: 2579-2585.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    Downes M, Verdecia MA, Roecker AJ, Hughes R, Hogenesch JB, Kast-Woelbern HR, Bowman ME, Ferrer JL, Anisfeld AM, Edwards PA, et al. (2003) A chemical, genetic, and structural analysis of the nuclear bile acid receptor FXR. Mol Cell 11: 1079-10792.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    Dussault I, Beard R, Lin M, Hollister K, Chen J, Xiao JH, Chandraratna R, and Forman BM (2003) Identification of gene-selective modulators of the bile acid receptor FXR. J Biol Chem 278: 7027-7033.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    Forman BM, Tzameli I, Choi HS, Chen J, Simha D, Seol W, Evans RM, and Moore DD (1998) Androstane metabolites bind to and deactivate the nuclear receptor CAR-β. Nature (Lond) 395: 612-615.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    Francis GA, Fayard E, Picard F, and Auwerx J (2003) Nuclear receptors and the control of metabolism. Annu Rev Physiol 65: 261-311.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    Goodwin B, Gauthier KC, Umetani M, Watson MA, Lochansky MI, Collins JL, Leitersdorf E, Mangelsdorf DJ, Kliewer SA, and Repa JJ (2003) Identification of bile acid precursors as endogenous ligands for the nuclear xenobiotic pregnane X receptor. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100: 223-228.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    Hoerer S, Schmid A, Heckel A, Budzinski RM, and Nar H (2003) Crystal structure of the human liver X receptor β ligand-binding domain in complex with a synthetic agonist. J Mol Biol 334: 853-861.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    Huang W, Zhang J, Chua SS, Qatanani M, Han Y, Granata R, and Moore DD (2003) Induction of bilirubin clearance by the constitutive androstane receptor (CAR). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100: 4156-4161.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    Huang W, Zhang J, Wei P, Schrader WT, and Moore DD (2004) Meclizine is an agonist ligand for mouse constitutive androstane receptor (CAR) and an inverse agonist for human CAR. Mol Endocrinol 18: 2402-2408.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    Hughes MR, Malloy PJ, Kieback DG, Kesterson RA, Pike JW, Feldman D, and O'Malley BW (1988) Point mutations in the human vitamin D receptor gene associated with hypocalcemic rickets. Science (Wash DC) 242: 1702-1705.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    Ikeda S, Kurose K, Jinno H, Sai K, Ozawa S, Hasegawa R, Komamura K, Kotake T, Morishita H, Kamakura S, et al. (2005) Functional analysis of four naturally occurring variants of human constitutive androstane receptor. Mol Genet Metab 86: 314-319.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    Janowski BA, Grogan MJ, Jones SA, Wisely GB, Kliewer SA, Corey EJ, and Mangelsdorf DJ (1999) Structural requirements of ligands for the oxysterol liver X receptors LXRα and LXRβ. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96: 266-271.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. ↵
    Janowski BA, Willy PJ, Devi TR, Falck JR, and Mangelsdorf DJ (1996) An oxysterol signalling pathway mediated by the nuclear receptor LXR-α. Nature (Lond) 383: 728-731.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    Joseph SB, Bradley MN, Castrillo A, Bruhn KW, Mak PA, Pei L, Hogenesch J, O'Connell RM, Cheng G, Saez E, et al. (2004) LXR-dependent gene expression is important for macrophage survival and the innate immune response. Cell 119: 299-309.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    Joseph SB, Castrillo A, Laffitte BA, Mangelsdorf DJ, and Tontonoz P (2003) Reciprocal regulation of inflammation and lipid metabolism by liver X receptors. Nat Med 9: 213-219.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    Joseph SB, Laffitte BA, Patel PH, Watson MA, Matsukuma KE, Walczak R, Collins JL, Osborne TF, and Tontonoz P (2002a) Direct and indirect mechanisms for regulation of fatty acid synthase gene expression by liver X receptors. J Biol Chem 277: 11019-11025.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. ↵
    Joseph SB, McKilligin E, Pei L, Watson MA, Collins AR, Laffitte BA, Chen M, Noh G, Goodman J, Hagger GN, et al. (2002b) Synthetic LXR ligand inhibits the development of atherosclerosis in mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99: 7604-7609.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    Kalaany NY, Gauthier KC, Zavacki AM, Mammen PP, Kitazume T, Peterson JA, Horton JD, Garry DJ, Bianco AC, and Mangelsdorf DJ (2005) LXRs regulate the balance between fat storage and oxidation. Cell Metab 1: 231-244.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    Kato S, Yoshizazawa T, Kitanaka S, Murayama A, and Takeyama K (2002) Molecular genetics of vitamin D-dependent hereditary rickets. Horm Res 57: 73-78.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    Koyano S, Kurose K, Saito Y, Ozawa S, Hasegawa R, Komamura K, Ueno K, Kamakura S, Kitakaze M, Nakajima T, et al. (2004) Functional characterization of four naturally occurring variants of human pregnane X receptor (PXR): one variant causes dramatic loss of both DNA binding activity and the transactivation of the CYP3A4 promoter/enhancer region. Drug Metab Dispos 32: 149-154.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. ↵
    Laffitte BA, Chao LC, Li J, Walczak R, Hummasti S, Joseph SB, Castrillo A, Wilpitz DC, Mangelsdorf DJ, Collins JL, et al. (2003) Activation of liver X receptor improves glucose tolerance through coordinate regulation of glucose metabolism in liver and adipose tissue. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100: 5419-5424.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. ↵
    Laffitte BA, Repa JJ, Joseph SB, Wilpitz DC, Kast HR, Mangelsdorf DJ, and Tontonoz P (2001) LXRs control lipid-inducible expression of the apolipoprotein E gene in macrophages and adipocytes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98: 507-512.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. ↵
    Lamba J, Lamba V, and Schuetz E (2005) Genetic variants of PXR (NR1I2) and CAR (NR1I3) and their implications in drug metabolism and pharmacogenetics. Curr Drug Metab 6: 369-383.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  31. ↵
    Lambert G, Amar MJ, Guo G, Brewer HB Jr, Gonzalez FJ, and Sinal CJ (2003) The farnesoid X-receptor is an essential regulator of cholesterol homeostasis. J Biol Chem 278: 2563-2570.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. ↵
    Lehmann JM, McKee DD, Watson MA, Willson TM, Moore JT, and Kliewer SA (1998) The human orphan nuclear receptor PXR is activated by compounds that regulate CYP3A4 gene expression and cause drug interactions. J Clin Investig 102: 1016-1023.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    Levin N, Bischoff ED, Daige CL, Thomas D, Vu CT, Heyman RA, Tangirala RK, and Schulman IG (2005) Macrophage liver X receptor is required for antiatherogenic activity of LXR agonists. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 25: 135-142.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. ↵
    Li YC, Pirro AE, Amling M, Delling G, Baron R, Bronson R, and Demay MB (1997) Targeted ablation of the vitamin D receptor: an animal model of vitamin D-dependent rickets type II with alopecia. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94: 9831-9835.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. ↵
    Liu Y, Binz J, Numerick MJ, Dennis S, Luo G, Desai B, MacKenzie KI, Mansfield TA, Kliewer SA, Goodwin B, et al. (2003) Hepatoprotection by the farnesoid X receptor agonist GW4064 in rat models of intra- and extrahepatic cholestasis. J Clin Investig 112: 1678-1687.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    Lu TT, Repa JJ, and Mangelsdorf DJ (2001) Orphan nuclear receptors as eLiXiRs and FiXeRs of sterol metabolism. J Biol Chem 276: 37735-37738.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  37. ↵
    Ma K, Saha PK, Chan L, and Moore DD (2006) Farnesoid X receptor is essential for normal glucose homeostasis. J Clin Investig 116: 1102-1109.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. ↵
    Maglich JM, Parks DJ, Moore LB, Collins JL, Goodwin B, Billin AN, Stoltz CA, Kliewer SA, Lambert MH, Willson TM, et al. (2003) Identification of a novel human CAR agonist and its use in the identification of CAR target genes. J Biol Chem 288: 2237-2242.
    OpenUrl
  39. ↵
    Makishima M, Lu TT, Xie W, Whitfield GK, Domoto H, Evans RM, Haussler MR, and Mangelsdorf DJ (2002) Vitamin D receptor as an intestinal bile acid sensor. Science (Wash DC) 296: 1313-1316.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. ↵
    Makishima M, Okamoto AY, Repa JJ, Tu H, Learned RM, Luk A, Hull MV, Lustig KD, Mangelsdorf DJ, and Shan B (1999) Identification of a nuclear receptor for bile acids. Science (Wash DC) 284: 1362-1365.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. ↵
    Maloney PR, Parks DJ, Haffner CD, Fivush AM, Chandra G, Plunket KD, Creech KL, Moore LB, Wilson JG, Lewis MC, et al. (2000) Identification of a chemical tool for the orphan nuclear receptor FXR. J Med Chem 43: 2971-2974.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    Mathieu C, Van Etten E, Gysemans C, Decallonne B, Kato S, Laureys J, Depovere J, Valckx D, Verstuyf A, and Bouillon R (2001) In vitro and in vivo analysis of the immune system of vitamin D receptor knockout mice. J Bone Miner Res 16: 2057-2065.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. ↵
    Mi LZ, Devarakonda S, Harp JM, Han Q, Pellicciari R, Willson TM, Khorasanizadeh S, and Rastinejad F (2003) Structural basis for bile acid binding and activation of the nuclear receptor FXR. Mol Cell 11: 1093-1100.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. ↵
    Moore LB, Parks DJ, Jones SA, Bledsoe RK, Consler TG, Stimmel JB, Goodwin B, Liddle C, Blanchard SG, Willson TM, et al. (2000) Orphan nuclear receptors constitutive androstane receptor and pregnane X receptor share xenobiotic and steroid ligands. J Biol Chem 275: 15122-15127.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  45. ↵
    Moschetta A, Bookout AL, and Manglesdorf DJ (2004) Prevention of cholesterol gallstone disease by FXR agonists in a mouse model. Nat Med 10: 1352-1358.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. ↵
    Nagpal S, Na S, and Rathnachalam R (2005) Noncalcemic actions of vitamin D receptor ligands. Endocr Rev 26: 662-687.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. ↵
    Otte K, Kranz H, Kober I, Thompson P, Hoefer M, Haubold B, Remmel B, Voss H, Kaiser C, Albers M, et al. (2003) Identification of farnesoid X receptor beta as a novel mammalian nuclear receptor sensing lanosterol. Mol Cell Biol 23: 864-872.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  48. ↵
    Parks DJ, Blanchard SG, Bledsoe RK, Chandra G, Consler TG, Kliewer SA, Stimmel JB, Willson TM, Zavacki AM, Moore DD, et al. (1999) Bile acids: natural ligands for an orphan nuclear receptor. Science (Wash DC) 284: 1365-1368.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  49. ↵
    Peet DJ, Turley SD, Ma W, Janowski BA, Lobaccaro JM, Hammer RE, and Mangelsdorf DJ (1998) Cholesterol and bile acid metabolism are impaired in mice lacking the nuclear oxysterol receptor LXRα. Cell 93: 693-704.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. ↵
    Qatanani M and Moore DD (2005) CAR, the continuously advancing receptor, in drug metabolism and disease. Curr Drug Metab 6: 329-339.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. ↵
    Rochel N, Wurtz JM, Mitschler A, Klaholz B, and Moras D (2000) The crystal structure of the nuclear receptor for vitamin D bound to its natural ligand. Mol Cell 5: 173-179.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. ↵
    Schultz JR, Tu H, Luk A, Repa JJ, Medina JC, Li L, Schwendner S, Wang S, Thoolen M, Mangelsdorf DJ, et al. (2000) Role of LXRs in control of lipogenesis. Genes Dev 14: 2831-2838.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  53. ↵
    Shan L, Vincent J, Brunzelle JS, Dussault I, Lin M, Ianculescu I, Sherman MA, Forman BM, and Fernandez EJ (2004) Structure of the murine constitutive androstane receptor complexed to androstenol; a molecular basis for inverse agonism. Mol Cell 16: 907-917.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  54. ↵
    Shulman AI and Mangelsdorf DJ (2005) Retinoid X receptor heterodimers in the metabolic syndrome. N Engl J Med 353: 604-615.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. ↵
    Sinal CJ, Tohkin M, Miyata M, Ward JM, Lambert G, and Gonzalez FJ (2000) Targeted disruption of the nuclear receptor FXR/BAR impairs bile acid and lipid homeostasis. Cell 102: 731-744.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. ↵
    Staudinger JL, Goodwin B, Jones SA, Hawkins-Brown D, MacKenzie KI, LaTour A, Liu Y, Klaassen CD, Brown KK, Reinhard J, et al. (2001) The nuclear receptor PXR is a lithocholic acid sensor that protects against liver toxicity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98: 3369-3374.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  57. ↵
    Suino K, Peng L, Reynolds R, Li Y, Cha JY, Repa JJ, Kliewer SA, and Xu HE (2004) The nuclear xenobiotic receptor CAR; structural determinants of constitutive activation and Heterodimerization. Mol Cell 16: 893-905.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  58. ↵
    Svensson S, Ostberg T, Jacobsson M, Norstrom C, Stefansson K, Hallen D, Johansson IC, Zachrisson K, Ogg D, and Jendeberg L (2003) Crystal structure of the heterodimeric complex of LXRα and RXRβ ligand-binding domains in a fully agonistic conformation. EMBO (Eur Mol Biol Organ) J 22: 4625-4633.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  59. ↵
    Swales K and Negishi M (2004) CAR, driving into the future. Mol Endocrinol 18: 1589-1598.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. ↵
    Tangirala RK, Bischoff ED, Joseph SB, Wagner BL, Walczak R, Laffitte BA, Daige CL, Thomas D, Heyman RA, Mangelsdorf DJ, et al. (2002) Identification of macrophage liver X receptors as inhibitors of atherosclerosis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99: 11896-11901.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  61. ↵
    Tontonoz P and Mangelsdorf DJ (2003) Liver X receptor signaling pathways in cardiovascular disease. Mol Endocrinol 17: 985-993.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. ↵
    Urizar NL, Liverman AB, Dodds DT, Silva FV, Ordentlich P, Yan Y, Gonzalez FJ, Heyman RA, Mangelsdorf DJ, and Moore DD (2002) A natural product that lowers cholesterol as an antagonist ligand for FXR. Science (Wash DC) 296: 1703-1706.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  63. ↵
    Van Cromphaut SJ, Dewerchin M, Hoenderop JG, Stockmans I, Van Herck E, Kato S, Bindels RJ, Collen D, Carmeliet P, Bouillon R, et al. (2001) Duodenal calcium absorption in vitamin D receptor-knockout mice: functional and molecular aspects. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98: 13324-13329.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  64. ↵
    Wang H, Chen J, Hollister K, Sowers LC, and Forman BM (1999) Endogenous bile acids are ligands for the nuclear receptor FXR/BAR. Mol Cell 3: 543-553.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  65. ↵
    Watkins RE, Davis-Searles PR, Lambert MH, and Redinbo MR (2003a) Coactivator binding promotes the specific interaction between ligand and the pregnane X receptor. J Mol Biol 331: 815-828.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  66. ↵
    Watkins RE, Maglich JM, Moore LB, Wisely GB, Noble SM, Davis-Searles PR, Lambert MH, Kliewer SA, and Redinbo MR (2003b) 2.1 A crystal structure of human PXR in complex with the St. John's wort compound hyperforin. Biochemistry 42: 1430-1438.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  67. ↵
    Watkins RE, Wisely GB, Moore LB, Collins JL, Lambert MH, Williams SP, Willson TM, Kliewer SA, and Redinbo MR (2001) The human nuclear xenobiotic receptor PXR: structural determinants of directed promiscuity. Science (Wash DC) 292: 2329-2333.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  68. ↵
    Wei P, Zhang J, Egan-Hafley M, Liang S, and Moore DD (2000) The nuclear receptor CAR mediates specific xenobiotic induction of drug metabolism. Nature (Lond) 407: 920-923.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. ↵
    Williams S, Bledsoe RK, Collins JL, Boggs S, Lambert MH, Miller AB, Moore J, McKee DD, Moore L, Nichols J, et al. (2003) X-ray crystal structure of the liver X receptor β ligand binding domain: regulation by a histidine-tryptophan switch. J Biol Chem 278: 27138-27143.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  70. ↵
    Willson TM and Kliewer SA (2002) PXR, CAR and drug metabolism. Nat Rev Drug Discov 1: 259-266.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  71. ↵
    Willson TM and Moore JT (2002) Minireview: genomics versus orphan nuclear receptors—a half-time report. Mol Endocrinol 16: 1135-1144.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  72. ↵
    Xie W, Barwick JL, Downes M, Blumberg B, Simon CM, Nelson MC, Neuschwander-Tetri BA, Brunt EM, Guzelian PS, and Evans RM (2000) Humanized xenobiotic response in mice expressing nuclear receptor SXR. Nature (Lond) 406: 435-439.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  73. ↵
    Xie W, Radominska-Pandya A, Shi Y, Simon CM, Nelson MC, Ong ES, Waxman DJ, and Evans RM (2001) An essential role for nuclear receptors SXR/PXR in detoxification of cholestatic bile acids. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98: 3375-3380.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  74. ↵
    Xu RX, Lambert MH, Wisely BB, Warren EN, Weinert EE, Waitt GM, Williams JD, Collins JL, Moore LB, Willson TM, et al. (2004) A structural basis for constitutive activity in the human CAR/RXRα heterodimer. Mol Cell 16: 919-928.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  75. ↵
    Yoshizawa T, Handa Y, Uematsu Y, Takeda S, Sekine K, Yoshihara Y, Kawakami T, Arioka K, Sato H, Uchiyama Y, et al. (1997) Mice lacking the vitamin D receptor exhibit impaired bone formation, uterine hypoplasia and growth retardation after weaning. Nat Genet 16: 391-396.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  76. ↵
    Zeitz U, Weber K, Soegiarto DW, Wolf E, Balling R, and Erben RG (2003) Impaired insulin secretory capacity in mice lacking a functional vitamin D receptor. FASEB J 17: 509-511.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  77. ↵
    Zhang J, Huang W, Chua SS, Wei P, and Moore DD (2002) Modulation of acetaminophen-induced hepatotoxicity by the xenobiotic receptor CAR. Science (Wash DC) 298: 422-424.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  78. ↵
    Zhang J, Huang W, Qatanani M, Evans RM, and Moore DD (2004) The constitutive androstane receptor and pregnane X receptor function coordinately to prevent bile acid-induced hepatotoxicity. J Biol Chem 279: 49517-49522.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  79. ↵
    Zhang Y, Kast-Woelbern HR, and Edwards PA (2003) Natural structural variants of the nuclear receptor farnesoid X receptor affect transcriptional activation. J Biol Chem 278: 104-110.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  80. ↵
    Zhang Y, Lee FY, Barrera G, Lee H, Vales C, Gonzalez FJ, Willson TM, and Edwards PA (2006) Activation of the nuclear receptor FXR improves hyperglycemia and hyperlipidemia in diabetic mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103: 1006-1011.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Pharmacological Reviews: 58 (4)
Pharmacological Reviews
Vol. 58, Issue 4
1 Dec 2006
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Editorial Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Pharmacological Reviews article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
International Union of Pharmacology. LXII. The NR1H and NR1I Receptors: Constitutive Androstane Receptor, Pregnene X Receptor, Farnesoid X Receptor α, Farnesoid X Receptor β, Liver X Receptor α, Liver X Receptor β, and Vitamin D Receptor
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Pharmacological Reviews
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Pharmacological Reviews.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Research ArticleSpecial Issue IUPHAR Compendium of the Pharmacology and Classification of the Nuclear Receptor Superfamily 2006

International Union of Pharmacology. LXII. The NR1H and NR1I Receptors: Constitutive Androstane Receptor, Pregnene X Receptor, Farnesoid X Receptor α, Farnesoid X Receptor β, Liver X Receptor α, Liver X Receptor β, and Vitamin D Receptor

David D. Moore, Shigeaki Kato, Wen Xie, David J. Mangelsdorf, Daniel R. Schmidt, Rui Xiao and Steven A. Kliewer
Pharmacological Reviews December 1, 2006, 58 (4) 742-759; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1124/pr.58.4.6

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Research ArticleSpecial Issue IUPHAR Compendium of the Pharmacology and Classification of the Nuclear Receptor Superfamily 2006

International Union of Pharmacology. LXII. The NR1H and NR1I Receptors: Constitutive Androstane Receptor, Pregnene X Receptor, Farnesoid X Receptor α, Farnesoid X Receptor β, Liver X Receptor α, Liver X Receptor β, and Vitamin D Receptor

David D. Moore, Shigeaki Kato, Wen Xie, David J. Mangelsdorf, Daniel R. Schmidt, Rui Xiao and Steven A. Kliewer
Pharmacological Reviews December 1, 2006, 58 (4) 742-759; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1124/pr.58.4.6
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Structures
    • Endogenous Ligands
    • Synthetic Ligands and Selective Modulators
    • Genetics
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • International Union of Pharmacology. LXIII. Retinoid X Receptors
  • International Union of Pharmacology. LXIV. Estrogen Receptors
  • International Union of Pharmacology. LXV. The Pharmacology and Classification of the Nuclear Receptor Superfamily: Glucocorticoid, Mineralocorticoid, Progesterone, and Androgen Receptors
Show more Special Issue IUPHAR Compendium of the Pharmacology and Classification of the Nuclear Receptor Superfamily 2006

Similar Articles

Advertisement
  • Home
  • Alerts
Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   RSS

Navigate

  • Current Issue
  • Latest Articles
  • Archive
  • Search for Articles
  • Feedback
  • ASPET

More Information

  • About Pharmacological Reviews
  • Editorial Board
  • Instructions to Authors
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Customized Alerts
  • RSS Feeds
  • Subscriptions
  • Permissions
  • Terms & Conditions of Use

ASPET's Other Journals

  • Drug Metabolism and Disposition
  • Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
  • Molecular Pharmacology
  • Pharmacology Research & Perspectives
ISSN 1521-0081 (Online)

Copyright © 2023 by the American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics