Our results argue against a primary involvement of ERs in the observed effects of estrogens. However, we have, in fact, confirmed the positive presence of ER-α and -β in the cultured HLEC strain HLE-B3 by RT-PCR analysis and subsequent verification of the PCR products by sequence analysis and Southern blot with specific internal oligonucleotides to the directed primer pairs, as well as by immunofluorescence techniques (manuscript in preparation). Three estrogens, 17β-, 17α-, and Ent-E
2, that differ by as much as 32-fold in their affinity for either ER-α or -β,
28 35 36 37 have equivalent effects on HLEC survival and the action of 17β-E
2 was not antagonized by the prototypic ER antagonist ICI 182,780. The ICI compound itself exerted cytoprotective activity, probably the result of its phenolic A ring, a requirement for cytoprotection by estrogens.
21 23 45 In this respect, a recent study by Han et al.,
53 demonstrated that the protective potency of various estrogens was dependent on the precise estrogenic structure. Whereas 17α-E
2, a phenolic ring estrogen, acted similar to the antioxidants taurine and vitamin C against the peroxide-induced damage to cultured rabbit renal proximal tubule cells, 17β-E
2, a catecholic estrogen, behaved in a manner similar to the iron chelators deferoxamine and phenanthroline. In this regard, it is important to further point out that superoxide dismutase mimics, in particular, TEMPOL (Sigma),
54 prevents Fe
+2–mediated generation of the damaging hydroxyl radical, by reacting with superoxide, thus preventing recycling of Fe
+3 to Fe
+2, while deferoxamine chelates intracellular Fe
+3 and prevents its reduction to Fe
+2. We cannot at this time rule out the possibility that 17β-E
2, like the superoxide dismutase (SOD) mimic TEMPOL or deferoxamine, acts by limiting the availability of Fe
+2 and thereby prevents certain damaging effects of H
2O
2. Irrespective of the precise mode of action of 17β-E
2, the study by Han et al.,
53 raises the interesting possibility that various estrogens have differential cytoprotective potential, and by inference, disparity in their mechanisms of action. Of immediate relevance to our studies, however, Han et al., like us, conclude that “these cytoprotective effects of estrogens are not dependent on classical estrogen receptors.”
53