Since the HIF-PHD system was identified, precise understanding of PHD regulation on HIFs has become intriguing. In one study using siRNA, a significant bias was observed that one isoform
PHD3 appeared to selectively regulate
HIF-2α rather than other HIF isoforms.
19 Our data demonstrated a similar selectivity, that is,
PHD2 apparently contributed more to the regulation of
HIF-1α than
HIF-2α. In the explant system, addition or withdrawal of pyruvate in the medium caused only increase or decrease of
HIF-1α and
PHD2 (
Figs. 5B,
6B) but not
HIF-2α and
PHD1 (
Figs. 5C,
6A). If
PHD2 also preferred
HIF-2α for degradation, then the
HIF-2α level should have also been changed. Moreover, in physiological situation,
PHD2 is reported to be the most abundant HIF prolyl-hydroxylase in various rodent tissues.
20 In the retina of our BALB/c mice, however, the
PHD1 level compared to in other tissues was extraordinarily high (
Fig. 4D). At the same time, the level of
HIF-2α was relatively low (
Fig. 4A). This distinctive basal level under a physiological condition also implies a differential preference of
PHD1 to
HIF-2α rather than
HIF-1α. A recent protein structure study showed that
PHD2 appeared more effective on binding to the HIF-1 NODD protein domain for degradation,
21 which might explain the observed selectivity in our experiment. Interestingly, under hypoxia, addition of pyruvate in the explant system caused increase of
HIF-2α but not
HIF-1α (
Fig. 5, bars 5), which is opposite to that of normoxia as described above. As HIF-regulating enzymes, PHD themselves are supposed to retain activity at low oxygen tension;
22 the reason for this reversion of normoxia and hypoxia might be that hypoxia caused changes in PHD protein structure, reversing the accessibility of pyruvate to the reaction center of
PHD1 and
PHD2.
23 Consequently, only
HIF-2α protein further accumulated under hypoxia, but not
HIF-1α (
Fig. 5C, bar 5).