| Literature DB >> 23641781 |
Andrea Repele1, Ramona Lupi, Simon Eaton, Luca Urbani, Paolo De Coppi, Michelangelo Campanella.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We have recently characterized two distinct populations of Satellite Cells (SCs) that differ in proliferation, regenerative potential, and mitochondrial coupling efficiency and classified these in Low Proliferative Clones (LPC) and High Proliferative Clones (HPC). Herewith, we have investigated their cell metabolism and individuated features that remark an intrinsic difference in basal physiology but that are retrievable also at the initial phases of their cloning.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23641781 PMCID: PMC3689622 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2121-14-24
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cell Biol ISSN: 1471-2121 Impact factor: 4.241
Figure 1Characterization of mitochondrial metabolism differences in both cloned and uncloned satellite cells. (A) Freshly isolated SCs dissociated from single myofibers and seeded on gelatin-coated slides showed at immunofluorescence expression of satellite cell markers Pax7, Myf5 and MyoD (scale bar: 100 μm). (B) Time zero analysis: in 5 out of 5 preliminary experiments, after 24 hours of culture in muscle proliferating medium, SCs presented a different mitochondrial membrane potential ΔΨm (***p < 0.001). (C) Measurement of NaDH level: HPC and LPC demonstrated significant different redox states. These data confirmed that HPC has a glycolytic metabolism compared to low proliferative clones (*p < 0.05). (D) Measurement of CO2 after incubation of D-glucose U-C13 for 4 hours, in SC clones derived from fast and slow-twitch muscle fibers. Treated cells produced a higher amount of CO2 compared to untreated control cells (**p<0.01, ***p < 0.001). Furthermore, HPC showed higher CO2 production in respect to LPC, independently from the muscle type origin (***p < 0.001).
Figure 2Glycolytic enzyme analysis. (A) RT-PCR for Pfkfb3 in HPC and LPC (housekeeping gene: β-actin). (B) Agarose gel signal between HPC and LPC (**p < 0.05). (C) Immunofluorescence for ATPase β-subunit and Pfkfb3 in LPC and (D) HPC (scale bar: 10 μm). (E) Intensity of Pfkfb3 green signal (**p < 0.05).
Figure 3Mitochondrial Caanalysis, ceramide sensitivity assay and subcloning test. (A, B) Mitochondrial calcium level was followed in real time by measuring Rhod-5N dye. LPC and HPC were treated with ATP 1 mM and traces trend monitored over time. The diagram explains the maximum uptake of calcium in both clones (*p < 0.05). (C) Mitochondrial mass analysis showed statistical difference between HPC and LPC in term of the size of mitochondrial network (**p < 0.01). (D, E) C2-Ceramide (N-Acetylsphingosine) treatment after 8 and 10 hours respectively: the charts highlighted the number of cells before and after incubation with C2-Ceramide 20 μM in the clones. In both frames of time clones from LPC presented increased sensitivity to apoptosis than HPC (***p< 0.001). (F) Pictures of C2-Ceramide treated (8h) and untreated (control) cells (scale bar: 50 μm). (G) Sub-cloning of HPC and LPC demonstrating that only HPC could regenerate both clone types again.