In this paper, we describe the elucidation of the target of an aptamer against ovarian cancer previously obtained by cell-SELEX (SELEX = systematic evolution of ligands by exponential enrichment). The target's identity, stress-induced phosphoprotein 1 (STIP1), was determined by mass spectrometry and validated by flow cytometry, using siRNA silencing and protein blotting. Initial oncologic studies show that the aptamer inhibits cell invasion, indicating that STIP1, which is currently under investigation as a potential biomarker for ovarian cancer, plays a critical role in this process. These results serve as an excellent example of how protein target identification of aptamers obtained by cell-SELEX can serve as a means to identify promising biomarker candidates and can promote the development of aptamers as a new drug class to block important oncological processes.
In this paper, we describe the elucidation of the target of an aptamer against ovarian cancer previously obtained by cell-SELEX (SELEX = systematic evolution of ligands by exponential enrichment). The target's identity, stress-induced phosphoprotein 1 (STIP1), was determined by mass spectrometry and validated by flow cytometry, using siRNA silencing and protein blotting. Initial oncologic studies show that the aptamer inhibits cell invasion, indicating that STIP1, which is currently under investigation as a potential biomarker for ovarian cancer, plays a critical role in this process. These results serve as an excellent example of how protein target identification of aptamers obtained by cell-SELEX can serve as a means to identify promising biomarker candidates and can promote the development of aptamers as a new drug class to block important oncological processes.
Ovarian cancer
is a lethal malignancy,
which is typically diagnosed only at advanced stages, when metastasis
has set in. Diagnosis at later stages significantly reduces treatment
options. The identification of biomarkers that are specifically indicative
of ovarian cancer would improve the chances for earlier detection,
a principle that is true for any cancer. Indeed, disease biomarkers
are currently in high demand to identify new drug leads, improve diagnostic
techniques, and monitor treatment.[1] As
an alternative to antibody arrays, we introduce aptamer-assisted biomarker
discovery. Aptamer TOV6 was used as a model throughout this study.
This aptamer was previously selected by cell-SELEX (SELEX = systematic
evolution of ligands by exponential enrichment) against ovarian cancer
cell line TOV-21G.[2,3]Membrane proteins represent
a potentially important source of putative
cancer biomarkers but are currently understudied due to their low
solubility.[1,4] They can be overexpressed in specific types
of cancer and may play a critical role in oncogenesis.[5] Studies show that membrane proteins are shed or secreted
from the plasma membrane into conditioned media in cell lines and
can also be found in the systemic blood circulation of cancerpatients.[6,7] Thus, their detection can serve as an important disease indicator.
Significantly, membrane proteins form the targets of over half of
the currently approved drugs.[8] Therefore,
the identification of molecules that bind to cancer cell membrane
proteins could become a critical step toward developing new diagnostic
or therapeutic approaches (e.g., by acting as protein antagonists).[9]Ovarian cancer is the most lethal gynecological
malignancy.[10] About 90% of all ovarian
cancers are adenocarcinoma,[11] and the two
large histological subgroups are
serous (40%) and clear cell (5–25%) adenocarcinoma. Although
pathological/histological examination is the only means now available
to distinguish between the two subgroups, the different subclass responses
to chemotherapy justify the need for a tool that can efficiently distinguish
these two subgroups at the molecular level.[12] Recently, selected DNA aptamers have shown the potential to be such
a tool due to their ability to differentiate between the ovarian clear
cell line TOV-21G and the ovarian serous adenocarcinoma CAOV3 at the
molecular level. Since their target molecules are also cancer cell
membrane proteins, it seems plausible that these aptamers may serve
as significant reagents in the development of novel therapeutics.In this paper we describe the methodology we developed to identify
and further validate the protein target of aptamer TOV6, essentially
by using the aptamer as a pull-down reagent for its cognate target
after fixation with formaldehyde. In the past, such targets have proven
difficult to isolate because of the low solubility and low abundance
of membrane proteins. The instability of the aptamer–protein
complex in a detergent system used for membrane protein solubilization
and cell lysis adds an additional challenge to the identification
of an aptamer’s target.[13−16] Particularly, to bind with their cognate target with
high affinity and specificity, aptamers must fold into tertiary structures
with their target, a process that is dictated by a number of forces,
including hydrogen bonding, electrostatic interactions, van der Waals
forces, and stacking interactions.[15] However,
the extraction of membrane proteins requires the use of surfactants,
which can seriously interfere with such interactions, which in turn
makes the extraction and the identification of aptamer targets a frustrating
task. To solve the problem of aptamer–protein complex instability
during extraction, we previously proposed a chemical fixation between
an aptamer and its target by incorporating nucleotides that cross-link
with their target via UV irradiation.[17] However, this method is labor-intensive and would make large-scale
aptamer–target elucidation impractical.Therefore, in
the present work, formaldehyde was explored as an
alternative cross-linker to circumvent these problems. Formaldehyde
is a well-known reagent, used extensively in the study of the intracellular
interactions between DNA and protein, as described in methods such
as chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP).[18] Similar to ChIP, this method utilized formaldehyde-induced cross-linking[19] between the DNA aptamer and the target protein
to enable subsequent protein identification by mass spectrometry.After binding of TOV6 to its cognate target on the cell surface
membrane, the TOV6/target interaction was fixed by formaldehyde. The
protein–aptamer hybrid was then extracted from the cell lysate
and recovered, and the protein was identified as stress-induced phosphoprotein
1 (STIP1) by mass spectrometry. The identity of the target was confirmed
through siRNA silencing and antibody binding. By using Boyden chambers,
it was also shown that STIP1 plays a role in cell invasion and that
TOV6 is a potent inhibitor in this oncological process. Thus, we report
here that the identity of the target molecule of aptamer TOV6 is STIP1,
and by identifying the target of TOV6, a blocking effect in the metastatic
process of TOV-21G could be identified. In short, STIP1 is part of
a cell peripheral complex with heat shock protein 90 (HSP90) that
activates matrix metalloproteases.[7] This
effect shows that TOV6 could be a therapeutic agent and that cell-SELEX
can be important in the development of novel drugs against cell surface
proteins.The following paragraphs describe the steps leading
to the identification
and validation of aptamer TOV6 against its cognate target, STIP1.
In addition, it will be demonstrated that STIP1 plays a pivotal role
in the regulation of cell invasion and that aptamer TOV6 plays an
equally important role in inhibiting this process.[7,20]Aptamer TOV6 binds to the ovarian clear cell adenocarcinoma TOV-21G,
but not to the cervical cancer cell line HeLa or the ovarian serous
adenocarcinoma CAOV3. It also binds to the glioblastoma cell line
A172, among others.[2] As shown in Figure 1, formaldehyde cross-linking was able to maintain
the interaction between the aptamer and the protein after extraction
from the cells, as a clear band is visible in lane 8 around 78 kDa.
When compared to lane 4, where no formaldehyde was applied to aptamer-bound
cells, no such band is visible. Furthermore, the cross-linking time
was found to be a critical factor in optimizing the functionality
of aptamer TOV6 as a pull-down reagent for its cognate target (Supplemental
Figure 2, Supporting Information). Following
optimization, two samples from separate experiments were sent for
protein sequencing by mass spectrometry (MS). In these two experiments,
STIP1 was found within the top hits by our MS service facility (Supplemental
Table 1, Supporting Information). The presence
of STIP1 as a membrane protein has previously been reported in various
ovarian cell lines, including TOV-21G,[21] but also in the glioblastoma cell line A172[22] and the pancreatic carcinoma cell line Panc-1.[6]
Figure 1
Electropherogram of extracted protein obtained from the aptamer-mediated
protein captured from cross-linked aptamer TOV6 or randomer (unless
specified otherwise). After PAGE, the gel was stained with MS-compatible
silver staining reagents. The ladder is represented in kilodaltons.
Key: cell lysate, unbound fraction after incubation to beads; randomer,
fraction of protein from randomer released from the beads after biotin
incubation; eluate 1, fraction of protein from aptamer TOV6 released
from the beads after a 1 h of biotin elution; eluate 2, fraction of
protein from aptamer TOV6 released from the beads after the first
elution buffer (12.5 mM biotin) incubation, obtained by further elution
at 65 °C with elution buffer; eluate 3, fraction of protein from
aptamer TOV6 released from the beads after elution buffer incubation,
without cross-linking. The mass spectral analysis results from eluate
1 are presented in the Supporting Information (Supplemental Tables 1–5).
Electropherogram of extracted protein obtained from the aptamer-mediated
protein captured from cross-linked aptamer TOV6 or randomer (unless
specified otherwise). After PAGE, the gel was stained with MS-compatible
silver staining reagents. The ladder is represented in kilodaltons.
Key: cell lysate, unbound fraction after incubation to beads; randomer,
fraction of protein from randomer released from the beads after biotin
incubation; eluate 1, fraction of protein from aptamer TOV6 released
from the beads after a 1 h of biotin elution; eluate 2, fraction of
protein from aptamer TOV6 released from the beads after the first
elution buffer (12.5 mM biotin) incubation, obtained by further elution
at 65 °C with elution buffer; eluate 3, fraction of protein from
aptamer TOV6 released from the beads after elution buffer incubation,
without cross-linking. The mass spectral analysis results from eluate
1 are presented in the Supporting Information (Supplemental Tables 1–5).The binding of TOV6 to STIP1 was experimentally validated
by STIP1
siRNA silencing on TOV-21G cells. Silencing with four different STIP1
siRNAs showed reduced binding of TOV6 compared with that with scrambled
siRNA-treated cells. Since siRNA silencing can sometimes lead to unwanted
compensation mechanisms by the cells,[22,23] an additional
control was included by monitoring the change of the fluorescence
signal from tyrosine-protein kinase-like 7 (PTK7) protein aptamer
Sgc8. As shown in Figure 2, compensation mechanisms
were not observed, as the signal reported from binding to PTK7 was
unaltered. Identical observations were made on A172 cells, where STIP1
was silenced, and the expression level of PTK7 was unaltered
Figure 2
(A) Silencing
of STIP1 in TOV-21G cells. The cells were tested
for TOV6 binding after 72 h of siRNA treatment. (B) Absence of PTK7
silencing with STIP1 siRNA treatment in TOV-21G cells. The cells were
tested for Sgc8 binding after 72 h of siRNA treatment. (C) Silencing
of STIP1 in A172 cells. The cells were tested for TOV6 binding after
72 h of siRNA treatment. (D) Absence of PTK7 silencing with STIP1
siRNA treatment in A172 cells. The cells were tested for Sgc8 binding
after 72 h of siRNA treatment. Key: red, A172 cells incubated with
streptavidin–Alexa 488 only; green, library-incubated cells;
black, scrambled siRNA-treated cells; dark blue, STIP1 siRNA 5; orange,
STIP1 siRNA 6; light blue, STIP1 siRNA 10; magenta, STIP1 siRNA 11.
(A) Silencing
of STIP1 in TOV-21G cells. The cells were tested
for TOV6 binding after 72 h of siRNA treatment. (B) Absence of PTK7
silencing with STIP1 siRNA treatment in TOV-21G cells. The cells were
tested for Sgc8 binding after 72 h of siRNA treatment. (C) Silencing
of STIP1 in A172 cells. The cells were tested for TOV6 binding after
72 h of siRNA treatment. (D) Absence of PTK7 silencing with STIP1
siRNA treatment in A172 cells. The cells were tested for Sgc8 binding
after 72 h of siRNA treatment. Key: red, A172 cells incubated with
streptavidin–Alexa 488 only; green, library-incubated cells;
black, scrambled siRNA-treated cells; dark blue, STIP1 siRNA 5; orange,
STIP1 siRNA 6; light blue, STIP1 siRNA 10; magenta, STIP1 siRNA 11.The STIP1 antibody could not bind
to cells treated with STIP1 siRNA
(Figure 3). Additional validation of the binding
between TOV6 and STIP1 was obtained by performing an aptamer blot
on rhSTIP1 (Supplemental Figure 3, Supporting
Information). A clear signal from the recombinant protein was
observed, while the aptamer was unable to blot bovineserum albumin
(BSA). A panel of ovarian cancer cell lines was tested for binding
with aptamer TOV6: SKOV3 (serous), C13 and TOV-112D (both endometroid),
and OVCAR3 (serous) showed binding to the aptamer, while the aptamer
failed to bind other ovarian cell lines, such as OVCAR8 (serous) and
A2780 cP (undifferentiated) (Supplemental Table 2, Supporting Information). The expression of STIP1 on the cell
surface was experimentally confirmed by Wang et al. in SKOV3, TOV-21G,
and TOV-112D, which coincides with our binding experiment.[21] These data indicate that there is heterogeneity
within ovarian cancer related to the expression of STIP1 on the cell
surface, as SKOV3 and OVCAR3 are both serous ovarian adenocarcinomas.[24]
Figure 3
Effect of STIP1 silencing on STIP1 antibody binding. Key:
red,
TOV-21G cells incubated with streptavidin PE–Cy5.5 only; green,
biotinylated IgG streptavidin PE–Cy5.5; black, biotinylated
M33 antibody on scrambled siRNA-treated cells; blue, biotinylated
M33 antibody on STIP1 siRNA 5.
Effect of STIP1 silencing on STIP1 antibody binding. Key:
red,
TOV-21G cells incubated with streptavidin PE–Cy5.5 only; green,
biotinylated IgG streptavidin PE–Cy5.5; black, biotinylated
M33 antibody on scrambled siRNA-treated cells; blue, biotinylated
M33 antibody on STIP1 siRNA 5.In an earlier study, Walsh et al. investigated the role of
STIP1
in relation to cell invasion in pancreatic cancer. They showed that
STIP1 is found in the conditioned medium of Panc-1 cells, where STIP1
forms a complex with HSP90, which is critical in the regulation and
activity of matrix metalloproteinase 2 (MMP-2), an enzyme that plays
a key role in metastasis.[6] This suggested
that these three proteins play a key role in the onset or regulation
of metastasis, a hallmark oncological process. They furthermore showed
that the inhibition of HSP90 with the HSP90-specific inhibitor 17-AAG
reduces the ability of cells to invade a Matrigel-layered Boyden chamber,
suggesting the inactivation of the STIP1–MMP-2–HSP90
complex.[6] When STIP1 was silenced, they
also observed a significant reduction in cell invasion.To verify
if a similar function of STIP1 can be hypothesized for
TOV-21G, a similar study was performed on TOV-21G cells. HSP90 inhibition
has been reported to also lead to apoptosis;[25,27] thus, the level of 17-AAG in the medium of TOV-21G needed to be
minimized. The maximum tolerated concentration of 17-AAG that had
a minimal effect on cell proliferation of TOV-21G was found to be
0.05 μM (Supplemental Figure 4, Supporting
Information). Consequently, the effect of STIP1 silencing on
cell migration and invasion was investigated. As shown in Figure 4, it was observed that STIP1 slightly affected the
migration ability of TOV-21G, while HSP90 inhibition with 17-AAG had
no influence on the cell’s propensity to transverse a semipermeable
membrane. At 0.10 μM 17-AAG, a reduction in migration was observed
in the STIP1 knockdown, but this result can be explained by reduction
in cell proliferation at these levels. Of note is that this adverse
effect is not seen when STIP1 protein is not silenced, which may indicate
that STIP1 is able to partially compensate for HSP90.
Figure 4
Migration of TOV-21G
across a microporous membrane. STIP1 siRNA-treated
cells migrate more slowly than scrambled siRNA-treated cells, indicating
STIP1 silencing. The reduction of migration with 0.1 μM 17-AAG
can be explained by the reduced viability of TOV-21G cells at this
concentration. Error bars represent the standard deviation (n = 3).
Migration of TOV-21G
across a microporous membrane. STIP1 siRNA-treated
cells migrate more slowly than scrambled siRNA-treated cells, indicating
STIP1 silencing. The reduction of migration with 0.1 μM 17-AAG
can be explained by the reduced viability of TOV-21G cells at this
concentration. Error bars represent the standard deviation (n = 3).When STIP1 expression
was silenced, a reduction in invasiveness
was observed (Figure 5). Cells incubated with
17-AAG showed a reduced ability to transverse the Matrigel membrane,
and the effect of 17-AAG was enhanced when STIP1 was silenced. This
suggests that not all the HSP90 located at the cell periphery is inhibited
(or STIP1 is activating the matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) in other
forms, either by itself or by interaction with unknown proteins),
and the removal of STIP1 by silencing reduces the presence of the
active complex needed for metastasis even further. Therefore, our
data suggest that STIP1 is involved in similar mechanisms needed for
the invasiveness of TOV-21G, as described by Walsh and colleagues,
as the invasiveness of the TOV-21G is reduced both by the inhibition
of HSP90 and by the silencing of STIP1.
Figure 5
Invasion assay of TOV-21G
to determine the effect of HSP90 inhibition
or STIP1 silencing on the ability of TOV-21G to cross a Matrigel layer.
STIP1 siRNA-treated cells digest the Matrigel layer to a lesser extent,
an effect that is amplified by 17-AAG inhibition, indicating the exhaustion
of active HSP90–STIP1 complex at the cell periphery. Error
bars represent the standard deviation (n = 3).
Invasion assay of TOV-21G
to determine the effect of HSP90 inhibition
or STIP1 silencing on the ability of TOV-21G to cross a Matrigel layer.
STIP1 siRNA-treated cells digest the Matrigel layer to a lesser extent,
an effect that is amplified by 17-AAG inhibition, indicating the exhaustion
of active HSP90–STIP1 complex at the cell periphery. Error
bars represent the standard deviation (n = 3).The fact that STIP1 was, to some
extent, able to compensate for
the inhibition of HSP90 led us to propose that STIP1 enables cell
invasiveness, similarly to HSP90 at the cell periphery. HSP90 is known
to be a critical factor in the activity of MMPs to enable the invasiveness
of HT-1080, as antibodies were identified that can block HT-1080’s
invasiveness.[28,29] Because aptamer TOV6 binds to
STIP1 (a protein that interacts with HSP90), the aptamer may be a
plausible inhibitor to prevent this process. Thus, TOV-21G cells were
incubated with an excess of TOV6 in the medium in the upper compartment
of the Boyden chamber. The aptamer had no effect on inhibiting the
migration of TOV-21G across a microporous membrane. However, when
the invasion of the cells incubated with aptamer TOV6 was investigated,
the invasion fell back to levels comparable to those of STIP1-silenced
cells treated with 17-AAG (Figure 6), suggesting
that TOV6 binding inhibits the physiological process involving STIP1.
Figure 6
Effect
of TOV6 on migration and invasion of TOV-21G cells. A 2
μM concentration of TOV6 has no effect on the migration ability
of TOV-21G. A 2 μM concentration of aptamer TOV6 can prevent
cell invasion to a degree equal to that of ∼0.05 μM 17-AAG
with STIP1 silencing. Error bars represent the standard deviation
(n = 3).
Effect
of TOV6 on migration and invasion of TOV-21G cells. A 2
μM concentration of TOV6 has no effect on the migration ability
of TOV-21G. A 2 μM concentration of aptamer TOV6 can prevent
cell invasion to a degree equal to that of ∼0.05 μM 17-AAG
with STIP1 silencing. Error bars represent the standard deviation
(n = 3).The work presented in this paper shows that aptamer selection
can
become a truly important tool toward biomarker discovery. The membrane
proteome is challenging because of its low abundance and low solubility
in 2D-Gel techniques.[21,28] However, cross-linking aptamers
with membrane proteins has been shown to efficiently circumvent some
of these problems. By cross-linking the aptamer to its target, the
available protein for analysis is maximized by increasing the solubility,
thereby enabling mass spectral techniques to identify the protein
binding to the aptamer. Also, cell-SELEX yields ligands that identify
unique targets of significance, as the pools generated during the
selection are more likely to bind to overexpressed cell surface proteins
on cancer cells, while ligands to more general cell surface proteins
are subtracted by negative selection.[2] The
aptamers that are generated can play specific roles in cancer diagnosis
and therapy.We have demonstrated a new method for easy identification
of the
target of aptamer TOV6 as STIP1, which plays a role in the invasiveness
of TOV-21G. This technique, cell-SELEX-based biomarker discovery,
is simple, rapid, and efficient, since it does not require any structural
modification of the aptamer (e.g., incorporation of UV-cross-linkable
nucleotides) and all conjugations are performed at termini of the
aptamer sequence, which usually do not affect aptamer binding.[17] STIP1 is currently being investigated as a potential
biomarker for ovarian cancer in combination with CA125.[21] Having demonstrated STIP1 as a potential biomarker
for ovarian cancer using our approach, we then investigated the potential
of aptamer TOV6 as a possible therapeutic tool, since the aptamer
showed the ability to block cellular invasion. Aptamers that can block
cellular invasion have been selected recently on the basis of phenotypic
screens, but their protein targets have not yet been identified.[26]Walsh et al. have shown that STIP1 is
important for invasiveness
in pancreatic cancer, and they also showed that STIP1’s interacting
protein, the chaperone protein HSP90, is important in the regulation
of MMPs.[6,25] STIP1 is a cochaperone protein, and the
overexpression of cochaperone proteins on the cancer cell membrane
has previously been described.[27] Such cochaperone
proteins have also been shown to regulate important extracellular
proteins needed for tumor metastasis (e.g., MMP2 for cell invasion).[28] In a previous study, Eustace et al. screened
antibody libraries for antibodies that reduce invasiveness, and they
found one that can reduce invasiveness by binding to the HSP90 α-isoform,
but not the β-isoform.[25] Our data
indicate that STIP1 is also involved in this process, as we see similar
evidence of an STIP1–HSP90 complex. Our data also suggest that
STIP1 is needed for the activity of this cell peripheral complex.
Elucidating the exact mechanism by which this aptamer blocks cell
invasion will require more intensive study, but it can be assumed
that STIP1 and HSP90 play similar roles in view of their roles in
activating the secretion of MMPs. The mechanism of TOV6’s involvement
in this important oncological process will thus most likely be elucidated
in the study of the activation of this class of enzymes; however,
we speculate the aptamer disrupts the HSP90–STIP1 complex by
either preventing the binding of STIP1 to HSP90 and taking away the
right conformation of this complex to exert its function or preventing
the activation of MMPs by binding in a pocket that is important for
the activation of MMPs. The slight effects in migration observed might
be explained by the reduced amount of secreted STIP1 when treated
with siRNA. Excreted STIP1 binds to ALK2 and activates the SMAD1/SMAD5-ID3
pathway, which regulates migration, among other cell functions.[29]Cell-SELEX-based biomarker discovery does
not require prior information
on the molecular composition of the cell surface, and it can yield
valuable information about the membrane proteins overexpressed in
tumors. The trillions of random DNA sequences in the initial DNA library,
combined with the negative selection strategy, ensure that any molecules,
previously known or unknown, will be identified as possible disease
markers, as long as they are expressed in substantially different
levels by disease and normal cells. A very important advantage accrues,
because aptamers are generated during this process, and they can serve
as specific high-affinity probes for the identified biomarkers for
future diagnostic and potentially therapeutic applications. Because
the cost and complexity are significantly lower than those of antibody-based
techniques, our approach has the potential of wider application and
may have a very positive impact on the discovery of biomarkers and
drugs. Cell-SELEX-based biomarker discovery will also serve as a useful
tool for the study of membrane proteins (especially those found to
be overexpressed in tumors), a currently understudied class of proteins,
as their physical properties hamper their analysis.
Experimental
Section
Reagents and Cell Lines
Aptamer TOV6 (5′-ATC
CAG AGT GAC GCA GCA CGG CAC TCA CTC TTT GTT AAG TGG TCT GCT TCT TAA
CCT TCA TCG ACA CGG TGG CTT A-3′), SGC8 (5′-ATC TAA
CTG CTG CGC CGC CGG GAA AAT ACT GTA CGG TTA GA-3′), and randomer
(N76) were synthesized by standard phosphoramidite chemistry
using a 3400 DNA synthesizer (Applied Biosystems) on biotin–
or desthiobiotin–CPG (for protein capture only) (Glen Research)
and were purified by reversed-phase HPLC (Varian Prostar). rhSTIP1
and STIP1 antibody M33 (clone 2E1) was purchased from Abnova (Taipei
City, Taiwan), and the antibody was biotinylated with the EZ-link
Sulfo-NHS-LC-Biotin Kit (Pierce). The capture of aptamer–protein
hybrids was performed using Dynabeads M-280 streptavidin (Invitrogen).
Streptavidin–Alexa 488 and streptavidin PE–Cy5.5 were
purchased from Molecular Probes. Dr. Patricia Kruk, University of
South Florida, kindly donated SKOV3, OVCAR3, OVCAR8, TOV-112D, C13,
A2780 cP, and A2780s cells. The TOV-21G cell line was purchased from
the American Type Cell Culture (ATCC), and all cell lines were maintained
in culture with MCBD 105:medium 199 (1:1) supplemented with 10% FBS
and 100 IU/mL Pen-Strep. The cells were cultured at 37 °C in
a 5% CO2 atmosphere.
Buffers
For aptamer
binding assays, cells were washed
and treated with nonenzymatic cell dissociation buffer (Sigma) to
remove them from the culture dish. Cells were further washed with
washing buffer (WB) containing 4.5 g/L glucose and 5 mM MgCl2 in Dulbecco’s phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) with CaCl2 and MgCl2 (Sigma). Binding buffer (BB) used for
aptamer binding was prepared by adding baker’s yeast tRNA (0.1
mg/mL, Sigma) and BSA (1 mg/mL, Fisher) to the washing buffer to reduce
nonspecific binding. All chemicals used in the buffers were purchased
from Sigma-Aldrich, unless otherwise specified. For cross-linking,
1% formaldehyde (Fisher) in PBS solution was used. The cell lysis
buffer contained 2% Triton-X100 (Fisher), 1.5% Nonidet (Fisher), and
0.5% cholate in doubly deionized water. To wash the magnetic beads,
a 10 mM HEPES/NaOH buffer (pH 7.8) was used with 100 mM NaCl, 2 mM
ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), 1 mM ethylene glycol tetraacetic
acid (EGTA), 0.2% sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), and 0.1% sodium lauroyl
sarcosinate (SLS) (PI washing buffer). The elution buffer was composed
of 12.5 mM biotin (diluted from B20656, Invitrogen) in 7.5 mM HEPES/NaOH
buffer with 75 mM NaCl, 1.5% EDTA, 0.5% EGTA, 0.15% SDS, and 0.075%
SLS. As a cross-link reversal solution, a mixture of 250 mM Tris buffer
(pH 8.8) with 2% SDS and 0.2 M mercaptoethanol was used. All solutions,
except WB and BB, contained 0.1 mM phenylmethanesulfonyl fluoride
(PMSF). For SDS–PAGE, the SilverQuest staining kit was used
to visualize the bands (Invitrogen).
Target Membrane Protein
Extraction
TOV-21G cells (108) were incubated
with 200 pmol of desthiobiotin–oligonucleotide
(aptamer or randomer) according to Scheme 1. The cells were washed to remove excess aptamer, and the aptamer
was then cross-linked to the cells by incubating them for 2 min (time
was optimized; Supplemental Figure 2, Supporting
Information) in a 1% formaldehyde/PBS solution. The cells were
then immediately washed (three times) at 4 °C in PBS to remove
the formaldehyde (as quenching the reaction with lysine, commonly
used to stop a formaldehyde reaction, can make MS analysis a nearly
impossible task). Subsequently, the cells were lysed in a Dounce homogenizer
(Fisher) for 2 min (75 strokes per minute) in lysis buffer. The lysate
was incubated overnight at room temperature in the presence of 200
μg of magnetic beads. The beads were then washed with PI washing
buffer on a magnetic stand until any remaining membrane was washed
from the beads, noticeable as the bead slurry became less viscous.
Once the beads were clean, the protein–aptamer hybrid was eluted
by incubation for 1 h with elution buffer (the biotin competes with
the desthiobiotin from the aptamer conjugate and releases the aptamer–protein
hybrid from the streptavidin beads) at room temperature. Trichloroacetic
acid precipitation (final concentration 20%) and acetone washing at
−20 °C was then used for further purification of the protein
fraction from the biotin eluate. The acetone wash was repeated twice,
and a pellet became visible after the second wash. This pellet was
dissolved in cross-link reversal buffer (20 μL) and incubated
at 98 °C for 1 h to reverse the cross-link between the aptamer
and the protein, after which the sample was analyzed on an SDS–polyacrylamide
electrophoresis gel and stained with an MS-compatible silver stain.
Bands of interest were sequenced at the Taplin Mass Spectrometry Facility
(Ross Tomaino) at the Harvard Medical School. They were determined
by their intensity and by the ease in which they eluted by biotin-mediated
elution. The protein hybrid would be eluted more quickly from streptavidin
than other proteins. Proteins that bound to the streptavidin beads
by nonspecific adsorption would desorb more slowly from the beads,
as shown in Figure 1 (lane 7 versus lane 8,
e.g., around 50 kDa).
Scheme 1
General Procedure for Protein Identification
Using Aptamers
Key: (1) The aptamer is bound
to the cells, and excess aptamer is removed with WB. (2) A 1% concentration
of formaldehyde is added to the cells and allowed to cross-link for
2 min. Washing in WB dilutes the formaldehyde. (3) The cross-linked
cells are homogenized in lysis buffer. (4) Magnetic beads are added,
and the aptamer hybrid is captured on the beads. The beads are further
washed, as removal of excess membrane significantly reduces the presence
of background proteins. (5) The hybrid is eluted from its capture
beads by incubation with a 12.5 mM biotin solution. (6) The cross-link
is reversed, and the protein fraction is dissolved and separated by
SDS–PAGE, after which the differential band is analyzed by
mass spectrometry.
General Procedure for Protein Identification
Using Aptamers
Key: (1) The aptamer is bound
to the cells, and excess aptamer is removed with WB. (2) A 1% concentration
of formaldehyde is added to the cells and allowed to cross-link for
2 min. Washing in WB dilutes the formaldehyde. (3) The cross-linked
cells are homogenized in lysis buffer. (4) Magnetic beads are added,
and the aptamer hybrid is captured on the beads. The beads are further
washed, as removal of excess membrane significantly reduces the presence
of background proteins. (5) The hybrid is eluted from its capture
beads by incubation with a 12.5 mM biotin solution. (6) The cross-link
is reversed, and the protein fraction is dissolved and separated by
SDS–PAGE, after which the differential band is analyzed by
mass spectrometry.
Aptamer and Antibody Binding
with Flow Cytometry
To
determine the binding of the aptamers on cells, the target cells (5
× 105) were incubated with aptamer (250 nM in 100
μL of BB) on ice for 30 min. To determine the binding of the
antibodies on cells, the target cells (5 × 105) were
incubated with antibody (5 μg in 100 μL of BB) on ice
for 30 min. The cells were then washed twice with 500 μL of
WB and suspended in 100 μL of WB containing streptavidin–Alexa
488 or streptavidin PE–Cy5.5. Cells were then washed twice
with 500 μL of WB and suspended in 200 μL of WB for flow
cytometric analysis using a FACScan cytometer (BD Immunocytometry
Systems).
siRNA Transfection
Hs_STIP1, Hs_STIP5, Hs_STIP6, Hs_STIP10,
and Hs_STIP11 (QAIGEN) siRNAs were used on 0.8 × 105 TOV-21G cells at a concentration of 1 nM with the HiPerfect transfection
agent in antibiotic-free medium. Aptamer binding was verified 72 h
postsilencing. The transfection efficiency was tested by a cell-death-positive
control and a scrambled siRNA negative control to ensure proper cell
viability and delivery efficiency, which could be easily verified
under the microscope. The RNAi Human/Mouse Starter Kit (QAIGEN) provided
these reagents, which were used according to the manufacturer’s
recommendations.STIP1 antibody (50 mg) was incubated with a
20 M excess of sulfo-NHS-biotin reagent, as described in the supplier’s
guidelines (Pierce).
Aptamer Blotting
A 20 μg sample
of rhSTIP1 or
BSA was blotted as described elsewhere.[30] In brief, the respective protein was adsorbed on a nitrocellulose
membrane (Pierce) and blocked in 4% nonfat milk in PBS containing
0.05% (v/v) Tween 20 and 1 mM EDTA. Biotinylated TOV6 solution (250
nM in PBS) was then incubated on the membrane and washed four times
with PBS, after which streptavidin–horseradish peroxidase (Invitrogen,
1:150000 dilution in PBS) was added. The chemiluminescent complex
was then visualized with the ECL Plus Western blotting system (GE
Healthcare).
Boyden Chamber Invasion Assays
The
invasion assays
were performed as described elsewhere.[31] In brief, the direct invasiveness of the cells was evaluated with
the BD Falcon FluoroBlok 24-multiwell insert system (BD Biosciences)
precoated with Matrigel. A migration control was obtained on the same
system without Matrigel coating (BD Biosciences). The top compartments
of both systems was loaded with 60 000 cells per well in minimal
medium (RPMI), and the lower compartment was filled with RPMI with
10% FBS (serving as a chemoattractant). Either aptamer TOV6 or 17-AAG
was added to the minimal medium, which was prefiltered with 0.2 μm
syringe filters (Fisher). The cells were allowed to migrate or invade
by incubating the plates overnight in the cell incubator. The cells
were labeled with calcein AM (Invitrogen) after the invasion or migration
step by injecting the chemical into the lower trans well compartment.
(The plates contain a filter that only allows detection of the cells
in the lower compartment.) Migrated or invaded cells were read on
a VERSAmax tunable microplate reader (Molecular Devices).
Authors: Muhammed A Yildirim; Kwang-Il Goh; Michael E Cusick; Albert-László Barabási; Marc Vidal Journal: Nat Biotechnol Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 54.908
Authors: Kangfu Chen; Teodor Z Georgiev; Weian Sheng; Xiangjun Zheng; Jose I Varillas; Jinling Zhang; Z Hugh Fan Journal: Biomicrofluidics Date: 2017-10-02 Impact factor: 2.800
Authors: Ke Chen; Bo Liu; Bo Yu; Wen Zhong; Yi Lu; Jiani Zhang; Jie Liao; Jun Liu; Ying Pu; Liping Qiu; Liqin Zhang; Huixia Liu; Weihong Tan Journal: Wiley Interdiscip Rev Nanomed Nanobiotechnol Date: 2016-10-31