Hong-Bo Pang1, Gary B Braun2, Tomas Friman2, Pedro Aza-Blanc1, Manuel E Ruidiaz1, Kazuki N Sugahara3, Tambet Teesalu4, Erkki Ruoslahti2. 1. Cancer Research Center, Sanford-Burnham Medical Research Institute, La Jolla, California 92037, USA. 2. 1] Cancer Research Center, Sanford-Burnham Medical Research Institute, La Jolla, California 92037, USA [2] Center for Nanomedicine, Department of Cell, Molecular and Developmental Biology, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California 93106-9610, USA. 3. 1] Cancer Research Center, Sanford-Burnham Medical Research Institute, La Jolla, California 92037, USA [2] Department of Surgery, Columbia University, College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York 10032, USA. 4. 1] Cancer Research Center, Sanford-Burnham Medical Research Institute, La Jolla, California 92037, USA [2] Laboratory of Cancer Biology, Institute of Biomedicine and Translational Medicine, Centre of Excellence for Translational Medicine, University of Tartu, 50411 Tartu, Estonia.
Abstract
Neuropilins (NRPs) are trans-membrane receptors involved in axon guidance and vascular development. Many growth factors and other signalling molecules bind to NRPs through a carboxy (C)-terminal, basic sequence motif (C-end Rule or CendR motif). Peptides with this motif (CendR peptides) are taken up into cells by endocytosis. Tumour-homing CendR peptides penetrate through tumour tissue and have shown utility in enhancing drug delivery into tumours. Here we show, using RNAi screening and subsequent validation studies, that NRP1-mediated endocytosis of CendR peptides is distinct from known endocytic pathways. Ultrastructurally, CendR endocytosis resembles macropinocytosis, but is mechanistically different. We also show that nutrient-sensing networks such as mTOR signalling regulate CendR endocytosis and subsequent intercellular transport of CendR cargo, both of which are stimulated by nutrient depletion. As CendR is a bulk transport pathway, our results suggest a role for it in nutrient transport; CendR-enhanced drug delivery then makes use of this natural pathway.
Neuropilins (NRPs) are trans-membrane receptors involved in axon guidance and vascular development. Many growth factors and other signalling molecules bind to NRPs through a carboxy (C)-terminal, basic sequence motif (C-end Rule or CendR motif). Peptides with this motif (CendRpeptides) are taken up into cells by endocytosis. Tumour-homing CendRpeptides penetrate through tumour tissue and have shown utility in enhancing drug delivery into tumours. Here we show, using RNAi screening and subsequent validation studies, that NRP1-mediated endocytosis of CendRpeptides is distinct from known endocytic pathways. Ultrastructurally, CendR endocytosis resembles macropinocytosis, but is mechanistically different. We also show that nutrient-sensing networks such as mTOR signalling regulate CendR endocytosis and subsequent intercellular transport of CendR cargo, both of which are stimulated by nutrient depletion. As CendR is a bulk transport pathway, our results suggest a role for it in nutrient transport; CendR-enhanced drug delivery then makes use of this natural pathway.
Transport of molecules across the vascular wall, through tissue, and into target
cells plays an important role in various physiological and pathological processes[1,2]. It is
also a major limiting factor in drug delivery, particularly into extravascular tumor
tissue[3]. We recently identified a class
of peptides that were particularly effective in entering into cultured cells and that the
peptides and cargo attached to them appeared in endocytic vesicles inside the
cells[4]. These peptides shared a
C-terminal consensus motif, R/KXXR/K, and we showed that the prototype peptide among them,
RPARPAR, binds to neuropilin-1 (NRP1) on the target cells[4].NRP1 is a cell surface receptor with multiple ligands that bind to NRP1 through a
C-terminal R/KXXR/K motif similar to RPARPAR. These ligands include vascular endothelial
growth factor (VEGF)-A isoform, VEGF-A165, transforming growth factor β,
and semaphorin 3A (Sema3A)[5-7]. VEGF-A165 and Sema3A are known to increase
vascular permeability to macromolecules[8,9]. These complex molecules have additional
receptors to trigger downstream signaling events, but the vascular permeability effect is
mediated by NRP1[10], despite the fact that
NRP1 lacks an intracellular signaling domain[6]. Thus, the RPARPAR peptide, and a peptide from the C-terminus of
VEGF-A165, both trigger vascular permeability[4].The increased vascular permeability obtained by NRP1 ligation may be based on
extravasation through a paracellular or transcellular route, or both. A peptide modeled
after the C-terminus of Sema3A has been reported to loosen cell junctions in the
endothelium, which is thought to be responsible for the increased vascular permeability
triggered by this peptide[11]. However, NRP1
is also involved in endocytosis. It initiates intracellular trafficking of a number of
membrane receptors and regulates the transport of integrins from one part of a cell to
another[12,13]. Moreover, Dvorak and coworkers showed that endothelial cells treated
with VEGF-A164 (mouse ortholog of human VEGF-A165) developed striking
assemblies of intracellular vesicles they named the vesiculo-vacuolar system and postulated
to be involved in transcytosis[14,15]. However, the ability of NRP1-binding peptides to induce
endocytosis and tissue penetration has generally not been appreciated.Small peptides with a C-terminal R/KXXR/K motif are useful in investigating the
functions of NRP1 because unlike the natural ligands of NRP1, which usually bind to
additional receptors, the peptides bind only to NRP1, and only to a single site in it. To
achieve NRP1 binding and initiate the subsequent endocytosis and tissue penetration, a
peptide must have R/KXXR/K at their free C-terminus[4]. Hence, we have named the system the C-end Rule (CendR) pathway and the
R/KXXR/K motif the CendR motif[4].NRP1 is ubiquitously expressed in the vasculature and many other cell types.
However, a class of tumor-homing peptides that specifically activate the pathway in tumors
has been described recently[3]. These
peptides contain a CendR motif rendered cryptic by an internal position in the peptide. Each
of them uses different receptor for initial homing to the target tissue, but converges on
NRP1 after a proteolytic processing step at the surface of the target cells that activates
the cryptic CendR motif[3,16,17]. These
tumor-specific CendRpeptides are capable of penetrating tumor vascular walls and
transporting molecular and nanoparticle payloads attached to the peptide into and through
extravascular tumor tissue[4,16,18,19]. Remarkably, CendR pathway also transports cargo that is
nearby but not chemically conjugated to the peptide (bystander effect), making it possible
to enhance drug delivery to tumors by coadministering the peptide with an unmodified
drug[19].Little is known about the workings of the CendR pathway downstream of NRP1.
Receptor-bound ligands are typically endocytosed through receptor interaction with a
cytoplasmic machinery[20]. Indeed, CendRpeptides and cargo attached to them appear in endocytic vesicles inside the cells[4]. The cytoplasmic domain of NRP1 contains a
PSD-95/Dlg/ZO-1 (PDZ) binding motif (SEA-COOH), which interacts with the PDZ-domain of the
cytoplasmic protein GIPC1/synectin[6]. The
NRP1-GIPC1/synectin interaction is known to play a role in the trafficking of endocytosed
VEGFR2 into Rab5a-positive endosomes upon VEGF-A165 stimulation[12].Several types of endocytosis have been described[21-23]. Best
understood is the molecular machinery of clathrin-mediated endocytosis (CME), which is
responsible for most of receptor-mediated uptake into cells[24]. Caveolae-mediated endocytosis (Cav-ME) utilizes plasma
membrane invaginations known as caveolae, which are formed as a result of caveolin (CAV)
oligomerization and are enriched in cholesterol [23]. Macropinocytosis (MP) functions to non-selectively engulf
extracellular solute macromolecules into endosomes in a receptor-independent
manner[22]. There are no known molecular
markers for macropinosomes, but a characteristic feature of these vesicles is their
heterogeneous size (0.2 to 5 μm in diameter), while clathrin-coated vesicles and
caveolae are usually more homogeneous, spherical in shape, and much smaller (85-150 nm
diameter)[22]. Given the apparent
importance of the CendR pathway in receptor trafficking and its potential in drug delivery,
we set out to study the molecular machinery that mediates and regulates CendR-mediated cell
and tissue penetration. Results of genome-wide RNA interference (RNAi) screens, together
with mechanistic and morphological studies of CendR-mediated cell entry and subsequent
intercellular transport show that the CendR pathway is distinct from known endocytic
pathways, and that this pathway is regulated by nutrient supply to cells and tissues.
Results
Genome wide RNAi screen for CendR-mediated cell entry
To study cell entry of NRP1-binding peptides, we monitored the internalization of
RPARPAR into a prostate tumor cell line (PPC1). PPC1 cells were chosen for this study
because these cells are particularly efficient in internalizing CendRpeptides[4]. RPARPAR was identified in a phage display
screen as the strongest binder to these NRP1-expressing cells[4]. The CendR motif of RPARPAR is required for peptide
binding to NRP1 and internalization into cells[4]. After entry, RPARPAR colocalizes with endosomal and lysosomal markers
inside cells[4].We performed a genome-wide RNAi screen to isolate genes that regulate the cell
entry of CendRpeptides (CendR endocytosis) (Fig.
1A). To create a probe for the screen, we coated RPARPAR onto fluorescently labeled
silver nanoparticles (R-Ag, 70 ± 10 nm)[25]. The silver nanoparticles greatly enhance the emission from
fluorescent dyes coupled to their surface. Another advantage of this silver-based platform
is that it allows exclusive tracing of the internalized fraction of R-Ag because the
extracellular R-Ag can be readily removed by employing a mild etching solution[25]. The fluorescence intensity of R-Ag
internalized into cells remained stable for up to 24 h (Supplementary Fig. 1A). Treatment with NRP1
siRNA (small interfering RNA, positive control) efficiently blocked R-Ag uptake, similar
to NRP1 blocking antibody, whereas non-specific (NS) siRNAs had no obvious effect (Supplementary Fig. 1B). The NRP1
knockdown was verified using quantitative PCR (qPCR) and immunoblotting (Supplementary Fig. 1C). To validate the quality
and to evaluate the reproducibility of the assay, we also performed a mini screen using
350 randomly selected genes. The quality of assay was adequate for high-throughput
screening (Z-prime factor=0.42). The silencing of a majority of these genes had no
significant effect on R-Ag uptake, similar to the negative controls (Supplementary Fig. 1D). These data indicated
that the overall potency and specificity of our siRNA library are in an appropriate range
to minimize false positives and negatives.
Fig. 1
Overview of genome RNAi screen
(A) Work flow scheme of genome screen and individual siRNA test.
(B) Overview of genome screen result. The robust Z-scores were determined for each
screened gene as described in Methods and listed in Supplementary Data 1. Z-scores were divided
into different zones and the values along the x-axis indicate the lowest values for each
zone. The number of genes in each Z-score zone is shown on the y-axis. The negative (NS
siRNA) and positive (NRP1 siRNA) controls are shown in blue and red, respectively, and the
genome genes are in yellow.
(C) Robust Z-scores are independent of cell viability. Viable cell counts were generated
as described in Methods and listed in Supplementary Data 1. The robust Z-scores are displayed on the y-axis and viable
cell counts on the x-axis. The upper panel shows only the negative (blue) and positive
(red) controls. The lower panel includes all tested genomic genes (yellow). The dashed
line indicates the cutoff used (viable cell count >50) to eliminate the genes, the
knockdown of which caused cytotoxicity. The distribution of the Z-scores on a horizontal
line shows that the scores are independent of cytotoxicity.
(D) Validation of the effect of genome library siRNAs for selected genes on R-Ag uptake.
PPC1 cells were treated with pooled siRNAs from the genome screen library for indicated
genes (x-axis). The relative mRNA expression levels and R-Ag uptake per cell was
quantified as described in Methods, and normalized to that of negative control (NS siRNA
treated cells) as listed on y-axis. Error bars indicate SEM of three independent
experiments.
Our genome screen covered about 18,000 human genes. The effect of knocking down
individual genes on R-Ag uptake was quantified, and hits were defined using robust
Z-scores, which were largely independent of cell viability (Figs. 1B and C, Supplementary
Data 1). Approximately 2% of genome genes were identified as
activators/necessary components (Z<-2) or repressors (Z>2) of R-Ag uptake
(Supplementary Data 1).
Retesting of the genomic library siRNAs for selected genes verified the potency of siRNA
knockdown and gave results in agreement with the screening results (Fig. 1D).
CendR endocytosis is distinct from known endocytic pathways
Only a few components characteristic of the known endocytic pathways scored as
genome screen hits important for R-Ag uptake (PCME=0.258;
PCav-ME=0.295; PMP=0.253; calculated by Ingenuity
pathway analysis (IPA, Qiagen)). To validate this observation, we retested selected known
endocytic genes for their effect on cellular uptake of R-Ag in parallel with transferrin
(TF), the most commonly used marker for tracing CME (Supplementary Data 2). To minimize the
off-target effects of the siRNAs, we utilized an individual siRNA format using genomic
library siRNAs (Fig. 1A). Knockdown of key components
of CME, including clathrin (CLTC, CLTB) and adaptor protein complex 2 subunit (AP2M1), did
reduce TF uptake but not R-Ag uptake (Supplementary Fig. 2A). R-Ag uptake was also resistant to treatment of the cells
with Dynasore (a Dynamin-II (DNM2) inhibitor[26]) and DNM2 knockdown, further indicating that CendR endocytosis is not
clathrin-dependent (Supplementary Fig.
2B).We also re-tested a number of the genome screen hits using the individual siRNA
format (Supplementary Data 2). A
subset of genes the knockdown of which had a profound effect on R-Ag, but had a much
milder or even opposite effect on TF uptake, was identified (Fig. 2A). The most dramatic difference was seen with translation-related
components (Fig. 2A). The critical role of Rab5a, the
marker of early endosome, in TF uptake has been documented[27], and agrees with our results on Rab5a dependence of TF
uptake (Fig 2A). We also validated using multiple
siRNAs that Rab5a is required for R-Ag uptake (Fig.
2A). Thus, the CendR and CME pathways, while clearly distinct, may both lead into
early endosomes.
Fig. 2
CendR endocytosis is mechanistically distinct from known endocytic pathways
(A) The effect of knocking down selected hit genes from the genome screen on R-Ag and TF
uptake using individual siRNAs format. The values represent relative probe uptake
normalized to that of negative controls (which is 1, Supplementary Data 2). The heat-map and
clustering analysis were generated using Gene-E (Broad institute).
(B) R-Ag uptake is not affected by Cav-ME and MP inhibitors. PPC1 cells were treated with
indicated inhibitors (mβCD or Rottlerin) followed by testing for probe uptake
(R-Ag, CtxB or Dex) as described in Methods. The fluorescence intensity of each probe was
normalized to the average of the corresponding negative controls (vehicle alone) as
relative uptake (y-axis). *P<0.05 and **P<0.01
(Student's t-test).
(C) CendR cargo does not compete with other endocytic pathways. Unlabeled CendR peptide,
RPARPAR-OH, was added to culture media of PPC1 cells at the indicated concentrations
(upper right corner) 10 min prior to addition of fluorescently labeled endocytic probes
(x-axis). The intensity of probe signal was normalized to the average of untreated cells
(0 μM) as relative uptake (y-axis).
(D) R-Ag does not colocalize with structural components of CME and Cav-ME vesicles. PPC1
cells were incubated with R-Ag, TF-594 or CtxB (red) for 15 min before washing and
fixation. CLTC and CAV1 proteins were detected with rabbit anti-CLTC and anti-CAV1
antibodies, followed by staining with anti-rabbit secondary antibody (green). Nuclei were
labeled with Hoechst 33342 (blue). Representative images captured by confocal microscopy
are shown. The colocalization events between two probes were identified with the
“colocalization highlighter” macro for Image J and shown in yellow. Scale
bar, 10 μm. Error bars indicate SEM (3-5 replicates).
Knocking down key components of the Cav-ME (e.g. CAVs) and MP (Cdc42, Rac1)
pathways did not affect either R-Ag or TF uptake (Supplementary Fig. 2A). We further used
chemical inhibitors to distinguish CendR pathway from Cav-ME and MP.
Methyl-beta-cyclodextrin (mβCD), which depletes cholesterol, blocked the uptake of
the Cav-ME marker cholera toxin B (CtxB), but had no significant effect on R-Ag uptake
(Fig. 2B). Similar results were obtained when cells
were treated with the sphingolipid synthesis inhibitor, myriocin (Supplementary Fig. 2C). The MP inhibitor,
rottlerin, also inhibited the uptake of the fluid phase marker dextran (Dex) more strongly
than R-Ag uptake (Fig. 2B). Similar results were
obtained with RPARPAR attached to a protein carrier (neutravidin; R-NA), showing
independence of results on the nanoparticle carrier (Supplementary Fig. 2D).An excess of RPARPAR peptide eliminated the uptake of R-Ag, indicating that
CendR endocytic pathway is saturable. The same concentration of RPARPAR peptide did not
affect the uptake of markers of other endocytic pathways (TF, CtxB or Dex), showing that
these pathways do not interfere with each other at the cell entry stage (Fig. 2C).We next investigated the colocalization of CendR cargo with principal structural
components of CME and Cav-ME vesicles. R-Ag exhibited very limited colocalization with
CTLC or CAV1 at early stage of cell entry (Fig. 2D).
In contrast, TF and CtxB colocalized significantly with clathrin subunit (CLTC) and CAV1,
respectively (Fig. 2D). After longer incubation, some
colocalization between R-Ag and CLTC (and CAV1) was seen, but mainly at perinuclear sites,
where R-Ag also colocalized with NRP1 (Supplementary Fig. 2E). These results show that CendR endocytosis is not
dependent on conventional endocytic pathways of cell entry, but resembles macropinocytosis
(see below).
CendR endocytosis pathway downstream of NRP1
GIPC1/synectin, a protein that interacts with the cytoplasmic tail of NRP1,
exhibited a high inhibitory score in the original siRNA screen (Supplementary Data 1). The GIPC1/synectin
dependence of R-Ag uptake was validated using the siRNAs from the screen individually. Two
out of the 4 siRNAs strongly inhibited R-Ag uptake, whereas none had a significant effect
on TF uptake (Fig. 2A). Similar results were obtained
in HUVEC (human umbilical vein endothelial cells), which also exhibit NRP1-dependent
endocytosis (Supplementary Figs. 3 A and
B). GIPC1/synectin knockdown did not change cell surface NRP1 expression or
significantly affect cell surface binding of R-Ag over time (Supplementary Figs. 3 C and D). Moreover,
forced expression of wild-type NRP1 in HeLa cells, which do lack NRP1 expression but
express GIPC1/synectin at levels comparable to the PPC1 cells (Supplementary Figs. 4 A and B), enabled the
internalization of R-Ag (Fig. 3A). In contrast,
expressing a mutant NRP1 that lacks the GIPC1/synectin-interacting sequence in the
cytoplasmic domain (ΔSEA), allowed surface binding of R-Ag but blocked R-Ag entry
into cells as effectively as GIPC1/synectin knockdown (Fig.
3 A and B). Thus, the NRP1-GIPC1/synectin interaction is not needed for CendR
peptide binding, but is important for internalization into cells. TF uptake was not
affected by overexpression of the NRP1 mutant or GIPC1/synectin knockdown (Supplementary Fig. 4C). Finally, knocking down
GIPC1/synectin did not significantly affect the uptake of CtxB and Dex, lending further
support to the notion that CendR is different from the known endocytic pathways (Fig. 3C).
Fig. 3
GIPC1/synectin is required for CendR endocytosis downstream of NRP1 binding
(A) NRP1-GIPC1/synectin interaction is important for the internalization of CendR
peptides into cells. HeLa cells were transfected with plasmids expressing wild-type (WT)
NRP1, or NRP1 ΔSEA mutant as described in Methods. R-Ag (red) was added 48 h later
and incubated with the cells for 2 h at 37°C. The cells were then etched or washed
twice with PBS without etching, fixed, and stained for cell surface NRP1 (green). Nuclei
were stained with Hoechst 33342 (blue). Three independent experiments were performed and
representative images are shown. Scale bar, 10 μm.
(B) Quantification of R-Ag uptake in (A). The fluorescence intensity of R-Ag per
NRP1-positive HeLa cells in (A) were quantified and normalized to the average of WT
NRP1-expressing samples as relative uptake (y-axis). As a comparison, PPC1 cells were
treated with NS or GIPC1/synectin siRNA, and then incubated with R-Ag for 1 h before
etching as described in Methods. The R-Ag signal per cell was quantified and normalized to
the average of NS treated samples as relative uptake (y-axis). *P<0.05
(Student's t-test).
(C) GIPC1/synectin is not required for cellular uptake of non-CendR endocytic probes.
After treatment with negative control siRNA (NS) or siRNA targeting GIPC1/synectin, the
uptake of CtxB or Dex by PPC1 cells was measured as described in Methods. The fluorescence
intensity of each probe per cell was normalized to the average of the corresponding
negative controls (NS siRNA treated) as relative uptake (y-axis).
Error bars indicate SEM (3-6 replicates).
CendR endocytosis is regulated by nutrient availability
Pathway analysis on the genome screen hits showed that signaling pathways
involved in translation initiation and mTOR (mammalian target of rapamycin) signaling were
the most prevalent groups of hits, especially among those that increased R-Ag uptake
(Fig. 4A). mTOR is a well-known upstream controller
of translation initiation[28], and the
mTOR pathway plays a central role in sensing and integrating environmental cues to
regulate cellular growth and homeostasis[29]. Nutrient depletion, such as removal of glucose or amino acids,
inhibits mTOR activity, and translation initiation[28,30]. Thus, we next investigated
the effect of nutrient availability on cellular uptake of CendR cargo.
Fig. 4
CendR-mediated cellular uptake is regulated by nutrient availability
(A) Network analysis of genome screen hits using IPA. Top pathways associated with
genomic hits (Supplementary Data
1) and the corresponding p-values (calculated by IPA) are shown.
(B) Regulation of R-Ag uptake by nutrient conditions and other stimuli. After the
indicated treatments (x-axis), PPC-1 cells were incubated with R-Ag as described in
Methods. The average intensity of internalized R-Ag per cell was normalized to cells
cultured in complete media and is shown as relative uptake (y-axis).
(C) Stimulation of R-NA uptake by nutrient deprivation. After the indicated treatments
(x-axis), PPC1 cells were incubated with R-NA as described in Methods. The average
intensity of internalized R-NA per cell was normalized to cells cultured in complete media
as relative uptake (y-axis).
(D) R-Ag and other endocytic probes respond differently to environmental cues. After the
indicated treatments, PPC1 cells were incubated with different endocytic probes (upper
right panels) for internalization as described in Methods. The fluorescence intensity of
each probe under the indicated conditions (x-axis) was normalized to cells cultured in
complete media as relative uptake (y-axis).
Error bars indicate SEM (3-5 replicates). *P<0.05,
**P<0.01 and ***P<0.001
(Student's t-test) in comparison to complete media conditions of the corresponding
probes.
Depleting glucose or amino acids in the culture media enhanced R-Ag uptake
(Fig. 4B). Nutrient depletion also promoted the
uptake of silver nanoparticles coated with another a CendR motif peptide (tLyP1)[16] (Supplementary Fig. 5A). Nutrient depletion did
not trigger nonspecific uptake of either control silver nanoparticles (no peptide coating;
NA-Ag) in PPC1 cells, or of R-Ag in M21 cells, which express no NRP1 and allow no entry of
RPARPAR[4] (Supplementary Fig. 5B). Nutrient depletion also
promoted the uptake of R-NA (Fig. 4C), showing that
the pathway and its regulation by nutrient availability are not limited to
nanoparticles.The uptake of other endocytic probes showed no increase upon nutrient
deprivation, or was even opposite to that of R-Ag uptake (Fig. 4D). The uptake of a cell-penetrating peptide lacking CendR activity, TAT
peptide composed of D-amino acids (D-TAT), also exhibited no response to nutrient
depletion (Supplementary Fig.
5C). These results agree with the observation that knocking down
translation-related components had different effects on R-Ag and TF uptake (Fig. 2A), and further demonstrate the uniqueness of CendR
endocytosis.Treatment of cells with the mTOR inhibitor rapamycin enhanced R-Ag uptake (Fig. 4B), whereas a chemical mTOR activator[31] abolished the enhancement of CendR uptake
that was induced by amino acid or glucose deprivation (Supplementary Fig. 6A). Insulin stimulation,
which activates mTOR, also suppressed R-Ag uptake (Fig.
4B).Cell surface expression of NRP1 was increased in cells cultured in
nutrient-depleted media (Supplementary
Fig. 6B). Knocking down the expression of a translational machinery component
also increased surface presentation of NRP1 (Supplementary Fig. 6C). Moreover, the
expression of mRNA for mTOR and NRP1 in various cancer cell lines shows inverse
correlation (Supplementary Fig.
6D, Supplementary Data
3). Thus, at least some of the regulation of the CendR pathway activity takes place
at the level of NRP1 expression and surface presentation. Another neuropilin family
member, NRP2, has a more restricted tissue distribution than NRP1, but is also sometimes
expressed at elevated levels in tumors[6].
PPC1 cells express little NRP2, and it did not appear to be regulated by nutrient
deprivation in these cells (Supplementary Fig. 6E). We focused this study on NRP1, but NRP2 also binds CendRpeptides and causes their internalization[16], so our finding likely applies to NRP2 as well.
Visualization of CendR endocytosis
Next, we used transmission electron microscopy (TEM) to visualize the cellular
uptake of CendR cargo at the ultrastructural level. In most cases, gold nanoparticles
coated with RPARPAR peptide (R-Au 50 nm, 45 ± 7 nm) appeared to be engulfed as a
cluster into irregularly shaped vacuoles formed by extension and bending of nearby
lamellipodia (Fig. 5A). Upon depletion of either
amino acids or glucose, these endocytic structures were more evident, and their capacity
for engulfing R-Au was increased (Fig. 5A). In
contrast, insulin treatment diminished the R-Au uptake (Supplementary Fig. 7A). After entry, R-Au
appeared in membrane-enclosed organelles with characteristics of endosomes, or more often,
multivesicular bodies (MVBs) (Fig. 5B). In rare
cases, R-Au was seen in smaller vesicles resembling clathrin-coated vesicles (Supplementary Fig. 7B). In contrast,
TF, when coated on 15-nm gold particles, has been shown to internalize through
clathrin-coated pits[32]. Because previous
studies have indicated that nanoparticle size may affect the cell entry route[33,34],
we also tested 17-nm R-Au particles (16 ± 3 nm). Like the 50 nm particles, the
smaller R-Au also appeared in macropinocytosis-like vacuoles, indicating that the route of
CendR uptake was not affected by the size of nanoparticles (Supplementary Fig. 7C).
Fig. 5
CendR peptide initiates an NRP1-dependent endocytosis process resembling
macropinocytosis
(A) PPC1 cells were cultured in complete, AA-free or glucose-free media for 16 h followed
by the incubation with R-Au (dense dots, 50 nm) for 30 min and fixation. Representative
TEM images at cell-entry sites are shown.
(B) Representative TEM images for intracellular organelles containing R-Au (50 nm) with
characteristics of endosome and MVB.
(C) NRP1 dependence of CendR endocytosis. HeLa cells without or with transfection of NRP1
expression plasmids (NRP1 WT or ΔSEA) were incubated with R-Au (dense dots, 50 nm)
for 30 min before fixation. Representative TEM images are shown. Scale bar, 200 nm.
CendR endocytosis, although it morphologically resembles
macropinocytosis[22], is
receptor-mediated; it depends on peptide binding to NRP1. Gold nanoparticles coated with a
control peptide (RPARPAR; RA-Au, ∼50 nm), which
does not bind to NRP1[4], were not taken up
into cells even after the starvation treatment (Supplementary Fig. 7D). HeLa cells, naturally
expressing no NRP1 (Supplementary Fig. 4
A and B), did not engulf R-Au even though lamellipodia-like structures were
present (Fig. 5C). Forced expression of NRP1, but not
NRP1 ΔSEA, in HeLa cells rendered them capable of taking up R-Au into vesicles
similar to those in PPC-1 cells (Fig. 5C). Thus, this
type of endocytosis is specifically initiated by CendR peptide binding to NRP1 and
stimulated by nutrient deprivation.
CendR mediated intercellular transport
A notable feature of CendRpeptides is that they initiate both receptor-mediated
cellular uptake and active trans-tissue transport[18,19]. We next set up a system to
monitor cell-to-cell transfer as illustrated in Supplementary Fig. 8A. Only a minor fraction of
recipient cells became positive for R-Ag when the cells were cultured as a monolayer. A
modest increase in R-Ag transfer was observed when donor and recipient cells formed
spheroid-like aggregates in suspension (Fig. 6A).
However, a combination of spheroid culture and nutrient deprivation greatly enhanced the
intercellular transfer of R-Ag without altering the physical appearance of the cell
aggregates (Fig. 6A and Supplementary Fig. 8B).
Fig. 6
Intercellular transport of CendR cargo responds to nutrient availability
(A) Cell-to-cell R-Ag transfer is stimulated by nutrient deprivation. PPC1 cells were
incubated with R-Ag for 2 h internalization. After etching, cells were harvested (donor
cells) and mixed with PPC1-GFP cells (recipient cells) in PBS (pH=7.4). The cell
mixture was then seeded as a monolayer in complete medium (complete, attached), or as
spheroids in complete, AA-free or glucose-free medium. After 16 h, cells were harvested,
and the R-Ag transfer was quantified as described in Methods and normalized to that of
“complete spheroids”, which was set as 1.
(B) The nutrient regulation only applies to the intercellular transport of CendR
peptides. Intercellular transport of indicated probes (x-axis) was monitored in cells
grown as spheroids in complete and AA-free media as described in (A). The ratio of R-Ag
transfer (AA-free vs. complete) represents the degree of stimulation by nutrient depletion
(y-axis).
(C) Intercellular transport is protected from extracellular etching. R-Ag transfer was
monitored in spheroids kept in AA-free media as described in (A), with or without constant
etching treatment as described in Methods. The R-Ag transfer values at constant etching
condition were normalized to that of no etching condition and listed at the y-axis.
Error bars indicate SEM (3-5 replicates). ns (not significant), *P < 0.05
and **P < 0.01 (Student's t-test) in comparison to
complete spheroid conditions of the corresponding probes.
The nutrient regulation of the intercellular transport of CendR cargo was also
observed with the tLyP1 peptide and R-NA, but not with D-TAT (Fig. 6B). We also observed CendR transfer between PPC1 and HUVECs,
which was also enhanced by nutrient deprivation (Supplementary Fig. 8C). The extent of
intercellular R-Ag transfer was not altered by constant exposure to the silver etching
solution (Fig. 6C), suggesting that CendR cargo is
transferred in membrane-enclosed vesicles or occurs in cell-to-cell contacts that do not
allow entry of the etching solution.
CendR pathway responds to nutrient availability in vivo
To demonstrate the dependence of CendR pathway activity on nutrient availability
in a tissue context, we starved live tumor slices in media depleted of glucose or amino
acids. R-Ag uptake was greatly elevated upon starvation in two different tumor models
(Figs. 7 A and B). Rapamycin treatment of the tumor
slices also increased the R-Ag uptake, indicating that mTOR also regulates CendR
endocytosis in vivo (Fig. 7A).
Fig. 7
Nutrient regulation of CendR uptake in physiological context
(A) CendR uptake in live tumor slices responds to nutrient availability. Live tumor
tissue slices (PPC1 xenografts; 4T1 mouse mammary tumors) were obtained and incubated
under the indicated conditions (y-axis) for 6 h. The slices were then suspended in the
same kind of media containing 15 pM R-Ag, and incubated for another two hours at
37°C with gentle shaking on a rocker before etching and fixation. The fluorescence
intensity of R-Ag per cell was quantified using ImageJ, normalized to slices cultured in
complete media and shown as relative uptake (x-axis). **P<0.01 and
***P<0.001 (Student's t-test) in comparison to
complete media conditions of the corresponding tumor types. Error bars indicate SEM (4-7
replicates).
(B) Representative images of R-Ag internalization into PPC1 tumor slices. R-Ag, red;
nuclei, blue. Scale bar, 50 μm.
(C) Representative image of glucose uptake into 4T1 tumors after GLUT IV inhibitor
treatment. Mice bearing 4T1 tumors were treated with intratumoral injections of vehicle
only or GLUT IV inhibitor as described in Methods. IRDye 800CW 2-deoxy-D-glucose (2-DG) in
10 nmol in 100 μl PBS was then injected intravenously into a tail vein and 24 h
later, the fluorescence intensity of 2-DG was captured using Xenogen IVIS 200 imager
(PerkinElmer Inc.). The experiment was conducted twice with at least three mice per
group.
(D) iRGD accumulation in tumors responds to glucose deprivation. FAM
(fluorescein)-labeled iRGD (200 μg in 100 μl PBS) was intravenously
injected into mice bearing 4T1 tumors treated with vehicle alone or with the GLUT IV
inhibitor. After 2 h of circulation, the mice were perfused with PBS containing 1%
BSA to remove peptide remaining in the circulation. The tumors were excised, fixed and
sectioned. FAM-iRGD in the tumors was detected with rabbit anti-FITC antibody. The average
signal intensity per cell was normalized to vehicle-treated tumors as relative uptake. The
experiment was conducted twice with at least three mice per group, and error bars indicate
SEM. *P<0.05 (Student's t-test).
We next investigated nutrient regulation of the CendR pathway in live animals.
Here, we used a prototypic tumor-targeting CendR peptide, iRGD (CRGDR/KGPD/EC)[18], to specifically monitor the CendR response
in tumors upon restriction of nutrient supply. Intratumoral administration of an inhibitor
of glucose transporter GLUT IV greatly suppressed glucose uptake (Fig. 7C) without significantly affecting tumor weight (Supplementary Fig. 9A). The glucose
restriction caused a marked increase in the accumulation of iRGD in the extravascular
tumor compartment (Fig. 7D and Supplementary Fig. 9B), whereas iRGD
distribution in other organs was not altered (Supplementary Fig. 9C). Phosphorylation of S6
ribosomal protein (Ser235/236), an indicator of mTOR activity[35], was lower after GLUT IV inhibitor treatment,
suggesting that glucose restriction regulates CendR activity through mTOR (Supplementary Fig. 9D). Together, these results
show that the activity of CendR-mediated cellular uptake and tissue penetration inversely
correlates with nutrient availability in vivo.
Discussion
Cell-penetrating peptides have widely been used to deliver various types of cargo
in vitro and in vivo, but the underlying machinery for
cell entry remains unclear[36]. Here, we
systematically surveyed the molecular machinery that mediates and regulates the cell entry
of CendRpeptides, a novel class of cell and tissue-penetrating peptides with considerable
translational potential[17-19].The silver nanoparticle technology we used to study CendR endocytosis has a number
of advantages[25]. In addition to the ease
of synthesis and surface functionalization, the main advantage is the ability to use an
etching solution to remove any particle that has not been internalized, which provides
protection against the etching and focuses the analysis on internalized particles only. A
possible drawback of this method is that the use of a particulate probe might give results
different from how cells would handle a small molecule ligand. We guarded against this
possibility by repeating the key experiments with a protein-based probe. Also, our cellular
uptake and tissue penetration results agree with published work on the use of simple
peptides to target various types of drug to tumors[16,19].Our siRNA screen showed that the CendR pathway differs in profound ways from the
CME pathway, which has been analyzed in a similar manner[37]. Direct comparison between R-Ag and TF uptake further underscored the
differences in their gene dependence. Limited molecular information available on Cav-ME and
MP precluded similar comparison, but our inhibitor studies supported the notion that CendR
uptake does not depend on the Cav-ME or MP machinery. This was the case whether the probe
was R-Ag nanoparticles or the R-NA protein complex. Moreover, CendR cargo did not compete
with other endocytic probes for cell entry, and showed no significant co-localization with
principal components of known endocytic vesicles.TEM studies showed that CendR endocytic vesicles are morphologically different
from clathrin-coated vesicles or caveolae, but resemble MP. The receptor (NRP1)-dependence
of the CendR pathway, resistance to the MP inhibitor rottlerin, and stimulation by nutrient
deprivation further distinguish it from the conventional, non-selective MP. Uptake of plasma
proteins, such as albumin, by MP has recently been shown to be an important source of amino
acids for RAS-transformed tumor cells[38].
The plasma protein uptake had the characteristics of classical MP and appears to be
different from CendR in that, unlike CendR, it was not dependent on a receptor and was
sensitive to MP inhibitor[38]. Another
difference is that we found MP, as measured by dextran uptake, not to be responsive to
nutrient depletion. Finally, the cells we used do not express activated RAS.Treatment of cells with VEGF-A165, which is a natural NRP1 ligand,
causes internalization of NRP1 and VEGFR2, and presumably also VEGF-A165, in a
clathrin-dependent manner[39,40]. This is different from the internalization of CendR
peptide-NRP1 complexes, which does not involve clathrin. As VEGF binds both to the VEGF
receptor and NRP1, the likely reason for this difference is the presence of VEGF-R2 in the
VEGF-A165-induced complex. In contrast, CendRpeptides bind only to NRP1,
allowing one to study the functions of NRP1 in isolation of other receptors. The engulfment
structures we induce here with the CendR peptide may represent the first stage in
NRP1-dependent formation of the vesiculo-vacuolar system, which is induced by VEGF and
thought to mediate transcytosis[14].GIPC1/synectin was among the most interesting hits from the genome screen. It is a
PDZ domain protein that interacts with the cytoplasmic domain of NRP1[41]. Accordingly, we show here that GIPC1/synectin,
especially its interaction with NRP1, is needed for the uptake of NRP1-bound cargo into
cells, while GIPC1/synectin had no effect on the uptake of the other endocytic probes we
tested. We also show that the lack of GIPC1/synectin-interacting domain (ΔSEA)
impairs CendR endocytosis. GIPC1/synectin interacts with many membrane proteins, including
megalin, syndecan-4, various receptor tyrosine kinases, and integrins[42-46]. The
GIPC1/synectin association of megalin[47] is
particularly interesting because megalin mediates reabsorption of proteins in the proximal
tubules of the kidney, which resembles the role of NRP1 in the CendR pathway. Moreover,
GIPC1/synectin is highly expressed in the kidney[48]. GIPC1/synectin may serve as the scaffold to bridge NRP1 and its bound
CendR cargo with the cytoskeleton network and transport machinery[13], and NRP1-GIPC1/synectin complex may determine the
subsequent transport route.A striking feature of CendR endocytosis revealed by our study is its regulation by
the nutrient supply and mTOR, the central hub of nutrient-sensing and growth control. The
inverse correlation of CendR activity to the availability of nutrients, which was not shared
by the other pathways, further underscored the distinctiveness of CendR pathway. TEM studies
showed that CendR endocytic structures become more prominent upon nutrient-depletion, and
that there is a concomitant increase of NRP1 expression at the cell surface, which provides
at least a partial explanation for the change in CendR activity. The changes in NRP1
expression may be mediated by transcription factors the activity of which is regulated by
mTOR signaling. These factors include Sp1, which is known to control transcription of the
NRP-1 gene [49-51], and which exhibited a high inhibitory score in our screen
(Z=-1.9). mTOR plays a contributory, but ill-defined, role in a number of
diseases[29]. Our results suggest that
the effect of mTOR signaling on nutrient transport in such diseases should be
considered.The rapid penetration of CendRpeptides across tumor tissue[19] implies active transport from one cell to another. In
this study, we directly demonstrate intercellular transport of CendR cargo and show that
this part of the pathway is also responsive to nutrient availability. The nutrient
responsiveness of the intercellular transport agrees with the observation that glucose
restriction promoted tumor penetration of iRGD. That the transfer occurred more efficiently
in 3-D spheroid than monolayer culture suggests requirement of extensive cell-cell contact.
This result and the resistance of the transfer to constant etching of extracellular silver
nanoparticles, suggests that CendR cargo may travel inside secretory vesicles (e.g.
exosomes, microvesicles) or via direct cell-to-cell contact. Moreover, the transport of
CendR cargo between HUVEC and tumor cells suggests that this system may be useful to study
CendR penetration of tumor vasculature and further delivery of cargo to tumor cells.Our primary focus here and in earlier studies has been the role of the CendR
system in tumors because of the apparent utility of the CendR/NRP1 system in drug delivery
into tumors[18,52,53]. However, this pathway is
also active in normal cells, as we show here for HUVECs. Also, CendRpeptides targeting a
normal tissue have been identified[54].
Thus, the CendR pathway could be involved in nutrient delivery into tissues with poor
vascular supply. As the system is particularly active in tumors, which frequently express
elevated levels of NRP1 and/or NRP2[6], this
may be another physiological process tumors have hijacked to promote their growth. Tumor
cell survival in poorly vascularized parts of a tumor would be particularly likely to
benefit from a high level of CendR transport.In summary, we show here that CendR peptide binding of NRP1 initiates an endocytic
process that is morphologically and mechanistically distinct from the known endocytosis
pathways. Both cellular uptake and intercellular transport of CendR cargo are regulated by
nutrient availability through changes in mTOR activity. NRP1-GIPC1/synectin interaction is
important for the initial internalization, and may hold the key to elucidating the
subsequent transport route inside the cells. The nutrient regulation of the pathway also
adds an important new dimension to the use of the CendR pathway in drug delivery.
Methods
Reagents and cell lines
PPC1 and HUVEC cell lines were purchased from the American Type Culture
Collection (ATCC), and HeLa cells were a gift from Dr. Robert G. Oshima at Sanford-Burnham
Medical Research Institute (La Jolla, CA). PPC1-GFP cells were made by infecting PPC1
cells with GFP-expressing lentivirus, which was produced using ViraPower lentiviral
directional TOPO expression kit (Life Technologies) and a pEGFP-C1 vector (Clontech)
according to the manufacturer's instructions. PPC1, PPC1-GFP, and HeLa cells were
cultured in DMEM (Thermo Scientific) plus 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS) with
penicillin/streptomycin (complete media). HUVEC cells were cultured in EBM-2 media (Lonza)
plus singlequots supplements (Lonza). Endocytic probes used here were TF-Alexa Fluor 488
(TF), TF-Alexa Fluor 594 (TF-594), CtxB-Alexa Fluor 594 (CtxB) and Dex-Alexa Fluor 488
(Dex) (MW=10,000; Life Technologies). Anti-NRP1 (blocking) antibody were prepared
by immunizing the rabbits with ligand-binding b1b2 domain of humanNRP1[55], followed by affinity purification of the
antiserum on the immobilized NRP1 b1b2 (Aminolink Plus immobilization kit, Thermo
Scientific). The final concentration of anti-NRP1 antibody used in all experiments was 20
μg ml-1.Chemicals used in this study: rapamycin and GLUT IV inhibitor (Calbiochem);
methyl-beta-cyclodextrin (Santa Cruz Biotechnology); rottlerin, MYH1485, myriocin and
insulin (Sigma-Aldrich); IRDye 800CW 2-deoxy-D-glucose (2-DG, Licor). Antibodies used in
immunofluorescence studies (1:200 dilution): rabbit anti-humanCLTC (Cat #
ab21679) and CAV1 (Cat # ab2910, Abcam), mouse anti-humanNRP1 (Cat #
130-090-693, Miltenyi Biotec), rabbit anti-FITC antibody (Cat # A-889, Life
Technologies), rat anti-mouseCD31 antibody (Cat # 550274, BD Pharmingen), rabbit
anti-phospho-S6 (Ser235/236) antibody (Cat # 2211, Cell Signaling), donkey
anti-rabbit (Cat # A-21206) and rabbit anti-mouse (Cat # A-11029)
secondary antibodies labeled with Alexa Fluor 488 (Molecular Probes), and donkey anti-rat
secondary antibody labeled with Cy3 (Cat # 712-165-153, Jackson ImmunoResearch).
Antibodies used in immunoblotting: mouse anti-β actin antibody (Cat #
A2228, Sigma-Aldrich, 1:1000 dilution), IRDye anti-rabbit (Cat # 926-68171), and
anti-mouse (Cat # 926-32212) secondary antibodies in 1:5,000 dilution
(Li-Cor).
RNAi screen
The NRP1 siRNA was acquired from Ambion (Cat # AM51331) as positive
control. The siRNAs targeting other genes in our experiments include: GIPC1/synectin (Cat
# 4392420, ID-S21130, Ambion) and EIF3S2 (Cat # 4392420, ID-S16512,
Ambion), if not indicated otherwise. As negative control, we utilized a mix of nonspecific
siRNAs[56] provided by Sanford-Burnham
functional genomics core. The screen was performed using the On-Target-Plus (OTP)
genome-wide siRNA library from Dharmacon in pooled format (4 siRNAs per gene). Briefly,
PPC1 cells were reverse transfected with 10 nM siRNA per well in 384-well plates using
Lipofectamine RNAiMAX transfection reagent (Life Technologies). After allowing 72 h for
the transfection the cells were incubated with 5 pM R-Ag (CF555) for 1 h. Etching buffer
(a final concentration of 10 mM Na2S2O3 and 10 mM
K3Fe(III)CN63- in PBS)[25] was then added into the solution and incubated for 20
min before being washed twice with PBS. Thereafter, cells were fixed using 4%
formaldehyde (Sigma-Aldrich) and stained with 1.25 μg ml-1 Hoechst
33342 (Life Technologies).Individual siRNAs were assayed for their effect on R-Ag and TF internalization
in parallel. PPC1 cells were separately transfected with 4 individual siRNAs for each gene
as done in genome screen. Dharmacon OTP siRNA pool against TF receptor (TFRC) was used as
a positive control. After allowing 72 h for the transfection, the cells were further
incubated with 5 pM R-Ag or 5 μg ml-1 TF for 1 h. R-Ag wells were
processed as above and TF-treated cells were washed twice with cell culture medium (DMEM
plus 10% FBS) to remove unbound material followed by fixation and staining of the
nuclei.Automated image acquisition, quantification and data analysis were performed as
follows: Plate imaging was performed on an Opera QEHS (PerkinElmer, Inc.) high content
screening system equipped with a 20× magnification (0.45 NA) objective. R-Ag
acquisition was set to 561 nm laser line excitation, 600/40 nm emission filter, 480 ms
exposure time and imaged in confocal mode. TF acquisition was set to 488 nm laser line
excitation, 540/75 emission filter and 80 ms exposure time. Nuclear acquisition was set to
365 nm xenon arc lamp excitation, 450/40 nm emission filter, 25 ms exposure time and
imaged in wide-field mode. Each gene was tested in duplicate wells, and four images were
acquired per well.Images were uploaded to a Columbus Image Data Storage and Analysis System
(PerkinElmer, Inc.) and subsequently analyzed with a custom Acapella 2.7 (PerkinElmer,
Inc.) analysis script. Briefly, Nuclear detection was performed on the Hoechst channel
using the Acapella Nuclear Detection Library (PerkinElmer, Inc.) followed by cytoplasm
detection on the Hoechst 33342 channel using the Acapella Cytoplasm Detection Library
(PerkinElmer, Inc.). Cells exhibiting chromatin condensation (cellular division or death)
were excluded from further analysis based on the Hoechst dye intensity. R-Ag within the
whole cell region (nucleus and cytoplasm) were then identified by image thresholding and
subsequently quantified for fluorescence intensity and number of particles per cell.
Values were aggregated (mean) on a per-well basis.The average R-Ag (or TF) intensity per cell for each gene was further normalized
to that of negative controls in the same plate as its relative uptake (RU). In the genome
screen, the binary logarithm of RU values for each gene was used to generate its robust
Z-score based on [1][57]:RUx, normalized uptake for a particular gene x; RUmedian, the median RU value
for the whole screen; SD, standard deviation of RU for all tested genes.Z-prime factor was calculated using [2][58]:SD1, standard deviation of two duplicates for individual genes; SD2, standard
deviation of readouts for all tested genes; RUx, normalized uptake for a particular gene
x; RUmedian, the median RU value for the whole screen.Pathway analysis was performed utilizing Ingenuity Pathway Analysis (IPA,
Qiagen) to identify the signaling pathways associated with the hits from the screen. To
validate selected hits from the genome screen, individual siRNAs were used. As these tests
included only a limited number of hits, there is no expectation of the data following a
normal distribution. Therefore, we utilized the RU in comparison with negative controls to
score inhibition (<0.7) or enhancement (>1.5) (Supplementary Data 2).
Cellular treatments
PPC1 cells were used in all studies unless indicated otherwise. Insulin
treatment was carried out on cells cultured in serum-free media for at least 16 h before
the addition of insulin (100 nM) for 1 h. Rapamycin (100 nM) was added to complete media
for 1 h. For RNAi experiments, cells were seeded one day earlier and transfected of 10 nM
siRNA using RNAiMAX for 72 h. For plasmid transfection, cells were transfected with NRP1
plasmids using Fugene 6 (Promega) based on manufacturer's instruction. For
inhibitor treatment, PPC1 cells were incubated with 2.5 mM methyl-β-cyclodextrin
or with 1 μM rottlerin for 1 h before adding probes.
Cellular uptake of endocytic probes
The final concentration of the endocytic probes was as listed below, if not
otherwise indicated: R-Ag (5 pM), R-NA (5 pM), TF (5 μg ml-1), CtxB
(0.5 μg ml-1) and Dex (100 μg ml-1). After 1 h
incubation, R-Ag samples were etched, while cells incubated with the other probes were
washed twice with cell culture media followed by fixation with 4% PFA
(paraformaldehyde) and nuclear staining with Hoechst 33342 (blue).
Nutrient deprivation
Glucose-free media was made with DMEM (Cat # 11966-025, Invitrogen)
supplemented with 10% FBS dialyzed with cassette (MWCO=3,500). The
composition of the amino acid (AA)-free media is given in Supplementary Table 1. Cells were cultured in
glucose-free or AA-free media for 16 h if not indicated otherwise.To generate tumors, 1 × 106 PPC1 cells were subcutaneously
injected into male athymic nude mice (Cat # 6902f, Harlan laboratories) and 1
× 106 4T1 cells were injected into mammary fat pad of WT female Balb/c
mice. Tumors were excised and sectioned using Vibratome (Cat # VT1200S, Leica) at
a thickness of ∼300 μm under ice-cold HBSS according to the
manufacturer's instructions. The slices were cultured at the liquid-air interface
of Millicell® 6-well cell culture insert (Cat # PICM03050,
Millipore) in Hams F12 Medium (Invitrogen) with 20% FBS overnight at 37°C.
The viability of the slices was determined using 2.5% 2,3,5-Triphenyltetrazolium
(Sigma-Aldrich) in PBS [59]. The tumor
slices were initially cultured in complete media, which was changed to glucose-free or
AA-free media, or to complete media containing 100 nM rapamycin for 6 h at 37°C.
To carry out nutrient deprivation in vivo, GLUT IV inhibitor (Cat
# WZB117, Calbiochem) was dissolved in PEG400-water solution (v/v=1:1) and
administered intratumorally to Balb/c female mice (6-8 week old) bearing orthotopic 4T1
tumors (∼0.5 cm) at a daily dose of 10 mg kg-1 for 5 days. Animal
experimentation was performed according to procedures approved by the Institutional Animal
Care and Use Committee at Sanford-Burnham Medical Research Institute.
Immunofluorescence staining and flow cytometry
To stain intracellular proteins, fixed cells were permeabilized for 5 min with
0.25% Triton X-100 (TX100) in PBS. The cells were blocked with a mix of 5%
goat and donkey serum in PBS (v/v) followed by 1-h incubation at room temperature with
primary and secondary antibodies. Surface-expressed proteins were stained without
permeabilization of the cells. Fluorescence signal for R-Ag, endocytic probes, and
immunofluorescence staining were imaged by confocal microscopy (Fluoview 1000, Olympus;
LSM 710 NLO, Zeiss) or bright field microscopy (inverted TE300 Nikon wide field; Leica
DMIRE2 wide field). The fluorescence intensity of each probe and nuclei count was
quantified using ImageJ [60], and probe
uptake per cell was generated by the mean intensity divided by nuclei number. Flow
cytometry was performed with fixed cells using LSR Fortessa (BD Biosciences) based on
manufacturer instruction.
Transmission electron microscopy
After R-Au uptake, PPC1 cells were fixed with 2% glutaraldehyde in PBS
and samples were processed and embedded by the electron microscopy facility at University
of California, San Diego. Images were taken with JEOL 1200 EX II TEM (JEOL) based on
manufacturer's instruction.
Extraction and quantification of cellular RNA and protein
Cellular RNA was extracted by RNeasy kit (Qiagen) followed by reverse
transcription (Qiagen) according to the manufacturer's instruction. Quantitative
PCR (qPCR) was performed using SYBR green PCR master mix and ABI 7900HT (Applied
Biosystems). Humantata-box binding protein (hTBP) was used as internal control and the
primers for all tested genes were listed in Supplementary Table 2. The relative gene
expression was calculated as described previously [61]. Cellular proteins were extracted using RIPA buffer (Life
Technologies) and dissolved in SDS-PAGE reducing buffer (Life Technologies). Immunoblots
were developed using rabbit anti-humanNRP1 antibody and mouse anti-β actin
antibody. IRDye secondary antibodies were used to detect the primary antibodies and the
blots were imaged with Odyssey (Li-Cor).
Intercellular transport
Donor cells cultured in complete media were first incubated with R-Ag or other
indicated probes for internalization at 37°C. After etching of silver particles or
extensive washing using culture media for other types of probes, the donor cells were
harvested and mixed with recipient cells at a ratio of 1:2 in PBS. The cell mixture was
then seeded in regular culture plates for monolayer cultures or in ultra-low binding plate
(Corning) to form suspended cell aggregates (spheroids). The media used and incubation
times are given in the text. Cells were dissociated by pipetting, fixed in 4% PFA
(paraformaldehyde), and analyzed by flow cytometry. The percentage of recipient cells that
became positive for R-Ag or other probes used, which represents the probe transfer, was
determined by FlowJo software with untreated recipient cells as the negative control. For
constant etching, the etching buffer was added to the culture media at a 20-fold dilution
from the short-duration etching concentration above. The efficacy in dissolving silver
particles was demonstrated before and after incubation.Preparation of silver nanoparticles. 70 nm silver nanoparticles with PVP
(polyvinylpyrrolidone) coating (AgNP-PVP) were prepared using a modification of a
method to be reported elsewhere[25].
First, 0.375 g of AgNO3 (Sigma, Cat # 209139) and 1.5 g PVP (Sigma,
Cat # 856568) were dissolved in 150 mL ethylene glycol (BDH, Cat #
BDH1125). This mixture was then heated to 160 °C and the reaction proceeded
for 1 h. The silver was cooled and precipitated in a large amount of acetone followed
by centrifugation at 1000 × g for 10 min. The solution was decanted and the
solids were redispersed in water with bath sonication. An aliquot may be dissolved in
dilute PVP in water for UV-Vis characterization (the extinction coefficient is 1
× 1011 M-1 cm-1).Preparation of NA-OPSS. NeutrAvidin (NA, Thermo Scientific) was modified for
silver and for gold nanoparticle coupling by appending 5 kDa NHS-PEG-OPSS (Jenkem),
where OPSS is ortho-pyridyl disulfide. NA (25 mg) was dissolved in 5 mL glycerol/water
solution (10%, v/v) for 1 h and then brought to 1× PBS. NHS-PEG-OPSS
(6 mg) was dissolved in 0.5 mL glycerol/water for 15 sec then added to the NA
solution. After 4-5 h, the NA-OPSS was dialyzed (20 kDa Slide-a-Lyzer, Pierce) against
0.1× PBS with 2 mM NaN3. The product was extracted, filtered (0.22
μm syringe filter, Millipore) and then assayed for OPSS content using
reduction by TCEP (tris(2-carboxyethyl)phosphine, 0.5 M solution pH 7.0, Sigma).
UV-Vis spectroscopy was used to determine an average of 2.2 PEG-OPSS were attached per
NA tetramer, based on the extinction of neutravidin (1 mg mL-1 =
1.66 O.D. at 280 nm) and of OPSS leaving group (8080 M-1cm-1 at
343 nm). OPSS was reduced to liberate the chromophore leaving group using
tris(2-carboxyethyl)phosphine (TCEP, Sigma). On average, 2.2 OPSS were bound per
NA.Preparation of Ag neutravidin nanoparticles (Ag-NA). First, NA-OPSS was
added at 56 μg ml-1 final concentration to 25 mL of AgNP-PVP in
water and incubated overnight, followed by centrifugation at 3,300 × g for 70
nm AgNP and resuspension of pellet into PBST (PBS plus 0.005% Tween 20).
Second, lipoic PEG amine (MW=3400 g mol-1, Nanocs Inc.) was
dissolved in 70% ethanol and added to the Ag-NA at a final concentration of 20
μM and incubated for 3 days at room temperature. After washing the particles
in PBST, NA content was determined using biotin-4-fluorescein assay (Life
Technologies, Cat # B-10570) to be 102-103 NA per
particle. Third, NHS-dyes were added to Ag-NA solution at 40 μM final
concentration, incubated overnight at 4 °C followed by extensive washing with
PBST until supernatant was not fluorescent. Last, biotin labeled peptides were added
at 40 μM for >1 h, then nanoparticles were washed with PBST. Peptides
used here were biotin-X-RPARPAR-OH, biotin-X-GGSGAGNKRTR-OH (tLyP1), and
biotin-X-{D}RKKRRQRRR-NH2 (D-TAT) (synthesized by
Lifetein), where X indicates one copy of 6-amino-hexanoic linker.Preparation of gold neutravidin nanoparticles (Au-NA). Gold (Au) citrate
nanoparticle cores ∼50 nm diameter were synthesized using a citrate reduction
method as described previously [62].
Briefly, 90 mg HAuCl4:xH2O (Sigma) was added to 1200 mL of
boiling water, followed by 94.1 mg of sodium citrate dihydrate (Sigma) dissolved in
8.25 mL water. The heat was immediately removed and the solution was kept stirring
until room temperature. The resulting wine colored solution had an absorbance peak at
530 nm, and O.D. of 0.53 at 1 cm path length. To coat the Au citrate with NeutrAvidin,
2 mL of 3 mg/mL NA-OPSS solution was added to 500 mL of Au citrate while stirring at
37 °C. After briefly (30 s) bath sonicating (Aquasonic 50HT), 25 mL of 0.1 M
MES pH 6.3 was added (2-(N-Morpholino)ethanesulfonic acid hemisodium salt, Sigma).
Heating was continued for 1 h, then 50 mL of 10× PBS (at pH 6.75) was added,
along with 250 μL 10% Tween 20 solution (Sigma), and 30 s of
sonication. To purify Au-NA the solution was centrifuged at 12,200 ×g at
4°C and the pellet redispersed by sonication in 50 mL PBST (1× PBS
with 0.005% Tween 20). To ensure complete reduction of OPSS groups onto the
gold, TCEP 0.1 M 500 μL was added, followed by 30 min incubation at 37
°C. The gold surface was then passivated using lipoic-PEG-amine (250
μL 10 mM in 0.1 M TCEP) at 37 °C, followed by overnight at 4
°C. The Au-NA product was cleared from excess reagents at 10k ×g and
redispersed in PBST 2 mM NaN3 and stored at 4 °C. Final absorbance
was 33 O.D. at 534 nm peak plasmon resonance. Aliquots were dye labeled with NHS-CF555
dye (40 μM in DMSO, Biotium) and washed 3× with PBS-T. Peptides were
loaded into the NA on the nanoparticles by adding 10 μL 2 mM biotin peptide
per 500 μL Au-NA, washed 1 h later at 6,000 × g, redispersing in 1 mL
PBST then 0.22 μm filtering (Millipore). All particle size were determined
using TEM.
Synthesis of labeled neutravidin-RPARPAR (R-NA) conjugates
Neutravidin (NA) was conjugated with peptide through a reducible disulfide
through the following steps. NA was dissolved at 5 mg/mL in 5% glycerol in water,
then brought to 1× PBS using 10× PBS. CF555-NHS (Biotium) was dissolved in
DMSO at 10 mM and added to the NA at 8.5-fold molar excess. Sodium bicarbonate (Gibco,
7.5%, Cat. #25080) was added to accelerate the reaction. After 3 h the
solution was dialyzed (20 kDa Slide-a-Lyser, Pierce) overnight against 1× PBS with
2mM NaN3 with a buffer change. The product was filtered and determined to have
4 dye molecules per NA using extinction coefficients of 150,000 M-1
cm-1 at 555 nm and 40,000 M-1 cm-1 at 260 nm for the
dye and NA, respectively. Next, the NA was loaded with
N-(6-(Biotinamido)hexyl)-3′-(2′-pyridyldithio)propionamide (biotin-HPDP,
Pierce, Cat # 21341). Biotin-HPDP has a disulfide bond and a thiol reactive
pyridyl group to attach to cysteine. Biotin-HPDP was dissolved in DMSO and added to the
NA-CF555 at 8.6 molar excess over NA (2.1 per biotin binding site). Dialysis was used to
remove the excess biotin-HPDP. The thiol reactivity of NA-CF555-biot-HPDP was checked by
adding L-cysteine (Sigma) to an aliquot and monitoring the appearance of HPDP leaving
group absorbance at 343 nm. To load peptides the NA-CF555-biot-HPDP solution was added
directly to lyophilized peptide FAM-Cys-x-RPARPAR-OH (synthesized in house), or reacted
with dissolved L-cysteine as a control, with at least 10 molar excess cys to NA. These
final conjugates were dialyzed (20 kDa) against 1× PBS and filtered.
Statistical analysis
Statistical differences between two data sets were determined via
Student's t-test. All error bars indicate standard error of the mean (SEM). A
value of P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Authors: Patrice M Becker; Johannes Waltenberger; Robin Yachechko; Tamara Mirzapoiazova; James S K Sham; Chun Geun Lee; Jack A Elias; Alexander D Verin Journal: Circ Res Date: 2005-05-26 Impact factor: 17.367
Authors: Leah Hennings; Yihong Kaufmann; Robert Griffin; Eric Siegel; Petr Novak; Peter Corry; Eduardo G Moros; Gal Shafirstein Journal: Int J Hyperthermia Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 3.914
Authors: Justine M Pinskey; Nicole E Franks; Alexandra N McMellen; Roman J Giger; Benjamin L Allen Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2017-06-30 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Gary B Braun; Kazuki N Sugahara; Olivia M Yu; Venkata Ramana Kotamraju; Tarmo Mölder; Andrew M Lowy; Erkki Ruoslahti; Tambet Teesalu Journal: J Control Release Date: 2016-04-19 Impact factor: 9.776
Authors: Kazuki N Sugahara; Pablo Scodeller; Gary B Braun; Tatiana Hurtado de Mendoza; Chisato M Yamazaki; Michael D Kluger; Joji Kitayama; Edwin Alvarez; Stephen B Howell; Tambet Teesalu; Erkki Ruoslahti; Andrew M Lowy Journal: J Control Release Date: 2015-06-11 Impact factor: 9.776
Authors: Emily Wonder; Lorena Simón-Gracia; Pablo Scodeller; Ramsey N Majzoub; Venkata Ramana Kotamraju; Kai K Ewert; Tambet Teesalu; Cyrus R Safinya Journal: Biomaterials Date: 2018-03-02 Impact factor: 12.479
Authors: Ramsey N Majzoub; Emily Wonder; Kai K Ewert; Venkata Ramana Kotamraju; Tambet Teesalu; Cyrus R Safinya Journal: J Phys Chem B Date: 2016-06-03 Impact factor: 2.991