Christina J Newcomb1, Shantanu Sur1, Sungsoo S Lee1, Jeong Min Yu2, Yan Zhou3, Malcolm L Snead3, Samuel I Stupp1,2,4,5,6. 1. Department of Materials Science and Engineering Northwestern University , Evanston, Illinois 60208, United States. 2. Simpson Querrey Institute for BioNanotechnology, Northwestern University , Chicago, Illinois 60611, United States. 3. Center for Craniofacial Molecular Biology, Herman Ostrow School of Dentistry of USC, The University of Southern California , Los Angeles, California 90033, United States. 4. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Northwestern University , Evanston, Illinois 60208, United States. 5. Department of Chemistry, Northwestern University , Evanston, Illinois 60208, United States. 6. Department of Medicine, Northwestern University , Chicago, Illinois 60611, United States.
Abstract
The nanostructures of self-assembling biomaterials have been previously designed to tune the release of growth factors in order to optimize biological repair and regeneration. We report here on the discovery that weakly cohesive peptide nanostructures in terms of intermolecular hydrogen bonding, when combined with low concentrations of osteogenic growth factor, enhance both BMP-2 and Wnt mediated signaling in myoblasts and bone marrow stromal cells, respectively. Conversely, analogous nanostructures with enhanced levels of internal hydrogen bonding and cohesion lead to an overall reduction in BMP-2 signaling. We propose that the mechanism for enhanced growth factor signaling by the nanostructures is related to their ability to increase diffusion within membrane lipid rafts. The phenomenon reported here could lead to new nanomedicine strategies to mediate growth factor signaling for translational targets.
The nanostructures of self-assembling biomaterials have been previously designed to tune the release of growth factors in order to optimize biological repair and regeneration. We report here on the discovery that weakly cohesive peptide nanostructures in terms of intermolecular hydrogen bonding, when combined with low concentrations of osteogenic growth factor, enhance both BMP-2 and Wnt mediated signaling in myoblasts and bone marrow stromal cells, respectively. Conversely, analogous nanostructures with enhanced levels of internal hydrogen bonding and cohesion lead to an overall reduction in BMP-2 signaling. We propose that the mechanism for enhanced growth factor signaling by the nanostructures is related to their ability to increase diffusion within membrane lipid rafts. The phenomenon reported here could lead to new nanomedicine strategies to mediate growth factor signaling for translational targets.
The extracellular
matrix (ECM) is a complex structural landscape that mechanically supports
cells and harbors bioactive molecules that direct proliferation, differentiation,
migration, and tissue morphogenesis.[1,2] Growth factors
in particular are proteins associated with the ECM and induce cell
response by interacting with transmembrane receptors at the cell surface
to initiate specific signaling cascades. Multiple external factors
govern the ability of growth factors to signal cells including the
ability of the growth factor to bind to ECM components, the concentration,
and location of the target cell.Direct injection of growth
factors for regenerative medicine applications has had limited success
in patients,[3] and therefore biomaterials
have been developed as reservoirs or vehicles for growth factor delivery.[4] Additionally, because the local extracellular
environment can dramatically influence growth factor mediated cell
response, the potential of biomaterials to directly alter growth factor
signaling remains an active area of research.[5−8] In general, biomaterials are often
designed to control spatial and temporal release of bioactive molecules;
they can serve a passive role for cell signaling by encapsulating
the growth factor through covalent or physical means. Alternatively,
biomaterials can have a more active role by exhibiting preferential
binding for growth factors of interest,[9,10] directly mimicking
bioactive molecules,[11−14] or targeting specific cell types.[15] Interest
on self-assembled supramolecular nanostructures for cell signaling
has been partly based on their structural versatility, allowing easy
incorporation of these specific features. The typical approach for
directing cell signaling has been to design the biomaterial for specific
interactions at the cell-material interface, for example, with membrane
bound receptors.[16,17]Peptide amphiphile (PA)
molecules are a class of self-assembling molecules that can self-assemble
into supramolecular nanofibers and create biomimetic, synthetic components
in the extracellular mileu. They have been designed to bind or mimic
the activity of specific growth factors for regenerative applications
ranging from ischemic disease in the heart or limbs to cartilage and
bone regeneration.[9−12] PA biomaterials have demonstrated an ability to interact directly
with cell surface receptors to modulate downstream signaling and cell
response.[18,19] Molecular design can be applied to a diverse
array of targets by linking covalently to an alkyl tail a highly customized
peptide segment that controls the physical properties and bioactivity
of the nanofiber matrix. Recently, it has been shown that intermolecular
interactions, namely hydrogen bonding and electrostatic repulsion,
can have significant effects on assembly morphology and cell response.[20−23] In particular, tailoring hydrogen bonding within the assemblies
has been used to modify the apparent stiffness of the matrix to control
neuron maturation,[20] or to alter drastically
cell viability upon contact with cationic nanofibers.[23]We have investigated here the role of intermolecular
interactions within supramolecular assemblies on growth factor signaling.
Two materials that differ in the degree of intermolecular hydrogen
bonding were designed by choosing primary amino acid sequences with
varied β-sheet propensity. The influence of these PA assemblies
on growth factor mediated osteogenic differentiation was evaluated
and a mechanistic evaluation of how PA supramolecular cohesion affects
cell signaling was carried out by studying intracellular signaling
and the mobility of cell membrane lipid rafts.
Design and Characterization
of PA Assemblies
Two PAs with similar charge and molecular
architecture were designed with different propensities for β-sheet
hydrogen bonding. Both materials lack designed bioactivity. Altering
the amino acid composition of the peptide backbone allowed for varying
degrees of hydrogen bonding within the assemblies. Both molecules
are similar in amino acid composition with the exception of valine,
which was chosen for its strong preference to adopt a β-sheet
secondary structure (strong β-sheet PA, Figure A) or glycine, which prefers a random coil
conformation, effectively reducing the degree of intermolecular hydrogen
bonding (weak β-sheet PA, Figure A).[24] Positively charged
lysine residues promote the association of PA nanostructures with
the negatively charged cell surface, however, the total number of
charged residues was constrained to prevent cytotoxicity, which has
been observed previously when combining both high cationic charge
and weak hydrogen bonding in PA assemblies.[23,25]
Figure 1
Characterization
of strong β-sheet and weak β-sheet PA materials. (A) Chemical
structures of strong β-sheet PA (Lys-Lys-Ala-Ala-Ala-Val-Val-Val-Lys-palmitoyl,
top) and weak β-sheet PA (Lys-Lys-Gly-Gly-Gly-Ala-Ala-Ala-Lys-palmitoyl,
bottom) that vary the propensity for intermolecular β-sheet
hydrogen bonding adjacent to the alkyl tail. (B) Wide-angle X-ray
scattering from solutions of strong β-sheet and weak β-sheet
assemblies (arrow: 4.7 Å, corresponds to spacing for β-sheet
hydrogen bonding). (C) Cryogenic transmission electron microscopy
of strong or weak β-sheet assemblies in serum-free cell media
showing the presence of nanofibers. Scale bar: 200 nm.
Characterization
of strong β-sheet and weak β-sheet PA materials. (A) Chemical
structures of strong β-sheet PA (Lys-Lys-Ala-Ala-Ala-Val-Val-Val-Lys-palmitoyl,
top) and weak β-sheet PA (Lys-Lys-Gly-Gly-Gly-Ala-Ala-Ala-Lys-palmitoyl,
bottom) that vary the propensity for intermolecular β-sheet
hydrogen bonding adjacent to the alkyl tail. (B) Wide-angle X-ray
scattering from solutions of strong β-sheet and weak β-sheet
assemblies (arrow: 4.7 Å, corresponds to spacing for β-sheet
hydrogen bonding). (C) Cryogenic transmission electron microscopy
of strong or weak β-sheet assemblies in serum-free cell media
showing the presence of nanofibers. Scale bar: 200 nm.The supramolecular assemblies formed by the strong
β-sheet and weak β-sheet PAs were characterized using
wide-angle X-ray scattering (WAXS) and cryogenic transmission electron
microscopy (cryoTEM). WAXS from a solution of the strong β-sheet
nanostructures revealed a Bragg reflection at 4.7 Å, indicative
of regular spacing between β-strands, while the weak β-sheet
PA showed only diffuse scattering, suggesting a lack of long-range
order (Figure B).
CryoTEM revealed that both PAs form one-dimensional assemblies in
solution (Figure C).
Together these results confirm that the nanostructures formed by these
two molecules are similar in morphology but exhibit clear differences
in the extent of hydrogen bonding.
Cell Response to PA-BMP-2
Mixtures
Next, we sought to evaluate if the differences in
hydrogen bonding within the assemblies could have an effect on growth
factor signaling. We selected BMP-2 as a model growth factor and C2C12mouse myoblast cells as a model cell type, as these cells are well-known
to convert from a myogenic to osteogenic lineage when treated with
BMP-2.[26] Cells were plated on tissue culture
plastic and treated with a mixture of BMP-2 (10 nM) and PA (0.001%
w/v). To exclude the possibility of any cytotoxic effect of PAs, especially
from a combination of weak hydrogen bonding and cationic charge a
cell viability assay was performed.[23] Treatment
with either strong or weak β-sheet PAs supported cell survival
at the concentrations used in cell studies; however, we note that
at concentrations 5-fold higher than working concentrations, some
cell toxicity was observed with Weak PA and BMP-2 mixtures (Figure S1).In addition to promoting osteogenic
differentiation, BMP-2 has a potent antimitogenic effect, which can
further favor the differentiation process for C2C12 cells.[27] Therefore, to evaluate the effects of the assemblies
on BMP-2 signaling, both cell proliferation and differentiation were
studied. Cell proliferation was measured by DNA uptake of the nucleoside
analog 5-ethynyl-2′-deoxyuridine (EdU), which was added to
cultures that were pretreated overnight with nanofibers alone or combinations
of nanofibers and BMP-2. After 8 h of EdU exposure, a significant
increase in the proportion of EdU positive cells was observed after
treatment with strong β-sheet assemblies (58 ± 6% versus
40 ± 10% in untreated control), while identical treatment with
weaker β-sheet assemblies did not elicit a change in proliferation
(Figure A,B). BMP-2
treatment alone caused a 9% reduction in the EdU positive cell population
and a similar 11% reduction was observed when the growth factor was
combined with weak β-sheet nanostructures. Combined treatment
of BMP-2 and strong β-sheet nanostructures on the other hand
did not show any difference in cell proliferation relative to the
strong β-sheet PA treatment alone. This result suggests that
assemblies with strong hydrogen bonding not only enhance the proliferation
of C2C12 cells but also block the antimitogenic effect of BMP-2.
Figure 2
Proliferation
and differentiation of C2C12 myoblast cells treated with strong or
weak β-sheet PA nanofibers with and without BMP-2. (A) Representative
images following an 8 h treatment with EdU to label nuclei of proliferating
cells. Co-localization of EdU incorporation (red) with cell nuclei
(blue) show differences in cell proliferation. Untreated control (NT).
Scale bar: 100 μm. (B) Quantification of EdU positive cells
(from panel A) demonstrating significant differences in cell proliferation.
Kruskal–Wallis test. **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, compared to NT (n = 3). (C)
Fast Blue staining to visualize alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity
after 3 days of culture. Scale bar: 100 μm. (D) Quantification
of ALP activity following 3 days of culture using a colorimetric enzyme
assay. Kruskal–Wallis test. ***p < 0.001,
compared to NT (n = 4).
Proliferation
and differentiation of C2C12 myoblast cells treated with strong or
weak β-sheet PA nanofibers with and without BMP-2. (A) Representative
images following an 8 h treatment with EdU to label nuclei of proliferating
cells. Co-localization of EdU incorporation (red) with cell nuclei
(blue) show differences in cell proliferation. Untreated control (NT).
Scale bar: 100 μm. (B) Quantification of EdU positive cells
(from panel A) demonstrating significant differences in cell proliferation.
Kruskal–Wallis test. **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, compared to NT (n = 3). (C)
Fast Blue staining to visualize alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity
after 3 days of culture. Scale bar: 100 μm. (D) Quantification
of ALP activity following 3 days of culture using a colorimetric enzyme
assay. Kruskal–Wallis test. ***p < 0.001,
compared to NT (n = 4).To evaluate the osteogenic differentiation of the C2C12 cells,
alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity was monitored. After 3 days of
treatment, ALP-expressing cells were found to respond to BMP-2 in
a dose-dependent manner, as expected (Figure S2). Interestingly, we observed a sharp increase for ALP expression
in cells treated with both BMP-2 and weakly cohesive PA nanostructures
compared to cells treated with BMP-2 alone (Figure C,D). Quantification confirmed this observation
showing a 7.2-fold increase in ALP activity per cell when treated
with a combination of the weakly cohesive supramolecular nanostructures
and BMP-2 compared with cells treated with an optimal dose (10 nM)
of growth factor alone. Additionally, enhanced ALP expression remained
even when the dose of BMP-2 was reduced further but only in the presence
of the weakly cohesive PA–nanofibers (Figure S2). Exposure to the weak β-sheet assemblies alone did
not evoke measurable ALP activity, indicating that enhanced ALP activity
resulted from an amplified effect of the BMP-2 signal and not due
to an intrinsic osteogenic influence of the nanofibers. We also observed
a noticeable reduction in ALP expression when BMP-2 was added to the
media along with PA assemblies with strong β-sheet character.
This observation is consistent with the proliferation result, as these
data suggest an inhibitory effect of strong β-sheet PA assemblies
on BMP-2 induced signaling.
Intracellular Signaling with PA-BMP-2 Mixtures
To begin interrogating signaling events at the cell surface, we
first studied the known downstream signaling cascades associated with
BMP receptor activation. We performed Western blot analysis to determine
if the PA assembly/BMP-2 combinations influence the canonical BMP-2
signaling cascade. There are two distinct modes of intracellular BMP-2
signaling that eventually modulate gene expression. These two modes
are Smad-dependent (Smad) and Smad-independent (non-Smad) signaling
pathways. The former pathway involves sequential activation of a number
of Smad proteins, while the latter involves the MAPK (mitogen-activated
protein kinase) pathway leading to the activation of p38 MAPK. Both
pathways increase ALP expression.The activation of Smad was
probed by assaying for the expression of phosphorylated Smad 1/5/8
(p-Smad). However, enhanced accumulation of p-Smad protein was not
observed following the addition of strong or weak β-sheet PA
nanofibers alone (Figure S3). This finding
further supports the observation that the BMP-2 ligand was required
to initiate BMP-2 specific signaling (Figure A,B). When treated with weakly cohesive PA
nanostructures and BMP-2 for 30 min, the mean values of p-Smad protein
accumulation measured by densitometry (3.05 ± 0.41) was found
to be slightly higher relative to cells treated with BMP-2 alone (2.45
± 0.25); however, the increased detection of p-Smad protein was
absent when the cells were similarly treated with strong β-sheet
PA assemblies and BMP-2 (1.24 ± 0.29). A similar trend was observed
with the phosphorylated p38 protein (Figure S3). The crosstalk and fine-tuning of the Smad and non-Smad signaling
pathways remain complex, but both Smad and non-Smad signaling contribute
to osteoblastic differentiation and bone formation.[28−30] These results
demonstrate that the combination of weak β-sheet PA and BMP-2
successfully activates intracellular events associated with BMP-2
induced signaling.
Figure 3
Probing cell-material interactions at the cell surface
and downstream BMP-2 mediated signaling. (A) Whole cell lysates were
extracted from C2C12 cells following treatment with strong or weak
β-sheet PA assemblies and/or BMP-2. Western blot analysis was
performed for phospho-Smad 1/5/8 (p-Smad 1/5/8). (B) Densitometry
measurements from Western blot bands in the p-Smad experiment that
appears in (A) normalized to β-actin protein content. (C) RT-PCR
experiments evaluating gene expression of alkaline phosphatase (ALP)
and osteocalcin (OCN) mRNAs following 3 days of culture. Data is normalized
to GAPDH and the values from untreated controls (NT) serve as the
baseline. Statistical analysis was performed using a Kruskal–Wallis
test with Dunn’s post-test to compare between groups. ***p < 0.001 compared to untreated controls (NT), †††p < 0.001 comparing between designated groups
(n = 3).
Probing cell-material interactions at the cell surface
and downstream BMP-2 mediated signaling. (A) Whole cell lysates were
extracted from C2C12 cells following treatment with strong or weak
β-sheet PA assemblies and/or BMP-2. Western blot analysis was
performed for phospho-Smad 1/5/8 (p-Smad 1/5/8). (B) Densitometry
measurements from Western blot bands in the p-Smad experiment that
appears in (A) normalized to β-actin protein content. (C) RT-PCR
experiments evaluating gene expression of alkaline phosphatase (ALP)
and osteocalcin (OCN) mRNAs following 3 days of culture. Data is normalized
to GAPDH and the values from untreated controls (NT) serve as the
baseline. Statistical analysis was performed using a Kruskal–Wallis
test with Dunn’s post-test to compare between groups. ***p < 0.001 compared to untreated controls (NT), †††p < 0.001 comparing between designated groups
(n = 3).The upregulation of BMP-mediated Smad and non-Smad signaling
pathways in the presence of weak β-sheet PA nanofibers prompted
us to investigate whether such changes are reflected in the expression
of genes involved in osteogenic differentiation. Gene expression was
evaluated using quantitative RT-PCR measurement of mRNAs encoding
for ALP and the protein osteocalcin (OCN), which are early and late
markers of osteogenic differentiation, respectively (Figure C). Exposing the cells to exogenous
BMP-2 for 3 days of culture resulted in a significant enhancement
in expression of both ALP and OCN compared to untreated controls.[31,32] When cells were treated with both weak β-sheet PA assemblies
and BMP-2, expression of ALP and OCN mRNAs increased by 340 ±
148 and 157 ± 30 fold, respectively (Figure C). In contrast, a combined treatment of
strong β-sheet nanofibers with BMP-2 reduced the expression
of these two genes relative to treatments with BMP-2 alone (Figure C). The gene expression
findings corroborate the results from ALP staining experiments and
confirm that the weak assemblies are capable of enhancing the effect
of BMP-2 in C2C12 cells, resulting in upregulation of osteogenic markers
and genes associated with the BMP-2 signaling pathway.Additionally,
because the strong and weak PAs were not designed to mimic any specific
biological signal and did not promote osteogenic differentiation when
used alone, we hypothesized that the observed PA effect is due to
their influence on BMP-2 signaling. One possible mechanism for this
effect could be due to differences in sequestration of the growth
factor to the nanofiber surface. Similar to charged polymers such
as chitosan, alginate, and hyaluronan that have been used previously
to sequester and deliver BMP-2,[33] PA materials
have demonstrated their ability to increase the local concentration
of growth factors (such as BMP-2) to improve bioactivity[9−11] To assess if there were differences in affinity for BMP-2 between
the strong and weak β-sheet PA nanofibers, we used an enzyme-linked
immunosorbent assay (ELISA) to measure BMP-2 levels. ELISA results
suggest that both strong and weak β-sheet PA assemblies bound
similar amounts of BMP-2, as over 94% of the growth factor was retained
by the PA nanostructures (Figure S4). Because
binding of BMP-2 was similar for both PAs, we concluded that the observed
differences in signaling involved interactions occurring at the cell-PA
interface.
PA Nanofiber Association with the Cell Membrane
and Its Influence on Membrane Dynamics
Because the initial
step in most growth factor signal cascades involve receptor–ligand
binding at the cell surface, factors in the local environment such
as membrane fluidity can play a crucial role.[34] Therefore, we next chose to evaluate changes in lipid raft mobility
in response to strong and weak β-sheet PA nanofibers. Visualization
of PA nanofiber treated cells by confocal microscopy and scanning
electron microscopy confirmed the association of the PA nanofibers
with cell surfaces for both strong and weak β-sheet PA nanofibers
(Figure A,B, Figure S5). Our previous study demonstrated that
highly cationic PA assemblies with weak hydrogen bonding can lead
to cytotoxicity due to their ability to disrupt cell membranes.[23] Although the PA nanostructures used here did
not elicit cytotoxicity at the concentrations used, the combination
of positive charge and weak hydrogen bonding within the supramolecular
nanostructure could result in direct interactions between PA nanofibers
and cell membranes. Thus, we chose to investigate the dynamics of
the lipid rafts, as modification of lipid raft mobility by the presence
of the PA nanofibers could affect growth factor accessibility and
signaling.
Figure 4
PA nanofiber association with the cell membrane and their effect
on lipid raft fluidity. (A) Confocal microscopy images of C2C12 cells
following treatment with fluorescently labeled strong or weak β-sheet
PA nanofibers (red). Cells are stained with phalloidin to visualize
actin (green) and DAPI to visualize cell nuclei (blue). Scale bar:
10 μm. (B) Scanning electron micrographs of cells treated with
PA-BMP-2 mixtures. PA nanofibers associate with the cell surface (black
arrows). The surface on which the cells are cultured have been pseudocolored
yellow for clarity. Scale bar: 2 μm. (C,D) Confocal images from
fluorescence recovery after photobleaching experiments showing recovery
of CTxB-Alexa 488 fluorescence in the photobleached area; cells were
treated with (C) strong β-sheet or (D) weak β-sheet PA
nanofibers. Scale bars: 10 μm. (E) Representative recovery curves
have been normalized to prebleach intensities and corrected for fluorescence
decay during imaging for each treatment condition: untreated (black),
strong β-sheet PA nanofibers (red), or weak β-sheet PA
nanofibers (blue). (F) Measured values for the diffusion coefficient D of CTxB-Alexa 488 treated C2C12 cells with the following
conditions: untreated (black), strong β-sheet PA nanofibers
(red), or weak β-sheet PA nanofibers (blue). Statistical analysis
was performed using a one-way ANOVA with a Dunnett’s post-test
comparing to untreated controls (NT). **p < 0.01
compared to NT, (n = 9–10 cells for each condition).
PA nanofiber association with the cell membrane and their effect
on lipid raft fluidity. (A) Confocal microscopy images of C2C12 cells
following treatment with fluorescently labeled strong or weak β-sheet
PA nanofibers (red). Cells are stained with phalloidin to visualize
actin (green) and DAPI to visualize cell nuclei (blue). Scale bar:
10 μm. (B) Scanning electron micrographs of cells treated with
PA-BMP-2 mixtures. PA nanofibers associate with the cell surface (black
arrows). The surface on which the cells are cultured have been pseudocolored
yellow for clarity. Scale bar: 2 μm. (C,D) Confocal images from
fluorescence recovery after photobleaching experiments showing recovery
of CTxB-Alexa 488 fluorescence in the photobleached area; cells were
treated with (C) strong β-sheet or (D) weak β-sheet PA
nanofibers. Scale bars: 10 μm. (E) Representative recovery curves
have been normalized to prebleach intensities and corrected for fluorescence
decay during imaging for each treatment condition: untreated (black),
strong β-sheet PA nanofibers (red), or weak β-sheet PA
nanofibers (blue). (F) Measured values for the diffusion coefficient D of CTxB-Alexa 488 treated C2C12 cells with the following
conditions: untreated (black), strong β-sheet PA nanofibers
(red), or weak β-sheet PA nanofibers (blue). Statistical analysis
was performed using a one-way ANOVA with a Dunnett’s post-test
comparing to untreated controls (NT). **p < 0.01
compared to NT, (n = 9–10 cells for each condition).Lipid rafts are tightly packed
and ordered nanoscale assemblies of proteins and lipids that float
freely in the cell membrane. It has been proposed that these rafts,
which are sterol-sphingolipid-enriched, play a critical role in subcellular
processes such as membrane sorting, formation of signaling complexes,
and endocytic trafficking.[35−37] Signaling events initiated by
a number of growth factors, such as glial cell-derived neurotrophic
factor (GDNF), epidermal growth factor (EGF), and BMP, are thought
to involve lipid rafts.[38] The exact mechanism
by which lipid rafts enable or augment signaling is unknown, however,
current research suggests that metastable rafts with receptors bound
to their ligand can coalesce into larger, more stable raft domains
to serve as “concentrating platforms” for individual
receptors so that large signaling complexes can be formed. In fact,
integrin-binding PA assemblies have been proposed to affect lipid
raft-mediated signaling by binding surface-bound integrins and impairing
their ability to traffic into a “concentrated lipid raft platform”.[18] These results suggest that supramolecular nanofibers
could potentially alter raft organization and dynamics by binding
surface receptors. However, because the present study uses PA assemblies
that lack designed bioactivity for receptors, we instead hypothesized
that the combination of weak cohesion, cationic charge, and amphiphilic
nature of the nanofibers could directly affect the mobility of lipid
rafts.To test our hypothesis, we probed cell membrane lipid
raft mobility by performing fluorescence recovery after photobleaching
(FRAP) experiments.[39,40] Live C2C12 cells were stained
with fluorescently labeled cholera toxin subtype B (CTxB), a protein
marker that is commonly used to visualize lipid rafts. To evaluate
the effect of PA nanostructures on lipid raft dynamics, cells were
treated with either strong β-sheet PA or weak β-sheet
PA nanofibers and the recovery of CTxB fluorescence was monitored
over time (Figure C,D). Additionally, to minimize variability in FRAP measurements
the bleaching area was restricted to the leading edge of the cell,
where the cell membrane and cytosol assume a flat and spread morphology
to create a two-dimensional object. Upon quantification, our experiments
revealed that CTxB in naïve C2C12 cell membranes have a diffusion
coefficient (D) of 0.11 ± 0.3 μm2/s (Figure E,F),
similar to values reported for other cell lines.[41] The diffusion of CTxB remained similar after adding strong
β-sheet nanofibers (D, 0.09 ± 0.4 μm2/s). However, after treatment with weak nanofibers a significant
increase in CTxB diffusion was observed (D, 0.17
± 0.04 μm2/s), suggesting that the lipid raft
domains have enhanced mobility in the presence of assemblies with
weak hydrogen bonding.Raft assembly is both dynamic and reversible;
moreover, palmitoylated and myristoylated proteins such as flotillins
and caveolins preferentially associate with lipid rafts.[35,38,42] Previous research has demonstrated
that palmitoylated PA assemblies with weak hydrogen bonding can have
high affinities for the cell membrane.[23] We postulate that the increased raft mobility in samples treated
with weak β-sheet PA nanofibers is attributed to PA molecules
intercalating within the cell membrane and lipid-rich microdomains.
Initiation of BMP-2 signaling occurs at the cell surface through receptors
that reside in specific membrane domains that enrich in specific membrane
subdomains, such as caveolae.[43,44] Enhanced signaling
is observed when cells are treated with a mixture of both growth factor
and weakly cohesive nanofibers, therefore we postulate that the weak
PA assemblies promote preferential association with lipid rafts through
two mechanisms. First, the electrostatic interaction between the PA
and growth factor can localize the ligand at the cell surface in proximity
to the signaling receptors that reside in lipid-rich microdomains
and second, the increased mobility of the lipid rafts caused by treatment
with weakly cohesive PA nanofibers directly increases the statistical
probability of a ligand–receptor interaction.
Exploring Additional
Signaling Mechanisms When Varying Nanostructure Cohesion
To determine if the relationship between nanostructure cohesion and
enhanced cell signaling could be generalized to other signaling molecules
and pathways, we chose to explore cell differentiation of a second
widely used cell model: biopotential bone marrow stromal ST2 cells.
The potent signaling molecule leucine-rich amelogenin peptide (LRAP)
was used in combination with the PA assemblies, as it is known to
both stimulate osteogenesis and inhibit adipogenesis of mesenchymal
stem cells by activating the canonical Wnt/ β-catenin signaling
pathway.[45−47] We treated ST2 cells with combinations of LRAP and
either strong or weak β-sheet PA nanostructures to determine
if weak β-sheet PA assemblies could enhance osteogenesis by
potentiating the Wnt signaling cascade. First, cells were treated
with varied concentrations of Wnt activators (LRAP, 0.15 nM, 0.25
nM, 1.5 nM) in the absence or presence of the weak β-sheet PA
nanofibers (0.001% w/v) and RT-PCR was performed to determine differences
in mRNA expression levels of bone marker genes. As previously reported,
LRAP exhibited a dose-dependent bioactivity, as shown by increased
expression of osteogenic markers (Figure S6).[45−47] Similar to the C2C12 cells treated with weak β-sheet
PA assemblies and BMP-2 (Figure S2), cotreatment
of ST2 cells with LRAP and weak β-sheet PA assemblies significantly
enhanced the bioactivity at low doses, achieving osteogenic gene expression
levels comparable to those observed in treatments with higher doses
of LRAP (Figure A).
The cotreatment with the weak β-sheet PA assemblies did not
enhance the efficacy of LRAP at higher doses, potentially due to the
previously reported effect of saturation of the Wnt signaling cascade
by LRAP over 1.5 nM.[47]
Figure 5
Differentiation of ST2
bone marrow stromal cells treated with the LRAP signaling molecule
to activate the Wnt pathway and weak β-sheet PA assemblies.
Real time quantitative RT-PCR analysis of osteoblast cell marker gene
mRNA expression and mineral deposition by ST2 cells. (A) Two days
after osteo-induction, RNA was isolated for qRT-PCR analysis of osteoblast
marker genes: Runx2, Osx, Dlx5, and type I collagen (coll. I). Data
is expressed as a relative fold increase in gene expression of conditions
containing weak β-sheet PA assemblies normalized to conditions
with LRAP but lacking PA assemblies. ***p < 0.001,
**p < 0.01, nonparametric t-test
comparing to conditions with the same LRAP concentration but lacking
PA nanofibers (n = 3). (B) Two weeks after bone induction,
mineral deposition was assayed with Alizarin Red staining and (C)
quantified. *p = 0.018, nonparametric t-test comparing conditions with the same concentration of LRAP but
lacking PA nanofibers (n = 3). Data is represented
as a relative increase in mineral deposition for cells treated with
the weak β-sheet PA nanofibers normalized to the LRAP only treatment
baseline. OM: Osteogenic media without LRAP.
Differentiation of ST2
bone marrow stromal cells treated with the LRAP signaling molecule
to activate the Wnt pathway and weak β-sheet PA assemblies.
Real time quantitative RT-PCR analysis of osteoblast cell marker gene
mRNA expression and mineral deposition by ST2 cells. (A) Two days
after osteo-induction, RNA was isolated for qRT-PCR analysis of osteoblast
marker genes: Runx2, Osx, Dlx5, and type I collagen (coll. I). Data
is expressed as a relative fold increase in gene expression of conditions
containing weak β-sheet PA assemblies normalized to conditions
with LRAP but lacking PA assemblies. ***p < 0.001,
**p < 0.01, nonparametric t-test
comparing to conditions with the same LRAP concentration but lacking
PA nanofibers (n = 3). (B) Two weeks after bone induction,
mineral deposition was assayed with Alizarin Red staining and (C)
quantified. *p = 0.018, nonparametric t-test comparing conditions with the same concentration of LRAP but
lacking PA nanofibers (n = 3). Data is represented
as a relative increase in mineral deposition for cells treated with
the weak β-sheet PA nanofibers normalized to the LRAP only treatment
baseline. OM: Osteogenic media without LRAP.The enhancement of gene expression observed in bone marrow
stromal ST2 cells was similar to that observed for the C2C12 myoblasts
with LRAP and BMP-2, respectively. Next, we sought to confirm cell
differentiation and function by evaluating mineralization potential
of the cells using an Alizarin Red S stain. Co-treatment of ST2 cells
with the weakly cohesive nanostructures again demonstrated enhanced
bioactivity at low doses of LRAP, demonstrating increased mineralization
similar to that of the high dose LRAP (Figure B, C). These results suggest that the weak
β-sheet nanostructures in combination with LRAP are capable
of enhancing osteogenic differentiation in bone marrow stromal cells
through activation of the canonical Wnt/β-catenin signaling
pathway.We hypothesize that the increased fluidity of the lipid
rafts has similar effects on both Wnt/ β-catenin and BMP-2 signaling
cascades. The environment of the cell membrane has the potential to
affect receptor activation, receptor deactivation, and/or signal propagation.
Membrane and lipid raft fluidity can potentially alter the physical
state of the membrane, and alter the viscosity of membrane microdomains.
Recent studies have demonstrated that the lateral mobility of membrane
ligands affects both receptor clustering and activity.[48,49] Additionally, in experiments with induced pluripotent stem (iPS)
cells and cell feeder layers, positive correlations between membrane
mobility and biological activity were observed,[50] while cancer cells demonstrated reduced growth factor signaling
and apoptosis with conditions that reduced membrane fluidity.[51] The cell membrane can be subject to fusion with
PA assemblies to cause a slightly “leaky” membrane and
this may be the mechanism through which membrane fluidity is enhanced.
Although toxicity is not observed, antimicrobial surfactant-like peptides
and cell penetrating peptides that exhibit both cationic and amphiphilic
properties similar to strong and weak PA assemblies have demonstrated
this effect on lipid membranes.[52−54] Our observations suggest that
weakly cohesive nanostructures that interact with cell membranes to
modify lipid raft mobility may offer a strategy to improve growth
factor signaling.We have demonstrated here that reducing the
internal cohesion of supramolecular peptide nanofibers can significantly
enhance growth factor signaling in two separate pathways each mediated
by unique receptors and subcellular signaling pathways. We specifically
found that nanostructures with weaker β-sheet hyrogen bonding
promoted cell differentiation in two established cell model systems
for osteogenesis. In contrast, assemblies with stronger hydrogen bonding
inhibited differentiation while promoting cell proliferation. We postulate
that intercalation of weak, positively charged PA nanostructures or
individual molecules into the cell membrane cause the observed increase
in lipid raft mobility, which in turn enhances cell signaling. Our
study has identified a new mechanism to potentiate signaling by a
growth factor using supramolecular nanostructures that could ultimately
reduce the necessary therapeutic doses of growth factors, thereby
reducing both growth factor induced complications and health care
costs.
Authors: Charles M Rubert Pérez; Nicholas Stephanopoulos; Shantanu Sur; Sungsoo S Lee; Christina Newcomb; Samuel I Stupp Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2014-11-04 Impact factor: 3.934
Authors: Joshua E Goldberger; Eric J Berns; Ronit Bitton; Christina J Newcomb; Samuel I Stupp Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2011-05-30 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Khalid Salaita; Pradeep M Nair; Rebecca S Petit; Richard M Neve; Debopriya Das; Joe W Gray; Jay T Groves Journal: Science Date: 2010-03-12 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Timothy D Henry; Brian H Annex; George R McKendall; Michael A Azrin; John J Lopez; Frank J Giordano; P K Shah; James T Willerson; Raymond L Benza; Daniel S Berman; C Michael Gibson; Alex Bajamonde; Amy Chen Rundle; Jennifer Fine; Edward R McCluskey Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-03-18 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Jennifer L Leight; Michele A Wozniak; Sophia Chen; Michelle L Lynch; Christopher S Chen Journal: Mol Biol Cell Date: 2012-01-11 Impact factor: 4.138