Jemma N Roberts1, Jugal Kishore Sahoo2, Laura E McNamara1, Karl V Burgess3, Jingli Yang1, Enateri V Alakpa1, Hilary J Anderson1, Jake Hay1, Lesley-Anne Turner1, Stephen J Yarwood1, Mischa Zelzer4,5, Richard O C Oreffo6, Rein V Ulijn2,7,8, Matthew J Dalby1. 1. Centre for Cell Engineering, Institute of Molecular, Cell and Systems Biology, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, Joseph Black Building, University of Glasgow , Glasgow G12 8QQ, Scotland, U.K. 2. Department of Pure & Applied Chemistry, WestCHEM , Thomas Graham Building, 295 Cathedral Street, Glasgow G1 1XL, Scotland, U.K. 3. Glasgow Polyomics Facility, Translational Cancer Research Centre, University of Glasgow Garscube Campus, Switchback Road, Glasgow G61 1QH, Scotland, U.K. 4. School of Pharmacy, University of Nottingham , Boots Science Building, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, U.K. 5. National Physical Laboratory , Teddington, Middlesex TW11 0LW, U.K. 6. Bone & Joint Research Group, Centre for Human Development, Stem Cells and Regeneration, Institute of Developmental Sciences, University of Southampton , Southampton SO16 6YD, U.K. 7. Advanced Science Research Center (ASRC), City University of New York , New York, New York 10031, United States. 8. Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, City University of New York-Hunter College , 695 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10065, United States.
Abstract
Out of their niche environment, adult stem cells, such as mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), spontaneously differentiate. This makes both studying these important regenerative cells and growing large numbers of stem cells for clinical use challenging. Traditional cell culture techniques have fallen short of meeting this challenge, but materials science offers hope. In this study, we have used emerging rules of managing adhesion/cytoskeletal balance to prolong MSC cultures by fabricating controllable nanoscale cell interfaces using immobilized peptides that may be enzymatically activated to change their function. The surfaces can be altered (activated) at will to tip adhesion/cytoskeletal balance and initiate differentiation, hence better informing biological mechanisms of stem cell growth. Tools that are able to investigate the stem cell phenotype are important. While large phenotypical differences, such as the difference between an adipocyte and an osteoblast, are now better understood, the far more subtle differences between fibroblasts and MSCs are much harder to dissect. The development of technologies able to dynamically navigate small differences in adhesion are critical in the race to provide regenerative strategies using stem cells.
Out of their niche environment, adult stem cells, such as mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), spontaneously differentiate. This makes both studying these important regenerative cells and growing large numbers of stem cells for clinical use challenging. Traditional cell culture techniques have fallen short of meeting this challenge, but materials science offers hope. In this study, we have used emerging rules of managing adhesion/cytoskeletal balance to prolong MSC cultures by fabricating controllable nanoscale cell interfaces using immobilized peptides that may be enzymatically activated to change their function. The surfaces can be altered (activated) at will to tip adhesion/cytoskeletal balance and initiate differentiation, hence better informing biological mechanisms of stem cell growth. Tools that are able to investigate the stem cell phenotype are important. While large phenotypical differences, such as the difference between an adipocyte and an osteoblast, are now better understood, the far more subtle differences between fibroblasts and MSCs are much harder to dissect. The development of technologies able to dynamically navigate small differences in adhesion are critical in the race to provide regenerative strategies using stem cells.
In vivo, adult
stem cells reside within a specialized environment known as the niche.
The niche is made up of cellular and noncellular components, including
resident stem cells, support cells, and extracellular matrix (ECM)
that, together, regulate stem cell self-renewal.[1−4]Traditional culture plastics
present a different environment to
the in vivo niche, and hence mesenchymal stem cells
(MSCs) spontaneously differentiate to a heterogeneous population mainly
made up of fibroblasts.[5] Thus, understanding
and ultimately controlling MSC growth is desirable.In vitro materials-based strategies have been
critical for understanding how cells adhere, for example, in showing
that MSCs require a minimum patterned area of 69 μm2 of fibronectin per 1000 μm2 of surface in order
for adhesions to form[6] and that integrin
composition and spacing are critical in integrin gathering and adhesion
maturation.[7,8] As biomaterials can be used to control focal
adhesion formation, they can thus be used to tune MSC phenotype.[9,10] It has been shown that if MSCs are allowed to spread, form large
adhesions, and develop a highly contractile cytoskeleton, they differentiate
into osteoblasts.[11−16] If, however, the MSCs are prevented from spreading, low intracellular
tension and resultant adipogenesis follows.[11−16] These rules have been devised using techniques such as microcontact
printing of adhesive patterns,[11,17,18] control of stiffness/cross-linking density,[12,13,19] changing grafted chemistries,[20,21] employing stress relaxation,[22,23] and using defined nanotopographies.[24]Of these, only nanotopography has been
shown to also be able to
facilitate prolonged MSC growth with retained multipotency.[5] Enhanced MSC self-renewal required a slightly
lower level of adhesion and cytoskeletal tension than on controls
where spontaneous and untargeted differentiation to fibroblasts was
observed.[25] As MSCs have fibroblastic morphology,[26] the morphology/adhesion/tension difference between
a fibroblast and a MSC is small. Thus, as it is challenging to control
cell tension so subtly, the rules for in vitro prolonged
MSC growth with multipotency retained remain unclear, and platforms
able to achieve this are a scarce resource for the study of how stem
cells work.An optimal cell/material interface would allow dynamic
regulation
of intracellular tension so that it would be possible to prove that
altering the growth adhesion state results in differentiation. While
examples of in situ change of surface properties
exist, these switches involve uncaging and switching between inactive
(no adhesion, cell quiescence) and active states (differentiation)
and thus are not suited to a more subtle regulation of adhesion required
to probe stem cell growth.Dynamic culture systems are emerging
largely based on light-sensitive[27−29] surfaces. Typically,
a caging group is removed to reveal the cell
adhesive tripeptide RGD (arginine, glycine, aspartic acid), which
binds integrins and hence regulates adhesion and intracellular tension.[27,28,30]The first MSC dynamic system
involved MSCs adhering to pendular
RGD incorporated within a polyethylene glycol (PEG)-based hydrogel.[31] Photocleavage was used to release the RGDs from
the hydrogel, resulting in chondrogenesis as the MSCs rounded up.[31] While clearly demonstrating that it is possible
to control cell fate using changes in cell adhesion, this study had
limitations as cell viability and expansion were limited in the hydrogels.
Another study illustrated the potential for targeting osteogenesis
from MSCs in 3D gels over short culture times, but control over cell
growth was not achieved.[32]Electroactive
surfaces[33−35] and protein-responsive materials[36] are also of interest in this area. However,
these studies rely on nonbiological chemistries and use of conducting
materials/electrochemical potentials that may affect cell response,
and none demonstrated the ability to support prolonged multipotency
or the ability to modulate the environment to allow observation of
changes that occur as differentiation is initiated. Recently, mechano-activated
surfaces have gained interest based on concepts of opening of cryptic
sites in proteins.[37,38]We, however, chose to employ
enzymatic activation to provide a
natural stimulus to trigger changes in material properties, with advantages
of biocompatibility and selectivity.[39] Here,
we present a dynamic surface where both the caging group and the hidden
group have discrete and tunable biological roles and show that adhesion
can be subtly tuned to turn MSCs from a growth state with multipotency
retained to a differentiating state that allows us to elucidate in vitro MSC growth mechanisms.
Results and Discussion
Synthesis
of a User-Controlled Nanointerface
Surfaces
were synthesized by silanizing glass coverslips and covalently attaching
a PEG monolayer onto which fluorenylmethyloxycarbonyl (FMOC)-amino
acids were iteratively coupled using solid-phase peptide synthesis
directly on the PEGylated glass surface. The complete surface consists
of the integrin binding RGD peptide or integrin inactive RGE peptide,
followed by an elastase cleavable dialanine (AA) linker and then either
FMOC as a steric blocking group, or PEG as an adhesion-reducing blocking
group. Hence, the final full sequences were either FMOC-AARGD/E or
PEG-AARGD/E, where D/E refers to RGD or RGE constructs. The FMOC protecting
moiety sterically prevents cells from fully interacting with the underlying
RGD ligands.[40] Elastase removes the FMOC/PEG
blocking group exposing RGD, that is, FMOC-A↓ARGD or PEG-A↓ARGD,
where ↓ refers to the cleavage point (Figure A and Supplementary Figure 1). Using optimized protocols,[41] synthesis was followed using a combination of solid-state fluorescence
spectroscopy (SSFS), water contact angle measurements, and time-of-flight
secondary ion mass spectrometry (Figure B and Supplementary Figures 2 and 3).
Figure 1
Dynamic, enzyme cleavable surfaces for MSC growth. (A)
Cartoon
representation of the FMOC and PEG blocked RGD surfaces illustrating
the elastase cleavage site. Plain glass coverslips were modified using
silanization and PEGylation steps followed by solid-phase peptide
synthesis to build up the full structure in a stepwise manner. The
incorporation of a dialanine enzyme cleavable linker facilitates the
removal of the FMOC/PEG blocking group, thereby forming the basis
of the switch. (B) ToF-SIMS image shows a uniform chemical surface
composition on the micron scale and confirms that PEG, FMOC, and amino
acids (shown as the sum of the indicated representative peaks for
each amino acid) are only detected in the analysis where expected;
that is, FMOC only seen on the FMOC-D surface and amino acids was
only noted when the AARGD sequence was present. Color scales represent
ion counts. Images for specific ions are presented on the same scale
for all samples; total ion images are scaled to their individual range.
Note that inset images in the FMOC column are all similarly brightness-enhanced
versions of the main images to show differences more clearly. (C)
MSCs were cultured on plain glass coverslips for 48 h and treated
with different concentrations of elastase ranging from 1.0 to 0.1
mg/mL (4.60 to 0.460 U) in basal cell culture medium. Live/dead stain
for elastase tolerance showed that while cell adhesion was clearly
affected at the higher concentrations, few remaining dead cells were
noted with any elastase concentration (they may have detached). However,
cells incubated with 0.1 mg/mL elastase were indistinguishable from
controls, whereas the positive controls (ethanol addition) indicated
uptake of the ethidium homodimer; thus these cells were dead. (D)
Surface-bound FMOC groups were seen to fluoresce at a wavelength of
315 nm (left-hand spectrum), and piperidine cleavage resulted in a
loss of this signal (middle spectrum). At 0.1 mg/mL, it was seen that
elastase cleaved surface-bound FMOC (right-hand spectrum); n = 3.
Dynamic, enzyme cleavable surfaces for MSC growth. (A)
Cartoon
representation of the FMOC and PEG blocked RGD surfaces illustrating
the elastase cleavage site. Plain glass coverslips were modified using
silanization and PEGylation steps followed by solid-phase peptide
synthesis to build up the full structure in a stepwise manner. The
incorporation of a dialanine enzyme cleavable linker facilitates the
removal of the FMOC/PEG blocking group, thereby forming the basis
of the switch. (B) ToF-SIMS image shows a uniform chemical surface
composition on the micron scale and confirms that PEG, FMOC, and amino
acids (shown as the sum of the indicated representative peaks for
each amino acid) are only detected in the analysis where expected;
that is, FMOC only seen on the FMOC-D surface and amino acids was
only noted when the AARGD sequence was present. Color scales represent
ion counts. Images for specific ions are presented on the same scale
for all samples; total ion images are scaled to their individual range.
Note that inset images in the FMOC column are all similarly brightness-enhanced
versions of the main images to show differences more clearly. (C)
MSCs were cultured on plain glass coverslips for 48 h and treated
with different concentrations of elastase ranging from 1.0 to 0.1
mg/mL (4.60 to 0.460 U) in basal cell culture medium. Live/dead stain
for elastase tolerance showed that while cell adhesion was clearly
affected at the higher concentrations, few remaining dead cells were
noted with any elastase concentration (they may have detached). However,
cells incubated with 0.1 mg/mL elastase were indistinguishable from
controls, whereas the positive controls (ethanol addition) indicated
uptake of the ethidium homodimer; thus these cells were dead. (D)
Surface-bound FMOC groups were seen to fluoresce at a wavelength of
315 nm (left-hand spectrum), and piperidine cleavage resulted in a
loss of this signal (middle spectrum). At 0.1 mg/mL, it was seen that
elastase cleaved surface-bound FMOC (right-hand spectrum); n = 3.In order to activate
the surface in situ, elastase
concentration was optimized so the blocking group could be cleaved
from the surface without affecting cell adhesion/viability. MSC adhesion/viability
was assessed by incubating the cells with different elastase concentrations
(1.0–0.1 mg/mL, 4.60–0.460 U) and using a live/dead
stain. Between 1.0 and 0.4 mg/mL, MSCs were rounded up and detached,
while at 0.2 mg/mL, some live cells remained attached though poorly
spread. At 0.1 mg/mL, cell adhesion/viability was indistinguishable
from controls (Figure C) and no detrimental affects were identified (Supplementary Figure 4). SSFS confirmed that 0.1 mg/mL elastase
could cleave AA and remove FMOC (Figure D). ToF-SIMS was employed to indicate that,
after FMOC cleavage, RGD was still in place (Supplementary Figure 5). Note that cleavage can be controlled as changing
AARGD to phenylalanine (F)ARGD creates a shift from 29 to 50% FMOC
cleavage, respectively (Supplementary Figure 6), and this should allow control of how adhesive the surface is or
even permit sequential RGD% exposure to the cells.For FMOC
blocking groups, uncleaved substrates are referred to
as FMOC-RGD and FMOC-RGE, respectively, and cleaved substrates are
referred to as RGD and RGE. Plain glass, PEG18, RGD, and
RGE controls were also used, and PEG blocked substrates used in later
experiments.
Dynamic Targeting of MSC Adhesions
MSCs were seeded
on plain, PEG18, RGD/E controls, FMOC-RGD/E, and surfaces
pretreated with 0.1 mg/mL elastase to remove the FMOC blocking group
(RGD/E). As expected, poor cell adhesion was observed on PEG18, RGE controls, FMOC-RGD/E, and cleaved RGE substrates. In comparison,
cells seeded on plain, RGD controls, and cleaved RGD surfaces adhered
well; this is in line with hypothesized adhesion results (i.e., high adhesion on plain glass and surfaces with RGD
exposed). Viability assay confirmed that all surfaces supported cell
growth (Supplementary Figures 7 and 8).Seeding density was also optimized and 75, 39, and 7 cells/mm2 tested. All samples were cultured for 7 days with half of
the FMOC-RGD/E substrates cultured as uncleaved (or adhesion “low”)
for 48 h before switching to cleaved (or adhesion “high”)
using elastase (2 days “low” and 5 days “high”).
High cell density (75 cells/mm2) muted the effects of spreading
from the “low” to “high” state, while
lower cell densities (39 and 7 cells/mm2) exhibited markedly
different degrees of cell spreading between these substrates (Supplementary Figures 8–10). This is in
agreement with previous reports illustrating that reduction in cell–cell
signaling is important to amplify cell–material signaling.[12] An amount of 7 cells/mm2 was selected
as optimal because, postcleavage, the MSCs acted as if on RGD control.Adhesion and resultant intracellular tension were further studied
through vinculin (present in cell adhesions) and p-myosin (pSer 19
was chosen as it phosphorylates Rho-associated protein kinase involved
in cytoskeletal contraction[11]) immunofluorescence. After 7 days of culture (2
days “low” and 5 days “high” for cleaved
substrates), adhesions were classified by length[42] as focal complexes (FX, <1 μm), focal adhesions
(FA, 1–5 μm), and supermature adhesions (SMAdh, >5
μm).
Imaging of vinculin and actin cytoskeleton demonstrated poor adhesion
and few stress fibers in cells cultured on PEG18, RGE controls,
FMOC-RGE, cleaved RGE, and FMOC-RGD (low) substrates. In contrast,
increased adhesion numbers and numerous stress fibers were seen in
cells on plain, RGD controls, and cleaved RGD (high) samples (Figure A).
Figure 2
Dynamic control of MSC
adhesion and tension. (A) MSCs cultured
at 7 cells/mm2 were seen to spread to a greater degree
on plain controls, RGD controls, FMOC-RGD (low), and cleaved RGD (high)
surfaces and to a smaller degree on PEG18 and all RGE surfaces,
creating a pronounced cell size difference between the surfaces. As
morphology was altered, adhesion and cytoskeletal arrangement also
changed with RGD controls and cleaved RGD (high) surfaces, supporting
more organized stress fibers and larger adhesions. Red = actin, green
= vinculin, and blue = nuclei. (B) Adhesion subtypes were recorded
as a percentage of the average number of adhesions identified per
cell. The majority of adhesions were focal adhesions (FAs), with focal
complexes (FXs) and supermature adhesions (SMAdhs) making up a much
smaller percentage. As a whole, more FXs were observed per cell on
plain, PEG18, RGE controls, FMOC-RGD (low), and cleaved
RGE substrates, while more SMAdhs were observed on RGD controls and
cleaved RGD (high) surfaces. In line with differences in cell size
and adhesion length, p-myosin expression, as a measure of cytoskeletal
tension, showed the cells were under increased tension on RGD controls
and cleaved RGD (high) surfaces. Error bars are standard error of
the mean; stars indicate significant difference between groups as
determined by one-way ANOVA and Dunn’s post-hoc test, where
*P < 0.5, **P < 0.01, and
***P < 0.001 - § = plain/PEG different to
RGD by P < 0.05; n = 40 cells
per substrate and three material replicates.
Dynamic control of MSC
adhesion and tension. (A) MSCs cultured
at 7 cells/mm2 were seen to spread to a greater degree
on plain controls, RGD controls, FMOC-RGD (low), and cleaved RGD (high)
surfaces and to a smaller degree on PEG18 and all RGE surfaces,
creating a pronounced cell size difference between the surfaces. As
morphology was altered, adhesion and cytoskeletal arrangement also
changed with RGD controls and cleaved RGD (high) surfaces, supporting
more organized stress fibers and larger adhesions. Red = actin, green
= vinculin, and blue = nuclei. (B) Adhesion subtypes were recorded
as a percentage of the average number of adhesions identified per
cell. The majority of adhesions were focal adhesions (FAs), with focal
complexes (FXs) and supermature adhesions (SMAdhs) making up a much
smaller percentage. As a whole, more FXs were observed per cell on
plain, PEG18, RGE controls, FMOC-RGD (low), and cleaved
RGE substrates, while more SMAdhs were observed on RGD controls and
cleaved RGD (high) surfaces. In line with differences in cell size
and adhesion length, p-myosin expression, as a measure of cytoskeletal
tension, showed the cells were under increased tension on RGD controls
and cleaved RGD (high) surfaces. Error bars are standard error of
the mean; stars indicate significant difference between groups as
determined by one-way ANOVA and Dunn’s post-hoc test, where
*P < 0.5, **P < 0.01, and
***P < 0.001 - § = plain/PEG different to
RGD by P < 0.05; n = 40 cells
per substrate and three material replicates.All observations thus fit with the hypothesis that FMOC-RGD
permitted
only cells with a similar adhesion profile to RGE, but as the surfaces
were switched from the “low” to the “high”
mode, larger cell adhesions became established, similar to RGD controls
(Figure B and Supplementary Figure 11).When p-myosin
expression was considered, the cells were observed
to switch from a lower tension phenotype to a higher one when FMOC-RGD
surfaces were enzymatically switched from “low” to “high”.
MSCs cultured on FMOC-RGD surfaces exhibited p-myosin levels only
slightly higher than those of cells cultured on RGE containing substrates,
whereas p-myosin expression for MSCs seeded on cleaved RGD surfaces
was similar to levels expressed by cells cultured on the RGD control
(Figure B). Critically,
in line with nanotopographical studies, the number of SMAdhs and p-myosin
expression was significantly lower on FMOC-RGD substrates than on
glass controls, supporting that MSC growth requires a lower tensional
state than fibroblastic growth.[5,25]To ascertain
if FMOC-RGD substrates do support MSC growth, cell
proliferation was assessed on plain, FMOC-RGD, FMOC-RGE, and RGD and
RGE controls by analyzing bromodeoxyuridine (BrdU) uptake. Similar
numbers of BrdU-positive cells were observed at day 1 of culture,
but by day 4, active proliferation was only significantly increased
on FMOC-RGD (low) (Supplementary Figure 12A). Furthermore, cell counts over 28 days showed cell expansion was
greatest on uncleaved FMOC-RGD (low), in line with MSCs being faster
growing than differentiated cells (Supplementary Figure 12B). Moving into functional analysis, we discounted
all RGE and PEG18 substrates because cell numbers were
considered too low to gather meaningful data.To understand
the first stages of differentiation related to adhesion,
we examined roles for integrins β1 (part of the fibronectin
(FN) receptor) and β5 (can form part of the vitronectin
(VN) receptor and has been identified previously as being important
in MSC osteogenic commitment[43]), the bone
morphogenetic protein 2 (BMP2) receptor BMPR1a, and ezrin (anchors
stress fibers to the cell membrane). After 48 h of culture, elastase
was added to half the cultures to reveal RGD (t0) and then receptor colocalization followed for 48 h. For
MSCs on FMOC-RGD (low) substrates, adhesions were largely punctate
and β1-based, suggesting predominantly FN-receptor-mediated
attachments with negligible BMPR1a colocalization or β5 expression (Figure A,B). However, on cleaved RGD (high) surfaces, MSCs were seen to
express highly colocalized β5 and BMPR1a with elongated
adhesion morphologies (Figure B). These data agree with reports showing that cells bridge
adhesions better using VN receptors, allowing larger adhesions to
form.[44]
Figure 3
Integrin, BMP2 receptor, and cytoskeletal
tethering changes in
MSCs on dynamic surfaces. (A) Integrin β1 and BMPR1a
staining in MSCs cultured on FMOC-RGD (low) at t0 (t0 is after 48 h of culture
immediately before addition of elastase) and then after 24 and 48
h post-elastase treatment (cleaved RGD) or in FMOC-RGD surfaces. β1 was observed to be found in punctate adhesions, with little
BMPR1a colocalization noted (48 h inset). On the cleaved RGD (high)
surfaces, BMPR1a was seen with adhesion morphology but in different
areas to the regions of β1 localization (48 h outset).
(B) Integrin β5 and BMPR1a staining in MSCs on FMOC-RGD
surfaces at t0 (immediately before addition
of elastase) and then at 24 and 48 h post-elastase (cleaved RGD) or
in FMOC-RGD surfaces. On the FMOC-RGD surfaces, little β5 expression and no BMPR1a colocalization were observed. However,
on the cleaved surfaces, strong β5/BMPR1a colocalization
was noted by 24 h (outset images). (C) Actin/ezrin colocalization
could be seen at t0 and on FMOC-RGD. However,
for cleaved RGD samples, ezrin appeared to colocalize with cortical
actin at the cell periphery (arrows). SiRNA knock-down of ezrin resulted
in an increase in pRUNX 2 5 days post-switch. For pRNUX2, in-cell
western analysis, n = 3, results are mean ±
SD, stats by ANOVA and Dunn’s post-hoc test where *P < 0.05.
Integrin, BMP2 receptor, and cytoskeletal
tethering changes in
MSCs on dynamic surfaces. (A) Integrin β1 and BMPR1a
staining in MSCs cultured on FMOC-RGD (low) at t0 (t0 is after 48 h of culture
immediately before addition of elastase) and then after 24 and 48
h post-elastase treatment (cleaved RGD) or in FMOC-RGD surfaces. β1 was observed to be found in punctate adhesions, with little
BMPR1a colocalization noted (48 h inset). On the cleaved RGD (high)
surfaces, BMPR1a was seen with adhesion morphology but in different
areas to the regions of β1 localization (48 h outset).
(B) Integrin β5 and BMPR1a staining in MSCs on FMOC-RGD
surfaces at t0 (immediately before addition
of elastase) and then at 24 and 48 h post-elastase (cleaved RGD) or
in FMOC-RGD surfaces. On the FMOC-RGD surfaces, little β5 expression and no BMPR1a colocalization were observed. However,
on the cleaved surfaces, strong β5/BMPR1a colocalization
was noted by 24 h (outset images). (C) Actin/ezrin colocalization
could be seen at t0 and on FMOC-RGD. However,
for cleaved RGD samples, ezrin appeared to colocalize with cortical
actin at the cell periphery (arrows). SiRNA knock-down of ezrin resulted
in an increase in pRUNX 2 5 days post-switch. For pRNUX2, in-cell
western analysis, n = 3, results are mean ±
SD, stats by ANOVA and Dunn’s post-hoc test where *P < 0.05.For ezrin, MSCs on FMOC-RGD (low) surfaces had close colocalization
of stress fibers and ezrin (Figure C). However, on cleaved RGD (high) surfaces, ezrin
relocated, becoming associated with cortical actin (Figure C). We can postulate that this
allows for stress fiber remodeling required as the MSCs adapt to their
new environments and increase adhesion. Indeed, if ezrin is knocked
down with siRNA, runt-associated transcription factor 2 (RUNX2, an
osteogenic transcription regulator) phosphorylation, hence activation,
increases (Figure C).
Controlling Adhesion Retains MSC Phenotype
Following
from observations of adhesion changes, we need to consider if these
translate into an ability to control phenotype. Thus, phenotypical
analyses of the MSC growth markers STRO-1 and activated leukocyte
cell adhesion molecule (ALCAM) and the osteoblast markers osteopontin
(OPN) and osteocalcin (OCN) were next used in longer-term cultures.
The cells grew to form areas of confluence on glass, RGD controls,
FMOC-RGD (low), and cleaved RGD (high) surfaces as could be seen at
day 7 (2 days “low” and 5 days “high”
for cleaved RGD; Supplementary Figure 13). While MSCs on all surfaces retained expression of STRO-1 and ALCAM,
it appeared that MSCs on the RGD controls and cleaved RGD (high) surfaces
had started to express OPN and OCN. Image analysis for OCN at days
1, 3, and 5, however, showed negligible OCN at days 1 and 3 and a
significant change in osteogenesis only on RGD controls (where cells
had been exposed to RGD longest) at day 5 (Supplementary Figure 14).By day 21 (2 days “low” and
19 days “high” for cleaved RGD), these differences were
clear. On RGD controls and cleaved RGD surfaces, the cells expressed
low levels of STRO-1 and ALCAM and high levels of OPN and OCN (Figure A). Image analysis
of STRO-1 expression at days 7, 14, and 21 illustrated a homogeneous
STRO-1 starting population at day 7 on all materials, with STRO-1
levels then falling with time (Figure B). It is noteworthy that, at day 14, STRO-1 levels
were highest on the cleaved RGD (high) surfaces, possibly reflecting
a lag due to the switch. However, by day 21, as osteogenic markers
were expressed on the cleaved surface, STRO-1 expression was reduced
to 15% of cells comparable to 12.2% in cells on the glass control.
In contrast, on the FMOC-RGD (low) surface, 30.5% of MSCs retained
STRO-1 expression; MSCs could be removed from this surface after 21
day culture and multipotency demonstrated (Supplementary Figure 15).
Figure 4
Analysis of MSC growth and differentiation at days 7 and
21. (A)
Immunofluorescence images of STRO-1 MSCs at day 21. At this time point,
the STRO-1 marker had substantially decreased on all surfaces, remaining
only on plain controls and FMOC-RGD (low) surfaces (outset images).
ALCAM was still easily detectible on the plain controls and FMOC-RGD
but reduced on RGD controls and cleaved RGD (high) surfaces. OPN and
OCN levels were increased on RGD controls and cleaved RGD with respect
to the other surfaces. Red = actin, green = STRO-1/ALCAM/OPN/OCN,
and blue = nuclei; scale bar is 100 μm. (B) Graphs show quantification
of STRO-1 expression at 7, 14, and 21 days of culture. At day 7, almost
all cells on plain controls, FMOC-RGD, and cleaved RGD surfaces expressed
STRO-1. This reduced with time until, at day 21, less that 15% of
cells on plain controls and the cleaved RGD surface retained STRO-1
expression, while double this number, >30%, retained STRO-1 expression
on FMOC-RGD (approximately 100 cells were included in the quantification; n = 2). (C) OCN quantification. Data represent OCN levels
expressed by MSCs cultured on plain glass, RGD controls, FMOC-RGD,
and cleaved RGD surfaces at days 7 and 21 of culture. OCN expression
was observed to increase most on RGD controls and cleaved RGD compared
to the other surfaces. (D) OPN quantification. Data represent OPN
levels expressed by MSCs seeded on plain glass, RGD controls, FMOC-RGD,
and cleaved RGD at days 7 and 21 of culture. OPN expression was observed
to increase most on the RGD controls and cleaved RGD surfaces. Statistics
carried out by one-way ANOVA and Dunn’s post-hoc test, where
*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, and
***P < 0.001, n = 3. Note that
au = arbitrary units.
Analysis of MSC growth and differentiation at days 7 and
21. (A)
Immunofluorescence images of STRO-1 MSCs at day 21. At this time point,
the STRO-1 marker had substantially decreased on all surfaces, remaining
only on plain controls and FMOC-RGD (low) surfaces (outset images).
ALCAM was still easily detectible on the plain controls and FMOC-RGD
but reduced on RGD controls and cleaved RGD (high) surfaces. OPN and
OCN levels were increased on RGD controls and cleaved RGD with respect
to the other surfaces. Red = actin, green = STRO-1/ALCAM/OPN/OCN,
and blue = nuclei; scale bar is 100 μm. (B) Graphs show quantification
of STRO-1 expression at 7, 14, and 21 days of culture. At day 7, almost
all cells on plain controls, FMOC-RGD, and cleaved RGD surfaces expressed
STRO-1. This reduced with time until, at day 21, less that 15% of
cells on plain controls and the cleaved RGD surface retained STRO-1
expression, while double this number, >30%, retained STRO-1 expression
on FMOC-RGD (approximately 100 cells were included in the quantification; n = 2). (C) OCN quantification. Data represent OCN levels
expressed by MSCs cultured on plain glass, RGD controls, FMOC-RGD,
and cleaved RGD surfaces at days 7 and 21 of culture. OCN expression
was observed to increase most on RGD controls and cleaved RGD compared
to the other surfaces. (D) OPN quantification. Data represent OPN
levels expressed by MSCs seeded on plain glass, RGD controls, FMOC-RGD,
and cleaved RGD at days 7 and 21 of culture. OPN expression was observed
to increase most on the RGD controls and cleaved RGD surfaces. Statistics
carried out by one-way ANOVA and Dunn’s post-hoc test, where
*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, and
***P < 0.001, n = 3. Note that
au = arbitrary units.Quantification of OPN and OCN at 21 days of culture indicated
that
FMOC-RGD (low) and plain controls had low levels of bone marker expression,
wheras significantly elevated levels were observed on the RGD control
and cleaved RGD surface (Figure C,D). In addition, we checked for the expression of
chondrogenic (collagen II) and adipogenic (fatty acid binding protein,
FABP) markers. We observed negligible evidence for significant expression
of either chondrogenesis or adipogenesis (Supplementary Figure 16), illustrating that targeted differentiation toward
a high-tension phenotype, osteogenesis, was achieved on the RGD-exposed
surfaces. Osteogenesis for MSCs on the RGD control and cleaved RGD
(high) surfaces was confirmed at 28 days (Supplementary Figure 17).
Adhesion/Phenotype Changes Are Reflected
in MSC Metabolic Activity
To support phenotypical data, metabolomic
analysis was carried
out to gain a deeper understanding of MSC metabolism during in situ activation as it has been previously shown that
the stem cell metabolome becomes activated upon differentiation.[5,25,45,46] Untargeted mass spectrometry analysis of metabolites from MSCs cultured
on FMOC-RGD (low) at 2 and 4 days versus MSCs on
plain controls at similar time points showed only a slight metabolomic
change between both time points (Figure A,B). However, when FMOC was then cleaved
from the surface on day 2 to reveal the RGD ligand (high) and cultured
for a further 2 days, changes became highly significant; that is,
metabolome activation was observed (Figure C). When the culture time was expanded to
7 days (2 days “low” and 5 days “high”
for cleaved RGD), metabolic differences increased. Principle component
analysis showed that the FMOC-RGD (low) metabolome was more homogeneous
than for MSCs on the plain control or cleaved RGD (high) surfaces,
where heterogeneous metabolomic profiles were identified (Figure D). It has also been
proposed that self-renewing embryonic stem cell[45] and MSC[5] populations pool unsaturated
metabolites to allow for redox plasticity; this trend is seen in the
lipid metabolites in this current study (Figure E).
Figure 5
Metabolite analysis of MSCs on dynamic surfaces.
(A–C) Putative
metabolites were analyzed using MetaboAnalyst 2.0, and the data were
displayed as volcano plots relative to D2-plain (plain control at
day 2). The y-axis refers to the p value (determined by two-tailed t test), with the x-axis intercept set at P = 0.05 so that
all data points above the x-axis represent metabolites
that were significantly different from controls. The x-axis represents fold change as a measure of the magnitude in difference
between samples and the control. Data points to the left of the y-axis are metabolites down-regulated with respect to controls,
and data points on the right of the y-axis were up-regulated
(n = 3). (D) At 7 days (2 days “low”
and 5 days “high” for cleaved RGD), principle component
analysis showed very clear metabolomic differences with MSCs on the
FMOC-RGD (low) surface having a highly homogeneous metabolome, more
so than on the controls, and the cleaved RGD (high) surfaces having
a far more heterogeneous metabolome (n = 3). (E)
Heatmap of putatively detected unsaturated lipids after 7 days culture
showing up-regulation in MSCs on the FMOC-RGD surface and down-regulation
in MSCs on the cleaved RGD surface (n = 3). (F,G)
Ingenuity functional pathway analysis illustrating more significantly
altered functional pathways in MSCs on the cleaved RGD surface (F)
compared to those on FMOC-RGD surfaces (G). Functions include carbohydrate,
small molecule, nucleic acid, lipid and vitamin metabolism, cell growth
and proliferation, and skeletal development pathways (statistics by
Fischer’s exact test, P < 0.05 represented
by bars higher than the threshold arrow, n = 3).
Metabolite analysis of MSCs on dynamic surfaces.
(A–C) Putative
metabolites were analyzed using MetaboAnalyst 2.0, and the data were
displayed as volcano plots relative to D2-plain (plain control at
day 2). The y-axis refers to the p value (determined by two-tailed t test), with the x-axis intercept set at P = 0.05 so that
all data points above the x-axis represent metabolites
that were significantly different from controls. The x-axis represents fold change as a measure of the magnitude in difference
between samples and the control. Data points to the left of the y-axis are metabolites down-regulated with respect to controls,
and data points on the right of the y-axis were up-regulated
(n = 3). (D) At 7 days (2 days “low”
and 5 days “high” for cleaved RGD), principle component
analysis showed very clear metabolomic differences with MSCs on the
FMOC-RGD (low) surface having a highly homogeneous metabolome, more
so than on the controls, and the cleaved RGD (high) surfaces having
a far more heterogeneous metabolome (n = 3). (E)
Heatmap of putatively detected unsaturated lipids after 7 days culture
showing up-regulation in MSCs on the FMOC-RGD surface and down-regulation
in MSCs on the cleaved RGD surface (n = 3). (F,G)
Ingenuity functional pathway analysis illustrating more significantly
altered functional pathways in MSCs on the cleaved RGD surface (F)
compared to those on FMOC-RGD surfaces (G). Functions include carbohydrate,
small molecule, nucleic acid, lipid and vitamin metabolism, cell growth
and proliferation, and skeletal development pathways (statistics by
Fischer’s exact test, P < 0.05 represented
by bars higher than the threshold arrow, n = 3).Ingenuity pathway analysis allowed
us to observe that fewer metabolic
pathways were differentially regulated with less significance in MSCs
on the FMOC-RGD (low) surface compared to that on the cleaved RGD
(high) surface (Figure F,G). These include pathways involved in energy (energy production,
lipid and carbohydrate metabolism), growth (cell proliferation and
nucleic acid metabolism), protein (post-translational modification
and cellular development), and skeletal development. Furthermore,
most highly modulated networks for MSCs on FMOC-RGD (low) illustrated
metabolic regulation linked to cell growth control. When similar networks
were considered for cells on cleaved RGD (high), metabolic regulation
appeared less significant (Supplementary Figures 18 and 19).
Long-Term MSC Growth Control
Next,
we wanted to examine
if our “low” maintenance state could work for prolonged
cultured before switching to “high”, thus further demonstrating
that adhesion was responsible for growth/osteogenesis. Thus, we cultured
the MSCs for 2 weeks rather than 2 days before adding elastase and
then allowed the cells to grow a further 2 weeks before staining for
STRO-1. With the longer time to trigger, loss of STRO-1 on the cleaved
RGD surface (high) was not seen, suggesting retention of multipotency
rather than differentiation (Supplementary Figure 20). Working on the hypothesis that the FMOC group becomes
coated in ECM proteins reducing elastase efficiency, we substituted
the FMOC blocking group for PEG to reduce protein adsorption.As with FMOC-RGD, MSCs were seen to expand on PEG-RGD and retain
STRO-1 expression, which was reduced on plain controls (Figure A,B). However, unlike with
FMOC, switching from PEG-RGD to its corresponding cleaved counterpart
resulted in focal adhesion elongation and reduction in STRO-1, demonstrating
that stimulus-initiated cell differentiation with elastase could be
achieved with longer culture (Figure A,B). Metabolomic analysis after 7 days culture (2
days “low” then 5 days “high” for cleaved
RGD) again showed that the inactive RGD surface (PEG-RGD) had the
most homogeneous metabolome, while cleaved RGD surfaces had a more
heterogeneous metabolome indicative of a change from MSCs to differentiating
phenotype (Figure C).
Figure 6
Analysis of MSC adhesion and differentiation on PEG blocked surfaces.
(A) Immunofluorescence images of vinculin in adhesions at day 5 and
STRO-1 at day 21 of culture. On the PEG-RGD (low) substrates, MSCs
were observed to have smaller adhesions and increased expression of
the STRO-1 MSC marker (arrows) compared to MSCs seeded on RGD cleaved
surfaces (high) where, again, larger adhesions and loss of STRO-1
expression was observed. Red = actin, green = vinculin or STRO-1,
and blue = nucleus. (B) Image analysis after 21 days of culture confirmed
these results, demonstrating that more MSCs retained STRO-1 expression
on PEG-RGD than cells on plain controls and cleaved RGD surfaces which
typically lose STRO-1 much faster (results are mean ± SD, statistics
by ANOVA, *P < 0.05). (C) Principle component
analysis from metabolomics data illustrates most data homogeneity
on PEG-RGD surfaces and most heterogeneity on the cleaved RGD surface
as with the FMOC blocked samples (n = 3).
Analysis of MSC adhesion and differentiation on PEG blocked surfaces.
(A) Immunofluorescence images of vinculin in adhesions at day 5 and
STRO-1 at day 21 of culture. On the PEG-RGD (low) substrates, MSCs
were observed to have smaller adhesions and increased expression of
the STRO-1 MSC marker (arrows) compared to MSCs seeded on RGD cleaved
surfaces (high) where, again, larger adhesions and loss of STRO-1
expression was observed. Red = actin, green = vinculin or STRO-1,
and blue = nucleus. (B) Image analysis after 21 days of culture confirmed
these results, demonstrating that more MSCs retained STRO-1 expression
on PEG-RGD than cells on plain controls and cleaved RGD surfaces which
typically lose STRO-1 much faster (results are mean ± SD, statistics
by ANOVA, *P < 0.05). (C) Principle component
analysis from metabolomics data illustrates most data homogeneity
on PEG-RGD surfaces and most heterogeneity on the cleaved RGD surface
as with the FMOC blocked samples (n = 3).
Summary and Conclusions
This report
provides evidence that the MSC adhesion “footprint”
permits control of MSC growth and targeted differentiation. Using
enzyme cleavable surfaces, it is shown that increasing adhesion causes
lineage commitment. This report addresses a major research focus of
MSC biology—how do they regulate multipotency. MSCs are shown
to walk an extremely fine line between controlled growth with multipotency
and spontaneous fibroblast differentiation. We propose from our data
that a small reduction in adhesion by controlling the integrin subunit
use prevents metabolome activation with associated energy demand required
for differentiation; a larger reduction in adhesion and tension would
result in adipogenesis.[11,17] On the same surface,
we demonstrate that a switch from FN to VN receptor facilitates both
adhesion and BMP signaling to switch from stem cell growth to osteogenic
commitment through increased levels of intracellular tension. We note
that our analysis relies largely on binning adhesion length and that
analysis in X, Y, and Z may yield further information.[47,48] However, we
show that length gives an effective, easy to use, differentiation
between MSC states of self-renewal and osteogenesis. Further, we postulate,
from ezrin observations, that potential cytoskeleton decoupling from
the membrane during changes in adhesion dynamics can accelerate the
commitment to differentiation.We illustrate that we can refine
our protocols by switching from
FMOC to PEG to create a surface that is both amenable to longer-term
dynamic culture and is made from all biocompatible building blocks.
This, and the ability to control degree of cleavage by switching peptide
sequence (Supplementary Figure 6), is a
clear advantage of our surfaces.We present a dynamic surface
that clearly shows that the adhesion/tension
balance relationship between a fibroblast (the “lab weed”)
and MSCs (a stem cell with major regenerative potential) is small.
It is thus exciting that materials can be designed to enhance MSC
growth and to study lineage commitment in a dynamic manner.
Materials and Methods
Unless
otherwise stated, reagents are from Sigma, UK. Raw data
can be found at doi.org/10.5525/gla.researchdata.324.
Surface
Modification
Substrates were synthesized as
previously described[40] using FMOC protected l-amino acids. Glass coverslips were sonicated in acetone, ethanol,
methanol, and then deionized water (20 min each). Afterward, coverslips
were cleaned for 1 h using a 3:7 piranha solution of 30% hydrogen
peroxide and concentrated sulfuric acid to remove organic contaminants
and then individually washed in copious amounts of deionized water,
dried under nitrogen, and left at 75 °C overnight. Once dry,
surfaces were functionalized with amine groups as per Piehler et al.,[49] to facilitate direct
attachment of amino acids during SPPS. To achieve this, surfaces were
silanized using (3-glycidyloxypropyl)trimethoxysilane at 37 °C
for 1 h and washed with acetone and dried under nitrogen. A diamine-functionalized
polyethylene glycol powder (O,O′-bis(2-aminoethyl)octadecaethylene
glycol, PEG; CAS no. 892154-56-2) was melted onto the surfaces at
75 °C for 48 h to attach the PEG linker through reaction of the
epoxy groups on the surface, with the amine groups on the PEG. Surfaces
were cleaned in deionized water to wash off the unbound PEG and then
dried under nitrogen.To build up the peptide chain using SPPS,
a three-step procedure was applied. In step 1, the first FMOC-protected
amino acid (0.2 mmol) was coupled to the PEG monolayer in a solution
of ethyl(hydroxyimino)cyanoacetate (0.4 mmol) and N,N′-diisopropylcarbodiimide (0.4 mmol) per
10 mL of anhydrous N,N-dimethylformamide
(DMF). Samples were submerged in solution for 2 h and gently agitated
on an orbital shaker to allow continued mixing of reagents and removal
of byproducts from the sample surface. After this time, samples were
rinsed in DMF, ethanol, methanol, and DMF (5 min each using agitation).
A fresh reaction solution containing the same amino acid was prepared
and added to samples, which were then left overnight under the same
conditions described above. Washing stages using DMF, ethanol, methanol,
and DMF were previously outlined.For the second step, FMOC
groups were removed (deprotected) using
piperidine (20% in DMF) for 2 h under agitation, followed by washing
steps. Subsequent additions of FMOC-protected amino acids were carried
out repeating steps 1 and 2 until the desired peptide sequence was
obtained. The terminating FMOC groups were left in place. The final
step (step 3) was to remove side-chain protecting groups on aspartic
acid and glutamic acid residues (O-tert-butyl; OtBu) and arginine (pentamethyldihydrobenzofuran-5-sulfonyl;
Pbf) with a 90% solution of aqueous trifluoroacetic acid for 4 h.
Samples were washed and dried and then stored under vacuum in a desiccator
or used straight away. For surfaces terminating in a PEG blocking
group (i.e., PEG-AARGD−), the peptide chain
was built up as per the method for FMOC surfaces with an additional
step to remove the terminating FMOC with piperidine. PEG (O-methyl-O′-succinyl polyethylene
glycol 2000, CAS no. 31961-02-1) was then added to the terminal amino
acid prior to the side-chain protecting groups being removed.FMOC and PEG blocking groups were removed in situ by enzymatic cleavage using porcine pancreatic elastase (Worthington
Biochemical), which was reconstituted in basic culture media and filtered
through 0.22 μm. Throughout this work, the same bottle was used
and certified as having an enzymatic activity of 4.61 units/mg, where
1 unit (U) converts 1 μmol of N-succinyltrialynyl-p-nitroanilide per minute at 25 °C.
Stepwise Monitoring
of Solid-Phase Peptide Synthesis
Water Contact Angle
Water contact angle was carried
out using the sessile drop technique with a KSV CAM 100 contact angle
goniometer (KSV Instruments, USA). High contrast images of static
water droplets were recorded, and CAM 100 software was used to apply
a circular fit to the droplet outline to determine contact angles
across a series of measurements. A total of three droplets were recorded
per surface (25 frames per droplet) and three of each surface used.
Averages were pooled for the main data.
Solid-State Fluorescence
Spectroscopy
After each coupling
and deprotection stage, samples were taken from the bulk batch after
the methanol washing stage and rinsed in distilled water, followed
by drying under nitrogen. Samples were analyzed using fluorescence
spectroscopy to confirm the attachment of the FMOC-protected amino
acids and removal of the FMOC group during coupling and deprotection
stages. This technique is as described in literature by Zelzer et al.,[50] taking advantage of
the fluorescent properties of the FMOC group. Fluorescence spectra
were measured at room temperature using a JASCO FP-6500 spectrophotometer
(JASCO, JPN) with spectra manager software. Samples were attached
to a glass microscope slide inserted into a custom-made rotatable
holder within the spectrophotometer chamber. Samples were orientated
at 30° to the incident light to limit the amount of reflected
excitation light hitting the detector. Excitation of the surface-tethered
FMOC groups was carried out using an excitation wavelength of 270
nm with a slit width of 20 nm. Three spectra were recorded at each
stage of synthesis using three different samples.
Cell Culture
STRO-1
Selected MSCs
Skeletal STRO-1+ MSCs
were derived from bone marrow obtained from hematologically normal
patients undergoing routine total hip replacement surgery with the
approval of Southampton General Hospital Ethics Committee; only tissue
that is normally discarded was used. Cells were aspirated from trabecular
bone marrow samples and centrifuged at 250g for 4
min at 4 °C. The cell pellet was resuspended in α-MEM and
passed through a 70 μm pore nylon mesh (BD Biosciences). Red
blood cells were removed by centrifugation with lymphoprep gradient
solution (Robbins Scientific) and the remaining cells in the buffy
layer resuspended in 10 mL of blocking solution (4-(2-hydroxyethyl)-1-piperazine
ethanesulfonic acid, HEPES) saline solution with 5% v/v fetal calf
serum, 5% v/v human serum, and 1% w/v bovine serum albumin (BSA).
Afterward, the cells were incubated with a STRO-1 antibody in hybridoma
supernatant (hybridoma courtesy of Dr. Beresford, University of Bath)
and flushed with magnetic cell separation buffer (Miltenyi Biotec)
to remove any excess antibody. The cells were incubated with human
anti-IgM magnetic microbeads (Miltenyi Biotec, UK) and added to a
magnetic column; the eluent was collected as the STRO-1– fraction. After being washed with MACs buffer without the magnetic
field, the eluted cell population was collected as the STRO-1+ fraction. Skeletal MSCs purchased from Promocell were used
for metabolomics experiments.
MSC Maintenance and Experiment
Preparation
MSCs were
maintained at 37 °C and 5% CO2 in α-MEM (PAA
Laboratories) supplemented with 10% v/v fetal bovine serum (FBS) and
2% v/v antibiotic mix (60% v/v l-glutamine, 35% v/v penicillin–streptomysin,
and 5% v/v ampotericin B). For all experiments, cells were rinsed
in HEPES saline solution (150 mM NaCl, 5 mM KCl, 5 mM glucose, 10
mM HEPES, and 0.5% v/v phenol red indicator adjusted to pH 7.5), followed
by 4 mL of trypsin–versene solution (0.5% v/v trypsin and versene:
150 mM NaCl, 5 mM KCl, 5 mM glucose, 10 mM HEPES, 1 mM ethylenediaminetetraacetic
acid, and 0.5% v/v phenol red indicator adjusted to pH 7.5) until
cells were detached from the tissue culture flask. Detached cells
were transferred to a sterile falcon tube and centrifuged at 376g for 4 min. The supernatant was discarded and the cell
pellet resuspended in 5 mL of fresh α-MEMs. Cell numbers were
counted using a Neubaur hemocytometer and seeded as per experimental
setup. Prior to use, substrates were sterilized with 70% ethanol (3
× 5 min) and then washed with HEPES saline solution and basal
α-MEM.
Coomassie Blue Staining
To assess
cell adhesion, MSCs
were fixed 10% v/v formaldehyde/PBS for 15 min at 37 °C and then
stained with coomassie blue protein dye (0.5% w/v coomassie brilliant
blue R-250 dissolved in 4:1 methanol/acetic acid and filtered with
Whatman filter paper) for 15 min at room temperature. Excess stain
was removed by washing samples with water until areas around the cells
were clear. Images were taken using a Zeiss Axiovert inverted light
microscope at 10× magnification (0.25 NA) with a Qimaging digital
CCD camera (Qimaging, Canada) and Qcapture software; n = 3.
Elastase Tolerance
For elastase tolerance, MSCs were
seeded onto plain glass coverslips and left to adhere for 48 h. Porcine
pancreatic elastase was dissolved in α-MEMs at 37 °C as
a stock solution and then filter sterilized through a 0.22 μm
syringe filter. The stock solution was diluted across a concentration
range of 1.0–0.1 mg/mL (4.61–0.461 units) and added
to samples in place of α-MEMs (controls were maintained in basic
α-MEMs). MSCs were incubated for a further 24 h and examined
for detachment using a Zeiss Axiovert inverted light microscope at
10× magnification (0.25 NA) with a Qimaging digital CCD camera
(Qimaging, Canada) and Qcapture software; n = 3.
Live/Dead Staining
For live/dead staining during elastase
tolerance, cells were seeded onto plain glass coverslips as described
in Elastase Tolerance section and cultured
for 24 h in α-MEM, followed by a further 24 h of culture in
medium containing the titrated concentrations of elastase (4.61–0.461
units and controls). Additional “dead” control cells
were cultured in the absence of elastase, and 70% ethanol was added
to kill the cells prior to staining. Culture medium was removed, and
cells were washed twice in warm phosphate-buffered saline (PBS), which
was then replaced with live/dead assay reagents (2 μM calcein
AM and 4 μM ethidium homodimer-1 in PBS) and incubated at room
temperature until color development occurred (approximately 15 min
in the dark). The stain was removed, and the cells were rinsed twice
in warm PBS and imaged using a Zeiss Axiovert fluorescence microscope.For live/dead staining of cells cultured on the panel of surfaces,
cells were cultured on plain controls, PEG18, RGD, and
RGE controls, FMOC-RGD, and FMOC-RGE (see Supplementary Figure 2 for corresponding peptide sequences) for 24 h in α-MEM.
Dead control cells were prepared by adding 70% ethanol to cells cultured
on plain coverslips after 24 h. The cells were stained and imaged
as described above.
Proliferation Assay
Cells were cultured
on plain glass
coverslips, plain controls, PEG18, RGD, and RGE controls,
FMOC-RGD, and FMOC-RGE substrates in α-MEM and pulse-labeled
with 10 μM 5-bromo-2-deoxyuridine (BrdU) for 4 h prior to fixation
for 1 day and 4 day time points. BrdU-positive MSCs were visualized
as described in Immunocytochemistry.
Phenotype Characterization Pre- and Post-trigger
Cells
were seeded onto plain glass coverslips, RGD controls, and FMOC-RGD
surfaces and cultured in standard α-MEM (see MSC Maintenance and Experiment Preparation for culture media
composition). To cleave the FMOC blocking group, the culture medium
was replaced with medium containing 0.1 mg/mL elastase for 2 days
and then replaced with standard α-MEM for the remaining length
of the culture. The cells were cultured for a total of 2 weeks.
Induction Medium Experiment
Cells were cultured for
2 weeks on plain controls and FMOC-RGD surfaces in standard α-MEM.
After this time, samples were divided into three groups: control groups
cultured in standard α-MEM, osteogenic cultures incubated with
osteogenic induction media (350 μM ascorbate-2-phosphate, 0.1
μM dexamethasone in DMEM with 10% FBS), and adipogenic cultures
that were alternated between adipogenic induction media (1 μM
dexamethasone, 1.7 nM insulin, 200 μM indomethacin, 500 μM
isobutylmethylxanthine in DMEM with 10% FBS, l-glutamine
and antibiotics) and maintenance medium (1.7 nM insulin in DMEM with
10% FBS, 200 mM l-glutamine and antibiotics). The three groups
were cultured for 4 weeks before fixation; n = 3
replicates of each surface per group.
Cell Population Marker
Analysis
Cells were seeded onto
plain controls, RGD controls, and FMOC-RGD substrates. Half of the
FMOC-RGD surfaces were cleaved by replacing the culture medium with
medium containing 0.1 mg/mL elastase after 2 days of culture. Cells
were fixed after 24 h, 3 days, and 5 days of culture as per the method
described in Immunocytochemistry.
Immunocytochemistry
Samples were washed with PBS and
fixed with 10% v/v formaldehyde/PBS for 15 min at 37 °C. Cells
were permeabilized at 4 °C for 5 min (30 mM sucrose, 50 mM NaCl,
3 mM MgCl2·6H2O, 20 mM HEPES, and 0.5%
v/v Triton X-100 in PBS adjusted to pH 7.2), and nonspecific binding
epitopes were blocked with 1% w/v BSA/PBS for 15 min at 37 °C
(this step was omitted for anti-BrdU staining). Primary antibodies
were made up in PBS/BSA with rhodamine–phalloidin (1:500; Molecular
Probes) with eitherMouse monoclonal antivinculin IgG (1:150;
Sigma) for adhesion analysis.Mouse monoclonal anti-phosphomyosin
IgG (1:200; Cell Signaling Technology) for phosphomyosin studies.Mouse monoclonal anti-STRO-1/OPN/OCN
IgG (1:50; Insight Biotechnology) or rabbit polyclonal anti-ALCAM
IgG (1:50; Epitomics) for phenotype analysis and cell population marker
analysis.Mouse monoclonal
anti-BrdU (clone BU-1,
1:100 in nuclease solution, prepared according to the manufacturer’s
instructions in kit RPN202; GE Healthcare) for proliferation studies.
Rhodamine–phalloidin was added with the secondary rather than
the primary antibody.Rabbit polyclonal anti-fatty acid binding
protein (FABP; 1:50; Abcam) or rabbit polyclonal anti-collagen II
(COL2A, 1:50; Insight Bio) for cell phenotype pre- and post-trigger.
Rhodamine–phalloidin was added with the secondary antibody
for collagen II.Rabbit
polyclonal anti-RUNX2 (1:50;
Insight Bio) or mouse monoclonal anti-vimentin (1:50; Sigma) for elastase
experiments.Rabbit
polyclonal anti-ezrin/radixin/moesin
(Cell Signaling Technology; 1:50) for ezrin expression.Samples were incubated for 1 h (1.5 h for anti-BrdU)
at 37 °C, after which time they were washed in 0.5% v/v Tween
20/PBS (PBST, 3 × 5 min under gentle agitation) to minimize background
labeling. Horse biotinylated anti-mouse IgG (1:50; Vector Laboratories)
or horse biotinylated anti-rabbit IgG (Vector Laboratories) BSA/PBS
was added to samples and incubated for 1 h at 37 °C. After the
washing stages, samples were incubated for 30 min at 4 °C with
fluorescein isothiocyanate streptavidin (FITC; 1:50; Vector Laboratories)
in BSA/PBS followed by a final washing stage. Coverslips were placed
on glass slides in 4′6-diamidino-2-phenylindole mountant (Vector
Laboratories).Cells imaged for adhesions analysis were visualized
using a Zeiss
Axiophot fluorescence microscope at 20× magnification (0.40 NA).
Images were captured using an Evolution QEi digital monochromatic
CCD camera (Media Cybernetics, USA) with Qcapture imaging software.
Cells imaged for phosphomyosin and phenotype analysis were imaged
with a Zeiss Axiovert fluorescence microscope at 20× magnification
(0.50 NA) and studies at 40× (0.40 NA). Axiovert images were
taken using an Evolution QEi digital monochromatic CCD camera (Media
Cybernetics, USA) with ImagePro software.
Double Immunostaining for
Colocalization Studies
Cells
seeded on FMOC-RGD substrates were cultured for 2 days. After this
time, control cells were cultured in standard culture media while
test samples were incubated with 0.1 mg/mL elastase for 24 and 48
h. Colocalization of BMPR1A with the integrins β1 and β5
was performed using immunocytochemistry in the previous section. After
fixation, samples were incubated with a primary antibody cocktail
consisting of rabbit polyclonal anti-BMPR1A (Thermo Scientific; 1:50),
mouse monoclonal anti-integrin β1 (Thermo Scientific; 1:50),
and mouse anti-integrin αvβ5 (R&D system, 1:50) in
1% of BSA/PBS. Secondary antibodies were Texas red anti-mouse (Vector
Laboratories; 1:50) for integrin β1 and β5 and biotinylated
anti-rabbit (Vector laboratories) conjugated with FITC for BMPR1A.Cells imaged for colocalization of BMPR1A with integrin β1
and β5 were visualized using a Zeiss Axiophot fluorescence microscope
at 40× magnification (0.75 NA). Images were captured using an
Evolution QEi digital monochromatic CCD camera (Media Cybernetics,
USA) with Qcapture imaging software.
RNA Interference
RNA interference was performed using
nontargeting siRNA (cat no. D001810-01-05) and human ezrin–siRNA
(cat no. L-017370-00) purchased from GE Healthcare. Transfections
were carried out using DharmaFECT Transfection Reagents (GE Healthcare)
according to the manufacturer’s instructions.
In Cell
Western
Cells on substrates were washed with
PBS and fixed with 10% v/v formaldehyde/PBS for 15 min at 37 °C.
Cells were permeabilized using precooled methanol at 4 °C for
10 min, and nonspecific binding epitopes were blocked with 1% milk
protein in 0.1% Tween 20/PBS (PBST) for 1 h at room temperature. Cells
were then washed three times (3 × 5 min) with 0.1% PBST. Primary
antibodies diluted in 1% milk/PBST containing cell tag 700CW stain
(1:500; LI-COR, cat no. 926-41090) with eitherRabbit polyclonal anti-ezrin/radixin/moesin
(Cell Signaling Technology; 1:50) for ezrin knock-down efficiency
measurement.Rabbit
polyclonal RUNX2 (Santa Cruz;
1:50) expression in ezrin knock-down cells.Rabbit polyclonal phospho-RUNX2 pSer465
(Thermo Scientific; 1:50) for phospho-UNX2 expression in ezrin knock-down
cells.Cells with primary antibodies
were incubated at room
temperature for 1 h and then washed with 0.1% PBST three times. After
being washed, cells with secondary antibody—either IRDye 800CW,
goat anti-mouse (LI-COR, cat no. 926-32210), or donkey anti-rabbit
(LI-COR, cat no. 926-32213) diluted in 1% milk/PBST at 1:1000 were
incubated at room temperature for 1 h or at 4 °C for overnight.
After the washing stage, cells were subjected to a LI-COR Odyssey
Sa (0157) scanner. The protein of interest was scanned at channel
800 and CellTag at channel 700 (scan parameters: focus offset = 2.0
mm, scan resolution = 100 μm, intensity = 12). Data were collected
in integrated intensity (IntegInten) and analyzed by one-way analysis
of variance (ANOVA) and Dunn’s post-hoc test applied where
significance was determined as P < 0.05.
Image
Analysis
Fluorescence microscopy images were
exported to Adobe Photoshop for the purpose of labeling and superimposing
color channels. For size analysis, actin images were exported to ImageJ
(http://rsbweb.nih.gov/ij/download.html) to calculate cell
area using the threshold tool. For adhesion analysis, vinculin images
were exported to Adobe Photoshop, and each individual adhesion was
traced with a 1 pixel width line to create an adhesion mask superimposed
over the background image. ImageJ was then used to determine total
adhesion numbers and length; individual subtypes were plotted as a
percentage of the overall number of adhesions recorded. For the proliferation
analysis, the percentage of BrdU-positive cells was quantified for
at least 150 cells per sample type and normalized to determine the
percentage change relative to the glass controls. Analysis of the
maintenance of STRO-1+ expression of staining over time
was performed by allocating cells into categories (at least 50 cells
per surface type), indicating the features of the staining.In order to determine phosphomyosin expression, or STRO-1+ expression for cell population analysis (at least 50 cells per sample
type), grayscale images were exported into ImageJ and individual cells
were selected with the polygon tool. Using the method described in
Burgess et al.,[51,52] phosphomyosin
expression was calculated using integrated density (ID) values where
ID = (area × mean gray value). Calculations were then corrected
for background fluorescence using the formula ID – (cell area
× ID of background fluorescence). In order to quantify the expression
of phenotypic markers, fluorescence images were exported to ImageJ
and highlighted with the threshold tool. Integrated density values
(area × mean gray value) were recorded, and these values were
divided by the number of nuclei to average fluorescence across the
number of cells in the same field of view. As the background fluorescence
could not be recorded because of cell confluency, only images taken
at similar exposure levels were used.Data were analyzed by
ANOVA and Dunn’s post-hoc test applied
or t-tests to identify any significant differences
between the groups, where significance was determined as P < 0.5.
MTT Assay
After 5 days, 100 μL
of 5 mg/mL MTT
(methylthiazolyldiphenyl tetrazolium bromide) solution in complete
cell culture media was added to the cells for 2 h. After this time,
the medium was removed and replaced with DMSO for 5 min. Liquid from
each well was then analyzed at 570 nm (background set to 670 nm) and
optical density reported.
Metabolomics
For metabolomic analysis,
substrates were
removed from the well plates and transferred to new sterile plates
so that only cells that were attached to the substrates were used
in the analysis. Substrates were washed once with warmed PBS, and
then 0.5 mL of ice-cold extraction solvent (chloroform/methanol/water
at 1:3:1 v/v) was added to the wells. Plates were sealed with parafilm
to minimize evaporation and placed on a rotary shaker for 1 h at 4
°C. After this time, the extraction solvent was transferred to
sterile 0.5 mL Eppendorf tubes and centrifuged at 13 000g for 5 min to remove cell debris. The supernatant was transferred
to LC vials; otherwise, samples were stored at −80 °C
in Eppendorf tubes until use. For elastase studies, all samples were
processed in-well with 150 μL of extraction solvent added to
each well. Samples were then processed as above.All samples
were diluted 1 in 2 with acetonitrile prior to being aspirated to
HPLC vials; an additional 5 μL of each sample was combined into
a single aliquot to be used as a quality control sample. This pooled
sample was injected several times throughout the duration of each
run in order to monitor metabolite quality and sample degradation.
Three standards containing a number of known metabolites were also
run alongside unknown samples for the purpose of identifying all other
metabolites. Chromatographic separation of metabolites was performed
using an UltiMate 3000 RS-LC (Thermo Fisher) with a zwitterionic hydrophilic
interaction liquid chromatography (ZIC-HILIC) column (C18 150 ×
4.6 mm; Merck Sequant) as the stationary phase, 1% v/v formic acid
in acetonitrile as the organic mobile phase, and 1% v/v aqueous formic
acid as the aqueous mobile phase. The mobile phase was run as a gradient
over 46 min (Table ). Injection volumes were 10 μL, and a ZIC-HILIC C8 20 ×
2.0 guard column was used to protect the main column from impurities;
chromatography columns were maintained at 25 °C.
Table 1
LC–MS Mobile Phase Parametersa
time (min)
aqueous (%)
organic (%)
flow rate (mL/min)
gradient
curve
0
20
80
0.3
1
30
20
80
0.3
6
32
80
20
0.3
6
40
95
5
0.3
6
42
95
5
0.3
6
Chromatographic
separation of
metabolites was carried out using an organic (1% v/v formic acid in
acetonitrile)/aqueous (1% v/v aqueous formic acid) mobile phase run
over a period of 46 min. Table data show the percentage of each mobile
phase at particular time points, flow rate, and gradient curve conditions.
Chromatographic
separation of
metabolites was carried out using an organic (1% v/v formic acid in
acetonitrile)/aqueous (1% v/v aqueous formic acid) mobile phase run
over a period of 46 min. Table data show the percentage of each mobile
phase at particular time points, flow rate, and gradient curve conditions.MS was performed using an Orbitrap
Exactive accurate mass mass
spectrometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific). Scans were conducted at a
mass resolution of 50 000 in both positive and negative ion
modes across a range of 70–1400 m/z. Prior to data acquisition, mass calibration was performed
in positive and negative modes using a calibration mix containing
a number of compounds with known masses across the acquisition range.
Data conversion, chromatographic peak selection, and metabolite identification
were carried out using the IDEOM/MzMatch Excel interface,[53,54] and chromatographic peak intensities (peak area under the curve)
were normalized against calculated protein content. Known standards
were used to define both mass and retention times of analytes. Putative
metabolites were also identified on this basis using predicted retention
times as described in Creek et al.(55) MetaboAnalyst[56] and Ingenuity
pathway analysis were used to generate illustrations.
Time-of-Flight
Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry (ToF-SIMS)
ToF-SIMS analysis
was carried out with a ToF-SIMS IV time-of-flight
instrument (ION-ToF GmbH). Secondary ions were generated using a primary
ion beam from a 25 kV Bi3+ liquid metal ion
source with a 1 pA pulsed target current. The primary ion dose was
kept below the static limit (less than 2.45 × 1012 ions/cm2). Built-up surface charge was compensated using
an electron gun, producing a flux of low-energy electrons (20 eV).
Secondary ions were subjected to a post-acceleration voltage of 10
kV and analyzed with positive polarity with a single stage reflectron
analyzer. Images were acquired by rastering the primary ion beam across
the sample surface. On each sample, two small scale (500 μm
× 500 μm; 2 μm resolution) and one large scale (3
mm × 3 mm; 10 μm resolution) areas were imaged.The
data were processed using Surface Lab 6. Mass spectra were calibrated
to known reference peaks from H+, CH3+, C2H5+, C3H7+, and C4H9+. Peaks from
the samples were assigned to PEG, FMOC, and the amino acids according
to reference data from the literature.[40,57,58] Ion intensity images were generated from these ions
of interest by the software.For qualitative assessment of sample
uniformity and presence of
chemical functionalities, small-scale images (500 μm ×
500 μm) were used and the ions associated with amino acids were
summed up and combined in a single image. The ion count scale for
specific ion images (PEG, FMOC, amino acids) was manually adjusted
to the same range for each sample to allow direct comparison. Total
ion images were scaled individually.For semiquantitative assessment
of the relative amount of FMOC
removed from the surface, the large-scale images (3 mm × 3 mm;
one per sample type) were normalized to the total ion counts and divided
into four regions of interest (ROI) that correspond to four equally
sized, non-overlapping quadrants (1.5 mm × 1.5 mm) of the image.
Normalized ion intensities for an FMOC-related ion (C14H11+, m/z = 179) were generated for each ROI by the software to provide four
data sets for each sample that were used to calculate a mean and standard
deviation for the FMOC ion intensities before and after exposure of
FMOC-AARGD and FMOC-FARGD to elastase. These normalized intensities
were used to calculate a percentage decrease of FMOC on the two sample
types. It should be noted that this method to generate numeric data
of surface densities of chemical compounds is sensitive to small amounts
of material on the surface but not fully quantitative due to a variety
of factors affecting measured ion intensities from ToF-SIMS.
Authors: Louise R Giam; Matthew D Massich; Liangliang Hao; Lu Shin Wong; Christopher C Mader; Chad A Mirkin Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2012-03-05 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Joe Swift; Irena L Ivanovska; Amnon Buxboim; Takamasa Harada; P C Dave P Dingal; Joel Pinter; J David Pajerowski; Kyle R Spinler; Jae-Won Shin; Manorama Tewari; Florian Rehfeldt; David W Speicher; Dennis E Discher Journal: Science Date: 2013-08-30 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Oscar Yanes; Julie Clark; Diana M Wong; Gary J Patti; Antonio Sánchez-Ruiz; H Paul Benton; Sunia A Trauger; Caroline Desponts; Sheng Ding; Gary Siuzdak Journal: Nat Chem Biol Date: 2010-05-02 Impact factor: 15.040
Authors: Nathaniel Huebsch; Praveen R Arany; Angelo S Mao; Dmitry Shvartsman; Omar A Ali; Sidi A Bencherif; José Rivera-Feliciano; David J Mooney Journal: Nat Mater Date: 2010-04-25 Impact factor: 43.841
Authors: Richard H Huang; Nazia Nayeem; Ye He; Jorge Morales; Duncan Graham; Rafal Klajn; Maria Contel; Stephen O'Brien; Rein V Ulijn Journal: Adv Mater Date: 2021-10-20 Impact factor: 32.086
Authors: Daniela S C Bispo; Catarina S H Jesus; Inês M C Marques; Katarzyna M Romek; Mariana B Oliveira; João F Mano; Ana M Gil Journal: Stem Cell Rev Rep Date: 2021-06-16 Impact factor: 5.739
Authors: Roberta Fraioli; Penelope M Tsimbouri; Leanne E Fisher; Angela H Nobbs; Bo Su; Stefanie Neubauer; Florian Rechenmacher; Horst Kessler; Maria-Pau Ginebra; Matthew J Dalby; José M Manero; Carlos Mas-Moruno Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-11-27 Impact factor: 4.379