Verena Hofschröer1, Alexander Koch1, Florian Timo Ludwig1, Peter Friedl2,3,4, Hans Oberleithner1, Christian Stock5, Albrecht Schwab1. 1. Institute of Physiology II, University of Münster, Münster, Germany. 2. Radboud University Medical Centre, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, Department of Cell Biology, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 3. David H. Koch Center for Applied Research of Genitourinary Cancers, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, United States. 4. Cancer Genomics Center, CG Utrecht, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Gastroenterology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Abstract
Detachment of cells from the primary tumour precedes metastatic progression by facilitating cell release into the tissue. Solid tumours exhibit altered pH homeostasis with extracellular acidification. In human melanoma, the Na+/H+ exchanger NHE1 is an important modifier of the tumour nanoenvironment. Here we tested the modulation of cell-cell-adhesion by extracellular pH and NHE1. MV3 tumour spheroids embedded in a collagen matrix unravelled the efficacy of cell-cell contact loosening and 3D emigration into an environment mimicking physiological confinement. Adhesive interaction strength between individual MV3 cells was quantified using atomic force microscopy and validated by multicellular aggregation assays. Extracellular acidification from pHe7.4 to 6.4 decreases cell migration and invasion but increases single cell detachment from the spheroids. Acidification and NHE1 overexpression both reduce cell-cell adhesion strength, indicated by reduced maximum pulling forces and adhesion energies. Multicellular aggregation and spheroid formation are strongly impaired under acidification or NHE1 overexpression. We show a clear dependence of melanoma cell-cell adhesion on pHe and NHE1 as a modulator. These effects are opposite to cell-matrix interactions that are strengthened by protons extruded via NHE1. We conclude that these opposite effects of NHE1 act synergistically during the metastatic cascade.
Detachment of cells from the primary tumour precedes metastatic progression by facilitating cell release into the tissue. Solid tumours exhibit altered pH homeostasis with extracellular acidification. In human melanoma, the Na+/H+ exchanger NHE1 is an important modifier of the tumour nanoenvironment. Here we tested the modulation of cell-cell-adhesion by extracellular pH and NHE1. MV3 tumour spheroids embedded in a collagen matrix unravelled the efficacy of cell-cell contact loosening and 3D emigration into an environment mimicking physiological confinement. Adhesive interaction strength between individual MV3 cells was quantified using atomic force microscopy and validated by multicellular aggregation assays. Extracellular acidification from pHe7.4 to 6.4 decreases cell migration and invasion but increases single cell detachment from the spheroids. Acidification and NHE1 overexpression both reduce cell-cell adhesion strength, indicated by reduced maximum pulling forces and adhesion energies. Multicellular aggregation and spheroid formation are strongly impaired under acidification or NHE1 overexpression. We show a clear dependence of melanoma cell-cell adhesion on pHe and NHE1 as a modulator. These effects are opposite to cell-matrix interactions that are strengthened by protons extruded via NHE1. We conclude that these opposite effects of NHE1 act synergistically during the metastatic cascade.
Melanoma arises from the malignant transformation of melanocytes located in the stratum
basale of the epidermal skin. Melanomas are the most aggressive skin cancers accounting
for 80% of skin cancer induced deaths. As in nearly all forms of cancer, the formation
of metastases is crucial for patient prognosis. Once metastasised the 5-year survival
rate of melanoma patients drops to only 14%12. Adequate prognostic
markers are missing and effective treatment possibilities have been lacking so far2. Currently, immunotherapy strategies provide new hopes in the treatment
of advanced melanoma3.An early step in the so-called metastatic cascade is the detachment of individual cells
or cell clusters from the primary tumour. This is followed by migration of cancer cells
through the extracellular matrix, intravasation, circulation and survival in lymph and
blood vessels, adhesion to endothelial cells and extravasation out of the vascular
system4. Melanoma cells escape the “control” of
surrounding keratinocytes among others through (i) down-regulation of E-cadherin which
mediates adhesion to keratinocytes, (ii) up-regulation of MCAM which can underlie
melanoma-melanoma and/or melanoma-fibroblast interaction and (iii) loss of basement
membrane anchorage through altered expression of integrins5. Preventing
initial cell detachment from the primary tumour could therefore be a strategy to
diminish melanoma metastasis.High metabolic activity and limited diffusion lead to hypoxia in fast growing tumours.
The concomitant anaerobic metabolism increases the intracellular acid load. Protons are
extruded by the cells leading to the typical extracellular acidification. Thus, the
gradient from the extracellular pH (pHe) to intracellular pH (pHi)
may even be reversed so that pHe of solid tumours is more acidic than
pHi and may be as low as pHe6.7678. In
order to compensate for this altered pH homeostasis, acid-extruding transporters are
upregulated and/or highly active in many forms of cancer to maintain pHi9. One of these transporters located in the plasma membrane is the
Na+/H+ exchanger isoform 1 (NHE1) which imports
Na+ and exports H+. It thereby contributes to an
extracellular acidosis and was already described to be constitutively active in tumour
cells1011. Both, NHE1 activity and/or NHE1 expression may be
increased in tumour cells among others because of dysregulation of its C-terminus1213, because of mutations of tumour suppressors such as merlin or
because of the local acidosis14. In migrating human melanoma cells, NHE1
is not homogeneously expressed but concentrates at the leading edge of the
lamellipodium1516. Hence, the proton concentration varies at the
outer surface of the plasma membrane with relatively acidic pH values
(pHe6.95) at the leading edge and more alkaline values (pHe7.15)
at the rear end of polarised cells1517. This pHe gradient is
preserved by the glycocalyx18.Previously, we had shown that melanoma cell migration strongly depends on pHe
and NHE1 activity. It is inhibited by extracellular acidification below
pHe7.0 and/or NHE1 inhibition1519. Mechanistically, this
could be related to a concentration of NHE1 at sites of focal adhesion at the front of
migrating melanoma cells20 and a marked pH sensitivity of
α2β1 integrins1921. By
producing a localised acidification at sites of focal adhesion NHE1 promotes the
formation of integrin-collagen I bonds at the front. Its absence at the rear, in turn,
facilitates the cell detachment from the underlying matrix. The impact of NHE1 on
cell-matrix adhesion may be further modified by carbonic anhydrase IX, another
tumour-associated pH-regulatory transmembrane enzyme that also localises to focal
adhesion structures22. Moreover, CA IX was shown to modulate cell-cell
contacts via an E-cadherin-dependent interaction with β-catenin23. Studies on the closure of chronic skin wounds revealed that pHe gradients
decrease migration, viability and proliferation of keratinocytes at the wound periphery
during healing. Interestingly, NHE1 was predominantly expressed at the wound periphery,
where low pHe values occur, providing an explanation of how NHE1 could
contribute to centrifugal pHe-gradients in chronic wounds24.
In this context it is notable that NHE1 expressed in keratinocytes also contributes to
the acid pHe physiologically found in superficial layers of the skin25.The above cited studies suggest that an acidic pHe in the tumour
microenvironment is likely to play an important role in different steps of the
metastatic cascade. Based on this knowledge and the fact that upregulation of NHE1 has
been correlated with tumour malignancy and NHE1 function through increased proton efflux
with tumour cell invasiveness26, we hypothesised that NHE1 affects
cell-cell adhesion in human melanoma. We adopted a three-dimensional (3D) model in order
to mimic the complex tumour nanoenvironment and physical constraints of a collagen
matrix more closely. Interestingly, melanoma cells detach more easily from the primary
spheroid in an acidic environment. Using single cell force spectroscopy (SCFS) with
atomic force microscopy (AFM) we found a reduction of cell-cell-adhesion forces upon
extracellular acidification and NHE1 overexpression.
Results
In a 3D assay, acidification affects cell migration and
adhesion
In a first set of experiments we determined pHe-dependent migration
and adhesion patterns in a 3D extracellular collagen I matrix. Using the
hanging-drop method, MV3 cells formed stable multicellular spheroids after
36 h in culture. MV3 cells were allowed to emigrate from multicellular
spheroids into a rat tail collagen I matrix mainly showing mesenchymal migration
mode unaffected by changes in pHe (Fig. 1a,
close-ups shown in supplementary Fig.
S1). Lowering pHe from 7.4 to pHe6.8 and
pHe6.4 progressively reduced the total number of emigrated cells
within the invasion zone (Fig. 1b). The absolute number of
invading cells beyond the original spheroid margin (referred to as
‘detached cells’; Fig. 1c) was also
reduced by half when pHe was lowered from pHe7.4 to
pHe6.4. However, the percentage of single cells detached from the
spheroid, quantified as the number of separate cells beyond the spheroid margin
and normalised to the total number of cells in the invasion zone, had doubled
(Fig. 1d). Thus, despite moderate reduction of cell
migration speed, the cell subset retaining persistent invasion capability
developed near-exclusive single-cell migration.
Figure 1
3D emigration assays through a collagen I matrix.
(a) Maximum projection images of z-stacks obtained by confocal laser
scanning microscopy reveal that acidification (i) controls melanoma cell
migration by lowering the area of invasion and (ii) increases the number of
detached cells (white arrows) after 24 h. Activated leukocyte cell
adhesion molecule (ALCAM) is expressed in all three conditions. Scale
bar = 100 μm in images of higher
magnification in the second row. (b) Quantification of the number of
cells that migrate into the collagen mesh and form the invasion zone around
the initial spheroid. The invasion zone is calculated as the difference of
the total area of the spheroid (dashed white line) and the area of the
spheroid core (solid white circle). Extracellular acidification decreases
the absolute number of cells in the invasion zone (pHe7.4:
464.6 ± 26.1 cells (N = 5
experiments with n = 20 spheroids); pHe6.8:
315.3 ± 19.6 cells (N = 4,
n = 19); pHe6.4:
216.4 ± 21.9 cells (N = 5,
n = 24)). (c) Absolute number of cells that detach
from the initial spheroid (pHe7.4:
18.4 ± 2.1 cells; pHe6.8 and
pHe6.4 were 9.4 ± 0.9 and
12.4 ± 1.2 cells). (d) Number of detached
cells normalised to the total number of cells in the invasion zone. Most
cells detach at the lowest pHe value of 6.4 (pHe7.4:
3.85 ± 0.39%; pHe6.8:
3.18 ± 0.35%; pHe 6.4:
6.38 ± 0.72%). Statistical significance was observed
by one-way ANOVA followed by student’s t-test (parametric data).
Extracellular acidification lowers the strength of cell-cell
adhesion
To gain further insight into the mechanisms underlying pHe-dependent
cell-cell detachment, AFM-based SCFS was applied. To this end MV3 cells were
seeded on a 2D collagen I matrix and another cell of the same kind was attached
to the cantilever and lowered onto the underlying adherent cells. The forces
needed to retract the cantilever were measured. We performed paired experiments
and tested consecutively the impact of different pHe values on
cell-cell adhesion for each cell attached to the cantilever. The results are
summarised in Fig. 2. Using MV3 empty vector cells the
adhesive interaction forces decreased by increasing the proton concentration in
the surrounding medium as shown in Fig. 2a. Thus, the
maximum pulling force was reduced by 24% when pHe was lowered from
pHe7.4 to pHe6.4. The pH-dependence of the adhesion
energy, i.e. the work that is required to detach cells from each other, was even
more pronounced and lowered by 32% (Fig. 2b).
Figure 2
Single cell force spectroscopy at varying pHe.
Extracellular acidification progressively lowers the strength of cell-cell
adhesion in MV3 control cells as indicated by a decline of the (a)
maximum pulling force (pHe7.4: 0.58 nN
(0.36/0.83 nN, N = 4 cells attached to the
cantilever, probing n = 71 cells on the underlying matrix);
pHe7.0: 0.49 nN (0.38/0.73 nN,
N = 4, n = 83); pHe6.8:
0.44 nN (0.35/0.56 nN, N = 5,
n = 91) and pHe6.4: 0.44 nN
(0.36/0.53 nN, N = 4, n = 80)) and
(b) the adhesive interaction energy (pHe7.4: 3.88 fJ
(2.0/6.32 fJ); pHe7.0: 2.95 fJ (1.74/4.6 fJ); pHe6.8:
2.71 fJ (1.66/4.4 fJ) and pHe6.4: 2.62 fJ (1.91/3.38 fJ)). Paired
experiments were carried out so that cell-cell interaction forces were
measured for the same cells at different pHe values. Statistical
significance of the differences was assessed by Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA
followed by the Mann-Whitney U test.
Cell-cell adhesion force is low in NHE1-overexpressing cells and high in
NHE1-deficient cells
We next tested whether the acid extruding NHE1 not only affects cell
migration1519 but also cell-cell adhesion. Therefore, we
compared MV3 cells overexpressing NHE1 and NHE1-deficient cells. The maximum
pulling force necessary to separate two individual melanoma vector control cells
was 1.45 nN, the adhesion energy was 4.35 fJ. (Fig. 3). In
contrast, the maximum pulling force was 57% lower in MV3 cells overexpressing
NHE1 and the adhesion energy was reduced by 55%. Moreover, NHE1-deficient MV3
cells showed a significant 12% increase in the maximum pulling force compared to
the respective control (supplementary Fig.
S2). Thus, because increased NHE1 expression is known to lower
pericellular pHem, these findings were in line with the above
described AFM measurements with varying proton concentrations in the bathing
solution.
Figure 3
Single cell force spectroscopy using MV3 cells with different NHE1 expression
levels.
AFM experiments reveal that the cell-cell adhesion force, represented by the
(a) maximum pulling force and the (b) adhesion energy, is
lower in NHE1-overexpressing cells (0.62 nN (0.48/0.85 nN),
N = 9 cells attached to the cantilever probing
n = 354 cells on the underlying matrix; 1.96 fJ (0.97/2.65
fJ), N = 9, n = 315) than in MV3 control
cells (1.45 nN (0.99/1.95 nN), N = 8,
n = 326; 4.35 fJ (2.67/6.8 fJ), N = 8,
n = 281). Statistical significance of the differences was
assessed by the Mann-Whitney U test.
NHE1-overexpressing cells do not form stable tumour spheroids in
multicellular cell aggregation assays
So far, our results indicate that an extracellular acidification or increased
NHE1 activity weakens cell-cell contacts. To further evaluate this concept we
tested whether NHE1 also contributes to spheroid formation and thus cell-cell
adhesion in a multicellular assay. In the hanging-drop method employed for the
emigration assays, MV3 control cells and NHE1-overexpressing MV3 cells formed
stable spheroids within 36 h (Fig. 4a). MV3
control cell spheroids were by and large round, whereas those of NHE1
overexpressing MV3 cells were irregularly shaped and more loosely connected
pointing towards weaker cell-cell connections.
Figure 4
Multicellular adhesion assays.
(a) Both MV3 control and MV3 NHE1-overexpressing cells form tumour
spheroids using the hanging-drop assay that is presented in Fig. 2a. However, spheroids of NHE1-overexpressing cells are
less regular and circular. (b) For the cell aggregation assays, MV3
cells were incubated in experimental medium on a shaker overnight. Here,
NHE1-overexpressing cells do not form stable tumour spheroids thus pointing
towards weaker cell-cell adhesion. MV3 control cells formed spheroids with
an average diameter of 466 μm (399/526 μm,
N = 3 experiments, n = 84 spheroids) and a
projected cross-sectional area of 0.16 mm2
(0.12/0.19 mm2, N = 3,
n = 79). (c,d) Left: Increasing the extracellular
proton concentration reduces the spheroid size of MV3 control cells
(cross-sectional area detected by light microscopy: pHe7.4:
0.081 mm2
(0.053/0.013 mm2), N = 4,
n = 154; pHe7.0: 0.052 mm2
(0.033/0.076 mm2), n = 356;
pHe6.8: 0.034 mm2
(0.023/0.056 mm2), n = 517;
pHe6.4: 0.022 mm2,
(0.016/0.037 mm2), n = 890)) and
increases the spheroid number. Right: MV3 NHE1-overexpressing cells
form fewer cell aggregates at pHe7.4 than control cells. However,
the adhesive strength between two cells slightly increases upon
acidification as shown by a small rise of cell aggregate size.
Quantification of pHe-dependent spheroid formation in MV3
NHE1-overexpression cells: pHe7.4:
0.013 mm2
(0.009/0.019 mm2), N = 3,
n = 636; pHe7.0: 0.018 mm2
(0.013/0.025 mm2), n = 387;
pHe6.8: 0.017 mm2
(0.012/0.028 mm2), n = 398;
pHe6.4: 0.016 mm2
(0.011/0.023 mm2), n = 413.
# = significant difference (p < 0.001) to
all groups. Statistical significance was tested using Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA
and Mann-Whitney U test.
In addition, we performed cell aggregation assays to test the involvement of NHE1
and pHe without supplementing the initial cell suspension with bovine
collagen and methylcellulose for spheroid formation. MV3 control cells formed
spheroids after ~16 h with an average diameter of
466 μm and a projected cross-sectional area of
0.16 mm2 as represented in Fig.
4b. NHE1 overexpression prevented spheroid formation which is
consistent with the decreased adhesion observed in SCFS. Furthermore,
extracellular acidification also reduced the spheroid size of MV3 control cells
(Fig. 4c, left panel) in that the cross-sectional area
decreased by 72.8% from pHe7.4 to pHe6.4 (quantification
in Fig. 4d, left panel). Thus, not only 3D emigration out
of the melanoma cell spheroid, but also their formation is dependent on
pHe and NHE1.
Extracellular acidification increases adhesion between NHE1-overexpressing
MV3 cells
To combine both findings, namely that acidification of the extracellular
environment as well as increased NHE1 expression lower cell-cell adhesion,
NHE1-overexpressing cells were exposed to varying pHe. Surprisingly,
melanoma cells formed larger spheroids in the multicellular approach upon
increasing the extracellular proton concentration (Fig.
4c,d, right panel). We observed no additive effect of NHE1 expression
and extracellular pH in paired SCFS experiments. At pHe7.4, NHE1
overexpressing cells showed the lowest cell-cell adhesion strength and energy
observed in this study (0.22 nN (0.14/0.32 nN) maximum pulling
force and 0.97 fJ (0.5/1.36 fJ) adhesion energy; Fig.
5a,b). Increasing the proton concentration enhanced the strength of
cell-cell adhesion.
Figure 5
Single cell force spectroscopy using MV3 NHE1-overexpressing cells at varying
pHe.
(a) Maximum pulling force and (b) adhesion energy are increased
in SCFS measurements upon acidification of NHE1-overexpressing cells
(pHe7.4: 0.22 nN (0.14/0.32 nN) and 0.97 fJ
(0.5/1.36 fJ), N = 5, n = 62;
pHe7.0: 0.25 nN (0.17/0.35 nN) and 1.24 fJ
(0.8/1.9 fJ), N = 5, n = 61;
pHe6.8: 0.27 nN (0.18/0.39 nN) and 1.25 fJ
(0.8/2.07 fJ), N = 5, n = 67;
pHe6.4: 0.32 nN (0.24/0.5 nN) and 1.65 fJ
(1.02/2.94 fJ), N = 5, n = 79). Force
measurements were performed in paired experiments by exposing the same cells
to different pHe values. Statistical significance was tested
using Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA and Mann-Whitney U test.
NHE1 expression correlates with the expression of melanoma cell adhesion
molecule
Western Blot analyses using MV3 cell clones with different NHE1 expression levels
were performed. Whole protein was isolated following cell aggregation assays.
Melanoma cell adhesion molecule (MCAM) correlated with NHE1 expression in that
NHE1-overexpressing cells showed a 90% higher amount compared to control (Fig. 6a,b). Moreover, ALCAM expression was verified by
immunofluorescence staining and microscopy on 2D cultures (3D ALCAM staining
shown in Fig. 1a). In all four cell clones (data shown for
NHE1-overexpressing cells and control cells in Fig. 6c),
ALCAM was expressed and, importantly, detected at sites of cell-cell
contacts.
Figure 6
Expression of Cell Adhesion Molecules.
(a,b) Melanoma cell adhesion molecule (MCAM) expression is higher in
NHE1-overexpressing cells than in control cells (MV3 control:
100% ± 24.6%; MV3 NHE1 + :
189.7% ± 38.1). The relative expression of MCAM is
corrected for β-actin. (c) Activated leukocyte cell adhesion
molecule (ALCAM) concentrates at cell-cell contacts.
Discussion
Cell-cell interaction is an important characteristic of tumour cells: on the one
hand, cells form a primary tumour and, on the other hand, they switch their behavior
to loosen intercellular connections and initiate the process of migration and
emigration. The present study aimed to elucidate aspects of the impact of the tumour
nanoenvironment, at least partially mediated by NHE1, on cell-cell adhesion of human
melanoma cells.Metabolic reprogramming of tumour cells leads to an increased intracellular acid
production. Transport proteins such as NHE1 effectively extrude these protons10 thereby contributing to the typical acidification of solid tumours.
Their (over-)expression or activation correlates with the malignancy of tumour
cells101127 so that proteins involved in intra- and
extracellular pH regulation are important candidates in regulating the metastatic
behaviour of tumour cells. Their role in cell-matrix adhesion and migration of
tumour cells has been reviewed previously in detail2829. Both
pHe and NHE1 strongly affect cell adhesion to a collagen I matrix,
cell migration and invasion in human melanoma cells. The pH nanoenvironment at the
outer leaflet of the plasma membrane at focal adhesions has a major impact17. In the present study, cell migration was significantly reduced in a
3D model in the presence of increased extracellular proton concentration. Thereby,
we could recapitulate previous studies investigating migration of single melanoma
cells and of keratinocytes during wound healing151924.SCFS provides data of mechanical forces that prevail between living melanoma cells.
Adhesion forces might serve as an indicator of tumour cell invasiveness since cells
with low adhesion forces could be more likely to separate from each other. Modes of
single cell migration are defined by a lack of cell-cell adhesion through loss of
long-lasting adhesive junctions3031. We observed that an
extracellular acidification induces higher detachment rates of single cells in the
3D emigration assay and lowered cell-cell adhesion strength in the SCFS analysis.
Preliminary data (supplementary Fig. S3)
indicate that this phenomenon is not only restricted to melanoma cells but that
decreased cell-cell adhesion through extracellular acidification is also found in
other forms of cancer. 4T1 breast cancer cells show multicellular strains at
pHe7.4 and single cell behaviour at acidic pHe values of
6.8 and 6.4. While cell migration is clearly impaired in an acidic nanoenvironment,
the facilitated detachment of single melanoma cells from the spheroids could point
to an alternative and adaptive mechanism to effectively start the metastatic cascade
even under adverse nanoenvironmental conditions. While the extracellular metabolic
challenge due to acidification compromises the overall migration efficacy, likely
through increased cell-matrix adhesion19, cell-cell adhesion is
weakened, resulting in prominent individualisation of cells that eventually evade
the perturbed site.At first sight it is surprising to note that MV3 control and NHE1-overexpressing
cells behave contradictorily with respect to the pH dependence of cell-cell
adhesion. However, it should be kept in mind that pHe and NHE1 are not
equally distributed throughout tumour tissue. At the outer borders of a primary
tumour, cells have sufficient access to blood vessels and pH values are more
alkaline than in its centre. In human colon carcinoma spheroids
(~300 μm diameter), pHe values of ~6.9 in
the core and ~7.45 at the outer borders were measured32. NHE1
expression is increased inside the tumour tissue compared to the extra-tumoural
compartment. Furthermore, NHE1 expression also varies inside the tumour tissue in
that it is highest (i) in peripheral and well-perfused regions of the tumour
tissue33 and, more precisely, (ii) directly at the inner rim of
the tumour (shown for C6 gliomas in a rat brain33). Putting the
present data into a (patho-) physiological context by taking the distribution of
pHe and NHE1 into account, cells at the edge of the tumour tissue
(represented by NHE1-overexpressing cells at pHe7.4) exhibit the lowest
cell-cell adhesion and likely a high risk for detachment of cells as a starting
point in the metastatic behaviour.The question remains which adhesion molecules are involved in this model. NHE1 itself
could contribute through differences in glycosylation or indirectly by affecting the
glycocalyx. Protons extruded by NHE1 could neutralise the negatively charged
glycocalyx and thereby modify its function. For carbonic anhydrase IX a modulation
of cell-cell contacts via E-cadherin and beta-catenin was described23
and, furthermore, E-cadherin as well as N-cadherin binding are weakened by an acidic
extracellular pH3435. However, MV3 cells do not express multiple
cadherins as previously determined by immunofluorescence analysis36
and also confirmed by RT-PCR analysis for E- and N-cadherin in this study (data not
shown). Furthermore, 3D immunofluorescence detection of p120-catenin, a cytoskeletal
adaptor for cadherins3738, reveals a cytosolic localization rather
than one at the plasma membrane (data not shown). On the other hand, the expression
of cell-cell adhesion receptors of the immunoglobulin superfamily of cell adhesion
molecules (CAMs) is higher in melanoma cells than in melanocytes5.
ALCAM (CD 166) and MCAM (CD 146) were already described as intercellular adhesion
molecules in melanoma cells and their expression correlates with enhanced melanoma
development, metastatic properties and tumour progression (ALCAM3940; MCAM4142). ALCAM expression and localisation at cell-cell
contacts was confirmed by immunofluorescence staining in all four of the used MV3
cell clones. Previously, ALCAM was reported to regulate adherens junctions in uveal
melanoma cells whereas ALCAM-mediated invasiveness depends on the type of cadherin
adhesion complexes43. Interestingly, expression of MCAM is
NHE1-dependent: NHE1-overexpressing cells, showing less cell-cell adhesion, exhibit
increased MCAM levels. In mice, CD146 is found to promote melanoma metastasis to the
lungs whereas melanoma growth or tumour angiogenesis are not affected44. Another study reveals disrupted spheroid formation, less cell-cell adhesion and
cell invasion in vitro using a blocking antibody against MCAM45. So far, our results do not allow to conclude that pH-dependent cell-cell
adhesion is mediated by MCAM or ALCAM. Although MCAM is found at cell-cell contacts,
its increased expression in NHE1-overexpressing cells is inconsistent with lower
cell-cell adhesion in these cells. Further experiments are clearly needed to
determine the roles of MCAM and ALCAM in pH-dependent cell-cell adhesion.
Conclusion
pHe and NHE1 not only affect the cellular process of emigration but also
intercellular adhesive bond strength and initial adhesion to form stable tumour
spheroids. In summary, low cell-cell adhesion forces determined via SCFS indicate
facilitated detachment of cells from the primary spheroid. NHE1 anchoring in the
plasma membrane as well as acidification of the extracellular medium both reduce the
strength of cell-cell contacts in melanoma. Interestingly, the pH-dependence of
cell-cell adhesion strength is opposite to cell-matrix adhesion19
which is enforced by an extracellular acidification because of increased avidity of
cell surface integrin receptors21. Hence, a synergistic interplay
between cell-matrix and cell-cell adhesion seems to be in place to control the
balance between different steps of the metastatic cascade. Mesenchymal invasion, as
shown by MV3 cells, was described to be characterised by high cell-matrix adhesion
and single cell migration was characterised by low cell-cell adhesion30. We therefore propose that NHE1 can promote metastasis by first facilitating cell
detachment from the primary tumour and then modulating cell-matrix interaction to
promote cell migration and invasion (Fig. 7). Thus, in
combination with other strategies, targeting proton export may serve as a potential
therapeutic strategy to at least partly overcome current treatment deficiencies in
human melanoma.
Figure 7
Summary.
Extracellular acidification reduces cell-cell adhesion, while at the same
time cell-matrix interaction is promoted. These effects might ease
detachment of single cells from a primary tumour, the invasion into the
surrounding tissue and thereby synergistically promote metastasis.
Methods
Cell culture
Experiments were performed on the human melanoma cell line MV3 which originates
from a malignant melanoma metastasis46. Cells were cultured at
37 °C and 5% CO2 in RPMI-1640 cell culture medium
(with NaHCO3 and L-glutamine; Sigma-Aldrich, Taufkirchen, Germany)
supplemented with 10% fetal calf serum (FCS, PAA Laboratories, Pasching,
Austria).To study possible effects of NHE1 on cell adhesion, we used two established cell
clones that have been characterized previously: (i) NHE1-overexpressing MV3
cells14 and (ii) an NHE1-deficient MV3 cell clone15 with the respective controls. The degree of NHE1-overexpression
corresponds to that induced by prolonged incubation in acidic (pH6.8) culture
medium. NHE1-overexpressing cells were compared with cells transfected with the
expression vector pcDNA3 (MV3 vector control). The NHE1-deficient cell clone was
rescued by transfection with pcDNA-NHE1. Geneticin (G-418, 600 mg/l
final concentration; Sigma) was added to the culture medium of transfected
cells.
3D spheroid culture using the hanging-drop method
Multicellular tumour spheroids were formed with the hanging-drop method as
previously described3147. Briefly, MV3 cells were detached with
EDTA (1 mmol/L) and resuspended in RPMI cell culture medium. 5.000 cells
per drop were incubated upside-down in 30 μl droplets of medium
containing methylcellulose (40%, Sigma-Aldrich) and bovine collagen
(6.3 μg/ml, PureCol®; Advanced BioMatrix,
San Diego, USA) for 36 h in a wet chamber (1x PBS) in a humidified 5%
CO2 incubator (37 °C).
Spheroid embedding in 3D matrix and fixation
MV3 vector control and MV3 NHE1-overexpressing spheroids were harvested and
gently washed three times in PBS. Next, spheroids were mixed with a collagen
solution on ice containing: acid-solubilised rat-tail collagen type I
(5 mg/ml final concentration, Corning, New York, USA), PBS, 1N NaOH and
HEPES (20 mmol/L) for maintaining pH 7.5 during polymerisation.
Drop-gels were generated using 100 μl from the collagen solution
per drop containing maximally 5 individual spheroids. Collagen lattices
polymerised at 37 °C while the plate was turned every
60 sec to allow a central position of the spheroids in the z-plane
ensuring 3D invasion. After ~20 min, bicarbonate-free RPMI-1640
medium supplemented with HEPES (10 mmol/L) and adjusted for the
respective experimental pH values was added to the spheroid-containing collagen
gels. After an experimental period of 24 h spheroids were fixed for
20 min at 37 °C in 4% paraformaldehyde in
0.2 mol/L sodium phosphate buffer (PB).
3D Immunofluorescence staining and confocal microscopy
Spheroids were blocked for ~8 h and stained in 0.1% BSA-PBS. For
ALCAM staining, the primary antibody was incubated 1:70 overnight at
4 °C (mouse-anti ALCAM mAb, AZN-L50, IgG2A, Department of Tumour
Immunology, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, The Netherlands 47
2 mg/ml). After washing seven times in PBS for 1 h each, the
secondary antibody (1:200, Alexa-Fluor-647-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG;
Invitrogen, Life Technologies, Carlsbad, USA) was incubated with DAPI (1:1000,
Roche, Basel, Switzerland) and Alexa-Fluor-488-conjugated Phalloidin (1:200,
Invitrogen) at 4 °C overnight. Samples incubated with just a
secondary mouse IgG-antibody (Invitrogen) were run in parallel to the
experiments for negative controls. After final washing, spheroids were imaged
using a Leica TCS SP8 confocal microscope equipped with a dry 10x/0.4 NA air
objective. Z-stacks were obtained at 5 μm slice intervals.
Maximum projections were used to analyse and quantify migration and adhesion
patterns using Fiji/Image J software (version 1.50 g). The invasion zone
was defined as the total spheroid area after 24 h minus the area of the
spheroid core (as shown for a light microscopy image for MV3 control cells at
pHe 6.8 in Fig. 1b). The number of cells
was counted manually and DAPI staining was used to quantify cells that had
migrated into the invasion zone. Detached cells were defined as those cells that
had migrated beyond the original spheroid margin and lost contact to surrounding
cells in x-, y- and z-dimension. N = individual experiments;
n = spheroids.
Single cell force spectroscopy (SCFS)
The absolute mechanical strength of cell-cell adhesion between melanoma cells was
determined by means of SCFS using atomic force microscopy (AFM; Fig. 8a; CellHesion® 200 module, JPK, Berlin,
Germany)48. This AFM offers an enlarged z-piezo range of
>110 μm so that the cantilever can be lifted high enough in
order to separate two individual cells from each other. Deflection sensitivity
and spring constant of the cantilever were determined prior to each experiment.
Data acquisition and analysis were performed using the JPKSPM Data Processing
Software (JPK version 4.2.50).
Figure 8
Schematic illustration of cell-cell adhesion analysis using AFM.
(a) Single cell force spectroscopy. A single melanoma cell (MV3)
attached to a flexible cantilever is brought into contact with another
adherent melanoma cell of the same kind seeded on collagen I. When lowering
the cantilever (approach curve), a defined force of 1.5 nN is
applied to bring the cells into contact. After a contact time of
2 seconds, the cells are mechanically separated by retraction of the
cantilever in z direction (retraction curve). (b) Data analysis.
Representative force-distance curves for pHe7.4 and
pHe6.4 illustrate the data analysis: the required adhesion
energy is calculated from the area under the curve. The maximum pulling
force needed to separate two individual melanoma cells is calculated from
the lowest turning point of the retraction curve.
MV3 cells were detached with EDTA (0.02%)/trypsin (0.25% final concentration) and
a first batch of them was seeded subconfluently onto a collagen I
(0.4 mg/ml collagen diluted in PBS, from bovine calf skin; Biochrom)
coated glass bottom dish (FluoroDish FD35–100, World Precision
Instruments, Sarasota, USA). They were bathed in HEPES-buffered
(20 mmol/L) RPMI medium (Sigma) for different MV3 cell clones or in
HEPES-buffered (10 mmol/L) RPMI medium of the desired pH value in the
experimental chamber of the AFM at 37 °C. After a minimum of
~60 min a second batch of the detached melanoma cells was added.
One of these not yet adherent cells was picked with the
CellTak® (cell and tissue adhesive, BD Biosciences,
San Jose, USA) coated cantilever (tipless silicon SPM-sensor, 0.03 N/m,
Nanoworld, Neuchâtel, Switzerland). The cantilever had been coated in
~8 μl CellTak for 20 min prior to the
experiment. Additional control experiments had revealed that the adhesion to
CellTak is pH-independent in a range of pHe7.4 to pHe6.4.
Thus, we can assume that the adhesion strength of the cell attached to the
cantilever was not affected by changing pHe during the course of our
experiments. The cantilever was carefully positioned under optical control above
a spherical cell. A maximum loading force of <1 nN and
5–10 s contact time was used to firmly attach an MV3 cell to the
front part of the CellTak-coated cantilever which was then lifted. The procedure
of the “cell picking” was highly standardized in order to
minimize variations in cell geometry and adhesion forces between the
CellTak-coated cantilever and the picked cell49. Accordingly, the
stiffness of the cells attached to the cantilever did not differ between
individual cells. Similarly, varying pHe from 7.4 to
pHe6.4 did not change the stiffness of MV3 cells.The cell attached to the cantilever was lowered onto an adherent cell on the
glass bottom dish with a constant force of 1.5 nN at a cantilever
velocity of 5 μm/s during approach/retraction. After a contact
time of 2 s, tumour cells were separated by lifting the cantilever. The
force needed to fully separate the cells is measured as maximum pulling force
and is represented by the minimum value of the retraction curve. The area under
the curve represents the required energy to pull the cells apart. It is
calculated by the area that is enclosed between the force curve and the x-axis
set to baseline50. Figure 8b shows
representative force-distance curves measured for the same cell pairings at
pHe7.4 and pHe6.4, respectively. The attached cell at
the cantilever was used for more measurements on other adherent cells (<15
cells per condition). SCFS was performed in a paired way at varying
pHe. To this end one immobilised cell at the cantilever was used
to probe 10–15 adherent MV3 cells that were consecutively exposed to
different pHe. An equilibration period of 10 min was allowed
after each change of pHe. N = cells attached to the
cantilever; n = cells on the underlying matrix.
Multicellular cell aggregation assay
To determine the adhesive potential of MV3 cells in the initial formation of a
multicellular spheroid, aggregation assays were performed similarly as described
in2351. Multi-well plates were coated with a layer of
HEPES-buffered medium containing 1% agar and 10% FCS. 250.000 cells/well were
cultured in 1 ml medium for 16 h on a shaker (100 rpm,
37 °C). pH dependence was studied by adequately adjusting pH of
the bottom layer and the bicarbonate-free RPMI-1640 medium supplemented with
HEPES (10 mmol/L). Formation of tumour spheroids was monitored using an
Axiovert25 microscope (Zeiss, Oberkochen, Germany) equipped with an AxioCam ICc1
(Zeiss) and a 5 × 0.12 objective. Data acquisition of
light microscopy images and analysis of the cross-sectional area of the tumour
spheroids was performed with the AxioVision SE64 Rel. 4.9. software.
N = individual experiments; n = spheroids.
Immunofluorescence staining of ALCAM in 2D cultures
MV3 cells were seeded onto glass coverslips coated with collagen I
(0.4 mg/ml collagen diluted in PBS, from bovine calf skin; Biochrom).
Cells were fixed with 3.5% PFA in PBS for 30 min at RT. Afterwards,
cells were washed 3x in PBS, permeabilised with 0.1% Triton X-100 in PBS and
again washed 3x in PBS. Blocking occurred in 3% BSA diluted in PBS for
3 h at RT. The monoclonal mouse anti-CD166/ALCAM antibody (L50; dilution
1:100 in 3% BSA-PBS; ThermoFisher Scientific) served as primary antibody
incubated at 4 °C overnight. After the next washing procedure,
the secondary antibody (goat anti-mouse Alexa 488, dilution 1:600 in 3% BSA-PBS;
Molecular Probes, Eugene, USA) was incubated for 45 min at RT and probes
were washed again. Fluorescence mounting medium (Dako, Glostrup, Denmark)
supplemented with DAPI (Invitrogen) was used to mount the samples.
Immunofluorescence images were acquired under wide-field fluorescence conditions
with an inverted microscope (Axiovert 200, Zeiss) equipped with a
100 × 1.45 objective lens. The following filter sets
were used: excitation 570/40 nm, beam splitter 510 nm, emission
540/50 nm (for Alexa 488-fluorescence) and excitation 365/12 nm,
beam splitter 395 nm, emission 397 nm (for DAPI fluorescence).
Image acquisition was performed with a digital camera (model 9.0, RT-SE-Spot;
Visitron Systems, Puchheim, Germany) and the MetaVue software (Visitron
Systems).
Western Blot analysis of MCAM from spheroid cultures
MV3 spheroids from cell aggregation assays were harvested, washed in PBS twice,
lysed in radioimmunoprecipitation assay (RIPA) lysis buffer and further treated
as described previously for confluent MV3 monolayer (20 μg
protein/sample)14. A primary monoclonal rabbit anti-MCAM
(CD146) antibody (dilution 1:2.000; Merck Millipore, Billerica, USA) and, as a
loading control, a monoclonal mouse anti-β-actin antibody (dilution:
1:10.000, Sigma-Aldrich) were used. Peroxidase-conjugated antibodies served as
secondary antibody: IgG anti-rabbit POD (dilution 1:10.000, Merck) for MCAM
detection and goat anti-mouse POD (dilution 1:50.000, Dianova, Hamburg, Germany)
for β-actin. Quantification of three individual protein isolations was
performed in duplicates using Fiji/Image J software (version 1.50 g) and
MCAM expression was corrected for β-actin levels.
Analysis and statistics
Parametric data are expressed as bar diagrams and represent the mean
value ± SEM. Statistical significance was tested using
one-way ANOVA and, when statistical differences were detected, post hoc
comparisons by student’s t-test. Non-parametric data are expressed as
box plots which represent the mean (square), median (horizontal line), 25th and
75th percentile (box) and outlier (whiskers). In this case, values are specified
as median (Q1, first quartile/Q3, third quartile). Statistical significance was
tested with the Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA followed by the Mann-Whitney U test.
OriginPro 8 (Origin Lab Corp., Northampton, MA, USA) was used for graphical and
statistical exploration of the data. Significance levels are indicated as
follows: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01,
***p < 0.001. # = significant difference
(p < 0.001) to all other groups.
Additional Information
How to cite this article: Hofschröer, V. et al. Extracellular
protonation modulates cell-cell interaction mechanics and tissue invasion in human
melanoma cells. Sci. Rep.
7, 42369; doi: 10.1038/srep42369 (2017).Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Authors: S J Reshkin; A Bellizzi; S Caldeira; V Albarani; I Malanchi; M Poignee; M Alunni-Fabbroni; V Casavola; M Tommasino Journal: FASEB J Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Pawel Swietach; Shalini Patiar; Claudiu T Supuran; Adrian L Harris; Richard D Vaughan-Jones Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2009-05-19 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Emmanuelle Grillon; Régine Farion; Katell Fablet; Michel De Waard; Chung Ming Tse; Mark Donowitz; Chantal Rémy; Jonathan A Coles Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-02-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Hailey E Brighton; Steven P Angus; Tao Bo; Jose Roques; Alicia C Tagliatela; David B Darr; Kubra Karagoz; Noah Sciaky; Michael L Gatza; Norman E Sharpless; Gary L Johnson; James E Bear Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2017-11-27 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Helene H Jensen; Gitte A Pedersen; Jeanette J Morgen; Maddy Parsons; Stine F Pedersen; Lene N Nejsum Journal: J Physiol Date: 2018-12-17 Impact factor: 5.182
Authors: Anne Sofie Froelunde; Marit Ohlenbusch; Kristoffer B Hansen; Nicolai Jessen; Sukhan Kim; Ebbe Boedtkjer Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2018-03-22 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Etmar Bulk; Nadzeya Kramko; Ivan Liashkovich; Felix Glaser; Hermann Schillers; Hans-Joachim Schnittler; Hans Oberleithner; Albrecht Schwab Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2017-11-28