The tumor microenvironment is implicated in orchestrating cancer cell transformation and metastasis. However, specific cell-ligand interactions between cancer cells and the extracellular matrix are difficult to decipher due to a dynamic and multivariate presentation of many signaling molecules. Here we report a versatile peptide microarray platform that is capable of screening for cancer cell phenotypic changes in response to ligand-receptor interactions. Using a screen of 78 peptide combinations derived from proteins present in the melanoma microenvironment, we identify a proteoglycan binding and bone morphogenic protein 7 (BMP7) derived sequence that selectively promotes the expression of several putative melanoma initiating cell markers. We characterize signaling associated with each of these peptides in the activation of melanoma pro-tumorigenic signaling and reveal a role for proteoglycan mediated adhesion and signaling through Smad 2/3. A defined substratum that controls the state of malignant melanoma may prove useful in spatially normalizing a heterogeneous population of tumor cells for discovery of therapeutics that target a specific state and for identifying new drug targets and reagents for intervention.
The tumor microenvironment is implicated in orchestrating cancer cell transformation and metastasis. However, specific cell-ligand interactions between cancer cells and the extracellular matrix are difficult to decipher due to a dynamic and multivariate presentation of many signaling molecules. Here we report a versatile peptide microarray platform that is capable of screening for cancer cell phenotypic changes in response to ligand-receptor interactions. Using a screen of 78 peptide combinations derived from proteins present in the melanoma microenvironment, we identify a proteoglycan binding and bone morphogenic protein 7 (BMP7) derived sequence that selectively promotes the expression of several putative melanoma initiating cell markers. We characterize signaling associated with each of these peptides in the activation of melanoma pro-tumorigenic signaling and reveal a role for proteoglycan mediated adhesion and signaling through Smad 2/3. A defined substratum that controls the state of malignant melanoma may prove useful in spatially normalizing a heterogeneous population of tumor cells for discovery of therapeutics that target a specific state and for identifying new drug targets and reagents for intervention.
Cutaneous melanoma is
the most deadly form of skin cancer, with
poor prognosis in patients with distant or recurring metastases.[1] Recent exploration into the pathogenesis of melanoma
metastasis has revealed that a small subpopulation of melanoma-initiating
cells (MICs), postulated to have characteristics of stem cells, correspond
to increased metastatic progression.[2] Like
traditional stem cells, these MICs are thought to be highly proliferative,
self-renew, and have the capabilities of reconstituting all cells
contained within the heterogeneous tumor environment.[3] The cancer stem cell hypothesis helps explain the perplexing
and poorly understood clinical phenomena where a patient with cancer
may have robust response to chemotherapy treatment only to have eventual
relapse.[4] As such, studies aimed at classifying
MICs could provide new insights into disease progression and assist
in the identification of this dangerous subpopulation of cells for
therapeutic targeting.Several recent high profile studies have
presented evidence that
MICs are much more common than previously appreciated, and that no
single surface marker can distinguish between a tumorigenic and non-tumorigenic
phenotype.[5,6] Although these disparate results seem to
challenge the classical cancer stem cell model in which only a subset
of cells are capable of tumor formation, this model is not mutually
exclusive with a more traditional stochastic model that postulates
that all tumor cells are capable of tumor formation and progression.[7] Furthermore, factors such as environmental cues
can facilitate a phenotypic change between cancer and noncancer stem-like
cells.[8,9] In fact, increasing efforts to elucidate
the role of the microenvironment on the progression of cancer has
identified elements of the tumor microenvironment as important prognostic
and predictive indicators of metastasis.[10,11] These elements include perivascular cells and the cytokine and growth
factor network they secrete,[12] integrins,[13] the extracellular matrix protein composition[14] and surrounding stroma,[15] as well as the mechanical properties of the stroma.[10] Taken together, these studies suggest that when thinking
about MICs, we should also consider the biophysical and biochemical
characteristics of the tumor microenvironment in which they reside.To explore how microenvironmental parameters can influence stem
cell characteristics, high throughput approaches have been developed
to screen for materials whose properties guide cell state and fate
determination. Typically, high-throughput approaches to model the
microenvironment have largely focused on characterizing cell response
to the adhesive properties of the substrates. Early work by Langer
et al. exploited the use of robotic fluid handling to create arrays
of polyacrylate monomers to study the effect of polymer-stem cell
interactions.[16] Lutolf et al. used a DNA
spotter to create cell niche microarray spots with modular stiffness
(1–50 kPa) per well, along with various combinations of proteins
to study proliferation, quiescence, and death of neural stem cells.[17] Kiessling and co-workers applied self-assembled
monolayers (SAMs) on gold into an array type format investigating
the effects of various peptide ligands on stem cell culture[18] and embryonal carcinoma cell binding capabilities.[19]Recently these high-throughput screening
techniques have enhanced
our understanding of cancer cell adhesion-mediated signaling,[20] specifically the role of the extracellular matrix
(ECM). Bhatia et al. used an array of ECM proteins to screen the adhesion
profiles of primary and metastatic tumor cells and found that metastatic
cells selectively associate with certain combinations of ECM molecules.[21] Peyton et al. combined ECM proteins to mimic
the in vivo characteristics of bone, brain, and lung, and created
a cellular phenotypic fingerprint of bone, brain, and lung metastasis
that could predict metastatic tropism of other heterogeneous cell
lines.[22] Furthermore, work by Hendrix et
al. using ECM matrices secreted by human embryonic stem cells demonstrated
that exposure of melanoma cells to the stem cell generated microenvironment
was sufficient to reprogram the melanoma cells to a less malignant
state.[23] These studies suggest that the
biophysical and biochemical interactions between cancer cells and
the matrix are key mediators of reprogramming and phenotype switching.[24] We hypothesize that a select combination of
small peptides derived from proteins present in the ECM—that
promote sustained interactions with specific surface receptors—will
modulate intracellular signals to regulate the phenotype of melanoma
cells in culture. Identification of defined surfaces that prime a
specific cellular outcome holds great potential in applications such
as drug screening, where a substrate can be tailored to augment a
desired cancer cell state. Furthermore, identifying precise matrix
signals that activate the elusive and deadly MIC state will reveal
new pathways to guide therapeutic intervention.In this paper
we use a single-step peptide microarray chemistry[25] to explore the combinatorial presentation of
short peptides that engage different classes of cell surface receptors
displayed by adherent melanoma cells. We demonstrate that this array
approach is able to identify unique peptide combinations that promote
expression of MIC markers. Concurrent interaction with an adhesion
and growth factor derived sequence reveals a role for each peptide
in modulating the melanoma cell state, and identifies Smad 2/3 as
a key signaling pathway in which these markers are upregulated. Functional
studies suggest these cells adopt a stem-like phenotype; however,
this phenotype is transient, and the cells will revert when returned
to standard cell culture conditions, underscoring the potential to
manipulate the plasticity of malignant melanoma. This approach provides
a tool for exploring how cancer cells integrate multiple matrix signals
to regulate metastatic potential and may prove useful as a platform
for the development of drugs that target metastatic and tumorigenic
cell populations.
Results and Discussion
Biomimetic
Peptides and Array Fabrication
Peptide microarrays
have attracted significant attention as a screening tool, since short
peptides can be presented uniformly on a substrate with an inert background,
to unequivocally discern specific receptor–ligand binding interactions.[18,26] One caveat associated with using short peptides, particularly those
derived from cytokines and growth factors, is the monomeric nature
of the binding interface which could preclude important multimeric
binding-downstream activity relationships. Growth factor derived peptides
at high density have been shown to accommodate receptor activation
similar to full-length proteins, while when presented at low density
they may inhibit growth factor signaling.[27−30] These studies underscore the
importance of understanding the relationships associated with ligand
presentation and receptor signaling, when working with surface presenting
short peptides.Since the extracellular microenvironment during
melanoma progression is host to a large combination of molecules that
support cell adhesion, proliferation, migration, and differentiation
among other activities,[31,32] we surveyed the literature
to identify short oligomeric peptides between 3 and 12 amino acids
in length that were reported to have bioactive properties.[33−41] We focused our search on three groups: integrin binding, proteoglycan
binding, and growth factor derived peptides. Integrins are one of
the most studied groups of signaling molecules and are known to play
a key role in cellular adhesion as well as regulating cytoskeletal
organization and transmembrane signal transduction.[42] Proteoglycans, especially heparin, are able to bind to
many different classes of proteins including growth factors, cytokines,
metabolic enzymes, and other structural proteins,[31] which highlights the importance of proteoglycans in signal
regulation. Integrins and proteoglycans often act synergistically
with other growth factor receptors[43] to
regulate cell function and behavior.[44] We
selected a subset of 12 peptides which were derived from major extracellular
matrix proteins and growth factors (Table ). We chose to investigate these 12 peptides
individually and pairwise with each other (78 total combinations).
Table 1
Peptides and Derived ECM Sources
#
sequence
source
1
GRGDS[33]
fibronectin, vitronectin
2
YIGSR[34]
laminin
3
IKVAV[35]
laminin
4
FYFDLR[36]
collagen IV
5
KRSR[37]
laminin
6
FHRRIKA[38]
bone sialoprotein
7
SHWSPWSS[39]
hThrombospondin
8
DWIVA[40]
BMP-2
9
KPSSAPTQLN[41]
BMP-7
10
YSDKSLPHP
JAGGED
11
HYQASVSPEPP
DELTA-1
12
IPKVELVPAG
ACTIVIN-1
To investigate cell-ligand interactions on
these peptides, we expanded
and optimized our array spotting platform[25] to print circular islands of peptide-conjugated alkanethiolates
(Figure a) onto gold
coated coverslips. Each island contains either a single or pairwise
peptide combination. We used coverslips approximately 25 mm ×
25 mm, each containing 6 replicates of the 78 peptide combinations,
3 negative controls, and 3 positive controls, arranged into subarrays,
for a total of 504 spots per coverslip (Figure b). Each spot is spaced 500 μm apart,
and each subarray is spaced 1000 μm apart to easily differentiate
between subarrays. To fabricate the arrays, we created a master 384-well
plate by pipetting peptide(s), a 15/85 mol/mol solution HS-C11-EG4-N3/HS-C11-EG3,
and a click solution containing Cu(I), TBTA, and sodium ascorbate
into each well of the plate. The selection of 15 mol % was driven
by empirical studies where <10 mol % peptide disallowed adhesion
to spots containing growth factor peptides, and >50 mol % will
facilitate
nonspecific protein adsorption. The plate was gently rocked at room
temperature for 1 h before spotting. An OmniGrid Microarrayer was
then used to transfer nanoliter scale volumes of solution from the
well plate onto the surface of the gold coverslips. After rinsing,
the substrate was immersed overnight in a solution of HS-C11-EG3 to
passivate the nonspotted regions and prevent nonspecific background
adsorption. Since only nanoliters of solution are deposited during
each print step, we were able to parafilm the master plates and store
them at −20 °C. We found that the master plate could be
reused months later with excellent reproducibility in terms of cell
adhesion on the various peptides.
Figure 1
Schematic for generating peptide microarrays.
An OmniGrid microarray
spotter deposits nanoliters of a spotting solution containing EG3-terminating
alkanethiols, and peptide-terminating alkanethiols onto a gold surface.
A background EG3-terminating alkanethiol passivates the nonspotted
regions, and seeded cells adhere only to peptide-terminated regions
of the self-assembled monolayer (a). Representative image showing
B16F0 melanoma cells adhering to the array (b) and a representative
subarray (inset). Scale bar is 1500 and 700 μm for inset.
Schematic for generating peptide microarrays.
An OmniGrid microarray
spotter deposits nanoliters of a spotting solution containing EG3-terminatingalkanethiols, and peptide-terminatingalkanethiols onto a gold surface.
A background EG3-terminatingalkanethiol passivates the nonspotted
regions, and seeded cells adhere only to peptide-terminated regions
of the self-assembled monolayer (a). Representative image showing
B16F0 melanoma cells adhering to the array (b) and a representative
subarray (inset). Scale bar is 1500 and 700 μm for inset.We stored the printed coverslips
in 6-well plates and seeded B16F0
murinemelanoma cells onto the substrates in normal serum-containing
media at a concentration of 80 000 cells/mL. We found a concentration
between 50 000 and 100 000 cells/mL was optimal for
filling in all the spots without the cells becoming too confluent
at the end of 5 days of culture. After seeding, the plate is gently
shaken for a few minutes and then stored at 37 °C for 24 h. The
next day we transferred the coverslips to a new 6-well plate. By doing
so, we prevent cells that attach to the noncoverslip areas from growing
confluent and expanding onto the printed array. After 5 days in culture,
array coverslips were removed from media and fixed and stained for
quantification. For every experiment, 3–6 replicates were printed;
within each replicate array, columns represent repeat spots of each
peptide combination (Figure b). Between replicates we see consistent differential adhesion
of B16F0 melanoma cells to the peptide combinations, with some combinations
promoting confluent spreading within each spot, and other peptides
obstructing adhesion (Figure b insert).
Peptide Arrays for High Content Quantification
of Cancer Cell
Markers
To quantify immunofluorescence staining, the stained
array coverslips were mounted with ProLong Diamond Antifade facedown
onto glass slides and then imaged with a GE InCell 2000 high content
imaging microscope at 10× magnification. A total of 144 images
were taken of each substrate and stitched together in ImageJ to show
the entire slide (Figure b). To quantify cells bound to each peptide, regions of interest
were drawn around each spot. Within each region of interest, the number
of cells were counted by creating a mask of the DAPI channel. A profile
of which peptide combinations support the most adhesion can be built
by averaging the number of cells adhering to each spot. These adhesion
profiles were highly reproducible between replicate slides as well
as replicate experiments (Figure S1). Marker
expression was quantified by measuring the integrated density (mean
intensity × area) of the thresholded positive fluorescence (Figure S2). Each spot was then given an intensity
score equal to the integrated density divided by the total area of
the nuclei. These intensity scores were then averaged to give us a
qualitative assessment of marker expression between various peptides.
We found that, for spots with high confluency, stacking nuclei or
nuclei in close proximity often resulted in undercounting of cells
when we performed automatic segmentation. However, by measuring nuclear
area and dividing by the average nuclear size, we were able to obtain
nuclear counts for both high and low confluency spots that agreed
well with manual nuclear counts (Figure S3). We also compared the marker expression intensity scores with the
adhesion profile to see if higher marker expression was simply an
artifact due to more cells being present. For eight of our nine markers
examined, we saw little to no correlation (R2 < 0.1) between marker expression intensity and adhesion
(Figure S4). This analysis strategy facilitates
high content analysis in a semiquantitative high-throughput manner.
After we have identified targets using immunofluorescence, we perform
additional flow cytometry experiments using large surfaces conjugated
with the peptides identified via screening, in order to attain more
quantitative results on large numbers of cells.As a model system
to investigate how materials can influence cancer cell plasticity,
we examined a variety of traditional stem cell markers such as OCT4,
as well as putative MIC markers such as ABCB5 and CD271 (Figure a). ABCB5,[45] CD271,[46] and Jarid1b[47] are putative melanoma cancer stem cell markers.
Oct4, Nanog, and Sox2 are general “stemness” markers,
but aberrant expression has been associated with cancer stem cell
phenotypes.[48,49] We focused on ABCB5 and CD271
and looked at the correlations between our panels of markers and these
two well-documented MIC markers.[50] We observed
a high correlation (R2 = 0.70) between
ABCB5 and CD271 (Figure b). We also see weak positive correlation between these two markers
and Jarid1b, Stat3, and acetylated lysine (Figure S5). These are markers which we have previously shown can be
upregulated via discrete biophysical parameters, and which promoted
greater tumorigenicity in mice.[51] Our findings
suggest that certain combinations of peptides promote upregulation
of these MIC markers. A full list of the peptides with their marker
expression intensity scores can be found in Supplemental Table 2 (Table S2).
Figure 2
Representative images of a panel of putative
melanoma cancer stem
cell markers and markers associated with cancer stem cell phenotypes
(a). A high correlation was found between CSC markers ABCB5 and CD271.
Over three experimental repeats, the peptide combination KRSR + KPSS
consistently showed high expression of both markers on the array (b).
Nonpatterned peptide substrates for RGD, RGD + KPSS, KRSR, and KRSR
+ KPSS were used to culture large numbers of B16F0 cells for flow
cytometry analysis (c). Flow cytometry confirms that cells cultured
on KRSR + KPSS substrates display higher levels of ABCB5, CD271, Jarid1b,
and Stat3. Scale bar = 100 μm.
Representative images of a panel of putative
melanoma cancer stem
cell markers and markers associated with cancer stem cell phenotypes
(a). A high correlation was found between CSC markers ABCB5 and CD271.
Over three experimental repeats, the peptide combination KRSR + KPSS
consistently showed high expression of both markers on the array (b).
Nonpatterned peptide substrates for RGD, RGD + KPSS, KRSR, and KRSR
+ KPSS were used to culture large numbers of B16F0 cells for flow
cytometry analysis (c). Flow cytometry confirms that cells cultured
on KRSR + KPSS substrates display higher levels of ABCB5, CD271, Jarid1b,
and Stat3. Scale bar = 100 μm.From repeated experiments, we averaged the expression of
these
two markers (ABCB5, CD271) across all peptides. One unique peptide
combination in particular, KRSR + KPSSAPTQLN (KRSR + KPSS), which
consistently displays high levels of these MIC markers as well as
general stem cell markers (Figure a,b, Table S1) was chosen
to explore the role of these peptides in regulating the melanoma cell
state. KRSR is a heparan sulfate binding peptide known to promote
attachment of osteoblasts[37] while the KPSS
peptide was first identified as a bioactive domain of bone morphogenetic
protein-7 (BMP-7) and shown to promote osteoblastic adhesion and morphology.[41] The presence of this KPSS peptide in promoting
CSC marker expression is interesting since BMP-7 has been shown to
be implicated in melanoma tumor progression.[52] We cultured B16F0 cells on bulk SAM surfaces displaying the fibronectin
derived adhesion sequence RGD, RGD + KPSS, KRSR, and KRSR + KPSS peptides
and performed flow cytometry after 5 days. Similar to our immunofluorescent
results from our peptide arrays, we observed similar elevated levels
of putative MIC markers from cells cultured on KRSR + KPSS surfaces
compared to those on control peptide surfaces. The KRSR + KPSS peptide
combination displayed significantly higher expression levels of ABCB5,
CD271, Jarid1b, and Stat3 compared to the RGD control peptide as well
as just the KRSR peptide alone (Figure c). Interestingly, when we combine RGD with KPSS, we
did not observe greater expression of these markers, suggesting that
KRSR and KPSS uniquely exert synergistic interactions. To further
verify the bioactivity of the KPSS sequence in promoting the MIC phenotype,
we synthesized a scrambled version of the peptide, where amino-acids
were exchanged N to C (KNPLSQSTAP (KPSS(Sc)). After 5 days of
culture, cells adherent to KRSR+KPSS show elevated expression of MIC
markers compared to cells cultured on both RGD + KPSS(Sc) and KRSR
+ KPSS(Sc) (Figure S6). This result supports
a specific bioactivity associated with the KPSS sequence in mediating
the MIC phenotype.
KRSR Mediates Melanoma Cell Adhesion through
Proteoglycans
KRSR was first reported by Dee et al. as an
adhesive peptide for
osteoblast cells that promotes binding via a proteoglycan-mediated
mechanism.[37] Subsequent studies using this
peptide have mostly focused on osteoblasts, though we find that the
KRSR peptide promotes adhesion of melanoma cells comparable to the
RGD peptide (Figure a). We blocked the B16F0 cell membrane receptors by preincubating
cells with soluble heparin at a concentration of 12 μg/mL and
observed a 60% reduction in cell density after 24 h on gold substrates
presenting the KRSR peptide, and a 85% reduction on substrates presenting
the KRSR + KPSS peptides (Figure a,b). There were also marginal reductions in cell density
on RGD and RGD + KPSS surfaces, though these changes were not significant
(p > 0.05). After blocking with soluble heparin,
the cells that remained attached to KRSR and KRSR + KPSS substrates
were noticeably smaller and rounder in appearance and their average
spread cell areas decreased from 1800 and 1500 μm2 respectively, to 1000 and 900 μm2 respectively.
This trend was reversed on RGD and RGD + KPSS substrates, on which
the average spread cell areas increased from 1300 and 1200 μm2 respectively to 1900 and 1500 μm2 respectively
after preincubating with soluble heparin (Figure a,b). This result agrees with previous studies
that cellular attachment to the fibronectin type III domain (FNIII,
which contains the RGD motif) is mediated partially by cell surface
proteoglycans. For example, Dalton et al. showed that the heparin-binding
region of fibronectin interacts with cell-membrane proteoglycans to
promote initial adhesion[53] while McCarthy
et al. demonstrated that this same heparin-binding region alone could
support adhesion and spreading of melanoma cells.[54] We should note that the KRSR peptide is highly charged,
and we cannot rule out the influence of electrostatics in mediating
other nonspecific interactions with proteins in the media or on the
cell surface. Nevertheless, we see a positive effect where heparin
preincubation with melanoma cells seems to facilitate spreading to
RGD-containing peptide substrates, whereas preincubation reduces binding
to KRSR-containing substrates. This suggests that KRSR peptide and
heparin directly compete for binding to cell-surface proteoglycans.
In fact, if we preincubate the peptide substrate with soluble heparin,
rather than the cells, we see slightly increased cell density on all
peptide surfaces (Figure S7).
Figure 3
Actin staining
of B16F0 cells on nonpatterned peptide SAMs with
and without preincubation with soluble heparin (a). Quantification
of cell density (cells/cm2) and cell spread area (μm2) on these surfaces (b). Scale bar = 500 μm. Error bars
represent ± SEM *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, based on one-way ANOVA with Tukey HSD post hoc testing.
Actin staining
of B16F0 cells on nonpatterned peptideSAMs with
and without preincubation with soluble heparin (a). Quantification
of cell density (cells/cm2) and cell spread area (μm2) on these surfaces (b). Scale bar = 500 μm. Error bars
represent ± SEM *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, based on one-way ANOVA with Tukey HSD post hoc testing.
KPSSAPTQLN Promotes the
Expression of Melanoma Stem Cell Markers
The KPSS peptide
was first reported by Chen and Webster as a bioactive
peptide derived from the knuckle epitope of BMP7 that could promote
osteoblast adhesion, proliferation, alkaline phosphatase production,
and calcium deposition.[41] We observed that
this peptide, when immobilized onto a SAM by itself, failed to promote
any adhesion of B16F0 cells (data not shown). However, using this
peptide combined with either RGD or KRSR does not impact cell adhesion
or spreading (Figures a and S8a). We prepared SAM substrates
bearing RGD and KRSR as single peptides and combined with the KPSS
peptide, and cultured B16F0 cells on the substrates for 1, 3, or 5
days, after which we fixed and stained the substrates for ABCB5 and
CD271. We observed that over the first 3 days of culture, all peptide
conditions appear to have similar cell densities and low expression
of ABCB5 and CD271. However, after 5 days in culture, the KRSR + KPSS
peptide substrates induced significantly higher expression of both
ABCB5 and CD271 (Figure S8b,c) that correlate
well with immunofluorescence data from the peptide array (Figure a) as well as flow
cytometry (Figure c). Since the KPSS peptide is derived from BMP7,[41] we investigated whether this peptide interacts with BMP
receptors. We performed Western blot analysis of the three main BMP
receptors: BMPRIA/ALK3, BMPRIB/ALK6, and BMPRII[55] for B16F0 melanoma cells cultured for 5 days on our peptide
substrates. For cells grown on KRSR + KPSS substrates, we see slightly
higher expression of BMPRIA and significantly lower expression of
BMPRIB compared to RGD. There were no significant changes to expression
of BMPRII across all peptides (Figure a). Interestingly, adding KPSS in conjunction with
an adhesion promoting peptide increases BMPRIA expression and decreases
BMPRIB expression. However, this trend was only significant for BMPRIB.
We also attempted to visualize the interaction between the peptides
and the receptors by adapting a method proposed by Schroeder et al.
where cells and organelles are removed from the peptide substrate
using a hypotonic solution, leaving only behind transmembrane proteins
associated with the ventral side of the cell.[56] Rather than trypsinize the surface-bound receptors for mass spectrometry,
we instead immunostained the proteins to quantify BMP receptors. We
patterned discrete 5000 μm2 peptide spots as previously
described[57] to normalize total area and
allow quantification of the BMP receptor intensities (Figure S9). Although we see high levels of background
on control peptide surfaces, and a regional artifact at the perimeter
of all samples, we observe a trend where the presence of KPSS peptide
on the surface increases the appearance of associated BMPRIA, with
a decrease in associated BMPRIB, similar to our western results (Figure a).
Figure 4
Western blots for BMP
receptors and Smad proteins (a). BMPR quantification
was normalized to GAPDH. Smad signaling was normalized by phosphorylated
Smad against nonphosphorylated Smad. Flow cytometry histograms for
B16F0 cells cultured for 5 days on nonpatterned peptide SAMs in the
presence of pharmacological inhibitors for ERK, JNK, P38, and LDN-193189,
an inhibitor of BMP type I receptors (b). Proposed pathway for peptide
mediated signaling guiding CSC phenotype (c). Error bars represent
± SEM *P < 0.05, **P <
0.01, based on one-way ANOVA with Tukey HSD post hoc testing.
Western blots for BMP
receptors and Smad proteins (a). BMPR quantification
was normalized to GAPDH. Smad signaling was normalized by phosphorylated
Smad against nonphosphorylated Smad. Flow cytometry histograms for
B16F0 cells cultured for 5 days on nonpatterned peptideSAMs in the
presence of pharmacological inhibitors for ERK, JNK, P38, and LDN-193189,
an inhibitor of BMP type I receptors (b). Proposed pathway for peptide
mediated signaling guiding CSC phenotype (c). Error bars represent
± SEM *P < 0.05, **P <
0.01, based on one-way ANOVA with Tukey HSD post hoc testing.Downstream of BMP receptors, the
canonical signaling pathway involves
phosphorylation of Smads 1/5/8.[58] We performed
Western blot analysis of phosphorylated and unphosphorylated Smads
1/5/8, and found no significant changes across the peptide surfaces
when we compare the ratio of pSmad 1/5/8 to nonphospho Smad 1/5/8
(Figure a). We also
performed Western blot analysis of phospho- and nonphospho- Smad 2/3
and observed increased Smad 2/3 signaling when the KPSS peptide is
combined with a corresponding adhesion peptide (Figure a). This effect is most significant when
KRSR is combined with KPSS (p < 0.01). Typically
Smad 2/3 signaling is associated with TGFβ and activin receptor,[59] though BMPs have been shown to interact with
TGFβ receptor type I to activate phosphorylation of Smad 2/3.[60] Cassar et al. showed that BMP7 could induce
Smad3 phosphorylation in breast cancer cells, leading to cell senescence,[61] and Holtzhausen et al. recently reported that
BMPs could induce Smad2/3 signaling, a process that preferentially
occurs in cancer and embryonic cell lines. These collective findings
suggest that during development BMPs typically signal through Smads
1/5/8, while in a more dedifferentiated phenotype, Smad 2/3 signaling
is activated.[62] In our system, we observed
the concurrent induction of Smad 2/3 signaling via a BMP7 derived
peptide with an increase in the expression of MIC markers. At a peptide
density of ∼15 mol % we would expect a relatively high number
of peptides available for interaction with cell surface receptors,
and the associated noncanonical Smad 2/3 signaling suggests receptor
activation. However, we cannot discount the possibility of inhibitory
interactions upon binding that may result in modulating Smad pathways,
and the final phenotype observed.
Cell Binding to KPSSAPTQLN
Peptide Influences Mitogen Activated
Protein Kinase (MAPK) Activity
BMP receptors are a subset
of the TGFβ superfamily of receptors and have been shown to
have crosstalk with various other signaling pathways, particularly
the MAP kinase pathways.[63] We used pharmacological
inhibitors of ERK, JNK, and p38 MAP kinase and cultured B16F0 cells
on peptide substrates for 5 days, before fixing and performing flow
cytometry. With ERK inhibition, we see a decrease in ABCB5 expression
but no change in CD271 of our melanoma cell population. With JNK inhibition
we see a decrease in CD271 expression but no change in ABCB5 expression
(Figure b). Unlike
our previous report using patterned substrates which found the p38
MAP kinase pathway important in regulating the cancer stem cell phenotype,[51] no change in either ABCB5 or CD271 was observed
following p38 inhibition. Interestingly, when we culture the B16F0
melanoma cells with LDN-193189, an inhibitor of BMP type I receptors,[64] we see an increase in ABCB5 and CD271 expression
on both KRSR surfaces and on KRSR+KPSS surfaces (Figure b). This molecule targets BMPRIA
and BMPRIB and inhibits phosphorylation of Smad 1/5/8.[64] However, we observe that inhibiting Smad 1/5/8
signaling increases the expression of CSC markers ABCB5 and CD271,
suggesting canonical Smad 1/5/8 signaling may play a negative regulatory
role in the MIC state, and further pointing to the role of Smad2/3
and MAP Kinase signaling in promoting the MIC phenotype for the KRSR+KPSS
peptide combination (Figure c).
Culture on Peptide Substrates Influences
Invasiveness in Vitro
and in Vivo
To assess the invasiveness of melanoma cells
cultured on the various peptide substrates in vitro, we performed
wound healing and Boyden chamber invasion assays. For the wound healing
assay, cells cultured on peptideSAMsfor 5 days were trypsinized
and reseeded at a concentration of 106 cells/mL onto glass
coverslips to form a confluent monolayer. Three scratches were made
onto each coverslip, and images of the initial scratch and scratch
after 12 h were taken. We observed the highest relative migration
from melanoma cells cultured on KRSR + KPSS peptide substrates (Figure a). For the Boyden
chamber invasion assay, we measured the ability of cells to invade
through an artificial basement membrane. The migrated cells mostly
formed colonies rather than remaining as single cells so we quantified
invasion by the nuclear area of the invaded colonies. Similar to the
scratch migration assay, the cells previously cultured on KRSR + KPSS
substrates displayed the highest level of invasion (Figure b).
Figure 5
Wound healing and Boyden
chamber invasion assay for B16F0 cells
cultured on nonpatterned peptide substrates for 5 days. Wound healing
scratches were imaged immediately and 12 h after initial scratch time
to quantify relative migration (a). Relative invasion was quantified
by measuring the total area of all cell nuclei that invade through
the basement membrane 12 h after seeding (b). Average tumor volume
(mm2) in C57BL/6 mice that developed tumors after subcutaneous
injection of B16F0 cells that had been cultured on nonpatterned peptide
SAMs for 5 days (c). Scale bar = 200 μm. Error bars represent
± SEM *P < 0.05, **P <
0.01, based on one-way ANOVA with Tukey HSD post hoc testing.
Wound healing and Boyden
chamber invasion assay for B16F0 cells
cultured on nonpatterned peptide substrates for 5 days. Wound healing
scratches were imaged immediately and 12 h after initial scratch time
to quantify relative migration (a). Relative invasion was quantified
by measuring the total area of all cell nuclei that invade through
the basement membrane 12 h after seeding (b). Average tumor volume
(mm2) in C57BL/6 mice that developed tumors after subcutaneous
injection of B16F0 cells that had been cultured on nonpatterned peptideSAMsfor 5 days (c). Scale bar = 200 μm. Error bars represent
± SEM *P < 0.05, **P <
0.01, based on one-way ANOVA with Tukey HSD post hoc testing.We performed in vivo tests for
malignancy by culturing B16F0 cells
on peptide SAM substrates for 5 days, followed by trypsinization and
resuspension in HBSS buffer. Melanoma cells were injected into 6–8
week-old C57BL/6 mice subcutaneously and tumor growth was monitored
twice per week with calipers. Mice injected with 104 cells
quickly developed tumors and the mice in the experimental group were
sacrificed after 3 weeks due to the large tumors in all mice groups
at this time. After 3 weeks, the largest tumors occurred on mice injected
with B16F0 cells previously cultured on KPSS-containing substrates,
with the KRSR+KPSS condition group having the largest tumors (Figure c). However, when
B16F0 inoculum was reduced to 103 and 102 cells,
this trend was less evident with only a few mice developing tumors
in the low injection number conditions (Figure S10a). We also assessed metastatic potency with a separate
experiment in which we injected melanoma cells previously cultured
on the four peptide combinations via tail vein injection into C57BL/6
mice. However, there was no difference in survival rate after 3 weeks
between all the peptide conditions (Figure S10b). We tested cell viability to see if cells cultured on a particular
peptide substrate were more prone to anoikis than others. We found
no significant changes between the peptide surfaces, and >95% initial
viability for all conditions. Even after suspension in HBSS buffer
for 3 h (experimental injection condition), we see high cell viability
for cells on all peptide surfaces (Figure S11).Since preculture on peptide substrates does not show a pronounced
difference in metastatic potency in vivo, we explored the plasticity
of this state interconversion. We cultured B16F0 cells for 5 days
on either tissue culture plastic (TCP) or KRSR + KPSS SAM substrates
and observed higher ABCB5 and CD271 expression on cells cultured on
KRSR+KPSS substrates (Figure ). Cells from KRSR + KPSS were trypsinized and reseeded back
onto TCP, while cells from TCP were trypsinized and reseeded onto
new KRSR+KPSS substrates. The cells were allowed to culture for an
additional 5 days, after which they were fixed and stained. For the
cells that had previously been cultured on KRSR + KPSS and reseeded
onto TCP, we see a complete shift in ABCB5 and CD271 to the levels
of cells cultured initially for 5 days on TCP. Meanwhile, cells that
had been cultured on TCP and then reseeded on KRSR + KPSS had the
expected high expression of ABCB5 and CD271 (Figure ). We cultured B16F0 cells on KRSR + KPSS
substrates for 5 days and monitored ABCB5 and CD271 expression after
removal for an additional 5 days. We see only small changes in expression
levels after 1 day, but almost a complete reversal after 2 days (Figure S12). This reversal after 2 days likely
explains why we see evidence of enhanced metastatic potency in the
in vitro scratch and wound assays, and enhanced tumor growth in the
subcutaneous in vivo assays, in which the cells are only removed from
the KRSR+KPSS substrates for less than 24 h. For the syngeneic metastasis
experiments, partial or full reversion of a MIC phenotype may occur
after tail vein injection prior to extravasation into the lungs. Together,
these results demonstrate that melanoma cells are highly plastic,
and that their phenotype can be regulated through biochemical and
biophysical cues. By investigating various peptide-presenting SAMs,
we identify a unique combination which upregulates many putative cancer
stem cell markers. Our results highlight the importance of heparin
and proteoglycan-mediated adhesion, which when combined with a BMP7
derived morphogen motif, promotes noncannonical Smad 2/3 signaling
to upregulate a malignant MIC phenotype (Figure c).
Figure 6
B16F0 cells were cultured for 5 days on either
tissue culture plastic
(TCP), or KRSR + KPSS nonpatterned SAM substrates. After 5 days of
culture, cells were fixed for flow cytometry analysis, and 10 000
cells from each condition were reseeded onto either KRSR + KPSS (initially
cultured on TCP), or onto TCP (initially cultured on KRSR + KPSS).
After an additional 5 days of culture, these cells were fixed for
flow cytometry analysis.
B16F0 cells were cultured for 5 days on either
tissue culture plastic
(TCP), or KRSR + KPSS nonpatterned SAM substrates. After 5 days of
culture, cells were fixed for flow cytometry analysis, and 10 000
cells from each condition were reseeded onto either KRSR + KPSS (initially
cultured on TCP), or onto TCP (initially cultured on KRSR + KPSS).
After an additional 5 days of culture, these cells were fixed for
flow cytometry analysis.
Conclusion
Signaling in the melanoma
niche is viewed as a highly complex,
and tightly coordinated process with multiple biophysical and biochemical
cues presented in dynamic fashion. While combinatorial array approaches
can be instructive in identifying peptide motifs that may be present
during various stages of melanoma progression, there are clearly multiple
signals in the melanoma niche that contribute to malignancy and tumorigenicity.
We selected a panel of short peptides that are believed to be present
within the melanoma microenvironment, and identified the BMP7 derived
peptide KPSSAPTQLN as mediating Smad 2/3 signaling and regulation
of the MIC phenotype. Several previous reports have identified a role
for BMP signaling in melanoma progression, including BMP7.[65,66] We propose that our peptide array approach can help select peptide
motifs that may be involved in regulating distinct cellular states
associated with progression, while providing designer surface coatings
that can reproducibly augment a desired phenotype for therapeutic
development. Furthermore, our results demonstrate the utility of a
peptide microarray for normalizing a heterogeneous population of cancer
cells and promoting a desired population.The defined presentation
and coaction of proteoglycan adhesion
(KRSR) and stimulation of BMP receptors (KPSSAPTQLN) activate
Smad 2/3 signaling and MAPK activity to promote stem cell characteristics
in populations of adherent melanoma cells. This finding suggests that
BMP signaling in conjunction with proteoglycan adhesion within the
tumor microenvironment may play a role in activating a stem-like MIC
phenotype that is involved in progression. The enrichment of these
MICs in vitro provides an opportunity to translate these tailored
surfaces to develop therapeutics that target this population of cells
believed to be at the heart of recurrence and metastasis. While we
focused primarily on the KRSR+KPSS combination, we found numerous
combinations that activate different markers associated with melanomatumorigenicity and metastatic potential to various degrees. Therefore,
we believe this microarray approach, that allows unambiguous exploration
of discrete motifs, will find broad applicability in studies of precise
ligand–receptor interactions that guide a cell state of interest.
Furthermore, short peptides can be readily translated to a host of
hydrogel chemistries toward the fabrication of three-dimensional materials
that better recapitulate the biophysical and biochemical properties
of the tumor microenvironment, toward the realization of synthetic
in vitro avatars for therapeutic development on patient-derived cells.
Experimental Section
Materials
General laboratory chemicals
and reagents
were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich and Fisher Scientific unless otherwise
specified. Peptide synthesis resin and amino acids were purchased
from Anaspec. 11-(2-{2-[2-(2-Azido-ethoxy)-ethoxy]-ethoxy}-ethoxy)-undecane-1-thiol
(referred to herein as HS-C11-EG4-N3) was purchased from Prochimia
(Sopot, Poland, TH 008-m11.n4-0.2). Triethylene glycol mono-11-mercaptoundecyl
ether (referred to herein as HS-C11-EG3) was purchased from Sigma-Aldrich
(673110). Glass coverslips were purchased from Fisher Scientific.
Cell culture plasticware was purchased from Denville Scientific. Cell
culture media, fetal bovine serum (FBS), and penicillin/streptomycin
(P/S) were purchased from Corning.
Cell Source and Culture
The B16F0 murinemelanoma cell
line was obtained from American Type Culture Collection. B16F0s were
cultured in Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle’s Medium (DMEM)
high glucose (4.5 g/mL) media supplemented with 10% FBS and P/S, media
changed every 3 days, and passaged at ∼90% confluency every
week using 0.05% trypsin. B16F0 cells were tested for mycoplasma contamination
at Charles River Laboratories for cell line testing prior to in vivo
experiments.
Peptide Synthesis
Peptides were
synthesized manually
by standard Fmoc solid-phase methodology as previously described.[25] Briefly, N-terminal fluorenylmethyloxycarbonyl
(Fmoc) protected rink amide resin was deprotected with 20% piperidine
in N′,N′-dimethylformamide
(DMF) for 15 min. The solvent was filtered and the resin was washed
4 times with DMF. A solution containing 3 equiv of amino acid, benzotriazol-1-yl-oxytripyrrolidinophosphonium
hexafluorophosphate (PyBOP), and N-methylmorpholine
in DMF was then added and incubated at room temperature for 1 h with
gentle rocking. After coupling, the resulting solution was filtered,
the resin was washed 4 times with DMF, and the next Fmoc was deprotected.
Coupling and deprotection was assessed using a ninhydrin test. After
all amino acids were coupled, the peptides were capped with a propargyl-PEG-NHS
ester (Quanta Biodesign, 10511) in DMF overnight. The resin was cleaved
with a cocktail containing 95% trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), 2.5% H2O,
and 2.5% triisopropylsilane (TIS) for 3 h and the peptides were filtered
from the resin. The peptide was precipitated by adding ice-cold diethyl
ether and after 3 dissolve/precipitate steps using TFA/ether, finally
dissolved in water and lyophilized. Final products were analyzed with
low resolution electrospray ionization (ESI) (Waters Quattro II) and
semipreparative reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography
(RP-HPLC) (PerkinElmer Flexar). All peptides used were purified to
>90% purity as assessed by HPLC, dissolved in deionized H2O, and stored at −20 °C. Bioactive peptides synthesized
are listed in Table .
Gold Surface Preparation
Five nm of Cr followed by
20 nm of Au were deposited onto the surface of cleaned glass coverslips
(60 × 24 × 0.1 mm dimensions). Gold coverslips were stored
in a desiccator for up to 2 weeks before use. Prior to use, gold substrates
were cleaned by briefly sonicating for 1 min in glacial acetic acid
followed by 1 min in ethanol. Gold coverslips were cut to approximate
size 24 × 24 mm using a diamond indenter and mounted onto 75
× 25 mm microscope slides by applying a thin layer of ethanol
to the interface.
Peptide Microarray Formation
A panel
of 12 peptides
were used, in single and as a combination with the other 11 peptides,
for a total of 78 peptide combinations. Peptide microarrays were printed
as previously described.[25] Stock solutions
of peptide ligand (1 mM in H2O), Tris[(1-benzyl-1H-1,2,3-triazol-4-yl)methyl]amine (TBTA) (5 mM in DMSO/t-butyl alcohol (3:1)), and HS-C11-EG4-N3/HS-C11-EG3 (15%
azide mole fraction in ethanol) solution were prepared. Click solution
was prepared by combining TBTA solution with copper (10 mM CuBr, 10
mM sodium ascorbate in DMSO) solution (2:1 v/v). Peptide combinations
(5 μL total), click solution (5 μL), and HS-C11-EG4-N3
solution (10 μL) were pipetted to a 384-well plate and incubated
1 h at room temperature with gentle rocking. A Gene Machines OGR-03
OmniGrid Microarrayer was used to print the solutions of the resulting
plate in subarray format on the gold-coated surfaces. Each peptide
combination was printed as a column of 6 replicate spots. The substrate
was removed from the microscope slide and thoroughly rinsed with deionized
H2O followed by ethanol 4 times. After rinsing, printed
substrates were immersed in a 0.1% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid
(EDTA) solution for 20 min, followed by another 4 rinse steps of H2O/ethanol. Substrates were then immersed in a HS-C11-EG3 solution
to render the nonprinted regions inert to nonspecific adsorption.
In addition to the 78 peptide combinations, 3 negative controls (RDG,
PBS, and HS-C11-EG4-N3) and 3 positive controls (GRGDS, YIGSR, IKVAV)
were printed on each slide, giving 84 × 6 replicate spots = 504
total spots for each 25 × 25 mm coverslip. Printed peptide microarray
substrates were transferred to 6-well plates and seeded with B16F0
cells at a concentration of ∼80 000 cells/mL. After
24 h, microarray chips were transferred to new 6-well plates to prevent
migration of cells attached to perimeter of the wells. Chips were
cultured for an additional 4 days, with media change every 2 days.
Nonpatterned Self-Assembled Monolayers
For investigations
of specific peptides outside the array, Au surfaces were immersed
in 15% HS-C11-EG4-N3/HS-C11-EG3 overnight to form monolayers. Surfaces
were rinsed with ethanol, dried with air, and cut to fit into 24-well
or 6-well culture plates. Peptides were conjugated by incubating the
monolayer surface to a 1:1 solution of click solution and peptide
ligand solution for 12 h at room temperature.
Immunofluorescence
Cells were fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde
for 20 min, followed by permeabilization with 0.1% Triton X-100 in
PBS for 20 min, and blocked with 0.1% bovineserum albumin (BSA) in
PBS for 30 min. Primary antibody labeling was performed in 0.1% BSA
solution overnight at 4 °C. Secondary antibody labeling was performed
similarly in 2% goat serum, 1% bovineserum albuminPBS solution for
1 h at room temperature. A full list of primary and secondary antibodies
used is available in Supplemental Table 1 (Table S1). Samples were mounted using ProLong diamond antifade
mountant (Thermo Fisher) and immunofluorescence microscopy was performed
using an IN Cell Analyzer 2000 (GE) microscope. For peptide microarray
surfaces, the entire area was imaged at 10× magnification and
stitched together using ImageJ software. To quantify marker expression,
a region of interest was drawn around each peptide spot (approximately
100 μm in diameter), and a threshold was set to determine positive
signal. The total integrated density of signal (mean signal ×
area) of each spot was normalized to the number of cells in each spot
to generate a signal intensity for each peptide spot. Since there
was often poor segmentation of nuclei due to high confluency of cells
in each spot, we used total nuclear area to normalize. For every antibody
marker, a minimum of three array surfaces each containing six replicate
spots was used.
Flow Cytometry
B16F0 cells cultured
on 24 × 24
mm peptide-conjugated self-assembled monolayer substrates were detached
with 0.05% trypsin and centrifuged. The resulting cell pellet was
fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde for 20 min and permeabilized in 0.1%
Triton X-100 in PBS for 20 min. Cells were blocked with 0.1% BSA in
PBS for 30 min and stained with primary antibody in 0.1% BSA in PBS
overnight at 4 °C. Secondary staining was performed in 2% goat
serum, 1% BSA in PBS for 1 h at room temperature. Flow cytometry was
performed with a BD LSR Fortessa Flow Cytometry Analyzer. Cells stained
with secondary antibody but without primary antibodies were used as
negative controls for gating.
Western Blotting
B16F0 cells cultured on 24 ×
24 mm substrates were lysed with RIPA buffer containing protease inhibitors
(Santa Cruz Biotechnology) according to manufacturer instructions.
A BCA assay kit (Thermo Fisher) was used to normalize total protein
between samples. Twenty μg whole cell lysate was resuspended
in Laemmli buffer and boiled for 5 min before running on a PAGE 4–20%
Tris-Glycine gel (Lonza) with Tris running buffer. The gel was blotted
to a PVDF membrane using a semidry transfer system and blocked with
5% skim milk in TBST for 30 min. Membranes were exposed to primary
antibody in 5% skim milk in TBST overnight on ice, washed 3 times
with TBST, and incubated with goat antirabbit secondary antibody HRP
conjugate (Thermo Fisher) for 1 h at room temperature. After washing
the membranes three times with TBST, signal is visualized using SuperSignal
West Pico Chemiluminescent substrate (Thermo Fisher).
Cell Deroofing
Assay
PDMS stamps featuring circular
patterns of 5000 μm2 were used to generate peptide-terminated
features as previously described.[57] Briefly,
stamps were inked with an inking solution containing 15 mol % HS-C11-EG4-N3,
85 mol % HS-C11-EG3 in ethanol, dried under air, and applied to the
surface of the gold. Surfaces were then rinsed and immersed overnight
in HS-C11-EG3 solution to backfill nonpatterned regions. RGD, RGD
+ KPSS, KRSR, and KRSR + KPSS peptides were then conjugated to the
patterned HS-C11-EG4-N3 regions via copper-catalyzed cycloaddition.
Residual copper was removed with a 50 mM EDTA solution for 5 min.
B16F0 cells were seeded onto the substrates and cultured for 5 days.
Cells were ruptured and “deroofed” by treating for 5
min in sterile 20 mM NH4OH followed by three rinses in
DI H2O followed by three rinses in PBS. The proteins left
on the patterned substrate were fixed in 4% PFA for 10 min, blocked
with 0.1% BSA for 20 min, and primary stained overnight with BMPR
antibodies. Secondary staining was performed in 2% goat serum, 1%
BSA in PBS for 1 h. Samples were mounted with Prolong Diamond antifade
and imaged on the IN Cell Analyzer 2000.
Heparin Inhibition Assay
Heparin salt (Sigma H3149)
was dissolved in deionized water, filtered through a 0.2 μm
filter, and used at a final concentration of ∼12 μg/mL.
B16F0 cells were precultured with heparin for 20 min at 37 °C
before centrifuging and washing. Cells were then seeded onto peptide-conjugated
SAMs at a density ∼1,000 cells/mL. After 24 h, surfaces were
fixed with PFA, permeabilized, and stained with DAPI and Phalloidin.
Pharmacological Inhibition
MAP kinase inhibitors for
ERK1/2 (FR180204), JNK (SP600125), and p38 (SB202190) were added to
the media at 6 μM concentrations during initial seeding and
every subsequent media change. LDN-193189 was used at a concentration
of 30 nM. MG132 was preincubated with suspended B16F0 cells at a 1
μM concentration for 1 h, then removed prior to seeding. After
24 h, MG132 was added to the media at 0.5 μM concentration.
Wound Healing Assay
B16F0 cells were cultured on peptide
SAM substrates for 5 days before trypsinization and replating onto
glass substrates (106 cells per glass coverslip). On the
coverslips cells were cultured for 12 h and allowed to grow to about
90% confluence. Three linear scratches were made to each coverslip
using a pipet tip. Cells were allowed to migrate over a period of
12 h, and were observed under brightfield microscopy. Brightfield
images of each scratch were taken at initial time and after 12 h.
The total scratch area for each time point was determined by tracing
the outline of the cells using ImageJ, and wound healing was quantitatively
assessed by subtracting the final scratch area from the initial scratch
area.
Boyden Chamber Invasion Assay
Invasion of B16F0 cells
through matrigel was assessed using 24-well Boyden chambers (Corning)
with 8 μm pore inserts. Chambers were precoated with a mixture
of Cultrex Reduced Growth Factor Basement Membrane Extract (Trevigen)
and cell media to form a final concentration of 4 mg/mL of basement
membrane. Cells were cultured for 5 days on peptide SAM substrates
and then trypsinized and reseeded in serum-free media into the upper
chambers of each well. The lower chamber contained serum-containing
media and provides the chemotactic gradient to drive migration. Cells
were cultured for 12 h before fixing with 4% paraformaldehyde. Cells
on the upper surface of the membrane filter were removed and only
cells that crossed the insets to the lower surface were stained with
DAPI. Cells on the lower surface were imaged using the IN Cell 2000
and counted.
B16F0 Melanoma in Vivo Model
6–8-week-old
female
C57BL/6 mice were purchased from Charles River Laboratories for in
vivo studies. B16F0 cells were cultured on peptide SAM substrates
for 5 days before trypsinization and resuspension in Hank’s
Balanced Salt Solution (HBSS) buffer. Primary localized tumors were
established by subcutaneously injecting B16F0 cells (total cell numbers
105, 104, or 103) into the right
lateral flank. Six mice were used for each condition. Macroscopic
tumor growth was serially measured (maximal length and width) with
calipers three times a week. Tumor growth was checked every 3 days
and experiments were stopped when the first mouse of the respective
series had a tumor exceeding 2,000 mm3. Tumor volume was
calculated using V = (L × W2)/2, where L is length and W is width. Criteria used for primary tumorigenesis was
the formation of subcutaneous tumors which were detectable by visual
examination and measurable with calipers. For comparison of primary
tumor formation kinetics, mice were evaluated daily until primary
tumors exceeded 20 mm in diameter, then humanely euthanized. Experimental
metastases were established by injecting 105 B16F0 (grown
on peptide SAM substrates) melanoma cells via lateral tail vein injection.
The primary end point was survival time, and mice were monitored daily
until reaching criteria for humane euthanasia. Inoculation of mice
with melanoma cells grown on different conditions (peptide substrates)
and different cell densities was not performed in a random fashion.
Rather, cohorts of mice were predetermined to receive injections of
melanoma cells grown under specified conditions and cell densities
before inoculation. All experiments using live animals were in compliance
with animal welfare ethical regulations and approved by the Institute
Animal Care and Use Committee before experimentation.
Statistical
Analysis
Data from three independent experiments
were compared and expressed as mean ± standard error of the mean
(s.e.m.) unless otherwise specified. Statistical tests were performed
in OriginPro using Student’s t test for comparisons
between two groups, and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with
Tukey HSD Posthoc analysis for multiple comparisons.
Authors: Douglas Zhang; Michael B Sun; Junmin Lee; Amr A Abdeen; Kristopher A Kilian Journal: J Biomed Mater Res A Date: 2016-02-11 Impact factor: 4.396
Authors: Tobias Schatton; George F Murphy; Natasha Y Frank; Kazuhiro Yamaura; Ana Maria Waaga-Gasser; Martin Gasser; Qian Zhan; Stefan Jordan; Lyn M Duncan; Carsten Weishaupt; Robert C Fuhlbrigge; Thomas S Kupper; Mohamed H Sayegh; Markus H Frank Journal: Nature Date: 2008-01-17 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: A Bergamaschi; E Tagliabue; T Sørlie; B Naume; T Triulzi; R Orlandi; H G Russnes; J M Nesland; R Tammi; P Auvinen; V-M Kosma; S Ménard; A-L Børresen-Dale Journal: J Pathol Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 7.996
Authors: Alisha Holtzhausen; Christelle Golzio; Tam How; Yong-Hun Lee; William P Schiemann; Nicholas Katsanis; Gerard C Blobe Journal: FASEB J Date: 2013-12-05 Impact factor: 5.191