| Literature DB >> 30925183 |
Ann Rancourt1,2, Sachiko Sato1, Masahiko S Satoh2.
Abstract
Cultured cell populations are composed of heterogeneous cells, and previous single-cell lineage tracking analysis of individual HeLa cells provided empirical evidence for significant heterogeneity of the rate of cell proliferation and induction of cell death. Nevertheless, such cell lines have been used for investigations of cellular responses to various substances, resulting in incomplete characterizations. This problem caused by heterogeneity within cell lines could be overcome by investigating the spatiotemporal responses of individual cells to a substance. However, no approach to investigate the responses by analyzing spatiotemporal data is currently available. Thus, this study aimed to analyze the spatiotemporal responses of individual HeLa cells to cytotoxic, sub-cytotoxic, and non-cytotoxic doses of the well-characterized carcinogen, N-methyl-N'-nitro-N-nitrosoguanidine (MNNG). Although cytotoxic doses of MNNG are known to induce cell death, the single-cell tracking approach revealed that cell death occurred following at least four different cellular events, suggesting that cell death is induced via multiple processes. We also found that HeLa cells exposed to a sub-cytotoxic dose of MNNG were in a state of equilibrium between cell proliferation and cell death, with cell death again induced through different processes. However, exposure of cells to a non-cytotoxic dose of MNNG promoted growth by reducing the cell doubling time, thus promoting the growth of a sub-population of cells. A single-cell lineage tracking approach could dissect processes leading to cell death in a spatiotemporal manner and the results suggest that spatiotemporal data obtained by tracking individual cells can be used as a new type of bioinformatics data resource that enables the examination of cellular responses to various external substances.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30925183 PMCID: PMC6440626 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214512
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Analysis of cell-doubling time.
A. Two sets of videos for Control and MNNG-1μM-exposed cells were created by independent long-term live cell imaging and used for cell tracking analysis (Imaging 1 and 2). Cell doubling times analyzed by Imaging 2 were normalized by a factor of 1.124 (Imaging 2, Normalized). Welch’s t-tests were performed to analyze the statistical significance between Control and MNNG-1μM; ****p<0.0001. Results shown as the mean ± standard error (SEM). B. A cell lineage database was created by merging multiple cell lineage databases. Cell doubling times were analyzed for Control, MNNG-1μM-, MNNG-2μM-, and MNNG-5μM-exposed cells. One-way ANOVA (Tukey’s multiple comparison test) was performed; **p<0.01, ***p<0.001 and ****p<0.0001.
Fig 2Effect of MNNG exposure on cell proliferation.
A. The numbers of cells at each time point were determined using the cell lineage database. The initial numbers of cells were normalized by 100. B. The numbers of cells produced from each progenitor cell at the 2000, 4000, 6000, and 8500 min time points were calculated. One-way ANOVA (Tukey’s multiple comparison test) was performed. The statistical significance between Control with MNNG-1μM, MNNG-2μM, and MNNG-5μM are shown; ns: not significant, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001 and ****p<0.0001. Results shown as the mean ± SEM. C. Growth curves for the time points from 1 to 4000 min are shown. Arrow indicates the time point at which the numbers of cells exposed to MNNG-2μM reached the maximum.
Fig 3Numbers of CD, MD, and CF events in cells exposed to MNNG.
Data in A-C were normalized by the total numbers of cells. The numbers of CD (A), MD (B), and CF (C) events that occurred in each cell lineage were determined using the cell lineage database. D. The numbers of CD events that occurred in each cell lineage following BD, MD, CF, or M are shown. If the event preceding M was MD or CF, the CD event following the M was included in MD → CD or CF → CD, respectively (see S6 Fig). A-D. One-way ANOVA (Tukey’s multiple comparison test) was performed. The statistical significance between Control with MNNG-1μM, MNNG-2μM, and MNNG-5μM are shown; ****p<0.0001. Results shown as the mean ± SEM. Sample sizes of Control, MNNG-1μM, MNNG-2μM and MNNG-5μM were 330, 317, 188 and 200, respectively.
Summary of processes leading to CD.
| Treatments | Cell-doubling time | Fold increase in number of cells | CD | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| min | fold | Processes | % | No. of events/100 lineages | ||
| MNNG-40μM | nd | nd | nd | |||
| MNNG-5μM | 2493 | 1.10 | 0.6 | BD (exc. M) → CD | 21.0 | 25.5 |
| M → CD | 47.4 | 57.5 | ||||
| | ||||||
| | ||||||
| MD → CD | 10.3 | 12.5 | ||||
| CF → CD | 8.2 | 10.0 | ||||
| No Div. → CD | 11.9 | 14.5 | ||||
| Incomplete DV → CD | 1.2 | 1.5 | ||||
| MNNG-2μM | 2186 | 0.96 | 1.5 | BD → CD | 52.5 | 93.6 |
| | ||||||
| | ||||||
| | ||||||
| | ||||||
| | ||||||
| | ||||||
| | ||||||
| | ||||||
| No Div. M → CD | 12.9 | 23.4 | ||||
| MD → CD | 16.1 | 29.3 | ||||
| CF → CD | 13.8 | 25.0 | ||||
| No Div. → CD | 4.7 | 8.5 | ||||
| Incomplete DV → CD | 0 | 0 | ||||
| MNNG-1μM | 2059 | 0.90 | 7.3 | BD → CD | 68.4 | 160.4 |
| | ||||||
| | ||||||
| | ||||||
| | ||||||
| | ||||||
| | ||||||
| | ||||||
| | ||||||
| No Div. M → CD | 2.4 | 5.7 | ||||
| MD → CD | 17.2 | 40.4 | ||||
| CF → CD | 9.8 | 23.2 | ||||
| No Div. → CD | 1.8 | 4.1 | ||||
| Incomplete DV → CD | 0.4 | 0.9 | ||||
| Control | 2276 | 1.0 | 6.0 | BD → CD | 76.2 | 231.4 |
| | ||||||
| | ||||||
| | ||||||
| | ||||||
| | ||||||
| | ||||||
| | ||||||
| | ||||||
| No Div. M → CD | 1.7 | 5.1 | ||||
| MD → CD | 9.9 | 30.1 | ||||
| CF → CD | 10.1 | 30.6 | ||||
| No Div. → CD | 1.4 | 1.9 | ||||
| Incomplete DV → CD | 0.7 | 4.2 | ||||
1)nd: not determined.
2)Aberrations used in the Table 1 are; BD, bipolar cell division; MD, multipolar cell division; M, mitosis; CD, cell death; CF, cell fusion, DV1, cell division of progenitor cells; DV2, cell division of daughter cells; DV3, cell division of granddaughter cell; DV4, cell division of grand-granddaughter cell; No Div., no cell division and Incomplete DV, cells, which undergo M, but fail to divide.
3)BD → CD: CD occurred following BD.
4)BD (exc. M) → CD: CD occurred prior to M.
5)BD (M) → CD: CD occurred following M.
6)BD (DV1) → CD(G1): CD occurred during G1 phase of daughter cell produced by DV1.
7)BD (DV1) → CD(S+): CD occurred during S+G2+M phase of daughter cell produced by DV1.
8)BD (DV2) → CD(G1): CD occurred during G1 phase of granddaughter cell produced by DV2.
9)BD (DV2) → CD(S+): CD occurred during S+G2+M phase of granddaughter cell produced by DV2.
10)BD (DV3) → CD(G1): CD occurred during G1 phase of grand-granddaughter cell produced by DV3.
11)BD (DV3) → CD(S+): CD occurred during S+G2+M phase of grand-granddaughter cell produced by DV3.
12)BD (DV4) → CD(G1): CD occurred during G1 phase of cells produced by DV4.
13)BD (DV4) → CD(S+): CD occurred during S+G2+M phase of cells produced by DV4.
14)M → CD: CD occurred following M.
15)No Div. M → CD: CD occurred following M, but preceding events of M were unable to be determined.
16)MD → CD: CD occurred following MD.
17)CF → CD: CD occurred following CF.
18)No Div. → CD: CD, of which preceding events were unable to be determined.
19)Incomplete DV → CD: CD occurred following incomplete DV.
20)Total numbers of cells per 100 cell lineages are shown.
21)In cells exposed to MNNG-5μM, CD occurred following BD and M were categorized into BD (exc. M) → CD and M → CD, respectively. M → CD was sub-categorized into BD (M) → CD and No Div. M → CD. In cells exposed to MNNG-2μM and MNNG-1μM, and Control cells, CD occurred following BD and M were categorized into BD → CD and No Div. M → CD, respectively. See S6 Fig for categorization of events and S7 Fig for an overview.
Fig 4Analysis of cells exposed to MNNG-2μM.
The numbers of BD (A and C) and CD (B and D) events occurring at each time point in Control cells (A and B) and cells exposed to MNNG-2μM (C and D) are plotted. The total numbers (per 100 cell lineages) of BD and CD events that occurred before and after 2000 min were determined (A-D). E. Definitions used in this Figure are listed. Progenitor cells undergo the first S phase (S1), followed by mitosis (M) and the first cell division (DV1), and the periods before and after entering M are defined as Pre-M and post-M, respectively. Daughter , granddaughter (GD), and grand-granddaughter (GGD) cells undergo second, third, and fourth S phases (S2, S3, and S4, respectively). DV2 and DV3 represent the cell division of daughter and GD cells, respectively. Durations of G1 (green line) and S+G2+M (red line) are shown. F. The numbers of CD events occurring in progenitor cells were normalized to the numbers of progenitor cells. Welch’s t-test was performed for Total; ****p<0.0001, and One-way ANOVA (Tukey’s multiple comparison test) was performed for Pre-M together with Post-M; ns: not significant and ****p<0.0001. Results shown as the mean ± SEM. G. The numbers of CD events that occurred in each cell lineage following DV1, DV2, and DV3 were determined, and, then, the numbers were normalized to the numbers of cell divisions (DV1, DV2, and DV3, respectively), to adjust for the growth of cells. One-way ANOVA (Tukey’s multiple comparison test) for Total and another One-way ANOVA for Pre-M together with Post-M were performed; ns: not significant, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001 and ****p<0.0001. Results shown as the mean ± SEM. F and G Total: the total numbers of CD events occurred in each cell lineage during Pre-M and Post-M. H. The cell doubling time of cells exposed to MNNG-2μM was assumed to be 33 h; the duration of S1+G2+M phases was 13 h, and the duration of G1 was thus 20 h. CD events occurring during G1 and S+G2+M phases were determined. One-way ANOVA (Tukey’s multiple comparison test) for DV1 → CD, DV2 → CD and DV3 → CD was independently performed; ns: not significant, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, and ****p<0.0001. F-H. Sample sizes of Control and MNNG-2μM were 330 and 188, respectively. Results shown as the mean ± SEM.
Fig 5Analysis of progeny produced from Control and MNNG-1μM-exposed cells.
A. The cell cycle was synchronized in silico. The time point when the progenitor cells divided was normalized as Time 1 (blue arrowhead). Blue line indicates the time point 3500 min after the division. GD cells are indicated by green arrowheads. The red line shows the time point 3500 min after the division of GD cells (red arrowheads). B. Cell growth curves determined after synchronization. C. Progenitor cells were grouped (A-G) according to the numbers of progeny cells, as shown in Table 2. Each group was composed of at least 200 cells. The cell doubling times of each group of cells were then determined to perform Welch’s t-tests; ns: not significant, and *p<0.05, **p<0.01 and ****p<0.0001 in relation to Control. Results shown as the mean ± SEM. An in silico synchronized-cell lineage database was used. D and E. The numbers of progeny produced from a progenitor at 3500 mins and from GD cells at 3500 min from their cell division were determined. D. One-way ANOVA (Tukey’s multiple comparison test) was performed; ns: not significant, and ****p<0.0001. Results shown as the mean ± SEM. E. The numbers of progenitor and GD cells producing 1–8 progeny cells are shown. The vertical scale represents the percentage of progenitor or GD cells producing 1–8 progeny cells. The values shown in the figure represent progenitor cells that produced 4 progeny (blue), and the percentages of the total numbers of progenitor and GD cells that produced 5, 6, 7, and 8 (upper line) and 7 and 8 progeny (lower line).
The numbers of progeny produced from a progenitor cell and the mean cell doubling times.
| Group: No. of progeny | Control | MNNG-1μM | MNNG-2μM | MNNG-5μM | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | Doubling time (min) | % | Doubling time (min) | % | Doubling time (min) | % | Doubling time (min) | |
| A: 0–2 | 35.64 | 39.42 | 80.31 | 96.50 | ||||
| B: 3–5 | 16.50 | 12.93 | 9.55 | 2.50 | ||||
| C: 6–8 | 16.83 | 9.15 | 3.72 | 1.00 | ||||
| D: 9–11 | 11.55 | 11.36 | 3.19 | 0 | ||||
| E: 12–14 | 9.57 | 7.89 | 2.17 | 0 | ||||
| F: 15–17 | 5.62 | 7.57 | 0.53 | 0 | ||||
| G: ≥ 18 | 4.29 | 11.68 | 0.53 | 0 | ||||
| Total | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | ||||
1) Progenitor cells were grouped (Group A-G) by the numbers of progeny produced at time 8500 min.
2) The % of progenitor cells that produced the numbers of progeny shown in the “Group: No. of progeny” column is shown.
3) The mean cell doubling times and SEMs were calculated using the cell doubling times of each cell.
Welch’s t-tests were performed;
*p < 0.05,
**p < 0.01, and
****p < 0.0001 in relation to Control.