Syed J Khundmiri1,2, Lihe Chen2, Eleanor D Lederer3, Chin-Rang Yang2, Mark A Knepper4. 1. Department of Physiology and Biophysics, Howard University College of Medicine, Washington, DC. 2. Epithelial Systems Biology Laboratory, Systems Biology Center, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 3. Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, School of Medicine, University of Louisville and Robley Rex Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Louisville, Kentucky. 4. Epithelial Systems Biology Laboratory, Systems Biology Center, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland knepperm@nhlbi.nih.gov.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cultured cell lines are widely used for research in the physiology, pathophysiology, toxicology, and pharmacology of the renal proximal tubule. The lines that are most appropriate for a given use depend upon the genes expressed. New tools for transcriptomic profiling using RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) make it possible to catalog expressed genes in each cell line. METHODS: Fourteen different proximal tubule cell lines, representing six species, were grown on permeable supports under conditions specific for the respective lines. RNA-Seq followed standard procedures. RESULTS: Transcripts expressed in cell lines variably matched transcripts selectively expressed in native proximal tubule. Opossum kidney (OK) cells displayed the highest percentage match (45% of proximal marker genes [TPM threshold =15]), with pig kidney cells (LLC-PK1) close behind (39%). Lower-percentage matches were seen for various human lines, including HK-2 (26%), and lines from rodent kidneys, such as NRK-52E (23%). Nominally, identical OK cells from different sources differed substantially in expression of proximal tubule markers. Mapping cell line transcriptomes to gene sets for various proximal tubule functions (sodium and water transport, protein transport, metabolic functions, endocrine functions) showed that different lines may be optimal for experimentally modeling each function. An online resource (https://esbl.nhlbi.nih.gov/JBrowse/KCT/) has been created to interrogate cell line transcriptome data. Proteomic analysis of NRK-52E cells confirmed low expression of many proximal tubule marker proteins. CONCLUSIONS: No cell line fully matched the transcriptome of native proximal tubule cells. However, some of the lines tested are suitable for the study of particular metabolic and transport processes seen in the proximal tubule.
BACKGROUND: Cultured cell lines are widely used for research in the physiology, pathophysiology, toxicology, and pharmacology of the renal proximal tubule. The lines that are most appropriate for a given use depend upon the genes expressed. New tools for transcriptomic profiling using RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) make it possible to catalog expressed genes in each cell line. METHODS: Fourteen different proximal tubule cell lines, representing six species, were grown on permeable supports under conditions specific for the respective lines. RNA-Seq followed standard procedures. RESULTS: Transcripts expressed in cell lines variably matched transcripts selectively expressed in native proximal tubule. Opossum kidney (OK) cells displayed the highest percentage match (45% of proximal marker genes [TPM threshold =15]), with pig kidney cells (LLC-PK1) close behind (39%). Lower-percentage matches were seen for various human lines, including HK-2 (26%), and lines from rodent kidneys, such as NRK-52E (23%). Nominally, identical OK cells from different sources differed substantially in expression of proximal tubule markers. Mapping cell line transcriptomes to gene sets for various proximal tubule functions (sodium and water transport, protein transport, metabolic functions, endocrine functions) showed that different lines may be optimal for experimentally modeling each function. An online resource (https://esbl.nhlbi.nih.gov/JBrowse/KCT/) has been created to interrogate cell line transcriptome data. Proteomic analysis of NRK-52E cells confirmed low expression of many proximal tubule marker proteins. CONCLUSIONS: No cell line fully matched the transcriptome of native proximal tubule cells. However, some of the lines tested are suitable for the study of particular metabolic and transport processes seen in the proximal tubule.
Authors: Mamie Yu; Suresh K Selvaraj; May M Y Liang-Chu; Sahar Aghajani; Matthew Busse; Jean Yuan; Genee Lee; Franklin Peale; Christiaan Klijn; Richard Bourgon; Joshua S Kaminker; Richard M Neve Journal: Nature Date: 2015-04-16 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Alexander Dobin; Carrie A Davis; Felix Schlesinger; Jorg Drenkow; Chris Zaleski; Sonali Jha; Philippe Batut; Mark Chaisson; Thomas R Gingeras Journal: Bioinformatics Date: 2012-10-25 Impact factor: 6.937
Authors: Kimberly R Long; Katherine E Shipman; Youssef Rbaibi; Elizabeth V Menshikova; Vladimir B Ritov; Megan L Eshbach; Yu Jiang; Edwin K Jackson; Catherine J Baty; Ora A Weisz Journal: Mol Biol Cell Date: 2017-07-18 Impact factor: 4.138
Authors: Zahraa S Hotait; Julia N Lo Cascio; Elijah N D Choos; Blythe D Shepard Journal: Am J Physiol Cell Physiol Date: 2022-08-01 Impact factor: 5.282
Authors: Patrick Krohn; Laura Rita Rega; Marianne Harvent; Beatrice Paola Festa; Anna Taranta; Alessandro Luciani; Joseph Dewulf; Alessio Cremonesi; Francesca Diomedi Camassei; James V M Hanson; Christina Gerth-Kahlert; Francesco Emma; Marine Berquez; Olivier Devuyst Journal: Hum Mol Genet Date: 2022-07-07 Impact factor: 5.121