| Literature DB >> 36181557 |
Giulia Montagna1, Giuseppe Pani2, Dani Flinkman3,4, Francesco Cristofaro1, Barbara Pascucci5, Luca Massimino6, Luigi Antonio Lamparelli6, Lorenzo Fassina7, Peter James3,4, Eleanor Coffey3, Giuseppina Rea8, Livia Visai9,10, Angela Maria Rizzo11.
Abstract
Microgravity-induced bone loss is a major concern for space travelers. Ground-based microgravity simulators are crucial to study the effect of microgravity exposure on biological systems and to address the limitations posed by restricted access to real space. In this work, for the first time, we adopt a multidisciplinary approach to characterize the morphological, biochemical, and molecular changes underlying the response of human bone marrow stromal cells to long-term simulated microgravity exposure during osteogenic differentiation. Our results show that osteogenic differentiation is reduced while energy metabolism is promoted. We found novel proteins were dysregulated under simulated microgravity, including CSC1-like protein, involved in the mechanotransduction of pressure signals, and PTPN11, SLC44A1 and MME which are involved in osteoblast differentiation pathways and which may become the focus of future translational projects. The investigation of cell proteome highlighted how simulated microgravity affects a relatively low number of proteins compared to time and/or osteogenic factors and has allowed us to reconstruct a hypothetical pipeline for cell response to simulated microgravity. Further investigation focused on the application of nanomaterials may help to increase understanding of how to treat or minimize the effects of microgravity.Entities:
Keywords: Bioimaging; Bone extracellular matrix; Cytoskeleton; Data-independent acquisition; Human primary cells; Osteogenic biomarkers; Proteomics; Secondary osteoporosis; Simulated microgravity
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36181557 PMCID: PMC9526692 DOI: 10.1007/s00018-022-04553-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cell Mol Life Sci ISSN: 1420-682X Impact factor: 9.207
Fig. 1Osteogenic differentiation analysis by gene expression and extracellular matrix protein immunostaining. A Blue bars represent gene expression of Alpl, Col3a1, Bmp2 and Ibsp in GC condition, while red bars refer to RPM condition. Fold changes were calculated from the threshold cycles and expressed as the mean ± standard deviation. Student’s T test was applied for comparison against the gravity control GC. B Immunostaining at 28 days of differentiation showing collagen type I (COL1A1) marked in green with nuclei marked in blue on the left side of the panel and osteocalcin (BGLAP) marked in green with nuclei marked in blue on the right side of the panel, both in GC and RPM conditions. Blue bars represent the total fluorescence intensity (upper bars) and fluorescent area (lower bars) of the corresponding protein in GC. Red bars show the same parameters in the RPM condition. Statistically significant differences were assessed via Student T test (T tests: * = p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.01; *** = p < 0.001)
Extracellular matrix protein evaluation by indirect ELISA
| Proteins (μg/μg total proteins) | T8 | T28 | GC | RPM | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GC | RPM | GC vs RPM ( | GC | RPM | GC vs RPM ( | T8 vs T28 ( | T8 vs T28 ( | |
| COL1A1 | 0.089 ± 0.004 | 0.091 ± 0.002 | 0.563 | 0.189 ± 0.019 | 0.123 ± 0.008 | |||
| COL3A1 | 0.390 ± 0.016 | 0.387 ± 0.013 | 0.850 | 0.409 ± 0.001 | 0.411 ± 0.006 | 0.684 | 0.243 | 0.142 |
| DCN | 0.261 ± 0.030 | 0.257 ± 0.010 | 0.879 | 0.258 ± 0.006 | 0.257 ± 0.021 | 0.961 | 0.898 | 0.994 |
| FN | 12.65 ± 0.213 | 13.12 ± 0.414 | 0.296 | 31.47 ± 27.76 | 20.82 ± 21.80 | 0.711 | 0.439 | 0.667 |
| BGLAP | 20.52 ± 2.095 | 23.58 ± 0.178 | 0.176 | 19.91 ± 0.943 | 20.10 ± 1.435 | 0.893 | 0.744 | 0.077 |
| SPARC (× 103) | 8.308 ± 0.184 | 8.761 ± 1.095 | 0.623 | 8.449 ± 0.567 | 9.144 ± 0.223 | 0.248 | 0.771 | 0.675 |
| SPP1 (× 103) | 114.4 ± 3.121 | 132.0 ± 1.112 | 118.2 ± 0.646 | 118.6 ± 3.013 | 0.869 | 0.231 | ||
In bold are evidenced the values showing significance
Indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) quantifying the amount of specific protein detected per μg of total protein content. Statistical significance was assessed via Student T test, comparing the GC and RPM conditions at both time points. In the column p, the p value is reported. * = p < 0.05
Fig. 2Mineralization assessment of BMSCs during osteogenic differentiation in GC and RPM. A ALPL enzymatic activity assessment at 4 time points: 8, 14, 21 and 28 days, in GC and RPM. B Optical microscope visualization of differentiating cells throughout the 28 days of experiment and crystal formation from the 14th day (inserts). C Maximum, minimum, and average crystal size values at 28 days are reported in the box plot and supplied with qualitative figures of the corresponding crystals. Statistics was calculated on more than 60 crystals per experimental point in images acquired with 20 × magnification in phase contrast via Student T test, comparing crystals in GC to RPM. D Frequency distribution of crystal size in GC and RPM conditions at 28 days. E Qualitative and quantitative representation of the alizarin red staining performed at 8 (T8) and 28 days (T28) in GC (blue histograms) and RPM conditions (red histograms). Significant differences were assessed via Student T test (T tests: * = p < 0.05; *** = p < 0.001)
Fig. 3Cytoskeletal reorganization investigated by immunostaining and bio-imaging analysis. A β-tubulin (green), F-actin (red) and nuclei (blue) were stained and visualized following 1 h, 1, 4, 8, 14, and 28 days of differentiation, both in GC and RPM conditions. B Graphs of F-Actin and β-tubulin mean intensity (T tests: * = p < 0.05). C Gray-scale images (1 and 2), fire lookup table (3 and 4) and concentric belts into cells (5 and 6) were used for the overall distribution of tubulin fluorescence intensity. The concentric distribution algorithm masks were used to quantify microtubules distribution per belt (5 and 6) and 15 cells per field were analyzed in three experimental replicates. D Graph of mean intensity and percentage of β-tubulin into each belt (Belt 0 = close to the centrosome; belt 10 = cell periphery) (T tests: * = p < 0.05)
Fig. 4Proteomics investigation. A Schematic representation of the experimental proteomics workflow, with indications of the software utilized in the different steps. B PCA of the sample replicates based on the protein groups intensities characterizing each sample. PC1 explains 35% of the variance and PC2 24%. C Hierarchical clustering of the top ten most downregulated and ten upregulated PGs D Pie chart showing DAPGs divided by their trend in RPM with respect to GC condition. E Following enrichment analysis of the DAPGs, a total of 90 pathways were found upregulated and 106 downregulated
Fig. 5Differentially abundant protein groups (DAGPs) categorization under major GO biological processes. The enriched GO_BPs were categorized under 10 major classes mainly involved in cell metabolism and cell fate. Data mapped are the Z-scored of the ratioed intensities