![]() |
|
|
Vol. 10, Issue 3, 785-798, March 1999
Department of Microbiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104
Submitted September 28, 1998; Accepted January 4, 1999| |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Integrin-mediated cell adhesion to extracellular matrices
provides signals essential for cell cycle progression and
differentiation. We demonstrate that substrate-dependent changes in the
conformation of adsorbed fibronectin (Fn) modulated integrin
binding and controlled switching between proliferation and
differentiation. Adsorption of Fn onto bacterial polystyrene (B),
tissue culture polystyrene (T), and collagen (C) resulted in
differences in Fn conformation as indicated by antibody binding. Using
a biochemical method to quantify bound integrins in cultured
cells, we found that differences in Fn conformation altered the
quantity of bound
5 and
1
integrin subunits but not
v or
3.
C2C12 myoblasts grown on these Fn-coated substrates proliferated to
different levels (B > T > C). Immunostaining for
muscle-specific myosin revealed minimal differentiation on B,
significant levels on T, and extensive differentiation on C. Differentiation required binding to the RGD cell binding site in Fn and
was blocked by antibodies specific for this site. Switching between
proliferation and differentiation was controlled by the levels of
5
1 integrin bound to Fn, and
differentiation was inhibited by anti-
5, but not
anti-
v, antibodies, suggesting distinct
integrin-mediated signaling pathways. Control of cell
proliferation and differentiation through conformational changes in
extracellular matrix proteins represents a versatile mechanism to
elicit specific cellular responses for biological and biotechnological applications.
| |
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The adhesion of cells to their substrate through an extracellular
matrix provides signals that influence their ability to survive,
proliferate, and express specific developmental phenotypes (Menko and
Boettiger, 1987
; Werb et al., 1989
; Adams and Watt, 1990
;
Streuli et al., 1991
; Zhu et al., 1996
; Chen
et al., 1997
). One of the early examples was the development
of in vitro culture conditions that permitted the differentiation of
avian myogenic cells into contracting myotubes (Hauschka and
Konigsberg, 1966
; Bischoff and Holtzer, 1968
). The critical element for
this system was the precoating of tissue culture surfaces with rat tail
collagen. This general principle of providing an appropriate substrate
to permit the expression of developmental phenotypes has been applied to a wide variety of cells. These include systems that allow the maintenance of neurons and outgrowth of growth cones (Westerfield, 1987
) and the recapitulation of the stages of mammary gland development and involution (Li et al., 1987
; Barcellos-Hoff et
al., 1989
). These findings indicate that critical elements of the
message directing the expression of a differentiated phenotype are
encoded in the extracellular matrix.
Cells interact with extracellular matrices primarily through
integrins, a widely expressed family of cell surface receptors (Hynes, 1987
), and integrin binding to its extracellular ligand is responsible for the downstream effects of the matrix on cell function. For example, in the muscle differentiation system, antibodies to
1 integrin reversibly block differentiation
and retain cells in a proliferating state (Menko and Boettiger, 1987
).
This fundamental principle of regulation of developmental phenotype
through binding of integrin receptors has been demonstrated for
a variety of other systems, including mammary (Streuli et
al., 1991
) and kidney (Sorokin et al., 1990
) epithelial
cells and keratinocytes (Adams and Watt, 1990
). This interaction is
governed by the surface densities of integrin receptors and
their ligands and the receptor-ligand binding affinities.
Integrin receptors undergo changes in conformation in response
to intracellular signals that are capable of modulating their ligand
binding affinity (Shattil et al., 1985
). This modulation of
integrin binding has been shown to play roles in epithelial and
muscle differentiation (Adams and Watt, 1990
; Boettiger et al., 1995
).
Fibronectin (Fn)1 is one of the most intensively studied
components of the extracellular matrix, particularly in terms of its effects on cells. Fn plays a central role in the adhesion of many cell
types to extracellular matrices and artificial substrata, including
tissue culture plastic dishes. Fn is an essential component for normal
development, and Fn knockout mice fail to develop beyond embryonic day
10 or 11 (George et al., 1993
). The Fn molecule is folded
into globular domains specialized for particular functions, such as
binding to integrins, collagen, heparan sulfate, hyaluronic acid, and itself to form self-assembled fibrils (Engvall and Ruoslahti, 1977
; Hayman et al., 1982
; Laterra et al., 1983
;
Morla and Ruoslahti, 1992
). Fn exhibits multiple, complex interactions
both in vitro and in vivo. Upon adsorption to surfaces, Fn undergoes
conformational changes that affect its biological activity (Grinnell
and Feld, 1981
; Iuliano et al., 1993
; Underwood et
al., 1993
; Pettit et al., 1994
; García et
al., 1998a
). For example, Grinnell and Feld (1981
, 1982
)
demonstrated that Fn adsorbed onto tissue culture polystyrene supports
higher cell-spreading rates and Fn antibody binding compared with
bacterial polystyrene. In vivo, Fn is found in many sites of
extracellular matrix deposition and in association with different
matrix components (Hynes, 1990
). In addition, it is expressed in
different splice variants (Norton and Hynes, 1987
), and recent evidence
suggests that these variants affect the conformation of the molecule
and modulate its interaction with other proteins (Manabe et
al., 1997
). Thus, its role as an adapter molecule for binding
different elements in the extracellular space may be analogous to the
growing collection of adapter molecules, such as Grb2 and cas, which
are thought to participate in intracellular signaling pathways
(Schlaepfer et al., 1997
).
In this study, we demonstrate that Fn adsorption onto different surfaces results in conformational changes that lead to differences in integrin receptor binding and modulate the switch between cell proliferation and myogenic differentiation. This demonstrates that the conformation of the extracellular matrix ligand, like the conformation of the integrin receptor, can be modified to regulate the integrin-ligand interaction and integrin-mediated signaling. This may be particularly important in the case of Fn because of the large variety of processes that it controls, its widespread expression in different tissues, and its ability to associate with a variety of other extracellular molecules. In addition, control of integrin-ligand interactions and signaling through substrate-dependent conformational changes in the extracellular matrix represents a versatile approach to manipulate cellular responses in biomaterial and tissue engineering applications.
| |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Cells and Reagents
Mouse C2C12 myoblasts (ATCC CRL-1772) were kindly provided by C. Emerson (University of Pennsylvania) and grown in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (DMEM), 15% FBS, and 1% penicillin-streptomycin. Human IMR-90 fibroblasts (ATCC CCL-186) were grown in DMEM, 10% FBS, and antibiotics. Fn- and vitronectin-depleted serum was prepared by sequential affinity chromatography through gelatin, Fn antibody, and glass columns. Human plasma Fn and tissue culture reagents were obtained from Life Technologies (Grand Island, NY). Bacterial (B, number 1007; Falcon, Lincoln Park, NJ) and tissue culture grade (T, number 25000; Corning, Corning, NY) polystyrene plates were used. Collagen (C) plates were prepared by drying 0.1% collagen type I (Vitrogen-100; Celtrix Laboratories, Palo Alto, CA) from a dilute acetic acid solution onto T plates. Ethidium homodimer was obtained from Molecular Probes (Eugene, OR). All other reagents were obtained from Sigma (St. Louis, MO).
Antibodies
HFN7.1 and MF20 hybridomas were obtained from American Type
Culture Collection (Manassas, VA). HFN7.1 antibody was affinity purified on a protein G-Sepharose column. Adhesion-blocking polyclonal antibody against Fn was obtained from Cappel (Durham, NC). mAbs 3E1 and 4B2 were purchased from Life Technologies. Adhesion-blocking hamster anti-mouse integrin
5 and
v mAbs were obtained from Pharmigen (San Diego, CA). For
Western blotting, polyclonal antibodies against
5,
v, and
3 integrin subunits were
purchased from Chemicon (Temecula, CA), whereas antibodies against
3 and
1 were raised in this laboratory by
standard procedures (Enomoto-Iwamoto et al., 1993
). Alkaline
phosphatase-conjugated antibodies were obtained from Jackson
ImmunoResearch (West Grove, PA).
Characterization of Fn Adsorption and Conformation
Lyophilized Fn was reconstituted with sterile distilled H2O to 1 mg/ml. Substrates (B, T, and C) were coated with Fn diluted in Dulbecco's PBS (137 mM NaCl, 2.7 mM KCl, 4.3 mM Na2HPO4·7H2O, 1.5 mM KH2PO4, 0.9 mM CaCl2·2H2O, 1 mM MgCl2·6H2O, pH 7.4) for 30 min at 22°C and blocked in 1% BSA for 30 min. Adsorbed Fn for different coating concentrations was measured using Fn iodinated with the Bolton-Hunter reagent (DuPont NEN, Boston, MA).
The conformation of Fn adsorbed onto the different substrates was examined by a modified ELISA. Ninety-six-well plates were coated with Fn, blocked in blocking buffer (Dulbecco's PBS, 0.25% BSA, and 0.05% Tween 20) for 1 h, and incubated in anti-Fn antibodies (1:1000 dilution) for 1 h at 37°C. After washing, wells were incubated in alkaline phosphatase-conjugated anti-mouse immunoglobulin G (1:4000) for 1 h at 37°C. Substrate (4-methyl-umbelliferyl-phosphate, 60 µg/ml) was then incubated for 15 min. Reaction products from the different substrates were transferred to a clean plate, and fluorescence was read in a microwell plate reader (365-nm excitation, 450-nm emission; Dynatech, Alexandria, VA).
Integrin Binding Analysis
Bound integrins were analyzed using a modification of
the biochemical method of Enomoto-Iwamoto et al. (1993)
.
Briefly, IMR-90 cells were plated (6400 cells/cm2)
overnight in DMEM and antibiotics on dishes coated with 10 µg/ml Fn
and blocked in 1% BSA. Cells were washed three times in Dulbecco's PBS and incubated in 1 mM cell-impermeable sulfo-BSOCOES cross-linker (Pierce, Rockford, IL) for 15 min at 4°C. After quenching unreacted cross-linker with 50 mM Tris, cells were extracted in 0.1% SDS, 350 µg/ml PMSF, 10 µg/ml leupeptin, and 10 µg/ml aprotinin. Proteins cross-linked to the dish were recovered by reversing the cross-linking in 50 mM NaHCO3 (pH 11.6) and 0.1% SDS at 37°C for
2 h and concentrated by size exclusion filtration (Microcon 30;
Amicon, Bervely, MA). Recovered integrins were separated by
SDS-PAGE (7% acrylamide gels) and transferred to polyvinylidene
difluoride membranes using a Xcell Mini-Cell (Novex, San Diego,
CA). Integrins were quantified by Western blotting with
alkaline phosphatase-conjugated secondary antibodies and ECF substrate
(Amersham, Arlington Heights, IL) using the Storm fluorescence imaging
system (Molecular Dynamics, Sunnyvale, CA). Soluble fractions were used
as positive controls, and soluble fractions for
1 were
used to normalize for differences in cell number among substrates.
Normalized intensities for bound integrins were computed using
the formula: intensity = (signal
background)/background. For each integrin subunit, differences in integrin
binding among substrates were analyzed using ANOVA and Scheffé's
test for pairwise comparisons.
For immunofluorescent staining, IMR-90 cells were plated on Fn-coated substrates as described above. Parallel plates were washed in Dulbecco's PBS, cross-linked using sulfo-BSOCOES, and either extracted with 0.1% SDS or permeabilized with 1% Triton X-100. Integrins were then stained using polyclonal antibodies (1:50) directed against integrin subunits followed by fluorescein-conjugated secondary antibody (1:50).
Muscle Cell Differentiation Assay
Substrates (35-mm2 dishes) were coated with 10 µg/ml Fn and blocked in BSA. C2C12 cells (1500 cells/cm2) were grown in DMEM, 0.1% FBS, 1% penicillin-streptomycin and 6 µg/ml insulin. After 3 d, cells were fixed in 70% ethanol:37% formaldehyde:glacial acetic acid (20:2:1) for 10 min and blocked in 5% horse serum for 1 h. Cells were stained for myosin and DNA with MF20 hybridoma supernatant (1:5 dilution) and ethidium homodimer (1 µg/ml) for 1 h. Plates were then incubated in fluorescein-conjugated anti-mouse immunoglobulin G (1:50) for 1 h. Substrates were scored for percent nuclei positive for myosin (200-300 cells were counted for each plate) and analyzed using ANOVA and Scheffé's test for pairwise comparisons. Measurements represent percentage of attached and spread cells expressing sarcomeric myosin.
For blocking experiments, cells were seeded onto Fn-coated substrates
in the presence or absence of different concentrations of antibodies
specific for either Fn or integrin subunits. Experiments with
Fn antibodies were performed in Fn-depleted serum. After 3 d in
culture, cells were stained and scored as described above. For
experiments designed to test the reversibility of the
anti-
5 block on differentiation, cells were cultured on
Fn-coated C in the presence or absence of
5-specific
mAbs. After 3 d, cells were washed and cultured in fresh media
with and without anti-
5 for an additional 3 d.
Cells were stained and scored as before.
| |
RESULTS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Substrate-dependent Changes in the Conformation of Adsorbed Fn
Fn adsorbs and mediates cell adhesion to a variety of natural and
synthetic substrates (Klebe et al., 1981
). Surfaces
routinely used for Fn adsorption and cell adhesion studies include
bacterial and tissue culture grade polystyrenes and type I
collagen-coated plates. Bacterial or untreated polystyrene (referred to
below as B) is highly hydrophobic, whereas tissue culture grade
polystyrene (T) has been surface treated to present a negative charge
and reduce hydrophobicity. Adsorption of purified Fn to these synthetic surfaces was measured using 125I-Fn. Adsorption increased
linearly up to a coating concentration of 10 µg/ml, at which it
reached saturation values (Figure 1). There were no significant differences in adsorbed Fn density between B
and T, and these values are in agreement with previous measurements (Grinnell and Feld, 1981
). Saturation levels of 350-400
ng/cm2 represent approximately the amount of Fn necessary
to produce a monolayer coating based on the dimensions of the molecule
(Williams et al., 1982
). The binding of Fn to type I
collagen (C) saturates at about one-third of the levels for the
polystyrenes (Figure 1). This lower saturation limit reflects the
binding of Fn to specific domains on collagen, whereas other areas of
the substrate are blocked by regions on collagen that do not bind Fn.
|
Protein adsorption to surfaces involves multiple electrostatic,
hydrophobic, hydrogen bonding, and van der Waals interactions. The
adsorption of Fn onto the synthetic polystyrenes is relatively nonspecific, and it is expected to occur with Fn molecules in different
orientations relative to the surface. Because Fn adsorption onto either
B or T is essentially irreversible, this process presumably involves
changes in the conformation, or partial denaturation, of Fn. It is
likely that only a portion of the adsorbed molecules will display any
particular epitope in a position that is accessible to antibody
binding. For Fn molecules in which the cell binding domain is exposed,
the average conformation of this domain could be influenced by the
surface properties (charge and hydrophobicity) of the underlying
substrate. For instance, because the binding domain for
5
1 integrin in Fn involves
recognition sites on both the 9th and 10th type III repeats
(Pierschbacher et al., 1981
; Aota et al., 1994
),
which are connected by a flexible linkage (Leahy et al.,
1996
), the relative orientation of these domains could be altered by
the physicochemical properties of the surface.
We used a modified ELISA to compare the adsorption of Fn to uncharged,
bacterial (B; Figure 2, open circles) and
charged, tissue culture (T; Figure 2, closed circles) polystyrenes
using a polyclonal and three mAbs specific for distinct epitopes in Fn.
HFN7.1 is directed against an epitope that lies between the PHSRN
synergy and RGD sites (Bowditch et al., 1991
) and blocks cell adhesion to Fn (Schoen et al., 1982
). 3E1 reacts with
the C-terminal heparin binding domain, and 4B2 binds near the gelatin binding site (Pierschbacher et al., 1981
). In Figure 2, the
x-axis has been normalized to the amount of adsorbed Fn based on the adsorption profiles from Figure 1. The y-axis is proportional to the
amount of antibody bound. The mAbs 3E1 and 4B2 showed no significant
differences between B and T in the amount of adsorbed Fn required for
50% saturation binding for each antibody. These data suggest that
these epitopes are not affected differentially in the adsorption to
these surfaces. In contrast, for HFN7.1, ~10 times more Fn is
required to bind the same amount of antibody for Fn adsorbed to B
compared with Fn on T. This difference implies that the average binding
affinity of HFN7.1 for its epitope in Fn adsorbed to B is significantly
less than that for Fn on T. We interpret this difference in binding
affinity to reflect a difference in the average conformation of Fn
adsorbed to B compared with Fn adsorbed to T. The polyclonal antibody
also exhibited significant differences (10-fold) in binding between Fn
adsorbed to B and T, suggesting that changes in the conformation of
adsorbed Fn extend outside the epitope for HFN7.1.
|
To provide one step toward a more physiological context for Fn, we
analyzed the binding of these antibodies to collagen-bound Fn (Figure
2). The binding kinetics for HFN7.1 and the polyclonal antibody to Fn
adsorbed to collagen (C; Figure 2, closed squares) were distinct from
the binding to Fn adsorbed to either polystyrene surface, and the
binding was consistently lower than the binding to Fn on T. Based on
the rationale developed above, we conclude that the average
conformation of Fn adsorbed to collagen is distinct from that on B or
T. Because the antisera were made to soluble Fn (Pierschbacher et
al., 1981
; Schoen et al., 1982
), their lower affinities
for Fn adsorbed to C suggest that the conformation of soluble Fn is
also altered in the process of binding to collagen. In this assay, it
is possible that some epitopes are inaccessible because of the
orientation of the bound Fn. However, masking of epitopes by the
substrate cannot explain both the large differences in binding affinity
observed for two antibodies (HFN7.1 and polyclonal) and the small
differences in affinity for two other antibodies (3E1 and 4B2). We thus
conclude that adsorption of Fn to different surfaces, uncharged
polystyrene, negatively charged polystyrene, or collagen, produces
different effects in the conformation of the adsorbed Fn. Furthermore,
these results also suggest that not all domains of Fn are equally
influenced by the interaction of the molecule with the substrate.
Finally, differences in the conformation of Fn adsorbed onto different
surfaces have been independently demonstrated using biophysical
techniques, including electron spin resonance (Narasimhan and Lai,
1989
), infrared spectroscopy (Pitt et al., 1987
), total
internal reflection fluorescence (Iwamoto et al., 1985
),
fluorescence polarization (Williams et al., 1982
), and
rotary shadowing (Price et al., 1982
; Erickson and Carrell, 1983
), as well as biological assays, such as antibody binding (Grinnell
and Feld, 1982
; Underwood et al., 1993
; Pettit et
al., 1994
) and cell adhesion strength (Iuliano et al.,
1993
; García et al., 1998a
).
Variations in Fn Conformation Lead to Differences in Integrin Binding
Because there were differences in the conformation of Fn adsorbed
onto B, T, and C, and these differences influenced the binding of a mAb
that recognizes an epitope within the cell binding domain, it is
possible that these substrate-dependent conformational changes would modify integrin binding to the adsorbed Fn. Because
it is extremely difficult to measure the binding constants of
integrins on cell surfaces to adsorbed Fn, we chose to examine
the quantity of bound
5
1,
3
1, and
v
3
integrins, which interact with the cell binding domain in Fn
(Sonnenberg, 1993
), for cells plated on the Fn-coated surfaces. This
approach uses a cross-linking and extraction procedure in which bound
integrins are cross-linked to substrate-bound Fn using a
reversible, cell-impermeable reagent (Figure
3A). Taking advantage of the fact that
adsorbed Fn is resistant to extraction by detergents (Grinnell and
Feld, 1981
; Haas and Culp, 1982
), the bulk of cell components were then
extracted using 0.1% SDS, leaving behind extracellular matrix bound to
the dish and its associated integrins. Bound integrins
were recovered by reversing the cross-linking and quantified by Western
blotting. Previous experiments have demonstrated that surface-expressed integrins that are not activated either because of the absence of an activation signal or an appropriate substrate cannot be cross-linked to the extracellular matrix (Enomoto-Iwamoto et
al., 1993
; García et al., 1998b
).
Immunofluorescent staining experiments conducted before and after
alkaline cleavage demonstrated that all detectable integrins
were removed for all substrates. Based on our measurements, we expect
>90% of the cross-linked receptors to be recovered.
|
IMR-90 human fibroblasts were plated for 16 h on the different
Fn-coated substrates under serum-free conditions. These cells were
chosen because they express constant levels of integrins under
these experimental conditions. Soluble and cross-linked integrin fractions were extracted, analyzed by Western
blotting, and quantified by fluorescent imaging. Soluble fractions
(~80-90% of the total cellular pool of integrins) were used
to normalize for differences in the number of extracted cells among the
substrates. This biochemical method showed differences in
integrin binding to Fn adsorbed onto the different substrates
(Figure 3B). Quantification of bound integrins (three
independent experiments; Table 1)
revealed significant differences among the substrates for
5 (p < 0.006) and
1 (p < 0.05), whereas no differences were detected for
v (p < 0.24) or
3 (p < 0.83).
3
was only detected in the soluble fractions. Pairwise comparisons showed
significant differences in
5 binding between B and C
(p < 0.007) and B and T (p < 0.04) and in
1
binding between B and C (p < 0.05).
|
These experiments were carried out with substrates coated with
saturating amounts of Fn to maximize the signal. Because the Fn
saturation density on C is approximately one-third of the saturation density on B or T, experiments were also performed on substrates coated
with the same amount of Fn (100 ng/cm2). As before, there
were significant differences in bound
5 and
1 among the substrates, and the differences between C
and the synthetic substrates were even greater; the ratio B:T:C for
5 was 1.0:1.4:3.0.
Because
5
1 and
v
3 integrins both bind to the RGD
site in Fn, the ratios
5:
v and
1:
3 were calculated for each substrate and normalized to B. These ratios provide a relative measure of the
competition of these integrins for Fn adsorbed onto the
different substrates. Table 2 shows that,
compared with their binding to Fn on B,
5
1 shows an increase in binding relative
to
v
3 for Fn on T and C. These
differences in the levels of bound integrins support the
hypothesis that integrin binding affinity can be modulated not
only by varying the specific ligand but also by varying the conformation of the ligand, which is dependent on its interactions with
the underlying substrate.
|
The cross-linking and extraction procedure was also combined with
immunofluorescent staining to visualize substrate-bound
5
1. This extraction procedure has the
advantage that it removes cytoplasmic proteins that can block antibody
access to the integrin cytoplasmic domains (Enomoto-Iwamoto
et al., 1993
; DiPersio et al., 1995
). Figure
4A shows immunofluorescent staining for
cells plated on Fn-coated surfaces, cross-linked, extracted with 0.1% SDS, and stained using a polyclonal antibody specific for the cytoplasmic domain of
5. All photographs are at the same
magnification and exposure. There is an obvious increase in both
staining intensity and size of the focal adhesions in going from B to T
to C. This is in agreement with the biochemical data showing
differences in integrin binding for Fn adsorbed onto the
different substrates. Experiments in which the cells were permeabilized
with Triton X-100 instead of 0.1% SDS also showed similar differences
in integrin binding to adsorbed Fn (Figure 4B). There were no
apparent differences in cell spreading among the substrates (Figure
4C). Because a 16-h incubation time was used for these experiments, it
is expected that there would be both synthesis and accumulation of
extracellular components produced by the cells. Deposition of
synthesized Fn would be expected to reduce differences in
integrin binding among substrates. However, significant
differences in the recruitment of
5 to focal adhesions
are evident among the substrates, probably because any deposited Fn
still interacts with the underlying substrate, which influences its
conformation.
|
Fn Conformation Modulates Switching between Cell Proliferation and Differentiation
C2C12 mouse myoblasts were used to examine whether Fn
conformation-sensitive changes in integrin binding influence
cell proliferation and differentiation. Cells were propagated at high
serum and then plated and grown on the Fn-coated substrates at low
serum concentrations to induce differentiation (Silberstein et
al., 1986
). Previous studies have shown that
1
integrin-mediated signaling is important for this switch to
differentiation, and additional data support a role for Fn in this
process (Menko and Boettiger, 1987
; Boettiger et al., 1995
).
C2C12 cells were plated at low density on the Fn-coated substrates, and
examination of the plates 16 h after plating showed no evident
differences in plating efficiency among the substrates (Figure
5A). The initial cell density was kept
low to allow for cell proliferation and because plating at high density
has been reported to promote differentiation (Yaffe and Saxel, 1977
;
Blau et al., 1983
; Silberstein et al., 1986
).
|
Examination of the cultures after 16 h revealed no detectable differences in initial cell density or morphology among the substrates at the light microscope level (Figure 5A). After 3 d in culture, cells exhibited significant differences in the levels of proliferation for the different substrates (Figure 5B). Cells grown on Fn-coated C maintained their low density, and many cells showed a differentiated bipolar morphology, whereas cells grown on Fn-coated B had grown to confluence, and very few cells exhibited a bipolar morphology. Cells on Fn-coated T proliferated to reach subconfluent levels, and some bipolar cells were present in the culture.
Cell differentiation at 3 d was examined by immunofluorescent
staining for sarcomeric myosin, a muscle-specific marker. Figure 5C
shows double fluorescent staining with ethidium homodimer to label
nuclei (red) and MF20 mAb specific for myosin (green). Switching between proliferation and differentiation was substrate dependent. The
levels of differentiation varied for the Fn-coated substrates in an
inverse pattern compared with proliferation. Although few cells
expressed myosin on Fn-coated B, significant numbers of cells
differentiated on Fn-coated T, and extensive differentiation was
observed on Fn-coated C. Plates were scored to calculate the percent of
nuclei positive for myosin (percent differentiation; Table
3). ANOVA statistical tests revealed
significant differences in differentiation among the substrates (p < 0.001). Pairwise comparisons showed significant differences in
differentiation between B and C (p < 0.001), B and T (p < 0.007), and T and C (p < 0.05). Comparable results were obtained
with cells grown in medium containing Fn- and vitronectin-depleted
serum. Similar trends in differentiation (C > T > B)
were observed on substrates coated with approximately the same Fn
surface density (100 ng/cm2). These results indicate that
the major differences in the levels of differentiation among the
substrates arise from variations in the conformation of Fn rather than
differences in Fn surface density. These differences in differentiation
cannot be explained by the previously observed cell density dependence
of differentiation, because that would predict the highest
differentiation on the substrate with the highest cell density, i.e.,
B.
|
Binding of
5
1 Integrin to
Adsorbed Fn Controls Differentiation
The differences in differentiation among the substrates correlated
with the levels of
5 and
1
integrin subunits bound to the adsorbed Fn. To examine whether
5
1 binding to adsorbed Fn controls
differentiation, experiments were conducted with function blocking mAbs
against specific murine integrin subunits. Because Menko and
Boettiger (1987)
previously demonstrated that blocking antibodies
against
1 inhibit myogenic differentiation, we focused on the role of
5. Cells were plated on Fn-coated
substrates in the presence or absence of blocking mAbs specific for
5 or
v. Antibodies against
5 integrin inhibited muscle cell differentiation in a dose-dependent manner, whereas anti-
v antibodies
had no effect (Figure 6A). At saturating
antibody concentrations,
5-specific, but not
v-specific, antibodies reduced differentiation on T and C to the levels observed on B (Figure 6B) without influencing overall
cell adhesion. Furthermore, the inhibition of differentiation by
5-specific antibodies was reversible (Table
4), demonstrating that
5
integrin binding to Fn is a control point in the transition between muscle cell proliferation and differentiation.
|
|
Analysis of the Role of Adsorbed Fn in Myogenic Differentiation
Although the interaction of Fn with synthetic surfaces, such as bacterial and tissue culture polystyrenes, is common in experimental procedures, the interaction of Fn with other elements of the extracellular matrix is more important in vivo. The use of the collagen substrate in these experiments provides a step toward the separation of the individual roles of Fn and collagen. Whereas Fn adsorption to the plastics is nonspecific, the interaction of Fn with collagen involves specific binding sites and is expected to produce a conformation closer to that in developing muscle. The analysis is complicated by the ability of cells to interact directly with collagen as well as indirectly through the collagen-bound Fn. We used function-blocking antibodies to isolate the contribution of Fn to the differentiation stimulus.
Adhesion-blocking HFN7.1 monoclonal and polyclonal antibodies inhibited
differentiation in a dose-dependent manner (Figure 7A). At the highest concentrations used,
these antibodies reduced differentiation on C and T to the levels
observed on B (Figure 7B), indicating that differences in
differentiation are controlled by binding to Fn. For these experiments,
antibody concentrations were titrated to levels that did not perturb
overall cell adhesion. On the other hand, 3E1 and 4B2 mAbs, which bind
to epitopes outside the cell binding domain in Fn and do not inhibit
cell adhesion, had no effect in C2C12 differentiation (Figure 7B).
Blocking of differentiation by HFN7.1 antibody implicates binding to
the central cell binding domain in Fn as a critical step in myoblast
differentiation. Furthermore, HFN7.1 is specific for human Fn and does
not cross-react with mouse or bovine Fn. This antibody reduced
differentiation by 80%, indicating that the human Fn bound to the
substrates before the addition of C2C12 cells and serum-containing
media provided the dominant signal for differentiation with lesser
contributions from either cell or serum Fn.
|
The experiments with function-blocking antibodies directed against the
receptor or the ligand demonstrated that binding of
5
1 integrin to adsorbed Fn is
essential for myogenic differentiation. The contribution of collagen to
myoblast differentiation, however, was not addressed in these
experiments. It is possible that direct interactions between collagen
and the cells modulate integrin binding and/or act
synergistically to influence differentiation. To address this
possibility, we conducted adhesion experiments to examine C2C12
myoblast adhesion to collagen. In the absence of Fn, these cells did
not adhere to collagen in a 4-h adhesion assay. This lack of direct
interaction with collagen is consistent with a previous study that
reported no detectable levels of either
1 or
2 integrins, components of receptors that bind
to collagen, on C2C12 cells (Yao et al., 1996
). Based on
these results, we do not expect any Fn-independent contributions from
collagen in the differentiation of these cells.
| |
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Two important issues are raised by these results: 1) Fn adsorption to different surfaces can influence its conformation and alter its binding to specific integrins; and 2) the altered Fn-integrin binding has a profound effect on the cellular response to adhesion-mediated signals and can control proliferation and differentiation pathways.
Substrate-dependent Changes in Fn Conformation
The binding of integrins to Fn is a highly regulated
process. It can be controlled by the expression levels of specific
integrins, activation state of the integrins, and
specific integrin heterodimers used in the binding (Hynes,
1992
). This diversity of regulatory mechanisms suggests that the
specific manner of interaction between the cell and Fn is critical to
the control of cellular behavior. Here we describe a new level of
potential regulation of integrin binding to Fn at the level of
Fn conformation. Although the model system used in this study uses
artificial substrates to provide a controlled environment, Fn interacts
with many other elements of the extracellular matrix, including
collagens, proteoglycans, and hyaluronic acid (Engvall and Ruoslahti,
1977
; Hayman et al., 1982
; Laterra et al., 1983
),
which could also influence the conformation of Fn. The primary cell
binding domain of Fn is found in the 9th and 10th type III repeats
where the PHSRN synergy and the RGD domains are located (Pierschbacher
et al., 1981
; Aota et al., 1994
). X-ray
crystallographic data on this region suggests that the 9th and 10th
type III repeats are oriented so that the synergy and RGD sites are
exposed on the same face of the molecule (Leahy et al.,
1996
). However, there is potential for rotation or extension of the
bonds joining these repeats, which could be exerted by the energetics
of the adsorption process. Such changes would be likely to influence
the binding of HFN7.1 mAb, whose epitope maps to a segment spanning the
connection between the 9th and 10th type III repeats and lies outside
the RGD binding site (Bowditch et al., 1991
). This could
explain the relative changes in binding affinity of HFN7.1 to Fn
molecules adsorbed onto the three different substrates.
5
1 integrin binds to both the RGD
and the synergy sites of Fn, whereas
v
3
binds to the RGD but not to the synergy site (Danen et al.,
1995
). This is consistent with our experiments, which show that the
binding of
5
1 to Fn was sensitive to
differences in Fn conformation, whereas the binding of
v
3 was not.
Changes in the conformation of Fn resulting from adsorption to
different surfaces have been previously investigated, and biophysical analyses of adsorbed Fn suggest that the adsorption process results in
unfolding of the protein (Erickson and Carrell, 1983
; Pitt et
al., 1987
; Narasimhan and Lai, 1989
). These changes in
conformation are more drastic on hydrophobic surfaces than on
hydrophilic substrates (Iwamoto et al., 1985
; Jonsson
et al., 1987
; Pitt et al., 1987
; Narasimhan and
Lai, 1989
) and reflect differences in surface properties, such as
surface energy and charge, which influence the Fn-substrate interaction. These changes in Fn conformation have been correlated with
differences in antibody binding and cell adhesion and spreading rates
(Grinnell and Feld, 1981
; Iuliano et al., 1993
; Underwood et al., 1993
; Pettit et al., 1994
; García
et al., 1998a
).
Fn Conformation Modulates Integrin Binding
Numerous studies have analyzed the binding of purified
integrins to specific substrates using column chromatography
(Buck et al., 1986
; Gailit and Ruoslahti, 1988
; Elices
et al., 1991
). This approach has certain disadvantages for
the current analysis. First, integrin binding to extracellular
matrix ligands is governed by cellular signals that can activate and
inactivate the binding function of the expressed integrins
(Adams and Watt, 1990
; Faull et al., 1993
; Boettiger
et al., 1995
). Second, only a fraction of the total pool of
surface-expressed integrin is usually involved in substrate
binding. Therefore, we have developed an alternative approach by using
cell-impermeable, bifunctional, reversible chemical cross-linkers. We
have demonstrated that these reagents can cross-link the Fn receptors
5
1 and
v
3
to adsorbed Fn but not
6
1, which does not
bind to Fn (Enomoto-Iwamoto et al., 1993
). Application of
this method to the analysis of the levels of
5
1 bound to Fn has also shown increases
in bound
5
1 as a function of adsorbed Fn.
Here we show that there is an increase in the levels of
5
1 bound, but not
v
3, as the substrate is modified from Fn
adsorbed to B, to Fn-coated T, and to Fn-coated C. From chemical
equilibrium principles, the concentration of integrin-Fn bonds
is equal to a constant (binding affinity) times the product of ligand
and receptor concentrations (densities). Because the same cell
suspension was plated on the different surfaces, the number of cells
and, consequently, the total number of integrin receptors were
constant. Thus, the differences in bound integrins can only be
explained by differences in binding affinity constant and/or ligand
density. The fact that differences in bound integrins among the
substrates were specific for
5
1 but not
v
3 argue that differences in binding
affinity contribute to the differences in the levels of bound
integrins. These values, however, do not measure actual binding
constants and demonstrate only a relative order of binding affinities.
This analysis is consistent with the interpretation that the binding
site for
5
1 in Fn is modulated by the
different substrates.
Quantification of integrin binding to the different Fn-coated
substrates was done on IMR-90 fibroblasts, because these cells maintain
constant levels of integrin expression. On the other hand,
C2C12 cells, like many other myogenic cells, modulate their integrin expression levels in response to differentiation
stimuli (Enomoto et al., 1993
; Blaschuk and Holland, 1994
).
These alterations in integrin expression would have complicated
the analysis considerably. However, for the IMR-90 cells, the pattern
of immunofluorescent staining for bound integrins on the
different substrates correlated well with the biochemical analysis.
Compared with the IMR-90 cells, we observed similar patterns of
immunofluorescent staining of integrins on the different
surfaces for C2C12 myoblasts, suggesting similar integrin
binding to Fn adsorbed onto the different substrates.
Control of Cell Proliferation and Differentiation Signals
In the original development of culture conditions for the
differentiation of myoblasts to myotubes, a critical element was the
use of collagen as a substrate for the cells (Hauschka and Konigsberg,
1966
; Bischoff and Holtzer, 1968
). More recent data have provided
evidence for a role for
1 integrin and the
extracellular matrix in this process (Chiquet et al., 1981
;
Kuhl et al., 1982
; Sanes and Cheyney, 1982
; Olwin and Hall,
1985
; Foster et al., 1987
; Menko and Boettiger, 1987
; von
der Mark and Ocalan, 1989
; Boettiger et al., 1995
). However,
the specific receptors, matrix elements, and signaling mechanism have
remained controversial. In this study, we demonstrate that, for C2C12
myogenic cells, differentiation requires the binding of
5
1 to the RGD site in Fn.
What is the role for collagen in myogenic differentiation? Most systems
for the in vitro differentiation of myogenic cells use collagen as the
substrate for cell plating, although gelatin appears to be equally
effective for some cell systems. In the absence of a collagen
substrate, other serum proteins compete with Fn present in
serum-containing medium for adsorption onto the synthetic substrates,
resulting in very little adsorption of Fn (Grinnell and Feld, 1982
). On
a collagen (or gelatin) substrate, nonspecific protein binding sites on
the polystyrene are blocked by collagen (or gelatin), and specific Fn
binding sites are available, which saturate with serum or
cell-synthesized Fn. Thus, collagen is an efficient presenter of Fn to
the cell. In the present study, we have shown that Fn bound to collagen
is also in a conformation that is particularly favorable to the binding
of
5
1 integrin. Our experiments
with function-blocking antibodies demonstrate that binding of
5
1 integrin to Fn is essential to
myogenic differentiation. Furthermore, for the particular cell system
used in this study, collagen does not appear to have a direct,
Fn-independent role in myogenic differentiation.
It has been proposed that laminin plays an essential role in the
differentiation of myoblasts to myotubes (Kuhl et al., 1982
; Sanes and Cheyney, 1982
; Olwin and Hall, 1985
; Foster et
al., 1987
; von der Mark and Ocalan, 1989
). In general, these
studies consider experimental conditions in which mixed substrates of laminin, Fn, and collagen were present. The data presented here show
that the presence of other extracellular matrix components can
influence the ability of Fn to promote differentiation. This may also
apply to laminin- or Matrigel-coated surfaces and could explain the
different results. In contrast to the ability of antibodies specific
for
5 integrin to reversibly inhibit myoblast
differentiation, as shown in the present study, no receptor-specific
inhibition data have been presented for laminin. There is increasing
evidence for an important role for merosin in the interaction with
7
1D in the survival of myotubes (Vachon
et al., 1997
). Sastry et al. (1996)
used
overexpression of
5 and
6 into quail
myoblasts to examine their roles in the control of myoblast
proliferation and differentiation. Their results show that transfection
of
6 promotes differentiation, whereas
5
promotes cell proliferation. One interpretation of these results is
that
6
1 and laminin promote
differentiation. However, the effects of the transfections on cell
adhesion were not examined, and other reports have shown that
overexpression of cytoplasmic domains can inhibit integrin
function (LaFlamme et al., 1994
).
Integrin binding to the extracellular matrix triggers signals
that involve both physical and biochemical components, including cell
morphology, tyrosine phosphorylation, and second messengers (Roskelley
et al., 1994
; Clark and Brugge, 1995
). For example, integrin-mediated adhesion of mammary epithelial cells to
laminin, but not Fn or type I collagen, triggers tissue-specific
expression of
-casein, demonstrating the specificity of the matrix
components (Streuli et al., 1995
). By varying cell spreading
while maintaining a constant cell-matrix contact area, Chen et
al. (1997)
elegantly demonstrated that cell shape can
control decisions between cell proliferation and apoptosis. Here, we
demonstrate a novel mechanism of extracellular matrix control of cell
proliferation and differentiation. Control of cell fate through
conformational changes in the extracellular matrix represents a
versatile mechanism to elicit specific cellular responses. For
instance, the interaction and association of Fn with different matrix
proteins in vivo may result in multiple Fn conformations that have
distinct biological functions. Furthermore, this principle can be
applied to engineer and tailor substrates for biotechnological
applications, including biomaterials and tissue engineering. For
example, we have shown that surface modification of bioactive glass
substrates results in different conformations of adsorbed Fn that
produce different levels of adhesion and modulate the expression of the
osteoblastic phenotype (El-Ghannam et al., 1995
;
García et al., 1998a
).
| |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
We thank C. Emerson for kindly providing C2C12 cells. This work was funded by National Cancer Institute grants CA-16502 and CA-49866. A.J.G. acknowledges support under a Ford Foundation postdoctoral fellowship.
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
* Corresponding author: Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332-0405. E-mail address: andres.garcia{at}me.gatech.edu.
| |
ABBREVIATIONS |
|---|
Abbreviations used: B, bacterial grade polystyrene; C, collagen type I; DMEM, Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium; Fn, fibronectin; T, tissue culture polystyrene.
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
5
1 integrin loss from the cell surface.
Cell
63, 425-435[Medline].
5
1 integrin expression in human muscle cells.
Dev. Biol.
164, 475-483[Medline].
5
1 affinity during myogenesis.
Dev. Biol.
169, 261-272[Medline].
5 integrin is a critical component of adhesion plaques in myogenesis.
Dev. Biol.
155, 180-197[Medline].
5
1: regulation of the functional response to fibronectin.
J. Cell Biol.
121, 155-162
5
1 integrin-fibronectin bonds in intact adherent cells is sensitive to integrin activation state.
J. Biol. Chem.
273, 10988-10993
subunit ratios, cytoplasmic domains, and growth factor synergy regulate muscle proliferation and differentiation.
J. Cell Biol.
133, 169-184
6 subunit is essential for epithelial polarization in developing kidney tubules.
J. Cell Biol.
111, 1265-1273This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
C.N. Salinas and K.S. Anseth Mesenchymal Stem Cells for Craniofacial Tissue Regeneration: Designing Hydrogel Delivery Vehicles Journal of Dental Research, August 1, 2009; 88(8): 681 - 692. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
F. Kong, A. J. Garcia, A. P. Mould, M. J. Humphries, and C. Zhu Demonstration of catch bonds between an integrin and its ligand J. Cell Biol., June 29, 2009; 185(7): 1275 - 1284. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. E. Michael, D. W. Dumbauld, K. L. Burns, S. K. Hanks, and A. J. Garcia Focal Adhesion Kinase Modulates Cell Adhesion Strengthening via Integrin Activation Mol. Biol. Cell, May 1, 2009; 20(9): 2508 - 2519. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. Olivares-Navarrete, P. Raz, G. Zhao, J. Chen, M. Wieland, D. L. Cochran, R. A. Chaudhri, A. Ornoy, B. D. Boyan, and Z. Schwartz Integrin {alpha}2{beta}1 plays a critical role in osteoblast response to micron-scale surface structure and surface energy of titanium substrates PNAS, October 14, 2008; 105(41): 15767 - 15772. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. M Kielty, S. Stephan, M. J Sherratt, M. Williamson, and C. A. Shuttleworth Applying elastic fibre biology in vascular tissue engineering Phil Trans R Soc B, August 29, 2007; 362(1484): 1293 - 1312. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
N. D. Gallant, K. E. Michael, and A. J. Garcia Cell Adhesion Strengthening: Contributions of Adhesive Area, Integrin Binding, and Focal Adhesion Assembly Mol. Biol. Cell, September 1, 2005; 16(9): 4329 - 4340. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A.J. Garcia and C.D. Reyes Bio-adhesive Surfaces to Promote Osteoblast Differentiation and Bone Formation Journal of Dental Research, May 1, 2005; 84(5): 407 - 413. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
B. G. Keselowsky, D. M. Collard, and A. J. Garcia Integrin binding specificity regulates biomaterial surface chemistry effects on cell differentiation PNAS, April 26, 2005; 102(17): 5953 - 5957. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. Wadhwa, T. Yaguchi, K. Kaur, E. Suyama, H. Kawasaki, K. Taira, and S. C. Kaul Use of a Randomized Hybrid Ribozyme Library for Identification of Genes Involved in Muscle Differentiation J. Biol. Chem., December 3, 2004; 279(49): 51622 - 51629. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
G. Baneyx, L. Baugh, and V. Vogel Supramolecular Chemistry And Self-assembly Special Feature: Fibronectin extension and unfolding within cell matrix fibrils controlled by cytoskeletal tension PNAS, April 16, 2002; 99(8): 5139 - 5143. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
W. O. Twal, A. Czirok, B. Hegedus, C. Knaak, M. R. Chintalapudi, H. Okagawa, Y. Sugi, and W. S. Argraves Fibulin-1 suppression of fibronectin-regulated cell adhesion and motility J. Cell Sci., March 14, 2002; 114(24): 4587 - 4598. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Datta, Q. Shi, and D. E. Boettiger Transformation of Chicken Embryo Fibroblasts by v-src Uncouples {beta}1 Integrin-Mediated Outside-in but Not Inside-out Signaling Mol. Cell. Biol., November 1, 2001; 21(21): 7295 - 7306. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. M. Ray, M. J. Viar, S. A. McCormack, and L. R. Johnson Focal adhesion kinase signaling is decreased in polyamine-depleted IEC-6 cells Am J Physiol Cell Physiol, August 1, 2001; 281(2): C475 - C485. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. Boettiger, F. Huber, L. Lynch, and S. Blystone Activation of {alpha}v{beta}3-Vitronectin Binding Is a Multistage Process in which Increases in Bond Strength Are Dependent on Y747 and Y759 in the Cytoplasmic Domain of {beta}3 Mol. Biol. Cell, May 1, 2001; 12(5): 1227 - 1237. [Abstract] [Full Text] |
||||
![]() |
M. G. Tucci, G. Ricotti, M. Mattioli-Belmonte, F. Gabbanelli, G. Lucarini, F. Orlando, C. Viticchi, A. Bigi, S. Panzavolta, N. Roveri, et al. Chitosan and Gelatin as Engineered Dressing for Wound Repair Journal of Bioactive and Compatible Polymers, March 1, 2001; 16(2): 145 - 157. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
N. Maitra, I. L. Flink, J. J. Bahl, and E. Morkin Expression of {alpha} and {beta} integrins during terminal differentiation of cardiomyocytes Cardiovasc Res, September 1, 2000; 47(4): 715 - 725. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. K. Kuwada and X. Li Integrin alpha 5/beta 1 Mediates Fibronectin-dependent Epithelial Cell Proliferation through Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Activation Mol. Biol. Cell, July 1, 2000; 11(7): 2485 - 2496. [Abstract] [Full Text] |
||||
![]() |
G. E. Davis, K. J. Bayless, M. J. Davis, and G. A. Meininger Regulation of Tissue Injury Responses by the Exposure of Matricryptic Sites within Extracellular Matrix Molecules Am. J. Pathol., May 1, 2000; 156(5): 1489 - 1498. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
B.-Z. Katz, E. Zamir, A. Bershadsky, Z. Kam, K. M. Yamada, and B. Geiger Physical State of the Extracellular Matrix Regulates the Structure and Molecular Composition of Cell-Matrix Adhesions Mol. Biol. Cell, March 1, 2000; 11(3): 1047 - 1060. [Abstract] [Full Text] |
||||
![]() |
L Yan, M. Moses, S Huang, and D. Ingber Adhesion-dependent control of matrix metalloproteinase-2 activation in human capillary endothelial cells J. Cell Sci., January 11, 2000; 113(22): 3979 - 3987. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||