290 M. Hansson et al. / Developmental Biology 330 (2009) 286–304Fig. 2. BMP4 but not Wnt3a <strong>in</strong>hibits <strong>the</strong> expression <strong>of</strong> Foxa2 and E-cadher<strong>in</strong>, and promotes expression <strong>of</strong> Flk1 <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> presence <strong>of</strong> activ<strong>in</strong>. The expression <strong>of</strong> Foxa2, E-cad (Cdh1), and Flk1(β-gal) was analyzed by immun<strong>of</strong>luorescence <strong>in</strong> Flk1 LacZ/+ <strong>ES</strong> <strong>cells</strong> cultured for 5 days <strong>in</strong> media conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g 0, 3 or 100 ng/ml activ<strong>in</strong>, 100 ng/ml Wnt3a, 10 ng/ml BMP4, 100 ng/mlactiv<strong>in</strong>+100 ng/ml Wnt3a, or 100 ng/ml activ<strong>in</strong>+ 10 ng/ml BMP4.<strong>cells</strong> such that low doses will activate T and high doses will activate Gsc(Dyson and Gurdon, 1998; Green et al., 1992; Gurdon et al., 1994, 1999;Lat<strong>in</strong>kic et al., 1997), we <strong>in</strong>itially tested if exposure <strong>of</strong> m<strong>ES</strong> <strong>cells</strong> to<strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g doses <strong>of</strong> activ<strong>in</strong> would lead to a shift from T to Gscexpression. <strong>ES</strong> cell l<strong>in</strong>es carry<strong>in</strong>g T-Gfp (T Gfp/+ ) and Gsc-Gfp (Gsc Gfp/+ )knock-<strong>in</strong> alleles (Fehl<strong>in</strong>g et al., 2003; Tada et al., 2005) were culturedwith <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g amounts <strong>of</strong> activ<strong>in</strong> (from 3 to 100 ng/ml) and <strong>the</strong>number <strong>of</strong> GFP + <strong>cells</strong> was analyzed by flow cytometry. Examples <strong>of</strong>primary flow cytometry diagrams are shown <strong>in</strong> Fig. S1. When GFP +<strong>cells</strong> were quantitated we found that 3 ng/ml activ<strong>in</strong> transiently<strong>in</strong>duced 21±15% T-GFP + <strong>cells</strong> (mean %±S.D., n=3) peak<strong>in</strong>g at day 4(Fig. 1A). However, this <strong>in</strong>duction was not statistically significant. Athigher activ<strong>in</strong> concentrations <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> T-GFP + <strong>cells</strong> decl<strong>in</strong>edgradually such that <strong>the</strong> highest dose (100 ng/ml) resulted <strong>in</strong> only5±4% T-GFP + <strong>cells</strong> at day 4, comparable to <strong>the</strong> control samplescultured <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> absence <strong>of</strong> activ<strong>in</strong> (6±5% T-GFP + <strong>cells</strong>, Fig. 1A). Incontrast, flow cytometric analyses <strong>of</strong> Gsc Gfp/+ <strong>cells</strong> showed that <strong>the</strong>expression <strong>of</strong> this anterior PS marker (Blum et al., 1992) was <strong>in</strong>ducedby activ<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> a dose-dependent manner with expression peak<strong>in</strong>g atdays 5–6 (Fig. 1B). 3 ng/ml activ<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>duced 25±4% Gsc-GFP + <strong>cells</strong> atday 5, and this number <strong>in</strong>creased with <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g concentration <strong>of</strong>activ<strong>in</strong> reach<strong>in</strong>g 43±11% Gsc-GFP + <strong>cells</strong> <strong>in</strong> cultures treated with100 ng/ml activ<strong>in</strong> (Fig. 1B). Control samples grown <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> absence <strong>of</strong>activ<strong>in</strong> conta<strong>in</strong>ed 3 ±4% Gsc-GFP + <strong>cells</strong> at this time po<strong>in</strong>t. The<strong>in</strong>duction <strong>of</strong> Gsc expression at day 5 was statistically significant forall activ<strong>in</strong> concentrations tested (pb0.05). Thus, similar to <strong>the</strong> case <strong>in</strong>Xenopus animal cap <strong>cells</strong>, low doses <strong>of</strong> activ<strong>in</strong> support T expressionwhile high doses stimulate Gsc expression. Intrigu<strong>in</strong>gly, while
M. Hansson et al. / Developmental Biology 330 (2009) 286–304291expression <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> PS marker Mixl1 (Pearce and Evans, 1999) was<strong>in</strong>duced by activ<strong>in</strong>, <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> Mixl1-GFP + <strong>cells</strong> was <strong>in</strong>dependent<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> activ<strong>in</strong> concentration (Fig. 1C).In vivo, BMP4 is a ventraliz<strong>in</strong>g agent, act<strong>in</strong>g dur<strong>in</strong>g gastrulation to<strong>in</strong>duce T and repress Gsc expression (Fa<strong>in</strong>sod et al., 1994; Jones et al.,1996; Ste<strong>in</strong>beisser et al., 1995). We found a strong but transient<strong>in</strong>duction <strong>of</strong> T expression <strong>in</strong> response to BMP4 (Fig. 1A). Peak<strong>in</strong>g at day3, we observed 48±15% T-GFP + <strong>cells</strong>, which was significantly higherthan detected <strong>in</strong> vehicle-treated <strong>cells</strong> (pb0.05). The <strong>in</strong>duction <strong>of</strong> Texpression by BMP4 was observed regardless <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> presence orabsence <strong>of</strong> activ<strong>in</strong>. However, <strong>the</strong> activ<strong>in</strong>-mediated <strong>in</strong>duction <strong>of</strong> Gsc-GFP + <strong>cells</strong> at day 5 was strongly <strong>in</strong>hibited by BMP4 (pb0.05),irrespective <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> activ<strong>in</strong> concentration (Fig. 1B). Cultures conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>gBMP4 never conta<strong>in</strong>ed more than 10±6% Gsc-GFP + <strong>cells</strong>, which iscomparable to vehicle-treated <strong>cells</strong>. BMP4 also stimulated Mixl1expression peak<strong>in</strong>g at day 3 with 26±12% Mixl1-GFP + <strong>cells</strong> butfur<strong>the</strong>r addition <strong>of</strong> activ<strong>in</strong> did not affect <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> Mixl1-GFP +<strong>cells</strong> (Fig. 1C).In Xenopus, Wnt molecules have both organizer-<strong>in</strong>duc<strong>in</strong>g andposterioriz<strong>in</strong>g activities (Niehrs, 2004) and <strong>in</strong> mice Wnt3 is requiredfor proper axis formation and <strong>in</strong>duction <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> primitive streak(Barrow et al., 2007; Liu et al., 1999). We <strong>the</strong>refore tested <strong>the</strong> ability<strong>of</strong> Wnt3a by itself or <strong>in</strong> comb<strong>in</strong>ation with different doses <strong>of</strong> activ<strong>in</strong> to<strong>in</strong>duce PS markers. 5 ng/ml Wnt3a <strong>in</strong>duced 23±4% T-GFP + <strong>cells</strong> (datanot shown), whereas 100 ng/ml <strong>in</strong>duced 30±9% T-GFP + <strong>cells</strong> at day 3,significantly higher than <strong>the</strong> control <strong>cells</strong> (Fig. 1A; pb0.05). Activ<strong>in</strong> didnot have a significant effect on Wnt3a-<strong>in</strong>duced T expression althoughwe observed a tendency to reduced numbers <strong>of</strong> T-GFP + <strong>cells</strong> with <strong>the</strong>highest doses <strong>of</strong> activ<strong>in</strong>. The prom<strong>in</strong>ent <strong>in</strong>duction <strong>of</strong> T expression seenwith both BMP4 and Wnt3a was confirmed by immun<strong>of</strong>luorescence atday 3 (Fig. S2A). Wnt3a also <strong>in</strong>duced Mixl1 expression. Culturesconta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g 100 ng/ml Wnt3a conta<strong>in</strong>ed 11±4% Mixl1-GFP + <strong>cells</strong> atday 4. Notably, <strong>the</strong> comb<strong>in</strong>ation <strong>of</strong> 100 ng/ml activ<strong>in</strong> and 100 ng/mlWnt3a <strong>in</strong>duced 22±3% Mixl1-GFP + <strong>cells</strong> at day 4, approximatelytwice that achieved by ei<strong>the</strong>r factor alone (Fig. 1C; pb0.05). Whenexam<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g co-expression <strong>of</strong> Tand GFP at day 3 by immun<strong>of</strong>luorescencewe found that most, if not all, Mixl1 express<strong>in</strong>g <strong>cells</strong> also expressed T,while <strong>the</strong> converse was not <strong>the</strong> case (Fig. S2B). While Wnt3astimulated T and Mixl1 expression, it did not affect <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong>Gsc-GFP + <strong>cells</strong> (Figs. 1B and S2). The <strong>in</strong>duction <strong>of</strong> Gsc expression byactiv<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> presence or absence <strong>of</strong> Wnt3a and its <strong>in</strong>hibition by BMP4was confirmed by immun<strong>of</strong>luorescence at day 5 (Fig. S2C). Notably, <strong>the</strong>few T-express<strong>in</strong>g <strong>cells</strong> present <strong>in</strong> activ<strong>in</strong>-treated Gsc Gfp/+ <strong>cells</strong> after5 days did not express GFP. Consider<strong>in</strong>g that T is found not only <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>PS, but also <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> emerg<strong>in</strong>g mesoderm at <strong>the</strong> late gastrula stage(Inman and Downs, 2006), this may <strong>in</strong>dicate that mesoderm is als<strong>of</strong>ormed <strong>in</strong> activ<strong>in</strong>-treated cultures. Collectively, <strong>the</strong> different <strong>ES</strong> l<strong>in</strong>es allresponded similarly to growth factor treatment (Fig. S2). Overall, ourresults <strong>in</strong>dicate an anterioriz<strong>in</strong>g role <strong>of</strong> activ<strong>in</strong> dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>ES</strong> cell<strong>differentiation</strong> that can be modulated by <strong>the</strong> posterioriz<strong>in</strong>g factorsBMP4 and Wnt3a, consistent with <strong>the</strong> roles <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se factors before anddur<strong>in</strong>g gastrulation (reviewed <strong>in</strong> Tam and Loebel, 2007).BMP4 <strong>in</strong>duces mesoderm and blocks activ<strong>in</strong>-mediated <strong>in</strong>duction <strong>of</strong>def<strong>in</strong>itive endodermTo establish if our cultures conta<strong>in</strong>ed embryonic or extraembryoniccell types we first exam<strong>in</strong>ed expression <strong>of</strong> CXCR4 (chemok<strong>in</strong>e (C-X-Cmotif) receptor-4), which is expressed <strong>in</strong> embryonic but not <strong>in</strong>extraembryonic tissues (McGrath et al., 1999; Sherwood et al., 2007).Us<strong>in</strong>g FACS analysis we compared surface expression <strong>of</strong> CXCR4 on <strong>cells</strong>isolated from dissociated E11 <strong>mouse</strong> embryo heads with that <strong>of</strong>differentiated <strong>ES</strong> cell progeny. Two dist<strong>in</strong>ct CXCR4-expression populationscould be detected among <strong>cells</strong> from <strong>mouse</strong> embryos, a CXCR4 lo andaCXCR4 hi population (Fig. S3A). When <strong>ES</strong> cell progeny from ei<strong>the</strong>rvehicle or activ<strong>in</strong>-treated cultures was analyzed it was clear that <strong>the</strong> vastFig. 3. Activ<strong>in</strong>-<strong>in</strong>duced expression <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> anterior primitive streak marker Gsc is <strong>in</strong>hibited by BMP4 but not by Dkk1. Gsc Gfp/+ <strong>ES</strong> <strong>cells</strong> were grown <strong>in</strong> serum-free mediumsupplemented with one or more <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g growth factors or <strong>in</strong>hibitor; 10 ng/ml BMP4, 100 ng/ml Wnt3a, 320 ng/ml Dkk1, 3 or 100 ng/ml activ<strong>in</strong> as <strong>in</strong>dicated. (A)Triple-label immun<strong>of</strong>luorescence was performed to analyze <strong>the</strong> co-expression <strong>of</strong> E-cad (Cdh1), Gsc (GFP), and Sox17 <strong>in</strong> <strong>cells</strong> grown for 5 days under <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>dicated conditions.Note Cdh1 + GFP − Sox17 − <strong>cells</strong> (white arrows), Cdh1 − GFP + Sox17 − <strong>cells</strong> (red arrows), Cdh1 + GFP − Sox17 + <strong>cells</strong> (white arrowheads), and Cdh1 + GFP + Sox17 + <strong>cells</strong> (with yellownuclei, red arrowheads) (B) Triple-label immun<strong>of</strong>luorescence was also performed to analyze co-expression <strong>of</strong> Cdh1, Gsc (GFP), and Oct4 on day 5. Note Cdh1 + GFP − Oct4 + <strong>cells</strong>(white arrows), Cdh1 − GFP + Oct4 − <strong>cells</strong> (red arrows), and Cdh1 + GFP + Oct4 − <strong>cells</strong> (red arrowheads).
- Page 1: PhD thesisCand.scient. Janny Marie
- Page 5: ResuméSukkersyge er en sygdom der
- Page 9: Table of contents1
- Page 12 and 13: ICMinner cell massIdInhibitor of di
- Page 14 and 15: cell mass regenerates probably thro
- Page 16 and 17: Figure 1-1: Early embryo developmen
- Page 18 and 19: Figure 1-3: Regional expression of
- Page 20 and 21: The pluripotent stateThe pluripoten
- Page 25 and 26: There are four membrane-bound FGFRs
- Page 27: 2. AimsThe aim of this study was to
- Page 30 and 31: Developmental Biology 330 (2009) 28
- Page 32 and 33: 288 M. Hansson et al. / Development
- Page 36 and 37: 292 M. Hansson et al. / Development
- Page 38 and 39: 294 M. Hansson et al. / Development
- Page 40 and 41: 296 M. Hansson et al. / Development
- Page 42 and 43: 298 M. Hansson et al. / Development
- Page 44 and 45: 300 M. Hansson et al. / Development
- Page 46 and 47: 302 M. Hansson et al. / Development
- Page 48 and 49: 304 M. Hansson et al. / Development
- Page 50 and 51: Figure S2Figure S2: A subpopulation
- Page 52 and 53: Figure S4Figure S4: Expression of T
- Page 54 and 55: Figure S6Figure S6: qRT-PCR analyse
- Page 56 and 57: epithelium; Cdx2, expressed posteri
- Page 58 and 59: Figure 4-4: A high FGF4-concentrati
- Page 60 and 61: Figure 4-6: A 3-step protocol does
- Page 63 and 64: 5. Paper IIFGFR(IIIc)-activation in
- Page 65 and 66: AbstractProgress in embryonic stem
- Page 67 and 68: variants in their Ig-like domain II
- Page 69 and 70: Cell count and proliferation assayC
- Page 71 and 72: influence on the numbers of Sox17-G
- Page 73 and 74: undifferentiated cells, we found th
- Page 75 and 76: FGF4, 5, FGF8b and FGFR1, are expre
- Page 77 and 78: with EdU-stain (blue sample); and w
- Page 79 and 80: Olsen, S.K., J.Y. Li, C. Bromleigh,
- Page 81 and 82: FiguresFigure 1: Screen for FGFR-is
- Page 83 and 84: Figure 3: Activation of FGFRb or FG
- Page 87 and 88:
Opposite, Figure 6: In the absence
- Page 89 and 90:
6. General discussionEndoderm diffe
- Page 91 and 92:
Overall, the multitude of FGF-signa
- Page 93 and 94:
transplantation is the spread of an
- Page 96:
AcknowledgementsThe work presented
- Page 99 and 100:
Chambers, I., D. Colby, M. Robertso
- Page 101 and 102:
Hawkins, V.J. Wroblewski, D.S. Li,
- Page 103 and 104:
Nishikawa, S.I., S. Nishikawa, M. H
- Page 105 and 106:
Tanimizu, N., H. Saito, K. Mostov,