296 M. Hansson et al. / Developmental Biology 330 (2009) 286–304expression <strong>of</strong> members <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>FGF</strong> family <strong>in</strong> differentiat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>ES</strong> cellcultures treated with activ<strong>in</strong> and BMP4 (alone or <strong>in</strong> comb<strong>in</strong>ation). Wefound that <strong>FGF</strong>4 and <strong>FGF</strong>8 were expressed <strong>in</strong> <strong>ES</strong> cell cultures treatedwith activ<strong>in</strong> or BMP4 (Fig. S4). We <strong>the</strong>refore addressed <strong>the</strong> role <strong>of</strong> <strong>FGF</strong>signal<strong>in</strong>g by cultur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> <strong>cells</strong> <strong>in</strong> activ<strong>in</strong> (100 ng/ml) or BMP4(10 ng/ml) with or without <strong>the</strong> <strong>FGF</strong> receptor <strong>in</strong>hibitor SU5402(Mohammadi et al., 1997) or <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> absence or presence <strong>of</strong>exogenously added <strong>FGF</strong>2. Consistent with a recent report (Kunath etal., 2007), flow cytometric analyses <strong>of</strong> undifferentiated <strong>cells</strong> (day 0)and at days 3 and 5 <strong>of</strong> <strong>differentiation</strong> revealed that both BMP4-<strong>in</strong>duced T and Mixl1 expression were strongly <strong>in</strong>hibited by 10 μMSU5402 (Fig. 8A), a concentration <strong>of</strong> SU5402 that did not compromisecell viability (data not shown). As BMP4-<strong>in</strong>duced T expression hasbeen shown to be <strong>in</strong>sensitive to SU5402 <strong>in</strong> EB culture (Willems andLeyns, 2008), we repeated this experiment to determ<strong>in</strong>e if choice <strong>of</strong>culture system could expla<strong>in</strong> this difference. Indeed we also f<strong>in</strong>d thatBMP4-<strong>in</strong>duced T expression is unaffected by addition <strong>of</strong> SU5402, andeven by itself SU5402 is able to <strong>in</strong>duce T expression (Fig. 8B).Never<strong>the</strong>less, addition <strong>of</strong> soluble <strong>FGF</strong> receptors (s<strong>FGF</strong>Rs, b and c spliceforms) failed to <strong>in</strong>hibit BMP4-<strong>in</strong>duced T or Mixl1 expression at day 3<strong>of</strong> adherent culture (Fig. 8A). Conversely, addition <strong>of</strong> <strong>FGF</strong>2 augmented<strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> T-GFP + and Mixl1-GFP + <strong>cells</strong> formed <strong>in</strong> response toBMP4 treatment (from 39±23% to 68 ±6% and from 41±8% to 53±8%, respectively). However, this <strong>in</strong>duction was only significant forMixl1-GFP (pb0.01).From studies <strong>in</strong> zebrafish we would expect that <strong>FGF</strong> signal<strong>in</strong>gwould <strong>in</strong>hibit endoderm development and redirect <strong>cells</strong> <strong>towards</strong>mesoderm (Mizoguchi et al., 2006; Poula<strong>in</strong> et al., 2006).When Gsc Gfp/+ <strong>cells</strong> were cultured <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> presence <strong>of</strong> activ<strong>in</strong> withaddition <strong>of</strong> <strong>FGF</strong>2, SU5402, PD173074, or soluble <strong>FGF</strong> receptors weobserved a strong dependence on <strong>FGF</strong> signal<strong>in</strong>g for <strong>the</strong> development <strong>of</strong>Gsc-GFP + <strong>cells</strong> (Figs. 9A and B). The number <strong>of</strong> Gsc-GFP + <strong>cells</strong>appear<strong>in</strong>g at day 5 <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> presence <strong>of</strong> activ<strong>in</strong> was significantly <strong>in</strong>hibitedby <strong>the</strong> addition <strong>of</strong> SU5402 (pb0.05), PD173074 (pb0.001) or s<strong>FGF</strong>Rs(pb0.05). Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, both <strong>the</strong> b and c splice forms <strong>of</strong> soluble<strong>FGF</strong> receptors reduced <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> Gsc-GFP + <strong>cells</strong> (p b0.05us<strong>in</strong>g Student's one-tailed t-test). Moreover, <strong>the</strong> addition <strong>of</strong> <strong>FGF</strong>2significantly enhanced <strong>the</strong> amount <strong>of</strong> Gsc-GFP + <strong>cells</strong> seen at day 5 <strong>in</strong>activ<strong>in</strong>-treated cultures (pb0.01). These results demonstrate thatactiv<strong>in</strong>-<strong>in</strong>duced Gsc expression depends on <strong>FGF</strong> signal<strong>in</strong>g and suggestthat anterior PS fate is augmented by <strong>FGF</strong> signal<strong>in</strong>g. However, as Gscexpress<strong>in</strong>g<strong>cells</strong> develop fur<strong>the</strong>r <strong>in</strong>to both meso- and endoderm wenext asked whe<strong>the</strong>r development <strong>of</strong> def<strong>in</strong>itive endoderm is also <strong>FGF</strong>dependent. Hence we exam<strong>in</strong>ed if activ<strong>in</strong>-<strong>in</strong>duced formation <strong>of</strong> Sox17-GFP Hi <strong>cells</strong> was <strong>in</strong>fluenced by <strong>FGF</strong> signal<strong>in</strong>g. Culture <strong>of</strong> Sox17 Gfp/+ <strong>cells</strong><strong>in</strong> activ<strong>in</strong> toge<strong>the</strong>r with SU5402 or PD173074 resulted <strong>in</strong> a ∼50% and∼90% reduction <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> Sox17-GFP Hi <strong>cells</strong> compared toactiv<strong>in</strong> alone (pb0.001; Fig. 9B), demonstrat<strong>in</strong>g that <strong>FGF</strong>R signal<strong>in</strong>g isrequired for normal formation <strong>of</strong> def<strong>in</strong>itive endoderm. However, <strong>in</strong>contrast to results obta<strong>in</strong>ed with <strong>the</strong> Gsc reporter, addition <strong>of</strong> s<strong>FGF</strong>Rdid not affect Sox17 expression. Moreover, where <strong>the</strong> addition <strong>of</strong> <strong>FGF</strong>2boosted <strong>the</strong> formation <strong>of</strong> Gsc-GFP + <strong>cells</strong> it resulted <strong>in</strong> an almost 50%reduction <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> Sox17-GFP Hi <strong>cells</strong> (pb0.005; Fig. 9B),suggest<strong>in</strong>g that precise control <strong>of</strong> <strong>FGF</strong> levels is important for regulation<strong>of</strong> Sox17 promoter activity.To better def<strong>in</strong>e <strong>the</strong> time where <strong>FGF</strong> signal<strong>in</strong>g acted dur<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong>duction <strong>of</strong> Gsc- and Sox17 expression we cultured Gsc- and Sox17-GFP <strong>cells</strong> with activ<strong>in</strong> for 5 days and added ei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>FGF</strong>2, SU5402, orPD173074 for shorter periods. The (modest) stimulatory effect <strong>of</strong> <strong>FGF</strong>2upon Gsc-GFP expression required that <strong>FGF</strong>2 was present early <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>5 day culture period, prior to <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>itial appearance <strong>of</strong> GFP + <strong>cells</strong>(Fig. 9C). In contrast, SU5402 and PD173074 reduced <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong>Gsc-GFP + <strong>cells</strong> both when added early and late <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> culture period(Fig. 9C). In contrast, <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> Sox17-GFP Hi <strong>cells</strong> was reducedwhen <strong>FGF</strong>2 and <strong>FGF</strong>R <strong>in</strong>hibitors were present after <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>itialappearance <strong>of</strong> GFP Hi <strong>cells</strong> (Fig. 9C).We used RT-PCR to analyze whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> expression <strong>of</strong> additionalmarkers, <strong>in</strong>formative <strong>in</strong> relation to anterior–posterior positionalFig. 8. <strong>FGF</strong> receptor signal<strong>in</strong>g is required for BMP4-<strong>in</strong>duced mesendoderm formation <strong>in</strong> adherent, but not <strong>in</strong> aggregate culture. (A) T Gfp/+ and Mixl1 Gfp/+ <strong>cells</strong> were cultured <strong>in</strong>medium conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g 10 ng/ml BMP4, with or without 100 ng/ml <strong>FGF</strong>2, 10 μM SU5402, or different concentrations <strong>of</strong> soluble forms <strong>of</strong> <strong>FGF</strong> receptors (b or c splice forms, or acomb<strong>in</strong>ation <strong>of</strong> both). Cells were analyzed for GFP expression by flow cytometry on days 0, 3 and 5. (B) T Gfp/+ were <strong>in</strong>duced to form embryoid bodies with <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>dicated growthfactors and analyzed for GFP expression by flow cytometry on day 3. The mean % GFP + <strong>cells</strong> ±standard deviation <strong>of</strong> three <strong>in</strong>dependent experiments is presented.
M. Hansson et al. / Developmental Biology 330 (2009) 286–304297Fig. 9. <strong>FGF</strong> receptor signal<strong>in</strong>g is required throughout <strong>the</strong> five day period for activ<strong>in</strong>-<strong>in</strong>duced Gsc expression but only required late for activ<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>duction <strong>of</strong> Sox17-express<strong>in</strong>g def<strong>in</strong>itiveendoderm. Gsc Gfp/+ and Sox17 Gfp/+ <strong>cells</strong> were cultured <strong>in</strong> medium conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g 100 ng/ml activ<strong>in</strong>, <strong>in</strong> comb<strong>in</strong>ation with 100 ng/ml <strong>FGF</strong>2, 10 μM SU5402, 100 nM PD173074, or solubleforms <strong>of</strong> <strong>FGF</strong> receptors as <strong>in</strong>dicated. (A) Time course analysis <strong>of</strong> appearance <strong>of</strong> Gsc-GFP + <strong>cells</strong> by flow cytometry at time 0 and after 3 and 5 days <strong>in</strong> culture. (B) Gsc Gfp/+ and Sox17 Gfp/+<strong>cells</strong> were analyzed for GFP expression at day 5 after culture with <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>dicated factors. (C) Gsc Gfp/+ and Sox17 Gfp/+ <strong>cells</strong> were analyzed for GFP expression at day 5 after culture withactiv<strong>in</strong> and ei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>FGF</strong>2, SU5402, or PD173074 for shorted periods as <strong>in</strong>dicated. The mean % GFP + <strong>cells</strong> ±standard deviation <strong>of</strong> three <strong>in</strong>dependent experiments is presented.identity, were affected by block<strong>in</strong>g <strong>FGF</strong> receptor signal<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> activ<strong>in</strong>treated<strong>cells</strong>. Expression <strong>of</strong> Otx2, Chrd, and Cer1, genes that arerepressed by BMP4, is not affected by <strong>the</strong> addition <strong>of</strong> SU5402 after3days(Fig. 10). Among <strong>the</strong> markers analyzed only Bmp2, which is firstexpressed <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> embryo proper at E7.5 just lateral to <strong>the</strong> anteriorneural folds and <strong>in</strong> precardiac mesoderm and slightly later <strong>in</strong> foregutendoderm (W<strong>in</strong>nier et al., 1995), is repressed both by BMP4 andSU5402 at day 3. Chrd expression appears at day 3 <strong>in</strong> vehicle-treatedcultures and at day 5 <strong>in</strong> BMP4-treated cultures but <strong>in</strong> both cases it issensitive to SU5402. Also BMP4-<strong>in</strong>duced expression <strong>of</strong> mesodermmarkers Chrd, and Nog at day 5, as well as <strong>the</strong> posterior markers Bmp4and Cdx2, is sensitive to SU5402 (Fig. 10 and Fig. S4).Foregut and pancreatic competence <strong>of</strong> <strong>ES</strong> cell-derived endodermTo test if <strong>the</strong> DE-like <strong>cells</strong> had potential to functionally <strong>in</strong>tegrate<strong>in</strong>to develop<strong>in</strong>g embryonic endoderm, we implanted approximately50 <strong>cells</strong> labeled with a fluorescent dye <strong>in</strong>to 6 to 10 somite stage chickenembryos at <strong>the</strong> level <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> prospective pancreatic endoderm and<strong>in</strong>cubated for 48 h. When <strong>ES</strong> cell progeny from activ<strong>in</strong>-treated cultureswere grafted, 15 out <strong>of</strong> 21 transplanted embryos conta<strong>in</strong>ed dyelabeled,Foxa2 + <strong>cells</strong> <strong>in</strong>corporated <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> endoderm. In contrast, only3 out <strong>of</strong> 20 embryos receiv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>cells</strong> cultured without activ<strong>in</strong> and 0 <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> 8 embryos receiv<strong>in</strong>g activ<strong>in</strong>- and BMP4-treated <strong>cells</strong> conta<strong>in</strong>eddye-labeled cell <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> endoderm (Figs. 11A, D, G). Frequently, <strong>the</strong>activ<strong>in</strong>-treated <strong>cells</strong> <strong>in</strong>corporated <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nkx6-1 + Pdx1 + pancreaticendoderm (Figs. 11E, F) (Pedersen et al., 2005). In a second series <strong>of</strong>graft<strong>in</strong>g experiments we tested if <strong>the</strong> Sox17-GFP Hi <strong>cells</strong> obta<strong>in</strong>ed afteractiv<strong>in</strong> treatment for 5 days with or without additional Dkk1 treatmentwere capable <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>corporat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>to chick foregut endoderm. Such <strong>cells</strong>were equally capable <strong>of</strong> contribut<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> foregut endoderm (Figs.11H, I, K–M), although <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> Sox17-GFP Hi <strong>cells</strong> were reduced<strong>in</strong> cultures conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g Dkk1. Orthogonal projections <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> confocalstacks obta<strong>in</strong>ed from grafted embryos suggested expression <strong>of</strong> Nkx6-1<strong>in</strong> some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> grafted <strong>cells</strong> (Fig. 11J). Consider<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> anterior markersexpressed by activ<strong>in</strong>-treated <strong>cells</strong>, and <strong>the</strong> absence <strong>of</strong> pancreatic or
- 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 34 and 35: 290 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 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,