FGF-signalling in the differentiation of mouse ES cells towards ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

300 M. Hansson et al. / Developmental Biology 330 (2009) 286–304Fig. 12. ES cell-derived endoderm acquire foregut cell fates. (A–J′ and P–Z′) OS25 (Sox2β geo/+ )or(K–O) Pdx1 LacZ/+ cells were cultured for 5 days in 100 ng/ml activin andsubsequently treated with 5 ng/ml Wnt3a, 10 ng/ml FGF4 and/or 0,1 μM RA for 3 days as indicated. The co-expression of Foxa2 and Sox2 (foregut), Pdx1 (midgut) or Cdx2 (hindgut)was analyzed by immunofluorescence. The expression of Sox2 (A–E) and Pdx1 (K–O) was confirmed by analyzing β-galactosidase activity using X-gal staining.Further analysis of BMP4- (and Wnt3a-) treated cells revealed thepresence of Flk1 + cells demonstrating that mesodermal differentiationhad occurred. Interestingly, Smith et al. recently reported thatBMP4 treatment of mES cells, under conditions nearly identical toours, resulted in cells of unknown identity that were unlikely to bemesodermal based on presence of E-cad immunoreactivity (Kunath etal., 2007). While we occasionally detect a faint plasma membranestaining in BMP4-treated cells (see for example Fig. 3), the intensity ofthe staining is strongly reduced compared to the signal seen in activintreatedcells, and most cells appear E-cad − in our experiments.Furthermore, the presence of Flk1 expressing cells would appear toconclusively demonstrate mesodermal differentiation. This is alsoconsistent with a number of studies where embryoid bodies arestimulated with BMP4 (Czyz and Wobus, 2001; Finley et al., 1999;Johansson and Wiles, 1995; Lengerke et al., 2008; Ng et al., 2005;Willems and Leyns, 2008).Our examination of the role of Wnt signaling during mesendodermdifferentiation seems to indicate a major difference between differentiationin embryoid bodies and in adherent monoculture. Apparently,the extent to which Wnt signaling is required to induce anteriorPS formation is different in the two systems. Gadue et al. found that100 ng/ml Wnt could induce formation of Foxa2-CD4 + T-GFP +anterior PS-like cells, and that this was dependent on endogenousALK4/5/7 signaling. Moreover, the ability of activin to induce thesame fate was dependent on Wnt signaling since Dkk1 could preventthe effect of activin (Gadue et al., 2006). At first glance these findingsmay appear to contrast with our results, namely that the sameconcentration of Wnt3a could not induce significant numbers of Gsc-GFP + in adherent culture and that Dkk1 could not prevent inductionof Gsc-GFP + cells by activin. However, the Gsc-GFP + cells in this workdo not express Brachyury and very likely represent a mixed populationand are thus difficult to compare to the Foxa2/T double positive cells
M. Hansson et al. / Developmental Biology 330 (2009) 286–304301studied by Gadue et al. Furthermore, although siRNA mediated knockdownof β-catenin significantly reduced the number of Gsc-GFP + cellsdeveloping in response to activin the effect never exceeded 50%. Incontrast, the formation of Sox17-GFP Hi DE cells was more sensitive toinhibition of canonical Wnt signaling, but only when signaling wasinhibited at a relatively late stage of development, suggesting that therequirement for Wnt signaling is not during the formation of PS cellsbut may rather represent a Wnt-mediated lineage choice by acommon mesendodermal precursor or alternatively, a requirementfor Wnt signaling in the maintenance of Sox17-expressing DE cells.Indeed, our observation that Dkk1 only reduces the number of Sox17 Hicells if present at day 4, i.e. after Sox17 expression is initiated, isconsistent with a requirement for Wnt signaling in the maintenance ofDE. Also, our observations are consistent with the requirement for β-catenin function in DE to acquire or maintain DE fate (Lickert et al.,2002) as well as the observation of synergy between Sox17 and β-catenin in the activation of DE gene expression (Sinner et al., 2004).We also speculate that the proposed action of Wnt3 duringgastrulation might offer at least a partial explanation for the differencein sensitivity towards Dkk1 treatment observed between activin andnodal as well as between adherent and aggregate culture. Wnt3 isrequired in vivo for nodal to initiate its auto-stimulatory cascade. Inthe absence of Wnt3, nodal expression is initiated but then regressesrather than expands (Barrow et al., 2007; Liu et al., 1999). Wnt3 isthought to induce expression of Cfc1 which encodes the obligatenodal co-receptor Cripto (Morkel et al., 2003). It was recently reportedthat the three dimensional environment in embryoid bodies preventexogenously added growth factors from diffusing more than a limiteddistance into the embryoid body (Sachlos and Auguste, 2008) possiblymaking these more reliant on endogenous relay signaling via nodalwhich subsequently would require Wnt activity to induce Criptoexpression. This notion is supported by our observation that nodalinducedSox17-GFP Hi cells appear more sensitive to Dkk1-mediatedsuppression than activin induced Sox17-GFP Hi cells, and by ourobservation that activin-induced Sox17-GFP Hi cells are more sensitiveto Dkk1 treatment in aggregate culture compared to adherent culture.The apparent absence of such an autocrine nodal/Wnt signaling loopin adherent culture is not surprising given the remarkable instabilityof nodal when secreted by cultured cells (Le Good et al., 2005). Nodalmay simply be degraded before it can reach other cells in the dishwhereas in the confined environment of an embryoid body it may wellsignal to nearby cells and such signaling might propagate in a relayfashion. Thus, Wnt3a treatment would not be sufficient to induce thisloop in adherent culture. Conversely, since all the cells in adherentculture are exposed evenly to exogenous activin there may be norequirement for Wnt signaling to facilitate ALK4 signaling. Nevertheless,Gsc-GFP + cells appear largely refractory to the inhibitoryeffects of Dkk1 treatment. Since Wnt induced expression of Xgsc ismediated by two homeodomain proteins (Siamois and Twin whichhave no apparent homologs in the mouse) binding to the PE-element,this finding raises the question of whether the conserved Wntresponsiveelement in the mouse Gsc promoter (Watabe et al., 1995)isfunctional in all contexts. It is possible that Gsc is not always inducedby Wnt as Gsc expression is reduced rather than increased in E8.5Dkk1 mutant embryos (Lewis et al., 2008). Lastly, we cannot ruleout a more trivial explanation related to the particular Gsc-GFP cellline, which may potentially harbor a defect in its responsiveness toDkk1-mediated Wnt inhibition. It is possible that more efficientknock-down of β-catenin than we achieved might further reduce oreven prevent the formation of Gsc-GFP + cells.In contrast, we do observe a requirement for Wnt signaling forinduction of Mixl1 expression. Our experiments revealed the simultaneousrequirement of nodal/activin and Wnt signaling to induceexpression of Mixl1 in ES cell progeny. Stimulation of one pathwaywhile inhibiting the other reduced Mixl1 induction, which corroboratesprevious findings (Gadue et al., 2006). The Mixl1 promoter haspreviously been shown to be nodal/activin-responsive via thepresence of Foxh1 and Smad binding sites in the promoter (Hart etal., 2005) and inspection of the published sequence reveals thepresence of consensus TCF/LEF binding sites in the promoter as well.In vivo, Wnt/β-catenin signaling is upstream of two distinct geneexpression programs acting during anteroposterior axis and mesodermformation, respectively (Morkel et al., 2003). We suspect thatwe observe a requirement for Wnt signaling in mesoderm formationbut did not pursue this aspect further.The two differentiation systems, adherent and aggregate culture,also differ strikingly in the requirement for FGF signaling. In agreementwith our results a recent study using embryoid body formation foundthat FGF signaling was not required for BMP4-induced T expression(Willems and Leyns, 2008), which is unlike the situation in adherentculture where BMP4-induced T expression is completely prevented bySU5402. Moreover, consistent with our results Kunath et al., also usingadherent culture, recently reported that FGF4 deficiency or treatmentwith PD173074 prevented the switch from BMP4-mediated support ofpluripotency to BMP4-induced differentiation (Kunath et al., 2007).The requirement for FGF signaling in induction of mesodermal geneexpression is also consistent with the in vivo requirement for FGFsignaling in Xenopus and zebrafish mesodermal induction (Cornell etal., 1995; Mathieu et al., 2004). In zebrafish, FGF signaling is requireddownstream of Nodal for induction of One-eyed-pinhead, the zebrafishhomolog of Cripto (Mathieu et al., 2004). However, as discussedabove activin does not require Cripto to activate its receptors, thusactivin induced Sox17 expression should not necessarily be inhibitedby FGFR inhibitors. This is indeed what we find when inhibiting FGFsignaling prior to appearance of Sox17-GFP Hi cells, the time where onewould expect to find a requirement for Cripto function if Nodal was theinducer. It might be illuminating to determine if Nodal induced Sox17expression would be sensitive to these inhibitors. Nevertheless, we doobserve that Sox17 expression depends on FGF signaling after theinitial appearance of Sox17-GFP Hi cells at the same time where weobserve a dependency for Wnt signaling. It thus appears thatmaintenance of Sox17 expression and/or propagation of Sox17expressing cells depend on both FGF and Wnt signaling. Consistentwith our results, Brickman et al. also observed an absolute requirementfor FGF signaling at days 3–7 for the formation of Hex + CXCR4 + ADEcells when differentiating ES cells in monolayer culture under definedconditions (Morrison et al., 2008).In some cases we noticed what appeared to be conflicting resultswhen inhibiting FGF and FGFR signaling by soluble FGF receptors andSU5402, respectively. It is possible that this is a reflection of FGFindependent FGFR activation. FGF receptors are known to formcomplexes with N-cadherin and N CAM in neurons and in pancreaticβ-cells, resulting in ligand independent receptor activation (Cavallaroet al., 2001; Saffell et al., 1997; Williams et al., 1994), and this wouldnot be expected to be sensitive to the addition of soluble FGFreceptors. More trivial explanations are also possible. We cannot ruleout that SU5402 may have unknown non-FGFR-mediated effects or becertain that our soluble FGFR preparations are capable of inhibiting allFGF family members. Additional experiments with dominant negativereceptors and cell lines mutated in genes coding for FGF signalingcomponents will likely shed more light on these questions.The expression of anterior markers such as Otx2 and Cer1 in Sox17-GFP Hi cells suggest that these could be anterior definitive endoderm.This notion is supported by the selective presence of Pyy transcripts inthis population, but the lack of good ADE specific markers prevents usfrom categorically making this conclusion. However, in vivo ADEforms under conditions of high nodal signaling (Ben-Haim et al.,2006; Lu and Robertson, 2004; Vincent et al., 2003) which we believewe mimic with culture conditions containing 30–100 ng/ml activin or1 μg/ml nodal. Thus, it is likely that the Sox17-GFP Hi cells formed inour cultures represent ADE. However, it is also likely that mesoderm isformed to some extent in cultures treated with high doses of activin 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 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,
show all

FGF-signalling in the differentiation of mouse ES cells towards ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?