Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Accepted manuscripts
    • Issue in progress
    • Latest complete issue
    • Issue archive
    • Archive by article type
    • Interviews
    • Sign up for alerts
  • About us
    • About BiO
    • Editors and Board
    • Editor biographies
    • Grants and funding
    • Journal Meetings
    • Workshops
    • The Company of Biologists
    • Journal news
  • For authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Aims and scope
    • Presubmission enquiries
    • Article types
    • Manuscript preparation
    • Cover suggestions
    • Editorial process
    • Promoting your paper
    • Open Access
  • Journal info
    • Journal policies
    • Rights and permissions
    • Media policies
    • Reviewer guide
    • Sign up for alerts
  • Contact
    • Contact BiO
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
  • COB
    • About The Company of Biologists
    • Development
    • Journal of Cell Science
    • Journal of Experimental Biology
    • Disease Models & Mechanisms
    • Biology Open

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Biology Open
  • COB
    • About The Company of Biologists
    • Development
    • Journal of Cell Science
    • Journal of Experimental Biology
    • Disease Models & Mechanisms
    • Biology Open

supporting biologistsinspiring biology

Biology Open

Advanced search

RSS   Twitter   Facebook   YouTube

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Accepted manuscripts
    • Issue in progress
    • Latest complete issue
    • Issue archive
    • Archive by article type
    • Interviews
    • Sign up for alerts
  • About us
    • About BiO
    • Editors and Board
    • Editor biographies
    • Grants and funding
    • Journal Meetings
    • Workshops
    • The Company of Biologists
    • Journal news
  • For authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Aims and scope
    • Presubmission enquiries
    • Article types
    • Manuscript preparation
    • Cover suggestions
    • Editorial process
    • Promoting your paper
    • Open Access
  • Journal info
    • Journal policies
    • Rights and permissions
    • Media policies
    • Reviewer guide
    • Sign up for alerts
  • Contact
    • Contact BiO
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
Research Article
NGF reprograms metastatic melanoma to a bipotent glial-melanocyte neural crest-like precursor
Jennifer C. Kasemeier-Kulesa, Morgan H. Romine, Jason A. Morrison, Caleb M. Bailey, Danny R. Welch, Paul M. Kulesa
Biology Open 2018 7: bio030817 doi: 10.1242/bio.030817 Published 11 January 2018
Jennifer C. Kasemeier-Kulesa
1Stowers Institute for Medical Research, Kansas City, MO 64110, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Morgan H. Romine
2Duke University, Margolis Center for Health Policy, Washington, DC 20004, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jason A. Morrison
1Stowers Institute for Medical Research, Kansas City, MO 64110, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Caleb M. Bailey
3Department of Biology, Brigham Young University-Idaho, Rexburg, ID 83460, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Danny R. Welch
4Department of Cancer Biology, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS 66160, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Paul M. Kulesa
1Stowers Institute for Medical Research, Kansas City, MO 64110, USA
5Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS 66160, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Paul M. Kulesa
  • For correspondence: pmk@stowers.org
  • Article
  • Figures & tables
  • Supp info
  • Info & metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF + SI
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Tables

Figures

  • Fig. 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 1.

    Generation of a lentiviral Mart-1:GFP promoter reporter. (A) A 235 bp sequence corresponding to the promoter sequence of human Mart-1 was cloned upstream of the GFP gene in the lentiviral plasmid. (B-E) Lentiviral infection of both (B-B′) C81-61 non-metastatic and (C-E) C8161 metastatic melanoma cells with Mart-1:GFP//h2B:mCherry. (B-B′) C81-61 cells express Mart-1:GFP (green) and h2b:mCherry (red). (C-C′) C8161 metastatic melanoma cells do not express Mart-1:GFP (green) but do express h2b:mCherry (red). (D-D′) C8161 cells in the presence of 10 μM of ATRA retinoic acid express Mart-1:GFP (green) (positive control). (E-E′) C8161 cells in the presence of the chemokine ligand CXCL12 do not express Mart-1:GFP (negative control). B-E repeated in triplicate. Scale bars (B-E): 100 μm; (B′-F′): 50 μm. GFP, green fluorescent protein.

  • Fig. 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 2.

    Identification of E3.5 chick dorsal root ganglia tissue and nerve growth factor (NGF) drive Mart-1:GFP expression in human C8161 melanoma cells. (A) Schematic of co-culture assays using plated human C8161 human melanoma cells with either varying ages and regions of chick embryonic tissues from the head or trunk (top) or soluble factors (bottom). (B) Percentage of Mart-1:GFP-positive C8161 melanoma cells after co-culture with different ages and regions of chick embryonic tissues (E1.5 cranial nt, 0.5±0.5%, s.d.; E1.5 trunk nt, 2.1±0.7%, s.d.; E2.5 ba2, 3.9±5.5%, s.d.; E2.5 trunk, 2.6±0.8%, s.d.; E3.5 trunk, 4.7±2.2%, s.d.; E3.5 DRG, 5.68±9.5%, s.d.). One section/piece of tissue was added per well of cells (8-well chamber slide format). Experiment was repeated in triplicate. (C) Typical images of C8161 melanoma cells (pre-labeled with H2B-mCherry, red) co-cultured with successive ages of trunk tissues, E1.5 (left), E2.5 (middle), and E3.5 (right) show an increase in Mart-1:GFP re-expression (green) with age. (D) Percentage of Mart-1:GFP-positive melanoma cells versus distance from the tissue (in contact with tissue 7.7±2.1 μm, s.d.; ≤100 μm, 10.5±3.3 μm, s.d.; 100-200 μm, 8.8±3.4 μm, s.d.; 200-300 μm, 3.1±2.7 μm, s.d. and >300 μm, 0.8±0.7 μm, s.d.). Experiment was repeated in triplicate. (E) A typical image of C8161 melanoma cells (pre-labeled with H2B-mCherry, red) co-cultured with E3.5 DRG (bottom left in E) show higher Mart-1:GFP re-expression closer to transplanted DRG tissue (100 μm increments from the edge of the tissue are labeled). (F) Percentage of Mart-1:GFP-positive C8161 melanoma cells in the presence of individual soluble factors (Control, no factor 0.2±0.2%, s.d.; NGF, 5.46±1.65%, s.d., P<0.01; BDNF, 0.05±0.04%, s.d., P=0.2; CXCL12, 0.5±0.4%, s.d., P=0.3; NT3, 0.9±0.8%, s.d., P=0.3; BMP4, 0.93±0.9%, s.d., P=0.1; BMP7, 0.8±0.58%, s.d., P=0.1; FGF8, 1.4±0.86%, s.d., P=0.7; NGF+BDNF, 3.6±0.9%, s.d.; NGF+NT3, 4.17±0.8%, s.d.) typically found in E3.5 trunk tissue. Experiment was repeated in triplicate. (G) A typical image of C8161 melanoma cells (pre-labeled with H2B-mCherry, red) in the presence of no factor (left), NGF (middle) and Cxcl12 (right) and Mart-1:GFP re-expression (green). (H) Percentage of Mart-1:GFP-positive C8161 melanoma cells exposed to different concentrations of NGF (500 ng/ml, 10.3±4.03%, s.d., P<0.01; 100 ng/ml, 6.3±3.1%, s.d., P=0.2; 50 ng/ml, 3.4±1.5%, s.d., P=0.02; 10 ng/ml, 1.1±0.8%, s.d., P=0.1; 0 ng/ml, 0.1±0.2%, s.d.). Experiment was repeated in triplicate. Scale bars: 50 μm. All calulations performed on fixed samples. Statistical analysis was performed using Student's t-test.

  • Fig. 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 3.

    NGF does not affect proliferation or migration of C8161 melanoma cells. (A) Percentage of BrdU-positive C8161 melanoma cells under different co-culture conditions with various soluble factors (Control, no factor 26.9±7.86 cells, s.d.; NGF, 28±8.6 cells, s.d., P=0.5; BDNF, 24.4±4.17 cells, s.d., P=0.6; CXCL12, 31.5±4.42 cells, s.d., P=0.4; NT3, 38.4±2.5, s.d., P=0.07). Experiment was repeated in triplicate. (B) C8161 melanoma cells seeded into a modified Boyden chamber show no preference for BSA control (1.15±0.1 s.d., RFU) or NGF (200 mg/ml with 1.08±0.1 s.d., RFU, P=0.4 and 100 ng/ml with 0.97±0.09 s.d., RFU, P=0.2), but migrate in response to a known chemokine, CXCL12 (2.06±0.2 s.d., RFU, P<0.01). Experiment was repeated in duplicate. (C) PBS- or NGF-soaked beads co-cultured in vitro with C8161 melanoma cells (labeled with H2B-mCherry, red) and observed at t=0 and 12 h show no directed cell migration towards either the PBS- or NGF-soaked beads, n=4 bead cultures per condition, repeated in triplicate. Scale bars: 100 μm (t=0) and 50 μm (t=12 h). All calculations performed on living samples. Statistically analysis was performed using Student's t-test.

  • Fig. 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 4.

    NGF induces stable Mart-1:GFP-positive C8161 melanoma cell population. (A) Schematic of the NGF time course experiment. At day 0, all plates of C8161 cells received NGF (circles shaded red) and cultured for at least 3 days before removal of NGF (white circle). On successive days (x-axis) the NGF was removed. (B) Percentage of Mart-1:GFP melanoma cells in the presence of NGF for at least 3 days and then removal on day3 (blue), day 5 (red), day 7 (green). Within each day, no data set was significantly different from the others (Day 3: NGF 3 days=4.6±1.3%, s.d.; NGF 5 days, 4.7±0.8%, s.d.; NGF 7 days, 5.9±1.2%, s.d.; Day 4: NGF 3 days, 1.8±0.6%, s.d.; NGF 5 days, 3±0.7%, s.d.; NGF 7 days, 3.1±0.8%, s.d.; Day 5: NGF 3 days, 1.6±0.4%, s.d.; NGF 5 days, 2.5±0.3%, s.d.; NGF 7 days, 2.8±0.3%, s.d.; Day 6: NGF 3 days, 1.2±0.3%, s.d.; NGF 5 days, 1.2±0.1%, s.d.; NGF 7 days, 1.3±0.1% s.d.; Day 7: NGF 3 days, 1.37±0.3%, s.d.; NGF 5 days, 1.2±0.3%, s.d.; NGF 7 days, 1.1±0.3%, s.d.; at least 1000 cells counted per condition; each condition repeated in duplicate). (C) (Top Panel) C8161 melanoma cells after co-culture with NGF for 3 days (72 h) show ∼5% Mart-1:GFP-positive melanoma cells, then removal on subsequent days. A decrease in Mart-1:GFP-positive melanoma cells is seen on subsequent days (4-6). (Bottom Panel) C8161 melanoma cells maintained in culture with constant supply of NGF show same ∼5% Mart-1:GFP-positive melanoma cells at day 3 and similar decrease in Mart-1:GFP-positive cells at days 4-6. (D) Proliferation rate of C8161 melanoma cells changes after Mart-1:GFP expression. Percentage of BrdU incorporation in C8161 cells after 30 min BrdU pulse: Mart-1:GFP-positive melanoma cells, 10±2.3% (s.d.) and Mart-1:GFP-negative melanoma cells, 45.5±3.4% (s.d.), P<0.01 (left graph; n>500 cells counted per condition, experiment run in duplicate). (E) Time-lapse culture analysis shows Mart-1 positive cells proliferate less (1.1±0.4 cell divisions per hour) than Mart-1-negative cells [2.56±0.3 (s.d.) cell divisions per hour], P<0.01. n=4 time lapses per condition. (F) Theoretical calculation of cell populations based on differences in proliferation dynamics. After NGF exposure, ∼5% of C8161 melanoma cells re-express Mart-1:GFP and the cell proliferation rate decreases. A doubling rate of 2 (cell cycles in 24 h) is applied to the Mart-1:GFP-positive cell population starting with 5 out of 100 cells and a rate of 4 (cell cycles in 24 h) is applied to the Mart-1-negative population starting at 95 out of 100 cells. Using a 24-h doubling time, the projected changes in cell population distribution are seen by a decrease in blue cell (Mart-1:GFP-positive) and increase in yellow cell (Mart-1:GFP-negative) populations. Scale bars: 50 μm. All calculations performed on living samples. Statistically analysis was performed using Student's t-test.

  • Fig. 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 5.

    NGF receptor expression on C8161 melanoma cells. (A) qPCR analysis of relative quantity of mRNA differences of NGF (verticle striped bars), trkA (verticle dashed bars) and p75 (solid black bars) on C81-61 and C8161 melanoma cells. C81-61: NGF=1.00±0.06 s.d., trkA=1.00±.05 s.d., p75=170±8.7 s.d.; C8161: NGF=23.3±3.1 s.d., trkA=3.99±0.25 s.d., p75=1.00±0.15 s.d.; calibrated normalized relative quantities. (B) Protein expression of trkA (green, top panel) and p75 (blue, bottom panel) on H2B:mCherry labeled C8161 cells (red). (C) Percent of Mart-1:GFP-positive C8161 cells in control (no NGF) or in the presence of NGF and either p75 or trkA inhibitors individually or in combination (Control, 0.17±0.15%, s.d.; p75 inhibitor, 0.7±0.3%, s.d, P=0.05; trkA inhibitor, 1.8±0.2%, s.d., P<0.01; p75/trkA inhibitors, 0.2± 0.2%, s.d., P=0.8). At least 2000 cells counted per condition. Scale bars: 50 μm. Statistical analysis was performed using Student's t-test.

  • Fig. 6.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 6.

    Gene profiling and phenotypic analysis of NGF versus RA-induced Mart-1:GFP-positive C8161 melanoma cells. (A) Gene expression comparison of Mart-1:GFP-positive C8161 metastatic melanoma cells after RA and NGF exposure compared to wild-type C8161 metastatic melanoma cells (light blue) and C81-61 non-metastatic melanoma cells. Increased (shown in red) and decreased (shown in dark blue) expression above/below wild-type levels (shown in light blue) are based on qPCR values. (B) C8161 metastatic melanoma cells in the presence of RA for 3 days show nearly all cells express Mart-1:GFP (93±8.4%, s.d.), and only 8.1±6.7% (s.d.; P<0.01) 24 h after removal of RA (day 4). Experiment was repeated in duplicate. (C) Further decline in Mart-1:GFP expression continues after RA removal, analyzed on days 5-7. (C, inset) C8161-H2B:mCherry/Mart-1:GFP-positive melanoma cells after 3 days of RA exposure (left panel), and 48 h after RA removal (right panel). Day 5=0.34±0.26 s.d., day 6=0.21±0.19% s.d., day 7=0.2±0.2 s.d. (D) Schematic of hanging drop culture of C8161 melanoma cells pre-labeled with H2B-mCherry and then exposed to NGF to induce ∼5% Mart-1:GFP re-expression and transplanted into the chick neural tube at HHSt12. After 48 h of egg re-incubation, C8161 melanoma cell positions were analyzed and included cell invasion into the periphery away from the outline of the neural tube transplant site or remained at the transplant site. Mart-1:GFP-positive cells appeared to be confined to the initial transplant site within the neural tube. n=5 embryo transplants. NT, neural tube. Scale bars: 50 μm. Calculations done on living samples (B,C). Statistical analysis was performed using Student's t-test.

Previous ArticleNext Article
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

This Issue

RSSRSS

Keywords

  • Nerve growth factor
  • Human
  • Melanoma
  • Metastasis
  • Chick embryonic microenvironment
  • Neural crest

 Download PDF

Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Biology Open.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
NGF reprograms metastatic melanoma to a bipotent glial-melanocyte neural crest-like precursor
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Biology Open
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Biology Open web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Research Article
NGF reprograms metastatic melanoma to a bipotent glial-melanocyte neural crest-like precursor
Jennifer C. Kasemeier-Kulesa, Morgan H. Romine, Jason A. Morrison, Caleb M. Bailey, Danny R. Welch, Paul M. Kulesa
Biology Open 2018 7: bio030817 doi: 10.1242/bio.030817 Published 11 January 2018
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Research Article
NGF reprograms metastatic melanoma to a bipotent glial-melanocyte neural crest-like precursor
Jennifer C. Kasemeier-Kulesa, Morgan H. Romine, Jason A. Morrison, Caleb M. Bailey, Danny R. Welch, Paul M. Kulesa
Biology Open 2018 7: bio030817 doi: 10.1242/bio.030817 Published 11 January 2018

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Alerts

Please log in to add an alert for this article.

Sign in to email alerts with your email address

Article Navigation

  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • INTRODUCTION
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • Acknowledgements
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & tables
  • Supp info
  • Info & metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF + SI
  • PDF

Related articles

Cited by...

More in this TOC section

  • Biophysical and biochemical properties of Deup1 self-assemblies: a potential driver for deuterosome formation during multiciliogenesis
  • Conditional targeting of phosphatidylserine decarboxylase to lipid droplets
  • Stability of amino acids and related amines in human serum under different preprocessing and pre-storage conditions based on iTRAQ®-LC-MS/MS
Show more RESEARCH ARTICLE

Similar articles

Other journals from The Company of Biologists

Development

Journal of Cell Science

Journal of Experimental Biology

Disease Models & Mechanisms

Advertisement

Biology Open and COVID-19

We are aware that the COVID-19 pandemic is having an unprecedented impact on researchers worldwide. The Editors of all The Company of Biologists’ journals have been considering ways in which we can alleviate concerns that members of our community may have around publishing activities during this time. Read about the actions we are taking at this time.

Please don’t hesitate to contact the Editorial Office if you have any questions or concerns.


Future Leader Review - Cardiac myosin super relaxation

A new Future Leader Review by Manuel Schmid and Christopher Toepfer discusses the rapidly-expanding field of myosin super relaxation in the context of cardiovascular disease. Read the full Review and their accompanying interview.

Find out more about our Future Leader Reviews – they are an exclusive opportunity for early-career researchers who want to establish themselves in their field.


An interview with Roberta Azzarelli

In an interview, first author Roberta Azzarelli discusses her 3D model of glioblastoma and shares her thoughts on how to improve the professional lives of early-career researchers: formal mentorship programmes, a clearly structured career path and taking part in initiatives such as the Node Network.


News from our sister journals

Development continues to run a successful new webinar series, Development presents…, while Journal of Cell Science has recently welcomed Esperanza Agullo-Pascual as FocalPlane’s new Community Manager. Journal of Experimental Biology’s new special issue highlights the role of comparative biology in tackling climate change and Liz Patton, the new Editor-in-Chief of Disease Models & Mechanisms, sets out her visions and priorities.

Articles

  • Accepted manuscripts
  • Issue in progress
  • Latest complete issue
  • Issue archive
  • Archive by article type
  • Interviews
  • Sign up for alerts

About us

  • About BiO
  • Editors and Board
  • Editor biographies
  • Grants and funding
  • Journal Meetings
  • Workshops
  • The Company of Biologists

For Authors

  • Submit a manuscript
  • Aims and scope
  • Presubmission enquiries
  • Article types
  • Manuscript preparation
  • Cover suggestions
  • Editorial process
  • Promoting your paper
  • Open Access

Journal Info

  • Journal policies
  • Rights and permissions
  • Media policies
  • Reviewer guide
  • Sign up for alerts

Contact

  • Contact BiO
  • Advertising
  • Feedback

Twitter   YouTube   LinkedIn

© 2021   The Company of Biologists Ltd   Registered Charity 277992