Journal: EMBO Molecular Medicine
Article Title: DiPRO1 distinctly reprograms muscle and mesenchymal cancer cells
doi: 10.1038/s44321-024-00097-z
Figure Lengend Snippet: ( A ) The efficiency of exogenous DiPRO1 overexpression was verified by mRNA expression analysis. The qRT-PCR results were normalized to the GAPDH gene and represent three independent total RNA extractions measured in triplicate, FC ± SD. Ct = 45 was taken for exDiPRO1 ORF expression in control cells. The P value indicates the difference between endogenous (enDiPRO1) and exogenous (enDiPRO1) DiPRO1 expression, n = 3. ( B ) Western blotting revealed exogenous expression of DiPRO1 protein. Immunoblotting assays were performed on whole-cell extracts, with DiPRO1 protein labeled with the HA-tag. Actin was used as an internal control. ( C ) Morphological changes in myoblasts stably expressing pDiPRO1. Real images (left panel) and cells stained in MGG reagent (middle and right panels) are shown.The red arrows point to a magnified view of an individual cell. Scale bar: 50 µm (left, middle) and 10 µm (right). ( D ) DiPRO1 overexpression induces changes in cell dimension. L: cell length, W: cell width, Sc: cytoplasmic surface, Sn: nuclear surface, N/C: nuclear-cytoplasmic ratio. Unit of length = µm. Results represent m ± SD, n = 20. T -test was used for statistical analysis. ( E ) DiPRO1 induces myoblast proliferation. The proliferation rate was estimated for DiPRO1-overexpressing myoblasts (Myo_pDiPRO1) and their control (Myo_Ctl) and compared with RMS cells (RMS_Ctl) by Counting Kit 8 (Sigma-Aldrich). Cell number was determined using a titration curve performed at different cell dilutions from 0 to 25,000 cells/well. Cells were then seeded at 1.0 × 10 4 , 1.5 × 10 4 , and 2.5 × 10 4 cells/well and absorbance was measured at 460 nm after 72 h of proliferation. Viable cells were compared to the initial number of cells. Data were expressed as mean % relative to initial cell number ± SD and represent three independent experiments, t -test, n = 3. ( F ) Overexpression of DiPRO1 results in the block of myoblast differentiation. Cells were stained with anti-tropomyosin (green), anti-actin (red) and DAPI (blue) antibodies. The merge contains the combined images of three different stainings. Scale bar 120 µm. ( G ) DiPRO1 mRNA inhibition was verified by RT-qPCR analysis. Data were normalized to GAPDH expression and DiPRO1 expression in control cells was set to 100%, proportions (%) ± SD, n = 3 corresponding to three independent experiments measured twice, t -test. ( H ) Cell cycle analysis of DiPRO1-depleted myoblasts was performed one week after transduction. Transduced myoblasts were stained with propidium iodide (PI). The percentage of dead and viable cells in each phase, according to DNA content, was determined by flow cytometry and compared with control cells, proportions (%) ± SD, n = 3 corresponding to three independent experiments. ( I ) Morphological changes in myoblasts resulting from DiPRO1 knockdown (shDiPRO1) one week after transduction (top). Transduction efficiency was verified by confocal microscopy using the shDiPRO1 vector expressing GFP (top left). Scale bar 100 µm. Length (L) and width (W) of cells were measured (bottom). Length unit = µm. Results are presented as m ± SD, number of fields n = 20. ( J ) DiPRO1 KD contributes to myogenic gene expression. Results of RT-qPCR analysis were normalized to GAPDH expression and presented as ratios to shCtl. The t -test was applied for statistical difference with the appropriate control, FC ± SD, n = 3, indicating three independent experiments performed in duplicate. ( K ) GO terms of significantly regulated biological processes are summarized using the genetic interaction network. Cytoscape software with ClueGO plug-in was used, P < 0.01, kappa score threshold 0.4, n = 6–7. ( L ) Gene signatures of neuromuscular development, and cell cycle and proliferation pathways correlated with DiPRO1 expression versus control, n = 6–7. ( M ) Endogenous DiPRO1 gene expression in RMS, proliferating (Myo-prolif) and differentiating (Myo-dif) myoblasts. The qRT-PCR results were normalized to the GAPDH gene and represent three independent total RNA extractions measured twice, m ± SD, n = 3, t -test. Data information: In ( A – G ), two myoblast cell lines were transduced with a retroviral vector expressing the DiPRO1 ORF (pDiPRO1) and compared with parental control counterparts (Ctl). In ( G – J ), two human myoblast cell lines were transduced with a lentivirus vector expressing a shRNA targeting the DiPRO1 gene (shDiPRO1) and compared with myoblasts transduced with the equivalent vector expressing a nontargeting shRNA (shCTL). In ( K , L ), global transcriptome analysis by microarray was implemented using total mRNA extracted from myoblast cell lines: with DiPRO1 knockdown (shDiPRO1) or overexpression (pDiPRO1) and corresponding controls. Three or four separate extractions were performed from two cell lines ( n = 6–7 per condition). Differentially expressed genes in pDiPRO1- and shDiPRO1-myoblasts compared with corresponding controls ( P < 0.05). The Limma R package was used for statistical analysis. In ( A , D , E , G – J , M ), *, **, and *** indicate significant differences from the corresponding control, P < 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001, respectively. .
Article Snippet: Gene expression analysis was performed using an Agilent® SurePrint G3 Human GE 8x60K Microarray (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA) using an Agilent Single Color Labeling Kit (Low Input Quick Amp Labeling Kit 034949) adapted for small amounts of total RNA (100 ng total RNA per reaction).
Techniques: Over Expression, Expressing, Quantitative RT-PCR, Control, Western Blot, Labeling, Stable Transfection, Staining, Titration, Blocking Assay, Inhibition, Cell Cycle Assay, Transduction, Flow Cytometry, Knockdown, Confocal Microscopy, Plasmid Preparation, Software, Retroviral, shRNA, Microarray