Abstract
Paracrine signaling is a fundamental process regulating tissue development, repair, and pathogenesis of diseases such as cancer. Herein we describe a method for quantitatively measuring paracrine signaling dynamics, and resultant gene expression changes, in living cells using genetically encoded signaling reporters and fluorescently tagged gene loci. We discuss considerations for selecting paracrine “sender-receiver” cell pairs, appropriate reporters, the use of this system to ask diverse experimental questions and screen drugs blocking intracellular communication, data collection, and the use of computational approaches to model and interpret these experiments.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Davies AE, Albeck JG (2018) Microenvironmental signals and biochemical information processing: cooperative determinants of intratumoral plasticity and heterogeneity. Front Cell Dev Biol 6:44
de la Cova C et al (2017) A real-time biosensor for ERK activity reveals signaling dynamics during C. elegans cell fate specification. Dev Cell 42(5):542–553 e4
Hamilton WB et al (2019) Dynamic lineage priming is driven via direct enhancer regulation by ERK. Nature 575(7782):355–360
Kenny PA, Bissell MJ (2007) Targeting TACE-dependent EGFR ligand shedding in breast cancer. J Clin Invest 117(2):337–345
Davies AE et al (2020) Systems-level properties of EGFR-RAS-ERK Signaling amplify local signals to generate dynamic gene expression heterogeneity. Cell Syst 11(2):161–175 e5
Inman JL et al (2015) Mammary gland development: cell fate specification, stem cells and the microenvironment. Development 142(6):1028–1042
Matos I et al (2020) Progenitors oppositely polarize WNT activators and inhibitors to orchestrate tissue development. elife 9:e54304
Yang H et al (2017) Epithelial-mesenchymal micro-niches govern stem cell lineage choices. Cell 169(3):483–496 e13
Luetteke NC et al (1999) Targeted inactivation of the EGF and amphiregulin genes reveals distinct roles for EGF receptor ligands in mouse mammary gland development. Development 126(12):2739–2750
Wiesen JF et al (1999) Signaling through the stromal epidermal growth factor receptor is necessary for mammary ductal development. Development 126(2):335–344
Ciarloni L, Mallepell S, Brisken C (2007) Amphiregulin is an essential mediator of estrogen receptor alpha function in mammary gland development. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104(13):5455–5460
Meier DR et al (2020) Amphiregulin deletion strongly attenuates the development of estrogen receptor-positive tumors in p53 mutant mice. Breast Cancer Res Treat 179(3):653–660
Mao SPH et al (2018) Loss of amphiregulin reduces myoepithelial cell coverage of mammary ducts and alters breast tumor growth. Breast Cancer Res 20(1):131
Sparta B et al (2015) Receptor level mechanisms are required for Epidermal Growth Factor (EGF)-stimulated Extracellular Signal-regulated Kinase (ERK) activity pulses. J Biol Chem 290(41):24784–24792
Bertolin G et al (2019) Optimized FRET pairs and quantification approaches to detect the activation of Aurora Kinase A at mitosis. ACS Sens 4(8):2018–2027
Regot S et al (2014) High-sensitivity measurements of multiple kinase activities in live single cells. Cell 157(7):1724–1734
Pargett M, Albeck JG (2018) Live-cell imaging and analysis with multiple genetically encoded reporters. Curr Protoc Cell Biol 78(1):4 36 1–4 36 19
Pargett M et al (2017) Single-cell imaging of ERK signaling using fluorescent biosensors. Methods Mol Biol 1636:35–59
Kudo T et al (2018) Live-cell measurements of kinase activity in single cells using translocation reporters. Nat Protoc 13(1):155–169
Gillies TE et al (2017) Linear integration of ERK activity predominates over persistence detection in Fra-1 regulation. Cell Syst 5(6):549–563 e5
Rizki A et al (2008) A human breast cell model of preinvasive to invasive transition. Cancer Res 68(5):1378–1387
Weaver VM et al (1997) Reversion of the malignant phenotype of human breast cells in three-dimensional culture and in vivo by integrin blocking antibodies. J Cell Biol 137(1):231–245
Briand P, Petersen OW, Van Deurs B (1987) A new diploid nontumorigenic human breast epithelial cell line isolated and propagated in chemically defined medium. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol 23(3):181–188
Stewart-Ornstein J, Lahav G (2016) Dynamics of CDKN1A in single cells defined by an endogenous fluorescent tagging toolkit. Cell Rep 14(7):1800–1811
Koch B et al (2018) Generation and validation of homozygous fluorescent knock-in cells using CRISPR–Cas9 genome editing. Nat Protoc 13(6):1465–1487
Bottcher R et al (2014) Efficient chromosomal gene modification with CRISPR/cas9 and PCR-based homologous recombination donors in cultured Drosophila cells. Nucleic Acids Res 42(11):e89
Chiang T-WW et al (2016) CRISPR-Cas9D10A nickase-based genotypic and phenotypic screening to enhance genome editing. Sci Rep 6(1):24356
Joung J et al (2017) Genome-scale CRISPR-Cas9 knockout and transcriptional activation screening. Nat Protoc 12(4):828–863
Kime C et al (2016) Efficient CRISPR/Cas9-based genome engineering in human pluripotent stem cells. Curr Protoc Hum Genet 88:21.4.1–21.4.23
Chen X, Zaro JL, Shen WC (2013) Fusion protein linkers: property, design and functionality. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 65(10):1357–1369
van Rosmalen M, Krom M, Merkx M (2017) Tuning the flexibility of glycine-serine linkers to allow rational design of multidomain proteins. Biochemistry 56(50):6565–6574
Maryu G, Matsuda M, Aoki K (2016) Multiplexed fluorescence imaging of ERK and Akt activities and cell-cycle progression. Cell Struct Funct 41:16007
Dessauges C, Pertz O (2017) Developmental ERK Signaling goes digital. Dev Cell 42(5):443–444
Linkert M et al (2010) Metadata matters: access to image data in the real world. J Cell Biol 189(5):777–782
Palmer E, Freeman T (2004) Investigation into the use of C- and N-terminal GFP fusion proteins for subcellular localization studies using reverse transfection microarrays. Comp Funct Genom 5(4):342–353
Manolaridis I et al (2013) Mechanism of farnesylated CAAX protein processing by the intramembrane protease Rce1. Nature 504(7479):301–305
Srivastava M et al (2012) An inhibitor of nonhomologous end-joining abrogates double-strand break repair and impedes cancer progression. Cell 151(7):1474–1487
Nambiar TS et al (2019) Stimulation of CRISPR-mediated homology-directed repair by an engineered RAD18 variant. Nat Commun 10(1):3395
Gillies TE et al (2020) Oncogenic mutant RAS signaling activity is rescaled by the ERK/MAPK pathway. Mol Syst Biol 16(10):e9518
Acknowledgments
These methods were developed in part by support from the Office of Research Infrastructure Programs of the National Institutes of Health under award number K01OD031811-01 and The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center and National Institutes of Health under grant number P30 CA016058.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature
About this protocol
Cite this protocol
Pargett, M., Ram, A.R., Murthy, V., Davies, A.E. (2023). Live-Cell Sender-Receiver Co-cultures for Quantitative Measurement of Paracrine Signaling Dynamics, Gene Expression, and Drug Response. In: Nguyen, L.K. (eds) Computational Modeling of Signaling Networks. Methods in Molecular Biology, vol 2634. Humana, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-3008-2_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-3008-2_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Humana, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-0716-3007-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-0716-3008-2
eBook Packages: Springer Protocols