|
|
||||||||
a King-George Laboratory, St. Georges Hospital Medical School and Kingston University, London, United Kingdom;
b School of Life Sciences, Kingston University, Kingston Upon Thames, United Kingdom;
c Department of Haematology, St. Georges Hospital Medical School, London, United Kingdom;
d School of Computer and Information Systems, Kingston University, Kingston Upon Thames, United Kingdom;
e National Blood Service, Stem Cell Laboratory, The John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom;
f Nuffield Department of Clinical and Laboratory Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
Key Words. CD34 • CD164 • Stem cells • Progenitor cells • Confocal microscopy
Colin P. McGuckin, Ph.D., School of Life Sciences, Faculty of Science, Kingston University, Penrhyn Road, Kingston Upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2EE, United Kingdom. Telephone: 44-797-126-6764; Fax: 44-208-547-7562; e-mail: c.mcguckin{at}kingston.ac.uk.
| ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Regulation of HSPC communication and the process of homing and adhesion to bone marrow (BM) stroma are believed to involve glycoprotein cell adhesion molecules (CAMs). These molecules, which include integrins, selectins, immunoglobulins, the CD44 "homing" receptor family, and the sialomucins, may also regulate HSPC cycle status as well as proliferation potential [1-3]. Little is known about the distribution of adhesion molecules on HSPCs, but their analysis may aid understanding of the relocation process of HSPCs to BM stroma during homing. Further, since it is known that more than one such molecule is involved in this process, a better comprehension of how these antigens interact would be useful to characterize which cells have a higher potential to engraft.
Sialomucins are transmembrane glycoproteins ranging from 50-3,000 kD that share limited homology to one another at the amino acid and nucleotide levels [2, 4]. Nevertheless, they bear numerous O-glycosylations, which infer multiple kinds of cell-cell or cell-extracellular matrix interactions. At least six members of the sialomucin family have been reported to be expressed on primitive HSPCs: CD43, CD45RA, CD162 (PSGL-1), PCLP-1, CD34, and CD164. CD34 and CD164 sialomucin thread-like structures might be related to their suggested role in both cellular adhesion and the proliferation status of early HSPCs. A linked role/interaction for these two molecules has indeed been implied with respect to HSPC growth and cytoadhesion to the BM stroma [5, 6].
CD34 is well characterized as a marker for HSPCs during early hemopoiesis, and is frequently used as a surrogate marker for hemopoietic cell harvest protocols [7-9]. Although CD34 involvement in HSPC cytoadhesion has been established through ligation and signal transduction assays [1013], the intrinsic mechanisms linking the CD34 molecule to HSPC cellular adhesion and homing remain to be elucidated.
We and others have reported that CD164 (as the 103B2/9E10 epitope) is expressed on a very primitive HSPC subset [1, 6, 14]. Binding of CD164 class II epitope suggested that CD164 may functionally facilitate CD34+ cell adhesion to BM stroma and inhibit CD34+ HSPC proliferation [5]. Such results suggest a possible functional interaction between CD34 and CD164. Despite this, CD164 expression is not limited to early hemopoietic cells, but rather is more heterogeneously expressed than CD34 [6, 15]. Furthermore, although CD34 protrudes from the membrane as a single entity, the CD164 molecule is essentially a homodimeric molecule [5, 1517]. Whether this structural difference is related to function has yet to be fully discovered. Additionally, we have already reported the flow-cytometric antigen expression patterns of CD164 and CD34 in comparison with other antigens of the HSPC subset including AC133, CD117, CD164, Thy-1, and CD38 [14, 1820]. In that work, we demonstrated that although CD164 shows a wide expression profile among HSPC subsets, higher levels are found in cells, which are translating, and in early presentation of the CD34 glycoprotein on the HSPC membrane [6, 14].
In order to understand this possible linked functional duality, we have extended our study using high-definition laser-scanning confocal microscopy to investigate CD34 and CD164 surface colocalization patterns on BM and umbilical cord blood (CB), and to compare coexpression using a three-dimensional representation of antigen distribution.
| MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
HSPC Immunophenotyping for Flow Cytometry Analysis
For each sample, CB or BM MNC aliquots were incubated in human gammaglobulins (20 minutes, 4°C, 2% in PBS; Sigma Aldrich) to block nonspecific Fc receptors before incubation with mouse anti-human CD164 class II epitope (IgG3, 103B2/9E10, 30 minutes, 4°C). Cells were then washed twice in staining buffer (400 g, 10 minutes, 4°C) prior to secondary labeling with fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC)-conjugated goat anti-mouse F(ab')2 fragments (IgG3 specific, 30 minutes, 4°C; Southern Biotech; Birmingham, AL; http://www.southernbiotech.com). After two washes, cells were directly labeled with monoclonal mouse anti-human antibodies (30 minutes, 4°C): anti-AC133 phycoerythrin (PE) conjugated (IgG1, AC133/2; Miltenyi Biotec; Bergish Gladbach Germany; http://www.miltenyibiotec.com) and anti-CD34 peridinin chlorophyll A-protein (IgG1, HPCA-II; Pharmingen; San Diego, CA; http//www.bdbiosciences.com/pharmingen). Cells were then washed twice in staining buffer (400 g, 10 minutes, 4°C) prior to fixation in paraformaldehyde (1%, BDH Laboratory Supply; Poole, Dorset, United Kingdom; http://www.bdh.com). Relevant matched isotype-negative antibody controls were used to determine background-labeling levels. Fluorescent events were acquired on a FACScan flow cytometer (Becton Dickinson; San Diego, CA; http://www.bd.com) with CELLQuest software prior to analysis with WinMDI software. Results are expressed as mean percentage expression ± standard error.
Laser-Scanning Confocal Microscopy Imaging of CD34 and CD164 Antigens on CB and BM HSPCs
Cord blood or BM MNCs were adhered at room temperature on gold positive slides (BDH) before incubation at 4°C with human gammaglobulins (2%; Sigma Aldrich) to block Fc receptors. Adhered cells were then indirectly labeled using primary mouse anti-human CD164 (IgG3, 103B2/9E10 labeling class II epitope reported to be ubiquitously distributed on most primitive HSPC subsets [6]) and/or CD34 (IgG1, HPCA-II labeling class III epitope reported to be expressed on more primitive HSPC subsets than class I/II counterparts [8, 22]) antibodies (Becton Dickinson). Cells were also labeled against isotype-matched monoclonal antibody controls: mouse IgG1 pure and mouse IgG3 pure, respectively (Becton Dickinson). Secondary labels used were FITC-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG3-specific, F(ab')2 fragments (Southern Biotech) or tetramethylrhodamine isothiocyanate (TRITC)-conjugated rabbit anti-mouse IgG F(ab')2 fragments (DAKO; Glostrup, Denmark; http://www.dako.dk) against IgG1 primary antibodies. All labeled cells were fixed in a 3.5% paraformaldehyde solution (BDH) and stored at 4°C prior to images acquisition with a Zeiss LSM.440 laser-scanning confocal microscope.
Image Processing
Acquired images were first processed with Adobe Photoshop (version 5) or Paintshop Pro 5 (Jasc Software Inc.; Eden Prarie, MN; http://www.jasc.com) for differential interference contrast (DIC) and fluorescence overlays (CD34-TRITC represented in red; CD164-FITC represented in green) to give an overall impression of the staining patterns. Software systems were developed using MATLAB (MathWorks Inc.; Natick, MA; http://www.mathworks.com) to allow further processing to obtain three-dimensional contour-slice representation of CD34 and CD164 antigen distributions using a series of one µm (depth) spaced cell fluorescent slices (Z axis). Confocal microscope images used for the three-dimensional contour-slice representation were reduced in size from 1,024 x 1,024 pixels to 256 x 256 pixels using Paintshop Pro 5.
| RESULTS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
DIC Microscopy of BM and CB MNCs Identified Blasts with Membrane Activity Upon Adhesion
Differential interference contrast imaging, at a range of magnifications, allowed visualization of adhering MNCs (Fig. 1
). A primary morphological analysis identified adhering MNCs at various stages of differentiation. At high magnification (x630x8), for BM and CB, several cells showed typical blast-progenitor morphology characterized by a large nucleus and a thin, discrete cytoplasm. Interestingly, these adhering BM blast cells consistently produced plasma membrane protrusions.
|
|
|
|
CD34 and CD164 antigen-dense fluorescent pockets (also observable in two dimensions) reflected, in a three-dimensional representation, sialomucin distribution along crests. Figure 5
shows a representative example of a cell positive for CD164 only. Sialomucin distribution appeared to be related to cell adhesion to the microscope slide, as each crest appeared to originate from the adhesion contact point on the slide growing toward the opposite pole of the cell. Further computer-aided analysis defined variable levels of colocalization of the two sialomucins (Fig. 6
). On cells analyzed here, it was found that CD34 appears at a higher concentration than CD164.
|
|
| DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Laser-scanning confocal microscopy DIC images revealed clues to the environmental surroundings of CB and BM HSPCs. On CB DIC images, the membrane was often more spherical than the corresponding BM cell, which in contrast appeared to have a higher proportion of membrane extensions. The BM microenvironment is one that occurs with a variety of structures, adhesion molecules, and even cytokine receptors holding developing HSPCs in a protected three-dimensional mold allowing "stromal cell-mediated hemopoiesis" to regulate development [23]. The extensions seen from the BM cell membranes are likely to relate to this and are an obvious difference to the circulating CB cells, which have yet to home to the marrow.
In our previous studies, we reported that CD164 (103B2/9E10 class II epitope) was more widely expressed on HSPC populations than the CD34 class III epitope, and indeed CD164+CD34 cells appeared in our confocal-based analysis [6, 14]. However, not all the CD34+ (class III epitope) cells coexpressed the cell surface CD164 103B2/9E10 epitope. This lends support for a role of glycosyl transferases in epitope expression, as the CD34 class II epitope is also less extensively expressed than the CD34 class III epitope [22]. Therefore, although there may be a role for interaction between these two antigens, it must be considered that the in vivo functional roles of CD34 and CD164 may not be mutually exclusive, and could in fact be wider.
Imaging of CD34 and CD164 expression identified halo-like peripheral expression patterns with occasional denser antigen clusters correlating with cell membrane activity. Such striking similarities in antigen distribution on HSPC membrane may relate to the intrinsic structural nature of sialomucin, as CD34 and CD164 are heavily O-glycosylated proteins. This typical glycosylation pattern results in extended thread-like structures protruding above the glycocalyx [15]. Such a configuration would provide an optimal interface for interaction with multiple terminal sugar moieties on opposite cells [15, 24].
Our sialomucin-distribution imaging study is consistent with published functional studies indicating a related role for CD34 and CD164 in homing, cell cycle inhibition, and adhesion to BM stroma [5]. Engagement of the 103B2/9E10 epitope of CD164 on CD34+ HSPCs with monoclonal antibodies suggested that CD164 might cooperate with CD34 in facilitating marrow stromal adhesion and/or regulating CD34+ HSPC growth and differentiation. The study here supports this, since all cells dually expressing the two CD34/CD164 antigens also revealed consistent colocalization patterns, particularly so where the cell membranes attached to the slides. However, an equally important finding is that CD164 surface expression on these dually expressing cells is not as high as CD34. This finding was further highlighted through the appearance on our computer three-dimensional antigen distribution representations of condensed crest-like areas radiating from the point of adherence to the microscope slide toward the top of the cell. In our other studies, where we have "pre-fixed" the cells before staining (data not shown), these antigen-dense crests are not so apparent. Whether sialomucin crest activity is really adhesion motivated will require more analysis, but such a hypothesis would correlate with possible interaction of CD164 and CD34 in homing, cell cycle inhibition, and adhesion to BM stroma. If CD164 is indeed believed to cooperate with CD34 [5, 6, 15], then perhaps cell membrane activation by physical adhesion or by circulating growth factors may recruit both CD164 and CD34 to perform their functions, as suggested by their condensation to these crest-like structures.
Whether the cells are in fact "adherence-aware" following contact with the confocal slide has to be considered. Whether CD34 and CD164 are directly involved in this process cannot be ruled out, but was not investigated here. Despite this, in our other electron microscopy investigations, HSPCs magnetically selected via the CD34 antigen displayed extensive membrane movement and activity that other nonmagnetic selected cells did not display [25, and work in preparation]. However, the immunomagnetic cell separation protocol applied to the electron microscopy work used the mouse anti-human QBEND10 antibody, labeling the class II CD34 molecule epitope, which has been reported to induce actin polymerization in hemopoietic cells and to strongly enhance cytoadhesiveness [10, 13]. This may indicate that clinically selected CD34+ cells may be artificially stimulated prior to transplant, the long-term implication of which is not known. It is worth noticing that in our present study, we used the HPCA-2 monoclonal antibody labeling the class III CD34 molecule epitope for unfractionated MNCs. This was used to prevent artificial activation/adhesion of the cells, but also because CD34 class III monoclonal antibody was reported to label a broader range of CD34+ cells than the class I and II counterparts [22].
We have avoided immunomagnetic selection here to initially study sialomucin localization patterns on HSPCs at new harvest. Immunophenotyping and flow cytometry characterized CD34+CD164+ cells as a very discrete cell population that required thorough and time-consuming confocal slide examination, revealing a consistent distribution profile for CD34 and CD164. In addition, as CD34 and CD164 colocalization often correlated with membrane activity at the adhesion point, the association between CD34 and CD164 membrane distribution and the HSPC activation status may be of importance. Further studies in our laboratory are focusing on comparing sialomucin localization profiles on cell populations enriched for quiescent HSPCs, or cytokine-stimulated proliferating HSPCs. This work has already indicated that the profile changes upon migratory cytokine stimulation (work in progress).
We would also speculate that the HSPC maturation level might also influence CD34 and CD164 membrane distribution. CD34+ cells still encompass a heterogeneous HSPC population [26]. It would therefore be interesting to further characterize CD34 and CD164 confocal localization patterns by comparing their distribution on the more immature CD34+CD38 HSPCs with more committed CD34+CD38+ cells. Our existing fluorescence-activated cell sorting data in this area (submitted work) has indicated that CD34+CD38 HSPCs express higher levels of AC133 and CD164 than the more mature CD34+CD38+ group. We would speculate that the CD34+CD164+ cell subset is relatively immature, as it was highly enriched with the AC133+ cells previously reported to have high proliferation potential and increased long-term culture initiating cell frequency [27, 28]. Our ongoing work investigates negatively selected populations to focus on the immature populations in comparison to standard immunomagnetically selected CD34+ and AC133+ populations.
Other studies support our theory on sialomucin coclustering upon adhesion. While studying common tyrosine phosphorylation signaling pathways for CD34 and CD43 (another sialomucin), Tada et al. [13] observed the formation of distinct CD34 and CD43 antigen clusters associated with F-actin reorganization upon cytoadhesion. CD43 clustering to cellular uropodia was also previously reported in activated T-lymphocyte and chemotactic neutrophils [29, 30]. They hypothesized that CD34 and CD43 clustering may be involved in HSPC polarization, which may be essential for adequate cell motility and cytoadhesion to the BM microenvironment. More recently, Krause et al. [9] observed that CD34 was upregulated in donor cells shortly after transplantation and prior to successful engraftment in the BM of a murine model. Taken together, these data highlight the importance of sialomucin colocalization along dense crests in adhering CB and BM HSPCs. CD34 and CD164 (and possibly CD43) may recruit one another along these dense crests to adequately polarize the progenitor cell prior to firmly anchoring itself to BM niches in vivo. A possible role for CD164 may, therefore, be to control and regulate CD34 condensation along the clustered crests.
In future experiments we will investigate further whether CD34 recruits CD164 into these antigen-dense crest-like areas. A dual linked function for these two sialomucins has implications for the current transplantation arena in which CD34 positive cells are widely employed.
| ACKNOWLEDGMENT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
T. E. Bullock, B. Wen, S. B. Marley, and M. Y. Gordon Potential of CD34 in the Regulation of Symmetrical and Asymmetrical Divisions by Hematopoietic Progenitor Cells Stem Cells, April 1, 2007; 25(4): 844 - 851. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
N. Forraz, R. Pettengell, and C. P. McGuckin Characterization of a Lineage-Negative Stem-Progenitor Cell Population Optimized for Ex Vivo Expansion and Enriched for LTC-IC Stem Cells, January 1, 2004; 22(1): 100 - 108. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| STEM CELLS | THE ONCOLOGIST | CME | ALPHAMED PRESS JOURNALS |
