Redundant roles of EGFR ligands in the ERK activation waves during collective cell migration

  1. Shuhao Lin
  2. Daiki Hirayama
  3. Gembu Maryu
  4. Kimiya Matsuda
  5. Naoya Hino
  6. Eriko Deguchi
  7. Kazuhiro Aoki
  8. Ryo Iwamoto
  9. Kenta Terai
  10. Michiyuki Matsuda

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) plays a pivotal role in collective cell migration by mediating cell-to-cell propagation of extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK) activation. Here, we aimed to determine which EGFR ligands mediate the ERK activation waves. We found that epidermal growth factor ( EGF )–deficient cells exhibited lower basal ERK activity than the cells deficient in heparin-binding EGF ( HBEGF ), transforming growth factor alpha ( TGFα ) or epiregulin ( EREG ), but all cell lines deficient in a single EGFR ligand retained the ERK activation waves. Surprisingly, ERK activation waves were markedly suppressed, albeit incompletely, only when all four EGFR ligands were knocked out. Re-expression of the EGFR ligands revealed that all but HBEGF could restore the ERK activation waves. Aiming at complete elimination of the ERK activation waves, we further attempted to knockout NRG1 , a ligand for ErbB3 and ErbB4, and found that NRG1 -deficiency induced growth arrest in the absence of all four EGFR ligand genes. Collectively, these results showed that EGFR ligands exhibit remarkable redundancy in the propagation of ERK activation waves during collective cell migration.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.26508/lsa.202101206
  2. Review Commons

    Note: This rebuttal was posted by the corresponding author to Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

    Learn more at Review Commons

    Reply to the reviewers

    First of all, we would like to thank the editor and all reviewers for the effort to evaluate our paper in this difficult era of COVID-19.

    __Reviewer #1 __

    (Significance): Overall, this manuscript is very clear and easy to follow. The manuscript could be improved by making the following changes:

    We thank the reviewer for the favorable comment and will revise the manuscript according to the suggestions.

    __Reviewer #2 __

    (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity): The use of genetics is particularly impressive but the lack of major discoveries dampens the enthusiasm. Additional efforts to mechanistically define wave initiation and wave propagation would significantly improve the impact of the manuscript. Moreover, some of the conclusions are not fully supported by the data and require further experimentation and/or analysis.

    We admit that marked redundancy of function among the EGFR ligands and their essential roles in cell growth prevent us from obtaining very clear results. Considering the importance of EGFR ligands in biology, we believe, our observation will give invaluable suggestions to whom wishes to clarify the roles played by EGFR-family protein in other biological contexts.

    (Significance): While it is known that ADAM17 is critical to process EGFR ligands, the specific or redundant roles of different ligands remains an open question. The authors find that all ADAM17 ligands contribute to ERK signaling waves but may have specific contributions to other phenotypes. This work would be of interest to the signaling dynamics, epithelial and developmental biology communities.

    We thank the reviewer for the favorable comment.

    Reviewer #3

    (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity): Overall, this study is carried out with a high degree of rigor and technical excellence, with clear reporting of experimental details and replication. The writing and figures are very clear, and there are no obvious technical problems. However, there are some areas in which the strength and clarity of the conclusions could be strengthened by relatively simple experiments.

    We thank the reviewer for the favorable comment. We have already performed some of the experiments suggested by the reviewer. As the reviewer might have anticipated, co-culture with the wild type MDCK cells helps mutant cells to survive. We believe we could propose a clearer model in the revised paper.

    (Significance): This study definitively establishes the role of 4 EGFR ligands in the generation of ERK activity waves in MDCK cells. While other studies, including some from the senior author's lab, have strongly indicated that EGFR autocrine signaling is important for these waves, this study goes further in comparing the roles of these ligands using knockouts to unambiguously establish the autocrine factors involved. Others who use this common experimental system (MDCK) to study epithelial dynamics will find this study of great interest. A wider audience of those who work on EGFR-mediated signaling will also find the data quite fascinating as an example of the complex relationship between ERK activation and its downstream effects. The technical excellence of the paper will make it a must-read for those in these fields. However, there are some factors that limit the scope of the significance. MDCK cells are an important experimental model system but differ in substantial ways from other epithelial cells, particularly in the expression of EGFR ligands. Because different ligands such as amphiregulin dominate in other systems (as noted by the authors, and PMID 27405981), the ability to extrapolate from these findings to other cell types is somewhat limited. Also, the paper avoids addressing the major question of how ERK waves relate to collective migration rate. From the data presented it is clear that this relationship is complex; for example, bath application of the ligands restores a high migration rate but not ERK waves. Given this lack of a clear relationship it is an understandable decision to leave this question for future work; however this does limit the conclusions that can be drawn from the study.

    We completely agree with the reviewer’s view. It is uncertain to what extent the observation with MDCK cells can be generalized to other cell types. We also admit that the conclusion is not very simple because EGFR signaling is required for various cellular functions including cell survival and migration. Even though the gene editing becomes so easy, it is still labor consuming work to knock out many genes in a single cell line with extensive characterization. We believe the data shown in our work will provide a basis for the understanding of EGFR ligands.

    __Reviewer #1 __

    For Fig 1F, 3 individual experiments should be conducted to confirm results.

    We will follow the reviewer’s suggestion and repeat the experiment.

    For Fig 1G, could the authors please show the original western blot data in full rather than just the densitometry graphs?

    We did not show just for the sake of brevity. We are happy to will include the images as a supplementary data.

    The authors should explain the origin/phenotype of MDCK cells for those who are not familiar with the cell line.

    We will modify the text according to the reviewer’s suggestion.

    The authors should give a future outlook/direction for future experimentation to further confirm redundancy in EGF ligands in the propagation of ERK activation waves.

    We will discuss on the redundancy in other cell types based on available NGS data.

    Some mention of the use of biosensors in the abstract and introduction is recommended as this is a major part of the experimental work.

    We will refer to the biosensors in the abstract and introduction.

    Reviewer #2

    There are conflicts with some of the conclusions made about ligands. dEGFR cells have basal ERK activity as high as WT which argues against EGF being responsible for basal ERK activity. Further, basal ERK activity was not rescued by restoration of EGF in the 4KO-EGF cells. The authors should address this discrepancy.

    We agree that some new questions have arisen from our observations. The discrepancy of the phenotypes between dEGFR cells and dEGF cells is an example. We are currently establishing dEGF cell lines, in which different genomic sequences of the EGF gene were targeted. We have already started to develop these cell lines and will obtain them within a month. The result will provide some clues to answer the questions. However, even if we could not solve the question, we believe, it is worth reporting observations that could not be easily understood, because such questions are often leading to another discovery.

    Besides the ones genetically disrupted in this work, other EGFR ligands seem to play functional roles given that dEGFR cells less migration and fewer ERK waves than 4KO cells. The authors could test if other ligands are upregulated in 4KO cells to compensate. On a similar note determining whether ADAM17 deficient cells are more similar to 4KO cells or dEGFR cells could provide some insight.

    According to the reviewer’s suggestion, we will conduct qPCR of growth factors in mutant cell lines to see the expression levels of seven EGFR ligands might have changed significantly. At the same time, as the reviewer suggested, we will establish ADAM17 knockout cell lines and compare the phenotype with those of cell lines deficient from EGFR ligand genes.

    • The authors propose that Nrg1 is responsible for ERK waves in QKO, 4KO, dEGFR, and 4KO-EGF cells but are limited in testing this due to Nrg1 being essential in 4KO cells. First, Nrg1 should have been deleted in TKO cells to confirm that it is only essential in the absence of the four EGFR ligands. Additionally, Nrg1 could be knocked out in 4KO-EGF cells to demonstrate the claim that EGF-induced ADAM17 cleavage of Nrg1 is responsible for ERK waves.*

    We do not think the deletion of Nrg1 in the TKO cells will abolish the ERK activation waves because EREG in TKO cells could transmit the waves. To overcome the problem of cell growth, we will try to obtain 5KO cells by Cre-induced deletion of NRG1 in 5KO-loxP-NRG1 cells, wherein EGF is supplied exogenously. We already had preliminary data suggesting that co-culture with wild type MDCK cells helps 5KO cells grow.

    The authors state that ERK activation waves are important for collective migration and seek to understand the roles of each EGFR ligand, but despite measuring migration and properties of ERK activity, there is very little analysis or commentary on the relationship between the two. The ability of HB-EGF to restore migration without ERK waves suggests that waves are not required per se. It is interesting to note that with restoration of ligands, migration is higher than WT but ERK activity is lower.

    We refrained from spending much space about the essential role of ERK activation waves in collective cell migration, because several papers have already described this issue.

    Probably, we should have spent more space to emphasize that the collective cell migration is comprised of at least two different phenomena. The migration of leader cells and the follower cells. The ERK activation waves are essential for the follower cells but not the leader cells. In 4KO cells, both the leader cell and follower cell migrations are impaired. We showed that GFs expression restore the leader cell migration, but not the follower cells. We will revise the text to include this issue.

    It is suggested that the total amount of EGFR ligands may be the primary determinant of migration, but deletion of TGFα alone causes a significant decrease in migration comparable to the DKO cells. TGFα has the lowest expression of the four ligands studied but is the only ligand to have a significant impact on migration in the single knockout context, which disagrees with that conclusion.

    Each EGFR ligand has different affinity to EGFR, which makes it difficult to link the mRNA levels directly to the effect of each EGFR ligand. We will modify the discussion to include this argument.

    Other:

    Fig. S3B needs clarification that the WT (black) and 4KO (green) did not receive a stimulus.

    We will follow the reviewer’s advice.

    Reviewer #3:

    The experiments in Fig. 5 are undertaken with the purpose of assessing whether NRG acts as an additional ligand that mediates the residual ERK waves in 4KO/QKO cells. However, this question is never addressed in the NRG/4KO cells. While it might be challenging due to the proliferative defect, it seems important to attempt this experiment in some way; measuring the ERK waves for these cells would establish whether all of the critical autocrine factors have been identified. Can the proliferation be rescued by application of high amounts of growth factors?

    This question is similar to a question raised by reviewer #2.

    To overcome the problem of cell growth, we will try to obtain 5KO cells by Cre-induced deletion of NRG1 in 5KO-loxP-NRG1 cells, wherein EGF is supplied exogenously.

    The bath exposure to EGFR ligands shown in Fig. S3A is an important experiment, but it is surprising that ERK signaling is not maintained under these conditions. Is this due to depletion of the added ligands, perhaps locally? Or is the intermittent nature of paracrine signaling needed to maintain ERK activity? These possibilities could be distinguished by checking whether the added EGF or the other ligands are depleted after several hours, or by restimulating with a new bolus of ligand after several hours.

    We thank the reviewer for this invaluable suggestion. We will conduct the experiments suggested by the reviewer.

    The connection between ERK activity and migration is somewhat confusing. It would be helpful to show the dose sensitivity of migration to a MEK or ERK inhibitor. Are other pathways downstream of EGFR such as PI3K involved in the autocrine-mediated migration? This could also be established with the appropriate inhibitors.

    We should have spent more space to emphasize that the collective cell migration is comprised of at least two different phenomena. The migration of leader cells and the follower cells. The ERK activation waves are essential for the follower cells but not the leader cells. In 4KO cells, both the leader cell and follower cell migrations are impaired. We showed that GFs expression restore the leader cell migration, but not the follower cells. We will emphasize this issue in the revised manuscript.

    Reviewer #1:

    Line 47 in Abstract should read "Aiming for" not "Aiming at".

    We have corrected the mistake as suggested.

    Some in the field call fluorescence lifetime microscopy "FLIM", you could adopt the same wording in your manuscript to attract more readers.

    We have included FLIM according to the reviewer’s suggestion.

    Reviewer #1 :

    Figure 1D, the images should be presented using the same scale for both the EKAREV and EKARrEV constructs so that they can be directly compared.

    Because the basal FRET/CFP ratio is significantly different between EKAREV-NLS and EKARrEV-NLS, the changes during mitosis become unclear if we applied the same scale. This figure is prepared to show the reactivity to Cdk1 during mitosis; therefore, we believe the current scale is better for presentation.

    The names QKO and 4KO are a bit confusing. Could the authors please change the naming of the knockout cells so that readers understand that QKO and 4KO are two separate cell types? Perhaps instead of 4KO use FKO for "full knockout" or something similar. The 5KO line might also need to be named something else if you change to FKO.

    We have discussed this issue with the co-authors, but could not reach a better idea. Instead of changing the names, we will include a detailed explanation for each cell line.

    Reviewer #2:

    The interpretation of the RA-SOS coculture experiments is confusing. Based on the author's reasoning, I would expect ADAM17 shedding in the RA-SOS cells to trigger signaling at the interface of both WT and 4KO cells but the 4KO should be unable to propagate the wave farther away from the interface. This does not seem to be the case. Do RA-SOS ADAM17KO cells still trigger waves of ERK signaling in the WT cells? Do ADAM17KO cells behave as the 4KO cells in this coculture system?

    Probably, the reviewer misunderstood the method. The GF-less 4KO cells were co-cultured with wild type cells harboring the RA-SOS system. We will describe more in detail to avoid misunderstanding.

    Finally, the growth curve in Fig. 5B indicates that 5KO-loxP-NRG1-CreERT2 cells are viable for about two days after Cre induction. The authors could perform a confinement release assay of these cells 1-1.5 days after Cre induction to look for further reduction of ERK waves and migration to demonstrate the role of Nrg1.

    This experiment may not be necessary. It is clear that NRG1 is required for the survival of 4KO cells. The reason why cells are still alive 1 to 2 days after 4-OHT application is simply because NRG1 protein is remaining. The interpretation of the results would be difficult during the phase of NRG1 reduction.

    In Fig. 1G, the normalization of all WT pERK samples to 1 artificially lowers the variance to zero when performing the T-test.

    For the comparison of immunoblotting data derived from independent experiments, the signals must be normalized to the control. We believe the use of pERK/ERK of the wild type cells as the control is reasonable for this experiment.

  3. Review Commons

    Note: This preprint has been reviewed by subject experts for Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

    Learn more at Review Commons

    Referee #3

    Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

    This manuscript seeks to clarify the mechanisms that underlie traveling "waves" of ERK activity that occur in monolayers of migrating epithelial cells. A combination of live cell imaging with ERK activity biosensors and CRISPR-mediated knockouts for autocrine regulators are used to dissect the factors that make these waves possible. The authors utilize the MDCK cell line, which shows very prominent wave behavior, and they perform an impressive number of knockouts to eliminate the most abundant autocrine EGFR ligands. They also introduce a novel ERK FRET reporter, which is less sensitive to off-target phosphorylation by Cdk1. Analysis of ERK biosensor data from the knockouts shows that knockout of all four main EGFR ligands is needed to substantially reduce the amplitude of ERK waves, although it does not completely eliminate it. Re-expression of any of the four ligands, with the exception of HBEGF, restores strong ERK waves. Application of the same ligands in solution restores migration but not the ERK waves.

    Overall, this study is carried out with a high degree of rigor and technical excellence, with clear reporting of experimental details and replication. The writing and figures are very clear, and there are no obvious technical problems. However, there are some areas in which the strength and clarity of the conclusions could be strengthened by relatively simple experiments.

    Major:

    1. The experiments in Fig. 5 are undertaken with the purpose of assessing whether NRG acts as an additional ligand that mediates the residual ERK waves in 4KO/QKO cells. However, this question is never addressed in the NRG/4KO cells. While it might be challenging due to the proliferative defect, it seems important to attempt this experiment in some way; measuring the ERK waves for these cells would establish whether all of the critical autocrine factors have been identified. Can the proliferation be rescued by application of high amounts of growth factors?
    2. The bath exposure to EGFR ligands shown in Fig. S3A is an important experiment, but it is surprising that ERK signaling is not maintained under these conditions. Is this due to depletion of the added ligands, perhaps locally? Or is the intermittent nature of paracrine signaling needed to maintain ERK activity? These possibilities could be distinguished by checking whether the added EGF or the other ligands are depleted after several hours, or by restimulating with a new bolus of ligand after several hours.

    Minor (I think this is an important point overall, but it is outside of the scope of the paper as defined by the authors, which is focused on the ERK waves rather than how the waves relate to migration):

    1. The connection between ERK activity and migration is somewhat confusing. It would be helpful to show the dose sensitivity of migration to a MEK or ERK inhibitor. Are other pathways downstream of EGFR such as PI3K involved in the autocrine-mediated migration? This could also be established with the appropriate inhibitors.

    Significance

    This study definitively establishes the role of 4 EGFR ligands in the generation of ERK activity waves in MDCK cells. While other studies, including some from the senior author's lab, have strongly indicated that EGFR autocrine signaling is important for these waves, this study goes further in comparing the roles of these ligands using knockouts to unambiguously establish the autocrine factors involved. Others who use this common experimental system (MDCK) to study epithelial dynamics will find this study of great interest. A wider audience of those who work on EGFR-mediated signaling will also find the data quite fascinating as an example of the complex relationship between ERK activation and its downstream effects. The technical excellence of the paper will make it a must-read for those in these fields. However, there are some factors that limit the scope of the significance. MDCK cells are an important experimental model system but differ in substantial ways from other epithelial cells, particularly in the expression of EGFR ligands. Because different ligands such as amphiregulin dominate in other systems (as noted by the authors, and PMID 27405981), the ability to extrapolate from these findings to other cell types is somewhat limited. Also, the paper avoids addressing the major question of how ERK waves relate to collective migration rate. From the data presented it is clear that this relationship is complex; for example, bath application of the ligands restores a high migration rate but not ERK waves. Given this lack of a clear relationship it is an understandable decision to leave this question for future work; however this does limit the conclusions that can be drawn from the study.

    Areas of expertise: growth factor signal transduction, biosensors, quantitative modeling

  4. Review Commons

    Note: This preprint has been reviewed by subject experts for Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

    Learn more at Review Commons

    Referee #2

    Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

    Lin et al. address the mechanisms underlying ERK signaling waves in epithelial cells. While it is known that ADAM17 is critical to process EGFR ligands, the specific or redundant roles of different ligands remains an open question. First the authors generate a modified ERK FRET sensor with reduced cross-reactivity to CDK1 in MDCK cells and systematically knockout EGF, HBEGF, TGF⍺ and EREG (the highest expressed ligands in MDCK cells). The authors use live cell imaging of ERK activity upon release from confinement and find that all ligands contribute to ERK signaling waves. While differences in basal signaling and other dynamic features are found in individual knockouts, only the quadruple KO cells show a significant decrease in ERK waves. To determine if the 4KO cells are defective in wave propagation (as opposed to wave initiation), the authors coculture 4KO cells with an inducible cell line and conclude that 4KO cells are unable to propagate waves. Individual EGFR ligands are then restored in 4KO cells, and EGF, TGFα, and EREG, but not HBEGF, can rescue ERK activity waves. Finally, the authors attempt to eliminate all ERK activation waves by deletion of Nrg1 but find that it is essential in 4KO cells. The paper is well-written and technically sound. The use of genetics is particularly impressive but the lack of major discoveries dampens the enthusiasm. Additional efforts to mechanistically define wave initiation and wave propagation would significantly improve the impact of the manuscript. Moreover, some of the conclusions are not fully supported by the data and require further experimentation and/or analysis.

    1. There are conflicts with some of the conclusions made about ligands. dEGFR cells have basal ERK activity as high as WT which argues against EGF being responsible for basal ERK activity. Further, basal ERK activity was not rescued by restoration of EGF in the 4KO-EGF cells. The authors should address this discrepancy.
    2. Besides the ones genetically disrupted in this work, other EGFR ligands seem to play functional roles given that dEGFR cells less migration and fewer ERK waves than 4KO cells. The authors could test if other ligands are upregulated in 4KO cells to compensate. On a similar note determining whether ADAM17 deficient cells are more similar to 4KO cells or dEGFR cells could provide some insight.
    3. The interpretation of the RA-SOS coculture experiments is confusing. Based on the author's reasoning, I would expect ADAM17 shedding in the RA-SOS cells to trigger signaling at the interface of both WT and 4KO cells but the 4KO should be unable to propagate the wave farther away from the interface. This does not seem to be the case. Do RA-SOS ADAM17KO cells still trigger waves of ERK signaling in the WT cells? Do ADAM17KO cells behave as the 4KO cells in this coculture system?
    4. The authors propose that Nrg1 is responsible for ERK waves in QKO, 4KO, dEGFR, and 4KO-EGF cells but are limited in testing this due to Nrg1 being essential in 4KO cells. First, Nrg1 should have been deleted in TKO cells to confirm that it is only essential in the absence of the four EGFR ligands. Additionally, Nrg1 could be knocked out in 4KO-EGF cells to demonstrate the claim that EGF-induced ADAM17 cleavage of Nrg1 is responsible for ERK waves. Finally, the growth curve in Fig. 5B indicates that 5KO-loxP-NRG1-CreERT2 cells are viable for about two days after Cre induction. The authors could perform a confinement release assay of these cells 1-1.5 days after Cre induction to look for further reduction of ERK waves and migration to demonstrate the role of Nrg1.
    5. The authors state that ERK activation waves are important for collective migration and seek to understand the roles of each EGFR ligand, but despite measuring migration and properties of ERK activity, there is very little analysis or commentary on the relationship between the two. The ability of HB-EGF to restore migration without ERK waves suggests that waves are not required per se. It is interesting to note that with restoration of ligands, migration is higher than WT but ERK activity is lower.
    6. It is suggested that the total amount of EGFR ligands may be the primary determinant of migration, but deletion of TGFα alone causes a significant decrease in migration comparable to the DKO cells. TGFα has the lowest expression of the four ligands studied but is the only ligand to have a significant impact on migration in the single knockout context, which disagrees with that conclusion. Other:
    7. In Fig. 1G, the normalization of all WT pERK samples to 1 artificially lowers the variance to zero when performing the T-test.
    8. Fig. S3B needs clarification that the WT (black) and 4KO (green) did not receive a stimulus.

    Significance

    While it is known that ADAM17 is critical to process EGFR ligands, the specific or redundant roles of different ligands remains an open question. The authors find that all ADAM17 ligands contribute to ERK signaling waves but may have specific contributions to other phenotypes. This work would be of interest to the signaling dynamics, epithelial and developmental biology communities.

  5. Review Commons

    Note: This preprint has been reviewed by subject experts for Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

    Learn more at Review Commons

    Referee #1

    Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

    see below for comments.

    Significance

    Overall, this manuscript is very clear and easy to follow. The manuscript could be improved by making the following changes:

    • Line 47 in Abstract should read "Aiming for" not "Aiming at".
    • Some mention of the use of biosensors in the abstract and introduction is recommended as this is a major part of the experimental work.
    • The names QKO and 4KO are a bit confusing. Could the authors please change the naming of the knockout cells so that readers understand that QKO and 4KO are two separate cell types? Perhaps instead of 4KO use FKO for "full knockout" or something similar. The 5KO line might also need to be named something else if you change to FKO.
    • Figure 1D, the images should be presented using the same scale for both the EKAREV and EKARrEV constructs so that they can be directly compared.
    • Some in the field call fluorescence lifetime microscopy "FLIM", you could adopt the same wording in your manuscript to attract more readers.
    • For Fig 1F, 3 individual experiments should be conducted to confirm results.
    • For Fig 1G, could the authors please show the original western blot data in full rather than just the densitometry graphs?
    • The authors should explain the origin/phenotype of MDCK cells for those who are not familiar with the cell line.
    • The authors should give a future outlook/direction for future experimentation to further confirm redundancy in EGF ligands in the propagation of ERK activation waves.
  6. Version published to 10.1101/2021.05.25.445569 on bioRxiv