Membrane potential modulates ERK activity and cell proliferation

  1. Mari Sasaki
  2. Masanobu Nakahara
  3. Takuya Hashiguchi
  4. Fumihito Ono

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Summary

The plasma membrane potential has been linked to cell proliferation for more than 40 years. Here we experimentally showed that membrane depolarization upregulates cell mitosis, and that this process is dependent on voltage-dependent activation of ERK. ERK activity exhibits a membrane potential-dependency that is independent from the growth factor. This membrane potential dependence was observed even close to the resting membrane potential, indicating that small changes in resting membrane potential can alter cell proliferative activity. The voltage-dependent ERK activity is derived from changed dynamics of phosphatidylserine which is present in the plasma membrane and not by extracellular calcium entry. The data suggests that crucial biological processes such as cell proliferation are regulated by the physicochemical properties of the lipid. This study suggests that membrane potential may have diverse physiological functions beyond the action potential, which is well-established in the neural system.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.7554/elife.101613.2 on eLife
  2. Version published to 10.7554/elife.101613 on eLife
  4. eLife

    eLife Assessment

    This useful paper presents evidence from several experimental approaches that suggest that changes in membrane potential directly affect ERK signaling to regulate cell division. This result is relevant because it supports an ion channel-independent pathway by which changes in membrane voltage can affect cell growth. The reviewers point out that while some experimental results and interpretations are compelling, the strength of evidence is still incomplete and changes to the manuscript are needed to rule out other possible interpretations of the data.

  5. eLife

    Reviewer #1 (Public review):

    Summary:

    This is a contribution to the field of developmental bioelectricity. How do changes of resting potential at the cell membrane affect downstream processes? Zhou et al. reported in 2015 that phosphatidylserine and K-Ras cluster upon plasma membrane depolarization and that voltage-dependent ERK activation occurs when constitutively active K-RasG12V mutants are overexpressed. In this paper, the authors advance the knowledge of this phenomenon by showing that membrane depolarization up-regulates mitosis and that this process is dependent on voltage-dependent activation of ERK. ERK activity's voltage-dependence is derived from changes in the dynamics of phosphatidylserine in the plasma membrane and not by extracellular calcium dynamics. This paper reports an interesting and important finding. It is somewhat derivative of Zhou et al., 2015. (https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.aaa5619). The main novelty seems to be that they find quantitatively different conclusions upon conducting similar experiments, albeit with a different cell line (U2OS) than those used by Zhou et al. Sasaki et al. do show that increased K+ levels increase proliferation, which Zhou et al. did not look at. The data presented in this paper are a useful contribution to a field often lacking such data.

    Strengths:

    Bioelectricity is an important field for areas of cell, developmental, and evolutionary biology, as well as for biomedicine. Confirmation of ERK as a transduction mechanism and a characterization of the molecular details involved in the control of cell proliferation are interesting and impactful.

    Weaknesses:

    The authors lean heavily on the assumption that the Nernst equation is an accurate predictor of membrane potential based on K+ level. This is a large oversimplification that undermines the author's conclusions, most glaringly in Figure 2C. The author's conclusions should be weakened to reflect that the activity of voltage gated ion channels and homeostatic compensation are unaccounted for.

    There are grammatical tense errors are made throughout the paper (ex line 99 "This kinetics should be these kinetics")

    Line 71: Zhou et al. use BHK, N2A, PSA-3 cells, this paper uses U2OS (osteosarcoma) cells. Could that explain the differences in bioelectric properties that they describe? In general, there should be more discussion of the choice of cell line. Why were U2OS cells chosen? What are the implications of the fact that these are cancer cells, and bone cancer cells in particular? Does this paper provide specific insights for bone cancers? And crucially, how applicable are findings from these cells to other contexts?

    Line 115: The authors use EGF to calibrate 'maximal' ERK stimulation. Is this level near saturation? Either way is fine, but it would be useful to clarify.

    Line 121: Starting line 121 the authors say "Of note, U2OS cells expressed wild-type K-Ras but not an active mutant of K-Ras, which means voltage dependent ERK activation occurs not only in tumor cells but also in normal cells". Given that U2OS cells are bone sarcoma cells, is it appropriate to refer to these as 'normal' cells in contrast to 'tumor' cells?

    Line 101: These normalizations seem reasonable, the conclusions sufficiently supported and the requisite assumptions clearly presented. Because the dish-to-dish and cell-to-cell variation may reflect biologically relevant phenomena it would be ideal if non-normalized data could be added in supplemental data where feasible.

    Figure 2C is listed as Figure 2D in the text

    There is no Figure 2F (Referenced in line 148)

  6. eLife

    Reviewer #2 (Public review):

    Sasaki et al. use a combination of live-cell biosensors and patch-clamp electrophysiology to investigate the effect of membrane potential on the ERK MAPK signaling pathway, and probe associated effects on proliferation. This is an effect that has long been proposed, but a convincing demonstration has remained elusive, because it is difficult to perturb membrane potential without disturbing other aspects of cell physiology in complex ways. The time-resolved measurements here are a nice contribution to this question, and the perforated patch clamp experiments with an ERK biosensor are fantastic - they come closer to addressing the above difficulty of perturbing voltage than any prior work. It would have been difficult to obtain these observations with any other combination of tools.

    However, there are still some concerns as detailed in specific comments below:

    Specific comments:

    (1) All the observations of ERK activation, by both high extracellular K+ and voltage clamp, could be explained by cell volume increase (more discussion in subsequent comments). There is a substantial literature on ERK activation by hypotonic cell swelling (e.g. https://doi.org/10.1042/bj3090013, https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1460-2075.1996.tb00938.x, among others). Here are some possible observations that could demonstrate that ERK activation by volume change is distinct from the effects reported here:

    i) Does hypotonic shock activate ERK in U2OS cells?

    ii) Can hypotonic shock activate ERK even after PS depletion, whereas extracellular K+ cannot?

    iii) Does high extracellular K+ change cell volume in U2OS cells, measured via an accurate method such as fluorescence exclusion microscopy?

    iv) It would be helpful to check the osmolality of all the extracellular solutions, even though they were nominally targeted to be iso-osmotic.

    (2) Some more details about the experimental design and the results are needed from Figure 1:

    i) For how long are the cells serum-starved? From the Methods section, it seems like the G1 release in different K+ concentration is done without serum, is this correct? Is the prior thymidine treatment also performed in the absence of serum?

    ii) There is a question of whether depolarization constitutes a physiologically relevant mechanism to regulate proliferation, and how depolarization interacts with other extracellular signals that might be present in an in vivo context. Does depolarization only promote proliferation after extended serum starvation (in what is presumably a stressed cell state)? What fraction of total cells are observed to be mitotic (without normalization), and how does this compare to the proliferation of these cells growing in serum-supplemented media? Can K+ concentration tune proliferation rate even in serum-supplemented media?

    (3) In Figure 2, there are some possible concerns with the perfusion experiment:

    i) Is the buffer static in the period before perfusion with high K+, or is it perfused? This is not clear from the Methods. If it is static, how does the ERK activity change when perfused with 5 mM K+? In other words, how much of the response is due to flow/media exchange versus change in K+ concentration?

    ii) Why do there appear to be population-average decreases in ERK activity in the period before perfusion with high K+ (especially in contrast to Fig. 3)? The imaging period does not seem frequent enough for photobleaching to be significant.

    (4) Figure 3 contains important results on couplings between membrane potential and MAPK signaling. However, there are a few concerns:

    i) Does cell volume change upon voltage clamping? Previous authors have shown that depolarizing voltage clamp can cause cells to swell, at least in the whole-cell configuration:

    https://www.cell.com/biophysj/fulltext/S0006-3495(18)30441-7 . Could it be possible that the clamping protocol induces changes in ERK signaling due to changes in cell volume, and not by an independent mechanism?

    ii) Does the -80 mV clamp begin at time 0 minutes? If so, one might expect a transient decrease in sensor FRET ratio, depending on the original resting potential of the cells. Typical estimates for resting potential in HEK293 cells range from -40 mV to -15 mV, which would reach the range that induces an ERK response by depolarizing clamp in Fig. 3B. What are the resting potentials of the cells before they are clamped to -80 mV, and why do we not see this downward transient?

    (5) The activation of ERK by perforated voltage clamp and by high extracellular K+ are each convincing, but it is unclear whether they need to act purely through the same mechanism - while additional extracellular K+ does depolarize the cell, it could also be affecting function of voltage-independent transporters and cell volume regulatory mechanisms on the timescales studied. To more strongly show this, the following should be done with the HEK cells where there is already voltage clamp data:

    i) Measure resting potential using the perforated patch in zero-current configuration in the high K+ medium. Ideally this should be done in the time window after high K+ addition where ERK activation is observed (10-20 minutes) to minimize the possibility of drift due to changes in transporter and channel activity due to post-translational regulation.

    ii) Measure YFP/CFP ratio of the HEK cells in the high K+ medium (in contrast to the U2OS cells from Fig. 2 where there is no patch data).

    iii) The assertion that high K+ is equivalent to changes in Vmem for ERK signaling would be supported if the YFP/CFP change from K+ addition is comparable to that induced by voltage clamp to the same potential. This would be particularly convincing if the experiment could be done with each of the 15 mM, 30 mM, and 145 mM conditions.

    (6) Line 170: "ERK activity was reduced with a fast time course (within 1 minute) after repolarization to -80 mV." I don't see this in the data: in Fig. 3C, it looks like ERK remains elevated for > 10 min after the electrical stimulus has returned to -80 mV

    Comments on revisions:

    The authors have done a good job addressing the comments on the previous submission.

  7. eLife

    Reviewer #3 (Public review):

    Summary:

    This paper demonstrates that membrane depolarization induces a small increase in cell entry into mitosis. Based on previous work from another lab, the authors propose that ERK activation might be involved. They show convincingly using a combination of assays that ERK is activated by membrane depolarization. They show this is Ca2+ independent and is a result of activation of the whole K-Ras/ERK cascade which results from changed dynamics of phosphatidylserine in the plasma membrane that activates K-Ras. Although the activation of the Ras/ERK pathway by membrane depolarization is not new, linking it to an increase in cell proliferation is novel.

    Strengths

    A major strength of the study is the use of different techniques - live imaging with ERK reporters, as well as Western blotting to demonstrate ERK activation as well as different methods for inducing membrane depolarization. They also use a number of different cell lines. Via Western blotting the authors are also able to show that the whole MAPK cascade is activated.

    Weaknesses

    A weakness of the study is the data in Figure 1 showing that membrane depolarization results in an increase of cells entering mitosis. There are very few cells entering mitosis in their sample in any condition. This should be done with many more cells to increase the confidence in the results. The study also lacks a mechanistic link between ERK activation by membrane depolarization and increased cell proliferation.

    The authors did achieve their aims with the caveat that the cell proliferation results could be strengthened. The results, for the most par,t support the conclusions.

    This work suggests that alterations in membrane potential may have more physiological functions than action potential in the neural system as it has an effect on intracellular signalling and potentially cell proliferation.

    In the revised manuscript, the authors have now addressed the issues with Figure 1, and the data presented are much clearer. They did also attempt to pinpoint when in the cell cycle ERK is having its activity, but unfortunately, this was not conclusive.

  8. eLife

    Author response:

    The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews.

    Reviewer #1 (Public review):

    Summary:

    This is a contribution to the field of developmental bioelectricity. How do changes of resting potential at the cell membrane affect downstream processes? Zhou et al. reported in 2015 that phosphatidylserine and K-Ras cluster upon plasma membrane depolarization and that voltage-dependent ERK activation occurs when constitutive active K-RasG12V mutants are overexpressed. In this paper, the authors advance the knowledge of this phenomenon by showing that membrane depolarization up-regulates mitosis and that this process is dependent on voltage-dependent activation of ERK. ERK activity's voltage-dependence is derived from changes in the dynamics of phosphatidylserine in the plasma membrane and not by extracellular calcium dynamics.

    Strengths:

    Bioelectricity is an important field for areas of cell, developmental, and evolutionary biology, as well as for biomedicine. Confirmation of ERK as a transduction mechanism, and a characterization of the molecular details involved in control of cell proliferation, is interesting and impactful.

    Weaknesses:

    The functional cell division data need to be stronger. They show that increasing K+ increases proliferation and argue that since a MEK inhibitor (U0126) reduces proliferation in K+ treated cells, K+ induces cell division via ERK. But I don't see statistics to show that the rescue is significant, and I don't see a key U0126-only control. If the U0126 alone reduces proliferation, the combined effect wouldn't prove much.

    We thank the reviewer for constructive feedback. We repeated the experiment including the U0126-only control (5K+U). We updated Fig.1, presenting the newly obtained data with statistical analysis.

    Also, unless I'm missing something, it looks like every sample in their control has exactly the same number of mitotic cells. I understand that they are normalizing to this column, but shouldn't they be normalizing to the mean, with the independent values scattering around 1? It doesn't seem like it can be paired replicates since there are 6 replicates in the control and 4 replicates in one of the conditions?

    We apologize for the unclear description. As the reviewer pointed out, the experiments were not paired replicates due to the limited number of conditions that can be conducted as a single experiment. To overcome this problem, we always included a control condition (i.e. 5K) based on which normalization was performed. This is the reason the data in 5K is always 1 and the sample size of 5K is the largest. Data include 100-900 mitotic cells within the imaging frame of 6 hrs. We re-wrote the figure legend (Fig1) and the main text, which hopefully clarified our experimental framework.

    Reviewer #2 (Public review):

    Sasaki et al. use a combination of live-cell biosensors and patch-clamp electrophysiology to investigate the effect of membrane potential on the ERK MAPK signaling pathway, and probe associated effects on proliferation. This is an effect that has long been proposed, but convincing demonstration has remained elusive, because it is difficult to perturb membrane potential without disturbing other aspects of cell physiology in complex ways. The time-resolved measurements here are a nice contribution to this question, and the perforated patch clamp experiments with an ERK biosensor are fantastic - they come closer to addressing the above difficulty of perturbing voltage than any prior work. It would have been difficult to obtain these observations with any other combination of tools.

    However, there are still some concerns as detailed in specific comments below:

    Specific comments:

    (1) All the observations of ERK activation, by both high extracellular K+ and voltage clamp, could be explained by cell volume increase (more discussion in subsequent comments). There is a substantial literature on ERK activation by hypotonic cell swelling (e.g. https://doi.org/10.1042/bj3090013, https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1460-2075.1996.tb00938.x, among others). Here are some possible observations that could demonstrate that ERK activation by volume change is distinct from the effects reported here:

    (i) Does hypotonic shock activate ERK in U2OS cells?

    (ii) Can hypotonic shock activate ERK even after PS depletion, whereas extracellular K+ cannot?

    (iii) Does high extracellular K+ change cell volume in U2OS cells, measured via an accurate method such as fluorescence exclusion microscopy?

    (iv) It would be helpful to check the osmolality of all the extracellular solutions, even though they were nominally targeted to be iso-osmotic.

    This is an important point. We conducted several experiments and provided explanations to rule out the possibility that ERK activation can be explained solely by cell volume change. We measured the osmolarity of all solutions used in this paper, which were 296-305 mOsm/L. This information was added to the Material and Methods section (line 387). Under our experimental conditions, ERK activation was not observed with hypotonic 70 % nor 50% osmolarity solution (Fig.S2).

    It is therefore unlikely that the main cause of ERK activation upon high K+ perfusion is due to cell volume change. We would like to pursue this issue further when we obtain capacity to measure accurate cell volume change in the future.

    (2) Some more details about the experimental design and the results are needed from Figure 1:

    (i) For how long are the cells serum-starved? From the Methods section, it seems like the G1 release in different K+ concentration is done without serum, is this correct? Is the prior thymidine treatment also performed in the absence of serum?

    Only the high K+ incubation phase was serum free. We added the following sentence in the main text (line 63) and an experimental diagram was added as Fig1A. “Cells were incubated in the presence of serum except for the phase with altered K+ concentration. “

    (ii) There is a question of whether depolarization constitutes a physiologically relevant mechanism to regulate proliferation, and how depolarization interacts with other extracellular signals that might be present in an in vivo context.

    This is a very important point. However, the significance of membrane depolarization for cell proliferation in vivo is beyond the scope of this study. This important question will be addressed in the future.

    Does depolarization only promote proliferation after extended serum starvation (in what is presumably a stressed cell state)?

    Cells were cultured in the presence of serum prior to the high K+ incubation phase as described above. We added a new figure (Fig1A).

    What fraction of total cells are observed to be mitotic (without normalization), and how does this compare to the proliferation of these cells growing in serum-supplemented media? Can K+ concentration tune proliferation rate even in serum-supplemented media?

    We included data recorded in serum-supplemented conditions (Fig.1), which showed a high mitotic rate. This is presumably due to the growth factors included in serum. There is no significant difference between 5K+FBS and 15K+FBS.

    (3) In Figure 2, there are some possible concerns with the perfusion experiment:

    (i) Is the buffer static in the period before perfusion with high K+, or is it perfused? This is not clear from the Methods. If it is static, how does the ERK activity change when perfused with 5 mM K+? In other words, how much of the response is due to flow/media exchange versus change in K+ concentration?

    The buffer was static prior to high K perfusion. We confirmed that perfusion alone does not activate ERK (Fig.S2). We added the following sentence to the main text. “We also confirmed that the effect of perfusion was negligible, as ERK activation was not observed upon start of the 5K+ perfusion” (line 150).

    (ii) Why do there appear to be population-average decreases in ERK activity in the period before perfusion with high K+ (especially in contrast to Fig. 3)? The imaging period does not seem frequent enough for photo bleaching to be significant.

    Although we don’ t have a clear answer to this question, we speculate that several aspects of the experimental setup may have contributed to the difference. The cell lines and imaging systems used in Fig.2 and Fig.3 were different. The expression level may be different between U2OS cells and HEK 293 cells: transient expression in U2OS cells in contrast to stable expression in HEK 293 cells. This difference may lead to the different signal-to-noise ratio. The imaging system used in Fig.2 is an epi-illumination microscope excited with a 439/24 bandpass filter and detected with 483/32 (CFP) and 542/27 (YFP), while the imaging system used in Fig.3 is a confocal microscope excited with 458 nm laser and detected with 475-525 (DFP) and LP530 (YFP). These optical setups may also contribute to the different population-average properties before stimulation.

    (4) Figure 3 contains important results on couplings between membrane potential and MAPK signaling. However, there are a few concerns:

    (i) Does cell volume change upon voltage clamping? Previous authors have shown that depolarizing voltage clamp can cause cells to swell, at least in the whole-cell configuration: https://www.cell.com/biophysj/fulltext/S0006-3495(18)30441-7 . Could it be possible that the clamping protocol induces changes in ERK signaling due to changes in cell volume, and not by an independent mechanism?

    We do not know whether cell volume is altered in the perforated-patch configuration. As discussed above, however, the effect of cell volume changes on ERK activity seemed to be negligible, because ERK activation was not observed with hypotonic 70 % nor 50% osmolarity solution (Fig.S2)

    (ii) Does the -80 mV clamp begin at time 0 minutes? If so, one might expect a transient decrease in sensor FRET ratio, depending on the original resting potential of the cells. Typical estimates for resting potential in HEK293 cells range from -40 mV to -15 mV, which would reach the range that induces an ERK response by depolarizing clamp in Fig. 3B. What are the resting potentials of the cells before they are clamped to -80 mV, and why do we not see this downward transient?

    We set the potential to -80mV immediately after the giga-seal formation and waited for at least 5 minutes to allow pore formation by gramicidin. We started imaging only after membrane potential was expected to have reached a steady state at -80 mV. We now included this sentence in the ‘Material and Methods’ section (line 398).

    (5) The activation of ERK by perforated voltage clamp and by high extracellular K+ are each convincing, but it is unclear whether they need to act purely through the same mechanism - while additional extracellular K+ does depolarize the cell, it could also be affecting function of voltage-independent transporters and cell volume regulatory mechanisms on the timescales studied. To more strongly show this, the following should be done with the HEK cells where there is already voltage clamp data:

    (i) Measure resting potential using the perforated patch in zero-current configuration in the high K+ medium. Ideally this should be done in the time window after high K+ addition where ERK activation is observed (10-20 minutes) to minimize the possibility of drift due to changes in transporter and channel activity due to post-translational regulation.

    We measured membrane potential in the perforated patch configuration and confirmed that there is negligible potential drift within 20 minutes of perfusion with 145 K+ (only 1~5 mV change during perfusion).

    (ii) Measure YFP/CFP ratio of the HEK cells in the high K+ medium (in contrast to the U2OS cells from Fig. 2 where there is no patch data).

    YFP/CFP ratio data in HEK cells are shown in Fig.S1. As the signal-to-noise level is affected by the expression level of the probe, it is difficult to compare between cells with different expression levels. A higher YFP/CFP value with HEK cells compared to HeLa cells and A431 cells (Sup1) does not necessarily mean that HEK cells have higher ERK activity.

    (iii) The assertion that high K+ is equivalent to changes in Vmem for ERK signaling would be supported if the YFP/CFP change from K+ addition is comparable to that induced by voltage clamp to the same potential. This would be particularly convincing if the experiment could be done with each of the 15 mM, 30 mM, and 145 mM conditions.

    The experimental system using fluorescent biosensor cannot measure absolute ERK activity and can only measure the amount of change after a specific stimulus compared to the period before the stimulus. In electrophysiology experiments, the pre-stimulation membrane potential was clamped to -80 mV, whereas in the perfusion experiment, the membrane potential was variable in individual cells (-35 to -15 mV). It is therefore difficult to compare the results of electrophysiology experiments with those of the perfusion system. Unlike ion channels, it is currently not possible to plot absolute ERK activity with respect to the overall membrane potential. In the present study, we therefore discussed the change rather than the absolute value of ERK activity.

    (6) Line 170: "ERK activity was reduced with a fast time course (within 1 minute) after repolarization to -80 mV." I don't see this in the data: in Fig. 3C, it looks like ERK remains elevated for > 10 min after the electrical stimulus has returned to -80 mV

    Thank you for pointing out that our description was confusing. We changed the sentence to clarify the point we wanted to make. It now reads as follows. “ERK activity showed signs of reduction within 1 minute after repolarization to -80 mV.” (line 174)

    Reviewer #3 (Public review):

    Summary:

    This paper demonstrates that membrane depolarization induces a small increase in cell entry into mitosis. Based on previous work from another lab, the authors propose that ERK activation might be involved. They show convincingly using a combination of assays that ERK is activated by membrane depolarization. They show this is Ca2+ independent and is a result of activation of the whole K-Ras/ERK cascade which results from changed dynamics of phosphatidylserine in the plasma membrane that activates K-Ras. Although the activation of the Ras/ERK pathway by membrane depolarization is not new, linking it to an increase in cell proliferation is novel.

    Strengths

    A major strength of the study is the use of different techniques - live imaging with ERK reporters, as well as Western blotting to demonstrate ERK activation as well as different methods for inducing membrane depolarization. They also use a number of different cell lines. Via Western blotting the authors are also able to show that the whole MAPK cascade is activated.

    Weaknesses

    A weakness of the study is the data in Figure 1 showing that membrane depolarization results in an increase of cells entering mitosis. There are very few cells entering mitosis in their sample in any condition. This should be done with many more cells to increase confidence in the results.

    We apologize that that description was not clear. Due to the limited number of conditions that can be conducted as a single experiment, we always included control condition (i.e. 5K) and performed normalization by comparing with the control condition of the initial 1.5 hrs. Data were from 100-900 mitotic cell counts within 6hr of the imaging time window. We re-wrote the figure legend (Fig1) and the main text.

    The study also lacks a mechanistic link between ERK activation by membrane depolarization and increased cell proliferation.

    The present study focused on the link between membrane potential and the ERK activity; the mechanistic link between ERK activity and cell proliferation is beyond the scope of the present study. This important topic will be pursued further in subsequent studies.

    The authors did achieve their aims with the caveat that the cell proliferation results could be strengthened. The results for the most part support the conclusions.

    This work suggests that alterations in membrane potential may have more physiological functions than action potential in the neural system as it has an effect on intracellular signalling and potentially cell proliferation.

    Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

    minor typo:

    ERK activity has voltage-dependency with the physiological rang of membrane potential should be "range"

    Corrected

    Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

    Small points:

    Line 82: rang -> range

    Corrected

    Line 102: ". they were stimulated" -> ". The cells were stimulated"

    Corrected

    Figs. 2C, 2D show exactly the same data points and the same information. Please cut one of these figures.

    We deleted 2C and added the information in 2D and made new Fig.2C.

    For all figs: Please indicate # of cells and # of independent dishes used in each experiment, and make clear whether individual data-points correspond to cells, dishes, or some other unit of measure.

    We added the information in figure legends.

    Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

    The authors should repeat the cell proliferation experiments with more cells to strengthen the data. They could also use alternative assays like phosphorylated histone H3 staining for cells in M phase, that might to easier to quantitate.

    We repeated the experiment and Fig.1 was replaced with the new Fig.1

    The authors should investigate how the upregulation of ERK is driving cells into mitosis. At what point in the cell cycle is activated ERK induced by membrane depolarization having the effect. Is it entry into mitosis or earlier in the cell cycle?

    The cells were incubated with a high K+ solution 8-9 hr after G1 release, which is supposed to correspond to G2. These data suggest that mitotic activity is stimulated when ERK is activated at G2. However, we lack conclusive data at present to show the consequence of ERK activation during G2. We therefore cannot pinpoint the stage of cell cycle where depolarization-activated ERK exerts its effect.

    The authors refer a lot to the work of Zhou et al 2015 throughout the paper. This is not necessary and is a bit distracting.

    We deleted several sentence from the manuscript.

  9. Version published to 10.7554/elife.101613.1 on eLife
  10. eLife

    eLife Assessment

    This important paper employs multiple experimental approaches and presents evidence that changes in membrane voltage directly affect ERK signaling to regulate cell division. This result is relevant because it supports an ion channel-independent pathway by which changes in membrane voltage can affect cell growth. The reviewers point out that some experimental results and interpretations are compelling, but the strength of evidence is incomplete and additional experiments are needed to rule out other possible interpretations of the data.

  11. eLife

    Reviewer #1 (Public review):

    Summary:

    This is a contribution to the field of developmental bioelectricity. How do changes of resting potential at the cell membrane affect downstream processes? Zhou et al. reported in 2015 that phosphatidylserine and K-Ras cluster upon plasma membrane depolarization and that voltage-dependent ERK activation occurs when constitutive active K-RasG12V mutants are overexpressed. In this paper, the authors advance the knowledge of this phenomenon by showing that membrane depolarization up-regulates mitosis and that this process is dependent on voltage-dependent activation of ERK. ERK activity's voltage-dependence is derived from changes in the dynamics of phosphatidylserine in the plasma membrane and not by extracellular calcium dynamics.

    Strengths:

    Bioelectricity is an important field for areas of cell, developmental, and evolutionary biology, as well as for biomedicine. Confirmation of ERK as a transduction mechanism, and a characterization of the molecular details involved in control of cell proliferation, is interesting and impactful.

    Weaknesses:

    The functional cell division data need to be stronger. They show that increasing K+ increases proliferation and argue that since a MEK inhibitor (U0126) reduces proliferation in K+ treated cells, K+ induces cell division via ERK. But I don't see statistics to show that the rescue is significant, and I don't see a key U0126-only control. If the U0126 alone reduces proliferation, the combined effect wouldn't prove much.

    Also, unless I'm missing something, it looks like every sample in their control has exactly the same number of mitotic cells. I understand that they are normalizing to this column, but shouldn't they be normalizing to the mean, with the independent values scattering around 1? It doesn't seem like it can be paired replicates since there are 6 replicates in the control and 4 replicates in one of the conditions?

  12. eLife

    Reviewer #2 (Public review):

    Sasaki et al. use a combination of live-cell biosensors and patch-clamp electrophysiology to investigate the effect of membrane potential on the ERK MAPK signaling pathway, and probe associated effects on proliferation. This is an effect that has long been proposed, but convincing demonstration has remained elusive, because it is difficult to perturb membrane potential without disturbing other aspects of cell physiology in complex ways. The time-resolved measurements here are a nice contribution to this question, and the perforated patch clamp experiments with an ERK biosensor are fantastic - they come closer to addressing the above difficulty of perturbing voltage than any prior work. It would have been difficult to obtain these observations with any other combination of tools.

    However, there are still some concerns as detailed in specific comments below:

    Specific comments:
    (1) All the observations of ERK activation, by both high extracellular K+ and voltage clamp, could be explained by cell volume increase (more discussion in subsequent comments). There is a substantial literature on ERK activation by hypotonic cell swelling (e.g. https://doi.org/10.1042/bj3090013, https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1460-2075.1996.tb00938.x, among others). Here are some possible observations that could demonstrate that ERK activation by volume change is distinct from the effects reported here:
    (i) Does hypotonic shock activate ERK in U2OS cells?
    (ii) Can hypotonic shock activate ERK even after PS depletion, whereas extracellular K+ cannot?
    (iii) Does high extracellular K+ change cell volume in U2OS cells, measured via an accurate method such as fluorescence exclusion microscopy?
    (iv) It would be helpful to check the osmolality of all the extracellular solutions, even though they were nominally targeted to be iso-osmotic.

    (2) Some more details about the experimental design and the results are needed from Figure 1:
    (i) For how long are the cells serum-starved? From the Methods section, it seems like the G1 release in different K+ concentration is done without serum, is this correct? Is the prior thymidine treatment also performed in the absence of serum?
    (ii) There is a question of whether depolarization constitutes a physiologically relevant mechanism to regulate proliferation, and how depolarization interacts with other extracellular signals that might be present in an in vivo context. Does depolarization only promote proliferation after extended serum starvation (in what is presumably a stressed cell state)? What fraction of total cells are observed to be mitotic (without normalization), and how does this compare to the proliferation of these cells growing in serum-supplemented media? Can K+ concentration tune proliferation rate even in serum-supplemented media?

    (3) In Figure 2, there are some possible concerns with the perfusion experiment:
    (i) Is the buffer static in the period before perfusion with high K+, or is it perfused? This is not clear from the Methods. If it is static, how does the ERK activity change when perfused with 5 mM K+? In other words, how much of the response is due to flow/media exchange versus change in K+ concentration?
    (ii) Why do there appear to be population-average decreases in ERK activity in the period before perfusion with high K+ (especially in contrast to Fig. 3)? The imaging period does not seem frequent enough for photobleaching to be significant.

    (4) Figure 3 contains important results on couplings between membrane potential and MAPK signaling. However, there are a few concerns:
    (i) Does cell volume change upon voltage clamping? Previous authors have shown that depolarizing voltage clamp can cause cells to swell, at least in the whole-cell configuration: https://www.cell.com/biophysj/fulltext/S0006-3495(18)30441-7 . Could it be possible that the clamping protocol induces changes in ERK signaling due to changes in cell volume, and not by an independent mechanism?
    (ii) Does the -80 mV clamp begin at time 0 minutes? If so, one might expect a transient decrease in sensor FRET ratio, depending on the original resting potential of the cells. Typical estimates for resting potential in HEK293 cells range from -40 mV to -15 mV, which would reach the range that induces an ERK response by depolarizing clamp in Fig. 3B. What are the resting potentials of the cells before they are clamped to -80 mV, and why do we not see this downward transient?

    (5) The activation of ERK by perforated voltage clamp and by high extracellular K+ are each convincing, but it is unclear whether they need to act purely through the same mechanism - while additional extracellular K+ does depolarize the cell, it could also be affecting function of voltage-independent transporters and cell volume regulatory mechanisms on the timescales studied. To more strongly show this, the following should be done with the HEK cells where there is already voltage clamp data:
    (i) Measure resting potential using the perforated patch in zero-current configuration in the high K+ medium. Ideally this should be done in the time window after high K+ addition where ERK activation is observed (10-20 minutes) to minimize the possibility of drift due to changes in transporter and channel activity due to post-translational regulation.
    (ii) Measure YFP/CFP ratio of the HEK cells in the high K+ medium (in contrast to the U2OS cells from Fig. 2 where there is no patch data).
    (iii) The assertion that high K+ is equivalent to changes in Vmem for ERK signaling would be supported if the YFP/CFP change from K+ addition is comparable to that induced by voltage clamp to the same potential. This would be particularly convincing if the experiment could be done with each of the 15 mM, 30 mM, and 145 mM conditions.

    (6) Line 170: "ERK activity was reduced with a fast time course (within 1 minute) after repolarization to -80 mV." I don't see this in the data: in Fig. 3C, it looks like ERK remains elevated for > 10 min after the electrical stimulus has returned to -80 mV

  13. eLife

    Reviewer #3 (Public review):

    Summary:

    This paper demonstrates that membrane depolarization induces a small increase in cell entry into mitosis. Based on previous work from another lab, the authors propose that ERK activation might be involved. They show convincingly using a combination of assays that ERK is activated by membrane depolarization. They show this is Ca2+ independent and is a result of activation of the whole K-Ras/ERK cascade which results from changed dynamics of phosphatidylserine in the plasma membrane that activates K-Ras. Although the activation of the Ras/ERK pathway by membrane depolarization is not new, linking it to an increase in cell proliferation is novel.

    Strengths

    A major strength of the study is the use of different techniques - live imaging with ERK reporters, as well as Western blotting to demonstrate ERK activation as well as different methods for inducing membrane depolarization. They also use a number of different cell lines. Via Western blotting the authors are also able to show that the whole MAPK cascade is activated.

    Weaknesses

    A weakness of the study is the data in Figure 1 showing that membrane depolarization results in an increase of cells entering mitosis. There are very few cells entering mitosis in their sample in any condition. This should be done with many more cells to increase confidence in the results. The study also lacks a mechanistic link between ERK activation by membrane depolarization and increased cell proliferation.

    The authors did achieve their aims with the caveat that the cell proliferation results could be strengthened. The results for the most part support the conclusions.

    This work suggests that alterations in membrane potential may have more physiological functions than action potential in the neural system as it has an effect on intracellular signalling and potentially cell proliferation.

  14. Version published to 10.1101/2024.08.27.610010 on bioRxiv