Real-Time Imaging of HIF-1α Stabilization and Degradation

HIF-1α is overexpressed in many human cancers compared to normal tissues due to the interaction of a multiplicity of factors and pathways that reflect specific genetic alterations and extracellular stimuli. We developed two HIF-1α chimeric reporter systems, HIF-1α/FLuc and HIF-1α(ΔODDD)/FLuc, to investigate the tightly controlled level of HIF-1α protein in normal (NIH3T3 and HEK293) and glioma (U87) cells. These reporter systems provided an opportunity to investigate the degradation of HIF-1α in different cell lines, both in culture and in xenografts. Using immunofluorescence microscopy, we observed different patterns of subcellular localization of HIF-1α/FLuc fusion protein between normal cells and cancer cells; similar differences were observed for HIF-1α in non-transduced, wild-type cells. A dynamic cytoplasmic-nuclear exchange of the fusion protein and HIF-1α was observed in NIH3T3 and HEK293 cells under different conditions (normoxia, CoCl2 treatment and hypoxia). In contrast, U87 cells showed a more persistent nuclear localization pattern that was less affected by different growing conditions. Employing a kinetic model for protein degradation, we were able to distinguish two components of HIF-1α/FLuc protein degradation and quantify the half-life of HIF-1α fusion proteins. The rapid clearance component (t1/2 ∼4–6 min) was abolished by the hypoxia-mimetic CoCl2, MG132 treatment and deletion of ODD domain, and reflects the oxygen/VHL-dependent degradation pathway. The slow clearance component (t1/2 ∼200 min) is consistent with other unidentified non-oxygen/VHL-dependent degradation pathways. Overall, the continuous bioluminescence readout of HIF-1α/FLuc stabilization in vitro and in vivo will facilitate the development and validation of therapeutics that affect the stability and accumulation of HIF-1α

Molecular–Genetic Imaging: A Nuclear Medicine–Based Perspective

Molecular imaging is a relatively new discipline, which developed over the past decade, initially driven by in situ reporter imaging technology. Noninvasive in vivo molecular–genetic imaging developed more recently and is based on nuclear (positron emission tomography [PET], gamma camera, autoradiography) imaging as well as magnetic resonance (MR) and in vivo optical imaging. Molecular–genetic imaging has its roots in both molecular biology and cell biology, as well as in new imaging technologies. The focus of this presentation will be nuclear-based molecular–genetic imaging, but it will comment on the value and utility of combining different imaging modalities. Nuclear-based molecular imaging can be viewed in terms of three different imaging strategies: (1) “indirect” reporter gene imaging; (2) “direct” imaging of endogenous molecules; or (3) “surrogate” or “bio-marker” imaging. Examples of each imaging strategy will be presented and discussed. The rapid growth of in vivo molecular imaging is due to the established base of in vivo imaging technologies, the established programs in molecular and cell biology, and the convergence of these disciplines. The development of versatile and sensitive assays that do not require tissue samples will be of considerable value for monitoring molecular–genetic and cellular processes in animal models of human disease, as well as for studies in human subjects in the future. Noninvasive imaging of molecular–genetic and cellular processes will complement established ex vivo molecular–biological assays that require tissue sampling, and will provide a spatial as well as a temporal dimension to our understanding of various diseases and disease processes

ATP-Binding Cassette Transporters Modulate Both Coelenterazine- and D-Luciferin-Based Bioluminescence Imaging

Bioluminescence imaging (BLI) of luciferase reporters provides a cost-effective and sensitive means to image biological processes. However, transport of luciferase substrates across the cell membrane does affect BLI readout intensity from intact living cells. To investigate the effect of ATP-binding cassette (ABC) transporters on BLI readout, we generated click beetle (cLuc), firefly (fLuc), Renilla (rLuc), and Gaussia (gLuc) luciferase HEK-293 reporter cells that overexpressed different ABC transporters (ABCB1, ABCC1, and ABCG2). In vitro studies showed a significant BLI intensity decrease in intact cells compared to cell lysates, when ABCG2 was overexpressed in HEK-293/cLuc, fLuc, and rLuc cells. Selective ABC transporter inhibitors were also applied. Inhibition of ABCG2 activity increased the BLI intensity more than two-fold in HEK-293/cLuc, fLuc, and rLuc cells; inhibition of ABCB1 elevated the BLI intensity two-fold only in HEK-293/rLuc cells. BLI of xenografts derived from HEK-293/ABC transporter/luciferase reporter cells confirmed the results of inhibitor treatment in vivo. These findings demonstrate that coelenterazine-based rLuc-BLI intensity can be modulated by ABCB1 and ABCG2. ABCG2 modulates d -luciferin-based BLI in a luciferase type–independent manner. Little ABC transporter effect on gLuc-BLI intensity is observed because a large fraction of gLuc is secreted. The expression level of ABC transporters is one key factor affecting BLI intensity, and this may be particularly important in luciferase-based applications in stem cell research