Advertisement

pp 1-11 | Cite as

Assessing Muscle Stem Cell Clonal Complexity During Aging

  • Matthew T. Tierney
  • Michael J. Stec
  • Alessandra Sacco
Protocol
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series

Abstract

Changes in muscle stem cell (MuSC) function during aging have been assessed using various in vivo and ex vivo systems. However, changes in clonal complexity within the aged MuSC pool are relatively understudied. Although the dissection of stem cell heterogeneity has greatly benefited from several technological advancements, including single cell sequencing, these methods preclude longitudinal measures of individual stem cell behavior. Instead, multicolor labeling systems enable lineage tracing with single cell resolution. Here, we describe a method of inducibly labeling MuSCs with the Brainbow-2.1 multicolor lineage tracing reporter in vivo to track individual MuSC fate and assess clonal complexity in the overall MuSC pool throughout the mouse lifespan.

Keywords

Aging Brainbow Clonal complexity Multicolor lineage tracing Satellite cell Skeletal muscle 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by NIH grant R01 AR064873 (to A.S.), NIH grant F31 AR065923 (to M.T.T.), and NIH grant F32 AR070630 (to M.J.S.). We thank Leslie Boyd, Buddy Charbono, and the Cell Imaging and Animal Core Facilities at SBPMDI for technical support.

References

  1. 1.
    Yin H, Price F, Rudnicki MA (2013) Satellite cells and the muscle stem cell niche. Physiol Rev 93(1):23–67.  https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00043.2011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Keefe AC, Lawson JA, Flygare SD, Fox ZD, Colasanto MP, Mathew SJ, Yandell M, Kardon G (2015) Muscle stem cells contribute to myofibres in sedentary adult mice. Nat Commun 6:7087.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pawlikowski B, Pulliam C, Betta ND, Kardon G, Olwin BB (2015) Pervasive satellite cell contribution to uninjured adult muscle fibers. Skelet Muscle 5:42.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13395-015-0067-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sacco A, Puri PL (2015) Regulation of muscle satellite cell function in tissue homeostasis and aging. Cell Stem Cell 16(6):585–587.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2015.05.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sacco A, Doyonnas R, Kraft P, Vitorovic S, Blau HM (2008) Self-renewal and expansion of single transplanted muscle stem cells. Nature 456(7221):502–506.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kuang S, Kuroda K, Le Grand F, Rudnicki MA (2007) Asymmetric self-renewal and commitment of satellite stem cells in muscle. Cell 129(5):999–1010.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2007.03.044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rocheteau P, Gayraud-Morel B, Siegl-Cachedenier I, Blasco MA, Tajbakhsh S (2012) A subpopulation of adult skeletal muscle stem cells retains all template DNA strands after cell division. Cell 148(1–2):112–125.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2011.11.049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Collins CA, Olsen I, Zammit PS, Heslop L, Petrie A, Partridge TA, Morgan JE (2005) Stem cell function, self-renewal, and behavioral heterogeneity of cells from the adult muscle satellite cell niche. Cell 122(2):289–301.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2005.05.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tierney MT, Sacco A (2016) Satellite cell heterogeneity in skeletal muscle homeostasis. Trends Cell Biol 26(6):434–444.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcb.2016.02.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tierney MT, Stec MJ, Rulands S, Simons BD, Sacco A (2018) Muscle stem cells exhibit distinct clonal dynamics in response to tissue repair and homeostatic aging. Cell Stem Cell 22(1):119–127.e113.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2017.11.009. S1934-5909(17)30461-7 [pii]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Snippert HJ, van der Flier LG, Sato T, van Es JH, van den Born M, Kroon-Veenboer C, Barker N, Klein AM, van Rheenen J, Simons BD, Clevers H (2010) Intestinal crypt homeostasis results from neutral competition between symmetrically dividing Lgr5 stem cells. Cell 143(1):134–144.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2010.09.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Livet J, Weissman TA, Kang H, Draft RW, Lu J, Bennis RA, Sanes JR, Lichtman JW (2007) Transgenic strategies for combinatorial expression of fluorescent proteins in the nervous system. Nature 450(7166):56–62.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06293. nature06293 [pii]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nishijo K, Hosoyama T, Bjornson CR, Schaffer BS, Prajapati SI, Bahadur AN, Hansen MS, Blandford MC, McCleish AT, Rubin BP, Epstein JA, Rando TA, Capecchi MR, Keller C (2009) Biomarker system for studying muscle, stem cells, and cancer in vivo. FASEB J 23(8):2681–2690.  https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.08-128116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Noirez P, Torres S, Cebrian J, Agbulut O, Peltzer J, Butler-Browne G, Daegelen D, Martelly I, Keller A, Ferry A (2006) TGF-beta1 favors the development of fast type identity during soleus muscle regeneration. J Muscle Res Cell Motil 27(1):1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10974-005-9014-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Clark PJ, Evans FC (1954) Distance to nearest neighbor as a measure of spatial relationships in populations. Ecology 35(4):445–453.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1931034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Diggle P (1983) Statistical analysis of spatial point patterns. Mathematics in biology. Academic Press, London, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© © Springer Science+Business Media New York  2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew T. Tierney
    • 1
  • Michael J. Stec
    • 2
  • Alessandra Sacco
    • 2
  1. 1.Robin Chemers Neustein Laboratory of Mammalian Cell Biology and Development, Howard Hughes Medical InstituteThe Rockefeller UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Development, Aging and Regeneration ProgramSanford Burnham Prebys Medical Discovery InstituteLa JollaUSA

Personalised recommendations