Changes in cell surface antigens during in vitro lizard myogenesis.

Abstract

Indirect immunofluorescence has been used to examine surface antigens of lizard myogenic cells during in vitro differentiation. At least two developmental stage-specific surface alterations have been identified. One of these is a compositional change and involves the appearance of a cell-surface antigen(s) as the cells differentiate. This antigen(s) (Ag1422) is muscle specific and is characteristic of some rounded-up G0 myosin-positive myocytes, all stretched-back, G0 myosin-positive myocytes, and all identifiable myotubes. The antigen is not found on proliferating myoblasts, extended G1 (myosin-negative) cell-cycle-competent myoblasts or newly differentiated rounded-up, G0 myosin-positive myocytes. Pretreatment of cells with neuraminidase, trypsin, or proteinase K indicates the antigen is not present in "masked" form on normally nonreactive cells. Proteinase K is effective in the removal or destruction of the antigen, indicating it is at least partially protein in nature. The antigen is expressed in a similar developmental stage-specific fashion on early-passage myogenic cells taken from both adult lizard tail regenerates and embryonic muscle. The antibodies identifying Ag1422 can be removed by adsorption with homogenates of mature skeletal muscle. Therefore, Ag1422 is not an artifact due to in vitro conditions or the expression of a transformation antigen unique to the continuous culture line. The second alteration is an apparent restriction in the mobility of surface components (antigens and lectin receptors). Upon treatment with multivalent ligands, undifferentiated myosin-negative myoblasts exhibit rapid patching and capping of cell surface components while well-differentiated myocytes and myotubes do not. This mobility restriction is evident after the appearance of Ag1422. Treatment with cytochalasin B (15 micrograms/ml) and/or colchicine (100 microM) does not alter the restricted mobility of surface components seen on differentiated cells. Therefore, neither microfilaments nor microtubules seem to be involved in the mobility restriction. These observations are discussed in relation to current views of myogenesis.