Calreticulin (CRT) is an endoplasmic reticulum chaperone that can localize to the cell surface under stress, where it functions as a damage-associated molecular pattern. Quantifying surface-exposed CRT (ectoCRT) in prostate cancer models is challenging due to low baseline expression and variability in imaging workflows. We describe a fixed-cell immunofluorescence method to distinguish intracellular and surface CRT in LNCaP cells expressing GFP-tagged CRT. Cells treated with thapsigargin exhibited increased surface localization. We introduce a redistribution factor (RF = ectoCRT/(ectoCRT + endoCRT)) to quantify CRT partitioning. This approach provides a reproducible framework for assessing CRT redistribution using standard fluorescence microscopy.
","acknowledgements":"Additional support for undergraduate research participation was provided by the Center for Energy and Environmental Solutions (CEES) at South Carolina State University. The authors thank members of the Thomas laboratory for technical assistance and discussion.
","authors":[{"affiliations":["South Carolina State University, Orangeburg, SC, US"],"departments":["Biological and Physical Sciences"],"credit":["writing_originalDraft","dataCuration","visualization","methodology"],"email":"jvogle@scsu.edu","firstName":"Janiyah","lastName":"Vogle","submittingAuthor":false,"correspondingAuthor":false,"equalContribution":false,"WBId":null,"orcid":null},{"affiliations":["South Carolina State University, Orangeburg, SC, US"],"departments":["Biological and Physical Sciences"],"credit":["dataCuration"],"email":"krankin1@scsu.edu","firstName":"Kandace","lastName":"Rankin","submittingAuthor":false,"correspondingAuthor":false,"equalContribution":false,"WBId":null,"orcid":null},{"affiliations":["South Carolina State University, Orangeburg, SC, US"],"departments":["Biological and Physical Sciences"],"credit":["conceptualization","formalAnalysis","fundingAcquisition","project","supervision","writing_reviewEditing"],"email":"cthoma17@scsu.edu","firstName":"Courtney","lastName":"Thomas","submittingAuthor":true,"correspondingAuthor":true,"equalContribution":false,"WBId":null,"orcid":"0000-0002-1753-1938"}],"awards":[{"awardId":"K01","funderName":"National Cancer Institute (United States)","awardRecipient":"Dr. Courtney Thomas"}],"conflictsOfInterest":"The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.
","dataTable":null,"extendedData":[],"funding":"This research publication was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number K01CA180185. The content reflects solely the authors' views and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
","image":{"url":"https://portal.micropublication.org/uploads/cfd0313ab47881a9ebeedd01808ad64f.png"},"imageCaption":"\n\n(A) Quantification of surface-exposed calreticulin (ectoCRT) under non-permeabilized conditions. LNCaP cells expressing wild-type CRT (pMSCV-IRES-GFP/CALR wt) were treated with vehicle (0.1% DMSO), thapsigargin (TG), or trichostatin A (TSA). Cells were incubated with primary antibody prior to fixation to detect surface-accessible CRT. Normalized mean fluorescence intensity (arbitrary units, a.u.) is shown for each condition. Representative immunofluorescence images are displayed below corresponding bars, demonstrating increased membrane-associated CRT signal following TG and TSA treatment relative to vehicle control. Scale bar = 10 µm. Statistical comparisons between groups are indicated (p-values and effect sizes shown).\n\n(B) Quantification of intracellular calreticulin (endoCRT) following permeabilization with 1% Triton X-100 in 1× PBS. Normalized mean fluorescence intensity (a.u.) is shown across treatment conditions. Representative images demonstrate predominantly intracellular CRT localization in vehicle-treated cells and reduced intracellular signal following TG and TSA treatment. Scale bar = 10 µm. Statistical comparisons between groups are indicated.\n\n(C) Redistribution factor (RF) analysis of CRT localization. RF was calculated as ectoCRT/(ectoCRT + endoCRT) for each condition, representing the relative partitioning of CRT between surface and intracellular compartments. TG and TSA treatments resulted in increased RF values compared to vehicle control, indicating a greater proportion of CRT detected at the cell surface relative to intracellular pools.\n\n(D) Schematic representation of CRT redistribution during cellular stress. Under baseline conditions, CRT is localized within the endoplasmic reticulum (ER). Following treatment, CRT becomes detectable at the cell surface (ectoCRT), with a portion remaining intracellular. The redistribution factor (RF) provides a quantitative measure of CRT partitioning between these compartments.\n\nSurface CRT analysis included approximately 23 cells per condition across three independent experiments, while intracellular CRT analysis included approximately 99 cells per condition across three independent experiments. Each data point represents an individual cell. Fluorescence intensity values were obtained using automated image segmentation under identical imaging conditions.","imageTitle":"Quantification of calreticulin (CRT) redistribution in LNCaP prostate cancer cells under pharmacologic treatment conditions.","methods":"Cell Culture and Transfection
LNCaP human prostate adenocarcinoma cells were maintained in RPMI-1640 medium supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum and 1% penicillin–streptomycin under standard culture conditions (37°C, 5% CO₂). Cells were transiently transfected with GFP-tagged calreticulin (pMSCV-IRES-GFP/CALR wt plasmid - a gift from Norio Komatsu) and incubated for 24 hours prior to treatment. GFP fluorescence was used as the primary readout for total CRT expression across all experimental conditions.
Drug Treatments
Following transfection, cells were treated for 24 hours with:
Vehicle control (0.1% DMSO)
Thapsigargin (TG; 100 nM)
Trichostatin A (TSA; 50 nM)
These conditions were selected to evaluate CRT redistribution under pharmacologic perturbation.
Immunofluorescence Staining
Surface CRT (ectoCRT) Staining:
Surface-accessible CRT was detected under non-permeabilized conditions. Cells were incubated with anti-GFP primary antibody prior to fixation to restrict antibody access to extracellular epitopes. Following primary antibody incubation, cells were fixed with 2% paraformaldehyde (PFA) and subsequently incubated with fluorophore-conjugated secondary antibodies for 1 hour at room temperature. Nuclei were stained with DAPI.
Membrane integrity was validated using ERp57 as an intracellular control protein, which showed no detectable signal under non-permeabilized conditions, confirming that intracellular epitopes remained inaccessible.
Intracellular CRT (endoCRT) Staining:
For intracellular CRT detection, cells were fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde (PFA), washed with 0.01 M phosphate-buffered saline (PBS), and permeabilized using 1% Triton X-100 in PBS. Cells were then blocked in normal donkey serum and incubated with anti-GFP primary antibody overnight at 4°C. Following washing, cells were incubated with fluorophore-conjugated secondary antibodies and counterstained with DAPI.
Image Acquisition
Fluorescence images were acquired using identical imaging settings across all treatment conditions to ensure comparability. Exposure time was fixed at 1 ms for all channels and samples to minimize variability in fluorescence intensity measurements.
Image Analysis and Quantification
Image analysis was performed using CellProfiler with custom pipelines designed for single-cell segmentation and fluorescence quantification.
Intracellular CRT (endoCRT) was quantified using expanded DAPI-based nuclear masks to capture cytoplasmic signal.
Surface CRT (ectoCRT) was quantified using CRT-based segmentation to detect membrane-associated fluorescence.
Background fluorescence intensity was subtracted from mean fluorescence intensity values to generate corrected CRT intensity measurements. Area- and intensity-based filtering criteria were applied to remove debris and incorrectly segmented objects.
Surface CRT analysis included approximately 23 cells per condition across three independent experiments, while intracellular CRT analysis included approximately 99 cells per condition across three independent experiments. Each data point represents an individual cell.
Use of a single GFP-CRT reporter across all conditions minimized inter-channel variability and enabled direct comparison of CRT redistribution between treatments.
Redistribution Factor Calculation
Background-subtracted mean fluorescence intensity values were used to calculate a redistribution factor (RF) for each cell, defined as:
RF=ectoCRTectoCRT+endoCRTRF = \\frac{ectoCRT}{ectoCRT + endoCRT}RF=ectoCRT/ectoCRT+endoCRT
This metric represents the relative partitioning of CRT between surface-accessible and intracellular compartments.
Statistical Analysis
Fluorescence intensity measurements were obtained at the single-cell level for both intracellular (endoCRT) and surface (ectoCRT) conditions. Statistical comparisons between treatment groups were performed using unpaired two-tailed Student’s t-tests.
Comparisons were conducted between vehicle (0.1% DMSO) and treatment conditions (thapsigargin [TG] or trichostatin A [TSA]) for:
Surface CRT fluorescence intensity
Intracellular CRT fluorescence intensity
Redistribution factor (RF)
Surface CRT analysis included approximately 23 cells per condition across three independent experiments, while intracellular CRT analysis included approximately 99 cells per condition across three independent experiments. Each data point represents an individual cell.
Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation. Statistical significance values (p) and effect sizes (Cohen’s d) are reported in the figure.
","reagents":"Reagent | Source | Catalog Number |
|---|---|---|
pMSCV-IRES-GFP/CALR wt plasmid | Addgene | plasmid # 214699 |
GFP antibody | Thermo Fisher Scientific | PIMA515256 |
ERp57 antibody | Proteintech | 15967-1-AP |
Thapsigargin | Enzo Life Sciences | NC9006970 |
Trichostatin A | Thermo Fisher Scientific | 502707197 |
Triton X-100 | Millipore Sigma | 648466 |
Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) | Thermo Scientific | D12345 |
Paraformaldehyde | Thermo Scientific | 043368.9L |
Calreticulin (CRT) is a 46 kDa endoplasmic reticulum (ER)–resident chaperone protein that plays a critical role in calcium homeostasis and glycoprotein folding (Michalak et al., 1999). In addition to these canonical ER functions, CRT can become detectable at the plasma membrane under conditions of cellular stress, where it functions as a damage-associated molecular pattern (DAMP) involved in immune recognition and clearance of stressed or damaged cells (Gardai et al., 2005; Obeid et al., 2007). Surface-exposed CRT has been described in several malignancies, including bladder, lung, breast, and ovarian cancers, where it has been associated with altered cellular signaling and immune engagement (Kageyama et al., 2004; Liu et al., 2012; Song et al., 2012). In prostate cancer, however, reports of CRT expression and localization have been inconsistent, with both increased and decreased expression described depending on disease context (Alur et al., 2009). These discrepancies highlight the need for reproducible and quantitative approaches to evaluate CRT localization in prostate cancer models.
CRT contains three structural domains (N, P, and C), including a C-terminal Lys-Asp-Glu-Leu (KDEL) sequence that mediates ER retention through receptor-dependent retrieval pathways (Cabrera et al., 2003; Michalak et al., 1999). Despite this retention mechanism, CRT has been observed at the cell surface under conditions of cellular stress, suggesting that redistribution from the ER can occur. The processes governing CRT redistribution remain incompletely defined and may involve multiple cellular pathways, including ER stress responses and post-translational modifications. Proteomic studies have demonstrated that ER-resident proteins can undergo lysine acetylation (Pehar et al., 2012), and altered acetylation profiles have been observed in prostate cancer cells (Pathak et al., 2015). These findings provide biological context for evaluating CRT localization under pharmacologic conditions that influence cellular stress and acetylation state, although the present study does not directly assess these mechanisms.
Quantification of surface-exposed CRT (ectoCRT) in prostate cancer models presents several technical challenges. LNCaP cells exhibit relatively low baseline surface CRT expression, making detection sensitive to staining conditions and imaging parameters. Variability in fluorescence intensity measurements can arise from differences in antibody accessibility, imaging exposure, and segmentation approaches. Furthermore, many studies of protein trafficking rely on live-cell imaging or time-lapse microscopy, which may not be accessible in all research environments. These limitations underscore the need for a standardized, reproducible fixed-cell imaging workflow that enables reliable distinction between intracellular and surface-accessible CRT pools.
In this study, we optimized a non-permeabilized immunofluorescence protocol to detect surface CRT in LNCaP cells expressing wild-type CRT from the pMSCV-IRES-GFP/CALR wt plasmid. Surface staining was performed by incubating cells with primary antibody prior to fixation, restricting antibody access to extracellular epitopes. Intracellular CRT detection required permeabilization using 1% Triton X-100 in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). Membrane integrity under non-permeabilized conditions was validated using ERp57 as an intracellular control protein, which showed no detectable signal in the absence of permeabilization, confirming that intracellular epitopes remained inaccessible during surface staining.
Cells were treated with thapsigargin (TG), a well-established inducer of ER stress, as a positive control condition. Comparative treatment with trichostatin A (TSA) and vehicle control (0.1% DMSO) were included to evaluate CRT redistribution under additional pharmacologic conditions. Under TG treatment conditions, a visible redistribution of CRT signal toward the cell periphery was observed relative to vehicle-treated controls. While intracellular CRT fluorescence intensity decreased and surface-associated signal increased, direct comparison of these measures revealed weak correlation across treatment conditions. These findings indicate that absolute fluorescence intensity measurements alone may not fully capture the extent of CRT redistribution.
To address this limitation, we implemented a redistribution factor (RF) defined as ectoCRT/(ectoCRT + endoCRT), which quantifies the relative partitioning of CRT between intracellular and surface compartments within individual cells. By normalizing surface-associated signal to total detectable CRT, RF provides a metric that is less influenced by global changes in protein expression or imaging variability. This approach is particularly useful in systems with low baseline surface expression, where small changes in fluorescence intensity may be difficult to interpret using absolute measurements alone. Across independent experiments and standardized imaging conditions, RF values demonstrated reproducibility and sensitivity to treatment-dependent changes in CRT localization.
Importantly, the present study does not directly evaluate the molecular mechanisms underlying CRT redistribution but instead establishes a reproducible imaging and quantification framework for assessing CRT partitioning in prostate cancer cells. This fixed-cell approach eliminates the requirement for live-cell imaging systems and enables broader application in laboratories equipped with standard fluorescence microscopy platforms.
In summary, we describe a standardized non-permeabilized immunofluorescence workflow and a redistribution-based quantification strategy for evaluating ER-to-surface CRT mobilization in LNCaP prostate cancer cells. This method provides a practical and reproducible approach for measuring CRT redistribution and may facilitate future studies investigating protein trafficking, cellular stress responses, and DAMP-associated signaling in cancer models.
","references":[{"reference":"Alur M, Nguyen MM, Eggener SE, Jiang F, Dadras SS, Stern J, et al., Wang. 2009. Suppressive Roles of Calreticulin in Prostate Cancer Growth and Metastasis. The American Journal of Pathology 175: 882-890.
","pubmedId":"","doi":" 10.2353/ajpath.2009.080417"},{"reference":"Cabrera M, Muñiz M, Hidalgo J, Vega L, Martín MaE, Velasco A. 2003. The Retrieval Function of the KDEL Receptor Requires PKA Phosphorylation of Its C-Terminus. Molecular Biology of the Cell 14: 4114-4125.
","pubmedId":"","doi":" 10.1091/mbc.e03-04-0194"},{"reference":"Gardai SJ, McPhillips KA, Frasch SC, Janssen WJ, Starefeldt A, Murphy-Ullrich JE, et al., Henson. 2005. Cell-Surface Calreticulin Initiates Clearance of Viable or Apoptotic Cells through trans-Activation of LRP on the Phagocyte. Cell 123: 321-334.
","pubmedId":"","doi":" 10.1016/j.cell.2005.08.032"},{"reference":"Kageyama S, Isono T, Iwaki H, Wakabayashi Y, Okada Y, Kontani K, et al., Yoshiki. 2004. Identification by Proteomic Analysis of Calreticulin as a Marker for Bladder Cancer and Evaluation of the Diagnostic Accuracy of Its Detection in Urine. Clinical Chemistry 50: 857-866.
","pubmedId":"","doi":"10.1373/clinchem.2003.027425"},{"reference":"Liu R, Gong J, Chen J, Li Q, Song C, Zhang J, et al., Jin. 2011. Calreticulin as a potential diagnostic biomarker for lung cancer. Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy 61: 855-864.
","pubmedId":"","doi":"10.1007/s00262-011-1146-8"},{"reference":"Masubuchi N, Araki M, Yang Y, Hayashi E, Imai M, Edahiro Y, et al., Komatsu N. 2020. Mutant calreticulin interacts with MPL in the secretion pathway for activation on the cell surface. Leukemia 34(2): 499-509.
","pubmedId":"31462733","doi":""},{"reference":"Michalak M, Corbett EF, Mesaeli N, Nakamura K, Opas M. 1999. Calreticulin: one protein, one gene, many functions. Biochem J 344 Pt 2(Pt 2): 281-92.
","pubmedId":"10567207","doi":""},{"reference":"Obeid M, Tesniere A, Ghiringhelli F, Fimia GM, Apetoh L, Perfettini JL, et al., Kroemer G. 2007. Calreticulin exposure dictates the immunogenicity of cancer cell death. Nat Med 13(1): 54-61.
","pubmedId":"17187072","doi":""},{"reference":"Panaretakis T, Kepp O, Brockmeier U, Tesniere A, Bjorklund AC, Chapman DC, et al., Kroemer G. 2009. Mechanisms of pre-apoptotic calreticulin exposure in immunogenic cell death. EMBO J 28(5): 578-90.
","pubmedId":"19165151","doi":""},{"reference":"Pathak R, Philizaire M, Mujtaba S. 2015. Dichotomy in the Epigenetic Mark Lysine Acetylation is Critical for the Proliferation of Prostate Cancer Cells. Cancers 7: 1622-1642.
","pubmedId":"","doi":"10.3390/cancers7030854"},{"reference":"Csete M, Szekeres G, Szenes A, Szalai A, Szabó G. 2015. Plasmonic structure integrated single-photon detector configurations to improve absorptance and polarization contrast. Sensors (Basel) 15(2): 3513-39.
","pubmedId":"25654724","doi":""}],"title":"Quantification of calreticulin redistribution in LNCaP prostate cancer cells using a fixed-cell imaging workflow","reviews":[{"reviewer":{"displayName":"Karen Yook"},"openAcknowledgement":null,"status":{"submitted":false}},{"reviewer":{"displayName":"Andres Collazo"},"openAcknowledgement":false,"status":{"submitted":true}}],"curatorReviews":[]},{"id":"f2c8757b-bac8-4106-8b93-8aac188b336f","decision":"revise","abstract":"Calreticulin (CRT) is an endoplasmic reticulum chaperone that can localize to the cell surface under stress, where it functions as a damage-associated molecular pattern. Quantifying surface-exposed CRT in prostate cancer models is challenging due to low baseline expression and variability in imaging workflows. We describe a fixed-cell immunofluorescence method to distinguish intracellular and surface CRT in LNCaP cells. Cells treated with thapsigargin exhibited increased surface localization. We introduce a redistribution factor (RF = ectoCRT/(ectoCRT + endoCRT)) to quantify CRT partitioning. This approach provides a reproducible framework for assessing CRT redistribution using standard fluorescence microscopy.
","acknowledgements":"Additional support for undergraduate research participation was provided by the Center for Energy and Environmental Solutions (CEES) at South Carolina State University. The authors wish to thank the Center for Energy and Environmental Solutions (CEES) for its support and corresponding funding provided through the State of South Carolina Proviso 11.24 Appropriation.
","authors":[{"affiliations":["South Carolina State University, Orangeburg, SC, US"],"departments":["Biological and Physical Sciences"],"credit":["writing_originalDraft","dataCuration","visualization","methodology"],"email":"jvogle@scsu.edu","firstName":"Janiyah","lastName":"Vogle","submittingAuthor":false,"correspondingAuthor":false,"equalContribution":false,"WBId":null,"orcid":null},{"affiliations":["South Carolina State University, Orangeburg, SC, US"],"departments":["Biological and Physical Sciences"],"credit":["dataCuration"],"email":"krankin1@scsu.edu","firstName":"Kandace","lastName":"Rankin","submittingAuthor":false,"correspondingAuthor":false,"equalContribution":false,"WBId":null,"orcid":null},{"affiliations":["South Carolina State University, Orangeburg, SC, US"],"departments":["Biological and Physical Sciences"],"credit":["conceptualization","formalAnalysis","fundingAcquisition","project","supervision","writing_reviewEditing"],"email":"cthoma17@scsu.edu","firstName":"Courtney","lastName":"Thomas","submittingAuthor":true,"correspondingAuthor":true,"equalContribution":false,"WBId":null,"orcid":"0000-0002-1753-1938"}],"awards":[{"awardId":"K01","funderName":"National Cancer Institute (United States)","awardRecipient":"Dr. Courtney Thomas"}],"conflictsOfInterest":"The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.
","dataTable":{"url":null},"extendedData":[],"funding":"This research publication was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number K01CA180185. The content reflects solely the authors' views and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
","image":{"url":"https://portal.micropublication.org/uploads/2670550a1c8c53a7b45ad56a984363e5.png"},"imageCaption":"(A) The Redistribution factor (RF), defined as ectoCRT/(ectoCRT + endoCRT) quantifies the fraction of CRT localized to the cell surface, normalizing for the large intracellular pool of calreticulin. Surface GFP-tagged CRT analysis included approximately 23 cells per condition across three independent experiments, while intracellular GFP-tagged CRT analysis included approximately 99 cells per condition across three independent experiments. Each data point represents an individual cell. Fluorescence intensity values were obtained using automated image segmentation under identical imaging conditions.
(B) Comparison of treatment-induced redistribution factor (RF) between endogenous CRT and GFP-CRT workflows. Both approaches demonstrated similar treatment-dependent increases in RF, with parallel trends across TG and TSA conditions. The close concordance between endogenous and GFP-tagged CRT supports that the GFP reporter successfully recapitulates treatment-induced CRT redistribution, validating the GFP-CRT imaging workflow for quantitative analysis. Endogenous surface calreticulin analysis included approximately 30 cells per condition across 3 independent experiments, while endogenous intracellular CRT analysis included approximately 50 cells per condition across three independent experiments.
(C) Quantification of endogenous surface-exposed calreticulin (ectoCRT) under non-permeabilized conditions. Parental LNCaP cells were treated with vehicle (0.1% DMSO), thapsigargin (TG), or trichostatin A (TSA). Cells were incubated with anti-CRT antibody before fixation to detect surface-accessible endogenous CRT. Mean fluorescence intensity (arbitrary units, a.u.) increased following TG and TSA treatment, indicating enhanced surface exposure of endogenous CRT. Statistical comparisons between groups are indicated (P values calculated using unpaired T-Test). Surface and intracellular fluorescence were quantified by automated image segmentation under identical image acquisition and analysis parameters for all treatment groups. Endogenous surface calreticulin analysis included approximately 30 cells per condition across 3 independent experiments.
(D) Quantification of surface-exposed CRT in LNCaP cells expressing GFP-tagged wild-type calreticulin (pMSCV-IRES-GFP/CALR wt). Under identical treatment conditions, TG and TSA increased cell-surface CRT fluorescence compared with vehicle-treated controls. Mean fluorescence intensity (arbitrary units, a.u.) increased following TG and TSA treatment, indicating enhanced surface exposure of GFP-tagged CRT. Statistical comparisons between groups are indicated (P values calculated using unpaired T-Test). Surface GFP-tagged CRT analysis included approximately 23 cells per condition across three independent experiments.
(E) Quantification of endogenous intracellular calreticulin following permeabilization. Cells were permeabilized with 1% Triton X-100 prior to immunostaining to measure intracellular CRT. Mean fluorescence intensity decreased following TG and TSA treatment relative to vehicle-treated cells, consistent with redistribution of CRT from intracellular compartments to the plasma membrane. Statistical comparisons between groups are indicated (P values calculated using unpaired T-Test). Endogenous intracellular CRT analysis included approximately 50 cells per condition across three independent experiments.
(F) Quantification of intracellular GFP-CRT following permeabilization. Intracellular fluorescence decreased after TG and TSA treatment, mirroring the redistribution observed for endogenous CRT. Intracellular GFP-tagged CRT analysis included approximately 99 cells per condition across three independent experiments.
(G) Representative immunofluorescence images of endogenous CRT. The left panels show surface CRT staining, while lower panels show intracellular CRT detected under permeabilized conditions. Images illustrate reduced intracellular CRT and increased surface CRT following TG and TSA treatment. Scale bars = 10 μm.
(H) Comparison of redistribution factor (RF) between an exposure time of 250ms and 1000ms. Both exposures showed strong agreement across a four-fold exposure range indicating the RF is largely independent of exposure settings in this large range, supporting its robustness across acquisition settings.
(I) Schematic illustrating calreticulin redistribution during immunogenic cell death. Under baseline conditions CRT is predominantly retained within the endoplasmic reticulum. ER stress induces CRT translocation to the plasma membrane while a fraction remains intracellular. The redistribution factor (RF) provides quantitative value for the proportion of total detectable CRT localized to the cell surface.
","imageTitle":"Validation and robustness of a quantitative Redistribution Factor for measuring calreticulin cell-surface partitioning
","methods":"Cell Culture and Transfection
LNCaP human prostate adenocarcinoma cells were maintained in RPMI-1640 medium supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum and 1% penicillin–streptomycin under standard culture conditions (37°C, 5% CO₂). For transfection studies, cells were transiently transfected with GFP-tagged calreticulin (pMSCV-IRES-GFP/CALR wt plasmid - a gift from Norio Komatsu) and incubated for 24 hours prior to treatment. GFP fluorescence was used as the primary readout for total CRT expression across all experimental conditions.
Drug Treatments
Following drug administration, cells were incubated for 4 hours for endogenous CRT experiments or 24 hours for transfected (GFP-CRT) experiments with:
Vehicle control (0.1% DMSO)
Thapsigargin (TG; 100 nM)
Trichostatin A (TSA; 50 nM)
These conditions were selected to evaluate CRT redistribution under pharmacologic perturbation.
Immunofluorescence Staining
Surface CRT (ectoCRT) Staining:
Surface-accessible CRT was detected under non-permeabilized conditions. Cells were incubated with either anti-CRT (for endogenous CRT experiments) or anti-GFP (for transfection experiments) primary antibody prior to fixation to restrict antibody access to extracellular epitopes. Following primary antibody incubation, cells were fixed with 2% paraformaldehyde (PFA) and subsequently incubated with fluorophore-conjugated secondary antibodies for 1 hour at room temperature. Nuclei were stained with DAPI.
Membrane integrity was validated using ERp57 as an intracellular control protein, which showed no detectable signal under non-permeabilized conditions, confirming that intracellular epitopes remained inaccessible.
Intracellular CRT Staining:
For intracellular CRT detection, cells were fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde (PFA), washed with 0.01 M phosphate-buffered saline (PBS), and permeabilized using 1% Triton X-100 in PBS. Cells were then blocked in normal donkey serum and incubated with either anti-CRT or anti-GFP primary antibody overnight at 4°C. Following washing, cells were incubated with fluorophore-conjugated secondary antibodies and counterstained with DAPI.
Image Acquisition
Fluorescence images were acquired using identical imaging settings across all treatment conditions to ensure comparability. Exposure time was fixed at 1 ms for all channels and samples to minimize variability in fluorescence intensity measurements.
Image Analysis and Quantification
Image analysis was performed using CellProfiler on 16 bit images with custom pipelines designed for single-cell segmentation and fluorescence quantification.
Intracellular CRT was quantified using expanded DAPI-based nuclear masks to capture cytoplasmic signal.
Surface CRT was quantified using CRT-based segmentation to detect membrane-associated fluorescence.
Background fluorescence was quantified from cell-free regions outside segmented cell regions of interest (ROIs) within each image. The average background fluorescence intensity was subtracted from the mean fluorescence intensity of each ROI to generate corrected CRT intensity measurements. Area-based and intensity-based filtering were then applied to exclude debris and incorrectly segmented objects before calculation of fluorescence intensity and redistribution factor (RF) values.
For endogenous experiments, approximately 30 cells were analyzed for surface CRT and 50 cells for intracellular CRT per condition. For GFP-transfected experiments, approximately 23 cells were analyzed for surface CRT and 99 cells for intracellular CRT per condition. All analyses were performed across three independent experiments.
Experimental conditions were validated in parallel using both endogenous staining (anti-CRT) and transfected reporters (anti-GFP) to confirm consistency.
Use of a single GFP-CRT reporter for transfection experiments across all conditions minimized inter-channel variability and enabled direct comparison of CRT redistribution between treatments.
Redistribution Factor Calculation
Background-subtracted mean fluorescence intensity values were used to calculate a redistribution factor (RF) for each cell, defined as:
RF= ectoCRT /ectoCRT + endoCRT
ectoCRT = surface CRT and endoCRT = intracellular CRT
This metric represents the relative partitioning of CRT between surface-accessible and intracellular compartments.
Statistical Analysis
Fluorescence intensity measurements were obtained at the single-cell level for both intracellular and surface conditions. Statistical comparisons between treatment groups were performed using unpaired two-tailed Student’s t-tests.
Comparisons were conducted between vehicle (0.1% DMSO) and treatment conditions (thapsigargin [TG] or trichostatin A [TSA]) for:
Surface CRT fluorescence intensity
Intracellular CRT fluorescence intensity
Redistribution factor (RF)
Sample sizes varied by experiment: for endogenous experiments, approximately 30 cells were analyzed for surface CRT and 50 cells for intracellular CRT per condition. For GFP-transfected experiments, approximately 23 cells were analyzed for surface CRT and 99 cells for intracellular CRT per condition. All analyses were conducted across three independent experiments.
Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation. Statistical significance values (p) and effect sizes (Cohen’s d) are reported in the figure.
","reagents":"Reagent | Source | Catalog Number |
|---|---|---|
pMSCV-IRES-GFP/CALR wt plasmid | Addgene | plasmid # 214699 |
GFP antibody | Thermo Fisher Scientific | PIMA515256 |
CRT antibody | Cell Signaling Technology | 12238 |
ERp57 antibody | Proteintech | 15967-1-AP |
Thapsigargin | Enzo Life Sciences | NC9006970 |
Trichostatin A | Thermo Fisher Scientific | 502707197 |
Triton X-100 | Millipore Sigma | 648466 |
Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) | Thermo Scientific | D12345 |
Paraformaldehyde | Thermo Scientific | 043368.9L |
Calreticulin (CRT) is a 46 kDa endoplasmic reticulum (ER)–resident chaperone protein that plays a critical role in calcium homeostasis and glycoprotein folding (Michalak et al., 1999). In addition to these canonical ER functions, CRT can become detectable at the plasma membrane under conditions of cellular stress, where it functions as a damage-associated molecular pattern (DAMP) involved in immune recognition and clearance of stressed or damaged cells (Gardai et al., 2005; Obeid et al., 2007). Surface-exposed CRT has been described in several malignancies, including bladder, lung, breast, and ovarian cancers, where it has been associated with altered cellular signaling and immune engagement (Kageyama et al., 2004; Liu et al., 2012; Song et al., 2012). In prostate cancer, however, reports of CRT expression and localization have been inconsistent, with both increased and decreased expression described depending on disease context (Alur et al., 2009). These discrepancies highlight the need for reproducible and quantitative approaches to evaluate CRT localization in prostate cancer models.
CRT contains three structural domains (N, P, and C), including a C-terminal Lys-Asp-Glu-Leu (KDEL) sequence that mediates ER retention through receptor-dependent retrieval pathways (Cabrera et al., 2003; Michalak et al., 1999). Despite this retention mechanism, CRT has been observed at the cell surface under conditions of cellular stress, suggesting that redistribution from the ER can occur. The processes governing CRT redistribution remain incompletely defined and may involve multiple cellular pathways, including ER stress responses and post-translational modifications. Proteomic studies have demonstrated that ER-resident proteins can undergo lysine acetylation (Pehar et al., 2012), and altered acetylation profiles have been observed in prostate cancer cells (Pathak et al., 2015). These findings provide biological context for evaluating CRT localization under pharmacologic conditions that influence cellular stress and acetylation state, although the present study does not directly assess these mechanisms.
Quantification of surface-exposed CRT (ectoCRT) in prostate cancer models presents several technical challenges. LNCaP cells exhibit relatively low baseline surface CRT expression, making detection sensitive to staining conditions and imaging parameters. Variability in fluorescence intensity measurements can arise from differences in antibody accessibility, imaging exposure, and segmentation approaches. Furthermore, many studies of protein trafficking rely on live-cell imaging or time-lapse microscopy, which may not be accessible in all research environments. These limitations underscore the need for a standardized, reproducible fixed-cell imaging workflow that enables reliable distinction between intracellular and surface-accessible CRT pools.
In this study, we optimized a non-permeabilized immunofluorescence protocol to detect surface CRT in LNCaP cells using total anti-CRT antibody staining, with complementary experiments performed in cells transfected with wild-type CRT from the pMSCV-IRES-GFP/CALR wt plasmid. Surface staining was performed by incubating cells with primary antibody prior to fixation, restricting antibody access to extracellular epitopes. Intracellular CRT detection required permeabilization using 1% Triton X-100 in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). Membrane integrity under non-permeabilized conditions was validated using ERp57 as an intracellular control protein, which showed no detectable signal in the absence of permeabilization, confirming that intracellular epitopes remained inaccessible during surface staining.
Cells were treated with thapsigargin (TG), a well-established ER stress inducer known to influence CRT cell surface translocation (Jeffery et al., 2011), as a positive control condition. Comparative treatment with trichostatin A (TSA), a potent histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor (Frønsdal et al., 2004), was used to evaluate increased acetylation conditions on CRT trafficking. Given that altered acetylation profiles are observed in prostate cancer (Watson, et al., 2010), we utilized TSA to test whether increased global acetylation influences CRT surface mobilization, serving as a secondary stress-response model alongside TG. 0.1% DMSO was included as a vehicle control. TG and TSA concentrations were determined by preliminary MTT optimization assays and supporting literature on ER stress induction and HDAC inhibition in prostate cancer models. Conditions were chosen that produced detectable CRT redistribution while not compromising cell integrity. Under TG treatment conditions, a visible redistribution of CRT signal toward the cell periphery was observed relative to vehicle-treated controls. While intracellular CRT fluorescence intensity decreased and surface-associated signal increased, direct comparison of these measures revealed weak correlation across treatment conditions. These findings indicate that absolute fluorescence intensity measurements alone may not fully capture the extent of CRT redistribution.
To address this limitation, we implemented a redistribution factor (RF) defined as ectoCRT/(ectoCRT + endoCRT), which quantifies the relative partitioning of CRT between intracellular and surface compartments within individual cells. By normalizing surface-associated signal to total detectable CRT, RF provides a metric that is less influenced by global changes in protein expression or imaging variability. This approach is particularly useful in systems with low baseline surface expression, where small changes in fluorescence intensity may be difficult to interpret using absolute measurements alone. Across independent experiments and standardized imaging conditions, RF values demonstrated reproducibility and sensitivity to treatment-dependent changes in CRT localization.
Importantly, the present study does not directly evaluate the molecular mechanisms underlying CRT redistribution but instead establishes a reproducible imaging and quantification framework for assessing CRT partitioning in prostate cancer cells. This fixed-cell approach eliminates the requirement for live-cell imaging systems and enables broader application in laboratories equipped with standard fluorescence microscopy platforms.
In summary, we describe a standardized non-permeabilized immunofluorescence workflow and a redistribution-based quantification strategy for evaluating ER-to-surface CRT mobilization in LNCaP prostate cancer cells. This method provides a practical and reproducible approach for measuring CRT redistribution and may facilitate future studies investigating protein trafficking, cellular stress responses, and DAMP-associated signaling in cancer models.
","references":[{"reference":"Alur M, Nguyen MM, Eggener SE, Jiang F, Dadras SS, Stern J, et al., Wang. 2009. Suppressive Roles of Calreticulin in Prostate Cancer Growth and Metastasis. The American Journal of Pathology 175: 882-890.
","pubmedId":"","doi":" 10.2353/ajpath.2009.080417"},{"reference":"Cabrera M, Muñiz M, Hidalgo J, Vega L, Martín MaE, Velasco A. 2003. The Retrieval Function of the KDEL Receptor Requires PKA Phosphorylation of Its C-Terminus. Molecular Biology of the Cell 14: 4114-4125.
","pubmedId":"","doi":" 10.1091/mbc.e03-04-0194"},{"reference":"Csete M, Szekeres G, Szenes A, Szalai A, Szabó G. 2015. Plasmonic structure integrated single-photon detector configurations to improve absorptance and polarization contrast. Sensors (Basel) 15(2): 3513-39.
","pubmedId":"25654724","doi":""},{"reference":"Frønsdal K, Saatcioglu F. 2004. Histone deacetylase inhibitors differentially mediate apoptosis in prostate cancer cells. The Prostate 62: 299-306.
","pubmedId":"","doi":"10.1002/pros.20140"},{"reference":"Gardai SJ, McPhillips KA, Frasch SC, Janssen WJ, Starefeldt A, Murphy-Ullrich JE, et al., Henson. 2005. Cell-Surface Calreticulin Initiates Clearance of Viable or Apoptotic Cells through trans-Activation of LRP on the Phagocyte. Cell 123: 321-334.
","pubmedId":"","doi":" 10.1016/j.cell.2005.08.032"},{"reference":"Jeffery E, Peters LR, Raghavan M. 2011. The Polypeptide Binding Conformation of Calreticulin Facilitates Its Cell-surface Expression under Conditions of Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress. Journal of Biological Chemistry 286: 2402-2415.
","pubmedId":"","doi":"10.1074/jbc.M110.180877"},{"reference":"Kageyama S, Isono T, Iwaki H, Wakabayashi Y, Okada Y, Kontani K, et al., Yoshiki. 2004. Identification by Proteomic Analysis of Calreticulin as a Marker for Bladder Cancer and Evaluation of the Diagnostic Accuracy of Its Detection in Urine. Clinical Chemistry 50: 857-866.
","pubmedId":"","doi":"10.1373/clinchem.2003.027425"},{"reference":"Liu R, Gong J, Chen J, Li Q, Song C, Zhang J, et al., Jin. 2011. Calreticulin as a potential diagnostic biomarker for lung cancer. Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy 61: 855-864.
","pubmedId":"","doi":"10.1007/s00262-011-1146-8"},{"reference":"Masubuchi N, Araki M, Yang Y, Hayashi E, Imai M, Edahiro Y, et al., Komatsu N. 2020. Mutant calreticulin interacts with MPL in the secretion pathway for activation on the cell surface. Leukemia 34(2): 499-509.
","pubmedId":"31462733","doi":""},{"reference":"Michalak M, Corbett EF, Mesaeli N, Nakamura K, Opas M. 1999. Calreticulin: one protein, one gene, many functions. Biochem J 344 Pt 2(Pt 2): 281-92.
","pubmedId":"10567207","doi":""},{"reference":"Obeid M, Tesniere A, Ghiringhelli F, Fimia GM, Apetoh L, Perfettini JL, et al., Kroemer G. 2007. Calreticulin exposure dictates the immunogenicity of cancer cell death. Nat Med 13(1): 54-61.
","pubmedId":"17187072","doi":""},{"reference":"Panaretakis T, Kepp O, Brockmeier U, Tesniere A, Bjorklund AC, Chapman DC, et al., Kroemer G. 2009. Mechanisms of pre-apoptotic calreticulin exposure in immunogenic cell death. EMBO J 28(5): 578-90.
","pubmedId":"19165151","doi":""},{"reference":"Pathak R, Philizaire M, Mujtaba S. 2015. Dichotomy in the Epigenetic Mark Lysine Acetylation is Critical for the Proliferation of Prostate Cancer Cells. Cancers 7: 1622-1642.
","pubmedId":"","doi":"10.3390/cancers7030854"},{"reference":"Pehar M, Lehnus M, Karst A, Puglielli L. 2012. Proteomic Assessment Shows That Many Endoplasmic Reticulum (ER)-resident Proteins Are Targeted by Nϵ-Lysine Acetylation in the Lumen of the Organelle and Predicts Broad Biological Impact. Journal of Biological Chemistry 287: 22436-22440.
","pubmedId":"","doi":"10.1074/jbc.C112.362871"},{"reference":"Song MN, Moon PG, Lee JE, Na M, Kang W, Chae YS, et al., Baek. 2012. Proteomic analysis of breast cancer tissues to identify biomarker candidates by gel-assisted digestion and label-free quantification methods using LC-MS/MS. Archives of Pharmacal Research 35: 1839-1847.
","pubmedId":"","doi":"10.1007/s12272-012-1018-6"},{"reference":"Watson JA, McKenna DJ, Maxwell P, Diamond J, Arthur K, McKelvey‐Martin VJ, Hamilton PW. 2010. Hyperacetylation in prostate cancer induces cell cycle aberrations, chromatin reorganization and altered gene expression profiles. Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine 14: 1668-1682.
","pubmedId":"","doi":"10.1111/j.1582-4934.2009.00835.x"}],"title":"Quantification of calreticulin redistribution in LNCaP prostate cancer cells using a fixed-cell imaging workflow","reviews":[{"reviewer":{"displayName":"Andres Collazo"},"openAcknowledgement":false,"status":{"submitted":true}}],"curatorReviews":[]},{"id":"681f0996-3b57-4505-a56b-0c83cca77dc6","decision":"revise","abstract":"Calreticulin (CRT) is an endoplasmic reticulum chaperone that can localize to the cell surface under stress, where it functions as a damage-associated molecular pattern. Quantifying surface-exposed CRT in prostate cancer models is challenging due to low baseline expression and variability in imaging workflows. We describe a fixed-cell immunofluorescence method to distinguish intracellular and surface CRT in LNCaP cells. Cells treated with thapsigargin exhibited increased surface localization. We introduce a redistribution factor (RF = ectoCRT/(ectoCRT + endoCRT)) to quantify CRT partitioning. This approach provides a reproducible framework for assessing CRT redistribution using standard fluorescence microscopy.
","acknowledgements":"Additional support for undergraduate research participation was provided by the Center for Energy and Environmental Solutions (CEES) at South Carolina State University. The authors wish to thank the Center for Energy and Environmental Solutions (CEES) for its support and corresponding funding provided through the State of South Carolina Proviso 11.24 Appropriation.
","authors":[{"affiliations":["South Carolina State University, Orangeburg, SC, US"],"departments":["Biological and Physical Sciences"],"credit":["writing_originalDraft","dataCuration","visualization","methodology"],"email":"jvogle@scsu.edu","firstName":"Janiyah","lastName":"Vogle","submittingAuthor":false,"correspondingAuthor":false,"equalContribution":false,"WBId":null,"orcid":null},{"affiliations":["South Carolina State University, Orangeburg, SC, US"],"departments":["Biological and Physical Sciences"],"credit":["dataCuration"],"email":"krankin1@scsu.edu","firstName":"Kandace","lastName":"Rankin","submittingAuthor":false,"correspondingAuthor":false,"equalContribution":false,"WBId":null,"orcid":null},{"affiliations":["South Carolina State University, Orangeburg, SC, US"],"departments":["Biological and Physical Sciences"],"credit":["conceptualization","formalAnalysis","fundingAcquisition","project","supervision","writing_reviewEditing"],"email":"cthoma17@scsu.edu","firstName":"Courtney","lastName":"Thomas","submittingAuthor":true,"correspondingAuthor":true,"equalContribution":false,"WBId":null,"orcid":"0000-0002-1753-1938"}],"awards":[{"awardId":"K01","funderName":"National Cancer Institute (United States)","awardRecipient":"Dr. Courtney Thomas"}],"conflictsOfInterest":"The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.
","dataTable":{"url":null},"extendedData":[],"funding":"This research publication was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number K01CA180185. The content reflects solely the authors' views and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
","image":{"url":"https://portal.micropublication.org/uploads/2670550a1c8c53a7b45ad56a984363e5.png"},"imageCaption":"(A) The Redistribution factor (RF), defined as ectoCRT/(ectoCRT + endoCRT) quantifies the fraction of CRT localized to the cell surface, normalizing for the large intracellular pool of calreticulin. Surface GFP-tagged CRT analysis included approximately 23 cells per condition across three independent experiments, while intracellular GFP-tagged CRT analysis included approximately 99 cells per condition across three independent experiments. Each data point represents an individual cell. Fluorescence intensity values were obtained using automated image segmentation under identical imaging conditions.
(B) Comparison of treatment-induced redistribution factor (RF) between endogenous CRT and GFP-CRT workflows. Both approaches demonstrated similar treatment-dependent increases in RF, with parallel trends across TG and TSA conditions. The close concordance between endogenous and GFP-tagged CRT supports that the GFP reporter successfully recapitulates treatment-induced CRT redistribution, validating the GFP-CRT imaging workflow for quantitative analysis. Endogenous surface calreticulin analysis included approximately 30 cells per condition across 3 independent experiments, while endogenous intracellular CRT analysis included approximately 50 cells per condition across three independent experiments.
(C) Quantification of endogenous surface-exposed calreticulin (ectoCRT) under non-permeabilized conditions. Parental LNCaP cells were treated with vehicle (0.1% DMSO), thapsigargin (TG), or trichostatin A (TSA). Cells were incubated with anti-CRT antibody before fixation to detect surface-accessible endogenous CRT. Mean fluorescence intensity (arbitrary units, a.u.) increased following TG and TSA treatment, indicating enhanced surface exposure of endogenous CRT. Statistical comparisons between groups are indicated (P values calculated using unpaired T-Test). Surface and intracellular fluorescence were quantified by automated image segmentation under identical image acquisition and analysis parameters for all treatment groups. Endogenous surface calreticulin analysis included approximately 30 cells per condition across 3 independent experiments.
(D) Quantification of surface-exposed CRT in LNCaP cells expressing GFP-tagged wild-type calreticulin (pMSCV-IRES-GFP/CALR wt). Under identical treatment conditions, TG and TSA increased cell-surface CRT fluorescence compared with vehicle-treated controls. Mean fluorescence intensity (arbitrary units, a.u.) increased following TG and TSA treatment, indicating enhanced surface exposure of GFP-tagged CRT. Statistical comparisons between groups are indicated (P values calculated using unpaired T-Test). Surface GFP-tagged CRT analysis included approximately 23 cells per condition across three independent experiments.
(E) Quantification of endogenous intracellular calreticulin following permeabilization. Cells were permeabilized with 1% Triton X-100 prior to immunostaining to measure intracellular CRT. Mean fluorescence intensity decreased following TG and TSA treatment relative to vehicle-treated cells, consistent with redistribution of CRT from intracellular compartments to the plasma membrane. Statistical comparisons between groups are indicated (P values calculated using unpaired T-Test). Endogenous intracellular CRT analysis included approximately 50 cells per condition across three independent experiments.
(F) Quantification of intracellular GFP-CRT following permeabilization. Intracellular fluorescence decreased after TG and TSA treatment, mirroring the redistribution observed for endogenous CRT. Intracellular GFP-tagged CRT analysis included approximately 99 cells per condition across three independent experiments.
(G) Representative immunofluorescence images of endogenous CRT. The left panels show surface CRT staining, while lower panels show intracellular CRT detected under permeabilized conditions. Images illustrate reduced intracellular CRT and increased surface CRT following TG and TSA treatment. Scale bars = 10 μm.
(H) Comparison of redistribution factor (RF) between an exposure time of 250ms and 1000ms. Both exposures showed strong agreement across a four-fold exposure range indicating the RF is largely independent of exposure settings in this large range, supporting its robustness across acquisition settings.
(I) Schematic illustrating calreticulin redistribution during immunogenic cell death. Under baseline conditions CRT is predominantly retained within the endoplasmic reticulum. ER stress induces CRT translocation to the plasma membrane while a fraction remains intracellular. The redistribution factor (RF) provides quantitative value for the proportion of total detectable CRT localized to the cell surface.
","imageTitle":"Validation and robustness of a quantitative Redistribution Factor for measuring calreticulin cell-surface partitioning
","methods":"Cell Culture and Transfection
LNCaP human prostate adenocarcinoma cells were maintained in RPMI-1640 medium supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum and 1% penicillin–streptomycin under standard culture conditions (37°C, 5% CO₂). For transfection studies, cells were transiently transfected with GFP-tagged calreticulin (pMSCV-IRES-GFP/CALR wt plasmid - a gift from Norio Komatsu) and incubated for 24 hours prior to treatment. GFP fluorescence was used as the primary readout for total CRT expression across all experimental conditions.
Drug Treatments
Following drug administration, cells were incubated for 4 hours for endogenous CRT experiments or 24 hours for transfected (GFP-CRT) experiments with:
Vehicle control (0.1% DMSO)
Thapsigargin (TG; 100 nM)
Trichostatin A (TSA; 50 nM)
These conditions were selected to evaluate CRT redistribution under pharmacologic perturbation.
Immunofluorescence Staining
Surface CRT (ectoCRT) Staining:
Surface-accessible CRT was detected under non-permeabilized conditions. Cells were incubated with either anti-CRT (for endogenous CRT experiments) or anti-GFP (for transfection experiments) primary antibody prior to fixation to restrict antibody access to extracellular epitopes. Following primary antibody incubation, cells were fixed with 2% paraformaldehyde (PFA) and subsequently incubated with fluorophore-conjugated secondary antibodies for 1 hour at room temperature. Nuclei were stained with DAPI.
Membrane integrity was validated using ERp57 as an intracellular control protein, which showed no detectable signal under non-permeabilized conditions, confirming that intracellular epitopes remained inaccessible.
Intracellular CRT Staining:
For intracellular CRT detection, cells were fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde (PFA), washed with 0.01 M phosphate-buffered saline (PBS), and permeabilized using 1% Triton X-100 in PBS. Cells were then blocked in normal donkey serum and incubated with either anti-CRT or anti-GFP primary antibody overnight at 4°C. Following washing, cells were incubated with fluorophore-conjugated secondary antibodies and counterstained with DAPI.
Image Acquisition
Fluorescence images were acquired using identical imaging settings across all treatment conditions to ensure comparability. Exposure time was fixed at 1 ms for all channels and samples to minimize variability in fluorescence intensity measurements.
Image Analysis and Quantification
Image analysis was performed using CellProfiler on 16 bit images with custom pipelines designed for single-cell segmentation and fluorescence quantification.
Intracellular CRT was quantified using expanded DAPI-based nuclear masks to capture cytoplasmic signal.
Surface CRT was quantified using CRT-based segmentation to detect membrane-associated fluorescence.
Background fluorescence was quantified from cell-free regions outside segmented cell regions of interest (ROIs) within each image. The average background fluorescence intensity was subtracted from the mean fluorescence intensity of each ROI to generate corrected CRT intensity measurements. Area-based and intensity-based filtering were then applied to exclude debris and incorrectly segmented objects before calculation of fluorescence intensity and redistribution factor (RF) values.
For endogenous experiments, approximately 30 cells were analyzed for surface CRT and 50 cells for intracellular CRT per condition. For GFP-transfected experiments, approximately 23 cells were analyzed for surface CRT and 99 cells for intracellular CRT per condition. All analyses were performed across three independent experiments.
Experimental conditions were validated in parallel using both endogenous staining (anti-CRT) and transfected reporters (anti-GFP) to confirm consistency.
Use of a single GFP-CRT reporter for transfection experiments across all conditions minimized inter-channel variability and enabled direct comparison of CRT redistribution between treatments.
Redistribution Factor Calculation
Background-subtracted mean fluorescence intensity values were used to calculate a redistribution factor (RF) for each cell, defined as:
RF= ectoCRT /ectoCRT + endoCRT
ectoCRT = surface CRT and endoCRT = intracellular CRT
This metric represents the relative partitioning of CRT between surface-accessible and intracellular compartments.
Statistical Analysis
Fluorescence intensity measurements were obtained at the single-cell level for both intracellular and surface conditions. Statistical comparisons between treatment groups were performed using unpaired two-tailed Student’s t-tests.
Comparisons were conducted between vehicle (0.1% DMSO) and treatment conditions (thapsigargin [TG] or trichostatin A [TSA]) for:
Surface CRT fluorescence intensity
Intracellular CRT fluorescence intensity
Redistribution factor (RF)
Sample sizes varied by experiment: for endogenous experiments, approximately 30 cells were analyzed for surface CRT and 50 cells for intracellular CRT per condition. For GFP-transfected experiments, approximately 23 cells were analyzed for surface CRT and 99 cells for intracellular CRT per condition. All analyses were conducted across three independent experiments.
Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation. Statistical significance values (p) and effect sizes (Cohen’s d) are reported in the figure.
","reagents":"Reagent | Source | Catalog Number |
|---|---|---|
pMSCV-IRES-GFP/CALR wt plasmid | Addgene | plasmid # 214699 |
GFP antibody | Thermo Fisher Scientific | PIMA515256 |
CRT antibody | Cell Signaling Technology | 12238 |
ERp57 antibody | Proteintech | 15967-1-AP |
Thapsigargin | Enzo Life Sciences | NC9006970 |
Trichostatin A | Thermo Fisher Scientific | 502707197 |
Triton X-100 | Millipore Sigma | 648466 |
Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) | Thermo Scientific | D12345 |
Paraformaldehyde | Thermo Scientific | 043368.9L |
Calreticulin (CRT) is a 46 kDa endoplasmic reticulum (ER)–resident chaperone protein that plays a critical role in calcium homeostasis and glycoprotein folding (Michalak et al., 1999). In addition to these canonical ER functions, CRT can become detectable at the plasma membrane under conditions of cellular stress, where it functions as a damage-associated molecular pattern (DAMP) involved in immune recognition and clearance of stressed or damaged cells (Gardai et al., 2005; Obeid et al., 2007). Surface-exposed CRT has been described in several malignancies, including bladder, lung, breast, and ovarian cancers, where it has been associated with altered cellular signaling and immune engagement (Kageyama et al., 2004; Liu et al., 2012; Song et al., 2012). In prostate cancer, however, reports of CRT expression and localization have been inconsistent, with both increased and decreased expression described depending on disease context (Alur et al., 2009). These discrepancies highlight the need for reproducible and quantitative approaches to evaluate CRT localization in prostate cancer models.
CRT contains three structural domains (N, P, and C), including a C-terminal Lys-Asp-Glu-Leu (KDEL) sequence that mediates ER retention through receptor-dependent retrieval pathways (Cabrera et al., 2003; Michalak et al., 1999). Despite this retention mechanism, CRT has been observed at the cell surface under conditions of cellular stress, suggesting that redistribution from the ER can occur. The processes governing CRT redistribution remain incompletely defined and may involve multiple cellular pathways, including ER stress responses and post-translational modifications. Proteomic studies have demonstrated that ER-resident proteins can undergo lysine acetylation (Pehar et al., 2012), and altered acetylation profiles have been observed in prostate cancer cells (Pathak et al., 2015). These findings provide biological context for evaluating CRT localization under pharmacologic conditions that influence cellular stress and acetylation state, although the present study does not directly assess these mechanisms.
Quantification of surface-exposed CRT (ectoCRT) in prostate cancer models presents several technical challenges. LNCaP cells exhibit relatively low baseline surface CRT expression, making detection sensitive to staining conditions and imaging parameters. Variability in fluorescence intensity measurements can arise from differences in antibody accessibility, imaging exposure, and segmentation approaches. Furthermore, many studies of protein trafficking rely on live-cell imaging or time-lapse microscopy, which may not be accessible in all research environments. These limitations underscore the need for a standardized, reproducible fixed-cell imaging workflow that enables reliable distinction between intracellular and surface-accessible CRT pools.
In this study, we optimized a non-permeabilized immunofluorescence protocol to detect surface CRT in LNCaP cells using total anti-CRT antibody staining, with complementary experiments performed in cells transfected with wild-type CRT from the pMSCV-IRES-GFP/CALR wt plasmid. Surface staining was performed by incubating cells with primary antibody prior to fixation, restricting antibody access to extracellular epitopes. Intracellular CRT detection required permeabilization using 1% Triton X-100 in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). Membrane integrity under non-permeabilized conditions was validated using ERp57 as an intracellular control protein, which showed no detectable signal in the absence of permeabilization, confirming that intracellular epitopes remained inaccessible during surface staining.
Cells were treated with thapsigargin (TG), a well-established ER stress inducer known to influence CRT cell surface translocation (Jeffery et al., 2011), as a positive control condition. Comparative treatment with trichostatin A (TSA), a potent histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor (Frønsdal et al., 2004), was used to evaluate increased acetylation conditions on CRT trafficking. Given that altered acetylation profiles are observed in prostate cancer (Watson, et al., 2010), we utilized TSA to test whether increased global acetylation influences CRT surface mobilization, serving as a secondary stress-response model alongside TG. 0.1% DMSO was included as a vehicle control. TG and TSA concentrations were determined by preliminary Methyl Thiazolyl Tetrazolium (MTT) optimization assays and supporting literature on ER stress induction and HDAC inhibition in prostate cancer models. Conditions were chosen that produced detectable CRT redistribution while not compromising cell integrity. Under TG treatment conditions, a visible redistribution of CRT signal toward the cell periphery was observed relative to vehicle-treated controls. While intracellular CRT fluorescence intensity decreased and surface-associated signal increased, direct comparison of these measures revealed weak correlation across treatment conditions. These findings indicate that absolute fluorescence intensity measurements alone may not fully capture the extent of CRT redistribution.
To address this limitation, we implemented a redistribution factor (RF) defined as ectoCRT/(ectoCRT + endoCRT), which quantifies the relative partitioning of CRT between intracellular and surface compartments within individual cells. By normalizing surface-associated signal to total detectable CRT, RF provides a metric that is less influenced by global changes in protein expression or imaging variability. This approach is particularly useful in systems with low baseline surface expression, where small changes in fluorescence intensity may be difficult to interpret using absolute measurements alone. Across independent experiments and standardized imaging conditions, RF values demonstrated reproducibility and sensitivity to treatment-dependent changes in CRT localization.
Importantly, the present study does not directly evaluate the molecular mechanisms underlying CRT redistribution but instead establishes a reproducible imaging and quantification framework for assessing CRT partitioning in prostate cancer cells. This fixed-cell approach eliminates the requirement for live-cell imaging systems and enables broader application in laboratories equipped with standard fluorescence microscopy platforms.
In summary, we describe a standardized non-permeabilized immunofluorescence workflow and a redistribution-based quantification strategy for evaluating ER-to-surface CRT mobilization in LNCaP prostate cancer cells. This method provides a practical and reproducible approach for measuring CRT redistribution and may facilitate future studies investigating protein trafficking, cellular stress responses, and DAMP-associated signaling in cancer models.
","references":[{"reference":"Alur M, Nguyen MM, Eggener SE, Jiang F, Dadras SS, Stern J, et al., Wang. 2009. Suppressive Roles of Calreticulin in Prostate Cancer Growth and Metastasis. The American Journal of Pathology 175: 882-890.
","pubmedId":"","doi":" 10.2353/ajpath.2009.080417"},{"reference":"Cabrera M, Muñiz M, Hidalgo J, Vega L, Martín MaE, Velasco A. 2003. The Retrieval Function of the KDEL Receptor Requires PKA Phosphorylation of Its C-Terminus. Molecular Biology of the Cell 14: 4114-4125.
","pubmedId":"","doi":" 10.1091/mbc.e03-04-0194"},{"reference":"Csete M, Szekeres G, Szenes A, Szalai A, Szabó G. 2015. Plasmonic structure integrated single-photon detector configurations to improve absorptance and polarization contrast. Sensors (Basel) 15(2): 3513-39.
","pubmedId":"25654724","doi":""},{"reference":"Frønsdal K, Saatcioglu F. 2004. Histone deacetylase inhibitors differentially mediate apoptosis in prostate cancer cells. The Prostate 62: 299-306.
","pubmedId":"","doi":"10.1002/pros.20140"},{"reference":"Gardai SJ, McPhillips KA, Frasch SC, Janssen WJ, Starefeldt A, Murphy-Ullrich JE, et al., Henson. 2005. Cell-Surface Calreticulin Initiates Clearance of Viable or Apoptotic Cells through trans-Activation of LRP on the Phagocyte. Cell 123: 321-334.
","pubmedId":"","doi":" 10.1016/j.cell.2005.08.032"},{"reference":"Jeffery E, Peters LR, Raghavan M. 2011. The Polypeptide Binding Conformation of Calreticulin Facilitates Its Cell-surface Expression under Conditions of Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress. Journal of Biological Chemistry 286: 2402-2415.
","pubmedId":"","doi":"10.1074/jbc.M110.180877"},{"reference":"Kageyama S, Isono T, Iwaki H, Wakabayashi Y, Okada Y, Kontani K, et al., Yoshiki. 2004. Identification by Proteomic Analysis of Calreticulin as a Marker for Bladder Cancer and Evaluation of the Diagnostic Accuracy of Its Detection in Urine. Clinical Chemistry 50: 857-866.
","pubmedId":"","doi":"10.1373/clinchem.2003.027425"},{"reference":"Liu R, Gong J, Chen J, Li Q, Song C, Zhang J, et al., Jin. 2011. Calreticulin as a potential diagnostic biomarker for lung cancer. Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy 61: 855-864.
","pubmedId":"","doi":"10.1007/s00262-011-1146-8"},{"reference":"Masubuchi N, Araki M, Yang Y, Hayashi E, Imai M, Edahiro Y, et al., Komatsu N. 2020. Mutant calreticulin interacts with MPL in the secretion pathway for activation on the cell surface. Leukemia 34(2): 499-509.
","pubmedId":"31462733","doi":""},{"reference":"Michalak M, Corbett EF, Mesaeli N, Nakamura K, Opas M. 1999. Calreticulin: one protein, one gene, many functions. Biochem J 344 Pt 2(Pt 2): 281-92.
","pubmedId":"10567207","doi":""},{"reference":"Obeid M, Tesniere A, Ghiringhelli F, Fimia GM, Apetoh L, Perfettini JL, et al., Kroemer G. 2007. Calreticulin exposure dictates the immunogenicity of cancer cell death. Nat Med 13(1): 54-61.
","pubmedId":"17187072","doi":""},{"reference":"Panaretakis T, Kepp O, Brockmeier U, Tesniere A, Bjorklund AC, Chapman DC, et al., Kroemer G. 2009. Mechanisms of pre-apoptotic calreticulin exposure in immunogenic cell death. EMBO J 28(5): 578-90.
","pubmedId":"19165151","doi":""},{"reference":"Pathak R, Philizaire M, Mujtaba S. 2015. Dichotomy in the Epigenetic Mark Lysine Acetylation is Critical for the Proliferation of Prostate Cancer Cells. Cancers 7: 1622-1642.
","pubmedId":"","doi":"10.3390/cancers7030854"},{"reference":"Pehar M, Lehnus M, Karst A, Puglielli L. 2012. Proteomic Assessment Shows That Many Endoplasmic Reticulum (ER)-resident Proteins Are Targeted by Nϵ-Lysine Acetylation in the Lumen of the Organelle and Predicts Broad Biological Impact. Journal of Biological Chemistry 287: 22436-22440.
","pubmedId":"","doi":"10.1074/jbc.C112.362871"},{"reference":"Song MN, Moon PG, Lee JE, Na M, Kang W, Chae YS, et al., Baek. 2012. Proteomic analysis of breast cancer tissues to identify biomarker candidates by gel-assisted digestion and label-free quantification methods using LC-MS/MS. Archives of Pharmacal Research 35: 1839-1847.
","pubmedId":"","doi":"10.1007/s12272-012-1018-6"},{"reference":"Watson JA, McKenna DJ, Maxwell P, Diamond J, Arthur K, McKelvey‐Martin VJ, Hamilton PW. 2010. Hyperacetylation in prostate cancer induces cell cycle aberrations, chromatin reorganization and altered gene expression profiles. Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine 14: 1668-1682.
","pubmedId":"","doi":"10.1111/j.1582-4934.2009.00835.x"}],"title":"Quantification of calreticulin redistribution in LNCaP prostate cancer cells using a fixed-cell imaging workflow","reviews":[],"curatorReviews":[]},{"id":"a68df714-f924-4a29-b7f0-0a2f3aaa6f38","decision":"accept","abstract":"Calreticulin (CRT) is an endoplasmic reticulum chaperone that can localize to the cell surface under stress, where it functions as a damage-associated molecular pattern. Quantifying surface-exposed CRT in prostate cancer models is challenging due to low baseline expression and variability in imaging workflows. We describe a fixed-cell immunofluorescence method to distinguish intracellular and surface CRT in LNCaP cells. Cells treated with thapsigargin exhibited increased surface localization. We introduce a redistribution factor (RF = ectoCRT/(ectoCRT + endoCRT)) to quantify CRT partitioning. This approach provides a reproducible framework for assessing CRT redistribution using standard fluorescence microscopy.
","acknowledgements":"Additional support for undergraduate research participation was provided by the Center for Energy and Environmental Solutions (CEES) at South Carolina State University. The authors wish to thank the Center for Energy and Environmental Solutions (CEES) for its support and corresponding funding provided through the State of South Carolina Proviso 11.24 Appropriation.
","authors":[{"affiliations":["South Carolina State University, Orangeburg, SC, US"],"departments":["Biological and Physical Sciences"],"credit":["writing_originalDraft","dataCuration","visualization","methodology"],"email":"jvogle@scsu.edu","firstName":"Janiyah","lastName":"Vogle","submittingAuthor":false,"correspondingAuthor":false,"equalContribution":false,"WBId":null,"orcid":null},{"affiliations":["South Carolina State University, Orangeburg, SC, US"],"departments":["Biological and Physical Sciences"],"credit":["dataCuration"],"email":"krankin1@scsu.edu","firstName":"Kandace","lastName":"Rankin","submittingAuthor":false,"correspondingAuthor":false,"equalContribution":false,"WBId":null,"orcid":null},{"affiliations":["South Carolina State University, Orangeburg, SC, US"],"departments":["Biological and Physical Sciences"],"credit":["conceptualization","formalAnalysis","fundingAcquisition","project","supervision","writing_reviewEditing"],"email":"cthoma17@scsu.edu","firstName":"Courtney","lastName":"Thomas","submittingAuthor":true,"correspondingAuthor":true,"equalContribution":false,"WBId":null,"orcid":"0000-0002-1753-1938"}],"awards":[{"awardId":"K01","funderName":"National Cancer Institute (United States)","awardRecipient":"Dr. Courtney Thomas"}],"conflictsOfInterest":"The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.
","dataTable":{"url":null},"extendedData":[],"funding":"This research publication was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number K01CA180185. The content reflects solely the authors' views and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
","image":{"url":"https://portal.micropublication.org/uploads/fc9d99d61fec69442eb89e2ddb480257.png"},"imageCaption":"(A) The Redistribution factor (RF), defined as ectoCRT/(ectoCRT + endoCRT) quantifies the fraction of CRT localized to the cell surface, normalizing for the large intracellular pool of calreticulin. Surface GFP-tagged CRT analysis included approximately 23 cells per condition across three independent experiments, while intracellular GFP-tagged CRT analysis included approximately 99 cells per condition across three independent experiments. Each data point represents an individual cell. Fluorescence intensity values were obtained using automated image segmentation under identical imaging conditions.
(B) Comparison of treatment-induced redistribution factor (RF) between endogenous CRT and GFP-CRT workflows. Both approaches demonstrated similar treatment-dependent increases in RF, with parallel trends across TG and TSA conditions. The close concordance between endogenous and GFP-tagged CRT supports that the GFP reporter successfully recapitulates treatment-induced CRT redistribution, validating the GFP-CRT imaging workflow for quantitative analysis. Endogenous surface calreticulin analysis included approximately 30 cells per condition across 3 independent experiments, while endogenous intracellular CRT analysis included approximately 50 cells per condition across three independent experiments.
(C) Quantification of endogenous surface-exposed calreticulin (ectoCRT) under non-permeabilized conditions. Parental LNCaP cells were treated with vehicle (0.1% DMSO), thapsigargin (TG), or trichostatin A (TSA). Cells were incubated with anti-CRT antibody before fixation to detect surface-accessible endogenous CRT. Mean fluorescence intensity (arbitrary units, a.u.) increased following TG and TSA treatment, indicating enhanced surface exposure of endogenous CRT. Statistical comparisons between groups are indicated (P values calculated using unpaired T-Test). Surface and intracellular fluorescence were quantified by automated image segmentation under identical image acquisition and analysis parameters for all treatment groups. Endogenous surface calreticulin analysis included approximately 30 cells per condition across 3 independent experiments.
(D) Quantification of surface-exposed CRT in LNCaP cells expressing GFP-tagged wild-type calreticulin (pMSCV-IRES-GFP/CALR wt). Under identical treatment conditions, TG and TSA increased cell-surface CRT fluorescence compared with vehicle-treated controls. Mean fluorescence intensity (arbitrary units, a.u.) increased following TG and TSA treatment, indicating enhanced surface exposure of GFP-tagged CRT. Statistical comparisons between groups are indicated (P values calculated using unpaired T-Test). Surface GFP-tagged CRT analysis included approximately 23 cells per condition across three independent experiments.
(E) Quantification of endogenous intracellular calreticulin following permeabilization. Cells were permeabilized with 1% Triton X-100 prior to immunostaining to measure intracellular CRT. Mean fluorescence intensity decreased following TG and TSA treatment relative to vehicle-treated cells, consistent with redistribution of CRT from intracellular compartments to the plasma membrane. Statistical comparisons between groups are indicated (P values calculated using unpaired T-Test). Endogenous intracellular CRT analysis included approximately 50 cells per condition across three independent experiments.
(F) Quantification of intracellular GFP-CRT following permeabilization. Intracellular fluorescence decreased after TG and TSA treatment, mirroring the redistribution observed for endogenous CRT. Intracellular GFP-tagged CRT analysis included approximately 99 cells per condition across three independent experiments.
(G) Representative immunofluorescence images of endogenous CRT. The left panels show surface CRT staining, while lower panels show intracellular CRT detected under permeabilized conditions. Images illustrate reduced intracellular CRT and increased surface CRT following TG and TSA treatment. Scale bars = 10 μm.
(H) Comparison of redistribution factor (RF) between an exposure time of 250ms and 1000ms. Both exposures showed strong agreement across a four-fold exposure range indicating the RF is largely independent of exposure settings in this large range, supporting its robustness across acquisition settings.
(I) Schematic illustrating calreticulin redistribution during immunogenic cell death. Under baseline conditions CRT is predominantly retained within the endoplasmic reticulum. ER stress induces CRT translocation to the plasma membrane while a fraction remains intracellular. The redistribution factor (RF) provides quantitative value for the proportion of total detectable CRT localized to the cell surface.
","imageTitle":"Validation and robustness of a quantitative Redistribution Factor for measuring calreticulin cell-surface partitioning
","methods":"Cell Culture and Transfection
LNCaP human prostate adenocarcinoma cells were maintained in RPMI-1640 medium supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum and 1% penicillin–streptomycin under standard culture conditions (37°C, 5% CO₂). For transfection studies, cells were transiently transfected with GFP-tagged calreticulin (pMSCV-IRES-GFP/CALR wt plasmid - a gift from Norio Komatsu) and incubated for 24 hours prior to treatment. GFP fluorescence was used as the primary readout for total CRT expression across all experimental conditions.
Drug Treatments
Following drug administration, cells were incubated for 4 hours for endogenous CRT experiments or 24 hours for transfected (GFP-CRT) experiments with:
Vehicle control (0.1% DMSO)
Thapsigargin (TG; 100 nM)
Trichostatin A (TSA; 50 nM)
These conditions were selected to evaluate CRT redistribution under pharmacologic perturbation.
Immunofluorescence Staining
Surface CRT (ectoCRT) Staining:
Surface-accessible CRT was detected under non-permeabilized conditions. Cells were incubated with either anti-CRT (for endogenous CRT experiments) or anti-GFP (for transfection experiments) primary antibody prior to fixation to restrict antibody access to extracellular epitopes. Following primary antibody incubation, cells were fixed with 2% paraformaldehyde (PFA) and subsequently incubated with fluorophore-conjugated secondary antibodies for 1 hour at room temperature. Nuclei were stained with DAPI.
Membrane integrity was validated using ERp57 as an intracellular control protein, which showed no detectable signal under non-permeabilized conditions, confirming that intracellular epitopes remained inaccessible.
Intracellular CRT Staining:
For intracellular CRT detection, cells were fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde (PFA), washed with 0.01 M phosphate-buffered saline (PBS), and permeabilized using 1% Triton X-100 in PBS. Cells were then blocked in normal donkey serum and incubated with either anti-CRT or anti-GFP primary antibody overnight at 4°C. Following washing, cells were incubated with fluorophore-conjugated secondary antibodies and counterstained with DAPI.
Image Acquisition
Fluorescence images were acquired using identical imaging settings across all treatment conditions to ensure comparability. Exposure time was fixed at 1 ms for all channels and samples to minimize variability in fluorescence intensity measurements.
Image Analysis and Quantification
Image analysis was performed using CellProfiler on 16 bit images with custom pipelines designed for single-cell segmentation and fluorescence quantification.
Intracellular CRT was quantified using expanded DAPI-based nuclear masks to capture cytoplasmic signal.
Surface CRT was quantified using CRT-based segmentation to detect membrane-associated fluorescence.
Background fluorescence was quantified from cell-free regions outside segmented cell regions of interest (ROIs) within each image. The average background fluorescence intensity was subtracted from the mean fluorescence intensity of each ROI to generate corrected CRT intensity measurements. Area-based and intensity-based filtering were then applied to exclude debris and incorrectly segmented objects before calculation of fluorescence intensity and redistribution factor (RF) values.
For endogenous experiments, approximately 30 cells were analyzed for surface CRT and 50 cells for intracellular CRT per condition. For GFP-transfected experiments, approximately 23 cells were analyzed for surface CRT and 99 cells for intracellular CRT per condition. All analyses were performed across three independent experiments.
Experimental conditions were validated in parallel using both endogenous staining (anti-CRT) and transfected reporters (anti-GFP) to confirm consistency.
Use of a single GFP-CRT reporter for transfection experiments across all conditions minimized inter-channel variability and enabled direct comparison of CRT redistribution between treatments.
Redistribution Factor Calculation
Background-subtracted mean fluorescence intensity values were used to calculate a redistribution factor (RF) for each cell, defined as:
RF= ectoCRT /ectoCRT + endoCRT
ectoCRT = surface CRT and endoCRT = intracellular CRT
This metric represents the relative partitioning of CRT between surface-accessible and intracellular compartments.
Statistical Analysis
Fluorescence intensity measurements were obtained at the single-cell level for both intracellular and surface conditions. Statistical comparisons between treatment groups were performed using unpaired two-tailed Student’s t-tests.
Comparisons were conducted between vehicle (0.1% DMSO) and treatment conditions (thapsigargin [TG] or trichostatin A [TSA]) for:
Surface CRT fluorescence intensity
Intracellular CRT fluorescence intensity
Redistribution factor (RF)
Sample sizes varied by experiment: for endogenous experiments, approximately 30 cells were analyzed for surface CRT and 50 cells for intracellular CRT per condition. For GFP-transfected experiments, approximately 23 cells were analyzed for surface CRT and 99 cells for intracellular CRT per condition. All analyses were conducted across three independent experiments.
Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation. Statistical significance values (p) and effect sizes (Cohen’s d) are reported in the figure.
","reagents":"Reagent | Source | Catalog Number |
|---|---|---|
pMSCV-IRES-GFP/CALR wt plasmid | Addgene | plasmid # 214699 |
GFP antibody | Thermo Fisher Scientific | PIMA515256 |
CRT antibody | Cell Signaling Technology | 12238 |
ERp57 antibody | Proteintech | 15967-1-AP |
Thapsigargin | Enzo Life Sciences | NC9006970 |
Trichostatin A | Thermo Fisher Scientific | 502707197 |
Triton X-100 | Millipore Sigma | 648466 |
Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) | Thermo Scientific | D12345 |
Paraformaldehyde | Thermo Scientific | 043368.9L |
Calreticulin (CRT) is a 46 kDa endoplasmic reticulum (ER)–resident chaperone protein that plays a critical role in calcium homeostasis and glycoprotein folding (Michalak et al., 1999). In addition to these canonical ER functions, CRT can become detectable at the plasma membrane under conditions of cellular stress, where it functions as a damage-associated molecular pattern (DAMP) involved in immune recognition and clearance of stressed or damaged cells (Gardai et al., 2005; Obeid et al., 2007). Surface-exposed CRT has been described in several malignancies, including bladder, lung, breast, and ovarian cancers, where it has been associated with altered cellular signaling and immune engagement (Kageyama et al., 2004; Liu et al., 2012; Song et al., 2012). In prostate cancer, however, reports of CRT expression and localization have been inconsistent, with both increased and decreased expression described depending on disease context (Alur et al., 2009). These discrepancies highlight the need for reproducible and quantitative approaches to evaluate CRT localization in prostate cancer models.
CRT contains three structural domains (N, P, and C), including a C-terminal Lys-Asp-Glu-Leu (KDEL) sequence that mediates ER retention through receptor-dependent retrieval pathways (Cabrera et al., 2003; Michalak et al., 1999). Despite this retention mechanism, CRT has been observed at the cell surface under conditions of cellular stress, suggesting that redistribution from the ER can occur. The processes governing CRT redistribution remain incompletely defined and may involve multiple cellular pathways, including ER stress responses and post-translational modifications. Proteomic studies have demonstrated that ER-resident proteins can undergo lysine acetylation (Pehar et al., 2012), and altered acetylation profiles have been observed in prostate cancer cells (Pathak et al., 2015). These findings provide biological context for evaluating CRT localization under pharmacologic conditions that influence cellular stress and acetylation state, although the present study does not directly assess these mechanisms.
Quantification of surface-exposed CRT (ectoCRT) in prostate cancer models presents several technical challenges. LNCaP cells exhibit relatively low baseline surface CRT expression, making detection sensitive to staining conditions and imaging parameters. Variability in fluorescence intensity measurements can arise from differences in antibody accessibility, imaging exposure, and segmentation approaches. Furthermore, many studies of protein trafficking rely on live-cell imaging or time-lapse microscopy, which may not be accessible in all research environments. These limitations underscore the need for a standardized, reproducible fixed-cell imaging workflow that enables reliable distinction between intracellular and surface-accessible CRT pools.
In this study, we optimized a non-permeabilized immunofluorescence protocol to detect surface CRT in LNCaP cells using total anti-CRT antibody staining, with complementary experiments performed in cells transfected with wild-type CRT from the pMSCV-IRES-GFP/CALR wt plasmid. Surface staining was performed by incubating cells with primary antibody prior to fixation, restricting antibody access to extracellular epitopes. Intracellular CRT detection required permeabilization using 1% Triton X-100 in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). Membrane integrity under non-permeabilized conditions was validated using ERp57 as an intracellular control protein, which showed no detectable signal in the absence of permeabilization, confirming that intracellular epitopes remained inaccessible during surface staining.
Cells were treated with thapsigargin (TG), a well-established ER stress inducer known to influence CRT cell surface translocation (Jeffery et al., 2011), as a positive control condition. Comparative treatment with trichostatin A (TSA), a potent histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor (Frønsdal et al., 2004), was used to evaluate increased acetylation conditions on CRT trafficking. Given that altered acetylation profiles are observed in prostate cancer (Watson, et al., 2010), we utilized TSA to test whether increased global acetylation influences CRT surface mobilization, serving as a secondary stress-response model alongside TG. 0.1% DMSO was included as a vehicle control. TG and TSA concentrations were determined by preliminary Methyl Thiazolyl Tetrazolium (MTT) optimization assays and supporting literature on ER stress induction and HDAC inhibition in prostate cancer models. Conditions were chosen that produced detectable CRT redistribution while not compromising cell integrity. Under TG treatment conditions, a visible redistribution of CRT signal toward the cell periphery was observed relative to vehicle-treated controls. While intracellular CRT fluorescence intensity decreased and surface-associated signal increased, direct comparison of these measures revealed weak correlation across treatment conditions. These findings indicate that absolute fluorescence intensity measurements alone may not fully capture the extent of CRT redistribution.
To address this limitation, we implemented a redistribution factor (RF) defined as ectoCRT/(ectoCRT + endoCRT), which quantifies the relative partitioning of CRT between intracellular and surface compartments within individual cells. By normalizing surface-associated signal to total detectable CRT, RF provides a metric that is less influenced by global changes in protein expression or imaging variability. This approach is particularly useful in systems with low baseline surface expression, where small changes in fluorescence intensity may be difficult to interpret using absolute measurements alone. Across independent experiments and standardized imaging conditions, RF values demonstrated reproducibility and sensitivity to treatment-dependent changes in CRT localization.
Importantly, the present study does not directly evaluate the molecular mechanisms underlying CRT redistribution but instead establishes a reproducible imaging and quantification framework for assessing CRT partitioning in prostate cancer cells. This fixed-cell approach eliminates the requirement for live-cell imaging systems and enables broader application in laboratories equipped with standard fluorescence microscopy platforms.
In summary, we describe a standardized non-permeabilized immunofluorescence workflow and a redistribution-based quantification strategy for evaluating ER-to-surface CRT mobilization in LNCaP prostate cancer cells. This method provides a practical and reproducible approach for measuring CRT redistribution and may facilitate future studies investigating protein trafficking, cellular stress responses, and DAMP-associated signaling in cancer models.
","references":[{"reference":"Alur M, Nguyen MM, Eggener SE, Jiang F, Dadras SS, Stern J, et al., Wang. 2009. Suppressive Roles of Calreticulin in Prostate Cancer Growth and Metastasis. The American Journal of Pathology 175: 882-890.
","pubmedId":"","doi":" 10.2353/ajpath.2009.080417"},{"reference":"Cabrera M, Muñiz M, Hidalgo J, Vega L, Martín MaE, Velasco A. 2003. The Retrieval Function of the KDEL Receptor Requires PKA Phosphorylation of Its C-Terminus. Molecular Biology of the Cell 14: 4114-4125.
","pubmedId":"","doi":" 10.1091/mbc.e03-04-0194"},{"reference":"Csete M, Szekeres G, Szenes A, Szalai A, Szabó G. 2015. Plasmonic structure integrated single-photon detector configurations to improve absorptance and polarization contrast. Sensors (Basel) 15(2): 3513-39.
","pubmedId":"25654724","doi":""},{"reference":"Frønsdal K, Saatcioglu F. 2004. Histone deacetylase inhibitors differentially mediate apoptosis in prostate cancer cells. The Prostate 62: 299-306.
","pubmedId":"","doi":"10.1002/pros.20140"},{"reference":"Gardai SJ, McPhillips KA, Frasch SC, Janssen WJ, Starefeldt A, Murphy-Ullrich JE, et al., Henson. 2005. Cell-Surface Calreticulin Initiates Clearance of Viable or Apoptotic Cells through trans-Activation of LRP on the Phagocyte. Cell 123: 321-334.
","pubmedId":"","doi":" 10.1016/j.cell.2005.08.032"},{"reference":"Jeffery E, Peters LR, Raghavan M. 2011. The Polypeptide Binding Conformation of Calreticulin Facilitates Its Cell-surface Expression under Conditions of Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress. Journal of Biological Chemistry 286: 2402-2415.
","pubmedId":"","doi":"10.1074/jbc.M110.180877"},{"reference":"Kageyama S, Isono T, Iwaki H, Wakabayashi Y, Okada Y, Kontani K, et al., Yoshiki. 2004. Identification by Proteomic Analysis of Calreticulin as a Marker for Bladder Cancer and Evaluation of the Diagnostic Accuracy of Its Detection in Urine. Clinical Chemistry 50: 857-866.
","pubmedId":"","doi":"10.1373/clinchem.2003.027425"},{"reference":"Liu R, Gong J, Chen J, Li Q, Song C, Zhang J, et al., Jin. 2011. Calreticulin as a potential diagnostic biomarker for lung cancer. Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy 61: 855-864.
","pubmedId":"","doi":"10.1007/s00262-011-1146-8"},{"reference":"Masubuchi N, Araki M, Yang Y, Hayashi E, Imai M, Edahiro Y, et al., Komatsu N. 2020. Mutant calreticulin interacts with MPL in the secretion pathway for activation on the cell surface. Leukemia 34(2): 499-509.
","pubmedId":"31462733","doi":""},{"reference":"Michalak M, Corbett EF, Mesaeli N, Nakamura K, Opas M. 1999. Calreticulin: one protein, one gene, many functions. Biochem J 344 Pt 2(Pt 2): 281-92.
","pubmedId":"10567207","doi":""},{"reference":"Obeid M, Tesniere A, Ghiringhelli F, Fimia GM, Apetoh L, Perfettini JL, et al., Kroemer G. 2007. Calreticulin exposure dictates the immunogenicity of cancer cell death. Nat Med 13(1): 54-61.
","pubmedId":"17187072","doi":""},{"reference":"Panaretakis T, Kepp O, Brockmeier U, Tesniere A, Bjorklund AC, Chapman DC, et al., Kroemer G. 2009. Mechanisms of pre-apoptotic calreticulin exposure in immunogenic cell death. EMBO J 28(5): 578-90.
","pubmedId":"19165151","doi":""},{"reference":"Pathak R, Philizaire M, Mujtaba S. 2015. Dichotomy in the Epigenetic Mark Lysine Acetylation is Critical for the Proliferation of Prostate Cancer Cells. Cancers 7: 1622-1642.
","pubmedId":"","doi":"10.3390/cancers7030854"},{"reference":"Pehar M, Lehnus M, Karst A, Puglielli L. 2012. Proteomic Assessment Shows That Many Endoplasmic Reticulum (ER)-resident Proteins Are Targeted by Nϵ-Lysine Acetylation in the Lumen of the Organelle and Predicts Broad Biological Impact. Journal of Biological Chemistry 287: 22436-22440.
","pubmedId":"","doi":"10.1074/jbc.C112.362871"},{"reference":"Song MN, Moon PG, Lee JE, Na M, Kang W, Chae YS, et al., Baek. 2012. Proteomic analysis of breast cancer tissues to identify biomarker candidates by gel-assisted digestion and label-free quantification methods using LC-MS/MS. Archives of Pharmacal Research 35: 1839-1847.
","pubmedId":"","doi":"10.1007/s12272-012-1018-6"},{"reference":"Watson JA, McKenna DJ, Maxwell P, Diamond J, Arthur K, McKelvey‐Martin VJ, Hamilton PW. 2010. Hyperacetylation in prostate cancer induces cell cycle aberrations, chromatin reorganization and altered gene expression profiles. Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine 14: 1668-1682.
","pubmedId":"","doi":"10.1111/j.1582-4934.2009.00835.x"}],"title":"Quantification of calreticulin redistribution in LNCaP prostate cancer cells using a fixed-cell imaging workflow","reviews":[],"curatorReviews":[]},{"id":"61675bfb-4765-40af-a15a-6f0e55fe8c60","decision":"publish","abstract":"Calreticulin (CRT) is an endoplasmic reticulum chaperone that can localize to the cell surface under stress, where it functions as a damage-associated molecular pattern. Quantifying surface-exposed CRT in prostate cancer models is challenging due to low baseline expression and variability in imaging workflows. We describe a fixed-cell immunofluorescence method to distinguish intracellular and surface CRT in LNCaP cells. Cells treated with thapsigargin exhibited increased surface localization. We introduce a redistribution factor (RF = ectoCRT/(ectoCRT + endoCRT)) to quantify CRT partitioning. This approach provides a reproducible framework for assessing CRT redistribution using standard fluorescence microscopy.
","acknowledgements":"Additional support for undergraduate research participation was provided by the Center for Energy and Environmental Solutions (CEES) at South Carolina State University. The authors wish to thank the Center for Energy and Environmental Solutions (CEES) for its support and corresponding funding provided through the State of South Carolina Proviso 11.24 Appropriation.
","authors":[{"affiliations":["South Carolina State University, Orangeburg, SC, US"],"departments":["Biological and Physical Sciences"],"credit":["writing_originalDraft","dataCuration","visualization","methodology"],"email":"jvogle@scsu.edu","firstName":"Janiyah","lastName":"Vogle","submittingAuthor":false,"correspondingAuthor":false,"equalContribution":false,"WBId":null,"orcid":null},{"affiliations":["South Carolina State University, Orangeburg, SC, US"],"departments":["Biological and Physical Sciences"],"credit":["dataCuration"],"email":"krankin1@scsu.edu","firstName":"Kandace","lastName":"Rankin","submittingAuthor":false,"correspondingAuthor":false,"equalContribution":false,"WBId":null,"orcid":null},{"affiliations":["South Carolina State University, Orangeburg, SC, US"],"departments":["Biological and Physical Sciences"],"credit":["conceptualization","formalAnalysis","fundingAcquisition","project","supervision","writing_reviewEditing"],"email":"cthoma17@scsu.edu","firstName":"Courtney","lastName":"Thomas","submittingAuthor":true,"correspondingAuthor":true,"equalContribution":false,"WBId":null,"orcid":"0000-0002-1753-1938"}],"awards":[{"awardId":"K01","funderName":"National Cancer Institute (United States)","awardRecipient":"Dr. Courtney Thomas"}],"conflictsOfInterest":"The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.
","dataTable":{"url":null},"extendedData":[],"funding":"This research publication was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number K01CA180185. The content reflects solely the authors' views and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
","image":{"url":"https://portal.micropublication.org/uploads/fc9d99d61fec69442eb89e2ddb480257.png"},"imageCaption":"(A) The Redistribution Factor (RF), defined as ectoCRT/(ectoCRT + endoCRT) quantifies the fraction of CRT localized to the cell surface, normalizing for the large intracellular pool of calreticulin. Surface GFP-tagged CRT analysis included approximately 23 cells per condition across three independent experiments, while intracellular GFP-tagged CRT analysis included approximately 99 cells per condition across three independent experiments. Each data point represents an individual cell. Fluorescence intensity values were obtained using automated image segmentation under identical imaging conditions.
(B) Comparison of treatment-induced redistribution factor (RF) between endogenous CRT and GFP-CRT workflows. Both approaches demonstrated similar treatment-dependent increases in RF, with parallel trends across TG and TSA conditions. The close concordance between endogenous and GFP-tagged CRT supports that the GFP reporter successfully recapitulates treatment-induced CRT redistribution, validating the GFP-CRT imaging workflow for quantitative analysis. Endogenous surface calreticulin analysis included approximately 30 cells per condition across 3 independent experiments, while endogenous intracellular CRT analysis included approximately 50 cells per condition across three independent experiments.
(C) Quantification of endogenous surface-exposed calreticulin (ectoCRT) under non-permeabilized conditions. Parental LNCaP cells were treated with vehicle (0.1% DMSO), thapsigargin (TG), or trichostatin A (TSA). Cells were incubated with anti-CRT antibody before fixation to detect surface-accessible endogenous CRT. Mean fluorescence intensity (arbitrary units, a.u.) increased following TG and TSA treatment, indicating enhanced surface exposure of endogenous CRT. Statistical comparisons between groups are indicated (P values calculated using unpaired T-Test). Surface and intracellular fluorescence were quantified by automated image segmentation under identical image acquisition and analysis parameters for all treatment groups. Endogenous surface calreticulin analysis included approximately 30 cells per condition across 3 independent experiments.
(D) Quantification of surface-exposed CRT in LNCaP cells expressing GFP-tagged wild-type calreticulin (pMSCV-IRES-GFP/CALR wt). Under identical treatment conditions, TG and TSA increased cell-surface CRT fluorescence compared with vehicle-treated controls. Mean fluorescence intensity (arbitrary units, a.u.) increased following TG and TSA treatment, indicating enhanced surface exposure of GFP-tagged CRT. Statistical comparisons between groups are indicated (P values calculated using unpaired T-Test). Surface GFP-tagged CRT analysis included approximately 23 cells per condition across three independent experiments.
(E) Quantification of endogenous intracellular calreticulin following permeabilization. Cells were permeabilized with 1% Triton X-100 prior to immunostaining to measure intracellular CRT. Mean fluorescence intensity decreased following TG and TSA treatment relative to vehicle-treated cells, consistent with redistribution of CRT from intracellular compartments to the plasma membrane. Statistical comparisons between groups are indicated (P values calculated using unpaired T-Test). Endogenous intracellular CRT analysis included approximately 50 cells per condition across three independent experiments.
(F) Quantification of intracellular GFP-CRT following permeabilization. Intracellular fluorescence decreased after TG and TSA treatment, mirroring the redistribution observed for endogenous CRT. Intracellular GFP-tagged CRT analysis included approximately 99 cells per condition across three independent experiments.
(G) Representative immunofluorescence images of endogenous CRT. The left panels show surface CRT staining, while lower panels show intracellular CRT detected under permeabilized conditions. Images illustrate reduced intracellular CRT and increased surface CRT following TG and TSA treatment. Scale bars = 10 μm.
(H) Comparison of redistribution factor (RF) between an exposure time of 250ms and 1000ms. Both exposures showed strong agreement across a four-fold exposure range indicating the RF is largely independent of exposure settings in this large range, supporting its robustness across acquisition settings.
(I) Schematic illustrating calreticulin redistribution during immunogenic cell death. Under baseline conditions CRT is predominantly retained within the endoplasmic reticulum. ER stress induces CRT translocation to the plasma membrane while a fraction remains intracellular. The redistribution factor (RF) provides quantitative value for the proportion of total detectable CRT localized to the cell surface.
","imageTitle":"Validation and robustness of a quantitative Redistribution Factor for measuring calreticulin cell-surface partitioning
","methods":"Cell Culture and Transfection
LNCaP human prostate adenocarcinoma cells were maintained in RPMI-1640 medium supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum and 1% penicillin–streptomycin under standard culture conditions (37°C, 5% CO₂). For transfection studies, cells were transiently transfected with GFP-tagged calreticulin (pMSCV-IRES-GFP/CALR wt plasmid - a gift from Norio Komatsu) and incubated for 24 hours prior to treatment. GFP fluorescence was used as the primary readout for total CRT expression across all experimental conditions.
Drug Treatments
Following drug administration, cells were incubated for 4 hours for endogenous CRT experiments or 24 hours for transfected (GFP-CRT) experiments with:
Vehicle control (0.1% DMSO)
Thapsigargin (TG; 100 nM)
Trichostatin A (TSA; 50 nM)
These conditions were selected to evaluate CRT redistribution under pharmacologic perturbation.
Immunofluorescence Staining
Surface CRT (ectoCRT) Staining:
Surface-accessible CRT was detected under non-permeabilized conditions. Cells were incubated with either anti-CRT (for endogenous CRT experiments) or anti-GFP (for transfection experiments) primary antibody prior to fixation to restrict antibody access to extracellular epitopes. Following primary antibody incubation, cells were fixed with 2% paraformaldehyde (PFA) and subsequently incubated with fluorophore-conjugated secondary antibodies for 1 hour at room temperature. Nuclei were stained with DAPI.
Membrane integrity was validated using ERp57 as an intracellular control protein, which showed no detectable signal under non-permeabilized conditions, confirming that intracellular epitopes remained inaccessible.
Intracellular CRT Staining:
For intracellular CRT detection, cells were fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde (PFA), washed with 0.01 M phosphate-buffered saline (PBS), and permeabilized using 1% Triton X-100 in PBS. Cells were then blocked in normal donkey serum and incubated with either anti-CRT or anti-GFP primary antibody overnight at 4°C. Following washing, cells were incubated with fluorophore-conjugated secondary antibodies and counterstained with DAPI.
Image Acquisition
Fluorescence images were acquired using identical imaging settings across all treatment conditions to ensure comparability. Exposure time was fixed at 1 ms for all channels and samples to minimize variability in fluorescence intensity measurements.
Image Analysis and Quantification
Image analysis was performed using CellProfiler on 16 bit images with custom pipelines designed for single-cell segmentation and fluorescence quantification.
Intracellular CRT was quantified using expanded DAPI-based nuclear masks to capture cytoplasmic signal.
Surface CRT was quantified using CRT-based segmentation to detect membrane-associated fluorescence.
Background fluorescence was quantified from cell-free regions outside segmented cell regions of interest (ROIs) within each image. The average background fluorescence intensity was subtracted from the mean fluorescence intensity of each ROI to generate corrected CRT intensity measurements. Area-based and intensity-based filtering were then applied to exclude debris and incorrectly segmented objects before calculation of fluorescence intensity and redistribution factor (RF) values.
For endogenous experiments, approximately 30 cells were analyzed for surface CRT and 50 cells for intracellular CRT per condition. For GFP-transfected experiments, approximately 23 cells were analyzed for surface CRT and 99 cells for intracellular CRT per condition. All analyses were performed across three independent experiments.
Experimental conditions were validated in parallel using both endogenous staining (anti-CRT) and transfected reporters (anti-GFP) to confirm consistency.
Use of a single GFP-CRT reporter for transfection experiments across all conditions minimized inter-channel variability and enabled direct comparison of CRT redistribution between treatments.
Redistribution Factor Calculation
Background-subtracted mean fluorescence intensity values were used to calculate a redistribution factor (RF) for each cell, defined as:
RF= ectoCRT /ectoCRT + endoCRT
ectoCRT = surface CRT and endoCRT = intracellular CRT
This metric represents the relative partitioning of CRT between surface-accessible and intracellular compartments.
Statistical Analysis
Fluorescence intensity measurements were obtained at the single-cell level for both intracellular and surface conditions. Statistical comparisons between treatment groups were performed using unpaired two-tailed Student’s t-tests.
Comparisons were conducted between vehicle (0.1% DMSO) and treatment conditions (thapsigargin [TG] or trichostatin A [TSA]) for:
Surface CRT fluorescence intensity
Intracellular CRT fluorescence intensity
Redistribution factor (RF)
Sample sizes varied by experiment: for endogenous experiments, approximately 30 cells were analyzed for surface CRT and 50 cells for intracellular CRT per condition. For GFP-transfected experiments, approximately 23 cells were analyzed for surface CRT and 99 cells for intracellular CRT per condition. All analyses were conducted across three independent experiments.
Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation. Statistical significance values (p) and effect sizes (Cohen’s d) are reported in the figure.
","reagents":"Reagent | Source | Catalog Number |
|---|---|---|
pMSCV-IRES-GFP/CALR wt plasmid | Addgene | plasmid # 214699 |
GFP antibody | Thermo Fisher Scientific | PIMA515256 |
CRT antibody | Cell Signaling Technology | 12238 |
ERp57 antibody | Proteintech | 15967-1-AP |
Thapsigargin | Enzo Life Sciences | NC9006970 |
Trichostatin A | Thermo Fisher Scientific | 502707197 |
Triton X-100 | Millipore Sigma | 648466 |
Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) | Thermo Scientific | D12345 |
Paraformaldehyde | Thermo Scientific | 043368.9L |
Calreticulin (CRT) is a 46 kDa endoplasmic reticulum (ER)–resident chaperone protein that plays a critical role in calcium homeostasis and glycoprotein folding (Michalak et al., 1999). In addition to these canonical ER functions, CRT can become detectable at the plasma membrane under conditions of cellular stress, where it functions as a damage-associated molecular pattern (DAMP) involved in immune recognition and clearance of stressed or damaged cells (Gardai et al., 2005; Obeid et al., 2007). Surface-exposed CRT has been described in several malignancies, including bladder, lung, breast, and ovarian cancers, where it has been associated with altered cellular signaling and immune engagement (Kageyama et al., 2004; Liu et al., 2012; Song et al., 2012). In prostate cancer, however, reports of CRT expression and localization have been inconsistent, with both increased and decreased expression described depending on disease context (Alur et al., 2009). These discrepancies highlight the need for reproducible and quantitative approaches to evaluate CRT localization in prostate cancer models.
CRT contains three structural domains (N, P, and C), including a C-terminal Lys-Asp-Glu-Leu (KDEL) sequence that mediates ER retention through receptor-dependent retrieval pathways (Cabrera et al., 2003; Michalak et al., 1999). Despite this retention mechanism, CRT has been observed at the cell surface under conditions of cellular stress, suggesting that redistribution from the ER can occur. The processes governing CRT redistribution remain incompletely defined and may involve multiple cellular pathways, including ER stress responses and post-translational modifications. Proteomic studies have demonstrated that ER-resident proteins can undergo lysine acetylation (Pehar et al., 2012), and altered acetylation profiles have been observed in prostate cancer cells (Pathak et al., 2015). These findings provide biological context for evaluating CRT localization under pharmacologic conditions that influence cellular stress and acetylation state, although the present study does not directly assess these mechanisms.
Quantification of surface-exposed CRT (ectoCRT) in prostate cancer models presents several technical challenges. LNCaP cells exhibit relatively low baseline surface CRT expression, making detection sensitive to staining conditions and imaging parameters. Variability in fluorescence intensity measurements can arise from differences in antibody accessibility, imaging exposure, and segmentation approaches. Furthermore, many studies of protein trafficking rely on live-cell imaging or time-lapse microscopy, which may not be accessible in all research environments. These limitations underscore the need for a standardized, reproducible fixed-cell imaging workflow that enables reliable distinction between intracellular and surface-accessible CRT pools.
In this study, we optimized a non-permeabilized immunofluorescence protocol to detect surface CRT in LNCaP cells using total anti-CRT antibody staining, with complementary experiments performed in cells transfected with wild-type CRT from the pMSCV-IRES-GFP/CALR wt plasmid. Surface staining was performed by incubating cells with primary antibody prior to fixation, restricting antibody access to extracellular epitopes. Intracellular CRT detection required permeabilization using 1% Triton X-100 in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). Membrane integrity under non-permeabilized conditions was validated using ERp57 as an intracellular control protein, which showed no detectable signal in the absence of permeabilization, confirming that intracellular epitopes remained inaccessible during surface staining.
Cells were treated with thapsigargin (TG), a well-established ER stress inducer known to influence CRT cell surface translocation (Jeffery et al., 2011), as a positive control condition. Comparative treatment with trichostatin A (TSA), a potent histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor (Frønsdal et al., 2004), was used to evaluate increased acetylation conditions on CRT trafficking. Given that altered acetylation profiles are observed in prostate cancer (Watson, et al., 2010), we utilized TSA to test whether increased global acetylation influences CRT surface mobilization, serving as a secondary stress-response model alongside TG. 0.1% DMSO was included as a vehicle control. TG and TSA concentrations were determined by preliminary Methyl Thiazolyl Tetrazolium (MTT) optimization assays and supporting literature on ER stress induction and HDAC inhibition in prostate cancer models. Conditions were chosen that produced detectable CRT redistribution while not compromising cell integrity. Under TG treatment conditions, a visible redistribution of CRT signal toward the cell periphery was observed relative to vehicle-treated controls. While intracellular CRT fluorescence intensity decreased and surface-associated signal increased, direct comparison of these measures revealed weak correlation across treatment conditions. These findings indicate that absolute fluorescence intensity measurements alone may not fully capture the extent of CRT redistribution.
To address this limitation, we implemented a redistribution factor (RF) defined as ectoCRT/(ectoCRT + endoCRT), which quantifies the relative partitioning of CRT between intracellular and surface compartments within individual cells. By normalizing surface-associated signal to total detectable CRT, RF provides a metric that is less influenced by global changes in protein expression or imaging variability. This approach is particularly useful in systems with low baseline surface expression, where small changes in fluorescence intensity may be difficult to interpret using absolute measurements alone. Across independent experiments and standardized imaging conditions, RF values demonstrated reproducibility and sensitivity to treatment-dependent changes in CRT localization.
Importantly, the present study does not directly evaluate the molecular mechanisms underlying CRT redistribution but instead establishes a reproducible imaging and quantification framework for assessing CRT partitioning in prostate cancer cells. This fixed-cell approach eliminates the requirement for live-cell imaging systems and enables broader application in laboratories equipped with standard fluorescence microscopy platforms.
In summary, we describe a standardized non-permeabilized immunofluorescence workflow and a redistribution-based quantification strategy for evaluating ER-to-surface CRT mobilization in LNCaP prostate cancer cells. This method provides a practical and reproducible approach for measuring CRT redistribution and may facilitate future studies investigating protein trafficking, cellular stress responses, and DAMP-associated signaling in cancer models.
","references":[{"reference":"Alur M, Nguyen MM, Eggener SE, Jiang F, Dadras SS, Stern J, et al., Wang. 2009. Suppressive Roles of Calreticulin in Prostate Cancer Growth and Metastasis. The American Journal of Pathology 175: 882-890.
","pubmedId":"","doi":" 10.2353/ajpath.2009.080417"},{"reference":"Cabrera M, Muñiz M, Hidalgo J, Vega L, Martín MaE, Velasco A. 2003. The Retrieval Function of the KDEL Receptor Requires PKA Phosphorylation of Its C-Terminus. Molecular Biology of the Cell 14: 4114-4125.
","pubmedId":"","doi":" 10.1091/mbc.e03-04-0194"},{"reference":"Csete M, Szekeres G, Szenes A, Szalai A, Szabó G. 2015. Plasmonic structure integrated single-photon detector configurations to improve absorptance and polarization contrast. Sensors (Basel) 15(2): 3513-39.
","pubmedId":"25654724","doi":""},{"reference":"Frønsdal K, Saatcioglu F. 2004. Histone deacetylase inhibitors differentially mediate apoptosis in prostate cancer cells. The Prostate 62: 299-306.
","pubmedId":"","doi":"10.1002/pros.20140"},{"reference":"Gardai SJ, McPhillips KA, Frasch SC, Janssen WJ, Starefeldt A, Murphy-Ullrich JE, et al., Henson. 2005. Cell-Surface Calreticulin Initiates Clearance of Viable or Apoptotic Cells through trans-Activation of LRP on the Phagocyte. Cell 123: 321-334.
","pubmedId":"","doi":" 10.1016/j.cell.2005.08.032"},{"reference":"Jeffery E, Peters LR, Raghavan M. 2011. The Polypeptide Binding Conformation of Calreticulin Facilitates Its Cell-surface Expression under Conditions of Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress. Journal of Biological Chemistry 286: 2402-2415.
","pubmedId":"","doi":"10.1074/jbc.M110.180877"},{"reference":"Kageyama S, Isono T, Iwaki H, Wakabayashi Y, Okada Y, Kontani K, et al., Yoshiki. 2004. Identification by Proteomic Analysis of Calreticulin as a Marker for Bladder Cancer and Evaluation of the Diagnostic Accuracy of Its Detection in Urine. Clinical Chemistry 50: 857-866.
","pubmedId":"","doi":"10.1373/clinchem.2003.027425"},{"reference":"Liu R, Gong J, Chen J, Li Q, Song C, Zhang J, et al., Jin. 2011. Calreticulin as a potential diagnostic biomarker for lung cancer. Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy 61: 855-864.
","pubmedId":"","doi":"10.1007/s00262-011-1146-8"},{"reference":"Masubuchi N, Araki M, Yang Y, Hayashi E, Imai M, Edahiro Y, et al., Komatsu N. 2020. Mutant calreticulin interacts with MPL in the secretion pathway for activation on the cell surface. Leukemia 34(2): 499-509.
","pubmedId":"31462733","doi":""},{"reference":"Michalak M, Corbett EF, Mesaeli N, Nakamura K, Opas M. 1999. Calreticulin: one protein, one gene, many functions. Biochem J 344 Pt 2(Pt 2): 281-92.
","pubmedId":"10567207","doi":""},{"reference":"Obeid M, Tesniere A, Ghiringhelli F, Fimia GM, Apetoh L, Perfettini JL, et al., Kroemer G. 2007. Calreticulin exposure dictates the immunogenicity of cancer cell death. Nat Med 13(1): 54-61.
","pubmedId":"17187072","doi":""},{"reference":"Panaretakis T, Kepp O, Brockmeier U, Tesniere A, Bjorklund AC, Chapman DC, et al., Kroemer G. 2009. Mechanisms of pre-apoptotic calreticulin exposure in immunogenic cell death. EMBO J 28(5): 578-90.
","pubmedId":"19165151","doi":""},{"reference":"Pathak R, Philizaire M, Mujtaba S. 2015. Dichotomy in the Epigenetic Mark Lysine Acetylation is Critical for the Proliferation of Prostate Cancer Cells. Cancers 7: 1622-1642.
","pubmedId":"","doi":"10.3390/cancers7030854"},{"reference":"Pehar M, Lehnus M, Karst A, Puglielli L. 2012. Proteomic Assessment Shows That Many Endoplasmic Reticulum (ER)-resident Proteins Are Targeted by Nϵ-Lysine Acetylation in the Lumen of the Organelle and Predicts Broad Biological Impact. Journal of Biological Chemistry 287: 22436-22440.
","pubmedId":"","doi":"10.1074/jbc.C112.362871"},{"reference":"Song MN, Moon PG, Lee JE, Na M, Kang W, Chae YS, et al., Baek. 2012. Proteomic analysis of breast cancer tissues to identify biomarker candidates by gel-assisted digestion and label-free quantification methods using LC-MS/MS. Archives of Pharmacal Research 35: 1839-1847.
","pubmedId":"","doi":"10.1007/s12272-012-1018-6"},{"reference":"Watson JA, McKenna DJ, Maxwell P, Diamond J, Arthur K, McKelvey‐Martin VJ, Hamilton PW. 2010. Hyperacetylation in prostate cancer induces cell cycle aberrations, chromatin reorganization and altered gene expression profiles. Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine 14: 1668-1682.
","pubmedId":"","doi":"10.1111/j.1582-4934.2009.00835.x"}],"title":"Quantification of calreticulin redistribution in LNCaP prostate cancer cells using a fixed-cell imaging workflow","reviews":[],"curatorReviews":[]}]}},"species":{"species":[{"value":"acer saccharum","label":"Acer saccharum","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"TreeGenes","modLink":"https://treegenesdb.org","linkVariable":""},{"value":"achillea millefolium","label":"Achillea millefolium","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"acinetobacter baylyi","label":"Acinetobacter baylyi","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"actinobacteria bacterium","label":"Actinobacteria bacterium","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"adelges tsugae","label":"Adelges tsugae","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"adenocaulon chilense","label":"Adenocaulon chilense","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"aedes japonicus","label":"Aedes japonicus","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"aegorhinus vitulus","label":"Aegorhinus vitulus","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"aerococcus","label":"Aerococcus","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"alaimidae","label":"Alaimidae","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"allobates femoralis","label":"Allobates femoralis","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"alnus glutinosa","label":"Alnus glutinosa","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"alosa aestivalis","label":"Alosa aestivalis","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"alosa pseudoharengus","label":"Alosa pseudoharengus","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"alternaria alternata","label":"Alternaria alternata","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"amynthas agrestis","label":"Amynthas Agrestis","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"ancylostoma caninum","label":"Ancylostoma caninum","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"ancylostoma ceylanicum","label":"Ancylostoma ceylanicum","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"anemone multifida","label":"Anemone multifida","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"anguilla rostrata","label":"Anguilla rostrata","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"anisakis simplex","label":"Anisakis simplex","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"anomala albopilosa","label":"Anomala albopilosa","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"anthomyiidae sp","label":"Anthomyiidae sp","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"anthomyiidae sp","label":"Anthomyiidae sp","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"arabidopsis","label":"Arabidopsis","imageSrc":"arabidopsis.png","imageAlt":"Arabidopsis graphic by Zoe Zorn CC BY 4.0","mod":"TAIR","modLink":"https://arabidopsis.org","linkVariable":""},{"value":"architeuthis dux","label":"Architeuthis dux","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"arion vulgaris","label":"Arion vulgaris","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"armeria","label":"Armeria","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"artemia","label":"Artemia","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"arthrobacter sp.","label":"Arthrobacter sp.","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"ascaridia","label":"Ascaridia","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"ascaridia galli","label":"Ascaridia galli","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"asparagopsis taxiformis","label":"Asparagopsis taxiformis","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"astatotilapia burtoni","label":"Astatotilapia burtoni","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"avena sativa","label":"Avena sativa","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"aves","label":"Aves","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"bacillus","label":"Bacillus (firmicutes)","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"bacillus cereus","label":"Bacillus cereus","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"bacillus mycoides","label":"Bacillus mycoides","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"bacillus subtilis","label":"Bacillus subtilis","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"bacillus thuringiensis","label":"Bacillus thuringiensis","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"bacillus toyonensis","label":"Bacillus toyonensis","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"bacillus wiedmannii","label":"Bacillus wiedmannii","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"bacteria","label":"Bacteria","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"bacteriophage","label":"Bacteriophage","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"bactrocera","label":"Bactrocera sp.","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"batrachospermum gelatinosum","label":"Batrachospermum gelatinosum","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"betula lenta","label":"Betula lenta","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"betula nigra","label":"Betula nigra","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"bombus dahlbohmii","label":"Bombus dahlbohmii","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"bombus terrestris","label":"Bombus terrestris","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"bombyx mori","label":"Bombyx mori","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"bos taurus","label":"Bos Taurus","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"brachygobius doriae","label":"Brachygobius doriae","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"brassica oleracea","label":"Brassica oleracea","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"brassica rapa","label":"Brassica rapa","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"brugia malayi","label":"Brugia malayi","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"WormBase","modLink":"www.wormbase.org","linkVariable":""},{"value":"burkholderia thailandensis","label":"Burkholderia thailandensis","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"buttiauxella","label":"Buttiauxella","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"caenorhabditis brenneri","label":"Caenorhabditis brenneri","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"WormBase","modLink":"www.wormbase.org","linkVariable":""},{"value":"caenorhabditis briggsae","label":"Caenorhabditis briggsae","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"WormBase","modLink":"www.wormbase.org","linkVariable":""},{"value":"c. elegans","label":"Caenorhabditis elegans","imageSrc":"c-elegans.jpg","imageAlt":"C. elegans graphic by Zoe Zorn CC BY 4.0","mod":"WormBase","modLink":"https://wormbase.org","linkVariable":""},{"value":"caenorhabditis inopinata","label":"Caenorhabditis inopinata","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"WormBase","modLink":"www.wormbase.org","linkVariable":""},{"value":"caenorhabditis japonica","label":"Caenorhabditis japonica","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"WormBase","modLink":"www.wormbase.org","linkVariable":""},{"value":"caenorhabditis nigoni","label":"Caenorhabditis nigoni","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"caenorhabditis remanei","label":"Caenorhabditis remanei","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"WormBase","modLink":"www.wormbase.org","linkVariable":""},{"value":"caenorhabditis tropicalis","label":"Caenorhabditis tropicalis","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"calidifontibacillus","label":"Calidifontibacillus","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"calidifontibacillus erzuremensis","label":"Calidifontibacillus erzuremensis","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"calliphora sp","label":"Calliphora sp","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"caltha sagittata","label":"Caltha sagittata","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"cambarus latimanus","label":"Cambarus latimanus","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"candida albicans","label":"Candida albicans","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"canis familiaris","label":"Canis familiaris","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"cannabis sativa","label":"Cannabis sativa","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"caretta caretta","label":"Caretta caretta","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"cassiopea xamachana","label":"Cassiopea xamachana","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"caulobacter vibrioides","label":"Caulobacter vibrioides","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"cephalopods","label":"Cephalopoda","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"cerastium arvense","label":"Cerastium arvense","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"ceriodaphnia","label":"Ceriodaphnia","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"ceroglossus suturalis","label":"Ceroglossus suturalis","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"chaetoceros","label":"Chaetoceros","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"chamaecrista fasciculata","label":"Chamaecrista fasciculata","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"chilicola chalcidiformis","label":"Chilicola chalcidiformis","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"chitinimonas","label":"Chitinimonas","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"chlamydomonas reinhardtii","label":"Chlamydomonas reinhardtii","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"chromobacterium","label":"Chromobacterium","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"chrysemys picta","label":"Chrysemys picta","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"chrysoperla rufilabris","label":"Chrysoperla rufilabris","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"citrus","label":"Citrus","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"clavibacter sp.","label":"Clavibacter sp.","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"colinus virginianus","label":"Colinus virginianus","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"crassostrea virginica","label":"Crassostrea virginica","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"crithidia fasciculata","label":"Crithidia fasciculata","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"cutibacterium acnes","label":"Cutibacterium acnes","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"cyanobacteria","label":"Cyanobacteria","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"daphnia","label":"Daphnia","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"daphnia pulex","label":"Daphnia pulex","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"dermacoccus nishinomiyaensis","label":"Dermacoccus nishinomiyaensis","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"diabrotica virgifera","label":"Diabrotica virgifera","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"diabrotica virgifera virgifera virus 1","label":"Diabrotica virgifera virgifera virus 1","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"d. discoideum","label":"Dictyostelium discoideum","imageSrc":"dicty.png","imageAlt":"D. discoideum","mod":"dictyBase","modLink":"http://dictybase.org","linkVariable":""},{"value":"diptera","label":"Diptera","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"dotocryptus bellicosus","label":"Dotocryptus bellicosus","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"drechmeria coniospora","label":"Drechmeria coniospora","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"drosophila","label":"Drosophila","imageSrc":"drosophila.png","imageAlt":"Drosophila graphic by Zoe Zorn CC BY 4.0","mod":"FlyBase","modLink":"https://flybase.org/doi/","linkVariable":"doi"},{"value":"dryopteris campyloptera","label":"Dryopteris campyloptera","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"dryopteris expansa","label":"Dryopteris expansa","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"dryopteris intermedia","label":"Dryopteris intermedia","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"dugesia dorotocephala","label":"Dugesia dorotocephala","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"elasmobranchii","label":"Elasmobranchii","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"embryophyta","label":"Embryophyta","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"enoploteuthis chunii","label":"Enoploteuthis chunii","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"enterobacter aerogenes","label":"Enterobacter aerogenes","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"enterococcus raffinosus","label":"Enterococcus raffinosus","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"epichloë coenophiala","label":"Epichloë coenophiala","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"equus caballus","label":"Equus caballus","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"erigeron sp","label":"Erigeron sp","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"eristalis","label":"Eristalis","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"eruca vesicaria","label":"Eruca vesicaria","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"erwinia carotovora","label":"Erwinia carotovora","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"erythronium americanum","label":"Erythronium americanum","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"escherichia coli","label":"Escherichia coli","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"eukaryota","label":"Eukaryotes","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"felis catus","label":"Felis catus","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"francisella novicida","label":"Francisella novicida","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"francisella tularensis","label":"Francisella tularensis","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"fraxinus americana","label":"Fraxinus americana","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"fucus distichus","label":"Fucus distichus","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"fungi","label":"Fungi","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"gasteropelecus sp.","label":"Gasteropelecus sp.","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"geranium sp","label":"Geranium sp","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"girardia","label":"Girardia","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"glaucomys volans","label":"Glaucomys volans","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"glycine max","label":"Glycine max","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"Soybase","modLink":"https://soybase.org","linkVariable":""},{"value":"glyptemys insculpta","label":"Glyptemys insculpta","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"gossypium hirsutum","label":"Gossypium hirsutum","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"CottonGen","modLink":"https://www.cottongen.org/","linkVariable":""},{"value":"gromphadorhina portentosa","label":"Gromphadorhina portentosa","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"gryllodes sigillatus","label":"Gryllodes sigillatus","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"haliotis rufescens","label":"Haliotis rufescens","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"hepacivirus hominis","label":"Hepatitis C Virus","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"herpes simplex virus type 1","label":"Herpes simplex virus type 1","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"human","label":"Human","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"human coronavirus oc43","label":"Human coronavirus OC43","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"hydra vulgaris","label":"Hydra vulgaris","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"hydropsyche sp","label":"Hydropsyche sp","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"hymenoptera","label":"Hymenoptera","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"Hymenoptera Genome Database","modLink":"https://hymenoptera.elsiklab.missouri.edu/","linkVariable":""},{"value":"hypochaeris radicata","label":"Hypochaeris radicata","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"hypodynerus vespiformis","label":"Hypodynerus vespiformis","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"iflaviridae","label":"Iflaviridae","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"iflavuris","label":"Iflavirus","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"ipomoea hederacea","label":"Ipomoea hederacea","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"ischnomera","label":"Ischnomera","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"ischnomera ruficollis","label":"Ischnomera ruficollis","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"julidochromis marlieri","label":"Julidochromis marlieri","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"juniperus virginiana","label":"Juniperus virginiana","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"kluyveromyces marxianus","label":"Kluyveromyces marxianus","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"l. casei","label":"L. casei","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"lacticaseibacillus casei","label":"Lacticaseibacillus casei","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"lactobacillus","label":"Lactobacillus","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"larentiinae sp","label":"Larentiinae sp","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"laurus nobilis","label":"Laurus nobilis","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"lepidoptera","label":"Lepidoptera","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"leucanthemum vulgare","label":"Leucanthemum vulgare","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"ligilactobacillus","label":"Ligilactobacillus","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"ligilactobacillus salivarius","label":"Ligilactobacillus salivarius","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"limosilactobacillus","label":"Limosilactobacillus","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"linepithema humile","label":"Linepithema humile","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"liometopum occidentale","label":"Liometopum occidentale","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"lolium arundinaceum","label":"Lolium arundinaceum","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"lontra longicaudis","label":"Lontra longicaudis","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"lumbriculus variegatus","label":"Lumbriculus variegatus","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"lumbricus terrestris","label":"Lumbricus terrestris","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"lupinus polyphyllus","label":"Lupinus polyphyllus","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"lycorma delicatula","label":"Lycorma delicatula","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"lynx rufus","label":"Lynx rufus","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"magnaporthe oryzae","label":"Magnaporthe oryzae","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"mammalia","label":"Mammalia","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"manihot esculenta","label":"Manihot esculenta","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"medicago lupulina","label":"Medicago lupulina","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"meloidogyne","label":"Meloidogyne","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"mimus polyglottos","label":"Mimus polyglottos","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"bryophyta","label":"Mosses","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"mouse","label":"Mouse","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"MGI","modLink":"https://informatics.jax.org","linkVariable":""},{"value":"m. minutoides","label":"Mus minutoides","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"mycobacterium smegmatis","label":"Mycobacterium smegmatis","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"nakaseomyces glabratus","label":"Nakaseomyces glabratus","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"nauphoeta cinerea","label":"Nauphoeta cinerea","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"neurospora","label":"Neurospora","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"n. benthamiana","label":"Nicotiana benthamiana","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"Solgenomics Network","modLink":"https://solgenomics.net/organism/Nicotiana_benthamiana/genome","linkVariable":""},{"value":"nicotiana tabacum","label":"Nicotiana tabacum","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"noctuidae","label":"Noctuidae","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"noctuidae sp","label":"Noctuidae sp","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"nothobranchius furzeri","label":"Nothobranchius furzeri","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"onchocerca volvulus","label":"Onchocerca volvulus","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"WormBase","modLink":"www.wormbase.org","linkVariable":""},{"value":"orconectes virilis","label":"Orconectes virilis","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"ormia ochracea","label":"Ormia ochracea","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"o. sativa","label":"Oryza sativa","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"Gramene","modLink":"https://www.gramene.org/","linkVariable":""},{"value":"other","label":"Other","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":null,"modLink":null,"linkVariable":null},{"value":"oxalis enneaphylla","label":"Oxalis enneaphylla","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"paenarthrobacter nicotinovorans","label":"Paenarthrobacter nicotinovorans","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"paenarthrobacter nicotinovorans","label":"Paenarthrobacter nicotinovorans","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"pantoea","label":"Pantoea","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"pantoea agglomerans","label":"Pantoea agglomerans","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"papaver sp","label":"Papaver sp","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"paramecium bursaria","label":"Paramecium bursaria","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"partitiviridae","label":"Partitiviridae","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"pelodiscus sinensis","label":"Pelodiscus sinensis","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"perezia recurvata","label":"Perezia recurvata","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"petromyzon marinus","label":"Petromyzon marinus","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"photinus pyralis","label":"Photinus pyralis","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"photinus pyralis associated partiti-like virus","label":"Photinus pyralis associated partiti-like virus","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"photinus pyralis iflavirus 1","label":"Photinus pyralis iflavirus 1","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"physcomitrium patens","label":"Physcomitrium patens","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"pinus strobus","label":"Pinus strobus","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"pinus taeda","label":"Pinus taeda","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"platycheirus","label":"Platycheirus","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"plectus sambesii","label":"Plectus sambesii","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"pogonomyrmex occidentalis","label":"Pogonomyrmex occidentalis","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"poncirus trifoliata","label":"Poncirus trifoliata","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"populus deltoides","label":"Populus deltoides","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"potato virus y","label":"Potato virus Y","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"primula magellanica","label":"Primula magellanica","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"pristionchus pacificus","label":"Pristionchus pacificus","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"WormBase","modLink":"www.wormbase.org","linkVariable":""},{"value":"prunus persica","label":"Prunus persica","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"Genome Database for Rosaceae","modLink":"https://www.rosaceae.org/","linkVariable":""},{"value":"psalmopoeus iriminia","label":"Psalmopoeus iriminia","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"pseudanabaena sp.","label":"Pseudanabaena sp.","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"pseudomonas","label":"Pseudomonas","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"pseudomonas aeruginosa","label":"Pseudomonas aeruginosa","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"pseudomonas glycinae","label":"Pseudomonas glycinae","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"pseudomonas putida","label":"Pseudomonas putida","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"pseudomonas syringae","label":"Pseudomonas syringae","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"pterophyllum scalare","label":"Pterophyllum scalare","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"python regius","label":"Python regius","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"quercus macrocarpa","label":"Quercus macrocarpa","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"ralstonia solanacearum","label":"Ralstonia solanacearum","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"ranitomeya imitator","label":"Ranitomeya imitator","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"ranunculus peduncularis","label":"Ranunculus peduncularis","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"rat","label":"Rat","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"RGD","modLink":"https://rgd.mcw.edu","linkVariable":""},{"value":"rheinheimera","label":"Rheinheimera","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"ribes rubrum","label":"Ribes rubrum","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"sars-cov-2","label":"SARS-CoV-2","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"s. cerevisiae","label":"Saccharomyces cerevisiae","imageSrc":"yeast.png","imageAlt":"Yeast graphic by Zoe Zorn CC BY 4.0","mod":"SGD","modLink":"https://yeastgenome.org","linkVariable":""},{"value":"saccharomyces paradoxus","label":"Saccharomyces paradoxus ","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"s. uvarum","label":"Saccharomyces uvarum","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"schistosoma","label":"Schistosoma","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"schizosaccharomyces japonicus","label":"Schizosaccharomyces japonicus","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"s. pombe","label":"Schizosaccharomyces pombe","imageSrc":"pombe.png","imageAlt":"Pombe graphic by Zoe Zorn © Caltech","mod":"PomBase","modLink":"https://www.pombase.org/reference/PMID:","linkVariable":"pmId"},{"value":"schmidtea mediterranea","label":"Schmidtea mediterranea","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"senecio sp","label":"Senecio sp","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"simocephalus","label":"Simocephalus","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"siraitia grosvenorii","label":"Siraitia grosvenorii","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"solanum lycopersicum","label":"Solanum lycopersicum","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"Solgenomics Network","modLink":"https://solgenomics.net/organism/1/view/","linkVariable":""},{"value":"sorghum","label":"Sorghum","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"SorghumBase","modLink":"https://www.sorghumbase.org","linkVariable":""},{"value":"spiroplasma eriocheiris","label":"Spiroplasma eriocheiris","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"staphylococcus aureus","label":"Staphylococcus aureus","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"staphylococcus epidermidis","label":"Staphylococcus epidermidis","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"steinernema carpocapsae","label":"Steinernema carpocapsae","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"WormBase","modLink":"https://wormbase.org","linkVariable":""},{"value":"steinernema hermaphroditum","label":"Steinernema hermaphroditum","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"stenotrophomonas geniculata","label":"Stenotrophomonas geniculata","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"stewartia floidana","label":"Stewartia floridana","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"streptococcus gordonii ","label":"Streptococcus gordonii ","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"streptococcus mutans","label":"Streptococcus mutans","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":" streptococcus pneumoniae","label":"Streptococcus pneumoniae","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"s. purpuratus","label":"Strongylocentrotus purpuratus","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"Echinobase","modLink":"https://www.echinobase.org","linkVariable":""},{"value":"strongyloides ratti","label":"Strongyloides ratti","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"WormBase","modLink":"www.wormbase.org","linkVariable":""},{"value":"sulfolobus","label":"Sulfolobus","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"symphoricarpos albus","label":"Symphoricarpos albus","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"syncirsodes","label":"Syncirsodes","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"synechococcus elongatus","label":"Synechococcus elongatus","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"syrphidae","label":"Syrphidae","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"tarantobelus jeffdanielsi","label":"Tarantobelus jeffdanielsi","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"WormBase","modLink":"www.wormbase.org","linkVariable":""},{"value":"taraxacum officinale","label":"Taraxacum officinale","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"tatochila theodice","label":"Tatochila theodice","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"tetrahymena","label":"Tetrahymena","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"tetramorium immigrans","label":"Tetramorium immigrans","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"tomato brown rugose fruit virus","label":"ToBRFV","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"trachemys scripta","label":"Trachemys scripta","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"tribolium castaneum","label":"Tribolium castaneum","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"trichoptera","label":"Trichoptera","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"trichuris muris","label":"Trichuris muris","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"WormBase","modLink":"www.wormbase.org","linkVariable":""},{"value":"trifolium repens","label":"Trifolium repens","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"trypoxylus dichotomus","label":"Trypoxylus dichotomus","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"tsuga canadensis","label":"Tsuga canadensis","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"ulva expansa","label":"Ulva expansa","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"universal","label":"Universal","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":null,"modLink":null,"linkVariable":null},{"value":"vargula hilgendorfii","label":"Vargula hilgendorfii","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"vespula vulgaris","label":"Vespula vulgaris","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"virus","label":"Virus","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"watasenia scintillans","label":"Watasenia scintillans","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"wolbachia pipientis","label":"Wolbachia pipientis","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"xenopus","label":"Xenopus","imageSrc":"xenopus.png","imageAlt":"Xenopus graphic by Zoe Zorn CC BY 4.0","mod":"XenBase","modLink":"https://xenbase.org","linkVariable":""},{"value":"xenorhabdus griffiniae","label":"Xenorhabdus griffiniae","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"yramea cytheris","label":"Yramea cytheris","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"zaprionus indianus","label":"Zaprionus indianus","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"","modLink":"","linkVariable":""},{"value":"zea mays","label":"Zea mays","imageSrc":"","imageAlt":"","mod":"MaizeGDB","modLink":"https://www.maizegdb.org","linkVariable":""},{"value":"zebrafish","label":"Zebrafish","imageSrc":"zebrafish.png","imageAlt":"Zebrafish graphic by Zoe Zorn CC BY 4.0","mod":"ZFIN","modLink":"https://zfin.org","linkVariable":""}]}},"pageContext":{"id":"d3751582-465e-41f3-8787-7634864c0352","citedBy":[],"parsedCsv":{"csvHeader":[],"csvData":[]}}}, "staticQueryHashes": ["2114697108"]}