Skip to main content
F1000Research logoLink to F1000Research
. 2017 Jul 3;6:577. Originally published 2017 Apr 26. [Version 2] doi: 10.12688/f1000research.11365.2

Validation of commercial ERK antibodies against the ERK orthologue of the scleractinian coral Stylophora pistillata

Lucile Courtial 1,2,3,#, Vincent Picco 4,a,#, Gilles Pagès 4,5, Christine Ferrier-Pagès 1,b
PMCID: PMC5482343  PMID: 28690832

Version Changes

Revised. Amendments from Version 1

In order to comply with the referees' requests, we added an experiment consisting of inducing ERK activity by exposing corals to UV radiation, thermal stress or a combination of both. We added new figures as well as their corresponding text in the Methods and the Results sections. Specifically, in order to answer one of the referees' concerns, we have slightly modified Figure 2 and Supplementary Figure S1 by adding the amido black total protein stainings of the western blot membranes as a loading control. We have also added a new Figure 3 and the corresponding Supplementary Figure S2 (full length images of the western blot).

Abstract

The extracellular signal-regulated protein kinase (ERK) signalling pathway controls key cellular processes, such as cell cycle regulation, cell fate determination and the response to external stressors. Although ERK functions are well studied in a variety of living organisms ranging from yeast to mammals, its functions in corals are still poorly known. The present work aims to give practical tools to study the expression level of ERK protein and the activity of the ERK signalling pathway in corals. The antibody characterisation experiment was performed five times and identical results were obtained. The present study validated the immune-reactivity of commercially available antibodies directed against ERK and its phosphorylated/activated forms on protein extracts of the reef-building coral Stylophora pistillata.

Keywords: Antibody validation, ERK, Corals, MAPK

Introduction

Mitogen activated protein kinases (MAPKs) are highly conserved proteins involved in signalling pathways and control key cellular processes such as proliferation, differentiation, migration, survival and apoptosis ( Dhillon et al., 2007). The MAPK gene family encompasses three major subfamilies: the extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK), p38/HOG and c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK) groups. The ERK family is the most studied in mammals ( Boulton et al., 1990; Dhillon et al., 2007) because it is involved in meiosis, mitosis and post mitotic functions in differentiated cells, as well as in the oxidative stress response and wound healing ( Castellano et al., 2014; Johnson & Lapadat, 2002; Matsubayashi et al., 2004; Runchel et al., 2011). The ERK gene family is evolutionnarily conserved and is found in all eukaryotes, including yeasts, plants, vertebrates and invertebrates ( Chen et al., 2001; Widmann et al., 1999). Although recent molecular studies have shown the existence of ERK genes in different coral species ( Mayfield et al., 2010; Siboni et al., 2012; van de Water et al., 2015), ERK activity and specific functions are not yet clearly defined. ERK activation occurs through phosphorylation of the Threonine and Tyrosine residues of an ERK-specific TEY motif by the upstream kinases of ERK, the mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase (MAPKK or MEK). ERK phosphorylation on these residues is classically considered the most appropriate readout for the activity of the ERK signalling pathway. However, it has never been monitored in corals. Overall, MAPK activities in corals have only been investigated once, in a study focusing on the JNK subfamily ( Courtial et al., 2017).

In this work, we used the scleractinian coral Stylophora pistillata, a very abundant species in most tropical reefs ( Veron & Stafford-Smith, 2000). We applied the same protocol as in Courtial et al. (2017) to demonstrate the efficiency of antibodies directed against the mammalian phosphorylated forms of ERK (pERK) and total ERK to detect the ERK orthologs in S. pistillata ( Table 1). According to the manufacturer’s instructions, the antibody used in this study and directed against the Thr202/Tyr204 di-phosphorylated active ERK (Thermo Scientific Pierce; MA5-15174) showed reactivity with fruit fly, human, mink, mouse, non-human primate, pig, rat and zebrafish. The immunogen used to generate this rabbit IgG monoclonal antibody was a synthetic phosphopeptide corresponding to residues surrounding the phospho-Thr202/Tyr204 of the human p44/ERK1 MAP kinase. This antibody is not cross-reactive with the corresponding phosphorylated residues of either JNK/SAPK or p38. The ERK1/ERK2 antibody (Thermo Scientific Pierce; MA5-15605) used in the study previously showed reactivity with human and mouse samples. The immunogen used to generate this mouse IgG2b monoclonal antibody was a purified recombinant fragment of human MAPK.

Table 1. Primary and secondary antibodies.

Antibody Manufacturer Catalogue
number
RRID Concentration
p44+42 MAPK (Erk1,2)
Antibody (3F8)
Thermo Fisher
Scientific
MA5-15605 AB_10983247 1µg/mL (1/1000)
Phospho-p44 MAPK + p42
MAPK pTyr204 Antibody
(B.742.5)
Thermo Fisher
Scientific
MA5-15174 AB_10980347 1µg/mL (1/1000)
Peroxidase-AffiniPure Goat
Anti-Mouse IgG (H+L)
antibody
Jackson
ImmunoResearch
Labs
115-035-003 AB_10015289 1µg/mL (1/10000)
Peroxidase-AffiniPure Goat
Anti-Rabbit IgG (H+L)
antibody
Jackson
ImmunoResearch
Labs
111-035-003 AB_2313567 1µg/mL (1/10000)
IRDye 800CW Goat
Anti-Rabbit IgG (H+L)
LI-COR
Biosciences
926-32211 AB_621843 0.1µg/mL (1/10000)
IRDye 680RD Goat
anti-Mouse IgG (H + L)
LI-COR
Biosciences
926-68070 AB_10956588 0.1µg/mL (1/10000)

Methods

Maintenance of Stylophora pistillata nubbins and human fibroblasts

Nubbins of Stylophora pistillata were collected from five mother colonies maintained in the aquaria facilities of the Centre Scientifique de Monaco. Two small nubbins (3–5 cm long) were cut off from each mother colony, and were allowed to heal for four weeks in 15 L open system tanks before the experiments. Corals were maintained in the same conditions as the mother colonies, i.e. at 25°C, under a photosynthetic active radiation of 200 µmol photon.m -2.s -1 provided by 400 W metal halide lamps (HPIT, Philips) and were fed twice a week with Artemia salina nauplii. Seawater in the tanks was continuously renewed at a rate of 10 L.h -1.

Immortalized skin fibroblasts (BJ-EHLT cells) were kindly provided by E. Gilson’s lab (IRCAN) and cultured in Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle’s Medium (Invitrogen, Villebon-sur-Yvette, France) supplemented with 10% heat-inactivated fetal calf serum (Dutscher, Brumath, France) at 37°C in an atmosphere of 5% CO 2, as previously described ( Biroccio et al., 2013).

UO126 treatment of coral nubbins

Incubations were performed in 100 mL beakers containing one coral nubbin each, and filled with 40 mL of 0.45 μm filtered seawater. They were placed in the dark for one hour in either a control condition containing 0.005% DMSO (vehicle) or a condition with 5 μmol.L -1 UO126 (Selleck Chemicals), a MEK inhibitor ( Tang et al., 2003). The incubation medium was continuously stirred using magnetic stirrers at a constant temperature of 25°C. At the end of the incubation, nubbins were frozen and kept at – 80°C prior to western blot analysis.

UVR and temperature treatment of coral nubbins

Incubations were performed in 100 mL beakers containing one coral nubbin each and filled with 40 mL of 0.45 μm filtered seawater and continuously stirred using magnetic stirrers. High temperature or/and ultraviolet radiation (UVR) stresses (i.e. four environmental conditions: control (at 25°C and without UVR), thermal stress (30°C without UVR), UVR stress (25°C under UVR), thermal and UVR stresses (30°C and under UVR)) were applied to corals and ERK activation was monitored after 30 minutes of stress. Thermal stress corresponded to an increase in temperature from the normal culture condition of 25°C to 30°C. The UVR stress corresponded to an increase in UVR from 0 (HQI lamps in the culture conditions) to a radiation intensity of about 3 W.m −2 UVB and 30 W.m −2 UVA (Q-Panel UVA 340 lamps). At the end of the incubation, nubbins were frozen and kept at – 80°C prior to western blot analysis.

Western blot analysis

Immuno-detections were performed as in Courtial et al. (2017; Table 2 and Table 3). Briefly, nubbins were airbrushed in 1 mL Laemmli buffer (2% SDS, 10% glycerol, 50mM Tris HCL pH7), ( Laemmli, 1970) using an air-pick (5 bars) to remove the totality of the tissues surrounding the skeleton was removed from coral. Samples were then sonicated for 30 seconds, and centrifuged (3 × 5 minutes at 15 000 g) to remove the lipid supernatant and debris. Fibroblasts were washed twice in phosphate buffered saline solution (PBS), lyzed in Laemmli buffer directly in the dishes and sonicated for 30 seconds. The total protein concentration of all samples was determined using a BCA protein Assay Kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific), according to the manufacturer’s recommendation. 1,4 Dithiothreitol (1 mM) and bromophenol blue (0.1%) were added to the samples, which were then heated for 5 minutes at 95°C.

Table 2. Tissue extraction and western blot protocol.

Process Reagent Manufacturer Catalogue
number
Concentration/Composition
Tissue
extraction
Laemmli buffer
1.5X
Homemade 150 mM Tris-HCl pH 7, 25%
glycerol, 2% SDS
Sample
preparation
Laemmli - 1,4
Dithiothreitol -
bromophenol
blue solution
Homemade 1.5 X- 50 mM - 0.1%
Electrophoresis ECL gradient gel
8–16%
GE Healthcare
Lifesciences
29-9901-58
TG-SDS 10X
running buffer
EUROMEDEX EU0510 1X
Protein transfer DUNN transfer
buffer
Homemade 10 mM NaHCO3 - 3 mM
Na2CO3 - 10% Ethanol (pH 9.9)
Blocking Blocking reagent Homemade PBS + milk (3%)
Washes Wash buffer 10X Homemade PBS 10X Tween 20 1N
Membrane
coloration
Coloration buffer Homemade Isopropanol (25%) + acetic
acid (10%) + amido black
(0.1%)
Membrane
destain
Destain buffer Homemade Isopropanol (25%) + acetic acid
(10%)
Target
detection
Immobilon
Western HRP
Substrate
Millipore WBKLS0500
Reagents BCA QuantiPro
BCA Assay Kit
Sigma-Aldrich QPBCA-1KT
Milk Itambe ®
Methanol Sigma-Aldrich

Table 3. Reagents for tissue extraction and western blots.

Protocol steps Reagent Time Temperature
Tissue extraction Laemmli 1.5 X (1mL) RT
Sonication Laemmli 1.5 X 30 sec RT
Centrifugation
(x3 15000 g)
Laemmli 1.5 X 3 × 5 min RT
Addition of 1,4
Dithiothreitol -
bromophenol blue
solution
Laemmli 1.5 X RT
Heat up 5 min 95°C
Electrophoresis
(100 V)
Running buffer variable RT
Transfer (200 mA) Transfer buffer overnight 4°C
Coloration Isopropanol (25%) + acetic acid
(10%) + amido black (0.1%)
5 min RT
Destain Isopropanol (25%) + acetic acid
(10%)
3 × 5 min RT
Blocking PBS + milk (3%) 30 min RT
Primary antibodies PBS + milk (1%) + ab (1/1000) overnight 4°C
Washes (3 times) Wash buffer 1X 3 × 15 min RT
Secondary
antibody
PBS + milk (1%) + ab (1/10000) 2h RT
Washes (5 times) Wash buffer 1X 5 × 15 min RT
Detection Immobilon Western HRP
Substrate
30 sec – 10 min RT

60 μg of proteins were separated on 10% polyacrylamide gels at 300 mA and 110 V at room temperature. Proteins were then transferred on a PVDF membrane at 4°C overnight in Dunn’s transfer buffer at 200 mA. After a rinse in distilled water, membranes were saturated for 30 minutes in PBS - 3% low fat milk, rinsed in PBS and incubated with primary antibodies diluted in PBS - 1% low fat milk at 4°C overnight. The antibody directed against Thr202/Tyr204 di-phosphorylated active ERK was from Thermo Scientific Pierce (rabbit monoclonal; MA5-15174; batch no. OC1680806); the anti-ERK1/2 antibody was from Thermo Scientific Pierce (mouse monoclonal; MA5-15605; batch no. PH1895491). After extensive washing (4×30 minutes) in PBS – 0.1% Tween 20, membranes were incubated for 2 hours at room temperature in the simultaneous presence of IRDye 680RD goat anti-mouse (925-68070) and IRDye 800CW goat anti-rabbit (925-32211; Li-COR Biotechnology GmbH, Bad Homburg, Germany) secondary antibodies, or with anti-mouse and anti-rabbit HRP-conjugated antibody. Another set of extensive rinsing (4×30 minutes) in PBS – 0.1% Tween 20 was performed before membranes were imaged with an Odyssey device (LI-COR Biosciences, Lincoln, Nebraska) to detect fluorescence and HRP activity using Millipore ECL.

Densitometric analysis of the western blots was performed using Image Studio v2.1 software (Li-COR Biosciences). Intensity of the pERK signal was normalized to the intensity of ERK signal. The relative intensities between control and inhibitor conditions were compared using a t-test. Statistical analysis was done using the software Graphpad Prism v5.03.

Results and discussion

In order to confirm the presence of an ERK ortholog in corals, the human protein sequence of ERK1 (NP_001035145) was compared to the transcriptome database of Stylophora pistillata using the BLAST software ( Altschul et al., 1990; Karako-Lampert et al., 2014). An open reading frame was retrieved from the best hit sequence with a predicted molecular weight of 42 kDa ( Spi_isotig05348). This sequence (hereafter referred to as Spi-ERK for S. pistillata ERK) is the only one that shows an homology as high as 81%, 80% and 78% with the protein sequences of the cnidarians Nematostella vectensis ERK (Nv-ERK; XP_001629498.1), Hydra vulgaris ERK (Hv-ERK; XP_002154499.3) and the human MAPK3/ERK1 (Hs-ERK1), respectively ( Figure 1) ( Krishna et al., 2013; Putnam et al., 2007). These sequences all contain both the conserved kinase domains ( Hanks & Hunter, 1995) and the TEY motif of the catalytic domain, which is unique for ERK orthologs ( Davis, 2000; Figure 1). An interesting point to note is that a unique sequence showing these features is present in N. vectensis and H. vulgaris genomes, as well as in the S. pistillata transcriptome database. This result suggests that a single ortholog of ERK is present in these cnidarians, consistently with previous work where only one ERK ortholog was found ( Castellano et al., 2014; Russo et al., 2004) but as opposed to the two genes encoding ERKs in most mammalian genomes ( Ip & Davis, 1998). Furthermore, based on the high level of sequence conservation between distant species ( Hanks & Hunter, 1995), antibodies directed against portions of the ERK human proteins may recognize ERKs from other species. Accordingly, we detected a single immune-reactive band with the total-ERK antibody by western blot on S. pistillata extracts ( Figure 2A and Supplementary Figure S1). Spi-ERK should retain the mechanism of activation by phosphorylation of the Threonine and the Tyrosine residues of the ERK-specific TEY motif. Hence, the MA5-15174 antibody directed against the phosphorylated Thr202 and the Tyr204 ( i.e. the phosphorylated TEY motif) should detect a phosphorylated TEY motif of Spi-ERK (phospho-ERK). This is consistent with what we observed, as we detected a unique immune-reactive band of approximately 40 kDa with both antibodies ( Figure 2A).

Figure 1. Sequence alignment of MAPK orthologs.

Figure 1.

The ERK orthologs of Stylphora pistillata (Spi-ERK), Nematostella vectensis (Nv-ERK), Hydra vulgaris (Hv-ERK), and the human ERK1 (Hs-ERK1) protein sequences are shown. The ERK-specific TEY motif is highlighted in red. The eleven conserved kinase domains are underlined.

Figure 2. Detection of ERK activity in corals.

Figure 2.

( A) Fluorescent immunoblot revealing activated (pERK) and total forms of ERK (ERK) present in Stylphora pistillata nubbins. Molecular weight standards in kilo Daltons (kDa) are indicated on the left side of the figure. ( B) Immunoblot performed with ERK and pERK antibodies on protein extracts from coral nubbins incubated in the absence (Control) or presence of the MEK inhibitor U0126. Densitometric analysis of activated ERK intensities is presented on the right of the figure. The amido black total protein staining of the western blot membrane is shown as a loading control. The medians and standard deviations of three independent experiments are presented (***, p<0.01, t-test).

Interestingly, the fluorescent immunoblot technique showed that the bands detected with the phosphorylated- and the total-ERK antibodies mostly co-migrate, suggesting that the same protein is detected ( Figure 2A). The slight electrophoretic migration shift of the band detected with the anti-phosphorylated ERK antibody would be consistent with the phosphorylation of the threonine and tyrosine residues of the TEY motif as previously described ( Aoki et al., 2011). These results suggest that ERK and its phosphorylated form are correctly recognized by the antibodies.

RNAi interference techniques are not available in coral, and the confirmation that the immune reactive bands observed here specifically correspond to ERK could not be obtained through this method. In order to test the specificity of the antibodies, we therefore used U0126, a very potent and selective inhibitor of MEK ( Bain et al., 2007). The limited thickness of the animal tissue covering the skeleton and the very large surface of contact of both ectoderm and endoderm with the seawater render S. pistillata suitable for treatment with drugs directly diluted in the seawater as we previously showed ( Courtial et al., 2017). U0126 was previously shown to efficiently block MEK activity in a wide variety of organisms, including cnidarians ( Hasse et al., 2014; Picco et al., 2007; Röttinger et al., 2004). When the inhibitor was added to the seawater, the intensity of the band detected by the anti-total ERK did not vary, while the intensity of the band detected with the anti-phosphorylated ERK antibody was significantly reduced ( Figure 2B and Supplementary Figure S1). Altogether, our results strongly suggest that the proteins detected with the two antibodies were ERK and pERK.

To confirm that Spi-ERK activity can dynamically respond to changes in experimental conditions, we performed an induction experiment by modifying culture conditions of the corals. Courtial et al. (2017) showed that thermal and UVR stresses induced the formation of reactive oxygen species which are known to trigger ERK phosphorylation ( McCubrey et al., 2006). ERK phosphorylation was enhanced in corals exposed to UVR, high temperature or a combination of both ( Figure 3 and Supplementary Figure S2). These results confirm that the antibodies characterized herein can be used to monitor ERK activity in corals.

Finally, to assess the performance of these antibodies, we compared the signal obtained on S. pistillata and human fibroblasts protein extracts ( Figure 4 and Supplementary Figure S3). We loaded on the same gel 10µg of fibroblast total protein extract and different amounts of S. pistillata extracts (ranging from 80 to 10 µg). A signal comparable to the one obtained with the fibroblast extract was observed using 40 µg of coral proteins for both antibodies. This suggests that the affinity of the antibodies towards the coral proteins may be lower than for their human counterparts.

Figure 3. Induction of Spi-ERK phosphorylation by thermal and UV stresses.

Figure 3.

Immunoblot performed with ERK and pERK antibodies on protein extracts from coral nubbins incubated for 30 minutes in control (Cont.), thermal stress (T), UV stress (UV) or a combination of thermal and UV stresses (UV + T) conditions. The amido black total protein staining of the western blot membrane is shown as a loading control.

Figure 4. Relative sensitivities of ERK antibodies toward the human and coral proteins.

Figure 4.

Immunoblot performed with anti-ERK and anti-phospho-ERK on total protein extracts of human fibroblasts (BJ) and Stylphora pistillata. The amount of protein loaded in each lane is indicated on the Supplementary Figure S4.

Supplementary Figure S1. Uncropped blot images for Figure 2 and supplementary replicates

http://dx.doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.11365.d159188

( A) Biological replicates of fluorescent immunoblots performed in control conditions (Ct) are shown (Replicates 1 and 2). The portions of the images used in the main text are outlined. ( B) Biological replicates of immunoblots performed on protein extracts from coral nubbins incubated in the absence (Control) or presence of the MEK inhibitor U0126 (UO) (Replicates 1 to 5). The amido black total protein staining of the western blot membrane is shown as a loading control. The portions of the images used in the main text are outlined.

Copyright: © 2017 Courtial L et al.

Data associated with the article are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

Supplementary Figure S2. Uncropped blot images for Figure 3 and supplementary replicates

http://dx.doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.11365.d166821

The portions of the images used in the main text are outlined.

Copyright: © 2017 Courtial L et al.

Data associated with the article are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

Supplementary Figure S3. Uncropped blot images for Figure 4 and supplementary replicates

http://dx.doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.11365.d166825

The portions of the images used in the main text are outlined.

Copyright: © 2017 Courtial L et al.

Data associated with the article are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

Conclusion

This work showed that MA5-15174 and MA5-15605 are two specific antibodies that can be used to quantitatively assess Stylophora pistillata ERK phosphorylation/activity in different experimental or environmental conditions. We demonstrated the specificity of these antibodies and their good affinity towards their coral targets. It therefore provides the coral research community with a potent tool for the analysis of the activity of a signalling pathway involved in a wide variety of biological processes.

Data availability

The data referenced by this article are under copyright with the following copyright statement: Copyright: © 2017 Courtial L et al.

Data associated with the article are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication). http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

Supplementary Figure S1. Uncropped blot images for Figure 2 and supplementary replicates. ( A) Biological replicates of fluorescent immunoblots performed in control conditions (Ct) are shown (Replicates 1 and 2). The portions of the images used in the main text are outlined. ( B) Biological replicates of immunoblots performed on protein extracts from coral nubbins incubated in the absence (Control) or presence of the MEK inhibitor U0126 (UO) (Replicates 1 to 5). The portions of the images used in the main text are outlined. doi, 10.5256/f1000research.11365.d159188 ( Courtial et al., 2017a).

Supplementary Figure S2. Uncropped blot images for Figure 3 and supplementary replicates. The portions of the images used in the main text are outlined. doi, 10.5256/f1000research.11365.d166821 ( Courtial et al., 2017b).

Supplementary Figure S3. Uncropped blot images for Figure 4 and supplementary replicates. The portions of the images used in the main text are outlined. doi, 10.5256/f1000research.11365.d166825 ( Courtial et al., 2017c).

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Y. Cormerais for his help in the experimental setup, N. Caminiti-Seconds for the first coral extracts and assays as well as Pr. Denis Allemand, Director of the Centre Scientifique de Monaco for scientific support.

Funding Statement

Financial support to CFP, GP, LC and VP was provided by the Centre Scientifique de Monaco and Pierre and Marie Curie University.

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

[version 2; referees: 3 approved]

References

  1. Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, et al. : Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol. 1990;215(3):403–410. 10.1016/S0022-2836(05)80360-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Aoki K, Yamada M, Kunida K, et al. : Processive phosphorylation of ERK MAP kinase in mammalian cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108(31):12675–12680. 10.1073/pnas.1104030108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bain J, Plater L, Elliott M, et al. : The selectivity of protein kinase inhibitors: a further update. Biochem J. 2007;408(3):297–315. 10.1042/BJ20070797 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Biroccio A, Cherfils-Vicini J, Augereau A, et al. : TRF2 inhibits a cell-extrinsic pathway through which natural killer cells eliminate cancer cells. Nat Cell Biol. 2013;15(7):818–828. 10.1038/ncb2774 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Boulton TG, Yancopoulos GD, Gregory JS, et al. : An insulin-stimulated protein kinase similar to yeast kinases involved in cell cycle control. Science. 1990;249(4964):64–67. 10.1126/science.2164259 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Castellano I, Ercolesi E, Palumbo A: Nitric oxide affects ERK signaling through down-regulation of MAP kinase phosphatase levels during larval development of the ascidian Ciona intestinalis. PLoS One. 2014;9(7):e102907. 10.1371/journal.pone.0102907 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Chen Z, Gibson TB, Robinson F, et al. : MAP kinases. Chem Rev. 2001;101(8):2449–2476. 10.1021/cr000241p [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Courtial L, Picco V, Gorver R, et al. : The c-Jun N-terminal kinase prevents oxidative stress induced by UV and thermal stresses in corals and human cells. Sci Rep. 2017;7: 45713. 10.1038/srep45713 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Courtial L, Picco V, Pagès G, et al. : Dataset 1 in: Validation of commercial ERK antibodies against the ERK orthologue of the scleractinian coral Stylophora pistillata. F1000Research. 2017a. Data Source [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Courtial L, Picco V, Pagès G, et al. : Dataset 2 in: Validation of commercial ERK antibodies against the ERK orthologue of the scleractinian coral Stylophora pistillata. F1000Research. 2017b. Data Source [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Courtial L, Picco V, Pagès G, et al. : Dataset 3 in: Validation of commercial ERK antibodies against the ERK orthologue of the scleractinian coral Stylophora pistillata. F1000Research. 2017c. Data Source [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Davis RJ: Signal transduction by the JNK group of MAP kinases. Cell. 2000;103(2):239–252. 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)00116-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Dhillon AS, Hagan S, Rath O, et al. : MAP kinase signalling pathways in cancer. Oncogene. 2007;26(22):3279–90. 10.1038/sj.onc.1210421 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Hanks SK, Hunter T: Protein kinases 6. The eukaryotic protein kinase superfamily: kinase (catalytic) domain structure and classification. FASEB J. 1995;9(8):576–596. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Hasse C, Holz O, Lange E, et al. : FGFR-ERK signaling is an essential component of tissue separation. Dev Biol. 2014;395(1):154–166. 10.1016/j.ydbio.2014.08.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Ip YT, Davis RJ: Signal transduction by the c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK)--from inflammation to development. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 1998;10(2):205–219. 10.1016/S0955-0674(98)80143-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Johnson GL, Lapadat R: Mitogen-activated protein kinase pathways mediated by ERK, JNK, and p38 protein kinases. Science. 2002;298(5600):1911–1912. 10.1126/science.1072682 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Karako-Lampert S, Zoccola D, Salmon-Divon M, et al. : Transcriptome analysis of the scleractinian coral Stylophora pistillata. PLoS One. 2014;9(2):e88615. 10.1371/journal.pone.0088615 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Krishna S, Nair A, Cheedipudi S, et al. : Deep sequencing reveals unique small RNA repertoire that is regulated during head regeneration in Hydra magnipapillata. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41(1):599–616. 10.1093/nar/gks1020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Laemmli UK: Cleavage of structural proteins during the assembly of the head of bacteriophage T4. Nature. 1970;227(5259):680–685. 10.1038/227680a0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Matsubayashi Y, Ebisuya M, Honjoh S, et al. : ERK activation propagates in epithelial cell sheets and regulates their migration during wound healing. Curr Biol. 2004;14(8):731–735. 10.1016/j.cub.2004.03.060 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Mayfield AB, Hsiao YY, Fan TY, et al. : Evaluating the temporal stability of stress-activated protein kinase and cytoskeleton gene expression in the Pacific reef corals Pocillopora damicornis and Seriatopora hystrix. J Exp Mar Bio Ecol. 2010;395(1–2):215–222. 10.1016/j.jembe.2010.09.007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. McCubrey JA, LaHair MM, Franklin RA: Reactive oxygen species-induced activation of the MAP kinase signaling pathways. Antioxid Redox Signal. 2006;8(9–10):1775–1789. 10.1089/ars.2006.8.1775 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Picco V, Hudson C, Yasuo H: Ephrin-Eph signalling drives the asymmetric division of notochord/neural precursors in Ciona embryos. Development. 2007;134(8):1491–1497. 10.1242/dev.003939 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Putnam NH, Srivastava M, Hellsten U, et al. : Sea Anemone Genome Reveals Ancestral Eumetazoan Gene Repertoire and Genomic Organization. Science. 2007;317(5834):86–94. 10.1126/science.1139158 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Röttinger E, Besnardeau L, Lepage T: A Raf/MEK/ERK signaling pathway is required for development of the sea urchin embryo micromere lineage through phosphorylation of the transcription factor Ets. Development. 2004;131(5):1075–1087. 10.1242/dev.01000 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Runchel C, Matsuzawa A, Ichijo H: Mitogen-activated protein kinases in mammalian oxidative stress responses. Antioxid Redox Signal. 2011;15(1):205–218. 10.1089/ars.2010.3733 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Russo GL, Tosto M, Mupo A, et al. : Biochemical and functional characterization of protein kinase CK2 in Ascidian Ciona intestinalis oocytes at fertilization. Cloning and sequence analysis of cDNA for alpha and beta subunits. J Biol Chem. 2004;279(31):33012–33023. 10.1074/jbc.M401085200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Siboni N, Abrego D, Seneca F, et al. : Using bacterial extract along with differential gene expression in Acropora millepora Larvae to decouple the processes of attachment and metamorphosis. PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e37774. 10.1371/journal.pone.0037774 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Tang QQ, Otto TC, Lane MD: Mitotic clonal expansion: A synchronous process required for adipogenesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100(1):44–49. 10.1073/pnas.0137044100 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. van de Water JA, Leggat W, Bourne DG, et al. : Elevated seawater temperatures have a limited impact on the coral immune response following physical damage. Hydrobiologia. 2015;759(1):201–214. 10.1007/s10750-015-2243-z [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Veron JE, Stafford-Smith M: Corals of the World. Volumes 1–3. Aust Inst Mar Sci. Townsville, Aust, 2000. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  33. Widmann C, Gibson S, Jarpe MB, et al. : Mitogen-activated protein kinase: conservation of a three-kinase module from yeast to human. Physiol Rev. 1999;79(1):143–180. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
F1000Res. 2017 Jul 21. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.13040.r23990

Referee response for version 2

María L Parages 1

After author response, I recommend the manuscript for indexing. So I suggest the new status as Approved.

I have read this submission. I believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

F1000Res. 2017 Jul 4. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.13040.r24020

Referee response for version 2

Andrea Pitzschke 1

In the revised version Courtial et al. have addressed my concerns and considered my suggestions in sufficient detail. I therefore recommend the manuscript for indexing.

I have read this submission. I believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

F1000Res. 2017 Jun 22. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.12269.r23149

Referee response for version 1

María L Parages 1

In this manuscript the authors Courtial et al. validate the use of commercial ERK antibodies for the detection of MAPK-like proteins in Coral. Although the paper is well written and has the quality to be indexed, a few issues should be figure out before its final acceptance.

In terms of samples preparation and to allow future replication by others researchers would be appropriate to give more information about how to prepare the samples. For example, “Briefly, coral tissue was removed from the skeleton in 1 mL Laemmli buffer” so, how much coral tissue will be dissolved and resupended it in 1 mL of Laemmli Buffer? Less than 0.5 gr? More?

While it is true that the authors note that immune-detection were performed as in Courtial et al. (2017), and that DTT (Dithiothreitol) and BFB (Bromophenol blue) were added to the samples and heated (5 minutes at 95°) before loading the gels, it is not specified how tissue extraction was performed. I must assume that the Lysis Buffer used was Laemmli Buffer? And in this case, how they have been unable to detect phosphorylated ERK? As far as I know lysis buffer for phosphorylated proteins usually contents EDTA or EGTA to chelate Mg2+/Ca2+,  DTT for reduction of disulfide bonds, serine protease inhibitor (Aprotinin/Leupeptine), phosphatase inhibitors to block dephosphorylation like Na orthovanadate, or Beta-glycerophosphate (false substrate for phosphatase, between others… They also keep everything ice cold? Also, it surprises me that they used 3% low fat milk for membranes blocking, due to also screws up phosphor-tyrosine detection.

Regarding the presence of an ERK ortholog in coral, the authors show the sequence with code Spi_isotig05348 (Spi_ERK) has the best hit with the human ERK protein (NP_0011035145) and they make reference to Liew et al., 2014. I was looking for this sequence into this paper, and I could not find it. The authors should provide in which database is the transcriptome, as well as, the Spi_ERK sequence itself.

I have read this submission. I believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

F1000Res. 2017 Jun 28.
Lucile Courtial 1

In this manuscript the authors Courtial et al. validate the use of commercial ERK antibodies for the detection of MAPK-like proteins in Coral. Although the paper is well written and has the quality to be indexed, a few issues should be figure out before its final acceptance.

We thank Dr. Parages for her comments and suggestions. To answer her concerns, we have added information and replaced a citation in the manuscript as detailed bellow. 

In terms of samples preparation and to allow future replication by others researchers would be appropriate to give more information about how to prepare the samples. For example, “Briefly, coral tissue was removed from the skeleton in 1 mL Laemmli buffer” so, how much coral tissue will be dissolved and resupended it in 1 mL of Laemmli Buffer? Less than 0.5 gr? More?

All of the tissue from 3-5cm long S. pistillata nubbins was used. We added the precision in the materials and methods:

P4: “Two small nubbins (3-5 cm long) were cut off from each mother colony and were allowed to heal for four weeks in 15 L open system tanks before the experiments.”

P5: “Briefly, nubbins were airbrushed in 1 mL Laemmli buffer (2% SDS, 10% glycerol, 50mM Tris HCL pH7) ( Laemmli 1970) using an air-pick (5 bars) to remove the totality of the tissues surrounding the skeleton was removed from coral.”

While it is true that the authors note that immune-detection were performed as in Courtial et al. (2017), and that DTT (Dithiothreitol) and BFB (Bromophenol blue) were added to the samples and heated (5 minutes at 95°) before loading the gels, it is not specified how tissue extraction was performed. I must assume that the Lysis Buffer used was Laemmli Buffer?

And in this case, how they have been unable to detect phosphorylated ERK? As far as I know lysis buffer for phosphorylated proteins usually contents EDTA or EGTA to chelate Mg2+/Ca2+,  DTT for reduction of disulfide bonds, serine protease inhibitor (Aprotinin/Leupeptine), phosphatase inhibitors to block dephosphorylation like Na orthovanadate, or Beta-glycerophosphate (false substrate for phosphatase, between others…

Coral tissues were indeed lyzed in laemmli buffer. To prevent any doubt when reading the methods, we added a precision in the text:

P3: “Briefly, nubbins were airbrushed in 1 mL Laemmli buffer (2% SDS, 10% glycerol, 50mM Tris HCL pH7) (Laemmli 1970) using an air-pick (5 bars) to remove the totality of the tissues surrounding the skeleton.”

To answer the concern of Dr. Parages about the possible phosphatase activity in the samples, we would like to specify the fact that, due to a high concentration of SDS, the Laemmli buffer is a strongly denaturing buffer for proteins, including phosphatases. Therefore, this buffer, commonly used at room temperature, preserves phosphorylation of the proteins without the need to add phosphatases inhibitors (see Picco et al. 2016 for example).  

They also keep everything ice cold? Also, it surprises me that they used 3% low fat milk for membranes blocking, due to also screws up phosphor-tyrosine detection.

We fully agree with Dr. Parages, the use of milk as a blocking buffer is usually not recommended for the detection of phospho-proteins as it may contain phospho-proteins that can interact with the anti-phospho primary antibodies. However, we have successfully used this blocking buffer in diverse experimental setups, including human cultured cells, ascidian embryos as well as coral lysates. We used this buffer in the course of this study because it gives far less background noise than any other blocking buffers tested.

Regarding the presence of an ERK ortholog in coral, the authors show the sequence with code Spi_isotig05348 (Spi_ERK) has the best hit with the human ERK protein (NP_0011035145) and they make reference to Liew et al., 2014. I was looking for this sequence into this paper, and I could not find it. The authors should provide in which database is the transcriptome, as well as, the Spi_ERK sequence itself.

We are grateful to the reviewer for questioning this particular point as it allowed us to uncover a significant error in the citation we used.

The reference for the Spi EST containing the ERK orthologue open reading frame was obtained from the database generated during the study by Karako-Lampert, Zoccola et al. (Plos One 2014) and not the one by Liew et al (p.7) . The database containing the sequence can be downloaded from this address: http://data.centrescientifique.mc/CSMdata-stylodata.html. As mentioned in the manuscript, the ERK1 human protein sequence was blasted (tblastn) against the Karako-Lampert database using the blast tool hosted on a publically accessible local server of the Centre Scientifique de Monaco ( http://data.centrescientifique.mc/blast/blast.php). The correct reference has been added to the manuscript.

Due to current major security concerns for our servers, we have chosen not to include the aforementioned URL in the present manuscript. However, this URL is openly disclosed in the Karako-Lampert et al. paper, which should allow readers to access the database without the needing to contact corresponding authors.

F1000Res. 2017 Jun 16. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.12269.r23532

Referee response for version 1

Immacolata Castellano 1

The paper by Courtial et al. describes the cross-reactivity of two commercial antibodies produced against the mammalian forms of ERK for the scleractinian coral Stylophora pistillata. This should open new perspective for the study of ERK signalling in response to different  environmental cues.

The paper is clear and well written, however it lacks of some references.

In the Introduction, the authors should cite other invertebrates where ERK signalling is known to be conserved and regulated by environmental cues, for example Ciona intestinalis (Castellano et al, PlOS One 2014, Castellano et al, Open Biology 2015). Similarly, in Results and Discussion, when the authors say that .. "a single orthologue of ERK is present in these cnidarians, as opposed to the two genes encoding ERKs in most mammalian genomes”, they should specify that also in other invertebrates, only one ERK form was found (Russo et al, JBC 2004; Castellano et al, PloS One 2014). Also the use of the MEK inhibitor U0126 was assessed in C. intestinalis (Castellano et al, Open Biology 2015).

Finally the authors pay attention along the text to some errors, i.e. change “Thr2020/204” with Thr202/204, and “through this medium” with “through this method”.

I have read this submission. I believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

F1000Res. 2017 Jun 28.
Lucile Courtial 1

The paper by Courtial et al. describes the cross-reactivity of two commercial antibodies produced against the mammalian forms of ERK for the scleractinian coral Stylophora pistillata. This should open new perspective for the study of ERK signalling in response to different environmental cues.

 

The paper is clear and well written, however it lacks of some references.

We thank Dr. Castellano for her comments and suggestions. We have added information to the manuscript to answer her concerns as detailed bellow.

In the Introduction, the authors should cite other invertebrates where ERK signalling is known to be conserved and regulated by environmental cues, for example Ciona intestinalis (Castellano et al, PlOS One 2014, Castellano et al, Open Biology 2015).

We added a precision and the reference in the text: “The ERK gene family is evolutionnarily conserved and is found in all eukaryotes, including yeasts, plants, vertebrates and invertebrates (Widmann et al. 1999; Chen et al. 2001; Castellano et al. 2014).”

Similarly, in Results and Discussion, when the authors say that .. "a single orthologue of ERK is present in these cnidarians, as opposed to the two genes encoding ERKs in most mammalian genomes”, they should specify that also in other invertebrates, only one ERK form was found (Russo et al, JBC 2004; Castellano et al, PloS One 2014).

We added the precision in the text:P4 “This result suggests that a single ortholog of ERK is present in these cnidarians, consistently with previous work where only one ERK ortholog was found (Russo et al. 2004; Castellano et al. 2014)  but as opposed to the two genes encoding ERKs in most mammalian genomes (Ip and Davis 1998).”

 Also the use of the MEK inhibitor U0126 was assessed in C. intestinalis (Castellano et al, Open Biology 2015).

Despite extensive search into the reference cited by Dr. Castellano, we could not find any experiment using U0126 in this paper. The aforementioned reference instead reports the use of a dual specificity phosphatase inhibitor. Moreover, the work of Picco et al. (2007) cited in the manuscript already reports the use of U0126 in Ciona embryos. We therefore did not include the suggested citation in the text.

Finally the authors pay attention along the text to some errors, i.e. change “Thr2020/204” with Thr202/204, and “through this medium” with “through this method”.

We changed the errors in the revised manuscript.

F1000Res. 2017 May 30. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.12269.r22707

Referee response for version 1

Andrea Pitzschke 1

The manuscript provides first insight into a putative MAPK in the coral Stylophora pistillata.

Experiments include protein extraction and immunoblot analysis.

Overall: The experiments that had been performed are properly designed. However, the manuscript lacks sufficiently-detailed information, as well as controls (protein loading). Conclusions are premature or should be re-phrased.

Detailed points of criticism:

Title “orthologue” is inappropriate. Should be “homologue”.

Methods

P3 “small rubbins selected” – please be more specific about size and sampling:

“tissue removed from coral”: be more specific. Tissue primarily from the surface, how deep was the cut into the material? (I suggest to include a schematic figure incl. scale-bar). This information is important because inhibitors (e.g. UO126) will only diffuse over a short distance, i.e. not reach deeper layers.

P4: “extensive washing”: duration and number of solution changes missing

Fig.2B: “% or control” rather OF control. The error bar in the control sample is irrelevant, as it is defined as strictly 100%.

There is no documentation of protein loading (e.g. Coomassie-stained membrane after immunodetection). The U126-independent intensity of the ERK-Signal is insufficient as control.

Conclusions: “…antibody can be used…in different experimental or environmental conditions”

This conclusion is premature. As a minimum, the authors should perform an induction experiment. The inhibitory approach (U126) only evidences that a MAPKK is the upstream regulator. Coral research community will only benefit from the antibody and the current study if dynamic ERK activity responses can be monitored.

I have read this submission. I believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

F1000Res. 2017 Jun 28.
Lucile Courtial 1

Overall: The experiments that had been performed are properly designed. However, the manuscript lacks sufficiently-detailed information, as well as controls (protein loading). Conclusions are premature or should be re-phrased.

We thank Dr. Pitzschke for her comments and suggestions. We have added information to the manuscript and performed an additional experiment to answer her concerns as detailed bellow.

Detailed points of criticism:

 

Title “orthologue” is inappropriate. Should be “homologue”.

We have used the term “orthologue” in our manuscript in its definition notably given by Walter Fitch (Fitch 1970, 2000), that is: “Orthology is that relationship where sequence divergence follows speciation, that is, where the common ancestor of the two genes lies in the common ancestor of the taxa from which the two sequences were obtained”.

Dr. Pitzschke is right, the Spi- and Hs-ERK proteins are homologues but, on top of that, they also are orthologues. We therefore still think that the term “orthologue” is more accurate in our case.

Methods

P3 “small nubbins selected” –please be more specific about size and sampling:

“tissue removed from coral”: be more specific. Tissue primarily from the surface, how deep was the cut into the material?

To be more specific, we added the following sentences in the revised manuscript:

P2: “Two small nubbins (3-5 cm long) were cut off from each mother colony and were allowed to heal for four weeks in 15 L open system tanks before the experiments.”

P3: “Briefly, nubbins were airbrushed in 1 mL Laemmli buffer ( i.e. lysing buffer, 1.5 X, Laemmli 1970) using an air-pick (5 bars) to remove the totality of the tissues surrounding the skeleton was removed from coral.”

This information is important because inhibitors (e.g. UO126) will only diffuse over a short distance, i.e. not reach deeper layers.

We added a sentence to prevent further doubts concerning the bioavailability of U0126.

P6: “In order to test the specificity of the antibodies, we therefore used U0126, a very potent and selective inhibitor of MEK (Bain et al. 2007). The limited thickness of the animal tissue covering the skeleton and the very large surface of contact of both ectoderm and endoderm with the seawater render S. pistillata suitable for treatment with drugs directly diluted in the seawater as we previously showed (Courtial et al. 2017) …”

P4: “extensive washing”: duration and number of solution changes missing

We added precisions in the materials and methods:  P4 : “4 x 30 minutes”

Fig.2B: “% or control” rather OF control. The error bar in the control sample is irrelevant, as it is defined as strictly 100%.

There is no documentation of protein loading (e.g. Coomassie-stained membrane after immunodetection). The U126-independent intensity of the ERK-Signal is insufficient as control.

We added the amido black colored membranes in Figure 2 and Figure S1 as a loading control. 

Conclusions: “…antibody can be used…in different experimental or environmental conditions”

This conclusion is premature. As a minimum, the authors should perform an induction experiment. The inhibitory approach (U126) only evidences that a MAPKK is the upstream regulator. Coral research community will only benefit from the antibody and the current study if dynamic ERK activity responses can be monitored.

We performed an additional experiment and added a figure and related text in the manuscript to justify our statement (P9).

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Supplementary Figure S1. Uncropped blot images for Figure 2 and supplementary replicates

    http://dx.doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.11365.d159188

    ( A) Biological replicates of fluorescent immunoblots performed in control conditions (Ct) are shown (Replicates 1 and 2). The portions of the images used in the main text are outlined. ( B) Biological replicates of immunoblots performed on protein extracts from coral nubbins incubated in the absence (Control) or presence of the MEK inhibitor U0126 (UO) (Replicates 1 to 5). The amido black total protein staining of the western blot membrane is shown as a loading control. The portions of the images used in the main text are outlined.

    Copyright: © 2017 Courtial L et al.

    Data associated with the article are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

    Supplementary Figure S2. Uncropped blot images for Figure 3 and supplementary replicates

    http://dx.doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.11365.d166821

    The portions of the images used in the main text are outlined.

    Copyright: © 2017 Courtial L et al.

    Data associated with the article are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

    Supplementary Figure S3. Uncropped blot images for Figure 4 and supplementary replicates

    http://dx.doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.11365.d166825

    The portions of the images used in the main text are outlined.

    Copyright: © 2017 Courtial L et al.

    Data associated with the article are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

    Data Availability Statement

    The data referenced by this article are under copyright with the following copyright statement: Copyright: © 2017 Courtial L et al.

    Data associated with the article are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication). http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

    Supplementary Figure S1. Uncropped blot images for Figure 2 and supplementary replicates. ( A) Biological replicates of fluorescent immunoblots performed in control conditions (Ct) are shown (Replicates 1 and 2). The portions of the images used in the main text are outlined. ( B) Biological replicates of immunoblots performed on protein extracts from coral nubbins incubated in the absence (Control) or presence of the MEK inhibitor U0126 (UO) (Replicates 1 to 5). The portions of the images used in the main text are outlined. doi, 10.5256/f1000research.11365.d159188 ( Courtial et al., 2017a).

    Supplementary Figure S2. Uncropped blot images for Figure 3 and supplementary replicates. The portions of the images used in the main text are outlined. doi, 10.5256/f1000research.11365.d166821 ( Courtial et al., 2017b).

    Supplementary Figure S3. Uncropped blot images for Figure 4 and supplementary replicates. The portions of the images used in the main text are outlined. doi, 10.5256/f1000research.11365.d166825 ( Courtial et al., 2017c).


    Articles from F1000Research are provided here courtesy of F1000 Research Ltd

    RESOURCES