Oligomers of the 40 and 42 residue amyloid-β peptides (Aβ40 and Aβ42) have been implicated in the neuronal damage and impaired cognitive function associated with Alzheimer's disease. However, little is known about the specific mechanisms by which these misfolded species induce such detrimental effects on cells. In this work, we use single-molecule imaging techniques to examine the initial interactions between Aβ monomers and oligomers and the membranes of live cells. This highly sensitive method enables the visualization of individual Aβ species on the cell surface and characterization of their oligomerization state, all at biologically relevant, nanomolar concentrations. The results indicate that oligomers preferentially interact with cell membranes, relative to monomers and that the oligomers become immobilized on the cell surface. Additionally, we observe that the interaction of Aβ species with the cell membrane is inhibited by the presence of ATP-independent molecular chaperones. This study demonstrates the power of this methodology for characterizing the interactions between protein aggregates and the membranes of live neuronal cells at physiologically relevant concentrations and opens the door to quantitative studies of the cellular responses to potentially pathogenic oligomers.
Oligomers of the 40 and 42 residue amyloid-β peptides (Aβ40 and Aβ42) have been implicated in the neuronal damage and impaired cognitive function associated with Alzheimer's disease. However, little is known about the specific mechanisms by which these misfolded species induce such detrimental effects on cells. In this work, we use single-molecule imaging techniques to examine the initial interactions between Aβ monomers and oligomers and the membranes of live cells. This highly sensitive method enables the visualization of individual Aβ species on the cell surface and characterization of their oligomerization state, all at biologically relevant, nanomolar concentrations. The results indicate that oligomers preferentially interact with cell membranes, relative to monomers and that the oligomers become immobilized on the cell surface. Additionally, we observe that the interaction of Aβ species with the cell membrane is inhibited by the presence of ATP-independent molecular chaperones. This study demonstrates the power of this methodology for characterizing the interactions between protein aggregates and the membranes of live neuronal cells at physiologically relevant concentrations and opens the door to quantitative studies of the cellular responses to potentially pathogenic oligomers.
Proteinaceous deposits, primarily comprised
of plaques of amyloid-β
peptides (Aβ), are a pathological hallmark of Alzheimer’s
disease (AD) and are present in the brains of patients at the later
stages of AD. Recent research has suggested, however, that soluble
oligomers of Aβ are the primary origin of neuronal damage and
decline in cognitive function associated with the disease.[1−10] Of the numerous suggested mechanisms of Aβ-mediated neurotoxicity,
many include interactions with a variety of cellular components and,
in particular, with cell membranes.[11−16] Therefore, in order to understand the detrimental effects of Aβ
aggregates, it is crucial to characterize the earliest events in the
pathogenic process, namely the interactions between Aβ and cellular
membranes.One of the primary challenges in resolving the detailed
mechanism
of Aβ-mediated neurotoxicity is the heterogeneous nature of
the Aβ species formed during the aggregation reaction. Conventional
biochemical techniques provide information about the overall behavior
of the ensemble of species present in a given sample, from which it
is challenging to define the roles of specific components within the
ensemble. In this study, therefore, we have used single-molecule imaging
to visualize individual Aβ species and to differentiate between
monomers and the various types of oligomers observed in these experiments.
Specifically, the application of total internal reflection fluorescence
microscopy (TIRFM) enables us to study the cell-surface interactions
resulting from the exogenous application of well-characterized Aβ
assemblies and to investigate their diffusional behavior on the cell
surfaces. Employing the same methodology, we have also been able to
examine the effects of molecular chaperones on the interaction of
Aβ species with cell membranes.TIRFM enables the observation
of species at the cell membrane specifically
as fluorescent signals are collected only at the interface of the
coverslip and the sample placed upon it; if a cell is present in this
illuminated region, any fluorescent species attached to the cell membrane
will be detected. Moreover, these experiments can be performed at
concentrations as low as 1 nM, enabling investigations to be carried
out at near-endogenous Aβ concentrations (1–10 nM).[17] In this work, we have performed a detailed biophysical
characterization of the interactions between oligomers of the 40 and
42 residue isoforms of Aβ (Aβ40 and Aβ42 respectively)
and the membranes of live neuronal cells in order to enable comparisons
to be made between the effects of the two peptides. As the hippocampus
is the part of the brain most notably affected in AD, an immortalized
murine hippocampal neuronal cell line (HpL) was chosen for these studies.[18]Schematic diagram of the single-molecule methods used
to detect
species in solution (top) and those interacting with cell membranes
(bottom). Black panels are two-color fluorescence images and blue
panels show spot detection in red circles. All scale bars are 5 μm.To generate oligomers of the Aβ peptides
which could be observed
by TIRFM, equimolar quantities of monomeric Aβ (labeled with
either a HiLyteFluor488 or a HiLyteFluor647 fluorophore) were combined
and allowed to aggregate for a period of time which previous work
has shown to generate oligomers.[19] Earlier
studies have also confirmed that the attachment of these fluorescent
tags at the N-terminus of the peptide does not significantly affect
the aggregation properties of the Aβ peptides.[19−21] Within the aggregation mixture, the oligomers can be distinguished
from monomers by selecting for species containing two differently
colored fluorophores, whereas monomers are tagged with only a single
fluorophore, either HiLyteFluor488 or HiLyteFluor647. Thus, when the
oligomer mixtures were observed using two-color TIRFM, it is straightforward
not only to count the number of Aβ species present but also
to characterize each of these species as a monomer or an oligomer
by analyzing the spatial coincidence of the fluorescent signals of
different colors (see Supporting Information and Figures 1 and S1). Additionally, we could gain an added dimension of detail by using
the fluorescence intensity of the dual-color oligomers to estimate
their size[20,21] (see Supporting
Information and Figure S2). We have
performed this characterization for Aβ species present in the
aggregation mixtures as well as for those which interact with cell
membranes after incubating the Aβ mixtures with neuronal cells
(Figure 1). Since TIRFM is highly sensitive
to nonspecific binding of molecules to the surface under observation,
it was important to develop a robust protocol which enabled us to
observe cell-specific Aβ interactions while minimizing the nonspecific
adhesion of Aβ species to the coverslip (Figure 2).
Figure 1
Schematic diagram of the single-molecule methods used
to detect
species in solution (top) and those interacting with cell membranes
(bottom). Black panels are two-color fluorescence images and blue
panels show spot detection in red circles. All scale bars are 5 μm.
Figure 2
Representative images of HpL cells incubated with (A) and without
(B) 500 nM of fluorescently labeled Aβ42 that has undergone
aggregation for 3–4 h. In each pair of images, the left is
the phase contrast image, and the right is the fluorescent (TIRFM)
image. Yellow species in the fluorescent image are oligomers (dually
labeled), whereas green and red species are monomers (singly labeled).
Scale bars are 3 μm. (C) Aβ40 and Aβ42 monomeric
and oligomeric species were detectable over the limits of nonspecific
interaction with the slide surface and over the background fluorescence
of unlabeled cells 500 nM total peptide concentration, number of cells
varied from 35 to 50 for each category, error bars are standard error
of the mean, (SEM).
Representative images of HpL cells incubated with (A) and without
(B) 500 nM of fluorescently labeled Aβ42 that has undergone
aggregation for 3–4 h. In each pair of images, the left is
the phase contrast image, and the right is the fluorescent (TIRFM)
image. Yellow species in the fluorescent image are oligomers (dually
labeled), whereas green and red species are monomers (singly labeled).
Scale bars are 3 μm. (C) Aβ40 and Aβ42 monomeric
and oligomeric species were detectable over the limits of nonspecific
interaction with the slide surface and over the background fluorescence
of unlabeled cells 500 nM total peptide concentration, number of cells
varied from 35 to 50 for each category, error bars are standard error
of the mean, (SEM).
Experimental Section
Cell Culture
Murine hippocampal HPL (P4, Prnp–/−)
cells were cultured in Opti-MEM media (GIBCO) supplemented with 10%
fetal bovine serum (Sigma St. Louis, MO) and 1% penicillin/streptomycin
(GIBCO, Carlsbad, CA) in a 5% CO2 environment at 37 °C.[18] These cells do not express the prion protein
receptor (PrPC), which, recently, has been suggested to
mediate the cellular toxicity of Aβ peptides. We used this cell
line to examine the basal levels of Aβ binding to a model surface
in the absence of the influence of this putative receptor.
Aβ Peptide Preparation
Monomeric solutions of
HiLyteFluor488 and HiLyteFluor647-labeled Aβ40 or Aβ42
(Anaspec, San Jose, CA) were prepared by dissolving the lyophilized
peptide in 0.01 M NaOH followed by sonication over ice for 30 min
(Bandelin Sonorex, Schalltec Morfelden-Walldorf, Germany) and subsequent
flash freezing into aliquots.[22] Prior to
each of the incubations, aliquots of each peptide were brought to
pH 7.4 by diluting into SSPE buffer (150 mM NaCl, 10 mM NaH2PO4, 10 mM Na2EDTA, pH 7.4) to the desired
concentration and placed under the chosen conditions for aggregation
(37 °C, agitation, 1 and 2 μM of Aβ42 and Aβ40,
respectively, for time dependence measurements and 10 and 20 μM
of Aβ42 and Aβ40, respectively, for concentration dependence
experiments). The concentration of each labeled peptide was measured
before mixing using confocal two-color-coincidence detection (cTCCD).[19] The peptides were aggregated for 3–4
h at lower concentrations (1 or 2 μM) for time dependence measurements
and aggregated for 1 h at higher concentrations (10 or 20 μM)
for concentration dependence experiments.
TIRFM Instrumentation
Imaging was performed using TIRFM
by aligning the outputs from a HeNe laser operating at 633 nm (25LHP991230,
Melles Griot, Albuquerque, NM) and a diode laser operating at 488
nm (PC13589, Spectra Physics, Santa Clara, CA) and directing them
down the edge of a TIRF objective (60× Plan Apo TIRF, NA 1.45,
Nikon Instruments, New York, NY) mounted on a Nikon Eclipse TE2000-U
microscope. Fluorescence collected by the same objective was separated
from the returning TIR beam by a dichroic (FF500/646-Di1, Semrock,
Rochester, NY), split into blue and red components (585 DXLR, Omega
Optical, Brattleboro, VT) and filtered using Dual-View (Optical Insights,
Lilburn, CA) mounted filters. The images were simultaneously recorded
on an EMCCD camera (Cascade II: 512, Photometrics, Tuscon, AZ) operating
at −70 °C, whereby the emission signal from the 488 and
647 nm fluorophores was split so that each color was recorded on one-half
of the EMCCD chip (Dual-View, Photometrics, Roper Scientifics, Tuscon,
AZ) with a pixel size of 106 nm. Data were acquired at 28.6 frames
s–1 using Micromanager.[23] To achieve good image registration, a grid consisting of regularly
spaced ion-beam etched holes in gold-on-glass was utilized. The Dual-View
optics were adjusted so as to maximize the overlap of the images of
the grid in the two channels under white-light illumination, resulting
in a measured mean image registration of approximately 100 nm.
Characterization of Aβ in Solution
Solutions
containing labeled Aβ monomers and/or oligomers (prepared as
described above) were diluted to a total peptide concentration of
1 nM in PBS (see Figure 1) and spin coated
onto glass coverslips (2000 rpm, 1 min, model WS-400B-6NPP/Lite, Laurell
Tech., North Wales, PA) for imaging. The intensity of the excitation
laser(s) was adjusted so that single fluorophores (monomers) could
be efficiently discriminated against the background. The microscope
coverslips had been incubated for 1 h in piranha solution (3:1 sulfuric
acid:hydrogen peroxide), thoroughly rinsed with ultrapure water (Milli-Q,
18.2 MΩ resistance), and subsequently cleaned with oxygen plasma
for 2 min (Femto, Electronic Diener, Royal Oak, MI).
Characterization of Aβ on Cells
At least 24 h
prior to experiments, cells were seeded in six-well plates (Delta
plates, NUNC). For the experiments, cells were incubated with sterile
PBS (12 min, 37 °C) after which they could be easily removed
from the surface by aspirating with a pipet. Cells were resuspended
in DMEM/10% FCS or Opti-MEM/10% FCS and incubated in an Eppendorf
tube for 15 min at 37 °C with the fluorophore-labelled Aβ
solutions containing monomers and/or oligomers, at the concentrations
described in the text. For experiments with chaperones, the Aβ40
samples were preincubated with equimolar amounts of αB-crystallin
or clusterin for at least 15 min at room temperature. Then these mixtures
were added to the cell suspensions. Following incubation, the cells
were washed twice with the culture media and once with PBS by centrifugation
and resuspension of the pellet (600 × g, 2 min).
Prior to imaging, coverslips were cleaned as described above and subsequently
coated with a 1 mg/mL solution of PLL(20)-g[3.7]-PEG(2.3)/PEG(3.4)-RGD(12%)
(PLL-PEG-RGD) (SuSoS, AG, Switzerland) for 10 min at room temperature.[24−26] Any unbound PLL-PEG-RGD was then thoroughly washed off using PBS.
This coating allowed the cells to bind to the functionalized surface
via their integrin receptors, and the polyethyleneglycol reduced the
nonspecific Aβ adherence to the coverslip by a factor of 50.
With this protocol we were able to ensure that the only Aβ species
observed were those bound to the cells under observation. Slides were
transferred to the microscope stage, and the cells were added, allowed
to settle for 5 min, and then imaged within the subsequent 20 min
at room temperature. Due to the washing steps involved in the sample
preparation, we could not ensure that these measurements were taken
at equilibrium. Therefore, we have chosen to make comparisons between
values of the measured parameters rather than analyzing the absolute
values.
Preparation of Chaperones
Human recombinant αB-crystallin
was prepared as described previously.[27] Clusterin was extracted from human serum from Wollongong Hospital
(Wollongong, NSW, Australia), as described previously.[28]
Particle Detection
Images were analyzed using custom-written
software (MATLAB). With this software, the user interactively selects
boundaries for each cell based on white light images acquired during
the data collection phase. The corresponding fluorescence images were
then band-pass filtered, and a threshold for the subsequent spot detection
was determined from the background. First, a distribution of values
of the median background fluorescence was determined, and spots were
identified as species having a brightness value greater than the sum
of the median background fluorescence and twice the interquartile
range of the background. This threshold was empirically determined
with a number of test samples including monomeric Aβ on glass
coverslips and cells. Detection of spots corresponding to Aβ
oligomers was performed using first a centroid and subsequently a
Gaussian fit to bright objects with spot intensities corrected for
the local background then extracted. Large oligomers were distinguished
from closely associated monomers by defining a maximum allowed ellipticity
for a detected particle. A few cells were observed to have fibrillar
species bound to them (Figure S3). These
were discarded from the analysis as they represented a small fraction
of the total population of cells and because oligomers have been identified
as the key toxic species.[10]
Particle Tracking and Diffusion Analysis
The positions
of each particle in each frame were recorded, and the spots were tracked
using custom-written MATLAB code which linked the spot positions from
frame to frame by an implementation of the IDL particle tracking function
defined by Crocker and Grier.[29] The trajectories
were then analyzed using two approaches, a mean-square displacement
(MSD) analysis and a jump–distance (JD) analysis.For
the MSD analysis, the MSDs over the first five time intervals were
calculated, and individual diffusion coefficients obtained, using
the linear relationship between MSD and a given time interval between
frames dt.[100] Briefly,
for each recorded trajectory (points {x(i), y(i)}), MSD values were calculated
using the method described by Qian et al. and Saxton and Jacobsen.[30,31] They define the MSD for a given time lag ndt as
the average over all points with that time lag:with l denoting the trajectory
length and dt the time step between frames. It holds
thatwith D denoting the short-term
diffusion coefficient; the gradient of a linear fit for n ≤ 5 is therefore proportional to D. A weighted
fit was used as errors are assumed to be approximately normally distributed.For the JD analysis, the distances between particle positions in
subsequent frames, the so-called jump distances, were calculated,
and compiled into histograms. These histograms reflect the probability
distribution of the distance that a particle moves in the set time
between frames, and this distribution can be fitted with a linear
combination of the two-dimensional diffusion equation to extract diffusion
coefficients of multiple diffusing populations[100,32,33].The MSD analysis of the trajectories was additionally
used to obtain an estimate for the diffusion coefficients of individual
oligomers in order to correlate diffusion and oligomer brightness.
Size Determination
Since almost all of the oligomers
were found to be static, their positions and intensities were averaged
over multiple frames before bleaching occurred. Coincident spots were
detected by calculating the distance between the spots in the blue
and red channels.[34] Here we required associated
particles to stay within 300 nm of each other to account for imperfections
in image registration (Figure S1). First,
the mean brightness of a red monomer Imon was estimated by analyzing bleaching traces manually using ImageJ
(NIH, freeware, Figure S2). Then the fluorescence
intensity collected from the 633 nm excitation channel I633 for each coincident spot detected was doubled and
then scaled by the monomer brightness determined by photobleaching,
and the size of the spot was expressed in terms of numbers of monomers.
This method assumes that no quenching takes place in higher oligomers,
which has been found to be a good approximation up to ca 20-mers.[21]The size distribution was then corrected
for the undetected (single color) fraction of oligomers (e.g., single-color
dimers, trimers, etc.) from the binomial probabilities of detection.
The correction factor (F) for a given oligomer size n, as given below, is less than 1% for oligomers over 7-mers
in size:Then the total number of oligomeric spots
[∑050(F × N)] was determined following this correction. This was taken as a
fraction of the total number of species detected Ntotal for all plots where quantities are expressed as
fractions:Further statistical analysis was performed
using Origin (OriginLab).
Results
Oligomers of Aβ40 and Aβ42 Preferentially Interact
with the Cell Membrane Relative to Aβ Monomers
With
the confidence that only specific interactions between the Aβ
peptides and the cell membranes are observed by this technique (Figure 2), we examined whether the distribution of species
of Aβ present in solution was different from the distribution
of Aβ species interacting with cell membranes. To this end,
we incubated the cells with solutions of Aβ (both Aβ40
and Aβ42) that had been allowed to aggregate for various periods
of time and concurrently characterized the solution in the absence
of cells by spin-coating the solution onto a glass coverslip and imaging
both samples using dual-excitation TIRFM. Previous studies have confirmed
that characterization of oligomer formation by this method accurately
describes the species found in solution.[19]We then quantified the number and sizes of Aβ species
in solution before and after incubation with cells. We accomplished
this objective by using TIRFM first to characterize a solution of
Aβ species containing both oligomers and monomers. Then this
same solution was added to a suspension of cells, incubated with the
cells for at least 15 min, and then the cells were separated from
the soluble medium via centrifugation. The cells were then visualized
using TIRFM, and the species on the cell surface were characterized
as monomers or oligomers. Both monomers and oligomers were observed
to interact with the surfaces of the cells. We then compared the oligomeric
fraction of the Aβ40 or Aβ42 (number of oligomers relative
to the total species) present in solution with the fraction of the
oligomeric Aβ40 or Aβ42 species interacting with the cell
membrane. This analysis revealed that the fraction of Aβ40 or
Aβ42 oligomers interacting with the cell membrane was 5–7-fold
greater than their fraction observed in solution (Figure 3, A,B, paired two-tailed t test, p < 0.01).
Figure 3
(A) Representative TIRFM images with arrows
depicting the increased
fraction of Aβ oligomers on the surfaces of hippocampal cells.
The oligomeric fraction of Aβ42 and Aβ40 (B) on cell membranes
and in solution prior to incubation with cells (aggregation concentrations
used were 1 μM Aβ42 and 2 μM Aβ40); Aβ
species were analyzed at different times during the aggregation reaction.
For characterization of species prior to incubation with cells, the
data were derived from three separate incubations. The oligomeric
fraction of Aβ interacting with cell membranes as a function
of different incubation concentrations of Aβ42 (C) and Aβ40
(D) (ANOVA single factor p = 0.17 for Aβ40
and p = 0.65 for Aβ42); distribution of sizes
of oligomers after 4 h of aggregation of Aβ42 (E) or Aβ40
(F) present in solution (prior to incubation with cells) and on cell
membranes (aggregation concentrations used were 1 μM Aβ42
and 2 μM Aβ40, n = 30–50 cells).
All error bars are SEM; * is p < 0.05; ** is p < 0.01; n.s. p > 0.05.
Since the numbers of oligomeric species
and their size distributions
are dependent on the progress of the aggregation reaction, we next
examined whether or not the enrichment of oligomers at the cell surface
changed with the time that Aβ40 and Aβ42 were left to
aggregate in the absence of cells. We found that the increase in oligomeric
fraction of Aβ at the cell surfaces (compared to that in solution)
was similar for Aβ40 and Aβ42 having undergone aggregation
for times ranging from 2 to 12 h. The oligomeric fractions of Aβ40
and Aβ42 present on cell membranes were not found to be significantly
different from each other (p = 0.33, two sample independent t test). We were interested in whether the concentration
of Aβ (40 or 42) in the incubation mixture with the cells affects
the oligomeric fraction of Aβ interacting with the cell membrane.
Varying the concentration of Aβ40 or Aβ42 (taken at a
fixed time during the aggregation) in the solution in which the cells
were incubated did not significantly change the oligomeric fraction
of either isoform interacting with the cells (Figure 3C,D, ANOVA, single factor, p = 0.83, Figure S5). For both Aβ40 and Aβ42,
the size distribution of the oligomeric species that were associated
with cell surfaces was skewed toward larger species than those present
in solution (Figure 3E,F), a finding in accord
with other work on Aβ40.[20]The increased oligomeric fraction of Aβ (of both isoforms)
observed on the cell membrane, relative to the oligomeric fraction
of Aβ in solution, reflects a preferential adherence of oligomers
(over monomers) to the cell membrane. This increased fraction is not
due to further aggregation of Aβ in solution during the incubation
with the cells; we can exclude this mechanism because the difference
in the oligomeric fraction of Aβ in solution and on cells is
far greater than the difference in the oligomeric fraction of Aβ
observed in solution over the entire aggregation reaction. Aβ
oligomers possess a greater amount of solvent-exposed hydrophobic
surface area than monomers, a property which may favor their interaction
with cell membranes and has also been correlated with their cellular
toxicity.[35](A) Representative TIRFM images with arrows
depicting the increased
fraction of Aβ oligomers on the surfaces of hippocampal cells.
The oligomeric fraction of Aβ42 and Aβ40 (B) on cell membranes
and in solution prior to incubation with cells (aggregation concentrations
used were 1 μM Aβ42 and 2 μM Aβ40); Aβ
species were analyzed at different times during the aggregation reaction.
For characterization of species prior to incubation with cells, the
data were derived from three separate incubations. The oligomeric
fraction of Aβ interacting with cell membranes as a function
of different incubation concentrations of Aβ42 (C) and Aβ40
(D) (ANOVA single factor p = 0.17 for Aβ40
and p = 0.65 for Aβ42); distribution of sizes
of oligomers after 4 h of aggregation of Aβ42 (E) or Aβ40
(F) present in solution (prior to incubation with cells) and on cell
membranes (aggregation concentrations used were 1 μM Aβ42
and 2 μM Aβ40, n = 30–50 cells).
All error bars are SEM; * is p < 0.05; ** is p < 0.01; n.s. p > 0.05.
Mobility of Aβ40 and Aβ42 Oligomers is Inversely
Correlated with Oligomer Size
Having established that the
relative levels of oligomeric species are enriched at cell membranes
compared to the solution phase, we then investigated the nature of
the interaction with the membranes. As our technique enables visualization
of single-Aβ species and characterization of their oligomer
state, we examined whether or not there were any differences in the
mobility of oligomers and monomers in the cell membrane. To accomplish
this objective, we acquired videos of the Aβ species on cell
surfaces. Since oligomers are likely to contain two differently colored
fluorophores (HiLyteFluor488 and HiLyteFluor647), excitation with
a 488 nm laser will result in fluorescence resonance energy transfer
(FRET) between the two fluorophores and therefore a fluorescent signal
from both detection channels. Therefore, we acquired the videos using
single-color excitation (488 nm) for the TIRFM. Then, single-particle
tracking algorithms were used to link the images of these species
in subsequent frames within each video, thus obtaining trajectories
of individual Aβ species in the cell membrane (representative
frames shown in Figure 4A,B and video in Supporting Information).
Figure 4
(A,B) Representative
frames taken from a live cell imaging experiment
to monitor Aβ40 diffusion in the cell membrane; the Aβ40
molecules were labeled with HiLyte488 and HiLyte647 fluorophores.
(A) Monomers and oligomers (488 channel); (B) species undergoing FRET
(633 nm channel, Aβ oligomers). The trajectories obtained by
linking the images of the Aβ species in (A) and (B) are shown
in (C). From the ensemble plots, it is already apparent that, in contrast
to the small species present in (A), the motion of the large oligomers
(defined as species that undergo FRET) is highly restricted. (D) A
representative plot of the MSDs as a function of time for a mobile
Aβ40 species (yellow arrows and trajectories in (C); the diffusion
coefficient obtained from the fit is D = 0.063 ±
0.020 μm2/s. (E) The diffusion coefficient as estimated
by the MSD analysis as a function of species intensity (which correlates
with size) for both Aβ42 and Aβ40. Each point represents
an Aβ monomer or oligomer. (F) The estimated diffusion coefficient
as a function of species intensity for only the oligomers of Aβ42
and Aβ40. Concentrations used are 1 μM Aβ42 and
2 μM Aβ40.
(A,B) Representative
frames taken from a live cell imaging experiment
to monitor Aβ40 diffusion in the cell membrane; the Aβ40
molecules were labeled with HiLyte488 and HiLyte647 fluorophores.
(A) Monomers and oligomers (488 channel); (B) species undergoing FRET
(633 nm channel, Aβ oligomers). The trajectories obtained by
linking the images of the Aβ species in (A) and (B) are shown
in (C). From the ensemble plots, it is already apparent that, in contrast
to the small species present in (A), the motion of the large oligomers
(defined as species that undergo FRET) is highly restricted. (D) A
representative plot of the MSDs as a function of time for a mobile
Aβ40 species (yellow arrows and trajectories in (C); the diffusion
coefficient obtained from the fit is D = 0.063 ±
0.020 μm2/s. (E) The diffusion coefficient as estimated
by the MSD analysis as a function of species intensity (which correlates
with size) for both Aβ42 and Aβ40. Each point represents
an Aβ monomer or oligomer. (F) The estimated diffusion coefficient
as a function of species intensity for only the oligomers of Aβ42
and Aβ40. Concentrations used are 1 μM Aβ42 and
2 μM Aβ40.First an analysis of the mean-square displacements
(MSD) of each
trajectory was used to estimate the diffusion coefficients of each
molecule (Figure 4C). The average fluorescence
intensity of each molecule was extracted simultaneously with the estimation
of its diffusion coefficient (see Experimental section). Since the fluorescence intensity of an Aβ species
is correlated with its size, the simultaneous estimation of intensity
and diffusion coefficient allows us to investigate whether or not
there is a relationship between the size of an Aβ assembly and
its mobility in the cell membrane. Using the diffusion coefficients
obtained from the MSD approach, we observed a clear negative correlation
between the diffusion rate of a single Aβ species and its size
(as assessed by its intensity). This observation holds for both Aβ40
and Aβ42 (Figure 4D). For Aβ40,
we observe a subpopulation of small, fast-diffusing species. We can
identify these species as monomeric since they do not undergo FRET
and have low fluorescence intensities. If only the species that undergo
FRET (i.e., oligomers) of both Aβ40 and Aβ42 are examined,
the small, fast-diffusing population is not observed (Figure 4E). Interestingly the diffusion coefficients of
the oligomers are small, and their trajectories indicate confined
motion[31] (Figure 4A,B,E).
Mobility of Oligomers of Aβ40 and Aβ42 in the Cell
Membrane is Highly Restricted
Extracting diffusion coefficients
using an MSD analysis can be challenging for heterogeneous samples
with multiple mobility populations and short trajectory lengths. Therefore
the diffusion coefficients obtained using the MSD approach should
be considered as approximate rather than exact values. In order to
quantify the diffusion of the Aβ species interacting with the
cell, we employed a second approach called JD analysis.[100,32,33,36] For this analysis a histogram of the displacement of a particle
in a given time interval (jump-distance) is created. This histogram
corresponds to the probability of a particle moving a certain distance
in a given time; we can therefore fit this histogram with the two-dimensional
diffusion equation (see Experimental section).
In this way, multiple diffusing populations can be resolved using
a linear combination of the two-dimensional diffusion equation with
varying diffusion coefficients, D, representing the
various mobility populations, and amplitudes, A,
representing the relative abundance of these populations.When
we applied the JD analysis to our data, we found that a minimum of
three mobility populations was required to fit the experimentally
derived JD distributions for both Aβ40 (D2, D3, D4) and Aβ42 (D1, D2, D3) (adjusted R2 = 0.94 for two populations compared to R2 = 0.98 for three populations). The majority of the Aβ40
and Aβ42 species interacting with the cell membrane were found
to be either confined (D1, D2 between 0.00053–0.004 μm2/s)
or slow moving (D3 between 0.038–0.050
μm2/s) (Figure 5, and Table 1). For Aβ40, the fast-diffusing population
(observed with the MSD approach) was identified as one of three mobility
populations with an ensemble diffusion coefficient of D4 = 0.225 ± 0.016 μm2/s.
Figure 5
Distributions
of particle displacements (JDs, blue histogram) per
unit time (35 ms) of monomers and oligomers of Aβ42 (A) and
Aβ40 (B) fit to the two-dimensional diffusion equation for three
diffusing populations (eq 3, black line). The
three components of the fit are shown in red, green, and cyan (A)
and green, cyan, and purple (B), respectively. Concentrations used
are 1 μM Aβ42 and 2 μM Aβ40.
Table 1
Diffusion Coefficients (D) and Relative Abundances (A) for All Experimental
Conditions Studied in This Work
D1 (confineda) [μm2/s]
A1[%]
D2 (confineda) [μm2/s]
A2 [%]
D3 (slow) [μm2/s]
A2 [%]
D4 (fast) [μm2/s]
A4 [%]
monomers
and oligomers (Aβ42)
0.00053 ± 0.00001
21.2 ± 0.6
0.0040 ± 0.0002
32.5 ± 1.0
0.043 ± 0.001
46.3 ± 1.2
–
–
oligomers only (Aβ42)
0.00052 ± 0.00002
20.7 ± 0.9
0.0034 ± 0.0002
34.8 ± 1.2
0.038 ± 0.001
44.5 ± 1.2
–
–
monomers and oligomers (Aβ40)
–
–
0.0045 ± 0.0004
12.6 ± 0.7
0.050 ± 0.002
60.7 ± 2.0
0.226 ± 0.016
26.7 ± 2.3
oligomers only (Aβ40)
–
–
0.0045b
42.2 ± 1.5
0.0503b
57.8 ± 3.3
0.2256b
0.002 ± 0.025
Note that these populations are
confined within the localization precision of 34.4 ± 15.0 nm
(see also Figure S1).
The values for D1, D2, and D3 were fixed
in order to enable a comparison of the fraction
of species with varying mobility across all species of Aβ40
and Aβ40 oligomers only. Errors were calculated by bootstrapping
using the size of the original data set and 1000 repetitions.
Distributions
of particle displacements (JDs, blue histogram) per
unit time (35 ms) of monomers and oligomers of Aβ42 (A) and
Aβ40 (B) fit to the two-dimensional diffusion equation for three
diffusing populations (eq 3, black line). The
three components of the fit are shown in red, green, and cyan (A)
and green, cyan, and purple (B), respectively. Concentrations used
are 1 μM Aβ42 and 2 μM Aβ40.We confirmed that this confinement was not an artifact
of the TIRFM
method since very little interaction exists between the oligomers
and the coated coverslip, and species even larger than the oligomers
observed have been found to move using TIRFM.[37] One possible explanation for the restricted diffusion of the majority
of the oligomers of Aβ40 and Aβ42 is that the oligomers
are attached to the membrane or a membrane component connected to
the cytoskeletal framework of the cell. However, further investigation
is required to explore this phenomenon in more detail.
Presence of ATP-Independent Chaperones Inhibits the Interaction
Between Aβ40 and Cell Membranes
Having established
a methodology for observing and characterizing the interaction of
Aβ with cell membranes, we examined the way in which molecular
chaperones can affect this process. The extracellular chaperone, clusterin,
and the intracellular chaperone, αB-crystallin, act in an ATP-independent
manner to inhibit protein aggregation in vitro and to suppress the
cytotoxicity of amyloid-related oligomers.[38,39] Previous studies using single-molecule techniques have observed
interactions between both of these chaperones and the Aβ40 peptide.[19,40] We therefore aimed to investigate whether or not the presence of
these chaperones could modulate the interaction of Aβ40 with
cell membranes. Solutions containing Aβ40 oligomers were first
incubated with stoichiometric amounts of either clusterin or αB-crystallin
and then added to the cells; we then quantified the number of oligomers
and monomers interacting with the cells.When comparing the
species interacting with the cell surfaces in the presence and absence
of the chaperones, it is apparent that the presence of either chaperone
reduced the interaction of all Aβ40 species with cell membranes
(Figure 6). This inhibition of binding may
be attributable to the sequestration of Aβ40 species by these
chaperones (as it has been previously observed in vitro) or as a result
of interactions of the chaperone molecules themselves with the cell
membrane. Further experiments will be needed to distinguish these
and other possibilities, but in any case it is apparent that the presence
of these chaperones reduces the number of oligomers interacting with
the cellular membranes.
Figure 6
αB-Crystallin and clusterin inhibit the
interaction of Aβ40
with the membranes of hippocampal cells. Representative TIRFM images
of cells after incubation of the cells with fluorescently labeled
Aβ40 monomers and oligomers in the absence of chaperones (A)
or in the presence of either αB-crystallin (B) or clusterin
(C). Phase contrast images are displayed (left) and fluorescence images
(right). Single-color green or red species are HiLyteFluor488 and
HiLyteFluor647-labeled Aβ40 monomers and dual-color species
(which appears as yellow) are oligomers, the scale bar in each case
is 5 μm. (D) The species density per 10 μm2 cell area in the presence and absence of chaperones; 33–39
cells were analyzed for each sample. Significance testing was performed
relative to “Aβ40 only”, *** p < 0.001; * p < 0.05; n.s. p > 0.05. The concentrations used are 2 μM for Aβ40
and
both chaperones. Error bars are SEM.
αB-Crystallin and clusterin inhibit the
interaction of Aβ40
with the membranes of hippocampal cells. Representative TIRFM images
of cells after incubation of the cells with fluorescently labeled
Aβ40 monomers and oligomers in the absence of chaperones (A)
or in the presence of either αB-crystallin (B) or clusterin
(C). Phase contrast images are displayed (left) and fluorescence images
(right). Single-color green or red species are HiLyteFluor488 and
HiLyteFluor647-labeled Aβ40 monomers and dual-color species
(which appears as yellow) are oligomers, the scale bar in each case
is 5 μm. (D) The species density per 10 μm2 cell area in the presence and absence of chaperones; 33–39
cells were analyzed for each sample. Significance testing was performed
relative to “Aβ40 only”, *** p < 0.001; * p < 0.05; n.s. p > 0.05. The concentrations used are 2 μM for Aβ40
and
both chaperones. Error bars are SEM.Note that these populations are
confined within the localization precision of 34.4 ± 15.0 nm
(see also Figure S1).The values for D1, D2, and D3 were fixed
in order to enable a comparison of the fraction
of species with varying mobility across all species of Aβ40
and Aβ40 oligomers only. Errors were calculated by bootstrapping
using the size of the original data set and 1000 repetitions.
Discussion
This work outlines a quantitative biophysical
approach to studying
the early stages of the interaction of Aβ species with the membranes
of live cells. We have shown that oligomeric species interact preferentially
with cell surfaces relative to monomeric peptides. The oligomeric
fraction of Aβ42 interacting with the cell membrane is not significantly
different from that of Aβ40, suggesting that oligomers of both
peptides have a similar affinity for cell membranes. On the cell surface
most oligomers of both isoforms display restricted motion, characterized
by diffusion coefficients between 10–4 and 10–3 μm2/s, values that are far lower
than the diffusion coefficients of mobile transmembrane proteins (10–2 and 10–1 μm2/s).
This result suggests that the majority of the Aβ species are
not bound to a mobile cell-surface protein and could be interacting
with a more immobile partner, for example, a cytoskeleton-associated
membrane component.[41,42] However, future investigations
are needed to evaluate the causes of restricted diffusion in detail.
Larger oligomers exhibit slower motion than smaller oligomers which
could be a consequence of differential levels of membrane integration
due to different degrees of exposed hydrophobic surface area.[35,43,44] Indeed, varying levels of exposed
hydrophobic surface area have been correlated with different toxicity.[35] Moreover, the preincubation of oligomeric solutions
of Aβ40 with either clusterin or αB-crystallin prior to
their addition to cells prevents the interaction of the Aβ40
species with the cell surface.This study illustrates a methodology
with the potential to examine
in detail how various biologically relevant molecules influence the
interactions between the various Aβ species and cell membranes.
While numerous cellular studies of Aβ examine effects at concentrations
that are 100- and 1000-fold higher than those present physiologically,
our use of single-molecule imaging enables us to work at near physiological,
nanomolar concentrations, which are particularily relevant to the
initial stages of Aβ-induced AD pathology.
Authors: Ganesh M Shankar; Shaomin Li; Tapan H Mehta; Amaya Garcia-Munoz; Nina E Shepardson; Imelda Smith; Francesca M Brett; Michael A Farrell; Michael J Rowan; Cynthia A Lemere; Ciaran M Regan; Dominic M Walsh; Bernardo L Sabatini; Dennis J Selkoe Journal: Nat Med Date: 2008-06-22 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: S Tosatti; S M De Paul; A Askendal; S VandeVondele; J A Hubbell; P Tengvall; M Textor Journal: Biomaterials Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 12.479
Authors: Nicholas L Andrews; Keith A Lidke; Janet R Pfeiffer; Alan R Burns; Bridget S Wilson; Janet M Oliver; Diane S Lidke Journal: Nat Cell Biol Date: 2008-07-20 Impact factor: 28.824
Authors: Benedetta Mannini; Roberta Cascella; Mariagioia Zampagni; Maria van Waarde-Verhagen; Sarah Meehan; Cintia Roodveldt; Silvia Campioni; Matilde Boninsegna; Amanda Penco; Annalisa Relini; Harm H Kampinga; Christopher M Dobson; Mark R Wilson; Cristina Cecchi; Fabrizio Chiti Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2012-07-16 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Francois-Xavier Theillet; Andres Binolfi; Tamara Frembgen-Kesner; Karan Hingorani; Mohona Sarkar; Ciara Kyne; Conggang Li; Peter B Crowley; Lila Gierasch; Gary J Pielak; Adrian H Elcock; Anne Gershenson; Philipp Selenko Journal: Chem Rev Date: 2014-06-05 Impact factor: 60.622