Gregory G Wolken1, Edgar A Arriaga. 1. Department of Chemistry, University of Minnesota , 207 Pleasant Street SE, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455, United States.
Abstract
Mitochondrial membrane potential varies, depending on energy demand, subcellular location, and morphology and is commonly used as an indicator of mitochondrial functional status. Electrophoretic mobility is a heterogeneous surface property reflective of mitochondrial surface composition and morphology, which could be used as a basis for separation of mitochondrial subpopulations. Since these properties are heterogeneous, methods for their characterization in individual mitochondria are needed to better design and understand electrophoretic separations of subpopulations of mitochondria. Here we report on the first method for simultaneous determination of individual mitochondrial membrane potential and electrophoretic mobility by capillary electrophoresis with laser-induced fluorescence detection (CE-LIF). Mitochondria were isolated from cultured cells, mouse muscle, or liver, and then polarized, labeled with JC-1 (a ratiometric fluorescent probe, which indicates changes in membrane potential), and separated with CE-LIF. Red/green fluorescence intensity ratios from individual mitochondria were used as an indicator of mitochondrial membrane potential. Reproducible distributions of individual mitochondrial membrane potential and electrophoretic mobility were observed. Analysis of polarized and depolarized regions of interest defined using red/green ratios and runs of depolarized controls allowed for the determination of membrane potential and comparison of electrophoretic mobility distributions in preparations containing depolarized mitochondria. Through comparison of these regions of interest, we observed dependence of electrophoretic mobility on membrane potential, with polarized regions of interest displaying decreased electrophoretic mobility. This method could be applied to investigate mitochondrial heterogeneity in aging or disease models where membrane potential is an important factor.
Mitochondrial membrane potential varies, depending on energy demand, subcellular location, and morphology and is commonly used as an indicator of mitochondrial functional status. Electrophoretic mobility is a heterogeneous surface property reflective of mitochondrial surface composition and morphology, which could be used as a basis for separation of mitochondrial subpopulations. Since these properties are heterogeneous, methods for their characterization in individual mitochondria are needed to better design and understand electrophoretic separations of subpopulations of mitochondria. Here we report on the first method for simultaneous determination of individual mitochondrial membrane potential and electrophoretic mobility by capillary electrophoresis with laser-induced fluorescence detection (CE-LIF). Mitochondria were isolated from cultured cells, mouse muscle, or liver, and then polarized, labeled with JC-1 (a ratiometric fluorescent probe, which indicates changes in membrane potential), and separated with CE-LIF. Red/green fluorescence intensity ratios from individual mitochondria were used as an indicator of mitochondrial membrane potential. Reproducible distributions of individual mitochondrial membrane potential and electrophoretic mobility were observed. Analysis of polarized and depolarized regions of interest defined using red/green ratios and runs of depolarized controls allowed for the determination of membrane potential and comparison of electrophoretic mobility distributions in preparations containing depolarized mitochondria. Through comparison of these regions of interest, we observed dependence of electrophoretic mobility on membrane potential, with polarized regions of interest displaying decreased electrophoretic mobility. This method could be applied to investigate mitochondrial heterogeneity in aging or disease models where membrane potential is an important factor.
Mitochondrial
membrane potential
is commonly used as an indication of functional status.[1] Membrane potential arises from a proton gradient
established across the mitochondrial inner membrane which drives ATP
production through oxidative phosphorylation.[2] While decreased membrane potential (depolarization) indicates damaged,
dysfunctional mitochondria that cannot meet cellular energy demands,
increased membrane potential (hyperpolarization) leads to increased
production of reactive oxygen species, which causes cellular damage,
resulting in diseases such as cancer, diabetes, and Alzheimer’s.[3] Moreover, changes in mitochondrial membrane potential
affect turnover and regulation of dysfunctional mitochondria in the
cell through fusion/fission[4] and targeting
for elimination by mitophagy (mitochondrial-specific autophagy).[5]Mitochondrial membrane potential within
the cell is heterogeneous
and differences in membrane potential can indicate the presence of
dysfunctional subpopulations.[6−10] Membrane potential varies according to energy demands, calcium concentrations,
and mechanisms to limit reactive oxygen species production in different
subcellular locations.[6] Heterogeneity in
membrane potential and dysfunctional mitochondria were observed in
cells lacking proteins that control mitochondrial morphology (MFN1
and MFN2).[7] In skeletal muscle, subsarcolemmal
mitochondria had higher membrane potential than intermyofibrillar
mitochondria (two subpopulations characterized by their location).[8] In a cell model of aging, dysfunctional, enlarged
mitochondria had lower membrane potential.[9] It was demonstrated that only subpopulations of mitochondria with
decreased membrane potential are marked for degradation through mitophagy.[10] In addition to biological sources of heterogeneity,
the process of preparing samples of isolated mitochondria itself causes
damage to mitochondria, which may result in depolarization and additional
apparent heterogeneity in membrane potential.[11]Methods for measurement of individual mitochondrial membrane
potential
are needed to characterize mitochondrial heterogeneity and identify
subpopulations. Methods using a triphenylphosphonium (TPP+) ion-selective electrode are quantitative but report only an average
value.[12,13] Fluorescent dyes are commonly used in imaging,
bulk fluorescence measurements and flow cytometry to indicate mitochondrial
membrane potential.[14] These dyes are cationic,
which drives their uptake into mitochondria in a membrane potential-dependent
manner according to the Nernst equation.[15] JC-1 is one such dye, which is ratiometric, undergoing a spectral
shift upon its uptake into mitochondria, which can be measured and
used to normalize its response across different dye concentrations
or mitochondrial sizes.[14,16−20] The mechanism of spectral change has been established previously
and depends on aggregation of JC-1.[21−23] At low concentrations
(less than approximately 100 nM), JC-1 exists primarily as a monomer
and exhibits green fluorescence.[17] At higher
concentrations, JC-1 forms aggregates that exhibit red fluorescence.
Mitochondrial membrane potential drives JC-1 uptake into mitochondria;
polarized mitochondria with higher membrane potential (more negative
with respect to the cytosol) will accumulate JC-1 at a higher concentration
than depolarized mitochondria. Polarized mitochondria will therefore
exhibit more red fluorescence from aggregates as well as green fluorescence
from the monomeric form of the dye, and measurement of red/green fluorescence
is then used as an indicator of membrane potential. An advantage for
its use in detection of individual mitochondria is that higher dye
concentrations result in an increase in signal from red aggregates,
as opposed to quenching and reduction of signal seen with other membrane-potential
sensitive dyes.[24] JC-1 has been used to
measure mitochondrial membrane potential in isolated mitochondria
by flow cytometry[25] and in a microfluidic
device.[26]Capillary electrophoresis
with laser-induced fluorescence detection
(CE-LIF) is a separation technique which has been used for the characterization
of mitochondrial heterogeneity.[27] Briefly,
isolated mitochondria are labeled with a fluorescent probe or through
expression of a fluorescent protein and separated by CE in an aqueous
buffer at physiological pH and osmolarity. Individual mitochondrial
properties such as DNA content,[28] cardiolipin
levels,[29,30] the presence of a specific protein,[31] or the quality of a mitochondrial preparation[32] may be assessed by CE-LIF. This technique can
be used for the separation of mitochondrial subpopulations with different
surface properties because the electrophoretic mobility of subcellular
particles depends on their surface charge density, which is reflective
of their surface compositions.[33] Studies
on liposomes have revealed that the electrophoretic mobility of biological
particles may also depend on properties such as transmembrane pH gradients,[34−37] deformability and field-induced polarization,[35] or multipole effects.[36] Transmembrane
pH gradients, which may influence electrophoretic properties through
a capacitive effect or by translocation of phospholipids to different
sides of the bilayer,[37] are of particular
interest in the study of mitochondrial electrophoretic properties
since a pH gradient is established across the inner mitochondrial
membrane in polarized mitochondria. In previous reports, net mitochondrial
mobility has been negative.Previous work has shown that mitochondrial
electrophoretic mobility
also depends on membrane potential.[38−40] In these reports, the
net mitochondrial mobility was negative. For clarity, when mobilities
become less negative, we refer to this change as a decrease in mobility;
when mobilities become more negative, we refer to this change as an
increase in mobility. Kamo et al. observed increases in mobility of
rat liver mitochondria upon polarization using an electric field of
6 V/cm.[38] The authors interpreted this
result as an increase in mitochondrial surface charge density and
hypothesized that the electrophoretic properties of mitochondria are
“affected significantly” by the membrane potential across
the inner membrane. In a follow-up study, increases in mitochondrial
electrophoretic mobility in a low electric field were again observed
upon mitochondrial polarization.[39] The
authors suggested that the mitochondrial surface potential at the
inner membrane increases with mitochondrial polarization. In another
study, increases in mitochondrial mobility and volume upon polarization
of rat liver mitochondria was observed with mitochondrial polarization.[40] The authors hypothesized that this result was
due to an increase in both mitochondrial surface area and surface
charge density and speculated that the outer membrane deforms upon
polarization and exposes new charged groups on the surface. While
previous studies provided average measurements of mitochondrial electrophoretic
mobility or membrane potential, none of them attempted to associate
these properties at the individual mitochondrion level.In this
report, we introduce a method to simultaneously measure
mitochondrial membrane potential and electrophoretic mobility of individual
mitochondria by CE-LIF. Mitochondria were isolated from cultured murine
cells, liver, or muscle tissue, energized with succinate in the presence
of rotenone (a complex I inhibitor) and then labeled with JC-1. Labeled
mitochondria were then separated by CE and detected by a dual-laser
excitation/dual-channel emission fluorescence detector. Measurement
of red and green fluorescence from JC-1 allowed for determination
of individual mitochondrial membrane potential. Valinomycin, an ionophore
which allows for free transport of potassium across the mitochondrial
inner membrane, was used to depolarize mitochondria as a control.[41] Through comparison of regions of interest containing
mitochondrial events considered polarized or depolarized based on
their red/green ratios, we observed a dependence of electrophoretic
mobility on membrane potential, with higher membrane potential generally
resulting in decreases in electrophoretic mobility, which is the opposite
trend observed in previous bulk studies. The method described here
is useful for investigating mitochondrial heterogeneity and assessment
of membrane potential, even if many mitochondria are damaged and depolarized
during the preparation and separation, which would not be possible
using bulk techniques.
Experimental Section
Reagents and Materials
Sucrose, 4-(2-hydroxyethyl)piperazine-1-ethanesulfonic
acid (HEPES), potassium hydroxide (KOH), 5,5′,6,6′-tetrachloro-1,1′,3,3′-tetraethyl-imidacarbocyanine
iodide (JC-1), valinomycin, succinic acid, potassium chloride (KCl),
magnesium chloride (MgCl2), and poly(vinyl alcohol) (PVA,
99+% hydrolyzed, 89–98 kDa) were from Sigma-Aldrich (Saint
Louis, MO). Fluorescein was from Molecular Probes (Eugene, OR). Rotenone
was from ICN Biomedicals (Aurora, OH). 5-TAMRA was from AnaSpec (Fremont,
CA). Dibasic potassium phosphate (K2HPO4) was
from Mallinckrodt (Saint Louis, MO). Phosphate-buffered saline (PBS,
10×) was from Bio-Rad (Hercules, CA). Dulbecco’s modified
Eagle medium (DMEM), fetal bovine serum (FBS), and 0.5% trypsin (10×,
5 g/L trypsin, 2 g/L EDTA·4Na, 8.5 g/L NaCl) were from Gibco
(Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA). Trypan blue stain (0.4%) was from Bio-Whittaker
(Walkersville, MD). Fused-silica capillary tubing (50 μm i.d.,
150 μm o.d.) was from Polymicro (Phoenix, AZ). Additional reagents
and materials are described in the Supporting
Information.
Buffers and Solutions
Deionized
water was purified
using a Synergy filtration system (Millipore, Billerica, MA) and was
used in preparation of all buffers and solutions. Intermediate and
stock solutions (JC-1, fluorescein, valinomycin, succinate, and rotenone)
were prepared as described in the Supporting Information and used at the final concentrations listed in Table 1 below. Buffers were prepared according to Table 1; additional buffers are described in the Supporting Information.
Table 1
Buffer
Compositiona
buffer
description
composition
R
respiration buffer, no substrate
125 mM KCl, 10 mM HEPES, 5 mM MgCl2, 2 mM K2HPO4
Rs
respiration buffer with substrate
buffer R with 2.5
mM succinate, 2 μM rotenone, 2% DMSO
Rval
respiration buffer with substrate and
valinomycin
buffer Rs with 2 μM valinomycin
SH
sucrose-HEPES buffer
250 mM sucrose, 10 mM HEPES
SHs
CE buffer with substrate
buffer SH with
2.5 mM succinate, 2 μM rotenone, 2% DMSO
SHval
CE buffer with substrate and valinomycin
buffer SHs with 2 μM valinomycin
All buffers were made up in deionized
water and adjusted to pH 7.4 with KOH. Buffers were filtered to 0.2
μm before use.
All buffers were made up in deionized
water and adjusted to pH 7.4 with KOH. Buffers were filtered to 0.2
μm before use.To
reduce the fluorescence background for CE-LIF, SH buffer was
photobleached using a lab-built device containing 120 blue light-emitting
diodes (Super Bright LEDs, Saint Louis, MO) (467 nm, 4.2 × 105 mcd intensity) for at least 24 h before use (see Figure S-1-1
in the Supporting Information). This strategy
has been used to reduce the fluorescence background in capillary isoelectric
focusing with LIF detection and in single molecule fluorescence experiments.[42,43]
Cell Culture
Adherent C2C12 mouse myoblast and L6 rat
myoblast cells (ATCC, Manassas, VA) were cultured in vented 75 cm2 flasks at 37 °C with 5% CO2 in DMEM supplemented
with 10% FBS. Cells were split after reaching 90% confluence by rinsing
with PBS, releasing with 0.25% trypsin in PBS, and seeding back into
the flask with fresh DMEM at splitting ratios between 1:20 and 1:40.
L6 rat myoblast cells were used for initial experiments, and C2C12
mouse myoblast cells were used in later experiments for a more direct
comparison to mouse tissue.
Mitochondrial Preparation and JC-1 Labeling
Mitochondria
from cell culture were isolated by differential centrifugation and
mechanical homogenization.[44] After isolation,
mitochondria were suspended in isolation buffer for cells (buffer
C) and kept on ice. Protein content in the mitochondrial fraction
was quantified using the Pierce BCA protein assay kit according to
the manufacturer’s instructions (Thermo, Rockford, IL). Typical
mitochondrial protein concentration from one preparation was 1.60
± 0.09 mg/mL (average ± standard deviation).Mitochondria
were isolated from mouse liver and muscle (hamstring) tissue from
C57BL6 mice using published protocols for mechanical homogenization
and differential centrifugation.[45] After
isolation, liver and muscle mitochondria were resuspended in a minimal
amount of isolation buffer for liver or muscle (buffers L and M2) and kept on ice. Protein concentration (determined using
the BCA assay) from this preparation was 23 ± 5 mg/mL for liver
mitochondria and 3.2 ± 0.6 mg/mL for muscle mitochondria (average
± standard deviation).Directly before CE-LIF measurements,
aliquots from each isolated
mitochondrial fraction (from cells or tissue) were centrifuged and
resuspended in buffer Rs containing the substrate succinate
and complex I inhibitor rotenone (or buffer Rval for depolarized
controls, containing the potassium ionophore valinomycin in addition
to the substrate and inhibitor). The mitochondria were incubated in
the dark for 10 min at 37 °C with 300 rpm mixing in an Eppendorf
Thermomixer (Hamburg, Germany). JC-1 was then added to a final concentration
of 1 μM, and the samples were incubated for an additional 10
min at 37 °C. Mitochondria were then kept at room temperature
in the dark and analyzed by CE-LIF or in the plate reader. For subsequent
CE-LIF runs, new aliquots from the original mitochondrial fraction
were centrifuged, resuspended in buffer Rs (or buffer Rval for depolarized controls), and labeled with JC-1 directly
before analysis. This procedure decreases loss of JC-1 over time due
to consumption of substrate that results in loss of membrane potential
(see Figure S-1-2 of the Supporting Information).[14]
Bulk Measurement of JC-1
Fluorescence
Bulk red and
green fluorescence from mitochondrial samples labeled with JC-1 was
measured with a BioTek Synergy 2 well plate reader (Winooski, VT)
in 96-well plates (Nunc, Roskilde, Denmark). Red (λex = 530 ± 12.5 nm, λem = 590 ± 17.5 nm)
and green (λex = 485 ± 10 nm, λem = 528 ± 10 nm) fluorescence was acquired using the auto sensitivity
mode, and red/green ratios were calculated to indicate the mitochondrial
membrane potential. Controls (buffer R and buffer R containing JC-1
at the same concentration used for labeling mitochondria) were included
(see Figure S-1-3 of the Supporting Information).
Validation of JC-1 as a Ratiometric Probe for Membrane Potential
Confocal fluorescence microscopy and membrane potential measurement
with a TPP+ ion-selective electrode[12] were performed to validate the response of JC-1 to changes
in membrane potential in intact cells and isolated mitochondria. See
Figures S-1-4 and S-1-5 of the Supporting Information for details.
Instrument Description
A home-built
capillary electrophoresis
instrument which has been described previously[46] has been adapted for this work. For more efficient excitation
of JC-1, a 5 mW HeNe laser (Melles-Griot, Carlsbad, CA) was added
to the instrument. The 543.5 nm light from this laser was combined
with the 488 nm light from a 12 mW Ar+ laser (Melles-Griot,
Carlsbad, CA) using a 503 nm dichroic beam combiner (Semrock LM01-503-25,
Rochester, NY) and was focused through the sheath-flow cuvette for
postcapillary detection. Light was collected at 90° to the lasers
by a 40×, 0.55 NA objective (New Focus, San Jose, CA). Scattered
laser light was eliminated with a 488/543 nm dual notch filter (NF01-488/543-25,
Semrock). Fluorescence was passed through a pinhole, split into red
and green channels using a 540 nm long-pass dichroic mirror (XF2013,
Omega Optical, Brattleboro, VT), and passed through a 593 ± 20
nm (red channel) or 520 ± 17.5 nm (green channel) band-pass filter
(BrightLine Fluorescence Emitter, Semrock) onto photomultiplier tubes
(PMT, R1477, Hamamatsu) biased at 1000 V. See Figure S-1-6 of the Supporting Information for transmission spectra
of the filter set used in the CE-LIF detector.
Capillary Preparation
To reduce mitochondrial adsorption
to the capillary surface,[47] fused-silica
capillaries were permanently coated with adsorbed PVA by a method
adapted from Shen et al. (see Section S.5 of the Supporting Information).[48] The
PVA-coated capillary was trimmed to ∼40 cm, installed in the
instrument, and initially aligned by flushing a solution of 5 ×
10–9 M fluorescein and 5 × 10–8 M 5-TAMRA in the SH buffer by application of pressure to the inlet.
These two fluorophores were selected as they are compatible with the
dual-laser excitation/dual channel fluorescence emission detection
system (fluorescein is excited by the 488 nm laser and detected in
the green channel; 5-TAMRA is excited by the 543.5 nm laser and detected
in the red channel).For fine alignment of the capillary, a
solution of 2.5 μm Alignflow flow cytometry beads for 488 nm
excitation (Invitrogen) in SH buffer was continuously injected by
application of an electric field of −400 V/cm with the PMTs
biased at 300 V. Alignment was considered acceptable when the relative
standard deviation of the average fluorescence intensity from each
bead event in the red channel was less than 20% (see Figure S-1-7
of the Supporting Information).
CE Procedure
The capillary was rinsed with buffer SHs directly before
the CE-LIF runs or with buffer SHval before runs of depolarized
controls. Mitochondrial samples were
diluted with buffer SHs (or buffer SHval for
depolarized controls), and fluorescein was added to a final concentration
of 5 × 10–10 M. Fluorescein was used as an
internal standard to calculate the limit of detection and electroosmotic
flow (EOF). Typical mitochondrial protein content of injected samples,
as determined by the BCA protein assay, was 1.5 ng for liver mitochondria,
1.0 ng for muscle mitochondria, and 0.25 ng for mitochondria from
cultured cells, although it was necessary to use trial and error to
find a dilution factor that resulted in an acceptable number of mitochondrial
events (see the discussion of peak overlap of the Supporting Information). Samples were injected hydrodynamically
by siphoning; an electronically actuated valve (Parker Hannifin, Cleveland,
OH) was used to increase the height difference between the inlet of
the capillary and the sheath flow waste to 110 cm for 2.7 s. After
injection, the inlet of the capillary was rinsed twice in SH buffer
and switched to the vial of running buffer (buffer SHs or
SHval for depolarized controls). An electric field of −400
V/cm was applied for 15 min for the CE separation. Between runs, the
capillary was rinsed with DMSO for 5 min and fresh running buffer
for 5 min. The peak height and migration time of fluorescein were
used to calculate the limit of detection and EOF, respectively. For
a typical experiment, the limit of detection (S/N = 3) was 26 ± 1 zmol, and the EOF was 9.4 ± 0.1 ×
10–5 cm2 V–1 s–1 (n = 7). This reduction in EOF from
a previously reported value for uncoated fused silica of 5.1 ±
0.1 × 10–4 cm2 V–1 s–1 indicates a successful PVA coating.[49]
Data Analysis
Data from the PMTs
was acquired at 200
Hz, digitized by an I/O data acquisition card (PCIMIO-16E-50) operated
by Labview 5.1 (National Instruments) and stored as a binary file.
Data were analyzed in Igor Pro (Wavemetrics, Lake Oswego, OR) by a
procedure written in-house which has been described previously, PeakPicks.[50] Briefly, electropherograms were median-filtered
to separate narrow spikes (with baseline widths below 200 data points
or 1.0 s) from broad peaks (such as fluorescein). Spikes with signal
intensity above a threshold of 5 standard deviations over the background
signal were assigned to mitochondrial events. Coincident events (events
with maxima in both red and green channels at the same migration time,
with a tolerance of 0.01 s) were then selected. The electrophoretic
mobility and corrected electrophoretic mobility (electrophoretic mobility
minus the mobility of the EOF) was calculated for each mitochondrial
event based on its migration time.Two potential issues in organelle
analysis by CE-LIF are detection of false positives and peak overlap.
The first issue was evaluated by performing a blank injection and
by counting the number of events in a premigration window in each
run.[27] The relevance of the second issue
was assessed with statistical overlap theory.[51,52] None of these two issues posed significant problems (see Figure
S-1-8, Table S-1-2, and Table S-1-3 of the Supporting
Information for details).Polarized and depolarized regions
of interest (ROIs) containing
mitochondrial events considered polarized or depolarized based on
their red/green ratios were defined in each CE-LIF experiment. A similar
graphical approach has been used previously to define groups of polystyrene
microspheres with distinct fluorescence and scattering properties
analyzed by CE-LIF.[53] First, red versus
green fluorescence intensities of each coincident event were plotted
for samples and depolarized controls of each type (cells, muscle,
and liver). A line drawn from the origin was used to divide the data
into polarized and depolarized ROIs (i.e., with the polarized ROI
located above the line and the depolarized ROI below it). To verify
that a linear definition of ROIs is valid, various least-squares fits
(e.g., linear, polynomial, exponential) were performed on the data;
the nonlinear fits were not significantly better than the linear fit
(see Table S-1-4 of the Supporting Information). The slope of the line was then varied to maximize the percentage
of events in the polarized ROI from each sample compared to the percentage
events in the polarized ROI from the depolarized control (see Figure
S-1-9 of the Supporting Information). Results
of this ROI analysis are shown in Figure S-1-10 and Table S-1-5 of
the Supporting Information and discussed
below.
Results and Discussion
Validation of JC-1 as Membrane
Potential Indicator
We validated the sample preparation procedure
by measuring the average
membrane potentials of an isolated mitochondrial sample and its depolarized
control (2 μM valinomycin) using a TPP+ ion-selective
electrode (see Figure S-1-5 of the Supporting
Information). Membrane potential was calculated as −125
and −80 mV for the mitochondrial sample and depolarized control,
respectively. These values are comparable to values previously determined
by this technique: mitochondria isolated from rat liver and energized
with succinate were reported to have a membrane potential of −172
mV, which dropped to around −110 mV (value estimated from the
reported data) upon depolarization with FCCP.[12] While an advantage of this technique over the measurement of bulk
JC-1 fluorescence is the ability to calculate numeric values of membrane
potential, it is not suitable for analysis of individual mitochondria
or subpopulations because it reports an average value.We evaluated
the suitability of the membrane potential dyes TMRM, R123, and JC-1
for use in isolated mitochondria since the free dye must be removed
from the medium prior to CE-LIF analysis (see Figure S-2-1 of the Supporting Information). Unlike the fluorescence
intensity of TMRM or rhodamine 123 that decreases upon dye removal,
JC-1 red/green ratio in isolated mitochondria was similar before and
after the free dye was removed from the medium, indicating its suitability
for use in CE-LIF.We confirmed that JC-1 responds to changes
in mitochondrial membrane
potential in cultured cells by observation of L6 rat myoblasts and
depolarized control cells (2 μM valinomycin) with confocal fluorescence
microscopy (see Figure S-1-4 of the Supporting
Information). Indeed, cells exhibit intense red fluorescence
from JC-1 aggregates, and depolarized control cells exhibit very weak
red fluorescence and more intense green fluorescence from JC-1 monomers.
While imaging is a useful technique for observing mitochondrial membrane
potential heterogeneity and provides the advantage of observations
of mitochondrial morphology,[6] this technique
is not suitable for measurement of electrophoretic mobility, which
can provide information about surface properties of mitochondria which
could be used to separate subpopulations. Additionally, without automation
of image collection and data analysis, characterization of large numbers
of mitochondria is time-consuming. Another potential issue when measuring
mitochondrial membrane potential in intact cells (as opposed to using
isolated mitochondria) is that JC-1 equilibration may depend on mitochondrial
morphology.[14]In bulk measurements
done on a well plate reader, we also investigated
the response of JC-1 fluorescence to depolarization in isolated mitochondria
from cultured L6 rat myoblasts, C2C12 mouse myoblasts, and mouse liver
and muscle tissue. In initial control experiments, we determined that
the presence of the protonophore CCCP, commonly used to depolarize
mitochondria, reduced the measured red/green fluorescence of JC-1
in free solution. In contrast, valinomycin did not change the observed
red/green ratio of different concentrations of free JC-1 (see Figure
S-2-2 of the Supporting Information). Similar
results were obtained in isolated mitochondria from all sources (i.e.,
mitochondria exhibit more intense red fluorescence and higher red/green
ratios than depolarized controls). Thus, valinomycin was used to depolarize
mitochondria used in CE-LIF measurements described below.
CE-LIF
Individual mitochondrial events were detected
in CE-LIF separations (see Figure 1). Red and
green fluorescence from mitochondria labeled with JC-1 was observed
using this technique, similar to the two color-measurements obtained
in microscopy and bulk fluorescence methods (see Section S.3 of the Supporting Information).
Figure 1
CE-LIF trace of JC-1
labeled mitochondria from muscle tissue. (A)
Electropherograms, bottom and top traces show JC-1 fluorescence in
red (593 ± 20 nm) and green (520 ± 17.5 nm) channels, respectively.
Y-offset is +5 for the green channel. (B) Fluorescein peak in green
channel after median filtering to separate spikes from wide peaks.
(C) Mitochondrial event in red and green channels. Y-offset is +5
for green channel. Samples were hydrodynamically injected by creating
a height difference of 110 cm between inlet and outlet for 2.7 s.
Separations were performed in a 50 μm i.d. fused silica capillary
coated with PVA at −400 V/cm in buffer SHs or SHval for runs of depolarized controls.
CE-LIF trace of JC-1
labeled mitochondria from muscle tissue. (A)
Electropherograms, bottom and top traces show JC-1 fluorescence in
red (593 ± 20 nm) and green (520 ± 17.5 nm) channels, respectively.
Y-offset is +5 for the green channel. (B) Fluorescein peak in green
channel after median filtering to separate spikes from wide peaks.
(C) Mitochondrial event in red and green channels. Y-offset is +5
for green channel. Samples were hydrodynamically injected by creating
a height difference of 110 cm between inlet and outlet for 2.7 s.
Separations were performed in a 50 μm i.d. fused silica capillary
coated with PVA at −400 V/cm in buffer SHs or SHval for runs of depolarized controls.The run-to-run reproducibility of CE-LIF measurements was
evaluated
by performing three replicate injections of mitochondria and of depolarized
control mitochondria isolated from a C2C12 mouse myoblast preparation.
Data from individual runs (see Figure S-2-3 of the Supporting Information) are combined to show overall distributions
of red/green ratio (Figure 2 A) and corrected
electrophoretic mobility (Figure 2C). Individual
and combined distributions from runs of depolarized controls are shown
in Figures S-2-4 and S-2-5 of the Supporting Information.
Figure 2
Reproducibility in multiple
CE-LIF runs of mitochondria isolated
from C2C12 cells. (A) Distribution of red/green ratios from three
combined replicate runs, n = 950 detected events.
(B) Q–Q plot of red/green ratios from individual runs vs combined
data. (C) Distribution of corrected electrophoretic mobility from
the three combined runs. (D) Q–Q plot of corrected mobility
from individual runs vs combined data. See Figure S-2-3 of the Supporting Information for the distributions
of individual runs, Figures S-2-4 and S-2-5 of the Supporting Information for data from depolarized controls,
and Table S-2-1 for the normalized ssres for Q–Q plots of the Supporting Information. CE-LIF conditions as described in Figure 1.
Overall, the distributions of red/green ratios and corrected
electrophoretic
mobility were reproducible. This is demonstrated by comparisons of
individual runs to the data from all combined runs using quantile–quantile
(Q–Q) plots, which have been used to compare mitochondrial
mobility distributions in capillary electrophoresis.[54] In this approach, the 5th through 95th percentiles of two
data sets are plotted against one another; identical distributions
would produce plots with points that fall on a line defined by y = x. We determined the normalized sum
of squares of residuals (ssres) for quantitative
comparisons of data from Q–Q plots.[49] The normalized ssres is given by eq 1, where the median is from the data plotted on the x axis.The normalized ssres is similar to
the relative standard deviation of a data set, and larger values indicate
less similar distributions. Distributions of red/green ratio and corrected
electrophoretic mobility were consistent from run to run; the Q–Q
plots (Figure 2, panels B and D) show data
points from individual runs falling close to the y = x line. The 5th–85th percentiles for red/green
ratio distributions were reproducible (normalized ssres = 26%, 18%, and 13% for runs 1, 2, and 3, respectively).
The larger normalized ssres for the 90th–95th
percentiles reflects the higher and more variable red/green ratios
in these percentiles. Distributions of corrected electrophoretic mobility
were also reproducible, with normalized ssres = 7%, 7%, and 5% for runs 1, 2, and 3, respectively.Reproducibility in multiple
CE-LIF runs of mitochondria isolated
from C2C12 cells. (A) Distribution of red/green ratios from three
combined replicate runs, n = 950 detected events.
(B) Q–Q plot of red/green ratios from individual runs vs combined
data. (C) Distribution of corrected electrophoretic mobility from
the three combined runs. (D) Q–Q plot of corrected mobility
from individual runs vs combined data. See Figure S-2-3 of the Supporting Information for the distributions
of individual runs, Figures S-2-4 and S-2-5 of the Supporting Information for data from depolarized controls,
and Table S-2-1 for the normalized ssres for Q–Q plots of the Supporting Information. CE-LIF conditions as described in Figure 1.
CE-LIF versus Bulk Measurement
of JC-1 Fluorescence
While bulk measurements done on a well-plate
reader show clear changes
in the red/green ratio upon depolarization of mitochondrial samples,
median values from the overall distributions of red/green ratios of
JC-1 fluorescence of individual mitochondrial events detected by CE-LIF
did not follow the same trend (Figure 3). For
the mitochondrial samples and their respective depolarized controls,
the median red/green ratios of individual mitochondrial events detected
by CE-LIF did not change. Three reasons may account for these differences.
First, in the bulk technique, red or green fluorescence is the sum
of fluorescence from mitochondria containing JC-1 and from all JC-1
in free solution; in the LIF measurements, free JC-1 is not detected
because it migrates away from the detector (see Figure S-1-8 of the Supporting Information). This could result in
an overestimation of the red/green ratio in bulk because red JC-1
aggregates are present in free solution at the labeling concentration
used. Second, JC-1 response in bulk is known to depend on mitochondrial
concentration.[20] Indeed, when mitochondria
labeled with JC-1 were diluted to lower concentrations, we observed
decreases in the bulk red/green ratio (see Figure S-2-7 of the Supporting Information). Dilution to the individual
mitochondrial level is therefore expected to result in low red/green
ratios, which makes it difficult to observe changes due to depolarization.
Third, the bulk fluorescence technique may not be sensitive to the
presence of depolarized mitochondria in a preparation. Depolarized
mitochondria result from experimental factors such as damage during
mechanical homogenization or loss of membrane potential over time
after isolation. We anticipate having depolarized mitochondria in
the preparation used here because we used mechanical homogenization,
which is a harsh cell disruption procedure,[11] and vortexing at 300 rpm to mix isolated mitochondria with JC-1
during labeling. In addition,
isolated mitochondria lose membrane potential over time (see Figure
S-2 of the Supporting Information), increasing
the number of depolarized mitochondria in the sample. The red/green
ratio will not change dramatically as mitochondria depolarize because
JC-1 aggregates will slowly dissociate, while total concentration
of the JC-1 monomer will remain constant.
Figure 3
Comparison of red/green
ratios from bulk measurements to median
values and ROIs from CE-LIF. Mitochondria were isolated from mouse
liver and muscle tissue. All bulk measurements are normalized to the
highest red/green ratio among bulk measurements; all CE-LIF median
values are normalized to the highest median value among CE-LIF groups
(i.e., the polarized ROI from the muscle sample). Bulk red fluorescence:
λex = 530 ± 12.5 nm and λem = 590 ± 17.5 nm. Bulk green fluorescence: λex = 485 ± 10 nm and λem = 528 ± 10 nm.
CE-LIF conditions are the same as in Figure 1.
Comparison of red/green
ratios from bulk measurements to median
values and ROIs from CE-LIF. Mitochondria were isolated from mouse
liver and muscle tissue. All bulk measurements are normalized to the
highest red/green ratio among bulk measurements; all CE-LIF median
values are normalized to the highest median value among CE-LIF groups
(i.e., the polarized ROI from the muscle sample). Bulk red fluorescence:
λex = 530 ± 12.5 nm and λem = 590 ± 17.5 nm. Bulk green fluorescence: λex = 485 ± 10 nm and λem = 528 ± 10 nm.
CE-LIF conditions are the same as in Figure 1.
Region of Interest (ROI)
Analysis
Similar to bulk measurements,
the median values of red/green ratios from CE-LIF data do not represent
the effect of depolarization on entire distributions of red/green
ratios of individual mitochondrial events. To address this issue,
we defined polarized and depolarized ROIs based on the red/green ratios
of individual mitochondrial events detected in samples and depolarized
controls (Figure 4). This approach addresses
the issue that l mitochondrial preparations always include a fraction
of depolarized mitochondria that will affect the observed membrane
potential.
Figure 4
Definition of ROIs in
CE-LIF. (A) Mitochondrial events from muscle
sample with ROIs shown. (B) Mitochondrial events from depolarized
control with ROIs shown. CE-LIF conditions as in Figure 1. Plots with a linear scale are shown in Figure S-1-10 of
the Supporting Information.
To define the ROIs, the slope of a line defining
the polarized and depolarized ROIs was varied to maximize the difference
in the percentage of events in the polarized ROI between samples and
depolarized controls (see Figure S-1-9 and Table S-1-5 of the Supporting Information). The polarized ROIs contained
53%, 49%, and 18% of the total events in samples from cells, muscle,
and liver, respectively. The median red/green ratios in the depolarized
ROI from samples and depolarized controls are similar (see Figure 3), which supports this approach to define ROIs.
This approach allows for the comparison of subpopulations of polarized
and depolarized mitochondria within a single sample.Definition of ROIs in
CE-LIF. (A) Mitochondrial events from muscle
sample with ROIs shown. (B) Mitochondrial events from depolarized
control with ROIs shown. CE-LIF conditions as in Figure 1. Plots with a linear scale are shown in Figure S-1-10 of
the Supporting Information.In theory, the sample and depolarized control should
display mitochondrial
events only in the polarized and depolarized ROIs of their respective
plots. As discussed above (see subsection, CE-LIF versus Bulk Measurement
of JC-1 Fluorescence), polarized mitochondrial samples have depolarized
mitochondria, which is in agreement with the presence of individual
mitochondrial events in the depolarized ROI (Figure 4A).In contrast, we did not anticipate finding mitochondrial
events
within the polarized ROI for depolarized samples. Three possible explanations
are false positives, detector cross-talking, and the presence of mitochondria
resistant to depolarization. First, some of these events are false
positives resulting from the empirical approach to define ROIs. Second,
cross-talking in the flow cytometric analysis of mitochondria labeled
with JC-1 has been reported previously.[55] In this report the broad fluorescence emission peak from the monomer
would also be detected in the detector channel used to measure the
fluorescence of JC-1 aggregates (593/40 nm bandpass filter; see Figure
S-1-6 of the Supporting Information). We
estimate that there is a 10% cross-talk, which may contribute to assigning
a higher red/green ratio to some depolarized mitochondria. Lastly,
some mitochondria may not be fully depolarized. Others have reported
that some preparations have a small fraction of isolated mitochondria
that are resistant to depolarization upon treatment with FCCP.[56] They suggested that this phenomenon results
from having variations in inner membrane composition, which would
affect transport of the depolarizing agents.The advantages
of CE-LIF over bulk techniques are that red/green
fluorescence intensity ratios and electrophoretic mobility data are
collected from hundreds of individual mitochondria in a single 15
min run, allowing for determination of individual mitochondrial membrane
potential and investigation of mitochondrial heterogeneity in membrane
potential and surface properties. Most importantly, detection of individual
mitochondria and the definition of polarized and depolarized ROIs
make it possible to investigate mitochondrial membrane potential heterogeneity
in CE-LIF runs containing both polarized and depolarized mitochondria.The use of ROIs made comparisons possible between the medians of
the red/green ratios of mitochondrial events in polarized and depolarized
ROIs with the bulk measurements (see Figure 3). The red/green ratios defined by ROIs parallel those observed in
bulk measurements. It is worth mentioning that the time spanned between
sample preparation and analysis varied for the muscle and liver sample,
which implies that there are different fractions of depolarized mitochondria
in each preparation (Figure S-1-2 of the Supporting
Information indicates that some depolarization does occur over
this time frame). The median of the red/green ratios for muscle mitochondria
is higher than that of liver mitochondria, which is in agreement with
the longer time elapsed between preparation and analysis of liver
mitochondria. Together, these results demonstrate the need for the
use of polarized and depolarized ROIs for comparison of mitochondrial
membrane potentials determined by CE-LIF with bulk measurements.The definition of ROIs is important for comparing distributions
of individual polarized and depolarized mitochondria. The comparison
of the red/green ratios in polarized and depolarized ROIs (histograms
in Figure 5A) shows a large deviation of the
data from the y = x line in Figure 5B (white ○), which demonstrates the difference
between the two distributions. The histograms (Figure S-2-8 of the Supporting Information) and Q–Q plots
(Figure 5 B, solid dots) of red/green ratio
of overall distributions illustrate little difference between the
sample and depolarized control (i.e., data points do not deviate much
from the y = x line shown on the
plot in Figure 5B, normalized ssres = 24% for the 5th–85th percentiles).
Figure 5
Comparison
of polarized vs depolarized ROIs using mitochondria
isolated from C2C12 cells. (A) Histograms of red/green ratio distributions
of polarized ROI from samples and depolarized ROI from depolarized
controls. Polarized ROI: n = 501 events, 3 runs.
Depolarized ROI: n = 503 events, 3 runs. (B) Q–Q
plot of red/green ratio comparing overall distributions of depolarized
controls vs samples (◆) and depolarized vs polarized ROIs (○).
(C) Histograms of corrected electrophoretic mobility distributions
of polarized ROI from samples and depolarized ROI from depolarized
controls. (D) Q–Q plot of corrected electrophoretic mobility
comparing overall distributions of depolarized controls vs samples
(◆) and depolarized vs polarized ROIs (○). See Figures
S-2-8 and S-2-9 of the Supporting Information for the histograms of the overall distributions and Table S-2-1
for the normalized ssres for Q–Q
plots of the Supporting Information. CE-LIF
conditions are the same as in Figure 1.
Dependence
of Electrophoretic Mobility on Membrane Potential
In this
study, we calculated the electrophoretic mobility for each
individual mitochondrial event detected by CE-LIF. There is only a
slight difference in the overall distributions of corrected electrophoretic
mobility (Figure S-2-9 of the Supporting Information) between the sample and the depolarized control, with the depolarized
control distribution being slightly more positive than the sample
distribution (Q–Q plot in Figure 5D
solid dots, normalized ssres = 6%). In
order to assess differences between the electrophoretic mobilities
of polarized and depolarized mitochondria, we determined the differences
in corrected electrophoretic mobility distributions between polarized
and depolarized ROIs (Figure 5, panels C and
D, white ○). The comparison showed that there are clear differences
in electrophoretic mobilities between polarized and depolarized mitochondrial
events, with increasing differences in percentiles above the 50th
percentile (normalized ssres = 37%).Previous studies, reported that polarization of mitochondria resulted
in an increase in electrophoretic mobility (more negative), which
was attributed to increased mitochondrial surface charge density.[38−40] The results obtained here indicate the opposite trend. We observed
that polarized mitochondria had lower electrophoretic mobilities than
those of depolarized mitochondria. A key difference between previous
studies was that they used low electric fields (e.g., 6 V/cm),[38−40] while we used a relatively higher electric field in this study (i.e.,
−400 V/cm). At these higher field strengths, the electrophoretic
mobility of biological “soft” particles is decreased
by factors such as deformability, field-induced polarization, the
relaxation effect, and multipole moments,[35] which are not as apparent at the lower electric field strengths
(e.g., 6 V/cm) used in previous electrophoretic studies of mitochondria.[38−40] In agreement, the effect of electric fields on the electrophoretic
mobilities of mitochondria determined by CE-LIF using an electric
field of −360 V/cm were lower by 1.8 × 10–4 cm2 V–1 s–1 than
those determined by free-flow electrophoresis using an electric field
of −14.3 V/cm.[44] The relaxation
effect was thought to cause the observed difference in electric-field-dependent
electrophoretic mobilities.[33]At
the high electric field used here, differences in electrophoretic
mobilities between polarized and depolarized mitochondria may be associated
with chemical gradients across the mitochondrial inner membrane. Studies
done on the electrophoretic mobilities of liposomes with a pH gradient
(proton gradient) across their membrane may be relevant to explain
the connections between membrane potential (chemical gradient) and
their electrophoretic mobilities. A pH gradient across the liposomal
membrane can influence surface charge through a capacitive effect,
where an excess of negative charge on one side of the membrane increases
the positive charge on the other side.[34,37] Liposomes
with an internal pH of 8.8 suspended in a biological buffer at 7.4
are comparable to polarized mitochondria, which are expected to have
a higher internal pH and a net negative charge on the inner side of
the inner membrane. Liposomes with an internal pH of 7.4 suspended
in a biological buffer at the same pH resemble depolarized mitochondria.
In agreement with a capacitive effect (excess of negative charge inside),
liposomes with a pH gradient have lower electrophoretic mobility than
that of liposomes without a pH gradient.[34−37] Thus, the capacitive model is
a plausible explanation for the electrophoretic mobility differences
associated with polarized and depolarized mitochondria reported here.Besides the capacitive effect, other factors may contribute to
the observed differences in electrophoretic mobility between polarized
and depolarized mitochondria. For instance, the capacitive model would
account for a gradient across the mitochondrial inner membrane, but
does not describe the contribution of the mitochondria outer membrane,
which also has electrical charges, but it is permeable to low molecular
weight species.[57] Although future studies
are needed to establish a relationship between membrane potential
and electrophoretic mobility, our method represents an important tool
for studying this relationship, even in samples containing depolarized
mitochondria due to its ability to characterize the membrane potential
and electrophoretic mobility of individual mitochondria.Comparison
of polarized vs depolarized ROIs using mitochondria
isolated from C2C12 cells. (A) Histograms of red/green ratio distributions
of polarized ROI from samples and depolarized ROI from depolarized
controls. Polarized ROI: n = 501 events, 3 runs.
Depolarized ROI: n = 503 events, 3 runs. (B) Q–Q
plot of red/green ratio comparing overall distributions of depolarized
controls vs samples (◆) and depolarized vs polarized ROIs (○).
(C) Histograms of corrected electrophoretic mobility distributions
of polarized ROI from samples and depolarized ROI from depolarized
controls. (D) Q–Q plot of corrected electrophoretic mobility
comparing overall distributions of depolarized controls vs samples
(◆) and depolarized vs polarized ROIs (○). See Figures
S-2-8 and S-2-9 of the Supporting Information for the histograms of the overall distributions and Table S-2-1
for the normalized ssres for Q–Q
plots of the Supporting Information. CE-LIF
conditions are the same as in Figure 1.
Application to Liver and
Muscle Tissue Mitochondria
Use of ROIs allows for characterization
of tissue-specific mitochondrial
mobility and membrane potential not seen in their respective overall
distributions of individual data. The distributions of the red/green
ratio and corrected electrophoretic mobility from mitochondrial samples
and depolarized controls isolated from mouse muscle and liver tissue
are shown in Figure 6. In mitochondria from
muscle, differences in the red/green ratio distributions between samples
and depolarized controls were apparent even in the overall data (shown
in Figure S-2-10 of the Supporting Information), and were more pronounced in the ROI comparison (Figure 6A). Differences in the distributions of red/green
ratio from liver mitochondria were less pronounced between samples
and depolarized controls when considering the overall distributions.
The difference in the distributions from polarized and depolarized
ROIs was much more pronounced, illustrating the value of measuring
individual mitochondrial membrane potential. As discussed previously,
the smaller red/green ratios from liver mitochondria could reflect
mitochondrial degradation due to the sample preparation procedure
or loss of membrane potential over time, as these samples were analyzed
after the muscle samples. Detection of smaller red/green ratios in
the liver sample supports the utility of defining a polarized ROI:
as more mitochondria lose membrane potential over time, our method
is still adequate to assess the polarization states of mitochondria
by examining ROIs.
Figure 6
CE-LIF of muscle and
liver tissue mitochondria. (A) Distributions
of red/green ratio from polarized and depolarized ROIs. (B) Distributions
of corrected electrophoretic mobility from polarized and depolarized
ROIs. (C) Q–Q plots of corrected electrophoretic mobility (×
10–4 cm2 V–1 s–1). Comparisons are made between samples and depolarized
controls (all events) and between events in polarized ROIs and depolarized
ROIs. See Figures S-2-10 and S-2-11 of the Supporting
Information for histograms of the overall data and Q–Q
plot of red/green ratios, Table S-1-5 for number of events, and Table
S-2-1 for normalized ssres from Q–Q
plots. CE-LIF conditions are the same as in Figure 1.
Differences in distributions of corrected
electrophoretic mobility (Figure 6, panels
B–C) are similar to those observed in the experiments with
mitochondria isolated from cells (Figure 5,
panels C–D). The polarized ROIs from liver and muscle tissue
mitochondria exhibit mobility distributions that are decreased when
compared to the distributions from the depolarized ROIs (Figure 6C). The Q–Q plot allows for comparisons of
subtle differences between these distributions. For example, while
the mobility distributions for polarized ROIs from both muscle and
liver tissue are decreased, the difference in the distributions between
polarized and depolarized ROIs from liver is more uniform than the
distributions between polarized and depolarized ROIs from muscle (i.e.,
points for most percentiles are evenly spaced and fall away from the y = x line). This reflects the broader
range of the distributions of corrected mobility from liver mitochondria
compared to muscle, which may reflect more heterogeneity in the surface
composition of mitochondria from liver.CE-LIF of muscle and
liver tissue mitochondria. (A) Distributions
of red/green ratio from polarized and depolarized ROIs. (B) Distributions
of corrected electrophoretic mobility from polarized and depolarized
ROIs. (C) Q–Q plots of corrected electrophoretic mobility (×
10–4 cm2 V–1 s–1). Comparisons are made between samples and depolarized
controls (all events) and between events in polarized ROIs and depolarized
ROIs. See Figures S-2-10 and S-2-11 of the Supporting
Information for histograms of the overall data and Q–Q
plot of red/green ratios, Table S-1-5 for number of events, and Table
S-2-1 for normalized ssres from Q–Q
plots. CE-LIF conditions are the same as in Figure 1.
Conclusions
This
report describes the first method to measure simultaneously
membrane potential and electrophoretic mobility in individual, isolated
mitochondria using the ratiometric dye JC-1. The use of CE-LIF provides
the electrophoretic mobility of individual organelles, which is useful
to investigate separations of mitochondrial subpopulations with different
surface properties. The method is applicable to mitochondria isolated
from cultured cells and from muscle and liver tissue. Highlighting
the importance of individual mitochondrial analysis, the use of ROIs
makes it possible to characterize polarized mitochondria in samples
where depolarized mitochondria are present due to experimental factors
that result in loss of membrane potential during preparation and analysis.Analysis of ROIs revealed an effect of membrane potential on electrophoretic
mobility: mitochondria in polarized ROIs had distributions of electrophoretic
mobility that were more positive than those in depolarized ROIs, consistent
with the capacitive model. This method could be used to investigate
the effects of treatments to the mitochondrial surface (e.g., trypsin
to cleave cytoskeletal proteins) to measure their relative contributions
to mitochondrial mobility.[31] Different
modes of separation could also be used; for example, this labeling
scheme could be used with capillary isoelectric focusing to determine
relationships between mitochondrial isoelectric point and membrane
potential. Since the sample requirement is small and the method allows
for analysis of membrane potential even if some mitochondria are disrupted
during sample preparation, this method could even be applied to studies
in which minimal amounts of samples are available (e.g., human tissue).
Lastly, this work may enable future studies of the dependence of mitochondrial
electrophoretic mobility on membrane potential and could aid in the
design of separations of mitochondrial subpopulations with different
surface properties, which may be important in aging and disease.
Authors: Bobby G Poe; Ciarán F Duffy; Michael A Greminger; Bradley J Nelson; Edgar A Arriaga Journal: Anal Bioanal Chem Date: 2010-05-14 Impact factor: 4.142
Authors: Truc B Nguyen; Sharon M Louie; Joseph R Daniele; Quan Tran; Andrew Dillin; Roberto Zoncu; Daniel K Nomura; James A Olzmann Journal: Dev Cell Date: 2017-07-10 Impact factor: 12.270