Dana J Levine1,2, Jan Stöhr2,3, Lillian E Falese2, Julian Ollesch2, Holger Wille2,3, Stanley B Prusiner2,3, Jeffrey R Long1. 1. †Department of Chemistry, University of California, Berkeley, 211 Lewis Hall, Berkeley, California 94720, United States. 2. ‡Institute for Neurodegenerative Diseases, University of California, San Francisco, 675 Nelson Rising Lane, San Francisco, California 94143, United States. 3. §Department of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, 675 Nelson Rising Lane, San Francisco, California 94143, United States.
Abstract
The phosphotungstate anion (PTA) is widely used to facilitate the precipitation of disease-causing prion protein (PrP(Sc)) from infected tissue for applications in structural studies and diagnostic approaches. However, the mechanism of this precipitation is not understood. In order to elucidate the nature of the PTA interaction with PrP(Sc) under physiological conditions, solutions of PTA were characterized by NMR spectroscopy at varying pH. At neutral pH, the parent [PW12O40](3-) ion decomposes to give a lacunary [PW11O39](7-) (PW11) complex and a single orthotungstate anion [WO4](2-) (WO4). To measure the efficacy of each component of PTA, increasing concentrations of PW11, WO4, and mixtures thereof were used to precipitate PrP(Sc) from brain homogenates of scrapie prion-infected mice. The amount of PrP(Sc) isolated, quantified by ELISA and immunoblotting, revealed that both PW11 and WO4 contribute to PrP(Sc) precipitation. Incubation with sarkosyl, PTA, or individual components of PTA resulted in separation of higher-density PrP aggregates from the neuronal lipid monosialotetrahexosylganglioside (GM1), as observed by sucrose gradient centrifugation. These experiments revealed that yield and purity of PrP(Sc) were greater with polyoxometalates (POMs), which substantially supported the separation of lipids from PrP(Sc) in the samples. Interaction of POMs and sarkosyl with brain homogenates promoted the formation of fibrillar PrP(Sc) aggregates prior to centrifugation, likely through the separation of lipids like GM1 from PrP(Sc). We propose that this separation of lipids from PrP is a major factor governing the facile precipitation of PrP(Sc) by PTA from tissue and might be optimized further for the detection of prions.
The phosphotungstate anion (PTA) is widely used to facilitate the precipitation of disease-causing prion protein (PrP(Sc)) from infected tissue for applications in structural studies and diagnostic approaches. However, the mechanism of this precipitation is not understood. In order to elucidate the nature of the PTA interaction with PrP(Sc) under physiological conditions, solutions of PTA were characterized by NMR spectroscopy at varying pH. At neutral pH, the parent [PW12O40](3-) ion decomposes to give a lacunary [PW11O39](7-) (PW11) complex and a single orthotungstate anion [WO4](2-) (WO4). To measure the efficacy of each component of PTA, increasing concentrations of PW11, WO4, and mixtures thereof were used to precipitate PrP(Sc) from brain homogenates of scrapie prion-infectedmice. The amount of PrP(Sc) isolated, quantified by ELISA and immunoblotting, revealed that both PW11 and WO4 contribute to PrP(Sc) precipitation. Incubation with sarkosyl, PTA, or individual components of PTA resulted in separation of higher-density PrP aggregates from the neuronal lipid monosialotetrahexosylganglioside (GM1), as observed by sucrose gradient centrifugation. These experiments revealed that yield and purity of PrP(Sc) were greater with polyoxometalates (POMs), which substantially supported the separation of lipids from PrP(Sc) in the samples. Interaction of POMs and sarkosyl with brain homogenates promoted the formation of fibrillar PrP(Sc) aggregates prior to centrifugation, likely through the separation of lipids like GM1 from PrP(Sc). We propose that this separation of lipids from PrP is a major factor governing the facile precipitation of PrP(Sc) by PTA from tissue and might be optimized further for the detection of prions.
The fundamental
event in prion
diseases caused by the prion protein (PrP) is the misfolding of normal
PrP (PrPC), which leads to progressive neurodegeneration
in many mammals.[1] Such diseases include
Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease in humans, scrapie in sheep, bovine
spongiform encephalopathy in cattle, and chronic wasting disease in
deer and elk.[2] In these prion diseases,
endogenous PrPC adopts a self-propagating conformation,
designated PrPSc, which can autocatalytically convert PrPC molecules into infectious PrPSc.[3,4] PrP misfolding can be caused by genetic mutations, exposure to PrPSc, or occur spontaneously, resulting in inherited, acquired,
or sporadic disease manifestations, respectively.[5] Over time, PrPSc accumulates and spreads throughout
the brain, leading to severe neuronal deterioration, loss of cognitive
function, and ultimately death. While diseases caused by PrPSc are rare in humans, biochemical insights into PrPSc may
provide valuable applications to other, more common neurodegenerative
disorders. In recent studies, a self-perpetuating prion mechanism
has been described for amyloid β peptides in Alzheimer’s
disease, α-synuclein in Parkinson’s disease, and tau
in the tauopathies.[6−11]A detailed knowledge of the structure of PrPSc would
greatly facilitate efforts to prevent, diagnose, and develop therapeutics
for prion diseases. PrPSc is rich in β-sheet content
that renders the large aggregates insoluble and thus difficult to
characterize by conventional biophysical techniques. Despite studies
employing X-ray fiber diffraction,[12] electron
microscopy,[13] and hydrogen–deuterium
exchange,[14] the structure of PrPSc remains elusive. Structural models of PrPSc have been
proposed from X-ray fiber diffraction and electron microscopy of prions
isolated from brain tissue.[12,15] However, such fibril
preparations generally contain large amounts of crystalline lipids,
which may obscure structural features of the protein aggregates.Biophysical studies require the purification of a relatively large
amount of PrPSc. Historically, prion purification and enrichment
required a series of time-intensive gradient or differential centrifugation
steps, which resulted in highly purified samples but with a low yield.[16−18] A rapid, alternative method employs an inorganic polyoxometalate
(POM) complex known as the phosphotungstate anion (PTA, [PW12O40]3–). Since the discovery that PTA
selectively promotes precipitation of PrPSc over PrPC,[19] it has been widely used to
isolate PrPSc from various tissues of prion-infected animals.[20−25] The success of PTA has stimulated efforts to vary the structure,
charge, and composition of related complexes to optimize PrPSc purification[26] and to influence the resulting
type of aggregate assemblies.[15]PTA
precipitation has also been used to concentrate PrPSc for
diagnostic purposes.[27,28] Currently, a definitive
diagnosis of prion diseases caused by PrPSc can only be
made post-mortem. Efforts have been made to develop diagnostic tools
for detecting PrPSc in the blood of humans and cattle,[29,30] and PTA has been used to facilitate detection of very low amounts
of PrPSc in peripheral tissues of patients with Creutzfeldt–Jakob
disease.[31] However, achieving a rapid and
reliable method for PrPSc detection has been hampered by
difficulties in discriminating infectious PrPSc from endogenous
PrPC, low titers of PrPSc in blood, and the
presence of lipid and protein contaminants that can complicate the
accuracy of determinations.[32]Despite
the widespread use of PTA to isolate PrPSc,
the mechanisms by which PTA effectively precipitates PrPSc are still largely unknown. PTA does not appear to induce a conformational
change of PrPC to PrPSc, since amyloid seeding
assays have shown that PTA does not promote conversion of PrPC to PrPSc in multiple strains of uninfected mice.[28] Using microscopic and immunological techniques,
we found that PTA and sarkosyl promoted the formation of fibrils and
increased the density of PrPSc aggregates. Na3[PW12O40] (NaPTA) decomposed at neutral pH
to give a lacunary [PW11O39]7– (PW11) complex and a single orthotungstate [WO4]2– unit (WO4). When used as a precipitant,
the lacunary PW11 complex of PTA resulted in high yields
of PrPSc and decreased neuronal lipid monosialotetrahexosylganglioside
(GM1) content in the samples, while WO4 was less effective
at removing GM1 lipids at equivalent concentrations. These results
describe several potential mechanisms for the effective precipitation
of PrPSc by PTA.
Results and Discussion
PTA and Sarkosyl Promote
Formation of PrPSc Fibrils
In the standard method
to precipitate PrPSc using PTA,
prion-infected brain homogenates are incubated with PTA and the detergent
sodium lauryl sarcosinate (sarkosyl) in phosphate-buffered saline
(PBS) prior to a low-speed centrifugation. To test the influence of
each precipitant on the aggregation state of PrPSc, we
incubated brain homogenates (10% w/v) from FVB miceinfected with
Rocky Mountain Laboratory (RML) scrapie prions with different concentrations
of sarkosyl (0–3.5% w/v), PTA (0–3.4% w/v), and combinations
of 0–3.4% PTA with 2% sarkosyl. These scrapie-infectedmice
generally do not show preformed PrPSc fibrils or amyloid
deposits in their brains.[33] The resulting
PrPSc fibrillar aggregates were analyzed by electron microscopy
of sample aliquots and quantified (Figure 1a). When neither sarkosyl nor PTA was used, very few fibrils were
observed (Figure 1b). When used independently,
both sarkosyl and PTA induced the formation of large fibrillar structures
(Figure 1c,d, respectively). With PTA alone,
higher concentrations yielded greater numbers of aggregates. The greatest
number of fibrils detectable by electron microscopy was found from
using a combination of PTA and sarkosyl, with the highest yield of
fibrillar aggregates obtained using 2% PTA and 2% sarkosyl (Figure 1e), in agreement with established optimal concentrations
from earlier studies.[12,15,26]
Figure 1
Quantification
of electron microscopy images (a) shows how preparative
methods with no additives (b), sarkosyl detergent alone (c), PTA alone
(d), and PTA in combination with sarkosyl (e) influence the amount
of PrPSc fibrils obtained at different reagent concentrations.
Error bars in panel a represent the standard error of the mean from
10 representative electron micrographs, and examples of fibrils indicated
by the letters in panel a are shown in panels b–e (arrows).
Quantification
of electron microscopy images (a) shows how preparative
methods with no additives (b), sarkosyl detergent alone (c), PTA alone
(d), and PTA in combination with sarkosyl (e) influence the amount
of PrPSc fibrils obtained at different reagent concentrations.
Error bars in panel a represent the standard error of the mean from
10 representative electron micrographs, and examples of fibrils indicated
by the letters in panel a are shown in panels b–e (arrows).
PTA Facilitates PrPSc Separation from Lipids
We further investigated
the influence of PTA and sarkosyl on the
hydrodynamic properties of aggregates by centrifugation of RML-infected
brain homogenate in a three-step sucrose gradient. Brain homogenate
(20% w/v) was prepared from RML-infectedmice using PBS and 2% sarkosyl.
The homogenate was then incubated at 37 °C overnight with or
without 2% PTA, and then 1.5 mL of treated or untreated brain homogenate
was loaded onto a sucrose gradient consisting of an 8 mL layer of
50% sucrose above a 2 mL layer of 80% sucrose. After centrifugation
at 134 000g for 16 h, fractions from lowest
to highest density were collected and immunoblotted for PrP levels
and for GM1, the main ganglioside in neuronal membranes[34] and a marker for glycolipid raft domains[35,36] (Figure 2).
Figure 2
Sucrose cushion centrifugations of prion-infected
brain homogenates
reveal levels of PrP and GM1 by immunoblotting. (a) Schematic representation
of the three-step gradient centrifugation, where the brain homogenate
was layered on top of sucrose layers of increasing density. The resulting
fractions were labeled A–P and correspond to lanes in the immunoblots.
(b, c) Western blots of brain homogenate incubated without (b) or
with (c) PTA. PrP (upper blots) and GM1 (lower blots) colocalized
in the absence of PTA, whereas PrP separated from GM1 in the presence
of PTA. Molecular weight markers of migrated protein standards are
shown in kilodaltons (kDa).
Sucrose cushion centrifugations of prion-infected
brain homogenates
reveal levels of PrP and GM1 by immunoblotting. (a) Schematic representation
of the three-step gradient centrifugation, where the brain homogenate
was layered on top of sucrose layers of increasing density. The resulting
fractions were labeled A–P and correspond to lanes in the immunoblots.
(b, c) Western blots of brain homogenate incubated without (b) or
with (c) PTA. PrP (upper blots) and GM1 (lower blots) colocalized
in the absence of PTA, whereas PrP separated from GM1 in the presence
of PTA. Molecular weight markers of migrated protein standards are
shown in kilodaltons (kDa).In the absence of PTA, PrP largely remained in fractions
above
the 50–80% sucrose interface, with most of the PrP settled
at the interface of the aqueous buffer fraction and the first sucrose-containing
fraction (Figure 2b, lanes C and D). In addition,
the highest GM1 content was found to colocalize with PrP in the low-density
fractions. This observation is consistent with the presence of a C-terminal
glycophosphatidylinositol (GPI) anchor on PrP, which strongly interacts
with lipids and increases the buoyancy of both monomeric PrPC and aggregated PrPSc.[37,38] In the presence
of PTA, PrP was found in higher density fractions, with the highest
levels found below the 50–80% sucrose interface (Figure 2c, lanes K and L) and many aggregates clearly penetrating
the 80% layer. With PTA, GM1 was also separated from the PrP aggregates,
as evidenced by GM1 remaining in lower-density fractions while PrP
migrated into higher-density fractions, even giving rise to a sizable
amount of PrP in the pellet fraction. In this way, PTA also provided
effective separation of monomeric PrPC from aggregated
PrPSc, since the buoyant PrPC remained in the
less dense GM1-containing fractions while aggregated PrPSc was more readily precipitated. This effect is further illustrated
in samples treated with proteinase K (PK), which degrades PrPC and cleaves PK-resistant PrPSc into PrP 27–30
(Supplementary Figure S1, Supporting Information). Without PTA, the majority of PrP 27–30 was found in the
lower density fractions together with GM1 in proteolytically digested
samples. Upon addition of PTA, however, PrP 27–30 migrated
to the higher density fractions, effectively separating PrP from GM1lipids, which remained in the low-density fractions.PTA altered
the distribution of PrP and GM1 in sucrose cushion
centrifugations, suggesting that PTA may influence the density of
PrP aggregates in several different ways. Direct interaction of PrP
aggregates with heavy, tungsten-containing compounds like PTA may
increase their density and promote the formation of larger PrPSc aggregates. In order to determine the effects of ionic strength
on precipitation efficiency, sucrose cushion centrifugations were
also performed on both PK-digested and undigested samples treated
with sodium chloride (Supplementary Figure S2, Supporting Information). Addition of NaCl facilitated some
degree of GM1 separation from PrP in both cases. However, NaCl did
not significantly promote precipitation of PrP, suggesting that the
efficacy of PTA may involve its direct interaction with PrP rather
than simply increasing the ionic strength of the solution.We
speculate that the release of PrP from lipids is also a key
factor in promoting fibrillization, as observed in the fibrillization
studies using sarkosyl (Figure 1). Indeed,
transgenic mice expressing PrP without the GPI anchor showed increased
propensity to develop amyloid fibrils in their brains.[39,40] These observations suggest that interaction of PrPSc with
lipid membranes may hinder fibril formation, and use of polyanions
like PTA may aid in disrupting the membrane–PrPSc interaction to facilitate fibrillization of PrPSc, resulting
in denser aggregates that are easier to precipitate than their lipid-bound
counterparts.
Decomposition of PTA at Varying pH Studied
by 31P
NMR
To further elucidate the mechanisms of the PTA precipitation,
the POM speciation was determined under a range of conditions, particularly
those typically used for PrPSc precipitation. Aqueous solutions
of PTA at varying pH were studied by 31P NMR (Figure 3). This technique is very useful in tracking changes
in the POM composition because the chemical shift of the central phosphorus
atom reflects its unique chemical environment and can be used to determine
which species are present. PTA samples were also prepared in complex
matrices by dissolving PTA in solutions containing PBS, sarkosyl,
and brain tissue at pH 7, which confirmed that PTA speciation did
not change in the presence of brain homogenate compared with a water-based
solution (Supplementary Figure S3, Supporting
Information). Furthermore, the speciation of PTA at neutral
pH in water or brain homogenate did not change over the course of
eight weeks, as observed by 31P NMR (Supplementary Figure
S4, Supporting Information).
Figure 3
31P NMR demonstrates that PTA anion speciation changes
dramatically with pH. (a, b) NMR spectra for acidic to neutral pH
conditions (a) and for neutral to alkaline pH conditions (b). (c)
Up to pH 7.0, the parent [PW12O40]3– ion decomposes to give a 1:1 mixture of [PW11O39]7– and [WO4]2–. (d)
Above pH 7.1, the lacunary [PW11O39]7– ion begins to decompose into H[PO4]2– and 11 [WO4]2– complexes. Structural
representations for [PW12O40]3–, [PW11O39]7–, and [WO4]2– are from crystallographic information
files found in refs (41, 60, and 61), respectively.
31P NMR demonstrates that PTA anion speciation changes
dramatically with pH. (a, b) NMR spectra for acidic to neutral pH
conditions (a) and for neutral to alkaline pH conditions (b). (c)
Up to pH 7.0, the parent [PW12O40]3– ion decomposes to give a 1:1 mixture of [PW11O39]7– and [WO4]2–. (d)
Above pH 7.1, the lacunary [PW11O39]7– ion begins to decompose into H[PO4]2– and 11 [WO4]2– complexes. Structural
representations for [PW12O40]3–, [PW11O39]7–, and [WO4]2– are from crystallographic information
files found in refs (41, 60, and 61), respectively.PTA is synthesized by acidification
of an aqueous solution containing
stoichiometric amounts of tungstate and phosphate to give the product
[PW12O40]3– (PW12).[41] When this complex is used in biological
contexts, the increase in pH from 1 to 7 leads to notable changes
in the structure of the POM in solution.[42−44] By NMR spectroscopy,
we confirmed that commercial Na3[PW12O40] (NaPTA) decomposed at neutral pH to give a lacunary [PW11O39]7– (PW11) complex and
a single orthotungstate [WO4]2– unit
(WO4) in a 1:1 ratio (Figure 3a).
As the pH increased above 7.1, however, we observed decomposition
of PW11 into its original components, as evidenced by the
decreasing signal at −11 ppm and the appearance of free phosphate
at 2 ppm (Figure 3b). Decomposition of the
parent PW12 anion into PW11 and WO4 at neutral pH is represented in Figure 3c,
and subsequent decomposition of PW11 into phosphate and
tungstate is shown in Figure 3d. The assignments
of 31P NMR shifts were confirmed by electrospray ionization
mass spectrometry studies at varying pH (Supplementary Figure S5, Supporting Information). With different sizes
and charge densities, PW11 and WO4 may each
have distinct interactions with PrP and have different effects on
the yield and purity of PrPSc obtained from PTA precipitation.
Effect of PTA-Derived Anions on PrPSc Precipitation
To measure the precipitation efficacy of each PTA component under
physiological conditions, increasing concentrations of PW11, WO4, and mixtures thereof were used to precipitate PrPSc from brain homogenate. Brain homogenates from RML-infected
FVB mice were incubated at 37 °C for 1 h with varying concentrations
of POM solutions, ranging from 0.25 to 8 mM. POM stock solutions were
made fresh by dissolving the following tungstates in water and adjusting
the pH to 7.1: Na7[PW11O39], Na2WO4, a 1:1 mixture of PW11 and WO4, and commercial NaPTA. Following incubation with the POM
solutions, the brain samples were centrifuged at 14 000g for 1 h.[15,19] The supernatants were discarded,
and PrP levels were measured in the pellets by enzyme-linked immunosorbent
assay (ELISA) (Figure 4) or Western immunoblotting
(Figure 5).
Figure 4
ELISA was used to quantify the amount
of PrP precipitated from
brain homogenates following incubation with varying concentrations
of POMs. NaPTA (red), PW11 (green), and PW11 + WO4 (purple) show a similar profile, whereas WO4 (blue) appears to increase linearly in this concentration
range. The yellow bar indicates the typical window of PTA concentrations
used for PrPSc precipitations. Error bars represent the
standard error of the mean across triplicate measurements of three
independent sets of brain homogenate (7 brains/set).
Figure 5
Immunoblots show the amounts of PrP and ganglioside GM1
in brain
homogenates following incubation with different concentrations (0–8
mM) of POMs, as indicated. From top to bottom, POMs were sodium phosphotungstate
(NaPTA), Na7[PW11O39] (PW11), Na2[WO4] (WO4), and PW11 + WO4. Molecular weight markers of migrated protein standards
are shown in kilodaltons (kDa).
ELISA was used to quantify the amount
of PrP precipitated from
brain homogenates following incubation with varying concentrations
of POMs. NaPTA (red), PW11 (green), and PW11 + WO4 (purple) show a similar profile, whereas WO4 (blue) appears to increase linearly in this concentration
range. The yellow bar indicates the typical window of PTA concentrations
used for PrPSc precipitations. Error bars represent the
standard error of the mean across triplicate measurements of three
independent sets of brain homogenate (7 brains/set).Immunoblots show the amounts of PrP and ganglioside GM1
in brain
homogenates following incubation with different concentrations (0–8
mM) of POMs, as indicated. From top to bottom, POMs were sodium phosphotungstate
(NaPTA), Na7[PW11O39] (PW11), Na2[WO4] (WO4), and PW11 + WO4. Molecular weight markers of migrated protein standards
are shown in kilodaltons (kDa).Three independent sets of POM-precipitated samples were exposed
to highly denaturing conditions (4 M guanidine hydrochloride at 100
°C) and then subjected to a sandwich ELISA (Figure 4). Commercial NaPTA resulted in a steep rise in the levels
of detectable PrP when the concentration was increased from 0 to 1
mM and decreased gradually for the higher concentrations up to 8 mM.
This trend was also observed for PW11 and the 1:1 mixture
of PW11 and WO4. By comparison, only a modest
increase in detectable PrP was observed for equivalent WO4 concentrations, suggesting that PW11 may have greater
contribution in the facile detection of PrP than WO4 by
this method. The enhancement of PrP detection using POMs at different
concentrations can also be expressed as a ratio of the observed values
normalized to control samples where no POMs were used (Table 1). However, lipids have been shown to interfere
with the detection of cholesterol, proteins, and other biomolecules
by ELISA.[45−47] Indeed, several studies have shown that lipids can
obscure the detection of PrPSc by ELISA in blood[32,48] and tissue homogenates.[49]
Table 1
Relative Enrichment of PrP Levels
at Different Concentrations of POMsa
POM concn
(mM)
PTA
PW11
WO4
PW11 + WO4
0
1.0 ± 0.2
1.0 ± 0.2
1.0 ± 0.2
1.0 ± 0.2
0.25
6.1 ± 0.1
4.1 ± 0.3
2.1 ± 0.1
5.8 ± 0.4
0.5
6.1 ± 1.5
5.3 ± 0.7
2.4 ± 0.2
6.8 ± 0.3
1
9.3 ± 1.5
7.1 ± 0.3
2.5 ± 0.3
8.1 ± 0.6
2
9.0 ± 2.4
7.0 ± 0.3
2.7 ± 0.2
9.0 ± 2.1
3
7.5 ± 1.2
7.7 ± 0.6
3.4 ± 0.3
8.5 ± 1.1
4
5.1 ± 1.0
6.7 ± 0.4
2.9 ± 0.1
8.5 ± 1.2
6
4.7 ± 1.6
6.8 ± 0.1
3.6 ± 0.3
6.9 ± 1.2
8
1.7 ± 0.5
3.6 ± 0.6
3.6 ± 0.1
4.7 ± 0.8
Compared with PrP
levels without
precipitant, as detected by ELISA.
Compared with PrP
levels without
precipitant, as detected by ELISA.We performed Western immunoblotting to determine the
relative level
of PrP enrichment achieved by each PTA component using the D13 antibody
conjugated to horseradish peroxidase (HRP);[50] GM1 levels were also probed using the HRP-coupled cholera toxin
B subunit, which specifically recognizes the ganglioside GM1 (Figure 5). GM1 is the predominant ganglioside in neuronal
membranes and is often used as marker for lipid rafts.[51,52] While other raft lipids such as cholesterol were not measured directly,
the detection of GM1 with cholera toxin-based reagents is straightforward,
and the presence of GM1 can be used as an indicator for the general
distribution of neuronal lipids in relation to PrP.At concentrations
from 0.25 to 8 mM, NaPTA and the 1:1 mixture
of PW11 and WO4 showed similar levels of PrP,
in agreement with the decomposition of the parent PW12 ion
into PW11 and WO4 at physiological pH. Analysis
of these POMs alone revealed that both PW11 and WO4 contributed to the precipitation efficiency of PTA solutions.
However, the separation of lipids from PrPSc differed substantially
for each PTA component at equimolar concentrations. PW11 at concentrations >1 mM resulted in a substantial decrease in
GM1
levels, whereas WO4 did not affect GM1 levels. These results
suggest that while both PTA components contribute to the precipitation
of PrP, PW11 may be more effective in disrupting the interaction
between PrP and lipids such as GM1, thereby increasing the relative
purity of the precipitates.Comparing the results from the ELISAs
and Western blots, the discrepancy
in the levels of PrP measured by these two methods at very low concentrations
of POM likely results from the presence of GM1, and perhaps other
lipids, associated with PrP. In cases where sensitivity of PrPSc detection is crucial, it is therefore important to use high
enough concentrations of PTA (or PW11 in particular) to
reduce the amount of coprecipitating lipids and facilitate detection
of PrPSc in blood and tissue samples for diagnostic purposes.
Conclusions
Using spectrochemical, biophysical, and microscopic
techniques,
we observed that the effective precipitation of PrPSc by
PTA may occur by some combination of facilitated fibril formation,
enhanced separation of lipids from PrPSc, and increased
density of PrPSc aggregates. The increase in the amount
of large aggregates obtained when PTA and sarkosyl were used together
(Figure 1) suggests that the separation of
lipids such as GM1 from PrPSc is a major factor that can
influence prion precipitation. It is possible that the observed fibrillization
is a direct consequence of lipid removal by PTA and sarkosyl, since
PrPSc detached from membranes readily forms amyloid.[39] Additionally, ganglioside GM1, the most abundant
neuronal ganglioside,[35] was also studied
as a marker of total lipid content and an indicator of sample purity.
We found decreased levels of GM1 with higher concentrations of NaPTA,
PW11 + WO4, and PW11 while WO4 was not as effective at equimolar concentrations (Figure 5).From sucrose cushion centrifugations, incubation
with PTA increased
the density of PrP aggregates (Figure 2). PrPSc alone has a density of approximately 1.35 g/mL, while an
80% sucrose solution has a density of ∼1.41 g/mL.[53] The PrP aggregates that permeated the 80% sucrose
cushion and formed the pellet must have a density in excess of 1.41
g/mL.Unlike most proteins, PrP has a high isoelectric point
of approximately
9 for the full-length protein,[54] rendering
the protein positively charged at neutral pH. This feature of PrP
may be used advantageously because manipulation of electrostatic interactions
can be achieved using anionic compounds such as PTA and detergents.
Our work on the pH-dependent decomposition of polyoxometalates (Figure 3) suggests that PrPSc precipitations
using PTA should be carried out on the lower end of the physiological
pH range, closer to pH 7.1 rather than 7.4, in order to maintain the
integrity of the PW11 ion, particularly when greater sample
purity is desired.While both PW11 and WO4 components of PTA
contributed to the yield of PrP during precipitation, PW11 is primarily responsible for a reduction in coprecipitating GM1lipids, as evidenced by the levels of ganglioside GM1 by Western blot
(Figure 5). PW11 at concentrations
>1 mM substantially reduced the level of coprecipitating lipids,
while
WO4 did not at equivalent concentrations. This lipid reduction
might explain why precipitation with PW11 facilitated detection
of PrP by ELISA more effectively than the WO4 component
at concentrations between 0.25 and 6 mM (Figure 4). The lipids remaining in the WO4-incubated samples may
mask epitopes on PrP and hinder its binding to the detection antibodies
in ELISA. The difference in lipid levels following PW11 and WO4 precipitations may be attributed to the size
and charge differences between the two tungstates, because the WO4 ion has a single heavy tungsten atom and a delocalized −2
charge while PW11 is a much larger, heavier anion with
a −7 charge. These differences between PW11 and
WO4 as well as our experiments with NaCl indicate that
electrostatic interactions may be involved in promoting PrPSc precipitation by their disruption of interactions between PrPSc and buoyant anionic lipids like GM1. Direct association
of dense tungstates with positively charged PrPSc may also
contribute to the precipitation efficiency.Reducing the amount
of coprecipitating lipids such as GM1 may have
implications for various areas of prion research, including biophysical
studies of protein structure and diagnostic assay development. Lipids
have been shown to interfere with protein detection assays, particularly
those relying on the specificity of a protein–antibody interaction.[32,48] By reducing the lipid content of biological samples with typically
low prion titers, high-throughput detection assays for cattle and
human blood may be developed to reduce the risk of contracting variant
Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease from meat products or blood transfusions.By elucidating the mechanisms of PTA precipitation of PrPSc, we can improve our methods for sample preparation, which may play
a crucial role in studies to probe the structure of PrPSc and to develop robust diagnostic tools. The principles governing
the precipitation of PrPSc may also prove useful in studying
other protein-misfolding diseases, in which the hydrophobic nature
of protein aggregates promotes undesired binding of lipids to the
aggregates.
Methods
Chemicals
NaPTA,
sodium tungstate dihydrate, sodium
phosphate monobasic, sodium carbonate monobasic, N-laurylsarcosine sodium salt (sarkosyl), sucrose, cholera toxin subunit-B
peroxidase conjugate, β-mercaptoethanol, trizma hydrochloride,
sodium chloride, tween-20, sodium hydroxide, nitric acid, and hydrochloric
acid were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich and used without further purification.
Deuterium oxide was obtained from Cambridge Isotopes and used as received.
Bovineserum albumin (BSA), ABTS substrate, and 8 M GdnHCl were obtained
from Thermo Scientific. SDS, 10× TGS running buffer, and 10×
Ca2+/Mg2+-free PBS were obtained from Gibco
and diluted to the appropriate strength with purified water (18.2
MΩ·cm resistivity). Instant nonfat dry milk was from SACO
Foods. Amersham enhanced chemiluminscence (ECL) Western blotting detection
reagents were from GE Healthcare. Recombinant mousePrP(23–230),[55] HRP-conjugated anti-PrP Fab antibody P,[56] and anti-PrP Fab antibodies D18 and HRP-D13[50] were prepared as described.
Prion-Infected
Brain Samples
FVB weanling mice (Charles
River Laboratories) were inoculated intracerebrally with RML prions
prepared from infectedCD1mice. Inoculated mice were sacrificed when
symptoms of neurologic dysfunction presented in accordance with protocols
approved by the UCSF Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee.
The brains were collected and stored at −80 °C. All manipulations
of mice, brain tissue, and purified prions were performed in a Biosafety
Level 2 facility in accordance with established guidelines from the
NIH.
PrP Fibrillization Assays
Brain homogenates (10% w/v)
were prepared in Ca2+/Mg2+-free PBS and clarified
by centrifugation at 500g for 5 min in a tabletop
centrifuge. The resulting supernatant was separated into 1-mL aliquots
and centrifuged at 100 000g for 1 h (Beckman,
TLA55 at 48 000 rpm). The high-speed supernatant was discarded,
and the pellets remaining in the centrifuge tubes were frozen on ice
and stored at −80 °C until use.For the fibrillization
assays, brain homogenate samples were resuspended with 200 μL
of Ca2+/Mg2+-free PBS with Complete Protease
Inhibitor Cocktail (Roche Applied Science, Indianapolis, IN) and then
pooled together. The pooled samples were supplemented with increasing
concentrations of PTA (0–3.4% w/v), sarkosyl (0–3.5%
w/v), or a combination of PTA (0–3.4% w/v) in the presence
of 2% w/v sarkosyl. The samples were incubated overnight (16–18
h) at 37 °C under constant shaking (1200 rpm). After incubation,
the samples were place on ice, and 50-μL aliquots were taken
and analyzed by electron microscopy.
Electron Microscopy
Sample aliquots of 5 μL were
adsorbed for 30 s onto Formvar/carbon-coated, 200-mesh copper grids
(Ted Pella, Redding, CA) that were glow-discharged prior to use. The
grids were then washed briefly with 0.1 and 0.01 M ammonium acetate
buffer, pH 7.4, and stained with two 50 μL drops of freshly
filtered 2% w/v ammonium molybdate[57] or
dried without additional staining. The contrast provided by the bound
PTA was sufficient to identify fibrillization products at low magnification.[15] After drying, the samples were viewed with a
FEI Tecnai F20 electron microscope (FEI Company, Hillsborough, OR)
at an acceleration voltage of 80 kV. Electron micrographs were recorded
on a Gatan (Pleasanton, CA) UltraScan 4000 CCD camera.
Fibril Quantification
The quantification of the PrPSc fibrillization was performed
essentially as described.[15] In brief, 10
electron micrographs were taken
at random positions on the grid. Micrographs that contained obvious
film defects, dirt particles, and other artifacts were discarded and
replaced. All images were taken at a low magnification of 7575×
(corresponding to 19.8 Å/pixel) and a higher-than-usual underfocus
(5–10 μm) to facilitate the quantification. The micrographs
were processed with Adobe Photoshop (San Jose, CA). The number of
pixels (representing the area) for each visible fibril in the electron
micrographs was determined. Individual fibrils and fibril clusters
were selected by using the magic wand tool with a setting of 50–100;
the Fresnel fringes caused by the strong underfocus made it easier
to delineate each fibril/fibril cluster separately. The histogram
menu provided the number of pixels for each particle. Fibrils were
classified as such if the length was >40 pixels, equivalent to
∼78
nm, and the length/width ratio was at least 2:1. The amount of fibrils
was averaged over all 10 micrographs. The stochastic distribution
of the fibrils on the support film is reflected in the relatively
large standard errors of the mean (SEM).
Sucrose Cushion Centrifugations
Brain homogenate was
prepared from RML-infected FVBmice at 20% w/v in Ca2+/Mg2+-free PBS. The homogenate was centrifuged for 5 min at 500g at 4 °C, and the pellet was discarded to remove cell
debris from the sample. The supernatant was then split into two aliquots,
and sarkosyl was added to each aliquot to give a final concentration
of 2% w/v sarkosyl. To one sample, 10% PTA solution, pH 7.2, was added
(2% final w/v), while the other was left as a control without PTA.
The samples were then incubated overnight at 37 °C, and the aliquots
were each pipetted onto a two-step sucrose cushion containing 50%
sucrose (8 mL) and 80% sucrose layers (2 mL). All sucrose solutions
contain 0.5% sarkosyl, 50 mM sodium HEPES, and 1 mM sodium azide.
The gradients were centrifuged at 134 000g (20 °C) for 16 h in a SW41 Ti swinging bucket rotor (Beckman-Coulter).
Fifteen aliquots were taken from each gradient and labeled A–O
from low to high density. For fractions A–F, 1 mL samples were
collected; for fractions G–O, 500 μL collected. The pellets
were resuspended in 1 mL of a 2% sarkosyl solution and labeled as
the pellet fraction. All aliquots and gradient pellet samples were
analyzed by Western blot using the P-HRP antibody and developed using
ECL reagents.
31P Nuclear Magnetic Resonance
Samples were
prepared at 10% w/v PTA in 90:10 H2O/D2O mixture
and run on a Bruker Avance III NMR spectrometer equipped with a BBO
broadband probe operating at 600.13 MHz for 1H and 242.93
MHz for 31P. Sample pH was adjusted with stepwise addition
of NaOH and allowed to equilibrate for 1 h before spectra were collected.
Additional spectra were collected in more complex buffer solutions
containing PBS, sarkosyl, and brain homogenate (Supporting Information). While the phosphate concentration
increased due to the use of PBS as the solvent, the NMR signals corresponding
to PTA did not change in these complex buffer solutions.
Preparation
of POM Stock Solutions
The 10% w/v (31.6
mM) PTA solutions were prepared by dissolution of NaPTA in deionized
water (18.2 MΩ·cm resistivity); the pH of the solution
was adjusted to pH 7.1–7.2 with NaOH. Na7[PW11O39] and Na2WO4·2H2O solutions of equivalent concentrations (31.6 mM) were prepared
in deionized water, and the pH was adjusted by NaOH or glacial acetic
acid to pH 7.1–7.2. The solutions were prepared fresh prior
to each experiment.
Synthesis of Na7[PW11O39]·12H2O
Procedure was adapted
from Brevard et al.[58] Sodium tungstate
dihydrate (36.3 g, 0.110 mol)
and anhydrous sodium phosphate monobasic (1.38 g, 0.010 mol) were
dissolved in 75 mL of deionized water (18.2 MΩ·cm resistivity).
The solution was heated to 85–90 °C with vigorous stirring,
and concentrated nitric acid was added dropwise to reach pH 4.8. The
solution volume was reduced to half by evaporation, and extraction
with 3 × 50 mL of acetone afforded the POM in the aqueous layer
as a white powder after evaporation of the water.
Preparation
of Brain Homogenates for Tungstate Precipitations
Triplicate
sets of brain tissue (7 brains/set) from RML-infected
FVB mice were thawed and homogenized with Ca2+/Mg2+-free PBS to give a 10% w/v crude brain homogenate. Nuclei and debris
were removed by centrifugation at 1500g for 5 min,
and the supernatant was diluted 1:1 with a sarkosyl detergent solution
to a final concentration of 5% brain homogenate in 2% sarkosyl by
weight. Samples were stored at −80 °C in 500-μL
aliquots.
Tungstate Precipitations from Brain Homogenate
Aliquots
(500-μL) of 5% brain homogenate in 2% sarkosyl (w/v) were treated
with varying concentrations of tungstates by addition of 0, 8, 16,
32, 64, 96, 128, 192, or 256 μL of the stock solutions at pH
7.1 and a corresponding amount of water to adjust the final volume
of each sample to 1012 μL. The samples were incubated at 37
°C with shaking for 1 h and then centrifuged at 14 000g for 1 h at room temperature (RT) in a 5415D Eppendorf
microcentrifuge equipped with the fixed-angle rotor F-45-24-11. The
supernatants were promptly decanted, and the 1.5 mL Eppendorf tubes
were left upside-down to facilitate removal of liquid residue from
the pellet, which was subsequently removed by cotton swabs. The pellets
were stored at −20 °C.
ELISA Plate Preparation
Thermo Immulon 2HB flat-bottom,
96-well microtiter plates were used for ELISA experiments. To each
well, 100 μL of 4 μg/mL solution of D18 antibody in 0.1
M carbonate (pH 8.6) was added, and the plates were sealed and incubated
with shaking at 4 °C overnight. The plates were washed 5 times
with Tris-buffered saline with Tween-20 (TBST) and then blocked with
300 μL/well of 1% BSA in TBST for 1 h at RT. After aspiration
of the blocking solution, the plates were sealed and stored at 4 °C
until use.
Sandwich ELISA
Three independently
prepared sets of
POM-precipitated pellets were resuspended in 500 μL of 4 M GdnHCl,
heated at 100 °C for 10 min, and cooled on ice for 5 min. The
samples were diluted 40-fold with 1% BSA in TBST to prevent antibody
denaturation, and 100 μL of each sample was loaded onto D18-coated
plates in triplicate. Each plate also contained a ladder of recombinant
mousePrP(23–230) loaded in known quantities in duplicate or
triplicate to establish a standard concentration curve with a four-parameter
logistic regression.[59] The plates were
incubated overnight at 4 °C and subsequently washed 3× with
TBST. The plates were then incubated for 1 h with a 1 μg/mL
D13-HRP antibody solution in 1% BSA in PBS, rinsed 3× with TBST,
and then developed with ABTS HRP substrate. Plate absorbance was read
at 405 nm, and the sample optical densities were correlated to the
known calibration curve to determine the level of PrP in each sample.
To convert PrP levels from nanograms per well to nanograms per milligram
of brain tissue, the well concentrations were multiplied by a factor
of 8. The mean level of PrP precipitated at each POM concentration
was calculated by taking the average of all samples at the same POM
concentration, and the standard error of the mean was determined by
taking the standard deviation of the independent averages and dividing
by the square-root of three. To calculate the enrichment factor (eq 1) from each POM concentration relative to controls
(Table 1), the values were normalized to the
amount of PrP detected when no POMs were used in the precipitation.where x̅ = average ng of PrP/mg
of brain tissue for POM concentration i, x̅c = average ng of
PrP/mg of brain tissue for control (i = 0 mM POM), s = standard error of the mean
for POM concentration i, and sc = standard error of the mean for control (i = 0 mM POM).
Immunoblotting of POM-Precipitated Samples
POM-precipitated
pellets were resuspended in 200 μL of SDS sample buffer, diluted
10-fold, heated to 100 °C for 10 min, and allowed to cool to
RT. The samples were run on a BioRad Criterion 4–20% polyacrylamide
gel, transferred to a PVDF membrane using the iBlot wet transfer system,
blocked with a 5% milk solution in TBST, and incubated with 1 mg mL–1 D13-HRP antibody overnight at RT. To detect GM1,
HRP-conjugated cholera toxin B subunit (Sigma-Aldrich) was added to
the D13-HRP-containing milk solution the following day and incubated
for 1 h at RT. The membrane was washed 3 times with TBST, incubated
with ECL reagents for 1 min, and then developed on film.
Authors: Hongsheng Huang; Jasmine Rendulich; Dan Stevenson; Katherine O'Rourke; Aru Balachandran Journal: Can J Vet Res Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 1.310
Authors: Melanie Meyer-Luehmann; Janaky Coomaraswamy; Tristan Bolmont; Stephan Kaeser; Claudia Schaefer; Ellen Kilger; Anton Neuenschwander; Dorothee Abramowski; Peter Frey; Anneliese L Jaton; Jean-Marie Vigouret; Paolo Paganetti; Dominic M Walsh; Paul M Mathews; Jorge Ghiso; Matthias Staufenbiel; Lary C Walker; Mathias Jucker Journal: Science Date: 2006-09-22 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Olga V Bocharova; Leonid Breydo; Alexander S Parfenov; Vadim V Salnikov; Ilia V Baskakov Journal: J Mol Biol Date: 2004-12-19 Impact factor: 5.469
Authors: A F Hill; R J Butterworth; S Joiner; G Jackson; M N Rossor; D J Thomas; A Frosh; N Tolley; J E Bell; M Spencer; A King; S Al-Sarraj; J W Ironside; P L Lantos; J Collinge Journal: Lancet Date: 1999-01-16 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: R A Williamson; D Peretz; C Pinilla; H Ball; R B Bastidas; R Rozenshteyn; R A Houghten; S B Prusiner; D R Burton Journal: J Virol Date: 1998-11 Impact factor: 5.103
Authors: Atsushi Aoyagi; Carlo Condello; Jan Stöhr; Weizhou Yue; Brianna M Rivera; Joanne C Lee; Amanda L Woerman; Glenda Halliday; Sjoerd van Duinen; Martin Ingelsson; Lars Lannfelt; Caroline Graff; Thomas D Bird; C Dirk Keene; William W Seeley; William F DeGrado; Stanley B Prusiner Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Amanda L Woerman; Sabeen A Kazmi; Smita Patel; Yevgeniy Freyman; Abby Oehler; Atsushi Aoyagi; Daniel A Mordes; Glenda M Halliday; Lefkos T Middleton; Steve M Gentleman; Steven H Olson; Stanley B Prusiner Journal: Acta Neuropathol Date: 2017-08-28 Impact factor: 17.088
Authors: Simote T Foliaki; Victoria Lewis; Abu M T Islam; Matteo Senesi; David I Finkelstein; Laura J Ellett; Victoria A Lawson; Paul A Adlard; Blaine R Roberts; Steven J Collins Journal: Biophys J Date: 2020-06-10 Impact factor: 4.033
Authors: Szymon W Manka; Wenjuan Zhang; Adam Wenborn; Jemma Betts; Susan Joiner; Helen R Saibil; John Collinge; Jonathan D F Wadsworth Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2022-07-13 Impact factor: 17.694
Authors: Amanda L Woerman; Jan Stöhr; Atsushi Aoyagi; Ryan Rampersaud; Zuzana Krejciova; Joel C Watts; Takao Ohyama; Smita Patel; Kartika Widjaja; Abby Oehler; David W Sanders; Marc I Diamond; William W Seeley; Lefkos T Middleton; Steve M Gentleman; Daniel A Mordes; Thomas C Südhof; Kurt Giles; Stanley B Prusiner Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2015-08-18 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Elaine A Qian; Yanxiao Han; Marco S Messina; Heather D Maynard; Petr Král; Alexander M Spokoyny Journal: Bioconjug Chem Date: 2019-09-23 Impact factor: 4.774