James H Wade1, Aurora T Alsop1, Nicholas R Vertin1, Hongwei Yang2, Mark D Johnson2, Ryan C Bailey1. 1. Department of Chemistry, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign , 600 South Mathews Avenue, Urbana, Illinois 61801, United States. 2. Department of Neurological Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School , Boston, Massachusetts 02115, United States.
Abstract
Extracellular signaling is commonly mediated through post-translational protein modifications that propagate messages from membrane-bound receptors to ultimately regulate gene expression. Signaling cascades are ubiquitously intertwined, and a full understanding of function can only be gleaned by observing dynamics across multiple key signaling nodes. Importantly, targets within signaling cascades often represent opportunities for therapeutic development or can serve as diagnostic biomarkers. Protein phosphorylation is a particularly important post-translational modification that controls many essential cellular signaling pathways. Not surprisingly, aberrant phosphorylation is found in many human diseases, including cancer, and phosphoprotein-based biomarker signatures hold unrealized promise for disease monitoring. Moreover, phosphoprotein analysis has wide-ranging applications across fundamental chemical biology, as many drug discovery efforts seek to target nodes within kinase signaling pathways. For both fundamental and translational applications, the analysis of phosphoprotein biomarker targets is limited by a reliance on labor-intensive and/or technically challenging methods, particularly when considering the simultaneous monitoring of multiplexed panels of phosphoprotein biomarkers. We have developed a technology based upon arrays of silicon photonic microring resonator sensors that fills this void, facilitating the rapid and automated analysis of multiple phosphoprotein levels from both cell lines and primary human tumor samples requiring only minimal sample preparation.
Extracellular signaling is commonly mediated through post-translational protein modifications that propagate messages from membrane-bound receptors to ultimately regulate gene expression. Signaling cascades are ubiquitously intertwined, and a full understanding of function can only be gleaned by observing dynamics across multiple key signaling nodes. Importantly, targets within signaling cascades often represent opportunities for therapeutic development or can serve as diagnostic biomarkers. Protein phosphorylation is a particularly important post-translational modification that controls many essential cellular signaling pathways. Not surprisingly, aberrant phosphorylation is found in many human diseases, including cancer, and phosphoprotein-based biomarker signatures hold unrealized promise for disease monitoring. Moreover, phosphoprotein analysis has wide-ranging applications across fundamental chemical biology, as many drug discovery efforts seek to target nodes within kinase signaling pathways. For both fundamental and translational applications, the analysis of phosphoprotein biomarker targets is limited by a reliance on labor-intensive and/or technically challenging methods, particularly when considering the simultaneous monitoring of multiplexed panels of phosphoprotein biomarkers. We have developed a technology based upon arrays of silicon photonic microring resonator sensors that fills this void, facilitating the rapid and automated analysis of multiple phosphoprotein levels from both cell lines and primary humantumor samples requiring only minimal sample preparation.
The post-translational modification of
proteins is an essential
process through which extracellular recognition events can be communicated
from receptor activation through signaling cascades to ultimately
control transcription.[1] Phosphorylation-driven
kinase signaling is perhaps the most common post-translational modification
utilized in extracellular signaling.[2] Not
surprisingly, aberrant regulation of phosphorylation is implicated
in many diseases,[3−5] including cancer, yet a thorough understanding of
phosphorylation dynamics can reveal interventional opportunities.
Disease altered signaling cascades provide important targets for both
current and emerging therapeutic agents,[6−8] while also representing
diagnostic or prognostic biomarker signatures that are predictive
of patient response to particular treatment regimens. However, the
interconnectivity and redundancy between and within kinase signaling
cascades often gives rise to resistance against many chemotherapeutic
strategies.[9−13] This crosstalk also limits the diagnostic utility of any single
phosphoprotein-based biomarker. Importantly, a more comprehensive
survey of disease-altered kinase signaling can only be achieved by
simultaneously analyzing multiple phosphoprotein signatures, effectively
probing across multiple intersecting cascades to reveal the functional
significance of aberrant pathway activation.Despite clear applications
in both fundamental chemical biology
and translational clinical diagnostics, robust multiplexed phosphoprotein
analysis remains an unmet analytical challenge. In spite of notorious
shortcomings in terms of throughput, plexity, and quantitative capability,
electrophoretic methods (e.g., Western blot) remain the gold standard
for phosphoprotein expression analysis.[14,15] A number of
impressive advances have been proposed to increase throughput and
reduce reagent and sample consumption,[16−22] but these methods are still at relatively early stages of development
and have yet to find widespread adoption. Reverse phase protein arrays
(RPPA), a miniaturized dot-blot immunoassay with low sample input
requirements, allow for many samples to be simultaneously interrogated
for the presence of a single protein target, and the method has found
utility in clinical trials.[9,23,24] However, this approach is not well-suited for molecular diagnostic
applications requiring simultaneous assaying of a single sample for
multiple phosphoprotein targets. A handful of new antibody-based technologies
have also emerged in recent years for multiplex protein analysis,
a number of which have taken advantage of the spatial and/or PCR-based
multiplexing capacity of DNA–antibody complexes.[25−29] These technologies, while requiring the synthesis of a DNA–antibody
conjugate, have shown impressive limits of detection and multiplexing
capacity, though it is worth pointing out that antibody cross-reactivity
typically limits multiplexing to ≤20 protein targets within
a single sample volume. Higher levels of multiplexing require the
sample to be partitioned into separate reaction volumes. A notable
exception is an 88-plex assay for cell surface proteins.[30] However, this analysis only targeted the outside
of an intact cell and was not subjected to the complex milieu intracellular
content, and therefore did not require the application of sandwich
pairs for higher specificity.As an alternative analysis to
current methods for multiplexed protein
detection, we have developed a silicon photonic detection technology
that allows for the routine and robust analysis of biomarker targets
from single samples.[30−32] Chip-integrated arrays of silicon photonic microring
resonators are refractive index sensitive devices that have optical
properties that can be monitored to reveal the binding of biomolecules
to target-specific capture agents (Figure ). Microring resonators support optical resonances
at specific wavelengths, as defined bywhere λ is the wavelength of light, m is an integer, r is the radius of the
microring, and neff is the effective refractive
index of the propagating optical mode. When functionalized with target-specific
capture agents (e.g., antibodies, cDNA, aptamers), analyte binding-induced
changes in neff are detected as shifts
in resonance wavelength. Importantly, this silicon-based technology
allows for high levels of multiplexing, is cost-effective and highly
scalable, and supports enhanced assays with demonstrated limits of
protein detection as low as 500 fM.[32]
Figure 1
Operating
principles for microring resonator sensors. (A) A scanning
electron microscope (SEM) image shows a 30 μm active microring
with an adjacent linear waveguide. (B) Light is coupled onto the chip
via a grating coupler and propagates down the linear waveguide via
total internal reflectance. Under resonance conditions, light couples
into the adjacent microring, resulting in a narrow dip in the transmittance
past the microring, which is measured by a photodetector after coupled
off-chip by a second grating coupler. (C) Shifts in the resonant wavelength
occur due to changes in the refractive index near the surface of the
ring. The schematic example depicts a target protein binding to a
capture antibody, resulting in a shift of the resonance to a longer
wavelength.
Operating
principles for microring resonator sensors. (A) A scanning
electron microscope (SEM) image shows a 30 μm active microring
with an adjacent linear waveguide. (B) Light is coupled onto the chip
via a grating coupler and propagates down the linear waveguide via
total internal reflectance. Under resonance conditions, light couples
into the adjacent microring, resulting in a narrow dip in the transmittance
past the microring, which is measured by a photodetector after coupled
off-chip by a second grating coupler. (C) Shifts in the resonant wavelength
occur due to changes in the refractive index near the surface of the
ring. The schematic example depicts a target protein binding to a
capture antibody, resulting in a shift of the resonance to a longer
wavelength.The chief advantages
of this technology are the ease of use, rapid
analysis times, scalable chip fabrication and functionalization, and
robust and reproducible sensor operation. In contrast to our previous
efforts, this work reports the highest ever levels of multiplexing
using a silicon photonic sensor, and the first demonstration of detection
from cell lysate and resected tumor samples. Importantly, sensor substrates
are prepared in batch using well-established microspotting techniques.
Chips are then simply loaded into a cartridge and fitted with a precut
and automatically aligned gasket. This is in contrast to many other
reports that require custom microfluidic device fabrication and alignment.
The assay is also completely automated using an integrated pumping
system so that all that is required is minimal sample preparation
(e.g., cell lysis following standard methods). Overall, this type
of rapid, scalable, and high throughput method for probing levels
of multiple phosphoproteins from single samples could provide new
insights into functional and coordinated aspects of disease altered
signaling, revealing underlying drivers of cancer progression and
informative therapeutic opportunities.Given the aforementioned
needs in both chemical biology and clinical
diagnostics, we report the first application of this silicon photonic
technology to multiplexed phosphoprotein analysis. Sensor arrays functionalized
with monoclonal antibodies specific for 12 kinase cascade-related
targets were utilized to rapidly (<2 h) obtain a multiplexed phosphoprotein
profile from both glioblastoma cell line models and primary surgical
glioma specimens. Spatial multiplexing is achieved by selective immobilization
of individually addressable microring sensors with capture antibodies
using a commercial microspotter. The method is reproducible, requires
low sample input (<104 cells), and was used to monitor
dynamic phosphorylation in cell lines responding to stimulatory and
inhibitory treatments. Applying this technology to primary surgical
glioma specimens, the resulting multiplexed phosphoprotein signature
allowed for the rapid discrimination of growing tumor from necrotic
tissue: actionable information that, given the rapidity of the assay,
could potentially be integrated in near real-time within the clinical
decision making process. In general, this multiplexed detection platform,
which can be customized to any set of protein targets to which capture
agents can be directed, will find broad utility in the monitoring
of dynamic cell signaling processes in both fundamental biological
and translational diagnostic applications.
Results and Discussion
General
Detection Scheme
The general workflow for multiplexed
phosphoprotein profiling consists of sample processing (i.e., tissue
homogenization and cell lysis), rapid data acquisition, and semiautomated
data analysis (Figure ). Sensor chips were covalently functionalized via microspotting
with 12 monoclonal antibodies specific for protein epitopes within
targets of interest (Figure S1), including
10 phosphorylation sites. Each antibody was immobilized onto eight
independently addressable sensors, providing on-chip technical replicates,
and phosphoprotein detection was accomplished using an enzymatically
enhanced sandwich immunoassay format (Figure S2).[32] After loading the chips into the
sensor scanner, whole cell lysates from either cultured glioblastoma
cell lines or surgically resected glioma tissue specimens were flowed
across the sensor chips. The sandwich immunocomplex assembled on each
sensor surface consisted of the capture antibody and antigen, biotinylated
tracer antibody, and a streptavidin–horseradish peroxidase
conjugate. Protein detection was achieved by monitoring the resonance
wavelength shift associated with the enzymatic conversion of 4-chloro-1-naphthol
(4CN) to the insoluble 4-chloro-1-naphthon (4CNP) product, which was
deposited onto the sensor surface.
Figure 2
Protein detection scheme for multiplexed
phosphoprotein profile.
(A) Cells harvested either from human glioma cell lines in culture
or from primary resected tumor specimens were homogenized and lysed.
(B) Samples were then flowed across a 4 × 6 mm silicon sensor
chip containing a 132-element microring sensor array functionalized
with target-specific capture antibodies. (C) Resonance wavelength
shifts observed from an enhanced sandwich immunoassay correspond to
the concentration of each target in the sample. Error bars represent
± SD (n = 8 technical replicates). (D) Resonance
wavelength shifts can be displayed as a heat map to reveal heterogeneity
between samples.
Protein detection scheme for multiplexed
phosphoprotein profile.
(A) Cells harvested either from humanglioma cell lines in culture
or from primary resected tumor specimens were homogenized and lysed.
(B) Samples were then flowed across a 4 × 6 mm silicon sensor
chip containing a 132-element microring sensor array functionalized
with target-specific capture antibodies. (C) Resonance wavelength
shifts observed from an enhanced sandwich immunoassay correspond to
the concentration of each target in the sample. Error bars represent
± SD (n = 8 technical replicates). (D) Resonance
wavelength shifts can be displayed as a heat map to reveal heterogeneity
between samples.Targets to be detected
(Table S1) were
selected due to their key roles in the PI3K/AKT/mTOR and MAPK/ERK
pathways, which are aberrantly regulated in many cancers. For multiplex
protein detection in cell lysate, relevant antibody pairs (Table S2) were validated and covalently immobilized
onto sensor chips using standard bioconjugate chemistry and piezoelectric
microspotting. The panel of proteins was then simultaneously detected
using the described enzyme-enhanced sandwich immunoassay format. The
reproducibility of the assay was demonstrated across multiple biological
replicates, and notable differences in phosphoprotein expression were
observed between different cell lines.
Sensor Characterization
Using a Model Protein
Recombinant
β-catenin prepared in running buffer was used as an initial
model system to characterize sensor performance (Figure A). These results, fit to a
logistic function, indicated a ∼3.5-order of magnitude linear
dynamic range and a limit of detection and quantitation of 0.6 pM
and 1.3 pM, respectively (Table S3). Analysis
of β-catenin from within cell lysate showed that this protein
could be reliably detected with a sample input of fewer than 10,000
cells (Figure B).
For reference, fine needle aspirate biopsies consistently yield >500,000
cells,[33] and typical cell culture protocols
yield >106 cells. While not a focus of this study, which
centers on phosphoprotein analysis, absolute quantitation using this
platform is achievable for targets that have readily available standards.
Figure 3
Sensor
characterization using a protein standard. (A) Serial dilutions
of recombinant β-catenin standard were used to assess sensor
performance across 5 orders of magnitude in 10 mM PBST/B buffer. The
net shift from the enzymatic signal enhancement step with the net
shift from off target mouse IgG isotype control was used as readout.
The sensor has a linear dynamic range of 3.55-log with a limit of
detection (LOD) of 0.6 pM (solid horizontal black line) and limit
of quantification (LOQ) of 1.3 pM (dashed horizontal black line).
The data was fit to a logistic function (red trace, adjusted r-squared >0.99). Error bars, SD (n =
3).
(B) The minimum sample input for detection of β-catenin cell
lysate was determined. The minimum input is between 1000 and 10,000
cells, whereas typical yield of most biopsy methods is >100,000
cells,
including fine needle aspirates. The data was fit to a logistic function
with adjusted r-squared of 0.985. Error bars represent
± SD (n = 3).
Sensor
characterization using a protein standard. (A) Serial dilutions
of recombinant β-catenin standard were used to assess sensor
performance across 5 orders of magnitude in 10 mM PBST/B buffer. The
net shift from the enzymatic signal enhancement step with the net
shift from off target mouse IgG isotype control was used as readout.
The sensor has a linear dynamic range of 3.55-log with a limit of
detection (LOD) of 0.6 pM (solid horizontal black line) and limit
of quantification (LOQ) of 1.3 pM (dashed horizontal black line).
The data was fit to a logistic function (red trace, adjusted r-squared >0.99). Error bars, SD (n =
3).
(B) The minimum sample input for detection of β-catenin cell
lysate was determined. The minimum input is between 1000 and 10,000
cells, whereas typical yield of most biopsy methods is >100,000
cells,
including fine needle aspirates. The data was fit to a logistic function
with adjusted r-squared of 0.985. Error bars represent
± SD (n = 3).
Validation of Antibody Pairs
Identification and screening
of antibody sandwich pairs with sufficient specificity and affinity
for targets of interest is a major limitation for all immunoassay
detection platforms, and there have recently been public calls for
dramatic improvements and standardization of antibodies used for research
applications (http://www.nature.com/news/1.16827). Without
such standardization, rigorous antibody screening procedures are necessary
to identify suitable antibody targets. Major advantages of the microring
resonator platform are the ability to monitor real-time binding events
and the fact that antibody validation can be carried out directly
on the same platform on which the final assay will be performed. In
contrast to end-point assays, where operators are blind until the
conclusion of the multistep assay, the real-time signal observed in
microring detection experiments can reveal problematic assay steps.
An example of binding events for each step of the protein expression
profiling assay is provided in Figure S3. See Materials and Methods for a detailed
description of antibody validation procedures.
Phosphoprotein Profiling
of Glioblastoma Cell Lines
The ability to discriminate heterogeneities
across samples of similar
composition is a vital tool for translation of the platform into a
workable tool both for research and clinical settings. To test the
performance of the multiplexed assay, five model glioblastoma cell
lines were analyzed: U-87 MG, U-343 MG-a, U-251 MG, LN-229, and T98-G.
Prior to analysis, cell lysate samples were diluted to 50 μg/mL
total protein content as determined by a bicinchoninic acid (BCA)
assay to ensure a constant sample input across multiple samples. These
cell lines were grown using standard tissue culture, lysed under non-denaturing
conditions, and analyzed on the microring resonator platform. Within
a single 2 h experiment, the 12-plex phosphoprotein analysis can be
performed (Figure A). Of all the examined targets, Ser780 and Ser807/811 retinoblastoma
(Rb) phosphorylation sites showed the greatest variance between individual
cell lines (Figure B). Rb is a tumor suppressor protein known to be functionally inactive
in many cancer types, such as osteosarcoma and small-cell carcinoma.[34] Activated forms of Rb block the progression
of cell cycle from G1 to S phase by inhibiting E2F transcription factors.[35] Cyclin dependent kinase (Cdk) phosphorylation
inactivates Rb, typically causing the cell to advance into S phase
DNA replication.[36] Inactivation of Rb,
as appears to be the case in the T-98-G cell lines (Figure A), can induce quiescent cells
to re-enter the cell cycle, initiating cancerous growth.[37] However, Rb is neither necessary nor sufficient
for cancer development, as is seen by the low levels of phosphorylation
in both the U87 and U343 cell lines.
Figure 4
Twelve-plex phosphoprotein analysis of
glioma cell lines. (A) The
multiplex phosphoprotein analysis of 5 model glioma cell lines grown
in standard tissue culture reveals difference in protein phosphorylation.
The data is normalized across rows and fit to a log-2 scale (n = 3). The bar graph represents a single multiplexed detection
experiment on the microring resonator platform for 12-plex phosphoprotein
analysis of the U87 MG cell line. (B) Differences in protein phosphorylation
for four targets (β-catenin, phospho-Akt Ser 473, phospho-Rb
Ser 807/811, phospho-S6 Ser 240/244) across five cell lines. Error
bars represent ± SD (n = 3 different samples
per cell line). * significant at p < 0.05, **
significant at p < 0.01, and *** significant at p < 0.001.
Twelve-plex phosphoprotein analysis of
glioma cell lines. (A) The
multiplex phosphoprotein analysis of 5 model glioma cell lines grown
in standard tissue culture reveals difference in protein phosphorylation.
The data is normalized across rows and fit to a log-2 scale (n = 3). The bar graph represents a single multiplexed detection
experiment on the microring resonator platform for 12-plex phosphoprotein
analysis of the U87 MG cell line. (B) Differences in protein phosphorylation
for four targets (β-catenin, phospho-AktSer 473, phospho-RbSer 807/811, phospho-S6 Ser 240/244) across five cell lines. Error
bars represent ± SD (n = 3 different samples
per cell line). * significant at p < 0.05, **
significant at p < 0.01, and *** significant at p < 0.001.When presented in the form of a heat map, data normalization
is
performed for each target of interest, and this method allows for
facile comparison between model glioma cell lines. Categorization
of samples based on protein profiles has the potential for downstream
applications in a clinical setting for subclassification of glioma
in patients, as was previously accomplished using miRNA expression
levels.[38] In general, the assay is highly
reproducible (Figure S4) with a technical
variance <3% for analyses of cell lysate samples. The biological
variance, determined by analysis of lysate from three cultures of
cells from across different passages of the same cell line, was determined
to be <18%.In addition to detecting basal phosphoprotein
levels, we also utilized
this multiplexed platform to monitor dynamic changes in expression
in response to four different cell treatments. Cells were cultured
in the presence of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), epidermal
growth factor (EGF), rapamycin, or wortmannin. Cells cultured in media
both with and without 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS) were analyzed as
references. Interestingly, LN-229 and U-87 MG cell lines demonstrated
differential responses to treatment in culture (Figure A). For instance, rapamycin treatment results
in a dramatic shift in the phospo-S6 ribosomal protein kinase levels
for the Ser235/236 site in both cell lines. However, for that same
treatment, U87 cells showed a mild upregulation in phospho-Akt and
phospho-mTOR levels in comparison to LN-229 cells. These examples
of heterogeneous cell line responses to treatment suggest the potential
application of this platform for assessing tumor status and monitoring
in vitro therapeutic response.
Figure 5
Multiplexed phosphoprotein profiling of
treated cell lines and
primary surgical glioma specimens. (A) Dynamic phosphoprotein expression
profiling of U87 MG and LN-229 cell lines in response to 4 different
treatment regimens (VEGF, EGF, rapamycin, and wortmannin) with (−)-serum
and (+)-serum serving as references. (B) Isolated primary samples
from six glioma patients were analyzed for the 12 protein targets
and sorted via unsupervised hierarchical clustering based on Euclidean
distance. The dashed regions highlight two samples that clustered
together that, in contrast to the other samples, were identified in
pathology reports as being composed of >50% necrotic tissue.
Multiplexed phosphoprotein profiling of
treated cell lines and
primary surgical glioma specimens. (A) Dynamic phosphoprotein expression
profiling of U87 MG and LN-229 cell lines in response to 4 different
treatment regimens (VEGF, EGF, rapamycin, and wortmannin) with (−)-serum
and (+)-serum serving as references. (B) Isolated primary samples
from six gliomapatients were analyzed for the 12 protein targets
and sorted via unsupervised hierarchical clustering based on Euclidean
distance. The dashed regions highlight two samples that clustered
together that, in contrast to the other samples, were identified in
pathology reports as being composed of >50% necrotic tissue.
Analysis of Primary Surgical
Glioma Specimens
Cell
lysates derived from established cell lines in culture provided a
proof-of-concept for the phosphoprotein profiling using the microring
resonator platform, but the method should also be applicable to tumor
tissue homogenates if it is to serve as a useful diagnostic platform.
To that end, primary surgical glioma specimens were homogenized and
lysed following the same protocol as the cell culture samples. For
the analysis of tumor tissue homogenates, the technical variance was
<6% (Figure S4). In general, the surgical
glioma samples had reduced phosphoprotein expression levels compared
to cultured cell lines,[39] so a higher total
protein concentration was used for all tumor samples (150 μg/mL).
The multiplexed phosphoprotein analysis was performed as described,
and the resulting expression levels were used as input for clustering
via Euclidean distance. Notably, glioma tissue homogenates were clearly
distinguished from isolated primary glioma stemlike cell samples (Figure S5). Furthermore, two samples (21225 and
43096) showed widespread reduction in protein phosphorylation, and
clustered together separate from the other glioma samples (Figure B). A review of pathology
reports indicated that these two samples uniquely had extensive necrosis
(>50% necrotic tissue). Necrosis can occur via several mechanisms,
including both p53-dependent and independent pathways.[40−43] In the context of GBM, necrosis via radiation injury is commonly
encountered in recurrent disease and is often difficult to distinguish
from actively growing tumor using many noninvasive imaging approaches,[40,44] complicating surgical intervention. While beyond the scope of this
paper, it is important to note that the 2 h time frame of our multiplexed
assay might provide useful information to pathologists regarding molecular
tissue/tumor heterogeneity, which in turn might help guide the surgical
decision making process intraoperatively.
Conclusion
We
have utilized silicon photonic microring resonator arrays to
dynamically monitor phosphoprotein levels using both cultured glioblastoma
cell lines and surgical humanglioma specimens. This multiplexed technology
can simultaneously determine expression levels of multiple targets
in less than 2 h using sample inputs compatible with many basic science
and clinical detection applications. In addition to monitoring differences
in phosphoprotein levels from glioblastoma cell lines cultured in
the presence or absence of stimulatory and inhibitory factors, this
technology revealed differences between surgical glioma specimens.
Because phosphorylation-dependent pathway activation plays an important
role in tumor growth and resistance, the rapid and broad-based analysis
of phosphoprotein patterns as outlined here could provide useful diagnostic
and therapeutic information beyond that which can be inferred from
genomic or transcriptomic studies.Using phosphoprotein levels,
we could stratify samples that had
extensive tissue necrosis, identified as having reduced levels of
phosphoprotein targets. Importantly, this rapid discrimination of
growing tumor from necrotic tissue provides actionable information
that could potentially be integrated in near real-time within the
clinical decision making process. In this report we describe the simultaneous
detection of 12 protein targets; however, the plexity of the panel
can be further increased and, for example, could include comprehensive
profiling of both phosphorylated and nonphosphorylated forms of selected
targets. In general, this multiplexed detection technology, which
can be applied to any panel of protein biomarkers to which high affinity
capture agents can be directed, will find utility throughout both
fundamental biological and clinical applications that seek to simultaneously
probe expression levels of multiple protein targets, including those
focusing on dynamic processes such as pathway activation and therapeutic
regulation.
Materials and Methods
Reagents
Unless indicated otherwise,
all reagents were
purchased from Sigma-Aldrich and were used as received according to
the manufacturer’s protocol. The following reagents were purchased
from Thermo Scientific: (bis[sulfosuccinimidyl]) suberate (BS3) homobifunctional
amine-to-amine cross-linking agent (#21585), streptavidin–horseradish
peroxidase (SA–HRP) conjugate (#21130), 1-step chloronaphthol
solution containing 4-chloro-1-naphthol (4-CN) and proprietary peroxide-containing
buffer (#34012 or NC0544546), and StartingBlock (PBS) blocking buffer
(#37548). 3-Aminopropyltriethoxysilane (APTES) was from Gelest (#SIA0610.1).
DryCoat assay stabilizer was from Virusys (#AG066-1). Recombinant
β-catenin was from abcam (#ab63175). PBS buffer (10 mM) with
0.1% BSA and 0.05% Tween-20 (PBST/B) was used as a running buffer
for all experiments on the microring resonator platform. All antibodies
were purchased from Cell Signaling Technology (Table S2) as custom formulations in 10 mM PBS. Biotinylation
of tracer antibodies was performed using the EZ-Link NHS-PEG4-Biotin
reagent from Thermo Scientific (21329).
Microring Resonator Instrumentation,
Chip Fabrication, and Operation
Maverick M1 optical scanning
instrumentation, control software,
and sensor array chips were purchased from Genalyte Inc. (San Diego,
CA). Sensor fabrication and operation have been previously described.[30,45] Briefly, sensor chips are batch fabricated on a silicon-on-insulator
(SOI) wafer, and sub-micrometer features (e.g., grating couplers,
waveguides, and microrings) are generated via deep UV lithography
and reactive ion etching. A perfluoropolymer cladding layer is added
to the entire chip surface via spin coating, and annular windows are
etched over 132 of 136 rings. The exposed rings are termed active,
and the remaining 4 rings are used as controls to correct for thermal
drift. The chips come coated with a protective 1 μm thick photoresist
layer, which is removed prior to use by immersing first in an acetone
bath immediately followed by rinsing the chip in isopropanol.Sensor interrogation is performed using an external cavity tunable
diode laser centered at 1550 nm coupled via fiber optics to a free-space
optical scanner.[45] The scanner focuses
and steers the optical beam to serially probe each of the 136 rings
while sweeping the laser wavelength through a suitable spectral window.
Light is coupled into microrings via chip-integrated grating couplers.
A 30 μm microring is adjacent to the waveguide, and light couples
from the waveguide into the ring only under resonance conditions (described
above). When functionalized with an appropriate capture agent, binding-induced
changes in neff lead to shifts in the
resonance wavelength, which can be used to quantitatively detect biomolecular
targets. Resonance wavelength shifts are monitored as a function of
time and reported in units of Δpm. Additional instrumental specifications
and a more exhaustive description of operation have been previously
reported.[45]
Array Surface Functionalization
Capture biomolecules
are covalently immobilized onto the ring surface into a spatially
multiplexed array using robotic microspotting. After removal of the
protective photoresist layer, chips are silanized in a 1% APTES solution
in acetone for 2 min, followed by 2 min rinses in acetone and then
isopropanol. The chips are then briefly (<10 s) rinsed in water
and dried under a N2 gas stream. Chips are subsequently
loaded into the microarrayer. Each cluster of 4 active microrings
was spotted with a 2 mM acetic acid solution containing 5 mM BS3 cross-linker.
Antibody solutions of 400 μg/mL in 10 mM PBS with 5% glycerol
were then spatially arrayed onto individual clusters of four microrings
on the chip surface. Spotting locations were randomly assigned across
each channel of the sensor array (Figure S1). Spotted chips were then transferred to a humidity chamber for
1 h. The chips were next coated with DryCoat by gently pipetting the
solution across the chips’ surface. The chips were then transferred
to a desiccator at 4 °C for storage.Lower plexity chips
utilized for antibody validation, cross reactivity screening, and
β-catenin detection standardization were fabricated using identical
attachment chemistries; however, solutions were spotted by hand rather
than using the robotic microspotter.
Antibody Validation Protocol
Selection of antibody
targets for screening was guided by recommendations from commercial
vendors in order to ensure that epitopes for each component of the
antibody sandwich did not overlap. In addition to vendor recommendations,
various research facilities (e.g., RPPA Core Facility—Functional
Proteomics, MD Anderson Cancer Center, http://www.mdanderson.org) provide databases containing antibodies that have undergone extensive
screening procedures that were useful in selecting successful antibody
clones.In order to validate
recommended antibody pairs for protein detection
in cell lysate on the microring resonator platform, antibodies were
purchased from vendors in a custom formulation in a 10 mM PBS buffer.
Custom formulations were necessary to ensure that no species were
present that would interfere with either surface conjugation or biotinylated
tracer antibodies. On-target capture antibodies and an off-target
control antibody (e.g., mouse IgG isotype control) were functionalized
onto a chip following the methodology described above. When available,
reference protein standards were used as positive controls. When no
standard was available, as is the case for the phosphoprotein targets,
cell lysates isolated from the 5 model glioma cell lines were used
as reference samples. An antibody hit was considered valid when the
following were observed: (1) on-target signal significantly above
off-target control, (2) concentration-dependent signal response (typically
undiluted, 1:10, and 1:100 cell lysate dilutions), (3) statistically
insignificant signal for on-target and off-target antibodies for negative
control experiments, and (4) Western blot experiments indicated a
single band at the appropriate molecular weight using the same antibody
clone.The absolute minimum signal for a validation target is
the limit
of quantitation (LOQ), which was experimentally determined to be an
11.5 pm shift based off of the signal and standard deviation of a
blank response (Figure S3). Practically,
all qualifying targets provided a net shift of at least 300 pm above
background. Two types of negative control experiments were used: (1)
removal of on-target tracer antibodies from the standard assay and
(2) removal of diluted whole lysate form the standard assay. The combination
of the two negative control runs ensured that tracer antibodies would
only form the antibody sandwich when target analyte is present. Additionally,
the off-target control capture antibody ensured that the tracer antibodies
did not bind to cell lysate proteins that nonspecifically adsorb to
the sensor surface. Nonspecific adsorption is also prevented by blocking
the sensor surface with a carrier protein (see below). The Western
blot validation ensured that the antibody targets correctly bound
the target of interest without cross reactivity (Figure S6). A major benefit of using a sandwich immunoassay
is that cross-reactivity will be observed only if there is off-target
or nonspecific binding during both the capture and tracer steps in
the assay.For all cases, antibodies were tested in both sandwich
configurations
to determine which provided the best performance (e.g., run 1, A as
capture, B as tracer; run 2, B as capture, A as tracer). Additionally,
antibodies were validated using Western blotting for lysate samples
from at least 3 cell lines.
Protein Expression Profiling
Twelve-plex
protein expression
profile chips were spotted as described above. For each run, flow
was coupled to the sensor surface via a fluidic cartridge assembly
(Figure S7). Sensor chips were sandwiched
between an aluminum cartridge holder, a 0.007 in. laser cut biaxially
oriented polyethylene terephthalate (Mylar) gasket, and a polytetrafluorethylene
(Teflon) cartridge top. Solvent was delivered to the cartridge assembly
from via a 0.25 mm flangeless 1/4-28 fitting screwed directly into
the cartridge top. PEEK plugs were used to cap unused fluidic ports.
The entire cartridge assembly was then loaded into the Maverick system.For all steps in the assay, the flow rate was 30 μL/min.
The assay consisted of (1) StartingBlock protein blocking step (10
min), (2) rinse with 10 mM PBST/B (10 min), (3) 20 min cell lysate
(50 μg/mL in 10 mM PBST/B, 20 min), (4) protein blocking with
StartingBlock (10 min), (5) rinse with 10 mM PBST/B (2 min), (6) tracer
antibodies (1 μg/mL in PBST/B, 10 min), (7) rinse with PBST/B
(2 min), (8) streptavidin–HRP conjugate (2 μg/mL in 10
mM PBST/B, 10 min), (9) 1-step chloronaphthol solution (25 min), and
(10) rinse with 10 mM PBST/B (10 min). The total assay time was 117
min; however, the assay can be shortened further through optimization
of blocking and reagent loading steps. For example, a nonoptimized
45 min assay was successfully carried out, but with <25% loss in
signal.
Data Analysis
All data analysis was performed using
Origin 9.1 (OriginLab Corporation, Northampton, MA) as well as a custom
program for semiautomated data analysis. For analysis of protein and
phosphoproteins in cell lysate, the net shift resulting from the enzymatic
signal enhancement during the 25 min chloronaphthol oxidation step
was used as assay readout. For each target, the data represents averaged
responses from 4 to 8 replicate measurements on a single chip, corresponding
to either 1 or 2 clusters of 4 microrings responding to a given target.
Sensor calibration data, determined using β-catenin in PBST/B
buffer, was plotted as sensor response (measure in Δpm) versus
time and fit to the logistic function (Figure and Table S3):where A1 is the
initial value (Δpm), A2 is the final
value (Δpm), x is the analyte concentration
(pM), x0 is the center value (inflection
point, pM), and p is the power parameter affecting
the slope of the linear portion of the fit surround the inflection
point.To generate expression heat maps, the data from the 12-plex
protein expression profile was normalized by row to the average response
for that target across the samples of interest according to the equationwhere x is target signal
for a single sample and x̅ is the mean target
signal for a sample set. Data visualization was performed using Gene-E
(http://broadinstitute.org/cancer/software/GENE-E/). The
heat map data is also presented in Tables S4–S6 as the standard score (i.e., z-score) to indicate
the deviation from the mean for each.
Cell Culture and Treatments
Model glioma cell lines
were obtained from ATCC (U-87 MG [HTB-14], LN-229 [CRL-2611], T98-G
[CRL-1690]) or Cell Line Service (U-251 MG [300385], U-343 MGa [300365]).
For comparison of untreated samples, cells were cultured in Dulbecco’s
modification of Eagle’s medium (DMEM, Corning, #10-013-CV)
supplemented with 10% FBS (VWR, #1400-500) and 1% penicillin–streptomycin
(Life Technologies, #15070-063). Cells were subcultured at ∼80%
confluency using 0.05% Trypsin-EDTA (Life Technologies, #25300-062)
for cell detachment and reseeded at 2 × 106 cells/mL.For treatments, cells were cultured using the same method as untreated
cells for one passage cycle. Cells were then starved in serum-free
medium for 6 h immediately prior to treatment. One of the following
reagents was supplemented into serum-free DMEM medium for each of
the four treatments: VEGF (Cell Signaling Technology, #8065SC) at
200 ng/mL, EGF (Cell Signaling Technology, #8916SC) at 200 ng/mL,
wortmannin (Cell Signaling Technology, #9951S) at 200 nM, or rapamycin
(Cell Signaling Technology, #9904S) at 100 nM. Two control treatments
were also performed consisting of serum-free DMEM with 200 μL
of DMSO added as a loading control and DMEM supplemented as described
for untreated samples. Cells were harvested and lysed after 18 h of
treatment.Cell lysis was performed following the manufacturer’s
protocol
using the cell lysis buffer containing protease and phosphatase inhibitors
(Cell Signaling Technology, #9803S), supplemented with phenylmethanesulfonyl
fluoride (PMSF) as a protease inhibitor (Cell Signaling Technology,
#8553S). The buffer contains 1% Triton X-100 (Fisher, #BP151-100),
a nonionic detergent, for cell lysis. The use of nonionic detergent
ensures that the capture antibodies do not denature upon exposure
to cell lysate solution, as has been observed when using lysis buffers
containing sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) or other ionic detergents.
Ionic detergents could be used though; however, an additional step
of detergent removal would need to be incorporated into the workflow.During the lysis protocol, a small fraction (50 μL) was set
aside to determine the total protein concentration using a bicinchoninic
acid (BCA) assay (Fisher, #PI-23227) following the manufacturer’s
protocol. All lysate from cell culture was analyzed at 50 μg/mL
total protein concentration.
Preparation of Primary Glioma Samples
All primary surgical
glioma samples were collected at Brigham and Women’s Hospital
under authorized IRB protocols. Samples were homogenized and lysed
according to the same protocol as the cell culture samples. Total
protein levels were determined using a BCA assay (see above), and
all samples were analyzed at 150 μg/mL.
Western Blot
Cell
lysate samples were quantified with
a BCA assay (see above) and brought to similar final concentrations.
Samples were electrophorectically separated via SDS–PAGE with
4–20% MINI PROTEAN TGX gels (Bio-Rad, #4561093). Gels were
loaded with a visible protein ladder for transfer visualization (Bio-Rad,
#161-0374) and biotinylated protein ladder (Cell Signaling Technology,
#7727) for chemiluminescent signaling. Proteins were transferred to
nitrocellulose membranes (Cell Signaling Technology, #12369) via standard
methods using the Mini Trans-Blot Electrophoretic Transfer Cell (Bio-Rad,
#1703930). The blots were blocked with 5% w/v nonfat dry milk in 50
mM tris-buffered saline (TBS) with 1% Tween-20 (TBST) for 1 h. Membranes
were incubated with primary antibody overnight at 4 °C following
the manufacturer’s protocols. All antibodies were used at a
1:1000 dilution unless otherwise specified by the manufacturer. Blots
were washed three times in 15 mL of TBST prior to an incubation step
(1 h, rt) with secondary anti-rabbit or anti-mouse IgG and anti-biotin,
all HRP-linked antibody (1:1000 in 5% w/v nonfat dry milk in TBST,
Cell Signaling Technology, #7074, 7075, and 7076). Blots were rinsed
again with 15 mL of TBST three times prior to imaging with chemiluminescence
using either LumiGlo chemiluminescent reagent or peroxide SignalFire
ECL Reagent (Cell Signaling Technology, #7003, 6883).
Authors: Raoul Tibes; Yihua Qiu; Yiling Lu; Bryan Hennessy; Michael Andreeff; Gordon B Mills; Steven M Kornblau Journal: Mol Cancer Ther Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 6.261
Authors: Min Xue; Wei Wei; Yapeng Su; Jungwoo Kim; Young Shik Shin; Wilson X Mai; David A Nathanson; James R Heath Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2015-03-19 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: A Krook; M Björnholm; D Galuska; X J Jiang; R Fahlman; M G Myers; H Wallberg-Henriksson; J R Zierath Journal: Diabetes Date: 2000-02 Impact factor: 9.461
Authors: Ellen M Muehl; Joshua M Gajsiewicz; Sara M Medfisch; Zachary S B Wiersma; James H Morrissey; Ryan C Bailey Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2017-08-11 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Abraham J Qavi; Krista Meserve; M Javad Aman; Hong Vu; Larry Zeitlin; John M Dye; Jeffrey W Froude; Daisy W Leung; Lan Yang; Frederick W Holtsberg; Ryan C Bailey; Gaya K Amarasinghe Journal: Cell Rep Methods Date: 2022-06-08
Authors: Richard M Graybill; Maria C Cardenosa-Rubio; Hongwei Yang; Mark D Johnson; Ryan C Bailey Journal: Anal Methods Date: 2018-03-23 Impact factor: 2.896