Mathew H Horrocks1, Steven F Lee1, Sonia Gandhi2, Nadia K Magdalinou3, Serene W Chen1, Michael J Devine4, Laura Tosatto1, Magnus Kjaergaard1, Joseph S Beckwith1, Henrik Zetterberg2,5, Marija Iljina1, Nunilo Cremades1, Christopher M Dobson1, Nicholas W Wood2, David Klenerman1. 1. Department of Chemistry, University of Cambridge , Lensfield Road, Cambridge CB2 1EW, United Kingdom. 2. Department of Molecular Neuroscience, Institute of Neurology, University College London , Queen Square, London WC1N 3BG, United Kingdom. 3. Reta Lila Weston Institute of Neurological Studies, University College London , 1 Wakefield Street, London WC1N 1PJ, United Kingdom. 4. Division of Brain Sciences, Imperial College of London, Hammersmith Hospital , Du Cane Road, London W12 0NN, United Kingdom. 5. Clinical Neurochemistry Laboratory, Department of Psychiatry and Neurochemistry, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, the Sahlgrenska Academy, University College University of Gothenburg , Mölndal, Sweden.
Abstract
The misfolding and aggregation of proteins into amyloid fibrils characterizes many neurodegenerative disorders such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases. We report here a method, termed SAVE (single aggregate visualization by enhancement) imaging, for the ultrasensitive detection of individual amyloid fibrils and oligomers using single-molecule fluorescence microscopy. We demonstrate that this method is able to detect the presence of amyloid aggregates of α-synuclein, tau, and amyloid-β. In addition, we show that aggregates can also be identified in human cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). Significantly, we see a twofold increase in the average aggregate concentration in CSF from Parkinson's disease patients compared to age-matched controls. Taken together, we conclude that this method provides an opportunity to characterize the structural nature of amyloid aggregates in a key biofluid, and therefore has the potential to study disease progression in both animal models and humans to enhance our understanding of neurodegenerative disorders.
The misfolding and aggregation of proteins into amyloid fibrils characterizes many neurodegenerative disorders such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases. We report here a method, termed SAVE (single aggregate visualization by enhancement) imaging, for the ultrasensitive detection of individual amyloid fibrils and oligomers using single-molecule fluorescence microscopy. We demonstrate that this method is able to detect the presence of amyloid aggregates of α-synuclein, tau, and amyloid-β. In addition, we show that aggregates can also be identified in human cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). Significantly, we see a twofold increase in the average aggregate concentration in CSF from Parkinson's diseasepatients compared to age-matched controls. Taken together, we conclude that this method provides an opportunity to characterize the structural nature of amyloid aggregates in a key biofluid, and therefore has the potential to study disease progression in both animal models and humans to enhance our understanding of neurodegenerative disorders.
Many neurodegenerative
diseases
share a common underlying process which involves the misfolding and
aggregation of a native soluble protein into insoluble deposits that
can accumulate in the brain and are accompanied by progressive neuronal
damage.[1] Alzheimer’s disease (AD)
and Parkinson’s disease (PD) are the most common of these disorders,
together affecting up to 8% of people over the age of 65 years. In
AD, the amyloid-β (Aβ) peptide accumulates as extracellular
deposits, or plaques, and the protein tau as intracellular inclusions,
whereas in PD, α-synuclein (αS) accumulates as Lewy bodies
within neuronal cells. Despite plaques and deposits being the most
clearly evident characteristics of the diseases, much evidence now
points toward soluble aggregate species as being the key cytotoxic
agents.[2−7] Due to the highly heterogeneous nature and complexity of such species,
single-molecule fluorescence techniques have proved to be extremely
useful for studying both the oligomers and fibrils of amyloid proteins,
as such methodologies can probe below the ensemble average of the
system, and characterize even the rarest of species.[3,6,8,9] Such
techniques have, however, until now, required the protein of interest
to be covalently labeled with an organic fluorophore, which is not
always straightforward and requires carefully controlled reactions
to ensure that it has no significant effect on the behavior of the
protein.[10,11] The need for labeling makes it very challenging
to apply single-molecule fluorescence techniques to samples of proteins
extracted from in vivo sources. To address these issues, we have developed
an approach to detect aggregates that does not rely on covalently
labeling proteins with organic fluorophores, but instead relies on
addition of a dye that noncovalently binds the oligomers and fibrils,
and not the monomeric protein. This method, that we term SAVE (single
aggregate visualization by enhancement) imaging, uses highly sensitive
single-molecule instrumentation to detect the fluorescence emission
signal from dye molecules that interact with the common motif of extended
β-sheet structure that is present in amyloid-related protein
aggregates.The most commonly used assays for detecting amyloid
fibrils exploits
the binding of the benzothiazole saltthioflavin-T (ThT) (Figure A) to amyloid structures,
which leads to an increase in its fluorescence intensity by several
orders of magnitude, thereby making it an unusually sensitive and
efficient reporter of extended β-sheet structure.[12,13] Indeed, the fluorescence quantum yield, Φfl, of
ThT in water at room temperature is 1 × 10–4, but when docked between surface side-chains in grooves running
parallel to the long axis of the cross β-sheets, the fluorescence
quantum yield increases by many orders of magnitude, for example,
Φfl = 0.43 for ThT bound to amyloid fibrils formed
from insulin.[14,15] Previous work[16,17] has used total internal reflection microscopy (TIRF) combined with
ThT fluorescence to follow the elongation of fibrils in real-time.
In this case, the species were several micrometers in length and appeared
as clear fibril-like structures in the images. It is generally thought
that only fibrils contribute significantly to an increase in the fluorescence
intensity of ThT, since the smaller aggregates (particularly those
below the diffraction limit of light (∼250 nm)) have fewer
binding-sites. However, here we show that the high detection efficiency
of single-molecule techniques enables the observation of an enhancement
in fluorescence through binding both to fibrils, and oligomers. Not
only are we able to observe the much smaller species in vitro, but
similar aggregates can also be detected in the cerebrospinal fluid
samples from people both with and without Parkinson’s disease.
This is the first time, to our knowledge, that ThT-active aggregates
have been detected in human CSF and opens up new possibilities to
understanding the cause of Parkinson’s disease and could also
be used as a method for early diagnosis.
Figure 1
(A) Molecular
structure of ThT. In the unbound state, ThT has a
low fluorescence intensity; however, when bound to extended β-sheet
containing oligomers or fibrils, the fluorescence quantum yield increases
significantly (more then 4000 fold). (B) Fluorescence intensity of
an individual αS aggregate. The red trace shows the AF647 fluorescence,
which decreases over time in stepwise drops, due to photobleaching
of each dye molecule. The green trace shows the intensity of ThT,
which remains constant over time, since exchange of ThT occurs at
a much higher rate than photobleaching of the individual ThT molecules.
(C) AF647 fluorescence image of monomeric αS. (D) SAVE image
of monomeric αS, there are no visible puncta, since ThT does
not bind with an increase in fluorescence to monomeric protein. (E)
AF647 image of aggregated αS. The brighter puncta correspond
to aggregates, and the dimmer puncta monomeric protein. (F) SAVE images
of the same regions as in (E). Only the aggregates (bottom) give rise
to fluorescent signal, and these correlate well with the brighter
puncta in (E). The scale bars in (C)–(F) are 5 μm and
in the zoom are 500 nm in length. AF647 intensity histograms of labeled
monomeric and aggregated αS are shown in (G) and (H), respectively.
As expected, the aggregated αS has an intensity distribution
shifted to higher values than for monomeric αS.
Results and Discussion
Monitoring
the Aggregation of αS
To detect individual
protein aggregates, we have merged traditional bulk techniques with
single-molecule instrumentation, and have made use of TIRF microscopy
to detect and count individual ThT-bound aggregates, one-by-one, generated
from both in vitro and in vivo sources. The success of this approach
can be attributed to a number of factors. First, as ThT is only significantly
fluorescent when bound to the underlying cross β-sheet structure
of amyloid, it can be added to a sample at high concentrations to
promote binding, but without generating high background fluorescence
that prevents single-molecule detection. Second, the unusually large
Stokes shift (i.e., the wavelength difference between the excitation
and emission spectral maxima) of ThT is exploited in the design of
our instrumentation; excitation at 405 nm is coupled with detection
of fluorescence emission at wavelengths greater than 500 nm. This
strategy effectively filters out nonspecific sources of autofluorescence
that generally have a smaller Stokes’ shift, while still allowing
the detection of even low amounts of ThT fluorescence. In addition,
the use of a high numerical aperture objective lens, and a highly
sensitive electron multiplied charge coupled device (EMCCD) camera,
allows even those aggregates with extremely low fluorescence intensity
to be successfully imaged.The ability of SAVE imaging to detect
protein aggregates is first demonstrated using αS covalently
labeled with Alexa Fluor 647 (AF647) after incubation under conditions
we have previously shown to favor the formation of oligomers and fibrils.[3] The use of labeled monomeric protein allows all
αS-containing species to be specifically imaged through excitation
and detection of AF647 fluorophores. Figure B shows a typical intensity trace of a single
aggregate of AF647-labeled αS; the AF647 intensity profile (red)
shows a series of stepwise decreases, characteristic of photobleaching
of the single fluorophores. In contrast, there is no noticeable photobleaching
of ThT (green trace) as the dye binding is transient, and so there
is a rapid turnover of fluorescent molecules bound to the aggregates.
Therefore, even though the ThT signal is lower than that from the
AF647 fluorescence, the lack of noticeable photobleaching enables
the imaging of the aggregates for effectively any length of time without
being subjected to a decrease in intensity. SAVE imaging takes advantage
of this by integrating the fluorescence from the samples over several
seconds, during which time the aggregates remain bright, whereas unwanted
sources of fluorescence photobleach.Figure C and D
shows the AF647 and SAVE images (same region) of fluorescently labeled
monomeric αS. Although multiple distinct puncta can be observed
in the AF647 image, no such signals are visible in the SAVE image,
since monomeric αS does not bind and enhance the fluorescence
of ThT. Figure E and
F shows the AF647 and SAVE images of a mixture of aggregated and monomeric
αS. The brighter puncta in the AF647 image appear as discrete
puncta in the corresponding SAVE image, and these can be attributed
to αS aggregates. Once again, the dimmer puncta in the AF647
image, which correspond to monomeric αS, have no coincident
puncta in the SAVE image. One of the advantages of SAVE is that discrete
species can be identified and characterized, and Figure G and H shows the intensity
distribution from individual puncta detected in the AF647 image of
the monomeric and aggregated αS, respectively. The red bars
indicate the species detected in which there is a coincident fluorescence
spot in the SAVE image, whereas the gray are those in which there
is no coincident spot. As expected, the intensity distribution is
shifted to higher values for the coincident species, as these have
multiple labeled αS monomeric units present in them.(A) Molecular
structure of ThT. In the unbound state, ThT has a
low fluorescence intensity; however, when bound to extended β-sheet
containing oligomers or fibrils, the fluorescence quantum yield increases
significantly (more then 4000 fold). (B) Fluorescence intensity of
an individual αS aggregate. The red trace shows the AF647 fluorescence,
which decreases over time in stepwise drops, due to photobleaching
of each dye molecule. The green trace shows the intensity of ThT,
which remains constant over time, since exchange of ThT occurs at
a much higher rate than photobleaching of the individual ThT molecules.
(C) AF647 fluorescence image of monomeric αS. (D) SAVE image
of monomeric αS, there are no visible puncta, since ThT does
not bind with an increase in fluorescence to monomeric protein. (E)
AF647 image of aggregated αS. The brighter puncta correspond
to aggregates, and the dimmer puncta monomeric protein. (F) SAVE images
of the same regions as in (E). Only the aggregates (bottom) give rise
to fluorescent signal, and these correlate well with the brighter
puncta in (E). The scale bars in (C)–(F) are 5 μm and
in the zoom are 500 nm in length. AF647 intensity histograms of labeled
monomeric and aggregated αS are shown in (G) and (H), respectively.
As expected, the aggregated αS has an intensity distribution
shifted to higher values than for monomeric αS.To test the ability of SAVE imaging to detect different
αS
species, wild-type αS without an added label was incubated under
conditions favoring its aggregation (Materials and Methods), and samples
were imaged at a range of time-points (Figure ). During the first 2 h of the aggregation
process, the protein sample consisted mainly of monomeric species,
and so no fluorescent puncta were observed. However, from 4 to 18
h, fluorescent puncta could be identified, and their numbers increased
over time. Due to the diffraction-limit of light, the size of the
oligomers cannot be deduced; however the puncta must correspond to
species <250 nm in size, and so are likely to be either small extended
β-sheet containing fibrils, or oligomers. These have been shown
in previous work to be highly cytotoxic to neuronal cells, resulting
in increased reactive oxygen species generation.[3] The number of fluorescent puncta can be seen to increase
over time such that, after 21 h, fibrils larger than 250 nm, and brighter
than those at earlier time-points are observed.
Figure 2
SAVE images of αS
species incubated under aggregating conditions.
At 2 h, no fluorescent puncta were visible, since only monomeric protein
is present. However, after 4 h, diffraction-limited puncta corresponding
to oligomers or small fibrils (<250 nm) become visible. Eventually,
after 21 h, larger fibrillar species are present. Scale bars are 5
μm and 500 nm in the zoomed insets.
SAVE images of αS
species incubated under aggregating conditions.
At 2 h, no fluorescent puncta were visible, since only monomeric protein
is present. However, after 4 h, diffraction-limited puncta corresponding
to oligomers or small fibrils (<250 nm) become visible. Eventually,
after 21 h, larger fibrillar species are present. Scale bars are 5
μm and 500 nm in the zoomed insets.In addition to visualizing aggregates of αS, we explored
the ability of SAVE imaging to observe aggregates of the peptides
associated with AD, namely, Aβ and tau. Figure shows the AF647 and SAVE images when Aβ
and tau were left to aggregate for 3 h and 45 minutes, respectively.
At early times, the species are imaged as distinct puncta and correspond
to either small fibrils (<250 nm), or oligomers. In the case of
Aβ, these oligomers have been shown to be highly cytotoxic to
neuronal cells.[18]
Figure 3
SAVE images of AF647
labeled Aβ and tau aggregates. Aβ
was imaged via its AF647 fluorescence (A) and using SAVE (B) after
3 h of aggregation at a concentration of 100 pM, and Tau via AF647
fluorescence (C) and SAVE (D) after 45 minutes at a concentration
of 37.5 pM. The brighter puncta in (A) and (C) are coincident with
the puncta in (B) and (D), respectively. Scale bars are 10 μm
and 1 μm in the zoomed insets. The green circles highlight example
aggregated species.
SAVE images of AF647
labeled Aβ and tau aggregates. Aβ
was imaged via its AF647 fluorescence (A) and using SAVE (B) after
3 h of aggregation at a concentration of 100 pM, and Tau via AF647
fluorescence (C) and SAVE (D) after 45 minutes at a concentration
of 37.5 pM. The brighter puncta in (A) and (C) are coincident with
the puncta in (B) and (D), respectively. Scale bars are 10 μm
and 1 μm in the zoomed insets. The green circles highlight example
aggregated species.
Limit of Detection of Oligomers
SAVE imaging was evaluated
using a concentrated sample of unlabeled αS oligomers generated
using a protocol that gives rise to >90% of the monomer being incorporated
into the oligomeric species.[19] The sizes
and structural characteristics of the oligomers were determined using
the same set of established biophysical techniques, described by Chen
et al.,[19] and repeated here using atomic
force microscopy (AFM) (Figure A), dynamic light scattering (DLS) (Figure B), and circular dichroism (CD) (Figure C) before being characterized
by SAVE imaging (Figure ). The DLS data show that the dominant species have hydrodynamic
radii with a mean value of ∼13 nm, significantly larger than
that of a monomer (∼4 nm) and the CD spectrum is intermediate
between that of a monomer and a β-sheet rich fibrillar species.
The AFM images of the oligomers show only the presence of spherical
species, and no signs of fibrillar fragments. An approximate concentration
of the oligomers was determined by measuring the absorbance of the
monomer, and by using the fact that, on average, the oligomers contain
25 monomer units.[19]
Figure 4
(A) AFM image of enriched
oligomers. (B) DLS peak for monomer (blue),
enriched oligomers (red), and fibrils (green) (mean from three measurements,
error bars are from the standard deviation). (C) CD spectra of monomer,
enriched oligomers, and fibrils.
Figure 5
(A) SAVE images of enriched oligomers at a range of concentrations
in 5 μM ThT. Scale bars are 5 μm B. Number of events detected
when a range of concentrations of enriched oligomers (mean ±
SD, n = 30 images). There is a linear detection regime
between 0.1 and 10 nM. At lower concentrations, the number of oligomers
detected is similar to the number of events detected from buffer alone,
while at higher concentrations, the field-of-view is saturated, and
counting individual puncta becomes problematic.
To determine
the limit of detection by SAVE imaging, samples with a range of concentrations
of the enriched oligomers were diluted into 5 μM ThT solutions
and the resultant numbers of oligomers quantified by SAVE imaging
(Figure ). At oligomer
concentrations spanning 0.1–10 nM, a linear relationship was
observed between the concentration of oligomers and the number of
detected events. At low concentrations (∼7 pM), the number
of events detected (1.69 × 10–3 ± 0.72
× 10–3 counts/μm2) is similar
to that from the background alone (0.72 × 10–3 ± 0.38 × 10–3 counts/μm2) and so detecting oligomers becomes challenging. The limit of blank
(LoB) is the highest apparent number of counts expected to be found
when replicates of a sample containing no analyte are detected, and
is given by the expression:[20]The
limit of detection (LoD) was determined
by utilizing both the measured LoB and test replicates of a sample
known to contain a low concentration of analyte, and is defined asThe LoB was determined to be 1.35 × 10–3 oligomers/μm2, and the LoD to be
2.52 × 10–3 counts/μm2. Therefore,
this method can accurately detect oligomers at concentrations as low
as ∼10 pM. At higher concentrations (∼100 nM), the spatial
separation of puncta in the field of view becomes too low, and resolving
individual oligomers becomes problematic, although this issue can
be rectified through prior dilution of the sample.(A) AFM image of enriched
oligomers. (B) DLS peak for monomer (blue),
enriched oligomers (red), and fibrils (green) (mean from three measurements,
error bars are from the standard deviation). (C) CD spectra of monomer,
enriched oligomers, and fibrils.(A) SAVE images of enriched oligomers at a range of concentrations
in 5 μM ThT. Scale bars are 5 μm B. Number of events detected
when a range of concentrations of enriched oligomers (mean ±
SD, n = 30 images). There is a linear detection regime
between 0.1 and 10 nM. At lower concentrations, the number of oligomers
detected is similar to the number of events detected from buffer alone,
while at higher concentrations, the field-of-view is saturated, and
counting individual puncta becomes problematic.
Detection of Aggregates in Biofluids
The results presented
so far confirm that SAVE imaging is able to detect aggregates present
in samples formed in vitro, and thus we explored whether extended
β-sheet containing aggregates could be detected in human biofluids
formed in vivo. Single-molecule detection of species in biofluids
is made difficult as a result of the inability to label specifically
the biomolecule of interest, and the high background fluorescence
that typically results from the multiple components of the samples.
CSF, however, is usually free of any cells, and has a very low concentration
of protein, and so we observe negligible background signal. Additionally,
ThT becomes fluorescent only when bound to molecules containing an
extended β-sheet structure typical of aggregates. It is a combination
of these factors that allows SAVE imaging to specifically detect amyloid-like
aggregates, and not monomeric protein in CSF samples. CSF samples
are likely to be the most informative, since CSF is in closer contact
with the central nervous system than other more accessible fluids,
such as plasma, or urine, and so are more likely to reflect the neurodegenerative
processes relating to PD.We have examined a series of CSF samples
obtained via lumbar puncture from healthy controls (HCs) and from
patients suffering from PD (the HC and PD samples were previously
obtained for a CSF biomarker study[21]).
Samples from the latter have previously been shown to contain both
monomeric and aggregated forms of αS,[22,23] and we first measured the total concentration of αS in each
of the samples using ELISA methods (Figure E). Some reports in the literature have suggested
that the total concentration of αS is lower in the CSF of PDpatients compared to that from HCs;[24,25] our results,
however, are in agreement with other reports[26−28] showing no
significant differences between the sample sets. The total αS
concentration, however, does not necessarily reflect differences in
the concentrations of specific structural conformations of αS,
including the potentially damaging aggregated forms, limiting the
utility on total αS as a biomarker. We therefore used SAVE imaging
to determine whether or not the total aggregate load was different
between samples from healthy controls and PDpatients. ThT was added
to a final concentration of 5 μM in samples of CSF diluted 1:10
in PBS, it was possible to observe fluorescence signals in samples
from both PDpatients (n = 18) and healthy controls
(HC) (n = 18) (Figure ) that can be identified as aggregates (Supporting Information Tables S2 and S3 provide
sample information, aggregate counts and intensities, and Figure show the results
from the analysis of the CSF samples). The data also show that significantly
more puncta are, however, detected in the SAVE images from the PD
samples (0.013 ± 0.005 aggregates/μm2, mean
± SD) compared to those from HCs (0.006 ± 0.004 aggregates/μm2, mean ± SD) giving rise to a 95% confidence interval:
−0.01 to −0.004, p < 0.0001. In
addition, the distribution of integrated fluorescence intensity (or
brightness) of the aggregates (Figure A) could be determined by the technique. This distribution
was found to be shifted to higher values for the PD compared to the
HC samples, indicating either that the aggregates contained more monomer
units, or had a more ordered extended β-sheet structure.
Figure 6
(A) Photon count intensity
distribution histograms from two representative
samples of CSF (PD (red), sample 10; controls (blue), sample 23);
these cases give rise to counts closest to mean for the PD and HC
samples, respectively. (B) Representative TIRF images from sample
10 (red) and sample 23 (blue). For each sample, 27 images were taken
(three 3 × 3 grid scans), and the number of puncta counted. For
sample 10, 1201 oligomers were detected, whereas for the HC, only
348 oligomers were observed. Green circles show detected oligomers.
Scale bar is 5 μm in the main images, and 500 nm in the zoomed
image. (C) Histogram of mean number of oligomers for each sample,
red bars are from PD CSF samples, and blue from HC samples. (D) Box
plots of the same data for the number of oligomers detected. Horizontal
lines show the mean counts for PD and HC samples. (E) Box plots of
total αS concentrations from ELISA measurement.
Previous studies of CSF samples using a dual-ELISA method indicate
that aggregated αS is significantly more abundant in CSF from
PDpatients than in those from healthy individuals, or indeed, from
those suffering from Alzheimer’s disease (AD), or from progressive
supranuclear palsy (PSP).[29] Our results
are in broad agreement with these latter studies, as we have also
detected a higher concentration of extended β-sheet containing
aggregates in the CSF of PDpatients compared to healthy controls.
These results indicate that the ultrasensitive detection of aggregated
protein in CSF is possible, and may, in addition, differentiate between
disease and nondisease states. In addition, single-molecule methods
have been combined with fluorescently tagged antibodies to detect
amyloid aggregates;[31,32] however, as with ELISA studies,
these methods rely on immunocapture of the protein of interest, which
can be problematic. Single-molecule fluorescence has also previously
been used to detect the number of β-amyloid seeds present in
CSF, using seeded amplification.[33] In contrast
to these previous studies, SAVE imaging relies on the structural motif
of the extended crossed β-sheet, and so can directly detect
aggregates regardless of their protein composition and without amplification,
providing a complementary measurement to ELISA. It may be the case
that this is a more relevant measure, since neurodegenerative diseases
may be due to a more general loss of protein homeostasis,[34] and so aggregates of a range of proteins may
result. SAVE imaging therefore provides a sensitive measurement of
the entire aggregate load in biofluids, and simultaneously allows
the in-depth characterization of the nature of these aggregates. The
ability to visualize aggregates directly in accessible in vivo fluids
provides the opportunity of tracking the relationship between aggregate
formation and disease onset. This approach may be a valuable tool
in future studies of the progression of disease, therapeutics, or
even early diagnosis, all of which remain major hurdles to neurodegenerative
diseases. A limitation of this technique is that it is unable to determine
which proteins the aggregates are composed of(A) Photon count intensity
distribution histograms from two representative
samples of CSF (PD (red), sample 10; controls (blue), sample 23);
these cases give rise to counts closest to mean for the PD and HC
samples, respectively. (B) Representative TIRF images from sample
10 (red) and sample 23 (blue). For each sample, 27 images were taken
(three 3 × 3 grid scans), and the number of puncta counted. For
sample 10, 1201 oligomers were detected, whereas for the HC, only
348 oligomers were observed. Green circles show detected oligomers.
Scale bar is 5 μm in the main images, and 500 nm in the zoomed
image. (C) Histogram of mean number of oligomers for each sample,
red bars are from PD CSF samples, and blue from HC samples. (D) Box
plots of the same data for the number of oligomers detected. Horizontal
lines show the mean counts for PD and HC samples. (E) Box plots of
total αS concentrations from ELISA measurement.
Conclusion
In this paper, we have
discussed the development of a method for
directly visualizing unlabeled aggregates with extended cross β-sheet
structure at the single-molecule level and that we can straightforwardly
detect enriched oligomers, containing on average 25 monomers. In addition
to imaging in vitro oligomer formation, we have also shown that SAVE
imaging can be used to characterize aggregates present in human biofluids,
and we demonstrate that CSF from PDpatients contains a significantly
higher number of aggregates than CSF from healthy controls. Unlike
ELISA-based methods, SAVE imaging detects a generic structural motif
rather than a specific epitope of a particular proteins. As we analyze
aggregates one-by-one, differences in their fluorescence intensities
can be measured, and this may provide insights into their structural
nature, information that is very difficult to very to obtain using
traditional ensemble-based techniques. The results show that this
method has the potential to be used to study, in great detail, unlabeled
aggregates formed in vitro, and hence to define the intrinsic kinetics
and mechanism of aggregate formation, in addition to providing new
insights into the role of oligomers in the onset and progression of
disease. Furthermore, this method may act as a diagnostic tool for
neurodegeneration, an advance that is critical for the implementation
of clinical trials, and for monitoring the effectiveness of potential
therapies.
Methods
Preparation of αS
Either the wild-type or A90C
variant (for labeled αS) of monomeric αS was purified
from Escherichia coli as described previously.[3,35] For A90C, the single cysteine was labeled with maleimide-modified
Alexa Fluor 647 (AF647) as previously reported.[36] The excess dye was removed by passing the labeled protein
through a P10 desalting column containing Sephadex G25 matrix (GE
Healthcare, Waukesha, WI). The protein was concentrated using Amicon
Ultra Centricons (Millipore, Billerica, MA), divided into aliquots,
before being flash-frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at −80
°C. Each aliquot was only thawed once prior to use.
Aggregation
of αS
For the aggregation reactions,
a 70 μM solution of either wild-type or AF647 labeled αS
in 25 mM Tris buffer (pH 7.4) and 0.1 M NaCl (with 0.01% NaN3 to prevent bacterial growth during the experiments) was incubated
in the dark at 37 °C, with constant agitation at 200 rpm for
5 days, during which time aliquots were taken.
Aggregation of Amyloid
Beta and Tau
To demonstrate
the ability to visualize aggregates from other proteins that form
extended β-sheet aggregates, we also incubated AF647 labeled
cys-Aβ1–42 (500 nM in SSPE buffer (Fluka), pH 7.4, at
37 °C with constant agitation at 200 rpm), and AF647 labeled
K18 tau ΔK (10 μM in 50 mM ammonium acetate buffer, pH
7, with 2 μM heparin and 1 mM DTT at 37 °C) as described
previously.[9,37]
Preparation of Enriched
Oligomers
A solution of monomeric
αS at ca. 800 μM (12 mg/mL) was incubated in PBS at 37
°C without agitation for 20–24 h. The solution was then
passed through a 0.22 μm cutoff filter (Millipore, product number
SLGP033RK) to remove any particles of dust and/or large protein aggregates
that may have been present. The monomeric fraction of the solution
(>95%) is removed from the oligomers of αS by passing the
solution
through a series of 100 kDa cutoff filters (Millipore, product number
UFC5100BK). The concentration of the final oligomeric solution was
estimated from the absorbance at 275 nm, using an extinction coefficient
of 5600 M–1 cm–1.
Characterization
of Enriched Oligomers
AFM
AFM
images of αS oligomers were taken using
a Nanowizard II atomic force microscope (JPK, Berlin, Germany). Images
were acquired at room temperature in air using tapping mode. αS
oligomers (∼1 μM,
10 μL) were deposited on freshly cleaved mica, incubated for
10 minutes, followed by washes with deionized water, and left to dry
in air.
CD
Far-UV CD spectra
of the αS oligomers were
acquired in PBS at 20 °C. Proteins were diluted to a final concentration
of ∼10 μM, and the spectra were acquired using a 1 mm
path length cuvette and a J-810 Jasco spectropolarimeter (Tokyo, Japan),
equipped with a thermostatic cell holder.
DLS
The intensity-weighted mean hydrodynamic diameter
with polydispersity index PdI (a parameter used to describe the width
of the size distribution) and the diameter number distribution profile
of oligomeric αS (35 μM) in PBS at 25 °C were determined
by DLS using a Zetasizer Nano ZSP (Malvern Instruments) at a back
scattering angle of 173°.
Preparation of ThT Solution
ThT stock solutions were
prepared by diluting ThT (Sigma-Aldrich, product number T3516) into
neat ethanol (Sigma-Aldrich, product number 459836) to give a final
concentration of ∼1 M. Following this, a 100-fold dilution
into prefiltered PBS (0.02 μm syringe filter, Whatman, product
number 6809–2101) was performed to give an ∼100 μM
stock solution of ThT. It was important to ensure that the ThT solutions
were freshly filtered each day, and that the concentrations of the
stocks were not too high, since insoluble ThT can give rise to fluorescent
puncta. The final concentration was determined from the absorbance
at 412 nm, using an extinction coefficient of 36 000 M–1 cm–1. The stock solution was stored
in the dark at 4 °C, and was only used for a maximum of 2 weeks
after preparation.
Preparation of Slides for Single-Molecule
Analysis
Borosilicate glass coverslips (VWR international,
20 × 20 mm,
product number 63 1-0122) were cleaned using an argon plasma cleaner
(PDC-002, Harrick Plasma) for at least 1 h to remove any fluorescent
residues. Frame-Seal slide chambers (9 × 9 mm2, Biorad,
Hercules, CA, product number SLF-0601) were affixed to the glass,
and 50 μL of poly-l-lysine (70 000–150 000
molecular weight, Sigma-Aldrich, product number P4707-50 ML) was added
to the coverslide on the inside of the chamber and incubated for at
least 30 minutes, before being washed with 20 nm filtered PBS buffer
(phosphate buffered saline tablets, Sigma-Aldrich, product number
P4417) which had been prebleached in a bespoke solvent bleacher set
at 470 nm light overnight. Prior to use, each batch of coverslides
were tested for fluorescent artifacts (i.e., false positives) by analyzing
a solution of 5 μM ThT only. We found that the poly-l-lysine solution degraded over time, leading to fluorescent artifacts,
and so only fresh solutions of this were used.
Single-Molecule Imaging
Imaging was performed using
a home-built total internal reflection fluorescence microscope. This
imaging mode restricts detectable fluorescence signal to within 200
nm from the sample slide. For imaging of AF647 labeled αS in
the presence of ThT, the output from two lasers operating at 405 nm
(Oxxius LaserBoxx, product number LBX-405-100-CIR-PP) and 640 nm (Coherent
Cube, product number 1150205) were aligned and directed parallel to
the optical axis at the edge of a 1.49 NA TIRF objective (APON60XO
TIRF, Olympus, product number N2709400), mounted on an inverted Olympus
IX-71 microscope. Fluorescence was collected by the same objective
was separated from the returning TIR beam by a dichroic (Di01-R405/488/561/635,
Semrock), and passed through appropriate filters (BLP01-488R and BLP01-635R,
Semrock). The fluorescence was then passed through a 2.5× beam
expander and dual-view (Photometrics). The images were recorded on
an EMCCD camera (Evolve 512, Photometrics) operating in frame transfer
mode (EMGain of 11.5 e–/ADU and 250 ADU/photon).
Each pixel was 109 nm in length. For each data set, 3 × 3 image
grids were measured in three different regions of the coverslide.
The distance between the nine images measured in each grid was set
to 350 μm, and was automated (bean-shell script, Mircomanager)
to prevent user bias. Images were recorded at 33 frames s–1 for 150 frames first from the red channel (AF647 emission) with
640 nm illumination (10–50 W/cm2), followed by 150
frames in the blue channel (ThT emission) with 405 nm illumination
(150–200 W/cm2). For unlabeled oligomers, either
from the enriched preparation, or those present in CSF, the sample
was only excited with 405 nm illumination, and images were recorded
from the blue channel only. All samples were stored and diluted in
LoBind microcentrifuge (Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany) to limit surface
adsorption, as shown to be successful in our previous work.[38,39]
CSF Samples
CSF samples were collected from 18 patients
with clinically defined PD (aged 51–85 years, mean ± SD
= 66 ± 8) and 18 normal healthy individuals (aged 46–71
years, mean ± SD = 61 ± 9) by lumbar puncture (sample information
is given in Supporting Information Figures
S4 and S5). The HC and PD samples were previously obtained for a CSF
biomarker study.[21] A standardized protocol
for the collection and storage of CSF (www.neurochem.gu.se/TheAlzAssQCProgram) was followed. Briefly, lumbar puncture was performed between 9
and 12 a.m. A volume of 15 mL of CSF was collected in sterile polypropylene
tubes. The collected CSF samples were gently mixed to avoid gradient
effects and centrifuged in the original tube at 4000 rpm for 10 minutes
at +4 °C. It was then divided into 0.5 mL aliquots that were
frozen on dry ice and stored at −80 °C in LoBind microcentrifuge
tubes (Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany) pending analysis. Blood-contaminated
samples (>500 red blood cells per μL) were excluded. Time
between
sample collection, centrifugation, and freezing was maximum 1 h. The
patients were diagnosed according to the UK PD Society Brain Bank
Criteria. The study was conducted in accordance with local clinical
research regulations and with the provisions of the Helsinki declaration.
An informed consent was obtained from all subjects, including access
to their clinical data. CSF samples were analyzed for total αS
using the αS ELISA Kit (Covance, Berkeley, CA) according to
kit insert instructions.Prior to SAVE imaging, the CSF samples
were diluted 10-fold into prefiltered PBS (0.02 μm syringe filter,
Whatman, product number 6809-2101) and ThT was added to give a final
concentration of 5 μM. The sample was then added to the preprepared
borosilicate slides, and incubated for 10 minutes before being imaged
as described previously.
Authors: Niels Zijlstra; Christian Blum; Ine M J Segers-Nolten; Mireille M A E Claessens; Vinod Subramaniam Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2012-07-13 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Mathew H Horrocks; Laura Tosatto; Alexander J Dear; Gonzalo A Garcia; Marija Iljina; Nunilo Cremades; Mauro Dalla Serra; Tuomas P J Knowles; Christopher M Dobson; David Klenerman Journal: Anal Chem Date: 2015-08-14 Impact factor: 6.986
Authors: N K Magdalinou; R W Paterson; J M Schott; N C Fox; C Mummery; K Blennow; K Bhatia; H R Morris; P Giunti; T T Warner; R de Silva; A J Lees; H Zetterberg Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2015-01-14 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: M Rodrigues; P Bhattacharjee; A Brinkmalm; D T Do; C M Pearson; S De; A Ponjavic; J A Varela; K Kulenkampff; I Baudrexel; D Emin; F S Ruggeri; J E Lee; A R Carr; T P J Knowles; H Zetterberg; T N Snaddon; S Gandhi; S F Lee; D Klenerman Journal: Nat Chem Date: 2022-07-07 Impact factor: 24.274
Authors: Dezerae Cox; Daniel R Whiten; James W P Brown; Mathew H Horrocks; Rebecca San Gil; Christopher M Dobson; David Klenerman; Antoine M van Oijen; Heath Ecroyd Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2018-01-30 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Franziska Kundel; Liu Hong; Benjamin Falcon; William A McEwan; Thomas C T Michaels; Georg Meisl; Noemi Esteras; Andrey Y Abramov; Tuomas J P Knowles; Michel Goedert; David Klenerman Journal: ACS Chem Neurosci Date: 2018-04-08 Impact factor: 4.418
Authors: Anna Vilalta; Ye Zhou; Jean Sevalle; Jennifer K Griffin; Kanayo Satoh; David H Allendorf; Suman De; Mar Puigdellívol; Arturas Bruzas; Miguel A Burguillos; Roger B Dodd; Fusheng Chen; Yalun Zhang; Patrick Flagmeier; Lisa-Maria Needham; Masahiro Enomoto; Seema Qamar; James Henderson; Jochen Walter; Paul E Fraser; David Klenerman; Steven F Lee; Peter St George-Hyslop; Guy C Brown Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2021-04-03 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Anna Drews; Jennie Flint; Nadia Shivji; Peter Jönsson; David Wirthensohn; Erwin De Genst; Cécile Vincke; Serge Muyldermans; Chris Dobson; David Klenerman Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2016-08-24 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Lisa-Maria Needham; Judith Weber; James W B Fyfe; Omaru M Kabia; Dung T Do; Ewa Klimont; Yu Zhang; Margarida Rodrigues; Christopher M Dobson; Sonia Ghandi; Sarah E Bohndiek; Thomas N Snaddon; Steven F Lee Journal: R Soc Open Sci Date: 2018-02-07 Impact factor: 2.963
Authors: Lisa-Maria Needham; Judith Weber; Colin M Pearson; Dung T Do; Felix Gorka; Guanpeng Lyu; Sarah E Bohndiek; Thomas N Snaddon; Steven F Lee Journal: J Phys Chem Lett Date: 2020-09-22 Impact factor: 6.475
Authors: Anna Drews; Suman De; Patrick Flagmeier; David C Wirthensohn; Wei-Hsin Chen; Daniel R Whiten; Margarida Rodrigues; Cécile Vincke; Serge Muyldermans; Ross W Paterson; Catherine F Slattery; Nick C Fox; Jonathan M Schott; Henrik Zetterberg; Christopher M Dobson; Sonia Gandhi; David Klenerman Journal: Cell Rep Date: 2017-12-12 Impact factor: 9.423