The characterization of the aggregation kinetics of protein amyloids and the structural properties of the ensuing aggregates are vital in the study of the pathogenesis of many neurodegenerative diseases and the discovery of therapeutic targets. In this article, we show that the fluorescence lifetime of synthetic dyes covalently attached to amyloid proteins informs on the structural properties of amyloid clusters formed both in vitro and in cells. We demonstrate that the mechanism behind such a "lifetime sensor" of protein aggregation is based on fluorescence self-quenching and that it offers a good dynamic range to report on various stages of aggregation without significantly perturbing the process under investigation. We show that the sensor informs on the structural density of amyloid clusters in a high-throughput and quantitative manner and in these aspects the sensor outperforms super-resolution imaging techniques. We demonstrate the power and speed of the method, offering capabilities, for example, in therapeutic screenings that monitor biological self-assembly. We investigate the mechanism and advantages of the lifetime sensor in studies of the K18 protein fragment of the Alzheimer's disease related protein tau and its amyloid aggregates formed in vitro. Finally, we demonstrate the sensor in the study of aggregates of polyglutamine protein, a model used in studies related to Huntington's disease, by performing correlative fluorescence lifetime imaging microscopy and structured-illumination microscopy experiments in cells.
The characterization of the aggregation kinetics of protein amyloids and the structural properties of the ensuing aggregates are vital in the study of the pathogenesis of many neurodegenerative diseases and the discovery of therapeutic targets. In this article, we show that the fluorescence lifetime of synthetic dyes covalently attached to amyloid proteins informs on the structural properties of amyloid clusters formed both in vitro and in cells. We demonstrate that the mechanism behind such a "lifetime sensor" of protein aggregation is based on fluorescence self-quenching and that it offers a good dynamic range to report on various stages of aggregation without significantly perturbing the process under investigation. We show that the sensor informs on the structural density of amyloid clusters in a high-throughput and quantitative manner and in these aspects the sensor outperforms super-resolution imaging techniques. We demonstrate the power and speed of the method, offering capabilities, for example, in therapeutic screenings that monitor biological self-assembly. We investigate the mechanism and advantages of the lifetime sensor in studies of the K18 protein fragment of the Alzheimer's disease related protein tau and its amyloid aggregates formed in vitro. Finally, we demonstrate the sensor in the study of aggregates of polyglutamine protein, a model used in studies related to Huntington's disease, by performing correlative fluorescence lifetime imaging microscopy and structured-illumination microscopy experiments in cells.
Protein misfolding
and aggregation has been linked to many neurodegenerative diseases
including Alzheimer’s disease (AD), Parkinson’s disease
(PD), and Huntington’s disease (HD). A capability of monitoring
amyloid protein aggregation both in vitro and in cells is vital for
gaining further insights into the pathogenesis of, and to discover
therapeutic strategies for, such disorders.[1−6] Previous work has suggested that amyloid clusters formed under different
environmental conditions are morphologically distinct and that the
structural properties of aggregates are linked to disease pathology.[7−12] A structural characterization of amyloid clusters is thus an important
topic of research in the field. Various approaches have been employed
to reveal the morphology of individual amyloid fibrils or clusters
directly, for instance, electron microscopy (EM),[2,5,8,12,13] atomic-force microscopy (AFM),[11,12,14−16] and super-resolution
fluorescence microscopy.[17−22] However, such methods are slow to perform and can require elaborate
sample preparation protocols, making them impractical to perform for
screening applications or the analysis of large data sets. There are
also limitations with these techniques in their applicability for
studies in biological systems. For these reasons, a high-throughput
method, which offers structural information on amyloid clusters and
that is suitable for studies of protein aggregation both in vitro
and in cells, is highly desirable.Fluorescence imaging of proteins
labeled covalently with synthetic organic fluorophores has proven
to be a powerful method to study amyloid aggregation both in vitro
and in cells.[7,14,18,23,24] It indicates
amyloid formation either by direct observation of the morphology of
amyloid deposits via super-resolution microscopy or indirectly via
changes in spectroscopic properties, such as the fluorescence intensity
or lifetime. The fluorescence lifetime is particularly important in
this respect, as it is an inherently ratiometric technique and thus
less prone to concentration and intensity artifacts.[25,26] Fluorescence lifetime imaging microscopy (FLIM) has previously been
used on covalently labeled amyloid proteins to report on amyloid aggregation.[7,18,23,24] One of these methods requires only a single color as dye label[18,23,24] and holds great promise as a
practical and powerful reporter for structural transformations of
amyloid protein. However, to date the mechanism of lifetime changes
in the reporter fluorophores upon aggregation has not been adequately
elucidated. Furthermore, there have been no attempts to correlate
lifetime values to underlying amyloid structure, and reported applications
have so far been qualitative rather than quantitative in nature.In this paper, we demonstrate that the fluorescence lifetime of synthetic
dyes covalently attached to amyloid proteins informs on the density
and morphological properties of amyloid clusters, and conclude that
this is affected by fluorescence self-quenching of the dye molecules
upon aggregation. The method requires only a single type of fluorescent
dye to label the protein of interest. In what follows we refer to
this concept as “lifetime sensor” for amyloid aggregation.
We show that the lifetime sensor enables the probing of the structural
density of amyloid clusters in a high-throughput manner with negligible
influence on the kinetics of aggregation. We demonstrate the method
both in vitro and in cells, via FLIM and optical sectioning structured-illumination
microscopy (SROS-SIM) measurements of amyloid clusters and validated
the method for different protein and dye label combinations. In particular,
we studied the heparin-induced aggregation of labeled K18 tau protein
in vitro. K18 tau is comprised of the aggregation prone four-repeat
domain of the tau protein and is associated with AD and PD.[4−6,13,27,28] Furthermore, we studied the aggregation
of polyglutamine (polyQ) protein in human embryonic kidney (HEK) 293
cells, a protein related to HD,[3,9] large aggregates of
which interfere with mitosis.[10] With the
correlative FLIM/SIM experiments, we demonstrate that the lifetime
sensor reports on the aggregation state of intracellular amyloid inclusions
and that this offers a capability to enable high throughput screening
applications.
Optical Sectioning with SIM Elucidates the Morphology of K18
Tau Aggregates Formed in Vitro with Subwavelength Resolution
We used the aggregation of labeled K18 tau as our in vitro test model
for the characterization of the lifetime sensor. K18 tau monomer samples
labeled with Atto 532 or Alexa Fluor 488 at different labeling ratios
(defined as the percentage of monomer peptides that were labeled with
the fluorescent dyes) were prepared, and their aggregation was induced
by addition of heparin (see Supporting Information for details).In order to provide reference data for the calibration
of the lifetime sensor, we first characterized the morphology of K18
aggregates formed after various incubation times using SROS-SIM. SIM
enables the imaging of amyloid clusters with sub-diffraction-limited resolution[29,30] without any specific requirements on the labeling ratio or photochemical
properties of the fluorescent reporter dyes. SROS-SIM is furthermore
particularly capable of rejecting out-of-focus light, thus greatly
enhancing image contrast. Example images to demonstrate these features
are shown in Figure S1 of the Supporting Information for clusters of K18 tau. We used a home-built SIM system,[31] and analyzed data using software developed in-house
in Matlab (MathWorks) (see Supporting Information). The SROS-SIM software incorporates a number of previously proposed
algorithms[32−34] and is freely available online.[35] Image stacks were acquired by performing SROS-SIM at different
focal planes through the amyloid clusters.Figure displays maximum intensity
projections of three-dimensional (3D) image stacks of representative
K18-Atto532 amyloid clusters formed using varying incubation times
and with labeling ratios of 5% and 30%, respectively. Clearly, fibrils
were formed and assembled into loose clusters early on during the
aggregation process. After about 30 h, clusters stopped growing bigger
in size and instead grew into denser structures with time before forming
dense spherulite structures that did not undergo further morphological
transformation in time. We estimated the average radii (radii of the
smallest enclosing spheres) of the amyloid clusters to be 6.6 ±
1.8 and 7.3 ± 2.2 μm after 29.3 h for the 5% and 30% labeled
samples, respectively, and 7.5 ± 3.4 and 7.0 ± 2.1 μm
for corresponding samples after 78.0 h. Sizes and structures of both
the 5% and 30% labeled amyloid clusters appeared similar for comparable
incubation times, indicating that the labels did not significantly
influence K18 tau aggregation for labeling ratios up to 30%. A quantitative
study of the influence of different labeling ratios on aggregation
kinetics is the subject of subsequent sections. However, at very high
labeling ratios the influence on aggregation may become significant.[36] In Figure S2 in the Supporting
Information, examples are shown for samples that were labeled
at 100% and here clear differences can be observed in the morphology
of aggregates compared to those obtained at labeling ratios lower
than 50%.
Figure 1
Maximum intensity projections of stacks of SROS-SIM super-resolution
images obtained of heparin-induced K18-Atto532 amyloid clusters formed
in vitro for different incubation times and labeling ratios. Scale
bars: 10 μm.
Maximum intensity projections of stacks of SROS-SIM super-resolution
images obtained of heparin-induced K18-Atto532 amyloid clusters formed
in vitro for different incubation times and labeling ratios. Scale
bars: 10 μm.
Fluorescence Self-Quenching
of Reporter Dyes Informs on K18 Aggregation in Vitro
Having
characterized K18 aggregate morphology with optical super-resolution
microscopy, we proceeded to validate the lifetime sensor with FLIM.
To begin with, we measured the lifetime of fully aggregated K18 samples
labeled with different dye ratios. Fully aggregated K18-Atto532 and
K18-Alexa488 samples were obtained by incubating monomer and heparin
mixtures for 9 days. The samples were then imaged on a home-built
TCSPC (time-correlated single photon counting) -FLIM system[15,37,38] (also see Supporting Information) and analyzed using the FLIMfit software.[39] All data were fitted with monoexponential decay
curves (see Supporting Information). FLIM
data were segmented into regions containing individual amyloid clusters
which were individually analyzed. We present fluorescence lifetime
values as the average value of different K18 amyloid cluster lifetimes
with error bars denoting the standard deviation. Figure a,b shows that for fully aggregated
samples of K18 tau, the sensor lifetime decreases with increasing
labeling ratio, irrespective of whether Alexa 488 or Atto 532 is used
as label. For monomers, we measured lifetimes of 3.689 ± 0.005
ns for K18-Atto532 and 3.696 ± 0.002 ns for K18-Alexa488, which
are higher than those corresponding to aggregates with any labeling
ratios (Figure a,b).
Figure 2
Fluorescence
lifetime data for K18-Atto532 and K18-Alexa488 tau samples reveal
increasing degrees of fluorescence self-quenching during protein aggregation
as the underlying mechanism for lifetime changes. (a,b) Fluorescence
lifetime data and Stern–Volmer data fit for the fully aggregated
K18-Alexa488 (a) and K18-Atto532 (b) samples with different labeling
ratios. (c) Fluorescence lifetime of fully aggregated K18-Atto532
samples for different labeling ratios in PBS solution (yellow), dried
state (red), and in PBS solution after rehydration of the dried state
(blue). (d) Phasor plot of FLIM data of K18-Atto532 amyloid clusters.
Circles denote phasors for aggregates formed after different incubation
times with the specified labeling ratios. Solid diamonds denote phasors
for monomers and fully aggregated samples with different labeling
ratios, calculated from same data sets as panel b. As expected, the
phasors for monomer, low-labeling ratio samples, and samples at early
aggregation stages lie close to each other. A zoomed-in image (Figure
S4) is available in the Supporting Information. (e) Illustration to show how cluster formation with different labeling
ratios can lead to overlapping phasor trajectories. Phasors overlap
in those samples where the local dye concentration, and thus self-quenching,
is similar; for example, a more aggregated and thus denser sample
with low labeling ratio (right panel) may have the same dye density
as a less densely aggregated sample with high labeling ratio (left
panel). Green, fluorescent dye labels; beige, proteins.
Fluorescence
lifetime data for K18-Atto532 and K18-Alexa488 tau samples reveal
increasing degrees of fluorescence self-quenching during protein aggregation
as the underlying mechanism for lifetime changes. (a,b) Fluorescence
lifetime data and Stern–Volmer data fit for the fully aggregated
K18-Alexa488 (a) and K18-Atto532 (b) samples with different labeling
ratios. (c) Fluorescence lifetime of fully aggregated K18-Atto532
samples for different labeling ratios in PBS solution (yellow), dried
state (red), and in PBS solution after rehydration of the dried state
(blue). (d) Phasor plot of FLIM data of K18-Atto532 amyloid clusters.
Circles denote phasors for aggregates formed after different incubation
times with the specified labeling ratios. Solid diamonds denote phasors
for monomers and fully aggregated samples with different labeling
ratios, calculated from same data sets as panel b. As expected, the
phasors for monomer, low-labeling ratio samples, and samples at early
aggregation stages lie close to each other. A zoomed-in image (Figure
S4) is available in the Supporting Information. (e) Illustration to show how cluster formation with different labeling
ratios can lead to overlapping phasor trajectories. Phasors overlap
in those samples where the local dye concentration, and thus self-quenching,
is similar; for example, a more aggregated and thus denser sample
with low labeling ratio (right panel) may have the same dye density
as a less densely aggregated sample with high labeling ratio (left
panel). Green, fluorescent dye labels; beige, proteins.Potentially, the use of different labeling ratios
could result in structural variations of forming amyloid clusters,
which may lead to the dyes becoming more or less buried within aggregates,
changing their solution exposure and potentially their lifetimes.
To investigate potential effects of solvent quenching, we measured
the sensor lifetimes of both fully aggregated and dried samples. Figure c shows the lifetime
of fully aggregated samples contained in PBS with different Atto532
labeling ratios (yellow bars). The sample slides were then left to
dry on a heated disk of a constant temperature of 37 °C. Figure c shows that the
lifetimes of dried amyloid clusters displayed a similar decreasing
trend as the dye labeling ratio increased, even in the absence of
solvent (red bars). Finally, the samples were rehydrated again using
Milli-Q water so that the original liquid volume was restored in the
sample. The blue bars in Figure c show that the sensor lifetime of the recovered samples
went back to values close to those measured before sample drying began.
For all three conditions, lifetimes decreased with increasing labeling
ratios, and hence solvent effects could be excluded as the (main)
cause for the observed dependence of sensor lifetime on labeling ratio.It had previously been speculated that the sensor lifetime decrease
upon peptide aggregation may either be due to self-quenching[23] or due to FRET-like energy transfer to energy
states that are specific to amyloid structures.[16,18,24,37] If the observed
lifetime variation were solely due to FRET, then increasing the dye
labeling ratio would correspond to an increase in donor concentration
while the acceptor concentration (energy states of the aggregates)
remains unchanged, and thus one would expect the fluorescence lifetime
of the dye to increase accordingly or remain unchanged,[40] which is the opposite of our observation (see Figure a,b). We thus hypothesized
fluorescence self-quenching to be the underlying mechanism for the
lifetime sensor: peptide aggregation brings the dye labels closer
together, increases their local concentration and thus decreases their
lifetimes. Self-quenching of a dye is often described by the Stern–Volmer
equation[26]Here, τ0 and τ represent the fluorescence
lifetimes of unquenched or quenched dye, and I0 and I represent the fluorescence intensities
of unquenched and quenched dyes, respectively. flabel is the labeling ratio of the sample, kq is the self-quenching rate coefficient of the dye, and
ρ is the local concentration of K18 peptide in the aggregate. Equation was fitted to the
data in Figure a,b
(red line) and excellent agreement was found with the experimental
data. The monomer lifetimes τ0 recovered from the
fitting are 3.68 ± 0.04 ns for K18-Atto532 and 3.61 ± 0.09
ns for K18-Alexa488, similar to the corresponding values 3.689 ±
0.005 and 3.696 ± 0.002 ns acquired experimentally. The sample
corresponding to 100% dye labeling ratio was not taken into account
in the fit, because these samples looked structurally different to
aggregation formed using the lower labeling ratios (see Figure S2).Next, we performed FLIM imaging
experiments for K18-Atto532 amyloid clusters, using different labeling
ratios and incubation times, and performed a phasor plot analysis[40−43] of the FLIM data (Figure d for phasor plot, corresponding lifetime data shown in Figure a). The phasors and
error bars in Figure d are, respectively, the average values and standard deviations calculated
from the phasors of different amyloid clusters. Phasors were obtained
from Fourier transform of FLIM data as reported extensively in previous
work.[40,43] The methodology makes no model assumption
and provides for a powerful tool to identify and differentiate contributions
from different fluorescence decay components such as FRET or self-quenching.
For example, if significant energy transfer between the dyes and energy
states of aggregates took place, corresponding phasor trajectories
(which means phasors for samples with different incubation times)
of samples with different labeling ratios would be expected to be
distinct without overlap occurring. We expect this to be true because
aggregates with different structures (formed after different incubation
times) are likely to feature different intrinsic energy states and
hence the FRET efficiency between dye labels and different aggregate
types should be distinct. Phasors for samples with different donor
and acceptor stoichiometries and different FRET efficiencies should
spread over an area on the phasor plot rather than lying on the same
trajectory.[40] However, as seen from Figure d, the phasor trajectories
for different labeling ratios overlap, indicating that phasor positions
are mainly related to the local dye concentrations rather than the
specific type of aggregate structure forming. Figure e illustrates this idea schematically; the
phasors for aggregates with different aggregate structure may overlap
for samples with different labeling ratios if a lower aggregate density
is compensated by a higher labeling ratio and vice versa, leaving
local dye concentrations the same. For instance, the phasors highlighted
by the dashed circle in Figure d correspond to 20% labeled sample that was fully aggregated
(red phasor) and 30% labeled sample that was in the intermediate aggregation
state (blue phasor). These phasors almost overlap because the local
dye densities in the amyloid clusters are similar. Taken together,
these results provide firm evidence that self-quenching is the main
mechanism by which the lifetime sensor reports on aggregation. We
also performed FLIM measurements for the Atto 532 maleimide dye that
we used for K18 peptide labeling, dissolved in DMSO at different concentrations,
and we verified that indeed the dye exhibits self-quenching at high
concentration (see Figure S3 in Supporting Information).
Figure 3
TCSPC-FLIM measurements of amyloid cluster formation kinetics of
K18-Atto532 samples with different dye labeling ratios. (a) Fluorescence
lifetimes of K18-Atto532 as a function of aggregation time for samples
with 10%, 20%, and 30% labeling ratios. The sigmoidal curves are the
fitted lines using the kinetic model described in the main text. (b)
Same data represented with normalized fluorescence lifetimes, demonstrating
that the cluster formation kinetics are not significantly affected
by the presence of the dye labels. (c) Schematic to illustrate the
K18 tau aggregation model used for FLIM data fitting. Green, fluorescent
dye labels; beige, proteins.
TCSPC-FLIM measurements of amyloid cluster formation kinetics of
K18-Atto532 samples with different dye labeling ratios. (a) Fluorescence
lifetimes of K18-Atto532 as a function of aggregation time for samples
with 10%, 20%, and 30% labeling ratios. The sigmoidal curves are the
fitted lines using the kinetic model described in the main text. (b)
Same data represented with normalized fluorescence lifetimes, demonstrating
that the cluster formation kinetics are not significantly affected
by the presence of the dye labels. (c) Schematic to illustrate the
K18 tau aggregation model used for FLIM data fitting. Green, fluorescent
dye labels; beige, proteins.Having established that fluorescence self-quenching is the
underlying mechanism behind the lifetime sensor, we went on to explore
how it could be used to report on the type and nature of amyloid clusters
formed under different aggregation conditions. Figure a shows the fluorescence lifetime data from
which the phasor plot shown in Figure d was generated. The sensor lifetime of amyloid clusters
was shown to be approximately constant for all three labeling ratios
for incubation times less than approximately 30 h. After about 30
h, the sensor lifetime began to drop and then reached a bottom plateau
region after approximately 55 h of incubation. The top plateau in Figure a corresponds to
lifetimes of 3.59 ± 0.04, 3.57 ± 0.02, and 3.56 ± 0.02
ns for the 10%, 20%, and 30% labeled samples, respectively, which
is only about 100 ps lower than the monomer K18-Atto532 lifetime 3.689
± 0.005 ns. We note that the SROS-SIM experiments revealed that
for incubation times less than 30 h, aggregates consisted mostly of
low density clusters of loosely assembled amyloid fibrils. This suggests
that the lifetime sensor does not sensitively report on the conversion
of labeled peptide into single amyloid fibrils at labeling ratios
below 30% for K18. However, the sensor lifetime dropped significantly
(by up to 19%, 34%, and 42%, respectively, for 10%, 20%, and 30% labeled
samples) during the period when the aggregate density increased. Our
lifetime sensor is thus highly sensitive to fibril packing density
in the amyloid cluster, rather than the formation of single fibrils.
This suggests that the distance between neighboring dyes on single
fibrils is not sufficiently proximate to generate significant self-quenching,
whereas in clusters on the other hand, this distance drops into a
highly sensitive range for dye self-quenching.
The Fluorescence Lifetime
Sensor Offers a Good Dynamic Range to Report on K18 Tau Aggregation
without Significantly Influencing Its Kinetics
Figure a shows that it is advantageous
to use a higher labeling ratio for a larger variation in lifetime
to report on aggregation. However, as mentioned previously, the aggregation
kinetics and structure of amyloid clusters may be affected by very
high labeling ratios (see Figure S2). A
good dynamic range was obtained at 30% labeling ratio for K18 tau
with lifetimes dropping by 42% from monomeric to fully aggregated
state. We thus investigated the effect of peptide labeling ratio up
to 30% on aggregation kinetics. Structurally, the amyloid clusters
formed with labeling ratios up to 30% were indistinguishable from
one another, as verified by SROS-SIM calibration. In Figure b, we show that the kinetics
of aggregation are similarly unaffected and the normalized lifetime
profiles overlap very well for all labeling ratios, giving support
to the notion that the labeling protocols with labeling ratios below
30% had minimal effects on the K18 aggregation processes investigated.We developed a kinetic model to describe the in vitro aggregation
process of K18 tau based on the SROS-SIM results presented above and
used it to quantify the effect of labeling on aggregation kinetics. Figure c shows the model
schematically. Early amyloid clusters were modeled to consist of loose
assemblies of K18 tau fibrils. The amyloid clusters grow until they
reach a certain size and become “mature”. At this point,
clusters stop growing larger and instead act as “sinks”
that absorb the remaining amyloid species (monomer/oligomer/fibrils)
in their vicinity and thus increase in density. We assume that the
number of “sinks” does not change after the amyloid
clusters are “mature” and we describe the densification
process of such “sinks” using the Smoluchowski sink
absorption model.[44−46] Combining the Smoluchowski model and Stern–Volmer
eq (eq ), we derived
the following equation to describe K18 tau aggregation kinetics (for
details of our model and derivation of this equation see Supporting Information)In eq , τ0 is the fluorescence lifetime
of monomeric sample, and τ(t) is the average
lifetime of amyloid clusters at time t. flabel is the labeling ratio, kq is the self-quenching rate coefficient. ρsink(t) is the average local concentration of K18 monomers inside
each sink, at time t. V is the average
volume of the sinks. is a constant.
4πDR[sink] represents the K18 aggregation rate
constant. θ is the average sink formation time, and s is the standard deviation of sink formation time. We perform
a global fit of the aggregation kinetic data in Figure a using eq . Results are presented in Table S1 in the Supporting Information, where a discussion of
the model and demonstration of its robustness are also presented.
Using global fitting for all other parameters (kqρsink (∞), , θ
and s), we were able to recover aggregation rate
constants 4πDR[sink] for the 10%, 20%, and
30% labeled samples as, respectively, 0.034 ± 0.006, 0.046 ±
0.010, and 0.057 ± 0.014/h. The average sink formation time θ
can be recovered with a similar approach and was found to be 43.0
± 1.1, 44.6 ± 1.0, and 42.3 ± 0.9 h for the 3 samples,
respectively. Both aggregation rate constant and the average sink
formation time did not vary significantly for different labeling ratios,
providing firm evidence that labeling ratios up to 30% do not significantly
influence the aggregation kinetics of the K18 peptide.
The Fluorescence
Lifetime Reports on the Structural Density of PolyQ Aggresomes Formed
in Cells
To demonstrate the lifetime sensor concept for measurement
of amyloid cluster formation in cell models, we performed correlated
FLIM/SIM imaging of PolyQ aggresomes formed under physiological conditions
inside cells. SNAP-HDQ72-expressing HEK 293T cells were labeled with
SNAP-Cell 505-Star and fixed on gridded slides[9,10] (see Supporting Information); they were then imaged
using both TCSPC-FLIM and SROS-SIM as described previously. Note that
we fixed the cells only for the purpose of enabling correlative FLIM/SIM
measurements; in principle, the lifetime sensor can equally be applied
in living cells. Figure d–f shows the intensity-merged FLIM images of the polyQ aggresomes,
and Figure a–c
shows the corresponding SROS-SIM images of the same aggresomes (animated
volume renderings of the data are available in the Supporting Information). Comparing both data sets, it is seen
that aggresomes with a lower lifetime display a denser structure via
SIM and vice versa.
Figure 4
Correlated FLIM/SIM images of polyQ aggresomes labeled
with SNAP-Cell 505-Star dye in fixed HEK cells. (a–c) Three-dimensional
(3D) images of polyQ aggresomes reconstructed from the SROS-SIM images,
presented using Icy software.[49] Size for
boxes in panels a–c is 15 μm × 15 μm ×
7.1 μm. Animated 3D renderings are available in the Supporting Information. (d–f) FLIM images
of the same polyQ aggresomes corresponding to panels a–c. Scale
bar: 5 μm. (g) FLIM image of polyQ-expressing HEK cells stained
with SNAP-Cell 505-Star dye. Scale bar: 50 μm. (h) Transmitted
light image of the same field of view as the FLIM image g. The shape
of “1” is the number label on the gridded dish. The
colorbar indicates the fluorescence lifetime values for panels d–f.
Correlated FLIM/SIM images of polyQ aggresomes labeled
with SNAP-Cell 505-Star dye in fixed HEK cells. (a–c) Three-dimensional
(3D) images of polyQ aggresomes reconstructed from the SROS-SIM images,
presented using Icy software.[49] Size for
boxes in panels a–c is 15 μm × 15 μm ×
7.1 μm. Animated 3D renderings are available in the Supporting Information. (d–f) FLIM images
of the same polyQ aggresomes corresponding to panels a–c. Scale
bar: 5 μm. (g) FLIM image of polyQ-expressing HEK cells stained
with SNAP-Cell 505-Star dye. Scale bar: 50 μm. (h) Transmitted
light image of the same field of view as the FLIM image g. The shape
of “1” is the number label on the gridded dish. The
colorbar indicates the fluorescence lifetime values for panels d–f.Figure g displays a zoomed-out FLIM image with several
aggresomes appearing as bright spots (highlighted by white circles)
in the same field of view. This image clearly demonstrates the high-throughput
capability of the lifetime sensor. It took only about 1 min to acquire
the image on a TCSPC-FLIM system, which could be sped up further if
time-gated FLIM were used instead of TCSPC.[26] The lifetime sensor reveals structural density variations between
different aggresomes in a single FLIM image containing a large number
of cells (see Figure g), providing a fast read out tool that informs on amyloid structure
without requirement for imaging each cluster individually with high-resolution
optical microscopy or EM techniques. At the same time, the FLIM image
keeps enough spatial resolution to locate the position of the aggresomes
within cells and to distinguish between aggresomes in different cells.
Moreover, the lifetime provides an indication of the structural density
and morphology of different amyloid clusters, whereas a similar global
parameter to quantify structural density variation does not exist
for high-resolution methods. The lifetime sensor is thus a powerful
tool for the identification of large numbers of amyloid clusters in
bulk, for instance, for the screening of aggresomes with different
structural densities in cells or for the acquisition of statistical
data of the aggresome structural densities, and such data could be
further correlated with cellular phenotypes, for example, a capability
for cells to undergo mitosis.[10]A
drawback of the lifetime sensor comes from the fact that fluorescence
self-quenching is not only related to the structural properties of
the amyloid clusters, but also to the labeling ratio of the sample
(as shown in Figure a). This requires control over the labeling ratio of the sample.
This can easily be achieved for in vitro experiments where monomer
labeling ratios can be controlled, such as our K18 tau experiments
shown earlier. In cell experiments, covalent bio-orthogonal labeling
techniques[47,48] such as SNAP-tag and CLIP-tag
can be used to control the labeling ratios, as we have employed here
for polyQ experiments in HEK cells.In summary, we present a
lifetime sensor for high-throughput structural characterization of
amyloid clusters both in vitro and in cells. Performing SROS-SIM and
FLIM experiments on in vitro aggregated K18 tau labeled with Alexa
488 or Atto 532, we show that the lifetime sensor reports on the amyloid
structural density according to the fluorescence lifetime variation
of synthetic dyes covalently labeled on peptides. We demonstrate that
the mechanism of the sensor is via fluorescence self-quenching and
that the sensor offers a good dynamic range of fluorescence lifetime
variation without significantly influencing the aggregation formation.
The power of lifetime sensor concept was demonstrated for cell experiments
via correlative FLIM/SIM experiments in HEK cells on aggresomes of
polyQ labeled with SNAP-Cell 505-Star. This high-throughput method
allows for the screening or statistical analysis for aggresomes with
different structural density formed in cells, and it can potentially
be applied on studies in more physiological conditions such as brain
slices and so forth.
Authors: Marco D Mukrasch; Jacek Biernat; Martin von Bergen; Christian Griesinger; Eckhard Mandelkow; Markus Zweckstetter Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2005-04-26 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Arjun Sharmah; Michael Kraus; Sean R Cutler; Justin B Siegel; Siobhan M Brady; Ting Guo Journal: Anal Chem Date: 2019-11-21 Impact factor: 6.986
Authors: Janine Hochmair; Christian Exner; Maximilian Franck; Alvaro Dominguez-Baquero; Lisa Diez; Hévila Brognaro; Matthew L Kraushar; Thorsten Mielke; Helena Radbruch; Senthilvelrajan Kaniyappan; Sven Falke; Eckhard Mandelkow; Christian Betzel; Susanne Wegmann Journal: EMBO J Date: 2022-03-17 Impact factor: 14.012
Authors: Chyi Wei Chung; Amberley D Stephens; Tasuku Konno; Edward Ward; Edward Avezov; Clemens F Kaminski; Ali A Hassanali; Gabriele S Kaminski Schierle Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2022-05-26 Impact factor: 16.383
Authors: Romain F Laine; Tessa Sinnige; Kai Yu Ma; Amanda J Haack; Chetan Poudel; Peter Gaida; Nathan Curry; Michele Perni; Ellen A A Nollen; Christopher M Dobson; Michele Vendruscolo; Gabriele S Kaminski Schierle; Clemens F Kaminski Journal: ACS Chem Biol Date: 2019-06-27 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Janin Lautenschläger; Sara Wagner-Valladolid; Amberley D Stephens; Ana Fernández-Villegas; Colin Hockings; Ajay Mishra; James D Manton; Marcus J Fantham; Meng Lu; Eric J Rees; Clemens F Kaminski; Gabriele S Kaminski Schierle Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2020-05-08 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Ti Fang; Chaoqun Li; Ao Liang; Hui Zhang; Fan Zhang; Xian-En Zhang; Yi-Yu Yang; Feng Li Journal: Nano Res Date: 2022-09-02 Impact factor: 10.269
Authors: Chih Hung Lo; Colin Kin-Wye Lim; Zhipeng Ding; Sanjula P Wickramasinghe; Anthony R Braun; Karen H Ashe; Elizabeth Rhoades; David D Thomas; Jonathan N Sachs Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2019-10-22 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Meng Lu; Neil Williamson; Ajay Mishra; Claire H Michel; Clemens F Kaminski; Alan Tunnacliffe; Gabriele S Kaminski Schierle Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2018-11-30 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Sara Wagner-Valladolid; Amberley D Stephens; Chaolie Huang; Raimund Jung; Chetan Poudel; Tessa Sinnige; Marie C Lechler; Nicole Schlörit; Meng Lu; Romain F Laine; Claire H Michel; Michele Vendruscolo; Clemens F Kaminski; Gabriele S Kaminski Schierle; Della C David Journal: Elife Date: 2019-05-03 Impact factor: 8.140