| Literature DB >> 29651235 |
Ranhua Xiong1,2, Peter Verstraelen3, Jo Demeester1, Andre G Skirtach2,4, Jean-Pierre Timmermans3, Stefaan C De Smedt1,5, Winnok H De Vos2,3,4, Kevin Braeckmans1,2,6,7.
Abstract
Neurodevelopmental and neurodegenerative disorders are characterized by subtle alterations in synaptic connections and perturbed neuronal network functionality. A hallmark of neuronal connectivity is the presence of dendritic spines, micron-sized protrusions of the dendritic shaft that compartmentalize single synapses to fine-tune synaptic strength. However, accurate quantification of spine density and morphology in mature neuronal networks is hampered by the lack of targeted labeling strategies. To resolve this, we have optimized a method to deliver cell-impermeable compounds into selected cells based on Spatially resolved NAnoparticle-enhanced Photoporation (SNAP). We show that SNAP enables efficient labeling of selected individual neurons and their spines in dense cultured networks without affecting short-term viability. We compare SNAP with widely used spine labeling techniques such as the application of lipophilic dyes and genetically encoded fluorescent markers. Using SNAP, we demonstrate a time-dependent increase in spine density in healthy cultures as well as a reduction in spine density after chemical mimicry of hypoxia. Since the sparse labeling procedure can be automated using an intelligent acquisition scheme, SNAP holds promise for high-content screening campaigns of neuronal connectivity in the context of neurodevelopmental and neurodegenerative disorders.Entities:
Keywords: SNAP; dendritic spine; gold nanoparticle; neuron labeling; photoporation; primary neuronal culture
Year: 2018 PMID: 29651235 PMCID: PMC5884872 DOI: 10.3389/fncel.2018.00080
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Cell Neurosci ISSN: 1662-5102 Impact factor: 5.505
Detailed statistics for the executed experiments.
| Figure | Description | Condition | Shapiro-Wilk | DF | Overall test | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cyototoxicity | 2 h | 3 | KW | NA | ||
| 24 h | KW | NA | ||||
| DIVs | SNAP | 2 | KW | Dunn all pairs—7–14 DIV | ||
| DiI | 2 | KW | Dunn all pairs—7–14 DIV | |||
| DMOG | SNAP | 2 | KW | Steel with control—10 μM | ||
| DiI | 2 | KW | Steel with control—10 μM | |||
| Specificity | 1 | MW | NA | |||
| Spine morphology | 4 | KW | Dunn all pairs—mEosLA-DiI | |||
| YFP spines | 1 | MW | NA | |||
| Functional integration | 7 DIV | 1 | MW | NA | ||
| 14 DIV | 1 | MW | NA |
For all quantitative data, the p-values of Shapiro-Wilk tests for normality are listed, as are the degrees of freedom (DF) and p-values of the overall tests (KW: Kruskal-Wallis; MW: Mann-Whitney), and the nature and p-values of the post hoc tests.
Figure 1Spatially resolved NAnoparticle-enhanced Photoporation (SNAP) enables fast and targeted labeling of primary hippocampal neurons and their spines. (A) General workflow of SNAP. Intracellular delivery of phalloidin relies on the adsorption of cell-interactive plasmonic gold nanoparticles (AuNP) to the plasma membrane. Upon selective illumination of the cell of interest with 561 nm laser light, AuNPs heat up and induce vapor nanobubbles (VNBs). These VNBs transiently open the membrane, allowing the otherwise impermeable dye to enter the soma (white arrows). After washing and allowing time for intracellular diffusion of the dye to the neuronal extremities, completely labeled neurons can be monitored with high contrast. (B) Workflow of image-guided SNAP. Before the actual SNAP procedure is initiated, large field-of-view images are acquired of cells labeled with a cell-permeable marker. After image analysis and selection, the coordinates of the cells of interest are determined and fed into the SNAP setup for targeted photoporation. (C) Image-guided SNAP on primary neurons. Nuclei are stained with the membrane-permeable dye Hoechst. Using image analysis, all nuclei are first detected, followed by a selection of nuclei that are at least 200 μm apart (gold circles and arrowheads). The coordinates of the neurons of interest are used to guide the SNAP procedure. The high-resolution image of the phalloidin-labeled neuron shows dendritic spines (arrows) in high contrast without interference of fluorescence from overlapping dendrites or axons of nearby cells.
Figure 2SNAP-assisted phalloidin labeling is selective and non-cytotoxic. (A) Microscopic image of an 18 DIV neuron that was selectively labeled with image-guided SNAP. The complete network is labeled with the membrane-permeable dye SiR-tubulin, whereas only the targeted neuron is labeled with phalloidin. (B) Repetitive SNAP procedure with two chromatic phalloidin variants (AF488, AF647) allows multicolor labeling of individual neurons in the same field of view. (C) The same procedure was used to selectively label astrocytes and neurons in different colors in the same culture. (D) Quantification of cell viability after 2 and 24 h shows no significant toxicity induced by the AuNPs or the 561 laser pulses, nor of the combination of both. (E) Microscopic image of a neuron, 24 h after SNAP-assisted phalloidin labeling.
Figure 3SNAP outperforms alternative labeling strategies. (A) The lipophilic dye DiI enables sparse, but stochastic labeling of neurons within the neuronal network. It suffers from drawbacks such as clustered staining of adjacent neurons, debris, and uneven dye loading or overloading. (B) Microscopic image of a neuron transduced with actin-RFP (BacMam vector). Spines can clearly be resolved since actin is highly enriched in spines. However, the overexpression of actin-RFP may lead to artifacts such as enlarged spine heads (see also Supplementary Figure S1B) or increased cellular stress. (C) Microscopic image of a Thy1-YFP neuron in a mixed culture with non-labeled WT cells (1:5 ratio). Spines can be discerned, but the signal of YFP in spines is weak and the labeled cell distribution is stochastic. (D) Photoconversion of mEos-LifeAct (cyan) in a primary neuron. Every 2 min, a 405 nm photoconversion pulse is delivered to the soma of the selected neuron, leading to a gradual spreading of the photoconverted (red) variant throughout the cytoplasm.
Figure 4SNAP reveals maturation-dependent and hypoxia-induced changes in spine density. (A) Microscopic images of phalloidin-labeled neurons at 7, 14 and 21 DIV. Spines (arrows) can be discerned at different time points. (B) Quantification shows a time-dependent increase in spine density and a similar trend for SNAP and DiI labeling (*p < 0.05 in Dunn all pairs test, see Table 1 for p-values). (C) Phalloidin-labeled neurons with and without DMOG treatment to mimic hypoxic conditions. (D) Quantification of spine density after SNAP or DiI labeling shows a reduction in spine density upon 24 h DMOG treatment (*p < 0.05 in Steel test, see Table 1 for p-values). Microscopy images have been inverted for clarity.
Comparison of sparse spine labeling strategies.
| Sparse labeling approach | Targeting | Speed | Spine SBR | Ease-of-use | Artifacts and disadvantages |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lipophilic dye (DiI) | − | + | ± | + | Debris, uneven dye loading, clusters, no cell type specificity |
| Transfection (actin-RFP) | − | − | + | + | Increased spine head size, clusters |
| Mixed culture (YFP) | − | − | − | − | Clusters, low flexibility |
| Photoconversion (mEos-LifeAct) | + | − | + | − | Repeated pulses needed, risk of photodamage |
| SNAP (AF488-phalloidin) | + | + | + | ± | Pulsed laser needed |
Commonly used spine labeling strategies are compared with SNAP in terms of targeting potential, labeling speed, spine SBR (average spine signal to local background intensity ratio), applicability and risk for artifacts.