| Literature DB >> 29968104 |
James Doherty1,2,3, Zhe Zhang1,2, Katia Wehbe3, Gianfelice Cinque3, Peter Gardner4,5, Joanna Denbigh6.
Abstract
The study of live cells using Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) and FTIR microspectroscopy (FT-IRMS) intrinsically yields more information about cell metabolism than comparable experiments using dried or chemically fixed samples. There are, however, a number of barriers to obtaining high-quality vibrational spectra of live cells, including correction for the significant contributions of water bands to the spectra, and the physical stresses placed upon cells by compression in short pathlength sample holders. In this study, we present a water correction method that is able to result in good-quality cell spectra from water layers of 10 and 12 μm and demonstrate that sufficient biological detail is retained to separate spectra of live cells based upon their exposure to different novel anti-cancer agents. The IR brilliance of a synchrotron radiation (SR) source overcomes the problem of the strong water absorption and provides cell spectra with good signal-to-noise ratio for further analysis. Supervised multivariate analysis (MVA) and investigation of average spectra have shown significant separation between control cells and cells treated with the DNA cross-linker PL63 on the basis of phosphate and DNA-related signatures. Meanwhile, the same control cells can be significantly distinguished from cells treated with the protein kinase inhibitor YA1 based on changes in the amide II region. Each of these separations can be linked directly to the known biochemical mode of action of each agent. Graphical abstract.Entities:
Keywords: Cancer; Drug-cell interactions; Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR); Infrared microspectroscopy (IRMS); Single cell; Synchrotron radiation (SR)
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29968104 PMCID: PMC6096700 DOI: 10.1007/s00216-018-1188-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Anal Bioanal Chem ISSN: 1618-2642 Impact factor: 4.142
Fig. 1Schematic to show data processing workflow for the water correction algorithm
Fig. 2Vector-normalised mean spectra of 65 LNCaP cells from three repeat loadings of (a) a 6 μm spacer and (b) a 12 μm spacer. The 12 μm loadings show comparable quality and reproducibility, despite the significantly increased water contribution to be removed
Fig. 3Normalised mean spectra of 120 cells, from three replicates, overlaid for PL63-treated cells after 1 and 20 h of drug treatment (a) and after 20 h of incubation with DMSO and drug (b). The corresponding second derivative spectra are shown in (c) and (d) to enhance spectral features corresponding to biological changes with drug treatment. The standard deviation of each mean spectrum is shown by the shaded area
Fig. 4Normalised mean spectra of 120 cells, from three replicates, overlaid for YA1-treated cells after 1 and 20 h of drug treatment (a) and after 20 h of incubation with DMSO and drug (b). The corresponding second derivative spectra are shown in (c) and (d) to enhance spectral features corresponding to biological changed with drug treatment. The standard deviation of each spectrum is shown by the shaded area
Fig. 5Enlarged region of mean spectra overlaid for PL63-treated cells after 1 and 20 h of drug treatment. Apparent drug-induced changes can be observed particularly at 1217 and 1244 cm−1 as well as from 1180 to 1210 cm−1
Fig. 6Enlarged region of mean spectra overlaid for YA1-treated cells after 1 and 20 h of drug treatment. Apparent drug-induced changes can be observed across the 1480–1560 cm−1 range, covering the amide II region
Fig. 7CVA score plot describing 95% of the variance of the second derivative data, showing grouping of DMSO-treated control cells (black) and cells treated with PL63 and YA1 (blue and red, respectively) after 20 h of incubation time
Summary of percentage of test spectra correctly classified using k-fold cross-validation of second derivative spectra in the low wavenumber region, showing averages of 80% or greater correctly classified for each group
|
| % correctly classified | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| DMSO T20 | PL63 T20 | YA1 T20 | |
| 1 | 79 | 88 | 83 |
| 2 | 83 | 79 | 79 |
| 3 | 88 | 88 | 83 |
| 4 | 75 | 88 | 79 |
| 5 | 75 | 75 | 79 |
| Range (%) |
|
|
|
| Mean (%) |
|
|
|