Frøydis Sved Skottvoll1,2, Frederik André Hansen3, Sean Harrison2, Ida Sneis Boger1,2, Ago Mrsa1,2, Magnus Saed Restan3, Matthias Stein4, Elsa Lundanes1, Stig Pedersen-Bjergaard3,5, Aleksandra Aizenshtadt2, Stefan Krauss2,6, Gareth Sullivan2,7, Inger Lise Bogen8,9, Steven Ray Wilson1,2. 1. Department of Chemistry, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1033, Blindern, NO-0315 Oslo, Norway. 2. Hybrid Technology Hub-Centre of Excellence, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1112, Blindern, NO-0317 Oslo, Norway. 3. Department of Pharmacy, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1068, Blindern, NO-0316 Oslo, Norway. 4. Institute of Medicinal and Pharmaceutical Chemistry, TU Braunschweig, Beethovenstr. 55, DE-38106 Braunschweig, Germany. 5. Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 2, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark. 6. Department of Immunology and Transfusion Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, P.O. Box 1110, Blindern, 0317, Oslo, Norway. 7. Department of Pediatric Research, Oslo University Hospital and University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1112, Blindern, 0317 Oslo, Norway. 8. Section for Drug Abuse Research, Department of Forensic Sciences, Oslo University Hospital, P.O. Box 4950, Nydalen, NO-0424 Oslo, Norway. 9. Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1103, Blindern, NO-0317 Oslo, Norway.
Abstract
Liver organoids are emerging tools for precision drug development and toxicity screening. We demonstrate that electromembrane extraction (EME) based on electrophoresis across an oil membrane is suited for segregating selected organoid-derived drug metabolites prior to mass spectrometry (MS)-based measurements. EME allowed drugs and drug metabolites to be separated from cell medium components (albumin, etc.) that could interfere with subsequent measurements. Multiwell EME (parallel-EME) holding 100 μL solutions allowed for simple and repeatable monitoring of heroin phase I metabolism kinetics. Organoid parallel-EME extracts were compatible with ultrahigh-performance liquid chromatography (UHPLC) used to separate the analytes prior to detection. Taken together, liver organoids are well-matched with EME followed by MS-based measurements.
Liver organoids are emerging tools for precision drug development and toxicity screening. We demonstrate that electromembrane extraction (EME) based on electrophoresis across an oil membrane is suited for segregating selected organoid-derived drug metabolites prior to mass spectrometry (MS)-based measurements. EME allowed drugs and drug metabolites to be separated from cell medium components (albumin, etc.) that could interfere with subsequent measurements. Multiwell EME (parallel-EME) holding 100 μL solutions allowed for simple and repeatable monitoring of heroin phase I metabolism kinetics. Organoid parallel-EME extracts were compatible with ultrahigh-performance liquid chromatography (UHPLC) used to separate the analytes prior to detection. Taken together, liver organoids are well-matched with EME followed by MS-based measurements.
The process of drug
development is known to be time-consuming and
bear financial uncertainties.[1,2] It is estimated that
from 5000 to 10 000 new molecular entities, only one new drug
will enter the market.[3] The advancement
of this one drug from concept to market takes approximately 15 years
and a cost of over $1 billion, as well as the use of human resources,
research skills, and technological expertise.[3] As the majority of drug candidates are rejected late in the process
and during clinical trials,[3] one approach
to reducing the assets put into the drug development may be to reject
possible drug candidates early in the development process, i.e., during
preclinical testing. This may be done by developing or utilizing in
vitro models that adequately recapitulate the human in vivo response.Organoids are three-dimensional tissue models derived from primary
tissues, embryonic stem cells, or induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC).[4−6] These “mini” organs are emerging tools for studying
human development and disease, serving as alternatives to cell cultures
and animal models in drug development.[7,8] A wide variety
of organoids are being developed and studied, e.g., brain, heart,
tumor tissue, and liver.[9−12] Liver organoids can be valuable models for studying
drug metabolism and toxicity[13] (Figure A), perhaps even
in a personalized fashion, as organoids can be derived from the cells
of a patient.[14,15]
Figure 1
(A) Light microscopy picture of iPSC-derived
liver organoids used
in this study, scale bar 500 μm. (B) Electromembrane extraction
(EME) principle. Charged analytes migrate from the donor solution
(i.e., the sample solution) across the supported liquid membrane (SLM)
and into the acceptor solution. Extraction selectivity is obtained
by voltage polarity and partitioning into and through the SLM. Polar
molecules and macromolecules are effectively discriminated from extraction
by the hydrophobic SLM. (C) Illustration of well-documented liver
phase I metabolism of heroin undergoing deacetylation to 6-MAM and
morphine by human esterases (e.g., human liver carboxylesterase 1
and 2, hCE1 and hCE2, respectively).
(A) Light microscopy picture of iPSC-derived
liver organoids used
in this study, scale bar 500 μm. (B) Electromembrane extraction
(EME) principle. Charged analytes migrate from the donor solution
(i.e., the sample solution) across the supported liquid membrane (SLM)
and into the acceptor solution. Extraction selectivity is obtained
by voltage polarity and partitioning into and through the SLM. Polar
molecules and macromolecules are effectively discriminated from extraction
by the hydrophobic SLM. (C) Illustration of well-documented liver
phase I metabolism of heroin undergoing deacetylation to 6-MAM and
morphine by human esterases (e.g., human liver carboxylesterase 1
and 2, hCE1 and hCE2, respectively).Drug metabolism is a significant determinant of drug clearance
and an indirect determinant of the clinical efficacy and toxicity
of drugs.[16] Thus, the mapping of the biotransformation
pathway of drugs is crucial in the early part of the drug development
process.[17] Clinical studies of xenobiotics
in humans are subjected to constraints concerning ethical aspects.
Several in vitro model systems have been developed to recapitulate
human functions from the molecular level to the cellular, tissue,
organ, or whole organism level. The most commonly used in vitro models
for drug metabolism studies include subcellular fractions, e.g., human
liver microsomes (HLMs), S-9 fractions, and human hepatocytes. However,
current in vitro models has some disadvantages. For example, HLMs
do not represent a complete course of metabolism as they lack soluble
phase II enzymes.[16] Additionally, higher
biotransformation rates are obtained in HLMs compared to humans, most
likely because of the enriched enzyme concentrations and the absence
of competing enzymes.[17] Also, animal models
can have shortcomings and have frequently been shown to lead to wrong
predictions of drug interaction and toxicity in humans.[18]For both in vitro and in vivo models,
drug metabolism studies are
very often performed utilizing liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry
(LC-MS). Essentially, the mass spectrometer (MS) can measure the drugs
and their metabolites with a high degree of selectivity. Prior to
MS measurements, the compounds in the sample are separated by the
LC system, allowing for increased sensitivity and selectivity.There are few studies utilizing LC-MS for drug metabolism measurements
of organoids.[19−21] To the best of our knowledge, there are currently
no studies dedicated to demonstrating the potential of drug metabolism
studies with liver organoids and LC-MS.[22] The key focus of this study is to show the potential of using liver
organoids and LC-MS measurements as a methodology for drug metabolism
studies. To ensure an efficient combination of organoids, LC-MS, and
drug metabolism, several challenges must be addressed. The amounts
of organoids can (depending on the production method) be quite limited
per sample, requiring efficient sample preparation prior to analysis.
It is also highly desirable that drug metabolism studies with organoids
can be upscaled, which is difficult to combine with more standard
sample preparation approaches which include centrifugation steps and
manual pipetting (Figure S1A). In addition,
liver organoids are grown in a complex medium (e.g., can contain 10%
fetal bovine serum) requiring a thorough sample clean-up prior to
LC-MS analysis. For extracting drugs, and the metabolites produced
by organoids, we applied electromembrane extraction (EME; Figures B and S1B). In EME, an oil immobilized in the pores
of a porous membrane (supported liquid membrane, SLM) is used to extract
analytes from a cell medium (donor solution) to a protein-free MS-compatible
acceptor solution. For the process, both aqueous compartments are
pH-adjusted to facilitate analyte ionization, and voltage is applied
across the SLM. EME is therefore essentially an electrophoretic migration
of ionized analytes across an oil membrane.[23,24] Extraction selectivity is determined by both the partitioning of
analytes into the SLM and the polarity and magnitude of the applied
voltage. High clean-up efficiency of the target analytes can thus
be achieved, and EME is highly successful in separating small-molecule
drug substances from biological matrix substances, including salts,
lipids, phospholipids, proteins, and blood cells.[24,25] Such a clean-up is highly important prior to liquid chromatography-mass
spectrometry to avoid ion suppression or enhancement. EME has recently
advanced to the 96-well plate format[26−28] (parallel-EME), and
chip systems.[29,30] Considering its documented traits
regarding simple sample clean-up, we focus on using EME for organoids,
which can be costly and limited in availability.As a model
system to show the potential of the methodology, we
study the phase I metabolism of heroin to 6-monoacetylmorphine (6-MAM)
and morphine (Figure C), as heroinliver metabolism is highly established, both with regards
to the metabolizing enzymes[31−33] (e.g., human liver carboxylesterase
1 and 2, hCE1 and hCE2, respectively), and the resulting metabolites.
With the presented experiments, we have shown the proof of concept
that liver organoids are EME compatible, and evaluate the advantages
and challenges of parallel-EME/organoid/MS-based analysis for drug
metabolism.
Experimental Section
Chemicals and Solutions
2-Nitrophenyl
octyl ether (NPOE),
2-nitrophenyl pentyl ether (NPPE), bis (2-ethylhexyl) hydrogen phosphite
(DEHPi), bis(2-ethylhexyl) phosphate (DEHP), sodium hydroxide, ammonium
formate (>99%), formic acid (FA, reagent grade 95%), l-ascorbic
acid-2 phosphate (AAP) were purchased from Sigma Aldrich (St. Louis,
MO). LC-MS grade water and acetonitrile (ACN) were purchased from
VWR (Radnor, PA). Chromasolv methanol (LC-MS grade) was from Honeywell
Riedel-de Haën (Seelze, Germany). Heroin HCl, 6-MAM HCl, and
morphine were purchased from Lipomed AG (Arlesheim, Switzerland).
Heroin-d9, 6-MAM-d6, and morphine-d3 were purchased
from Cerilliant (Austin, TX). Unless otherwise stated, the water used
was type 1 water purified by a Milli-Q water purification system from
Merck Millipore (Billerica, MA).The 5 and 10 mM ammonium formate
buffer (w/v) was made by dissolving ammonium formate in LC-MS grade
water followed by pH adjustment by the addition of FA to pH 3.1. A
freshly made stock solution of 1 mM heroin HCl in 0.9% NaCl was made
prior to each organoid experiment (stored at 4 °C) and also used
to prepare heroin calibration solutions. A stock solution of 6-MAM
and morphine was prepared in 5 mM ammonium formate buffer pH 3.1 at
a concentration of 50 μM each and stored at 4 °C. Two stock
solutions of the internal standards heroin-d9, 6-MAM-d6, and morphine-d3 were prepared in 5 mM ammonium formate buffer
pH 3.1 with analyte concentration of 1.5 μM each and 3 μM
each, respectively, and stored at 4 °C.
Liver Organoid Differentiation
from Induced Pluripotent Stem
Cells
The iPSC cell line HPSI0114i-vabj_3 (Wellcome Trust
Sanger Institute, Cambridgeshire, U.K.) was differentiated toward
liver organoids using media from protocol by Ang et al.[34] Briefly, the HPSI0114i-vabj_3 iPSC line was
differentiated toward definitive endoderm in Iscove’s modified
Dulbecco’s medium/F12 medium (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham,
MA) containing 3 μM CHIR99021 (STEMCELL Technologies, Vancouver,
Canada), 50 nM PI-103 from Bio-Techne Ltd. (Abingdon, United Kingdom)
and 100 ng/mL activin A (PeproTech, Cranbury, NJ) for one day and
100 ng/mL activin A for 2 more days. The definitive endoderm cells
were subsequently treated with 1 μM A8301 (Bio-Techne Ltd.),
10 ng/mL FGF2 (PeproTech), 30 ng/mL BMP4 (PeproTech), and 2 μM
all-trans retinoic acid (Sigma Aldrich) for one day, then with 10
ng/mL FGF2, 30 ng/mL BMP4, 1 μM forskolin (PeproTech), 1 μM
Wnt-C59 (Bio-Techne Ltd.) for 2 more days and with 10 ng/mL FGF2,
30 ng/mL BMP4, 1 μM forskolin for another day. On day 8, the
cells were detached and aggregated in the U bottom microwells in the
presence of 20 ng/mL HGF (PeproTech), 10 ng/mL oncostatin M (OSM,
PeproTech), 0.1 μM dexamethasone (Bio-Techne Ltd.), 1 μM
forskolin, 10 μg/mL human recombinant insulin (Sigma Aldrich),
and 100 μM AAP. After the formation of organoids at day 10,
they were transferred into low attachment plates and cultured for
another 10 days as free-floating organoids in William’s E media
(Thermo Fisher Scientific), supplemented with 10 ng/mL HGF and 10
ng/mL OSM, 10 μg/mL insulin, 100 μM AAP, 0.1 μM
dexamethasone, 1 μM forskolin, and 10 μM DAPT (Bio-Techne
Ltd.). The iPSC line AG27[35−38] was differentiated using a small-molecule-driven
protocol that aims to sequentially mimic in vivo liver development,
resulting in hepatocyte-containing liver organoids as described by
Harrison et al.[39]
Liver Organoid Heroin Incubation
Prior to heroin incubation
with organoids, 1 mM heroin was diluted in the respective cell medium
and sterilized by filtration using a 0.22 μm Millex-GV syringe
filter (Merck Millipore). After 20 days of differentiation, from 20
to 60 organoids per well were treated with 10 or 50 μM heroin
in cell medium for 1, 3, 6, and 24 h, respectively (n = 3), in separate Nunc flat-bottom 96-well microplates (Thermo Fisher
Scientific). Metabolism was stopped by adding FA to a final concentration
of 0.11 M, and the plates were frozen at −80 °C. In parallel,
cell medium free from organoids (n = 3) were used
as drug degradation control samples.
Parallel Electromembrane
Extraction Setup
Prior to
the extraction, 50 μL of the heroin-exposed liver organoid samples
(containing 0.11 M FA) was added to 40 μL of water and 10 μL
of the 1.5 μM or 3 μM internal standard solution. The
samples were then loaded into the wells of an in-house built 96-well
stainless steel plate (Figure A), previously described by Restan et al.[28] A volume of 3 μL of DEHP/NPOE (10/90, w/w) was immobilized
into the membrane pores (0.45 μm pore size) of a 96-well MultiScreen-IP
poly(vinylidene fluoride) (PVDF) filter plate from Merck Millipore
(Figure B). The steel
and filter plates were subsequently clamped together and 100 μL
of 10 mM ammonium formate pH 3.1 was loaded into each well of the
filter plate, and thus constituting the acceptor solution. The filter
plate was used to house the acceptor solution because the geometry
of the steel plate wells provided better convection of the donor solution
in this configuration, which improved the extraction kinetics. A conductive
in-house built aluminum lid with 96 electrode rods (Figure C) was placed onto the filter
plate, and the whole construct (Figure D) was placed on a Vibramax 100 Heidolph shaking board
(Kellheim, Germany). The steel plate holding the organoid solution
was connected to the anode of an external power supply (model ES 0300-0.45,
Delta Elektronika BV, Zierikzee, The Netherlands), while the aluminum
electrode lid was connected to the cathode (Figure E). Simultaneous extraction of all samples
was performed for 15 min at 900 rpm agitation, with 30 V applied for
the first 2 min and 50 V applied for the remaining extraction duration.
The stepped voltage was used to ensure that the extraction current
was kept below 50 μA per well, which was considered a safe limit
for robust operation.[40]
Figure 2
Experimental setup of
96-well parallel-EME. (A) Ninty-six well
sample reservoir plate constituting the donor solution. (B) Ninty-six
well filter plate, constituting the acceptor solution. (C) Aluminum
lid with 96 electrode rods. (D) All plates clamped together. (E) Illustration
of the extraction setup of parallel-EME coupled to the external power
supply.
Experimental setup of
96-well parallel-EME. (A) Ninty-six well
sample reservoir plate constituting the donor solution. (B) Ninty-six
well filter plate, constituting the acceptor solution. (C) Aluminum
lid with 96 electrode rods. (D) All plates clamped together. (E) Illustration
of the extraction setup of parallel-EME coupled to the external power
supply.
Determination of heroin, 6-MAM, and morphine was
performed using UHPLC-MS based on a previously described method.[41] The sample extracts were diluted ×10 with
5 mM ammonium formate pH 3.1 and analyzed using an Acquity UHPLC pump
coupled to a Xevo TQ (triple quadrupole) MS with electrospray ionization
(ESI) interface, all from Waters (Milford, MA). The separation was
achieved using the Acquity UPLC HSS T3 C18 column (2.1 mm × 100
mm, 1.8 μm particles). Solvent A consisted of 10 mM ammonium
formate buffer pH 3.1 and solvent B consisted of methanol. The sample
injection volume was set to 7.5 μL, and the gradient elution
was carried out at a flow rate of 0.5 mL/min at 65 °C using the
following gradient profile: from 0–0.5 min; 100% solvent A,
0.5–2.7 min; 0–10% solvent B, 2.7–3.3 min; 10–20%
solvent B, 3.3–4.6 min; 20–80% solvent B, 4.6–4.61
min; 80–100% solvent B, 4.61–6.60 min; 100% solvent
B, 6.60–6.61 min; 100–0% solvent B, 6.61–7.50
min; and 100% solvent A. The capillary voltage was 3 kV, source temperature
was 150 °C, desolvation temperature was 500 °C, and cone
gas flow was 990 L/h. Detection was performed in positive mode using
multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) with MS/MS transitions (MS/MS transition
1 being the quantifier and MS/MS transition 2 the qualifier) and collision
energies for heroin (m/z 370 >
268
at 30 eV and m/z 370 > 211 at
38
eV), 6-MAM (m/z 328 > 165 at
42
eV and m/z 328 > 211 at 30 eV),
morphine (m/z 286 > 201 at 24
eV
and m/z 286 > 165 at 42 eV),
heroin-d9 (m/z 379
> 272 at 30 eV), 6-MAM-d6 (m/z 334 > 165 at 42 eV), and morphine-d3 (289 > 165 at 30 eV). Data was acquired
and processed
using MassLynx 4.1 software (Waters).
The nanoLC-MS setup consisted of
a TSQ Quantiva, triple quadrupole
MS, the nanoFlex ESI ion source, and the EASY-nLC 1000 or 1200 pump
equipped with an autosampler, all from Thermo Fisher. Acclaim PepMap
100 C18 (3 μm particle size) pre- (75 μm inner diameter,
ID, and 20 mm length) and analytical (75 μm ID × 50 mm)
columns from Thermo Fisher Scientific were used for the chromatographic
separation. In-house made[42] analytical
columns were packed with 3 μm Atlantis T3 particles (Waters)
or 2.6 μm Accucore particles (Thermo Fisher Scientific) in fused
silica capillaries of 75 μm ID from Polymicro Technologies (Phoenix,
AZ). The analytical column was coupled to a 40 mm stainless steel
emitter (20 μm ID) purchased from Thermo Fisher. The extracted
organoid samples (AG27 iPSC derived) were further diluted ×103 in 5 mM of ammonium formate pH 3.1 buffer, and the injection
volume was set to 2 μL. The nanoLC pump was equipped with two
solvent compartments (A and B), where A contained 0.1% FA in the LC-MS
grade water (v/v) and B contained 0.1% FA in the LC-MS grade water
and ACN (10/90, v/v). The gradient elution was carried out with 3–50%
B in 8 min with a constant flow rate of 500 nL/min. The spray voltage
was set to 2.2 kV and the ion transfer tube temperature was set to
310 °C. Detection was performed in positive mode using MRM with
MS/MS transitions and collision energies for heroin (m/z 370 > 268 at 38 eV and 370 > 211 at 41
eV), 6-MAM
(m/z 328 > 165 at 48 eV and 328
> 211 at 36 eV), morphine (m/z 286
> 181 at 48 eV and 286> 165 at 51 eV), heroin-d9 (m/z 379 > 272
at 38 eV
and 379 > 211 at 41 eV), 6-MAM-d6 (m/z 334 > 211 at 35 eV and 334 >
165 at
48 eV), and morphine-d3 (m/z 289 > 181 at 48 eV and 289 > 165 at 51
eV).For a one-column setup, the pump outlet was coupled to
an external
six-port valve from Valco Instruments Company Inc (VICI, Houston,
TX) equipped with a 75 μm ID × 11 cm fused silica injection
loop (500 nL), a nut with a syringe sleeve and a 75 μm ID ×
10 cm fused silica capillary waste outlet. The flow outlet from the
six-port valve was coupled to a stainless steel tee-piece (VICI) through
a 20 μm × 40 cm fused silica capillary from Polymicro Technologies
using stainless steel nuts and vespel/graphite ferrules (VICI). The
analytical column inlet was coupled to the stainless steel tee-piece,
also coupled to a plug through a 550 mm nanoViper (75 μm ID,
Thermo Fisher). A 500 μL syringe (51mm) from Hamilton (Reno,
Nevada) was used to load the samples. Xcalibur version 2.2 was used
to obtain chromatograms and mass spectra (Thermo Fisher).
Protein Profiling
by Nanoliquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry
Acetone precipitated
AG27 iPSC-derived liver organoid protein samples
were subjected to sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis
(SDS-PAGE) gel electrophoresis, and the gel lanes were sliced into
five sample fractions and digested with trypsin as previously described.[43] The peptide solutions were desalted using OMIX
C18-micro solid-phase extraction (SPE) columns (Agilent, Santa Clara,
CA). A Q-Exactive mass spectrometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific) equipped
with a nanoFlex nanospray ion source was used for the nanoLC-MS analyses,
coupled to an EASY-nLC 1000 pump (Thermo Fisher). Peptide separation
was achieved using Acclaim PepMap 100 pre- (20 mm) and separation
columns (250 mm) of 75 μm inner diameter and 3 μm particles
(Thermo Fisher). Solvent A was 0.1% FA in LC-MS grade water (v/v)
and solvent B was 0.1% FA in LC-MS grade water and ACN (5/95, v/v).
Peptides were separated using a 180 min long gradient ranging from
3–15% solvent B (after optimization with the predigested HeLa
samples from Thermo Fisher). The mass spectrometer was run in a positive
mode with full MS (m/z = 400–2000)
and data-dependent tandem mass spectrometry (ddMS2) with top N set
to be 10 ions. Raw files were processed and database searches performed
with Proteome Discoverer 2.3 (Thermo Fisher Scientific), using MASCOT
version 2.4 to search the SwissProt database (human, 20 431 entries).
Proteins were identified with the following settings; peptide identification
with a false discovery rate (FDR) threshold of ≤0.01, protein
identification with a FDR threshold of ≤0.01 (strict) and ≤0.05
(relaxed) and digestion by trypsin with at most one missed cleavage.
Dynamic modification was set to be oxidation and acetyl (N-term),
static modification was set to be carbamidomethyl. Information on
the elution profile and fragment match spectrum of each of the identified
peptides for hCES1 (accession number P23141), hCES2 (also called cocaine
esterase, accession number O00748), and UDP-glucuronosyltransferase
2B7 (accession number P16662) were obtained and verified by comparison
with the raw file.
Calculation of Recovery
Recovery
measurements were
performed using capillary electrophoresis with ultraviolet spectroscopy
detection (CE-UV) (see Supporting Information for experimental description) with an initial analyte concentration
of 5 μM. The recovery (%) was calculated using the following
formulawhere Afinal and Ainitial are the area of analyte collected in
the acceptor solution and the area of the analyte originally present
in the sample.
Results and Discussion
In this study,
several analytical approaches were evaluated for
liver organoid drug measurements. With the future objective of advancing
to online analyses, EME was assessed in a 96-well format (parallel-EME)
for the high-throughput clean-up of analytes from the organoid cell
medium, a method previously shown to enable selective and fast extraction
from complex matrices (and also on-chip).[44] A conventional UHPLC-MS method used for clinical routine analyses
was applied to explore the heroin-metabolizing properties of the parallel-EME
extracted liver organoids. To get an understanding of the heroin-metabolizing
liver enzymes present in the organoids, an untargeted proteomic case
study using nanoLC-MS was undertaken. Lastly, two analytical approaches
more suitable for online action, limited samples, and increased sensitivity
were evaluated: CE, which is widely established for rapid on-chip
separations,[45−47] and nanoLC-MS, which allows high sensitivity measurements.[48]
Parallel Electromembrane Extraction Optimization
for Heroin
and Metabolites
To evaluate the potential of MS for the analysis
of liver organoids, heroin was chosen as a model substance due to
its familiar phase I metabolism to 6-MAM and morphine in the liver.
To our knowledge, heroin metabolism of organoids has not previously
been studied with mass spectrometric-based techniques. Although morphine
extraction with EME has previously been performed,[49−51] the extraction
of heroin and 6-MAM with EME has, to our knowledge, not previously
been performed. Therefore, parallel-EME conditions focusing on these
three compounds were initially assessed. The experimental conditions
(Figure ) were selected
based on previous experience and literature reports.[49,52,53] Due to the difference in the
polarity of the analytes, >30% recovery and <15% RSD were set
as
the acceptance criteria of extraction performance. Best recovery and
repeatability for analytes in both standard solutions and spiked cell
medium samples were obtained using a parallel-EME system comprising
10% (w/w) DEHP/NPOE as SLM, an extraction time of 15 min, and an extraction
voltage of 50 V. From the cell medium, these conditions gave recoveries
of 76% (heroin), 82% (6-MAM), and 36% (morphine) and RSD <10%,
which was considered acceptable for the current application. With
these parameters, the average extraction current was <50 μA
per well throughout the extraction. The extraction method was therefore
not optimized any further. Elevated voltages could possibly improve
the recoveries but can potentially also result in analyte degradation.
In addition, for increasing the accuracy, correction for nonexhaustive
extractions was done by spiking the samples with isotopically labeled
internal standards prior to extraction.
Figure 3
Analyte recovery (%)
of parallel-EME under varying conditions (SLM
composition, extraction voltage, and extraction time), with 5 μM
standard solutions and spiked cell medium samples using CE-UV for
quantitation.
Analyte recovery (%)
of parallel-EME under varying conditions (SLM
composition, extraction voltage, and extraction time), with 5 μM
standard solutions and spiked cell medium samples using CE-UV for
quantitation.
Parallel Electromembrane
Extraction of Liver Organoid Heroin
Metabolites
Samples containing 20 and 60 liver organoids
per well were exposed to 10 μM heroin for 1, 3, 6, and 24 h.
With the exception of 6-MAM and heroin at time point 24 h, the sample-to-sample
repeatability was 0.4–25% with the two organoid iPSC sources
(Figure A,B). Heroin
levels decreased with time to 6-MAM (both enzymatic and nonenzymatic),
and with subsequent enzymatic metabolism to morphine, adding to the
confirmation that the liver organoids had traits related to human
livers. Similar heroin metabolism kinetics was also observed for liver
organoids derived from hepatocytes from one patient case (see Figure S2). However, the kinetics were (expectedly)
substantially slower than that observed with, e.g., high enzyme-availability
microsomes and S-9 fraction,[17,54] see Figure S3; although parallel-EME and MS are compatible with
phase I metabolism monitoring, we were not able to observe phase II
metabolites morphine-3-glucuronide (M3G) and morphine-6-glucuronide
(M6G). Traces of these metabolites could however be observed when
employing more manual, centrifugation-based sample preparations (Figure S4). A key reason is a weakness of EME,
that highly polar compounds have low recovery; this can in many cases
be fine-tuned.[53,55]
Figure 4
Concentration of heroin and metabolites
in a study of liver organoid
drug metabolism using parallel-EME and UHPLC-MS after incubation of
liver organoids differentiated from the iPSC cell lines (A) AG27 (60
organoids) and (B) HPSI0114i-vabj_3 (20 organoids) in 10 μM
heroin for 1, 3, 6, and 24 h. In parallel, cell medium free from organoids
was used as the drug degradation control sample. Each bar represents
the mean (±SD) of triplicate samples. One of the three replicates
of time point 6 h liver organoids (HPSI0114i-vabj_3) was discarded.
The asterisk indicates the removal of one data point due to a poor
internal standard signal.
Concentration of heroin and metabolites
in a study of liver organoid
drug metabolism using parallel-EME and UHPLC-MS after incubation of
liver organoids differentiated from the iPSC cell lines (A) AG27 (60
organoids) and (B) HPSI0114i-vabj_3 (20 organoids) in 10 μM
heroin for 1, 3, 6, and 24 h. In parallel, cell medium free from organoids
was used as the drug degradation control sample. Each bar represents
the mean (±SD) of triplicate samples. One of the three replicates
of time point 6 h liver organoids (HPSI0114i-vabj_3) was discarded.
The asterisk indicates the removal of one data point due to a poor
internal standard signal.To complement the observations of the liver organoids enzymatic
heroin-metabolizing properties, a case study using MS-based untargeted
proteomics was undertaken. We could identify the presence of proteotypic
peptides (FDR ≤ 1%) related to the key liver enzymes[56−60] hCES1 (9 peptides identified) and hCES2 (4 peptides identified)
in the organoids differentiated from the iPSC cell line AG27 (Figure A–C, see also Table S1 for peptide overview). Also, one peptide
was identified related to one of the heroin phase II metabolism enzymes,[33,57] UDP-glucuronosyltransferase 2B7 (Table S1).
Figure 5
Total ion chromatogram of identified peptides (left) and the respective
peptide fragmentation spectrum (right) of enzymes related to heroin
liver phase I metabolism. (A) Peptide AISESGVALTSVLVK (m/z 737.42) from hCES1, identified at charge +2.
(B) Peptide FWANFAR (m/z 456.23)
from hCES1, identified at charge +2. (C) Peptide APVYFYEFQHQPSWLK
(m/z 680.94) from hCES2, identified
at charge +3.
Total ion chromatogram of identified peptides (left) and the respective
peptide fragmentation spectrum (right) of enzymes related to heroin
liver phase I metabolism. (A) Peptide AISESGVALTSVLVK (m/z 737.42) from hCES1, identified at charge +2.
(B) Peptide FWANFAR (m/z 456.23)
from hCES1, identified at charge +2. (C) Peptide APVYFYEFQHQPSWLK
(m/z 680.94) from hCES2, identified
at charge +3.
Compatibility of Organoid
EME Extracts with Various Separation
Techniques
The organoid EME extracts were analyzed using
UHPLC-MS instrumentation, which provided high-resolution separations
within 5 min (Figure S5). We have also
investigated other separation approaches that can be compatible with
small samples and online action. Capillary electrophoresis, perhaps
the most “chip-ready” of the techniques investigated,
was capable of fast separations of organoid extracts (separation within
2.5 min) and low sample consumption (injection volume equivalent to
107 nL), with these initial experiments demonstrated with simple UV
detection (Figure S6). However, organoid
incubation in 50 μM heroin was needed to achieve detection with
CE-UV, and thus no further quantification of the analytes could be
performed.The limit of quantification (LOQ) for UHPLC-MS measurements
in this study was 1 nM (7 μL injection volume). NanoLC, a sensitive
approach that has been mostly associated with proteomics in recent
years, was seen to provide 0.95 pM detection (1 μL injection
volume) for some small-molecule analytes such as heroin (results not
shown). For the more hydrophobic analytes heroin and 6-MAM, the organoid
extracts analyzed with nanoLC-MS could thus be 1000 times more diluted
compared to that of UHPLC-MS analysis without compromising the chromatographic
performance or sensitivity (Figure A). However, poor performance was associated with the
nanoLC-MS analysis of morphine, the most polar of the metabolites
observed; the chromatographic peak was completely absent in the chromatograms
of the organoid extracts (Figure A) and sporadically very deformed or absent in that
of standard solutions. This was the case for large volume injection,
both using on-column injection and an SPE column. We also examined
the in-house-packed nano reversed-phase (RP) LC columns which were
more compatible with highly aqueous mobile phases (Accucore and Atlantis
T3), but poor peak shape and breakthrough/poor retention time repeatability
were still issues. Various parameters were tested, e.g., sample loading
time and maximum sample loading pressure (of the Thermo nano pumps).
To illustrate these effects, see Figure B, which shows that several loading times
were suited for 6-MAM and heroin using on-column injection, but none
were suited for morphine.
Figure 6
(A) MRM chromatograms of heroin, 6-MAM, and
morphine in the extracted
liver organoid sample treated with 10 μM heroin for 1 h (AG27).
The sample was analyzed using a two-column setup with Acclaim PepMap
columns and injection volume of 2 μL. (B) MRM chromatograms
of a 375 nM standard solution containing heroin, morphine, 6-MAM,
and their corresponding internal standards were analyzed using the
one-column setup equipped with an Acclaim PepMap commercially packed
analytical column with different on-column loading times (1, 2, 3,
and 4 min), and injection volume of 500 nL.
(A) MRM chromatograms of heroin, 6-MAM, and
morphine in the extracted
liver organoid sample treated with 10 μM heroin for 1 h (AG27).
The sample was analyzed using a two-column setup with Acclaim PepMap
columns and injection volume of 2 μL. (B) MRM chromatograms
of a 375 nM standard solution containing heroin, morphine, 6-MAM,
and their corresponding internal standards were analyzed using the
one-column setup equipped with an Acclaim PepMap commercially packed
analytical column with different on-column loading times (1, 2, 3,
and 4 min), and injection volume of 500 nL.
Conclusions
Liver organoids and LC-MS measurements are a
promising concept
for drug metabolism studies, here demonstrated for heroin phase I
metabolism. This concept can be well suited for drug metabolism studies
of other drugs, and direct measurements of drug metabolism could also
provide valuable insight when optimizing organoid development protocols.
A proteomic case study using nanoLC-MS identified proteotypic peptides
from heroin-metabolizing enzymes, complementing the observations of
the liver organoids enzymatic heroin-metabolizing properties. EME-MS
was shown to be a promising combination for the liver organoid-based
analysis of drug metabolism. EME in a 96-well format (parallel-EME)
was used to extract heroin and metabolites from various organoids
in a complex medium, followed by UHPLC-MS measurements. In addition,
the chromatographic performance was not perturbed by the initial complex
matrix (analyte retention time repeatability with a maximum RSD of
0.07%), suggesting that parallel-EME was a suitable basis for organoid-derived
sample preparation. It is reasonable to assume that the approach can
also be applicable to other organoid variants, e.g., kidney and heart.
Parallel-EME was indeed an approach that allowed multiple samples
to be simply handled, more so than standard approaches to related
tissues (centrifugations, several sample pipetting steps), which can
allow higher throughput in larger-scale studies. We are currently
developing 96-well plates made of conductive polymers, which we believe
will be suited for both cell studies and EME; this will reduce yet
another step of sample handling. One disadvantage that needs to be
addressed is the difficulty in extracting very polar metabolites with
EME, and further optimizations will therefore continue.Following
this proof-of-concept study, we will continue to explore
iterations of the here presented EME configuration with the aim of
further increasing the sensitivity while retaining robustness and
scalability; a natural next step will be nanoliter-scale online EME-LC-MS
of organoid-derived samples. Related systems have been demonstrated
with microsomes,[30] but those systems require
larger separation columns and are arguably not suited for trace samples.
Due to challenges with nanoLC, we will instead likely investigate
the use of capillary LC or microbore LC as a compromise between sensitivity
and robustness.
Authors: Meritxell Huch; Craig Dorrell; Sylvia F Boj; Johan H van Es; Vivian S W Li; Marc van de Wetering; Toshiro Sato; Karien Hamer; Nobuo Sasaki; Milton J Finegold; Annelise Haft; Robert G Vries; Markus Grompe; Hans Clevers Journal: Nature Date: 2013-01-27 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Meritxell Huch; Helmuth Gehart; Ruben van Boxtel; Karien Hamer; Francis Blokzijl; Monique M A Verstegen; Ewa Ellis; Martien van Wenum; Sabine A Fuchs; Joep de Ligt; Marc van de Wetering; Nobuo Sasaki; Susanne J Boers; Hans Kemperman; Jeroen de Jonge; Jan N M Ijzermans; Edward E S Nieuwenhuis; Ruurdtje Hoekstra; Stephen Strom; Robert R G Vries; Luc J W van der Laan; Edwin Cuppen; Hans Clevers Journal: Cell Date: 2014-12-18 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Lay Teng Ang; Antson Kiat Yee Tan; Matias I Autio; Su Hua Goh; Siew Hua Choo; Kian Leong Lee; Jianmin Tan; Bangfen Pan; Jane Jia Hui Lee; Jen Jen Lum; Christina Ying Yan Lim; Isabelle Kai Xin Yeo; Chloe Jin Yee Wong; Min Liu; Jueween Ling Li Oh; Cheryl Pei Lynn Chia; Chet Hong Loh; Angela Chen; Qingfeng Chen; Irving L Weissman; Kyle M Loh; Bing Lim Journal: Cell Rep Date: 2018-02-20 Impact factor: 9.423