Piyumi Wijesekara1, Ying Liu2, Weitao Wang2, Elizabeth K Johnston1, Mara L G Sullivan3, Rebecca E Taylor1,2,4, Xi Ren1,2. 1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States. 2. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States. 3. Center for Biologic Imaging, University of Pittsburgh, 3500 Terrace Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States. 4. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States.
Abstract
The cell-surface glycocalyx serves as a physiological barrier regulating cellular accessibility to macromolecules and other cells. Conventional glycocalyx characterization has largely been morphological rather than functional. Here, we demonstrated direct glycocalyx anchoring of DNA origami nanotiles and performed a comprehensive comparison with traditional origami targeting to the phospholipid bilayer (PLB) using cholesterol. While DNA nanotiles effectively accessed single-stranded DNA initiators anchored on the glycocalyx, their accessibility to the underlying PLB was only permitted by extended nanotile-to-initiator spacing or by enzymatic glycocalyx degradation using trypsin or pathogenic neuraminidase. Thus, the DNA nanotiles, being expelled by the physiologic glycocalyx, provide an effective functional measure of the glycocalyx barrier integrity and faithfully predict cell-to-cell accessibility during DNA-guided multicellular assembly. Lastly, the glycocalyx-anchoring mechanism enabled enhanced cell-surface stability and cellular uptake of nanotiles compared to PLB anchoring. This research lays the foundation for future development of DNA nanodevices to access the cell surface.
The cell-surface glycocalyx serves as a physiological barrier regulating cellular accessibility to macromolecules and other cells. Conventional glycocalyx characterization has largely been morphological rather than functional. Here, we demonstrated direct glycocalyx anchoring of DNA origami nanotiles and performed a comprehensive comparison with traditional origami targeting to the phospholipid bilayer (PLB) using cholesterol. While DNA nanotiles effectively accessed single-stranded DNA initiators anchored on the glycocalyx, their accessibility to the underlying PLB was only permitted by extended nanotile-to-initiator spacing or by enzymatic glycocalyx degradation using trypsin or pathogenic neuraminidase. Thus, the DNA nanotiles, being expelled by the physiologic glycocalyx, provide an effective functional measure of the glycocalyx barrier integrity and faithfully predict cell-to-cell accessibility during DNA-guided multicellular assembly. Lastly, the glycocalyx-anchoring mechanism enabled enhanced cell-surface stability and cellular uptake of nanotiles compared to PLB anchoring. This research lays the foundation for future development of DNA nanodevices to access the cell surface.
Entities:
Keywords:
DNA origami; cholesterol; glycocalyx; metabolic labeling; nanotechnology
The
glycocalyx is a layer of plasma-membrane-associated biopolymers
composed of proteoglycans, glycosaminoglycans, other glycoproteins,
and glycolipids and can extend hundreds of nanometers from the external
surface of the phospholipid bilayer (PLB).[1−4] Through mechanisms, such as steric
hindrance and electrostatic repulsion, the glycocalyx serves as a
molecular barrier that effectively limits macromolecules, particles,
and other cells from directly accessing the PLB.[1,3,4] For example, the endothelial glycocalyx
is an essential determinant of vascular permeability by excluding
blood cells (such as erythrocytes and leukocytes) and plasma macromolecules
from accessing the underlying endothelium.[5−9] Similarly, the apical glycocalyx of the lung and
intestinal epithelium acts as a selective barrier interfacing with
the external environment and modulates epithelial interaction with
foreign particles and microbes.[10−12]The glycocalyx is a dynamic
structure undergoing constant remodeling
in response to environmental stimuli.[13,14] Aberrant degradation
of the endothelial glycocalyx leads to compromised vascular barrier
function and contributes to vascular pathogenesis, such as atherosclerosis,[15,16] stroke,[17,18] hypertension,[19,20] sepsis,[7,21] and ischemia reperfusion injury.[22,23] Moreover,
shedding of the epithelial glycocalyx is associated with respiratory
and intestinal infection, injury, and inflammation.[10,11,24,25] Thus, characterization
of the glycocalyx barrier integrity is of pivotal importance.The glycocalyx is composed of delicate polymer structures at the
nanometer scale. Accordingly, transmission electron microscopy (TEM)
has long served as the gold standard for glycocalyx characterization.[26−29] Alternative glycocalyx visualization uses fluorescent labeling or
staining of particular glycocalyx components, albeit at a lower resolution
compared to TEM.[30,31] However, most of these approaches
focus on evaluating the glycocalyx morphology rather than its function.
Methods for specific assessment of the glycocalyx barrier function
are limited and generally require sophisticated imaging techniques,
such as intravital microscopy.[1,7,32] Thus, there is a critical need for technologies to expedite direct
examination of the glycocalyx barrier in living samples with high
sensitivity and reproducibility.Here, we explored the possibility
of using DNA origami nanostructures
as a functional measure of cell-surface glycocalyx barrier integrity.
The DNA origami forms 2D and 3D nanostructures from the self-assembly
of approximately 200 short single-stranded DNA (ssDNA), referred to
as “staple strands”, based on a large ssDNA scaffold.
Formation of the DNA origami allows highly predictable and reproducible
assembly of biocompatible structures at the nanoscale and offers convenience
for the incorporation of probe labeling (fluorescence and non-fluorescence)
and sequence-selective targeting.[33−37] With the capacity to carry a range of functionalities,
DNA origami becomes a desirable candidate for assessing glycocalyx
structures with thicknesses up to a few hundred nanometers.[38]In this study, we assembled 2D DNA origami
rectangles or “nanotiles”[34] and examined ssDNA-initiator-mediated targeting
of origami nanotiles to the cell surface. We found that nanotiles
can only reach ssDNA initiators anchored on the glycocalyx but not
those inserted directly on the PLB. The exclusion of nanotiles from
the PLB by the physiologic glycocalyx was rescued either by using
a technique reported previously by extending the spacing between the
nanotile and PLB using a DNA duplex bridge[33] or by enzymatic degradation of glycocalyx proteins via trypsin or
neuraminidase, which is involved in type 2 diabetes,[39] atrial stiffening,[40,41] and viral infections.[42,43] Our results establish DNA nanotiles as a functional measure of the
glycocalyx barrier integrity.
Results and Discussion
Flattened
DNA origami nanotiles of 80 nm × 64 nm were prepared
using a single-step annealing protocol using the bacteriophage M13mp18
ssDNA scaffold (Figure a, Supplementary Figure 1). The top surface
of the nanotile was decorated with up to 28 single-stranded DNA (ssDNA-comp)
overhangs (each was 20 nucleotides (nt’s) in length), which
is complementary to the cell-surface-immobilized ssDNA initiators
for subsequent nanotile targeting to cells. The bottom surface was
decorated with 35 biotin tags for nanotile visualization using fluorescence-conjugated
streptavidin. Atomic force microscopy (AFM) imaging of both undecorated
and fully decorated DNA nanotiles demonstrated effective origami assembly
irrespective of the decoration (Figure b, Supplementary Figure 2). This was confirmed by gel electrophoresis (Figure c). Our gel electrophoresis studies further
confirmed that DNA nanotiles remained stable for 24 h when incubated
in PBS (with calcium and magnesium) or Endothelial Cell Growth Media
(EGM2) (Supplementary Figure 3).
Figure 1
Targeting DNA
nanotiles to glycocalyx-anchored ssDNA initiators.
(a) Diagram showing the design and decoration of the DNA nanotile
with ssDNA-comp overhangs and biotin tags. (b) AFM images of assembled
DNA nanotiles without decoration and with full decorations (28 ssDNA-comp
overhangs and 35 biotin tags). (c) DNA gel electrophoresis analysis
of 2-Log DNA ladder, M13 scaffold, undecorated nanotiles, and fully
decorated nanotiles. (d) Azide ligands were metabolically incorporated
into glycans within the glycocalyx by administering Ac4ManNAz. These
cell-surface azide ligands were conjugated with azide-reactive 5′DBCO-ssDNA
initiators, leading to covalent immobilization of ssDNA initiators
onto the glycocalyx, which can then recruit DNA nanotiles via hybridization
with the complementary ssDNA-comp overhangs on nanotiles. (e–g)
ssDNA initiators, immobilized on the glycocalyx, were detected through
its hybridization with the fluorescent, complementary 5′FAM-ssDNA-comp
oligos (e). FAM fluorescence intensity was visualized using microscopic
imaging (f) and quantified using a spectrometer (g). (h, i) DNA nanotiles
with 35 biotin tags and 1, 3, 6, 14, or 28 complementary ssDNA-comp
overhangs were targeted to glycocalyx-anchored ssDNA initiators. Cell-surface
nanotiles were visualized via biotin detection using a fluorophore-conjugated
streptavidin (red) (h), and the fluorescence intensity was quantified
using a spectrometer (i). Data represent means ± s.d. from three
independent replicates. **P ≤ 0.01, ***P ≤ 0.001.
Targeting DNA
nanotiles to glycocalyx-anchored ssDNA initiators.
(a) Diagram showing the design and decoration of the DNA nanotile
with ssDNA-comp overhangs and biotin tags. (b) AFM images of assembled
DNA nanotiles without decoration and with full decorations (28 ssDNA-comp
overhangs and 35 biotin tags). (c) DNA gel electrophoresis analysis
of 2-Log DNA ladder, M13 scaffold, undecorated nanotiles, and fully
decorated nanotiles. (d) Azide ligands were metabolically incorporated
into glycans within the glycocalyx by administering Ac4ManNAz. These
cell-surface azide ligands were conjugated with azide-reactive 5′DBCO-ssDNA
initiators, leading to covalent immobilization of ssDNA initiators
onto the glycocalyx, which can then recruit DNA nanotiles via hybridization
with the complementary ssDNA-comp overhangs on nanotiles. (e–g)
ssDNA initiators, immobilized on the glycocalyx, were detected through
its hybridization with the fluorescent, complementary 5′FAM-ssDNA-comp
oligos (e). FAM fluorescence intensity was visualized using microscopic
imaging (f) and quantified using a spectrometer (g). (h, i) DNA nanotiles
with 35 biotin tags and 1, 3, 6, 14, or 28 complementary ssDNA-comp
overhangs were targeted to glycocalyx-anchored ssDNA initiators. Cell-surface
nanotiles were visualized via biotin detection using a fluorophore-conjugated
streptavidin (red) (h), and the fluorescence intensity was quantified
using a spectrometer (i). Data represent means ± s.d. from three
independent replicates. **P ≤ 0.01, ***P ≤ 0.001.To anchor DNA nanotiles directly onto the cell-surface glycocalyx,
using human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs) as a model,
we investigated DNA nanotile targeting via the hybridization of glycocalyx-anchored
ssDNA initiators with nanotiles bearing complementary ssDNA overhangs.
To install the 20-nt ssDNA initiators onto the cell-surface glycocalyx,
we employed bioorthogonal glycocalyx labeling with the copper-free
click chemistry.[44−46] We first incorporated azide ligands covalently onto
the glycocalyx through metabolic glycan labeling using an azido monosaccharide, N-azidoacetylmannosamine-tetraacylated (Ac4ManNAz) (Figure d and Supplementary Figure 4).[46] In parallel, we labeled the 5′-end of ssDNA initiators with
dibenzocyclooctyne (DBCO) to generate 5′DBCO-ssDNA and quantified
the labeling efficiency to be over 90% using a click shift assay (Supplementary Figure 5).[47] This assay detects 5′DBCO-ssDNA via its conjugation with
a PEG-azide (10 kDa) and the corresponding increase in molecular weight.
Conjugation between azide ligands on the glycocalyx with 5′DBCO-ssDNA
led to covalent anchorage of ssDNA initiators onto the glycocalyx
(Figure d), which
was demonstrated by their hybridization with the complementary ssDNA-comp
oligos bearing a 5′FAM fluorescent tag (5′FAM-ssDNA-comp)
(Figure e–g).We then targeted DNA nanotiles to ssDNA initiators anchored to
the cell-surface glycocalyx (Figure d). Each DNA nanotile contains 35 biotin tags on its
bottom surface and different numbers (1, 3, 6, 14, and 28) of ssDNA-comp
overhangs that are evenly spaced across its top surface (Supplementary Figure 6 and Supplementary Figure 7). Biotin decoration of DNA nanotiles
offers excellent solubility and allows specific detection of cell-surface-immobilized
nanotiles through the staining of cell-impermeable streptavidin. We
investigated the quantitative relationship between the number of overhangs
per nanotile and its cell-surface immobilization efficiency reflected
by the fluorescence intensity of biotin staining using fluorophore-conjugated
streptavidin. Gradual increase in the number of ssDNA-comp overhangs
per nanotile led to an initial enhancement in cell-surface recruitment,
which plateaued when the number of overhangs increased beyond 6 per
nanotile (Figure h,i).
Therefore, DNA nanotiles decorated with 6 ssDNA-comp overhangs were
used throughout the rest of the study.Cholesterol modification,
due to its affinity to the PLB, is commonly
used for cell-surface targeting of DNA nanostructures.[33,48] To investigate how the anchoring mechanisms of ssDNA initiators
regulate cell-surface targeting of DNA nanotiles, we compared the
performance of ssDNA initiators anchored on the glycocalyx versus
those anchored on the PLB. We synthesized a 5′-cholesterol-conjugated
ssDNA initiator, referred to as 5′Chol-ssDNA, and verified
its PLB targeting using 5′FAM-ssDNA-comp (Figure a–c). We then examined
if PLB-anchored ssDNA initiators were capable of binding to DNA nanotiles
bearing complementary ssDNA-comp overhangs. We found that, although
ssDNA initiators on the PLB can effectively recruit free 5′FAM-ssDNA-comp,
they failed to recruit DNA nanotiles with ssDNA-comp overhangs (Figure a–c). This
suggests that ssDNA initiators on the glycocalyx (Figure h,i) but not those on the PLB
can effectively recruit DNA nanotiles to the cell surface. We speculate
that this was because the glycocalyx functioned as a nanoscale barrier
that through steric hindrance excluded nanotiles from reaching the
underneath PLB. To examine this possibility, we engineered DNA nanotiles
with extended nanotile-to-initiator spacing by inserting a DNA duplex
bridge between the nanotile and each ssDNA-comp overhang (Figure d). We examined DNA
duplex bridges with a length of 40 and 80 base pairs (bp’s)
and observed length-dependent rescue of nanotile binding to PLB-anchored
initiators (Figure e,f). This implies that DNA nanotiles but not DNA duplexes can be
effectively expelled by the cell-surface glycocalyx. Furthermore,
we assessed glycocalyx- and PLB-oriented nanotile targeting to two
additional cell types, the Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells and adenocarcinomic
human alveolar basal epithelial (A549) cells, and observed consistent
results compared to HUVECs (Supplementary Figure 8, Supplementary Figure 9), demonstrating
the wide applicability of our findings.
Figure 2
Targeting DNA nanotiles
to PLB-anchored ssDNA initiators. (a) 5′Chol-ssDNA
initiators were anchored onto the PLB via hydrophobic interaction
and used to recruit either 5′FAM-ssDNA-comp oligos or DNA nanotiles
bearing ssDNA-comp overhangs. (b, c) Detection of the recruited 5′FAM-ssDNA-comp
oligos and DNA nanotiles was performed via fluorescence imaging of
FAM and biotin staining (b) and fluorescence quantification using
a spectrometer (c). (d) Diagram of inserting DNA duplex bridges of
40 and 80 bp’s between the DNA nanotile and each ssDNA-comp
overhang. (e, f) Biotin-based imaging (e) and fluorescence quantification
(f) of DNA nanotile recruitment to PLB-anchored ssDNA initiators in
the presence or absence of the bridges. Data represent means ±
s.d. from three independent replicates. **P ≤
0.01, ***P ≤ 0.001.
Targeting DNA nanotiles
to PLB-anchored ssDNA initiators. (a) 5′Chol-ssDNA
initiators were anchored onto the PLB via hydrophobic interaction
and used to recruit either 5′FAM-ssDNA-comp oligos or DNA nanotiles
bearing ssDNA-comp overhangs. (b, c) Detection of the recruited 5′FAM-ssDNA-comp
oligos and DNA nanotiles was performed via fluorescence imaging of
FAM and biotin staining (b) and fluorescence quantification using
a spectrometer (c). (d) Diagram of inserting DNA duplex bridges of
40 and 80 bp’s between the DNA nanotile and each ssDNA-comp
overhang. (e, f) Biotin-based imaging (e) and fluorescence quantification
(f) of DNA nanotile recruitment to PLB-anchored ssDNA initiators in
the presence or absence of the bridges. Data represent means ±
s.d. from three independent replicates. **P ≤
0.01, ***P ≤ 0.001.To further verify whether it was the physiologic glycocalyx that
expelled DNA nanotiles from binding to PLB-anchored ssDNA initiators,
we explored enzymatic degradation of the glycocalyx proteins (Figure a). To do this, HUVECs
were treated with an augmented regimen of 2.5% trypsin to digest cell-surface
proteins, an essential constituent of the glycocalyx, and thereby
compromise the glycocalyx barrier integrity. As a control, cells were
treated with mild trypsin (0.05%) that is commonly used for cell dissociation.
Through fluorescence-based biotin staining, imaging, and quantification,
we observed trypsin-dose-dependent enhancement of nanotile recruitment
to PLB-anchored ssDNA initiators in the absence of extended nanotile-to-initiator
spacing (Figure b,c).
This confirms that the glycocalyx acted as a nanoscale cell-surface
barrier that excluded DNA nanotiles from reaching the underneath PLB.
Figure 3
Targeting
DNA nanotiles to PLB-anchored ssDNA initiators following
degradation of glycocalyx. (a) Diagram showing our hypothesis of permitted
access of DNA nanotile to the PLB following enzymatic digestion of
the glycocalyx via trypsin. HUVECs were pretreated with high (2.5%)
or low (0.05%) concentrations of trypsin before the sequential binding
of 5′Chol-ssDNA initiators and DNA nanotiles. (b, c) Evaluation
of nanotile binding to PLB-anchored initiators by fluorescent streptavidin
detection of biotin (red, b) and fluorescence quantification (c).
(d, e) HUVECs were pretreated with 1 U/mL neuraminidase for 1 h before
the sequential binding of 5′Chol-ssDNA initiators and DNA nanotiles.
Fluorescence detection (d) and quantification (e) of DNA nanotile
recruitment to PLB-anchored ssDNA initiators via fluorescent streptavidin
with and without neuraminidase treatment. Data represent means ±
s.d. from three independent replicates. *P ≤
0.05, **P ≤ 0.01.
Targeting
DNA nanotiles to PLB-anchored ssDNA initiators following
degradation of glycocalyx. (a) Diagram showing our hypothesis of permitted
access of DNA nanotile to the PLB following enzymatic digestion of
the glycocalyx via trypsin. HUVECs were pretreated with high (2.5%)
or low (0.05%) concentrations of trypsin before the sequential binding
of 5′Chol-ssDNA initiators and DNA nanotiles. (b, c) Evaluation
of nanotile binding to PLB-anchored initiators by fluorescent streptavidin
detection of biotin (red, b) and fluorescence quantification (c).
(d, e) HUVECs were pretreated with 1 U/mL neuraminidase for 1 h before
the sequential binding of 5′Chol-ssDNA initiators and DNA nanotiles.
Fluorescence detection (d) and quantification (e) of DNA nanotile
recruitment to PLB-anchored ssDNA initiators via fluorescent streptavidin
with and without neuraminidase treatment. Data represent means ±
s.d. from three independent replicates. *P ≤
0.05, **P ≤ 0.01.Neuraminidase is a glycocalyx-degrading enzyme that cleaves sialic
acid residues expressed on cell-surface glycoproteins and glycolipids.[42,49] Upregulation of neuraminidase plays a vital role in a variety of
pathological conditions, such as atrial stiffening, type 2 diabetes,
and viral infections.[42,50] Here we examined whether our
DNA-nanotile-based PLB accessibility strategy had sufficient sensitivity
to detect glycocalyx damage caused by neuraminidase treatment, which
is conventionally detected using transmission electron microscopy
(Supplementary Figure 10). We targeted
the nanotiles to PLB-anchored ssDNA initiators in HUVECs with and
without pretreatment of 1 U/mL neuraminidase (1 h).[51] Nanotiles without DNA duplex bridges were unable to access
PLB-anchored initiators in healthy HUVECs but were able to effectively
reach and get immobilized on the surface of HUVECs injured by neuraminidase
(Figure d,e). Our
results confirm that the physiologic glycocalyx acted as a nanoscale
cell-surface barrier that excluded DNA nanotiles from reaching the
underneath PLB and that the DNA nanotiles can successfully predict
the disease-related compromise of glycocalyx barrier integrity.From the cellular engineering perspective, it is of particular
interest to understand how cell-surface accessibility regulates the
adhesion and the assembly between two groups of cells with surface
decoration of mutually complementary ssDNA and ssDNA-comp oligos.[44,52,53] As described above, we observed
that nanotile recruitment to the cell surface is regulated by ssDNA-initiator-anchoring
mechanisms. Here, we investigated its correlation with cell-to-cell
accessibility in DNA-guided multicellular assembly.[44,52] We mixed at a 1:100 ratio of two groups of color-coded HUVECs, with
surface decoration of ssDNA (red cells) and complementary ssDNA-comp
(green cells) initiators, respectively, and examined the formation
of a red-cell-centered multicellular assembly as a readout of cell-to-cell
accessibility (Figure ). Consistent with the cell-surface accessibility to DNA nanotiles
(Figure h,i), glycocalyx-anchored
ssDNA and ssDNA-comp initiators promoted effective assembly of two-colored
cell clusters with desired organization (Figure c), while the PLB-anchored initiators could
not (Figure a). We
previously demonstrated that the poor PLB-to-nanotile accessibility
can be rescued by double-stranded-DNA (dsDNA)-mediated spacing (Figure d–f). To assess
whether such spacing modulates the assembly process, the green cells
were decorated with a new ssDNA(bridge) initiator, followed by hybridization
with the 80-bp dsDNA bridge bearing ssDNA-comp and ssDNA(bridge)-comp
(complementary to the ssDNA(bridge) initiator) on both ends, which
effectively extended the spacing between the PLB and the ssDNA-comp
initiator by 80 bp’s. In parallel, the ssDNA initiator of the
red cells remained directly anchored on the PLB without any further
spacing. Indeed, the dsDNA-bridge-mediated spacing in the green cells
enabled effective assembly of cells bearing PLB-anchored initiators
(Figure b,e). This
is again consistent with DNA-duplex-bridge-mediated control of nanotile-to-PLB
accessibility (Figure d–f). In parallel, the bridge-mediated spacing did not obviously
alter the assembly process mediated by glycocalyx-anchored initiators
(Figure d,e). These
results imply that the outcome of particular cell-surface initiator
configurations (anchoring mechanism and spacer length) for cell–cell
accessibility in multicellular assembly mirrors its outcome for nanotile-to-cell
accessibility. Thus, we envision that DNA nanotiles can be used to
assess and optimize the overall cell-surface accessibility prior to
performing multicellular assembly in complex tissue and cell engineering
applications.
Figure 4
Cell-to-cell accessibility assessed by multicellular assembly
driven
by cell-surface ssDNA and ssDNA-comp. Two groups of color-coded HUVECs
with surface decoration of mutually complementary ssDNA and ssDNA-comp
were mixed at a ratio of 1:100 (green:red) for DNA-guided multicellular
assembly. (a, b) Assembly between cell groups with PLB-anchored ssDNA
and ssDNA-comp initiators in the absence (a) and presence (b) of the
DNA duplex bridge on the green cells. (c, d) Assembly between cell
groups with glycocalyx-anchored ssDNA and ssDNA-comp initiators in
the absence (c) and presence (d) of the DNA duplex bridge on the green
cells. (e) Quantification of the number of peripheral cells per central
cell in the resulting assemblies. Data represent means ± s.d.
from three independent replicates. ***P ≤
0.001.
Cell-to-cell accessibility assessed by multicellular assembly
driven
by cell-surface ssDNA and ssDNA-comp. Two groups of color-coded HUVECs
with surface decoration of mutually complementary ssDNA and ssDNA-comp
were mixed at a ratio of 1:100 (green:red) for DNA-guided multicellular
assembly. (a, b) Assembly between cell groups with PLB-anchored ssDNA
and ssDNA-comp initiators in the absence (a) and presence (b) of the
DNA duplex bridge on the green cells. (c, d) Assembly between cell
groups with glycocalyx-anchored ssDNA and ssDNA-comp initiators in
the absence (c) and presence (d) of the DNA duplex bridge on the green
cells. (e) Quantification of the number of peripheral cells per central
cell in the resulting assemblies. Data represent means ± s.d.
from three independent replicates. ***P ≤
0.001.The desirable features of DNA
origami, such as biocompatibility
and 3D programmability, make DNA origami an emerging platform for
intracellular drug delivery.[54−56] Following demonstrating glycocalyx-
and PLB-oriented mechanisms for targeting DNA origami nanotiles to
the cell surface, next we investigated and compared the stability
of the resulting cell-surface-immobilized nanotiles. Cells bearing
ssDNA initiators on their surface were incubated with DNA nanotiles
for 30 min, 1 h, or 2 h at 37 °C, which generated more robust
labeling compared to incubation at 4 °C (Supplementary Figures 11 and 12). Following each incubation
period, cells were fixed, and the nanotiles remaining on the cell
surface and those that had been uptaken by cells were visualized sequentially
using a two-step, dual-color staining assay using fluorescence-labeled,
cell-impermeable streptavidin. In the first step, the far-red-colored
streptavidin (Alexa 647) was introduced to label the nanotiles bound
to the external cell surface. In the second step, cells were permeabilized
with Triton-X100, and the green-colored streptavidin (Alexa 488) was
administered to label intracellular nanotiles that have been uptaken
and therefore escaped with the first round of streptavidin (Alexa
647) binding (Figure a,b).
Figure 5
Cellular uptake and stability of cell-surface-anchored DNA nanotiles.
(a) Strategy for the two-step, dual-color streptavidin staining of
cell-surface and uptaken nanotiles. (b) Dual-color detection of cell-surface
(red) and uptaken (green) nanotiles following 30 min, 1 h, or 2 h
of incubation. Nanotiles were targeted to the cell surface via glycocalyx-
or PLB-anchored initiators. (c) Original and postprocessed fluorescence
images of the uptaken nanotiles. (d, e) Fluorescence quantification
of the uptaken nanotiles (d) and those remaining on the cell surface
(e) over time. Cells incubated with nanotiles in the absence of cell-surface
initiators served as the control. Data represent means ± s.d.
from three independent replicates. *P ≤ 0.05,
**P ≤ 0.01, ***P ≤
0.001.
Cellular uptake and stability of cell-surface-anchored DNA nanotiles.
(a) Strategy for the two-step, dual-color streptavidin staining of
cell-surface and uptaken nanotiles. (b) Dual-color detection of cell-surface
(red) and uptaken (green) nanotiles following 30 min, 1 h, or 2 h
of incubation. Nanotiles were targeted to the cell surface via glycocalyx-
or PLB-anchored initiators. (c) Original and postprocessed fluorescence
images of the uptaken nanotiles. (d, e) Fluorescence quantification
of the uptaken nanotiles (d) and those remaining on the cell surface
(e) over time. Cells incubated with nanotiles in the absence of cell-surface
initiators served as the control. Data represent means ± s.d.
from three independent replicates. *P ≤ 0.05,
**P ≤ 0.01, ***P ≤
0.001.Next, the uptaken DNA nanotiles
were quantified by measuring the
signal intensity of the intracellular labeling by streptavidin (Alexa
488). An image processing pipeline was developed to facilitate background
subtraction and signal identification (Figure c). Comparing the two different nanotile-anchoring
mechanisms, glycocalyx anchoring led to enhanced cellular uptake at
30 min, which further increased at 1 h and reached a plateau afterward
(Figure b,d). In contrast,
PLB anchoring resulted in less cellular uptake at 30 min, which did
not further increase over time (Figure b,d). To investigate the potential mechanism underlying
this difference, we quantified the stability of nanotiles located
at the external cell surface and observed superior stability of those
anchored on the glycocalyx over the 2 h period of investigation (Figure b,e). In contrast,
the abundance of nanotiles anchored directly on the PLB via cholesterol
decreased over time (Figure b,e). This is likely because the hydrophobic interaction between
the PLB and 5′Chol-ssDNA initiator is non-covalent and reversible,
while the glycocalyx-targeted initiator anchoring is covalent in nature.DNA origami has emerged as a powerful nanotechnology platform for
sensing and modulating cellular activities.[33,37,38,53,57−60] It is therefore of particular interest to target
DNA origami nanostructures directly to the cell surface. Cholesterol
labeling has been commonly used for achieving such a purpose,[33,61] which directs origami nanostructures to the phospholipid bilayer
(PLB). Although cell-surface glycoconjugates have been widely reported
and used for oligonucleotide attachment,[44,45] it has not been explored for DNA origami targeting. Here we explored
this possibility and compared it with the commonly utilized cholesterol-mediated
cell targeting, finding that DNA nanostructures anchored directly
on the glycocalyx (via the glycoconjugates) exhibited several unique
features in terms of accessibility to the cell surface, sensitivity
to steric hindrance from the glycocalyx itself, cell-surface stability,
and cellular uptake activity. We expect these findings to expand the
toolbox for cellular targeting of DNA nanostructures, in particular
regarding improving cell-surface and intracellular delivery.Barrier formation at the tissue level is an essential mechanism
that prevents uncontrolled passage of molecules, particles, cells,
and microbes across tissue boundaries.[1,3,4] This is observed in the endothelium lining the vasculature
and epithelium lining the lung and intestinal lumen.[5−12] Barrier-forming cells not only establish paracellular junctions,
such as tight junctions and adherent junctions, but also use selective
deposition of glycocalyx at their luminal surface as a critical apparatus
controlling barrier permeability.[1,3,4] Aberrant shedding of the luminal glycocalyx is involved
in a broad range of pathological conditions, such as atherosclerosis,
stroke, hypertension, infection, and inflammation.[10,11,15−20,24,25] Despite the critical importance of the glycocalyx in maintaining
barrier homeostasis, most current approaches for glycocalyx analysis
characterize its morphology rather than its barrier function.[26−31] Here we established DNA origami nanotiles as an effective and sensitive
measure of the minimal thickness of the glycocalyx barrier. The PLB
accessibility of nanotiles is quantitatively regulated by the glycocalyx
integrity and by the length of nanotile-to-PLB spacing. The compromised
glycocalyx barrier integrity linked to neuraminidase-related diseases
was well captured by the PLB accessibility assay of nanotiles in our
work. Given the desirable features, such as nanoscale resolution,
manufacturing reproducibility, and solubility, the DNA origami is
an ideal candidate for future development of probes to monitor the
glycocalyx barrier integrity both in vitro and in vivo.Besides its contribution to tissue boundary
formation, the glycocalyx
coating also regulates cell-to-cell adhesion. Cell-surface decoration
of mutually complementary ssDNA oligos has been widely used to guide
programmed assembly of dissociated cells via DNA hybridization. Both
glycocalyx- and PLB-anchored ssDNA oligos have been used to guide
multicellular assembly with desired cellular composition and spatial
arrangement.[44,52] However, there has been a lack
of experimentally tractable systems to allow mechanistic interpretation
of the varied assembly efficiency. Here we showed that the binding
of DNA nanotiles to cell-surface ssDNA initiators faithfully predicted
the ability of these ssDNA initiators to mediate cell-to-cell assembly,
and therefore offered a quantitative means to optimize ssDNA-anchoring
mechanisms and spacing to fine-tune multicellular assembly. We also
expect our finding to be useful for developing cell therapy applications
where cell-to-tissue accessibility is of critical importance.With the wide range of cargo versatility and programmability, DNA
origami is being actively pursued for intracellular drug delivery.[62−64] Cholesterol-based cell-surface targeting has recently been used
for promoting cellular uptake of DNA nanostructures.[48,65] Here we showed that, compared to the cholesterol-directed mechanism,
glycocalyx-based DNA nanotile targeting exhibited not only enhanced
cell-surface stability but also augmented cellular uptake efficiency.
Our glycocalyx-based DNA origami targeting utilizes metabolic azide
labeling of glycoproteins within the glycocalyx followed by installation
of ssDNA initiators via the click chemistry conjugation. The feasibility
of such metabolic azide labeling and bioorthogonal conjugation has
been well documented in cell, tissue, and live organism applications.[46,47,66] Therefore, our finding offers
an alternative option for cellular targeting of the DNA origami with
potential applicability both in vitro and in vivo.In conclusion, our results present compelling
evidence that establishes
DNA origami nanotiles as a nanoscale functional measure of the glycocalyx
barrier integrity. Our study enables future development of DNA-origami-based
nanosensors to monitor glycocalyx integrity during dynamic pathophysiological
processes. We also offer an expanded toolbox for cell-surface targeting
using DNA origami to modulate intercellular and intracellular activities.
Authors: Ravi A Chandra; Erik S Douglas; Richard A Mathies; Carolyn R Bertozzi; Matthew B Francis Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2006-01-30 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Ebbe S Andersen; Mingdong Dong; Morten M Nielsen; Kasper Jahn; Ramesh Subramani; Wael Mamdouh; Monika M Golas; Bjoern Sander; Holger Stark; Cristiano L P Oliveira; Jan Skov Pedersen; Victoria Birkedal; Flemming Besenbacher; Kurt V Gothelf; Jørgen Kjems Journal: Nature Date: 2009-05-07 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Markus Rehm; Dirk Bruegger; Frank Christ; Peter Conzen; Manfred Thiel; Matthias Jacob; Daniel Chappell; Mechthild Stoeckelhuber; Ulrich Welsch; Bruno Reichart; Klaus Peter; Bernhard F Becker Journal: Circulation Date: 2007-10-08 Impact factor: 29.690