Julia Ast1,2, Alissa N Novak3, Tom Podewin4, Nicholas H F Fine1,2, Ben Jones5, Alejandra Tomas6, Ramona Birke7, Kilian Roßmann7, Bettina Mathes4, Jenny Eichhorst8, Martin Lehmann8, Amelia K Linnemann3, David J Hodson1,2,9, Johannes Broichhagen4,7. 1. Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research (IMSR), and Centre of Membrane Proteins and Receptors (COMPARE), University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, U.K. 2. Centre for Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Birmingham Health Partners, Birmingham B15 2TT, U.K. 3. Department of Pediatrics, and Indiana Center for Diabetes and Metabolic Diseases, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana 46202, United States. 4. Department of Chemical Biology, Max Planck Institute for Medical Research, Heidelberg 69120, Germany. 5. Section of Endocrinology and Investigative Medicine, Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism, Imperial College London, London W12 0NN, U.K. 6. Section of Cell Biology and Functional Genomics, Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism, Imperial College London, London W12 0NN, U.K. 7. Leibniz-Forschungsinstitut für Molekulare Pharmakologie, Berlin 13125, Germany. 8. Department of Pharmacology and Cell Biology, Leibniz-Forschungsinstitut für Molekulare Pharmakologie, Berlin 13125, Germany. 9. Oxford Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism (OCDEM), NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Churchill Hospital, Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LE, U.K.
Abstract
The glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP1R) is expressed in peripheral tissues and the brain, where it exerts pleiotropic actions on metabolic and inflammatory processes. Detection and visualization of GLP1R remains challenging, partly due to a lack of validated reagents. Previously, we generated LUXendins, antagonistic red and far-red fluorescent probes for specific labeling of GLP1R in live and fixed cells/tissues. We now extend this concept to the green and near-infrared color ranges by synthesizing and testing LUXendin492, LUXendin551, LUXendin615, and LUXendin762. All four probes brightly and specifically label GLP1R in cells and pancreatic islets. Further, LUXendin551 acts as a chemical beta cell reporter in preclinical rodent models, while LUXendin762 allows noninvasive imaging, highlighting differentially accessible GLP1R populations. We thus expand the color palette of LUXendins to seven different spectra, opening up a range of experiments using wide-field microscopy available in most labs through super-resolution imaging and whole animal imaging. With this, we expect that LUXendins will continue to generate novel and specific insights into GLP1R biology.
The glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP1R) is expressed in peripheral tissues and the brain, where it exerts pleiotropic actions on metabolic and inflammatory processes. Detection and visualization of GLP1R remains challenging, partly due to a lack of validated reagents. Previously, we generated LUXendins, antagonistic red and far-red fluorescent probes for specific labeling of GLP1R in live and fixed cells/tissues. We now extend this concept to the green and near-infrared color ranges by synthesizing and testing LUXendin492, LUXendin551, LUXendin615, and LUXendin762. All four probes brightly and specifically label GLP1R in cells and pancreatic islets. Further, LUXendin551 acts as a chemical beta cell reporter in preclinical rodent models, while LUXendin762 allows noninvasive imaging, highlighting differentially accessible GLP1R populations. We thus expand the color palette of LUXendins to seven different spectra, opening up a range of experiments using wide-field microscopy available in most labs through super-resolution imaging and whole animal imaging. With this, we expect that LUXendins will continue to generate novel and specific insights into GLP1R biology.
The glucagon-like peptide-1
receptor (GLP1R) is a class B G protein-coupled
receptor involved in the regulation of glucose homeostasis, food intake,
and inflammation.[1,2] As such, GLP1R agonist (GLP1RA)
therapy has become a mainstay of type-2 diabetes treatment during
the past decade, with a number of drugs on the market based upon stabilized
analogues of glucagon-like peptide-1.[3] Most
recently, phase III trials of the third-generation semaglutide have
shown a ∼15% reduction in body weight when combined with lifestyle
interventions,[4] leading to the approval
of GLP1RAs as the first nonsurgical treatment for complex obesity.
Despite this, information concerning the localization of GLP1R is
lacking, primarily due to the paucity of reliable and specific reagents
for its detection and visualization.[5] Without
this knowledge, it is difficult to elucidate the exact cellular mechanisms
underlying GLP1R actions, many of which could be key to developing
even more specific or effective treatments for metabolic/inflammatory
disease states, for instance, by tissue-targeted delivery.[6] For example, GLP1RAs have been shown to reduce
the progression from nonalcoholic fatty liver disease/nonalcoholic
steatohepatitis to fulminant fibrosis,[7,8] yet where and
how the GLP1R acts is currently uncertain. Along similar lines, GLP1RAs
exert inhibitory (and beneficial) effects on glucagon secretion, yet
pancreatic GLP1R distribution and signaling remain debated.[5] Lastly, the neural circuits that GLP1RAs are
able to access to exert effects on food intake remain to be fully
delineated.[9−11]Reagents to detect GLP1R in tissues include
antibodies, reporter
mice, and fluorescent ligands.[5] Historically,
studies with antibodies have been confounded by the use of nonspecific
antisera, which detect non-GLP1R targets.[12,13] Four specific antibodies now exist and have been extensively validated,
including in the GLP1R knockout tissue, or cells heterologously expressing
human GLP1R.[14] However, the available antibodies
do not perform well for immunofluorescence staining in the brain and
cannot be used for live visualization of the GLP1R using microscopy.
Reporter mice, where cells that express(ed) GLP1R are selectively
labeled with high fidelity, have been used to address this limitation,
demonstrating excellent concurrence with other approaches.[15,16] However, reporter alleles neither visualize the receptor itself
nor differentiate cells that once expressed GLP1R, but no longer do
so (the cell will be indelibly marked). Fluorescent agonists bind
the GLP1R orthosteric site in live tissues and can also be fixed to
allow further immunohistochemical analysis.[10,17,18] However, this approach is confounded by
activation of GLP1R, and as such the unstimulated fraction cannot
be studied in live cells.Recently, we have developed fluorescent
antagonists, which are
capable of detecting GLP1R in its unstimulated/antagonized state in
the membrane.[19] Advantageously, these probes,
termed LUXendins, are equipotent to native antagonists,
work well in the periphery and brain, display excellent brightness,
and can be formalin-fixed.[19] To date, LUXendins have been freely and widely distributed to dozens
of other labs for academic use,[20−22] opening up new GLP1R biology.
The LUXendins were necessarily furnished with red and
far-red fluorophores, not only allowing conventional microscopy but
also for the aims of our study, total internal reflection (TIRF) microscopy
and stimulated emission depletion (STED) nanoscopy.[19] Aiming for more experimental modalities and taking on board
comments from end users, we now expand the color palette of the LUXendins, further increasing their utility for wide-field,
confocal, intravital, and near-infrared microscopy, allowing imaging
from the single cell to the whole animal.
Results
Design and
Synthesis of LUXendin492, LUXendin551, LUXendin615, and LUXendin762
Exendin4(9–39)
was employed as a scaffold for modification
with fluorophores. Using solid-phase peptide synthesis (SPSS), exendin4(9–39)-S39C
(S39C-Ex4) was generated, bearing a C-terminal serine to cysteine
substitution for functionalization via the introduced
thiol handle. CF488A-, Cy3-, CPY-, and Cy7-conjugated versions were
produced using cysteine–maleimide reactions and termed LUXendin492, LUXendin551, LUXendin615, and LUXendin762, respectively (Figure A), according to their maximal absorption
values. Spectral properties were determined using UV/vis and fluorescence
spectroscopy (Figure B,C) (Table ) and
were in line with known properties of the fluorophores used, for which
extinction coefficients and quantum yields are reported. Full compound
characterization and purity assessment are provided in the Supporting
Information.
Figure 1
Sequence, structure, photophysical properties, and pharmacology
of LUXendin492, LUXendin551, LUXendin615, and LUXendin762. (A) LUXendins are based
on the antagonist Exendin4(9–39) with a S39C mutation to install
fluorophores via late-stage thiol–maleimide
chemistry. The model shows GLP1R in complex with a peptide ligand
[pdb: 5VAI,
cartoon obtained by the in-built building capability of PyMOL (Palo
Alto, CA, USA)]. CF488A, Cy3, CPY, and Cy7 were installed as fluorescent
labels to give LUXendin492, LUXendin551, LUXendin615, and LUXendin762, respectively. (B)
UV/vis spectra of novel LUXendins. (C) Fluorescence excitation
and emission spectra of LUXendins. (D) cAMP response
in GLP1R-transfected HEK293 cells for GLP-1 (agonist, black) and Ex(9–39)
(antagonist) in the presence of 10 nM GLP-1 (gray) (n = 6 independent repeats). (E) Sames as (D), but in response to LUXendins (colored), showing the antagonistic nature of the
probes.
Table 1
Spectral Properties
of GLP1R Labeling
Probesa
dye
λEx/nm
λEm/nm
εb/M–1 cm–1
Φ
LUXendin492
CF488A
492
517
70,000d
N/A
LUXendin551
Cy3
551
567
150,000e
0.31
LUXendin555c
TMR
555
579
84,000
0.31
LUXendin615
CPY
615
640
100,000[23]
0.59
LUXendin645c
Cy5
645
664
250,000
0.22
LUXendin651c
SiR
651
669
100,000
0.43
LUXendin762
Cy7
762
784
199,000e
0.30
Maximal
excitation and emission
wavelengths, extinction coefficients, and quantum yields of all fluorophores
used for making the LUXendin probes.
Sequence, structure, photophysical properties, and pharmacology
of LUXendin492, LUXendin551, LUXendin615, and LUXendin762. (A) LUXendins are based
on the antagonist Exendin4(9–39) with a S39C mutation to install
fluorophores via late-stage thiol–maleimide
chemistry. The model shows GLP1R in complex with a peptide ligand
[pdb: 5VAI,
cartoon obtained by the in-built building capability of PyMOL (Palo
Alto, CA, USA)]. CF488A, Cy3, CPY, and Cy7 were installed as fluorescent
labels to give LUXendin492, LUXendin551, LUXendin615, and LUXendin762, respectively. (B)
UV/vis spectra of novel LUXendins. (C) Fluorescence excitation
and emission spectra of LUXendins. (D) cAMP response
in GLP1R-transfected HEK293 cells for GLP-1 (agonist, black) and Ex(9–39)
(antagonist) in the presence of 10 nM GLP-1 (gray) (n = 6 independent repeats). (E) Sames as (D), but in response to LUXendins (colored), showing the antagonistic nature of the
probes.Maximal
excitation and emission
wavelengths, extinction coefficients, and quantum yields of all fluorophores
used for making the LUXendin probes.For maleimide-conjugated fluorophores.Previous study.https://biotium.com/technology/cf-dyes/cf488a-dye/.https://de.lumiprobe.com.
LUXendin492, LUXendin551, LUXendin615, and LUXendin762 Are Potent
GLP1R Antagonists
We first assessed the antagonist activity
of the novel LUXendins using cAMP assays in SNAP-GLP1R:HEK293
cells. As expected, native
GLP1(7–36)NH2 increased intracellular cAMP levels
with a pEC50 = 8.3 ± 0.2 (Figure D). Application of increasing doses of the
benchmark antagonist Exendin4(9–39) inhibited GLP1-stimulated
cAMP levels with a pIC50 = 7.0 ± 0.2 (Figure D). Confirming that the installed
fluorophores did not alter potency of the Exendin4(9–39)-S39C
backbone, LUXendin492 (pIC50 = 7.2 ±
0.2), LUXendin551 (pIC50 = 7.2 ± 0.1), LUXendin615 (pIC50 = 7.2 ± 0.1), and LUXendin762 (pIC50 = 7.0 ± 0.2) all inhibited
GLP1-stimulated (10 nM) cAMP levels in a manner equipotent to Exendin4(9–39)
(Figure E). The pharmacology
of Exendin4(9–39)-S39C has previously been determined.[19] Thus, the novel LUXendins show
indistinguishable antagonistic properties from Exendin4(9–39)
in terms of cAMP signaling. With this in mind, we set out to study
novel LUXendin labeling in cells and tissues, as well
as the whole organism.
LUXendin492, LUXendin551, and LUXendin615 Specifically Label GLP1R
To establish
the labeling efficacy and specificity of the novel LUXendins, SNAP-GLP1R:CHO-K1 cells were incubated with each probe, before
washing and orthogonal SNAP labeling with cell impermeable SBG-TMR
or SBG-SiR.[24] High-resolution confocal
images showed predominantly membrane-localized LUXendin staining in SNAP-GLP1R:CHO-K1 cells, which overlapped with labeling
of the SNAP-tag located on the GLP1R N-terminus (Figure A). Labeling efficiency was
close to 100% for all probes investigated (Figure B). No signal was detected in mock (nontransfected)
CHO-K1 cell controls (Supporting Information, Figure S1). LUXendins were also able to label
stably transfected SNAP-GLP1R:INS1 832/3 rat beta cells (Figure C), as well as native
INS1 832/3, which endogenously express GLP1R (Figure D). Demonstrating high specificity, the signal
was absent in INS1 832/3 GL1PR–/– cells,
CRISPR deleted for the GL1PR (Figure C). Of note, LUXendin492 and LUXendin615 staining was less “clean” than LUXendin551, with some fluorescent signals present in the cytoplasm. We have
previously reported a similar staining distribution for LUXendin555 (TMR) versusLUXendin645 (Cy5),[19] demonstrating a general preference toward cyanine-based
dyes over their xanthene-based counterparts for cell labeling. To
gain further insight into this observation, we applied LUXendin492 and LUXendin615 to SNAP-GLP1R:CHO-K1 cells, in parallel
with cell-permeable SNAP labels[24] (Supporting
Information, Figure S2). A similar experiment
was performed but using cell impermeable SNAP labels,[25] before chasing with LUXendin492 and LUXendin615 (Supporting Information, Figure S3). In both cases, no overlap with SNAP label was noticed,
suggesting that intracellular LUXendin492 and LUXendin615 staining patterns are unlikely to stem from bound GLP1R. Nonetheless,
all the LUXendins tested clearly label membrane GLP1R.
Figure 2
(A) Labeling
of live cells with LUXendin492, LUXendin551, and LUXendin615. SNAP-GLP1R:CHO-K1
cells were incubated with LUXendin492 (LUX492), LUXendin551 (LUX551), and LUXendin615 (LUX615)
before orthogonal SNAP-labeling with either cell-impermeable SBG-TMR
or SBG-SiR and confocal imaging (nuclei were stained using Hoechst33342)
(scale bar = 10 μm) (n = three images from
experiments performed in duplicate). (B) Labeling efficiency of LUXendin492, LUXendin551, and LUXendin615 in SNAP-GLP1R:CHO-K1 cells, quantified as the proportion of SNAP+/LUX+ cells (versus total SNAP-labeled cells) (n = 6 wells). (C) LUXendin492, LUXendin551, and LUXendin615 label SNAP-GLP1R:INS1 832/3 but not
INS1 832/3 GLP1R–/– cells. (D) Additionally,
endogenous GLP1R can be visualized with LUXendin551 in
INS1 832/3 cells, which express the receptor at lower levels than
in islets (scale bars = 10 μm).
We next validated LUXendins for
use in wide-field microscopy, which is widely available in most
labs, serves to illustrate the robustness of labeling, and has the
added advantage of allowing detection of near-infrared probes using
cost efficient and fast switchable LED excitation and sensitive sCMOS
detectors. As for confocal imaging, a similar pattern of LUXendin492, LUXendin551, and LUXendin615 staining
was seen, with the cyanine-based dye (LUX551) performing superiorly
(Supporting Information, Figure S4).(A) Labeling
of live cells with LUXendin492, LUXendin551, and LUXendin615. SNAP-GLP1R:CHO-K1
cells were incubated with LUXendin492 (LUX492), LUXendin551 (LUX551), and LUXendin615 (LUX615)
before orthogonal SNAP-labeling with either cell-impermeable SBG-TMR
or SBG-SiR and confocal imaging (nuclei were stained using Hoechst33342)
(scale bar = 10 μm) (n = three images from
experiments performed in duplicate). (B) Labeling efficiency of LUXendin492, LUXendin551, and LUXendin615 in SNAP-GLP1R:CHO-K1 cells, quantified as the proportion of SNAP+/LUX+ cells (versus total SNAP-labeled cells) (n = 6 wells). (C) LUXendin492, LUXendin551, and LUXendin615 label SNAP-GLP1R:INS1 832/3 but not
INS1 832/3 GLP1R–/– cells. (D) Additionally,
endogenous GLP1R can be visualized with LUXendin551 in
INS1 832/3 cells, which express the receptor at lower levels than
in islets (scale bars = 10 μm).
LUXendin492, LUXendin551, and LUXendin615 Specifically Label Endogenous GLP1R
One
of the major advantages of LUXendins is that they can
be used to visualize GLP1R in both live and fixed complex tissues.
Pancreatic islets of Langerhans served as the testbed for the novel LUXendins because they express GLP1R, which is predominantly
localized to the beta cell compartment.[5,19] Following
1 h of incubation with LUXendin492, LUXendin551, and LUXendin615, intense labeling was observed throughout
the islet, with large gaps apparent (presumably representing the GLP1R-negative
alpha cell compartment, which comprises ∼20% of the rodent
islet, as reported[19]) (Figure A). In all cases, labeling
with the novel LUXendins could still be observed following
formalin-fixation (Figure B), further expanding the utility of the novel LUXendins for protein identification together with immunohistochemistry. Confirming
specificity, LUXendin492, LUXendin551, and LUXendin615 signals co-localized with specific GLP1R monoclonal
antibody staining (Novo Nordisk 7F38, fully validated in GLP1R–/– tissue[19]) (Figure B).
Figure 3
Labeling of live and
fixed islets of Langerhans with LUXendin492, LUXendin551, and LUXendin615. (A) Incubation
of live islets with LUXendin492 (LUX492), LUXendin551 (LUX551), or LUXendin615 (LUX615) leads to bright staining
confined to the cell membrane (scale bar = 53 μm) (n = 11–13 islets from 4 mice). (B) LUXendin492, LUXendin551, and LUXendin615 signals
can still be detected following formalin fixation and are co-localized
with orthogonal emission from a specific monoclonal antibody against
GLP1R (mAb) (scale bar = 85 μm) (n = 9–10
islets from 4 mice).
Labeling of live and
fixed islets of Langerhans with LUXendin492, LUXendin551, and LUXendin615. (A) Incubation
of live islets with LUXendin492 (LUX492), LUXendin551 (LUX551), or LUXendin615 (LUX615) leads to bright staining
confined to the cell membrane (scale bar = 53 μm) (n = 11–13 islets from 4 mice). (B) LUXendin492, LUXendin551, and LUXendin615 signals
can still be detected following formalin fixation and are co-localized
with orthogonal emission from a specific monoclonal antibody against
GLP1R (mAb) (scale bar = 85 μm) (n = 9–10
islets from 4 mice).
LUXendin551 Allows In Vivo Fluorescent Labeling
of Islets in NOD Mice
The NOD mouse is a type-1 diabetes
model that develops insulitis at 4–8 weeks of age, with frank
diabetes occurring from 30 weeks of age.[26] However, identifying beta cells during disease trajectory is challenging
because the polygenic NOD genetic background cannot be easily recombined
with common inbred beta cell reporter strains (e.g., Ins1Cre; R26YFP).
We and others have previously shown that GLP1R expression is beta
cell specific[16,19] and we thus hypothesized that LUXendins might open up the possibility to identify beta cells
in NOD (and other polygenic) mice.To investigate this, the
pancreas was exposed in 8-week-old anesthetized NOD mice through a
small abdominal incision before being subjected to two-photon microscopy
(Figure A). Baseline
images were acquired following retro-orbital injection of Hoechst33342
and albumin-AF647 to label the nuclei and vasculature, respectively.
Prior to LUXendin551 injection there was no detectable
signal (Figure B).
Rapid labeling occurred following the administration of LUXendin551 and was detected for at least 30 min post-injection (Figure B). These studies also demonstrated
that LUXendin551 is highly specific to islets and provides
the ability to distinguish islets and beta cells from exocrine tissue
(Figure C).
Figure 4
Labeling of
GLP1R in NOD mouse islets in vivo.
(A) Two-photon intravital imaging schematic for visualization of the
exposed intact pancreas in an 8-week-old NOD mouse. (B) Representative
image collected at baseline and 5 min post-injection, showing islet
vasculature and accumulation of LUXendin551 at cell membranes
(scale bar = 50 μm). (C) Mosaic image of externalized pancreas
(scale bar = 100 μm) and the enlarged islet within this region
(scale bar = 50 μm).
Labeling of
GLP1R in NOD mouse islets in vivo.
(A) Two-photon intravital imaging schematic for visualization of the
exposed intact pancreas in an 8-week-old NOD mouse. (B) Representative
image collected at baseline and 5 min post-injection, showing islet
vasculature and accumulation of LUXendin551 at cell membranes
(scale bar = 50 μm). (C) Mosaic image of externalized pancreas
(scale bar = 100 μm) and the enlarged islet within this region
(scale bar = 50 μm).
LUXendin762 Allows Noninvasive Fluorescence Detection
of GLP1R In Vivo
Due to its near-infrared excitation, we
surmised that a Cy7-linked GLP1R antagonist, LUXendin762, might allow intravital labeling of GLP1R, using the widely available
and noninvasive IVIS in vivo imaging systems. We
first tested LUXendin762in cellulo in
SNAP-GLP1R:CHO-K1 cells and in keeping with its pharmacology were
able to detect strong membrane labeling, with little evidence of intracellular
accumulation, again pointing to the high performance of cyanine-based
dyes (Figure A). Quantifying
staining against SNAP-positive cells labeled with SBG-SiR, we found
maximal efficiency (Figure B), that is, all cells were positive for both stains (also
see Supporting Information, Figure S5). LUXendin762 was next used to label primary islets, again showing
cell membrane localization (Supporting Information, Figure S6A), shown to be GLP1R-positive using validated monoclonal
antibodies (Supporting Information, Figure S6B). No spectral overlap could be detected between Cy5 (LUXendin645) and Cy7 (LUXendin762) channels (Supporting Information, Figure S6A,B). Freeing the far-red channel allowed
us to perform multicolor experiments with commercially available far-red
SiR-tubulin (Figure C) and SPY650-DNA probes (Figure D) that mark microtubule and DNA structures, respectively,
providing further possibilities for cellular imaging.
Figure 5
Evaluation of LUXendin762 distribution in
vivo. (A) LUXendin762 (LUX762, 200 nM) labels
the membrane of SNAP-GLP1R:CHO-K1 cells (nuclei were stained using
Hoechst33342) (scale bar = 40 μm) (n = 3 independent
experiments). (B) Labeling efficiency of LUXendin762 in
SNAP-GLP1R:CHO-K1 cells (n = 5 wells). (C) LUXendin762 is compatible with far-red SiR-tubulin that labels
microtubules of SNAP-GLP1R:CHO-K1 cells (nuclei were stained using
Hoechst33342; please note that not all cells were stained by SiR-tubulin)
(scale bar = 10 μm). (D) LUXendin762 is compatible
with far-red SPY650-DNA that labels nuclei of SNAP-GLP1R:CHO-K1 cells
(scale bar = 10 μm). (E) In vivo images of
mice intraperitoneally or subcutaneously injected with saline or LUXendin762 at the baseline and 30 min and 1 h post-injection.
Data plotted as the fold change of total radiant efficiency signals
of the whole body measured at 30 min and 1 h post-injection. (F) Ex vivo analysis of harvested tissues 1 h post-intraperitoneal
injection (n = 4 mice). (G) Ex vivo analysis of tissues 1 h post-subcutaneous injection (n = 4 mice). Graphs show mean ± SEM. #p = 0.08,
*p < 0.05 (unpaired t-test for
each tissue).
Evaluation of LUXendin762 distribution in
vivo. (A) LUXendin762 (LUX762, 200 nM) labels
the membrane of SNAP-GLP1R:CHO-K1 cells (nuclei were stained using
Hoechst33342) (scale bar = 40 μm) (n = 3 independent
experiments). (B) Labeling efficiency of LUXendin762 in
SNAP-GLP1R:CHO-K1 cells (n = 5 wells). (C) LUXendin762 is compatible with far-red SiR-tubulin that labels
microtubules of SNAP-GLP1R:CHO-K1 cells (nuclei were stained using
Hoechst33342; please note that not all cells were stained by SiR-tubulin)
(scale bar = 10 μm). (D) LUXendin762 is compatible
with far-red SPY650-DNA that labels nuclei of SNAP-GLP1R:CHO-K1 cells
(scale bar = 10 μm). (E) In vivo images of
mice intraperitoneally or subcutaneously injected with saline or LUXendin762 at the baseline and 30 min and 1 h post-injection.
Data plotted as the fold change of total radiant efficiency signals
of the whole body measured at 30 min and 1 h post-injection. (F) Ex vivo analysis of harvested tissues 1 h post-intraperitoneal
injection (n = 4 mice). (G) Ex vivo analysis of tissues 1 h post-subcutaneous injection (n = 4 mice). Graphs show mean ± SEM. #p = 0.08,
*p < 0.05 (unpaired t-test for
each tissue).Confident that LUXendin762 was able to specifically
label GLP1R, we next injected Nude mice with the probe before imaging.
A strong fluorescent signal could be detected in the abdomen and brain
at 30 and 60 min, following intraperitoneal or subcutaneous injection,
with fluorescence levels ∼2–5-fold higher than in animals
receiving saline vehicle (Figure E). Because the signal intensity from the injection
site is far brighter than in the brain, various organs were harvested.
The pancreas of mice receiving intraperitoneal LUXendin762 showed the highest fluorescent signal, while the brain, lung, heart,
and liver were similar to saline-treated controls (Figure F, Supporting Information, Figure S7). By contrast, mice receiving subcutaneous LUXendin762 displayed the highest probe levels in the brain,
whereas no signal was detected in the pancreas, lung, and heart versus saline-treated control (Figure G, Supporting Information, Figure S7). Notably, the brain and pancreas are known to be
GLP1R-positive,[5] whereas the GLP1R is only
expressed in small cell populations (or absent) in the lung, kidney,
liver, and heart (e.g., smooth muscle of arterioles).[27,28] Together, these studies show that LUXendin762 can be
detected in vivo in the whole organism and reveal
a novel role for the injection route in determining GLP1R access.
Discussion
In the present study, we synthesize and validate LUXendin492, LUXendin551, LUXendin615, and LUXendin762, antagonist probes spanning green
to near infrared for the visualization
of GLP1R in cells, tissues, and animals. Together with our previous LUXendin555, LUXendin645, and LUXendin651 probes,[19] we now extend the LUXendin color palette to seven different spectra. These probes contain a
range of different fluorophores suitable for wide-field, confocal,
super-resolution, intravital microscopy, and small animal optical
imaging, as well as FACS.Pharmacologically, the novel LUXendins behave as full
antagonists at the GLP1R, with similar potency to benchmark Exendin4(9–39).
These studies further validate the robustness of the synthetic approach
used and highlight the advantages of the S39C C-terminally substituted
backbone used previously for Exendin4(9–39)[19] and Exendin4(1–39).[29] We envisage that in the future a similar backbone might be amenable
to functionalization with biotin, complexed lanthanides, singlet oxygen
generators or even nanoparticles, for example to allow nonfluorescent
labeling for mass spectrometry, magnetic resonance imaging, or electron
microscopy. With our observation that cyanine fluorophores behave
more “cleanly” for microscopy, we are eager to find
out how other molecular markers and tracers behave, and these endeavors
are ongoing in our laboratories.Of note, labeling with the
novel LUXendins was co-localized
with both SNAP-GLP1R and specific monoclonal antibody staining, as
expected given the previous thorough validation of LUXendin555, LUXendin645, and LUXendin651 stablemates.[19] Moreover, no LUXendin signal could
be detected in INS1 832/3 cells CRISPR-deleted for the GLP1R. These
data also confirm that the Exendin4-S39C scaffold tolerates a most
fluorophores without significant effects on labeling or pharmacology.
While some punctate staining was seen with non-cyanine dyes, this
does not reflect GLP1R activation, since: (1) all LUXendins were potent antagonists; (2) no co-localization from intracellular
signals were seen in SNAP-GLP1R cell systems; and (3) we showed that
punctate LUXendin signal was not co-localized with GLP1R
monoclonal antibody.[19] By performing pulse-chase
experiments using permeable and impermeable labels against SNAP-GLP1R,
we further confirmed that punctate staining for LUXendin492 and LUXendin615 does not reflect activated GLP1R. One
explanation for this observation could be preferred cellular uptake
of xanthene-based LUXendin492 and LUXendin615 by macropinocytosis, a pathway for cells to uptake extracellular
material caused by membrane ruffles. The presence of GLP1R is likely
needed to increase local concentration of LUXendin492/LUXendin615 at the cell surface because we did not
see dye uptake in cells without GLP1R (mock-transfected). Indeed,
recent studies have shown increased uptake of rhodamines when conjugated
to peptidic, alpha-helical backbones.[30] This is further supported by studies on fluorophore-labeled cell-penetrating
peptides, in which rhodamines were found to exhibit a high hydrophobicity,
leading to increased membrane penetration depth in liposomes.[31] As such, we observed pronounced increases in
performance of cyanine dyes (Cy3, Cy5, and Cy7) when compared to CF488,
TMR, and CPY, most probably due to their molecular nature.Using
novel LUXendins, we were able to perform unprecedented
experiments and reveal new biology regarding GLP1R. As the best performing
dye, LUXendin551 allowed GLP1R and thus beta cells to
be reported in intravital experiments of a type-1 diabetes preclinical
mouse model, which is not readily amenable to further genetic manipulation.
Such experiments are important because we are still lacking information
on the changes that occur in beta cell mass (and GLP1R expression)
during insulitis and autoimmune destruction.[32] To allow noninvasive imaging, Cy7 was installed on the LUXendin backbone to produce LUXendin762, a near-infrared probe.
We were able to demonstrate that the LUXendin762 signal
can be recorded in vivo (compared to saline-treated
controls) and sequesters in organs known to express the GLP1R such
as the pancreas and brain.[5] Of interest, LUXendin762 highlighted differential access routes to peripheral
and brain GLP1R sites, with subcutaneous and not intraperitoneal injection
labeling the latter. While the mechanisms are currently unknown, we
speculate that ligand injected subcutaneously is less prone to the
first pass effect and as such is able to abundantly enter the carotid
arteries for entry into the brain. LUXendin762 thus opens
up for the first time noninvasive longitudinal studies of GLP1R in
mice using readily accessible platforms available in most academic/industrial
animal facilities. In addition, increasing the LUXendin762 dose, covering the injection sites, or using a more direct injection
route (e.g., intracerebroventricular injection) might allow imaging
of probe arrival in the pancreas and uptake in the brain. Such studies
are particularly pertinent because GLP1R is also a readout for beta
cell mass in preclinical models of type-2 diabetes and other metabolic
syndromes.[33] Furthermore, longitudinal
measures in the same animal are statistically more powerful and refined
compared to assessment of various timepoints in multiple cohorts.In summary, a total of seven LUXendins now allow detection
and labeling of GLP1R in five different colors, with fluorophores
tailored for various imaging modalities. We anticipate that these
specific and validated probes will provide further insights into GLP1R
biology in the periphery and brain, with implications for treatment
with GLP1RAs.
Materials and Methods
Synthesis
Exendin4(9–39)-S39C was generated
as previously reported using solid phase peptide synthesis.[19,29] TSTU activation of CPY-6-COOH and reaction with 1-(2-amino-ethyl)-pyrrole-2,5-dione
(TFA salt, Aldrich) yielded Mal-CPY. Maleimide-conjugated CF488A (Aldrich),
Cy3, and Cy7 (both Lumiprobe) were purchased from commercial vendors.
Coupling to peptides was performed using thiol-maleimide chemistry
in PBS, before characterization of novel compounds using HRMS, and
purity (>95%) measurement using HPLC. Because fluorophores may
exhibit
environmental dependence upon receptor binding, for which extinction
coefficients and quantum yields are challenging to determine, we instead
highlight manufacturer measures for CF488-Mal, Cy3-Mal, CPY-6-COOH,
and Cy7-Mal. In any case, all probes performed similarly when bound
to SNAP-GLP1R or endogenous receptor, both in cells and tissues. Details
for synthesis including characterization of LUXendin492, LUXendin551, LUXendin615, and LUXendin762 are provided in the Supporting Information.
Cell Culture
CHO-K1 cells stably expressing the human
SNAP-GLP1R (Cisbio) (SNAP-GLP1R:CHO-K1) were maintained at 5% CO2, 37 °C in high-glucose phenol red Glutamax containing
DMEM (Invitrogen, 31966047) supplemented with 10% heat-inactivated
FCS (Invitrogen), 1% penicillin/streptomycin (Invitrogen), 500 μg/mL
G418 (Invitrogen), 25 mM HEPES (Invitrogen), and 1% nonessential amino
acids (Invitrogen), or DMEM (D6546, Sigma) supplemented with 10% FBS
(Merck), 1% penicillin/streptomycin (Fisher Scientific), 500 μg/mL
G418 (Fisher Scientific), 25 mM HEPES (Merck), 1% nonessential amino
acids (Merck), and 2% l-glutamine (Thermo Scientific). The
same medium without G418 was used to culture CHO-K1 cells. SNAP-GLP1R:HEK293
cells were cultured in DMEM supplemented with 10% FBS, 1% penicillin/streptomycin
and 1 mg/mL G418. INS1 832/3 wild-type and GLP1R–/– cells[34] were cultured in RPMI supplemented
with 11 mM glucose, 10% FCS, 10 mM HEPES, 2 mM l-glutamine,
1 mM pyruvate, 50 μM β-mercaptoethanol, and 1% penicillin/streptomycin
and maintained as above. SNAP-GLP1R:INS1 832/3 cells were cultured
as INS1 832/3 wild-type with the addition of 500 μg/mL G418.
Animals
All studies with harvested tissue used 7–10
week old male C57BL6/J mice and were regulated by the Animals (Scientific
Procedures) Act 1986 of the U.K (Personal Project Licenses P2ABC3A83
and PP1778740). Approval was granted by the University of Birmingham’s
Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Body. All in vivo imaging experiments were performed with approval and oversight from
the Indiana University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee
(IACUC).
Islet Isolation
Animals were humanely euthanized using
cervical dislocation, before injection of collagenase 1 mg/mL (Serva
NB8) into the bile duct. Inflated pancreases were digested for 12
min at 37 °C and islets separated using a Ficoll (Sigma-Aldrich)
gradient. Islets were cultured in RPMI medium containing 10% FCS,
100 units/mL penicillin, and 100 μg/mL streptomycin.
cAMP Assays
cAMP assays were performed in SNAP-GLP1R:HEK293
cells, as previously described.[29] Briefly,
cells were incubated with 10 nM GLP-1(7–36)NH2 alongside
increasing concentrations of LUXendin or Ex(9–39)
for 30 min, before lysis and measurement of cAMP using a HTRF (Cisbio)
assay, according to the manufacturer’s instructions. All assays
were performed in the presence of 100–500 μM IBMX to
inhibit phosphodiesterase activity. pEC50 and pIC50 values were calculated using log concentration–response curves
fitted with a three- or four-parameter equation.
Live Imaging
CHO-K1 and SNAP-GLP1R:CHO-K1 cells were
seeded (60,000 cells/well) on microslide 8-well glass bottom dishes
(ibidi, 80826) and grown for 2 days at 37 °C in a humidified
5% CO2 incubator. For imaging, cells were incubated for
30 min at 37 °C in a humidified 5% CO2 incubator in
culture medium supplemented with 200 nM LUXendin and
5 μM Hoechst33342. SiR-tubulin (Spirochrome, SC002) and SPY650-DNA
(Spirochrome, SC501) were used according to the manufacturer’s
instructions with the exception that both probes were applied at 100-fold
dilution. Cells were washed once in cell culture medium and imaged
in live cell imaging buffer (Invitrogen, A14291DJ) at 37 °C and
5% CO2 using a Ti-E Nikon epifluorescence microscope equipped
with pE4000 (cool LED), Penta Cube (AHF 66–615), 60× oil
NA 1.49 (Apo TIRF Nikon), and imaged on a SCMOS camera (Prime 95B,
Photometrics) operated by NIS Elements (Nikon). For excitation, the
following wavelengths were used: LUXendin492: λ
= 470 nm; LUXendin551: λ = 550 nm; LUXendin615: λ = 595 nm; LUXendin645: λ = 635 nm; and LUXendin762: λ = 740 nm.For confocal imaging,
CHO-K1 and SNAP-GLP1R:CHO-K1 were seeded in 96-well glass-bottom plates
(Eppendorf, E0030741030) and kept at 37 °C and 5% CO2 until labeling in culture media supplemented with 200 nM LUXendin and 500 nM SNAP label at 37 °C, 5% CO2 for 30 min,
and 4.4 μM Hoechst33342 for 5 min. For pulse-chase labeling,
BG-Sulfo dyes were incubated for 30 min before the subsequent addition
of LUXendins for another 30 min. After one wash, cells
were imaged in culture media using an LSM880 meta-confocal microscope
equipped with GaAsP spectral detectors and a 63× water NA 1.20
objective. For excitation/emission, the following wavelengths were
used: Hoechst33324: λ = 405 nm/410–507 nm, LUXendin492: λ = 488 nm/490–560 nm, LUXendin551 and
SBG-TMR: λ = 561 nm/570–622 nm, and LUXendin615 and SBG-SiR: λ = 633 nm/638–759 nm.INS1 832/3,
INS1 832/3 GLP1R–/–, and SNAP-GLP1R:INS1
832/3 cells were plated onto Mattek glass bottom dishes the day before
imaging and imaged on a Zeiss LMS780 confocal microscope using a Plan-Apochromat
63× oil 1.40 NA objective for 2 min after addition of 100 nM
LUXendin.Islets were incubated with 100 nM LUXendin492, LUXendin551, or LUXendin615 for 1 h at
37 °C
in culture medium. Islets were washed three times and were imaged
in culture medium using a Zeiss LSM880 AxioObserver microscope equipped
with GaAsP spectral detectors and a 40× water NA 1.2 Korr FCS
M27 objective. For excitation/emission, the following wavelengths
were used: LUXendin492: λ = 488 nm/498–569
nm. LUXendin551: λ = 561 nm/569–667 nm. LUXendin615: λ = 633/641–694 nm.
Immunostaining
Islets were incubated with 100 nM LUXendin492, LUXendin551, LUXendin615, and LUXendin762 for 1 h at 37 °C in culture medium,
before 4% formaldehyde fixation for 10 min. Mouse monoclonal anti-GLP1R
1:30 (Iowa DHSB; mAb #7F38) was applied overnight at 4 °C in
PBS + 0.1% Triton + 1% BSA. Secondary antibodies were applied for
1 h at room temperature and included goat anti-mouse DyLight488 (excitation
λ = 488 nm, emission λ = 489–552 nm) and goat anti-mouse
Alexa Fluor 633 (excitation λ = 633 nm, emission λ = 641–694
nm). Samples were mounted on slides using Vectashield Hardset containing
DAPI. Imaging was performed using a Zeiss LSM880 AxioObserver microscope,
as above, for LUXendin492, LUXendin551, and LUXendin615, and using a Ti-E Nikon epifluorescence microscope,
as above, for LUXendin762.
Two-Photon In Vivo Imaging
Female
NOD/ShiLtJ mice 8 weeks of age were anesthetized with isoflurane.
A small, vertical incision was made to expose the intact pancreas.
Then, the exposed pancreas was placed on a 50 mm glass-bottom dish
for imaging on an inverted microscope. The body temperature was maintained
using heating pads and heating elements on the objective. The mouse
received, via retro-orbital injection, Hoechst 33342
(1 mg/kg in PBS) to label nuclei, albumin-AF647 (1 mg/kg in PBS) to
label vasculature, and 75 μL of 30 μM LUXendin551. Images were collected using a Leica SP8 microscope, equipped with
a 25×/0.95 NA objective and Spectra Physics MaiTai DeepSee multiphoton
laser. Excitation was delivered at λ = 800 nm for Hoechst and
Albumin-AF647, with signals collected at λ = 410–500
nm and λ = 550–590 nm, respectively. LUXendin551 was excited at λ = 1050, with the signal collected at 650–700
nm. A conventional PMT was used for Hoechst, with a HyD detector used
for Albumin-AF647 and LUXendin551. Blood was collected
from the tail vein prior to and 30 min after LUXendin555 injection, and glucose was measured using an AlphaTrak2 glucometer.
After imaging, unconscious mice were euthanized by cervical dislocation.
Noninvasive In Vivo Imaging
Whole
body fluorescence accumulation and distribution was assessed in male
athymic nude mice 8 weeks of age using an IVIS Spectral CT (Perkin
Elmer). Mice were anesthetized with inhaled isoflurane and baseline
images were acquired. Then, mice were intraperitoneally or subcutaneously
injected with 100 μL of saline or 5 μM LUXendin762. Images were collected using a broad excitation and emission series
combination ranging from 640 to 675 nm and 680 to 760 nm, respectively,
at 30 min and 1 h post-injection. At the end point, animals were sacrificed,
and tissues (pancreas, heart, brain, lung, and liver) were harvested
for ex vivo fluorescence analysis. Spectral unmixing
and quantification were analyzed using Living Image software.
Authors: Jacqueline Naylor; Arthur T Suckow; Asha Seth; David J Baker; Isabelle Sermadiras; Peter Ravn; Rob Howes; Jianliang Li; Mike R Snaith; Matthew P Coghlan; David C Hornigold Journal: Biochem J Date: 2016-07-15 Impact factor: 3.857
Authors: Daniel Y Yoo; Stephanie A Barros; Gordon C Brown; Christian Rabot; Dafna Bar-Sagi; Paramjit S Arora Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2020-08-13 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Sanaz Gabery; Casper G Salinas; Sarah J Paulsen; Jonas Ahnfelt-Rønne; Tomas Alanentalo; Arian F Baquero; Stephen T Buckley; Erzsébet Farkas; Csaba Fekete; Klaus S Frederiksen; Hans Christian C Helms; Jacob F Jeppesen; Linu M John; Charles Pyke; Jane Nøhr; Tess T Lu; Joseph Polex-Wolf; Vincent Prevot; Kirsten Raun; Lotte Simonsen; Gao Sun; Anett Szilvásy-Szabó; Hanni Willenbrock; Anna Secher; Lotte Bjerre Knudsen; Wouter Frederik Johan Hogendorf Journal: JCI Insight Date: 2020-03-26
Authors: Brent A McLean; Chi Kin Wong; Jonathan E Campbell; David J Hodson; Stefan Trapp; Daniel J Drucker Journal: Endocr Rev Date: 2021-03-15 Impact factor: 19.871
Authors: Tom Podewin; Julia Ast; Johannes Broichhagen; Nicholas H F Fine; Daniela Nasteska; Philipp Leippe; Manuel Gailer; Teresa Buenaventura; Nisha Kanda; Ben J Jones; Celine M'Kadmi; Jean-Louis Baneres; Jacky Marie; Alejandra Tomas; Dirk Trauner; Anja Hoffmann-Röder; David J Hodson Journal: ACS Cent Sci Date: 2018-01-16 Impact factor: 14.553
Authors: Daniel I Brierley; Marie K Holt; Arashdeep Singh; Alan de Araujo; Molly McDougle; Macarena Vergara; Majd H Afaghani; Shin Jae Lee; Karen Scott; Calyn Maske; Wolfgang Langhans; Eric Krause; Annette de Kloet; Fiona M Gribble; Frank Reimann; Linda Rinaman; Guillaume de Lartigue; Stefan Trapp Journal: Nat Metab Date: 2021-02-15
Authors: Julia Ast; Anastasia Arvaniti; Nicholas H F Fine; Daniela Nasteska; Fiona B Ashford; Zania Stamataki; Zsombor Koszegi; Andrea Bacon; Ben J Jones; Maria A Lucey; Shugo Sasaki; Daniel I Brierley; Benoit Hastoy; Alejandra Tomas; Giuseppe D'Agostino; Frank Reimann; Francis C Lynn; Christopher A Reissaus; Amelia K Linnemann; Elisa D'Este; Davide Calebiro; Stefan Trapp; Kai Johnsson; Tom Podewin; Johannes Broichhagen; David J Hodson Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2020-01-24 Impact factor: 14.919