Ultralow low-background surfaces for single molecule localization

tagged mEos2, which was directly pulled down from cell lysates onto the PLL- .... including PEGylated surfaces as determined by having significantly l...
0 downloads 0 Views 2MB Size
Download PDF
Article Cite This: Langmuir 2018, 34, 10012−10018

pubs.acs.org/Langmuir

Ultralow- and Low-Background Surfaces for Single-Molecule Localization Microscopy of Multistep Biointerfaces for SingleMolecule Sensing Manchen Zhao,†,‡,§ Philip R. Nicovich,∥,⊥,# Miro Janco,∥,⊥ Qiji Deng,∥,⊥,¶ Zhengmin Yang,∥,⊥ Yuanqing Ma,∥,⊥ Till Böcking,∥,⊥ Katharina Gaus,*,‡,∥,⊥ and J. Justin Gooding*,†,‡,§ School of Chemistry, ‡Australian Centre for NanoMedicine, §ARC Centre of Excellence in Convergent Bio-Nano Science and Technology, ∥EMBL Australia Node in Single Molecule Science, School of Medical Sciences, and ⊥ARC Centre of Excellence in Advanced Molecular Imaging, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia

Downloaded via UNIV OF KANSAS on January 3, 2019 at 15:25:35 (UTC). See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.

†

S Supporting Information *

ABSTRACT: Single-molecule localization microscopy (SMLM) has created the opportunity of pushing fluorescence microscopy from being a biological imaging tool to a surface characterization and possibly even a quantitative analytical tool. The latter could be achieved by molecular counting using pointillist SMLM data sets. However, SMLM is especially sensitive to background fluorescent signals, which influences any subsequent analysis. Therefore, fabricating sensing surfaces that resist nonspecific adsorption of proteins, even after multiple modification steps, has become paramount. Herein is reported two different ways to modify surfaces: dichlorodimethylsilane-biotinylated bovine serum albuminTween-20 (DbT20) and poly-L-lysine grafted polyethylene glycol (PLL-PEG) mixed with biotinylated PLL-PEG (PLL-PEG/PEGbiotin). The results show that the ability to resist nonspecific adsorption of DbT20 surfaces deteriorates with an increase in the number of modification steps required after the addition of the DbT20, which limits the applicability of this surface for SMLM. As such, a new surface for SMLM that employs PLL-PEG/PEGbiotin was developed that exhibits ultralow amounts of nonspecific protein adsorption even after many modification steps. The utility of the surface was demonstrated for human influenza hemagglutinin-tagged mEos2, which was directly pulled down from cell lysates onto the PLL-PEG/PEGbiotin surface. The results strongly indicated that the PLL-PEG/ PEGbiotin surface satisfies the criteria of SMLM imaging of a negligible background signal and negligible nonspecific adsorption.

■

neurons.13,14 The power of SMLM, however, goes beyond imaging. Biologically relevant information can be extracted from the mathematical relationships between the positions of the fluorophores in space and time with a subsequent analysis approach.15−21 However, SMLM is especially sensitive to background fluorescent events that contaminate the acquired data. Excessive filtering or segmenting events can deleteriously affect the subsequent analysis. As such, it becomes necessary to acquire SMLM data sets with a minimum number of background events while retaining highly specific detection of desired molecules. However, a continuing methodological challenge is to prevent the nonspecific binding of biomolecules onto the imaging surface. There is no better example of this challenge than in the use of SMLM to quantify antigen− antibody interactions on a surface.12 Bioaffinity surfaces

INTRODUCTION In the last 10 years, there have been huge advances in light microscopy, resulting in the circumvention of diffraction limits to allow the resolution of features down to ∼20 nm.1 The suite of techniques that achieve this are collectively referred to as super-resolution fluorescence microscopy. One major family of super-resolution techniques is single-molecule localization microscopy (SMLM).2−11 SMLM methods work by exciting a sparse subset of the total fluorophore population in any given image frame and calculating the position of a fluorophore from its intensity profile. In this way, it is possible to map and localize the positions of individual molecules.12 Repeated imaging builds a map of many fluorophores in the sample. There is an analogy between the images and the pointillist movement in art so that SMLM data sets are referred to as pointillist data sets. SMLM has predominately been used as an imaging tool in biology, for example, revealing new molecular mechanisms such as for immune cell signaling or protein structure in © 2018 American Chemical Society

Received: May 7, 2018 Revised: July 14, 2018 Published: August 1, 2018 10012

DOI: 10.1021/acs.langmuir.8b01487 Langmuir 2018, 34, 10012−10018

Article

Langmuir

Figure 1. Schematic representation of modification steps for (a) DbT20 surface and (b) PLL-PEG/PEGbiotin surface. (a) Clean glass coverslip was first modified with DDS, followed by incubation with biotinylated BSA, then coated with Tween-20 as the antifouling layer to resist nonspecific adsorption. Biotinylated target molecules can then be tethered to the surface via streptavidin−biotin interactions. (b) PLL-PEG/PEGbiotin was adsorbed onto the glass coverslip and served as both an antifouling layer and a surface anchor for further conjugation via streptavidin.

■

typically require several modification steps to form the final surface. Hence, any surface chemistry to resist nonspecific adsorption, depending on when it is deposited in the modification process, will be required to maintain the ability to limit background signals even after several further surface modification steps. The purpose of this work is to investigate the potential of two surfaces (Figure 1a,b) with the ability to resist background signals and nonspecific physisorption even after multiple-step fabrication. Surfaces modified with the well-known proteinresistant polymer, poly(ethylene)glycol (PEGylated surfaces), have usually been used as antifouling surfaces to limit nonspecific adsorption,22−24 some of which have even been applied in single-molecule studies.25−28 However, the first surface chosen for investigation in this paper was the dichlorodimethylsilane (DDS)-biotinylated bovine serum albumin (BSA)-Tween-20 (DbT20) surface. This is because, in a recent report by Ha and co-workers, when assessing the antifouling ability to resist nonspecific adsorption of DinB (DNA polymerase IV), the DbT20 surface outperformed eight other surfaces including PEGylated surfaces as determined by having significantly lower nonspecific adsorption.29−31 The second surface that was investigated was prepared by electrostatically adsorbing poly-L-lysine grafted PEG (PLLPEG32) mixed with biotinylated PLL-PEG33,34 onto wellcleaned glass coverslips yielding a PLL-PEG/PEGbiotin surface. Through the biotin−streptavidin interaction, the target molecules were specifically bound to the surface. Surface selectivity, and resistance to nonspecific background following subsequent surface modification steps, was tested by using a single-molecule counting assay incorporating total internal reflection microscopy (TIRF) and image analysis to count single-molecule binding events. Further, the surface performance was tested with SMLM by specifically pulling down35 target molecules [fluorescent protein suitable for photoactivation localization microscopy (PALM)] onto the surface from unprocessed mammalian cell extracts.

EXPERIMENTAL SECTION

Reagents and Materials are described in the Supporting Information Experimental Section. FITC-BSA, biotin-Atto-488, and human influenza hemagglutinin-tagged mEos2 (HA-mEos2) were used for different purposes in this project. FITC-BSA, as the fluorescent probe, was exposed to a given protein-resistant surface to assess if there was any nonspecific protein adsorption onto the surface. Biotin-Atto-488 was used to show whether biotinylated molecules would be able to specifically bind to the streptavidin-modified surface and also to probe the amount of streptavidin on the surface. HA-mEos2 was designed for the single-molecule pull-down assay for SMLM imaging. mEos2 is a photoactivatable green-to-red fluorescent protein that is widely used in PALM imaging. Modification of the DbT20 Surface. The glass coverslip was first sonicated in ethanol for 10 min, followed by washing with copious Milli-Q water and acetone. The coverslip was dried with nitrogen and then exposed to an air plasma (700 Torr) inside a plasma-cleaning machine (Harrick Plasma, Expanded Plasma Cleaner PDC-002) for 3−5 min. Subsequently, 75 mL of hexane was added to a clean beaker followed by the injection of ∼0.075 mL of DDS using a 1 mL syringe with a needle. DDS was injected quickly with the needle tip under hexane to avoid air contact. The well-cleaned hydrophilic coverslips were immersed in this solution in a beaker under a stream of argon. The beaker containing the surface was immediately covered with a Petri dish and sealed with parafilm whereupon the argon stream was removed. The reaction was then protected from light with aluminum foil and gently kept shaking at room temperature for 1.5 h. Once the reaction was stopped, the DDS-coated coverslip was rinsed and then sonicated with fresh hexane for 1 min. This step was repeated three times. The contact angle of the DDS-coated coverslips prepared in this way was measured (shown in Supporting Information Figure S1). The DDS-coated hydrophobic coverslip was then incubated and modified with 0.01 nM biotin-BSA in phosphatebuffered saline (PBS) buffer for 5 min and rinsed with PBS buffer. The final DbT20 surface was obtained by being immersed in a given concentration of Tween-20 solution for 10 min [0.01, 0.05, 0.10, 0.20, and 0.50% (v/v) were prepared by mixing Tween-20 with PBS buffer], referred to as DbT200.01%, DbT200.05%, DbT200.10%, DbT200.20%, and DbT200.50%, respectively. 10013

DOI: 10.1021/acs.langmuir.8b01487 Langmuir 2018, 34, 10012−10018

Article

Langmuir

Figure 2. Impact of Tween-20 concentrations on protein adsorption onto DbT20 surfaces. (a) Nonspecific adsorption of FITC-BSA with different concentrations of Tween-20 (v/v) on the DbT20 surface, where the addition of Tween-20 was the last modification step, and (d) on the DbT20 surface, where there were two further modification steps after the addition of Tween-20. The nonspecific adsorption was measured by the averaged surface spot counts over an imaging area of 2500 μm2. Error bars indicate standard deviation (SD, n > 5; “n” here and hereinafter refers to the analysis coming out of over five regions from different substrates, approximately three regions per substrate). (b,c) and (e,f) Fluorescence images of nonspecifically adsorbed FITC-BSA on the surfaces with three-step (b,c) and five-step (e,f) modifications (with/without Tween-20). Further surface modification with streptavidin and/or antibodies and a series of control surfaces is described in the Supporting Information Experimental Section. Modification of the PLL-PEG/PEGbiotin Surface. Before the surface modification, a polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) device was prepared as described in the Supporting Information Experimental Section. Then, the PDMS device was punctured at the end of each channel with a biopsy needle (1 mm diameter), cleaned from dust by an adhesive tape, washed with isopropanol, and dried. Meanwhile, the glass coverslip was cleaned with sonication in 100% ethanol for 30 min and rinsed with Milli-Q water. The coverslip was further sonicated in 1 M NaOH for 30 min, rinsed with Milli-Q water and acetone, and then dried with nitrogen. Finally, the coverslip and the PDMS device were cleaned by the plasma-cleaning machine (700 Torr) for 3 min. After plasma cleaning, the PDMS device was placed onto the glass coverslip for 1 min to form strong hydrophilic interactions to hold the two components together. Thus, a PDMS device with five channels was finally fabricated. Five polyethylene tubes with a length of 4 cm were connected to the outlets of each channel of the PDMS device, allowing the solution to flow out of the channels without polluting the other channels nearby. From the inlet hole, 6 μL of 1 mg/mL PLL-PEG/PEGbiotin (mixing ratio depending on the surface density needed in the future experiment) was injected into the channel using a pipette. The PLLPEG/PEGbiotin solution was incubated in the channel for 15 min. The channel was then rinsed with 80 μL of PBS buffer. The PLLPEG/PEGbiotin surface was ready for further modification. Further surface modification with streptavidin and/or antibodies and a series of control surfaces is described in the Supporting Information Experimental Section. Human Influenza HA-mEos2 Expression and Pull-Down on PLL-PEG/PEGbiotin Surfaces. HA-mEos2 plasmids were constructed by inserting the hemagglutinin (HA) sequence into pmEOS2-N1 using the NotI restriction sites. The plasmid was transfected into HEK 293T cells for expression of HA-mEos2. Cells were lysed with non-denaturing lysis buffer, and cell lysates were

ready for the HA-mEos2 pull-down assay. Protocols of cell culture, cell transfection, and cell lysis are described in Supporting Information Figure S3. The PLL-PEG/PEGbiotin surface was prepared with the incubation of PLL-PEGbiotin solution (the percentage of biotinfunctionalized PEG = 50%), where the biotin density on the PLLPEG/PEGbiotin surface was a suitable density of target proteins for imaging (Supporting Information Figure S4). After modification of the surface with streptavidin, 15 μL of 4.4 nM biotin-anti-HA (0.1 mg/mL, 1:150 dilution) in PBS buffer was incubated in the channel for 5 min and washed with 80 μL PBS. Finally, the pull-down assay was carried out by applying 15 μL of cell lysates to the surface for 5 min and washing with 80 μL PBS twice before imaging. Before PALM imaging, the specific binding events of biotin-anti-HA to streptavidin and HA-mEos2 to anti-HA were tested on the surfaces with TIRF imaging, which were the PLL-PEG (no PLL-PEGbiotin) surface incubated with streptavidin, biotin-anti-HA and the cell lysates containing HA-mEos2 (CHA‑mEos2), and other control surfaces including the PLL-PEG/PEGbiotin surfaces subsequently incubated with CHA‑mEos2 only, streptavidin and CHA‑mEos2, biotin-anti-HA and CHA‑mEos2, and streptavidin and biotin-anti-HA. Imaging Methods and Image Analysis. TIRF image and PALM image sequences were acquired on a total internal reflection fluorescence microscope (ELYRA, Zeiss) with a 100× oil-immersion objective (NA = 1.46) and a cooled, electron-multiplying chargecoupled device camera (iXon DU-897; Andor). A TIRF angle between 64° and 67° was used for acquisition. Detailed TIRF and PALM imaging settings are described in the Supporting Information Experimental Section. Spot counting in each TIRF image was analyzed using a custom code written in MATLAB (available at https://github.com/ PRNicovich/singleMoleculeSurfaceEvaluation.git). The CountSingleMolecule code was used to identify individual fluorescent spots within a TIRF imaging area by bandpass filtering and localizing emitter peaks above a threshold intensity. The total number of detected spots in 10014

DOI: 10.1021/acs.langmuir.8b01487 Langmuir 2018, 34, 10012−10018

Article

Langmuir each image is returned by the analysis code. The minimum peak intensity threshold was set to a value between 30 and 60.

Investigation of Specific Binding Events on DbT20 Surfaces. The DbT20 surface was further evaluated (prepared as shown in Figure 1a) by exploring the specific binding of biotin-Atto-488 to the streptavidin-modified DbT200.50% surfaces. It was observed that although the nonprotein species biotin-Atto-488 could selectively bind to the streptavidin− DbT200.50% surface, as determined from the comparison of Surface C1 and Surface C3 in Figure 3, the surface itself was

■

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Impact of Tween-20 Concentrations on Protein Adsorption onto the DbT20 Surfaces. Initially, the ability of the surface to resist nonspecific adsorption was tested as a function of the concentration of Tween-20 used to form the DbT20 surfaces. Any background signal from the DbT20 surface, and any nonspecific binding of FITC-BSA to this surface, were determined using TIRF microscopy by counting the number of fluorescence spots per imaging area (2500 μm2). As can be seen in Figure 2a, there was significant nonspecific adsorption of FITC-BSA in the absence of Tween20 (Surface A0), but FITC-BSA adsorption on the DbT200.10% surface [0.10% (v/v) of Tween-20 used] was sufficiently low such that the number of spots in the TIRF images was only just above the background levels (Surface A3 and Surface A4). This result agrees well with the report by Ha and co-workers, where DbT20 surfaces showed little nonspecific adsorption. There are occasions, however, when more modification steps are required after the addition of the antifouling Tween-20. For example, in the formation of bioaffinity surfaces,12 additional surface modifications steps are required. As shown in Figure 2d, the DbT200.10% surface with two additional modification steps (i.e., steps 3 and 4 in the scheme in Figure 1a) after the addition of Tween-20 (Surface B2) was no longer sufficient to limit nonspecific adsorption of FITC-BSA despite the success in resisting FITC-BSA adsorption when the addition of Tween-20 is the last step in the surface modification process (Surface A3 in Figure 2a). Thus, the ability of the surface to resist nonspecific adsorption deteriorates significantly when additional modification steps are added after the addition of Tween-20. Increasing the Tween-20 concentration during the preparation of the surface to 0.50% (v/v) improved the ability of the DbT20 surface to resist adsorption of FITC-BSA to levels just above background again (Surface B4 and Surface B5). This result indicates that higher Tween-20 concentrations are required to limit protein adsorption when multiple surface modification steps are required after the application of Tween20. We believe that this relates to how the Tween-20 has assembled onto the surface. It has previously been shown that protein resistance is highly dependent on the amount of adsorbed surfactants on the surface.36 Taken together, these observations suggest that micelles of surfactants are required to maintain the efficacy of the surface for resisting protein fouling. Such a suggestion is analogous to PEG layers needing to exceed a critical molecular weight range to exhibit low degrees of protein adsorption and cell adhesion.37,38 The critical micelle concentration (CMC) of Tween-20 is 8.04 × 10−5 M and that of 0.01% (v/v) of Tween-20 is 8.96 × 10−5 M; hence, the reason that we used this concentration of Tween-20 or higher is to maintain the concentration above the CMC. When there are more washing and incubation steps after the assembly of the Tween-20 on the surface, there is more chance that some of the surface-bound surfactants will desorb from the surface, resulting in the loss of the micelles and decreasing the antifouling ability. Hence, the required concentration of Tween-20 during the preparation of the surface seems to depend on the number of modification steps after the addition of the Tween-20, and this limits the applicability of DbT20 surfaces for SMLM.

Figure 3. Specific binding events of biotinylated Atto-488 to streptavidin-modified DbT200.50% surfaces and nonspecific adsorption of streptavidin to the DBT200.50% surface, where BSA without biotin groups was used in the first modification step. Binding events were measured by the averaged surface spot counts over an imaging area of 2500 μm2. Error bars indicate standard deviation (SD, n > 5).

still not sufficiently protein resistant to limit nonspecific adsorption of the protein streptavidin. We arrive at this conclusion by using a surface prepared as in Figure 1a, but where the BSA does not possess a biotin label. In this case, if the surface is effective at resisting nonspecific protein adsorption, then no streptavidin should bind to the surface. However, there was extensive nonspecific adsorption of streptavidin on the surface with non-biotinylated BSA (Surface D1) compared with other control surfaces (Surface D2−D3 and Surface E1−E2). This observation is also consistent with the adsorption of FITC-BSA, shown in Figure 2, when there is insufficient Tween-20. The level of nonspecific adsorption of streptavidin on BSA/DbT200.50% (Surface D1) relative to the level of specific streptavidin binding to biotin-BSA/DbT200.50% (Surface C1) varied depending on the incubation time with BSA (compare Supporting Information Figure S2). Despite this variation between samples, these observations show that Surface D1 does not resist protein fouling. Further, Surface D1 exhibits a considerably higher number of biotin-Atto-488 molecules than Surface E1 (which lacks BSA), suggesting that BSA may facilitate nonspecific adsorption of streptavidin. Overall, we conclude that biosensing interfaces prepared with multiple derivatization steps39 require a more robust, reproducible surface passivation procedure. Performance of PLL-PEG/PEGbiotin Surfaces. Next, we asked whether PLL-PEG/PEGbiotin surfaces could be used for SMLM. As shown in Figure 4, specific binding of biotin-Atto488 to these surfaces via streptavidin (Surface F1) resulted in a high number of fluorescent spots on the surface. In contrast, the number of fluorescent spots on control surfaces prepared without streptavidin (Surface F2) or without PLL-PEGbiotin (Surface F3) was essentially at background levels on surfaces that were not exposed to biotin-Atto-488 (Surface F4). These observations confirmed that streptavidin on PLL-PEG/ 10015

DOI: 10.1021/acs.langmuir.8b01487 Langmuir 2018, 34, 10012−10018

Article

Langmuir

Figure 4. (a) Specific binding events on PLL-PEG/PEGbiotin surfaces and nonspecific adsorption of FITC-BSA, measured by the averaged surface spot counts over an imaging area of 2500 μm2. Error bars indicate standard deviation (SD, n > 5). (b−e) Representative TIRF images of biotinylated Atto-488 and FITC-BSA on the indicated surfaces.

mEos2 and the background signal on the PLL-PEG/PEGbiotin surfaces. As shown in Figure 5b, the results confirm the specific binding events of biotin-anti-HA antibodies to streptavidin and HA-mEos2 to biotin-anti-HA antibodies. Finally, the data in Figure 5e were collected from PALM imaging, where the number of localization events was recorded after acquisition of 10 000 frames per sample. The results in Figure 5e combined with those in Figure 5f,g, representative of PALM images of the surfaces with control cell lysates (without HA-mEos2) and HA-mEos2-containing lysates, show that the PLL-PEG/ PEGbiotin surface could specifically pull-down target molecules, HA-mEos2, from unprocessed mammalian cell extracts with a negligible background signal and nonspecific adsorption.

PEGbiotin surfaces is essentially exclusively bound to the biotin groups on the surface, and hence that the PLL-PEG/ PEGbiotin surfaces were effective at limiting nonspecific protein adsorption. The PLL-PEG/PEGbiotin surfaces showed not only low nonspecific adsorption of streptavidin but also low FITC-BSA adsorption (Surface G1−Surface G3). This low nonspecific adsorption of FITC-BSA is clearly visible in the representative TIRF images (Figure 4b−e). Surface G3 is notable here as the streptavidin-modified surface was incubated with biotin-antimouse CD3ε to replicate an antibody-modified biorecognition surface prior to testing for nonspecific adsorption of FITCBSA. As the antibody was not specific for the BSA, it was encouraging that there was very little FITC-BSA nonspecifically adsorbed onto the surface. One final point is that PLL-PEG/PEGbiotin showed a significantly lower background signal coming from its surface than that from the DbT20 surface when comparing the fluorescent spots on Surface F4 with Surface C2 (Figure 3). Taken together, the results of Figure 4 show that the PLLPEG/PEGbiotin surface exhibited a persistent resistance to nonspecific physisorption even after multiple-step modification, making it a promising interface for SMLM studies. PALM Imaging of HA-mEos2 Pulled Down from Cell Lysates onto PLL-PEG/PEGbiotin Surfaces. The PLLPEG/PEGbiotin surface was finally tested for its suitability in SMLM experiments. We engineered and expressed a fusion protein (HA-mEos2) containing the common glycoprotein tag human influenza HA and the fluorescent protein mEos2. Figure 5a shows the workflow of the pull-down assay, where HA-mEos2 is directly pulled down from cell lysates onto the PLL-PEG/PEGbiotin surface modified with streptavidin and biotin-anti-HA antibodies. To be more specific, the crude cell lysates were applied on the streptavidin/antibody-modified surfaces for 5 min, washed with PBS, and then imaged. First, TIRF imaging was used to evaluate the binding events of HA-

■

CONCLUSIONS SMLM has the potential to characterize antigen−antibody interactions on the biointerface, but this requires surfaces that effectively limit nonspecific protein adsorption. In this study, the antifouling properties of the DbT20 surface were confirmed for single-molecule imaging, as reported previously by Ha and co-workers.29 However, the concentration of Tween-20 required to maintain antifouling properties was dependent on the number of modification steps required in forming the biointerface after the addition of Tween-20. This led us to the conclusion that the DbT20 surface was not ideal for SMLM of interfaces requiring multiple modification steps. As such, PLL-PEG/PEGbiotin surfaces were developed for this purpose, which showed excellent resistance to nonspecific physisorption of proteins. Additionally, the PLL-PEG/ PEGbiotin surface showed negligible background and nonspecific adsorption, where target molecules were specifically pulled down from mammalian cell extracts. This means that PLL-PEG/PEGbiotin surfaces are suitable to study bioaffinity reactions and may even facilitate the quantification of antigen− antibody, protein−protein, and drug−receptor interactions with SMLM. 10016

DOI: 10.1021/acs.langmuir.8b01487 Langmuir 2018, 34, 10012−10018

Article

Langmuir

Figure 5. Imaging of HA-mEos2 onto the PLL-PEG/PEGbiotin surface. (a) Schematic workflow of the pull-down assay with the PLL-PEG/ PEGbiotin surface. (b) Binding events on PLL-PEG/PEGbiotin surfaces expressed as the averaged surface spot counts in an imaging area of 2500 μm2. Error bars indicate standard deviation (SD, n > 5). (c,d) Fluorescence TIRF images of HA-mEos2 on the indicated surfaces. (e) Comparison of the number of localization events per microns between control cell lysates and HA-mEos2-containing lysates obtained with SMLM imaging. Error bars indicate standard deviation (SD, n = 3; “n” here refers to the analysis coming out of three regions on a single substrate). (f,g) PALM images of control cell lysates (without HA-mEos2) and HA-mEos2-containing lysates on the PLL-PEG/PEGbiotin surfaces modified with streptavidin and biotin-anti-HA antibodies.

■

Notes

ASSOCIATED CONTENT

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

S Supporting Information *

The Supporting Information is available free of charge on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.langmuir.8b01487.

■

■

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

■

REFERENCES

We acknowledge funding from the ARC Centre of Excellence in Convergent Bio-Nano Science and Technology (CE140100036, to J.J.G.), the Australian Research Council for an ARC Laureate Fellowship program (FL150100060 to J.J.G.), the ARC Centre of Excellence in Advanced Molecular Imaging (CE140100011 to K.G.), and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (1091261 to J.J.G. and APP1059278 to K.G.). M.Z. acknowledges the support received through an “Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship.”

Experimental section, contact angle measurement, investigation of specific binding events on DbT20 surfaces, HA-mEos2 expression in cells, and surface density based on different ratios of PLL-PEG mixed with PLL-PEGbiotin (PDF)

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Authors

*E-mail: [email protected] (K.G.). *E-mail: [email protected] (J.J.G.). ORCID

(1) Allen, J. R.; Ross, S. T.; Davidson, M. W. Single molecule localization microscopy for superresolution. J. Optic. 2013, 15, 094001. (2) Schermelleh, L.; Heintzmann, R.; Leonhardt, H. A guide to super-resolution fluorescence microscopy. J. Cell Biol. 2010, 190, 165. (3) van de Linde, S.; Heilemann, M.; Sauer, M. Live-Cell SuperResolution Imaging with Synthetic Fluorophores. Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 2012, 63, 519−540.

J. Justin Gooding: 0000-0002-5398-0597 Present Addresses

# Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, Washington, 98106, USA (P.R.N.). ¶ CSIRO Health and Biosecurity, Australian Animal Health Laboratory, 5 Portarlington Road, Geelong, Victoria, 3220, Australia (Q.D.).

10017

DOI: 10.1021/acs.langmuir.8b01487 Langmuir 2018, 34, 10012−10018

Article

Langmuir (4) Hess, S. T.; Girirajan, T. P. K.; Mason, M. D. Ultra-High Resolution Imaging by Fluorescence Photoactivation Localization Microscopy. Biophys. J. 2006, 91, 4258−4272. (5) Betzig, E.; Patterson, G. H.; Sougrat, R.; Lindwasser, O. W.; Olenych, S.; Bonifacino, J. S.; Davidson, M. W.; Lippincott-Schwartz, J.; Hess, H. F. Imaging Intracellular Fluorescent Proteins at Nanometer Resolution. Science 2006, 313, 1642. (6) Rust, M. J.; Bates, M.; Zhuang, X. Sub-diffraction-limit imaging by stochastic optical reconstruction microscopy (STORM). Nat. Methods 2006, 3, 793−796. (7) Heilemann, M.; van de Linde, S.; Schüttpelz, M.; Kasper, R.; Seefeldt, B.; Mukherjee, A.; Tinnefeld, P.; Sauer, M. SubdiffractionResolution Fluorescence Imaging with Conventional Fluorescent Probes. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2008, 47, 6172−6176. (8) Bretschneider, S.; Eggeling, C.; Hell, S. W. Breaking the Diffraction Barrier in Fluorescence Microscopy by Optical Shelving. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2007, 98, 218103. (9) Giannone, G.; Hosy, E.; Levet, F.; Constals, A.; Schulze, K.; Sobolevsky, A. I.; Rosconi, M. P.; Gouaux, E.; Tampé, R.; Choquet, D.; Cognet, L. Dynamic Superresolution Imaging of Endogenous Proteins on Living Cells at Ultra-High Density. Biophys. J. 2010, 99, 1303−1310. (10) Sharonov, A.; Hochstrasser, R. M. Wide-field subdiffraction imaging by accumulated binding of diffusing probes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2006, 103, 18911−18916. (11) Jungmann, R.; Avendaño, M. S.; Woehrstein, J. B.; Dai, M.; Shih, W. M.; Yin, P. Multiplexed 3D cellular super-resolution imaging with DNA-PAINT and Exchange-PAINT. Nat. Methods 2014, 11, 313−318. (12) Lu, X.; Nicovich, P. R.; Gaus, K.; Gooding, J. J. Towards single molecule biosensors using super-resolution fluorescence microscopy. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2017, 93, 1−8. (13) Williamson, D. J.; Owen, D. M.; Rossy, J.; Magenau, A.; Wehrmann, M.; Gooding, J. J.; Gaus, K. Pre-existing clusters of the adaptor Lat do not participate in early T cell signaling events. Nat. Immunol. 2011, 12, 655−662. (14) Xu, K.; Zhong, G.; Zhuang, X. Actin, Spectrin, and Associated Proteins Form a Periodic Cytoskeletal Structure in Axons. Science 2013, 339, 452−456. (15) Nicovich, P. R.; Owen, D. M.; Gaus, K. Turning singlemolecule localization microscopy into a quantitative bioanalytical tool. Nat. Protoc. 2017, 12, 453−460. (16) Clark, P. J.; Evans, F. C. Distance to Nearest Neighbor as a Measure of Spatial Relationships in Populations. Ecology 1954, 35, 445−453. (17) Owen, D. M.; Rentero, C.; Rossy, J.; Magenau, A.; Williamson, D.; Rodriguez, M.; Gaus, K. PALM imaging and cluster analysis of protein heterogeneity at the cell surface. J. Biophotonics 2010, 3, 446− 454. (18) Kiskowski, M. A.; Hancock, J. F.; Kenworthy, A. K. On the Use of Ripley’s K-Function and Its Derivatives to Analyze Domain Size. Biophys. J. 2009, 97, 1095−1103. (19) Veatch, S. L.; Machta, B. B.; Shelby, S. A.; Chiang, E. N.; Holowka, D. A.; Baird, B. A. Correlation Functions Quantify SuperResolution Images and Estimate Apparent Clustering Due to OverCounting. PLoS One 2012, 7, e31457. (20) Sengupta, P.; Jovanovic-Talisman, T.; Skoko, D.; Renz, M.; Veatch, S. L.; Lippincott-Schwartz, J. Probing protein heterogeneity in the plasma membrane using PALM and pair correlation analysis. Nat. Methods 2011, 8, 969−975. (21) Ester, M.; Kriegel, H.-P.; Sander, J.; Xu, X. A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters a density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining; AAAI Press: Portland, OR, 1996; pp 226−231. (22) Jeon, S. I.; Lee, J. H.; Andrade, J. D.; De Gennes, P. G. ProteinSurface Interactions in the Presence of Polyethylene Oxide I. Simplified Theory. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 1991, 142, 149−158.

(23) Jeon, S. I.; Andrade, J. D. Protein-Surface Interactions in the Presence of Polyethylene Oxide I. Effect of Protein Size. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 1991, 142, 159−166. (24) Prime, K. L.; Whitesides, G. M. Adsorption of Proteins onto Surfaces Containing End-Attached Oligo( ethylene oxide): A Model System Using Self-Assembled Monolayers. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1993, 115, 10714−10721. (25) Heyes, C. D.; Groll, J.; Möller, M.; Nienhaus, G. U. Synthesis, patterning and applications of star-shaped poly(ethylene glycol) biofunctionalized surfaces. Mol. BioSyst. 2007, 3, 419−430. (26) Revyakin, A.; Zhang, Z.; Coleman, R. A.; Li, Y.; Inouye, C.; Lucas, J. K.; Park, S.-R.; Chu, S.; Tjian, R. Transcription initiation by human RNA polymerase II visualized at single-molecule resolution. Genes Dev. 2012, 26, 1691−1702. (27) Elting, M. W.; Leslie, S. R.; Churchman, L. S.; Korlach, J.; McFaul, C. M. J.; Leith, J. S.; Levene, M. J.; Cohen, A. E.; Spudich, J. A. Single-molecule fluorescence imaging of processive myosin with enhanced background suppression using linear zero-mode waveguides (ZMWs) and convex lens induced confinement (CLIC). Opt. Express 2013, 21, 1189−1202. (28) Geertsema, H. J.; Schulte, A. C.; Spenkelink, L. M.; McGrath, W. J.; Morrone, S. R.; Sohn, J.; Mangel, W. F.; Robinson, A.; van Oijen, A. M. Single-Molecule Imaging at High Fluorophore Concentrations by Local Activation of Dye. Biophys. J. 2015, 108, 949−956. (29) Hua, B.; Han, K. Y.; Zhou, R.; Kim, H.; Shi, X.; Abeysirigunawardena, S. C.; Jain, A.; Singh, D.; Aggarwal, V.; Woodson, S. A.; Ha, T. An improved surface passivation method for single-molecule studies. Nat. Methods 2014, 11, 1233−1236. (30) Ha, T.; Rasnik, I.; Cheng, W.; Babcock, H. P.; Gauss, G. H.; Lohman, T. M.; Chu, S. Initiation and re-initiation of DNA unwinding by the Escherichia coli Rep helicase. Nature 2002, 419, 638−641. (31) Helenius, J.; Brouhard, G.; Kalaidzidis, Y.; Diez, S.; Howard, J. The depolymerizing kinesin MCAK uses lattice diffusion to rapidly target microtubule ends. Nature 2006, 441, 115−119. (32) Huang, N.-P.; Michel, R.; Voros, J.; Textor, M.; Hofer, R.; Rossi, A.; Elbert, D. L.; Hubbell, J. A.; Spencer, N. D. Poly(l-lysine)-gpoly(ethylene glycol) Layers on Metal Oxide Surfaces: SurfaceAnalytical Characterization and Resistance to Serum and Fibrinogen Adsorption. Langmuir 2001, 17, 489−498. (33) Huang, N.-P.; Vörös, J.; De Paul, S. M.; Textor, M.; Spencer, N. D. Biotin-Derivatized Poly(L-lysine)-g-poly(ethylene glycol): A Novel Polymeric Interface for Bioaffinity Sensing. Langmuir 2002, 18, 220− 230. (34) Böcking, T.; Aguet, F.; Harrison, S. C.; Kirchhausen, T. Singlemolecule analysis of a molecular disassemblase reveals the mechanism of Hsc70-driven clathrin uncoating. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2011, 18, 295−301. (35) Jain, A.; Liu, R.; Ramani, B.; Arauz, E.; Ishitsuka, Y.; Ragunathan, K.; Park, J.; Chen, J.; Xiang, Y. K.; Ha, T. Probing cellular protein complexes using single-molecule pull-down. Nature 2011, 473, 484−488. (36) Lee, J. H.; Kopecek, J.; Andrade, J. D. Protein-resistant surfaces prepared by PEO-containing block copolymer surfactants. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 1989, 23, 351−368. (37) Gombotz, W. R.; Guanghui, W.; Horbett, T. A.; Hoffman, A. S. Protein adsorption to poly(ethy1ene oxide) surfaces. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 1991, 25, 1547−1562. (38) Mori, Y.; Nagaoka, S.; Takiuchi, H.; Kikuchi, T.; Noguchi, N.; Tanzawa, H.; Noishiki, Y. A new antithrombogenic material with long polyethyleneoxide chains. Trans. Am. Soc. Artif. Intern. Organs 1982, 28, 459−463. (39) Gooding, J. J.; Ciampi, S. The Molecular Level Modification of Surfaces: From Self-Assembled Monolayers to Complex Molecular Assemblies. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2011, 40, 2704−2718.

10018

DOI: 10.1021/acs.langmuir.8b01487 Langmuir 2018, 34, 10012−10018