405
2009, 113, 405–408 Published on Web 12/19/2008
Pyrenebutyrate-Mediated Delivery of Quantum Dots across the Plasma Membrane of Living Cells Amy E. Jablonski, William H. Humphries IV, and Christine K. Payne* School of Chemistry and Biochemistry and Petit Institute for Bioengineering and Bioscience, Georgia Institute of Technology, 901 Atlantic DriVe, Atlanta, Georgia 30332 ReceiVed: NoVember 11, 2008; ReVised Manuscript ReceiVed: December 8, 2008
This paper was withdrawn on July 29, 2010. Please see DOI: 10.1021/jp105280z Quantum dots have been delivered directly across the plasma membrane to the cytosol of living cells using a combination of a cationic peptide, polyarginine, and a hydrophobic counterion, pyrenebutyrate. Quantum dot delivery did not disrupt the plasma membrane and bypassed the barrier of endocytic vesicles. Cellular uptake was independent of temperature but highly dependent on the surface charge of the quantum dot and the membrane potential of the cell, suggesting a direct translocation across the membrane. This method of delivery can find immediate application for quantum dots and may be broadly applicable to other nanoparticles. Quantum dots, nanometer-diameter semiconductor particles, have great potential for use as fluorescent probes for live cell imaging.1-7 They are many times brighter than traditional fluorophores, are resistant to photobleaching, and can be conjugated to molecules for cellular targeting.8-12 Despite these advantages, the use of quantum dots for live cell imaging has been limited by the inability to deliver quantum dots to the cytosol of the cell using noninvasive methods. Cytosolic delivery is necessary for labeling intracellular proteins and probing intracellular dynamics. Prior to this work, quantum dots have been introduced into live cells using two general approaches. Mechanical methods, such as microinjection, require the disruption of the cell membrane.13,14 Nonmechanical methods use a delivery agent, such as a cationic peptide, complexed to the quantum dot to induce internalization into intracellular vesicles, a process described as endocytosis or macropinocytosis.7,10,15 Mechanical methods can deliver quantum dots to the cytosol but are highly invasive. Endocytosis or macropinocytosis is minimally invasive, but the quantum dots are then confined to endocytic vesicles within the cell, restricting access to the cytosol. The difficulties associated with the delivery of quantum dots to the cytosol have limited the use of quantum dots to studies of receptors or antibodies on the cell surface,1-3,13,16 which do not require transport into the cell, or intracellular studies focusing on vesicle transport.4,5,7,9 This Letter introduces a new method for the intracellular delivery of quantum dots with three important benefits; noninvasive delivery, simultaneous application to an unlimited number of cells, and cytosolic access. The goal of cytosolic delivery extends well beyond the delivery of quantum dots for live cell imaging. Much research in this field is directed toward the delivery of nucleic acids and proteins for use as therapeutics.17-20 As with quantum dots, these molecular cargos are often delivered to cells with a cationic peptide that results in vesicle-mediated uptake.21-24 Release from the vesicle is then necessary for the activity of the delivered * Corresponding author. E-mail:
[email protected]. Phone: 404-385-3125. Fax: 404-385-6057.
10.1021/jp809956w CCC: $40.75
cargo. For example, DNA conjugated to a cationic peptide will be internalized by the cell and transported through a series of vesicles. However, expression of the genetic material ultimately requires release from the vesicle and entry of DNA into the nucleus. Release from the vesicle is a major barrier to activity.25,26 Based on the similar goal of cytosolic delivery, we have extended a method designed by T. Takeuchi et al. for the delivery of proteins to instead deliver quantum dots to the cytosol of living cells.27 This method requires a cationic peptide in combination with a hydrophobic counterion to induce a direct translocation across the cell membrane, bypassing the barrier of the endocytic vesicles.27-31 In comparison to protein delivery, quantum dots provide a number of challenges for cellular delivery. The main challenge for quantum dot delivery arises from the relatively large hydrodynamic diameter of quantum dots when used for biological applications. The quantum dots used in these experiments have an average hydrodynamic diameter of 32 nm.16 In comparison, green fluorescent protein (GFP) has a 3 nm hydrodynamic diameter and, presumably, a more flexible structure than a quantum dot.32 To some extent, the large diameter of these quantum dots is due to the use of red-emitting quantum dots, as red emission requires larger quantum dots than blue emission. However, one of the benefits of quantum dots for live cell imaging is the availability of redemitting probes that are more easily distinguished from the bluegreen fluorescent background of the cell.33,34 An additional reason for the relatively large size of these quantum dots is the functionalization necessary for biological compatibility and ligand conjugation. While still offering many benefits for live cell imaging, it cannot be ignored that the diameter of the quantum dots provides a significant barrier to delivery across the plasma membrane. We first tested whether quantum dots conjugated to polyarginine, a common cationic peptide used for delivery of biomolecules, could similarly translocate across the plasma membrane in the presence of a hydrophobic counterion, pyrenebutyrate (1-pyrenebutyric acid). Quantum dots (QDs, 655 nm, Invitrogen) were complexed to a nine-unit, polyarginine (PA) peptide 2009 American Chemical Society
406 J. Phys. Chem. B, Vol. 113, No. 2, 2009
Letters
Figure 1. Confocal microscopy was used to image cells after incubation with 4 nM PA-QDs (red) at 37 °C. (a) Incubation in PBS. (b) Incubation in PBS supplemented with 4 µM pyrenebutyrate. DAPI (blue) and DiI (green) were used to label the nucleus and plasma membrane, respectively. Scale bar: 20 µm.
Figure 2. Confocal images recorded after incubation with 4 nM PA-QDs at 4 °C. (a) Incubation in PBS. (b) Incubation in PBS supplemented with 4 µM pyrenebutyrate. Transmitted light images are overlaid with fluorescence images to show the cellular outline. Scale bar: 20 µm.
through a biotin-streptavidin linkage. In the absence of pyrenebutyrate, cellular uptake is dependent on cationic PA binding to anionic heparan sulfate molecules on the cell surface. Binding is then followed by endocytic uptake and transport through a series of intracellular vesicles.7 Confluent monolayers of BS-C-1 monkey kidney cells were incubated with either phosphate buffered saline (PBS) or PBS supplemented with 4 µM pyrenebutyrate for 2 min at 37 °C. PA-QDs were added to the cells at a concentration of 4 nM and incubated at 37 °C for 4 min before washing with cell culture medium. Cells were imaged immediately, without fixation, with a confocal fluorescence microscope (Zeiss, 40× objective). A 4 min incubation in PBS leads to a low level of fluorescence from the PA-QDs (Figure 1a). In comparison, the addition of pyrenebutyrate results in significantly increased uptake of the PA-QDs with fluorescence visible throughout the cytosol (Figure 1b). Measurement of the mean intensity of 16-18 cells, excluding the nucleus and normalized by the area of the cell, showed a 5-fold increase in fluorescence for pyrenebutyrate-treated cells in comparison to control cells (Supporting Information Table S1). PA is required for pyrenebutyrate-mediated uptake. Uptake was not observed for cells incubated with streptavidin-QDs and pyrenebutyrate (data not shown).
Figure 3. Zeta potential of PA-QDs as a function of the pyrenebutyrate-to-QD ratio. Results are an average of three measurements at 25 °C (Zetasizer, Malvern Instruments, Worcestershire, U.K.). The inset shows the relative fluorescence of cells (n ) 3-14) as a function of the same pyrenebutyrate-to-QD ratio. A ratio of 1000 was used for imaging.
A 4 min incubation period immediately prior to imaging provides very little time for endocytic uptake,16 suggesting that the high rate of uptake observed in the presence of pyrenebu-
Letters
J. Phys. Chem. B, Vol. 113, No. 2, 2009 407
Figure 4. Confocal images recorded after incubation with 4 nM PA-QDs at 37 °C. (a) Incubation in PBS supplemented with 75 mM extracellular potassium. (b) Incubation in PBS. Transmitted light images are overlaid with fluorescence images to show the cellular outline. Scale bar: 20 µm.
tyrate involves a fundamentally different mechanism. Hallmarks of endocytic uptake include inhibited uptake at 4 °C, punctate staining resulting from endosomal accumulation, and rapid intracellular transport as the endosomes are moved along the cytoskeleton by motor proteins.35,36 In comparison, the pyrenebutyrate-mediated uptake of PA-QDs is not affected by incubation at 4 °C (Figure 2 and Supporting Information Table S2), the addition of FITC-dextran, a fluid phase marker of endocytosis, during the 4 min required for pyrenebutyrate-mediated uptake resulted in very little endocytic uptake and colocalization (Supporting Information Figure S1), and PA-QDs in pyrenebutyrate-treated cells showed limited motion compared to the rapid, directed motion observed for motor protein-driven endosomes (Supporting Information Figure S2). These results suggest that PA-QDs, in the presence of pyrenebutyrate, are able to move across the plasma membrane without interaction with endocytic vesicles. The possibility that pyrenebutyrate permeabilizes the plasma membrane, allowing diffusion of PA-QDs into cells, was tested by measuring the uptake of trypan blue (see the Supporting Information). Trypan blue is a cell-impermeant dye, the uptake of which is a standard assay of membrane integrity; cells with intact membranes are impermeable to trypan blue, while permeabilized membranes allow entry of the dye, resulting in a blue colored cell visible with a standard light microscope.37 This method revealed no difference between cells incubated with PBS and those treated with 4 µM pyrenebutyrate, demonstrating that pyrenebutyrate is not permeabilizing the cells. Additionally, the trypan blue assay demonstrates that the cells remain viable following pyrenebutyrate treatment and PA-QD delivery. For the translocation of PA-labeled proteins,27 anionic pyrenebutyrate binds to cationic PA to form a hydrophobic complex that passes through the plasma membrane. This mechanismdependsonthesurfacechargeofthepyrenebutyrate-PAQD complex. We measured cellular uptake of the PA-QDs as a function of pyrenebutyrate concentration and compared this value with the zeta potential of the PA-QDs in a pyrenebutyrate solution (Figure 3). In the absence of pyrenebutyrate, the zeta potential of PA-QDs is positive and cellular uptake (Figure 3, inset) is limited by the short time allowed for binding and endocytosis. As the concentration of pyrenebutyrate increases, the zeta potential of the PA-QDs shifts to negative values and cellular uptake increases significantly, suggesting a similar translocation mechanism is responsible for PA-QD uptake. As
the concentration of pyrenebutyrate is increased to 1 µM, a ratio of 1000 pyrenebutyrate molecules to each quantum dot, the effective surface charge of the PA-QDs decreases further to -32 mV and cellular uptake increase to 3-fold that of control cells. Both the surface charge of the cargo and the membrane potential of the cell are important for translocation.27 The relative concentration of intracellular and extracellular potassium creates a potential across the membrane of the cell. While normally considered for its role in ion transport, we have also observed that this potential is necessary for the transport of PA-QDs into the cell and may serve as a driving force for transport. The use of PBS supplemented with 75 mM extracellular potassium was shown to reduce the membrane potential of the cell using a DiBAC4(3), a potential sensitive dye (see the Supporting Information). The presence of extracellular potassium inhibited uptake of PA-QDs, as shown in Figure 4. We have characterized a new method for delivering QDs, and likely other nanoparticles, across the plasma membrane directly to the cytosol of living cells. This method is noninvasive and can be used on an unlimited number of cells simultaneously. For experiments requiring QDs in the cytosol, including fluorescent labeling and potential therapeutic applications, this method can find immediate application.6,38,39 For intracellular targeting, pyrenebutyrate-mediated delivery can be coupled with developments in the functionalization of QDs to label specific cytosolic proteins.11,12,40-44 Additionally, bright, photostable quantum dots can now be used to directly probe pyrenebutyratemediated transport across the plasma membrane. This mechanism could not be probed using traditional fluorophores and will aid in our understanding of the interaction of nanoparticles with the plasma membrane of living cells. Acknowledgment. The authors thank Prof. Christoph Fahrni for helpful discussion and Prof. Nils Kro¨ger for use of the Zetasizer. This work was supported by an NIH Research Scholar Development Award to C.K.P. and the Georgia Institute of Technology. Supporting Information Available: Detailed materials, methods, and supplementary figures. This material is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.
408 J. Phys. Chem. B, Vol. 113, No. 2, 2009 References and Notes (1) Rosenthal, S. J.; Tomlinson, A.; Adkins, E. M.; Schroeter, S.; Adams, S.; Swafford, L.; McBride, J.; Wang, Y. Q.; DeFelice, L. J.; Blakely, R. D. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2002, 124, 4586–4594. (2) Lidke, D. S.; Nagy, P.; Heintzmann, R.; Arndt-Jovin, D. J.; Post, J. N.; Grecco, H. E.; Jares-Erijman, E. A.; Jovin, T. M. Nat. Biotechnol. 2004, 22, 198–203. (3) Jaiswal, J. K.; Simon, S. M. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2007, 3, 92–98. (4) Zhang, Q.; Cao, Y. Q.; Tsien, R. W. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2007, 104, 17843–17848. (5) Nan, X. L.; Sims, P. A.; Chen, P.; Xie, X. S. J. Phys. Chem B 2005, 109, 24220–24224. (6) Courty, S.; Luccardini, C.; Bellaiche, Y.; Cappello, G.; Dahan, M. Nano Lett. 2006, 6, 1491–1495. (7) Payne, C. K.; Jones, S. A.; Chen, C.; Zhuang, X. W. Traffic 2007, 8, 389–401. (8) Bruchez, M.; Moronne, M.; Gin, P.; Weiss, S.; Alivisatos, A. P. Science 1998, 281, 2013–2016. (9) Chan, W. C. W.; Nie, S. M. Science 1998, 281, 2016–2018. (10) Jaiswal, J. K.; Mattoussi, H.; Mauro, J. M.; Simon, S. M. Nat. Biotechnol. 2003, 21, 47–51. (11) Jaiswal, J. K.; Simon, S. M. Trends Cell Biol. 2004, 14, 497–504. (12) Michalet, X.; Pinaud, F. F.; Bentolila, L. A.; Tsay, J. M.; Doose, S.; Li, J. J.; Sundaresan, G.; Wu, A. M.; Gambhir, S. S.; Weiss, S. Science 2005, 307, 538–544. (13) Dubertret, B.; Skourides, P.; Norris, D. J.; Noireaux, V.; Brivanlou, A. H.; Libchaber, A. Science 2002, 298, 1759–1762. (14) Derfus, A. M.; Chan, W. C. W.; Bhatia, S. N. AdV. Mater. 2004, 16, 961–966. (15) Ruan, G.; Agrawal, A.; Marcus, A. I.; Nie, S. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2007, 129, 14759–14766. (16) Hess, G. T.; Humphries, W. H.; Fay, N. C.; Payne, C. K. Biochim. Biophys. Acta, Mol. Cell Res. 2007, 1773, 1583–1588. (17) Wender, P. A.; Mitchell, D. J.; Pattabiraman, K.; Pelkey, E. T.; Steinman, L.; Rothbard, J. B. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2000, 97, 13003– 13008. (18) Fischer, R.; Fotin-Mleczek, M.; Hufnagel, H.; Brock, R. ChemBioChem 2005, 6, 2126–2142. (19) Wadia, J. S.; Dowdy, S. F. AdV. Drug DeliVery ReV. 2005, 57, 579–596. (20) Duchardt, F.; Fotin-Mleczek, M.; Schwarz, H.; Fischer, R.; Brock, R. Traffic 2007, 8, 848–866. (21) Potocky, T. B.; Menon, A. K.; Gellman, S. H. J. Biol. Chem. 2003, 278, 50188–50194.
Letters (22) Melikov, K.; Chernomordik, L. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 2005, 62, 2739– 2749. (23) Kawamura, K. S.; Sung, M.; Bolewska-Pedyczak, E.; Gariepy, J. Biochemistry 2006, 45, 1116–1127. (24) Jones, A. T. J. Cell Mol. Med. 2007, 11, 670–684. (25) Fabre, J. W.; Collins, L. Curr. Gene Ther. 2006, 6, 459–480. (26) El-Sayed, A.; Khalil, I. A.; Kogure, K.; Futaki, S.; Harashima, H. J. Biol. Chem. 2008, 283, 23450–23461. (27) Takeuchi, T.; Kosuge, M.; Tadokoro, A.; Sugiura, Y.; Nishi, M.; Kawata, M.; Sakai, N.; Matile, S.; Futaki, S. ACS Chem. Biol. 2006, 1, 299–303. (28) Sakai, N.; Matile, S. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2003, 125, 14348–14356. (29) Perret, F.; Nishihara, M.; Takeuchi, T.; Futaki, S.; Lazar, A. N.; Coleman, A. W.; Sakai, N.; Matile, S. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2005, 127, 1114– 1115. (30) Nishihara, M.; Perret, F.; Takeuchi, T.; Futaki, S.; Lazar, A. N.; Coleman, A. W.; Sakai, N.; Matile, S. Org. Biomol. Chem. 2005, 3, 1659– 1669. (31) Futaki, S. AdV. Drug DeliVery ReV. 2005, 57, 547–558. (32) Busch, N. A.; Kim, T.; Bloomfield, V. A. Macromolecules 2000, 33, 5932–5937. (33) Aubin, J. E. J. Histochem. Cytochem. 1979, 27, 36–43. (34) Harms, G. S.; Cognet, L.; Lommerse, P. H. M.; Blab, G. A.; Schmidt, T. Biophys. J. 2001, 80, 2396–2408. (35) Silverstein, S. C.; Steinman, R. M.; Cohn, Z. A. Annu. ReV. Biochem. 1977, 46, 669–722. (36) Apodaca, G. Traffic 2001, 2, 149–159. (37) Strober, W. In Current Protocols in Immunology; Coligan, J. E., Kruisbeek, A. M., Margulies, D. H., Shevach, E. M., Strober, W., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons: New York; 1997. (38) Derfus, A. M.; Chen, A. A.; Min, D. H.; Ruoslahti, E.; Bhatia, S. N. Bioconjugate Chem. 2007, 18, 1391–1396. (39) Luccardini, C.; Yakovlev, A.; Gaillard, S.; van’t Hoff, M.; Alberola, A. P.; Mallet, J. M.; Parak, W. J.; Feltz, A.; Oheim, M. J. Biomed. Biotechnol. 2007, 68963. (40) Liu, W. H.; Choi, H. S.; Zimmer, J. P.; Tanaka, E.; Frangioni, J. V.; Bawendi, M. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2007, 129, 14530+. (41) Liu, W.; Howarth, M.; Greytak, A. B.; Zheng, Y.; Nocera, D. G.; Ting, A. Y.; Bawendi, M. G. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2008, 130, 1274–1284. (42) Lee, J.; Kim, J.; Park, E.; Jo, S.; Song, R. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2008, 10, 1739–1742. (43) Medintz, I. L.; Uyeda, H. T.; Goldman, E. R.; Mattoussi, H. Nat. Mater. 2005, 4, 435–446. (44) Susumu, K.; Uyeda, H. T.; Medintz, I. L.; Mattoussi, H. J. Biomed. Biotechnol. 2007, 90651.
JP809956W
