Fluorescence/Luminescence Circadian Imaging of Complex Tissues at Single-Cell Resolution

Journal of Biological Rhythms (Impact Factor: 2.77). 06/2010; 25(3):228-32. DOI: 10.1177/0748730410368016
Source: PubMed


The use of luciferase reporter genes together with luminescence detection has enabled high frequency monitoring of molecular circadian clock function in living tissues. With the help of an intensified CCD camera combined with an inverted epifluorescence microscope, the authors have established a new imaging strategy that makes use of transgenic cell type-specific expression of fluorescent proteins to identify cells of interest for subsequent circadian luminescence recording at single-cell resolution.

Download full-text


Available from: Michael T. Sellix, Mar 17, 2014
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: It has been estimated that over a billion dollars in resources can be consumed to obtain clinical approval, and only a few new chemical entities are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) each year. Therefore it is of utmost importance to obtain the maximum amount of information about biological activity, toxicological profile, biochemical mechanisms, and off-target interactions of drug-candidate leads in the earliest stages of drug discovery. Cell-based assays, because of their peculiar advantages of predictability, possibility of automation, multiplexing, and miniaturization, seem the most appealing tool for the high demands of the early stages of the drug-discovery process. Nevertheless, cellular screening, relying on different strategies ranging from reporter gene technology to protein fragment complementation assays, still presents a variety of challenges. This review focuses on main advantages and limitations of different cell-based approaches, and future directions and trends in this fascinating field. Figure Different cell-based strategies can improve the throughput and reliability of the first stages of the drug discovery process
    Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry 09/2010; 398(1):227-38. DOI:10.1007/s00216-010-3933-z · 3.44 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A central circadian (~24 hr) clock coordinating daily rhythms in physiology and behavior resides in the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) located in the anterior hypothalamus. The clock is directly synchronized by light via the retina and optic nerve. Circadian oscillations are generated by interacting negative feedback loops of a number of so called "clock genes" and their protein products, including the Period (Per) genes. The core clock is also dependent on membrane depolarization, calcium and cAMP 1. The SCN shows daily oscillations in clock gene expression, metabolic activity and spontaneous electrical activity. Remarkably, this endogenous cyclic activity persists in adult tissue slices of the SCN 2-4. In this way, the biological clock can easily be studied in vitro, allowing molecular, electrophysiological and metabolic investigations of the pacemaker function. The SCN is a small, well-defined bilateral structure located right above the optic chiasm 5. In the rat it contains ~8.000 neurons in each nucleus and has dimensions of approximately 947 μm (length, rostrocaudal axis) x 424 μm (width) x 390 μm (height) 6. To dissect out the SCN it is necessary to cut a brain slice at the specific level of the brain where the SCN can be identified. Here, we describe the dissecting and slicing procedure of the SCN, which is similar for mouse and rat brains. Further, we show how to culture the dissected tissue organotypically on a membrane 7, a technique developed for SCN tissue culture by Yamazaki et al.8. Finally, we demonstrate how transgenic tissue can be used for measuring expression of clock genes/proteins using dynamic luciferase reporter technology, a method that originally was used for circadian measurements by Geusz et al.9. We here use SCN tissues from the transgenic knock-in PERIOD2::LUCIFERASE mice produced by Yoo et al.10. The mice contain a fusion protein of PERIOD (PER) 2 and the firefly enzyme LUCIFERASE. When PER2 is translated in the presence of the substrate for luciferase, i.e. luciferin, the PER2 expression can be monitored as bioluminescence when luciferase catalyzes the oxidation of luciferin. The number of emitted photons positively correlates to the amount of produced PER2 protein, and the bioluminescence rhythms match the PER2 protein rhythm in vivo10. In this way the cyclic variation in PER2 expression can be continuously monitored real time during many days. The protocol we follow for tissue culturing and real-time bioluminescence recording has been thoroughly described by Yamazaki and Takahashi 11.
    Journal of Visualized Experiments 02/2011; DOI:10.3791/2439 · 1.33 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Rhythmic expression of period (per) and timeless (tim) genes in central circadian pacemaker neurons and prothoracic gland cells, part of the peripheral circadian oscillators in flies, may synergistically control eclosion rhythms, but their oscillatory profiles remain unclear. Here we show differences and interactions between peripheral and central oscillators using per-luciferase and cytosolic Ca(2+) reporter (yellow cameleon) imaging in organotypic prothoracic gland cultures with or without the associated central nervous system. Isolated prothoracic gland cells exhibit light-insensitive synchronous per-transcriptional rhythms. In prothoracic gland cells associated with the central nervous system, however, per transcription is markedly amplified following 12-h light exposure, resulting in the manifestation of day-night rhythms in nuclear PER immunostaining levels and spontaneous Ca(2+) spiking. Unlike PER expression, nuclear TIM expression is associated with day-night cycles that are independent of the central nervous system. These results demonstrate that photoreception and synaptic signal transduction in/from the central nervous system coordinate molecular 'gears' in endocrine oscillators to generate physiological rhythms.
    Nature Communications 06/2012; 3:909. DOI:10.1038/ncomms1922 · 11.47 Impact Factor
Show more