Visualization of gene products in
ImageJ and CellProfiler have long been leading open‐source platforms in the field of bioimage analysis. ImageJ's traditional strength is in single‐image processing and investigation, while CellProfiler is designed for building large‐scale, modular analysis pipelines. Although many image analysis problems can be well solved with one or the other, using these two platforms together in a single workflow can be powerful. Here, we share two pipelines demonstrating mechanisms for productively and conveniently integrating ImageJ and CellProfiler for (1) studying cell morphology and migration via tracking, and (2) advanced stitching techniques for handling large, tiled image sets to improve segmentation. No single platform can provide all the key and most efficient functionality needed for all studies. While both programs can be and are often used separately, these pipelines demonstrate the benefits of using them together for image analysis workflows. ImageJ and CellProfiler are both committed to interoperability between their platforms, with ongoing development to improve how both are leveraged from the other. © 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10231250
- Publisher / Repository:
- Wiley Blackwell (John Wiley & Sons)
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Current Protocols
- Volume:
- 1
- Issue:
- 5
- ISSN:
- 2691-1299
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
Abstract Caenorhabditis elegans has provided insights into the molecular and biological functions of many novel genes in their native contexts. Single‐molecule fluorescencein situ hybridization (smFISH) and immunofluorescence (IF) enable the visualization of the abundance and localization of mRNAs and proteins, respectively, allowing researchers to ultimately elucidate the localization, dynamics, and functions of the corresponding genes. Whereas both smFISH and immunofluorescence have been foundational techniques in molecular biology, each protocol poses challenges for use in theC. elegans embryo. smFISH protocols suffer from high initial costs and can photobleach rapidly, and immunofluorescence requires technically challenging permeabilization steps and slide preparation. Most importantly, published smFISH and IF protocols have predominantly been mutually exclusive, preventing the exploration of relationships between an mRNA and a relevant protein in the same sample. Here, we describe protocols to perform immunofluorescence and smFISH inC. elegans embryos either in sequence or simultaneously. We also outline the steps to perform smFISH or immunofluorescence alone, including several improvements and optimizations to existing approaches. These protocols feature improved fixation and permeabilization steps to preserve cellular morphology while maintaining probe and antibody accessibility in the embryo, a streamlined, in‐tube approach for antibody staining that negates freeze‐cracking, a validated method to perform the cost‐reducing single molecule inexpensive FISH (smiFISH) adaptation, slide preparation using empirically determined optimal antifade products, and straightforward quantification and data analysis methods. Finally, we discuss tricks and tips to help the reader optimize and troubleshoot individual steps in each protocol. Together, these protocols simplify existing workflows for single‐molecule RNA and protein detection. Moreover, simultaneous, high‐resolution imaging of proteins and RNAs of interest will permit analysis, quantification, and comparison of protein and RNA distributions, furthering our understanding of the relationship between RNAs and their protein products or cellular markers in early development. © 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.Basic Protocol 1 : Sequential immunofluorescence and single‐molecule fluorescencein situ hybridizationAlternate Protocol : Abbreviated protocol for simultaneous immunofluorescence and single‐molecule fluorescencein situ hybridizationBasic Protocol 2 : Simplified immunofluorescence inC. elegans embryosBasic Protocol 3 : Single‐molecule fluorescencein situ hybridization or single‐molecule inexpensive fluorescencein situ hybridization -
Abstract Class II major histocompatibility complex peptide (MHC‐IIp) multimers are precisely engineered reagents used to detect T cells specific for antigens from pathogens, tumors, and self‐proteins. While the related Class I MHC/peptide (MHC‐Ip) multimers are usually produced from subunits expressed in
E. coli , most Class II MHC alleles cannot be produced in bacteria, and this has contributed to the perception that MHC‐IIp reagents are harder to produce. Herein, we present a robust constitutive expression system for soluble biotinylated MHC‐IIp proteins that uses stable lentiviral vector−transduced derivatives of HEK‐293T cells. The expression design includes allele‐specific peptide ligands tethered to the amino‐terminus of the MHC‐II β chain via a protease‐cleavable linker. Following cleavage of the linker, HLA‐DM is used to catalyze efficient peptide exchange, enabling high‐throughput production of many distinct MHC‐IIp complexes from a single production cell line. Peptide exchange is monitored using either of two label‐free methods, native isoelectric focusing gel electrophoresis or matrix‐assisted laser desorption/ionization time‐of‐flight (MALDI‐TOF) mass spectrometry of eluted peptides. Together, these methods produce MHC‐IIp complexes that are highly homogeneous and that form the basis for excellent MHC‐IIp multimer reagents. © 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.This article was corrected on 19 July 2022. See the end of the full text for details.
Basic Protocol 1 : Lentivirus production and expression line creationSupport Protocol 1 : Six‐well assay for estimation of production cell line yieldSupport Protocol 2 : Universal ELISA for quantifying proteins with fused leucine zippers and His‐tagsBasic Protocol 2 : Cultures for production of Class II MHC proteinsBasic Protocol 3 : Purification of Class II MHC proteins by anti‐leucine zipper affinity chromatographyAlternate Protocol 1 : IMAC purification of His‐tagged Class II MHCSupport Protocol 3 : Protein concentration measurements and adjustmentsSupport Protocol 4 : Polishing purification by anion‐exchange chromatographySupport Protocol 5 : Estimating biotinylation percentage by streptavidin precipitationBasic Protocol 4 : Peptide exchangeBasic Protocol 5 : Analysis of peptide exchange by matrix‐assisted laser desorption/ionization (MALDI) mass spectrometryAlternate Protocol 2 : Native isoelectric focusing to validate MHC‐II peptide loadingBasic Protocol 6 : MultimerizationBasic Protocol 7 : Staining cells with Class II MHC tetramers -
Abstract Cleavage under targets and release using nuclease (CUT&RUN) is a recently developed chromatin profiling technique that uses a targeted micrococcal nuclease cleavage strategy to obtain high‐resolution binding profiles of protein factors or to map histones with specific post‐translational modifications. Due to its high sensitivity, CUT&RUN allows quality binding profiles to be obtained with only a fraction of the starting material and sequencing depth typically required for other chromatin profiling techniques such as chromatin immunoprecipitation. Although CUT&RUN has been widely adopted in multiple model systems, it has rarely been utilized in
Caenorhabditis elegans , a model system of great importance to genomic research. Cell dissociation techniques, which are required for this approach, can be challenging inC. elegans due to the toughness of the worm's cuticle and the sensitivity of the cells themselves. Here, we describe a robust CUT&RUN protocol for use inC. elegans to determine the genome‐wide localization of protein factors and specific histone marks. With a simple protocol utilizing live, uncrosslinked tissue as the starting material, performing CUT&RUN in worms has the potential to produce physiologically relevant data at a higher resolution than chromatin immunoprecipitation. This protocol involves a simple dissociation step to uniformly permeabilize worms while avoiding sample loss or cell damage, resulting in high‐quality CUT&RUN profiles with as few as 100 worms and detectable signal with as few as 10 worms. This represents a significant advancement over chromatin immunoprecipitation, which typically uses thousands or hundreds of thousands of worms for a single experiment. The protocols presented here provide a detailed description of worm growth, sample preparation, CUT&RUN workflow, library preparation for high‐throughput sequencing, and a basic overview of data analysis, making CUT&RUN simple and accessible for any worm lab. © 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.Basic Protocol 1 : Growth and synchronization ofC. elegans Basic Protocol 2 : Worm dissociation, sample preparation, and optimizationBasic Protocol 3 : CUT&RUN chromatin profilingAlternate Protocol : Improving CUT&RUN signal using a secondary antibodyBasic Protocol 4 : CUT&RUN library preparation for Illumina high‐throughput sequencingBasic Protocol 5 : Basic data analysis using Linux -
Measuring the organization of the cellular cytoskeleton and the surrounding extracellular matrix (ECM) is currently of wide interest as changes in both local and global alignment can highlight alterations in cellular functions and material properties of the extracellular environment. Different approaches have been developed to quantify these structures, typically based on fiber segmentation or on matrix representation and transformation of the image, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. Here we present AFT − Alignment by Fourier Transform , a workflow to quantify the alignment of fibrillar features in microscopy images exploiting 2D Fast Fourier Transforms (FFT). Using pre-existing datasets of cell and ECM images, we demonstrate our approach and compare and contrast this workflow with two other well-known ImageJ algorithms to quantify image feature alignment. These comparisons reveal that AFT has a number of advantages due to its grid-based FFT approach. 1) Flexibility in defining the window and neighborhood sizes allows for performing a parameter search to determine an optimal length scale to carry out alignment metrics. This approach can thus easily accommodate different image resolutions and biological systems. 2) The length scale of decay in alignment can be extracted by comparing neighborhood sizes, revealing the overall distance that features remain anisotropic. 3) The approach is ambivalent to the signal source, thus making it applicable for a wide range of imaging modalities and is dependent on fewer input parameters than segmentation methods. 4) Finally, compared to segmentation methods, this algorithm is computationally inexpensive, as high-resolution images can be evaluated in less than a second on a standard desktop computer. This makes it feasible to screen numerous experimental perturbations or examine large images over long length scales. Implementation is made available in both MATLAB and Python for wider accessibility, with example datasets for single images and batch processing. Additionally, we include an approach to automatically search parameters for optimum window and neighborhood sizes, as well as to measure the decay in alignment over progressively increasing length scales.more » « less
-
Abstract Antigen‐specific memory B cell (MBC) populations mediate the rapid, strong, and high‐affinity secondary antibody responses that play a key role in combating infection and generating protective responses to vaccination. Recently, cell staining with fluorochrome‐labeled antigens together with sequencing methods such as Drop‐seq and CITE‐seq have provided information on the specificity, phenotype, and transcriptome of single MBCs. However, characterization of MBCs at the level of antigen‐reactive populations remains an important tool for assessing an individual's B cell immunity and responses to antigen exposure. This is readily performed using a long‐established method based on in vitro polyclonal stimulation of MBCs to induce division and differentiation into antibody‐secreting cells (ASCs). Post‐stimulation antigen‐specific measurement of the MBC‐derived ASCs (or the secreted antibodies) indicates the size of precursor MBC populations. Additional information about the character of antigen‐reactive MBC populations is provided by analysis of MBC‐derived antibodies of particular specificities for binding avidity and functionality. This article outlines a simple and reliable strategy for efficient in vitro MBC stimulation and use of the ELISpot assay as a post‐stimulation readout to determine the size of antigen‐specific MBC populations. Other applications of the in vitro stimulation technique for MBC analysis are discussed. The following protocols are included. © 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC
Basic Protocol 1 : Polyclonal stimulation of memory B cells using unfractionated PBMCsAlternate Protocol : Stimulation of small PBMC numbers using 96‐well plates with U‐bottom wellsBasic Protocol 2 : ELISpot assay for enumeration of memory B cell−derived antibody‐secreting cells