Abstract

Bioluminescence imaging (BLI) is ubiquitous in scientific research for the sensitive tracking of biological processes in small animal models. However, due to the attenuation of visible light by tissue, and the limited set of near-infrared bioluminescent enzymes, BLI is largely restricted to monitoring single processes in vivo. Here we show, that by combining stabilised colour mutants of firefly luciferase (FLuc) with the luciferin (LH2) analogue infraluciferin (iLH2), near-infrared dual BLI can be achievedin vivo. The X-ray crystal structure of FLuc with a high-energy intermediate analogue, 5'-O-[N-(dehydroinfraluciferyl)sulfamoyl] adenosine (iDLSA) provides insight into the FLuc-iLH2 reaction leading to near-infrared light emission. The spectral characterisation and unmixing validation studies reported here established that iLH2 is superior to LH2 for the spectral unmixing of bioluminescent signals in vivo; which led to this novel near-infrared dual BLI system being applied to monitor both tumour burden and CAR T cell therapy within a systemically induced mouse tumour model.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files. Raw image files are available on Dryad Digital repository, at doi:10.5061/dryad.3j9kd51cs.

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Cassandra L Stowe

    Cancer Institute, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Thomas A Burley

    Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Helen Allan

    Department of Chemistry, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Maria Vinci

    Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Gabriela Kramer-Marek

    Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Daniela M Ciobota

    Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Gary N Parkinson

    School of Pharmacy, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Tara L Southworth

    Department of Chemistry, Connecticut College, New London, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Giulia Agliardi

    Cancer Institute, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Alastair Hotblack

    Cancer Institute, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Mark F Lythgoe

    Centre for Advanced Biomedical Imaging, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Bruce R Branchini

    Department of Chemistry, Connecticut College, New London, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Tammy L Kalber

    Centre for Advanced Biomedical Imaging, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. James C Anderson

    Department of Chemistry, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    j.c.anderson@ucl.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8120-4125
  15. Martin A Pule

    Cancer Institute, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    m.pule@ucl.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Funding

National Science Foundation (MCB-1410390)

  • Tara L Southworth
  • Bruce R Branchini

Air Force Office of Scientific Research (FA9550-18-1-0017)

  • Tara L Southworth
  • Bruce R Branchini

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/L504889/1)

  • Helen Allan
  • James C Anderson

University College London

  • Helen Allan
  • James C Anderson

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council

  • Cassandra L Stowe

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All animal procedures were conducted in accordance with the Home Office Scientific Procedures Act (1986), within the guidelines of the relevant personal and project licences.

Copyright

© 2019, Stowe et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 6,485
    views
  • 727
    downloads
  • 51
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Cassandra L Stowe
  2. Thomas A Burley
  3. Helen Allan
  4. Maria Vinci
  5. Gabriela Kramer-Marek
  6. Daniela M Ciobota
  7. Gary N Parkinson
  8. Tara L Southworth
  9. Giulia Agliardi
  10. Alastair Hotblack
  11. Mark F Lythgoe
  12. Bruce R Branchini
  13. Tammy L Kalber
  14. James C Anderson
  15. Martin A Pule
(2019)
Near-infrared dual bioluminescence imaging in mouse models of cancer using infraluciferin
eLife 8:e45801.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.45801

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.45801

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    Qian Wang, Jinxin Liu ... Qian Liu
    Research Article

    Paramyxovirus membrane fusion requires an attachment protein for receptor binding and a fusion protein for membrane fusion triggering. Nipah virus (NiV) attachment protein (G) binds to ephrinB2 or -B3 receptors, and fusion protein (F) mediates membrane fusion. NiV-F is a class I fusion protein and is activated by endosomal cleavage. The crystal structure of a soluble GCN4-decorated NiV-F shows a hexamer-of-trimer assembly. Here, we used single-molecule localization microscopy to quantify the NiV-F distribution and organization on cell and virus-like particle membranes at a nanometer precision. We found that NiV-F on biological membranes forms distinctive clusters that are independent of endosomal cleavage or expression levels. The sequestration of NiV-F into dense clusters favors membrane fusion triggering. The nano-distribution and organization of NiV-F are susceptible to mutations at the hexamer-of-trimer interface, and the putative oligomerization motif on the transmembrane domain. We also show that NiV-F nanoclusters are maintained by NiV-F–AP-2 interactions and the clathrin coat assembly. We propose that the organization of NiV-F into nanoclusters facilitates membrane fusion triggering by a mixed population of NiV-F molecules with varied degrees of cleavage and opportunities for interacting with the NiV-G/receptor complex. These observations provide insights into the in situ organization and activation mechanisms of the NiV fusion machinery.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    Yingjie Sun, Changheng Li ... Youngnam N Jin
    Research Article

    Identifying target proteins for bioactive molecules is essential for understanding their mechanisms, developing improved derivatives, and minimizing off-target effects. Despite advances in target identification (target-ID) technologies, significant challenges remain, impeding drug development. Most target-ID methods use cell lysates, but maintaining an intact cellular context is vital for capturing specific drug–protein interactions, such as those with transient protein complexes and membrane-associated proteins. To address these limitations, we developed POST-IT (Pup-On-target for Small molecule Target Identification Technology), a non-diffusive proximity tagging system for live cells, orthogonal to the eukaryotic system. POST-IT utilizes an engineered fusion of proteasomal accessory factor A and HaloTag to transfer Pup to proximal proteins upon directly binding to the small molecule. After significant optimization to eliminate self-pupylation and polypupylation, minimize depupylation, and optimize chemical linkers, POST-IT successfully identified known targets and discovered a new binder, SEPHS2, for dasatinib, and VPS37C as a new target for hydroxychloroquine, enhancing our understanding these drugs’ mechanisms of action. Furthermore, we demonstrated the application of POST-IT in live zebrafish embryos, highlighting its potential for broad biological research and drug development.