This protocol describes an Aspergillus infection model in zebrafish larvae. Aspergillus spores are microinjected into the hindbrain of larvae, and chemical treatment is used to induce immunosuppression. Infection progression is monitored via a daily imaging setup to monitor fungal growth and immune responses as well as enumeration of live spores by colony forming unit plating.
Invasive aspergillosis (IA) is one of the most common fungal infections among immunocompromised individuals. Despite the availability of antifungal drugs, IA can cause >50% mortality in infected immunocompromised patients. It is crucial to determine both host and pathogen factors that contribute to infection susceptibility and low survival rates in infected patients in order to develop novel therapeutics. Innate immune responses play a pivotal role in recognition and clearance of Aspergillus spores, though little is known about the exact cellular and molecular mechanisms. Reliable models are required to investigate detailed mechanistic interactions between the host and pathogen. The optical clarity and genetic tractability of zebrafish larvae make them an intriguing model to study host-pathogen interactions of multiple human bacterial and fungal infections in a live and intact host. This protocol describes a larval zebrafish Aspergillus infection model. First, Aspergillus spores are isolated and injected into the zebrafish hindbrain ventricle via microinjection. Then, chemical inhibitors such as immunosuppressive drugs are added directly to the larval water. Two methods to monitor the infection in injected larvae are described, including the 1) homogenization of larvae for colony forming unit (CFU) enumeration and 2) a repeated, daily live imaging setup. Overall, these techniques can be used to mechanistically analyze the progression of Aspergillus infection in vivo and can be applied to different host backgrounds and Aspergillus strains to interrogate host-pathogen interactions.
Aspergillus fumigatus is a ubiquitous saprophytic fungus, and its airborne spores can be found both indoors and outdoors1. These spores are inhaled by everyone but become effectively cleared from the lungs of immunocompetent individuals1,2. However, people with altered lung conditions such as cystic fibrosis can develop bronchopulmonary aspergillosis due to fungal germination in the lungs3. The most severe form of this infection, invasive aspergillosis (IA), affects immunocompromised individuals and involves growth of the fungus into other organs2,3. IA leads to >50% death of infected patients despite the availability of anti-fungal therapies4. In immunocompetent individuals, innate immune responses play a major role in clearing the inhaled spores1. However, the specific mechanisms that contribute to this innate immune clearance are not well-understood. It is important to understand the cellular and molecular mechanisms of major innate immune cells (i.e., macrophages and neutrophils) in clearance of Aspergillus in order to find novel therapeutic strategies for IA.
While mammalian models have been instrumental in identifying fungal virulence factors and host immune responses5,6, visual accessibility is limited for host-pathogen interactions at the cellular level. Tissue culture experiments cannot fully recapitulate the complex multi-cellular environment and interactions that exist in whole animals7. Therefore, zebrafish has gained popularity as an alternative model organism to fill this gap and facilitate the study of host-pathogen interactions in a live, intact host across a multi-day infection8,9. The zebrafish innate immune system develops as early as 24 h post-fertilization (hpf)10, and the adaptive system takes 4–6 weeks to develop11, providing a window of time in which innate immune responses can be assessed in isolation. Innate immune responses are well-conserved between humans and zebrafish11. Zebrafish have many qualities that facilitate the investigation of these responses, including optical clarity (which allows for the high-resolution live imaging of intact hosts) and genetic tractability (which facilitates molecular mechanistic studies).
The larval zebrafish Aspergillus infection model described here was originally developed by Knox et al.12. It has recently been expanded by our group and others to investigate host immune mechanisms12,13, host-pathogen interactions13,14,15, mechanisms of immunosuppression13,16,17, fungal virulence18, and anti-fungal drug efficacy19,20. This model recapitulates multiple aspects of human aspergillosis. While immunocompetent larvae are resistant, immunocompromised larvae can succumb to infection12,13,16,17.
In this model, a localized infection is established by injecting spores into the hindbrain ventricle of larva, an area less populated with phagocytes, and phagocyte recruitment and behavior can be evaluated12,13. It is believed that macrophages act as the first line of defense against Aspergillus spores in humans1 and mammalian models6,21. Similarly, in the zebrafish model, macrophages are recruited to the injected Aspergillus spores, while neutrophils are recruited secondarily in response to hyphal growth12,13,22. From this model, it has also been learned that Aspergillus can persist in wildtype immunocompetent larvae after more than 7 days of infection. Furthermore, the entire course of the infection can be followed in the same live animals by daily confocal imaging.
This protocol describes the technique of microinjection to inject spores into the hindbrain ventricle of 2 days post-fertilization (2 dpf) larvae. The infection is then monitored for up to 7 days, as zebrafish larvae can live up to 10 dpf without feeding. Immunosuppression can be induced by drug treatment, and the application of drugs to the larvae is also described. Finally, two methods to follow infection progression are described, including quantification of CFUs from individual larvae and a daily live imaging setup.
The infection model described here is beneficial for analyzing the host immune responses, host-pathogen interactions, and fungal pathogenesis12,13,14,15. This information can be derived from the high-resolution imaging of fluorescent-labeled pathogens and host cells13, larval survival, and CFU persistence over time.
The microinjection technique is critical to the success of this protocol and may need to be adjusted when using different microinjection equipment and setups. In particular, the pressure and time of injection are two major variables and can be adjusted to ensure that the volume ejected by the needle is ~3 nL. The size of the needle as determined by clipping it with forceps also regulates the number of spores being injected; although, a larger opening can cause tissue damage to the larva. On the other hand, too small of an opening will not allow the relatively large spores (>2 µm) out and can lead to needle clogging. If this occurs, the needle can be reclipped to have a slightly larger opening.
Other protocols for microinjection of bacteria utilize PVP-40 to help maintain a homogenous injection mixture, but we have not found any advantage in using this carrier with Aspergillus spores. Clogging of the needle can be mitigated by vortexing the fungal preparation thoroughly to break any clumps prior to loading the needle. Sometimes, a clog in the needle can also be dislodged by temporarily increasing the pressure or injection time and triggering the microinjector while the needle is in the liquid surrounding the larvae. The pressure and injection time should then be decreased again to previous levels. In other cases, a clog cannot be removed, and a new needle needs to be loaded and recalibrated.
This protocol is designed to inject ~30–70 spores per larva. It is known that based on the concentration of the spore preparation and the volume injected, this number is quite low. However, it has been empirically found that this is the number of spores injected under these conditions. Why this difference occurs is unknown, but it may be due to spore clumping in the needle. Our own attempts to inject larger numbers of spores have largely been unsuccessful.
To ensure about 30–70 spores are being injected and maintain the consistency of the injections throughout all the larvae, check the number of spores by injecting onto the E3 surrounding the larvae. Repeat this every five to six larvae throughout all the injections. If the spore count seems to change, the pressure and/or injection time can be adjusted to inject a consistent number of spores across multiple larvae. However, care should be taken that the injection dose remains primarily in the hindbrain and does not fill the midbrain and forebrain.
To ensure a localized infection, the spore suspension should be contained within the hindbrain ventricle. This can be visualized by the phenol red staining just after the injection, though the red color diffuses with time. For injections, the region around the otic vesicle is used to pierce through and reach the ventricle at a 45°–65° angle. This area has no main blood vessels, causes less tissue damage, and heals instantly. If the skin over the ventricle is pierced, the spore suspension can be leaked out, because the needle that must be used for Aspergillus spore injections is larger than that is used for bacterial suspensions. Unsuccessfully injected or accidentally damaged larvae can be marked by injecting into the yolk a couple of times to create a red mark or by dragging the larva out of the row with the needle. After a set of injections is complete, these larvae should be removed and disposed of before the rest are washed off the plate. E3 without methylene blue is used to anesthetize larvae prior to injection and also keep larva after the injections, because methylene blue is anti-fungal.
At the time of injection, CFU counts represent the number of viable spores within the infected host. However, if the spores germinate into hyphae, these can be broken up into separate viable “fungal units” during homogenization and can give rise to multiple colonies. Or, an unbroken multicellular hypha can give rise to a single colony, resulting in an averaged, but imprecise, representation of the fungal burden. This can be mitigated by combining the CFU counts with longitudinal microscopy of individual larvae, which provides visual data of the fate of injected spores.
Compared to the mammalian system, the zebrafish larva infection model is particularly significant due to its optical accessibility. The recruitment and response of innate immune cells can be visualized within a live intact host. This can be incorporated with genetic or chemical inhibition of molecular targets to analyze how each target affects the macrophage or neutrophil reaction against Aspergillus spores in a live animal.
While the zebrafish larva Aspergillus infection model continues to be instrumental in describing different aspects of IA12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,22, there are other areas of expansion. From the host side, it is used to describe cellular level immune responses, but this can be expanded to analyze immune mechanisms at the molecular level by combining it with targeted morpholino, CRISPR, stable mutant lines, or chemical exposure. One caveat is that homologues for all known mammalian innate immune pathway components have not been identified in zebrafish.
From the pathogen side, virulence of different species and strains have been described. A promising avenue of future research is the use of mutant Aspergillus strains to test how specific genes or proteins contribute as virulence factors. Thereby, novel anti-fungal drugs can be developed to target these proteins. Current anti-fungal drugs have low efficacy in human patients and there is growing resistance to these drugs in fungi28. This in vivo model can be used to investigate why these drugs fail and as an intermediate model to test the efficacy of novel anti-fungal drugs. Overall, the findings discovered using this model can facilitate future development of effective treatments for Aspergillus-infected patients.
The authors have nothing to disclose.
This work was supported by the National Institute of Allergy And Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number K22AI134677. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
Dumont forceps #5 | Roboz Surgical Instrument Co. | RS-5045 | |
Eyepiece reticle | Microscope World | RETR10 | For calibrating needles, used in Stereomicroscope |
Microinjector setup: Back pressure unit | Applied Scientific Instrumentation | BPU | |
Footswitch | Applied Scientific Instrumentation | FTSW | |
Micro pipet holder kit | Applied Scientific Instrumentation | M-Pip | |
Pressure injector | Applied Scientific Instrumentation | MPPI-3 | |
Micromanipulator setup: Micromanipulator | Narashige (Tritech) | M-152 | |
Magnetic stand and plate | Tritech | MINJ-HBMB | |
Needle puller | Sutter Instrument | P-97 | |
Stereomicroscope | Nikon | SMZ-745 | |
Tissuelyser II | Qiagen | 85300 | To homogenize larvae |
Material | Company | Catalog Number | Comments/Description |
Agarose | Fisher | BP160-500 | |
Ampicillin sodium salt | Fisher | AAJ6380706 | |
BSA, fraction V | VWR | AAJ65855-22 | |
Kanamycin sulfate | Fisher | AAJ1792406 | |
L spreaders | Fisher | 14 665 230 | |
Microcapillary needles (no filament) | World Precision Instruments (WPI) | TW100-3 | |
Microloader pipet tips | VWR | 89009-310 | To load the needle with Aspergillus suspension |
Miracloth | VWR | EM475855-1R | To filter Aspergillus suspension |
N-phenylthiourea | Fisher | AAL0669009 | To prevent pigmentation |
Phenol red, 1% solution | Fisher | 57254 | |
Tricaine (Ethyl 3-aminobenzoate, methanesulfonic acid salt) | Fisher | AC118000500 | To anesthetize larvae |
Tween-20 | Fisher | BP337-500 | |
Media and Solutions | Components/Recipe | ||
E3 media: 60x E3 | 17.2 g NaCl, 0.76 g KCl, 2.9 g CaCl2, 4.9 g MgSO4 · 7H2O, to 1 L with H2O | ||
1x E3 | 16.7 ml 60x stock, 430 ul 0.05 M NaOH, to 1 L with H2O (optional: + 3 ml 0.01% methylene blue) | ||
Tricaine stock solution | 2 g Tricaine, 5 g Na2HPO4 · 7H2O, 4.2 ml 60X E3, to 500 ml with H2O, pH to 7.0-7.5 with NaOH | ||
Glucose minimal media (GMM) agar: GMM agar | 10 g Glucose (Dextrose), 50 ml 20x Nitrate salts, 1 ml TE, to 1 L with H2O, pH to 6.5 with NaOH, + 16 g Agar, autoclave | ||
20x Nitrate salts | 120 g NaNO3, 10.4 g KCl, 10.4 g, MgSO4 · 7H2O, 30.4 g, KH2PO4, to 1 L with H2O, autoclave | ||
Trace elements (TE) | 2.20 g ZnSO4 · 7H2O, 1.10 g H3BO3, 0.50 g MnCl2 · 4H2O, 0.16 g FeSO4 · 7H2O, 0.16 g CoCl2 · 6H2O, 0.16 g CuSO4 · 5H2O, 0.11 g (NH4)6Mo7O24 · 4H2O, 5.00 g Na2EDTA, to 100 ml with H2O, dissolve stirring overnight, autoclave |