$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
Making or obtaining the larva chip:
The larva chip consists of a PDMS block (termed the 'PDMS chip') attached to a glass coverslip. The protocol in step 1 describes the procedure for making and using larva chips, assuming a SU-8 mold is available. The SU-8 mold is microfabricated by photolithographically patterning a 140 μm thick SU-8 photoresist layer on a silicon wafer (for details see Ghannad-Rezaie et al.12). As the microfabrication of the SU-8 mold requires access to specialized equipment, we recommend ordering it from a microfabrication facility (e.g. the LNF facility at the University of Michigan14), or from a foundry by sending them the chip design that is provided as a supplementary file. If one wishes to change the design of the PDMS chip (e.g. for use with larvae of different sizes), a CAD software that handles DXF files (e.g. Autocad) can be used. An SU-8 mold can also be made in-house following instructions in Mondal et al.27 Many readers may find it convenient to simply obtain a sample PDMS chip to try out the technique before fabricating their own chips. This will be made freely available upon request.
Use of the microfluidic 'larva chip' for live imaging:
The immobilization method in the larva chip avoids the use of anesthetics, and instead involves pressure, via the application of a vacuum, to restrict the animal's movement. While animals can survive immobilization in the chip for multiple hours12, a shorter immobilization period (5-15 min) is recommended. This is enough time for imaging many cellular events of interest, including changes in intracellular calcium, or fast axonal transport. This is also sufficient time for desired manipulations in live animals, such as laser based microsurgery, photobleaching, and photoconversion.
To study events longitudinally over a longer time period in a single animal, animals can be placed into the chip and imaged multiple times, separated by periods of rest. Grape juice agar plates are ideal for resting between imaging sessions, as they provide an easy food source and humidity. Multiple imaging sessions do affect larval survival to a degree, since each session carries some risk for damaging the animal (see part 2 in troubleshooting, below). Animals can be routinely imaged >5 times over the course of two days with a greater than 50% survival rate. Since the animals are not anesthetized, they are healthy and motile immediately after release of the vacuum in the chip. There is therefore no need for recovery time between imaging sessions, so the time spacing between sessions is flexible and can be adjusted to the objectives of the experiment.
Troubleshooting:
The most common technical issues with larva chip and recommended solutions are the following:
(1) The animal is moving too much. Too much mobility can interfere with the imaging goals. The most common reasons for this in the larva chip are a) the animal is too small for the chip, or b) the vacuum pressure applied during the immobilization step is compromised. The larva chip described in this protocol is designed for early staged 3rd instar larvae. The optimal size for the animal is 3.5-4 mm in length (along the anteroposterior axis). To ensure that the vacuum pressure is sufficient, pull the syringe 2-2.5 ml, or until resistance is felt in the handle. One indication that the vacuum is working is that small bubbles in the perimeter channel may be seen moving slowly towards the vacuum source. Another indication is that the coverslip should always travel with the chip when the chip is lifted from the top (and this is the recommended method for transporting the chamber once the larvae is positioned and the vacuum is on). The vacuum may be compromised if there are cracks in the tubing, or if there is oil in the tubing. This can be easily addressed by replacing the 23 G dispensing needle tip and polyethylene-50 tubing (from steps 1.6-1.14).
(2) The animal dies after imaging in the chip. The procedure is intended to cause minimal stress upon the animal, and animals of wild type genotype have a >90% survival rate, even after an hour of immobilization on the chip12. Since some genotypes may be less resilient to the stress of the chip, first check that wild type animals (for example, Canton S) survive the immobilization technique. a) The most common cause for lethality is incorrect positioning of the larva (see Figures 2G-H). If parts of the cuticle, head or trachea are not entirely within the chamber, then they can become damaged during the immobilization, and a larva that is too large for the chip (>4 mm) is less likely to survive. b) A less common cause for lethality is the use of too much pressure or vacuum when loading the chip. When properly positioned in the chip, the pressure generated by the vacuum is well tolerated. However excessive pressure, either from the vacuum or in the initial stage of positioning the animal can be an issue. It is best to learn the degree of pressure needed empirically by trials with wild type larvae of the correct size. c) If too much Halocarbon oil covers the animal's trachea the animal may potentially have issues with long-term survival. The oil plays several important roles in the chip: it is important for creation of the vacuum, the optics during imaging, and it counteracts desiccation in the chip. However excessive oil should be avoided. (This can also lead to oil in the tubing and syringe, compromising the vacuum). The suggested protocol coats just the ventral side of the larva with oil, then removes excess oil by placement of the larva on a clean coverslip before transferring to the final coverslip for imaging. d) phototoxicity can be experienced from the imaging session. As with any live imaging application, it is ideal to use short exposure times with low intensity laser light, which is best achieved using a highly sensitive camera or detector. Try to minimize illumination with UV light, including broad-spectrum light created by Hg light sources.
Other issues and future directions:
Since this method does not utilize anesthetics, the animal's heart continues to beat. This creates some unavoidable mobility, which affects imaging in some locations more than others. The examples here demonstrate that the ventral nerve cord, segmental nerves, and body wall can be readily imaged without interference from the heartbeat. In cases where the heartbeat affects imaging, the regular movements can sometimes be corrected for within analysis software (for example, the Image Stabilizer plugin for ImageJ). This works well when individual objects are moving on a fast time scale (for example ~1 μm/sec for fast axonal transport) or on a very slow time scale (minutes to hours). However, when the object(s) of interest move with a range of speeds and directions, it can be harder to correct for the heartbeat induced movements.
Another issue is slight variability in optics from animal to animal, or between multiple imaging sessions of the same animal in the chip. The deeper the object of interest is within the animal, the greater this variation will be. Segmental nerves and the ventral nerve cord are normally too deep within then animal to be imaged on a regular microscope. However the mild pressure experienced in the larva chip pushes these structures very close to the cuticle and coverslip. The exact distance of these structures from the coverslip will have small variations from trial to trial. The variation for objects close the cuticle, such as the cell bodies of sensory neurons, is less. It is therefore important, particularly for making measurements of intensity, to utilize a large number of animals and independent trials to account for the variability in optics.
While the examples shown here have focused upon processes within neurons, the approach should be amenable to imaging any structure in the animal that can be brought within the focusing depth of the microscope objective. This includes the cuticle, body wall muscles, and their NMJs. Trachea on the ventral side of the animal and potentially parts of the digestive tract might also be imaged. The animal may also be positioned with its dorsal side towards the coverslip for short term imaging of structures near the dorsal surface. The ability to image structures deep within the animal is limited by the working distance of the microscope objective used. Structures such as imaginal discs are inaccessible to high magnification (e.g. 40X) objectives.
The larva chips described in this protocol are designed for larvae in the early 3rd instar stage (ranging in size from 3.5-4 mm). However many interesting questions require imaging at different larval stages. Smaller chips to accommodate 2nd instar larvae, or larger chips to accommodate late 3rd instars can be easily designed using the same principle. (Supplementary Figure 1 contains a readily modifiable DXF file for making silicon molds with altered chamber sizes). The simple principle of the reversible seal could even be applied to other organisms such as C. elegans or zebrafish, with the main variant being the chamber size. A useful future direction is to design a chip that can immobilize many animals at once, to use for screening purposes. However, for this, the design would need to be significantly different from the current device, where the issues of positioning the animal in the chip needs to be dealt with for each animal independently.
The nerve crush assay for studying injury responses in larval peripheral nerves:
The nerve crush assay described here for larval segmental nerves is a simple method for introducing an injury to peripheral axons in Drosophila. Advantages of this method include: a) it is simple to conduct with standard tools found in a Drosophila lab (a stereomicroscope CO2 source and forceps); b) it can be conducted quickly for many animals, making biochemical analysis of nerve cords after injury feasible14; c) the molecular and cellular responses to this injury are highly reproducible14,15,28 and can be used to discover processes that are also important in vertebrate neurons29,30.
Alternate methods for injuring neurons is to focus a high-power laser, for example a pulsed-UV or femtosecond laser, to sever an axon via laser microsurgery17,31-33. The larva chip is an ideal method for positioning the animal for such microsurgery. However, because of minor differences in optics between trials, discussed above, the laser-based method can be more difficult to reproduce in larvae, particularly in larval segmental nerves. Also, laser based axonal injury requires more time to position each animal, hence is more difficult to conduct on a large scale (with a large number of animals).
Troubleshooting:
The most commonly encountered technical issue from the nerve crush is death from damage to internal organs. When conducting the crush, it is important not to pinch the ventral nerve cord, salivary glands, or intestines. It is also important not to puncture the cuticle. These issues are best avoided by bringing the forceps at a 45° angle to the cuticle surface (see Figure 3).
The quality of the forceps has a big impact upon the effectiveness of the crush and survival afterwards. We recommend Dumostar number 5 forceps. To retain their sharpness, the forceps must be handled with care, not used for other purposes, and replaced once they become blunt or bent.
The size of the animal can also influence the effectiveness of the crush. Small animals (less than 3 mm in length) are much less likely to survive the injury. With large animals, (wandering 3rd instars), it is more difficult to locate the nerves and avoid damage to the larger salivary glands and intestines, and there is less time to study injury responses before pupation. The nerve crush is most effectively conducted in early 3rd instar larvae (which are ~3-4.5 mm in length along the anteroposterior axis).
The food source that the animal is raised upon may affect the strength of the cuticle and survival after the crush. It is recommended to raise animals in food made from a standard yeast-glucose recipe.
The best method for learning how to do the crush effectively is to practice on many animals, first with the primary goal of achieving survival (and not pupation) 24 hr after the crush. Beginners normally have a low survival rate (e.g. 10%), but once the technique is learned, survival rates can reach ~90%.
Other issues and future directions:
The crush assay provides a powerful method to study the sprouting of axon proximal to the injury site and degeneration of axons and synapses distal to the injury site. While the rates of degeneration vary between different neuron types, they are highly reproducible within a given neuron type, providing testament to the reproducibility of the injury assay.
In contrast, the 'regenerative' sprouting response observed in proximal axons is more challenging to study. All axons in the segmental nerve initiate extensive sprouting close to the injury site (for example, see Figure 6 and Figure 3). However the extent of sprouting can vary from neuron to neuron, and is difficult to quantify. A similar degree and variability in sprouting can be observed after more focal lesions of single motoneurons in segmental nerves introduced by using a UV pulsed dye laser. We interpret that the nondiscriminate directionality of the sprouting is due to the absence of guidance cues in the segmental nerves. In contrast, sensory neuron axons injured by laser close to their cell bodies undergo new axonal growth in the same direction as the lost axon34. Axons in this region of the animal are likely exposed to more specific positional information for guidance of the regenerating axons. The environment within segmental nerves is unlikely to have much resemblance to the environment that the axons originally navigated during their guidance in the embryo, hence is not expected to have information to guide regenerating axons.
Another limitation for studying regeneration using the segmental nerve crush assay is that injured sensory and motoneuron axons still have a significant distance to cover (0.25-1 mm) to reach their target, and a limited time frame (<3 days) before the animal undergoes pupation. A recent study has identified a genetic manipulation of the prothoraciotropic hormone receptor which triples the duration of the 3rd instar larval stage35. This manipulation will extend the time frame for studying the recovery and degeneration of neurons after injury significantly, to 9 instead of 3 days. This may be long enough to observe new events, such as reconnection of an injured axon with its postsynaptic target, especially if the injury is induced close to the synaptic ending.