$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
Understanding protein function requires knowledge of protein structure. Structural determination is challenging for proteins whose molecular masses are within 40 - 200 kDa. X-ray crystallography is limited by protein crystallization; nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy is limited to molecular masses less than 40 KDa, while cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM) has difficulty in both image acquisition and three-dimensional (3D) reconstructions of small proteins, which molecular masses are less than 200 kDa. Notably, more than 50% proteins have a molecular mass within the range of 40 - 200 kDa1,2, as current methods are challenging in studying proteins of this size, a new method is needed.
Although most transmission electron microscopes (TEMs) are capable of atomic resolution, i.e., better than 3 Å resolution, achieving even a near nanometer resolution structure from a biological samples is rather challenging7. Radiation damage, low contrast, structural deviations as well as artifacts such as dehydration all hinder high-resolution TEM imaging3,8.
Among various TEM approaches, cryo-EM is an advanced and cutting edge method to achieve atomic resolution structures of highly symmetric large macromolecules under near physiological conditions9-12. The cryo-EM sample is prepared flash freezing the sample solution, embedding the macromolecules in vitreous ice, which is subsequently imaged at cryogenic temperatures such as liquid nitrogen or helium temperatures13. Cryo-EM is advantageous in that samples present no artifacts and are nearly native in structure8-12. Cryo-EM does have its disadvantages: i) additional devices are required to be installed or purchased to upgrade a standard TEM instrument for a cryo-EM capability. Devices include: anti-contaminator, cryo-holder, low-dose mode software and low-dose sensitive CCD camera, although the prices of these devices are much lower than the price of the TEM instrument itself; ii) cryo-EM operation needs longer time than NS operation. Examining a cryo-EM specimen often requires longer time to prepare specimens and operate the TEM instrument than that of NS because cryo-EM requires addressing additional difficulties, including: liquid nitrogen temperature operation, sample charging, imaging drift, temperature gradients, low-dose model operation, sample radiation sensitivities and dosage limitations. These extra steps will slow down the speed of acquiring useful data compared to NS data acquisition, although a few cryo-EM images can certainly be obtained in 1 hr or less by cryo-EM experts with the instrument prepared with a balanced temperature gradient; iii) users require additional training, such as handling liquid nitrogen, freezing cryo-EM grids, low-dose operation, dose measurement, handling the charging, drifting and knowledge in imaging processing; iv) lack of repeatable imaging for the same cryo-specimen during different TEM sessions. Cryo-EM specimens are easily damaged by ice contamination during specimen loading and unloading to/from the TEM instrument. This damage is especially a concern when the samples are difficult to be isolated/purified14; v) small proteins (<200 kDa molecular mass) are challenging to be imaged because of low contrast; vi) the low contrast and high noise of cryo-EM images reduces the cross-correlation value between images, therefore, decreasing overall accuracy in the determination of protein orientations, conformations and classifications, especially for proteins that are structurally flexible and naturally fluctuate in solution4,5.
Negative staining (NS) is a relatively “ancient” and historical method which any laboratory, with any type EM, can utilize to examine protein structure. Brenner and Horne first developed the concept of negative staining a half century ago for examining viruses15. NS is accomplished through coating the specimen with charged heavy metal salts. This concept originally coming from light microscopy and the practice of embedding bacteria into a stain solution providing darkness around the specimens, allowing higher image contrast when viewing the negative image16. Since the heavy metal ions have a greater ability to disperse electrons compared to less dense atoms in the proteins17-20, and coating heavy metal stain permits a higher dosage limitation with improved contrast. NS specimen can provide high contrast images8 for easier particle orientation determination and 3D reconstruction than images from cryo-EM.
Traditional NS, unfortunately, can produce artifacts induced by stain-protein interactions, such as general aggregation, molecular dissociation, flattening and stacking8,21,22. For lipid related proteins, such as lipoproteins16,23-30, a common artifact results in particles that are stacked and packed together into a rouleaux (Figure 1)31-36. Many lipoprotein studies, such as nondenaturing polyacrylamide gradient gel electrophoresis, cryo-EM studies13,29,37-40, mass spectrometry39,41, and small angle X-ray diffraction data42 all show lipoprotein particles are isolated particles instead of naturally stacked together forming a rouleaux 21,29,30,35,42-45. The observation of rouleaux formation by conventional NS is possibly caused by dynamic interactions between lipoproteins composed of apolipoproteins (apo) and phospholipids that are structurally flexible in solution 13,29,30,46-49 and sensitivity to the standard NS protocol. To identify this artifact, apolipoprotein E4 (apoE4) palmitoyl-oleoylphosphatidylcholine (POPC) high-density lipoprotein (HDL) sample were used as a test sample and cryo-EM images for an artifact free standard 29, screening the NS specimens prepared under a series of conditions. By comparing the particle sizes and shapes obtained from NS and cryo-EM, the specific type of staining reagent and salt concentration were found to be two key parameters causing the well known rouleaux phenomena. Thus, an optimized negative staining (OpNS) protocol was reported.
By OpNS, the well known rouleaux phenomenon of apoE4 HDL was eliminated by OpNS (Figure 2A). Statistical analysis demonstrated OpNS yields very similar images (fewer than 5% deviation) in size and shape in comparison to those from cryo-EM, however the contrast was eliminated. The validations of OpNS were performed by examining the elimination of the rouleaux artifact of nearly all classes or subclasses of lipoprotein samples 6,29,30,50,51, including apoA-I 7.8 nm (Figure 2B), 8.4 nm (Figure 2C), 9.6 nm discoidal reconstituted HDL (rHDL) (Figure 2D), 9.3 nm spherical rHDL (Figure 2E), human plasma HDL (Figure 2F), lipid free apoA-I (Figure 2G), plasma HDL (Figure 2H), low density lipoprotein (LDL) (Figure 2I), intermediate‐density lipoprotein (IDL) (Figure 2J), very low density lipoprotein (VLDL) (Figure 2K), and POPC liposome (Figure 2L) 30. Additional validations were performed by imaging small and asymmetric proteins, including the 53 kDa cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) (Figure 3A - C)6,29, and highly flexible 160 kDa IgG antibody (Figure 4A and B)4,5,29,52, and two structurally well known proteins, GroEL and proteasome (Figure 2M and N). For requiring any additional validation from colleagues, we are open to any blind tests on this OpNS method.
OpNS as a high-throughput protocol has also been used to study protein mechanism via examining hundreds of samples of small proteins, such as CETP that was binding to various proteins under a series conditions (including CETP interacting to 4 classes of lipoproteins, recombined HDL, plasma HDL, LDL and VLDL, with/without 2 antibodies, H300 and N13, under 9 incubation times, including 3 min, 20 min, 1 hr, 2 hr, 4 hr, 8 hr, 24 hr, 48 hr and 72 hr, under 4 molar ratios, i.e., 1:0.5, 1:1, 1:2, 1:4, and 3 dilutions, i.e., 0.1 mg/ml, 0.01 mg/ml and 0.001 mg/ml, plus additional control samples, including CETP alone, LDL alone, and VLDL alone, with triple tests of above experiments by different persons)6,29. OpNS images of CETP provided high contrast images with reasonably fine structural details; allowing us to successfully reconstruct a 3D density map of the 53 kDa small protein CETP (Figure 3D - F) by single particle reconstruction. Moreover, the high contrast OpNS images provide us a sufficient signal from an individual protein (Figure 4A - C), which allowed us to achieve the intermediate resolution (~1.5 nm) of a single (one object, no average) IgG antibody 3D structure via the individual-particle electron tomography (IPET) method (Figure 4E - J)5. The detailed description of IPET reconstruction strategy, methodology, step-by-step processes and structural variation analysis were previously reported4. A movie about IPET antibody reconstruction procedures, including the raw images and intermediate results, 3D density map and structural docking was also available to public by uploaded to YouTube5. Comparison of the 3D reconstructions from different individual antibody particles could reveal the protein dynamics and conformational changes during chemical reactions4,5.
Considering that over 50% of proteins have molecular mass ranging from 40 - 200 kDa1,2, the success in imaging these small proteins evidenced that OpNS method is a useful tool to push the conventional EM boundary toward small and asymmetric structural determinations and mechanism discoveries. Thus, the detailed protocol is provided as below.