Cellular proteins can be divided into two classes: those that are associated with membranes and those that are not. Non-membrane associated proteins are found in the cytosol, nucleoplasm and lumina of organelles such as the endoplasmic reticulum (ER). There are two classes of membrane-associated proteins, integral and peripheral. Integral membrane proteins are also known as transmembrane proteins because one or more segments of the polypeptide chain spans the membrane, typically as an α-helix composed of hydrophobic amino acids. Transmembrane proteins are co-translationally inserted into membranes in the course of their biosynthesis and remain so configured until they are catabolized. Peripheral membrane proteins are secondarily driven to membranes, usually as a consequence of post-translational modification with hydrophobic molecules such as lipids. In contrast to integral membrane proteins, the association of peripheral membrane proteins with cellular membranes is reversible and can be regulated. Many peripheral membrane proteins function in signaling pathways, and regulated association with membranes is one mechanism for activating or inhibiting a pathway. One example of a signaling molecule that is a peripheral membrane protein is the small GTPase, RAS. After a series of post-translational modifications that include modification with a farnesyl lipid, the modified C-terminus of a mature RAS protein inserts into the cytoplasmic leaflet of the cellular membrane. Specifically, the plasma membrane is where the RAS engages its downstream effector RAF1. To prevent constitutive activation of mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway, multiple levels of control of RAS are in place. Besides rendering RAS inactive by hydrolyzing GTP into GDP, active RAS also can be released from the plasma membrane by modifications or interactions with solubilizing factors to inhibit signaling. Although fluorescent live imaging affords cell biologists the opportunity to observe the subcellular localization of fluorescent protein-tagged peripheral membrane proteins1, there remains a critical need to evaluate membrane association of endogenous proteins semi-quantitatively with simple biochemical approaches.
The proper biochemical evaluation of protein partitioning between membrane and soluble fractions is critically dependent on two factors: cellular homogenization and efficient separation of membrane and soluble fractions. Although some protocols, including the most widely used commercialized kits, depend on detergent-based cell homogenization, these methods can obfuscate analysis by extracting membrane proteins into the soluble phase2. Accordingly, non-detergent based, mechanical methods of cell disruption provide cleaner results. There are several methods of mechanical disruption of cells grown in culture or harvested from blood or organs. These include Dounce homogenization, fine needle disruption, ball-bearing homogenization, sonication and nitrogen cavitation. Here we evaluate nitrogen cavitation and compare it to other methods. Nitrogen cavitation relies on nitrogen that is dissolved in the cytoplasm of the cells under high pressure. After equilibration, the cell suspension is abruptly exposed to atmospheric pressure such that nitrogen bubbles are formed in the cytoplasm that tear open the cell as a consequence of their effervescence. If the pressure is sufficiently high, nitrogen effervescence can disrupt the nucleus3 and membrane bound organelles like lysosomes4. However, if the pressure is kept low enough, the decompression will disrupt the plasma membrane and ER but not other organelles, thereby spilling both cytosol and intact cytoplasmic organelles into the homogenate that is designated the cavitate5. For this reason, nitrogen cavitation is the method of choice for isolating organelles like lysosomes and mitochondria.
However, it is also an excellent way of preparing a homogenate that can be easily separated into membrane and soluble fractions. The pressure vessel (henceforth called "the bomb") used during cavitation consists of a thick stainless steel casing that withstands high pressure, with an inlet for delivery of the nitrogen gas from a tank and an outlet port with an adjustable discharge valve.
Nitrogen cavitation has been used for cell homogenization since the 1960s6. In 1961, Hunter and Commerfold7 established nitrogen cavitation as a viable option for mammalian tissue disruption. Since then, researchers have adapted the technique to various cells and tissues with success, and nitrogen cavitation has become a staple in multiple applications, including membrane preparation8,9, nuclei and organelle preparation10,11, and labile biochemical extraction. Currently, cell biologists more often employ other methods of cell homogenization because the benefits of nitrogen homogenization have not been widely advertised, nitrogen bombs are expensive and there is a misconception that a relatively large number of cells is required. Protocols for nitrogen cavitation to achieve cell-free homogenates with intact nuclei have not been published, and in most published evaluations volumes of 20 mL of cell suspension were used. To adapt this classic technique to suit current requirements of working with small-scale samples, we present a modified protocol of nitrogen cavitation specifically designed for cultured cells. After nitrogen cavitation, the homogenate is separated into soluble (S) and membrane (P) fractions by differential centrifugation, first with a low-speed spin to remove nuclei and unbroken cells, and then with a high-speed spin (>100,000 x g) to separate membranes from the soluble fraction. We analyze the efficiency of the separation with immunoblots and compare nitrogen cavitation with other mechanical disruption techniques. We also investigate the osmotic effect of homogenization buffer during nitrogen cavitation.