A detailed protocol is presented for the isolation of lymphocytes from the intestinal mucosal inductive (MLN and PP) and effector (LP and IEL compartment) sites. The protocol has been developed to balance input (time) and output (viability and yield) to maximize productivity and results. The protocol also ensures minimal cross compartmental contamination between LP and IEL compartments.
Several protocols for the isolation of immune cells from the mouse small intestine have been published3,4,5,6,7. Most of these protocols focus on isolating immune cells from the LP. The intestinal epithelium is a distinct compartment from the LP that is directly exposed to the external environment and consists of a unique composition of lymphocytes. Recent approaches have sought a more global analysis of immune function in the intestines by examining distinct intestinal compartments simultaneously to understand the unique aspects of immune responses occurring in these compartments and the relationships between them. Therefore, a reliable protocol for the isolation of immune cells from all these compartments is desired. Two DTE treatments are sufficient to isolate >95% of IEL and some IEC. EDTA targets calcium-dependent junctions and is efficient to detach IEC. Therefore, the supernatant from the subsequent EDTA treatments comprise mostly IEC. A very small number of lymphocytes can be found in the supernatant after EDTA treatment; however, about 20-fold more lymphocytes are obtained from the DTE fraction. Moreover, lymphocytes from the EDTA treatment resemble mixed populations of IEL and LP lymphocytes (Figure 4), which suggests LP contamination from villi and crypt damage. Therefore, in this protocol, IEL are collected from the DTE treatment prior to EDTA treatment, maximizing purity by minimizing cross-compartment contamination. Other protocols use sequential dithiothreitol (DTT)-EDTA treatments or combined DTT-EDTA treatment for the isolation of IEL5,6,7. DTT is an epimer of DTE and both act as reducing agents. In these protocols, DTT is reported to only remove mucus and EDTA is used to isolate IEL. Although the effect of DTT and DTE was not directly compared, IEL after DTE treatment or combined DTE-EDTA treatment was evaluated. Not surprisingly, combined DTE-EDTA treatment increases IEC contamination in the IEL preparation (Figure 5) and the presence of large numbers of IEC decreased IEL yields after density gradient centrifugation. As EDTA can damage some villi and crypts, combined DTE-EDTA treatment may also result in contamination of LP lymphocytes in the IEL preparation or loss of LP cells from the LP isolation. Moreover, as >95% of IEL were isolated from the DTE fraction, separate DTE and EDTA treatments are preferred. Some protocols isolate lymphocytes without using density gradient centrifugation to enrich immune cells6. Density gradient centrifugation takes additional time and loss of some cells may occur. However, it removes dead cells, epithelial cells and mucus, leading to highly enriched lymphocyte populations (Figure 6), which helps to enhance the detection of small populations of cells and substantially decreases acquisition time for flow cytometry. Density gradient centrifugation has reported to result in altered ratio of mononuclear phagocyte subsets7; however, lymphocyte subset composition appears normal. It is particularly helpful to perform density gradient centrifugation for the isolation of IEL. Overall, a complete protocol is presented to isolate highly enriched and optimally viable lymphocytes from all the intestinal tissues including the LP and IEL with minimal cross-compartmental contamination.
Substantial time and care must be taken during tissue isolation steps to limit contamination between preparations. Incomplete removal of PP can greatly skew LP lymphocytes. ILF can also contaminate LP preparations. However, ILF cannot be seen by the naked eye and therefore cannot be surgically removed prior to digestion. Different mouse strains have different numbers of ILF14, which may greatly contribute to the variable composition of LP lymphocytes between mouse strains. When removing mucus, be sure to gently slide the intestine to avoid damage to the basement membrane and LP, which could result in LP contamination of IEL. One indication of contamination is the presence of large numbers of B cells in the IEL preparation. IEL contain few B cells (~1% or less), whereas LPL can have up to 60% B cells depending on the mouse strain. CD19 but not B220 should be used to identify B cells in the LP and IEL compartment, as intestinal T cells may also express B22015. Furthermore, many intestinal T cells may express traditional macrophage and DC markers such as CD11b and CD11c, respectively16. Therefore, proper dump gating strategies should be utilized to ensure appropriate analysis.
Steps may be modified to accommodate researchers' needs. Mechanical digestion may be sufficient for PP lymphocyte isolation at steady state or collagenase digestion of lymph nodes may facilitate isolation of some subsets of leukocytes during inflammation. The type of collagenase used may have substantial impact on cell surface marker expression and the viability and purity of LP lymphocytes5,17. The intestine may be cut into small pieces for collagenase digestion, which may increase cell yield. However, it also reduces the viability. The incubation time with collagenase may be optimized to maximize the yield while minimizing the cell death, leading to maximum recovery of live cells. Different labs use slightly different density gradients to isolate lymphocytes. A well-established 44%/67% density gradient protocol is presented here. Researchers may test different density gradients to best suit their individual needs. If a larger number of lymphocytes are desired, two small intestines may be combined for DTE treatments, EDTA treatments and collagenase digestion. If more than two intestines are needed for examining extremely rare events, then it is recommended that single cell suspensions are pooled after isolation.
Isolated lymphocytes can be used for further phenotypic, functional, and genomic analysis. When performing flow cytometric analysis, it is highly advisable to always use a viability dyes and anti-CD45 antibody to exclude dead cells and non-hematopoietic cells, which will greatly enhance the analysis. If pure lymphocyte populations are needed, cell sorting of CD45+ cells along with other markers of choice can be performed. Panning on anti-CD8α-coated plates can also be used to isolate pure T cells from IEL preparation as majority of these T cells express CD8α. Panning or cell sorting is generally required for culture of IEL as contaminating epithelial cells can inhibit IEL growth. Feeder cells such as naïve splenocytes can also be added to promote IEL survival in culture. If feeders are used, it is important to utilize congenically mismatched cells to distinguish populations. Bacterial contamination is rarely a problem in these short term functional studies as harvest media contains penicillin, streptomycin and gentamicin. In addition, numerous washing steps and density gradient centrifugation remove most bacteria.
The isolation process is time consuming and demands a balance of care, precision and speed for optimal results. Enough time must be spent to ensure proper manipulation of each step while minimizing the time between mouse sacrifice and obtaining a single cell suspension to maximize cell viability and yield. This is a delicate balance that is also a bottleneck for beginners trying to obtain consistency in isolating lymphocytes with high viability and yield. An entire isolation process starting from mouse euthanasia to obtaining a counted single cell suspension takes an experienced researcher approximately 8 h for 8 mice. It is advised to obtain assistance for more than 8 mice to generate high quality and reproducible results. It is important to use care when comparing lymphocytes from these tissues with lymphocytes from the spleen, blood, or other lymphoid tissues as the extensive incubations may lead to artificial changes associated with the isolation procedure17. Routine comparisons of LP and IEL populations to similarly treated lymphoid tissues would assess whether the marker of interest is modulated during lymphocyte isolation from intestinal tissues. Similar issues are also a major concern when comparing RNA profiles from intestines with those from lymphoid tissues.