$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
When planning experiments on primary CLL cells, if assays require a large number of cells (>50 x 106 cells), there is a preference to use freshly isolated CLL cells, rather than cryopreserved cells that require thawing, however this is not always possible. This is because the freeze/thaw process can result in the death of up to 50% of the CLL cells, although this is sample dependent. Enrichment of CLL cells with a WCC >40 x 106/mL using density centrifugation as described here (steps 1.3 – 1.5) enables a high cell recovery with high purity (≥ 95%) of primary CLL cells. In the sample shown, the WCC = 177 x 106/mL: from a 30 mL blood sample 5 x 109 cells were recovered, which represents a cell yield of 94% of total cells. Analysis of this sample by flow cytometry revealed a purity of CLL cells of >95% as indicated by the dual surface expression of CLL cell markers CD19 and CD5 after gating on FSC/SSC, single cells that were DAPI negative (viable cells) (Figure 1).
Optimization of the subcellular fractionation procedure was carried out using a range of detergent ratios (1:20 to 1:60) during the preparation of the cytoplasmic fraction (step 3.4). Thereafter, the nuclear fractions and WCLs were prepared (steps 3.5 and 3.6 respectively). Immunoblots were performed on the resultant fractions of the CLL cell line MEC1 (Figure 2A) and primary CLL cells (Figure 2B). The blots were probed for the fraction markers Lamin A/C (nuclear; 74/63 kDa) and β-tubulin (cytoplasmic; 55 kDa) to confirm successful cell fractionation. The fractionation indicates that the optimal detergent level for MEC1 cells is a 1:60 dilution (Figure 2A), compared with a 1:30 dilution being optimal for primary CLL cells (Figure 2B), as indicated by an enrichment of nuclear protein and a lack of cytoplasmic protein in the fractions and vice versa. WCLs represent the total protein and act as a positive control for antibodies used to probe the subcellular fractions. It is important to choose appropriate proteins as fraction markers: Figure 2C shows immunoblots of nuclear/cytoplasmic fractions prepared from MEC1 cells in which RNA polymerase II (Rpb1 CTD; 250 kDa) and Lamin A/C were blotted as markers of nuclear fractions, while β-tubulin and γ-tubulin (50 kDa) were used as cytoplasmic markers. It is clear that γ-tubulin is enriched in the cytoplasm however expression is evident in the nucleus, as shown previously9.
Once experimental conditions are optimized, an experiment can be performed. In the examples shown, the subcellular localization of FOXO1 in nuclear and cytoplasmic fractions was determined upon stimulation of cells with the B cell antigen receptor (BCR) in the presence or absence of the dual mTORC1/2 inhibitor AZD8055, in MEC1 cells (Figure 3A) and primary CLL cells (Figure 3B)5,10. In both examples, the generation of highly enriched nuclear and cytoplasmic fractions was achieved as indicated by the almost exclusive expression of Lamin in the nuclear fraction and β-tubulin in the cytoplasmic fractions. In both cell types, FOXO1 expression was reduced in the cytoplasm following treatment with AZD8055 compared to NDC, accompanied by an increase of FOXO1 expression in the nuclear compartment, thus demonstrating protein translocation (Figure 3). To remove the subjectivity of data interpretation, individual immunoblots from five primary CLL samples were quantified within subcellular fractions (step 4; Figure 4A), using the respective nuclear or cytoplasmic proteins as internal loading controls for each sample, and then normalizing each fraction to the unstimulated (US) no drug control (NDC) control, as indicated. The resultant graph shows trends of FOXO1 movement between the nuclear and cytoplasmic fractions, with AZD8055 reducing the levels of FOXO1 expression in the cytoplasm, while concurrently increasing expression in the nucleus. Furthermore, an elevation in cytoplasmic FOXO1 expression is evident upon BCR crosslinking.
| Tube | Tube Name | Cells/Beads | Antigen | Fluorophore |
| 1 | Unstained | Cells | NA | NA |
| 2 | Single Stain | Beads | CD5 | FITC |
| 3 | Single Stain | Beads | CD19 | PE-Cy7 |
| 4 | Single Stain | Beads | CD23 | APC |
| 5 | Single Stain | Beads | CD45 | APC-Cy7 |
| 6 | Single Stain | Cells | Viability | DAPI |
| 7 | CLL Stain | Cells | CD5, CD19, CD23, CD45 & viability | FITC, PE-Cy7, APC, APC-Cy7 & DAPI |
Table 1: Table showing the ideal set of sample tubes required for flow cytometry of CLL cells. Each experiment must include all the appropriate controls for accurate analysis of the results obtained.

Figure 1: Representative flow cytometry analysis plot of enriched CLL patients. Mononuclear-CLL cells enriched from the peripheral blood of an individual CLL patient were gated using FSC-A vs. SSC-A, and doublets were then excluded using FSC-A vs. FSC-H (A). Unstained cells (tube 1) and compensation controls (tubes 2-6) were used to set up the flow cytometer to detect cells and compensate between the fluorescent channels, thus ensuring that the fluorescence signals were detected correctly. (B) An example of negative staining (unstained cells; tube 1) in the CD19 and CD5 fluorescence channels. Live (DAPI negative) and CD45 positive cells were gated (C) and the proportion of CD19+CD5+ (95.5%) and CD19+CD23+ (91.2%) cells within the DAPI-CD45+ population was determined (D). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 2: Optimization of nuclear/cytoplasmic fractionation. Cytoplasmic and nuclear fractions, and whole cell lysates (WCL), were prepared from cell pellets (10 – 20 x 106 cells) of the CLL cell line (A) MEC1 or (B) primary CLL cells enriched from the peripheral blood of patients as described in Step 3. Optimization of the subcellular fractionation was carried out by using a range of detergent ratios (1:20 to 1:60) when preparing the cytoplasmic fraction (as described in step 3.4). The resultant samples were immunoblotted and probed with anti-Lamin A/C (nuclear) and anti-β-tubulin (cytoplasmic) antibodies to confirm successful cell fractionation alongside WCL. Molecular weight markers are shown on the left of the blot (M). * indicates the optimal detergent conditions for cell lysis. (C) Immunoblot of nuclear and cytoplasmic fractions from MEC1 cells with control conditions (NDC) or drug treatment (8055) in the presence of absence of stimulation (+ or – BCR crosslinking respectively). Blots were probed with anti-Rbp1 CTD (clone 4H8; recognizing RNA polymerase II subunit B1), anti-Lamin A/C, anti-β-tubulin or anti-γ-tubulin (clone GTU-88) antibodies, to identify subcellular fractions. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 3: Subcellular fractionation demonstrates the shuttling of FOXO1 between the nucleus and cytoplasm in CLL. (A) MEC-1 cells and (B) primary CLL cells were pre-treated for 30 min with 100 nM AZD8055 (8055) or left untreated (NDC) as indicated and then BCR was ligated for 1 h or left US. Nuclear and cytoplasmic fractions were then prepared and immunoblotted. Following confirmation of fractionation by probing with anti-Lamin A/C (nuclear) and anti-β-tubulin (cytoplasmic) antibodies, the effect of both drug treatment and BCR ligation was assessed on FOXO1 protein expression, using an anti-FOXO1 antibody. M indicates molecular weight marker. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 4: A worked example of quantitative Western blot analysis (densitometry). (A) Densitometry was performed using Western blot analysis software available online. Briefly, within the Analysis ribbon, rectangles were drawn around protein bands in the image to calculate signal intensity. Depicted is densitometry of a representative Western blot image of a CLL patient sample that underwent cytoplasmic/nuclear fractionation. Cytoplasmic and nuclear fractions are distinguished by the expression of cytoplasmic (β-tubulin) and nuclear (Lamin A/C) markers. Normalized expression of FOXO1 for a given condition can be calculated by dividing the signal obtained for FOXO1 by the corresponding signal for β-Tubulin or Lamin A/C, depending on the fraction being analyzed. Relative FOXO1 expression (relative to US vehicle control), can be calculated by dividing normalized FOXO1 expression of a given condition by the normalized FOXO1 expression of the US vehicle control of a given cellular fraction. (B) Graph showing the FOXO1 expression levels in the cytoplasmic (left) or nuclear (right) fractions normalized to US-NDC control within each cellular fraction. The red dot on the graph is the worked example shown. This data shows the average fold change in FOXO1 expression compared to US-NDC ± SEM. P values were determined by two-tailed Students paired t test. n = 5 individual CLL patient samples. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.