$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
Animal models are essential for preclinical drug development at every stage of the process from identification of novel CPPs, biodistribution studies, mechanism of transduction, to ultimately testing for efficacy of the delivered cargo using these novel CPPs as vectors. There are many commonly used methods available to assess biodistribution such as histology, nuclear medicine imaging (SPECT and PET), and in vivo optical imaging12. Nuclear imaging methods can be cumbersome due to the limited availability of small animal SPECT and PET systems, as well as the ability to produce radiolabel-drug conjugates, which require the expertise of a radiochemist. In contrast, fluorescent labels are much simpler and can be cost effective to work with. The protocol described in this paper allows for rapid analysis of biodistribution using multiple methods. Ex vivo whole organ fluorescent optical imaging allows for the immediate comparison of fluorescence across different tissues and treatment groups and can identify organ uptake and time to peak uptake in organ of interest in a semiquantitative manner. Quantitative tissue histology requires more extensive processing to treat, section, image, and analyze tissues, but it provides more data on the microscopic level and is a current standard technique. It is worthwhile to note that direct, quantitative comparison across the two techniques is not possible, because the autofluorescence seen with each technique for different organs and excitation wavelengths varies significantly.
An important part of this protocol is selecting the right fluorophore to label candidate CPPs for experiments. One potential issue is spectra overlap, which can be problematic when multiple fluorophores are needed. The DAPI fluorescent mounting media and Cy5.5 do not have overlapping spectra. However, for certain applications where multiple fluorophores are needed, the risk of spectral overlap needs to be carefully considered. Depending on the system being used, fluorophore selection may be limited. Therefore, knowledge of the system's capabilities is key. Fluorescent optical systems are best utilized with far-red or near-infrared fluorophores due to the high tissue absorption of shorter wavelengths13. Fluorophores in the range of enhanced green fluorescent protein have a major limitation, because there is significant organ autofluorescence seen at its excitation wavelength, specifically in brain and liver tissue. Depending on the conditions of an experiment, some fluorophores are best avoided. Some water-soluble organic fluorophores have a strong interaction with lipid bilayers, which can cause false positives. Hence, taking steps to determine if a fluorophore has strong affinity to the tissue of interest is advisable14. Another factor to consider is selecting the appropriate method of fluorophore conjugation, which can be an important parameter affecting the results. CPPs can be labeled fluorescently at the N- or C-terminus through a covalent bond between the N-terminus of the peptide and the carboxyl group of the dye such as Cy5.5-NHS. Care should be taken, because the mechanism of transduction of most CPPs is not understood in detail and conjugation at one end may affect the uptake mechanism more so than at the other end. Another possibility for labeling CPPs is through biotinylating the N-terminus for conjugation to fluorescently labeled streptavidin. Using this strategy has the convenience of allowing different fluorescent streptavidin conjugates to be utilized. However, a possible limitation of this strategy is that a biotin-streptavidin complex is a large construct, which could potentially interfere with transduction.
Fluorescent optical imaging systems are an effective strategy for generating comparison of fluorescence across different organs and treatments efficiently but are incapable of producing a quantitative measure of absolute concentrations in tissue. This is due to light scattering effects within the tissue, which is further compounded by the naturally occurring variety in tissue sizes and densities, and differences in vascularity, with variable fluorescence scattering. Tissue autofluorescence can be a factor as well, due to naturally occurring biochemical sources such as collagen, or dietary sources like chlorophyll in food13.
Histology is the most commonly used method of measuring biodistribution and can potentially be used to accurately measure and compare uptake across different tissues over time. Light scattering issues are avoided using this method because all tissues are sectioned to the same thickness15. A major advantage of this method is the ability to include additional fluorescent labels postsectioning for immunohistochemistry. Although the addition of another fluorophore could make imaging more challenging, the use of fluorescent labels can be useful for localization of a CPP to particular intracellular compartments, like lysosomes or mitochondria. An antibody could be used in a confocal microscopy experiment to determine if a transduced candidate CPP colocalizes with a structure of interest, which can show the potential of a CPP as a delivery agent. One limitation of this method is that preparation of slides from organ samples can be time consuming, labor intensive, and prone to human error12,15. When imaging slides, care should be taken to not image the same location for too long to avoid photobleaching. Some photobleaching will be inevitable, depending on the sensitivity of the fluorophore. Care should be taken at every step of this protocol to protect the samples from ambient light and store them properly16. We recommend that slides be stored at 4 °C, light-protected, for future imaging.
There are a variety of methods available for measuring the biodistribution of a candidate CPP that require specialized equipment and can produce comparable results, though they may require more complex CPP labeling. The protocol described in this paper uses two compatible methods to efficiently produce biodistribution data in the context of a living system while allowing for the acquisition of greater in-depth information about peptide internalization within cells from the same sample, thus cutting the number of animals needed for a study by half. These methods were used to generate the above data, which demonstrate that both methods can be utilized sequentially in the same animal, and the quality of the data generated by each. Our results also highlight the inability to directly correlate results between the two techniques in a quantitative manner.