$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
Emerging production of novel materials, including chemicals and drugs, gradually increases the need for predictive in vitro models. To comply with the three principles of replacement, reduction, and refinement of animal testing32, in vitro cell models have become powerful tools regarding the replacement and reduction aspect for elucidating mechanisms of a drug’s or material’s action8,9,10,11. Presented here is a detailed protocol of assembling the multicellular model using immune cells that are either freshly isolated or thawed from previously frozen monocytes. Also described is the cultivation of the model at ALI. Finally, the protocol illustrates an example of exposure to proinflammatory stimuli and compares the response of the two models containing either fresh or frozen monocytes.
Various studies have been performed to confirm and justify the added value of the enhanced complexity of the models grown and exposed under ALI conditions compared to conventional submerged exposure7,22,31. Observation of the higher proinflammatory response in cocultures compared to monocultures of epithelial cells confirm a previous study. The study used the presented coculture model (stimulated with LPS) and showed a higher response at gene expression levels of TNF and IL1B compared to the A549 monoculture equivalent model7. On the other hand, both models showed higher variations within measured proinflammatory mediator release values compared to A549 monocultures. This can be explained by the use of immune cells from different donors (buffy coats) within biological repetitions (i.e., one repetition, one donor), as previously shown7. If desired, the variations among the replicates can be overcome by 1) using thawed PBMs from the same donor or 2) pooling PBMs from different donors prior to freezing the cells, then subsequent usage of the same pool in each repetition. Including more biological repetitions is also recommended.
The cell-freezing technique can be considered as a critical step; however, it is a common laboratory procedure for preserving cells for phenotypic and functional analysis. Various studies have demonstrated that the quality of frozen PBMs is vital to their survival, and an appropriate freezing technique is key to the success of subsequent assays with the same cells28,32. Modification of the protocol can be performed by freezing PBMs, which provides flexibility in the experimental setup, as the availability of buffy coats is usually limited. Another advantage of using frozen PBMs (in several vials) over freshly isolated ones is that they can be used in subsequent experiments even after 1 year. This decreases the potential issue of donor-to-donor variability if this is a desired or required parameter in an experimental.
Outcomes of an interlaboratory comparison performed after up to 13 months show that PBMs, when properly stored in a liquid nitrogen tank, can be used over a long period without any effect on cell viability or cell recovery33. Longer storage times (over 1 year) may be possible upon careful validation of cell viability and cell responsiveness before performing an experiment. Also, the temperature in the liquid nitrogen tank must remain stable at all times. The main factor affecting the viability of cryopreserved PBMs was found to be DMSO concentration, with an optimal concentration of 10%–20 % (v/v)28. To minimize potentially harmful effects of freezing, different sources of proteins, FBS or BSA (with a broad range of concentration from 40% up to 100 %34) are often added to the freezing medium as natural protective components that can increase cell survival.
Due to the high cytotoxic potential of DMSO, it is recommended first to disperse PBMs in FBS, then add DMSO to PBMs already dispersed in FBS. Notably, although higher FBS concentrations (>40%) did not show any improvement in cell viability, at the same time, they did not cause harm to the cells28. Nevertheless, freezing monocytes is a possible approach to overcoming issues of limited buffy coat availability. However, if the use of MDDCs and MDMs from fresh PBMs is desired, the immune cells can be differentiated and used 5–8 days after isolation7,16,17,35,36,37. If experimental planning allows, at least 6 days of differentiation in both MDDCs and MDMs is recommended. However, consistency among different repetitions in the same experiment, along with routine inspections of their specific surface marker expressions, are crucial. The responsiveness to a proinflammatory stimulus, such as LPS, after the differentiation time should also be regularly checked.
Many investigations using the A549 cell line have been performed at ALI, either as a monoculture or combined with other cell types (macrophages, dendritic cells, or fibroblasts) into 3D coculture model22,24,29,38. Using this 3D coculture model, the cytotoxicity, oxidative stress, or proinflammatory effects of (nano-)materials have been investigated for up to 72 h1,17,21,24,29. The model’s resemblance to in vivo tissue has previously been investigated based on confocal laser scanning imaging of the model16. When assembling the model, it is important to consider both cell proliferation (which can affect A549 in the model presented here) as well as performance of the primary (not proliferating) immune cells (here, MDDCs and MDMs). It is also important to consider that not all the CD14 positive monocytes differentiate into MDDCs and MDMs, and that the cells can be present in both attached and suspended forms. Based on the nature of the coculture assembly (here, both cell types need to attach to the existing epithelial layer), it is recommended to use only the adherent sub-populations of both immune cell types. Additionally, routine analyses of monocytes, MDDC and MDM monoculture responsiveness to LPS, and expression of specific surface markers (CD14, CD163, CD86, CD93, or CD206, data not shown) have suggested that 6 and 7 days of differentiation are the optimum timepoints.
Although a realistic number of alveolar epithelial cells in human lungs corresponds to ~160,000 cells/cm2, the number of A549 cells counted in the model is ~1,000,000 cells/cm2 after 9 days cultured on the insert16,18. Thus, this in vitro model’s limitations need to be considered. First, the density of epithelial cells was established based on their ability to form a confluent layer on the growing membrane. It is also important to mention that the A549 represents an epithelial type II cell with a cuboidal form, contrary to epithelial type I cells, which are flat and outspread. On the other hand, the required number of immune cells was established based on the literature and presented in this protocol as cell number/surface area39,40,41. The cell density of MDDCs in the range of 400 cells/mm2 (4 cells/cm2)16 is comparable to the steady-state cell density of 500–750 cells/mm2 (5- 7 cells/cm2) reported from in vivo studies39. The density of MDMs in this model is within the same range of in vivo situation in the human alveolar region40.
Mature macrophage marker staining (25F9) was observed both in the apical side (where MDMs are present) as well as basal side (i.e., at the site of dendritic cells). Translocation of immune cells through the membrane inserts pores is possible and has also been observed using this model16, which may explain the observed differences in staining intensities. However, another possible explanation is that the mature macrophage marker can also be expressed on dendritic cells, but the expression is highly donor-specific42. Also, the intensity of the 25F9 expression is much higher in MDMs (Figure 7, Figure 8). Both proinflammatory stimuli (LPS and TNF-α) affected the integrity of the pulmonary epithelial barrier in both cocultures (Figure 7, Figure 8). This was expected based on previous publications43,44 showing that proinflammatory cytokines and bacterial products disrupt the integrity of epithelial barriers.
The 3D multicellular model of the human alveolar epithelium, established and characterized previously17, has served as a powerful and useful tool for assessing biological responses (i.e., acute proinflammatory reactions, oxidative stress response, particle distribution, and cellular communication) in vitro21,24,25,45. The results confirm the responsivness of coculture models to proinflammatory stimuli (here, LPS and TNF-α). The response was slightly increased when using immune cells from fresh PBMs; however, there was no statistically significant difference between cocultures using fresh vs. thawed PBMs. Furthermore, the proinflammatory reactions of both coculture models were higher than those of epithelial cell monocultures cultivated under the same (ALI) conditions. In summary, the protocol describes the assembly of a 3D human alveolar epithelial tissue coculture model using either fresh or thawed PBMs for differentiation into MDMs and MDDCs. It is shown that both models are highly responsive to proinflammatory stimuli; therefore, they can serve as powerful tools for potential hazard and toxicity assessments.