$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
The continuously growing mouse incisor is an excellent model for studying adult stem cells1. The epithelial (labial and lingual cervical loop) and mesenchymal stem cells (between the labial and lingual cervical loop) that reside on the proximal side of the incisor differentiate into ameloblasts, odontoblasts, and dental pulp cells. This unique process provides a source of cells for compensation of tissue loss and turnover2. Though several stem cell markers such as Sox2, Gli1, Thy1/CD90, Bmi1, etc. have been identified in vivo for the subsets of adult stem cells in mouse incisors, they are inadequate in representing the stem cell populations when used alone1,3,4,5. Visualizing long-living quiescent cells by nucleotide analog DNA labeling and retention could provide unbiased detection for most subsets of adult stem cells6. Further, this approach is useful among many stem cell identification methods7 for understanding cell behavior and the homeostasis of dental stem cell populations3,8. While the dividing stem cells would lose their DNA labeling after a considerable chase, the putative quiescent stem cells retain their DNA label, deeming them label-retaining cells (LRCs)6. DNA labeling and retention by non-dividing stem cells will mark and locate the putative adult stem cells in their niches.
Over the past years, thymidine analog 5-bromo-2′-deoxyuridine (BrdU) labeling replaced the cumbersome, time-consuming, and high-resolution microscopy incompatible 3H-thymidine DNA labeling method for cell proliferation assays6,9. In recent years, the 5-ethynyl-2´-deoxyuridine (EdU) labeling technique has been increasingly used over BrdU. This pattern emerged due to several reasons. First, the BrdU method is slow and labor-intensive. User conditions are variable, and it is unable to preserve the ultrastructure in specimens (due to DNA denaturation). Likewise, the BrdU method loses the antigenicity of cells, thus making it inefficient for downstream functional analyses and assays such as the co-localization experiments and in vivo stem cell transplantation3,7,9,10,11,12. BrdU is also a teratogen, which is not suitable for labeling LRCs in embryonic development6. Also, the BrdU method is inefficient when used in the whole-mount specimens. The disadvantages are low penetration of antibodies in the deep part of specimens or the requirement of a long antibody incubation period for deep penetration13. EdU labeling escapes the steps of denaturing specimens, thus preserving the ultrastructure. This feature is advantageous for downstream functional analyses such as co-localization experiments and stem cell transplantation11,12. Also, EdU labeling is highly sensitive and rapid; specimen penetration is high due to the use of rapidly absorbed and smaller-sized fluorescent azides for detecting EdU labels through a Cu(I)-catalyzed [3 + 2] cycloaddition reaction ("click" chemistry)14.
Another increasingly applied DNA labeling method is the use of engineered transgenic mice. These mice express histone 2B green fluorescent protein (H2B-GFP) controlled by a tetracycline-responsive regulator element5,14. After feeding mice with tetracycline chow/water for a 4-week to 4-month chasing period, the GFP fluorescence will diminish in cycling cells and only LRCs retain the fluorescence6. The advantage of this method is that the labeled LRCs can be isolated and remain viable for cell culture or downstream functional analyses6,7. Some studies reported inaccurate labeling of quiescent stem cells when chased for long-term use. This result was due to a leaky background expression from the H2B-GFP strain and not the appropriate tetracycline-regulated response15.
Moreover, most literature in the past used the LRCs detection mainly on sectioned slides, which are two dimensional and often erroneously biased in showing the accurate location and number of LRCs. The approach displayed incorrect angles for sections of complex tissue structures16. The other method was to obtain 3D images from serial sections and perform post-image reconstructions. These steps were inaccurate because of image distortion from variations in each serial section due to compressed or stretched sections, resulting in missing information16,17,18. The method was also laborious and time-consuming.
To facilitate the whole-mount imaging of LRCs, samples need to be made clear while the fluorescence be well maintained. Current tissue clearing techniques can be classified into three major categories: organic solvent-based tissue clearing techniques, aqueous reagent-based tissue clearing techniques, and hydrogel-based tissue clearing techniques17,19. The polyethylene glycol (PEG)-associated solvent system (PEGASOS) has been recently developed. This approach renders nearly all types of tissues transparent and preserves endogenous fluorescence, including hard tissues such as bone and teeth20. The PEGASOS method has advantages over other tissue clearing methods, especially in clearing tooth and bone materials. Most other methods could only partially clear hard tissues, have long processing times, or require costly reagents21. Also, the PEGASOS method can efficiently preserve endogenous fluorescence over other methods.
This literature led us to create a new method for cell study. We combined the LRCs detection advantages of EdU labeling with the most superior 3D whole-mount imaging of tissue-cleared specimens; samples were processed with advanced polyethylene glycol (PEG)-associated solvent system (PEGASOS) tissue clearing technique15. Hard tissue transparency enabled us to reconstruct the 3D signal of LRCs fluorescence in vivo without breaking the teeth or mandible, creating a more accurate way to visualize and quantify LRCs.
In this study, we provide an innovative guide to visualize LRCs in the mouse incisor. We made a 3D visual approach to determine the location and quantity of LRCs within the mouse incisor stem cell niche. This project used EdU labeling, PEGASOS tissue clearing techniques, and confocal microscopy. Our method of EdU labeling the LRCs on whole-mount tissue and the use of a cleared and transparent specimen overcomes both the limitations of traditional sectioned slides and other disadvantageous DNA labeling methods. Thus, our technique will be suitable for studies on stem cell homeostasis requiring LRCs detection, especially on hard tissues. The protocol can be equally advantageous to those focusing on stem cell homeostasis in other tissues and organs.