$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
The objective of this study was to precisely monitor the intracellular distribution of an optogenetic protein and assess its performance within a particular cytoplasmic compartment. We also showed the precise stimulation capabilities of a point scanning system on cells expressing an optogenetic protein. To achieve this, we employed a nuclear-targeted bPAC-nLuc with high expression levels but a very confined distribution limited to the nucleus. The results showed that stimulation spots separated by only ~1 µm can either trigger cAMP production or not, depending on the cellular distribution of the optogenetic protein; only stimulations directed to the nucleus were able to raise cAMP levels. In this protocol, the goal was not to generate localized cAMP elevations but rather to show that brief light stimulations can be accurate enough to activate optogenetic proteins in very restricted areas of the cell without stimulating the surrounding proteins. However, this approach constitutes a necessary control for the study of other optogenetic proteins with diffuse distributions and/or the generation of localized cAMP elevations. This can be achieved by varying the expression levels of the optogenetic protein, the intensity and frequency of the stimulation, etc. To accurately measure these localized signals, careful consideration of acquisition parameters and sensor characteristics is crucial. This includes selecting appropriate ROI positions and sizes, determining the acquisition frequency, and choosing FRET/intensiometric sensors with optimal affinity, intensity, dynamic range, and dissociation constant.
In a recently published article, we used a similar strategy to functionally demonstrate the distribution of a nuclear-targeted bPAC-nLuc and the capability of a modified phosphodiesterase (PDE; ΔRI-PDE8) to abolish cAMP elevations in a thyroid-derived cell line9. In this article, we conducted cell stimulation along a straight line instead of a grid, and the illumination spots were placed relative to cellular landmarks (e.g., nuclear center, nuclear edge, etc.) rather than in a systematic pattern. Remarkably, even stimulations directed to the nuclear edge were insufficient to trigger a detectable cAMP response. We reasoned that this was probably due to stimulating an insufficient mass of NLS-bPAC-nLuc9. However, in the present protocol, some stimulations directed to the vicinity of the nuclear edge elicited a detectable cAMP increase. This discrepancy could be attributed to various factors, including the expression levels of the bPAC-nLuc, the characteristics of the stimulation, the morphology of the nucleus, the presence of endogenous PDEs, buffer proteins, etc.
While other targeted or non-targeted optogenetic proteins may exhibit more diffuse distributions, this systematic approach supports drawing meaningful conclusions by carefully setting up experiments and analyzing the data. Furthermore, this approach enables targeting specialized cellular structures (e.g., lamellipodia, dendrites, primary cilia, etc.), facilitating comparisons between responses in the distal and proximal regions of these structures and/or the cell body.
This strategy can also be used to assess the activation of downstream elements in the cAMP pathway, such as Protein Kinase A (PKA) or the exchange protein directly activated by cAMP (EPAC1). Furthermore, since bPAC-nLuc is not influenced by the same modulators as endogenous ACs, which can be affected by local interactions with proteins or other factors, it can be assumed to consistently generate the same amount of cAMP given the same level of expression. By examining the reduction of cAMP elevations or the decrease in cAMP levels after a temporary rise, this approach allows the evaluation of cAMP degradation, diffusion, or the functionality and distribution of endogenous or transfected PDEs. This strategy proves particularly useful for assessing any optogenetic protein's behavior at different cellular locations, helping avoid the bias of arbitrarily placing stimulation spots within the cytoplasm.
It is important to take into account that the size of the stimulation spot and its energy will ultimately depend on the particular characteristics of the setup used (light paths, objectives, scanning system, etc.). To ensure accurate results, the relative expression of the optogenetic protein, the sensitivity of the cells to the wavelength used, and any other parameters should be taken into account when conducting each experiment in each particular system. It is also essential to note that we have not studied the full extent to which the system can be driven in implementing smaller stimulation spots and/or denser grids (i.e., less spaced stimulation spots) to systematically assess smaller cellular structures with increased precision. Additionally, we have tested this strategy using only the UGA-42 Geo point scanning system. This approach may be possible using different systems, provided that they can reproducibly generate evenly spaced localized spots. Each system should be optimized to yield similar results.
Finally, the potential stimulation of FRET sensors by the stimulation system should be carefully evaluated. For example, cyan fluorescent protein (CFP) will certainly be stimulated or even bleached by the 445 nm laser used in this protocol. The use of higher laser potencies (or higher transmittance neutral density (ND) filters) will increase the chances of stimulating the fluorescent sensors and, introducing false information to the experiment and/or generating problems with the data analysis. The normal photobleaching of the FRET/intensiometric sensors should also be carefully evaluated. Finally, since bPAC can be sensitive to ambient light and generate cAMP even in dark conditions (the dark activity of bPAC has been measured as 33 ± 5 pmol/min/mg of protein3), cells should be carefully manipulated after transfecting bPAC-nLUC to avoid light contamination (e.g., at the incubator, before and/or during experiments, etc.). Optionally, cells can be incubated with a PDE inhibitor (e.g., 3-isobutyl-1-methylxanthine; IBMX10) to determine the baseline activity of bPAC-nLuc and confirm that the lighting conditions used are appropriately dark.