This protocol describes a step-by-step workflow for immunofluorescent costaining of IBA1 and TMEM119, in addition to analysis of microglial density, distribution, and morphology, as well as peripheral myeloid cell infiltration in mouse brain tissue.
This is a protocol for the dual visualization of microglia and infiltrating macrophages in mouse brain tissue. TMEM119 (which labels microglia selectively), when combined with IBA1 (which provides an exceptional visualization of their morphology), allows investigation of changes in density, distribution, and morphology. Quantifying these parameters is important in providing insights into the roles exerted by microglia, the resident macrophages of the brain. Under normal physiological conditions, microglia are regularly distributed in a mosaic-like pattern and present a small soma with ramified processes. Nevertheless, as a response to environmental factors (i.e., trauma, infection, disease, or injury), microglial density, distribution, and morphology are altered in various manners, depending on the insult. Additionally, the described double-staining method allows visualization of infiltrating macrophages in the brain based on their expression of IBA1 and without colocalization with TMEM119. This approach thus allows discrimination between microglia and infiltrating macrophages, which is required to provide functional insights into their distinct involvement in brain homeostasis across various contexts of health and disease. This protocol integrates the latest findings in neuroimmunology that pertain to the identification of selective markers. It also serves as a useful tool for both experienced neuroimmunologists and researchers seeking to integrate neuroimmunology into projects.
Whether acute or chronic, neuroinflammation is tightly influenced by microglia, the resident macrophages of the brain. Visualizing microglia through immunostaining is valuable for the study of neuroinflammation with the use of light microscopy, a highly accessible technique. In homeostatic conditions, microglia are typically distributed in a nonoverlapping, mosaic-like pattern. They exhibit small somas that extend ramified processes1, which sometimes contact one another2. Microglial ramified processes dynamically survey the brain parenchyma, interacting with neurons, other glial cells, and blood vessels during normal physiological conditions3. Microglia are equipped with an arsenal of receptors that allow them to perform immunological tasks and respond to changes in the brain milieu, to cell death, or to tissue damage. In addition, they exert key physiological functions, notably in synaptic formation, maintenance, and elimination4,5.
Among the available markers used to study microglia, ionized calcium binding adaptor molecule 1 (IBA1) is one of the most widely used. IBA1 is a calcium binding protein that provides exceptional visualization of microglial morphology, including fine distal processes, as confirmed by electron microscopy6. This tool has been instrumental in characterizing microglial transformation, formerly called "activation", in a vast array of animal disease models7,8,9. In the presence of neuroinflammation, the microglial response includes: microgliosis that is defined as an increase in cellular density, changes in distribution that sometimes result in clustering, enlargement of the cell body, as well as thickening and shortening of processes associated with more ameboid shapes10,11,12,13.
Immunostaining is limited by the availability of antibodies directed against specific markers. Importantly, IBA1 is expressed by microglia but also by peripheral macrophages that infiltrate the brain14. While observation of IBA1-positive cells inside the brain has become a marker of microglia in this research field, peripheral macrophage infiltration has been reported under various conditions, even marginally in the healthy brain15,16,17,18. Consequently, the use of IBA1 alone does not allow selective visualization of microglia. In addition, macrophages adopt molecular and morphological features of resident microglia once they have infiltrated the brain, thus hindering differentiation19. This represents a challenge when investigating the function of both microglia and infiltrating macrophages.
While microglia and peripheral macrophages have distinct origins (e.g., from the embryonic yolk sac and bone marrow, respectively20,21), there is an increasing number of findings indicating that the two cell populations exert different roles in the brain19. It is thus crucial to use methods that discriminate between these two populations without invasive manipulations (i.e., bone marrow chimeras or parabiosis) that can modulate their density, distribution, morphology, and function. TMEM119 has emerged as a microglia-specific marker across health and disease conditions22. When combined with IBA1, this marker becomes useful for differentiating these cells from infiltrating macrophages, which are TMEM119-negative and IBA1-positive. While it is developmentally regulated, TMEM119 is expressed as early as postnatal days 3 (P3) and 6 (P6), steadily increasing until reaching adult levels between P10 and P1422. IBA1 is expressed as early as embryonic day 10.5 (E10.5)23. The proposed double labeling protocol is thus useful to study these two populations throughout postnatal life.
This protocol provides a step-by-step immunostaining procedure that allows discrimination between microglia and peripheral macrophages. It also explains how to conduct a quantitative analysis of microglial density, distribution, and morphology, as well as analysis of peripheral macrophage infiltration. While the investigation of microglia and peripheral macrophages is useful on its own, this protocol further allows localization of neuroinflammatory foyers; thus, it also serves as a platform to identify specific regions to investigate, with the use of complementary (yet, more time- and resource-consuming) techniques.
All experimental procedures were performed in agreement with the guidelines of the Institutional Animal Ethics committees, in conformity with the Canadian Council on Animal Care and the Animal Care Committee of Université Laval.
1. Immunostaining
2. Imaging for density and distribution analysis
3. Imaging for morphology analysis
4. Density and distribution analysis
5. Morphology analysis
Figure 1 shows the co-labeling of microglia using IBA1 and TMEM119 in a coronal section of the dorsal hippocampus imaged at 20x by fluorescence microscopy. A successful staining reveals microglial cell bodies and their fine processes (Figure 1A−C). This staining allows determination of microglial density and distribution and identification of microglial clusters (Figure 1I) and infiltrating macrophages (Figure 1F).
Figure 2 shows IBA1+/TMEM119+ microglia (Figure 2A−C) in a stepwise example of the microglial arborization tracing procedure (Figure 2D−H), as well as an example of cell body tracing (Figure 2I), both imaged at 40x by confocal microscopy.
Figure 1: IBA1 and TMEM119 double staining of mouse brain tissue for density, distribution, clustering, and peripheral myeloid cell infiltration analysis. (A−C) Typical microglial distribution in the hippocampus of a C57BL/6 adult mouse. (D−F) Microglia identified as IBA1+/TMEM119+ and infiltrating macrophage identified as IBA1+/TMEM119 (white arrow) in the amygdala of a male mouse. (G−I) Cluster of two microglia (white square) in the hippocampus of a mouse. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 2: IBA1 and TMEM119 staining for microglial morphology analysis. (A−C) Microglia. (D−I) Step-by-step example of arborization tracing with the IBA1 channel using the polygon tool in FIJI/ImageJ. (J) Example of microglia soma tracing with the IBA1 channel using the freehand selection tool in FIJI/ImageJ. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 3: FIJI/ImageJ interface and tools for microglial density, distribution, clustering, morphology, and peripheral myeloid cell infiltration analysis. (A−R) Compilation of all tools, menus, and windows used for the density, cluster, and morphology analyses. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Solutions | Preparation |
Blocking buffer | 0.5% gelatin + 5% natural goat serum + 5% natural donkey serum + 0.01% Triton X-100 in TBS [0.05 M] |
Citrate buffer | 1.92 g of citric acid [10 mM], 500 µL of Tween 20 [0.05% (v/v)], 700 mL of ultrapure water, adjust pH = 6.0 with NaOH [10 N], fill up to 1 L with ultrapure water |
NaBH4 | [0.01% w/w] Disolve 0.01 g of NaBH4 in 10 mL of ultrapure water, the solution should be well mixed. This solution creates bubble; release pressure by opening the cap after mixing |
PB | [100 mM] Disolve 23.48 g of Na2HPO4 and 4.8 g of NaH2PO4·H2O in 1 L of ultrapure water, then fill up to 2 L, adjust pH = 7.4 |
PBS | [50 mM] Disolve 5.87 g of Na2HPO4, 1.2 g of NaH2PO4·H2O, 9 g of NaCl in 500 mL of ultrapure water, fill up to 1 L with ultrapure water, adjust pH = 7.4 |
PBST | PBS + 0.01% Triton X-100 |
TBS | Dilute Tris HCl [0.5 M] with ultrapure water 1:10 [0.05 M], take 1 L of Tris HCl [0.05 M] and add 8.75 g of NaCl |
Tris HCl | [0.5 M] 950 mL of ultrapure water, add 78.8 g of Tris buffer hydrochloride (C4H11NO3Cl) adjust pH = 8 and fill up to 1 L |
Table 1: Solutions used for immunostaining.
This protocol can be divided in two critical parts: quality of the staining and analysis. If the staining is not optimal, it will fail to represent microglial cells adequately, thus affecting the density, distribution, and morphology measurements. In addition, the proportion of infiltration peripheral myeloid cells may be underestimated. This is an optimized version of the staining protocol, but there are several factors that may result in suboptimal images. Even though the perfusion of the animal is not included in this protocol, if brain fixation is not well-executed, the quality of the staining will be compromised. Additionally, sufficient perfusion is required to ensure the absence of macrophages inside of blood vessels that may interfere with the study.
With regards to immunostaining, the most critical details include the quality of buffers, blocking step, proper storage of antibodies, and brain sample handling. The proper preparation of buffers and their storage has a direct influence on quality of the staining. Unless specified, some buffers can be stored for long periods, but the use of any buffer that shows signs of contamination should be avoided. If buffers are prepared days or weeks in advance, the pH of every solution before use should be verified.
Additionally, regarding immunostaining, the presence of background staining remains one of the most common problems. Background staining makes it difficult to analyze microglia, especially their morphology, and hence will bias the results. To prevent background, it is important that the blocking step is done correctly. The storing conditions of the antibodies also have direct effects on their efficacy. It is advised to strictly follow the storage guidelines provided by the company as well as avoid frequent thawing-freezing cycles. Finally, during the whole process, it is critical to pay attention to the physical integrity of the brain sections. It is important to use caution during each manipulation (buffer changes, washes, and mounting), especially if the experimenter is not experienced with this procedure. It is advised to avoid leaving the samples without any liquid solution when changing solutions or buffers, solutions for the subsequent step should be ready to pour into the well beforehand. The multi-well plate should be correctly sealed with paraffin film during the overnight step to avoid evaporation that may lead the samples to dry.
Quantitative analysis of microglial density, distribution, and morphology has several advantages over qualitative reports. To prevent bias, the researcher performing the analysis should be blinded to the experimental condition. Thus, it is suggested to have different people perform the analysis and change the name of the files (while keeping the original and new names in a key sheet). The new names should have no hints of the experimental condition. The entire analysis can be done on these blinded files, and the original image identity is revealed only after the compilation of data and prior to statistical analysis. Although blinding is already practiced by experienced researchers, it remains valuable advice for those performing this type of analysis for the first time.
Controlling for the brain region is done during brain section selection and tracing of the ROI during analysis. Make sure to use sections from the same range of Bregma levels across animals. The same ROI should be used for the density, distribution, and morphology analyses. For density and distribution analyses, it is particularly important to be precise when drawing the ROI in FIJI/Image J. The use of a brain atlas is strongly recommended for both section selection and ROI tracing. The use of DAPI also facilitates the identification of neuroanatomical landmarks. To avoid variance, it is recommended to reject microglia that are only partially located in the ROI, as they may differ among their microenvironment. When marking microglia for density analysis, the DAPI channel can be used as a selection criterion. By only counting microglia that contain DAPI-stained nuclei, all considered microglia are in the same plane, reducing the personal bias during selection.
Since measurements for the NND, spacing index, and cluster analysis are based on the locations of dots marking individual cells, and since the distances are calculated by FIJI/ImageJ, it is important to be consistent when placing these dots. Make sure to strictly place the dots in the center of the cell body, which is determined visually. Additionally, the size of the dots should remain consistent throughout the analysis. This will contribute to a better representation of the spatial distribution of the microglial population. For cluster analysis, 12 µm was selected as a distance threshold based on our previous analyses. Nevertheless, if there are four or more different cells with an NND below 12 µm, all these cells could take part of a single cluster or represent two clusters of two cells. This made it necessary to return to the images and confirm the actual number of clusters.
Unlike density and distribution, in which the ROI is determined by neuroanatomical features using a brain atlas, the selection of microglial cells for morphology analysis is based on the ability to analyze the cell. All the cells that can be analyzed should be selected for analysis in a Z-stack before moving to another Z-stack to prevent selection bias. Reasons for excluding cells include issues with the immunostaining or tissue cutting, processing (e.g., tearing), or mounting (e.g., bubble formation). Ideally, brain sections with such issues should be systematically excluded from imaging and analysis. It is also important to note that the staining for TMEM119 and IBA1 does not show 100% overlap (Figure 2A−C). Because TMEM119 does not allow visualization of process continuity (as well as IBA1), this makes it difficult to assess where one cell ends and where another one starts. Thus, the morphology analysis is done using the IBA1 channel. Additionally, all traces and dots should be saved and visualized for future revision, allowing for increasing transparency and reproducibility of results.
This protocol provides valuable information regarding microglia and infiltrating macrophages. Examples of its applications include detecting signs of neuroinflammation through changes in microglia in different brain regions, studying the anti-inflammatory effects of a compound, and studying factors that interfere with the proper function of microglia. Considering that this protocol allows detection of infiltrating macrophages in the brain and differentiation of these cells from microglia, additional applications include: determination if the recruitment of macrophages occurs in a particular insult or with the use of other techniques (i.e., genetic tools), and confirming and studying the consequences of the absence of peripheral macrophages in the brain during insult. Keep in mind that fluorescence microscopy on its own is not sufficient to confirm infiltration inside the brain parenchyma. When IBA1+/TMEM119- cells are observed near the ventricles or perivascular space, higher spatial resolution techniques such as electron microscopy are required to confirm their localization within the parenchyma. While changes in density, distribution, and morphology are good indicators of microglial and macrophage roles, this approach is most powerful when combined with functional investigations.
The authors have nothing to disclose.
We are grateful to Nathalie Vernoux for her guidance and assistance with the experiments. We would also like to thank Drs. Emmanuel Planel and Serge Rivest for the use of their fluorescence and confocal microscopes, respectively. This work was partly funded by scholarships from Mexican Council of Science and Technology (CONACYT; to F.G.I), Fondation Famille-Choquette and Centre thématique de recherche en neurosciences (CTRN; to K.P.), Fonds de Recherche du Québec – Santé (to M.B.), and Shastri Indo-Canadian Institute (to K.B.), as well as a Discovery grant from Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) to M.E.T. M.E.T. holds a Canada Research Chair (Tier II) of Neuroimmune Plasticity in Health and Therapy.
Alexa Fluor 488 donkey anti-mouse | Invitrogen/Thermofisher | A21202 | |
Alexa Fluor 568 goat anti-rabbit | Invitrogen/Thermofisher | A11011 | |
Biolite 24 Well multidish | Thermo Fisher | 930186 | |
Bovine serum albumin | EMD Millipore Corporation | 2930 | |
Citric acid | Sigma-Aldrich | C0759-500G | |
DAPI Nuceleic acid stain | Invitrogen/Thermofisher | MP 01306 | |
Fine Brush | Art store | ||
Fluoromount-G | Southern Biotech | 0100-01 | |
Gelatin from coldwater fish skin | Sigma-Aldrich | G7765 | |
Microscope coverglass | Fisher Scientific | 1254418 | |
Microslides positively charged | VWR | 48311-703 | |
Monoclonal mouse Anti-IBA1 | Millipore | MABN92 | |
Na2H2PO4·H2O | BioShop Canada Inc. | SPM306, SPM400 | |
Na2HPO4 | BioShop Canada Inc. | SPD307, SPD600 | |
NaBH4 | Sigma-Aldrich | 480886 | |
NaCl | Fisher Scientific | S642500 | |
Normal donkey serum (NDS) | Jackson ImmunoResearch laboratories Inc. | 017-000-121 | |
Normal goat serum (NGS) | Jackson ImmunoResearch laboratories Inc. | 005-000-121 | |
Parafilm-M | Parafilm | PM-999 | |
Rabbit monoclonal Anti-TMEM119 | Abcam | ab209064 | |
Reciprocal Shaking bath model 25 | Precision Scientific | – | |
Transfer pipette | |||
Tris buffer hydrochloride | BioShop Canada Inc. | TRS002/TRS004 | |
Triton-X-100 | Sigma-Aldrich | T8787 | |
Tween 20 | Sigma-Aldrich | P7949-100ML |