High-quality total RNA has been prepared from cell bodies of mouse spinal cord motor neurons by laser capture microdissection after staining spinal cord sections with Azure B in 70% ethanol. Sufficient RNA (~40-60 ng) is recovered from 3,000-4,000 motor neurons to allow downstream RNA analysis by RNA-seq and qRT-PCR.
Preparation of high-quality RNA from cells of interest is critical to precise and meaningful analysis of transcriptional differences among cell types or between the same cell type in health and disease or following pharmacologic treatments. In the spinal cord, such preparation from motor neurons, the target of interest in many neurologic and neurodegenerative diseases, is complicated by the fact that motor neurons represent <10% of the total cell population. Laser capture microdissection (LMD) has been developed to address this problem. Here, we describe a protocol to quickly recover, freeze, and section mouse spinal cord to avoid RNA damage by endogenous and exogenous RNases, followed by staining with Azure B in 70% ethanol to identify the motor neurons while keeping endogenous RNase inhibited. LMD is then used to capture the stained neurons directly into guanidine thiocyanate lysis buffer, maintaining RNA integrity. Standard techniques are used to recover the total RNA and measure its integrity. This material can then be used for downstream analysis of the transcripts by RNA-seq and qRT-PCR.
In mammalian tissues composed of multiple different cell types, the advent of laser capture microdissection (LMD) instrumentation has afforded the possibility to select a specific cell type for analysis at the RNA or protein level. At present, amplification and next-gen sequencing techniques enable use of a pool of total RNA from a few thousand cells to obtain a relatively thorough inventory of the transcriptome, including assessment of relative levels of RNAs and identification of various spliced forms. To date, proteomics analyses of a few thousand cells will reach down through only more abundant species. For example, we have identified <1,000 of the most abundant proteins from 3,000-4,000 motor neuron cell bodies (not shown), and Zhu and coworkers have recently reported identifying 2,665 proteins from ~15,000 tumor cells1. With further developments of mass spectrometry, however, it is likely that such analyses will extend to far greater depth.
Here, we present a specific protocol used for LMD of motor neuron cell bodies from spinal cord of mice, followed by preparation of RNA. This protocol was used in the context of comparing RNAs from motor neurons of presymptomatic transgenic mutant superoxide dismutase (SOD)1 amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) mice with RNAs prepared from a wild-type SOD1 transgenic strain by both RNA-seq and qRT-PCR validation2. Notably, motor neurons, in the anterior horn of the gray matter in the spinal cord, comprise <10% of the total cell population, surrounded by a sea of astrocytes, and as such, their transcriptional profile cannot be easily deconvoluted from studies of the entire cord. A laser capture approach is thus ideal for analyzing RNA expression in these cells, with physiology preserved by rapidly excising and freezing the cord following brief intracardiac saline perfusion. Motor neuron somata are large and are thus readily detectable, here using a dye that has strong affinity for neurons3. In addition, with such size, these cells provide a relatively large amount of RNA per cell captured. The procedure used, as detailed below, could be readily adjusted to obtain other neuronal cell types, as well as potentially other cell types, specifically identified either by dye staining techniques or by antibody staining.
The procedures described here for anesthesia, euthanasia, and cardiac perfusion of mice were performed under a protocol approved by the Yale University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee.
1. Preparation of RNase-free Instruments and Solutions
2. Preparation of Spinal Cord Sections from Mice (Figure 1A)
3. Staining of Spinal Cord Sections (Figure 1A)
4. Laser Capture Microdissection (LMD) (Figure 1B)
5. RNA Preparation from Motor Neurons
Thaw all of the collected neurons from one animal and pool them together to extract RNA. Samples may look pale blue depending on the number of motor neurons (stained with Azure B) in them. Extract RNA using a suitable kit according to the protocol provided for LMD tissue, eluting in the minimum volume possible. Take 1 µl to check the quantity and integrity of the sample. Fast-freeze the remaining RNA on dry ice and store at -80 °C.
6. Determination of RNA Quality and Quantity
Determine the RNA quality with the 1 µl sample on a capillary electrophoresis microfluidics chip according to the manufacturer’s protocol. Total RNA preparations with an RNA Integrity Number (RIN) above 8.5 can be used for RNA-seq and qRT-PCR. The data output also typically includes the approximate concentration of the sample.
The protocol outlined above and in Figure 1 should produce 50 ng or more of total RNA with a RIN of >8.5 from 3,000-4,000 spinal cord motor neuron cell bodies dissected from the 9-10 20 µm slices on about 20 PEN slides. Because this number of slides represents less than 10% of an O.C.T.-embedded block of a mouse spinal cord, it is possible to return to the block, which has been stored at -80 °C, and cut more slices to go through another round of RNA preparation. If larger amounts of RNA are needed for an analysis, it is better to make only the number of slides (e.g. 20) at one time that can be processed through dissection and RNA preparation in a few days, then make more slides for a second round and combine the products. Be sure to check the RIN of each preparation first to avoid combining a good one with a bad. RNA-seq methods are becoming more sensitive and new PCR technologies are promising higher sensitivity than current ones. Thus, less RNA from fewer neuron cell bodies will be required, allowing greater sequencing depth and more comprehensive validation of interesting hits. On the other hand, full adherence to the MIQE recommendations for qRT-PCR analysis and validation4 may require larger amounts to allow for the necessary control reactions for low-abundance RNAs.
Figure 2 shows a typical series of images of a portion of a spinal cord ventral horn section after Azure B staining and dissection. In panel A, the large, darkly stained cell bodies are motor neurons, confirmed by anti-Chat antibody staining2, and are easily differentiated from smaller neighboring cells. Panel B shows the same region with individual cell bodies outlined with the light pen and numbered by the microscope software. The outlines closely follow the margins of the cell bodies, with a small allowance for the cutting width of the laser. This spacing has to be determined for each laser power setting to minimize the inclusion of extraneous material while avoiding loss of motor neuron cytosol. Panels C and D show the section after the laser has cut and the individual cell bodies have dropped into the collection cap. Notice that the cutting margin does not exactly follow the light pen outline in panel C, but does largely stay outside of it. This irregularity is apparent in panel D, as is the darkened area around each cut, which reflects the heat damage to the tissue caused by the laser. Because of this, if two cell bodies are very close to each other, it is better to outline them for a single cut, rather than trying to cut them separately and losing some RNA to heat damage at their region of near-contact.
Figure 3 shows typical results of an electrophoretic analysis of the RNA integrity of a sample of RNA prepared from ~4,000 mouse motor neuron cell bodies collected by LMD. The upper panel is the electropherogram produced by 1 µl of the total RNA; the inset at the right is an image of the gel. In both, note the prominent ribosomal RNA peaks. The lower panel is the electropherogram of the lane containing RNA size standards. The analysis software calculated an RIN of 9.8 for this sample, with a concentration of 4.9 ng/µl. A total of 13 µl of this solution was available after the analysis, providing 64 ng of RNA for downstream qRT-PCR validation of transcript amounts. For a typical qRT-PCR analysis of moderately abundant transcripts, 0.15-0.20 ng of total RNA is sufficient to produce accurate quantitation2, so the amount of RNA available from this preparation is sufficient to validate a number of transcripts with multiple primer sets, as recommended4. Of course, larger amounts of input RNA can be used to permit validation of rare transcripts. This amount is also more than sufficient to permit library preparation and next-generation RNA-seq.
Figure 1. Overview of spinal cord slice production and laser capture microdissection of spinal cord motor neuron cell bodies. A) Major steps in slice production and staining. B) Cartoon view of spinal cord section and laser dissection. Click here to view larger image.
Figure 2. Before-and-after images of a laser dissection of Azure B stained motor neuron cell bodies. A) A portion of the ventral horn of a stained section. Note the four large, darkly stained cells. There are also a few lightly stained and somewhat smaller cells, which are not motor neurons (confirmed by anti-Chat antibody staining; not shown, but see Bandyopadhyay2) and which will not be selected for dissection. The many small, dark spots are probably neuronal processes (dendrites and axons), but this has not been confirmed. B) The four cell bodies outlined with the light pen. Note that the outlines closely follow the margins of the cells, with a minimum distance between them. This spacing should be established empirically for each microscope and laser. The software numbers the individual neurons, which simplifies keeping track of how many have been collected. C and D) After the laser has cut and the pieces containing the cell bodies have dropped into the collection cap. Note that the hole left behind is somewhat larger than the outline and is irregular. This reflects the width of the laser beam and its slightly variable cutting efficiency depending on the local composition of the tissue. Also apparent is the rim of darkened tissue surrounding each hole due to local heating damage caused by the laser.
Click here to view larger image.
Figure 3. Electrophoretic analysis of the integrity of RNA prepared from LMD samples. A) A 1 µl aliquot of the RNA prepared from ~4,000 motor neuron cell bodies by the above protocol was analyzed by microcapillary electrophoresis on a microfluidics chip. The electropherogram is shown, with prominent ribosomal RNA peaks. On the right is an image of the gel itself. B) The electropherogram of the size standards is shown, with the corresponding gel lane to the right. The instrument software calculated a RIN of 9.8 for this sample and a concentration of 4.9 ng/µl. Click here to view larger image.
The most significant measure of success of this protocol for producing total RNA by laser microdissection of spinal cord slices is the RIN value5. For RNA samples from higher eukaryotes, values above 8.5 regularly yield high quality sequencing and qRT-PCR data. If yield is low but quality is high, repeat the preparation. If the integrity is lower (even 7.5-8), however, it is better to find the source of the problem and try again. There are many steps where something can go wrong, but really only two sources of the problem - endogenous RNase contamination or exogenous RNase contamination. The first can be addressed by practice, so that the time from sacrifice of the mouse to freezing its O.C.T-embedded cord is minimized. The other point in the protocol where endogenous RNase can contribute to a poor result is during the preparation of the slices. Each slice should adhere to a room temperature PEN slide quickly, but it will melt (the O.C.T becomes clear). The faster the slice can be refrozen the better. The cryostat we use has flat surfaces inside the chamber that are at -20 °C, which we use to quickly refreeze the slice. Find a similar spot in the cryostat used and make sure the slice becomes opaque again rapidly.
Tracking down sources of exogenous RNase can be difficult, because there are so many possibilities. The only reagents used which are not expressly RNase-free are O.C.T. and the Azure B. If the Azure B has performed satisfactorily before, try a fresh bottle of O.C.T., although this reagent has never been a problem. RNase-free reagents can also be replaced, even from a different supplier. A much more likely source is the investigator. In addition to a thorough cleanup of the working area, it is often useful to have another lab member follow along and observe all the steps in the procedure. Even if this is someone who does not routinely perform this procedure, a fresh set of eyes may pick up an otherwise unnoticed source of contamination.
Extending this protocol to recovering RNA from other spinal cord cells, from spinal cord cells from other species, or from specific cell types in other organs will require modifications in several areas directed at achieving clear identification of the cells of interest while obviating, or at least minimizing, the impact of endogenous RNase. In the protocol here, rapid removal and freezing of the cord, coupled with Azure B staining in 70% ethanol, allowed both minimization of RNA degradation and easy identification of motor neuron cell bodies. Azure B is a well-established histochemical stain for neurons that appears to bind to RNA3 and has been used to evaluate RNA content of neurons in autopsy samples of brain tissue from patients with neurodegenerative disease6. Notably, Azure B staining did not affect either the integrity of the purified RNA or its ability to be reverse-transcribed and analyzed. Other dyes, such as cresyl violet7 and toluidine blue8 have been used in similar LMD protocols. Collecting the cell bodies directly into guanidine thiocyanate solution as they were dissected provided the final step that resulted in the routine recovery of intact RNA.
Similar approaches can be envisioned for other cells and organs, recognizing that identifying the cells of interest while minimizing or, preferably, preventing RNA degradation by endogenous RNases is the critical requirement for successful analysis. In tissues that have high levels of RNase, such as pancreas, rapid handling and low temperature have been combined to permit recovery of RNA from β-cells, taking advantage of their natural autofluorescence for visualization9. Procedures using antibody staining for identification have also been reported10, but have not been fully successful in our hands. Finally, many mouse models are available that express fluorescent fusion proteins (i.e. GFP, YFP, RFP) in cells of interest, which could be used to identify them in tissue sections on the LMD microscope. In fact, the mouse strains we have analyzed with this protocol express a fusion protein between SOD1 and YFP11, and their spinal cord motor neurons are highly fluorescent. We were not able, however, to find a set of ethanol washes and/or dehydration conditions that would simultaneously remove the O.C.T., inhibit RNase activity, and consistently maintain sufficient YFP fluorescence to allow visualization of the motor neurons and their recovery by LMD. Perhaps a new fluorescent protein or a variant of the available ones that maintains fluorescence in organic solvents can be found to overcome this limitation.
The authors have nothing to disclose.
The authors wish to thank George Farr and members of the Horwich lab for helpful discussions. This work was supported by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.
Ketamine | Webster Veterinary | 26637041101 | Any source approved by the institutional veterinary service |
Dissection tools (scissors, forceps, etc.) | Any convenient source of high-quality dissection instruments | ||
Cryostat | Leica Microsystem | CM3050S | Other cryostats should be suitable |
LMD6000 B | Leica Microsystem | Other LMD systems have not been tested | |
RNase-free PEN-membrane 2 μm slides | Leica Microsystem | 11505189 | Other slide types have been tested and do not perform well |
RNeasy Micro kit (50) | Qiagen | 74004 | Any kit that uses guanidine thiocyanate lysis buffer and has been tested for recovering small quantities of RNA can be used |
Agilent 2100 BioAnalyzer | Agilent Technologies | G2939A | |
Azure B Certified | MP Biomedicals | 190520 | Critical! Product from any source has to be tested before use for its ability to maintain RNA integrity |
PBS | Sigma Life Science | D8537 | Any reliable source of RNase-free PBS |
RNA Ethanol 70% (made with DEPC treated water) | American Bioanalytical | AB04010-00500 | Any reliable source, can be lab-made |
Water, RNase-free, Endotoxin tested (treated with DEPC to eliminate RNase) | American Bioanalytical | AB02128-00500 | Any reliable source, can be lab-made |
RNase AWAY | Invitrogen Life Technologies | 10328-011 | Other similar RNase removal reagents, such as RNaseZAP (also from Invitrogen) can be used |
2-Methylbutane | Electron Microscopy Sciences | 78-78-4 | Any source |
Maxymum Recovery microfuge tubes (0.6 and 1.5 ml) and pipette tips | Axygen | 311-03-051 & 311-09-051 | Ultra-low retention, RNase free tubes and tips; test other manufacturer's products before using |
O.C.T. Compound | Tissue-Tek | 4583 | |
Cryomold Intermediate Size | Tissue-Tek | 4566 | |
Lab wipes (Kimwipes) | KIMTECH | 34155 |