Here, a protocol for the implementation of expansion microscopy in early Drosophila embryos to achieve super-resolution imaging using a conventional laser-scanning confocal microscope is presented.
The workhorse of developmental biology is the confocal microscope, which allows researchers to determine the three-dimensional localization of tagged molecules within complex biological samples. While traditional confocal microscopes allow one to resolve two adjacent fluorescent point sources located a few hundred nanometers apart, observing the finer details of subcellular biology requires the ability to resolve signals in the order of tens of nanometers. Numerous hardware-based methods for super-resolution microscopy have been developed to allow researchers to sidestep such resolution limits, although these methods require specialized microscopes that are not available to all researchers. An alternative method for increasing resolving power is to isotropically enlarge the sample itself through a process known as expansion microscopy (ExM), which was first described by the Boyden group in 2015. ExM is not a type of microscopy per se but is rather a method for swelling a sample while preserving the relative spatial organization of its constituent molecules. The expanded sample can then be observed at an effectively increased resolution using a traditional confocal microscope. Here, we describe a protocol for implementing ExM in whole-mount Drosophila embryos, which is used to examine the localization of Par-3, myosin II, and mitochondria within the surface epithelial cells. This protocol yields an approximately four-fold increase in sample size, allowing for the detection of subcellular details that are not visible with conventional confocal microscopy. As proof of principle, an anti-GFP antibody is used to distinguish distinct pools of myosin-GFP between adjacent cell cortices, and fluorescently labeled streptavidin is used to detect endogenous biotinylated molecules to reveal the fine details of the mitochondrial network architecture. This protocol utilizes common antibodies and reagents for fluorescence labeling, and it should be compatible with many existing immunofluorescence protocols.
In cell and developmental biology, seeing is believing, and the ability to accurately determine the localization patterns of proteins is fundamental to many types of experiments. Laser-scanning confocal microscopy is the standard tool for imaging fluorescently labeled proteins in three dimensions within intact samples. Conventional confocal microscopes are incapable of distinguishing (resolving) adjacent fluorescent signals that are separated by less than one-half of the wavelength of the light they emit1. In other words, two point sources must be separated by at least 200-300 nm in the lateral direction (500-700 nm in the axial direction) to resolve them as two distinct signals. This technical barrier is known as the diffraction limit, and it is a fundamental hurdle to studies of complex subcellular structures (e.g., the actomyosin cytoskeletal or mitochondrial networks) with spatial features below the diffraction limit. Therefore, techniques for increasing the resolving power of conventional confocal microscopes are of general interest to the biological community.
To sidestep the diffraction limit, a number of different super-resolution microscopy technologies have been developed that allow for resolution in the order of tens of nanometers or less1,2,3, revealing a world of biological complexity that was previously only accessible via electron microscopy. Despite the obvious advantages of these hardware-based methods, super-resolution microscopes often have specific sample labeling requirements and long acquisition times, limiting their flexibility, or they may simply be too expensive for some labs to access. An alternative to microscope-based super-resolution is expansion microscopy (ExM), which is not a type of microscopy per se but is rather a method for swelling a sample while preserving the relative spatial organization of its constituent molecules4. The isotropically expanded samples can then be observed at an effectively increased resolution using a traditional fluorescence confocal microscope. ExM was first described by the Boyden group in 20155, and the basic technique has since been adapted for use in a variety of experiments6,7,8. ExM has also been adapted for use in whole-mount embryos, notably in Drosophila9,10,11, C. elegans12, and zebrafish13, making it a powerful tool for developmental biologists.
ExM is based on two different hydrogel chemistries: 1) swellable polyelectrolyte hydrogels, which greatly increase in size when soaked in water14, and 2) polyacrylamide hydrogels, which have extremely small polymer spacing to allow for isotropic sample expansion15. While there are many published ExM protocols, they generally share the following steps: sample fixation, labeling, activation, gelation, digestion, and expansion4. The fixation conditions and fluorescence labeling strategies will of course vary based on the needs of the experiment and system, and in some protocols, labeling occurs after expansion. The target molecules in the sample must be primed (activated) for binding to the hydrogel, which can be achieved using different chemistries4. During the gelation steps, the sample is saturated with monomers of the future hydrogel (sodium acrylate, acrylamide, and the cross-linker bisacrylamide), and the hydrogel is then formed by free-radical polymerization catalyzed by an initiator, such as ammonium persulfate (APS), and an accelerator, such as tetramethylenediamine (TEMED)4. After gelation, the sample is enzymatically digested to homogenize sample resistance to swelling and ensure the isotropic expansion of the hydrogel4. Finally, the digested hydrogel is placed in water, which causes it to expand to approximately four times its original linear size4.
Figure 1: Overview of expansion microscopy in Drosophila embryos. ExM is a multi-step protocol that takes at least 4 days to complete. Embryo collection, fixation, and devitellinization take 1 day or more depending on whether embryos from multiple collections are pooled. Immunofluorescence labeling takes 1 day or 2 days depending on whether the embryos are incubated overnight with the primary antibodies. Embryo activation, gelation, digestion, and expansion can be performed in a single day. The gels can be mounted and imaged immediately after expansion, although for practical reasons it is often desirable to start imaging the following day. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
This protocol describes how to perform ExM on whole-mount early- to mid-stage Drosophila embryos16 to visualize subcellular protein localization patterns at super-resolution (Figure 1). This method uses methylacrylic acid N-hydroxysuccinimidyl ester (MA-NHS) chemistry to activate and anchor protein molecules to the hydrogel17, and it is a modification of a previously published ExM protocol for use in late-stage Drosophila embryos and tissues11. This protocol uses polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) wells to mold the hydrogels and facilitate solution exchange during activation and gelation. An alternative method that does not require the creation of PDMS wells involves lowering embryos attached to coverslips into drops of monomer solution sitting on a piece of laboratory sealing film22. In addition, this protocol describes a method for manually removing the impermeable vitelline membrane that surrounds Drosophila embryos, which is a prerequisite for immunofluorescence staining. Importantly, this method of hand-peeling embryos can be used to select only properly staged Drosophila embryos prior to sample labeling, which greatly increases the likelihood of ending up with expanded samples of the correct stage and orientation and, thus, makes the downstream data collection much more efficient.
This protocol follows the University of Arkansas (UARK) guidelines for research on invertebrate animals, such as Drosophila melanogaster, and was approved by the UARK Institutional Biosafety Committee (protocol #20001).
1. Drosophila embryo fixation and devitellinization
NOTE: Step 1 describes a procedure (hand-peeling) for the manual removal of the vitelline membrane, a transparent impermeable membrane that surrounds the embryo. Importantly, hand-peeling allows for the selection of properly staged embryos at the start of the ExM protocol, thus greatly enhancing the likelihood of obtaining embryos in a useable orientation at the end of the ExM protocol. However, this ExM protocol is completely compatible with bulk embryo collection and standard procedures for methanol-based removal of the vitelline membrane, in which case one can skip directly to step 2 (immunofluorescence labeling).
2. Immunofluorescence labeling
NOTE: Aside from the antibody incubation steps, exact liquid amounts and times are not critical in this section. To perform a rinse or wash, allow the embryos to settle to the bottom of the tube, remove as much liquid as possible without sucking up embryos, and then add ~1 mL of new liquid; use a glass Pasteur pipet fitted with a latex bulb for optimal clarity and control. For the rinse step, the embryos are not rocked, just allowed to settle; for the wash step, the embryos are rocked on a nutator for the indicated amount of time and then allowed to settle.
3. Preparing PDMS wells
NOTE: The PDMS wells can be made up to 2 weeks in advance.
4. Adhering the embryos to the coverslips
5. Activation and gelation
NOTE: Activation refers to the addition of MA-NHS to the embryos, which will modify the sample proteins and antibodies so they can bind to the hydrogel. Gelation refers to the generation of a hydrogel in and around the embryos in each well. During gelation, the embryos are permeated with a monomer solution and then treated with a gelation solution to form the hydrogel.
6. Digestion and expansion
NOTE: Thicker and larger gels will take longer to expand, and the center of the gels may take several hours to completely expand; this can be sped up by trimming the edges of the gel. As the gels expand, their refractive index will become nearly identical to that of water, and they will become very hard to see.
7. Mounting and imaging
NOTE: Expanded hydrogels are composed almost entirely of water, making them nearly transparent and extremely fragile. The gels can be manipulated using long coverslips to move them around and pick them up. Mount and image only one or two gels at a time, as gels will gradually release water and begin to slide around the coverslip.
Figure 2: Manual devitellinization and working with hydrogels. (A) Cutting an agar slab from an agar/fruit-juice plate. (B) Placing double-sided tape inside the lid of a 6 cm Petri dish. (C) Adhering embryos to the taped lid. (D) A PDMS slab with a square well adhered to a 22 mm x 22 mm coverslip. (E) Coverslip with a PDMS well inside a 6-well plate. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
To characterize the general efficacy of ExM in whole-mount Drosophila embryos, embryo length along the head-to-tail axis was measured in unexpanded control embryos versus expanded embryos (Figure 3A–C). The unexpanded control embryos were subjected to the same fixation conditions and immunofluorescence labeling steps as the expanded embryos, except they were mounted using a solidified mounting medium prior to imaging. The individual unexpanded embryos spanned approximately one-half of a field of view when using a 10x objective (Figure 3A). By contrast, the expanded embryos spanned approximately two full fields of view when using the same 10x objective (Figure 3B). To assess how the degree of expansion varied both within and between experiments, the same ExM protocol was performed on three separate occasions, and embryo length was measured in three different gels within each individual experiment. The average head-to-tail length of the unexpanded control embryos was 398.8 µm (standard deviation [SD] = 22.93 µm; n = 74; Figure 3C). For experiment 1, experiment 2, and experiment 3, the average embryo lengths were 1,596 µm (SD = 159.9 µm; n = 57), 1,868 µm (SD = 150.5 µm; n = 51), and 1,954 µm (SD = 120.3 µm; n = 44), respectively, representing expansion factors of 4.0-fold, 4.7-fold, and 4.9-fold, respectively (Figure 3C). The intra-experimental variation between the gels was much less noticeable than the inter-experimental variation, which was approximately 20% (Figure 3C). To assess the effects of ExM on cell and embryo morphology, an antibody against the adherens junction component Par-3 (Bazooka)21 was used to label the apical cell membranes, and we imaged the developing mouth segments of stage 11 Drosophila embryos—a stage with a complex segmented structure (Figure 3D–F). In the control sample, the cells in the maxillary segment had an average width of 4.76 µm (SD = 1.053 µm, n = 25; Figure 3D,F). In the expanded samples imaged using the same 40x objective and zoom factor (1x), the cells in the maxillary segment had an average width of 19.10 µm (SD = 3.966 µm, n = 18; Figure 3E,F), representing a 4.0-fold expansion. Therefore, consistent with previous reports11, we were able to expand whole-mount Drosophila embryos approximately four-fold in linear dimensions using ExM without sample tearing or obvious distortions in the cellular or tissue morphology.
Figure 3: Four-fold expansion of Drosophila embryos. (A) Unexpanded and (B) expanded Drosophila embryos imaged using a 10x objective (0.3 NA) at 1x zoom. Individual fields of view (FOV) are indicated with dashed lines. The embryos expressed a GFP-tagged version of myosin light chain and were stained with an anti-GFP antibody. (C) Quantification of embryo length (along the head-to-tail axis) in three hydrogels per experiment and from three separate ExM experiments compared with unexpanded controls. (D,E) Maxillary segments from (D) unexpanded and (E) expanded stage 11 Drosophila embryos imaged using a 40x objective (1.3 NA) at 1x zoom. The cell outlines (adherens junctions) were detected with an anti Par-3/Bazooka antibody (white). (F) Quantification of the cell width (long axis) from equivalent groups of cells from (D) and (E). The box plots in (C) and (F) show the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentile ranges; the whiskers indicate the minimum and maximum values; the "+" symbols indicate the mean. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
To demonstrate that ExM can be used to resolve subcellular details below the typical diffraction limit, the actomyosin cytoskeleton was imaged in unexpanded control versus expanded embryos undergoing convergent extension (stage 7). The tissue remodeling events of gastrulation and convergent extension are largely controlled by changes in the localization of the motor protein myosin II24. However, in the densely packed columnar epithelium of the early Drosophila ectoderm, it is difficult to observe many fine details of the myosin II localization pattern, even when imaged at 158x magnification (63x objective with a 2.5x optical zoom)—a typical maximal resolving power for a laser-scanning confocal microscope. For example, because myosin II is a cortical protein (located directly beneath the plasma membrane), pools of myosin II25 located on either side of cell-cell contacts were not resolvable in stage 7 embryos, and they appeared as a single line where neighboring cells met (Figure 4A). By contrast, in expanded stage 7 embryos, parallel lines of myosin II could be observed at cell-cell junctions, representing cortical protein pools in adjacent cells (Figure 4B). The distance between parallel myosin II lines in expanded samples was 892.7 nm (SD = 0.171 nm, n = 12); when divided by four, this yields a predicted distance of ~220 nm between the myosin lines in adjacent cells in unexpanded embryos, which is indeed just below the diffraction limit for a signal detected with Alexa 488 (peak emission of ~520 nm/2 = 260 nm).
In addition, we also tested whether ExM could be used to resolve the mitochondrial network architecture in densely packed cells of gastrulating Drosophila embryos (stage 6). Mitochondrial function is closely linked to network structure (i.e., fused vs. fragmented organelles), but the details of mitochondrial network organization are hard to visualize using conventional confocal microscopy in cell types that are not flat and/or thin. Mitochondria are naturally rich in biotinylated molecules, and, thus, mitochondria can be labeled in the early Drosophila embryo using fluorescently labeled streptavidin26. In the unexpanded stage 6 embryos labeled with streptavidin-Alexa 488, the signal appeared as cytoplasmic puncta that were often overlapping and difficult to resolve (Figure 4C). By contrast, in the expanded stage 6 embryos, many more fine details of the mitochondrial network were visible and puncta were more easily resolvable (Figure 4D)26, 27. These results indicate that ExM can be used to study mitochondrial network organization in cell types not traditionally suited for mitochondrial analysis.
Figure 4: Details of actomyosin cytoskeleton and mitochondria revealed by expansion microscopy. (A,B) Myosin II localization in neuroectoderm (germband) cells imaged with a 63x objective (1.4 NA) at 2.5x zoom in stage 7 (A) unexpanded and (B) expanded embryos. Myosin II was detected in the embryos expressing a transgenic GFP-tagged version of the myosin II regulatory light chain (sqh-GFP), which was detected with an anti-GFP antibody (red). Distinct pools of cortical myosin located in adjacent cells can be resolved in the expanded embryo (white arrows). (C,D) Mitochondrial networks in neuroectoderm cells imaged with a 63× objective (1.4 NA) at 2.5x zoom in stage 6 unexpanded (C) and expanded (D) embryos. The mitochondria were detected with streptavidin-Alexa 488 (green), and the cell outlines were detected with an anti-Par-3/Bazooka antibody (magenta). The experiments were performed with a laser-scanning confocal microscope. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Table 1: Solution recipes. Composition for the solutions used in this protocol in order of appearance. All the stocks are liquids unless otherwise noted. The chemicals were resuspended or diluted in autoclaved filtered water unless otherwise noted. Please click here to download this Table.
Manual devitellinization
Most Drosophila embryo fixation protocols involve removing the vitelline membrane by shaking fixed embryos in an emulsion of methanol and heptane, which causes the membranes to burst off via osmotic rupture26. While methanol-based devitellinization (methanol popping) is effective and appropriate for many applications, manual devitellinization (hand-peeling) offers some significant advantages. First, hand-peeling allows one to choose precisely staged embryos to devitellinize and collect, greatly increasing the likelihood of obtaining expanded embryos in a useable orientation at the end of the experiment. This enrichment is critical when studying specific aspects of rapid developmental processes (e.g., mesoderm invagination or convergent extension), for which appropriately staged embryos may represent only a few percent of all embryos, even within a tightly timed collection window. Of course, for many applications, the more traditional bulk methanol popping of embryos from a timed collection window will be sufficient, and hand-peeling may not be worth the extra effort. Second, the binding of certain primary antibodies and dyes is negatively affected by previous exposure of the sample to methanol. For this reason, hand-peeling can yield significant increases in the immunofluorescence signal quality compared with methanol-popped samples, making it a useful general technique for Drosophila developmental biologists.
High-resolution confocal microscopy in expanded whole-mount Drosophila embryos
While performing high-resolution confocal microscopy on expanded samples is conceptually the same as on unexpanded samples, ExM does introduce some technical hurdles. Notably, embryo orientation, which is random, becomes even more important as the sample size increases, because high-magnification, high-NA objectives are only able to focus light from sample regions that are very close to the coverslip27. Therefore, it is usually only possible to focus on the cells at or near the surface of the embryo that ended up adjacent to the coverslip when the gel was formed. The best way to ensure there are specimens of the correct orientation at the end is to start the ExM protocol with a tightly staged collection of fixed embryos (e.g., by using hand-peeling) and to seed many embryos in each well (>10). To visualize cells deep in the interior of the embryo, it may be necessary to utilize more specialized imaging setups, such as light-sheet microscopy28. Additionally, we find that image quality can be improved by opening the confocal pinhole to a size greater than one airy unit. Of course, an increased pinhole size will come at the cost of decreased maximal resolution, but in practice, even small increases in pinhole size can significantly boost the signal intensity (data not shown). Future studies should systematically address pinhole size and effective resolution in ExM samples.
Variations on basic ExM
The protocol described here is a relatively simple example of ExM that should work for many applications and be easy to implement in most developmental biology labs. However, there are numerous variations on the basic concept of ExM4,5,7 that can be used to increase the signal intensity, achieve even further degrees of expansion, and detect nucleic acid molecules as well as proteins. In this protocol, the embryos are incubated with antibodies prior to gelation and expansion. Alternatively, the samples can be treated with antibodies after they are expanded6,30, which can increase signal intensity due to increased epitope accessibility and decreased loss of bound antibodies during the expansion steps. In addition, specific crosslinker molecules can be used to attach RNA molecules to the hydrogel to allow the detection of RNA in expanded gels using the hybridization chain reaction method30. Finally, the samples can be subjected to multiple rounds of expansion, as in iterative expansion microscopy (iExM)31, pan-ExM32, and expansion revealing (ExR)31, to achieve even higher degrees of increased resolution.
The authors have nothing to disclose.
We would like to thank Dr. Jennifer Zallen for providing the guinea pig anti-Par-3 primary antibody. This work was supported by generous funding (1R15GM143729-01 and 1P20GM139768-01 5743) from the National Institute of General Medical Science (NIGMS), one of the members of National Institutes of Health (NIH), as well as the Arkansas Biosciences Institute (ABI), which provided partial funding for the purchase of our confocal microscope.
acrylamide | Milipore Sigma | 1490-100ML | |
ammonium persulfate | VWR | BDH9214-500G | |
anti-GFP rabbit polyclonal antibody | Torrey Pines BioLabs | TP-401 | |
anti-guinea pig IgG goat polyclonal antibody, Alexa Fluor 568 | Thermo Fisher Scientific | A-11075 | |
anti-rabbit IgG goat polyclonal antibody, Alexa Fluor 488 | Thermo Fisher Scientific | A-11008 | |
bisacrylamide | Research Products International | A11275 | |
bovine serum albumin (30% solution) | Millipore Sigma | A7284 | |
conical tubes, 50 mL | fisherscientific | 21008-940 | |
coverlip glass, square 22 mm | VWR | 48366-227 | |
coverslip glass, rectangular 40 mm x 24 mm | VWR | 48393-230 | |
glass capillaries for pulling needles | World Precision Instruments | TW100F-4 | |
glass microinjection needles (pre-pulled) | World Precision Instruments | TIP10LT | |
guanidine HCl | VWR | 101970-606 | |
heptane | VWR | EM-HX0078-1 | |
latex pipet bulbs | VWR | 82024-554 | |
methanol | VWR | BDH1135-4LP | |
methylacylic acid N-hydroxysuccinimidyl ester | VWR | 730300-1G | |
microfuge tube, 1.5 mL | VWR | 20170-038 | |
multi-well plate, 6-well | Genesee | 25-100 | |
paraformaldehyde (16%, EM-grade, methanol-free) | Electron Microscopy Sciences | 509804487 (Fisher) | |
Pasteur pipet (2 mL, short tip) | VWR | 14673-010 | |
PDMS kit (Sylgard 184 Kit, base and curing agent) | VWR | 102092-312 | |
Petri plates | Genesee | 32-107 | |
phosphate-buffered saline (10x solution) | VWR | 97063-660 | |
Poly-L-lysine solution (0.1% solution) | VWR | P8920-1ooML | |
Proteinase K | Thermo Fisher Scientific | E00491 | |
scintillation vials (30 mL) | VWR | 66022-128 | |
sodium acrylate | VWR | 101181-226 | |
sodium azide (powder) | Millipore Sigma | 71289 | make a 1% w/v working stock; acute POISON at this concentration! |
Streptavidin, Alexa Fluor 488 | Thermo Fisher Scientific | S32354 | |
TAE (50x) | VWR | 97063-692 | |
tape (double-sided, 1 inch wide) | Scotch 3M | 665 Scotch double sided 1inch/1296 inches Boxed | |
TEMED | Thermo Fisher Scientific | PI17919 | |
TEMPO | VWR | EM8.14681.0005 | catalytic oxidant |
Tween-20 | VWR | 97063-872 | extremely viscous when pure; make a 10% working stock with water |
Zeiss LSM 900 | Zeiss | Laser scanning microscope used without AiryScan |