Macrophage extracellular traps are a newly described entity. This article will concentrate on confocal microscopy methods and how they are visualized in vitro and in vivo from lung samples.
A primary method used to define the presence of neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) is confocal microscopy. We have modified established confocal microscopy methods to visualize macrophage extracellular traps (METs). These extracellular traps are defined by the presence of extracellular chromatin with co-expression of other components such as granule proteases, citrullinated histones, and peptidyl arginase deiminase (PAD). The expression of METs is generally measured after exposure to a stimulus and compared to un-stimulated samples. Samples are also included for background and isotype control. Cells are analyzed using well-defined image analysis software. Confocal microscopy may be used to define the presence of METs both in vitro and in vivo in lung tissue.
Neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs), were first described by Brinkmann et al.1 They are predominantly produced in response to infection (especially to bacteria) and have an important role in host defense1,2. They have also been described to occur in response to non-infectious disease, including vasculitis and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE); and to the mitogen phorbol 12-myrisate 13-acetate (PMA)2,3. It has recently been recognized that other cell types may also produce extracellular traps, including macrophages. Macrophage extracellular traps (METs) are not yet a well-defined entity in the literature4,5. We have recently established methods to detect the presence of METs both in vitro and in vivo6,7. In this article, the measurement of METs using confocal microscopy will be described.
Key features of NETosis which distinguish it from other cellular pathways (such as apoptosis8) are the extrusion of chromatin in conjunction with: (1) citrullination of histones (H3Cit)9, (2) co-expression of granule proteases10, and (3) involvement of peptidyl arginine deiminase (PAD) 411,12. Macrophages also express H3Cit, granule proteases, and PAD, and these features can be used to define the presence of METs.
METs may have a particularly important role in the lung, as the macrophage is the dominant cell present in the alveoli and airways of the lung and has the initial role in directing the cellular immune response to infection/inflammation. In addition, while much of the lung is empty space (e.g., within the alveoli), the METs are potentially able to expand into the space available, in contrast to solid organs.
The most widely used method to define the presence of NETs is by confocal microscopy. There is not yet a clearly defined way to measure METs. The technique for the measurement of NETs has been adapted to measure the presence of METs in this protocol. The main requirements for this method are access to confocal microscopy and appropriate imaging software for analysis.
This protocol follows experiments approved in: (1) humans by the Ethics Committee of Monash Medical Centre, and (2) animals by the Ethics Committee of the University of Melbourne.
1. Bronchoalveolar Lavage (BAL) Macrophages
2. Immunofluorescence Labeling/Microscopy of BAL Macrophages
NOTE: Cells are adhered onto coverslips as mentioned above.
3. Lung Tissue Samples
NOTE: For in vivo studies of lung tissue, study the samples after the relevant exposure (e.g., as described by O'Sullivan et al.7). The exposure that is most relevant for this experiment are infectious microorganisms, particularly bacteria. Mouse strains that could be used for this method are C57BL/6 or BALB/c mice, 10 – 12 weeks old, weight 25 – 30 g, and male.
4. Preparation/Microscopy of Lung Tissue Samples
5. Three-dimensional (3-D) Imaging of METs
NOTE: As METs are 3-D structures, by taking multiple z-stack images, which are reconstituted, may give valuable information.
6. Image Analysis
NOTE: The analysis of samples requires the use of specific imaging analysis software and examples are listed in Table of Materials. While the analysis of results will depend on the specific program used, the listed points below are important.
METs may be visualized from BAL samples, in lung tissue and in thicker lung sections with 3-D images. An example of METs visualized in a BAL sample is shown in Figure 1. The morphology of the METs will vary according to their stage of maturation. The first detectable feature on microscopy is the movement of the nucleus to the edge of the cell. This is followed by extracellular chromatin with other co-expressed mediators, such as H3Cit and granule proteases. In the earlier stages, the cell still has a roughly spherical shape with the extracellular trap expressed. At later stages, the MET formation is characterized by elongation of the body of the cell.
Lung tissue METs are shown in Figure 2. As the lungs are inflated with fluid to define the lung architecture, the METs will generally be pushed against the alveolar walls. The morphology of the METs will also vary depending on which plane the tissue was cut in. The standard sections used for lung tissue samples are 4-5 µm in thickness. Thicker tissue sections enable multiple images to be taken and the METs can then be viewed in 3-D. The antibodies will only penetrate so far into the lung tissue and a section thickness of 25-50 µm is optimal. An example of a 3-D image is shown in Figure 3 and in Video 1.
Figure 1: BAL METs. Human BAL METs formed after stimulation at different stages of development. METs were characterized by extracellular chromatin with co-expression of H3Cit and MMP9. Staining for (A) chromatin, (B) H3Cit, (C) MMP9, and (D) the merged image. Panel inserts are isotype controls. Scale bars = 10 µm (15 µm for isotype). An earlier stage MET is shown in the top right corner and has a roughly spherical shape. A more mature MET is shown in the middle of the field. Images were taken using a laser scanning confocal microscope and a 40x 1.0 NA oil objective. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 2: Lung tissue METs. Murine METs in lung tissue after stimulation. The METs have been characterized by extracellular chromatin with co-expression of H3Cit, MMP9, and F4/80 (as a macrophage marker). Panel (A) shows a typical high-power field of view used to measure the number of METs; Panels (B–F) show the dashed square area under higher magnification. Staining for (B) chromatin, (C) H3Cit, (D) MMP9, (E) F4/80, and (F) the merged image. Insert panel is the isotype control. Scale bars = 20 µm (20 µm for isotype). METs are generally pushed against the alveolar walls. Images were taken using a laser scanning confocal microscope and a 40x 1.3 NA oil objective. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 3: Three-dimensional view of lung section. Mouse lung tissue was fixed and cut into 25-35 µm thick sections. Tissue was labeled with markers for METs and imaged with sections at 1 µm thickness. Images were combined with a z-stack to create a 3-dimensional picture of a MET. Images were taken using a laser scanning confocal microscope and a 40x 1.3 NA oil objective. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Video 1: Three-dimensional view of lung section. Video corresponds to samples presented in Figure 3. Axis ticks = 5 µm. Please click here to view this video. (Right-click to download.)
The method described in this review is based on that used for defining the presence of NETs14. Macrophages are by far the dominant cell type in BAL samples and this method of collection is particularly suited for studying METs. If red blood cells are present in the BAL, these cells should be lysed by using ammonium chloride. The BAL procedure will generally activate the macrophages and therefore it is expected that there will be METs present in un-stimulated samples. The BAL macrophages are usually very adherent. The BAL macrophages will generally not need a specific marker as these cells are the dominant cell type and can also be distinguished by their morphology. Usually in a BAL, greater than 80% of the cells are macrophages (and neutrophils are less than 5%), and after multiple washes, generally only the adherent leukocytes (i.e., the macrophages) remain6. If there is doubt about the ability to distinguish macrophages from neutrophils in humans, a neutrophil marker such as neutrophil elastase may be used. In lung tissue, a specific macrophage marker (e.g., F4/80) is required as macrophages are difficult to distinguish from other cell types. Macrophages have auto-fluorescence so the use of background and isotype controls is important; this is particularly the case with stimulated samples.
The best way to define the presence of METs remains to be determined. Specific pathways/processes, which are common to both neutrophils and macrophages are: (1) granular proteases, (2) citrullination of histones, and (3) PAD. PAD4 is more specific for neutrophils, whilst PAD2 is more prominent in monocytes/macrophages. The use of F4/80 is a well-accepted marker for murine macrophages, but human macrophages do not have such well-defined markers and this may pose issues when assessing human lung tissue for MET expression. Analyzing MET expression in lung tissue may be more difficult as there are many other cell types and the METs tend to be pushed onto the alveolar walls. When analyzing tissue sections, METs are best visualized when they are flat in cross-section; if the METs are in a different plane it may be difficult to determine if a MET is present. This issue can be addressed to some extent by making z-stacks to enable deeper tissue (3-D) planes for examining METs and the potential to visualize the METs in different aspects.
There is not a well-accepted method for defining the presence of METs in lung samples. The described methods are based on those used for visualizing NETs. Chow et al. described that the mitogen PMA induced METs in a macrophage cell line, as assessed by the presence of extracellular chromatin15. A subsequent study demonstrated that Mycobacterium tuberculosis induced METs in vitro, as defined by the presence of extracellular chromatin and H3Cit16. We have shown in vivo in a model of glomerulonephritis, that METs are present in the kidney as defined by co-localized chromatin, histone, and myeloperoxidase7. Finally, we have demonstrated the presence of METs in vitro in human lung macrophage by the combination of extracellular chromatin and MMP126. Our method can be used by other investigators to research this important facet of the inflammatory response.
It is likely that METs will be recognized to have a major role in chronic inflammatory disease. The processes that lead to NETosis are still not well-defined. The study of METs may provide significant insights into the mechanisms of trap formation. The development of protocols with more markers and functional studies of METs will further define the role of METs in disease.
There are critical steps that we have identified in this protocol. The human BAL samples are likely to have secondary bacterial contamination and the use of antibiotics in culture medium is important for limiting contamination. The primary and secondary antibodies can vary in their fluorescence, even with the same manufacturer. Finally, the analysis of lung tissue samples is more complex than BAL samples and requires time to develop a standardized approach.
The authors have nothing to disclose.
This work was funded by grants from Monash University, the National Health and Medical Research Council, and the Monash Lung and Sleep Institute. The authors would like to thank the staff of Clinical Immunology at Monash Health, Judy Callaghan, Alex Fulcher, Kirstin Elgass, and Camden Lo of Monash Micro Imaging (MMI) for help with the confocal microscopy imaging, and the authors acknowledge the MMI facilities of Monash University. The authors acknowledge the facilities, and scientific and technical assistance of the Monash Histology Platform.
Human samples: Primary antibodies | |||
Rabbit anti-human H3Cit (Citrulline R26) | Abcam | AB5103 | 10 ug/ml |
Rabbit anti-human MMP12 | Novus Biological | NB110-57214 | 1:100 concentration not quantifiable |
Mouse anti-human MMP9 | Novus Biological | AB119906 | 1:200 ascites, no concentration given |
Rabbit anti-human PADI2/PAD2 | Abcam | AB16478 | 7 ug/ml |
Mouse anti-human PADI4/PAD4 | Abcam | AB128086 | 10.1 ug/ml |
Sheep anti-human NE | LifeSpan Bioscience | LS-B4244 | 25 ug/ml |
Name | Company | Catalog Number | Comments |
Mouse samples: Primary antibodies | |||
Goat anti-mouse MMP9 | Abcam | AF909 | 10 ug/ml |
Rabbit anti-mouse H3Cit (Citrulline R26) | Abcam | AB5103 | 10 ug/ml |
Rat anti-mouse F4/80 | In-house (hybridoma) | In house | 20 ug/ml |
Sheep anti-human Anti-HNE /NE | Sapphire Bioscience | LS-B4244 | 25 ug/ml |
Mouse anti-human PADI4/PAD4 | Abcam | AB128086 | 10.1 ug/ml |
Super-frost plus slides | Menzel | S41104A | |
Dapi-prolong gold | Molecular probes | P36931 | |
Triton-X 100 | Sigma-Aldrich | 85111 | |
Ammonium chloride | Sigma-Aldrich | E9434 | |
Name | Company | Catalog Number | Comments |
Secondary antibodies | |||
Chicken anti-rabbit AF 488/ | Life technologies | A-21441 | |
Chicken anti-rabbit AF 594 | Life technologies | A-21442 | |
Chicken anti-goat AF 594 | Life technologies | a-21468 | |
Chicken anti-mouse AF488 | Life technologies | A-21200 | |
Donkey anti-sheep AF 594 | Life technologies | A-11018 | |
Chicken anti-mouse AF 647 | Life technologies | A-21463 | |
Donkey anti-sheep AF 594 | Life technologies | A-11016 | |
Isotype control | |||
Rabbit IgG | In house | ||
Rabbit IgG | In house | ||
Mouse IgG1 | BD Bioscience | 550878 | |
Rabbit IgG | In house | ||
Mouse IgG2a | BioLegend | 400201 | |
Sheep IgG | In house | ||
Name | Company | Catalog Number | Comments |
Software Programs | |||
Imaris | Bitplane | ||
Image J | NIH | ||
To average intensity of fluorphores a standard office application like Microsoft Excel can be used | |||
Name | Company | Catalog Number | Comments |
Microscopes | |||
C1 Confocal scanning microscope | Nikon | ||
FV1200 Confocal scanning microscope | Olympus | ||
Name | Company | Catalog Number | Comments |
Tissue sources | |||
Human BAL samples from the bronchoscopy suite at Monash Medical Centre | |||
Mouse BAL samples and lung tissue from the Department of Pharmacology, University of Melbourne. | |||
Name | Company | Catalog Number | Comments |
Media | |||
RPMI | Sigma-Aldrich | r8758 | |
Fetal calf serum | Sigma-Aldrich | F0926 | |
L-glutamine | Sigma-Aldrich | G7513 | |
Name | Company | Catalog Number | Comments |
Other reagents | |||
Sudan black | Sigma-Aldrich | 199664 | |
paraformaldehyde/periodate/lysine (PLP) fixative | Sigma-Aldrich | 27387 | |
Xylene | Sigma-Aldrich | 214736 | |
Ketamine | Sigma-Aldrich | K2753 | |
Natural formalin | Sigma-Aldrich | 42904 | |
Paraffin | Sigma-Aldrich | 327204 | |
Agarose | Sigma-Aldrich | A2576 | |
Solvent 3B | Hi-Chem | 2026 | |
Coverslips 12 ml | Sigma-Aldrich | S1815 | |
Coverslips 60 x 24 ml | Sigma-Aldrich | C6875 | |
Name | Company | Catalog Number | Comments |
Mice | |||
c57 black 6 | Monash animal research platform (MARP) | ||
BALB/c | MARP |