Upload
nguyenbao
View
213
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
A passive-flow microfluidic device for imaging latent HIV activation dynamics in single T cells
Ramesh Ramji, Victor C. Wong, Arvind K. Chavali, Larisa M. Gearhart, and Kathryn Miller-Jensen*
Electronic Supplementary Information Figure S1. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) images of S and V traps. Figure S2. Effect of cell loading density and volume on cell trapping efficiency. Figure S3. Drug-stimulated latent HIV activation in the passive-flow device is similar to behavior observed in plate-based flow cytometry assays. Figure S4. Trends in the CV for ton are consistent at longer stimulation times. Figure S5. CVs for ton, FmaxO, and slope are consistent between cell cycle synchronized and unsynchronized cells after PMA treatment. Figure S6. Three metrics that describe HIV expression are strongly correlated. Figure S7. Trends between different treatments are similar with and without the quantification of non-activators. Table S1. Analysis of distributions for onset of activation time (ton), maximum HIV expression (FmaxO), and rate of HIV production (slope) demonstrates statistically significant differences in reactivation dynamics. Movie S1. Comparison of docking of Jurkat cells treated with PMA in the microfluidic device versus poly-lysine-coated plate. Time stamp in hours:minutes (00:00). Movie S2. Solution delivery within the microfluidic device. Time stamp in seconds. Movie S3. Cell loading in the microfluidic device. Time stamp in minutes:seconds (00:00).
Electronic Supplementary Material (ESI) for Integrative Biology.This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2015
S trap V trap
Fig. S1. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) images of square pillars (S traps) and rectangular pillars (V traps).
10 μm 10 μm
1 2.5 50
50
100
1 2.5 50
50
100
50 1000
50
100
H d-S S V
50 1000
50
100
1 2.5 50
50
100
1 2.5 50
20
40
60
80
100
50 1000
50
100
50 1000
20
40
60
80
100
Pre Wash Post Wash
A B C D
E F G H
% T
rapp
ing
effic
ienc
y (o
vera
ll)%
Tra
ppin
g ef
ficie
ncy
(ove
rall)
% T
rapp
ing
effic
ienc
y (s
ingl
e ce
ll)%
Tra
ppin
g ef
ficie
ncy
(sin
gle
cell)
Flow volume (μl) Flow volume (μl) Flow volume (μl) Flow volume (μl)
% T
rapp
ing
effic
ienc
y (o
vera
ll)%
Tra
ppin
g ef
ficie
ncy
(ove
rall)
% T
rapp
ing
effic
ienc
y (s
ingl
e ce
ll)%
Tra
ppin
g ef
ficie
ncy
(sin
gle
cell)
Cell density (million cells/ml) Cell density (million cells/ml) Cell density (million cells/ml) Cell density (million cells/ml)
Fig. S2. Effect of cell loading density and volume on cell trapping efficiency. (A-B) Effect of varying cell density on (A) overall and (B) single-cell trapping efficiency for Hd-S, S and V traps. (C-D) Final trapping efficiency after a wash step to remove undocked cells. (E-F) Effect of inlet cell flow volume on (E) overall and (F) single-cell trapping efficiency for Hd-S, S and V traps. (G-H) Final trapping efficiency after a wash step to remove undocked cells. Data are presented as the mean ± standard deviation of independent experiments (SD; n=2).
PMA
TNF
Pros
tratin
TSA
SAH
A
TNF
TSA
Pros
tratin
SAH
A
0
50
100
% H
IV-G
FP p
ositi
ve
6 hours 12 hours
PMA
TNF
Pros
tratin
TSA
SAH
A
TNF
TSA
Pros
tratin
SAH
A
0
50
100
Passive-flow Flow cytometryA B
TF activator HDACInhibitor
Combination
22 hours
TF activator HDACInhibitor
Combination
6 hours 12 hours 24 hours
% H
IV-G
FP p
ositi
ve
Fig. S3. Drug-stimulated latent HIV activation in the passive-flow device is similar to behavior observed in plate-based flow cytometry assays. (A) Bar graph of % HIV-GFP positive cells in response to indicated treatments in the passive-flow device. Fluorescence images for GFP were taken every 5 minutes after stimulation, and the number of GFP positive cells were counted at 6, 12 and 22 hours after stimulation. GFP positive cells calculated at 22 hours included cells that were locally displaced from the trap (up to 500 µm) in order to record enough cells. (B) Bar graph of % HIV-GFP positive cells in response to indicated treatments in a cell-culture dish. Fluorescence was measured at 6, 12, and 24 hours after stimulation with flow cytometry. Data for 0 hours not shown because % HIV-GFP positive cells was less than 1% for both assays.
PM
A
TNF
Pro
stra
tin
TSA
SA
HA
TNF
TSA
Pro
stra
tinS
AH
A
TF activator HDACInhibitor
Combination
0.0
0.5
1.0
Coe
ffici
ent o
f var
iatio
n
Fig S4. Trends in the CV for ton are consistent at longer stimulation times. Jurkat cells were stimulated and observed for 22 hours in the passive-flow device. All cells that remained in the field of view for 22 hours were tracked, including cells that were locally displaced from the trap (up to 500 µm).
PM
A
CC
SP
MA
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Coe
ffici
ent o
f var
iatio
n
PM
A
CC
SP
MA
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Coe
ffici
ent o
f var
iatio
n
PM
A
CC
SP
MA
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Coe
ffici
ent o
f var
iatio
nton FmaxO Slope
A B C
Fig. S5. CVs for ton, FmaxO, and slope are consistent between cell cycle synchronized and unsynchronized cells after 12 hours of PMA treatment. (A) Bar graph of coefficient of varia-tion (CV) for onset of activation time (ton) for cell cycle synchronized cells versus unsyn-chronized cells after PMA treatment. (B) CVs for observed maximum expression (FmaxO). (C) CVs for slope. Cells were synchronized for 24 hours via serum starvation prior to treat-ment with PMA. Error bars represent 95% confidence interval obtained by bootstrapping.
PM
A
TNF
Pro
stra
tin
TSA
SA
HA
TNF
TSA
Pro
stra
tinS
AH
A
0
2
4
6
8
Coe
ffici
ent o
f var
iatio
n
PM
A
TNF
Pro
stra
tin
TSA
SA
HA
TNF
TSA
Pro
stra
tinS
AH
A
0
2
4
6
Coe
ffici
ent o
f var
iatio
n
0
10
20
F final (A
U)
PM
A
TNF
Pro
stra
tin
TSA
SA
HA
TNF
TSA
Pro
stra
tinS
AH
A
A
C Area under curve (AUC) D
TF activator HDACInhibitor
Combination
0
40
80
120
AU
C (A
U)
PM
A
TNF
Pro
stra
tin
TSA
SA
HA
TNF
TSA
Pro
stra
tinS
AH
A
Final HIV expression (Ffinal) B
0 10 20 300
10
20
30
FmaxO (AU)
F fin
al (A
U)
R = 0.99
TF activator HDACInhibitor
Combination
PM
A
TNF
Pro
stra
tin
TSA
SA
HA
TNF
TSA
Pro
stra
tinS
AH
A0.0
0.5
1.0
Cor
rela
tion
(R)
FmaxO vs Ffinal FmaxO vs AUC Ffinal vs AUC
E FPMA
Fig. S6. Three metrics that describe HIV expression are strongly correlated. (A) Distributions of HIV expression at 12 hours of treatment (Ffinal) for all cells (n ≥ 230). White dot indicates mean of distribution. (B) CV of final HIV expression. Error bars represent 95% confidence interval obtained by bootstrapping. (C) Distributions for AUC for HIV expression over time for all cells. (D) CV for AUC. (E) Example of scatterplot for correlation between FmaxO and Ffinal in cells activated by PMA treatment. R indicates Pearson correlation coefficient. (F) Bar graph for correlation between indicated metrics for each treatment.
PM
A
TNF
Pro
stra
tin
TSA
SA
HA
TNF
TSA
Pro
stra
tinS
AH
A
0.0
0.5
1.0
Coe
ffici
ent o
f var
iatio
n OFF+ONON only
Onset of activation time (t0)
PM
A
TNF
Pro
stra
tin
TSA
SA
HA
TNF
TSA
Pro
stra
tinS
AH
A
0
2
4
6
Coe
ffici
ent o
f var
iatio
n
Max HIV expression (FmaxO)
ON onlyOFF+ON
PM
A
TNF
Pro
stra
tin
TSA
SA
HA
TNF
TSA
Pro
stra
tinS
AH
A
0
2
4
6
8
Coe
ffici
ent o
f var
iatio
n
Area under curve (AUC)
ON onlyOFF+ON
PM
A
TNF
Pro
stra
tin
TSA
SA
HA
TNF
TSA
Pro
stra
tinS
AH
A
0
2
4
6
Coe
ffici
ent o
f var
iatio
n
Rate of HIV production (slope)
ON onlyOFF+ON
PM
A
TNF
Pro
stra
tin
TSA
SA
HA
TNF
TSA
Pro
stra
tinS
AH
A
0
2
4
6
Coe
ffici
ent o
f var
iatio
n
Final HIV expression (Ffinal)
ON onlyOFF+ON
A B
C D
E
NF-ĸB activator
HDACInhibitor
Combination
Fig. S7. Trends between different treatments are similar with and without the quantification of non-activators. (A) Bar graph for coefficient of variation (CV) for onset time for each treatment without (blue) and with (red) non-activators. (B-E) Bar graphs for CVs for (B) FmaxO, (C) Ffinal, (D) AUC, and (E) slope. For each metric, CVs for each perturbation were normalized by setting SAHA OFF+ON as the greatest CV, scaling SAHA ON to the same value, and applying the same scaling constant to the ON CV for each perturbation. CVs were normalized to demon-strate similarity in trends. Error bars represent 95% confidence interval obtained by bootstrap-ping.
Onset Time (ton) PMA TNF TSA TNF+TSA Pro SAHA Pro+SAHA
PMA 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
TNF 0.0546 0.0001 0.0224 0.0074 0.0038
TSA 0.0001 0.0001 0.15 0.0001
TNF+TSA 0.1 0.0001 0.0482
Prostratin 0.0001 0.93
SAHA 0.0001
Pro+SAHA
A
Max (FmaxO) PMA TNF TSA TNF+TSA Pro SAHA Pro+SAHA
PMA 0.0001 0.0001 0.0269 0.0001 0.0001 0.0034
TNF 0.95 0.0001 0.0004 0.0001 0.0001
TSA 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
TNF+TSA 0.0001 0.0001 0.5
Prostratin 0.0001 0.0001
SAHA 0.0001
Pro+SAHA
B
C
Slope (S) PMA TNF TSA TNF+TSA Pro SAHA Pro+SAHA
PMA 0.0001 0.0001 0.22 0.0001 0.0001 0.0071
TNF 0.77 0.0001 0.0016 0.0001 0.0001
TSA 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
TNF+TSA 0.0001 0.0001 0.1269
Prostratin 0.0001 0.0001
SAHA 0.0001
Pro+SAHA
α = 0.0023
Table S1. Analysis of distributions for (A) onset of activation time (ton), (B) maximum HIV expression (FmaxO), and (C) rate of HIV production (slope) demonstrates that LRAs activate latent HIV with significantly different dynamics. Pairwise comparisons evaluated by Wilcox-on-Mann-Whitney test with Bonferroni correction.