The 'mitoflash' probe cpYFP does not respond to superoxide Reply
Heping Cheng,Wang Wang,Xianhua Wang,Shey-Shing Sheu,Robert T. Dirksen,Meng-Qiu Dong
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13858
IF: 64.8
2014-01-01
Nature
Abstract:We carried out experiments with purified recombinant cpYFP sensor protein to test whether it responds to superoxide (Fig. 1a–e). Exposure of cpYFP to a superoxide-generating system (xanthine (X) and xanthine oxidase (XO)) slightly changed the excitation and emission spectra. However, the same change occurred when cpYFP was incubated with the individual assay constituents in the absence of superoxide production, or when Cu/Zn superoxide dismutase (SOD) was added to degrade superoxide (Fig. 1a, b). The cytochrome c reduction assay confirmed that superoxide is produced by the X/XO system, and is abolished by SOD (Fig. 1c). Xanthine is dissolved in potassium hydroxide, causing a small increase in pH after addition. There was an excellent correlation between spectral changes and resulting assay pH after xanthine (that is, potassium hydroxide) addition (Fig. 1a, b). In time course assays in which superoxide generation was started by the addition of xanthine (Fig. 1d), the addition of potassium hydroxide as the solvent control for xanthine (Fig. 1e) gave the same increase in fluorescence ratio. Extended reductive or oxidative treatment with thiol redox agents (the reducing agent dithiothreitol (DTT) and oxidizing agent 2,2’-dipyridyl disulphide (DPS)) did not alter the spectral behaviour (Fig. 1f–h), consistent with structural information suggesting that both Cys residues are buried inside the mature protein and are unlikely to be accessible for thiol redox chemistry (Fig. 1i). Likewise, reductive pre-treatment with DTT under inert atmosphere, followed by DTT removal, did not affect the outcome of the superoxide assays. Further variation of experimental variables, including pre-incubation conditions, pH buffer systems and a 100-fold range of sensor concentrations, did not lead to any rapid, reversible change in cpYFP sensor signal required for superoxide-related mitoflashes, as long as the pH and halide ion concentrations were kept constant. Mitoflashes can be fully explained by the extraordinary pH sensitivity of cpYFP, which has a pKa value of ~8.7 (determined by measuring fluorescence after excitation at 488 nm, the wavelength at which flashes are observed) and shows a >50-fold change in fluorescence ratio between pH 7 and 10, similar to the structurally related ratiometric pH-sensor SypHer8 (Fig. 1j–l). In the mitochondrial matrix, a resting pH (~7.9) close to sensor pKa and a limited pH buffering capacity mean that even minor perturbations will elicit a pronounced sensor response (Fig. 1a, b, d, e). The cpYFP pH sensitivity is due to the structural perturbation caused by the circular permutation. A large cleft in the β-barrel exposes the pH-active phenoxy group of the chromophore (Fig. 1m, left), which is concealed in non-permuted green fluorescent protein (GFP)-based biosensors (Fig. 1m, right). On the basis of this evidence using purified cpYFP and earlier studies in cells and isolated mitochondria5, 6, 9, the mitoflash phenomenon cannot be attributed to bursts of mitochondrial superoxide. In accordance with the pH responsiveness of the probe, recent work with different sensors suggests that mitoflash events indicate brief periods of alkalinisation in individual mitochondria, possibly as a result of acceleration in proton pumping, triggered by mitochondrial fusion initiation and/or a change in ion homeostasis6, 9, 10. The debate about the nature of mitoflashes has focused on in situ evidence that has left space for interpretation on both sides. Critics have pointed out the implausibility of ‘superoxide flashes’ on the basis of mitochondrial energetics3, 5, 9, the absence of a plausible chemical mechanism for the reversible interaction between cpYFP and superoxide4, 7, and the fact that the pH sensor SypHer also detects mitoflashes6, 10. These arguments have been countered by data suggesting a correlation of mitoflashes with the response of chemical probes for reactive oxygen species11, 12, 13, the notion that the pH probe SypHer may also respond to superoxide14, and the suggestion that a mitoflash represents a mixture of superoxide burst and pH transient11, 13. Ultimate resolution of the debate has been hampered by the use of different biological systems and the complexity of mitochondrial physiology, where matrix pH and free radical release are connected by the electron transport chain and linked to several other parameters such as availability of respiratory substrates, membrane potential, redox and ion homeostasis, and mitochondrial morphology2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 15, 16, 17. Here we resolve the controversy by a thorough analysis of the fundamental properties of the mitoflash sensor cpYFP. Previous work already excluded the suggestion that the pH probe SypHer responds to superoxide6. We now provide definitive evidence that cpYFP itself does not respond to superoxide and that flashes recorded by cpYFP do not represent superoxide bursts. Of course, sudden changes in mitochondrial physiology may still include altered free radical levels. Although the mitoflash phenomenon may reflect an important feature of mitochondrial function that deserves further mechanistic analysis, the interpretation of the events by Shen et al. lacks a biophysical foundation and mitoflashes cannot serve as evidence for free radical involvement in determining lifespan. cpYFP was purified from Escherichia coli Origami (DE3) and Rosetta 2 (DE3) 24 h after induction at 20 °C and assayed at 10, 25 and 1,000 μg ml−1 using a Jasco spectrofluorimeter FP8300 and a BMG Labtech Clariostar plate reader. Detector gain was adjusted for individual experiments. Buffers contained 100 mM NaCl, 1 mM Na2EDTA and 100 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.5 (for thiol redox and superoxide assays; degassed and under argon for thiol redox treatments) or 100 mM Tris-TES (for pH assays). All reagents were dissolved in assay buffer, except for xanthine (100× stock in 1 M KOH, base required for solubility) and xanthine oxidase (118× (NH4)2SO4 suspension as delivered by Sigma). Protein structures (PDB entries 3O78 and 1JC1) were rendered using PyMOL. Download references