Insulator-based dielectrophoresis-assisted separation of insulin secretory vesicles

Article activity feed

1. 

   Version published to 10.7554/elife.74989 on eLife

   Aug 27, 2024
2. 

   eLife

   Jun 6, 2024

   Author response:

   Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

   This manuscript presents an exciting new method for separating insulin secretory granules using insulator-based dielectrophoresis (iDEP) of immunolabeled vesicles. The method has the advantage of being able to separate vesicles by subtle biophysical differences that do not need to be known by the experimenter, and hence could in principle be used to separate any type of organelle in an unbiased way. Any individual organelle ("particle") will have a characteristic ratio of electrokinetic to dielectrophoretic mobilities (EKMr) that will determine where it migrates in the presence of an electric field. Particles with different EKMr will migrate differently and thus can be separated. The present manuscript is primarily a methods paper to show the feasibility of the iDEP technique applied to …

   Author response:

   Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

   This manuscript presents an exciting new method for separating insulin secretory granules using insulator-based dielectrophoresis (iDEP) of immunolabeled vesicles. The method has the advantage of being able to separate vesicles by subtle biophysical differences that do not need to be known by the experimenter, and hence could in principle be used to separate any type of organelle in an unbiased way. Any individual organelle ("particle") will have a characteristic ratio of electrokinetic to dielectrophoretic mobilities (EKMr) that will determine where it migrates in the presence of an electric field. Particles with different EKMr will migrate differently and thus can be separated. The present manuscript is primarily a methods paper to show the feasibility of the iDEP technique applied to insulin vesicles. Experiments are performed on cultured cells in low or high glucose, with the conclusion that there are several distinct subpopulations of insulin vesicles in both conditions, but that the distributions in the two conditions are different. As it is already known that glucose induces release of mature insulin vesicles and stimulates new vesicle biosynthesis and maturation, this finding is not necessarily new, but is intended as a proof of principle experiment to show that the technique works. This is a promising new technology based on solid theory that has the possibility to transform the study of insulin vesicle subpopulations, itself an emerging field. The technique development is a major strength of the paper. Also, cellular fractionation and iDEP experiments are performed well, and it is clear that the distribution of vesicle populations is different in the low and high glucose conditions. However, more work is needed to characterize the vesicle populations being separated, leaving open the possibility that the separated populations are not only insulin vesicles, but might consist of other compartments as well. It is also unclear whether the populations might represent immature and mature vesicles, distinct pools of mature vesicles such as the readily releasable pool and the reserve pool, or vesicles of different age. Without a better characterization of these populations, it is not possible to assess how well the iDEP technique is doing what is claimed.

   Major comments:

   1. There is no attempt to relate the separated populations of vesicles to known subpopulations of insulin vesicles such as immature and mature vesicles, or the more recently characterized Syt9 and Syt7 vesicle subpopulations that differ in protein and lipid composition (Kreutzberger et al. 2020). Given that it is unclear exactly what populations of vesicles will be immunolabeled (see point #2 below), it is also possible that some of the "subpopulations" are other compartments being separated in addition to insulin vesicles. It will be important to examine other markers on these separated populations or to perform EM to show that they look like insulin vesicles.

   We thank the reviewer for this comment and have added the following to the discussion:

   “The intensity peaks we observed at specific EKMr values likely correspond to some of the previously described insulin vesicle subpopulations34,54-57. Larger particles are expected to have a smaller EKMr value compared to smaller particles50. Subpopulations containing larger insulin vesicles, such as a mature pool34,54, synaptotagmin IX-positive vesicles57, or docked vesicles near the plasma membrane34 may have lower EKMr values than smaller immature vesicles. Additionally, phosphatidylcholine lipids increase the zeta potential of tristearoylglycerol crystals58. This effect may extend to insulin vesicle subpopulations containing more phosphatidylcholine, such as young insulin vesicles55 which could lead to higher EKMr values. Taken together, these two properties may be used to predict the EKMr values of known insulin vesicle subpopulations. For example, insulin vesicles with EKMr values of 1-2×109 V/m2 (Fig. 4C) may represent a synaptotagmin IX-positive subpopulation due to their larger radii and depletion under glucose stimulation. Additionally, young insulin vesicles may have EKMr values between 5 and 7.5×109 V/m2 (Fig. 4C) due to higher amounts of phosphatidylcholine present in this subpopulation55. In this EKMr range, we observed a higher intensity for glucose-treated cells which may suggest biosynthesis of new vesicles. Immature insulin vesicles are likely to have higher EKMr values due to their smaller size34, such as an EKMr value between 1.5-1.6×1010 V/m2 (Fig. 4C). Here we demonstrated the capabilities of DC-iDEP to separate insulin vesicle subpopulations in an unbiased manner. Future experiments using chemical probes to label subpopulations will be useful to accurately define the EKMr values associated with specific subpopulations.” pages 7-8, lines 176-191

   Furthermore, we have conducted additional experiments using a modified INS-1 cell line with a GFP-tagged C-peptide (hPro-CpepSfGFP, GRINCH cells RRID:CVCL_WH61) in order to visualize a more complete population of insulin vesicles. By using this cell line, we have performed confocal microscopy, transmission electron microscopy, and cryo-electron microscopy experiments, demonstrating that the isolated vesicles resemble insulin vesicles and contain GFP-tagged C-peptide (Fig. 1-S3). While we acknowledge that further investigation using a more detailed labeling strategy of known insulin vesicle populations with DC-iDEP would be informative, we believe it is beyond the scope of our initial proof-of-concept experiments.

   The following text was added to the results section to describe our additional microscopy analysis:

   “To verify that the insulin vesicles were intact prior to DC-iDEP, we imaged a modified INS-1E cell line that contains a human insulin and green fluorescent protein-tagged C peptide (hPro-CpepSfGFP).49 This GFP tag allowed for quick visual verification of intact vesicles using fluorescence confocal microscopy. We observed distinct puncta rather than a diffuse GFP signal which indicated that the vesicles were intact and not ruptured. Further analysis of isolated vesicles was done using EM. We observed intact vesicles with the expected size and shape using both transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM) (Fig. 1—figure supplement 3).” Page 5, lines 104 – 109.

   1. An antibody to synaptotagmin V is used to immunolabel vesicles, but there has been confusion between synaptotagmins V and IX in the literature and it isn't clear what exactly is being recognized by this antibody (this reviewer actually thinks it is Syt 9). If it is indeed recognizing Syt 9, it might already be labeling a restricted population of insulin vesicles (Kreutzberger et al. 2020). The specificity of this antibody should be clarified. Furthermore, Figure 2 is not convincing at showing that this synaptotagmin antibody specifically labels insulin vesicles nor is there convincing colocalization of this synaptotagmin antibody with insulin vesicles. In the image shown, several cells show very weak or no staining of both insulin and the synaptotagmin. The highlighted cell appears to show insulin mainly in a perinuclear structure (probably the Golgi) rather than in mature vesicles (which should be punctate), and insulin is not particularly well-colocalized with the synaptotagmin. Other cells in the image appear to have even less colocalization of insulin and synaptotagmin, and there is no quantification of colocalization. It seems possible that this antibody is recognizing other compartments in the cell, which would change the interpretation of the populations measured in the iDEP experiments. It would also be good to perform synaptotagmin staining under glucose-stimulating conditions, in case this alters the localization.

   We thank the reviewer for bringing this issue to our attention. The antibody originally used in Figure 2 recognizes the 386 aa isoform of synaptotagmin, which is called Syt 9 in the paper mentioned above (Kreutzberger et al. 2020). We have edited our manuscript to label this antibody as “Synaptotagmin IX” to match the existing literature. This antibody, therefore, likely labels only a subset of insulin vesicles. We believe that populations measured in the iDEP experiments consist solely of insulin vesicles, as supported by Western blot and dynamic light scattering results (Fig. 1—figure supplement 2B-C), as well as EM images (Fig. 1—figure supplement 3). Even with a subset of insulin vesicles, these results show the potential of this method, as iDEP analysis reveals heterogeneity within the population of Syt 9-positive insulin vesicles. We have replaced the original immunofluorescence images in Figure 2 with images that are more representative of INS-1E cells. We recognize that immuno-labeling did not yield perfect co-localization, which was expected. However, these experiments do provide valuable insights into the promise of using DC-iDEP for more in-depth separation analysis. Future work will use a modified INS-1 cell line or mouse model with a GFP-tagged C-peptide (hPro-CpepSfGFP, GRINCH cells RRID:CVCL_WH61) in order to visualize a less restricted set of insulin vesicles, avoiding the limitations associated with antibodies confined to a specific insulin vesicle subpopulation.

   1. The EKMr values of the vesicle populations between the low and high glucose conditions don't seem to precisely match. It is unclear if this just a technical limitation in comparing between experiments or instead suggests that glucose stimulation does not just change the proportion of vesicles in the subpopulations (i.e. the relative fluorescent intensities measured), but rather the nature of the subpopulations (i.e. they have distinct biophysical characteristics). This again gets to the issue of what these vesicle subpopulations represent. If glucose stimulation is simply converting immature to mature vesicles, one might expect it to change the proportion of vesicles, but not the biophysical properties of each subpopulation.

   We thank the reviewer for this question. We agree that glucose likely shifts the proportion of vesicles within a specific EKMr value rather than impacting the overall biophysical characteristics of all vesicles. We have performed new statistical analysis as suggested and rewritten this section to better explain the differences between conditions.

   “Visual inspection of the collected data revealed generally similar patterns of vesicles collected at specific EKMr values (Fig. 4). However, at 1200 V we achieved adequate separation of vesicle populations to discern unique populations of vesicles from cells treated with glucose compared to no treatment. Using a two-way ANOVA, we found a statistically significant interaction between the effect of treatment on vesicles collected at each EKMr value for data collected only at 1200 V [F (8, 45) = 3.61, p= 0.003]. A Bonferroni post hoc test revealed a significant difference in the intensity or quantity of vesicles collected between treated and untreated samples at 1.10x109 V/m2 (p=0.0249), 5.35x109 V/m2 (p=0.0469), 7.45x109 V/m2 (p=0.0369). These differences reflect a shift in the populations of insulin vesicles upon glucose stimulation.” Page 7, lines 158-165

   We have also now directly addressed the potential identities of the different populations in the discussion section. This was addressed in major comment #1 and on page 7 lines, 176-191 of the manuscript.

   1. The title of the paper promises "isolation" of insulin vesicles, but the manuscript only presents separation and no isolation of the separated populations. Isolation of the separated populations is important to be able to better define what these populations are (see point #1 above). Isolation is also critical if this is to be a valuable technique in the future. Yet the paper is unclear on whether it is actually technically feasible to isolate the populations separated by iDEP. In line 367, it states "this method provides a mechanism for the isolation and concentration of fractions which show the largest difference between the two population patterns for further bioanalysis (imaging, proteomics, lipidomics, etc.)." However, in line 361 it says "developing the capability to port the collected individual boluses will enable downstream analyses such as mass spectrometry or electron microscopy," suggesting that true isolation of these populations is not yet feasible. This should be clarified.

   We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have modified the text and title to put more focus on our ability to separate vesicles rather than isolate. We agree that the isolation and further biophysical characterization of these subpopulations will be critical to understanding them. However, this capability is still in development. We have made the following change to clarify that a way to isolate these subpopulations once iDEP-assisted separation has occurred is currently being developed.

   Title: “Insulator-based dielectrophoresis-assisted separation of insulin secretory vesicles”

   “this method serves as a stepping stone towards isolation and concentration of fractions which show the largest difference between the two population patterns for further bioanalysis…” page 9, line 230-232.

   Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

   This manuscript used DC-iDEP, a technology previously used on other organelle preparations to isolate insulin secretory granules from INS1 cells based on differences in dielectrophoretic and electrokinetic properties of synaptotagmin V positive insulin granules.

   The major motivation presented for this work is to provide a methodology to allow for more sensitive isolation of subpopulations of granules allowing better understanding of the biochemical composition of these populations. This manuscript clearly demonstrates the ability of this technology to separate these subpopulations which will allow for future biochemical characterizations of insulin granules in future studies.

   After proving these subpopulations can be observed, this method was then utilized to show there are shifts in these subpopulations when granules are isolated from glucose stimulated cells. Overall the method of isolation is novel and could provide a tool for further characterization of purified secretory granules.

   The observation of glucose stimulation causing shifts in subpopulations is unsurprising. Glucose stimulation could cause a depletion of insulin and other secretory content from a subset of granules. It would be expected that this loss of content would cause a shift in electrochemical properties of the granules, but this is a nice confirmation that the isolation method has the sensitivity to delineate these changes.

   Major comments:

   1. It is unclear what Synaptotagmin isoform is being looked at. Synaptotagmin V and IX have been repetitively interchanged in the literature. See note in syt IX section of "Moghadam and Jackson 2013 Front. Endocrinology" or read "Fukuda and Sagi- Eisenberg Calcium Bind Proteins 2008".

   The 386 aa. isoform that is abundant in PC12 cells has been robustly observed in INS1 cells in multiple studies and has been frequently referred to as syt IX. The sequence the antibody was raised against should be determined from the company where this was purchased and then this should be mapped to to which isoform of Synaptotagmin by sequence and clarified in the text.

   We thank the reviewer for this comment. The supplier (Thermo Fisher Scientific) calls this antibody “Synaptotagmin V.” As it recognizes the 386 aa synaptotagmin isoform, we have changed references to this antibody to call it “Synaptotagmin IX” to match the existing literature.

   1. Immunofluorescence of insulin and syt V is confusing. The example images do not appear to show robust punctate structures that are characteristic of secretory granules (in both the insulin and syt V stain).

   We appreciate the reviewer bringing this point to our attention. We agree that the immunofluorescence images in Figure 2 are not representative of typical INS-1E cells and have replaced the original image for Figure 2 with new images that show punctate structures that are more characteristic of secretory granules. These images also have better colocalization of insulin and synaptotagmin V (now labeled synaptotagmin IX) than the original image, with Pearson’s R values of 0.66 and 0.64.

   1. In the discussion it says, "Finally, this method provides a mechanism for the isolation and concentration of fractions which show the largest difference between the two population patterns for further bioanalysis (imaging, proteomics, lipidomics, etc.) that otherwise would not be possible given the low-abundance components of these subpopulations."

   It would help to elaborate more on the yield and concentrations of isolated granules. This would give a better sense of what level of biochemical characterization could be performed on sub- populations of granules.

   We thank the reviewer for this comment. This line has been changed to clarify the current capabilities of iDEP, as subpopulations cannot presently be removed from the channel.

   “this method serves as a stepping stone towards isolation and concentration of fractions which show the largest difference between the two population patterns for further bioanalysis…” page 9 line 230-232.

   Once it is possible to isolate subpopulations from the channel, we expect to obtain sufficient sample for further characterization. We anticipate that biophysical characterization such as imaging will be highly feasible, and small-scale proteomics could also be possible. However, currently we have not measured the concentration of isolated vesicles due to complications in the isolation steps. If the quantity of isolated subpopulations proves inadequate for proteomic analysis, we plan to scale up our cell culture to generate enough insulin vesicles for further biochemical characterization. However, these experiments are out of scope for our current work, so we removed details on this idea in the Introduction and Discussion.

   Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

   The manuscript from Barekatain et al. is investigating heterogeneity within the population of insulin vesicles from an insulinoma cell line (INS-1E) in response to glucose stimulation. Prevailing dogma in the beta-cell field suggests that there are distinct pools of mature insulin granules, such as ready-releasable and a reserve pool, which contribute to distinct phases of insulin release in response to glucose stimulation. Whether these pools (and others) are distinct in protein/lipid composition or other aspects is not known, but has been suggested. In this manuscript, the authors use density gradient sedimentation to enrich for insulin vesicles, noting the existence of a number of co-purifying contaminants (ER and mitochondrial markers). Following immunolabeling with synaptotagmin V and fluorescent-conjugated secondary antibodies, insulin vesicles were applied to a microfluidic device and separated by dielectrophoretic and electrokinetic forces following an applied voltage. The equilibrium between these opposing forces was used to physically separate insulin granules. Here some differences were observed in the insulin (Syt V positive) granule populations, when isolated from cells that were either non-stimulated or stimulated with glucose, which has been suggested previously by other studies as noted by the authors; however in the current manuscript, the inclusion of a number of control experiments may provide a better context for what the data reveal about these changes.

   The major strength of the paper is in the use of the novel, highly sophisticated methodology to examine physical attributes of insulin granules and thus begin to provide some insight into the existence of distinct insulin granule populations within a beta-cell -these include insulin granules that are maturing, membrane- docked (i.e. readily releasable), in reserve, newly-synthesized, aged, etc. Whether physical differences exist between these various granule pools is not known. In this capacity, the technical abilities of the current manuscript may begin to offer some insight into whether these perceived distinctions are physical.

   The major weakness of the manuscript is that the study falls short in terms of linking the biology to the sophisticated changes observed and primarily focuses on differences in response to glucose. Without knowing what the various populations of granules are, it is challenging to understand what the changes in response to glucose mean.

   Specific concerns are as follows:

   1. There is confusion on what the DC-iDEP separation between stimulated and stimulated cells reveals. Do these changes reflect maturation state of granules, nascent vs. old granules? Ready- releasable vs. reserve pool? The comments in the text seem to offer all possibilities.

   We thank the reviewer for this comment. Additional experiments will be useful to concretely define the physical nature of these subpopulations. Our primary goal in this study is to assess the utility of DC-iDEP in reproducibly separating these subpopulations. Our current results reflect variations in the amounts of subpopulations described in the literature and/or in currently uncharacterized subpopulations. As addressed in Reviewer #1 question #1, we have added to the discussion to review these possibilities (Page 7-8, lines 176-191).

   1. It is unclear what we can infer regarding the physical changes of granules between the stimulated states of the cells. Without an understanding of the magnitude of the effect, it is unclear how biologically significant these changes are. For example, what degree of lipid or protein remodeling would be necessary to give a similar change?

   We thank the reviewer for this question. Separation by iDEP is sufficiently sensitive to distinguish particles with minimal differences between them. For example, we could successfully separate wild type GFP from a point mutation variant of GFP. We anticipate that this method is capable of distinguishing vesicles with greater physical differences between them resulting in more distinct EKMr values. However, significant future experiments are likely necessary to determine the extent of lipid and protein remodeling between each subpopulation to define the biological significance of each subpopulation.

   1. The reliance on a single vesicle marker, Syt V, is concerning given that granule remodeling is the focus.

   We appreciate the reviewer’s concern. The current manuscript focuses on synaptotagmin V (IX)-positive insulin vesicles. The results of these experiments demonstrate the capabilities of iDEP to reveal heterogeneity in a seemingly similar set of particles. In future experiments we plan to use the modified INS-1 cell line with a GFP-tagged C-peptide (hPro-CpepSfGFP, GRINCH cells RRID:CVCL_WH61). All insulin vesicles from this cell line contain GFP-tagged C-peptide, and therefore would allow for the detection of a more complete set of insulin vesicles. The results from the current manuscript provide the proof-of-concept validation that this method is promising for understanding vesicle remodeling in more detail in the future.

   1. Additional confirmation that the isolated vesicles are in fact insulin granules would be helpful. As noted, granules were gradient enriched, but did carry contaminants. Note that the microscopy image provided does not provide any real validation for this marker.

   Further confirmation that the immune-isolated vesicles are in fact insulin granules should be included. EM with immunogold labeling post-SytV enrichment would be a potential methodology to confirm.

   We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have performed new immunofluorescence imaging to demonstrate the overlap of insulin and synaptotagmin (Fig 2). Additionally, we have performed microscopy experiments with a modified INS-1 cell line with a GFP-tagged C-peptide (hPro-CpepSfGFP, GRINCH cells RRID:CVCL_WH61) in order to provide evidence of these granules’ identity. Fluorescence microscopy revealed that the isolated granules contain GFP-tagged C-peptide (Fig. 1—figure supplement 3A), while transmission electron microscopy and cryo-electron microscopy confirmed that these vesicles have radii within the correct range to be considered insulin vesicles (Fig 1—figure supplement 3B-C). We added the following text in the results section to describe the new results included:

   “To verify that the insulin vesicles were intact prior to DC-iDEP, we imaged a modified INS-1E cell line that contains a human insulin and green fluorescent protein-tagged C peptide (hPro-CpepSfGFP).49 This GFP tag allowed for quick visual verification of intact vesicles using fluorescence confocal microscopy. We observed distinct puncta rather than a diffuse GFP signal which indicated that the vesicles were intact and not ruptured. Further analysis of isolated vesicles was done using EM. We observed intact vesicles with the expected size and shape using both transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM) (Fig. 1—figure supplement 3). Page 5, lines 104 – 109.

   1. It would be useful to understand if the observed effects are specific to the INS-1E cell line or are a more universal effect of glucose on beta-cells.

   We agree with the reviewer that it would be interesting to study these effects in primary beta cells. While we expect to see similar results in these cells, there may be differences in the population variations or EKMr values. However, working with beta cells is currently beyond the scope of this study, as our primary focus is on validating this approach.

   Read the original source
3. 

   eLife

   May 21, 2024

   eLife assessment

   This paper presents a new method for separating organelles in an unbiased way. The method is applied to the separation of distinct subpopulations of insulin vesicles. There are concerns around whether the vesicles measured are in fact insulin vesicles and whether the observed changes in vesicle populations upon glucose stimulation are biologically meaningful, and thus it is difficult to assess at this stage how well the technique performs. This paper is likely to be of wide interest to cell biologists studying a variety of compartments, as well as to researchers in the beta cell field.

   Read the original source
4. 

   eLife

   May 21, 2024

   Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

   This manuscript presents an exciting new method for separating insulin secretory granules using insulator-based dielectrophoresis (iDEP) of immunolabeled vesicles. The method has the advantage of being able to separate vesicles by subtle biophysical differences that do not need to be known by the experimenter, and hence could in principle be used to separate any type of organelle in an unbiased way. Any individual organelle ("particle") will have a characteristic ratio of electrokinetic to dielectrophoretic mobilities (EKMr) that will determine where it migrates in the presence of an electric field. Particles with different EKMr will migrate differently and thus can be separated. The present manuscript is primarily a methods paper to show the feasibility of the iDEP technique applied to insulin vesicles. …

   Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

   This manuscript presents an exciting new method for separating insulin secretory granules using insulator-based dielectrophoresis (iDEP) of immunolabeled vesicles. The method has the advantage of being able to separate vesicles by subtle biophysical differences that do not need to be known by the experimenter, and hence could in principle be used to separate any type of organelle in an unbiased way. Any individual organelle ("particle") will have a characteristic ratio of electrokinetic to dielectrophoretic mobilities (EKMr) that will determine where it migrates in the presence of an electric field. Particles with different EKMr will migrate differently and thus can be separated. The present manuscript is primarily a methods paper to show the feasibility of the iDEP technique applied to insulin vesicles. Experiments are performed on cultured cells in low or high glucose, with the conclusion that there are several distinct subpopulations of insulin vesicles in both conditions, but that the distributions in the two conditions are different. As it is already known that glucose induces release of mature insulin vesicles and stimulates new vesicle biosynthesis and maturation, this finding is not necessarily new, but is intended as a proof of principle experiment to show that the technique works. This is a promising new technology based on solid theory that has the possibility to transform the study of insulin vesicle subpopulations, itself an emerging field. The technique development is a major strength of the paper. Also, cellular fractionation and iDEP experiments are performed well, and it is clear that the distribution of vesicle populations is different in the low and high glucose conditions. However, more work is needed to characterize the vesicle populations being separated, leaving open the possibility that the separated populations are not only insulin vesicles, but might consist of other compartments as well. It is also unclear whether the populations might represent immature and mature vesicles, distinct pools of mature vesicles such as the readily releasable pool and the reserve pool, or vesicles of different age. Without a better characterization of these populations, it is not possible to assess how well the iDEP technique is doing what is claimed.

   Major comments:

   (1) There is no attempt to relate the separated populations of vesicles to known subpopulations of insulin vesicles such as immature and mature vesicles, or the more recently characterized Syt9 and Syt7 vesicle subpopulations that differ in protein and lipid composition (Kreutzberger et al. 2020). Given that it is unclear exactly what populations of vesicles will be immunolabeled (see point #2 below), it is also possible that some of the "subpopulations" are other compartments being separated in addition to insulin vesicles. It will be important to examine other markers on these separated populations or to perform EM to show that they look like insulin vesicles.

   (2) An antibody to synaptotagmin V is used to immunolabel vesicles, but there has been confusion between synaptotagmins V and IX in the literature and it isn't clear what exactly is being recognized by this antibody (this reviewer actually thinks it is Syt 9). If it is indeed recognizing Syt 9, it might already be labeling a restricted population of insulin vesicles (Kreutzberger et al. 2020). The specificity of this antibody should be clarified. Furthermore, Figure 2 is not convincing at showing that this synaptotagmin antibody specifically labels insulin vesicles nor is there convincing colocalization of this synaptotagmin antibody with insulin vesicles. In the image shown, several cells show very weak or no staining of both insulin and the synaptotagmin. The highlighted cell appears to show insulin mainly in a perinuclear structure (probably the Golgi) rather than in mature vesicles (which should be punctate), and insulin is not particularly well-colocalized with the synaptotagmin. Other cells in the image appear to have even less colocalization of insulin and synaptotagmin, and there is no quantification of colocalization. It seems possible that this antibody is recognizing other compartments in the cell, which would change the interpretation of the populations measured in the iDEP experiments. It would also be good to perform synaptotagmin staining under glucose-stimulating conditions, in case this alters the localization.

   (3) The EKMr values of the vesicle populations between the low and high glucose conditions don't seem to precisely match. It is unclear if this just a technical limitation in comparing between experiments or instead suggests that glucose stimulation does not just change the proportion of vesicles in the subpopulations (i.e. the relative fluorescent intensities measured), but rather the nature of the subpopulations (i.e. they have distinct biophysical characteristics). This again gets to the issue of what these vesicle subpopulations represent. If glucose stimulation is simply converting immature to mature vesicles, one might expect it to change the proportion of vesicles, but not the biophysical properties of each subpopulation.

   (4) The title of the paper promises "isolation" of insulin vesicles, but the manuscript only presents separation and no isolation of the separated populations. Isolation of the separated populations is important to be able to better define what these populations are (see point #1 above). Isolation is also critical if this is to be a valuable technique in the future. Yet the paper is unclear on whether it is actually technically feasible to isolate the populations separated by iDEP. In line 367, it states "this method provides a mechanism for the isolation and concentration of fractions which show the largest difference between the two population patterns for further bioanalysis (imaging, proteomics, lipidomics, etc.)." However, in line 361 it says "developing the capability to port the collected individual boluses will enable downstream analyses such as mass spectrometry or electron microscopy," suggesting that true isolation of these populations is not yet feasible. This should be clarified.

   Read the original source
5. 

   eLife

   May 21, 2024

   Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

   This manuscript used DC-iDEP, a technology previously used on other organelle preparations to isolate insulin secretory granules from INS1 cells based on differences in dielectrophoretic and electrokinetic properties of synaptotagmin V positive insulin granules.

   The major motivation presented for this work is to provide a methodology to allow for more sensitive isolation of subpopulations of granules allowing better understanding of the biochemical composition of these populations. This manuscript clearly demonstrates the ability of this technology to separate these subpopulations which will allow for future biochemical characterizations of insulin granules in future studies.

   After proving these subpopulations can be observed, this method was then utilized to show there are shifts in these subpopulations …

   Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

   This manuscript used DC-iDEP, a technology previously used on other organelle preparations to isolate insulin secretory granules from INS1 cells based on differences in dielectrophoretic and electrokinetic properties of synaptotagmin V positive insulin granules.

   The major motivation presented for this work is to provide a methodology to allow for more sensitive isolation of subpopulations of granules allowing better understanding of the biochemical composition of these populations. This manuscript clearly demonstrates the ability of this technology to separate these subpopulations which will allow for future biochemical characterizations of insulin granules in future studies.

   After proving these subpopulations can be observed, this method was then utilized to show there are shifts in these subpopulations when granules are isolated from glucose stimulated cells. Overall the method of isolation is novel and could provide a tool for further characterization of purified secretory granules.

   The observation of glucose stimulation causing shifts in subpopulations is unsurprising. Glucose stimulation could cause a depletion of insulin and other secretory content from a subset of granules. It would be expected that this loss of content would cause a shift in electrochemical properties of the granules, but this is a nice confirmation that the isolation method has the sensitivity to delineate these changes.

   Major comments:

   (1) It is unclear what Synaptotagmin isoform is being looked at. Synaptotagmin V and IX have been repetitively interchanged in the literature. See note in syt IX section of "Moghadam and Jackson 2013 Front. Endocrinology" or read "Fukuda and Sagi-Eisenberg Calcium Bind Proteins 2008".

   The 386 aa. isoform that is abundant in PC12 cells has been robustly observed in INS1 cells in multiple studies and has been frequently referred to as syt IX. The sequence the antibody was raised against should be determined from the company where this was purchased and then this should be mapped to to which isoform of Synaptotagmin by sequence and clarified in the text.

   (2) Immunofluorescence of insulin and syt V is confusing. The example images do not appear to show robust punctate structures that are characteristic of secretory granules (in both the insulin and syt V stain).

   (3) In the discussion it says, "Finally, this method provides a mechanism for the isolation and concentration of fractions which show the largest difference between the two population patterns for further bioanalysis (imaging, proteomics, lipidomics, etc.) that otherwise would not be possible given the low-abundance components of these subpopulations."

   It would help to elaborate more on the yield and concentrations of isolated granules. This would give a better sense of what level of biochemical characterization could be performed on sub-populations of granules.

   Read the original source
6. 

   eLife

   May 21, 2024

   Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

   The manuscript from Barekatain et al. is investigating heterogeneity within the population of insulin vesicles from an insulinoma cell line (INS-1E) in response to glucose stimulation. Prevailing dogma in the beta-cell field suggests that there are distinct pools of mature insulin granules, such as ready-releasable and a reserve pool, which contribute to distinct phases of insulin release in response to glucose stimulation. Whether these pools (and others) are distinct in protein/lipid composition or other aspects is not known, but has been suggested. In this manuscript, the authors use density gradient sedimentation to enrich for insulin vesicles, noting the existence of a number of co-purifying contaminants (ER and mitochondrial markers). Following immunolabeling with synaptotagmin V and …

   Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

   The manuscript from Barekatain et al. is investigating heterogeneity within the population of insulin vesicles from an insulinoma cell line (INS-1E) in response to glucose stimulation. Prevailing dogma in the beta-cell field suggests that there are distinct pools of mature insulin granules, such as ready-releasable and a reserve pool, which contribute to distinct phases of insulin release in response to glucose stimulation. Whether these pools (and others) are distinct in protein/lipid composition or other aspects is not known, but has been suggested. In this manuscript, the authors use density gradient sedimentation to enrich for insulin vesicles, noting the existence of a number of co-purifying contaminants (ER and mitochondrial markers). Following immunolabeling with synaptotagmin V and fluorescent-conjugated secondary antibodies, insulin vesicles were applied to a microfluidic device and separated by dielectrophoretic and electrokinetic forces following an applied voltage. The equilibrium between these opposing forces was used to physically separate insulin granules. Here some differences were observed in the insulin (Syt V positive) granule populations, when isolated from cells that were either non-stimulated or stimulated with glucose, which has been suggested previously by other studies as noted by the authors; however in the current manuscript, the inclusion of a number of control experiments may provide a better context for what the data reveal about these changes.

   The major strength of the paper is in the use of the novel, highly sophisticated methodology to examine physical attributes of insulin granules and thus begin to provide some insight into the existence of distinct insulin granule populations within a beta-cell -these include insulin granules that are maturing, membrane-docked (i.e. readily releasable), in reserve, newly-synthesized, aged, etc. Whether physical differences exist between these various granule pools is not known. In this capacity, the technical abilities of the current manuscript may begin to offer some insight into whether these perceived distinctions are physical.

   The major weakness of the manuscript is that the study falls short in terms of linking the biology to the sophisticated changes observed and primarily focuses on differences in response to glucose. Without knowing what the various populations of granules are, it is challenging to understand what the changes in response to glucose mean.

   Specific concerns are as follows:

   (1) There is confusion on what the DC-iDEP separation between stimulated and stimulated cells reveals. Do these changes reflect maturation state of granules, nascent vs. old granules? Ready-releasable vs. reserve pool? The comments in the text seem to offer all possibilities.

   (2) It is unclear what we can infer regarding the physical changes of granules between the stimulated states of the cells. Without an understanding of the magnitude of the effect, it is unclear how biologically significant these changes are. For example, what degree of lipid or protein remodeling would be necessary to give a similar change?

   (3) The reliance on a single vesicle marker, Syt V, is concerning given that granule remodeling is the focus.

   (4) Additional confirmation that the isolated vesicles are in fact insulin granules would be helpful. As noted, granules were gradient enriched, but did carry contaminants. Note that the microscopy image provided does not provide any real validation for this marker.

   Further confirmation that the immune-isolated vesicles are in fact insulin granules should be included. EM with immunogold labeling post-SytV enrichment would be a potential methodology to confirm.

   (5) It would be useful to understand if the observed effects are specific to the INS-1E cell line or are a more universal effect of glucose on beta-cells.

   Read the original source
7. 

   Version published to 10.1101/2021.12.01.470798v1 on bioRxiv

   Dec 1, 2021