Tissue-specific targeting of DNA nanodevices in a multicellular living organism

  1. Kasturi Chakraborty
  2. Palapuravan Anees
  3. Sunaina Surana
  4. Simona Martin
  5. Jihad Aburas
  6. Sandrine Moutel
  7. Franck Perez
  8. Sandhya P Koushika
  9. Paschalis Kratsios
  10. Yamuna Krishnan

  • Curated by eLife

    eLife logo

    Evaluation Summary:

    This paper is of interest to anyone who wants to deliver nucleic acids to specific cell types in whole animals. The work provides a new method to target and deliver of nanodevices to specific cell types and intracellular compartments within live animals. It relies on cell types that can be induced to express a transmembrane protein chimera with a newly developed DNA sequence-specific camelid antibody. In general the data appeared to be of high quality and were well controlled, supporting the authors' conclusions. This work could help pave the way for future advancements in the cell-specific delivery of custom-engineered payloads such as dsDNA nanodevices utilized as quantitative chemosensors and effectors in living cells.

    (This preprint has been reviewed by eLife. We include the public reviews from the reviewers here; the authors also receive private feedback with suggested changes to the manuscript. The reviewers remained anonymous to the authors.)

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Nucleic acid nanodevices present great potential as agents for logic-based therapeutic intervention as well as in basic biology. Often, however, the disease targets that need corrective action are localized in specific organs, and thus realizing the full potential of DNA nanodevices also requires ways to target them to specific cell types in vivo. Here, we show that by exploiting either endogenous or synthetic receptor-ligand interactions and leveraging the biological barriers presented by the organism, we can target extraneously introduced DNA nanodevices to specific cell types in Caenorhabditis elegans , with subcellular precision. The amenability of DNA nanostructures to tissue-specific targeting in vivo significantly expands their utility in biomedical applications and discovery biology.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.7554/elife.67830 on eLife
  2. eLife

    Author Response:

    Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

    The manuscript by Chakraborty focuses on methods to direct dsDNA to specific cell types within an intact multicellular organism, with the ultimate goal of targeting DNA-based nanodevices, often as biosensors within endosomes and lysosomes. Taking advantage of the endogenous SID-2 dsRNA receptor expressed in C. elegans intestinal cells, the authors show that dsDNA conjugated to dsRNA can be taken into the intestinal endosomal system via feeding and apical endocytosis, while dsDNA alone is not an efficient endocytic cargo from the gut lumen. Since most cells do not express a dsRNA receptor, the authors sought to develop a more generalizable approach. Via phage display screening they identified a novel camelid antibody 9E that recognizes a short specific DNA sequence that can be included at the 3' end of synthesized dsDNAs. The authors then showed that this antibody can direct binding, and in some cases endocytosis, of such DNAs when 9E was expressed as a fusion with transmembrane protein SNB-1. This approach was successful in targeting microinjected dsDNA pan-neuronally when expressed via the snb-1 promoter, and to specific neuronal subsets when expressed via other promoters. Endocytosed dsDNA appeared in puncta moving in neuronal processes, suggesting entry into endosomes. Plasma membrane targeting appeared feasible using 9E fusion to ODR-2.

    The major strength of the paper is in the identification and testing of the 9E camelid antibody as part of a generalizable dsDNA targeting system. This aspect of the paper will likely be of wide interest and potentially high impact, since it could be applied in any intact animal system subject to transgene expression. A weakness of the paper is the choice of "nanodevice". It was not clear what utility was present in the DNAs used, such as D38, that made them "devices", aside from their fluorescent tag that allowed tracking their localization.

    We used a DNA nanodevice, denoted pHlava-9E, that uses pHrodo as a pH-sensitive dye. pHlava-9E is designed to provide a digital output of compartmentalization i.e., its pH profile is such that even if it is internalized into a mildly acidic vesicle, the pH readout is as high as one would observe with a lysosome. This gives an unambiguous readout of surface-immobilized probe to endocytosed probe.

    Another potential weakness is that the delivered DNA is limited to the cell surface or the lumen of endomembrane compartments without access to the cytoplasm or nucleus. In general the data appeared to be of high quality and was well controlled, supporting the authors conclusions.

    We completely agree that we cannot target DNA nanodevices to sub-cellular locations such as the cytoplasm or the nucleus with this strategy. However, we do not see this as a “weakness”, but rather, as a limitation of the current capabilities of DNA nanotechnology. It must be mentioned that though fluorescent proteins were first described in 1962, it was 30 years before others targeted them to the endoplasmic reticulum (1992) or the nucleus (1993)(Brini et al., 1993; Kendall et al., 1992). Probe technologies undergo stage-wise improvements/expansions. We have therefore added a small section in the conclusions section outlining the future challenges in sub-cellular targeting of DNA-nanodevices.

    Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

    The authors demonstrate the tissue-specific and cell-specific targeting of double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) using C. elegans as a model host animal. The authors focused on two distinct tissues and delivery routes: feeding dsDNA to target a class of organelles within intestinal cells, and injecting dsDNA to target presynaptic endocytic structures in neurons. To achieve efficient intestinal targeting, the authors leveraged dsRNA uptake via endogenous intestinal SID-2 receptors by fusing dsRNA to a fluorophore-labeled dsDNA probe. In contrast, neuronal endosome/synaptic vesicle (SV) targeting was achieved by designing a nanobody that specifically binds a short dsDNA motif fused to the fluorophore-labeled dsDNA probe. Combining dsDNA probe injection with nanobody neuronal expression (fused to a neuronal vSNARE to achieve synaptic targeting), the authors demonstrated that the injected dsDNA could be taken up by a variety of distinct neuronal subtypes.

    Strengths:

    While nanodevices built on dsDNA platforms have been shown to be taken up by scavenger receptors in C. elegans (including previous work from several of these authors), this strategy will not work in many tissue types lacking these receptors. The authors successfully circumvented this limitation using distinct strategies for two cell types in the worm, thereby providing a more general approach for future efforts. The approaches are creative, and the nanobody development in particular allows for endocytic delivery in any cell type. The authors exploited quantitative imaging approaches to examine the subcellular targeting of dsDNA probes in living animals and manipulated endogenous receptors to demonstrate the mechanism of dsRNA-based dsDNA uptake in intestinal cells.

    Weaknesses:

    To validate successful delivery of a functional nanodevice, one would ideally demonstrate the function of a particular nanodevice in at least one of the examples provided in this work. The authors have successfully used a variety of custom-designed dsDNA probes in living worms in numerous past studies, so this would not be a technical hurdle. In the current study, the reader has no means of assessing whether the dsDNA is intact and functional within its intracellular compartment.

    We now demonstrate the use of a functional nanodevice to detect pH profiles of a given microenvironment. This functional nanodevice contains two fluorescent reporter dyes, each attached to one of the strands of a DNA duplex. In order to obtain pH readouts, the device integrity is essential for ratiometric sensing.

    Coelomocytes are cells known for their scavenging and degradative lysosomal machinery. Previous studies of the stability of variously structured DNA nanodevices in coelomocytes, have shown that DNA devices based on 38 bp DNA duplexes have a half life of >8 hours in actively scavenging cells such as coelomocytes (Chakraborty et al., 2017; Surana et al., 2013) Given that our sensing in the gut as well as in the neuron are performed in <1 hour post feeding or injection, pHlava-9E is >97% intact.

    Another minor weakness is the lack of a quantitative assessment of colocalization in intestinal cells or neurons in an otherwise nicely quantitative study. Since characterization of the targeting described here is an essential part of evaluating the method, a stronger demonstration of colocalization would significantly buttress the authors' claims.

    We have now quantified colocalization in each cellular system. Please see Figure R1 below (Figure 1 Supplementary figure 1 and Figure 4 Supplementary figure 2 of the revised manuscript).

    Figure R1: a) Pearson’s correlation coefficient (PCC) calculated for the colocalization between R50D38 (red) and lysosomal markers LMP-1 or GLO-1 (green) in the indicated transgenic worms. b) & d) Representative images of nanodevice nD647 uptake (red) in transgenics expressing both prab-3::gfp::rab-3 (green) and psnb-1:snb-1::9E c - e) Normalized line intensity profiles across the indicated lines in b and d; f) Percentage colocalization of nD647 (red) with RAB3:GFP (green). Error bar represents the standard deviation between two data sets.

    While somewhat incomplete, this study represents a step forward in the development of a general targeting approach amenable to nanodevice delivery in animal models.

  3. eLife

    Evaluation Summary:

    This paper is of interest to anyone who wants to deliver nucleic acids to specific cell types in whole animals. The work provides a new method to target and deliver of nanodevices to specific cell types and intracellular compartments within live animals. It relies on cell types that can be induced to express a transmembrane protein chimera with a newly developed DNA sequence-specific camelid antibody. In general the data appeared to be of high quality and were well controlled, supporting the authors' conclusions. This work could help pave the way for future advancements in the cell-specific delivery of custom-engineered payloads such as dsDNA nanodevices utilized as quantitative chemosensors and effectors in living cells.

    (This preprint has been reviewed by eLife. We include the public reviews from the reviewers here; the authors also receive private feedback with suggested changes to the manuscript. The reviewers remained anonymous to the authors.)

  4. eLife

    Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

    The manuscript by Chakraborty focuses on methods to direct dsDNA to specific cell types within an intact multicellular organism, with the ultimate goal of targeting DNA-based nanodevices, often as biosensors within endosomes and lysosomes. Taking advantage of the endogenous SID-2 dsRNA receptor expressed in C. elegans intestinal cells, the authors show that dsDNA conjugated to dsRNA can be taken into the intestinal endosomal system via feeding and apical endocytosis, while dsDNA alone is not an efficient endocytic cargo from the gut lumen. Since most cells do not express a dsRNA receptor, the authors sought to develop a more generalizable approach. Via phage display screening they identified a novel camelid antibody 9E that recognizes a short specific DNA sequence that can be included at the 3' end of synthesized dsDNAs. The authors then showed that this antibody can direct binding, and in some cases endocytosis, of such DNAs when 9E was expressed as a fusion with transmembrane protein SNB-1. This approach was successful in targeting microinjected dsDNA pan-neuronally when expressed via the snb-1 promoter, and to specific neuronal subsets when expressed via other promoters. Endocytosed dsDNA appeared in puncta moving in neuronal processes, suggesting entry into endosomes. Plasma membrane targeting appeared feasible using 9E fusion to ODR-2.

    The major strength of the paper is in the identification and testing of the 9E camelid antibody as part of a generalizable dsDNA targeting system. This aspect of the paper will likely be of wide interest and potentially high impact, since it could be applied in any intact animal system subject to transgene expression. A weakness of the paper is the choice of "nanodevice". It was not clear what utility was present in the DNAs used, such as D38, that made them "devices", aside from their fluorescent tag that allowed tracking their localization. Another potential weakness is that the delivered DNA is limited to the cell surface or the lumen of endomembrane compartments without access to the cytoplasm or nucleus. In general the data appeared to be of high quality and was well controlled, supporting the authors conclusions.

  5. eLife

    Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

    The authors demonstrate the tissue-specific and cell-specific targeting of double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) using C. elegans as a model host animal. The authors focused on two distinct tissues and delivery routes: feeding dsDNA to target a class of organelles within intestinal cells, and injecting dsDNA to target presynaptic endocytic structures in neurons. To achieve efficient intestinal targeting, the authors leveraged dsRNA uptake via endogenous intestinal SID-2 receptors by fusing dsRNA to a fluorophore-labeled dsDNA probe. In contrast, neuronal endosome/synaptic vesicle (SV) targeting was achieved by designing a nanobody that specifically binds a short dsDNA motif fused to the fluorophore-labeled dsDNA probe. Combining dsDNA probe injection with nanobody neuronal expression (fused to a neuronal vSNARE to achieve synaptic targeting), the authors demonstrated that the injected dsDNA could be taken up by a variety of distinct neuronal subtypes.

    Strengths:

    While nanodevices built on dsDNA platforms have been shown to be taken up by scavenger receptors in C. elegans (including previous work from several of these authors), this strategy will not work in many tissue types lacking these receptors. The authors successfully circumvented this limitation using distinct strategies for two cell types in the worm, thereby providing a more general approach for future efforts. The approaches are creative, and the nanobody development in particular allows for endocytic delivery in any cell type. The authors exploited quantitative imaging approaches to examine the subcellular targeting of dsDNA probes in living animals and manipulated endogenous receptors to demonstrate the mechanism of dsRNA-based dsDNA uptake in intestinal cells.

    Weaknesses:

    To validate successful delivery of a functional nanodevice, one would ideally demonstrate the function of a particular nanodevice in at least one of the examples provided in this work. The authors have successfully used a variety of custom-designed dsDNA probes in living worms in numerous past studies, so this would not be a technical hurdle. In the current study, the reader has no means of assessing whether the dsDNA is intact and functional within its intracellular compartment. Another minor weakness is the lack of a quantitative assessment of colocalization in intestinal cells or neurons in an otherwise nicely quantitative study. Since characterization of the targeting described here is an essential part of evaluating the method, a stronger demonstration of colocalization would significantly buttress the authors' claims.

    While somewhat incomplete, this study represents a step forward in the development of a general targeting approach amenable to nanodevice delivery in animal models.

  6. Version published to 10.1101/2021.03.05.434169v1 on bioRxiv