ChemComm
Communication
Previous studies by Kim et al.10 demonstrated that due to the large
proton permeability of the ER membrane, significant communication
occurs with the homeostatic mechanism that controls cytosolic pH.
Thus, the value of pHER is similar to that found within the cytoplasm
(7.1). Therefore, any knowledge gained on pH changes of the ER
region using [EuL1]+, provides information on overall cytosolic pH. In
order to ensure the probe retains its ability to respond to pH changes
in cellulo, a preliminary experiment was carried out where the pHER
was altered from 7.7 to 6.0 (by varying the pH of the growth medium
and adding nigericin (0.2 mM) to allow K+/H+ exchange) and the
response of [EuL1]+ determined by microscopy. By changing the pH of
the cell culture media from 7.7 to 6.0, a two fold increase in brightness
within the ER organelles was observed. Using the Leica SP5 II LSCM
microscope equipped with a high sensitivity hybrid detector (HyD),
changes in the emission intensities of the various individual selected
EuIII transitions were monitored. This involved extracting an average
intensity value via a contrast transfer function (CTF) for each band,
from 15 small (250  250 pixel) voxels (pixel size 120 nm  120 nm Â
0.772 mm) within the image which represented the stained ER regions
of the cell. The largest change in emission band ratio with pH was
observed for DJ = 2/DJ = 4, where the ratio increased from 1.8 at pH 7.7
to 2.2 at pH 6.0.
Fig. 3 Changes in the Eu emission intensity ratio DJ = 2/(DJ = 0 + DJ = 1) and
excited state lifetimes (t) for [EuL1]+ as a f(pH).
through ratiometric comparison of two emission bands or by
measurement of its excited state lifetime. Each method is
independent of complex concentration. It is believed that the
ER pH mimics that found within the cytoplasm, so that this
probe also provides information on mean cytosolic pH. Such
behaviour augurs well for the development of related responsive
systems (e.g. pM, pX) that can faithfully report concentration
changes in particular cell compartments of living cells.
A more detailed in cellulo calibration experiment was carried
out using a custom-built, time-gated spectral imaging micro-
scope, where spectra and excited state lifetimes for [EuL1]+
within the ER regions of the cell (4 h incubation) were recorded
at 11 different pH points between pH 7.5 and 6.0. An experi-
mental technique was employed using growth media with
different pH values, along with the addition of nigericin
(0.2 mM) at each loading to ensure pHER equilibration (ESI†).
To ensure that any changes in pCO2 within the incubation
chamber did not alter the pH of the growth medium, it was
necessary before loading to allow equilibration of the partial
pressure of CO2 in the solutions and re-adjust the pH (Â3). As
observed for the in vitro based pH titration carried out in the
‘simulated extracellular’ ionic background, acidification led to
an overall increase in emission intensity along with changes in
spectral form. By plotting DJ = 2/(DJ = 0 + DJ = 1) against pH, it
was apparent that a near linear response was observed between
the pH range 6.7 and 7.4, with an overall 40% change in ratio
measured within this region. Changes in the excited state
lifetimes were also observed, with values of 672 ms and 413 ms
recorded at pH 6.7 and pH 7.4, respectively. This 60% increase
in the lifetime upon lowering the pH within the ER, suggests
that changes in the structural form of the complex when the
sulphonamide moiety is unbound may be affecting certain
protein–complex interactions, resulting in longer lifetime
values due to a reduction in the quenching process. Comparing
the spectral intensity ratio changes with the pH/lifetime varia-
tion (Fig. 3), a crossover point occurs at pH 7.15(Æ0.05), in
agreement with the pKa value (7.10(Æ0.03)), obtained for [EuL1]
in a competitive anion/protein environment.
We thank the ERC (FCC 266804) for support.
Notes and references
1 (a) V. P. Torchillin, Annu. Rev. Biochem., 2006, 8, 343; (b) X. Chen,
Y. Zhou, X. Peng and J. Yoon, Chem. Soc. Rev., 2010, 39, 2120;
(c) M. H. Kim and B. R. Cho, Acc. Chem. Res., 2009, 42, 863.
2 (a) D. G. Smith, B. K. McMahon, R. Pal and D. Parker, Chem.
Commun., 2012, 48, 8520; (b) R. Pal and D. Parker, Org. Biomol.
Chem., 2008, 6, 1020; (c) R. Pal and D. Parker, Chem. Commun., 2007,
474.
3 (a) L. K. Truman, S. Comby and T. Gunnlaugsson, Angew. Chem., Int.
Ed., 2012, 51, 9624; (b) M. Liu, Z. Ye, C. Xin and J. Yuan, Anal.
Chim. Acta, 2013, 761, 149; (c) S. Shinoda and H. Tsukube, Analyst,
2011, 136, 431; (d) L. N. Sun, H. Peng, M. I. J. Stich, D. Achotz and
O. S. Wolfbeis, Chem. Commun., 2009, 5000.
4 (a) A. Thibon and V. C. Pierre, Anal. Bioanal. Chem., 2009, 394, 107;
(b) S. V. Eliseeva and J.-C. G. Bu¨nzli, Chem. Soc. Rev., 2010, 39, 189;
(c) E. J. New, D. Parker, D. G. Smith and J. W. Walton, Curr. Opin.
Chem. Biol., 2010, 14, 238–246.
5 (a) D. G. Smith, G.-L. Law, B. S. Murray, R. Pal, D. Parker and
K.-L. Wong, Chem. Commun., 2011, 47, 7347; (b) D. G. Smith, R. Pal
and D. Parker, Chem.–Eur. J., 2012, 18, 11604; (c) R. Pal, A. Beeby and
D. Parker, J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal., 2011, 56, 352; (d) R. Pal, D. Parker
and L. C. Costello, Org. Biomol. Chem., 2009, 7, 1525.
6 S. J. Butler and D. Parker, Chem. Soc. Rev., 2013, 42, 1652.
7 J. W. Walton, A. Bourdolle, S. J. Butler, M. Soulie, M. Delbianco,
B. K. McMahon, R. Pal, H. Puschmann, J. M. Zwier, L. Lamarque,
O. Maury, C. Andraud and D. Parker, Chem. Commun., 2013, 49,
1600–1602.
8 (a) R. S. Dickins, D. Parker, A. S. de Sousa and J. A. G. Williams, Chem.
Commun., 1996, 697; (b) A. Beeby, I. M. Clarkson, R. S. Dickins,
S. Faulkner, L. Royle, D. Parker, A. S. de Sousa, J. A. G. Williams and
M. Woods, J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 2, 1999, 493.
9 J. Carmichael, W. G. DeGraff, A. F. Gazdar, J. D. Minna and
J. B. Mitchell, Cancer Res., 1987, 47, 936.
10 (a) J. H. Kim, L. Johannes, B. Goud, C. Anthony, C. A. Lingwood,
R. Daneman and S. Grinstein, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 1998,
95, 2997; (b) J. LLopis, H.-W. Liu, A. Miyawaki, M. G. Farquhar and
R. Y. Tsien, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 1998, 95, 6803.
In summary, using [EuL1]+, this calibration procedure
provides an efficient method for determining pH change within
the endoplasmic reticulum of living mammalian cells, either
c
This journal is The Royal Society of Chemistry 2013
Chem. Commun., 2013, 49, 5363--5365 5365