Advertisement

The Journal of Membrane Biology

, Volume 245, Issue 9, pp 583–590 | Cite as

The Systematic Study of the Electroporation and Electrofusion of B16-F1 and CHO Cells in Isotonic and Hypotonic Buffer

  • Marko Usaj
  • Masa Kanduser
Article

Abstract

The fusogenic state of the cell membrane can be induced by external electric field. When two fusogenic membranes are in close contact, cell fusion takes place. An appropriate hypotonic treatment of cells before the application of electric pulses significantly improves electrofusion efficiency. How hypotonic treatment improves electrofusion is still not known in detail. Our results indicate that at given induced transmembrane potential electroporation was not affected by buffer osmolarity. In contrast to electroporation, cells’ response to hypotonic treatment significantly affects their electrofusion. High fusion yield was observed when B16-F1 cells were used; this cell line in hypotonic buffer resulted in 41 ± 9 % yield, while in isotonic buffer 32 ± 11 % yield was observed. Based on our knowledge, these fusion yields determined in situ by dual-color fluorescence microscopy are among the highest in electrofusion research field. The use of hypotonic buffer was more crucial for electrofusion of CHO cells; the fusion yield increased from below 1 % in isotonic buffer to 10 ± 4 % in hypotonic buffer. Since the same degree of cell permeabilization was achieved in both buffers, these results indicate that hypotonic treatment significantly improves fusion yield. The effect could be attributed to improved physical contact of cell membranes or to enhanced fusogenic state of the cell membrane itself.

Keywords

Electroporation Electrofusion Isotonic buffer Hypotonic buffer B16-F1 CHO Fluorescence microscopy 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This research was supported by the Slovenian Research Agency under research programs P2-0249 and MRIC UL IP-0510. Research was conducted in the scope of the EBAM European Associated Laboratory. The authors thank Barbara Mali for her help with statistics.

References

  1. Ahkong QF, Lucy JA (1986) Osmotic forces in artificially induced cell fusion. Biochim Biophys Acta 858:206–216PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barrau C, Teissie J, Gabriel B (2004) Osmotically induced membrane tension facilitates the triggering of living cell electropermeabilization. Bioelectrochemistry 63:327–332PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Duelli D, Lazebnik Y (2003) Cell fusion: a hidden enemy? Cancer Cell 3:445–448PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Duelli D, Lazebnik Y (2007) Cell-to-cell fusion as a link between viruses and cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 7:968–976PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gabrijel M, Repnik U, Kreft M et al (2004) Quantification of cell hybridoma yields with confocal microscopy and flow cytometry. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 314:717–723PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Glaser RW, Donath E (1987) Hindrance of red-cell electrofusion by the cytoskeleton. Stud Biophys 121:37–43Google Scholar
  7. Golzio M, Mora M-P, Raynaud C et al (1998) Control by osmotic pressure of voltage-induced permeabilization and gene transfer in mammalian cells. Biophys J 74:3015–3022PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gottesman A, Milazzo J, Lazebnik Y (2010) V-fusion: a convenient, nontoxic method for cell fusion. Biotechniques 49:747–750PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hui SW, Stenger DA (1993) Electrofusion of cells: hybridoma production by electrofusion and polyethylene glycol. Methods Enzymol 220:212–227PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jaroszeski MJ, Gilbert R, Heller R (1998) Flow cytometric detection and quantitation of cell–cell electrofusion products. In: Jaroszeski MJ, Heller R (eds) Flow cytometry protocols. Humana Press, New York, pp 149–156Google Scholar
  11. Ju J, Ko J-M, Cha H-C et al (2009) An electrofusion chip with a cell delivery system driven by surface tension. J Micromech Microeng 19:015004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Karsten U, Stolley P, Walther I et al (1988) Direct comparison of electric field-mediated and PEG-mediated cell fusion for the generation of antibody producing hybridomas. Hybridoma 7:627–633PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kinosita K, Tsong TY (1979) Voltage-induced conductance in human erythrocyte membranes. Biochim Biophys Acta 554:479–497PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Klock G, Wisnewski AV, el-Bassiouni EA et al (1992) Human hybridoma generation by hypo-osmolar electrofusion: characterization of human monoclonal antibodies to Schistosoma mansoni parasite antigens. Hybridoma 11:469–481PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Koido S, Homma S, Hara E et al (2010) Regulation of tumor immunity by tumor/dendritic cell fusions. Clin Dev Immunol 2010:516768PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kotnik T, Bobanovic F, Miklavcic D (1997) Sensitivity of transmembrane voltage induced by applied electric fields—a theoretical analysis. Bioelectrochem Bioenerg 43:285–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Larsson LI, Bjerregaard B, Talts JF (2008) Cell fusions in mammals. Histochem Cell Biol 129:551–561PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lu X, Kang Y (2009) Cell fusion as a hidden force in tumor progression. Cancer Res 69:8536–8539PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McClenaghan NH (2007) Physiological regulation of the pancreatic β-cell: functional insights for understanding and therapy of diabetes. Exp Physiol 92:481–496PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Neil GA, Zimmermann U (1993) Electrofusion. Methods Enzymol 220:174–196PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Neumann E, Sowers AE, Jordan CA (1989) Electroporation and electrofusion in cell biology. Plenum Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Perkins S, Zimmermann U, Foung SK (1991) Parameters to enhance human hybridoma formation with hypoosmolar electrofusion. Hum Antibodies Hybrid 2:155–159Google Scholar
  23. Pucihar G, Miklavcic D, Kotnik T (2009) A time-dependent numerical model of transmembrane voltage inducement and electroporation of irregularly shaped cells. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 56:1491–1501PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Reuss R, Ludwig J, Shirakashi R et al (2004) Intracellular delivery of carbohydrates into mammalian cells through swelling-activated pathways. J Membr Biol 200:67–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rols MP, Teissie J (1990) Modulation of electrically induced permeabilization and fusion of Chinese hamster ovary cells by osmotic pressure. Biochemistry 29:4561–4567PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Salomskaite-Davalgiene S, Cepurniene K, Satkauskas S et al (2009) Extent of cell electrofusion in vitro and in vivo is cell line dependent. Anticancer Res 29:3125–3130PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Schmitt JJ, Zimmermann U (1989) Enhanced hybridoma production by electrofusion in strongly hypo-osmolar solutions. Biochim Biophys Acta 983:42–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Scott-Taylor TH, Pettengell R, Clarke I et al (2000) Human tumour and dendritic cell hybrids generated by electrofusion: potential for cancer vaccines. Biochim Biophys Acta 1500:265–279PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sretavan DW, Chang W, Hawkes E et al (2005) Microscale surgery on single axons. Neurosurgery 57:635–646PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stenger DA, Kubiniec RT, Purucker WJ et al (1988) Optimization of electrofusion parameters for efficient production of murine hybridomas. Hybridoma 7:505–518PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sukhorukov VL, Arnold WM, Zimmermann U (1993) Hypotonically induced changes in the plasma membrane of cultured mammalian cells. J Membr Biol 132:27–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Sukhorukov VL, Reuss R, Zimmermann D et al (2005) Surviving high-intensity field pulses: strategies for improving robustness and performance of electrotransfection and electrofusion. J Membr Biol 206:187–201PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sukhorukov VL, Reuss R, Endter JM et al (2006) A biophysical approach to the optimisation of dendritic-tumour cell electrofusion. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 346:829–839PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sullivan S, Eggan K (2006) The potential of cell fusion for human therapy. Stem Cell Rev 2:341–349PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Teissie J, Ramos C (1998) Correlation between electric field pulse induced long-lived permeabilization and fusogenicity in cell membranes. Biophys J 74:1889–1898PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Teissie J, Rols MP (1986) Fusion of mammalian cells in culture is obtained by creating the contact between cells after their electropermeabilization. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 140:258–266PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Toplak H, Batchiulis V, Hermetter A et al (1990) Effects of culture and incubation conditions on membrane fluidity in monolayers of cultured cells measured as fluorescence anisotropy using trimethylammoniumdiphenylhexatriene (TMA-DPH). Biochim Biophys Acta 1028:67–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Trontelj K, Rebersek M, Kanduser M et al (2008) Optimization of bulk cell electrofusion in vitro for production of human-mouse heterohybridoma cells. Bioelectrochemistry 74:124–129PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Trontelj K, Usaj M, Miklavcic D (2010) Cell electrofusion visualized with fluorescence microscopy. J Vis Exp 41:e1991Google Scholar
  40. Usaj M, Trontelj K, Hudej R et al (2009) Cell size dynamics and viability of cells exposed to hypotonic treatment and electroporation for electrofusion optimization. Radiol Oncol 43:108–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Usaj M, Trontelj K, Miklavcic D, Kanduser M (2010) Cell–cell electrofusion: optimization of electric field amplitude and hypotonic treatment for mouse melanoma (B16–F1) and Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells. J Membr Biol 236:107–116PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vienken J, Zimmermann U (1985) An improved electrofusion technique for production of mouse hybridoma cells. FEBS Lett 182:278–280PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. vor dem Esche U, Huber M, Zgaga-Griesz A et al (2011) Passive vaccination with a human monoclonal antibody: generation of antibodies and studies for efficacy in Bacillus anthracis infections. Immunobiology 216:847–853PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wang H-Y, Lu C (2006) High-throughput and real-time study of single cell electroporation using microfluidics: effects of medium osmolarity. Biotechnol Bioeng 95:1116–1125PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Weaver JC, Chizmadzhev YA (1996) Theory of electroporation: a review. Bioelectrochem Bioenerg 41:135–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Yamanaka S, Blau HM (2010) Nuclear reprogramming to a pluripotent state by three approaches. Nature 465:704–712PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yu X, McGraw PA, House FS, Crowe JE (2008) An optimized electrofusion-based protocol for generating virus-specific human monoclonal antibodies. J Immunol Methods 336:142–151PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zimmermann U, Neil GA (1996) Electromanipulation of cells. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  49. Zimmermann U, Gessner P, Schnettler R et al (1990) Efficient hybridization of mouse-human cell lines by means of hypo-osmolar electrofusion. J Immunol Methods 134:43–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Electrical EngineeringUniversity of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia

Personalised recommendations