Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2024 Jan 25;19(1):e0297585. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297585

Cold dispase digestion of murine lungs improves recovery and culture of airway epithelial cells

Piotr Pawel Janas 1, Caroline Chauché 1, Patrick Shearer 2, Georgia Perona-Wright 2, Henry J McSorley 3, Jürgen Schwarze 1,*
Editor: Dominique Heymann4
PMCID: PMC10810513  PMID: 38271372

Abstract

Airway epithelial cells (AECs) play a key role in maintaining lung homeostasis, epithelium regeneration and the initiation of pulmonary immune responses. To isolate and study murine AECs investigators have classically used short and hot (1h 37°C) digestion protocols. Here, we present a workflow for efficient AECs isolation and culture, utilizing long and cold (20h 4°C) dispase II digestion of murine lungs. This protocol yields a greater number of viable AECs compared to an established 1h 37°C dispase II digestion. Using a combination of flow cytometry and immunofluorescent microscopy, we demonstrate that compared to the established method, the cold digestion allows for recovery of a 3-fold higher number of CD45-CD31-EpCAM+ cells from murine lungs. Their viability is increased compared to established protocols, they can be isolated in larger numbers by magnetic-activated cell sorting (MACS), and they result in greater numbers of distal airway stem cell (DASC) KRT5+p63+ colonies in vitro. Our findings demonstrate that temperature and duration of murine lung enzymatic digestion have a considerable impact on AEC yield, viability, and ability to form colonies in vitro. We believe this workflow will be helpful for studying lung AECs and their role in the biology of lung.

Introduction

The airway epithelium forms an important barrier at the interface of environment and organism [1]. AECs consist of heterogenous groups of cells, including pneumocytes, goblet, club, ciliated and basal cells [2, 3]. Depending on the species and anatomic location in the airways, different proportions of AEC subsets have been observed. The epithelium of large airways in humans forms a pseudostratified layer with ciliated, goblet and club cells at the luminal side, while underlying basal cells are attached to the basement membrane. On the other hand, the pseudostratified epithelium in mice is limited to the trachea, with simpler columnar epithelium present in the bronchi [1]. It is thought that in mice the majority of airway basal cells are limited to the trachea, with sparse basal cells in bronchi [1]. Among AECs, basal cells keep the greatest degree of pluripotency allowing them to proliferate and differentiate into various subtypes of epithelial cells. Thus, basal cells play a major role in airway epithelium homeostasis and repair [2, 3] and they are also essential for in vitro primary AECs cultures since they can be maintained in a constant proliferative state [46]. However, another rare type of pluripotent airway epithelial progenitor cell, a distal airway stem cell (DASC) characterised by co-expression of p63 and Krt5 was described to play a substantial role in alveolar regeneration following injury in both humans and mice [3, 7, 8].

Isolated primary AECs are used in a range of in vitro experimental systems. Most commonly, when maintained in media containing differentiation inhibitors, primary AECs can be subcultured in a monolayer. However, when cultured in well-plate inserts with specialised media, air-liquid interface (ALI) cultures can be established [4]. ALI cultures recapitulate the epithelium of large airways as these cultures are pseudostratified and AECs differentiate into various subsets including ciliated, club or goblet cells. ALI cultures also exhibit mucociliary motion, produce mucus and develop tight junctions [911]. Subsets of AECs can also be cultured in a Matrigel matrix to generate tracheospheres, bronchiolospheres or alveolospheres [12, 13]. All these experimental systems can be used to study AEC biology at homeostasis, after injury e.g. by respiratory pathogens, and during regeneration.

In recent years, it has been recognised that AECs do not only form an inert barrier, but that they are a dynamic and versatile cell population that is involved in maintaining lung homeostasis [14], mounting initial immune responses [15] and lung regeneration following injury [16]. The manifold roles of AECs implicate them in pathogenesis of a number of diseases ranging from asthma [17], COPD [18] to lung fibrosis [19]. An increasing number of research questions focusing on AECs in various contexts creates a demand for improved and well-defined methodologies allowing for their efficient harvest, isolation and culture.

In order to study primary AECs in vitro, various digestion techniques have been employed that allow for disruption of cell junctions and connective tissue resulting in lung single cell suspension. To isolate and study AECs from a murine lung, researchers commonly utilize a combination of dispase II and DNase I enzymes at 37°C for 30-60min [2022] (hot digestion). However, when we employed this established digestion method, we found that the yield and viability of AECs was unsatisfactory in the context of MACS sorting and in vitro culture. We therefore investigated alternative workflows. While there are several digestion methods for murine lungs utilizing a range of enzymes including collagenases, dispases, liberase, pronase and trypsin [23], we investigated the effects of digestion time and temperature rather than the type of enzyme. It has been shown that long, overnight digestion can be beneficial to yield and efficiency when isolating cells from human skin [24], or human brain tissue [25]. Following on from a method where murine tracheas were digested for 18h at 4°C using pronase, however without benchmarking of cell yield against other frequently employed methods [9], we assessed a 20h 4°C dispase II/DNase I digestion of murine lungs (cold digestion). We coupled presented hot and cold digestions with a two-step MACS sorting that allows for depletion of CD45+ and CD31+ and enrichment of EpCAM+ cells. The initial depletion step ensures that none of the EpCAM-expressing macrophages [26] are enriched together with epithelial cells.

Here, we present a workflow that in comparison to the commonly used hot dispase digestion allows for retrieval of a 3-fold higher number of CD45-CD31-EpCAM+ AECs with a higher proportion of viable cells. This in turn allows for recovery of greater numbers of AECs after MACS sorting and a greater yield of keratin 5 (KRT5)+ p63+ DASC colonies in vitro after seven-day culture.

Materials and methods

Animals

C57BL/6 mice were bred and housed at the University of Edinburgh. Mice were housed in individually ventilated cages. All procedures approved by the University of Edinburgh Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Board, and performed under UK Home Office licenses with institutional oversight performed by qualified veterinarians. UK Home Office project license to JS, number P4871232F. ARRIVE guidelines were followed.

Murine lung harvest and digestion

Adult C57BL/6 mice over six weeks of age were anaesthetized with a 1:1 mixture of ketamine and medetomidine through intraperitoneal (IP) injection with a dose dependent on the body weight. Cervical dislocation was carried out, and death confirmed by terminal exsanguination. The abdominal aorta was cut, and the trachea exposed by removing the salivary glands. The trachea was then cannulated using a blunt needle and bronchoalveolar lavage with pre-warmed Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle Medium/Nutrient Mixture F-12 (DMEM/F12) (Gibco) was performed (three times 0.8ml per mouse). The rib cage was then removed, and cardiovascular system was flushed by injecting 10ml of ice-cold DMEM/F12 into the right ventricle. A volume of 1.5-2ml of enzyme mix was then slowly injected through the tracheal cannula into the lungs, which were then re-moved (lungs were dissected out of the thoracic cavity by cutting at the primary bronchial bifurcation) and placed in 3ml of digestion mixture (2mg/ml Dispase II (Sigma-Aldrich) + 0.1mg/ml DNaseI (Sigma-Aldrich) re-suspended in DMEM/F12 (Gibco) + 1% v/v Penicillin-Streptomycin (Gibco)). The digestion mixture was previously filtered through 0.22μm filter and frozen. Lungs were then incubated for 1h at 37°C or 20h at 4°C. The digestion solution together with lungs was then poured onto a 70μm strainer, lungs were then dissociated using a 5ml syringe plunger by gently agitating the lungs on the mesh. The strainer was then washed using 10ml of dispase wash (DMEM/F12 (Gibco) + 0.05mg/ml DNaseI (Sigma-Aldrich) + 1% v/v Penicillin-Streptomycin (Gibco)). Each sample was then centrifuged for 15min, 4°C, 130 relative centrifugal force (RCF). The supernatant was then removed and 2ml of ice-cold ACK red blood cell lysis (Gibco) was added to each tube, samples were swirled for 90s, and 5ml of MACS buffer (Phosphate-buffered saline (PBS)—no Mg2+ and Ca2+ + 0.5% bovine serum albumin (BSA) + 2mM ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA)) + 1% v/v Penicillin/Streptomycin (10,000 U/ml, Gibco) was added. Samples were then passed through a 40μm strainer, washed with 5ml of MACS buffer and centrifuged for 5min, 4°C at 300 RCF. Each sample was then resuspended in 1ml of MACS buffer and blocked with 5μl of 0.5mg/ml anti-mouse CD16/32 antibody (BioLegend) ready for further MACS processing or flow cytometry staining.

Airway epithelial cell sorting (MACS)

After incubation cells were centrifuged for 5min, 4°C, 300 RCF and resuspended in 85μl of MACS buffer + 5μl of anti-CD31 microbeads and 10μl of anti-CD45 microbeads (Miltenyi Biotec) per 107 total cells. Samples were then incubated for 30 minutes on ice. Each sample was then washed with 1ml/107 cells of MACS buffer and centrifuged for 5min, 4°C at 300 RCF. Cells were then passed through LS MACS columns (Miltenyi Biotec) on a QuadroMACS separator (Miltenyi Biotec) and flowthrough was collected. Collected cells were then centrifuged for 5min, 4°C, 300 RCF and resuspended in left-over liquid, and 15μl of anti-EpCAM microbeads (Miltenyi Biotec) was added. Samples were incubated on ice for 30 minutes, washed with 1ml MACS buffer, and centrifuged for 5min, 4°C, 300 RCF. Supernatant was discarded, and cells were resuspended in 500μl of MACS buffer. The cell suspension was then passed through a MS MACS column using an OctoMACS separator (Miltenyi Biotec). EpCAM+ cells were then gently flushed out of the column by applying 2ml of MACS buffer and inserting the plunger into the column. Cells were then centrifuged for 5min at 4°C, 300 RCF, supernatant was removed, and the cell pellet was resuspended in 0.5ml of supplemented airway epithelial growth media. 10μl of cell suspension was then aspirated and gently mixed with 10μl of 0.1% trypan blue (Gibco) by pipetting up and down. Immediately afterwards, 10μl of cell suspension was placed in Neubauer improved counting chamber (haemocytometer) and covered with coverslip. Cells were then manually counted and total amount of live (trypan blue negative) and dead (trypan blue positive) cells in suspension was calculated.

Primary AECs in vitro culture

24-well plates were coated with a coating solution that combines 30μg/ml of type I calf skin collagen (Sigma-Aldrich), 10μg/ml human placental fibronectin (Bio-Techne) and 10μg/ml bovine serum albumin (BSA–Sigma-Aldrich) in HBS (Gibco), for at least 4-8h at 37°C. A total of 2x105 MACS sorted AECs were seeded per well and 0.5ml media was changed after 24h, and then every two days thereafter. Media were prepared by combining supplemented PromoCell Epithelial Growth Medium with 1μM A 83–01 (STEMCELL Technologies) and 0.2μM DMH1 (STEMCELL Technologies) SMAD signalling inhibitors, 5μM Y-27632 ROCK (STEMCELL Technologies) pathway inhibitor, 0.5μM CHIR99021 (STEMCELL Technologies) WNT pathway activator and 1% v/v Penicillin/Streptomycin (Gibco). Cells were cultured for seven days, followed by immunofluorescent microscopy of each well.

The protocol described in this peer-reviewed article is published on protocols.io (https://dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.rm7vzxo68gx1/v1) and is included for printing purposes as S1 File.

Immunofluorescent microscopy

Cells in each well were washed with PBS three times and fixed using 4% PFA solution for 10min at room temperature (RT). Fixed cells were then stored in 70% Ethanol at 4°C until staining. Cells were permeabilised with a 1% BSA and 0.2% triton X-100 (Sigma-Aldrich) solution at RT for 10min. Cells were then blocked for 45min at RT using a 5% goat serum, 1% BSA and 0.1% Tween-20 (Sigma-Aldrich) in PBS. Cells were then stained with a mix of primary antibodies (anti-KRT5, anti-p63 and anti-E-Cadherin-eF660), overnight at 4°C, followed by three washes with blocking buffer (each wash for 5min) and staining with secondary antibodies (anti-rabbit-AF488, anti-mouse-AF555) as well as 1:500 10mg/ml Hoechst (Invitrogen) for nuclear counter stain for 1h at RT (Table 1). Secondary antibodies were then washed away with three washes (each wash for 5min) with blocking buffer followed by filling each well with 0.7ml PBS.

Table 1. Immunofluorescent microscopy antibodies.

Antibody name Supplier Host species Antibody type Clone Catalogue number Antibody Registry ID Dilution
Anti-p63 Abcam Mouse Monoclonal 4A4 ab735 AB_305870 1:200
Anti-KRT5 BioLegend Rabbit Polyclonal Poly19055 905503 AB_2734679 1:500
Anti-E-cadherin (CD324) eFluor 660 Thermo Fisher Scientific Rat Monoclonal DECMA-1 50-3249-82 AB_11040003 1:30
Rat IgG1 kappa Isotype Control (eBRG1) eFluor 660 Thermo Fisher Scientific Rat Isotype control eBRG1 50-4301-82 AB_10598505 1:30
Goat Anti-Rabbit IgG (H+L) Alexa Fluor 488 Thermo Fisher Scientific Goat Polyclonal, secondary Reactivity—rabbit A-11008 AB_143165 1:200
Goat Anti-Mouse IgG (H&L) Alexa Fluor 555 Abcam Goat Polyclonal—secondary Reactivity—mouse ab150114 AB_2687594 1:200

Imaging was performed using EVOS FL Auto 2 (Thermo Fisher Scientific), using 20x objective as well as DAPI, GFP and RFP light cubes. Scans were set to a custom calibrated Corning 24-well plate, where 25% of each well was scanned from the middle using the “more overlap” setting and manually set focus for each channel. Images were analysed using ImageJ, with ICA LUT (look-up table) set for KRT5 for easier basal AECs identification. All micrograph related colony counting was performed while blinded.

Surface area of KRT5 colonies was calculated using ImageJ. At first KRT5 images were converted to 8-bit. Then images were smoothed out using median filter (7px value), followed by thresholding using “mean setting”. Images were then converted to binary format and surface area of black pixels was calculated using “Analyze particles” tool. Obtained pixel numbers were then converted to total surface in mm2 based on image metadata (scale).

Flow Cytometry

Following digestion, numbers of cells in each sample were calculated using a haemocytometer. 0.5x106 total cells from each sample were then washed twice with PBS and stained using a LIVE/DEAD fixable near-IR stain (Invitrogen) in PBS for 30min on ice, followed by two washes with PBS and staining with a combination of anti-CD45, anti-CD31 and anti-EpCAM in PBS + 1% BSA for 30min on ice (Table 2). Stained samples were then washed twice with PBS + 1% BSA. Whole samples were acquired and unmixed using Cytek Aurora with Cytek SpectroFlo 3.0.3 and analysed using De Novo Software FCSexpress 7.

Table 2. Flow cytometry antibodies.

Antibody name Supplier Host species Antibody type Clone Catalogue number Antibody Registry ID Dilution
Anti-CD45 Pacific Blue BioLegend Rat Monoclonal S18009F 157212 AB_2876534 1:200
Anti-CD45 AF700 BioLegend Rat Monoclonal S18009F 157210 AB_2860730 1:200
Anti-CD31 BV605 BioLegend Rat Monoclonal 390 102427 AB_2563982 1:600
Anti-CD31 BV421 BioLegend Rat Monoclonal 390 102423 AB_2562186 1:300
Anti-EpCAM PE/Dazzle594 BioLegend Rat Monoclonal G8.8 118236 AB_2632777 1:300
Anti-EpCAM BV605 BioLegend Rat Monoclonal G8.8 118227 AB_2563984 1:300
Anti-CD24 PE/Cyanine7 BioLegend Rat Monoclonal M1/69 101821 AB_756048 1:200
Anti-CD49f BV605 BioLegend Rat Monoclonal GoH3 313625 AB_2616782 1:100

The gating strategy involved debris exclusion (side scatter/forward scatter–SSC-H/FSC-H), followed by selection for singlets (FSC-H/FSC-A) and dead cell exclusion (LIVE/DEAD Fixable Near IR/FSC-H). Dead cell exclusion was performed at the end of gating strategy for viability evaluation in Fig 2B. Leukocytes and endothelial cells were then excluded using CD45/CD31 gate, followed by selection for AECs with EpCAM/SSC-H gate.

Fig 2. Cold dispase II digest improves the viability and yield of highly pure MACS sorted CD45-CD31-EpCAM+ cells.

Fig 2

(a) Representative gating strategy for hot and cold digestion following debris exclusion (FSC/SSC) and singlets (FSC-H/FSC-A) for analysis of viability of CD45-CD31-EpCAM+ AECs. (b) Comparison of frequency of viable FACS-sorted CD45-CD31-EpCAM+ through live/dead near-IR fixable dye. Unpaired t-test (n = 21–33), median ± min/max. (c) Comparison of cell yield between the digest methods after CD45, CD31 MACS depletion and EpCAM+ MACS selection. Quantification using haemocytometer and trypan blue live/dead exclusion. Unpaired t-test (n = 8), median ± min/max. (d) Evaluation of cell suspension purity after MACS sorting CD45-CD31-EpCAM+ cells using flow cytometry. Each data point corresponds to a single murine lung. (e) Validating the CD45-CD31-EpCAM+ cells identity. CD45-CD31-EpCAM+ cells also express CD49f and CD24. Presented gating followed debris exclusion (FSC/SSC), singlets gating (FSC-H/FSC-A), live cells gating (LIVE/DEAD fixable near-IR/FSC-H), CD45 and CD31 exclusion (CD45/CD31) and EpCAM+ gating (EpCAM/FSC-H).

RNA isolation and qPCR (quantitative polymerase chain reaction)

After CD45-CD31-EpCAM+ MACS sorting cells were centrifuged for 5min, 4°C, 300 RCF and resuspended in 0.5ml of TRizol. Following 5min incubation at RT, samples were stored at -80°C before further processing. Samples were then thawed and 100μl of bromochloropropane (Sigma-Aldrich) was added per 500μl of TRizol. Samples were shaken vigorously for 30s until they acquired a milky-pink shade. Samples were then incubated at RT for 10min, and then cooled down on ice for 5min before centrifugation at 4°C, 16,000 RCF for 20min. 200μl of the top aqueous phase was then transferred to fresh Eppendorf test tubes and 250μl of RNase-free isopropanol (Merck) and 1μl of GlycoBlue Coprecipitant (Invitrogen) were added. Test tubes were inverted ten times and incubated at RT for 10min, followed by centrifugation at 4°C, 16,000 RCF for 10min. Blue RNA pellet could now be observed at the bottom of test tubes. Supernatant was removed and pellet was washed three times using 1ml of RNase-free 75% EtOH (Merck), with 5min 4°C, 16,000 RCF centrifugations between each wash. After final wash, ethanol was discarded, and pellets were air-dried until no liquid could be seen in test tubes. Pellets were then resuspended in 30μl of RNAse-free water (QIAGEN), and amount of RNA was quantified using NanoDrop One/OneC Microvolume UV-Vis Spectrophotometer (Thermo Scientific). The amount of RNA was normalised in each sample using RNase-free water and 300ng of RNA was converted to cDNA using High-Capacity cDNA Reverse Transcription Kit (Applied Biosystems). qPCRs were performed in duplicates using Fast SYBR Green Master Mix (Applied Biosystems) and StepOne (Thermo Fisher Scientific) thermocycler. 100nM of forward and reverse primers, as well as 10ng of cDNA, were added to each qPCR reaction (Table 3). Rpl37 was used as an endogenous control. Genomic DNA contamination was assessed by performing a qPCR reaction on non-reverse transcribed RNA sample.

Table 3. List of qPCR primers.

Primer Sequence
Ldha forward CATTGTCAAGTACAGTCCACACT
Ldha reverse TTCCAATTACTCGGTTTTTGGGA
Rpl37 forward CCAAGCGCAAGAGGAAGTATAAC
Rpl37 reverse GAATCCATGTCTGAATCTGCGG

Statistical analysis

Data in the plots are represented as medians with boxes representing interquartile ranges and bars corresponding to minima and maxima. MFI is reported as median fluorescence intensity. D’Agostino & Pearson test was used to assess the normality of data distribution. Statistical differences were assessed using a parametric unpaired two-tailed t-test. All outliers were included. Data in the text is presented as means with standard error. All statistical analysis was performed using GraphPad Prism 8.4.3.

Results

Cold digestion provides greater yield and viability of AECs compared to hot digestion

We used flow cytometry (Fig 1A) to assess the yield of three different cell populations after a 1h 37°C dispase II/DNase I digestion of murine lungs. On average, we obtained 5.55 ± 0.05 x105 CD45-CD31-EpCAM+ AECs (7% of total cells), 7.35 ± 0.59 x106 CD45+ immune cells and 2.10 ± 0.03 x105 CD31+ endothelial cells (Fig 1B).

Fig 1. Flow cytometric analysis of murine lung digests with lung inflation, comparing the number of cells after hot (1h, 37°C) or cold (20h, 4°C) digests.

Fig 1

(a) Representative gating strategy following debris exclusion (FSC/SSC), singlets (FSC-H/FSC-A) and dead cells exclusion (LIVE/DEAD fixable near-IR). CD45-CD31- cells are gated, followed by EpCAM+ gating. (b) Number of CD45-CD31-EpCAM+ AECs, CD31+ endothelial cells or CD45+ leukocytes. (c) Comparison of relative MFI (median) values for EpCAM, CD45 and CD31 between cold and hot digests within respective CD45-CD31-EpCAM+, CD45+ and CD31+ gates. Each data point represents a lung from a single mouse. Unpaired t-test, median ± min/max.

We decided to investigate whether the use of cold digestion of murine lungs would increase the yield and/or viability of AECs. Using the cold digestion approach, the average number of isolated CD45-CD31-EpCAM+ AECs increased to 1.46 ± 0.15 x106, almost 3-fold the number obtained following hot digestion. Likewise, the number of CD31+ endothelial cells obtained with the cold digestion (4.27 ± 0.05 x105) was almost 2-fold higher than after hot digestion. Conversely, the number of CD45+ cells was similar between the two digestion techniques. This suggests that the cold digestion approach is beneficial for recovery of structural cells from the lung, while obtaining similar numbers of lung immune cells.

While several cell surface markers like CD4, CD8 or PD-1L are known to be sensitive to dispase II digestion [27], we did not find any changes in expression levels of CD45, CD31 and EpCAM between the digestion methods as seen by comparable MFI (median) levels of each marker irrespective of digestion method (Fig 1C). We also did not observe loss of several AECs-related cell surface markers such as major histocompatibility (MHC) I, MHC-II or CD24 (S1 Fig).

Following cold digestion, more AECs are viable compared to hot digestion

Next, we compared the viability of isolated AECs between cold and hot lung digestions by flow cytometry, assessing the proportion of live cells within the CD45-CD31-EpCAM+ population in single cell suspension, with the gating strategy shown in Fig 2A. We found that on average 83.99 ± 1.16% of CD45-CD31-EpCAM+ cells from cold lung digestions were alive, compared to 56.65 ± 3.16% after hot digestion, a 1.48-fold increase in viable AECs (Fig 2B). Despite differences in viability of AECs, we did not observe changes in levels of Ldha (a marker of oxidative stress) [28] between digestion methods (S2 Fig).

Given this increased viability, we hypothesised that MACS sorting, and subsequent seeding of AECs isolated by cold digestion would result in a greater number of basal AEC colonies in in vitro cultures, comparted to hot digestion. Performing double MACS sorting with initial CD45 and CD31 depletion followed by EpCAM positive selection, we recovered substantially more AECs following cold digestion (5.30 ± 0.45 x105 AECs) compared to hot digestion (2.97 ± 0.26 x105 AECs) which is equivalent to a 1.78-fold increase in number of viable AECs (Fig 2C). The AECs recovered after MACS sorting were highly pure (Fig 2D), with average purity of 96.35 ± 0.75% CD45-CD31-EpCAM+ cells of live cells. To confirm the airway epithelial identity of sorted CD45-CD31-EpCAM+ we used flow cytometry to confirm that these cells also express other epithelial markers. Virtually all CD45-CD31-EpCAM+ cells also expressed CD49f (integrin α6) [29, 30] and CD24 [31, 32] (Fig 2E), albeit as expected, at vastly varying levels.

Following cold digestion and MACS sorting, more basal cell colonies proliferate in vitro

To investigate if the observed increase in AEC viability with cold digestion translated to greater recovery of airway basal cells in vitro, we seeded 2x105 MACS sorted CD45-CD31-EpCAM+ cells (98% purity) from hot or cold lung digestions into 24-well plates (workflow indicated in Fig 3A). Cells were cultured for seven days in Promocell airway epithelial media supplemented with differentiation inhibitors and a Wnt pathway activator [4, 33, 34]. After seven days the cells were fixed and stained for markers of epithelial (E-cadherin) and basal cells (KRT5 and p63) [1, 35]. Then 25% of the surface area of each 24-well plate was imaged and the number of basal cell colonies was quantified, as well as the total surface area of KRT5+ cell colonies per well (Fig 3B). KRT5+ colony morphology was visualized using phase-contrast microscopy (Fig 3C). On average there were 21 ± 2.97 basal cell colonies after hot digestion and 34 ± 2.98 colonies after cold digestion per 52.6mm2, which equals to a 1.62-fold increase in colony counts. When we assessed the total surface area of KRT5+ colonies between the two digestion methods, we found a 2.3-fold increase in colony surface area with an average surface area occupied by KRT5+ colonies of 0.66 ± 0.13mm2 after cold digestions compared to 0.30 ± 0.07mm2 after hot digestions (Fig 3D). Furthermore, there were very few E-cadherin negative non-epithelial cells in cultures irrespective of the digestion method employed, suggesting that the combination of cold digestion, MACS sorting, and appropriate media allows for propagating highly pure AECs.

Fig 3. Improved AECs viability translates to a better performance in in vitro culture.

Fig 3

Cold digestion culture yields a greater number of basal cell colonies, which occupy a larger area. (a) Workflow diagram representing the steps involved in digesting the murine lungs and MACS sorting AECs for in vitro culture. (b) Representative immunofluorescent micrographs (cold and hot digestions) of P63 (red), KRT5 (green), Hoechst (blue) and E-Cadherin (magenta) used for quantification of the number of P63 and KRT5 double positive colonies. Scale bar 0.1mm. 25% of each 24-WP well imaged, which equals to area of 52.6mm2. Each well was imaged using 20x objective starting from the centre. (c) 20x magnification phase-contrast (grey) image overlayed with immunofluorescent KRT5 (green) and Hoechst (blue) images to present morphology of KRT5+ cells following cold digestion. Scale bar (white bar), 100μm (d) Quantification of the number (left) and surface area (right) of basal AECs colonies. Colony was defined as ten E-cadh/P63/KRT5+ cells in immediate vicinity. Colony numbers were quantified based on E-cadh/P63/KRT5+ cells, while colony surface was quantified using only KRT5 pixels. Unpaired t-test (n = 8), median ± min/max. Each data point is a single well cultured from MACS sorted CD45-CD31- EpCAM+ isolated from a single murine lung.

Discussion

Here, we demonstrate that by changing standard dispase II/DNase I digestion conditions from 1h 37°C to 20h 4°C we are able to obtain significantly greater numbers of lung structural cells, including AECs. This, together with the observation that a higher proportion of AECs are viable after cold digestion suggests that there is a potential to employ cold dispase II lung digestion for establishing primary murine AECs cultures in vitro. Indeed, in combination with MACS CD45-CD31-EpCAM+ AEC sorting, we demonstrate that culture of AECs after cold dispase digestion results in a significantly greater number of DASC colonies with a larger surface area than after hot digestion. Although establishing culture protocols for murine lung airway epithelial progenitors was not within the scope of this project, by altering media composition we were able to culture CD45-CD31-EpCAM+ MACS sorted cells for up to 14 days over two passages (S3A Fig). Additionally, all cells did express KRT5 at the end of passaging period (S3B Fig).

These improvements overcome the need for pooled AEC isolates from several mice [9, 32, 36] and allow for a more comprehensive analysis of AECs from individual animals. This will contribute to the principles of replacement, reduction, and refinement (3R) [37] by reducing the number of mice used in AEC research. However, the greater yield and viability are not the only benefits. The fact that after cold digestion the number of isolated AECs increases substantially suggests that overall AEC populations, including rare and difficult-to-isolate populations, may be better represented in comparison to hot digestion. While further analysis is required to formally confirm our prediction, this is likely to have major implications for researchers studying transcriptomics, epigenomics or proteomics of isolated murine AECs, especially at single cell level. It is possible that by employing hot digestion, only the mostly easily dislodged and/or the most robust AECs are released and survive, potentially skewing analysis. When comparing the abundance of cell types in the murine lung between single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNAseq) and single-nuclear RNA sequencing (snRNAseq), it was reported that scRNAseq under-represents epithelial population in comparison to snRNAseq. Indeed, neuroendocrine and basal cells were exclusively seen in the snRNAseq data sets, while type-1 pneumocytes, club cells and ciliated cells were much better represented in scRNAseq. This might be explained by the fact that single-cell suspension for the scRNAseq is obtained through enzymatic digestion, while nuclei for snRNAseq are isolated through physical dissociation of the tissue [38]. This observation therefore suggests that, in order to isolate representative live epithelial populations through enzymatic digestion, further optimisation is required.

A method commonly used in combination with AEC isolation from tracheas is the removal of fibroblasts by adherence, which requires an additional incubation step, which may further contribute to deteriorating the viability of AECs [9, 39]. Alternatively, FACS is used to sort AECs from lung digestions, however, FACS may not only be detrimental to viability of sorted cells, but also limits the number of samples that can be sorted in parallel [40, 41]. Here we suggest combining the cold digestion approach with a two-step MACS sorting of CD45-CD31-EpCAM+ cells, which allows for parallel sorting of multiple highly pure samples from larger animal cohorts.

Historically, researchers used tracheas to isolate basal cells from murine airways [4, 9], however, the workflow presented here allows for isolation of sufficient numbers of viable airway epithelial progenitor cells from the lung (without trachea) for successful in vitro cultures. These lung-derived progenitor cells differ from their tracheal counterparts [42], and culture models based on lung derived basal cells may allow a closer representation of the pulmonary epithelium.

In conclusion, we have established a workflow which is based on cold dispase II/DNase I digestion that allows for recovery of a greater number of highly viable AECs, which together with MACS sorting enables quick and parallel isolation of highly pure AEC populations from murine lungs that are suitable for in vitro culture.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Cold digestion with dispase II does not remove MHC-I, MHC-II or CD24 from the surface of CD45-CD31-EpCAM+ cells.

Following debris exclusion (FSC/SSC), singlets gating (FSC-H/FSC-A), live cells gating (LIVE/DEAD fixable near-IR/FSC-H), CD45 and CD31 exclusion (CD45/CD31) and EpCAM+ gating (EpCAM/FSC-H) expression of MHC-I, MHC-II and CD24 was evaluated. Gating was based on fluorescence minus one (FMO) controls.

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Digestion type does not affect cellular oxidative stress based on LDHa (lactate dehydrogenase) levels.

Following either hot or cold digestion CD45-CD31-EpCAM+ cells were MACS sorted and RNA isolated using Trizol and chloroform-based RNA isolation. SYBR green qPCR was performed, with Rpl37a as endogenous control. N = 3–4.

(TIF)

S3 Fig. Murine AECs can be passaged (P0-2) following cold digestion and CD45-CD31-EpCAM+ MACS sorting.

(a) Following cold digestion, murine AECs (CD34-CD31-EpCAM+) were MACS sorted and 2x105 cells were seeded into a 24-well plate and cultured in a Stemcell PneumaCult Ex-Plus medium with 10μM Y-27632, 3μM CHIR99021, 1μM A 83–01 for 14 days. Cells were passaged twice. Each time cells were detached using TrypLE and split 1:10 into a larger well plate starting from 24-well plate (P0), followed by 12-well plate (P1) and lastly a 6-well plate (P2). Once cells reached confluency at the end of passage 2, cells were lifted up using TrypLE and 1.4x106 live cells (trypan blue exclusion) were counted using haemocytometer. Six 10x objective phase-contrast single fields of view (3x2) were stitched together. Scale bar 400μm. N>2. (b) All cells express KRT5 (green) after three passages of CD45-CD31-EpCAM+ MACS sorted AECs. Scale bar, 300μm.

(TIF)

S1 Protocol. Step-by-step protocol including materials and recipes.

(DOCX)

S1 File. Step-by-step protocol, also available on protocols.io.

https://dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.rm7vzxo68gx1/v1.

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

PPJ and JS thank the Breathing Together Consortium for their support. We gratefully acknowledge assistance and expertise from the Bioresearch and Veterinary staff, Flow Core Facility and Microscopy Core Facility at the University of Edinburgh.

Data Availability

Data is now available from Edinburgh Data Share public data repository with assigned DOI - https://doi.org/10.7488/ds/7506.

Funding Statement

PJ - PHD16-19 BUSH - British Lung Fundation - https://statistics.blf.org.uk/ - NO CC - VET/2020 -1 EPDF 7 - Horserace Betting Levy Board - https://www.hblb.org.uk/ - NO.

References

  • 1.Rock JR, Randell SH, Hogan BLM. Airway basal stem cells: A perspective on their roles in epithelial homeostasis and remodeling. Dis Model Mech. 2010;3: 545–556. doi: 10.1242/dmm.006031 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Vaughan AE, Brumwell AN, Xi Y, Gotts J, Brownfield DG, Treutlein B, et al. Lineage-negative Progenitors Mobilize to Regenerate Lung Epithelium after Major Injury. Nature. 2015;517: 621–625. doi: 10.1038/nature14112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Zuo W, Zhang T, Wu DZ, Guan SP, Liew A-A, Yamamoto Y, et al. p63+Krt5+ distal airway stem cells are essential for lung regeneration. Nature. 2015;517: 616–620. doi: 10.1038/nature13903 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Eenjes E, Mertens TCJ, Kempen MJB, Wijck Y van, Taube C, Rottier RJ, et al. A novel method for expansion and differentiation of mouse tracheal epithelial cells in culture. Sci Rep-uk. 2018;8: 7349. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-25799-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.McQualter JL, Yuen K, Williams B, Bertoncello I. Evidence of an epithelial stem/progenitor cell hierarchy in the adult mouse lung. Proc National Acad Sci. 2010;107: 1414–1419. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0909207107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Jiang D, Schaefer N, Chu HW Air-Liquid Interface Culture of Human and Mouse Airway Epithelial Cells. Methods Mol Biology. 2018;1809: 91–109. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-8570-8_8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Kumar PA, Hu Y, Yamamoto Y, Hoe NB, Wei TS, Mu D, et al. Distal airway stem cells yield alveoli in vitro and during lung regeneration following H1N1 influenza infection. Cell. 2011;147: 525–538. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2011.10.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Zhou Y, Wang Y, Li D, Zhang T, Ma Y, Zuo W. Stable Long-Term Culture of Human Distal Airway Stem Cells for Transplantation. Stem Cells Int. 2021;2021: 9974635. doi: 10.1155/2021/9974635 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.You Y, Richer EJ, Huang T, Brody SL. Growth and differentiation of mouse tracheal epithelial cells: selection of a proliferative population. Am J Physiol-lung C. 2002;283: L1315–L1321. doi: 10.1152/ajplung.00169.2002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Davidson DJ, Kilanowski FM, Randell SH, Sheppard DN, Dorin JR. A primary culture model of differentiated murine tracheal epithelium. Am J Physiol-lung C. 2000;279: L766–L778. doi: 10.1152/ajplung.2000.279.4.L766 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Broadbent L, Villenave R, Guo-Parke H, Douglas I, Shields MD, Power UF. In Vitro Modeling of RSV Infection and Cytopathogenesis in Well-Differentiated Human Primary Airway Epithelial Cells (WD-PAECs). Methods Mol Biology. 2016;1442: 119–139. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-3687-8_9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Vazquez-Armendariz AI, Seeger W, Herold S, Agha EE. Protocol for the generation of murine bronchiolospheres. Star Protoc. 2021;2: 100594. doi: 10.1016/j.xpro.2021.100594 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Kong J, Wen S, Cao W, Yue P, Xu X, Zhang Y, et al. Lung organoids, useful tools for investigating epithelial repair after lung injury. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2021;12: 95. doi: 10.1186/s13287-021-02172-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Teixeira VH, Nadarajan P, Graham TA, Pipinikas CP, Brown JM, Falzon M, et al. Stochastic homeostasis in human airway epithelium is achieved by neutral competition of basal cell progenitors. Elife. 2013;2: e00966. doi: 10.7554/eLife.00966 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Weitnauer M, Mijošek V, Dalpke AH. Control of local immunity by airway epithelial cells. Mucosal Immunol. 2016;9: 287–298. doi: 10.1038/mi.2015.126 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Crosby LM, Waters CM. Epithelial repair mechanisms in the lung. Am J Physiol-lung C. 2010;298: L715–L731. doi: 10.1152/ajplung.00361.2009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Heijink IH, Kuchibhotla V, Roffel MP, Maes T, Knight DA, Sayers I, et al. Epithelial cell dysfunction, a major driver of asthma development. Allergy. 2020;75: 1902–1917. doi: 10.1111/all.14421 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Gao W, Li L, Wang Y, Zhang S, Adcock IM, Barnes PJ, et al. Bronchial epithelial cells in COPD. Respirology. 2015;20: 722–729. doi: 10.1111/resp.12542 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Chakraborty A, Mastalerz M, Ansari M, Schiller HB, Staab-Weijnitz CA. Emerging Roles of Airway Epithelial Cells in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis. Cells. 2022;11: 1050. doi: 10.3390/cells11061050 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Quantius J, Schmoldt C, Vazquez-Armendariz AI, Becker C, Agha EE, Wilhelm J, et al. Influenza Virus Infects Epithelial Stem/Progenitor Cells of the Distal Lung: Impact on Fgfr2b-Driven Epithelial Repair. PLoS Pathog. 2016;12: e1005544. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1005544 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Raoust E, Balloy V, Garcia-Verdugo I, Touqui L, Ramphal R, Chignard M. Pseudomonas aeruginosa LPS or Flagellin Are Sufficient to Activate TLR-Dependent Signaling in Murine Alveolar Macrophages and Airway Epithelial Cells. Plos One. 2009;4: e7259. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0007259 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Naikawadi RP, Disayabutr S, Mallavia B, Donne ML, Green G, La JL, et al. Telomere dysfunction in alveolar epithelial cells causes lung remodeling and fibrosis. Jci Insight. 2016;1: e86704. doi: 10.1172/jci.insight.86704 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Corporation WB. Worthington Enzyme Manual. Available: https://www.worthington-biochem.com/tissuedissociation/Lung.html [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Supp DM, Hahn JM, Combs KA, McFarland KL, Powell HM. Isolation and feeder-free primary culture of four cell types from a single human skin sample. Star Protoc. 2022;3: 101172. doi: 10.1016/j.xpro.2022.101172 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Volovitz I, Shapira N, Ezer H, Gafni A, Lustgarten M, Alter T, et al. A non-aggressive, highly efficient, enzymatic method for dissociation of human brain-tumors and brain-tissues to viable single-cells. Bmc Neurosci. 2016;17: 30. doi: 10.1186/s12868-016-0262-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Gautier EL, Shay T, Miller J, Greter M, Jakubzick C, Ivanov S, et al. Gene-expression profiles and transcriptional regulatory pathways that underlie the identity and diversity of mouse tissue macrophages. Nat Immunol. 2012;13: 1118–1128. doi: 10.1038/ni.2419 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Autengruber A, Gereke M, Hansen G, Hennig C, Bruder D. Impact of enzymatic tissue disintegration on the level of surface molecule expression and immune cell function. European J Microbiol Immunol. 2012;2: 112–120. doi: 10.1556/EuJMI.2.2012.2.3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Mokwatsi GG, Schutte AE, Kruger R. A biomarker of tissue damage, lactate dehydrogenase, is associated with fibulin-1 and oxidative stress in blacks: the SAfrEIC study. Biomarkers. 2015;21: 48–55. doi: 10.3109/1354750X.2015.1118532 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Li X, Rossen N, Sinn PL, Hornick AL, Steines BR, Karp PH, et al. Integrin α6β4 Identifies Human Distal Lung Epithelial Progenitor Cells with Potential as a Cell-Based Therapy for Cystic Fibrosis Lung Disease. Plos One. 2013;8: e83624. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0083624 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Chernaya O, Shinin V, Liu Y, Minshall RD. Behavioral Heterogeneity of Adult Mouse Lung Epithelial Progenitor Cells. Stem Cells Dev. 2014;23: 2744–2757. doi: 10.1089/scd.2013.0631 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Nakano H, Nakano K, Cook DN. Isolation and Purification of Epithelial and Endothelial Cells from Mouse Lung. Methods Mol Biology. 2018;1799: 59–69. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-7896-0_6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Chen H, Matsumoto K, Brockway BL, Rackley CR, Liang J, Lee J, et al. Airway Epithelial Progenitors Are Region Specific and Show Differential Responses to Bleomycin‐Induced Lung Injury. Stem Cells. 2012;30: 1948–1960. doi: 10.1002/stem.1150 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Nichane M, Javed A, Sivakamasundari V, Ganesan M, Ang LT, Kraus P, et al. Isolation and 3D expansion of multipotent Sox9 + mouse lung progenitors. Nat Methods. 2017;14: 1205–1212. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.4498 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Levardon H, Yonker L, Hurley B, Mou H. Expansion of Airway Basal Cells and Generation of Polarized Epithelium. Bio-protocol. 2018;8. doi: 10.21769/BioProtoc.2877 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Zuo W, Zhang T, Wu DZA, Guan SP, Liew AA, Yamamoto Y, et al. P63 + Krt5 + distal airway stem cells are essential for lung regeneration. Nature. 2015;517: 616–620. doi: 10.1038/nature13903 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Lam HC, Choi AMK, Ryter SW. Isolation of Mouse Respiratory Epithelial Cells and Exposure to Experimental Cigarette Smoke at Air Liquid Interface. J Vis Exp. 2011. doi: 10.3791/2513 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Prescott MJ, Lidster K. Improving quality of science through better animal welfare: the NC3Rs strategy. Lab Animal. 2017;46: 152–156. doi: 10.1038/laban.1217 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Koenitzer JR, Wu H, Atkinson JJ, Brody SL, Humphreys BD. Single-Nucleus RNA-Sequencing Profiling of Mouse Lung. Reduced Dissociation Bias and Improved Rare Cell-Type Detection Compared with Single-Cell RNA Sequencing. Am J Resp Cell Mol. 2020;63: 739–747. doi: 10.1165/rcmb.2020-0095MA [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Lee DF, Salguero FJ, Grainger D, Francis RJ, MacLellan-Gibson K, Chambers MA. Isolation and characterisation of alveolar type II pneumocytes from adult bovine lung. Sci Rep-uk. 2018;8: 11927. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-30234-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Pan J, Wan J. Methodological comparison of FACS and MACS isolation of enriched microglia and astrocytes from mouse brain. J Immunol Methods. 2020;486: 112834. doi: 10.1016/j.jim.2020.112834 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Sutermaster BA, Darling EM. Considerations for high-yield, high-throughput cell enrichment: fluorescence versus magnetic sorting. Sci Rep-uk. 2019;9: 227. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-36698-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Costa MF de M, Weiner AI, Vaughan AE. Basal-like Progenitor Cells: A Review of Dysplastic Alveolar Regeneration and Remodeling in Lung Repair. Stem Cell Rep. 2020;15: 1015–1025. doi: 10.1016/j.stemcr.2020.09.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Dominique Heymann

18 Sep 2023

PONE-D-23-26951Cold dispase digestion of murine lungs improves recovery and culture of airway epithelial cellsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Schwarze,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points summarized below raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 02 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Dominique Heymann, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

3. We note you have not yet provided a protocols.io PDF version of your protocol and/or a protocols.io DOI. When you submit your revision, please provide a PDF version of your protocol as generated by protocols.io (the file will have the protocols.io logo in the upper right corner of the first page) as a Supporting Information file. The filename should be S1_file.pdf, and you should enter “S1 File” into the Description field. Any additional protocols should be numbered S2, S3, and so on. Please also follow the instructions for Supporting Information captions [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information#loc-captions]. The title in the caption should read: “Step-by-step protocol, also available on protocols.io.”

Please assign your protocol a protocols.io DOI, if you have not already done so, and include the following line in the Materials and Methods section of your manuscript: “The protocol described in this peer-reviewed article is published on protocols.io (https://dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.[...]) and is included for printing purposes as S1 File.” You should also supply the DOI in the Protocols.io DOI field of the submission form when you submit your revision.

If you have not yet uploaded your protocol to protocols.io, you are invited to use the platform’s protocol entry service [https://www.protocols.io/we-enter-protocols] for doing so, at no charge. Through this service, the team at protocols.io will enter your protocol for you and format it in a way that takes advantage of the platform’s features. When submitting your protocol to the protocol entry service please include the customer code PLOS2022 in the Note field and indicate that your protocol is associated with a PLOS ONE Lab Protocol Submission. You should also include the title and manuscript number of your PLOS ONE submission.

4. Please include captions for your S4 at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

5. . We note that Figure 1a, 2a, 2d, 2e, 3a, 3b, 3c, S1 and S3 in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

A. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1a, 2a, 2d, 2e, 3a, 3b, 3c, S1 and S3 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission. 

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

B. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

6. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript report a protocol which is of utility to the research community and adds value to the published literature?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the protocol been described in sufficient detail?

To answer this question, please click the link to protocols.io in the Materials and Methods section of the manuscript (if a link has been provided) or consult the step-by-step protocol in the Supporting Information files.

The step-by-step protocol should contain sufficient detail for another researcher to be able to reproduce all experiments and analyses.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

3. Does the protocol describe a validated method?

The manuscript must demonstrate that the protocol achieves its intended purpose: either by containing appropriate validation data, or referencing at least one original research article in which the protocol was used to generate data.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. If the manuscript contains new data, have the authors made this data fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: N/A

**********

5. Is the article presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please highlight any specific errors that need correcting in the box below.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In this work, authors described and compared protocols to isolate and study murine airway epithelial cells (AECs). In particular, they investigated the effects of digestion time and temperature and they showed that a long and cold (20h 4°C) dispase II digestion of murine lungs have a considerable positive impact on AEC yield, viability, and ability to form colonies in vitro compared to an established 1h 37°C dispase II digestion step. Finally, they proposed a modified workflow for efficient AECs isolation that improves recovery and culture of airway epithelial cells. To contribute to the principles of replacement, reduction, and refinement (3R) in AEC research, isolated primary AECs are used in a range of in vitro experimental systems. The workflow presented in this manuscript may therefore interest a wide range of readers studying lung AECs and their role in the biology of lung. The manuscript is clear and well-written. Nevertheless, the authors should perform the minor modifications below to be suitable for publication.

1- The introduction could describe why you have chosen a magnetic-based isolation of cells with the depletion of CD45pos and CD31pos cells before the positive selection of EpCAM-expressing cells.

2- Please homogenize the writing of CD45-CD31-EpCAM+. Sometimes you used CD45-CD31-EpCAM+ and CD45-CD31EpCAM+.

In Materials and Methods

3- In the “Murine lung harvest and digestion” part, line 94 : what does mean (S4)?

4- In the “Primary AECs in vitro culture” part, please verify the description of the medium between lines 144 and 147. See also supplement S4 protocol part. For example, line 144, “Media was prepared” should be replaced by ““Media were prepared” ; line 145, 1µM A3801 does not seem correct. Do you mean #03801 medium ? What is 1µM ? ; line 146, CHIR9902 should be CHIR 99021.

5- In “immunofluorescent microscopy” part, line 155 and line 157, “an-ti” should be replaced by “anti”.

6- In “RNA isolation and qPCR” part, line 193 and line 194, “ul” should be replaced by “µl”.

In the legends of Figure

7- In Fig 3b, you mentioned “Representative immunofluorescent micrographs (cold digestion)” line 308, but you have also shown results for hot digestion, please modify.

8- What is the magnification used for the images ?

9- What is “Top scale bar, 2mm”, line 310?

10- In Fig 3c, could you specify if the images concern cold or hot digestion condition ?

In supplement S4 protocol

11- “Militenyi” should be replaced by “Miltenyi”.

12- In “recipes”, “4C°” should be replaced by “4°C”.

13- Please check step 28. Is the cell pellet resuspended in 100µl of airway epithelial growth media (as indicated in supplement S4 protocol) or 0.5ml of MACS buffer (as indicated in Materials and Methods).

14- Please add the coating step description before step 30.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Jan 25;19(1):e0297585. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297585.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


31 Oct 2023

We would like to thank you and the reviewer for your constructive comments. We have now fully revised the paper as detailed point-by-point below.

Editor

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

We revised the manuscript and confirm that it is prepared according to PLOS ONE’s style requirements as found in the pdf files shared by the editor. We also revised the file naming requirements and confirm that they follow the PLOS ONE’s guidelines.

2. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

The data present in the manuscript is now uploaded and available at Edinburgh DataShare public repository. The data can be accessed via https://doi.org/10.7488/ds/7506

3. We note you have not yet provided a protocols.io PDF version of your protocol and/or a protocols.io DOI. When you submit your revision, please provide a PDF version of your protocol as generated by protocols.io (the file will have the protocols.io logo in the upper right corner of the first page) as a Supporting Information file. The filename should be S1_file.pdf, and you should enter “S1 File” into the Description field. Any additional protocols should be numbered S2, S3, and so on. Please also follow the instructions for Supporting Information captions [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information#loc-captions]. The title in the caption should read: “Step-by-step protocol, also available on protocols.io.” Please assign your protocol a protocols.io DOI, if you have not already done so, and include the following line in the Materials and Methods section of your manuscript: “The protocol described in this peer-reviewed article is published on protocols.io (https://dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.[...]) and is included for printing purposes as S1 File.” You should also supply the DOI in the Protocols.io DOI field of the submission form when you submit your revision. If you have not yet uploaded your protocol to protocols.io, you are invited to use the platform’s protocol entry service [https://www.protocols.io/we-enter-protocols] for doing so, at no charge. Through this service, the team at protocols.io will enter your protocol for you and format it in a way that takes advantage of the platform’s features. When submitting your protocol to the protocol entry service please include the customer code PLOS2022 in the Note field and indicate that your protocol is associated with a PLOS ONE Lab Protocol Submission. You should also include the title and manuscript number of your PLOS ONE submission.

The protocol is now uploaded the protocol to protocols.io. It can be accessed via dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.rm7vzxo68gx1/v1 . We are also enclosing the protocols.io pdf version of the protocol as S1_file.pdf. The caption for the S1_file can now be found at the end of manuscript.

4. Please include captions for your S4 at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

The captions are now included for the S4 at the end of the manuscript, with updated in-text citations.

5. We note that Figure 1a, 2a, 2d, 2e, 3a, 3b, 3c, S1 and S3 in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission: A. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1a, 2a, 2d, 2e, 3a, 3b, 3c, S1 and S3 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text: “I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.” Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission. In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”B. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

All figures are now part of submission to data repository Edinburgh Data Share (https://doi.org/10.7488/ds/7506) , and as such all the figures are already under the CC BY 4.0 license. Please see https://datashare.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/10283/8524/license_text?sequence=2&isAllowed=y for license details.

6. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

The reference list was reviewed and we confirm that none of the included citations were retracted to the best of our knowledge.

Reviewer #1

1. The introduction could describe why you have chosen a magnetic-based isolation of cells with the depletion of CD45pos and CD31pos cells before the positive selection of EpCAM-expressing cells.

We now explain in the introduction (lines 80-83) why we are performing a two-step MACS sorting of EpCAM cells.

2. Please homogenize the writing of CD45-CD31-EpCAM+. Sometimes you used CD45-CD31-EpCAM+ and CD45-CD31EpCAM+.

The writing of CD45-CD31-EpCAM+ was corrected and unified across the manuscript.

3. In the “Murine lung harvest and digestion” part, line 94 : what does mean (S4)?

The S4 refers to supplemental information 4 – the protocol that is now submitted to protocols.io per PLOS ONE guidelines. As editor requested for a sentence in materials and methods referring to protocols.io protocol, the brackets are now removed.

4. In the “Primary AECs in vitro culture” part, please verify the description of the medium between lines 144 and 147. See also supplement S4 protocol part. For example, line 144, “Media was prepared” should be replaced by ““Media were prepared” ; line 145, 1µM A3801 does not seem correct. Do you mean #03801 medium ? What is 1µM ? ; line 146, CHIR9902 should be CHIR 99021.

We apologies for the typos. These were now corrected (updated lines 147-150).

5. In “immunofluorescent microscopy” part, line 155 and line 157, “an-ti” should be replaced by “anti”.

Thank you for pointing these out. These are now corrected. Corrected updated lines 162 and 164.

6. In “RNA isolation and qPCR” part, line 193 and line 194, “ul” should be replaced by “µl”.

7. Thank you for pointing these out. These are now corrected. Corrected updated lines 197 and 198.

8. In Fig 3b, you mentioned “Representative immunofluorescent micrographs (cold digestion)” line 308, but you have also shown results for hot digestion, please modify.

Thank you for pointing that out. The figure description now indicates both hot and cold digestion. Corrected updated lines 311.

9. What is the magnification used for the images ?

The 20x magnification is now indicated in updated lines 317-318.

10. What is “Top scale bar, 2mm”, line 310?

Thank you for pointing that out. The “Top scale bar, 2mm” is now removed. The figure description was corrected and indicates a single scale bar of 0.1mm. Updated lines 316.

11. In Fig 3c, could you specify if the images concern cold or hot digestion condition?

The Fig 3c description now specifies that it concerns cold digestion condition. Updated line 320.

12. “Militenyi” should be replaced by “Miltenyi”.

Thank you for pointing that out. The typo was corrected throughout the manuscript and S4 supplemental protocol.

13. In “recipes”, “4C°” should be replaced by “4°C”.

The typo was corrected. Thank you for pointing it out.

14. Please check step 28. Is the cell pellet resuspended in 100µl of airway epithelial growth media (as indicated in supplement S4 protocol) or 0.5ml of MACS buffer (as indicated in Materials and Methods).

Thank you for pointing out the discrepancy. Both the S4 protocol and the manuscript were corrected to indicate 0.5ml of supplemented airway epithelial growth media. Updated line 136.

15. Please add the coating step description before step 30.

Following step is now present in the protocol: “30. Coat the well plate with well-plate coating solution and incubate for at least 4-8h at 37°C before use.”

We warmly thank the Reviewer for their positive appraisal, which together with their constructive comments and suggestions have greatly helped us in submitting an improved manuscript to your Journal. We hope this will be received positively and look forward to your decision in due course.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Dominique Heymann

14 Dec 2023

PONE-D-23-26951R1Cold dispase digestion of murine lungs improves recovery and culture of airway epithelial cellsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Schwarze,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 28 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Dominique Heymann, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript report a protocol which is of utility to the research community and adds value to the published literature?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the protocol been described in sufficient detail?

To answer this question, please click the link to protocols.io in the Materials and Methods section of the manuscript (if a link has been provided) or consult the step-by-step protocol in the Supporting Information files.

The step-by-step protocol should contain sufficient detail for another researcher to be able to reproduce all experiments and analyses.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Does the protocol describe a validated method?

The manuscript must demonstrate that the protocol achieves its intended purpose: either by containing appropriate validation data, or referencing at least one original research article in which the protocol was used to generate data.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. If the manuscript contains new data, have the authors made this data fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: N/A

**********

5. Is the article presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please highlight any specific errors that need correcting in the box below.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: There are still some discrepancies in your protocols. Please modify.

1- Chemical product names are still not correct. Please check thoroughly all your files (manuscript, supplementary…).

CHIR99021 from stemcell Tech should not be CHIR9902 or CHIR9901 (reviewed manuscript).

A 83-01 from stemcell Tech should not be A8301 in S3 Fig (manuscript, line 391).

2- Do you really have 1% Pen/Strep in your MACS buffer (S4 protocol) ? It is not indicated in “Murine lung harvest and digestion” part (manuscript, line 118).

In addition, in “Recipes” of S4 protocol, you should name this buffer “MACS buffer” instead of “MACS buffer WASH”. It is confusing.

3- In “Recipes” of S4 protocol, you did correct as requested the “4C⁰” in “Airway epithelial growth media“ part, but you have forgotten to correct the “4C⁰” in “Well-plate coating solution “ part. Please modify.

4- Thanks for adding as requested the coating step (step 30) in S4 protocol. However, it would have been better if you had not made a typo. “coate” should be replaced by “coat”.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Jan 25;19(1):e0297585. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297585.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


5 Jan 2024

To

Dr Dominique Heymann

04.01.2024

Dear Dr Heymann,

Manuscript submission

PONE-D-23-26951

“Cold dispase digestion of murine lungs improves recovery and culture of

airway epithelial cells”

We would like to thank you and the reviewer for your constructive comments. We have now fully revised the paper as detailed point-by-point below. Our comments are in blue.

Editor

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

We revised the manuscript and confirm that it is prepared according to PLOS ONE’s style requirements as found in the pdf files shared by the editor. We also revised the file naming requirements and confirm that they follow the PLOS ONE’s guidelines.

2. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

The data present in the manuscript is now uploaded and available at Edinburgh DataShare public repository. The data can be accessed via https://doi.org/10.7488/ds/7506

3. We note you have not yet provided a protocols.io PDF version of your protocol and/or a protocols.io DOI. When you submit your revision, please provide a PDF version of your protocol as generated by protocols.io (the file will have the protocols.io logo in the upper right corner of the first page) as a Supporting Information file. The filename should be S1_file.pdf, and you should enter “S1 File” into the Description field. Any additional protocols should be numbered S2, S3, and so on. Please also follow the instructions for Supporting Information captions [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information#loc-captions]. The title in the caption should read: “Step-by-step protocol, also available on protocols.io.” Please assign your protocol a protocols.io DOI, if you have not already done so, and include the following line in the Materials and Methods section of your manuscript: “The protocol described in this peer-reviewed article is published on protocols.io (https://dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.[...]) and is included for printing purposes as S1 File.” You should also supply the DOI in the Protocols.io DOI field of the submission form when you submit your revision. If you have not yet uploaded your protocol to protocols.io, you are invited to use the platform’s protocol entry service [https://www.protocols.io/we-enter-protocols] for doing so, at no charge. Through this service, the team at protocols.io will enter your protocol for you and format it in a way that takes advantage of the platform’s features. When submitting your protocol to the protocol entry service please include the customer code PLOS2022 in the Note field and indicate that your protocol is associated with a PLOS ONE Lab Protocol Submission. You should also include the title and manuscript number of your PLOS ONE submission.

The protocol is now uploaded the protocol to protocols.io. It can be accessed via dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.rm7vzxo68gx1/v1 . We are also enclosing the protocols.io pdf version of the protocol as S1_file.pdf. The caption for the S1_file can now be found at the end of manuscript.

4. Please include captions for your S4 at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

The captions are now included for the S4 at the end of the manuscript, with updated in-text citations.

5. We note that Figure 1a, 2a, 2d, 2e, 3a, 3b, 3c, S1 and S3 in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission: A. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1a, 2a, 2d, 2e, 3a, 3b, 3c, S1 and S3 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text: “I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.” Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission. In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”B. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

All figures are now part of submission to data repository Edinburgh Data Share (https://doi.org/10.7488/ds/7506) , and as such all the figures are already under the CC BY 4.0 license. Please see https://datashare.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/10283/8524/license_text?sequence=2&isAllowed=y for license details.

6. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

The reference list was reviewed, and we confirm that as of 14/12/2023 none of the included citations were retracted based on information available on PubMed. Several references (6, 11, 32) were corrected so that they indicate an exact article, rather than a collection of articles. One reference (27) was added as a consequence of edits suggested by reviewer #1.

7. While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Thank you for your suggestion to use PACE. We confirm that all figures were uploaded to PACE to make sure that they meet PLOS requirement.

Reviewer #1

1. The introduction could describe why you have chosen a magnetic-based isolation of cells with the depletion of CD45pos and CD31pos cells before the positive selection of EpCAM-expressing cells.

We now explain in the introduction (lines 80-83) why we are performing a two-step MACS sorting of EpCAM cells.

2. Please homogenize the writing of CD45-CD31-EpCAM+. Sometimes you used CD45-CD31-EpCAM+ and CD45-CD31EpCAM+.

The writing of CD45-CD31-EpCAM+ was corrected and unified across the manuscript.

3. In the “Murine lung harvest and digestion” part, line 94 : what does mean (S4)?

The S4 refers to supplemental information 4 – the protocol that is now submitted to protocols.io per PLOS ONE guidelines. As editor requested for a sentence in materials and methods referring to protocols.io protocol, the brackets are now removed.

4. In the “Primary AECs in vitro culture” part, please verify the description of the medium between lines 144 and 147. See also supplement S4 protocol part. For example, line 144, “Media was prepared” should be replaced by ““Media were prepared” ; line 145, 1µM A3801 does not seem correct. Do you mean #03801 medium ? What is 1µM ? ; line 146, CHIR9902 should be CHIR 99021.

We apologies for the typos. These were now corrected (updated lines 147-150).

5. In “immunofluorescent microscopy” part, line 155 and line 157, “an-ti” should be replaced by “anti”.

Thank you for pointing these out. These are now corrected. Corrected updated lines 162 and 164.

6. In “RNA isolation and qPCR” part, line 193 and line 194, “ul” should be replaced by “µl”.

7. Thank you for pointing these out. These are now corrected. Corrected updated lines 197 and 198.

8. In Fig 3b, you mentioned “Representative immunofluorescent micrographs (cold digestion)” line 308, but you have also shown results for hot digestion, please modify.

Thank you for pointing that out. The figure description now indicates both hot and cold digestion. Corrected updated lines 311.

9. What is the magnification used for the images ?

The 20x magnification is now indicated in updated lines 317-318.

10. What is “Top scale bar, 2mm”, line 310?

Thank you for pointing that out. The “Top scale bar, 2mm” is now removed. The figure description was corrected and indicates a single scale bar of 0.1mm. Updated lines 316.

11. In Fig 3c, could you specify if the images concern cold or hot digestion condition?

The Fig 3c description now specifies that it concerns cold digestion condition. Updated line 320.

12. “Militenyi” should be replaced by “Miltenyi”.

Thank you for pointing that out. The typo was corrected throughout the manuscript and S4 supplemental protocol.

13. In “recipes”, “4C°” should be replaced by “4°C”.

The typo was corrected. Thank you for pointing it out.

14. Please check step 28. Is the cell pellet resuspended in 100µl of airway epithelial growth media (as indicated in supplement S4 protocol) or 0.5ml of MACS buffer (as indicated in Materials and Methods).

Thank you for pointing out the discrepancy. Both the S4 protocol and the manuscript were corrected to indicate 0.5ml of supplemented airway epithelial growth media. Updated line 136.

15. Please add the coating step description before step 30.

Following step is now present in the protocol: “30. Coat the well plate with well-plate coating solution and incubate for at least 4-8h at 37°C before use.”

16. Chemical product names are still not correct. Please check thoroughly all your files (manuscript, supplementary…). CHIR99021 from stemcell Tech should not be CHIR9902 or CHIR9901 (reviewed manuscript). A 83-01 from stemcell Tech should not be A8301 in S3 Fig (manuscript, line 391).

We apologies for these omissions. We have now corrected all indicated product name typos. We also reviewed both the manuscript and the supplementary file with following changes applied:

• Manuscript line 150 changed DMH-1 to DMH1

• Manuscript line 152 changed CHIR9901 to CHIR99021

• Manuscript line 391 changed CHIR9902 to CHIR99021

• Manuscript line 391 changed A8301 to A 83-01

• Manuscript line 151 changed “Y27632” to “Y-27632”

• Manuscript line 391 changed “Y27632” to “Y-27632”

• S4 protocol – DMH-1 changed to DMH1 in material list and in recipes

• S4 protocol – changed CHIR9901 to CHIR99021 in materials list

• S4 protocol – changed CHIR9901 to CHIR99021 in recipes

• S4 protocol – changed “Y27632 ROCK” to “Y-27632” in recipes

17. Do you really have 1% Pen/Strep in your MACS buffer (S4 protocol) ? It is not indicated in “Murine lung harvest and digestion” part (manuscript, line 118).

In addition, in “Recipes” of S4 protocol, you should name this buffer “MACS buffer” instead of “MACS buffer wash”. It is confusing.

We apologies for omitting Pen/Strep in the manuscript MACS buffer recipe. This is now corrected in the manuscript line 118 where we added “1% v/v Penicillin/Streptomycin (10,000 U/ml, Gibco)”.

We apologise for confusing the reader by using “MACS buffer” and “MACS buffer wash” interchangeably. Naming was corrected and “MACS buffer WASH” in S4 supplement was changed to “MACS buffer”.

18. In “Recipes” of S4 protocol, you did correct as requested the “4C⁰” in “Airway epithelial growth media“ part, but you have forgotten to correct the “4C⁰” in “Well-plate coating solution “ part. Please modify.

We apologise for the incorrect “4C⁰” in “Well-plate coating solution“ S4 supplement. This has been now corrected to “4C⁰”.

19. Thanks for adding as requested the coating step (step 30) in S4 protocol. However, it would have been better if you had not made a typo. “coate” should be replaced by “coat”.

We apologise for the typo. “coate” is now corrected to “coat”.

We warmly thank the Reviewer for their positive appraisal, which together with their constructive comments and suggestions have greatly helped us in submitting an improved manuscript to your Journal. We hope this will be received positively and look forward to your decision in due course.

Yours Faithfully,

Professor Jürgen Schwarze

Corresponding Author

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Dominique Heymann

9 Jan 2024

Cold dispase digestion of murine lungs improves recovery and culture of airway epithelial cells

PONE-D-23-26951R2

Dear Dr. Schwarze,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Dominique Heymann, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Dominique Heymann

17 Jan 2024

PONE-D-23-26951R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Schwarze,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Pr. Dominique Heymann

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Cold digestion with dispase II does not remove MHC-I, MHC-II or CD24 from the surface of CD45-CD31-EpCAM+ cells.

    Following debris exclusion (FSC/SSC), singlets gating (FSC-H/FSC-A), live cells gating (LIVE/DEAD fixable near-IR/FSC-H), CD45 and CD31 exclusion (CD45/CD31) and EpCAM+ gating (EpCAM/FSC-H) expression of MHC-I, MHC-II and CD24 was evaluated. Gating was based on fluorescence minus one (FMO) controls.

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. Digestion type does not affect cellular oxidative stress based on LDHa (lactate dehydrogenase) levels.

    Following either hot or cold digestion CD45-CD31-EpCAM+ cells were MACS sorted and RNA isolated using Trizol and chloroform-based RNA isolation. SYBR green qPCR was performed, with Rpl37a as endogenous control. N = 3–4.

    (TIF)

    S3 Fig. Murine AECs can be passaged (P0-2) following cold digestion and CD45-CD31-EpCAM+ MACS sorting.

    (a) Following cold digestion, murine AECs (CD34-CD31-EpCAM+) were MACS sorted and 2x105 cells were seeded into a 24-well plate and cultured in a Stemcell PneumaCult Ex-Plus medium with 10μM Y-27632, 3μM CHIR99021, 1μM A 83–01 for 14 days. Cells were passaged twice. Each time cells were detached using TrypLE and split 1:10 into a larger well plate starting from 24-well plate (P0), followed by 12-well plate (P1) and lastly a 6-well plate (P2). Once cells reached confluency at the end of passage 2, cells were lifted up using TrypLE and 1.4x106 live cells (trypan blue exclusion) were counted using haemocytometer. Six 10x objective phase-contrast single fields of view (3x2) were stitched together. Scale bar 400μm. N>2. (b) All cells express KRT5 (green) after three passages of CD45-CD31-EpCAM+ MACS sorted AECs. Scale bar, 300μm.

    (TIF)

    S1 Protocol. Step-by-step protocol including materials and recipes.

    (DOCX)

    S1 File. Step-by-step protocol, also available on protocols.io.

    https://dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.rm7vzxo68gx1/v1.

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Data is now available from Edinburgh Data Share public data repository with assigned DOI - https://doi.org/10.7488/ds/7506.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES