Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Jan 21.
Published in final edited form as: J Am Chem Soc. 2011 Oct 18;133(44):17594–17597. doi: 10.1021/ja207807t

Plasmonic Imaging of Human Oral Cancer Cell Communities During Programmed Cell Death by Nuclear Targeting Silver Nanoparticles

Lauren A Austin , Bin Kang †,, Chun-Wan Yen , Mostafa A El-Sayed †,*
PMCID: PMC4721227  NIHMSID: NIHMS332935  PMID: 21981727

Abstract

Plasmonic nanoparticles (NPs) have become a useful platform in the biomedical field due to their potential use in disease diagnosis and treatment. Recently, it has been reported that plasmonic NPs conjugated to nuclear-targeting peptides cause DNA damage and apoptotic populations in cancer cells. In the present work, we utilized the plasmonic scattering property and the ability of nuclear-targeted silver nanoparticles (NLS/RGD-AgNPs) to induce programmed cell death in order to image in real-time the behavior of human oral squamous carcinoma (HSC-3) cell communities during and after the induction of apoptosis. Plasmonic live-cell imaging (movie) revealed that HSC-3 cells behave as non-professional phagocytes. The induction of apoptosis in some cells led to the attraction and their subsequent engulfment by the neighboring cells. Attraction to apoptotic cells resulted in clustering of cellular community. The live-cell imaging movies also revealed that as the initial concentration of NLS/RGD-AgNPs increases, the rate of self-killing increases and the degree of attraction and clustering decreases. These results are discussed in terms of the proposed mechanism of cells undergoing programmed cell death.

graphic file with name nihms332935u1.jpg


Plasmonic nanoparticles (NPs) have received considerable attention in the biological and biomedical community due to their potential use in diagnostic and therapeutic applications.1,2 Their ability to scatter light in the visible and near-infrared regions has been used in biological imaging, and cancer diagnostic applications.3,4 Additionally, their nanoscale size allows them to enter the cell and target different organelles such as the nucleus and mitochondria.58 With their increased popularity in medical and everyday applications, several studies have been conducted to investigate their cytotoxic effects on mammalian cells.917 Studies examining the toxicity of gold nanoparticles (AuNPs), with a diameter greater than 1.4 nm, have shown minimal cell death with incubation periods of up to 3 days.16,17 Conversely, several reports have shown that mammalian cells experience increased programmable cell death (apoptosis) after incubation with conjugated and unconjugated silver nanoparticles (AgNPs).11,14,15 The suggested cause for apoptosis in AgNPs treated cells is the generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS), which is known to cause irreversible DNA damage.1820

Apoptosis is a highly controlled cellular process and plays an important role in regulating tissue homeostasis and physiological growth control.21,22 Induction of apoptosis can occur from a variety of stimulating agents and these agents are generally grouped into two categories: extrinsic or intrinsic.23,24 Extrinsic stimuli are those that cause cell death signaling from death receptor ligation. After ligation, cytoplasmic signaling pathways are activated, and apoptosis is triggered. Intrinsic apoptosis is usually induced through generation of metabolic or genotoxic stress. One of the most notable intrinsic pathways, the p53 pathway, is activated from DNA damage that resulted from oxidative stress.23 It is thought that AgNPs induce apoptosis by acting as intrinsic stimuli due to their ability to generate ROS and cause DNA double strand breaks (DSBs).11,25 In the present work, we exploit the plasmonic light scattering properties and the cellular apoptotic induction of AgNPs to investigate the behavior of human oral squamous carcinoma (HSC-3) cellular communities undergoing apoptosis.

Ag plasmonic nanoparticles were synthesized using previously reported methods.26,27 The synthesized 35 nm NPs (Figure 1a–c) were then conjugated with mPEG-SH 5000 to achieve a maximum surface coverage of 10%. The low PEG surface coverage was done to maximize the peptide conjugation to the AgNPs.28 Pegylation of the nanoparticles aids in stability of the particles in cell culture media and reduces protein absorption on the particles’ surface.29 The remaining surface of the NPs was conjugated to nuclear localizing signal (NLS) and a cancer cell penetrating (RGD) peptides.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

(a) TEM micrograph of the synthesized citrate capped AgNPs (~ 35 nm). (b) Illustration of AgNPs conjugated to PEG, cancer targeting (RGD) and nuclear targeting (NLS) peptides.

The cells used in this study, HSC-3, have been shown to express αvβ6 integrins on their cell surfaces.30 The RGD peptides conjugated to the surface of the AgNPs assists in uptake of the particles by aiding in receptor-mediated endocytosis through their interaction with the αvβ6 surface integrins.31 After the particles have entered the cytoplasm, they become localized at the nucleus due to the interaction between the NLS peptide on the particles’ surface and importins α and β, karyopherins that are associated with the nuclear pore complex (NPC).32,33 In recent work, localization of plasmonic (Au and Ag) nanoparticles at the nucleus of HSC-3 cells was found to result in DNA double strand breaks (DSBs) and apoptotic (or DNA deficient) populations.34,35

To ensure NLS/RGD-AgNPs were the most efficient at inducing cell death, we conducted in vitro cytotoxicity (XTT) assays on both pegylated and peptide conjugated AgNPs. HSC-3 cells were incubated with 0.1 nM of conjugated AgNPs for 24 hours. As shown in Figure 2, NLS/RGD-AgNPs (nuclear-targeting) showed the highest cytotoxicity with ~54% cell viability while RGD and PEG conjugated particles also showed minimal toxicity with viabilities above 91%. These results demonstrate the necessity of the NLS peptide conjugation to induce cell death, as RGD and PEG conjugated AgNPs did not show significant toxicity. Due to their relatively high toxicity and their ability to cause DNA damage, through the generation of (ROS) as seen in our previous work35, NLS/RGD-AgNPs were chosen for this study as it is the most effective in inducing apoptosis.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Viability of HSC-3 cells incubated with 0.1 nM conjugated AgNPs after 24 hours. Overall NLS/RGD-AgNPs showed greater cytotoxicity (~ 52% cell viability) than RGD and PEG conjugated AgNPs (~90% viability). This supports the proposal that NLS is needed to localize AgNPs at the nucleus and cause cell death.

In this work, plasmonic live-cell imaging36 (movie) was used to investigate the behavior of cancer cell communities after incubation with varying concentrations (0, 0.05, 0.1 and 0.4 nM) of nuclear-targeting NLS/RGD-AgNPs (see Supporting Information movies S14). Cells were incubated for 24 hours with nuclear-targeting particles before imaging to allow for successful uptake and disturbance of cellular functions. Representative live-cell images at 0 and 22 hours for each tested concentration are shown in Figure 3. Untreated cancer cells were able to divide successfully and maintained their original distribution between neighboring cells (Figure 3a, and SI movie 1). However, incubation with NLS/RGD-AgNPs stopped cell division and ultimately caused cell death. Apoptosis was the suggested form of cell death due to visible cell shrinkage, a morphological characteristic of apoptotic cells37, and our results from previous flow cytometry studies35 which showed an increase in the sub G1 (or apoptotic/DNA deficient) population in HSC-3 cells after incubation with NLS/RGD-AgNPs. Interestingly, when watching the video, it is clearly observed that when cells were subjected to initial loading concentrations of 0.05 and 0.1 nM AgNPs and one cell dies (cell becomes still and white in color due to the loss of focus as they become detached), the live neighboring cells, that also contain NLS/RGD-AgNPs, move within close proximity to the dying cell and proceed to engulf the apoptotic cell. The attraction from neighboring cells caused a reduction in the initial random spatial distribution of the cancer cell community and resulted in cellular clustering (Figure 3b–c, SI movie 2–3). At higher initial loading concentrations (0.4 nM) of AgNPs (Figure 3d and SI movie 4), the degree of clustering is greatly reduced or stopped.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Still images taken at 0 and 22 hours of HSC-3 cells incubated with (a) 0 nM, (b) 0.05 nM, (c) 0.1 nM, and (d) 0.4 nM nuclear-targeting AgNPs. Cells treated with 0 nM AgNPs do not show plasmonic light scattering. Images of cells treated with NLS/RGD-AgNPs show: (1) scattering from the AgNPs is heavily localized at the nucleus, (2) cellular clustering increases as the AgNP concentration increases from 0.05 to 0.1 nM, and (3) the degree of cellular clustering decreases when cells are treated with 0.4 nM AgNPs. The observed decrease in clustering could be attributed to the increased rate of the observed cell death. The high AgNP density at the cell nucleus, as indicated by the strong scattering (d), is the reason for the rapid cell death (see text) for most cells and could impair the ability of these cells to produce or detect intercellular apoptotic signals.

The cellular clustering seen throughout the cancer community (Figure 3b–c and SI movies S23) is thought to be a result of apoptotic signaling. As stated previously, apoptosis is necessary for maintaining homeostasis and regulating tissue growth.21,22 However, dying cells need to be identified and removed to avoid the loss of membrane integrity and the potential release of cytotoxins. Traditionally, professional phagocytes, such as macrophages and immature dendritic cells, facilitate apoptotic cell removal. For cell removal to occur, apoptotic cells display “eat me” signals on their cell surface to attract professional phagocytes and aid in their subsequent engulfment.38 The most notable signals include annexin I (AnxI) and phosphatidylserine (PS), which are translocated to the outer cellular membrane. Additionally, professional phagocytes contain PS and vibronectin (αvβ3) receptors that assist in “eat me” signal recognition and uptake of apoptotic cells.39

Although professional phagocytes are usually involved in the removal of apoptotic cells, other cell types, such as epithelial cells, and fibroblasts, are known to perform phagocytosis and are collectively termed non-professional phagocytes.40 Since our cell line is classified as an epithelial cell line and has been shown to express vibronectin (αvβ3) receptors and AnxI, it is possible that HSC-3 cells also act non-professional phagocytes. 30 As seen from our video imaging (Figure 3b–c and SI movies S23), once one cell undergoes apoptosis, the neighboring cells move and recognize the dying cell. Characteristic palpitating and cohesive movements of the live and dying cells indicated successful apoptotic identification. The observed clustering was the consequence of the identification of the dying cell by several neighboring cells having less AgNP DNA damage and are thus still alive. After the apoptotic cell had been identified, the live neighboring cell proceeded to engulf the dying cell. Engulfment was suggested by the merger of the live and dying cell, which caused the live cell to become unfocused and bright white like that of the apoptotic cell. Unlike professional phagocytes, non-professional phagocytes require longer periods of time to ingest an apoptotic cell.41 This characteristic is also seen in our video imaging, as recognition of the dying cell occurs rather quickly, but engulfment required several hours. The extended time requirement for ingestion is most likely due to the apoptotic cell needing to undergo further changes to signal to non-professional phagocytes for engulfment.41

In addition to the observed cellular clustering around the apoptotic cell, it can also be seen that there appears to be an increased localization of cell deaths. It has been reported by several groups that cellular clusters collectively undergo apoptosis after the apoptotic induction of a single cell within the cluster.25 Thubagere et. al.25 recently showed Caco-2 cells (heterogeneous human epithelial colorectal adenocarcinoma cells) underwent cellular apoptotic clustering after incubation with polystyrene nanoparticles. They attributed the propagation of apoptosis throughout the cellular community to the production of hydrogen peroxide, which they proposed was released into the extracellular environment. Nano metal oxide materials, especially Ag2O, which is formed from the oxidation of the AgNPs surfaces, are known to generate ROS species including hydrogen peroxide (H2O2).19 Although ROS are a natural byproduct of cellular metabolism (i.e. oxidative phosphorylation) during the production of ATP, increased concentrations of these species, especially H2O2, causes oxidative damage that results in DNA damage and apoptosis. As indicated from our previous papers, DNA damage was indeed found to occur in HSC-3 cells treated with nuclear-targeting NPs and was attributed to the generation of ROS.34,35 In this study, it is suggested that ROS generated from the NLS/RGD-AgNPs are released into the extracellular environment and cause an increase in the local concentration of ROS near the apoptotic cell. The increased local concentration resulted in the permeation of ROS through the membranes of neighboring cells. Additionally, a successive heightening of apoptotic signaling within the neighboring cells, as these cells also contain NLS/RGD-AgNPs, is thought to have occurred which led to the observed localization of cell death near the primary apoptotic cell.

As shown in Figure 3d and SI movie S4, when the loading concentration of NLS/RGD-AgNPs reached 0.4 nM, cellular clustering is greatly diminished or stopped. This observation, might suggest that at this high concentration of AgNPs, most of the cells die at rapid and comparable rates. Using the movies shown in S4, it can be estimated that the initial death rate of cells at initial AgNP loading concentrations of 0.05, 0.1 and 0.4 nM are 0.05 h−1, 0.1 h−1, and 0.25 hr−1, respectively. The increased death rate of the 0.4 nM sample is expected to impair the cells’ ability to sense or display intercellular apoptotic signals as well as hinder their movement and clustering. Since the nuclear-targeting AgNPs are thought to be the initial cause of apoptosis, one may conclude that the intracellular apoptotic signals and the intercellular apoptotic signaling (i.e. PS and AnxI) are competitive processes. The quicker intracellular apoptotic signaling is induced in cells of a community, the less likely intercellular communication and clustering of cells will occur.

In conclusion, we used plasmonic live-cell imaging to study the resulting behavior of cancer cell communities when apoptotic induction occurs in one or several cells within the community. Our imaging revealed cellular attraction, clustering and bystander killing after incubation with apoptotic inducing AgNPs at low concentrations. It is suggested that cells neighboring an apoptotic cell act as non-professional phagocytes, and are attracted to and engulf the dying cell through “eat me” signals such as PS and AnxI, which are displayed on the apoptotic cell’s surface. The resulting cellular clustering allowed ROS generated from the NLS/RGD-AgNPs and released from the apoptotic cell to permeate the neighboring cells’ membranes and cause a localization of cell death. At high AgNP concentrations (and increased rate of programmed cell death), the degree of attraction and clustering is diminished. This is presumably due to simultaneous death of most cells that impairs their ability to move and cluster.

It is interesting to point out that the plasmonic live-cell imaging and nuclear-targeting AgNPs used in this study had the ability to visually investigate intercellular responses to external stimuli in a cellular community without the need to use fluorescent dyes and expensive microscopic equipment.

Supplementary Material

1_si_001
2_si_002
Download video file (618.5KB, avi)
3_si_003
Download video file (7.2MB, avi)
4_si_004
Download video file (6.5MB, avi)
5_si_005
Download video file (4.8MB, avi)

Acknowledgments

MAE likes to acknowledge the Julius Brown Chair Funding (3306559GT), and the NIH-NCI support (U01CA151802-01). LA wishes to thank the GT GAANN fellowship (3306FT8) and BK thanks the China Scholar Council (2008683010) and the Doctor Innovation Funds of China NUAA (BCXJ08-09). The authors would like to thank Brian Snyder for taking TEM micrographs of the synthesized silver nanoparticles.

ABBREVIATIONS

NPs

nanoparticles

AgNPs

silver nanoparticles

NLS/RGD-AgNPs

nuclear-targeting AgNPs

AuNPs

gold nanoparticles

ROS

reactive oxygen species

DSBs

double strand breaks

NLS

nuclear localizing signal

PEG

poly(ethylene glycol)

DAPI

4′,6′-diamidino-2-phenylindole

FITC

fluorescein isothiocyanate

GJIC

gap junction intercellular channels

Footnotes

Supporting Information. Experimental sections, UV-Vis spectra, and plasmonic live-cell imaging movies. This material is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.

References

  • 1.Huang X, Jain PK, El-Sayed IH, El-Sayed MA. Nanomedicine. 2007;2:681. doi: 10.2217/17435889.2.5.681. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Dreaden EC, Mackey MA, Huang X, El-Sayed MA. Chem Soc Rev. 2011;40:3391. doi: 10.1039/c0cs00180e. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Huang X, El-Sayed IH, Qian W, El-Sayed MA. J Am Chem Soc. 2006;128:2115. doi: 10.1021/ja057254a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Liu X, Dai Q, Austin L, Coutts J, Knowles G, Zou J, Chen H, Huo Q. J Am Chem Soc. 2008;130:2780. doi: 10.1021/ja711298b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Tkachenko AG, Xie H, Coleman D, Glomm W, Ryan J, Anderson MF, Franzen S, Feldheim DL. J Am Chem Soc. 2003;125:4700. doi: 10.1021/ja0296935. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Oyelere AK, Chen PC, Huang X, El-Sayed IH, El-Sayed MA. Bioconjugate Chem. 2007;18:1490. doi: 10.1021/bc070132i. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Murphy MP. Trends Biotechnol. 1997;15:326. doi: 10.1016/S0167-7799(97)01068-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Murphy MP, Smith RAJ. Adv Drug Delivery Rev. 2000;41:235. doi: 10.1016/s0169-409x(99)00069-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.AshaRani PV, Low Kah Mun G, Hande MP, Valiyaveettil S. ACS Nano. 2008;3:279. doi: 10.1021/nn800596w. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Braydich-Stolle L, Hussain S, Schlager JJ, Hofmann MC. Toxicol Sci. 2005;88:412. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfi256. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Foldbjerg R, Olesen P, Hougaard M, Dang DA, Hoffmann H, Jr, Autrup H. Toxicol Lett. 2009;190:156. doi: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2009.07.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Hussain SM, Hess KL, Gearhart JM, Geiss KT, Schlager JJ. Toxicol in Vitro. 2005;19:975. doi: 10.1016/j.tiv.2005.06.034. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Kawata K, Osawa M, Okabe S. Environ Sci Technol. 2009;43:6046. doi: 10.1021/es900754q. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Lee Y, Kim D, Oh J, Yoon S, Choi M, Lee S, Kim J, Lee K, Song CW. Arch Toxicol. 2011:1. doi: 10.1007/s00204-011-0714-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Park EJ, Yi J, Kim Y, Choi K, Park K. Toxicol in Vitro. 2010;24:872. doi: 10.1016/j.tiv.2009.12.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Murphy CJ, Gole AM, Stone JW, Sisco PN, Alkilany AM, Goldsmith EC, Baxter SC. Acc Chem Res. 2008;41:1721. doi: 10.1021/ar800035u. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Pan Y, Neuss S, Leifert A, Fischler M, Wen F, Simon U, Schmid G, Brandau W, Jahnen-Dechent W. Small. 2007;3:1941. doi: 10.1002/smll.200700378. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Moustafa MH, Sharma RK, Thornton J, Mascha E, Abdel,ÄêHafez MA, Thomas AJ, Agarwal A. Hum Reprod. 2004;19:129. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deh024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Azzam EI, de Toledo SM, Little JB. Oncogene. 2003;22:7050. doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1206961. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Simon HU, Haj-Yehia A, Levi-Schaffer F. Apoptosis. 2000;5:415. doi: 10.1023/a:1009616228304. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Alenzi F. Br J Biomed Sci. 2004;61:99. doi: 10.1080/09674845.2004.11732652. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Jacobson MD, Weil M, Raff MC. Cell. 1997;88:347. doi: 10.1016/s0092-8674(00)81873-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Wang JYJ. Cell Res. 2005;15:43. doi: 10.1038/sj.cr.7290263. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Fulda S, Debatin KM. Oncogene. 2006;25:4798. doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1209608. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Thubagere A, Reinhard BM. ACS Nano. 2010;4:3611. doi: 10.1021/nn100389a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Freund PL, Spiro M. J Phys Chem. 1985;89:1074. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Kimling J, Maier M, Okenve B, Kotaidis V, Ballot H, Plech A. J Phys Chem B. 2006;110:15700. doi: 10.1021/jp061667w. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Huang X, Kang B, Qian W, Mackey MA, Chen PC, Oyelere AK, El-Sayed IH, El-Sayed MA. J Biomed Opt. 2010;15:058002. doi: 10.1117/1.3486538. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Wuelfing WP, Gross SM, Miles DT, Murray RW. J Am Chem Soc. 1998;120:12696. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Xue H, Atakilit A, Zhu W, Li X, Ramos DM, Pytela R. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2001;288:610. doi: 10.1006/bbrc.2001.5813. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Chen X, Plasencia C, Hou Y, Neamati N. J Med Chem. 2005;48:1098. doi: 10.1021/jm049165z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Panyam J, Labhasestwar V. Curr Drug Delivery. 2004;1:235. doi: 10.2174/1567201043334768. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Dingwall C, Laskey RA. Trends Biochem Sci. 1991;16:478. doi: 10.1016/0968-0004(91)90184-w. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Kang B, Mackey MA, El-Sayed MA. J Am Chem Soc. 2010;132:1517. doi: 10.1021/ja9102698. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Austin LA, Kang B, Yen C, El-Sayed MA. 2011 submitted to Bioconjugate Chem. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Qian W, Huang X, Kang B, El-Sayed MA. J Biomed Opt. 2010;15:046025. doi: 10.1117/1.3477179. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Gerschenson L, Rotello R. FASEB. 1992;6:2450. doi: 10.1096/fasebj.6.7.1563596. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Grimsley C, Ravichandran KS. Trends Cell Biol. 2003;13:648. doi: 10.1016/j.tcb.2003.10.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Hisatomi T, Sakamoto T, Sonoda K-h, Tsutsumi C, Qiao H, Enaida H, Yamanaka I, Kubota T, Ishibashi T, Kura S, Susin SA, Kroemer G. Am J Pathol. 2003;162:1869. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9440(10)64321-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Rabinovitch M. Trends Cell Biol. 1995;5:85. doi: 10.1016/s0962-8924(00)88955-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Parnaik R, Raff MC, Scholes J. Curr Biol. 2000;10:857. doi: 10.1016/s0960-9822(00)00598-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

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

Supplementary Materials

1_si_001
2_si_002
Download video file (618.5KB, avi)
3_si_003
Download video file (7.2MB, avi)
4_si_004
Download video file (6.5MB, avi)
5_si_005
Download video file (4.8MB, avi)

RESOURCES