Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Jan 29;16(1):e0246337. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246337

Live visualisation of electrolytes during mouse embryonic development using electrolyte indicators

Akiko Fujishima 1,*, Kazumasa Takahashi 1, Mayumi Goto 1, Takeo Hirakawa 1, Takuya Iwasawa 2, Kazue Togashi 1, Eri Maeda 3, Hiromitsu Shirasawa 1, Hiroshi Miura 1, Wataru Sato 1, Yukiyo Kumazawa 1, Yukihiro Terada 1
Editor: Peter J Hansen4
PMCID: PMC7845971  PMID: 33513193

Abstract

Studies have shown that some electrolytes, including Na+ and K+, play important roles in embryonic development. However, these studies evaluated these electrolytes by using inhibitors or knockout mice, with no mention on the changes in the intracellular electrolyte concentrations during embryogenesis. In this study, we used the electrolyte indicators CoroNa Green AM and ION Potassium Green-2 AM to directly visualise intracellular concentrations of Na+ and K+, respectively, at each embryonic developmental stage in mouse embryos. We directly observed intracellular electrolyte concentrations at the morula, blastocyst, and hatching stages. Our results revealed dynamic changes in intracellular electrolyte concentrations; we found that the intracellular Na+ concentration decreased, while K+ concentration increased during blastocoel formation. The degree of change in intensity in response to ouabain, an inhibitor of Na+/K+ ATPase, was considered to correspond to the degree of Na+/K+ ATPase activity at each developmental stage. Additionally, after the blastocyst stage, trophectoderm cells in direct contact with the blastocoel showed higher K+ concentrations than in direct contact with inner cell mass, indicating that Na+/K+ ATPase activity differs depending on the location in the trophectoderm. This is the first study to use CoroNa Green AM and ION Potassium Green-2 AM in mouse embryos and visualise electrolytes during embryonic development. The changes in electrolyte concentration observed in this study were consistent with the activity of Na+/K+ ATPase reported previously, and it was possible to image more detailed electrolyte behaviour in embryo cells. This method can be used to improve the understanding of cell physiology and is useful for future embryonic development studies.

Introduction

Pre-implantation development in mouse embryo involves sequential division of a fertilised egg into blastomeres. After the 8-cell stage, blastomeres undergo compaction leading to the formation of a morula, which is the earliest point of differential spatial positioning, where the cells are polarised along the apical-basal axis [1]. The embryo then forms the blastocyst, characterised by the presence of a fluid-filled cavity and inner cell mass (ICM) that are both surrounded by the trophectoderm (TE) [2].

Many researchers have reported electrolyte involvement in embryo development [3]. For example, at fertilisation, Ca2+ oscillation is required for the initiation of embryonic development [4], and K+ is thought to be involved in cell cycle regulation [5]. Particularly, many studies examining blastocoel formation have reported that water movement, along with the Na+ concentration gradient, Na+/H+ exchangers, and Na+ channel, play key roles in Na+ influx at the apical membrane [6]. Additionally, Na+/K+ ATPase plays a major role in Na+ efflux at the blastocoel membrane [79]. Water channels, known as aquaporins, are essential to facilitate water influx through the outer cell [7, 9].

These studies primarily used knockout mice to evaluate each channel or inhibitor. To date, no studies have directly assessed intracellular ion concentrations after the morula stage. Because blastocoel formation is the most dynamic process in embryo development, it is important to elucidate electrolyte behaviours at these stages.

Furthermore, live visualisation of Na+ and K+ behaviour during embryonic development is necessary to advance the development of reproductive medicine. As previously mentioned, Na+ is the most important electrolyte in blastocoel formation. Typically, the intracellular Na+ concentration in mammals varies between 5–15 mM depending on the cell type, whereas the extracellular Na+ concentration is much higher at approximately 120–150 mM [10]. This concentration gradient is established by the activity of ion channels/transporters and pumps and is required to maintain the resting membrane potential [10]. Moreover, K+ plays an important role in embryonic development. Alterations in K+ channel activity induce changes in membrane potential, which may modulate physiological functions at the cellular level such as gamete maturation, fertilisation, cell division, and early embryonic development [5]. K+ channels are active in early mouse oocytes until at least the blastocyst stage, oscillating in phase with the developmental cell cycle, and exhibit high and low activities in the M/G1 and S/G2 phases, respectively [11]. Additionally, high expression of the K2P channel in the morula is likely to be a key factor in blastocyst formation [5].

In recent years, some studies have employed an electrolyte indicator to clarify real-time electrolyte behaviour in nerve fibres and cardiomyocytes [12, 13]. In the reproductive field, some studies used Ca2+ indicators [14] but none have reported the use of Na+ and K+ electrolyte indicators. CoroNa Green AM and ION Potassium Green-2 AM, which are indicators for Na+ and K+, respectively, exhibit increased fluorescence emission intensity upon binding of Na+ and K+. These indicators possess cell-permeant acetoxymethyl (AM) esters. Once inside the cell, the AM esters are hydrolysed by intracellular esterases to release the dye. Thus, the electrolyte concentration in the cell can be quantified based on the fluorescence intensity.

In this study, we used these electrolyte indicators to visualise Na+ and K+ concentrations at each developmental stage in mouse embryos, to gain insights into the cytophysiology of embryonic development. Furthermore, immunostaining of Na+/K+ ATPase was performed to elucidate the relationship between Na+/K+ ATPase expression and activity at each developmental stage.

Materials and methods

Ethical approval

Approval for the animal studies was obtained from the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of Akita University (permission number: 1090–2). This study was conducted according to Akita University Animal Experimentation Regulations.

Collection of mouse oocytes, zygotes, and embryos

All animal experiments were performed in accordance with the Guide for Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of Akita University and carried out as previously described with some modifications [15]. All mice were housed in cages at 23°C with a 12-h light/dark photoperiod and free access to food and water. In vitro fertilisation (IVF) was selected as the embryo acquisition method to precisely determine the developmental stage and maintain a uniform developmental environment throughout the experimental period, starting from the time of insemination. Briefly, female B6D2F1 mice (Charles River Laboratories, Kanagawa, Japan), aged 9–14 weeks, were intraperitoneally injected with 5 IU of serum gonadotrophin (Serotropin®; ASKA Animal Health Co., Tokyo, Japan), followed by injection of 5 IU of human chorionic gonadotrophin (Gonatropin®; ASKA Animal Health Co.) after 48 h to induce ovulation. After an additional 14 h, female mice were euthanised through cervical dislocation. The oocytes were collected from these unmated mice and fertilised via IVF with ICR mouse sperm in HTF medium (Ark Resource, Kumamoto, Japan). Male mice were euthanised by cervical dislocation 1 h before insemination, and their spermatozoa were retrieved from the cauda epididymis by squeezing. The retrieved spermatozoa were suspended in HTF medium at 37°C and 5% CO2 for 1 h and then transferred to the IVF medium (at a final concentration of 200 sperm/μL).

Embryo culture

Five hours after insemination, IVF embryos were transferred into KSOM (Ark Resource) and cultured in 200 μL of medium in a Primo Vision Embryo Culture Dish (Vitrolife, Gothenburg, Sweden), which was then covered with mineral oil. Embryos were cultured under the following conditions: 5% O2, 5% CO2, 90% N2, and a temperature of 37°C. Culture medium was not replaced during the experiments [15]. Embryos were imaged using the Primo Vision time-lapse monitoring system (Vitrolife) at 5-min intervals from IVF to vitrification, from thawing to experimental use, and from washing after experimental use with the electrolyte indicator for at least 24 h.

Vitrification and thawing

Embryos were cultured in vitro until they reached the 2-cell stage, followed by vitrification using a Cryotop Safety Kit (Kitazato, Shizuoka, Japan). The embryos were immersed in equilibration solution for 15 min and then transferred into vitrification solution within 90 s. Next, they were placed on a Cryotop under a microscope. The Cryotop was frozen directly in liquid nitrogen, with 2–4 embryos vitrified in each Cryotop. For thawing, the embryos were warmed by submerging the Cryotop in thawing solution (1 mol/L sucrose) at 37°C for <60 s and then in dilution solution (0.5 mol/L sucrose) for 3 min. The embryos were immersed in washing solution twice, for 5 and 1 min, respectively, washed three times in KSOM, and cultured.

Na+/K+ ATPase functional assay using ouabain

Ouabain, a plant-derived cardiotonic steroid, binds to Na+/K+ ATPase and inhibits its ion transport function [16]. Ouabain octahydrate (Abcam, Cambridge, UK) was used to assess the function of Na+/K+ ATPase. Briefly, embryos were placed in 10−3 M ouabain for 1 h, the concentration previously reported to block the ion transport functions of Na+/K+ ATPase in mice [16, 17]. Subsequently, the embryos were loaded with electrolyte indicators.

Electrolyte indicator

Na+ imaging

Embryos (from morula to hatching stage) were loaded with 0.5 μM CoroNa Green AM (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) according to the manufacturer’s instructions and a previous report [12] with slight modifications, at 37°C for 30 min. Subsequently, intracellular and/or blastocoel fluorescence intensity was measured using an LSM780 confocal laser-scanning microscope (Carl Zeiss AG, Jena, Germany). The excitation and emission wavelengths were 488 and 510–520 nm, respectively (Fig 1A). The same experiments were repeated at least three times.

Fig 1. Live visualisation of Na+ and intensity analysis using CoroNa Green AM.

Fig 1

(a) Protocol for CoroNa Green AM. (b) Images of embryos at morula, blastocyst, and hatching stages. Scale bar, 50 μm. (c) Comparison of CoroNa Green AM fluorescence intensity at each stage without ouabain. Wilcoxon rank sum test: **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. (d) Effect of ouabain at each stage. Wilcoxon rank sum test: **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. (e) Comparison of intracellular and blastocoel fluorescence intensity. Wilcoxon rank sum test: ***p < 0.001.

K+ imaging

Briefly, the embryos were loaded with 5 μM ION Potassium Green-2 AM (Abcam) at 37°C for 30 min according to a previous report [18]. The embryos were washed three times with KSOM, and the intracellular fluorescence intensity was measured. The excitation wavelength was set to 526 nm (6-JOE), and emission was detected at 540–560 nm (Fig 2A). The same experiments were repeated at least three times.

Fig 2. Live visualisation of K+ and intensity analysis using ION Potassium Green-2 AM.

Fig 2

(a) Protocol for ION Potassium Green-2 AM. (b) Images at morula, blastocyst, and hatching stages. Scale bar, 50 μm. (c) Comparison of ION Potassium Green-2 AM fluorescence intensity at each stage without ouabain. Wilcoxon rank sum test: **p < 0.01. (d) Effect of ouabain at each stage.

In total, 180 mouse embryos were observed in this study. For Na+ imaging, 96 embryos were studied, including 55 in the control group [morula (n = 20), blastocyst (n = 18), and hatching (n = 17)] and 41 in the ouabain group [morula (n = 17), blastocyst (n = 12), and hatching (n = 12)]. For K+ imaging, 84 embryos were used, including 50 in the control group [morula (n = 22), blastocyst (n = 11), and hatching (n = 17)] and 34 in the ouabain group [morula (n = 16), blastocyst (n = 9), and hatching (n = 9)].

Intensity measurement

As these indicators have not been used for thick samples such as mouse embryos (height = 75–100 μm), we repeated these experiments to set optimal measurement conditions. The intensity was highest at the cross-section near the dish contact surface closest to the laser firing point and gradually decreased as the distance from the laser emission point increased. To compare the intensity of each embryo, measurement at almost the same height was conducted for all embryos. Images were taken at 5-μm intervals, and a slice containing the target cell or blastocoel was observed within 30 μm from the lowest plane of the embryo (near the equatorial plane of the embryo) (Fig 3A).

Fig 3. Intensity measurement procedure.

Fig 3

(a) The image was taken at a slice thickness of 5 μm, and the optimum slice was selected within a range of 30 μm from the bottom. (b) The circumference of the target cells or the blastocoel was manually plotted to determine the measurement region. (c) The ZEN Software measured the intensity on a pixel-by-pixel basis and automatically calculated the mean intensity.

When measuring intracellular intensity, the outer cells were targeted at the morula stage, and the TE cells inside the zona pellucida were targeted after the blastocyst stage. The circumference of the all target cells was manually plotted in the same Z section (Fig 3B). In addition, polar body and degenerated cells showed high intensities; therefore, these cells were excluded from the target. Next, the mean intensity of the selected region was calculated using ZEN Software 2012 black edition (Carl Zeiss AG). The software measures intensity on a pixel-by-pixel basis, and automatically calculates the mean intensity (Fig 3C).

Antibodies

Embryos were stained with the following antibodies: goat polyclonal anti-Oct3/4 (Cat. Sc-8628, Lot #K0615; Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Dallas TX, USA) [15, 19], mouse monoclonal anti-Na+/K+-ATPase α-1 (Cat. #05–369, Lot 3170808; C464.6; Merck Millipore, Billerica, MA, USA) [15, 20], and Hoechst 33342 (Cat. 346–07951, Lot DH039, Dojindo Molecular Technologies, Kumamoto, Japan) [15].

Immunofluorescence and confocal microscopy

For Oct3/4 and Na+/K+-ATPase staining, the embryos were fixed in methanol as previously recommended [21] with slight modification. The embryos were fixed for 3 min each in 2:1 PBS:methanol, 1:1 PBS:methanol, 1:2 PBS:methanol, and 100% methanol. They were then rehydrated using the same series in reverse. Prior to immunostaining, permeabilisation and blocking were performed using PHEM buffer (60 mM PIPES, 25 mM HEPES, 10 mM EGTA, 2 mM MgCl2 at pH 6.9) containing 0.01% Triton X-100 and 3% bovine serum albumin (BSA) for 45 min at room temperature. The embryos were washed three times in PBS containing 0.1% BSA, followed by incubation with a mixed solution of anti-Oct3/4 (1:50) and anti-Na+/K+-ATPase α-1 (1:200) primary antibodies overnight at 4°C. The embryos were washed three times in wash buffer (PBS; Gibco® DPBS, Thermo Fisher Scientific, containing 0.1% BSA; Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) and incubated with secondary antibodies (1:200; Alexa Fluor 647-conjugated donkey anti-goat IgG, Abcam) for 1 h at room temperature. The embryos were again washed three times in wash buffer and incubated with secondary antibodies (1:200; Alexa Fluor 488-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG, Abcam) for 1 h at room temperature. Following another three washes in wash buffer, chromatin was stained with Hoechst 33342 (1:1000) for 20 min at room temperature. After washing three times in wash buffer, the stained embryos were examined under an LSM780 confocal laser-scanning microscope (Carl Zeiss AG).

Statistical analyses

All statistical analyses were performed using The R Project for Statistical Computing (R Version 4.0.3, Vienna, Austria). The percentages of normal growth in the control group and test groups after using electrolyte indicators with/without ouabain were compared using Fisher’s exact test and post-hoc pairwise comparisons adjusted by Holm’s method. Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare fluorescence intensities between the control and ouabain groups at each stage. Wilcoxon signed rank exact test was used to compare fluorescence intensities between cells and blastocoels at the blastocyst and hatching stages, and intensities between TE-blastocoel and TE-ICM. Fluorescence intensities between the embryo stages were compared using a nonparametric, pairwise, multiple-comparison procedure, followed by Kruskal–Wallis or Dunn’s tests [22]. p < 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.

Results

Effect of electrolyte indicator on the mouse embryo

After loading the electrolyte indicator, the growth of the embryos was examined using the Primo Vision time-lapse monitoring system for at least 24 h after washing three times. Briefly, 94.9% (37/39) of the embryos in the control group, without the indicator and ouabain, 92.0% (23/25) in the CoroNa Green AM group, 91.9% (34/37) in the ouabain + CoroNa Green AM group, 74.2% (23/31) in the ION Potassium Green-2 AM group, and 42.1% (16/38) in the ouabain + ION Potassium Green-2 AM group showed normal growth. Therefore, the ouabain + ION Potassium Green-2 AM group was significantly affected compared to the control (p = 0.0040), CoroNa Green AM (p = 0.041), and ouabain + CoroNa Green AM (p = 0.0192) groups (Fig 4), indicating that ION Potassium Green-2 AM was more cytotoxic than CoroNa Green AM, particularly in the ouabain combination group. (p = 1.000, control vs. CoroNa Green and ouabain + CoroNa Green groups; p = 0.129, control vs. ION Potassium Green) (Fig 4)

Fig 4. Comparison of normal growth after using electrolyte indicators with/without ouabain.

Fig 4

(A) CoroNa Green AM (B) ouabain + CoroNa Green AM (C) ION Potassium Green-2 AM (D) ouabain + ION Potassium Green-2 AM. Normal growth was 94.9% (37/39) in control, 92.0% (23/25) in (A), 91.9% (34/37) in (B), 74.2% (23/31) in (C), and 42.1% (16/38) in (D). Fisher’s exact test and post-hoc pairwise comparisons adjusted using Holm’s method: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.

Na+ imaging

In all embryonic developmental stages, the cytoplasm exhibited almost uniform fluorescence (Fig 1B). The change in intensity over time after addition of CoroNa Green AM gradually increased and reached a plateau after 20 min, indicating that the indicator was well dispersed and de-esterified in the embryo after reaching a plateau. During time-lapse imaging of the embryo after the blastocyst stage, the outer cells initially showed fluorescence, followed immediately by the blastocoel (S1 Movie). This result indicates that CoroNa Green AM is excreted into the blastocoel after entering the cell.

Comparison of CoroNa Green AM fluorescence intracellular intensities at each stage

The blastocyst stage and the hatching stage showed significantly lower fluorescence intensities than the morula stage (p = 0.0062, morula vs. blastocyst; p < 0.001, morula vs. hatching group). The difference between the blastocyst stage and the hatching stage was not significant (p = 0.3700) (Fig 1C). Imaging was performed by loading the embryos with the Na+/K+ ATPase inhibitor ouabain, which induced a significant increase in fluorescence intensity in the blastocyst group (p < 0.001) and in the hatching stage (p = 0.0043). Ouabain loading did not induce a significant difference in fluorescence in the morula group (p = 0.1373) (Fig 1D).

Comparison of intracellular and blastocoel CoroNa Green AM fluorescence intensities

After the blastocyst stage, the fluorescence intensity of the blastocoel cavity was significantly higher than that of the intracellular environment at both the blastocyst and hatching stages (p < 0.001) (Fig 1E).

K+ imaging

The results of K+ and Na+ imaging differed. Time-lapse imaging after addition of ION Potassium Green-2 AM revealed an immediate gradual increase in intensity (S2 Movie), which did not reach a plateau thereafter. Cells that were not in direct contact with the reagent, such as inner cells of the morula and ICM, showed no or very weak fluorescence (Fig 2B and S2 Movie).

Comparison of ION Potassium Green-2 AM fluorescence intracellular intensities at each stage

The hatching group showed significantly higher fluorescence intensity than that of the morula group (p = 0.0072). The fluorescence intensity did not differ significantly between the blastocyst group and the preceding and following stages (p = 0.9269, morula vs. blastocyst; p = 0.0684, blastocyst vs. hatching group). However, intracellular fluorescence intensity increased as development progressed in the morula, blastocyst, and hatching groups (Fig 2C). Loading embryos with ouabain did not induce a significant difference in any group (control vs. ouabain, p = 0.9374 at the morula stage; p = 0.1479 at the blastocyst stage; p = 0.5225 at the hatching stage) (Fig 2D).

Comparison of fluorescence intensities of ION Potassium Green-2 AM between TE-blastocoel and TE-ICM

After blastocoel formation, TE cells were divided into cells directly in contact with the blastocoel (TE-blastocoel) and ICM (TE-ICM) (Fig 5B). The fluorescence intensities in the TE-blastocoel revealed significantly higher intensity than in TE-ICM (p < 0.001) (Fig 5A and 5C). Additionally, immunostaining confirmed that Na+/K+ ATPase was localised and expressed on the basolateral cell membranes of TE-ICM, similar to that in the TE-blastocoel (Fig 5D).

Fig 5. Comparison of ION Potassium Green-2 AM fluorescence intensity between TE-blastocoel and TE-ICM.

Fig 5

(a) Imaging of ION Potassium Green-2 AM at the blastocyst stage. Scale bar, 50 μm. (b) Schematic illustration of TE-blastocoel and TE-ICM. TE is divided into cells directly in contact with the blastocoel (TE-blastocoel) and ICM (TE-ICM). (c) Comparison of fluorescence intensity between TE-blastocoel and TE-ICM. Wilcoxon signed rank exact test: ***p < 0.001. (d) Immunofluorescence images (Oct3/4, Na+/K+ ATPase, Hoechst, Merged) at the hatching stage. Scale bar, 50 μm.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first study using CoroNa Green AM and ION Potassium Green-2 AM indicators to visualise intracellular electrolytes during embryonic development of the mouse embryo.

We observed the behaviour of electrolytes in blastocoel formation. Our results support the previously reported function of Na+/K+ ATPase; we additionally observed changes in the intracellular electrolyte concentration. Changes in the intensities of Na+ and K+ from morula to hatching demonstrated that the intracellular Na+ concentration decreased while K+ concentration increased during blastocoel formation. This result supports the function of Na+/K+ ATPase shown in many previous studies [79]. When ouabain was used in combination with Na+ imaging, the intensity increased significantly in the blastocyst and hatching groups. These results demonstrate the increase in Na+ concentration due to Na+/K+ ATPase inhibition, and we considered CoroNa Green AM imaging to correlate with the intracellular Na+ concentration. In contrast, at the morula stage, the intensity was not affected by ouabain, because the activity of Na+/K+ ATPase was lower than that at the blastocyst stage [23]. Additionally, we thought that the activity of Na+/K+ ATPase was originally suppressed at the morula stage, which may have contributed to Na+ storage in TE cells for blastocoel formation. We found that a greater change in intensity after using ouabain was associated with higher activity of Na+/K+ ATPase, which is consistent with a study that reported the highest Na+/K+ ATPase activity in the blastocyst [23]. Notably, K+ fluorescence intensity did not change with ouabain loading. This may be attributed to the strong cytotoxicity observed in the ION Potassium Green-2 and ouabain combination group, and thus accurate measurements could not be performed.

Intensity in the blastocoel was higher than that in the cell, indicating that the blastocoel had a high Na+ concentration, as previously suggested [79]. This is the first study to visualise high Na+ inside the blastocoel. However, it is unclear whether this was due to a difference in the indicator concentration between cells and the blastocoel and requires further analysis.

K+ intensity was higher in the TE-blastocoel than in the TE-ICM, indicating that the activity of Na+/K+ ATPase differed depending on its location in the TE (Fig 5A and 5C). When Na+/K+ ATPase expression was confirmed by immunostaining, it was similarly localized to the basolateral cell membrane of TE-blastocoel and TE-ICM (Fig 5D). This indicates that the electrolyte indicator can reveal differences in pump activity that cannot be visualised by immunostaining. Low Na+/K+ ATPase activity in the TE-ICM corresponded with embryonic behaviour during blastocoel formation, supporting that changes in electrolyte concentrations were visualised.

Unlike time-lapse K+ imaging, fluorescence intensity reached a plateau in time-lapse Na+ imaging because CoroNa Green AM was more easily excreted from the cells than was ION Potassium Green-2 AM. It has been reported that CoroNa Green AM leaks out of cells more easily than other Na+ indicators [13]. Although a multidrug resistance protein is reportedly involved in the extracellular emission of fluorescent cellular indicators [24, 25], details regarding the two indicators used in this study are unclear. In addition, the lower percentage of embryos showing normal development in the ION Potassium Green-2 AM group compared to in the CoroNa Green AM group may be related to the low degree of excretion of ION Potassium Green-2 AM indicator from the cells.

In this study, CoroNa Green AM and ION Potassium Green-2 AM were successfully used for the first time in mouse embryos to visualise the electrolyte concentration in real-time. Based on these results, new findings were revealed regarding the transition of Na+/K+ ATPase activity at each stage in blastocoel formation and differences in Na+/K+ ATPase activity depending on the location of TE. This method will enable observation of the effects of electrolyte concentrations of various culture solutions within embryos which could not be clarified until now. We hope that this will lead to the development of improved culture solutions and refinements to culture environments in the future, which will greatly contribute to developments in reproductive medicine.

Supporting information

S1 File

(PDF)

S1 Movie. Time-lapse imaging with CoroNa Green AM.

This movie was created by editing time-lapse images obtained at 30 seconds intervals from 3 to 40 minutes after adding CoroNa Green AM.

(MP4)

S2 Movie. Time-lapse imaging with ION Potassium Green-2 AM.

This movie was created by editing a time-lapse image obtained at 30 seconds intervals from 4 to 40 minutes, after adding ION Potassium Green-2 AM.

(MP4)

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge our team for their role in completing this research.

We would also like to thank Editage [http://www.editage.com] for editing this manuscript for English language.

Data Availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B) [Grant Number 18H02942].

References

  • 1.Bedzhov I, Graham SJ, Leung CY, Zernicka-Goetz M. Developmental plasticity, cell fate specification and morphogenesis in the early mouse embryo. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2014;369: 20130538 10.1098/rstb.2013.0538 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Saiz N, Plusa B. Early cell fate decisions in the mouse embryo. Reproduction. 2013;145: R65–R80. 10.1530/REP-12-0381 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Tosti E, Boni R, Gallo A. Ion currents in embryo development. Birth Defects Res C Embryo Today. 2016;108: 6–18. 10.1002/bdrc.21125 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Armant DR. Intracellular Ca2+ signaling and preimplantation development In: Leese H., Brison D. (eds) Cell Signaling During Mammalian Early Embryo Development. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology. vol 843 New York: Springer; 2015. pp. 151–171. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Hur CG, Kim EJ, Cho SK, Cho YW, Yoon SY, Tak HM, et al. K+ efflux through two-pore domain K+ channels is required for mouse embryonic development. Reproduction. 2012;143: 625–636. 10.1530/REP-11-0225 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Kawagishi R, Masahiro T, Kenjiro S, Kenichiro M, Masahiro S, Keiichi T, et al. Na+/H+ Exchanger-3 is involved in mouse blastocyst formation. J Exp Zool A Comp Exp Biol. 2004; 301: 767–775. 10.1002/jez.a.90 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Marikawa Y, Alarcon VB. Creation of trophectoderm, the first epithelium, in mouse preimplantation development In: Kubiak J. (ed) Mouse Development. Results and Problems in Cell Differentiation. vol. 55 Berlin: Springer. 2012. pp. 165–184. 10.1007/978-3-642-30406-4_9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Niimura S. Time-lapse videomicrographic analyses of contractions in mouse blastocysts. J Reprod Dev. 2003;49: 413–423. 10.1262/jrd.49.413 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Watson AJ, Barcroft LC. Regulation of blastocyst formation. Front Biosci. 2001;6: D708–D730. 10.2741/watson [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Iamshanova O, Mariot P, Lehen'Kyi V, Prevarskaya N. Comparison of fluorescence probes for intracellular sodium imaging in prostate cancer cell lines. Eur Biophys J. 2016;45: 765–777. 10.1007/s00249-016-1173-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Day ML, Winston N, McConnell JL, Cook D, Johnson MH. tiK+ toK+: an embryonic clock? Reprod Fertil Dev. 2001;13: 69–79. 10.1071/rd00048 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Sediqi H, Wray A, Jones C, Jones M. Application of Spectral Phasor analysis to sodium microenvironments in myoblast progenitor cells. PLoS One. 2018;13(10): e0204611 10.1371/journal.pone.0204611 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Meier SD, Kovalchuk Y, Rose CR. Properties of the new fluorescent Na+ indicator CoroNa Green: Comparison with SBFI and confocal Na+ imaging. J Neurosci Methods. 2006;155: 251–259. 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2006.01.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Yu LL, Zhang JH, He YP, Huang P, Yue LM. Fast action of estrogen on intracellular calcium in dormant mouse blastocyst and its possible mechanism. Fertil Steril. 2009;91: 611–615. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.11.072 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Onodera Y, Kazumasa T, Mayumi G, Mibuki A, Natsuki O, Hiromitsu S, et al. The location of "8"-shaped hatching influences inner cell mass formation in mouse blastocysts. PLoS One. 2017;12(4): e0175150 10.1371/journal.pone.0175150 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Giannatselis H, Calder M, Watson AJ. Ouabain stimulates a Na+/K+-ATPase-mediated SFK-activated signalling pathway that regulates tight junction function in the mouse blastocyst. PLoS One. 2011;6: e23704 10.1371/journal.pone.0023704 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Violette MI, Madan P, Watson AJ. Na+/K+-ATPase regulates tight junction formation and function during mouse preimplantation development. Dev Biol. 2006;289: 406–419. 10.1016/j.ydbio.2005.11.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Sekar P, Huang DY, Chang SF, Lin WW. Coordinate effects of P2X7 and extracellular acidification in microglial cells. Oncotarget. 2018;9: 12718–12731. 10.18632/oncotarget.24331 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Bernemann C, Greber B, Ko K, Sterneckert J, Han DW, Araúzo-Bravo MJ, et al. Distinct developmental ground states of epiblast stem cell lines determine different pluripotency features. Stem Cells. 2011;29(10): 1496–1503. 10.1002/stem.709 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Boyle S, Misfeldt A, Chandler KJ, Deal KK, Southard-Smith EM, Mortlock DP, et al. Fate mapping using Cited1-CreERT2 mice demonstrates that the cap mesenchyme contains self-renewing progenitor cells and gives rise exclusively to nephronic epithelia. Dev Biol. 2008;313(1): 234–245. 10.1016/j.ydbio.2007.10.014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Becker DL, Davies CS. Role of gap junctions in the development of the preimplantation mouse embryo. Microsc Res Tech. 1995;31(5): 364–374. 10.1002/jemt.1070310506 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Dunn JO. Multiple comparisons using rank sums. Technometrics. 1964;6: 241–252. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Betts DH, Barcroft LC, Watson AJ. Na/K-ATPase-mediated 86Rb+ uptake and asymmetrical trophectoderm localization of α1 and α3 Na/K-ATPase isoforms during bovine preattachment development. Dev Biol. 1998. 197: 77–92. 10.1006/dbio.1998.8874 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Dean M, Hammon Y, Chimini G. The human ATP-binding cassette (ABC) transporter superfamily. J Lipid Res. 2001;42: 1007–1017. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Homolya L, Holló Z, Germann UA, Pastan I, Gottesman MM, Sarkadi B. Fluorescent cellular indicators are extruded by the multidrug resistance protein. J Biol Chem. 1993;268: 21493–21496. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Peter J Hansen

4 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-29923

Live visualisation of electrolytes during mouse embryonic development using electrolyte indicators

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Fujishima,

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 Dec 19 2020 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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Peter J. Hansen

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. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement:

"This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI, Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B) [Grant Number 18H02942].".

i) Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement.

ii) Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript 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: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript 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 note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

5. 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 manuscript, written by Akiko Fujishima and colleagues, the authors study the location of Na+ and K+ electrolytes during mouse preimplantation development. They quantify the electrolytes presence and changes during development by time-lapse confocal microscopy thanks to specific indicators (CoroNa Green AM and ION Potassium Green-2 AM respectively for Na+ and K+). The study focus between morula and late blastocyst (hatching stage) stages, when first lineages and cavitation appear. They show different intensity of the electrolytes indicators depending of the developmental stages, of the cell type (trophectoderm versus inner cell mass) and in the blastocoel. It is of interest for the community to better know Potassium and Sodium concentration in intracellular blastomeres as well as in the blastocoel in this crucial developmental period. However, I have several caveats in the way the analysis is performed and I can not support publication without major reviewing of the manuscript.

1) All the experiments are performed on frozen IVF embryos. It is quite surprising when both IVF and freezing could impact embryonic development and lead to lower developmental yield compared to natural mating. The authors should argument why they did not use superovulated mice followed by natural mating.

2) The authors should avoid overstatement in their abstract and modify the text accordingly. This study does not “confirm the function of Na+/K+ ATPase described in previous studies” (line 37).

3) The authors claim that they have performed time-lapse imaging between zygote and 2-cell stage (why if not in presence of the electrolyte indicators?) and after thawing but none of these data are provided in the manuscript. If time-lapse data are available during blastocoel formation and hatching, it is important to share the movies as well as the quantification of intensity changes over time during these important processes.

4) How the intensity quantification has been performed should be better explain in the Methods section. What are the three replicates that the authors have performed to set up the optimal measurement conditions and what were their controls? A scheme with their imaging features and step-by-step image analysis would be highly appreciated as most of their results are based on this intensity measurement.

How many cells per embryo are analysed? The intensity should be normalized to the size of the cell (or blastocoel) in the Z section where the analysis is performed.

5) The low level of embryonic development in presence of 5 uM ION Potassium Green-2 AM (74%), worsen with added ouabain (42%), is problematic and shows cytotoxicity for blastocyst development. Different concentration of the Potassium electrolyte indicator should be tested to find a more suitable concentration and avoid confounding effect.

6) Line 282, “This result indicates that CoroNa Green AM was excreted into the blastocoel after entering the cell”. This results would be better supported by sharing the performed time-lapse movies and analysing the changes over time for the same embryo.

**********

6. 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: Yes: Maud Borensztein

[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. 2021 Jan 29;16(1):e0246337. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246337.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


19 Nov 2020

To Reviewer 1

Thank you for the thoughtful and constructive feedback for our manuscript titled “Live visualisation of electrolytes during mouse embryonic development using electrolyte indicators.”

1) All the experiments are performed on frozen IVF embryos. It is quite surprising when both IVF and freezing could impact embryonic development and lead to lower developmental yield compared to natural mating. The authors should argument why they did not use superovulated mice followed by natural mating.

Response: Thank you for the valuable suggestion. We used IVF because we could accurately identify the fertilization time, obtain more embryos, and make the culture environment uniform from the time of insemination. We have added the sentence “and maintain a uniform developmental environment throughout the experimental period, starting from the time of insemination.” to our manuscript (Collection of mouse oocytes, zygotes, and embryos in Material and Methods, page 7, lines 106-108). We used frozen embryos to efficiently obtain the embryos in the target developmental stage for observation using confocal laser-scanning microscope. In addition, after thawing, recovery culture was performed until the embryos reached the target stage. The embryos were screened using time-lapse observation, and those that exhibited abnormal development were excluded. Moreover, we think that the effects of vitrification and thawing are not significant in this experiment, considering that the embryos were subjected to sufficient recovery culture and that abnormal embryos were excluded.

2) The authors should avoid overstatement in their abstract and modify the text accordingly. This study does not “confirm the function of Na+/K+ ATPase described in previous studies” (line 37).

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have rewritten the text as follows: “The changes in electrolyte concentration observed in this study were consistent with the activity of Na+/K+ ATPase reported previously” (Abstract, page 3, lines 37-39)

3) The authors claim that they have performed time-lapse imaging between zygote and 2-cell stage (why if not in presence of the electrolyte indicators?) and after thawing but none of these data are provided in the manuscript. If time-lapse data are available during blastocoel formation and hatching, it is important to share the movies as well as the quantification of intensity changes over time during these important processes.

Response: Thank you for your valuable insights. We used time-lapse monitoring from zygote to 2-cell stage to screen for normally developing embryos. We used the Primo Vision time-lapse monitoring system, and not confocal laser-scanning microscopy. Due to the duplication of information pertaining to time-lapse imaging with Primo Vision and confocal-laser scanning microscopy, we have removed the paragraph "Time-lapse imaging" in Material and Methods. We have rewritten the "time-lapse imaging" description confined only to confocal laser-scanning microscopy. However, time-lapse images obtained using confocal laser-scanning microscopy were not used for analysis, because frequent laser irradiation causes fading of the indicator and would be unsuitable for comparing the intensities accurately. In this study, the indicator was added to embryos that had grown to the target stage, and the images obtained through a single scan were used for analysis.

4) How the intensity quantification has been performed should be better explain in the Methods section. What are the three replicates that the authors have performed to set up the optimal measurement conditions and what were their controls? A scheme with their imaging features and step-by-step image analysis would be highly appreciated as most of their results are based on this intensity measurement.

How many cells per embryo are analyzed? The intensity should be normalized to the size of the cell (or blastocoel) in the Z section where the analysis is performed

Response: We apologize for the lack of clarity. We have added the details of the experimental procedure, and added a figure (Fig 3) to the Materials and Methods, under the subheading Intensity measurement (page 12, 13, line 189-211). We analyzed one cell from each embryo at each developmental stage to measure intracellular intensity, and the detailed procedure is described in the manuscript.

We have also added, “The same experiments were repeated at least three times.” to our manuscript (Electrolyte indicator, page 10, line 167, and page 11, line 187).

5) The low level of embryonic development in presence of 5 μM ION Potassium Green-2 AM (74%), worsen with added ouabain (42%), is problematic and shows cytotoxicity for blastocyst development. Different concentration of the Potassium electrolyte indicator should be tested to find a more suitable concentration and avoid confounding effect.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The appropriate concentration of ION Potassium Green-2 AM was not mentioned in the manufacturer’s instructions, and there are only a few reports for reference. Therefore, we used the concentration stated in a previous report (Sekar P, Oncotarget. 2018). In order to investigate the characteristics of ION Potassium Green-2 AM, time-lapse imaging was performed. As a result, the optimum loading time was determined. Additionally, in the time-lapse imaging, the intracellular intensity continued to increase, and the intensity remained stable even after washing and long-term culturing in medium without the indicator. It was predicted that ION Potassium Green-2 AM is difficult to be excreted, and this property is believed to be associated with its cytotoxicity. Therefore, we concluded that the effect of ION Potassium Green-2 AM on the embryo could not be eliminated even if the reagent concentration was reduced.

We have added the time-lapse movie with ION Potassium Green-2 AM as Supporting Information (S2 Movie).

6) Line 282, “This result indicates that CoroNa Green AM was excreted into the blastocoel after entering the cell”. This results would be better supported by sharing the performed time-lapse movies and analyzing the changes over time for the same embryo.

Response: We apologize for the gap in the information. Time-lapse images were not used for data analysis, but for understanding the characteristics of the CoroNa Green AM. During imaging, we found that the TE cell was visible initially followed by the blastocoel cavity. We have added the time-lapse movie with CoroNa Green AM as Supporting information (S1 Movie).

Additional corrections

The following minor changes have been made:

The manuscript has been thoroughly proofread and English language issues have been corrected.

Decision Letter 1

Peter J Hansen

31 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-29923R1

Live visualisation of electrolytes during mouse embryonic development using electrolyte indicators

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Fujishima,

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 Feb 14 2021 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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Peter J. Hansen

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript 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: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript 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 note any specific errors here.

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: Dear authors,

Thank you for improving your manuscript and in particular for the additional figure 3 and movies S1 and S2. However, I have still two points which need to be answered, including my former question 4 on intensity normalization.

1) According to your answers, I am surprised of your choice of analysing only one cell per embryo. Could you explain why you chose this strategy, please? The number of cells analysed could have been improved by studying at least all the cells of the same Z section or all the cells in contact with the reagents for the Potassium Green-2 AM.

2) In the first round of review, I have asked about the normalization of the mean intensity. According to your answer, it does not seem that you are normalizing the mean intensity by the size of the cell, which is very important to be able to compare your results.

Please, provide the normalised analysis of your results.

Best regards

**********

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: Yes: Maud Borensztein

[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. 2021 Jan 29;16(1):e0246337. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246337.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


12 Jan 2021

Thank you for the thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript titled “Live visualisation of electrolytes during mouse embryonic development using electrolyte indicators.” The manuscript ID is PONE-D-20-29923.

To Reviewer 1

1) According to your answers, I am surprised of your choice of analysing only one cell per embryo. Could you explain why you chose this strategy, please? The number of cells analysed could have been improved by studying at least all the cells of the same Z section or all the cells in contact with the reagents for the Potassium Green-2 AM.

Response: Thank you for the valuable suggestion. As you pointed out, there was concern that selecting a single cell would bias the selection and would not provide accurate data. Therefore, we selected all the target cells of the same Z section and reanalyzed the data. However, it did not change much from the previous result. Regarding the comparison of CoroNa Green AM fluorescence intracellular intensities, in the previous result only the blastocyst stage showed a significant difference when compared to the morula stage, but in the new analysis, the blastocyst stage and the hatching stage showed significantly lower fluorescence intensities than the morula stage. Additionally, the ouabain and control groups showed significant differences not only in the blastocyst stage, but also in the hatching stage.

2) In the first round of review, I have asked about the normalization of the mean intensity. According to your answer, it does not seem that you are normalizing the mean intensity by the size of the cell, which is very important to be able to compare your results.

Please, provide the normalized analysis of your results.

Response:

The ZEN software 2012 black edition, that was used in this study, measures intensity on a pixel-by-pixel basis, and automatically calculates the mean intensity and the number of pixels. Therefore, these intensities are not an area-dependent value. In addition, we searched for reports that measured fluorescence intensity, but could not find one that had normalized by the size of the measured area [1-4]. Since the used mean intensities are already normalized by the number of pixels (based on the reason mentioned previously), we think that their comparison is a valid approach

1. Oksana Iamshanova, Pascal Mariot, V'yacheslav Lehen'kyi, Natalia Prevarskaya. Comparison of fluorescence probes for intracellular sodium imaging in prostate cancer cell lines. Eur Biophys J.2016;45(7):765-777. doi: 10.1007/s00249-016-1173-7. Epub 2016 Sep 22.

2. Charitha Galva, Pablo Artigas, Craig Gatto. Nuclear Na+/K+-ATPase plays an active role in nucleoplasmic Ca2+ homeostasis. J Cell Sci. 2012;125(Pt 24):6137-47. doi: 10.1242/jcs.114959.

3. Jiantao Zhang, Hua Liu, Jian Sun, Bei Li, Qiang Zhu, Shaoliang Chen, et al. Arabidopsis fatty acid desaturase FAD2 is required for salt tolerance during seed germination and early seedling growth. PLoS One. 2012;7(1):e30355. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0030355.

4. Dong-Ha Oh, Eduardo Leidi, Quan Zhang, Sung-Min Hwang, Youzhi Li, Francisco J Quintero, et al. Loss of halophytism by interference with SOS1 expression. Plant Physiol. 2009;151(1):210-22. doi: 10.1104/pp.109.137802.

Decision Letter 2

Peter J Hansen

19 Jan 2021

Live visualisation of electrolytes during mouse embryonic development using electrolyte indicators

PONE-D-20-29923R2

Dear Dr. Fujishima,

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,

Peter J. Hansen

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript 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: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript 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 note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

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: (No Response)

**********

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: Yes: Maud Borensztein

Acceptance letter

Peter J Hansen

21 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-29923R2

Live visualisation of electrolytes during mouse embryonic development using electrolyte indicators

Dear Dr. Fujishima:

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

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 plosone@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

Dr. Peter J. Hansen

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 File

    (PDF)

    S1 Movie. Time-lapse imaging with CoroNa Green AM.

    This movie was created by editing time-lapse images obtained at 30 seconds intervals from 3 to 40 minutes after adding CoroNa Green AM.

    (MP4)

    S2 Movie. Time-lapse imaging with ION Potassium Green-2 AM.

    This movie was created by editing a time-lapse image obtained at 30 seconds intervals from 4 to 40 minutes, after adding ION Potassium Green-2 AM.

    (MP4)

    Data Availability Statement

    All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES