Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Mar 3;17(3):e0264496. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0264496

Comparable respiratory activity in attached and suspended human fibroblasts

Lucie Zdrazilova 1,*, Hana Hansikova 1, Erich Gnaiger 2,*
Editor: Thierry Rabilloud3
PMCID: PMC8893708  PMID: 35239701

Abstract

Measurement of oxygen consumption of cultured cells is widely used for diagnosis of mitochondrial diseases, drug testing, biotechnology, and toxicology. Fibroblasts are cultured in monolayers, but physiological measurements are carried out in suspended or attached cells. We address the question whether respiration differs in attached versus suspended cells using multiwell respirometry (Agilent Seahorse XF24) and high-resolution respirometry (Oroboros O2k), respectively. Respiration of human dermal fibroblasts measured in culture medium was baseline-corrected for residual oxygen consumption and expressed as oxygen flow per cell. No differences were observed between attached and suspended cells in ROUTINE respiration of living cells and LEAK respiration obtained after inhibition of ATP synthase by oligomycin. The electron transfer capacity was higher in the O2k than in the XF24. This could be explained by a limitation to two uncoupler titrations in the XF24 which led to an underestimation compared to multiple titration steps in the O2k. A quantitative evaluation of respiration measured via different platforms revealed that short-term suspension of fibroblasts did not affect respiratory activity and coupling control. Evaluation of results obtained by different platforms provides a test for reproducibility beyond repeatability. Repeatability and reproducibility are required for building a validated respirometric database.

Introduction

Studies of cells attached in a monolayer or suspended in the medium have wide-ranging applications and implications. These include metabolic profiling [1], substrate diffusion [2], cell morphology and rheology [3], macrophage adherence [2], suspension culture as mimetic of circulating tumor cells [4], metastatic potential [4], therapeutic cell reimplantation, and cell culture biotechnology and pharmacology [5].

Fibroblast cell lines are established models routinely applied in studies of mitochondrial diseases [69]. These cells can be investigated in culture either attached to the surface of an experimental chamber or in suspension after detachment.

The structure of cells growing in culture changes from the attached to the suspended state. After trypsinization, fibroblasts undergo membrane reorganization and attain a spherical shape with a so-called blebbed surface morphology to prevent membrane loss by providing transient membrane storage [3]. In rabbit lung macrophages, transport of lysine and adenosine across the plasma membrane is faster in suspended cells compared to adherent ones [2]. Moreover, mouse macrophages oxidize glucose six times faster when in suspension than in monolayers [1]. Suspending anchorage‐dependent fibroblasts results in an abrupt drop of mRNA production, while protein synthesis declines slowly but extensively and its recovery requires surface contact [10, 11]. Taken together, these observations raise the physiological question whether cell respiration differs in suspended versus attached fibroblasts. Stimulatory or suppressive effects may be exerted on aerobic ATP demand and consequently respiration may be regulated differently in suspended and attached states.

The first aim of the present study was the evaluation of respiration in attached compared to suspended fibroblasts. The Seahorse XF Analyzer (Agilent, US) is designed for studying respiration of attached cells (ace), whereas the Oroboros O2k (Oroboros Instruments, Austria) is optimized for high-resolution respirometry with suspended cells (sce). Therefore, a platform comparison was required as the second aim of our study. We applied comparable and standardized protocols for monitoring respiratory activity in living cells under near-physiological conditions. Specific titration steps in the protocol disrupt the physiological control of respiration, which then allows for instrumental comparison of performance of the two platforms. Respiratory activity was normalized per cell and expressed in identical SI units for a quantitative comparison of the data. The experimental period of suspended cells was limited to less than one hour. The respiratory activity of suspended and attached cells was not distinguishable during such short time intervals. Comparative studies provide the basis for extending databases of cellular respiration by including critically evaluated results obtained with different platforms.

Materials and methods

Reagents

DMEM5030, Carbonyl cyanide 4-(trifluoromethoxy)phenylhydrazone (FCCP, C2920-10MG), oligomycin(O4876-5MG), antimycin A (A8674-25MG), rotenone (R8875-1G), and glutamine (G7513-100mL) were purchased from Sigma Aldrich. Trypsin- ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid EDTA 10x (XC-T1717/100) and antibiotics-antimycotics 100X (XC-A4110/100) were obtained from Biosera, Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’s medium (DMEM, P04-04510) from Pan Biotech, fetal bovine serum (SV30160.03) from HyClone, and XF Calibrant Solution 100840–000 from Agilent.

The instruments

The Seahorse XF Analyzer (Agilent, Santa Clara, US) provides multi-well plate analysis of two processes in real time: oxygen consumption rate (OCR) as an indicator of cell respiration, and extracellular acidification rate largely dependent on glycolytic processes. Cellular O2 consumption causes changes in the concentration of dissolved dioxygen O2 in so-called ‘transient microchambers’. O2 pressure is measured by solid-state fluorescent probes and converted to O2 concentration. Every measurement step takes 5–8 min during which O2 concentration is measured every few seconds, providing data for OCR calculation. Then the probes are lifted, and the larger volume of medium is mixed to restore O2 levels to baseline conditions. Chemical compounds are injected pneumatically, limited to four sequential injections per well [12].

The Oroboros O2k (Oroboros Instruments, Innsbruck, Austria) is a two-chamber high-resolution respirometer used in cell and mitochondrial research to measure respiration in mitochondrial preparations and living cells. The O2k supports multi-sensor modules and measurement is performed in the experimental chamber, where suspended cells or mitochondrial preparations are continuously mixed by a stirrer at 750 rotations per minute. O2 consumption in nearly diffusion-tight closed chambers is calculated in real time from O2 partial pressure measured by polarographic oxygen sensors. The O2k provides the option of practically unlimited titrations and, therefore, the possibility to apply various Substrate-Uncoupler-Inhibitor-Titration (SUIT) protocols designed to address specific research questions [13, 14]. Table 1 summarizes the comparison between the two instruments.

Table 1. Comparative specifications of Seahorse XF24 and Oroboros O2k applied in the present coupling control protocol.

Seahorse XF24 Oroboros O2k
wells or chambers per instrument 24 semiclosed wells two diffusion-tight chambers
instrumental background and experiments with cells four separated wells without cells and 20 wells with cells in parallel two identical chambers serially without and with cells
detection mode optical O2 sensor with fluorophores electrochemical polarographic oxygen sensor
temperature control 37°C (stability ±0.1°C in a tray) 37°C (stability ±0.002°C in a copper block)
limit of detection of oxygen flux not specified ±1 pmol O2∙s-1∙mL-1
cell conditions attached cells cell suspension
required cell amount 35 000 375 000
sample volume [μL] 450 540
closed chamber volume 7 μL when sensor probes are inserted 500 μL when stoppers are inserted
titrations automatic manual
number of possible titrations 4 technically unlimited
experimental duration [min] 120 30 to 40

Cell culture

Two human dermal fibroblast cell lines were purchased, HDF 1 (Primary Dermal Fibroblast Normal; Human, Neonatal HDFn, PCS_201_010, ATCC, NHDF-Neo), and HDF 2 (Human Dermal Fibroblasts, Neonatal, CC-2509, Lonza). A human dermal fibroblast cell line (HDF 3) was derived from a disease-free control at age of 5 months upon verbal informed parentals’ consent obtained in General Hospital in Prague with ethics committee approval No 92/18 (18.10.2018) for the project GAUK (Grant Agency of Charles University) 110119. All cell lines were cultured in Dulbecco’s modified Eagle medium (DMEM, Pan Biotech) with 25 mM glucose, 10% fetal bovine serum and 1% antibiotics-antimycotics 100X at 37°C under 5% CO2 atmosphere. Fibroblast cultures at passage number 13 to 15 were grown to approximately 80% confluence. Suspended cells were counted by a Handheld Automated Cell Counter (Millipore). Cells were harvested by incubation in trypsin 0.05% w/V with EDTA 0.02%, w/V for 5 min at 37°C, washed, and centrifuged at 300 g (5 min, 24°C).

Sample preparation and respirometry

DMEM5030 was the basis of DMEM respiration medium with addition of 3.9 mM glutamate, 5 mM glucose and 2 mM pyruvate, adjusted to pH 7.4 at 37°C. DMEM respiration medium was freshly prepared on the day of use.

Mitochondrial respiration was measured in the Department of Pediatrics and Inherited Metabolic Disorders, Prague. The Agilent Seahorse XF Analyzer (XF24) according to [15] with slight modifications. The day before measurement, cells were harvested after trypsinization, resuspended in DMEM culture medium, counted, and 35 000 cells were seeded on 20 wells of a 24-well plate for overnight incubation. 4 wells were used as blanks without cells. The plates were incubated overnight in a 5% CO2 atmosphere at 37°C. In parallel, the Sensor Cartridge was hydrated in wells filled with Seahorse XF Calibrant Solution (Agilent) by incubation without CO2 over-night prior to use. The XF24 was switched on during the day before experiments to equilibrate at 37°C. On the following day, wells were washed twice with 1 mL DMEM respiration medium. 450 μL DMEM respiration medium was added to each well and incubated without CO2 for one hour at 37°C. In the meantime, 50 μL oligomycin (stock 20 μM; experimental concentration 2 μM) was added to cartridge port A, 55 μL FCCP (stock 5 μM) to port B, 61 μL FCCP (stock 2 μM) to port C (experimental concentrations 0.5 and 0.7 μM, respectively), and 67 μL rotenone (stock 20 μM) with antimycin A (stock 10 μM) to port D (experimental concentrations 2 and 1 μM). Sensor cartridges were incubated without CO2 for 30–40 min at 37°C, transferred to the XF24 for equilibration and calibration in Seahorse XF Calibrant Solution. Then the calibration well plate was exchanged for the cell plate. Before starting the respiratory protocol with living cells, wells were mixed for 3 min and left idle for 2 min. Respiratory flux was measured in each state three times for 3 min. The transient microchamber for measurement had a volume of approximately 7 μL, with sensors positioned 200 μm above the well bottoms.

Air calibration in the Oroboros O2k was performed daily before measurement [16]. The O2 partial pressure for air calibration is calculated (DatLab software) for air saturated 100% with water vapor at experimental temperature and local barometric pressure recorded real-time by the electronic pressure transducer of the O2k. The O2 solubility of DMEM respiration medium was assumed to be 92% relative to the O2 solubility of pure water at 37°C [17]. Calibrations at zero O2 concentration were performed before the experimental series. Instrumental O2 background flux [18] was measured each day before the experiment with cells in the range of O2 concentration from air saturation at 190 μM to 100 μM.

Experimental oxygen concentrations near air saturation (190 μM to 140 μM; Fig 1B and 1D) are much higher than extracellular oxygen concentrations in various tissues in vivo. Respiration of living cells, however, is independent of oxygen pressure from air saturation to tissue-level oxygen concentration, the latter ranging between 50 and 10 μM [19]. Therefore, even if high experimental oxygen concentrations are not physiological, respiratory measurements are not affected. This is in direct contrast to cellular hydrogen peroxide production, which increases with oxygen concentration over the entire experimental oxygen concentration range [20].

Fig 1. Representative traces of respiration and O2 concentration or O2 pressure in the protocol with living human dermal fibroblasts (HDF 1).

Fig 1

(a) O2 flux per volume in two chambers measured simultaneously in the Oroboros O2k. (b) O2 concentration and partial O2 pressure corresponding to the traces in panel a. (c) O2 consumption rate (OCR) measured simultaneously in six wells of one plate of the XF24. Three time intervals of respiration per respiratory state (R1, R2, R3; L1, L2, L3; etc.). (d) O2 partial pressure corresponding to the traces in panel c.

Respiratory protocol

Comparable respiratory protocols were used with the Agilent XF24 and Oroboros O2k using the same DMEM respiration medium (Fig 1). Every cell line was measured on the same day in parallel, splitting the cells from one culture flask into two O2k -chambers and 20 wells of the XF24. In the coupling control protocol for living cells (SUIT-003), four respiratory states are distinguished [21]. We adhere to the platform-independent terminology of the MitoEAGLE consensus paper [22] and add the terms widely used in conjunction with the XF24 or XF96 [15] in parentheses (Table 2).

Table 2. Harmonization of terminology on respiratory states.

MitoEAGLE Seahorse XF Analyzer Definition
Task Force 2020
R ROUTINE respiration basal respiration physiological respiration controlled by cellular energy demand, energy turnover and the degree of coupling to phosphorylation
L LEAK respiration proton LEAK non-phosphorylating state, respiration maintained mainly to compensate for the proton leak at a high chemiosmotic potential
E electron transfer capacity maximal respiration oxygen consumption with a short circuit of the H+ cycle across the mitochondrial inner membrane stimulating maximum O2 flux
Rox residual oxygen consumption nonmitochondrial respiration respiration due to oxidative side reactions in the ROX-state after Complex I and III inhibition

Comparison of platform-independent MitoEAGLE terms [22] and terms frequently used in the context of Seahorse XF Analyzer applications [23]. R, L, and E are baseline-corrected for Rox.

First, ROUTINE respiration R (‘basal respiration’) was measured in attached or suspended cells. The ROUTINE state is a physiological state, in which respiration is controlled by cellular energy demand. Next, the ATP synthase inhibitor oligomycin was added to induce LEAK respiration L (‘proton leak’). In the non-phosphorylating LEAK state, a low rate of respiration is maintained mainly to compensate for the proton leak at a high protonmotive force. Afterwards, the uncoupler FCCP was titrated in at least two steps to obtain a maximum rate of O2 consumption reflecting the electron transfer capacity E (‘maximal respiration’) in the noncoupled state. Finally, antimycin A and rotenone were added. These inhibitors of Complexes CI and CIII, respectively, inhibit mitochondrial electron transfer and thus induce residual oxygen consumption Rox (‘nonmitochondrial respiration’) due to oxidative side reactions. Importantly, the plasma membrane is permeable for these inhibitors and the uncoupler which, therefore, can be applied in living cells. The concentrations applied in the XF24 and O2k adhered closely to the respective manuals (Table 3; Fig 1).

Table 3. Recommended and applied experimental concentrations of inhibitors and uncoupler [14; 23].

Compound Gnaiger O2k Agilent XF24
(2020) applied (2019) applied
L Oligomycin 5–10 nM titration steps 10–15 nM 0.5–2.5 μM 2 μM
E FCCP 0.5 μM titration steps CCCP 2–2.5 μM 0.125–2.0 μM 0.7 μM
FCCP FCCP FCCP
Rox Rotenone 0.5 μM 0.5 μM 0.5 μM 2 μM
Antimycin A 2.5 μM 2.5 μM 0.5 μM 1 μM

Data analysis

Measurements were normalized for the cell count. Traces were analyzed in DatLab 7 software (Oroboros Instruments) where each O2k -chamber contained 375 000 cells. O2 flow is expressed per cell [amol∙s-1∙x-1] equivalent to [pmol∙s-1∙(106 x)-1]. The Wave 2 software (Agilent) presents results in units [pmol∙min-1] in a well which contained 35 000 cells. Data were converted to the same units [amol∙s-1∙x-1], where x represents the unit cell [14, 24]. In regressions between respiration for different states, variables in X and Y have comparable errors of measurement. To minimize the residuals of both variables, Y and X, slopes bY and βX and intercepts aY and αX are calculated for the Y/X and X/Y inverted linear regressions, respectively. The mean slope b¯=(bY+bX)/2 and mean intercept a¯=(aY+aX)/2 are used, where bX = 1/βX and aX = −αX/βX [25]. Further statistical evaluation was performed using Prism (GraphPad Software, California, USA). Rox-corrected rates were symmetrically distributed, and logarithmic transformation was not required. One outlier was removed in the XF24 with negative LEAK respiration irrespective or Rox-correction. There were no outliers in the O2k.

Results

Respiration normalized for cell count

Respiratory rates measured in the XF24 (ace) and O2k (sce) are expressed per cell in units for O2 flow [amol∙s-1∙x-1] and shown on identical scales in Fig 2A and 2B. The ranking of respiratory capacities of the three cell lines followed different patterns in the XF24 and O2k, which was taken as an argument for pooling all results in the scatter plots. The variability within cell lines was greater in the XF24 (n = 20) than the O2k (n = 4). Averaging five wells of the XF24 to obtain n = 4 per cell line did not reduce the coefficient of variation (SD/average), which was 0.29 and 0.26 for R and E (n = 20) to 0.27 and 0.27 (n = 4, each for 5 pooled wells), compared to the coefficient of variation of 0.10 and 0.10 for R and E in the O2k (Table 4A).

Fig 2.

Fig 2

Sequence of respiratory states in the coupling control protocol applied in the XF24 for ace (a) and O2k for sce (b). Circles: individual wells or chambers; diamonds and bars: median ± SD. ROUTINE respiration R; LEAK respiration L; electron transfer capacity E; residual oxygen consumption Rox.

Table 4. Respiration of three human fibroblast cell lines attached (ace; XF24) or suspended (sce; O2k).

a Cell Number of ROUTINE R LEAK L ET capacity E Rox
line repeats n or groups [amol∙s-1∙x-1] [amol∙s-1∙x-1] [amol∙s-1∙x-1] [amol∙s-1∙x-1]
ace1 n = 20 33 ± 5 5 ± 2 51 ± 7 8 ± 8
ace2 n = 20 39 ± 10 6 ± 2 60 ± 14 11 ± 6
ace3 n = 19 30 ± 13 5 ± 2 44 ± 18 7 ± 4
sce1 n = 4 45 ± 4 7 ± 1 94 ± 9 2 ± 1
sce2 n = 4 35 ± 4 6 ± 3 75 ± 7 1 ± 2
sce3 n = 4 31 ± 3 3 ± 1 69 ± 7 2 ± 2
acemean N = 3 34 ± 4 5 ± 1 52 ± 8 9 ± 2
scemean N = 3 37 ± 7 6 ± 2 79 ± 13 2 ± 1
b Cell Number of control ratio net R/E ratio net E ratio ROX
line replica n or groups N R/E (R-L) /E (E-L)/E Rox/Etot
ace1 n = 20 0.64 ± 0.07 0.56 ± 0.06 0.91 ± 0.06 0.14 ± 0.27
ace2 n = 20 0.61 ± 0.10 0.56 ± 0.11 0.89 ± 0.04 0.15 ± 0.08
ace3 n = 19 0.71 ± 0.07 0.60 ± 0.08 0.92 ± 0.07 0.15 ± 0.06
sce1 n = 4 0.46 ± 0.04 0.38 ± 0.04 0.92 ± 0.00 0.02 ± 0.01
sce2 n = 4 0.49 ± 0.06 0.39 ± 0.03 0.91 ± 0.04 0.01 ± 0.02
sce3 n = 4 0.45 ± 0.04 0.41 ± 0.02 0.96 ± 0.02 0.03 ± 0.02
acemean N = 3 0.61 ± 0.05 27.4 ± 4.7 0.90 ± 0.03 0.16 ± 0.01
scemean N = 3 0.47 ± 0.02 31.2 ± 5.9 0.93 ± 0.03 0.02 ± 0.01

Median ± SD. (a) R, L and E corrected for residual oxygen consumption Rox. n are technical repeats. (b) Flux control ratios and flux control efficiencies normalized for ET capacity as an internal normalization to express respiration independent of cell count. Rox was normalized for total O2 consumption Etot in the noncoupled state. Etot was determined immediately before inhibition by antimycin A and is the electron transfer capacity without correction for Rox.

Rates of O2 consumption are expected to be identical in adherent and suspended cells in the LEAK, ET, and ROX states when physiological control of cellular energy demand is eliminated. This is achieved by inhibition of mitochondrial electron transfer using rotenone and antimycin A. These block the Complexes I and III, respectively, and thus induce the state of residual oxygen consumption ROX. Similarly, inhibition of ATP synthase by oligomycin induces LEAK respiration L in a state that is not controlled by cellular ATP turnover. ROX and LEAK are, therefore, states of minimum O2 consumption, providing a comparison of instrumental resolution of the two instrument types, independent of using attached cells (ace) in the XF24 and suspended cells (sce) in the O2k. Residual oxygen consumption Rox and total LEAK respiration L’tot not corrected for Rox were higher with a larger scatter in the XF24 (ace) compared to the O2k (sce) (Fig 3A and 3B). Rox-correction of LEAK respiration L, however, eliminated the differences observed in the two platforms (Fig 3C). Bioenergetic cluster analysis BCA [25] shows the pairwise correlation between Rox and total LEAK respiration (Fig 3D and 3E).

Fig 3. Residual oxygen consumption Rox, LEAK respiration L, ROUTINE respiration R, and electron transfer capacity E in attached and suspended fibroblast cells (ace and sce).

Fig 3

(a) Rox measured after inhibition by rotenone and antimycin A reflects instrumental resolution independent of cell physiological conditions for comparison of the two respirometers (ace: XF24, sce: O2k). (b) Total LEAK respiration Ltot uncorrected for Rox, higher in ace than sce. (c) Rox-correction of LEAK respiration L eliminates the difference between ace and sce. (d) Relation between Rox and Ltot (full range). b¯ is the mean slope of the ordinate and inverted slopes which are shown for ace (thin dashed lines). The low coefficient of determination r2 for sce is related to the very low scatter of the data. (e) Zoom into the positive range of values in panel d. (f) Rox-corrected ROUTINE respiration was similar in ace and sce. (g) Rox-corrected electron transfer capacity was lower in ace than sce.

ROUTINE respiration R is under physiological control of living cells. Therefore, R reflects the possible changes in mitochondrial ATP demand induced by suspending cells that were grown attached in a monolayer. Rox-corrected R was similar in attached cells measured in the XF24 and suspended cells measured in the O2k (Fig 3F).

Electron transfer capacity E is supported by physiological substrates in the living cell but is entirely independent of respiratory control by cellular ATP demand. Therefore, E corrected for Rox was expected to be independent of cell physiology and comparable in suspended and attached cells. However, E was lower in ace than sce (Fig 3G). Results for the three cell lines are summarized in Table 4.

ROUTINE versus LEAK respiration and electron transfer capacity

Internal normalization eliminates any possible bias caused by methodological differences in determining the concentration of cells per experimental chamber volume in wells (attached; ace) and in suspension (sce).

ET capacity is frequently used as a reference and functional mt-marker (Table 4B). The higher R/E flux control ratio in ace, however, does not indicate a lower ROUTINE respiration in sce, which would contradict the results on O2 flow normalized for cell count (Fig 3). BCA illustrates a left shift of the R/E regression line due to lower ET capacity in ace compared to sce, at comparable ROUTINE respiration of suspended and attached cells (Fig 4A). The compensatory increase of R as a function of intrinsic uncoupling detected by increasing L in sce (Fig 4B) conforms to a pattern generally observed in cell respiration [25]. Noise in the ace data prevents resolution, yet the overlap of clusters supports the conclusion based on O2 flow (Fig 3F) that ROUTINE respiration was not different in ace and sce.

Fig 4. Bioenergetic cluster analysis of respiration in different respiratory coupling states in attached and suspended cells (ace and sce).

Fig 4

(a) R varies in direct proportion to ET capacity. The linear R/E regressions are different for ace and sce, thus the data points are arranged as separate heterolinear clusters with different b¯ace and b¯sce. E is lower in ace than sce at similar R (blue arrow pointing to the left from the median of sce to the median of ace). (b) ace and sce are in the same cluster in the plot of R versus L, with high noise in ace LEAK respiration. For sce, bY and bX indicate the slopes for the ordinary and inverted least squares regressions. The trend of R increasing linearly with L and a positive intercept agree with results on different human fibroblasts [25]. (c) A constant coupling control efficiency j at declining E (dotted line for sce) is predicted at constant mitochondrial quality with proportional decline of E and L. The relationship between coupling efficiency and E at constant L is hyperbolic (full line fitted for ace). (E-L)50 is the net ET capacity when coupling efficiency is 50%. The maximum coupling efficiency, jmax ≝ 1, is approached with increasing E.

Low ET capacities in ace are explained by the high oligomycin concentration applied in the XF24, which may inhibit the ET capacity compared with the minimum oligomycin concentration optimized by titrations in each experiment conducted in the O2k. In addition, the trend of increasing respiration in response to the second and low uncoupler titration suggests that O2 flow would further increase in the actual ET state (Fig 2A).

Declining E at constant L lowers the E-L coupling efficiency, j = (E-L)/E, by an ET-linked mechanism. The distinction between ET-linked and uncoupling-linked effects, however, is not apparent from the ratios presented in Table 4B. When E and L are expressed as O2 flow per cell (Table 4A) and vary proportionally due to differences in cell size, mt-density, and noise in the cell count, then coupling efficiency remains constant at variable ET capacity, as seen in sce (Fig 4C). Even when E is underestimated progressively, the drop in (E-L)/E is small initially, since the decline in (E-L) is partially compensated for by the decline of E. The relationship between coupling efficiency and declining E at constant L is hyperbolic. The XF24 data follow this nonlinear model as a separate cluster overlapping with the O2k data at high coupling efficiency (Fig 4C).

Discussion

Cells cultured attached to a physical substrate undergo many changes when they are detached and maintained in suspension, but possible bioenergetic respiratory changes have not yet been addressed. The production of mRNA in fibroblasts is reduced to 20% within a few hours of suspension [10]. The mRNA is not degraded but inactivated and its amount remains constant [10]. The rate of protein synthesis declines more slowly, even slower than expected from the mRNA lifetime of about nine hours [26]. Nevertheless, the suspended cells contain ― after almost 3 days of reduced messenger RNA production ― unchanged levels of cytoplasmic polyadenylated RNA due to a stabilization of mRNA against normal turnover. A continuous decline in protein synthesis starts after 12 h in suspension [10]. The recovery of protein synthesis is rapid after reattachment of cells to a tissue culture dish and reactivation of the sequestered mRNA [27]. These responses of cells to suspension or attachment suggest the possibility that altered physical configuration and cell morphology may induce metabolic responses [10]. To our knowledge, the bioenergetic consequences of suspending fibroblasts grown in a monolayer have not yet been quantitatively assessed, despite numerous studies reporting fibroblast respiration of either suspended or attached cells. Our results showed that ROUTINE respiration was not different in attached cells studied after overnight seeding versus freshly suspended cells measured one hour after harvesting. These findings are relevant for interpreting respirometric short-term studies, but do not exclude severe bioenergetic alterations and even cell death as a consequence of prolonged suspension of fibroblasts. Importantly, cells do not immediately change their morphology when re-plated after trypsinization [28].

For a comparison of respiration of attached versus suspended fibroblasts, it was necessary to use two different platforms. Multiwell microchambers contain attached cells without stirring. In contrast, the 0.5-mL twin chambers that are stirred continuously to maintain cells in homogenous suspension and to avoid O2 diffusion gradients which would compromise high-resolution respirometry. Our approach covered a time range that is relevant for current techniques of measuring respiration in suspended fibroblasts. The duration of maintaining cells in suspension extends from trypsinization to the actual respirometric measurement, which limits the duration to less than two hours from detachment to monitoring of ROUTINE respiration. Importantly, even respiratory measurement of adherent cells in the XF24 did not represent a direct and undisturbed monitoring of oxygen consumption of attached cultured cells but required harvesting of the cells by detachment on the day before measurement. Our study, however, provides the rationale for extended studies of the stress-response of cells suspended for prolonged periods of time.

Primarily, therefore, we had to evaluate the quantitative agreement between measurements with the two instruments. Higher rates of residual oxygen consumption Rox and total LEAK respiration not corrected for Rox were obtained in the XF24. This may be attributed to variable instrumental background rather than the attached state of the cells, which is supported by the fact that Rox-corrected LEAK respiration was not different between attached and suspended cells (ace and sce). Our results can be compared with a large database on respiration of normal human dermal fibroblasts NHDF measured with the Seahorse XF96 Analyzer and used as controls for the diagnosis of inherited mitochondrial diseases [6]. NHDF data from 2630 wells are summarized in a meta-analysis based on BCA [25]. Respiration was normalized for the count of seeded cells (20 000 cells per well in the XF96, compared to 35 000 cells per well in the XF24 and 375 000 cells in the O2k chamber in the present study). After conversion of the NHDF raw data to SI units, deletion of runs with missing data points, further elimination of 7% of outliers ([6] report 17% outliers), and log transformation to account for positive skewness, the NHDF data are expressed as means ± SD after linear back-transformation. R, L and E are 37 ± 12; 6 ± 3; and 78 ± 26 amol∙s-1∙x-1, respectively [25]. This agrees with our results on suspended cells in the O2k and attached cells in the XF24 for R and L (Table 4). Our data on E in the XF24 after 2 μM oligomycin and uncoupler titration up to 0.7 μM were lower (52 ± 8) compared to 78 ± 25 in the XF96 at a lower oligomycin concentration (1 μM) and higher FCCP concentration (1 μM; [6]). This supports the interpretation that ET capacity was underestimated in the present study in the XF24 due to an insufficiently high uncoupler concentration (Fig 2A) combined with a high concentration of oligomycin inhibiting E.

The variability of respiration normalized for the cell count is of interest from two points of view. (1) A methodological perspective: Is high variability mainly the result of respirometric noise, noise in the cell count, or variability introduced by the addition of cells to the respirometric chambers or wells? Is the reproducibility linked to specific techniques and to the magnitude of the cell count used in an assay? (2) A physiological perspective: Is the variability factual rather than artefactual [25]? A possible reason for higher variability of residual oxygen consumption obtained in the XF24 is the instrumental background O2 rate, which is not determined in the experimental wells but is measured in parallel only in four separate control wells without cells (Table 1).

Taken together, neither LEAK respiration nor ROUTINE respiration were different when comparing attached and suspended cells. Bioenergetic cluster analysis (BCA) identified the lower coupling control efficiency obtained in the XF24 to be caused by an underestimation of ET capacity as opposed to uncoupling (Fig 4C). Further studies of respiration in different attached and suspended cell types are of great interest in cell physiology, particularly in neuronal and blood cells, and importantly, in cancer cell lines and other cell models of disease. The present approach includes BCA and provides a guideline for extending databases on cell respiration across instrumental platforms, emphasizing the importance of harmonization of protocols.

Abbreviations

amol

attomole (10−18 moles)

ace

attached cells

DMEM

Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’s medium

E and E’tot

ET capacity per cell, Rox-corrected and total [amol∙s-1∙x-1]

(E-L)50

net ET capacity when coupling efficiency is 50% in the hyperbolic dyscapacity model; (E-L)50 = L; E50 = 2∙L

EDTA

Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid

ETS

electron transfer system

FCCP

Carbonyl cyanide 4-(trifluoromethoxy)phenylhydrazone

HRR

high-resolution respirometry

I O2

O2 flow per cell count

j

coupling control efficiency (E-L)/E

j max

maximum coupling control efficiency, by definition jmax ≝ 1

J O2

O2 flux per chamber volume

L and Ltot

LEAK respiration per cell, Rox-corrected and total [amol∙s-1∙x-1]

M

mega (106)

M

molar (mol∙L-1)

mt

mitochondria(l)

n

number of technical repeats or total number of measurements

N

number of independent replica

N ce

cell count, number of cells [x]

OCR

oxygen consumption rate

p

pico (10−12)

R and R’tot

ROUTINE respiration per cell, Rox-corrected and total [amol∙s-1∙x-1]

ROX

residual oxygen consumption state

Rox

residual oxygen consumption (per cell [amol∙s-1∙x-1])

sce

suspendeded cells

SUIT

substrate-uncoupler-inhibitor titration

TE

trypsin 0.05% w/V with EDTA 0.02%, w/V

U

uncoupler

x

elementary unit

Data Availability

Original files are available Open Access at Zenodo repository: 10.5281/zenodo.5518059

Funding Statement

This work was partially funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No. 859770, NextGen-O2k project (EG), Institutional projects of Charles University GAUK110119 and SVV–UK 260367 (LZ) and by the Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic NV19-07-00149 (HH). Contribution to COST Action CA15203 MitoEAGLE with financial support of Short-Term Scientific missions (LZ).

References

  • 1.Lazdins JK, Koech DK, Karnovsky ML. Oxidation of glucose by mouse peritoneal macrophages: a comparison of suspensions and monolayers. J Cell Physiol. 1980. Nov;105(2):191–6. doi: 10.1002/jcp.1041050202 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Pofit JF, Strauss PR. Membrane transport by macrophages in suspension and adherent to glass. J Cell Physiol. 1977. Aug;92(2):249–55. doi: 10.1002/jcp.1040920213 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Harrison CJ, Allen TD. Cell surface morphology after trypsinisation depends on initial cell shape. Differentiation. 1979;15(1):61–6. doi: 10.1111/j.1432-0436.1979.tb01035.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Park JY, Jeong AL, Joo HJ, Han S, Kim SH, Kim HY, et al. Development of suspension cell culture model to mimic circulating tumor cells. Oncotarget. 2017. Dec 7;9(1):622–640. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.23079 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Shen CF, Guilbault C, Li X, Elahi SM, Ansorge S, Kamen A, et al. Development of suspension adapted Vero cell culture process technology for production of viral vaccines. Vaccine. 2019. Nov 8;37(47):6996–7002. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.07.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Yépez VA, Kremer LS, Iuso A, Gusic M, Kopajtich R, Koňaříková E, et al. OCR-Stats: Robust estimation and statistical testing of mitochondrial respiration activities using Seahorse XF Analyzer. PLoS One. 2018. Jul 11;13(7): e0199938. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0199938 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Danhelovska T, Kolarova H, Zeman J, Hansikova H, Vaneckova M, Lambert L, et al. Multisystem mitochondrial diseases due to mutations in mtDNA-encoded subunits of complex I. BMC Pediatr. 2020. Jan 29; 20(1):41. doi: 10.1186/s12887-020-1912-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Burska D, Stiburek L, Krizova J, Vanisova M, Martinek V, Sladkova J, et al. Homozygous missense mutation in UQCRC2 associated with severe encephalomyopathy, mitochondrial complex III assembly defect and activation of mitochondrial protein quality control. Biochim Biophys Acta Mol Basis Dis. 2021. Aug 1;1867(8):166147. doi: 10.1016/j.bbadis.2021.166147 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Ye F, Hoppel CL. Measuring oxidative phosphorylation in human skin fibroblasts. Anal Biochem. 2013; 437:52–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ab.2013.02.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Benecke BJ, Ben-Ze’ev A, Penman S. The control of mRNA production, translation and turnover in suspended and reattached anchorage-dependent fibroblasts. Cell. 1978. Aug; 14(4):931–9. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(78)90347-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Farmer SR, Ben-Ze’ev A, Benecke BJ, Penman S. (1978). Altered translatability of messenger RNA from suspended anchorage-dependent fibroblasts: reversal upon cell attachment to a surface. Cell. 1978 Oct 1; 15(2):627–37. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(78)90031-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Wu M, Neilson A, Swift AL, Moran R, Tamagnine J, Parslow D, et al. Multiparameter metabolic analysis reveals a close link between attenuated mitochondrial bioenergetic function and enhanced glycolysis dependency in human tumor cells. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol. 2007. Jan;292(1):C125–36. doi: 10.1152/ajpcell.00247.2006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Doerrier C, Garcia-Souza LF, Krumschnabel G, Wohlfarter Y, Mészáros AT, Gnaiger E. High-Resolution FluoRespirometry and OXPHOS Protocols for Human Cells, Permeabilized Fibers from Small Biopsies of Muscle, and Isolated Mitochondria. Methods Mol Biol. 2018;1782:31–70. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-7831-1_3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Gnaiger E. Mitochondrial pathways and respiratory control. An introduction to OXPHOS analysis (5th ed.). Bioenerg Commun. 2020; 2, 112 pp. doi: [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Zhang J, Nuebel E, Wisidagama DR, Setoguchi K, Hong JS, Van Horn CM, et al. Measuring energy metabolism in cultured cells, including human pluripotent stem cells and differentiated cells. Nat Protoc. 2012. May 10; 7(6):1068–85. doi: 10.1038/nprot.2012.048 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Gnaiger E. Polarographic oxygen sensors, the oxygraph and high-resolution respirometry to assess mitochondrial function. In: Mitochondrial dysfunction in drug-induced toxicity (Dykens JA, Will Y, eds) John Wiley & Sons, Inc, Hoboken, NJ,2008; 327–52. doi: 10.1002/9780470372531.ch12 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Gnaiger E. O2k Quality Control 1: Polarographic oxygen sensors and accuracy of calibration. Mitochondrial Physiology Network. 2019; 1–19. [posted 2019, March 6, revised 2021 January 19, cited 2021 September 10] Available from: https://wiki.oroboros.at/index.php/MiPNet06.03_POS-calibration-SOP [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Gnaiger E. Bioenergetics at low oxygen: dependence of respiration and phosphorylation on oxygen and adenosine diphosphate supply. Respir Physiol. 2001. Nov 15;128(3):277–97. doi: 10.1016/s0034-5687(01)00307-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Scandurra FM, Gnaiger E. Cell respiration under hypoxia: facts and artefacts in mitochondrial oxygen kinetics. Adv. Exp. Med. 2010; 662: 7–25. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-1241-1_2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Komlódi T, Sobotka O, Gnaiger E. Facts and artefacts on the oxygen dependence of hydrogen peroxide production using Amplex UltraRed. Bioenerg Commun. 2021; 4. doi: [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Hutter E, Renner K, Pfister G, Stöckl P, Jansen-Dürr P, Gnaiger E. Senescence-associated changes in respiration and oxidative phosphorylation in primary human fibroblasts. Biochem J. 2004. Jun 15;380(Pt 3):919–28. doi: 10.1042/BJ20040095 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Gnaiger E.–MitoEAGLE task group. Mitochondrial physiology. Bioenergetics Communication, 2020; 1, 1–44. doi: 10.26124/bec:2020-0001.v1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Agilent Technologies . Mito Stress Test Kit, User Guide. 2019. [cited 2021 September 10]. Available from: https://www.agilent.com/cs/library/usermanuals/public/XF_Cell_Mito_Stress_Test_Kit_User_Guide.pdf
  • 24.Gnaiger, E. (2021) The elementary unit—canonical reviewer’s comments on: Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (2019) The International System of Units (SI) 9th ed. MitoFit Preprints 2020.4.v2 [preprint]. Available from: doi: 10.26124/mitofit:200004.v2 [DOI]
  • 25.Gnaiger E. Bioenergetic cluster analysis–mitochondrial respiratory control in human fibroblasts. MitoFit Preprints [preprint]. 2021; 8. doi: [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Abelson HT, Johnson LF, Penman S, Green H. Changes in RNA in relation to growth of the fibroblast: II. The lifetime of mRNA, rRNA, and tRNA in resting and growing cells. Cell. 1974. Apr 01; 1(40), 161–5. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(74)90107-X [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Ben-Ze’ev A., Reiss R., Bendori R., Gorodecki B. (1990). Transient induction of vinculin gene expression in 3T3 fibroblasts stimulated by serum-growth factors. Cell Regulation. 1990 Aug 1; 1(9), 621–6. doi: 10.1091/mbc.1.9.621 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Benecke BJ, Ben-Ze’ev A, Penman S. The regulation of RNA metabolism in suspended and reattached anchorage-dependent 3T6 fibroblasts. J Cell Physiol. 1980. May;103(2):247–54. doi: 10.1002/jcp.1041030209 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Thierry Rabilloud

26 Nov 2021

PONE-D-21-34792Comparable respiratory activity in attached and suspended human fibroblastsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zdrazilova,

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.

While the reviewers have underlined the technical interest of your paper in research on mitochondria, it is however clear that the paper would benefit from a more precise writing, alond the lines mentioned by reviewer 3. In particular, the time range during which suspended and attached fibroblats keep similar respiration is a key issue that should be at the very least thoroughly discussed, if not experimentally verified. If you authors have any experiments in store along this line it would be a great idea to include them in a revision.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 10 2022 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,

Thierry Rabilloud

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. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the Methods section, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section: 

"I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: EG is founder and CEO of Oroboros Instruments, Innsbruck, Austria"

We note that you received funding from a commercial source: "Oroboros Instruments, Innsbruck, Austria"

Please provide an amended Competing Interests Statement that explicitly states this commercial funder, along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, marketed products, etc. 

Within this Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared. 

Please include your amended Competing Interests Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

"This work was partially funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 859770, NextGen-O2k project (EG), Institutional projects GAUK110119 and SVV–UK 260367 (LZ) and by the Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic NV19-07-00149 (HH). Contribution to COST Action CA15203 MitoEAGLE with financial support of Short-Term Scientific missions (LZ)."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

"This work was partially funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 859770, NextGen-O2k project (EG),  Institutional projects GAUK110119 and SVV–UK 260367 (LZ) and by theFC49 (HH). Contribution to COST Action CA15203 MitoEAGLE with financial support of Short-Term Scientific missions (LZ)."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files 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. 

[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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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: The manuscript by Zdrazilova et al. contains a valuable bioenergetic/respirometric comparison of either attached or suspended fibroblasts. This comparison was done in two setups, the attached cells were analyzed in the Seahorse analyzer and the suspended cells in the Oroboros O2k. No differences were observed in ROUTINE respiration of living cells and LEAK respiration obtained after inhibition of ATP synthase by oligomycin. Thus, both approaches may be comparatively or alternatively used.

The authors further find that respiratory values have greater standard deviations in the Seahorse instrumentation. Further, these measurements may also be limited in the number of possible additions, thereby resulting in a potentially underestimated maximal respiratory capacity due to a potential oligomycin overdose or due to a too low dose of uncoupler. On the other hand, the O2k has a limited sample number that can be analyzed in parallel and also requires around ten times more cells per measurement.

For “mitochondriologists”, i.e. bio-medical researchers interested in bioenergetic analyses, this is a valuable paper, as to my knowledge, such direct methodological comparisons hardly exist. Furthermore, the idea to further develop a unifying data handling to allow comparisons of the different approaches is most welcome.

Specific point of criticism/improvement are:

1. With respect to the methodological comparison, a table summarizing the most important differences (e.g. possible sample replicates, required cell amount, number of possible additions, detection mode, sample volume, etc…) between the approaches would be very helpful for the reader to decide which approach to use.

2. I doubt that the unifying respiratory capacity per single cell unit is a good one. First, the resulting attomol values are not really of practical use. Second, cell research typically occurs on “millions”. Thus, such a more practical number could be better/alternatively introduced. Third, when looking at the standard deviations of 30% or more (see the mentioning of R, L and E that are 37 ± 12; 6 ± 3; and 78 ± 26 amol∙s1∙x1 in reference 18), one may think of alternative/more precise parameters?

3. The authors state: “Our results suggest that ROUTINE respiration was not different in attached cells studied after overnight seeding and freshly suspended cells measured one hour after harvesting.” This comes with an important question: how long can detached solubilized cells be “safely” measured until clear respiratory deficits with respect to attached cells can be encountered? It would be wonderful if the authors could do such measurements at different time points to provide data for this. Clearly, such an information would further increase the value of this manuscript for the interested readers.

Minors:

1. At different passages in the text the authors speak about “physiological or near-physiological conditions”. In which sense? For example, the oxygen concentration in the measurement chambers is assumed to be much higher than in tissue? Thus, please specify.

2. One/two sentence/s explaining why fibroblasts were chosen for this study would be appreciated.

3. The authors find that ROX and LEAK measurements were higher in Seahorse than in the O2k and with a higher scatter. Could this be due to the detection via fluorescence that may be non-linear in this low range of change? Please comment why this could be in the discussion.

Reviewer #2: The study by Zdrazilova and co-workers addresses an important point regarding the assessment of the mitochondria-driven cell respiration in intact cells. The recent introduction of methodologies for measuring O2 consumptions, alternative to the traditional Clark-electrode-based polarography, have raised the possibilities of differences in determining the absolute oxygen consumption rates. In addition to a complete different instrumental design, the Seahorse approach carries measurements in attached cells while the electrodic measurements are conducted in suspended cells. This raises the reservation of a different bioenergetics response of the cell samples depending if they are anchored (better mimicking a physiological situation) or are freely floating in suspension. Zdrazilova and co-workers uncover this gap of knowledge comparing the respirometric parameters of human fibroblasts attained by real-time multiwall and high resolution oximetry. The results reported do not unveil significant differences between adherent and short-term suspended cells in the so called Routine and Leak respirations (after correction for mitochondria-independent respiration) but a slower oxygen consumption rate (i.e. the maximal capacity) in suspended cells that the authors explain as due to an inhibitory effect of oligomycin used at higher concentrations in the Seahorse standard protocol.

The study is well-conducted, the results are clearly presented in the Figures and table and supported by a robust statistical analysis. The recommendations presented in the supplements are also relevant and helpful in providing a standardized protocol to set reproducibility in this specific assay to extend respirometric database.

Only the following minor points are asked to replay:

1. Can the authors anticipate, if they have preliminary evidence, that the same conclusions attained in this study using primary cell cultures might be extended to cancer cell lines that are the samples more widely used in cellular biochemistry investigations?

2. The oxygen consumption rate under uncoupled condition is taken as a measure of the maximal capacity of the respiratory chain that is untied by the controlling protonmotive force. However, anionic respiratory substrates (such as pyruvate or glutamate) enter into the mitochondria by transporters utilizing the mt-DpH gradient. Therefore, under conditions dissipating the delta-mu-H+ the respiratory capacity is, in any case, limited by the respiratory substrate availability. It is also possible that under this condition the cell switches to substrates whose entry into mitochondria is not delta-mu-H+-driven (such as fatty acids). Can the authors comment on this and suggest an alternative term in place of the somewhat confusing “maximal capacity”?

Reviewer #3: In this study, Lucie Zdrazilova and coworkers have compared the oxygen consumption of human dermal fibroblast cell lines cultured in monolayers, either directly in their adherent form, or in suspension after trypsinization. To address this question, they used two instruments, the Seahorse XF Analyser (Agilent, US) which is designed to measure respiration on adherent cells and the Oroboros O2k (Oroboros Instruments, Austria) which is designed for suspended cells. Their main conclusion is that short-term suspension of fibroblasts does not affect respiratory activity and coupling control.

This article needs some proofreading to improve the English. As an example, the last sentence of the abstract is particularly muddled: “Consistent results obtained with different platforms provide a test for reproducibility and allow for building an extended respirometric database” which could be rewritten as “Obtaining consistent results across different platforms is a good measure of reproducibility and could help build a comprehensive respirometric database.”

The introduction and the discussion sections are insufficiently developed. The introduction is particularly short. In contrast, the materials and methods and results sections are better developed and provide sufficient information. This paper is methodological and the study is centered on the use of the new Seahorse apparatus. However the experiments are in my opinion not very original and do not present an important breakthrough. While the results do not show significant differences between measurements in adherent or in suspended conditions, the authors suggest that it could probably be different after longer incubation times in suspension, but show no experiments to support this hypothesis.

The introduction lacks a clear explanation of the biological interest and the real goal of this study. The bibliographic references of the introduction are particularly old and are not cited with sufficient relevance. For example, at the beginning of the introduction “After blebbing, cells undergo membrane reorganization and attain a spherical shape to prevent membrane loss [3].” This phrase alone, taken out of context, is very hard to fully understand and in my opinion does not accurately convey the message of reference 3.

The works cited in the discussion are also not clearly exposed.

At the beginning of the discussion, for example: “Suspending fibroblasts causes an immediate drop of mRNA synthesis to about 20 % of controls within minutes [6]. The remaining mRNA is inactivated, such that the total cell mRNA content remains unchanged.” As I did not quite grasp the meaning of these sentences, I read the cited article. My impression is that the authors have mixed up two separate concepts. Indeed, the cited article states that the mRNAs were in fact stabilized so that the total amount of mRNA remained constant, and that they were also probably transiently inactivated to explain the drop in protein synthesis and the rapid increase of protein synthesis which occured upon reattachment to a solid substrate (prior to mRNA neosynthesis). But it is incorrect to say that the inactivation of the remaining mRNA explains “that the total cell mRNA content remains unchanged”.

The discussion does not give a strong argument to justify the technical and or biological interest of this study. However, this study could probably be helpful to address technical questions about the Seahorse instrument. For example, does this study prove that trypsinization induces no bias when measuring respiration on suspended cells?

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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. 2022 Mar 3;17(3):e0264496. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0264496.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


10 Jan 2022

Response to reviewers (Manuscript PONE-D-21-34792)

We have carefully read reviewers comments (indicated in italics) and made several changes in according to their suggestions. Our response to a reviewers comments are in bold and changes made in manuscript are described in red.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1: “The manuscript by Zdrazilova et al. contains a valuable bioenergetic/respirometric comparison of either attached or suspended fibroblasts. This comparison was done in two setups, the attached cells were analyzed in the Seahorse analyzer and the suspended cells in the Oroboros O2k. No differences were observed in ROUTINE respiration of living cells and LEAK respiration obtained after inhibition of ATP synthase by oligomycin. Thus, both approaches may be comparatively or alternatively used.

The authors further find that respiratory values have greater standard deviations in the Seahorse instrumentation. Further, these measurements may also be limited in the number of possible additions, thereby resulting in a potentially underestimated maximal respiratory capacity due to a potential oligomycin overdose or due to a too low dose of uncoupler. On the other hand, the O2k has a limited sample number that can be analyzed in parallel and also requires around ten times more cells per measurement.

For “mitochondriologists”, i.e. bio-medical researchers interested in bioenergetic analyses, this is a valuable paper, as to my knowledge, such direct methodological comparisons hardly exist. Furthermore, the idea to further develop a unifying data handling to allow comparisons of the different approaches is most welcome.”

Specific point of criticism/improvement are:

1. “With respect to the methodological comparison, a table summarizing the most important differences (e.g. possible sample replicates, required cell amount, number of possible additions, detection mode, sample volume, etc…) between the approaches would be very helpful for the reader to decide which approach to use.”

We agree with this suggestion and included Table 1 to the main text (page 4 line 120).

Manuscript:

Table 1. Comparative specifications of Seahorse XF24 and Oroboros O2k applied in the present coupling control protocol.

Seahorse XF24 Oroboros O2k

wells or chambers per instrument 24 semiclosed wells 2 diffusion-tight chambers

instrumental background and experiments with cells 4 separated wells without cells and 20 wells with cells in parallel two identical chambers serially without and with cells

detection mode optical O2 sensor with fluorophores electrochemical polarographic oxygen sensor

temperature control 37 °C (stability ±0.1°C in a tray) 37 °C (stability ±0.002 °C in a copper block)

limit of detection of oxygen flux not specified ±1 pmol O2∙s-1∙mL-1

cell conditions attached cells cell suspension

required cell amount 35 000 375 000

sample volume [µL] 450 540

closed chamber volume 7 µL when sensor probes are inserted 500 µL when stoppers are inserted

titrations automatic manual

number of possible titrations 4 technically unlimited

experimental duration [min] 120 30 to 40

2. “I doubt that the unifying respiratory capacity per single cell unit is a good one. First, the resulting attomol values are not really of practical use. Second, cell research typically occurs on “millions”. Thus, such a more practical number could be better/alternatively introduced. Third, when looking at the standard deviations of 30% or more (see the mentioning of R, L and E that are 37 ± 12; 6 ± 3; and 78 ± 26 amol∙s1∙x1 in reference 18), one may think of alternative/more precise parameters?”

The unit ‘mol∙s-1∙x-1 has been recommended by a consortium of 666 coauthors, elaborated in the framework of a European Union funded COST Action MitoEAGLE, and published last year;

https://www.bioenergetics-communications.org/index.php/bec/article/view/gnaiger_2020_mitophysiology

For further clarification, on page 7 line 234 of the original MS, we provide the link from this unit to the equivalent expression per million cells: “[amol∙s-1∙x-1] equivalent to [pmol∙s-1∙(106 x)-1].”

“Third, when looking at the standard deviations of 30% or more (see the mentioning of R, L and E that are 37 ± 12; 6 ± 3; and 78 ± 26 amol∙s1∙x1 in reference 18), one may think of alternative/more precise parameters?”

We added the following text on page 12, line 433:

Manuscript: The variability of respiration normalized for the cell count is of interest from two points of view. (1) A methodological perspective: Is high variability mainly the result of respirometric noise, noise in the cell count, or variability introduced by the addition of cells to the respirometric chambers or wells? Is the reproducibility linked to specific techniques and to the magnitude of the cell count used in an assay? (2) A physiological perspective: Is the variability factual rather than artefactual [25]?

3. “The authors state: “Our results suggest that ROUTINE respiration was not different in attached cells studied after overnight seeding and freshly suspended cells measured one hour after harvesting.” This comes with an important question: how long can detached solubilized cells be “safely” measured until clear respiratory deficits with respect to attached cells can be encountered? It would be wonderful if the authors could do such measurements at different time points to provide data for this. Clearly, such an information would further increase the value of this manuscript for the interested readers.”

We added some of the sentences into the discussion part, please see below (page 11 line 398):

Manuscript: Our approach covered a time range that is relevant for current techniques of measuring respiration in suspended fibroblasts. The duration of maintaining cells in suspension extends from trypsinization to the actual respirometric measurement, which limits the duration to less than two hours from detachment to monitoring of ROUTINE respiration. Importantly, even respiratory measurement of adherent cells in the XF24 did not represent a direct and undisturbed monitoring of oxygen consumption of attached cultured cells but required harvesting of the cells by detachment on the day before measurement. Our study, however, provides the rationale for extended studies of the stress-response of cells suspended for prolonged periods of time.

Minors:

1. “At different passages in the text the authors speak about “physiological or near-physiological conditions”. In which sense? For example, the oxygen concentration in the measurement chambers is assumed to be much higher than in tissue? Thus, please specify.”

Experimental oxygen concentrations near air saturation are effectively hyperoxic relative to oxygen levels within tissues. Respiratory function, however, is independent of oxygen concentration from air to tissue oxygen levels. Nevertheless, we agree that near-physiological conditions of oxygenation have to be considered when studying different critical functions (page 6 line 177).

Manuscript: Experimental oxygen concentrations near air saturation (190 µM to 140 µM; Fig 1b and d) are much higher than extracellular oxygen concentrations in various tissues in vivo. Respiration of living cells, however, is independent of oxygen pressure from air saturation to tissue-level oxygen concentration, the latter ranging between 50 and 10 µM [19]. Therefore, even if high experimental oxygen concentrations are not physiological, respiratory measurements are not affected. This is in direct contrast to cellular hydrogen peroxide production, which increases with oxygen concentration over the entire experimental oxygen concentration range [20].

2. “One/two sentence/s explaining why fibroblasts were chosen for this study would be appreciated.”

According to reviewers comment, we added some text to the introduction (page 3 line 49)

Manuscript: Fibroblast cell lines are established models routinely applied in studies of mitochondrial diseases [6; 7; 8; 9]. These cells can be investigated in culture either attached to the surface of an experimental chamber or in suspension after detachment.

3. “The authors find that ROX and LEAK measurements were higher in Seahorse than in the O2k and with a higher scatter. Could this be due to the detection via fluorescence that may be non-linear in this low range of change? Please comment why this could be in the discussion.”

LEAK respiration was not higher in the XF24 after baseline correction for Rox (Table 4). We added a paragraph to the discussion session (page 12 line 438).

Manuscript: A possible reason for higher variability of residual oxygen consumption obtained in the XF24 is the instrumental background O2 rate, which is not determined in the experimental wells but is measured in parallel only in four separate control wells without cells (Table 1).

Reviewer #2: “The study by Zdrazilova and co-workers addresses an important point regarding the assessment of the mitochondria-driven cell respiration in intact cells. The recent introduction of methodologies for measuring O2 consumptions, alternative to the traditional Clark-electrode-based polarography, have raised the possibilities of differences in determining the absolute oxygen consumption rates. In addition to a complete different instrumental design, the Seahorse approach carries measurements in attached cells while the electrodic measurements are conducted in suspended cells. This raises the reservation of a different bioenergetics response of the cell samples depending if they are anchored (better mimicking a physiological situation) or are freely floating in suspension. Zdrazilova and co-workers uncover this gap of knowledge comparing the respirometric parameters of human fibroblasts attained by real-time multiwall and high resolution oximetry. The results reported do not unveil significant differences between adherent and short-term suspended cells in the so called Routine and Leak respirations (after correction for mitochondria-independent respiration) but a slower oxygen consumption rate (i.e. the maximal capacity) in suspended cells that the authors explain as due to an inhibitory effect of oligomycin used at higher concentrations in the Seahorse standard protocol.

The study is well-conducted, the results are clearly presented in the Figures and table and supported by a robust statistical analysis. The recommendations presented in the supplements are also relevant and helpful in providing a standardized protocol to set reproducibility in this specific assay to extend respirometric database. Only the following minor points are asked to replay:”

Following this comment, we moved the supplementary tables to the methods section. (Tables 2 and 3).

1. “Can the authors anticipate, if they have preliminary evidence, that the same conclusions attained in this study using primary cell cultures might be extended to cancer cell lines that are the samples more widely used in cellular biochemistry investigations?”

We agree that cancer cells are abundantly studied by presented two instruments (as an example from many manuscripts: Cochrane et al, 2021; Aguilar-Valdés et al, 2021) and therefore we believe that comparing their respiration in suspended and attached state is an important approach. Nevertheless, such a comparison using cancer cells hasn’t been studied yet and we can only hypothesize about possible results.

Cochrane EJ, Hulit J, Lagasse FP, Lechertier T, Stevenson B, Tudor C, Trebicka D, Sparey T, Ratcliffe AJ. Impact of Mitochondrial Targeting Antibiotics on Mitochondrial Function and Proliferation of Cancer Cells. ACS Med Chem Lett. 2021 Mar 8;12(4):579-584. doi: 10.1021/acsmedchemlett.0c00632.

Aguilar-Valdés A, Noriega LG, Tovar AR, Ibarra-Sánchez MJ, Sosa-Hernández VA, Maravillas-Montero JL, Martínez-Aguilar J. SWATH-MS proteomics of PANC-1 and MIA PaCa-2 pancreatic cancer cells allows identification of drug targets alternative to MEK and PI3K inhibition. Biochem Biophys Res Commun.2021 May 7;552:23-29. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2021.03.018.

In line 448 of the original MS, we add:

Manuscript: Further studies of respiration in different attached and suspended cell types are of great interest in cell physiology, particularly in neuronal and blood cells, and importantly, in cancer cell lines and other cell models of disease.

2. “The oxygen consumption rate under uncoupled condition is taken as a measure of the maximal capacity of the respiratory chain that is untied by the controlling protonmotive force. However, anionic respiratory substrates (such as pyruvate or glutamate) enter into the mitochondria by transporters utilizing the mt-DpH gradient. Therefore, under conditions dissipating the delta-mu-H+ the respiratory capacity is, in any case, limited by the respiratory substrate availability. It is also possible that under this condition the cell switches to substrates whose entry into mitochondria is not delta-mu-H+-driven (such as fatty acids). Can the authors comment on this and suggest an alternative term in place of the somewhat confusing “maximal capacity”?”

We agree that the term “maximal capacity” may be confusing, and this is why we don’t use it. We clearly define and use the term “maximum electron transfer capacity” in the context of multiple uncoupler titrations, or “maximum rate of O2 consumption reflecting the electron transfer capacity E”. We compare this term published in a MitoEAGLE consensus paper with the term ‘maximal respiration’ widely used in conjunction with the XF24 or XF96 (Table 2, moved from supplemental table S1). Instead of “maximal capacity” we suggest using the term “electron transfer capacity” or more explicitly “Rox-corrected electron transfer capacity”. Addressing the question on the pmF dependence of substrate transport into the mt-matrix is relevant, but requires analytical studies with mitochondrial preparations rather than living cells.

Reviewer #3: “In this study, Lucie Zdrazilova and coworkers have compared the oxygen consumption of human dermal fibroblast cell lines cultured in monolayers, either directly in their adherent form, or in suspension after trypsinization. To address this question, they used two instruments, the Seahorse XF Analyser (Agilent, US) which is designed to measure respiration on adherent cells and the Oroboros O2k (Oroboros Instruments, Austria) which is designed for suspended cells. Their main conclusion is that short-term suspension of fibroblasts does not affect respiratory activity and coupling control.

This article needs some proofreading to improve the English. As an example, the last sentence of the abstract is particularly muddled: “Consistent results obtained with different platforms provide a test for reproducibility and allow for building an extended respirometric database” which could be rewritten as “Obtaining consistent results across different platforms is a good measure of reproducibility and could help build a comprehensive respirometric database.”

We appreciate the effort of the reviewer to point out the potential of improving the phrasing in several instances to help us give a clear message to the reader. We took reviewer’s advice and sent the manuscript to English revision. We agree that the last sentence in the abstract needs to be edited in an improved version. We modified the sentence (page 2 line 19):

Manuscript: Evaluation of results obtained by different platforms provides a test for reproducibility beyond repeatability. Repeatability and reproducibility are required for building a validated respirometric database.

“The introduction and the discussion sections are insufficiently developed. The introduction is particularly short. In contrast, the materials and methods and results sections are better developed and provide sufficient information. This paper is methodological and the study is centered on the use of the new Seahorse apparatus. However the experiments are in my opinion not very original and do not present an important breakthrough. While the results do not show significant differences between measurements in adherent or in suspended conditions, the authors suggest that it could probably be different after longer incubation times in suspension, but show no experiments to support this hypothesis.”

We meant to state it as a cautionary note, that extrapolation of the present results to longer incubation times is not justified without specific testing. We included such a clarification to the text with more precise discussion (page 11 line 398). We refer to our response to the related comment by reviewer 1.

Manuscript: Our approach covered a time range that is relevant for current techniques of measuring respiration in suspended fibroblasts. The duration of maintaining cells in suspension extends from trypsinization to the actual respirometric measurement, which limits the duration to less than two hours from detachment to monitoring of ROUTINE respiration. Importantly, even respiratory measurement of adherent cells in the XF24 did not represent a direct and undisturbed monitoring of oxygen consumption of attached cultured cells but required harvesting of the cells by detachment on the day before measurement. Our study, however, provides the rationale for extended studies of the stress-response of cells suspended for prolonged periods of time.

“The introduction lacks a clear explanation of the biological interest and the real goal of this study. “

We modified the introductory paragraph (page 3 line 67).

Manuscript: The first aim of the present study was the evaluation of respiration in attached compared to suspended fibroblasts. The Seahorse XF Analyzer (Agilent, US) is designed for studying respiration of attached cells (ace), whereas the Oroboros O2k (Oroboros Instruments, Austria) is optimized for high-resolution respirometry with suspended cells (sce). Therefore, a platform comparison was required as the second aim of our study. We applied comparable and standardized protocols for monitoring respiratory activity in living cells under near-physiological conditions.

Adding the new Table 1 (platform comparison) and moving the two supplementary tables into the methods section emphasizes the second aim even more explicitly.

“The bibliographic references of the introduction are particularly old and are not cited with sufficient relevance. For example, at the beginning of the introduction “After blebbing, cells undergo membrane reorganization and attain a spherical shape to prevent membrane loss [3].” This phrase alone, taken out of context, is very hard to fully understand and in my opinion does not accurately convey the message of reference 3.”

We admit that the used reference 3, is older one, but we believe that it is a very important reference for our paper considering changes in cell morphology after trypsinization. We changed the text (page 3 line 54):

Manuscript: After trypsinization, fibroblasts undergo membrane reorganization and attain a spherical shape with a so-called blebbed surface morphology to prevent membrane loss by providing transient membrane storage [3].

“The works cited in the discussion are also not clearly exposed. At the beginning of the discussion, for example: “Suspending fibroblasts causes an immediate drop of mRNA synthesis to about 20 % of controls within minutes [6]. The remaining mRNA is inactivated, such that the total cell mRNA content remains unchanged.” As I did not quite grasp the meaning of these sentences, I read the cited article. My impression is that the authors have mixed up two separate concepts. Indeed, the cited article states that the mRNAs were in fact stabilized so that the total amount of mRNA remained constant, and that they were also probably transiently inactivated to explain the drop in protein synthesis and the rapid increase of protein synthesis which occured upon reattachment to a solid substrate (prior to mRNA neosynthesis). But it is incorrect to say that the inactivation of the remaining mRNA explains “that the total cell mRNA content remains unchanged”.

In our text there is no indication that the inactivation of the remaining mRNA explains “that the total cell mRNA content remains unchanged. However, we corrected another mistake(page 11 line 373).

Manuscript: The production of mRNA in fibroblasts is reduced to 20 % within a few hours of suspension [10]. The mRNA is not degraded but inactivated and its amount remains constant [10].

“The discussion does not give a strong argument to justify the technical and or biological interest of this study. However, this study could probably be helpful to address technical questions about the Seahorse instrument. For example, does this study prove that trypsinization induces no bias when measuring respiration on suspended cells?”

The reviewer considers that one approach (XF24) studies respiration of adherent cells “directly in their adherent form”. It has to be emphasized even more clearly, that this is not the case. In line 146 of the original MS, we explain: “.The day before measurement, cells were harvested after trypsinization (added in the revision), resuspended in DMEM culture medium, counted, and 35 000 cells were seeded on 20 wells of a 24-well plate for over-night incubation.” The term ‘directly’ implies a different meaning. This is directly relevant to the reviewer’s question: “does this study prove that trypsinization induces no bias when measuring respiration on suspended cells?” Trypsinization is implicated in both approaches. We implemented sentence into the discussion (page 12 line 403)

Manuscript: Importantly, even respiratory measurement of adherent cells in the XF24 did not represent a direct and undisturbed monitoring of oxygen consumption of attached cultured cells but required harvesting of the cells by detachment on the day before measurement.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Thierry Rabilloud

14 Feb 2022

Comparable respiratory activity in attached and suspended human fibroblasts

PONE-D-21-34792R1

Dear Dr. Zdrazilova,

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,

Thierry Rabilloud

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

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The authors have sufficiently satisfied the requests of this reviewer although the point relating to the different utilization of respiratory substrates by mitochondria in the presence of a decoupler has been evaded.

Reviewer #3: I appreciate the efforts of the authors to answer to my questions and to improve their article. The new version is good for publication. The authors are acknowledged for their reply to the issues raised.

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes: Nazzareno Capitanio

Reviewer #3: No

Acceptance letter

Thierry Rabilloud

23 Feb 2022

PONE-D-21-34792R1

Comparable respiratory activity in attached and suspended human fibroblasts

Dear Dr. Zdrazilova:

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. Thierry Rabilloud

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Original files are available Open Access at Zenodo repository: 10.5281/zenodo.5518059


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES