Published: Vol 7, Iss 13, Jul 5, 2017 DOI: 10.21769/BioProtoc.2365 Views: 12107
Reviewed by: Peichuan ZhangTugsan TezilMichael Enos
Protocol Collections
Comprehensive collections of detailed, peer-reviewed protocols focusing on specific topics
Related protocols
Evaluation of Burkholderia cepacia Complex Bacteria Pathogenicity Using Caenorhabditis elegans
Pietro Tedesco [...] Donatella de Pascale
Oct 20, 2016 7167 Views
Artificial Optogenetic TRN Stimulation of C. elegans
Ithai Rabinowitch [...] Jihong Bai
Oct 20, 2016 7961 Views
Aerotaxis Assay in Caenorhabditis elegans to Study Behavioral Plasticity
Qiaochu Li [...] Karl Emanuel Busch
Aug 20, 2022 1622 Views
Abstract
Cells and organisms face constant exposure to reactive oxygen species (ROS), either from the environment or as a by-product from internal metabolic processes. To prevent cellular damage from ROS, cells have evolved detoxification mechanisms. The activation of these detoxification mechanisms and their downstream responses represent an overlapping defense response that can be tailored to different sources of ROS to adequately adapt and protect cells. In this protocol, we describe how to measure the sensitivity to oxidative stress from two different sources, arsenite and tBHP, using the nematode C. elegans.
Keywords: Hydrogen peroxideBackground
Reactive oxygen species (ROS) are small molecules that can damage DNA, proteins, lipids and other cellular components. Systemic levels of ROS induce irreversible cellular damage, which has been implicated in the etiology of aging and age-related diseases, such as Alzheimer’s disease, atherosclerosis, and diabetes. Furthermore, environmental toxins such as pollutants, smoke, chemicals, radiation, and xenobiotics significantly induce ROS formation. To protect against oxidative damage, cells have evolved complex mechanisms that detoxify ROS. Interestingly, long-lived animals show an enhancement of these protective mechanisms, implicating their importance for healthy aging.
The multicellular organism C. elegans has been instrumental in elucidating the molecular mechanisms that protect against ROS (Blackwell et al., 2015). In C. elegans, the major ROS detoxification mechanisms are initiated by the transcription factor SKN-1, the orthologue of the Nrf (nuclear factor-erythroid-related factor) proteins (Blackwell et al., 2015). Exposing C. elegans to either the metalloid sodium arsenite (As) or tert-Butyl hydroperoxide (tBHP; an organic peroxide) activates SKN-1, which promotes survival. Although overlapping sets of genes are upregulated by SKN-1 in response to As or tBHP, there are also condition-specific gene sets that tailor the oxidative stress response (Oliveira et al., 2009). Moreover, the expression of almost all detoxification genes in response to As depends on SKN-1, whereas the induction of several genes upon tBHP-treatment is also independent of SKN-1 (Oliveira et al., 2009), suggesting the activation of other oxidative stress response transcription factors. How different ROS sources are sensed and integrated is not well understood, but recently a mechanism has been elucidated for how As-induced ROS are generated and sensed by the cell (Hourihan et al., 2016).
Treating C. elegans with As activates the BLI-3/NADPH oxidase complex to produce localized pools of ROS, which modify a cysteine in the IRE-1 kinase and induce the SKN-1-dependent antioxidant response leading to lifespan extension (Hourihan et al., 2016). Further supporting the function of localized ROS levels as cell signals, recent work has identified a novel regulator of aging, MEMO-1, which increases resistance to As toxicity and facilitates lifespan extension in a BLI-3- and SKN-1-dependent manner (Ewald et al., 2017).
Taken together, oxidative stress responses can be induced directly, by exogenously added ROS sources such as tBHP, or as a secondary response to a chemical (such as As) or other stress leading to increased ROS levels. These two ROS sources elicit common, but also distinct downstream stress-response genes and protection mechanisms. Here, we describe the protocols for both ROS sources to assess C. elegans survival under these oxidative stress conditions.
Part I. Protocol for As stress tolerance assay
Materials and Reagents
Equipment
Procedure
Important: The 5 mM As in M9 dilution must be prepared fresh directly before you put it into the wells.
Figure 2. Loading scheme for the As response assay. WT = wild type, Mut = mutant.
Figure 3. Transferring worms into the drop of M9 buffer in the 24-well plates
Note: When transferring worms into the 50 μl M9 buffer drop in the well, worms may become injured by scratching the worms off the worm pick. Check and exclude non-moving worms (Video 1) before filling up wells with the As solution.
Data analysis
For As-assay, the estimates of the survival functions are calculated by using the product-limit (Kaplan-Meier) method (Figure 4 and Table 1). The log-rank (Mantel-Cox) method is used to test the null hypothesis and calculate P-values. Data were analyzed using JMP statistical software from SAS.
Figure 4. Survival plot of As-assay. Loss-of-function mutation in skn-1 (green curve) makes these animals more sensitive to 5 mM As, whereas reduction-of-function mutation in daf-2 (red curve) makes animals more resistant to 5 mM As (Ewald et al., 2015). For statistical details, please see Table 1.
Table 1. Statistics for As-assay
Part II. Protocol for tBHP oxidative stress assay
Materials and Reagents
Equipment
Software
Procedure
Data analysis
For tBHP assay, the estimates of survival functions are calculated by using the product-limit (Kaplan-Meier) method (Figure 7 and Table 2). The log-rank (Mantel-Cox) method is used to test the null hypothesis and calculate P-values. Data were analyzed using JMP statistical software from SAS.
Figure 7. Survival plot of tBHP-assay. RNAi knockdown of daf-2 (red curve) makes wild-type animals more resistant to 15.4 mM tBHP compared to wild-type animals treated with L4440 empty vector control RNAi (Ewald et al., 2015).
Table 2. Statistics for tBHP-assay
Notes
We want to note that while the protocols described here work reproducibly well, many variations have previously been described, including whether the animals have been provided with food. Different variations can be found in papers from (An and Blackwell, 2003; Tullet et al., 2008; Oliveira et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2010; Robida-Stubbs et al., 2012). The protocols described here are based upon and optimized from this previous work, and have recently been used in (Ewald et al., 2015; Steinbaugh et al., 2015; Hourihan et al., 2016; Ewald et al., 2017).
Recipes
Acknowledgments
We thank the Blackwell and Ewald lab for developing and refining these assays. Picture and movie credit for Nadine Herrmann and Eline Jongsma (ETH Zurich).
References
Article Information
Copyright
Ewald et al. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0).
How to cite
Readers should cite both the Bio-protocol article and the original research article where this protocol was used:
Category
Developmental Biology > Cell signaling > Stress response
Neuroscience > Behavioral neuroscience > Animal model
Do you have any questions about this protocol?
Post your question to gather feedback from the community. We will also invite the authors of this article to respond.
Tips for asking effective questions
+ Description
Write a detailed description. Include all information that will help others answer your question including experimental processes, conditions, and relevant images.
Share
Bluesky
X
Copy link