Gested a 12 min lag between endocytosis and HA acidification, a 15 min lag between acidification and fusion, a 45 min lag between fusion and uncoating, and a further 30 min lag between uncoating and vRNP import 1317923 1480666 into the nucleus. Based on the time-course experiments, optimal time points for the high-throughput assays were defined. The reduction in the signal following the peaks in the EE, EA, and EU assays was probably due to modification or degradation of the respective viral antigens (Figure 3a, b, and d). Depletion of ATP6V1B2 blocked HA acidification and subsequent processes, but binding of virus to the cell membrane remained unperturbed (Figure S8). The synthesis of NP was used as a read-out for IAV infection (Figure 3f). Other methods to detect influenza virus infection have been used for high-throughput analysis, such as detecting the surface expression level of HA [18]. In another study, a reporter virus was generated that encoded Renilla luciferase [19], and luciferase activity at different time points post-infection served as an indicator of viral replication. To infect Drosophila DL1 cells, a modified influenza virus was generated in which the HA was replaced with the glycoprotein of vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV-G), and the neuraminidase gene with Renilla luciferase [20]. To evaluate our high-throughput platform, we tested cellular factors known to mediate steps in IAV entry. IAV uses clathrinmediated endocytosis as one of its endocytic mechanisms [1], and the GTPase dynamin is required for pinching off the newly-formed vesicles. We found that a pharmacological inhibitor of dynamin, dynasore, blocked IAV endocytosis by 80 at 20 min (Figure S9). When we knocked down two additional components of the vATPase other than ATP6V1B2, namely ATP6AP2 and ATP6V1A, HA acidification was significantly reduced (Figure S9). Title Loaded From File Cullin-3 (CUL3), a scaffolding subunit in a large family of E3 ubiquitin ligases, is involved in late endosome maturation and promotes IAV capsid uncoatingImage Acquisition and Data QuantificationFor automated, high-throughput analysis, we optimized the procedures for the 96-well-plate format and automated microscopy using a 206 objective, and developed robust quantification methods. Typical images acquired with automated microscopy are shown in Figure S4. All the results were based on at least three experiments performed on separate days. To quantify the data, we used two approaches. The first was to extract and analyze a single parameter to describe the biological phenomenon (Figure 2a, left). The second and more novel, was to extract multiple (many dozens to hundreds) of parameters per cell and to use machine learning [12,13] to reduce complexity (Figure 2a, right). The single parameter approach was used for virus binding (EB assay), endocytosis (EE assay), HA acidification (EA assay), and fusion (EF assay). This was because in these assays, the signal was homogenous, and the phenotypes were distinct. For the postfusion assays i.e. the uncoating (EU assay), nuclear import (EI assay), and the NP Ical processes [28]. IL-6 enhances the production of CRP and TNF-a in translation assay, the signal was more heterogeneous and non-synchronous. This was most likely due to the increased involvement of cytoplasmic cellular factors in these processes. Therefore, for quantification we chose the second method and utilized all available cellular features. We initially tested a single parameter method (spot detection) for the EI assay. However, the reliability was low as shown by the low Z’ factor [1.Gested a 12 min lag between endocytosis and HA acidification, a 15 min lag between acidification and fusion, a 45 min lag between fusion and uncoating, and a further 30 min lag between uncoating and vRNP import 1317923 1480666 into the nucleus. Based on the time-course experiments, optimal time points for the high-throughput assays were defined. The reduction in the signal following the peaks in the EE, EA, and EU assays was probably due to modification or degradation of the respective viral antigens (Figure 3a, b, and d). Depletion of ATP6V1B2 blocked HA acidification and subsequent processes, but binding of virus to the cell membrane remained unperturbed (Figure S8). The synthesis of NP was used as a read-out for IAV infection (Figure 3f). Other methods to detect influenza virus infection have been used for high-throughput analysis, such as detecting the surface expression level of HA [18]. In another study, a reporter virus was generated that encoded Renilla luciferase [19], and luciferase activity at different time points post-infection served as an indicator of viral replication. To infect Drosophila DL1 cells, a modified influenza virus was generated in which the HA was replaced with the glycoprotein of vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV-G), and the neuraminidase gene with Renilla luciferase [20]. To evaluate our high-throughput platform, we tested cellular factors known to mediate steps in IAV entry. IAV uses clathrinmediated endocytosis as one of its endocytic mechanisms [1], and the GTPase dynamin is required for pinching off the newly-formed vesicles. We found that a pharmacological inhibitor of dynamin, dynasore, blocked IAV endocytosis by 80 at 20 min (Figure S9). When we knocked down two additional components of the vATPase other than ATP6V1B2, namely ATP6AP2 and ATP6V1A, HA acidification was significantly reduced (Figure S9). Cullin-3 (CUL3), a scaffolding subunit in a large family of E3 ubiquitin ligases, is involved in late endosome maturation and promotes IAV capsid uncoatingImage Acquisition and Data QuantificationFor automated, high-throughput analysis, we optimized the procedures for the 96-well-plate format and automated microscopy using a 206 objective, and developed robust quantification methods. Typical images acquired with automated microscopy are shown in Figure S4. All the results were based on at least three experiments performed on separate days. To quantify the data, we used two approaches. The first was to extract and analyze a single parameter to describe the biological phenomenon (Figure 2a, left). The second and more novel, was to extract multiple (many dozens to hundreds) of parameters per cell and to use machine learning [12,13] to reduce complexity (Figure 2a, right). The single parameter approach was used for virus binding (EB assay), endocytosis (EE assay), HA acidification (EA assay), and fusion (EF assay). This was because in these assays, the signal was homogenous, and the phenotypes were distinct. For the postfusion assays i.e. the uncoating (EU assay), nuclear import (EI assay), and the NP translation assay, the signal was more heterogeneous and non-synchronous. This was most likely due to the increased involvement of cytoplasmic cellular factors in these processes. Therefore, for quantification we chose the second method and utilized all available cellular features. We initially tested a single parameter method (spot detection) for the EI assay. However, the reliability was low as shown by the low Z’ factor [1.
