By Jeffrey M. Perkel
Close Encounters
Protein-protein interaction assays for all occasions.
|
|
For tandem affinity purification, purified proteins are visualized on
a silver-stained gel, then analyzed by liquid chromatographytandem
mass spec.
|
|
Tilmann Buerckstuemmer and Giulio Superti-Furga / Center for Molecular
Medicine of the Austrian Academy of Sciences
|
Proteins almost never act alone. In a molecular version of "guilt by
association," identifying the function of novel proteins often requires pinning down
the proteins with which they interact. But yeast two-hybrid assays and
coimmunoprecipitation, the two main techniques for generating "interactomes," maps
of protein interactions on a proteome-wide scale, can leave gaping holes.
The yeast two-hybrid (Y2H) assay is genetically simple and amenable to
genome-scale analyses. It involves two fusion proteins, called "bait" and "prey,"
coexpressed in yeast; each is coupled to one half of a transcriptional activator
such that their association tethers a transcriptional activation domain to DNA,
inducing expression of a reporter gene. The technique has some restrictions,
however: The fusion proteins must be overexpressed and localized in the nucleus, and
can not include membrane proteins, transcriptional activators, mammalian
post-translational modifications, or multiprotein complexes.
Fishing proteins out of cell lysates via coimmunoprecipitation (coIP) and
analyzing them using mass spectrometry (MS) avoids some of these concerns. Yet this
approach requires antibodies to a protein of interest, tends to overlook weak or low
abundance interactions, and can only identify which proteins are present in a
complex, not who binds to whom.
The Scientist asked four researchers to describe their preferred
method for mapping protein interaction while avoiding these shortcomings. Here's
what they said:
|
Complex ID
Researcher:
Giulio Superti-Furga, Director, Center for Molecular Medicine
of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna
The project:
Mapping protein complexes in yeast (Nature, 440:631-6.
2006) and mammalian cells (Nature Methods, 3:1013-9, 2006)
The problem:
Y2H measures only binary interactions, not multiprotein complexes.
But coIP /MS requires high-quality, specific antibodies,
few of which are available. Superti-Furga needed a generic way
to isolate intact complexes from cells.
The Solution:
Superti-Furga and his team adapted a process called tandem
affinity purification (TAP ) that is akin to standard coIP /MS, but
doesn't require a proteome's worth of different antibodies.
Unlike in traditional coIP , the TAP tag enables sequential
purification, first on immunoglobulin-coated beads and then,
following protease digestion, on calmodulin-coated beads.
Finally, the purified complexes are eluted and analyzed by MS.
Like coIP /MS, and unlike Y2H (and LUMIER , described
below), TAP tagging offers no information on binary proteinprotein
interactions. It can, however, reveal complexes other
methods may overlook.
"As [the tagged protein] comes off the ribosome, it can
assemble with its natural binding partners," explains Superti-
Furga. "This allows TAP to capture effects like order of addition,
where one protein must bind before a second can bind, or posttranslational
modifications." The method "gives you two things,"
he adds: "The members participating in a particular process, and
the 'organizational chart' of how these members are organized."
But, he cautions, "What you cannot be sure [of] is whether
that measurement is due to some spurious contamination because
some protein may have a very high concentration, for instance."
Costs:
TAP plasmids and strains from EuroSCARF cost from €15 to €30.
|
Membrane bound
|
|
Growth of blue-color yeast reveals protein-protein interaction.
|
|
Saranya Kittanakom and Igor Stagljar / University of Toronto
|
Researcher:
Igor Stagljar, Professor, Donnelly Center for Cellular and Biomolecular
Research, University of Toronto
The project:
Interactive proteomics of integral membrane proteins (PNAS
94:5187-92. 1998)
The problem:
Existing biochemical and genetic approaches either don't work
with membrane proteins (Y2H) or destroy the complexes (coIP /
MS). Stagljar wanted a genetic alternative.
The Solution:
Stagljar's technique, called MY TH (membrane yeast twohybrid),
takes the benefits of Y2H - chiefly easy genetics and
amenability to high-throughput analyses - and applies them
to membrane proteins. According to Stagljar, "this is the only
assay so far demonstrated to work as a screening system to find
protein interactors of full-length, integral membrane proteins."
MYTH employs a so-called "split-ubiquitin" approach. The
bait (an integral membrane protein) is fused at one end to the
C-terminal half of ubiquitin linked to a transcriptional activator;
potential prey are fused to the other half of ubiquitin. Interaction
between bait and prey reconstitutes ubiquitin, which is then
cleaved by a specific protease to release the transcriptional activator.
The activator then migrates to the nucleus and turns on
reporter gene expression.
MYTH accommodates both cytosolic and integral membrane
prey, as well as interactions occurring at any cellular membrane
(for instance, endoplasmic reticulum, Golgi, and mitochondria).
"If you work with yeast membrane proteins, we are almost 100%
successful, because you are expressing a yeast membrane protein
in its natural milieu," Stagljar says. Mammalian proteins are more
problematic, though, because their targeting often requires posttranslational
modifications that do not occur in yeast.
Costs:
Stagljar cofounded DualSystems Biotech of Switzerland to commercialize
MY TH. The DUAL membrane kit 3 costs $3,900.
|
Signal specs
|
|
A LUMIER dataset (bait, Y axis; preys, X axis). The color intensity
(yellow) reflects the magnitude of the interaction.
|
|
Jeff Wrana / Samuel Lunenfeld Research Institute
|
Researcher:
Jeff Wrana, Senior Investigator, Samuel Lunenfeld Research
Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto
The project:
Mapping the dynamics of protein-protein interactions in mammalian
cell signaling systems (Science, 307:1621-5, 2005)
The problem:
Signaling events often involve membrane proteins and posttranslational
modifications, both of which are incompatible with Y2H, and
low-abundance proteins, which are difficult to detect by coIP /MS.
The Solution:
Wrana's approach, called LUMIER (luminescence-based mammalian
interactome mapping), combines elements of Y2H and
coIP /MS in a high-throughput format.
"As opposed to mass spectrometry where you have a
bait protein and do an IP and look for associated proteins,
in LUMIER you are doing a directed question: Does protein
A interact with protein B, and does it do so in a way that is
context-dependent?" Wrana explains.
Bait proteins are coupled to Renilla luciferase, while potential
prey (or an entire library of them) are tagged with a generic
epitope. The two constructs are coexpressed in mammalian
cells, which are then lysed, typically following exposure to a
stimulus, such as TGF-beta. Interactions are then detected by
testing anti-epitope immunoprecipitates for luciferase activity.
Because it involves mammalian cells, LUMIER can probe
for growth-factor-dependent interactions. As it requires no
functional readout, LUMIER "is much less constrained in terms
of detecting interactions," says Wrana. Unlike Y2H, "the interactions
can occur anywhere in the cell," Wrana says. "It is very
effective at looking at interactions between membrane proteins,
or proteins that express poorly by other techniques, for
example because they are large or multidomain."
Costs:
LUMIER plasmids are available from the Wrana lab. Promega's
Renilla Luciferase Assay System costs $523 for 1,000 assays.
|
Head to head
|
|
A section of a protein microarray: glutathione-S-transferase (GST )
fusion proteins probed with a GST antibody (GST is a commonly
used fusion moiety).
|
|
PNAS 104:17494-17499, 2007 / © 2007 National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A.
|
Researcher:
Mike Snyder, Professor of Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental
Biology & Director, Yale Center for Genomics and Proteomics,
Yale University
The project:
Searching for direct calmodulin (CaM)- and calmodulin-like
(CML )-binding proteins in the Arabidopsis thaliana proteome
(PNAS 104:4730-5, 2007)
The problem:
Existing techniques often overlook relatively weak interactions.
The interactions they do detect can often be either direct or
mediated by an intermediary protein. Snyder wanted a way to
exclusively map direct protein-protein interactions.
The Solution:
Snyder's team made protein microarrays by expressing 1,133 plant
proteins and arraying them in duplicate on nitrocellulose-coated
glass slides. They then probed those arrays with seven fluorescently
labeled CaM and CML proteins, detecting 173 partners.
Snyder's lab pioneered protein microarrays, having first
described a yeast proteome chip in 2001. According to Snyder,
arrays offer several advantages. First, because it is in vitro,
observed interactions must occur without intermediaries.
Second, arrays enable direct comparison of binding strengths
- data other techniques do not provide. Finally, because all
proteins on the array are present in equal amounts, "You can
detect interactions amongst proteins that might be present at
very low copy numbers."
On the other hand, because arrays probe interactions in
vitro, results must be validated in vivo. And, not insignificantly,
"someone has to make [the chips]," he says. "They are fairly
expensive and labor-intensive to set up."
Costs:
Commercial protein (as opposed to antibody) arrays are rare.
Snyder's lab licensed its technology to Invitrogen. The 8,000-
protein ProtoArray human microarray V4.1 lists for $1,700.
|
1. Use at Least Two Complementary Methods
It always pays to validate at least a subset of interactions using some alternative method, preferably involving endogenous proteins expressed in vivo at normal levels. "That's very important because sometimes, a certain number of interactions can be seen as proteins are overexpressed that you wouldn't see looking at endogenous proteins," says Jeff Wrana of Mount Sinai Hospital Toronto. But don't just pick any method; if your first approach is in vitro, make your second in vivo, and visa versa.
2. Cross-check Against Orthologous Data Sets
If two proteins interact, they must by definition be found in the same place. They should also yield similar knockout phenotypes. If you cannot generate such data yourself, at least cross-check your results against localization and/or RNAi datasets (if available). "If you have a protein interacting with a receptor, then you should be able to demonstrate that the protein is not, say, exclusively nuclear, because that would suggest the interaction may not be physiologically relevant," says Wrana.
3. Be Quantitative
Some interaction methods provide yes/no answers; others provide quantitative data. If possible, have one of your techniques provide quantitative information, says Yale University's Mike Snyder. "It might come in useful." Because all proteins on a microarray are present at roughly equal levels, for instance, Snyder's lab can directly compare the binding strengths of different probe proteins. "You could very easily see which proteins interact with which partners, and you can quantify that, get a sense of relative binding strengths, because it is done in parallel," he says.
4. Archive Your Data
Just as with sequence data, community online databases exist to archive interaction data. Such data benefit the entire interaction community, including your lab. Two of the most popular resources are the BioGRID (General Repository for Interaction Datasets, www.thebiogrid.org) and the Database of Interacting Proteins (DIP, http://dip.doe-mbi.ucla.edu/). The MIPS Mammalian Protein-Protein Interaction Database (http://mips.gsf.de/proj/ppi/) web site lists more than 20 additional archives, as well.
Advertisement
Rate this article
Rating: 3.84/5 (19 votes )
|