skip to main content

Title: N‐Terminal Protein Labeling with N ‐Hydroxysuccinimide Esters and Microscale Thermophoresis Measurements of Protein‐Protein Interactions Using Labeled Protein

Protein labeling strategies have been explored for decades to study protein structure, function, and regulation. Fluorescent labeling of a protein enables the study of protein‐protein interactions through biophysical methods such as microscale thermophoresis (MST). MST measures the directed motion of a fluorescently labeled protein in response to microscopic temperature gradients, and the protein's thermal mobility can be used to determine binding affinity. However, the stoichiometry and site specificity of fluorescent labeling are hard to control, and heterogeneous labeling can generate inaccuracies in binding measurements. Here, we describe an easy‐to‐apply protocol for high‐stoichiometric, site‐specific labeling of a protein at its N‐terminus withN‐hydroxysuccinimide (NHS) esters as a means to measure protein‐protein interaction affinity by MST. This protocol includes guidelines for NHS ester labeling, fluorescent‐labeled protein purification, and MST measurement using a labeled protein. As an example of the entire workflow, we additionally provide a protocol for labeling a ubiquitin E3 enzyme and testing ubiquitin E2‐E3 enzyme binding affinity. These methods are highly adaptable and can be extended for protein interaction studies in various biological and biochemical circumstances. © 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.

This article was corrected on 18 July 2022. See the end of the full text for details.

Basic Protocol 1: Labeling a protein of interest at its N‐terminus with NHS esters through stepwise reaction

Alternate Protocol: Labeling a protein of interest at its N‐terminus with NHS esters through a one‐pot reaction

Basic Protocol 2: Purifying the N‐terminal fluorescent‐labeled protein and determining its concentration and labeling efficiency

Basic Protocol 3: Using MST to determine the binding affinity of an N‐terminal fluorescent‐labeled protein to a binding partner.

Basic Protocol 4: NHS ester labeling of ubiquitin E3 ligase WWP2 and measurement of the binding affinity between WWP2 and an E2 conjugating enzyme by the MST binding assay

more » « less
Author(s) / Creator(s):
Publisher / Repository:
Wiley Blackwell (John Wiley & Sons)
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Current Protocols
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Ubiquitin and ubiquitin like proteins (UBLs) play key roles in eukaryotes. These proteins are attached to their target proteins through an E1-E2-E3 cascade and modify the functions of these proteins. Since the discovery of ubiquitin, several UBLs have been identified, including Nedd8, SUMO, ISG15, and Atg8. Ubiquitin and UBLs share a similar three-dimensional structure: β -grasp fold and an X-X-[R/A/E/K]-X-X-[G/X]-G motif at the C-terminus. We have previously reported that ubiquitin, Nedd8, and SUMO mimicking peptides which all contain the conserved motif X-X-[R/A/E/K]-X-X-[G/X]-G still retained their reactivity toward their corresponding E1, E2, and E3 enzymes. In our current study, we investigated whether such C-terminal peptides could still be transferred onto related pathway enzymes to probe the function of these enzymes when they are fused with a protein. By bioinformatic search of protein databases, we selected eight proteins carrying the X-X-[R/A/E/K]-X-X-[G/X]-G motif at the C-terminus of the β -grasp fold. We synthesized the C-terminal sequences of these candidates as short peptides and found that three of them showed significant reactivity with the ubiquitin E1 enzyme Ube1. We next fused the three reactive short peptides to three different protein frames, including their respective native protein frames, a ubiquitin frame and a peptidyl carrier protein (PCP) frame, and measured the reactivities of these peptide-fused proteins with Ube1. Peptide-fused proteins on ubiquitin and PCP frames showed obvious reactivity with Ube1. However, when we measured E2 UbcH7 transfer, we found that the PCP-peptide fusions lost their reactivity with UbcH7. Taken together, these results suggested that the recognition of E2 enzymes with peptide-fused proteins depended not only on the C-terminal sequences of the ubiquitin-mimicking peptides, but also on the overall structures of the protein frames. 
    more » « less
  2. Abstract

    Most members of basic leucine zipper (bZIP) transcription factor (TF) subgroup A play important roles as positive effectors in abscisic acid (ABA) signaling during germination and/or in vegetative stress responses. In multiple plant species, one member, ABA insensitive 5 (ABI5), is a major TF that promotes seed maturation and blocks early seeding growth in response to ABA. Other members, referred to as either ABRE‐binding factors (ABFs), ABRE‐binding proteins (AREBs), or D3 protein‐binding factors (DPBFs), are implicated as major players in stress responses during vegetative growth. Studies on the proteolytic regulation of ABI5, ABF1, and ABF3 inArabidopsis thalianahave shown that the proteins have moderate degradation rates and accumulate in the presence of the proteasome inhibitor MG132. Exogenous ABA slows their degradation and the ubiquitin E3 ligase called KEEP ON GOING (KEG) is important for their degradation. However, there are some reported differences in degradation among subgroup A members. The conserved C‐terminal sequences (referred to as the C4 region) enhance degradation of ABI5 but stabilize ABF1 and ABF3. To better understand the proteolytic regulation of the ABI5/ABFs and determine whether there are differences between vegetative ABFs and ABI5, we studied the degradation of an additional family member, ABF2, and compared its in vitro degradation to that of ABI5. As previously seen for ABI5, ABF1, and ABF3, epitope‐tagged constitutively expressed ABF2 degrades in seedlings treated with cycloheximide and is stabilized following treatment with the proteasome inhibitor MG132. Tagged ABF2 protein accumulates when seedlings are treated with ABA, but its mRNA levels do not increase, suggesting that the protein is stabilized in the presence of ABA. ABF2 is also an in vitro ubiquitination substrate of the E3 ligase KEG and recombinant ABF2 is stable inkeglysates. ABF2 with a C4 deletion degrades more quickly in vitro than full‐length ABF2, as previously observed for ABF1 and ABF3, suggesting that the conserved C4 region contributes to its stability. In contrast to ABF2 and consistent with previously published work, ABI5 with C terminal deletions including an analogous C4 deletion is stabilized in vitro compared to full length ABI5. In vivo expression of an ABF1 C4 deletion protein appears to have reduced activity compared to equivalent levels of full length ABF1. Additional group A family members show similar proteolytic regulation by MG132 and ABA. Altogether, these results together with other work on ABI5 regulation suggest that the vegetative ABFs share proteolytic regulatory mechanisms that are not completely shared with ABI5.

    more » « less
  3. Abstract

    Histone acetyltransferases (HATs, also known as lysine acetyltransferases, KATs) catalyze acetylation of their cognate protein substrates using acetyl‐CoA (Ac‐CoA) as a cofactor and are involved in various physiological and pathological processes. Advances in mass spectrometry‐based proteomics have allowed the discovery of thousands of acetylated proteins and the specific acetylated lysine sites. However, due to the rapid dynamics and functional redundancy of HAT activities, and the limitation of using antibodies to capture acetylated lysines, it is challenging to systematically and precisely define both the substrates and sites directly acetylated by a given HAT. Here, we describe a chemoproteomic approach to identify and profile protein substrates of individual HAT enzymes on the proteomic scale. The approach involves protein engineering to enlarge the Ac‐CoA binding pocket of the HAT of interest, such that a mutant form is generated that can use functionalized acyl‐CoAs as a cofactor surrogate to bioorthogonally label its protein substrates. The acylated protein substrates can then be chemoselectively conjugated either with a fluorescent probe (for imaging detection) or with a biotin handle (for streptavidin pulldown and chemoproteomic identification). This modular chemical biology approach has been successfully implemented to identify protein substrates of p300, GCN5, and HAT1, and it is expected that this method can be applied to profile and identify the sub‐acetylomes of many other HAT enzymes. © 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.

    Basic Protocol 1: Labeling HAT protein substrates with azide/alkyne‐biotin

    Alternate Protocol: Labeling protein substrates of HATs with azide/alkyne‐TAMRA for in‐gel visualization

    Support Protocol 1: Expression and purification of HAT mutants

    Support Protocol 2: Synthesis of Ac‐CoA surrogates

    Basic Protocol 2: Streptavidin enrichment of biotinylated HAT substrates

    Basic Protocol 3: Chemoproteomic identification of HAT substrates

    Basic Protocol 4: Validation of specific HAT substrates with western blotting

    more » « less
  4. Abstract

    Stu2p is the yeast member of the XMAP215/Dis1/ch‐TOG family of microtubule‐associated proteins that promote microtubule polymerization. However, the factors that regulate its activity are not clearly understood. Here we report that Stu2p in the budding yeastSaccharomyces cerevisiaeinteracts with SUMO by covalent and noncovalent mechanisms. Stu2p interacted by two‐hybrid analysis with the yeast SUMO Smt3p, its E2 Ubc9p, and the E3 Nfi1p. A region of Stu2p containing the dimerization domain was both necessary and sufficient for interaction with SUMO and Ubc9p. Stu2p was found to be sumoylated bothin vitroandin vivo. Stu2p copurified with SUMO in a pull‐down assay and vice versa. Stu2p also bound to a nonconjugatable form of SUMO, suggesting that Stu2p can interact noncovalently with SUMO. In addition, Stu2p interacted with the STUbL enzyme Ris1p. Stu2p also copurified with ubiquitin in a pull‐down assay, suggesting that it can be modified by both SUMO and ubiquitin. Tubulin, a major binding partner of Stu2p, also interacted noncovalently with SUMO. By two‐hybrid analysis, the beta‐tubulin Tub2p interacted with SUMO independently of the microtubule stressor, benomyl. Together, these findings raise the possibility that the microtubule polymerization activities mediated by Stu2p are regulated through sumoylation pathways.

    more » « less
  5. Abstract

    The SARS‐CoV‐2 envelope (E) protein forms a five‐helix bundle in lipid bilayers whose cation‐conducting activity is associated with the inflammatory response and respiratory distress symptoms of COVID‐19. E channel activity is inhibited by the drug 5‐(N,N‐hexamethylene) amiloride (HMA). However, the binding site of HMA in E has not been determined. Here we use solid‐state NMR to measure distances between HMA and the E transmembrane domain (ETM) in lipid bilayers.13C,15N‐labeled HMA is combined with fluorinated or13C‐labeled ETM. Conversely, fluorinated HMA is combined with13C,15N‐labeled ETM. These orthogonal isotopic labeling patterns allow us to conduct dipolar recoupling NMR experiments to determine the HMA binding stoichiometry to ETM as well as HMA‐protein distances. We find that HMA binds ETM with a stoichiometry of one drug per pentamer. Unexpectedly, the bound HMA is not centrally located within the channel pore, but lies on the lipid‐facing surface in the middle of the TM domain. This result suggests that HMA may inhibit the E channel activity by interfering with the gating function of an aromatic network. These distance data are obtained under much lower drug concentrations than in previous chemical shift perturbation data, which showed the largest perturbation for N‐terminal residues. This difference suggests that HMA has higher affinity for the protein–lipid interface than the channel pore. These results give insight into the inhibition mechanism of HMA for SARS‐CoV‐2 E.

    more » « less