The Development of mNeonGreen

This week our most recent publication, “A bright monomeric green fluorescent protein derived from Branchiostoma lanceolatum” will be published in Nature Methods. It has already been viewable online for some time now, here is a link. We believe this new protein possesses a great deal of potential to advance the imaging fields through enhanced fluorescent microscopy. mNeonGreen enables numerous super resolution imaging techniques and allows for greater clarity and insight into one’s research. As a result of this we are taking a new approach at Allele for distribution of this protein, and here we will describe the history of the protein and some of the factors that led us down this path.

mNeonGreen was developed by Dr. Nathan Shaner at Allele Biotechnology and the Scintillon Institute through the directed evolution of a yellow fluorescent protein we offer called LanYFP. LanYFP is a super bright yellow fluorescent protein derived from the Lancelet fish species, characterized by its very high quantum yield, however, in its native state LanYFP is tetrameric. Dr. Shaner was able to monomerize the protein and enhance a number of beneficial properties such as photostability and maturation time. The result is a protein that performs very well in a number of applications, but is also backwards compatible with and equipment for GFP imaging.

Upon publication there was a question of how distribution should be structured. How would we make this protein available to researchers in a simple manner was a very difficult challenge. We also relied heavily on Dr. Shaner’s knowledge and experience in these matters, as he related his experiences to us from his time in Roger Tsien’s lab at UCSD. When the mFruits was published their lab was inundated with requests. The average waiting period was 3 months to receive a protein and they required a dedicated research technician to handle this process. Eventually the mFruits from the Tsien lab were almost exclusively offered through Clontech. Thus we decided that Allele Biotechnology would handle the protein distribution and take a commercial approach to drastically decrease the turnaround time. The next challenge we faced was how to charge for this protein. Due to the cost of developing this protein, which was fully funded by Allele, there is a necessity to recoup our investment and ideally justify further development of research tools, but we also understand the budget constraints every lab now faces. From this line of thinking we conceived our group licensing model; we wanted to limit the charge to $100 per lab. The way this is fiscally justifiable is having every lab in a department or site license the protein at this charge, including access to all related plasmids made by us as well as those generated by other licensed users (Click here for our licensing page). The benefit we see to this is that the protein is licensed for full use at a low cost, and collaboration amongst ones colleagues is not only permissible, it’s encouraged. We saw this as a win-win situation. We would recoup our cost and invest in further fluorescent protein research, and our protein costs would not be a barrier to research and innovation.

The granting of a license to use but not distribute material is not unique to commercial sources. Although academic material transfer agreements typically contain specific language forbidding distribution of received material beyond the recipient laboratory, some researchers choose to disregard these provisions. Unfortunately through this action they are disrespecting the intellectual property rights of the original researchers as well as violating the terms of the legal contract they signed in order to receive the material. We believe most researchers choose to respect the great deal of effort that goes into the creation of research tools for biology and do not distribute any material received from other labs without their express permission. However for a company that funds its own basic research our focus is often on the former example rather than the latter. We believe that this focus artificially drives up the costs of licensing a fluorescent protein and obtaining the plasmid, thus we have chosen to believe researchers will respect our intellectual property as long as we are reasonable in our distribution which is something we have truly striven for.

Additionally we believe the broad-range usage of a superior, new generation FP is an opportunity to advocate newer technologies that can be enabled by mNeonGreen, together with a number of Allele’s other fluorescent proteins (such as the photoconvertible mClavGR2, and mMaple). These new imaging technologies are called super resolution imaging (MRI). They provide researchers with a much finer resolution of cellular structures, protein molecule localizations, and protein-protein interaction information. We have started the construction of a dedicated webpage to provide early adopters with practical and simple guidance, click here to visit our super resolution imaging portal.

Tags: cell imaging, fluorescent protein, FP, GFP, mNeonGreen, Superresolution

Allele Publishes mNeonGreen as the Brightest Monomeric Fluorescent Protein for Super-resolution Imaging

SAN DIEGO–(BUSINESS WIRE, Yahoo! Finance)–

This week scientists from Allele Biotechnology and its partner non-profit research institute, the Scintillon Institute, present their latest fluorescent protein, mNeonGreen, in the journal Nature Methods (Nature Publishing Group). In the paper, entitled “A bright monomeric green fluorescent protein derived from Branchiostoma lanceolatum,” the scientists describe the development of the brightest monomeric fluorescent protein to date.

The scientific efforts to develop this novel fluorescent protein were led by Dr. Nathan Shaner, a leader in the field of fluorescent protein engineering. Fluorescent proteins are highly valuable research tools that allow the labeling and imaging of individual proteins within a living cell, and tracking of their movements and localization in real time through a microscope. However, since the discovery of the original green fluorescent protein in 1993, imaging technology has advanced rapidly beyond the capability of most fluorescent proteins. The newly described fluorescent protein, mNeonGreen, allows researchers to take full advantage of modern super-resolution optical microscopy techniques that enable visualization of structures in living and fixed cells at much smaller scales than are possible using traditional optical microscopy. This improvement will lead to countless new insights into human health and a greater understanding of protein interactions at very small distance scales within living cells. According to Dr. Jiwu Wang, the CEO of Allele Biotechnology, “Super-resolution imaging will become the standard for publication in a short period of time, and mNeonGreen allows researchers to meet this standard while still being compatible with the equipment and methods they already use.”

Prominent researchers within the fluorescent protein field are touting mNeonGreen as a replacement for jellyfish-derived Aequorea GFP, one of the most commonly used fluorescent proteins today. According to lead researcher Dr. Nathan Shaner, “mNeonGreen can be directly substituted for other green fluorescent proteins such as EGFP without the need for any equipment changes,” making the upgrade an attractive prospect for many researchers.

Allele Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a San Diego-based biotechnology company specializing in the fields of RNAi, stem cells, viral expression, camelid antibodies and fluorescent proteins. The company has co-developed a number of fluorescent proteins and other products for PALM or STORM super-resolution imaging 3D-SIM, and STED imaging. With the arrival of mNeonGreen, Allele plans to collaborate with leading imaging labs, microscope manufacturers, and journals such as Nature Methods to further promote the advantages and capabilities of the latest imaging methods. Additionally, this announcement will coincide with the launch of a new super-resolution imaging web portal and plasmid depository via collaboration with the Scintillon Institute. The Scintillon Institute is a non-profit research institute established in 2012 using seed funding from Allele Biotech. The institute’s researchers are focused on the development of biological tools to improve human health and quality of life, including applications to cancer imaging, regenerative medicine, and sustainable energy and food production.

For details about Allele’s new Superresolution FP distribution method, read our departmental and institutional usage page.

Tags: 3D, fluorescence, in vivo imaging, microscope, PALM, protein label, SIM, STED, STORM, super resolution imaging

Choosing the Right Fluorescent Protein

In 1994 the green fluorescent protein cloned from Aequorea victoria became the first in a long line of genetically encoded labels. Since that time, the fluorescent protein palette has expanded to cover the entire visual spectrum. With so many color variations and options, which fluorescent protein (FP) is best for your research? Three key factors are among the most important to consider: brightness, photostability, and aggregation.

Brightness is the most obvious factor that most researchers consider when choosing an FP. In general, the brighter the FP, the better it will perform under almost all experimental conditions. When evaluating an FP’s brightness, make sure to look at the critical optical parameters — extinction coefficient and quantum yield. The product of these two values for different FPs can be used to directly compare their brightness. Brighter FPs will have lower detection limits (i.e. the concentration at which the FP becomes visible above autofluorescence of other cell components), and will allow imaging with lower excitation light intensity, minimizing the possibility of phototoxic effects.

Photostability has increasingly become a consideration when researchers choose fluorescent proteins. Many FPs, even if they are initially quite bright, will photobleach under continuous excitation during imaging. In order to perform long-term imaging experiments or to do quantitative analysis, an FP with high photostability should be the first choice. Unfortunately, methods for measuring and reporting photostability vary widely in the scientific literature, so be sure to understand how your FP’s photostability was measured before trying to make comparisons!

Aggregation (or oligomerization) has been one of the major issues tackled in the development of FPs. Many wild-type FPs form tetramers, which aggregate badly when expressed as fusion tags in cells. Engineered monomeric forms of many FPs are now available, and these monomeric FPs should always be used when making fusion constructs. For simple expression markers, however, oligomerization is not usually a major concern, and the brightest possible FP should be used in this case.

As with other research tools, doing your homework and reading the primary literature is always the best approach to choosing the right FP for your project!

Tags: Fluorescent proteins, FPs

VHH Nanobodies in Super-Resolution Imaging and More

From the large number of recent publications using GFP-Trap beads, it appears that GFP-Trap is on the way to becoming one the most popular tags for co-IP thanks to its unparalleled “cleanness” of precipitated protein bands and its quantitative binding capabilities. As described previously, the antibody conjugated on the GFP-Trap beads is a single-domain antigen binding module from camelid single-chain antibodies. Termed VHH, this domain is only ~12 kD and can fit into structures that other types of antibodies cannot. We have successfully created VHH antibodies against a number of neural factors as a research project for the NIDA/NIH.

VHH proteins are often called nanobodies as a result of their size (1.5 – 2.5nm) and binding affinity ( GFP-trap has a binding affinity of 0.59nM). In addition to their use for co-IP, VHH antibodies have proven themselves as a resilient tool for various other applications. Anti-GFP nanobodies, for example, are currently used to enhance the fluorescence of GFP (GFP-trap booster utilizes the same VHH binding antibody coupled to a fluorescent dye); others have used VHH antibodies that can insert into certain part of GFP to dim the fluorescence signal . More recently, Ries et al. published in Nature Methods that the anti-GFP nanobodies offered a simple and versatile method for super-resolution imaging (i.e. PALM)-previously super-resolution imaging requires photoconvertible fluorescent proteins (such as Eos, mClavGR2). With dye-conjugated nanobodies, generating fusions to these newer FPs is no longer needed, however, using the nanobody super-imaging method requires fixing and permeabilizing the cells.

When using anti-GFP VHH reagents you need to be aware that other fluorescent proteins can also be recognized, if they were derived from the avGFP (jellyfish GFP). Also, some GFPs are not recognized if they are from another species, or engineered such as our mWasabi. We are producing newer and brighter GFP/YFPs based on the lancelet YFP protein to offer alternative series that will not be cross-recognized by the GFP-Trap antibodies.

Tags: Co-IP, GFP-Trap, Lancelet YFP, mClavGR2, mWasabi, nanobodies, PALM, RFP-Trap, VHH

Making Transfection-Grade mRNA by IVT (In Vitro Transcription)

RNases are an often feared in molecular biology labs because of their high stability and ominous presence in virtually all living systems. Consequently, people who work with RNA are trained to exercise extreme caution to avoid RNA degradation: change gloves often because human hands ooze RNases; use only sterilized labware as microbes may be sources of RNases; for surfaces that can’t be autoclaved, use sprays like “RNase Zap” (SDS- or guanidine-containing solutions). Such cautionary steps are especially necessary when dealing with low abundance RNA samples.

RNAs can be produced by in vitro transcription (IVT), a simple reaction requiring only a DNA template (double-stranded or even single-stranded DNA as long as the promoter region is double-stranded), RNA polymerase (from T7, SP6, or T3 phage), NTPs, and a reaction buffer that provides appropriate salt and pH. Standard NTPs may be replaced with modified ones to either increase stability or to reduce immune-response when transfected into cultured cells. Additionally, a 5’ cap structure may be added during IVT for further stabilizing mRNAs inside the cells post transfection. Using a commercially assembled kit, one can routinely produce 40-50 µg of mRNA from 1 µg of DNA template in a single 20-50 µl reaction.

At such high concentrations, IVT mRNAs are not nearly as sensitive to RNase-mediated degradation as low-abundance samples. The mRNA can be easily observed on agarose gels that are regularly used for DNA, and their integrity can be monitored after transcription or storage. In most cases one distinct band of mRNA from an IVT reaction is obtained as long as a clean DNA template is used. Preparing a good, uniform IVT template is critical to prevent aberrant products. By using high quality templates, IVT mRNA produced in your own lab are often higher in quality than mRNAs purchased from current commercial sources (Figure in Blog shows mRNAs generated by IVT for R-iPSC). Sometimes there are minor bands created during IVT, but they normally do not interfere with the intended uses of the mRNA, and can be purified away with a purification kit (by using a discriminating purification scheme such as Allele Biotech’s Surface Bind RNA Purification, smaller species can be specifically removed, a separate topic for another blog).

Once produced, mRNAs can be stored at -20C for months, or -80C nearly indefinitely.

mRNAs generated by IVT for R-iPSC

Tags: fluorescent protein, iPS, IVT, luciferase, mRNA, nuclease, recombinase, RiPSCs, RNA degradation, RNase, TALEN