Fluorescent Protein-Based Assay Development

This blog is a preview of what is to be launched as a new Service Group. Allele Biotech is restructuring its CRO capabilities in the assay development area by combining its fast expanding fluorescent protein portfolio, viral vector and packaging expertise, as well as newly granted patents in shRNA. The focus of this post is fluorescent protein in biosensor and screening assays. A modified version will be used as the landing page for the FB-Based Assay Development Service.

Overview:

Originally cloned from the jellyfish Aequorea victoria and subsequently from many other marine organisms, fluorescent proteins (FPs) spanning the entire visual spectrum have become some of the most widely used genetically encoded tags. Unlike traditional labeling methods, FPs may be used to specifically label virtually any protein of interest in a living cell with minimal perturbation to its endogenous function. Genes encoding FPs alone or as fusions to a protein of interest may be introduced to cells by a number of different methods, including simple plasmid transfection or viral transduction. Once expressed, FPs are easily detected with standard fluorescence microscopy equipment.

Factors that should be taken into account when designing an FP-based imaging experiment include the desired wavelength(s) for detection, the pH environment of the tagged protein, the total required imaging time, and the expression level or dynamic range required for detection of promoter activity or tagged protein. Individual FPs currently available to the research community vary considerably in their photostability, pH sensitivity, and overall brightness, and so FPs must be chosen with care to maximize the likelihood of success in a particular experimental context.

FPs as fusion tags:

Use of FPs as fusion tags allows visualization of the dynamic localization of the tagged protein in living cells. For such applications, the cDNA of a protein of interest is attached in-frame to the coding sequence for the desired FP, and both are put under the control of a promoter appropriate to the experimental context (typically CMV for high-level expression, though other promoters may be desirable if overexpression of your protein of interest is suspected of producing artifacts). The most basic uses for fluorescent protein fusions include tracking of specific organelles (fusions to short organelle targeting signals) or cytoskeletal structures (fusions to actin or tubulin, for example). More advanced uses include tracking receptors or exported proteins. In most cases, it is critical that the FP used for fusion tagging be fully monomeric, as any interaction between fusion tags is likely to produce artifacts, some of which may be hard to recognize in the absence of other controls. While in most cases FP fusions do not interfere with normal protein function, whenever possible, FP fusion proteins should be validated by immunostaining the corresponding endogenous protein in non-transfected cells and verifying similar patterns of localization.

FPs as expression reporters:

FPs are highly useful as quantitative expression reporters. By driving the expression of an FP gene by a specific promoter of interest, it is possible to produce an optical readout of promoter activity. Use of the brightest possible FP ensures the best dynamic range for such an experiment. Because dynamic localization is not generally an issue for expression reporter applications, it is possible to use non-monomeric FPs for this purpose, opening up additional possibilities for multiple wavelength imaging. In order to obtain more reliable quantitative data and to correct for likely variations between individual cells in expression reporter experiments, the use of two spectrally distinct (e.g. green and red) FPs is advisable. By driving expression of one FP with a constitutive promoter and a second FP with the promoter of interest, the ratio of the two signals provides a quantitative readout of relative activity. Averaged over many cells, this technique should provide statistical power necessary for quality expression level experiments. Because FPs normally have a very slow turnover rate in mammalian cells, it may be desirable to add a degradation tag to your FP to enhance temporal resolution when measuring highly dynamic promoter activity.

New Product of the Week 03-08-10 to 03-14-10: mWasabi 2A or IRES dual expression vectors (http://www.allelebiotech.com/shopcart/index.php?c=216&sc=34) ABP-FP-W2A10, orWIRES10

Promotion of the Week 03-08-10 to 03-14-10: for a limited time on Thursday, to be announced on our Facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/pages/San-Diego-CA/Allele-Biotechnology-and-Pharmaceuticals-Inc/78331924957#!/allele.biotech?ref=profile), a strikingly low price will be honored for a commonly used lab reagent or equipment. This is the second week of the follow-us-to-the-basement promotion.

Tags: assay development, biosensor, cell based assays, chemical screening, circular permutation, fluorescent protein, FRET, GFP, mTFP1, mWasabi, promoter-FP, RNAi screening

mTFP1 is an excellent FRET donor

Because of its excitation and emission wavelength, sharp excitation and emission peaks, high quantum yield, and exceptional photostability, mTFP1 has always been considered a very good Forster resonance energy transfer (FRET) donor (1). More recently, several groups have investigated the use of mTFP1 in various FRET experiments and imaging modalities and have shown that mTFP1 is indeed one of the best choices (2, 3, 4).

In one recent publication, Padilla-Parra et al (2) tested a number of different FRET couples to determine which was the best for fluorescence lifetime imaging (FLIM)-FRET experiments, and found that the mTFP1-EYFP pair was by far the best pair for FLIM-FRET. This group also confirmed that the fluorescence lifetime decay of mTFP1 fits well to a single exponential, and that the time constant for this decay is unaffected by photobleaching, making mTFP1 an excellent choice for any kind of fluorescence lifetime imaging applications, including FLIM-FRET. This group also notes that it is likely that the use of Venus or mCitrine variants in place of EYFP would improve the performance of this FRET pair even further.

In a mathematical analysis of the potential FRET efficiency of mTFP1 with Venus YFP, Day et al. (3) showed that compared with Cerulean (currently the brightest cyan Aequorea GFP variant), one can expect up to 17% better FRET efficiency using mTFP1. This group went on to characterize the mTFP1-Venus pair in live-cell FRET and FLIM-FRET experiments and showed that it worked as predicted in both cases. They also note that mTFP1 has superior brightness and photostability when compared to Cerulean in live cells, which is consistent with all in vitro data reported previously (1). In a related paper, Sun et al. (4) demonstrated that mTFP1 is also an excellent FRET donor for the orange fluorescent protein mKO2.

Together, these recent independent studies confirm that mTFP1 among the best options when choosing a fluorescent protein as a FRET donor. With its proven track record of successful fusions, mTFP1 is also an excellent all-around performer that will enhance almost any live-cell imaging experiment.

(1) Ai et al., (2006) Biochem. J. 400:531-540.
(2) Padilla-Parra et al., (2009) Biophys J. 97(8):2368-76.
(3) Day et al., (2008) J Biomed Opt. 13(3):031203.
(4) Sun et al., (2009) J Biomed Opt. 14(5):054009.

AlleleBlog Admin, by Nathan Shaner

Video of the month (NEW!): Protein Expression Systems on youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n81orbUebsQ) and at our protein expression page.

Discount of the week (Dec 14-20): 15% off Phoenix Retrovirus Expression System 2.0 (with selection medium provided)

New product(s) of the week: 48 fluorescent protein fusions on ready-to-infect virus that get into primary mammalian cells as subcellular markers (http://www.allelebiotech.com/shopcart/index.php?c=197&sc=34), 20 infections, only $249 for a limited introduction time.

Tags: cell imaging, CFP, FLIM-FRET, Fluorescent proteins, FP, FRET, FRET acceptor, FRET donor, FRET pair, GFP, GFP fusion, mTFP1, mWasabi, subcellular localization

Immunoprecipitation Tags

Immunoprecipitation is a process of isolating a protein as an antigen by using antibodies against it. It is a powerful tool for studying proteins in biological samples and, in case of Co-IP (meaning immunoprecipitation of complexes containing a known antigen), for analyzing protein-protein interactions. Similar technologies such as chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP), RNA immunoprecipitation (RIP), or crosslinked and iImmunoprecipitation of RNA-protein complexes (CLIP) aid analysis of protein-DNA or protein-RNA interactions.

The major obstacle for achieving effective immunoprecipitation is the difficulty of finding usable antibodies against a target of interest. A common practice is to use tags that are fused to the C- or N-terminus of the target protein, thereby any validated, commercially available antibody can be used for co-IP in different experimental systems. However, caution must be exercised against potential interference of biological functions from the added tags. In general, one should choose tags that have been tested in many situations and proven non-interfering; still, each biological system is different. Independent validation or supporting data should be used when interpreting results from tag-based co-IP.

Tags are often selected based on high quality and commercially available antibodies. Most commonly used tags include: FLAG, Myc, HA, V5, T7, and His, which are quite small in size and in theory less likely to interfere. GST and GFP are in between 20-30kDa, but they are well documented to form self-contained and stable structures independent of their fusion partners and proved to not interfere in many cases. GST can bind to glutathione beads directly, therefore a top choice for pulldown experiments. GFP or other FPs as tags have the advantages of being also a visualization module to follow the protein both inside cells and during pulldown. However, previously available anti-GFP antibodies, either polyclonal or monoclonal, are not comparable to those against other tags, thereby limiting the use of GFP as fusion tag in pulldown experiments.

GFP-Trap, a recent addition to anti-tag antibodies, is an E. coli expressed, single domain fragment derived from camelid heavy chain antibodies (VHH antibodies) with much higher stability, specificity, and affinity, making GFP based pulldown quantitative. This recent advancement should make GFP in line to become the most suitable tags for many aforementioned precipitation experiments.

Tags: alpaca antibodies, and His, camelid, chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP), Chromotek, Co-IP, FLAG, GFP, GST, HA, immunoprecipitation, Myc, nangobody, nanobodies, or crosslinked and iImmunoprecipitation of RNA-protein complexes (CLIP), protein-DNA, protein-protein, protein-RNA, RNA immunoprecipitation (RIP), single domain, T7, V5, VHH, VHH antibody

Getting the most from fluorescent proteins, Part 2

On Feb 3^rd in our previous blog entry on fluorescent proteins, we discussed some basic tips on setting yourself up for success with fluorescent protein based experiments. Here are some more ideas to help boost your imaging success:

1.    Know your background.

All cells contain endogenous fluorescent materials which can confound image interpretation, especially when your fluorescent protein signal is weak.  Make sure you’re familiar with the autofluorescence of your cell type before starting your FP experiments: take some images of non- expressing control cells using the same filters and excitation wavelength as you plan to use for your FP imaging.

Keep in mind that for mammalian cells, autofluorescence is confined mainly to the blue and green regions of the visual spectrum, while in other organisms (e.g. plants, yeast, and bacteria), some cell types may contain fluorescent compounds in other regions of the spectrum. For any given species and cell type, there is likely to be a wavelength “window” with the least autofluorescence; try to choose a fluorescent protein in this wavelength range for maximum signal above background.

2.    Sometimes two (or more) FPs are better than one.

If you are having trouble obtaining sufficient fluorescent signal from a fluorescent protein fusion construct, consider adding an extra copy of the fluorescent protein to boost your brightness.  While this is not recommended unless all else has failed, for low-abundance proteins it can substantially increase the likelihood of detection.  It is possible to create a functional fusion of two or more copies of fluorescent protein in many cases, although the larger size of such a tag increases the chances of mislocalization, so proper controls and validation are essential if you use this technique.  Also, remember that it is generally difficult to use PCR to amplify tandem copies of any gene, including FPs, so restriction-based subcloning is the most reliable way to create multi-copy FP tags.

3.    The best fluorescent proteins don’t stick together!

Truly monomeric fluorescent proteins make the best fusion tags, since they don’t produce localization artifacts due to multimerization. Even weak dimers, such as EGFP and its derivatives, can cause trouble if your fusion protein is at high concentration or in a confined space like a membrane or vesicle.

Are you still using your old EGFP fusion constructs?  If so, make sure to validate your localization results by other methods, or switch to a truly monomeric FP such as mTFP1 or mWasabi.  If you prefer to keep your original constructs, note that any Aequorea GFP-derived FP can be made completely monomeric by adding the A206K mutation.

One final warning — many commercially available FPs that were initially advertised as being monomeric later turned out to be dimers!  With any new FP you try, validate your results before making your conclusions.

Tags: cell marker, cellular, cellular localization, fluorescence, fluorescent protein, FRET, GFP, imaging, mTFP1, mWasabi