A general strategy to construct small molecule biosensors in eukaryotes

  1. Justin Feng
  2. Benjamin W Jester
  3. Christine E Tinberg
  4. Daniel J Mandell  Is a corresponding author
  5. Mauricio S Antunes
  6. Raj Chari
  7. Kevin J Morey
  8. Xavier Rios
  9. June I Medford
  10. George M Church
  11. Stanley Fields
  12. David Baker
  1. Harvard Medical School, United States
  2. University of Washington, United States
  3. Colorado State University, United States
  4. Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of Washington, United States

Abstract

Biosensors for small molecules can be used in applications that range from metabolic engineering to orthogonal control of transcription. Here, we produce biosensors based on a ligand-binding domain (LBD) by using a method that, in principle, can be applied to any target molecule. The LBD is fused to either a fluorescent protein or a transcriptional activator and is destabilized by mutation such that the fusion accumulates only in cells containing the target ligand. We illustrate the power of this method by developing biosensors for digoxin and progesterone. Addition of ligand to yeast, mammalian or plant cells expressing a biosensor activates transcription with a dynamic range of up to ~100-fold. We use the biosensors to improve the biotransformation of pregnenolone to progesterone in yeast and to regulate CRISPR activity in mammalian cells. This work provides a general methodology to develop biosensors for a broad range of molecules in eukaryotes.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Justin Feng

    Program in Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    Harvard University has filed a provisional patent on this work
  2. Benjamin W Jester

    Department of Genome Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    Harvard University has filed a provisional patent on this work
  3. Christine E Tinberg

    Department of Biochemistry, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    Harvard University has filed a provisional patent on this work
  4. Daniel J Mandell

    Department of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    For correspondence
    djmandell@gmail.com
    Competing interests
    Harvard University has filed a provisional patent on this work
  5. Mauricio S Antunes

    Department of Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Raj Chari

    Department of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    Harvard University has filed a provisional patent on this work
  7. Kevin J Morey

    Department of Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Xavier Rios

    Department of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  9. June I Medford

    Department of Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  10. George M Church

    Department of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    Harvard University has filed a provisional patent on this work
  11. Stanley Fields

    Department of Genome Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    Harvard University has filed a provisional patent on this work
  12. David Baker

    Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    Harvard University has filed a provisional patent on this work

Reviewing Editor

  1. Jeffery W Kelly, Scripps Research Institute, United States

Version history

  1. Received: August 6, 2015
  2. Accepted: December 17, 2015
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: December 29, 2015 (version 1)
  4. Accepted Manuscript updated: December 30, 2015 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record published: January 26, 2016 (version 3)

Copyright

© 2015, Feng et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 13,811
    views
  • 3,191
    downloads
  • 137
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Justin Feng
  2. Benjamin W Jester
  3. Christine E Tinberg
  4. Daniel J Mandell
  5. Mauricio S Antunes
  6. Raj Chari
  7. Kevin J Morey
  8. Xavier Rios
  9. June I Medford
  10. George M Church
  11. Stanley Fields
  12. David Baker
(2015)
A general strategy to construct small molecule biosensors in eukaryotes
eLife 4:e10606.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.10606

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.10606

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Computational and Systems Biology
    Richard Sejour, Janet Leatherwood ... Bruce Futcher
    Research Article

    Previously, Tuller et al. found that the first 30–50 codons of the genes of yeast and other eukaryotes are slightly enriched for rare codons. They argued that this slowed translation, and was adaptive because it queued ribosomes to prevent collisions. Today, the translational speeds of different codons are known, and indeed rare codons are translated slowly. We re-examined this 5’ slow translation ‘ramp.’ We confirm that 5’ regions are slightly enriched for rare codons; in addition, they are depleted for downstream Start codons (which are fast), with both effects contributing to slow 5’ translation. However, we also find that the 5’ (and 3’) ends of yeast genes are poorly conserved in evolution, suggesting that they are unstable and turnover relatively rapidly. When a new 5’ end forms de novo, it is likely to include codons that would otherwise be rare. Because evolution has had a relatively short time to select against these codons, 5’ ends are typically slightly enriched for rare, slow codons. Opposite to the expectation of Tuller et al., we show by direct experiment that genes with slowly translated codons at the 5’ end are expressed relatively poorly, and that substituting faster synonymous codons improves expression. Direct experiment shows that slow codons do not prevent downstream ribosome collisions. Further informatic studies suggest that for natural genes, slow 5’ ends are correlated with poor gene expression, opposite to the expectation of Tuller et al. Thus, we conclude that slow 5’ translation is a ‘spandrel’--a non-adaptive consequence of something else, in this case, the turnover of 5’ ends in evolution, and it does not improve translation.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    Boglarka Zambo, Evelina Edelweiss ... Gergo Gogl
    Research Article

    Truncation of the protein-protein interaction SH3 domain of the membrane remodeling Bridging Integrator 1 (BIN1, Amphiphysin 2) protein leads to centronuclear myopathy. Here, we assessed the impact of a set of naturally observed, previously uncharacterized BIN1 SH3 domain variants using conventional in vitro and cell-based assays monitoring the BIN1 interaction with dynamin 2 (DNM2) and identified potentially harmful ones that can be also tentatively connected to neuromuscular disorders. However, SH3 domains are typically promiscuous and it is expected that other, so far unknown partners of BIN1 exist besides DNM2, that also participate in the development of centronuclear myopathy. In order to shed light on these other relevant interaction partners and to get a holistic picture of the pathomechanism behind BIN1 SH3 domain variants, we used affinity interactomics. We identified hundreds of new BIN1 interaction partners proteome-wide, among which many appear to participate in cell division, suggesting a critical role of BIN1 in the regulation of mitosis. Finally, we show that the identified BIN1 mutations indeed cause proteome-wide affinity perturbation, signifying the importance of employing unbiased affinity interactomic approaches.