Nanobodies: site-specific labeling for super-resolution imaging, rapid epitope-mapping and native protein complex isolation

  1. Tino Pleiner
  2. Mark Bates
  3. Sergei Trakhanov
  4. Chung-Tien Lee
  5. Jan Erik Schliep
  6. Hema Chug
  7. Marc Böhning
  8. Holger Stark
  9. Henning Urlaub
  10. Dirk Görlich  Is a corresponding author
  1. Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry, Germany
  2. Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry,, Germany

Abstract

Nanobodies are single-domain antibodies of camelid origin. We generated nanobodies against the vertebrate nuclear pore complex (NPC) and used them in STORM imaging to locate individual NPC proteins with <2nm epitope-label displacement. For this, we introduced cysteines at specific positions in the nanobody sequence and labeled the resulting proteins with fluorophore-maleimides. As nanobodies are normally stabilized by disulfide-bonded cysteines, this appears counterintuitive. Yet, our analysis showed that this caused no folding problems. Compared to traditional NHS ester-labeling of lysines, the cysteine-maleimide strategy resulted in far less background in fluorescence imaging, it better preserved epitope recognition and it is site-specific. We also devised a rapid epitope-mapping strategy, which relies on crosslinking mass spectrometry and the introduced ectopic cysteines. Finally, we used different anti-nucleoporin nanobodies to purify the major NPC building blocks - each in a single step, with native elution and, as demonstrated, in excellent quality for structural analysis by electron microscopy. The presented strategies are applicable to any nanobody and nanobody-target.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Tino Pleiner

    Department of Cellular Logistics, Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry, Göttingen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Mark Bates

    Department of NanoBiophotonics, Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry, Göttingen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Sergei Trakhanov

    Department of Cellular Logistics, Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry, Göttingen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Chung-Tien Lee

    Bioanalytical Mass Spectrometry, Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry, Göttingen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Jan Erik Schliep

    3D Electron Cryo-Microscopy Group, Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry, Göttingen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Hema Chug

    Department of Cellular Logistics, Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry, Göttingen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Marc Böhning

    Department of Cellular Logistics, Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry, Göttingen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Holger Stark

    3D Electron Cryo-Microscopy Group, Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry,, Göttingen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Henning Urlaub

    Bioanalytical Mass Spectrometry, Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry, Göttingen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Dirk Görlich

    Department of Cellular Logistics, Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry, Göttingen, Germany
    For correspondence
    goerlich@mpibpc.mpg.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Copyright

© 2015, Pleiner 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

  • 18,387
    views
  • 3,725
    downloads
  • 190
    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. Tino Pleiner
  2. Mark Bates
  3. Sergei Trakhanov
  4. Chung-Tien Lee
  5. Jan Erik Schliep
  6. Hema Chug
  7. Marc Böhning
  8. Holger Stark
  9. Henning Urlaub
  10. Dirk Görlich
(2015)
Nanobodies: site-specific labeling for super-resolution imaging, rapid epitope-mapping and native protein complex isolation
eLife 4:e11349.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.11349

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.11349

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    Parnian Arafi, Sujan Devkota ... Michael S Wolfe
    Research Article

    Missense mutations in the amyloid precursor protein (APP) and presenilin-1 (PSEN1) cause early-onset familial Alzheimer’s disease (FAD) and alter proteolytic production of secreted 38-to-43-residue amyloid β-peptides (Aβ) by the PSEN1-containing γ-secretase complex, ostensibly supporting the amyloid hypothesis of pathogenesis. However, proteolysis of APP substrate by γ-secretase is processive, involving initial endoproteolysis to produce long Aβ peptides of 48 or 49 residues followed by carboxypeptidase trimming in mostly tripeptide increments. We recently reported evidence that FAD mutations in APP and PSEN1 cause deficiencies in early steps in processive proteolysis of APP substrate C99 and that this results from stalled γ-secretase enzyme-substrate and/or enzyme-intermediate complexes. These stalled complexes triggered synaptic degeneration in a Caenorhabditis elegans model of FAD independently of Aβ production. Here, we conducted full quantitative analysis of all proteolytic events on APP substrate by γ-secretase with six additional PSEN1 FAD mutations and found that all six are deficient in multiple processing steps. However, only one of these (F386S) was deficient in certain trimming steps but not in endoproteolysis. Fluorescence lifetime imaging microscopy in intact cells revealed that all six PSEN1 FAD mutations lead to stalled γ-secretase enzyme-substrate/intermediate complexes. The F386S mutation, however, does so only in Aβ-rich regions of the cells, not in C99-rich regions, consistent with the deficiencies of this mutant enzyme only in trimming of Aβ intermediates. These findings provide further evidence that FAD mutations lead to stalled and stabilized γ-secretase enzyme-substrate and/or enzyme-intermediate complexes and are consistent with the stalled process rather than the products of γ-secretase proteolysis as the pathogenic trigger.