A genome-wide resource for the analysis of protein localisation in Drosophila

  1. Mihail Sarov
  2. Christiane Barz
  3. Helena Jambor
  4. Marco Y Hein
  5. Christopher Schmied
  6. Dana Suchold
  7. Bettina Stender
  8. Stephan Janosch
  9. Vinay Vikas KJ
  10. RT Krishnan
  11. Aishwarya Krishnamoorthy
  12. Irene RS Ferreira
  13. Radoslaw K Ejsmont
  14. Katja Finkl
  15. Susanne Hasse
  16. Philipp Kämpfer
  17. Nicole Plewka
  18. Elisabeth Vinis
  19. Siegfried Schloissnig
  20. Elisabeth Knust
  21. Volker Hartenstein
  22. Matthias Mann
  23. Mani Ramaswami
  24. K VijayRaghavan
  25. Pavel Tomancak
  26. Frank Schnorrer  Is a corresponding author
  1. Max Planck Institute of Cell Biology and Genetics, Germany
  2. Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Germany
  3. Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, India
  4. Centre for Cellular and Molecular Platforms, National Centre for Biological Sciences, India
  5. Heidelberg Institute of Theoretical Studies, Germany
  6. University of California, Los Angeles, United States
  7. Trinity College Dublin, Ireland

Abstract

The Drosophila genome contains >13,000 protein coding genes, the majority of which remain poorly investigated. Important reasons include the lack of antibodies or reporter constructs to visualise these proteins. Here we present a genome-wide fosmid library of 10,000 GFP-tagged clones, comprising tagged genes and most of their regulatory information. For 880 tagged proteins we created transgenic lines and for a total of 207 lines we assessed protein expression and localisation in ovaries, embryos, pupae or adults by stainings and live imaging approaches. Importantly, we visualised many proteins at endogenous expression levels and found a large fraction of them localising to subcellular compartments. By applying genetic complementation tests we estimate that about two-thirds of the tagged proteins are functional. Moreover, these tagged proteins enable interaction proteomics from developing pupae and adult flies. Taken together, this resource will boost systematic analysis of protein expression and localisation in various cellular and developmental contexts.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Mihail Sarov

    Max Planck Institute of Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Christiane Barz

    Muscle Dynamics Group, Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Martinsried, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Helena Jambor

    Max Planck Institute of Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Marco Y Hein

    Department of Proteomics and Signal Transduction, Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Martinsried, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Christopher Schmied

    Max Planck Institute of Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Dana Suchold

    Max Planck Institute of Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Bettina Stender

    Muscle Dynamics Group, Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Martinsried, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Stephan Janosch

    Max Planck Institute of Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  9. Vinay Vikas KJ

    Centre for Cellular and Molecular Platforms, National Centre for Biological Sciences, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bangalore, India
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  10. RT Krishnan

    Centre for Cellular and Molecular Platforms, National Centre for Biological Sciences, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bangalore, India
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  11. Aishwarya Krishnamoorthy

    Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Centre for Cellular and Molecular Platforms, National Centre for Biological Sciences, Bangalore, India
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  12. Irene RS Ferreira

    Muscle Dynamics Group, Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Martinsried, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  13. Radoslaw K Ejsmont

    Max Planck Institute of Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  14. Katja Finkl

    Muscle Dynamics Group, Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Martinsried, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  15. Susanne Hasse

    Max Planck Institute of Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  16. Philipp Kämpfer

    Heidelberg Institute of Theoretical Studies, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  17. Nicole Plewka

    Muscle Dynamics Group, Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Martinsried, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  18. Elisabeth Vinis

    Max Planck Institute of Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  19. Siegfried Schloissnig

    Heidelberg Institute of Theoretical Studies, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  20. Elisabeth Knust

    Max Planck Institute of Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  21. Volker Hartenstein

    Department of Molecular Cell and Developmental Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  22. Matthias Mann

    Department of Proteomics and Signal Transduction, Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Martinsried, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  23. Mani Ramaswami

    Institute of Neuroscience, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
    Competing interests
    Mani Ramaswami, Reviewing editor, eLife.
  24. K VijayRaghavan

    Centre for Cellular and Molecular Platforms, National Centre for Biological Sciences, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bangalore, India
    Competing interests
    K VijayRaghavan, Senior editor, eLife.
  25. Pavel Tomancak

    Max Planck Institute of Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  26. Frank Schnorrer

    Muscle Dynamics Group, Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Martinsried, Germany
    For correspondence
    schnorrer@biochem.mpg.de
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

Copyright

© 2016, Sarov 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

  • 22,811
    views
  • 4,031
    downloads
  • 343
    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. Mihail Sarov
  2. Christiane Barz
  3. Helena Jambor
  4. Marco Y Hein
  5. Christopher Schmied
  6. Dana Suchold
  7. Bettina Stender
  8. Stephan Janosch
  9. Vinay Vikas KJ
  10. RT Krishnan
  11. Aishwarya Krishnamoorthy
  12. Irene RS Ferreira
  13. Radoslaw K Ejsmont
  14. Katja Finkl
  15. Susanne Hasse
  16. Philipp Kämpfer
  17. Nicole Plewka
  18. Elisabeth Vinis
  19. Siegfried Schloissnig
  20. Elisabeth Knust
  21. Volker Hartenstein
  22. Matthias Mann
  23. Mani Ramaswami
  24. K VijayRaghavan
  25. Pavel Tomancak
  26. Frank Schnorrer
(2016)
A genome-wide resource for the analysis of protein localisation in Drosophila
eLife 5:e12068.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.12068

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.12068

Further reading

    1. Developmental Biology
    Satoshi Yamashita, Shuji Ishihara, François Graner
    Research Article

    Apical constriction is a basic mechanism for epithelial morphogenesis, making columnar cells into wedge shape and bending a flat cell sheet. It has long been thought that an apically localized myosin generates a contractile force and drives the cell deformation. However, when we tested the increased apical surface contractility in a cellular Potts model simulation, the constriction increased pressure inside the cell and pushed its lateral surface outward, making the cells adopt a drop shape instead of the expected wedge shape. To keep the lateral surface straight, we considered an alternative model in which the cell shape was determined by cell membrane elasticity and endocytosis, and the increased pressure is balanced among the cells. The cellular Potts model simulation succeeded in reproducing the apical constriction, and it also suggested that a too strong apical surface tension might prevent the tissue invagination.

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Developmental Biology
    Sara Jaber, Eliana Eldawra ... Franck Toledo
    Research Article

    Missense ‘hotspot’ mutations localized in six p53 codons account for 20% of TP53 mutations in human cancers. Hotspot p53 mutants have lost the tumor suppressive functions of the wildtype protein, but whether and how they may gain additional functions promoting tumorigenesis remain controversial. Here, we generated Trp53Y217C, a mouse model of the human hotspot mutant TP53Y220C. DNA damage responses were lost in Trp53Y217C/Y217C (Trp53YC/YC) cells, and Trp53YC/YC fibroblasts exhibited increased chromosome instability compared to Trp53-/- cells. Furthermore, Trp53YC/YC male mice died earlier than Trp53-/- males, with more aggressive thymic lymphomas. This correlated with an increased expression of inflammation-related genes in Trp53YC/YC thymic cells compared to Trp53-/- cells. Surprisingly, we recovered only one Trp53YC/YC female for 22 Trp53YC/YC males at weaning, a skewed distribution explained by a high frequency of Trp53YC/YC female embryos with exencephaly and the death of most Trp53YC/YC female neonates. Strikingly, however, when we treated pregnant females with the anti-inflammatory drug supformin (LCC-12), we observed a fivefold increase in the proportion of viable Trp53YC/YC weaned females in their progeny. Together, these data suggest that the p53Y217C mutation not only abrogates wildtype p53 functions but also promotes inflammation, with oncogenic effects in males and teratogenic effects in females.