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.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Hugo J Bellen, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Baylor College of Medicine, United States

Publication history

  1. Received: October 3, 2015
  2. Accepted: February 19, 2016
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: February 20, 2016 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: March 14, 2016 (version 2)

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

  • 19,741
    Page views
  • 3,765
    Downloads
  • 192
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, Scopus, PubMed Central.

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

Further reading

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Tanya L Brown, Emma C Horton ... Jeffrey P Rasmussen
    Research Article Updated

    Touch system function requires precise interactions between specialized skin cells and somatosensory axons, as exemplified by the vertebrate mechanosensory Merkel cell-neurite complex. Development and patterning of Merkel cells and associated neurites during skin organogenesis remain poorly understood, partly due to the in utero development of mammalian embryos. Here, we discover Merkel cells in the zebrafish epidermis and identify Atonal homolog 1a (Atoh1a) as a marker of zebrafish Merkel cells. We show that zebrafish Merkel cells derive from basal keratinocytes, express neurosecretory and mechanosensory machinery, extend actin-rich microvilli, and complex with somatosensory axons, all hallmarks of mammalian Merkel cells. Merkel cells populate all major adult skin compartments, with region-specific densities and distribution patterns. In vivo photoconversion reveals that Merkel cells undergo steady loss and replenishment during skin homeostasis. Merkel cells develop concomitant with dermal appendages along the trunk and loss of Ectodysplasin signaling, which prevents dermal appendage formation, reduces Merkel cell density by affecting cell differentiation. By contrast, altering dermal appendage morphology changes the distribution, but not density, of Merkel cells. Overall, our studies provide insights into touch system maturation during skin organogenesis and establish zebrafish as an experimentally accessible in vivo model for the study of Merkel cell biology.

    1. Developmental Biology
    Bavat Bornstein, Lia Heinemann-Yerushalmi ... Elazar Zelzer
    Tools and Resources

    The proprioceptive system is essential for the control of coordinated movement, posture and skeletal integrity. The sense of proprioception is produced in the brain using peripheral sensory input from receptors such as the muscle spindle, which detects changes in the length of skeletal muscles. Despite its importance, the molecular composition of the muscle spindle is largely unknown. In this study, we generated comprehensive transcriptomic and proteomic datasets of the entire muscle spindle isolated from the murine deep masseter muscle. We then associated differentially expressed genes with the various tissues composing the spindle using bioinformatic analysis. Immunostaining verified these predictions, thus establishing new markers for the different spindle tissues. Utilizing these markers, we identified the differentiation stages the spindle capsule cells undergo during development. Together, these findings provide comprehensive molecular characterization of the intact spindle as well as new tools to study its development and function in health and disease.