A toolbox of nanobodies developed and validated for use as intrabodies and nanoscale immunolabels in brain neurons

  1. Jie-Xian Dong
  2. Yongam Lee
  3. Michael Kirmiz
  4. Stephanie Palacio
  5. Camelia Dumitras
  6. Claudia M Moreno
  7. Richard Sando
  8. L Fernando Santana
  9. Thomas C Südhof
  10. Belvin Gong
  11. Karl D Murray
  12. James S Trimmer  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of California, Davis, United States
  2. University of Washington, United States
  3. Stanford School of Medicine, United States

Abstract

Nanobodies (nAbs) are small, minimal antibodies that have distinct attributes that make them uniquely suited for certain biomedical research, diagnostic and therapeutic applications. Prominent uses include as intracellular antibodies or intrabodies to bind and deliver cargo to specific proteins and/or subcellular sites within cells, and as nanoscale immunolabels for enhanced tissue penetration and improved spatial imaging resolution. Here, we report the generation and validation of nAbs against a set of proteins prominently expressed at specific subcellular sites in mammalian brain neurons. We describe a novel hierarchical validation pipeline to systematically evaluate nAbs isolated by phage display for effective and specific use as intrabodies and immunolabels in mammalian cells including brain neurons. These nAbs form part of a robust toolbox for targeting proteins with distinct and highly spatially-restricted subcellular localization in mammalian brain neurons, allowing for visualization and/or modulation of structure and function at those sites.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Jie-Xian Dong

    Department of Neurobiology, Physiology and Behavior, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Yongam Lee

    Department of Neurobiology, Physiology and Behavior, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Michael Kirmiz

    Department of Neurobiology, Physiology and Behavior, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Stephanie Palacio

    Department of Neurobiology, Physiology and Behavior, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Camelia Dumitras

    Department of Neurobiology, Physiology and Behavior, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Claudia M Moreno

    Department of Physiology and Biophysics, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Richard Sando

    Department of Molecular and Cellular Physiology, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. L Fernando Santana

    Department of Physiology and Membrane Biology, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4297-8029
  9. Thomas C Südhof

    Department of Molecular and Cellular Physiology, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Belvin Gong

    Department of Neurobiology, Physiology and Behavior, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Karl D Murray

    Department of Neurobiology, Physiology and Behavior, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. James S Trimmer

    Department of Neurobiology, Physiology and Behavior, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    For correspondence
    jtrimmer@ucdavis.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6117-3912

Funding

National Institutes of Health (U01NS099714)

  • James S Trimmer

National Institutes of Health (U24NS109113)

  • James S Trimmer

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Graeme W Davis, University of California, San Francisco, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All procedures involving llamas were performed at Triple J Farms of Kent Laboratories (Bellingham, WA) in strict accordance with the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of the NIH. All procedures involving rats were approved by the University of California, Davis, Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) under protocols 20485 and 21265 and were performed in strict accordance with the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of the NIH. All rats were maintained under standard light-dark cycles and allowed to feed and drink ad libitum. All procedures involving mice were approved by the Stanford University IACUC under protocol 18846 and were performed in strict accordance with the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of the NIH.

Version history

  1. Received: May 24, 2019
  2. Accepted: September 18, 2019
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: September 30, 2019 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: October 9, 2019 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2019, Dong 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

  • 10,088
    views
  • 1,487
    downloads
  • 36
    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. Jie-Xian Dong
  2. Yongam Lee
  3. Michael Kirmiz
  4. Stephanie Palacio
  5. Camelia Dumitras
  6. Claudia M Moreno
  7. Richard Sando
  8. L Fernando Santana
  9. Thomas C Südhof
  10. Belvin Gong
  11. Karl D Murray
  12. James S Trimmer
(2019)
A toolbox of nanobodies developed and validated for use as intrabodies and nanoscale immunolabels in brain neurons
eLife 8:e48750.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.48750

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.48750

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Jack W Lindsey, Elias B Issa
    Research Article

    Object classification has been proposed as a principal objective of the primate ventral visual stream and has been used as an optimization target for deep neural network models (DNNs) of the visual system. However, visual brain areas represent many different types of information, and optimizing for classification of object identity alone does not constrain how other information may be encoded in visual representations. Information about different scene parameters may be discarded altogether (‘invariance’), represented in non-interfering subspaces of population activity (‘factorization’) or encoded in an entangled fashion. In this work, we provide evidence that factorization is a normative principle of biological visual representations. In the monkey ventral visual hierarchy, we found that factorization of object pose and background information from object identity increased in higher-level regions and strongly contributed to improving object identity decoding performance. We then conducted a large-scale analysis of factorization of individual scene parameters – lighting, background, camera viewpoint, and object pose – in a diverse library of DNN models of the visual system. Models which best matched neural, fMRI, and behavioral data from both monkeys and humans across 12 datasets tended to be those which factorized scene parameters most strongly. Notably, invariance to these parameters was not as consistently associated with matches to neural and behavioral data, suggesting that maintaining non-class information in factorized activity subspaces is often preferred to dropping it altogether. Thus, we propose that factorization of visual scene information is a widely used strategy in brains and DNN models thereof.

    1. Neuroscience
    Zhaoran Zhang, Huijun Wang ... Kunlin Wei
    Research Article

    The sensorimotor system can recalibrate itself without our conscious awareness, a type of procedural learning whose computational mechanism remains undefined. Recent findings on implicit motor adaptation, such as over-learning from small perturbations and fast saturation for increasing perturbation size, challenge existing theories based on sensory errors. We argue that perceptual error, arising from the optimal combination of movement-related cues, is the primary driver of implicit adaptation. Central to our theory is the increasing sensory uncertainty of visual cues with increasing perturbations, which was validated through perceptual psychophysics (Experiment 1). Our theory predicts the learning dynamics of implicit adaptation across a spectrum of perturbation sizes on a trial-by-trial basis (Experiment 2). It explains proprioception changes and their relation to visual perturbation (Experiment 3). By modulating visual uncertainty in perturbation, we induced unique adaptation responses in line with our model predictions (Experiment 4). Overall, our perceptual error framework outperforms existing models based on sensory errors, suggesting that perceptual error in locating one’s effector, supported by Bayesian cue integration, underpins the sensorimotor system’s implicit adaptation.