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.

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.

Reviewing Editor

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

Publication 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

  • 7,531
    Page views
  • 1,178
    Downloads
  • 26
    Citations

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

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Payel Chatterjee et al.
    Research Article

    During flight maneuvers, insects exhibit compensatory head movements which are essential for stabilizing the visual field on their retina, reducing motion blur, and supporting visual self-motion estimation. In Diptera, such head movements are mediated via visual feedback from their compound eyes that detect retinal slip, as well as rapid mechanosensory feedback from their halteres - the modified hindwings that sense the angular rates of body rotations. Because non-Dipteran insects lack halteres, it is not known if mechanosensory feedback about body rotations plays any role in their head stabilization response. Diverse non-Dipteran insects are known to rely on visual and antennal mechanosensory feedback for flight control. In hawkmoths, for instance, reduction of antennal mechanosensory feedback severely compromises their ability to control flight. Similarly, when the head movements of freely-flying moths are restricted, their flight ability is also severely impaired. The role of compensatory head movements as well as multimodal feedback in insect flight raises an interesting question: in insects that lack halteres, what sensory cues are required for head stabilization? Here, we show that in the nocturnal hawkmoth Daphnis nerii, compensatory head movements are mediated by combined visual and antennal mechanosensory feedback. We subjected tethered moths to open-loop body roll rotations under different lighting conditions, and measured their ability to maintain head angle in the presence or absence of antennal mechanosensory feedback. Our study suggests that head stabilization in moths is mediated primarily by visual feedback during roll movements at lower frequencies, whereas antennal mechanosensory feedback is required when roll occurs at higher frequency. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that control of head angle results from a multimodal feedback loop that integrates both visual and antennal mechanosensory feedback, albeit at different latencies. At adequate light levels, visual feedback is sufficient for head stabilization primarily at low frequencies of body roll. However, under dark conditions, antennal mechanosensory feedback is essential for the control of head movements at high of body roll.

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Ashtyn T Wiltbank et al.
    Research Article

    Efficient neurotransmission is essential for organism survival and is enhanced by myelination. However, the genes that regulate myelin and myelinating glial cell development have not been fully characterized. Data from our lab and others demonstrates that cd59, which encodes for a small GPI-anchored glycoprotein, is highly expressed in developing zebrafish, rodent, and human oligodendrocytes (OLs) and Schwann cells (SCs), and that patients with CD59 dysfunction develop neurological dysfunction during early childhood. Yet, the function of Cd59 in the developing nervous system is currently undefined. In this study, we demonstrate that cd59 is expressed in a subset of developing SCs. Using cd59 mutant zebrafish, we show that developing SCs proliferate excessively and nerves may have reduced myelin volume, altered myelin ultrastructure, and perturbed node of Ranvier assembly. Finally, we demonstrate that complement activity is elevated in cd59 mutants and that inhibiting inflammation restores SC proliferation, myelin volume, and nodes of Ranvier to wildtype levels. Together, this work identifies Cd59 and developmental inflammation as key players in myelinating glial cell development, highlighting the collaboration between glia and the innate immune system to ensure normal neural development.