Beyond BioID: Streptavidin outcompetes antibody fluorescence signals in protein localization and readily visualises targets evading immunofluorescence detection

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this work, Odenwald and colleagues show that mutant biotin ligases used to perform proximity-dependent biotin identification (TurboID) can be used to amplify signal in fluorescence microscopy and to label phase-separated compartments that are refractory to many immunofluorescence approaches. Using the parasite Trypanosoma brucei, they show that fluorescent methods such as expansion microscopy and CLEM, which require bright signals for optimal detection, benefit from the elevated signal provided by TurboID fusion proteins when coupled with labeled streptavidin. Moreover, they show that phase-separated compartments, where many antibody epitopes are occluded due to limited diffusion and potential sequestration, are labeled reliably with biotin deposited by a TurboID fusion protein that localizes within the compartment. They show successful labeling of the nucleolus, likely phase-separated portions of the nuclear pore, and stress granules. Lastly, they use a panel of nuclear pore-TurboID fusion proteins to map the regions of the T. brucei nuclear pore that appear to be phase-separated by comparing antibody labeling of the protein, which is susceptible to blocking, to the degree of biotin deposition detected by streptavidin, which is not.

Strengths:

Overall, this study shows that TurboID labelling and fluorescent streptavidin can be used to boost signal compared to conventional immunofluorescence in a manner similar to tyramide amplification, but without having to use antibodies. TurboID could prove to be a viable general strategy for labeling phase-separated structures in cells, and perhaps as a means of identifying these structures, which could also be useful.

Weaknesses:

However, I think that this work would benefit from additional controls to address if the improved detection that is being observed is due to the increased affinity and smaller size of streptavidin/biotin compared to IgGs, or if it has to do with the increased amount of binding epitope (biotin) being deposited compared to the number of available antibody epitopes. I also think that using the biotinylation signal produced by the TurboID fusion to track the location of the fusion protein and/or binding partners in cells comes with significant caveats that are not well addressed here, mostly due to the inability to discern which proteins are contributing to the observed biotin signal.

To dissect the contributions of the TurboID fusion to elevating signal, anti-biotin antibodies could be used to determine if the abundance of the biotin being deposited by the TurboID is what is increasing detection, or if streptavidin is essential for this. Alternatively, HaloTag or CLIP tagging could be used to see if diffusion of a small molecule tag other than biotin can overcome the labeling issue in phase-separated compartments. There are Halo-biotin substrates available that would allow the conjugation of 1 biotin per fusion protein, which would allow the authors to dissect the relative contributions of the high affinity of streptavidin from the increased amount of biotin that the TurboID introduces.

The idea of using the biotin signal from the TurboID fusion as a means to track the changing localization of the fusion protein or the location of interacting partners is an attractive idea, but the lack of certainty about what proteins are carrying the biotin signal makes it very difficult to make clear statements. For example, in the case of TurboID-PABP2, the appearance of a biotin signal at the cell posterior is proposed to be ALPH1, part of the mRNA decapping complex. However, because we are tracking biotin localization and biotin is being deposited on a variety of proteins, it is not formally possible to say that the posterior signal is ALPH1 or any other part of the decapping complex. For example, the posterior labeling could represent a localization of PABP2 that is not seen without the additional signal intensity provided by the TurboID fusion. There are also many cytoskeletal components present at the cell posterior that could be being biotinylated, not just the decapping complex. Similar arguments can be made for the localization data pertaining to MLP2 and NUP65/75. I would argue that the TurboID labeling allows you to enhance signal on structures, such as the NUPs, and effectively label compartments, but you lack the capacity to know precisely which proteins are being labeled.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors noticed that there was an enhanced ability to detect nuclear pore proteins in trypanosomes using a streptavidin-biotin-based detection approach in comparison to conventional antibody-based detection, and this seemed particularly acute for phase-separated proteins. They explored this in detail for both standard imaging but also expansion microscopy and CLEM, testing resolution, signal strength, and sensitivity. An additional innovative approach exploits the proximity element of biotin labelling to identify where interacting proteins have been as well as where they are.

Strengths:

The data is high quality and convincing and will have obvious application, not just in the trypanosome field but also more broadly where proteins are tricky to detect or inaccessible due to phase separation (or some other steric limitations). It will be of wide utility and value in many cell biological studies and is timely due to the focus of interest on phase separation, CLEM, and expansion microscopy.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors aimed to investigate the effectiveness of streptavidin imaging as an alternative to traditional antibody labeling for visualizing proteins within cellular contexts. They sought to address challenges associated with antibody accessibility and inconsistent localization by comparing the performance of streptavidin imaging with a TurboID-HA tandem tag across various protein localization scenarios, including phase-separated regions. They aimed to assess the reliability, signal enhancement, and potential advantages of streptavidin imaging over antibody labeling techniques.

Overall, the study provides a convincing argument for the utility of streptavidin imaging in cellular protein visualization. By demonstrating the effectiveness of streptavidin imaging as an alternative to antibody labeling, the study offers a promising solution to issues of accessibility and localization variability. Furthermore, while streptavidin imaging shows significant advantages in signal enhancement and preservation of protein interactions, the authors must consider potential limitations and variations in its application. Factors such as the fact that tagging may sometimes impact protein function, background noise, non-specific binding, and the potential for off-target effects may impact the reliability and interpretation of results. Thus, careful validation and optimization of streptavidin imaging protocols are crucial to ensure reproducibility and accuracy across different experimental setups.

Strengths:

- Streptavidin imaging utilizes multiple biotinylation sites on both the target protein and adjacent proteins, resulting in a substantial signal boost. This enhancement is particularly beneficial for several applications with diluted antigens, such as expansion microscopy or correlative light and electron microscopy.

- This biotinylation process enables the identification and characterization of interacting proteins, allowing for a comprehensive understanding of protein-protein interactions within cellular contexts.

Weaknesses:

- One of the key advantages of antibodies is that they label native, endogenous proteins, i.e. without introducing any genetic modifications or exogenously expressed proteins. This is a major difference from the approach in this manuscript, and it is surprising that this limitation is not really mentioned, let alone expanded upon, anywhere in the manuscript. Tagging proteins often impacts their function (if not their localization), and this is also not discussed.

- Given that BioID proximity labeling encompasses not only the protein of interest but also its entire interacting partner history, ensuring accurate localization of the protein of interest poses a challenge.

- The title of the publication suggests that this imaging technique is widely applicable. However, the authors did not show the ability to track the localization of several distinct proteins on the same sample, which could be an additional factor demonstrating the outperformance of streptavidin imaging compared with antibody labeling. Similarly, the work focuses only on small 2D samples. It would have been interesting to be able to compare this with 3D samples (e.g. cells encapsulated in an extracellular matrix) or to tissues.