Isobaric crosslinking mass spectrometry technology for studying conformational and structural changes in proteins and complexes

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Crosslinking mass spectrometry has become an important tool in structural biology, providing information about protein complex architecture, binding sites and interfaces, and conformational changes. One key challenge of this approach represents the quantitation of crosslinking data to interrogate differential binding states and distributions of conformational states.

Here, Luo and Ranish present a novel class of isobaric crosslinkers ("Qlinkers"), conduct proof-of-concept benchmarking experiments on known protein complexes, and show example applications on selected target proteins. The data are solid and this could well be an exciting, convincing new approach in the field if the quantitation strategy is made more comprehensive and the quantitative power of isobaric labeling is fully leveraged as outlined below. It's a promising proof-of-concept, and potentially of broad interest for structural biologists.

Strengths:

The authors demonstrate the synthesis, application, and quantitation of their "Q2linkers", enabling relative quantitation of two conditions against each other. In benchmarking experiments, the Q2linkers provide accurate quantitation in mixing experiments. Then the authors show applications of Q2linkers on MBP, Calmodulin, selected transcription factors, and polymerase II, investigating protein binding, complex assembly, and conformational dynamics of the respective target proteins. For known interactions, their findings are in line with previous studies, and they show some interesting data for TFIIA/TBP/TFIIB complex formation and conformational changes in pol II upon Rbp4/7 binding.

Weaknesses:

This is an elegant approach but the power of isobaric mass tags is not fully leveraged in the current manuscript.

First, "only" Q2linkers are used. This means only two conditions can be compared. Theoretically, higher-plexed Qlinkers should be accessible and would also be needed to make this a competitive method against other crosslinking quantitation strategies. As it is, two conditions can still be compared relatively easily using LFQ - or stable-isotope-labeling based approaches. A "Q5linker" would be a really useful crosslinker, which would open up comprehensive quantitative XLMS studies.

Second, the true power of isobaric labeling, accurate quantitation across multiple samples in a single run, is not fully exploited here. The authors only show differential trends for their interaction partners or different conformational states and do not make full quantitative use of their data or conduct statistical analyses. This should be investigated in more detail, e.g. examine Qlinker quantitation of MBP incubated with different concentrations of maltose or Calmodulin incubated with different concentrations of CBPs. Does Qlinker quantitation match ratios predicted using known binding constants or conformational state populations? Is it possible to extract ratios of protein populations in different conformations, assembly, or ligand-bound states?

With these two points addressed this approach could be an important and convincing tool for structural biologists.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

The regulation of protein function heavily relies on the dynamic changes in the shape and structure of proteins and their complexes. These changes are widespread and crucial. However, examining such alterations presents significant challenges, particularly when dealing with large protein complexes in conditions that mimic the natural cellular environment. Therefore, much emphasis has been put on developing novel methods to study protein structure, interactions, and dynamics. Crosslinking mass spectrometry (CSMS) has established itself as such a prominent tool in recent years. However, doing this in a quantitative manner to compare structural changes between conditions has proven to be challenging due to several technical difficulties during sample preparation. Luo and Ranish introduce a novel set of isobaric labeling reagents, called Qlinkers, to allow for a more straightforward and reliable way to detect structural changes between conditions by quantitative CSMS (qCSMS).

The authors do an excellent job describing the design choices of the isobaric crosslinkers and how they have been optimized to allow for efficient intra- and inter-protein crosslinking to provide relevant structural information. Next, they do a series of experiments to provide compelling evidence that the Qlinker strategy is well suited to detect structural changes between conditions by qCSMS. First, they confirm the quantitative power of the novel-developed isobaric crosslinkers by a controlled mixing experiment. Then they show that they can indeed recover known structural changes in a set of purified proteins (complexes) - starting with single subunit proteins up to a very large 0.5 MDa multi-subunit protein complex - the polII complex.

The authors give a very measured and fair assessment of this novel isobaric crosslinker and its potential power to contribute to the study of protein structure changes. They show that indeed their novel strategy picks up expected structural changes, changes in surface exposure of certain protein domains, changes within a single protein subunit but also changes in protein-protein interactions. However, they also point out that not all expected dynamic changes are captured and that there is still considerable room for improvement (many not limited to this crosslinker specifically but many crosslinkers used for CSMS).

Taken together the study presents a novel set of isobaric crosslinkers that indeed open up the opportunity to provide better qCSMS data, which will enable researchers to study dynamic changes in the shape and structure of proteins and their complexes. However, in its current form, the study some aspects of the study should be expanded upon in order for the research community to assess the true power of these isobaric crosslinkers. Specifically:

Although the authors do mention some of the current weaknesses of their isobaric crosslinkers and qCSMS in general, more detail would be extremely helpful. Throughout the article a few key numbers (or even discussions) that would allow one to better evaluate the sensitivity (and the applicability) of the method are missing. This includes:

(1) Throughout all the performed experiments it would be helpful to provide information on how many peptides are identified per experiment and how many have actually a crosslinker attached to it.

(2) Of all the potential lysines that can be modified - how many are actually modified? Do the authors have an estimate for that? It would be interesting to evaluate in a denatured sample the modification efficiency of the isobaric crosslinker (as an upper limit as here all lysines should be accessible) and then also in a native sample. For example, in the MBP experiment, the authors report the change of one mono-linked peptide in samples containing maltose relative to the one not containing maltose. The authors then give a great description of why this fits to known structural changes. What is missing here is a bit of what changes were expected overall and which ones the authors would have expected to pick up with their method and why have they not been picked up. For example, were they picked up as modified by the crosslinker but not differential? I think this is important to discuss appropriately throughout the manuscript to help the reader evaluate/estimate the potential sensitivity of the method. There are passages where the authors do an excellent job doing that - for example when they mention the missed site that they expected to see in the initial the polII experiments (lines 191 to 207). This kind of "power analysis" should be heavily discussed throughout the manuscript so that the reader is better informed of what sensitivity can be expected from applying this method.

(3) It would be very helpful to provide information on how much better (or not) the Qlinker approach works relative to label-free qCLMS. One is missing the reference to a potential qCLMS gold standard (data set) or if such a dataset is not readily available, maybe one of the experiments could be performed by label-free qCLMS. For example, one of the differential biosensor experiments would have been well suited.