Nicholas Sawyer1, Brandon M Gassaway, Adrian D Haimovich, Farren J Isaacs, Jesse Rinehart, Lynne Regan. 1. Department of Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry, ‡Integrated Graduate Program in Physical and Engineering Biology, §Department of Chemistry, ∥Department of Cellular and Molecular Physiology, ⊥Systems Biology Institute, and #Department of Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology, Yale University , New Haven, Connecticut 06520, United States.
Abstract
Protein phosphorylation is a central biological mechanism for cellular adaptation to environmental changes. Dysregulation of phosphorylation signaling is implicated in a wide variety of diseases. Thus, the ability to detect and quantify protein phosphorylation is highly desirable for both diagnostic and research applications. Here we present a general strategy for detecting phosphopeptide-protein interactions in Escherichia coli. We first redesign a model tetratricopeptide repeat (TPR) protein to recognize phosphoserine in a sequence-specific fashion and characterize the interaction with its target phosphopeptide in vitro. We then combine in vivo site-specific incorporation of phosphoserine with split mCherry assembly to observe the designed phosphopeptide-protein interaction specificity in E. coli. This in vivo strategy for detecting and characterizing phosphopeptide-protein interactions has numerous potential applications for the study of natural interactions and the design of novel ones.
Protein phosphorylation is a central biological mechanism for cellular adaptation to environmental changes. Dysregulation of phosphorylation signaling is implicated in a wide variety of diseases. Thus, the ability to detect and quantify protein phosphorylation is highly desirable for both diagnostic and research applications. Here we present a general strategy for detecting phosphopeptide-protein interactions in Escherichia coli. We first redesign a model tetratricopeptide repeat (TPR) protein to recognize phosphoserine in a sequence-specific fashion and characterize the interaction with its target phosphopeptide in vitro. We then combine in vivo site-specific incorporation of phosphoserine with split mCherry assembly to observe the designed phosphopeptide-protein interaction specificity in E. coli. This in vivo strategy for detecting and characterizing phosphopeptide-protein interactions has numerous potential applications for the study of natural interactions and the design of novel ones.
Post-translational
modifications
provide cells with an efficient mechanism for rapidly responding to
external stimuli by reversibly modifying protein chemistry. Phosphorylation
is one of the most common post-translational modifications and occurs
with highest frequency on serine, threonine, and tyrosine residues.
It is estimated that 65–80% of all protein phosphorylation
occurs on serine residues.[1] Conversion
of a hydroxyl group into a phosphate group significantly alters the
local chemistry and may result in large-scale conformational changes
and concomitant changes in the modified protein’s activity.[2,3] Phosphorylation events are often further organized into cascades
that can quickly amplify extracellular signals to trigger cellular
remodeling.[4] Thus, the phosphorylation
state of individual proteins in the proteome can provide a readout
of a cell’s metabolic and behavioral state.A facile
and efficient method for detecting site-specific serine
phosphorylation in proteins is therefore highly desirable for both in vitro and in vivo applications. While
phosphospecific antibodies and designed antibody fragments are powerful in vitro tools for Western blotting and immunofluorescence,
critical structural disulfide bonds restrict their in vivo applications.[5,6] In addition, designed ankyrin
repeat proteins (DARPins) have been selected to discriminate between
phosphorylated and nonphosphorylated forms of extracellular signal-regulated
kinase 2 (ERK2). However, this specificity is indirect, in that the
DARPins recognize conformational changes in the kinase activation
loop rather than the added phosphate group.[7]Here we present a general strategy for detecting phosphopeptide–protein
interactions in E. coli using split fluorescent protein
assembly. Our approach was to first design and characterize a tetratricopeptide
repeat affinity protein (TRAP) that distinguishes between phosphorylated
and nonphosphorylated peptides in a sequence-specific fashion in vitro. We chose a structurally and thermodynamically
well-characterized tetratricopeptide repeat (TPR) protein–peptide
interaction as our design template.[8,9] In the TPR–peptide
complex, the cognate MEEVD peptide is bound to the TPR in an extended
conformation such that each peptide residue contributes to the TPR–peptide
interaction affinity and specificity by interaction with a defined
subset, or “pocket”, of TPR residues.[10] Thus, TRAPs with novel binding specificity can be generated
by mixing-and-matching TRAP pockets that have been selected to bind
particular amino acids rather than performing new selections for every
peptide target. This distributed mode of peptide recognition is not
frequently observed in natural phosphopeptide-binding domains, which
tend to recognize the phosphate group and one or two flanking amino
acids specifically but not the entire peptide.[11] For in vivo applications, it is important
to note that TPR proteins can be highly expressed in functional form
in E. coli, yeast, and mammalian cytoplasm.Because our goal is to distinguish between phosphorylated and nonphosphorylated
forms of a target peptide, a key design feature for the TRAP was that
interaction with the phosphate group should contribute significantly
to the overall binding energy. Examination of the cocrystal structure
of the parent TPR protein with its cognate MEEVD peptide[10] suggested a straightforward charge complementarity-based
redesign in which a phosphoserine residue replaces the central glutamate
residue of the peptide and positively charged residues are introduced
at nearby positions on the protein. We made and tested a set of TRAPs
in which lysine and arginine are introduced combinatorially at positions
332 and 334 (numbering based on ref (10), PDB ID 1ELR). Figure 1A shows
a model of such an interaction in which the phosphoserine side chain
interacts with positively charged lysine and arginine residues introduced
into the peptide binding pocket.
Figure 1
TRAP interaction with target phosphopeptide.
(A) Model of the TRAP–phosphopeptide
interaction. The entire TRAP–phosphopeptide complex is shown
on the left with a zoomed-in view of the phosphopeptide binding region
on the right. The TRAP protein backbone is depicted as a gray ribbon.
The Cα of the phosphoserine binding pocket residues
are shown as small pink spheres. Side chains for binding pocket residues
(arginine at position 332 and lysine at position 334) are shown in
stick representation with carbon atoms colored aqua. The phosphopeptide
ME(pS)VD is shown as sticks with carbon atoms colored green. For both
protein and phosphopeptide, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur
atoms are colored blue, red, orange, and yellow, respectively. (B)
TRAP binding to its phosphopeptide target and nonphosphopeptide analogue.
Each data point shows the fraction of fluorescein-labeled peptide
bound for a given TRAP concentration as measured by changes in the
fluorescence anisotropy for the ME(pS)VD phosphopeptide (red) and
MESVD peptide (blue). For each peptide, the solid lines show the fit
of a 1:1 binding model, with dissociation constants of approximately
2 μM for the ME(pS)VD peptide and 67 μM for the MESVD
peptide.
TRAP interaction with target phosphopeptide.
(A) Model of the TRAP–phosphopeptide
interaction. The entire TRAP–phosphopeptide complex is shown
on the left with a zoomed-in view of the phosphopeptide binding region
on the right. The TRAP protein backbone is depicted as a gray ribbon.
The Cα of the phosphoserine binding pocket residues
are shown as small pink spheres. Side chains for binding pocket residues
(arginine at position 332 and lysine at position 334) are shown in
stick representation with carbon atoms colored aqua. The phosphopeptide
ME(pS)VD is shown as sticks with carbon atoms colored green. For both
protein and phosphopeptide, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur
atoms are colored blue, red, orange, and yellow, respectively. (B)
TRAP binding to its phosphopeptide target and nonphosphopeptide analogue.
Each data point shows the fraction of fluorescein-labeled peptide
bound for a given TRAP concentration as measured by changes in the
fluorescence anisotropy for the ME(pS)VD phosphopeptide (red) and
MESVD peptide (blue). For each peptide, the solid lines show the fit
of a 1:1 binding model, with dissociation constants of approximately
2 μM for the ME(pS)VD peptide and 67 μM for the MESVD
peptide.We measured the binding affinity
of each TRAP for both the phosphorylated
ME(pS)VD peptide and the nonphosphorylated MESVD peptide. Figure 1B shows binding curves for the interaction between
each peptide and the most phosphospecific TRAP (i.e., shows the highest
discrimination between the phosphorylated and nonphosphorylated peptides),
as monitored by fluorescence anisotropy. Solid lines show fits to
a simple 1:1 binding model. The extracted dissociation constants (Kds) are approximately 2 μM for the ME(pS)VD
phosphopeptide and 67 μM for the MESVD peptide at physiological
ionic strength. The ΔΔG associated with
binding the phosphate group is thus ∼2 kcal/mol. This interaction
energy is significantly greater than the ΔΔG of ∼0.6 kcal/mol associated with the difference between MEAVD
and MEEVD binding to the parent TPR2A protein.[8] This observation supports a model in which the TRAP interacts directly
with the phosphate group. Other TRAPs exhibited similar binding affinities
for the phosphorylated peptide but lower discrimination between the
two peptides (i.e., higher affinities for the nonphosphorylated peptide,
see Supplementary Table 1). For the most
phosphospecific TRAP, a Kd of 67 μM
for the MESVD peptide also indicates that the TRAP retains binding
specificity for peptide residues flanking the phosphoserine residue.
We used the most phosphospecific TRAP in subsequent experiments.To detect TRAP–phosphopeptide interaction in E.
coli, two components are required. The first is a system
for site-specific incorporation of phosphoserine into any protein
of interest.[12] The second is a method to
detect interaction of the phosphoserine-containing peptide with a
binding partner.To site-specifically incorporate phosphoserine,
we used amber codon
suppression (Figure 2B), specifically the IPTG-inducible
Sep-OTS in combination with an E. coli strain with
partial UAG codon reassignment (EcAR7).[13] The Sep-OTS comprises an archaeal phosphoserine-tRNA synthetase
(SepRS), a modified archaeal phosphoserine-tRNA (tRNASep), and a phosphoserine-specific elongation factor (EF-Sep). The EcAR7
strain has three key modifications to the E. coli genome: (1) disruption of the prfA (release factor
1) gene to eliminate competition with the amber suppressor tRNA for
UAG codons, (2) recoding of UAG stop codons for 7 essential genes
to UAA to eliminate the deleterious effects of phosphoserine incorporation
at these positions, and (3) a premature stop codon introduced into
the serB serine phosphatase gene to reduce the intracellular
hydrolysis of phosphoserine.
Figure 2
Confirmation of site-specific phosphoserine
incorporation in pNAS
duet/Sep-OTS coexpression system. (A) Schematic of coexpression using
pNAS duet vector and Sep-OTS. Five copies of the phosphoserine-tRNA
(tRNASep, purple), the phosphoserine-specific tRNA synthetase
(SepRS, dark gray), and the phosphoserine-specific elongation factor
(EF-Sep, light gray) are coexpressed from the B40 Sep-OTS plasmid
by induction with IPTG. Two additional proteins, such as the halves
of split mCherry, can be expressed from the comaintained pNAS duet
vector using two additional inducers (l-(+)-arabinose and
anhydrotetracycline). (B) Schematic of phosphoserine incorporation
by amber suppression. White circles with 3-letter amino acid abbreviations
connected by thick black lines represent the growing polypeptide whose
sequence is specified by the mRNA. tRNASep charged with
phosphoserine (Ser + orange star indicating phosphate group) inserts
phosphoserine in response to the amber (UAG) codon. (C) Mass spectrometric
confirmation of site-specific phosphoserine incorporation into the
target phosphopeptide sequence. Extracted ion chromatograms are shown
for the indicated mass-to-charge ratios (corresponding to the indicated
peptides) for two GST fusion proteins (GST-MESVD and GST-ME(pS)VD).
The indicated phosphopeptide is only detected in the GST-ME(pS)VD
sample. The control serine-containing peptide is most abundant in
the GST-MESVD sample.
Confirmation of site-specific phosphoserine
incorporation in pNAS
duet/Sep-OTS coexpression system. (A) Schematic of coexpression using
pNAS duet vector and Sep-OTS. Five copies of the phosphoserine-tRNA
(tRNASep, purple), the phosphoserine-specific tRNA synthetase
(SepRS, dark gray), and the phosphoserine-specific elongation factor
(EF-Sep, light gray) are coexpressed from the B40 Sep-OTS plasmid
by induction with IPTG. Two additional proteins, such as the halves
of split mCherry, can be expressed from the comaintained pNAS duet
vector using two additional inducers (l-(+)-arabinose and
anhydrotetracycline). (B) Schematic of phosphoserine incorporation
by amber suppression. White circles with 3-letter amino acid abbreviations
connected by thick black lines represent the growing polypeptide whose
sequence is specified by the mRNA. tRNASep charged with
phosphoserine (Ser + orange star indicating phosphate group) inserts
phosphoserine in response to the amber (UAG) codon. (C) Mass spectrometric
confirmation of site-specific phosphoserine incorporation into the
target phosphopeptide sequence. Extracted ion chromatograms are shown
for the indicated mass-to-charge ratios (corresponding to the indicated
peptides) for two GST fusion proteins (GST-MESVD and GST-ME(pS)VD).
The indicated phosphopeptide is only detected in the GST-ME(pS)VD
sample. The control serine-containing peptide is most abundant in
the GST-MESVD sample.We combined the above with a newly developed pNAS duet system
that
allows independent coexpression of two proteins (e.g., target phosphopeptide
and TRAP binding partner) from PBAD and PLtetO promoters[14,15] and has an origin of replication
compatible with that of Sep-OTS (Figure 2A).To confirm phosphoserine incorporation into our protein of interest
at the desired position, we created glutathione-S-transferase (GST)
fusion protein genes in which the peptide coding sequences for ME(pS)VD
and MESVD are fused to GST by the same linker we use in subsequent
split fluorescent protein studies. This strategy allows us to easily
purify the GST fusion proteins for mass spectrometric analysis and
avoid the challenges associated with purifying split fluorescent protein
fragments.[16] We coexpressed the GST fusion
proteins from the pNAS duet and the Sep-OTS in the EcAR7 strain, purified
each fusion protein using glutathione resin, digested purified protein
with trypsin, and performed mass spectrometric analysis of phosphoserine
incorporation.The LC–MS extracted ion chromatogram analyses
for both GST
fusion proteins are shown in Figure 2C. Ions
with the mass-to-charge ratio (m/z) expected for the ME(pS)VD-containing phosphopeptide are only observed
in the GST-ME(pS)VD sample. Similarly, ions with m/z expected for the MESVD-containing peptide are
abundant in the GST-MESVD control sample with only small amounts observed
in the GST-ME(pS)VD sample. These small amounts are likely a result
of dephosphorylation during sample processing. Further mass spectrometry
data are described in the Supporting Information.Having established that phosphoserine is efficiently
incorporated
into the peptide sequence at the desired position, we next sought
to detect the interaction of the phosphorylated peptide with the phosphospecific
TRAP in vivo (Figure 3A).
We expressed the phosphopeptide fused to the N-terminal half of mCherry
(N-mCherry) and the phosphospecific TRAP fused to the C-terminal half
of mCherry (C-mCherry). We and others have previously shown that fluorescence
is reconstituted in split fluorescent protein systems only if the
fusion partners interact.[16,17]
Figure 3
In vivo split mCherry assembly for TRAP–phosphopeptide
interactions. (A) Schematic illustration of the in vivo split mCherry protein–peptide interaction assay. On the left,
the N-terminal half of mCherry (N-mCherry) is fused to a phosphopeptide
(phosphate group indicated by orange star). The C-terminal half of
mCherry (C-mCherry) is fused to the TRAP binding partner. When the
phosphopeptide and TRAP fusion proteins are coexpressed and interact,
the halves of split mCherry are brought into close proximity, assemble,
and fluoresce, producing a reddish cell. On the right, neither N-mCherry
nor C-mCherry is fused to anything. Although they are coexpressed
in the cell, they do not interact or assemble, and no red fluorescence
is observed (i.e., the cell remains beige). (B) Time-dependent increase
in fluorescence for in vivo split mCherry assembly.
Bars show the fluorescence intensity of E. coli cell
lysates prepared at the indicated time postinduction (excitation at
587 nm and emission at 610 nm). The results for three split mCherry
pairs are shown: unfused N-mCherry + unfused C-mCherry (gray), N-mCherry
fused to the MESVD peptide + C-mCherry fused to the TRAP (blue), and
N-mCherry fused to the ME(pS)VD peptide + C-mCherry fused to the same
TRAP (red). Error bars show the standard deviation for two or three
biological replicates. The inset shows the excitation and emission
spectra for reassembled mCherry for the phosphopeptide-TRAP pair (lighter
red for excitation and darker red for emission). The peaks observed
are consistent with mCherry fluorescence despite a small shift in
excitiation and emission maxima (590 and 602 nm, respectively.[19] Such peaks are absent from the spectra for the
unfused N-mCherry + C-mCherry pair (lighter gray for excitation and
darker gray for emission). (C) Flow cytometry measurements of E. coli cells containing different split mCherry pairs.
Fluorescence histograms are shown for three split mCherry pairs: N-mCherry
+ C-mCherry (gray), N-mCherry fused to the MESVD peptide + C-mCherry
fused to the TRAP (blue), and N-mCherry fused to the ME(pS)VD peptide
+ C-mCherry fused to the same TRAP (red). The mean fluorescence is
0.653 for N-mCherry + C-mCherry, 10.8 for N-mCherry fused to the MESVD
peptide + C-mCherry fused to the TRAP, and 22.1 for N-mCherry fused
to the ME(pS)VD peptide + C-mCherry fused to the same TRAP.
In vivo split mCherry assembly for TRAP–phosphopeptide
interactions. (A) Schematic illustration of the in vivo split mCherry protein–peptide interaction assay. On the left,
the N-terminal half of mCherry (N-mCherry) is fused to a phosphopeptide
(phosphate group indicated by orange star). The C-terminal half of
mCherry (C-mCherry) is fused to the TRAP binding partner. When the
phosphopeptide and TRAP fusion proteins are coexpressed and interact,
the halves of split mCherry are brought into close proximity, assemble,
and fluoresce, producing a reddish cell. On the right, neither N-mCherry
nor C-mCherry is fused to anything. Although they are coexpressed
in the cell, they do not interact or assemble, and no red fluorescence
is observed (i.e., the cell remains beige). (B) Time-dependent increase
in fluorescence for in vivo split mCherry assembly.
Bars show the fluorescence intensity of E. coli cell
lysates prepared at the indicated time postinduction (excitation at
587 nm and emission at 610 nm). The results for three split mCherry
pairs are shown: unfused N-mCherry + unfused C-mCherry (gray), N-mCherry
fused to the MESVD peptide + C-mCherry fused to the TRAP (blue), and
N-mCherry fused to the ME(pS)VD peptide + C-mCherry fused to the same
TRAP (red). Error bars show the standard deviation for two or three
biological replicates. The inset shows the excitation and emission
spectra for reassembled mCherry for the phosphopeptide-TRAP pair (lighter
red for excitation and darker red for emission). The peaks observed
are consistent with mCherry fluorescence despite a small shift in
excitiation and emission maxima (590 and 602 nm, respectively.[19] Such peaks are absent from the spectra for the
unfused N-mCherry + C-mCherry pair (lighter gray for excitation and
darker gray for emission). (C) Flow cytometry measurements of E. coli cells containing different split mCherry pairs.
Fluorescence histograms are shown for three split mCherry pairs: N-mCherry
+ C-mCherry (gray), N-mCherry fused to the MESVD peptide + C-mCherry
fused to the TRAP (blue), and N-mCherry fused to the ME(pS)VD peptide
+ C-mCherry fused to the same TRAP (red). The mean fluorescence is
0.653 for N-mCherry + C-mCherry, 10.8 for N-mCherry fused to the MESVD
peptide + C-mCherry fused to the TRAP, and 22.1 for N-mCherry fused
to the ME(pS)VD peptide + C-mCherry fused to the same TRAP.An increase in fluorescence over
time is shown in Figure 3B for cells expressing
the TRAP and phosphopeptide
split mCherry fusion proteins (red bars). For comparison, the fluorescence
is also shown for cells expressing split mCherry with either fused
TRAP and nonphosphorylated peptide (blue bars) or a negative split
mCherry control without fusion tags (gray bars). The fluorescence
intensity increases most rapidly for the higher affinity TRAP–phosphopeptide
pair. This faster increase in intensity is consistent with previous
data that shows that, for a given interaction pair type (e.g., leucine
zippers, TPR–peptide, etc.), fluorescence develops more quickly
for higher affinity interactions.[16] The
fluorescence of the TRAP-nonphosphopeptide pair is not surprising
because this pair still interacts, albeit about 30-fold more weakly
than the TRAP–phosphopeptide pair as measured in vitro (Figure 1B). Similar results were also observed
in flow cytometry (Figure 3C) and with the
same expression systems in an E. coli strain in which
all genomic TAG stop codons were recoded to TAA stop codons (data
not shown, strain based on ref (18)).The inset of Figure 3B shows
the excitation
and emission spectra for the TRAP–phosphopeptide pair (red),
which are consistent with mCherry fluorescence despite a small shift
in fluorescence excitation and emission maxima (590 and 602 nm, respectively)
relative to published spectra for full-length mCherry.[19] Identical fluorescence spectra are also observed
for the TRAP–nonphosphopeptide pair (data not shown), but there
is no discernible fluorescence for the negative control (gray).In conclusion, we have presented a system for the detection of
phosphoprotein interactions in E. coli. The two key
elements to our strategy are efficient site-specific incorporation
of phosphoserine by amber suppression and detection of phosphopeptide–protein
interaction using split mCherry assembly. In our proof-of-principle
experiments, we show that this system can discriminate between phospho-
and nonphospho-forms of a serine-containing peptide. The designed
phosphospecific module we use to benchmark this system has a 30-fold
difference in binding affinity between phospho- and nonphosphopeptides,
which is significant but modest compared to many natural proteins.[20,21] Thus, we anticipate that our system will also work well for probing
the binding specificity of natural phosphopeptide–protein interactions.Several factors make this system attractive for future studies
on phosphopeptide–protein interactions. First, the in vivo nature of the assay requires that the phosphopeptide–protein
interaction is specific within the context of a cellular milieu. Using the Sep-OTS also eliminates the need to chemically synthesize
phosphoserine-containing peptides or proteins, which is limited to
short sequences and costs significantly more than synthesis of unmodified
peptides. Further development of this approach as a high-throughput
method has the potential to provide a large collection of phosphopeptide-binding
modules for detection and quantification of a wide variety of biological
phosphopeptides. We envision that TRAPs with specificity for different
biological phosphopeptides will be extremely useful for many applications
such as Western blotting, affinity capture of phosphopeptides prior
to mass spectrometric analysis, and immunofluorescence (when fused/conjugated
to a fluorescent dye or protein).For the study of protein–protein
interactions more generally,
the split mCherry duet vector, presented here as compatible with the
Sep-OTS, is modular and can be easily modified by standard cloning
techniques. Thus, the vector can facilitate the study of protein–protein
interactions involving noncanonical amino acids that are introduced
by other amber suppression systems.
Methods
Detailed description of reagents, peptide synthesis, molecular
cloning, protein expression and purification, and mass spectrometry
sample preparation is provided in the Supporting
Information.
Determination of TRAP-Peptide Dissociation
Constants
Dissociation constants (Kds) for each
TRAP–peptide interaction were determined by fluorescence anisotropy
using the fluorescein-labeled peptides described in the Supporting Information. Peptide and protein concentrations
were separately determined by absorbance at 492 and 280 nm, respectively.
For each measurement, the peptide concentration was held constant
at 5 nM. For data fitting, the anisotropy of the peptide alone was
subtracted from all measurements, and the adjusted data was fit in
Origin 7.0 to a 1:1 binding model described by the equation below:where x is the protein concentration, y is the adjusted anisotropy, P1 is the
maximum anisotropy, and P2 is
the dissociation constant.
Strain and Plasmid Information
Phosphoprotein
experiments
were performed in the EcAR7 strain[13] and
in a “completely recoded” strain (i.e., all genomic
TAG codons recoded to TAA) derived from strain C321.ΔA.[18] Modifications to the strain C321.ΔA are
(1) the tolC gene was integrated into the genome in place of the beta-lactamase
gene to disrupt the prfA gene and permit use of plasmids
with ampicillin resistance markers, and (2) a premature stop codon
was introduced into the serB gene as in previous
work.[12] The B40 Sep-OTS was prepared as
described previously[22] except with 5 tandem
copies of tRNASep, which greatly enhances OTS activity
(unpublished). The Sep-OTS plasmid and split fluorescent protein duets
were sequentially transformed into electrocompetent E. coli by electroporation.
Split mCherry Assembly Assay
Starter
cultures were
prepared by inoculating a single EcAR7 colony (transformed with both
the Sep-OTS and a pNAS1B split fluorescent protein duet vector) into
5 mL of 2xYT supplemented with 100 μg/mL ampicillin and 25 μg/mL
kanamycin. Starter cultures were grown for approximately 24 h at 30
°C with shaking at 250 rpm. For the assay, 1 mL of starter culture
was inoculated into 100 mL of 2xYT media supplemented as above. Cells
were grown at 30 °C with shaking at 250 rpm until OD600 reached 0.8 (4.5–5 h), at which point IPTG, phosphoserine,
and anhydrotetracycline were added to final concentrations of 1 mM,
2 mM, and 100 ng/mL, respectively, to simultaneously induce expression
of the Sep-OTS components and split mCherry fusion proteins as well
as provide an enriched source of phosphoserine. Cultures were shifted
to 20 °C for protein expression for an additional 6, 12, or 21
h with shaking at 250 rpm. Cells were harvested by centrifugation
and stored at −80 °C.
Fluorescence Quantitation
Cell pellets were resuspended
in 5 mL of lysis buffer (50 mM Tris pH 7.4, 300 mM NaCl, 1 mg mL–1 lysozyme, 5 mM β-mercaptoethanol, and 1 complete
EDTA-free protease inhibitor tablet per 20 mL), incubated on ice for
at least 1 h, sonicated, and centrifuged to remove insoluble material.
Lysate fluorescence was measured using an excitation wavelength of
587 nm and an emission wavelength of 610 nm. Excitation scans from
550 to 600 nm were performed using an emission wavelength of 610 nm.
Emissions scans from 600 to 650 nm were performed using an excitation
wavelength of 587 nm.
Flow Cytometry
Fresh cell pellets
were washed 4 times
with 10 mL of phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) supplemented with 0.01%
Tween-20 by resuspension and centrifugation (3000 rpm, 4 °C,
10 min). The final cell pellet was resuspended in 5 mL of the same
buffer and diluted 100-fold in the same buffer. Sample fluorescence
was analyzed on a Sony SY3200 instrument using a 100 μM nozzle,
532 nm laser for mCherry excitation, and 610/40 band-pass filter for
mCherry emission.
Authors: Lutz Kummer; Petra Parizek; Peter Rube; Bastian Millgramm; Anke Prinz; Peer R E Mittl; Melanie Kaufholz; Bastian Zimmermann; Friedrich W Herberg; Andreas Plückthun Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2012-07-27 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: James T Koerber; Nathan D Thomsen; Brett T Hannigan; William F Degrado; James A Wells Journal: Nat Biotechnol Date: 2013-08-18 Impact factor: 54.908
Authors: Lynne Regan; Diego Caballero; Michael R Hinrichsen; Alejandro Virrueta; Danielle M Williams; Corey S O'Hern Journal: Biopolymers Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 2.505
Authors: Max C Petersen; Anila K Madiraju; Brandon M Gassaway; Michael Marcel; Ali R Nasiri; Gina Butrico; Melissa J Marcucci; Dongyan Zhang; Abudukadier Abulizi; Xian-Man Zhang; William Philbrick; Stevan R Hubbard; Michael J Jurczak; Varman T Samuel; Jesse Rinehart; Gerald I Shulman Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2016-10-17 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Brandon M Gassaway; Rebecca L Cardone; Anil K Padyana; Max C Petersen; Evan T Judd; Sebastian Hayes; Shuilong Tong; Karl W Barber; Maria Apostolidi; Abudukadier Abulizi; Joshua B Sheetz; Hans R Aerni; Stefan Gross; Charles Kung; Varman T Samuel; Gerald I Shulman; Richard G Kibbey; Jesse Rinehart Journal: Cell Rep Date: 2019-12-10 Impact factor: 9.423
Authors: M Hinrichsen; M Lenz; J M Edwards; O K Miller; S G J Mochrie; P S Swain; U Schwarz-Linek; L Regan Journal: Protein Eng Des Sel Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 1.650
Authors: Natasha L Pirman; Karl W Barber; Hans R Aerni; Natalie J Ma; Adrian D Haimovich; Svetlana Rogulina; Farren J Isaacs; Jesse Rinehart Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2015-09-09 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Javin P Oza; Hans R Aerni; Natasha L Pirman; Karl W Barber; Charlotte M Ter Haar; Svetlana Rogulina; Matthew B Amrofell; Farren J Isaacs; Jesse Rinehart; Michael C Jewett Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2015-09-09 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Karl W Barber; Paul Muir; Richard V Szeligowski; Svetlana Rogulina; Mark Gerstein; Jeffrey R Sampson; Farren J Isaacs; Jesse Rinehart Journal: Nat Biotechnol Date: 2018-06-11 Impact factor: 54.908