Qian Chu1, Annie Rathore1,2, Jolene K Diedrich1,3, Cynthia J Donaldson1, John R Yates3, Alan Saghatelian1. 1. Clayton Foundation Laboratories for Peptide Biology, The Salk Institute for Biological Studies , 10010 North Torrey Pines Road, La Jolla, California 92037, United States. 2. Division of Biological Sciences, University of California, San Diego , 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, California 92093, United States. 3. Department of Chemical Physiology, The Scripps Research Institute , 10550 North Torrey Pines Road, La Jolla, California 92037, United States.
Abstract
Microproteins are peptides and small proteins encoded by small open reading frames (smORFs). Newer technologies have led to the recent discovery of hundreds to thousands of new microproteins. The biological functions of a few microproteins have been elucidated, and these microproteins have fundamental roles in biology ranging from limb development to muscle function, highlighting the value of characterizing these molecules. The identification of microprotein-protein interactions (MPIs) has proven to be a successful approach to the functional characterization of these genes; however, traditional immunoprecipitation methods result in the enrichment of nonspecific interactions for microproteins. Here, we test and apply an in situ proximity tagging method that relies on an engineered ascorbate peroxidase 2 (APEX) to elucidate MPIs. The results demonstrate that APEX tagging is superior to traditional immunoprecipitation methods for microproteins. Furthermore, the application of APEX tagging to an uncharacterized microprotein called C11orf98 revealed that this microprotein interacts with nucleolar proteins nucleophosmin and nucleolin, demonstrating the ability of this approach to identify novel hypothesis-generating MPIs.
Microproteins are peptides and small proteins encoded by small open reading frames (smORFs). Newer technologies have led to the recent discovery of hundreds to thousands of new microproteins. The biological functions of a few microproteins have been elucidated, and these microproteins have fundamental roles in biology ranging from limb development to muscle function, highlighting the value of characterizing these molecules. The identification of microprotein-protein interactions (MPIs) has proven to be a successful approach to the functional characterization of these genes; however, traditional immunoprecipitation methods result in the enrichment of nonspecific interactions for microproteins. Here, we test and apply an in situ proximity tagging method that relies on an engineered ascorbate peroxidase 2 (APEX) to elucidate MPIs. The results demonstrate that APEX tagging is superior to traditional immunoprecipitation methods for microproteins. Furthermore, the application of APEX tagging to an uncharacterized microprotein called C11orf98 revealed that this microprotein interacts with nucleolar proteins nucleophosmin and nucleolin, demonstrating the ability of this approach to identify novel hypothesis-generating MPIs.
Bioactive
peptides have essential
roles in biology. For example, the hormone insulin, which is secreted
by β-cells in the pancreas, regulates blood glucose levels.[1−3] Most peptide hormones and neuropeptides share a common biosynthetic
pathway that produces the mature peptide after limited proteolysis
of a longer precursor protein (i.e., a prepropeptide or propeptide).[4,5] Outside of some notable exceptions, such as angiotensin, most bioactive
peptides were thought to be produced through this secretory pathway,
but this view has begun to change as novel peptides, or microproteins,
encoded by small open reading frames (smORFs) are steadily being discovered.[6,7]smORFs were missed during genome annotations because they
are too
short for gene-finding algorithms, or the RNAs that encode these smORFs
were not known.[8,9] Instead, the detection of smORFs
and microproteins has relied on the advent and application of novel
genomics and proteomics methods.[10,11] So far, hundreds
to thousands of smORFs and the corresponding microprotein products
have been identified from prokaryotic and eukaryotic genomes,[12−14] and biological studies in flies and mammals have demonstrated that
at least some of these microproteins have fundamental biological functions
in development, metabolism, and muscle function.[15−17]Because
only a few of the discovered smORFs have been characterized,
the functional characterization of these microproteins represents
a major challenge in the field. A common feature of functional microproteins
is that they all seem to partake in protein–protein interactions
or, more specifically, microprotein–protein interactions to
regulate biology. For example, Magny and colleagues demonstrated that
a Drosophila microprotein called sarcolamban
(Scl) binds to an endoplasmic reticulum (ER) calcium channel, SERCA,
regulating channel function and heart muscle contraction,[17] and mammalian homologues of Scl that inhibit
or activate SERCA have been identified and provide new insights into
musculoskeletal biology.[18−20] Other examples, such as a smORF
that regulates limb development in flies[16,21−23] and a smORF called NoBody that regulates mRNA decapping,[24] also operate through microprotein–protein
interactions. Consequently, the elucidation of the proteins and protein
complexes that associate with microproteins can be used to characterize
the functions of microproteins.Immunoprecipitation of FLAG-tagged
microproteins provides a general
approach for revealing microprotein-associated proteins. These proteins
could be direct interactors of the microprotein or parts of a larger
complex that contain the microprotein. For example, the 69-amino acid
microprotein modulator of retroviral infection (MRI) associates with
Ku70 and Ku80, two essential proteins that mediate cellular repair
of double-stranded DNA breaks (i.e., nonhomologous end joining DNA
repair).[25] The interaction between the
MRI microprotein and Ku70/Ku80 suggests that this microprotein is
involved in cellular DNA repair, highlighting the utility of defining
microprotein-associated proteins as a powerful hypothesis-generating
approach.In addition to Ku70 and Ku80, the immunoprecipitation
of MRI microprotein
also enriched housekeeping and heat shock proteins. Imaging studies
ruled out cytosolic heat shock proteins as bona fide interactors because
MRI microprotein localizes to the nucleus where it associates with
Ku70 and Ku80.[25,26] We believe, however, that MRI
may be intrinsically unfolded and that the interaction with heat shock
proteins occurs after the cells are lysed during the immunoprecipitation.
The identification of many of the same heat shock proteins during
the immunoprecipitation of completely unrelated microproteins being
studied in our lab (unpublished results) indicates that microproteins
might be particularly susceptible to artifacts generated by interactions
with heat shock proteins in lysates. Therefore, we needed to find
a better approach for identifying microprotein-associated proteins
and protein complexes to characterize these novel genes.Ting
and colleagues developed an ingenious in situ proximity labeling
method using an engineered ascorbate peroxidase[27] and then optimized the stability and activity of this enzyme
through evolution to afford APEX2[28−31] (the APEX abbreviation refers
to the APEX2 protein in the text and figures). In this approach, APEX
is fused to a protein of interest. Expression of the APEX fusion protein
followed by treatment of cells with hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) in the presence of biotin-phenol covalently labels
proteins proximal to the APEX fusion protein with biotin. In this
scheme, the H2O2 fuels the catalytic oxidation
of biotin-phenol by APEX to generate a highly reactive biotin-phenoxyl
radical. The lifetime of the radical is <1 ms that restricts the
labeling radius to 20 nm. These biotinylated proteins can then be
enriched and analyzed by mass spectrometry, and because proteins adjacent
to the APEX fusion protein are preferentially biotinylated, the resulting
mass spectrometry data provide a readout of the protein environment
around the fusion protein (Figure ).
Figure 1
Schematic illustration of the identification of microprotein-associated
proteins by APEX tagging. (A) Biotin-phenol is an APEX substrate,
and the phenol is converted to a phenoxyl radical by APEX upon H2O2 treatment. The highly reactive phenoxyl radical
forms covalent bonds with nearby aromatic residues such as tyrosine.
(B) APEX tagging can be applied to the identification of microprotein-associated
proteins by fusing the microprotein of interest (MPOI) to APEX. Cells
expressing the MPOI–APEX fusion protein are pretreated with
biotin-phenol followed by the addition of H2O2 to initiate biotin labeling. The hyper-reactivity of the biotin-phenoxyl
radical results in a short half-life to favor labeling of nearby proteins,
and any biotinylated proteins are considered to be near the microprotein.
The biotinylated proteins are identified by streptavidin enrichment
and proteomics.
Schematic illustration of the identification of microprotein-associated
proteins by APEX tagging. (A) Biotin-phenol is an APEX substrate,
and the phenol is converted to a phenoxyl radical by APEX upon H2O2 treatment. The highly reactive phenoxyl radical
forms covalent bonds with nearby aromatic residues such as tyrosine.
(B) APEX tagging can be applied to the identification of microprotein-associated
proteins by fusing the microprotein of interest (MPOI) to APEX. Cells
expressing the MPOI–APEX fusion protein are pretreated with
biotin-phenol followed by the addition of H2O2 to initiate biotin labeling. The hyper-reactivity of the biotin-phenoxyl
radical results in a short half-life to favor labeling of nearby proteins,
and any biotinylated proteins are considered to be near the microprotein.
The biotinylated proteins are identified by streptavidin enrichment
and proteomics.Using this method, Ting
and co-workers comprehensively mapped proteins
to distinct intracellular compartments such as mitochondrial intermembrane
space and mitochondrial matrix.[27,32] APEX fusion proteins
have also been used to identify the proteome at junctions between
the plasma membrane (PM) and endoplasmic reticulum (ER), demonstrating
the generality of this approach.[33] We hypothesized
that APEX–microprotein fusion proteins could solve the background
issues with identifying microprotein-associated proteins and protein
complexes because the interactions take place in the context of a
living cell, not a lysate. Here, we demonstrate that APEX–microprotein
fusion proteins provide a superior approach to identifying microprotein–protein
interactions by comparing MRI–FLAG immunoprecipitation to an
MRI–APEX experiment. Then we demonstrate that APEX–microprotein
fusion proteins can be used to identify novel proteins that interact
with the microprotein and protein complexes using a microprotein from
the C11orf98 gene. These results highlight the value of APEX tagging
for discovering microprotein-associated proteins.
Experimental
Procedures
Biotin-Phenol Labeling in Live Cells
Biotin-phenol
labeling in live cells was performed according to previously published
protocols.[29] Briefly, constructs harboring
microprotein–APEX fusion proteins or the APEX control were
transiently transfected into HEK293T cells using Lipofectamine 2000.
Twenty-four hours post-transfection, cell culture medium was changed
to fresh growth medium containing 500 μM biotin-tyramide (CDX-B0270,
Adipogen). After incubation at 37 °C for 30 min, H2O2 was added to each plate at a final concentration of
1 mM, and the plates were gently agitated for 1 min. Cells were then
washed three times with a quenching solution [5 mM Trolox, 10 mM sodium
azide, and 10 mM sodium ascorbate in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS)],
and the pellet was collected by centrifugation at 1000g for 5 min.
Western Blot and Proteomic Analysis of Biotin-Phenol
Labeling
Cell pellets were lysed on ice for 20 min in RIPA
buffer (Thermo
catalog no. 89901) supplemented with a Roche complete protease inhibitor
cocktail tablet and 1 mM phenylmethanesulfonyl fluoride (PMSF) followed
by centrifugation at 20000g for 20 min at 4 °C
to remove cell debris. Cell lysates were added to prewashed streptavidin
agarose resin (Thermo catalog no. 20359), rotated at 4 °C for
4 h, and then washed three times with TBST and 0.5% (v/v) sodium dodecyl
sulfate (SDS). Bound proteins were eluted with 2× SDS loading
buffer and analyzed by Western blotting. For proteomics, eluted samples
were precipitated with trichloroacetic acid (TCA, MP Biomedicals catalog
no. 196057) overnight at 4 °C. Dried pellets were dissolved in
8 M urea, reduced with 5 mM tris(2-carboxyethyl)phosphine hydrochloride
(TCEP, Thermo catalog no. 20491), and alkylated with 10 mM iodoacetamide
(Sigma I1149). Proteins were then digested overnight at 37 °C
with trypsin (Promega V5111). The reaction was quenched with formic
acid at a final concentration of 5% (v/v). Digested samples were analyzed
on a Q Exactive Hybrid Quadrupole-Orbitrap Mass Spectrometer.
Co-Immunoprecipitation
FLAG-tagged microprotein constructs
[or the empty pcDNA3.1(+) vector] were transfected into a 10 cm dish
of HEK293T cells using Lipofectamine 2000 according to the manufacturer’s
protocol. Forty-eight hours post-transfection, cells were harvested
and lysed in RIPA buffer (Thermo catalog no. 89901) supplemented with
a Roche complete protease inhibitor cocktail tablet and 1 mM PMSF.
Cells were lysed on ice for 20 min followed by centrifugation at 20000g for 20 min at 4 °C to remove cell debris. Cell lysates
were added to prewashed mouse IgG agarose beads (Sigma catalog no.
A0919) and rotated at 4 °C for 1 h. The supernatants were collected
and added to prewashed anti-FLAG M2 Affinity Gel (Sigma, catalog no.
A2220). The suspensions were rotated at 4 °C overnight and washed
four times with TBST. Bound proteins were eluted with 3× FLAG
peptide (Sigma, catalog no. F4799) at 4 °C for 1 h. The eluents
were then separated by sodium dodecyl sulfate–polyacrylamide
gel electrophoresis (SDS–PAGE) and analyzed by Western blotting
using the indicated antibodies.
Reciprocal Immunoprecipitation
HEK293T cells were cotransfected
with C11orf98-FLAG and NPM1-HA (empty vector as a control). Lysates
from both samples were incubated with mouse anti-HA agarose beads
(Sigma, catalog no. A2095) to immunoprecipitate HA-tagged NPM1. Alternatively,
lysates from HEK293T cells co-expressing C11orf98-FLAG and NPM1-HA
were incubated with either mouse IgG beads (Sigma, catalog no. A0919)
or mouse anti-HA agarose beads. After being washed three times with
TBST, bound proteins were eluted with HA peptide (Sigma, catalog no.
I2149) at 4 °C for 1 h. The eluents were then separated by SDS–PAGE
and analyzed by Western blotting using the indicated antibodies.
Immunofluorescence and Confocal Imaging
HeLa cells
were seeded onto a coverslip (Fisher Scientific, catalog no. 12-541-B)
in a six-well plate, which was pretreated with 50 μg/mL poly-l-lysine (Sigma, catalog no. P1399). The next day, cells were
cotransfected with 1 μg of NPM1-HA and 1 μg of C11orf98-FLAG
using Lipofectamine 2000. Forty-eight hours post-transfection, cells
were fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde (Polysciences, Inc., catalog no.
18814) and permeabilized with 0.1% saponin (Alfa Aesar, catalog no.
A18820). After being incubated with 4% BSA in PBS for 1 h at room
temperature, cells were stained with primary antibodies (rabbit anti-FLAG
and mouse anti-HA) at a 1:1000 dilution overnight at 4 °C. Then
cells were washed three times with PBS, followed by incubation with
secondary antibodies (goat anti-mouse Alexa Fluor 647 and goat anti-rabbit
Alexa Fluor 488, 1:500 in PBS) for 1 h at room temperature. Nuclei
were counterstained with Hoechst 33258 (Sigma, catalog no. 94403;
1:2000 in PBS). After three PBS washes, the coverslip was mounted
with Prolong Gold Antifade Mountant (Life Technologies, catalog no.
P36930) and submitted for confocal imaging using a Zeiss LSM 710 laser
scanning confocal microscope with a 63× oil immersion objective.
Images were analyzed with FIJI software.
Results and Discussion
Live Cell
Proximity Labeling Using the MRI–APEX Fusion
We used
the MRI microprotein to optimize the elucidation of microprotein-associated
proteins. As mentioned, MRI interacts with the Ku70/Ku80 heterodimer,
and therefore, our readout would be the addition of biotin to these
proteins. Our construct consists of an APEX–myc fusion at the
C-terminus of an N-terminal FLAG-tagged MRI microprotein (MRI–APEX),
and APEX was used as a control in these experiments (Figure A). We were concerned that
the addition of the much larger APEX protein to MRI might interfere
with Ku70/Ku80 binding and used the FLAG tag to test whether the complex
was intact. Transient transfection of HEK293T cells with the MRI–APEX
fusion protein, followed by FLAG immunoprecipitation, enriched Ku70
and Ku80 and confirmed that the MRI–APEX fusion protein still
binds to the Ku70/Ku80 heterodimer (Figure B and Figure S1).
Figure 2
Identification of MRI microprotein–protein interactions
in live cells by APEX tagging. (A) Schematic illustration of APEX
and MRI–APEX constructs. (B) Anti-FLAG immunoprecipitation
of HEK293T cells expressing APEX or the MRI–APEX fusion. Eluted
proteins were separated by SDS–PAGE and visualized by Western
blotting using the indicated antibodies (WCL, whole cell lysate).
(C) Western blot of the MRI–APEX fusion labeling proteome indicating
that the Ku70/Ku80 complex is selectively biotinylated by the MRI–APEX
fusion. (D) Spectral count analysis indicated that APEX labeling has
an improved fold change and a lower background compared to those of
FLAG IP. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean of triplicate
biological tests.
Identification of MRI microprotein–protein interactions
in live cells by APEX tagging. (A) Schematic illustration of APEX
and MRI–APEX constructs. (B) Anti-FLAG immunoprecipitation
of HEK293T cells expressing APEX or the MRI–APEX fusion. Eluted
proteins were separated by SDS–PAGE and visualized by Western
blotting using the indicated antibodies (WCL, whole cell lysate).
(C) Western blot of the MRI–APEX fusion labeling proteome indicating
that the Ku70/Ku80 complex is selectively biotinylated by the MRI–APEX
fusion. (D) Spectral count analysis indicated that APEX labeling has
an improved fold change and a lower background compared to those of
FLAG IP. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean of triplicate
biological tests.Next, we tested whether
Ku70 and Ku80 are biotinylated after treatment
of MRI–APEX fusion-expressing HEK293T cells with biotin-phenol
and H2O2. After H2O2 treatment,
cells were lysed and biotinylated proteins were enriched from the
lysate using streptavidin beads. Western blotting of the biotin pull
down revealed that Ku70 and Ku80 were biotinylated in cells transfected
with the MRI–APEX fusion but not the APEX control or untransfected
samples (Figure C),
indicating successful labeling of known MRI-associated proteins. Furthermore,
total cell lysates from the MRI–APEX fusion and APEX are biotinylated
to the same extent, showing that the increase in the level of Ku70
and Ku80 biotinylation is due to their proximity to MRI and not due
to a difference in biotinylation activity between the two samples
(Figures S2 and S3).To determine
whether the APEX approach provided data that were
superior to those from FLAG immunoprecipitation, we performed a shotgun
proteomics experiment and analyzed the enrichment of Ku70 and Ku80
(Tables S1 and S2). The APEX conditions
provided a dramatically improved fold enrichment for Ku70 and Ku80
(Figure D). In the
FLAG sample, where the pull down occurs in cellular lysates, we find
an ∼2-fold enrichment for Ku70 and Ku80 (MRI–FLAG fusion
vs pcDNA3.1-transfected samples), but in situ proximity labeling with
the MRI–APEX fusion resulted in an 8–10-fold increase
for the same proteins (MRI–APEX fusion- vs APEX-transfected
samples). This superior enrichment is due to the significantly lower
background of these proteins under the APEX conditions. Also, we analyzed
the enrichment of tubulin (TUBB) and heat shock 70 kDa protein 9 (HSPA9).
These two proteins were enriched in our previous studies.[25] FLAG pull down enriched these proteins ∼2-fold,
but they were not detected (n.d.) in the MRI–APEX samples.
The observed enrichment of TUBB and HSPA9 by the MRI–FLAG fusion
highlights the problem with immunoprecipitations from cellular lysates.
The FLAG immunoprecipitation, which disrupts cellular localization
due to cell lysis, indicates a protein interaction between MRI and
TUBB and HSPA9. By contrast, the MRI–APEX fusion experiment
that takes place in an intact cell shows no enrichment of TUBB or
HSPA9. Because the cytosolic TUBB or HSPA9 proteins should not interact
with nuclear MRI microprotein, it follows that APEX provides a more
accurate picture of cellular microprotein–protein interactions
by avoiding interactions that occur only upon cell lysis. The power
of this approach clearly demonstrates the benefit of using APEX tagging
to identify microprotein-associated proteins while weakening nonspecific
interactions and improving fold enrichment for target proteins.
APEX Fusions of C11orf98 to Discover Interactors
We
sought to apply the APEX labeling approach to identify interaction
partners for uncharacterized microprotein interactions. We chose an
uncharacterized 123-amino acid microprotein encoded by the C11orf98
smORF. A tryptic peptide from this microprotein was detected in HEK293T
cells by shotgun mass spectrometry (Figure A). The C11orf98 transcript is identified
as a validated protein-coding gene in RefSeq, but this gene remains
uncharacterized. The C11orf98 microprotein is highly conserved between
humans and mice, suggesting a potential function (Figure B).
Figure 3
Identification of C11orf98
microprotein-associated proteins. (A)
MS/MS spectrum of the unique C11orf98 tryptic peptide, with detected
fragment ions marked in blue (b-ions) and red (y-ions). (B) A multiple-sequence alignment of the C11orf98
microprotein indicates that it is highly conserved in mammals. (C)
Semiquantitative proteomics by spectral counting revealed that NPM1
and NCL were enriched ∼7- and ∼80-fold, respectively,
in both N- and C-terminal APEX fusion samples compared to APEX control
samples. Error bars represent the standard deviation of triplicate
biological tests.
Identification of C11orf98
microprotein-associated proteins. (A)
MS/MS spectrum of the unique C11orf98 tryptic peptide, with detected
fragment ions marked in blue (b-ions) and red (y-ions). (B) A multiple-sequence alignment of the C11orf98
microprotein indicates that it is highly conserved in mammals. (C)
Semiquantitative proteomics by spectral counting revealed that NPM1
and NCL were enriched ∼7- and ∼80-fold, respectively,
in both N- and C-terminal APEX fusion samples compared to APEX control
samples. Error bars represent the standard deviation of triplicate
biological tests.We expressed an N-terminal
APEX-tagged C11orf98 (APEX–C11orf98)
or a C-terminal APEX-tagged C11orf98 (C11orf98–APEX) fusion
protein in HEK293T cells to characterize this microprotein (Figure S4). Cells were then treated with biotin-phenol
and H2O2, followed by harvesting of the cells
and cell lysis. Biotinylated proteins were isolated from each sample
by streptavidin beads and analyzed by proteomics. Unfused APEX was
used as the control in these experiments.Candidate C11orf98-interacting
proteins were identified by filtering
the proteomics data for proteins with a spectral count of >5, a
>2-fold
increase versus the control sample, and a p value
of <0.05. This analysis resulted in 112 proteins for the APEX–C11orf98
fusion and 137 proteins for the C11orf98–APEX fusion, with
99 proteins present in both data sets (Tables
S3 and S4). The strong overlap between the APEX–C11orf98
and C11orf98–APEX data sets provides additional confidence
in the reliability of these data.The majority of proteins enriched
by APEX–C11orf98 and C11orf98–APEX
fusions are reported to have a nuclear localization according to Human
Protein Atlas [97 of 112 for the APEX–C11orf98 fusion and 115
of 137 for C11orf98 (Figure S5)]. Two of
the most robust C11orf98-associated proteins are nucleolin (NCL) and
nucleophosmin (NPM1) (Figure C). NCL had the largest number of spectral counts in both
the APEX–C11orf98 and C11orf98–APEX data sets, and an
∼80-fold increase with respect to the control. NPM1, an interaction
partner of NCL, was also found among the top hits with a strong signal
and an ∼7-fold increase in the APEX–C11orf98 and C11orf98–APEX
data sets. Given the high spectral counts and robust fold changes
for NCL and NPM1, and the established interaction between NCL and
NPM1,[34,35] our data indicate that C11orf98 is associated
with an NCL and NPM1 complex. These criteria led us to focus on characterizing
the C11orf98–NPM1–NCL interactions, but we could not
completely rule out the possibility that C11orf98 may also interact
with other proteins in the list, which might end up being important
in the biology.
Validation of Interactions of the C11orf98
Microprotein with
NPM1 and NCL
To validate the association among NPM1, NCL,
and the C11orf98 microprotein, we repeated the APEX–C11orf98
and C11orf98–APEX experiments and performed Western blots using
NPM1 and NCL specific antibodies. Consistent with the proteomics data,
we observed the enrichment of NPM1 and NCL after streptavidin enrichment
of lysates from the APEX–C11orf98 and C11orf98–APEX
samples. NPM1 and NCL were not enriched in the control sample with
an unfused APEX (Figure A and Figure S6). In addition, immunoprecipitation
of a FLAG-tagged C11orf98 microprotein also enriched the NPM1 and
NCL, which demonstrated that the interactions among C11orf98, NPM1,
and NCL are mediated by C11orf98 and are not unique to the C11orf98–APEX
fusions (Figures S7 and S8).
Figure 4
Validation
of the interaction of the C11orf98 microprotein with
NPM1 and NCL. (A) Western blot of the C11orf98–APEX labeling
proteome with anti-NCL, anti-NPM1, and anti-myc tag antibodies. (B)
Reciprocal anti-HA immunoprecipitation of NPM1-HA from HEK293T cells
co-expressing the C11orf98–FLAG fusion, with cells expressing
the C11orf98–FLAG fusion alone as a control. Eluted proteins
were analyzed by Western blotting.
Validation
of the interaction of the C11orf98 microprotein with
NPM1 and NCL. (A) Western blot of the C11orf98–APEX labeling
proteome with anti-NCL, anti-NPM1, and anti-myc tag antibodies. (B)
Reciprocal anti-HA immunoprecipitation of NPM1-HA from HEK293T cells
co-expressing the C11orf98–FLAG fusion, with cells expressing
the C11orf98–FLAG fusion alone as a control. Eluted proteins
were analyzed by Western blotting.Furthermore, we validated the association of the C11orf98
microprotein
with NPM1 by a reciprocal immunoprecipitation experiment. Cells co-expressed
a FLAG-tagged C11orf98 microprotein and HA-tagged NPM1. As a control,
cells were co-expressed with FLAG-tagged C11orf98 microprotein and
an empty vector. Lysates were prepared and immunoprecipitated with
an anti-HA antibody against HA-tagged NPM1. Western blot analysis
of the eluates using anti-HA and anti-FLAG antibodies revealed that
HA-tagged NPM1 enriched FLAG-tagged C11orf98, further supporting an
interaction between these proteins (Figure B and Figure S9). Control experiments using a control IgG did not enrich FLAG-tagged
C11orf98, which provided additional evidence of an interaction between
NPM1 and the C11orf98 microprotein (Figures S10
and S11). Moreover, Gygi’s group and Mann’s group
independently published a recent proteome-wide protein interaction
database, and the data are available to be searched.[36,37] We downloaded MS raw files for NPM1 IP from Mann’s data,
and both NPM1 and NCL IPs from Gygi’s Bioplex database. Reanalyzing
this data using the human Uniprot proteome appended with the C11orf98
microprotein revealed that C11orf98 is detected with multiple peptide
and spectral counts (Figure S12). This
experiment demonstrates that C11orf98 interacts with NPM1 and NCL
even when it is not overexpressed.
C11orf98 Localizes to the
Nucleolus
NPM1 and NCL localize
to the nucleolus, an organelle within the nucleus that is the site
of ribosome biogenesis and newly emerging functions in protein regulation
using noncoding RNAs.[38,39] The high percentage of nucleolar
proteins enriched by C11orf98 indicates that this microprotein should
also be localized to the nucleolus. Confocal imaging of overexpressed
FLAG-tagged C11orf98 in HeLa cells validated this hypothesis by revealing
a nucleolar localization for this microprotein (Figure ). Furthermore, the FLAG-tagged C11orf98
microprotein overlaps entirely with the HA-tagged NPM1 in the nucleoli,
providing additional evidence that NPM1 and the C11orf98 microprotein
are likely to interact with each other.
Figure 5
Colocalization of the
C11orf98 microprotein and NPM1 in the cell
nucleolus. HeLa cells were transfected with C11orf98-FLAG and NPM1-HA,
fixed, and stained with anti-FLAG and anti-HA antibodies to visualize
C11orf98 and NPM1 proteins. Nuclei were stained with Hoechst. Scale
bars are 5 μm.
Colocalization of the
C11orf98 microprotein and NPM1 in the cell
nucleolus. HeLa cells were transfected with C11orf98-FLAG and NPM1-HA,
fixed, and stained with anti-FLAG and anti-HA antibodies to visualize
C11orf98 and NPM1 proteins. Nuclei were stained with Hoechst. Scale
bars are 5 μm.Functional studies have revealed that both the NCL and NPM1
proteins
are multifunctional, with roles in ribosome biogenesis, cell cycle
and apoptosis, transcriptional regulation, and DNA replication and
repair.[40,41] As a putative interaction partner of NPM1
and NCL, we hypothesize that the C11orf98 microprotein will likely
have a role in at least some of these processes. These data highlight
the value of MPIs in generating novel hypotheses that can lead to
the functional characterization of microproteins.
Conclusion
Here, we demonstrate the value of APEX for identifying MPIs. Unlike
traditional approaches that include immunoprecipitation from lysates,
APEX captures endogenous interactions in the context of a living cell.
This feature is particularly useful for microproteins because we have
observed that microproteins undergoing immunoprecipitation enrich
many nonspecific interactors, which are not found in the APEX experiments.
We suspect that microproteins are becoming unstructured during FLAG-based
immunoprecipitations, leading to more nonspecific interactions. Furthermore,
the reduction in background afforded by the APEX technology also leads
to a greater fold increase for the MRI binding partners Ku70 and Ku80,
which makes it much easier to identify bona fide microprotein-interacting
partners.Indeed, the application of APEX tagging to the C11orf98
microprotein
led to the discovery that this microprotein interacts with NCL and
NPM1, and several other nucleolar proteins. NCL and NPM1 are multifunctional
proteins found in the nucleolus where they participate in the synthesis
and maturation of ribosomes. NCL and NPM1 are also reported to interact
with each other. Mutations and amplifications of NPM1 have been linked
to many cancers, including acute myelogenous leukemia, though the
exact mechanism for this connection is still being worked out.[42,43] Thus, the identification of an MPI among the C11orf98 microprotein,
NCL, and NPM1 is of fundamental and clinical interest and will lead
to new testable hypotheses about the function of the C11orf98 microprotein.
Furthermore, the apparent improvement in the APEX data supports the
application of APEX to the remaining uncharacterized microproteins.
Authors: Marco Y Hein; Nina C Hubner; Ina Poser; Jürgen Cox; Nagarjuna Nagaraj; Yusuke Toyoda; Igor A Gak; Ina Weisswange; Jörg Mansfeld; Frank Buchholz; Anthony A Hyman; Matthias Mann Journal: Cell Date: 2015-10-22 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Victoria Hung; Peng Zou; Hyun-Woo Rhee; Namrata D Udeshi; Valentin Cracan; Tanya Svinkina; Steven A Carr; Vamsi K Mootha; Alice Y Ting Journal: Mol Cell Date: 2014-07-04 Impact factor: 17.970
Authors: Daniel Yagoub; Aidan P Tay; Zhiliang Chen; Joshua J Hamey; Curtis Cai; Samantha Z Chia; Gene Hart-Smith; Marc R Wilkins Journal: J Proteome Res Date: 2015-11-10 Impact factor: 4.466
Authors: Gabrielle J Grundy; Stuart L Rulten; Raquel Arribas-Bosacoma; Kathryn Davidson; Zuzanna Kozik; Antony W Oliver; Laurence H Pearl; Keith W Caldecott Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2016-04-11 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Annie Rathore; Qian Chu; Dan Tan; Thomas F Martinez; Cynthia J Donaldson; Jolene K Diedrich; John R Yates; Alan Saghatelian Journal: Biochemistry Date: 2018-09-14 Impact factor: 3.162
Authors: Maria Polycarpou-Schwarz; Matthias Groß; Pieter Mestdagh; Johanna Schott; Stefanie E Grund; Catherina Hildenbrand; Joachim Rom; Sebastian Aulmann; Hans-Peter Sinn; Jo Vandesompele; Sven Diederichs Journal: Oncogene Date: 2018-05-16 Impact factor: 9.867
Authors: Georg Kustatscher; Piotr Grabowski; Tina A Schrader; Josiah B Passmore; Michael Schrader; Juri Rappsilber Journal: Nat Biotechnol Date: 2019-11-04 Impact factor: 68.164
Authors: Minseob Koh; Insha Ahmad; Yeonjin Ko; Yuxiang Zhang; Thomas F Martinez; Jolene K Diedrich; Qian Chu; James J Moresco; Michael A Erb; Alan Saghatelian; Peter G Schultz; Michael J Bollong Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2021-01-26 Impact factor: 12.779
Authors: Zhenkun Na; Yang Luo; Danica S Cui; Alexandra Khitun; Stephanie Smelyansky; J Patrick Loria; Sarah A Slavoff Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2021-08-04 Impact factor: 16.383