In modern biochemistry, protein stability and ligand interactions are of high interest. These properties are often studied with methods requiring labeled biomolecules, as the existing methods utilizing luminescent external probes suffer from low sensitivity. Currently available label-free technologies, e.g., thermal shift assays, circular dichroism, and differential scanning calorimetry, enable studies on protein unfolding and protein-ligand interactions (PLI). Unfortunately, the required micromolar protein concentration increases the costs and predisposes these methods for spontaneous protein aggregation. Here, we report a time-resolved luminescence method for protein unfolding and PLI detection with nanomolar sensitivity. The Protein-Probe method is based on highly luminescent europium chelate-conjugated probe, which is the key component in sensing the hydrophobic regions exposed to solution after protein unfolding. With the same Eu-probe, we also demonstrate ligand-interaction induced thermal stabilization with model proteins. The developed Protein-Probe method provides a sensitive approach overcoming the problems of the current label-free methodologies.
In modern biochemistry, protein stability and ligand interactions are of high interest. These properties are often studied with methods requiring labeled biomolecules, as the existing methods utilizing luminescent external probes suffer from low sensitivity. Currently available label-free technologies, e.g., thermal shift assays, circular dichroism, and differential scanning calorimetry, enable studies on protein unfolding and protein-ligand interactions (PLI). Unfortunately, the required micromolar protein concentration increases the costs and predisposes these methods for spontaneous protein aggregation. Here, we report a time-resolved luminescence method for protein unfolding and PLI detection with nanomolar sensitivity. The Protein-Probe method is based on highly luminescent europium chelate-conjugated probe, which is the key component in sensing the hydrophobic regions exposed to solution after protein unfolding. With the same Eu-probe, we also demonstrate ligand-interaction induced thermal stabilization with model proteins. The developed Protein-Probe method provides a sensitive approach overcoming the problems of the current label-free methodologies.
Macromolecular
function and activity depend on their structure and stability in a
given environment. These properties are affected not only by multiple
different biological factors, e.g., ions, small molecules, protein
complexes, but also by chemical and physical factors such as pH, temperature,
and mechanical stress.[1−5] Stable macromolecular structures are highly important when providing
consistent industrial products, storing precious components, obtaining
functional information for native and synthetic macromolecules, and
administrating intact high-quality biologics as medicine.[6,7] Nature has evolved mechanisms to improve the stability of macromolecules
in their natural environment, but researchers have also enabled macromolecule
structure stabilization through knowledge-driven mechanisms.[8] Multiple strategies have been designed to follow
protein interactions and stability using labeled macromolecules such
as in Förster resonance energy transfer (FRET) assays.[9−12] Nowadays, label-free methods utilizing target protein intrinsic
properties or external probes have become especially popular. The
most widely used label-free method is differential scanning calorimetry
(DSC), referred as a “gold standard” for thermal stability
analysis.[13,14] Circular dichroism (CD), on the other hand,
provides more information on the target molecule conformation and
is also applicable to determine protein stability.[15,16] In some label-free methods, an external probe is used to detect
structural integrity and interactions of the target protein. This
class of methods is called thermal stability or shift assays (TSA).
These methods are based on inherent fluorescence of tryptophan moieties
or external probes, e.g., SYPRO Orange and 1-anilinonaphthalene-8-sulfonic
acid.[17−20] In aqueous solution, fluorescence of these external dyes is strongly
quenched by water and increased as dyes bind to the revealed hydrophobic
surface of unfolded protein. TSA is typically applied to characterize
protein–ligand interaction (PLI) with changing thermal stability
compared to the protein without the bound ligand.[21,22] However, all of these methods suffer from micromolar sensitivity,
increasing the protein consumption and costs and exposing the method
for, e.g., spontaneous protein aggregation.To address these
issues limiting the functionality of the current methods, we have
developed a thermal analysis method for proteins and PLIs utilizing
time-resolved luminescence (TRL) detection. Stable lanthanide chelates
have previously shown to improve the detection sensitivity compared
to conventional fluorochromes in bulk measurements.[23−25] Thus, we hypothesized
that lanthanide chelates enabling TRL-signal detection can overcome
problems related to high protein concentrations in existing technologies.
In the developed Protein-Probe method, Eu3+-chelate was
conjugated to the N-terminus of the peptide sequence serving as a
sensor in the analysis. The peptide was negatively charged possessing
high water-solubility due to glutamic-acid-rich residues. This Eu-probe
has minimal interaction with low concentration of intact protein providing
a low TRL-signal when assayed in the modulation solution (Figure ). Immediate increase
in the TRL-signal is monitored after Eu-probe interaction with the
thermally denatured protein. This is due to an enhanced probe interaction
with the exposed hydrophobic core of the protein.
Figure 1
Principle of the label-free
Protein-Probe method. In the presence of native intact protein, the
TRL-signal of the Eu-probe is low when monitored in the modulation
solution. Thermal denaturation induces the Eu-probe interaction with
the hydrophobic core of the target, increasing the monitored TRL-signal.
Ligand-interaction stabilizes the protein structure and increases
the melting temperature, enabling the monitoring of protein–ligand
interaction as a result of a thermal shift.
Principle of the label-free
Protein-Probe method. In the presence of native intact protein, the
TRL-signal of the Eu-probe is low when monitored in the modulation
solution. Thermal denaturation induces the Eu-probe interaction with
the hydrophobic core of the target, increasing the monitored TRL-signal.
Ligand-interaction stabilizes the protein structure and increases
the melting temperature, enabling the monitoring of protein–ligand
interaction as a result of a thermal shift.To demonstrate the Protein-Probe method applicability, we measured
a series of assays with selected model proteins and PLI pairs. Eu-probe
functionality was first tested with a single model protein, monoclonal
IgG1 antibody (anti-h TSH 5409). IgG1 antibody
was selected since there is a wide range of studies performed with
antibodies and a constant need to study and improve their stability.
The Protein-Probe assay was performed with a two-step protocol where
the studied protein in 8 μL of sample buffer was heated to the
desired temperature, before adding the Eu-probe-containing modulation
solution in 65 μL. By adding the modulation solution in high
volume, the protein solution was rapidly cooled to RT, reducing potential
temperature related variation. The two-step protocol also enabled
the study of different sample buffer compositions, e.g., pH and salt
concentration.During the first tests, the Eu-probe
was found to prefer acidic pH in signal modulation, while the sample
during the heating cycle was kept neutral (Figure A). In the modulation solution with pH <
5, the Eu-probe signal responded to the temperature-denatured IgG1 (80 nM). The highest signal-to-background (S/B) ratio after
denaturation was monitored with the modulation solution at pH 4. Lowering
the pH further, to below 3, already had a detrimental effect on the
S/B ratio. The data indicates that protonation of the acidic amino
acid residues promotes hydrophobicity of the peptides and the target
protein, improving the Eu-probe interaction with the target and thus
resulting in increased TRL-signal. We did not observe any temperature
independent IgG1 unfolding even at pH 4, which is already
below the pK values of the acidic amino acid residues
(Figure A). The Eu-probe
was also found to be stable at pH 4 and above (Figure S1). Thus, pH 4, with the highest S/B ratio of 65,
was selected for all subsequent tests.
Figure 2
Functionality of the Protein-Probe thermal stability assay.
A) Eu-probe (1 nM) response to 80 nM IgG1 was monitored
at various pH by comparing signals obtained at room temperature (RT)
and 80 °C. At RT, the Eu-probe does not bind to IgG1 leading to the low TRL-signal, whereas at 80 °C, the high TRL-signal
was monitored. The highest S/B ratio (80 °C/RT) was obtained at pH 4. B) TRL-signals at RT were stable over the
60 min time period when monitored without (black) or with 7 (red),
21 (blue), 62 (magenta), and 128 nM (green) of IgG1. C)
Temperature melting curves for IgG1 were measured up to
80 °C with Protein-Probe (black, 80 nM IgG1) and SYPRO
Orange (red, 2 μM IgG1). The calculated Tm values were essentially equal between these two methods.
D) Based on the IgG1 titration (0–5 μM), 50-fold
improved sensitivity was calculated with the Protein-Probe (black)
compared to SYPRO Orange (red) at 80 °C, as calculated from the
S/B ratio of 3. Data represent mean ± SD (n =
3).
Functionality of the Protein-Probe thermal stability assay.
A) Eu-probe (1 nM) response to 80 nM IgG1 was monitored
at various pH by comparing signals obtained at room temperature (RT)
and 80 °C. At RT, the Eu-probe does not bind to IgG1 leading to the low TRL-signal, whereas at 80 °C, the high TRL-signal
was monitored. The highest S/B ratio (80 °C/RT) was obtained at pH 4. B) TRL-signals at RT were stable over the
60 min time period when monitored without (black) or with 7 (red),
21 (blue), 62 (magenta), and 128 nM (green) of IgG1. C)
Temperature melting curves for IgG1 were measured up to
80 °C with Protein-Probe (black, 80 nM IgG1) and SYPRO
Orange (red, 2 μM IgG1). The calculated Tm values were essentially equal between these two methods.
D) Based on the IgG1 titration (0–5 μM), 50-fold
improved sensitivity was calculated with the Protein-Probe (black)
compared to SYPRO Orange (red) at 80 °C, as calculated from the
S/B ratio of 3. Data represent mean ± SD (n =
3).To understand the functionality
of the method further, we tested the method robustness by varying
the protein sample buffer. Tris, HEPES, and PBS with and without Triton
X-100 were tested with 80 nM IgG1 at 80 °C without
a major difference between the buffers (Figure S2). In all buffers, the IgG1 gave an S/B ratio
between 19 and 50, being the highest with Tris and the lowest with
HEPES. The most obvious reason for the modest sample buffer effect
is the high volume of the modulation solution, which overrides the
effect of the sample buffer and equalizes conditions for the detection.
Also, the sample buffer was not supplemented with components expected
to change IgG1 stability. However, we found more differences
in repeatability related to the sample buffer. The lowest variation
was measured with 0.1× PBS with 0.001% Triton X-100, which was
therefore selected for all subsequent tests (Figure S2). Next, we studied the signal stability of the Eu-probe
in the modulation solution using varying IgG1 concentrations
but found no major changes in TRL-signal levels over a 60 min time
period at any of the tested IgG1 concentrations (Figure B). The TRL-signal
also responded to IgG1 concentration gradually. Based on
this, we selected a 5 min time point after addition of the modulation
solution for all forthcoming TRL-signal measurements.The IgG1 denaturation was further performed using temperature ramping
up to 80 °C. Melting curves were carried out in parallel with
the widely used SYPRO Orange method as a reference. The curves were
highly similar as the Tm values observed
with the Protein-Probe and SYPRO Orange were 67.0 and 66.6 °C,
respectively (Figure C). When these methods were compared for sensitivity at 80 °C,
corresponding to S/B = 3 in IgG1 titration, a 50-fold improvement
was observed with the Protein-Probe (Figure D). The calculated thresholds based on the
S/B ratio were at 3.0 and 144 nM using the Protein-Probe or SYPRO
Orange, respectively. All tests were performed using the same sample
buffer. The improvement in sensitivity with the Protein-Probe method
is significant, providing an affordable assay option and reducing
the risk for spontaneous aggregation. In addition, the coefficient
of variation (CV%) of the sample replicates was on average 2% with
the Protein-Probe, compared to 10% variation monitored with the SYPRO
Orange. This further simplifies the result interpretation and enables
the detection of minor changes in Tm.
To investigate the reproducibility of the Protein-Probe assay, we
monitored melting curves using ten individual IgG1 dilutions
(80 nM) with three replicates of each dilution (Figure S3). The average Tm was
70.9 °C with CV under 1%. The average CV between the dilutions
was 8%, and between the replicates the average CV was 4%.Next,
we determined melting curves for four TSA model proteins: malate dehydrogenase
(MDH), carbonic anhydrase (CA), IgG1, and streptavidin
(SA). These proteins were selected based on their varying molecular
weights (MWs), and tests were performed using 2–5 °C temperature
step intervals. The observed Tm values
for MDH, CA, IgG1, and SA were 44.6, 67.9, 70.7, and 75.7
°C, respectively (Table and Figure S4). Measured Tm values for these proteins with varying MW
and isoelectric points (pIs) were comparable to those published previously
(Table ).[26−29] Thus, the method is expected to monitor inherent melting properties
of different proteins.
Table 1
Protein Properties
and the Obtained Melting Temperatures
Tm
without ligand
with ligand
Mw (kDa)
pI
ng per well
measd
lit.
measd
lit.
CA
30
6.6
48
67.9 ± 0.9
71.8a
69.8 ± 0.7
73.2a
SA
53
5
170
75.7 ± 0.1
75.5b
>90
112b
MDH
70
6.1–6.4
51
44.6 ± 0.5
46c
ND
ND
IgG1
150
6.5–9
60
70.7 ± 0.2
71d
ND
ND
2 μM CA(II) in 100 mM Tris buffer (pH 7.5) with
0.36 μM AZA using absorbance 280 measurement.
66 μM SA in 100 mM phosphate buffer
(pH 7.4) with 132 μM biotin using DSC.
0.7 μM MDH in 20 mM sodium phosphate buffer
(pH 7.0) using CD spectroscopy.
130 μM IgG in 10 mM phosphate buffer (pH 8.1) using DSC.
2 μM CA(II) in 100 mM Tris buffer (pH 7.5) with
0.36 μM AZA using absorbance 280 measurement.66 μM SA in 100 mM phosphate buffer
(pH 7.4) with 132 μM biotin using DSC.0.7 μM MDH in 20 mM sodium phosphate buffer
(pH 7.0) using CD spectroscopy.130 μM IgG in 10 mM phosphate buffer (pH 8.1) using DSC.As the Protein-Probe method
responded well to the used individual proteins, we next determined
its functionality in protein–ligand interaction assay (PLI).
As targets, we selected two highly studied PLI pairs, which, according
to the literature, possess modest and extremely large thermal shift
upon ligand interaction. Acetazolamide (AZA) is a potent inhibitor
of CA at low nanomolar range, and it is known to increase Tm for approximately 2 degrees when bound to
CA.[27,28] Biotin is known to have a femtomolar dissociation
constant to tetrameric SA, and it highly stabilizes the SA structure.[26] We first performed ligand titrations with AZA
(0–10 μM) and biotin (0–20 μM) with constant
CA (200 nM) and SA (400 nM) concentrations, respectively. Protein
concentrations were selected to provide sufficient TRL-signal change,
which is to some extent protein-dependent. Based on the Tm values observed before (Figure S3), titrations were carried out at selected temperatures, 70 °C
for CA and 95 °C for SA. Ligand titration showed concentration-dependent
stabilization in stoichiometry with protein concentration, which was
expected as the ligand affinity was below the used protein concentration
(Figure A). Monitored
EC50 values for AZA and biotin were 248 nM and 597 nM,
respectively. Based on this data, saturating AZA and biotin concentrations
were selected for the stability shift determination. The detected
melting curves of CA and SA showed a clear thermal shift compared
to individual proteins (Figure B). The ΔTm values for CA
and SA were 2.1 and >15 °C higher with AZA and biotin compared
to individual proteins, respectively (Table and Figure B). The melting point for the biotin–SA complex
could not be determined exactly as it has been reported to be above
100 °C, which was not measurable with our test setup.[26]
Figure 3
Protein–ligand interaction (PLI) detection. A)
Biotin (black) and AZA (magenta) were titrated with a constant concentration
of SA (400 nM) and CA (200 nM), respectively, using a 1 nM Eu-probe.
The monitored EC50 values with both ligands are in stoichiometry
with their target proteins. B) Tm values
for SA (red, 400 nM) and CA (blue, 200 nM) were monitored with and
without the saturating ligand concentration of biotin (black 10 μM)
and AZA (magenta, 5 μM), respectively. Data represent mean ±
SD (n = 3).
Protein–ligand interaction (PLI) detection. A)
Biotin (black) and AZA (magenta) were titrated with a constant concentration
of SA (400 nM) and CA (200 nM), respectively, using a 1 nM Eu-probe.
The monitored EC50 values with both ligands are in stoichiometry
with their target proteins. B) Tm values
for SA (red, 400 nM) and CA (blue, 200 nM) were monitored with and
without the saturating ligand concentration of biotin (black 10 μM)
and AZA (magenta, 5 μM), respectively. Data represent mean ±
SD (n = 3).Based on the presented data with the model proteins, Protein-Probe
has demonstrated to be a highly efficient option to replace SYPRO
Orange and other external probes in TSA type protein stability and
PLI assays. Due to the increased sensitivity and TRL-signal detection,
the developed method enables the use of low protein concentration,
thus reducing aggregation and lowering the costs and inhibitor-derived
artifacts. We have shown the method functionality with multiple different
types of proteins varying in terms of MW and pI. We expect the developed
Protein-Probe method to be applicable to other targets by simply adjusting
the target protein concentration to provide a detectable TRL-signal.In summary, we have developed an ultrasensitive label-free method
for protein stability and PLI detection using a novel external Eu-probe
and TRL-signal detection. In the presented Protein-Probe method, the
Eu-probe interacts with the unfolded target protein providing an increasing
TRL-signal when assayed in the modulation solution at low pH. Compared
to the existing technologies such as thermofluor with SYPRO Orange
dye, a 50-fold improved sensitivity was detected. High sensitivity
reduces the method cost and decreases adverse effects, such as spontaneous
aggregation. This improves the solidity of the acquired data. In addition
to protein stability, we further successfully presented a thermal
shift assay in PLI with two model protein–ligand pairs. The
method has high potential to be a label-free platform for protein
stability and PLI monitoring. Further studies are required to demonstrate
the applicability, for example, to monitor protein–protein
interactions.
Authors: Teddy J Zbacnik; Ryan E Holcomb; Derrick S Katayama; Brian M Murphy; Robert W Payne; Richard C Coccaro; Gabriel J Evans; James E Matsuura; Charles S Henry; Mark Cornell Manning Journal: J Pharm Sci Date: 2016-11-26 Impact factor: 3.534
Authors: Kari Kopra; Salla Valtonen; Randa Mahran; Jonas N Kapp; Nazia Hassan; William Gillette; Bryce Dennis; Lianbo Li; Kenneth D Westover; Andreas Plückthun; Harri Härmä Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2022-06-26 Impact factor: 6.208
Authors: Kari Kopra; Nazia Hassan; Emmiliisa Vuorinen; Salla Valtonen; Randa Mahran; Huda Habib; Pinja Jalkanen; Petri Susi; Vesa Hytönen; Minna Hankaniemi; Seppo Ylä-Herttuala; Laura Kakkola; Markus Peurla; Harri Härmä Journal: Anal Bioanal Chem Date: 2022-05-17 Impact factor: 4.478
Authors: Salla Valtonen; Emmiliisa Vuorinen; Taru Kariniemi; Ville Eskonen; John Le Quesne; Martin Bushell; Harri Härmä; Kari Kopra Journal: Anal Chem Date: 2020-11-25 Impact factor: 6.986
Authors: Hackwon Do; Dieu Linh Nguyen; Chang Woo Lee; Min Ju Lee; Hoejung Oh; Jisub Hwang; Se Jong Han; Sung Gu Lee; Jun Hyuck Lee Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-09-23 Impact factor: 3.752