| Literature DB >> 35849029 |
Andres F Salazar-Chaparro1, Saayak Halder1, Darci J Trader1.
Abstract
The proteasome is a multisubunit protein complex responsible for the degradation of proteins, making it essential in myriad cellular processes. Several reversible and irreversible peptide substrates inspired by known proteasome inhibitors have been developed to visualize it and monitor its activity; however, they have limited commercial availability or possess fluorophores that overlap with other known chemical probes, limiting their simultaneous use. The protocols presented here describe the synthesis of a clickable epoxomicin-based probe followed by the copper-catalyzed installment of an azide-containing fluorophore, and the application of the synthesized peptide in proteasome activity assays by SDS-PAGE and flow cytometry.Entities:
Keywords: cell-based assay; chemical probes; flow cytometry; in-gel fluorescence; proteasome
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35849029 PMCID: PMC9354099 DOI: 10.1002/cpz1.490
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Curr Protoc ISSN: 2691-1299
Figure 1(A) Structure of epoxomicin (1), a potent proteasome inhibitor: (B) structure of the clickable peptide fragment (2) synthesized via solid‐phase; (C) structure of the designed clickable epoxomicin‐based probe (3).
Figure 2(A) Total ion chromatogram (TIC) of the synthesized peptide fragment. While no purification is performed, usually >95% purity is achieved following this protocol. (B) MS spectrum of peak with retention time of 5.8 min. The observed mass (600.4) matches the expected mass of the peptide fragment ([M+H]+ 600.35). An additional mass observed in the spectrum correlates with the [M+2H]+ charge state (300.8).
Figure 3(A) Total ion chromatogram (TIC) of the clickable epoxomicin‐based probe (2) showing purity >95% after purification via reverse‐phase HPLC. (B) MS spectrum of peak with retention time of 7.2 min. The observed mass (753.4) matches the expected mass of the epoxomicin probe ([M+H]+ 753.47 m/z). An additional mass observed in the spectrum correlates with the doubly charged state (377.2 m/z).
Figure 4(A) Structure of the synthesized epoxomicin‐based probe coupled to a BodipyFL fluorophore (3). (B) Total ion chromatogram (TIC) of the synthesized chemical probe. >95% purity is obtained after purification via reverse‐phase HPLC. (C) MS spectrum of the peak with retention time of 6.9 min. The observed mass (1127.6) matches the expected mass of the Bodipy clicked epoxomicin probe ([M+H]+ 1127.65 m/z). An additional mass observed in the spectrum correlates with doubly charged state (377.2 m/z), and [M+Na]+ adduct (1149.6 m/z).
Reagent Preparation
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
| DMSO | 10 | 100 |
|
| DI water | 10 | 100 |
|
| DI water | 1 | 100 |
These concentrations can be adjusted by multiplying the concentrations in the table by the number of moles needed. Maintain a final volume ≤1 ml.
Stock Cell Suspensions and Volumes Needed by Plate
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 40 × 104 | 500 | 200,000 |
|
| 50 × 104 | 1000 | 500,000 |
|
| 1 × 106 | 2000 | 2,000,000 |
Figure 5(A) SDS‐PAGE analysis conducted HEK‐293T cells dosed with DMSO, miconazole (MO), a known 20S stimulator, and MG‐132, a proteasome inhibitor, for 1 hr followed by the addition of the synthesized activity‐based probe at 500 nM for 1 hr (2 hr total incubation time). (B) Quantification of the fluorescent signal obtained for the B2 and B5 proteasome subunits. Data were normalized to DMSO. Error bars denote standard deviation. A p‐value ≤.05 was considered a statistically significant difference (*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001, ****p < .0001).
Minimum Experimental Controls Required for Successful Proteasome Activity Analysis by Flow Cytometry
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
|
| No | No |
|
| No | Yes |
|
| Yes | No |
Figure 6(A) Forward versus side scatter (FSC vs. SSC) gating. (B) Viability gating. Alive populations are distinguished by a lower fluorescence in the APC channel. (C) Histogram showing the difference in fluorescence intensity between the unstained control (green) and samples treated with DMSO (red), a proteasome inhibitor (orange), and a proteasome activator (blue).
Troubleshooting Guide for Common Problems Encountered During Both the Synthetic Protocols and the Cell‐Based Proteasome Activity Assays
| Problem | Possible cause | Solution |
|---|---|---|
| Little to no labeling of beta subunits | Cell impermeable fluorophore |
Confirm permeability of the synthesized probe by confocal microscopy. Couple a different fluorophore to the alkyne‐based epoxomicin core |
| Low concentration of chemical probe | Increase the concentration of the chemical probe or incubate for a longer time. | |
| Low protein concentration | Insufficient incubation time | Increase the incubation time. Optimal protein concentrations are achieved between 24 and 72 hr of incubation after plating. |
| Poor yield | Non‐anhydrous solvents |
Freshly distill solvents before use. Use new bottles and store them properly by purging with an inert gas, taping the pierced septa, and parafilm around the bottle cap. |
| Low reaction time | The quality of the reagents might decrease over time; therefore, increasing the reaction time or the number of equivalents used can increase the reaction yields. | |
| Little to no change in fluorescence upon treatment with proteasome modulator | Not a modulator of the proteasome isoforms | Validate the ability of the compound to modulate the activity of the proteasome using purified proteasome (20S or 26S). |
| Insufficient incubation time | Increase the reaction time. | |
| Low potency | Increase the concentration of the molecule if the cell viability is not compromised. | |
| Low dynamic range of the synthesized probe |
If positive and negative controls are included in the experimental design, and they fail to elicit a change in labeling compared to the basal level, synthesize a new probe including a longer linker chain. A bigger molecule represents a more challenging substrate to the proteasome isoforms; therefore, the labeling rate will be lower, and the difference between an activated/inhibited proteasome versus a non‐modulated proteasome will be more apparent. |
Possible causes and their corresponding potential solutions are included as well.