Protein visualization and manipulation in Drosophila through the use of epitope tags recognized by nanobodies

Abstract

Expansion of the available repertoire of reagents for visualization and manipulation of proteins will help understand their function. Short epitope tags linked to proteins of interest and recognized by existing binders such as nanobodies facilitate protein studies by obviating the need to isolate new antibodies directed against them. Nanobodies have several advantages over conventional antibodies, as they can be expressed and used as tools for visualization and manipulation of proteins in vivo. Here, we characterize two short (<15 aa) NanoTag epitopes, 127D01 and VHH05, and their corresponding high-affinity nanobodies. We demonstrate their use in Drosophila for in vivo protein detection and re-localization, direct and indirect immunofluorescence, immunoblotting, and immunoprecipitation. We further show that CRISPR-mediated gene targeting provides a straightforward approach to tagging endogenous proteins with the NanoTags. Single copies of the NanoTags, regardless of their location, suffice for detection. This versatile and validated toolbox of tags and nanobodies will serve as a resource for a wide array of applications, including functional studies in Drosophila and beyond.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting file.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Jun Xu

    Department of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    For correspondence
    Jun_Xu@hms.harvard.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Ah-Ram Kim

    Department of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9597-6759
  3. Ross W Cheloha

    Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Fabian A Fischer

    Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Joshua Shing Shun Li

    Department of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Yuan Feng

    Department of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Emily Stoneburner

    Department of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Richard Binari

    Department of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Stephanie E Mohr

    Department of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9639-7708
  10. Jonathan Zirin

    Department of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Hidde L Ploegh

    Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Norbert Perrimon

    Department of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    For correspondence
    perrimon@genetics.med.harvard.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7542-472X

Funding

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM132087)

  • Norbert Perrimon

National Research Foundation of Korea (2021R1A6A3A14039622)

  • Ah-Ram Kim

Croucher Foundation

  • Joshua Shing Shun Li

Howard Hughes Medical Institute

  • Norbert Perrimon

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Copyright

© 2022, Xu et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 7,917
    views
  • 1,178
    downloads
  • 29
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Jun Xu
  2. Ah-Ram Kim
  3. Ross W Cheloha
  4. Fabian A Fischer
  5. Joshua Shing Shun Li
  6. Yuan Feng
  7. Emily Stoneburner
  8. Richard Binari
  9. Stephanie E Mohr
  10. Jonathan Zirin
  11. Hidde L Ploegh
  12. Norbert Perrimon
(2022)
Protein visualization and manipulation in Drosophila through the use of epitope tags recognized by nanobodies
eLife 11:e74326.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.74326

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.74326

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Jie Luo, Jeff Ranish
    Tools and Resources

    Dynamic conformational and structural changes in proteins and protein complexes play a central and ubiquitous role in the regulation of protein function, yet it is very challenging to study these changes, especially for large protein complexes, under physiological conditions. Here, we introduce a novel isobaric crosslinker, Qlinker, for studying conformational and structural changes in proteins and protein complexes using quantitative crosslinking mass spectrometry. Qlinkers are small and simple, amine-reactive molecules with an optimal extended distance of ~10 Å, which use MS2 reporter ions for relative quantification of Qlinker-modified peptides derived from different samples. We synthesized the 2-plex Q2linker and showed that the Q2linker can provide quantitative crosslinking data that pinpoints key conformational and structural changes in biosensors, binary and ternary complexes composed of the general transcription factors TBP, TFIIA, and TFIIB, and RNA polymerase II complexes.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine
    Alejandro J Brenes, Eva Griesser ... Angus I Lamond
    Research Article

    Human induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs) have great potential to be used as alternatives to embryonic stem cells (hESCs) in regenerative medicine and disease modelling. In this study, we characterise the proteomes of multiple hiPSC and hESC lines derived from independent donors and find that while they express a near-identical set of proteins, they show consistent quantitative differences in the abundance of a subset of proteins. hiPSCs have increased total protein content, while maintaining a comparable cell cycle profile to hESCs, with increased abundance of cytoplasmic and mitochondrial proteins required to sustain high growth rates, including nutrient transporters and metabolic proteins. Prominent changes detected in proteins involved in mitochondrial metabolism correlated with enhanced mitochondrial potential, shown using high-resolution respirometry. hiPSCs also produced higher levels of secreted proteins, including growth factors and proteins involved in the inhibition of the immune system. The data indicate that reprogramming of fibroblasts to hiPSCs produces important differences in cytoplasmic and mitochondrial proteins compared to hESCs, with consequences affecting growth and metabolism. This study improves our understanding of the molecular differences between hiPSCs and hESCs, with implications for potential risks and benefits for their use in future disease modelling and therapeutic applications.