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

  • 8,483
    views
  • 1,205
    downloads
  • 36
    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. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    Mai Nguyen, Elda Bauda ... Cecile Morlot
    Research Article

    Teichoic acids (TA) are linear phospho-saccharidic polymers and important constituents of the cell envelope of Gram-positive bacteria, either bound to the peptidoglycan as wall teichoic acids (WTA) or to the membrane as lipoteichoic acids (LTA). The composition of TA varies greatly but the presence of both WTA and LTA is highly conserved, hinting at an underlying fundamental function that is distinct from their specific roles in diverse organisms. We report the observation of a periplasmic space in Streptococcus pneumoniae by cryo-electron microscopy of vitreous sections. The thickness and appearance of this region change upon deletion of genes involved in the attachment of TA, supporting their role in the maintenance of a periplasmic space in Gram-positive bacteria as a possible universal function. Consequences of these mutations were further examined by super-resolved microscopy, following metabolic labeling and fluorophore coupling by click chemistry. This novel labeling method also enabled in-gel analysis of cell fractions. With this approach, we were able to titrate the actual amount of TA per cell and to determine the ratio of WTA to LTA. In addition, we followed the change of TA length during growth phases, and discovered that a mutant devoid of LTA accumulates the membrane-bound polymerized TA precursor.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Computational and Systems Biology
    Shinichi Kawaguchi, Xin Xu ... Toshie Kai
    Research Article

    Protein–protein interactions are fundamental to understanding the molecular functions and regulation of proteins. Despite the availability of extensive databases, many interactions remain uncharacterized due to the labor-intensive nature of experimental validation. In this study, we utilized the AlphaFold2 program to predict interactions among proteins localized in the nuage, a germline-specific non-membrane organelle essential for piRNA biogenesis in Drosophila. We screened 20 nuage proteins for 1:1 interactions and predicted dimer structures. Among these, five represented novel interaction candidates. Three pairs, including Spn-E_Squ, were verified by co-immunoprecipitation. Disruption of the salt bridges at the Spn-E_Squ interface confirmed their functional importance, underscoring the predictive model’s accuracy. We extended our analysis to include interactions between three representative nuage components—Vas, Squ, and Tej—and approximately 430 oogenesis-related proteins. Co-immunoprecipitation verified interactions for three pairs: Mei-W68_Squ, CSN3_Squ, and Pka-C1_Tej. Furthermore, we screened the majority of Drosophila proteins (~12,000) for potential interaction with the Piwi protein, a central player in the piRNA pathway, identifying 164 pairs as potential binding partners. This in silico approach not only efficiently identifies potential interaction partners but also significantly bridges the gap by facilitating the integration of bioinformatics and experimental biology.