Article

Molecular and cellular approaches for the detection of protein-protein interactions: latest techniques and current limitations.

Carnegie Institution, 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
The Plant Journal (Impact Factor: 6.82). 03/2008; 53(4):610-35. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2007.03332.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Homotypic and heterotypic protein interactions are crucial for all levels of cellular function, including architecture, regulation, metabolism, and signaling. Therefore, protein interaction maps represent essential components of post-genomic toolkits needed for understanding biological processes at a systems level. Over the past decade, a wide variety of methods have been developed to detect, analyze, and quantify protein interactions, including surface plasmon resonance spectroscopy, NMR, yeast two-hybrid screens, peptide tagging combined with mass spectrometry and fluorescence-based technologies. Fluorescence techniques range from co-localization of tags, which may be limited by the optical resolution of the microscope, to fluorescence resonance energy transfer-based methods that have molecular resolution and can also report on the dynamics and localization of the interactions within a cell. Proteins interact via highly evolved complementary surfaces with affinities that can vary over many orders of magnitude. Some of the techniques described in this review, such as surface plasmon resonance, provide detailed information on physical properties of these interactions, while others, such as two-hybrid techniques and mass spectrometry, are amenable to high-throughput analysis using robotics. In addition to providing an overview of these methods, this review emphasizes techniques that can be applied to determine interactions involving membrane proteins, including the split ubiquitin system and fluorescence-based technologies for characterizing hits obtained with high-throughput approaches. Mass spectrometry-based methods are covered by a review by Miernyk and Thelen (2008; this issue, pp. 597-609). In addition, we discuss the use of interaction data to construct interaction networks and as the basis for the exciting possibility of using to predict interaction surfaces.

2 Bookmarks
 · 
90 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract The androgen receptor-transcriptional intermediary factor 2 (AR-TIF2) positional protein-protein interaction (PPI) biosensor assay described herein combines physiologically relevant cell-based assays with the specificity of binding assays by incorporating structural information of AR and TIF2 functional domains along with intracellular targeting sequences and fluorescent reporters. Expression of the AR-red fluorescent protein (RFP) "prey" and TIF2-green fluorescent protein (GFP) "bait" components of the biosensor was directed by recombinant adenovirus constructs that expressed the ligand binding and activation function 2 surface domains of AR fused to RFP with nuclear localization and nuclear export sequences, and three α-helical LXXLL motifs from TIF2 fused to GFP and an HIV Rev nucleolar targeting sequence. In unstimulated cells, AR-RFP was localized predominantly to the cytoplasm and TIF2-GFP was localized to nucleoli. Dihydrotestosterone (DHT) treatment induced AR-RFP translocation into the nucleus where the PPIs between AR and TIF2 resulted in the colocalization of both biosensors within the nucleolus. We adapted the translocation enhanced image analysis module to quantify the colocalization of the AR-RFP and TIF2-GFP biosensors in images acquired on the ImageXpress platform. DHT induced a concentration-dependent AR-TIF2 colocalization and produced a characteristic condensed punctate AR-RFP PPI nucleolar distribution pattern. The heat-shock protein 90 inhibitor 17-N-allylamino-17-demethoxygeldanamycin (17-AAG) and antiandrogens flutamide and bicalutamide inhibited DHT-induced AR-TIF2 PPI formation with 50% inhibition concentrations (IC50s) of 88.5±12.5 nM, 7.6±2.4 μM, and 1.6±0.4 μM, respectively. Images of the AR-RFP distribution phenotype allowed us to distinguish between 17-AAG and flutamide, which prevented AR translocation, and bicalutamide, which blocked AR-TIF2 PPIs. We screened the Library of Pharmacologically Active Compounds (LOPAC) set for compounds that inhibited AR-TIF2 PPI formation or disrupted preexisting complexes. Eleven modulators of steroid family nuclear receptors (NRs) and 6 non-NR ligands inhibited AR-TIF2 PPI formation, and 10 disrupted preexisting complexes. The hits appear to be either AR antagonists or nonspecific inhibitors of NR activation and trafficking. Given that the LOPAC set represents such a small and restricted biological and chemical diversity, it is anticipated that screening a much larger and more diverse compound library will be required to find AR-TIF2 PPI inhibitors/disruptors. The AR-TIF2 protein-protein interaction biosensor (PPIB) approach offers significant promise for identifying molecules with potential to modulate AR transcriptional activity in a cell-specific manner that is distinct from the existing antiandrogen drugs that target AR binding or production. Small molecules that disrupt AR signaling at the level of AR-TIF2 PPIs may also overcome the development of resistance and progression to castration-resistant prostate cancer.
    Assay and Drug Development Technologies 09/2014; 12(7):395-418. · 2.08 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Protein networks and signaling cascades are key mechanisms for intra- and intercellular signal transduction. Identifying the interacting partners of a protein can provide vital clues regarding its physiological role. The Bimolecular Fluorescence Complementation (BiFC) assay has become a routine tool for in vivo analysis of protein-protein interactions and their subcellular location. Although the BiFC system has improved since its inception, the available options for in planta analysis are still subject to very low signal to noise ratios, and a systematic comparison of BiFC confounding background signals has been lacking. Background signals can obscure weak interactions, provide false positives, and decrease confidence in true positives. To overcome these problems, we performed an extensive in planta analysis of published BiFC fragments used in metazoa and plants, and then developed an optimized single vector BiFC system which utilizes monomeric Venus (mVenus) split at residue 210, and contains an integrated mTurquoise2 marker to precisely identify transformed cells in order to distinguish true negatives. Here we provide our streamlined Double ORF Expression (pDOE) BiFC system, and show that our advance in BiFC methodology functions even with an internally fused mVenus210 fragment. We illustrate the efficacy of the system by providing direct visualization of Arabidopsis MLO1 interacting with a calmodulin-like (CML) protein, and by showing that heterotrimeric G-protein subunits Gα (GPA1) and Gβ (AGB1) interact in plant cells. We further demonstrate that GPA1 and AGB1 each physically interact with PLDα1 in planta, and that mutation of the so-called PLDα1 "DRY" motif abolishes both of these interactions. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
    The Plant Journal 09/2014; · 6.82 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: An increasing number of experiments have been designed to detect intracellular and intercellular molecular interactions. Based on these molecular interactions (especially protein interactions), molecular networks have been built for using in several typical applications, such as the discovery of new disease genes and the identification of drug targets and molecular complexes. Because the data are incomplete and a considerable number of false-positive interactions exist, protein interactions from different sources are commonly integrated in network analyses to build a stable molecular network. Although various types of integration strategies are being applied in current studies, the topological properties of the networks from these different integration strategies, especially typical applications based on these network integration strategies, have not been rigorously evaluated. In this paper, systematic analyses were performed to evaluate 11 frequently used methods using two types of integration strategies: empirical and machine learning methods. The topological properties of the networks of these different integration strategies were found to significantly differ. Moreover, these networks were found to dramatically affect the outcomes of typical applications, such as disease gene predictions, drug target detections, and molecular complex identifications. The analysis presented in this paper could provide an important basis for future network-based biological researches.
    BioMed Research International 01/2014; 2014:296349. · 2.71 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
48 Downloads
Available from
May 29, 2014