1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
  2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics

A general strategy to construct small molecule biosensors in eukaryotes

  1. Justin Feng
  2. Benjamin W Jester
  3. Christine E Tinberg
  4. Daniel J Mandell  Is a corresponding author
  5. Mauricio S Antunes
  6. Raj Chari
  7. Kevin J Morey
  8. Xavier Rios
  9. June I Medford
  10. George M Church
  11. Stanley Fields
  12. David Baker
  1. Harvard Medical School, United States
  2. University of Washington, United States
  3. Colorado State University, United States
  4. Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of Washington, United States
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.10606
Share this article
Cite this article
  1. Justin Feng
  2. Benjamin W Jester
  3. Christine E Tinberg
  4. Daniel J Mandell
  5. Mauricio S Antunes
  6. Raj Chari
  7. Kevin J Morey
  8. Xavier Rios
  9. June I Medford
  10. George M Church
  11. Stanley Fields
  12. David Baker
(2015)
A general strategy to construct small molecule biosensors in eukaryotes
eLife 4:e10606.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.10606
  2. Download BibTeX
  3. Download .RIS

Abstract

Biosensors for small molecules can be used in applications that range from metabolic engineering to orthogonal control of transcription. Here, we produce biosensors based on a ligand-binding domain (LBD) by using a method that, in principle, can be applied to any target molecule. The LBD is fused to either a fluorescent protein or a transcriptional activator and is destabilized by mutation such that the fusion accumulates only in cells containing the target ligand. We illustrate the power of this method by developing biosensors for digoxin and progesterone. Addition of ligand to yeast, mammalian or plant cells expressing a biosensor activates transcription with a dynamic range of up to ~100-fold. We use the biosensors to improve the biotransformation of pregnenolone to progesterone in yeast and to regulate CRISPR activity in mammalian cells. This work provides a general methodology to develop biosensors for a broad range of molecules in eukaryotes.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Justin Feng

    Program in Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    Harvard University has filed a provisional patent on this work

  2. Benjamin W Jester

    Department of Genome Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    Harvard University has filed a provisional patent on this work

  3. Christine E Tinberg

    Department of Biochemistry, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    Harvard University has filed a provisional patent on this work

  4. Daniel J Mandell

    Department of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    For correspondence
    djmandell@gmail.com
    Competing interests
    Harvard University has filed a provisional patent on this work

  5. Mauricio S Antunes

    Department of Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  6. Raj Chari

    Department of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    Harvard University has filed a provisional patent on this work

  7. Kevin J Morey

    Department of Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  8. Xavier Rios

    Department of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  9. June I Medford

    Department of Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  10. George M Church

    Department of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    Harvard University has filed a provisional patent on this work

  11. Stanley Fields

    Department of Genome Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    Harvard University has filed a provisional patent on this work

  12. David Baker

    Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    Harvard University has filed a provisional patent on this work

Reviewing Editor

  1. Jeffery W Kelly, Scripps Research Institute, United States

Version history

  1. Received: August 6, 2015
  2. Accepted: December 17, 2015
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: December 29, 2015 (version 1)
  4. Accepted Manuscript updated: December 30, 2015 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record published: January 26, 2016 (version 3)

Copyright

© 2015, Feng 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

  • 13,694
    views
  • 3,183
    downloads
  • 136
    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. Justin Feng
  2. Benjamin W Jester
  3. Christine E Tinberg
  4. Daniel J Mandell
  5. Mauricio S Antunes
  6. Raj Chari
  7. Kevin J Morey
  8. Xavier Rios
  9. June I Medford
  10. George M Church
  11. Stanley Fields
  12. David Baker
(2015)
A general strategy to construct small molecule biosensors in eukaryotes
eLife 4:e10606.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.10606

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.10606

Categories and tags

Research organisms

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Neuroscience

    Deciphering the chemical language of inbred and wild mouse conspecific scents

    Maximilian Nagel, Marco Niestroj ... Marc Spehr
    Research Article

    In most mammals, conspecific chemosensory communication relies on semiochemical release within complex bodily secretions and subsequent stimulus detection by the vomeronasal organ (VNO). Urine, a rich source of ethologically relevant chemosignals, conveys detailed information about sex, social hierarchy, health, and reproductive state, which becomes accessible to a conspecific via vomeronasal sampling. So far, however, numerous aspects of social chemosignaling along the vomeronasal pathway remain unclear. Moreover, since virtually all research on vomeronasal physiology is based on secretions derived from inbred laboratory mice, it remains uncertain whether such stimuli provide a true representation of potentially more relevant cues found in the wild. Here, we combine a robust low-noise VNO activity assay with comparative molecular profiling of sex- and strain-specific mouse urine samples from two inbred laboratory strains as well as from wild mice. With comprehensive molecular portraits of these secretions, VNO activity analysis now enables us to (i) assess whether and, if so, how much sex/strain-selective ‘raw’ chemical information in urine is accessible via vomeronasal sampling; (ii) identify which chemicals exhibit sufficient discriminatory power to signal an animal’s sex, strain, or both; (iii) determine the extent to which wild mouse secretions are unique; and (iv) analyze whether vomeronasal response profiles differ between strains. We report both sex- and, in particular, strain-selective VNO representations of chemical information. Within the urinary ‘secretome’, both volatile compounds and proteins exhibit sufficient discriminative power to provide sex- and strain-specific molecular fingerprints. While total protein amount is substantially enriched in male urine, females secrete a larger variety at overall comparatively low concentrations. Surprisingly, the molecular spectrum of wild mouse urine does not dramatically exceed that of inbred strains. Finally, vomeronasal response profiles differ between C57BL/6 and BALB/c animals, with particularly disparate representations of female semiochemicals.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics

    Caenorhabditis elegans Dicer acts with the RIG-I-like helicase DRH-1 and RDE-4 to cleave dsRNA

    Claudia D Consalvo, Adedeji M Aderounmu ... Brenda L Bass
    Research Article

    Invertebrates use the endoribonuclease Dicer to cleave viral dsRNA during antiviral defense, while vertebrates use RIG-I-like Receptors (RLRs), which bind viral dsRNA to trigger an interferon response. While some invertebrate Dicers act alone during antiviral defense, Caenorhabditis elegans Dicer acts in a complex with a dsRNA binding protein called RDE-4, and an RLR ortholog called DRH-1. We used biochemical and structural techniques to provide mechanistic insight into how these proteins function together. We found RDE-4 is important for ATP-independent and ATP-dependent cleavage reactions, while helicase domains of both DCR-1 and DRH-1 contribute to ATP-dependent cleavage. DRH-1 plays the dominant role in ATP hydrolysis, and like mammalian RLRs, has an N-terminal domain that functions in autoinhibition. A cryo-EM structure indicates DRH-1 interacts with DCR-1’s helicase domain, suggesting this interaction relieves autoinhibition. Our study unravels the mechanistic basis of the collaboration between two helicases from typically distinct innate immune defense pathways.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics

    Allosteric coupling asymmetry mediates paradoxical activation of BRAF by type II inhibitors

    Damien M Rasmussen, Manny M Semonis ... Nicholas M Levinson
    Research Article

    The type II class of RAF inhibitors currently in clinical trials paradoxically activate BRAF at subsaturating concentrations. Activation is mediated by induction of BRAF dimers, but why activation rather than inhibition occurs remains unclear. Using biophysical methods tracking BRAF dimerization and conformation, we built an allosteric model of inhibitor-induced dimerization that resolves the allosteric contributions of inhibitor binding to the two active sites of the dimer, revealing key differences between type I and type II RAF inhibitors. For type II inhibitors the allosteric coupling between inhibitor binding and BRAF dimerization is distributed asymmetrically across the two dimer binding sites, with binding to the first site dominating the allostery. This asymmetry results in efficient and selective induction of dimers with one inhibited and one catalytically active subunit. Our allosteric models quantitatively account for paradoxical activation data measured for 11 RAF inhibitors. Unlike type II inhibitors, type I inhibitors lack allosteric asymmetry and do not activate BRAF homodimers. Finally, NMR data reveal that BRAF homodimers are dynamically asymmetric with only one of the subunits locked in the active αC-in state. This provides a structural mechanism for how binding of only a single αC-in inhibitor molecule can induce potent BRAF dimerization and activation.