A genome-wide resource for the analysis of protein localisation in Drosophila

  1. Mihail Sarov
  2. Christiane Barz
  3. Helena Jambor
  4. Marco Y Hein
  5. Christopher Schmied
  6. Dana Suchold
  7. Bettina Stender
  8. Stephan Janosch
  9. Vinay Vikas KJ
  10. RT Krishnan
  11. Aishwarya Krishnamoorthy
  12. Irene RS Ferreira
  13. Radoslaw K Ejsmont
  14. Katja Finkl
  15. Susanne Hasse
  16. Philipp Kämpfer
  17. Nicole Plewka
  18. Elisabeth Vinis
  19. Siegfried Schloissnig
  20. Elisabeth Knust
  21. Volker Hartenstein
  22. Matthias Mann
  23. Mani Ramaswami
  24. K VijayRaghavan
  25. Pavel Tomancak
  26. Frank Schnorrer  Is a corresponding author
  1. Max Planck Institute of Cell Biology and Genetics, Germany
  2. Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Germany
  3. Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, India
  4. Centre for Cellular and Molecular Platforms, National Centre for Biological Sciences, India
  5. Heidelberg Institute of Theoretical Studies, Germany
  6. University of California, Los Angeles, United States
  7. Trinity College Dublin, Ireland

Abstract

The Drosophila genome contains >13,000 protein coding genes, the majority of which remain poorly investigated. Important reasons include the lack of antibodies or reporter constructs to visualise these proteins. Here we present a genome-wide fosmid library of 10,000 GFP-tagged clones, comprising tagged genes and most of their regulatory information. For 880 tagged proteins we created transgenic lines and for a total of 207 lines we assessed protein expression and localisation in ovaries, embryos, pupae or adults by stainings and live imaging approaches. Importantly, we visualised many proteins at endogenous expression levels and found a large fraction of them localising to subcellular compartments. By applying genetic complementation tests we estimate that about two-thirds of the tagged proteins are functional. Moreover, these tagged proteins enable interaction proteomics from developing pupae and adult flies. Taken together, this resource will boost systematic analysis of protein expression and localisation in various cellular and developmental contexts.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Mihail Sarov

    Max Planck Institute of Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Christiane Barz

    Muscle Dynamics Group, Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Martinsried, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Helena Jambor

    Max Planck Institute of Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Marco Y Hein

    Department of Proteomics and Signal Transduction, Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Martinsried, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Christopher Schmied

    Max Planck Institute of Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Dana Suchold

    Max Planck Institute of Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Bettina Stender

    Muscle Dynamics Group, Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Martinsried, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Stephan Janosch

    Max Planck Institute of Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  9. Vinay Vikas KJ

    Centre for Cellular and Molecular Platforms, National Centre for Biological Sciences, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bangalore, India
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  10. RT Krishnan

    Centre for Cellular and Molecular Platforms, National Centre for Biological Sciences, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bangalore, India
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  11. Aishwarya Krishnamoorthy

    Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Centre for Cellular and Molecular Platforms, National Centre for Biological Sciences, Bangalore, India
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  12. Irene RS Ferreira

    Muscle Dynamics Group, Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Martinsried, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  13. Radoslaw K Ejsmont

    Max Planck Institute of Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  14. Katja Finkl

    Muscle Dynamics Group, Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Martinsried, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  15. Susanne Hasse

    Max Planck Institute of Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  16. Philipp Kämpfer

    Heidelberg Institute of Theoretical Studies, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  17. Nicole Plewka

    Muscle Dynamics Group, Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Martinsried, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  18. Elisabeth Vinis

    Max Planck Institute of Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  19. Siegfried Schloissnig

    Heidelberg Institute of Theoretical Studies, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  20. Elisabeth Knust

    Max Planck Institute of Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  21. Volker Hartenstein

    Department of Molecular Cell and Developmental Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  22. Matthias Mann

    Department of Proteomics and Signal Transduction, Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Martinsried, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  23. Mani Ramaswami

    Institute of Neuroscience, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
    Competing interests
    Mani Ramaswami, Reviewing editor, eLife.
  24. K VijayRaghavan

    Centre for Cellular and Molecular Platforms, National Centre for Biological Sciences, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bangalore, India
    Competing interests
    K VijayRaghavan, Senior editor, eLife.
  25. Pavel Tomancak

    Max Planck Institute of Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  26. Frank Schnorrer

    Muscle Dynamics Group, Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Martinsried, Germany
    For correspondence
    schnorrer@biochem.mpg.de
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Hugo J Bellen, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Baylor College of Medicine, United States

Version history

  1. Received: October 3, 2015
  2. Accepted: February 19, 2016
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: February 20, 2016 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: March 14, 2016 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2016, Sarov 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

  • 21,776
    views
  • 3,943
    downloads
  • 311
    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. Mihail Sarov
  2. Christiane Barz
  3. Helena Jambor
  4. Marco Y Hein
  5. Christopher Schmied
  6. Dana Suchold
  7. Bettina Stender
  8. Stephan Janosch
  9. Vinay Vikas KJ
  10. RT Krishnan
  11. Aishwarya Krishnamoorthy
  12. Irene RS Ferreira
  13. Radoslaw K Ejsmont
  14. Katja Finkl
  15. Susanne Hasse
  16. Philipp Kämpfer
  17. Nicole Plewka
  18. Elisabeth Vinis
  19. Siegfried Schloissnig
  20. Elisabeth Knust
  21. Volker Hartenstein
  22. Matthias Mann
  23. Mani Ramaswami
  24. K VijayRaghavan
  25. Pavel Tomancak
  26. Frank Schnorrer
(2016)
A genome-wide resource for the analysis of protein localisation in Drosophila
eLife 5:e12068.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.12068

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.12068

Further reading

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Samuel C Griffiths, Jia Tan ... Hsin-Yi Henry Ho
    Research Article

    The receptor tyrosine kinase ROR2 mediates noncanonical WNT5A signaling to orchestrate tissue morphogenetic processes, and dysfunction of the pathway causes Robinow syndrome, Brachydactyly B and metastatic diseases. The domain(s) and mechanisms required for ROR2 function, however, remain unclear. We solved the crystal structure of the extracellular cysteine-rich (CRD) and Kringle (Kr) domains of ROR2 and found that, unlike other CRDs, the ROR2 CRD lacks the signature hydrophobic pocket that binds lipids/lipid-modified proteins, such as WNTs, suggesting a novel mechanism of ligand reception. Functionally, we showed that the ROR2 CRD, but not other domains, is required and minimally sufficient to promote WNT5A signaling, and Robinow mutations in the CRD and the adjacent Kr impair ROR2 secretion and function. Moreover, using function-activating and -perturbing antibodies against the Frizzled (FZ) family of WNT receptors, we demonstrate the involvement of FZ in WNT5A-ROR signaling. Thus, ROR2 acts via its CRD to potentiate the function of a receptor super-complex that includes FZ to transduce WNT5A signals.

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Immunology and Inflammation
    Tobias Weinberger, Messerer Denise ... Christian Schulz
    Research Article

    Cardiac macrophages are heterogenous in phenotype and functions, which has been associated with differences in their ontogeny. Despite extensive research, our understanding of the precise role of different subsets of macrophages in ischemia/reperfusion (I/R) injury remains incomplete. We here investigated macrophage lineages and ablated tissue macrophages in homeostasis and after I/R injury in a CSF1R-dependent manner. Genomic deletion of a fms-intronic regulatory element (FIRE) in the Csf1r locus resulted in specific absence of resident homeostatic and antigen-presenting macrophages, without affecting the recruitment of monocyte-derived macrophages to the infarcted heart. Specific absence of homeostatic, monocyte-independent macrophages altered the immune cell crosstalk in response to injury and induced proinflammatory neutrophil polarization, resulting in impaired cardiac remodeling without influencing infarct size. In contrast, continuous CSF1R inhibition led to depletion of both resident and recruited macrophage populations. This augmented adverse remodeling after I/R and led to an increased infarct size and deterioration of cardiac function. In summary, resident macrophages orchestrate inflammatory responses improving cardiac remodeling, while recruited macrophages determine infarct size after I/R injury. These findings attribute distinct beneficial effects to different macrophage populations in the context of myocardial infarction.