Electroporated recombinant proteins as tools for in vivo functional complementation, imaging, and chemical biology

  1. Amal Alex
  2. Valentina Piano
  3. Soumitra Polley
  4. Marchel Stuiver
  5. Stephanie Voss
  6. Giuseppe Ciossani
  7. Katharina Overlack
  8. Beate Voss
  9. Sabine Wohlgemuth
  10. Arsen Petrovic
  11. Yaowen Wu
  12. Philipp Selenko
  13. Andrea Musacchio
  14. Stefano Maffini  Is a corresponding author
  1. Max Planck Institute of Molecular Physiology, Germany
  2. Leibniz Institute of Molecular Pharmacology, Germany
  3. Max Planck Society, Germany

Abstract

Delivery of native or chemically modified recombinant proteins into mammalian cells shows promise for functional investigations and various technological applications, but concerns that sub-cellular localization and functional integrity of delivered proteins may be affected remain high. Here, we surveyed batch electroporation as a delivery tool for single polypeptides and multi-subunit protein assemblies of the kinetochore, a spatially confined and well-studied subcellular structure. After electroporation into human cells, recombinant fluorescent Ndc80 and Mis12 multi-subunit complexes exhibited native localization, physically interacted with endogenous binding partners, and functionally complemented depleted endogenous counterparts to promote mitotic checkpoint signaling and chromosome segregation. Farnesylation is required for kinetochore localization of the Dynein adaptor Spindly. In cells with chronically inhibited farnesyl transferase activity, in vitro farnesylation and electroporation of recombinant Spindly faithfully resulted in robust kinetochore localization. Our data show that electroporation is well-suited to deliver synthetic and chemically modified versions of functional proteins, and, therefore, constitutes a promising tool for applications in chemical and syntetic biology.

Data availability

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

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Amal Alex

    Department of Mechanistic Cell Biology, Max Planck Institute of Molecular Physiology, Dortmund, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Valentina Piano

    Department of Mechanistic Cell Biology, Max Planck Institute of Molecular Physiology, Dortmund, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Soumitra Polley

    Department of Mechanistic Cell Biology, Max Planck Institute of Molecular Physiology, Dortmund, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Marchel Stuiver

    In-Cell NMR Laboratory, Leibniz Institute of Molecular Pharmacology, Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3437-4468
  5. Stephanie Voss

    Chemical Genomics Centre, Max Planck Society, Dortmund, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Giuseppe Ciossani

    Department of Mechanistic Cell Biology, Max Planck Institute of Molecular Physiology, Dortmund, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Katharina Overlack

    Department of Mechanistic Cell Biology, Max Planck Institute of Molecular Physiology, Dortmund, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Beate Voss

    Department of Mechanistic Cell Biology, Max Planck Institute of Molecular Physiology, Dortmund, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Sabine Wohlgemuth

    Department of Mechanistic Cell Biology, Max Planck Institute of Molecular Physiology, Dortmund, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Arsen Petrovic

    Department of Mechanistic Cell Biology, Max Planck Institute of Molecular Physiology, Dortmund, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Yaowen Wu

    Chemical Genomics Centre, Max Planck Society, Dortmund, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2573-8736
  12. Philipp Selenko

    In-Cell NMR Laboratory, Leibniz Institute of Molecular Pharmacology, Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Andrea Musacchio

    Department of Mechanistic Cell Biology, Max Planck Institute of Molecular Physiology, Dortmund, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2362-8784
  14. Stefano Maffini

    Department of Mechanistic Cell Biology, Max Planck Institute of Molecular Physiology, Dortmund, Germany
    For correspondence
    stefano.maffini@mpi-dortmund.mpg.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6380-6560

Funding

Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (Open-access funding)

  • Beate Voss
  • Sabine Wohlgemuth
  • Stefano Maffini

European Research Council (669686)

  • Amal Alex
  • Valentina Piano
  • Soumitra Polley
  • Giuseppe Ciossani
  • Katharina Overlack
  • Beate Voss
  • Sabine Wohlgemuth
  • Arsen Petrovic
  • Andrea Musacchio
  • Stefano Maffini

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Silke Hauf, Virginia Tech, United States

Version history

  1. Received: May 8, 2019
  2. Accepted: July 12, 2019
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: July 16, 2019 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: July 24, 2019 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record updated: October 10, 2019 (version 3)

Copyright

© 2019, Alex 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

  • 8,022
    views
  • 961
    downloads
  • 35
    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. Amal Alex
  2. Valentina Piano
  3. Soumitra Polley
  4. Marchel Stuiver
  5. Stephanie Voss
  6. Giuseppe Ciossani
  7. Katharina Overlack
  8. Beate Voss
  9. Sabine Wohlgemuth
  10. Arsen Petrovic
  11. Yaowen Wu
  12. Philipp Selenko
  13. Andrea Musacchio
  14. Stefano Maffini
(2019)
Electroporated recombinant proteins as tools for in vivo functional complementation, imaging, and chemical biology
eLife 8:e48287.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.48287

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.48287

Further reading

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