Antibody fragments and in particular nanobodies have become indispensable tools for studying structural and functional aspects of membrane proteins [1]. The generation of these binders involves the stringent phenotypic selection of individual members from libraries holding many variants. Central to this procedure is the selective immobilization of the target protein to enrich those members of the library that specifically interact with it. We recently developed an in vitro selection platform based on three large synthetic nanobody (sybody) libraries that allows the generation of binders under entirely defined and mild conditions compatible with membrane proteins [2]. A major hallmark of our platform is its optimization toward the routine selection of binders against membrane proteins, which entails successive alterations in display technology, immobilization surface, and the application of solution panning. The latter allows the free target protein to interact with the displayed binders in solution, preceding a rapid (within minutes) immobilization on beads and subsequent pull-down of the target protein-binder complexes. Hereby delicate membrane proteins are protected from denaturation resulting from prolonged exposure to surfaces at high protein densities. Hence, the selective immobilization of the target protein is a key step in selection procedures.
Though seemingly trivial, the choice of the immobilization strategy is of great relevance as this may dramatically skew the selection and directly affect the quality and quantity of unique binders identified. Given the aim of obtaining multiple strong binders against different, three-dimensional epitopes, an ideal protein immobilization strategy should: (1) preserve the native three-dimensional structure; (2) allow a non-oriented, ideally random orientation of the target protein with high accessibility of potential epitopes; (3) capture the target protein selectively, rapidly (within a few minutes), and stably (over prolonged periods of several hours) in a variety of buffer conditions and a broad temperature range; and (4) allow near-complete capture of the target protein to avoid loss of binder diversity during solution panning. In addition, the strategy should not interfere with biogenesis and function of the target protein and should be facile to implement. Among the multitude of protein immobilization strategies [3], the biotin/avidin-based interaction fits these criteria best and is therefore widely used [4].
The interaction between the vitamin biotin and avidin or its variants streptavidin and neutravidin is one of the strongest non-covalent interactions known (Kd of ~10−14 M) and has a half-life of several days [5,6]. The interaction remains stable over a broad range of temperatures [7], pH values, and denaturants [8,9]. Avidin, streptavidin, and neutravidin are homotetrameric proteins with four biotin-binding sites. Streptavidin, derived from bacterial origin, and neutravidin, a deglycosylated form of avidin, are generally preferred over avidin, as the absence of glycosylation and their lower pI values reduce nonspecific binding [5,8]. Importantly, naturally biotinylated proteins are rare: in E. coli or mammalian cells the number of proteins holding a covalently attached biotin amount to one and four, respectively [10,11].
Biotinylation of a target membrane protein can be achieved chemically or enzymatically. Chemical biotinylation is most conveniently done by targeting the primary amine of a surface-exposed lysine residue using biotin derivatized with an N-hydroxysuccinimide (NHS) group. This reaction can be performed under comparably mild, biocompatible conditions. Due to the general abundance of lysines on protein surfaces, amine chemistry allows the introduction of biotin at different positions in the protein. Consequently, the target protein can be immobilized in several orientations allowing exposure of different potential epitopes, provided that only one biotin group is introduced. A higher degree of labeling is disadvantageous as this may restrict flexibility and surface presentation and may even directly interfere with binding of the antibody by masking the epitope. As an alternative to the comparably abundant lysines, cysteines may be targeted using, e.g., biotin derivatized with a maleimide group. The main advantage of chemical biotinylation is the random target orientation during immobilization. This comes at the price of two disadvantages: chemical biotinylation typically results in a distribution of target proteins carrying none, one, or multiple biotin moieties; and biotinylation of lysines may modify, and thereby mask, potential epitopes.
The E. coli biotin protein ligase BirA requires biotin and ATP to biotinylate its only target, the biotin carboxyl carrier protein (BCCP) subunit of acetyl-CoA carboxylase, at a specific lysine in an evolutionary conserved amino acid sequence. Engineering of this sequence led to the identification of the Avi-tag, a 15 amino acid stretch, GLNDIFEAQ-K-IEWHE, that is biotinylated with high efficiency [12,13]. Avi-tags fused to the N- or C-terminus [14] or even integrated in exposed loops [15] are efficiently biotinylated by BirA. Enzymatic biotinylation of membrane proteins can be done in vivo using native or co-expressed BirA or in vitro using the purified BirA protein. The main advantage of enzymatic biotinylation is its high efficiency and specificity, resulting in nearly complete and exclusive biotinylation of the lysin residue in the Avi-tag. Hence, the highly desirable biotin to target protein ratio of 1:1 can easily be achieved. However, enzymatic biotinylation has two major disadvantages: all target proteins are immobilized in the same orientation, which may render some epitopes inaccessible; this problem is exacerbated for homo-oligomeric target proteins, where several biotin moieties are introduced via the Avi-tag; and the attachment of the Avi-tag sequence to the open reading frame of the target protein requires molecular cloning and potentially construct optimization.
We thank Martin Siegrist, Jean-Marie Vonach, and Marcello Foggetta for technical help during expression and fermentation as well as Roche Diagnostics in Munich, Penzberg for reagent generation. We acknowledge financial support from the German Research Foundation via the Cluster of Excellence Frankfurt (Macromolecular Complexes, to E.R.G.), and the SFB807 (Transport and Communication across Biological Membranes, to E.R.G.). Work in the Seeger group was supported by a SNSF Professorship of the Swiss National Science Foundation (PP00P3_144823, to M.A.S.), a SNSF NRP 72 grant (407240_177368, to M.A.S.), a SNSF BRIDGE proof-of-concept grant (20B1-1_175192, to P.E.), and a BioEntrepreneur-Fellowship of the University of Zurich (BIOEF-17-002, to I.Z.). R.J.P.D, E.R.G., and M.A.S. acknowledge a grant of the Commission for Technology and Innovation CTI (16003.1 PFLS-LS).
Steyaert J, Kobilka BK (2011) Nanobody stabilization of G protein-coupled receptor conformational states. Curr Opin Struct Biol 21:567–572
Zimmermann I, Egloff P, Hutter CA et al (2018) Synthetic single domain antibodies for the conformational trapping of membrane proteins. elife 7
Rusmini F, Zhong Z, Feijen J (2007) Protein immobilization strategies for protein biochips. Biomacromolecules 8:1775–1789
Fairhead M, Howarth M (2015) Site-specific biotinylation of purified proteins using BirA. Methods Mol Biol 1266:171–184
Green NM (1990) Avidin and streptavidin. Methods Enzymol 184:51–67
Piran U, Riordan WJ (1990) Dissociation rate constant of the biotin-streptavidin complex. J Immunol Methods 133:141–143
Marttila AT, Laitinen OH, Airenne KJ et al (2000) Recombinant NeutraLite avidin: a non-glycosylated, acidic mutant of chicken avidin that exhibits high affinity for biotin and low non-specific binding properties. FEBS Lett 467:31–36
Green NM (1975) Avidin. Adv Protein Chem 29:85–133
Sano T, Cantor CR (1990) Cooperative biotin binding by streptavidin. Electrophoretic behavior and subunit association of streptavidin in the presence of 6 M urea. J Biol Chem 265:3369–3373
Fall RR (1979) Analysis of microbial biotin proteins. Methods Enzymol 62:390–398Fall RR (1979) Analysis of microbial biotin proteins. Methods Enzymol 62:390–398
Robinson BH, Oei J, Saunders M et al (1983) [3H]biotin-labeled proteins in cultured human skin fibroblasts from patients with pyruvate carboxylase deficiency. J Biol Chem 258:6660–6664
Beckett D, Kovaleva E, Schatz PJ (1999) A minimal peptide substrate in biotin holoenzyme synthetase-catalyzed biotinylation. Protein Sci 8:921–929
Schatz PJ (1993) Use of peptide libraries to map the substrate specificity of a peptide-modifying enzyme: a 13 residue consensus peptide specifies biotinylation in Escherichia coli. Biotechnology (N Y) 11:1138–1143
Cull MG, Schatz PJ (2000) Biotinylation of proteins in vivo and in vitro using small peptide tags. Methods Enzymol 326:430–440
Brown MT, Steel BC, Silvestrin C et al (2012) Flagellar hook flexibility is essential for bundle formation in swimming Escherichia coli cells. J Bacteriol 194:3495–3501
Guzman LM, Belin D, Carson MJ et al (1995) Tight regulation, modulation, and high-level expression by vectors containing the arabinose PBADpromoter. J Bacteriol 177:4121–4130
Hartley JL, Temple GF, Brasch MA (2000) DNA cloning using in vitro site-specific recombination. Genome Res 10:1788–1795
Casadaban MJ, Cohen SN (1980) Analysis of gene control signals by DNA fusion and cloning in Escherichia coli. J Mol Biol 138:179–207
Howarth M, Takao K, Hayashi Y et al (2005) Targeting quantum dots to surface proteins in living cells with biotin ligase. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102:7583–7588
Ullah R, Shah MA, Tufail S et al (2016) Activity of the Human Rhinovirus 3C Protease Studied in Various Buffers, Additives and Detergents Solutions for Recombinant Protein Production. PLoS One 11:e0153436
Don RH, Cox PT, Wainwright BJ et al (1991) ‘Touchdown’ PCR to circumvent spurious priming during gene amplification. Nucleic Acids Res 19:4008
Marino J, Holzhuter K, Kuhn B et al (2017) Efficient Screening and Optimization of Membrane Protein Production in Escherichia coli. Methods Enzymol 594:139–164
Schmidt TG, Skerra A (1994) One-step affinity purification of bacterially produced proteins by means of the “Strep tag” and immobilized recombinant core streptavidin. J Chromatogr A 676:337–345
Keefe AD, Wilson DS, Seelig B et al (2001) One-step purification of recombinant proteins using a nanomolar-affinity streptavidin-binding peptide, the SBP-Tag. Protein Expr Purif 23:440–446
Kawate T, Gouaux E (2006) Fluorescence-detection size-exclusion chromatography for precrystallization screening of integral membrane proteins. Structure 14:673–681
Erdmann D, Zimmermann C, Fontana P et al (2010) Simultaneous protein expression and modification: an efficient approach for production of unphosphorylated and biotinylated receptor tyrosine kinases by triple infection in the baculovirus expression system. J Biomol Tech 21:9–17
Thie H, Binius S, Schirrmann T et al (2009) Multimerization domains for antibody phage display and antibody production. New Biotechnol 26:314–321
Viens A, Mechold U, Lehrmann H et al (2004) Use of protein biotinylation in vivo for chromatin immunoprecipitation. Anal Biochem 325:68–76