邻近标记在蛋白质组学中的发展及应用

人体内各种复杂的生命活动离不开蛋白质之间的相互作用。这种相互作用具有瞬时性和结合力弱等特点,并受到多种动态调节,特别是蛋白质翻译后修饰（post-translation modifications, PTM）。传统的亲和质谱检测方法存在蛋白纯化的局限性,在高效检测到动态变化方面存在不足。邻近标记是一种能够给与靶蛋白质瞬时靠近,或者互作（邻近）的蛋白质加上生物素的技术,它与质谱检测技术的联合使用能检测细胞过程中弱的、瞬时的蛋白质相互作用,有效解决上述问题。本文综述了基于生物素的邻近标记方法的发展现状,从依赖于融合序列的生物素标记开始,依次介绍有关生物素连接酶、过氧化物酶及其进化后的2代标记方法等经典生物素标记的方法和原理,比较各个方法间的差异和优缺点;也列举了一些近年来新出现的标记方法,如将生物素连接酶进行拆分、鉴定蛋白质在不同复合物中功能的方法、抗体靶向的标记方法,以及其他来源的生物素连接酶突变体,例如枯草芽孢杆菌（Bacillus subtilis）的C端氨基酸突变的生物素连接酶,能够应用在苍蝇和蠕虫中的生物素连接酶突变体。本文对这些方法进行归纳总结,旨在为初步接触该领域的科研工作者提供参考,同时也希望能够提供一些新的思路,推动蛋白质相互作用组学的发展。     

基于质谱技术的蛋白质互作研究进展

蛋白质作为生命活动的执行者,其功能往往体现在与其他蛋白质的相互作用中,研究蛋白-蛋白相互作用对于人们深入了解和预防传染病、靶向治疗多基因疾病、阐明蛋白质的分子作用机制及各种复杂的生命现象具有重要意义。目前,有多种技术被用来研究蛋白间的相互作用,研究难点在于实时捕获瞬时或弱蛋白质间的相互作用,质谱技术（mass spectrometry, MS）可在某种程度上解决该难点。由于质谱技术可研究简单的蛋白质复合物再到大规模的蛋白质组实验,基于质谱技术研究蛋白质间相互作用被越来越多地应用于科学研究中。综述了蛋白质间相互作用检测方法的研究进展,重点介绍了氢氘交换质谱法和化学交联质谱法研究蛋白质间相互作用的优缺点及其应用,最后对基于质谱技术研究蛋白质间相互作用进行了总结与展望,以期为深入开展相关研究提供借鉴。     

基于TurboID的植物蛋白邻近标记实验方法

邻近标记作为近些年发展起来的一项检测活细胞内蛋白互作关系和亚细胞结构蛋白组的新型技术, 已成功应用于多种动植物体系的研究。该技术通过给诱饵蛋白融合一个具有特定催化连接活性的酶, 在酶的催化作用下将小分子底物(如生物素)共价连接到酶邻近的内源蛋白, 通过富集和分析被标记的蛋白可获得与诱饵互作的蛋白组。经定向进化产生的生物素连接酶TurboID具有无蛋白毒性及催化效率高的优势。利用TurboID介导的邻近标记技术分析感兴趣蛋白的邻近蛋白组, 可研究细胞内瞬时发生或微弱的蛋白互作网络, 进而解析复杂的生物学过程。该文详细描述了在拟南芥(Arabidopsis thaliana)中基于TurboID的邻近标记实验方法及注意事项, 旨在为利用这一新技术研究植物蛋白互作关系提供参考。     

基于抗坏血酸过氧化酶的电镜成像和活细胞邻近标记方法的应用进展

Alice Ting实验室开发的抗坏血酸过氧化物酶(engineered ascorbate peroxidase,APEX),相对于经典的辣根过氧化物酶(horse radish peroxidase,HRP),其酶活性不再受细胞内蛋白质定位的影响,可以在几乎所有的亚细胞区域保持活性,这使其在研究亚细胞尺度以及活细胞水平生物学问题时极具优势.目前,基于APEX的二氨基联苯胺(diaminobenzidine,DAB)染色标记技术已经成功地实现对全细胞、亚细胞器和蛋白质水平的电镜成像.同时,与质谱技术结合,基于APEX的活细胞生物素邻近标记方法也极大地推动了亚细胞器蛋白质组学,以及目标蛋白在特定时空条件下邻近蛋白质组学的研究发展.本文将从以上两个方面阐述APEX技术的基本原理及最新应用进展,并讨论和展望其在实际应用中存在的局限性和挑战.     

P-LISA技术

原位邻近式连接分析(proximity ligation in situ assay,P-LISA)是一种用来研究蛋白质-蛋白质相互作用的新方法。该方法能够对原位、瞬时、微弱的蛋白质-蛋白质相互作用进行定量分析和亚细胞定位,在药物研发和临床诊断中将有着重要的应用价值。     

蛋白质相互作用研究的新技术与新方法

目前,蛋白质相互作用已成为蛋白质组学研究的热点. 新方法的建立及对已有技术的改进标志着蛋白质相互作用研究的不断发展和完善．在技术改进方面,本文介绍了弥补酵母双杂交的蛋白定位受限等缺陷的细菌双杂交系统;根据目标蛋白特性设计和修饰TAP标签来满足复合体研究要求的串联亲和纯化技术,以及在双分子荧光互补基础上发展的动态检测多个蛋白质间瞬时、弱相互作用的多分子荧光互补技术．还综述了近两年建立的新方法：与免疫共沉淀相比,寡沉淀技术直接研究具有活性的蛋白质复合体;减量式定量免疫沉淀方法排除了蛋白质复合体中非特异性相互作用的干扰;原位操作的多表位－配基绘图法避免了样品间差异的影响,以及利用多点吸附和交联加固研究弱蛋白质相互作用的固相蛋白质组学方法.     

iTRAQ联用串联质谱鉴定食管鳞状细胞癌差异表达蛋白质及蛋白质相互作用网络

基于质谱的蛋白质组学结果不仅具有重复性差和覆盖率低等缺陷,并且针对数十至百个差异表达蛋白质分子的分析非常具有挑战性,而蛋白质与蛋白质相互作用网络（protein-protein interaction network, PPIN）分析能够在一定程度上弥补上述不足,使各种组学研究结果具有一致性和可比性。本研究应用同位素标记相对和绝对定量（iTRAQ）联用串联质谱技术鉴定了与食管鳞状细胞癌（esophageal squamous cell carcinoma,ESCC）相关的差异表达蛋白质244个（ESCC中,升高和降低的蛋白质分别为119个和125个）,基因本体论（gene ontology, GO）富集与肿瘤十大特征相关的17个GO条目|以该17个条目包含的117个蛋白质为种子蛋白搜索STRING（http: //www.string-db.org）数据库,构建包含96个存在相互作用的PPIN和21个离散蛋白质。用CytoHubba算法确定34个中心节点蛋白质和36个瓶颈蛋白质,非重复49个中心节点和/或瓶颈蛋白质中含7个目前已报道的癌基因表达蛋白（PPP2R1A、CTNNB1、ENO1、EZR、TPM4、COL1A1、TPM3）,确定与该7个癌蛋白直接相互作用的4个蛋白质（FN1、ITGB1、TAGLN和YWHAZ）可能为参与食管癌变的关键蛋白质,并应用Western印迹实验验证了 FN1、ITGB1、TAGLN和YWHAZ等4个关键蛋白质在ESCC中具有显著的表达差异,表明PPIN分析是确定具有重要生物学意义分子的有效途经之一。     

活细胞内亚细胞结构蛋白质组学研究新技术——几种邻近标记策略的应用及比较

真核细胞内多种无膜及有膜细胞器为各种生物学过程的发生提供场所.被膜细胞器通过它们之间的膜接触位点所进行的信息交流和物质交换是维持生命活动所必需的.绘制活细胞中细胞器或膜接触位点等处的蛋白质组图谱,将有助于解析这些部位的生物学功能及作用机制,并为研究细胞器相互作用提供基础.但由于无膜细胞器或膜接触位点很难分离纯化,传统的生化方法难以系统解析其中的蛋白质组.最近报道的几种基于酶类的蛋白质邻近标记技术,则为系统分析上述空间受限的蛋白质组这一难题提供了有效的解决方案.通过将能催化产生活性自由基(最常见的是生物素及其衍生物的自由基)的酶连接到目标蛋白上,可对其邻近的蛋白质组进行共价标记,从而使后者的分离和鉴定成为可能,并可以运用于活细胞中的动态标记.我们在此综述了几种最新的邻近标记策略的原理及应用,并对它们的优势与局限性进行了比较,以期为细胞器互作的蛋白质组学研究提供参考.     

运用BioID技术筛选S100A7互作蛋白*

目的: 通过邻近生物素鉴定(BioID)技术筛选S100A7互作蛋白并进行验证。方法: 采用邻近生物素BioID和质谱相结合的方法,筛选S100A7互作蛋白。通过免疫荧光和免疫共沉淀方法,对相互作蛋白进行验证。结果: 与对照组比对,通过BioID技术共获得94个可能与 S100A7 相互作用的候选蛋白质。选取 Annexin A2(AnxA2)蛋白在 HEK293 细胞中进行了验证,结果表明S100A7 与 AnxA2 存在直接的相互作用,且二者共定位于细胞质和细胞膜。结论: 可将BioID技术作为互作蛋白筛选的一项新技术,通过该技术发现S100A7和AnxA2存在相互作用。     

稳定同位素化学标记结合质谱技术在定量蛋白质组学中的应用

传统的蛋白质组定量策略主要是通过双向凝胶电泳来进行相对定量。由于该方法不能对相对分子质量极高或极低、等电点极酸或极碱和含量低的蛋白质以及膜蛋白质等进行有效分离和检测,所以已不能适应目前蛋白质组研究深入发展的需要。近年来,定量蛋白质组学的发展主要是以同位素亲和标签试剂为代表的、以质谱检测为核心的稳定同位素化学标记方法。稳定同位素化学标记结合质谱技术,使定量蛋白质组的分析更趋简单、准确和快速,具有良好的发展前景。本文对稳定同位素化学标记结合质谱技术在定量蛋白质组学中的研究进展进行了评述。     

The cysteine‐free single mutant C32S of APEX2 is a highly expressed and active fusion tag for proximity labeling applications

APEX2, an engineered ascorbate peroxidase for high activity, is a powerful tool for proximity labeling applications. Owing to its lack of disulfides and the calcium‐independent activity, APEX2 can be applied intracellularly for targeted electron microscopy imaging or interactome mapping when fusing to a protein of interest. However, APEX2 fusion is often deleterious to the protein expression, which seriously hampers its wide utility. This problem is especially compelling when APEX2 is fused to structurally delicate proteins, such as multi‐pass membrane proteins. In this study, we found that a cysteine‐free single mutant C32S of APEX2 dramatically improved the expression of fusion proteins in mammalian cells without compromising the enzyme activity. We fused APEX2 and APEX2^C32S to four multi‐transmembrane solute carriers (SLCs), SLC1A5, SLC6A5, SLC6A14, and SLC7A1, and compared their expressions in stable HEK293T cell lines. Except the SLC6A5 fusions expressing at decent levels for both APEX2 (70%) and APEX2^C32S (73%), other three SLC proteins showed significantly better expression when fusing to APEX2^C32S (69 ± 13%) than APEX2 (29 ± 15%). Immunofluorescence and western blot experiments showed correct plasma membrane localization and strong proximity labeling efficiency in all four SLC‐APEX2^C32S cells. Enzyme kinetic experiments revealed that APEX2 and APEX2^C32S have comparable activities in terms of oxidizing guaiacol. Overall, we believe APEX2^C32S is a superior fusion tag to APEX2 for proximity labeling applications, especially when mismatched disulfide bonding or poor expression is a concern.     

Defining Proximity Proteome of Histone Modifications by Antibody-mediated Protein A-APEX2 Labeling

Proximity labeling catalyzed by promiscuous enzymes, such as APEX2, has emerged as a powerful approach to characterize multiprotein complexes and protein–protein interactions. However, current methods depend on the expression of exogenous fusion proteins and cannot be applied to identify proteins surrounding post-translationally modified proteins. To address this limitation, we developed a new method to label proximal proteins of interest by antibody-mediated protein A-ascorbate peroxidase 2 (pA-APEX2) labeling (AMAPEX). In this method, a modified protein is bound in situ by a specific antibody, which then tethers a pA-APEX2 fusion protein. Activation of APEX2 labels the nearby proteins with biotin; the biotinylated proteins are then purified using streptavidin beads and identified by mass spectrometry. We demonstrated the utility of this approach by profiling the proximal proteins of histone modifications including H3K27me3, H3K9me3, H3K4me3, H4K5ac, and H4K12ac, as well as verifying the co-localization of these identified proteins with bait proteins by published ChIP-seq analysis and nucleosome immunoprecipitation. Overall, AMAPEX is an efficient method to identify proteins that are proximal to modified histones.     

Uncovering the In Vivo Proxisome Using Proximity‐Tagging Methods

The development of new approaches is critical to gain further insights into biological processes that cannot be obtained by existing methods or technologies. The detection of protein–protein interaction is often challenging, especially for weak and transient interactions or for membrane proteins. Over the last decade, several proximity‐tagging methodologies have been developed to explore protein interactions in living cells. Among those, the most efficient are based on protein partner modification, such as biotinylation or pupylation. Such technologies are based on engineered variants of enzymes like peroxidases or ligases that release reactive molecules, in the presence of specific substrates, that bind surrounding proteins. Fusing a protein of interest (POI) to these enzymes allows the definition of an unbiased “proxisome,” that is, all of the proteins in interaction or in close vicinity of the POI. Here, the different proximity‐labeling tools available are described and comprehensive comparison to discuss advantages and limitations is provided.     

Proximity Labeling Facilitates Defining the Proteome Neighborhood of Photosystem II Oxygen Evolution Complex in a Model Cyanobacterium

Ascorbate peroxidase (APEX)-based proximity labeling coupled with mass spectrometry has a great potential for spatiotemporal identification of proteins proximal to a protein complex of interest. Using this approach is feasible to define the proteome neighborhood of important protein complexes in a popular photosynthetic model cyanobacterium Synechocystis sp. PCC6803 (hereafter named as Synechocystis). To this end, we developed a robust workflow for APEX2-based proximity labeling in Synechocystis and used the workflow to identify proteins proximal to the photosystem II (PS II) oxygen evolution complex (OEC) through fusion APEX2 with a luminal OEC subunit, PsbO. In total, 38 integral membrane proteins (IMPs) and 93 luminal proteins were identified as proximal to the OEC. A significant portion of these proteins are involved in PS II assembly, maturation, and repair, while the majority of the rest were not previously implicated with PS II. The IMPs include subunits of PS II and cytochrome b₆/f, but not of photosystem I (except for PsaL) and ATP synthases, suggesting that the latter two complexes are spatially separated from the OEC with a distance longer than the APEX2 labeling radius. Besides, the topologies of six IMPs were successfully predicted because their lumen-facing regions exclusively contain potential APEX2 labeling sites. The luminal proteins include 66 proteins with a predicted signal peptide and 57 proteins localized also in periplasm, providing important targets to study the regulation and selectivity of protein translocation. Together, we not only developed a robust workflow for the application of APEX2-based proximity labeling in Synechocystis and showcased the feasibility to define the neighborhood proteome of an important protein complex with a short radius but also discovered a set of the proteins that potentially interact with and regulate PS II structure and function.     

Deciphering Spatial Protein–Protein Interactions in Brain Using Proximity Labeling

Cellular biomolecular complexes including protein–protein, protein–RNA, and protein–DNA interactions regulate and execute most biological functions. In particular in brain, protein–protein interactions (PPIs) mediate or regulate virtually all nerve cell functions, such as neurotransmission, cell–cell communication, neurogenesis, synaptogenesis, and synaptic plasticity. Perturbations of PPIs in specific subsets of neurons and glia are thought to underly a majority of neurobiological disorders. Therefore, understanding biological functions at a cellular level requires a reasonably complete catalog of all physical interactions between proteins. An enzyme-catalyzed method to biotinylate proximal interacting proteins within 10 to 300 nm of each other is being increasingly used to characterize the spatiotemporal features of complex PPIs in brain. Thus, proximity labeling has emerged recently as a powerful tool to identify proteomes in distinct cell types in brain as well as proteomes and PPIs in structures difficult to isolate, such as the synaptic cleft, axonal projections, or astrocyte–neuron junctions. In this review, we summarize recent advances in proximity labeling methods and their application to neurobiology.     

Protein Neighbors and Proximity Proteomics

Within cells, proteins can co-assemble into functionally integrated and spatially restricted multicomponent complexes. Often, the affinities between individual proteins are relatively weak, and proteins within such clusters may interact only indirectly with many of their other protein neighbors. This makes proteomic characterization difficult using methods such as immunoprecipitation or cross-linking. Recently, several groups have described the use of enzyme-catalyzed proximity labeling reagents that covalently tag the neighbors of a targeted protein with a small molecule such as fluorescein or biotin. The modified proteins can then be isolated by standard pulldown methods and identified by mass spectrometry. Here we will describe the techniques as well as their similarities and differences. We discuss their applications both to study protein assemblies and to provide a new way for characterizing organelle proteomes. We stress the importance of proteomic quantitation and independent target validation in such experiments. Furthermore, we suggest that there are biophysical and cell-biological principles that dictate the appropriateness of enzyme-catalyzed proximity labeling methods to address particular biological questions of interest.