G Protein-Coupled Receptors (GPCRs) are a very large, diverse family of transmembrane receptors in eukaryotes. These receptors detect molecules outside the cell and activate internal signaling pathways by coupling with G proteins. Once a GPCR is activated, β-arrestins translocate to the cell membrane and bind to the occupied receptor, uncoupling it from G proteins and promoting its internalization.
Reporter tags are useful for studying the dynamics of GPCRs and associated proteins, but large tags can disrupt the receptors’ native functioning, and often overexpression of the tagged protein is required to obtain sufficient signal. Here is one example of how researchers have used the small, bright NanoLuc® luciferase to overcome these common challenges and answer questions about GPCRs. Continue reading “Lighting Up GPCR Research with Bioluminescent Tagging”
It’s a question I’m asked probably once a week. “What wavelength do I select on my luminometer when performing a luciferase assay?” The question is a good and not altogether unexpected one, especially for those new to bioluminescent assays. The answer is that in most cases, you don’t and in fact shouldn’t select a wavelength (the exception to this rule is if you’re measuring light emitted in two simultaneous luciferase reactions). To understand why requires a bit of an explanation of absorbance, fluorescence, and luminescence assays, and the differences among them.
Absorbance, fluorescence, and luminescence assays are all means to quantify something of interest, be that a genetic reporter, cell viability, cytotoxicity, apoptosis, or other markers. In principle, they are all similar. For example, a genetic reporter assay is an indicator of gene expression. The promoter of a gene of interest can be cloned upstream of a reporter such as β-galactosidase, GFP, or firefly luciferase. The amount of each of these reporters that is transcribed into mRNA and translated into protein by the cell is indicative of the endogenous expression of the gene of interest. Continue reading “Why You Don’t Need to Select a Wavelength for a Luciferase Assay”
No protein is an island. Within a cell, protein-protein interactions (PPIs) are involved in highly regulated and specific pathways that control gene expression and cell signaling. The disruption of PPIs can lead to a variety of disease states, including cancer.
Two general approaches are commonly used to study PPIs. Real-time assays measure PPI activity in live cells using fluorescent or luminescent tags. A second approach includes methods that measure a specific PPI “after the fact”; popular examples include a reporter system, such as the classic yeast two-hybrid system.
Malaria affects nearly half of the world’s population, with almost 80% of cases in sub-Saharan Africa and India. While there have been many strides in education and prevention campaigns over the last 30 years, there were over 200 million cases documented in 2017 with over 400,000 deaths, and the majority were young children. Despite being preventable and treatable, malaria continues to thrive in areas that are high risk for transmission. Recently, clinicians started rolling out use of the first approved vaccine, though clinical trials showed it is only about 30% effective. Meanwhile, researchers must continue to focus on innovative efforts to improve diagnostics, treatment and prevention to reduce the burden in these areas.
I’ve got a set of experiments planned that, if all goes well, will provide me with the answer I have been seeking for months. Plus, my supervisor is eagerly awaiting the results because she needs the data for a grant application, so I don’t want to mess it up. However, I am faced with a choice for my firefly and Renilla luciferase reporter assays: Do I use the Dual-Luciferase® Reporter Assay System or Dual-Glo® Luciferase Assay System? What’s the difference? How do I decide which to use? I’m so confused! Help!
This is a guest post from Katarzyna Dubiel, marketing intern in Cellular Analysis and Proteomics.
“The objective of my experiment was to test the NanoBRET™ assay as if I was a customer, independent of the research and development team which develops the assay.”
Designing and implementing a new assay can be a challenging process with many unexpected troubleshooting steps. We wanted to know what major snags a scientist new to the NanoBRET™ Assay would encounter. To determine this, we reached out to Laurence Delauriere, a senior applications scientist at Promega-France, who had never previously performed a NanoBRET™ assay. Laurence went step-by-step through the experimental process looking at the CRAF-BRAF interaction in multiple cell lines. In an interview, Laurence provided us with some tips and insights from her work implementing the new NanoBRET™ assay.
In a few words, can you explain NanoBRET?
“NanoBRET is used to monitor protein: protein interactions in live cells. It is a bioluminescence resonance energy transfer (BRET) based assay that uses NanoLuc® luciferase as the BRET energy donor and HaloTag® protein labeled with the HaloTag® NanoBRET™ 618 fluorescent ligand as the energy acceptor to measure the interaction of two binding partners.” Continue reading “Executing a NanoBRET™ Experiment: From Start to Data”
Researchers having been sharing plasmids ever since there were plasmids to share. Back when I was in the lab, if you read a paper and saw an interesting construct you wished to use, you could either make it yourself or you could “clone by phone”. One of my professors was excellent at phone cloning with labs around the world and had specific strategies and tactics for getting the plasmids he wanted. Addgene makes this so much easier to share your constructs from lab to lab. Promega supports the Addgene mission statement: Accelerate research and discovery by improving access to useful research materials and information. Many of our technology platforms like HaloTag® Fusion Protein, codon-optimized Firefly luciferase genes (e.g., luc2), and NanoLuc® Luciferase are present in the repository. We encourage people to go to Addgene to get new innovative tools. Afterall, isn’t science better when we share?
I’d like to focus on some tools in the Addgene collection based on NanoLuc® Luciferase (NLuc). The creation of NanoLuc® Luciferase and the optimal substrate furimazine is a good story (1). From a deep sea shrimp to a compact powerhouse of bioluminescence, NLuc is 100-fold brighter than our more common luciferases like firefly (FLuc) and Renilla (RLuc) luciferase. This is important not so much for how bright you can make a reaction but for how sensitive you can make a reaction. NLuc requires 100-fold less protein to produce the same amount of light from a Fluc or RLuc reaction. NLuc lets you work at physiological concentrations. NLuc is bright enough to detect endogenous tagged genes generated through the CRISPR/Cas9 knock-in. NLuc is very inviting for endogenous tagging as it is only 19kDa. An example is the CRISPaint-NLuc construct (Plasmid #67178) for use in the system outlined in Schmid-Burgk, J.L. et al (2).
Fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET) probes or sensors are commonly used to measure cellular events. The probes typically have a matched pair of fluorescent proteins joined by a ligand-binding or responsive protein domain. Changes in the responsive domain are reflected in conformational changes that either bring the two fluorescent proteins together or drive them apart. The sensors are measured by hitting the most blue-shifted fluorescent protein with its excitation wavelength (donor). The resulting emission is transferred to the most red-shifted fluorescent protein in the pair, and the result is ultimately emission from the red-shifted protein (acceptor).
When I was a post-doc at UT Southwestern, I was fortunate to interact with two Nobel prize winners, Johann Deisenhofer and Fred Gilman. Johann once helped me move a -80°C freezer into his lab when we lost power in my building. I once replaced my boss at small faculty mixer with a guest speaker and had a drink with Fred Gilman and several other faculty members from around the university. Among the faculty, one professor had a cell phone on his belt, an odd sight in 1995. Fred Gilman asked him what it was and why he had it. It was so his lab could notify him of good results anytime of the day. Fred laughed and told him to get rid of it – if it’s good data, it will survive until morning.
I was reminded of this story when I read a recent paper by Bodle, C.R. et al (1) about the development of a NanoBiT® Complementation Assay (2) to measure interactions of Regulators of G Protein Signaling (RGS) with Gα proteins in cells. (Fred Gilman was the first to isolate a G protein and that led to him being a co-recipient of the Nobel Prize in 1994). The authors created over a dozen NanoBiT Gα:RGS domain pairs and found they could classify different RGS proteins by the speed of the interaction in a cellular context. The interactions were readily reversible with known inhibitors and were suitable for high-throughput screening due to Z’ factors exceeding 0.5. The study paves the way for future work to identify broad spectrum RGS domain:Gα inhibitors and even RGS domain-specific inhibitors. This is the second paper applying NanoBiT Technology to GPCR studies (3).
A Little Background…
A primary function of GPCRs is transmission of extracellular signals across the plasma membrane via coupling with intracellular heterotrimeric G proteins. Upon receptor stimulation, the Gα subunit dissociates from the βγ subunit, initiating the cascade of downstream second messenger pathways that alter transcription (4). The Gα subunits are actually slow GTPases that propagate signals when GTP is bound but shutdown and reassociate with the βγ subunit when GTP is cleaved to GDP. This activation process is known as the GTPase cycle. G proteins are extremely slow GTPases. Continue reading “Probing RGS:Gα Protein Interactions with NanoBiT Assays”
Back in 2015 the Ice Bucket Challenge brought Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) to public attention, initiating worldwide pleas for more funding of research toward a cure for this fatal disease, which is characterized by progressive degeneration of motor neurons. In spite of many efforts over the last few decades, the precise cause of ALS is still unknown.
The complexity of the problem of ALS pathogenesis is highlighted in the review “Decoding ALS: from genes to mechanism” published in Nature in November 2016. The review highlights a long list of genetic factors implicated in ALS, grouping them into genes affecting protein quality control, RNA stability/function, and the cytoskeletal structure of neuronal cells.
Mutations in the antioxidant enzyme superoxide dismutase (SOD1) were the first to be associated with ALS. According to the review, more than 170 SOD1 mutations causing ALS have since been identified. Many of these mutations are thought to result in misfolding of SOD1, contributing to toxicity when the misfolded protein accumulates within the cell.