$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
The method presented here is the only available non-radioactive activation assay for GEFs that can follow the active pool of GEFs in cells. The assay is similar to the precipitation assays used for following activation of small GTPases as well as GEFs against Rac and Cdc42. Those assays use different GST-tagged proteins and have slight differences from the one described here, however the basic steps are the same. Thus, this protocol can easily be adapted for other small GTPase and GEF activation assays.
The presented GEF assay was recently modified for application for nuclear fractions 9,10. With further modifications, testing of GEF activation in other subcellular compartments might also be possible.
We use the presented method to study activation of GEFs in epithelial cell lines5,6,7. With some optimization, this assay should be adequate to detect GEFs from any cell line. When adapting to a specific cell type, find the optimal cell number, lysis buffer volume, and detection method for the GEF to be tested (a good antibody for Western blotting is important). For initial setup of the assay it is advisable to use a stimulus that is known to activate the GEF of interest. When using an unknown stimulus, always use a positive control to verify that your assay is working. This assay can be used to detect activation of known GEFs by Western blotting. However, it is also adequate to identify unknown GEFs. For this, captured GEFs from control and stimulated samples should be analyzed on a Coomassie-stained gel. Bands that appear only in stimulated samples might contain activated GEFs and can be sent for identification by Mass Spectrometry (e.g. 5).
Finally, a cautionary note. The assay is based on the assumption that the posttranslational modifications rendering GEFs active are preserved after cell lysis. Indeed, this is clearly the case for a number of GEFs, and since its establishments, this assay has been used by various groups to detect activation of different GEFs, including GEF-H1, p115RhoGEF and XPLN (e.g. 5,11,12,13). Preservation of the active state however might not happen in the case of all GEFs, and therefore it is conceivable that this assay will not work for all GEFs. It also has to be noted, that many GEFs exert activity towards more than one small GTPases. Thus, when a specific GEF is studied, it is recommended to complement this assay with GEF precipitation assays for other small GTPases, as well as functional studies examining RhoA, Rac1 and Cdc42.
Critical steps in the protocol:
Colonies of transformed bacteria should be picked from fresh, properly prepared plates to ensure adequate selection by Amp, good outgrowth and yield. Transformation conditions for competent cells obtained from other sources may vary and should be consulted.
All steps of the protein preparation protocol (from step 2.3) and the assay (from step 3.2) should be performed at 4°C with cooled solutions and centrifuges.
Bacterial lysis (step 2.5) should be thorough and complete in order to obtain a homogeneous suspension. When lysing the bacteria, vortex and pipette the lysate alternately, while maintaining it at 4°C and ensure sonication is done on ice to prevent denaturing the protein. If using a different model of sonicator, conditions may need to be adjusted. Incubation of sonicate with the beads should always be done at 4°C on a rotator to ensure sufficient binding, and care should be taken to keep the timing consistent.
GST-Rho mutants are somewhat unstable when expressed in bacteria, so it is best to use prepared beads right away or within a few days.
The precipitation assay (Part 3) is time and temperature sensitive, as active GEFs can be easily lost from the cell lysate, so steps should be performed as quickly as possible.
The following section contains some trouble-shooting tips.
No or very low amount of mutant Rho protein in the final bead preparation: This may be caused by inefficient induction, insufficient lysis of the bacteria, or a loss of the protein during the preparation process or storage. To help troubleshoot some of these possibilities, samples of bacteria can be analyzed before and after induction. If there is poor induction of the protein repeat the process using a colony from a freshly streaked plate or from re-transformed competent cells. Different IPTG concentrations and induction times should also be tested. If the lysis is insufficient (i.e. the protein remains in the pellet instead of the supernatant) varying salt and detergent concentrations in the lysis buffer can be tried. Alternate sonication times and settings should be considered, and samples before and after sonication can be checked by microscopy to determine efficiency of lysis.
No precipitated GEF, even though the GST-protein is present on the beads: This may be due to technical issues during the precipitation assay, or by a real absence of activation of the studied GEF using the stimulus applied. Always use a known stimulus as a positive control to verify that your assay works. Use the prepared beads within a few days. If the precipitation assay captures undetectable amounts of the GEF studied in all conditions, verify that your GEF is present and is well detectable in the supernatant after centrifugation that is to be used for the assay (step 3.3). Make sure all buffers and protease inhibitors are fresh, and perform all steps on ice as fast as possible. Increase the amount of input protein (e.g. by using lysates from 2 plates/sample). If the precipitation assay shows basal precipitation of your GEF, but no difference is seen between the control and stimulated samples (Fig 4), start troubleshooting by verifying that the applied stimulus worked using other known effects (e.g. by detecting activation of other signaling pathways). Consider changing the treatment conditions and/or concentrations. Rely on data from the literature reporting how your stimulus activates Rho or other signaling to predict likely times and concentrations. When optimizing treatment time, use both short and long time points, as GEF activation might be best detectable at a time point prior to well detectable Rho activation. Finally, the same stimulus could result in a variable degree of activation due to a change in cell responsiveness caused by passage number, cell confluency, etc.