$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
Protein-protein Interactions In Vitro
Traditionally, crystallography and nuclear magnetic resonance experiments combined with cryo-electron microscopy (cryoEM) are the technologies chosen to accurately describe the three-dimensional architecture of proteins and to infer their function by scrutinizing their high resolution structural details. Proteins, however, are not static structures and can undergo a variety of conformational changes and vibrations in time and space. This is why structural information from crystallographic or CryoEM data needs to be complemented with other techniques (e.g., molecular dynamics simulations and single molecule techniques): the function of a protein is related to its conformational changes and interactions, and this information is not present in a static structure. In order to probe for intra-molecular dynamics, techniques based on single molecule Forster Resonance Energy Transfer (smFRET) are very effective1. These approaches are able to assess different subpopulations of molecules in complex media. This is very important, as these changes are rapid and occur during the acquisition of the data (i.e., nanosecond to second range).
Two main approaches are commonly employed to detect and quantify these changes: proteins in solution and surface-immobilization. For the detection of inter-molecular interactions and in particular, the process of dimerization induced by ligands, smFRET is not always the best tool. Indeed, FRET depends not only on the distance (≈10 nm) but also on the orientation of the two dipoles (donor and acceptor, χ2) and the overlap of the donor emission with the acceptor's absorption spectra2, but perhaps this last condition is less important provided that the experimentalist can chose the right FRET couple. A particular disadvantage of smFRET for probing homo-dimerization comes from the labeling of the protein of interest: for hetero smFRET, dimerization can only be detected up to 50% (i.e., hetero-FRET will only be able to detect donor-acceptor and acceptor-donor homo-dimers but not donor-donor or acceptor-acceptor, which is the other 50% of the dimers). The use of fluorescence correlation spectroscopy (FCS) and derivatives (FCCS, etc.3) to ascertain protein diffusion constants and binding constants in vitro is another alternative. These approaches are not able to fully quantify homo-dimerization either, as in FCS one measures concentration and diffusion, and the radius and diffusion coefficient of a diffusing particle are very poorly dependent on the molecular weight; for example a 10-fold increase in the molecular weight will only imply a 2.15 fold change in the diffusion coefficient4. In the case of two-color FCS or FCCS, only 50% of homo-dimers will be seen for the same reason as above. The most practical and quantitative approaches to detect homo-dimerization in vitro and in vivo are homo-FRET5 and number and brightness (N&B)6. Given the fact that homo-FRET requires specific instrumentation recovery of the anisotropy value (i.e., optical elements/analyzers to recover the parallel and perpendicular polarization), N&B is presented here as a favorable technique to detect protein homo-dimerization and aggregation. It can be employed both in vitro and in vivo with a commercial set-up.
Number and Brightness
N&B has been recently reviewed7. That review focused on the application of the technique in live cells. It is worthwhile to reproduce the mathematical formalism here as these equations will be applied to the data collected in vitro. First, it is necessary to define some terms and mathematical quantities:
- An entity is a set of molecules which are bound together.
- The brightness ε of an entity is the number of photons it emits per unit time (per frame).
- n is the number of entities present.
- For a given pixel over the course of an image series, is its mean intensity and σ2 is the variance in its intensity.
Then, with photon-counting detectors and assuming mobile entities and no background,


where N is the apparent number and B is the apparent brightness. This results in


Dalal et al.8 showed that with analog equipment, one needs three correction terms: the S factor, the background offset, and the readout noise σ02. Then, again assuming mobile entities,


giving


Note that the above equation for is different that given in Dalal et al.8 and a subsequent review.7 In Dalal et al. the S in the denominator was omitted due to a typo and this error was reproduced in the review. The equation above is the correct one. Instructions for measuring S, offset and σ02 - together with an explanation of their meaning - are given by Dalal et al.8
The brightness ε is proportional to the oligomeric state of the diffusing entities: ε will be twice as big for dimers as it is for monomers, three times as big for trimers as it is for monomers, twice as big for hexamers as it is for trimers and so on. In this way, measuring the brightness ε, one can quantify any type of multimerization.
If there are a mixture of oligomeric states present, number and brightness is not capable of recovering the individual oligomeric states present. This is a limitation of the technique.
Detrend algorithm and nandb software
The importance of correcting for photobleaching has been previously stressed9. Photobleaching inevitably occurs during light microscopy experiments in time-lapse mode; both in live cells and in vitro. Many approaches have been described in the literature to correct for bleaching7. The exponential filtering technique with automatic choice of detrending parameter T is the current best. It is integrated into the free, open source software nandb9. Indeed, software that requires the user to manually choose their detrending parameter can lead to incorrect results because this parameter choice will likely be arbitrary and incorrect. The automatic algorithm inspects the data and determines the appropriate parameter for it, without the need for user intervention9. Even with the best choice of smoothing parameter, detrending has its limitations and works well only with photobleaching percentages lower than 25%, as shown with simulations9. Interestingly, when using the automatic detrending routine, its accuracy is such that one can work with low brightness values (even B <1.01), and hence low intensities, and still be precise enough to quantify homo-dimerization.
Photobleaching also causes another problem: the presence of photobleached fluorophores in a multimer complex. This makes e.g., a trimer appear like a dimer when one of the three units in the trimer is non-fluorescent. Hur and Mueller10 showed how to correct for this and this correction was also stressed in a subsequent review7. The nandb software includes this correction9.
The FKBP12F36V system
FKBP12F36V is a protein which does not naturally oligomerize but is known to dimerize upon the addition of the AP20187 drug (colloquially known as the BB dimerizing ligand)11,12. This makes it an ideal test case for number and brightness: with labelled FKBP12F36V, a doubling of oligomeric state should be observed upon addition of BB.