$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
PPIs are the basis of various cellular processes. Traditional methods for identifying PPIs include yeast-two-hybrid (Y2H) screening and immunoprecipitation coupled with mass spectrometry (IP-MS)1. However, both suffer from some disadvantages. For example, Y2H screening requires the availability of Y2H library of the target plant or animal species. Construction of these libraries is labor-intensive and expensive. Furthermore, the Y2H approach is performed in the heterologous single-cell eukaryotic organism yeast, which may not represent the cellular status of higher eukaryotic cells.
In contrast, IP-MS shows low efficiency in capturing transient or weak PPIs, and it is also unsuitable for those proteins with low abundance or high hydrophobicity. Many important proteins involved in the plant signaling pathways such as receptor-like kinases (RLKs) or the NLR family of immune receptors are expressed at low levels and often interact with other proteins transiently. Therefore, it greatly restricts the understanding of mechanisms underlying the regulation of these proteins.
Recently, proximity labeling (PL) methods based on engineered ascorbate peroxidase (APEX) and a mutant Escherichia coli biotin ligase BirAR118G (known as BioID) have been developed and utilized for the study of PPIs2,3,4. The principle of PL is that a target protein of interest is fused with an enzyme, which catalyzes the formation of labile biotinyl-AMP (bio-AMP). These free bio-AMP are released by PL enzymes and diffuse to the vicinity of the target protein, allowing the biotinylation of proximal proteins at the primary amines within an estimated radius of 10 nm5.
This approach has significant advantages over the traditional Y2H and IP-MS approaches, such as the ability to capture transient or weak PPIs. Furthermore, PL allows the labeling of proximal proteins of the target protein in their native cellular environments. Different PL enzymes have unique disadvantages when applying them to different systems. For example, although APEX offers higher tagging kinetics compared to BioID and is successfully applied in mammalian systems, the requirement of toxic hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) in this approach makes it unsuitable for PL studies in plants.
In contrast, BioID-based PL avoids use of the toxic H2O2, but the rate of labeling is slow (requiring 18–24 h to complete biotinylation), thus making the capture of transient PPIs less efficient. Moreover, the higher incubation temperature (37 °C) required for efficient PL by BioID introduces external stress to some organisms, such as plants4. Therefore, limited deployment of BioID-based PL in plants (i.e., rice protoplasts, Arabidopsis, and N. benthamiana) has been reported6,7,8,9. The recently described TurboID enzyme overcomes the deficiencies of APEX and BioID-based PL. TurboID showed high activity that enables the accomplishment of PL within 10 min at RT10. TurboID-based PL has been successfully applied in mammalian cells, flies, and worms10. Recently, we and other research groups independently optimized and extended the use of TurboID-based PL for studying PPIs in different plant systems, including N. benthamiana and Arabidopsis plants and tomato hairy roots11,12,13,14. Comparative analyses indicated that TurboID performs better for PL in plants compared to BioID11,14. It has also demonstrated the robustness of TurboID-based PL in planta by identifying a number of novel interactions with an NLR immune receptor11, a protein whose interaction partners are usually difficult to obtain using traditional methods.
This protocol illustrates the TurboID-based PL in planta by describing the identification of interaction proteins of the N-terminal TIR domain of the NLR immune receptor in N. benthamiana plants. The method can be extended to any proteins of interest in N. benthamiana. More importantly, it provides an important reference for investigating PPIs in other plant species such as Arabidopsis, tomato, and others.