Skip to main content

Macromolecular interactions in vitro, comparing classical and novel approaches

A Correction to this article was published on 27 April 2021

This article has been updated

Abstract

Biophysical quantification of protein interactions is central to unveil the molecular mechanisms of cellular processes. Researchers can choose from a wide panel of biophysical methods that quantify molecular interactions in different ways, including both classical and more novel techniques. We report the outcome of an ARBRE-MOBIEU training school held in June 2019 in Gif-sur-Yvette, France (https://mosbio.sciencesconf.org/). Twenty European students benefited from a week’s training with theoretical and practical sessions in six complementary approaches: (1) analytical ultracentrifugation with or without a fluorescence detector system (AUC-FDS), (2) isothermal titration calorimetry (ITC), (3) size exclusion chromatography coupled to multi-angle light scattering (SEC-MALS), (4) bio-layer interferometry (BLI), (5) microscale thermophoresis (MST) and, (6) switchSENSE. They implemented all these methods on two examples of macromolecular interactions with nanomolar affinity: first, a protein–protein interaction between an artificial alphaRep binder, and its target protein, also an alphaRep; second, a protein-DNA interaction between a DNA repair complex, Ku70/Ku80 (hereafter called Ku), and its cognate DNA ligand. We report the approaches used to analyze the two systems under study and thereby showcase application of each of the six techniques. The workshop provided students with improved understanding of the advantages and limitations of different methods, enabling future choices concerning approaches that are most relevant or informative for specific kinds of sample and interaction.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Data availability

Data can be obtained by requesting the corresponding author.

Change history

References

  • Abdiche Y, Malashock D, Pinkerton A, Pons J (2018) Determining kinetics and affinities of protein interactions using a parallel real-time label-free biosensor, the Octet. Anal Biochem 377(2):209–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andreani J, Guerois R (2014) Evolution of protein interactions: from interactomes to interfaces. Arch BiochemBiophys 554:65–75

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asmari M, Ratih R, Alhazmi HA, El Deeb S (2018) Thermophoresis for characterizing biomolecular interaction. Methods 146:107–119

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brautigam CA (2015) Chapter five - calculations and publication-quality illustrations for analytical ultracentrifugation data. In: Cole JL (ed) Methods in enzymology. Academic Press, pp 109–133

    Google Scholar 

  • Campanacci V, Urvoas A, Consolati T, Cantos-Fernandes S, Aumont-Nicaise M, Valerio-Lepiniec M, Surrey T, Minard P, Gigant B (2019) Selection and characterization of artificial proteins targeting the tubulin α subunit. Structure 27(3):497–506

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang HHY, Pannunzio NR, Adachi N, Lieber MR (2017) Non-homologous DNA end joining and alternative pathways to double-strand break repair. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 18(8):495–506

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chevrel A, Mesneau A, Sanchez D, Celma L, Quevillon-Cheruel S, Cavagnino A, Nessler S, Li de la Sierra-Gallay I, van Tilbeurgh H, Minard P, Valerio-Lepiniec M, Urvoas A (2018) Alpha repeat proteins (αRep) as expression and crystallization helpers. J StructBiol 201(2):88–99

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Di Meo T, Ghattas W, Herrero C, Velours C, Minard P, Mahy JP, Ricoux R, Urvoas A (2017) αRep A3: a versatile artificial scaffold for metalloenzyme design. Chemistry 23(42):10156–10166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez M, Urvoas A, Even-Hernandez P, Burel A, Mériadec C, Artzner F, Bouceba T, Minard P, Dujardin E, Marchi V (2020) Hybrid gold nanoparticle-quantum dot self-assembled nanostructures driven by complementary artificial proteins. Nanoscale 12(7):4612–4621

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folta-Stogniew E (2006) Oligomeric states of proteins determined by size-exclusion chromatography coupled with light scattering, absorbance, and refractive index detectors. Methods MolBiol 328:97–112

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Freire E, Schön A, Velazquez-Campoy A (2009) Isothermal titration calorimetry: general formalism using binding polynomials. Methods Enzymol 455:127–155

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frit P, Ropars V, Modesti M, Charbonnier JB, Calsou P (2019) Plugged into the Ku-DNA hub: the NHEJ network. ProgBiophysMolBiol 147:62–76

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gontier A, Varela PF, Nemoz C, Ropars V, Aumont-Nicaise M, Desmadril M, Charbonnier JB (2021) Measurements of protein-DNA complexes interactions by isothermal titration calorimetry (ITC) and microscalethermophoresis (MST). Methods MolBiol 2247:125–143

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Guellouz A, Valerio-Lepiniec M, Urvoas A, Chevrel A, Graille M, Fourati-Kammoun Z, Desmadril M, van Tilbeurgh MP (2013) Selection of specific protein binders for pre-defined targets from an optimized library of artificial helicoidal repeat proteins (alphaRep). PLoS ONE 8(8):e71512

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holdgate GA (2001) Making cool drugs hot: isothermal titration calorimetry as a tool to study binding energetics. Biotechniques 31(1):164–170

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jerabek-Willemsen M, Wienken CJ, Braun D, Baaske P, Duhr S (2011) Molecular interaction studies using microscalethermophoresis. Assay Drug Dev Technol 9(4):342–353

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knezevic J, Langer A, Hampel PA, Kaiser W, Strasser R, Rant U (2012) Quantitation of affinity, avidity, and binding kinetics of protein analytes with a dynamically switchable biosurface. J Am ChemSoc 134(37):15225–15228

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krell T (2008) Microcalorimetry: a response to challenges in modern biotechnology. MicrobBiotechnol 1(2):126–136

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Léger C, Di Meo T, Aumont-Nicaise M, Velours C, Durand D, Li de la Sierra-Gallay I, van Tilbeurgh H, Hildebrandt N, Desmadril M, Urvoas A, Valerio-Lepiniec M, Minard P (2019) Ligand-induced conformational switch in an artificial bidomain protein scaffold. Sci Rep 9(1):1178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Léger C, Yahia-Ammar A, Susumu K, Medintz IL, Urvoas A, Valerio-Lepiniec M, Minard P, Hildebrandt N (2020) Picomolarbiosensing and conformational analysis using artificial bidomain proteins and terbium-to-quantum dot förster resonance energy transfer. ACS Nano 14(5):5956–5967

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loiseau L, Fyfe C, Aussel L, Hajj Chehade M, Hernández SB, Faivre B, Hamdane D, Mellot-Draznieks C, Rascalou B, Pelosi L, Velours C, Cornu D, Lombard M, Casadesús J, Pierrel F, Fontecave M, Barras F (2017) The UbiK protein is an accessory factor necessary for bacterial ubiquinone (UQ) biosynthesis and forms a complex with the UQ biogenesis factor UbiJ. J BiolChem 292(28):11937–11950

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nemoz C, Ropars V, Frit P, Gontier A, Drevet P, Yu J, Guerois R, Pitois A, Comte A, Delteil C, Barboule N, Legrand P, Baconnais S, Yin Y, Tadi S, Barbet-Massin E, Berger I, Le Cam E, Modesti M, Rothenberg E, Calsou P, Charbonnier JB (2018) XLF and APLF bind Ku at two remote sites to ensure DNA repair by non-homologous end joining. Nat StructMolBiol 25(10):971–980

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Prasad J, Viollet S, Gurunatha KL, Urvoas A, Fournier AC, Valerio-Lepiniec M, Marcelot C, Baris B, Minard P, Dujardin E (2019) Directed evolution of artificial repeat proteins as habit modifiers for the morphosynthesis of (111)-terminated gold nanocrystals. Nanoscale 11(37):17485–17497

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raynal B, Lenormand P, Baron B, Hoos S, England P (2014) Quality assessment and optimization of purified protein samples: why and how? Microb Cell Fact 13:180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuck P (2000) Size-distribution analysis of macromolecules by sedimentation velocity ultracentrifugation and lamm equation modeling. Biophys J 78:1606–1619

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tadi SK, Tellier-Lebegue C, Nemoz C, Drevet P, Audebert S, Roy S, Meek K, Charbonnier JB, Modesti M (2016) PAXX is an accessory c-NHEJ Factor that associates with Ku70 and has overlapping functions with XLF. Cell Rep 17(2):541–555

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valerio-Lepiniec M, Urvoas A, Chevrel A, Guellouz A, Ferrandez Y, Mesneau A, de la Sierra-Gallay IL, Aumont-Nicaise M, Desmadril M, van Tilbeurgh H, Minard P (2015) The αRep artificial repeat protein scaffold: a new tool for crystallization and live cell applications. BiochemSoc Trans 43(5):819–824

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vega S, Abian O, Velazquez-Campoy A (2015) A unified framework based on the binding polynomial for characterizing biological systems by isothermal titration calorimetry. Methods Apr 76:99–115

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Velazquez-Campoy A, Freire E (2006) Isothermal titration calorimetry to determine association constants for high-affinity ligands. Nat Protoc 1(1):186–191

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker JR, Corpina RA, Goldberg J (2001) Structure of the Ku heterodimer bound to DNA and its implications for double-strand break repair. Nature 412(6847):607–614

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wyman J, Gill SJ (1990) Binding and linkage: Functional chemistry of biological macromolecules. University Science Books, Mill Valley

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao H, Brautigam CA, Ghirlando R, Schuck P (2013) Overview of current methods in sedimentation velocity and sedimentation equilibrium analytical ultracentrifugation. CurrProtoc Protein Sci 71:20

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank members of Philippe Minard’s and Jean-Baptiste Charbonnier’s teams at I2BC for the sample preparation, Bruno Baron and Bertrand Raynal from Institut Pasteur, Paris for all their expert advices in molecular scale biophysics, and Eric Ennifar from Institut de Biologie Moléculaire et Cellulaire, Strasbourg for sharing its expertise in the study of biomolecular machineries using biophysical approaches. Friederike Möller and Hanna Müller-Landau from Dynamic Biosensors, Aymeric Audfray from Malvern Panalytical, Mathilde Belnou from NanoTemper technologies, and Stephanie Bourgeois and coworkers from Fluidic Analytics for their availability and all the fruitful discussion. We kindly thank all the participants to the MoSBio Training School, all the sponsors without whom this successful event had not been possible, and finally the keynote speakers, Julie Ménétrey and Terence Strick who shared their projects with us. Most of preparatory experiments were performed in the I2BC, PIM platform (https://www.pluginlabs-universiteparissaclay.fr/fr/results/keywords/PIM), while some others were performed in Institut Pasteur, PFBMI platform. Finally, we thank ARBRE-MOBIEU network for its support to publish this article.

Funding

JBC is supported by ARC program (SLS220120605310), French Infrastructure for Integrated Structural Biology (FRISBI) ANR-10-INSB-05, ANR-18-CE44-0008, ANR-20-CE11-0026, INCA 2016-1-PL BIO-11 and INCA SLX4 INCA 2016-159.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

PFV, PE, SU, CE, AVC, AR, JBC authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by CV, MAN, SU, PE, AVC, DS, GB, PS, CQ, CE, AR. The first draft of the manuscript was written by PFV and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paloma Fernández Varela.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interest. Pierre Soule (NanoTemper) and Christophe Quétard (FortéBio) helped during the training without commercial interest.

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

The authors consent to participate to this project.

Consent for publication

The authors consent to publish the work reported in this paper.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original online version of this article was revised: Due to corrections in Figures. In Fig. 2, the size of the subtitles a to g is reduced; In Fig 3b, “1DNA_1Ku70/Ku80” has been changed to “1DNA-1Ku70/Ku80” and In Fig 4, “50µg” has been changed to “50ng” in the MST cell at the bottom of the table.

Special Issue: COST Action CA15126, MOBIEU: Between atom and cell.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 1293 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Velours, C., Aumont-Nicaise, M., Uebel, S. et al. Macromolecular interactions in vitro, comparing classical and novel approaches. Eur Biophys J 50, 313–330 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00249-021-01517-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00249-021-01517-5

Keywords

  • Molecular scale biophysics
  • Macromolecular interactions
  • Artificial binders
  • Double-stranded DNA breaks repair factors