Molecular and Cell Biology Methods for Fungi pp 303-317

Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 638)

Split-EGFP Screens for the Detection and Localisation of Protein–Protein Interactions in Living Yeast Cells



Proteomics aims to identify and classify the proteins present in a particular cell or tissue. However, we know that proteins rarely function alone and knowledge of which proteins interact with which other proteins is vital if we wish to understand how cells work. The budding yeast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, is a well-established model for studying protein-protein interactions, and a number of methods have been developed to do this. A method for the in vivo detection and localisation of interacting pairs of proteins in living yeast cells is presented. The method relies on the ability of fragments of enhanced green fluorescent protein (EGFP) to reassemble if brought into close proximity. The reassembled EGFP regains the ability to fluoresce, and this fluorescence can be detected providing evidence of interaction and information about its location. S. cerevisiae is an ideal organism to apply this method to due to the relative ease with which its genome can be manipulated. The method described enables the modification of S. cerevisiae genes at the 3′-end with DNA encoding fragments of EGFP. Consequently, the expression levels of the proteins are unlikely to be affected and thus the method is unlikely to result in false positives. In addition to the protocol for labelling and detection of interacting pairs of yeast proteins, methods for simple tests for the effects of the labelling on the organism’s function are presented.


Bimolecular fluorescence complementation assay BiFC Protein-fragment comple-mentation assay PCA Enhanced green fluorescent protein EGFP Genomic modification 


  1. 1.
    Fields S, Song O (1989) A novel genetic system to detect protein-protein interactions. Nature 340:245-246CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Serebriiskii I, Estojak J, Berman M, Golemis EA (2000) Approaches to detecting false positives in yeast two-hybrid systems. Biotechniques 28:328-336PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rigaut G, Shevchenko A, Rutz B, Wilm M, Mann M, Seraphin B (1999) A generic protein purification method for protein complex characterization and proteome exploration. Nat Biotechnol 17:1030-1032CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Remy I, Galarneau A, Michnick SW (2002) Detection and visualization of protein interactions with protein fragment complementation assays. Methods Mol Biol 185:447-459PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barnard E, McFerran NV, Nelson J, Timson DJ (2007) Detection of protein-protein interactions using protein-fragment complementation assays (PCA). Curr Proteomics 4:17-27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wilson CG, Magliery TJ, Regan L (2004) Detecting protein-protein interactions with GFP-fragment reassembly. Nat Methods 1:255-262CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Park K, Yi SY, Lee CS, Kim KE, Pai HS, Seol DW et al (2007) A split enhanced green fluorescent protein-based reporter in yeast two-hybrid system. Protein J 26:107-116CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Blondel M, Bach S, Bamps S, Dobbelaere J, Wiget P, Longaretti C et al (2005) Degradation of Hof1 by SCF (Grr1) is important for actomyosin contraction during cytokinesis in yeast. EMBO J 24:1440-1452CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sung MK, Huh WK (2007) Bimolecular fluorescence complementation analysis system for in vivo detection of protein-protein interaction in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Yeast 24:767-775CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Barnard E, McFerran N, Trudgett A, Nelson J, Timson DJ (2008) Detection and localisation of protein-protein interactions in Saccharomyces cerevisiae using a split-GFP method. Fungal Genet Biol 45:597-604CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Barnard E, McFerran N, Trudgett A, Nelson J, Timson DJ (2008) Development and implementation of split-GFP based bimolecular fluorescence complementation (BiFC) assays in yeast. Biochem Soc Trans 36:479-482CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pathmanathan S, Barnard E, Timson DJ (2008) Interactions between the budding yeast IQGAP homologue Iqg1p and its targets revealed by a split-EGFP bimolecular fluorescence complementation assay. Cell Biol Int 32:1318-1322CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sambrook J, Fritsch EF, Maniatis T (1989) Molecular cloning, a laboratory manual. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Perlman PS, Mahler HR (1971) Molecular consequences of ethidium bromide mutagenesis. Nat New Biol 231:12-16PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wu Y, Reece RJ, Ptashne M (1996) Quantitation of putative activator-target affinities predicts transcriptional activating potentials. EMBO J 15:3951-3963PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Altschul SF, Madden TL, Schaffer AA, Zhang J, Zhang Z, Miller W, Lipman DJ (1997) Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic Acids Res 25:3389-3402CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rossner M, Yamada KM (2004) What’s in a picture? The temptation of image manipulation. J Cell Biol 166:11-15CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gompertz B (1825) On the nature of the function expressive of the law of human mortality, and on a new mode of determining the value of life contingencies. Philos Trans R Soc Lond 115:513-585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kopperschlager G, Bar J, Nissler K, Hofmann E (1977) Physicochemical parameters and subunit composition of yeast phosphofructokinase. Eur J Biochem 81:317-325CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Clifton D, Fraenkel DG (1982) Mutant studies of yeast phosphofructokinase. Biochemistry 21:1935-1942CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Biological Sciences, Queen’s UniversityBelfastUK

Personalised recommendations