Scalable In Vitro Proteasome Activity Assay

  • Amit Kumar Singh Gautam
  • Kirby Martinez-Fonts
  • Andreas MatouschekEmail author
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 1844)


We developed a degradation assay based on fluorescent protein substrates that are efficiently recognized, unfolded, translocated, and hydrolyzed by the proteasome. The substrates consist of three components: a proteasome-binding tag, a folded domain, and an initiation region. All the components of the model substrate can be changed to modulate degradation, and the assay can be performed in parallel in 384-well plates. These properties allow the assay to be used to explore a wide range of experimental conditions and to screen proteasome modulators.

Key words

Proteasome Ubiquitin-proteasome system High-throughput degradation assay 



This work was supported by U54 GM105816, R21 CA191664, R21 CA196456, and R01 GM124501 from the National Institutes of Health; RP140328 from the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT); and F-1817 from the Welch.


  1. 1.
    Baumeister W, Walz J, Zuhl F et al (1998) The proteasome: paradigm of a self-compartmentalizing protease. Cell 92:367–380. Scholar
  2. 2.
    Finley D, Chen X, Walters KJ (2016) Gates, channels, and switches: elements of the proteasome machine. Trends Biochem Sci 41:77–93. Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beck F, Unverdorben P, Bohn S et al (2012) Near-atomic resolution structural model of the yeast 26S proteasome. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109:14870–14875. Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lander GC, Estrin E, Matyskiela ME et al (2012) Complete subunit architecture of the proteasome regulatory particle. Nature 482:186–191. Scholar
  5. 5.
    Groll M, Bajorek M, Köhler A et al (2000) A gated channel into the proteasome core particle. Nat Struct Mol Biol 7:1062–1067. Scholar
  6. 6.
    Groll M, Ditzel L, Löwe J et al (1997) Structure of 20S proteasome from yeast at 2.4 A resolution. Nature 386:463–471. Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bhattacharyya S, Yu H, Mim C, Matouschek A (2014) Regulated protein turnover: snapshots of the proteasome in action. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 15:122–133. Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hershko A, Ciechanover A (2003) The ubiquitin system. Annu Rev Biochem 67:425–479. Scholar
  9. 9.
    DeMartino GN, Gillette TG (2007) Proteasomes: machines for all reasons. Cell 129:659–662. Scholar
  10. 10.
    Glickman MH, Ciechanover A (2002) The ubiquitin-proteasome proteolytic pathway: destruction for the sake of construction. Physiol Rev 82:373–428. Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wolf DH, Hilt W (2004) The proteasome: a proteolytic nanomachine of cell regulation and waste disposal. Biochim Biophys Acta 1695:19–31. Scholar
  12. 12.
    Suraweera A, Münch C, Hanssum A, Bertolotti A (2012) Failure of amino acid homeostasis causes cell death following proteasome inhibition. Mol Cell 48(2):242–253. Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goldberg AL, Rock KL (1992) Proteolysis, proteasomes and antigen presentation. Nature 357:375–379. Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schmidt M, Finley D (2014) Regulation of proteasome activity in health and disease. Biochim Biophys Acta 1843:13–25. Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dantuma NP, Bott LC (2014) The ubiquitin-proteasome system in neurodegenerative diseases: precipitating factor, yet part of the solution. Front Mol Neurosci 7:1345. Scholar
  16. 16.
    Powell SR, Herrmann J, Lerman A et al (2012) The ubiquitin–proteasome system and cardiovascular disease. In: The proteasomal system in aging and disease. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 295–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cromm PM, Crews CM (2017) The proteasome in modern drug discovery: second life of a highly valuable drug target. ACS Cent Sci 3:830–838. Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shah JJ, Orlowski RZ (2009) Proteasome inhibitors in the treatment of multiple myeloma. Leukemia 23:1964–1979. Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liggett A, Crawford LJ, walker B et al (2010) Methods for measuring proteasome activity: current limitations and future developments. Leuk Res 34:1403–1409. Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kisselev AF, Goldberg AL (2005) Monitoring activity and inhibition of 26S proteasomes with fluorogenic peptide substrates. Meth Enzymol 398:364–378. Scholar
  21. 21.
    Saeki Y, Isono E, Toh-E A (2005) Preparation of ubiquitinated substrates by the PY motif-insertion method for monitoring 26S proteasome activity. Meth Enzymol 399:215–227. Scholar
  22. 22.
    Martinez-Fonts K, Matouschek A (2016) A rapid and versatile method for generating proteins with defined ubiquitin chains. Biochemistry 55:1898–1908. Scholar
  23. 23.
    Prakash S, Tian L, Ratliff KS et al (2004) An unstructured initiation site is required for efficient proteasome-mediated degradation. Nat Struct Mol Biol 11:830–837. Scholar
  24. 24.
    Singh Gautam AK, Balakrishnan S, Venkatraman P (2012) Direct ubiquitin independent recognition and degradation of a folded protein by the eukaryotic proteasomes-origin of intrinsic degradation signals. PLoS One 7:e34864–e34814. Scholar
  25. 25.
    Li Y, Tomko RJ, Hochstrasser M (2015) Proteasomes: isolation and activity assays. Curr Protoc Cell Biol 4:3.43.1–3.43.20. Scholar
  26. 26.
    Verma R, McDonald H, Yates JR, Deshaies RJ (2001) Selective degradation of ubiquitinated Sic1 by purified 26S proteasome yields active S phase cyclin-Cdk. Mol Cell 8:439–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hanna J, Hathaway NA, Tone Y et al (2006) Deubiquitinating enzyme Ubp6 functions noncatalytically to delay proteasomal degradation. Cell 127:99–111. Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kraut DA, Israeli E, Schrader EK et al (2012) Sequence- and species-dependence of proteasomal processivity. ACS Chem Biol 7:1444–1453. Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tian L, Holmgren RA, Matouschek A (2005) A conserved processing mechanism regulates the activity of transcription factors Cubitus interruptus and NF-κB. Nat Struct Mol Biol 12:1045–1053. Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schrader EK, Harstad KG, Holmgren RA, Matouschek A (2011) A three-part signal governs differential processing of Gli1 and Gli3 proteins by the proteasome. J Biol Chem 286:39051–39058. Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yu H, Singh Gautam AK, Wilmington SR et al (2016) Conserved sequence preferences contribute to substrate recognition by the proteasome. J Biol Chem 291:14526–14539. Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wilmington SR, Matouschek A (2016) An inducible system for rapid degradation of specific cellular proteins using proteasome adaptors. PLoS One 11:e0152679–e0152616. Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yu H, Kago G, Yellman CM, Matouschek A (2016) Ubiquitin-like domains can target to the proteasome but proteolysis requires a disordered region. EMBO J 35:1522–1536. Scholar
  34. 34.
    Beckwith R, Estrin E, Worden EJ, Martin A (2013) Reconstitution of the 26S proteasome reveals functional asymmetries in its AAA+ unfoldase. Nat Publ Group 20:1164–1172. Scholar
  35. 35.
    Neefjes J, Dantuma NP (2004) Fluorescent probes for proteolysis: tools for drug discovery. Nat Rev Drug Discov 3:58–69. Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bhattacharyya S, Renn JP, Yu H et al (2016) An assay for 26S proteasome activity based on fluorescence anisotropy measurements of dye-labeled protein substrates. Anal Biochem 509:50–59. Scholar
  37. 37.
    Stack JH, Whitney M, Rodems SM, Pollok BA (2000) A ubiquitin-based tagging system for controlled modulation of protein stability. Nat Biotechnol 18:1298–1302. Scholar
  38. 38.
    Fishbain S, Prakash S, Herrig A et al (2011) Rad23 escapes degradation because it lacks a proteasome initiation region. Nat Commun 2:192–199. Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sone T, Saeki Y, Toh-e A, Yokosawa H (2004) Sem1p is a novel subunit of the 26 S proteasome from Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J Biol Chem 279:28807–28816. Scholar
  40. 40.
    Inobe T, Fishbain S, Prakash S, Matouschek A (2011) Defining the geometry of the two-component proteasome degron. Nat Chem Biol 7:161–167. Scholar
  41. 41.
    Thrower JS, Hoffman L, Rechsteiner M, Pickart CM (2000) Recognition of the polyubiquitin proteolytic signal. EMBO J 19:94–102. Scholar
  42. 42.
    Nager AR, Baker TA, Sauer RT (2011) Stepwise unfolding of a β barrel protein by the AAA+ ClpXP protease. J Mol Biol 413:4–16. Scholar
  43. 43.
    Fishbain S, Inobe T, Israeli E et al (2015) Sequence composition of disordered regions fine-tunes protein half-life. Nat Struct Mol Biol 22:214–221. Scholar
  44. 44.
    Fischer M, Hilt W, Richter-Ruoff B et al (1994) The 26S proteasome of the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. FEBS Lett 355:69–75. Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ostuka Y, Homma N, Shiga K et al (1998) Purification and properties of rabbit muscle proteasome, and its effect on myofibrillar structure. Meat Sci 49:365–378. Scholar
  46. 46.
    Yang P (2003) Purification of the Arabidopsis 26 S proteasome: biochemical and molecular analyses revealed the presence of multiple isoforms. J Biol Chem 279:6401–6413. Scholar
  47. 47.
    DeMartino GN, Proske RJ, Moomaw CR et al (1996) Identification, purification, and characterization of a PA700-dependent activator of the proteasome. J Biol Chem 271:3112–3118. Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hirano Y, Murata S, Tanaka K (2005) Large- and small-scale purification of mammalian 26S proteasomes. Meth Enzymol 399:227–240. Scholar
  49. 49.
    Besche HC, Goldberg AL (2012) Affinity purification of mammalian 26S proteasomes using an ubiquitin-like domain. In: cDNA Libraries. Humana Press, Totowa, NJ, pp 423–432Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Besche HC, Haas W, Gygi SP, Goldberg AL (2009) Isolation of mammalian 26S proteasomes and p97/VCP complexes using the ubiquitin-like domain from HHR23B reveals novel proteasome-associated proteins. Biochemistry 48:2538–2549. Scholar
  51. 51.
    Leggett DS, Hanna J, Borodovsky A et al (2002) Multiple associated proteins regulate proteasome structure and function. Mol Cell 10:495–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Leggett DS, Glickman MH, Finley D (2005) Purification of proteasomes, proteasome subcomplexes, and proteasome-associated proteins from budding yeast. Methods Mol Biol 301:57–70. Scholar
  53. 53.
    Verma R, Chen S, Feldman R et al (2000) Proteasomal proteomics: identification of nucleotide-sensitive proteasome-interacting proteins by mass spectrometric analysis of affinity-purified proteasomes. Mol Biol Cell 11:3425–3439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Elsasser S, Schmidt M, Finley D (2005) Characterization of the proteasome using native gel electrophoresis. Meth Enzymol 398:353–363. Scholar
  55. 55.
    Peth A, Kukushkin N, Bossé M, Goldberg AL (2013) Ubiquitinated proteins activate the proteasomal ATPases by binding to Usp14 or Uch37 homologs. J Biol Chem 288:7781–7790. Scholar
  56. 56.
    Benaroudj N, Zwickl P, Seemuller E et al (2003) ATP hydrolysis by the proteasome regulatory complex PAN serves multiple functions in protein degradation. Mol Cell 11:69–78. Scholar
  57. 57.
    Takahashi K, Matouschek A, Inobe T (2015) Regulation of proteasomal degradation by modulating proteasomal initiation regions. ACS Chem Biol 10:2537–2543. Scholar
  58. 58.
    Johnson KA (2009) Fitting enzyme kinetic data with KinTek Global Kinetic Explorer. Meth Enzymol 467:601–626. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amit Kumar Singh Gautam
    • 1
  • Kirby Martinez-Fonts
    • 1
  • Andreas Matouschek
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Molecular BiosciencesThe University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations