Back

Direct Comparison of Lysine vs. Site-specific Protein Surface Immobilization in Single-molecule Mechanical Assays

Liu, H.; Liu, Z.; Santos, M.; Nash, M.

2023-03-20 biophysics
10.1101/2023.03.17.532846 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Single-molecule force spectroscopy (SMFS) is a powerful method for studying folding states and mechanical properties of proteins, however, it requires surface immobilization of proteins onto force-transducing probes such as cantilevers or microscale beads. A common immobilization method relies on coupling surface-exposed lysine residues to carboxylated surfaces using 1-ethyl-3-(3-dimethyl-aminopropyl) carbodiimide and N-hydroxysuccinimide (EDC/NHS). Because proteins typically contain many lysine groups, this strategy results in a heterogeneous distribution of tether positions in the molecule. Genetically encoded peptide tags (e.g., ybbR) provide alternative chemistries for achieving site-specific immobilization, but thus far a direct comparison of site-specific vs. lysine-based immobilization strategies to assess effects on the observed mechanical properties was lacking. Here, we directly compared lysine- vs. ybbR-based protein immobilization in SMFS assays using several model polyprotein systems. Our results show that lysine-based immobilization results in significant signal deterioration for monomeric streptavidin-biotin interactions, and loss of the ability to correctly classify unfolding pathways in a multipathway Cohesin-Dockerin system. We developed a mixed immobilization approach where a site-specifically tethered ligand was used to probe surface-bound proteins immobilized through lysine groups, and found partial recovery of specific signals. The mixed immobilization approach represents a viable alternative for mechanical assays on in vivo-derived samples or other proteins of interest where genetically encoded tags are not feasible.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Nanoscale
42 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.6%
2
Nano Letters
71 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
15.2%
3
Analytical Chemistry
218 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
7.3%
4
Small
78 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.1%
5
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 33%
3.5%
6
Biophysical Journal
631 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.5%
50% of probability mass above
7
ChemBioChem
55 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.2%
8
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces
39 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.2%
9
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 43%
2.4%
10
Langmuir
36 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.9%
11
ACS Applied Bio Materials
24 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.9%
12
The Journal of Physical Chemistry B
167 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
13
ACS Nano
113 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
14
Advanced Materials Interfaces
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
15
Biophysical Reports
37 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.5%
16
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 53%
1.4%
17
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 53%
1.3%
18
Sensors
43 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.1%
19
ACS Sensors
49 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.1%
20
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2444 papers in training set
Top 34%
1.1%
21
Soft Matter
60 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.1%
22
Nanoscale Advances
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
23
Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics
36 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
24
Biosensors and Bioelectronics
57 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
25
Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces
10 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.6%
26
Advanced Materials
56 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
27
Protein Science
246 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%