Studying epigenetic interactions using MicroScale Thermophoresis (MST)

Thomas Schubert; Gernot Längst; Thomas Schubert; Gernot Längst

doi:10.3934/biophy.2015.3.370

AIMS Biophysics

2015, Volume 2, Issue 3: 370-380. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2015.3.370

Previous Article Next Article

Review Special Issues

Studying epigenetic interactions using MicroScale Thermophoresis (MST)

Thomas Schubert ^{1
,
,},
Gernot Längst ²

1.
2bind GmbH, Josef Engertstraße 13, 93053 Regensburg, Germany;
2.
Biochemie III, Universität Regensburg, Universitätstraße 31, 93053 Regensburg, Germany

Received: 16 July 2015 Accepted: 13 August 2015 Published: 21 August 2015

Epigenetic regulation is based on specific molecular interactions between epigenetic reader, writer and eraser molecules and chromatin. Binding parameters of these interactions such as binding affinities, stoichiometries and thermodynamics are essential for the understanding of the establishment and maintenance of epigenetic networks. The MicroScale Thermophoresis (MST) is a rapid and precise method to characterize epigenetic interactions in solution at microliter scale, requiring low concentrations of the potential interactors. The technology is based on the movement of molecules through temperature gradients, a physical effect referred to as thermophoresis. The thermophoretic movement of a molecule depends on its size, charge and hydration shell. Upon the interaction of two molecules, at least one of these parameters is altered, leading to a change in the movement behavior, which can be used to quantify molecular interactions. MST offers free choice of buffers, also allowing measurements in serum and crude extracts, thereby ensuring optimal reaction conditions. Binding affinities from pM to mM can be measured, perfectly suited to analyze protein/protein, protein/modified peptide and protein/nucleic acid interactions in epigenetics. This review demonstrates the potential of this rapid and versatile technology in the characterization of epigenetic modifiers.
- epigenetics,
- molecular interactions,
- binding affinity,
- MicroScale Thermophoresis (MST)
Citation: Thomas Schubert, Gernot Längst. Studying epigenetic interactions using MicroScale Thermophoresis (MST)[J]. AIMS Biophysics, 2015, 2(3): 370-380. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2015.3.370

Related Papers:

Abstract

Epigenetic regulation is based on specific molecular interactions between epigenetic reader, writer and eraser molecules and chromatin. Binding parameters of these interactions such as binding affinities, stoichiometries and thermodynamics are essential for the understanding of the establishment and maintenance of epigenetic networks. The MicroScale Thermophoresis (MST) is a rapid and precise method to characterize epigenetic interactions in solution at microliter scale, requiring low concentrations of the potential interactors. The technology is based on the movement of molecules through temperature gradients, a physical effect referred to as thermophoresis. The thermophoretic movement of a molecule depends on its size, charge and hydration shell. Upon the interaction of two molecules, at least one of these parameters is altered, leading to a change in the movement behavior, which can be used to quantify molecular interactions. MST offers free choice of buffers, also allowing measurements in serum and crude extracts, thereby ensuring optimal reaction conditions. Binding affinities from pM to mM can be measured, perfectly suited to analyze protein/protein, protein/modified peptide and protein/nucleic acid interactions in epigenetics. This review demonstrates the potential of this rapid and versatile technology in the characterization of epigenetic modifiers.

References

[1]	Rothbart SB, Strahl BD (2014) Interpreting the language of histone and DNA modifications. Biochim Biophys Acta 1839: 627-643. doi: 10.1016/j.bbagrm.2014.03.001
[2]	Baylin SB, Jones PA (2011) A decade of exploring the cancer epigenome-biological and translational implications. Nat Rev Cancer 11: 726-734. doi: 10.1038/nrc3130
[3]	Wu H, Zhang Y (2011) Mechanisms and functions of Tet protein-mediated 5-methylcytosine oxidation. Genes Dev 25: 2436-2452. doi: 10.1101/gad.179184.111
[4]	Kouzarides T (2007) Chromatin modifications and their function. Cell 128: 693-705. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2007.02.005
[5]	Tan M, Luo H, Lee S, et al. (2011) Identification of 67 histone marks and histone lysine crotonylation as a new type of histone modification. Cell 146: 1016-1028. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2011.08.008
[6]	Zhang G, Pradhan S (2014) Mammalian epigenetic mechanisms. IUBMB Life 66: 240-256. doi: 10.1002/iub.1264
[7]	Baaske P, Wienken CJ, Reineck P, et al. (2010) Optical thermophoresis for quantifying the buffer dependence of aptamer binding. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 49: 2238-2241. doi: 10.1002/anie.200903998
[8]	Seidel SA, Dijkman PM, Lea WA, et al. (2013) Microscale thermophoresis quantifies biomolecular interactions under previously challenging conditions. Methods 59: 301-315. doi: 10.1016/j.ymeth.2012.12.005
[9]	Seidel SA, Wienken CJ, Geissler S, et al. (2012) Label-free microscale thermophoresis discriminates sites and affinity of protein-ligand binding. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 51: 10656-10659. doi: 10.1002/anie.201204268
[10]	Wienken CJ, Baaske P, Rothbauer U, et al. (2010) Protein-binding assays in biological liquids using microscale thermophoresis. Nat Commun 1: 100. doi: 10.1038/ncomms1093
[11]	Jerabek-Willemsen M, André T, Wanner R, et al. (2014) MicroScale Thermophoresis: Interaction analysis and beyond. J Mol Struct 1077: 101-113. doi: 10.1016/j.molstruc.2014.03.009
[12]	Jerabek-Willemsen M, Wienken CJ, Braun D, et al. (2011) Molecular interaction studies using microscale thermophoresis. Assay Drug Dev Technol 9: 342-53. doi: 10.1089/adt.2011.0380
[13]	Duhr S, Baaske P (2013) Microscale Thermophoresis: Immobilization-free Binding Assays. GIT Laboratory J. Available from: http://www.laboratory-journal.com/applications/biological-methods/microscale-thermophoresis-immobilization-free-binding-assays.
[14]	Diermeier SD, Németh A, Rehli M, et al. (2013) Chromatin-Specific Regulation of Mammalian rDNA Transcription by Clustered TTF-I Binding Sites. PLoS Genet 9: e1003786. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1003786
[15]	Timofeeva OA, Chasovskikh S, Lonskaya I, et al. (2012) Mechanisms of unphosphorylated STAT3 transcription factor binding to DNA. J Biol Chem 287: 14192-14200. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M111.323899
[16]	Gjerstorff MF, Relster MM, Greve KBV, et al. (2014) SSX2 is a novel DNA-binding protein that antagonizes polycomb group body formation and gene repression. Nucleic Acids Res 42: 11433-11446 doi: 10.1093/nar/gku852
[17]	Posse V, Hoberg E, Dierckx A, et al. (2014) The amino terminal extension of mammalian mitochondrial RNA polymerase ensures promoter specific transcription initiation. Nucleic Acids Res 42: 3638-3647. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkt1397
[18]	Silvers R, Saxena K, Kudlinzki D, et al. (2012) Recombinant expression and purification of human TATA binding protein using a chimeric fusion. Protein Expr Purif 85: 142-147. doi: 10.1016/j.pep.2012.07.006
[19]	Pham TH, Minderjahn J, Schmidl C, et al. (2013) Mechanisms of in vivo binding site selection of the hematopoietic master transcription factor PU.1. Nucleic Acids Res 41: 6391-6402. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkt355
[20]	Schubert T, Pusch MC, Diermeier S, et al. (2012) Df31 protein and snoRNAs maintain accessible higher-order structures of chromatin. Mol Cell 48: 434-444. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2012.08.021
[21]	Wang Y, Fischle W, Cheung W, et al. (2004) Beyond the double helix: writing and reading the histone code. Novartis Found Symp 259: 3-17; discussion 17-21, 163-169. doi: 10.1002/0470862637.ch2
[22]	Jenuwein T, Allis CD (2001) Translating the histone code. Science 293: 1074-1080. doi: 10.1126/science.1063127
[23]	Taverna SD, Li H, Ruthenburg AJ, et al. (2007) How chromatin-binding modules interpret histone modifications: lessons from professional pocket pickers. Nat Struct Mol Biol 14: 1025-1040. doi: 10.1038/nsmb1338
[24]	Southall SM, Cronin NB, Wilson JR (2013) A novel route to product specificity in the Suv4-20 family of histone H4K20 methyltransferases. Nucleic Acids Res 42: 661-671.
[25]	Guo R, Zheng L, Park J, et al. (2014) BS69/ZMYND11 reads and connects histone h3.3 lysine 36 trimethylation-decorated chromatin to regulated pre-mrna processing. Mol Cell 56: 298-310.
[26]	Greer E, Beese-Sims S, Brookes E, et al. (2014) A Histone Methylation Network Regulates Transgenerational Epigenetic Memory in C. elegans. Cell Reports 7: 113-126. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2014.02.044
[27]	Allam R, Scherbaum CR, Darisipudi MN, et al. (2012) Histones from Dying Renal Cells Aggravate Kidney Injury via TLR2 and TLR4. J Am Soc Nephrol 23: 1375-1388. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2011111077
[28]	Alpatov R, Lesch B, Nakamoto-Kinoshita M, et al. (2014) A Chromatin-Dependent Role of the Fragile X Mental Retardation Protein FMRP in the DNA Damage Response. Cell 157: 869-881. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2014.03.040
[29]	Josling GA, Petter M, Oehring SC, et al. (2015) A plasmodium falciparum bromodomain protein regulates invasion gene expression. Cell Host Microbe 17: 741-751. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2015.05.009
[30]	Tan Z, Wortman M, Dillehay KL, et al. (2012) Small molecule targeting of PCNA chromatin association inhibits tumor cell growth. Mol Pharmacol 81: 811-819. doi: 10.1124/mol.112.077735
[31]	Zheng YC, Duan YC, Ma JL, et al. (2013) Triazole-dithiocarbamate based selective lysine specific demethylase 1 (LSD1) inactivators inhibit gastric cancer cell growth, invasion, and migration. J Med Chem 56: 8543-8560. doi: 10.1021/jm401002r

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2015 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)