[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Analysis
  • Published:

Immunofluorescence and fluorescent-protein tagging show high correlation for protein localization in mammalian cells

Nature Methods volume 10, pages 315–323 (2013)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Imaging techniques such as immunofluorescence (IF) and the expression of fluorescent protein (FP) fusions are widely used to investigate the subcellular distribution of proteins. Here we report a systematic analysis of >500 human proteins comparing the localizations obtained in live versus fixed cells using FPs and IF, respectively. We identify systematic discrepancies between IF and FPs as well as between FP tagging at the N and C termini. The analysis shows that for 80% of the proteins, IF and FPs yield the same subcellular distribution, and the locations of 250 previously unlocalized proteins were determined by the overlap between the two methods. Approximately 60% of proteins localize to multiple organelles for both methods, indicating a complex subcellular protein organization. These results show that both IF and FP tagging are reliable techniques and demonstrate the usefulness of an integrative approach for a complete investigation of the subcellular human proteome.

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

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

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Overlap between IF and FP localization data.
Figure 2: Differences between IF and FP localization data.
Figure 3: Validation of antibody-based localization data.
Figure 4: Differences between N- and C-terminal FP fusions.
Figure 5: Feature-based image analysis of IF and FP patterns.
Figure 6: Systematic localization of uncharacterized proteins.

Similar content being viewed by others

Accession codes

Accessions

Sequence Read Archive

References

  1. Simpson, J.C., Wellenreuther, R., Poustka, A., Pepperkok, R. & Wiemann, S. Systematic subcellular localization of novel proteins identified by large-scale cDNA sequencing. EMBO Rep. 1, 287–292 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Brock, R., Hamelers, I.H. & Jovin, T.M. Comparison of fixation protocols for adherent cultured cells applied to a GFP fusion protein of the epidermal growth factor receptor. Cytometry 35, 353–362 (1999).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Goldenthal, K.L., Hedman, K., Chen, J.W., August, J.T. & Willingham, M.C. Postfixation detergent treatment for immunofluorescence suppresses localization of some integral membrane proteins. J. Histochem. Cytochem. 33, 813–820 (1985).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Hoetelmans, R.W. et al. Effects of acetone, methanol, or paraformaldehyde on cellular structure, visualized by reflection contrast microscopy and transmission and scanning electron microscopy. Appl. Immunohistochem. Mol. Morphol. 9, 346–351 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Stadler, C., Skogs, M., Brismar, H., Uhlen, M. & Lundberg, E. A single fixation protocol for proteome-wide immunofluorescence localization studies. J. Proteomics 73, 1067–1078 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Shibata, T., Tanaka, T., Shimizu, K., Hayakawa, S. & Kuroda, K. Immunofluorescence imaging of the influenza virus M1 protein is dependent on the fixation method. J. Virol. Methods 156, 162–165 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Schnell, U., Dijk, F., Sjollema, K.A. & Giepmans, B.N. Immunolabeling artifacts and the need for live-cell imaging. Nat. Methods 9, 152–158 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Huh, W.K. et al. Global analysis of protein localization in budding yeast. Nature 425, 686–691 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Starkuviene, V. et al. High-content screening microscopy identifies novel proteins with a putative role in secretory membrane traffic. Genome Res. 14, 1948–1956 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Liebel, U. et al. A microscope-based screening platform for large-scale functional protein analysis in intact cells. FEBS Lett. 554, 394–398 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Simpson, J.C., Neubrand, V.E., Wiemann, S. & Pepperkok, R. Illuminating the human genome. Histochem. Cell Biol. 115, 23–29 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Fagerberg, L. et al. Mapping the subcellular protein distribution in three human cell lines. J. Proteome Res. 10, 3766–3777 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Uhlén, M. et al. A human protein atlas for normal and cancer tissues based on antibody proteomics. Mol. Cell Proteomics 4, 1920–1932 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Uhlen, M. et al. Towards a knowledge-based Human Protein Atlas. Nat. Biotechnol. 28, 1248–1250 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Fölsch, H., Gaume, B., Brunner, M., Neupert, W. & Stuart, R.A. C- to N-terminal translocation of preproteins into mitochondria. EMBO J. 17, 6508–6515 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Stadler, C. et al. Systematic validation of antibody binding and protein subcellular localization using siRNA and confocal microscopy. J. Proteomics 75, 2236–2251 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Simpson, J.C. et al. Genome-wide RNAi screening identifies human proteins with a regulatory function in the early secretory pathway. Nat. Cell Biol. 14, 764–774 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Stan, T. et al. Mitochondrial protein import: recognition of internal import signals of BCS1 by the TOM complex. Mol. Cell Biol. 23, 2239–2250 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. von Heijne, G. Patterns of amino acids near signal-sequence cleavage sites. Eur. J. Biochem. 133, 17–21 (1983).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. von Heijne, G. Signal sequences. The limits of variation. J. Mol. Biol. 184, 99–105 (1985).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Janda, C.Y. et al. Recognition of a signal peptide by the signal recognition particle. Nature 465, 507–510 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Singan, V.R., Jones, T.R., Curran, K.M. & Simpson, J.C. Dual channel rank-based intensity weighting for quantitative co-localization of microscopy images. BMC Bioinformatics 12, 407 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Boland, M.V. & Murphy, R.F. A neural network classifier capable of recognizing the patterns of all major subcellular structures in fluorescence microscope images of HeLa cells. Bioinformatics 17, 1213–1223 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Conrad, C. et al. Automatic identification of subcellular phenotypes on human cell arrays. Genome Res. 14, 1130–1136 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Li, J., Newberg, J.Y., Uhlen, M., Lundberg, E. & Murphy, R.F. Automated analysis and reannotation of subcellular locations in confocal images from the human protein atlas. PLoS ONE 7, e50514 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Paik, Y.K. et al. The Chromosome-Centric Human Proteome Project for cataloging proteins encoded in the genome. Nat. Biotechnol. 30, 221–223 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Jamur, M.C. & Oliver, C. Permeabilization of cell membranes. Methods Mol. Biol. 588, 63–66 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Melan, M.A. & Sluder, G. Redistribution and differential extraction of soluble proteins in permeabilized cultured cells. Implications for immunofluorescence microscopy. J. Cell Sci. 101, 731–743 (1992).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Peng, T. et al. Determining the distribution of probes between different subcellular locations through automated unmixing of subcellular patterns. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107, 2944–2949 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Barbe, L. et al. Toward a confocal subcellular atlas of the human proteome. Mol. Cell Proteomics 7, 499–508 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Danielsson, F. et al. RNA deep sequencing as a tool for selection of cell lines for systematic subcellular localization of all human proteins. J. Proteome Res. 12, 299–307 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Shannon, P. et al. Cytoscape: a software environment for integrated models of biomolecular interaction networks. Genome Res. 13, 2498–2504 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Fruchterman, T.M.J. & Reingold, E.M. Graph drawing by force-directed placement. Softw. Pract. Exp. 21, 1129–1164 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Kamada, T. & Kawai, S. An algorithm for drawing general undirected graphs. Inf. Process. Lett. 31, 7–15 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Carpenter, A.E. et al. CellProfiler: image analysis software for identifying and quantifying cell phenotypes. Genome Biol. 7, R100 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the entire staff of the Human Protein Atlas project, S. Wiemann and his lab (German Cancer Research Center, DKFZ) for various GFP-ORF constructs and S. Simpson for careful proofreading. The IF work within the frame of the Human Protein Atlas project was supported by grants from the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation, EU Seventh Framework Programme (GA HEALTH-F4-2008-201648/PROSPECTS) and strategic grant Science for Life Laboratory. The J.C.S. lab is supported by a Principal Investigator (PI) grant (09/IN.1/B2604) from Science Foundation Ireland (SFI).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Science for Life Laboratory, School of Biotechnology, Stockholm, Sweden

    Charlotte Stadler, Elton Rexhepaj, Mathias Uhlén & Emma Lundberg

  2. School of Biology and Environmental Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

    Vasanth R Singan & Jeremy C Simpson

  3. Conway Institute of Biomolecular and Biomedical Research, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

    Vasanth R Singan & Jeremy C Simpson

  4. Lane Center for Computational Biology, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA

    Robert F Murphy

  5. Department of Biological Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA

    Robert F Murphy

  6. Cell Biology and Biophysics Unit, European Molecular Biology Laboratory, Heidelberg, Germany

    Rainer Pepperkok

Authors
  1. Charlotte Stadler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elton Rexhepaj
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vasanth R Singan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Robert F Murphy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Rainer Pepperkok
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mathias Uhlén
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jeremy C Simpson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Emma Lundberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

C.S. and E.L. provided the IF data. J.C.S. and R.P. provided the FP data. C.S. and E.R. performed the comparisons between the data sets. E.R. performed the automated image analysis. C.S. and V.R.S. performed control experiments. M.U. and R.F.M. provided intellectual input. E.L. designed and led the study. E.L., J.C.S. and C.S. wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emma Lundberg.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Text and Figures

Supplementary Figures 1–7 and Supplementary Notes 1 and 2 (PDF 12928 kb)

Supplementary Table 1

All N- and C-terminal FP fusions and corresponding localizations (XLSX 77 kb)

Supplementary Table 2

All antibodies used for IF and the corresponding localizations (XLS 109 kb)

Supplementary Table 3

All proteins with dissimilar results between IF and FP with the corresponding annotation and, if available, information on subcellular localization from UniProtKB (XLSX 34 kb)

Supplementary Table 4

All proteins with overlapping subcellular localizations for IF and FP and information on subcellular localization from UniProtKB (XLS 102 kb)

Supplementary Data 1

Top 50 features extracted from the IF and FP-tagged confocal microscopy images and used for the principal-component learning in the training data set and for the projection of the data in the validation data set (TXT 4 kb)

Supplementary Data 2

Labels of the dendrograms in Figure 5. First column is dendrogram in a, the second column is dendrogram in b and the third column is dendrogram in c. (TXT 12 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stadler, C., Rexhepaj, E., Singan, V. et al. Immunofluorescence and fluorescent-protein tagging show high correlation for protein localization in mammalian cells. Nat Methods 10, 315–323 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2377

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2377

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing