Two‐Hybrid Systems to Measure Protein–Protein Interactions

Abstract

To understand how proteins function to control cellular processes, their interactions with other proteins must be identified and characterised. The yeast two‐hybrid system is a simple and efficient assay for protein interactions. In a yeast two‐hybrid assay, the two proteins to be tested are expressed in a yeast nucleus with each protein fused to one‐half of a transcription activator. If the two‐hybrid proteins interact, the transcription activator is reconstituted and turns on reporter genes that can be easily detected. This assay has been used to identify tens of thousands of protein interactions, to map protein interaction domains and to characterise mutant variants of proteins. A variety of related assays have been developed, all based on the ability of two interacting hybrid proteins to activate a reporter system. These assays along with the original yeast two‐hybrid assay contribute to the characterisation of the protein interactions – or protein interactome – for humans and a wide range of other organisms.

Key Concepts

  • The function of most proteins involves interacting with one or more other proteins.
  • A binary interaction is a direct physical interaction between two proteins.
  • Understanding a protein's function requires charting its binary interactions.
  • The interactome is all of the protein interactions for a particular cell or an entire organism.
  • Two‐hybrid assays detect binary protein interactions by expressing the two test proteins in cells as hybrids fused to protein moieties that when brought into proximity via the protein interaction produce a detectable signal.
  • In a yeast two‐hybrid assay, the two proteins to be tested for interaction are fused to the two halves of a transcription factor in yeast.
  • Two‐hybrid assays, like all protein interaction assays, can produce false positives, which are interactions that are detected in the assay even though they do not occur under normal conditions in vivo.
  • Two‐hybrid and other protein interaction assays can also result in missed interactions or false negatives.
  • Use of multiple different protein interaction assays can reduce the number of false negatives and provide cross‐validation to rule out false positives.

Keywords: two‐hybrid; yeast; protein interaction; interactome; networks; complementation

Figure 1. Two‐hybrid assays for protein–protein interactions. In a two‐hybrid assay, each protein to be tested is expressed fused to a tag, A or B. In this example, X interacts with Y (right) but not with Y′ (left). When A and B are brought near each other through the X–Y interaction, they activate a signal that can be detected (right). The signal may result from direct interaction between A and B, for example, if together A and B form an active enzyme. Alternatively, the signal may be generated when one tag becomes localised to a particular subcellular location as a result of the interaction, as in transcription‐based two‐hybrid systems.
Figure 2. In the transcription‐based yeast two‐hybrid system, one tag is a DNA‐binding domain (DBD) that binds to specific sites in a reporter gene. The other tag is a transcription‐activation domain (AD). An interaction between X and Y localises the AD to the reporter, where it activates transcription.
close

References

Aronheim A (2001) Membrane recruitment systems for analysis of protein–protein interactions. Methods in Molecular Biology 177: 319–328.

Bendixen C, Gangloff S and Rothstein R (1994) A yeast mating‐selection scheme for detection of protein–protein interactions. Nucleic Acids Research 22: 1778–1779.

Braun P, Tasan M, Dreze M, et al. (2009) An experimentally derived confidence score for binary protein–protein interactions. Nature Methods 6: 91–97.

Brent R and Finley RL Jr (1997) Understanding gene and allele function with two‐hybrid methods. Annual Review of Genetics 31: 663–704.

Chatr‐Aryamontri A, Oughtred R, Boucher L, et al. (2017) The BioGRID interaction database: 2017 update. Nucleic Acids Research 45 (D1): D369–D379.

Dang CV, Barrett J, Villa‐Garcia M, et al. (1991) Intracellular leucine zipper interactions suggest c‐Myc hetero‐oligomerization. Molecular and Cellular Biology 11: 954–962.

Dove SL, Joung JK and Hochschild A (1997) Activation of prokaryotic transcription through arbitrary protein–protein contacts. Nature 386: 627–630.

Estojak J, Brent R and Golemis EA (1995) Correlation of two‐hybrid affinity data with in vitro measurements. Molecular and Cellular Biology 15: 5820–5829.

Fearon ER, Finkel T, Gillison ML, et al. (1992) Karyoplasmic interaction selection strategy: a general strategy to detect protein–protein interactions in mammalian cells. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 89: 7958–7962.

Felgueiras J, Silva JV and Fardilha M (2017) Adding biological meaning to human protein‐protein interactions identified by yeast two‐hybrid screenings: A guide through bioinformatics tools. Journal of Proteomics 171: 127–140.

Fields S and Song O (1989) A novel genetic system to detect protein–protein interactions. Nature 340: 245–246.

Finley RL Jr and Brent R (1994) Interaction mating reveals binary and ternary connections between Drosophila cell cycle regulators. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 91: 12980–12984.

Formstecher E, Aresta S, Collura V, et al. (2005) Protein interaction mapping: a Drosophila case study. Genome Research 15: 376–384.

Gingras AC, Gstaiger M, Raught B and Aebersold R (2007) Analysis of protein complexes using mass spectrometry. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 8: 645–654.

Giot L, Bader JS, Brouwer C, et al. (2003) A protein interaction map of Drosophila melanogaster. Science 302: 1727–1736.

Gyuris J, Golemis E, Chertkov H and Brent R (1993) Cdi1, a human G1 and S phase protein phosphatase that associates with Cdk2. Cell 75: 791–803.

Hu JC, Kornacker MG and Hochschild A (2000) Escherichia coli one‐ and two‐hybrid systems for the analysis and identification of protein–protein interactions. Methods 20: 80–94.

Ito T, Chiba T, Ozawa R, et al. (2001) A comprehensive two‐hybrid analysis to explore the yeast protein interactome. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 98: 4569–4574.

Johnsson N and Varshavsky A (1994) Split ubiquitin as a sensor of protein interactions in vivo. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 91: 10340–10344.

Khazak V, Eyrisch S, Kato J, Tamanoi F and Golemis EA (2013) A two‐hybrid approach to identify inhibitors of the RAS‐RAF interaction. Enzymes 33 (Pt A): 213–248.

Kerppola TK (2006) Visualization of molecular interactions by fluorescence complementation. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 7: 449–456.

Kodama Y and Hu CD (2012) Bimolecular fluorescence complementation (BiFC): a 5‐year update and future perspectives. Biotechniques 53 (5): 285–298.

Lam MH and Stagljar I (2012) Strategies for membrane interaction proteomics: no mass spectrometry required. Proteomics 12: 1519–1526.

Lewis JD, Wan J, Ford R, et al. (2012) quantitative interactor screening with next‐generation sequencing (QIS‐Seq) identifies Arabidopsis thaliana MLO2 as a target of the Pseudomonas syringae type III effector HopZ2. BMC Genomics 13: 8.

Li JJ and Herskowitz I (1993) Isolation of ORC6, a component of the yeast origin recognition complex by a one‐hybrid system. Science 262: 1870–1874.

Li S, Armstrong CM, Bertin N, et al. (2004) A map of the interactome network of the metazoan C. elegans. Science 303: 540–543.

Lin Y, Li Y, Zhu Y, et al. (2012) Identification of antituberculosis agents that target ribosomal protein interactions using a yeast two‐hybrid system. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109 (43): 17412–17417.

Markham K, Bai Y and Schmitt‐Ulms G (2007) Co‐immunoprecipitations revisited: an update on experimental concepts and their implementation for sensitive interactome investigations of endogenous proteins. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry 389: 461–473.

Orchard S, Ammari M, Aranda B, et al. (2014) The MIntAct project – IntAct as a common curation platform for 11 molecular interaction databases. Nucleic Acids Research 42 (Database issue): D358–D363.

Parrish JR, Yu J, Liu G, et al. (2007) A proteome‐wide protein interaction map for Campylobacter jejuni. Genome Biology 8: R130.

Petschnigg J, Groisman B, Kotlyar M, et al. (2014) The mammalian‐membrane two‐hybrid assay (MaMTH) for probing membrane‐protein interactions in human cells. Nature Methods 11 (5): 585–592.

Rajagopala SV, Sikorski P, Kumar A, et al. (2014) The binary protein‐protein interaction landscape of Escherichia coli. Nature Biotechnology 32 (3): 285–290.

Remy I, Campbell‐Valois FX and Michnick SW (2007) Detection of protein‐protein interactions using a simple survival protein‐fragment complementation assay based on the enzyme dihydrofolate reductase. Nature Protocols 2: 2120–2125.

Rolland T, Tasan M, Charloteaux B, et al. (2014) A proteome‐scale map of the human interactome network. Cell 159 (5): 1212–1226.

Rossi FM, Blakely BT and Blau HM (2000) Interaction blues: protein interactions monitored in live mammalian cells by beta‐galactosidase complementation. Trends in Cell Biology 10: 119–122.

Rual JF, Venkatesan K, Hao T, et al. (2005) Towards a proteome‐scale map of the human protein–protein interaction network. Nature 437: 1173–1178.

Sekar RB and Periasamy A (2003) Fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET) microscopy imaging of live cell protein localizations. Journal of Cell Biology 160: 629–633.

SenGupta DJ, Zhang B, Kraemer B, et al. (1996) A three‐hybrid system to detect RNA‐protein interactions in vivo. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 93: 8496–8501.

Sahni N, Yi S, Taipale M, et al. (2015) Widespread macromolecular interaction perturbations in human genetic disorders. Cell 161 (3): 647–660.

Simonis N, Rual JF, Carvunis AR, et al. (2009) Empirically controlled mapping of the Caenorhabditis elegans protein–protein interactome network. Nature Methods 6: 47–54.

Stanyon CA, Liu G, Mangiola BA, et al. (2004) A Drosophila protein‐interaction map centered on cell‐cycle regulators. Genome Biology 5: R96.

Stelzl U, Worm U, Lalowski M, et al. (2005) A human protein–protein interaction network: a resource for annotating the proteome. Cell 122: 957–968.

Suzuki H, Fukunishi Y, Kagawa I, et al. (2001) Protein–protein interaction panel using mouse full‐length cDNAs. Genome Research 11: 1758–1765.

Tarassov K, Messier V, Landry CR, et al. (2008) An in vivo map of the yeast protein interactome. Science 320: 1465–1470.

Trigg SA, Garza RM, MacWilliams A, et al. (2017) CrY2H‐seq: a massively multiplexed assay for deep‐coverage interactome mapping. Nature Methods 14 (8): 819–825.

Uetz P, Giot L, Cagney G, et al. (2000) A comprehensive analysis of protein–protein interactions in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nature 403: 623–627.

Uetz P, Rajagopala SV, Dong YA and Haas J (2004) From ORFeomes to protein interaction maps in viruses. Genome Research 14: 2029–2033.

Venkatesan K, Rual JF, Vazquez A, et al. (2009) An empirical framework for binary interactome mapping. Nature Methods 6 (1): 83–90.

Vojtek AB, Hollenberg SM and Cooper JA (1993) Mammalian Ras interacts directly with the serine/threonine kinase Raf. Cell 74: 205–214.

Wang MM and Reed RR (1993) Molecular cloning of the olfactory neuronal transcription factor Olf‐1 by genetic selection in yeast. Nature 364: 121–126.

Weimann M, Grossmann A, Woodsmith J, et al. (2013) A Y2H‐seq approach defines the human protein methyltransferase interactome. Nature Methods 10 (4): 339–342.

Xu X, Soutto M, Xie Q, et al. (2007) Imaging protein interactions with bioluminescence resonance energy transfer (BRET) in plant and mammalian cells and tissues. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104: 10264–10269.

Yachie N, Petsalaki E, Mellor JC, et al. (2016) Pooled‐matrix protein interaction screens using Barcode Fusion Genetics. Molecular Systems Biology 12 (4): 863.

Yu H, Braun P, Yildirim MA, et al. (2008) High‐quality binary protein interaction map of the yeast interactome network. Science 322: 104–110.

Yu J and Finley RL Jr (2009) Combining multiple positive training sets to generate confidence scores for protein–protein interactions. Bioinformatics 25: 105–111.

Yu H, Tardivo L, Tam S, et al. (2011) Next‐generation sequencing to generate interactome datasets. Nature Methods 8: 478–480.

Further Reading

Bartel PL and Field S (1997) The two‐hybrid system: a personal view. In: Bartel PL and Fields S (eds) The Yeast Two‐Hybrid System, pp. 3–7. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Brent R and Finley RL Jr (1997) Understanding gene and allele function with two‐hybrid methods. Annual Review of Genetics 31: 663–704.

Lievens S, Lemmens I and Tavernier J (2009) Mammalian two‐hybrids come of age. Trends in Biochemical Sciences 34 (11): 579–588.

Parrish JR, Gulyas KD and Finley RL Jr (2006) Yeast two‐hybrid contributions to interactome mapping. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 17 (4): 387–393.

Roberts GG, Parrish JR, Mangiola BA and Finley RL Jr (2012) High‐throughput yeast two‐hybrid screening. Methods in Molecular Biology 812: 39–61.

Stynen B, Tournu H, Tavernier J and Van Dijck P (2012) Diversity in genetic in vivo methods for protein–protein interaction studies: from the yeast two‐hybrid system to the mammalian split‐luciferase system. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews 76 (2): 331–382.

Suter B, Kittanakom S and Stagljar I (2008) Two‐hybrid technologies in proteomics research. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 19 (4): 316–323.

Vidal M, Cusick ME and Barabasi AL (2011) Interactome networks and human disease. Cell 144 (6): 986–998.

Contact Editor close
Submit a note to the editor about this article by filling in the form below.

* Required Field

How to Cite close
Finley, Russell L, and Mairiang, Dumrong(Mar 2018) Two‐Hybrid Systems to Measure Protein–Protein Interactions. In: eLS. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester. http://www.els.net [doi: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0005980.pub3]