BTC), and rout@mail.rockefeller.edu (MPR) * These authors contributed equally to this work.Keywords: Quartz crystal microbalance with dissipation (QCM-D), surface plasmon resonance (SPR), atomic force microscopy (AFM), mass transport limitation, protein-protein interaction, multivalency, intrinsically disordered protein (IDP), nuclear pore complex (NPC), FG nucleoporin (FG Nup), nucleocytoplasmic transport.
2
AbstractProtein-protein interactions are central to biological processes and the methods to thoroughly characterize them are of great interest. In vitro methods to examine protein-protein interactions are generally categorized into two classes: in-solution and surface-based methods. Here, using the multivalent interactions involved in nucleocytoplasmic transport as a model system, we examined the utility of three surface-based methods in characterizing rapid interactions involving intrinsically disordered proteins: atomic force microscopy, quartz crystal microbalance with dissipation, and surface plasmon resonance. Although results were comparable to those of previous reports, the apparent effect of mass transport limitations was demonstrated. Additional experiments with a loss-of-interaction mutant variant demonstrated the existence of additional physical phenomena and an uncharacterized binding mode. These results indicate the binding events that take place on the surface can be quite complex, suggesting particular care must be exercised in interpretation of such data.Recently, we and others have reported in-solution affinities between TFs and individual FG motifs, whose per-FG-motif KDs were in the millimolar range, compatible with the rapid kinetics of TF translocation through the NPC [17][18][19]. We also found that multiple low-affinity interactions can yield a higher overall interaction specificity than monovalent ones without compromising a high on-off rate of individual FG motifs [19]. Thus, one motivation of this work was to investigate the cause of these discrepancies in affinity measurements conducted by various methods.As outlined by Schuck and Zhao, analysis of multivalent interactions by surface-based methods require extra care because of potential complexities of the binding mechanism on the surface; in some cases rendering the results "impossible to realistically interpret" [35]. In addition, (i) it is often difficult to quantify the amount or the density of protein conjugated to the surface; (ii) conjugated surfaces usually have an inhomogeneous distributions of ligands [35]; (iii) the degree and the effect of analyte retention on the surface after a binding experiment is often not assessed; (iv) mass transport limitations can significantly affect measurements of binding kinetics when using SPR and QCM-D, and are often overlooked [35][36][37]; (v) change in protein conformation or denaturation upon binding to surfaces can occur [38,39], and (vi) macroscopic effects of surface crowding, especially in the context of multivalency, are not trivial to adequately address and quantify for surface-...