BMC Biotechnology

Research article

BioMed Central

Open Access

Production of soluble mammalian proteins in Escherichia coli: identification of protein features that correlate with successful expression
Michael R Dyson*, S Paul Shadbolt, Karen J Vincent, Rajika L Perera and John McCafferty
Address: The Atlas of Gene Expression Project, The Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge, CB10 1SA, UK Email: Michael R Dyson* - mrd@sanger.ac.uk; S Paul Shadbolt - ps3@sanger.ac.uk; Karen J Vincent - kjv@sanger.ac.uk; Rajika L Perera - rlp@sanger.ac.uk; John McCafferty - jm9@sanger.ac.uk * Corresponding author

Published: 14 December 2004 BMC Biotechnology 2004, 4:32 doi:10.1186/1472-6750-4-32

Received: 26 October 2004 Accepted: 14 December 2004

This article is available from: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6750/4/32 2004 Dyson et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract
Background: In the search for generic expression strategies for mammalian protein families several bacterial expression vectors were examined for their ability to promote high yields of soluble protein. Proteins studied included cell surface receptors (Ephrins and Eph receptors, CD44), kinases (EGFR-cytoplasmic domain, CDK2 and 4), proteases (MMP1, CASP2), signal transduction proteins (GRB2, RAF1, HRAS) and transcription factors (GATA2, Fli1, Trp53, Mdm2, JUN, FOS, MAD, MAX). Over 400 experiments were performed where expression of 30 full-length proteins and protein domains were evaluated with 6 different N-terminal and 8 C-terminal fusion partners. Expression of an additional set of 95 mammalian proteins was also performed to test the conclusions of this study. Results: Several protein features correlated with soluble protein expression yield including molecular weight and the number of contiguous hydrophobic residues and low complexity regions. There was no relationship between successful expression and protein pI, grand average of hydropathicity (GRAVY), or sub-cellular location. Only small globular cytoplasmic proteins with an average molecular weight of 23 kDa did not require a solubility enhancing tag for high level soluble expression. Thioredoxin (Trx) and maltose binding protein (MBP) were the best N-terminal protein fusions to promote soluble expression, but MBP was most effective as a C-terminal fusion. 63 of 95 mammalian proteins expressed at soluble levels of greater than 1 mg/l as N-terminal H10MBP fusions and those that failed possessed, on average, a higher molecular weight and greater number of contiguous hydrophobic amino acids and low complexity regions. Conclusions: By analysis of the protein features identified here, this study will help predict which mammalian proteins and domains can be successfully expressed in E. coli as soluble product and also which are best targeted for a eukaryotic expression system. In some cases proteins may be truncated to minimise molecular weight and the numbers of contiguous hydrophobic amino acids and low complexity regions to aid soluble expression in E. coli.

Page 1 of 18
(page number not for citation purposes)

BMC Biotechnology 2004, 4:32

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6750/4/32

Background
The production of purified proteins is important for several experimental approaches aimed to assign gene function including antibody generation for immunocytochemistry and immunoprecipitation studies [1-3], in vitro mapping of protein protein, protein DNA or protein RNA interactions [4,5] and structure determination [6]. The availability of proteins is also important for biomedical applications such as small molecule drug discovery and the production of therapeutic proteins and vaccines. In these situations it is essential to be able to reliably express the proteins in a heterologous system and purify them so that they possess the same folds and structure as they would in a natural in vivo state. To achieve this on a whole proteome scale a generic approach must be taken to the expression of protein families, unlike the traditional approach of protein chemistry in optimising the isolation of individual proteins on a case by case basis. E. coli has been the expression system of choice for the majority of laboratories engaged in highthroughput, multi-plexed cloning, expression and purification of proteins for structural genomics [7]. The advantages of E. coli as an expression host include well studied physiology, genetics and availability of advanced genetic tools [8-10], rapid growth, high-level protein production rates achieving up to 1030% of total cellular protein, ease of handling in a standard molecular biology laboratory, low cost and the ability to multiplex both expression screening [11] and protein production [12]. There are however several disadvantages, particularly for eukaryotic proteins, of expression in a prokaryotic system. The lack of eukaryotic chaperones, specialised post-translational modifications, ability to be targeted to sub-cellular locations or to form complexes with stabilising binding partners can result in protein mis-folding and aggregation. For example, when 2078 randomly selected C. elegans fulllength genes were cloned and expressed in E. coli only 11 % yielded soluble protein [13]. Similarly for 44 cloned human proteins, 12 were expressed solubly and 4 purified to homogeneity [14]. With the exception of full-length membrane proteins, the property of protein solubility has been shown to be a good indicator of correct folding as determined by functional binding [15,16] or enzymatic [17] assays. Purification of inclusion bodies and in vitro refolding has been used in a number of cases, but refolding conditions are highly protein specific and so unlikely to be useful for high-throughput protein expression. There are several fall-back strategies for expression of correctly folded eukaryotic proteins in E. coli one of which is to truncate long multi-domain proteins into separate domains, as has been performed for the Ephb2 receptor [15,18,19]. Reducing translation rates so that proteins have an increased chance of folding into a native state prior to aggregating with folding intermediates, can be

successful by lowering the temperature after induction [20] or inducing with lower concentrations of IPTG [21]. Alternate approaches include: co-expressing stabilising binding partners (see review [7]) or chaperones [22]; the induction of chaperones by heat shock [23] or chemical treatment [24]; or the use of genetically modified hoststrains that can conduct oxidative protein folding in the cytoplasm [25,26], over-express rare tRNAs [27] or lipid rafts [28]. Perhaps one of the most successful generic strategies to enhance the expression of soluble proteins is the fusion with solubility enhancing tags, such as maltose binding protein (MBP), thioredoxin (Trx) and glutathione-S-transferase (GST) [29-31]. The aim of this work was to ask if it is possible to derive some general conclusions regarding which expression strategy would most likely result in the expression of soluble, functionally active mammalian protein on a familyby-family or domain-by-domain basis. A deep-mining approach was taken to maximise the chances of successful expression by examining the soluble expression of 30 different proteins using 14 different expression vectors. This study allowed us to make several conclusions regarding the best strategies to adopt for the soluble expression of different mammalian proteins in bacteria. The conclusions were tested by the expression of an additional 95 mammalian proteins.

Results
Expression clone construction The 30 proteins chosen for this expression study are listed in Table 1. With the exception of GFP, they are all human or mouse proteins, and represent several diverse protein families with extra-cellular, cytoplasmic and nuclear cell locations. The list includes a mixture of full-length and truncated proteins expected to be easy or more challenging to express in a bacterial system. Protein truncations were designed to express individual domains annotated from the SwissProt [32] or Pfam [33] databases or following previous examples of successful expression [15]. The genes were isolated from cDNA using a nested PCR strategy [34] or provided by the FlexGene Consortium http:// www.hip.harvard.edu/flex_gene/index.htm and sequence confirmed. A recombinational cloning strategy was employed termed "GATEWAY" cloning [35,36] based on a modification of the phage lambda site-specific recombination system [37]. Primers were designed using the nearest neighbour algorithm [38] and open reading frames (ORFs) were PCR amplified from first strand cDNA with 5' attB1 and 3' attB2 linkers and then recombined with pDONR221 (Invitrogen) to give a set of entry clones which were sequence confirmed and then recombined with various destination vectors to give the expression constructs. Two sets of clones for each ORF were generated with and without stop codons for expression with N or C-

Page 2 of 18
(page number not for citation purposes)

BMC Biotechnology 2004, 4:32

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6750/4/32

Table 1: Proteins for expression study with selected features

No

Proteina

Domain
b

Constructc

Organis md Hs Hs Hs Hs Hs Hs Hs Mm Mm Mm Mm Hs Mm Mm Mm Mm Mm Hs Hs Av Hs Hs Hs Hs Hs Mm Mm Hs

Protein Familye

MW (Kda) 48.9 33.1 81.6 33.9 33.7 22.1 16.5 21.9 16.2 16.6 20.1 37.3 21.1 22.5 8.3 35.3 51.0 40.7 50.3 26.9 25.2 21.3 35.7 25.3 18.3 54.5 11.7 54.0

pI

Cys % 4.1 4.1 1.2 1 1.3 2 0.6 2.1 2.9 2.7 2.2 1.8 2.7 2.2 0 1.6 0.9 2.1 2.7 0.8 0.9 3.2 0.9 1.4 0 3.5 0.5 0.6

GRAVY
f

hp_aag

Sub-cellular Location Cytoplasm Cytoplasm Extra-cellular Cytoplasm Cytoplasm Cytoplasm Cytoplasm Extra-cellular Extra-cellular Extra-cellular Extra-cellular Cytoplasm Extra-cellular Extra-cellular Cytoplasm Cytoplasm Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Cytoplasm Cytoplasm Cytoplasm Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear / Cytoplasm Nuclear / Cytoplasm Extra-cellular

LCh CCi

26 24 29 22 23 25 28 6 7 5 4 15 8 1 3 2 10 19 9 30 14 17 18 20 21 12 13 27

CASP2 CCND2 CD44 CDK2 CDK4 CDKN1B CDKN2A Efna1 Efna1 Efnb2 Efnb2 EGFR Epha2 Ephb2 Ephb2 Ephb2 Fli1 FOS GATA2 GFP GRB2 HRAS JUN MAD MAX Mdm2 Mdm2 MMP1

FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL EC EC1 EC2 TK LB LB SAM TK FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL p53-bd FL

1435/435 1289/289 1742/742 1298/298 1303/303 1198/198 1156/156 18205/205 18154/205 29176/336 29210/336 6941022/ 1210 24206/977 28210/994 922994/994 595906/994 1452/452 1380/380 1480/480 1238/238 1217/217 1189/189 1331/331 1221/221 1160/160 1489/489 19230/489 1469/469

CARD, Peptidase_C14 cyclin, cyclin_C Xlink, Pfam-B 9 pkinase pkinase CDI, Pfam-B 2 ank Ephrin Ephrin Ephrin Ephrin Pkinase, Pfam-B EPH_lbd EPH_lbd SAM_1 Pkinase Ets, SAM_PNT, Pfam-B 5 bZIP, Pfam-B 4 GATA GFP SH2, SH3 ras bZIP, Jun HLH, Pfam-B 2 HLH, Pfam-B 2 SWIB, zf-RanBP, Pfam-B 8 SWIB, Pfam-B 2 Peptidase_M10_N, Peptidase_M10, Hemopexin RBD P53

6.3 4.9 5.0 8.9 6.6 6.6 5.4 6.4 6.5 5.3 8.6 5.5 4.7 5.8 4.9 5.6 6.6 4.6 9.7 5.6 5.9 5.0 9.0 8.9 5.9 4.5 8.8 6.5

-0.30 -0.21 -0.77 -0.08 -0.17 -1.26 -0.23 -0.59 -0.86 -0.47 -0.64 -0.22 -0.30 -0.14 -0.03 -0.27 -0.79 -0.37 -0.51 -0.52 -0.67 -0.42 -0.47 -0.97 -1.32 -0.83 -0.25 -0.57

5 4 10 4 4 2 4 8 2 3 3 3 4 4 2 5 3 5 13 3 5 4 3 2 2 4 4 7

1 2 9 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 5 7 0 0 1 3 3 1 5 3 0

0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0

16 11

RAF1 Trp53

Ras-bd FL

51131/648 1390/390

Hs Mm

9.2 43.5

9.9 7.0

3.8 3.1

-0.30 -0.59

3 3

Cytoplasm Nuclear / Cytoplasm

0 1

0 0

symbol. bDomain: LB, ligand binding; TK, tyrosine kinase; SAM, sterile alpha motif; EC, extra-cellular; FL, full-length; bd, binding domain. expressed numbered by amino acid position (start finish / total). dOrganism: Mm, Mus musculus; Hs, Homo sapiens; Av, Aequoria Victoria. eProtein family nomenclature according to the Pfam database http://www.sanger.ac.uk/Software/Pfam/. fGRAVY, grand average of hydropathicity index. gHighest number of contiguous hydrophobic amino acids (A, V, I, L, W or F). hLC and iCC, number of low complexity and coiled coil regions according to Pfam database.
cConstruct

aLocusLink

terminal tags respectively. Recombinational cloning was useful in this study where the same set of ORFs could be cloned into a large set of different expression vectors without the requirement to check for compatible restriction sites in each vector or their absence within the ORFs. For this study a set of destination vectors were constructed by modifying pET-DEST42 (see Materials and Methods). The T7 promoter was chosen over other promoters commonly used for bacterial expression because of the high specificity and processivity of T7 RNA polymerase and the

wide choice of expression strains currently available. Briefly, multicloning sites were created either 5' of the attR1 or 3' of the attR2 recombination sites for insertion of DNA inserts encoding N or C-terminal tags respectively. The expression vectors contained a T7lac promoter [39] for improved control of basal expression. The N-terminal tag expression vectors contained a sequence at the translational start site to provide a partial match with the downstream box (ATG AAT CAC CAT), shown to provide enhancement of translation [40] and a decahistidine (H10) tag for enhanced affinity for Nickel resins
Page 3 of 18
(page number not for citation purposes)

BMC Biotechnology 2004, 4:32

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6750/4/32

pDEST17 pDEST-N110 pDEST-N112 pET-DEST42 pDEST-C101 pDEST-C102

T7

SD

H6 attB1

ORF

stop attB2

T7

lacO

SD

H10 attB1 DraIII BfrBI

ORF

stop attB2

T7

lacO

SD H10 fusion attB1

ORF

stop attB2

T7

lacO

attB1 SD

ORF

attB2 V5 H6 stop

T7

lacO

attB1 SD

ORF

attB2 H10 stop DraIII BfrBI

T7

lacO

attB1 SD

ORF

attB2 fusion H10 stop

T7 promoter lac operator RBS | | | | 10 20 | 30 40 50 60 70 | 80 ATT AAT ACG ACT CAC TAT AGG GGA ATT GTG AGC GGA TAA CAA TTC CCC TCT AGA AAT AAT TTT GTT TAA CTT TAA GAA GGA GAT NdeI KpnI DraIII BfrB1 attB1 recombination site | | | | | |90 100 110 120 | 130 | 140 | 150 160 ATA CAT ATG AAT CAC CAT CAC CAT CAC CAT CAC CAT CAC CAT GGT ACC CAC GAA GTG ATG CAT ACA AGT TTG TAC AAA AAA GCA M N H H H H H H H H H H G T H E V M H T S L Y K K A attB2 recombination site | | | | 190 200 210 AAC CCA GCT TTC TTG TAC AAA GTG GT

Stop | 170 180 | GGC TCT NNN NNN NNN TAG G S ORF *

T7 promoter lac operator | | | 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 TAA TAC GAC TCA CTA TAG GGG AAT TGT GAG CGG ATA ACA ATT CCC CTC TAG AAA TAA TTT TGT TTA ACT TTA AGA AGG AAT ATC >attB1 RBS initiation codon attB2 recombination site DraIII | | | | | | 90 100 110 | 120 | 130 140 150 160 | ACA AGT TTG TAC AAA AAA GCA GGC TTC GAA GGA GAT AGA ACC ATG NNN NNN NNN AAC CCA GCT TTC TTG TAC AAA GTG GTG CAC M ORF N P A F L Y K V V H BfrB1 Stop | | 170 180 | 190 200 210 | GAA GTG AGT GGT ATG CAT CAC CAT CAC CAT CAT CAC CAT CAC CAT TGA E V S G M H H H H H H H H H H *

Figure 1 Expression vector constructs after recombination between the destination and entry plasmids Expression vector constructs after recombination between the destination and entry plasmids. (A) Schematic representation where shaded and clear boxes indicate translated and untranslated regions respectively. T7 = T7 RNA polymerase promoter, lacO = lac operator, SD = shine dalgarno, H6 or H10 = hexahistidine or decahistidine, attB1 or attB2 = attB recombination sites, ORF = open reading frame, stop = stop codon, fusion = protein fusion (MBP, GFP, GST, Trx, DHFR or Dhfr), V5 = V5 epitope. (B) and (C) DNA sequences of pDEST-N112 and pDESTC102 respectively from T7 RNA polymerase promoter to stop codon.

Page 4 of 18
(page number not for citation purposes)

BMC Biotechnology 2004, 4:32

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6750/4/32

Table 2: N-Terminal fusion expression comparison

N-TERMINAL FUSION Protein (domain) T CASP2 CCND2 CD44 CDK2 CDK4 CDKN1B CDKN2A Efna1 Efna1 (EC) Efnb2 (EC1) Efnb2 (EC2) EGFR (TK) Epha2 (LB) Ephb2 (LB) Ephb2 (SAM) Ephb2 (TK) Fli1 FOS GATA2 GFP GRB2 HRAS JUN MAD MAX Mdm2 Mdm2 (p53-bd) MMP1 RAF1 (Ras-bd) Trp53 AVERAGE 0.00 21.85 0.00 14.81 8.78 7.44 0.00 0.00 24.74 3.58 2.07 0.00 nc 40.00 0.00 0.00 3.82 0.25 0.33 60.00 1.75 30.10 40.00 32.77 nc 0.00 1.62 2.56 15.48 0.85 11.36 H6 S 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.84 0.71 0.17 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.00 nc 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 60.00 0.04 0.34 0.00 0.15 nc 0.00 0.36 0.00 15.00 0.00 0.81 T 0.00 12.36 0.00 1.03 1.47 0.85 0.00 1.50 5.00 11.53 3.00 0.21 nc 0.66 nc 65.84 0.89 0.00 0.19 25.00 6.00 6.40 5.84 3.50 9.43 1.20 4.75 0.36 20.00 0.00 7.28 H10 S 0.00 5.81 0.00 0.07 1.37 0.31 0.00 1.33 4.81 1.18 2.79 0.00 nc 0.08 nc 15.00 0.08 0.00 0.07 25.00 3.88 5.59 1.09 1.78 1.09 0.91 4.70 0.10 20.00 0.00 3.27 T 0.00 6.14 0.00 nc nc 1.63 0.00 7.47 50.00 10.38 50.00 0.00 50.00 4.93 50.00 20.00 2.00 0.00 2.50 25.00 25.00 6.16 2.08 20.66 4.44 0.00 20.84 11.44 26.92 0.00 10.53 H10-GFP S 0.00 0.02 0.00 nc nc 0.57 0.00 0.22 1.71 0.86 6.50 0.00 0.43 0.14 5.63 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.04 1.33 12.82 0.17 0.00 0.37 1.18 0.00 3.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.01 H10-GST T 0.00 1.20 nc 4.88 1.32 12.00 0.40 2.29 28.00 6.43 55.00 0.00 2.83 10.00 35.00 15.00 1.50 0.00 0.00 22.08 2.77 7.37 1.50 15.04 0.00 0.00 20.00 39.63 20.00 0.00 9.02 S 0.00 0.00 nc 2.17 0.00 4.30 0.32 0.06 0.07 1.30 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.03 11.47 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 0.84 0.54 0.00 0.13 0.03 0.00 0.22 0.04 19.82 0.00 1.37 T 0.20 12.50 0.00 2.00 nc 4.00 nc nc 60.00 44.70 nc 0.00 4.92 29.39 10.06 50.00 12.00 0.49 5.00 25.00 13.00 26.96 5.70 9.21 2.05 10.00 9.54 0.32 25.00 0.00 15.90 H10-Trx S 0.20 4.35 0.00 1.54 nc 1.69 nc nc 4.10 6.82 nc 0.00 1.99 2.53 1.34 14.23 5.14 0.08 3.47 25.00 11.96 25.00 0.41 4.74 2.01 5.57 4.72 0.32 25.00 0.00 6.02 H10-MBP T 2.50 8.12 0.00 25.00 2.79 8.00 3.65 5.73 11.93 22.67 17.00 0.00 14.57 20.00 0.00 20.00 58.00 0.27 0.00 10.00 18.00 8.40 30.00 4.00 3.00 3.60 12.00 30.00 40.00 0.00 14.87 S 2.11 3.06 0.00 25.00 0.00 5.19 0.00 3.02 4.93 20.00 16.00 0.00 3.78 2.11 0.00 4.15 6.50 0.00 0.00 9.83 16.00 7.69 0.22 4.10 2.71 2.65 12.00 0.48 25.00 0.00 5.81

Numbers correspond to total (T) or soluble (S) expression yield (mg/l). Yields greater than 2 mg/l are in bold, nc-not cloned.

compared with hexahistidine (H6) tags (data not shown). A fusion partner was inserted between the H10 tag and recombination sites to examine the effect on soluble protein expression. Unlike previous tag comparisons [29-31] here the same promoter and 5'-UTR sequence was employed so that any expression differences observed would be purely due to the presence the fusion partner. A vector was also included in this study (pDEST17) with a T7 promoter and no downstream lac operator, which would add a H6 tag at the N-terminus (Figure 1).
Effect of different N-terminal fusions on expression Expression plasmids generated by recombination reactions were used to transform E. coli BL21(DE3), an expression strain containing chromosomally integrated T7 RNA polymerase gene (DE3 lysogen) under the control of the

lacUV5 promoter. To handle a large number of expression experiments (420 total) and associated manipulations to screen for total and soluble expression in E. coli, the recombinational cloning, transformation, growth of expression cultures and cell lysis and filtration separation of insoluble protein were performed in 96-well plate format. Figure 2 shows Western blots for total and soluble protein expression 2 hours after induction with 1 mM IPTG as described in Materials and Methods. The method for separating total from soluble proteins was based on that of Knaust and Nordlund [11] and consisted of detergent lysis of harvested cells followed by filtration through a 0.65 m 96-well filter plate, which separates larger inclusion bodies from the soluble fraction. The filtration method agrees well with traditional centrifugation methods to separate soluble from insoluble protein [11,41]

Page 5 of 18
(page number not for citation purposes)

BMC Biotechnology 2004, 4:32

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6750/4/32

and has the advantage that multiple samples can be processed in parallel. Quantitation was achieved by separating the proteins by SDS-PAGE, electro-blotting onto PVDF membranes and detecting His tagged proteins with an anti-His5 monoclonal antibody followed by probing with an anti-mouse Cy-5 labelled antibody. The advantage of expression analysis by Western blot, compared to dotblots, is that this allows one to quantitate the expression levels of full-length constructs and eliminate the contribution from cleaved protein tag. It was found that Western blots based on fluorescence detection [42] gave a greater dynamic range of detection compared with detection based on enzymatic amplification such as horse radish peroxidase (data not shown). A His-tagged protein molecular weight ladder was used for normalisation to eliminate any blot to blot variation. Table 2 shows the results of this analysis, quantitating expression yields in terms of mg expressed protein per litre of induction media for total and soluble expression. Expression yields greater than 2 mg/l are highlighted in bold. Looking first at the results for total (soluble and insoluble) expression, no clear patterns emerge for the various expression vectors used. With the exception of CASP2, CDKN2A, Trp53, EGFR(TK), FOS and CD44 most proteins expressed well across all expression vectors. Interesting differences are apparent however when one looks at the production of soluble protein. Using decahistidine green fluorescent protein (H10-GFP) or decahistidine glutathione-S-transferase (H10-GST) as fusion partners at the N-terminus gave poor yields of soluble intact product. This may not be because they were poor at promoting soluble expression but because they were prone to proteolysis during cell lysis reducing the yield of full-length soluble protein. A set of proteins (GFP, RAF1(Ras-bd), HRAS, mdm2(p53-bd), Ephb2(TK) and CCND2) gave high soluble expression levels in the baseline N-terminal decahistidine vector, which was not improved when expressed as decahistidine thioredoxin (H10-Trx) or decahistidine maltose binding protein (H10-MBP) fusions. The molecular weight of these proteins ranged from 9 35 Kda and averaged 22.8 Kda. These proteins are all expressed in the cytoplasm, have an average of 1 low-complexity region, 3.8 contiguous hydrophobic amino acids (hp_aa), pI of 6.6, grand average of hydropathicity index (termed GRAVY[43] where increased positive number indicates increased hydrophobicity) of -0.32, 2.6% cysteine residues and no coiled-coil structures. A second grouping of proteins was observed where soluble expression was improved when expressed as H10-Trx or H10-MBP fusions compared with the H10 tag alone. This grouping included GRB2, Efnb2(EC1 or 2), MAD, MAX, Efna1 (FL and EC). The molecular weight of these proteins ranged from 16 25 Kda and averaged 20.5 Kda. These proteins were a mixture of those expressed in the cyto-

plasm, nucleus and extra-cellular, have an average of 0.71 low-complexity regions, 3.6 contiguous hydrophobic amino acids (hp_aa), pI of 6.8, GRAVY score of -0.79 and 1.7% cysteines. A third set of proteins resulted in almost undetectable soluble expression with a H10 tag but good expression with H10-Trx or H10-MBP fusions. These included CDK2, FLI1, CDKN-1B, mdm2, GATA2, Ephb2(LB) and CASP2 with molecular weights ranging from 22.5 54.5 Kda, with an average molecular weight of 40.4 Kda. These proteins were also a mixture cytoplasmic, nuclear and extra-cellular proteins, have an average of 2 low-complexity regions, 5 contiguous hydrophobic amino acids (hp_aa), pI of 6.9, GRAVY score of -0.55 and 2.3% cysteines. Finally a set of proteins was grouped (MMP1, FOS, EGFR(TK), Trp53, CD44) where very low (< 1 mg/l) soluble full-length expression was observed, even when expressed as MBP or Trx fusions. Here the molecular weight ranged from 40.7 81.6 Kda and averaged 51.4 kDa. These proteins were a mixture of those expressed in the cytoplasm, nucleus and extra-cellular, have an average of 3 low-complexity regions, 5.6 contiguous hydrophobic amino acids (hp_aa), pI of 5.7, GRAVY score of -0.50 and 1.8% cysteine content. Comparing the 20 mammalian proteins where there are examples in all 6 expression vectors the average yields of soluble protein for the H10, H10-GFP, H10-GST, H10-Trx and H10-MBP tags are 3.3, 1.0, 1.4, 6.0 and 5.8 mg per litre of culture. This ranks the ability of the tag fusions to produce full-length soluble protein as H10-Trx ~ H10MBP > H10 > H10-GST > H10-GFP. The pDEST17 vector (which encodes a H6 tag) was dramatically poorer at expressing soluble protein compared with the vector pN110 (which encodes a H10 tag), with average soluble expression yields of 0.8 and 3.3 mg per litre of culture respectively. Both vectors contain T7 RNA polymerase promoters, but pN110 also contains a lac operator (lacO) downstream of the promoter and the gene encoding the lac repressor (lacI) for tighter control of gene expression. This may result in a faster rate of transcript synthesis, after induction with IPTG, and hence translation rates (due to an increased concentration of mRNA) for pDEST17 compared with pN110. If translation rate exceeds the rate of protein folding, then increased production of insoluble protein would occur.
Effect of different C-terminal fusions on expression A similar study was performed where the 30 ORFs were cloned into 8 different C-terminal tag expression vectors shown in Figure 1. C-terminal fusions studied here included V5-H6 or H10 or protein fusions MBP, GST, Trx, murine or human dihydrofolate reductase (Dhfr or DHFR respectively), all with H10 at the C-terminus. The expression screen and quantitation of total and soluble protein expression was performed as for the N-terminal tag study.

Page 6 of 18
(page number not for citation purposes)

BMC Biotechnology 2004, 4:32

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6750/4/32

A Total Expression
a
m 1 9 2 10 3 11 4 12 5 13 6 14 7 15 8 16 kDa 100 75 50 30 15 m 17 25 18 26 19 27 20 28 21 29 22 5 23 30 24 kDa 100 75 50 30 15

d
m 1 9 2 10 3 11 4 12 5 13 6 14 7 15 8 16 m 17 25 18 26 19 27 20 28 21 29 22 5 23 30 24

b
kDa 100 75 50 m 1 9 2 10 3 11 4 12 5 13 6 14 7 15 8 16 m 17 25 18 26 19 27 20 28 21 29 22 5 23 30 24 kDa 100 75 50 30 15 15

e
m 1 9 2 10 3 11 4 12 5 13 6 14 7 15 8 16 m 17 25 18 26 19 27 20 28 21 29 22 5 23 30 24

30

c
kDa 100 75 50 30 30 15 15 m 1 9 2 10 3 11 4 12 5 13 6 14 7 15 8 16 m 17 25 18 26 19 27 20 28 21 29 22 5 23 30 24 kDa 100 75 50

f
m 1 9 2 10 3 11 4 12 5 13 6 14 7 15 8 16 m 17 25 18 26 19 27 20 28 21 29 22 5 23 30 24

B Soluble Expression
a
kDa 100 75 50 30 15 m 1 9 2 10 3 11 4 12 5 13 6 14 7 15 8 16 m 17 25 18 26 19 27 20 28 21 29 22 5 23 30 24 kDa 100 75 50 30 15

d
m 1 9 2 10 3 11 4 12 5 13 6 14 7 15 8 16 m 17 25 18 26 19 27 20 28 21 29 22 5 23 30 24

b
kDa 100 75 50 30 15 m 1 9 2 10 3 11 4 12 5 13 6 14 7 15 8 16 m 17 25 18 26 19 27 20 28 21 29 22 5 23 30 24 kDa 100 75 50 30 15

e
m 1 9 2 10 3 11 4 12 5 13 6 14 7 15 8 16 m 17 25 18 26 19 27 20 28 21 29 22 5 23 30 24

c
m 1 9 2 10 3 11 4 12 5 13 6 14 7 15 8 16 kDa 100 75 50 30 15 m 17 25 18 26 19 27 20 28 21 29 22 5 23 30 24 kDa 100 75 50 30 15

f
m 1 9 2 10 3 11 4 12 5 13 6 14 7 15 8 16 m 17 25 18 26 19 27 20 28 21 29 22 5 23 30 24

Figure N-terminal fusion on protein expression Effect of2 Effect of N-terminal fusion on protein expression Total (A) and soluble (B) expression for protein 1 30 (Table 1) with various N-terminal fusion partners analysed by SDS-PAGE fluorescence western blots as described in Materials and Methods. Expression plasmids employed were (a) pDEST17, (b) pDEST-N110 or pDEST-N112 with either (c) MBP, (d) GFP, (e) GST or (f) Trx inserted between the DraIII and BfrBI sites as shown in Figure 1.

Page 7 of 18
(page number not for citation purposes)

BMC Biotechnology 2004, 4:32

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6750/4/32

g
75 50

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

11

30

kDa m T S T S T S T S T S T S T S T S 100

mT S T S T S T S T S T S T S T S

m T S T S T S T S T S T S T S T S m T S T S T S T S T S T S T S

30

15

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

11

30

kDa m T S T S T S T S T S T S T S T S 100 75 50

m T S T S T S T S T S T S T S T S m T S T S T S T S T S T S T S T S

m T S T S T S T S T S T S T S

30 15

i
kDa 100 75 50

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

11

30

m T S T S T S T S T S T S T S T S

m T S T S T S T S T S T S T S T S

m T S T S T S T S T S T S T S T S

m T S T S T S T S T S T S T S

30

15

j
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 11 30 m kDa 100 75 50 T S T S T S T S T S T S T S T S m T S T S T S T S T S T S T S T S m T S T S T S T S T S T S T S T S m T S T S T S T S T S T S T S

30

15

k
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 11 30 m kDa 100 75 50 T S T S T S T S T S T S T S T S m T S T S T S T S T S T S T S T S m T S T S T S T S T S T S T S T S m T S T S T S T S T S T S T S

30 15

l
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 11 30 m kDa 100 75 50 T S T S T S T S T S T S T S T S m T S T S T S T S T S T S T S T S m T S T S T S T S T S T S T S T S m T S T S T S T S T S T S T S

30

15

m
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 11 30 m kDa
100 75 50

T S T S T S T S T S T S T S T S m T S T S T S T S T S T S T S T S m T S T S T S T S T S T S T S T S m T S T S T S T S T S T S T S

30

15

n
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 11 30 m
kDa 100 75 50 30

T S T S T S T S T S T S T S T S m T S T S T S T S T S T S T S T S m T S T S T S T S T S T S T S T S mT S T S T S T S T S T S T S

15

Figure C-terminal fusion on protein expression Effect of3 Effect of C-terminal fusion on protein expression Total (T) and soluble (S) expression for protein 1 30 (Table 1) with different C-terminal fusion partners analysed by SDS-PAGE fluorescence western blots as Figure 2. Expression plasmids employed were (g) pET-DEST42, (h) pDEST-C101 or pDEST-C102 with either (i) MBP, (j) GST, (k) GFP (l) Trx (m) Dhfr or (n) DHFR inserted between the DraIII and BfrBI sites as shown in Figure 1.

Page 8 of 18
(page number not for citation purposes)

BMC Biotechnology 2004, 4:32

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6750/4/32

Table 3: C-Terminal fusion expression comparison

C-TERMINAL FUSION Protein (domain) T CASP2 CCND2 CD44 CDK2 CDK4 CDKN1B CDKN2A Efna1 Efna1 (EC) Efnb2 (EC1) Efnb2 (EC2) EGFR (TK) Epha2 (LB) Ephb2 (LB) Ephb2 (SAM) Ephb2 (TK) Fli1 FOS GATA2 GFP GRB2 HRAS JUN MAD MAX Mdm2 Mdm2 (p53-bd) MMP1 RAF1 (Ras-bd) Trp53 AVERAGE 0.00 0.00 1.37 23.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.64 1.71 7.91 3.57 1.14 3.97 15.17 0.27 43.00 0.00 4.72 0.00 8.14 15.66 19.21 6.75 9.76 0.00 0.00 1.10 12.51 0.48 0.52 6.37 V5-H6 S 0.00 0.00 0.72 12.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.29 0.46 0.37 0.38 0.00 0.27 7.46 0.03 1.89 0.00 0.27 0.00 1.38 5.41 6.44 0.00 2.62 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.85 0.06 0.07 1.65 T 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.76 0.43 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.85 0.00 0.22 0.00 1.11 0.71 0.29 0.31 3.94 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.72 H10 S 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.04 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.17 0.25 0.00 5.05 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 GFP-H10 T 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.32 0.54 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.92 0.00 12.94 3.55 11.49 0.00 0.49 0.71 0.00 3.94 0.00 0.45 0.00 1.23 S 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.00 9.86 3.02 6.46 0.00 0.13 0.53 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.71 GST-H10 T 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 19.99 0.56 0.00 0.28 2.37 0.64 43.05 205.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.03 2.43 0.56 0.48 1.37 101.26 0.00 2.50 3.27 0.96 0.23 12.94 S 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.01 1.70 0.39 0.00 0.00 80.86 0.00 0.47 0.00 0.19 0.00 2.94 Trx-H10 T 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.86 0.13 0.00 2.59 0.24 3.71 2.53 2.08 12.76 4.33 2.34 0.98 24.04 3.11 0.11 0.00 21.50 5.78 1.06 1.41 5.91 1.59 0.00 69.23 0.00 2.66 3.59 5.75 S 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.11 0.42 0.94 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.78 3.48 0.37 0.00 3.34 0.62 0.00 3.03 0.00 0.71 0.91 0.69 MBP-H10 T 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.52 0.00 1.59 0.00 2.30 31.94 6.30 3.53 3.03 19.33 11.93 156.52 49.99 1.10 1.16 0.00 118.38 110.84 12.32 8.81 19.02 9.70 0.00 19.57 0.00 5.83 5.66 20.21 S 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.48 0.00 0.61 0.00 1.23 15.60 0.80 1.72 0.25 8.60 7.93 20.33 3.01 0.00 0.62 0.00 40.52 14.48 10.07 0.35 6.94 5.17 0.00 3.82 0.00 1.63 2.44 4.99 Dhfr-H10 T 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.82 2.07 0.00 0.48 0.00 14.01 0.00 2.59 2.07 7.42 2.48 33.57 27.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.66 4.83 3.21 0.00 1.86 5.82 0.00 5.46 4.29 2.08 1.40 4.37 S 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.44 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 7.37 1.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.93 3.04 3.01 0.00 0.13 3.48 0.00 0.83 0.00 1.07 0.79 0.85 DHFR-H10 T 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.76 0.00 5.24 1.10 5.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.65 2.20 0.00 7.14 4.35 0.00 9.56 1.30 0.75 7.79 0.88 0.94 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.00 2.76 2.29 S 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.56 1.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.74 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16

Numbers correspond to total (T) or soluble (S) expression yield (mg/l). Yields greater than 2 mg/l are in bold.

Figure 3 shows the fluorescence western blots for this Cterminal tag study. Here a greater number of constructs were observed with either undetectable or low levels of expression compared with the N-terminal tag study. Table 3 quantitates the Western blot data for the intact fusion products, with expression yields greater than 2 mg/l in bold. The last row of the table describes the average expression yield for each C-terminal fusion partner. For total protein expression levels there are large expression level differences observed between the various C-terminal tags. The C-terminal decahistidine tag was particularly poor here with an average total expression yield of only 0.7 mg/l compared with 7.3 mg/l when this tag was fused to the N-terminus. In contrast the C-terminal MBP-H10 tag resulted in an average total expression yield of 20.2 mg/l. The ranking of the C-terminal fusion partners in promoting total expression was MBP-H10 > GST-H10 > V5-H6 > Trx-H10 > Dhfr-H10 > DHFR-H10 > GFP-H10 > H10.

MBP-H10 was the most effective tag at the C-terminus to promote protein solubility with an average construct fulllength soluble yield of 5.0 mg/l, which compares well with an average of 5.8 mg/l when this tag is fused at the Nterminus. The order of C-terminal tags to promote soluble expression was similar for total expression: MBP-H10 > GST-H10 > V5-H6 > Dhfr-H10 ~ GFP-H10 ~ Trx-H10 > H10 ~ DHFR-H10. Thioredoxin was not as effective a solubility enhancing tag when fused at the C-terminus with an average soluble yield of only 0.7 mg/l compared with 6.0 mg/l when fused to the N-terminus. Several correlations with protein features are seen when one groups the MPB fusions according to soluble protein expression levels. For the first group, where soluble expression levels were in the range of 5 50 mg/l, the average molecular weight, pI and GRAVY score were 20.6 KDa, 5.9 and -0.58 respectively. The average numbers of contiguous hydrophobic amino acids, low complexity and coiled-coil regions were 3.1, 0.56 and 0.22 respec-

Page 9 of 18
(page number not for citation purposes)

BMC Biotechnology 2004, 4:32

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6750/4/32

tively. The second group displayed soluble expression levels between 1 5 mg/l. Here, the average molecular weight, pI and GRAVY score were 25.1 KDa, 7.9 and -0.39 respectively and the average numbers of contiguous hydrophobic amino acids, low complexity and coiled-coil regions were 4.3, 0.71 and 0 respectively. The last group displayed soluble expression levels between 0 1 mg / l. Here the average molecular weight, pI and GRAVY score were 41.1 KDa, 6.2 and -0.51 respectively and the average numbers of contiguous hydrophobic amino acids, low complexity and coiled-coil regions were 5, 2.43 and 0.21 respectively. There were representatives of nuclear, cytoplasmic and extra-cellular proteins in all three groupings.
Expression of a test set of 95 mammalian proteins A diverse set of proteins were chosen to test the conclusions of this study (Table 4). They range from proteins that are well annotated, some of which have been expressed in E. coli previously (Nfkb1), to those that contain no PfamA domains and have not been expressed in E. coli previously (Maat1, BC031407, Ttyhl, 1500001H12RIKEXT2, Ext2, KIAA1136, G2 and KIAA1549). They included 24 proteins not annotated as PfamA domains, with unknown function. All cDNAs were amplified from a primary cDNA library, cloned into pDONR221 and sequence confirmed prior to transfer to pDEST-N112-MBP (Figure 1) for expression as N-terminal H10-MBP fusions. In some cases primers were designed to clone protein fragments to express particular PfamA domains or minimise the molecular weight or numbers of low complexity (LC) regions or contiguous hydrophobic amino acids (hp_aa). For proteins with no PfamA annotations, such as BC031407, SMART sequence analysis [44] was performed to identify the low complexity regions of the protein and truncations performed accordingly. Protein expression and quantitation of intact soluble fusion protein product was performed as for the N- and C-terminal tag comparison study. The total and soluble expression levels (mg of protein per litre culture) are listed in the last column of Table 4 together with selected protein features. 63 of the 95 proteins yielded soluble expression levels of greater than 1 mg/l and the average molecular weight, number of LC regions and hp_aa for these proteins was 24.4 kDa, 0.9 and 3.7 respectively. For the 32 proteins that failed to give soluble product of the correct size, the average molecular weight, number of LC regions and hp_aa was 37.1 kDa, 1.8 and 4.5 respectively.

form in this study share any common properties. Recently Goh et al. [45] used data generated by a structural genomics consortium to examine the ability of proteins to progress from cloning to expression and purification to crystallisation. The data used was very large, consisting of 27,000 targets from over 120 organisms and a number of important features were inferred that correlated with success including percentage composition of charged residues, occurrence of hydrophobic patches and length. Although a large study, there was a problem with interpretation of all the data-sets as it was unclear whether targets were simply waiting in the pipeline or had failed. Also structural genomics targets are often initially biased in favour of easy to express proteins, not representative of the whole proteomes of these organisms. The present study, focused on mammalian proteins from several diverse families, examined the relationship between successful soluble expression with various protein properties. Several protein features were identified in this study to correlate with soluble expression, which had not previously been shown experimentally. For both the N and C-terminal tag expression studies it was observed that the presence of several features did not correlate with successful expression including protein pI, grand average of hydropathicity index (GRAVY) [43], sub-cellular location, the cysteine content as a percentage of the total number of amino acids and the number of coiled-coils. Protein pI has been linked to sub-cellular location [46] with a bimodal distribution observed in bacterial and archaeal genomes and trimodal pattern in eukaryotes. Proteins are thought to be less soluble at a pH environment near their pI. GRAVY simply calculates overall hydrophobicity of the linear polypeptide sequence with increasing positive score indicating greater hydrophobicity, but no account is taken of the way the protein folds in three dimensions or the percentage of residues buried in the hydrophobic core of the protein. In a recent study Luan et al. [47] tested the soluble expression of 10,167 full-length C. elegans ORFs and found that protein hydrophobicity was an important factor for an ORF to yield a soluble expression product. This different result may be attributable to the fact that the C. elegans study included a greater proportion of membrane proteins. Therefore the lack of correlation between GRAVY score and soluble expression we observed may be true for non-membrane proteins or for proteins where the trans-membrane domain has been deleted. There was a strong correlation between successful soluble expression and molecular weight of the protein. Small proteins with an average molecular weight of 22.8 KDa did not require to be fused with solubility enhancing proteins for soluble expression whereas proteins that required to be fused with N-terminal MBP or Trx for solu-

Discussion
Correlation between protein properties and solubility To guide future expression strategies for new proteins, particularly regarding the choice of expressing a full-length protein in a bacterial or eukaryotic system and also where to truncate multi-domain containing proteins, it is interesting to investigate if the proteins expressed in a soluble

Page 10 of 18
(page number not for citation purposes)

BMC Biotechnology 2004, 4:32

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6750/4/32

Table 4: Expression levels of mammalian proteins expressed with N-terminal H10-MBP fusions, with selected protein features

No.

Protein

Accession No.

PfamA Domaina

Construct

MW (kDa)

hp_aa

LC

Total Expression (mg / l) 13.2 0.0 14.6 0.0 0.0 65.0 24.0 60.6 8.6 15.5 18.5 0.0 16.0 67.0 9.7 19.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 134.5 121.2 61.0 96.5 71.8 28.6 23.4 106.7 0.0 133.8 2.0 3.8 4.2 3.6 40.1 60.3 59.2 36.9 9.4 21.6 0.0 5.1 18.2 56.8 34.7 2.7 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.2 61.2 32.4

Soluble Expression (mg / l) 8.3 0.0 14.6 0.0 0.0 19.3 23.5 27.2 8.4 10.4 12.1 0.0 14.3 15.8 7.2 9.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 61.0 86.8 38.2 73.1 51.7 16.3 23.0 23.8 0.0 62.0 1.7 2.6 2.5 1.7 32.2 20.8 49.7 19.4 1.3 12.4 0.0 2.1 17.9 14.6 22.6 2.4 0.0 0.0 8.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.7 36.6 32.0

31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88

TAL1 ELF1 ELF1 ELF1 ELF1 ELF1 Elf1 Elf1 Elf1 Elf1 Elf1 Elf1 Gata1 Gata1 Gata1 Gata1 Gata1 Gata2 Gata2 Gata2 Gata2 Fli1 Fli1 Fli1 Fli1 Fli1 Fli1 Fli1 Fli1 Lmo2 Ldb1 Ldb1 Ldb1 Lyl1 Lyl1 Lyl1 Lyl1 Lyl1 Ttr Pin1 Whsc1 Whsc1 Whsc1 Whsc1 Whsc1 Whsc1 Whsc1 Maat1 BC031407 BC031407 BC031407 BC031407 BC031407 BC031407 Bzrp2 MGC19339 Bsg Snx15

P17542 P32519 P32519 P32519 P32519 P32519 Q60775 Q60775 Q60775 Q60775 Q60775 Q60775 P17679 P17679 P17679 P17679 P17679 O09100 O09100 O09100 O09100 P26323 P26323 P26323 P26323 P26323 P26323 P26323 P26323 P25801 P70662 P70662 P70662 P27792 P27792 P27792 P27792 P27792 P07309 Q9QUR7 Q7TSF5 Q7TSF5 Q7TSF5 Q7TSF5 Q7TSF5 Q7TSF5 Q7TSF5 NM_024227 NM_145596 NM_145596 NM_145596 NM_145596 NM_145596 NM_145596 P50637 NM_145954 NM_009768 NM_026912

HLH Ets nab Ets na Ets Ets Ets na Ets Ets na GATA 2 GATA 2 na GATA 2 GATA 2 GATA 2 na GATA 2 GATA 2 SAM_PNT, Ets SAM_PNT, Ets SAM_PNT SAM_PNT, Ets SAM+ETS SAM_PNT Ets Ets LIM 2 LIM_bind LIM_bind LIM_bind HLH HLH na HLH HLH transthyretin WW, Rotamase PHD 2, PWWP, SET PHD, PWWP, SET PHD, PWWP PWWP, SET, PHD PWWP, SET PWWP SET na na na na na na na TspO_MBR Aldedh Ig 2, V-set PX, MIT

179331/331 2619/619 2167/619 204619/619 316619/619 204306/619 2612/612 2306/612 2167/612 204612/612 204306/612 316612/612 2413/413 2319/413 2182/413 191413/413 191319/413 2480/480 2189/480 275480/480 275402/480 2452/452 2363/452 2198/452 114452/452 114363/452 114196/452 280452/452 280363/452 2158/158 2375/375 2273/375 275375/375 40278/278 40215/278 40135/278 150278/278 150215/278 20147/147 2163/163 2558/558 2373/558 2149/558 70558/558 70373/558 70149/558 249373/558 2257/257 2630/630 2455/630 2179/630 178630/630 178455/630 413630/630 2169/169 40486/803 28323/389 2337/337

16.5 67.4 18.0 45.4 32.2 12.1 66.1 34.0 17.8 44.2 12.1 30.7 42.5 33.8 18.6 23.1 14.3 50.3 19.4 22.4 14.2 50.9 41.7 22.2 38.6 29.4 10.0 20.1 10.9 18.2 42.6 31.9 10.5 26.2 19.6 10.3 14.8 8.2 13.6 18.2 63.8 43.0 17.2 56.1 35.3 9.5 14.3 30.0 67.3 48.5 19.4 48.0 29.1 23.7 18.7 47.0 32.4 37.6

3.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 3.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0

1.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 0.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 5.0 1.0 5.0 4.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.0

Page 11 of 18
(page number not for citation purposes)

BMC Biotechnology 2004, 4:32

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6750/4/32

Table 4: Expression levels of mammalian proteins expressed with N-terminal H10-MBP fusions, with selected protein features

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125

Snx15 Atp2b2 Atp2b2 cdh23 Myo15 Myo7a tmc1 Trvp4 Whrn Espn Map2 Prom GluR1 GluR2 Grin1 Grin2a Grin2b Dlgh2 Dlgh4 Dlgh3 Dlgh1 Syngap1 Grip1 Homer1 Homer3 TtyhI 1500001H12RIKEXT2 Ext2 KIAA1136 G2 KIAA1549 Nfkb1 Nfkb1 RelA-p65 RelA-p65 RelB myog

NM_026912 PX Q9R0K7 Cation_ATPase_N Q9R0K7 Cation_ATPase_N Q99PF4 Cadherin Q9QZZ4 SH3_2 P97479 SH3_1 Q8R4P5 na NM_022017 na XM_196324 PDZ NM_019585 WH2 P20357 Tubulin-binding O54990 Prominin P23818 ANF_receptor P23819 ANF_receptor P35438 na P35436 na Q01097 Lig_chan NM_011807 PDZ Q62108 PDZ P70175 PDZ U93309 PDZ XM_139847 RasGAP Q925T5 PDZ Q9Z2Y3 WH1 Q99JP6 WH1 Q9EQN7 na NM_021316 na NM_010163 na Q9ULT3 na Q12914 na Q9HCM3 na P25799 RHD P25799 RHD, TIG, Ank 6, Death Q04207 RHD, TIG Q04207 RHD, TIG Q04863 RHD, TIG P12979 HLH, Basic

2226/337 294/1198 10391198/1198 33132/3354 28472937/3511 16021672/2215 2193/757 500718/871 811908/908 2253/253 16571755/1828 124162/867 19538/907 22545/883 834938/938 23555/1464 656817/1482 419530/852 311394/724 402509/849 432572/927 405615/1318 1112/1034 2107/354 2110/356 263450/450 2149/149 99392/718 45214/597 10461692/1692 184464/1865 39365/971 2971/971 18306/549 2549/549 102418/558 2224/224

25.6 10.4 17.9 11.1 9.8 7.8 22.9 24.6 11.0 28.0 10.6 4.3 59.0 58.6 12.0 59.9 18.1 11.7 8.7 11.7 15.1 23.9 9.6 12.1 39.3 20.6 14.8 33.0 19.2 71.3 29.5 36.7 105.5 32.9 60.0 35.8 25.1

4.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 9.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 2.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 7.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 3.0

1.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.0

20.0 42.1 6.1 174.7 8.6 76.0 0.0 0.0 34.1 5.5 47.1 16.3 0.0 0.0 13.8 58.5 0.0 13.8 37.4 0.0 26.7 0.0 0.0 17.9 0.0 35.6 66.1 18.5 26.8 0.0 3.5 27.1 0.0 24.1 0.0 46.0 25.8

18.8 24.7 5.0 38.8 0.0 35.4 0.0 0.0 31.1 3.8 46.8 8.5 0.0 0.0 13.8 8.2 0.0 13.7 29.2 0.0 23.4 0.0 0.0 17.6 0.0 28.3 66.1 3.5 10.4 0.0 0.0 22.7 0.0 18.2 0.0 25.9 12.4

Features listed as Table 1 except: aPfamA domains contained within expressed protein and bna no PfamA domains annotated.

ble expression had an average molecular weight of 40.4 KDa and those where the addition of a N-terminal fusion could not rescue soluble expression had an average size of 51.4 KDa. The same pattern also emerged in the C-terminal fusion study. The decreasing probability of successful soluble expression of mammalian proteins with increasing molecular weight is likely due to increasing protein complexity, perhaps requiring specialised eukaryotic chaperones for folding or stabilising binding partners. The majority of proteins solubly expressed in this study contained single domains and as fusion proteins were either capable of self-folding or were folded with the aid of prokaryotic chaperones. Braun et al. found a similar relationship with their set of 32 human proteins with 4 different N-terminal fusions [30].

A correlation in this study was observed between increasing numbers of contiguous hydrophobic amino (hp_aa) acids (AILFWV) and soluble expression. This ranged from an average of 3.8 hp_aa for those proteins not requiring a N-terminal fusion for high level soluble expression to 5 hp_aa for proteins requiring a N-terminal fusion for successful expression and 5.6 hp_aa where expression failed under the conditions described here. This pattern was also repeated in the C-terminal fusion study where good expression proteins had an average of 3.1 hp_aa whereas poor expression proteins had an average of 5 hp_aa. In a study of the sequences of 2753 non-membrane proteins it was found that the sequences of three or more consecutive hydrophobic residues are suppressed in globular proteins [48]. Low complexity regions of proteins are regions of a protein of biased composition containing a small number of amino acids [33] and can have
Page 12 of 18
(page number not for citation purposes)

BMC Biotechnology 2004, 4:32

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6750/4/32

a disordered structure important for protein function [49]. Here we found that the greater the number of low complexity regions contained within the target protein, the less likely soluble expression would be achieved. This was true for both the N- and C-terminal fusion protein studies with 0.6 1 low complexity regions for proteins easy to express in a soluble form to 2.4 3 low complexity regions for proteins difficult to express. Low complexity regions are less common in bacterial proteins and these may be targets for proteolytic degradation in vivo. Some interesting conclusions were drawn when soluble expression was measured for an additional set of 95 mammalian proteins expressed as H10-MBP fusions (Table 4). In several cases (ELF1, Fli1, Ldb1, BC031407, Nfkb1 and RelA-p65) truncating the proteins to minimise the molecular weight and the numbers of low complexity regions and contiguous hydrophobic amino acids made the difference between failed expression and good soluble protein expression. For proteins such as BC031407, with no annotated PfamA domains, it was found that truncating at low complexity regions was a good method to identify a fragment that could express in a soluble form of the correct size (protein 81). Although we found that successful soluble expression of the 95 protein set correlated with lower molecular weight, number of low complexity regions and contiguous hydrophobic amino acids compared with proteins that failed to express solubly with the correct size, validating our earlier conclusions, there were some exceptions. For example Elf1 and Gata1 both expressed well despite having 4 and 6 low complexity regions respectively and molecular weights of 66 and 42.5 kDa, whereas some smaller proteins such as the PDZ domains of Dlgh3 and Grip1 failed to express. It may be that there are additional protein features, such as the ability to form a stabilising interaction with a binding partner, that are also important for soluble expression. Also ensuring correct protein domain boundaries may be important since the annotated Pfam domain boundaries, based on sequence alignment, do not always match the structural or folding domain boundaries.
Protein fusions that enhance protein solubility There have been three comparative studies recently where sets of proteins were cloned into several expression vectors and the effects of the fusion partner on total and soluble expression yield were examined. Hammarstrom et al. [29] cloned 27 human proteins (MW < 20 Kda) into various expression vectors and ranked the tags ability to promote soluble expression as Trx ~ MBP ~ Gb1 > ZZ > NusA > GST > His6. Another study ranked tags in terms of increased expression and yield after purification as GST ~ MBP > CBP > His6 when comparing the expression of 32 human proteins where the molecular weight varied from 17 110 kDa.[30] Here GST was preferred because of the

weak affinity between MBP and amylose resin. In a third study of 40 different proteins (10 mammalian, 3 plant and 2 insect) with 8 different tags MBP gave the best overall results in terms of total and soluble expression [31]. However, these studies used different combinations of promoter and fusion partner, so it was unclear whether the observed effect was purely due to expression with the fusion partner or variable rates of transcript synthesis that would also affect translation rates. In this study it was found that, on average, N-terminal fusion partners are preferable for optimal protein expression. When proteins are expressed with their native N-terminus, as in our C-terminal fusion proteins, total expression levels can be more variable than when expressed with a constant N-terminal tag. This may be because of variable RNA secondary structures in the region around the start codon which could interfere with ribosome binding. An additional explanation is that during translation the expressed protein emerges from the ribosome first and initiates an incorrect, irreversible, folding pathway before the soluble fusion partner has been translated and folded. The mis-folded protein would be ubiquitin labelled and targeted to the proteasome for degradation resulting in lower total expression levels. This scenario is more likely when expressing mammalian proteins in a bacterial system which lacks specific eukaryotic chaperone proteins. It has been shown previously that proteins prone to mis-folding and aggregation can arrest GFP folding when fused at the C-terminus [17]. However, when the soluble protein is fused at the N-terminus, this would be translated first and perhaps increase the solubility of the downstream protein domain folding intermediates, increasing their half lives prior to irreversible aggregation. This would allow greater reversibility in the individual steps along the folding pathway and increase the probability that the protein would eventually reach the lowest free energy native conformation. It was found that Trx and MBP were the best N-terminal protein fusions to promote protein solubility. The best Cterminal fusion to promote protein solubility was MBP and this may be acting as a true intra-molecular chaperone [50], able to promote folding of the N-terminal protein fusion. The mechanism could be due to direct binding to folding intermediates [51], allowing stabilisation prior to correct folding and inhibition of aggregate formation. The observation that MBP was effective at enhancing soluble expression when fused at the C-terminus, in contrast to thioredoxin, suggests that MBP can actually reverse the process of incorrect folding that would have started prior to the translation of the downstream MBP. This property was not observed for thioredoxin when fused to the C-terminus suggesting either that, in three-dimensions, different proximal faces of the fusion partners have different

Page 13 of 18
(page number not for citation purposes)

BMC Biotechnology 2004, 4:32

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6750/4/32

solubility enhancing properties or that thioredoxin does not posses any chaperone properties and acts only as a solubility enhancer. Alternatively, the folding of thioredoxin may be more prone to inhibition than MBP. Also there are examples where MBP fusions can form soluble inclusion bodies [52,53], and this cannot be ruled out as a possibility here, although there are also several examples where MBP fusion proteins are fully functionally active [50,52,54,55]. It must be stressed here that although protein solubility is a useful indicator of correct folding, additional measurements need to be performed to give supporting evidence for correct folding. These may include removing the protein fusion with a protease and analysis of the cleaved protein of interest by a variety of biophysical and functional assays such as analysis of monodispersity by light scattering [52], NMR [56,57], CD spectropolarimetry, bis-ANS binding [53], ligand binding or enzymatic activity. In this study a protease cleavage site was not included in the vector constructs because the main use of the proteins generated in our laboratory will be in high-throughput antibody production where the cleavage of the fusion partner is unnecessary. GFP did not significantly enhance soluble protein expression when fused to the C-terminus of the proteins in this study, supporting the use of this tag as an indicator of soluble protein expression of fused ORFs.[17,41] The observation that the V5-His6 tag resulted in a higher average soluble expression level than the His10 tag (1.7 compared with 0.3 mg/l) indicates that the identity of the peptide tag can also affect overall solubility of expressed proteins.

enable a systematic expansion in the number mammalian proteins and domains that can be successfully expressed in E. coli as soluble product, and also predict which are best targeted for a eukaryotic expression system.

Methods
Materials Oligonucleotides were synthesised by Qiagen-Operon (Cologne, Germany) or Sigma-Genosys (Haverhill, UK). All restriction enzymes were from New England Biolabs (Hitchin, UK). The vectors pET-DEST42, pDEST17 and pDONR201 and E. coli DB3.1 and BL21(DE3)Star pLysS, Gateway BP and LR clonase enzyme mix, pre-cast 412 % NuPAGE Bis-Tris gels and PVDF membranes (0.45 m pore size) were all from Invitrogen (Paisley, UK). Entry plasmids in both open (minus stop codon) or closed format (plus stop codon) containing the full-length genes for GRB2, HRAS, JUN, FOS, MAD, MAX, CDK2, CDK4, CDKN1B, CASP2, MMP1, CDKN2A and CD44 were provided by Pascal Braun and Josh LaBaer (Harvard Institute of Proteomics, Cambridge, USA). A full length clone containing the full-length human EGFR ORF was provided by the RIKEN BioResource Center (Tsukuba, Japan) and Efna1 from the Mammalian Gene Collection (MGC) archived at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute (Hinxton, UK). First strand synthesis human and mouse cDNA was from BD Biosciences (Oxford, UK). Plasmid, gel extraction and PCR purification kits and 6xHis protein ladder were purchased from Qiagen (Crawley, UK). The expression strain BL21(DE3), BugBuster protein extraction reagent and His tag monoclonal antibody was from Merck Biosciences (Nottingham, UK). The 96-well multiscreenDV durapore filter plate with 0.65 m pore size was from Millipore (Watford, UK) and Cy5-labelled goat antimouse IgG from Amersham Biosciences (Little Chalfont, UK). Europium labelled antibodies and DELFIA reagents were from Perkin Elmer (Beaconsfield, UK) and all other chemicals unless otherwise stated were from SigmaAldrich (Gillingham, UK). N-Terminal fusion GATEWAY destination vector construction To prepare pET-DEST42-MCS, a multi-cloning site was inserted into pET-DEST42 (Invitrogen) at nt396, between the shine-dalgarno sequence and the attR1 recombination site, encoding the recognition sequences for NdeI, KpnI, DraIII and BfrBI. Inverse or whole plasmid PCR was performed on pET-DEST42 with 5'-phosphorylated PAGE purified primer pairs 20 (5' TACCCACGAAGTGATGCATACAAGTTTGTACAAAAAAGCTGAACG 3') and 21 (5' CCCATATGTATATCTCCTTCTTAAAGTTAAACAAAATTAT TTCTAGAG 3') in a 20 l reaction containing 10 ng pETDEST42, 0.3 M primers 20 and 21, 20 mM Tris-HCl (pH 7.5), 0.5 mM DTT, 200 M each of dATP, dCTP, dGTP and dTTP, 1 mM MgSO4, and 0.5 unit KOD hot start DNA

Conclusions
What guidelines have emerged from this study in developing a strategy for the production of soluble mammalian proteins in E. coli? If the protein has a molecular weight of less than 30 KDa and contains 1 or less low complexity regions and less than 4 contiguous hydrophobic amino acids expression of the full-length protein in E. coli should give good levels of soluble protein. As a generic strategy we would recommend expressing the protein with a fusion partner and found MBP and Trx to be the best fusions to enhance protein solubility as N-terminal tags with MBP being superior as a C-terminal fusion. C-terminal fusions are desirable for proteins such as the P450s where N-terminal tags can inhibit functional activity. When fused to an optimal fusion partner, nuclear, cytoplasmic and extra-cellular domains were equally likely to be expressed solubly. For larger proteins over 50 KDa, truncations should be considered to express specific protein domains and to minimise the molecular weight, number of low complexity regions and contiguous hydrophobic amino acids. In conclusion, this study will help

Page 14 of 18
(page number not for citation purposes)

BMC Biotechnology 2004, 4:32

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6750/4/32

polymerase (Novagen). PCR cycling conditions were: 94C 2 mins followed by 15 cycles of 94C 15 s, 59C 30 s, 68C 9 mins. The 7468 bp PCR product was purified using a PCR purification spin column (Qiagen) and eluted with 30 l of 10 mM Tris-HCl (pH8.5), digested with 20 units of DpnI enzyme at 37C for 4 hrs, to remove methylated plasmid DNA, purified by spin column and an intramolecular ligation reaction performed using 16 ng of linear PCR product and 5 units T4 DNA ligase and the buffers from the rapid ligation kit (Roche). The ligated PCR product was used to transform E. coli DB3.1 and the resultant pET-DEST42-MCS plasmid DNA prepared and sequence confirmed. Insert 1, encoding a decahistidine tag with a 5'-NdeI site and blunt 3' end, was prepared by PCR with primer pairs 22 (5' GGAATTCCATATGAAUCAC 3') and 24 (5' pGTGATGGTGATGGTGATGGTGATGGTGATTCATATGGAATTCC) and insert 2 encoding a decahistidine tag flanked by a 5'-NdeI site and 3'-KpnI site was prepared with primer pairs 22 and 26 (5' CGGGGTACCATGGTGATGGTGATGGTGATGGTGATGGTGATTCATATGGAATTCC 3'). PCR reactions were as above except the annealing temperature dropped to 44C, extension time to 10 s and 12 cycles employed. Insert size was checked by 10 % TBE-PAGE and purified by a nucleotide removal kit (Qiagen). Expression vectors (b) pDEST-N110 and pDEST-N112 (Figure 1) were prepared by digestion of inserts 1 and 2 with NdeI only or NdeI and KpnI combined respectively, purified by spin column and ligated in a 1:1 ratio to NdeI, BfrBI or NdeI, KpnI digested pETDEST42-MCS respectively prior to transformation of E. coli DB3.1. Inserts encoding MBP, GFP, GST or Trx flanked by a 5' DraIII site and a 3' blunt end were generated by PCR amplification from the plasmids pMALc2 (New England Biolabs), pET41a or pET32 (Novagen) respectively The primer pairs for MBP were 78 (5' TTATTACACGAAGTGAAAATCGAAGAAGGTAAACTGGTAATC 3') and 79 (5' pGTTCGAGCTCGAATTAGTCTGCGCGTCTTTC), for GFP 84 (5' TTATTACACGAAGTGGCTAGCAAAGGAGAAGAACTTTTCACTGGAG 3') and 85 (5' pTTTGTAGAGCTCATCCATGCCATGTGTAATC 3'), for GST 86 (5' TTATTACACGAAGTGTCCCCTATACTAGGTTATTGGAAAATTAAGGG 3') and 87 (5' pATCCGATTTTGGAGGATGGTCGCCACC 3') and for Trx 88 (5' TTATTACACGAAGTGAGCGATAAAATTATTCACCTGACTGAC 3') and 89 (5' p CAGGTTAGCGTCGAGGAACTCTTTC 3'). The inserts were digested with DraIII and ligated with DraIII, BfrBI cut pDEST-N112 vector to create the GATEWAY destination vectors pDEST-112MBP, pDEST-112-GFP, pDEST-112-GST, pDEST-112-Trx.
C-Terminal fusion GATEWAY destination vector construction pDEST-C101 was designed to insert a decahistidine encoded sequence between the attR2 recombination site and T7 transcription termination region. pDEST-C102 is

as C101 except a DraIII, BfrBI site was inserted downstream of the attR2 recombination site. Inverse PCR was performed as described above with primer pairs 1 (5' pCACCATCACCATCATCACCATCACCATTGAGTTTGATCCGGC) and 2 (5' pATGCACCACTTTGTACAAGAAAGCTGAAC) to generate pDEST-C101 and primer pairs 1 and 3 (5' pATGCATACCACTCACTTCGTGCACCACTTTGTACAAGAAAGCTGAAC) to prepare pDESTC102. Murine and human dihydrofolate reductase (Dhfr and DHFR respectively) inserts flanked by a 5' DraIII site and blunt end at the 3' were amplified from MGC clones using the primer pairs 82 (5' TTATTACACGAAGTGCGACCATTGAACTGCATCGTCGCCGTG) and 83 (5' pGTCTTTCTTCTCGTAGACTTCAAACTTATAC 3') for Dhfr and 80 (5' TTATTACACGAAGTGGGTTCGCTAAACTGCATCGTCGCTGTG) and 81 (5' pATCATTCTTCTCATATACTTCAAATTTG) for DHFR. The DraIII digested inserts were ligated with DraIII, BfrBI digested pDESTC102 vector to create pDEST-C102-MBP, GFP, GST, Trx, Dhfr and DHFR as shown in Figure 1.
cDNA isolation and expression clone generation A nested PCR strategy was used to isolate protein encoding ORFs directly from cDNA adapted for GATEWAY cloning from the method described by J. E. Collins et al. [34]. Briefly 2 sets of primer pairs were designed, the first pair of optimised primers binding 1 200 bp 5' and 3' of the ORF using DS-Gene software (Accelerys) and a second set of primers targeted to the beginning and end of the ORF. All primers were designed with melting temperatures around 60C. PCR 1 contained 50 pg of either human universal QUICK-clone II cDNA (Clontech) or 50 pg of a mixture of mouse brain, heart, kidney, liver, smooth muscle, spleen, testis and 7, 11, 15 and 17-day embryo QUICK-clone cDNA (Clontech), 0.25 M primers, 20 mM Tris-HCl (pH 7.5), 0.5 mM DTT, 200 M each of dATP, dCTP, dGTP and dTTP, 1 mM MgSO4, and 0.5 unit KOD hot start DNA polymerase (Novagen) in a total volume of 20 l. The PCR reaction consisted of 94C 2 mins, and 30 cycles of 94C 15 s, 55C 30 s, 68C 2.5 mins followed by 68C 5 mins. A 50-fold dilution of the PCR 1 reaction was made for the second 30 cycle PCR containing the ORF specific primers. Linkers were added to these primers encoding half the attB1 and attB2 sites for forward and reverse primers respectively. For entry clone generation to be transferred to N-terminal tag expression vectors the 5'-linkers for the forward and reverse primers were 5' AAAAAGCAGGCTCT 3' and 5' AGAAAGCTGGGTTCTA 3' respectively with the reverse primer adding a stop codon. For inserts destined to the C-terminal tag expression vectors the forward and reverse primers were 5' AAAAAGCAGGCTTCGAAGGAGATAGAACCATGG 3' and 5' AGAAAGCTGGGTT 3' respectively with the forward primer encoding the shine-dalgarno and kozak sequences and start codon. PCR 2 products were analysed by 1 %

Page 15 of 18
(page number not for citation purposes)

BMC Biotechnology 2004, 4:32

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6750/4/32

TBE-agarose electrophoresis[58] and correct size fragments were then subjected to an adapter PCR step to complete the flanking attB1 and attB2 sites. This consisted of a PCR reaction as described above using 1 l of a 50-fold dilution of the PCR 2 reaction in a total volume of 20 l and primer pair 113 (5' GGGGACAAGTTTGTACAAAAAAGCAGGCT 3') and 114 (5' GGGGACCACTTTGTACAAGAAAGCTGGGT 3') except that the annealing temperature was 45C, only 12 cycles were used and extension time was 2 mins. The products of the adapter PCR were purified by a 96-well PCR clean-up kit (Qiagen), eluted in 100 l 10 mM Tris-HCl (pH8.5) and had an average concentration of 40 ng /l. Recombinational cloning of attB flanked PCR products with an attP containing pDONR vector to generate a set of entry plasmids was as described previously [35] except that pDONR221 (Invitrogen) was used. The ORFs within sequence confirmed attL containing entry plasmids were then recombined the various attR destination vectors described above to generate sets of expression plasmids. The LR recombination reactions [35] were used to transform E. coli DH5 cells, miniprep plasmid DNA prepared and this used to transform the various BL21(DE3) expression strains used in this study.
Expression screening and quantitation All BL21(DE3) transformants were selected and propagated in the presence of 100 g/ml ampicillin. A single antibiotic resistant colony was used to inoculate 0.5 ml 2xYT media in a 96-deep well block containing the appropriate antibiotics and shaken at 210 rpm at 37C. When the average OD600 had reached 1 (3 hrs for BL21(DE3)), 60 l was transferred to 1.2 ml 2xYT media in a 96-deepwell block containing the appropriate antibiotics, placed on a shaking incubator at 37C and when the OD600 reached 0.5 (2 hrs for BL21(DE3)) IPTG added to a final concentration of 1 mM and shaking continued at 25C for 12 hours. Total protein was analysed by transferring a 20 l aliquot of the induced culture to a 96-well PCR plate containing 20 l of 2 NuPage LDS loading buffer (Invitrogen), 0.1 M DTT, heated to 95C for 10 mins and cooled on ice prior to loading 10 l on a 17-well 412 % NuPAGE Bis-Tris gels with a multi-channel gel loading syringe (Hamilton). Soluble protein was extracted by transferring 290 l of induced culture to a shallow well plate, centrifugation at 3000 g for 5 mins, supernatant removed and cells were resuspended in 58 l BugBuster containing 1.4 units of benzonase and 58 units of recombinant lysozyme (Novagen). For the C-terminal tag and expression strain comparison this buffer was also supplemented with 0.58 l protease inhibitor cocktail set III 10-fold diluted in DMSO (Novagen). The cell-pellets were resuspended with a multi-channel pipette and incubated with slow shaking for 20 mins at room temperature prior to transfer to 96-well multiscreen-DV durapore filter

plates with 0.65 m pore size (Millipore). The filter plate was placed on top of a shallow 96-well plate and centrifuged at 1000 g for 2 mins. 4 l of the filtrate was then added to a 96-well plate containing 5 l of 4 NuPage LDS loading buffer (Invitrogen), 11 l of 182 mM DTT, the plate heated at 95C for 5 mins and loaded onto a 17well 412 % NuPAGE Bis-Tris gel. A His-tagged molecular weight ladder (Qiagen) was also loaded onto each gel. Gel electrophoresis and electro-transfer to PVDF membrane was as described.[58] Blots were blocked with 3 % Marvel milk powder in PBS-Tween (PBS with 0.1% Tween) either 1 hour at room temperature or over-night at room-temperature, washed with PBS-Tween and incubated with 40 ng/ml anti-His5 tag monoclonal antibody (Novagen), 3 % Marvel, PBS-Tween for 1 hr, washed 3 PBS-Tween, incubated with 1 g/ml Cy5 labelled goat anti-mouse in 3% Marvel, PBS-Tween for 1 hr, washed 3 PBS-Tween and 2 PBS and blots dried at 37C for 10 mins between blotting paper. The blots were scanned on a Typhoon 8600 variable mode imager (Amersham) with fluorescence scan mode, 633 nm excitation laser, 670 nm emission filter, 600 V PMT and 200 m / pixel scan resolution. The integrated fluorescence intensity volumes of bands on the gel were quantitated using ImageQuant TL software (Amersham). Conversions to protein yield were made by using a calibration curve of purified His-tagged single chain antibody (scFv). Differences between the molecular weight (MW) of the scFv (31 KDa) and each expressed fusion protein were taken into account by multiplying each protein quantitation by the ratio MW construct (KDa) / 31. The numbers were normalised to eliminate blot to blot variation using a His-tagged molecular weight ladder (Qiagen).

Authors' contributions
MRD performed the molecular biology, participated in the bioinformatics, expression screening, quantitation, experimental design and drafted the manuscript. SPS and RLP participated in the expression screening and quantitation. KJV helped with the bioinformatics (database searching, protein domain annotation and primer design). JM participated in the experimental design, coordination and helped to draft the manuscript. All authors approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements
We thank Pascal Braun and Josh LaBaer (Harvard Institute of Proteomics, Cambridge, USA) for providing some entry clones containing full length human open reading frames used in this study, Geoff Waldo (Los Alamos National Laboratory, USA) for providing a plasmid containing cycle 3 mutated GFP and John Collins and Ian Dunham (The Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, UK) for sharing their cDNA isolation protocol. This work was supported by The Wellcome Trust.

References
1. Agaton C, Galli J, Hoiden Guthenberg I, Janzon L, Hansson M, Asplund A, Brundell E, Lindberg S, Ruthberg I, Wester K, Wurtz D, Hoog C,

Page 16 of 18
(page number not for citation purposes)

BMC Biotechnology 2004, 4:32

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6750/4/32

2. 3. 4.

5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

20. 21.

22.

23.

Lundeberg J, Stahl S, Ponten F, Uhlen M: Affinity Proteomics for Systematic Protein Profiling of Chromosome 21 Gene Products in Human Tissues. Mol Cell Proteomics 2003, 2(6):405-414. Hust M, Dubel S: Mating antibody phage display with proteomics. Trends in Biotechnology 2004, 22(1):8-14. Warford A, Howat W, McCafferty J: Expression profiling by highthroughput immunohistochemistry. Journal of Immunological Methods 2004, 290(12):81-92. Zhu H, Bilgin M, Bangham R, Hall D, Casamayor A, Bertone P, Lan N, Jansen R, Bidlingmaier S, Houfek T, Mitchell T, Miller P, Dean RA, Gerstein M, Snyder M: Global Analysis of Protein Activities Using Proteome Chips. Science 2001, 293(5537):2101-2105. MacBeath G, Schreiber SL: Printing proteins as microarrays for high-throughput function determination. Science 2000, 289(5485):1760-1763. Yakunin AF, Yee AA, Savchenko A, Edwards AM, Arrowsmith CH: Structural proteomics: a tool for genome annotation. Current Opinion in Chemical Biology 2004, 8(1):42-48. Goulding CW, Perry LJ: Protein production in Escherichia coli for structural studies by X-ray crystallography. Journal of Structural Biology 2003, 142(1):133-143. Baneyx F: Recombinant protein expression in Escherichia coli. Curr Opin Biotechnol 1999, 10(5):411-421. Swartz JR: Advances in Escherichia coli production of therapeutic proteins. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 2001, 12(2):195-201. Mergulhao FJM, Monteiro GA, Cabral JMS, Taipa MA: Design of bacterial vector systems for the production of recombinant proteins in Escherichia coli. J Microbiol Biotechnol 2004, 14(1):1-14. Knaust RK, Nordlund P: Screening for soluble expression of recombinant proteins in a 96-well format. Anal Biochem 2001, 297(1):79-85. Lesley SA: High-Throughput Proteomics: Protein Expression and Purification in the Postgenomic World. Protein Expression and Purification 2001, 22(2):159-164. Finley JB, Qiu S-H, Luan C-H, Luo M: Structural genomics for Caenorhabditis elegans: high throughput protein expression analysis. Protein Expression and Purification 2004, 34(1):49-55. Ding HT, Ren H, Chen Q, Fang G, Li LF, Li R, Wang Z, Jia XY, Liang YH, Hu MH, Li Y, Luo JC, Gu XC, Su XD, Luo M, Lu SY: Parallel cloning, expression, purification and crystallization of human proteins for structural genomics. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr 2002, 58(Pt 12):2102-2108. Himanen JP, Rajashankar KR, Lackmann M, Cowan CA, Henkemeyer M, Nikolov DB: Crystal structure of an Eph receptor-ephrin complex. Nature 2001, 414(6866):933-938. Molloy PE, Harris WJ, Strachan G, Watts C, Cunningham C: Production of soluble single-chain T-cell receptor fragments in Escherichia coli trxB mutants. Mol Immunol 1998, 35(2):73-81. Waldo GS, Standish BM, Berendzen J, Terwilliger TC: Rapid protein-folding assay using green fluorescent protein. Nat Biotechnol 1999, 17(7):691-695. Stapleton D, Balan I, Pawson T, Sicheri F: The crystal structure of an Eph receptor SAM domain reveals a mechanism for modular dimerization. Nat Struct Biol 1999, 6(1):44-49. Wybenga-Groot LE, Baskin B, Ong SH, Tong J, Pawson T, Sicheri F: Structural basis for autoinhibition of the Ephb2 receptor tyrosine kinase by the unphosphorylated juxtamembrane region. Cell 2001, 106(6):745-757. Schein CH, Noteborn MHM: Formation of Soluble Recombinant Proteins in Escherichia coli is favored by lower growth temperatures. Biotechnology (N Y) 1988, 6:291-294. Winograd E, Pulido MA, Wasserman M: Production of DNArecombinant polypeptides by tac-inducible vectors using micromolar concentrations of IPTG. Biotechniques 1993, 14(6):886-890. Nishihara K, Kanemori M, Kitagawa M, Yanagi H, Yura T: Chaperone coexpression plasmids: differential and synergistic roles of DnaK-DnaJ-GrpE and GroEL-GroES in assisting folding of an allergen of Japanese cedar pollen, Cryj2, in Escherichia coli. Appl Environ Microbiol 1998, 64(5):1694-1699. Chen J, Acton TB, Basu SK, Montelione GT, Inouye M: Enhancement of the solubility of proteins overexpressed in Escherichia coli by heat shock. J Mol Microbiol Biotechnol 2002, 4(6):519-524.

24.

25. 26. 27.

28.

29.

30. 31. 32.

33. 34.

35.

36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41.

42. 43. 44.

45.

Thomas JG, Baneyx F: Divergent Effects of Chaperone Overexpression and Ethanol Supplementation on Inclusion Body Formation in Recombinant Escherichia coli. Protein Expression and Purification 1997, 11(3):289-296. Bessette PH, Aslund F, Beckwith J, Georgiou G: Efficient folding of proteins with multiple disulfide bonds in the Escherichia coli cytoplasm. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1999, 96(24):13703-13708. Jurado P, Ritz D, Beckwith J, de Lorenzo V, Fernandez LA: Production of Functional Single-Chain Fv Antibodies in the Cytoplasm of Escherichia coli. J Mol Biol 2002, 320(1):1-10. Tan WS, Dyson MR, Murray K: Hepatitis B virus core antigen: enhancement of its production in Escherichia coli, and interaction of the core particles with the viral surface antigen. Biol Chem 2003, 384(3):363-371. Miroux B, Walker JE: Over-production of proteins in Escherichia coli: mutant hosts that allow synthesis of some membrane proteins and globular proteins at high levels. J Mol Biol 1996, 260(3):289-298. Hammarstrom M, Hellgren N, van Den Berg S, Berglund H, Hard T: Rapid screening for improved solubility of small human proteins produced as fusion proteins in Escherichia coli. Protein Sci 2002, 11(2):313-321. Braun P, Hu Y, Shen B, Halleck A, Koundinya M, Harlow E, LaBaer J: Proteome-scale purification of human proteins from bacteria. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2002, 99(5):2654-2659. Shih YP, Kung WM, Chen JC, Yeh CH, Wang AH, Wang TF: Highthroughput screening of soluble recombinant proteins. Protein Sci 2002, 11(7):1714-1719. Boeckmann B, Bairoch A, Apweiler R, Blatter MC, Estreicher A, Gasteiger E, Martin MJ, Michoud K, O'Donovan C, Phan I, Pilbout S, Schneider M: The SWISS-PROT protein knowledgebase and its supplement TrEMBL in 2003. Nucleic Acids Res 2003, 31(1):365-370. Bateman A, Birney E, Cerruti L, Durbin R, Etwiller L, Eddy SR, Griffiths-Jones S, Howe KL, Marshall M, Sonnhammer ELL: The Pfam Protein Families Database. Nucl Acids Res 2002, 30(1):276-280. Collins JE, Wright CL, Edwards CA, Davis MP, Grinham JA, Cole CG, Goward ME, Aguado B, Mallya M, Mokrab Y, Huckle EJ, Beare DM, Dunham I: A genome annotation-driven approach to cloning the human ORFeome. Genome Biol 2004, 5(10):R84. Walhout AJ, Temple GF, Brasch MA, Hartley JL, Lorson MA, van den Heuvel S, Vidal M: GATEWAY recombinational cloning: application to the cloning of large numbers of open reading frames or ORFeomes. Methods Enzymol 2000, 328:575-592. Hartley JL, Temple GF, Brasch MA: DNA cloning using in vitro site-specific recombination. Genome Res 2000, 10(11):1788-1795. Landy A: Dynamic, Structural, and Regulatory Aspects of lambda Site-Specific Recombination. Annual Review of Biochemistry 1989, 58(1):913-941. Borer PN, Dengler B, Tinoco I Jr, Uhlenbeck OC: Stability of ribonucleic acid double-stranded helices. J Mol Biol 1974, 86(4):843-853. Dubendorff JW, Studier FW: Controlling basal expression in an inducible T7 expression system by blocking the target T7 promoter with lac repressor. J Mol Biol 1991, 219(1):45-59. Etchegaray J-P, Inouye M: Translational Enhancement by an Element Downstream of the Initiation Codon in Escherichia coli. J Biol Chem 1999, 274(15):10079-10085. Nakayama M, Ohara O: A system using convertible vectors for screening soluble recombinant proteins produced in Escherichia coli from randomly fragmented cDNAs. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2003, 312(3):825-830. Gingrich JC, Davis DR, Nguyen Q: Multiplex detection and quantitation of proteins on western blots using fluorescent probes. Biotechniques 2000, 29(3):636-642. Kyte J, Doolittle RF: A simple method for displaying the hydropathic character of a protein. J Mol Biol 1982, 157(1):105-132. Letunic I, Copley RR, Schmidt S, Ciccarelli FD, Doerks T, Schultz J, Ponting CP, Bork P: SMART 4.0: towards genomic data integration. Nucleic Acids Res 2004, 32(Database issue):D142-144. Goh C-S, Lan N, Douglas SM, Wu B, Echols N, Smith A, Milburn D, Montelione GT, Zhao H, Gerstein M: Mining the Structural Genomics Pipeline: Identification of Protein Properties that

Page 17 of 18
(page number not for citation purposes)

BMC Biotechnology 2004, 4:32

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6750/4/32

46.

47.

48.

49. 50.

51.

52.

53. 54.

55.

56.

57. 58.

Affect High-throughput Experimental Analysis. Journal of Molecular Biology 2004, 336(1):115-130. Schwartz R, Ting CS, King J: Whole Proteome pI Values Correlate with Subcellular Localizations of Proteins for Organisms within the Three Domains of Life. Genome Res 2001, 11(5):703-709. Luan CH, Qiu S, Finley JB, Carson M, Gray RJ, Huang W, Johnson D, Tsao J, Reboul J, Vaglio P, Hill DE, Vidal M, Delucas LJ, Luo M: HighThroughput Expression of C. elegans Proteins. Genome Res 2004, 14(10B):2102-2110. Schwartz R, Istrail S, King J: Frequencies of amino acid strings in globular protein sequences indicate suppression of blocks of consecutive hydrophobic residues. Protein Sci 2001, 10(5):1023-1031. Linding R, Russell RB, Neduva V, Gibson TJ: GlobPlot: exploring protein sequences for globularity and disorder. Nucl Acids Res 2003, 31(13):3701-3708. Bach H, Mazor Y, Shaky S, Shoham-Lev A, Berdichevsky Y, Gutnick DL, Benhar I: Escherichia coli maltose-binding protein as a molecular chaperone for recombinant intracellular cytoplasmic single-chain antibodies. J Mol Biol 2001, 312(1):79-93. Fox JD, Kapust RB, Waugh DS: Single amino acid substitutions on the surface of Escherichia coli maltose-binding protein can have a profound impact on the solubility of fusion proteins. Protein Sci 2001, 10(3):622-630. Nomine Y, Ristriani T, Laurent C, Lefevre J-F, Weiss E, Trave G: A strategy for optimizing the monodispersity of fusion proteins: application to purification of recombinant HPV E6 oncoprotein. Protein Eng 2001, 14(4):297-305. Sachdev D, Chirgwin JM: Properties of soluble fusions between mammalian aspartic proteinases and bacterial maltosebinding protein. J Protein Chem 1999, 18(1):127-136. Ahaded A, Winchenne JJ, Cartron JP, Lambin P, Lopez C: The extracellular domain of the human erythropoietin receptor: expression as a fusion protein in Escherichia coli, purification, and biological properties. Prep Biochem Biotechnol 1999, 29(2):163-176. Kapust RB, Waugh DS: Escherichia coli maltose-binding protein is uncommonly effective at promoting the solubility of polypeptides to which it is fused. Protein Sci 1999, 8(8):1668-1674. Scheich C, Leitner D, Sievert V, Leidert M, Schlegel B, Simon B, Letunic I, Bussow K, Diehl A: Fast identification of folded human protein domains expressed in E. coli suitable for structural analysis. BMC Struct Biol 2004, 4(1):4. Woestenenk EA, Hammarstrom M, Hard T, Berglund H: Screening methods to determine biophysical properties of proteins in structural genomics. Analytical Biochemistry 2003, 318(1):71-79. Sambrook J, Russell DW: Molecular cloning: a laboratory manual,. 3rd edition. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; 2000.

Publish with Bio Med Central and every scientist can read your work free of charge
"BioMed Central will be the most significant development for disseminating the results of biomedical researc h in our lifetime."
Sir Paul Nurse, Cancer Research UK

Your research papers will be:

available free of charge to the entire biomedical community peer reviewed and published immediately upon acceptance cited in PubMed and archived on PubMed Central yours you keep the copyright
Submit your manuscript here:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/publishing_adv.asp

BioMedcentral

Page 18 of 18
(page number not for citation purposes)