J Cell Biol 2015 Helma 633 44

Published June 8, 2015 JCB: Review
Nanobodies and recombinant binders in cell biology

JonasHelma,1 M.CristinaCardoso,2 SergeMuyldermans,3 and HeinrichLeonhardt1
1
Department of Biology II, Ludwig Maximilians University Munich and Center for Integrated Protein Science Munich, 82152 Planegg-Martinsried, Germany
2
Department of Biology, Technical University of Darmstadt, 64287 Darmstadt, Germany
3
Laboratory of Cellular and Molecular Immunology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, 1050 Brussels, Belgium
Antibodies are key reagents to investigate cellular pro- exclusive to small and stable binding molecules and cannot
cesses. The development of recombinant antibodies and be performed easily with full-length antibodies, as a result of
crucial inter- and intramolecular disulphide bridges that do not
binders derived from natural protein scaffolds has ex-
form in the cytoplasm. Thus, researchers have found a plethora
panded traditional applications, such as immunofluores- of new applications in which binders have been combined with
cence, binding arrays, and immunoprecipitation. In enzymatic or structural functionalities in living systems.
addition, their small size and high stability in ectopic en- The development of in vitro screening techniques has
been a decisive step for the rise and generation of recombinant
THE JOURNAL OF CELL BIOLOGY
vironments have enabled their use in all areas of cell re- binding reagents. These methods include classic phage display
search, including structural biology, advanced microscopy,
Downloaded from jcb.rupress.org on June 10, 2015

but also bacterial and yeast display as well as ribosomal and
and intracellular expression. Understanding these novel mRNA display. With such in vitro display techniques at hand,
directed evolution strategies and genetic manipulation of binder
reagents as genetic modules that can be integrated into
sequences allow targeted engineering of key features, such as
cellular pathways opens up a broad experimental spec- specificity, valence, affinity, and stability, enable derivatization
trum to monitor and manipulate cellular processes. toward smaller and more stable binding entities, and facilitate
expression in heterologous hosts. Yet, it is the virtually limit-
Deciphering the inner workings of the cell requires specific mo- less combinability of binder-mediated target recognition with
lecular probes to measure the spatial and temporal dynamics any other chemical or biological function (viruses, translocation
of cellular structures. One class of probes that has been pivotal peptides, enzymes, structural proteins, dyes, toxins, and thera-
to modern cell biology is antibodies. Their ability to bind spe- peutic agents) that opens up a whole universe of biotechnologi-
cifically to antigens such as proteins and even their posttrans- cal innovations. Here, we provide a short overview of the most
lational modifications (PTMs) has been exploited extensively important recombinant binder formats and how they are gener-
to interrogate cellular function. For example, fluorescently ated followed by a few examples of how these valuable reagents
labeled antibodies have been crucial staining reagents in mo- can promote innovation and enable new discoveries in various
lecular imaging techniques to reveal information on subcellular fields of cell research. An in-depth discussion of molecular and
localization, abundance, and molecular interactions of biologi- structural aspects of some of these formats can be found in recent
cal antigens of interest. In addition, antibodies are essential to specialized reviews (Muyldermans, 2013; Plckthun, 2015).
a vast range of biochemical analyses, including classic diag-
nostic techniques, such as Western blots and ELISA, but also Development of different
to systems biology methods, such as mass spectrometry and recombinant binders
ChIP-Seq (chromatin immunoprecipitation sequencing; Kidder Immunoglobulin derivatives.Naturally produced immu-
et al., 2011), in which antibodies mediate the initial purification noglobulins (IgG, IgM, IgA, IgD, and IgE) areuniversal weap-
of the biological specimen. ons against pathogenic threats. The predominant isotype in
Although conventional full-length antibodies are still the nature is IgG, a 150-kD multichain/multidomain protein. IgG
most widely used binding reagents for biochemistry and cell consists of two heavy chains and two light chains with variable
biology applications, their complex structural organization and domains (VH and VL; Fig. 1 A). The binding occurs via six
their tedious manufacturing procedures have urged the devel- (three in VH, three in VL) complementarity determining regions
opment of new, alternative binding reagents. Such binders are (CDRs). Derivatization of IgG allows the generation of func-
either recombinantly generated immunoglobulin derivatives or tional Fab (50 kD), scFv (25 kD), and single, variable do-
synthetically designed from very different protein scaffolds. main VH or VL fragments (Fig. 1 A). In Fab and scFv formats,
As such, recombinant binders are made to complement anti- the antigen binding surface is established via specific associa-
body-based fields of application or even enable completely new tion of the VH and the VL domain, mediated by hydrophobic
and innovative experiments. Of particular interest are binders framework residues (Chothia et al., 1985). The necessity of
that can be robustly expressed in living cells, a feature that is noncovalent interdomain interactions for functional domain as-
Correspondence to Heinrich Leonhardt: [email protected]
2015 Helma et al. This article is distributed under the terms of an Attribution
Abbreviations used in this paper: DARPin, designed ankyrin repeat protein; NoncommercialShare AlikeNo Mirror Sites license for the first six months after the pub-
ERK, extracellular signalregulated kinase; F3H, fluorescent-3-hybrid; FP, fluor lication date (see http://www.rupress.org/terms). After six months it is available under a
escent protein; GBP, GFP-binding protein; hcAb, heavy chain antibody; PPI, Creative Commons License (AttributionNoncommercialShare Alike 3.0 Unported license,
proteinprotein interaction; PTM, posttranslational modification. as described at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/).
The Rockefeller University Press$30.00

J. Cell Biol. Vol. 209 No. 5 633644
www.jcb.org/cgi/doi/10.1083/jcb.201409074 JCB 633
Published June 8, 2015
In vitro binder selection with display techniques epitopes on large folded proteins, respectively (Sundberg and
Mariuzza, 2002). In contrast, the prolate shape of a VHH ex-
Several polypeptide display techniques are available to identify anti-
gen-specific binders in vitro. Although these methods use different bi-
poses a convex paratope that is well suited to bind cavities or
ological vehicles, they share common features, including the capacity cryptic epitopes, which are likely unavailable for bulkier IgG
to screen large gene libraries, physical coupling of the encoding DNA paratopes as was exemplified for the blocking of the active site
sequence with its respective protein, and the possibility to increase bind- of lysozyme and the recognition of elusive structures of patho-
ing specificity and affinity by repetitive mutagenesis and selection cycles
genic trypanosomes (Nguyen et al., 2000; Stijlemans et al.,
(panning).
2004; De Genst et al., 2006).
Phage display Nonimmunoglobulin binders.The specific needs of
Phage display, the most common display technique, involves the display the various fields of application as well as patenting issues mo-
of a recombinant binder library on the surface of bacteriophages upon
genetic fusion with a viral coat protein. Individual phages comprise a
tivated the development of several alternative binder formats
defined binder on the surface and the respective gene within a phagemid that are based on defined nonimmunoglobulin protein folds.
inside the phage particle. Challenging this phage library with an immo- Here, we describe a few that are well established and suited for
bilized antigen allows for in vitro selection of specific binders that can be cellular research (Fig. 1 B).
amplified and identified by reinfection of Escherichia coli. Most widely
There are different strategies to engineer completely new
used are M13 filamentous phages.
classes of antibody mimetics. On the one hand, researchers have
Bacterial and yeast display used natural protein folds as universal scaffolds for the genera-
Both techniques rely on fusing the gene of the binder library to respec- tion of recombinant binding reagents. For example, the 10-kD
tive surface proteins. In contrast to phages, bacteria and yeast can be
screened via flow cytometry. Displaying binders on yeast is additionally
fibronectin protein fold serves as a template for the bioengi-
advantageous because the expression is mediated by a eukaryotic ma- neered Adnectins/monobodies (Fig. 1 B). They are structured
similarly to immunoglobulin domains with seven sheets and

chinery, which has been demonstrated to be more effective in comparison
to phage display (Bowley et al., 2007). three CDR-like loops located on the top of the barrel-like fold
Ribosome and mRNA display (Koide et al., 1998). Genetic randomization of the CDR-like
Ribosome display involves the in vitro transcription and translation of loops allows the generation of libraries from which to retrieve
a DNA library. A genetic trick allows immobilization of the translated, binders with desired specificities after in vitro display, as was
correctly folded protein on the ribosome in a noncovalent complex with for example demonstrated for a monobody directed against the
the respective mRNA, thereby providing the necessary genotypepheno-
type link. The variable pool of binderribosomemRNA complexes is then
Abl SH2 domain (Wojcik et al., 2010). In contrast to variable Ig
incubated with immobilized antigen, and specific binders are amplified domains, the fibronectin structure does not depend on intramo-
by reverse transcription. lecular disulphide bridges, thus facilitating functional applica-
mRNA display differs from ribosome display in that the in vitro trans- tions in reducing environments such as the cytoplasm of living
lated polypeptide is covalently linked to its cognate mRNA via puromycin, a
cells (Gross et al., 2013).
tRNA mimetic. In contrast to other display techniques, ribosome and mRNA
display are independent of E. coli transformation and the accompanying po- Another example of a synthetic binding reagent is antica-
tential loss of library diversity. In addition, the reverse transcription and PCR lins, which derive from the 20-kD lipocalin fold (Beste et al.,
amplification steps in between successive selection cycles introduce sporadic 1999). Lipocalins are eight-stranded -barrel structures that
mutations that mimic an affinity maturation step. mediate binding and transport of small molecules in their en-
dogenous environment. Upon randomization of the four natural
binding loops, the synthetic variant may be designed to spe-
sembly impairs the thermodynamic stability of Fabs and scFvs cifically recognize antigens of interest with high affinities. The
(Willuda et al., 1999; Wrn and Plckthun, 2001). This problem goblet-like binding pocket significantly differs from antibody
is aggravated with isolated VH and VL domains, as these hydro- paratopes (Fig. 1 B). Thus, the anticalin format is considered
phobic residues are exposed at the surface and thus decrease especially useful to generate binders against small molecules
protein solubility. Therefore, functional applications of single (Korndrfer et al., 2003) and protruding conformational epi-
domain antibodies derived from IgGs often require dedicated topes (Eggenstein et al., 2014).
protein engineering (Tanha et al., 2006). Another class of affinity proteins has been designed based
As a result of these biochemical limitations of IgGs and on the immunoglobulin binding protein A from Staphylococ-
their derivatives, the discovery of naturally evolved heavy chain cus aureus. These so-termed affibodies comprise three helices
antibodies (hcAbs) derived from camels (Hamers-Casterman et without disulphide bonds and have a molecular mass of 6.5
al., 1993) has raised great interest in the recombinant antibody kD (Fig. 1 B). Random mutagenesis of defined residues within
field (Fig. 1 A). The functional antigen-binding unit of hcAbs the two binding helices allows screening for target-specific
is reduced to only one single variable domain (VHH domain; binding reagents for biotechnological use (Nord et al., 1997).
nanobody). VHHs have a size of 1314 kD and have evolved In terms of size and binding mode, all aforementioned
biochemical features that are favorable for a wide range of bio- binder formats are more or less restricted to the fold of their nat-
technological applications. These properties include the substi- ural template. On the other hand, engineering repeat proteins as
tution of hydrophobic with hydrophilic residues in framework recombinant antibody mimetics allows more modular design
regions (Muyldermans et al., 1994; Vu et al., 1997; Harmsen strategies. The basic principle of repeat binders lies within the
et al., 2000), increasing the overall stability and solubility of consecutive arrangement of multiple repeat units (Fig. 1 B). The
these single domain antibodies and allowing robust, heterolo- overall length of the repeat protein may be adjusted with respect
gous expression in bacterial hosts and functional expression in to specific target properties. A prominent example for repeat pro-
eukaryotic cells (Rothbauer et al., 2006). Moreover, the mode tein binders are designed ankyrin repeat proteins (DARPins).
of binding tends to differ from conventional antibodies. Con- DARPins are based on the ankyrin fold, which naturally medi-
ventional IgG paratopes often form cavities, grooves, or flat ates proteinprotein interactions (PPIs) and has been observed in
surfaces to bind small chemical groups, peptides, and planar diverse protein families (Li et al., 2006; Al-Khodor et al., 2010).
634 JCB VOLUME 209 NUMBER 5 2015


Figure 1. Comparison of immunoglobulin derivatives and nonimmunoglobulin binder formats. (A) Immunoglobulins and their derivatives. (left) A conven-
tional IgG molecule is comprised of two heavy and two light chains. Heavy chains comprise three constant domains (CH13, dark blue) and one variable
domain (VH, dark green); light chains comprise one constant (CL, light blue) and one variable domain (VL, light green). The naturally functional antigen
binding unit is formed by noncovalent association of the VH and the VL domain. This association is mediated by hydrophobic framework regions, indicated
in pink. IgG can be derivatized to Fab, scFv, and single domain VH or VL binders. (right) Heavy chain antibodies (hcAb) are found in Camelidae, lack the
light chain and the CH1 domain, and comprise a single, antigen binding domain, the VHH domain. (B) Nonimmunoglobulin binders are based on natural
and designed protein scaffolds. Shown are fibronectin-derived Adnectins/monobodies that are characterized by an Ig-like -sandwich structure, anticalins
that are based on the lipocalin fold, affibodies that derive from protein A and comprise three helices, and DARPins, which are designer proteins com-
posed of ankyrin repeats. The randomized residues that mediate the respective ligand binding are marked in red. Protein Data Bank accession numbers
are given in parentheses. N, N terminus; C, C terminus.
The structural subunit of a DARPin consists of a turn followed however, the success in retrieving a potent binder with a desired
by a pair of antiparallel helices and a loop, typically comprising target specificity largely depends on the library size as well as
33 amino acids. Randomization of defined helix residues enables the techniques and conditions used for their screening.
selection of high-affinity binders (Binz et al., 2003; Forrer et al.,
2003; Kohl et al., 2003). In contrast to barrel-like binder folds with Applications of recombinant binders in
antigen-reactive loop structures, DARPins form slightly concave molecular and cellular biology
binding surfaces that favor large, conformational epitopes. As a Cellular proteomics.The analysis of proteomes relies on
result of the complete absence of disulphide bridges, DARPins the availability of high-quality binding reagents. They are nec-
are well suited as potential intracellular binders (Parizek et al., essary for the molecular analysis of specific target proteins and
2012) and can be expressed in large amounts in bacteria. their spatiotemporal cellular abundance using standard detec-
In addition to these established formats, a plethora of tion methods such as microscopy and Western blot analysis.
novel protein scaffolds has been developed and includes recom- Furthermore, binder-mediated affinity purification in combina-
binant binders such as avimers (Silverman et al., 2005), affilins tion with systems biology techniques has contributed to a com-
(Ebersbach et al., 2007), fynomers (Grabulovski et al., 2007), prehensive understanding of cellular interactomes in
affitins (Mouratou et al., 2007), knottins (Smith et al., 1998), development and disease. Although such experiments were his-
armadillo repeat proteins (Parmeggiani et al., 2008), and the torically performed with conventional antibodies, the use of re-
very recently published adhirons, which can be stably produced combinant binding reagents for proteomic application becomes
in large amounts (Tiede et al., 2014). As a complement to con- increasingly popular, and international consortia have been in-
ventional antibodies, man-made recombinant binders, based on stalled with the long-term goal to cover the entire human pro-
immunoglobulin or nonimmunoglobulin folds, open up new teome with renewable binders (Taussig et al., 2007;
possibilities for the life sciences. The available formats have Colwill and Grslund, 2011).
common and unique properties (Table 1) that can be used to Biochemical and proteomic analyses of crude samples
choose the best format for a given application. For all formats, include affinity-based purification or depletion of specific com-
Nanobodies and recombinant binders in cell biology Helma et al. 635

Table 1. Recombinant binders and their molecular characteristics
Format Size Template Structure (disulphides?) Binding mode Characteristic features
kD
Ig derivative
Fab 50 IgG Four Ig domains, -sandwich Via six CDR loops, VH/VL Nonrecombinant generation by papain digest of IgG
(yes) interface is possible
scFv 25 IgG Two Ig domains , Via six CDR loops, VH/VL A synthetic link stabilizes the noncovalent interaction
-sandwich(yes) interface between VH and VL domains
VH 13 IgG -sandwich (yes) Three VH CDR loops Single domain antibody; exposed hydrophobic stretch
VL 13 IgG -sandwich (yes) Three VL CDR loops Single domain antibody; exposed hydrophobic stretch
VHH 13 hcAb -sandwich (yes) Three VHH CDR loops Small, stable Ig antigen binding unit; recognition of
cryptic epitopes
V-NAR 9 Ig-NAR -sandwich (yes) Three V-NAR CDR loops Small, stable Ig antigen binding unit; recognition of
cryptic epitopes
Non-Ig binders
Monobodies 10 Fibronectin -sandwich (no) Three CDR-like loops Ig-like structure lacking disulphides
Anticalins 20 Lipocalin Goblet-like -barrel (yes) Four CDR-like loops Binding pocket for small molecules and protruding
epitopes
Affibodies 6.5 Protein A Three -helices (no) helix-mediated Bacterial origin, smallest recombinant binder format
DARPins 18 Ankyrin repeat Helix-turn-helix (no) planar, flexible surface Repetitive, modular design

Figure 2. Applications of recombinant binders in biochemistry and structural biology. (A) Use of recombinant binders for purification and detection in vitro.
Fields of applications involve classic capture assays such as ELISA, high-throughput screening (HTS) techniques and immunoprecipitation (IP) as well as pro-
teomic and array technologies. (B) Recombinant binders for assisted crystallography. Shown are three different structures and binder formats (Nanobody,
Affibody, and DARPin) that have been used for the elucidation of challenging structures. Protein Data Bank accession numbers are given in parentheses.
ponents using chromatography columns that, however, require of cellular protein components (Fig. 2 A). However, array anal-
large amounts of affinity material. Thus, expensive monoclo- yses of complex protein samples require highly sensitive and
nal and polyclonal antibodies are less attractive to purify or specific detection reagents to measure low-abundant proteins
deplete endogenous proteins, whereas inexpensive immobi- (Fig. 2 A). In terms of recombinant probes, high-affinity scFvs
lized-metal affinity chromatography (IMAC) systems, such as have proven especially useful for protein arrays (Wingren et al.,
the Ni-NTA (nitrilotriacetic acid)/His-tag system, are widely 2007) and allowed for biomarker profiling of cancers (Ingvars-
used but also restricted to artificially tagged proteins. Con- son et al., 2008; Carlsson et al., 2010) and autoimmune diseases
sequently, recombinant binders that can be produced at low (Carlsson et al., 2011). However, the high cost per array is still
costs in high quantities offer valuable alternatives for immu- the limiting factor in protein array technologies.
noaffinity chromatography of biological samples (Blank et al., State-of-the-art proteomics nowadays mostly relies on the
2002; Grnwall et al., 2007). use of mass spectrometry to analyze complex protein mixtures
The rise of comprehensive proteomic analyses started (Walther and Mann, 2010). Affinity tools are used in mass spec-
with the advent of protein microarrays enabling quantification trometrybased proteomics to purify or enrich defined targets

and subsequently identify PTMs and interacting factors (Fig. 2 and fixation of one native conformer in the ensemble (Zhou et
A). To bypass the time-consuming generation of specific bind- al., 2001; Uysal et al., 2009; Rasmussen et al., 2011a,b; Kruse
ers, proteins are often tagged with established foreign epitopes. et al., 2013) or by minimizing local flexibility (Chaikuad et al.,
The use of GFP as tag in cellular proteomics allows the ex- 2014); (c) shielding highly charged and flexible regions such
perimental link between live cell microscopy and proteomic as in the Polo-like kinase 1 crystal structure (Bandeiras et al.,
analysis (Cristea et al., 2005) and a high-affinity GFP-bind- 2008); (d) masking problematic peptide patches with unwanted
ing nanobodytermed GFP binding protein (GBP)enables self-polymerizing propensity (Hoyer et al., 2008; Domanska et
highly efficient one-step purification of GFP fusion proteins al., 2011; Baranova et al., 2012); and (e) introducing or by ex-
to study PPIs and proteinDNA interactions (Rothbauer et al., tending a hydrophobic and rigid surface area available to form
2008; Trinkle-Mulcahy et al., 2008; Frauer and Leonhardt, crystal contacts (Sennhauser et al., 2007; Bandeiras et al., 2008;
2009; Pichler et al., 2012). Similarly, an RFP-specific nanobody Schnfeld et al., 2009; Veesler et al., 2009; Rasmussen et al.,
was genetically immobilized to biogenic, magnetic nanoparti- 2011a; Koide et al., 2012; Krishnamurthy and Gouaux, 2012).
cles produced by magnetotactic bacteria (Pollithy et al., 2011) Especially, -rich chaperones (nanobodies and monobod-
for efficient magnetic bead pull-down of RFP fusion proteins. ies) have a pronounced tendency to form intermolecular self-as-
Recent efforts demonstrated that proteomics may be used semblies via an exposed edge of their sheet (Tereshko et al.,
to identify and generate recombinant binders by combining next 2008). However, DARPins were shown to be involved in crystal
generation DNA sequencing with mass spectrometry analysis of packing as well (Veesler et al., 2009).
immune repertoires (Fridy et al., 2014). For this purpose, nano- The availability of these diverse types of chaperones per-
body cDNA libraries from an immunized llama were sequenced mits the generation of binders against all possible topologies. It
and matched with the respective antigen-specific hcAb peptide is well established that the convex binding surface of nanobod-

sequences determined by mass spectrometry. This approach ies is better suited to interact with concave surfaces on the an-
yielded high-affinity GFP- and mCherry-specific nanobodies, tigen, whereas DARPins use the opposite mode of interaction.
which complement the available toolbox of fluorescent protein The different interactions of a DARPin and a nanobody with the
(FP)specific nanobodies (Rothbauer et al., 2006; Kirchhofer et same receptor binding protein of P2 bacteriophage illustrate this
al., 2010) and DARPins (Brauchle et al., 2014). Advances in the nicely (Spinelli et al., 2006; Veesler et al., 2009). Interestingly,
analysis of single-molecule complexes with DNA-barcoded pro- the monobody recombinant binder can be developed to associ-
teins (Gu et al., 2014) might pave the way toward massive parallel ate with its target in a loop-focused fashion (like nanobodies)
screening of antibody libraries against antigen libraries and thus or with the combination of one solvent exposed loop and the
significantly boost the throughput during binder development. side of the domain (Koide et al., 2012). These different librar-
Structural biology.High-resolution structural infor- ies (loops-only or side and loop) are expected to generate
mation, preferably provided by x-ray crystallography, is essen- binders recognizing different epitope architectures. Engineered
tial for a thorough understanding of complex biological systems. anticalins, with a goblet-like shaped target-recognizing struc-
Unfortunately, high-quality diffracting crystals of intrinsic dis- ture, favor protruding epitopes as was shown in the structure of
ordered or flexible proteins, transient protein assemblies, multi- the complex with human fibronectin ED-B (Extra Domain-B;
protein complexes, and membrane proteins are difficult to Gebauer et al., 2013). Finally, affibodies seem to prefer a flat
produce even when highly purified recombinant proteins are interacting surface (Hoyer et al., 2008). Therefore, all these
available. Nevertheless, the crystallization of such recalcitrant chaperones should be considered complementary to each other,
proteins is now possible as a result of the recognition of the rather that competitive, to tackle the most difficult proteins to
beneficial effect of auxiliary affinity reagents. The early suc- crystallize and to improve the diffraction quality. Moreover,
cesses with Fab (Kovari et al., 1995) or Fv (Ostermeier et al., different crystals of the same target protein complexed with al-
1995) as so-called crystallization chaperones have been ex- ternative chaperones or with the same type of chaperone asso-
tended and repeated on a large scale with nanobodies, mono- ciated at different epitopes are instrumental to identify various
bodies (FN3 domains), DARPins, and to a lesser extent, also alternative conformations of macromolecules, which might be
anticalins and affibodies (Fig. 2 B). linked to mechanism of action (Pecqueur et al., 2012; Chaikuad
The efficacy of these affinity reagents to assist the crystalli- et al., 2014) or to degenerate binding with alternative partners.
zation process originates from their shared favorable properties: Apart from the availability of various libraries of recom-
facile identification and large-scale production of stable and sol- binant binders, also multiple dedicated selection protocols have
uble target binders. The DARPins, monobodies, anticalins, and been developed to retrieve the best possible candidate chap-
affibodies have an additional advantage over nanobodies, Fabs, erone for protein crystallization (Kim et al., 2011; Paduch et
and scFvs because they lack disulphide bridges, allowing stan- al., 2013; Pardon et al., 2014). With this toolbox (libraries of
dard cytoplasmic expression to produce functional chaperones. different recombinant binders and dedicated selection methods)
Apart from these shared critical factors to initiate crystallogra- at hand, several crystallization chaperones have been identi-
phy screens, the chaperones may promote crystal formation by fied, and an impressive and expanding list of high-resolution
a variety of possible mechanisms that will improve the surface structures of intact proteins that were otherwise difficult to
area capable to form crystal contacts (Korotkov et al., 2009; crystallize has been collected.
Uysal et al., 2009; Derewenda, 2010) and lower the entropic
cost of lattice formation. In particular, recombinant binders Affinity-based biosensors, inhibitors, and
might facilitate crystals by: (a) increasing the total amount of imaging tools
structured polypeptide (Loris et al., 2003) or by organizing in- Fluorescent biosensors are essential analytical tools to study
trinsically disordered proteins (Skrabana et al., 2010; Serrire molecular target structures at the cellular level. Although con-
et al., 2011; Abskharon et al., 2014); (b) reducing the inherent ventional antibodies are traditionally used to stain antigens in
conformational heterogeneity within the sample after selection fixed cells, providing endpoint information only, FP-based bio-


Figure 3. Recombinant binders as intracellular biosensors, effectors, and tools for nanoscopy. (A) Categories of affinity-based live-cell biosensors and
effectors. (top left) Fluorescently tagged tracers are used to monitor antigen-specific localization patterns. (top right) Conformation-specific and PTM-specific
binders are recruited to respective sites of action. (bottom left) Binders that block biologically active target sites or modulate target function upon binding.
(bottom right) An F3H assay to investigate PPIs in living cells. A GFP-specific nanobody is anchored to defined subcellular structures such as the artificially
introduced LacO array visible as a spot in the nucleus or the endogenous nuclear lamina or centrosomes. In all of these cases, RFP-preys colocalize with
GFP-bait fusions in the presence of an interaction. (B) Recombinant binder tools for nanoscopy. Superresolution techniques such as 3D-structured illumination
microscopy require repetitive imaging of a single cell, which leads to severe bleaching of FPs. Nanobodies can thus be used to stabilize or enhance FPs
and enable high quality image acquisition conditions. Importantly, their small size reduces the linkage error, as the distance between the fluorescent label
and the actual specimen is minimized. Bar, 10 m.
sensors are widely used for the spatiotemporal analysis of target fusion partners should be preferentially added at the C terminus
structures in living cells. The genetic tagging of a protein of of nanobodies, which is the natural connection site for the con-
interest with a fluorescent reporter enables the dynamic visu- stant domain and thus distal from the antigen binding site.
alization of molecular features in living cells. Such studies in- Moreover, such visualization inherently depends on anti-
clude the subcellular localization, conformational changes, and gen-specific subcellular patternings (e.g., focal or filamentous
PPI that can be measured e.g., by distance-dependent Frster structures), because the fluorescence signal is constitutively de-
resonance energy transfer (FRET). However, the fusion with rived from the biosensor itself and thus does not report on the
FPs requires genetic manipulation and may compromise the bi- antigen abundance per se. One approach to quantify endoge-
ological function of the protein of interest (Hosein et al., 2003). nous factors with recombinant binders is based on solvatochro-
Moreover, recombinant expression rarely reflects endogenous matic fluorescent dyes whose fluorescence increases upon
expression levels, and nonprotein targets cannot be studied with antigen binding (Toutchkine et al., 2003; Nalbant et al., 2004).
this strategy. For these applications, recombinant affinity bind- Site-specific attachment of these dyes to a Src-specific mono-
ers offer new options to engineer novel intracellular biosensors. body for example allowed the quantitation of Src dynamics in
Tracing and tracking.A straightforward application living cells (Gulyani et al., 2011). So far, however, this approach
for dynamic intracellular tracking of endogenous target struc- requires in vitro dye conjugation and intracellular application
tures consists of the genetic fusion of specific binders with FPs via microinjection, which limits its utility in cell biology. In
(Fig. 3 A). For these applications, any recombinant binders can general, recombinant SNAP-/Halo-/CLIP-tag techniques (Kep-
be used, as long as they are functionally expressed in living pler et al., 2003; Gautier et al., 2008; Los et al., 2008) rely on
cells. The reported reagents cover diverse aspects of cell biol- self-labeling protein tags that covalently react with chemically
ogy, including the visualization of cytoskeletal components modified and fluorescently labeled substrates. This approach
(Rothbauer et al., 2006; Riedl et al., 2008, 2010), the DNA rep- offers new experimental options for site-specific dye attach-
lication machinery (Burgess et al., 2012), and viral infections ment in living cells and have been applied to label binders such
(Jones et al., 2010; Helma et al., 2012) as well as reporting on as DARPins and scFvs (Kampmeier et al., 2009; Hussain et
apoptotic progression (Zolghadr et al., 2012) and ubiquitin sig- al., 2011; Gu et al., 2013).
naling (Sims et al., 2012). However, it is important to note that Conformation and PTM sensors.As discussed in
live-cell visualization of endogenous structures and their re- the structural biology section, affinity reagents can detect and
spective cell biology with affinity entities requires careful mon- stabilize specific conformational states of proteins. Conse-
itoring of potential interference upon antigen binding, such as quently, reframing such binders as intracellular biosensors po-
effects on stability or localization of the target. To prevent that tentially enables the spatiotemporal analysis of specific
genetic fusion of a nanobody impairs its affinity and specificity, conformational changes and their biological implications in

living cells (Fig. 3 A). Such application was shown for a nano- systematically demonstrated arguing for the use of directly la-
body that binds the activated conformation of the 2-adrenocep- beled nanobodies for advanced nanoscopy (Ries et al., 2012).
tor (Rasmussen et al., 2011a). Fusing this binder with GFP Similarly, nanobodies have been used for photothermal sin-
reports on the subcellular localization of activated 2-adreno- gle-molecule tracking in living cells with functionalized gold
ceptor and lead to the identification of endosomal membranes nanoparticles (Leduc et al., 2013).
as initiation sites of acute G proteincoupled receptor signaling, Target modulation and validation.The molecular
which has previously been considered to occur exclusively from interaction between binder and antigen potentially alters or in-
the plasma membrane (Irannejad et al., 2013). hibits the biological function of the target structure (Fig. 3 A).
Similarly, a DARPin that recognizes the activated, phos- In combination with intracellular expression, recombinant
phorylated conformation of extracellular signalregulated binders may thus be used for targeted modulation of antigen
kinase (ERK; Kummer et al., 2012) was conjugated with a activity. The conceptual realization of such binder-mediated
solvatochromatic merocyanine to quantitatively report on ac- modulation was demonstrated by targeting the active site of the
tive pERK localization in living cells in absence and presence potato starch branching enzyme A in plant cells (Jobling et al.,
of an inhibitor of the upstream regulatory kinase MEK1/2 2003). In a related approach, estrogen receptorspecific mono-
(Kummer et al., 2013). Interestingly, this DARPin recognizes bodies were used to discriminate ligand-induced conforma-
a conformational change within the activation loop that is ac- tional changes of estrogen receptor in yeast (Koide et al., 2002).
tivation-dependent and thus indirectly reports on the primary Finally, nanobodies were used to modulate protein conforma-
modification, the ERK phosphorylation. Like conventional an- tion and thereby either enhance or minimize fluorescence prop-
tibodies, recombinant binders can be generated against PTMs erties of FPs (Kirchhofer et al., 2010).
and nonprotein epitopes. Thus, live-cell application of recombi- Novel recombinant binder formats have been developed

nant binders paves the way toward dynamic analysis of PTMs as innovative biotherapeutics that bind and block defined dis-
as was shown with a GFP-tagged scFv that specifically recog- ease-related antigens. Many of these potential target antigens,
nizes histone acetylation (H3K9ac) and was used for dynamic however, reside on the inside of cells, and thus, therapeutic ap-
live-cell and live-animal monitoring of epigenetic chromatin plications depend on efficient techniques for delivery of pro-
modulation (Sato et al., 2013). teins into affected cells. For research purposes, however, the
PPIs. Systematic probing of PPIs is often performed ectopic expression of inhibitory binders in cells is a promising
in vitro or in yeast. In living cells, PPIs can be tested with FRET, workaround for the functional validation of potential drug tar-
which is technically demanding, or with protein fragment com- gets and does not require the physical target ablation by knock-
plementation assays, which do not report in real time and are out or knockdown. For such purposes, DARPins were used to
irreversible. In contrast, the recently developed fluores- selectively inhibit JNK isoforms in human cells (Parizek et al.,
cent-3-hybrid (F3H) assay is based on recombinant immunore- 2012), a class of enzymes that is critically involved in stress-in-
cruitment and allows dynamic and reversible monitoring of duced signaling and is discussed as a potential drug target for
PPIs in living mammalian cells with a simple optical readout various indications (Cui et al., 2007). Furthermore, a fibronec-
(Fig. 3 A; Herce et al., 2013). GFP fusions with proteins of in- tin-derived monobody was designed to block an intramolecular
terest (bait) were recruited to discrete subcellular structures interaction of the fusion oncoprotein Bcr-Abl in primary chronic
such as artificial LacO DNA arrays by fusing GBP to the Lac myeloid leukemia cells, revealing a novel interface for therapeu-
repressor. In addition, naturally occurring major satellite re- tic intervention in chronic myeloid leukemia and demonstrating
peats, the nuclear periphery, and cytoplasmic structures such as the general use of recombinant intracellular binders against elu-
centrosomes can be used as anchor points. Enrichment of red sive drug targets (Grebien et al., 2011; Sha et al., 2013).
fluorescent prey proteins at the respective anchor sites then in-
dicates specific interaction. The nanobody-based F3H assay is Toward synthetic biology
also suited for drug discovery, as small molecule compounds or Synthetic library design.Immunoglobulin-based binders
peptides can be identified that prevent or disrupt PPIs. With this derived from natural postimmunization repertoires reliably de-
F3H assay, e.g., the disruption of the p53HDM2 interaction by liver high-quality recombinant affinity reagents. However, the
potential cancer drugs such as Nutlin-3 was monitored in living natural antibody modularity also allows the rational design of
cells, providing direct information on dose response, kinetics, entirely synthetic antibody libraries using advanced molecular
and bioavailability (Herce et al., 2013). biology techniques. Over the last two decades, such synthetic
Nanoscopy.In recent years, several novel super-resolu- antibody technologies have constantly evolved and are now
tion microscopy technologies revolutionized the field of fluor arguably as good as or even better than natural libraries (Adams
escence microscopy and enabled the analysis of cellular and Sidhu, 2014). Design strategies for such synthetic libraries
structures at subdiffraction resolution (Schermelleh et al., are based on different concepts and include the recreation of
2010). However, the higher resolution also imposes new re- natural CDR diversity or, as a next step, the rational implemen-
quirements on detection reagents (Fig. 3 B). As a result of the tation of well-known structurefunction parameters to create
size of primary and secondary antibodies, the attached fluoro- recombinant antibody libraries with predefined, favorable bio-
phore is positioned at a distance from the actual antigen, leading physical properties regarding both antigen recognition and
to so-called linkage errors. Thus, using the smallest possible overall stability (Hoet et al., 2005; Tiller et al., 2013). Lacking
immunofluorescence binding reagents is of utmost importance a natural mechanism of diversity, nonimmunoglobulin binder
to unleash the full potential of super-resolution microscopy. In libraries have to be synthetically generated and diversified with
a first exemplary study, the GFP-specific nanobody was used continuous improvements in design and perfor-
for structured illumination microscopy to reveal the molecular mance (Seeger et al., 2013).
machinery that effects the intercellular abscission during cell Recombinant binders in synthetic biology.Syn-
division (Guizetti et al., 2011). This gain in resolution was then thetic biology not only helps in the generation of recombinant

Figure 4. Recombinant binders as modular entities in conceptual, cell-based assay design. (A) A targeted protein knockout via an engineered proteaso-
mal degradation device. The natural WD40 domain that mediates the interaction with a substrate to be degraded via the Skp1-Cul1-F-box-protein (SCF)
ubiquitin (Ub) ligase complex is substituted with a recombinant binder, allowing targeted ablation of a protein of interest (POI; Caussinus et al., 2012). (B)
A scaffold-induced system to manipulate gene activity. Two different binders, recognizing distinct epitopes of a scaffold protein of interest are fused to a
DNA-binding protein (DBP) and a transcriptional activator (TA) enabling protein of interestdependent gene activation (Tang et al., 2013).
binders but also utilizes them to control gene transcription, pro- typespecific manner and to demonstrate that nanobodies can
tein turnover, or reroute signaling cascades (Lienert et al., be used as dimerization-mediating binding entities (Fig. 4 B;
2014). Central claims of the still young field of synthetic biol- Tang et al., 2013). The GFP/GBP system was also used in the
ogy involve the rational redesign of genetic building blocks to

mouse brain for molecular profiling of defined projective neu-
engineer novel cellular functions for a broad range of purposes rons (Ekstrand et al., 2014).
and applications. In consequence, the conception of antibody These studies illustrate the plethora of novel experi-
derivatives and synthetic binders as cellular affinity modules mental designs enabled by intracellular binders. In general,
that can be combined with any other gene adds to the molecular the small size and intracellular stability of these recombinant
toolbox for synthetic biology. As a result of the widespread use binders allow the exchange of natural binding modules and
of GFP fusion proteins in all areas of cell biology, the GFP-bind- thereby redirect enzymatic activities and redesign cellular struc-
ing nanobody has often been used for initial proof-of-concept tures and signaling pathways.
experiments that, however, demonstrate the potential of recom-
binant binders for future applications in synthetic biology. Thus,
a nanobody was combined with the Drosophila melanogaster Conclusions and perspectives
ubiquitin pathway and used for specific degradation of GFP fu- Some of the pioneering applications described in this review
sion proteins in vivo (Caussinus et al., 2012). For this purpose, were initially demonstrated with only few recombinant bind-
the WD40 domain of an F-box protein that naturally mediates ers. This was in part caused by the limited availability of
the interaction with the protein to be degraded was replaced well-characterized binders against a broad range of antigens.
with GBP, allowing targeted proteasomal knockdown of GFP The extremely laborious procedures of library screening to
fusion proteins (Fig. 4 A). In principle, this approach can be generate specific and reliable binders still remain the major
adapted with any binder-mediated specificity to subtly control bottlenecks and represent a particular challenge to most cell
target protein abundance and thus specifically modulate biology laboratories. Thus, recent efforts in developing new
cellular functions in vivo. binder formats and automatized screening, together with the
Likewise, the F3H assay that was described in the biosen- establishment of publically available binder resources (Taussig
sors section for monitoring PPIs in living cells is based on a et al., 2007), ideally with sequence information (Bradbury and
synthetic binding device and demonstrates the concept of in- Plckthun, 2015) will hopefully soon lead to a situation in
tracellular immunorecruitment. It can be used to target practi- which suitable binders for a specific target and a given appli-
cally any biochemical activity to a defined site of action. This cation are just a click away.
was shown with an engineered Plo1 kinase, in which the natural Although conventional antibodies are still dominating in
targeting sequence had been replaced by GBP, thereby enrich- classic antibody realms, such as proteomics, Western blot, and
ing enzymatic activity at intracellular sites of GFP localization immunofluorescence techniques, recombinant formats enable
(Grallert et al., 2013). Moreover, this GBP-anchoring system completely novel types of applications in structural biology,
can be combined with proteins recognizing particular DNA living cells, and synthetic biology. The possibility to genetically
sequences within the genome to manipulate the localization of combine their target affinity with biological executor functions
chromosomal segments and chromatin domains in living cells. will be of interest not only for cell biology but also for future
With this approach, topological effects can be studied as re- therapies. Here, the concomitant development of cellular deliv-
cently demonstrated by rescuing the ability of an MECP2 Rett ery strategies will be crucial to enable direct uptake of func-
syndrome mutant protein to bind and remodel heterochromatin tional binders in living cells. In addition, with gene therapy
(Casas-Delucchi et al., 2012). The combination of this strat- finally realizing its decades-old promises, recombinant binders
egy with the controlled nuclear import of the anchor allowed will increasingly become important as shown for innovations
additional temporal control. such as chimeric antigen receptors to fight cancers (Kochender-
In a further study, engineered scaffold proteins have been fer et al., 2010). Once binders are understood as recombinant
used as tools for the artificial control of cellular signaling events genetic tools that can be custom tailored and combined with
(Good et al., 2011). In a related approach, GFP was recently any existing functionality, the possibilities seem unlimited, for
used as a scaffold protein to induce gene activation in a cell research as well as therapy.

Acknowledgments re-establishes higher order chromatin organization. Nucleic Acids Res.

40:e176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/nar/gks784
Caussinus, E., O. Kanca, and M. Affolter. 2012. Fluorescent fusion protein
This work was supported by the Center for Nanoscience, Nanosys- knockout mediated by anti-GFP nanobody. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol.
tems Initiative Munich, and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SPP 19:117121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nsmb.2180
1623 CA 198/8-1 and HE 721/13-1). S. Muyldermans received Chaikuad, A., T. Keates, C. Vincke, M. Kaufholz, M. Zenn, B. Zimmermann,
support from AFFINOMICS (Protein Binders for Characterization of C. Gutirrez, R.G. Zhang, C. Hatzos-Skintges, A. Joachimiak, et al.
2014. Structure of cyclin G-associated kinase (GAK) trapped in different
Human Proteome Function: Generation, Validation, Application), Sev- conformations using nanobodies. Biochem. J. 459:5969. http://dx.doi.
enth Framework program (contract number 241481). org/10.1042/BJ20131399
Chothia, C., J. Novotn, R. Bruccoleri, and M. Karplus. 1985. Domain association
The authors are co-inventors on several patents in the field of recombi- in immunoglobulin molecules. The packing of variable domains. J. Mol.
Biol. 186:651663. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-2836(85)90137-8
nant binder technologies.
Colwill, K., Renewable Protein Binder Working Group, and S. Grslund. 2011.
A roadmap to generate renewable protein binders to the human proteome.
Submitted: 15 September 2014 Nat. Methods. 8:551558. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.1607
Accepted: 19 May 2015 Cristea, I.M., R. Williams, B.T. Chait, and M.P. Rout. 2005. Fluorescent proteins
as proteomic probes. Mol. Cell. Proteomics. 4:19331941. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1074/mcp.M500227-MCP200
References Cui, J., M. Zhang, Y.Q. Zhang, and Z.H. Xu. 2007. JNK pathway: diseases and
therapeutic potential. Acta Pharmacol. Sin. 28:601608. http://dx.doi.
Abskharon, R.N., G. Giachin, A. Wohlkonig, S.H. Soror, E. Pardon, G. Legname, org/10.1111/j.1745-7254.2007.00579.x
and J. Steyaert. 2014. Probing the N-terminal -sheet conversion in the De Genst, E., K. Silence, K. Decanniere, K. Conrath, R. Loris, J. Kinne, S.
crystal structure of the human prion protein bound to a nanobody. J. Am. Muyldermans, and L. Wyns. 2006. Molecular basis for the preferential
Chem. Soc. 136:937944. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ja407527p cleft recognition by dromedary heavy-chain antibodies. Proc. Natl. Acad.

Adams, J.J., and S.S. Sidhu. 2014. Synthetic antibody technologies. Curr. Opin. Sci. USA. 103:45864591. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0505379103
Struct. Biol. 24:19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbi.2013.11.003
Derewenda, Z.S. 2010. Application of protein engineering to enhance crys-
Al-Khodor, S., C.T. Price, A. Kalia, and Y. Abu Kwaik. 2010. Functional diver- tallizability and improve crystal properties. Acta Crystallogr. D Biol.
sity of ankyrin repeats in microbial proteins. Trends Microbiol. 18:132 Crystallogr. 66:604615. http://dx.doi.org/10.1107/S090744491000644X
139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2009.11.004
Domanska, K., S. Vanderhaegen, V. Srinivasan, E. Pardon, F. Dupeux, J.A.
Bandeiras, T.M., R.C. Hillig, P.M. Matias, U. Eberspaecher, J. Fanghnel, M. Marquez, S. Giorgetti, M. Stoppini, L. Wyns, V. Bellotti, and J. Steyaert.
Thomaz, S. Miranda, K. Crusius, V. Ptter, P. Amstutz, et al. 2008. 2011. Atomic structure of a nanobody-trapped domain-swapped dimer of
Structure of wild-type Plk-1 kinase domain in complex with a selec- an amyloidogenic 2-microglobulin variant. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.
tive DARPin. Acta Crystallogr. D Biol. Crystallogr. 64:339353. http:// 108:13141319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1008560108
dx.doi.org/10.1107/S0907444907068217
Ebersbach, H., E. Fiedler, T. Scheuermann, M. Fiedler, M.T. Stubbs, C. Reimann,
Baranova, E., R. Fronzes, A. Garcia-Pino, N. Van Gerven, D. Papapostolou, G. G. Proetzel, R. Rudolph, and U. Fiedler. 2007. Affilin-novel binding mol-
Phau-Arnaudet, E. Pardon, J. Steyaert, S. Howorka, and H. Remaut. ecules based on human -B-crystallin, an all -sheet protein. J. Mol. Biol.
2012. SbsB structure and lattice reconstruction unveil Ca2+ triggered 372:172185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmb.2007.06.045
S-layer assembly. Nature. 487:119122.
Eggenstein, E., A. Eichinger, H.J. Kim, and A. Skerra. 2014. Structure-guided en-
Beste, G., F.S. Schmidt, T. Stibora, and A. Skerra. 1999. Small antibody-like proteins gineering of Anticalins with improved binding behavior and biochemical
with prescribed ligand specificities derived from the lipocalin fold. Proc. Natl. characteristics for application in radio-immuno imaging and/or therapy.
Acad. Sci. USA. 96:18981903. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.96.5.1898 J. Struct. Biol. 185:203214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsb.2013.03.009
Binz, H.K., M.T. Stumpp, P. Forrer, P. Amstutz, and A. Plckthun. 2003. Ekstrand, M.I., A.R. Nectow, Z.A. Knight, K.N. Latcha, L.E. Pomeranz, and
Designing repeat proteins: well-expressed, soluble and stable proteins J.M. Friedman. 2014. Molecular profiling of neurons based on connec-
from combinatorial libraries of consensus ankyrin repeat proteins. J. Mol. tivity. Cell. 157:12301242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2014.03.059
Biol. 332:489503. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-2836(03)00896-9
Forrer, P., M.T. Stumpp, H.K. Binz, and A. Plckthun. 2003. A novel strategy to
Blank, K., P. Lindner, B. Diefenbach, and A. Plckthun. 2002. Self-immobilizing design binding molecules harnessing the modular nature of repeat proteins.
recombinant antibody fragments for immunoaffinity chromatography: FEBS Lett. 539:26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0014-5793(03)00177-7
generic, parallel, and scalable protein purification. Protein Expr. Purif.
24:313322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/prep.2001.1575 Frauer, C., and H. Leonhardt. 2009. A versatile non-radioactive assay for DNA
methyltransferase activity and DNA binding. Nucleic Acids Res. 37:e22.
Bowley, D.R., A.F. Labrijn, M.B. Zwick, and D.R. Burton. 2007. Antigen se- http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkn1029
lection from an HIV-1 immune antibody library displayed on yeast
yields many novel antibodies compared to selection from the same li- Fridy, P.C., Y. Li, S. Keegan, M.K. Thompson, I. Nudelman, J.F. Scheid, M.
brary displayed on phage. Protein Eng. Des. Sel. 20:8190. http://dx.doi. Oeffinger, M.C. Nussenzweig, D. Feny, B.T. Chait, and M.P. Rout. 2014.
org/10.1093/protein/gzl057 A robust pipeline for rapid production of versatile nanobody repertoires.
Nat. Methods. 11:12531260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3170
Bradbury, A., and A. Plckthun. 2015. Reproducibility: Standardize antibodies
used in research. Nature. 518:2729. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/518027a Gautier, A., A. Juillerat, C. Heinis, I.R. Corra Jr., M. Kindermann, F. Beaufils,
and K. Johnsson. 2008. An engineered protein tag for multiprotein label-
Brauchle, M., S. Hansen, E. Caussinus, A. Lenard, A. Ochoa-Espinosa, O. ing in living cells. Chem. Biol. 15:128136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
Scholz, S.G. Sprecher, A. Plckthun, and M. Affolter. 2014. Protein chembiol.2008.01.007
interference applications in cellular and developmental biology using
DARPins that recognize GFP and mCherry. Biol. Open. 3:12521261. Gebauer, M., A. Schiefner, G. Matschiner, and A. Skerra. 2013. Combinatorial
http://dx.doi.org/10.1242/bio.201410041 design of an Anticalin directed against the extra-domain b for the spe-
cific targeting of oncofetal fibronectin. J. Mol. Biol. 425:780802. http://
Burgess, A., T. Lorca, and A. Castro. 2012. Quantitative live imaging of endoge- dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmb.2012.12.004
nous DNA replication in mammalian cells. PLoS ONE. 7:e45726. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0045726 Good, M.C., J.G. Zalatan, and W.A. Lim. 2011. Scaffold proteins: hubs for con-
trolling the flow of cellular information. Science. 332:680686. http://
Carlsson, A., O. Persson, J. Ingvarsson, B. Widegren, L. Salford, C.A. dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1198701
Borrebaeck, and C. Wingren. 2010. Plasma proteome profiling reveals
biomarker patterns associated with prognosis and therapy selection in Grabulovski, D., M. Kaspar, and D. Neri. 2007. A novel, non-immunogenic Fyn
glioblastoma multiforme patients. Proteomics Clin. Appl. 4:591602. SH3-derived binding protein with tumor vascular targeting properties. J.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/prca.200900173 Biol. Chem. 282:31963204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M609211200
Carlsson, A., D.M. Wuttge, J. Ingvarsson, A.A. Bengtsson, G. Sturfelt, C.A. Grallert, A., A. Patel, V.A. Tallada, K.Y. Chan, S. Bagley, A. Krapp, V. Simanis,
Borrebaeck, and C. Wingren. 2011. Serum protein profiling of systemic and I.M. Hagan. 2013. Centrosomal MPF triggers the mitotic and mor-
lupus erythematosus and systemic sclerosis using recombinant antibody phogenetic switches of fission yeast. Nat. Cell Biol. 15:8895. http://
microarrays. Mol. Cell. Proteomics. 10:M110.005033. http://dx.doi. dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncb2633
org/10.1074/mcp.M110.005033 Grebien, F., O. Hantschel, J. Wojcik, I. Kaupe, B. Kovacic, A.M. Wyrzucki, G.D.
Casas-Delucchi, C.S., A. Becker, J.J. Bolius, and M.C. Cardoso. 2012. Targeted Gish, S. Cerny-Reiterer, A. Koide, H. Beug, et al. 2011. Targeting the
manipulation of heterochromatin rescues MeCP2 Rett mutants and SH2-kinase interface in Bcr-Abl inhibits leukemogenesis. Cell. 147:306
319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2011.08.046

Grnwall, C., A. Sjberg, M. Ramstrm, I. Hidn-Guthenberg, S. Hober, P. Kampmeier, F., M. Ribbert, T. Nachreiner, S. Dembski, F. Beaufils, A. Brecht,
Jonasson, and S. Sthl. 2007. Affibody-mediated transferrin depletion and S. Barth. 2009. Site-specific, covalent labeling of recombinant anti-
for proteomics applications. Biotechnol. J. 2:13891398. http://dx.doi. body fragments via fusion to an engineered version of 6-O-alkylguanine
org/10.1002/biot.200700053 DNA alkyltransferase. Bioconjug. Chem. 20:10101015. http://dx.doi.
Gross, G.G., J.A. Junge, R.J. Mora, H.B. Kwon, C.A. Olson, T.T. Takahashi, org/10.1021/bc9000257
E.R. Liman, G.C. Ellis-Davies, A.W. McGee, B.L. Sabatini, et al. 2013. Keppler, A., S. Gendreizig, T. Gronemeyer, H. Pick, H. Vogel, and K. Johnsson.
Recombinant probes for visualizing endogenous synaptic proteins 2003. A general method for the covalent labeling of fusion proteins
in living neurons. Neuron. 78:971985. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. with small molecules in vivo. Nat. Biotechnol. 21:8689. http://dx.doi.
neuron.2013.04.017 org/10.1038/nbt765
Gu, G.J., M. Friedman, C. Jost, K. Johnsson, M. Kamali-Moghaddam, A. Kidder, B.L., G. Hu, and K. Zhao. 2011. ChIP-Seq: technical considerations for
Plckthun, U. Landegren, and O. Sderberg. 2013. Protein tag-mediated obtaining high-quality data. Nat. Immunol. 12:918922. http://dx.doi.
conjugation of oligonucleotides to recombinant affinity binders for prox- org/10.1038/ni.2117
imity ligation. New Biotechnol. 30:144152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. Kim, J., R.M. Stroud, and C.S. Craik. 2011. Rapid identification of recombi-
nbt.2012.05.005 nant Fabs that bind to membrane proteins. Methods. 55:303309. http://
Gu, L., C. Li, J. Aach, D.E. Hill, M. Vidal, and G.M. Church. 2014. Multiplex dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ymeth.2011.09.012
single-molecule interaction profiling of DNA-barcoded proteins. Nature. Kirchhofer, A., J. Helma, K. Schmidthals, C. Frauer, S. Cui, A. Karcher, M.
515:554557. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature13761 Pellis, S. Muyldermans, C.S. Casas-Delucchi, M.C. Cardoso, et al. 2010.
Guizetti, J., L. Schermelleh, J. Mntler, S. Maar, I. Poser, H. Leonhardt, T. Modulation of protein properties in living cells using nanobodies. Nat.
Mller-Reichert, and D.W. Gerlich. 2011. Cortical constriction during Struct. Mol. Biol. 17:133138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nsmb.1727
abscission involves helices of ESCRT-III-dependent filaments. Science. Kochenderfer, J.N., W.H. Wilson, J.E. Janik, M.E. Dudley, M. Stetler-Stevenson,
331:16161620. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1201847 S.A. Feldman, I. Maric, M. Raffeld, D.A. Nathan, B.J. Lanier, et al.
Gulyani, A., E. Vitriol, R. Allen, J. Wu, D. Gremyachinskiy, S. Lewis, B. 2010. Eradication of B-lineage cells and regression of lymphoma in a
Dewar, L.M. Graves, B.K. Kay, B. Kuhlman, et al. 2011. A biosen- patient treated with autologous T cells genetically engineered to rec-
sor generated via high-throughput screening quantifies cell edge Src ognize CD19. Blood. 116:40994102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1182/
dynamics. Nat. Chem. Biol. 7:437444. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ blood-2010-04-281931
nchembio.585 Kohl, A., H.K. Binz, P. Forrer, M.T. Stumpp, A. Plckthun, and M.G. Grtter.

Hamers-Casterman, C., T. Atarhouch, S. Muyldermans, G. Robinson, C. 2003. Designed to be stable: crystal structure of a consensus ankyrin re-
Hamers, E.B. Songa, N. Bendahman, and R. Hamers. 1993. Naturally peat protein. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 100:17001705. http://dx.doi.
occurring antibodies devoid of light chains. Nature. 363:446448. http:// org/10.1073/pnas.0337680100
dx.doi.org/10.1038/363446a0 Koide, A., C.W. Bailey, X. Huang, and S. Koide. 1998. The fibronectin type III
Harmsen, M.M., R.C. Ruuls, I.J. Nijman, T.A. Niewold, L.G. Frenken, and B. de domain as a scaffold for novel binding proteins. J. Mol. Biol. 284:1141
Geus. 2000. Llama heavy-chain V regions consist of at least four distinct 1151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jmbi.1998.2238
subfamilies revealing novel sequence features. Mol. Immunol. 37:579 Koide, A., S. Abbatiello, L. Rothgery, and S. Koide. 2002. Probing protein
590. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0161-5890(00)00081-X conformational changes in living cells by using designer binding pro-
Helma, J., K. Schmidthals, V. Lux, S. Nske, A.M. Scholz, H.G. Krusslich, teins: application to the estrogen receptor. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.
U. Rothbauer, and H. Leonhardt. 2012. Direct and dynamic detection of 99:12531258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.032665299
HIV-1 in living cells. PLoS ONE. 7:e50026. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/ Koide, A., J. Wojcik, R.N. Gilbreth, R.J. Hoey, and S. Koide. 2012. Teaching
journal.pone.0050026 an old scaffold new tricks: monobodies constructed using alternative
Herce, H.D., W. Deng, J. Helma, H. Leonhardt, and M.C. Cardoso. 2013. surfaces of the FN3 scaffold. J. Mol. Biol. 415:393405. http://dx.doi.
Visualization and targeted disruption of protein interactions in living org/10.1016/j.jmb.2011.12.019
cells. Nat. Commun. 4:2660. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms3660 Korndrfer, I.P., G. Beste, and A. Skerra. 2003. Crystallographic analysis of an
Hoet, R.M., E.H. Cohen, R.B. Kent, K. Rookey, S. Schoonbroodt, S. Hogan, anticalin with tailored specificity for fluorescein reveals high structural
L. Rem, N. Frans, M. Daukandt, H. Pieters, et al. 2005. Generation of plasticity of the lipocalin loop region. Proteins. 53:121129. http://dx.doi.
high-affinity human antibodies by combining donor-derived and syn- org/10.1002/prot.10497
thetic complementarity-determining-region diversity. Nat. Biotechnol. Korotkov, K.V., E. Pardon, J. Steyaert, and W.G. Hol. 2009. Crystal structure
23:344348. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nbt1067 of the N-terminal domain of the secretin GspD from ETEC determined
Hosein, R.E., S.A. Williams, K. Haye, and R.H. Gavin. 2003. Expression of with the assistance of a nanobody. Structure. 17:255265. http://dx.doi.
GFP-actin leads to failure of nuclear elongation and cytokinesis in org/10.1016/j.str.2008.11.011
Tetrahymena thermophila. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 50:403408. http:// Kovari, L.C., C. Momany, and M.G. Rossmann. 1995. The use of antibody frag-
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1550-7408.2003.tb00261.x ments for crystallization and structure determinations. Structure. 3:1291
Hoyer, W., C. Grnwall, A. Jonsson, S. Sthl, and T. Hrd. 2008. Stabilization 1293. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0969-2126(01)00266-0
of a -hairpin in monomeric Alzheimers amyloid- peptide inhibits Krishnamurthy, H., and E. Gouaux. 2012. X-ray structures of LeuT in sub-
amyloid formation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 105:50995104. http:// strate-free outward-open and apo inward-open states. Nature. 481:469
dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0711731105 474. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature10737
Hussain, A.F., F. Kampmeier, V. von Felbert, H.F. Merk, M.K. Tur, and S. Barth. Kruse, A.C., A.M. Ring, A. Manglik, J. Hu, K. Hu, K. Eitel, H. Hbner, E.
2011. SNAP-tag technology mediates site specific conjugation of anti- Pardon, C. Valant, P.M. Sexton, et al. 2013. Activation and allosteric
body fragments with a photosensitizer and improves target specific pho- modulation of a muscarinic acetylcholine receptor. Nature. 504:101106.
totoxicity in tumor cells. Bioconjug. Chem. 22:24872495. http://dx.doi. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature12735
org/10.1021/bc200304k
Kummer, L., P. Parizek, P. Rube, B. Millgramm, A. Prinz, P.R. Mittl, M.
Ingvarsson, J., C. Wingren, A. Carlsson, P. Ellmark, B. Wahren, G. Engstrm, Kaufholz, B. Zimmermann, F.W. Herberg, and A. Plckthun. 2012.
U. Harmenberg, M. Krogh, C. Peterson, and C.A. Borrebaeck. 2008. Structural and functional analysis of phosphorylation-specific binders
Detection of pancreatic cancer using antibody microarray-based serum of the kinase ERK from designed ankyrin repeat protein libraries. Proc.
protein profiling. Proteomics. 8:22112219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 109:E2248E2257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/
pmic.200701167 pnas.1205399109
Irannejad, R., J.C. Tomshine, J.R. Tomshine, M. Chevalier, J.P. Mahoney, J. Kummer, L., C.W. Hsu, O. Dagliyan, C. MacNevin, M. Kaufholz, B.
Steyaert, S.G. Rasmussen, R.K. Sunahara, H. El-Samad, B. Huang, and Zimmermann, N.V. Dokholyan, K.M. Hahn, and A. Plckthun. 2013.
M. von Zastrow. 2013. Conformational biosensors reveal GPCR signal- Knowledge-based design of a biosensor to quantify localized ERK activa-
ling from endosomes. Nature. 495:534538. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ tion in living cells. Chem. Biol. 20:847856. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
nature12000 chembiol.2013.04.016
Jobling, S.A., C. Jarman, M.M. Teh, N. Holmberg, C. Blake, and M.E. Leduc, C., S. Si, J. Gautier, M. Soto-Ribeiro, B. Wehrle-Haller, A. Gautreau, G.
Verhoeyen. 2003. Immunomodulation of enzyme function in plants by Giannone, L. Cognet, and B. Lounis. 2013. A highly specific gold nano-
single-domain antibody fragments. Nat. Biotechnol. 21:7780. http:// probe for live-cell single-molecule imaging. Nano Lett. 13:14891494.
dx.doi.org/10.1038/nbt772 Li, J., A. Mahajan, and M.D. Tsai. 2006. Ankyrin repeat: a unique motif medi-
Jones, C.T., M.T. Catanese, L.M.J. Law, S.R. Khetani, A.J. Syder, A. Ploss, ating protein-protein interactions. Biochemistry. 45:1516815178. http://
T.S. Oh, J.W. Schoggins, M.R. MacDonald, S.N. Bhatia, and C.M. Rice. dx.doi.org/10.1021/bi062188q
2010. Real-time imaging of hepatitis C virus infection using a fluorescent Lienert, F., J.J. Lohmueller, A. Garg, and P.A. Silver. 2014. Synthetic biology in
cell-based reporter system. Nat. Biotechnol. 28:167171. http://dx.doi. mammalian cells: next generation research tools and therapeutics. Nat.
org/10.1038/nbt.1604 Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 15:95107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrm3738

Loris, R., I. Marianovsky, J. Lah, T. Laeremans, H. Engelberg-Kulka, G. Glaser, Riedl, J., A.H. Crevenna, K. Kessenbrock, J.H. Yu, D. Neukirchen, M. Bista,
S. Muyldermans, and L. Wyns. 2003. Crystal structure of the intrinsi- F. Bradke, D. Jenne, T.A. Holak, Z. Werb, et al. 2008. Lifeact: a versa-
cally flexible addiction antidote MazE. J. Biol. Chem. 278:2825228257. tile marker to visualize F-actin. Nat. Methods. 5:605607. http://dx.doi.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M302336200 org/10.1038/nmeth.1220
Los, G.V., L.P. Encell, M.G. McDougall, D.D. Hartzell, N. Karassina, C. Riedl, J., K.C. Flynn, A. Raducanu, F. Grtner, G. Beck, M. Bsl, F. Bradke,
Zimprich, M.G. Wood, R. Learish, R.F. Ohana, M. Urh, et al. 2008. S. Massberg, A. Aszodi, M. Sixt, and R. Wedlich-Sldner. 2010. Lifeact
HaloTag: a novel protein labeling technology for cell imaging and pro- mice for studying F-actin dynamics. Nat. Methods. 7:168169. http://
tein analysis. ACS Chem. Biol. 3:373382. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ dx.doi.org/10.1038/nmeth0310-168
cb800025k Ries, J., C. Kaplan, E. Platonova, H. Eghlidi, and H. Ewers. 2012. A simple,
Mouratou, B., F. Schaeffer, I. Guilvout, D. Tello-Manigne, A.P. Pugsley, versatile method for GFP-based super-resolution microscopy via nano-
P.M. Alzari, and F. Pecorari. 2007. Remodeling a DNA-binding pro- bodies. Nat. Methods. 9:582584. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.1991
tein as a specific in vivo inhibitor of bacterial secretin PulD. Proc. Rothbauer, U., K. Zolghadr, S. Tillib, D. Nowak, L. Schermelleh, A. Gahl,
Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 104:1798317988. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/ N. Backmann, K. Conrath, S. Muyldermans, M.C. Cardoso, and H.
pnas.0702963104 Leonhardt. 2006. Targeting and tracing antigens in live cells with fluo-
Muyldermans, S. 2013. Nanobodies: natural single-domain antibod- rescent nanobodies. Nat. Methods. 3:887889. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/
ies. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 82:775797. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/ nmeth953
annurev-biochem-063011-092449 Rothbauer, U., K. Zolghadr, S. Muyldermans, A. Schepers, M.C. Cardoso, and
Muyldermans, S., T. Atarhouch, J. Saldanha, J.A. Barbosa, and R. Hamers. 1994. H. Leonhardt. 2008. A versatile nanotrap for biochemical and functional
Sequence and structure of VH domain from naturally occurring camel studies with fluorescent fusion proteins. Mol. Cell. Proteomics. 7:282
heavy chain immunoglobulins lacking light chains. Protein Eng. 7:1129 289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1074/mcp.M700342-MCP200
1135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/protein/7.9.1129 Sato, Y., M. Mukai, J. Ueda, M. Muraki, T.J. Stasevich, N. Horikoshi, T. Kujirai,
Nalbant, P., L. Hodgson, V. Kraynov, A. Toutchkine, and K.M. Hahn. 2004. H. Kita, T. Kimura, S. Hira, et al. 2013. Genetically encoded system
Activation of endogenous Cdc42 visualized in living cells. Science. to track histone modification in vivo. Sci Rep. 3:2436. http://dx.doi.
305:16151619. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1100367 org/10.1038/srep02436
Nguyen, V.K., R. Hamers, L. Wyns, and S. Muyldermans. 2000. Camel heavy- Schermelleh, L., R. Heintzmann, and H. Leonhardt. 2010. A guide to super-reso-
lution fluorescence microscopy. J. Cell Biol. 190:165175. http://dx.doi.

chain antibodies: diverse germline V(H)H and specific mechanisms en-
large the antigen-binding repertoire. EMBO J. 19:921930. http://dx.doi. org/10.1083/jcb.201002018
org/10.1093/emboj/19.5.921 Schnfeld, D., G. Matschiner, L. Chatwell, S. Trentmann, H. Gille, M.
Nord, K., E. Gunneriusson, J. Ringdahl, S. Sthl, M. Uhln, and P.A. Nygren. Hlsmeyer, N. Brown, P.M. Kaye, S. Schlehuber, A.M. Hohlbaum, and
1997. Binding proteins selected from combinatorial libraries of an -heli- A. Skerra. 2009. An engineered lipocalin specific for CTLA-4 reveals
cal bacterial receptor domain. Nat. Biotechnol. 15:772777. http://dx.doi. a combining site with structural and conformational features similar to
org/10.1038/nbt0897-772 antibodies. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 106:81988203. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1073/pnas.0813399106
Ostermeier, C., S. Iwata, B. Ludwig, and H. Michel. 1995. Fv fragment-mediated
crystallization of the membrane protein bacterial cytochrome c oxidase. Seeger, M.A., R. Zbinden, A. Fltsch, P.G. Gutte, S. Engeler, H. Roschitzki-
Nat. Struct. Biol. 2:842846. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nsb1095-842 Voser, and M.G. Grtter. 2013. Design, construction, and characterization
of a second-generation DARP in library with reduced hydrophobicity.
Paduch, M., A. Koide, S. Uysal, S.S. Rizk, S. Koide, and A.A. Kossiakoff. 2013. Protein Sci. 22:12391257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pro.2312
Generating conformation-specific synthetic antibodies to trap proteins in
selected functional states. Methods. 60:314. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. Sennhauser, G., P. Amstutz, C. Briand, O. Storchenegger, and M.G. Grtter.
ymeth.2012.12.010 2007. Drug export pathway of multidrug exporter AcrB revealed by
DARPin inhibitors. PLoS Biol. 5:e7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.
Pardon, E., T. Laeremans, S. Triest, S.G. Rasmussen, A. Wohlknig, A. Ruf, S. pbio.0050007
Muyldermans, W.G. Hol, B.K. Kobilka, and J. Steyaert. 2014. A general
protocol for the generation of Nanobodies for structural biology. Nat. Serrire, J., J.M. Dugua, M. Bossus, B. Verrier, R. Haser, P. Gouet, and C. Guillon.
Protoc. 9:674693. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2014.039 2011. Fab-induced folding of antigenic N-terminal peptides from intrin-
sically disordered HIV-1 Tat revealed by X-ray crystallography. J. Mol.
Parizek, P., L. Kummer, P. Rube, A. Prinz, F.W. Herberg, and A. Plckthun. 2012. Biol. 405:3342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmb.2010.10.033
Designed ankyrin repeat proteins (DARPins) as novel isoform-specific
intracellular inhibitors of c-Jun N-terminal kinases. ACS Chem. Biol. Sha, F., E.B. Gencer, S. Georgeon, A. Koide, N. Yasui, S. Koide, and O.
7:13561366. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/cb3001167 Hantschel. 2013. Dissection of the BCR-ABL signaling network using
highly specific monobody inhibitors to the SHP2 SH2 domains. Proc.
Parmeggiani, F., R. Pellarin, A.P. Larsen, G. Varadamsetty, M.T. Stumpp, O. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 110:1492414929. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/
Zerbe, A. Caflisch, and A. Plckthun. 2008. Designed armadillo repeat pnas.1303640110
proteins as general peptide-binding scaffolds: consensus design and com-
putational optimization of the hydrophobic core. J. Mol. Biol. 376:1282 Silverman, J., Q. Liu, A. Bakker, W. To, A. Duguay, B.M. Alba, R. Smith, A.
1304. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmb.2007.12.014 Rivas, P. Li, H. Le, et al. 2005. Multivalent avimer proteins evolved by
exon shuffling of a family of human receptor domains. Nat. Biotechnol.
Pecqueur, L., C. Duellberg, B. Dreier, Q. Jiang, C. Wang, A. Plckthun, T. 23:15561561. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nbt1166
Surrey, B. Gigant, and M. Knossow. 2012. A designed ankyrin repeat
protein selected to bind to tubulin caps the microtubule plus end. Proc. Sims, J.J., F. Scavone, E.M. Cooper, L.A. Kane, R.J. Youle, J.D. Boeke, and
Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 109:1201112016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/ R.E. Cohen. 2012. Polyubiquitin-sensor proteins reveal localization and
pnas.1204129109 linkage-type dependence of cellular ubiquitin signaling. Nat. Methods.
9:303309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.1888
Pichler, G., H. Leonhardt, and U. Rothbauer. 2012. Fluorescent protein specific
Nanotraps to study protein-protein interactions and histone-tail peptide Skrabana, R., R. Dvorsky, J. Sevcik, and M. Novak. 2010. Monoclonal anti-
binding. Methods Mol. Biol. 911:475483. body MN423 as a stable mold facilitates structure determination of disor-
dered tau protein. J. Struct. Biol. 171:7481. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
Plckthun, A. 2015. Designed ankyrin repeat proteins (DARPins): bind- jsb.2010.02.016
ing proteins for research, diagnostics, and therapy. Annu. Rev.
Pharmacol. Toxicol. 55:489511. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/ Smith, G.P., S.U. Patel, J.D. Windass, J.M. Thornton, G. Winter, and A.D.
annurev-pharmtox-010611-134654 Griffiths. 1998. Small binding proteins selected from a combinatorial rep-
ertoire of knottins displayed on phage. J. Mol. Biol. 277:317332. http://
Pollithy, A., T. Romer, C. Lang, F.D. Muller, J. Helma, H. Leonhardt, U. dx.doi.org/10.1006/jmbi.1997.1621
Rothbauer, and D. Schuler. 2011. Magnetosome expression of func-
Spinelli, S., A. Desmyter, C.T. Verrips, H.J. de Haard, S. Moineau, and C.
tional camelid antibody fragments (nanobodies) in Magnetospirillum
Cambillau. 2006. Lactococcal bacteriophage p2 receptor-binding protein
gryphiswaldense. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 77:61656171. http://dx.doi.
structure suggests a common ancestor gene with bacterial and mamma-
org/10.1128/AEM.05282-11
lian viruses. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 13:8589. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/
Rasmussen, S.G., H.J. Choi, J.J. Fung, E. Pardon, P. Casarosa, P.S. Chae, nsmb1029
B.T. Devree, D.M. Rosenbaum, F.S. Thian, T.S. Kobilka, et al. 2011a.
Stijlemans, B., K. Conrath, V. Cortez-Retamozo, H. Van Xong, L. Wyns, P.
Structure of a nanobody-stabilized active state of the (2) adrenoceptor.
Senter, H. Revets, P. De Baetselier, S. Muyldermans, and S. Magez. 2004.
Nature. 469:175180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature09648
Efficient targeting of conserved cryptic epitopes of infectious agents by
Rasmussen, S.G., B.T. DeVree, Y. Zou, A.C. Kruse, K.Y. Chung, T.S. Kobilka, single domain antibodies. African trypanosomes as paradigm. J. Biol.
F.S. Thian, P.S. Chae, E. Pardon, D. Calinski, et al. 2011b. Crystal struc- Chem. 279:12561261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M307341200
ture of the 2 adrenergic receptor-Gs protein complex. Nature. 477:549 Sundberg, E.J., and R.A. Mariuzza. 2002. Molecular recognition in antibody-an-
555. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature10361 tigen complexes. Adv. Protein Chem. 61:119160.

Tang, J.C., T. Szikra, Y. Kozorovitskiy, M. Teixiera, B.L. Sabatini, B. Roska, Veesler, D., B. Dreier, S. Blangy, J. Lichire, D. Tremblay, S. Moineau, S.
and C.L. Cepko. 2013. A nanobody-based system using fluorescent pro- Spinelli, M. Tegoni, A. Plckthun, V. Campanacci, and C. Cambillau.
teins as scaffolds for cell-specific gene manipulation. Cell. 154:928939. 2009. Crystal structure and function of a DARPin neutralizing inhibi-
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2013.07.021 tor of lactococcal phage TP901-1: comparison of DARPin and camelid
Tanha, J., T.D. Nguyen, A. Ng, S. Ryan, F. Ni, and R. Mackenzie. 2006. VHH binding mode. J. Biol. Chem. 284:3071830726. http://dx.doi.
Improving solubility and refolding efficiency of human V(H)s by a novel org/10.1074/jbc.M109.037812
mutational approach. Protein Eng. Des. Sel. 19:503509. http://dx.doi. Vu, K.B., M.A. Ghahroudi, L. Wyns, and S. Muyldermans. 1997. Comparison
org/10.1093/protein/gzl037 of llama VH sequences from conventional and heavy chain anti-
Taussig, M.J., O. Stoevesandt, C.A. Borrebaeck, A.R. Bradbury, D. Cahill, C. bodies. Mol. Immunol. 34:11211131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
Cambillau, A. de Daruvar, S. Dbel, J. Eichler, R. Frank, et al. 2007. S0161-5890(97)00146-6
ProteomeBinders: planning a European resource of affinity reagents for Walther, T.C., and M. Mann. 2010. Mass spectrometry-based proteomics in
analysis of the human proteome. Nat. Methods. 4:1317. http://dx.doi. cell biology. J. Cell Biol. 190:491500. http://dx.doi.org/10.1083/
org/10.1038/nmeth0107-13 jcb.201004052
Tereshko, V., S. Uysal, A. Koide, K. Margalef, S. Koide, and A.A. Kossiakoff.
2008. Toward chaperone-assisted crystallography: protein engineering Willuda, J., A. Honegger, R. Waibel, P.A. Schubiger, R. Stahel, U. Zangemeister-
enhancement of crystal packing and X-ray phasing capabilities of a Wittke, and A. Plckthun. 1999. High thermal stability is essential for
camelid single-domain antibody (VHH) scaffold. Protein Sci. 17:1175 tumor targeting of antibody fragments: engineering of a humanized
1187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1110/ps.034892.108 anti-epithelial glycoprotein-2 (epithelial cell adhesion molecule) sin-
gle-chain Fv fragment. Cancer Res. 59:57585767.
Tiede, C., A.A. Tang, S.E. Deacon, U. Mandal, J.E. Nettleship, R.L. Owen, S.E.
George, D.J. Harrison, R.J. Owens, D.C. Tomlinson, and M.J. McPherson. Wingren, C., J. Ingvarsson, L. Dexlin, D. Szul, and C.A. Borrebaeck. 2007.
2014. Adhiron: a stable and versatile peptide display scaffold for molec- Design of recombinant antibody microarrays for complex proteome
ular recognition applications. Protein Eng. Des. Sel. 27:145155. http:// analysis: choice of sample labeling-tag and solid support. Proteomics.
dx.doi.org/10.1093/protein/gzu007 7:30553065. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pmic.200700025
Tiller, T., I. Schuster, D. Deppe, K. Siegers, R. Strohner, T. Herrmann, M. Wojcik, J., O. Hantschel, F. Grebien, I. Kaupe, K.L. Bennett, J. Barkinge, R.B.
Berenguer, D. Poujol, J. Stehle, Y. Stark, et al. 2013. A fully synthetic Jones, A. Koide, G. Superti-Furga, and S. Koide. 2010. A potent and
human Fab antibody library based on fixed VH/VL framework pairings highly specific FN3 monobody inhibitor of the Abl SH2 domain. Nat.

with favorable biophysical properties. MAbs. 5:445470. http://dx.doi. Struct. Mol. Biol. 17:519527. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nsmb.1793
org/10.4161/mabs.24218
Wrn, A., and A. Plckthun. 2001. Stability engineering of antibody single-chain
Toutchkine, A., V. Kraynov, and K. Hahn. 2003. Solvent-sensitive dyes to re- Fv fragments. J. Mol. Biol. 305:9891010. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/
port protein conformational changes in living cells. J. Am. Chem. Soc. jmbi.2000.4265
125:41324145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ja0290882
Trinkle-Mulcahy, L., S. Boulon, Y.W. Lam, R. Urcia, F.M. Boisvert, F. Zhou, Y., J.H. Morais-Cabral, A. Kaufman, and R. MacKinnon. 2001.
Vandermoere, N.A. Morrice, S. Swift, U. Rothbauer, H. Leonhardt, Chemistry of ion coordination and hydration revealed by a K+ chan-
and A. Lamond. 2008. Identifying specific protein interaction partners nel-Fab complex at 2.0 A resolution. Nature. 414:4348. http://dx.doi.
using quantitative mass spectrometry and bead proteomes. J. Cell Biol. org/10.1038/35102009
183:223239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1083/jcb.200805092 Zolghadr, K., J. Gregor, H. Leonhardt, and U. Rothbauer. 2012. Case study on
Uysal, S., V. Vsquez, V. Tereshko, K. Esaki, F.A. Fellouse, S.S. Sidhu, S. Koide, live cell apoptosis-assay using lamin-chromobody cell-lines for high-con-
E. Perozo, and A. Kossiakoff. 2009. Crystal structure of full-length KcsA tent analysis. Methods Mol. Biol. 911:569575.
in its closed conformation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 106:66446649.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0810663106

J Cell Biol 2015 Helma 633 44

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

J Cell Biol 2015 Helma 633 44

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

J Cell Biol 2015 Helma 633 44

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Published June 8, 2015 JCB: Review

Nanobodies and recombinant binders in cell biology

Downloaded from jcb.rupress.org on June 10, 2015

The Rockefeller University Press$30.00

Downloaded from jcb.rupress.org on June 10, 2015

634 JCB VOLUME 209 NUMBER 5 2015

Downloaded from jcb.rupress.org on June 10, 2015

Nanobodies and recombinant binders in cell biology Helma et al. 635

Table 1. Recombinant binders and their molecular characteristics

Format Size Template Structure (disulphides?) Binding mode Characteristic features

Downloaded from jcb.rupress.org on June 10, 2015

636 JCB VOLUME 209 NUMBER 5 2015

Downloaded from jcb.rupress.org on June 10, 2015

Nanobodies and recombinant binders in cell biology Helma et al. 637

Downloaded from jcb.rupress.org on June 10, 2015

638 JCB VOLUME 209 NUMBER 5 2015

Downloaded from jcb.rupress.org on June 10, 2015

Nanobodies and recombinant binders in cell biology Helma et al. 639

Downloaded from jcb.rupress.org on June 10, 2015

640 JCB VOLUME 209 NUMBER 5 2015

Acknowledgments re-establishes higher order chromatin organization. Nucleic Acids Res.

Downloaded from jcb.rupress.org on June 10, 2015

Nanobodies and recombinant binders in cell biology Helma et al. 641

Downloaded from jcb.rupress.org on June 10, 2015

642 JCB VOLUME 209 NUMBER 5 2015

Downloaded from jcb.rupress.org on June 10, 2015

Nanobodies and recombinant binders in cell biology Helma et al. 643

Downloaded from jcb.rupress.org on June 10, 2015

644 JCB VOLUME 209 NUMBER 5 2015

You might also like