Abstract
Understanding how building blocks of life contribute to physiology is greatly aided by protein identification and cellular localization. The two main labeling approaches developed over the past decades are labeling with antibodies such as immunoglobulin G (IgGs) or use of genetically encoded tags such as fluorescent proteins. However, IgGs are large proteins (150 kDa), which limits penetration depth and uncertainty of target position caused by up to ∼25 nm distance of the label created by the chosen targeting approach. Additionally, IgGs cannot be easily recombinantly modulated and engineered as part of fusion proteins because they consist of multiple independent translated chains. In the last decade single domain antigen binding proteins are being explored in bioscience as a tool in revealing molecular identity and localization to overcome limitations by IgGs. These nanobodies have several potential benefits over routine applications. Because of their small size (15 kDa), nanobodies better penetrate during labeling procedures and improve resolution. Moreover, nanobodies cDNA can easily be fused with other cDNA. Multidomain proteins can thus be easily engineered consisting of domains for targeting (nanobodies) and visualization by fluorescence microscopy (fluorescent proteins) or electron microscopy (based on certain enzymes). Additional modules for e.g., purification are also easily added. These nanobody-based probes can be applied in cells for live-cell endogenous protein detection or may be purified prior to use on molecules, cells or tissues. Here, we present the current state of nanobody-based probes and their implementation in microscopy, including pitfalls and potential future opportunities.
Introduction
Defining protein identity and visualizing protein localization is fundamental in biology. Uncovering dynamics of protein localization and function were boosted when green fluorescent protein (GFP) and other fluorescent proteins (FPs) were developed and used to tag proteins of interest (Tsien, 1998; Giepmans et al., 2006; Rodriguez et al., 2017). Advantages of these chimeric fusion proteins include the lack of distance between protein of interest and label, thereby improving the resolution, as well as the specificity of labeling derived from the genetic fusion. Disadvantages include modification of the target protein, with the consequence that unmodified endogenous proteins cannot be studied (Giepmans et al., 2006). To detect endogenous proteins, immunolabeling using antibodies (immunoglobulins, mostly of the IgG isotype; IgGs) conjugated with small fluorophores are typically applied. However, for intracellular targeting IgGs require plasma membrane permeabilization leading to a damaged ultrastructure (Schnell et al., 2012). Furthermore, IgGs are large (∼150 kDa; ∼14 nm long; Table 1). This may result in a distance greater than 25 nm between target and label in indirect conventional immunolabeling, the so-called linkage error (Muyldermans, 2013; Mikhaylova et al., 2015). In addition, IgGs are multidomain proteins which require post-translational modifications (Muyldermans, 2013) and therefore preclude routine controlled genetic modification and modular expression in conjunction with e.g., GFP.
TABLE 1
 |
Overview of different probes used in microscopy.
*Requires secondary labeling step.
Nanobodies are single variable domains of heavy-chain only antibodies(hcAB) derived from Camelidae species (Hamers-Casterman et al., 1993; Muyldermans, 2013; Helma et al., 2015; Van Audenhove and Gettemans, 2016), but do not compromise in the binding-affinity compared to IgGs, due to its complementarity-determining region (CDR) organization (Muyldermans et al., 2001; Muyldermans, 2013; Beghein and Gettemans, 2017). Nanobodies have been explored since 2006 as labeling tools in light microscopy (LM) (Rothbauer et al., 2006), because of the several potential advantages of nanobodies over other labeling techniques. Nanobody-mediated targeting for protein identification is more precise than IgG targeting, as nanobodies are only ∼15 kDa with a diameter of 2–3 nm (Table 1) and can be encoded by a relative short stretch single cDNA of 360 base pairs (Van Audenhove and Gettemans, 2016; Traenkle and Rothbauer, 2017; Carrington et al., 2019). This cDNA can genetically be fused to FPs cDNAs for intracellular (live-cell) imaging or tags can be added for purification and chemical modifications. Like IgGs, customized nanobodies can be created against a protein of interest and the cDNA can be shared free of charge, as opposed to IgGs (Zuo et al., 2017; McMahon et al., 2018). Here, an overview is given about the past and potential future of nanobody application in microscopy.
Nanobodies in Light Microscopy
Nanobodies (see Box 1 for terminology) can be expressed in cells conjugated to a detection module (like GFP) to target endogenous intracellular proteins, or they can be expressed, purified and then applied in immunolabeling resembling traditional immunofluorescence approach. Conventional immunolabeling is performed using IgGs, but for an improved penetration nanobodies can be used as an alternative (Fang et al., 2018). The improved penetration of nanobodies is illustrated in nuclear labeling of anti-GFP labeling targeting Histone2B (H2B)-GFP. Note that, in an equal labeling time, the nanobodies are colocalizing in the nucleus with the GFP, whereas the IgGs are mainly localized in the cytoplasm (Figure 1A). Though the anti-GFP is the best characterized and most used nanobody to date (Table 2), nanobodies are also used for visualizing endogenous proteins (Figure 1B and Table 2). Finally, nanobodies can be applied for live-cell imaging, both as purified proteins typically targeting extracellular antigens or being expressed from its introduced cDNA and targeted to intracellular antigens (Rothbauer et al., 2006; Ries et al., 2012).
Box 1. Nanobody terminology Nanobody
Synonyms: single domain antibody (sdAB), variable domain of heavy-chain only antibody (VhH), nAbs. Small antigen binding protein, derived from heavy-chain only antibodies (hcAB). These are produced in cell culture or in bacteria. Intrabody The cDNA of this probe is expressed in the cells for intracellular antigen targeting. ChromobodySynonyms: Fluobody, fluorescent nanobody. Genetic fusion of intrabody and fluorescent protein. Direct visualization with microscopy is possible. Labeled nanobodiesSynonyms: fluobody, fluorescent nanobody. Nanobodies protein purified and tagged in vitro with e.g., a chemical dye.
FIGURE 1
TABLE 2
Nanobody implemented in microscopy – An overview of targets that have been visualized using nanobodies and microscopy.
EM, electron microscopy; SR, super resolution fluorescence microscopy; CLEM, correlated LM/EM.
cDNA Delivery of Chromobodies for Intracellular Targeting
The first nanobody-based visualization of intracellular targets was achieved by the fusion to FPs (“chromobodies” Rothbauer et al., 2006; Table 1), being expressed in the target cells. Since then more nanobodies where developed targeting proteins inside cells (Table 2, delivered as cDNA). These intracellular chromobodies have been applied in small organisms like Danio rerio (Panza et al., 2015), Drosophila melanogaster (Harmansa et al., 2017), Caenorhabditis elegans (Pani and Goldstein, 2018) and Toxoplasma gondii (Tosetti et al., 2019) allowing live-cell and intravital microscopy. Intracellular expression of chromobodies in mice was successfully achieved by infecting the mice with adeno-associated viral particles containing the coding sequence of the chromobody (Figure 2A) (Wegner et al., 2017). Importantly, these chromobody approaches opens the opportunity for intravital imaging of endogenous proteins.
FIGURE 2
Next to defining protein localization, chromobodies can also relay functional changes in cells by fusing the nanobody to a fluorescent sensor for e.g., Ca2+ or pH (Prole and Taylor, 2019). For instance, anti-GFP nanobodies are fused to a Ca2+ sensor targeting GFP labeled mitochondria (Zhao et al., 2011). The nanobody facilitates the Ca2+ sensor to be in close proximity of the mitochondria to allow for Ca2+ dependent fluorescence readout. This results in the imaging of the local Ca2+ concentrations upon different stimuli. In the same study, anti-GFP nanobodies were conjugated to a SNAP-tag, a 20 kDa protein, modified from the human DNA repair protein O6-alkylguanine-DNA alkyltransferase (Keppler et al., 2003). The SNAP-tag is used to recruit a chemical dye, which facilitates live-cell imaging for Chromophore-Assisted Light Inactivation (CALI) (Jacobson et al., 2008): laser-induced subcellular destruction of a protein of interest. Thus nanobodies allow precise molecular targeting and enable analysis of the function of biomolecules, as well as precise protein manipulation with CALI allowing a direct cause/consequence study in living cells.
Fluorescence Signal From Unbound Chromobodies
Despite the success of chromobodies as intracellular probes, a disadvantage is their continued presence. Chromobodies fluoresce whether or not they bind to their target, as opposed to immunolabeling techniques that include multiple wash-out steps for unbound reagents or genetic fusions between target and FPs. To reduce the signal from non-bound chromobodies, conditionally stable chromobodies have been developed (Tang et al., 2016b). These modified anti-GFP chromobodies are instable and rapidly degraded by the proteasome. When stabilized, however, these chromobodies will bind their target and consequently will no longer be degraded. Indeed, engineering and application of conditionally stable anti-GFP chromobodies resulted in a reduced background fluorescence (Tang et al., 2016b). The mutations in the genetically modified nanobodies are highly conserved within nanobodies and therefore the switching from stable to instable nanobodies is generically applicable.
Non-targeted fluorescence can also be reduced by enhancer nanobodies (Roebroek et al., 2015). When the enhancer nanobodies bind with GFP, it increases the fluorescence and stability of the GFP. Enhancer nanobodies were also applied in a method to track single molecules in live-cell imaging (Ghosh et al., 2019). Here, an array of nanobodies is fused to the protein of interest, and expressed in cells with cytosolic monomeric GFP. Upon GFP binding to the array of nanobodies, the GFP molecules increase in fluorescent intensity, resulting in an increased signal-to-noise ratio. This binding can in the microscope be seen as a single dot, that represents a single protein of interest. In conclusion, the signal-to-noise ratio of chromobodies can be improved by degrading unbound chromobodies or by enhancing the fluorescence of bound FPs, which both will be beneficial in the detection of proteins.
Delocalization of Targeted Proteins
Modifying cellular systems, in any way, may of course result in altered biology (Schnell et al., 2012). Interactions between endogenous proteins and ectopically expressed chromobodies can potentially influence the localization and function of the protein of interest. Binding of nanobodies to their target during or post-translationally may disrupt proper protein folding, macromolecule organization and/or transport. Despite the often-highlighted benefits of nanobody-technology, like any other technique their use should be validated including the effect on protein localization. Artificial modifying localization of proteins can be used on purpose for targeted interference. Chromobodies targeting endogenous actin-binding proteins, like gelsolin and cortactin, led to a disturbed actin distribution (Van Audenhove et al., 2013; Hebbrecht et al., 2017; Wegner et al., 2017; Bertier et al., 2018) paralleled with a decrease in both the number of invadopodia as well as extracellular matrix degradation. These factors are important in cell migration (Wolf and Friedl, 2009). Thus, chromobodies-assisted protein modulation allows to study the contribution of specific proteins of biology, including cell migration or some of its consequences, like the delay of metastasis (Bertier et al., 2018).
Controlled Nanobody Activation
Spatiotemporal control of chromobody function is desirable in several assays. To initiate functionalized chromobodies in a controlled manner, chemogenetics or light stimuli can be applied to influence the binding capacity of the nanobody during and after synthesis. Such chemogenetic control employs ligand-modulated antibody fragments (LAMAs): a circular permutated bacterial dihydrofolate reductase (cpDHFR) linked to the nanobody is in such a conformation that it recognizes and binds to the nanobody target. In the presence of cell permeable DHFR inhibitors, the conformation changes precluding the antigen binding site of the nanobody binding the target, and thereby loss of association of nanobody and target. This process can be reversed to activate the nanobody binding (Farrants et al., 2020).
The light-dependent nanobody, termed photobody, uses a genetic photocaged tyrosine variant that results in the inactivation of the antigen-binding site (Arbely et al., 2012; Mootz et al., 2019). The photocaged tyrosine is photo-labile, and upon light induction (365 nm) the antigen-binding properties of the chromobodies are restored. Optobody, a second light-dependent tool, uses a split nanobody with a N-terminal fragment containing CDR1 and CDR2, and a C-terminal fragment containing CDR3 (Figure 2B; Yu et al., 2019). When both fragments are genetically fused to an optical-induced dimerization tool [MagHigh (Kawano et al., 2015)], the complete nanobody folds upon light stimulus and thereby forms the antigen-binding site. However, a generic position to split the nanobody is lacking, and thus for every different nanobody optimization and validation is needed. Overall, the activation of nanobodies using light or chemogenetic stimuli gives spatiotemporal control over the nanobodies, allowing precise subcellular modulation followed by direct readout of the biological consequences on targets studied.
Purified Fluorescent Nanobodies Delivered for Live-Cell Imaging
Nanobodies can also be generated in cellular systems, subsequently purified and/or modified and then used in bioassays. Typically, these are secreted by mammalian cells or produced in high yields by bacteria (Harmsen and De Haard, 2007). After purification, the nanobody can for instance be coupled to chemical dyes (Beghein and Gettemans, 2017) to create fluorescent nanobodies (Tables 1, 2). Dyes suitable for super-resolution microscopy (SRM), i.e., LM beyond the diffraction limit resulting in typically 20 – 100 nm lateral resolution [reviewed in (Schermelleh et al., 2019)], will increase the resolution when using nanobodies compared to IgGs because of the smaller size of the reagents used, reducing the linkage error discussed above (Ries et al., 2012). Alternative to conjugation of purified nanobody with small fluorescent molecules, chromobodies can be expressed and purified. These chromobodies can then be directly used in fluorescent microscopy studies because they contain both the targeting module as well as the fluorescent module (Figure 1). The benefit of using cDNA encoding protein modules is the ease to switch target or color with molecular cloning tools. To employ these fluorescent nanobodies in live-cells different delivery mechanisms for extracellular or intracellular targets have been created.
Extracellular Targets
The extracellular domain of peripheral membrane proteins in cultured cells is well accessible to ectopic added reagents and therefore straightforward to target in live-cell imaging. Nanobodies that target extracellular receptors may trigger receptor specific endocytosis, which can be important for e.g., drug delivery. Endocytosis can be triggered via binding with the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). Anti-HER2 nanobodies (Kijanka et al., 2013) coupled to fluorescent, drug containing nanoparticles (Martinez-Jothar et al., 2019), were indeed able to trigger endocytosis. After the trigger, uptake and cell viability was visualized to examine the effect of the therapeutic nanoparticles. So, receptor mediated endocytosis can be activated using fluorescent nanobodies to study therapeutic agents coupled to the nanobodies.
Super resolution localization of GFP surface-exposed by cells has been achieved while studing dynamic changes at the plasma membrane: The glycosylphosphatidylinositol (GPI)-anchored GFP reporter was further probed with Alexa647-conjugated nanobodies to enable SRM based on the blinking of the Alexa-dye. This resulted in higher resolution imaging of dynamic changes and detection of protein enrichments in the plasma membrane (Ries et al., 2012; Virant et al., 2018). Indirect visualization enables newly displayed proteins at the plasma membrane. Here, all available antigens first are blocked by unconjugated nanobody. Upon exocytosis stimuli, at the plasma membrane, new extracellular exposed antigens can be detected with fluorescent nanobodies (Seitz and Rizzoli, 2019). This pulse-chase approach allows dynamic studies, e.g., protein turnover, of receptors and other cell surface proteins.
Intracellular Targets
The plasma membrane is a physical barrier for the nanobodies to target intracellular proteins in live-cells. Therefore, custom delivery methods are needed to target endogenous proteins in (living) cells without permeabilizing the plasma membrane. If nanobody expression is not an option because it first needs chemical modification or the concentration should be well-controlled, a purified nanobody may be delivered to cells. Fluorescent nanobodies can enter cells via endocytosis, when they formed non-covalent complexes with oligomers (Figure 2C; Roder et al., 2017) or they undergo lipid-based protein transfection (Oba and Tanaka, 2012; Virant et al., 2018). After endocytosis, the nanobodies need to escape the endosomal system and the formed complexes need to be degraded. However, using this strategy one has to take into account that the efficiency of endosomal escape is low (Stewart et al., 2016) and the nanobodies in the endosomes are already fluorescent, resulting in localized labeling of the endosomal system.
To prevent cellular uptake via endocytosis, cell-permeable nanobodies were generated by the addition of a cyclic cell-penetrating peptide [cCPP; (Herce et al., 2017)]. cCPPs are arginine-rich peptides that facilitates direct penetration of the plasma membrane to enter directly into the cytoplasm, independent of endocytosis. The efficiency of the labeling is expected to be increased because endosomal escape after endocytic uptake is omitted. Another advantage of using the cell-penetrating peptide is the ability to co-transport recombinant proteins, e.g., GFP, inside the cells, when both are bound to the nanobody. Although the efficiency of this co-transport was low, this cell-permeable nanobody can be further explored to serve as a drug delivery vehicle. A major disadvantage of the cCPPs however, is the strong tendency to accumulate in the nucleolus.
Generating temporary permeable plasma membranes is another approach to artificially deliver cargo inside cells. Different methods to temporary permeabilize the membrane have been developed: (i) Electroporation to deliver nanobodies linked to fluorescent quantum dots (QDs) into cells (Shi et al., 2018). The QDs were used for single particle visualization of intercellular transport by targeting kinesin motor proteins (Katrukha et al., 2017); (ii) Artificial plasma membrane channels that allow chromobody delivery into cells can be formed by bacterial Streptolysin O (Teng et al., 2016). Unbound nanobodies are removed during rinsing and the channels are closed upon switching to a recovery medium; (iii) Photoporation in which a laser-induced transfection enables the delivery of the nanobodies intracellular, and when these are fluorescently labeled, these can be directly detected (Hebbrecht et al., 2020). (iv) Another method to induce temporary damage to the plasma membrane is cell squeezing through the small capillaries of a microfluidic system resulting in fragility of the plasma membrane (Figure 2D; Klein et al., 2018). While the cells are squeezed, extracellular proteins can diffuse into the cells. When cells leave the small capillary the plasma membrane recovers to its normal state. Obviously, the effect of any temporary permeabilization approach used to enable nanobodies entrance into cells, is that endogenous molecules might diffuse out or targets may delocalize.
General Applicable Peptide Tags
Genetic fusion with FPs cDNA is the widely used technique for protein visualization in living systems, but sometimes smaller peptide tags are preferred. Currently, there are no nanobodies available against common generic peptide tags (Muyldermans et al., 2001; Stijlemans et al., 2004; De Genst et al., 2006; Braun et al., 2016). Hence, three new small tags have been developed along with their respective targeting nanobodies. (i) The BC2-tag is a 12 amino acid peptide sequence originating from β-catenin (Braun et al., 2016; Virant et al., 2018), but the nanobody does not recognize endogenous β-catenin making it fairly specific for the tag only. (ii) The ALFA-tag (13 amino acids) forms an α-helix and is naturally absent in eukaryotes (Gotzke et al., 2019), also making it a specific target for its nanobody, which also counts for the (iii) Pep-Tag (15 amino acids) (Traenkle et al., 2020).
An array of peptides fused to the protein of interest can amplify the fluorescent signal, and thus increase the signal-to-noise ratio. A peptide-repeat called MoonTag (Boersma et al., 2019) was created to visualize active translation (Figure 2E). Here, an array of a 15 amino acid peptide sequence was added N-terminal of the protein of interest. The newly formed peptide chain forms a docking site for chromobodies. The MoonTag can be combined with the SunTag; an intracellular expressed single-chain variable fragment (scFV; Tanenbaum et al., 2014). Combining the two tags will allow visualization of different reading frames within a single mRNA or can be used to amplify the signal from different targets. Given the mechanism of probing the target with a cDNA encoded peptide repeat, making use of the same antibodies, this is a highly versatile enhancer system.
Nanobodies in Electron Microscopy
While resolution of targets in LM is improved by using nanobodies because of a reduced linkage error compared to IgG targeting, the ultrastructural remains unexplored. In electron microscopy (EM), the ultrastructure is revealed, but localizing the protein of interest within this structure also requires probes. EM-visualization of targets benefits from the nanobody-technology because the probe is small and thus penetrates better. Therefore, milder permeabilization is needed, better preserving the ultrastructure. Moreover, the small size improves the resolution compared to traditional immuno-EM because the target and identifiable tag are in close proximity. Also in EM proteins can be specifically identified using genetically encoded or affinity-based probes. Genetically encoded probes may be based on peroxidases that creates black precipitates in the presence of diaminobenzidine (DAB) and H2O2. Affinity-based probes include electron dense nanoparticles like nanogold and QDs (De Boer et al., 2015). Of course the genetically encoded probes form good candidates to use in conjunction with nanobodies as a multi-modular probe for EM studies.
Intracellular Nanobody Expression
Intracellular nanobodies fused with soybean ascorbate peroxidase (APEX2) (Lam et al., 2015) can target GFP or mCherry to add an electron dense mark to the protein of interest at EM level (Ariotti et al., 2015, 2017). This APEX2-nanobody can be applied as general CLEM (correlated LM/EM) probe because many cells and small organisms have already been engineered to express GFP or mCherry. Using conditionally stable nanobodies (section Nanobodies In Light Microscopy), unbound APEX2-nanobody is degraded and thereby improve EM detection of the target proteins (Ariotti et al., 2018). The conditionally stable APEX2-nanobody enables studying protein-protein interactions by making use of splitFPs as target (Figure 3A; Ghosh et al., 2000; Hu and Kerppola, 2003). Here, a protein of interest and its potential interacting protein are genetically fused with different segment of e.g., GFP. Anti-GFP APEX2-nanobody can only bind to the folded GFP, representing the interaction between the two proteins of interest. When GFP is absent, the conditionally stable APEX2-nanobodies are degraded. Another alternative to study protein-protein interactions would be by using nanobodies fused to splitHRP or splitAPEX2 (Martell et al., 2016; Han et al., 2019). Two distinct nanobodies recognizing proteins within close proximity will facilitate the refolding of the peroxidase, which will result in DAB precipitates at that location in the sample. The split peroxidase thus reduces the signal of unbound nanobodies, leading to a more conclusive picture. In conclusion, where chromobodies allow dynamic studies of endogenous proteins, APEX2-nanobodies enable high resolution analysis in the ultrastructural context.
FIGURE 3
Nanobodies as Immunolabeling Reagent
Purified nanobodies can be applied for affinity-based immunolabeling, and thereby replace conventional IgGs. Immunolabeling with unconjugated nanobodies was used to label HER2 in breast cancer cells, followed by a secondary anti-nanobody IgG conjugated with nanogold (Figure 3B; Kijanka et al., 2017). Although this already improved the resolution, it could benefit more by replacing the IgG a direct labeling method using conjugated nanobodies.
CLEM and Nanobodies
Reagents used in CLEM that are readily detectable both in the FLM and EM, like nanogold or QDs, are relatively large and/or bulky in comparison to 15–30 kDa range FPs or even smaller fluorescent dyes like FITC. These inorganic nanoparticles whether or not conjugated to nanobodies, will have limited penetration (Giepmans et al., 2005; Schnell et al., 2012). Therefore, we developed a completely protein-based probe, called “FLIPPER”-body (Kuipers et al., 2015; De Beer et al., 2018) with (i) a nanobody as targeting module; (ii) a FP for LM analysis; and (iii) a horseradish peroxidase (HRP) for EM analysis. The FLIPPER-bodies were produced by mammalian cells applied as immunoreagent to label e.g., intracellular GFP (Figure 3C). Other targets were generated by simple molecular cloning interchanging the modules of the probe. FLIPPER-bodies improve penetration due to its size and flexibility comparted to IgGs-targeted nanoparticles and thus lead to a better target detection while maintaining reasonable ultrastructure.
In conventional EM glutaraldehyde is used to fix the samples for ultrastructural preservation (Schnell et al., 2012). However, cells fixed with paraformaldehyde become permeable for small molecules like e.g., small fluorescent nanobodies (Fang et al., 2018). This labeling without adding permeabilization reagents method was further developed to stain intracellular targets in fixed mouse tissue slices. When targeting an intracellular target with both nanobody and IgG, the nanobody penetrated up to 100 μm into a brain tissue slice, while the IgGs only stained the surface of the slice. Subsequently, the same cells were imaged with EM and ultrastructural details were well preserved due to glutaraldehyde fixation after performing the nanobody labeling. So, detergent treatment is not required when using small nanobody probes and thus cellular structure is better preserved. The technique needs to mature further to establish the ratio of positives and false negatives to determine if the recognition of the targets is generically reliable. Moreover, the accessibility of targets within organelles, like mitochondria or nucleus, remains to be studied further.
Nanobodies for Live-Cell Imaging and EM
Alternatively to expressing nanobody-based probes in the cellular system of interest, they also can first be purified and then applied to cells. An elegant example of this approach has been used to visualize the formation of synaptic vesicles in living cells (Joensuu et al., 2016). Ultrastructural localization of newly formed synaptic vesicles can be examined using peroxidase-fused nanobodies. Vesicle-associated membrane protein 2 (VAMP2) mediates the formation of synaptic vesicles and is expressed at the plasma membrane of neuronal cells. Anti-GFP nanobodies were applied to target pHluorin, a GFP derivative, fused with VAMP2 (Figure 3D). Upon K+ stimulation, pHluorin-VAMP2 with bound nanobody is endocytosed, and new synaptic vesicles are formed. After EM preparation, the newly formed synaptic vesicles were stained black, as a result of the peroxidase attached to the nanobody, whereas older synaptic vesicles remained unstained. Thus, the endocytic route of specific proteins of interest can be visualized.
Purified nanobodies, fused to a FP and a peroxidase, were used to analyze the retrograde transport system in live-cells (Buser and Spiess, 2019) or within ultrastructural context (Buser et al., 2018) to study the transport from the cell surface to the Golgi complex. Cells with GFP-modified cycling reporter proteins at the plasma membrane captured the nanobodies extracellular and transported them in the cells. CLEM revealed the dynamic behavior of different cycling reporter proteins, and showed the ultrastructural localization of the reporter proteins. Overall, these nanobody-based CLEM probes can reveal the localization of plasma membrane proteins and visualize their dynamics, together with the ultrastructural context.
Nanobodies in Cryo-EM
Structural analysis of proteins at atomic resolution is achieved by cryo-EM [reviewed in (Kühlbrandt, 2014; Egelman, 2016; Cheng, 2018)]. However different conformations of proteins may be present, hindering the structural determination of specific states. Here, nanobodies can help to stabilize the proteins into a certain conformational state [reviewed in (Uchański et al., 2020)], especially as the targeting module in rigid chimeras termed megabodies. These stabilizing nanobody-chimeras recently have been used to solve the type A γ-aminobutyric (GABAA) structure in membranes-like structures in presence and absence of natural ligands and antagonists (Laverty et al., 2019; Masiulis et al., 2019). Using the megabodies, no longer the target proteins themselves need to be engineered and thus structure on the endogenous proteins is being revealed. Likely, nanobody technology will further contribute to structural biology on many other target proteins by facilitating single conformational protein states and better understand the dynamic regulation of biomolecules by their ligands without directly altering the proteins at study.
Nanobodies for Microscopy: To Date a Great Potential But Such a Limited Use
Nanobodies have clear benefits over conventional IgGs antibodies or genetically encoded probes. Nanobodies (i) have a small diameter resulting in better resolution and better penetration; (ii) can visualize endogenous proteins in live-cell imaging; (iii) are encoded by a one cDNA, which enables easy molecular cloning; (iv) allow researchers to create and produce custom multi-modal probes. Potential artifacts specific for nanobody technology in microscopy include signal from chromobodies independent of target binding and modified localization of the protein target, as detailed above.
Nanobodies are still limited used in research, mainly due to the limitation in the availability of nanobodies for general targets compared to IgGs and researchers are not aware of the possibilities of nanobody in microscopy. Here, we aim to increase the visibility of opportunities and benefits highlighted in the main text, but also exemplified by the successful new insights and new nanobody-based reagents by many (Table 2). Other ways to improve the use of nanobodies in research are open access sharing of nanobodies cDNA to allow researchers to create and manipulate their own labeling reagent and to increase the nanobody database of general targets. Currently, most nanobodies are generated via Camelidae immunization, a route that may be a (seemingly) hurdle for scientists. However, these days the generation of nanobodies is both economically and time-wise competitive with generation of newly synthesized rabbit IgG against specific targets. The novice user obviously will benefit of expertise and accessibility to the needed infrastructure by more experienced users mentioned throughout this review. In addition, a fast method based on a yeast display platform to select nanobodies in vitro has been established (McMahon et al., 2018).
From Current State to Future Outlook: Nanobodies Towards a Common Technique
Protein identification in microscopy has been greatly aided by immunolabeling using IgGs as well as the application of genetically encoded tags. Nanobody technology, being explored for approximately 25 years is a great additional tool. Like IgGs, endogenous proteins can be easily studied without direct modification. Moreover, the single domain properties and therefore the easy use as a module in other genetically encoded probes allow freedom of use of tags and targeting module. In line with SRM techniques, nanobodies have the added benefit over IgGs that they hardly provide distance between target and label (linkage error). The major limitation in the use of nanobodies in general is the sparse availability of high affinity nanobodies for specific targets. Increasing the availability for different targets using immunization and/or micro-organism-based libraries will increase the variation in the decade to come. When more targets can be studied with nanobodies these will become a common tool in the lab and share the top-3 podium with genetically encoded tags as well as IgGs since they share benefits of both approaches to identify and visualize targets of interest in dynamic systems and with high precision.
Statements
Author contributions
MB performed the experiment and made the figures. MB and BG wrote the manuscript. Both authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Funding
All sources of funding received for the research have been submitted. Open access publication fee was partially waived by FiCN.
Acknowledgments
We thank our lab members for discussions; financial support by Netherlands Organization for scientific research (STW Microscopy Valley 12718, NWO 175-010-2009-023, and ZonMW 91111.006) and de Cock-Hadders Stichting.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
References
1
AbdellatifM. E. A.HippL.PlessnerM.WaltherP.KnöllB. (2019). Indirect visualization of endogenous nuclear actin by correlative light and electron microscopy (CLEM) using an actin-directed chromobody.Histochem. Cell Biol.152133–143. 10.1007/s00418-019-01795-3
2
AhaniR.RoohvandF.CohanR. A.EtemadzadehM. H.MohajelN.BehdaniM.et al (2016). Sindbis virus-pseudotyped lentiviral vectors carrying VEGFR2-specific nanobody for potential transductional targeting of tumor vasculature.Mol. Biotechnol.58738–747. 10.1007/s12033-016-9973-7
3
Almuedo-CastilloM.BläβleA.MörsdorfD.MarconL.SohG. H.RogersK. W.et al (2018). Scale-invariant patterning by size-dependent inhibition of Nodal signalling.Nat. Cell Biol.201032–1042. 10.1038/s41556-018-0155-7
4
AndersenJ. T.Gonzalez-PajueloM.FossS.LandsverkO. J. B.PintoD.SzyrokiA.et al (2013). Selection of nanobodies that target human neonatal Fc receptor.Sci.Rep.3:1118.
5
ArbelyE.Torres-KolbusJ.DeitersA.ChinJ. W. (2012). Photocontrol of tyrosine phosphorylation in mammalian cells via genetic encoding of photocaged tyrosine.J. Am. Chem. Soc.13411912–11915. 10.1021/ja3046958
6
AriottiN.HallT. E.PartonR. G. (2017). Correlative light and electron microscopic detection of GFP-labeled proteins using modular APEX.Methods Cell Biol.140105–121. 10.1016/bs.mcb.2017.03.002
7
AriottiN.HallT. E.RaeJ.FergusonC.McMahonK. A.MartelN.et al (2015). Modular detection of GFP-labeled proteins for rapid screening by electron microscopy in cells and organisms.Dev. Cell35513–525. 10.1016/j.devcel.2015.10.016
8
AriottiN.RaeJ.GilesN.MartelN.SiereckiE.GambinY.et al (2018). Ultrastructural localisation of protein interactions using conditionally stable nanobodies.PLoS Biol.16:e2005473. 10.1371/journal.pbio.2005473
9
BannasP.LenzA.KunickV.FumeyW.RissiekB.SchmidJ.et al (2015a). Validation of nanobody and antibody based in vivo tumor xenograft NIRF-imaging experiments in mice using ex vivo flow cytometry and microscopy.J. Vis. Exp98:e52462.
10
BannasP.LenzA.KunickV.WellL.FumeyW.RissiekB.et al (2015b). Molecular imaging of tumors with nanobodies and antibodies: timing and dosage are crucial factors for improved in vivo detection.Contrast Media Mol. Imaging10367–378. 10.1002/cmmi.1637
11
BazlM. R.RasaeeM. J.ForuzandehM.RahimpourA.KianiJ.RahbarizadehF.et al (2007). Production of chimeric recombinant single domain antibody-green fluorescent fusion protein in Chinese hamster ovary cells.Hybridoma261–9. 10.1089/hyb.2006.037
12
BegheinE.GettemansJ. (2017). Nanobody technology: a versatile toolkit for microscopic imaging, protein-protein interaction analysis, and protein function exploration.Front. Immunol.8:771.
13
Beltrán HernándezI.RompenR.RossinR.XenakiK. T.KatrukhaE. A.NicolayK.et al (2019). Imaging of tumor spheroids, dual-isotope SPECT, and autoradiographic analysis to assess the tumor uptake and distribution of different nanobodies.Mol. Imaging Biol.211079–1088. 10.1007/s11307-019-01320-x
14
BerryL. K.ÖlafssonG.Ledesma-FernándezE.ThorpeP. H. (2016). Synthetic protein interactions reveal a functional map of the cell.eLife5:e13053.
15
BertierL.HebbrechtT.MettepenningenE.De WitN.ZwaenepoelO.VerhelleA.et al (2018). Nanobodies targeting cortactin proline rich, helical and actin binding regions downregulate invadopodium formation and matrix degradation in SCC-61 cancer cells.Biomed. Pharmacother.102230–241. 10.1016/j.biopha.2018.03.064
16
BleckM.ItanoM. S.JohnsonD. S.ThomasV. K.NorthA. J.BieniaszP. D.et al (2014). Temporal and spatial organization of ESCRT protein recruitment during HIV-1 budding.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.11112211–12216. 10.1073/pnas.1321655111
17
BoersmaS.KhuperkarD.VerhagenB. M. P.SonneveldS.GrimmJ. B.LavisL. D.et al (2019). Multi-color single-molecule imaging uncovers extensive heterogeneity in mRNA decoding.Cell178458–472.e19.
18
BraunM. B.TraenkleB.KochP. A.EmeleF.WeissF.PoetzO.et al (2016). Peptides in headlock–a novel high-affinity and versatile peptide-binding nanobody for proteomics and microscopy.Sci. Rep.6:19211.
19
BuchfellnerA.YurlovaL.NuskeS.ScholzA. M.BognerJ.RufB.et al (2016). A New nanobody-based biosensor to study endogenous PARP1 in vitro and in live human cells.PLoS One.11:e0151041. 10.1371/journal.pone.0151041
20
BurgessA.LorcaT.CastroA. (2012). Quantitative live imaging of endogenous DNA replication in mammalian cells.PLoS One.7:e45726. 10.1371/journal.pone.0045726
21
BuserD. P.SchleicherK. D.Prescianotto-BaschongC.SpiessM. A. (2018). versatile nanobody-based toolkit to analyze retrograde transport from the cell surface.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.115E6227–E6236.
22
BuserD. P.SpiessM. (2019). Analysis of endocytic uptake and retrograde transport to the trans-golgi network using functionalized nanobodies in cultured cells.J. Vis. Exp.144:e59111.
23
CarringtonG.TomlinsonD.PeckhamM. (2019). Exploiting nanobodies and Affimers for superresolution imaging in light microscopy.Mol. Biol. Cell302737–2740. 10.1091/mbc.e18-11-0694
24
Casas-DelucchiC.BeckerA.BoliusJ. J.CardosoM. C. (2012). Targeted manipulation of heterochromatin rescues MeCP2 Rett mutants and re-establishes higher order chromatin organization.Nucleic Acids Res.40:e176. 10.1093/nar/gks784
25
CaussinusE.KancaO.AffolterM. (2011). Fluorescent fusion protein knockout mediated by anti-GFP nanobody.Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol.19117–121. 10.1038/nsmb.2180
26
ChammaI.LetellierM.ButlerC.TessierB.LimK.GauthereauI.et al (2016). Mapping the dynamics and nanoscale organization of synaptic adhesion proteins using monomeric streptavidin.Nat. Commun.7:10773.
27
ChammaI.RossierO.GiannoneG.ThoumineO.SainlosM. (2017). Optimized labeling of membrane proteins for applications to super-resolution imaging in confined cellular environments using monomeric streptavidin.Nat. Protoc.12748–763. 10.1038/nprot.2017.010
28
ChelohaR. W.LiZ.BousbaineD.WoodhamA. W.PerrinP.VolarićJ.et al (2019). Internalization of Influenza virus and cell surface proteins monitored by site-specific conjugation of protease-sensitive probes.ACS Chem. Biol.141836–1844. 10.1021/acschembio.9b00493
29
ChengY. (2018). Single-particle cryo-EM-How did it get here and where will it go.Science361876–880. 10.1126/science.aat4346
30
CramerK.BolenderA.StockmarI.JungmannR.KasperR.ShinJ. Y. (2019). Visualization of bacterial protein complexes labeled with fluorescent proteins and nanobody binders for STED microscopy.Int. J. Mol. Sci.20:3376. 10.3390/ijms20143376
31
DarlingT. L.SherwoodL. J.HayhurstA. (2017). Intracellular crosslinking of filoviral nucleoproteins with xintrabodies restricts viral packaging.Front. Immunol.8:1197.
32
De BeerM. A.KuipersJ.Van Bergen En HenegouwenP. M. P.GiepmansB. N. G. (2018). A small protein probe for correlated microscopy of endogenous proteins.Histochem. Cell Biol.149261–268. 10.1007/s00418-018-1632-6
33
De BoerP.HoogenboomJ. P.GiepmansB. N. (2015). Correlated light and electron microscopy: ultrastructure lights up!Nat. Methods12503–513. 10.1038/nmeth.3400
34
De BruinR. C. G.LougheedS. M.Van Der KrukL.StamA. G.HooijbergE.RooversR. C.et al (2016). Highly specific and potently activating Vγ9Vδ2-T cell specific nanobodies for diagnostic and therapeutic applications.Clin. Immunol.169128–138. 10.1016/j.clim.2016.06.012
35
De ClercqS.ZwaenepoelO.MartensE.VandekerckhoveJ.GuillabertA.GettemansJ. (2013). Nanobody-induced perturbation of LFA-1/L-plastin phosphorylation impairs MTOC docking, immune synapse formation and T cell activation.Cell Mol. Life Sci.70909–922. 10.1007/s00018-012-1169-0
36
De GenstE.SilenceK.DecanniereK.ConrathK.LorisR.KinneJ.et al (2006). Molecular basis for the preferential cleft recognition by dromedary heavy-chain antibodies.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.1034586–4591. 10.1073/pnas.0505379103
37
De HaardH. J. W.BezemerS.LedeboerA. M.MüllerW. H.BoenderP. J.MoineauS.et al (2005). Llama antibodies against a lactococcal protein located at the tip of the phage tail prevent phage infection.J. Bacteriol.1874531–4541. 10.1128/jb.187.13.4531-4541.2005
38
De MeyerT.EeckhoutD.De RyckeR.De BuckS.MuyldermansS.DepickerA. (2014). Generation of VHH antibodies against the Arabidopsis thaliana seed storage proteins.Plant Mol. Biol.8483–93. 10.1007/s11103-013-0118-0
39
DebieP.LafontC.DefriseM.HansenI.Van WilligenD. M.Van LeeuwenF. W. B.et al (2020). Size and affinity kinetics of nanobodies influence targeting and penetration of solid tumours.J. Control Release31734–42. 10.1016/j.jconrel.2019.11.014
40
DelanoteV.VanlooB.CatillonM.FriederichE.VandekerckhoveJ.GettemansJ. (2010). An alpaca single-domain antibody blocks filopodia formation by obstructing L-plastin-mediated F-actin bundling.FASEB J.24105–118. 10.1096/fj.09-134304
41
D’HollanderA.JansH.VeldeG. V.VerstraeteC.MassaS.DevoogdtN.et al (2017). Limiting the protein corona: a successful strategy for in vivo active targeting of anti-HER2 nanobody-functionalized nanostars.Biomaterials12315–23. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2017.01.007
42
DongJ. X.LeeY.KirmizM.PalacioS.DumitrasC.MorenoC. M.et al (2019). A toolbox of nanobodies developed and validated for use as intrabodies and nanoscale immunolabels in mammalian brain neurons.Elife8:48750. 10.7554/eLife.48750
43
DreesC.RajA. N.KurreR.BuschK. B.HaaseM.PiehlerJ. (2016). Engineered upconversion nanoparticles for resolving protein interactions inside living cells.Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl.5511668–11672. 10.1002/anie.201603028
44
DuarteJ. N.CragnoliniJ. J.SweeL. K.BilateA. M.BaderJ.IngramJ. R.et al (2016). Generation of immunity against pathogens via single-domain antibody-antigen constructs.J. Immunol.1974838–4847. 10.4049/jimmunol.1600692
45
EgelmanE. H. (2016). The current revolution in cryo-EM.Biophys. J.1101008–1012. 10.1016/j.bpj.2016.02.001
46
FanX.WangL.GuoY.TuZ.LiL.TongH.et al (2015). Ultrasonic nanobubbles carrying Anti-PSMA nanobody: construction and application in prostate cancer-targeted imaging.PLoS One10:e0127419. 10.1371/journal.pone.0127419
47
FangT.LuX.BergerD.GmeinerC.ChoJ.SchalekR.et al (2018). Nanobody immunostaining for correlated light and electron microscopy with preservation of ultrastructure.Nat. Methods151029–1032. 10.1038/s41592-018-0177-x
48
FarrantsH.TarnawskiM.MüllerT. G.OtsukaS.HiblotJ.KochB.et al (2020). Chemogenetic control of nanobodies.Nat. Methods17279–282. 10.1038/s41592-020-0746-7
49
FinniganG. C.BoothE. A.DuvalyanA.LiaoE. N.ThornerJ. (2015). The carboxy-terminal tails of tins Cdc11 and Shs1 recruit myosin-II binding factor Bni5 to the bud neck in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.Genetics200843–862. 10.1534/genetics.115.176503
50
GadokA. K.ZhaoC.MeriwetherA. I.FerratiS.RowleyT. G.ZoldanJ.et al (2018). The display of single-domain antibodies on the surfaces of connectosomes enables gap junction-mediated drug delivery to specific cell populations.Biochemistry (N. Y.)5781–90. 10.1021/acs.biochem.7b00688
51
GhoshI.HamiltonA. D.ReganL. (2000). Antiparallel leucine zipper-directed protein reassembly:?application to the green fluorescent protein.J. Am. Chem. Soc.1225658–5659. 10.1021/ja994421w
52
GhoshR. P.FranklinJ. M.DraperW. E.ShiQ.BeltranB.SpakowitzA. J.et al (2019). A fluorogenic array for temporally unlimited single-molecule tracking.Nat. Chem. Biol.15401–409. 10.1038/s41589-019-0241-6
53
GiepmansB. N.AdamsS. R.EllismanM. H.TsienR. Y. (2006). The fluorescent toolbox for assessing protein location and function.Science312217–224. 10.1126/science.1124618
54
GiepmansB. N.DeerinckT. J.SmarrB. L.JonesY. Z.EllismanM. H. (2005). Correlated light and electron microscopic imaging of multiple endogenous proteins using Quantum dots.Nat. Methods2743–749. 10.1038/nmeth791
55
GöttfertF.PleinerT.HeineJ.WestphalV.GörlichD.SahlS. J.et al (2017). Strong signal increase in STED fluorescence microscopy by imaging regions of subdiffraction extent.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.1142125–2130. 10.1073/pnas.1621495114
56
GotzkeH.KilischM.Martinez-CarranzaM.Sograte-IdrissiS.RajavelA.SchlichthaerleT.et al (2019). The ALFA-tag is a highly versatile tool for nanobody-based bioscience applications.Nat. Commun.10:4403.
57
GrootA. J.VerheesenP.WesterlakenE. J.GortE. H.Van Der GroepP.BovenschenN.et al (2006). Identification by phage display of single-domain antibody fragments specific for the ODD domain in hypoxia-inducible factor 1alpha.Lab. Invest.86345–356. 10.1038/labinvest.3700395
58
GrossC.WiesmannV.MillenS.KalmerM.WittenbergT.GettemansJ.et al (2016). The tax-inducible actin-bundling protein fascin is crucial for release and cell-to-cell transmission of human T-cell leukemia virus type 1 (HTLV-1).PLoS Pathog.12:e1005916. 10.1371/journal.ppat.1005916
59
HafianH.SukhanovaA.TuriniM.ChamesP.BatyD.PluotM.et al (2014). Multiphoton imaging of tumor biomarkers with conjugates of single-domain antibodies and quantum dots.Nanomedicine101701–1709. 10.1016/j.nano.2014.05.014
60
Hamers-CastermanC.AtarhouchT.MuyldermansS.RobinsonG.HamersC.SongaE. B.et al (1993). Naturally occurring antibodies devoid of light chains.Nature363446–448. 10.1038/363446a0
61
HanY.BranonT. C.MartellJ. D.BoassaD.ShechnerD.EllismanM. H.et al (2019). Directed evolution of split APEX2 peroxidase.ACS Chem. Biol.14619–635. 10.1021/acschembio.8b00919
62
HanZ.ZhangB.WangY. E.ZuoY. Y.SuW. W. (2012). Self-assembled amyloid-like oligomeric-cohesin Scaffoldin for augmented protein display on the saccharomyces cerevisiae cell surface.Appl. Environ. Microbiol.783249–3255. 10.1128/aem.07745-11
63
HarmansaS.AlborelliI.BieliD.CaussinusE.AffolterM. (2017). A nanobody-based toolset to investigate the role of protein localization and dispersal in Drosophila.eLife6:e22549.
64
HarmansaS.HamaratogluF.AffolterM.CaussinusE. (2015). Dpp spreading is required for medial but not for lateral wing disc growth.Nature527317–322. 10.1038/nature15712
65
HarmsenM. M.De HaardH. J. (2007). Properties, production, and applications of camelid single-domain antibody fragments.Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol.7713–22. 10.1007/s00253-007-1142-2
66
HarperC. B.PapadopulosA.MartinS.MatthewsD. R.MorganG. P.NguyenT. H.et al (2016). Botulinum neurotoxin type-A enters a non-recycling pool of synaptic vesicles.Sci.Rep.6:19654.
67
HebbrechtT.LiuJ.ZwaenepoelO.BoddinG.Van LeeneC.DecoeneK.et al (2020). Nanobody click chemistry for convenient site-specific fluorescent labelling, single step immunocytochemistry and delivery into living cells by photoporation and live cell imaging.N. Biotechnol.5933–43. 10.1016/j.nbt.2020.05.004
68
HebbrechtT.Van AudenhoveI.ZwaenepoelO.VerhelleA.GettemansJ. V. C. A. (2017). nanobodies target N-WASp to reduce invadopodium formation and functioning.PLoS One12:e0185076. 10.1371/journal.pone.0185076
69
HelmaJ.CardosoM. C.MuyldermansS.LeonhardtH. (2015). Nanobodies and recombinant binders in cell biology.J. Cell Biol.209633–644. 10.1083/jcb.201409074
70
HelmaJ.SchmidthalsK.LuxV.NuskeS.ScholzA. M.KrausslichH. G.et al (2012). Direct and dynamic detection of HIV-1 in living cells.PLoS One7:e50026. 10.1371/journal.pone.0050026
71
HerceH. D.DengW.HelmaJ.LeonhardtH.CardosoM. C. (2013). Visualization and targeted disruption of protein interactions in living cells.Nat.Commun.4:2660.
72
HerceH. D.SchumacherD.SchneiderA. F. L.LudwigA. K.MannF. A.FilliesM.et al (2017). Cell-permeable nanobodies for targeted immunolabelling and antigen manipulation in living cells.Nat. Chem.9762–771. 10.1038/nchem.2811
73
HuC. D.KerppolaT. K. (2003). Simultaneous visualization of multiple protein interactions in living cells using multicolor fluorescence complementation analysis.Nat. Biotechnol.21539–545. 10.1038/nbt816
74
HuangY.NokhrinS.Hassanzadeh-GhassabehG.YuC. H.YangH.BarryA. N.et al (2014). Interactions between metal-binding domains modulate intracellular targeting of Cu(I)-ATPase ATP7B, as revealed by nanobody binding.J. Biol. Chem.28932682–32693. 10.1074/jbc.m114.580845
75
IqbalU.AlbaghdadiH.LuoY.ArbabiM.DesvauxC.VeresT.et al (2010a). Molecular imaging of glioblastoma multiforme using anti-insulin-like growth factor-binding protein-7 single-domain antibodies.Br. J. Cancer1031606–1616. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605937
76
IqbalU.TrojahnU.AlbaghdadiH.ZhangJ.O’Connor-McCourtM.StanimirovicD.et al (2010b). Kinetic analysis of novel mono- and multivalent VHH-fragments and their application for molecular imaging of brain tumours.Br. J. Pharmacol.1601016–1028. 10.1111/j.1476-5381.2010.00742.x
77
IrannejadR.TomshineJ. C.TomshineJ. R.ChevalierM.MahoneyJ. P.SteyaertJ.et al (2013). Conformational biosensors reveal GPCR signalling from endosomes.Nature495534–538. 10.1038/nature12000
78
JacobsonK.RajfurZ.VitriolE.HahnK. (2008). Chromophore-assisted laser inactivation in cell biology.Trends Cell Biol.18443–450. 10.1016/j.tcb.2008.07.001
79
JoensuuM.PadmanabhanP.DurisicN.BademosiA. T.Cooper-WilliamsE.MorrowI. C.et al (2016). Subdiffractional tracking of internalized molecules reveals heterogeneous motion states of synaptic vesicles.J. Cell Biol.215277–292. 10.1083/jcb.201604001
80
JoshiB. S.de BeerM. A.GiepmansB. N. G.ZuhornI. S. (2020). Endocytosis of extracellular vesicles and release of their cargo from endosomes.ACS Nano.14, 4444–4455. 10.1021/acsnano.9b10033
81
JullienD.VignardJ.FedorY.BéryN.OlichonA.CrozatierM.et al (2016). Chromatibody, a novel non-invasive molecular tool to explore and manipulate chromatin in living cells.J. Cell Sci.1292673–2683. 10.1242/jcs.183103
82
KamiyamaD.McGortyR.KamiyamaR.KimM. D.ChibaA.HuangB. (2015). Specification of dendritogenesis site in Drosophila aCC motoneuron by membrane enrichment of Pak1 through Dscam1.Dev. Cell3593–106. 10.1016/j.devcel.2015.09.007
83
KaplanC.EwersH. (2015). Optimized sample preparation for single-molecule localization-based superresolution microscopy in yeast.Nat. Protoc.101007–1021. 10.1038/nprot.2015.060
84
KargesJ.JakubaszekM.MariC.ZarschlerK.GoudB.StephanH.et al (2019). Synthesis and characterization of an epidermal growth factor receptor-selective Ru(II) Polypyridyl-nanobody conjugate as a photosensitizer for photodynamic therapy.Chembiochem4531–542. 10.1002/cbic.201900419
85
KatohY.NozakiS.HartantoD.MiyanoR.NakayamaK. (2015). Architectures of multisubunit complexes revealed by a visible immunoprecipitation assay using fluorescent fusion proteins.J. Cell Sci.1282351–2362. 10.1242/jcs.168740
86
KatrukhaE. A.MikhaylovaM.Van BrakelH. X.Van Bergen En HenegouwenP. M.AkhmanovaA.HoogenraadC. C.et al (2017). Probing cytoskeletal modulation of passive and active intracellular dynamics using nanobody-functionalized quantum dots.Nat. Commun.8:14772.
87
KawanoF.SuzukiH.FuruyaA.SatoM. (2015). Engineered pairs of distinct photoswitches for optogenetic control of cellular proteins.Nat. Commun.6:6256.
88
KepplerA.GendreizigS.GronemeyerT.PickH.VogelH.JohnssonK. A. (2003). general method for the covalent labeling of fusion proteins with small molecules in vivo.Nat. Biotechnol.2186–89. 10.1038/nbt765
89
KijankaM.Van DonselaarE. G.MullerW. H.DorresteijnB.Popov-CeleketicD.El KhattabiM.et al (2017). A novel immuno-gold labeling protocol for nanobody-based detection of HER2 in breast cancer cells using immuno-electron microscopy.J. Struct. Biol.1991–11. 10.1016/j.jsb.2017.05.008
90
KijankaM.WarndersF. J.El KhattabiM.Lub-de HoogeM.Van DamG. M.NtziachristosV.et al (2013). Rapid optical imaging of human breast tumour xenografts using anti-HER2 VHHs site-directly conjugated to IRDye 800CW for image-guided surgery.Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging401718–1729. 10.1007/s00259-013-2471-2
91
KirchhoferA.HelmaJ.SchmidthalsK.FrauerC.CuiS.KarcherA.et al (2010). Modulation of protein properties in living cells using nanobodies.Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol.17133–138. 10.1038/nsmb.1727
92
KlameckaK.SeverinP. M.MillesL. F.GaubH. E.LeonhardtH. (2015). Energy profile of nanobody-GFP complex under force.Phys. Biol.12:056009. 10.1088/1478-3975/12/5/056009
93
KleinA.HankS.RaulfA.JoestE. F.TissenF.HeilemannM.et al (2018). Live-cell labeling of endogenous proteins with nanometer precision by transduced nanobodies.Chem. Sci.97835–7842. 10.1039/c8sc02910e
94
KooijmansS. A. A.AlezaC. G.RofflerS. R.Van SolingeW. W.VaderP.SchiffelersR. M. (2016). Display of GPI-anchored anti-EGFR nanobodies on extracellular vesicles promotes tumour cell targeting.J. Extracell. Vesicles5:31053. 10.3402/jev.v5.31053
95
KrüwelT.NevoltrisD.BodeJ.DullinC.BatyD.ChamesP.et al (2016). In vivo detection of small tumour lesions by multi-pinhole SPECT applying a (99m)Tc-labelled nanobody targeting the Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor.Sci. Rep.6:21834.
96
KühlbrandtW. (2014). Biochemistry. The resolution revolution.Science3431443–1444.
97
KuipersJ.Van HamT. J.KalicharanR. D.Veenstra-AlgraA.SjollemaK. A.DijkF.et al (2015). FLIPPER, a combinatorial probe for correlated live imaging and electron microscopy, allows identification and quantitative analysis of various cells and organelles.Cell Tissue Res.36061–70. 10.1007/s00441-015-2142-7
98
KünzlF.FrüholzS.FäβlerF.LiB.PimplP. (2016). Receptor-mediated sorting of soluble vacuolar proteins ends at the trans-Golgi network/early endosome.Nat. Plants2:16017.
99
LamS. S.MartellJ. D.KamerK. J.DeerinckT. J.EllismanM. H.MoothaV. K.et al (2015). Directed evolution of APEX2 for electron microscopy and proximity labeling.Nat. Methods1251–54. 10.1038/nmeth.3179
100
LavertyD.DesaiR.UchańskiT.MasiulisS.StecW. J.MalinauskasT.et al (2019). Cryo-EM structure of the human α1β3γ2 GABA(A) receptor in a lipid bilayer.Nature565516–520.
101
LiT.BourgeoisJ.CelliS.GlacialF.Le SourdA.MecheriS.et al (2012). Cell-penetrating anti-GFAP VHH and corresponding fluorescent fusion protein VHH-GFP spontaneously cross the blood-brain barrier and specifically recognize astrocytes: application to brain imaging.FASEB J.263969–3979. 10.1096/fj.11-201384
102
LiT.VandesquilleM.KoukouliF.DudeffantC.YoussefI.LenormandP.et al (2016). Camelid single-domain antibodies: a versatile tool for in vivo imaging of extracellular and intracellular brain targets.J. Control Release.2431–10. 10.1016/j.jconrel.2016.09.019
103
Lutje HulsikD.LiuY.StrokappeN. M.BattellaS.El KhattabiM.McCoyL. E.et al (2013). A gp41 MPER-specific llama VHH requires a hydrophobic CDR3 for neutralization but not for antigen recognition.PLoS Pathog.9:e1003202. 10.1371/journal.ppat.1003202
104
MaJ.KelichJ. M.JunodS. L.YangW. (2017). Super-resolution mapping of scaffold nucleoporins in the nuclear pore complex.J. Cell Sci.1301299–1306. 10.1242/jcs.193912
105
MaidornM.OlichonA.RizzoliS. O.OpazoF. (2019). Nanobodies reveal an extra-synaptic population of SNAP-25 and Syntaxin 1A in hippocampal neurons.MAbs11305–321. 10.1080/19420862.2018.1551675
106
MaierJ.TraenkleB.RothbauerU. (2015). Real-time analysis of epithelial-mesenchymal transition using fluorescent single-domain antibodies.Sci. Rep.5:13402.
107
MaierJ.TraenkleB.RothbauerU. (2016). Visualizing epithelial-mesenchymal transition using the chromobody technology.Cancer Res.765592–5596. 10.1158/0008-5472.can-15-3419
108
MaiuriT.MocleA. J.HungC. L.XiaJ.Van Roon-MomW. M.TruantR. (2017). Huntingtin is a scaffolding protein in the ATM oxidative DNA damage response complex.Hum. Mol. Genet.26395–406.
109
MannF. A.LvZ.GroβhansJ.OpazoF.KrussS. (2019). Nanobody-conjugated nanotubes for targeted near-infrared in vivo imaging and sensing.Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl.5811469–11473. 10.1002/anie.201904167
110
MartellJ. D.YamagataM.DeerinckT. J.PhanS.KwaC. G.EllismanM. H.et al (2016). A split horseradish peroxidase for the detection of intercellular protein-protein interactions and sensitive visualization of synapses.Nat. Biotechnol.34774–780. 10.1038/nbt.3563
111
Martinez-JotharL.BeztsinnaN.Van NostrumC. F.HenninkW. E.OliveiraS. (2019). Selective cytotoxicity to HER2 positive breast cancer cells by saporin-loaded nanobody-targeted polymeric nanoparticles in combination with photochemical internalization.Mol. Pharm.161633–1647. 10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.8b01318
112
MasiulisS.DesaiR.UchańskiT.Serna MartinI.LavertyD.KariaD.et al (2019). GABA(A) receptor signalling mechanisms revealed by structural pharmacology.Nature565454–459. 10.1038/s41586-018-0832-5
113
MazzegaE.BeranA.CabriniM.De MarcoA. (2019). In vitro isolation of nanobodies for selective Alexandrium minutum recognition: a model for convenient development of dedicated immuno-reagents to study and diagnostic toxic unicellular algae.Harmful Algae8244–51. 10.1016/j.hal.2019.01.002
114
McMahonC.BaierA. S.PascoluttiR.WegreckiM.ZhengS.OngJ. X.et al (2018). Yeast surface display platform for rapid discovery of conformationally selective nanobodies.Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol.25289–296. 10.1038/s41594-018-0028-6
115
MikhaylovaM.CloinB. M.FinanK.Van Den BergR.TeeuwJ.KijankaM. M.et al (2015). Resolving bundled microtubules using anti-tubulin nanobodies.Nat. Commun.6:7933.
116
MonegalA.AmiD.MartinelliC.HuangH.AliprandiM.CapassoP.et al (2009). Immunological applications of single-domain llama recombinant antibodies isolated from a naïve library.Protein. Eng. Des. Sel.22273–280. 10.1093/protein/gzp002
117
MootzH. D.JedlitzkeB.YilmazZ.DornerW. (2019). Photobodies: light-activatable single-domain antibody fragments.Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl.591506–1510. 10.1002/anie.201912286
118
MoutelS.BeryN.BernardV.KellerL.LemesreE.De MarcoA.et al (2016). NaLi-H1: A universal synthetic library of humanized nanobodies providing highly functional antibodies and intrabodies.Elife5:e16228.
119
MuyldermansS. (2013). Nanobodies: natural single-domain antibodies.Annu. Rev. Biochem.82775–797. 10.1146/annurev-biochem-063011-092449
120
MuyldermansS.CambillauC.WynsL. (2001). Recognition of antigens by single-domain antibody fragments: the superfluous luxury of paired domains.Trends Biochem. Sci.26230–235. 10.1016/s0968-0004(01)01790-x
121
NieuwenhuizenR. P. J.BatesM.SzymborskaA.LidkeK. A.RiegerB.StallingaS. (2015). Quantitative localization microscopy: effects of photophysics and labeling stoichiometry.PLoS One10:e0127989. 10.1371/journal.pone.0127989
122
ObaM.TanakaM. (2012). Intracellular internalization mechanism of protein transfection reagents.Biol. Pharm. Bull.351064–1068. 10.1248/bpb.b12-00001
123
ObishakinE.StijlemansB.Santi-RoccaJ.VandenbergheI.DevreeseB.MuldermansS.et al (2014). Generation of a nanobody targeting the paraflagellar rod protein of trypanosomes.PLoS One9:e115893. 10.1371/journal.pone.0115893
124
OlichonA.SurreyT. (2007). Selection of genetically encoded fluorescent single domain antibodies engineered for efficient expression in Escherichia coli.J. Biol. Chem.28236314–36320. 10.1074/jbc.m704908200
125
OliveiraS.Van DongenG. A.Stigter-Van WalsumM.RooversR. C.StamJ. C.MaliW.et al (2012). Rapid visualization of human tumor xenografts through optical imaging with a near-infrared fluorescent anti-epidermal growth factor receptor nanobody.Mol. Imaging1133–46.
126
OsswaldM.SantosA. F.Morais-de-SáE. (2019). Light-induced protein clustering for optogenetic interference and protein interaction analysis in Drosophila S2 cells.Biomolecules9:61. 10.3390/biom9020061
127
PaniA. M.GoldsteinB. (2018). Direct visualization of a native Wnt in vivo reveals that a long-range Wnt gradient forms by extracellular dispersal.eLife7:e38325.
128
PanzaP.MaierJ.SchmeesC.RothbauerU.SollnerC. (2015). Live imaging of endogenous protein dynamics in zebrafish using chromobodies.Development1421879–1884. 10.1242/dev.118943
129
PellisM.PardonE.ZolghadrK.RothbauerU.VinckeC.KinneJ.et al (2012). A bacterial-two-hybrid selection system for one-step isolation of intracellularly functional Nanobodies.Arch Biochem. Biophys.526114–123. 10.1016/j.abb.2012.04.023
130
PerizJ.WhitelawJ.HardingC.GrasS.Del Rosario MininaM. I.Latorre-BarraganF.et al (2017). Toxoplasma gondii F-actin forms an extensive filamentous network required for material exchange and parasite maturation.Elife6:e24119.
131
PizzoM. E.WolakD. J.KumarN. N.BrunetteE.BrunnquellC. L.HannocksM.et al (2018). Intrathecal antibody distribution in the rat brain: surface diffusion, perivascular transport and osmotic enhancement of delivery.J. Physiol. (Lond.)596445–475. 10.1113/jp275105
132
PlatonovaE.WinterfloodC. M.EwersH. (2015a). A simple method for GFP- and RFP-based dual color single-molecule localization microscopy.ACS Chem. Biol.101411–1416. 10.1021/acschembio.5b00046
133
PlatonovaE.WinterfloodC. M.JunemannA.AlbrechtD.FaixJ.EwersH. (2015b). Single-molecule microscopy of molecules tagged with GFP or RFP derivatives in mammalian cells using nanobody binders.Methods8889–97. 10.1016/j.ymeth.2015.06.018
134
PleinerT.BatesM.GorlichD. (2018). A toolbox of anti-mouse and anti-rabbit IgG secondary nanobodies.J. Cell Biol.2171143–1154. 10.1083/jcb.201709115
135
PleinerT.BatesM.TrakhanovS.LeeC.SchliepJ. E.ChugH.et al (2015). Nanobodies: site-specific labeling for super-resolution imaging, rapid epitope-mapping and native protein complex isolation.eLife4:e11349.
136
PlessnerM.MelakM.ChinchillaP.BaarlinkC.GrosseR. (2015). Nuclear F-actin formation and reorganization upon cell spreading.J. Biol. Chem.29011209–11216. 10.1074/jbc.m114.627166
137
PopovicM.MazzegaE.ToffolettoB.De MarcoA. (2018). Isolation of anti-extra-cellular vesicle single-domain antibodies by direct panning on vesicle-enriched fractions.Microb. Cell Fact.17:6.
138
ProleD. L.TaylorC. W. (2019). A genetically encoded toolkit of functionalized nanobodies against fluorescent proteins for visualizing and manipulating intracellular signalling.BMC Biol.17:41.
139
RajanM.MortusewiczO.RothbauerU.HastertF. D.SchmidthalsK.RappA.et al (2015). Generation of an alpaca-derived nanobody recognizing γ-H2AX.FEBS Open Bio.5779–788. 10.1016/j.fob.2015.09.005
140
RakovichT. Y.MahfoudO. K.MohamedB. M.Prina-MelloA.Crosbie-StauntonK.Van Den BroeckT.et al (2014). Highly sensitive single domain antibody-quantum dot conjugates for detection of HER2 biomarker in lung and breast cancer cells.ACS Nano85682–5695. 10.1021/nn500212h
141
Ramos-GomesF.BodeJ.SukhanovaA.BozrovaS. V.SaccomanoM.MitkovskiM.et al (2018). Single- and two-photon imaging of human micrometastases and disseminated tumour cells with conjugates of nanobodies and quantum dots.Sci. Rep.8:4595.
142
RashidianM.KeliherE. J.BilateA. M.DuarteJ. N.WojtkiewiczG. R.JacobsenJ. T.et al (2015). Noninvasive imaging of immune responses.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.1126146–6151.
143
RiaziA.StrongP. C. R.ColemanR.ChenW.HiramaT.Van FaassenH.et al (2013). Pentavalent single-domain antibodies reduce Campylobacter jejuni motility and colonization in chickens.PLoS One8:e83928. 10.1371/journal.pone.0083928
144
RiesJ.KaplanC.PlatonovaE.EghlidiH.EwersH. A. (2012). simple, versatile method for GFP-based super-resolution microscopy via nanobodies.Nat. Methods9582–584. 10.1038/nmeth.1991
145
RocchettiA.HawesC.KriechbaumerV. (2014). Fluorescent labelling of the actin cytoskeleton in plants using a cameloid antibody.Plant Methods10:12. 10.1186/1746-4811-10-12
146
RoderR.HelmaJ.PreissT.RadlerJ. O.LeonhardtH.WagnerE. (2017). Intracellular delivery of nanobodies for imaging of target proteins in live cells.Pharm Res.34161–174. 10.1007/s11095-016-2052-8
147
RodriguezE. A.CampbellR. E.LinJ. Y.LinM. Z.MiyawakiA.PalmerA. E.et al (2017). The growing and glowing toolbox of fluorescent and photoactive proteins.Trends Biochem. Sci.42111–129. 10.1016/j.tibs.2016.09.010
148
RoebroekT.DuwéS.VandenbergW.DedeckerP. (2015). Reduced fluorescent protein switching fatigue by binding-induced emissive state stabilization.Int. J. Mol. Sci.2017:5869.
149
RothbauerU.ZolghadrK.MuyldermansS.SchepersA.CardosoM. C.LeonhardtH. (2008). A versatile nanotrap for biochemical and functional studies with fluorescent fusion proteins.Mol. Cell. Proteomics7282–289. 10.1074/mcp.m700342-mcp200
150
RothbauerU.ZolghadrK.TillibS.NowakD.SchermellehL.GahlA.et al (2006). Targeting and tracing antigens in live cells with fluorescent nanobodies.Nat. Methods3887–889. 10.1038/nmeth953
151
SchermellehL.FerrandA.HuserT.EggelingC.SauerM.BiehlmaierO.et al (2019). Super-resolution microscopy demystified.Nat. Cell Biol.2172–84. 10.1038/s41556-018-0251-8
152
SchmidthalsK.HelmaJ.ZolghadrK.RothbauerU.LeonhardtH. (2010). Novel antibody derivatives for proteome and high-content analysis.Anal. Bioanal. Chem.3973203–3208. 10.1007/s00216-010-3657-0
153
SchnellU.DijkF.SjollemaK. A.GiepmansB. N. (2012). Immunolabeling artifacts and the need for live-cell imaging.Nat. Methods9152–158. 10.1038/nmeth.1855
154
SchornackS.FuchsR.HuitemaE.RothbauerU.LipkaV.KamounS. (2009). Protein mislocalization in plant cells using a GFP-binding chromobody.Plant J.60744–754. 10.1111/j.1365-313x.2009.03982.x
155
SchorppK.RothenaignerI.MaierJ.TraenkleB.RothbauerU.HadianK. (2016). A multiplexed high-content screening approach using the chromobody technology to identify cell cycle modulators in living cells.J. Biomol. Screen21965–977. 10.1177/1087057116641935
156
SeitzK. J.RizzoliS. O. (2019). GFP nanobodies reveal recently-exocytosed pHluorin molecules.Sci. Rep.9:7773.
157
SherwoodL. J.HayhurstA. (2019). Periplasmic nanobody-APEX2 fusions enable facile visualization of ebola, marburg, and mănglà virus nucleoproteins, alluding to similar antigenic landscapes among marburgvirus and dianlovirus.Viruses11:364. 10.3390/v11040364
158
ShiJ.MaY.ZhuJ.ChenY.SunY.YaoY.et al (2018). A review on electroporation-based intracellular delivery.Molecules23:3044. 10.3390/molecules23113044
159
ShinY. J.ParkS. K.JungY. J.KimY. N.KimK. S.ParkO. K.et al (2015). Nanobody-targeted E3-ubiquitin ligase complex degrades nuclear proteins.Sci. Rep.5:14269.
160
Sograte-IdrissiS.OleksiievetsN.IsbanerS.Eggert-MartinezM.EnderleinJ.TsukanovR.et al (2019). Nanobody detection of standard fluorescent proteins enables multi-target DNA-PAINT with high resolution and minimal displacement errors.Cells8:48. 10.3390/cells8010048
161
SouthwellA. L.KhoshnanA.DunnD. E.BuggC. W.LoD. C.PattersonP. H. (2008). Intrabodies binding the proline-rich domains of mutant huntingtin increase its turnover and reduce neurotoxicity.J. Neurosci.289013–9020. 10.1523/jneurosci.2747-08.2008
162
StewartM. P.LorenzA.DahlmanJ.SahayG. (2016). Challenges in carrier-mediated intracellular delivery: moving beyond endosomal barriers.Wiley Interdiscip Rev. Nanomed. Nanobiotechnol.8465–478. 10.1002/wnan.1377
163
StijlemansB.ConrathK.Cortez-RetamozoV.Van XongH.WynsL.SenterP.et al (2004). Efficient targeting of conserved cryptic epitopes of infectious agents by single domain antibodies. African trypanosomes as paradigm.J. Biol. Chem.2791256–1261. 10.1074/jbc.m307341200
164
SungkawornT.JobinM.BurneckiK.WeronA.LohseM. J.CalebiroD. (2017). Single-molecule imaging reveals receptor-G protein interactions at cell surface hot spots.Nature550543–547. 10.1038/nature24264
165
SzymborskaA.De MarcoA.DaigleN.CordesV. C.BriggsJ. A. G.EllenbergJ. (2013). Nuclear pore scaffold structure analyzed by super-resolution microscopy and particle averaging.Science341655–658. 10.1126/science.1240672
166
TanenbaumM. E.GilbertL. A.QiL. S.WeissmanJ. S.ValeR. D. A. (2014). protein-tagging system for signal amplification in gene expression and fluorescence imaging.Cell159635–646. 10.1016/j.cell.2014.09.039
167
TangA.ChenH.LiT. P.MetzbowerS. R.MacGillavryH. D.BlanpiedT. A. (2016a). A trans-synaptic nanocolumn aligns neurotransmitter release to receptors.Nature536210–214. 10.1038/nature19058
168
TangJ. C.DrokhlyanskyE.EtemadB.RudolphS.GuoB.WangS.et al (2016b). Detection and manipulation of live antigen-expressing cells using conditionally stable nanobodies.Elife5:e15312.
169
TemmeS.BaranP.BouvainP.GrapentinC.KrämerW.KnebelB.et al (2018). Synthetic cargo internalization receptor system for nanoparticle tracking of individual cell populations by fluorine magnetic resonance imaging.ACS Nano1211178–11192. 10.1021/acsnano.8b05698
170
TengK. W.IshitsukaY.RenP.YounY.DengX.GeP.et al (2016). Labeling proteins inside living cells using external fluorophores for microscopy.Elife5:e20378.
171
TomanekB.IqbalU.BlasiakB.AbulrobA.AlbaghdadiH.MatyasJ. R.et al (2012). Evaluation of brain tumor vessels specific contrast agents for glioblastoma imaging.Neuro Oncol.1453–63. 10.1093/neuonc/nor183
172
TosettiN.Dos Santos PachecoN.Soldati-FavreD.JacotD. (2019). Three F-actin assembly centers regulate organelle inheritance, cell-cell communication and motility in Toxoplasma gondii.Elife8:e42669.
173
TraenkleB.EmeleF.AntonR.PoetzO.HaeusslerR. S.MaierJ.et al (2015). Monitoring interactions and dynamics of endogenous beta-catenin with intracellular nanobodies in living cells.Mol. Cell Proteomics14707–723. 10.1074/mcp.m114.044016
174
TraenkleB.RothbauerU. (2017). Under the microscope: single-domain antibodies for live-cell imaging and super-resolution microscopy.Front. Immunol.8:1030.
175
TraenkleB.SeganS.FagbadeboF. O.KaiserP. D.RothbauerU. (2020). A novel epitope tagging system to visualize and monitor antigens in live cells with chromobodies.Sci. Rep.10:14267.
176
TraubL. M. (2019). A nanobody-based molecular toolkit provides new mechanistic insight into clathrin-coat initiation.Elife8:e41768.
177
TruanZ.Tarancón DíezL.BönschC.MalkuschS.EndesfelderU.MunteanuM.et al (2013). Quantitative morphological analysis of arrestin2 clustering upon G protein-coupled receptor stimulation by super-resolution microscopy.J. Struct. Biol.184329–334. 10.1016/j.jsb.2013.09.019
178
TsienR. Y. (1998). The green fluorescent protein.Annu. Rev. Biochem.67509–544.
179
UchańskiT.PardonE.SteyaertJ. (2020). Nanobodies to study protein conformational states.Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol.60117–123. 10.1016/j.sbi.2020.01.003
180
Van AudenhoveI.BoucherieC.PietersL.ZwaenepoelO.VanlooB.MartensE.et al (2014). Stratifying fascin and cortactin function in invadopodium formation using inhibitory nanobodies and targeted subcellular delocalization.FASEB J.281805–1818. 10.1096/fj.13-242537
181
Van AudenhoveI.DebeufN.BoucherieC.GettemansJ. (2015). Fascin actin bundling controls podosome turnover and disassembly while cortactin is involved in podosome assembly by its SH3 domain in THP-1 macrophages and dendritic cells.Biochim. Biophys. Acta1853940–952. 10.1016/j.bbamcr.2015.01.003
182
Van AudenhoveI.GettemansJ. (2016). Nanobodies as versatile tools to understand, diagnose, visualize and treat cancer.EBioMedicine640–48. 10.1016/j.ebiom.2016.04.028
183
Van AudenhoveI.Van ImpeK.Ruano-GallegoD.De ClercqS.De MuynckK.VanlooB.et al (2013). Mapping cytoskeletal protein function in cells by means of nanobodies.Cytoskeleton (Hoboken).70604–622. 10.1002/cm.21122
184
Van De WaterJ. A. J. M.Bagci-OnderT.AgarwalA. S.WakimotoH.RooversR. C.ZhuY.et al (2012). Therapeutic stem cells expressing variants of EGFR-specific nanobodies have antitumor effects.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.10916642–16647. 10.1073/pnas.1202832109
185
Van Den AbbeeleA.De ClercqS.De GanckA.De CorteV.Van LooB.SororS. H.et al (2010). A llama-derived gelsolin single-domain antibody blocks gelsolin-G-actin interaction.Cell Mol. Life Sci.671519–1535. 10.1007/s00018-010-0266-1
186
Van DrielP. B. A. A.BoonstraM. C.SlooterM. D.HeukersR.StammesM. A.SnoeksT. J. A.et al (2016). EGFR targeted nanobody-photosensitizer conjugates for photodynamic therapy in a pre-clinical model of head and neck cancer.J. Control Release22993–105. 10.1016/j.jconrel.2016.03.014
187
Van ImpeK.HubertT.De CorteV.VanlooB.BoucherieC.VandekerckhoveJ.et al (2008). A new role for nuclear transport factor 2 and Ran: nuclear import of CapG.Traffic9695–707. 10.1111/j.1600-0854.2008.00720.x
188
VirantD.TraenkleB.MaierJ.KaiserP. D.BodenhoferM.SchmeesC.et al (2018). A peptide tag-specific nanobody enables high-quality labeling for dSTORM imaging.Nat. Commun.9:930.
189
WangY.CaiE.RosenkranzT.GeP.TengK. W.LimS. J.et al (2014). Small quantum dots conjugated to nanobodies as immunofluorescence probes for nanometric microscopy.Bioconjug Chem.252205–2211. 10.1021/bc5004179
190
WedekingT.LöchteS.RichterC. P.BhagawatiM.PiehlerJ.YouC. (2015). Single cell GFP-trap reveals stoichiometry and dynamics of cytosolic protein complexes.Nano Lett.153610–3615. 10.1021/acs.nanolett.5b01153
191
WegnerW.IlgenP.GregorC.Van DortJ.MottA. C.SteffensH.et al (2017). In vivo mouse and live cell STED microscopy of neuronal actin plasticity using far-red emitting fluorescent proteins.Sci. Rep.7:11781.
192
WendelS.FischerE. C.MartínezV.SeppäläS.NørholmM. H. H. (2016). A nanobody:GFP bacterial platform that enables functional enzyme display and easy quantification of display capacity.Microb. Cell Fact.15:71.
193
WolfK.FriedlP. (2009). Mapping proteolytic cancer cell-extracellular matrix interfaces.Clin. Exp. Metastasis26289–298. 10.1007/s10585-008-9190-2
194
WöllS.BachranC.SchillerS.SchröderM.ConradL.SweeL. K.et al (2018). Sortaggable liposomes: evaluation of reaction conditions for single-domain antibody conjugation by Sortase-A and targeting of CD11b(+) myeloid cells.Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm.133138–150. 10.1016/j.ejpb.2018.09.017
195
YuD.LeeH.HongJ.JungH.JoY.OhB. H.et al (2019). Optogenetic activation of intracellular antibodies for direct modulation of endogenous proteins.Nat. Methods161095–1100. 10.1038/s41592-019-0592-7
196
ZarschlerK.PrapainopK.MahonE.RocksL.BraminiM.KellyP. M.et al (2014). Diagnostic nanoparticle targeting of the EGF-receptor in complex biological conditions using single-domain antibodies.Nanoscale66046–6056. 10.1039/c4nr00595c
197
ZhaoY.ArakiS.WuJ.TeramotoT.ChangY.NakanoM.et al (2011). An expanded palette of genetically encoded Ca2+ indicators.Science3331888–1891. 10.1126/science.1208592
198
ZhengF.LuoS.OuyangZ.ZhouJ.MoH.SchoonoogheS.et al (2019). NIRF-molecular imaging with synovial macrophages-targeting vsig4 nanobody for disease monitoring in a mouse model of arthritis.Int. J. Mol. Sci.20:3347. 10.3390/ijms20133347
199
ZouT.DembeleF.BeugnetA.SengmanivongL.TrepoutS.MarcoS.et al (2015). Nanobody-functionalized PEG-b-PCL polymersomes and their targeting study.J. Biotechnol.214147–155. 10.1016/j.jbiotec.2015.09.034
200
ZuoJ.LiJ.ZhangR.XuL.ChenH.JiaX.et al (2017). Institute collection and analysis of Nanobodies (iCAN): a comprehensive database and analysis platform for nanobodies.BMC Genomics18:797.
Summary
Keywords
nanobody, chromobody, fluobody, probes, light microscopy, super-resolution microscopy, electron microscopy, tagging
Citation
de Beer MA and Giepmans BNG (2020) Nanobody-Based Probes for Subcellular Protein Identification and Visualization. Front. Cell. Neurosci. 14:573278. doi: 10.3389/fncel.2020.573278
Received
16 June 2020
Accepted
05 October 2020
Published
02 November 2020
Volume
14 - 2020
Edited by
Shai Berlin, Technion Israel Institute of Technology, Israel
Reviewed by
Serge Muyldermans, Vrije University Brussel, Belgium; Mario Valentino, University of Malta, Malta
Updates
Copyright
© 2020 de Beer and Giepmans.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Ben N. G. Giepmans, b.n.g.giepmans@umcg.nl
†Present address: Marit A. de Beer, Department of Biochemistry, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands
This article was submitted to Non-Neuronal Cells, a section of the journal Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.