轰18上架日期:Yeast Two-Hybrid: State of the Art

Yeast Two-Hybrid: State of theArt
Wim Van Criekinge1* and RudiBeyaert2
1 DEVGEN N.V. Technologiepark 9, 9052 Zwijnaarde-Gent and the2Department of Molecular Biology, Flanders Interuniversity Institutefor Biotechnology and University of Ghent, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium.
* To whom correspondence should be addressed: Devgen N.V.Technologiepark 9, 9052 Zwijnaarde-Gent. Tel: 32-9-264-54-03; Fax:32-9-264-54-18, E-Mail: wim.vancriekinge@devgen.com
Abstract
Genome projects are approaching completion and are saturating sequencedatabases. This paper discusses the role of the two-hybrid system as a generatorof hypotheses. Apart from this rather exhaustive, financially and labour intensiveprocedure, more refined functional studies can be undertaken. Indeed, by makinghybrids of two-hybrid systems, customised approaches can be developed in orderto attack specific function-related problems. For example, one could set-up a"differential" screen by combining a forward and a reverse approach in athree-hybrid set-up. Another very interesting project is the use of peptidelibraries in two-hybrid approaches. This could enable the identification ofpeptides with very high specificity comparable to "real" antibodies. With thetechnology available, the only limitation is imagination.
Protein-proteininteractions
Protein-protein interactions are intrinsic to virtually every cellularprocess ranging from DNA replication, transcription, splicing and translation,to secretion, cell cycle control, intermediary metabolism, formation of cellularmacrostructures and enzymatic complexes. The formation of large cellularstructures such as the cytoskeleton, the nuclear scaffold, and the mitoticspindle result from complex interactions between proteins. Relatively smallerstructures such as nuclear pores, centrosomes and kinetochores are beginning tobe characterized and, in each case, protein-protein interactions seem to play acrucial role.
Apart from the evident structural requirements provided by a plethora ofprotein-protein interactions, there are a large number of transientprotein-protein interactions that control and regulate a large number ofcellular processes. All modifications of proteins involve such transientprotein-protein interactions. Indeed kinases, phosphatases, glycosyltransferases, acyl transferases and proteases interact only transiently, i.e.for a limited period of time, with their protein substrates. Suchprotein-modifying enzymes encompass a large number of fundamental processes suchas cell growth, the cell cycle, metabolic pathways and signal transduction.Surprisingly, very large protein complexes also mediate many of these enzymaticactivities. Transmission of regulatory signals from the external environment torelevant locations in the cell was originally thought to consist of successivecatalytic activities that could amplify a weak signal into a significantcellular response. However, more recent experiments suggest that in many signaltransduction pathways, the catalytic activities involved, such as proteinkinases, may bind strongly to their protein substrates. In addition, structuralproteins required for signal transmission have been suggested to act asscaffolds, bridging several proteins involved at consecutive steps in a signaltransduction pathway (1). Thus, signal transduction pathways might be consideredas large protein structures through which a signal is being transmitted. Astriking example is the formation of the Death-Inducing Signaling Complex (DISC)at the Fas receptor. Only a few seconds after receptor triggering, a highlycomplex mixture of signal transducing molecules is recruited to theintracellular part of the receptor. This newly formed complex is capable oftransmitting multiple specific signals provoking a highly regulated cellularresponse (2).
Alteration of protein-protein interactions is known to contribute to manydiseases. Hence, the manipulation of protein-protein interactions thatcontribute to disease is a potential therapeutic strategy. Summarising,protein-protein interactions make up biological machines that are like intricatethree-dimensional jigsaw puzzles, forming arrays of interlocking proteincomponents that assemble and disassemble over time and in response to complexsignals.
Tools for the study of protein-proteininteractions
The study of protein-protein interactions can be conceptually divided intothree major domains: identification, characterization and manipulation. Ingeneral, assemblies of proteins have been analyzed using two complementaryapproaches: the biochemical and the genetic. In the well-known analogy tounderstanding how car runs, biochemists disassemble the engine, transmission andbody, characterize all the pieces and attempt to rebuild a working vehicle.Geneticists, by contrast, break single components, turn the key and try todetermine what effect the single missing part has on the car’s operation. Thisimplies that genetic methods often require a specific phenotype before they canbe carried out.
Traditionally, the tools available to analyze protein-protein interactions inmulticellular organisms have been restricted to biochemical approaches. However,despite obvious advantages, biochemical approaches can be time-consuming.Biochemical methods that detect proteins that bind to another proteins generallyresult in the appearance of a band on a polyacrylamide gel. These methods aresometimes referred to as physical methods and include protein affinitychromatography, affinity blotting, immunoprecipitation and cross-linking (3).
Protein probing uses a labeled protein as a probe to screen an expressionlibrary in order to identify genes encoding interacting proteins. Since allcombinations of protein-protein interactions are assayed, including those thatmight never occur in vivo, the possibility of identifying artifactualpartners exists and is a typical disadvantage of most exhaustive screeningprocedures. A second drawback derives from the use of a bacterial host, wherenot all posttranslational modifications needed for the interaction might occur.A third disadvantage is that screening rather than selection is used as themeans of detection, which inherently limits the number of plaques that can beassayed. The "Phage Display" method is noteworthy in this matter. Here themethodology is based on the fact that an Escherichia coli filamentousphage can express a fusion protein on its surface.
A major advantage of the described method is the affinity purification stepthrough "panning" cycles, that enables one to enrich every cycle 1000-fold forspecific phages that contain an interacting protein. Disadvantages of phagedisplay include the size limitation of protein sequence for polyvalent displayand the requirement that proteins be secreted form E. coli. Moreover, allphage-encoded proteins are fusion proteins, which may limit the activity oraccessibility for the binding of some proteins (3).
The Two-hybrid System
What is it?
Apart from the above-mentioned methods, a new technology has been developedduring the past decade. This technique, entitled "two-hybrid" or "interactiontrap", enables not only the identification of interacting partners but also thecharacterization of known interaction couples and even embodies thetechnological means to manipulate protein-protein interactions.
The modular properties of GAL4 and other transcription factors in generalfostered this strategy. Indeed many eukaryotic transcription activators have atleast two distinct functional domains, one that directs binding to a promoterDNA sequence and one that activates transcription (4,5). This fact wasillustrated by exchanging DNA binding domains and activation domains from onetranscription factor to the next while retaining its function. It was shown thatthe activation domain of yeast GAL4 could be fused to the DNA-binding domain ofE. coli LexA to create a functional transcription activator in yeast (6).
The "two-hybrid" technique exploits the fact that the DNA-binding domain ofGAL4 is incapable of activating transcription unless physically, but notnecessary covalently associated with an activating domain
Ma and Ptashne (7) demonstrated this principle for the first time. Theyshowed that the GAL80 protein, normally a negative regulatory protein thatinteracts with GAL4, could be converted into a transcriptional activator byfusing it to an activation domain (AD). The activation by this fusion protein,GAL80-AD, was dependent on the presence of a GAL4 derivative bearing the GAL80binding domain (C-terminal 30 amino acids) but lacking its own activation domain(7).
The actual use of those different functional modules of a transcriptionfactor to study protein-protein interactions was first proposed by Fields andSong (8). They demonstrated the "proof-of-concept" by using SNF1 fused to theDNA-binding domain (DB) and SNF4 to an activation domain (AD). Only afterexpression of these two chimeras, and subsequent interaction of SNF1 and SNF4,did they reconstitute a functional transcription factor that is able to inducereporter gene expression. These initial experiments confirmed that atranscriptional read-out could be used as a tool to study interactions betweenproteins not involved in the transcription process.

In general, in any two-hybrid experiment a protein of interest is fused to aDNA-binding domain and transfected in a yeast host cell bearing a reporter genecontrolling this DNA-binding domain. When this fusion protein cannot activatetranscription on its own, it can be used as "bait" or as a "target" to screen alibrary of cDNA clones that are fused to an activation domain. The cDNA cloneswithin the library that encode proteins capable of forming protein-proteininteractions with the bait are identified by virtue of their ability to causeactivation of the reporter gene. So the yeast two-hybrid system is devised toidentify genes encoding proteins that are physically associated with a givenprotein in vivo. Since the emergence of the two-hybrid approach in 1989,a number of improvements have been incorporated that have increased itsapplicability.
Why not use the two-hybrid system?
It should be noted, however, that the two-hybrid system does not provide asolution for all protein-protein problems. For different experimental reasonssome proteins are not suited for this approach. The sceptics about the use ofthe two-hybrid system are furnished with a summary of the extensive list ofdisadvantages and drawbacks in the next paragraphs.
Since the read-out of the two-hybrid system makes use of a transcriptionevent, one of the most crucial initial experiments is to check whether yourfavorite protein (YFP) is able to initiate transcription. If this is the case,it might seriously handicap the successful use of this protein in any two-hybridapproach (see Auto-activation).
An obvious critique concerns the extensive use of chimeras. The use ofartificially made fusion proteins always embodies a potential risk. The fusionmight change the actual conformation of the bait and/or prey and consequentlyalter functionalities. This misconformation might result in a limited activityor in the inaccessibility of binding sites. However, the use of tagged proteinsin general has been very successful in many biotechnological approaches. Thissuccess might rely on the fact that protein domains can fold ratherindependently, enabling the co-existence of different, even artificiallyintroduced, modules in the same protein.
The best control to assay the correct conformation of your favorite proteinis to clone a known positive interactor in the appropriate vector and"two-hybrid-assay" this interaction. This will only work if both proteins arefolded correctly. This kind of experiment is only conclusive for the domainsinvolved in the "positive" interaction, which might differ from the onesinvolved in the new interactions that might be of interest. In summary, thiscategory of drawbacks can be labeled "(mys)steric", related to folding and thethree dimensional structure of the protein assayed. In this respect it isnoteworthy that the reciprocal transfer of proteins, i.e. switching proteinsfrom DNA-binding fusions to activating domain fusions, is not trivial,supporting the fact that (mys)steric constraints on folding are involved. Thisswitching or "swapping" might provide an empirical way to escape the problem.
One of the most ambiguous disadvantages is that the two-hybrid system makesuse of yeast, S. cerevisiae, as a host. This implicates, as mentionedabove, that YFP must be able to fold correctly and exist as a stable proteininside the yeast cells. The use of yeast can also be seen as an advantage, sinceyeast is closer to higher eukaryotics than in vitro experiments or thosesystems based on bacterial hosts.
A major disadvantage of assaying protein-protein interaction in anyheterologous system is that some interactions depend upon posttranslationalmodifications that do not, or inappropriately, occur in yeast. Suchmodifications are frequent and include the formation of disulfide bridges,glycosylation and most commonly phosphorylation. Some new two-hybrid systems,however, try to circumvent this inconvenience by co-expressing the enzymeresponsible for the posttranslational modification.
Since the two-hybrid system needs the fusion proteins to be targeted to theyeast nucleus, it might be a disadvantage for extracellular proteins or proteinsthat contain strong(er) targeting signals.
When screening libraries, a good representation is crucial. In classicaltwo-hybrid library preparations only one out of six fused cDNAs is in thecorrect frame, pushing the total number of independent clones to be screened toover a million, at the border of practical feasibility. Making directionallibraries of a relevant tissue or cell type might be a solution. Anothersolution might be to go for less complex organisms like C. elegans.
Screening of libraries selects for optimized interactions. Many isolates maynot represent full-length cDNA. Indeed, it has been shown that subdomains mayinteract better than full-length clones, probably reflecting domain functionduring folding of the protein. The best way to encompass this problem isprobably to clone only full-length cDNAs in the correct open reading frame.Although extremely labor intensive, this approach was taken to establish thecomplete yeast protein linkage map (see Whole genome approaches using thetwo-hybrid system).
Since only reporter gene activity is measured, it is impossible to excludethe possibility that a third protein Z is bridging the two interacting partners.Although this possibility is rather unlikely and might even be considered as"specific," it holds for many of the conventional biochemical techniques.
Some proteins might become toxic upon expression in yeast. A number ofproteins, such as cyclins or homeobox gene products are indeed toxic whenexpressed and targeted into the yeast nucleus. Such genes might becounterselected during growth and result in problems. The use of an induciblepromoter might circumvent the problem. Other proteins might proteolyse essentialyeast proteins or proteins essential for the system like the DNA binding domainor the activation domain.
Since all combinations of protein-protein interactions are assayed, thepossibility of identifying artifactual partners exists and is a typicaldisadvantage of all exhaustive screening procedures. Due to the so-calledtime/space constraints it is potentially possible that both proteins, althoughable to interact, are never in close proximity to each other within the cell.The two proteins could be expressed in different cell types, or even when foundin the same cell they could be localized in distinct subcellular compartments.Moreover, interacting proteins can be expressed at different points duringembryogenesis or during homeostasis (e.g. at different time points in the cellcycle). So once two interacting partners are identified, the biologicalrelevance of this interaction remains to be determined.
Why use the two-hybridsystem?
Apart from the above-mentioned drawbacks, the two-hybrid system has someclear advantages over classical biochemical and genetic approaches. First of allit embodies an in vivo technique using the yeast host cell as a live testtube. This yeast system brings the higher eukaryotic reality closer than mostin vitro approaches or techniques based on bacterial expression.Appealing features of this system are the minimal requirements to initiate ascreening. Only the cDNA, full-length or even partial of the gene of interest isneeded, in contrast to sometimes-high quantities of purified proteins or goodquality antibodies needed in classical biochemical approaches.
Weak and transient interactions, often the most interesting in signalingcascades, are more readily detected in two-hybrid since the genetic reportergene strategy results in a significant amplification. It is useful to keep inmind that there is a trade-off between the identification of weak interactionsand the number of false positives encountered when performing a screeningprocedure. Apart from the ability to screen libraries, the two-hybrid systemalso allows for the analysis of known interactions. This can be achieved bypinpointing crucial residues for interaction or by a functional characterizationof the entire subdomain. By doing semi-quantitative experiments one can eveninterpret affinities from two-hybrid experiments. It was demonstrated that thestrength of interaction as predicted by the two-hybrid approach generallycorrelates with that determined in vitro, permitting discrimination ofhigh-, intermediate- and low-affinity interactions (34). In addition, bindingaffinities of peptides to retinoblastoma (Rb), as determined by surface plasmonresonance, correlated with results from the two-hybrid assay.
The two-hybrid system was predicted to be limited to the analysis ofcytoplasmic proteins. Indeed extracellular proteins or protein domains are oftenN-glycosylated and contain disulfide bonds, both of which are not expected tooccur in the yeast nucleus (9). However, several successes were reported withtransmembrane receptors. Appropriate extracellular receptor-ligand interactionswere demonstrated for the growth hormone,prolactin and growth hormone releasingreceptors (10,11). Thus, receptors with whole extracellular critical ligandbinding determinants can sometimes be evaluated by the two-hybrid system. But,it may be inappropriate for receptors with determinants in transmembrane domainsthat form intramembraneous ligand binding pockets (11).
One of the most appealing features of the yeast two-hybrid system is that theidentification of an interacting protein implies that at the same time thecorresponding gene is cloned. Two-hybrid screens are sometimes referred to asfunctional screens, since interacting proteins might give a functional hint ifat least one of the partners has a known functional commitment in a wellunderstood signaling pathway. Trying to attribute function to an unknown targetis often more difficult. Here, the identified partners need to be known or theproblem will propagate. Although the outcome of a screening often results inmany new hypotheses, they still need to be validated by other techniques. As aconclusion, there is enough reason to remain sceptic about two-hybrid screeningsbut the most convincing argument in favor of the two-hybrid is the number andspeed in which many signaling cascades have been resolved in molecular detail.

Materials and Methods
Introduction
Actual screening involves many choices, since several comparable two-hybridsystems are available. Many of the most encountered problems and potentialpitfalls are reviewed in this section. In most cases a typical two-hybridexperience goes through a sequence as outlined in Fig. 2.
Construction of the "target" or "bait"
When performing a two-hybrid screen, the first decision to be made is thechoice of the most appropriate vector system. A large number of differentDNA-binding domain (DB) and transcription activation domain (AD) containingvectors have been used successfully. The most extensively used vectors are GAL4based, probably because they were the first commercially available. Alternativesystems make use of the DB of the bacterial LexA protein and the AD of VP16 orthe so-called B42AD. Both systems, GAL4 and LexA, have advantages and drawbackswhich make the choice more difficult. In the following paragraphs the majordifferences between the two systems will be pointed out together with the majorpitfalls in a typical screening procedure. Since the LexA and the GAL4-basedtwo-hybrid systems have different properties, it is not unreasonable to imaginethat some interactions might be detected differently in both systems. Tryingboth will increase the chance of success.
The promoter regulates theexpression level of the target protein
The 1500-bp full length ADH1 promoter, that normally drives the expression ofthe metabolic enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase 1, leads to high-level expression ofsequences under its control. This promoter is used in the pAS2(-1) and pLexAplasmids that are used to clone the target-fusion. It is also present in pGAD-GHthat can be used to clone the cDNA library. Expression from this promoter ismaximal during logarithmic growth of the yeast cells and becomes repressed inlate log phase by ethanol accumulation in the medium. This explains why Westernblot analysis of the expressed fusion protein gives the best results whenlogarithmic growing yeast is used. Although the ADH1 is generally considered tobe a strong constitutive promoter, expression is actually repressed as much as10-fold on non-fermentable carbon sources (12). In contrast to this full-lengthpromoter, several cloning vectors, including pGBT9 (DB) and pGAD424 (AD) containa truncated 410-bp ADH1 promoter. Expression from this promoter leads to low orvery low levels of fusion protein expression that are hardly detectable on aWestern blot (13-15). The choice of expression plasmid might be influenced bythe nature of the target. If the target is expected to interfere with theendogeneous yeast metabolism, a lower expression might be beneficial. However ifthe expression of the fusion-protein needs to be assayed, the higher expressionlevel is more convenient. Legrain et al. (15) used known interactionpartners to study the influence of expression levels of the fusion proteins ontheir detection sensitivity in two-hybrid assays. Combinations of weakexpressing plasmids revealed that detection of these interactions was roughly50-100 times less sensitive. Therefore, an interaction assayed by use of theseplasmids may sometimes escape detection. Important, however, is to notice thatthis observation was strongly dependent upon the protein-couples used. Someprotein combinations were unaffected in sensitivity whereas others dropped only10-fold. Another important but less documented parameter is the relativeposition of the various "cassettes" in the different vectors. A simplecorrelation between sensitivity and length of the promoter fragment used isexcluded since the use of other plasmids containing the same proteins under thesame truncated promoter did not result in a loss of sensitivity (15).
Total expression level does not only depend on the promoter strength and thecarbon source used, but also on the copy number of the plasmid. In most commonlyused two-hybrid plasmids, the origin of replication is the so-called 2m m origin. The 2-m m circleplasmids are maintained stable and at high copy numbers (50-100 copies per cell)in yeast, and function solely for their own replication (16). It was shown that2-m m DNA replication is similar to chromosomal DNAreplication. 2-m m DNA is the only known example of amultiple-copy extrachromosomal DNA in which every molecule replicates in eachcell cycle (17). It should be noted that in the context of a reverse hybridsystem (see Reverse Hybrid System), the expression levels of the hybrid proteinsshould be maintained as low as possible, since every "background" interaction,which might occur more often at high protein expression levels, will kill theyeast. Therefore, the vectors used in these reverse hybrid systems make use oflow-copy, so-called centromeric, expression plasmids. The difference inexpression levels between high- and low-copy plasmids can be as much as twenty-or thirty fold. Also when using toxic proteins, the use of these centromericvectors in forward screens can be taken into consideration.
Features of target/baitvectors
The pAS vectors also encode a hemaglutinin (HA), YPYDVPDYA, epitope tag inframe with the GAL4DB (18). This allows the protein to be visualized withcommercially available anti-HA antibodies. There has been some controversy aboutthe introduction of the HA tag since this results in a weak auto-activation whenthe empty vector is transformed and reporter gene activity is measured. However,when a protein is fused in frame, in general, the fusion protein looses theauto-activation properties. In principle, this could be used as an "in-framecontrol" but it has never been advertised in this way. It might however explainwhy in the new version of the pAS2, named pAS2-1, the HA tag is removed. Thesame HA is now introduced in pACT2, which is the successor of pGAD424. Othercharacteristics that might influence the choice of a vector are from a morepractical nature. In all vector systems care must be taken to maintain theproper reading frame when creating the two-hybrid proteins. Compatibility of themultiple cloning site (MCS) in the DB and AD containing vector can bebeneficial. Cloning in both vectors permits both verification of the correctlength on Western blot and enables the establishment of a panel to score newtargets in simple co-transformation or mating experiments.
Another "add-on" found in some of the commercially available vectors is theCYH2 gene. CYH2 encodes the L29 protein of the yeast ribosome. Cycloheximide(Chx), a drug which blocks polypeptide elongation during translation, preventsthe growth of cells that contain the wild-type CYH2 gene. Chx resistance resultsfrom a single amino acid change in the CYH2 protein (19). When a wild type CYH2containing plasmid is present in a mutant yeast strain resistant to Chx, itconfers Chx sensitivity. Adding Chx to the medium results in a selection foryeast that has lost the CYH2 containing plasmid. This technique might be usefulto select for only the library insert containing plasmid after screening (seeSeparating the two-hybrids). A potential danger is that due to leakage on thepromoter of this CYH2 gene the yeast growth is retarded.
Most two-hybrid strains have a lesion in either URA3, LEU2,HIS3, TRP1 and/or ADE2 which allows selection for yeastcells that were transformed with plasmids that carry the corresponding gene bygrowth in the absence of the appropriate amino acids. The most widely usedmarkers in yeast are genes encoding amino acid biosynthetic enzymes. However, ina recently introduced target vector (pHybLex/Zeo) zeocin is used as selectionmarker. Parent et al. (17) have compiled an extensive list of yeastcloning vectors. In addition, a list of the most commonly used plasmids intwo-hybrid and their distinguishable features is listed in Table 1.
Table 1: Overview of the most commonly used two-hybrid vectors. The last column describes the origin of the promoter and the accession number in EMBL (AC)
Name Selection- marker Functional domain promoter, AC
GAL4-based
pMA424 HIS3 GAL4DB Original vector, 12 kb
pGBT9 TRP1 GAL4DB ADH1(truncated)
AC: U07646
pAS1 TRP1 GAL4DB+HA ADH1(full length),
CYH2
pAS2 TRP1 GAL4DB+HA ADH1(full length)
CYH2
AC: U30496
pAS2-1 TRP1 GAL4DB ADH1(full length)
CYH2
AC:U30497
pGAD2F LEU2 GAL4AD Original vector, 13 kb
pGAD424 LEU2 GAL4AD ADH1(truncated)
AC:U07647
pGAD10 LEU2 GAL4AD ADH1(truncated)
AC:U13188
pGAD-GL LEU2 GAL4AD ADH1(truncated)
pGAD-GH LEU2 GAL4AD ADH1(full length)
pGAD1318 LEU2 GAL4AD ADH1(full length)
pSE1107 LEU2 GAL4AD
pSD-10 URA3 VP16AD
pACT1 LEU2 GAL4AD
pACT2 LEU2 GAL4AD+HA ADH1(truncated),
medium expression
AC:U29899
LexA-based
pBTM116 TRP1 LexA ADH1(truncated)
pLexA HIS3 LexA ADH1(full length)
= pEG202
pB42AD  TRP1 B42+ SV40 NLS + HA GAL1 (full length),
inducible promoter
= pJG4-5
pHybLex/Zeo Zeocin LexA  ADH1(truncated)
pYESTrp TRP1 V5 epitope + SV40 NLS + B42 GAL1 (full length),
inducible promoter
pGilda HIS3 LexA GAL1 (full length), inducible promoter
centromeric vector
Sequencing and Western Blotanalysis
Before proceeding with actual screening it is advisable to check the chimericcDNA by sequencing and to verify the actual expression of the fusion proteininside yeast. The latter can be achieved by "classical" SDS-PAGE and subsequentWestern blot analysis as outlined in Protocol 1. Both anti-GAL4DB and anti-LexAantibodies are commercially available (Clontech #5399-1). This is preferablyperformed on the yeast strain used for screening the library to be sure that thetarget is properly expressed (20).
Protocol 1 SDS-PAGEand Western blot analysis to check for full-length expression of the targetfusion protein in the GAL4 system
After transformation of the plasmids encoding GAL4DB fusion proteins intoSaccharomyces cerevisiae strain HF7c and incubation on plates lacking theappropriate amino acids (e.g.Trp), single colonies are inoculated into 15 mlsynthetic medium lacking the same amino acid(s). At an optical density(A600) around 0.7, the culture is centrifuged at 2500 rpm for 5 min,the pellet is washed in distilled water and boiled for 3 min in 200 μl of 2 xLaemmli loading buffer. 50 μl of this sample is separated by 10%SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis and blotted onto a nitrocellulosemembrane (Schleicher & Schuell, Dassel, F.R.G.). Detection of the expressedfusion proteins can be performed with polyclonal anti-yeast GAL4DB antibody andperoxidase-conjugated anti-rabbit antibody using ECL (Amersham Life Science,Amersham, U.K.).
Auto-activation
Since the two-hybrid system is based on reconstitution of a functionaltranscription factor, checking the auto-activation capacity of the target iscrucial for the overall feasibility. Initiation of transcription, due to somelatent activating activity is present in approximately 5% of all proteins andeven more in randomly generated fragments (like in libraries). The use of alibrary fused to the DNA binding domain would result in a large amount of falsepositives illustrating that auto-activation can cause problems. SinceDNA-binding to the upstream activating sequence (UASG) is morestringent, it provides a rational for making the libraries in the vectorcontaining the AD.
A single transformation and reporter gene assay tells you whether yourfavorite protein (YFP) is able to induce reporter gene activity. What if YFP isauto activating? If it is only weak, e.g. only a minor background on theHIS3 and not on LacZ, one could try to increase the amount of ATin the plates (see Pilot transformation in the GAL4 system). In the LexA systemusing less sensible reporter hosts or LacZ expressing plasmids containingvariable DNA binding regions can genetically control the sensitivity. Thisability to tune genetically the sensitivity of the reporter might be one ofgreatest advantages of the LexA system (see Table 4). If this tuning does nothelp, more radical approaches need to be applied. It is often possible to deletea small region of a protein that activates transcription. Removal of thisactivation function while retaining other properties of the protein might enablethe use of the target to screen libraries. Alternatively, instead of using aC-terminal fusion to the DB, an N-terminal fusion can be tried. Indeed normaltwo-hybrid methods detect interactions between two proteins fused at theC-termini of the DB and AD, respectively. This implicates that the N-terminus ofnone of these proteins is available for interaction. It was demonstrated, usingconstructs with reverted polarity, that such constructs give a specificinteraction signal that is dramatically increased. Such constructs might lead tothe identification of partners missed during classical two-hybrid screens andmight at least in some cases provide a solution to the auto-activation problem(21).
In theory, another solution could be considered. If auto-activation is stronglike in the case of transcription factors, it could be possible to apply areverse approach. By using a toxic reporter gene and an auto-activating targetunder an inducible promoter, all yeast cells that are not repressed by aninteraction, will die upon induction of the promoter. All yeast cells survivingsuch a screening procedure should contain a plasmid encoding an interactionpartner of the auto-activating bait.
Nuclear localization: therepression assay
Another requirement, apart from correct folding of the fusion protein andimpossibility to initiate autonomously transcription, is the ability of thefusion to be localized to the yeast nucleus. Indeed all transcription events arededicated nuclear processes. Specific binding of GAL4 to the (UAS)Gis conferred by a zinc-cluster motif located within the N-terminal 64 residues(5,22,23). GAL4 binds as a dimer to DNA, which is mediated at least in part byan a -helical region within residues 65-94 which form acoiled-coil interaction (23-24). GAL4DB also has its own nuclear localizationsignal (NLS) within its N-terminal 74 residues (25-27). A positive control canbe used to check the nuclear localization in the GAL4 system. Unless, in thecase of auto-activation, where apart from the problems described above, thenuclear localization problem is trivial.
Since LexA is a bacterial protein it contains no NLS. Therefore, the NLS ofSV40 large T is fused in frame ensuring nuclear localization. The nuclearlocalization of LexA fusions can be assayed by a so-called "Repression" or"Blocking assay". The repression assay is based on the observation that LexA andnon-activating LexA fusions can repress transcription of a yeast reporter genethat has LexA operators positioned between the TATA and upstream activatingsequence (UAS) (28). LacZ expression is induced by galactose and isdetectable in the presence of glucose. A transcriptional inert LexA fusion thatbinds to the operator located between the UASG and the TATA box isable to repress or block the LacZ expression, a clear indication that theLexA fusion is properly located to the yeast nucleus. The reporter plasmidpJK101 is used to perform this repression analysis. Since repression is nevercomplete, a positive and negative control is needed to calibrate the repressioncapability of the protein assayed.
One could argue that nuclear localization of the target or prey as such isnot strictly required. Indeed, if interaction occurs in the cytoplasm, bothinteracting proteins, of which only one contains a NLS, might be targeted to thenucleus. However, this might only be true for strong interactions that are notalways the most interesting.
Positive control
The best way to avoid most problems concerning bait construction is to clonea known interactor in the opposite vector and to assay the interaction in atwo-hybrid system. If this results in specific reporter gene activation, yourfusion protein is correctly folded and properly targeted to the nucleus.However, if this test fails, finding out why, might be cumbersome.
Library choice
It is always a good idea to start with a library prepared from a tissue inwhich the target protein is known to be biologically relevant. To screen amammalian cDNA library until saturation, more than 5-10 x 106 yeasttransformants need to be screened. Both oligo-dT and random primed libraries areused. Important quality parameters are the number of independent clones beforeand after amplification, the number of clones that contain an insert and themean insert length. Having multiple cloning sites available in the libraryplasmid is beneficial to subclone in later stages the insert for additionalinteraction controls outside the two-hybrid system. The most commonly usedplasmids for library construction are listed in Table 1.
Important is also the relative strength of the activation domains, indicatingtheir ability to initiate transcription. Both VP16 and the AD of GAL4 are knownto be strong activators making the system more sensitive. This might be neededfor the detection of weak interactions but results inevitable in higherbackgrounds. Therefore the use of B42AD, a random fragment that was isolated forits intermediate transactivation capability, might be beneficial in setting up ascreening.
For the library plasmid there is a major difference in promoter between theLexA and GAL4 system. While in the most commonly used plasmids of the GAL4system, fusion proteins are weakly and constitutively expressed, they are clonedbehind a stronger but inducible promoter in the LexA system. In the latestversion of the library plasmid used in the GAL4 system, pACT2, a truncatedweakly expressing version of ADH1 is used. However, since this promoter isadjacent to a section of pBR322 that acts as a transcriptional enhancer inyeast, a medium expression level is obtained.
Inducible expression has the advantage that there is less opportunity for ADfusions proteins to have a toxic effect on the yeast host, which could alsoresult in the elimination of this protein from the pool of potentiallyinteracting proteins. However, the experimental protocol is longer in the caseof induction since transformation efficiency drops dramatically if thetransformations are directly selected on all auxotrophic markers and on a carbonsource that induces expression of the library fusion protein. Therefore, onetypically selects for all plasmids before induction. Although this procedure islonger, it might be beneficial since only part of the original transformationmix needs to be induced, enabling means to perform screening in shifts andhaving back-ups in case of contamination. It is possible to combine vectors aslong as they are compatible with each other with regards to the selectablemarkers and the UAS before the reporters (see Table 2) (29).
Table 2: Comparison of the LexA and GAL4 Yeast Two-Hybrid Systems
DB vector selection marker  AD vector selection marker  Chromosomal reporter gene(s)  Plasmid reporter gene
GAL4 Systems TRP1 LEU2 HIS3, LacZ (none)
LexA Systems HIS3 TRP1 LEU2 LacZ
Choose a yeast strain as a host
Reporter gene(s) andresulting sensitivity
The upstream activating regions and TATA regions are the basic buildingblocks of yeast promoters. The initiation of gene transcription in yeast, as inother organisms, is achieved by several molecular mechanisms working in concert.All yeast genes are preceded by a region containing a TATA box. Many genes arealso associated with cis-acting transcription elements and sequences to whichtranscription factors and other trans-acting regulatory proteins bind and affecttranscription levels. The term promoter usually refers to both the TATA box andthese associated cis-regulatory elements. Gene regulation in yeast involves cisregulatory elements that are relatively closely associated with the TATA box.The most common type of cis-acting transcription elements in yeast are upstreamactivating sequences (UAS). UAS sequences are recognized by specifictranscriptional activators that enhance transcription. The enhancing function ofyeast UASs is generally independent of the orientation but it is sensitive todistance effects, if moved more than a few hundred base pairs from the TATAregion. There may be multiple copies of a UAS upstream of a yeast coding region.In yeast, the genes required for galactose metabolism are controlled by tworegulatory proteins, GAL4 and GAL80, as well as by the carbon source in themedium (30). When galactose is present, the GAL4 protein binds to theGAL-responsive elements within the UAS of at least 20 known galactose-responsivegenes (including GAL1). In the absence of galactose, GAL80 binds to GAL4 andthis interaction blocks transcriptional activation. Furthermore, in the presenceof glucose, transcription of galactose genes is immediately repressed. The17-mer consensus sequence, referred to as UASG, functions in anadditive fashion. Indeed multiple sites lead to higher transcription levels thana single site (31). This explains why the number of UASG locatedbefore the reporter determines the sensitivity of the interactions that can beassayed.
To avoid interference by endogeneous GAL4 and GAL80, proteins the yeast hoststrains used in the GAL4 based two-hybrid system must carry deletions of theGAL4 and GAL80 genes. Due to the deletion of these two genes, the yeast cellsgrow more slowly as compared to yeast containing the wild type version of thesegenes. The use of bacterial LexA circumvents this disadvantage.
Reporter genes can be integrated into the genome or reside on a plasmid. Theinconvenience of having another plasmid containing the reporter gene, and theneed for an additional auxotrophic marker is compensated by several advantages.Indeed, one of the major advantages of the LexA system, where the LacZreporter gene is present on a high copy-number plasmid, is that weak signals aremore efficiently amplified than in the GAL4 system, which makes it possible toassay b -Galactosidase activity directly on theselection plate by including X-GAL in the medium. This avoids tedious replicaand/or filter lift assays.
Reporter strains in LexA andGAL4
In the GAL4-based MATCHMAKER two-hybrid system, either the intact GAL1 UAS,which contains four GAL4-binding sites, or an artificially constructed UASconsisting of three copies of the 17-mer consensus binding sequence is used.
Table 3: Survey of the most commonly used yeast strains, used reporter genes and the constitution (origin) of their promoter in the GAL4 based two-hybrid system.
Expression
Reporter genes UAS regulated by +
origin of UAS
uninduced induced
H7Fc LacZ,
HIS3
GAL4, 3 x UASG 17-mer
GAL4, GAL1 (= 4 x UASG 17-mer )
-
-
low
high
YRG-2 LacZ,
HIS3
GAL4, 3 x UASG 17-mer
GAL4, GAL1 (= 4 x UASG 17-mer )
-
-
low
high
SFY526 LacZ GAL4, GAL1 (= 4 x UASG 17-mer ) - high
Y187 LacZ GAL4, GAL1 (= 4 x UASG 17-mer ) - high
Y190 LacZ,
HIS3
GAL4, GAL1 (= 4 x UASG 17-mer )
GAL4, GAL1 (= 4 x UASG 17-mer )
-
low
high
high
CG-1945 LacZ,
HIS3
GAL4, 3 x UASG 17-mer
GAL4, GAL1 (= 4 x UASG 17-mer )
-
very low
low
high
L40 HIS3,
LacZ
4 x LexA op
8 x LexA op
The relative sensitivity of both reporter genes used in the GAL4 basedapproach, respectively LacZ and HIS3, depends entirely on theconstitution of the promoter. In the GAL4 system the LacZ is morestringent, meaning less likely to give false positives, than the HIS3gene. This was elegantly demonstrated in a recently described reversethree-hybrid approach. Here the expression of Raf from a third promoter couldtitrate out the Ras-DB fusion, keeping it from interacting with Raf-AD fusion.This reverse experiment resulted in the expected LacZ negative phenotypebut not in a HIS3 negative phenotype, reflecting the higher sensitivityof the histidine reporter gene as compared to the b-galactosidase reporter gene in HF7c (32).
In LexA-based two-hybrid systems, the DB is provided by the entireprokaryotic LexA protein. LexA normally functions as a repressor of SOS genes inE. coli by binding LexA operator sequences that are an integral part ofthe promoter (33). When used in the yeast two-hybrid system, the LexA proteindoes not act as a repressor because the LexA operators are integrated upstreamof the minimal promoter and coding region of the LEU2 reporter gene.Expression of the latter in EGY48 (Erica Golemis Yeast) isunder the control of six copies of the LexA operator (op) sequence and a minimalLEU2 promoter. In the LacZ reporter plasmids, the LacZreporter expression is under the control of 1-8 copies of the LexA operator andthe minimal GAL1 promoter (34).
As all of the GAL1 UAS sequences have been removed from the LacZreporter plasmids. This promoter is not regulated by glucose or galactose (35).
Table 4: Tuning sensitivity in the LexAsystem by using different host strains and reporter plasmids

EGY reporter strains listed by decreasing sensitivity
EGY 48  colE1 LexA operators = 6 LexA binding sites + TATA + LEU2
EGY 194 2 colE1 LexA operators = 4 LexA binding sites + TATA+ LEU2
EGY 188 1 colE1 LexA operators = 2 LexA binding sites + TATA + LEU2
EGY 40 contains no LEU2 reporter gene
LacZ reporter plasmids listed by decreasingsensitivity
pSH18-34 4 colE1 operators, 8 LexA binding sites + TATA + GAL1-LacZ
pJK103 1 colE1 operators, 2 LexA binding sites + TATA + GAL1-LacZ
pRB1840 1 recA LexA operator + TATA + GAL1-LacZ
Finally there are many "hybrid two-hybrid systems" that combine GAL4 and LexAbased systems. The reporter strain L40 permits the use of the same reportergenes as in the GAL4 system but under control of LexA operators. This permitsthe use of the plethora of libraries commercially available for the GAL4 systemin a LexA related system.
Why use multiple reportergenes
The most significant improvement that accounts largely for the success of thetwo-hybrid system has been the conversion from a color-based assay to anutritional selection via inclusion of the HIS3 gene as a transcriptionreporter in addition to LacZ. This allows much larger libraries to beefficiently screened on far fewer plates. Apart from a higher plating density,the use of multiple reporter genes has many additional advantages. The use oftwo reporter genes under the control of a similar promoter but at distinctplaces of the genome can eliminate many false positives. Continuous histidineselection throughout subsequent procedures eliminates irrelevant libraryplasmids that may have been cotransformed with the actual plasmid of interestthat initiated reporter gene activity. Moreover, plasmids that are toxic to theyeast can undergo rearrangements or mutations that eliminate expression of theactivation domain hybrid. Since loss of the activation domain results in loss ofreporter genes, these yeast cells do not survive under auxotrophic selection.The b -galactosidase activity of transformants underHIS3 selection is generally enhanced, probably because the transformantsare forced to produce the hybrid proteins in quantities that enable theHIS3 gene to be expressed at levels that permit growth.
Pilot transformation in theGAL4 system
Since HIS3 has a leaky expression in many yeast strains, it isrecommended to inhibit the basal expression of this gene with 3-amino-triazole(AT), a known inhibitor of the HIS3 gene product. Therefore, beforestarting a large-scale transformation procedure it could be very informative toperform a pilot transformation that enables titration of the optimal amount ofAT needed. Using too much AT will result in a loss of weak interactions, whereasthe use of no or too small amounts AT results in unworkable numbers of falsepositives. The exact amount is largely dependent on the yeast strain and uponthe target used. The reason why Y190 requires more AT to bring down thebackground expression of HIS3 as compared to HF7c is related to theorigin of the TATA sequence. In most cases the TATA box of GAL1 is used in frontof HIS3 (and the one of CYC1 in front of LacZ) except in Y190where the TATA box of HIS3 is used.

Typically a couple of strong, weak and intermediate interacting proteins aretransformed together with the target and a dilution of library cDNA. These areplated on a logarithmic gradient of AT (0,5,10,25 and 50 mM of AT). Thisgenerally results in growth as shown in Figure 3. Here the optimal AT would be,enough to suppress background and not too much to be able to detect the weakinteractions.
Library Transformation
Transformation efficiency
Transformation efficiency is often the bottle neck when performing two-hybridexperiments. The basic idea is to saturate the screening to obtain as manytransformants as possible, and to avoid transformation of a single yeast cellwith multiple library plasmids, which can seriously complicate subsequentanalysis, the lowest amount of DNA needs to be used. A maximum number oftransformants with a minimal amount of DNA requires a high transformationefficiency.
There are several commonly used methods to introduce plasmid DNA into yeast.These include the spheroblast method, electroporation and the lithium acetatemethod (LiAc) (36-38). Although the spheroblast method results in hightransformation efficiencies, it is too much time-consuming for large-scaleexperiments like library screenings. In general, electroporation offers thehighest transformation efficiency, and is especially useful when smallquantities of DNA are transformed. Unlike the lithium acetate (LiAc) basedmethod, electroporation saturates at low DNA levels, restricting its use in atwo-hybrid approach. Taken together, all two-hybrid protocols make use of theLiAc method, which is a quick method to introduce foreign DNA into the yeast ina large scale experiment.
In the LiAc transformation method, yeast competent cells are prepared andresuspended in a LiAc solution together with the plasmid DNA to be transformedand an excess of carrier DNA. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) with the appropriateamount of LiAc is then added to the mixture of DNA and yeast, and the mixture isincubated at 30°C. Before or after the incubation, DMSO is added and the cellsare heat shocked, which allows the DNA to enter the cells. The cells are thenplated on the appropriate medium to select for transformants containing theintroduced plasmids (Protocol 2).
Many versions of this LiAc based protocol are available, probablyillustrating that many of the different steps can be subject to change and arenot strictly required for the final outcome. Like every transformationprocedure, the exact mechanism of DNA uptake is not known, which makes allprotocols highly empirical.
Of crucial importance in every strategy are the yeast cells used. Sincegrowth on a master plate does not give any selection criteria for"transformability", there is always a risk of selecting for yeast cells that aremore difficult to make competent for transformation. Best practice is to keep astock of (competent) yeast cells known to be good for transformation. Even byusing yeast cells known to have worked in previous experiments, it is advisableto perform several transformations in parallel. A second parameter found to beimportant is the growth phase. With respect to this, logarithmic growing cellswere shown to be the best. Maximal transformation efficiency in each of theprocedures depends on finding the optimal cell density. The cell density can be"controlled" by making appropriate dilutions and determining the optical densityat 600 nm at different times. However, the best method is to look through themicroscope and count the percentage budding yeast cells and calibrate thispercentage to the number of transformants obtained. Important to notice is thatthe total volume of cultures is equally important. Too many yeast cells in atranformation mix will significantly drop the efficiency and will givedifficulties to spread on the plates. Too dense plating might result in higherbackground since more slowly growing yeast cells can grow on the corpses ofothers. Also crucial in two-hybrid experiments is the total amount of DNA used.The use of too much DNA in the transformation-mix might be fatal, not onlybecause most protocols will saturate at a given amount of DNA, but it willincrease the chance of multiple library plasmids to enter the same host cell.This will make subsequent analysis very hard. The quality of plasmid DNA is saidto be less crucial since impurities resulting from the preparation method mightfunction as carrier and consequently increase transformation efficiency.
Another critical parameter is the quality of carrier DNA, which must be ofhigh molecular weight and completely denatured. Denaturation can be achieved byrepeating the cycle of boiling and chilling immediately before use. Achievingthe proper DNA size distribution upon sonication is probably the most difficult.Instead of running agarose gels to check the size distributions, a more directway is to use several batches in a transformation experiment and retain the onethat gives the highest transformation efficiency regardless of its sizedistribution. Competence of DNA uptake at the level of the cell wall is inducedby treatment with both lithium ions and PEG (3350-4000). Some people claim thatthe quality of a PEG stock buffer decreases over time and might result in lowtransformation efficiency.
To ensure that all plasmids are present and the target is correctlyexpressed, a small aliquot of the competent yeast cells can be used to transforma positive control. One of best resources on transformation of yeast can befound on the webpage of the Gietz Lab (39).
Protocol 2 Overview ofa typical library screening protocol
Start with a master plate of yeast transformed with the target DNA binding domain-fusion protein (don’t keep master plates longer than 2 weeks and store them at 4°C)
Inoculate four 20-50 ml cultures of a single large colony, in SD medium that selects for the target protein (e.g. -Trp)
Grow for 36-48 hours (until culture becomes "milky")
Transfer each of these cultures to a 200 ml culture
Grow overnight
In the morning, transfer entire 200 ml into 400 ml of YPD (OD should be around 0.2 in a total volume of 600 ml)
Grow to an OD600 of about 0.7-0.75 (about 4 hours)
Transfer cells into 250 ml bottles (in shifts). Spin at 2200 rpm (1000 X g) for 5 min. Keep the four pools separated throughout the protocol
Remove supernatant and resuspend in water. Spin 2200 rpm for 5 min.
Remove supernatant and resuspend cells, 4 batches, with about 10 ml of 1 X TE/LiAc (made fresh) per bottle.
Bring to a 50 ml tube. Spin 2200 rpm for 5 min
Remove supernatant. Bring final volume up to 2 ml with 1 X TE/LiAc.
Do transformations in 4 x 10 eppendorfs containing:
200 m l yeast cells
8 m g library DNA
30 m l salmon sperm DNA (10 mg/ml)
7 m l 10 X LiAc/TE
30 m l DMSO
1.2 ml PEG/LiAc (freshly made !)
Vortex and flick to assure DNA is well distributed
Incubate at 30°C for 30 min while gently shaking in thermomixer, flick every 10’
Incubate at 42°C in thermomixer
Chill cells on ice (1’) and spin at 2600 rpm for 1’
Resuspend in 300 m l 1 X TE
From each eppendorf, plate an equal amount (133 m l per plate) onto 3 plates lacking the appropriate amino acids: total of 4 x 30 large plates
Plate dilutions (1/1000, 1/10000 & 1/100000) on -Trp & -Leu plates to assay transformation efficiency, for each of the 4 competent yeast batches
Put plates at 30?C for 1-2 weeks
Simultaneous versus sequential transformations
The LiAc methods typically result in transformation efficiencies of 105 transformants per m g of DNA when using a single type of plasmid. When the yeast is simultaneously cotransformed with two plasmids having different selection markers, the efficiency is usually an order of magnitude lower due to the lower probability that a particular yeast will take up both plasmids. Yeast, unlike bacteria, can support the propagation of more than one plasmid having the same replication origin. Although simultaneous transformation is less efficient, it might be beneficial to use this strategy. Apart from being easier, simultaneous transformation avoids a growth phase after the first transformation that might result in counterselection. Indeed, if the expressed protein is toxic or interferes with normal yeast metabolism, arising clones might have spontaneous deletions in the first plasmid which confer a growth advantage. Nevertheless, in order to saturate screening, it is advisable to perform sequential transformations which mostly results in a few million transformants.
In the inducible LexA system it is advisable to select first for transformants, (sequentially induced most of the time), and in a second step to induce the expression of the cDNA library insert. This two-step approach results in a uniform increase in the number of cells carrying each library plasmid. Before harvesting, each cell transformed with the library is allowed to form a colony of approximately the same size. One advantage of this approach is that the number of transformed yeast cells is amplified before the synthesis of cDNA encoded proteins. This ensures that yeast cells containing toxic or mildly toxic cDNA encoded proteins will not be depleted from the population.
Picking positive colonies
In the GAL4 system, transformants are plated out on plates that are selective for the two plasmids and the additional auxotrophic reporter gene HIS3. Colonies able to grow on this medium are in principle inducing HIS3 as a result of protein-protein interactions that reconstitute a functional GAL4. The size of the colony might reflect the strength of the interaction. However, there is no reason to assume that weak interactions have less biological significance than strong ones. So, when picking colonies, care must be taken to evaluate the size of each colony to the background and not preferentially picking the largest colonies. The same holds for weak and strong LacZ+ after assaying for b -galactosidase activity.
In general after 5-6 days the first colonies can be picked and transferred in e.g. 96 well plates. After 2-3 hours they can be replica plated onto plates lacking the appropriate amino acids and the titrated amount of AT (master plate), and at the same time onto plates covered with a filter membrane. Since colonies grow through the filter, it facilitates the lifting procedure and subsequent lysis in liquid nitrogen. It is a good idea to include here a positive (preferably a strong, intermediate and weak interaction) and a negative control. If not too many clones need be assayed, the 96 well procedure can be replaced by replica striking directly on a master and filter containing plate. In order to pick also slower growing colonies, this procedure is repeated after 12-15 days, largely depending upon the number of colonies obtained.
When performing a b -galactosidase test, care must be taken to the growth phase of the yeast. Again, fresh logarithmic growing yeast cells will give the best results. Strong interactions should be visible after 2 hours, intermediate ones might take 6 hours while weak interactions might need to be incubated overnight. The incorporation of both the positive and negative controls on the same filter is the only relevant reference point. It should be noted that not all HIS3+ are LacZ+. Due to the earlier described different sensitivities of both the HIS3 an LacZ phenotypes it is usually found that HIS3+ and LacZ+ cells contain the most biologically relevant interaction, however, it cannot be excluded that HIS3+ and LacZ- cells are of potential interest.
Rescue of library plasmid
Preparation of DNA from yeast
After the difficulties to get the DNA inside the yeast, the problem of getting it out is easier to solve.. Many protocols yield little, but nevertheloss a sufficient amount of DNA that can be transformed to bacteria where it can be amplified for further analysis. One of the pitfalls is that apparently most DNA precipitates prepared from yeast contain debris of the yeast outer membranes that appears to be toxic for most competent bacteria. By diluting this debris below toxic levels, the equivalent drop in DNA concentration requires a very efficient bacterial transformation.
Separating the two-hybrids
The positive yeast host cells contains two different two-hybrid plasmids, one encoding the bait and another containing the library insert. There are several procedures to enrich for the plasmid containing the library insert. One option makes use of the CYH2 gene on the target plasmid, that confers cycloheximide sensitivity to the yeast host. By adding cycloheximide to the medium, it is possible to select for cells that have lost this plasmid. Another protocol makes use of bacteria (HB101) that are unable to grow on media lacking leucine. Only by transformation of a plasmid containing the LEU2 gene, which happens to be the one containing the library insert, these bacteria can be rescued. It should be noted that this procedure is not trivial since HB101 grows very slowly (3 days) and DNA prepared from this strain can be hard to sequence. Alternatively, yeast DNA can be prepared and directly, without any selection procedure, transformed into bacteria (MC1061) (Protocol 3). In theory 50% of the transformed bacteria contain the library plasmid. A simple and highly efficient procedure for rescuing autonomous plasmids from yeast was described by Robzyk and Kassir (75). In the LexA system, the plasmid containing the target and the one containing the library insert contain different E. coli origins enabling an enrichment for the library containing plasmid by simple E. coli transformation.
Protocol 3Preparation of DNA from yeast cells that can be re-transformed to chemical competent bacteria
Use a freshly inoculated 5-10 ml culture grown overnight
Centrifuge 5‘, 2800 rpm
Resuspend in 5 ml SCE (1 M Sorbitol, 0.1 M Na3Citrate, 10 mM EDTA, pH 6.5-7, autoclaved)
Centrifuge 5’, 2800 rpm
Resuspend in 1 ml SCEM (100 ml SCE + 214 μl b-mercaptoethanol) + lyticase, transfer into 1.5 ml eppendorf
Incubate 1 hour at 37 °C
Centrifuge 5‘ at 1500 rpm
Remove SN carefully
Resuspend in 400 μl Yeast Extraction Buffer (0.05 M Tris.HCl pH 7.5, 0.025 M EDTA, 0.25 M NaCl, 1% SDS, autoclaved)
Homogenize
Incubate 15’ at 65 °C
Phenolisation using phenol/chloroform/isoamylalcohol until the interface is clear
Apply one extra phenolisation step using pure chloroform
Precipitate DNA by adding 1/10 of total volume NaAc and 2.5 volumes of icecold EtOH
Centrifuge 15’-30’ at 14000 rpm
Wash in 750 μl 70% EtOH and centrifuge 15’ at 14000 rpm
Dry 10’ in speedvac
Dissolve in 100 μl H2O
Transform 20 μl of this mixture to chemically competent bacteria
Insert analysis—Assay for specificity in two-hybrid
Depending on the quantity of positives obtained, several approaches can be taken. In the case of a very limited set (<10), a new transformation with positive and negative controls (including empty vectors) to assay the specificity of the interaction can be performed first. Between 50-100 positives, direct sequence analysis might be considered. If more than 100 positives, they are best analyzed by colony hybridization to identify identical inserts. Control transformations can then be done with fewer candidates. Insert analysis might also include restriction site analysis, to identify insert families. However, new protocols enable screening for recombinant plasmids by using PCR methods directly onto the yeast cells (40).
Much information can be derived from sequence data. By running the appropriate algorithms on the obtained sequences, one is able to easily classify inserts into two main groups; the ones of potential interest, and the others. The latter category includes all known genes that are not in frame with the activation domain and those with unknown genes that show a polyAAA tail indicating that the gene is probably inverted. Other genes that might be omitted from further analysis do not encode proteins but RNA or retroposons. Some proteins can also be excluded if they are part of a list of known false positives that are frequently found, independently of the target used.
Table 5: Overview of most commonly encountered false positives. Adapted from the WWW-site of E. Golemis (44-45)
Proteins Found as false positives  Believed to date to be real interactors
hsp's 16 5
ribosomal proteins 14 1
cytochrome oxidase 5 -
mitochondrial proteins 3 1
proteasome subunits 4 3
ferritin 4 -
tRNA synthase 3 -
collagen-related proteins 3 -
Zn finger proteins 3 4
vimentin 2 -
In general a second more interesting category persists in the algorithmic screening, containing both known and unknown genes. Although the choice of which interactions to characterize further is always arbitrary, some guidelines can be used. For known proteins, the potential biological relevance of the interaction is the most important criteria. If several clones containing portions of the same proteins are found, one can try to establish a minimum interaction domain. By using physicochemical predictions or three-dimensional data, the nature of interaction can be evaluated in silico, but remains to be validated by additional biological experiments.
For new proteins that show no homology with any known sequence in DNA nor protein databases, the above selection becomes less trivial. The redundancy at which the interaction is found might be a clue for the importance of the interaction. Noteworthy is that this redundancy is not related to the strength of the interaction. Even with new proteins, mostly several EST that contain parts of the coding sequence can be found. By performing extensive EST searches, in cycle order, and using multiple sequence alignment algorithms, one can sometimes reconstitute full-length cDNA clones. Using these sequence data, one can perform many different algorithms to predict subcellular localization, transmembrane domains, conserved functional patterns, etc. Of course, these predictions are never "bullet-proof" evidence, but can be the starting point for more conclusive experiments. Apart from the false positives that often arise, false negatives can never be excluded. Indeed a negative result in a two-hybrid system does not necessarily mean that the two proteins tested do not interact under all conditions. Several explanations can be given for lack of interaction (see Why not use the two-hybrid system?).
To assay the specificity of a two-hybrid interaction, a series of additional transformations is needed. In general, these include cotransformation of the found bait with empty vector or with a vector encoding an irrelevant protein. By using mating assays, these specificity tests can be performed in a very short period of time. Mating takes advantage of the fact that haploid cells of the opposite mating type will fuse to form diploids when brought into contact with each other (41). In the mating assay, the target is expressed in one yeast strain and the activation domain fusion is expressed in a second strain of opposite mating type. Using pre-transformed panels of yeast cells one can easily check lots of combinations that would otherwise require long cotransfection experiments (42-44).
Take the interaction outside the yeast system
Confirmation of interaction
In general, people like to see a confirmation of the interaction outside the yeast cell. Therefore several assays are available, such as in vitro "pull-down" assays and co-immunoprecipitation. Most of these assays use epitope tagged versions of the proteins involved. Alternatively a co-localization experiment can be used to validate the two-hybrid interaction couple. In most cases, interactions found in two-hybrid can be confirmed although it may take time to find the best conditions since most of the protocols include empirical steps that need to be optimized for every interacting couple. Probably the most conclusive experiments are performed by co-immunoprecipitating endogeneous, and thus physiological amounts of, proteins. A new vector, pWITCH, was designed to facilitate the characterization of proteins encoded by novel cDNAs that were isolated using either a one- or two-hybrid assay. Expression of directionally cloned cDNAs is obtained in vivo in Saccharomyces cerevisiae from the inducible GAL10 promoter and in vitro from the T7 promoter. In addition, translation of the cloned cDNAs results in proteins that are tagged in vitro with a specific epitope tag, and in vivo with both the epitope tag and the VP16 transcription activation domain (46-47).
Functional assays to test relevance of interaction
One of the most challenging and most difficult tasks is to determine the actual function of the interaction. The way this is achieved is largely dependent upon the signal transduction pathway in which the interaction is thought to be functionally relevant. In most cases the effect of inhibitors, mutants or dominant negative versions of the involved proteins can be evaluated. Using two-hybrid technology, a very detailed but time-consuming dissection of signal transduction can be made by using the so-called interaction suppression approach (see Interaction suppression). In almost all cases, a phenotype that can be assayed is required. It is said that the two-hybrid is an easy tool to generate many new hypotheses. The validation of these becomes in many cases the next time-limiting step.
New developments
Improvements
Refinements of vectors for use in the yeast two-hybrid system are reviewed by (48). A new host strain was developed that is extremely sensitive to weak interactions and eliminates nearly all false positives using simple plate assays. This yeast strain contains three reporter genes: HIS3, ADE2 and LacZ, each under control of a different promoter (GAL1, GAL2, and GAL7 respectively) that respond to the same activator GAL4 (76). In another system, the target protein is expressed as a fusion with the DB domain of the human estrogen receptor (ER) in a yeast strain containing an integrated URA3 reporter gene driven by one or three ER response elements (EREs). In contrast to the HIS3- and LEU2-based systems, it can be assayed quantitatively, by determining the activity of the reporter gene product orotidine-5’-monophosphate decarboxylase in cell-free extracts, and enables a negative selection scheme by using 5-fluoroorotic acid (see Reverse Hybrid System) (49). An important advantage of this system is the use of a target promoter that drives URA3 reporter gene expression, which is different from those commonly used in two-hybrid systems (mostly the GAL1 promoter). Combination of this URA3/ER with HIS3/GAL4 or LEU2/LexA might provide elegant strategies to eliminate false positives. An additional review on progress and variations in two-hybrid and three-hybrid technologies is available (50).
Reverse Hybrid System
The two-hybrid system does not allow genetic selection of events responsible for dissociation of particular interactions, and hence, its use in the characterization and manipulation of protein-protein interactions has been limited. All reverse systems make use of yeast strains in which expression of interacting hybrid proteins increases the expression of a counterselectable marker that is toxic under particular conditions. Under these conditions, dissociation of an interaction provides a selective advantage, thereby facilitating detection: a few growing yeast colonies in which hybrids fail to interact can be identified among millions of non-growing colonies expressing interacting proteins. Several reverse hybrid systems are proposed. The first reverse two-hybrid system uses a yeast strain that is resistant to cycloheximide due to the presence of a mutant CYH2 gene. This strain also contains the wild-type CYH2 allele under the transcriptional control of the GAL1 promoter. Expression of the wild-type GAL4 protein is sufficient to restore growth sensitivity to cycloheximide. Growth sensitivity towards cycloheximide is also restored by the co-expression of the avian c-Rel protein and its Ik B-a counterpart, p40, as GAL4 fusion proteins. Restoration of growth sensitivity towards cycloheximide requires the association of c-Rel and p40 at the GAL1 promoter and correlates with the ability of the c-Rel/p40 interaction to activate expression from the GAL1 promoter (51).

Another reverse hybrid system makes use of the most widely used counter-selectable marker in yeast genetics, URA3, which encodes orotidine-5’-phosphate decarboxylase, an enzyme required for the biosynthesis of uracil. Yeast cells that contain wild-type URA3, either on a plasmid or integrated in the genome, grow on media lacking uracil (URA3+ phenotype). However, the URA3-encoded decarboxylase can also catalyze the conversion of a non-toxic analogue, 5-fluoroorotic acid (FOA) into a toxic product, 5-fuorouracil (52).
Hence, mutations that prevent an interaction can be selected from large libraries or randomly generated alleles. Similarly, molecules that dissociate or prevent an interaction could be selected from large libraries of peptides or compounds (54-55).
SRS system
A new Sos-recruitment system (SRS) was described by Aronheim (57). This SRS is based on the observation that the mammalian GDP-GTP exchange factor (GEF) hSos can only activate Ras when hSos is localized to the plasma membrane. In mammalian cells, this occurs by recruitment to the cytoplasmatic tail of activated growth factor receptors. The yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae requires a functional Ras signaling pathway for cell viability. A yeast strain containing a point mutation in the yeast Ras GEF (Ras guanyl nucleotide exchange factor), cdc25-2, shows temperature-sensitive growth, but expression of hSos artificially targeted to the membrane by myristoylation or farnesylation can restore growth at the non-permissive temperature.

The SRS uses the requirement of hSos to be recruited to the membrane to rescue growth as a method to detect protein-protein interactions. The target protein, is fused to hSos, and the partner protein or cDNA to be screened is fused to a membrane-localization signal. When these hybrid proteins are co-expressed in a cdc25-2 yeast strain, the cells only grow at the nonpermissive temperature if the two fusion proteins interact, allowing the recruitment of hSos to the membrane. Mammalian Ras can bypass the requirement for a functional Ras GEF and represents a predictable false positive in this system. In a second publication, the author proposed that introduction of a mammalian GTPase activating protein (mGAP) reduces the amount of false positives, thereby significantly enhancing the efficiency of the SRS system (56). SRS may be the method of choice in studying interactions that involve transcriptional activators or repressors, because it is not based on a transcriptional readout. In addition, certain proteins may function more physiologically when expressed in the cytoplasm rather than the nuclear milieu. For example, the SRS should be more suitable for examining interactions between proteins that require modification by cytoplasmic or membrane-associated enzymes.

USPS system
The ubiquitin-based split-protein sensor system (USPS) is based on the fact that newly formed fusions between ubiquitin and proteins are rapidly cleaved by ubiquitin-specific proteases in eukaryotes.
Indeed, protein fusions containing ubiquitin, a 76-residue single-domain protein, are rapidly cleaved in vivo by ubiquitin-specific proteases (UBP) which recognize the folded conformation of ubiquitin. When a C-terminal fragment of ubiquitin (Cub) is expressed as a fusion to a reporter protein, the fusion is cleaved only if an N-terminal fragment of ubiquitin (Nub) is also expressed in the same cell. This reconstitution of native ubiquitin from its fragments, detectable by the in vivo cleavage assay, is not observed with a mutationally altered Nub. However, if Cub and the altered Nub are each linked to polypeptides that interact in vivo, the cleavage of the fusion containing Cub is restored, yielding a generally applicable assay for kinetic and equilibrium aspects of in vivo protein interactions. This method was termed USPS which stands for ubiquitin-based split protein sensor (58).
To higher eukaryotes: Mammalian Two-hybrid

Here the gene of interest is cloned into pM, where it is expressed as a fusion with the GAL4 DNA-BD. The second gene is cloned into pVP16, where it is expressed as a fusion with VP16 AD. A third vector, pG5CAT, contains the CAT reporter gene downstream of a GAL4 responsive UAS. These three vectors are cotransfected into a mammalian cell line. Interaction between proteins X and Y is assayed by measuring CAT gene expression by any standard method (e.g. ELISA). The system might be meaningful to confirm interactions (59). An inverse mammalian two-hybrid system for secretase was described (60). To determine if a protease contained "secretase-like" activity, a 20 amino-acid cleavage cassette for secretase (from amyloid precursor protein "APP") was inserted into the GAL4 gene of S. cerevisiae. When this GAL4/APP fusion construct is transiently transfected into 293 cells and indirectly assayed for its functional capabilities through chloramphenicol acetyltransferase (CAT) transactivation, this protein retained functional activity confirming that no endogenous secretase activity was present and that the fusion protein retained its transactivation activity. After cotransfection of cDNAs encoding "APP" cleaving proteases, the ability of GAL4 to transactivate the reporter CAT gene was indeed reduced (60).
Three-hybrid systems
Several recent studies probed more complex macromolecular interactions of at least three partners.
Kinase three-hybrid system (tri-brid)

This kinase three-hybrid system called tri-brid system can detect protein-protein interactions that depend on post translational modifications. Indeed, one of the limitations of the original version of the two-hybrid system has been the lack of some crucial post-translational modifications (such as tyrosine phosphorylation) which do not occur in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Higher eukaryotic cells utilize tyrosine phosphorylation as a major modification in signal transduction pathways in response to extracellular stimuli. Although S. cerevisiae do possess dual-specificity kinases, to date, no mono-specific tyrosine kinases have been described. This was solved by introduction of a third component, a cytosolic tyrosine kinase, which then phosphorylated substrates in the yeast cell. In principle, it should be possible to incorporate any posttranslational or allosteric regulation that is desired. However, care must be taken that the posttranslational modification is correctly carried out inside the yeast cell (61).
Protein three-hybrid system
The protein three-hybrid system represents a natural extension of the two-hybrid system in that stable interaction of proteins X and Y may rely on the presence of a third protein Z. Protein Z either mediates the interaction or induces a conformational change in one of the proteins (e.g. X) so that it promotes interaction with another protein Y (62). Zhang used this system to demonstrate the Grb2-mediated interaction of the cytoplasmic domain of the epidermal growth factor receptor with the Sos protein.
Recently a variant of this system was proposed by Tirode et al. (32). This system uses both LexA and GAL4 plasmids and is based on the addition of a Met25 promoter for the third partner. This "third man" is cloned on the same plasmid that already encodes the GAL4 and LexA fusion protein. By doing this, a selection marker is saved. Transcription of the third protein is repressed upon addition of methionine in the culture medium, and provides an elegant way to perform negative controls (32). In order to adapt the two-hybrid system to the needs of caspases we devised in parallel our own three-hybrid system. This system can be used to study any hetero-dimeric target (Figure 9)(68).

Studies with extracellular domains of transmembrane receptors (10,11), have led to the development of a peptide ligand three-hybrid system (63). In this system, the extracellular domain of a transmembrane receptor is fused to the GAL4BD and separately to the GAL4AD. Expression of the native peptide ligand for the receptor leads to receptor dimerization via peptide ligand binding and results in a transcriptional readout. This was demonstrated for both the growth hormone receptor and the receptor for vascular endothelial growth factor flk1/KDR (63).
Peptide ligand and small ligand three-hybrid system
The small ligand variant is based on the previously discussed concept and exploits the use of a heterodimer of covalently linked small organic ligands, in this case dexamethasone and FK506, as inducers of dimerization. Dexamethasone interacts with a rat glucocorticoid receptor while FK506 interacts with its binding protein, FKBP12. Yeast expressing fusion proteins of the hormone binding domain of the rat glucocorticoid receptor fused to LexA and FKBP12 fused to a transcriptional activation domain activated reporter genes when plated on medium containing the dexamethasone-FK506 heterodimer. The reporter gene activation is completely abrogated in a competitive manner by the presence of excess FK506. Since small ligand-receptor interactions underlie many fundamental processes and form the basis for pharmacological intervention this system might gain interest. However, limitations of the assay include those of the two-hybrid system in general and in particular the question of how extensively transmembrane receptors function in yeast. Since this system depends on diffusion of the hybrid ligand into the yeast cells, permeability problems may also limit its general applicability (64).
RNA three-hybrid system

The RNA three-hybrid system requires two hybrid proteins and one hybrid RNA. One part of the hybrid RNA acts in a known interaction, whereas the other part can be used to screen for orphan RNA-binding proteins. In this three-hybrid system, the DNA binding and transcription activation domains of the yeast transcriptional activator GAL4 are brought together via the interaction of recombinant fusion proteins with a recombinant RNA. The method provides a system for studying RNA-protein interactions with the genetic advantages of the two-hybrid system. It may be used to detect specific RNA-binding proteins or target RNAs from a library of cDNAs, or to analyze the structural specificity of identified RNA-protein interactions. By use of this system it was shown that when HIV-1 RevM10 is fused to the GAL4DB it tightly binds to its target RNA, the Rev responsive element (RRE) (65). Other examples are the binding of the iron regulatory protein 1 (IRP1) to the iron response element (IRE), and of HIV trans-activator protein (Tat) to the HIV trans-activation response element (TAR) RNA sequence (67). This RNA three-hybrid system may have broad application in the identification of RNA-binding proteins and RNAs, as well as in the detailed analysis of their interactions although it is not known how strong the RNA-protein has to be in order to be detected.
New Applications of Yeast Two-Hybrid
Introduction
During the past decade, together with the evolution of the technique, new applications became apparent. Apart from the molecular dissection of known interactions and the identification of new potential interacting partners, several new problems can now be assayed by use of two-hybrid based technology.
Interaction suppression
Interaction suppression is one of the few techniques available to evaluate the biological significance of an interaction between two proteins. This method makes extensive use of the two-hybrid technique in a very original manner. In a first step one screens for mutations that affect binding of a target protein to its partners (B). Once a mutant version of the bait (A) is found, one can study the influence of this mutation on the phenotype. However, if one finds mutants of protein A that do not interact with protein B, one cannot exclude that also interaction with an unknown protein C is abolished and accounts for the change in phenotype. Therefore, in a second step one has to look for binding suppressors, meaning that one makes a mutant version of B that is able to interact with the mutated version of A and restores the altered phenotype. This approach was taken to study the Ras/Raf pathway (69-71).
Protease Trap
Here the system relies entirely on the nuclear localization of the constructed fusion protein. A functional transcription factor is fused to a domain preventing it from going to the nucleus. If an orphan protease site is cloned in between the transcription factor and this domain, one can screen a protease which cuts off the anti-nuclear localization domain enabling nuclear localization of the transcription factor and finally results in reporter gene transcription. This approach could also be applied to screen for target sequences for a known protease by cloning random sequences in between the two functional domains (72). It should be noted that GAL4 may also be cleaved resulting in both unexpected results and novel applications (73).
Whole genome approaches using the two-hybrid system
One of the most spectacular and ambitious applications consists of establishing so-called protein linkage maps (PLM). These maps consist of all possible protein interactions that occur during the entire lifespan of a cell. PLMs might provide new functions of well-studied proteins by identification of unexpected interactions, clarify cross-connections between pathways, result in new drug-targets and the identification of new functions and gain some insight in the overall cell complexity.
Initially random libraries fused to the DNA-binding domain and random activation domain hybrids are simply used to screen for all possible interactions. This approach was applied to the E. coli bacteriophage T7. The T7 genome of ~ 40 kb, coding for ~ 55 proteins was used to generate the two libraries, which were then transformed into yeast strains of opposite mating type. By doing this, a total set of interactions was identified and termed a protein linkage map. What was interesting about this approach, apart from the biological implications of the interactions found, is that several positives were interactions between adjacent domains of the same polypeptide. These interactions are presumably due to the random fragmentation of protein-coding regions in the library construction, exposing interior surfaces that are capable of finding their complementary surfaces, as must occur during protein folding (77).
Although the genome of the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae is completely sequenced and despite successful genetic work, 60% of the yeast gene have no assigned function and half of those encode putative proteins without any homology with known proteins. By performing exhaustive two-hybrid screens the yeast PLM is currently under construction. For each bait, a selected limited set of interacting preys is classified in categories of distinct heuristic values. From this classification, new baits are chosen and used in second-round screens. Repeating this procedure several times has led to the characterization of a network of interactions (74). The approach taken for T7, using 1 copy centromeric plasmid vector, showed that 4% of all constructs was able to auto-activate. Scaling up this approach to an organism like yeast with approximately 7000 proteins becomes not trivial since, false positives and negatives might seriously interfere with subsequent analysis. Therefore, instead of using random libraries as in the above mentioned exhaustive cyclic screening procedure, a more labor intensive route is taken by performing a "double-PCR-in-vivo-cloning"- method in order to clone every full length ORF in the correct reading frame in both two-hybrid vectors. Using robots and a mating procedure every possible interaction couple, around 50 million, can be assayed (66). Defining the biological relevance of identified interactions will be the next rate-limiting step in deciphering the molecular mechanisms of biological processes.
References
Choi K.Y., Satterberg B., Lyons D.M., Elion E.A. 1994. Ste5 tethers multiple protein kinases in the MAP kinase cascade required for mating in S. cerevisiae. Cell 78, 499-512.
Kischkel F.C., Hellbardt S., Behrmann I., Germer M., Pawlita M., Krammer P.H., Peter M.E. 1995. Cytotoxicity-dependent APO-1 Fas/CD95-associated proteins form a death-inducing signaling complex DISC with the receptor. EMBO J. 14, 5579-5588.
Phizicky E.M., Fields S. 1995. Protein-protein interactions: methods for detection and analysis. Microbiol.Rev. 59, 94-123.
Hope I.A., Struhl K. 1986. Functional dissection of a eukaryotic transcriptional activator protein, GCN4 of yeast. Cell 46, 885-894.
Keegan L., Gill G., Ptashne M. 1986. Separation of DNA binding from the transcription-activating function of a eukaryotic regulatory protein. Science 231, 699-704.
Brent R., Ptashne M. 1985. A eukaryotic transcriptional activator bearing the DNA specificity of a prokaryotic repressor. Cell 43, 729-736.
Ma J., Ptashne M. 1988. Converting a eukaryotic transcriptional inhibitor into an activator. Cell 55, 443-446.
Fields S., Song O.K. 1989. A novel genetic system to detect protein-protein interactions. Nature 340, 245-246.
Fields S., Sternglanz R. 1994. The two-hybrid system: an assay for protein-protein interactions. Trends Genet. 10, 286-292.
Young K.H., Ozenberger B.A. 1995. Investigation of ligand binding to members of the cytokine receptor family within a microbial system. Ann.N.Y.Acad.Sci. 766, 279-281.
Kajkowski E.M., Price L.A., Pausch M.H., Young K.H., Ozenberger B.A. 1997. Investigation of growth hormone releasing hormone receptor structure and activity using yeast expression technologies. J.Recept.Signal.Transduct.Res. 17, 293-303.
Denis C.L., Ferguson J., Young E.T. 1983. mRNA levels for the fermentative alcohol dehydrogenase of Saccharomyces cerevisiae decrease upon growth on a nonfermentable carbon source. J.Biol.Chem. 258, 1165-1171.
Tornow J., Santangelo G.G. 1990. Efficient expression of Saccharomyces cerevisiae glycolytic gene ADH1 is dependent upon a cis-acting regulatory element UAS-PRG found initially in genes encoding ribosomal proteins. Gene 90, 79-85.
Ruohonen L., Penttila M., Keranen S. 1991. Optimization of Bacillus amylase Production by Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Yeast 7, 337-346.
Legrain P., Dokhelar M.C., Transy C. 1994. Detection of protein-protein interactions using different vectors in the two-hybrid system. Nucleic Acids Res. 22, 3241-3242.
Fradet Y., Tardif M., Parent-Vaugeois C. 1985. The use of multiparameter flow cytometry in the detection and evaluation of human bladder tumors. Union.Med.Can. 114, 778-780.
Parent S.A., Fenimore C.M., Bostian K.A. 1985. Vector systems for the expression, analysis and cloning of DNA sequences in S. cerevisiae. Yeast 1, 83-138.
Green N., Alexander H., Olson A., Alexander S., Shinick T.M., Sutcliffe J.G., Lerner R.A. 1982. Immunogenic structure of the influenza virus hemagglutinin. Cell 28, 477-487.
Kaufer A.F., Fried H.M., Schwindinger W.F., Jasin M., Warner J.R. 1983. Cycloheximide resistance in yeast: the gene and its protein. Nucleic Acids Res. 11, 3123
Langlands K., Prochownik E.V. 1997. A rapid method for the preparation of yeast lysates that facilitates the immunodetection of proteins generated by the yeast two-hybrid system. Anal.Biochem. 249, 250-252.
Beranger F., Aresta S., de Gunzburg J., Camonis J. 1997. Getting more from the two-hybrid system: N-terminal fusions to LexA are efficient and sensitive baits for two-hybrid studies. Nucleic Acids Res. 25, 2035-2036.
Johnston S.A., Zavortink M.J., Debouck C., Hopper J.E. 1986. Functional domains of the yeast regulatory protein GAL4. Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci.U.S.A. 83, 6553-6557.
Marmorstein R., Carey M., Ptashne M., Harrison S.C. 1992. DNA recognition by GAL4: structure of a protein-DNA complex. Nature 356, 408-414.
Carey M., Kakidani H., Leatherwood J., Mostashari F., Ptashne M. 1989. An amino-terminal fragment of GAL4 binds DNA as a dimer. J.Mol.Biol. 209, 423-432.
Silver P.A., Keegan L.P., Ptashne M. 1984. Amino terminus of the yeast GAL4 gene product is sufficient for nuclear localization. Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci.U.S.A. 81, 5951-5955.
Silver P.A., Chiang A., Sadler I. 1988. Mutations that alter both localization and production of a yeast nuclear protein. Genes and Dev. 2, 707-717.
Silver P.A., Brent R., Ptashne M. 1986. DNA binding is not sufficient for nuclear localization of regulatory proteins in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol.Cell.Biol. 6, 4763-4766.
Brent R., Ptashne M. 1984. A bacterial repressor protein or a yeast transcriptional terminator can block upstream activation of a yeast gene. Nature 612-615.
Dagher M.C., Filhol Cochet O. 1997. Making hybrids of two-hybrid systems. Biotechniques 22, 916-8,920-2.
Guthrie C., Fink G.R. 1991. Guide to yeast genetics and molecular biology. Methods Enzym. 194, 1-932.
Giniger E., Ptashne M. 1988. Cooperative DNA binding of the yeast transcriptional activator GAL4. Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci.U.S.A. 85, 382-386.
Tirode F., Malaguti C., Romero F., Attar R., Camonis J., Egly J.M. 1997. A conditionally expressed third partner stabilizes or prevents the formation of a transcriptional activator in a three-hybrid system. J.Biol.Chem. 272, 22995-22999.
Ebina Y., Takahara Y., Kishi F., Nakazawa A. 1983. LexA protein is a repressor of colicin E1 gene. J.Biol.Chem. 258, 13258-13261.
Estojak J., Brent R., Golemis E.A. 1995. Correlation of two-hybrid affinity data with in vitro measurements. Mol.Cell.Biol. 15, 5820-5829.
West R.W.Jr., Yoccum R.R., Ptashne M. 1984. Saccharomyces cerevisiae GAL1-GAL10 divergent promotor region: location and function of the upstream activating sequence UASG. Mol.Cell.Biol. 2467-2478.
Gietz R.D., Schiestl R.H. 1991. Applications of high efficiency lithium acetate transformation of intact yeast cells using single-stranded nucleic acids as carrier. Yeast 7, 253-263.
Gietz R.D., St.Jean A., Woods R.A., Schiestl R.H. 1992. Improved method for high efficiency transformation of intact yeast cells. Nucleic Acids Res. 20, 1425
Gietz R.D., Schiestl R.H., Willems A.R., Woods R.A. 1995. Studies on the transformation of intact yeast cells by the LiAc/SS-DNA/PEG procedure. Yeast 11, 355-360.
Gietz R.D. 1997. The Gietz Lab Yeast Transformation Home Page . http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/medicine/human_genetics/gietz/Trafo. html
Schenk J.A., Heymann S., Peters L.E., Micheel B. 1996. Screening for recombinant plasmids in yeast colonies of the two-hybrid system using PCR. Biotechniques 20, 812-4, 816.
Herskowitz I. 1988. Life cycle of the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Microbiol.Rev. 52, 536
Bartel P., Chien C.T., Sternglanz R., Fields S. 1993. Elimination of false positives that arise in using the two-hybrid system. Biotechniques 14, 920-924.
Golemis E.A., Khazak V. 1997. Alternative yeast two-hybrid systems. The interaction trap and interaction mating. Methods Mol.Biol. 63, 197-218.
Hengen P.N. 1997. False positives from the yeast two-hybrid system. Trends Biochem.Sci. 22, 33-34.
Golemis E. 1997. Lab of Erica Golemis. http://chaos.fccc.edu/research/labs/ golemis
Yavuzer U., Goding C.R. 1995. pWITCH: a versatile two-hybrid assay vector for the production of epitope/activation domain-tagged proteins both in vitro and in yeast. Gene 165, 93-96.
Wong C., Naumovski L. 1997. Method to screen for relevant yeast two-hybrid-derived clones by coimmunoprecipitation and colocalization of epitope-tagged fragments, application to Bcl-XL. Anal.Biochem. 252, 33-39.
Roder K.H., Wolf S.S., Schweizer M. 1996. Refinement of vectors for use in the yeast two-hybrid system. Anal.Biochem. 241, 260-262.
Le Douarin B., Pierrat B., vom Baur E., Chambon P., Losson R. 1995. A new version of the two-hybrid assay for detection of protein-protein interactions. Nucleic Acids Res. 23, 876-878.
Drees BL. 1999. Progress and variations in two-hybrid and three-hybrid technologies. Curr Opin Chem Biol. 3, 64-70.
Leanna C.A., Hannink M. 1996. The reverse two-hybrid system: a genetic scheme for selection against specific protein/protein interactions. Nucleic Acids Res. 24, 3341-3347.
Boeke J.D., LaCroute F., Fink G.R. 1984. A positive selection for mutants lacking orotidine-5'-phosphate decarboxylase activity in yeast: 5-fluoro-orotic acid resistance. Mol.Gen.Genet. 197, 345-346.
Shih H.M., Goldman P.S., DeMaggio A.J., Hollenberg S.M., Goodman R.H., Hoekstra M.F. 1996. A positive genetic selection for disrupting protein-protein interactions: identification of CREB mutations that prevent association with the coactivator CBP. Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci.U.S.A. 93, 13896-13901.
Vidal M., Brachmann R.K., Fattaey A., Harlow E., Boeke J.D. 1996a. Reverse two-hybrid and one-hybrid systems to detect dissociation of protein-protein and DNA-protein interactions. Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci.U.S.A. 93, 10315-10320.
Vidal M., Braun P., Chen E., Boeke J.D., Harlow E. 1996b. Genetic characterization of a mammalian protein-protein interaction domain by using a yeast reverse two-hybrid system. Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci.U.S.A. 93, 10321-10326.
Aronheim A. 551997a. Improved efficiency Sos recruitment system: expression of the mammalian GAP reduces isolation of Ras GTPase false positives. Nucleic Acids Res. 25, 3373-3374.
Aronheim A., Zandi E., Hennemann H., Elledge S.J., Karin M. 1997b. Isolation of an AP-1 Repressor by a Novel Method for Detecting Protein-Protein Interactions. Mol.Cell.Biol. 17, 3094-3102.
Johnsson N., Varhavsky A. 1994. Split ubiquitin as a sensor of protein interactions in vivo. Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci.U.S.A. 91, 10340-10344.
Buchert M., Schneider S., Adams M.T., Hefti H.P., Moelling K., Hovens C.M. 1997. Useful vectors for the two-hybrid system in mammalian cells. Biotechniques 23, 396-8, 400, 402.
Dixon E.P., Johnstone E.M., Liu X., Little S.P. 1997. An inverse mammalian two-hybrid system for secretase and other proteases. Anal.Biochem. 249, 239-241.
Osborne M.A., Dalton D., Kochan J.P. 1995. The yeast tribrid system-genetic detection of tans-phosphorylated ITAM-SH2-interactions. Biotechnology 13, 1474-1478.
Zhang J., Lautar S. 1996. A yeast three-hybrid method to clone ternary protein complex components. Anal.Biochem. 242, 68-72.
Ozenberger B.A., Young K.H. 1995. Functional interaction of ligands and receptors of the hematopoietic superfamily in yeast. Mol.Endocrinol. 9, 1321-1329.
Licitra E.J., Liu J.O. 1996. A three-hybrid system for detecting small ligand-protein receptor interactions. Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci.U.S.A. 93, 12817-12821.
Putz U., Skehel P., Kuhl D. 1996. A tri-hybrid system for the analysis and detection of RNA-protein interactions. Nucleic Acids Res. 24, 4838-4040.
Sengupta D.J. 1996. Application of two-hybrid and three-hybrid technologies. EMBO Two-Hybrid Course, October 12, Munich.
Brachmann R.K., Boeke J.D. 1997. Tag games in yeast: the two-hybrid system and beyond. Curr.Op.Biotech. 561-568.
Van Criekinge W, van Gurp M, Decoster E, Schotte P, Van de Craen M, Fiers W, Vandenabeele P, Beyaert R 1998 Use of the yeast three-hybrid system as a tool to study caspases. Anal Biochem. 263, 62-64.
Van Aelst L., White M.A., Wigler M.H. 1994. Ras partners. Cold.Spring.Harb.Symp.Quant. Biol. 59, 181-186.
White M.A., Nicolette C., Minden A., Polverino A., Van Aelst L., Karin M., Wigler M.H. 1995. Multiple Ras functions can contribute to mammalian cell transformation. Cell 80, 533-541.
Khosravi-Far R., White M.A., Westwick J.K., Solski P.A., Chrzanowska-Wodnicka M., Van Aelst L., Wigler M.H., Der C.J. 1996. Oncogenic Ras activation of Raf/mitogen-activated protein kinase-independent pathways is sufficient to cause tumorigenic transformation. Mol.Cell.Biol. 16, 3923-3933.
Jessen T. 1996. Pharmaceutical applications of the interaction trap. EMBO Two-Hybrid Course, October 10, Munich.
Van Criekinge W., Cornelis S., Van de Craen M., Vandenabeele P., Fiers W. & Beyaert R. 1999. GAL4 is a substrate for caspases: implications for two-hybrid screening and other GAL4-based assays. Mol. Cell Biol. Res. Commun. 1, 158-161.
Fromont-Racine M., Rain J.C., Legrain P. 1997. Towards a functional analysis of the yeast genome through exhaustive two-hybrid screens. Nature Gen. 277-281.
Robzyk K, Kassir Y. 1992. A simple and highly efficient procedure for rescuing autonomous plasmids from yeast. Nucleic Acids Res 20, 3790.
James P, Halladay J, Craig EA 1996. Genomic libraries and a host strain designed for highly efficient two-hybrid selection in yeast. Genetics 144, 1425-36.
Bartel PL, Roecklein JA, SenGupta D, Fields S 1996. A protein linkage map of Escherichia coli bacteriophage T7. Nat Genet 12, 72-77.