Chapter title |
Use of Nanobodies to Localize Endogenous Cytoskeletal Proteins and to Determine Their Contribution to Cancer Cell Invasion by Using an ECM Degradation Assay
|
---|---|
Chapter number | 12 |
Book title |
Cytoskeleton Methods and Protocols
|
Published in |
Methods in molecular biology, January 2016
|
DOI | 10.1007/978-1-4939-3124-8_12 |
Pubmed ID | |
Book ISBNs |
978-1-4939-3123-1, 978-1-4939-3124-8
|
Authors |
Van Audenhove, Isabel, Gettemans, Jan, Isabel Van Audenhove, Jan Gettemans |
Abstract |
There are numerous ways to study actin cytoskeletal structures, and thereby identify the underlying mechanisms of organization and their regulating proteins. Traditional approaches make use of protein overexpression or siRNA. However to study or modulate resident endogenous proteins, complementary methods are required. Since the discovery of nanobodies in 1993, they have proven to represent interesting tools in a variety of applications due to their high affinity, solubility, and stability. Especially their intracellular functionality makes them ideally suited for the study of actin cytoskeletal regulation.Here we provide a protocol to clone nanobody cDNAs in frame with an EGFP or mCherry fluorescent tag. We explain how to transfect this fusion protein in eukaryotic (cancer) cells and how to perform immunofluorescence. This allows microscopic analysis of endogenous (cytoskeletal) proteins and gives insight into their endogenous localization. Moreover, we outline an extracellular matrix (ECM) degradation assay as an application of the general protocol. By seeding cells onto a fluorescently labeled gelatin matrix, degradation can be quantified by means of a matrix degradation index. This assay demonstrates the contribution of a protein during cancer cell invasiveness in vitro and the potential of a nanobody to inhibit this degradation through modulation of its target. |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 12 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 4 | 33% |
Student > Master | 3 | 25% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 17% |
Other | 1 | 8% |
Student > Bachelor | 1 | 8% |
Other | 0 | 0% |
Unknown | 1 | 8% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 33% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 25% |
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 2 | 17% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 8% |
Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 8% |
Other | 0 | 0% |
Unknown | 1 | 8% |