Impact of inherent biases built into proteomic techniques: Proximity labeling and affinity capture compared.

The characterization of protein-protein interactions (PPIs) is of high value for understanding protein function. Two strategies are popular for identification of PPIs direct from the cellular environment: affinity capture (pulldown) isolates the protein of interest with an immobilized matrix that specifically captures the target and potential partners, whereas in BioID, genetic fusion of biotin ligase facilitates proximity biotinylation, and labeled proteins are isolated with streptavidin. Whilst both methods provide valuable insights, they can reveal distinct PPIs, but the basis for these differences is less obvious. Here, we compare both methods using four different trypanosome proteins as baits: poly(A)-binding proteins PABP1 and PABP2, mRNA export receptor MEX67, and the nucleoporin NUP158. With BioID, we found that the population of candidate interacting proteins decreases with more confined bait protein localization, but the candidate population is less variable with affinity capture. BioID returned more likely false positives, in particular for proteins with less confined localization, and identified low molecular weight proteins less efficiently. Surprisingly, BioID for MEX67 identified exclusively proteins lining the inner channel of the nuclear pore complex (NPC), consistent with the function of MEX67, whereas the entire NPC was isolated by pulldown. Similarly, for NUP158, BioID returned surprisingly few PPIs within NPC outer rings that were by contrast detected with pulldown but instead returned a larger cohort of nuclear proteins. These rather significant differences highlight a clear issue with reliance on a single method to identify PPIs and suggest that BioID and affinity capture are complementary rather than alternative approaches.

Anti-apoptotic MCL1 Protein Represents Critical Survival Molecule for Most Burkitt Lymphomas and BCL2-negative Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphomas.

The pro-survival MCL1 protein is overexpressed in many cancers, including B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas (B-NHL). S63845 is a highly specific inhibitor of MCL1. We analyzed mechanisms of sensitivity/resistance to S63845 in preclinical models of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and Burkitt lymphoma. Annexin V-based cytotoxic assays, Western blot analysis, protein co-immunoprecipitation, and cell clones with manipulated expression of BCL2 family proteins were used to analyze mechanisms of sensitivity to S63845. Experimental in vivo therapy with S63845 and/or venetoclax was performed using patient-derived xenografts (PDX) of treatment-refractory B-NHL. A subset of DLBCL and majority of Burkitt lymphoma cell lines were sensitive to S63845. The level of BCL2 protein expression was the major determinant of resistance to S63845: BCL2 serves as a buffer for pro-apoptotic proteins released from MCL1 upon exposure to S63845. While BCL2-negative lymphomas were effectively eliminated by single-agent S63845, its combination with venetoclax was synthetically lethal in BCL2-positive PDX models. Concerning MCL1, both, the level of MCL1 protein expression, and its occupational status represent key factors mediating sensitivity to S63845. In contrast to MCL1-BIM/BAK1 complexes that prime lymphoma cells for S63845-mediated apoptosis, MCL1-NOXA complexes are associated with S63845 resistance. In conclusion, MCL1 represents a critical survival molecule for most Burkitt lymphomas and a subset of BCL2-negative DLBCLs. The level of BCL2 and MCL1 expression and occupational status of MCL1 belong to the key modulators of sensitivity/resistance to S63845. Co-treatment with venetoclax can overcome BCL2-mediated resistance to S63845, and enhance efficacy of MCL1 inhibitors in BCL2-positive aggressive B-NHL.

Bioactive secondary metabolites from roots of Cissus rheifolia planch.

Two new aromadendrin rhamnosides, cissusfoliate A (1) and 3-epi-cissusfoliate A (2) together with seven known compounds (3-9) were isolated from the roots of Cissus rheifolia Planch. Their structures were determined by extensive spectroscopic methods. The absolute configurations of compounds 1-5 were assigned by combination of the J coupling constant values of H-2 and H-3 and the comparison of their experimental ECD spectra with those reported in literature. Compounds 1, 3 and 5-8 showed antioxidant effects on ORAC, ATBS and DPPH assays as well as antibacterial activity against six pathogenic bacterial strains. Their cytotoxicity against Hela, KB, MCF-7, HepG2 and HT-29 cell lines were also evaluated.