Disrupting Protein Complexes Using Tat-Tagged Peptide Mimics

  • Shupeng Li
  • Sheng Chen
  • Yu Tian Wang
  • Fang LiuEmail author
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 756)


Protein–protein interaction is a widely existing phenomenon and is essential for almost all biological processes, extending from the formation of cellular macromolecular structures and enzymatic complexes to the regulation of signal transduction pathways. Proteins interact with each other through the dynamic associations between modular protein domains within different cellular compartments and with distinct temporal dynamics. Disrupting protein interactions has emerged as an effective way to specifically modulate certain signaling pathways. Tat-tagged peptide mimics are a recently developed experimental tool that is used to disrupt specific interactions between protein complexes. TAT, an 11-amino acid protein transduction domain from HIV Tat protein, is tagged to peptides that mimic the functional fragment of protein interaction domains, and facilitates the delivery of peptides into cells to disrupt the associated protein both competitively and selectively. Here we provide a technical description on the utilization of Tat-tagged peptide mimics as a tool to disrupt protein interaction in cultured neurons and in the rat brain.

Key words

Protein–protein interaction TAT domain Peptide mimics Signal transduction Neuroscience 



We thank Kathleen M. Coen and Zhaoxia Li for their excellent technical assistance. We appreciate Dr. Paul J. Fletcher for critical reading and comments on the manuscript.


  1. 1.
    Schwarze, S. R., Ho, A., Vocero-Akbani, A., and Dowdy, S. F. (1999) In vivo protein transduction: delivery of a biologically active protein into the mouse. Science 285, 156972.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rapoport, M., and Lorberboum-Galski, H. (2009) TAT-based drug delivery system--new directions in protein delivery for new hopes? Expert Opin Drug Deliv 6, 453–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aarts, M., Liu, Y., Liu, L., Besshoh, S., Arundine, M., Gurd, J. W., Wang, Y. T., Salter, M. W., and Tymianski, M. (2002) Treatment of ischemic brain damage by perturbing NMDA receptor-PSD-95 protein interactions. Science 298, 846–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brebner,, K., Wong, T. P., Liu, L., Liu, Y., Campsall, P., Gray, S., Phelps, L., Phillips, A. G., and Wang, Y. T. (2005) Nucleus accumbens long-term depression and the expression of behavioral sensitization. Science 310, 1340–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Erb, S., Funk, D., and Lê, A. D. (2003) Prior repeated exposure to cocaine potentiates locomotor responsivity to central injections of corticotropin-releasing factor (CRF) in rats. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 170, 383–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Corrigall, W. A., and Coen, K. M. (1989) Nicotine maintains robust self-administration in rats on a limited-access schedule. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 99, 473–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shupeng Li
    • 1
  • Sheng Chen
    • 1
  • Yu Tian Wang
    • 2
  • Fang Liu
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Neuroscience, Centre for Addiction and Mental HealthUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Brain Research CenterUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  3. 3.Departments of Neuroscience and Psychiatry, Centre for Addiction and Mental HealthUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations