Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

A general method for chemogenetic control of peptide function

Nature Methods volume 20, pages 112–122 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Natural or engineered peptides serve important biological functions. A general approach to achieve chemical-dependent activation of short peptides will be valuable for spatial and temporal control of cellular processes. Here we present a pair of chemically activated protein domains (CAPs) for controlling the accessibility of both the N- and C-terminal portion of a peptide. CAPs were developed through directed evolution of an FK506-binding protein. By fusing a peptide to one or both CAPs, the function of the peptide is blocked until a small molecule displaces them from the FK506-binding protein ligand-binding site. We demonstrate that CAPs are generally applicable to a range of short peptides, including a protease cleavage site, a dimerization-inducing heptapeptide, a nuclear localization signal peptide, and an opioid peptide, with a chemical dependence up to 156-fold. We show that the CAPs system can be utilized in cell cultures and multiple organs in living animals.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it

$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Engineering of the CapN system.
Fig. 2: Engineering of the CapC system.
Fig. 3: Applying CAPs for shield-1-induced protein translocation.
Fig. 4: Applying CAPs to cage NLS peptide and opioid peptide.
Fig. 5: Applying CAPs to shield-1-induced transgene transcription.
Fig. 6: AquaShield-1 induced transgene expression in mouse tissues.

Data availability

All the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the paper and its supplementary information files. PDB-1FAP, PDB-1NSG, and PDB-6DDF cited in this study are available at Protein Data Bank. All the DNA constructs used in this study are available upon request to the corresponding author. Source data are provided with this paper.

Code availability

The GROMACS software package including source code is freely available at https://www.gromacs.org and https://gitlab.com/gromacs/gromacs and includes implementations of all simulation and analysis algorithms used for this project. The VMD (Visual Molecular Dynamics) package used to visualize the simulated proteins is available from https://www.ks.uiuc.edu/Research/vmd.

References

  1. Song, H. K. & Eck, M. J. Structural basis of degradation signal recognition by SspB, a specificity-enhancing factor for the ClpXP proteolytic machine. Mol. Cell 12, 75–86 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Yi, J. J., Wang, H., Vilela, M., Danuser, G. & Hahn, K. M. Manipulation of endogenous kinase activity in living cells using photoswitchable inhibitory peptides. ACS Synth. Biol. 3, 788–795 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Matthew, A. N. et al. Hepatitis C virus NS3/4A protease inhibitors incorporating flexible P2 quinoxalines target drug resistant viral variants. J. Med. Chem. 60, 5699–5716 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Dingwall, C. & Laskey, R. A. Nuclear target sequences a consensus? Tibs 16, 478–481 (1991).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Xu, D., Farmer, A., Collett, G., Grishin, N. V. & Chook, Y. M. Sequence and structural analyses of nuclear export signals in the NESdb database. Mol. Biol. Cell 23, 3677–3693 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Renicke, C., Schuster, D., Usherenko, S., Essen, L.-O. & Taxis, C. A LOV2 domain-based optogenetic tool to control protein degradation and cellular function. Chem. Biol. 20, 619–626 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Bonger, K. M., Chen, L. C., Liu, C. W. & Wandless, T. J. Small-molecule displacement of a cryptic degron causes conditional protein degradation. Nat. Chem. Biol. 7, 531–537 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Wong, S., Mosabbir, A. A. & Truong, K. An engineered split intein for photoactivated protein trans-splicing. PLoS One 10, 1–16 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. So, W. H., Wong, C. T. T. & Xia, J. Peptide photocaging: a brief account of the chemistry and biological applications. Chin. Chem. Lett. 29, 1058–1062 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Renner, C. & Moroder, L. Azobenzene as conformational switch in model peptides. Chembiochem 7, 868–878 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Lungu, O. I. et al. Designing photoswitchable peptides using the AsLOV2 domain. Chem. Biol. 19, 507–517 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Bonger, K. M., Rakhit, R., Payumo, A. Y., Chen, J. K. & Wandless, T. J. General method for regulating protein stability with light. ACS Chem. Biol. 9, 111–115 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Niopek, D. et al. Engineering light-inducible nuclear localization signals for precise spatiotemporal control of protein dynamics in living cells. Nat. Commun. 5, 4404 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Yumerefendi, H. et al. Control of protein activity and cell fate specification via light-mediated nuclear translocation. PLoS One 10, e0128443 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Niopek, D., Wehler, P., Roensch, J., Eils, R. & Di Ventura, B. Optogenetic control of nuclear protein export. Nat. Commun. 7, 1–9 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Guntas, G. et al. Engineering an improved light-induced dimer (iLID) for controlling the localization and activity of signaling proteins. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 112–117 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Konold, P. E. et al. Unfolding of the C-terminal Jα helix in the LOV2 photoreceptor domain observed by time-resolved vibrational spectroscopy. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 7, 3472–3476 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Peter, E., Dick, B. & Baeurle, S. A. Mechanism of signal transduction of the LOV2-Jα photosensor from Avena sativa. Nat. Commun. 1, 122–127 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. He, L. et al. Circularly permuted LOV2 as a modular photoswitch for optogenetic engineering. Nat. Chem. Biol. 17, 915–923 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Geng, L., Shen, J. & Wang, W. Circularly permuted AsLOV2 as an optogenetic module for engineering photoswitchable peptides. Chem. Commun. 57, 8051–8054 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Ruggiero, E., Alonso-de Castro, S., Habtemariam, A. & Salassa, L. Upconverting nanoparticles for the near infrared photoactivation of transition metal complexes: new opportunities and challenges in medicinal inorganic photochemistry. Dalt. Trans. 45, 13012–13020 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Stanton, B. Z., Chory, E. J. & Crabtree, G. R. Chemically induced proximity in biology and medicine. Science 359, eaao5902 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Wu, H. D. et al. Rational design and implementation of a chemically inducible heterotrimerization system. Nat. Methods 17, 928–936 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Karginov, A. V., Ding, F., Kota, P., Dokholyan, N. V. & Hahn, K. M. Engineered allosteric activation of kinases in living cells. Nat. Biotechnol. 28, 743–747 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Farrants, H. et al. Chemogenetic control of nanobodies. Nat. Methods 17, 279–282 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Clackson, T. et al. Redesigning an FKBP-ligand interface to generate chemical dimerizers with novel specificity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 95, 10437–10442 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Lamming, D. W. Inhibition of the mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR)—rapamycin and beyond. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Med. 6, a025924 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Banaszynski, L. A., Sellmyer, M. A., Contag, C. H., Wandless, T. J. & Thorne, S. H. Chemical control of protein stability and function in living mice. Nat. Med. 14, 1123–1127 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Wang, W. et al. A light- and calcium-gated transcription factor for imaging and manipulating activated neurons. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 864–871 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Lee, D. et al. Temporally precise labeling and control of neuromodulatory circuits in the mammalian brain. Nat. Methods 14, 495–503 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Kapust, R. B., Tözsér, J., Copeland, T. D. & Waugh, D. S. The P1′ specificity of tobacco etch virus protease. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 294, 949–955 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Shenoy, S. K. & Lefkowitz, R. J. Multifaceted roles of β-arrestins in the regulation of seven-membrane-spanning receptor trafficking and signalling. Biochem. J. 375, 503–515 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Vega, F. M. & Ridley, A. J. Rho GTPases in cancer cell biology. FEBS Lett. 582, 2093–2101 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Mellor, H. & Parker, P. J. The extended protein kinase C superfamily. Biochem. J. 332, 281–292 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Hogan, P. G. The STIM1–ORAI1 microdomain. Cell Calcium 58, 357–367 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Nguyen, T., Pappireddi, N. & Wühr, M. Proteomics of nucleocytoplasmic partitioning. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 48, 55–63 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Wacker, D., Stevens, R. C. & Roth, B. L. How ligands illuminate GPCR molecular pharmacology. Cell 170, 414–427 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Mansour, A., Hoversten, M. T., Taylor, L. P., Watson, S. J. & Akil, H. The cloned μ, δ and κ receptors and their endogenous ligands: evidence for two opioid peptide recognition cores. Brain Res. 700, 89–98 (1995).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Koehl, A. et al. Structure of the µ-opioid receptor–Gi protein complex. Nature 558, 547–552 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Guan, X. M., Kobilka, T. S. & Kobilka, B. K. Enhancement of membrane insertion and function in a type IIIb membrane protein following introduction of a cleavable signal peptide. J. Biol. Chem. 267, 21995–21998 (1992).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Fan, F. et al. Novel genetically encoded biosensors using firefly luciferase. ACS Chem. Biol. 3, 346–351 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Vardy, E. et al. A new DREADD facilitates the multiplexed chemogenetic interrogation of behavior. Neuron 86, 936–946 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Che, T., Dwivedi-Agnihotri, H., Shukla, A. K. & Roth, B. L. Biased ligands at opioid receptors: current status and future directions. Sci. Signal. 14, 1–11 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Ptashne, M. & Gann, A. Transcriptional activation by recruitment. Nature 386, 569–577 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Richman, S. A. et al. Ligand-induced degradation of a CAR permits reversible remote control of CAR T cell activity in vitro and in vivo. Mol. Ther. 28, 1600–1613 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Strickland, D. et al. TULIPs: tunable, light-controlled interacting protein tags for cell biology. Nat. Methods 9, 379–384 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Wu, Y. I. et al. A genetically encoded photoactivatable Rac controls the motility of living cells. Nature 461, 104–108 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Pham, E., Mills, E. & Truong, K. A synthetic photoactivated protein to generate local or global Ca2+ signals. Chem. Biol. 18, 880–890 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Baarlink, C., Wang, H. & Grosse, R. Nuclear actin network assembly by formins regulates the SRF coactivator MAL. Science 340, 864–867 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Cosentino, C. et al. Engineering of a light-gated potassium channel. Science 348, 707–710 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. McCauley, J. A. & Rudd, M. T. Hepatitis C virus NS3/4a protease inhibitors. Curr. Opin. Pharmacol. 30, 84–92 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Cunningham-Bryant, D. et al. A chemically disrupted proximity system for controlling dynamic cellular processes. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 141, 3352–3355 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Rose, J. C. et al. A computationally engineered RAS rheostat reveals RAS–ERK signaling dynamics. Nat. Chem. Biol. 13, 119–126 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Lam, S. S. et al. Directed evolution of APEX2 for electron microscopy and proximity labeling. Nat. Methods 12, 51–54 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Abraham, M. J. et al. Gromacs: high performance molecular simulations through multi-level parallelism from laptops to supercomputers. SoftwareX 1, 19–25 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Lindorff-Larsen, K. et al. Improved side-chain torsion potentials for the Amber ff99SB protein force field. Proteins Struct. Funct. Bioinforma. 8, 1950–1958 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Jorgensen, W. L., Chandrasekhar, J., Madura, J. D., Impey, R. W. & Klein, M. L. Comparison of simple potential functions for simulating liquid water. J. Chem. Phys. 79, 926 (1983).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Li, P. et al. Brain circuit of claustrophobia-like behavior in mice identified by upstream tracing of sighing. Cell Rep. 31, 107779 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

H. Jiang helped with TEV protease expression and purification and neuronal culture preparation. L. Wen helped with cloning and imaging. FACS was performed at the Flow Cytometry Core at the University of Michigan. This study is supported by the University of Michigan and National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants DP2MH132939, R01AT011652, and R01HL156989. M.H. gratefully acknowledges financial support from Research Corporation for Science Advancement (#27360). K.K. is supported by NIH F31MH12915001.

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Jiaqi Shen, Lequn Geng, Xingyu Li.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Life Sciences Institute, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Jiaqi Shen, Lequn Geng, Xingyu Li, Catherine Emery, Kayla Kroning, Gwendolyn Shingles, Kerry Lee, Peng Li & Wenjing Wang

  2. Department of Chemistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Jiaqi Shen, Lequn Geng, Kayla Kroning, Gwendolyn Shingles & Wenjing Wang

  3. Department of Biologic and Materials Sciences & Prosthodontics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Xingyu Li, Catherine Emery & Peng Li

  4. Department of Molecular and Integrative Physiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Xingyu Li, Catherine Emery & Peng Li

  5. Neuroscience Graduate Program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Catherine Emery

  6. School of Molecular Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

    Matthias Heyden

Authors
  1. Jiaqi Shen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lequn Geng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xingyu Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Catherine Emery
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kayla Kroning
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Gwendolyn Shingles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Kerry Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Matthias Heyden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Peng Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Wenjing Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

W.W., J.S., L.G., and P.L. conceived the project idea. W.W., J.S., and L.G. designed the yeast cell-based and cell culture experiments. P.L., X.L., C.E., W.W., J.S., and L.G. designed the animal experiments. J.S. performed the CapN evolution and L.G. performed the CapC evolution. L.G. performed cell culture application of CAPs caging TEVcs, and characterization of shield-1 concentration and incubation time in the transgene transcription system. J.S., L.G., and K.L. performed application of CapC caging enkephalin. J.S., K.K., and G.S. performed application of CAPs caging SsrA for translocation. J.S. performed all other cell culture application and characterization. X.L. and C.E. performed the animal experiments. M.H. performed the simulation experiment. All authors analyzed data, wrote and edited the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Peng Li or Wenjing Wang.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare the following competing interests. A patent application has been filed by W.W., P.L., J.S., and L.G. with title ‘Chemogenetic Regulation of Peptide Function,’ U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/329,736, filed April 11, 2022; applicants: the Regents of the University of Michigan; patent pending. All other authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Methods thanks John Ngo and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editor: Rita Strack, in collaboration with the Nature Methods team. Peer reviewer reports are available.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Ligand binding site of FKBP and directed evolution results of CapN.

Related to main Fig. 1. a, Crystal structure of FKBP12 (PDB:1FAP). The hydrophobic residues around the ligand binding site are shown in yellow and stick representation. b, Sequences of forty clones from the post 4th round CapN library as shown in main Fig. 1e. Twenty-three distinct sequences were identified. Clone #1 is the final CapN used for the rest of this study. c, FACS analysis of the most enriched eight clones, corresponding to clones #1-#8 shown in b. Values are median HA intensity of FLAG-positive cells (Q2 + Q4). All eight clones showed similar results. This experiment was performed once.

Extended Data Fig. 2 All-atom molecular dynamics simulations.

Results from a 2 microsecond molecular dynamics simulations of FKBP and a capped ArgTyrSerProAsnLeu peptide in 150 mM buffer. a, the central configurations for the top 5 clusters (Rank 1–5) obtained from RMSD clustering indicate direct interactions between Leu6 of the peptide (shown in a’licorice’ representation; cap residues are shown in green, other atoms in CPK colors with gray carbons) and the F36V binding site of FKBP (shown as van-der-Waals spheres). The secondary structure of the FKBP protein is shown in a cartoon representation with red 𝛼-helices and yellow 𝛽-sheets. b, RMSD time traces with respect to the structures shown in a indicate the longevity of the respective conformations within the simulations. RMSD’s of 0 indicate the simulation time points corresponding to the structures in a. A horizontal dashed line indicates the 1.5 Å cutoff used for clustering. c, time traces of the center of mass distances between each individual sidechain of the peptide and the sidechain of the F36V binding site indicate a persistent proximity of Leu6 to the binding site for a large fraction of the simulation trajectory (distances of 5–6 Å). Fractions of the simulation trajectory with close proximity of Leu6 to the F36V binding site include all configurations associated with the top 5 clusters shown in a.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 3 Directed evolution results of CapC.

Related to main Fig. 2. a, Sequences of twenty clones from the post 2nd round CapC library as shown in main Fig. 2c. Eighteen distinct sequences were identified and characterized. One sequence with early stop codon is not shown. Clone #18 is the final CapC used for the rest of this study. b, FACS analysis of the eighteen clones shown in a. Values are median HA intensity of FLAG-positive cells (Q2 + Q4). This experiment was performed once.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Comparison of single CapN, single CapC, and tandem CAPs in caging TEVcs.

a, Scheme of the three constructs tested. CapN-TEVcs-CapC is the combined use of both post-evolution CAPs. b, FACS plots of the three constructs shown in a. Values are median biotin intensity of FLAG-positive cells (Q2 + Q4). This experiment used a stronger TEV protease condition than main Figs. 1e and 1f. See method section for details. Protease cleavage (‘+ shield-1’ or ‘− shield-1’) is defined as the difference of the median HA signal between the + protease and – protease conditions. The dynamic ranges are calculated by the ratio of protease cleavage of the ‘+ shield-1’ and ‘− shield-1’ conditions. This experiment was performed once.

Extended Data Fig. 5 µOR peptide ligands and binding pocket, and effect of different drugs in the control study.

Related to main Fig. 4c, d. a, Left: Structure of [Met5]-enkephalin and its analog DAMGO. Right: Crystal structure of µOR binding pocket. PDB: 6DDF. b, Scheme and sequence of the constructs. SS, signal sequence (KTIIALSYIFCLVFA) is cleaved before the protein is trafficked to plasma membrane. Enkephalin (YGGFM). Left: Construct of CapC caged enkephalin fused to µOR. Right: Construct of µOR only used for control study. c, Cells transfected with µOR construct were stimulated with forskolin (1 µM) at 15 min, and then different drugs (10 µM) at 45 min. Top: Four conditions plotted on the same graph. Bottom: Four conditions plotted on separate graphs. From left to right: no drug, naloxone, shield-1, DAMGO. n = 3 wells from one replicate for all conditions. Errors are standard error of the mean. This experiment was performed once.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 6 Effect of shield-1 on transcription-activation domain expression.

Related to main Fig. 5. a, Quantification of reporter gene activation level (mCherry, left) and transcription-activation domain expression marker level (EGFP, right). n = 12 fields of view from one replicate for all conditions. b, No difference in reporter expression was found between the + shield-1 and – shield-1 conditions in the control study with SspB-EGFP-VP16 only. n = 12 fields of view from one replicate for all conditions. All scale bars, 50 µm. P values are determined by unpaired two-tailed t-tests. **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001; ****P < 0.0001; NS, not significant. This experiment was performed three times with similar results.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 7 Dose response curve of CapC and CAPs caged SsrA.

The mean mCherry intensities of EGFP positive cell population are plotted against shield-1 concentration. Half maximum response was observed at 21 nM for CapC single-caged SsrA (95% confidence interval = 19 nM ~ 24 nM) and 55 nM for CAPs double-caged SsrA (95% confidence interval = 51 nM ~ 59 nM). n = 3 technical replicates for all conditions. Errors are standard error of the mean. Source FACS data is shown in Supplementary Fig. 8. This experiment was performed once.

Source data

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figs 1–14, Supplementary Method 1, Supplementary Table, References.

Reporting Summary

Peer Review File

Supplementary Video

Video of shield-1 induced protein translocation to plasma membrane.

Supplementary Data

Statistical data of Supplementary Figs 1, 7, 9, 12.

Source data

Source Data Fig. 3

Statistical data in graphs.

Source Data Fig. 4

Statistical data in graphs.

Source Data Fig. 5

Statistical data in graphs.

Source Data Fig. 6

Statistical data in graphs.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 2b

Simulation data in graphs.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 2c

Simulation data in graphs.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 5

Statistical data in graphs.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 6

Statistical data in graphs.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 7

Statistical data in graphs.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shen, J., Geng, L., Li, X. et al. A general method for chemogenetic control of peptide function. Nat Methods 20, 112–122 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-022-01697-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-022-01697-8

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing