A high-affinity split-HaloTag for live-cell protein labeling

A high-affinity split-HaloTag for live-cell protein labeling | bioRxiv /* */ /* */ <!-- <!-- /*! * yepnope1.5.4 * (c) WTFPL, GPLv2 */ (function(a,b,c){function d(a){return"[object Function]"==o.call(a)}function e(a){return"string"==typeof a}function f(){}function g(a){return!a||"loaded"==a||"complete"==a||"uninitialized"==a}function h(){var a=p.shift();q=1,a?a.t?m(function(){("c"==a.t?B.injectCss:B.injectJs)(a.s,0,a.a,a.x,a.e,1)},0):(a(),h()):q=0}function i(a,c,d,e,f,i,j){function k(b){if(!o&&g(l.readyState)&&(u.r=o=1,!q&&h(),l.onload=l.onreadystatechange=null,b)){"img"!=a&&m(function(){t.removeChild(l)},50);for(var d in y[c])y[c].hasOwnProperty(d)&&y[c][d].onload()}}var j=j||B.errorTimeout,l=b.createElement(a),o=0,r=0,u={t:d,s:c,e:f,a:i,x:j};1===y[c]&&(r=1,y[c]=[]),"object"==a?l.data=c:(l.src=c,l.type=a),l.width=l.height="0",l.onerror=l.onload=l.onreadystatechange=function(){k.call(this,r)},p.splice(e,0,u),"img"!=a&&(r||2===y[c]?(t.insertBefore(l,s?null:n),m(k,j)):y[c].push(l))}function j(a,b,c,d,f){return q=0,b=b||"j",e(a)?i("c"==b?v:u,a,b,this.i++,c,d,f):(p.splice(this.i++,0,a),1==p.length&&h()),this}function k(){var a=B;return a.loader={load:j,i:0},a}var l=b.documentElement,m=a.setTimeout,n=b.getElementsByTagName("script")[0],o={}.toString,p=[],q=0,r="MozAppearance"in l.style,s=r&&!!b.createRange().compareNode,t=s?l:n.parentNode,l=a.opera&&"[object Opera]"==o.call(a.opera),l=!!b.attachEvent&&!l,u=r?"object":l?"script":"img",v=l?"script":u,w=Array.isArray||function(a){return"[object Array]"==o.call(a)},x=[],y={},z={timeout:function(a,b){return b.length&&(a.timeout=b[0]),a}},A,B;B=function(a){function b(a){var a=a.split("!"),b=x.length,c=a.pop(),d=a.length,c={url:c,origUrl:c,prefixes:a},e,f,g;for(f=0;f<d;f++)g=a[f].split("="),(e=z[g.shift()])&&(c=e(c,g));for(f=0;f<b;f++)c=x[f](c);return c}function g(a,e,f,g,h){var i=b(a),j=i.autoCallback;i.url.split(".").pop().split("?").shift(),i.bypass||(e&&(e=d(e)?e:e[a]||e[g]||e[a.split("/").pop().split("?")[0]]),i.instead?i.instead(a,e,f,g,h):(y[i.url]?i.noexec=!0:y[i.url]=1,f.load(i.url,i.forceCSS||!i.forceJS&&"css"==i.url.split(".").pop().split("?").shift()?"c":c,i.noexec,i.attrs,i.timeout),(d(e)||d(j))&&f.load(function(){k(),e&&e(i.origUrl,h,g),j&&j(i.origUrl,h,g),y[i.url]=2})))}function h(a,b){function c(a,c){if(a){if(e(a))c||(j=function(){var a=[].slice.call(arguments);k.apply(this,a),l()}),g(a,j,b,0,h);else if(Object(a)===a)for(n in m=function(){var b=0,c;for(c in a)a.hasOwnProperty(c)&&b++;return b}(),a)a.hasOwnProperty(n)&&(!c&&!--m&&(d(j)?j=function(){var a=[].slice.call(arguments);k.apply(this,a),l()}:j[n]=function(a){return function(){var b=[].slice.call(arguments);a&&a.apply(this,b),l()}}(k[n])),g(a[n],j,b,n,h))}else!c&&l()}var h=!!a.test,i=a.load||a.both,j=a.callback||f,k=j,l=a.complete||f,m,n;c(h?a.yep:a.nope,!!i),i&&c(i)}var i,j,l=this.yepnope.loader;if(e(a))g(a,0,l,0);else if(w(a))for(i=0;i (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];var j=d.createElement(s);var dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.src='//www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;j.type='text/javascript';j.async=true;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-M677548'); Skip to main content Home About Submit ALERTS / RSS Search for this keyword Advanced Search New Results A high-affinity split-HaloTag for live-cell protein labeling Yin-Hsi Lin , View ORCID Profile Julian Kompa , View ORCID Profile De-en Sun , Runyu Mao , Birgit Koch , Konstantin Hinnah , Jonas Wilhelm , Natascha Franz , View ORCID Profile Stefanie Kühn , Tanja Menche , Abdinasir Adow , Paula Breuer , View ORCID Profile Julien Hiblot , Kai Johnsson doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.06.15.659771 Yin-Hsi Lin 1 Department of Chemical Biology, Max Planck Institute for Medical Research , Jahnstrasse 29, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany 2 Institute of Bioengineering (BioE), École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) , 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site Julian Kompa 1 Department of Chemical Biology, Max Planck Institute for Medical Research , Jahnstrasse 29, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Julian Kompa De-en Sun 1 Department of Chemical Biology, Max Planck Institute for Medical Research , Jahnstrasse 29, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for De-en Sun Runyu Mao 1 Department of Chemical Biology, Max Planck Institute for Medical Research , Jahnstrasse 29, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site Birgit Koch 1 Department of Chemical Biology, Max Planck Institute for Medical Research , Jahnstrasse 29, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site Konstantin Hinnah 1 Department of Chemical Biology, Max Planck Institute for Medical Research , Jahnstrasse 29, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site Jonas Wilhelm 1 Department of Chemical Biology, Max Planck Institute for Medical Research , Jahnstrasse 29, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site Natascha Franz 1 Department of Chemical Biology, Max Planck Institute for Medical Research , Jahnstrasse 29, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site Stefanie Kühn 1 Department of Chemical Biology, Max Planck Institute for Medical Research , Jahnstrasse 29, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Stefanie Kühn Tanja Menche 1 Department of Chemical Biology, Max Planck Institute for Medical Research , Jahnstrasse 29, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site Abdinasir Adow 1 Department of Chemical Biology, Max Planck Institute for Medical Research , Jahnstrasse 29, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site Paula Breuer 1 Department of Chemical Biology, Max Planck Institute for Medical Research , Jahnstrasse 29, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site Julien Hiblot 1 Department of Chemical Biology, Max Planck Institute for Medical Research , Jahnstrasse 29, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Julien Hiblot For correspondence: julien.hiblot{at}mr.mpg.de johnsson{at}mr.mpg.de Kai Johnsson 1 Department of Chemical Biology, Max Planck Institute for Medical Research , Jahnstrasse 29, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany 3 Institute of Chemical Sciences and Engineering (ISIC), École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) , 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site For correspondence: julien.hiblot{at}mr.mpg.de johnsson{at}mr.mpg.de Abstract Full Text Info/History Metrics Supplementary material Preview PDF Abstract We introduce a high-affinity split-HaloTag comprised of a short peptide tag (Hpep, 14 residues) and a large, inactive fragment (cpHaloΔ3). Hpep binds to cpHaloΔ3 spontaneously with nanomolar affinity, enabling subsequent labeling with fluorescent HaloTag ligands. The small size of Hpep facilitates cloning-free endogenous protein tagging using CRISPR/Cas9 and the complementation of Hpep-tagged proteins can be achieved in live cells through co-expression with cpHaloΔ3 and in fixed cells through incubation with cpHaloΔ3. The approach is compatible with advanced microscopy techniques such as expansion microscopy and live-cell STED imaging. Additionally, variants of Hpep that modulate the spectral properties of labeled fluorophores enable simultaneous imaging of two different Hpep-tagged proteins via fluorescence lifetime microscopy. In summary, our high-affinity split-HaloTag is a robust and versatile tool for live-cell imaging and diverse applications in chemical biology. Introduction The self-labeling protein HaloTag7 1 , commonly known as HaloTag, has become a popular tool for live-cell fluorescence imaging, in particular in combination with super-resolution microscopy (SRM) techniques 2 – 4 . HaloTag reacts selectively and irreversibly with chloroalkane (CA) derivatives. Among the substrates used for fluorescence labeling, CA-conjugated rhodamines 5 stand out due to their availability in multiple colors, excellent cell permeability, high brightness, and photostability. In some cases, they also offer the advantage of fluorogenicity. Particularly in the red and near-infrared channels, HaloTag labeling provides advantages over fluorescent proteins (FPs) not only in terms of brightness, but also enables flexibility in color selection without the need for additional cloning. However, one of the main drawbacks of HaloTag is its relatively large size (33 kDa), which can potentially interfere with the folding and function of certain proteins of interest (POIs) 6 . In contrast, peptide tags (typically <20 amino acids) reduce the risk of disrupting POI functions 7 – 9 and often provide greater flexibility in tagging sites 10 . They have also enabled signal amplification through the use of peptide arrays 11 . Furthermore, when combined with CRISPR/Cas9 technology, short peptide tags enable more efficient and scalable generation of endogenously tagged cell lines, allowing for the study of POI functions at near-physiological levels 12 . As peptide tags are typically not intrinsically fluorescent, they require additional labeling strategies for detection. These strategies can be specific binding to fluorescent molecules (e.g., tetracysteine tag 13 , 14 , His-tag 15 , 16 , coiled-coil tag-probe 17 – 20 , SunTag 11 , MoonTag 21 , ALFA-tag 22 ) or enzyme-mediated labeling methods (e.g., Sortase A/LPXTG motif 23 , BirA/acceptor peptide tag 24 , 25 ). However, their use in live-cell imaging of intracellular proteins is not practical due to (i) cytotoxicity 13 , 14 , 24 , 25 , (ii) low cell permeability of the substrate/probe 17 – 20 , 23 – 25 , and/or (iii) relatively low signal-to-background ratio (SBR) 11 , 13 – 25 . An alternative strategy involves asymmetrically splitting FPs or luciferases to create small peptide tags, such as FP 11 26 and HiBiT 27 . These small peptides spontaneously complement their corresponding large fragments, FP 1-10 and LgBiT, respectively, enabling protein visualization in living cells with minimal background 12 , 28 , 29 . However, except for mNeonGreen2 1-10/11 , existing split FPs and split luciferase systems are limited in brightness and photostability 30 , 31 , which restrict their use in SRM, especially for imaging POIs with low endogenous expression. Here, we introduce a high-affinity split-HaloTag system composed of a small peptide and its complementary large protein fragment, designed as a versatile peptide-tagging tool suitable for, but not restricted to, live-cell imaging applications. Demonstrated applications of the system include labeling of fixed samples, expansion microscopy (ExM), endogenous tagging via CRISPR/Cas9, live-cell stimulated emission depletion (STED) imaging and multiplexing with fluorescence lifetime imaging (FLIM). Results Engineering high-affinity split-HaloTag pairs We based the design of our peptide tagging tool on our previously reported split-HaloTag system 32 ( Fig. 1a ), which consists of a small peptide (Hpep) and a large protein fragment (cpHaloΔ). We aimed to optimize three properties of the split-HaloTag system for peptide tagging: (1) enhancing the affinity between the split fragments, (2) minimizing residual labeling activity of cpHaloΔ in the absence of Hpep, and (3) ensuring efficient labeling after reconstitution of active HaloTag from the two fragments. Download figure Open in new tab Fig. 1 Split-HaloTag engineering and characterization ( a ), A schematic illustration of protein labeling using the spontaneous self-complementing peptide-protein split-HaloTag system. POI: protein of interest (illustration created with BioRender.com ). ( b ), A scheme of cpHaloΔ engineering via yeast-surface display. Two libraries of terminal extended cpHaloΔ variants were displayed on the yeast surface, followed by a pulse-chase labeling procedure with CPY labeling in the absence of Hpep and a subsequent incubation with TMR in the presence of Hpep9. All cpHaloΔ variants were displayed as N-terminal fusions with Aga2p and eUnaG2, which served as an expression reporter. Yeast cells exhibiting a low CPY/eUnaG2 ratio and a high TMR/eUnaG2 ratio were enriched through multiple screening rounds, during which the Hpep9 concentration was progressively decreased (from 2 μM to 0.25 μM for N-term NNK library and from 2 μM to 0.125 μM for C-term NNK library). ( c ), cpHaloΔ3 showed an increased affinity for Hpep9 as determined by a kinetic assay. Labeling rates were measured using cpHaloΔ variants (2.5 nM) and CA-TMR (0.5 nM) across a two-fold dilution series of Hpep9 (1,000 to 0.98 nM). Labeling speeds were plotted against Hpep9 concentration and a sigmoidal model was fitted to the data to determine EC 50 values. Data represent two technical replicates. EC 50 values were found to be 49.1 nM (30.6-78.4) for cpHaloΔ, 8.37 nM (6.73-10.4) for cpHaloΔ2 and 1.66 nM (1.21-2.29) for cpHaloΔ3, with the corresponding 95 % confidence intervals in brackets. ( d ), EC 50 values of cpHaloΔ3 for five Hpep variants 7-11 determined with kinetics assay as described in (c). Two-fold dilution series from 15 μM to 0.92 nM were prepared for measurements with Hpep7, 8 and 11. For Hpep9 and 10, dilution series ranged from 1,000 nM to 0.98 nM. Error bars representing 95 % confidence intervals. Measurements were done with two technical replicates. ( e ), Background labeling activity of three cpHaloΔ variants [12.5 μM] with CA-TMR [50 nM] in the absence of Hpep, measured by fluorescence polarization (FP). A one-phase association model was fitted to each dataset to determine the labeling half-time (t 1/2 ), shown next to each cpHaloΔ variant along with the corresponding 95 % confidence intervals (in brackets). ( f ), Fluorescence emission profiles of SiR-labeled cpHaloΔ3 [100 nM] in the absence and presence of synthetic Hpep variants 7-11 [500 nM] after 5-hour incubation. ( g ), Fluorescence intensity increases are represented as fold-changes upon binding to Hpep variants, compared to CPY or SiR-labeled cpHaloΔ3 in the absence of Hpep. We first generated a small peptide with increased affinity, followed by optimization of the large protein fragment. For the selection of Hpeps with higher affinities, we incorporated beneficial mutations from previously reported Hpep sequences (Supplementary Table 1) 33 . This resulted in the three peptides Hpep9-11, with EC50 values ranging from 40 to 235 nM. The EC50 value of a peptide corresponds to the Hpep concentration at which half-maximum labeling speed of cpHaloΔ is observed. Subsequently, we engineered cpHaloΔ for enhanced binding to the highest affinity peptide, Hpep9, using yeast surface display (YSD) in combination with fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS). We constructed two separate libraries by adding a stretch of four randomized residues to either the N or C-terminus of cpHaloΔ. The rationale behind the construction of these N-terminal and C-terminal extensions was to create additional interactions with Hpep9. To identify cpHaloΔ variants with low residual labeling activity in the absence of Hpep but high labeling efficiency in the presence of Hpep9 (which correlates with binding affinity), we established a pulse-chase labeling procedure. Yeast libraries were first labeled with CA-CPY (CA derivative of carbopyronine) without Hpep9, followed by labeling with a spectrally distinct dye, CA-TMR (CA derivative of tetramethylrhodamine), in the presence of Hpep9. By gradually decreasing Hpep9 concentration and incubation time, cpHaloΔ variants with higher labeling efficiency were enriched over iterative rounds ( Fig. 1b , Extended Data Fig.1a and Supplementary Fig 1). Next-generation sequencing analysis facilitated the identification of strongly enriched cpHaloΔ variants ( Extended Data Fig.1b-e ), which were further characterized as purified proteins. Among 24 variants, 22 variants showed enhanced affinity to Hpep9 ( Extended Data Fig.2a-b ). We then combined the best-performing terminal extension sequences with the stabilizing mutations (E20S, N119H, V184E, V197K, and the redesigned circular permutation linker), previously identified for the improved variant of cpHaloΔ2 34 ( Extended Data Fig.2c ). This resulted in the final variant, cpHaloΔ3. Download figure Open in new tab Extended Data Fig. 1: cpHaloΔ engineering via high-throughput screening. ( a ), Screening procedure for yeast surface display cpHaloΔ libraries. A negative sort was conducted exclusively (at 5 th round of N-term NNK library screening) when no discernible distinction was noted between the TMR labeling signal in the presence and absence of Hpep9. ( b ), The distribution of the top 100 sequences in each library, generated from the NGS sequencing results. It revealed substantial sequence enrichment throughout the screening process. This subset accounted for only 1.6 % and 2.6 % of the entire N-term NNK and C-term NNK library, respectively, before screening, but represented 95 % and 96 % of each library after screening. ( c ), Amino acid frequency plots illustrating the enrichment of specific residues at each position after multiple rounds of FACS sorting. ( d ), An overview of the strategy used for identifying promising cpHaloΔ variants for further in vitro characterization. Frequency curves and the abundance ranking were used as two key parameters to evaluate the fitness of the each cpHaloΔ candidate. ( e ), Frequency curves of the top two performing cpHaloΔ variants from each library in the subsequent in vitro assay. (Extended Data Fig. 2). Download figure Open in new tab Extended Data Fig. 2: Characterization of the EC 50 and labeling kinetics of engineered split-HaloTag pairs. ( a-c ), Performance of the selected cpHaloΔ hits as recombinant proteins, validated by their binding affinity to Hpep9 and the relative labeling speed in presence of Hpep9 compared to parental cpHaloΔ. Most of the selected variants showed a decrease in EC 50 , used as a proxy for binding affinity, and most of the N-terminal extended variants showed a slight improvement in TMR labeling kinetics. All the measurements were performed on the same day with freshly purified proteins with technical duplicates. The labeling kinetics were measured with 20 nM cpHaloΔ protein, 4 nM CA-TMR with a titration of Hpep9 from 1 μM to 0.98 nM for determining EC 50 and maximal labeling speed. ( c ), The performance of combinatorial cpHaloΔ variants created by combining the best-performing N- and C-terminal extension sequences with the stabilization mutations from cpHaloΔ2 as reported previously 54 . ( d ), TMR [0.5 nM] labeling traces at 37 °C of the three cpHaloΔ variants [2.5 nM] with Hpep9 at varying concentration [from 1 μM to 0.98 nM]. ( e ), cpHaloΔ3 showed higher affinity (lower EC 50 ) to Hpep7-11 compared to cpHaloΔ2. In each graph, the value above the arrow represents the fold-change in EC 50 from cpHaloΔ2 to cpHaloΔ3. Results for Hpep9 are shown in Figure 1c . In comparison to cpHaloΔ and cpHaloΔ2, cpHaloΔ3 exhibited a 30-fold and 5-fold lower EC 50 for Hpep9, respectively ( Fig. 1c , Extended Data Fig.2c-d ). Relative to cpHaloΔ2, cpHaloΔ3 also showed an increased affinity for the previously reported peptides Hpep7 and 8, and for the new peptides Hpep10 and 11, with EC 50 values ranging from single-digit to double-digit nanomolar concentrations ( Fig. 1d , Extended Data Fig.2e ). Regarding labeling rates with CA-TMR at saturating Hpep9 concentrations, cpHaloΔ3 showed an about 1.4-fold faster labeling rate than cpHaloΔ, and a similar labeling rate as cpHaloΔ2 (1.1-fold slower). Furthermore, cpHaloΔ3 showed a similar spontaneous labeling rate in the absence of Hpep as cpHaloΔ, but a 25-fold slower residual labeling rate than cpHaloΔ2 ( Fig. 1e ), which resulted in lower background labeling signal in cellular assays compared to cpHaloΔ2 (Extended Data Fig.3). We further confirmed that the reduced residual activity of cpHaloΔ3 is not due to a decrease in thermostability, as its melting temperature was identical to that of cpHaloΔ2 at 46.3 °C (Supplementary Fig. 2). The low residual labeling rate of cpHaloΔ3, combined with its fast-labeling rate in the presence of Hpep, makes it an attractive candidate for peptide tagging. The crystal structure of TMR-labeled HaloTag (PDB ID: 6Y7A) indicates that Hpep contributes to the formation of the HaloTag ligand-binding pocket ( Extended Data Fig.4a ). We hypothesized that mutations in Hpep could influence the fluorescence intensity (FI) of fluorophore-labeled cpHaloΔ3. Therefore, we measured the FI of CPY or SiR-labeled cpHaloΔ2 and cpHaloΔ3 in the presence or absence of different Hpep variants (Hpep7-11). Upon binding to different Hpep variants, cpHaloΔ3 showed a 1.5 to 6.2-fold increase in FI. The fluorescence “turn-on” upon Hpep binding was more pronounced with cpHaloΔ3 than with cpHaloΔ2, and with SiR (silicon-rhodamine) compared to CPY ( Fig. 1f-g , Extended Data Fig.4b-c ). Among all tested Hpeps, Hpep7 and Hpep11 showed the most pronounced turn-on. The brightest split-HaloTag pairs (Hpep7 and Hpep11 in combination with cpHaloΔ3) for SiR even showed a slightly enhanced FI (∼20 % increase) relative to full-length HaloTag ( Extended Data Fig.4d-e ). Download figure Open in new tab Extended Data Fig. 3: cpHaloΔ background labeling activity in cells Investigation of the background labeling activity of cpHaloΔ variants (EGFP-GSG-cpHaloΔ) in U2OS cells via flow cytometry analysis. ( a ), Flow cytometry plots and the violin plot representations of the signal from cpHaloΔ expressing cells after one hour of labeling with 100 nM CA-CPY (upper) or CA-SiR (lower). Although still higher than U2OS blank cells, cpHaloΔ3 showed a lower background labeling activity for both dyes in comparison to cpHaloΔ2. ( b ), Labeling traces of U2OS stable cell lines expressing cpHaloΔ variants. Labeling was conducted with 100 nM CA-CPY or 100 nM CA-SiR for a period of 21 hours. Mean and s.d. of the EGFP normalized HaloTag ligand labeling ratio are shown here at each time point, calculated from n > 2500 cells. Download figure Open in new tab Extended Data Fig. 4: Comparison of fluorescence intensity of the labeled split-HaloTag pairs and HaloTag ( a ), Crystal structure of HaloTag-TMR (PDB ID: 6Y7A), highlighting Hpep and its participation in forming the TMR binding site (helices 6-8). HaloTag is represented in grey, Hpep in red and TMR in magenta. ( b ), Fluorescence intensity comparison of labeled cpHaloΔ2, cpHaloΔ3 in the absence and presence of five Hpep variants. CPY-labeled cpHaloΔ (upper) and SiR-labeled cpHaloΔ (lower) in general showed a fluorescence increase upon binding to Hpep, except for the combination of CPY-labeled cpHaloΔ2 with Hpep9 and Hpep10 bound. All measurement were done on the same day with technical triplicates. Error bars representing 95 % confidence intervals for technical triplicates. ( c ), Quantifying the fluorescence intensity fold-change for each cpHaloΔ/Hpep pair in comparison to cpHaloΔ alone. ( d ), Comparison of the fluorescence intensity of cpHaloΔ3 complex to that of the intact HaloTag by calculating normalized fluorescence intensity, where the intensity values were normalized by the concentration of the labeled-cpHaloΔ protein present in the assay. ( e ), Relative fluorescence intensity comparison of the labeled-cpHaloΔ3 complex with that of the intact HaloTag. Biophysical characterization of split-HaloTag pairs For further characterizations we focused on the two most promising Hpep variants: Hpep9 (EC 50 = 1.7 nM) with the highest affinity for cpHaloΔ3, and Hpep11 (EC 50 = 25.4 nM) with the brightest overall signal for the complemented split-HaloTag. We first determined the dissociation constant (K d ) of these two peptides to cpHaloΔ variants using chemically synthesized TMR-Hpep conjugates and fluorescence polarization as the readout. cpHaloΔ3 showed a high affinity for both Hpep9 (K d = 6.5 nM) and Hpep11 (K d = 13.5 nM), that were 4 and 2.8-fold lower than the K d values measured for cpHaloΔ2, respectively ( Extended Data Fig.5a ). Download figure Open in new tab Extended Data Fig. 5: Biophysical characterization of split-HaloTag pairs ( a ), K d determination by FP assay. The binding affinity of cpHaloΔ3 to Hpep9 and Hpep11 was 4-and 2.8-fold higher, respectively, than that of cpHaloΔ2. cpHaloΔ was titrated against chemically synthesized TMR-Hpep conjugates [1 nM], and fluorescence polarization was measured at 25 °C. Mean and s.d. calculated from technical triplicates were plotted. ( b ), AlphaFold3 35 model of cpHaloΔ2 and cpHaloΔ3 in complex with Hpep11. cpHaloΔ2 was engineered from cpHaloΔ1 through introduction of stabilization mutations (purple) including four mutations and the redesigned CP-linker. cpHaloΔ3 was created by introducing EKKG (orange) and GDVE (forest) to N-and C-terminus to cpHaloΔ2, respectively. Hpep11 is highlighted in red. ( c ), MD simulation of Hpep11 in complex with cpHaloΔ2 or cpHaloΔ3. Hpep11 showed a higher root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) and greater conformational flexibility when bound to cpHaloΔ2, with pronounced fluctuations occurring after approximately 50 ns. In contrast, Hpep11/cpHaloΔ3 complex exhibited significantly reduced conformational fluctuations, maintaining structural stability for at least 140 ns. ( d ), K d determination of SiR-labeled cpHaloΔ3 with Hpep9 and Hpep11 by FP assay, as described in (a). ( e ), A schematic of binding kinetics analysis of labeled cpHaloΔ3 and Hpep using BLI assay, highlighting the association and dissociation step. Chemically synthesized biotin-Hpep conjugates were immobilized onto a streptavidin biosensor surface. During the association step, the sensor was immersed in solutions containing labeled cpHaloΔ3, followed by immersion in buffer during the dissociation step. ( f ), Binding kinetics of TMR-or SiR-labeled cpHaloΔ3 to Hpep9 or Hpep11. The corresponding cpHaloΔ3 concentrations for each curve are annotated below the graph. Raw data and the fitted curves are represented by solid and dashed lines, respectively. To investigate the molecular basis underlying the higher affinity of cpHaloΔ3 for these two Hpeps compared to cpHaloΔ2, we generated structural models using AlphaFold3 (AF3) 35 to identify potential interactions involving the terminal extensions of cpHaloΔ3 (Supplementary Fig 3). Due to low confidence scores (pLDDT) in these regions, potentially indicative of intrinsic flexibility, reliable interaction mapping was precluded. We therefore performed molecular dynamic (MD) simulations based on the AF3 predicted models to assess the stability and dynamics of the complexes, focusing our analysis on the structural integrity of Hpep within each complex to evaluate the influence of cpHaloΔ variants on peptide stability. Given the low confidence in the AF3-predicted structure of Hpep9, we focused our analysis on Hpep11 ( Extended Data Fig.5b ). In the cpHaloΔ2/Hpep11 complex, Hpep11 exhibited pronounced structural fluctuations, as reflected by increased root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) and a significant structural distortion after 50 nanoseconds (ns) of simulation ( Extended Data Fig.5c ). In contrast, the cpHaloΔ3/Hpep11 complex showed markedly reduced fluctuations, with Hpep11 maintaining a more stable conformation throughout at least 100 ns of simulation. The result highlights the role of the engineered terminal extension (GDVE) on cpHaloΔ3 in stabilizing the interaction complex with Hpep11, through its engagement with the N-terminal α-helix of Hpep11 (Supplementary Video). For imaging applications using Hpep as a labeling tag, strong binding between the labeled cpHaloΔ and Hpep is essential, as dissociation of the labeled cpHaloΔ can lead to nonspecific signals. To evaluate the impact of fluorescent labeling on binding affinity, we then measured the dissociation constant (K d ) of SiR-labeled cpHaloΔ3 and compared it to that of the non-labeled cpHaloΔ3 ( Extended Data Fig.5d ), using TMR-Hpep conjugates. Both Hpep9 and Hpep11 showed significantly higher affinity for SiR-labeled cpHaloΔ3, with K d values below 5 nM ( Extended Data Fig.5d ). Notably, the affinity enhancement was more pronounced for Hpep11 (10-fold) than for Hpep9 (2-fold), resulting in a lower K d for Hpep11. To assess whether fluorophore conjugation on the peptide affects affinity measurements and to measure binding kinetics, we then performed bio-layer interferometry (BLI) using biotin-Hpep conjugates ( Extended Data Fig.5e-f , Supplementary Table 2). The strongest interaction was observed between cpHaloΔ3-SiR and Hpep11, with a K d of 4.3 nM and a slowest dissociation rate constant of k off ≈ 2.14 *10 -4 s -1 . The consistent K d values across these two methods, fluorescence polarization (FP) assay using fluorophore-Hpep11 conjugate and BLI using biotin-Hpep11 conjugate indicated that fluorophore conjugation on the peptide has minimal impact on the measured binding affinity. Live-cell imaging of Hpep-tagged targets For labeling in mammalian cells, we used cpHaloΔ3 in combination with Hpep9 and Hpep11. Hpep was fused either to the histone H2B (nucleus), the mitochondrial import receptor subunit TOM20 (outer mitochondrial membrane), or the laminin subunit beta 1 (nuclear envelope). To visualize cpHaloΔ3 and Hpep9 or Hpep11 fusions, the Hpep fusions also included SNAPf (SNAP E30R ) and cpHaloΔ3 was fused to EGFP. Staining U2OS cells co-expressing the two split-HaloTag components with SNAPf substrate CP-TMR revealed the expected localization of Hpep and the successful recruitment of cpHaloΔ3. The spontaneous reconstitution of the split-HaloTag enabled specific labeling of the desired sub-cellular structures with CA-SiR, while the unbound cpHaloΔ3 did not produce significant unspecific SiR signal, except in the case where Lamin B1 was tagged with Hpep9 ( Fig. 2a-b ). In general, Hpep11 fusions led to a higher signal-to-background ratio (SBR) in the SiR channel than Hpep9, and the difference was most pronounced in the case of laminin ( Fig. 2a-b ). No SiR labeling was observed in cells expressing only one of the two split-HaloTag fragments under same image acquisition settings ( Extended Data Fig.6a ). To rule out any potential influence of EGFP on the performance of split-HaloTag in these experiments, we generated a construct with a self-cleaving T2A sequence between cpHaloΔ3 and EGFP. cpHaloΔ3 alone demonstrated similar performance as EGFP-cpHaloΔ3 fusion protein ( Extended Data Fig.6b ). Download figure Open in new tab Extended Data Fig. 6: Performance of split-HaloTag in mammalian cells ( a ), Live-cell confocal images of U2OS cells expressing either only Hpep11 (TOM20-SNAPf-Hpep11) or cpHaloΔ3 (EGFP-GSG-cpHaloΔ3), after labeling with CP-TMR and CA-SiR. Images were taken with same laser settings. Scale bar: 20 μm. ( b ), A comparison of cpHaloΔ3 performance in live-cell confocal imaging, with and without direct fusion to EGFP. cpHaloΔ3 with and without direct fusion to EGFP spontaneously localized to the nuclear envelope where Hpep11 was localized and resulted in a high contrast labeling in the SiR channel. ( c ), Comparison of Hpep11 for protein visualization in live (upper panel) and fixed cells (lower panel). Confocal images of U2OS cell co-expressing EGFP-GSG-cpHaloΔ3 (stable) and TOM20-SNAPf-Hpep9 (transient transfection), labeled with 250 nM CP-TMR and 100 nM CA-CPY for 1 hour before imaging or fixation. Scale bar: 50 μm. ( d ), Post-fixation staining of Hpep11-tagged targets (H2B and TOM20) with recombinant cpHaloΔ3 [1 μM] and CA-CPY [500 nM] for overnight incubation at 4 °C. The SNAPf substrate CP-TMR [500 nM] was also included. Scale bar: 20 μm. Download figure Open in new tab Fig. 2 Protein labeling and imaging in mammalian cells using Hpep ( a-b ), Confocal live-cell imaging of U2OS cells co-expressing both split fragments, revealing the spontaneous complementation of EGFP-cpHaloΔ3 with SNAPf-fused Hpep9 ( a ) or Hpep11 ( b ) at their specific subcellular localizations. SNAPf refers to SNAP E30R , a faster variant of SNAP-tag. Cells were labeled with SNAPf substrate CP-TMR [250 nM] and HaloTag substrate CA-SiR [100 nM] for one hour. Scale bar: 20 μm and 2 μm for the zoom-in images. ( c ), Post-fixation labeling of Hpep11-tagged targets (H2B and TOM20) with recombinant cpHaloΔ3 [1 μM], CA-SiR [500 nM] and CP-TMR [500 nM] after overnight incubation at 4 °C. Scale bar: 20 μm. ( d ), Representative confocal images of U2OS cells co-expressing EGFP-cpHaloΔ3 and TOM20-SNAPf-Hpep11 after fixation and expansion. The labeling with HaloTag CA-ligands [100 nM] was performed before fixation for 2 hours. Yellow: CA-MaP555 and CA-TMR labeling. Magenta: CA-CPY labeling. Cyan: Hoechst 33342 nucleic acid stain. Scale bar: 10 μm (post-expansion). To evaluate the performance of Hpep11 at different insertion sites, we generated EGFP fusion constructs with Hpep11 placed at either terminus or within an internal loop region 36 . These constructs were expressed in either U2OS or HeLa cells and analyzed by flow cytometry (Extended Data Fig 7a-b). At both termini, Hpep11 enabled efficient and comparable cpHaloΔ3 labeling, resulting in a strong increase in SiR signal relative to the negative control lacking Hpep. Notably, although Hpep was not designed for loop insertion, it still allowed specific cpHaloΔ3 labeling when inserted at a loop region, as confirmed by live-cell imaging (Extended Data Fig 7c). This was accompanied by a moderate reduction in EGFP fluorescence, suggesting some influence on EGFP folding. Post-fixation imaging Hpep-tagged targets Labeling of Hpep11-tagged proteins for post-fixation imaging can be achieved in two ways: either by staining cells co-expressing cpHaloΔ3 ( Extended Data Fig.6c ), or by incubating Hpep11-expressing cells with recombinant cpHaloΔ3 protein and a HaloTag ligand (CA-SiR or CA-CPY) after cell fixation and permeabilization. To assess the abundance and the localization of Hpep11, a SNAPf ligand (CP-TMR) was also included. The signal intensities in both channels (SNAPf-Hpep and cpHaloΔ3) were well-correlated and no detectable signal was observed in blank U2OS cells, confirming the specific labeling of the Hpep11-tagged subcellular structures ( Fig. 2c , Extended Data Fig.6d ). The ability to image cells after fixation prompted us to explore the compatibility of our tagging system with expansion microscopy (ExM), a powerful super-resolution technique that enables imaging of target proteins beyond the diffraction limit using a conventional light microscope 37 . We imaged cells co-expressing TOM20-Hpep11 and cpHaloΔ3, which were labeled with CA-CPY, CA-TMR or CA-MaP555. After expansion, ExM enabled clear distinction of mitochondrial membrane, where Hpep11-tagged TOM20 localized ( Fig. 2d ), offering a sharp contrast with the lumen, which was challenging to resolve using traditional confocal imaging. Hpep11 allows cloning-free CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing Endogenous tagging allows protein visualization with minimized risk of artifacts typically associated with transgene over-expression. Owing to its small size of 14 residues, Hpep facilitates genome editing through CRISPR/Cas9 in a cloning-free manner. To demonstrate the use of split-HaloTag for imaging endogenously tagged proteins, six cellular targets were selected, with the corresponding gene names indicated in parentheses: histone H2B type 2-E ( HIST2H2BE ), translocase of outer mitochondrial membrane 20 ( TOMM20 ), lamin A/C ( LMNA ), clathrin light chain A ( CLTA ), Sec61 subunit beta ( Sec61B ), and vimentin ( VIM ). These proteins, which possess different subcellular localizations and a wide range of expression levels were selected for either N or C-terminal tagging (Supplementary Table 3). Hpep was introduced into the genomic loci of the aforementioned targets in U2OS cells via a ribonucleoprotein (RNP)-mediated CRISPR approach, with synthetic single-stranded oligonucleotides (ssODN) as donor DNA templates ( Fig. 3a ). To demonstrate adaptability to diverse experimental workflows, the cpHaloΔ3-expressing cassette was introduced via transient transfection, stable integration using the Flp-In T-REx system, or AAVS1 safe harbor targeting 38 . Upon labeling with CA-SiR, cells with Hpep integration displayed a distinct population compared to cpHaloΔ3-only cells, enabling FACS-based enrichment ( Fig. 3b ). Subsequent labeling of these cell lines with CA-CPY or CA-SiR revealed the proper localization of all Hpep11-tagged targets, as observed with confocal microscopy, with clear distinction from background fluorescence ( Fig. 3b and Extended Data Fig.8a ). Download figure Open in new tab Extended Data Fig. 7: Assessment of Hpep11 performance at different insertion sites in EGFP Performance of Hpep11 at different insertion sites of EGFP in mammalian cells, evaluated by EGFP brightness and cpHaloΔ3 labeling intensity. ( a ), Flowcytometry analysis of different tags (Hpep11, DogTag 36 ) inserted either at each terminus or loopC 36 of EGFP. U2OS (left two panels) and HeLa (right two panels) cells transiently transfected with the indicated constructs were labeled with the SNAPf substrate CP-TMR to normalize expression levels. For split HaloTag labeling measurements, cells were additionally labeled with CA-SiR. The mean and standard error of the mean (SEM) of each cell population with TMR + signal are shown here. ( b ), The corresponding constructs for the analysis shown in (a). The P30 linker was designed to minimize fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET) between EGFP and CP-TMR, ensuring accurate expression normalization based on the TMR signal. ( c ), Representative confocal live-cell images of U2OS cells transfected with the construct of Hpep11 inserted in loopC of EGFP. After labeling with CP-TMR and CA-SiR, the correct subcellular localization of fluorescence signal in each channel was confirmed. Scale bar: 20 μm. Download figure Open in new tab Extended Data Fig. 8: The performance of Hpep variants for endogenous protein labeling ( a ), Live-cell confocal imaging of the Hpep11 CRISPR KI cell lines after labeling with 100 nM CA-SiR. ( b ), Flow cytometry analysis of the labeling performance of Hpep variants that were knocked in at TOMM20 in the cpHaloΔ3 (cpHaloΔ3-T2A-NLS-EGFP) overexpressing cell line, after labeling with CA-SiR [100 nM, 1 hour]. ( c ), Workflow for the generation of Hpep11 CRISPR cell line in human embryonic kidney (HEK) 293FT cells with cpHaloΔ3-expressing cassette (cpHaloΔ3-T2A-NLS-EGFP) stably integrated into safe harbour AAVS1 locus (top). Live-cell imaging of HaloTag-or Hpep11-tagged cell lines after one-hour labeling of CA-SiR [100 nM] without wash. Scale bar: 20 μm. ( d-e ), Live-cell confocal imaging of histone H2B type-2E-Hpep11 (d.) or Hpep11-lamin A/C (e.) CRISPR KI cell lines after 2-hours labeling with the specified CA-ligand [100 nM]. Images were taken with optimal image acquisition parameter for each dye. Scale bar: 50 μm. Download figure Open in new tab Fig. 3 Endogenous protein tagging with Hpeps and live-cell imaging ( a ), A schematic illustration of Hpep knock-in (KI) cell line workflow via CRISPR/Cas9 RNP approach. Two rounds of FACS sorting were performed: 1 st round aiming to enrich transfected cells (double-positive for Cas9-RFP and tracrRNA-Atto647), and 2 nd round for the enrichment of Hpep KI cells showing increased CA-SiR labeling signal. ( b ), Flow cytometry analysis (upper) and representative live-cell confocal images (lower row) of the six endogenous Hpep11 tagging cell lines after second cell sorting. U2OS cells stably expressing cpHaloΔ3-T2A-NLS-EGFP (-KI) and the Hpep11 tagging cell lines were labeled one hour with CA-SiR [100 nM] for flow cytometry experiment and one hour with CA-CPY [100 nM] for imaging. Images were taken with optimized laser settings for each target. Scale bar: 20 μm. ( c-d ), Labeling of TOM20 endogenously-tagged with either intact HaloTag or two split-HaloTags and analysis via confocal live-cell imaging (c) and flow cytometry (d). Cells were labeled with CA-SiR [100 nM] for one hour. Scale bar: 20 μm. ( e ), Live-cell imaging of the CRISPR cells with the indicated CA-fluophores [100 nM] after two-hours labeling. The entire dataset can be found in Extended Data Fig.8. Scale bar: 50 μm. Through tagging TOM20 endogenously with each of the five Hpep variants (Hpep7-11), we confirmed that Hpep11 outperformed the others, exhibiting the highest SBR in both microscopy and flow cytometry analyses ( Fig. 3c-d and Extended Data Fig.8b ). Moreover, Hpep11 showed a comparable performance to full-length HaloTag. Similar results were obtained in another cell line, 293FT cells ( Extended Data Fig.8c ) with Hpep11 integrated at the genomic locus of nucleolar protein 10 ( NOP10 ). We further evaluated seven additional CA-fluorophores (TMR, MaP555, JFx608, MaP618, JF635, JF646 and JF669), spanning the yellow-green to far-red spectrum, for staining endogenously Hpep11-tagged U2OS cell lines ( Extended Data Fig.8d-e ). Signal intensity and SBR were assessed by confocal microscopy for two targets, H2B and lamin A/C. All dyes enabled clear visualization of H2B, whereas MaP618 and JF635 yielded weak fluorescence for lamin A/C. Hpep11 for live-cell STED imaging of endogenously tagged targets Live-cell STED imaging is a powerful method to study organelles or subcellular protein localizations below the diffraction limit. However, it is demanding on the spectral properties of the fluorescent labels, and synthetic fluorophores generally outperform FPs in STED imaging 39 , 40 . To investigate whether split-HaloTag meets the criteria for live-cell STED imaging, we imaged U2OS cells expressing Hpep11-tagged TOM20, either endogenously tagged or overexpressed ( Fig. 4b ). In both cases, Hpep11 tagging allowed live-cell STED imaging of TOM20 labeled with SiR, which is one of the most widely used dyes for STED imaging 41 . The resolution in STED was markedly improved in comparison to that achieved by confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM, Fig. 4b ). Split-HaloTag demonstrated comparable performance to that of full-length HaloTag under STED imaging, revealing hollow mitochondrial tubules and a spot-like distribution of TOM20 proteins decorating the mitochondrial membrane 42 , 43 . Download figure Open in new tab Fig. 4 Live-cell STED imaging of the Hpep11 tagged cell lines ( a ), Confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) and STED images of mitochondria in U2OS cells co-expressing cpHaloΔ3 and TOM20-Hpep, either overexpressed or endogenously tagged. Scale bar: 1 μm. Pixel intensities scaled according to reference bar. ( b ), Representative CLSM, STED images of the CRISPR/Cas9 KI cells expressing TOM20 tagged with intact HaloTag (upper) or Hpep11 (bottom). ( c ), Intensity profiles along mitochondrial tubules (red and blue lines in b). Scale bar: 2 μm. ( d ), Representative CLSM and STED images of endogenous Hpep11-tagged clathrin with cpHaloΔ3 co-expression. Scale bar: 10 μm (overview) and 2 μm (magnification). ( e ), Representative CLSM, STED images of endogenously tagged tubulin beta 4B with Hpep11. Scale bar: 10 μm (overview) and 2 μm (magnification). ( f ), Intensity profiles along tubulin filaments (red and blue lines in e). Means ± s.d. of the filament diameters were calculated as full width at half maximum (FWHM) from n=20 microtubule filaments, ≥ 2 images. A slight increase in cytosolic signal was noted in cells tagged with split-HaloTag at TUBB4B , compared to cells tagged with the full-length HaloTag, which may result from the presence of unbound but labeled cpHaloΔ3. All images were acquired after labeling with CA-SiR [100 nM] for one hour. Subsequently, we performed STED imaging on two additional targets. Tagging the corresponding genes, CLTA and TUBB4B (gene encoding for Tubulin Beta 4B), with Hpep11 in cpHaloΔ3-expressing cells enabled the visualization of clathrin-coated pits and microtubules below the diffraction limit ( Fig. 4d, e ). When measuring the microtubule diameter, we obtained a full-width at half-maximum (FWHM) of approximately 85 nm with STED and 290 nm with confocal imaging. The resolution achieved with split-HaloTag is on par with that of the intact HaloTag ( Fig. 4f ). Live-cell FLIM imaging of Hpep-tagged targets In addition to intensity-based imaging, fluorescence lifetime is another powerful approach for creating contrast. Differences in fluorescence lifetime can be used for the elimination of background fluorescence, such as autofluorescence 44 , and the discrimination between spectrally overlapping fluorophores. As the fluorescence intensity of SiR-labeled cpHaloΔ3 is influenced by binding to Hpep8-11, we determined the fluorescence lifetime values of SiR-labeled cpHaloΔ3 in the absence and presence of each of the four Hpeps as protein fusions to H2B in living U2OS cells. SiR-labeled cpHaloΔ3 alone exhibited a fluorescence lifetime of 2.3 or 2.5 ns, depending on its subcellular localization ( Fig. 5a ). In contrast, labeled split-HaloTag reconstituted with Hpep8-11 exhibited a fluorescence lifetime ranging from 2.2 to 3.5 nanoseconds ( Fig. 5b ). For Hpep11, the difference in fluorescence lifetime of labeled cpHaloΔ3 in the absence and presence of Hpep11 was larger than 1 ns. This difference in fluorescence lifetimes can be exploited to separate potential background signal from free cpHaloΔ3 and on-target signal from reconstituted split-HaloTag in live-cell FLIM imaging using phasor plot analysis. This was demonstrated for both Lamin B1-overexpressing and TOM20 knock-in (KI) cell lines following overnight labeling with CA-SiR, extreme conditions under which background signal can be detected ( Fig. 5c ). Motivated by these results, the simultaneous imaging of two targets using different Hpeps through FLIM multiplexing was explored. For this, we tagged TOM20 with Hpep11 and H2B with either Hpep8, 9 or 10 ( Fig. 5d ). After labeling with SiR, the two structures could be well-separated by FLIM using phasor analysis for all Hpep pairs tested. The pair of Hpep10 and Hpep11 showed the best performance when simultaneously imaging two targets, due to their large differences in fluorescence lifetime. Download figure Open in new tab Fig. 5 Hpep variants for live-cell FLIM imaging ( a ), Fluorescence lifetimes ( τ ) of SiR-labeled cpHaloΔ3 in cytosol and nucleus of U2OS cells. ( b ), Fluorescence lifetimes ( τ ) of SiR-labeled cpHaloΔ3 bound to Hpep variants 8-11, fused to H2B. (mean fluorescence lifetimes are represented here, for respective s.d. and N see Supplementary Table 4). ( c ), Discrimination between on-target labeling and the background signal using phasor analysis. To generate sufficient unspecific background, cells were labeled with CA-SiR [100 nM] for 20 hours before imaging. The separated images (left) were generated for each cluster defined on the wavelet-filtered phasor plots (right), which represented a greater challenge for the endogenous TOM20 KI cells due to the overlapping clusters. ( d ), Pairwise combination of Hpep11 (TOM20-tagged) with the other three Hpep variants 8, 9 and 10 (H2B-tagged) for FLIM multiplexing. The total fluorescence intensity, composite, the two separated species and their corresponding wavelet-filtered phasor plot used for species separation are presented. Discussion Although a variety of split-HaloTag systems have been reported previously 45 – 48 , none of them undergo spontaneous reconstitution at nanomolar concentrations of both fragments without additional protein-protein interactions. In this study, we report the development of a high-affinity split-HaloTag system composed of two split fragments, which are a 14-residue peptide (Hpep) and a 35 kDa protein fragment (cpHaloΔ). The engineering of both fragments resulted in cpHaloΔ3 and four Hpeps (Hpep8-11), interacting with EC 50 values ranging from 2 nM to 25 nM. All four peptides can recruit cpHaloΔ3 intracellularly to tagged POIs, enabling efficient and specific labeling with HaloTag ligands. Among them, Hpep11 yields an exceptional SBR, even under challenging conditions such as endogenous protein tagging, where Hpep11-tagged protein levels can be orders of magnitude less abundant than those achieved through CMV promoter-driven overexpression. The high SBR of cpHaloΔ3/Hpep11 pair can be attributed to multiple factors: an increased affinity of cpHaloΔ3 for Hpep11 when cpHaloΔ3 is labeled with SiR (with the K d decreasing from 13.5 nM to 1 nM), slow off-rates of cpHaloΔ3-SiR, a low residual labeling activity of cpHaloΔ3 in the absence of Hpep11, and a substantial fluorescence intensity increase of cpHaloΔ3-SiR upon binding to Hpep11 (6-fold in vitro ). The cpHaloΔ3/Hpep11 pair showed comparable performance to intact HaloTag in all imaging applications tested. The small size of Hpep offers several advantages over regular protein tags. First, the generation of Hpep CRISPR knock-in cell lines is cloning-free, making it easily scalable. It was already demonstrated for other small peptide tags, such as FP 11 (16 aa) of split FPs and HiBiT (11 aa) of split NanoLuc, that these tags can be systematically introduced into the genomic loci of a library of protein targets, enabling the visualization of these targets at near-native expressions and facilitating the study of their functions 12 , 28 , 29 . In this study, we have explored different methods for introducing the cpHaloΔ3-expressing cassette into both U2OS and 293FT cells, underscoring the versatility of this approach. Furthermore, the small Hpeps could enable the tagging of POIs that are sensitive to direct fusions to larger tags. The benefit of post-translationally attaching a large tag compared to a direct fusion has been demonstrated previously in yeast with several plasma membrane proteins 7 – 9 . The high-affinity split-HaloTag complements other live-cell compatible peptide tags. Epitope-nanobody/scFv pairs typically have very high affinity (with K d values as low as 26 pM for ALFA-tag/NbALFA 16 ), but they often suffer from high non-specific background fluorescence, as the fluorescently labeled binders remain fluorescent regardless of whether they are bound to their target epitopes or not. As a result, an array of multiple epitopes is often necessary to achieve a high SBR for low abundant POIs 37 . In our system, background signal can be minimized by using fluorogenic dyes, such as SiR, or eliminated through fluorescence lifetime segmentation ( Fig. 5c ). FP 11 /FP 1-10 pairs of split FPs typically do not show background fluorescence before complementation 30 , but perform less well in the red channel. In contrast, our system performs well across the orange to far-red channels and enables the use of different colors without the need for additional cloning efforts ( Extended Data Fig.8b-c ). By labeling with CA-fluorophores, which possess exceptional photophysical properties, our system supports super-resolution techniques, including ExM and live-cell STED imaging. Another attractive application of our split-HaloTag is in FLIM-based multiplexing of two targets tagged with different Hpep variants, which can be labeled through co-expression of a single complementing protein (cpHaloΔ3). Labeling of two different FP 11 peptides, in contrast, requires expression of two different large fragments (FP 1-10 ) for specific labeling 49 . We have also demonstrated the possibility of insertion of Hpep11 at different positions within a POI, an important feature shared with several other peptide-based systems. As for most other peptide-based tagging systems, labeling of Hpep-tagged proteins requires co-expression of an appropriately localized cpHaloΔ 50 , a feature that could also be exploited for achieving cell-type-or compartment-specific labeling 51 . Beyond imaging, we also foresee broader applications for our high-affinity split-HaloTag pairs. For example, the use of HaloTag ligands featuring functional groups such as HaloPROTACs 52 , 53 , might enable controlled degradation of Hpep-tagged POIs. We therefore expect that our high-affinity split-HaloTag pairs will find applications in live-cell imaging and beyond. Methods General information The compositions of buffers and media used in this study are described in Supplementary Table 5. DNA purification was performed with QIAquick PCR purification kit (QIAGEN) and plasmid extraction from E. coli was performed using QIAprep miniprep kit (QIAGEN) according to manufacturer’s procedures. DNA concentration was determined by measuring absorption at 260 nm with a NanoDrop 2000c spectrometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific). Fluorescent HaloTag and SNAPf substrates were synthesized following literature procedures 55 , 56 by B. Réssy and D. Schmidt (MPI-MR). Janelia Fluor (JF) HaloTag substrates were kindly provided by L. D. Lavis (Janelia Research Campus, Ashburn, Virginia). The chemical structures of these substrates are listed in Supplementary Fig 4. All TECAN microplate reader assays were performed using a Spark 20M instrument (Tecan Group Ltd.). FP assays were performed with either a 384-well microplate (black, non-binding, flat-bottom, low volume, Greiner Bio-One) or a 96-well microplate (flat-bottom, black, Greiner Bio-One). Unless otherwise stated, cpHaloΔ proteins refer to His 10 -tagged proteins after IMAC purification (see Protein purification from E. coli .). Solid phase peptide synthesis All reagents were purchased from commercial suppliers (BLDPharm, Sigma-Aldrich, Carl Roth GmbH+ Co.KG, Merck KGaA, VWR International). All solvents used for peptide synthesis were anhydrous. The peptide synthesis was carried out on a 0.1 mmol scale per batch. The commercially available Fmoc-Thr(tBu)-Wang resin (Novabiochem, 0.6 mmol/g loading) was used directly. The automated solid phase peptide synthesis was performed on a CEM Liberty Blue Automated Microwave Peptide Synthesizer, using 0.5 M DIC in DMF as the activator, 0.5 M Oxyma + 0.05 M DIPEA in DMF as the activator base, 0.1 M Oxyma + 20 vol. % of pyridine in DMF as the deprotection solution. The amide coupling was performed under a general condition as: 5.0 equiv. of amino acid solution, 5.0 equiv. of activator and 5.0 equiv. of activator base at 50 °C for 10 min. Biotin-PEG4-OH was used for N-terminal biotinylation, tetramethylrhodamine 6 carboxylic acid (TMR-6COOH) and Fmoc-PEG2-OH were used for TMR tagging. They were installed by manual SPPS under the following condition: 5.0 equiv. of tagging reagent, 5.0 equiv. of activator and 5.0 equiv. of activator base in DMF/DMSO (1:1, v/v, 3 ml) at RT for 2 hours. The matured peptide was liberated by the treatment with a cleavage cocktail of trifluoroacetic acid/phenol/ water/thioanisole/triisopropyl silane/1,2-ethanedithiol (82:4:4:4:4:2, v/v/v, 5 ml) at room temperature for 2 hours. The resulting cleavage solution was collected, and the crude peptide was precipitated by the addition of ice-cold diethyl ether (40 mL). The precipitate was isolated by centrifugation, washed twice with ice-cold diethyl ether (40 mL), and subsequently dried to yield the crude peptide. Purification of the crude peptide was performed by reverse-phase high-performance liquid chromatography (RP-HPLC) using an Agilent 1260 Infinity II preparative HPLC system equipped with a Shimadzu C18 preparative column (30 × 250 mm, 5 μm pore size). Chromatographic separation was conducted at a flow rate of 40 mL/min using a solvent gradient of 5–40 % acetonitrile (MeCN) in water, containing 0.1 % (v/v) TFA, over a duration of 60 min. The purity of collected fractions was assessed by HPLC-MS (Supplementary Fig.5-8), and pure fractions were pooled and lyophilized. The purified peptide was stored at −20 °C until further use. Molecular cloning of plasmids for bacterial and mammalian expression pET-51b(+) vectors (Novagen) was used for cloning constructs for cpHaloΔ protein purification from Escherichia coli ( E. coli ), including a N-terminal His 10 -tag for affinity purification, followed by a TEV protease recognition sequence (ENLYFQ|G), without any C-terminal tag. For protein expression in mammalian cells, pcDNA5/FRT or pcDNA5/FRT/TO vectors (Thermo Fisher Scientific) were used for transient transfection or stable cell line generation via Flp-IN TREx system (Thermo Fisher Scientific). pAAVS1-P-MCS (Addgene, #80488) was used for cloning donor template for AAVS1 safe harbor integration 57 . Molecular cloning was performed using Gibson assembly (GA) 58 method or Q5 site-directed mutagenesis (SDM) (NEB) according to manufacturer’s protocol. Primers were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich or from IDT (Integrated DNA Technologies). After PCR amplification using KOD-hot-start DNA polymerase master mix (Sigma-Aldrich), DpnI digestion was performed (15 min at 37 °C) to remove template DNA, followed by DNA purification. Home-made competent E. cloni 10G or NEB 5-alpha E. coli (NEB) cells were used for the transformation of plasmids generated by GA or SDM, respectively. All the constructs were verified by Sanger sequencing (Eurofins). Protein purification from E. coli pET-51b(+) plasmids encoding the proteins of interest were transformed into E. coli BL21(DE3)-pLysS (Novagen). After overnight pre-culture at 37 °C, production cultures (0.2-1L LB-ampicillin medium) were inoculated with a 1:200 dilution ([amp.] = 100 ug/mL). When OD 600 reached 0.6-0.8, isopropyl 𝛽-D-1-thiogalactopyranoside (IPTG, 0.5 mM) was added and the temperature was reduced to 16 °C. After 16 hours of incubation, cells were collected by centrifugation (4,000 RCF, 15min, 4 °C) and lysed in 30 mL His extract buffer (supplemented with 1 mM PMSF and 0.25 mg/mL lysozyme) by sonication (50 % duty, 70 % power, 7 min) on ice. After a two-step centrifugation (15,000 RCF, 15 min, 4 °C and 70,000 RCF, 15 min, 4 °C), the protein was purified by immobilized metal affinity chromatography (IMAC) on a gravity flow column or on an ÄktaPure FPLC instrument (Cytiva) with a HisTrap FF crude column (Cytiva). Recipes for His washing and His elution buffer are provided in Supplementary Table 5. Amicon Ultra-15 Centrifugal Filter Units (10 kDa MWCO) were used for buffer exchange to activity buffer (recipes provided in Supplementary Table 5) and concentrating proteins. Protein molecular weight and purity were validated by SDS-PAGE and high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS). SDS-PAGE and in-gel fluorescence assay Samples for SDS-PAGE were prepared using sample buffer (recipe provided in Supplementary Table 5) and denatured by heating at 95 °C for 10 min. Precast gels (4–20 % Mini-PROTEAN® TGX Stain-Free™ Protein Gels, Bio-Rad) were run at 200V for 20 min. Imaging was performed on a ChemiDoc™ Imager (Bio-Rad) post UV activation allowed by the stain-free Biorad technology. Fluorescently-labeled proteins (SiR and CPY) were imaged in Cy5 channel (red epi illumination: 625–650 nm excitation and 695/55 emission filter) using the same imager. Preparation of fluorescently labeled proteins For fluorescence profile evaluation, His 10 -tagged cpHaloΔ variants (50 µM) were labeled in presence of Hpep1 (100 µM), CA-CPY or CA-SiR (75 µM) in activity buffer for 60 hours at 4 °C. No Hpep1 was added for preparing labeled HaloTag. For affinity measurements, His 10 -tagged cpHaloΔ3 (50 µM) was labeled using Hpep1 (10 µM) and CA-SiR or CA-TMR (100 µM) for 85 hours at 4 °C. After incubation, Hpep1 was removed by IMAC purification on a gravity flow column and buffer was exchanged to activity buffer using Amicon Ultra-15 Centrifugal Filter Unit. The protein labeling was verified by SDS-PAGE, comparing Coomassie blue staining and in-gel fluorescence (Supplementary Fig 9). Protein labeling and Hpep1 removal were further verified by HRMS as previously explained. Protein concentrations Protein concentrations were determined after centrifugation (14,000 rpm, 4 °C, 10 min) by measuring absorption at 280 nm with a NanoDrop 2000c spectrometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific). For proteins labeled with CA-fluorophores, protein concentrations were determined by measuring absorption at 280 nm and the maximal absorption of the corresponding fluorophore. The concentrations of the labeled proteins were corrected using the correction factor at A 280 of the different fluorophores using the following equation: where: A max = absorbance at 555 nm for TMR- and 652 nm for SiR-cpHaloΔ3 CF = correction factor (0.34 for TMR and 0.147 for SiR) ε protein = protein extinction coefficient Fluorescent substrate concentrations Fluorescent substrates were dissolved in anhydrous DMSO as stock solutions, stored at -20 °C and subsequently diluted into specific buffers or media freshly ensuring the final concentration of DMSO remained below 1 % (v/v). The concentrations were determined by measuring absorbance at the corresponding maximal absorption wavelength for each fluorescent substrate in PBS pH 7.4 (Gibco) or PBS with 0.1 % (w/v) SDS, by measuring their UV-Vis spectra on a NanoDrop 2000c spectrometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific). Concentrations were calculated using the Lambert-Beer’s Law using the extinction coefficients characterized in-house or as previously reported 59 , 60 (Supplementary Table 6). Thermostability analysis The melting temperature (mT, half-denaturation temperature) of the cpHaloΔ variants were determined by following fluorescence intensity ratio change at 350 nm and 330 nm from 20 °C to 95 °C (1 °C/min) using a nanoscale differential scanning fluorimeter (nanoDSF) Prometheus NT 48 device (NanoTemper Technologies). The inflection point of the ratio curve (maximum of the first derivative) corresponds to the melting temperature of the protein (mean ± s.d., N=2). Yeast display library preparation Primers containing degenerated codon NNKs were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich. The pJYDNG vector 61 (Addgene, #162452) was used to create cpHaloΔ plasmid (pJYDNg-appS4-NcoI-cpHaloΔ-NotI-Aga2p-HA-myc-eUnaG2) containing cpHaloΔ flanked by two restriction enzyme (RE) digestion sites, NcoI and NotI. This plasmid was used as template for library preparation using self-ligation of the whole-plasmid PCR product 62 as described previously. The recipe for each reaction can be found in Supplementary Table 7-11. PCR amplification was performed using the KOD-hot-start DNA polymerase master mix (Sigma-Aldrich) with a reaction scale of 800 µL and 600 µL for N- and C-terminal extension libraries, respectively. DpnI digestion was performed for the resulting PCR products, followed by DNA purification with two washing steps with PE buffer. The purified DNA was digested with NcoI or NotI (NEB) for N-or C-terminal extension library, respectively. DNA purification was conducted before ligation using T4 DNA ligase (NEB) following standard procedure with an incubation at room temperature (RT) for 1.5 hours. After ligation, the ligase was digested by protease K (NEB) at 37 °C for 30 min, followed by heat-inactivation at 65 °C for 15 min. DNA was then concentrated by ethanol precipitation by supplementing DNA with 10 µL 3M sodium acetate, 100 µL isopropanol and glycogen (ThermoFisher) at a final concentration of 0.5 µg/µL. After more than 20 hours of incubation at -20 °C, the mixture was centrifuged (10,000 rpm, 15 min) and the pellet was washed with 1 mL ice-cold 70 % ethanol. After another centrifugation (10,000 rpm, 10 min), the pellet was air-dry for further use. The resuspended DNA was transformed into home-made E. cloni 10G by electroporation. Cells were recovered in LB medium at 37 °C for 1 hour at 220 rpm. 5 % of the cells were used for library size determination through serial dilutions and plating on kanamycin (50 µg/mL) selection agar plate. The rest of the cells were inoculated into 50 mL LB-kanamycin medium at 37 °C and 220 rpm for overnight culture and plasmid extraction. Electro-competent Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain EBY100 (ATCC) cells were prepared according to a literature procedure 63 with few modifications. A single colony was used to inoculate a 50 mL yeast extract peptone dextrose (YPD) pre-culture, grown at 30 °C and 250 rpm. A 100 mL YPD culture was inoculated with an initial OD 600 of 0.1 and grown until OD 600 reached 1.3-1.5. At this moment, Tris-DTT (800 µL) and Tris-LiAc (2 mL) were supplemented into the culture and incubated for 15 min at 30 °C, 250 rpm. The cells were then collected by centrifugation (2,500 RCF, 4 °C, 3 min), washed with ice-cold electroporation buffer, centrifuged (2,500 RCF, 4 °C, 3 min) and resuspended in 300 µL electroporation buffer. An aliquot of 50 µL cells was used for a single electroporation (1-3 µg DNA). Electroporation was performed on a Gene Pulser Xcell System (0.54 kV, 25 µF, infinite resistance with an exponential decay, Bio-Rad) with a pre-chilled electroporation cuvette (GenePulser® Cuvette, 0.2 cm gap, Bio-Rad). Yeast cells were recovered in YPDS medium at 30 °C and 250 rpm for one hour, harvested by centrifugation (2,500 RCF, 5 min) and resuspended in 1 mL SDCAA medium, from which the 5 % of the cells were used for plating serial dilutions to determine library size. The rest of the cells were then transferred into 100 mL SDCAA culture and propagated at 30 °C and 250 rpm. Expression and labeling cpHaloΔ at yeast surface A saturated yeast culture (0.5 mL) was inoculated into SGCAA medium (4.5 mL) to induce protein expression at 30 °C and 250 rpm for 20 hours. 10 7 cells (OD 600 = 1 corresponds to 10 7 cells/mL 63 ) from the induced culture were harvested by centrifugation (14,000 RCF, 1 min). Yeast cells were resuspended in 50 µL PBS and stained with HaloTag ligands and additional reagents allowing for later sorting. Cells were washed by centrifugation (14,000 RCF, 1 min) and resuspension in PBS (125 µL). Yeast cells were incubated with bilirubin (100 nM) on ice for 15 min to label eUnaG2, used as expression marker. Prior to fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS), yeasts were resuspended in 2 mL PBS and filtered into a 5 mL round bottom polystyrene test tubes through a cell strainer cap (Falcon, #352235). In the first round of screening, yeast libraries, or yeast expressing parental cpHaloΔ as control, were labeled with 1 µM CA-TMR in the presence and absence of 2 µM Hpep9 for 30 min at RT on a rotating wheel and the reaction was quenched with 5 µM HaloTag protein for 10 min. In the following rounds, labeling was performed with a two-step labeling procedure. In the first step, CA-CPY (5 µM) was added in the absence of Hpep9 for 30 min and the reaction was subsequently quenched with HaloTag protein (10 µM) for 10 min. After washing twice with PBS, cells were incubated with CA-TMR (1 µM) in the presence or absence of Hpep9 (detailed conditions are provided in Supplementary Table 12-13), and the reaction was further quenched by addition of HaloTag (10 µM) for 10 min. Finally, the cells were washed once prior to bilirubin labeling. Yeast library screening by FACS Labeled yeast cells were sorted on a BD FACSMelody Cell Sorter (BD Biosciences) with a neutral density filter 1.5 (FSC ND filter) and a 100 µm sorting nozzle. The corresponding lasers and filters for each fluorophore can be found in Supplementary Table 11. The gating strategy and the detailed information for each screening round can be found in Supplementary Fig. 10 and Table 12-13. Counter gating was used for selecting cells with highest TMR signal in the low CPY population. For N-terminal extension library, a negative sort was performed at the 5 th round on cells labeled with CPY and TMR both in the absence of Hpep9. The cells showing low signal in both TMR and CPY channel were sorted. Afterwards, the sorted cells were grown in 5 mL SDCAA medium containing penicillin-streptomycin (50 U/mL, Gibco) for two days. Cells were passaged once by inoculating 0.5 mL culture into 4.5 mL SDCAA medium before induction of protein expression. At each screening round, plasmids from the sorted population were extracted from 1 mL saturated yeast culture using Zymoprep Yeast Plasmid Miniprep II kit (Zymo Research) following manufacturer’s procedure. The resulting plasmids were subsequently amplified by retransformation into E. cloni 10G for miniprep preparation. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) The region containing randomization residues (150 bp) was amplified by PCR reaction at 50 µL scale with 0.5 µL template (2 ng/µL) and the corresponding primers (Supplementary Table 14), followed by DNA purification. Barcode-containing primers (NGS adaptor ligation oligos) were purchased from Eurofins Genomics. PCR products from different screening rounds and from different libraries were pooled in equivalent quantities and submitted for NGS sequencing (Illumina technology, Eurofins Genomics), targeting 5 million read pairs (2 x 150 bp). The use of unique barcodes for each screening round and library enabled subsequent demultiplexing of the sequencing data. NGS results were analyzed using an in-house pipeline with the following procedure. The quality of sequencing was first checked using FastQC tool 64 . DNA reads were then grouped according to their barcodes using (je demultiplex 65 ) and forwards and reverse reads were combined as a single sequence for each barcode. To trim off the barcodes, annealing region and the adapter sequences, (Cutadapt 66 ) was used. The trimmed reads were subsequently aligned to the reference template using bowtie2 short read aligner 67 and samtools 68 was used to convert the resulting “sam” files into “bam” files. A custom-made R script was then used to calculate amino acid frequencies at each randomization position by dividing the number of reads containing the specific residue at that specific position by the total number of reads. Labeling kinetics measurement of split-HaloTag The labeling kinetics of split-HaloTag with CA-TMR was measured by recording fluorescence polarization (FP) over time using a TECAN microplate reader. The reactions were prepared in a 384-well plate with a final volume of 40 µL. 20 µL Hpep at varying concentrations (2-fold dilution starting at 1 µM final) and 10 µL cpHaloΔ protein (2.5 or 20 nM final) was mixed in the 384-well plate, followed by a brief centrifugation (500 RCF, 1 min). Immediately before the measurement, CA-TMR (0.5 or 4 nM final) was added using a 384-channel pipetting robot (VIAFLO, Integra Biosciences GmbH). FP was recorded (excitation filter: 535/25 and emission filter: 595/35) at 37 °C for a period of 10 hours with a humidity cassette (Tecan Group Ltd.) to reduce the effect from evaporation for long-term measurements. The raw data was corrected for the time-delay that occurred between the addition of CA-TMR and recording of the first point. The raw data of replicates were first averaged and the data was fitted with the following equation for calculating the estimated apparent second-order rate constant k app . where: t = time FP(t) = FP at time t FP free = FP of the free CA-TMR FP bound = FP of the bound TMR fluorophore [A] 0 = CA-TMR concentration at t = 0 [B] 0 = protein concentration at t = 0 k app = apparent second-order rate constant In the conditions where the reactions did not plateau, a linear model was used for data fitting. The initial slopes of the fitted curves (s t=0 ) were determined using a previously reported a R script 32 . Monte Carlo simulations were employed to evaluate the uncertainties and determine the confidence intervals for the fitted values (N = 1000, 5 % worst fits were discarded). Half-maximal complementing concentrations (EC 50 ) determination EC 50 of peptides in the split-HaloTag context was determined by performing labeling kinetics at different peptide concentrations. EC 50 was defined as the Hpep concentration required to reach 50 % of the maximal labeling speed for a given split-HaloTag pair. It was used as a proxy for the affinity between the split-HaloTag fragments. For EC 50 determination, the initial slopes (mean and standard deviation, s.d.) of each labeling condition were plotted against a logarithm of the corresponding Hpep concentration. The sigmoidal model was fitted to the data using R script (Extended Data Fig.2 a,b) with the following equation and the confidence intervals of the fitted values were estimated with the Monte Carlo approach 69 . where: k app = apparent second-order rate constant k max = k app at saturating Hpep concentration (maximal k app ) EC 50 = half-maximal effective concentration [Hpep] = the concentration of Hpep Alternatively, EC 50 was calculated using GraphPad Prism (version 9.2.0) with a sigmoidal dose-response curve (fixed Hill slope = 1.0). The data was fitted with the following equation: where: Y = initial slope X = corresponding concentration of Hpep Background labeling activity of cpHaloΔ in vitro The background labeling kinetics of cpHaloΔ variants with CA-TMR in the absence of Hpep were recorded using a TECAN microplate reader. Two-fold serial dilutions of cpHaloΔ ranging from 0.2-200 µM (final, 20 µL) was prepared in a 384-well plate and a brief centrifugation (500 RCF, 1 min) was performed. Afterwards, 20 µL of CA-TMR (50 nM final) was added using the pipetting robot immediately prior FP measurement for 10 hours at 37 °C with a humidity cassette. The raw data was fitted with a nonlinear regression with a pseudo-first order association equation for calculating the half-time of the labeling using GraphPad Prism (version 9.2.0). Fluorescence intensity scan To determine the influence of Hpep variants on the apparent fluorescence intensity of the split-HaloTag/dye complex, a reaction was prepared in activity buffer (supplemented with 0.1 mg/mL BSA) with the labeled cpHaloΔ (0.2 µM) and the corresponding Hpep variant (1 µM) and incubated at 37 °C for 5 hours in a 96-well plate. A fluorescence intensity (FI) scan was performed at 37 °C, covering 600-700 nm (5 nm step, 10 nm bandwidth) with the excitation at 560 nm (20 nm bandwidth) on a TECAN plate reader. Affinity (K d ) determination using fluorescence polarization assay To use FP as a readout to determine the affinity between cpHaloΔ variants (cpHaloΔ2, cpHaloΔ3, cpHaloΔ3-SiR) and Hpep, we chemically synthesized TMR-Hpep conjugates (TMR-Hpep9, TMR-Hpep11). A TMR-Hpep (1 nM) was titrated against a cpHaloΔ variant (5-fold serial dilutions) in activity buffer in a 384-well microplate. FP was measured using a TECAN plate reader and the following settings: excitation filter (535/25), emission filter (595/35), 30 flashes, 40 µs integration time. Technical triplicates were performed for each condition. The FP values were plotted against the logarithm of the corresponding cpHaloΔ protein concentration and the nonlinear regression model (three parameters, Hill slope = 1.0) was used for data fitting to get EC 50 values, considered to be K d values. Binding kinetics analysis by bio-layer interferometry Bio-layer interferometry (BLI) analysis was performed in a 96-well plate using an Octet ® R4 system (Sartorius) with an acquisition rate for standard kinetics of 5.0 Hz at 25 °C. Chemically synthesized biotin-Hpep conjugates (biotin-Hpep9, biotin-Hpep11) were immobilized onto streptavidin (SA) biosensor surface in activity buffer, supplemented with 0.05 % BSA, which was the buffer used for all measurement steps, including: (i) biosensor hydration in buffer for 10 min; (ii) baseline recording for 60 s; (iii) biotin-Hpep (50 nM) immobilization for 300 s; (iv) baseline recording for 60 s; (v) association step with varying concentration of cpHaloΔ3 proteins (300 – 2 nM) for 60 or 300 s; (vi) dissociation step in buffer for 300 s. The raw data was analyzed using Octet ® Analysis Studio (Sartorius). For data correction, response curves were baseline-aligned by subtracting the average signal of the baseline step and Savitzky-Golay filtering was used to remove high-frequency noise from the data. Data from the measurements of different cpHaloΔ protein concentrations were grouped and a 1:1 binding model was used for a global data fitting (kinetic fit) to generate the values of K d , k on and k off , from which K d could be extrapolated. Molecular dynamics simulation Molecular dynamics (MD) simulations were performed for 200 ns under constant pressure (NPT) to examine the interactions between Hpep11 and cpHaloΔ variants. The protein–peptide complexes were generated using AlphaFold3 (AF3) 35 , developed by Google DeepMind in collaboration with Isomorphic Labs with FASTA-formatted input sequences. Predictions were performed using the AF3 web platform with default settings unless otherwise specified. The top-ranked models of Hpep11/cpHaloΔ were further processed using the Protein Preparation Wizard (Schrödinger Inc., New York) with default settings to optimize the structure for molecular dynamics simulations. An orthorhombic periodic box was generated with a 10 Å buffer distance via the Desmond System Builder module in Maestro (Schrödinger Inc., New York). Sodium and chloride ions were introduced into the solvent phase to neutralize the system and achieve an experimental salt concentration of 0.15 M NaCl. The simulation system, comprising approximately 30,000 atoms, was constructed using the OPLS4 force field. MD simulations were performed using the default algorithms and protocols of the Desmond Molecular Dynamics module (Schrödinger Inc., New York). The system was equilibrated before executing a 200 ns production simulation at 300 K and 1.01325 bar. Data analysis was conducted using the Simulation Interaction Diagram tool within Maestro. General information for mammalian cell culture Mammalian U-2 OS Flp In TM T-REx TM cells 70 (referred to as U2OS cells) and Flp-In™ T-REx™ 293 cells (hereafter referred to as 293FT cells, Invitrogen™) were cultured in growth medium, filtered with Nalgene TM Rapid-Flow TM Sterile Filter (0.22 µm, 500 mL, Thermo Fisher Scientific). Cells were passaged every 2-4 days or at confluency and grown at 37 °C with 5 % CO 2 by washing with PBS (Gibco), digestion with TrypLE TM Express (Gibco) and resuspension in growth medium. Mycoplasma contamination tests were performed regularly on all cell lines. For long-term storage at -80 °C, U2OS cells and 293FT cells were stored in 95 % growth medium with 5 % DMSO or 90 % FBS with 10 % DMSO, respectively. Cell counting was conducted using Countess 3 automated cell counter (Invitrogen) with a Countess 3 cell counting chamber slide (Invitrogen). Plasmids for mammalian cell expression were cloned in pcDNA TM 5/FRT/TO vectors (Thermo Fisher Scientific), with which the expression of genes of interest (GOIs) were driven by CMV promoter. To induce protein expression, 500 ng/mL doxycycline was added with at least overnight incubation. All the stable cell lines used in this study were sorted using a FACSMelody TM Cell Sorter (BD) and are listed in Supplementary Table 15. Transient transfection in mammalian cells Mammalian cells were seeded onto specific plates depending on the application with 8-20 k cells per well with addition of doxycycline in the case of the inducible cell lines. When cells reached a confluency of about 70 %, Lipofectamine 3000 Reagent (Thermo Fisher Scientific) was used for transfection. In a tube, 100 ng of plasmid DNA was mixed with 10 μL OptiMEM and supplemented with 0.2 μL of P3000. In another tube, 0.2 μL of Lipofectamine 3000 was diluted in 10 μL of OptiMEM. Next, the contents of the two tubes were combined and incubated at RT for 15 min before adding it to the cells. After 4-8 hours of incubation, the media was replaced with fresh growth medium and cultured for 24-48 hours prior to imaging or flow cytometry analysis. Plasmids used for transient transfection in each experiment are listed in Supplementary Table 16. Cell fixation and staining Paraformaldehyde (PFA) fixation was used in this study. Cells were washed with pre-warmed PBS and fixed with 4 % (w/v) methanol-free PFA in PBS for 15 min at 37 °C. Afterwards, cells were washed with PBS for three times for further analysis. Live-cell staining with fluorescent substrates In this study, the cells were stained with fluorescent substrates (100 nM, unless otherwise stated) that are specific to the self-labeling proteins (SLPs), in growth medium for wash experiments and in imaging medium for no-wash experiments. For wash experiments, cells were washed twice with imaging medium with a 5 min incubation at 37 °C for each washing step. Immunostaining with recombinant cpHaloΔ U2OS cells stably over-expressing either H2B-SNAPf-Hpep11 or TOM20-SNAPf-Hpep11, generated by Flp-IN integration, were seeded on ibidi 8-well glass bottom imaging dish and the protein expression was induced by the addition of doxycycline for 24 hours. After fixation, cells were permeabilized with 0.2 % Triton X-100 in PBS for 15 min at RT. Afterwards, cells were washed with PBS containing 1 % BSA (w/v) and the blocking reagent (5 % BSA (w/v) in 0.2 % Tween 20) was supplemented. After 30 min incubation at RT, cells were incubated with cpHaloΔ3 (1 µM), a CA-fluorophore (CA-SiR or CA-CPY, 500 nM) and a SNAPf substrate (CP-TMR, 500 nM) at 4 °C for overnight. The next day, cells were washed twice with PBS containing 1 % BSA (w/v) before imaging on a Stellaris 5 microscope. U2OS blank cells were also treated with the same procedure to reveal the absence of unspecific binding of the fluorophores or of labeled cpHaloΔ3 protein. Stable cell line generation using Flp-IN TREx system For the stable cell lines generated using Flp-IN TM T-REx TM system (Thermo Fisher Scientific), cells were grown in a T25 culture flask (Sarstedt AG & Co.KG) until ∼80 % confluency. Lipofectamine 3000 transfection, as described above, was performed by co-transfecting the pCDNA5/FRT plasmid encoding POI (440 ng) and the pOG44 plasmid encoding the Flp-recombinase (3560 ng, Invitrogen). 8 μL of Lipofectamine 3000 was diluted in 200 μL OptiMEM. DNA mixture was diluted in 200 μL OptiMEM and supplemented with 8 μL of P3000 reagent. After overnight incubation with the transfection reagent, the medium was replaced by fresh growth medium. After a recovery period of 8-24 hours, hygromycin B (100 μg/mL, Gibco Life Technologies) was added to select positive cells with stable integration of the cassette into the genome for 48-72 hours. The cells were then recovered in fresh growth medium and sorted by FACS upon reaching confluency to select a bulk population with a positive signal for EGFP and/or the labeled-SLP. Doxycycline was added one day prior to sorting to induce protein expression. Stable cell line generation by AAVS1 safe harbor integration Stable cpHaloΔ3 cell lines (U2OS and 293FT cell lines) were alternatively generated by stable integration of a cassette encoding the POI into the AAVS1 safe-harbor locus of the human genome 57 using a CRISPR/Cas9 KI approach. For this, the GOI was cloned into the pAAVS1-p-MCS plasmid (Addgene, #80488) by Gibson assembly, as described in the previous section. Lipofectamine 3000 transfection was performed on cells cultured in a T25 flask, as described above, by co-transfecting the cells with 2 μg of the pAAVS1-p-POI plasmid and 2 μg of the pXAT2 plasmid (Addgene, #80494), which encodes Cas9 and the guide RNA targeting the AAVS1 genomic locus. Selection of positive cells with stable integration of the GOI was achieved by supplementing the growth medium with puromycin (1 μg/mL) for 3 days. Bulk sorting for EGFP-positive cells was performed by FACS when the cells reached confluency. The day before sorting, doxycycline was added to induce protein expression. Pipeline for generating the endogenous Hpep-tagged cell lines In U2OS cells, the endogenous Hpep11-tagged cell lines used in this study were generated in two different procedures, depending on the parental cell line employed for introducing the Cas9/gRNA complex (either U2OS blank cells or cpHaloΔ3-T2A-NLS-EGFP stable cell line generated by Flp-In T-REx system). In 293FT cells, genome editing was performed on a single clone of a stable cell line, which was generated by the stable integration of cpHaloΔ3-T2A-NLS-EGFP into the AAVS1 safe-harbor locus. Genome editing was performed using Lipofectamine TM CRISPRMAX TM Cas9 Transfection Reagent (Invitrogen) for the delivery of a complex of donor DNA and ribonucleoprotein (RNP), which consists of crRNA to target a specific genomic locus 12 , 29 , 71 , a Cas9 binding scaffold (tracrRNA), and Cas9 protein. The crRNA (Alt-R ® CRISPR-Cas9) and ssDNA donors encoding Hpep (Ultramer TM DNA oligo) were purchased from IDT (Supplementary Table 3). crRNAs were resuspended in nuclease-free duplex buffer (IDT) at 100 μM and stored at -20 °C and the concentration of donor DNA was adjusted to 100 μM. On the day of transfection, duplex gRNA was prepared by heating the complex of crRNA/tracrRNA-Atto647 (1 μM) at 95 °C for 5 min, followed by cooling to RT and Cas9-RFP protein was diluted in OptiMEM (1 μM). Cells were seeded on a 6-well plate (Nunc TM , Thermo Fisher Scientific) to reach ∼80 % confluency on the day of transfection. In a tube, 24 μL of duplex gRNA, 24 μL of Cas9-RFP, 9.6 μL of Cas9 Plus Reagent were added into 400 μL of OptiMEM, followed by supplementation of 3 μL of donor ssDNA (prepared in sterile water). In another tube, 19.2 μL of Lipofectamine CRISPRMAX Reagent was added into 400 μL of OptiMEM. The contents from the two tubes were mixed and incubated at RT for 15 min. The cell culture medium was replaced with fresh medium containing 1 μM of HDR Enhancer V2 (IDT), and the transfection mixture was then added to cells. After overnight incubation, cell culture medium was replaced with fresh medium. FACS sorting was performed 14-24 hours post-transfection to enrich for cells transfected with both Cas9-RFP and tracrRNA-Atto647. The sorted cells were then cultivated for a period of 5-7 days. Following this, a second round of FACS was performed after one-hour labeling with CA-SiR (100 nM) to enrich the cell population for both Hpep and cpHaloΔ3 integration. The gating strategy is detailed in Supplementary Fig 11. Generation of the endogenous HaloTag-tagged cell lines The endogenous HaloTag-tagged cell lines were generated using the same procedure as described above, with the exception of the HDR template preparation. This was accomplished either by purchasing from IDT as a gBlock or by PCR amplification using primers containing homology arms. After PCR amplification, DNA fragments with correct size were purified from an agarose gel using the QIAquick Gel Extraction Kit (QIAGEN). Cas9/gRNA and the donor DNA was delivered into blank U2OS or 293FT cells using Lipofectamine TM CRISPRMAX TM Cas9 Transfection Reagent (Invitrogen), according to the previously detailed procedure whereby 1200 ng donor DNA was used. Two rounds of cell sorting using FACS were performed: the first round enriched for transfected cells, and5-7 days later, the second round selected for cells with HaloTag integration by gating SiR-positive cells after one-hour labeling with CA-SiR (100 nM). Flow cytometry analysis U2OS stable cell lines were seeded onto a 96-well clear flat bottom plate (Fisher Scientific GmbH) with 100 μL of growth medium containing doxycycline to gain ∼90 % confluency on the day of analysis. After labeling with HaloTag ligand (100 nM), cells were washed once with PBS and digested with 50 μL of TrypLE TM (Gibco). After 10 min of incubation, 150 μL FACS buffer was added and the samples were then transferred onto a U-bottom 96-well plate (Falcon). The samples were measured via LSRFortessa™ X-20 Cell Analyzer (BD Biosciences) with the with a high throughput sampler (HTS) for 96-well plates (flow rate: 3 μL/s; 3 mixing steps; wash volume: 400 μL). Photomultiplier tubes (PMT) settings were optimized using the positive and negative controls. Optical settings for each fluorophore are listed in Supplementary Table 11. Data analysis was performed using FlowJo TM software (BD Biosciences). The labeling procedure for investigating cpHaloΔ labeling kinetics in cells (Extended Data Fig. 3) was performed with CA-SiR or CA-CPY (100 nM final) for eight different time periods ranging from 5 min to 20 hours. At the end of incubation period, recombinant HaloTag protein (1 μM final) was added and incubated to quench the labeling reaction. To label TOM20 tagging cell lines ( Fig. 3f-g ), cells were labeled with CA-SiR (100 nM final) for one hour. Confocal fluorescence microscopy Confocal microscopy was conducted using a Leica Stellaris 5 equipped with a supercontinuum white light laser (470-670 nm), hybrid photodetectors for single-molecule detection (HyD SMD) and an environmental chamber at 37 °C with 5 % CO 2 . The laser power output was adjusted to 85 % of the maximum and calibrated regularly. Cells were seeded into imaging plates with glass bottoms (µ-Slide 8 Well, µ-Slide 18 Well or μ-Plate 96 Well, ibidi GmbH). Unless otherwise stated, cells were stained with 100 nM fluorescent substrates (CA-fluophores, CP-fluorophores) for one hour and the images were taken with a 40x (HC PL APO CS2 40x/1.10) water objective, with a scan speed of 400 Hz, line average of 2 and 12-bit pixel depth (specific imaging acquisition parameters are listed in Supplementary Table 17). Expansion microscopy U2OS stable cell lines were seeded onto CultureWell™Chambered Coverglass plate (Invitrogen) and induced with 1000 ng/mL doxycycline in order to reach ∼90 % confluency on the day of labeling. The cells were labeled with HaloTag substrates (CA-MaP555, CA-TMR or CA-CPY, 100 nM) for 2 hours, then washed twice with imaging medium. ExM sample preparation was performed following a literature protocol with few modifications 72 . Cells were fixed with 4 % (w/v) formaldehyde (FA) in PBS for 15 min at 37 °C, washed twice with PBS, then incubated in 0.7 % (w/v) FA and 1 % acrylamide (AA) in PBS for 5 hours at 37 °C. After PBS washes, gelation was performed with U-ExM monomer solution supplemented with 0.5 % (w/v) ammonium persulfate (APS) and 0.5 % (w/v) tetramethylethylenediamine (TEMED). Cells were incubated on ice for 5 min, then at 37 °C for 1 hour. The gel samples were transferred into denaturation buffer at RT for 15 min with gentle shaking. The samples were then moved into pre-heated fresh denaturation buffer at 95 °C for 15 min. Following denaturation, samples were expanded in deionized water, with water changed every 20 min until the expansion was completed. The expanded gels were re-stained with Hoechst 33342 (5 ug/mL) to facilitate locating the cells, mounted with 2 % (w/v) low-melt point agarose, and stored until imaging. Live-cell stimulated emission depletion (STED) nanoscoy U2OS cell lines were seeded in 8-well glass bottom imaging plate (Ibidi) and prepared as previously described. Live-cell STED nanoscopy was conducted with an Abberior STED Expert Line 595/775/RESOLFT QUAD scanning microscope equipped with a UPlanSApo 100x/1.4 oil immersion objective lens (Abberior Instruments) without temperature and CO 2 control. The 640 nm excitation lines and the 775 nm STED lines were used for SiR, collecting emission at 650-757 nm on avalanche photodiodes (APDs). Image acquisition parameters are described in detail in Supplementary Table 18. For data representation pixel intensities were scaled between dark and bright colors using the ‘Red Hot’ or ‘gray’ lookup tables (Fiji version 1.54f) as indicated by a reference bar. For image representation, ‘gaussian blur’ filter (Fiji version 1.54f) with radius 1 was used. The performance of split-HaloTag in STED and confocal microscopy was assessed by calculating the Full Width at Half Maximum (FWHM) of single microtubules revealed by Hpep11- TUBB4B and HaloTag- TUBB4B . Fluorescence intensity profiles perpendicular to microtubules were extracted using ImageJ2 (version 2.3.0). The data were fitted with the graphpad prism software (version 10.3.0) and the following gaussian equation y: fluorescence intensity, x: x-coordinate [μm], y 0 : offset, A: area, ω: width, xc: center. FWHM: Full Width at Half Maximum, ω: Gauss width. Fluorescence lifetime imaging Live-cell fluorescence lifetime imaging was performed on a Leica SP8 FALCON microscope equipped with a Leica TCS SP8 X scanning, SuperK white light laser at pulse frequency of 80 or 40 MHz. To detect SiR labeling signal, excitation was performed at 640 nm and emission was collected within the range of 650-720 nm. Ibidi 8-well glass bottom imaging plates were used for seeding cells. Mean fluorescence lifetimes calculation was done in the LAS X software (Leica Microsystems) by fitting mono-exponential decay model to the decay. Fluorescence lifetime of SiR-labeled cpHaloΔ3 was determined in stable U2OS cell line expressing cpHaloΔ3-T2A-NLS-EGFP, with an overnight incubation of CA-SiR (100 nM). Mean fluorescence lifetimes (intensity weighted) were calculated from five cells, with over four regions of interest (ROIs) selected for each cell. To determine the fluorescence lifetime of each Hpep variant, transient transfected U2OS cells expressing H2B-SNAPf-Hpep were stained with CA-SiR (100 nM) for one hour before imaging. 1,000 photons per pixel were collected. Mean fluorescence lifetime values (intensity weighted) were calculated from 5-10 cells, with over 4 ROIs selected for each cell. The separation of the background signal from the unbound SiR-labeled cpHaloΔ3 was conducted by positioning the cluster-circles on the phasor plot centering at 2.2-2.5 ns and another cluster-circle at the position where the SiR-cpHaloΔ/Hpep11 complex was locate using Leica Microsystems. To separate signals from Hpep11 and one of the other Hpep, the cluster-circles were centered at the positions of the pure species on phasor plot. The detailed image acquisition parameters can be found in Supplementary Table 17 Author Contributions Y-H.L., K.J. and J.H. conceived and planed the project. Y-H.L. carried out the majority of the experiments, except where noted otherwise. STED imaging was performed by J.Kompa. ExM was performed by D.S. MD simulation, peptide synthesis and Kd determination by FP assay was jointly conducted by R.M. and A.A. The generation of CRISPR/Cas9 KI cell lines were done by Y-H.L., B.K, P.B. and J.Kress. K.H., J.W. and Y-H.L. jointly carried out Hpep engineering experiments. Y-H.L., S.K. and T.M. jointly conducted yeast display selection. NGS data analysis and in vitro characterization work was done by Y-H.L. with supports from J.W. Hpep-EGFP fusion characterization was performed jointly by Y-H.L. and N.F. The manuscript was written by Y-H.L and K.J., with contributions and feedback from all authors. Competing Interests J.W., L.N., Y.-H.L., J.H. and K.J. are inventors of a patent with the title "Improved Split-HaloTags" filed by the Max Planck Society. Acknowledgements This work was supported by the Max Planck Society and École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) SFB TRR 186. Y.-H.L. was supported by EPFL Doctoral Program in Biotechnology and Bioengineering (EDBB). J.K., J.W. and S.K. were supported by Heidelberg Biosciences International Graduate School (HBIGS). D.S. was supported by a Humboldt Research Fellowship and an interinstitutional postdoctoral fellowship of The Health + Life Science Alliance Heidelberg Mannheim. J.W. and K.H. were supported by the Max Planck School Matter to Life. We thank L. D. Lavis for providing Janelia Fluor HaloTag substrates and A. Bergner, B. Réssy, D. Schmidt for providing reagents. We thank S. Fabritz, T. Rudi, and J. Kling from the mass spectrometry facility of MPIMR for their supports. We thank M. Tarnawski for performing nanoDSF measurements. The authors thank all the members of the Chemical Biology department of MPIMR for their support and the fruitful discussions. References ↵ Los , G. V. et al. HaloTag: a novel protein labeling technology for cell imaging and protein analysis . ACS Chem Biol 3 , 373 – 382 , doi: 10.1021/cb800025k ( 2008 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science ↵ Li , H. & Vaughan , J. C . Switchable Fluorophores for Single-Molecule Localization Microscopy . Chem Rev 118 , 9412 – 9454 , doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.7b00767 ( 2018 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Lardon , N. et al. Systematic Tuning of Rhodamine Spirocyclization for Super-resolution Microscopy . J Am Chem Soc 143 , 14592 – 14600 , doi: 10.1021/jacs.1c05004 ( 2021 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Porzberg , N. , Gries , K. & Johnsson , K . Exploiting Covalent Chemical Labeling with Self-Labeling Proteins . Annu Rev Biochem , doi: 10.1146/annurev-biochem-030222-121016 ( 2025 ). OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Grimm , J. B. & Lavis , L. D . Caveat fluorophore: an insiders’ guide to small-molecule fluorescent labels . Nat Methods 19 , 149 – 158 , doi: 10.1038/s41592-021-01338-6 ( 2022 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Cook , A. , Walterspiel , F. & Deo , C . HaloTag-Based Reporters for Fluorescence Imaging and Biosensing . Chembiochem 24 , e202300022 , doi: 10.1002/cbic.202300022 ( 2023 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Tsirkas , I. et al. Protein fluorescent labeling in live yeast cells using scFv-based probes . Cell Rep Methods 2 , 100357 , doi: 10.1016/j.crmeth.2022.100357 ( 2022 ). OpenUrl CrossRef Gidden , Z. et al. Imaging Proteins Sensitive to Direct Fusions Using Transient Peptide-Peptide Interactions . Nano Lett 23 , 10633 – 10641 , doi: 10.1021/acs.nanolett.3c03780 ( 2023 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Hinrichsen , M. et al. A new method for post-translationally labeling proteins in live cells for fluorescence imaging and tracking . Protein Eng Des Sel 30 , 771 – 780 , doi: 10.1093/protein/gzx059 ( 2017 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Kimple , M. E. , Brill , A. L. & Pasker , R. L . Overview of affinity tags for protein purification . Curr Protoc Protein Sci 73 , 9 9 1-9 9 23 , doi: 10.1002/0471140864.ps0909s73 ( 2013 ). OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Tanenbaum , M. E. , Gilbert , L. A. , Qi , L. S. , Weissman , J. S. & Vale , R. D . A protein-tagging system for signal amplification in gene expression and fluorescence imaging . Cell 159 , 635 – 646 , doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2014.09.039 ( 2014 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science ↵ Cho , N. H. et al. OpenCell: Endogenous tagging for the cartography of human cellular organization . Science 375 , eabi6983 , doi: 10.1126/science.abi6983 ( 2022 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Griffin , B. A. , Adams , S. R. & Tsien , R. Y . Specific covalent labeling of recombinant protein molecules inside live cells . Science 281 , 269 – 272 , doi: 10.1126/science.281.5374.269 ( 1998 ). OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text ↵ Lelek , M. et al. Superresolution imaging of HIV in infected cells with FlAsH-PALM . Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109 , 8564 – 8569 , doi: 10.1073/pnas.1013267109 ( 2012 ). OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text ↵ Gatterdam , K. , Joest , E. F. , Dietz , M. S. , Heilemann , M. & Tampe , R . Super-Chelators for Advanced Protein Labeling in Living Cells . Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 57 , 5620 – 5625 , doi: 10.1002/anie.201800827 ( 2018 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Guignet , E. G. , Hovius , R. & Vogel , H . Reversible site-selective labeling of membrane proteins in live cells . Nat Biotechnol 22 , 440 – 444 , doi: 10.1038/nbt954 ( 2004 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science ↵ Yano , Y. et al. Coiled-coil tag--probe system for quick labeling of membrane receptors in living cell . ACS Chem Biol 3 , 341 – 345 , doi: 10.1021/cb8000556 ( 2008 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Doh , J. K. , Tobin , S. J. & Beatty , K. E . MiniVIPER Is a Peptide Tag for Imaging and Translocating Proteins in Cells . Biochemistry 59 , 3051 – 3059 , doi: 10.1021/acs.biochem.0c00526 ( 2020 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Tsutsumi , H. et al. Fluorogenically active leucine zipper peptides as tag-probe pairs for protein imaging in living cells . Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 48 , 9164 – 9166 , doi: 10.1002/anie.200903183 ( 2009 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Maity , B. K. , Nall , D. , Lee , Y. & Selvin , P. R . Peptide-PAINT Using a Transfected-Docker Enables Live- and Fixed-Cell Super-Resolution Imaging . Small Methods 7 , e2201181 , doi: 10.1002/smtd.202201181 ( 2023 ). OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Boersma , S. et al. Multi-Color Single-Molecule Imaging Uncovers Extensive Heterogeneity in mRNA Decoding . Cell 178 , 458 – 472 e419 , doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2019.05.001 ( 2019 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Gotzke , H. et al. The ALFA-tag is a highly versatile tool for nanobody-based bioscience applications . Nat Commun 10 , 4403 , doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-12301-7 ( 2019 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Popp , M. W. , Antos , J. M. , Grotenbreg , G. M. , Spooner , E. & Ploegh , H. L . Sortagging: a versatile method for protein labeling . Nat Chem Biol 3 , 707 – 708 , doi: 10.1038/nchembio.2007.31 ( 2007 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science ↵ Howarth , M. , Takao , K. , Hayashi , Y. & Ting , A. Y . Targeting quantum dots to surface proteins in living cells with biotin ligase . Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102 , 7583 – 7588 , doi: 10.1073/pnas.0503125102 ( 2005 ). OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text ↵ Chamma , I. , Rossier , O. , Giannone , G. , Thoumine , O. & Sainlos , M . Optimized labeling of membrane proteins for applications to super-resolution imaging in confined cellular environments using monomeric streptavidin . Nat Protoc 12 , 748 – 763 , doi: 10.1038/nprot.2017.010 ( 2017 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Cabantous , S. , Terwilliger , T. C. & Waldo , G. S . Protein tagging and detection with engineered self-assembling fragments of green fluorescent protein . Nat Biotechnol 23 , 102 – 107 , doi: 10.1038/nbt1044 ( 2005 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science ↵ Schwinn , M. K. et al. CRISPR-Mediated Tagging of Endogenous Proteins with a Luminescent Peptide . ACS Chem Biol 13 , 467 – 474 , doi: 10.1021/acschembio.7b00549 ( 2018 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Schwinn , M. K. , Steffen , L. S. , Zimmerman , K. , Wood , K. V. & Machleidt , T . A Simple and Scalable Strategy for Analysis of Endogenous Protein Dynamics . Sci Rep 10 , 8953 , doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-65832-1 ( 2020 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Leonetti , M. D. , Sekine , S. , Kamiyama , D. , Weissman , J. S. & Huang , B . A scalable strategy for high-throughput GFP tagging of endogenous human proteins . Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 113 , E3501 – 3508 , doi: 10.1073/pnas.1606731113 ( 2016 ). OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text ↵ Feng , S. et al. Improved split fluorescent proteins for endogenous protein labeling . Nat Commun 8 , 370 , doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-00494-8 ( 2017 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Feng , S. et al. Bright split red fluorescent proteins for the visualization of endogenous proteins and synapses . Commun Biol 2 , 344 , doi: 10.1038/s42003-019-0589-x ( 2019 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Huppertz , M. C. et al. Recording physiological history of cells with chemical labeling . Science 383 , 890 – 897 , doi: 10.1126/science.adg0812 ( 2024 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Wilhelm , J. Engineering of a Split Self-Labeling Protein for Recording Neuronal Activity and Connectivity PhD thesis, Heidelberg University, ( 2024 ). ↵ Wilhelm , J. , Nickel , L. , Lin , Y. H. , Hiblot , J. & Johnsson , K . Improving split-HaloTag through computational protein engineering . Protein Sci 34 , doi:ARTN e70123 10.1002/pro.70123 ( 2025 ). OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Abramson , J. et al. Accurate structure prediction of biomolecular interactions with AlphaFold 3 . Nature 630 , 493 – 500 , doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07487-w ( 2024 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Keeble , A. H. et al. DogCatcher allows loop-friendly protein-protein ligation . Cell Chem Biol 29 , 339 – 350 e310 , doi: 10.1016/j.chembiol.2021.07.005 ( 2022 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Wassie , A. T. , Zhao , Y. & Boyden , E. S . Expansion microscopy: principles and uses in biological research . Nat Methods 16 , 33 – 41 , doi: 10.1038/s41592-018-0219-4 ( 2019 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Sadelain , M. , Papapetrou , E. P. & Bushman , F. D . Safe harbours for the integration of new DNA in the human genome . Nat Rev Cancer 12 , 51 – 58 , doi: 10.1038/nrc3179 ( 2011 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Jeong , S. , Widengren , J. & Lee , J. C . Fluorescent Probes for STED Optical Nanoscopy . Nanomaterials (Basel ) 12 , doi: 10.3390/nano12010021 ( 2021 ). OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Hell , S. W. & Wichmann , J . Breaking the diffraction resolution limit by stimulated emission: stimulated-emission-depletion fluorescence microscopy . Opt Lett 19 , 780 – 782 , doi: 10.1364/ol.19.000780 ( 1994 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science ↵ Lukinavicius , G. et al. A near-infrared fluorophore for live-cell super-resolution microscopy of cellular proteins . Nat Chem 5 , 132 – 139 , doi: 10.1038/Nchem.1546 ( 2013 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Wurm , C. A. et al. Nanoscale distribution of mitochondrial import receptor Tom20 is adjusted to cellular conditions and exhibits an inner-cellular gradient . Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108 , 13546 – 13551 , doi: 10.1073/pnas.1107553108 ( 2011 ). OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text ↵ Jans , D. C. et al. STED super-resolution microscopy reveals an array of MINOS clusters along human mitochondria . Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110 , 8936 – 8941 , doi: 10.1073/pnas.1301820110 ( 2013 ). OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text ↵ Datta , R. , Heaster , T. M. , Sharick , J. T. , Gillette , A. A. & Skala , M. C . Fluorescence lifetime imaging microscopy: fundamentals and advances in instrumentation, analysis, and applications . J Biomed Opt 25 , 1 – 43 , doi: 10.1117/1.JBO.25.7.071203 ( 2020 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Ishikawa , H. , Meng , F. , Kondo , N. , Iwamoto , A. & Matsuda , Z . Generation of a dual-functional split-reporter protein for monitoring membrane fusion using self-associating split GFP . Protein Eng Des Sel 25 , 813 – 820 , doi: 10.1093/protein/gzs051 ( 2012 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Minner-Meinen , R. et al. Split-HaloTag imaging assay for sophisticated microscopy of protein-protein interactions in planta . Plant Commun 2 , 100212 , doi: 10.1016/j.xplc.2021.100212 ( 2021 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Shao , S. et al. TagBiFC technique allows long-term single-molecule tracking of protein-protein interactions in living cells . Commun Biol 4 , 378 , doi: 10.1038/s42003-021-01896-7 ( 2021 ). OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Makhija , S. et al. Versatile Labeling and Detection of Endogenous Proteins Using Tag-Assisted Split Enzyme Complementation . ACS Chem Biol 16 , 671 – 681 , doi: 10.1021/acschembio.0c00925 ( 2021 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Tamura , R. , Jiang , F. C. , Xie , J. & Kamiyama , D . Multiplexed labeling of cellular proteins with split fluorescent protein tags . Communications Biology 4 , doi:ARTN 257 10.1038/s42003-021-01780-4 ( 2021 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Kamiyama , D. et al. Versatile protein tagging in cells with split fluorescent protein . Nat Commun 7 , 11046 , doi: 10.1038/ncomms11046 ( 2016 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Kamiyama , R. et al. Cell-type-specific, multicolor labeling of endogenous proteins with split fluorescent protein tags in Drosophila . Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 118 , doi: 10.1073/pnas.2024690118 ( 2021 ). OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text ↵ Buckley , D. L. et al. HaloPROTACS: Use of Small Molecule PROTACs to Induce Degradation of HaloTag Fusion Proteins . ACS Chem Biol 10 , 1831 – 1837 , doi: 10.1021/acschembio.5b00442 ( 2015 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Tovell , H. et al. Rapid and Reversible Knockdown of Endogenously Tagged Endosomal Proteins via an Optimized HaloPROTAC Degrader . ACS Chem Biol 14 , 882 – 892 , doi: 10.1021/acschembio.8b01016 ( 2019 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Wilhelm , J. , Nickel , L. , Lin , Y.-H. , Hiblot , J. & Johnsson , K. Improving Split-HaloTag through Computational Protein Engineering . bioRxiv , doi: 10.1101/2024.10.13.617931 ( 2024 ). OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text ↵ Butkevich , A. N. et al. Fluorescent Rhodamines and Fluorogenic Carbopyronines for Super-Resolution STED Microscopy in Living Cells . Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 55 , 3290 – 3294 , doi: 10.1002/anie.201511018 ( 2016 ). OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Grimm , J. B. , Brown , T. A. , Tkachuk , A. N. & Lavis , L. D . General Synthetic Method for Si-Fluoresceins and Si-Rhodamines . Acs Central Sci 3 , 975 – 985 , doi: 10.1021/acscentsci.7b00247 ( 2017 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Oceguera-Yanez , F. et al. Engineering the AAVS1 locus for consistent and scalable transgene expression in human iPSCs and their differentiated derivatives . Methods 101 , 43 – 55 , doi: 10.1016/j.ymeth.2015.12.012 ( 2016 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Gibson , D. G. et al. Enzymatic assembly of DNA molecules up to several hundred kilobases . Nature Methods 6 , 343 – U341 , doi: 10.1038/Nmeth.1318 ( 2009 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Kompa , J. et al. Exchangeable HaloTag Ligands for Super-Resolution Fluorescence Microscopy . J Am Chem Soc 145 , 3075 – 3083 , doi: 10.1021/jacs.2c11969 ( 2023 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Grimm , J. B. et al. A General Method to Improve Fluorophores Using Deuterated Auxochromes . JACS Au 1 , 690 – 696 , doi: 10.1021/jacsau.1c00006 ( 2021 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Zahradnik , J. et al. A Protein-Engineered, Enhanced Yeast Display Platform for Rapid Evolution of Challenging Targets . Acs Synth Biol 10 , 3445 – 3460 , doi: 10.1021/acssynbio.1c00395 ( 2021 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Kong , X. D. , Carle , V. , Diaz-Perlas , C. , Butler , K. & Heinis , C . Generation of a Large Peptide Phage Display Library by Self-Ligation of Whole-Plasmid PCR Product . ACS Chem Biol 15 , 2907 – 2915 , doi: 10.1021/acschembio.0c00497 ( 2020 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Chao , G. et al. Isolating and engineering human antibodies using yeast surface display (vol 1, pg 755, 2006) . Nature Protocols 1 ( 2006 ). ↵ Andrews , S. (Available online, 2010) . ↵ Girardot , C. , Scholtalbers , J. , Sauer , S. , Su , S. Y. & Furlong , E. E . Je, a versatile suite to handle multiplexed NGS libraries with unique molecular identifiers . BMC Bioinformatics 17 , 419 , doi: 10.1186/s12859-016-1284-2 ( 2016 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Martin , M . Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads . EMBnet.journal 17 , 10 – 12 ( 2011 ). OpenUrl ↵ Langmead , B. & Salzberg , S. L . Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2 . Nat Methods 9 , 357 – 359 , doi: 10.1038/nmeth.1923 ( 2012 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science ↵ Danecek , P. et al. Twelve years of SAMtools and BCFtools . Gigascience 10 , doi: 10.1093/gigascience/giab008 ( 2021 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Straume , M. & Johnson , M. L . Monte Carlo method for determining complete confidence probability distributions of estimated model parameters . Methods Enzymol 210 , 117 – 129 , doi: 10.1016/0076-6879(92)10009-3 ( 1992 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science ↵ Malecki , M. J. et al. Leukemia-associated mutations within the NOTCH1 heterodimerization domain fall into at least two distinct mechanistic classes . Mol Cell Biol 26 , 4642 – 4651 , doi: 10.1128/MCB.01655-05 ( 2006 ). OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text ↵ Roberts , B. et al. Systematic gene tagging using CRISPR/Cas9 in human stem cells to illuminate cell organization . Mol Biol Cell 28 , 2854 – 2874 , doi: 10.1091/mbc.E17-03-0209 ( 2017 ). OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text ↵ Gambarotto , D. et al. Imaging cellular ultrastructures using expansion microscopy (U-ExM) . Nat Methods 16 , 71 – 74 , doi: 10.1038/s41592-018-0238-1 ( 2019 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed View the discussion thread. Back to top Previous Next Posted June 15, 2025. Download PDF Supplementary Material Email Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about bioRxiv. NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article. Your Email * Your Name * Send To * Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas. You are going to email the following A high-affinity split-HaloTag for live-cell protein labeling Message Subject (Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from bioRxiv Message Body (Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the bioRxiv website. Your Personal Message CAPTCHA This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions. Share A high-affinity split-HaloTag for live-cell protein labeling Yin-Hsi Lin , Julian Kompa , De-en Sun , Runyu Mao , Birgit Koch , Konstantin Hinnah , Jonas Wilhelm , Natascha Franz , Stefanie Kühn , Tanja Menche , Abdinasir Adow , Paula Breuer , Julien Hiblot , Kai Johnsson bioRxiv 2025.06.15.659771; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.06.15.659771 Share This Article: Copy Citation Tools A high-affinity split-HaloTag for live-cell protein labeling Yin-Hsi Lin , Julian Kompa , De-en Sun , Runyu Mao , Birgit Koch , Konstantin Hinnah , Jonas Wilhelm , Natascha Franz , Stefanie Kühn , Tanja Menche , Abdinasir Adow , Paula Breuer , Julien Hiblot , Kai Johnsson bioRxiv 2025.06.15.659771; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.06.15.659771 Citation Manager Formats BibTeX Bookends EasyBib EndNote (tagged) EndNote 8 (xml) Medlars Mendeley Papers RefWorks Tagged Ref Manager RIS Zotero Tweet Widget Facebook Like Google Plus One Subject Area Biochemistry Subject Areas All Articles Animal Behavior and Cognition (7635) Biochemistry (17697) Bioengineering (13895) Bioinformatics (41951) Biophysics (21456) Cancer Biology (18594) Cell Biology (25520) Clinical Trials (138) Developmental Biology (13381) Ecology (19903) Epidemiology (2067) Evolutionary Biology (24323) Genetics (15612) Genomics (22510) Immunology (17737) Microbiology (40401) Molecular Biology (17183) Neuroscience (88622) Paleontology (667) Pathology (2833) Pharmacology and Toxicology (4825) Physiology (7644) Plant Biology (15158) Scientific Communication and Education (2046) Synthetic Biology (4296) Systems Biology (9825) Zoology (2271)