Advertisement

A High-Throughput Synthetic Platform Enables the Discovery of Proteomimetic Cell Penetrating Peptides and Bioportides

  • Sarah Jones
  • Shaimaa Osman
  • John HowlEmail author
Article
  • 103 Downloads

Abstract

Collectively, cell penetrating peptide (CPP) vectors and intrinsically active bioportides possess tremendous potential for drug delivery applications and the discrete modulation of intracellular targets including the sites of protein–protein interactions (PPIs). Such sequences are usually relatively short (< 25 AA), polycationic in nature and able to access the various intracellular compartments of eukaryotic cells without detrimental influences upon cellular biology. The high-throughput platform for bioportide discovery described herein exploits the discovery that many human proteins are an abundant source of potential CPP sequences which are reliably predicted using QSAR algorithms or other methods. Subsequently, microwave-enhanced solid phase peptides synthesis provides a high-throughput source of novel proteomimetic CPPs for screening purposes. By focussing upon cationic helical domains, often located within the molecular interfaces that facilitate PPIs, bioportides which act by a dominant-negative mechanism at such sites can be reliably identified within small number libraries of CPPs. Protocols that employ fluorescent peptides, routinely prepared by N-terminal acylation with carboxytetramethylrhodamine, further enable both the quantification of cellular uptake kinetics and the identification of specific site(s) of intracellular accretion. Chemical modifications of linear peptides, including strategies to promote and stabilise helicity, are compatible with the synthesis of second-generation bioportides with improved drug-like properties to further exploit the inherent selectivity of biologics.

Keywords

Bioportide Cell penetrating peptide Microwave-enhanced peptide synthesis Confocal microscopy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support provided by Chris Mason and CEM towards the development and maintenance of a microwave-enhanced peptide synthesis facility. Shaimaa Osman was in receipt of Newton-Mosharafa Fellowship from 2015 to 2017.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Research Involving with Human and Animal Participants

This article does not present and studies performed with human participants or animal.

References

  1. Chan W, White P. (eds) (1999) Fmoc solid phase peptide synthesis, Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Chang YS1, Graves B, Guerlavais V, Tovar C, Packman K, To KH, Olson KA, Kesavan K, Gangurde P, Mukherjee A, Baker T, Darlak K, Elkin C, Filipovic Z, Qureshi FZ, Cai H, Berry P, Feyfant E, Shi XE, Horstick J, Annis DA, Manning AM, Fotouhi N, Nash H, Vassilev LT, Sawyer TK (2013) A potent dual inhibitor of MDM2 and MDMX for p53-dependent cancer therapy. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 110:E3445–E3454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Craik DJ, Fairlie DP, Liras S, Price D (2013) The future of peptide-based drugs. Chem Biol Drug Des 81:136–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cronican J, Beier KT, Davis TN, Tseng JC, Li W, Thompson DB, Shih AF, May EM, Cepko CL, Kung AL, Zhou Q, Liu DR (2011) A class of human proteins that deliver functional proteins into mammalian cells in vitro and in vivo. Chem Biol 18:833–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Crowley PB, Golovin A (2005) Cation-π interactions in protein-protein interfaces. Proteins 59:231–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Derda R (ed) (2015) Peptide libraries: methods and protocols. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Derossi D, Joliot AH, Chassaing G, Prochiantz A (1994) The third helix of the Antennapedia homeodomain translocates through biological membranes. J Biol Chem 269:10444–10450Google Scholar
  8. Futaki S, Suzuki T, Ohashi W, Yagami T, Tanaka S, Ueda K, Sugiura Y (2001) Arginine-rich peptides. An abundant source of membrane-permeable peptides having potential as carriers for intracellular protein delivery. J Biol Chem 276:5836–5840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gautam A, Chaudhary K, Kumar R, Raghava GPS (2015) Computer-aided virtual screening and designing of cell-penetrating peptides. Methods Mol Biol 1324:59–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ghoorah AW, Devignes M-D, Aborzi SZ, Smaïl-Tabbone M, Ritchie DW (2015) A structure-based classification and analysis of protein domain family binding sites and their interactions. Biology 4:327–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hällbrink M, Kilk K, Elmquist A, Lundberg P, Lindgren M, Jiang Y, Pooga M, Soomets U, Langel Ü (2005) Prediction of cell-penetrating peptides. Int J Pept Res Ther 11:249–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Harada Y, Kanehira M, Fujisawa Y, Takata R, Shuin T, Miki T, Fujioka T, Nakamura Y, Katagiri T (2010) Cell-permeable peptide DEPDC1-ZNF224 interferes with transcriptional repression and oncogenicity in bladder cancer cells. Cancer Res 70:5829–5839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Henchey LK, Jochim AL, Arora PS (2008) Contemporary strategies for the stabilization of peptides in the α-helical conformation. Curr Opin Chem Biol 12:692–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Howl J, Jones S (2008) Proteomimetic cell penetrating peptides. Int J Pept Res Ther 14:359–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Howl J, Jones S (2015a) Protein mimicry and the design of bioactive cell-penetrating peptides. Method Mol Biol 1324:177–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Howl J, Jones S (2015b) Insights into the molecular mechanisms of action of bioportides: a strategy to target protein-protein-interactions. Expert Rev Mol Med 17:e1.  https://doi.org/10.1017/erm.2014.24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Howl J, Matou-Nasri S, West DC, Farquhar M, Slaninová J, Östenson C-G, Zorko M, Östlund P, Kumar S, Langel Ü, McKeating J, Jones S (2012) Bioportide: an emergent concept of bioactive cell-penetrating peptides. Cell Mol Life Sci 69:2951–2966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jochim AL, Arora PS (2009) Assessment of helical interfaces in protein-protein interactions. Mol Biosyst 5:924–926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jones S, Martel C, Belzacq-Casagrande A, Brenner C, Howl J (2008) Mitoparan and target-selective chimeric analogues: membrane translocation and intracellular redistribution induces mitochondrial apoptosis. Biochim Biophys Acta Mol Cell Res 1783:849–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jones S, Holm T, Mäger I, Langel Ü. Howl J (2010) Characterisation of bioactive cell penetrating peptides from cytochrome c: protein mimicry and the development of a novel apoptogenic agent. Chem Biol 17:735–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jones S, Uusna J, Langel Ü, Howl J (2016) Intracellular target-specific accretion of cell penetrating peptides and bioportides: ultrastructural and biological correlates. Bioconj Chem 27:121–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Keissling LK, Gestwick JS, Strong LE (2000) Synthetic multivalent ligands in the exploration of cell-surface interactions. Curr Opin Chem Biol 4:696–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kim YW, Grossmann TN, Verdine GL (2011) Synthesis of all-hydrocarbon stapled α-helical peptides by ring-closing olefin metathesis. Nat Protoc 6:761–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kiosses WB, Hood J, Yang S, Gerritsen ME, Cheresh DA, Alderson N, Schwartz MA (2002) A dominant negative p65 PAK peptide inhibits angiogenesis. Circ Res 90:697–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Langel Ü (ed) (2007) Handbook of cell-penetrating peptides. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  26. Lukanowska M, Howl J, Jones S (2013) Bioportides: bioactive cell-penetrating peptides that modulate cellular dynamics. Biotechnol J 8:918–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mae M, Langel Ü (2006) Cell-penetrating peptides as vectors for peptide, protein and oligonucleotide delivery. Curr Opin Pharmacol 6:509–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mével-Ninio M, Terracol R, Kafatos FC (1991) The ovo gene of Drosophila encodes a zinc finger protein required for female germ line development. EMBO J 10:2259–2266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Milletti F (2012) Cell-penetrating peptides: classes, origin, and current landscape. Drug Discov Today 17:850–860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pawson T, Nash P (2000) Protein-protein interactions define specificity in signal transduction. Genes Dev 14:1027–1047Google Scholar
  31. Schiller PW (2010) Bi- or multifunctional peptide drugs. Life Sci 86:598–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Soomets U, Lindgren M, Gallet X, Hälbrink M, Elmquist A, Balaspiri L, Zorko M, Pooga M, Brasseur R, Langel U (2000) Deletion analogues of transportan. Biochim Biophys Acta 1467:165–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Subirs-Funosas R, Prohens R, Barbas R, El-Faham A, Albericio F (2009) Oxyma: An efficient additive for peptide synthesis to replace the benzotriazole-based HOBt and HOAt with a lower risk of explosion. Chem Eur J 15:9394–9403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Vidal M, Cusick ME, Barabási A-L (2011) Interactome networks and human disease. Cell 144:986–998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vivès E, Brodin P, Lebleu B (1997) A truncated HIV-1 Tat protein basic domain rapidly translocates through the plasma membrane and accumulates in the cell nucleus. J Biol Chem 272:16010–16017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Walensky LD, Bird GH (2014) Hydrocarbon-stapled peptides: principles, practice and progress. J Med Chem 57:6275–6288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wang CR, Craik DJ (2016) Cyclic peptide oral bioavailability: lessons from the past. Pept Sci 106:901–909CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Institute in Healthcare ScienceUniversity of WolverhamptonWolverhamptonUK
  2. 2.Peptide Chemistry DepartmentNational Research CentreCairoEgypt

Personalised recommendations