Advertisement

A Comprehensive Phylogenetic and Bioinformatics Assessment of Hydrophobin Protein (HYPAI) for Drug Delivery: an In Silico Analysis

  • H. Darsaraei
  • S. GhovvatiEmail author
  • S. A. Khodaparast
Article

Abstract

Nowadays, efforts are being made to reduce the side effects of drugs, increase the effectiveness of drugs on the target tissue, etc. using drug delivery knowledge to control the bioavailability of drugs in the human body. Hydrophobin is a low molecular weight hydrophobic fungal protein that can potentially be used as nanocarrier in drug delivery systems. Phylogenetic analysis showed that the hydrophobin of Trichoderma, Cladosporium, Verticillium and Sphaerulina species are closely related to animal hydrophobin. The evolutionary relationship of hydrophobin protein was investigated. The physiological and physicochemical properties of the HYPAI were studied by ProtScale and ProtParam servers. Post-translational modifications and three-dimensional structure of HYPAI were studied using CBS and Phyre2 servers, respectively. Protein–protein interactions were investigated using the platform of Search Tool for Retrieval of Interacting Genes and proteins (STRING). The results indicated that HYPAI is a highly hydrophobic, water soluble protein. The prediction of post-translational modification showed that this protein lacks a suitable site for glycosylation and mannosylation, but there was a possibility of phosphorylation in 8 sites. Physicochemical properties demonstrated that HYPAI is a stable protein with a half-life of 30 h in mammalian reticulocytes in vitro. In silico analysis of the interaction of HYPAI showed that no interaction has been reported for this protein in humans yet. The bioinformatics results have shown that HYPAI is a stable protein in vitro and has no immune effect in the human body, so that can pass through defense mechanisms of the human body with no immunogenicity reaction. Trichoderma spp., especially T. atroviride, due to its usage in agriculture and industries, can be a suitable candidate as a natural, reliable and safe bioreactor for the production of a cost-effective hydrophobin protein, and is being proposed for application in drug research as a new drug nanocarrier.

Keywords

Drug delivery Hydrophobin Nanocarrier In silico analysis Bioinformatics analysis Phylogenetic 

Notes

Acknowledgements

It is sincerely appreciated by the Vice-Chancellor of Research and Technology of the University of Guilan, who provided the researchers with the necessary hardware and software facilities for the analyses carried out.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication and there has been no significant financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome.

References

  1. Aimanianda V et al (2009) Surface hydrophobin prevents immune recognition of airborne fungal spores. Nature 460:1117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akanbi MHJ et al (2010) Use of hydrophobins in formulation of water insoluble drugs for oral administration. Colloids Surf B 75:526–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Almagro Armenteros JJ et al (2019) SignalP 5.0 improves signal peptide predictions using deep neural networks. Nat Biotechnol.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0036-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bayry J, Aimanianda V, Guijarro JI, Sunde M, Latge J-P (2012) Hydrophobins—unique fungal proteins. PLoS Pathog 8:e1002700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bertrand N, Leroux J-C (2012) The journey of a drug-carrier in the body: an anatomo-physiological perspective. J Control Release 161:152–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bhaskaran R, Ponnuswamy P (1988) Positional flexibilities of amino acid residues in globular proteins. Int J Pept Protein Res 32:241–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bruns S et al (2010) Production of extracellular traps against Aspergillus fumigatus in vitro and in infected lung tissue is dependent on invading neutrophils and influenced by hydrophobin RodA. PLoS Pathog 6:e1000873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bull HB (1943) Proteins, amino acids, and peptides as polar and non-polar ions. By Edwin J. Cohn and John T. Edsall. J Phys Chem 47:713–714.  https://doi.org/10.1021/j150432a017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dagenais TR, Giles SS, Aimanianda V, Latgé J-P, Hull CM, Keller NP (2010) Aspergillus fumigatus LaeA-mediated phagocytosis is associated with a decreased hydrophobin layer. Infect Immun 78:823–829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dayhoff M, Schwartz R, Orcutt B (1978) 22 A model of evolutionary change in proteins. In: Atlas of protein sequence and structure. National Biomedical Research Foundation, Washington, DC, pp 345–352Google Scholar
  11. Doozandeh-Juibari A, Ghovvati S, Vaziri HR, Sohani MM, Pezeshkian Z (2019) Cloning, expression, purification and evaluation of the biological properties of the recombinant human growth hormone (hGH) in Escherichia coli. Int J Pept Res Ther.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10989-019-09854-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dorn M, E Silva MB, Buriol LS, Lamb LC (2014) Three-dimensional protein structure prediction: methods and computational strategies. Comput Biol Chem 53:251–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Espino-Rammer L et al (2013) Two novel class II hydrophobins from Trichoderma stimulate enzymatic hydrolysis of poly (ethylene terephthalate) when expressed as a fusion protein. Appl Environ Microbiol.  https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01132-13 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Ferrè F, Clote P (2005a) DiANNA: a web server for disulfide connectivity prediction. Nucleic Acids Res 33:W230–W232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ferrè F, Clote P (2005b) Disulfide connectivity prediction using secondary structure information and diresidue frequencies. Bioinformatics 21:2336–2346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ferrè F, Clote P (2006) DiANNA 1.1: an extension of the DiANNA web server for ternary cysteine classification. Nucleic Acids Res 34:W182–W185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gandier J-A et al (2017) Characterization of a Basidiomycota hydrophobin reveals the structural basis for a high-similarity Class I subdivision. Sci Rep 7:45863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ghovvati S, Pezeshkian Z, Mirhoseini SZ (2018) In silico analysis of different signal peptides to discover a panel of appropriate signal peptides for secretory production of Interferon-beta 1b in Escherichia coli. Acta Biochim Pol 65:521–534PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Gupta R, Jung E, Brunak S (2004) Prediction of N-glycosylation sites in human proteins. http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/services/NetNGlyc/. Accessed 5 Feb 2019
  20. Hektor HJ, Scholtmeijer K (2005) Hydrophobins: proteins with potential. Curr Opin Biotechnol 16:434–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hoffman K, Stoffel W (1993) TMbase—a database of membrane spanning proteins segments. Biol Chem Hoppe-Seyler 374:166Google Scholar
  22. Hopp TP, Woods KR (1981) Prediction of protein antigenic determinants from amino acid sequences. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 78:3824–3828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ikai A (1980) Thermostability and aliphatic index of globular proteins. J Biochem 88:1895–1898PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Janin J (1979) Surface and inside volumes in globular proteins. Nature 277:491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Julenius K (2007) NetCGlyc 1.0: prediction of mammalian C-mannosylation sites. Glycobiology 17:868–876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kumar S, Stecher G, Li M, Knyaz C, Tamura K (2018) MEGA X: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis across computing platforms. Mol Biol Evol 35:1547–1549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kwan A, Winefield R, Sunde M, Matthews J, Haverkamp R, Templeton M, Mackay J (2006) Structural basis for rodlet assembly in fungal hydrophobins. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:3621–3626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Linder MB, Szilvay GR, Nakari-Setälä T, Penttilä ME (2005) Hydrophobins: the protein-amphiphiles of filamentous fungi. FEMS Microbiol Rev 29:877–896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marra R et al (2006) Study of the three-way interaction between Trichoderma atroviride, plant and fungal pathogens by using a proteomic approach. Curr Genet 50:307–321.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00294-006-0091-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Mirhoseini Z, Pezeshkian Z, Ghovvati S (2017) Phylogenetic and in silico analysis of interferon beta-1b protein. J Mazandaran Univ Med Sci 26:70–82Google Scholar
  31. Nel AE et al (2009) Understanding biophysicochemical interactions at the nano–bio interface. Nat Mater 8:543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nordberg H et al (2013) The genome portal of the Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute: 2014 updates. Nucleic Acids Res 42:D26–D31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Peer D, Karp JM, Hong S, Farokhzad OC, Margalit R, Langer R (2007) Nanocarriers as an emerging platform for cancer therapy. Nat Nanotechnol 2:751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Santos M et al (2018) Plasma synthesis of carbon-based nanocarriers for linker-free immobilization of bioactive cargo. ACS Appl Nano Mater 1:580–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sarparanta M et al (2012) Intravenous delivery of hydrophobin-functionalized porous silicon nanoparticles: stability, plasma protein adsorption and biodistribution. Mol Pharm 9:654–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schuster A, Schmoll M (2010) Biology and biotechnology of Trichoderma. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 87:787–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Seidl-Seiboth V et al (2011) Novel hydrophobins from Trichoderma define a new hydrophobin subclass: protein properties, evolution, regulation and processing. J Mol Evol 72:339–351.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00239-011-9438-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Steentoft CVS, Joshi HJ, Kong Y, Vester-Christensen MB, Schjoldager KT, Lavrsen K, Dabelsteen S, Pedersen NB, Marcos-Silva L, Gupta R, Bennett EP, Mandel U, Brunak S, Wandall HH, Levery SB, Clausen H (2013) Precision mapping of the human O-GalNAc glycoproteome through SimpleCell technology. EMBO J 32:1478–1488.  https://doi.org/10.1038/emboj.2013.79 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Sunde M, Kwan AH, Templeton MD, Beever RE, Mackay JP (2008) Structural analysis of hydrophobins. Micron 39:773–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Thompson JD, Higgins DG, Gibson TJ (1994) CLUSTAL W: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nucleic Acids Res 22:4673–4680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wang NX, Von Recum HA (2011) Affinity-based drug delivery. Macromol Biosci 11:321–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wang X, Shi F, Wösten H, Hektor H, Poolman B, Robillard G (2005) The SC3 hydrophobin self-assembles into a membrane with distinct mass transfer properties. Biophys J 88:3434–3443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wessels JG (1996) Hydrophobins: proteins that change the nature of the fungal surface. Adv Microb Physiol 38:1–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wösten H, Schuren F, Wessels J (1994) Interfacial self-assembly of a hydrophobin into an amphipathic protein membrane mediates fungal attachment to hydrophobic surfaces. EMBO J 13:5848–5854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zimmerman J, Eliezer N, Simha R (1968) The characterization of amino acid sequences in proteins by statistical methods. J Theor Biol 21:170–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Plant Pathology, Faculty of AgricultureUniversity of GuilanRashtIran
  2. 2.Department of Animal Science, Faculty of AgricultureUniversity of GuilanRashtIran

Personalised recommendations