Advertisement

Mammalian Surface Display Screening of Diverse Cystine-Dense Peptide Libraries for Difficult-to-Drug Targets

  • Zachary R. Crook
  • Gregory P. Sevilla
  • Andrew J. Mhyre
  • James M. OlsonEmail author
Protocol
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 2070)

Abstract

Many diseases are mediated by targets that are not amenable to conventional small-molecule drug approaches. While antibody-based drugs have undeniable utility, peptides of the 1–9 kDa size range (10–80 amino acids) have drawn interest as alternate drug scaffolds This is born of a desire to identify compounds with the advantages of antibody-based therapeutics (affinity, potency, specificity, and ability to disrupt protein:protein interactions) without all of their liabilities (large size, expensive manufacturing, and necessity of humanization). Of these alternate scaffolds, cystine-dense peptides (CDPs) have several specific benefits. Due to their stable intra-chain disulfide bridges, CDPs often demonstrate resistance to heat and proteolysis, along with low immunogenicity. These properties do not require chemical modifications, permitting CDP screening by conventional genetic means. The cystine topology of a typical CDP requires an oxidative environment, and we have found that the mammalian secretory pathway is most effective at allowing diverse CDPs to achieve a stable fold. As such, high-diversity screens to identify CDPs that interact with targets of interest can be efficiently conducted using mammalian surface display. In this protocol, we present the theory and tools to conduct a mammalian surface display screen for CDPs that bind with targets of interest, including the steps to validate binding and mature the affinity of preliminary candidates. With these methods, CDPs of all kinds can be brought to bear against targets that would benefit from a peptide-based intervention.

Key words

Surface display Peptides Screening Flow cytometry High throughput Drug discovery Cysteine-rich 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author thanks Colin Correnti, Roland Strong, and Ashok Bandaranayake for helpful discussions as the manuscript was prepared. The Fred Hutch Shared Resources, particularly the Flow Cytometry and Genomics facilities, were instrumental to data generation. The author also thanks Shelli Morris and Chris Mehlin for their help in editing the manuscript. This work was funded by NIH Grants R01CA114567 (J.M.O.) and R01CA155360 (J.M.O.); A Washington Research Foundation Innovation Fellowship through the University of Washington Institute for Protein Design; NIH Fellowship T32AG00005740 (Z.R.C.); and Project Violet (www.projectviolet.org).

References

  1. 1.
    Dang CV (2012) MYC on the path to cancer. Cell 149:22–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pylayeva-Gupta Y, Grabocka E, Bar-Sagi D (2011) RAS oncogenes: weaving a tumorigenic web. Nat Rev Cancer 11:761–774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Harvey KF, Zhang X, Thomas DM (2013) The Hippo pathway and human cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 13:246–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Soto C (2003) Unfolding the role of protein misfolding in neurodegenerative diseases. Nat Rev Neurosci 4:49–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kinch MS (2015) An overview of FDA-approved biologics medicines. Drug Discov Today 20:393–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brüggemann M, Osborn MJ, Ma B et al (2015) Human antibody production in transgenic animals. Arch Immunol Ther Exp 63:101–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Trenevska I, Li D, Banham AH (2017) Therapeutic antibodies against intracellular tumor antigens. Front Immunol 8:1001Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Li Z, Krippendorff B-F, Sharma S et al (2016) Influence of molecular size on tissue distribution of antibody fragments. MAbs 8:113–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tabrizi M, Bornstein GG, Suria H (2010) Biodistribution mechanisms of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies in health and disease. AAPS J 12:33–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Almagro JC, Daniels-Wells TR, Perez-Tapia SM et al (2017) Progress and challenges in the design and clinical development of antibodies for cancer therapy. Front Immunol 8:1751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Xenopoulos A (2015) A new, integrated, continuous purification process template for monoclonal antibodies: process modeling and cost of goods studies. J Biotechnol 213:42–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Löfblom J, Frejd FY, Ståhl S (2011) Non-immunoglobulin based protein scaffolds. Curr Opin Biotechnol 22:843–848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Weidle UH, Auer J, Brinkmann U et al (2013) The emerging role of new protein scaffold-based agents for treatment of cancer. Cancer Genomics Proteomics 10:155–168PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Beck A, Wurch T, Bailly C et al (2010) Strategies and challenges for the next generation of therapeutic antibodies. Nat Rev Immunol 10:345–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Simeon R, Chen Z (2018) In vitro-engineered non-antibody protein therapeutics. Protein Cell 9:3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Veiseh M, Gabikian P, Bahrami S-B et al (2007) Tumor paint: a chlorotoxin:Cy5.5 bioconjugate for intraoperative visualization of cancer foci. Cancer Res 67:6882–6888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shahbazzadeh D, Srairi-Abid N, Feng W et al (2007) Hemicalcin, a new toxin from the Iranian scorpion Hemiscorpius lepturus which is active on ryanodine-sensitive Ca2+ channels. Biochem J 404:89–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gurrola GB, Capes EM, Zamudio FZ et al (2010) Imperatoxin a, a cell-penetrating peptide from scorpion venom, as a probe of Ca2+-release channels/ryanodine receptors. Pharmaceuticals (Basel) 3:1093–1107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Koday MT, Nelson J, Chevalier A et al (2016) A computationally designed hemagglutinin stem-binding protein provides in vivo protection from influenza independent of a host immune response. PLoS Pathog 12:e1005409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Berger S, Procko E, Margineantu D et al (2016) Computationally designed high specificity inhibitors delineate the roles of BCL2 family proteins in cancer. elife 5:pii: e20352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Janda CY, Dang LT, You C et al (2017) Surrogate Wnt agonists that phenocopy canonical Wnt and β-catenin signalling. Nature 545:234–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Moore SJ, Cochran JR (2012) Engineering knottins as novel binding agents. Methods Enzymol 503:223–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gates ZP, Vinogradov AA, Quartararo AJ et al (2018) Xenoprotein engineering via synthetic libraries. Proc Natl Acad Sci 115:E5298–E5306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Herzig V, King G, Herzig V et al (2015) The cystine knot is responsible for the exceptional stability of the insecticidal spider toxin ω-hexatoxin-Hv1a. Toxins (Basel) 7:4366–4380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kikuchi K, Sugiura M, Kimura T (2015) High proteolytic resistance of spider-derived inhibitor cystine knots. Int J Pept 2015:537508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Correnti CE, Gewe MM, Mehlin C et al (2018) Screening, large-scale production and structure-based classification of cystine-dense peptides. Nat Struct Mol Biol 25(3):270–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Craik DJ, Clark RJ, Daly NL (2007) Potential therapeutic applications of the cyclotides and related cystine knot mini-proteins. Expert Opin Investig Drugs 16:595–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Maillère B, Mourier G, Hervé M et al (1995) Immunogenicity of a disulphide-containing neurotoxin: presentation to T-cells requires a reduction step. Toxicon 33:475–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Corbi-Verge C, Garton M, Nim S et al (2017) Strategies to develop inhibitors of motif-mediated protein-protein interactions as drug leads. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 57:39–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Angelini A, Chen TF, de Picciotto S et al (2015) Protein engineering and selection using yeast surface display. Methods Mol Biol 1319:3–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chen I, Dorr BM, Liu DR (2011) A general strategy for the evolution of bond-forming enzymes using yeast display. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108:11399–11404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bowers PM, Horlick RA, Neben TY et al (2011) Coupling mammalian cell surface display with somatic hypermutation for the discovery and maturation of human antibodies. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108:20455–20460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Boder ET, Wittrup KD (1997) Yeast surface display for screening combinatorial polypeptide libraries. Nat Biotechnol 15:553–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kintzing JR, Cochran JR (2016) Engineered knottin peptides as diagnostics, therapeutics, and drug delivery vehicles. Curr Opin Chem Biol 34:143–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Crook ZR, Sevilla GP, Friend D et al (2017) Mammalian display screening of diverse cystine-dense peptides for difficult to drug targets. Nat Commun 8:2244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Langmead B, Salzberg SL (2012) Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2. Nat Methods 9:357–359. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.1923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bandaranayake AD, Correnti C, Ryu BY et al (2011) Daedalus: a robust, turnkey platform for rapid production of decigram quantities of active recombinant proteins in human cell lines using novel lentiviral vectors. Nucleic Acids Res 39:e143–e143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    McCullum EO, Williams BAR, Zhang J et al (2010) Random mutagenesis by error-prone PCR. Methods Mol Biol 634:103–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lemmon G, Meiler J (2012) Rosetta ligand docking with flexible XML protocols. Methods Mol Biol 819:143–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Addgene: lentivirus production protocol https://www.addgene.org/protocols/lentivirus-production/
  41. 41.
    Rouillard JM, Lee W, Truan G et al (2004) Gene2Oligo: oligonucleotide design for in vitro gene synthesis. Nucleic Acids Res 32:176–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Gibson DG, Young L, Chuang RY et al (2009) Enzymatic assembly of DNA molecules up to several hundred kilobases. Nat Methods 6:343–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zachary R. Crook
    • 1
  • Gregory P. Sevilla
    • 1
  • Andrew J. Mhyre
    • 1
  • James M. Olson
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Clinical Research DivisionFred Hutchinson Cancer Research CenterSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations