Advertisement

Mixture-Based Peptide Libraries for Identifying Protease Cleavage Motifs

  • Benjamin E. Turk
Protocol
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology™ book series (MIMB, volume 539)

Summary

All proteases and peptidases are to some extent sequence-specific, in that one or more residues are preferred at particular positions surrounding the cleavage site in substrates. I describe here a general protocol for determining protease cleavage site preferences using mixture-based peptide libraries. Initially a completely random, amino-terminally capped peptide mixture is digested with the protease of interest, and the cleavage products are analyzed by automated Edman sequencing. The distribution of amino acids found in each sequencing cycle indicates which residues are preferred by the protease at positions downstream of the cleavage site. On the basis of these results, a second peptide library is designed that is partially degenerate and partially fixed sequence. Edman sequencing analysis of the cleavage products of this peptide mixture provides preferences amino-terminal to the scissile bond. As necessary, the process is reiterated until the full cleavage motif of the protease is known. Cleavage specificity data obtained with this method have been used to generate specific and efficient peptide substrates, to design potent and specific inhibitors, and to identify novel protease substrates.

Key words

Peptide libraries Proteases Enzyme specificity High-throughput screening Edman sequencing 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Synthesis of all peptide libraries described in the text was done at the Tufts University Medical School Core Facility by Michael Berne. I gratefully acknowledge Beth Piro for peptide sequencing and Lewis Cantley for mentoring and support during development of the methods described here.

References

  1. 1.
    Lopez-Otin, C. and Overall, C. M. (2002) Protease degradomics: a new challenge for proteomics. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell. Biol. 3, 509–519.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rawlings, N. D., Tolle, D. P., and Barrett, A. J. 
(2004) MEROPS: the peptidase database. Nucleic Acids Res. 32, D160–D164.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mahajan, N. P., Harrison-Shostak, D. C., Michaux, J., Herman, B. (1999) Novel mutant green fluorescent protein protease substrates reveal the activation of specific caspases during apoptosis. Chem. Biol. 6, 401–409.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vanderklish, P. W., Krushel, L. A., Holst, B. H., 
Gally, J. A., Crossin, K. L., Edelman, G. M. (2000) Marking synaptic activity in dendritic spines with a calpain substrate exhibiting fluorescence resonance energy transfer. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97, 2253–2258.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wei, Q., Seward, G. K., Hill, P. A., et al (2006) Designing 129Xe NMR biosensors for matrix metalloproteinase detection. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 128, 13274–13283.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Turk, B. E., Huang, L. L., Piro, E. T., and Cantley, L. C. (2001) Determination of protease cleavage site motifs using mixture-based oriented peptide libraries. Nat. Biotechnol. 19, 661–667.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boyd, S. E., Pike, R. N., Rudy, G. B., Whisstock, J. C., and Garcia de la Banda, M. (2005) PoPS: a computational tool for modeling and predicting protease specificity. J. Bioinform. Comput. Biol. 3, 551–585.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Meldal, M., Svendsen, I., Breddam, K., and Auzanneau, F. I. (1994) Portion-mixing peptide libraries of quenched fluorogenic substrates for complete subsite mapping of endoprotease specificity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 91, 3314–3318.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Backes, B. J., Harris, J. L., Leonetti, F., Craik, C. S., and Ellman, J. A. (2000) Synthesis of positional-scanning libraries of fluorogenic peptide substrates to define the extended substrate specificity of plasmin and thrombin. Nat. Biotechnol. 18, 187–193.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Matthews, D. J. and Wells, J. A. (1993) Substrate phage: selection of protease substrates by monovalent phage display. Science 260, 1113–1117.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Salisbury, C. M., Maly, D. J., and Ellman, J. A. (2002) Peptide microarrays for the determination of protease substrate specificity. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 124, 14868–14870.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dekker, N., Cox, R. C., Kramer, R. A., and Egmond, M. R. (2001) Substrate specificity of the integral membrane protease OmpT determined by spatially addressed peptide libraries. Biochemistry 40, 1694–1701.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Turk, B. E., Cantley, L. C. (2004) Using peptide libraries to identify optimal cleavage motifs for proteolytic enzymes. Methods 32, 398–405.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Martins, L. M., Turk, B. E., Cowling, V., et al (2003) Binding specificity and regulation of the serine protease and PDZ domains of HtrA2/Omi. J. Biol. Chem. 278, 49417–49427.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cuerrier, D., Moldoveanu, T., and Davies, P. L. 
(2005) Determination of peptide substrate specificity for μ-calpain by a peptide library-based approach: the importance of primed side interactions. J. Biol. Chem. 280, 40632–40641.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Murata, C. E., Goldberg, D. E. (2003) Plasmodium falciparum falcilysin: a metalloprotease with dual specificity. J. Biol. Chem. 278, 38022–38028.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Turk, B. E., Lee, D. H., Yamakoshi, Y., et al (2006) MMP-20 is predominately a tooth-specific enzyme with a deep catalytic pocket that hydrolyzes type V collagen. Biochemistry 45, 3863–3874.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Turk, B. E., Wong, T. Y., Schwarzenbacher, R., et al (2004) The structural basis for substrate and inhibitor selectivity of the anthrax lethal factor. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 11, 60–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Udenfriend, S., Stein, S., Bohlen, P., Dairman, W., 
Leimgruber, W., and Weigele, M. (1972) Fluorescamine: a reagent for assay of amino acids, peptides, proteins, and primary amines in the picomole range. Science 178, 871–872.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lam, K. S., Lake, D., Salmon, S. E., et al (1996) A one-bead one-peptide combinatorial library method for B-cell epitope mapping. Methods 9, 482–493.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ostresh, J. M., Winkle, J. H., Hamashin, V. T., and Houghten, R. A. (1994) Peptide libraries: determination of relative reaction rates of protected amino acids in competitive couplings. Biopolymers 34, 1681–1689.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Humana Press, a part of Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PharmacologyYale University School of Medicine

Personalised recommendations