Advertisement

Identification and Characterization of Tissue-Specific Protein Transduction Domains Using Peptide Phage Display

  • Maliha Zahid
  • Paul D. Robbins
Protocol
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 683)

Abstract

Protein transduction domains (PTD) or cell-penetrating peptides (CPPs) are small peptides that are able to carry proteins, nucleic acid, and particles across the cellular membranes into cells. PTDs can be classified into three types: (1) positively charged, cationic peptides, comprised of homopolymers of arginine, ornithine, or lysine; (2) hydrophobic peptides, derived from leader sequences of secreted proteins, and cell-type specific peptides; (3) tissue-specific, mainly amphipathic peptides identified by screening of peptide displaying phage libraries. The cationic and hydrophobic PTDs can efficiently transduce a variety of cell types in culture and in vivo, but in a nonspecific manner. In contrast, the tissue-specific transduction domains have more restricted transduction properties and presumably transduce cells through a different mechanism. In this chapter, we described methods for screening peptide phage display libraries for cell and tissue-specific transduction peptides both in cell culture and in vivo and for functional analysis of transduction.

Key words

Phage display Biopanning Protein transduction domains In vivo 

References

  1. 1.
    Arap, W., R. Pasqualini, and E. Ruoslahti, Cancer treatment by targeted drug delivery to tumor vasculature in a mouse model. Science, 1998. 279(5349): pp. 377–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mi, Z., et al., Identification of a synovial fibroblast-specific protein transduction domain for delivery of apoptotic agents to hyperplastic synovium. Mol Ther, 2003. 8(2): pp. 295–305.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rehman, K.K., et al., Protection of islets by in situ peptide-mediated transduction of the Ikappa B kinase inhibitor Nemo-binding domain peptide. J Biol Chem, 2003. 278(11): pp. 9862–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ardelt, P.U., et al., Targeting urothelium: ex vivo assay standardization and selection of internalizing ligands. J Urol, 2003. 169(4): pp. 1535–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Scott, J.K. and G.P. Smith, Searching for peptide ligands with an epitope library. Science, 1990. 249(4967): pp. 386–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Arap, W., et al., Steps toward mapping the human vasculature by phage display. Nat Med, 2002. 8(2): pp. 121–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhang, L., J.A. Hoffman, and E. Ruoslahti, Molecular profiling of heart endothelial cells. Circulation, 2005. 112(11): pp. 1601–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    May, M.J., et al., Selective inhibition of NF-kappaB activation by a peptide that blocks the interaction of NEMO with the IkappaB kinase complex. Science, 2000. 289(5484): pp. 1550–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Madge, L.A. and M.J. May, Inhibiting proinflammatory NF-kappaB signaling using cell-penetrating NEMO binding domain peptides. Methods Mol Biol, 2009. 512: pp. 209–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mai, J.C., et al., A proapoptotic peptide for the treatment of solid tumors. Cancer Res, 2001. 61(21): pp. 7709–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maliha Zahid
    • 1
  • Paul D. Robbins
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Microbiology and Molecular GeneticsUniversity of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Biomedical Science TowerPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Professor of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics and Orthopaedic SurgeryUniversity of Pittsburgh School of MedicinePittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations