Molecules able to bind the antigen-binding sites of antibodies are of interest in medicine and immunology. Since most antibodies are bivalent, higher affinity recognition can be achieved through avidity effects in which a construct containing two or more copies of the ligand engages both arms of the immunoglobulin simultaneously. This can be achieved routinely by immobilizing antibody ligands at high density on solid surfaces, such as ELISA plates, but there is surprisingly little literature on scaffolds that routinely support bivalent binding of antibody ligands in solution, particularly for the important case of human IgG antibodies. Here we show that the simple strategy of linking two antigens with a polyethylene glycol (PEG) spacer long enough to span the two arms of an antibody results in higher affinity binding in some, but not all, cases. However, we found that the creation of multimeric constructs in which several antibody ligands are displayed on a dextran polymer reliably provides much higher affinity binding than is observed with the monomer in all cases tested. Since these dextran conjugates are simple to construct, they provide a general and convenient strategy to transform modest affinity antibody ligands into high affinity probes. An additional advantage is that the antibody ligands occupy only a small number of the reactive sites on the dextran, so that molecular cargo can be attached easily, creating molecules capable of delivering this cargo to cells displaying antigen-specific receptors.
Molecules able to bind the antigen-binding sites of antibodies are of interest in medicine and immunology. Since most antibodies are bivalent, higher affinity recognition can be achieved through avidity effects in which a construct containing two or more copies of the ligand engages both arms of the immunoglobulin simultaneously. This can be achieved routinely by immobilizing antibody ligands at high density on solid surfaces, such as ELISA plates, but there is surprisingly little literature on scaffolds that routinely support bivalent binding of antibody ligands in solution, particularly for the important case of humanIgG antibodies. Here we show that the simple strategy of linking two antigens with a polyethylene glycol (PEG) spacer long enough to span the two arms of an antibody results in higher affinity binding in some, but not all, cases. However, we found that the creation of multimeric constructs in which several antibody ligands are displayed on a dextran polymer reliably provides much higher affinity binding than is observed with the monomer in all cases tested. Since these dextran conjugates are simple to construct, they provide a general and convenient strategy to transform modest affinity antibody ligands into high affinity probes. An additional advantage is that the antibody ligands occupy only a small number of the reactive sites on the dextran, so that molecular cargo can be attached easily, creating molecules capable of delivering this cargo to cells displaying antigen-specific receptors.
One of the most exciting
trends in medicine over the last several
years has been the development of a new generation of drugs to manipulate
the immune system. For example, Rituximab, an anti-CD20 monoclonal
antibody, is now employed commonly in the treatment of a variety of
autoimmune diseases[1−3] and B cell cancers.[4] CD20
is a B cell-restricted receptor. Rituximab is thus a highly selective
binding agent for all B cells that recruits effector functions of
the immune system, resulting in the elimination of this cell type
from patients with therapeutic benefits in the disease states mentioned
above. On the cellular side, Yervoy (Ipilimumab), an anti-CTLA4 antibody,
has shown efficacy in some melanomapatients, even those with metastatic
disease. CTLA4 is a T cell-restricted receptor that damps down T cell-mediated
immune responses.[5] Yervoy thus agonizes
the ability of the cellular immune system to attack melanoma cells
in some patients.While impressive, this new generation of drugs
is limited in that
they are unable to distinguish between “good” and “bad”
immune responses. In the case of Rituximab, the elimination of all
B cells means that the patient is highly susceptible to new infections[6,7] and the reactivation of previous infections,[8] which limits its utility as a chronic treatment. Yervoy has been
found clinically to induce autoimmune conditions in some patients.[9] For some diseases, it would thus be of great
interest to develop more targeted reagents capable of agonizing or
antagonizing antigen-specific immune reactions. In theory, this would
allow the manipulation of pathogenic immune responses without affecting
the normal function of the immune system. The only obvious way to
achieve this level of selectivity is to target the antigen-specific
antibodies, B cell receptors, or T cell receptors that drive the disease
of interest.A good example would be chronic lymphocytic leukemia
(CLL), a common
blood cancer.[10] In CLL patients, a single
antigen-specific B cell clone is amplified relentlessly, eventually
crowding out healthy B cells and forming masses in lymph nodes and
other sites. This clonal amplification strongly suggests that the
pathogenic B cell is responding to stimulation by an autoantigen,
but the identities of CLL autoantigens are unknown. CLL patients are
currently treated with a combination of cytotoxic agents and anti-CD20
antibodies such as Rituximab.[11] After some
time the same pathogenic B cell inevitably reemerges. A drug targeted
specifically to the pathogenic BCR, but that would not recognize “normal”
BCRs, would constitute an ideal treatment for CLL, since it is possible
that such a compound could be used chronically if it does not lead
to widespread immunosuppression. Thus, we have begun a program aimed
at the development of drugs targeted to antigen-specific CLL BCRs.The simplest form of such a drug would be a high affinity, high
selectivity synthetic ligand for the pathogenic BCR coupled to an
appropriate toxin. Selective delivery would thus result in selective
toxicity. The most obvious ligand would be the antigen itself but,
as mentioned above, for CLL and, indeed, a number of important diseases,
the native autoantigen is unknown. Thus, we have been interested in
the development of “antigen surrogates”; synthetic unnatural
compounds that can recognize the antigen-binding sites of antibodies,
BCRs, or TCRs with good affinity and selectivity.[12−14] That this is
feasible was shown clearly by early experiments in which phage display
or other peptide library screening techniques were employed to identify
ligands for antibodies that natively bind carbohydrate epitopes.[15−17] Indeed, peptide ligands to a few CLL BCRs have been reported.[18] However, peptides have many well-known pharmacological
drawbacks and we were interested instead in the development of nonpeptidic,
serum stable antigen surrogates. As a first generation solution to
this problem, we have reported screening protocols that allow the
discovery of antibody- and TCR-binding peptoids (oligomers of N-substituted
glycine).[12,13,19] More recently,
second generation antigen surrogates,[14] and specifically ligands for CLL BCRs (M.S., J.M., and T.K., submitted),
have been obtained by screening libraries of conformationally restricted
oligomers, which bind proteins more tightly than the “floppy”
peptoids.[20,21] All of these molecules are highly peptidase-resistant.The affinities of primary screening hits are typically modest especially
for cases like the discovery of antigen surrogates in which there
are no structural data to guide library design. While optimization
efforts will undoubtedly lead to more potent derivatives, we were
interested in asking if higher affinity could be achieved more quickly
in the case of antibody/BCR-targeted molecules through the use of
avidity effects, that is, the construction of dimers that would engage
both arms of the bivalent immunoglobulin target simultaneously. While
avidity effects have been used extensively to good effect in many
areas of chemical biology, especially recognition of cell surface
molecules,[22] there is surprisingly little
literature on this topic for antibody ligand development. Schweitzer-Stenner
and co-workers showed that dinitrophenol (DNP) units connected by
long oligoproline linkers can associate with two antigen-binding sites
of a single antibody, though the affinity of this dimer for the antibody
was only modestly increased over that of the monomer.[23] Baird and co-workers showed that dimers of DNP connected
with long polyethylene glycol (PEG) spacers can cooperatively associate
with two antigen-binding sites of anti-DNP IgE.[24] The best PEG-linked dimer was about 100-fold more potent
than the monomer in a cellular degranulation assay that monitors the
inhibition of clustering of IgE-FceR1 receptor complexes on mast cells.
Though this level of binding enhancement is still far less than what
one would expect from an ideal linker that supported full cooperativity,[25] it is the best reported in the literature so
far for antibodies or other dimeric proteins and was attractive to
us as a strategy for achieving higher affinity with our antibody ligands.
However, the PEG-linked dimers have only been studied carefully in
the single case of the DNP-anti-DNP IgE complex to the best of our
knowledge. As we are interested in developing high-affinity peptide
or peptidomimetic ligands particularly against IgG and IgM antibodies
or BCRs, we considered it important to first evaluate the generality
of these published observations.We describe here the construction
of various antigen-PEG-antigen
dimers and test their affinities for different antibodies, including
humanIgG molecules (Figure 1a). To our surprise,
the increase in affinity upon dimerization was not general, with some
antigen-PEG-antigen molecules showing little enhancement over the
monomer. However, as described below, we found that when all of the
ligands tested in this study are coupled to a dextran polymer, this
multivalent display universally provided a large boost in affinity
for the antibody (Figure 1b). We further demonstrate
here that this boost in affinity allows the detection of antigen surrogate–antibody
interactions on the surface of cells by flow cytometry in a model
system for the recognition of antigen-specific B cells (Figure 1c).
Figure 1
Schematic illustration of the interactions between antibodies
and
multivalent ligands. (a) An antibody and a ligand-dimer with a PEG
spacer. The structure of the antibody was generated using a PDB file
(1HZH). The
structure of the dimer is shown in the box. (b) An antibody and a
multivalent ligand on a dextran scaffold. The structure of the multivalent
ligand is shown in the box. (c) Surface membrane immunoglobulin (smIg)
on a B cell and multivalent ligands.
Schematic illustration of the interactions between antibodies
and
multivalent ligands. (a) An antibody and a ligand-dimer with a PEG
spacer. The structure of the antibody was generated using a PDB file
(1HZH). The
structure of the dimer is shown in the box. (b) An antibody and a
multivalent ligand on a dextran scaffold. The structure of the multivalent
ligand is shown in the box. (c) Surface membrane immunoglobulin (smIg)
on a B cell and multivalent ligands.
Results and Discussion
Antigen Dimerization with PEG Linkers Does
Not Reliably Lead
to High Affinity Ligands
As Baird and co-workers reported,
linkage of two DNP molecules with long PEG chains of a particular
length supports cooperative binding to IgE antibodies.[24,26] To probe the generality of this observation, and particularly its
applicability to IgG antibodies, we first conducted an experiment
on a well-characterized antigen–antibody pair: FLAG peptide
(DYKDDDDK) and anti-FLAG mouseIgG1.To create PEG-linked dimers
of FLAG peptide, the copper(I)-catalyzed azide–alkyne cycloaddition
(CuAAC) was employed.[27] First, FLAG peptide
with an alkyne group at its N-terminus (6; chemical structures of all the synthesized peptides and peptoids
are shown in Supporting Information Figure S1) was synthesized using the standard solid-phase method, released
from the beads, and purified by HPLC. It was then coupled to bis-azide-terminated
PEGs with average molecular weights of 2000 or 5000 (PEG2000 or PEG5000) using a copper catalyst (Figure 2a). The extended lengths of PEG2000 and
PEG5000 were previously estimated to be 17 and 43 nm, respectively.[24] This should be long enough to bridge the space
between the two antigen-binding sites of an IgG antibody,[25,28,29] which is between 5.5 and 18.5
nm. The FLAG peptide-capped PEG2000 or PEG5000 dimers (6-PEG2000 or 6-PEG5000) were purified by HPLC and characterized by MALDI TOF-MS
(Supporting Information Figures S2 and S3). Similar dimers, but capped with the HA (influenza hemagglutinin)
peptide (YPYDVPDYA) (7-PEG2000 or 7-PEG5000), were synthesized in the same way as controls.
Figure 2
Synthetic
schemes of (a) bivalent ligand with a PEG spacer and
(b) multivalent ligand on dextran.
Synthetic
schemes of (a) bivalent ligand with a PEG spacer and
(b) multivalent ligand on dextran.The binding affinities of these dimeric conjugates were evaluated
by competition ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay). First, a
maleimide-activated 384-well ELISA plate was incubated with FLAG peptide
containing a N-terminal cysteine residue (CSGDYKDDDDK, 1) to immobilize FLAG peptide on the ELISA plate. Anti-FLAG
mouseIgG1 was preincubated with various concentrations of (1) monomeric
FLAG peptide (SGDYKDDDDK, 11), (2) monomeric HA peptide
(SGYPYDVPDYA, 12), (3) dimeric FLAG (6-PEG2000, 6-PEG5000), or (4) dimeric HA
(7-PEG2000, or 7-PEG5000). The solutions were then applied to the FLAG-coated plate. In each
well of the plate, soluble peptide monomers or dimers compete with
the immobilized FLAG for binding to the anti-FLAG antibody. Therefore,
by detecting the anti-FLAG antibodies bound on the plate, binding
affinities of soluble peptide monomers or dimers can be estimated
indirectly. After incubation for 2 h, the wells were washed, incubated
with HRP-conjugated secondary antibody, and, after another washing,
treated with HRP substrate. Chemiluminescent signals from each well
were detected and the data were analyzed by fitting in inhibitory
curve using a nonlinear regression method. To compare the binding
affinity of monomers and dimers, the x-axis on the
plot was normalized to concentrations of monovalent peptide. In other
words, the molar concentration of a dimeric construct would be half
of what is plotted. Half-inhibitory concentrations (IC50) were calculated from the curves (Figure 3a and b and Table 1). HA monomer and HA dimers
did not compete at all up to 500 μM (Figure 3b), as expected. Surprisingly, FLAG-monomer and dimers showed
similar IC50 values (∼10 μM), indicating that
dimerization did not result in more favorable binding properties to
the bivalent antibody. We also constructed an even longer PEG10000-spaced FLAG dimer, but even this construct failed to
show significantly greater affinity for anti-FLAG antibody than did
the monomer (Supporting Information Figure S4).
Figure 3
Determination of half-inhibitory concentrations (IC50’s)
of monovalent and bivalent FLAG peptides by competition
ELISA. Soluble ligand–monomer, ligand–dimer with PEG2000 spacer, ligand–dimer with PEG5000 spacer,
and ligand–dextran were used as competitors against interactions
between immobilized ligands and antibodies. Each experiment was performed
in triplicate. Average values of the tripricate runs are plotted and
shown in the figure. The inhibitory curves were generated using a
nonlinear regression method. The error bars represent the standard
deviation. Note that the x-axis of every graph is not concentration
of multivalent-ligands but of peptide or peptoid concentration on
each scaffold. (a) Competition of monovalent or multivalent FLAG against
the interaction between FLAG and anti-FLAG mouse IgG1. (b) Competition
of monovalent or multivalent HA (influenza hemagglutinin) peptides
against the interaction between FLAG and anti-FLAG mouse IgG1. (c)
Competition of monovalent or multivalent NMOP6 against the interaction
between NMOP6 and anti-AQP4 human IgG1. (d) Competition of monovalent
or multivalent control peptide against the interaction between NMOP6
and anti-AQP4 human IgG1. (e) Competition of monovalent or multivalent
ADP3 against the interaction between ADP3 and anti-ADP3 chicken IgY.
(f) Competition of monovalent or multivalent NMOP6 against the interaction
between ADP3 and anti-ADP3 chicken IgY.
Table 1
IC50 Values (nM) of Monovalent
and Multivalent Ligands in Competition ELISA Experimentsa
FLAG against
anti-FLAG mouse IgG
NMOP6 against
anti-AQP4 human IgG
ADP3 against
anti-ADP3 chicken IgY
Monomer
8640 ± 1280
273 000 ± 40 000
2010 ± 720
Dimer (PEG2000)
11 100 ± 600
1430 ± 710
3.3 ± 0.1
Dimer (PEG5000)
6810 ± 200
20 800 ± 1000
3.3 ± 0.2
Multivalent (Dextran)
5.9 ± 1.1
219 ± 40.
1.9 ± 0.5
Shown are average
values and
standard deviations of the tripricate of competition ELISA shown in
Figure 3.
Determination of half-inhibitory concentrations (IC50’s)
of monovalent and bivalent FLAG peptides by competition
ELISA. Soluble ligand–monomer, ligand–dimer with PEG2000 spacer, ligand–dimer with PEG5000 spacer,
and ligand–dextran were used as competitors against interactions
between immobilized ligands and antibodies. Each experiment was performed
in triplicate. Average values of the tripricate runs are plotted and
shown in the figure. The inhibitory curves were generated using a
nonlinear regression method. The error bars represent the standard
deviation. Note that the x-axis of every graph is not concentration
of multivalent-ligands but of peptide or peptoid concentration on
each scaffold. (a) Competition of monovalent or multivalent FLAG against
the interaction between FLAG and anti-FLAG mouseIgG1. (b) Competition
of monovalent or multivalent HA (influenza hemagglutinin) peptides
against the interaction between FLAG and anti-FLAG mouseIgG1. (c)
Competition of monovalent or multivalent NMOP6 against the interaction
between NMOP6 and anti-AQP4humanIgG1. (d) Competition of monovalent
or multivalent control peptide against the interaction between NMOP6
and anti-AQP4humanIgG1. (e) Competition of monovalent or multivalent
ADP3 against the interaction between ADP3 and anti-ADP3chicken IgY.
(f) Competition of monovalent or multivalent NMOP6 against the interaction
between ADP3 and anti-ADP3chicken IgY.Shown are average
values and
standard deviations of the tripricate of competition ELISA shown in
Figure 3.To determine if this unexpected result was peculiar to the anti-FLAG
antibody-FLAG peptide complex, the analysis was repeated with two
other small molecule-antibody complexes that were available from our
previous work, NMOP6peptoid and antiaquaporin 4 (AQP4) humanIgG1,
and ADP3peptoid and anti-ADP3chicken IgY. NMOP6 (Neuromyelitis opticapeptoid 6) is a peptoid isolated from one of our previous serum screens
and was shown previously to be a modest affinity ligand for anti-AQP4
autoantibodies.[13,30−32] ADP3 is a peptoid
found to bind to antibodies present in the serum of some patients
with Alzheimer’s disease.[12] In order
to have a high affinity peptoid-antibody complex of utility in optimizing
the conditions for the development of certain assays, we immunized
chickens with this peptoid, resulting in the production of anti-ADP3
IgY antibodies.[33] Thus, the NMOP6-IgG and
ADP3-IgY pairs constitute models for low and high affinity small molecule-antibody
complexes, respectively.NMOP6 and ADP3 containing an alkyne
group at their N-terminus (8 and 10, respectively, Supporting Information) were synthesized as described
above (Figure 2a) and these molecules were
dimerized using the bis-azide functionalized PEGs by CuAAC to produce 8-PEG2000, 8-PEG5000, 10-PEG2000, and 10-PEG5000. Another peptoid, 9, that does not bind to either antibody
was subjected to the same synthetic protocol to prepare 9-PEG2000 and 9-PEG5000, which
were employed as controls for binding experiment of NMOP6 to anti-AQP4humanIgG1. For binding experiment of ADP3 to anti-ADP3chicken IgY,
NMOP6 monomer and dimers were employed as controls. The binding affinity
of each ligand was evaluated by competition ELISA, as described above.In contrast to the result obtained for the FLAG dimers, the PEG
dimers of NMOP6 and ADP3 both showed much stronger competitive activities
than the monomers. The IC50 value of the PEG2000 dimer of NMOP6 (8-PEG2000) was 1.4 ±
0.7 μM, a value that is about 190-fold lower than that of monomeric
NMOP6 (IC50 273 ± 40 μM). The PEG5000 dimer of NMOP6 (8-PEG5000) exhibited an
IC50 of 20.8 ± 1.0 μM, higher than that of 8-PEG2000, but still about 13-fold lower than that
of monomeric NMOP6 (Figure 3c and d, and Table 1). Probably PEG2000 is a long enough
spacer for this ligand-antibody pair for cooperative binding, and
extension of the spacer length makes the cooperative binding less
favorable because of an entropic loss.In the case of the ADP3-containing
constructs, both the PEG2000 dimer and PEG5000 dimers displayed IC50 values about 600-fold lower (3.3
± 0.1 nM and 3.3 ± 0.2
nM, respectively) than that of peptoid monomer (2.0 ± 0.7 μM)
(Figure 3e and f, and Table 1). In both cases, none of control monomers and dimers competed
significantly with the immobilized ligand for antibody binding.Taken together, these results support the idea that dimeric ligands
can cooperatively bind the two antigen-binding sites of an antibody,
resulting in significant improvement of binding affinity between ligand
and antibody. However, as seen in these three model experiments, the
degree of improvement can vary widely depending on the length of the
PEG spacer and, especially, on the particular antigen–antibody
interaction.
Construction of Dextran-Displayed Multivalent
Ligands and Evaluation
of Their Affinities against Corresponding Antibodies
Since
antigen dimerization with PEG spacers will not serve as a general
solution to achieving high affinity antibody binding, we turned to
a different strategy in which the ligands are displayed as oligomers
rather than discrete dimers. Dextran was chosen as the first scaffold
to explore since it is highly water-soluble and is easy to functionalize.
Also, its low nonspecific binding to proteins and low immunogenicity
are advantageous over protein scaffolds such as BSA. Among various
commercially available dextran products, dextran of molecular weight
35 000–45 000 (“40 kDa dextran”
containing, on average, 246 glucose units) produced by Leuconostoc mesenteroides was used because it has
a relatively small number of 1,3 glycosidic linkages (∼5%)
that serve as branching points.[34]To create the desired conjugates, a two-step protocol was employed
that resulted in the modification of some of the hydroxyl groups so
as to provide maleimide units suitable for attachment of ligands bearing
a terminal cysteine (Figure 2). Specifically,
the dextran was first treated with carbonyldiimidazole, followed by
ethylene diamine, to provide primary amine groups.[35] A colorimetric test using 2,4,6-trinitrobenezenefulfonic
acid (TNBS)[35] showed introduction of ∼43
aminesper 40 kDa dextran. This amine-displaying dextran (amino-dextran)
was then coupled to N-(α-maleimidoacetoxy)succinimide
ester (AMAS) to introduce the desired maleimide functionality. The
maleimide-functionalized dextran was then incubated with cysteine-containing
peptide or peptoid (1–5) to produce
dextran conjugates of peptides or peptoids (Figure 2). Finally, unreacted maleimide units were quenched by incubating
the conjugates with cysteine. The average number of ligands conjugated
on to the dextran chain, determined from UV absorbance at 280 nm,
was 14 (1), 13 (2), 13 (3),
25 (4), or 14 (5) (Supporting
Information Table S1). On average, a 40 kDa dextran chain is
composed of 246 1,6-linked glucose units. Since the length of a 1,6-linked
glucose unit is about 4.5 Å,[36] the
average spacing between two ligands in these dextran conjugates should
be 4.4–8.5 nm, which would accommodate cooperative binding
to an antibody.The affinities of these multivalent ligands
were evaluated by competition
ELISAs (Figure 3 and Table 1). To compare the binding affinity of monomers and dextran-conjugates,
the x-axis on the plot was normalized to concentrations
of monovalent ligand. All three ligand–dextran conjugates,
i.e., 1-dextran, 3-dextran, and 5-dextran, showed greater than 1000-fold stronger inhibitory activity
than the corresponding monomers (Figure 3a,c,e,
and Table 1). The control peptide or peptoid–dextran
conjugates, on the other hand, did not compete significantly in the
concentration range examined (Figure 3b,d,f).The experiment above using NMOP6 employed a patient-derived monoclonal
antibody.[32] It was also of interest to
repeat this experiment with NMO patientserum, in which case the binding
would be between the peptoid and a polyclonal family of anti-AQP4
antibodies. For this purpose sera from three healthy control individuals
and three NMO patients were first tested on ELISA using an NMOP6-coated
plate. Two of the three sera of NMO patients showed higher signals
than the three normal sera (Supporting Information
Figure S5); therefore, these two sera were regarded as samples
containing anti-AQP4 antibodies that bind NMOP6. Binding affinities
of NMOP6-monomer and NMOP6-dextran were evaluated using these sera
by competition ELISA. An ELISA plate was coated with NMOP6, then incubated
with NMO serum that was premixed with either 2 μM or 2 mM NMOP6
monomer (13) or 2 μM NMOP6-dextran (3-dextran). 14 and 4-dextran were used as
control monomeric and multimeric competitors. As AQP4-reactive IgGs
in NMO patients are predominantly IgG1, anti-IgG1 antibody conjugated
with HRP was used as the secondary antibody. Signals of both sera
competed well by 2 μM NMOP6-dextran (3-dextran)
(Figure 4). On the other hand, NMOP6 monomer
did not show much competition at 2 μM and, even at 2 mM, the
degree of competition was slightly poorer than that of the dextran
conjugate. In other words, 2 μM dextran conjugate competes better
than 2 mM monomer. This indicates that over a 1000-fold improvement
in the binding affinity was achieved by dextran conjugation, which
is a similar degree of improvement that was observed with the monoclonal
anti-AQP4 antibody.
Figure 4
Competition ELISA of NMOP6 monomer, NMOP6-dextran, control
monomer,
and control-dextran against the interaction between immobilized NMOP6
and serum from NMO patients. Monovalent NMOP6 (2 μM or 2 mM)
or multivalent NMOP6-dextran (2 μM) was mixed with a diluted
serum of 200 μg/mL of total protein. Two sera from NMO patients
(Cases 3252 and 3054) were tested. Each experiment was performed in
triplicate and the error bars represent the standard deviation.
Competition ELISA of NMOP6 monomer, NMOP6-dextran, control
monomer,
and control-dextran against the interaction between immobilized NMOP6
and serum from NMO patients. Monovalent NMOP6 (2 μM or 2 mM)
or multivalent NMOP6-dextran (2 μM) was mixed with a diluted
serum of 200 μg/mL of total protein. Two sera from NMO patients
(Cases 3252 and 3054) were tested. Each experiment was performed in
triplicate and the error bars represent the standard deviation.These data show that ligands displayed
on dextran bind about 3
orders of magnitude more strongly than monomers regardless of the
nature of the ligand and antibody, at least for the three cases studied.
This is in clear contrast with the results obtained for the PEG-linked
dimers. Thus, dextran conjugation can be considered a generally applicable
strategy to improve the affinity of an antibody ligand.
Characterization
of the Complex Formed between FLAG-Dextran
and anti-FLAG IgG1
To probe the nature of the complexes that
are formed between the antibody and the ligand–dextran conjugates,
the association of anti-FLAG mouseIgG1 and FLAG-dextran (1-dextran) was analyzed by size exclusion HPLC (SE-HPLC). When IgG
and 1-dextran were injected to the size exclusion column
individually, the IgG eluted at 20–21 min (Figure 5a) and 1-dextran eluted between 16
and 22 min (Figure 5b). Upon addition of 2
equiv of FLAG peptide conjugated on dextran to the IgG, a new broad
peak appeared at 13–20 min on the chromatogram and the IgGpeak at 20–21 min became almost invisible (Figure 5d), suggesting that most of the IgG formed complex
with 1-dextran. Because a single IgG has two antigen-binding
sites, the ratio of antigen-binding sites and FLAG peptide is 1:1
in this condition. This means that there are enough ligands on dextran
to saturate all the antigen-binding sites. By increasing the ratio
of FLAG-dextran to IgG, the area of the peak at 20–21 min completely
disappeared, and the peak at 13–20 min became more prominent
(Figure 5e and f), suggesting that all of the
IgG binds to 1-dextran in this ratio. As a control, we
also mixed anti-FLAG mouseIgG1 with 2-dextran and analyzed
by SE-HPLC. (A chromatogram of 2-dextran alone is shown
in Figure 5c.) The elution time and area of
IgG were unaffected by this conjugate (Figure 5g), demonstrating that the complex formation between 1-dextran and anti-FLAG mouseIgG1 is selective.
Figure 5
Size-exclusion HPLC (SE-HPLC)
analysis of anti-FLAG mouse IgG1,
dextran-conjugates, and anti-FLAG mouse IgG1 mixed with FLAG-dextran
or HA-dextran: (a) 0.5 μM anti-FLAG mouse IgG1; (b) 5 μM
FLAG-dextran; (c) 5 μM HA-dextran; (d–f) 0.5 μM
anti-FLAG mouse IgG1 mixed with (d) 1 μM, (e) 2 μM, or
(f) 5 μM FLAG conjugated on dextran. (h) 0.5 μM anti-FLAG
mouse IgG1 mixed with 5 μM HA conjugated on dextran.
Size-exclusion HPLC (SE-HPLC)
analysis of anti-FLAG mouseIgG1,
dextran-conjugates, and anti-FLAG mouseIgG1 mixed with FLAG-dextran
or HA-dextran: (a) 0.5 μM anti-FLAG mouseIgG1; (b) 5 μM
FLAG-dextran; (c) 5 μM HA-dextran; (d–f) 0.5 μM
anti-FLAG mouseIgG1 mixed with (d) 1 μM, (e) 2 μM, or
(f) 5 μM FLAG conjugated on dextran. (h) 0.5 μM anti-FLAG
mouseIgG1 mixed with 5 μM HA conjugated on dextran.Binding of the anti-FLAG IgG to FLAG-dextran was
also examined
by native polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (native PAGE). The complex
formation between FLAG-dextran and anti-FLAG IgG antibody was observed
as the mobility shift of antibody upon addition of FLAG-dextran (Supporting Information Figure S6a). No such shift
was observed upon mixing the antibody with HA-dextran (Supporting Information Figure S6b). This data
also support the selective formation of a complex between 1-dextran and anti-FLAG mouseIgG1.To characterize the size
of the complexes, they were further analyzed
by size exclusion chromatography (SEC) equipped with a multiangle
light scattering (MALS) detector. First, 1-dextran alone
was analyzed on this system. Simultaneous concentration measurements
by UV and differential refractive index (dRI) enabled the determination
of the protein and dextran mass fractions, yielding the composite
molar mass of the entire molecule as well as the molar mass of each
component. The polydisperse 1-dextran eluted from the
column at 12.5–20 min (Figure 6a purple
line), and the weight-average molar mass (Mw) of this broad peak was determined to be 164 000 ± 300
Da. Protein conjugate analysis revealed the FLAG peptide composed
24–29% of the molar mass of the conjugate with Mw = 42 900 Da from the FLAG peptide and Mw = 121 000 Da from dextran (Table 2). The measured Mw of
121 000 Da for dextran is about 3-fold higher than the molecular
weight of unconjugated dextran (∼40 000 Da). This indicates
that, on average, three dextran chains were cross-linked during synthesis,
most probably at the amine-functionalizing reaction step (second arrow
in Figure 2b). A Mw of 42 900 Da corresponds to 34 Flag peptides and, considering
3 molecules of 40 kDa dextran are cross-linked, about 11 Flag peptides
are on each 40 kDa dextran chain, on average. This number roughly
agrees with the initial number calculated from UV absorbance (Supporting Information Table S1) of 14 FLAG peptidesper 40 kDa dextran.
Figure 6
Size-exclusion chromatography multiangle light-scattering
(SEC-MALS)
analysis of (a) anti-FLAG mouse IgG1 (green) and FLAG-dextran (purple)
and (b) a complex formed in a 1:10 mixture of anti-FLAG mouse IgG1
and FLAG-dextran (black). For each chromatogram, the measured molar
mass (left axis) as a function of elution volume is overlaid on the
UV signal. In the case of the complex formed between the anti-FLAG
IgG and FLAG-dextran (b), the composite molar mass is shown in black,
the contribution from the FLAG-dextran is shown in purple, and the
contribution from the bound antibody is shown in green. (c) Schematic
illustration of an average complex of FLAG-dextran and anti-Flag mouse
IgG1.
Table 2
Weight Average Molar
Mass (Mw), Number Average Molar Mass (Mn), and Polydispersity of anti-FLAG IgG1, FLAG-Dextran,
and a Complex of the Two Moleculesa
The values were determined from
the SEC-MALS data in Figure 6.
Size-exclusion chromatography multiangle light-scattering
(SEC-MALS)
analysis of (a) anti-FLAG mouseIgG1 (green) and FLAG-dextran (purple)
and (b) a complex formed in a 1:10 mixture of anti-FLAG mouseIgG1
and FLAG-dextran (black). For each chromatogram, the measured molar
mass (left axis) as a function of elution volume is overlaid on the
UV signal. In the case of the complex formed between the anti-FLAG
IgG and FLAG-dextran (b), the composite molar mass is shown in black,
the contribution from the FLAG-dextran is shown in purple, and the
contribution from the bound antibody is shown in green. (c) Schematic
illustration of an average complex of FLAG-dextran and anti-Flag mouseIgG1.The values were determined from
the SEC-MALS data in Figure 6.Next, anti-FLAG mouseIgG1 was mixed
with 10 mol equiv of FLAG
peptide conjugated to dextran and the mixture was analyzed using the
SEC-MALS system. In this experiment, based on the SEC-MALS result
that about 11 FLAG peptides are on single 40 kDa dextran, the ratio
of antibody and dextran molecules should be approximately 1:1. The
prominent peak on the size-exclusion chromatogram appeared at 12.5–16
min. The Mw of this peak measured 703
± 0.8 kDa. Protein conjugate analysis revealed the 1-dextran
portion of the mass had Mw of 105 000
g/mol, and the portion of the molar mass resulting from bound antibody
had Mw of 598 000 Da. This suggests
that under these conditions the major complex contains ∼4 antibodies,
∼20 FLAG peptides, and ∼2 molecules of 40 kDa dextran
(Figure 6c).
Selective Labeling of Cells
Expressing Surface Membrane Immunoglobulins
of a Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Clone Using a Peptide–Dextran
Conjugate
B cells express surface membrane immunoglobulins
(smIgs), which is also known as B cell receptor (BCR), on their cell
surface that have the same antigen-binding sequences as the soluble
antibodies that will be produced by the corresponding plasma cells.
Therefore, the dextran-conjugates of antibody ligands should also
be interesting ligands for recognition of antigen-specific B cells.To test this idea in a model system, we employed a peptide called
169-8 (DNYAAALAQRAR) that has been reported by Chiroazzi and co-workers
to be a high affinity ligand for a BCR derived from a patient with
CLL, designated CLL169.[18] We synthesized
the peptide on solid phase with an N-terminal cysteine
residue and a GSSG spacer between the cysteine and the 169-8 sequence
(16). The peptide was biotinylated using maleimide-functionalized
biotin (16-biotin). To prepare a dextran conjugate of 16, amino-dextran was first reacted with biotin-NHS to introduce
a few biotin molecules on dextran, and then the residual amino groups
on amino-dextran were conjugated with 16 using the AMAS
linker (16-dextran-biotin).Monovalent and dextran-conjugated
169-8 peptides were tested for
their efficacy to recognize CLL 169 smIg expressing on Human Embryonic
Kidney 293 T (HEK 293 T) cells. HEK 293 T cells expressing other nonselecting
CLL BCRs with different antigen-binding sequences were used as controls.
The smIg was transiently expressed in HEK 293 T cells by cotransfecting
plasmids coding the light chain and heavy chain of smIg. The expression
levels of smIgs were monitored by labeling the transfected cells with
anti-human Fc antibody conjugated with allophycocyanin (anti huFc-APC)
followed by analysis using flow cytometry (Figure 7a). The transfected cells were incubated with 16-biotin or 16-dexran-biotin and, after washing, further
incubated with phycoerythrin-conjugated streptavidin (saPE). The cells
were then analyzed by flow cytometry to detect PE signals from binding
of the ligands on cells.
Figure 7
Cell binding assay with monovalent and multivalent
ligands. (a)
HEK 293 T cells were transiently cotransfected with heavy and light
chain plasmid pairs (pIg-gamma and pIg-lambda) of smIg 169, and the
expression levels of smIg was determined by staining cells with antihuman
Fc antibody conjugated to allophycocyanin (anti-huFc-APC) and analyzing
the stained cells on flow cytometry. (b) Schematic illustration of
cell binding assay in which HEK 293 T cells expressing CLL smIg are
treated with biotin-conjugated ligands followed by staining the cells
with phycoerythrin conjugated streptavidin (saPE) and anti-huFc-APC.
Cells are sorted based on APC signal for expression of CLL smIgs and
on PE signal for the binding of monovalent or multivalent ligands
on the cell surface. (c) FACS analysis of cells expressing smIg 169
that were stained using monovalent and multivalent ligands. (d) Overlaid
FACS histograms of (c) for comparison of binding of monovalent and
multivalent peptides against smIg 169 on HEK 293 T cell surface.
Cell binding assay with monovalent and multivalent
ligands. (a)
HEK 293 T cells were transiently cotransfected with heavy and light
chain plasmid pairs (pIg-gamma and pIg-lambda) of smIg 169, and the
expression levels of smIg was determined by staining cells with antihuman
Fc antibody conjugated to allophycocyanin (anti-huFc-APC) and analyzing
the stained cells on flow cytometry. (b) Schematic illustration of
cell binding assay in which HEK 293 T cells expressing CLL smIg are
treated with biotin-conjugated ligands followed by staining the cells
with phycoerythrin conjugated streptavidin (saPE) and anti-huFc-APC.
Cells are sorted based on APC signal for expression of CLL smIgs and
on PE signal for the binding of monovalent or multivalent ligands
on the cell surface. (c) FACS analysis of cells expressing smIg 169
that were stained using monovalent and multivalent ligands. (d) Overlaid
FACS histograms of (c) for comparison of binding of monovalent and
multivalent peptides against smIg 169 on HEK 293 T cell surface.16-Biotin did not
bind detectably to the cells expressing
smIg 169 (Figure 7c right-top panel). This
initially was surprising since the reported KD of the 169-8 peptide-CLL 169 antibody complex is 31 nM[37] but is likely due to a relatively short half-life
of the complex, which must survive time-consuming washing steps to
be detected. In any case, the dextran conjugate (16-dexran-biotin)
significantly increased the population of cells showing high PE-fluorescence
(Figure 7c right-bottom panel and d), indicating
the efficient binding of dextran conjugate on the cells via CLL 169
smIg. We also synthesized a control peptide (CGSSGFLAQKLWSALEY, 17), prepared its biotin conjugate (17-biotin)
and dextran conjugate (17-dextran-biotin), and tested
their binding to the cells expressing CLL169 smIg. Neither the monomer
nor the dextran conjugate bound detectably to the cells (Figure 7c left panels), which excludes the possibility that
dextran interacts nonspecifically with the transfected cells.In order to evaluate selectivity of 16-dextran for
CLL 169 smIg, three other smIgs of CLL patient 014, 068, or 183 were
also transiently expressed on HEK 293 T cells and the cells were tested
for labeling by 16-dextran and control 17-dextran. The expression of smIgs on HEK 293 T cells were optimized
to be at similar levels (Supporting Information
Figure S7 bottom panels). None of these cells displaying a
smIg (014, 068, or 183) with a different antigen-binding specificity
were detectably stained by any of the molecules (16-biotin, 16-dexran-biotin, 17-biotin, or 17-dextran-biotin; Supporting Information Figure
S7 middle and top panels). In accord with the previous experiment,
a significant population of cells expressing CLL 169 smIg was stained
with PE indicating that the 16-dextran-biotin recognized
the cells expressing only CLL 169 smIg with high specificity.These experiments demonstrate that the dextran conjugate of peptide
169-8 achieves high affinity for CLL 169 smIg without sacrificing
high selectivity. It should be pointed out that 16-dextran
can interact not only with two antigen-binding sites of single CLL
169 smIg, but also with multiple CLL 169 smIg molecules, since cells
express numerous smIgs on their surface. Therefore, the affinity improvement
of the ligand observed here may reflect this effect as well as the
cooperative binding of ligands to two arms of the same IgG.
Conclusion
In this study, we sought to develop a general and reliable method
to rapidly transform modest affinity antibody ligands into much higher
affinity constructs by taking advantage of avidity effects. Ligand
dimers with PEG spacers proved unreliable. In the three cases examined,
PEG linkage improved binding affinities of ADP3 greatly against chicken
IgY, improved NMOP6 binding to a humanIgG1 protein modestly, and
had little effect on binding of FLAG peptide to anti-FLAG antibody.A previous study using DNA nanostructures suggested that the degree
of linker flexibility can affect the stability of the complex between
an antibody and a multivalent ligand significantly.[38] The PEG scaffold is highly flexible and each of the antibodies
may have a different degree of flexibility in the hinge region, allowing
the arms to “flap” to different degrees.[29,39,40] So, the different dynamics of
each system could be a contributing factor, though we cannot claim
to understand in detail the underlying reason for this variability.
One could make an argument for the use of more rigid bivalent compounds.
Indeed, Janssen and co-workers linked two peptides that bind an anti-HIV
mouseIgG1 with a relatively rigid DNA duplex to make various sizes
of DNA-linked peptide dimers and showed that some of these dimers
can associate cooperatively with two antigen-binding sites of anti-HIV
antibodies, resulting in a greater than 500-fold improvement in binding
affinity compared to the monomeric form of the peptide.[41] However, until more complexes are studied it
remains to be determined how generally this strategy could be applied
to other antigen–antibody complexes. Moreover, the use of DNA
linkers would raise concerns about serum stability, a critical issue
for the development of therapeutics.Thus, none of the published
linker strategies fulfilled our requirement
for a rapid and generally reliable serum-stable scaffold with which
to increase the affinity of antibody ligands for the protein greatly.
As shown in this study, conjugation of ligands to dextran suits this
purpose nicely. In all three cases studied, an approximately 1000-fold
increase in affinity of the dextran conjugate for the antibody relative
to the monomer was observed. We also demonstrated that the dextran
conjugates can deliver a cargo molecule (in this case biotin) to a
cell displaying a membrane anchored form of the target antibody. This
provides a reasonable model for the delivery of effector molecules
to antigen-specific B cells and sets the stage for efforts to develop
drugs and/or tool compounds capable of manipulating antigen-specific
immune responses. The dextran conjugates may have advantages over
other molecular formats, such as encapsulating cargo inside modified
nanoparticles, such as poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid)
(PLGA), given the smaller size of the dextran and the ease with which
it can be modified synthetically.
Materials and Methods
Chemicals
All the Fmoc-protected amino acids and Knorr
AmideMBHA resin (0.75 mmol/g) were purchased from Novabiochem. All
the other chemicals used for peptide and peptoid synthesis were purchased
from Sigma-Aldrich, Acros Organics, or Oakwood Chemical. Commercial
sources of other chemicals used in this study are described in each
experimental section.
Antibodies
Anti-FLAG M2 mouseIgG1
(F3165) was purchased
from Sigma-Aldrich. Anti-AQP4humanIgG1 was obtained from Jeffrey
L. Bennett (U. of Colorado). Anti-ADP3chicken IgY was obtained by
immunizing a chicken with ADP3 (Creative Biolabs). Donkey anti-mouseIgG antibody, HRP conjugate (AP192P), and donkey anti-chicken IgY
antibody, HRP conjugate (AP194P) were purchased from Millipore. Mouse
Anti-HumanIgG1 (hinge)-HRP (clone 4E3, 9052-05) was purchased from
Southern Biotech.
Buffers
Phosphate buffered saline
(PBS, pH 7.4) was
prepared by diluting 10× PBS (Corning, 46-013-CM) with distilled
water. PBS-T was prepared by adding 0.05 v/v% of Tween-20 to PBS.
MES buffered saline (MES, pH 4.7) was prepared by dissolving one pack
of BupH MES Buffered Saline (Thermo Scientific, 28390) with 500 mL
of distilled water.
Sera
Normal sera were obtained from
three healthy individuals.
The collection procedure was approved by the Scripps IRB (protocol
number: IRB-13-6253). NMO patientserum samples were obtained from
Dr. Michael Levy (Johns Hopkins School of Medicine) and the Accelerated
Cure Project.
Peptide Synthesis
Structures of
synthesized peptides
are shown in Supporting Information Figure S1 (1, 2, 6, 7, 11, and 12). Each peptide was synthesized on
100 mg of Knorr AmideMBHA resin using the standard solid-phase Fmoc
peptide synthetic method. For 6 and 7, after
the deprotection of Fmoc on Ser, a propargyl group was introduced
at their N-terminus by using the standard submonomer method for peptoid
synthesis as follows. First, a DMF solution containing bromoacetic
acid (20 equiv, 1M) and diisopropylcarbodiimide (10 equiv, 0.5 M)
was applied to the resin and the reaction vessel was incubated at
37 °C for 10 min. After washing with DMF three times, the resin
was shaken in 1 M propargylamine (20 equiv) in DMF for 1 h at 37 °C.All the peptides were purified on HPLC using C18 reverse phase
column, lyophilized, and stored at −20 °C.
Peptoid Synthesis
Structures of synthesized peptoids
are shown in Supporting Information Figure S1 (3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, and 15). Each peptoid was synthesized on 100 mg of Knorr AmideMBHA resin using the standard submonomer method.[42]All the peptoids were purified on HPLC using C18
reverse phase column, lyophilized, and stored at −20 °C.
Synthesis of Biotinylated Peptides
16 was
synthesized with a N-terminal Mmt (monomethoxytrityl)-protected
cysteine on Rink amideMBHA resin following the standard solid-phase
peptide synthesis (SPPS) protocol. The Mmt group was deprotected from
Cys by 1% TFA and biotin-maleimide (Sigma) was conjugated to the peptide
by Michael reaction through the deprotected thiol group on Cys. The
peptide was released from the resin by TFA cocktail (94% TFA, 2% thioanisole,
2% triisopropylsilane, 2% H2O), purified on HPLC using
C18 reverse phase column, lyophilized, and stored at −20 °C.17 was purchased from Sigma-Aldrich and was conjugated
to biotin by Michael reaction using biotin-maleimide (Sigma-Aldrich)
in solution phase. Two molar excess of biotin-maleimide was added
to the peptide in PBS [pH 7.2] and the reaction was carried out for
2 h at room temperature. Biotin conjugation was confirmed by MALDI-TOF
mass spectrometry and the biotinylated peptide was purified on HPLC
using reverse phase C18 column, lyophilized, and stored at −20
°C.
Synthesis of Peptide (or Peptoid)-PEG Dimers
840 μL
of 2.6 mM alkyne-containing peptide or peptoid (6–10, 2.2 μmol) was mixed with 50 μL of 20 mM polyoxyethylene
bis(azide) of molecular weight 2000 or 5000 (Sigma-Aldrich) (1 μmol),
10 μL of 100 mM CuSO4 (Acros Organics) (1 μmol),
and 100 μL of 100 mM sodium ascorbate (Spectrum Chemical) (10
μmol) in 20 mM MES (pH 4.7) buffer containing 30 mM NaCl and
incubated for 24–48 h with a gentle rotation at room temperature.
After the incubation, the solution was acidified by adding 20 μL
of 10% trifluoroacetic acid aqueous solution and purified by HPLC.
Synthesis of Amino-Dextran
Amino-dextran was prepared
as previously reported.[35] 500 mg of dextran
(average molecular weight 35 000–45 000, from Leuconostocmesenteroids, Sigma-Aldrich) was dissolved in
anhydrous DMSO in 50 mL tube. The solution was warmed to 50 °C
to completely dissolve the dextran. 126 mg of ′-carbonyldiimidazole in 500 μL of anhydrous
DMSO was added and the solution was incubated with gentle shaking
at 50 °C for 20 min. After the incubation, 250 μL of ethylenediamine
was added and the solution was incubated with gentle shaking at 50
°C for 22 h. 25 mL of acetone was added and the solution was
cooled on ice for 15 min. The tube was centrifuged at 700g for 10 min and the supernatant was removed. The pellet was resuspended
in 20 mL of acetone and the tube was centrifuged at 700g for 10 min. The supernatant was removed and the pellet was air-dried.
The dried pellet was dissolved in 10 mL of ultrapure water and the
solution was dialyzed with Snakeskin dialysis tubing (7 MWCO, Thermo
Scientific) for 2 days. The dialyzed dextran was lyophilized and used
for peptoid/peptide conjugation. The extent of amine derivatization
was determined by a colorimetric test using 2,4,6-trinitrobenzenesulfonic
acid (TNBS).[43]
Peptide/Peptoid Conjugation
with Amino-Dextran
120
μL of 100 mM N-(α-maleimidoacetoxy)succinimide
ester (AMAS) (Thermo Scientific) in DMSO was diluted with 1 mL of
PBS, and then immediately mixed with 1 mL of 6.48 mg/mL amino-dextran
in PBS (40 μmol glucose units). After incubation at room temperature
for 2 h in the dark, the solution was diluted with 3 mL of PBS, applied
to an Amicon Ultra 4 mL centrifugal filter unit 10 000 NMWL
(Millipore), and centrifuged at 2700g for 12 min.
The solution in the filter unit was diluted with PBS to 4 mL and centrifuged
at 2700g for 13 min. The AMAS conjugated amino-dextran
solution was recovered from the filter unit then 15% (vol %) of the
solution (containing 6 μmol glucose units) was mixed with 36
μL of 50 mM cysteine-containing peptide/peptoid (1–5) (1.8 μmol) in PBS and incubated at
room temperature for 2 h. After the incubation, unreacted maleimide
groups were quenched by adding 15 μL of 100 mM cysteine in PBS
and incubating the mixture for 2 h at room temperature. After the
incubation, the reaction mixture was applied to an Amicon Ultra 0.5
mL centrifugal filter unit 10 000 NMWL (Millipore) and centrifuged
at 14 000g for 4 min. The concentrated solution
in the filter unit was diluted with 400 μL of PBS and it was
centrifuged at 14 000g for 4 min again. This
washing step was repeated three more times. The ligand–dextran
conjugate in the filter unit was recovered according to the manufacturer’s
protocol. The concentration of peptoid/peptide on each polymer was
calculated from UV absorbance at 280 nm using e280 = 1280 for a tyrosine residue in peptide and e280 = 3000 for a Npip residue, e280 = 1350 for a Ntyr residue, and e280 = 60 for a Nffa residue in peptoids.
Preparation of 169-8-Dextran
Containing Biotins
3 μL
of 100 mM biotin-NHS (Thermo Scientific) was diluted with 500 μL
of PBS and then immediately mixed with 500 μL of 6.48 mg/mL
amino-dextran in PBS (40 μmol glucose units). The mixture was
incubated at 4 °C overnight. After the incubation, 60 μL
of 100 mM N-(α-maleimidoacetoxy)succinimide
ester (AMAS) (Thermo scientific) in DMSO was added and the mixture
was incubated at RT for 2 h in the dark. The solution was diluted
with 3 mL of PBS, applied to an Amicon Ultra 4 mL centrifugal filter
unit 10 000 NMWL (Millipore), and centrifuged at 2700g for 12 min. The solution in the filter unit was diluted
with PBS to 4 mL and centrifuged at 2700g for 13
min. The AMAS conjugated amino-dextran solution (∼500 μL)
was recovered from the filter unit and diluted 10-fold with PBS (5
mL). 4 μL of the solution (containing ∼16 nmol glucose
units) was mixed with 100 μL of 50 μM cysteine-containing
peptide (16 or 17) (5 nmol) in PBS and 2 μL of 500 mM EDTA in
PBS and incubated at 4 °C overnight. After the incubation, unreacted
maleimide groups were quenched by adding 1 μL of 10 mM cysteine
in PBS and incubating the mixture for 2 h at room temperature. After
the incubation, the reaction mixture was applied to an Amicon Ultra
0.5 mL centrifugal filter unit 10 000 NMWL (Millipore) and
centrifuged at 14 000g for 4 min. The concentrated
solution in the filter unit was diluted with 400 μL of PBS and
it was centrifuged at 14 000g for 4 min again.
This washing step was repeated three more times. The ligand–dextran
conjugate in the filter unit was recovered according to the manufacturer’s
protocol. The concentration of biotin in the solution was determined
using Fluorescence Biotin Quantification Kit (Thermo Scientific).
Competition Assay on ELISA
A 384-well maleimide activated
plate (Thermo Scientific) was washed with 50 μL of PBS-T three
times and incubated with 20 μL of 20 μM cysteine-containing
peptide/peptoid (1–5) in PBS containing
10 mM ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) overnight at 4 °C
in the dark with gentle shaking. After washing with 50 μL of
PBS-T three times, residual maleimide groups on the plate was blocked
by incubating with 50 μL of 10 μg/mL l-cysteine
hydrochloride monohydrate (Thermo Scientific) for 1 h at room temperature
with gentle shaking. During incubation, the competitors (monomers,
dimers with PEG2000 or PEG5000, or dextran conjugates)
were serially diluted with PBS-T and 35 μL of each of serial
dilution series was mixed with 35 μL of antibody solution (50
pM anti-FLAG M2 mouseIgG1, 40 nM anti-AQP4humanigG1, or 100 nM
anti-ADP3chicken IgY) in 2× blocking buffer. The 2× blocking
buffer is either StartingBlock (PBS) Blocking Buffer (Thermo Scientific)
containing 2% BSA (for anti-FLAG mouseIgG1 and anti-AQP4humanIgG1)
or StartingBlock (PBS) Blocking Buffer (Thermo Scientific) containing
4% BSA (for anti-ADP3chicken IgY). These competitor–antibody
mixtures were incubated at room temperature until the next blocking
step was done. After the incubation with the cysteine solution, the
plate was washed with 50 μL of PBS-T three times and blocked
with 50 μL of 1× blocking buffer (prepared by diluting
2× blocking buffer with a equal volume of PBS-T) for 1 h at room
temperature with gentle shaking. After removing the blocking buffer
from the plate, 20 μL of the preincubated competitor–antibody
mixture was applied to each well and the plate was incubated at room
temperature for 2 h with gentle shaking. After washing with 50 μL
of PBS-T three times, 20 μL of horseradishperoxidase (HRP)-conjugated
secondary antibody (1/20 000 donkey anti-mouseIgG antibody
for anti-FLAG mouseIgG1, and 1/2000 goat anti-humanIgG antibody
for anti-AQP4humanIgG1, or 1/40 000 donkey anti-chicken IgY
antibody for anti-ADP3chicken IgY) in 1× blocking buffer was
added to each well and the plate was incubated at room temperature
for 1 h with gentle shaking. After washing with 50 μL of PBS-T
three times, chemiluminescence signal was developed by incubating
each well with 20 μL of SuperSignal ELISA Pico Chemiluminescent
Substrate (Thermo Scientific) at room temperature for 1 min with gentle
shaking, and the luminescent signal was recorded on a Infinite M1000
PRO instrument (Tecan).
ELISA of Serum Samples Obtained from Healthy
Individuals and
NMO Patients
A 384-well maleimide activated plate was washed
with 50 μL of PBS-T three times and incubated with 20 μL
of 20 μM cysteine-containing NMOP6 (3) in PBS containing
10 mM EDTA for overnight at 4 °C in the dark with gentle shaking.
After washing with 50 μL of PBS-T three times, residual maleimide
groups on the plate was blocked by incubating with 50 μL of
10 μg/mL l-cysteine hydrochloride monohydrate for 1
h at room temperature with gentle shaking. After the incubation, the
plate was washed with 50 μL of PBS-T three times and blocked
with 50 μL of blocking buffer (PBS-T containing 1 v/v% BSA)
for 1 h at room temperature with gentle shaking. After removing the
blocking buffer from the plate, 20 μL of serum of 200 μg/mL
total protein in blocking buffer was applied to each well and the
plate was incubated at room temperature for 2 h with gentle shaking.
After washing with 50 μL of PBS-T three times, 20 μL of
1/2000 goat anti-humanIgG, HRP conjugated, in 1× blocking buffer
was added to each well and the plate was incubated at room temperature
for 1 h with gentle shaking. After washing with 50 μL of PBS-T
three times, chemiluminescence signal was developed by incubating
each well with 20 μL of SuperSignal ELISA Pico Chemiluminescent
Substrate at room temperature for 1 min with gentle shaking and the
luminescent signal was recorded on a Infinite M1000 PRO instrument.
Competition Assay on ELISA of Serum Samples Obtained from NMO
Patients
A 384-well maleimide activated plate was washed
with 50 μL of PBS-T three times and incubated with 20 μL
of 20 μM cysteine-containing NMOP6 (3) in PBS containing
10 mM EDTA for overnight at 4 °C in the dark with gentle shaking.
After washing with 50 μL of PBS-T three times, residual maleimide
groups on the plate was blocked by incubating with 50 μL of
10 μg/mL l-cysteine hydrochloride monohydrate for 1
h at room temperature with gentle shaking. During the incubation,
the competitors (monomers, dimers with PEG2000 or PEG5000, or dextran conjugates) were serially diluted with PBS-T
and 35 μL of each of serial dilution series was mixed with 35
μL of serum of 400 μg/mL total protein in 2× blocking
buffer (PBS-T containing 2% BSA). These competitor–antibody
mixtures were incubated at room temperature until the next blocking
step is done. After the incubation with the cysteine solution, the
plate was washed with 50 μL of PBS-T three times and blocked
with 50 μL of 1× blocking buffer (prepared by diluting
2× blocking buffer with a equal volume of PBS-T) for 1 h at room
temperature with gentle shaking. After removing the blocking buffer
from the plate, 20 μL of the preincubated competitor–antibody
mixture was applied to each well and the plate was incubated at room
temperature for 2 h with gentle shaking. After washing with 50 μL
of PBS-T three times, 20 μL of 1/2000 goat antihumanIgG, HRP
conjugated, in 1× blocking buffer was added to each well and
the plate was incubated at room temperature for 1 h with gentle shaking.
After washing with 50 μL of PBS-T three times, chemiluminescence
signal was developed by incubating each well with 20 μL of SuperSignal
ELISA Pico Chemiluminescent Substrate at room temperature for 1 min
with gentle shaking and the luminescent signal was recorded on a Infinite
M1000 PRO instrument.
Native PAGE Analysis of Antibody–Ligand
Complex
5 μL of 50 μg/mL anti-FLAG M2 mouseIgG
(Sigma-Aldrich)
was mixed with 2.5 μL of 0.12–7.4 μM FLAG-dextran
or HA-dextran and incubated at RT for 1 h. The solution was mixed
with 2.5 μL of NativePAGE Sample Buffer (Life Technologies),
applied to NativePAGE Novex 3–12% Bis-Tris Gel (Life Technologies),
and run at 150 V for 60 min then 250 V for 45 min at 4 °C. The
gel was fixed with 40% ehanol/10% acetic acid/50% ultrapure water
and stained by using Pierce Silver Stain for Mass Spectrometry (Thermo
Scientific).
SE-HPLC Analysis of Antibody–Ligand
Complex
0.5 μM of antibody was mixed with various concentrations
of
ligand-dextran in PBS buffer (pH 7.4) and incubated at RT for 30 min
with rotation. After the incubation, 100 μL of the mixture was
analyzed by SE-HPLC (TSKgel G4000SWXL). Flow rate was 0.5
mL/min and UV absorbance was monitored at 220 nm.
SEC-MALS Analysis
of FLAG-Dextran and a Complex Formed by FLAG-Dextran
and anti-FLAG IgG1
SEC-MALS was performed using an HPLC (Agilent)
with a size-exclusion column (WTC-030S5, Wyatt Technology) and 0.5
mL/min flow rate. For each sample, 100 μL solution was applied
to the column. The eluent flowed through a UV detector (Agilent),
a multiangle light scattering detector (Wyatt DAWN HELEOS II), and
a refractive index detector (Wyatt Optilab T-rEX). Anti-FLAG IgG was
diluted to 0.075 mg/mL and 1-dextran was diluted to 0.25
mg/mL prior to injection to determine the molar mass distributions
of each pure species. Anti-FLAG IgG and 1-dextran were
mixed to final concentrations of 0.075 and 0.025 mg/mL, respectively,
to determine the molar mass distribution of the complexes formed.
The light scattering and concentration data were analyzed by using
ASTRA software (version 6.1, Wyatt).
Cell Binding Assay by Fluorescence
Activated Cell Sorting (FACS)
HEK 293 T cells were grown
to 70% confluency 1 day after passage.
Cells were transiently cotransfected with IgG light chain (pIg-lambda)
and heavy chain (pIg-gamma-TM) plasmids using 293-fectin transfection
reagents from Life Technologies following manufacturer’s instructions.
Cells were grown for 48 to 72 h at 37 °C in 5% CO2 before collecting from the flask using enzyme-free cell dissociation
buffer, washed with RPMI media, and resuspended in binding buffer
(PBS containing 1% BSA and 0.1% sodium azide, pH 7.4). About 0.5 ×
106 cells expressing CLL smIg (CLL 014, 068, 169 or 183)
or untransfected HEK 293 T cells were aliquoted in each well of a
96-well microtiter plate. Cells were preblocked with 2% BSA in PBS
containing 0.1% sodium azide and incubated with 16-biotin
(50 nM), 17-biotin (50 nM), 16-dextran-biotin
(25 nM), or 17-dextran-biotin (25 nM) for 45 min at 4
°C in PBS containing 1% BSA and 0.1% sodium azide for binding.
Cells were washed five times with binding buffer, and treated with
1:50 dilution of streptavidin–phycoerythrin (saPE, from BD
Bioscience) for 30 min on ice following 1:500 dilution of goat anti-human
Fc-IgG conjugated to allophycocyanine (anti-huFc-APC, from Jackson
ImmunoResearch Laboratory Inc.) for 30 min on ice. Following washing
three times with binding buffer, the expression of smIg on cells was
detected by APC signal and the binding was detected by PE signal on
fluorescence activated cell sorting (BD FACSCanto II).
Authors: Yun Liu; Chelsea D Higgins; Cathie M Overstreet; Kanti R Rai; Nicholas Chiorazzi; Jonathan R Lai Journal: Mol Med Date: 2013-08-28 Impact factor: 6.354