Sanne A M van Lith1, Sander M J van Duijnhoven1, Anna C Navis1, William P J Leenders1, Edward Dolk2, Jos W H Wennink3, Cornelus F van Nostrum3, Jan C M van Hest4. 1. Department of Pathology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre , Geert Grooteplein 26, 6525 GA Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 2. QVQ Holding B.V. , Yalelaan 1, 3584 CL Utrecht, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Pharmaceutics, Utrecht University , Universiteitsweg 99, 3584 CG Utrecht, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Bio-organic Chemistry, Eindhoven University of Technology , P.O. Box 513 (STO 3.31), 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Abstract
Conjugation of llama single domain antibody fragments (Variable Heavy chain domains of Heavy chain antibodies, VHHs) to diagnostic or therapeutic nanoparticles, peptides, proteins, or drugs offers many opportunities for optimized targeted cancer treatment. Currently, mostly nonspecific conjugation strategies or genetic fusions are used that may compromise VHH functionality. In this paper we present a versatile modular approach for bioorthogonal VHH modification and conjugation. First, sortase A mediated transPEGylation is used for introduction of a chemical click moiety. The resulting clickable VHHs are then used for conjugation to other groups employing the Cu+-independent strain-promoted alkyne-azide cycloadition (SPAAC) reaction. Using this approach, tail-to-tail bispecific VHHs and VHH-targeted nanoparticles are generated without affecting VHH functionality. Furthermore, this approach allows the bioconjugation of multiple moieties to VHHs for simple and convenient production of VHH-based theranostics.
Conjugation of llama single domain antibody fragments (Variable Heavy chain domains of Heavy chain antibodies, VHHs) to diagnostic or therapeutic nanoparticles, peptides, proteins, or drugs offers many opportunities for optimized targeted cancer treatment. Currently, mostly nonspecific conjugation strategies or genetic fusions are used that may compromise VHH functionality. In this paper we present a versatile modular approach for bioorthogonal VHH modification and conjugation. First, sortase A mediated transPEGylation is used for introduction of a chemical click moiety. The resulting clickable VHHs are then used for conjugation to other groups employing the Cu+-independent strain-promoted alkyne-azide cycloadition (SPAAC) reaction. Using this approach, tail-to-tail bispecific VHHs and VHH-targeted nanoparticles are generated without affecting VHH functionality. Furthermore, this approach allows the bioconjugation of multiple moieties to VHHs for simple and convenient production of VHH-based theranostics.
The
challenge in cancer therapy is to specifically deliver therapeutic
agents to tumor cells with minimal delivery to and effects on healthy
tissues. Targeted delivery of drugs with antibody drug conjugates
(ADCs) has received a lot of attention in the last decades. Also,
nanoparticles have been used for drug delivery. Liposomes can carry
hydrophilic drugs in the lumen[1,2] while micelles are suited
for carrying hydrophobic drugs.[3] Liposomes
and micelles, however, distribute relatively randomly in the body
after intravenous injection,[1] and introduction
of tumor specificity in these nanoparticles could greatly increase
local delivery and efficacy of cancer therapeutics.[4−6]A number
of therapeutic antibodies with relative tumor specificity
are now applied clinically (e.g., trastuzumab and cetuximab against
HER2 and EGFR[7,8]). Effects of treatments with these
targeted drugs are often limited because of recurrences of drug-resistant
tumors.[9−12] The challenge should therefore be to develop a multispecific tumor-targeting
nanoparticle platform that can deliver cytotoxic payload to all cancer
cells in a tumor, resulting in specific and acute death of all cells
in a tumor.Conventional protein conjugation strategies mostly
use relatively
nonspecific methods, e.g., N-hydroxysuccinimide (NHS)
chemistry utilizing ε-NH2 groups from lysines. Depending
on the number and distribution of lysines in the active binding domain
of the targeting agent, these conjugation protocols may compromise
functionality. This specifically applies to single domain antibody
fragments (VHHs, Nanobodies) due to their small size. VHHs are recombinant
antigen-binding domains that are derived from cameloid heavy chain-only
antibodies and receive increasing interest as therapeutic or diagnostic
compounds.[13,14] VHHs typically have a molecular
weight of 15–20 kDa and may bind target antigens with pM to
nM affinity, similar to conventional antibodies. The ease of genetic
engineering and handling of VHHs, combined with a number of other
advantages such as high water solubility, low production cost, small
size, low immunogenicity in humans, and high thermo- and pH stability,[15] makes this class of antibodies a highly interesting
alternative to conventional antibodies.A number of VHHs with
high specificity and affinity against tumor
targets (e.g., EGFR, HER2, MET) have been developed.[16−18] Approaches to conjugate VHHs without compromising functionality
include the site specific introduction of a carboxyterminal cysteine
allowing maleimide chemistry[19] and introduction
of a carboxyterminal five-amino-acid sequence (LPXTG) allowing sortase
A transpeptidation.[20]Here we present
a versatile modular approach for bioorthogonal
VHH conjugations, using sortase A mediated transPEGylation to introduce
a carboxyterminal click moiety, and subsequent Cu+-independent
strain-promoted alkyne–azide cycloadition (SPAAC) for conjugation
of a functional group that may be connected to another VHH and/or
polymeric micelles. Furthermore, introduction of a cysteine before
the LPXTG tag allows maleimide chemistry to introduce a second diagnostic
or therapeutic compound. This method allows the production of highly
uniform VHH-based conjugates that can consist of multiple modular
moieties, examples being labeled bispecific VHHs, bivalent VHHs, and
VHH-targeted nanoparticles. Because all chemistry occurs at the carboxyterminus,
this method does not affect VHH functionality. Furthermore, concomitant
with conjugation, carboxy-terminal tags that allow purification of
the VHHs after bacterial expression are removed, a prerequisite for
future clinical applications.
Results and Discussion
VHHs were
successfully expressed and purified as VHH-C-LPETG-8xHis-Vsv
or VHH-LPETG-8xHis-Vsv fusion proteins with yields of 5–10
mg/L E. coli culture (see Figure A for a representative
Coomassie Brilliant Blue (CBB) stained SDS-PAGE gel of 7D12-C-LPETG-8xHis-Vsv,
the anti-EGFR VHH that was used as a prototype in this study). Since
the 8xHis-Vsv tags are substituted by compounds of interest during
the sortase A reaction, loss of these tags was compensated for by
introducing a cysteine residue directly upstream of the LPETG-8xHis-Vsv
sequence, allowing maleimide-based labeling with alternative tags
for detection. Liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (LC-MS) indicated
the correct mass for expressed 7D12-C-LPETG-8xHis-Vsv and it showed
that the free thiol group of this cysteine was oxidized, presumably
by glutathione based on its molecular weight of 307 Da (Figure B). After a mild TCEP reduction,
the thiol was available for conjugation (Figure C). The reaction of the 7D12-C-LPETG-8xHis-Vsv
protein (from now on referred to as 7D12) with fluorescein-5-maleimide
was efficient, resulting in a pure preparation of 7D12-C[Fluo]-LPETG-8xHis-Vsv (from now on referred to as 7D12[Fluo]) (Figure A+B, lane
1). LC-MS confirmed the conjugation of one fluorescein residue per
VHH in 7D12[Fluo] (Figure C), demonstrating that the two native framework cysteine
residues involved in an intramolecular disulfide bridge[21] were not reactive toward fluorescein-5-maleimide
under the conditions used. This was further confirmed in additional
experiments that showed an absence of maleimide reaction with multiple
VHHs lacking the C terminal cysteine (Figure S1).
Figure 1
(A) CBB stained SDS-PAGE gel of samples obtained during 7D12-C-LPETG-8xHis-Vsv
production. 1 = bacterial lysate, 2 = flow-through Ni-NTA purification,
3 = pre-eluate Ni-NTA purification, 4 = eluate post Ni-NTA purification
and dialysis. (B) LC-MS characterization of 7D12-C-LPETG-8xHis-Vsv
(with an expected mass of 17837 Da, observed 17962 and 18137 Da) before
TCEP reduction. (C) LC-MS characterization of 7D12-C-LPETG-8xHis-Vsv
after 20 min incubation with 20 mM TCEP. A pure product of 17831 Da
was detected, suggesting that the thiol before TCEP reduction was
oxidized by small molecules, among which was presumably glutathione.
The left graphs show the ultraviolet absorbance chromatograms (at
215 nm) and the middle and right graphs show the total mass spectra
and deconvoluted spectra of the UV-peaks bracketed by the arrowheads,
respectively.
Figure 2
(A) Fluorescent image
and (B) CBB staining of an SDS-PAGE gel of
samples obtained during the procedure of sortagging. 1 = 7D12[Fluo], 2 = 7D12[Fluo]/sortase A/H2N-PEG3-N3 reaction mixture after overnight reaction,
3 = purified 7D12[Fluo]-N3. Note the molecular
shift between lanes 1 and 2, 3 that is a result of removal of the
G-8xHis-Vsv tag and simultaneous addition of the small PEG3-N3 group. (C) LC-MS characterization of 7D12[Fluo] (expected 18265 Da, observed 18278 Da). (D) LC-MS characterization
of 7D12[Fluo]-N3 (expected 15790 Da, observed
15806 Da). The left graphs show the ultraviolet absorbance chromatograms
(at 215 nm) and the middle and right graphs show the total mass spectra
and the deconvoluted spectra of the UV-peaks bracketed by the arrowheads,
respectively.
(A) CBB stained SDS-PAGE gel of samples obtained during 7D12-C-LPETG-8xHis-Vsv
production. 1 = bacterial lysate, 2 = flow-through Ni-NTA purification,
3 = pre-eluate Ni-NTA purification, 4 = eluate post Ni-NTA purification
and dialysis. (B) LC-MS characterization of 7D12-C-LPETG-8xHis-Vsv
(with an expected mass of 17837 Da, observed 17962 and 18137 Da) before
TCEP reduction. (C) LC-MS characterization of 7D12-C-LPETG-8xHis-Vsv
after 20 min incubation with 20 mM TCEP. A pure product of 17831 Da
was detected, suggesting that the thiol before TCEP reduction was
oxidized by small molecules, among which was presumably glutathione.
The left graphs show the ultraviolet absorbance chromatograms (at
215 nm) and the middle and right graphs show the total mass spectra
and deconvoluted spectra of the UV-peaks bracketed by the arrowheads,
respectively.(A) Fluorescent image
and (B) CBB staining of an SDS-PAGE gel of
samples obtained during the procedure of sortagging. 1 = 7D12[Fluo], 2 = 7D12[Fluo]/sortase A/H2N-PEG3-N3 reaction mixture after overnight reaction,
3 = purified 7D12[Fluo]-N3. Note the molecular
shift between lanes 1 and 2, 3 that is a result of removal of the
G-8xHis-Vsv tag and simultaneous addition of the small PEG3-N3 group. (C) LC-MS characterization of 7D12[Fluo] (expected 18265 Da, observed 18278 Da). (D) LC-MS characterization
of 7D12[Fluo]-N3 (expected 15790 Da, observed
15806 Da). The left graphs show the ultraviolet absorbance chromatograms
(at 215 nm) and the middle and right graphs show the total mass spectra
and the deconvoluted spectra of the UV-peaks bracketed by the arrowheads,
respectively.The LPETG-8xHis-Vsv tag
in 7D12[Fluo] allows sortase
A mediated transpeptidation which releases the G-8xHis-Vsv tag in
exchange for an H2N-GGG-containing peptide (the prototypical
substrate of sortase A). This allows rapid and easy purification of
the reaction product to homogeneity, because the G-8xHis-Vsv cleavage
product and the 6xHis-tagged sortase A enzyme can be removed from
the reaction mixture by Ni-bead depletion. Because a wide variety
of chemically modified monodisperse PEG compounds is nowadays available,
sortase A mediated conjugation of such compounds to the carboxyterminus
is a highly attractive approach.Using H2N-PEG-X as a nucleophile
for sortase A mediated PEGylation, a range of VHH-PEG-X constructs can be generated in which X represents
a drug or a reactive group. In this work we used the combination of
H2N-PEG3-N3 and H2N-PEG3-DBCO in the SPAAC reaction.[22] In
an attempt to improve the reaction with H2N-PEG-X, we tested recently described mutants of sortase
A with optimized LPETG cleavage activity,[23] and compared them to the variants with a N-terminal deletion of
either 25 or 59 amino acids (Supporting Information Figure S8). These optimizations were performed using the anti-PlexinD1
VHH A12.[24] Sortase A Δ59 was ultimately
selected as most optimal, since despite increased LPETG cleavage rates,
the low affinity of the mutant sortases for H2N-GGG or
H2N-PEGx-X resulted in high levels of hydrolysis at the
threonine. Furthermore, we found that the sortase A Δ25 variant,
that contains an N-terminal 6xHis-tag, experienced unexplained proteolysis
just downstream of the His-tag during the sortase A reaction (Supporting Information Figure S8D). Since this
precluded complete removal of sortase A activity, we discarded this
variant.Further experimentation using different molar ratios
of H2N-PEG-X or H2N-GGG revealed
that H2N-PEG-X was incorporated
less efficiently than H2N-GGG, requiring a 200-fold molar
excess of H2N-PEG-X over VHH-(C)LPETG-8xHis-Vsv
as compared to a 25-fold excess of H2N-GGG (under conditions
of 4 h reaction at 30 °C with sortase A Δ59). Lower concentrations
of both nucleophiles in the reaction resulted in the formation of
VHH-LPET-OH hydrolysis products, as observed with LC-MS (Supporting Information Figure S9A). These results
were in line with those of Parthasarathy et al., who showed that conjugation
of H2N-PEG to EGFP in a ratio
of 1:1 by sortase A Δ59 was highly inefficient.[25] Yet, the use of H2N-PEG-X nucleophiles instead of triglycine-containing substrates
would have an important advantage: conjugation of H2N-PEG-X yields VHH-(C)LPET-PEG-X in a one-way reaction, unlike conjugation of H2N-GGG-X that reconstitutes a sortase A substrate site in the VHH-(C)LPET-GGG-X
reaction product. Indeed we could show that VHH-LPET-PEG-X is not a substrate for sortase A, in contrast
to VHH-LPETGGG-peptide (see Figure S2).Using the optimized conditions, 7D12[Fluo] was conjugated
to H2N-PEG3-N3 with sortase A Δ59
to yield 7D12[Fluo]-N3 (Figure A+B). After removal of sortase A Δ59,
G-8xHis-Vsv, and unreacted 7D12[Fluo] by Ni-NTA depletion,
7D12[Fluo]-N3 was obtained in a 66% yield with
a >95% purity based on LC-MS (Figure D). Similar results were obtained when H2N-PEG3-DBCO was used in the reaction with sortase
A Δ59
(Figure S3). Furthermore, the methodology
has been successfully tested and validated for three more VHHs in
our lab (Supporting Information Figure
S10) demonstrating the versatility of this approach.Bispecific
or bivalent antibody conjugates are valuable compounds
for targeted cancer therapy.[26,27] Current approaches
to make bispecific or bivalent VHHs often involve genetic fusion of
VHH open reading frames, allowing production only in head-to-tail
fusion format. It has already been shown that the affinity of the
second VHH in such bispecific constructs may be dramatically affected
by the presence of the first VHH.[28] Sortase
A technology allows the generation of tail-to-tail dimers, leaving
antigen binding sites of the individual composing VHHs intact[20] (Figures and 4A). We tested the validity of
this hypothesis by using sortase A Δ59 in combination with H2N-PEG3-X linkers to generate 7D12[Fluo]-N3 and 4E4-DBCO, 4E4 being a low-affinity Transferrin
receptor (TfR)-binding VHH (unpublished results) that is used here
as a control. After the click reaction (see Figure B+C for analysis of the reaction products),
heterodimer N7D12C[Fluo]-C4E4N could be readily purified from residual monomers by size
exclusion chromatography, resulting in >90% pure product of 36
kDa
(Figure S4). In parallel, we generated
conventional head-to-tail bispecific VHHs, with 7D12 and 4E4 separated
by a [G4S]10 linker or a [G4S]20 linker and a C-terminal C-Flag-6xHis (compounds N7D12C-[G4S]-N4E4C and N4E4C-[G4S]-N7D12C; Figures and 4A). E. coli expression of these
bispecific VHHs was successful as shown with SDS-PAGE analysis (Figure D+E). Yields were
2–4 mg/L E. coli culture. The
bispecifics were labeled on the C-terminal cysteine with fluorescein-5-maleimide
as described for monomeric VHHs, and the correct mass was confirmed
with LC-MS (Figure S5).
Figure 3
Schematic representation
of the monomeric VHH, head-to-tail bispecific
VHH, and tail-to-tail bispecific VHH and their nomenclature in this
report.
Figure 4
(A) Schematic overview of bispecific tail-to-tail
(Structure 1)
or head-to-tail (Structure 2) VHH constructs. In panels B and C, SDS-PAGE
is shown (fluorescence signal and CBB staining, respectively) depicting
the products of the sortase A reaction to produce bispecific N7D12C[Fluo]-C4E4N. 1 = 7D12[Fluo], 2 = 4E4, 3 = 7D12[Fluo]-DBCO, 4 = 4E4-N3, 5 = N7D12C[Fluo]-C4E4N before sephadex G75 purification. In panels D and E, the
expression of bispecific head-to-tail VHHs is depicted with (D) fluorescence
signal and (E) CBB staining of an SDS-PAGE gel. 1 = N7D12C-[G4S]10-N4E4C[Fluo], 2 = N4E4C-[G4S]10-N7D12C[Fluo], 3 = N7D12C-[G4S]20-N4E4C[Fluo], 4 = N4E4C-[G4S]20-N7D12C[Fluo]. (F) Flow cytometry histogram derived from
A431 cells incubated with the various bispecific constructs and controls.
Schematic representation
of the monomeric VHH, head-to-tail bispecific
VHH, and tail-to-tail bispecific VHH and their nomenclature in this
report.(A) Schematic overview of bispecific tail-to-tail
(Structure 1)
or head-to-tail (Structure 2) VHH constructs. In panels B and C, SDS-PAGE
is shown (fluorescence signal and CBB staining, respectively) depicting
the products of the sortase A reaction to produce bispecific N7D12C[Fluo]-C4E4N. 1 = 7D12[Fluo], 2 = 4E4, 3 = 7D12[Fluo]-DBCO, 4 = 4E4-N3, 5 = N7D12C[Fluo]-C4E4N before sephadex G75 purification. In panels D and E, the
expression of bispecific head-to-tail VHHs is depicted with (D) fluorescence
signal and (E) CBB staining of an SDS-PAGE gel. 1 = N7D12C-[G4S]10-N4E4C[Fluo], 2 = N4E4C-[G4S]10-N7D12C[Fluo], 3 = N7D12C-[G4S]20-N4E4C[Fluo], 4 = N4E4C-[G4S]20-N7D12C[Fluo]. (F) Flow cytometry histogram derived from
A431 cells incubated with the various bispecific constructs and controls.Importantly, in this context both
the head-to-tail and tail-to-tail
bispecific VHHs contain only one fluorescein molecule, allowing quantitative
comparison of the EGFR-binding capacity of these formats with 7D12[Fluo]. Constructs were tested in flow cytometry analyses using
the high EGFR expressing squamous carcinoma cell line A431 (Figure F). Compounds N7D12C-[G4S]n-N4E4C[Fluo] with both G4S linker lengths and N7D12C[Fluo]-C4E4N were equally
effective as 7D12[Fluo] in binding to A431 cells. In contrast,
binding to EGFR was reduced with a factor of 10 for compounds N4E4C-[G4S]n-N7D12C[Fluo] with both G4S linker lengths, confirming
that, at least for VHH 7D12, epitope binding is hindered by the presence
of a VHH at the amino-terminus. Thus, bispecific VHHs generated via
tail-to-tail click fusion are more robust than head-to-tail bispecific
VHHs.PEGylation is an important modification of nanoparticles
that is
applied to increase half-life in the circulation by avoiding rapid
clearance by spleen, liver, and kidney.[29] PEGylation of VHHs, accomplished by clicking DBCO-PEG to VHH-N3, indeed results in better in vivo characteristics.[30] Sortase A mediated conjugation of H2N-PEG yields the interesting option
to decorate PEGylated nanoparticles with functionally active VHHs.
To test this hypothesis we applied click chemistry to conjugate 7D12[Fluo]-N3 to benzoyl-poly(ε-caprolactone)-methoxypoly(ethylene
glycol) (ben-PCL7-mPEG2000) diblock-based micelles,
equipped with a small percentage of DBCO groups. Ben-PCL7-mPEG2000 diblock-based micelles are biocompatible and
biodegradable, and can be used as carriers of hydrophobic drugs that
can be incorporated in the micellar core.[31] The decoration of micelles with VHHs may increase affinity of the
nanoparticles to targets by an avidity effect. Also, this approach
allows the generation of multispecific drug-loaded targeting nanoparticles
by simply decorating these with different tumor-targeting VHHs.1H NMR spectra showed that synthesis of intermediate
products (Figure S6) and end products ben-PCL7-mPEG2000 and ben-PCL7-mPEG2000-DBCO (Figure A+B)
was successful. Micelles were prepared by film-hydration of a mixture
of 90% ben-PCL7-mPEG2000 diblock polymers and
10% ben-PCL7-mPEG2000-DBCO, resulting in micelles
that contain a calculated 20–30 DBCO click groups per particle.
Dynamic light scattering (DLS) experiments of the resulting micelles
revealed a mean particle size of 28 ± 2 nm and a polydispersity
index (PDI) of 0.32 ± 0.02.
Figure 5
Chemical structures and corresponding 1H NMR-spectra
of (A) Ben-PCL7-mPEG2000 and (B) Ben-PCL7-PEG2000-DBCO measured in CDCl3..
Chemical structures and corresponding 1H NMR-spectra
of (A) Ben-PCL7-mPEG2000 and (B) Ben-PCL7-PEG2000-DBCO measured in CDCl3..DBCO-micelles were decorated with
7D12 via a click chemistry reaction
with 7D12[Fluo]-N3 in a 2:1 DBCO:N3 ratio, to minimize amounts of residual unconjugated 7D12[Fluo]-N3 after the click reaction. To confirm that during handling
and experimentation micelles remained intact, we included the hydrophobic
photosensitizer meta-tetra(hydroxyphenyl)chlorin (mTHPC) during micelle
formation, equipping the micelles with a fluorescent signal that is
readily distinguishable from 7D12-associated fluorescein (Figure A). SDS-PAGE of the
7D12 conjugated micelles revealed a shift of ∼3 kDa as compared
to the starting material 7D12[Fluo]-N3, indicating
successful conjugation of 7D12[Fluo]-N3 to the
DBCO-block-copolymer with a conjugation yield of
>85% (Figure B,C).
Again this conjugation method was verified for other available VHHs
in our lab (Supporting Information, Figure
S11A+B), showing its versatility.
Figure 6
(A) Cartoon of VHH[Fluo]-decorated
mTHPC loaded micelles.
(B) Fluorescein visualization. (C) CBB staining of the SDS-PAGE analysis
of SPAAC reaction between 7D12[Fluo]-N3 and
DBCO-micelles. 1 = 7D12[Fluo], 2 = 7D12[Fluo]-N3, 3 = 10% DBCO-micelles with 5% mTHPC, and 4 = 10%
DBCO-micelles with 5% mTHPC and 5% 7D12[Fluo]. (D) Median
values of fluorescence intensity as measured in flow cytometry. Left
bar graph = fluorescein total signal on A431 (EGFR+) and
E98 (EGFR–) cells after incubation with 7D12[Fluo] as a positive control and 7D12[Fluo]-micelles.
Right bar graph = mTHPC total signal on both A431 and E98 cells after
incubation with targeted or nontargeted micelles. * indicates significance
with p < 0.05. (E) Fluorescence microscopy of
A431 cells immediately after incubation with 1 = 7D12[Fluo], 2 = 7D12[Fluo]-micelles, and 3 = nontargeted micelles.
Cyan depicts mTHPC, incorporated in the micelles; green depicts fluorescein.
The scale bar depicts 20 μM.
(A) Cartoon of VHH[Fluo]-decorated
mTHPC loaded micelles.
(B) Fluorescein visualization. (C) CBB staining of the SDS-PAGE analysis
of SPAAC reaction between 7D12[Fluo]-N3 and
DBCO-micelles. 1 = 7D12[Fluo], 2 = 7D12[Fluo]-N3, 3 = 10% DBCO-micelles with 5% mTHPC, and 4 = 10%
DBCO-micelles with 5% mTHPC and 5% 7D12[Fluo]. (D) Median
values of fluorescence intensity as measured in flow cytometry. Left
bar graph = fluorescein total signal on A431 (EGFR+) and
E98 (EGFR–) cells after incubation with 7D12[Fluo] as a positive control and 7D12[Fluo]-micelles.
Right bar graph = mTHPC total signal on both A431 and E98 cells after
incubation with targeted or nontargeted micelles. * indicates significance
with p < 0.05. (E) Fluorescence microscopy of
A431 cells immediately after incubation with 1 = 7D12[Fluo], 2 = 7D12[Fluo]-micelles, and 3 = nontargeted micelles.
Cyan depicts mTHPC, incorporated in the micelles; green depicts fluorescein.
The scale bar depicts 20 μM.We next tested whether 7D12 on the decorated micelles had
retained
EGFR affinity by performing flow cytometry after incubation with EGFR-positive
A431squamous cell carcinoma or EGFR-negative E98glioma cells,[32] using 7D12[Fluo] as reference. 7D12[Fluo]-micelles showed efficient binding to A431 cells but
negligible binding to E98 cells (Figure D). Importantly, binding of 7D12[Fluo]-micelles led to 70% higher cell-associated fluorescein-fluorescence
than binding of monomeric 7D12[Fluo]. This may reflect
the loading of individual micelles with multiple fluorescein-labeled
7D12 moieties or may be due to cooperative binding and an avidity
effect. Increased binding of 7D12[Fluo]-micelles to A431
cells was confirmed with fluorescence microscopy, using the fluorescein
signal as readout (Figure E, green signal in panel 2, compare to 7D12[Fluo] in panel 1). The increase in fluorescein signal was accompanied
by an increased association of mTHPC fluorescence in 7D12[Fluo]-micelles as compared to nondecorated micelles (Figure D, right graph, and Figure E, cyan signal).
There was no difference in binding of 7D12[Fluo]-micelles
and nondecorated micelles to E98 cells, suggesting that 7D12[Fluo]-micelles bound as intact particles to A431 cells in an EGFR-dependent
manner. It must however be noted that there was also some nonspecific
association of mTHPC with both A431 cells and E98 cells. Whether this
reflects nonspecific binding of micelles or of free mTHPC that is
released from micelles is difficult to discriminate.These results
indicate that the multivalency induced by coupling
multiple VHHs to a micelle, increased uptake of these particles and
their payload in target positive cells. Although we restricted ourselves
in this study to micelles, this conjugation approach is predicted
to work with many other types of protein- or PEG-based nanoparticles
(e.g., liposomes, polymersomes) once a controlled percentage of the
building blocks is equipped with a chemical click group. Interestingly,
this procedure will also allow the controlled synthesis of multispecific
targeting nanoparticles, e.g., by preparing nanoparticles with a defined
number of noncompatible clickable agents such as DBCO and tetrazine
moieties, allowing simultaneous conjugation of VHH-PEG3-N3 and VHH-PEG-TCO (trans-cyclooctene).
Whereas the free thiol group in VHH-C-LPET-PEG-X may be used for maleimide-based conjugation of hydrophilic
drugs, micelles may be used to simultaneously carry hydrophobic drugs,
making this to a versatile approach.
Conclusion
Conjugations
of VHHs to diagnostic or therapeutic compounds should
involve the VHH’s carboxy-terminus, distant from the antigen
binding site, in order to retain full VHH functionality. Here, a bioorthogonal
site-specific conjugation approach is presented based on sortase A
and click chemistry, combined with cysteine–maleimide conjugation.
This approach allows the preparation of molecularly defined targeted
nanoparticles, preserving targeting potential and concomitantly removing
unwanted tags from VHHs, a prerequisite for potential clinical applications.
The potential to perform controlled dual labeling of proteins without
the loss of protein function is an important next step to the preparation
of optimized theranostics.
Experimental Procedures
VHH Production and Purification
VHH 4E4 is a low affinity
VHH (Kd ∼ 500 nM) directed against
transferrin receptor (TfR) and was used as an inert VHH in this study.
VHH 7D12 against EGFR has been described in detail before.[17,33] The VHH coding sequences were cloned in frame behind the pelB leader
sequence in modified pHEN-IX vectors in which the sortase A recognition
sequence LPETG, either or not preceded by a cysteine, was inserted
just upstream of the 8xHis-Vsv tags, resulting in pHENIX-VHH-LPETG-8xHis-Vsv
and pHENIX-VHH-C-LPETG-8xHis-Vsv. Plasmids were transformed in E. coli strain ER2566 for standard protein expression.
Cells were grown in 2xTY medium containing 3.5% (w/v) glycerol and
50 μg/mL ampicillin at 37 °C. At an OD600 between
0.6 and 0.8, recombinant protein expression was induced with 1.0 mM
isopropyl β-d-thiogalactoside (IPTG, Serva, Heidelberg,
Germany) at 30 °C for 2.5 h. Cells were harvested by centrifugation
at 2830 g for 20 min at 4 °C and the periplasmic
protein fraction was isolated via osmotic lysis. Cells were resuspended
in ice cold TES buffer (200 mM Tris pH 8.0, 0.5 mM EDTA, 20% w/v sucrose,
protease inhibitors (Complete cocktail, Roche, Basel, Switzerland))
and incubated for 20 min on ice, followed by centrifugation (4424 g, 20 min, 4 °C). After collection of the supernatant
the bacterial pellet was resuspended in TES buffer containing 15 mM
MgSO4 and incubated on ice for 20 min. After centrifuging,
both supernatants were pooled and incubated with Ni-NTAsepharose
(IBA, Goettingen, Germany), pre-equilibrated with 50 mM phosphate
pH 7.4, 500 mM NaCl, for 1 h at 4 °C. After washing of the beads
with 50 mM phosphate pH 7.4, 500 mM NaCl, and 10 mM imidazole, 8xHis-tagged
proteins were eluted with 500 mM imidazole in 50 mM phosphate pH 7.4
and 500 mM NaCl. The eluate was dialyzed against 50 mM TRIS pH 7.5
and 150 mM NaCl in a 3.5 kDa dialysis membrane (Spectrum laboratories,
Los Angeles, CA, USA). VHHs were analyzed by SDS-PAGE under reducing
conditions (Coomassie brilliant blue (CBB) staining), followed by
analysis on the Odyssey CLx infrared imaging system (LI-COR, Lincoln,
NE, USA)) and liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry (LC-MS,
Shimadzu HPLC and Thermo Finnigan LCQ Fleet) on a C4 column. Protein
concentrations were determined by absorbance at 280 nm using a Nanodrop
spectrophotometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA).
Generation and Production of In Tandem VHH Dimers
In
tandem bispecific N7D12C-N4E4C and the converse orientation N4E4C-N7D12C VHHs connected by [G4S]10 of [G4S]20 linkers and one C-terminal cysteine
and Flag-8xHis-tags were synthesized as described before.[32] In short, reading frames encoding 7D12 and 4E4
were PCR amplified with primer sets that allowed fusion of the two
VHHs, separated by [G4S]10 or [G4S]20 linkers. The N-terminal VHH was amplified with M13rev
and primer (Rev10GS agtaGGATCCGCCACCTCCACTGCCACCGCCACCtgaggagaccgtgacctgggtccc)
annealing to the VTVSS sequence of the VHH thereby introducing the
linker including a BamHI site. The C-terminal VHH
was amplified with M13 and a primer (Forw10GS tcttGGATCCGGCGGGGGAGGTAGTGGGGGTGGGGGCTCAgaggtgcagctggtggagtctggg)
annealing to EVQLV of the VHH introducing the rest of the linker and
also including a BamHI site. The resulting fragments
were respectively cut with SfiI/BamHI and BamHI/Eco91I and subsequently ligated into the vector (SffiI/Eco91I)
in a three point ligation. Plasmids were validated by Sanger sequencing,
and proteins expressed in E. coli strain
TG1 and purified as described above. VHHs were analyzed by SDS-PAGE
under reducing conditions.
Sortase A Production and Purification
Plasmid pGBMCS-SortA
(Addgene, Cambridge, MA, USA, plasmid #21931), encoding sortase A
with a deletion of amino acids 1–59 and an N-terminal Gb1 domain
was transformed into E. coli ER2566
and protein expression induced using standard conditions as used for
VHHs. After harvesting cells by centrifugation and resuspension in
50 mM TRIS pH 8.0, 150 mM NaCl, and Cocktail protease inhibitor (Roche),
cells were lysed by sonication at 4 °C using a Bandalin Sonopuls
HD2070 sonicator. The bacterial extracts were cleared by centrifugation
and the 6xHis-tagged sortase A Δ59 was purified with Ni-NTAsepharose as described for VHHs. The purified sortase A Δ59
was dialyzed in a 3.5 kDa membrane against 50 mM TRIS pH 7.5 and 150
mM NaCl. The protein was analyzed by SDS-PAGE under reducing conditions
(CBB staining) and LC-MS. Protein concentration was determined by
absorbance at 280 nm using a Nanodrop spectrophotometer.
Fluorescein-5-Maleimide
Conjugation
Monomeric VHH-C-LPETG-8xHis-Vsv
and in tandem bispecific NVHHaC-[G4S]n-NVHHbC-C-Flag-6xHis
(typically ∼50–250 μM) were incubated for 15 min
at RT with 20 mM tris(2-carboxyethyl)phosphine (TCEP, Thermo Fisher
Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) to reduce the free thiol group. TCEP
was removed by filtration over a 10 kDa MWCO centrifugal unit (Amicon,
Millipore, Billerica, MS, USA) employing 5 washing cycles with 20
mM phosphate pH 7.0, 150 mM NaCl, and 5 mM EDTA. Fluorescein-5-maleimide
(Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) from a 10 mM stock in
dimethylformamide was reacted with the reduced VHH construct in a
3:1 molar ratio, shielded from light and at RT for 2 h to yield VHH[Fluo] or NVHHAC-[G4S]10/20NVHHBC[Fluo].
Excess fluorescein-5-maleimide was removed by filtration in a 10 kDa
MWCO centrifugal unit employing 4 washing cycles with 50 mM Tris pH
7.5 and 150 mM NaCl. Reaction products were analyzed by SDS-PAGE under
reducing conditions and/or LC-MS. Fluorescein signal was visualized
on a Chromato-vue TM-20 Transilluminator (UVP) after which the gel
was stained with CBB. Protein concentration was determined by ultraviolet
absorbance at 494 nm (ε494,7D12-FLUO = 70 000
M–1 cm–1) using a Nanodrop spectrophotometer.
Sortase A Mediated Conjugation of Click Moieties
To
produce clickable fluorescent VHHs, 50 μM VHH[Fluo] was incubated overnight at RT in the dark with 50 μM sortase
A Δ59 and 4.0 mM H2N-PEG3-N3 or H2N-PEG3-DBCO (Jena Biosciences, Jena,
Germany) in 50 mM Tris pH 7.5, 150 mM NaCl supplemented with 10 mM
CaCl2. This reaction induces the covalent linkage of PEG
linkers via the amine group to the threonine in the LPETG tag, releasing
G-8xHis-Vsv. Sortase A Δ59, the cleaved G-8xHis-Vsv tag from
the reacted VHH, and residual intact VHH were removed by adsorption
to Ni-NTAsepharose, pre-equilibrated with 50 mM phosphate pH 7.4
and 500 mM NaCl, for 1 h at 4 °C. Then, the excess of unreacted
PEG linkers was removed by filtration in a 10 kDa MWCO centrifugal
unit. The reaction product was washed three times with 50 mM phosphate
pH 7.4 and 500 mM NaCl, and two times with 50 mM phosphate pH 7.4
and 500 mM NaCl containing 20% w/v glycerol. The protein constructs
were analyzed by SDS-PAGE under reducing conditions and LC-MS, and
protein concentration was determined by ultraviolet absorbance at
494 nm.To check if LPET-PEG-X is a substrate for sortase A,
20 μM 7D12[Fluo], 20 μM 7D12[Fluo]-N3-DBCO-biotin, and 7D12-GGG-peptide were incubated with
50 μM sortase A Δ59 for 4 h at 30 °C. Reaction products
were analyzed on a CBB stained SDS-PAGE gel and a Western blot stained
with 1:10.000 Avidin-Alexa680 (Invitrogen).
Generation of VHH Dimers
via C-to-C Conjugation
Tail
to tail coupled bispecific VHHs were produced by incubating 4E4-N3 with 7D12[Fluo]-DBCO in a 1:1 molar ratio o/n
at RT. Bispecific N7D12C[Fluo]-C4E4N was separated from single VHHs by separation on a G75 Sephadex
(Pharmacia fine chemicals, Uppsala, Sweden) column. Fractions were
analyzed on a SDS-PAGE gel under reducing conditions (CBB staining).
Synthesis of Diblock Copolymers
Ben-PCL7-PEG2000-methoxy
The
amphiphilic diblock copolymer consisting of the hydrophobic poly(ε-caprolactone)
(PCL) and the hydrophilic methoxy-polyethylene glycol (mPEG) were
synthesized using a method described by Wennink et al. (submitted
for publication). Briefly, Ben-PCL-OH macromers were prepared using
benzyl alcohol as the initiator in the Tin(II) ethylhexanoate (Sn(Oct)2) catalyzed ring opening polymerization of ε-caprolactone
(CL) (Figure A). The
monomer to initiator ratio was chosen such that the average degree
of polymerization was 7 CL units. The hydroxyl end groups of ben-PCL7-OH were subsequently reacted with p-nitrophenyl
chloroformate to form p-nitrophenyl carbonate substituted
polymers (PNC) (Figure B). The diblock copolymers were obtained by reacting ben-PCL7-PNC and mPEG2000-NH2 at 1:1 ratio in toluene at
RT (Figure C). Average
molecular weights of the polymers were determined by NMR.
Figure 7
Synthesis routes
for ben-PCL7-mPEG2000 and
ben-PCL7-mPEG2000-DBCO. Synthesis of both molecules
starts with (A) ring opening polymerization of ε-caprolactone
with benzyl alcohol which affords ben-PCL7-OH and (B) activation
of the hydroxyl end group with p-nitrophenylchloroformate.
Then for synthesis of amphiphilic ben-PCL7-mPEG2000, (C) mPEG2000-NH2 is coupled to the activated
ben-PCL7-PNC. For synthesis of clickable ben-PCL7-mPEG2000-DBCO, (D) NH2-PEG2000-NHBoc
is coupled to the activated ben-PCL7-PNC, (E) the Boc protection
group is removed with HCl gas, and (F) NHS-DBCO is conjugated to ben-PCL7-mPEG2000-NH2.
Synthesis routes
for ben-PCL7-mPEG2000 and
ben-PCL7-mPEG2000-DBCO. Synthesis of both molecules
starts with (A) ring opening polymerization of ε-caprolactone
with benzyl alcohol which affords ben-PCL7-OH and (B) activation
of the hydroxyl end group with p-nitrophenylchloroformate.
Then for synthesis of amphiphilic ben-PCL7-mPEG2000, (C) mPEG2000-NH2 is coupled to the activated
ben-PCL7-PNC. For synthesis of clickable ben-PCL7-mPEG2000-DBCO, (D) NH2-PEG2000-NHBoc
is coupled to the activated ben-PCL7-PNC, (E) the Boc protection
group is removed with HCl gas, and (F) NHS-DBCO is conjugated to ben-PCL7-mPEG2000-NH2.
Ben-PCL7-PEG2000-DBCO
NH2-PEG2000-NH-Boc (1.00 g, 0.5 mmol) (Layson Bio, Arab, AL,
USA) was added to a solution of ben-PCL7-PNC (0.707 g,
0.5 mmol) in 20 mL dry toluene. This mixture was stirred for 1 h at
RT under nitrogen atmosphere (Figure D). The mixture was washed at least 6 times with diethyl
ether to remove p-nitrophenol. The product was dried
in a vacuum oven and obtained as a white powder (yield: 97%). Subsequently,
0.2 g of the powder was dissolved in 20 mL of DCM and the Boc group
was removed by bubbling HCL gas through the solution for 15 min (Figure E). The product,
ben-PCL7-PEG2000-NH2 (0.187 g, 0.063
mmol), was purified by precipitation in diethyl ether and subsequently
dissolved in 20 mL of dry DCM. To produce clickable copolymers, dibenzocyclooctyne
(DBCO)-NHS (0.025 g, 0.063 mmol) (Jena Biosciences, Jena, Germany)
was added to this ben-PCL7-PEG2000-NH2 solution, and the reaction mixture was stirred for 24 h at RT under
a nitrogen atmosphere (Figure F). The mixture was carefully washed with diethyl ether to
remove unreacted DBCO-NHS. The product was dried in a vacuum oven
and obtained as a white powder (yield: 61%).1H (300
MHz) NMR spectra were recorded using a Gemini NMR spectrometer (Varian
Associates Inc. NMR instruments, Palo Alto, CA). Polymers were dissolved
in CDCl3 at a concentration of 0.015 g mL–1.
Dynamic Light Scattering
The size and the size distribution
of empty particles were measured by dynamic light scattering (DLS)
using a Malvern CGS-3 multiangle goniometer (Malvern ltd., Malvern),
consisting of a HeNe laser source (λ = 632.8 nm, 22 mW output
power), temperature controller (Julabo water bath) and a digital correlator
ALV-5000/EPP. Time correlation functions were analyzed using the ALV-60X0
Software v 3.X provided by Malvern, to obtain the Z-average hydrodynamic diameter of the particles (Zave) and the particle
size distribution (polydispersity index, PDI). The samples were analyzed
at 25 °C.
Micelles were formed by film-hydration. To prepare
micelles with
10% functional groups on the surface, ben-PCL7-PEG2000 and ben-PCL7-PEG2000-DBCO were dissolved
in dichloromethane (DCM, Sigma-Aldrich, Saint Louis, MS, USA) and
mixed in a 9:1 weight ratio in a 5 mL glass vial (VWR, Radnor, PA,
USA). To this mixture, the hydrophobic photosensitizer mTHPC (meta-tetra(hydroxyphenyl) chlorine, Biolitec AG, Jena, Germany)
in tetrahydrofuran (THF, Sigma-Aldrich, Saint Louis, MS, USA) was
added at a 5% w/w mTHPC/polymer ratio. DCM and THF were evaporated
under vacuum. The obtained polymer film was hydrated to a 20 mg/mL
solution in PBS for 2 h at RT, gently heated to 60 °C, and filtered
through a 0.22 μm filter. To obtain micelles with 5% surface
coverage with VHH 7D12[Fluo], the DBCO-micelles were reacted
with 7D12[Fluo]-N3 in a 2:1 molar DBCO:N3 ratio. To ensure efficient click reaction kinetics, we kept
the N3 and DBCO concentration >100 μM. Reactions
were allowed to proceed overnight in the dark at 4 °C with continuous
shaking at 450 rpm. The final product was analyzed by SDS-PAGE under
reducing conditions (Fluorescein signal and CBB staining). Nontargeted
mTHPC-ben-PCL7-PEG2000 micelles were prepared
according to the same procedure, but without incubation with 7D12[Fluo]-N3.
Cell Culture
The
EGFR-overexpressing squamous carcinoma
cell line A431 and the EGFR-negative glioma cell line E98[34] were cultured in DMEM (Lonza, Basel, Switzerland)
supplemented with 10% fetal calf serum (FCS, Gibco, Thermo Fisher
Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) and 40 μg/mL gentamycin (Centrafarm,
Etten-Leur, The Netherlands). Cells were incubated at 37 °C in
5% CO2 in a humidified atmosphere.
Flow Cytometry and Confocal
Fluorescence Microscopy Analysis
Cells were dissociated from
culture flasks with 10 mM EDTA, counted,
and transferred to V-bottom-shaped 96-well microplates (BD Biosciences,
Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA) at 5 × 105 cells/well. All
subsequent steps were done on ice and all washing steps were executed
by centrifugation of the plates at 1,500xg for 2 min. Cells were washed
twice with PBS and aspecific binding sites were blocked by preincubating
cells for 10 min with PBA (PBS, 0.5%BSA, 2% FCS). Subsequently cells
were incubated with 1 μM fluorescein-labeled VHHs in PBA for
20 min, washed and resuspended in PBA, and analyzed using the CyAn
ADP analyzer (Beckman Coulter, Fullerton, CA, USA).To analyze
uptake of VHH-micelles with flow cytometry, cells were grown to 80%
confluency in 8-well chambered glass slides (NUNC, Thermo Fisher Scientific,
Waltham, MA, USA) and incubated with 20 μM (=0.6 mg/mL) targeted
or nontargeted mTHPC-micelles or equimolar VHH concentrations at 37
°C for 30 min. Cells were washed twice with warm DMEM and dissociated
with trypsin at 37 °C. Then, cells were taken up in PBA and analyzed
using the CyAn flow cytometer. mTHPC was quantified with parameter
FL-8, fluorescein was quantified with parameter FL-1. To visualize
binding and uptake with confocal microscopy A431 and E98 cells were
grown in 8 wells Lab-Tek borosilicate coverglass chambers (Nunc, ThermoFisher
Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA), and incubated with the micelles and
controls as described for flow cytometry. After washing, cells were
kept in phenol red free DMEM supplemented with 20 mM HEPES, and imaged
on a TCS SP8 microscope (Leica Microsystems, Mannheim, Germany) equipped
with a HC PL APO C5 40×/0.85 dry objective. During imaging, cells
were maintained at 37 °C. The UV405 laser was used for excitation,
and emission was collected between 500 and 600 nm for fluorescein
and 630 and 730 nm for mTHPC.
Authors: Inês de Paula Costa Monteiro; Pedro Madureira; Alessandro de Vasconscelos; Daniel Humberto Pozza; Ramon Andrade de Mello Journal: Pharmacogenomics Date: 2015 Impact factor: 2.533
Authors: Rob C Roovers; Maria J W D Vosjan; Toon Laeremans; Rachid el Khoulati; Renée C G de Bruin; Kathryn M Ferguson; Arie J Verkleij; Guus A M S van Dongen; Paul M P van Bergen en Henegouwen Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2011-08-08 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Charlene M Dawidczyk; Chloe Kim; Jea Ho Park; Luisa M Russell; Kwan Hyi Lee; Martin G Pomper; Peter C Searson Journal: J Control Release Date: 2014-05-27 Impact factor: 9.776
Authors: Mohammad Rashidian; Lu Wang; Jerre G Edens; Johanne T Jacobsen; Intekhab Hossain; Qifan Wang; Gabriel D Victora; Neil Vasdev; Hidde Ploegh; Steven H Liang Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2015-12-02 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Jan-Willem Hofman; Myrra G Carstens; Femke van Zeeland; Conny Helwig; Frits M Flesch; Wim E Hennink; Cornelus F van Nostrum Journal: Pharm Res Date: 2008-07-03 Impact factor: 4.580
Authors: Patrick M Glassman; Landis R Walsh; Carlos H Villa; Oscar A Marcos-Contreras; Elizabeth D Hood; Vladimir R Muzykantov; Colin F Greineder Journal: Bioconjug Chem Date: 2020-03-20 Impact factor: 4.774
Authors: Emma Renard; Estel Collado Camps; Coline Canovas; Annemarie Kip; Martin Gotthardt; Mark Rijpkema; Franck Denat; Victor Goncalves; Sanne A M van Lith Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-01-23 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Yanna Liu; Luca Scrivano; Julia Denise Peterson; Marcel H A M Fens; Irati Beltrán Hernández; Bárbara Mesquita; Javier Sastre Toraño; Wim E Hennink; Cornelus F van Nostrum; Sabrina Oliveira Journal: Mol Pharm Date: 2020-03-13 Impact factor: 4.939