| Literature DB >> 30629625 |
Abhishek Singh Rathore1, Animesh Sarker1, Rinkoo Devi Gupta1.
Abstract
Dengue being one of the deadliest diseases of tropical regions, enforces to put continuous efforts for the development of vaccine and effective therapeutics. Most of the antibodies generated during dengue infection are non-neutralizing and cause antibody dependent enhancement. Hence, making a potent neutralizing antibody against all four dengue serotypes could be very effective for the treatment. However, designing a single antibody for all serotypes is difficult due to variation in protein sequences. Therefore, the objective is to identify conserved region of dengue envelope protein and then develop an antibody against that conserved region. Before advancing to the development of such an antibody, it is desirable to validate the interactions between antibody and dengue envelope protein. In silico analysis of such interactions provides a good platform to find out a suitable region to design and construct an antibody against it by analyzing antigen-antibody interaction before synthesizing the antibody. In this study, two highly conserved regions of dengue envelope protein were identified and an scFv was constructed against it. Both scFv and FuBc proteins were expressed in bacterial expression system and binding efficiency was analyzed by SPR analysis with KD value 2.3 μM. In order to improve binding efficiency, an in silico scFv mutant library was created which was virtually screened for higher binding efficiency. Six mutants with high binding efficiency were selected for further analysis. The binding ability of these mutants were predicted using simulation analysis which shows these mutations were stabilizing scFv-FuBc complex.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30629625 PMCID: PMC6328183 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209576
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 7scFv with FuBc interaction pose screening.
Selection of clusters with poses that are interacting with CDR region of scFv protein.
Fig 4Measurment of scFv affinity to FuBc by using SPR association and dissociation kinetics.
A) Sensorgram was achieved by applying scFv in mobile phase at different concentration starting from 10 μM to 50 ηM over the stationary phase of FuBC. B) Association constant (k) was calculated by measuring k/k kinetics from association curve. C) Dissociation constant (k) was calculated by measuring kk kinetics from dissociation curve. D) Finally, scFv affinity constant (K) was calculated by measuring k/k kinetics from affinity curve.
Conserved region of dengue envelope protein.
| Start | End | Length | MinCons | Sequence | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 353 | 360 | 8 | 94.18% | SRCPTQGE | |
| 378 | 392 | 15 | 99.84% | VDRGWGNGCGLFGKG | |
| 466 | 477 | 12 | 93.32% | CSPRTGLDFNEM | |
| 531 | 552 | 22 | 93.13% | VVVLGSQEGAMHTALTGATEIQ | |
All possible beneficial mutations for scFv protein that improves its binding to FuBc.
| Mutation | Mutation Energy | Mutation | Mutation Energy | Mutation | Mutation Energy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| THR28.GLN | -0.852045 | ||||
| THR59.ILE | -1.05671 | SER227.LEU | -0.86066 | ||
| THR30.PHE | -1.38101 | THR59.CYS | -0.90064 | SER227.ARG | -0.741184 |
| THR30.ILE | -1.37215 | THR59.PHE | -0.65846 | SER227.CYS | -0.64038 |
| THR30.LEU | -1.12846 | THR59.TRP | -0.54201 | SER227.MET | -0.61869 |
| THR30.CYS | -1.08166 | SER227.GLN | -0.57443 | ||
| THR30.VAL | -0.88388 | GLU61.PHE | -1.52833 | ||
| THR30.TYR | -0.859165 | GLU61.TYR | -0.801355 | ||
| GLU61.ARG | -0.72688 | PRO229.LYS | -1.05112 | ||
| ASP31.ARG | -2.34575 | GLU61.MET | -0.63501 | PRO229.CYS | -1.01353 |
| ASP31.ILE | -1.81088 | GLU61.GLN | -0.557085 | PRO229.ALA | -0.78185 |
| ASP31.LYS | -1.7751 | ||||
| ASP31.GLN | -1.66762 | GLY103.CYS | -0.757655 | HIS230.TRP | -2.30271 |
| ASP31.MET | -1.23667 | HIS230.TYR | -1.93659 | ||
| ASP31.TYR | -1.15606 | TYR105.PHE | -1.44166 | HIS230.LEU | -1.84049 |
| ASP31.LEU | -1.14876 | HIS230.ILE | -1.21832 | ||
| ASP31.CYS | -1.09831 | HIS230.ARG | -0.841608 | ||
| ASP31.THR | -1.09109 | SER165.TYR | -0.819385 | HIS230.GLU | -0.696465 |
| ASP31.ASN | -1.06624 | SER165.CYS | -0.657575 | HIS230.VAL | -0.62586 |
| ASP31.HIS | -0.855045 | SER165.GLN | -0.61451 | HIS230.MET | -0.57906 |
| ASP31.VAL | -0.81338 | SER165.ARG | -0.564398 | HIS230.SER | -0.56195 |
| ASP31.GLU | -0.63503 | HIS228.ASN | -0.532915 | ||
| TYR32.PHE | -0.52085 | SER226.TYR | -1.06741 | ||
| SER226.THR | -0.59387 | ||||
| SER226.CYS | -0.51582 |
Best stabilizing triple mutation combination for scFv with their mutation energy.
| Sr. No. | Mutation | Mutation Energy |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | THR30.TRP,TYR105.TRP,SER227.LEU | -9.57361 |
| 2 | THR30.TRP, ASP31.GLN,SER227.TRP | -9.23207 |
| 3 | THR30.TRP,ASP31.GLN,SER227.LEU | -8.9884 |
| 4 | THR30.TRP,ASP31.LEU,SER227.LEU | -8.61851 |
| 5 | THR30.TRP,ASP31.LEU,SER227.TRP | -8.576 |
| 6 | THR30.TRP,ASP31.THR,SER227.LEU | -8.55091 |
| 7 | THR30.TRP,GLY103.THR,SER227.TRP | -8.42681 |
| 8 | TYR33.GLN,GLY103.THR,SER227.LEU | -8.3736 |
| 9 | TYR33.GLN,GLY103.THR,SER227.TRP | -8.34917 |
| 10 | TYR32.TRP,THR30.PHE,SER227.LEU | -8.07606 |
| 11 | THR30.TRP,SER227.LEU,HIS230.TRP | -7.7884 |
| 12 | TYR105.TRP,ASP31.LEU,SER227.TRP | -7.70835 |
| 13 | THR30.TRP,TYR105.TRP,SER227.TRP | -7.61662 |
| 14 | THR30.TRP,GLY103.THR,SER227.LEU | -7.387 |
| 15 | THR30.TRP,ASP31.LEU,HIS230.PHE | -7.3348 |
| 16 | THR30.TRP,TYR32.TRP,SER227.LEU | -7.20526 |
| 17 | TYR105.TRP,ASP31.LEU,SER227.LEU | -7.15371 |
| 18 | ASP31.LEU,SER227.LEU,HIS230.TRP | -7.08499 |
| 19 | TYR32.TRP,THR30.PHE,SER227.TRP | -7.07932 |
| 20 | TYR105.TRP,SER227.LEU,HIS230.TRP | -7.02525 |
scFv molecular overlay with mutant superimposition RMSD.
| Molecule | Reference | Main-chain RMSD |
|---|---|---|
| scFv Mutant 15 | scFv 3IXY | 0.756 |
| scFv Mutant 12 | scFv 3IXY | 0.757 |
| scFv Mutant 8 | scFv 3IXY | 0.756 |
| scFv Mutant 7 | scFv 3IXY | 0.758 |
| scFv Mutant 2 | scFv 3IXY | 0.757 |
| scFv Mutant 1 | scFv 3IXY | 0.755 |
| scFv 3IXY | scFv 3IXY | 0.000 |