Jie Li1,2, Mingkuan Chen1, Zilei Liu1,2, Linda Zhang1, Brunie H Felding1, Kelley W Moremen3, Gregoire Lauvau4, Michael Abadier5, Klaus Ley5, Peng Wu1. 1. Department of Molecular Medicine, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, California 92037, United States. 2. Department of Chemistry, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, California 92037, United States. 3. Complex Carbohydrate Research Center, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602, United States. 4. Microbiology and Immunology Department, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York 10461, United States. 5. Division of Inflammation Biology, La Jolla Institute for Allergy and Immunology, La Jolla, California 92037, United States.
Abstract
Employing live cells as therapeutics is a direction of future drug discovery. An easy and robust method to modify the surfaces of cells directly to incorporate novel functionalities is highly desirable. However, genetic methods for cell-surface engineering are laborious and limited by low efficiency for primary cell modification. Here we report a chemoenzymatic approach that exploits a fucosyltransferase to transfer bio-macromolecules, such as an IgG antibody (MW∼ 150 KD), to the glycocalyx on the surfaces of live cells when the antibody is conjugated to the enzyme's natural donor substrate GDP-Fucose. Requiring no genetic modification, this method is fast and biocompatible with little interference to cells' endogenous functions. We applied this method to construct two antibody-cell conjugates (ACCs) using both cell lines and primary cells, and the modified cells exhibited specific tumor targeting and resistance to inhibitory signals produced by tumor cells, respectively. Remarkably, Herceptin-NK-92MI conjugates, a natural killer cell line modified with Herceptin, exhibit enhanced activities to induce the lysis of HER2+ cancer cells both ex vivo and in a human tumor xenograft model. Given the unprecedented substrate tolerance of the fucosyltransferase, this chemoenzymatic method offers a general approach to engineer cells as research tools and for therapeutic applications.
Employing live cells as therapeutics is a direction of future drug discovery. An easy and robust method to modify the surfaces of cells directly to incorporate novel functionalities is highly desirable. However, genetic methods for cell-surface engineering are laborious and limited by low efficiency for primary cell modification. Here we report a chemoenzymatic approach that exploits a fucosyltransferase to transfer bio-macromolecules, such as an IgG antibody (MW∼ 150 KD), to the glycocalyx on the surfaces of live cells when the antibody is conjugated to the enzyme's natural donor substrate GDP-Fucose. Requiring no genetic modification, this method is fast and biocompatible with little interference to cells' endogenous functions. We applied this method to construct two antibody-cell conjugates (ACCs) using both cell lines and primary cells, and the modified cells exhibited specific tumor targeting and resistance to inhibitory signals produced by tumor cells, respectively. Remarkably, Herceptin-NK-92MI conjugates, a natural killer cell line modified with Herceptin, exhibit enhanced activities to induce the lysis of HER2+ cancer cells both ex vivo and in a humantumor xenograft model. Given the unprecedented substrate tolerance of the fucosyltransferase, this chemoenzymatic method offers a general approach to engineer cells as research tools and for therapeutic applications.
Molecules
presented on the cell
surface determine how cells interact with their partners and their
environment. Methods for engineering the cell-surface landscape are
instrumental for the study of cell–cell communications and
the downstream signaling. Such methods also have brought breakthroughs
to therapeutic intervention.[1] The most
remarkable example is Kymriah, a chimeric antigen
receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy that was approved recently as the
first cell-based gene therapy in the United States for the treatment
of patients with B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia.[2,3]The major technical challenge in cell engineering is to confer
new properties to the manipulated cells with little interference with
the cells’ endogenous functions. As the most common and robust
cell-engineering approach, genetic engineering is limited by technical
complications and safety concerns (Figure A), such as the inconsistent reproducibility
of viral transduction efficiency of primary cells, heterogeneous expression
levels, and the potential for endogenous gene disruption.[4−6] Therefore, engineering cell surfaces from “outside”
using chemical biology tools has emerged as a complementary and generally
applicable approach.[7,8] Preeminent examples include metabolic
oligosaccharide engineering (MOE) developed by Bertozzi et al. (Figure A) and sortagging,
the transpeptidation reaction catalyzed by bacterial sortases, among
others.[7,9−11] MOE requires a two-step
procedure, combining metabolic labeling with bioorthogonal chemistry
to endow cell-surface glycans with new functions. Sortagging involves
only a single-step treatment. However, cells without genetic modification
only have a few thousand naturally exposed glycine residues that can
be functionalized by this approach.[12] Therefore,
direct functionalization of the cell surface in a noninvasive and
highly efficient way is still difficult to achieve.[7,11] Cell
engineering would benefit from a single-step method that efficiently
modifies native substrates on the surface of cells to incorporate
novel functionalities.
Figure 1
One-step fucosylation-based strategy for cell-surface
engineering:
(A) Two representative cell-surface engineering approaches. Metabolic
engineering is used to install a reaction handle (X) onto the surface
of the cell, which can react with a complementary handle (Y) on a
molecule of interest. Genetic engineering allows the direct expression
of functional molecules or the installation of reaction handles (X)
on the surfaces of cells. (B) This work reports on an enzymatic glycoengineering
approach capable of transferring a variety of functional molecules
to the surfaces of cells in one step. The reaction between LacNAc/sialyl
LacNAc and GDP-Fucose derivatives on the surfaces of cells is enabled
by H. pylori α1,3FucT that tolerates modifications
as large as a whole IgG conjugated at the C6 position of fucose. (C)
One-pot protocol for the synthesis of GF-Al and GF-Az derivatives.
The new functional group (Z) conjugated to fucose includes bioorthogonal
handles (tetrazine, Tz), biophysical probes (biotin, Cy3), and biomaterials
(ssDNA).
One-step fucosylation-based strategy for cell-surface
engineering:
(A) Two representative cell-surface engineering approaches. Metabolic
engineering is used to install a reaction handle (X) onto the surface
of the cell, which can react with a complementary handle (Y) on a
molecule of interest. Genetic engineering allows the direct expression
of functional molecules or the installation of reaction handles (X)
on the surfaces of cells. (B) This work reports on an enzymatic glycoengineering
approach capable of transferring a variety of functional molecules
to the surfaces of cells in one step. The reaction between LacNAc/sialyl
LacNAc and GDP-Fucose derivatives on the surfaces of cells is enabled
by H. pylori α1,3FucT that tolerates modifications
as large as a whole IgG conjugated at the C6 position of fucose. (C)
One-pot protocol for the synthesis of GF-Al and GF-Az derivatives.
The new functional group (Z) conjugated to fucose includes bioorthogonal
handles (tetrazine, Tz), biophysical probes (biotin, Cy3), and biomaterials
(ssDNA).In situ glycan editing via glycosylation
enzymes
is a single-step approach to modify glycocalyx on the cell surface.
The most notable example of its application is ex vivo fucosylation of mesenchymal stem cells and regulatory T cells using
GDP-Fucose (GF) and recombinant human α(1,3)-fucosyltransferase
(FucT) VI to convert cell-surface α2,3 sialyl LacNAc (Neu5NAcα2,3Galβ1,4GlcNAc)
residues into sialyl Lewis X.[13,14] This procedure, currently
undergoing several clinical trials, improves adhesion, homing, and
engraftment of adoptively transferred cells. However, enzymatic glycoengineering
on the cell surface has not been widely used in therapeutic interventions.[7] A major limitation is that current enzymatic
transferable substrates are confined to small, synthetic molecules
(MW < 5000),[15−17] while biopolymers (e.g., monoclonal antibodies, mAbs)
that have high therapeutic value are not accessible.Here, we
report the discovery of the remarkable substrate tolerance
of Helicobacter pylori 26695 α1,3FucT. This
enzyme enables quantitative transfer of a full-length IgG antibody
conjugated to the GDP-Fucosedonor to LacNAc and α2,3 sialyl
LacNAc, common building blocks of glycocalyx, on the cell surface
of live cells within a few minutes (Figure B). A one-pot protocol that couples the synthesis
of an unnatural GDP-Fucose derivative to the subsequent transfer
of the derivative was developed and made this engineering approach
practical and cost-effective. Using this technique, we constructed
two types of antibody–cell conjugates (ACCs) using a natural
killer cell line (NK-92MI) and primary CD8+ OT-1 T cells. We demonstrated,
for the first time, the application of this technique to boost the
activities of modified immune cells, including specific tumor targeting
and resistance to inhibitory signals produced by tumor cells.
Results
and Discussion
One-Pot Protocol for Preparing and Transferring
GDP-Fucose Derivatives
To develop the enzyme-based glycan
modification as a general method
for cell-surface engineering, a practical and scalable approach for
the preparation and transfer of nucleotide sugar donors equipped with
new functional groups is required.[18] We
discovered that GDP-l-6-ethynylfucose (GF-Al) or GDP-l-6-azidofucose (GF-Az) produced in situ can
be coupled directly with a wide variety of probes using the ligand
accelerated copper(I)-catalyzed alkyne–azide cycloaddition
(CuAAC)[19−21] (Figure C). These probes include biotin, a fluorescent probe Cy3,
a bioorthogonal reaction handle tetrazine (Tz), and a dye-labeled
(fluorescein amidite, FAM), single-strand DNA (ssDNA) (Supporting Information, Figure S1). All reactions attained near quantitative yields (>90%), and
the
crude products were rendered biocompatible for direct transfer by
α1,3 FucT onto the cell surface after quenching the reaction
with the FDA-approved copper chelator bathocuproine sulfonate (BCS)
(Supporting Information, Figure S2). Compared
to the conventional two-step labeling protocol,[16] i.e., enzymatic transfer followed by cell-surface click
chemistry, the one-step enzymatic labeling using the substrate of
one-pot product was significantly more efficient and biocompatible
(Supporting Information, Figure S3). In
addition, we found that the enzymatic transfer of the one-pot Tz derivative
made from GF-Az was more efficient than that made from GF-Al (Supporting
Information, Figure S2D).Sortagging
is probably the best known enzymatic covalent ligation reaction without
the need for genetic manipulation of the target cell population.[12,22] We directly compared the efficiency of the FucT-mediated cell-surface
modification with that catalyzed by sortase (SrtA 5M)
using biotin-conjugated substrates. At the optimal substrate concentration
(500 μM biotin-LPETG), negligible transpeptidation reaction
took place within 2 h in the presence of 1 μM sortase (Supporting
Information, Figure S4A). By contrast,
0.6 μM FucT afforded robust cell-surface labeling within 2 min
in the presence of 50 μM GDP-Fucose–biotin (Supporting
Information, Figure S4B). Even at 20 μM
enzyme concentration, it took 120 min for sortagging to reach signal
saturation.[22] Moreover, when 0.6 μM
FucT and 20 μM sortase were used for cell-surface modification,
respectively, the labeling intensity of the FucT-catalyzed process
was found to be at least 80 times higher than that of the sortase-catalyzed
process (Supporting Information, Figure S4A).
Enzymatic Transfer of Full-Length IgG Molecules to the Cell
Surface Using FucT
The remarkable efficiency of fucosylation
to transfer small-molecule probes with diverse structures to the cell
surface combined with the previous known plasticity of mammalian sialyltransferases
for protein PEGylation suggests the possibility that FucT may tolerate
even larger molecules conjugated to the fucose C6 position.[16,23] To assess this possibility, we conjugated GDP-Fucose with monoclonal
antibodies (mAbs, full-length IgG), the fastest growing class of protein
drugs. The bioorthogonal handle trans-cyclooctene
(TCO) with a PEG linker was installed onto mAbs or their isotype controls
via standard amine-coupling procedures.[24] Subsequently, mAbs bearing TCO moieties were reacted with GF-Az-Tz
via the highly efficient inverse electron-demand Diels–Alder
reaction (IEDDA)[25−27] to generate GDP-Fucose-conjugated IgG molecules (GF-IgG)
(Figure A). GDP-Fucose-modified
antibodies were characterized by MALDI-TOF MS and were found to exhibit
similar antigen-binding capacities compared to their parent antibodies
(Supporting Information, Figure S5).
Figure 2
Enzymatic transfer
of IgG to the surfaces of Lec2 CHO cells: (A)
The synthesis of a GDP-Fucose-conjugated IgG (GF-IgG). (B) Workflow
of the FucT-catalyzed transfer of GF-IgG to the surface of Lec2 CHO
cells. (C) Flow cytometry analysis of Lec2 cells treated with the enzyme
FucT, the substrate GF-rIgG, or both. (D) Titration of GF-rIgG,
concentrations ranging from 0.005 to 0.2 mg/mL in the reaction buffer;
each reaction used 60 mU FucT and proceeded at room temperature for
30 min; mean ± SD (error bars), representative graph from three
independent experiments. (E) Time course of enzymatic transfer of
GF-rIgG to Lec2 cells on ice; reaction at 37 °C was used as the
maximum labeling control. (F) Fluorescent gel imaging for detecting
and quantifying rIgG (Alexa Fluor 647-labeled) molecules conjugated
on the Lec2 cell surface. (G) Confocal microscopy images of Lec2
cells treated with or without FucT when incubated with Alexa Fluor
647-labeled GF-rIgG; nuclei were stained with Hoechst 33342. Scale
bar: 2 μm. (H) Flow cytometry analysis of Lec2 cells simultaneously
labeled with rIgG and mIgG. (I) Lec8 CHO cells without LacNAc expression
were compared with Lec2 cells in the enzymatic IgG transfer as a negative
control; mean ± SD (error bars), representative graph from three
independent experiments. α1,3FucT is abbreviated as FT
in all figures.
Enzymatic transfer
of IgG to the surfaces of Lec2 CHO cells: (A)
The synthesis of a GDP-Fucose-conjugated IgG (GF-IgG). (B) Workflow
of the FucT-catalyzed transfer of GF-IgG to the surface of Lec2 CHO
cells. (C) Flow cytometry analysis of Lec2 cells treated with the enzyme
FucT, the substrate GF-rIgG, or both. (D) Titration of GF-rIgG,
concentrations ranging from 0.005 to 0.2 mg/mL in the reaction buffer;
each reaction used 60 mU FucT and proceeded at room temperature for
30 min; mean ± SD (error bars), representative graph from three
independent experiments. (E) Time course of enzymatic transfer of
GF-rIgG to Lec2 cells on ice; reaction at 37 °C was used as the
maximum labeling control. (F) Fluorescent gel imaging for detecting
and quantifying rIgG (Alexa Fluor 647-labeled) molecules conjugated
on the Lec2 cell surface. (G) Confocal microscopy images of Lec2
cells treated with or without FucT when incubated with Alexa Fluor
647-labeled GF-rIgG; nuclei were stained with Hoechst 33342. Scale
bar: 2 μm. (H) Flow cytometry analysis of Lec2 cells simultaneously
labeled with rIgG and mIgG. (I) Lec8 CHO cells without LacNAc expression
were compared with Lec2 cells in the enzymatic IgG transfer as a negative
control; mean ± SD (error bars), representative graph from three
independent experiments. α1,3FucT is abbreviated as FT
in all figures.The one-pot product of
GDP-Fucose-conjugated rat IgG (GF-rIgG)
was then incubated with Lec2 CHO cells that express abundant terminal
LacNAc units in the presence of FucT (Figure B). Remarkably, the signal of rIgG conjugated
onto the cell surface was detectable after a 2-min incubation with
FucT (60 mU) and GF-rIgG (0.1 mg/mL) (Figure C). The labeling efficiency was concentration-dependent
(GF-rIgG), which reached saturation at 0.1 mg/mL during a 30-min reaction
course (Figure D). Notably, the conjugation reaction was completed in 10 min even
on ice (Figure E).
At the saturated condition, approximately 2.5 × 105 rIgG molecules were introduced to the cell surface (Figure F, and Supporting Information, Figure S6A). The viability of the rIgG-labeled
cells was similar to that of unlabeled cells, which confirmed the
biocompatibility of this one-pot procedure (Supporting Information, Figure S7). Furthermore, confocal microscopy
analysis verified that most of the labeled rIgGs were located on the
cell membrane (Figure G). It is worth noting that multiple functionalities can be introduced
to the cell-surface simultaneously, e.g., two antibodies (GF-rIgG
and GF-mIgG—GDP-Fucose-modified mouse IgG) (Figure H, and Supporting Information, Figure S8). Such results are difficult to achieve
via genetic approaches, especially when three or four antibodies need
to be installed.To confirm that cell-surface LacNAc and sialyl
LacNAc are still
the conjugation sites of this enzyme-mediated IgG transfer, Lec8 cells,
a mutant CHO cell line that do not express galactose and sialic acid
and accordingly without LacNAc, were used as a negative control. As
expected, only background fluorescence was displayed by Lec8 cells
after the enzymatic reaction (Figure I). To further validate this observation, we performed
a competition experiment in which the known acceptor substrate, free
LacNAc or α2,3 sialyl LacNAc,[16,28] was mixed
together with NK-92 cells to compete for the FucT-mediated GF-IgG
transfer. Not surprisingly, a dose-dependent inhibition was observed
in each case with LacNAc showing more pronounced blocking of the GF-IgG
transfer than α2,3 sialyl LacNAc (Supporting Information, Figure S9A,B). Likewise, we observed that the
transfer of GF-IgG to the cell surface could be blocked by the natural
donor substrate GDP-Fucose as well (Supporting Information, Figure S9A,C,D). Significantly, ACCs can also
be constructed using other human fucosyltransferases, such as
FucT 6 and 9 (Supporting Information, Figure S10A), and sialyltransferases (Supporting Information, Figure S10B) despite with much lower efficiency
compared with H. pylori 26695 α1,3FucT.To demonstrate that this approach can be applied to modify other
cell types, primary human cells, e.g., T cells, were subjected to
the FucT-mediated conjugation; robust cell labeling with IgGs was
achieved within 15 min (Supporting Information, Figures S11 and S6B). We confirmed that the bioconjugation
of IgG molecules to the cell surface had no short-term interference
with the expression of cell-surface markers (Supporting Information, Figure S12). The half-life of IgG molecules conjugated
to the human T cell surface is approximately 24 h, and the conjugation
had no effect on the proliferation of the modified cells (Supporting
Information, Figure S11C,D).Taken
together, we confirmed that the transfer of GF-IgG to LacNAc
on the cell surface via FucT is a highly efficient one-step approach
to construct ACC. With this powerful method in hand, we explored its
application to construct ACCs using various immune cells for boosting
the efficacy of cell-based therapies.
Herceptin-NK-92MI Conjugates
Enable Specific Killing of HER2+
Tumor Cells in a Murine Model
Specific targeting is key for
the success of cell-based cancer immunotherapy. In innate immunity
human natural killer (NK) cells play crucial roles in the rejection
of tumors and virally infected cells.[29] NK-92, a constantly active and nonimmunogenic natural killer (NK)
cell line, is being developed in bulk quantities as an “off-the-shelf
therapeutic” for adoptive NK-based cancer immunotherapy in
clinical evaluations.[29,30] However, NK-92 cells do not express
Fc receptors for antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC),
a mechanism for specific cell lysis, which significantly limits their
clinical applications.[29] We speculate that
modifying NK-92 cells with antibodies against specific tumor antigens
via the chemoenzymatic conjugation may confer NK-92 cells with specific
targeting capability (Figure A). We chose NK-92MI cells, an IL-2-independent variant of
the NK-92 cell line, as the candidate for bioconjugation with Herceptin
because it expresses a high level of LacNAc to be modified by GDP-Fucose-conjugated
human IgG (GF-hIgG) (Supporting Information, Figure S13A). Herceptin, also known as Trastuzumab, is a FDA approved
antibody to treat humanepidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive
(HER2+) breast cancer. We calculated that approximately 3 × 105 Herceptin molecules were conjugated to the surface of a NK-92MI
cell, which equaled ∼7.5 ng Herceptin/105 cells
(Supporting Information, Figure S6C). Herceptin
conjugated to the surface of NK-92MI cells maintains exclusive binding
to the HER2 antigen (Figure B, and Supporting Information, Figure S13B,C), and its cell-surface half-life is approximately 20
h (Supporting Information, Figure S13D).
As revealed by flow cytometry analysis and fluorescent microscopy
imaging NK-92MI cells conjugated with Herceptin formed clusters with
BT474—a HER2+ breast cancer cell—in a coculture assay,
whereas no cluster formation was observed between unmodified
NK-92MI cells and BT474 (Figure C,D). Moreover, NK-92MI cells modified with Herceptin
induced the lysis of BT474 cells at least 7 times more efficiently
than unmodified NK-92MI cells (Figure E). Neither isotype control hIgG labeling nor cotreatment
with excess, free Herceptin (1 μg/105 NK cells) could
enhance the killing activity of NK-92MI on BT474, indicating that
covalent conjugation of Herceptin to the surface of NK-92MI cells
is required (Figure E). Importantly, the cell-lysis efficiency of the modified NK-92MI
cells also was dependent on the loading of Herceptin on the cell
surface, which reached the plateau when 0.1 mg/mL of GF-Herceptin
was used for enzymatic transfer (Figure F, Supporting Information, Figure S14). The enhanced killing effect of Herceptin-NK92-MI
conjugates later was confirmed on other HER2+ cancer cells, including
SKBR3 and MDA-MB-435/HER2+, but not on HER2 negative (HER2−)
cancer cells, such as MDA-MB-435 and MDA-MB-468 (Figure G). In addition, the total
secretion of granzyme B was elevated only when Herceptin-NK-92MI conjugates
were mixed with BT474 (Supporting Information, Figure S13E), strongly suggesting that the interaction between
Herceptin and HER2 is key to enhance NK-92MI cell activation. Similar
to other cell-mediated cytotoxicity, higher effector-to-target cell
ratios also show better killing, but only in the Herceptin-labeled
NK-92MI group, which reaches saturation at E/T 5:1 (Figure H). As mentioned above, another
distinct advantage of enzymatic cell engineering is that several antibodies
can be conjugated onto the surface of a cell at the same time. As
proof-of-concept, we conjugated NK-92MI cells with both Herceptin
and an anti-EGFR antibody (Supporting Information, Figure S15), and the dually modified cells exhibited better
killing efficiency on SKOV3 cells (HER2+EGFR+) than that induced by
the single-mAb-modified counterparts (Figure I).
Figure 3
Construction of Herceptin-NK-92MI conjugates
for targeting HER2+
cancer cells: (A) Herceptin-NK-92MI conjugates specifically bind to
HER2+ cancer cells and exhibit enhanced killing activities due to
proximity effects. (B) Analysis of HER2 binding of Hereceptin-NK-92MI
conjugates. Mean ± SD (error bars). Flow cytometry analysis (C)
and fluorescent microscopy images (D) of specific binding between
Herceptin-NK-92MI conjugates and BT474 (HER2+); NK-92MI cells were
stained with CellTracker Orange (red), and BT474 cells were stained
with CellTracker Green (green). The merged channels of fluorescence
and phase contrast are shown; the green fields represent clusters
of BT474 cells. Scale bar: 50 μm. (E) LDH release assay for
quantifying induced lysis of BT474 cells by NK-92MI cells; Herceptin-NK-92MI
conjugates were compared with parental NK-92MI with or without additionally
added free Herceptin (5 μg/mL). hIgG-NK-92MI conjugates were
used as a negative control. Mean ± SD (error bars), representative
graph from three independent experiments. (F) Killing activity of
Herceptin-NK-92MI conjugates constructed at different GF-Herceptin
concentrations. Mean ± SD (error bars). (G) Comparisons of NK-92MI
and Herceptin-NK-92MI conjugates in killing different cancer cell
lines with or without HER2 expression. Mean ± SD (error bars),
representative graph from three independent experiments. (H) Comparisons
of NK-92MI and Herceptin-NK-92MI conjugates in killing BT474 at different
effector-to-target cell ratios. Mean ± SD (error bars). (I) Herceptin
and α-EGFR dual-labeled NK-92MI cells were compared with Herceptin-NK-92MI
conjugates and α-EGFR-NK-92MI conjugates in killing HER2+EGFR+
SKOV3 cancer cells. Mean ± SD (error bars). (J) Comparison of
nonirradiated and irradiated (6 Gy) NK-92MI cells in killing BT474
cells. (K) In vivo antitumor activity of Herceptin-NK-92MI
conjugates. NSG mice were injected intravenously with 0.5 million
MDA-MB-435/HER2+/F-luc cells. Then, the animals were treated once
by IV injection of 3 million NK-92MI or Herceptin-NK-92MI cells on
day 1 after the injection of the tumor cells. The control mice received
HBSS. Six days after the tumor challenge, the mice were injected IP
with d-luciferin and imaged by IVIS system. The sizes of
the tumors of the mice and mean values ± SD are shown; n = 10. Representative images also are shown. In all figures,
ns, P > 0.05; *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001; ****P < 0.0001; one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s
multiple comparisons test, two-way ANOVA followed by Sidak’s
multiple comparisons test.
Construction of Herceptin-NK-92MI conjugates
for targeting HER2+
cancer cells: (A) Herceptin-NK-92MI conjugates specifically bind to
HER2+ cancer cells and exhibit enhanced killing activities due to
proximity effects. (B) Analysis of HER2 binding of Hereceptin-NK-92MI
conjugates. Mean ± SD (error bars). Flow cytometry analysis (C)
and fluorescent microscopy images (D) of specific binding between
Herceptin-NK-92MI conjugates and BT474 (HER2+); NK-92MI cells were
stained with CellTracker Orange (red), and BT474 cells were stained
with CellTracker Green (green). The merged channels of fluorescence
and phase contrast are shown; the green fields represent clusters
of BT474 cells. Scale bar: 50 μm. (E) LDH release assay for
quantifying induced lysis of BT474 cells by NK-92MI cells; Herceptin-NK-92MI
conjugates were compared with parental NK-92MI with or without additionally
added free Herceptin (5 μg/mL). hIgG-NK-92MI conjugates were
used as a negative control. Mean ± SD (error bars), representative
graph from three independent experiments. (F) Killing activity of
Herceptin-NK-92MI conjugates constructed at different GF-Herceptin
concentrations. Mean ± SD (error bars). (G) Comparisons of NK-92MI
and Herceptin-NK-92MI conjugates in killing different cancer cell
lines with or without HER2 expression. Mean ± SD (error bars),
representative graph from three independent experiments. (H) Comparisons
of NK-92MI and Herceptin-NK-92MI conjugates in killing BT474 at different
effector-to-target cell ratios. Mean ± SD (error bars). (I) Herceptin
and α-EGFR dual-labeled NK-92MI cells were compared with Herceptin-NK-92MI
conjugates and α-EGFR-NK-92MI conjugates in killing HER2+EGFR+
SKOV3cancer cells. Mean ± SD (error bars). (J) Comparison of
nonirradiated and irradiated (6 Gy) NK-92MI cells in killing BT474
cells. (K) In vivo antitumor activity of Herceptin-NK-92MI
conjugates. NSG mice were injected intravenously with 0.5 million
MDA-MB-435/HER2+/F-luc cells. Then, the animals were treated once
by IV injection of 3 million NK-92MI or Herceptin-NK-92MI cells on
day 1 after the injection of the tumor cells. The control mice received
HBSS. Six days after the tumor challenge, the mice were injected IP
with d-luciferin and imaged by IVIS system. The sizes of
the tumors of the mice and mean values ± SD are shown; n = 10. Representative images also are shown. In all figures,
ns, P > 0.05; *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001; ****P < 0.0001; one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s
multiple comparisons test, two-way ANOVA followed by Sidak’s
multiple comparisons test.The promising results of enhanced ex vivo killing
ability of Herceptin-NK92-MI conjugates led us to test their efficacy in vivo. Since NK-92 is developed from a patient with lymphoma,
as a safety measure, it is usually irradiated prior to clinical use
to prevent permanent engraftment in the human body. As expected, irradiation
of 6 Gy prevented the proliferation of NK-92MI cells (Supporting Information, Figure S16A). We found that γ-irradiated
NK-92MI cells maintained their cytotoxicity (Figure J), and the half-life of Herceptin conjugated
to the irradiated NK-92MI was slightly longer than that of the
nonirradiated cells (Supporting Information, Figure S16B). To evaluate the in vivo efficacy of
Herceptin-NK-92MI conjugates, we chose an experimental lung metastasis
model in which NSG mice received intravenous (IV) injections of MDA-MB-435/HER2+/F-luc
cells (stably transduced with firefly luciferase). One day after being
inoculated with the tumor cells, the mice were treated by IV injections
of irradiated parental NK-92MI cells or Herceptin-NK-92MI conjugates
while the nontreated group was injected with Hank’s balanced
salt solution (HBSS). Six days after tumor inoculations, the volumes
of the tumors in the lungs were determined by longitudinal, noninvasive
bioluminescence imaging. While treatment with parental NK-92MI cells
only moderately reduced the formation of tumors in the lungs (∼48%
less than the HBSS group), Herceptin-labeled NK-92MI cells exhibited
significantly enhanced in vivo tumor killing activity
(∼83% less than the HBSS group) (Figure K). To assess if Herceptin-NK92-MI conjugates
were effective to treat established tumors, NSG mice were injected
with luciferase-bearing MDA-MB-435/HER2+ cells intravenously. Three
days later, the growth of tumor cells in the lung region was revealed
by a 3fold increase in bioluminescence (Supporting Information, Figure S17). The mice were then treated by IV
injections of irradiated parental NK-92MI cells or Herceptin-NK-92MI
conjugates on day 3, day 9, and day 17. On day 23, bioluminescence
imaging showed that tumor growth was significantly suppressed by Herceptin-labeled
NK-92MI cells compared to unmodified NK-92MI cells (Supporting Information, Figure S17).
Anti-PD-L1 (α-PD-L1)
Conjugated on the Surfaces of CD8+
T Cells Could Block the PD-1–PD-L1 Pathway and Enhance
the Proliferation of T Cells ex Vivo
Even
after infiltrating the tumor bed, cytotoxic functions of effector
cells may be dampened by factors produced in the microenvironment
of the tumor.[31] As another application
of our new technique, we sought to determine whether CD8+ T cells
modified by cell-surface mAb conjugation could counteract such inhibitory
signals to maintain their activities. The interaction between programmed
death 1 (PD-1) receptor, found on T cells, and PD-Ligand (PD-L) expressed
by tumor cells plays a major role in inhibiting the cytotoxicity of
T cells[32] (Figure A). We hypothesize that the installation
of α-PD-L1 on the surfaces of T cells may block the PD-1–PD-L1
interaction in situ to enhance the activation of
the T cells and thus enforcing tumor cell lysis (Figure B).
Figure 4
Enzymatic transfer of
α-PD-L1 to OT-1 T cells for enhanced
T-cell activation and specific killing: (A) Schematic illustration
of the interaction between OT-1 T cells and B16-OVA melanoma cells.
MHC molecules on B16-OVA present OVA antigen to OVA-specific TCR on
OT-1 T cells to induce activation, while PD-L1 on B16-OVA interact
with PD-1 on OT-1 T cells to inhibit the T-cell effector function.
(B) Schematic illustration of the blockade of PD-1–PD-L1 pathway
via α-PD-L1 conjugated on the surfaces of OT-1 T cells. The in situ blockade could enhance T-cell activation and the
killing of cancer cells. (C) Analysis of PD-L1 antigen binding on
OT-1 T cells for different treatments. Mean ± SD (error bars).
(D) Analysis of PD-L1 antigen binding of OT-1 T cells modified with
various concentrations of GF-α-PD-L1. Mean ± SD (error
bars). (E) Quantifying α-PD-L1-OT-1 T cell conjugates
mediated killing of B16-OVA cells. Mean ± SD (error bars), representative
graph from three independent experiments. OT-1 T cells conjugated
with rIgG and P14 T cells conjugated with α-PD-L1 were shown
as negative control. (F) Comparison of OT-1 T cells and α-PD-L1-OT-1
T cell conjugates in killing B16-OVA at different effector-to-target
cell ratios. Mean ± SD (error bars). (G) Killing activities of
OT-1 T cells and α-PD-L1-OT-1 T cell conjugates constructed
at different GF-α-PD-L1 concentrations. Mean ± SD (error
bars). (H) Comparison of α-PD-L1-OT-1 T cell conjugates with
OT-1 T cells with or without additionally added free α-PD-L1
(5 μg/mL) in killing B16-OVA (3 h incubation). (I) IFN-γ
secretion analysis of modified or unmodified OT-1 T cells in a B16-OVA
cell co-culture assay. P14 T cells conjugated with α-PD-L1 were
used as a negative control. Mean ± SD (error bars), representative
graph from three independent experiments. (J) Microscopy images of
OT-1 T cell-induced killing of B16-OVA with or without α-PD-L1
labeling. The blue arrow indicates fewer cancer cells, and the purple
arrow indicates larger clusters of T cells. Scale bar: 50 μm.
(K) Analysis of OT-1 T cell proliferation via CFSE dilution in a B16-OVA
cell co-culture assay. Mean ± SD (error bars). In all figures,
ns, P > 0.05; **P < 0.01;
***P < 0.001; ****P < 0.0001;
one-way
ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparisons test, two-way
ANOVA followed by Sidak’s multiple comparisons test.
Enzymatic transfer of
α-PD-L1 to OT-1 T cells for enhanced
T-cell activation and specific killing: (A) Schematic illustration
of the interaction between OT-1 T cells and B16-OVA melanoma cells.
MHC molecules on B16-OVA present OVA antigen to OVA-specific TCR on
OT-1 T cells to induce activation, while PD-L1 on B16-OVA interact
with PD-1 on OT-1 T cells to inhibit the T-cell effector function.
(B) Schematic illustration of the blockade of PD-1–PD-L1 pathway
via α-PD-L1 conjugated on the surfaces of OT-1 T cells. The in situ blockade could enhance T-cell activation and the
killing of cancer cells. (C) Analysis of PD-L1 antigen binding on
OT-1 T cells for different treatments. Mean ± SD (error bars).
(D) Analysis of PD-L1 antigen binding of OT-1 T cells modified with
various concentrations of GF-α-PD-L1. Mean ± SD (error
bars). (E) Quantifying α-PD-L1-OT-1 T cell conjugates
mediated killing of B16-OVA cells. Mean ± SD (error bars), representative
graph from three independent experiments. OT-1 T cells conjugated
with rIgG and P14 T cells conjugated with α-PD-L1 were shown
as negative control. (F) Comparison of OT-1 T cells and α-PD-L1-OT-1
T cell conjugates in killing B16-OVA at different effector-to-target
cell ratios. Mean ± SD (error bars). (G) Killing activities of
OT-1 T cells and α-PD-L1-OT-1 T cell conjugates constructed
at different GF-α-PD-L1 concentrations. Mean ± SD (error
bars). (H) Comparison of α-PD-L1-OT-1 T cell conjugates with
OT-1 T cells with or without additionally added free α-PD-L1
(5 μg/mL) in killing B16-OVA (3 h incubation). (I) IFN-γ
secretion analysis of modified or unmodified OT-1 T cells in a B16-OVA
cell co-culture assay. P14 T cells conjugated with α-PD-L1 were
used as a negative control. Mean ± SD (error bars), representative
graph from three independent experiments. (J) Microscopy images of
OT-1 T cell-induced killing of B16-OVA with or without α-PD-L1
labeling. The blue arrow indicates fewer cancer cells, and the purple
arrow indicates larger clusters of T cells. Scale bar: 50 μm.
(K) Analysis of OT-1 T cell proliferation via CFSE dilution in a B16-OVA
cell co-culture assay. Mean ± SD (error bars). In all figures,
ns, P > 0.05; **P < 0.01;
***P < 0.001; ****P < 0.0001;
one-way
ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparisons test, two-way
ANOVA followed by Sidak’s multiple comparisons test.OT-1 transgenic mice were chosen
as the model system whose CD8+
T cells express a T cell receptor (TCR) specific for the SIINFEKL
peptide (OVA257–264) of ovalbumin presented on major
histocompatibility complex I (MHC I) molecules. Splenocytes from the
OT-1 mice were first stimulated with OVA257–264 peptide
and expanded ex vivo in the presence of cytokines IL2
or IL7/IL15 (Supporting Information, Figure S18C). The expanded OT-1 T cells were confirmed to express
high levels of LacNAc (Supporting Information, Figure S18B) and were subjected to the chemoenzymatic modification
with GF-rIgG (Supporting Information, Figure S18C). Restimulation experiments confirmed that the modified T cells
had a similar proliferation rate to that of the unmodified cells,
suggesting that the conjugated IgG molecules do not block the interaction
between TCR and the MHC I-complex (Supporting Information, Figure S18D).Subsequently, CD8+ T cells
from OT-1 or P14mice that carry
a transgenic TCR recognizing the gp33-41 epitope of lymphocytic
choriomeningitis virus, were modified with GF-α-PD-L1 using
chemoenzymatic glycan engineering (Supporting Information, Figure S19A,B). α-PD-L1 maintained its
antigen-binding capacity upon cell-surface conjugation (Figure C, and Supporting Information, Figure S19C). As expected, the degrees of both
cell-surface conjugation and antigen binding were dependent on the
concentration of GF-α-PD-L1 (Figure D, and Supporting Information, Figure S19D). At the saturated condition, approximately
7 × 104 anti-PD-L1 molecules were conjugated to the
OT-1 T cell surface (Supporting Information, Figure S6D). Then, the modified OT-1 CD8+ T cells were subjected
to an ex vivo killing assay, in which a B6-derived
melanoma cell line B16F10 expressing ovalbumin (B16-OVA) was used
as model target cells. After incubation for 20 h, the OT-1 T cells
conjugated with α-PD-L1 showed significantly enhanced lysis
of B16-OVA cells (Figure E), and the enhanced killing effect was observed only when
the effector-to-target cell ratio was above 1 (Figure F). By contrast, the specific lysis of B16-OVA
induced by the rIgG-OT-1 T cell conjugates was much weaker, which
is similar to that of the control, unmodified T cells (Figure E). CD8+ T cells of irrelevant
specificity from P14mice also were conjugated with α-PD-L1
as a negative control. Remarkably, this ACC only induced background
killing (Figure E),
suggesting that trace levels of α-PD-L1 conjugated to the surfaces
of the cells could not mediate significant target cell lysis. Although
the antigen-binding capacity reached the maximum when 0.1 mg/mL GF-α-PD-L1
was used in the enzymatic transfer reaction (Figure D), the optimal killing capacity was achieved
at ∼0.05 mg/mL GF-α-PD-L1 (Figure G), suggesting that only half of the maximum
cell-surface conjugation is required for efficient blocking of the
PD-1–PD-L1 interaction. Moreover, using the same killing assay
we observed that α-PD-L1-modified OT-1 cells exhibited significantly
better lysis than a simple combination of OT-1 cells with free α-PD-L1
(Figure H). The antibodies
conjugated to the T cells’ surface was approximately 1.8 ng/1
× 105 cells, which is much lower than the concentration
of free antibodies used in the control experiment (500 ng/1 ×
105 cells).To further determine whether the cell-surface-conjugated
α-PD-L1
could suppress PD-1–PD-L1 coinhibitory signaling, we measured
the cytokine production of the modified OT-1 T cells when they were
mixed with B16-OVA. Enhanced IFN-γ and TNF-α secretion
was only observed in T cells conjugated with α-PD-L1, which
exhibited dependency on the dose of conjugated α-PD-L1 (Figure I, and Supporting
Information, Figure S20). Enhanced T-cell
activation also was observed directly using microscopy due to the
formation of larger clusters of T cells in the α-PD-L1-labeled
group (Figure J, and
Supporting Information, Figure S21A). Finally,
we found that the cell-surface conjugated α-PD-L1 also
promoted T cell proliferation as confirmed by a CFSE dilution assay
when the modified OT-1 T cells were re-stimulated with B16-OVA (Figure K, and Supporting
Information, Figure S21B).
Summary
The one-step FucT-based chemoenzymatic method developed here is
a fast, simple, and cost-effective technique for cell engineering.
Via this technique, both bio-macromolecules, including proteins and
nucleic acids, and small-molecule probes, e.g., fluorescent and biophysical
probes, can be introduced to the cell surface without genetic modification
of the host cells. Targeting oligosaccharides—the most abundant
biopolymers found on the cell surface—we have demonstrated
that as many as 300 000 copies of functionalities can be incorporated.Using this method, we successfully constructed two ACCs, which
exhibited enhanced activities in two critical stages of anticancer
immune responses, i.e., targeting and killing. Although mAbs conjugated
on the cell surface are diluted due to internalization and cell proliferation
(cell-surface half-life ∼8–24 h in our experiments),
this method offers several advantages over genetic-based engineering,
e.g., rapid and homogeneous modification, capability to install multiple
mAbs simultaneously, and therefore serving as a nice complement or
synergistic method to the permanent, genetic engineering approach
that has found great success in making CAR constructs, including CAR-NKs
based on NK-92 cells.[33] Because γ-irradiation
is employed as a potential safety measure
for clinical application to prevent NK-92 cell replication while preserving
their antitumor activities,[33] there
are likely no obvious advantages of using these CAR constructs than
using ACCs disclosed here for NK-92 cell engineering. The fact
that NK-92MI cells are currently undergoing clinical trials, and Herceptin
is already a FDA-approved drug heralds the potential of Herceptin-NK-92MI
conjugates for further development as a clinical candidate.Given its broad substrate scope and simple procedure, we predict
that the technique described here will provide new avenues for landscaping
cell surface beyond the applications demonstrated above, such as controlling
cell–cell interactions,[34] regulating
cell-surface channel activity,[35] and realizing
targeted drug delivery.[36] In the new era
of cell-based therapy, to endow living cells with new properties a
simple and robust reaction like the one described here will be highly
sought after.
Authors: David Soriano del Amo; Wei Wang; Christen Besanceney; Tianqing Zheng; Yizheng He; Brian Gerwe; Ronald D Seidel; Peng Wu Journal: Carbohydr Res Date: 2010-03-28 Impact factor: 2.104
Authors: Robert Sackstein; Jasmeen S Merzaban; Derek W Cain; Nilesh M Dagia; Joel A Spencer; Charles P Lin; Roland Wohlgemuth Journal: Nat Med Date: 2008-01-13 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Wei Wang; Tianshun Hu; Patrick A Frantom; Tianqing Zheng; Brian Gerwe; David Soriano Del Amo; Sarah Garret; Ronald D Seidel; Peng Wu Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2009-09-04 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Senlian Hong; Chenhua Yu; Peng Wang; Yujie Shi; Weiqian Cao; Bo Cheng; Digantkumar G Chapla; Yuanhui Ma; Jie Li; Emily Rodrigues; Yoshiki Narimatsu; John R Yates; Xing Chen; Henrik Clausen; Kelly W Moremen; Matthew Scott Macauley; James C Paulson; Peng Wu Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2020-12-14 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Luca Unione; Maria Pia Lenza; Ana Ardá; Pedro Urquiza; Ana Laín; Juan Manuel Falcón-Pérez; Jesús Jiménez-Barbero; Oscar Millet Journal: ACS Cent Sci Date: 2019-07-24 Impact factor: 14.553