| Literature DB >> 31546810 |
Neža Omersa1, Marjetka Podobnik2, Gregor Anderluh3.
Abstract
Perforation of cellular membranes by pore-forming proteins can affect cell physiology, tissue integrity, or immune response. Since many pore-forming proteins are toxins or highly potent virulence factors, they represent an attractive target for the development of molecules that neutralize their actions with high efficacy. There has been an assortment of inhibitors developed to specifically obstruct the activity of pore-forming proteins, in addition to vaccination and antibiotics that serve as a plausible treatment for the majority of diseases caused by bacterial infections. Here we review a wide range of potential inhibitors that can specifically and effectively block the activity of pore-forming proteins, from small molecules to more specific macromolecular systems, such as synthetic nanoparticles, antibodies, antibody mimetics, polyvalent inhibitors, and dominant negative mutants. We discuss their mechanism of inhibition, as well as advantages and disadvantages.Entities:
Keywords: anthrax toxin; inhibitor; lipid membranes; pore formation; pore-forming proteins; pore-forming toxins
Year: 2019 PMID: 31546810 PMCID: PMC6784129 DOI: 10.3390/toxins11090545
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Toxins (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6651 Impact factor: 4.546
Figure 1Two major classes of pore-forming proteins (PFPs) based on the structural element present in the final pore, α-helical PFPs exemplified by the cytolysin A from Escherichia coli (PDB ID 2WCD) on the left, and β-barrel PFPs exemplified by the anthrax toxin protective antigen pore from Bacillus anthracis (PDB ID 3J9C) on the right. Ribbon representations of proteins are drawn by using PyMOL [39]. A single protomer in the pore is shown in pink. The approximate position of the lipid membrane is shown in brown.
Figure 2Generalized pore formation process by different types of PFPs with marked positions for possible inhibitors interfering. Protein monomers are shown in blue, lipid membrane is shown in brown, receptor for PFP binding (which can be either a specific lipid as shown here, or protein, etc.) is shown in gray.
Figure 3Overview of various strategies to inhibit PFPs: (a) Small molecules. Chloroquine as a representative molecule. (b) Synthetic nanoparticles. A mold with pockets for PFP binding. (c) Antibodies (Abs), a fragment crystallizable (Fc) region shown in orange and fragment antigen-binding (Fab) regions in pink. (d) Antibody mimetics. Smaller protein molecules derived from antibodies that overcome some of their weaknesses. scFv (single chain fragment variable), a fusion protein of interconnected variable regions of Fab as a representative molecule. (e) Polyvalent inhibitors. Cyclic scaffold (gray) with PFP-binding moieties (red) that positionally match with monomeric protein units in a pore. (f) Receptor-like decoys. Polymeric core enclosed by lipid bilayer containing PFP receptors. (g) Dominant negative mutants. Mutant protein monomer (pink) forms oligomers with the wild-type protein (blue), but such complexes fail to form pores. For clarity, individual schemes are not drawn in proportion.