Matja Zalar1, Alexander P Golovanov1. 1. Manchester Institute of Biotechnology and Department of Chemistry, School of Natural Sciences, Faculty of Science and Engineering, University of Manchester, 131 Princess Street, Manchester M1 7DN, U.K.
Abstract
Peptide aptamers built using engineered scaffolds are a valuable alternative to monoclonal antibodies in many research applications because of their smaller size, versatility, specificity for chosen targets, and ease of production. However, inserting peptides needed for target binding may affect the aptamer structure, in turn compromising its activity. We have shown previously that a stefin A-based protein scaffold with AU1 and Myc peptide insertions (SQT-1C) spontaneously forms dimers and tetramers and that inserted loops mediate this process. In the present study, we show that SQT-1C forms tetramers by self-association of dimers and determine the kinetics of monomer-dimer and dimer-tetramer transitions. Using site-directed mutagenesis, we show that while slow domain swapping defines the rate of dimerization, conserved proline P80 is involved in the tetramerization process. We also demonstrate that the addition of a disulphide bond at the base of the engineered loop prevents domain swapping and dimer formation, also preventing subsequent tetramerization. Formation of SQT-1C oligomers compromises the presentation of inserted peptides for target molecule binding, diminishing aptamer activity; however, the introduction of the disulphide bond locking the monomeric state enables maximum specific aptamer activity, while also increasing its thermal and colloidal stability. We conclude that stabilizing scaffold proteins by adding disulphide bonds at peptide insertion sites might be a useful approach in preventing binding-epitope-driven oligomerization, enabling creation of very stable aptamers with maximum binding activity.
Peptide aptamers built using engineered scaffolds are a valuable alternative to monoclonal antibodies in many research applications because of their smaller size, versatility, specificity for chosen targets, and ease of production. However, inserting peptides needed for target binding may affect the aptamer structure, in turn compromising its activity. We have shown previously that a stefin A-based protein scaffold with AU1 and Myc peptide insertions (SQT-1C) spontaneously forms dimers and tetramers and that inserted loops mediate this process. In the present study, we show that SQT-1C forms tetramers by self-association of dimers and determine the kinetics of monomer-dimer and dimer-tetramer transitions. Using site-directed mutagenesis, we show that while slow domain swapping defines the rate of dimerization, conserved prolineP80 is involved in the tetramerization process. We also demonstrate that the addition of a disulphide bond at the base of the engineered loop prevents domain swapping and dimer formation, also preventing subsequent tetramerization. Formation of SQT-1C oligomers compromises the presentation of inserted peptides for target molecule binding, diminishing aptamer activity; however, the introduction of the disulphide bond locking the monomeric state enables maximum specific aptamer activity, while also increasing its thermal and colloidal stability. We conclude that stabilizing scaffold proteins by adding disulphide bonds at peptide insertion sites might be a useful approach in preventing binding-epitope-driven oligomerization, enabling creation of very stable aptamers with maximum binding activity.
Peptide aptamers are
proteins that consist of short target-binding
polypeptide loops embedded within a stable protein scaffold, designed
to bind specifically to a defined target. Engineered protein scaffolds
are typically based on small native globular proteins, modified to
remove original function and include new subcloning sites for adding
the interchangeable loops. To achieve desired specificity and affinity,
the sequences containing the desired binding epitope(s) (typically
up to 10–15 residues) are usually inserted instead of the original
loops. In principle, peptide aptamers mimic the antibody-based molecular
recognition but typically have a much smaller frame (often ∼15
kDa) and less complex structure and do not require post-translational
modifications and therefore can be often produced in simpler recombinant
expression systems.[1] Peptide aptamers are
applied in various research tasks, including the development of combinatorial
protein libraries for protein recognition,[2,3] studies
of protein function and their interactions,[4] diagnostic tools,[5] biosensors,[6] imaging agents,[7] and
as biotherapeutics.[8] As such, peptide aptamers
are an emerging valuable alternative to monoclonal antibodies which
until now have prevailed as the “gold standard” for
affinity binding studies.More than 50 structurally diverse
nonimmunoglobulin scaffolds have
been reported to date.[1] While protein scaffolds
are designed to be as stable as possible, insertion of modified loops
may however unintentionally destabilize them, leading to aggregation
and reduction in thermal stability[9] or
cause larger structural rearrangements such as domain-swap oligomerization.[10] Changes to protein tertiary and quaternary structures
may influence conformation or presentation of the binding loops themselves,
thus compromising target binding.To explore in detail the structural
and functional consequences
of loop insertions, we are using a model engineered protein scaffold
derived from stefin A, named SQT.[11] Stefin
A belongs to the cystatin superfamily of cysteine protease inhibitors,
which also includes stefin B and cystatin C.[12] SQT has three possible insertion sites for peptides, namely, the
N-terminus, loop 1 and loop 2. While it has been shown in the original
publication[11] that SQT retains the secondary
structure upon various peptide insertions, we have demonstrated in
our previous study that an SQT variant, named SQT-1C, with AU1 and
Myc peptides inserted into loop 1 and loop 2, respectively, has decreased
thermal stability and poor solution behavior.[10] Insertion of these epitopes led to spontaneous formation of interconverting
monomeric, dimeric, and tetrameric species in solution, with such
oligomerization directly mediated by the inserts in the engineered
loops.[10] Although the problem with domain-swap
oligomerization and destabilization has been identified, it was not
clear what the functional consequences of this oligomerization were,
and how this structural instability could be prevented.In this
present study, we have further explored the kinetics and
mechanism of SQT-1C oligomerization. We determined that tetramerization
occurs through self-association of domain-swapped dimers, with the
formation of these dimers being the rate-limiting step. We have designed
two SQT-1C variants. In the first variant, a P80G point mutation was
introduced to explore the role of conserved proline 80 in tetramerization
kinetics. For the second variant, a double mutant was designed, creating
a disulphide bond which locked the configuration of the inserted loop
1. This drastically stabilized the monomeric species and prevented
formation of domain-swapped dimers. Additionally, we show that oligomerization
of SQT-1C reduces its target-binding capacity, whereas the disulphide
bond-stabilized monomer had the highest specific activity. We conclude
that stabilizing protein scaffolds by adding disulphide bonds at peptide
insertion sites to stabilize the engineered loops might be a useful
approach for preventing binding-epitope-driven oligomerization, while
simultaneously also improving their thermal and colloidal stability.
Results
SQT-1C
Oligomerizes through Monomer–Dimer–Tetramer
Pathway
As previously shown[10] monomeric
SQT-1C is in equilibrium with dimeric and tetrameric species in solution;
however, the exact oligomerization pathway has not been established.
To determine the kinetic model of SQT-1C oligomerization, we have
isolated monomeric, dimeric, and tetrameric protein fractions (Table ) and followed the
re-equilibration kinetics of each fraction using size exclusion chromatography
(SEC). As shown in Figure A, monomeric SQT-1C first forms dimers, with tetramerization
occurring only after a substantial amount of dimers accumulate in
solution. This indicates that dimers act as an intermediate state
on the oligomerization pathway to formation of tetramers. In the isolated dimer fraction
(Figure B), the dimer
population quickly converts to monomers and tetramers. Over time,
the fraction of monomers remains constant, whereas the association
of dimers into tetramers becomes predominant, with dimer concentration
decreasing and tetramer population increasing. This further supports
the observation that tetramerization occurs by association of dimers
and that dimers are only an intermediate state in the oligomerization
pathway. Finally in the tetrameric fraction, partial dissociation
of tetramers into dimers and monomers occurs already during sample
preparation, with the final equilibrium of predominantly tetramer
population followed by monomer and then dimer reached after 2 h of
incubation (Figure C). These data clearly demonstrate that SQT-1C is in dynamic equilibrium
between monomeric, dimeric, and tetrameric species. Moreover, less
than 1% of species with molecular weight higher than 60 kDa were present
throughout the SEC experiments, indicating that tetramers are the
preferred final state with no further higher-order aggregation occurring
in the time frame of the experiments. SQT-1C oligomerization can be
described by a sequential monomer–dimer–tetramer self-association
model[13] shown in Figure . We were able to fit successfully all the
experimental SEC data on SQT-1C oligomerization kinetics at various
protein concentrations to this model using DynaFit 4 software,[14] obtaining a single set of global kinetic parameters.
As shown in Figure , the monomer–dimer–tetramer model describes the data
completely, further supporting the choice of the model.
Table 1
Molecular
Weights of Protein Oligomers
(in kDa) as Determined by SEC–MALS
SQT-1C
SQT-1CP80G
SQT-1CQ46C,N59C
monomer
15.3 ± 0.5
15.3 ± 0.7
14.3 ± 0.5
dimer
32 ± 1
32 ± 1
30 ± 1
tetramer
62 ± 2
59 ± 2
61 ± 2
Figure 1
SEC analysis
of SQT-1C species interconversion. Time evolution
of monomers, dimers, and tetramers after incubation of 5 mg/mL SQT-1C
samples at 25 °C starting from (a) monomeric, (b) dimeric, and
(c) tetrameric preisolated species.
Figure 2
Model
of SQT-1C oligomerization. k1 and k–1 are the on and off rates
of dimer formation while k2 and k–2 are the on and off rates for dimer–tetramer
transition, respectively.
Figure 3
SEC analysis
of SQT-1C oligomerization kinetics starting from the
monomeric form. Time evolution of monomer (blue circle), dimer (black
diamond), and tetramer fractions (red square), after incubation of
monomeric SQT-1C samples at 25 °C at different concentrations:
(a) 1, (b) 5, and (c) 10 mg/mL. Solid lines are global fits to a monomer–dimer–tetramer
oligomerization model.
SEC analysis
of SQT-1C species interconversion. Time evolution
of monomers, dimers, and tetramers after incubation of 5 mg/mL SQT-1C
samples at 25 °C starting from (a) monomeric, (b) dimeric, and
(c) tetrameric preisolated species.Model
of SQT-1C oligomerization. k1 and k–1 are the on and off rates
of dimer formation while k2 and k–2 are the on and off rates for dimer–tetramer
transition, respectively.SEC analysis
of SQT-1C oligomerization kinetics starting from the
monomeric form. Time evolution of monomer (blue circle), dimer (black
diamond), and tetramer fractions (red square), after incubation of
monomeric SQT-1C samples at 25 °C at different concentrations:
(a) 1, (b) 5, and (c) 10 mg/mL. Solid lines are global fits to a monomer–dimer–tetramer
oligomerization model.
Structural Rearrangement of SQT-1C Monomers is the Rate-Limiting
Step of Protein Dimerization
In order to further explore
the kinetics of SQT-1C oligomerization, we measured the temperature
dependence of rate constants for SQT-1C dimerization and tetramerization,
which were then used to estimate the apparent activation energy of
these processes. Fits to experimental data are shown in Figure S1, whereas the obtained estimates of
rate constants are shown in Table . The on-rates for both dimerization k1 and tetramerization k2 are
significantly slower than expected for a simple diffusion-limited
self-association process where the rate constants typically range
from 105 to 106 M–1 s–1.[15] This is consistent
with structural rearrangements occurring on a slow timescale, responsible
for both association steps. Furthermore, the rate for the monomer
to dimer (k1) reaction is an order of
magnitude slower than that of dimer to tetramer transition (k2) indicating that the two processes are governed
by different structural rearrangement mechanisms and that dimer formation
is the limiting step in the SQT-1C oligomerization pathway. Our previous
molecular modeling data suggested that dimerization proceeds via the
domain-swapping mechanism.[10]Figure shows Arrhenius plots of the
temperature dependence data of SQT-1C dimerization and tetramerization
rates k1 and k2. Fitting the data to the linearized Arrhenius equation allowed estimation
of the apparent activation energies (Ea) for both processes. Ea for SQT-1C monomer
to dimer transition, 53 ± 5 kcal/mol, was greater than that for
dimer–tetramer transition, 36 ± 6 kcal/mol. Activation
energies for SQT-1C dimerization are consistent with previously reported
values of 55 ± 4 kcal/mol for domain-swap oligomerization of
stefin B.[16] Similarly, apparent activation
energy for SQT-1C tetramerization is similar to that of stefin B tetramerization,
28 ± 3 kcal/mol,[17] and is consistent
with slow reactions accompanied by minor, local conformational changes.
Table 2
Summary of Estimated Rate Constants
for SQT-1C Oligomerization at Different Temperaturesa
SQT-1C
T, °C
k1 (M–1 s–1)
k–1 (s–1) × 10–6
k2 (M–1 s–1)
k–2 (s–1) × 10–6
20
0.018 ± 0.003
0.1 ± 5
0.52 ± 0.2
9 ± 5
22
0.02 ± 0.005
0.1 ± 5
8.7 ± 7.1
0.1 ± 5
25
0.058 ± 0.008
0.1 ± 0.1
1.7 ± 0.6
2 ± 2
27
0.096 ± 0.01
0.1 ± 7
1.8 ± 0.5
3 ± 2
30
0.47 ± 0.12
210 ± 40
6.4 ± 3.7
2 ± 0.1
33
0.53 ± 0.34
500 ± 2000
7.7 ± 3.9
6 ± 2
35
1.25 ± 0.27
10 ± 100
110 ± 990
5 ± 8
Reported errors
are standard deviations
obtained during data fitting in DynaFit 4 using the default settings.
Figure 4
Arrhenius
plot of the temperature dependence of SQT-1C (a) monomer–dimer
(k1) and (b) dimer–tetramer (k2) transition rates. Blue dashed line represents
fit to Arrhenius equation. Data points colored in red were discarded
from line fitting because of excessively large errors.
Arrhenius
plot of the temperature dependence of SQT-1C (a) monomer–dimer
(k1) and (b) dimer–tetramer (k2) transition rates. Blue dashed line represents
fit to Arrhenius equation. Data points colored in red were discarded
from line fitting because of excessively large errors.Reported errors
are standard deviations
obtained during data fitting in DynaFit 4 using the default settings.
Rationale for SQT-1C Mutant
Design
For the cystatin
family, two distinct steps of protein association have been reported
previously, both involving structural rearrangement and hence relatively
slow timescale. The first one is domain-swap dimerization, where the
domain swap occurs through extension of the conserved hydrophobic
five-residue “cystatin motif” (QVVAG) in loop 1.[18,19] In SQT, this motif has been mutated (to QVLAS) and split to accommodate
peptide loop insertion into the scaffold;[9,11] therefore,
this motif itself can no longer be responsible for the domain swapping
(Figure ). For SQT-1C,
our previous experiments and modeling suggest that it is the engineered
loops themselves that drive domain-swap-mediated dimerization and
further tetramerization.[10] The second known
step of cystatin association is a so-called hand-shaking mechanism,
where the trans to cis isomerization of conserved P74 in loop 2 is
required for the association of two domain-swapped dimers into a stable
tetramer.[17]
Figure 5
SQT-1C mutation scheme.
(a) Model of SQT-1C based on PDB ID 6QB2 (b) scheme of loop
1 and mutations present in SQT-1CQ46C,N59C mutant. (c)
Scheme of loop 2 and mutation introduced in SQT-1CP80G variant.
(d) Sequence alignment of stefin A, SQT, SQT-1C, SQT-1CP80G, and SQT-1CQ46C,N59C. Secondary structure of SQT-1C,
as determined from its structure (PDB ID 6QB2) is shown below sequences. In all panels,
positions and names of restriction sites used to add functional loops
to SQT scaffold are shown in pink, inserted loops are shown in blue,
and unmodified regions in gray. Mutation site P80G is depicted in
orange while Q46C and N59C are shown in green.
SQT-1C mutation scheme.
(a) Model of SQT-1C based on PDB ID 6QB2 (b) scheme of loop
1 and mutations present in SQT-1CQ46C,N59C mutant. (c)
Scheme of loop 2 and mutation introduced in SQT-1CP80G variant.
(d) Sequence alignment of stefin A, SQT, SQT-1C, SQT-1CP80G, and SQT-1CQ46C,N59C. Secondary structure of SQT-1C,
as determined from its structure (PDB ID 6QB2) is shown below sequences. In all panels,
positions and names of restriction sites used to add functional loops
to SQT scaffold are shown in pink, inserted loops are shown in blue,
and unmodified regions in gray. Mutation site P80G is depicted in
orange while Q46C and N59C are shown in green.To confirm the mechanism of SQT-1C oligomerization and to find
way of preventing it, we have created two mutants. In the first mutant,
named SQT-1CP80G, we have mutated the residue P80 (corresponding
to P74 conserved in other cystatins) to glycine (Figure ), removing the possibility
of slow trans–cis isomerization while allowing more conformational
flexibility. Such a change could potentially either eliminate tetramerization,
as shown previously for stefin B[17] and
Na+–K+-ATPase,[20] or accelerate it due to increased flexibility of the loop 2. In
the second mutant (SQT-1CQ46C,N59C), we have introduced
a disulphide bond across the base of loop 1, between β1 and
β2 strands, by a double Q46C and N59C mutation (Figure B), in an attempt to stabilize
a specific topology and prevent structural rearrangement. A similar
approach has been used previously on cystatin C, where prevention
of domain swapping using disulphide bridges inhibited dimerization
and fibril formation.[21] The position of
cysteines in SQT-1CQ46C,N59C was chosen for two reasons.
First, their position at the end of the β2 and start of β3
should prevent opening of loop 1 in the monomer or covalently trap
the domain-swapped dimer, preventing the interconversion of monomers
and dimers and allowing their purification. Second, these mutations
are positioned outside the restriction site NheI
in loop 1[11] and hence should not affect
insertion of the target-binding peptides into the SQT scaffold between
L48 and A56 residues situated at the base of the loop (Figure B,D).
Proline 80 is Involved
in SQT-1C Tetramerization
After
separation of refolded SQT-1CP80G variant on SEC coupled
with multiangle light scattering (SEC–MALS), three elution
peaks were identified corresponding to monomer, dimer, and tetramer
fractions (Table and Figure S2). Far-UV circular dichroism (CD) spectra
of freshly isolated monomeric SQT-1CP80G species showed
little difference to that of isolated SQT-1C, indicating that the
secondary structure of SQT-1C is retained in the SQT-1CP80G mutant (Figure S2). Additionally, only
minor chemical shift perturbations of residues located next to the
mutated residues were identified in 2D 1H–15N heteronuclear single quantum coherence (HSQC) spectra, further
indicating that the 3D structure of SQT-1C monomer is retained in
the P80G mutant (Figure A and S2). The melting temperature of
SQT-1CP80G was 54 ± 1 °C, compared to 56 ±
1 °C for SQT-1C, as measured by the intrinsic fluorescence peak
shift upon heating, showing that the P80G mutation does not significantly
affect thermal stability. The colloidal stabilities of SQT-1C and
SQT-1CP80G, measured by static light scattering at 266
nm as onset temperature of aggregation (Tagg), were also very similar and coincided with their melting temperatures,
suggesting major aggregation happening once the protein becomes thermally
unfolded (Figure ).
Figure 6
NMR chemical
shift perturbation analysis of mutant variants. Per
residue weighted backbone amide chemical shift perturbations for (a)
SQT-1CP80G and (b) SQT-1CQ46C,N59C compared
to SQT-1C show that chemical shift perturbations occur only around
the mutation sites and at residues in spatial proximity of the mutated
sites. Asterisks (*) denote mutation sites.
Figure 7
Comparison
of thermal and colloidal stability of SQT-1C and mutants.
(a) Temperature dependence of BCM of the intrinsic fluorescence signal.
(b) SLS266nm across the temperature ramp. In both panels,
SQT-1C, SQT-1CP80G, and SQT-1CQ46C,N59C are
depicted in black, blue, and red, respectively.
NMR chemical
shift perturbation analysis of mutant variants. Per
residue weighted backbone amide chemical shift perturbations for (a)
SQT-1CP80G and (b) SQT-1CQ46C,N59C compared
to SQT-1C show that chemical shift perturbations occur only around
the mutation sites and at residues in spatial proximity of the mutated
sites. Asterisks (*) denote mutation sites.Comparison
of thermal and colloidal stability of SQT-1C and mutants.
(a) Temperature dependence of BCM of the intrinsic fluorescence signal.
(b) SLS266nm across the temperature ramp. In both panels,
SQT-1C, SQT-1CP80G, and SQT-1CQ46C,N59C are
depicted in black, blue, and red, respectively.To evaluate how P80G mutation affects SQT-1C oligomerization kinetics,
temperature dependence of SQT-1CP80G oligomerization rate
constants were analyzed and used to estimate the activation energies
of individual steps, similar to the analysis of SQT-1C kinetics. Fits
to temperature-dependent data are shown in Figure S3, while estimated rate constants are summarized in Table . For SQT-1CP80G both the dimerization rates k1 and their
temperature dependence were similar to those of SQT-1C, as evident
from Arrhenius plots (cf. Figures A and 4A), with similar apparent
activation energy, indicating that the P80 is not involved in the
dimerization process. However, the estimated activation energy for
dimer to tetramer transition was significantly lower for SQT-1CP80G compared to SQT-1C (cf. Figures B and 4B).
Table 3
Summary of Estimated
Rate Constants
for SQT-1CP80G Oligomerization at Different Temperaturesa
SQT-1CP80G
T, °C
k1 (M–1 s–1)
k–1 (s–1) × 10–6
k2 (M–1 s–1)
k–2 (s–1) × 10–6
22
0.02 ± 0.01
0.1 ± 10
3 ± 2.1
6 ± 4
25
0.09 ± 0.01
3 ± 3
2.1 ± 0.3
7 ± 1
27
0.14 ± 0.01
5 ± 3
2.8 ± 0.6
10 ± 20
30
0.29 ± 0.02
0.1 ± 0.2
3 ± 2
10 ± 3
33
0.88 ± 0.03
0.2 ± 3
7 × 106 ± 3 × 108
14 ± 3
35
2.3 ± 2
15 ± 13
1.6 ± 1.1
2 ± 3
Reported errors
are standard deviations
obtained during data fitting in DynaFit 4 using the default settings.
Figure 8
Arrhenius plot
of the temperature dependence of SQT-1CP80G (a) monomer–dimer k1 and (b)
dimer–tetramer k2 transition rates.
Blue dashed line represents fit to Arrhenius equation. Data points
colored in red were discarded line fitting due to excessively large
errors.
Arrhenius plot
of the temperature dependence of SQT-1CP80G (a) monomer–dimer k1 and (b)
dimer–tetramer k2 transition rates.
Blue dashed line represents fit to Arrhenius equation. Data points
colored in red were discarded line fitting due to excessively large
errors.Reported errors
are standard deviations
obtained during data fitting in DynaFit 4 using the default settings.These experiments overall reveal
that although P80 in SQT-1C is
not involved in the dimerization process, it is involved in tetramerization,
and the trans–cis isomerization of this residue is likely a
contributing factor.
Monomeric State of SQT-1C can be Stabilized
by Addition of a
Disulphide Bond
To stabilize the monomeric form of SQT-1C
and prevent structural rearrangement leading to dimerization, a double
Q46C and N59C mutant was produced so that a disulphide bond can spontaneously
form at the base of loop 1 between β2 and β3 strands.
Additionally, any domain-swapped dimers formed during refolding and
oxidation will be also covalently stabilized, preventing their dissociation
into monomers. The SQT-1CQ46C,N59C mutant was expressed,
refolded, oxidized, and purified as described in the Materials and Methods. After separation on the size exclusion
column, individual monomeric, dimeric, and tetrameric species of SQT-1CQ46C,N59C were isolated for further analysis (Table and Figure S4). Notably, large populations of higher molecular weight
oligomers were visible on SEC–MALS trace (Figure S4), likely formed by misfolding and cross-linking
via disulphide bonds during the refolding/oxidation step. Far-UV CD
spectra of freshly isolated SQT-1CQ46C,N59C monomer species
showed little difference to the SQT-1C monomer, indicating that the
secondary structure of SQT-1C is retained (Figure S4). Additionally, only minor chemical shift perturbations
of residues located next to the mutated residues were identified in
2D 1H–15N HSQC spectra, further indicating
that the 3D structure of the SQT-1C monomer is retained in SQT-1CQ46C,N59C (Figures B and S4). Moreover, the CD spectra
show that isolated covalently cross-linked SQT-1CQ46C,N59C dimers and tetramers are structurally similar to dimers and tetramers
formed by SQT-1C (Figure S5). In addition
to structure retention, introduction of disulphide bond drastically
increased the melting temperature of the monomeric species above 95
°C, with only minor changes in intrinsic fluorescence signal
observed across temperature ramps (Figure ). Additionally, only a slight increase in
static light scattering (SLS) at 266 nm over increasing temperature
was observed, much less than for SQT-1C or SQT-1CP80G,
further indicating that this bridged mutant is colloidally stable
up to very high temperatures (Figure ). Hydrogen–deuterium (H–D) exchange
rates for SQT-1CQ46C,N59C were lower than those for SQT-1C
measured previously,[10] but exchange still
occurs within minutes (Figure S6), suggesting
that even after addition of disulphide bond the monomeric structure
somewhat lacks long-lived hydrogen bond networks.To test whether
the introduction of the disulphide bond between β2 and β3
sheets stabilized the monomeric species against transition into dimers
and tetramers, we tested SQT-1CQ46C,N59C oligomerization
kinetics across a range of temperatures and protein concentrations.
While a small fraction (<5%) of dimers was present in initially
isolated monomeric species due to lack of column resolution and slight
overlap between the elution peaks of monomers and dimers in SEC, there
was no further significant interconversion of monomeric species into
dimers or higher oligomers observed over time in any of the tested
conditions, even at higher concentrations (Figure S7). We can therefore conclude that engineered disulphide bond
prevents the opening of the monomeric species through loop 1, hence
preventing the domain swapping and dimerization and subsequent tetramerization.
Consequently, SQT-1CQ46C,N59C stays in solution as a stable
monomer, with greatly enhanced colloidal and thermal stability.
Oligomeric State of SQT-1C Influences Its Interaction with Its
Binding Partners
One of the main, but often implicit, assumptions
in the engineered scaffold design is that the inserted target-binding
loops are held by the scaffold in a correct conformation optimal for
their binding and that the scaffold is stable enough to maintain this
conformation throughout its preparation, storage, and usage lifecycle.
In the case of SQT-1C, dimerization and tetramerization clearly change
the conformation of binding epitope within loop 1, from hairpin to
extended conformation, and also change its solvent exposure.[10] Therefore the question arises: does this oligomerization
alter the functional competency of SQT-1C? While isolated monomeric
and oligomeric fractions of SQT-1C could not be tested previously
for functionality due to fast interconversion between the species,
SQT-1CQ46C,N59C mutant yielded stable monomers, dimers,
and tetramers which now can be separated. Hence, we tested the binding
efficiency of monomeric, dimeric, and tetrameric species of SQT-1CQ46C,N59C using an enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA)
experiment with commercially available polyclonal antibodies against
AU1 and Myc peptides located in loops 1 and 2, respectively.The most efficient AU1-mediated binding (on total protein quantity
basis) was observed for the monomeric protein, followed by dimer and
then tetramer, for a range of total protein concentrations (Figure A). Both dimers and
tetramers had a smaller binding capacity than monomers, presumably
because of combination of several factors, namely, steric clashes,
partial burial, and non-optimal extended conformation of loop 1 in
domain-swapped oligomers. Binding efficiency of tetramer with AU1
antibody was not dissimilar to binding of this antibody to standalone
Myc peptide, used as a negative control (Figure A). Interestingly, efficiency of SQT-1CQ46C,N59C binding to Myc peptide present in loop 2 is only
slightly reduced by dimerization, whereas tetramerization significantly
decreases the SQT-1CQ46C,N59C ability to present the Myc
peptide to the respective antibody (Figure B), presumably because of burial of loop
2 within the tetramerization interface. Control reactions performed
with 20 μg/mL standalone Myc peptide (positive control) showed
similar efficiency of binding to Myc antibodies as denatured SQT-1C;
however, SQT-1CQ46C,N59C monomers exhibited even higher
binding efficiency (Figure B). Binding of SQT-1CQ46C,N59C monomers to both
AU1 and Myc antibodies was consistently more efficient than that of
denatured SQT-1C which was added to ELISA reactions as a control (Figure ). It can be envisaged
that upon addition and dilution, this control WT SQT-1C partially
refolds and partitions into a usual mixture of monomers, dimers, and
tetramers; thus, it is expected to have an appreciable binding affinity
for both antibodies. These results clearly indicate that SQT-1C monomers
possess the highest specific activity toward target binding, whereas
for domain-swapped dimers and particularly tetramers, the specific
binding activity is significantly reduced. This finding provides a
rationale for stabilizing a specific form of an engineered protein
scaffold, in the case of SQT-1C it is monomeric form, to achieve maximum
specific activity, as well as to improve its thermal and colloidal
stability and prevent domain swapping. These several beneficial effects
can be achieved simultaneously by the introduction of a single disulphide
bond at the base of target-binding loop which otherwise drives domain
swapping and oligomerization.
Figure 9
ELISA titers for SQT-1CQ46C,N59C binding
to (a) anti-AU1
and (b) anti-Myc antibodies. Monomeric, dimeric, and tetrameric fractions
(shown in black, blue, and red, respectively) were tested for binding
efficiency, in comparison with denatured 20 μg/mL SQT-1C (violet)
and 20 μg/mL Myc protein (green) used as controls. While addition
of denatured SQT-1C was used as positive control for both experiments,
c-Myc protein served as a negative control in AU1 binding and as positive
control in Myc binding experiments.
ELISA titers for SQT-1CQ46C,N59C binding
to (a) anti-AU1
and (b) anti-Myc antibodies. Monomeric, dimeric, and tetrameric fractions
(shown in black, blue, and red, respectively) were tested for binding
efficiency, in comparison with denatured 20 μg/mL SQT-1C (violet)
and 20 μg/mL Myc protein (green) used as controls. While addition
of denatured SQT-1C was used as positive control for both experiments,
c-Myc protein served as a negative control in AU1 binding and as positive
control in Myc binding experiments.
Discussion
The ability of engineered protein scaffolds to
retain their structural,
thermal, and colloidal stability upon insertion of various peptide
loops needed for their target-binding function is crucial for their
research and industrial applications. As such, the small frame of
scaffolds needs to absorb additional steric strains introduced by
the inserted loops and to maintain the correct conformation. We have
shown that protein scaffold SQT-1C forms domain-swap dimers that further
associate into stable tetramers, in a similar way to oligomerization
pathway of other proteins in the cystatin family.[16,17,19] Slow kinetics and high apparent activation
energy of SQT-1C dimerization are consistent with large structural
rearrangement needed for dimer formation. Interestingly, the apparent
activation energy for SQT-1C dimerization is roughly twice smaller
than that reported for stefin A[18] and is
similar to the activation energy in the nucleation phase of fibrillation
reaction for stefin B,[16] the less stable
of the two stefins.[22] While monomer–dimer
and dimer–tetramer transitions occur on a similar timescale
to domain-swap dimerization and subsequent tetramerization and fibrillation
of other members of the cystatin family, SQT-1C oligomerizes at room
temperature, whereas oligomerization of other members of the cystatin
family, including stefin A,[18] stefin B,[16] and cystatin C[19,23,24] occurs only at elevated temperature, in the presence
of organic solvents or in the presence of denaturants. This suggests
that the insertion of the specific peptides in SQT-1C significantly
lowers the stability of the protein, making it more likely to form
domain-swapped dimers.Domain-swap dimerization in the cystatin
family has been previously
reported to occur through extension of the conserved hydrophobic five-residue
“cystatin motif” (QVVAG) in Loop 1 as a consequence
of frustration of this hairpin hinge region.[25,26] It has been shown recently that this motif, when engineered into
the hinge of a β-hairpin, causes domain swapping of otherwise
nondomain-swapped proteins.[27] On the other
hand, it has been established that mutations in this hinge region
can slow down or even completely eliminate domain-swap oligomerization
of cystatins.[19,24,28] Even though V48L mutation has been introduced into this particular
motif in SQT to introduce NheI restriction site for
insertion of peptides between L48 and the following alanine into the
scaffold and to prevent domain-swap oligomerization,[9,11] SQT-1C still forms domain-swap dimers at room temperature.[10] As we have shown previously by measuring the
temperature of unfolding Tm and studies
of H–D exchange rates,[10] the SQT-1C
structure somewhat lacks a stable hydrogen bonding network. It is
likely that structural frustration introduced by AU1 peptide in the
loop 1 destabilizes the construct, with the frustration relieved by
fully extending AU1 peptide conformation. This is achieved in the
domain-swapped dimers, which associate further into tetramers. Introducing
the disulphide bond stabilizing loop 1 in a hairpin configuration
greatly increases thermal and colloidal stability of SQT-1CQ46C,N59C and essentially prevents monomer–dimer transition, allowing
isolation of a stable monomeric form, which also exhibits the highest
specific activity toward binding antibodies for both loops 1 and 2.In proteins from the cystatin family, tetramerization occurs via
a so-called hand-shaking mechanism, where the trans to cis isomerization
of conserved P74 in loop 2 of these proteins drives association of
two domain-swapped dimers into a stable tetramer.[17] In SQT-1C, the correspondent residue is P80, which was
mutated here to a glycine to remove contribution from proline isomerization,
producing a SQT-1CP80G mutant. We show that P80G mutation
significantly reduces the activation energy needed for tetramer formation.
This suggests that trans–cis isomerization of P80 in SQT-1C
may be one of the transitions needed for loop 2 to adopt conformation
favorable for tetramerization and engage in interaction with the neighboring
chain. Overall the tetramers of the SQT-1CP80G mutant are
structurally similar to those formed by SQT-1C. This is in contrast
to previous observations in stefin B, where mutation of the conserved
proline disrupted the typical pathway of oligomerization, leading
to fibril formation. Instead, amorphous aggregates were formed without
clear monomer–dimer–tetramer transition.[17] This highlights the subtle differences between
the engineered protein scaffold, and its native ancestors.Engineering
disulphide bonds into the protein core is generally
a well-established method to increase protein stability.[29] A disulphide bond was successfully introduced
previously in cystatin C to prevent its dimerization and eliminate
fibril formation.[21] Here, we have introduced
a disulphide bond between β2 and β3 sheets of SQT by a
double Q46C and N59C mutation in an attempt to stabilize the monomeric
form and prevent interconversion of monomeric species into dimers
and tetramers. However, the effect of this disulphide bond on SQT
protein scaffold was quite dramatic, not only locking the structure
in monomeric form and preventing oligomerization but also raising
the melting temperature and onset temperature of aggregation above
95 °C. This increase surpasses the 79.9 °C melting temperature
of the original “empty” SQT scaffold itself.[11] From our functional binding experiments, we
found that this monomeric form had the highest specific binding activity,
compared with dimers and tetramers, suggesting that monomers ensure
the best presentation of the target-binding epitopes. This further
implies that in the case of SQT scaffold, its major degradation pathway,
formation of soluble dimers and tetramers, is detrimental to its functional
activity. As it can be anticipated that addition of target-binding
loops in other small engineered protein scaffolds may introduce similar
strains on the core structure, leading to domain swapping and subsequent
oligomerization, we propose that adding disulphide bonds at the base
of ligand binding loop(s) may increase scaffold stability and maximize
its specific target-binding activity.
Materials and Methods
Plasmids
Synthesized codon-optimized gene constructs
of SQT-1C and two mutants, SQT-1CP80G and SQT-1CQ46CN59C, were obtained from GeneArt (Thermo Fisher Life Technologies) and
subcloned into pET21a+ vector with a cleavable hexa-histidine tag
as previously described.[10]
Protein Expression
and Purification
All three SQT-1C
variants were expressed as previously described.[10] Although SQT-1C and SQT-1CP80G were purified
as previously reported,[10] cell pellets
of SQT-1CQ46CN59C were resuspended in denaturing buffer
(20 mM NaPi, 500 mM NaCl, 6M GndHCl, 5 mM tris(2-carboxyethyl)phosphine,
pH 8.0) with 0.5% v/v Triton X-100 (Sigma-Aldrich). Resuspended pellets
were then lysed by sonication with Sonopuls HD 3200 ultrasonic homogenizer
equipped with TT13/F2 probe (Bandelin) and clarified by centrifugation
at 30 000g for 30 min at 4 °C. Supernatants
were transferred onto Ni-NTA resin (Quiagen) in a gravity flow column
and incubated for 90 min at 25 °C. After incubation, columns
were washed with respective denaturing buffers supplemented with 10
mM imidazole. The bound material was eluted with 500 mM imidazole
in denaturing buffer. Refolding and oxidation of SQT-1CQ46CN59C, enabling disulphide bond reshuffling, was achieved by 1:10 v/v
rapid dilution where 1 mM reduced GSH and 0.25 mM oxidized GSH were
added to refolding buffer (20 mM NaPi, 150 mM NaCl, 5 mM ethylenediaminetetraacetic
acid, pH 7.2), followed by overnight dialysis into refolding buffer
without GSH. Finally, the proteins were purified on a Superdex 200
26/600 HiLoad column (GE Life Sciences) and pre-equilibrated with
refolding buffer. All SQT-1C variants eluted as a set of well-defined
oligomers, allowing isolation of monomeric, dimeric, and tetrameric
fractions. Isolated species were then reconcentrated to the desired
concentration using Vivaspin 20 centrifugal devices with a 5 kDa molecular
weight cutoff (Sartorius Stedim Biotech GmbH). Protein concentrations
were estimated by absorbance at 280 nm (ε = 14900 M–1 cm–1). Molecular weights of protein species were
determined using SEC coupled with multiangle light scattering (SEC–MALS)
run at 25 °C. Protein samples (200 μg) were injected on
Superdex 200 10/300GL column (GE Life Sciences) and passed through
a Wyatt DAWN Heleos II EOS 18-angle laser photometer (Wyatt Technology)
coupled to a Wyatt Optilab rEX (Wyatt Technology) refractive index
detector. Data analysis was performed in ASTRA 6.1 software (Wyatt
Technology).
CD Spectroscopy
Far-UV CD spectra
of individual oligomeric
species were acquired on an Applied Photophysics Chirascan using a
0.01 cm path length quartz cell, immediately after separation in SEC
column at protein concentration of 1 mg/mL. The wavelength was varied
from 190 to 280 nm with 0.5 nm step and acquisition time of 3 s per
point. For each CD spectrum, three scans were averaged and smoothed.
Static Light Scattering and Intrinsic Fluorescence
SLS and
intrinsic fluorescence measurements were conducted simultaneously
using an UNcle (Unchained Labs) across a temperature ramp from 20
to 90 °C with a heating rate 1 °C min–1. Data were processed using the UNcle analysis software, as per manufacturer’s
recommendations. Melting temperatures (Tm) of all three SQT-1C variants were determined using temperature
dependence of the first derivative of the barycentric mean (BCM) of
fluorescence intensity, following standard instrument procedure. SLS
at 266 nm was used as an indicator of protein colloidal stability,
where the onset of aggregation temperature (Tagg) was defined as the temperature at which the measured scattering
signal reaches 10% of its maximum value.
Monitoring SQT-1C Oligomer
Transitions by SEC
Oligomerization
kinetics of all SQT-1C variants was measured using SEC, with a Superdex
200 10/300GL column (GE Life Sciences) attached to an Agilent 1100
Series HPLC system (Agilent Technologies) at 25 °C, and pre-equilibrated
in refolding buffer. Elution of samples was detected at 280 nm. Isolated
monomer fractions of SQT-1C fractions at 5 mg/mL were incubated for
24 h at 20, 22, 25, 27, 30, 33, 35, and 40 °C with 10 μL
sample aliquots injected onto the SEC column every 90 min. Kinetic
data were obtained as a series of single independent runs and kinetics
at 25 °C was measured twice to check for data reproducibility.
For concentration-dependent analysis of monomer–dimer–tetramer
transition, isolated monomers were incubated at 25 °C at 1, 5,
and 10 mg/mL, and the kinetics of oligomerization was analyzed as
described above. All peaks in SEC traces were integrated and finally,
the ratio between different oligomers was calculated. Data analysis
was performed in ChemStation (Agilent Technologies) and OriginPro
9.1 (OriginLab). The experimental SEC data on oligomerization kinetics
at various concentrations and temperatures were then fit to the monomer–dimer–tetramer
model using DynaFit 4 software.[14] Apparent
activation energies for monomer–dimer and dimer–tetramer
transitions were estimated by fitting the data to the linearized Arrhenius
equation: ln(k) = ln(A) – Ea/(RT), where k is rate constant for each oligomerization step, A the pre-exponential factor, R a gas constant, T is absolute temperature, and Ea the apparent activation energy.
NMR Experiments
NMR samples were prepared by adding
5% v/v 2H2O to 1 mM 15N-labeled protein
solutions in 20 mM sodium phosphate buffer, 150 mM NaCl, pH 7.2. All
NMR spectra were acquired at 25 °C on 800 MHz Bruker AVANCE III
spectrometer equipped with 5 mm triple resonance TCI CryoProbe and
temperature control unit. The spectra were acquired and processed
using Bruker TopSpin 3.5 and analyzed using NMRFAM-SPARKY[30] and Dynamics Center 2.2.4 (Bruker). Backbone
assignment of SQT-1C has been previously described[10] (BMRB ID 27757). The backbone assignment of SQT-1C was
then transferred to SQT-1CP80G and SQT-1CQ46C,N59C 2D 1H–15N HSQC spectra by matching
peak positions. Assignment of shifted cross-peaks of SQT-1CQ46C,N59C was additionally verified using 3D TROSY-based HNCA and HNCO experiments
from standard Bruker pulse program library. Proton–deuterium
(H–D) exchange rates of SQT-1CQ46C,N59C were measured
as previously described.[10] The weighted
chemical shift changes of backbone amide groups (ΔδNH) due to point mutations in SQT-1CP80G and SQT-1CQ46C,N59C were calculated as , where ΔδH and ΔδN were chemical shift changes in proton and nitrogen dimensions,
respectively.
Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay
To examine the ability
of SQT-1CQ46C,N59C oligomers to present inserted peptides
to target antibodies, plastic MaxiSorb plates (Nunc) were coated with
1, 2, 5, 10, and 20 μg/mL of SQT-1CQ46C,N59C monomers,
dimers, and tetramers in phosphate-buffered saline pH 7.4 (PBS) overnight
at 4 °C with shaking. c-Myc protein at 20 μg/mL was used
as a positive control for anti-Myc antibody binding and as negative
control for anti-AU1 antibody binding, whereas 20 μg/mL denatured
SQT-1C was used as another positive control for both antibodies. Additionally,
bovineserum albumin (BSA) was used as a negative control. Protein
concentrations were measured by UV absorbance at 280 nm wavelength.
c-Myc protein sample was kindly provided by Dr Matthew Cliff and Prof
Jon Waltho (University of Manchester). All samples were measured in
triplicates. Plates were blocked with 2% (w/v) BSA (Sigma-Aldrich)
in PBS at 25 °C for 2 h. Plates were then incubated with either
goat anti-AU1 primary antibody (ab3400, Abcam) diluted 1:2000 or goat
anti-Myc tag primary antibody (ab9132, Abcam) diluted 1:25 000
for 2 h at 25 °C, followed by incubation at 25 °C for 1
h with rabbit anti-goat secondary antibody labeled with horseradish
peroxidase (ab6741, Abcam) diluted 1:50 000 with PBS. Between
incubation steps, plates were washed using 0.05% (v/v) Tween 20 in
PBS. After incubation with secondary antibody, plates were incubated
with the 3,3′,5,5′-tetramethybenzidine (TMB) substrate
(Abcam) for 15 min at 25 °C. The reaction was stopped by addition
of 450 nm Stop Solution for TMB Substrate (Abcam), and the absorbance
was read at 450 nm using a multiwall plate reader CLARIOstar (BMG
LABTECH). Data were processed and analyzed using MARS (BMG LABTECH)
and OriginPro 9.5.1 (OriginLab).
Authors: Lukas Kurt Josef Stadler; Toni Hoffmann; Darren Charles Tomlinson; Qifeng Song; Tracy Lee; Michael Busby; Yvonne Nyathi; Elisenda Gendra; Christian Tiede; Keith Flanagan; Simon J Cockell; Anil Wipat; Colin Harwood; Simon D Wagner; Margaret A Knowles; Jason J Davis; Neil Keegan; Paul Ko Ferrigno Journal: Protein Eng Des Sel Date: 2011-05-25 Impact factor: 1.650
Authors: Mikaela Friedman; Anna Orlova; Eva Johansson; Tove L J Eriksson; Ingmarie Höidén-Guthenberg; Vladimir Tolmachev; Fredrik Y Nilsson; Stefan Ståhl Journal: J Mol Biol Date: 2008-01-04 Impact factor: 5.469
Authors: Anna Sanders; C Jeremy Craven; Lee D Higgins; Silva Giannini; Matthew J Conroy; Andrea M Hounslow; Jonathan P Waltho; Rosemary A Staniforth Journal: J Mol Biol Date: 2004-02-06 Impact factor: 5.469
Authors: Sasa Jenko Kokalj; Gregor Guncar; Igor Stern; Gareth Morgan; Sabina Rabzelj; Manca Kenig; Rosemary A Staniforth; Jonathan P Waltho; Eva Zerovnik; Dusan Turk Journal: J Mol Biol Date: 2006-12-16 Impact factor: 5.469