Yaxian Zhou1, Peng Teng1, Nathan T Montgomery1, Xiaolei Li1, Weiping Tang1,2. 1. School of Pharmacy, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 56305, United States. 2. Department of Chemistry, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 56306, United States.
Abstract
Targeted protein degradation (TPD) technology has drawn significant attention from researchers in both academia and industry. It is rapidly evolved as a new therapeutic modality and also a useful chemical tool in selectively depleting various protein targets. As most efforts focus on cytosolic proteins using PROteolysis TArgeting Chimera (PROTAC), LYsosome TArgeting Chimera (LYTAC) recently emerged as a promising technology to deliver extracellular protein targets to lysosome for degradation through the cation-independent mannose-6-phosphate receptor (CI-M6PR). In this study, we exploited the potential of the asialoglycoprotein receptor (ASGPR), a lysosomal targeting receptor specifically expressed on liver cells, for the degradation of extracellular proteins including membrane proteins. The ligand of ASGPR, triantennary N-acetylgalactosamine (tri-GalNAc), was conjugated to biotin, antibodies, or fragments of antibodies to generate a new class of degraders. We demonstrated that the extracellular protein targets could be successfully internalized and delivered into lysosome for degradation in liver cell lines specifically by these degraders. This work will add a new dimension to TPD with cell type specificity.
Targeted protein degradation (TPD) technology has drawn significant attention from researchers in both academia and industry. It is rapidly evolved as a new therapeutic modality and also a useful chemical tool in selectively depleting various protein targets. As most efforts focus on cytosolic proteins using PROteolysis TArgeting Chimera (PROTAC), LYsosome TArgeting Chimera (LYTAC) recently emerged as a promising technology to deliver extracellular protein targets to lysosome for degradation through the cation-independent mannose-6-phosphate receptor (CI-M6PR). In this study, we exploited the potential of the asialoglycoprotein receptor (ASGPR), a lysosomal targeting receptor specifically expressed on liver cells, for the degradation of extracellular proteins including membrane proteins. The ligand of ASGPR, triantennary N-acetylgalactosamine (tri-GalNAc), was conjugated to biotin, antibodies, or fragments of antibodies to generate a new class of degraders. We demonstrated that the extracellular protein targets could be successfully internalized and delivered into lysosome for degradation in liver cell lines specifically by these degraders. This work will add a new dimension to TPD with cell type specificity.
Protein
degradation is essential for maintaining cellular protein
homeostasis. Most proteins in eukaryotic cells are degraded through
the ubiquitin-proteasome system, where the E3 ubiquitin ligase recognizes
a specific protein substrate and tags multiple ubiquitin motifs to
it, leading to the subsequent proteolysis by the proteasome.[1,2] Lysosome is another major destination for protein degradation. Through
autophagy and endocytosis, both intracellular and extracellular proteins
enclosed in vesicles can be delivered into lysosomes for degradation.[3,4] Based on these mechanisms, targeted protein degradation by chimeric
molecules emerged as a novel therapeutic modality. These chimeras
are heterobifunctional molecules with one end binding to the protein
of interest (POI) and the other end directing the ternary complex
toward a certain degradation pathway. PROteolysis TArgeting Chimera
(PROTAC) has received the most attention to date. PROTACs contain
an E3 ligase ligand to route the targeted protein to the proteasome
for degradation.[5,6] More recently, AUtophagy-TArgeting
Chimera (AUTAC) was developed to degrade not only proteins but also
organelles by using S-guanylation as the tag for autophagy.[7] However, these two types of chimeras are only
capable of depleting cytoplasmic proteins or membrane proteins with
a cytosolic binding domain. To broaden the scope of targets to include
proteins without cytosolic binding domains, Bertozzi’s group
first developed LYsosome TArgeting Chimeras (LYTACs) by conjugating
the ligand of the ubiquitously expressed cation-independent mannose-6-phosphate
receptor (CI-M6PR) on the cell surface with a molecule that binds
to the extracellular protein target.[8] The
receptor–ligand interaction triggers the internalization of
the extracellular proteins through receptor-mediated endocytosis,
further inducing the degradation of the targets in the lysosome. CI-M6PR
has been used to deliver therapeutic drugs conjugated with mannose-6-phosphate
(M6P) derivatives for lysosomal enzyme replacement therapy and cancer
treatment.[9,10] Various molecules, such as peptides, proteins,
or liposome, were covalently linked to the modified M6P with enhanced
affinity and stability to achieve targeted drug delivery.[11−14] To extend the usage of M6PR/M6P system to targeted protein degradation,
LYTAC was constructed by conjugating a mixture of polyglycopeptides
containing multiple M6P analogues per polymer to the antibody of POI.
Different from the drug delivery process, which involves the internalization
of a covalent linked M6P-protein target, LYTAC allows the trafficking
of a complex formed by the noncovalent interaction between the protein
target and LYTAC. It has been shown that LYTAC could successfully
degrade both secreted and membrane proteins in the lysosome through
CI-M6PR.[8]Asialoglycoprotein
receptor (ASGPR) is another well-defined
lysosomal targeting receptor, responsible for clearing glycoproteins
via clathrin-mediated endocytosis and lysosomal degradation. Unlike
CI-M6PR, ASGPR is primarily and highly expressed in hepatocytes with
500 000 copies per cell.[15] The unique
expression pattern together with rapid recycling rate (∼15
min)[16] make ASGPR a promising candidate
for liver-specific targeted protein degradation. It has been reported
that ASGPR binds to galactose (Gal) and N-acetylgalactosamine
(GalNAc), with a higher affinity to the latter than the former, in
the presence of Ca2+ ions.[17,18] Studies using
both cluster galactosides and synthetic oligosaccharides indicated
that trivalent GalNAc ligand with a 15–20 Å spacing between
each sugar exhibited the highest binding affinity and efficiency for
endocytosis compared to mono- and bivalent GalNAc ligands.[19,20] Investigations on the triantennary ligand also suggest that cargo
size below 70 nm is important for the proper receptor recognition
and efficient endocytosis.[21] The comprehensive
understanding of receptor–ligand interaction paved the way
for the application of a ASGRP/triantennary GalNAc (tri-GalNAc) system
in targeted drug delivery, especially for oligonucleotide therapy.
Many tri-GalNAc-modified therapeutic nucleic acid agents, including
siRNAs, anti-miRNAs, and antisense oligonucleotides (ASOs), are now
in preclinical or clinical studies.[22,23] It has been
shown that the conjugation of tri-GalNAc facilitates the uptake of
the oligonucleotides and thus much lower dose is required compared
to the free version.[24,25] Besides direct labeling of the
therapeutic drugs, tri-GalNAc was also tagged to some drug carriers,
such as lipid nanoparticle or poly(amidoamine) (PAMAM) dendrimer to
achieve targeted delivery.[26,27] It was reported that
modifying poly-γ-glutamic acids (PGA) with tri-GalNAc resulted
in exclusive distribution in mice liver, while the nonmodified PGA
were excreted into urine.[28] However, despite
extensive use in drug delivery, the possibility of ASGPR-mediated
targeted protein degradation has not been exploited prior to our study.
During the preparation of this manuscript, research groups of Spiegel
and Bertozzi independently reported their elegant design of chimeric
molecules with tri-GalNAc for targeted protein degradation in liver
cells.[29,30] While the former focused on small molecule-based
lysosome targeting degraders,[29] the latter
investigated antibody-based degraders for extracellular protein targets.[30] Inspired by Bertozzi’s pioneering work
on LYTACs based on CI-M6PR and due to our interest in both targeted
protein degradation[31−34] and carbohydrate chemistry,[35,36] we initiated the investigation
of ASGPR-mediated targeted protein degradation using chimeric molecules
bearing a trivalent GalNAc ligand as liver cell-specific degraders
for extracellular proteins including membrane proteins (Figure ). Since liver is the major
place for protein catabolism, selectively delivering undesired proteins
to the liver for degradation can be potentially advantageous over
ubiquitously delivery of protein targets to various types of cells
unselectively for many therapeutic applications.
Figure 1
Comparison of the application
of tri-GalNAc in targeted protein
degradation and drug delivery. Small molecule- and antibody-based
tri-GalNAc degraders noncovalently capture the protein targets and
transport the targets to lysosome for degradation via the interaction
with ASGPR. Oligonucleotides covalently linked to tri-GalNAc enable
their internalization into the cell through ASGPR. After trafficking
to lysosome, a small amount of the oligonucleotides can escape from
the endosome or lysosome to block or induce degradation of RNA.
Comparison of the application
of tri-GalNAc in targeted protein
degradation and drug delivery. Small molecule- and antibody-based
tri-GalNAc degraders noncovalently capture the protein targets and
transport the targets to lysosome for degradation via the interaction
with ASGPR. Oligonucleotides covalently linked to tri-GalNAc enable
their internalization into the cell through ASGPR. After trafficking
to lysosome, a small amount of the oligonucleotides can escape from
the endosome or lysosome to block or induce degradation of RNA.
Results and Discussion
Tri-GalNAc-biotin Conjugate 1, a Small Molecule
Lysosome Targeting Degrader, Can Facilitate the Uptake of NeutrAvidin
through ASGPR in Liver Cells
As our initial study, we employed
NeutrAvidin (NA) as the targeted protein. Commercially available tri-GalNAc-biotin
conjugate 1 was used as the ligand of ASGPR to examine
the uptake of NA (Figure A). HepG2 cells were treated with 2 μM of 1 and 500 nM of fluorescently labeled NA-650 concurrently for 4 h,
and the fluorescence intensity inside the cells was measured by the
plate reader to indicate the uptake of the NA-650. Our data showed
that NA-650 was internalized into the cell in a time-dependent manner
in the presence of 1. No increase of the fluorescent
signal was observed when the cells were treated with NA-650 alone
or in the presence of negative control, tri-GalNAc-CO2H 2 (Figure B). The treatment of increasing concentration of 1 showed
reduced uptake of NA-650 at high doses, suggesting that the formation
of binary complexes between 1 and receptor or 1 and NA-650 becomes dominant over the formation of ternary complex
NA-650/1/receptor with excess degrader 1 (Figure S1A), which is often termed as
the hook effect.[37] We next extended the
incubation time for 1 and NA-650 in HepG2 cells to 24
h. A continuous increase of the fluorescent signal was detected in
the early phase while the signal gradually reached the plateau after
16–20 h (Figure S1B).
Figure 2
Tri-GalNAc-biotin
mediates ASGPR-dependent cellular uptake of NA-650
specifically in liver cells and transports NA-650 to lysosome for
degradation. (A) Chemical structures of tri-GalNAc-biotin (compound 1), tri-GalNAc-CO2H (compound 2),
and tri-GalNAc-NHS ester (compound 3). (B) Cellular uptake
of NA-650 in HepG2 cells treated with NA-650 alone (500 nM) or NA-650
(500 nM) and compound 1 (2 μM) or 2 (2 μM). (C) Inhibition of the internalization of NA-650 (500
nM) mediated by 1 (2 μM) in HepG2 cells by compound 2. (D, E) Comparison of the internalization of NA-650 (500
nM) mediated by 1 (2 μM) among HepG2, Huh7, and
A549 cells incubated with NA-650 and compounds 1 or 2 for 16 (D) or 6 h (E). Data presented as mean ± SD, n = 3. **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001. (F) Knockdown of
ASGPR by siRNA. (G) Uptake of NA-650 (500 nM) in the presence of 1 (2 μM) within 4 h in HepG2 cells treated with control
or ASGPR siRNA. (H) Confocal microscopy images of HepG2 cells treated
with NA-650 (500 nM) and compound 1 (2 μM) for
18 h. Legend: internalized NA-650 (red); lysosome stained by Lysotracker
(green); nuclei stained by Hoechst 33342 (blue); merged area (yellow).
White arrows indicate the colocalization of NA-650 and the lysosome;
scale bar: 20 μm. (I) In gel fluorescence analysis of NA-650
(500 nM) internalization and degradation in HepG2 cells by compound 1 (2 μM) in the presence or absence of leupeptin (0.1
mg/mL).
Tri-GalNAc-biotin
mediates ASGPR-dependent cellular uptake of NA-650
specifically in liver cells and transports NA-650 to lysosome for
degradation. (A) Chemical structures of tri-GalNAc-biotin (compound 1), tri-GalNAc-CO2H (compound 2),
and tri-GalNAc-NHS ester (compound 3). (B) Cellular uptake
of NA-650 in HepG2 cells treated with NA-650 alone (500 nM) or NA-650
(500 nM) and compound 1 (2 μM) or 2 (2 μM). (C) Inhibition of the internalization of NA-650 (500
nM) mediated by 1 (2 μM) in HepG2 cells by compound 2. (D, E) Comparison of the internalization of NA-650 (500
nM) mediated by 1 (2 μM) among HepG2, Huh7, and
A549 cells incubated with NA-650 and compounds 1 or 2 for 16 (D) or 6 h (E). Data presented as mean ± SD, n = 3. **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001. (F) Knockdown of
ASGPR by siRNA. (G) Uptake of NA-650 (500 nM) in the presence of 1 (2 μM) within 4 h in HepG2 cells treated with control
or ASGPR siRNA. (H) Confocal microscopy images of HepG2 cells treated
with NA-650 (500 nM) and compound 1 (2 μM) for
18 h. Legend: internalized NA-650 (red); lysosome stained by Lysotracker
(green); nuclei stained by Hoechst 33342 (blue); merged area (yellow).
White arrows indicate the colocalization of NA-650 and the lysosome;
scale bar: 20 μm. (I) In gel fluorescence analysis of NA-650
(500 nM) internalization and degradation in HepG2 cells by compound 1 (2 μM) in the presence or absence of leupeptin (0.1
mg/mL).To verify that the internalization
of NA-650 was mediated through
ASGPR, various concentrations of 2 were added to compete
for the receptor with the 1/NA-650 complex. The results
showed that the uptake of NA-650 negatively correlated with the amount
of 2, suggesting that the internalization of NA-650 required
the interaction between 1/NA-650 complex and ASGPR (Figure C). We then compared
the uptake of NA-650 into HepG2, Huh7, or A549 cells with various
ASGPR expression levels (Figure S1C) and
found that the amount of NA-650 accumulated in the cells significantly
reduced with the decrease of ASGPR level. Similar to Figure B, compound 2 without
the biotin moiety failed to deliver NA-650 to all of these cell lines
(Figure D, E). Moreover,
the knockdown of ASGPR by siRNA dramatically impeded the internalization
of NA-650 into HepG2 cells (Figure F, G; Figure S1D). All of
these data confirmed the involvement of ASGPR in the transportation
of NA-650 and indicated that the biotinylated ligand containing tri-GalNAc
specifically delivered the targeted protein into liver cells.
Tri-GalNAc-biotin
Conjugate 1 Delivers NeutrAvidin
to Lysosome for Degradation
Next, we investigated whether
NA-650 was delivered into lysosomes and degraded after being endocytosed
into the cell. Confocal images showed the distribution of NA-650 in
the cytoplasm and colocalization with the lysosome indicated by Lysotracker.
This confirmed the ASGPR-mediated uptake and trafficking of the protein
target to the lysosome (Figure H). To evaluate the degradation of NA-650, HepG2 cells were
incubated with NA-650 and 1 for 1 h, followed by the
replacement of fresh media to allow further degradation. Compared
to the amount of NA-650 enriched in the cell within 1 h incubation,
decreasing amounts of NA-650 were detected at 3, 6, and 24 h postmedia
change. The addition of known lysosome inhibitor leupeptin moderately
reduced the degradation of NA-650 at each time point (Figure I). These data indicated that
the degradation of NA-650 occurred after it was transported into the
lysosome.
A tri-GalNAc Labeled Full Length Antibody (Goat Anti-mouse IgG)
Facilitates the Uptake of Its Protein Target (Mouse Anti-biotin IgG-647)
Given the successful internalization and degradation of NA by 1 in the model system, we hypothesized that an antibody conjugated
with tri-GalNAc can function similarly as 1 tested above—capturing
the extracellular targeted protein and delivering it into the lysosome
for degradation. To validate the feasibility of our hypothesis, we
first functionalized an antibody with tri-GalNAc to generate an antibody-based
degrader (tri-GalNAc-antibody). Tri-GalNAc-CO2H 2 was converted to its active N-hydroxysuccinimide
(NHS) ester 3 under standard conditions. The antibody
was then conjugated with NHS ester 3 by reacting with
the lysine residues on the antibody. After testing different molar
ratios for the antibody conjugation, we found that the best labeling
efficiency was achieved by using 25 equiv of NHS ester 3 (Figure A). Moreover,
comparing the internalization of antibodies coupled with various equivalents
of tri-GalNAc revealed that a higher degree of tri-GalNAc labeling
on the antibody resulted in a greater internalization capacity (Figure S2).
Figure 3
Tri-GalNAc labeled full length antibody
goat anti-mouse IgG (Ab-GN)
delivers target protein mouse anti-biotin IgG-647 into the cells.
(A) Goat anti-mouse full length antibody labeling with various amounts
of tri-GalNAc: UL = unlabeled; 3x = 3 mol equiv; 12x = 12 mol equiv;
25x = 25 mol equiv. N = the number of tri-GalNAc labeled on the antibody.
(B) Uptake of mouse anti-biotin IgG-647 (50 nM) in the HepG2 cells
treated with or without Ab-GN (25 nM) for 6 h. (C) Mouse anti-biotin
IgG-647 (50 nM) uptake mediated by Ab-GN (25 nM) with or without 1
h premix before treatment for 6 h. The uptake of anti-biotin IgG-647
(50 nM) and Ab-647-GN (25 nM) were measured for comparison.
Tri-GalNAc labeled full length antibody
goat anti-mouse IgG (Ab-GN)
delivers target protein mouse anti-biotin IgG-647 into the cells.
(A) Goat anti-mouse full length antibody labeling with various amounts
of tri-GalNAc: UL = unlabeled; 3x = 3 mol equiv; 12x = 12 mol equiv;
25x = 25 mol equiv. N = the number of tri-GalNAc labeled on the antibody.
(B) Uptake of mouse anti-biotin IgG-647 (50 nM) in the HepG2 cells
treated with or without Ab-GN (25 nM) for 6 h. (C) Mouse anti-biotin
IgG-647 (50 nM) uptake mediated by Ab-GN (25 nM) with or without 1
h premix before treatment for 6 h. The uptake of anti-biotin IgG-647
(50 nM) and Ab-647-GN (25 nM) were measured for comparison.We then examined the uptake of the targeted protein
by cotreating
HepG2 cells with tri-GalNAc-modified goat anti-mouse IgG (Ab-GN) and
fluorescent protein target mouse anti-biotin IgG-647 for 6 h. The
addition of Ab-GN increased the uptake of mouse anti-biotin IgG-647
compared to the cells treated with mouse anti-biotin IgG-647 alone,
but the efficiency was relatively low (Figure B). To identify the factors that gave rise
to the low uptake efficiency, fluorescent goat anti-mouse IgG-647
was directly labeled with NHS ester 3 (Ab-647-GN). Greater
fluorescent intensity was observed in the cells treated with Ab-647-GN
alone than the cells cotreated with Ab-GN and mouse IgG-647 (Figure C), suggesting that
the low uptake of the targeted protein was not restrained by the internalization
efficiency of tri-GalNAc-Ab itself. We then preincubated mouse anti-biotin
IgG-647 and Ab-GN to allow the complex formed prior to the treatment.
The premixing did not enhance the amount of internalized mouse IgG-647
(Figure C), suggesting
that the complex formation is not the rate-limiting step for the tri-GalNAc-Ab
mediated uptake.
Comparison of the Uptake Efficiency of the
Protein Targets (Mouse
Anti-biotin IgG-647 and Mouse Anti-rabbit IgG-647) Mediated by Fab
Fragment and Full Length Antibodies Labeled with Different Numbers
of tri-GalNAc
It has been reported that the size of the complex
may play a role in the recognition and processing by the ASGPR. Efficient
uptake of liposome could only be achieved when their sizes are less
than 70 nm.[21] To compare the internalization
efficiency of the protein target by degraders with different sizes,
in addition to the full-size goat anti-mouse IgG (MW = 150 kDa), we
labeled goat anti-mouse IgG Fab monomer (MW = 50 kDa) with NHS ester 3 to yield a smaller degrader, Fab-GN (Figure A). Apart from size, the number of ligands
labeled on each antibody may influence the accessibility of the degrader
to the receptor and contribute to the difference in the target protein
uptake efficiency. By adjusting the initial antibody concentration,
we were able to produce two types of full-length antibody degraders
with high (Ab-GN1) or low (Ab-GN2) tri-GalNAc labeling numbers. MALDI-MS
indicated that Ab-GN1 was labeled with 5.7 tri-GalNAc residues in
average per antibody, while Ab-GN2 had a lower average labeling number
around 4.7 (Figure A, S3). All three antibodies (Ab-GN1,
Ab-GN2, and Fab-GN) should bind to mouse anti-biotin IgG-647 with
similar affinity. We then cotreated HepG2 and Huh7 cells with 50 nM
of the protein target (mouse antirabbit IgG-647) together with 25
nM of goat anti-mouse IgG (Ab) and goat anti-mouse IgG Fab (Fab) with
or without tri-GalNAc (GN) labeling. The amount of florescent mouse
anti-rabbit IgG-647 inside the cells was monitored 6 h post-treatment.
In gel fluorescence analysis showed that all three types of tri-GalNAc-antibodies
were able to enhance the internalization of mouse anti-rabbit IgG-647
compared to the cells treated with nonmodified antibodies. Among them,
Ab-GN1, with only one more labeled tri-GalNAc residues than Ab-GN2
in average, exhibited higher uptake efficiency, suggesting that even
slightly higher number of ligands on the degrader could facilitate
the target protein internalization (Figure B). Interestingly, Fab-GN significantly boosted
the uptake of the mouse IgG-647 compared to both of Ab-GNs, despite
that fewer tri-GalNAc residues (∼3.2) were modified on the
antibody. We then decided to confirm this trend by studying three
tri-GalNAc-antibody-mediated uptake of another protein target, fluorescent
mouse anti-biotin IgG-647. Our results again showed that the highest
target uptake was achieved by Fab-GN (Figure S4). Fab-GN, the tri-GalNAc conjugate with the lowest molecular weight
and size, can promote the most efficient uptake of two different protein
targets among the three antibody-based degraders, suggesting that
the size of the tri-GalNAc-Ab may affect the endocytosis process mediated
by ASGPR.
Figure 4
Uptake of mouse IgG-647 mediated by tri-GalNAc-labeled antibodies
and compound 1. (A) Antibodies labeled with tri-GalNAc (25 mol equiv).
(B) Comparison of the 6 h uptake of mouse anti-rabbit IgG-647 (50
nM) mediated by 25 nM of the goat anti-mouse IgG and goat anti-mouse
IgG Fab with or without tri-GalNAc (GN) labeling. (C) Cellular uptake
of mouse anti-biotin IgG-647 (P1, 50 nM), premixed mouse anti-biotin
IgG-647 (50 nM)/goat anti-mouse IgG Fab (200 nM) complex (P2), and
premixed mouse anti-biotin IgG-647 (50 nM)/goat anti-mouse IgG (200
nM) complex (P3) in the presence of compounds 1 (200
nM) or 2 (200 nM) for 6 h.
Uptake of mouse IgG-647 mediated by tri-GalNAc-labeled antibodies
and compound 1. (A) Antibodies labeled with tri-GalNAc (25 mol equiv).
(B) Comparison of the 6 h uptake of mouse anti-rabbit IgG-647 (50
nM) mediated by 25 nM of the goat anti-mouse IgG and goat anti-mouse
IgG Fab with or without tri-GalNAc (GN) labeling. (C) Cellular uptake
of mouse anti-biotin IgG-647 (P1, 50 nM), premixed mouse anti-biotin
IgG-647 (50 nM)/goat anti-mouse IgG Fab (200 nM) complex (P2), and
premixed mouse anti-biotin IgG-647 (50 nM)/goat anti-mouse IgG (200
nM) complex (P3) in the presence of compounds 1 (200
nM) or 2 (200 nM) for 6 h.To further verify the potential role of molecule size in ASGPR
mediated cellular uptake, we next compared the uptake efficiency of
proteins in different sizes using the same small molecule-based degrader, 1. Incubating mouse anti-biotin IgG-647 with goat anti-mouse
IgG or anti-mouse IgG Fab fragment could enable the formation of protein
complexes with increased molecular weight and sizes. HepG2 cells were
treated with mouse anti-biotin IgG-647 (P1), premixed mouse anti-biotin
IgG-647/goat anti-mouse IgG Fab (P2), and premixed mouse anti-biotin
IgG-647/goat anti-mouse IgG (P3) in the presence of 2 or 1 for 6 h. The results showed that the uptake efficiency
of protein targets decreased as the size of the complex increased
when cells cotreated with the same amount of 1 (Figure C). Acid 2 did not induce the internalization of protein targets at all. Consistent
with the results of tri-GalNAc-antibodies, 1 also displayed
a higher uptake efficiency for the smaller degrader-target complex.
The affinity of 1 to mouse anti-biotin IgG-647 (P1),
premixed mouse anti-biotin IgG-647/goat anti-mouse IgG Fab (P2), and
premixed mouse anti-biotin IgG-647/goat anti-mouse IgG (P3) should
be very similar. The decreased uptake efficiency from P1 to P2 and
from P2 to P3 appears to correlate with the increased size of the
target complexes. Our data indicate that the internalization driven
by a small molecule tri-GalNAc-conjugate through ASGPR is also more
efficient for smaller degrader–protein target complexes.
Tri-GalNAc-antibody Mediates the Uptake and Degradation of Both
Exogenous and Endogenous Protein Targets through ASGPR in Liver Cells
Different uptake efficiencies were observed for two different protein
targets (mouse anti-biotin IgG-647 and mouse anti-rabbit IgG-647)
using three different antibody-based degraders: full size antibody
with high or low tri-GalNAc labeling, as well as tri-GalNAc-labeled
Fab fragment. Owing to the highest uptake efficiency mediated by Fab-GN,
we next compared the uptake of mouse anti-biotin IgG-647 in HepG2,
Huh7, and A549 cell lines in the presence of Fab-GN. Similar to the
small molecule-based degrader, the amount of target protein internalized
into cells was highly dependent on the ASGPR expression in different
cell lines, meaning that the highest uptake was observed in HepG2
cells followed by Huh7 cells. No detection of the mouse IgG-647 in
A549 cells indicated that the protein target can only be efficiently
transported into ASGPR-expressing cell with the assistance of tri-GalNAc-modified
antibody (Figure A).
The degradation of internalized mouse IgG-647 was detected after the
removal of Fab-GN and mouse IgG-647 from the media for 3 h. The addition
of leupeptin moderately inhibited the degradation (Figure B). Moreover, we found that
continuous treatment of known lysosome inhibitors chloroquine or leupeptin
for 6 h increased the accumulation of mouse IgG-647 in both HepG2
and Huh7 cells (Figure S5). These results
indicated that the protein was depleted through lysosome degradation
pathway.
Figure 5
Tri-GalNAc-antibody mediates the uptake and degradation of mouse
anti-biotin IgG-647 and EGFR in liver cells. (A) Internalization of
mouse anti-biotin IgG-647 in cells incubated with mouse anti-biotin
IgG-647 (50 nM) and 25 nM of goat anti-mouse IgG Fab with or without
tri-GalNAc (GN) labeling for 6 h. (B) Mouse anti-biotin IgG-647 (50
nM) endocytosis and degradation in HepG2 cells in the presence or
absence of leupeptin (0.1 mg/mL) for 6 h. (C) Ctx labeling with tri-GalNAc
(25 mol equiv). (D) EGFR degradation in the presence of 30 nM Ctx-GN
in HepG2 and Huh7 cells after 48 h treatment.
Tri-GalNAc-antibody mediates the uptake and degradation of mouse
anti-biotin IgG-647 and EGFR in liver cells. (A) Internalization of
mouse anti-biotin IgG-647 in cells incubated with mouse anti-biotin
IgG-647 (50 nM) and 25 nM of goat anti-mouse IgG Fab with or without
tri-GalNAc (GN) labeling for 6 h. (B) Mouse anti-biotin IgG-647 (50
nM) endocytosis and degradation in HepG2 cells in the presence or
absence of leupeptin (0.1 mg/mL) for 6 h. (C) Ctx labeling with tri-GalNAc
(25 mol equiv). (D) EGFR degradation in the presence of 30 nM Ctx-GN
in HepG2 and Huh7 cells after 48 h treatment.We next explored the application of the lysosome targeting degraders
for endogenous proteins. We generated an antibody-based degrader targeting
the cellular membrane protein, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR),
which is commonly overexpressed and mutated in humantumors.[38−41] Cetuximab (Ctx), a monoclonal antibody against EGFR approved by
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), was conjugated with tri-GalNAc
following the same procedure as secondary antibody used previously
to generate the degrader Ctx-GN (Figure C). MALDI analysis revealed that each Ctx
was labeled with 6.0 tri-GalNAc motifs in average (Figure S6). To explore Ctx-GN-mediated EGFR degradation, HepG2
and Huh7 cells were treated with 30 nM Ctx-GN for 48 h, and a nearly
40% downregulation of EGFR was observed in Ctx-GN-treated cells compared
to the cells incubated with nonmodified Ctx or without treatment (Figure D). This result demonstrated
the feasibility of our degraders on degrading endogenous proteins.
Conclusion
The emergence of chimeric molecules that are
capable of depleting
pathogenic proteins through native degradation pathways have the potential
to overcome a major limitation of traditional therapeutic strategies,
which generally need to bind to the protein target and alter its function.
Targeted protein degradation using chimeric molecules only needs a
binder to the protein target. Depletion of the entire pathogenic protein
also offers unique advantages over functional inhibition in many cases.
However, the most developed targeted protein degradation strategy,
namely PROTAC, is restricted to degrading intracellular targets. The
M6P analogue-based LYTAC opened up a new direction of research area
for targeted protein degradation by expanding the scope of targets
to extracellular proteins. Similar to proteasome targeting degraders,
where only handful of E3 ubiquitin ligase ligands are available, more
lysosome targeting ligands need to be explored for expanded utilities
of lysosome targeting degraders. We described our initial proof-of-concept
studies using a tri-GalNAc-biotin small molecule and tri-GalNAc labeled
antibodies to deliver the extracellular protein targets into the lysosome
for degradation. We have shown that the internalization and lysosomal
degradation of the protein targets through ASGPR are possible by both
small molecule- and antibody-based lysosome targeting degraders. We
also observed that smaller complexes[42] exhibited
higher uptake efficiency in several cases. In addition to the well-known
factors, such as the length of linker, the type of linker, polyvalency,
binding affinities to the receptor and protein target, and expression
levels of receptor and protein target, the size of the complex may
be an additional parameter for the optimization of triantennary GalNAc
conjugate-mediated lysosomal degradation of extracellular proteins.
Overall, our studies demonstrated the feasibility of ASGPR-mediated
liver cell-specific targeted protein degradation strategy and uncovered
a potential new therapeutic application of triantennary GalNAc in
addition to its well-known utilities in liver-specific delivery of
oligonucleotides.
Authors: Vipul Agarwal; Priyanka Toshniwal; Natalie E Smith; Nicole M Smith; Binbin Li; Tristan D Clemons; Lindsay T Byrne; Foteini Kakulas; Fiona M Wood; Mark Fear; Ben Corry; K Swaminathan Iyer Journal: Chem Commun (Camb) Date: 2015-10-30 Impact factor: 6.222
Authors: Daniel A Glazier; Junzhuo Liao; Brett L Roberts; Xiaolei Li; Ka Yang; Christopher M Stevens; Weiping Tang Journal: Bioconjug Chem Date: 2020-04-15 Impact factor: 4.774
Authors: Karsten Schmidt; Thazha P Prakash; Aaron J Donner; Garth A Kinberger; Hans J Gaus; Audrey Low; Michael E Østergaard; Melanie Bell; Eric E Swayze; Punit P Seth Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2017-03-17 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: Katarina Pance; Josef A Gramespacher; James R Byrnes; Fernando Salangsang; Juan-Antonio C Serrano; Adam D Cotton; Veronica Steri; James A Wells Journal: Nat Biotechnol Date: 2022-09-22 Impact factor: 68.164