| Literature DB >> 34338123 |
Linlin Chen1,2,3, Xiangli Guo1,2, Lidan Wang1,2, Jingping Geng1,2, Jiao Wu3, Bin Hu3, Tao Wang4, Jason Li5, Changbai Liu1,2, Hu Wang1.
Abstract
Viral vectors for vaccine delivery are challenged by recently reported safety issues like immunogenicity and risk for cancer development, and thus there is a growing need for the development of non-viral vectors. Cell penetrating peptides (CPPs) are non-viral vectors that can enter plasma membranes efficiently and deliver a broad range of cargoes. Our bioinformatic prediction and wet-lab validation data suggested that peptide P1 derived from MARCKS protein phosphorylation site domain is a new potential CPP candidate. We found that peptide P1 can efficiently internalize into various cell lines in a concentration-dependent manner. Receptor-mediated endocytosis pathway is the major mechanism of P1 penetration, although P1 also directly penetrates the plasma membrane. We also found that peptide P1 has low cytotoxicity in cultured cell lines as well as mouse red blood cells. Furthermore, peptide P1 not only can enter into cultured cells itself, but it also can interact with plasmid DNA and mediate the functional delivery of plasmid DNA into cultured cells, even in hard-to-transfect cells. Combined, these findings indicate that P1 may be a promising vector for efficient intracellular delivery of bioactive cargos.Entities:
Keywords: Cell-permeable peptides (CPPs); bioinformatics; plasmid DNA delivery
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34338123 PMCID: PMC8330795 DOI: 10.1080/10717544.2021.1960922
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Drug Deliv ISSN: 1071-7544 Impact factor: 6.419
Figure 1.Peptide P1 secondary structure prediction. (A) Three-dimensional structure model of peptide P1 predicted by I-TASSER. (B) I-TASSER predicted peptide P1 structure validation of the assessed Ramachandran plot. (C) I-TASSER predicted peptide P1 structure evaluated by ProSA-web. (D) Overall quality of I-TASSER predicted P1 structure evaluated by ERRAT server. (E) Three-dimensional structure, energy map, surface electrostatics, and hydrophobicity representation of peptide P1.
Figure 2.Core motif identification of peptide P1. (A) Penetration property prediction of peptide P1 with 15-mer and 10-mer truncation analysis. (B) The heatmap (SVM score) representing penetration property of peptide P1 with single mutation predicted by CellPPD.
Figure 3.Penetration property validation. (A) Fluorescence microscopy images of peptide P1 penetration at indicated peptide concentration. White box indicated 4 times zoom region shown in the right panel. (B) Quantification of fluorescent intensity of peptide P1 penetration at indicated peptide concentration. The fluorescence of the cellular uptake was normalized by cellular protein. Values represent mean ± SEM. (C) The corresponding p-value plot between data pairs presenting in (B). The one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the differences between the control and experimental values. (D) Fluorescence microscopy images of peptide P1 (5 μM) penetration with different incubation times. White box indicated 4 times zoom region shown in the right panel. (E) Quantification of fluorescent intensity of peptide P1 (5 μM) penetration with different incubation times. The fluorescence of the cellular uptake was normalized by cellular protein. Values represent mean ± SEM. (F) The corresponding p-value plot between data pairs presenting in Figure 3(E). ANOVA was used to compare the differences between the control and experimental values. (G) Fluorescence microscopy images of peptide P1 (5 μM) penetration in different cell lines. White box indicated 4 times zoom region shown in the right panel. (H) Quantification of fluorescent intensity of peptide P1 (5 μM) penetration in different cell lines. The fluorescence of the cellular uptake was normalized by cellular protein. Values represent mean ± SEM. (I) The corresponding p-value plot between data pairs presenting in Figure 3(H). ANOVA was used to compare the differences between the control and experimental values.
Figure 4.Peptide P1 penetration comparison between penetration enhancer and peptide. (A) Fluorescence microscopy images of peptide P1 (5 μM) incubated with different penetration enhancers. (B) Quantification of fluorescent intensity of peptide P1 (5 μM) incubated with different penetration enhancers. The fluorescence of the cellular uptake was normalized by cellular protein. Values represent mean ± SEM. (C) The corresponding p-value plot between data pairs presenting in Figure 4(B). ANOVA was used to compare the differences between the control and experimental values. (D) Fluorescence microscopy images of peptide P1 (5 μM) and other published CPPs. (E) Quantification of fluorescent intensity of peptide P1 (5 μM) and other published CPPs. The error bars express SEM, the fluorescence of the cellular uptake was normalized by cellular protein. ANOVA was used to compare the differences between the control and experimental values, * indicated p < .05, and ** indicated p <.01.
Figure 5.Mechanisms involved in peptide P1 penetration. (A) Fluorescence microscopy images of peptide P1 (5 μM) incubated at different temperatures. (B) Quantification of fluorescent intensity of peptide P1 (5 μM) incubated at different temperatures. The fluorescence of the cellular uptake was normalized by cellular protein. Values represent mean ± SEM. (C) The corresponding p-value plot between data pairs presenting in (B). ANOVA was used to compare the differences between the control and experimental values. (D) Fluorescence microscopy images of peptide P1 (5 μM) incubated with different endocytosis inhibitors. (E) Quantification of fluorescent intensity of peptide P1 (5 μM) incubated with different endocytosis inhibitors. The fluorescence of the cellular uptake was normalized by cellular protein. Values represent mean ± SEM. (F) The corresponding p-value plot between data pairs presenting in (E). ANOVA was used to compare the differences between the control and experimental values.
Figure 6.Cytotoxicity and hemolysis evaluation. (A) MTT assay of peptide P1 incubation in HSC-T6 cells with indicated concentration at 24 or 48h. (B) Murine red blood cell hemolysis of peptide P1 with indicated concentration. Values represent mean ± SEM. ANOVA was used to compare the differences between the control and experimental values, **** indicated p < .0001.
Figure 7.Peptide P1 medicates plasmid delivery in vitro. (A) Agarose gel shift assay on different N/P ratios (left panel), and peptide/pDNA stability in serum for 4 h. (B) Fluorescence microscopy of RFP expression in MCF7 cell cultured for 48 h. (C) Fluorescence microscopy of RFP expression in HSC-T6 cell cultured for 24 h. (D) Fluorescence microscopy of RFP expression in BV2 cell cultured for 48 h.