| Literature DB >> 35198076 |
Zhao Cui1, Caifeng Li2, Peng Chen2,3, Hongjun Yang2.
Abstract
Natural active products (NAPs) are derived from chemical substances found in nature that have biological activity and medicinal potential. Screening and revealing the protein targets of NAPs is an indispensable link in the pharmacological and toxicological understanding of NAPs. Proteins are the main factors executing cell functions, and cells rely on the function of proteins to complete various activities in the life cycle. The important mechanism of action of drugs is to regulate cell biological activities by interacting with proteins and other macromolecules. At present, the classic way to screen protein targets is based on the molecular label tracing method, which has a long cycle and changes the molecular structure and pharmacological effects of NAPs. Due to the shortcomings of molecular labelling methods, in recent years, scientists have tried to develop a variety of label-free protein target identification methods for NAPs and have made a certain amount of progress. This article reviews the current protein target identification methods for NAPs with the aim of providing a reference for research on NAP protein targets. © The author(s).Entities:
Keywords: drug discovery; label-free methods; natural active products; protein stability; protein target identification
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35198076 PMCID: PMC8825594 DOI: 10.7150/thno.68804
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Theranostics ISSN: 1838-7640 Impact factor: 11.556
Figure 1Label-free target identification methods based on shifts in the thermal stability of protein targets. When the proteins are heated, their folded structures denature, and the proteins begin to aggregate. Proteins have intrinsic properties of resistance to thermal denaturation, which can be described by the Tm, the temperature when half of the proteins is denatured. Interactions between proteins and small molecules can alter their free energy and thermal stability. Label-free target identification methods based on shifts in the thermal stability of protein that include DSF, CETSA, TPP (or MS-CETSA), TS-FITGE (or 2DE-CETSA), ITDR-MS-CETSA, STPP and HCIF-CETSA.
Figure 5New label-free screening strategies. UPT uses the weak molecular interaction of bait-molecule to non-covalently immobilize it on a polymeric surface to achieve target protein fishing. AS-MS is an affinity-based screening technique for the analysis of interactions between protein targets and small molecules.
Figure 2Label-free target identification methods based on the difference in chemical denaturant-induced stability of protein targets. Proteins can be denatured by chemicals (i.e., denaturants), such as guanidine salts or urea. Denatured proteins are more susceptible to proteolysis or oxidation than intact proteins. The stability of protein to denaturants can be changed by the combination of small molecules, so as to shift the proteolytic stability and oxidation level of protein. Label-free target identification methods based on the difference in chemical denaturant-induced stability of protein that include PP, SPROX, SILAC-SPROX, SILAC-PP, PePTID, STEPP-PP and CPP.
Figure 3Label-free target identification methods based on the shift in the limited proteolytic susceptibility of protein targets. The protein conformation is influenced by a variety of factors, including post-translational modifications, disease state, and ligand binding, which may alter the proteolytic susceptibility. DARTS and LiP-MS are label-free target identification methods based on the shift in the limited proteolytic susceptibility of protein.
Figure 4Label-free target identification methods based on organic solvent-induced shift in the solubility of protein targets. Organic solvents are commonly used to precipitate proteins and remove contaminants. The resistance of the protein targets to organic solvent-induced denaturation and precipitation is stronger after ligand-binding events. DiffPOP and SIP are label-free target identification methods based organic solvent-induced shift in the solubility of protein.
Figure 6Indirect screening strategies for protein targets. (A) Protein degradation methods as dTAG method; (B) Genomic library screening methods as the CRISPR genomic library screening; (C) Differential genomic screening methods and differential proteomic screening methods; (D) Phenotypic-based screening methods; (E) Bioinformatics prediction methods.
Figure 7Timeline of the different label-free approaches.
Pros and cons of different label‐free target identification approaches
| Category and working principle | Methods | Sample to perturb | Readout coupled for identification | Advantages | Limitations | Proteome coverage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Based on the differences in the thermal stability of protein targets | DSF | Purified protein | qPCR | 1. Easy to implement, flexible setup and versatile formats; | 1. Need purified proteins and low throughput of target engagement; | - |
| CETSA | Living cells and tissues | WB | 1. Easy to implement, flexible setup and versatile formats; | 1. Low throughput of target engagement; | - | |
| TPP (MS-CETSA) | Living cells and tissues | MS (TMT) | 1. Versatile sample types including living cells and tissues; | 1. Inaccurate for some proteins have very low or high | ~5000-8000 proteins for proteome samples | |
| ITDR-MS-CETSA | Living cells and tissues | MS (TMT) | same as above 1-5; | Same as above 3-4. | ~5000-8000 proteins for proteome samples | |
| STPP | Living cells and tissues | MS (Isotopical dimethyl) | 1. Rapid labelling, accurate quantification and cost-effective; | Suitable for the initial screening of the protein targets of ligands and need further verification. | ~2000 proteins for proteome samples | |
| TS-FITGE (2DE-CETSA) | Living cells and tissues | 2D fluorescence gel +MS (Cy3/Cy5) | 1. Economical, fluorescent dyes to proteins; | 1. Complex samples to measure and analyse; | ~1000 proteins for proteome samples | |
| HCIF-CETSA | Living cells and tissues | Fluorescence imaging | Allow for distinguishing target engagement in specific cell types and heterogeneous samples | 1. Low throughput of target engagement; | - | |
| Based on the difference in chemical denaturant-induced stability of protein targets | PP | Lysates | WB | 1. Easy to implement, flexible setup; | 1. Only applicable to cell lysates; | - |
| SILAC-PP | Lysates | SDS-PAGE + MS (SILAC) | Same as above 1-2; | Same as above 1-4; | ~1000 proteins for proteome samples | |
| CPP | Lysates | MS (TMT) | same as above 1-2 | Same as above 1-4; | ~1000 proteins for proteome samples | |
| SPROX | Lysates | MS (iTRAQ; SILAC; TMT) | 1. Peptide-level resolution and domain-level binding information; | 1. Only applicable to the proteins containing methionine residue; | ~1000 proteins for proteome samples | |
| Based on the differential limited proteolytic susceptibility of protein targets | DARTS | Lysate | SDS-PAGE + MS | 1. Could analyse true interactions with low affinity; | 1. Limited to relatively higher abundance proteins; | ~5000-6000 proteins for proteome samples |
| LiP-MS | Lysate | MS (STEPP) | Peptide-level resolution and domain-level binding information. | 1. Complex samples to measure and analyse; | ~5000-6000 proteins for proteome samples | |
| Based on the organic solvent-induced difference in the solubility of protein targets | SIP | Lysate | MS (Isotopical dimethyl) | 1. Relatively easy to implement; | 1. Relatively low throughput of target engagement; | ~1000-2000 proteins for proteome samples |
| Based on weak molecular interactions of bait-molecule and polymeric surface | UPT | Lysate | SDS-PAGE + MS | 1. Underivatized bait-molecule and target Identification trough affinity-based target enrichment; | Certain highly water soluble and/or highly hydrophobic compounds may not get immobilized on current available matrix. | - |
| Based on size exclusion chromatography | AS-MS | Purified protein | LC/MS | 1. Label- and immobilization-free; | Need to fix the molecule, experimental procedures are relatively cumbersome. | - |