Independent education resourceInformation here does not replace care from a qualified health professional.
Peptide Therapy GuideClear peptide education

Educational guide

3D Chemokine Receptor Study Opens Door to Finding New Anti-Inflammatory Drugs

Right: Structure of CC chemokine receptor 2 (CCR2) bound to two inhibitors (pink and yellow). Left: Normally, chemokines outside the cell bind CCR2 and the receptor transmits that signal inside the cell via G proteins. Inhibitors block this signal transmission

Written by Peptide Therapy Guide Editorial Team
For education only

This guide cannot diagnose a condition or recommend a personal treatment plan. Discuss medical questions with a qualified professional.

Right: Structure of CC chemokine receptor 2 (CCR2) bound to two inhibitors (pink and yellow). Left: Normally, chemokines outside the cell bind CCR2 and the receptor transmits that signal inside the cell via G proteins. Inhibitors block this signal transmission.

Scientists at the Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences at the University of California San Diego have determined the 3D structure of CC chemokine receptor 2 (CCR2), a protein that sits on the surface of immune cells sensing and transmitting inflammatory signals that spur cell movement toward sites of inflammation, simultaneously bound to two inhibitors. Understanding how these molecules fit together may better enable pharmaceutical companies to develop anti-inflammatory drugs that bind and inhibit CCR2 in a similar manner.

CCR2 and associated signaling molecules are known to play roles in a number of inflammatory and neurodegenerative diseases, including multiple sclerosis, asthma, diabetic nephropathy, and cancer. Many drug companies have attempted to develop drugs that target CCR2, but none have yet made it to market.

“So far drugs that target CCR2 have consistently failed in clinical trials,” said Tracy Handel, Ph.D., professor in the Skaggs School of Pharmacy. “One of the biggest challenges is that, to work therapeutically, CCR2 needs to be turned 'off' and stay off completely, all of the time. We can't afford ups and downs in its activity. To be effective, any small-molecule drug that inhibits CCR2 would have to bind the receptor tightly and stay there. And that's difficult to do.”

Dr. Handel led the study (“Structure of CC Chemokine Receptor 2 with Orthosteric and Allosteric Antagonists”), published in Nature, with Irina Kufareva, Ph.D., project scientist at Skaggs School of Pharmacy, and Laura Heitman, Ph.D., of Leiden University. The study's first author is Yi Zheng, Ph.D., postdoctoral researcher also at Skaggs School of Pharmacy.

CCR2 spans the membrane of immune cells. Part of the receptor sticks outside the cell and part sticks inside. Inflammatory molecules called chemokines bind the external part of CCR2, and the receptor carries that signal to the inside of the cell. Inside the cell, CCR2 changes shape and binds other communication molecules, such as G proteins, triggering a cascade of activity. As a result, the immune cells move, following chemokine trails that lead them to places in the body where help is needed.

In this study, the researchers used X-ray crystallography to determine the 3D structure of CCR2 with two molecules bound to it simultaneously, one at each end.

That's a huge accomplishment because, Dr. Kufareva said, “Receptors that cross the cell membrane are notoriously hard to crystallize. To promote crystallization, we needed to alter the amino acid sequence of CCR2 to make the receptor molecules assemble in an orderly fashion. Otherwise, when taken out of the cell membrane, they tend to clump together randomly.”

Drs. Handel, Kufareva, and team also discovered that the two small molecules binding CCR2 turn the receptor “off” by different, but mutually reinforcing, mechanisms. One of the small molecules binds the outside face of the receptor and blocks binding of the natural chemokines that normally turn the receptor “on.” The other small molecule binds the face of the receptor inside the cell, where the G protein normally binds, preventing inflammatory signal transmission. According to Dr. Handel, the latter binding site has never been seen before.

“It's our hope that this new structure of CCR2 with two bound inhibitors will help optimize current and future drug discovery efforts,” added Dr. Kufareva.

Connected reading

Helpful context for this guide

Source-derived material selected through this article’s indexed topics.

Related questions

01Undruggable or unscreenable?

Another obstacle to discovering new PPI inhibitors is the lack of libraries designed to hunt for them, points out Philippe Roche, PhD, senior scientist at the Integrative Structural and Chemical Biology team at the Cancer Research Center of Marseilles, France. “If you screen PPIs using libraries that were designed for kinases or GPCRs, that’s why you don’t get a lot of good results,” he says. To that end, his group began assembling a library focused on orthosteric inhibitors of PPIs. The result was 2P2Idb, a hand-curated, structural database cataloguing orthosteric inhibitors of PPIs for which the interface had been 3D characterized. From analyzing these known PPI inhibitors, and what structures they had in common, Roche and his colleagues developed a model to predict whether compounds would likely inhibit PPIs. Using this method, 2P2Idb creates an enriched screening library that dramatically increases the hit rate compared to standard libraries. Having proven their success with a small library of 1600 compounds, they are in the process of expanding the library to 10,000 compounds. Once that’s published, “the idea is to make this library available to labs around the world,” Roche says. “We will provide the library free of charge for people to be able to screen PPI targets.”

Source: www.genengnews.com ↗
02How stable is the antibody?

A crucial question often addressed during preclinical development focuses on the in vivo stability of therapeutic antibodies. Increasing the half-life of a therapeutic antibody has several benefits ranging from higher treatment efficacy to increased advantages for the patients who will have a fewer number of therapy sessions and a reduced cost. Given these compelling benefits, following the identification of therapeutic antibodies with the desired specificity, developers usually subject them to a refinement step to increase their stability. This process is often hindered by the lack of reliable experimental tools to predict the half-life of antibodies in patients. The major hurdle of using mouse models to predict antibody stability in the serum lies in the way immunoglobulin proteins are processed by the organism. In mammals, most proteins circulating in the serum undergo constant uptake by endothelial cells and are routed through the endosomes to the lysosomal compartment for degradation. In the endosomes, immunoglobulin G (IgG) proteins are recognized and bound by a transmembrane protein, called the neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn), which mediates their recycling to the plasma membrane and subsequent release back into the serum. As a result, the half-life of IgGs are significantly extended by this mechanism. Since most therapeutic antibodies belong to the IgG class, this recycling system is very relevant for their relative stability in the body. Remarkably, the relative affinity between IgGs and FcRn is extremely disparate between different species, with the mouse receptor showing a much higher affinity than its human counterpart.

Source: www.genengnews.com ↗
P

About the author

Peptide Therapy Guide Editorial Team

Editorial team for Peptide Therapy Guide.

View all articles →