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

Educational guide

Masked Proteins Drop Ruse on Command, Get Sticky in Living Animals

The remote activation of engineered biomaterials had been accomplished in cell culture, but not in animal models—at least, the external control of bioadhesive ligands had not been demonstrated. Aware that the next step was waiting to be taken, researchers at t

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.

The remote activation of engineered biomaterials had been accomplished in cell culture, but not in animal models—at least, the external control of bioadhesive ligands had not been demonstrated. Aware that the next step was waiting to be taken, researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology decided to explore the impact of in vivo temporal ligand presentation on cell-material responses. That is, the researchers plotted to sneak disguised biomaterials into living animals. The plan included the use of an external light trigger to activate the biomaterials when and where desired.

The engineered biomaterials contained peptide signaling molecules. And the external light trigger was provided by ultraviolet illumination, which penetrated the skin of test animals.

Details about the plan and its execution appeared December 15 in Nature Materials, in an article entitled, “Light-triggered in vivo activation of adhesive peptides regulates cell adhesion, inflammation, and vascularization of biomaterials.”

“We present a general strategy to temporally and spatially control the in vivo presentation of bioligands using cell-adhesive peptides with a protecting group that can be easily removed via transdermal light exposure to render the peptide fully active,” wrote the authors. “We demonstrate that noninvasive, transdermal time-regulated activation of cell-adhesive RGD peptide on implanted biomaterials regulates in vivo cell adhesion, inflammation, fibrous encapsulation, and vascularization of the material.”

If the light-triggering technique could be made to work in humans, it could help provide more precise timing for processes essential to regenerative medicine, cancer treatment, immunology, stem cell growth, and a range of other areas.

“Many biological processes involve complex cascades of reactions in which the timing must be very tightly controlled,” said Andrés García, Ph.D., a professor in the George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering at Georgia Tech and the principal investigator for the project. “Until now, we haven’t had control over the sequence of events in the response to implanted materials. But with this technique, we can deliver a drug or particle with its signal in the ‘off’ position, then use light to turn the signal ‘on’ precisely when needed.”

When biomaterials are introduced into the body, they normally stimulate an immune system response immediately. But the researchers used molecular cages like hats to cover binding sites on the peptides that are normally recognized by cell receptors, preventing recognition by the animal's cells. The cages were designed to detach and reveal the peptides when they encounter specific wavelengths of light.

During the five-year project, the research team—which included Ted Lee and Jose Garcia from Georgia Tech and Aranzazu del Campo from the Max Planck Institute—modified peptides that normally trigger cell adhesion to present the molecular cage in order to disguise them. They showed that disguised peptides introduced into animal models on biomaterials could trigger cell adhesion, inflammation, fibrous encapsulation, and vascularization responses when activated by light. They also showed that the location and timing of activation could be controlled inside the animal by simply shining light through the skin.

In the future, photochemists at Max Planck will be working on alternative cages that would be triggered by different wavelengths of light. As much as 90% of the ultraviolet light used in the experiments was lost in passing through the skin of the animal model, limiting the use of that wavelength to locations immediately below the skin.

Development of alternate “hats,” the molecular cages that protect the peptides, could allow sequential activation by light, and light activation of molecules at locations deeper inside the body. “This work,” concluded the authors of the Nature Medicine article, “shows that triggered in vivo presentation of bioligands can be harnessed to direct tissue reparative responses associated with implanted biomaterials.”

Connected reading

Helpful context for this guide

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

Related questions

01How 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 ↗
02Undruggable 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 ↗
P

About the author

Peptide Therapy Guide Editorial Team

Editorial team for Peptide Therapy Guide.

View all articles →