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

Educational guide

Novel Method Allows Researchers to Precisely Engineer and Monitor Protein Function

Boston College chemists say they have developed a technology to precisely incorporate a range of useful non-canonical amino acids into proteins made in eukaryotes. The team’s goal was to create a new method to engineer and monitor protein functions as a way of

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.

Boston College chemists say they have developed a technology to precisely incorporate a range of useful non-canonical amino acids into proteins made in eukaryotes. The team’s goal was to create a new method to engineer and monitor protein functions as a way of expanding the scientific understanding of the processes that guide protein functions in our cells.

Their study (“Resurrecting the Bacterial Tyrosyl-tRNA Synthetase/tRNA Pair for Expanding the Genetic Code of Both E. coli and Eukaryotes”) appears in Cell Chemical Biology.

“The bacteria-derived tyrosyl-tRNA synthetase (TyrRS)/tRNA pair was first used for unnatural amino acid (Uaa) mutagenesis in eukaryotic cells over 15 years ago. It provides an ideal platform to genetically encode numerous useful Uaas in eukaryotes. However, this pair has been engineered to charge only a small collection of Uaas to date. Development of Uaa-selective variants of this pair has been limited by technical challenges associated with a yeast-based directed evolution platform, which is currently required to alter its substrate specificity,” write the investigators.

“Here we overcome this limitation by enabling its directed evolution in an engineered strain of E. coli (ATMY), where the endogenous TyrRS/tRNA pair has been functionally replaced with an archaeal counterpart. The facile E. coli-based selection system enabled rapid engineering of this pair to develop variants that selectively incorporate various Uaas, including p-boronophenylalanine, into proteins expressed in mammalian cells as well as in the ATMY strain of E. coli.”

According to Abhishek Chatterjee, Ph.D., assistant professor of chemistry, and lead on the project, the researchers were surprised by the facility of the new approach.

“Creating this novel E. coli strain required substituting its native aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase/tRNA pair with a counterpart from a different organism, which we anticipated would be very difficult,” he says. “But it turned out to be quite feasible. That opens up this complete technology.

“Thousands of proteins are encoded in the genome that make us who we are, but we know very little about that process. In human cells, there are roughly 20,000 protein-coding genes. What they are doing and how they are doing it remains difficult to study. One of the major problems is that if you want to know what they are doing, you have to spy on them. You need to attach a probe that can report back on what is going on.”

Introducing such probes has proven difficult, as the process often damages the target protein.

“The idea is that we can introduce a new building block into proteins that nature does not have—beyond the 20 canonical amino acids that nature uses,” Dr. Chatterjee says. “If we can do that, we have the ability to very specifically introduce a wide variety of non-natural functionalities into any site of virtually any protein.”

The immediate benefit would be to assist researchers who are still unraveling the mysteries of cell biology and protein function.

“You could create a protein with a non-canonical amino acid into any chosen site, load it with probes that are very tiny and give out an optical signal that tells where it is going,” continues Dr. Chatterjee. “It could allow you to manipulate how the protein is working. You could introduce limits, so whatever the protein is doing, it can't do anymore. And you could remove the probe by using an external signal such as light. This technology opens up numerous new ways one can start to probe and engineer protein function, which would be very challenging otherwise.”

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 →