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

Educational guide

Novel Method Opens Door to Better Understanding Glycan–Protein Interactions

Scientists at the Scripps Research Institute (TSRI) have described a new technique for adding glycans to cells and screening interactions between glycans and proteins. Their study (“Cell-Based Glycan Arrays for Probing Glycan–Glycan Binding Protein Interaction

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.

Scientists at the Scripps Research Institute (TSRI) have described a new technique for adding glycans to cells and screening interactions between glycans and proteins. Their study (“Cell-Based Glycan Arrays for Probing Glycan–Glycan Binding Protein Interactions”), published in Nature Communications, may expand research on the roles of glycans in human diseases, including cancers, according to the team.

“Glycan microarrays provide a high-throughput means of profiling the interactions of glycan-binding proteins with their ligands. However, the construction of current glycan microarray platforms is time consuming and expensive. Here, we report a fast and cost-effective method for the assembly of cell-based glycan arrays to probe glycan–glycan-binding protein interactions directly on the cell surface. Chinese hamster ovary cell mutants with a narrow and relatively homogeneous repertoire of glycoforms serve as the foundation platforms to develop these arrays,” write the investigators.

“Using recombinant glycosyltransferases, sialic acid, fucose, and analogs thereof are installed on cell-surface glycans to form cell-based arrays displaying diverse glycan epitopes that can be probed with glycan-binding proteins by flow cytometry. Using this platform, high-affinity glycan ligands are discovered for Siglec-15—a sialic acid-binding lectin involved in osteoclast differentiation. Incubating human osteoprogenitor cells with cells displaying a high-affinity Siglec-15 ligand impairs osteoclast differentiation, demonstrating the utility of this cell-based glycan array technology.”

“Scientists have been trying to make glycan arrays that every scientist interested in glycans can access in their own labs for years,” says Peng Wu, Ph.D., a TSRI associate professor and senior author of the study. “We've not only done it, but we've done it in a way that's very easy.”

The patterns of glycans and glycan-binding proteins on a cell's membrane can differentiate cancer cells from healthy cells, control cells' roles in development, and contribute to diverse interactions between adult cells, explains Dr. Wu. Genetic diseases that affect the ability of cells to properly create glycans can shorten lifespan and lead to musculoskeletal problems.

But studying glycans has been problematic. While scientists know how to synthesize diverse proteins and DNA molecules in the lab, creating glycans on demand has been chemically challenging.

To study which proteins in a cell interact with glycan molecules, researchers have typically turned to glycan-binding arrays, in which dozens or hundreds of glycans are attached to a glass slide. Researchers then expose the slide to cells or proteins of interest and observe whether the cells or proteins stick to the glycans on the slide. But making these arrays is time-consuming and expensive.

“In the past, if you wanted to make an array with 100 sugars, then you had to chemically synthesize 100 sugars individually, which can be difficult,” says Dr. Wu. “Only specialized carbohydrate chemists can make them in certain labs.”

Dr. Wu and his colleagues instead decided to harness the power of the enzymes that cells use naturally to produce glycans. These enzymes work in a stepwise fashion to create branching glycans—one small piece of a sugar is made by one specialized enzyme, then another enzyme creates the next branch in the chain, and so on. The researchers found that even structurally related unnatural sugars can be added in this way.

Dr. Wu's team began with mutated rodent ovary cells that had a very narrow repertoire of glycans on their surface. This was a simpler system than using human cells with many types of glycans. The researchers then exposed the cells to different sets of glycan-creating enzymes to control the addition of carbohydrate branches to the glycans on each cell.

With this method, they created cell arrays, each studded with different glycans, including unnatural ones.

“The only limitations are the enzymes that we have available and the fact that you have to start with cells that already have simple glycosylation,” says Dr. Wu. “But we were able to create all the glycans we wanted.”

To test the utility of the new cell array, the scientists screened an array of cells, each displaying different glycans, to determine which ones bound to Siglec-15, a known glycan-binding protein that plays a role in bone development and remodeling. Siglec-15 is considered a potential target for drugs treating postmenopausal osteoporosis, so understanding how it interacts with carbohydrates is critical. The team identified three structures with strong binding to Siglec-15.

The researchers then incubated human osteoprogenitor cells with mutated rodent ovary cells displaying one of the three structures during differentiation. The team found that this process suppressed the formation of osteoclasts, a Siglec-15-expressing bone cell that absorbs bone tissue during growth and healing. This finding reinforces the idea that Siglec-15 is a good target for osteoporosis treatments, and that the new glycan-screening strategy can point researchers to promising new drugs.

“We don't know if this will be used in the broad community—it depends on the availability of enzymes and cells,” says Dr. Wu. “But if a whole bunch of cells with simple and homogeneous glycans can be made available, that would be huge for the field.”

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 →