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

Educational guide

Potential New Drug Targets ID'ed for Deadly Viruses

New research from investigators at Cornell University not only uncovered how two highly lethal viruses have greater pathogenic potential when their proteins are combined but may have also stumbled upon potential novel targets to combat these diseases. The Corn

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.

New research from investigators at Cornell University not only uncovered how two highly lethal viruses have greater pathogenic potential when their proteins are combined but may have also stumbled upon potential novel targets to combat these diseases. The Cornell team was studying how the Nipah and Hendra viruses attach to, and fuse with, their hosts’ cell within the fruit bat. Findings from the new study were published recently in the Journal of Virology “Nipah and Hendra Virus Glycoproteins Induce Comparable Homologous but Distinct Heterologous Fusion Phenotypes.”

“Co-infections with these two viruses can occur in the same host, but we didn’t know what would happen if their proteins combined,” noted senior study investigator Hector Aguilar-Carreno, PhD, associate professor in the department of microbiology and immunology at Cornell. “We discovered that not only could they work together, but they can also work even better than they do separately.”

The researchers’ focus is on the viral fusion proteins (or F proteins) and attachment proteins (G proteins). In previous studies, the team unveiled how the two proteins physically interact to enable viral infections: A G protein attaches to the cell; G then triggers F to flip up and down, triggering fusion between the cellular and viral membranes—the first moment of infection.

“We compared the fusogenic capacities between homologous and heterologous pairs of NiV and HeV glycoproteins,” the authors wrote. “Importantly, to accurately measure their fusogenic capacities, as these depend on glycoprotein cell surface expression (CSE) levels, we inserted identical extracellular tags to both fusion (FLAG tags) or both attachment (hemagglutinin [HA] tags) glycoproteins. Importantly, these tags were placed in extracellular sites where they did not affect glycoprotein expression or function. NiV and HeV glycoproteins induced comparable levels of homologous HEK293T cell-cell fusion.”

Interestingly, the scientists knew this “dance” between G and F was a crucial step in viral infection but was curious to know how the dance might change if the proteins got new partners. Since both Nipah and Hendra viruses can potentially co-infect fruit bats, a protein partner switch is likely to occur in the wild.

The team tested out different Nipah-Hendra protein combinations in the lab, using genetic approaches in human cells. In some pairings, the two gripped each other in a tight, tango-like embrace. But one hybrid—a Hendra F and Nipah G—behaved like Lindy Hoppers, allowing the F protein to perform “aerials” that heightened fusion between the virus and the cell.

“This combination of proteins had a looser interaction,” Aguilar-Carreno explained. “This looseness actually corresponded to greater fusion capability—and therefore an implied greater” ability to cause disease. I find it fascinating—the tightness of the interaction is so crucial for these two proteins. If they’re too tight, they can’t coordinate correctly to get into the cell. And now that we know this, we can leverage that to stop viral-cell fusion.”

The Cornell team also working on related research that may lead to vaccine-free therapies or improved vaccines to treat enveloped viruses, which include infectious diseases such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and influenza. Enveloped viruses are wrapped in an outer coat made from a piece of the infected cell’s plasma membrane, which may protect the virus and help it infect other cells.

“Our work could lead to drugs,” Aguilar-Carreno concluded, “that enable inventions such as a flu vaccine with broader protection and greater efficacy.”

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 →