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

Educational guide

Scientists use MIPs to Crystallize Proteins for Research and Screening

Studies show that MIPs act as efficient nucleants for hard to crystallize molecules. Scientists claim molecularly imprinted polymers (MIPs) can be used as effective nucleants for the formation of large single crystals of otherwise hard to crystallize proteins.

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.

Studies show that MIPs act as efficient nucleants for hard to crystallize molecules.

Scientists claim molecularly imprinted polymers (MIPs) can be used as effective nucleants for the formation of large single crystals of otherwise hard to crystallize proteins. A team led by Subrayal M. Reddy, Ph.D., at the U.K.’s University of Surrey, and Naomi E. Chayen, Ph.D., at the U.K.’s University College, London, and colleagues, found that using MIPs in screening experiments also led to successful hits that would have been missed using other types of nucleant.

Reported in PNAS, the work showed that MIPs sped the formation of protein crystals even in cases where crystals would eventually have been generated, and in some cases improved diffraction. The team’s work is described in a paper titled “Protein crystallization facilitated by molecularly imprinted polymers.”

MIPs are polymers formed in the presence of a molecule that, once extracted, leaves complementary cavities behind as an imprint that allows highly selective rebinding of the original molecule. In the field of protein research, MIPs have been used for applications including protein purification/isolation, replacement of biological antibodies in immunoassays, catalysis, and biosensors for medicine, the researchers note. However, MIPs haven’t before been used to facilitate protein crystallization, and the difficulties in obtaining useful crystals still remains a bottleneck in proteomics and structural biology.

The ultimate way to obtain high-quality protein crystals is to control nucleation, which is the first step that determines the entire crystallization process, the authors continue. A variety of substances have been evaluated as nucleants, but their desirable properties are offset by the fact they have no specificity for individual proteins. The U.K.-based team hypothesized that MIPs could represent ideal nucleants because they are designed to specifically attract a template protein.

The researchers evaluated the ability of hydrogel-based MIPs (hydroMIPs) imprinted with seven proteins to induce nucleation of their own cognate proteins, as well as other proteins. The seven proteins used for imprinting were lysozyme, trypsin, catalase, haemoglobin, intracellular xylanase IXT6-R217W, alpha crustacyanin, and human macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF). With the exception of the catalase MIP, the resulting polymers were able to induce the formation of crystals of nine tested proteins, including in some cases non-cognate proteins with similar molecular weights.

These successes included generating crystals of HIV protein complexes that diffracted at 4.2Å: other techniques used to crystallize this complex have failed to produce crystals with diffraction beyond 9Å, the authors note. In the case of human MIF, the use of both its cognate and one other MIP induced the formation of crystals with a diffraction resolution of 1.2Å using a rotating anode x-ray source, whereas previous crystallization approaches have needed synchrotron sources to achieve the same resolution, the authors report. A number of the MIPs were capable of inducing the crystallization of noncognate proteins with a molecular weight of the same order of magnitude.

When the experiments were repeated at the same conditions using other known nucleants including human hair, horse hair, zeolites, and bioglass powder, only lysozyme and trypsin generated crystals, and these were small multiple crystals compared with the large single crystals produced using the MIPs.

The researchers then moved on to test whether MIPs could also improve the hit rate in index screens for alpha crustacyanin, MIF, intracellular xylanase IXT6-R217W, and trypsin (which is relatively easily crystallized) as a control. The three test proteins were chosen because alpha crystacyanin and intracellular xylanase IXT6-R217W have not produced useful crystals to date, while MIF requires higher resolution crystals, they note.

Under suitable conditions the index screen resulted in four to five hits for each of the three target proteins when their cognate MIPs were present, whereas no hits were obtained in the absence of MIPs. The hits appeared between 24 hours and four days after setting up the trials. When the experiments were repeated using other known nucleants, hits were only generated for the control substance trypsin. “The results demonstrate that in the presence of MIPs, 8–10% of the screening trials of the target proteins produced hits that would have been missed even when other nucleants were applied,” the authors note. Interestingly, when they then set up studies to see if noncognate MIPs would also give rise to hits, only the experiment for alpha crystacyanin failed to generate any hits. This supported the earlier findings that MIPs could generate crystals of noncognate proteins.

The team says its results support previous theoretical and experimental evidence suggesting that crystal nucleation proceeds in two steps: aggregation of molecules into a dense fluid droplet, and then ordering. The newly reported data combined with atomic force microscopy data indicate that MIPs promote aggregation of protein molecules to form a protein-rich phase, which at a later stage becomes crystalline, they state. “It therefore appears that in these cases, MIPs may function by facilitating the nucleation and stabilization of droplets of the protein-rich liquid phase, at conditions that would be quite far from the liquid–liquid phase separation conditions in the absence of nucleant.”

The researchers admit that when they started their research the expectation was that each MIP would work exclusively on its congnate protein. The observation that some MIPs, such as those imprinted with lysozyme or trypsin, also induced the crystallization of other proteins with similar molecular weights could be particularly useful, they comment, for example when a related MIP is available for a difficult to crystallize target protein that is too scarce to allow imprinting in its own right.

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 →