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

Educational guide

Targeting Pre-Plaque Clumps May Boost Resistance to Diabetes

The sketchy picture of amyloid formation in type 2 diabetes has become a little more detailed, thanks to a structural study that applied the techniques of 2D infrared (IR) spectroscopy and isotope labeling. These techniques allowed the characterization of a cr

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 sketchy picture of amyloid formation in type 2 diabetes has become a little more detailed, thanks to a structural study that applied the techniques of 2D infrared (IR) spectroscopy and isotope labeling. These techniques allowed the characterization of a critical intermediate generated during amyloid formation. The intermediate, previously postulated but largely beyond the reach of direct measurement, consists of misfolded human islet amyloid polypeptide (hIAPP), or amylin.

By characterizing this intermediate, scientists have provided a structural explanation for the lag between amyloid clumping and the ultimate formation of amyloid deposits. In addition, they may be able to explain why some species develop hIAPP plaques while others do not.

The 2D IR technique was developed in the laboratory of Martin Zanni, Ph.D., a University of Wisconsin-Madison chemistry professor. Dr. Zanni then applied the technique to the problem of amylin clumping while working with collaborators from the University of California, Irvine; University of Chicago, Argonne National Lab; and the State University of New York at Stony Brook, as described in a paper published November 11 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (“Mechanism of IAPP amyloid fibril formation involves an intermediate with a transient β-sheet”).

“For about 30 years, we thought this problem was solved, because a lot of experiments pointed to the middle part of amylin molecules as the cause,” Dr. Zanni said.

Named for its amino acid structure, the FGAIL regions of amylin proteins were believed to lock together into rigid sheets, called beta-sheets. These sheets break apart, forming the dangerous plaque. But experiments published in 2007 showed that the FGAIL section of amylin is floppy and loose, like a loop of rope. “This result made no sense compared to the 30 years of prior studies,” Dr. Zanni said.

It was known that subtle differences in the shape of amylin protected some species and endangered others. For example, while rats, cats, and dogs escape type 2 diabetes, humans do not. “Why should the small differences in the amylin protein of various mammals play such a deciding role if those differences are located in a flexible, floppy, and forgiving region of the protein?”

Dr. Zanni and his collaborators showed that the floppy FGAIL region can contribute to the formation of plaque, but first, the amylin proteins must clump together in an arrangement in which the FGAIL region is indeed a rigid beta-sheet. These investigators suspect that the intermediate clumping step is where animal species resistant to type 2 diabetes are making their move.

“Our results indicate that the proteins in rats, dogs, and other animals do not stop the plaques themselves, but instead target this upstream step,” Zanni says, “preventing the intermediate from forming and thereby the plaques as well.”

Determining the structural details of plaque formation may have profound implications. For example, determining how amylin proteins differ may provide targets for new treatments for diabetes and other plaque-involved diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.

“Good drugs work by fitting into nooks and crannies,” said Dr. Zanni. “Thus, it is much easier to design a drug when the shape of the toxic protein is known, which is what our data is beginning to provide.”

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 →