Protein Engineering by Combined Computational and In Vitro Evolution Approaches

Trends in Biochemical Sciences

Volumn 41, Issue 5, 2016, Pages 421-433

  Rosenfeld, Lior ^a   Heyne, Michael ^a,b   Shifman, Julia M ^b   Papo, Niv ^a  

^a BEN GURION UNIVERSITY OF THE NEGEV   (Israel)

^b HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM   (Israel)

Author keywords

Binding affinity; Combinatorial selection; Computational protein design; Novel binding domains; Protein engineering; Protein protein interactions

Indexed keywords

EPITOPE; MUTANT PROTEIN; PEPTIDE LIBRARY; PROTEIN; PROTEIN BINDING;

AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; BINDING AFFINITY; CELL SURFACE; COMBINATORIAL LIBRARY; COMPUTATIONAL PROTEIN DESIGN; DIRECTED MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; EPITOPE MAPPING; HUMAN; IN VITRO STUDY; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; METHODOLOGY; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN ENGINEERING; PROTEIN PROTEIN INTERACTION; REVIEW; BACTERIOPHAGE; BINDING SITE; CHEMISTRY; GENETICS; METABOLISM; MUTATION; PEPTIDE LIBRARY; PEPTIDE MAPPING; PROCEDURES; PROTEIN ANALYSIS; PROTEIN DOMAIN; PROTEIN SECONDARY STRUCTURE; SACCHAROMYCES CEREVISIAE;

AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; BACTERIOPHAGES; BINDING SITES; DIRECTED MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; HUMANS; MUTATION; PEPTIDE LIBRARY; PEPTIDE MAPPING; PROTEIN BINDING; PROTEIN ENGINEERING; PROTEIN INTERACTION DOMAINS AND MOTIFS; PROTEIN INTERACTION MAPPING; PROTEIN STRUCTURE, SECONDARY; PROTEINS; SACCHAROMYCES CEREVISIAE;

EID: 84962485234     PISSN: 09680004     EISSN: 13624326     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tibs.2016.03.002     Document Type: Review

References (92)

1. Cho S., et al. Structural basis of affinity maturation and intramolecular cooperativity in a protein-protein interaction. Structure 2005, 13:1775-1787.
2. Tonikian R., et al. Identifying specificity profiles for peptide recognition modules from phage-displayed peptide libraries. Nat. Protoc. 2007, 2:1368-1386.
3. Tonikian R., et al. A specificity map for the PDZ domain family. PLoS Biol. 2008, 6:e239.
4. Miersch S., et al. Scalable high throughput selection from phage-displayed synthetic antibody libraries. J. Vis. Exp. 2015, 17:51492.
5. Ernst A., et al. A strategy for modulation of enzymes in the ubiquitin system. Science 2012, 339:590-595.
6. Papo N., et al. Antagonistic VEGF variants engineered to simultaneously bind to and inhibit VEGFR2 and αvβ3 integrin. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2011, 108:14067-14072.
7. Wojcik J., et al. A potent and highly specific FN3 monobody inhibitor of the Abl SH2 domain. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2010, 17:519-527.
8. Gilbreth R.N., et al. Isoform-specific monobody inhibitors of small ubiquitin-related modifiers engineered using structure-guided library design. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2011, 108:7751-7756.
9. Sha F., et al. Dissection of the BCR-ABL signaling network using highly specific monobody inhibitors to the SHP2 SH2 domains. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2013, 110:14924-14929.
10. Kortemme T., et al. Computational redesign of protein-protein interaction specificity. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2004, 11:371-379.
11. Shifman J.M., Mayo S.L. Exploring the origins of binding specificity through the computational redesign of calmodulin. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2003, 100:13274-13279.
12. Sharabi O., et al. Computational methods for controlling binding specificity. Methods Enzym. 2013, 523:41-59.
13. Grigoryan G., et al. Design of protein-interaction specificity gives selective bZIP-binding peptides. Nature 2009, 458:859-864.
14. Yosef E., et al. Computational design of calmodulin mutants with up to 900-fold increase in binding specificity. J. Mol. Biol. 2009, 385:1470-1480.
15. Filchtinski D., et al. What makes Ras an efficient molecular switch: a computational, biophysical, and structural study of Ras-GDP interactions with mutants of Raf. J. Mol. Biol. 2010, 399:422-435.
16. Sharabi O., et al. Affinity- and specificity-enhancing mutations are frequent in mulstispecific interaction between MMP14 and its inhibitor TIMP2. PLoS ONE 2014, 9:e93712.
17. Sammond D.W., et al. Structure-based protocol for identifying mutations that enhance protein-protein binding affinities. J. Mol. Biol. 2007, 371:1392-1404.
18. Lippow S.M., et al. Computational design of antibody-affinity improvement beyond in vivo maturation. Nat. Biotechnol. 2007, 25:1171-1176.
19. Selzer T., et al. Rational design of faster associating and tighter binding protein complexes. Nat. Struct. Biol. 2000, 7:537-541.
20. Sharabi O., et al. Design, expression and characterization of mutants of fasciculin optimized for interaction with its target, acetylcholinesterase. Protein Eng. Des. Sel. 2009, 22:641-648.
21. Stranges P.B., et al. Computational design of a symmetric homodimer using beta-strand assembly. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2011, 108:20562-20567.
22. Fleishman S.J., et al. Computational design of proteins targeting the conserved stem region of influenza hemagglutinin. Science 2011, 332:816-821.
23. Karanicolas J., et al. A de novo protein binding pair by computational design and directed evolution. Mol. Cell 2011, 42:250-260.
24. Lim W.A. Designing customized cell signalling circuits. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2010, 11:393-403.
25. Levin A.M., et al. Exploiting a natural conformational switch to engineer an interleukin-2 "superkine". Nature 2012, 484:529-533.
26. Rao B.M., et al. Interleukin 2 (IL-2) variants engineered for increased IL-2 receptor alpha-subunit affinity exhibit increased potency arising from a cell surface ligand reservoir effect. Mol. Pharmacol. 2004, 66:864-869.
27. Bahudhanapati H., et al. Phage display of tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases-2 (TIMP-2): identification of selective inhibitors of collagenase 1 (metalloproteinase 1 (MMP-1)). J. Biol. Chem. 2011, 286:31761-31770.
28. Kariolis M.S., et al. Beyond antibodies: using biological principles to guide the development of next-generation protein therapeutics. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2013, 24:1072-1077.
29. Chen T.S., et al. Structure-based redesign of the binding specificity of anti-apoptotic Bcl-xL. J. Mol. Biol. 2013, 425:171-185.
30. Wang W., Saven J.G. Designing gene libraries from protein profiles for combinatorial protein experiments. Nucleic Acids Res. 2002, 30:e120.
31. Guntas G., et al. Engineering an improved light-induced dimer (iLID) for controlling the localization and activity of signaling proteins. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2015, 112:112-117.
32. Qiao C., et al. Affinity maturation of antiHER2 monoclonal antibody MIL5 using an epitope-specific synthetic phage library by computational design. J. Biomol. Struct. Dyn. 2013, 31:511-521.
33. Smith S.N., et al. Changing the peptide specificity of a human T-cell receptor by directed evolution. Nat. Commun. 2014, 5:5223.
34. Dutta S., et al. Peptide ligands for pro-survival protein Bfl-1 from computationally guided library screening. ACS Chem. Biol. 2013, 8:778-788.
35. Dutta S., et al. Potent and specific peptide inhibitors of human pro-survival protein Bcl-xL. J. Mol. Biol. 2015, 427:1241-1253.
36. Foight G.W., Keating A.E. Locating herpesvirus Bcl-2 homologs in the specificity landscape of anti-apoptotic Bcl-2 proteins. J. Mol. Biol. 2015, 427:2468-2490.
37. Dutta S., et al. Determinants of BH3 binding specificity for Mcl-1 versus Bcl-xL. J. Mol. Biol. 2010, 398:747-762.
38. Binz H.K., et al. Engineering novel binding proteins from nonimmunoglobulin domains. Nat. Biotechnol. 2005, 23:1257-1268.
39. Binz H.K., Pluckthun A. Engineered proteins as specific binding reagents. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2005, 16:459-469.
40. Gilbreth R.N., Koide S. Structural insights for engineering binding proteins based on non-antibody scaffolds. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2012, 22:413-420.
41. Huang P.S., et al. A de novo designed protein-protein interface. Protein Sci. 2007, 16:2770-2774.
42. Clackson T., Wells J.a. A hot spot of binding energy in a hormone-receptor interface. Science 1995, 267:383-386.
43. Whitehead T.A., et al. Optimization of affinity, specificity and function of designed influenza inhibitors using deep sequencing. Nat. Biotechnol. 2012, 30:543-548.
44. Azoitei M.L., et al. Computation-guided backbone grafting of a discontinuous motif onto a protein scaffold. Science 2011, 334:373-376.
45. Azoitei M.L., et al. Computational design of protein antigens that interact with the CDR H3 loop of HIV broadly neutralizing antibody 2F5. Proteins Struct. Funct. Bioinform. 2014.
46. Procko E., et al. A computationally designed inhibitor of an Epstein-Barr viral Bcl-2 protein induces apoptosis in infected cells. Cell 2014, 157:1644-1656.
47. Procko E., et al. Computational design of a protein-based enzyme inhibitor. J. Mol. Biol. 2013, 425:3563-3575.
48. Stranges P.B., et al. Computational design of a symmetric homodimer using beta-strand assembly. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2011, 108:20562-20567.
49. Mou Y., et al. Computational design and experimental verification of a symmetric protein homodimer. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2015, 112:10714-10719.
50. Chao G., et al. Fine epitope mapping of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor antibodies through random mutagenesis and yeast surface display. J. Mol. Biol. 2004, 342:539-550.
51. Rosenfeld L., et al. Combinatorial and computational approaches to identify interactions of macrophage colony stimulating factor (M-CSF) and its receptor c-fms. J. Biol. Chem. 2015, 290:26180-26193.
52. Makiya M., et al. Structural basis of anthrax edema factor neutralization by a neutralizing antibody. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2012, 417:324-329.
53. Mata-Fink J., et al. Rapid conformational epitope mapping of anti-gp120 antibodies with a designed mutant panel displayed on yeast. J. Mol. Biol. 2013, 425:444-456.
54. Traxlmayr M.W., et al. Construction of a stability landscape of the CH3 domain of human IgG1 by combining directed evolution with high throughput sequencing. J. Mol. Biol. 2012, 423:397-412.
55. Teyra J., et al. Elucidation of the binding preferences of peptide recognition modules: SH3 and PDZ domains. FEBS Lett. 2012, 586:2631-2637.
56. Reimand J., et al. Domain-mediated protein interaction prediction: from genome to network. FEBS Lett. 2012, 586:2751-2763.
57. Chen J.R., et al. Predicting PDZ domain-peptide interactions from primary sequences. Nat. Biotechnol. 2008, 26:1041-1045.
58. Kalyoncu S., et al. Interaction prediction and classification of PDZ domains. BMC Bioinform. 2010, 11:357.
59. Shao X., et al. A regression framework incorporating quantitative and negative interaction data improves quantitative prediction of PDZ domain-peptide interaction from primary sequence. Bioinformatics 2011, 27:383-390.
60. Zaslavsky E., et al. Inferring PDZ domain multi-mutant binding preferences from single-mutant data. PLoS ONE 2010, 5:e12787.
61. Ferraro E., et al. A novel structure-based encoding for machine-learning applied to the inference of SH3 domain specificity. Bioinformatics 2006, 22:2333-2339.
62. Tonikian R., et al. Bayesian modeling of the yeast SH3 domain interactome predicts spatiotemporal dynamics of endocytosis proteins. PLoS Biol. 2009, 7:e1000218.
63. Sanchez I.E. Protein folding transition states probed by loop extension. Protein Sci. 2008, 17:183-186.
64. Fernandez-Ballester G., et al. Structure-based prediction of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae SH3-ligand interactions. J. Mol. Biol. 2009, 388:902-916.
65. Kaufmann K., et al. A physical model for PDZ-domain/peptide interactions. J. Mol. Model. 2011, 17:315-324.
66. Hui S., et al. Predicting PDZ domain mediated protein interactions from structure. BMC Bioinform. 2013, 14:27.
67. Smith C.A., Kortemme T. Predicting the tolerated sequences for proteins and protein interfaces using Rosettabackrub flexible backbone design. PLoS ONE 2011, 6:e20451.
68. Humphris E.L., Kortemme T. Prediction of protein-protein interface sequence diversity using flexible backbone computational protein design. Structure 2008, 16:1777-1788.
69. Smith C.A., Kortemme T. Structure-based prediction of the peptide sequence space recognized by natural and synthetic PDZ domains. J. Mol. Biol. 2010, 402:460-474.
70. Murciano-Calles J., et al. Alteration of the C-terminal ligand specificity of the erbin PDZ domain by allosteric mutational effects. J. Mol. Biol. 2014, 426:1-9.
71. Davis I.W., et al. The backrub motion: how protein backbone shrugs when a sidechain dances. Structure 2006, 14:265-274.
72. Ratnikov B.I., et al. Basis for substrate recognition and distinction by matrix metalloproteinases. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2014, 111:E4148-E4155.
73. Chen T.S., Keating A.E. Designing specific protein-protein interactions using computation, experimental library screening, or integrated methods. Protein Sci. 2012, 21:949-963.
74. Aizner Y., et al. Mapping the binding landscape of a picomolar protein-protein complex through computation and experiment. Structure 2014, 22:1-10.
75. Reich L., et al. SORTCERY - a high-throughput method to affinity rank peptide ligands. J. Mol. Biol. 2015, 427:2135-2150.
76. Pal G., et al. Comprehensive and quantitative mapping of energy landscapes for protein-protein interactions by rapid combinatorial scanning. J. Biol. Chem. 2006, 281:22378-22385.
77. Barbas C.F., et al. Assembly of combinatorial antibody libraries on phage surfaces: the gene III site. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1991, 88:7978-7982.
78. Boder E.T., Wittrup K.D. Yeast surface display for screening combinatorial polypeptide libraries. Nat. Biotechnol. 1997, 15:553-557.
79. Gai S.A., Wittrup K.D. Yeast surface display for protein engineering and characterization. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2007, 17:467-473.
80. Bowers P.M., et al. Coupling mammalian cell surface display with somatic hypermutation for the discovery and maturation of human antibodies. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2011, 108:20455-20460.
81. Ho M., Pastan I. Display and Selection of scFv Antibodies on HEK-293T Cells. Antib. Phage Disp. 2009, 562:99-113.
82. Beerli R.R., et al. Isolation of human monoclonal antibodies by mammalian cell display. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2008, 105:14336-14341.
83. Taube R., et al. Lentivirus display: stable expression of human antibodies on the surface of human cells and virus particles. PLoS ONE 2008, 3:e3181.
84. Dahiyat B.I., Mayo S.L. De novo protein design: fully automated sequence selection. Science 1997, 278:82-87.
85. Leaver-Fay A., et al. ROSETTA3: an object-oriented software suite for the simulation and design of macromolecules. Methods Enzymol. 2011, 487:545-574.
86. Schymkowitz J., et al. The FoldX web server: an online force field. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005, 33:W382-W388.
87. Dunbrack R.L. Rotamer libraries in the 21st century. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2002, 12:431-440.
88. Li Z., et al. Energy functions in de novo protein design: current challenges and future prospects. Annu. Rev. Biophys. 2013, 42:315-335.
89. Shifman J.M., Fromer M. Search algorithms. Protein Engineering and Design 2009, 293-312. Taylor & Francis. S. Park, J. Cochran (Eds.).
90. Li N., et al. Characterization of PDZ domain-peptide interaction interface based on energetic patterns. Proteins 2011, 3208-3220.
91. Kiss G., et al. Molecular dynamics simulations for the ranking, evaluation, and refinement of computationally designed proteins. Methods Enzymol. 2013, 523:145-170.
92. Davey J.A., Chica R.A. Improving the accuracy of protein stability predictions with multistate design using a variety of backbone ensembles. Proteins 2014, 82:771-784.