Structure, interaction and design studies involving regulatory peptides and proteins


 

Principal Investigator :    Dinakar M Salunke

Project Associates
Surinder Kaur
Chitra Rani
Sanjeev Saxena

Technical Officer
Sushma Nagpal

PhD Students
Usha Nair
Manisha Goel
Gaurav Sahani
Dhruv K Sethi
Lavanya Krishnan

Collaborators
Kanwaljeet Kaur
Satyajit Rath
Ayub Qadri
KVS Rao, ICGEB, New Delhi
J Nagaraju,
CDFD, Hyderabad

The structural aspects of molecular recognition and its applications in analyzing the mechanisms associated with specific regulatory events and in rational molecular design, is the main theme of research. The specific objectives of the project are aimed at understanding the protein architecture, analysis of the structural principles of molecular recognition and mimicry, structural biology of various regulatory events and rational molecular design studies.

The sugar-peptide mimicry, established on the basis of polyclonal antibody cross-reactivity and structural similarity earlier, was further addressed with the help of a panel of monoclonal antibodies. Monoclonal antibodies were generated against a-D mannopyranoside by using the sugar conjugated to keyhole limpet hemocyanin as the immunogen. The hybridoma clones were selected by screening the supernatant for binding to the sugar as well as the carbohydrate mimicking decapeptide in an ELISA based assay. Three IgM and five IgG clones have so far been stabilized after several levels of subcloning from the primary and the secondary immune responses, respectively.

All the three IgM clones show cross reactivity with the carbohydrate mimicking peptides. Also, they show binding to other sugars like glucose and lactose with affinities comparable to those of the peptides. This implies that the sugar recognition of the antibodies in the primary response is not fine-tuned to specifically recognize a-D-mannopyranoside. Of the 5 IgG clones that have been stabilized, two have been characterized for their binding specificities. One of them (1H7) binds to a-D mannopyranoside but does not recognize the carbohydrate mimicking peptides. On the other hand, the second clone (2D10) recognizes the peptide mimics with varying affinities. The antibody 1H7 is highly specific to mannose as it shows only a small cross-reactivity with glucose but no cross-reactivity with lactose. The antibody 2D10, which recognizes peptide as well as the sugar shows much broader specificity exhibiting significant cross-reactivity with the other sugars.

Epitope mapping using combinatorial library of peptides on pins was carried out for IgG clone 2D10. The antibody 2D10 binds to the end-protected hexapeptide with higher affinity compared to the other three peptides as is the case with ConA. Combinatorial library was designed to have the diverse peptides with glycine substitution at each residue in four different carbohydrate mimicking peptides. Binding of 2D10 to these peptide analogs in an ELISA led to recognition of distinct pattern of interacting residues in case of each of the carbohydrate mimicking peptides. Based on this pattern, it could be inferred that the anti-mannopyranoside antibody, 2D10 resembles ConA in binding to these peptides.

While broadening the molecular mimicry applications, we addressed if the principles of retro-inverso mimicry were applicable to immune epitopes. Structural rationale for the molecular mimicry involving retro-inverso design was analyzed using T-cell epitopes derived from vesicular somatitis virus protein (VSVp) and the ovalbumin protein (OVAp) and the B-cell epitope PS1 the interactions with various monoclonal antibodies of which have been investigated in this laboratory.

It was expected that a retro-inverso peptide analog corresponding to a given sequence should adopt a conformation similar to that of the corresponding L peptide. Major difference, however, being that the N and C termini of the retro-inverso peptides would be interchanged with respect to the native peptide. Particularly, the terminal functional groups of VSVp and OVAp have been known to play a significant role in binding to MHC class I molecule H-2Kb (MHCI). The possible repulsive interactions, arising from the charge reversal were reduced by neutralizing the charges on the end groups. The conformational models of retro-inverso analogs of VSVp and OVAp (called rVSVp and rOVAp) suggested that the exact superimposition of the retro-inverso model with the native peptide was not achievable.

However, the backbone dihedral angles, f and j, for the native and retro-inverso versions were localized in the corresponding equivalent regions of the Ramachandran plot. The molecular dynamics analyses show that the distribution of the backbone rmsd values is comparable in case of both native L and retro-inverso versions of each of the T cell epitopes. The extent of change with respect to the starting conformation that the two versions undergo in solution is same, indicating an inherent similarity in conformational flexibilities. Thus, the analyses of dihedral angles and conformational propensities showed that retro-inverso analogs could potentially mimic the T cell epitope peptides. The functional assays carried out on using the retro-inverso peptides as per above design, in collaboration with the Immunobiology Laboratory, indeed confirmed this surmise. Comparison of the computer-docked models of the retro-inverso peptide-H-2Kb complexes and the crystal structures of the corresponding native L peptides complexed with H-2Kb reveal that the same peptide residues are present in the corresponding structural pockets. The mimicry between the retro-inverso peptides and their corresponding native L counterparts is evident from the contacts between the MHCI molecule and the bound peptides. The solvent accessible surface area buried on complexation is similar in case of the two versions of both the T cell epitopes. The almost precise correspondence of the surface features between the two cases is evident. The complexes of H-2Kb with native and retro-inverso versions of OVAp would thus present a similar surface for the cognate T cell receptors to recognize. The topological features and the localization of the regions of similar hydrophobicity are remarkably alike for the two versions of each peptide. Hence, it was anticipated, and subsequently observed in the functional assays carried out in the collaborating laboratory, that the H-2Kb:OVAp and H-2Kb:rOVAp complexes will bind to the same T cell receptor with comparable affinity.

To test whether the mimicry observed in case of the T-cell epitopes also exists in case of the B-cell epitopes, analogous computational and biochemical experiments were carried out using PS1. Unlike the T cell epitopes, PS1 does not adopt an extended conformation when bound to any of the three independent monoclonal antibodies. The stretch DPAF, which also represents an immunodominant epitope, adopts a b-turn conformation. Ramachandran plot of PS1 shows that the distribution of f and j angles is localized to distinctly different regions for native and retro-inverso residues. While the native peptide occupies the core and allowed regions corresponding to a-helix, some residues of retro-inverso occupy the allowed and generously allowed regions corresponding to the left handed helices while others are found in the disallowed regions. Thus, in case of the rPS1 peptide, the conformation which would be a topochemical equivalent of the bound PS1 conformation is energetically unfavorable. Hence the plots indicate that there might be a drastic difference between the functional properties of the native and retro-inverso versions of PS1. The MD simulations of the peptides carried out suggest a considerable difference in the structural plasticities of the two versions of the peptide. The retro-inverso analog exhibits a higher variation in its conformation than the native L peptide. It is stereo-chemically not possible for rPS1 to adopt a conformation similar to that of the bound PS1. Hence, it is possible that the retro-inverso analog of PS1 might not be functionally active. Indeed, the retro-inverso version of the B-cell epitope, PS1, does not bind to the anti-PS1 monoclonal antibodies, consistent with their structural differences. Thus, the retro-inverso version of the B-cell epitope PS1 is not functionally active unlike the T cell epitopes VSVp and OVAp.

The correlation of conformational propensities of the native L peptides and their retro-inverso counterparts depends on the inherent structural properties of the individual peptides. While the T cell epitopes VSVp and OVAp, which both adopt the extended conformation, exhibit similar conformational propensities in L and retro-inverso forms, the B-cell epitope PS1 shows distinct conformational propensities in the retro-inverso version. The retro-inverso analogs of VSVp and OVAp are in fact functionally active through similar molecular interactions with their receptor. However, in case of the B-cell epitope, the retro-inverso analog cannot bind to anti-PS1 antibodies indicating different conformational preferences than the native peptide.

The application of retro-inverso logic for molecular mimicry was exploited in yet another immunologically relevant system. Antibacterial peptides expressed as a result of bacterial infection form an important component of innate immune system. Among them, indolicidin is a cationic peptide produced by bovine neutrophils which specifically binds to the bacterial endotoxin, lipopolysaccharide (LPS). We have shown that the retro-inverso analog of indolicidin is functionally similar to the native peptide. Monoclonal antibodies were generated against indolicidin and screened for binding to retro-inverso analog. The monoclonal antibody C6H6G2, recognizes retro-inverso indolicidin with the affinity comparable to that with the native peptide.

The comparison of binding profiles of indolicidin, retro-inverso indolicidin and other analogs with the antibody and LPS indicates that the antibody and LPS were equivalent in terms of their binding to indolicidin and its analogs. We have shown that indolicidin binds to LPS in a pattern-based manner exploiting plasticity of conformation and interactions. It appears that the antibody also binds to indolicidin similarly. Thus, the C6H6G2 seems to be a close mimic of LPS since it shows similar peptide binding profiles as LPS.

Publications

Original peer-reviewed articles

1.     Nair DT, Singh K, Siddiqui Z, Nayak BP, Rao KVS and Salunke DM (2002) Epitope recognition by diverse antibodies suggests conformational convergence in an antibody response. J Immunol 168:2371-2382.

2.     Goel M, Jain D, Kaur KJ, Kenoth R, Maiya BG, Swamy MJ and Salunke DM (2001) Functional equality in the absence of structural similarity: an added dimension to molecular mimicry. J Biol Chem 276: 39277-39281.

3.     Jain D, Nair DT, Swaminathan GJ, Abraham EG, Nagaraju J and Salunke DM (2001) Structure of the induced antibacterial protein from Tasar silkworm, Antheraea mylitta: Implications to molecular evolution. J Biol Chem 276:41377-41382.

4.     Jain D, Kaur KJ and Salunke DM (2001) Enhanced binding of a rationally designed peptide ligand of concanavalin A arises from improved geometrical complementarity. Biochemistry 40:12059-12066.

5.     Nayak SK, Bagga S, Gaur D, Nair DT, Salunke DM and Batra JK (2001) Mechanism of specific target recognition and RNA hydrolysis by ribonucleolytic toxin restrictocin. Biochemistry 40:9115-9124.

6.     Hemachand T, Gopalakrishnan B, Salunke DM, Totey SM and Shaha C (2002) Sperm plasma membrane associated glutathione S-transferases as gamete recognition molecules. J Cell Sci (in press).

7.     Kumar R, Choudhury NR, Salunke DM and Datta K (2001) Evidence for clustered mannose as a new ligand for hyaluronan-binding protein (HABP1) from human fibroblasts. J Biosci 26:325-332.

8.     Jha BK, Salunke DM and Datta K (2002) Enhancement of ligand affinity of trimeric hyaluronan binding protein 1 (HABP1)/p32/gC1qR is facilitated by disulphide bond formation through cystein186 Eur J Biochem 269:298-306.

9.    *Kaur KJ, Jain D, Goel M and Salunke DM (2001) Immunological implications of structural mimicry between a dodecapeptide and a carbohydrate moiety. Vaccine 19:3124-3130 (*in press last year, since published).

10.  *Jain D, Kaur KJ and Salunke DM (2001) Plasticity in protein-peptide recognition: Crystal structures of two different peptides bound to concanavalin A. Biophys J 80:2912-2921 (*in press last year, since published).