4.6 Article

Engineered Human Antibody Constant Domains with Increased Stability

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 284, 期 21, 页码 14203-14210

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M900769200

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health
  2. NCI [N01-CO-12400]
  3. Center for Cancer Research Intramural Research Program
  4. Gates Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The immunoglobulin (Ig) constant CH2 domain is critical for antibody effector functions. Isolated CH2 domains are promising as scaffolds for construction of libraries containing diverse binders that could also confer some effector functions. However, previous work has shown that an isolated murine CH2 domain is relatively unstable to thermally induced unfolding. To explore unfolding mechanisms of isolated human CH2 and increase its stability gamma 1 CH2 was cloned and a panel of cysteine mutants was constructed. Human gamma 1 CH2 unfolded at a higher temperature (T-m = 54.1 degrees C, as measured by circular dichroism) than that previously reported for a mouse CH2 (41 degrees C). One mutant (m01) was remarkably stable (T-m = 73.8 degrees C). Similar results were obtained by differential scanning calorimetry. This mutant was also significantly more stable than the wild-type CH2 against urea induced unfolding (50% unfolding at urea concentration of 6.8 M versus 4.2 M). The m01 was highly soluble and monomeric. The existence of the second disulfide bond in m01 and its correct position were demonstrated by mass spectrometry and nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy, respectively. The loops were on average more flexible than the framework in both CH2 and m01, and the overall secondary structure was not affected by the additional disulfide bond. These data suggest that a human CH2 domain is relatively stable to unfolding at physiological temperature, and that both CH2 and the highly stable mutant m01 are promising new scaffolds for the development of therapeutics against human diseases.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据