4.7 Article

Construction of a Stability Landscape of the CH3 Domain of Human IgG1 by Combining Directed Evolution with High Throughput Sequencing

期刊

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
卷 423, 期 3, 页码 397-412

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmb.2012.07.017

关键词

immunoglobulin fold; mutational tolerance; sequence-stability relationship; yeast surface display; Fc gamma RI binding site

资金

  1. Christian Doppler Research Association (Christian Doppler Laboratory for Antibody Engineering)
  2. company F-star
  3. Austrian Science Foundation [FWF W1224]
  4. BOKU DOC scholarship
  5. Austrian Genome Research (GEN-AU) Grant Non-coding RNAs [820982]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

One of the most important but still poorly understood issues in protein chemistry is the relationship between sequence and stability of proteins. Here, we present a method for analyzing the influence of each individual residue on the foldability and stability of an entire protein. A randomly mutated library of the crystallizable fragment of human immunoglobulin G class 1 (IgG1-Fc) was expressed on the surface of yeast, followed by heat incubation at 79 degrees C and selection of stable variants that still bound to structurally specific ligands. High throughput sequencing allowed comparison of the mutation rate between the starting and selected library pools, enabling the generation of a stability landscape for the entire CH3 domain of human IgG1 at single residue resolution. Its quality was analyzed with respect to (i) the structure of IgG1-Fc, (ii) evolutionarily conserved positions and (iii) in silico calculations of the energy of unfolding of all variants in comparison with the wild-type protein. In addition, this new experimental approach allowed the assignment of functional epitopes of structurally specific ligands used for selection [Fc gamma-receptor I (CD64) and anti-human CH2 domain antibody] to distinct binding regions in the CH2 domain. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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