4.6 Article

Protection of Recombinant Mammalian Antibodies from Development-Dependent Proteolysis in Leaves of Nicotiana benthamiana

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0070203

关键词

-

资金

  1. Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The expression of clinically useful proteins in plants has been bolstered by the development of high-yielding systems for transient protein expression using agroinfiltration. There is a need now to know more about how host plant development and metabolism influence the quantity and quality of recombinant proteins. Endogenous proteolysis is a key determinant of the stability and yield of recombinant proteins in plants. Here we characterised cysteine (C1A) and aspartate (A1) protease profiles in leaves of the widely used expression host Nicotiana benthamiana, in relation with the production of a murine IgG, C5-1, targeted to the cell secretory pathway. Agroinfiltration significantly altered the distribution of C1A and A1 proteases along the leaf age gradient, with a correlation between leaf age and the level of proteolysis in whole-cell and apoplast protein extracts. The co-expression of tomato cystatin S/CYS8, an inhibitor of C1A proteases, alongside C5-1 increased antibody yield by nearly 40% after the usual 6-days incubation period, up to similar to 3 mg per plant. No positive effect of S/CYS8 was observed in oldest leaves, in line with an increased level of C1A protease activity and a very low expression rate of the inhibitor. By contrast, C5-1 yield was greater by an additional 40% following 8- to 10-days incubations in younger leaves, where high S/CYS8 expression was maintained. These findings confirm that the co-expression of recombinant protease inhibitors is a promising strategy for increasing recombinant protein yields in plants, but that further opportunity exists to improve this approach by addressing the influence of leaf age and proteases of other classes.

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