4.6 Article

Insulin analog with additional disulfide bond has increased stability and preserved activity

期刊

PROTEIN SCIENCE
卷 22, 期 3, 页码 296-305

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pro.2211

关键词

disulfide; evolution; insulin; protein design; stability; yeast

资金

  1. Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation
  2. Novo Nordisk STAR program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Insulin is a key hormone controlling glucose homeostasis. All known vertebrate insulin analogs have a classical structure with three 100% conserved disulfide bonds that are essential for structural stability and thus the function of insulin. It might be hypothesized that an additional disulfide bond may enhance insulin structural stability which would be highly desirable in a pharmaceutical use. To address this hypothesis, we designed insulin with an additional interchain disulfide bond in positions A10/B4 based on C-C distances, solvent exposure, and side-chain orientation in human insulin (HI) structure. This insulin analog had increased affinity for the insulin receptor and apparently augmented glucodynamic potency in a normal rat model compared with HI. Addition of the disulfide bond also resulted in a 34.6 degrees C increase in melting temperature and prevented insulin fibril formation under high physical stress even though the C-terminus of the B-chain thought to be directly involved in fibril formation was not modified. Importantly, this analog was capable of forming hexamer upon Zn addition as typical for wild-type insulin and its crystal structure showed only minor deviations from the classical insulin structure. Furthermore, the additional disulfide bond prevented this insulin analog from adopting the R-state conformation and thus showing that the R-state conformation is not a prerequisite for binding to insulin receptor as previously suggested. In summary, this is the first example of an insulin analog featuring a fourth disulfide bond with increased structural stability and retained function.

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