4.6 Article

Design, construction, and characterization of a second-generation DARPin library with reduced hydrophobicity

期刊

PROTEIN SCIENCE
卷 22, 期 9, 页码 1239-1257

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pro.2312

关键词

DARPins; synthetic binder libraries; library assembly; structure-based protein engineering; protein-protein interactions; in vitro selection; ribosome display

资金

  1. Swiss NCCR Structural Biology program
  2. Framework 7 Program [FP7-Health-2009-241919-LIVIMODE]
  3. Ambizione grant of the Swiss National Science Foundation
  4. Forschungskredit of the University of Zurich

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Designed ankyrin repeat proteins (DARPins) are well-established binding molecules based on a highly stable nonantibody scaffold. Building on 13 crystal structures of DARPin-target complexes and stability measurements of DARPin mutants, we have generated a new DARPin library containing an extended randomized surface. To counteract the enrichment of unspecific hydrophobic binders during selections against difficult targets containing hydrophobic surfaces such as membrane proteins, the frequency of apolar residues at diversified positions was drastically reduced and substituted by an increased number of tyrosines. Ribosome display selections against two human caspases and membrane transporter AcrB yielded highly enriched pools of unique and strong DARPin binders which were mainly monomeric. We noted a prominent enrichment of tryptophan residues during binder selections. A crystal structure of a representative of this library in complex with caspase-7 visualizes the key roles of both tryptophans and tyrosines in providing target contacts. These aromatic and polar side chains thus substitute the apolar residues valine, leucine, isoleucine, methionine, and phenylalanine of the original DARPins. Our work describes biophysical and structural analyses required to extend existing binder scaffolds and simplifies an existing protocol for the assembly of highly diverse synthetic binder libraries.

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