4.6 Article

Redesigning of Anti-c-Met Single Chain Fv Antibody for the Cytoplasmic Folding and Its Structural Analysis

期刊

BIOTECHNOLOGY AND BIOENGINEERING
卷 106, 期 3, 页码 367-375

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/bit.22702

关键词

single-chain Fv (scFv); CDR grafting; reducing cytoplasm; antibody stability; humanization

资金

  1. Korea Research Foundation by the Korean Government [2009-0071302]
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea [2009-0071302] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Typically, single chain Fv antibodies are unable to fold properly under a reducing cytoplasm because of the reduction of disulfide bonds. The inability to fold limits both the production of the functional scFvs and their targeting against antigens, which are generally executed in a reducing cytoplasm. In this study, the target scFv CDR was grafted with stable human consensus framework sequences, which enabled the generation of a foldable scFv in a reducing cytoplasm of Escherichia coli. Additionally, the structural features affecting the folding efficiency of the engineered scFv were identified by analyzing the predicted structure. An anti-c-Met scFv, which was a cytoplasmic non-foldable protein, was redesigned as the model system. This study confirmed that the engineered anti-c-Met scFv was folded into its native form in the cytoplasm of E. coli BL21(DE3) without a significant loss in the specific binding activity against c-Met antigen. The structures of the wild-type antic-Met scFv and the engineered scFv were predicted using homology modeling. A comparative analysis based on the sequence and structure showed that the hydrophobicity of 12 solvent exposed residues decreased, and two newly formed salt bridges might have improved the folding efficiency of the engineered scFv under the reducing condition. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2010;106: 367-375. (C) 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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