Understanding the yeast host cell response to recombinant membrane protein production

Membrane proteins are drug targets for a wide range of diseases. Having access to appropriate samples for further research underpins the pharmaceutical industry's strategy for developing new drugs. This is typically achieved by synthesizing a protein of interest in host cells that can be cultured on a large scale, allowing the isolation of the pure protein in quantities much higher than those found in the protein's native source. Yeast is a popular host as it is a eukaryote with similar synthetic machinery to that of the native human source cells of many proteins of interest, while also being quick, easy and cheap to grow and process. Even in these cells, the production of human membrane proteins can be plagued by low functional yields; we wish to understand why. We have identified molecular mechanisms and culture parameters underpinning high yields and have consolidated our findings to engineer improved yeast host strains. By relieving the bottlenecks to recombinant membrane protein production in yeast, we aim to contribute to the drug discovery pipeline, while providing insight into translational processes.

Improving recombinant eukaryotic membrane protein yields in Pichia pastoris:the importance of codon optimization and clone selection

In the last 15 years, 80% of all recombinant proteins reported in the literature were produced in the bacterium, Escherichia coli, or the yeast, Pichia pastoris. Nonetheless, developing effective general strategies for producing recombinant eukaryotic membrane proteins in these organisms remains a particular challenge. Using a validated screening procedure together with accurate yield quantitation, we therefore wished to establish the critical steps contributing to high yields of recombinant eukaryotic membrane protein in P. pastoris. Whilst the use of fusion partners to generate chimeric constructs and directed mutagenesis have previously been shown to be effective in bacterial hosts, we conclude that this approach is not transferable to yeast. Rather, codon optimization and the preparation and selection of high-yielding P. pastoris clones are effective strategies for maximizing yields of human aquaporins.

Mapping the yeast host cell response to recombinant membrane protein production:relieving the biological bottlenecks

Understanding the structures and functions of membrane proteins is an active area of research within bioscience. Membrane proteins are key players in essential cellular processes such as the uptake of nutrients, the export of waste products, and the way in which cells communicate with their environment. It is therefore not surprising that membrane proteins are targeted by over half of all prescription drugs. Since most membrane proteins are not abundant in their native membranes, it is necessary to produce them in recombinant host cells to enable further structural and functional studies. Unfortunately, achieving the required yields of functional recombinant membrane proteins is still a bottleneck in contemporary bioscience. This has highlighted the need for defined and rational optimization strategies based upon experimental observation rather than relying on trial and error. We have published a transcriptome and subsequent genetic analysis that has identified genes implicated in high-yielding yeast cells. These results have highlighted a role for alterations to a cell's protein synthetic capacity in the production of high yields of recombinant membrane protein: paradoxically, reduced protein synthesis favors higher yields. These results highlight a potential bottleneck at the protein folding or translocation stage of protein production.

Relieving the first bottleneck in the drug discovery pipeline:using array technologies to rationalize membrane protein production

The slow down in the drug discovery pipeline is, in part, owing to a lack of structural and functional information available for new drug targets. Membrane proteins, the targets of well over 50% of marketed pharmaceuticals, present a particular challenge. As they are not naturally abundant, they must be produced recombinantly for the structural biology that is a prerequisite to structure-based drug design. Unfortunately, however, obtaining high yields of functional, recombinant membrane proteins remains a major bottleneck in contemporary bioscience. While repeated rounds of trial-and-error optimization have not (and cannot) reveal mechanistic details of the biology of recombinant protein production, examination of the host response has provided new insights. To this end, we published an early transcriptome analysis that identified genes implicated in high-yielding yeast cell factories, which has enabled the engineering of improved production strains. These advances offer hope that the bottleneck of membrane protein production can be relieved rationally.

Mechanistic differences between GSH transport by multidrug resistance protein 1 (MRP1/ABCC1) and GSH modulation of MRP1-mediated transport

Multidrug resistance protein 1 (MRP1/ABCC1) is an ATP-dependent polytopic membrane protein that transports many anticancer drugs and organic anions. Its transport mechanism is multifaceted, especially with respect to the participation of GSH. For example, vincristine is cotransported with GSH, estrone sulfate transport is stimulated by GSH, or MRP1 can transport GSH alone, and this can be stimulated by compounds such as verapamil or apigenin. Thus, the interactions between GSH and MRP1 are mechanistically complex. To examine the similarities and differences among the various GSH-associated mechanisms of MRP1 transport, we have measured first the effect of GSH and several GSH-associated substrates/modulators on the binding and hydrolysis of ATP by MRP1 using 8-azidoadenosine-5'-[(32)P]-triphosphate ([(32)P]azidoATP) analogs, and second the initial binding of GSH and GSH-associated substrates/modulators to MRP1. We observed that GSH or its nonreducing derivative S-methylGSH (S-mGSH), but none of the GSH-associated substrate/modulators, caused a significant increase in [gamma-(32)P]azidoATP labeling of MRP1. Moreover, GSH and S-mGSH decreased levels of orthovanadate-induced trapping of [alpha-(32)P]azidoADP. [alpha-(32)P]azidoADP.Vi trapping was also decreased by estone sulfate, whereas vincristine, verapamil, and apigenin had no apparent effects on nucleotide interactions with MRP1. Furthermore, estrone sulfate and S-mGSH enhanced the effect of each other 15- and 10-fold, respectively. Second, although GSH binding increased the apparent affinity of MRP1 for all GSH-associated substrates/modulators tested, only estrone sulfate had a reciprocal effect on the apparent affinity of MRP1 for GSH. Overall, these results indicate significant mechanistic differences between MRP1-mediated transport of GSH and the ability of GSH to modulate MRP1 transport.

Overcoming barriers to membrane protein structure determination

After decades of slow progress, the pace of research on membrane protein structures is beginning to quicken thanks to various improvements in technology, including protein engineering and microfocus X-ray diffraction. Here we review these developments and, where possible, highlight generic new approaches to solving membrane protein structures based on recent technological advances. Rational approaches to overcoming the bottlenecks in the field are urgently required as membrane proteins, which typically comprise ~30% of the proteomes of organisms, are dramatically under-represented in the structural database of the Protein Data Bank.

Healthy ageing and depletion of intracellular glutathione influences T cell membrane thioredoxin-1 levels and cytokine secretion

Background: During ageing an altered redox balance has been observed in both intracellular and extracellular compartments, primarily due to glutathione depletion and metabolic stress. Maintaining redox homeostasis is important for controlling proliferation and apoptosis in response to specific stimuli for a variety of cells. For T cells, the ability to generate specific response to antigen is dependent on the oxidation state of cell surface and cytoplasmic protein-thiols. Intracellular thiols are maintained in their reduced state by a network of redox regulating peptides, proteins and enzymes such as glutathione, thioredoxins and thioredoxin reductase. Here we have investigated whether any relationship exists between age and secreted or cell surface thioredoxin-1, intracellular glutathione concentration and T cell surface thioredoxin 1 (Trx-1) and how this is related to interleukin (IL)-2 production.Results: Healthy older adults have reduced lymphocyte surface expression and lower circulating plasma Trx-1 concentrations. Using buthionine sulfoximine to deplete intracellular glutathione in Jurkat T cells we show that cell surface Trx-1 is lowered, secretion of Trx-1 is decreased and the response to the lectin phytohaemagglutinin measured as IL-2 production is also affected. These effects are recapitulated by another glutathione depleting agent, diethylmaleate.Conclusion: Together these data suggest that a relationship exists between the intracellular redox compartment and Trx-1 proteins. Loss of lymphocyte surface Trx-1 may be a useful biomarker of healthy ageing. © 2013 Carilho Torrao et al.; licensee Chemistry Central Ltd.

Novel strategies to improve recombinant membrane protein production in yeast

Approximately 60% of pharmaceuticals target membrane proteins; 30% of the human genome codes for membrane proteins yet they represent less than 1% of known unique crystal structures deposited in the Protein Data Bank (PDB), with 50% of structures derived from recombinant membrane proteins having been synthesized in yeasts. G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are an important class of membrane proteins that are not naturally abundant in their native membranes. Unfortunately their recombinant synthesis often suffers from low yields; moreover, function may be lost during extraction and purification from cell membranes, impeding research aimed at structural and functional determination. We therefore devised two novel strategies to improve functional yields of recombinant membrane proteins in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. We used human adenosine A2A receptor (hA2AR) as a model GPRC since it is functionally and structurally well characterised.In the first strategy, we investigated whether it is possible to provide yeast cells with a selective advantage (SA) in producing the fusion protein hA2AR-Ura3p when grown in medium lacking uracil; Ura3p is a decarboxylase that catalyzes the sixth enzymatic step in the de novo biosynthesis of pyrimidines, generating uridine monophosphate. The first transformant (H1) selected using the SA strategy gave high total yields of hA2AR-Ura3p, but low functional yields as determined by radio-ligand binding, leading to the discovery that the majority of the hA2AR-Ura3p had been internalized to the vacuole. The yeast deletion strain spt3Δ is thought to have slower translation rates and improved folding capabilities compared to wild-type cells and was therefore utilised for the SA strategy to generate a second transformant, SU1, which gave higher functional yields than H1. Subsequently hA2AR-Ura3p from H1 was solubilised with n-dodecyl-β-D-maltoside and cholesteryl hemisuccinate, which yielded functional hA2AR-Ura3p at the highest yield of all approaches used. The second strategy involved using knowledge of translational processes to improve recombinant protein synthesis to increase functional yield. Modification of existing expression vectors with an internal ribosome entry site (IRES) inserted into the 5ˊ untranslated region (UTR) of the gene encoding hA2AR was employed to circumvent regulatory controls on recombinant synthesis in the yeast host cell. The mechanisms involved were investigated through the use of yeast deletion strains and drugs that cause translation inhibition, which is known to improve protein folding and yield. The data highlight the potential to use deletion strains to increase IRES-mediated expression of recombinant hA2AR. Overall, the data presented in this thesis provide mechanistic insights into two novel strategies that can increase functional membrane protein yields in the eukaryotic microbe, S. cerevisiae.

Hijacked then lost in translation:the plight of the recombinant host cell in membrane protein structural biology projects

Membrane protein structural biology is critically dependent upon the supply of high-quality protein. Over the last few years, the value of crystallising biochemically characterised, recombinant targets that incorporate stabilising mutations has been established. Nonetheless, obtaining sufficient yields of many recombinant membrane proteins is still a major challenge. Solutions are now emerging based on an improved understanding of recombinant host cells; as a 'cell factory' each cell is tasked with managing limited resources to simultaneously balance its own growth demands with those imposed by an expression plasmid. This review examines emerging insights into the role of translation and protein folding in defining high-yielding recombinant membrane protein production in a range of host cells.

Membrane protein production in the Yeast, S. cerevisiae

The first crystal structures of recombinant mammalian membrane proteins were solved in 2005 using protein that had been produced in yeast cells. One of these, the rabbit Ca2+-ATPase SERCA1a, was synthesized in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. All host systems have their specific advantages and disadvantages, but yeast has remained a consistently popular choice in the eukaryotic membrane protein field because it is quick, easy and cheap to culture, whilst being able to post-translationally process eukaryotic membrane proteins. Very recent structures of recombinant membrane proteins produced in S. cerevisiae include those of the Arabidopsis thaliana NRT1.1 nitrate transporter and the fungal plant pathogen lipid scramblase, TMEM16. This chapter provides an overview of the methodological approaches underpinning these successes.

Membrane protein extraction and purification using styrene-maleic acid (SMA) co-polymer:effect of variations in polymer structure

The use of styrene maleic acid (SMA) co-polymers to extract and purify transmembrane proteins, whilst retaining their native bilayer environment, overcomes many of the disadvantages associated with conventional detergent based procedures. This approach has huge potential for the future of membrane protein structural and functional studies. In this investigation we have systematically tested a range of commercially available SMA polymers, varying in both the ratio of styrene to maleic acid and in total size, for the ability to extract, purify and stabilise transmembrane proteins. Three different membrane proteins (BmrA, LeuT and ZipA) which vary in size and shape were used. Our results show that several polymers can be used to extract membrane proteins comparably to conventional detergents. A styrene:maleic acid ratio of either 2:1 or 3:1, combined with a relatively small average molecular weight (7.5-10 kDa) is optimal for membrane extraction, and this appears to be independent of the protein size, shape or expression system. A subset of polymers were taken forward for purification, functional and stability tests. Following a one-step affinity purification SMA 2000 was found to be the best choice for yield, purity and function. However the other polymers offer subtle differences in size and sensitivity to divalent cations that may be useful for a variety of downstream applications.

Microfluidic platforms for the characterization of in meso membrane protein crystallization

Membrane proteins, which reside in the membranes of cells, play a critical role in many important biological processes including cellular signaling, immune response, and material and energy transduction. Because of their key role in maintaining the environment within cells and facilitating intercellular interactions, understanding the function of these proteins is of tremendous medical and biochemical significance. Indeed, the malfunction of membrane proteins has been linked to numerous diseases including diabetes, cirrhosis of the liver, cystic fibrosis, cancer, Alzheimer's disease, hypertension, epilepsy, cataracts, tubulopathy, leukodystrophy, Leigh syndrome, anemia, sensorineural deafness, and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.1-3 However, the structure of many of these proteins and the changes in their structure that lead to disease-related malfunctions are not well understood. Additionally, at least 60% of the pharmaceuticals currently available are thought to target membrane proteins, despite the fact that their exact mode of operation is not known.4-6 Developing a detailed understanding of the function of a protein is achieved by coupling biochemical experiments with knowledge of the structure of the protein. Currently the most common method for obtaining three-dimensional structure information is X-ray crystallography. However, no a priori methods are currently available to predict crystallization conditions for a given protein.7-14 This limitation is currently overcome by screening a large number of possible combinations of precipitants, buffer, salt, and pH conditions to identify conditions that are conducive to crystal nucleation and growth.7,9,11,15-24 Unfortunately, these screening efforts are often limited by difficulties associated with quantity and purity of available protein samples. While the two most significant bottlenecks for protein structure determination in general are the (i) obtaining sufficient quantities of high quality protein samples and (ii) growing high quality protein crystals that are suitable for X-ray structure determination,7,20,21,23,25-47 membrane proteins present additional challenges. For crystallization it is necessary to extract the membrane proteins from the cellular membrane. However, this process often leads to denaturation. In fact, membrane proteins have proven to be so difficult to crystallize that of the more than 66,000 structures deposited in the Protein Data Bank,48 less than 1% are for membrane proteins, with even fewer present at high resolution (< 2Å)4,6,49 and only a handful are human membrane proteins.49 A variety of strategies including detergent solubilization50-53 and the use of artificial membrane-like environments have been developed to circumvent this challenge.43,53-55 In recent years, the use of a lipidic mesophase as a medium for crystallizing membrane proteins has been demonstrated to increase success for a wide range of membrane proteins, including human receptor proteins.54,56-62 This in meso method for membrane protein crystallization, however, is still by no means routine due to challenges related to sample preparation at sub-microliter volumes and to crystal harvesting and X-ray data collection. This dissertation presents various aspects of the development of a microfluidic platform to enable high throughput in meso membrane protein crystallization at a level beyond the capabilities of current technologies. Microfluidic platforms for protein crystallization and other lab-on-a-chip applications have been well demonstrated.9,63-66 These integrated chips provide fine control over transport phenomena and the ability to perform high throughput analyses via highly integrated fluid networks. However, the development of microfluidic platforms for in meso protein crystallization required the development of strategies to cope with extremely viscous and non-Newtonian fluids. A theoretical treatment of highly viscous fluids in microfluidic devices is presented in Chapter 3, followed by the application of these strategies for the development of a microfluidic mixer capable of preparing a mesophase sample for in meso crystallization at a scale of less than 20 nL in Chapter 4. This approach was validated with the successful on chip in meso crystallization of the membrane protein bacteriorhodopsin. In summary, this is the first report of a microfluidic platform capable of performing in meso crystallization on-chip, representing a 1000x reduction in the scale at which mesophase trials can be prepared. Once protein crystals have formed, they are typically harvested from the droplet they were grown in and mounted for crystallographic analysis. Despite the high throughput automation present in nearly all other aspects of protein structure determination, the harvesting and mounting of crystals is still largely a manual process. Furthermore, during mounting the fragile protein crystals can potentially be damaged, both from physical and environmental shock. To circumvent these challenges an X-ray transparent microfluidic device architecture was developed to couple the benefits of scale, integration, and precise fluid control with the ability to perform in situ X-ray analysis (Chapter 5). This approach was validated successfully by crystallization and subsequent on-chip analysis of the soluble proteins lysozyme, thaumatin, and ribonuclease A and will be extended to microfluidic platforms for in meso membrane protein crystallization. The ability to perform in situ X-ray analysis was shown to provide extremely high quality diffraction data, in part as a result of not being affected by damage due to physical handling of the crystals. As part of the work described in this thesis, a variety of data collection strategies for in situ data analysis were also tested, including merging of small slices of data from a large number of crystals grown on a single chip, to allow for diffraction analysis at biologically relevant temperatures. While such strategies have been applied previously,57,59,61,67 they are potentially challenging when applied via traditional methods due to the need to grow and then mount a large number of crystals with minimal crystal-to-crystal variability. The integrated nature of microfluidic platforms easily enables the generation of a large number of reproducible crystallization trials. This, coupled with in situ analysis capabilities has the potential of being able to acquire high resolution structural data of proteins at biologically relevant conditions for which only small crystals, or crystals which are adversely affected by standard cryocooling techniques, could be obtained (Chapters 5 and 6). While the main focus of protein crystallography is to obtain three-dimensional protein structures, the results of typical experiments provide only a static picture of the protein. The use of polychromatic or Laue X-ray diffraction methods enables the collection of time resolved structural information. These experiments are very sensitive to crystal quality, however, and often suffer from severe radiation damage due to the intense polychromatic X-ray beams. Here, as before, the ability to perform in situ X-ray analysis on many small protein crystals within a microfluidic crystallization platform has the potential to overcome these challenges. An automated method for collecting a "single-shot" of data from a large number of crystals was developed in collaboration with the BioCARS team at the Advanced Photon Source at Argonne National Laboratory (Chapter 6). The work described in this thesis shows that, even more so than for traditional structure determination efforts, the ability to grow and analyze a large number of high quality crystals is critical to enable time resolved structural studies of novel proteins. In addition to enabling X-ray crystallography experiments, the development of X-ray transparent microfluidic platforms also has tremendous potential to answer other scientific questions, such as unraveling the mechanism of in meso crystallization. For instance, the lipidic mesophases utilized during in meso membrane protein crystallization can be characterized by small angle X-ray diffraction analysis. Coupling in situ analysis with microfluidic platforms capable of preparing these difficult mesophase samples at very small volumes has tremendous potential to enable the high throughput analysis of these systems on a scale that is not reasonably achievable using conventional sample preparation strategies (Chapter 7). In collaboration with the LS-CAT team at the Advanced Photon Source, an experimental station for small angle X-ray analysis coupled with the high quality visualization capabilities needed to target specific microfluidic samples on a highly integrated chip is under development. Characterizing the phase behavior of these mesophase systems and the effects of various additives present in crystallization trials is key for developing an understanding of how in meso crystallization occurs. A long term goal of these studies is to enable the rational design of in meso crystallization experiments so as to avoid or limit the need for high throughput screening efforts. In summary, this thesis describes the development of microfluidic platforms for protein crystallization with in situ analysis capabilities. Coupling the ability to perform in situ analysis with the small scale, fine control, and the high throughput nature of microfluidic platforms has tremendous potential to enable a new generation of crystallographic studies and facilitate the structure determination of important biological targets. The development of platforms for in meso membrane protein crystallization is particularly significant because they enable the preparation of highly viscous mixtures at a previously unachievable scale. Work in these areas is ongoing and has tremendous potential to improve not only current the methods of protein crystallization and crystallography, but also to enhance our knowledge of the structure and function of proteins which could have a significant scientific and medical impact on society as a whole. The microfluidic technology described in this thesis has the potential to significantly advance our understanding of the structure and function of membrane proteins, thereby aiding the elucidation of human biology, the development of pharmaceuticals with fewer side effects for a wide range of diseases. References (1) Quick, M.; Javitch, J. A. P Natl Acad Sci USA 2007, 104, 3603. (2) Trubetskoy, V. S.; Burke, T. J. Am Lab 2005, 37, 19. (3) Pecina, P.; Houstkova, H.; Hansikova, H.; Zeman, J.; Houstek, J. Physiol Res 2004, 53, S213. (4) Arinaminpathy, Y.; Khurana, E.; Engelman, D. M.; Gerstein, M. B. Drug Discovery Today 2009, 14, 1130. (5) Overington, J. P.; Al-Lazikani, B.; Hopkins, A. L. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2006, 5, 993. (6) Dauter, Z.; Lamzin, V. S.; Wilson, K. S. Current Opinion in Structural Biology 1997, 7, 681. (7) Hansen, C.; Quake, S. R. Current Opinion in Structural Biology 2003, 13, 538. (8) Govada, L.; Carpenter, L.; da Fonseca, P. C. A.; Helliwell, J. R.; Rizkallah, P.; Flashman, E.; Chayen, N. E.; Redwood, C.; Squire, J. M. J Mol Biol 2008, 378, 387. (9) Hansen, C. L.; Skordalakes, E.; Berger, J. M.; Quake, S. R. P Natl Acad Sci USA 2002, 99, 16531. (10) Leng, J.; Salmon, J.-B. Lab Chip 2009, 9, 24. (11) Zheng, B.; Gerdts, C. J.; Ismagilov, R. F. Current Opinion in Structural Biology 2005, 15, 548. (12) Lorber, B.; Delucas, L. J.; Bishop, J. B. J Cryst Growth 1991, 110, 103. (13) Talreja, S.; Perry, S. L.; Guha, S.; Bhamidi, V.; Zukoski, C. F.; Kenis, P. J. A. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 2010, 114, 4432. (14) Chayen, N. E. Current Opinion in Structural Biology 2004, 14, 577. (15) He, G. W.; Bhamidi, V.; Tan, R. B. H.; Kenis, P. J. A.; Zukoski, C. F. Cryst Growth Des 2006, 6, 1175. (16) Zheng, B.; Tice, J. D.; Roach, L. S.; Ismagilov, R. F. Angew Chem Int Edit 2004, 43, 2508. (17) Li, L.; Mustafi, D.; Fu, Q.; Tereshko, V.; Chen, D. L. L.; Tice, J. D.; Ismagilov, R. F. P Natl Acad Sci USA 2006, 103, 19243. (18) Song, H.; Chen, D. L.; Ismagilov, R. F. Angew Chem Int Edit 2006, 45, 7336. (19) van der Woerd, M.; Ferree, D.; Pusey, M. Journal of Structural Biology 2003, 142, 180. (20) Ng, J. D.; Gavira, J. A.; Garcia-Ruiz, J. M. Journal of Structural Biology 2003, 142, 218. (21) Talreja, S.; Kenis, P. J. A.; Zukoski, C. F. Langmuir 2007, 23, 4516. (22) Hansen, C. L.; Quake, S. R.; Berger, J. M. US, 2007. (23) Newman, J.; Fazio, V. J.; Lawson, B.; Peat, T. S. Cryst Growth Des 2010, 10, 2785. (24) Newman, J.; Xu, J.; Willis, M. C. Acta Crystallographica Section D 2007, 63, 826. (25) Collingsworth, P. D.; Bray, T. L.; Christopher, G. K. J Cryst Growth 2000, 219, 283. (26) Durbin, S. D.; Feher, G. Annu Rev Phys Chem 1996, 47, 171. (27) Talreja, S.; Kim, D. Y.; Mirarefi, A. Y.; Zukoski, C. F.; Kenis, P. J. A. J Appl Crystallogr 2005, 38, 988. (28) Yoshizaki, I.; Nakamura, H.; Sato, T.; Igarashi, N.; Komatsu, H.; Yoda, S. J Cryst Growth 2002, 237, 295. (29) Anderson, M. J.; Hansen, C. L.; Quake, S. R. P Natl Acad Sci USA 2006, 103, 16746. (30) Hansen, C. L.; Sommer, M. O. A.; Quake, S. R. P Natl Acad Sci USA 2004, 101, 14431. (31) Lounaci, M.; Rigolet, P.; Abraham, C.; Le Berre, M.; Chen, Y. Microelectron Eng 2007, 84, 1758. (32) Zheng, B.; Roach, L. S.; Ismagilov, R. F. J Am Chem Soc 2003, 125, 11170. (33) Zhou, X.; Lau, L.; Lam, W. W. L.; Au, S. W. N.; Zheng, B. Anal. Chem. 2007. (34) Cherezov, V.; Caffrey, M. J Appl Crystallogr 2003, 36, 1372. (35) Qutub, Y.; Reviakine, I.; Maxwell, C.; Navarro, J.; Landau, E. M.; Vekilov, P. G. J Mol Biol 2004, 343, 1243. (36) Rummel, G.; Hardmeyer, A.; Widmer, C.; Chiu, M. L.; Nollert, P.; Locher, K. P.; Pedruzzi, I.; Landau, E. M.; Rosenbusch, J. P. Journal of Structural Biology 1998, 121, 82. (37) Gavira, J. A.; Toh, D.; Lopez-Jaramillo, J.; Garcia-Ruiz, J. M.; Ng, J. D. Acta Crystallogr D 2002, 58, 1147. (38) Stevens, R. C. Current Opinion in Structural Biology 2000, 10, 558. (39) Baker, M. Nat Methods 2010, 7, 429. (40) McPherson, A. In Current Topics in Membranes, Volume 63; Volume 63 ed.; DeLucas, L., Ed.; Academic Press: 2009, p 5. (41) Gabrielsen, M.; Gardiner, A. T.; Fromme, P.; Cogdell, R. J. In Current Topics in Membranes, Volume 63; Volume 63 ed.; DeLucas, L., Ed.; Academic Press: 2009, p 127. (42) Page, R. In Methods in Molecular Biology: Structural Proteomics - High Throughput Methods; Kobe, B., Guss, M., Huber, T., Eds.; Humana Press: Totowa, NJ, 2008; Vol. 426, p 345. (43) Caffrey, M. Ann Rev Biophys 2009, 38, 29. (44) Doerr, A. Nat Methods 2006, 3, 244. (45) Brostromer, E.; Nan, J.; Li, L.-F.; Su, X.-D. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 2009, 386, 634. (46) Li, G.; Chen, Q.; Li, J.; Hu, X.; Zhao, J. Anal Chem 2010, 82, 4362. (47) Jia, Y.; Liu, X.-Y. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 2006, 110, 6949. (48) RCSB Protein Data Bank. http://www.rcsb.org/ (July 11, 2010). (49) Membrane Proteins of Known 3D Structure. http://blanco.biomol.uci.edu/Membrane_Proteins_xtal.html (July 11, 2010). (50) Michel, H. Trends Biochem Sci 1983, 8, 56. (51) Rosenbusch, J. P. Journal of Structural Biology 1990, 104, 134. (52) Garavito, R. M.; Picot, D. Methods 1990, 1, 57. (53) Kulkarni, C. V. 2010; Vol. 12, p 237. (54) Landau, E. M.; Rosenbusch, J. P. P Natl Acad Sci USA 1996, 93, 14532. (55) Pebay-Peyroula, E.; Rummel, G.; Rosenbusch, J. P.; Landau, E. M. Science 1997, 277, 1676. (56) Cherezov, V.; Liu, W.; Derrick, J. P.; Luan, B.; Aksimentiev, A.; Katritch, V.; Caffrey, M. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics 2008, 71, 24. (57) Cherezov, V.; Rosenbaum, D. M.; Hanson, M. A.; Rasmussen, S. G. F.; Thian, F. S.; Kobilka, T. S.; Choi, H. J.; Kuhn, P.; Weis, W. I.; Kobilka, B. K.; Stevens, R. C. Science 2007, 318, 1258. (58) Cherezov, V.; Yamashita, E.; Liu, W.; Zhalnina, M.; Cramer, W. A.; Caffrey, M. J Mol Biol 2006, 364, 716. (59) Jaakola, V. P.; Griffith, M. T.; Hanson, M. A.; Cherezov, V.; Chien, E. Y. T.; Lane, J. R.; IJzerman, A. P.; Stevens, R. C. Science 2008, 322, 1211. (60) Rosenbaum, D. M.; Cherezov, V.; Hanson, M. A.; Rasmussen, S. G. F.; Thian, F. S.; Kobilka, T. S.; Choi, H. J.; Yao, X. J.; Weis, W. I.; Stevens, R. C.; Kobilka, B. K. Science 2007, 318, 1266. (61) Wacker, D.; Fenalti, G.; Brown, M. A.; Katritch, V.; Abagyan, R.; Cherezov, V.; Stevens, R. C. J Am Chem Soc 2010, 132, 11443. (62) Höfer, N.; Aragão, D.; Caffrey, M. Biophys J 2010, 99, L23. (63) Li, L.; Ismagilov, R. F. Ann Rev Biophys 2010. (64) Pal, R.; Yang, M.; Lin, R.; Johnson, B. N.; Srivastava, N.; Razzacki, S. Z.; Chomistek, K. J.; Heldsinger, D. C.; Haque, R. M.; Ugaz, V. M.; Thwar, P. K.; Chen, Z.; Alfano, K.; Yim, M. B.; Krishnan, M.; Fuller, A. O.; Larson, R. G.; Burke, D. T.; Burns, M. A. Lab Chip 2005, 5, 1024. (65) Jayashree, R. S.; Gancs, L.; Choban, E. R.; Primak, A.; Natarajan, D.; Markoski, L. J.; Kenis, P. J. A. J Am Chem Soc 2005, 127, 16758. (66) Wootton, R. C. R.; deMello, A. J. Chem Commun 2004, 266. (67) McPherson, A. J Appl Crystallogr 2000, 33, 397.

The periplasmic domain of the barrel assembly machinery protein A (BamA) from Escherichia coli assists folding of outer membrane protein A

The assembly of outer membranes of the cell wall of Gram-negative bacteria and of various organelles of eukaryotic cells requires the evolutionarily conserved β-barrel-assembly machinery (BAM) complex. This thesis describes the biochemical and biophysical properties of the periplasmic domain of the β-barrel assembly machinery protein A (PD-BamA) of the E. coli BAM complex, its effect on insertion and folding of the Outer membrane protein A (OmpA) into lipid bilayers and the identification of regions of PD-BamA that may be involved in protein-protein interactions. The secondary structure of PD-BamA in mixed lipid bilayers, analyzed by Circular dichroism (CD) spectroscopy, contained less β-sheet at an increased content of phosphatidylglycerol (PG) in the lipid membrane. This result showed membrane binding, albeit only in the presence of negatively charged lipids. Fluorescence spectroscopy demonstrated that PD-BamA only binds to lipid bilayers containing the negatively charged DOPG, confirming the results of CD spectroscopy. PD-BamA did not bind to zwitterionic but overall neutral lipid bilayers. PD-BamA bound to OmpA at a stoichiometry of 1:1. PD-BamA strongly facilitated insertion and folding of OmpA into lipid membranes. Kinetics of PD-BamA mediated folding of OmpA was well described by two parallel folding processes, a fast folding process and a slow folding process, differing by 2-3 orders of magnitude in their rate constants. The folding yields of OmpA depended on the concentration of lipid membranes and also on the lipid head groups. The presence of PD-BamA resulted in increased folding yields of OmpA in negatively charged DOPG, but PD-BamA did not affect the folding kinetics of OmpA into bilayers of zwitterionic but overall neutral lipids. The efficiency of folding and insertion of OmpA into lipid bilayers strongly depended on the ratio PD-BamA/OmpA and was optimal at equimolar concentrations of PD-BamA and OmpA. To examine complexes of unfolded OmpA with PD-BamA in more detail, site-directed spectroscopy was used to explore contact regions in both, PD-BamA and OmpA. Similarly, contact regions were also investigated for another protein complex formed by PD-BamA and the lipoprotein BamD. The obtained data suggest, that the site of interaction on PD-BamA for OmpA might be oriented towards the exterior environment away from the preceding POTRA domains, but that PD-BamA is oriented with its short α-helix α1 of POTRA domain 5 towards the C-terminal end of BamD.

A Putative Otu Domain-containing Protein 1 Deubiquitinating Enzyme Is Differentially Expressed In Thyroid Cancer And Identifies Less-aggressive Tumours.

This study aimed to identify novel biomarkers for thyroid carcinoma diagnosis and prognosis. We have constructed a human single-chain variable fragment (scFv) antibody library that was selected against tumour thyroid cells using the BRASIL method (biopanning and rapid analysis of selective interactive ligands) and phage display technology. One highly reactive clone, scFv-C1, with specific binding to papillary thyroid tumour proteins was confirmed by ELISA, which was further tested against a tissue microarray that comprised of 229 thyroid tissues, including: 110 carcinomas (38 papillary thyroid carcinomas (PTCs), 42 follicular carcinomas, 30 follicular variants of PTC), 18 normal thyroid tissues, 49 nodular goitres (NG) and 52 follicular adenomas. The scFv-C1 was able to distinguish carcinomas from benign lesions (P=0.0001) and reacted preferentially against T1 and T2 tumour stages (P=0.0108). We have further identified an OTU domain-containing protein 1, DUBA-7 deubiquitinating enzyme as the scFv-binding antigen using two-dimensional polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis and mass spectrometry. The strategy of screening and identifying a cell-surface-binding antibody against thyroid tissues was highly effective and resulted in a useful biomarker that recognises malignancy among thyroid nodules and may help identify lower-risk cases that can benefit from less-aggressive management.

Sensitization Prevalence, Antibody Cross-Reactivity and Immunogenic Peptide Profile of Api g 2, the Non-Specific Lipid Transfer Protein 1 of Celery

Background: Celery (Apium graveolens) represents a relevant allergen source that can elicit severe reactions in the adult population. To investigate the sensitization prevalence and cross-reactivity of Api g 2 from celery stalks in a Mediterranean population and in a mouse model. Methodology: 786 non-randomized subjects from Italy were screened for IgE reactivity to rApi g 2, rArt v 3 (mugwort pollen LTP) and nPru p 3 (peach LTP) using an allergen microarray. Clinical data of 32 selected patients with reactivity to LTP under investigation were evaluated. Specific IgE titers and cross-inhibitions were performed in ELISA and allergen microarray. Balb/c mice were immunized with purified LTPs; IgG titers were determined in ELISA and mediator release was examined using RBL-2H3 cells. Simulated endolysosomal digestion was performed using microsomes obtained from human DCs. Results: IgE testing showed a sensitization prevalence of 25.6% to Api g 2, 18.6% to Art v 3, and 28.6% to Pru p 3 and frequent co-sensitization and correlating IgE-reactivity was observed. 10/32 patients suffering from LTP-related allergy reported symptoms upon consumption of celery stalks which mainly presented as OAS. Considerable IgE cross-reactivity was observed between Api g 2, Art v 3, and Pru p 3 with varying inhibition degrees of individual patients' sera. Simulating LTP mono-sensitization in a mouse model showed development of more congruent antibody specificities between Api g 2 and Art v 3. Notably, biologically relevant murine IgE cross-reactivity was restricted to the latter and diverse from Pru p 3 epitopes. Endolysosomal processing of LTP showed generation of similar clusters, which presumably represent T-cell peptides. Conclusions: Api g 2 represents a relevant celery stalk allergen in the LTP-sensitized population. The molecule displays common B cell epitopes and endolysosomal peptides that encompass T cell epitopes with pollen and plant-food derived LTP.