Modeling the structure of mAb 14B7 bound to the anthrax protective antigen
Arvind Sivasubramanian
Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218
Search for more papers by this authorJennifer A. Maynard
Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minneapolis 55455
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Jeffrey J. Gray
Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218
Program in Molecular and Computational Biophysics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218
Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, Maryland 21231
Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, 3400 North Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21218===Search for more papers by this authorArvind Sivasubramanian
Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218
Search for more papers by this authorJennifer A. Maynard
Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minneapolis 55455
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Jeffrey J. Gray
Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218
Program in Molecular and Computational Biophysics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218
Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, Maryland 21231
Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, 3400 North Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21218===Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
The anthrax protective antigen (PA) is a key component of the tripartite anthrax toxin. Monoclonal antibody (mAb) 14B7 and its engineered, affinity-matured variants have been shown to be effective in blocking PA binding to cellular receptors and mitigating anthrax toxicity. Here, we perform computational structural modeling of the mAb 14B7-PA interaction. Our objectives are to determine the structure of the 14B7-PA complex, to deduce a structural explanation for the affinity maturation from the docking models, and to study the effect of inaccuracies in the antibody homology model on docking. We used the RosettaDock program to dock PA with the mAb 14B7 crystal structure or homology model. Our simulations generate two distinct binding orientations consistent with experimental residue mutations that diminish 14B7-PA binding. Furthermore, the models suggest new site-directed mutations to positively identify one of these two solutions as the correct 14B7-PA docking orientation. The models indicate that PA regions 648–660 and 712–720 may be important for 14B7 binding in addition to the known PA epitope, and the binding interfaces are similar to that seen in the PA complex with cellular receptor CMG2. Antibody residues involved in affinity maturation do not contact the antigen in the docking models, suggesting that affinity maturation in the 14B7 family does not result from direct enhancements of antibody–antigen contacts. Docking the homology model produces low-resolution representations of the crystal structure docking orientations, but homology model docking is frustrated by antibody H3 loop conformation errors. This work demonstrates the usefulness and limitations of computational structure prediction for the development of antibody therapeutics, and reemphasizes the need for flexible backbone docking algorithms to achieve high-resolution docking using homology models. Proteins 2008. © 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Supporting Information
The Supplementary Material referred to in this article can be found online at http://www.interscience.wiley.com/jpages/0887-3585/suppmat/ .
Filename | Description |
---|---|
jws-prot.21595.doc203.5 KB | Supporting Information file jws-prot.21595.doc |
Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.
REFERENCES
- 1 Reichert JM,Rosensweig CJ,Faden LB,Dewitz MC. Monoclonal antibody successes in the clinic. Nat Biotechnol 2005; 23: 1073–1078.
- 2 Sivasubramanian A,Chao G,Pressler HM,Wittrup KD,Gray JJ. Structural model of the mAb 806-EGFR complex using computational docking followed by computational and experimental mutagenesis. Structure 2006; 14: 401–414.
- 3 Gray JJ. High-resolution protein-protein docking. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2006; 16: 183–193.
- 4 Mendez R,Leplae R,Lensink MF,Wodak SJ. Assessment of CAPRI predictions in rounds 3–5 shows progress in docking procedures. Proteins 2005; 60: 150–169.
- 5 Gray JJ,Moughon SE,Wang C,Schueler-Furman O,Kuhlman B,Rohl CA,Baker D. Protein-protein docking with simultaneous optimization of rigid body displacement and side-chain conformations. J Mol Biol 2003; 331: 281–299.
- 6 Daily MD,Masica D,Sivasubramanian A,Somarouthu S,Gray JJ. CAPRI rounds 3–5 reveal promising successes and future challenges for RosettaDock. Proteins 2005; 60: 181–186.
- 7 Berman HM,Westbrook J,Feng Z,Gilliland G,Bhat TN,Weissig H,Shindyalov IN,Bourne PE. The protein data bank. Nucleic Acids Res 2000; 28: 235–242.
- 8 Morea V,Tramontano A,Rustici M,Chothia C,Lesk AM. Conformations of the third hypervariable region in the VH domain of immunoglobulins. J Mol Biol 1998; 275: 269–294.
- 9 Oliva B,Bates PA,Querol E,Aviles FX,Sternberg MJ. Automated classification of antibody complementarity determining region 3 of the heavy chain (H3) loops into canonical forms and its application to protein structure prediction. J Mol Biol 1998; 279: 1193–1210.
- 10 Autore F,Melchiorre S,Kleinjung J,Morgan WD,Fraternali F. Interaction of malaria parasite-inhibitory antibodies with the merozoite surface protein MSP1(19) by computational docking. Proteins 2007; 66: 513–527.
- 11 Bracci L,Pini A,Bernini A,Lelli B,Ricci C,Scarselli M,Niccolai N,Neri P. Biochemical filtering of a protein-protein docking simulation identifies the structure of a complex between a recombinant antibody fragment and α-bungarotoxin. Biochem J 2003; 371: 423–427.
- 12 Moayeri M,Leppla SH. The roles of anthrax toxin in pathogenesis. Curr Opin Microbiol 2004; 7: 19–24.
- 13 Maynard JA,Maassen CBM,Leppla SH,Brasky K,Patterson JL,Iverson BL,Georgiou G. Protection against anthrax toxin by recombinant antibody fragments correlates with antigen affinity. Nat Biotechnol 2002; 20: 597–601.
- 14 Varughese M,Teixeira AV,Liu S,Leppla SH. Identification of a receptor-binding region within domain 4 of the protective antigen component of anthrax toxin. Infect Immun 1999; 67: 1860–1865.
- 15 Santelli E,Bankston LA,Leppla SH,Liddington RC. Crystal structure of a complex between anthrax toxin and its host cell receptor. Nature 2004; 430: 905–908.
- 16 Harvey BR,Georgiou G,Hayhurst A,Jeong KJ,Iverson BL,Rogers GK. Anchored periplasmic expression, a versatile technology for the isolation of high-affinity antibodies from Escherichia coli-expressed libraries. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2004; 101: 9193–9198.
- 17 Rosovitz MJ,Schuck P,Varughese M,Chopra AP,Mehra V,Singh Y,McGinnis LM,Leppla SH. Alanine-scanning mutations in domain 4 of anthrax toxin protective antigen reveal residues important for binding to the cellular receptor and to a neutralizing monoclonal antibody. J Biol Chem 2003; 278: 30936–30944.
- 18 Petosa C,Collier RJ,Klimpel KR,Leppla SH,Liddington RC. Crystal structure of the anthrax toxin protective antigen. Nature 1997; 385: 833–838.
- 19 Al-Lazikani B,Lesk AM,Chothia C. Standard conformations for the canonical structures of immunoglobulins. J Mol Biol 1997; 273: 927–948.
- 20 Shirai H,Kidera A,Nakamura H. H3-rules: identification of CDR-H3 structures in antibodies. FEBS Lett 1999; 455: 188–197.
- 21 Whitelegg NR,Rees AR. WAM: an improved algorithm for modelling antibodies on the WEB. Protein Eng 2000; 13: 819–824.
- 22 Martin AC,Cheetham JC,Rees AR. Modeling antibody hypervariable loops: a combined algorithm. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1989; 86: 9268–9272.
- 23 Simons KT,Kooperberg C,Huang E,Baker D. Assembly of protein tertiary structures from fragments with similar local sequences using simulated annealing and Bayesian scoring functions. J Mol Biol 1997; 268: 209–225.
- 24
Simons KT,Ruczinski I,Kooperberg C,Fox BA,Bystroff C,Baker D.
Improved recognition of native-like protein structures using a combination of sequence-dependent and sequence-independent features of proteins.
Proteins
1999;
34:
82–95.
10.1002/(SICI)1097-0134(19990101)34:1<82::AID-PROT7>3.0.CO;2-A CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
- 25 Gray JJ,Moughon SE,Kortemme T,Schueler-Furman O,Misura KM,Morozov AV,Baker D. Protein–protein docking predictions for the CAPRI experiment. Proteins 2003; 52: 118–122.
- 26 Kuhlman B,Baker D. Native protein sequences are close to optimal for their structures. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2000; 97: 10383–10388.
- 27
Lazaridis T,Karplus M.
Effective energy function for proteins in solution.
Proteins
1999;
35:
133–152.
10.1002/(SICI)1097-0134(19990501)35:2<133::AID-PROT1>3.0.CO;2-N CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
- 28 Kortemme T,Morozov AV,Baker D. An orientation-dependent hydrogen bonding potential improves prediction of specificity and structure for proteins and protein-protein complexes. J Mol Biol 2003; 326: 1239–1259.
- 29 Schueler-Furman O,Wang C,Baker D. Progress in protein–protein docking: atomic resolution predictions in the CAPRI experiment using RosettaDock with an improved treatment of side-chain flexibility. Proteins 2005; 60: 187–194.
- 30 Wang C,Schueler-Furman O,Baker D. Improved side-chain modeling for protein-protein docking. Protein Sci 2005; 14: 1328–1339.
- 31 Chen R,Li L,Weng ZP. ZDOCK: an initial-stage protein-docking algorithm. Proteins: Struct Funct Genet 2003; 52: 80–87.
- 32 Li L,Chen R,Weng ZP. RDOCK: refinement of rigid-body protein docking predictions. Proteins: Struct Funct Genet 2003; 53: 693–707.
- 33 Kortemme T,Baker D. A simple physical model for binding energy hot spots in protein–protein complexes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2002; 99: 14116–14121.
- 34 Dunbrack RL,Jr,Cohen FE. Bayesian statistical analysis of protein side-chain rotamer preferences. Protein Sci 1997; 6: 1661–1681.
- 35 Lawrence MC,Colman PM. Shape complementarity at protein–protein interfaces. J Mol Biol 1993; 234: 946–950.
- 36 Lo Conte L,Chothia C,Janin J. The atomic structure of protein–protein recognition sites. J Mol Biol 1999; 285: 2177–2198.
- 37 Hubbard SJ,Thornton JM. NACCESS. London: Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University College London; 1993.
- 38 Mintseris J,Wiehe K,Pierce B,Anderson R,Chen R,Janin J,Weng Z. Protein-Protein Docking Benchmark 2.0: an update. Proteins 2005; 60: 214–216.
- 39 Chen R,Mintseris J,Janin J,Weng Z. A protein–protein docking benchmark. Proteins 2003; 52: 88–91.
- 40 Mylvaganam SE,Paterson Y,Getzoff ED. Structural basis for the binding of an anti-cytochrome c antibody to its antigen: crystal structures of FabE8-cytochrome c complex to 1.8 a resolution and FabE8 to 2.26 a resolution. J Mol Biol 1998; 281: 301–322.
- 41 Little SF,Novak JM,Lowe JR,Leppla SH,Singh Y,Klimpel KR,Lidgerding BC,Friedlander AM. Characterization of lethal factor binding and cell receptor binding domains of protective antigen of Bacillus anthracis using monoclonal antibodies. Microbiology 1996; 142(Part 3): 707–715.
- 42 McDonald IK,Thornton JM. Satisfying hydrogen bonding potential in proteins. J Mol Biol 1994; 238: 777–793.
- 43 Bogan AA,Thorn KS. Anatomy of hot spots in protein interfaces. J Mol Biol 1998; 280: 1–9.
- 44 Lacy DB,Wigelsworth DJ,Melnyk RA,Harrison SC,Collier RJ. Structure of heptameric protective antigen bound to an anthrax toxin receptor: a role for receptor in pH-dependent pore formation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2004; 101: 13147–13151.
- 45 Li YL,Li HM,Yang F,Smith-Gill SJ,Mariuzza RA. X-ray snapshots of the maturation of an antibody response to a protein antigen. Nat Struct Biol 2003; 10: 482–488.
- 46 Midelfort KS,Hernandez HH,Lippow SM,Tidor B,Drennan CL,Wittrup KD. Substantial energetic improvement with minimal structural perturbation in a high affinity mutant antibody. J Mol Biol 2004; 343: 685–701.
- 47 Manivel V,Sahoo NC,Salunke DM,Rao KVS. Maturation of an antibody response is governed by modulations in flexibility of the antigen-combining site. Immunity 2000; 13: 611–620.
- 48
VanAntwerp JJ,Wittrup KD.
Thermodynamic characterization of affinity maturation: the D1.3 antibody and a higher-affinity mutant.
J Mol Recognit
1998;
11:
10–13.
10.1002/(SICI)1099-1352(199812)11:1/6<10::AID-JMR381>3.0.CO;2-H CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
- 49 Ramirez-Benitez MD,Almagro JC. Analysis of antibodies of known structure suggests a lack of correspondence between the residues in contact with the antigen and those modified by somatic hypermutation. Proteins: Struct Funct Genet 2001; 45: 199–206.
- 50 Clark LA,Boriack-Sjodin PA,Eldredge J,Fitch C,Friedman B,Hanf KJ,Jarpe M,Liparoto SF,Li Y,Lugovskoy A,Miller S,Rushe M,Sherman W,Simon K,Van Vlijmen H. Affinity enhancement of an in vivo matured therapeutic antibody using structure-based computational design. Protein Sci 2006; 15: 949–960.
- 51 Wang L,Rivera EV,Benavides-Garcia MG,Nall BT. Loop entropy and cytochrome c stability. J Mol Biol 2005; 353: 719–729.
- 52 Honegger A,Pluckthun A. Yet another numbering scheme for immunoglobulin variable domains: an automatic modeling and analysis tool. J Mol Biol 2001; 309: 657–670.
- 53 Chothia C,Gelfand I,Kister A. Structural determinants in the sequences of immunoglobulin variable domain. J Mol Biol 1998; 278: 457–479.
- 54 Joughin BA,Green DF,Tidor B. Action-at-a-distance interactions enhance protein binding affinity. Protein Sci 2005; 14: 1363–1369.
- 55 Delano WL. The PyMOL Molecular Graphics System. San Carlos, CA: DeLano Scientific; 2002.