Embodiments herein relate generally to the field of high-throughput screening of affinity reagents for many targets of interest simultaneously.
Affinity selection is a process that utilizes so-called “display technologies” (ribosome-, mRNA-, and phage-display) to isolate recombinant affinity reagents for a given target (e.g., peptide, protein, RNA, cell, etc.). One of the bottlenecks of this process is producing the targets that are needed for the affinity selection.
In fact, many affinity reagent pipelines devote a significant amount of resources to generating high-quality target proteins. In addition, because the targets used in selection are sometimes labile (i.e., they are prone to degradation and denaturation), affinity selections fail.
Consequently, achieving a high-throughput and efficient affinity selection process remains problematic.
Embodiments herein relate to cost-effective screening of affinity reagents for many target proteins of interest simultaneously. Consequently, affinity reagents can be discovered that will potentially aid in detecting, inhibiting, or activating target proteins.
In various embodiments, arrayed targets (e.g., peptide, protein, RNA, cell, etc.) are used in affinity selection experiments to reduce the amount of target needed and to improve the throughput of discovering recombinant affinity reagents to a large collection of targets.
Preferably, protein-target method embodiments herein use arrayed material that is translated shortly before each round of selection, as using labile protein targets is found to be less effective than using freshly made target samples.
These and other aspects of the embodiments disclosed herein will be apparent upon reference to the following disclosure.
Embodiments herein relate to arrayed targets that are used in affinity selection of display libraries. Traditionally, affinity selection procedures use individual protein or peptide as targets, which have a low throughput (i.e., one at a time) and require a significant amount of target.
With the advent of so-called “array” technologies, one is able to a) spot proteins or peptides on an array orb) synthesize in situ thousands of fresh target proteins on a solid surface (array) within a few hours. Thus, one solution to the low-throughput/large amount of target limitations is to affinity select with arrayed targets. For example, synthetic peptides or proteins can be spotted or captured in arrays on glass slides. Alternatively, proteins can be synthesized in situ in individual spots of an array. The method of choice of in vitro synthesis and capture of proteins in spots is the nucleic-acid programmable protein array (NAPPA).
In NAPPA, cDNAs coding for the target of interest are cloned into an expression vector, which generates a fusion (Halo Tag, GST, etc.) to the target, and spotted onto an aminosilane-coated glass slide. Then to each spot, a HeLa cell in vitro transcription-translation reagent is added, whereby the fusion gene is transcribed into mRNA and translated. The nascent proteins are captured to the slide with an antibody/affinity agent to the fusion partner (i.e., HaloTag-ligand, α-GST antibody) that is spotted adjacent to the DNA during the manufacture of the array. This method allows for up to thousands of protein targets to be arrayed.
In the embodiments disclosed herein, targets, which have been generated by NAPPA, are used in affinity selection experiments (
In addition, this process is performed on an array, which can produce many fresh protein samples. Therefore, one is able to perform a multiplexed selection on multiple targets using a single library, thereby reducing the time and cost of generating these reagents.
In some method embodiments, the process includes first performing two rounds of multiplexed panning on the array, followed by a separation round using a macrowell format (that still utilizes freshly-translated target protein), which separates binding phage based on their cognate target (
Recently, we have shown that an M13 bacteriophage, which displays a known binder to a particular protein target, can be detected to bind the NAPPA-generated and arrayed form of the same target (
One Construction and Array Production
All genes of interest were cloned in pJFT7_nHALO or pJFT7_cHALO, the NAPPA compatible expression vectors. These expression vectors allow the in vitro expression of proteins of interest with a terminal HaloTag. Protein arrays were constructed through a contra capture concept as described (1).
Enrichment
Array displaying MAP2K5, CTBP1, SARA1A and CDK2 were constructed and expressed. The initial non-enrichment phage library was incubated and washed to allow binding. Mild acid (0.2M Glycine pH2.0) wash was used to remove the bond phage particles and immediately neutralized using 1M Tris-Cl (pH9.1). E. coli were then infected with the collected phage for titring and amplification as previously described (2).
Probe Libraries on Arrays
To evaluate the enrichment efficiency, same input of non-enriched library, R1 and R2 were probed on the protein microarray containing MAP2K5, CTBP1, SARA1A, CDK2 and RPS6KA3 for 1 hr at RT, followed by the M13 antibody at 1:500 dilution for another 1 hr at room temperature. Alexa Fluor 647 or Alexa Fluor 555 conjugated anti-mouse IgG secondary antibodies (Thermo Scientific) were then incubated with the array for 1 hr. After proper washing, slides were scanned at 10 micron resolution using TECAN scanner.
The following claims are not intended to be limited to the embodiments and other details provided herein. All references disclosed herein are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety.
This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/748,946, filed Jan. 30, 2019, which application represents the U.S. National Stage entry of International Application No. PCT/US2016/051514, filed on Sep. 13, 2016, and claims priority to and the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/218,362, filed on Sep. 14, 2015, the disclosures of which are incorporated by reference herein in their entirety.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
6818418 | Lipovsek | Nov 2004 | B1 |
8278419 | Jacobs | Oct 2012 | B2 |
9442111 | Lindsay | Sep 2016 | B2 |
9535070 | Saul | Jan 2017 | B2 |
9719144 | Krajmalnik-Brown | Aug 2017 | B2 |
9857374 | Labaer | Jan 2018 | B2 |
9938523 | Labaer | Apr 2018 | B2 |
10045990 | Festa | Aug 2018 | B2 |
10351842 | Labaer | Jul 2019 | B2 |
20120003639 | Kerilkowske | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20140162902 | Labaer | Jun 2014 | A1 |
20140371091 | Wiktor | Dec 2014 | A1 |
20150362497 | Anderson | Dec 2015 | A1 |
20160041159 | Labaer | Feb 2016 | A1 |
20160083793 | Labaer | Mar 2016 | A1 |
20160195546 | Labaer | Jul 2016 | A1 |
20170045515 | Anderson | Feb 2017 | A1 |
20170115299 | Saul | Apr 2017 | A1 |
20170176423 | Anderson | Jun 2017 | A1 |
20170356029 | Krajmalnik-Brown | Dec 2017 | A1 |
20170363631 | Labaer | Dec 2017 | A1 |
20180067117 | Labaer | Mar 2018 | A1 |
20180201923 | Labaer | Jul 2018 | A1 |
20180224448 | Wang | Aug 2018 | A1 |
20180267029 | Wiktor | Sep 2018 | A1 |
20180320230 | Labaer | Nov 2018 | A1 |
20190004051 | Labaer | Jan 2019 | A1 |
20190127778 | Labaer | May 2019 | A1 |
20190144923 | Krajmalnik-Brown | May 2019 | A1 |
20190162725 | Magee | May 2019 | A1 |
20190302122 | Katchman | Oct 2019 | A1 |
20190366237 | LaBaer | Dec 2019 | A1 |
20200038675 | Labaer | Dec 2020 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2006053571 | May 2006 | WO |
2009085462 | Jul 2009 | WO |
2011130324 | Oct 2011 | WO |
2012021887 | Feb 2012 | WO |
2013019680 | Feb 2013 | WO |
2013063126 | May 2013 | WO |
2013090364 | Jun 2013 | WO |
2013176774 | Nov 2013 | WO |
2014120902 | Aug 2014 | WO |
2014143954 | Sep 2014 | WO |
2014145458 | Sep 2014 | WO |
2015148202 | Oct 2015 | WO |
2015167678 | Nov 2015 | WO |
2015175755 | Nov 2015 | WO |
2016094558 | Jun 2016 | WO |
2016141044 | Sep 2016 | WO |
2017075141 | May 2017 | WO |
2017123648 | Jul 2017 | WO |
2017218677 | Dec 2017 | WO |
2018013531 | Jan 2018 | WO |
2018156553 | Aug 2018 | WO |
2019136169 | Jul 2019 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Amiss, Terry J., et al. “Engineering and rapid selection of a low-affinity glucose/galactose-binding protein for a glucose biosensor.” Protein Science 16.11 (2007): 2350-2359. |
Binkowski B et al. “Correcting errors in synthetic DNA through consensus shuffling.” Nucleic Acids Res. 2005, 33, e55. |
Bloom L et al. “FN3: A new protein scaffold reaches the clinic.” Drug Discov. Today 2009, 14, 949-955. |
Bradbury A et al. “Beyond natural antibodies: The power of in vitro display technologies.” Nat. Biotechnol. 2011, 29, 245-254. |
Cadwell R et al. “Mutagenic PCR.” Genome Res. 1994, 3, S136-S140. |
Detanico T et al. “Somatic mutagenesis in autoimmunity.” Autoimmunity 2013, 46, 102-114. |
Dreier, B. and A. Pluckthun, Ribosome display: a technology for selecting and evolving proteins from large libraries. Methods Mol Biol, 2011. 687: p. 283-306. |
Duan J et al. “Fibronectin type III domain based monobody with high avidity.” Biochemistry 2007, 46, 12656-12664. |
Fukuda I et al. “In vitro evolution of single-chain antibodies using mRNA display.” Nucleic Acids Res. 2006, 34, e127. |
Grebien F et al. “Targeting the SH2-kinase interface in Bcr-Abl inhibits leukemogenesis.” Cell 2011, 147, 306-319. |
Hackel B et al. “Picomolar affinity fibronectin domains engineered utilizing loop length diversity, recursive mutagenesis, and loop shuffling.” J. Mol. Biol. 2008, 381, 1238-1252. |
Holland E et al. “AXM mutagenesis: An efficient means for the production of libraries for directed evolution of proteins.” J. Immunol. Methods 2013, 394, 55-61. |
Holland E et al. “In vivo elimination of parental clones in general and site-directed mutagenesis.” J. Immunol. Methods 2015, 417, 67-75. |
Huang R et al. “Improvements to the Kunkel mutagenesis protocol for constructing primary and secondary phage-display libraries.” Methods. 2012, 58, 10-17. |
Huang R et al. “Streamlining the Pipeline for Generation of Recombinant Affinity Reagents by Integrating the Affinity Maturation Step” Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2015, 16, 23587-23603. |
Huovinen T et al. “Primer extension mutagenesis powered by selective rolling circle amplification.” PloS One 2012, 7, e31817. |
International Searching Authority, International Search Report and Written Opinion for PCT/US16/51514, dated Dec. 1, 2016, 6 pages. |
Jermutus L et al. “Tailoring in vitro evolution for protein affinity or stability.” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2001, 98, 75-80. |
Karthikeyan K, et al. A Contra Capture Protein Array Platform for Studying Post-translationally Modified (PTM) Auto-antigenomes. Mol Cell Proteomics. Jul. 2016;15(7):2324-37. doi: 10.1074/mcp.M115.057661. Epub May 2, 2016. PubMed PMID: 27141097; PubMed Central Pmcid: PMC4937507. |
Kehoe, J.W. et al., Filamentous phage display in the new millennium. Chem Rev, 2005. 105(11): p. 4056-72. |
Koide A et al. “High-affinity single-domain binding proteins with a binary-code interface.” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 6632-6637. |
Koide A et al. “Teaching an old scaffold new tricks: Monobodies constructed using alternative surfaces of the FN3 scaffold.” J. Mol. Biol. 2012, 415, 393-405. |
Kunkel T. “Rapid and efficient site-specific mutagenesis without phenotypic selection.” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1985, 82, 488-492. |
Miersch, S. and J.LaBaer, Nucleic Acid programmable protein arrays: versatile tools for array-based functional protein studies. Curr Protoc Protein Sci, 2011. Chapter 27: p. Unit27 2. |
Olson C et al. “mRNA display selection of a high-affinity, modification-specific phospho-IkBa-binding fibronectin.” ACS Chem. Biol. 2008, 3, 480-485. |
Parker M et al. “Antibody mimics based on human fibronectin type three domain engineered for thermostability and high-affinity binding to vascular endothelial growth factor receptor two.” Protein Eng. Des. Sel. 2005, 18, 435-444. |
Poulsen T et al. “Limits for antibody affinity maturation and repertoire diversification in hypervaccinated humans.” J. Immunol. 2011, 187, 4229-4235. |
Seelig, B., mRNA display for the selection and evolution of enzymes from in vitrotranslated protein libraries. Nat Protoc, 2011. 6(4): p. 540-52. |
Stemmer W. “DNA shuffling by random fragmentation and reassembly: In vitro recombination for molecular evolution.” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1994, 91, 10747-10751. |
Thie H et al. Affinity maturation by phage display. Methods Mol. Biol. 2009, 525, 309-322. |
Willuda J et al. “High thermal stability is essential for tumor targeting of antibody fragments: Engineering of a humanized anti-epithelial glycoprotein-2 (epithelial cell adhesion molecule) single-chain Fv fragment.” Cancer Res. 1999, 59, 5758-5767. |
Wojcik J et al. “A potent and highly specific FN3 monobody inhibitor of the abl SH2 domain.” Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2010, 17, 519-527. |
Zaccolo M et al. “An approach to random mutagenesis of DNA using mixtures of triphosphate derivatives of nucleoside analogues.” J. Mol. Biol. 1996, 255, 589-603. |
Zahnd C et al. “Computational analysis of off-rate selection experiments to optimize affinity maturation by directed evolution.” Protein Eng. Des. Sel. 2010, 23, 175-184. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20210380970 A1 | Dec 2021 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
62218362 | Sep 2015 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 15748946 | US | |
Child | 17405172 | US |