Difference between revisions of "Part:BBa K4165023"
Ahmedsameh (Talk | contribs) |
|||
(13 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
<partinfo>BBa_K4165023 short</partinfo> | <partinfo>BBa_K4165023 short</partinfo> | ||
− | This composite part consists of T7 promoter (BBa_K3633015), lac operator (BBa_K4165062), pGS-21a RBS (BBa_K4165016), 6x His-tag (BBa_K4165020), SPINK8 Inhibitor (BBa_K4165010), seed peptide (BBa_K4165012), H1A peptide (BBa_K4165000) and T7 terminator (BBa_K731721). | + | This composite part consists of T7 promoter (BBa_K3633015), lac operator (BBa_K4165062), pGS-21a RBS (BBa_K4165016), 6x His-tag (BBa_K4165020), SPINK8 Inhibitor (BBa_K4165010), seed peptide (BBa_K4165012), GGSGGGGG linker (BBa_K4165019), seed peptide (BBa_K4165012), H1A peptide (BBa_K4165000) and T7 terminator (BBa_K731721). |
===Usage and Biology=== | ===Usage and Biology=== | ||
− | Switch | + | Switch # is used to mediate the activity of HTRA1. It is composed of 3 parts connected by different linkers; an HtrA1 peptide binding PDZ, a clamp of two targeting peptides for tau or amyloid beta, and a catalytic domain inhibitor. Activating HTRA1 upon clamp binding to the target protein requires a conformational change in the linker, eliminating the attached inhibitor from the active site. The conformational rearrangement can be mediated through the binding of affinity clamp to tau or beta-amyloid. This binding will result in a tension that detaches the inhibitor from the active site. |
− | + | The seed peptide is considered as an amyloid binding peptide and is proved experimentally to inhibit the aggregations of amyloid beta through cell viability assays with a survival rate values nearly 100%. The H1A peptide was validated to bind with the PDZ of HtrA1 experimentally. The last part, which is the inhibitor, which is mainly a serine protease inhibitor, and since our protease is a serine protease, so it will act and inhibit the Protein. The whole construction was similarly proved from literature .The process of assembly of the whole switch was done according to both CAPRI and NCBI protocols. | |
− | + | ||
+ | <!-- --> | ||
+ | ===<span class='h3bb'>Sequence and Features</span>=== | ||
+ | <partinfo>BBa_K4165023 SequenceAndFeatures</partinfo> | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===Dry Lab=== | ||
+ | The top model is TrRoseeta model and the workflow to reach the model will be described below. | ||
<html> | <html> | ||
<p><img src="https://static.igem.wiki/teams/4165/wiki/parts-registry/switch3.png" style="margin-left:200px;" alt="" width="500" /></p> | <p><img src="https://static.igem.wiki/teams/4165/wiki/parts-registry/switch3.png" style="margin-left:200px;" alt="" width="500" /></p> | ||
</html> | </html> | ||
− | Figure 1.: 3D Structure | + | Figure 1.:3D Predicted Structure of Switch 3 Protein by Pymol Visualization. |
+ | <html> | ||
+ | <p><img src="https://static.igem.wiki/teams/4165/wiki/registry/dry-lab-modelling-pipeline.png" style="margin-left:200px;" alt="" width="500" /></p> | ||
+ | </html> | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
+ | Figure 2. A figure which describes our Dry-Lab Modelling Pipeline. By team CU_Egypt 2022. | ||
+ | |||
+ | <h1>Switch construction Pipeline</h1> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <p style=" font-weight: bold; font-size:14px;"> 1) Modelling </p> | ||
+ | <p> Since our parts do not have experimentally acquired structures, we have to model them. This approach is done using both denovo modeling (ab initio) and template-based modeling. For modeling small peptides of our system we used AppTest and Alphafold.</p> | ||
+ | <p style=" font-weight: bold; font-size:14px;"> 2) Structure Assessment </p> | ||
+ | <p>In order to assess the quality of our structures we used the Swiss-Model tool which gives an overall on quality of any 3D structure (For more information: (Link modeling page).</p> | ||
+ | <p style=" font-weight: bold; font-size:14px;"> 3) Quality Assessment </p> | ||
+ | <p>Using the code created by us (CU_Egypt 2022), we use the JSON files created from the structure assessment step in Swiss-Model to rank all the models For more information: (Link software page) under the name of Modric.</p> | ||
+ | <p style=" font-weight: bold; font-size:14px;">4) Filtering</p> | ||
+ | <p>We take the top-ranked models from the previous steps.</p> | ||
+ | <p style=" font-weight: bold; font-size:14px;">5) Docking</p> | ||
+ | <p>The top models are docked with the protein of interest (in our case it was the HtrA1 with a BBa_K4165004.</p> | ||
+ | <p style=" font-weight: bold; font-size:14px;">6) Ranking</p> | ||
+ | <p>The docking results are ranked according to their PRODIGY results. For more information: (Link Docking page).</p> | ||
+ | <p style=" font-weight: bold; font-size:14px;">7) Top Models</p> | ||
+ | <p>The results that came out from PRODIGY are ranked and the top models are chosen to proceed with to the next step. For more information: (Link Docking page).</p> | ||
+ | <p style=" font-weight: bold; font-size:14px;">8) Alignment</p> | ||
+ | <p>Docked structures are aligned. This means that the HtrA1- binding peptide complex is aligned with the second complex which | ||
+ | is the HtrA1-inhibitor complex to check whether they bound to the same site or not.</p> | ||
+ | <html> | ||
+ | <p><img src="https://static.igem.wiki/teams/4165/wiki/parts-registry/switches/switch31/picture10.png" style="margin-left:200px;" alt="" width="500" /></p> | ||
+ | </html> | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | Figure 3. Aligned structures of HtrA1 binding peptide 1 docked to HtrA1 and inhibitor docked to HtrA1. </p> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <p style=" font-weight: bold; font-size:14px;">9) Linker length</p> | ||
+ | <p>The linker lengths are acquired by seeing the distance between the inhibitor and the HtrA1 binding peptide which is between both C terminals, N terminals, C- and N- terminal, and N- and C-terminals. Linkers range is from 19.5 to 20.8 angstroms</p> | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | <p style=" font-weight: bold; font-size:14px;">10) Assembly</p> | ||
+ | <p>After settling on the linkers lengths, now we will proceed to the assembly step of the whole system which is done using TRrosetta, AlphaFold, RosettaFold, and Modeller.</p> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <html> | ||
+ | <p><img src="https://static.igem.wiki/teams/4165/wiki/h1a.jpg" style="margin-left:70px;" alt="" width="200" /><img src="https://static.igem.wiki/teams/4165/wiki/inhibitor.png" style="margin-left:70px;" alt="" width="200" /></p> | ||
+ | </html> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <p style=" font-weight: bold; font-size:14px;">11) Structure Assessment</p> | ||
+ | <p>In order to assess the quality of our structures we used the Swiss-Model tool which gives an overall on quality of any 3D structure (For more information: (Link modelling page).</p> | ||
+ | <p style=" font-weight: bold; font-size:14px;">12) Quality Assessment </p> | ||
+ | <p>Using the code created by us (CU_Egypt 2022), we use the JSON files created from the structure assessment step in Swiss-Model to rank all the models For more information: (Link software page) under the name of Modric.</p> | ||
+ | <p style=" font-weight: bold; font-size:14px;">13) Ranking</p> | ||
+ | <p>Using the code created by us (CU_Egypt 2022), we use the JSON files created from the structure assessment step in Swiss-Model to rank all the models For more information: (Link software page) under the name of Modric.</p> | ||
+ | The switch was modeled by (Alphafold - Rosettafold - tRrosetta) and the top model was obtained from tRrosseta with a score of 5 out of 6 according to our quality assessment code. | ||
+ | |||
+ | <html> | ||
+ | <style> | ||
+ | table, th, td { | ||
+ | border:1px solid black; margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto; | ||
+ | } | ||
+ | </style> | ||
+ | <body> | ||
+ | <table style="width:65%"> | ||
+ | <table> | ||
+ | <tr> | ||
+ | <th>cbeta_deviations</th> | ||
+ | <th>clashscore</th> | ||
+ | <th>molprobity</th> | ||
+ | <th>ramachandran_favored</th> | ||
+ | <th>ramachandran_outliers</th> | ||
+ | <th>Qmean_4</th> | ||
+ | <th>Qmean_6</th> | ||
+ | </tr> | ||
+ | <tr> | ||
+ | <td>0</td> | ||
+ | <td>2.62</td> | ||
+ | <td>1.05</td> | ||
+ | <td>98.51</td> | ||
+ | <td>0</td> | ||
+ | <td>-0.9675</td> | ||
+ | <td>-2.34358</td> | ||
+ | </tr> | ||
+ | </table> | ||
+ | </body> | ||
+ | </html> | ||
+ | Table 2: Quality assessment parameters of Switch 3 model. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===Conclusion=== | ||
+ | The top model was HtrA1 switch 10 (BBa_K4165030) since it was the best switch fulfilling the criteria of structure assessment, docking, and RMSD. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===References=== | ||
+ | 1. Goedert, M., & Spillantini, M. G. (2017). Propagation of Tau aggregates. Molecular Brain, 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13041-017-0298-7 | ||
+ | |||
+ | 2. Etienne, M. A., Edwin, N. J., Aucoin, J. P., Russo, P. S., McCarley, R. L., & Hammer, R. P. (2007). Beta-amyloid protein aggregation. Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.), 386, 203–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-59745-430-3_7 | ||
+ | |||
+ | 4. Seidler, P., Boyer, D., Rodriguez, J., Sawaya, M., Cascio, D., Murray, K., Gonen, T., & Eisenberg, D. (2018). Structure-based inhibitors of tau aggregation. Nature chemistry, 10(2), 170. https://doi.org/10.1038/nchem.2889 | ||
+ | |||
+ | 5. Romero-Molina, S., Ruiz-Blanco, Y. B., Mieres-Perez, J., Harms, M., Münch, J., Ehrmann, M., & Sanchez-Garcia, E. (2022). PPI-Affinity: A Web Tool for the Prediction and Optimization of Protein–Peptide and Protein–Protein Binding Affinity. Journal of Proteome Research. | ||
+ | |||
+ | 6. Stein, V., & Alexandrov, K. (2014). Protease-based synthetic sensing and signal amplification. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(45), 15934-15939 | ||
<!-- Uncomment this to enable Functional Parameter display | <!-- Uncomment this to enable Functional Parameter display |
Latest revision as of 03:41, 14 October 2022
HtrA1 switch 3
This composite part consists of T7 promoter (BBa_K3633015), lac operator (BBa_K4165062), pGS-21a RBS (BBa_K4165016), 6x His-tag (BBa_K4165020), SPINK8 Inhibitor (BBa_K4165010), seed peptide (BBa_K4165012), GGSGGGGG linker (BBa_K4165019), seed peptide (BBa_K4165012), H1A peptide (BBa_K4165000) and T7 terminator (BBa_K731721).
Usage and Biology
Switch # is used to mediate the activity of HTRA1. It is composed of 3 parts connected by different linkers; an HtrA1 peptide binding PDZ, a clamp of two targeting peptides for tau or amyloid beta, and a catalytic domain inhibitor. Activating HTRA1 upon clamp binding to the target protein requires a conformational change in the linker, eliminating the attached inhibitor from the active site. The conformational rearrangement can be mediated through the binding of affinity clamp to tau or beta-amyloid. This binding will result in a tension that detaches the inhibitor from the active site.
The seed peptide is considered as an amyloid binding peptide and is proved experimentally to inhibit the aggregations of amyloid beta through cell viability assays with a survival rate values nearly 100%. The H1A peptide was validated to bind with the PDZ of HtrA1 experimentally. The last part, which is the inhibitor, which is mainly a serine protease inhibitor, and since our protease is a serine protease, so it will act and inhibit the Protein. The whole construction was similarly proved from literature .The process of assembly of the whole switch was done according to both CAPRI and NCBI protocols.
Sequence and Features
- 10COMPATIBLE WITH RFC[10]
- 12COMPATIBLE WITH RFC[12]
- 21COMPATIBLE WITH RFC[21]
- 23COMPATIBLE WITH RFC[23]
- 25COMPATIBLE WITH RFC[25]
- 1000COMPATIBLE WITH RFC[1000]
Dry Lab
The top model is TrRoseeta model and the workflow to reach the model will be described below.
Figure 1.:3D Predicted Structure of Switch 3 Protein by Pymol Visualization.
Figure 2. A figure which describes our Dry-Lab Modelling Pipeline. By team CU_Egypt 2022.
Switch construction Pipeline
1) Modelling
Since our parts do not have experimentally acquired structures, we have to model them. This approach is done using both denovo modeling (ab initio) and template-based modeling. For modeling small peptides of our system we used AppTest and Alphafold.
2) Structure Assessment
In order to assess the quality of our structures we used the Swiss-Model tool which gives an overall on quality of any 3D structure (For more information: (Link modeling page).
3) Quality Assessment
Using the code created by us (CU_Egypt 2022), we use the JSON files created from the structure assessment step in Swiss-Model to rank all the models For more information: (Link software page) under the name of Modric.
4) Filtering
We take the top-ranked models from the previous steps.
5) Docking
The top models are docked with the protein of interest (in our case it was the HtrA1 with a BBa_K4165004.
6) Ranking
The docking results are ranked according to their PRODIGY results. For more information: (Link Docking page).
7) Top Models
The results that came out from PRODIGY are ranked and the top models are chosen to proceed with to the next step. For more information: (Link Docking page).
8) Alignment
Docked structures are aligned. This means that the HtrA1- binding peptide complex is aligned with the second complex which is the HtrA1-inhibitor complex to check whether they bound to the same site or not.
Figure 3. Aligned structures of HtrA1 binding peptide 1 docked to HtrA1 and inhibitor docked to HtrA1. </p>
9) Linker length
The linker lengths are acquired by seeing the distance between the inhibitor and the HtrA1 binding peptide which is between both C terminals, N terminals, C- and N- terminal, and N- and C-terminals. Linkers range is from 19.5 to 20.8 angstroms
10) Assembly
After settling on the linkers lengths, now we will proceed to the assembly step of the whole system which is done using TRrosetta, AlphaFold, RosettaFold, and Modeller.
11) Structure Assessment
In order to assess the quality of our structures we used the Swiss-Model tool which gives an overall on quality of any 3D structure (For more information: (Link modelling page).
12) Quality Assessment
Using the code created by us (CU_Egypt 2022), we use the JSON files created from the structure assessment step in Swiss-Model to rank all the models For more information: (Link software page) under the name of Modric.
13) Ranking
Using the code created by us (CU_Egypt 2022), we use the JSON files created from the structure assessment step in Swiss-Model to rank all the models For more information: (Link software page) under the name of Modric.
The switch was modeled by (Alphafold - Rosettafold - tRrosetta) and the top model was obtained from tRrosseta with a score of 5 out of 6 according to our quality assessment code.
cbeta_deviations | clashscore | molprobity | ramachandran_favored | ramachandran_outliers | Qmean_4 | Qmean_6 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | 2.62 | 1.05 | 98.51 | 0 | -0.9675 | -2.34358 |
Table 2: Quality assessment parameters of Switch 3 model.
Conclusion
The top model was HtrA1 switch 10 (BBa_K4165030) since it was the best switch fulfilling the criteria of structure assessment, docking, and RMSD.
References
1. Goedert, M., & Spillantini, M. G. (2017). Propagation of Tau aggregates. Molecular Brain, 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13041-017-0298-7
2. Etienne, M. A., Edwin, N. J., Aucoin, J. P., Russo, P. S., McCarley, R. L., & Hammer, R. P. (2007). Beta-amyloid protein aggregation. Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.), 386, 203–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-59745-430-3_7
4. Seidler, P., Boyer, D., Rodriguez, J., Sawaya, M., Cascio, D., Murray, K., Gonen, T., & Eisenberg, D. (2018). Structure-based inhibitors of tau aggregation. Nature chemistry, 10(2), 170. https://doi.org/10.1038/nchem.2889
5. Romero-Molina, S., Ruiz-Blanco, Y. B., Mieres-Perez, J., Harms, M., Münch, J., Ehrmann, M., & Sanchez-Garcia, E. (2022). PPI-Affinity: A Web Tool for the Prediction and Optimization of Protein–Peptide and Protein–Protein Binding Affinity. Journal of Proteome Research.
6. Stein, V., & Alexandrov, K. (2014). Protease-based synthetic sensing and signal amplification. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(45), 15934-15939