Difference between revisions of "Part:BBa K3767000:Design"

Line 42: Line 42:
 
7. Kozakov, D., Beglov, D., Bohnuud, T., Mottarella, S. E., Xia, B., Hall, D. R., and Vajda, S. (2013) How good is automated protein docking? Proteins Struct. Funct. Bioinforma. 81, 2159–2166  
 
7. Kozakov, D., Beglov, D., Bohnuud, T., Mottarella, S. E., Xia, B., Hall, D. R., and Vajda, S. (2013) How good is automated protein docking? Proteins Struct. Funct. Bioinforma. 81, 2159–2166  
  
8. Brenke, R., Hall, D. R., Chuang, G.-Y., Comeau, S. R., Bohnuud, T., Beglov, D., Schueler-Furman, O., Vajda, S., and Kozakov, D. (2012) Structural bioinformatics Application of asymmetric statistical potentials to antibody-protein docking. 28, 2608–2614  
+
8. Brenke, R., Hall, D. R., Chuang, G.-Y., Comeau, S. R., Bohnuud, T., Beglov, D., Schueler-Furman, O., Vajda, S., and Kozakov, D. (2012) Structural bioinformatics Application of asymmetric statistical potentials to antibody-protein docking. 28, 2608–2614
 
+
9. Zuhaida Asra Ahmad, Swee Keong Yeap, Abdul Manaf Ali, Wan Yong Ho, Noorjahan Banu Mohamed Alitheen, Muhajir Hamid, "scFv Antibody: Principles and Clinical Application", Journal of Immunology Research, vol. 2012, Article ID 980250, 15 pages, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/980250
+

Revision as of 17:43, 18 June 2021

Design Considerations

Design of 3-24 ScFv Antibody

To create the ScFv, the fragments of an OspA IgG VH and VL chains were first sourced from Ghosh and Huber, which were fetched from Genbank (EF028212 and EF028213) (1). The 3-24 ScFv clonal variant was selected over the 8-10 variant as the former had a stronger binding to OspA in the reviewed paper. The CDR anchor regions of the ScFv were then determined through a BLAST analysis of sequence homologies of the VH and VL sequences. This analysis indicated the top 100 similar sequences, which were then aligned using Seaview to analyze sequence similarities (3). The CDR anchor regions were chosen based on the most conserved residues from the aligned sequences (see figure 1).

The folding of the ScFv was subsequently predicted by SAbPred's ABodyBuilder, a free software that predicts the structural folding of antibodies (2). Structures are based on orientation prediction, CDR modelling, and side chain prediction, and results are given a confidence score based on the root-mean square deviation threshold. The following sequences were submitted for folding prediction of the ScFv:

Heavy Chain (VH): EVQLVQSGAEVKKPGASVKVSCKASGYTFTDYYLHWVRQAPGQGLEWLGRINPSSGATYSPQRFQGRVTMTTDTSIS TAYMELSSLRSDDTAVYFCATLTTFNIWGFDYWGQGTLVSS

Light Chain (VL): DIQMTQSPSSLSASVGDRVTITCRASQSISTYLNWYQQKPGKAPKLLIFTASSLQSGVPSTFSGSGSGTDFTLTISSLQPEDFATYYCQQSYSATFTFGGGTKVEIKR

The model that resulted from ABodyBuilder indicated VH and VL confidence scores of 0.89 and 0.99 respectively (Fig.2), indicating high model confidence.

When comparing the predicted CDR regions from ABodyBuilder to that of Ghosh and Huber (1) all CDRs were identical except VH CDR3 (Fig.3). In the predicted model, VH CDR3 was extended by an additional four residues, however these additional residues were shown to have little to no impact on OspA binding. The PDB file of the model was then downloaded for later analysis of the generated ScFv’s affinity of binding to the OspA molecule of Borrelia Burgdorferi.

Binding Modelling

The Cluspro protein-protein docking supercomputer antibody mode was first used to analyze and predict binding between OspA (sequence found in Genbank under M57248.1) and the 3-24 ScFv (4–8). The Cluspro supercomputer is designed to test billions of docking confirmations between two proteins with lowest-energy structures undergoing root-mean square deviation and energy minimization (Fig.4)(7).

The lowest energy conformation binding model (Cluster 0) was then selected and analyzed. The CDR binding interactions were analyzed within PyMol (Fig.5) to determine how effectively the 3-24 ScFv binds to OspA. To effectively analyze binding, all residues within the CDR region that have polar interactions with OspA residues are highlighted as stick structures.

Source

References

1. Ghosh, S., and Huber, B. T. (2007) Clonal diversification in OspA-specific antibodies from peripheral circulation of a chronic Lyme arthritis patient. J. Immunol. Methods. 321, 121–134

2. Dunbar, J., Krawczyk, K., Leem, J., Marks, C., Nowak, J., Regep, C., Georges, G., Kelm, S., Popovic, B., and Deane, C. M. (2016) SAbPred: a structure-based antibody prediction server. Nucleic Acids Res. 44, W474–W478

3. Gouy, M., Guindon, S., and Gascuel, O. (2010) Sea view version 4: A multiplatform graphical user interface for sequence alignment and phylogenetic tree building. Mol. Biol. Evol. 27, 221–224

4. Desta, I. T., Porter, K. A., Xia, B., Kozakov, D., and Vajda, S. (2020) Performance and Its Limits in Rigid Body Protein-Protein Docking. Structure. 28, 1071-1081.e3

5. Vajda, S., Yueh, C., Beglov, D., Bohnuud, T., Mottarella, S. E., Xia, B., Hall, D. R., and Kozakov, D. (2017) New additions to the ClusPro server motivated by CAPRI. Proteins Struct. Funct. Bioinforma. 85, 435–444

6. Kozakov, D., Hall, D. R., Xia, B., Porter, K. A., Padhorny, D., Yueh, C., Beglov, D., and Vajda, S. (2017) The ClusPro web server for protein-protein docking. Nat. Protoc. 12, 255–278

7. Kozakov, D., Beglov, D., Bohnuud, T., Mottarella, S. E., Xia, B., Hall, D. R., and Vajda, S. (2013) How good is automated protein docking? Proteins Struct. Funct. Bioinforma. 81, 2159–2166

8. Brenke, R., Hall, D. R., Chuang, G.-Y., Comeau, S. R., Bohnuud, T., Beglov, D., Schueler-Furman, O., Vajda, S., and Kozakov, D. (2012) Structural bioinformatics Application of asymmetric statistical potentials to antibody-protein docking. 28, 2608–2614