Skip Navigation



PEDS Advance Access published online on December 10, 2008

Protein Engineering Design and Selection, doi:10.1093/protein/gzn072
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
22/2/93    most recent
gzn072v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Clark, L. A.
Right arrow Articles by van Vlijmen, H. W.T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Clark, L. A.
Right arrow Articles by van Vlijmen, H. W.T.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

An antibody loop replacement design feasibility study and a loop-swapped dimer structure

Louis A. Clark1,2, P. Ann Boriack-Sjodin, Eric Day, John Eldredge, Christopher Fitch, Matt Jarpe, Stephan Miller, You Li, Ken Simon and Herman W.T. van Vlijmen

Biogen Idec Inc., Cambridge, MA 02142, USA

2 To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: louie{at}alumni.northwestern.edu

A design approach was taken to investigate the feasibility of replacing single complementarity determining region (CDR) antibody loops. This approach may complement simpler mutation-based strategies for rational antibody design by expanding conformation space. Enormous crystal structure diversity is available, making CDR loops logical targets for structure-based design. A detailed analysis for the L1 loop shows that each loop length takes a distinct conformation, thereby allowing control on a length scale beyond that accessible to simple mutations. The L1 loop in the anti-VLA1 antibody was replaced with the L2 loop residues longer in an attempt to add an additional hydrogen bond and fill space on the antibody–antigen interface. The designs expressed well, but failed to improve affinity. In an effort to learn more, one design was crystallized and data were collected at 1.9 Å resolution. The designed L1 loop takes the qualitatively desired conformation; confirming that loop replacement by design is feasible. The crystal structure also shows that the outermost loop (residues Leu51–Ser68) is domain swapped with another monomer. Tryptophan fluorescence measurements were used to monitor unfolding as a function of temperature and indicate that the loop involved in domain swapping does not unfold below 60°C. The domain-swapping is not directly responsible for the affinity loss, but is likely a side-effect of the structural instability which may contribute to affinity loss. A second round of design was successful in eliminating the dimerization through mutation of a residue (Leu51Ser) at the joint of the domain-swapped loop.

Keywords: antibody loop design/antibody structure/binding affinity/protein design/protein stability

Received June 1, 2008; revised October 4, 2008; accepted November 4, 2008.


1 Present address: Codexis Inc., 200 Penobscot drive, Redwood City, CA 94063, USA.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.