Predicting the kinetics of peptide–antibody interactions using a multivariate experimental design of sequence and chemical space

A multivariate approach involving modifications in peptide sequence and chemical buffer medium was used as an attempt to predict the kinetics of peptide‐antibody interactions. Using a BIACORE® system the kinetic parameters of the interaction of Fab 57P with 18 peptide analogues of an epitope of tobacco mosaic virus protein were characterized in 20 buffers of various pH values and containing different chemical additives (NaCl, urea, EDTA, KSCN and DMSO). For multivariate peptide design, three amino acid positions were selected because their modification was known to moderately affect binding, without abolishing it entirely. Predictive mathematical models were developed which related kinetic parameters (ka or kd) measured in standard buffer to the amino acid sequence of the antigen. ZZ‐scales and a helix‐forming‐tendency (HFT) scale were used as descriptors of the physico‐chemical properties of amino acids in the peptide antigen. These mathematical models had good predictive power (Q2 = 0.49 for ka, Q2 = 0.73 for kd). For the non‐essential residues under study, HFT and charge were found to be the most important factors that influenced the activity. Experiments in 19 buffers were performed to assess the sensitivity of the interactions to buffer composition. The presence of urea, DMSO and NaCl in the buffer influenced binding properties, while change in pH and the presence of EDTA and KSCN had no effect. The chemical sensitivity fingerprints were different for the various peptides. The results indicate that multivariate experimental design and mathematical modeling can be applied to the prediction of interaction kinetics. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  R. Karlsson,et al.  Experimental design for kinetic analysis of protein-protein interactions with surface plasmon resonance biosensors. , 1997, Journal of immunological methods.

[2]  D. Altschuh,et al.  Determination of kinetic constants for the interaction between a monoclonal antibody and peptides using surface plasmon resonance. , 1992, Biochemistry.

[3]  K. Andersson,et al.  Exploring buffer space for molecular interactions , 1999, Journal of molecular recognition : JMR.

[4]  Alexey G. Murzin,et al.  Sequences and topology From sequence to structure to function , 1999 .

[5]  G Deléage,et al.  An algorithm for protein secondary structure prediction based on class prediction. , 1987, Protein engineering.

[6]  M Danhof,et al.  Multivariate quantitative structure-pharmacokinetic relationships (QSPKR) analysis of adenosine A1 receptor agonists in rat. , 1999, Journal of pharmaceutical sciences.

[7]  Michael Sjöström,et al.  Design of Small Libraries for Lead Exploration , 2002 .

[8]  C. Hansch,et al.  Quantitative structure-activity relationships and molecular graphics in evaluation of enzyme-ligand interactions. , 1991, Methods in enzymology.

[9]  C. Orengo,et al.  From protein structure to function. , 1999, Current opinion in structural biology.

[10]  H. Villar,et al.  Deciphering cryptic similarities in protein binding sites. , 1998, Current opinion in biotechnology.

[11]  D. Altschuh,et al.  Comparative interaction kinetics of two recombinant fabs and of the corresponding antibodies directed to the coat protein of tobacco mosaic virus , 1996, Journal of molecular recognition : JMR.

[12]  Alexander Tropsha,et al.  Novel Variable Selection Quantitative Structure-Property Relationship Approach Based on the k-Nearest-Neighbor Principle , 2000, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[13]  K Andersson,et al.  Kinetic characterization of the interaction of the Z‐fragment of protein A with mouse‐IgG3 in a volume in chemical space , 1999, Proteins.

[14]  Age K. Smilde,et al.  A multiway 3D QSAR analysis of a series of (S)-N-[(1-ethyl-2-pyrrolidinyl)methyl]-6-methoxybenzamides , 1998, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[15]  M. Neuberger,et al.  Affinity dependence of the B cell response to antigen: a threshold, a ceiling, and the importance of off-rate. , 1998, Immunity.

[16]  Karen L. Jensen Experimental Design in Biotechnology , 1991 .

[17]  J. Foote,et al.  Kinetic and affinity limits on antibodies produced during immune responses. , 1995, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[18]  D. Altschuh,et al.  Kinetic analysis of the effect on Fab binding of identical substitutions in a peptide and its parent protein. , 1999, Biochemistry.

[19]  M. V. Regenmortel,et al.  Are there two distinct research strategies for developing biologically active molecules: rational design and empirical selection? , 2000 .

[20]  S. Wold,et al.  New chemical descriptors relevant for the design of biologically active peptides. A multivariate characterization of 87 amino acids. , 1998, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[21]  C. Hansch,et al.  p-σ-π Analysis. A Method for the Correlation of Biological Activity and Chemical Structure , 1964 .

[22]  S. Wold,et al.  Peptide quantitative structure-activity relationships, a multivariate approach. , 1987, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[23]  D G Myszka,et al.  Kinetic analysis of macromolecular interactions using surface plasmon resonance biosensors. , 1997, Methods in enzymology.