Abstract

Many viral surface glycoproteins and cell surface receptors are homo-oligomers1,2,3,4, and thus can potentially be targeted by geometrically matched homo-oligomers that engage all subunits simultaneously to attain high avidity and/or lock subunits together. The adaptive immune system cannot generally employ this strategy since the individual antibody binding sites are not arranged with appropriate geometry to simultaneously engage multiple sites in a single target homo-oligomer. We describe a general strategy for the computational design of homo-oligomeric protein assemblies with binding functionality precisely matched to homo-oligomeric target sites5,6,7,8. In the first step, a small protein is designed that binds a single site on the target. In the second step, the designed protein is assembled into a homo-oligomer such that the designed binding sites are aligned with the target sites. We use this approach to design high-avidity trimeric proteins that bind influenza A hemagglutinin (HA) at its conserved receptor binding site. The designed trimers can both capture and detect HA in a paper-based diagnostic format, neutralizes influenza in cell culture, and completely protects mice when given as a single dose 24 h before or after challenge with influenza.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Accessions

References

  1. 1.

    , & Structure of the haemagglutinin membrane glycoprotein of influenza virus at 3 A resolution. Nature 289, 366–373 (1981).

  2. 2.

    et al. Cryo-EM structure of a fully glycosylated soluble cleaved HIV-1 envelope trimer. Science 342, 1484–1490 (2013).

  3. 3.

    , & TGF-beta signalling from cell membrane to nucleus through SMAD proteins. Nature 390, 465–471 (1997).

  4. 4.

    Dimerization of cell surface receptors in signal transduction. Cell 80, 213–223 (1995).

  5. 5.

    et al. Cross-neutralization of influenza A viruses mediated by a single antibody loop. Nature 489, 526–532 (2012).

  6. 6.

    et al. Viral receptor-binding site antibodies with diverse germline origins. Cell 161, 1026–1034 (2015).

  7. 7.

    et al. Heterosubtypic antibody recognition of the influenza virus hemagglutinin receptor binding site enhanced by avidity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109, 17040–17045 (2012).

  8. 8.

    et al. A recurring motif for antibody recognition of the receptor-binding site of influenza hemagglutinin. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 20, 363–370 (2013).

  9. 9.

    Influenza: historical aspects of epidemics and pandemics. Infect. Dis. Clin. North Am. 18, 141–155 (2004).

  10. 10.

    , , & Antigenic drift in influenza virus H3 hemagglutinin from 1968 to 1980: multiple evolutionary pathways and sequential amino acid changes at key antigenic sites. J. Virol. 48, 52–60 (1983).

  11. 11.

    & Influenza vaccine: the challenge of antigenic drift. Vaccine 25, 6852–6862 (2007).

  12. 12.

    et al. Origin of the pandemic 1957 H2 influenza A virus and the persistence of its possible progenitors in the avian reservoir. Virology 194, 781–788 (1993).

  13. 13.

    , & Permissive secondary mutations enable the evolution of influenza oseltamivir resistance. Science 328, 1272–1275 (2010).

  14. 14.

    et al. The genesis and spread of reassortment human influenza A/H3N2 viruses conferring adamantane resistance. Mol. Biol. Evol. 24, 1811–1820 (2007).

  15. 15.

    et al. Hemagglutinins from two influenza virus variants bind to sialic acid derivatives with millimolar dissociation constants: a 500-MHz proton nuclear magnetic resonance study. Biochemistry 28, 8388–8396 (1989).

  16. 16.

    Recent anti-influenza strategies in multivalent sialyloligosaccharides and sialylmimetics approaches. Curr. Med. Chem. 14, 2304–2313 (2007).

  17. 17.

    et al. A nanomolar multivalent ligand as entry inhibitor of the hemagglutinin of avian influenza. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 136, 783–788 (2014).

  18. 18.

    et al. A highly conserved neutralizing epitope on group 2 influenza A viruses. Science 333, 843–850 (2011).

  19. 19.

    et al. A neutralizing antibody selected from plasma cells that binds to group 1 and group 2 influenza A hemagglutinins. Science 333, 850–856 (2011).

  20. 20.

    , , & Broadly neutralizing hemagglutinin stalk-specific antibodies require FcγR interactions for protection against influenza virus in vivo. Nat. Med. 20, 143–151 (2014).

  21. 21.

    et al. Preconfiguration of the antigen-binding site during affinity maturation of a broadly neutralizing influenza virus antibody. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, 264–269 (2013).

  22. 22.

    et al. Computation-guided backbone grafting of a discontinuous motif onto a protein scaffold. Science 334, 373–376 (2011).

  23. 23.

    et al. Computational design of high-affinity epitope scaffolds by backbone grafting of a linear epitope. J. Mol. Biol. 415, 175–192 (2012).

  24. 24.

    et al. Isolating and engineering human antibodies using yeast surface display. Nat. Protoc. 1, 755–768 (2006).

  25. 25.

    et al. Immobilizing affinity proteins to nitrocellulose: a toolbox for paper-based assay developers. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 408, 1335–1346 (2016).

  26. 26.

    et al. Intra-spike crosslinking overcomes antibody evasion by HIV-1. Cell 160, 433–446 (2015).

  27. 27.

    et al. Computational design of proteins targeting the conserved stem region of influenza hemagglutinin. Science 332, 816–821 (2011).

  28. 28.

    et al. ROSETTA3: an object-oriented software suite for the simulation and design of macromolecules. Methods Enzymol. 487, 545–574 (2011).

  29. 29.

    et al. RosettaRemodel: a generalized framework for flexible backbone protein design. PLoS One 6, e24109 (2011).

  30. 30.

    et al. Control over overall shape and size in de novo designed proteins. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112, E5478–E5485 (2015).

  31. 31.

    MUSCLE: a multiple sequence alignment method with reduced time and space complexity. BMC Bioinformatics 5, 113 (2004).

  32. 32.

    , & ProDy: protein dynamics inferred from theory and experiments. Bioinformatics 27, 1575–1577 (2011).

  33. 33.

    et al. Predicting protein structures with a multiplayer online game. Nature 466, 756–760 (2010).

  34. 34.

    , , & An improved yeast transformation method for the generation of very large human antibody libraries. Protein Eng. Des. Sel. 23, 155–159 (2010).

  35. 35.

    , & Computational design of a pH-sensitive IgG binding protein. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111, 675–680 (2014).

  36. 36.

    & Processing of X-ray diffraction data collected in oscillation mode. Methods Enzymol. 276, 307–326 (1997).

  37. 37.

    et al. Phaser crystallographic software. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 40, 658–674 (2007).

  38. 38.

    & Coot: model-building tools for molecular graphics. Acta Crystallogr. D Biol. Crystallogr. 60, 2126–2132 (2004).

  39. 39.

    et al. PHENIX: a comprehensive Python-based system for macromolecular structure solution. Acta Crystallogr. D Biol. Crystallogr. 66, 213–221 (2010).

  40. 40.

    et al. MolProbity: all-atom structure validation for macromolecular crystallography. Acta Crystallogr. D Biol. Crystallogr. 66, 12–21 (2010).

  41. 41.

    et al. Automated molecular microscopy: the new Leginon system. J. Struct. Biol. 151, 41–60 (2005).

  42. 42.

    et al. A clustering approach to multireference alignment of single-particle projections in electron microscopy. J. Struct. Biol. 171, 197–206 (2010).

  43. 43.

    , , , & A new generation of the IMAGIC image processing system. J. Struct. Biol. 116, 17–24 (1996).

  44. 44.

    et al. SPARX, a new environment for Cryo-EM image processing. J. Struct. Biol. 157, 47–55 (2007).

  45. 45.

    et al. EMAN2: an extensible image processing suite for electron microscopy. J. Struct. Biol. 157, 38–46 (2007).

  46. 46.

    , , & Dynamic changes during acid-induced activation of influenza hemagglutinin. Structure 23, 665–676 (2015).

  47. 47.

    & Analysis of X-ray and neutron scattering from biomacromolecular solutions. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 17, 562–571 (2007).

  48. 48.

    , , , & PRIMUS: a Windows PC-based system for small-angle scattering data analysis. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 36, 1277–1282 (2003).

  49. 49.

    Determination of the regularization parameter in indirect-transform methods using perceptual criteria. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 25, 495–503 (1992).

  50. 50.

    , , & Accurate SAXS profile computation and its assessment by contrast variation experiments. Biophys. J. 105, 962–974 (2013).

  51. 51.

    , & FoXS: a web server for rapid computation and fitting of SAXS profiles. Nucleic Acids Res. 38, W540 (2010).

  52. 52.

    , & Structure and flexibility within proteins as identified through small angle X-ray scattering. Gen. Physiol. Biophys. 28, 174–189 (2009).

  53. 53.

    , , & All-atom ensemble modeling to analyze small-angle x-ray scattering of glycosylated proteins. Structure 21, 321–331 (2013).

  54. 54.

    & A mutant influenza virus that uses an N1 neuraminidase as the receptor-binding protein. J. Virol. 87, 12531–12540 (2013).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by DTRA grants HDTRA1-16-C-0029 and HDTRA1-11-1-0041 (D.B), Life Science Discovery Fund Grant # 9598385 (D.B.), NIH 5R01AI096184-05 (P.Y.) and the NIH/NIAID R21AI119258 (D.H.F.). E.M.S. was supported by a career development award by the NW regional center of excellence (NIAID). J.D.B. and K.A.H. were supported by NIH grant R01 GM102198, K.A.H. by an NRSA training grant (T32GM007270) and I.A.W. and S.M.B. by R56 AI117675 and the Skaggs Institute for Chemical Biology at TSRI. A.J.B. was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (DGE-1256082). We would like to thank Erika O. Saphire for the generous gift of Ebola GP. We thank L. Carter and her team for help with protein purifications, Y. Song for help with comparative modeling and K. Godin for help with the selections and library generation. Use of the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lightsource, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, is supported by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences under Contract No. DE-AC02-76SF00515. The SSRL Structural Molecular Biology Program is supported by the DOE Office of Biological and Environmental Research, and by the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of General Medical Sciences (including P41GM103393). The contents of this publication are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of NIGMS or NIH. GM/CA@APS has been funded in whole or in part with Federal funds from the National Cancer Institute (ACB-12002) and the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (AGM-12006). This research used resources of the Advanced Photon Source, a US Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science User Facility operated for the DOE Office of Science by Argonne National Laboratory under Contract No. DE-AC02-06CH11357.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Biochemistry, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.

    • Eva-Maria Strauch
    • , David La
    • , Jorgen W Nelson
    • , William Sheffler
    •  & David Baker
  2. Institute for Protein Design, Department of Biochemistry, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.

    • Eva-Maria Strauch
    • , Rashmi Ravichandran
    •  & David Baker
  3. Department of Integrative Structural and Computational Biology, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, California, USA.

    • Steffen M Bernard
    • , Peter S Lee
    • , Travis Nieusma
    • , Andrew B Ward
    •  & Ian A Wilson
  4. Department of Microbiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.

    • Alan J Bohn
    •  & Deborah H Fuller
  5. Department of Bioengineering, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.

    • Caitlin E Anderson
    • , Carly A Holstein
    •  & Paul Yager
  6. Department of Medicinal Chemistry, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.

    • Natalie K Garcia
    •  & Kelly K Lee
  7. Division of Basic Sciences and Computational Biology Program, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA.

    • Kathryn A Hooper
    •  & Jesse D Bloom
  8. Washington National Primate Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.

    • Deborah H Fuller
  9. Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.

    • David Baker

Authors

  1. Search for Eva-Maria Strauch in:

  2. Search for Steffen M Bernard in:

  3. Search for David La in:

  4. Search for Alan J Bohn in:

  5. Search for Peter S Lee in:

  6. Search for Caitlin E Anderson in:

  7. Search for Travis Nieusma in:

  8. Search for Carly A Holstein in:

  9. Search for Natalie K Garcia in:

  10. Search for Kathryn A Hooper in:

  11. Search for Rashmi Ravichandran in:

  12. Search for Jorgen W Nelson in:

  13. Search for William Sheffler in:

  14. Search for Jesse D Bloom in:

  15. Search for Kelly K Lee in:

  16. Search for Andrew B Ward in:

  17. Search for Paul Yager in:

  18. Search for Deborah H Fuller in:

  19. Search for Ian A Wilson in:

  20. Search for David Baker in:

Contributions

E.-M.S., D.L. and W.S. designed proteins; D.L. designed the first version of the HSB protein, W.S. set-up the design pipeline for oligomerization, E.-M.S. designed the trimerization of the binders. E.-M.S. characterized designs, performed re-design of HSB, generated HA sequence alignments, homology models, library designs and selections; E.-M.S. and J.W.N. performed selection at different temperature and analyzed the deep-sequencing data. E.-M.S. and R.R. screened variants for higher expression and solubility. S.M.B. and E.-M.S. performed affinity measurements via biolayer interferometry. N.K.G. collected SAXS and HDX data, and analyzed it with K.K.L.; P.S.L. and S.M.B. expressed, purified and biotinylated HA proteins, P.S.L. crystallized HSB.2, S.M.B. crystallized the structure of the complex of HSB.2A with HA, P.S.L., S.M.B. and I.A.W. analyzed the crystallographic data. T.N. characterized the designed materials by electron microscopy; T.N. and A.B.W. analyzed electron microscopy data. K.A.H. and J.D.B. planned and performed the cell-based neutralization assay; C.E.A., C.A.H. and P.Y. designed and executed the paper-based diagnostic assays. A.J.B. and D.H.F. planned and performed the animal studies. E.-M.S. and D.B. analyzed data and wrote the manuscript. All authors discussed the results and commented on the manuscript.

Competing interests

The University of Washington has filed patents on the binding proteins.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Baker.

Integrated supplementary information

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Text and Figures

    Supplementary Figures 1–11 and Supplementary Tables 1–6

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3907