Kasparas12 (Talk | contribs) |
Justas2010 (Talk | contribs) |
||
Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
</section> | </section> | ||
<section class="design_subsections"> | <section class="design_subsections"> | ||
− | <h1 id="Groeningen_model"> | + | <h1 id="Groeningen_model">eXplaY</h1> |
<div class="third_level_links"> | <div class="third_level_links"> | ||
<a href="#Edinburgh_model">Edinburgh model</a> | <a href="#Edinburgh_model">Edinburgh model</a> | ||
Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
<div> | <div> | ||
− | + | <h1>Background</h1> | |
− | + | <p> | |
− | + | <p>During the past several decades, display systems have been successfully implemented in linking the genotype to phenotype of particular proteins. While some of these systems naturally occur in nature, some are artificially created in laboratory. Overall, the display systems have been widely used for protein research. For a brief overview of these systems, click here "Kristina". </p> | |
− | + | </p> | |
− | + | <p>One of the nearest future applications of SynDrop is liposome surface display. It stands out from the other display methods as it has fully controllable settings of an experiment such as the optimized interior composition for synthesis and adjusted exterior configuration for protein folding. Unlike cells, liposomes are free of unnecessary cross-talk and biological noise. Additionally, high-throughput production of liposomes might reduce the experimental time substantially.</p> | |
− | + | <p>To achieve this goal, we chose a prokaryotic membrane protein - OmpA (Outer membrane protein A) - it was successfully used as a membrane protein which enables the display of a fused globular protein in prokaryotes1. In our case, we wanted to demonstrate two different proteins: scFv with affinity to vaginolysin2 and camelid nanobody, capable to interact with a GFP molecule3 . These membrane proteins were chosen to mimic targets of current display systems.</p> | |
− | + | <p>In nature, OmpA surface display system flips the selective protein from the inside of the living organism to the outside of its’ surface4. By achieving this in liposomes, the bottom-up approach would allow us to understand the mechanism and relevant components of the flipping process. | |
− | + | For this reason, we decided to model a simple system with few variables to evaluate the activity of the fusion protein containing OmpA and Anti_GFP - it seemed like a good starting point to investigate well characterized parts. This is where molecular dynamics GROMACS package came in handy. GROMACS is a powerful open-sourced tool to build simulations of protein folding and lipids interactions. With a huge help from iGEM team Groningen molecular thermodynamics model with GROMACS was built. | |
− | + | </p> | |
− | + | <h1>Setup</h1> | |
+ | <p> | ||
+ | |||
+ | </p><p>Sequence of particular fusion protein was built BBa_K2622029."Kristina"</p> | ||
+ | <p> | ||
+ | Fig. 1 | ||
+ | </p> | ||
+ | <strong>Fig. 1</strong>Sequence scheme of Lpp_OmpA and Anti_GFP nanobody fusion protein. | ||
+ | |||
+ | <p>Next, the fusion protein was constructed. The sequences of OmpA and anti-GFP (PDB: 3OGO) were joined exactly where they will be fused according to the DNA sequence using PyMOL (Fig. 2). To start, the structure of OmpA (PDB: 1QJP) had to be reconstructed as parts of it are missing in the crystal structure. This was achieved using the “modeler” software, a python module for homology modeling. The same structure was used as the reference structure and so the filled in structure only serves to complete the molecule.</p> | ||
+ | <p>Then the fusion protein was coarse grained by the martinize script, producing a well calibrated coarse grained bead mapping for the fusion protein in the MARTINI 2 forcefield. The fusion protein was then inserted in a DOPC bilayer constructed by the insane.py script. | ||
+ | </p> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <p>GFP was also coarse grained using martinize and inserted in the system containing the fusion protein and the DOPC bilayer, after which the system was solvated with regular water beads. 150mM equivalence of NaCl was added to neutralize the system. For both coarse grained structures, an elastic network was applied with a cutoff of 0.5nm such that the beta-barrels of the proteins are maintained.</p> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <p> | ||
+ | Fig. 2 | ||
+ | </p> | ||
+ | <strong>Fig. 2</strong> The molecular system. Left image represents the fused Lpp_OmpA+anti_GFP inserted to a DOPC lipid bilayer while the coarse grained structure of GFP is presented on the right. | ||
+ | |||
+ | <p>To set up a calculation, the system having the simplest and least variables containing configuration was chosen:</p> | ||
+ | <ol> | ||
+ | <li>Lipid membrane, containing DOPC lipids only</li> | ||
+ | <li>GFP molecules surrounding the membrane</li> | ||
+ | <li>Lpp_OmpA+Anti_GFP (transmembrane protein + globular protein with affinity to GFP)</li> | ||
+ | </ol> | ||
+ | <p> | ||
+ | Common parameters for martini were used for minimization and equilibration, and the model was setup to run for about 10 microseconds with berendsen temperature coupling and Parrinello-Rahman pressure coupling. The system runs at 300 K and a pressure of 1 bar. | ||
+ | </p> | ||
+ | <p>The building process is documented on the project’s github page "Kristina"</p> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <H1>Results</H1> | ||
+ | <p> | ||
+ | <p>Binding between anti-GFP and GFP was visualized over time in Fig. 3 to validate that the model functions as expected. Fig. 3 shows that binding occurs after roughly 1 ms and is quite strong as expected. | ||
+ | </p> | ||
+ | </p> | ||
+ | <p> | ||
+ | Fig. 3 | ||
+ | </p> | ||
+ | <strong>Fig. 3</strong>Distance between GFP and anti-GFP measured over time. Strong binding occurs over roughly 1 ms of simulation. | ||
+ | <p>The Root Mean Square Deviation (RMSD) was computed over time using GROMACS and plotted in Fig. 4 to show OmpA unfolding over time. The entire event takes place over a time scale of roughly 1 ms.</p> | ||
+ | <p> | ||
+ | Fig. 4 | ||
+ | </p> | ||
+ | <strong>Fig. 4</strong>OmpA unfolding visualized over time by computing the Root Mean Square Deviation from the starting conformation. Unfolding occurs roughly over a time scale of 1 ms. | ||
+ | <p>Due to a strong tendency to shield charged residues within the remaining barrel structure from interacting with apolar lipids tails, a part of the transmembrane OmpA stays anchored in the lipid bilayer Fig. 5. The figure shows clearly that red and blue (charged) side chains are kept within the remnants of the beta barrel and only apolar and slightly polar side chains are exposed to the lipid environment.</p> | ||
+ | <p>Another observation is that the end of the unfolded beta-barrel is sticking out of the membrane, and contains many charged side chains as well, while the boundary between this part and the transmembrane domain is quite apolar. Overall this structure gives the impression to be still highly stable, but perhaps less stable than the native beta-barrel, anchored in the lipid bilayer.</p> | ||
+ | <p> | ||
+ | Fig. 5 | ||
+ | </p> | ||
+ | <Strong>Fig. 5</Strong> Van der Waals representation of the side chains of OmpA in the membrane. The membrane is represented by dashed lines. The protein backbone is colored in magenta. White beads represent non-polar side chains, green beads represent polar side chains (of varying polarity, there are 5 different levels of polarity in Martini and they are all colored green), blue beads represent positively charged side chains and red beads represent negatively charged side chains. | ||
+ | |||
+ | <p>As this large scale conformational change should have a large effect on the behaviour of the protein, the angle between OmpA and the membrane normal was measured over time. To visualize trends in the data, a running average was calculated with a window of 100 frames. Fig 6. shows that this angle oscillates stably around 84.9 degrees. However after 10 ms of simulation, the angle suddenly shifts to 84 degrees. This could be an indication that the usual right-angle of OmpA is perhaps not so stable in the new conformation this fusion protein adopts. | ||
+ | </p> | ||
+ | <p> | ||
+ | Fig. 6 | ||
+ | </p> | ||
+ | <strong>Fig. 6</strong>Angle between OmpA and membrane normal, running average over time. The angle oscillates stably around 84.9 then suddenly drops to 84. | ||
+ | <p>Under the assumption that the fusion protein indeed retains this conformation, the unfolding beta-barrel and subsequent stable anchoring in the membrane is a novel insight. As the system is meant to function as a display mechanism for soluble proteins binding to it, it is likely that this change in conformation contributes to this mechanism. It is hypothesized that the protein-ligand complex flips across the lipid bilayer entirely to function as a display system, generally assisted by chaperone proteins. Since the angle between OmpA and the membrane normal becomes more acute over the time scale of the simulation, unfolding of the beta-barrel structure may contribute to OmpA flipping over the lipid bilayer to display its ligand. | ||
+ | </p> | ||
+ | <p>Fig. 7 shows the starting and final structures of the OmpA-anti-GFP fusion protein. Note that Fig. 7 shows that the structure is still a beta-barrel, however the fusion to anti-GFP abolishes a part of the beta-sheet in the barrel, resulting in a disruption of the beta-barrel structure shown in Figure 7B. Despite of this however, the fusion protein remains stably anchored in the membrane. | ||
+ | </p> | ||
+ | <p> | ||
+ | Fig. 7 | ||
+ | </p> | ||
+ | <strong>Fig. 7</strong> A. OmpA-anti-GFP fusion structure at the start of the simulation represented on the left. OmpA is colored in green, anti-GFP is colored in red. Martini elastic bonds are colored in orange. Membrane position is indicated with dashed lines. B. Fusion protein after 10ms of simulation. GFP is colored in blue. | ||
+ | <p> | ||
+ | |||
+ | </p> | ||
+ | <H1>Conclusions</H1></p> | ||
+ | <p> | ||
+ | <p>In conclusion, it seems that the system is working as intended, as the OmpA-anti-GFP fusion protein stays anchored in the lipid bilayer and remains able to strongly bind GFP as expected. Whether this is the real situation is however impossible to know as the fusion abolishes some beta-sheets in OmpA that are important for beta-barrel formation.</p> | ||
+ | |||
+ | </p> | ||
+ | <p></p> | ||
+ | <h1>Discussion</h1> | ||
+ | <p> | ||
+ | <p>It is always difficult when modeling these kinds of processes to predict the time scale of the whole event. | ||
+ | The current model helps us to predict that the flipping process is very slow or unfeasible at all. The latter hypothesis might be reasonable enough and it would allow us to predict that the surface display system requires additional machinery which is found in living organisms. Therefore, it is unlikely to achieve a more accurate model without extra experimental information. | ||
+ | </p> | ||
+ | </p> | ||
+ | <p>In eXplaY we model a system in a pure DOPC bilayer, which is also a simplified version of natural systems. Original E. coli lipids composition can make a huge impact to the model and its’ results as well.</p> | ||
+ | <p>Potential of mean force(PMF) simulations on pulling the anti-GFP across the membrane needs to be made in order to prove that the energy barrier is really high and the process can not occur naturally. Additionally, to observe flipping in a modeled system, higher temperature (37°C) might be a promising solution. </p> | ||
+ | <p></p> | ||
+ | <H2>References</H2> | ||
+ | <p> | ||
+ | <ol> | ||
+ | <li>Freudl, R. Insertion of peptides into cell-surface-exposed areas of the Escherichia coli OmpA protein does not interfere with export and membrane assembly. Gene 82, 229-236, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-1119(89)90048-6 (1989). | ||
+ | </li> | ||
+ | <li>Pleckaityte, M., Mistiniene, E., Lasickiene, R., Zvirblis, G. & Zvirbliene, A. Generation of recombinant single-chain antibodies neutralizing the cytolytic activity of vaginolysin, the main virulence factor of Gardnerella vaginalis. BMC biotechnology 11, 100, doi:10.1186/1472-6750-11-100 (2011). | ||
+ | </li> | ||
+ | <li>Twair, A., Al-Okla, S., Zarkawi, M. & Abbady, A. Q. Characterization of camel nanobodies specific for superfolder GFP fusion proteins. Molecular biology reports 41, 6887-6898, doi:10.1007/s11033-014-3575-x (2014). | ||
+ | </li> | ||
+ | <li>Benhar, I. Biotechnological applications of phage and cell display. Biotechnology Advances 19, 1-33, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0734-9750(00)00054-9 (2001). | ||
+ | </li> | ||
+ | </ol> | ||
+ | </p> | ||
+ | |||
</div> | </div> | ||
</section> | </section> |
Revision as of 22:21, 17 October 2018
Modeling
Lorem ipsum, dolor sit amet consectetur adipisicing
Mathematical models and computer simulations provide a great way to describe the function and operation of BioBrick Parts and Devices. Synthetic Biology is an engineering discipline, and part of engineering is simulation and modeling to determine the behavior of your design before you build it. Designing and simulating can be iterated many times in a computer before moving to the lab. This award is for teams who build a model of their system and use it to inform system design or simulate expected behavior in conjunction with experiments in the wetlab