Advertisement

Pharmaceutical Research

, Volume 28, Issue 12, pp 3128–3144 | Cite as

Disulfide Scrambling in IgG2 Monoclonal Antibodies: Insights from Molecular Dynamics Simulations

  • Xiaoling Wang
  • Sandeep KumarEmail author
  • Satish K. Singh
Research Paper

ABSTRACT

Purpose

To explore potential non-canonical disulfide linkages feasible in human IgG2 mAbs via molecular dynamics simulations of a model system, Hinge++.

Methods

Hinge++ is derived from the crystal structure of a full-length murine IgG2a antibody by replacing its core hinge region with human IgG2 hinge. Fv and CH3 domains were discarded to speed up calculations. Eight independent simulations, grouped in four sets, were performed. In the control set, disulfide bonding is identical to canonical human IgG2 mAb. Different numbers of disulfide bonds were broken in the remaining three sets.

Results

Two Fabs move towards Fc asymmetrically repeatedly leading to spatial proximity of LC.Cys214 and HC.Cys128 residues in one Fab with Cys residues in the upper hinge region, which could initiate disulfide scrambling. Local dynamics place the eight hinge region Cys residues in a large number of proximal positions which could facilitate non-canonical inter- and intra- heavy chain disulfide linkages in the hinge region.

Conclusion

Consistent with experimental studies, our simulations indicate inter-chain disulfide linkages in human IgG2 mAbs are degenerate. Potential rational design strategies to devise hinge stabilized human IgG2 mAbs are gleaned.

KEY WORDS

biotherapeutics hinge immunoglobulin molecular modeling structure 

ABBREVIATIONS

CDR

complementarity-determining region

Fab

fragment antigen binding

Fc

fragment crystallizable

HC

heavy chain

LC

light chain

mAb

monoclonal antibody

MD

molecular dynamics

PDB

protein data bank

RMSD

root mean squared deviation

Notes

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We appreciate the anonymous referees for their constructive criticism of the research work and for suggestions to improve the manuscript. We thank Drs. Sandeep Nema, Sa V Ho, James Carroll, B. Muralidhara, Patrick Buck and Kevin King for several helpful discussions and for critical reading of this manuscript. A postdoctoral fellowship for Xiaoling Wang in Biotherapeutics Pharmaceutical Research and Development, Pfizer Inc. is gratefully acknowledged. High Performance Computing Support received from Pfizer Research Informatics played an essential role in this project.

Supplementary material

11095_2011_503_MOESM1_ESM.doc (286 kb)
Figure S1 Time series of total energy, temperature, volume and time average of pressure of the simulation system for the eight simulations in the production runs. (DOC 286 kb)
11095_2011_503_MOESM2_ESM.doc (54 kb)
Figure S2 The evolution of radius of gyration (Rg) of Hinge++ with simulation time in all trajectories is shown. (DOC 54 kb)
11095_2011_503_MOESM3_ESM.doc (59 kb)
Figure S3 Time courses for (a) sulphur atom distance for the Cys pair LC2.C214-HC2.C236 from the second set of simulations in the four disulfide-bonded conditions described in the manuscript. The solid black circle at time 0 indicates the initial distance; (b). sulphur atom distance for Cys pairs HC2.C128-HC2.C236 from the first set of simulations in the four disulfide-bonded conditions. (DOC 59 kb)
11095_2011_503_MOESM4_ESM.doc (114 kb)
Figure S4 Contact maps for the eight Cys residues in hinge region. (a) Control simulation; (b) Four-reduced2 simulation; (c) Six-reduced2 simulation; (d) All-reduced2 simulation. Grayscale indicates the frequency of observing a given Cys-Cys contact. A contact is defined by sulphur atom distance for two Cys residues being < 5 Å. Note that the order of Cys residues along the X-axes is opposite to that along the Y axes. Hence, these are not traditional contact maps. Each quadrant is labeled according to the nature of contacts. Inter-heavy chain contacts (inter-HC) are located in upper right or lower left quadrants. The two quadrants are symmetric to each other. Intra-heavy chain contacts (Intra-HC1 and Intra-HC2) reside in the rest two quadrants. Each of the two quadrants is symmetric. (DOC 114 kb)
11095_2011_503_MOESM5_ESM.doc (94 kb)
Table S1 Average (μ), standard deviation (σ) and coefficient of variation (ρ=μ/σ) for the overall RMSD profiles in 5 ns simulation time intervals. (DOC 94 kb)
Supplemental Video

The video is from the production run of All-reduced1 simulation. In the video, the sulphur atoms from the six pairs of Cys residues involved in canonical inter-chain disulfide bonds are highlighted as CPK spheres. The sulphur atoms are colored the same as their respective heavy (green and blue) and light (purple and red) chains. Hinge++ molecular model represents only the middle portions of human IgG2 mAbs (see the text for details). During the course of the video, a sulphur atom from a light chain Cys 214 (purple) momentarily moves away from its canonical heavy chain (green) partner and becomes close to other sulphur atoms (green) in upper hinge region. (MPG 18949 kb)

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    Salfeld JG. Isotype selection in antibody engineering. Nat Biotechnol. 2007;25(12):1369–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Labrijn AF, Aalberse RC, Schuurman J. When binding is enough: nonactivating antibody formats. Curr Opin Immunol. 2008;20(4):479–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Winter G, Duncan A, Burton D. Altered antibodies. USA patent WO-88/07089. Sept. 22. 1988.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jefferis R. Antibody therapeutics:isotype and glycoform selection. Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2007;7(9):1401–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beck A, Reichert JM, Wurch T. 5th European antibody congress 2009: November 30–December 2, 2009, Geneva, Switzerland. mAbs. 2010; 2(2):108–28.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Labrijn AF, Buijsse AO, van den Bremer ETJ, Verwilligen AYW, Bleeker WK, Thorpe SJ, et al. Therapeutic IgG4 antibodies engage in Fab-arm exchange with endogenous human IgG4 in vivo. Nat Biotechnol. 2009;27(8):767–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aalberse RC, Schuurman J. IgG4 breaking the rules. Immunology. 2002;105(1):9–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dillon TM, Ricci MS, Vezina C, Flynn GC, Liu YD, Rehder DS, et al. Structural and functional characterization of disulfide isoforms of the human IgG2 subclass. J Biol Chem. 2008;283(23):16206–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wypych J, Li M, Guo A, Zhang Z, Martinez T, Allen MJ, et al. Human IgG2 antibodies display disulfide-mediated structural Isoforms. J Biol Chem. 2008;283(23):16194–205.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Liu YD, Chen X. Enk JZ-v, Plant M, Dillon TM, Flynn GC. Human IgG2 antibody disulfide rearrangement in vivo. J Biol Chem. 2008;283(43):29266–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Martinez T, Guo A, Allen MJ, Han M, Pace D, Jones J, et al. Disulfide connectivity of human immunoglobulin G2 structural isoforms. Biochemistry. 2008;47(28):7496–508.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zhang B, Harder AG, Connelly HM, Maheu LL, Cockrill SL. Determination of Fab-hinge disulfide connectivity in structural isoforms of a recombinant human immunoglobulin G2 antibody. Anal Chem. 2010;82(3):1090–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yoo EM, Wims LA, Chan LA, Morrison SL. Human IgG2 can form covalent dimers. J Immunol. 2003;170(6):3134–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pink JRL, Milstein C. Inter heavy-light chain disulphide bridge in immune globulins. Nature. 1967;214(5083):92–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Edelman GM, Cunningham BA, Gall WE, Gottlieb PD, Rutishauser U, Waxdal MJ. The covalent structure of an entire γG immunoglobulin molecule. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1969;63(1):78–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Milstein C, Frangione B. Disulphide bridges of the heavy chain of human immunoglobulin G2. Biochem J. 1971;121(2):217–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Frangione B, Milstein C. Variations in the S–S bridges of immunoglobins G: Interchain disulphide bridges of γG3 myeloma proteins. J Mol Biol. 1968;33(3):893–906.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dillon TM, Bondarenko P, Wypych J, Allen M, Balland A, Ricci Margaret S, et al.; Homogeneous antibody populations. USA patent WO 2009/036209. March 19. 2009.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Allen MJ, Guo A, Martinez T, Han M, Flynn GC, Wypych J, et al. Interchain disulfide bonding in human IgG2 antibodies probed by site-directed mutagenesis. Biochemistry. 2009;48(17):3755–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schmid N, Bolliger C, Smith LJ, van Gunsteren WF. Disulfide bond shuffling in bovine α-lactalbumin: MD simulation confirms experiment. Biochemistry. 2008;47(46):12104–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Allison JR, Moll G-P, van Gunsteren WF. Investigation of stability and disulfide bond shuffling of lipid transfer proteins by molecular dynamics simulation. Biochemistry. 2010;49(32):6916–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Harris LJ, Larson SB, Hasel KW, Day J, Greenwood A, McPherson A. The three-dimensional structure of an intact monoclonal antibody for canine lymphoma. Nature. 1992;360(6402):369–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Berman H, Henrick K, Nakamura H. Announcing the worldwide Protein Data Bank. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2003;10(12):980–0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Harris LJ, Larson SB, Hasel KW, McPherson A. Refined structure of an intact IgG2a monoclonal antibody. Biochemistry. 1997;36(7):1581–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Prabakaran P, Vu BK, Gan J, Feng Y, Dimitrov D, Ji X. Structure of an isolated unglycosylated antibody C(H)2 domain. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr. 2008;64(10):1062–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Branden C, Tooze J. Introduction to protein structure: Garland Publishing; 1998.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dorrington K. The structural basis for the functional versatility of immunoglobulin G. Can J Biochem. 1978;56(12):1087–101.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    William LJ, Corky J. Temperature dependence of TIP3P, SPC, and TIP4P water from NPT Monte Carlo simulations: Seeking temperatures of maximum density. J Comput Chem. 1998;19(10):1179–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Phillips JC, Braun R, Wang W, Gumbart J, Tajkhorshid E, Villa E, et al. Scalable molecular dynamics with NAMD. J Comput Chem. 2005;26(16):1781–802.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cheatham TEI, Cieplak P, Kollman PA. A modified version of the Cornell et al. force field with improved sugar pucker phases and helical repeat. J Biomol Struct Dyn. 1999;16(4):845–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Brandt JP, Patapoff TW, Aragon SR. Construction, MD simulation, and hydrodynamic validation of an all-atom model of a monoclonal IgG antibody. Biophys J. 2010;99(3):905–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chennamsetty N, Helk B, Voynov V, Kayser V, Trout BL. Aggregation-prone motifs in human immunoglobulin G. J Mol Biol. 2009;391(2):404–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Stella L, Melchionna S. Equilibration and sampling in molecular dynamics simulations of biomolecules. J Chem Phys. 1998;109(23):10115–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schneider WP, Wensel TG, Stryer L, Oi VT. Genetically engineered immunoglobulins reveal structural features controlling segmental flexibility. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1988;85(8):2509–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sowdhamini R, Srinivasan N, Shoichet B, Santi DV, Ramakrishnan C, Balaram P. Stereochemical modeling of disulfide bridges. Criteria for introduction into proteins by site-directed mutagenesis. Protein Eng. 1989;3(2):95–103.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lightle S, Aykent S, Lacher N, Mitaksov V, Wells K, Zobel J, et al. Mutations within a human IgG2 antibody form distinct and homogeneous disulfide isomers but do not affect Fc gamma receptor or C1q binding. Protein Sci. 2010;19(4):753–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xiaoling Wang
    • 1
  • Sandeep Kumar
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Satish K. Singh
    • 1
  1. 1.Pharmaceutical Research and DevelopmentBioTherapeutics Pharmaceutical Sciences, Pfizer Inc.ChesterfieldUSA
  2. 2.BioTherapeutics Pharmaceutical Sciences Pfizer Inc.St LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations