Shark Novel Antigen Receptors—The Next Generation of Biologic Therapeutics?

  • Caroline Barelle
  • Davinder S. Gill
  • Keith Charlton
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 655)

Abstract

Over recent decades we have witnessed a revolution in health care as new classes of therapeutics based on natural biological molecules have become available to medical practitioners. These promised to target some of the most serious conditions that had previously evaded traditional small molecule drugs, such as cancers and to alleviate many of the concerns of patients and doctors alike regarding adverse side effects and impaired quality of life that are often associated with chemo-therapeutics. Many early ‘biologics’ were based on antibodies, Nature’s answer to invading pathogens and malignancies, derived from rodents and in many ways failed to live up to expectations. Most of these issues were subsequently negated by technological advances that saw the introduction of human or “humanized’ antibodies and have resulted in a number of commercial ‘block-busters’. Today, most of the large pharmaceutical companies have product pipelines that include an increasing proportion of biologic as opposed to small molecule compounds. The limitations of antibodies or other large protein drugs are now being realized however and ever more inventive solutions are being sought to develop equally efficacious but smaller, more soluble, more stable and less costly alternatives to broaden the range of drug-able targets and therapeutic options. The aim of this chapter is to introduce the reader to one such novel approach that seeks to exploit a unique antibody-like protein evolved by ancestral sharks over 450 M years ago and that may lead to a host of new therapeutic opportunities and help us to tackle some of the pressing clinical demands of the 21 st century.

Keywords

Arthritis Codon Recombination Cysteine Serine 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Smith GP. Filamentous fusion phage: novel expression vectors that display cloned antigens on the virion surface. Science 1985; 228:1315–1317.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    McCafferty J, Griffith AD, Winter G et al. Phage antibodies: filamentous phage displaying antibody variable domains. Nature 1990; 348:552–554.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brüggermann M, Taussig MJ. Production of human antibody repertoires in transgenic mice. Curr Opin Biotechnol 1997; 8:455–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Greenberg AS. 1994. Ph.D dissertation. University of Miami, Miami.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Greenberg AS, Avila D, Hughes M et al. A new antigen receptor gene family that undergoes rearrangement and extensive somatic diversification in sharks. Nature 1995; 374:168–173.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Roux KH, Greenberg AS, Greene L et al. Structural analysis of the nurse shark (new) antigen receptor (NAR): Molecular convergence of NAR and unusual mammalian immunoglobulins. PNAS 1998; 95:11804–11809.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clem LW, De Boutard F, Sigel MM. Phylogeny of immunoglobulin structure and function—II. Immunoglobulins of the nurse shark. J Immunol 1967; 99:1226–1235.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dooley H, Flajnik MF. Antibody repertoire development in cartilaginous fish. Dev Comp Immunol 2006; 30:43–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Parton A, Forest D, Kobayashi H et al. Cell and molecular biology of SAE, a cell line from the spiny dogfish Squalus acanthias. Comp Biochem Physiol 2007; 145:111–119.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Flajnik MF, Rumfelt LL. The immune system of cartilaginous fish. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol 2000; 248:249–270.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nuttall SD, Krishnan UV, Hattarki M et al. Isolation of the new antigen receptor from wobbegong sharks and use as a scaffold for the display of protein loop libraries. Mol Immunol 2001; 38:313–326.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liu JL, Anderson GP, Delehanty JB et al. Selection of cholera toxin specific IgNAR single-domain antibodies from a naïve shark library. Mol Immunol 2007; 44:1175–1183.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Liu JL, Anderson GP, Goldman ER. Isolation of anti-toxin single domain antibodies from a semi-synthetic spiny dogfish shark display library. BMC Biotechnology 2007; 7:78–88.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rumfelt LL, Diaz M, Lohr RL et al. Unprecendeted multiplicity of Ig transmembrane and secretory mRNA forms in the cartilagenous fish. J Immunol 2004; 173:1129–1139.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Diaz M, Greenberg AS, Flajnik MF. Somatic hypermutation of the new antigen receptor gene (NAR) in the nurse shark does not generate the repertoire: Possible roles in antigen-driven reactions in the absence of germinal centers. PNAS 1998; 95:14343–14348.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Streltsov VA, Varghese JN, Carmichael JA et al. Structural evidence for evolution of shark Ig new antigen receptor variable domain antibodies from a cell-surface receptor. PNAS 2004; 101:12444–12449.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Du Pasquier L, Wilson M, Greenberg AS et al. Somatic mutation in ectothermic vertebrates: musings on selections and origins. Curr. Top Microbiol Immunol 1998; 229:199–216.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Diaz M, Velez J, Singh M et al. Mutational pattern of the nurse shark antigen receptor gene (NAR) is similar to that of mammalian Ig genes and to spontaneous mutations in evolution: the translesion synthesis model of somatic hypermutation. International Immunology 1999; 11:825–833.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stanfield RL, Dooley H, Flajnik MF. Crystal structure of a shark single-domain antibody V region in complex with lysozyme. Science 2004; 305:1770–1773.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Diaz M, Stanfield RL, Greenberg AS et al. Structural analysis, selection and ontogeny of the shark new antigen receptor (IgNAR): identification of a new locus preferentially expressed in early development. Immunogenetics 2002; 54:501–512.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Criscitiello MF, Flajnik MF. Four primordial immunoglobulin light chain isotypes, including l and k, identified in the most primitive jawed vertebrates. Eur Immunol 2007; 37:2683–2694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hinds KR, Litman GW. Major reorganization of immunoglobulin VH segmental elements during vertebrate evolution. Nature 1986; 320:546–551.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Flajnik MF. Comparative analyses of immunoglobulin genes: surprises and portents. Nature Rev Immunol 2002; 2:688–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kokubu F, Hinds K, Litman R et al. Diverse organization of immunoglobulin VH gene loci in a primitive vertebrate. EMBO J 1988; 7:1979–1988.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lee SS, Fitch D, Flajnik MF et al. Rearrangement of immunoglobulin genes in shark germ cells. J Exp Med 2000; 191:1637–1647.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lee SS, Freenberg A, Hsu E. Evolution and somatic diversification of immunoglobulin light chains. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol 2000; 248:285–300.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rumfelt LL, Avila D, Diaz M et al. A shark antibody heavy chain encoded by a nonsomatically rearranged VDJ is preferentially expressed in early development and is convergent with mammalian IgG. PNAS 2001; 98:1775–1780.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Malecek K, Brandman J, Brodsky JE et al. Somatic hypermutation and junctional diversification at Ig heavy chain loci in the nurse shark. J Immunol 2005; 175:8105–8115.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lee V, Huang JL, Lui MF et al. The evolution of multiple isotypic IgM heavy chain genes in the shark. J Immunol 2008; 180:7461–747.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bartl S, Miracle AL, Rumfelt LL et al. Terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferases from elasmobranchs reveal structural conservation within vertebrates. Immunogenetics 2003; 55:594–604.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Malecek K, Lee V, Feng W et al. Immunoglobulin heavy chain exclusion in the shark. PLoS Biology 2008; 6:1226–1242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Papermaster BW, Condie RM, Finsted JK et al. Evolution of the immune response: I The phylogenetic development of adaptive immunologic responsiveness in vertebrates. J Exp Med 1964; 199:105–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Marchalonis J, Edelman GM. Phylogenetic origins of antibody structure. I. Multichain structure of immunoglobulins in the smooth dogfish (Mustelus canis). J Exp Med 1965; 122:601–618.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Marchalonis J, Edelman GM. Polypeptide chains of immunoglobulins from the smooth dogfish (Mustelus canis). Science 1966; 154:1567–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Clem LW, Small MD. Phylogeny of immunoglobulin structure and function—I. Immunoglobulins of the lemon shark. J Exp Med 1967; 125:893–920.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Morrow WJW, Harris JE, Pulsford A. Immunological responses of the dogfish (Scyliorhinus canicula L.) to cellular antigens. Acta Zoologica (Stockh.) 1982; 63:153–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Morrow WJW, Harris JE, Davies D et al. Isolation and partial characterization of dogfish (Scyliorhinus canicula L) antibody. J Mar Biol Ass UK 1983; 63:409–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Voss Jr EW, Sigel MM. Distribution of 19S and 7S IgM antibodies during the immune response in the nurse shark. J Immunol 1971; 106:1323–1329.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Voss Jr EW, Sigel MM. Valence and temporal change in affinity of purified 7S and 18S nurse shark anti-2,4 dinitrophenyl antibodies. J Immunol 1972; 109:665–673.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Dooley H, Flajnik MF. Shark immunity bites back: affinity maturation and memory response in the nurse shark, Ginglymostoma cirratum. Eur J Immunol 2005; 35:936–945.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Small PA, Klapper DG, Clem LW. Half-lives, body distribution and lack of interconversion of serum 19S and 7S IgM of sharks. J Immunol 1970; 105:29–37.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Fange R, Mattisson A. The lymphomyloid (hemopoietic) system of the atlantic nurse shark, Ginglymostoma cirratum. Biol Bull 1981; 160:240–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Fange R, Pulsford A. Structural studies on lymphomyeloid tissues of the dogfish, Scyliorhinus canicula L. Cell and Tissue Research 1983; 230:337–351.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Miracle A, Anderson MK, Litman RT et al. Complex expression patterns of lymphocyte-specific genes during the development of cartilaginous fish implicate unique lymphoid tissues in generating an immune repertoire. Int J Immunol 2001; 13:567–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rumfelt LL, McKinney EC, Taylor E et al. The development of primary and secondary lymphoid tissues in the nurse shark Ginglymostoma cirratum: B-cell zones precede dendritic immigration and T-cell zone formation during ontogeny of the spleen. Scand. J Immunol 2002; 56:130–148.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Dooley H, Flajnik MF, Porter AJ. Selection and characterization of naturally occurring single-domain (Ig-NAR) antibody fragments from immunized sharks by phage display. Mol Immunol 2003; 40:25–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Shao CY, Secombes CJ, Porter AJ. Rapid isolation of IgNAR variable single-domain antibody fragments from a shark synthetic library. Mol Immunol 2007; 44:656–665.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Nuttall SD, Krishnan UV, Doughty L et al. A naturally occurring NAR variable domain binds the Kgp protease from Porphyromonas gingivalis. FEBS Letters 2002; 516:80–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Nuttall SD, Krishnan UV, Doughty L et al. Isolation and characterisation of an IgNAR variable domain specific for the human mitochondrial translocase receptor Tom70. Eur J Biochem 2003; 270:3543–3554.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Nuttall SD, Humberstone KS, Krishnan UV et al. Selection and affinity maturation of IgNAR variable domains targeting Plasmodium falciparum AMA1. Protein 2004; 55:187–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Winter G, Griffiths AD, Hawkins RE et al. Making Antibodies by Phage Display Technology. Annu Rev Immunol 1994; 12:433–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Vaughan TJ, Williams AJ, Pritchard K et al. Human antibodies with sub-nanomolar affinities isolated from a large non-immunized phage display library. Nature Biotechnology 1996; 14:309–314.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Dooley H, Stanfield RL, Brady RA et al. First molecular and biochemical analysis of in vivo affinity maturation in an ectothermic vertebrate. PNAS 2006; 103:1846–1851.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Stanfield RL, Dooley H, Verdino P et al. Maturation of shark single-domain (IgNAR) antibodies: Evidence of induced-fit binding. J Mol Biol 2007; 367:358–372.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Adams GP, Schier R, Marshall K et al. Prolonged in vivo tumour retention of a human diabody targeting the extracellular domain of human HER2/neu. Br J Cancer 1998; 77:1405–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Adams GP, Schier R, McCall AM et al. High affinity restricts the localization and tumor penetration of single-chain fv antibody molecules. Cancer Res 2001; 61:4750–4755.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Nielsen UB, Adams GP, Weiner LM et al. Targeting of bivalent anti-ErbB2 diabody antibody fragments to tumor cells is independent of the intrinsic antibody affinity. Cancer Res 2000; 60:6434–6440.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Kopsidas G, Roberts AS, Coia G et al. In vitro improvement of shark IgNAR antibody by QB replicase mutation and ribosome display mimics in vivo affinity maturation. Immunol Lett 2006; 15:163–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Henderson KA, Streltsov VA, Coley AM et al. Structure of an IgNAR-AMA1 complex: targeting a conserved hydrophobic cleft broadens malarial strain recognition. Structure 2007; 15:1452–1466.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Harmsen MM, Van Solt CB, Fijten HPD et al. Passive immunization of guinea-pigs with llama single-domain antibody fragments against foot-and-mouth disease. Vet Microbiol 2007; 120:193–206.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Coppieters K, Dreier T, Silence K et al. Formatted anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha VHH proteins derived from camelids show superior potency and targeting to inflamed joints in a murine model of collagen-induced arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2006; 54:1856–1866.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Roovers RC, Laermans T, Huang L et al. Efficient inhibition of EGFR signalling and tumour growth by antagonistic anti-EGFR Nanobodies. Cancer Immunol Immunother 2007; 56:303–317.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Simmons DP, Abregu FA, Krishnan UV et al. Dimerisaion strategies for shark IgNAR single domain antibody fragments. J Immunol Methods 2006; 315:171–184.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Hamers-Casterman C, Atarhouch T, Muyldermans S et al. Naturally occurring antibodies devoid of light chains. Nature 1993; 363:446–448.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Landes Bioscience and Springer Science+Business Media 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Caroline Barelle
    • 1
  • Davinder S. Gill
    • 2
  • Keith Charlton
    • 1
  1. 1.Wyeth ResearchAberdeenScotland, UK
  2. 2.Wyeth ResearchBiological TechnologiesCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations