A site for direct integrin αvβ6·uPAR interaction from structural modelling and docking

Roles of Integrins in Gastrointestinal Cancer Metastasis

Integrins are a large family of heterodimeric transmembrane receptors which mediate cell adhesion and transmit signals to the cell interior. The mechanistic roles of integrins have long been an enigma in cancer, given its complexity in regulating different cellular behaviors. Recently, however, increasing research is providing new insights into its function and the underlying mechanisms, which collectively include the influences of altered integrin expression on the aberrant signaling pathways and cancer progression. Many studies have also demonstrated the potentiality of integrins as therapeutic targets in cancer treatment. In this review, we have summarized these recent reports and put a particular emphasis on the dysregulated expression of integrins and how they regulate related signaling pathways to facilitate the metastatic progression of gastrointestinal cancer, including gastric cancer (GC) and colorectal cancer (CRC), which will address the crucial roles of integrins in gastrointestinal cancer.

Integrin αvβ6: Structure, function and role in health and disease

Integrins are cell surface receptors that traditionally mediate cell-to-extracellular matrix and cell-to-cell adhesion. They can, however, also bind a large repertoire of other molecules. Integrin αvβ6 is exclusively expressed in epithelial cells where it can, for example, serve as a fibronectin receptor. However, its hallmark function is to activate transforming growth factor-β1 (TGF-β1) to modulate innate immune surveillance in lungs and skin and along the gastrointestinal tract, and to maintain epithelial stem cell quiescence. The loss of αvβ6 integrin function in mice and humans leads to an altered immune response in lungs and skin, amelogenesis imperfecta, periodontal disease and, in some cases, alopecia. Elevated αvβ6 integrin expression and aberrant TGF-β1 activation and function are associated with organ fibrosis and cancer. Therefore, αvβ6 integrin serves as an attractive target for cancer imaging and for fibrosis and cancer therapy.

Protein-protein interfaces are vdW dominant with selective H-bonds and (or) electrostatics towards broad functional specificity

Several catalysis, cellular regulation, immune function, cell wall assembly, transport, signaling and inhibition occur through Protein- Protein Interactions (PPI). This is possible with the formation of specific yet stable protein-protein interfaces. Therefore, it is of interest to understand its molecular principles using structural data in relation to known function. Several interface features have been documented using known X-ray structures of protein complexes since 1975. This has improved our understanding of the interface using structural features such as interface area, binding energy, hydrophobicity, relative hydrophobicity, salt bridges and hydrogen bonds. The strength of binding between two proteins is dependent on interface size (number of residues at the interface) and thus its corresponding interface area. It is known that large interfaces have high binding energy (sum of (van der Waals) vdW, H-bonds, electrostatics). However, the selective role played by each of these energy components and more especially that of vdW is not explicitly known. Therefore, it is important to document their individual role in known protein-protein structural complexes. It is of interest to relate interface size with vdW, H-bonds and electrostatic interactions at the interfaces of protein structural complexes with known function using statistical and multiple linear regression analysis methods to identify the prominent force. We used the manually curated non-redundant dataset of 278 hetero-dimeric protein structural complexes grouped using known functions by Sowmya et al. (2015) to gain additional insight to this phenomenon using a robust inter-atomic non-covalent interaction analyzing tool PPCheck (Anshul and Sowdhamini, 2015). This dataset consists of obligatory (enzymes, regulator, biological assembly), immune and nonobligatory (enzyme and regulator inhibitors) complexes. Results show that the total binding energy is more for large interfaces. However, this is not true for its individual energy factors. Analysis shows that vdW energies contribute to about 75% ± 11% on average among all complexes and it also increases with interface size (r2 ranging from 0.67 to 0.89 with p<0.01) at 95% confidence limit irrespective of molecular function. Thus, vdW is both dominant and proportional at the interface independent of molecular function. Nevertheless, H bond energy contributes to 15% ± 6.5% on average in these complexes. It also moderately increases with interface size (r2 ranging from 0.43 to 0.61 with p<0.01) only among obligatory and immune complexes. Moreover, there is about 11.3% ± 8.7% contribution by electrostatic energy. It increases with interface size specifically among non-obligatory regulator-inhibitors (r2 = 0.44). It is implied that both H-bonds and electrostatics are neither dominant nor proportional at the interface. Nonetheless, their presence cannot be ignored in binding. Therefore, H-bonds and (or) electrostatic energy having specific role for improved stability in complexes is implied. Thus, vdW is common at the interface stabilized further with selective H-bonds and (or) electrostatic interactions at an atomic level in almost all complexes. Comparison of this observation with residue level analysis of the interface is compelling. The role by H-bonds (14.83% ± 6.5% and r2 = 0.61 with p<0.01) among obligatory and electrostatic energy (8.8% ± 4.77% and r2 = 0.63 with p <0.01) among non-obligatory complexes within interfaces (class A) having more non-polar residues than surface is influencing our inference. However, interfaces (class B) having less non-polar residues than surface show 1.5 fold more electrostatic energy on average. The interpretation of the interface using inter-atomic (vdW, H-bonds, electrostatic) interactions combined with inter-residue predominance (class A and class B) in relation to known function is the key to reveal its molecular principles with new challenges.

Discrete structural features among interface residue-level classes

BACKGROUND

Protein-protein interaction (PPI) is essential for molecular functions in biological cells. Investigation on protein interfaces of known complexes is an important step towards deciphering the driving forces of PPIs. Each PPI complex is specific, sensitive and selective to binding. Therefore, we have estimated the relative difference in percentage of polar residues between surface and the interface for each complex in a non-redundant heterodimer dataset of 278 complexes to understand the predominant forces driving binding.

RESULTS

Our analysis showed ~60% of protein complexes with surface polarity greater than interface polarity (designated as class A). However, a considerable number of complexes (~40%) have interface polarity greater than surface polarity, (designated as class B), with a significantly different p-value of 1.66E-45 from class A. Comprehensive analyses of protein complexes show that interface features such as interface area, interface polarity abundance, solvation free energy gain upon interface formation, binding energy and the percentage of interface charged residue abundance distinguish among class A and class B complexes, while electrostatic visualization maps also help differentiate interface classes among complexes.

CONCLUSIONS

Class A complexes are classical with abundant non-polar interactions at the interface; however class B complexes have abundant polar interactions at the interface, similar to protein surface characteristics. Five physicochemical interface features analyzed from the protein heterodimer dataset are discriminatory among the interface residue-level classes. These novel observations find application in developing residue-level models for protein-protein binding prediction, protein-protein docking studies and interface inhibitor design as drugs.

Linking structural features of protein complexes and biological function

Protein-protein interaction (PPI) establishes the central basis for complex cellular networks in a biological cell. Association of proteins with other proteins occurs at varying affinities, yet with a high degree of specificity. PPIs lead to diverse functionality such as catalysis, regulation, signaling, immunity, and inhibition, playing a crucial role in functional genomics. The molecular principle of such interactions is often elusive in nature. Therefore, a comprehensive analysis of known protein complexes from the Protein Data Bank (PDB) is essential for the characterization of structural interface features to determine structure-function relationship. Thus, we analyzed a nonredundant dataset of 278 heterodimer protein complexes, categorized into major functional classes, for distinguishing features. Interestingly, our analysis has identified five key features (interface area, interface polar residue abundance, hydrogen bonds, solvation free energy gain from interface formation, and binding energy) that are discriminatory among the functional classes using Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test. Significant correlations between these PPI interface features amongst functional categories are also documented. Salt bridges correlate with interface area in regulator-inhibitors (r = 0.75). These representative features have implications for the prediction of potential function of novel protein complexes. The results provide molecular insights for better understanding of PPIs and their relation to biological functions.

Strategies to inhibit tumor associated integrin receptors: rationale for dual and multi-antagonists

The integrins are a family of 24 heterodimeric transmembrane cell surface receptors. Involvement in cell attachment to the extracellular matrix, motility, and proliferation identifies integrins as therapeutic targets in cancer and associated conditions: thrombosis, angiogenesis, and osteoporosis. The most reported strategy for drug development is synthesis of an agent that is highly selective for a single integrin receptor. However, the ability of cancer cells to change their integrin repertoire in response to drug treatment renders this approach vulnerable to the development of resistance and paradoxical promotion of tumor growth. Here, we review progress toward development of antagonists targeting two or more members of the Arg-Gly-Asp (RGD) binding integrins, notably αvβ3, αvβ5, αvβ6, αvβ8, α5β1, and αIIbβ3, as anticancer therapeutics.