Cell-penetrating Alphabody protein scaffolds for intracellular drug targeting

Understanding a protein fold: the physics, chemistry, and biology of α-helical coiled coils

Protein science is being transformed by powerful computational methods for structure prediction and design: AlphaFold2 can predict many natural protein structures from sequence, and other AI methods are enabling the de novo design of new structures. This raises a question: how much do we understand the underlying sequence-to-structure/function relationships being captured by these methods? This perspective presents our current understanding of one class of protein assembly, the α-helical coiled coils. At first sight, these are straightforward: sequence repeats of hydrophobic (h) and polar (p) residues, (hpphppp)_n, direct the folding and assembly of amphipathic α helices into bundles. However, many different bundles are possible: they can have two or more helices (different oligomers); the helices can have parallel, antiparallel or mixed arrangements (different topologies); and the helical sequences can be the same (homomers) or different (heteromers). Thus, sequence-to-structure relationships must be present within the hpphppp repeats to distinguish these states. I discuss the current understanding of this problem at three levels: First, physics gives a parametric framework to generate the many possible coiled-coil backbone structures. Second, chemistry provides a means to explore and deliver sequence-to-structure relationships. Third, biology shows how coiled coils are adapted and functionalized in nature, inspiring applications of coiled coils in synthetic biology. I argue that the chemistry is largely understood; the physics is partly solved, though the considerable challenge of predicting even relative stabilities of different coiled-coil states remains; but there is much more to explore in the biology and synthetic biology of coiled coils.

Understanding MCL1: from cellular function and regulation to pharmacological inhibition

Myeloid cell leukemia-1 (MCL1), an antiapoptotic member of the BCL2 family characterized by a short half-life, functions as a rapid sensor that regulates cell death and other relevant processes that include cell cycle progression and mitochondrial homeostasis. In cancer, MCL1 overexpression contributes to cell survival and resistance to diverse chemotherapeutic agents; for this reason, several MCL1 inhibitors are currently under preclinical and clinical development for cancer treatment. However, the nonapoptotic functions of MCL1 may influence their therapeutic potential. Overall, the complexity of MCL1 regulation and function represent challenges to the clinical application of MCL1 inhibitors. We now summarize the current knowledge regarding MCL1 structure, regulation, and function that could impact the clinical success of MCL1 inhibitors.

The positive regulatory loop of TCF4N/p65 promotes glioblastoma tumourigenesis and chemosensitivity

Background

NF‐κB signaling is widely linked to the pathogenesis and treatment resistance in cancers. Increasing attention has been paid to its anti‐oncogenic roles, due to its key functions in cellular senescence and the senescence‐associated secretory phenotype (SASP). Therefore, thoroughly understanding the function and regulation of NF‐κB in cancers is necessary prior to the application of NF‐κB inhibitors.

Methods

We established glioblastoma (GBM) cell lines expressing ectopic TCF4N, an isoform of the β‐catenin interacting transcription factor TCF7L2, and evaluated its functions in GBM tumorigenesis and chemotherapy in vitro and in vivo. In p65 knock‐out or phosphorylation mimic (S536D) cell lines, the dual role and correlation of TCF4N and NF‐κB signaling in promoting tumorigenesis and chemosensitivity was investigated by in vitro and in vivo functional experiments. RNA‐seq and computational analysis, immunoprecipitation and ubiquitination assay, minigene splicing assay and luciferase reporter assay were performed to identify the underlying mechanism of positive feedback regulation loop between TCF4N and the p65 subunit of NF‐κB. A eukaryotic cell‐penetrating peptide targeting TCF4N, 4N, was used to confirm the therapeutic significance.

Results

Our results indicated that p65 subunit phosphorylation at Ser 536 (S536) and nuclear accumulation was a promising prognostic marker for GBM, and endowed the dual functions of NF‐κB in promoting tumorigenesis and chemosensitivity. p65 S536 phosphorylation and nuclear stability in GBM was regulated by TCF4N. TCF4N bound p65, induced p65 phosphorylation and nuclear translocation, inhibited its ubiquitination/degradation, and subsequently promoted NF‐κB activity. p65 S536 phosphorylation was essential for TCF4N‐led senescence‐independent SASP, GBM tumorigenesis, tumor stem‐like cell differentiation and chemosensitivity. Activation of p65 was closely connected to alterative splicing of TCF4N, a likely positive feedback regulation loop between TCF4N and p65 in GBM. 4N increased chemosensitivity, highlighting a novel anti‐cancer strategy.

Conclusion

Our study defined key roles of TCF4N as a novel regulator of NF‐κB through mutual regulation with p65 and provided a new avenue for GBM inhibition.