ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
My Activity
CONTENT TYPES

Figure 1Loading Img

Engineering of Kuma030: A Gliadin Peptidase That Rapidly Degrades Immunogenic Gliadin Peptides in Gastric Conditions

View Author Information
Department of Biochemistry, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, United States
Departments of Chemistry, Biochemistry, and Molecular Medicine, University of California—Davis, Davis, California 95616, United States
§ Institute of Food Science-CNR, Avellino, Italy
Institute of Protein Biochemistry-CNR, Naples, Italy
Department of Gastroenterology, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, Washington 98195, United States
# Department of Molecular Biology & Biochemistry, Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey 08901, United States
Cite this: J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2015, 137, 40, 13106–13113
Publication Date (Web):September 15, 2015
https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.5b08325

Copyright © 2022 American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under these Terms of Use.

  • Open Access

Article Views

7605

Altmetric

-

Citations

LEARN ABOUT THESE METRICS
PDF (3 MB)
Supporting Info (1)»

Abstract

Celiac disease is characterized by intestinal inflammation triggered by gliadin, a component of dietary gluten. Oral administration of proteases that can rapidly degrade gliadin in the gastric compartment has been proposed as a treatment for celiac disease; however, no protease has been shown to specifically reduce the immunogenic gliadin content, in gastric conditions, to below the threshold shown to be toxic for celiac patients. Here, we used the Rosetta Molecular Modeling Suite to redesign the active site of the acid-active gliadin endopeptidase KumaMax. The resulting protease, Kuma030, specifically recognizes tripeptide sequences that are found throughout the immunogenic regions of gliadin, as well as in homologous proteins in barley and rye. Indeed, treatment of gliadin with Kuma030 eliminates the ability of gliadin to stimulate a T cell response. Kuma030 is capable of degrading >99% of the immunogenic gliadin fraction in laboratory-simulated gastric digestions within physiologically relevant time frames, to a level below the toxic threshold for celiac patients, suggesting great potential for this enzyme as an oral therapeutic for celiac disease.

Introduction

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

Celiac disease is a debilitating illness that afflicts approximately 0.5–1% of the global population. (1, 2) The basis for celiac disease is a Th1-mediated inflammatory immune response directed against peptides derived from gliadin, a protein component that constitutes roughly half of the total protein composition of dietary gluten. Gliadin in highly enriched in the amino acids proline (P) and glutamine (Q), which renders it recalcitrant to degradation by human digestive enzymes. PQ-rich peptide fragments derived from partial digestion of gliadin in the stomach and intestines are deamidated in the intestinal lumen by tissue transglutaminase (TG2), thereby allowing binding to HLA-DQ2 or DQ8, and stimulation of an inflammatory response in people with celiac disease. (3) Chronic inflammation resulting from continuous gluten exposure leads to damaging of the intestinal villi, which promotes malnutrition-related symptoms, and to an increased incidence of developing intestinal lymphomas, (4) among other complications.
Currently, the only treatment for celiac disease is complete elimination of gluten from the diet. The gluten-free diet is very burdensome for patients because it is difficult to strictly achieve, due to the ubiquity of gluten in modern food production. (5-8) Medical treatment that could reduce or eliminate the effects of accidental gluten exposure would significantly benefit the celiac patient population. (9) Oral enzyme therapy, in which orally administered enzymes break down the PQ-rich regions of gliadin in the gastrointestinal tract, has been proposed as a method to treat celiac disease. (10) However, the requirement for proteolytic activity by these enzymes is high, because ingested gluten must be kept at 10 mg or less to prevent intestinal damage. (11, 12) Upon the accidental ingestion of 1 g of gluten (approximately the amount of gluten in 1/4 of a slice of bread), reduction to 10 mg or less would require degradation of immunogenic gluten content by 99+% at physiologically relevant time scales in order to eliminate intestinal damage. Additionally, degradation must take place in the gastric compartment, because immunogenic gliadin peptides initiate the immune response immediately upon entering the duodenum. (13) Finally, an enzyme therapeutic for celiac disease should be specific for the immunogenic fraction of gliadin, so that its activity is not markedly hindered by other proteins present during a meal. While several enzymes have been considered as potential oral enzyme therapeutics for celiac disease, (14, 15) no enzyme has been identified that harbors all of these properties.
Previously, we reported the engineering of a novel gliadin peptidase called KumaMax (hereafter referred to as Kuma010), which demonstrates stability and functionality in postprandial gastric conditions. (16) Kuma010 specifically degrades peptides after the PQ dipeptide motif, which is found throughout the immunogenic fraction of gliadin. In this work, we describe the computational redesign of the active site of Kuma010 in order to achieve the 99% activity threshold. We then assess the potential of Kuma030 as an enzyme therapeutic for celiac disease by quantifying its ability to reduce gluten content in laboratory-simulated digestions of wheat bread and beer and to reduce the immunostimulatory potential of gliadin as determined by T cell assays.

Results

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

Alteration of the Kuma010 Active Site by Computational Enzyme Design

To guide the improvement of Kuma010 by computational protein design, we solved the crystal structure of Kuma010 at 2.5 Å resolution (PDB ID 4NE7). On the basis of this structure, we utilized the Rosetta Molecular Modeling Suite (17, 18) to redesign the Kuma010 active site, selecting for mutations that were predicted to increase activity against immunogenic gliadin peptides. Designed mutants were then screened for increased activity on the highly immunogenic 33mer (LQLQPFPQPQLPYPQPQLPYPQPQLPYPQPQPF) and 26mer (FLQPQQPFPQQPQQPYPQQPQQPFPQ) gliadin peptides (19, 20) (Supporting Information Table 1). These peptides harbor either the PQL or PQQ tripeptide motif, tripeptides that have been implicated in the immunogenic cores of gliadin T cell epitopes shown to be toxic for celiac patients. (21) Mutations to Kuma010 that conferred increases in activity were combined in an iterative process, and the resulting mutant enzymes were retested for increased activity (Supporting Information Table 2). In this manner, the variant Kuma030 was built. Kuma030 is 44-fold more active against peptides containing PQQ, and 11-fold more active against peptides containing PQL, than Kuma010, as assessed by kcat/KM values for these enzymes on relevant gliadin peptides (Supporting Information Figure 1).
As determined by molecular modeling using Rosetta, the putative S1′ peptide binding interface of Kuma010 consists entirely of hydrophobic residues and should therefore prefer hydrophobic residues such as leucine over polar residues such as glutamine at P1′. The S1′ binding pocket of Kuma030 includes an isoleucine to threonine mutation (I463T), which is predicted to provide a hydrogen bond with a P1′ glutamine, enabling this enzyme to accommodate both leucine and glutamine in the S1′ subsite and thereby target both PQL and PQQ tripeptides (Figure 1). Kuma030 also includes six additional mutations (K262E, E269T, S354Q, G358S, D399Q, A449Q) that are required for the enhanced catalytic efficiency on the 26mer and 33mer peptides (Supporting Information Figure 2). Two of these mutations (K262E and G358S) are substitutions of mutations previously introduced into Kuma010. (16) G358S is thought to stabilize the loop containing a histidine introduced in Kuma010 which is predicted to hydrogen bond to the P1 glutamine residue (Figure 1). The remaining mutations are predicted to stabilize the protein structure as modeled.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Amino acid substitutions in the Kuma030 endopeptidase. Model of a representative PQQP tetrapeptide in the active site of Kuma030. Enzyme backbone is shown in gray, gliadin tetrapeptide is shown in yellow. Green residues were mutated to generate Kuma030. Blue residues are thought to be important in coordinating the tetrapeptide into the active site. Image was created using PyMol.

Kuma030 Targets Immunodominant Peptides in Wheat, Rye, and Barley

While dozens of PQ-rich epitopes have been linked to celiac disease, several peptides derived from gliadin (wheat), hordein (barley), and secalin (rye) have been shown to account for the vast majority of the immune response in celiac disease and have thus been classified as immunodominant. (21) In wheat, these include the peptides W02-E07 (LQPFPQPQLPYPQPQ), W03-E07 (QPFPQPQQPFPWQP), and the 33mer peptide, which contains the W02-E07 sequence. (19, 22) These peptides harbor several HLA-DQ2 or -DQ8 epitopes shown to be strongly immunogenic. (19, 23) To evaluate the ability of Kuma030 to destroy these epitopes throughout gluten, purified whole gluten was incubated with Kuma030 under simulated postprandial gastric conditions (pH 4.0 at 37 °C with 0.6 mg mL–1 pepsin). (24) The gluten fraction remaining after degradation was quantified using ELISA assays based on either the G12 or R5 antibodies, which recognize the amino acid motifs QPQLPY and QQPFP, respectively. These motifs encompass many immunogenic gliadin epitopes, including the immunodominant peptides mentioned above, (25, 26) and is therefore a reasonable assessment of the immunostimulatory potential of gluten. To compare the activity of Kuma030 to that of published glutenases, we also examined the glutenases EPB2 and SCPEP, which are currently being pioneered at a 1:1 ratio as a combination enzyme therapeutic for celiac disease. The EPB2 and SCPEP enzymes generated in this work were verified to have activities consistent with that of published values (27, 28) (Supporting Information Table 3). Upon incubation with gluten, we observed a dose-dependent reduction in the QQPFP or QPQLPY load using either Kuma030, Kuma010, or a 1:1 combination of EPB2 and SCPEP (Figure 2A and Supporting Information Figure 3). At a 1:25 w:w ratio of enzyme:gluten, EPB2 and SCPEP broke down 84.8% of the gluten present, consistent with previously published reports. (14, 29) Kuma030 was highly effective at eliminating these peptide epitopes throughout gluten, with a 1:400 w:w ratio of enzyme:gluten being sufficient to reduce the immunogenic gluten present by over 99.5% at 60 min, as quantified by both ELISA methods (Figure 2A and Supporting Information Figure 3), and a 1:100 w:w ratio was sufficient to decrease the detected gluten by >99.9% by 30 min (Figure 2B). Kuma030-dependent reduction in immunogenic gluten load was rapid, with >98% degradation achieved by 5 min at a w:w ratio of 1:25 (Figure 2B). HPLC-MS analysis of the Kuma030 cleavage products revealed that Kuma030 cleaved each peptide after the PQ dipeptide motif in the immunodominant epitopes from wheat (33mer, W02-E07, and W03-E07), and also those from barley B08-E2E7 (PQQPIPQQPQPYPQQ) and rye R11-E2E7 (QPFPQQPEQIIPQQP) (22) (Figure 2C, Supporting Information Figure 4). While these intact peptides are highly immunostimulatory, the peptide breakdown products are not predicted to stimulate the immune system, because Kuma030 action results in elimination of the core 9mer epitope required to trigger the immune response. (30) The ability of Kuma030 to cleave peptides containing either a PQL or a PQQ tripeptide motif, and to reduce the immunogenic gluten load as measured by both G12 and R5 antibodies, is consistent with the hypothesis that Kuma030 can bind and cleave peptides with either a leucine or a glutamine in the S1′ binding pocket.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Kuma030 is capable of rapidly and effectively degrading the immunogenic regions of gluten in gastric conditions. (A) concentrations of either EPB2 and SCPEP (at a 1:1 ratio), Kuma010, or Kuma030 in gastric conditions, as measured by ELISA using the G12 antibody. The starting concentration of gluten was 10 mg mL–1 (10 000 ppm). Note that the Y-axis is plotted on a logarithmic scale. (B) The amount of gluten detected at 5 or 30 min after incubation with EPB2 and SCPEP or Kuma030. Shown is the ratio of enzyme:gluten. The starting concentration of gluten was 10 mg mL–1. Samples were normalized to the amount of gluten remaining after incubation with pepsin alone. Asterisk indicates that greater than 99.9% of the gluten was degraded. (C) HPLC trace of full-length peptide (gray dotted lines) or breakdown products (black lines) of the immunodominant peptides from gliadin (W02-E07, W03-E07, 33mer), hordein (B08-E2E7), or secalin (R11-E4E7). The bottom of the figure shows the amino acid sequence of the 33mer peptide, position of known immunogenic epitopes (horizontal lines), location of Kuma030 cleavage site (vertical lines), and elution peaks of the resulting breakdown products (gray arrows). Immunodominant peptides displayed the following breakdown patterns: B08-E2E7: PQQPIPQ∥QPQPYPQ∥Q; R11-E4E5: QPFPQ∥QPEQIIPQ∥QP; W02-E7: LQPFPQPQ∥LPYPQPQ; W03-E7: QPFPQPQ∥QPFPWQP. All peptide masses and elution times were confirmed by LCMS. Note that although the undigested W03-E07 peptide eluted at approximately the same time as a W03-E07 breakdown fragment, these are separate peaks, as determined by LCMS (Supporting Information Figure 4). aAU, arbitrary absorbance units.

Gliadin Treated with Kuma030 Loses Its Ability To Stimulate a T-Cell Response

The ability of Kuma030 to efficiently degrade immunogenic gliadin epitopes suggests that incubation of gliadin with Kuma030 might reduce its capacity to stimulate a T-cell-mediated immune response. T cell assays utilizing cells derived from the intestinal biopsies of celiac patients represent the gold standard for this evaluation. (31) We performed T cell assays in which cells were exposed to Kuma030-treated gliadin and the resulting T cell reaction was assessed. The gliadin-reactive intestinal CD4+ T cell lines used in this study were previously generated from intestinal mucosa of celiac patients and have been shown to react to a diversity of epitopes across different gliadin families (32) (Figure 3F). Kuma030 was incubated with purified wheat gliadin at enzyme:gliadin ratios spanning 1:10–1:1000 in laboratory-simulated gastric conditions for 60 min. In order to mimic transit into the intestinal compartment, the pH levels of the samples were then increased, and the samples were treated with chymotrypsin and deamidated with tTG to unmask the immunogenic epitopes. The resulting gliadin samples were presented to T cell lines, and stimulation was assessed by measuring IFN-γ production (Figure 3) and T cell proliferation (Supporting Information Figure 5). In all cell lines tested, exposure to pepsin-treated gliadin resulted in stimulation of production of IFN-γ, and treatment of gliadin with Kuma030 reduced this response, eliminating it at higher concentrations of Kuma030. The decreases observed in IFN-γ production were not due to Kuma030 toxicity (Supporting Information Figure 6). Importantly, Kuma030 eliminated the T cell response to gliadin in every T cell line tested regardless of T cell epitope specificity, indicating that Kuma030 is effective against all epitopes recognized by the T cell lines used in this assay. Because these epitopes span the three major gliadin families, α-, ω-, and γ-gliadin, this suggests that Kuma030 is capable of degrading immunogenic epitopes within all relevant regions of gliadin.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Gliadin treated with Kuma030 loses it immunostimulatory potential. (A–E) Purified gliadin was treated with Kuma030 at the specified concentration for 60 min at pH 4.0 at 37 °C in the presence of 0.6 mg mL–1 pepsin. After the gastric phase, the pH of the samples was increased, and samples were treated with chymotrypsin and TG2. Samples were then exposed to T cell lines from patients #1 (A), #2 (B), #3 (C), #4 (D), or #5 (E), in the presence of autologous irradiated B cell lines, and IFN-γ was measured by ELISA. Phytohemagglutenin (PHA) and a peptic-tryptic digest of gliadin (PT-gliadin) were included as positive controls. Incubation of T cell lines with antigen-presenting cells in the absence of antigens (medium) acted as a negative control. (F) T cell stimulatory epitopes recognized by the T cells used in this assay and the predicted Kuma030 cleavage sites within these epitopes. (21) Predicted Kuma030 cleavage sites are shown by a vertical line |. Cleavage sites are predicted based on Kuma030 activity on gliadin peptides as presented in Figure 2.

Kuma030 Reduces Gluten Load in Laboratory-Simulated Gastric Digestions Representing Ingestion of 4–8 g of Gluten to Below Levels Thought to Be Toxic to Celiac Patients

To evaluate the practical application of Kuma030, we tested the ability of this enzyme to break down gluten present in simulated gastric digests of whole wheat bread and wheat beer. Whole wheat bread was mashed in artificial saliva to simulate mastication. The mixture was then acidified by the addition of HCl and pepsin at a bread concentration representative of that in the stomach after ingestion of 1–2 slices of bread (assuming 4 g of gluten per slice and a stomach volume of 400–800 mL), and glutenases at various concentrations were added. The amount of gluten remaining was then quantified after 30 min of digestion, representing a lag time of food in the stomach before the commencement of ingesta release into the duodenum through the pyloric opening. (33) At the highest concentration of glutenase tested (1:10 w:w ratio), treatment with EPB2 and SCPEP resulted in 84.4% gluten degradation (Figure 4A, Supporting Information Figure 7). This is consistent with published results from a Phase I study showing that EPB2 and SCPEP eliminate 70–79% of gluten in a test meal at a 1:10 enzyme:gluten ratio in the human stomach after a 30 min incubation time. (34) At a 1:40 w/w ratio (250 μg mL–1 enzyme), Kuma030 achieved >99.97% degradation, reaching the limit of quantification by ELISA (3 ppm), which is well below the 20 ppm threshold for “gluten free” labeling in the U.S. (Figure 4A). A 1:320 w:w ratio (31.25 μg mL–1) was sufficient to reduce the level of gluten in the bread by >99%. Finally, the gluten-degrading ability of Kuma030 was also tested directly in a wheat beer, because wheat beers demonstrate higher gluten levels than their barley-made counterparts. (35) Beer was incubated with Kuma030 at 37 or 4 °C at two enzyme concentrations. Samples were taken at various time points and the concentration of remaining gluten was quantified. We found that incubation of the beer, which demonstrated an initial gluten concentration of ∼764 ppm, with Kuma030 decreased the gluten level to below 20 ppm by only 5 min (Figure 4B). Surprisingly, Kuma030 was capable of reaching this 20 ppm threshold in wheat beer even at 4 °C (Figure 4B).

Figure 4

Figure 4. Kuma030 efficiently degrades gluten in complex food matrices. Gluten was detected using G12 ELISA. (A) The amount of gluten remaining in whole wheat bread after a 30 min incubation with either Kuma030 or EPB2/SCPEP at the indicated enzyme concentrations. Dotted lines represent either the initial concentration of gluten (10 000 ppm) or 20 ppm gluten. Note both axes are plotted on a logarithmic scale. (B) The amount of gluten remaining in a wheat beer after incubation with the indicated concentrations of either EPB2/SCPEP or Kuma030 at 37 or 4 °C, for 5, 15, or 60 min. Dotted lines represent either the initial concentration of gluten (764 ppm) or 20 ppm.

Discussion

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

Oral enzyme therapy has been considered an attractive treatment option for celiac disease since the identification of PQ-rich immunogenic gliadin epitopes that stimulate the immune response. (3) An essential characteristic of any enzyme therapeutic for celiac disease is the ability to break down immunogenic gliadin peptides in gastric conditions before these peptides can access the intestinal tract. Gluten challenge studies in celiac patients have shown that the ingested gluten load must be kept at 10 mg or less in order to prevent intestinal damage. (11, 12) Indeed, the U.S. FDA currently mandates that any food labeled as “gluten free” must demonstrate less than 20 ppm gluten, because strict adherence to this standard is predicted to result in a daily ingestion of 10 mg or less. Ingestion of only 1 g of gluten would require a 99% degradation level in order to achieve this threshold; accidental ingestion of a sandwich made with gluten-containing bread (∼8 g of gluten assuming 4 g of gluten per slice) would require a ∼99.9% degradation level. There is therefore a clear need for glutenases that can rapidly and efficiently destroy immunogenic gliadin epitopes in gastric conditions. In a model of gastric digestion of whole wheat bread, Kuma030 degraded >99.97% of the gluten load in 30 min. While oral administration of glutenases may not be a replacement for a gluten-free diet, the ability to provide protection in the event of a large amount of gluten ingestion is important for efficacy. Thus, the fact that Kuma030 is capable of achieving this degradation level suggests its potential for use as a next-generation enzyme therapeutic for celiac disease.
T cell lines derived from celiac patients demonstrate a myriad of responses to different immunogenic epitopes. It is therefore significant that Kuma030, which demonstrates a PQ dipeptide specificity, is effective at decreasing or eliminating gliadin-mediated T cell stimulation in all cell lines tested, which represent reactivity against peptides derived from all major families of gliadin. While many immunogenic gliadin peptides have been identified, virtually all of these harbor the PQ dipeptide motif within the HLA-binding core, and cleavage after each of these motifs is predicted to destroy the HLA-binding region; thus, PQ is a reasonable proteolytic target for therapeutic glutenases. The selection of a dipeptide specificity, rather than a single amino acid specificity, may contribute to the effectiveness of Kuma030, because while this dipeptide is commonly found throughout the immunogenic regions of gluten, it is found much less frequently in the amino acid sequences of other proteins. Because dietary gluten comprises only roughly 20% of the total protein consumed in a Western diet, a dipeptide specificity may allow for the surgical removal of immunogenic epitopes of gliadin even in the presence of large amounts of other dietary protein. This factor alone may provide a significant advantage over proteases with a single amino acid specificity that indiscriminately act upon protein targets.
The ability to design novel therapeutic proteins through computational protein design holds great potential for the engineering of 21st century medicines. Kuma030 represents the first molecule originally designed by the video game Foldit (16) to move through drug development toward clinical trials. These studies demonstrate the power of protein design to incorporate many different beneficial characteristics into a single therapeutic molecule and warrant further work assessing the potential of this enzyme in vitro and in vivo.

Conclusions

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

In this work, we describe the engineering of the gliadin endopeptidase Kuma030. Molecular modeling and computational design allowed for the prediction of mutations on the template enzyme Kuma010 that greatly increased proteolytic activity on immunogenic epitopes relevant to individuals with celiac disease. The resulting enzyme, Kuma030, is capable of degrading all immunodominant epitopes from wheat, barley, and rye, indicating that Kuma030 may be able to degrade a broad spectrum of immunogenic targets. Indeed, treatment of wheat gliadin with Kuma030 reduced or eliminated the capacity of gliadin to stimulate T cells that are specific for a variety of immunogenic epitopes. Treatment of foodstuffs with Kuma030 reduced the gliadin load by over 99% in minutes, to below the threshold level shown to be toxic to celiac patients. Future work will determine the potential of Kuma030 as a therapeutic for celiac disease using relevant in vivo models.

Materials and Methods

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

Materials

Growth media components were obtained from MP Biomedicals. All reagents for mutagenesis were obtained from New England Biolabs (NEB) with the exception of Pfu Turbo Cx hotstart polymerase which was from Agilent Technologies. Peptides were synthesized by GenScript. Chromogenic substrates were obtained from Bachem. HPLC grade solvents were from Fisher Scientific. Unless otherwise noted, all other reagents were from Sigma-Aldrich.

Crystallization of Kuma010

Purified Kuma010 was concentrated to 9.15 mg mL–1 in buffer containing 5 mM DTT, 100 mM NaCl, 10 mM Tris-HCl pH 7.5, and 0.02% NaN3. The protein was crystallized using the hanging drop vapor evaporation method, at 277 K. The best crystals were obtained at the following condition: 15% PEG 8000, 0.1 M MES pH 6.0, 0.2 M zinc acetate. Diffraction data set to 2.5 Å was collected at the National Synchrotron Light Source, with beamline X4C, and the data were processed with HKL-2000 (HKL Research, Inc.). The structure was determined by molecular replacement using Phaser, (36) with the wild type structure (PDB code 1SN7) as initial search model. The refinement was carried out using Phenix, (37) and model adjusting was done in Coot. (38) The crystal structure was quite close to the original design model for Kuma010, with a Cα RMSD of 0.676 Å.

Computational Enzyme Design

The enzyme design module (17) of the computational protein design software Rosetta was used to suggest mutations that stabilize the PQLP-Kuma010 and PQQP-Kuma010 complexes under the assumption that a higher affinity binding would lead to enhanced catalytic properties. Both the PQLP- and the PQQP-bound models were relaxed in Rosetta using coordinate and catalytic constraints, (39) and then the sequences of the proteins were optimized for peptide–protein interaction energy using fixed-backbone Monte Carlo sequence design. (17) Designable residues were restricted to those within 10 Å of the peptide and were not allowed to mutate to cysteine or proline. Ten to twenty design trajectories were run through design protocols. Mutations were selected for experimental characterization based on occurrence in the designs and in a multiple sequence alignment of Kumamolisin (the Kuma010 template protease), Rosetta, and FoldIt (40) scores, and manual inspection.

Production and Purification of Kuma010 Variants and SCPEP

All mutations to the kuma010 gene were incorporated using the site-directed mutagenesis method PFunkel. (41) Protein was expressed from pET29B plasmids harboring Kuma010 enzyme variants or SCPEP by Escherichia coli BL21(DE3). Enzymes were purified by immobilized-metal affinity chromatography (IMAC) using Ni-NTA Superflow resin (Qiagen) and dialyzed in storage buffer (50 mM HEPES, pH 7.5, 200 mM NaCl, 1 mM β-mercaptoethanol, 10% (v/v) glycerol). Aliquots were stored at −80 °C until use.

EPB2 Expression and Purification

Expression and purification of recombinant EPB2 proenzyme was performed according to published methods. (27, 42) Briefly, EPB2 was expressed from cultures of E. coli BL21(DE3). Cultures were centrifuged, and pellets were resuspended in disruption buffer (200 mM sodium phosphate, pH 7.0, 200 mM NaCl, 2.5 mM DTT, 2.5 mM EDTA, 30% (v/v) glycerol), lysed by sonication, and clarified by centrifugation. Inclusion bodies containing EPB2 were washed twice with water and then dissolved in EPB2 solubilization buffer (50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8.0, 7 M urea, 2 mM β-mercaptoethanol). The solution was clarified by centrifugation, and the enzyme was purified by IMAC. Fractions containing proEP-B2 were pooled, diluted with refolding buffer (100 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8.0, 5 mM EDTA, 2 mM β-mercaptoethanol, 15% (v/v) glycerol), and stirred overnight. Refolded pro-EPB2 was filtered and concentrated to 15 mg mL–1. Aliquots were stored at −80 °C until use.

KumaMax Kinetic Characterization

Kinetic parameters were assessed using gliadin-derived substrates Glia_α1 (PFPQPQLPY) and Glia_ω1 (PFPQPQQPF). Enzymes were incubated at 37 °C for 10 min and diluted to 100 nM with reaction buffer (100 mM NaOAc, pH 4.0) containing either Glia_α1 or Glia_ω1 at 0–18.4 mM. Degradation was monitored by periodic sample removal and quenching, followed by quantification of the PFPQPQ breakdown product by HPLC/ESI-MS. The kcat/KM value was calculated using the Michaelis–Menten equation in Graphpad Prism.

SCPEP and EPB2 Kinetic Characterization

Kinetic parameters of SCPEP and EPB2 were measured on chromogenic substrates Suc-Ala-Pro-pNA (SCPEP) and Z-Phe-Arg-pNA (EPB2) following previously published protocols. (27, 28) pNA release was spectrophotometrically monitored. Buffers were as follows: 100 mM NaHCO3, pH 6.0, 150 mM NaCl (SCPEP), or 100 mM NaOAc pH 4.0 (EPB2). The kcat/KM value was calculated using the Michaelis–Menten equation in Graphpad Prism.

Peptide Degradation Assays

Lyophilized 33mer (LQLQPFPQPQLPYPQPQLPYPQPQLPYPQPQPF), 26mer (FLQPQQPFQQPQQPYPQQPQQPFPQ), W03-E07 ((QPFPQPQQPFPWQP), W02-E7 (LQPFPQPQLPYPQPQ), R11-E4E7 (QPFPQQPEQIIPQQP), and B08-E2E7 (PQQPIPQQPQPYPQQ) peptides were dissolved in reaction buffer (100 mM NaOAc, pH 4.0). Enzymes were incubated at 37 °C for 10 min in reaction buffer and then incubated at 2 μg mL–1 with 1 mg mL–1 substrate (for increased activity screening) or at 500 μg mL–1 with 5 mg mL–1 substrate (for qualitative degradation assessment) at 37 °C for 60 min. Degradation of the gliadin peptides was monitored by analysis by HPLC at Ab215, or by LC/ESI-MS on a TSQ Quantum Access (Thermo Fisher Scientific).

Degradation of Purified Gluten

Purified wheat gluten was suspended in 70% ethanol at 200 mg mL–1. Enzymes were diluted in reaction buffer (100 mM NaOAc, pH 4.0) and incubated at 37 °C for 10 min. Suspended gluten was rapidly diluted 10-fold with reaction buffer and aliquoted into reaction tubes. Pepsin at 0.6 mg mL–1 and enzymes were added, and samples were incubated at 37 °C. The final concentration of gluten in the reaction mixture was 10 mg mL–1. Gluten degradation was halted at ≥95 °C for 10 min, and the gluten level was quantified by competitive ELISA using either the R5 Ridascreen (R-Biopharm) or the G12 GlutenTox kit (Biomedal).

Gluten Degradation in Whole Wheat Bread

Bread slurry was prepared by mashing whole wheat bread (Oroweat: approximately 4 g of protein per slice) with a spatula in artificial saliva (20 mM NaHCO3, 25 mM KCl, 2 mM CaCl2, 0.3 mM MgCl2, pH 7.0), followed by acidification with HCl and blending for 2 min in a Waring blender, at which the pH of the bread mixtures was approximately pH 4.5. Degradation was initiated by the addition of pepsin at 0.6 mg mL–1 and either Kuma030 or a 1:1 mixture of EP-B2 and SC PEP. The final gluten concentration in the bread mixture was 10 mg mL–1 and was verified by ELISA. Samples were incubated at 37 °C for 30 min with periodic agitation. At the end of the degradation period, samples were incubated at ≥95 °C to halt enzyme activity. Gluten levels were quantified by the G12 and R5 ELISA methods described above.

Gluten Degradation in Wheat Beer

Wheat beer (Chainbreaker White IPA, Deschutes Brewery) was aliquoted on ice. Either Kuma030 or a 1:1 mixture of EPB2 and SCPEP was added to the beer and incubated at 37 or 4 °C for 60 min. Samples were incubated at ≥95 °C to halt enzyme activity. The gluten level for each sample was measured by the G12 ELISA method described above.

T Cell Immunogenicity Assays

Gliadin-specific intestinal T cell lines (iTCLs) were previously generated from duodenal biopsies of 5 HLA-DQ2 celiac disease patients. (32) Briefly, mucosal cells were stimulated for two to three cycles with irradiated autologous peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) and deamidated peptic-tryptic digest of gliadin extracted from the hexaploid wheat variety Sagittario (PT-Gliadin). Stable TCLs were kept in culture by repeated stimulation with heterologous irradiated PBMCs and PHA, and IL-2 as a growth factor. The peptide specificity of the iTCLs was evaluated by assaying their reactivity toward a panel of immunogenic gluten peptides (32) (and unpublished data), and revealed an oligoclonal pattern of peptide recognition.
The immune response of iTCLs to gliadin treated with Kuma030 at different concentrations was assayed by detecting IFN-γ production and cell proliferation. (32) T cells (3 × 104) were coincubated with irradiated autologous EBV-transformed, B-lymphoblastoid cell lines (B-LCLs, 1 × 105), in 200 μL of complete medium (X-Vivo plus 5% human serum, Lonza-BioWhittaker, Verviers, Belgium) in U-bottom 96-well plates. Gliadin samples, digested with Kuma030 at the specified concentration, were then added at 50 μg mL–1. Cells incubated in absence of antigens acted as negative control while phytohemagglutinin (PHA, 1 μg mL–1; Boehringer; Mannheim, Germany) and PT-gliadin (50 μg mL–1) were included as positive controls. After a 48 h incubation, cell supernatants (50 μL) were collected for IFN-γ determination and T cells were pulsed overnight with [3H]-thymidine (0.5 μCi per well; GE Healthcare; Buc Cedex, France) and therefore harvested for the evaluation of cell proliferation. Each antigen preparation was assayed in duplicate and in at least two independent experiments.
IFN-γ was measured by a classic sandwich ELISA using purified and biotin-conjugated anti-IFN-γ Abs purchased from Mabtech (Nacka Strand, Sweden). The sensitivity of the assay was 32 pg mL–1.
To evaluate possible toxic effects of enzyme-treated gliadins, PBMCs from healthy donors (2 × 105) were stimulated with PHA (1 μg mL–1), or PHA + samples treated with Kuma030 (50 μg mL–1), in 200 μL of complete medium in U-bottom 96-well plates. IFN-γ production and cell proliferation were assayed as described for TCLs.

Supporting Information

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

The Supporting Information is available free of charge on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/jacs.5b08325.

  • Lists of mutations on the Kuma010 background and their effects on activity; experimentally determined kinetic parameters for selected enzymes; data supporting conclusions in the main text derived from gluten and gliadin peptide degradation assays; T cell proliferation and toxicity data (PDF)

Terms & Conditions

Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Author Information

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

  • Corresponding Author
    • Ingrid S. Pultz - Department of Biochemistry, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, United States Email: [email protected]
  • Authors
    • Clancey Wolf - Department of Biochemistry, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, United States
    • Justin B. Siegel - Departments of Chemistry, Biochemistry, and Molecular Medicine, University of California—Davis, Davis, California 95616, United States
    • Christine Tinberg - Department of Biochemistry, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, United States
    • Alessandra Camarca - Institute of Food Science-CNR, Avellino, Italy
    • Carmen Gianfrani - Institute of Protein Biochemistry-CNR, Naples, Italy
    • Shirley Paski - Department of Gastroenterology, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, Washington 98195, United States
    • Rongjin Guan - Department of Molecular Biology & Biochemistry, Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey 08901, United States
    • Gaetano Montelione - Department of Molecular Biology & Biochemistry, Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey 08901, United States
    • David Baker - Department of Biochemistry, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, United States
  • Notes
    The authors declare the following competing financial interest(s): I.S.P., J.S., and D.B. are founders in a company, PvP Biologics, that intends to license the technology described herein. C.W., I.S.P., J.S., D.B., and C.T. are inventors on a patent that describes the technology presented herein.

Acknowledgment

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

We thank Jayaraman Seetharaman for data collection during X-ray crystallography. This work was supported by the Life Sciences Discovery Fund of Washington State, the Washington State Research Foundation, the University of Washington, and private philanthropy.

References

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

This article references 42 other publications.

  1. 1
    Rubio-Tapia, A.; Ludvigsson, J. F.; Brantner, T. L.; Murray, J. A.; Everhart, J. E. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2012, 107, 1538 DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2012.219
  2. 2
    Catassi, C.; Gatti, S.; Lionetti, E. Dig. Dis. 2015, 33, 141 DOI: 10.1159/000369518
  3. 3
    Sollid, L. M. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2002, 2, 647 DOI: 10.1038/nri885
  4. 4
    Corrao, G.; Corazza, G. R.; Bagnardi, V.; Brusco, G.; Ciacci, C.; Cottone, M.; Guidetti, C. S.; Usai, P.; Cesari, P.; Pelli, M. A.; Loperfido, S.; Volta, U.; Calabro, A.; Certo, M. Lancet 2001, 358, 356 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05554-4
  5. 5
    Shah, S.; Akbari, M.; Vanga, R.; Kelly, C. P.; Hansen, J.; Theethira, T.; Tariq, S.; Dennis, M.; Leffler, D. A. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2014, 109, 1304 DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2014.29
  6. 6
    Aziz, I.; Evans, K. E.; Papageorgiou, V.; Sanders, D. S. J. Gastrointestinal Liver Dis. 2011, 20, 27
  7. 7
    Hall, N. J.; Rubin, G.; Charnock, A. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2009, 30, 315 DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2009.04053.x
  8. 8
    Lee, H. J.; Anderson, Z.; Ryu, D. J. Food Prot. 2014, 77, 1830 DOI: 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-14-149
  9. 9
    Tennyson, C. A.; Simpson, S.; Lebwohl, B.; Lewis, S.; Green, P. H. Ther. Adv. Gastroenterol. 2013, 6, 358 DOI: 10.1177/1756283X13492580
  10. 10
    Kaukinen, K.; Lindfors, K. Dig. Dis. 2015, 33, 277 DOI: 10.1159/000369536
  11. 11
    Catassi, C.; Fabiani, E.; Iacono, G.; D’Agate, C.; Francavilla, R.; Biagi, F.; Volta, U.; Accomando, S.; Picarelli, A.; De Vitis, I.; Pianelli, G.; Gesuita, R.; Carle, F.; Mandolesi, A.; Bearzi, I.; Fasano, A. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2007, 85, 160
  12. 12
    Akobeng, A. K.; Thomas, A. G. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2008, 27, 1044 DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2008.03669.x
  13. 13
    Castillo, N. E.; Theethira, T. G.; Leffler, D. A. Gastroenterol. Rep. (Oxford) 2015, 3, 3 DOI: 10.1093/gastro/gou065
  14. 14
    Siegel, M.; Bethune, M. T.; Gass, J.; Ehren, J.; Xia, J.; Johannsen, A.; Stuge, T. B.; Gray, G. M.; Lee, P. P.; Khosla, C. Chem. Biol. 2006, 13, 649 DOI: 10.1016/j.chembiol.2006.04.009
  15. 15
    Mitea, C.; Havenaar, R.; Drijfhout, J. W.; Edens, L.; Dekking, L.; Koning, F. Gut 2008, 57, 25 DOI: 10.1136/gut.2006.111609
  16. 16
    Gordon, S. R.; Stanley, E. J.; Wolf, S.; Toland, A.; Wu, S. J.; Hadidi, D.; Mills, J. H.; Baker, D.; Pultz, I. S.; Siegel, J. B. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2012, 134, 20513 DOI: 10.1021/ja3094795
  17. 17
    Richter, F.; Leaver-Fay, A.; Khare, S. D.; Bjelic, S.; Baker, D. PLoS One 2011, 6, e19230 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0019230
  18. 18
    Mak, W. S.; Siegel, J. B. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2014, 27, 87 DOI: 10.1016/j.sbi.2014.05.010
  19. 19
    Shan, L.; Molberg, O.; Parrot, I.; Hausch, F.; Filiz, F.; Gray, G. M.; Sollid, L. M.; Khosla, C. Science 2002, 297, 2275 DOI: 10.1126/science.1074129
  20. 20
    Shan, L. J. Proteome Res. 2005, 4, 1732 DOI: 10.1021/pr050173t
  21. 21
    Sollid, L. M.; Qiao, S. W.; Anderson, R. P.; Gianfrani, C.; Koning, F. Immunogenetics 2012, 64, 455 DOI: 10.1007/s00251-012-0599-z
  22. 22
    Tye-Din, J. A.; Stewart, J. A.; Dromey, J. A.; Beissbarth, T.; van Heel, D. A.; Tatham, A.; Henderson, K.; Mannering, S. I.; Gianfrani, C.; Jewell, D. P.; Hill, A. V.; McCluskey, J.; Rossjohn, J.; Anderson, R. P. Sci. Transl. Med. 2010, 2, 41ra51 DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3001012
  23. 23
    Arentz-Hansen, H.; Korner, R.; Molberg, O.; Quarsten, H.; Vader, W.; Kooy, Y. M.; Lundin, K. E.; Koning, F.; Roepstorff, P.; Sollid, L. M.; McAdam, S. N. J. Exp. Med. 2000, 191, 603 DOI: 10.1084/jem.191.4.603
  24. 24
    Chang, J. H.; Choi, M. G.; Yim, D. S.; Cho, Y. K.; Park, J. M.; Lee, I. S.; Kim, S. W.; Chung, I. S. Dig. Dis. Sci. 2009, 54, 578 DOI: 10.1007/s10620-008-0399-3
  25. 25
    Lupo, A.; Roebuck, C.; Walsh, A.; Mozola, M.; Abouzied, M. J. AOAC Int. 2013, 96, 121 DOI: 10.5740/jaoacint.12-271
  26. 26
    Moron, B.; Cebolla, A.; Manyani, H.; Alvarez-Maqueda, M.; Megias, M.; Thomas Mdel, C.; Lopez, M. C.; Sousa, C. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2008, 87, 405
  27. 27
    Bethune, M. T.; Strop, P.; Tang, Y.; Sollid, L. M.; Khosla, C. Chem. Biol. 2006, 13, 637 DOI: 10.1016/j.chembiol.2006.04.008
  28. 28
    Ehren, J.; Govindarajan, S.; Moron, B.; Minshull, J.; Khosla, C. Protein Eng., Des. Sel. 2008, 21, 699 DOI: 10.1093/protein/gzn050
  29. 29
    Gass, J.; Bethune, M. T.; Siegel, M.; Spencer, A.; Khosla, C. Gastroenterology 2007, 133, 472 DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2007.05.028
  30. 30
    Petersen, J.; Montserrat, V.; Mujico, J. R.; Loh, K. L.; Beringer, D. X.; van Lummel, M.; Thompson, A.; Mearin, M. L.; Schweizer, J.; Kooy-Winkelaar, Y.; van Bergen, J.; Drijfhout, J. W.; Kan, W. T.; La Gruta, N. L.; Anderson, R. P.; Reid, H. H.; Koning, F.; Rossjohn, J. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2014, 21, 480 DOI: 10.1038/nsmb.2817
  31. 31
    Bethune, M. T.; Khosla, C. Methods Enzymol. 2012, 502, 241 DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-416039-2.00013-6
  32. 32
    Camarca, A.; Anderson, R. P.; Mamone, G.; Fierro, O.; Facchiano, A.; Costantini, S.; Zanzi, D.; Sidney, J.; Auricchio, S.; Sette, A.; Troncone, R.; Gianfrani, C. J. Immunol. 2009, 182, 4158 DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.0803181
  33. 33
    Pera, P.; Bucca, C.; Borro, P.; Bernocco, C.; De Lillo, A.; Carossa, S. J. Dent. Res. 2002, 81, 179 DOI: 10.1177/154405910208100307
  34. 34
    Siegel, M.; Garber, M. E.; Spencer, A. G.; Botwick, W.; Kumar, P.; Williams, R. N.; Kozuka, K.; Shreeniwas, R.; Pratha, V.; Adelman, D. C. Dig. Dis. Sci. 2012, 57, 440 DOI: 10.1007/s10620-011-1906-5
  35. 35
    Picariello, G.; Mamone, G.; Cutignano, A.; Fontana, A.; Zurlo, L.; Addeo, F.; Ferranti, P. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2015, 63, 3579 DOI: 10.1021/acs.jafc.5b00631
  36. 36
    McCoy, A. J.; Grosse-Kunstleve, R. W.; Adams, P. D.; Winn, M. D.; Storoni, L. C.; Read, R. J. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 2007, 40, 658 DOI: 10.1107/S0021889807021206
  37. 37
    Zwart, P. H.; Afonine, P. V.; Grosse-Kunstleve, R. W.; Hung, L. W.; Ioerger, T. R.; McCoy, A. J.; McKee, E.; Moriarty, N. W.; Read, R. J.; Sacchettini, J. C.; Sauter, N. K.; Storoni, L. C.; Terwilliger, T. C.; Adams, P. D. Methods Mol. Biol. (N. Y., NY, U. S.) 2008, 426, 419 DOI: 10.1007/978-1-60327-058-8_28
  38. 38
    Emsley, P.; Lohkamp, B.; Scott, W. G.; Cowtan, K. Acta Crystallogr., Sect. D: Biol. Crystallogr. 2010, 66, 486 DOI: 10.1107/S0907444910007493
  39. 39
    Nivon, L. G.; Moretti, R.; Baker, D. PLoS One 2013, 8, e59004 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0059004
  40. 40
    Cooper, S.; Khatib, F.; Treuille, A.; Barbero, J.; Lee, J.; Beenen, M.; Leaver-Fay, A.; Baker, D.; Popovic, Z.; Players, F. Nature 2010, 466, 756 DOI: 10.1038/nature09304
  41. 41
    Firnberg, E.; Ostermeier, M. PLoS One 2012, 7, e52031 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0052031
  42. 42
    Vora, H.; McIntire, J.; Kumar, P.; Deshpande, M.; Khosla, C. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2007, 98, 177 DOI: 10.1002/bit.21423

Cited By

This article is cited by 80 publications.

  1. Alexander Zlobin, Andrey Golovin. Between Protein Fold and Nucleophile Identity: Multiscale Modeling of the TEV Protease Enzyme–Substrate Complex. ACS Omega 2022, 7 (44) , 40279-40292. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.2c05201
  2. Wai Shun Mak, XiaoKang Wang, Rigoberto Arenas, Youtian Cui, Steve Bertolani, Wen Qiao Deng, Ilias Tagkopoulos, David K. Wilson, Justin B. Siegel. Discovery, Design, and Structural Characterization of Alkane-Producing Enzymes across the Ferritin-like Superfamily. Biochemistry 2020, 59 (40) , 3834-3843. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.biochem.0c00665
  3. Rebecca F. Alford, Andrew Leaver-Fay, Jeliazko R. Jeliazkov, Matthew J. O’Meara, Frank P. DiMaio, Hahnbeom Park, Maxim V. Shapovalov, P. Douglas Renfrew, Vikram K. Mulligan, Kalli Kappel, Jason W. Labonte, Michael S. Pacella, Richard Bonneau, Philip Bradley, Roland L. Dunbrack, Jr., Rhiju Das, David Baker, Brian Kuhlman, Tanja Kortemme, and Jeffrey J. Gray . The Rosetta All-Atom Energy Function for Macromolecular Modeling and Design. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 2017, 13 (6) , 3031-3048. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.7b00125
  4. Jianzhuang Yao, Haixia Luo, and Xia Wang . Understanding the Catalytic Mechanism and the Substrate Specificity of an Engineered Gluten Hydrolase by QM/MM Molecular Dynamics and Free Energy Simulations. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 2017, 57 (5) , 1179-1186. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.7b00167
  5. Bin Xiao, Chun Zhang, Junxiu Zhou, Sa Wang, Huan Meng, Miao Wu, Yongxiang Zheng, Rong Yu. Design of SC PEP with enhanced stability against pepsin digestion and increased activity by machine learning and structural parameters modeling. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 2023, 250 , 125933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.125933
  6. Anton O. Chugunov, Elena A. Dvoryakova, Maria A. Dyuzheva, Tatyana R. Simonyan, Valeria F. Tereshchenkova, Irina Yu. Filippova, Roman G. Efremov, Elena N. Elpidina. Fighting Celiac Disease: Improvement of pH Stability of Cathepsin L In Vitro by Computational Design. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2023, 24 (15) , 12369. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms241512369
  7. Freideriki Michailidou. Engineering of Therapeutic and Detoxifying Enzymes. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 2023, 13 https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.202308814
  8. Freideriki Michailidou. Engineering of Therapeutic and Detoxifying Enzymes. Angewandte Chemie 2023, 24 https://doi.org/10.1002/ange.202308814
  9. Amin Abbasi, Sara Bazzaz, Salam A. Ibrahim, Azita Hekmatdoost, Hedayat Hosseini, Sahar Sabahi, Elham Sheykhsaran, Yalda Rahbar Saadat, Mahdi Asghari Ozma, Masoud Lahouty. A Critical Review on the Gluten-Induced Enteropathy/Celiac Disease: Gluten-Targeted Dietary and Non-Dietary Therapeutic Approaches. Food Reviews International 2023, 58 , 1-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/87559129.2023.2202405
  10. Julia Belyaeva, Alexander Zlobin, Valentina Maslova, Andrey Golovin. Modern non-polarizable force fields diverge in modeling the enzyme–substrate complex of a canonical serine protease. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 2023, 25 (8) , 6352-6361. https://doi.org/10.1039/D2CP05502C
  11. Laya Heydari, Rouha Kasra Kermanshahi, Sara Gharavi, Zahra Moosavi-Nejad. Characterization of the recombinant PepX peptidase from Lactobacillus fermentum and its effect on gliadin protein hydrolysis in vitro. Biologia 2023, 78 (2) , 565-577. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11756-022-01273-7
  12. Igor G. Bakulin, Elena B. Avalueva, Elena A. Semenova, Ludmila S. Оrеshkо, Margarita Y. Serkova, Stanislav I. Sitkin. Prospects for the treatment of gluten-associated diseases: on our daily bread, celiac disease, gluten proteins and more…. Almanac of Clinical Medicine 2023, 50 (6) , 367-376. https://doi.org/10.18786/2072-0505-2022-50-053
  13. Yaoyukun Jiang, Xinchun Ran, Zhongyue J Yang. Data-driven enzyme engineering to identify function-enhancing enzymes. Protein Engineering, Design and Selection 2023, 36 https://doi.org/10.1093/protein/gzac009
  14. Gianfranco Mamone, Luigia Di Stasio, Serena Vitale, Stefania Picascia, Carmen Gianfrani. Analytical and functional approaches to assess the immunogenicity of gluten proteins. Frontiers in Nutrition 2023, 9 https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2022.1049623
  15. Dhir Gala, Shelbie Scharf, Megan Kudlak, Christian Green, Faisal Khowaja, Mili Shah, Vikash Kumar, Gautam Ullal. A Comprehensive Review of the Neurological Manifestations of Celiac Disease and Its Treatment. Diseases 2022, 10 (4) , 111. https://doi.org/10.3390/diseases10040111
  16. Yu-You Liu, I-Chen Lin, Pei-Cih Chen, Cheng-Cheng Lee, Menghsiao Meng. Crystal structure of a Burkholderia peptidase and modification of the substrate-binding site for enhanced hydrolytic activity toward gluten-derived pro-immunogenic peptides. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 2022, 222 , 2258-2269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2022.10.016
  17. Tessa Dieckman, Frits Koning, Gerd Bouma. Celiac disease: New therapies on the horizon. Current Opinion in Pharmacology 2022, 66 , 102268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coph.2022.102268
  18. Sandip K. Wagh, Karen M. Lammers, Manohar V. Padul, Alfonso Rodriguez-Herrera, Veronica I. Dodero. Celiac Disease and Possible Dietary Interventions: From Enzymes and Probiotics to Postbiotics and Viruses. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2022, 23 (19) , 11748. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms231911748
  19. Sanskriti Varma, Suneeta Krishnareddy. Novel Drug Therapeutics in Celiac Disease: A Pipeline Review. Drugs 2022, 82 (15) , 1515-1526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40265-022-01784-2
  20. Gianfranco Mamone, Maria Cristina Comelli, Serena Vitale, Luigia Di Stasio, Katharina Kessler, Ilaria Mottola, Francesco Siano, Linda Cavaletti, Carmen Gianfrani. E40 glutenase detoxification capabilities of residual gluten immunogenic peptides in in vitro gastrointestinal digesta of food matrices made of soft and durum wheat. Frontiers in Nutrition 2022, 9 https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2022.974771
  21. Elena A. Dvoryakova, Maria A. Klimova, Tatiana R. Simonyan, Ivan A. Dombrovsky, Marina V. Serebryakova, Valeriia F. Tereshchenkova, Yakov E. Dunaevsky, Mikhail A. Belozersky, Irina Y. Filippova, Elena N. Elpidina. Recombinant Cathepsin L of Tribolium castaneum and Its Potential in the Hydrolysis of Immunogenic Gliadin Peptides. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2022, 23 (13) , 7001. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms23137001
  22. Michael Klonarakis, Christopher N. Andrews, Maitreyi Raman, Remo Panaccione, Christopher Ma. Review article: therapeutic targets for the pharmacologic management of coeliac disease—the future beyond a gluten‐free diet. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics 2022, 55 (10) , 1277-1296. https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.16846
  23. Xiaoxue Zhu, Xin-Huai Zhao, Qiang Zhang, Na Zhang, Olugbenga P. Soladoye, Rotimi E. Aluko, Yuhao Zhang, Yu Fu. How does a celiac iceberg really float? The relationship between celiac disease and gluten. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 2022, 65 , 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2022.2064811
  24. Nour Amin Elsahoryi. Celiac Disease. 2022https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.97834
  25. Shakira Yoosuf, Govind K. Makharia. Treatment of gluten-related disorders. 2022, 149-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-821846-4.00006-1
  26. Shakira Yoosuf, Amelie Therrien, Daniel A. Leffler. Non-dietary therapies for celiac disease. 2022, 111-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-821571-5.00011-8
  27. Carmen Gianfrani, Serena Vitale, Riccardo Troncone. New Therapeutic Strategies in Celiac Disease. 2022, 171-191. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82401-3_13
  28. Anton Chaykin, Elena Odintsova`, Andrey Nedorubov. Celiac Disease: Disease Models in Understanding Pathogenesis and Search for Therapy. Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences 2022, 10 (F) , 705-719. https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2022.11024
  29. Jennifer N. Hennigan, Michael D. Lynch. The past, present, and future of enzyme-based therapies. Drug Discovery Today 2022, 27 (1) , 117-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis.2021.09.004
  30. Mohammad ElGamacy. Accelerating therapeutic protein design. 2022, 85-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.apcsb.2022.01.004
  31. Yakov E. Dunaevsky, Valeriia F. Tereshchenkova, Mikhail A. Belozersky, Irina Y. Filippova, Brenda Oppert, Elena N. Elpidina. Effective Degradation of Gluten and Its Fragments by Gluten-Specific Peptidases: A Review on Application for the Treatment of Patients with Gluten Sensitivity. Pharmaceutics 2021, 13 (10) , 1603. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics13101603
  32. Nikki Dellas, Joyce Liu, Rachel C. Botham, Gjalt W. Huisman. Adapting protein sequences for optimized therapeutic efficacy. Current Opinion in Chemical Biology 2021, 64 , 38-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpa.2021.03.005
  33. Arathi Kulkarni, Shuchi Patel, Deepesh Khanna, Mayur S. Parmar. Current pharmacological approaches and potential future therapies for Celiac disease. European Journal of Pharmacology 2021, 909 , 174434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejphar.2021.174434
  34. Xiabin Chen, Xingyu Deng, Yun Zhang, Yanan Wu, Kang Yang, Qiang Li, Jiye Wang, Weixuan Yao, Junsen Tong, Tian Xie, Shurong Hou, Jianzhuang Yao. Computational Design and Crystal Structure of a Highly Efficient Benzoylecgonine Hydrolase. Angewandte Chemie 2021, 133 (40) , 22130-22136. https://doi.org/10.1002/ange.202108559
  35. Xiabin Chen, Xingyu Deng, Yun Zhang, Yanan Wu, Kang Yang, Qiang Li, Jiye Wang, Weixuan Yao, Junsen Tong, Tian Xie, Shurong Hou, Jianzhuang Yao. Computational Design and Crystal Structure of a Highly Efficient Benzoylecgonine Hydrolase. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 2021, 60 (40) , 21959-21965. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.202108559
  36. Miguel Ribeiro, Telma de Sousa, Carolina Sabença, Patrícia Poeta, Ana Sofia Bagulho, Gilberto Igrejas. Advances in quantification and analysis of the celiac‐related immunogenic potential of gluten. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 2021, 20 (5) , 4278-4298. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12828
  37. Ingrid Swanson Pultz, Malcolm Hill, Joanne M. Vitanza, Clancey Wolf, Lasse Saaby, Tina Liu, Peter Winkle, Daniel A. Leffler. Gluten Degradation, Pharmacokinetics, Safety, and Tolerability of TAK-062, an Engineered Enzyme to Treat Celiac Disease. Gastroenterology 2021, 161 (1) , 81-93.e3. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2021.03.019
  38. Iuliana Vintilă. Formulation for Food Intolerance. 2021, 211-236. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119614760.ch11
  39. Alma Kurki, Esko Kemppainen, Pilvi Laurikka, Katri Kaukinen, Katri Lindfors. The use of peripheral blood mononuclear cells in celiac disease diagnosis and treatment. Expert Review of Gastroenterology & Hepatology 2021, 15 (3) , 305-316. https://doi.org/10.1080/17474124.2021.1850262
  40. Brandon Sparks, Ivor Hill, Tracy Ediger. Going Beyond Gluten-Free: a Review of Potential Future Therapies for Celiac Disease. Current Treatment Options in Pediatrics 2021, 7 (1) , 17-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40746-020-00217-0
  41. Laura Kivelä, Alberto Caminero, Daniel A. Leffler, Maria Ines Pinto-Sanchez, Jason A. Tye-Din, Katri Lindfors. Current and emerging therapies for coeliac disease. Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology 2021, 18 (3) , 181-195. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41575-020-00378-1
  42. Yu-You Liu, Cheng-Cheng Lee, Jun-Hao Hsu, Wei-Ming Leu, Menghsiao Meng. Efficient Hydrolysis of Gluten-Derived Celiac Disease-Triggering Immunogenic Peptides by a Bacterial Serine Protease from Burkholderia gladioli. Biomolecules 2021, 11 (3) , 451. https://doi.org/10.3390/biom11030451
  43. Vijole Bradauskiene, Lina Vaiciulyte-Funk, Bakht Shah, Darius Cernauskas, Mihaela Tita. Recent Advances in Biotechnological Methods for Wheat Gluten Immunotoxicity Abolishment – a Review. Polish Journal of Food and Nutrition Sciences 2021, 199 , 5-20. https://doi.org/10.31883/pjfns/132853
  44. Maureen M. Leonard, Jocelyn A. Silvester, Daniel Leffler, Alessio Fasano, Ciarán P. Kelly, Suzanne K. Lewis, Jeffrey D. Goldsmith, Elliot Greenblatt, William W. Kwok, William J. McAuliffe, Kevin Galinsky, Jenifer Siegelman, I-Ting Chow, John A. Wagner, Anna Sapone, Glennda Smithson. Evaluating Responses to Gluten Challenge: A Randomized, Double-Blind, 2-Dose Gluten Challenge Trial. Gastroenterology 2021, 160 (3) , 720-733.e8. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2020.10.040
  45. A. Caminero, E.F. Verdu. Therapeutic targets based on the modulation of immune function by gut bacteria. 2021, 221-237. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-821594-4.00004-9
  46. María de Lourdes Moreno, Verónica Segura, Ángela Ruiz-Carnicer, Ana María Nájar, Isabel Comino, Carolina Sousa. Oral enzyme strategy in celiac disease. 2021, 201-220. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-821594-4.00005-0
  47. A.M. Calderón de la Barca, N.G. Heredia-Sandoval, M.E. Mejía-León. Detoxification of wheat proteins by enzymatic technology. 2021, 155-176. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-821594-4.00012-8
  48. Katherine L Olshan, Maureen M Leonard, Gloria Serena, Ali R Zomorrodi, Alessio Fasano. Gut microbiota in Celiac Disease: microbes, metabolites, pathways and therapeutics. Expert Review of Clinical Immunology 2020, 16 (11) , 1075-1092. https://doi.org/10.1080/1744666X.2021.1840354
  49. Viia Kõiv, Kaarel Adamberg, Signe Adamberg, Ingrid Sumeri, Sergo Kasvandik, Veljo Kisand, Ülo Maiväli, Tanel Tenson. Microbiome of root vegetables—a source of gluten-degrading bacteria. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 2020, 104 (20) , 8871-8885. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-020-10852-0
  50. Gloria Serena, Paolo D'Avino, Alessio Fasano. Celiac Disease and Non-celiac Wheat Sensitivity: State of Art of Non-dietary Therapies. Frontiers in Nutrition 2020, 7 https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2020.00152
  51. Guoxian Wei, Eva J. Helmerhorst, Ghassan Darwish, Gabriel Blumenkranz, Detlef Schuppan. Gluten Degrading Enzymes for Treatment of Celiac Disease. Nutrients 2020, 12 (7) , 2095. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12072095
  52. Misha Ali, Hassan Mubarak Ishqi, Qayyum Husain. Enzyme engineering: Reshaping the biocatalytic functions. Biotechnology and Bioengineering 2020, 117 (6) , 1877-1894. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.27329
  53. Katharina A. Scherf, Carlo Catassi, Fernando Chirdo, Paul J. Ciclitira, Conleth Feighery, Carmen Gianfrani, Frits Koning, Knut E. A. Lundin, Detlef Schuppan, Marinus J. M. Smulders, Olivier Tranquet, Riccardo Troncone, Peter Koehler. Recent Progress and Recommendations on Celiac Disease From the Working Group on Prolamin Analysis and Toxicity. Frontiers in Nutrition 2020, 7 https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2020.00029
  54. Claudia E. Osorio, Nuan Wen, Jaime H. Mejías, Shannon Mitchell, Diter von Wettstein, Sachin Rustgi. Directed-Mutagenesis of Flavobacterium meningosepticum Prolyl-Oligopeptidase and a Glutamine-Specific Endopeptidase From Barley. Frontiers in Nutrition 2020, 7 https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2020.00011
  55. Natasha Sharma, Simran Bhatia, Venkatesh Chunduri, Satveer Kaur, Saloni Sharma, Payal Kapoor, Anita Kumari, Monika Garg. Pathogenesis of Celiac Disease and Other Gluten Related Disorders in Wheat and Strategies for Mitigating Them. Frontiers in Nutrition 2020, 7 https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2020.00006
  56. Giacomo Caio, Rachele Ciccocioppo, Giorgio Zoli, Roberto De Giorgio, Umberto Volta. Therapeutic options for coeliac disease: What else beyond gluten-free diet?. Digestive and Liver Disease 2020, 52 (2) , 130-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dld.2019.11.010
  57. Sachin Rustgi, Peter Shewry, Fred Brouns. Health Hazards Associated with Wheat and Gluten Consumption in Susceptible Individuals and Status of Research on Dietary Therapies. 2020, 471-515. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34163-3_20
  58. Sofia Varino. Active Coeliac: Disassembling Gluten and Coeliac Disease. Somatechnics 2019, 9 (2-3) , 188-205. https://doi.org/10.3366/soma.2019.0279
  59. Linda Cavaletti, Anna Taravella, Lucia Carrano, Giacomo Carenzi, Alessandro Sigurtà, Nicola Solinas, Salvatore De Caro, Luigia Di Stasio, Stefania Picascia, Mariavittoria Laezza, Riccardo Troncone, Carmen Gianfrani, Gianfranco Mamone. E40, a novel microbial protease efficiently detoxifying gluten proteins, for the dietary management of gluten intolerance. Scientific Reports 2019, 9 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-48299-7
  60. Jack A. Syage, Peter H.R. Green, Chaitan Khosla, Daniel C. Adelman, Jennifer A. Sealey‐Voyksner, Joseph A. Murray. Latiglutenase treatment for celiac disease: symptom and quality of life improvement for seropositive patients on a gluten‐free diet. GastroHep 2019, 1 (6) , 293-301. https://doi.org/10.1002/ygh2.371
  61. Luis Vaquero, David Bernardo, Francisco León, Laura Rodríguez-Martín, Begoña Alvarez-Cuenllas, Santiago Vivas. Challenges to drug discovery for celiac disease and approaches to overcome them. Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery 2019, 14 (10) , 957-968. https://doi.org/10.1080/17460441.2019.1642321
  62. Houquan Liu, Xian Fan, Haoyue Song, Xiaoyun Hu, Guimin Zhang, Chan Yu, Li Yi. Efficient production of gluten hydrolase Kuma030 in E. coli by hot acid treatment without chromatography. Enzyme and Microbial Technology 2019, 129 , 109356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enzmictec.2019.05.013
  63. Shakira Yoosuf, Govind K. Makharia. Evolving Therapy for Celiac Disease. Frontiers in Pediatrics 2019, 7 https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2019.00193
  64. Gloria Serena, Ciaran P. Kelly, Alessio Fasano. Nondietary Therapies for Celiac Disease. Gastroenterology Clinics of North America 2019, 48 (1) , 145-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gtc.2018.09.011
  65. Antonio Jesús Banegas-Luna, Baldomero Imbernón, Antonio Llanes Castro, Alfonso Pérez-Garrido, José Pedro Cerón-Carrasco, Sandra Gesing, Ivan Merelli, Daniele D’Agostino, Horacio Pérez-Sánchez. Advances in distributed computing with modern drug discovery. Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery 2019, 14 (1) , 9-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/17460441.2019.1552936
  66. A. S. Asrarkulova, N. V. Bulushova. Wheat Gluten and Its Hydrolysates. Possible Fields of Practical Use. Applied Biochemistry and Microbiology 2018, 54 (9) , 825-833. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0003683818090107
  67. Xia Wang, Ruirui Li, Wenchao Cui, Qiang Li, Jianzhuang Yao. QM/MM free energy Simulations of an efficient Gluten Hydrolase (Kuma030) Implicate for a Reactant-State Based Protein-Design Strategy for General Acid/Base Catalysis. Scientific Reports 2018, 8 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-25471-z
  68. Katharina Anne Scherf, Herbert Wieser, Peter Koehler. Novel approaches for enzymatic gluten degradation to create high-quality gluten-free products. Food Research International 2018, 110 , 62-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2016.11.021
  69. Marco Gobbetti, Erica Pontonio, Pasquale Filannino, Carlo Giuseppe Rizzello, Maria De Angelis, Raffaella Di Cagno. How to improve the gluten-free diet: The state of the art from a food science perspective. Food Research International 2018, 110 , 22-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2017.04.010
  70. Dani Setiawan, Jeffrey Brender, Yang Zhang. Recent advances in automated protein design and its future challenges. Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery 2018, 13 (7) , 587-604. https://doi.org/10.1080/17460441.2018.1465922
  71. Julia König, Robert J. Brummer. Is an enzyme supplement for celiac disease finally on the cards?. Expert Review of Gastroenterology & Hepatology 2018, 12 (6) , 531-533. https://doi.org/10.1080/17474124.2018.1473762
  72. Miguel Ribeiro, Fernando M. Nunes, Marta Rodriguez-Quijano, Jose Maria Carrillo, Gérard Branlard, Gilberto Igrejas. Next-generation therapies for celiac disease: The gluten-targeted approaches. Trends in Food Science & Technology 2018, 75 , 56-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2018.02.021
  73. Stefania Picascia, Alessandra Camarca, Carmen Gianfrani. Celiac Disease: Molecular Basis. 2018, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470015902.a0027650
  74. Michael Garton, Maryam Sayadi, Philip M. Kim, . A computational approach for designing D-proteins with non-canonical amino acid optimised binding affinity. PLOS ONE 2017, 12 (11) , e0187524. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187524
  75. Jack A. Syage, Joseph A. Murray, Peter H. R. Green, Chaitan Khosla. Latiglutenase Improves Symptoms in Seropositive Celiac Disease Patients While on a Gluten-Free Diet. Digestive Diseases and Sciences 2017, 62 (9) , 2428-2432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-017-4687-7
  76. Suneeta Krishnareddy, Kenneth Stier, Maya Recanati, Benjamin Lebwohl, Peter HR Green. Commercially available glutenases: a potential hazard in coeliac disease. Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology 2017, 10 (6) , 473-481. https://doi.org/10.1177/1756283X17690991
  77. Dylan Alexander Carlin, Siena Hapig-Ward, Bill Wayne Chan, Natalie Damrau, Mary Riley, Ryan W. Caster, Bowen Bethards, Justin B. Siegel, . Thermal stability and kinetic constants for 129 variants of a family 1 glycoside hydrolase reveal that enzyme activity and stability can be separately designed. PLOS ONE 2017, 12 (5) , e0176255. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0176255
  78. Carmen Gianfrani, Gianfranco Mamone, Barbara la Gatta, Alessandra Camarca, Luigia Di Stasio, Francesco Maurano, Stefania Picascia, Vito Capozzi, Giuseppe Perna, Gianluca Picariello, Aldo Di Luccia. Microwave-based treatments of wheat kernels do not abolish gluten epitopes implicated in celiac disease. Food and Chemical Toxicology 2017, 101 , 105-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2017.01.010
  79. Stefan Lutz, Elsie Williams, Pravin Muthu. Engineering Therapeutic Enzymes. 2017, 17-67. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50413-1_2
  80. Krishna Mohan Poluri, Khushboo Gulati. Generating the Fancy Protein Basket with De Novo and Combinatorial Approaches. 2017, 85-102. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2732-1_4
  • Abstract

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. Amino acid substitutions in the Kuma030 endopeptidase. Model of a representative PQQP tetrapeptide in the active site of Kuma030. Enzyme backbone is shown in gray, gliadin tetrapeptide is shown in yellow. Green residues were mutated to generate Kuma030. Blue residues are thought to be important in coordinating the tetrapeptide into the active site. Image was created using PyMol.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. Kuma030 is capable of rapidly and effectively degrading the immunogenic regions of gluten in gastric conditions. (A) concentrations of either EPB2 and SCPEP (at a 1:1 ratio), Kuma010, or Kuma030 in gastric conditions, as measured by ELISA using the G12 antibody. The starting concentration of gluten was 10 mg mL–1 (10 000 ppm). Note that the Y-axis is plotted on a logarithmic scale. (B) The amount of gluten detected at 5 or 30 min after incubation with EPB2 and SCPEP or Kuma030. Shown is the ratio of enzyme:gluten. The starting concentration of gluten was 10 mg mL–1. Samples were normalized to the amount of gluten remaining after incubation with pepsin alone. Asterisk indicates that greater than 99.9% of the gluten was degraded. (C) HPLC trace of full-length peptide (gray dotted lines) or breakdown products (black lines) of the immunodominant peptides from gliadin (W02-E07, W03-E07, 33mer), hordein (B08-E2E7), or secalin (R11-E4E7). The bottom of the figure shows the amino acid sequence of the 33mer peptide, position of known immunogenic epitopes (horizontal lines), location of Kuma030 cleavage site (vertical lines), and elution peaks of the resulting breakdown products (gray arrows). Immunodominant peptides displayed the following breakdown patterns: B08-E2E7: PQQPIPQ∥QPQPYPQ∥Q; R11-E4E5: QPFPQ∥QPEQIIPQ∥QP; W02-E7: LQPFPQPQ∥LPYPQPQ; W03-E7: QPFPQPQ∥QPFPWQP. All peptide masses and elution times were confirmed by LCMS. Note that although the undigested W03-E07 peptide eluted at approximately the same time as a W03-E07 breakdown fragment, these are separate peaks, as determined by LCMS (Supporting Information Figure 4). aAU, arbitrary absorbance units.

    Figure 3

    Figure 3. Gliadin treated with Kuma030 loses it immunostimulatory potential. (A–E) Purified gliadin was treated with Kuma030 at the specified concentration for 60 min at pH 4.0 at 37 °C in the presence of 0.6 mg mL–1 pepsin. After the gastric phase, the pH of the samples was increased, and samples were treated with chymotrypsin and TG2. Samples were then exposed to T cell lines from patients #1 (A), #2 (B), #3 (C), #4 (D), or #5 (E), in the presence of autologous irradiated B cell lines, and IFN-γ was measured by ELISA. Phytohemagglutenin (PHA) and a peptic-tryptic digest of gliadin (PT-gliadin) were included as positive controls. Incubation of T cell lines with antigen-presenting cells in the absence of antigens (medium) acted as a negative control. (F) T cell stimulatory epitopes recognized by the T cells used in this assay and the predicted Kuma030 cleavage sites within these epitopes. (21) Predicted Kuma030 cleavage sites are shown by a vertical line |. Cleavage sites are predicted based on Kuma030 activity on gliadin peptides as presented in Figure 2.

    Figure 4

    Figure 4. Kuma030 efficiently degrades gluten in complex food matrices. Gluten was detected using G12 ELISA. (A) The amount of gluten remaining in whole wheat bread after a 30 min incubation with either Kuma030 or EPB2/SCPEP at the indicated enzyme concentrations. Dotted lines represent either the initial concentration of gluten (10 000 ppm) or 20 ppm gluten. Note both axes are plotted on a logarithmic scale. (B) The amount of gluten remaining in a wheat beer after incubation with the indicated concentrations of either EPB2/SCPEP or Kuma030 at 37 or 4 °C, for 5, 15, or 60 min. Dotted lines represent either the initial concentration of gluten (764 ppm) or 20 ppm.

  • References

    ARTICLE SECTIONS
    Jump To

    This article references 42 other publications.

    1. 1
      Rubio-Tapia, A.; Ludvigsson, J. F.; Brantner, T. L.; Murray, J. A.; Everhart, J. E. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2012, 107, 1538 DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2012.219
    2. 2
      Catassi, C.; Gatti, S.; Lionetti, E. Dig. Dis. 2015, 33, 141 DOI: 10.1159/000369518
    3. 3
      Sollid, L. M. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2002, 2, 647 DOI: 10.1038/nri885
    4. 4
      Corrao, G.; Corazza, G. R.; Bagnardi, V.; Brusco, G.; Ciacci, C.; Cottone, M.; Guidetti, C. S.; Usai, P.; Cesari, P.; Pelli, M. A.; Loperfido, S.; Volta, U.; Calabro, A.; Certo, M. Lancet 2001, 358, 356 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05554-4
    5. 5
      Shah, S.; Akbari, M.; Vanga, R.; Kelly, C. P.; Hansen, J.; Theethira, T.; Tariq, S.; Dennis, M.; Leffler, D. A. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2014, 109, 1304 DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2014.29
    6. 6
      Aziz, I.; Evans, K. E.; Papageorgiou, V.; Sanders, D. S. J. Gastrointestinal Liver Dis. 2011, 20, 27
    7. 7
      Hall, N. J.; Rubin, G.; Charnock, A. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2009, 30, 315 DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2009.04053.x
    8. 8
      Lee, H. J.; Anderson, Z.; Ryu, D. J. Food Prot. 2014, 77, 1830 DOI: 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-14-149
    9. 9
      Tennyson, C. A.; Simpson, S.; Lebwohl, B.; Lewis, S.; Green, P. H. Ther. Adv. Gastroenterol. 2013, 6, 358 DOI: 10.1177/1756283X13492580
    10. 10
      Kaukinen, K.; Lindfors, K. Dig. Dis. 2015, 33, 277 DOI: 10.1159/000369536
    11. 11
      Catassi, C.; Fabiani, E.; Iacono, G.; D’Agate, C.; Francavilla, R.; Biagi, F.; Volta, U.; Accomando, S.; Picarelli, A.; De Vitis, I.; Pianelli, G.; Gesuita, R.; Carle, F.; Mandolesi, A.; Bearzi, I.; Fasano, A. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2007, 85, 160
    12. 12
      Akobeng, A. K.; Thomas, A. G. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2008, 27, 1044 DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2008.03669.x
    13. 13
      Castillo, N. E.; Theethira, T. G.; Leffler, D. A. Gastroenterol. Rep. (Oxford) 2015, 3, 3 DOI: 10.1093/gastro/gou065
    14. 14
      Siegel, M.; Bethune, M. T.; Gass, J.; Ehren, J.; Xia, J.; Johannsen, A.; Stuge, T. B.; Gray, G. M.; Lee, P. P.; Khosla, C. Chem. Biol. 2006, 13, 649 DOI: 10.1016/j.chembiol.2006.04.009
    15. 15
      Mitea, C.; Havenaar, R.; Drijfhout, J. W.; Edens, L.; Dekking, L.; Koning, F. Gut 2008, 57, 25 DOI: 10.1136/gut.2006.111609
    16. 16
      Gordon, S. R.; Stanley, E. J.; Wolf, S.; Toland, A.; Wu, S. J.; Hadidi, D.; Mills, J. H.; Baker, D.; Pultz, I. S.; Siegel, J. B. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2012, 134, 20513 DOI: 10.1021/ja3094795
    17. 17
      Richter, F.; Leaver-Fay, A.; Khare, S. D.; Bjelic, S.; Baker, D. PLoS One 2011, 6, e19230 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0019230
    18. 18
      Mak, W. S.; Siegel, J. B. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2014, 27, 87 DOI: 10.1016/j.sbi.2014.05.010
    19. 19
      Shan, L.; Molberg, O.; Parrot, I.; Hausch, F.; Filiz, F.; Gray, G. M.; Sollid, L. M.; Khosla, C. Science 2002, 297, 2275 DOI: 10.1126/science.1074129
    20. 20
      Shan, L. J. Proteome Res. 2005, 4, 1732 DOI: 10.1021/pr050173t
    21. 21
      Sollid, L. M.; Qiao, S. W.; Anderson, R. P.; Gianfrani, C.; Koning, F. Immunogenetics 2012, 64, 455 DOI: 10.1007/s00251-012-0599-z
    22. 22
      Tye-Din, J. A.; Stewart, J. A.; Dromey, J. A.; Beissbarth, T.; van Heel, D. A.; Tatham, A.; Henderson, K.; Mannering, S. I.; Gianfrani, C.; Jewell, D. P.; Hill, A. V.; McCluskey, J.; Rossjohn, J.; Anderson, R. P. Sci. Transl. Med. 2010, 2, 41ra51 DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3001012
    23. 23
      Arentz-Hansen, H.; Korner, R.; Molberg, O.; Quarsten, H.; Vader, W.; Kooy, Y. M.; Lundin, K. E.; Koning, F.; Roepstorff, P.; Sollid, L. M.; McAdam, S. N. J. Exp. Med. 2000, 191, 603 DOI: 10.1084/jem.191.4.603
    24. 24
      Chang, J. H.; Choi, M. G.; Yim, D. S.; Cho, Y. K.; Park, J. M.; Lee, I. S.; Kim, S. W.; Chung, I. S. Dig. Dis. Sci. 2009, 54, 578 DOI: 10.1007/s10620-008-0399-3
    25. 25
      Lupo, A.; Roebuck, C.; Walsh, A.; Mozola, M.; Abouzied, M. J. AOAC Int. 2013, 96, 121 DOI: 10.5740/jaoacint.12-271
    26. 26
      Moron, B.; Cebolla, A.; Manyani, H.; Alvarez-Maqueda, M.; Megias, M.; Thomas Mdel, C.; Lopez, M. C.; Sousa, C. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2008, 87, 405
    27. 27
      Bethune, M. T.; Strop, P.; Tang, Y.; Sollid, L. M.; Khosla, C. Chem. Biol. 2006, 13, 637 DOI: 10.1016/j.chembiol.2006.04.008
    28. 28
      Ehren, J.; Govindarajan, S.; Moron, B.; Minshull, J.; Khosla, C. Protein Eng., Des. Sel. 2008, 21, 699 DOI: 10.1093/protein/gzn050
    29. 29
      Gass, J.; Bethune, M. T.; Siegel, M.; Spencer, A.; Khosla, C. Gastroenterology 2007, 133, 472 DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2007.05.028
    30. 30
      Petersen, J.; Montserrat, V.; Mujico, J. R.; Loh, K. L.; Beringer, D. X.; van Lummel, M.; Thompson, A.; Mearin, M. L.; Schweizer, J.; Kooy-Winkelaar, Y.; van Bergen, J.; Drijfhout, J. W.; Kan, W. T.; La Gruta, N. L.; Anderson, R. P.; Reid, H. H.; Koning, F.; Rossjohn, J. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2014, 21, 480 DOI: 10.1038/nsmb.2817
    31. 31
      Bethune, M. T.; Khosla, C. Methods Enzymol. 2012, 502, 241 DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-416039-2.00013-6
    32. 32
      Camarca, A.; Anderson, R. P.; Mamone, G.; Fierro, O.; Facchiano, A.; Costantini, S.; Zanzi, D.; Sidney, J.; Auricchio, S.; Sette, A.; Troncone, R.; Gianfrani, C. J. Immunol. 2009, 182, 4158 DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.0803181
    33. 33
      Pera, P.; Bucca, C.; Borro, P.; Bernocco, C.; De Lillo, A.; Carossa, S. J. Dent. Res. 2002, 81, 179 DOI: 10.1177/154405910208100307
    34. 34
      Siegel, M.; Garber, M. E.; Spencer, A. G.; Botwick, W.; Kumar, P.; Williams, R. N.; Kozuka, K.; Shreeniwas, R.; Pratha, V.; Adelman, D. C. Dig. Dis. Sci. 2012, 57, 440 DOI: 10.1007/s10620-011-1906-5
    35. 35
      Picariello, G.; Mamone, G.; Cutignano, A.; Fontana, A.; Zurlo, L.; Addeo, F.; Ferranti, P. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2015, 63, 3579 DOI: 10.1021/acs.jafc.5b00631
    36. 36
      McCoy, A. J.; Grosse-Kunstleve, R. W.; Adams, P. D.; Winn, M. D.; Storoni, L. C.; Read, R. J. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 2007, 40, 658 DOI: 10.1107/S0021889807021206
    37. 37
      Zwart, P. H.; Afonine, P. V.; Grosse-Kunstleve, R. W.; Hung, L. W.; Ioerger, T. R.; McCoy, A. J.; McKee, E.; Moriarty, N. W.; Read, R. J.; Sacchettini, J. C.; Sauter, N. K.; Storoni, L. C.; Terwilliger, T. C.; Adams, P. D. Methods Mol. Biol. (N. Y., NY, U. S.) 2008, 426, 419 DOI: 10.1007/978-1-60327-058-8_28
    38. 38
      Emsley, P.; Lohkamp, B.; Scott, W. G.; Cowtan, K. Acta Crystallogr., Sect. D: Biol. Crystallogr. 2010, 66, 486 DOI: 10.1107/S0907444910007493
    39. 39
      Nivon, L. G.; Moretti, R.; Baker, D. PLoS One 2013, 8, e59004 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0059004
    40. 40
      Cooper, S.; Khatib, F.; Treuille, A.; Barbero, J.; Lee, J.; Beenen, M.; Leaver-Fay, A.; Baker, D.; Popovic, Z.; Players, F. Nature 2010, 466, 756 DOI: 10.1038/nature09304
    41. 41
      Firnberg, E.; Ostermeier, M. PLoS One 2012, 7, e52031 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0052031
    42. 42
      Vora, H.; McIntire, J.; Kumar, P.; Deshpande, M.; Khosla, C. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2007, 98, 177 DOI: 10.1002/bit.21423
  • Supporting Information

    Supporting Information

    ARTICLE SECTIONS
    Jump To

    The Supporting Information is available free of charge on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/jacs.5b08325.

    • Lists of mutations on the Kuma010 background and their effects on activity; experimentally determined kinetic parameters for selected enzymes; data supporting conclusions in the main text derived from gluten and gliadin peptide degradation assays; T cell proliferation and toxicity data (PDF)


    Terms & Conditions

    Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Pair your accounts.

Export articles to Mendeley

Get article recommendations from ACS based on references in your Mendeley library.

Pair your accounts.

Export articles to Mendeley

Get article recommendations from ACS based on references in your Mendeley library.

You’ve supercharged your research process with ACS and Mendeley!

STEP 1:
Click to create an ACS ID

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

MENDELEY PAIRING EXPIRED
Your Mendeley pairing has expired. Please reconnect