24 research outputs found
Regulation of signal duration and the statistical dynamics of kinase activation by scaffold proteins
Scaffolding proteins that direct the assembly of multiple kinases into a
spatially localized signaling complex are often essential for the maintenance
of an appropriate biological response. Although scaffolds are widely believed
to have dramatic effects on the dynamics of signal propagation, the mechanisms
that underlie these consequences are not well understood. Here, Monte Carlo
simulations of a model kinase cascade are used to investigate how the temporal
characteristics of signaling cascades can be influenced by the presence of
scaffold proteins. Specifically, we examine the effects of spatially localizing
kinase components on a scaffold on signaling dynamics. The simulations indicate
that a major effect that scaffolds exert on the dynamics of cell signaling is
to control how the activation of protein kinases is distributed over time.
Scaffolds can influence the timing of kinase activation by allowing for kinases
to become activated over a broad range of times, thus allowing for signaling at
both early and late times. Scaffold concentrations that result in optimal
signal amplitude also result in the broadest distributions of times over which
kinases are activated. These calculations provide insights into one mechanism
that describes how the duration of a signal can potentially be regulated in a
scaffold mediated protein kinase cascade. Our results illustrate another
complexity in the broad array of control properties that emerge from the
physical effects of spatially localizing components of kinase cascades on
scaffold proteins.Comment: 12 pages, 6 figure
NIST Interlaboratory Study on Glycosylation Analysis of Monoclonal Antibodies: Comparison of Results from Diverse Analytical Methods
Glycosylation is a topic of intense current interest in the
development of biopharmaceuticals because it is related
to drug safety and efficacy. This work describes results of
an interlaboratory study on the glycosylation of the Primary
Sample (PS) of NISTmAb, a monoclonal antibody
reference material. Seventy-six laboratories from industry,
university, research, government, and hospital sectors
in Europe, North America, Asia, and Australia submit-
Avenue, Silver Spring, Maryland 20993; 22Glycoscience Research Laboratory, Genos, Borongajska cesta 83h, 10 000 Zagreb, Croatia;
23Faculty of Pharmacy and Biochemistry, University of Zagreb, A. KovacË icÂŽ a 1, 10 000 Zagreb, Croatia; 24Department of Chemistry, Georgia
State University, 100 Piedmont Avenue, Atlanta, Georgia 30303; 25glyXera GmbH, Brenneckestrasse 20 * ZENIT / 39120 Magdeburg, Germany;
26Health Products and Foods Branch, Health Canada, AL 2201E, 251 Sir Frederick Banting Driveway, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0K9 Canada;
27Graduate School of Advanced Sciences of Matter, Hiroshima University, 1-3-1 Kagamiyama Higashi-Hiroshima 739â8530 Japan; 28ImmunoGen,
830 Winter Street, Waltham, Massachusetts 02451; 29Department of Medical Physiology, Jagiellonian University Medical College,
ul. Michalowskiego 12, 31â126 Krakow, Poland; 30Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University, 400 N. Broadway Street Baltimore,
Maryland 21287; 31Mass Spec Core Facility, KBI Biopharma, 1101 Hamlin Road Durham, North Carolina 27704; 32Division of Mass
Spectrometry, Korea Basic Science Institute, 162 YeonGuDanji-Ro, Ochang-eup, Cheongwon-gu, Cheongju Chungbuk, 363â883 Korea
(South); 33Advanced Therapy Products Research Division, Korea National Institute of Food and Drug Safety, 187 Osongsaengmyeong 2-ro
Osong-eup, Heungdeok-gu, Cheongju-si, Chungcheongbuk-do, 363â700, Korea (South); 34Center for Proteomics and Metabolomics, Leiden
University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands; 35Ludger Limited, Culham Science Centre, Abingdon,
Oxfordshire, OX14 3EB, United Kingdom; 36Biomolecular Discovery and Design Research Centre and ARC Centre of Excellence for Nanoscale
BioPhotonics (CNBP), Macquarie University, North Ryde, Australia; 37Proteomics, Central European Institute for Technology, Masaryk
University, Kamenice 5, A26, 625 00 BRNO, Czech Republic; 38Max Planck Institute for Dynamics of Complex Technical Systems, Sandtorstrasse
1, 39106 Magdeburg, Germany; 39Department of Biomolecular Sciences, Max Planck Institute of Colloids and Interfaces, 14424
Potsdam, Germany; 40AstraZeneca, Granta Park, Cambridgeshire, CB21 6GH United Kingdom; 41Merck, 2015 Galloping Hill Rd, Kenilworth,
New Jersey 07033; 42Analytical R&D, MilliporeSigma, 2909 Laclede Ave. St. Louis, Missouri 63103; 43MS Bioworks, LLC, 3950 Varsity Drive
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108; 44MSD, Molenstraat 110, 5342 CC Oss, The Netherlands; 45Exploratory Research Center on Life and Living
Systems (ExCELLS), National Institutes of Natural Sciences, 5â1 Higashiyama, Myodaiji, Okazaki 444â8787 Japan; 46Graduate School of
Pharmaceutical Sciences, Nagoya City University, 3â1 Tanabe-dori, Mizuhoku, Nagoya 467â8603 Japan; 47Medical & Biological Laboratories
Co., Ltd, 2-22-8 Chikusa, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya 464â0858 Japan; 48National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, Blanche Lane, South
Mimms, Potters Bar, Hertfordshire EN6 3QG United Kingdom; 49Division of Biological Chemistry & Biologicals, National Institute of Health
Sciences, 1-18-1 Kamiyoga, Setagaya-ku, Tokyo 158â8501 Japan; 50New England Biolabs, Inc., 240 County Road, Ipswich, Massachusetts
01938; 51New York University, 100 Washington Square East New York City, New York 10003; 52Target Discovery Institute, Nuffield Department
of Medicine, University of Oxford, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford, OX3 7FZ, United Kingdom; 53GlycoScience Group, The National Institute for
Bioprocessing Research and Training, Fosters Avenue, Mount Merrion, Blackrock, Co. Dublin, Ireland; 54Department of Chemistry, North
Carolina State University, 2620 Yarborough Drive Raleigh, North Carolina 27695; 55Pantheon, 201 College Road East Princeton, New Jersey
08540; 56Pfizer Inc., 1 Burtt Road Andover, Massachusetts 01810; 57Proteodynamics, ZI La Varenne 20â22 rue Henri et Gilberte Goudier 63200
RIOM, France; 58ProZyme, Inc., 3832 Bay Center Place Hayward, California 94545; 59Koichi Tanaka Mass Spectrometry Research Laboratory,
Shimadzu Corporation, 1 Nishinokyo Kuwabara-cho Nakagyo-ku, Kyoto, 604 8511 Japan; 60Childrenâs GMP LLC, St. Jude Childrenâs
Research Hospital, 262 Danny Thomas Place Memphis, Tennessee 38105; 61Sumitomo Bakelite Co., Ltd., 1â5 Muromati 1-Chome, Nishiku,
Kobe, 651â2241 Japan; 62Synthon Biopharmaceuticals, Microweg 22 P.O. Box 7071, 6503 GN Nijmegen, The Netherlands; 63Takeda
Pharmaceuticals International Co., 40 Landsdowne Street Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139; 64Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry,
Texas Tech University, 2500 Broadway, Lubbock, Texas 79409; 65Thermo Fisher Scientific, 1214 Oakmead Parkway Sunnyvale, California
94085; 66United States Pharmacopeia India Pvt. Ltd. IKP Knowledge Park, Genome Valley, Shamirpet, Turkapally Village, Medchal District,
Hyderabad 500 101 Telangana, India; 67Alberta Glycomics Centre, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2G2 Canada; 68Department
of Chemistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2G2 Canada; 69Department of Chemistry, University of California, One Shields Ave,
Davis, California 95616; 70HorvaÂŽ th Csaba Memorial Laboratory for Bioseparation Sciences, Research Center for Molecular Medicine, Doctoral
School of Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Egyetem ter 1, Hungary; 71Translational Glycomics
Research Group, Research Institute of Biomolecular and Chemical Engineering, University of Pannonia, Veszprem, Egyetem ut 10, Hungary;
72Delaware Biotechnology Institute, University of Delaware, 15 Innovation Way Newark, Delaware 19711; 73Proteomics Core Facility, University
of Gothenburg, Medicinaregatan 1G SE 41390 Gothenburg, Sweden; 74Department of Medical Biochemistry and Cell Biology, University of
Gothenburg, Institute of Biomedicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, Medicinaregatan 9A, Box 440, 405 30, Gothenburg, Sweden; 75Department of
Clinical Chemistry and Transfusion Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Bruna Straket 16, 41345 Gothenburg,
Sweden; 76Department of Chemistry, University of Hamburg, Martin Luther King Pl. 6 20146 Hamburg, Germany; 77Department of Chemistry,
University of Manitoba, 144 Dysart Road, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2N2; 78Laboratory of Mass Spectrometry of Interactions and
Systems, University of Strasbourg, UMR Unistra-CNRS 7140, France; 79Natural and Medical Sciences Institute, University of Tuš bingen,
Markwiesenstrae 55, 72770 Reutlingen, Germany; 80Bijvoet Center for Biomolecular Research and Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical
Sciences, Utrecht University, Padualaan 8, 3584 CH Utrecht, The Netherlands; 81Division of Bioanalytical Chemistry, Amsterdam Institute for
Molecules, Medicines and Systems, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, de Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands; 82Department
of Chemistry, Waters Corporation, 34 Maple Street Milford, Massachusetts 01757; 83Zoetis, 333 Portage St. Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
Authorâs ChoiceâFinal version open access under the terms of the Creative Commons CC-BY license.
Received July 24, 2019, and in revised form, August 26, 2019
Published, MCP Papers in Press, October 7, 2019, DOI 10.1074/mcp.RA119.001677
ER: NISTmAb Glycosylation Interlaboratory Study
12 Molecular & Cellular Proteomics 19.1
Downloaded from https://www.mcponline.org by guest on January 20, 2020
ted a total of 103 reports on glycan distributions. The
principal objective of this study was to report and compare
results for the full range of analytical methods presently
used in the glycosylation analysis of mAbs. Therefore,
participation was unrestricted, with laboratories
choosing their own measurement techniques. Protein glycosylation
was determined in various ways, including at
the level of intact mAb, protein fragments, glycopeptides,
or released glycans, using a wide variety of methods for
derivatization, separation, identification, and quantification.
Consequently, the diversity of results was enormous,
with the number of glycan compositions identified by
each laboratory ranging from 4 to 48. In total, one hundred
sixteen glycan compositions were reported, of which 57
compositions could be assigned consensus abundance
values. These consensus medians provide communityderived
values for NISTmAb PS. Agreement with the consensus
medians did not depend on the specific method or
laboratory type. The study provides a view of the current
state-of-the-art for biologic glycosylation measurement
and suggests a clear need for harmonization of glycosylation
analysis methods. Molecular & Cellular Proteomics
19: 11â30, 2020. DOI: 10.1074/mcp.RA119.001677.L
Implementation of an interactive mobile application to pilot a rapid assay to detect HIV drug resistance mutations in Kenya.
Usability is an overlooked aspect of implementing lab-based assays, particularly novel assays in low-resource-settings. Esoteric instructions can lead to irreproducible test results and patient harm. To address these issues, we developed a software application based on "Aquarium", a laboratory-operating system run on a computer tablet that provides step-by-step digital interactive instructions, protocol management, and sample tracking. Aquarium was paired with a near point-of-care HIV drug resistance test, "OLA-Simple", that detects mutations associated with virologic failure. In this observational study we evaluated the performance of Aquarium in guiding untrained users through the multi-step laboratory protocol with little supervision. To evaluate the training by Aquarium software we conducted a feasibility study in a laboratory at Coptic Hope Center in Nairobi, Kenya. Twelve volunteers who were unfamiliar with the kit performed the test on blinded samples (2 blood specimens; 5 codons/sample). Steps guided by Aquarium included: CD4+ T-Cell separation, PCR, ligation, detection, and interpretation of test results. Participants filled out a short survey regarding their demographics and experience with the software and kit. None of the laboratory technicians had prior experience performing CD4+ separation and 7/12 had no experience performing laboratory-based molecular assays. 12/12 isolated CD4+ T cells from whole blood with yields comparable to isolations performed by trained personnel. The OLA-Simple workflow was completed by all, with genotyping results interpreted correctly by unaided-eye in 108/120 (90%) and by software in 116/120 (97%) of codons analyzed. In the surveys, participants favorably assessed the use of software guidance. The Aquarium digital instructions enabled first-time users in Kenya to complete the OLA-simple kit workflow with minimal training. Aquarium could increase the accessibility of laboratory assays in low-resource-settings and potentially standardize implementation of clinical laboratory tests
OLA-simple : a software-guided HIV-1 drug resistance test for low-resource laboratories
BACKGROUND : HIV drug resistance (HIVDR) testing can assist clinicians in selecting treatments. However, high complexity and cost of genotyping assays limit routine testing in settings where HIVDR prevalence has reached high levels. METHODS : The oligonucleotide ligation assay (OLA)-Simple kit was developed for detection of HIVDR against first-line non-nucleoside/nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors and validated on 672 codons (168 specimens) from subtypes A, B, C, D, and AE. The kit uses dry reagents to facilitate assay setup, lateral flow devices for visual HIVDR detections, and in-house software with an interface for guiding users and analyzing results. FINDINGS : HIVDR analysis of specimens by OLA-Simple compared to Sanger sequencing revealed 99.6 ± 0.3% specificity and 98.2 ± 0.9% sensitivity, and compared to high-sensitivity assays, 99.6 ± 0.6% specificity and 86.2 ± 2.5% sensitivity, with 2.6 ± 0.9% indeterminate results. OLA-Simple was performed more rapidly compared to Sanger sequencing (<4 h vs. 35-72 h). Forty-one untrained volunteers blindly tested two specimens each with 96.8 ± 0.8% accuracy. INTERPRETATION : OLA-Simple compares favorably with HIVDR genotyping by Sanger and sensitive comparators. Instructional software enabled inexperienced, first-time users to perform the assay with high accuracy. The reduced complexity, cost, and training requirements of OLA-Simple could improve access to HIVDR testing in low-resource settings and potentially allow same-day selection of appropriate antiretroviral therapy. FUND : USA National Institutes of Health R01; the Clinical and Retrovirology Research Core and the Molecular Profiling and Computational Biology Core of the UW CFAR; Seattle Children's Research Institute; UW Holloman Innovation Challenge Award; Pilcher Faculty Fellowship.USA National Institutes of Health R01; the Clinical and Retrovirology Research Core and the Molecular Profiling and Computational Biology Core of the UW CFAR; Seattle Children's Research Institute; UW Holloman Innovation Challenge Award; Pilcher Faculty Fellowship.http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ebiomam2020ImmunologyPaediatrics and Child Healt
OLA-Simple : a software-guided HIV-1 drug resistance test for low-resource laboratories
Background: HIV drug resistance (HIVDR) testing can assist clinicians in selecting treatments. However, high complexity and cost of genotyping assays limit routine testing in settings where HIVDR prevalence has reached high levels. Methods: The oligonucleotide ligation assay (OLA)-Simple kit was developed for detection of HIVDR against first-line non-nucleoside/nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors and validated on 672 codons (168 spedmens) from subtypes A, B, C, D, and AE. The kit uses dry reagents to facilitate assay setup, lateral flow devices for visual HIVDR detections, and in-house software with an interface for guiding users and analyzing results. Findings: HIVDR analysis of specimens by OLA-Simple compared to Sanger sequencing revealed 99.6 +/- 0.3% specificity and 98.2 +/- 0.9% sensitivity, and compared to high-sensitivity assays, 99.6 +/- 0.6% specificity and 86.2 +/- 2.5% sensitivity, with 2.6 +/- 0.9% indeterminate results. OLA-Simple was performed more rapidly compared to Sanger sequencing (<4 h vs. 35-72 h). Forty-one untrained volunteers blindly tested two specimens each with 96.8 +/- 0.8% accuracy. Interpretation: OLA-Simple compares favorably with HIVDR genotyping by Sanger and sensitive comparators. Instructional software enabled inexperienced, first-time users to perform the assay with high accuracy. The reduced complexity, cost, and training requirements of OLA-Simple could improve access to HIVDR testing in low-resource settings and potentially allow same-day selection of appropriate antiretroviral therapy
Recommended from our members
Raltegravir versus efavirenz in antiretroviral-naive pregnant women living with HIV (NICHD P1081): an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 4 trial.
BackgroundAlthough antiretroviral regimens containing integrase inhibitors rapidly suppress HIV viral load in non-pregnant adults, few published data from randomised controlled trials have compared the safety and efficacy of any integrase inhibitor to efavirenz when initiated during pregnancy. We compared safety and efficacy of antiretroviral therapy with either raltegravir or efavirenz in late pregnancy.MethodsAn open-label, randomised controlled trial was done at 19 hospitals and clinics in Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, Tanzania, Thailand, and the USA. Antiretroviral-naive pregnant women (20-<37 weeks gestation) living with HIV were assigned to antiretroviral regimens containing either raltegravir (400 mg twice daily) or efavirenz (600 mg each night) plus lamivudine 150 mg and zidovudine 300 mg twice daily (or approved alternative backbone regimen), using a web-based, permuted-block randomisation stratified by gestational age and backbone regimen. The primary efficacy outcome was plasma HIV viral load below 200 copies per mL at (or near) delivery. The primary efficacy analysis included all women with a viral load measurement at (or near) delivery who had viral load of at least 200 copies per mL before treatment and no genotypic resistance to any study drugs; secondary analyses eliminated these exclusion criteria. The primary safety analyses included all women who received study drug, and their infants. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT01618305.FindingsFrom Sep 5, 2013, to Dec 11, 2018, 408 women were enrolled (206 raltegravir, 202 efavirenz) and 394 delivered on-study (200 raltegravir, 194 efavirenz); 307 were included in the primary efficacy analysis (153 raltegravir, 154 efavirenz). 144 (94%) women in the raltegravir group and 129 (84%) in the efavirenz group met the primary efficacy outcome (absolute difference 10%, 95% CI 3-18; p=0·0015); the difference primarily occurred among women enrolling later in pregnancy (interaction p=0·040). Frequencies of severe or life-threatening adverse events were similar among mothers (30% in each group; 61 raltegravir, 59 efavirenz) and infants (25% in each group; 50 raltegravir, 48 efavirenz), with no treatment-related deaths.InterpretationOur findings support major guidelines. The integrase inhibitor dolutegravir is currently a preferred regimen for the prevention of perinatal HIV transmission with raltegravir recommended as a preferred or alternative integrase inhibitor for pregnant women living with HIV.FundingEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases