1. Introduction
Cellular and tissue permeability barriers are significant caveats for bioengineering strategies to develop bioactive agents and exploit novel intracellular drug modalities. As recently reviewed [
1,
2,
3], cell penetrating peptides (CPPs), often polycationic linear sequences of 12-24 amino acids, are a versatile technology that can overcome the common biophysical constraint of ineffective intracellular access. Bioportides, CPPs with intrinsic bioactivities and so partially distinct from conventional inert vectors, accrete within eukaryotic cells to influence protein function and impact cell biology [
4]. The molecular organisation of bioportides commonly includes mimetic sequences derived from functional protein domains to serve as selective modulators of intracellular protein-protein interactions (PPIs; [
4,
5,
6]). Hence, bioportide technologies, presumably acting by a dominant-negative mechanism, enable both the understanding and discrete manipulation of intracellular signalling pathways that regulate cellular biology [
5,
6].
The triploblastic bilateral planarian
Schmidtea mediterranea is a very common model organism employed to address fundamental cellular processes which include tissue regeneration and the differentiation of neoblasts, relatively small pluripotent stem cells of mesenchymal origin [
7,
8]. Indeed, a total of 20-30% of
S. mediterranea cells are neoblasts, the only planarian cell type capable of mitotic division [
7,
8]. A comprehensive
S. mediterrranea genomic database (SmedGD 2.0) confirmed that planaria are genetically more like vertebrates than both
Drosophila melanogaster and
Caenorhabditis elegans [
9,
10].
S. mediterranea is also a rigorous three-dimensional model to analyse the import of CPPs and bioportides into complex tissues presenting both physical and metabolic barriers [
11].
In common with studies of arginine-rich peptides derived from both RNA- and DNA-binding proteins [
12], planarian proteins which collectively control head remodelling and eye regeneration following decapitation are a viable source of cationic CPP vectors [
11]. Djeya1 (RKLAFRYRRIKELYNSYR), an octadecapetide sequence mimicking a highly conserved domain of eyes absent (Eya) proteins, is a particularly efficient and seemingly inert example of such a CPP vector sequence. Three-days post head amputation, fluorescent Djeya1 effectively enters the unpigmented
S. mediterranea blastema, a transient and heterogenous cell mass responsible for head morphogenesis, to penetrate deeper along the dorsal ventral axis [
11]. Thus, CPPs such as Djeya1 provide the means to target bioactive agents to differentiating post-mitotic neoblast progeny [
13], in addition to epithelial precursor cells or neoblast-derived mesenchymal cells.
Djeya1 mimics part of the α5 helix within the evolutionary conserved C-terminal Eya Domain (ED) of Eya proteins [
14,
15]. The ED domain acts as a transcriptional regulator known to bind proteins such as Dachshund and Sine Oculus [
14,
15]. Hence, the major objective of this study was to determine whether the bioengineering of Djeya1 analogues could provide rhegnylogically organised bioportides, CPPs in which the pharmacophores that enable cellular penetration and those essential for bioactivity are discontinuously organised [
4,
5]. We hypothesized that analogues of Djeya1 with enhanced helicity would more effectively mimic ED to modulate PPIs and inhibit anterior pole and eye regeneration in
S. mediterranea [
11,
14,
15,
16]. To promote helicity we introduced the helicogenic amino acid α-aminoisobutyric acid (Aib) at three sites within Djeya1 (I
10, L
13, S
16) where there is species-specific heterogeneity of protein sequence in Eya proteins. All three bioengineered Djeya1 analogues are highly efficient CPPs. Two of these, [Aib
13]Djeya1 and [Aib
16]Djeya1, inhibited planarian head regeneration whilst [Aib
10]Djeya1 was inert. As neoblast populations are the only cell type capable of division in planarians [
7,
8,
13,
16,
17,
18], our data indicate that both [Aib
13]Djeya1 and [Aib
16]Djeya1 directly influence the biology of stem cells. Furthermore, cellular assays confirmed that this action was unlikely the consequence of a detrimental influence of bioportides upon cellular viability, proliferation, or motility. Hence, the same bioportides might modulate the morphogenesis of mammalian stem cells regulated by eyes absent proteins [
19].
4. Discussion
The molecular bioengineering of CPPs and bioportides can enhance intracellular uptake and confer or increase biological activity [
4,
5,
6,
43]. As recently reviewed [
44], biophysical methodologies, including circular dichroism, have impacted the understanding of the structural determinants of CPP trafficking and the molecular mechanisms of bioportides. Numerous studies of the secondary structures of CPPs have highlighted the possibility that a helical conformation, perhaps induced by contact with phospholipid membranes, may support the passage of CPPs into cells [
44]. One or more cationic alpha helices, particularly those containing statistically enriched Arg residues, are commonly located at protein-protein interaction (PPI) sites. Cation-π interactions which stabilise these PPIs [
45] commonly involve interactions between arginine and tyrosine residues. Hence, we hypothesized that Aib-substitution might induce helicity within Djeya1 to further increase penetration efficacy [
11]. We also anticipated that the structural constraints imposed by Aib-substitution would enable bioengineered Djeya1 analogues, by a dominant-negative mechanism, to modulate PPIs within the ED domain. Interference with EYA functions as a transcriptional regulator would likely manifest as inefficient head morphogenesis in decapitated
S. mediterranea [
15,
33,
34].
This study identified two bioportides, [Aib
13]Djeya1 and [Aib
16]Djeya1, which delay head regeneration in the
S. mediterranea model; [Aib
10]Djeya1, in common with Djeya1 [
11], is an effective CPP, but unable to influence planarian morphogenesis. Djeya1, in common with Aib-substituted analogues, adopts significant α-helical structure in aqueous solution that is only marginally influenced by a change to 50% (
v/v) TFE. It is noteworthy that the mitochondriotoxic bioportide mitoparan, a peptide that accretes within mitochondria to promote intrinsic apoptosis, includes Aib to replace Ala at position-10 of mastoparan, a known α-helix adopting peptide [
32]. Thus, the molecular bioengineering of CPPs by Aib-substitution can produce significant variations in bioactivities that are not necessarily the result of gross changes in peptide secondary structure.
The bioactivities of [Aib
13]Djeya1 and [Aib
16]Djeya1 cannot be readily explained by increased uptake into cells. Both qualitative and quantitative analyses show that the uptake of all Aib-substituted Djeya1 analogues are generally comparable to that of the parent CPP and better than other CPPs including Tat and C105Y. We have previously proposed [
22] that the propensity for cellular penetration and intracellular accumulation of CPPs involves 2 distinct processes: 1, translocation across the plasma membrane (hydrophobicity and cationic charge are significant factors); 2, accretion at intracellular loci. Thus, the increased uptake of [Aib
13]Djeya1 within U251 cells could reflect in part enhanced accretion at intracellular loci.
Efforts to define a molecular mechanism of action of both [Aib
13]Djeya1 and [Aib
16]Djeya are hampered both by a lack of accessible planarian neoblast cultures and knowledge of a defined function for the α5 helix of ED mimicked by Djeya1 analogues. However, we are confident that our investigations can exclude peptide-induced neoblast death as a biological explanation for the impact of [Aib
13]Djeya1 and [Aib
16]Djeya1 on anterior pole remodelling. Neither would it seem likely that these bioportides adversely influence cellular proliferation, a process fundamental to this regenerative process [
16,
17,
18,
39,
40]. The observation that all three Aib-substituted Djeya1 analogues moderately enhance cell migration (wound healing) is intriguing and worthy of further investigation. However, since [Aib
10]Djeya1 does not inhibit heard morphogenesis in
S. mediterranea, it would appear unlikely that this positive influence upon cell migration underlies the mechanism of action of [Aib
13]Djeya1 and [Aib
16]Djeya1, bioportides which delay head regeneration.
In common with the dominant negative action of many other bioportides [
4,
5,
6,
43], both sychnologic and rhegnylogic in molecular organisation, we propose that [Aib
13]Djeya1 and [Aib
16]Djeya1 modulate head regeneration by interfering with PPIs mediated by the ED of Eya proteins. Support for this hypothesis is provided by a study of the G393S mutation of ED, identified from a patient with cataracts and both renal and otic abnormalities [
46]. In the human ED, this missense mutation site is located close to R
399, the first residue of ED mimetic Djeya1 analogues. Further analyses of this mutation indicated this site to be critical for the interaction of ED with unknown proteins which bridge well characterised PPIs between Eya and SIX family proteins [
46].
Considering that there are so many similarities between planarian proteins and those expressed in higher vertebrates [
47], we anticipate that bioportides able to influence the distribution and function of Eya proteins may prove valuable for other studies of physiology and pathology. For example, mutations in the human
EYA1 gene cause branchio-oto-renal (BOR) syndrome [
46]. The multifunctional nature of Eya proteins also influences tumour progression through multiple mechanisms [
48]. Moreover, it is probable that [Aib
13]Djeya1 and [Aib
16]Djeya1 could be utilised to further understand and directly influence human stem cells, thus negating the requirement for genetic manipulation.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, Sarah Jones and John Howl; methodology, Sarah Jones and John Howl; validation, Sarah Jones, Bárbera Matos, Sarah Dennison and John Howl; formal analysis, Sarah Jones, Bárbera Matos and Sarah Dennison ; investigation, Sarah Jones, Bárbera Matos, Sarah Dennison and John Howl; writing—original draft preparation, Sarah Jones, Bárbera Matos, Sarah Dennison, Margarida Fardilha and John Howl; writing—review and editing, Sarah Jones, Bárbera Matos, Sarah Dennison, Margarida Fardilha and John Howl; visualization, Sarah Jones and John Howl; supervision, Margarida Fardilha and John Howl; project administration, Margarida Fardilha and John Howl.; funding acquisition, Margarida Fardilha and John Howl. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Figure 1.
Conformational behavior of Djeya1 analogues. (a) Spectra obtained in PBS. (b) Spectra obtained in 50% (v/v) TFE. Djeya1, solid black; [Aib10]Djeya1, solid grey; [Aib13]Djeya1, hashed black; [Aib16]Djeya1, hashed grey.
Figure 1.
Conformational behavior of Djeya1 analogues. (a) Spectra obtained in PBS. (b) Spectra obtained in 50% (v/v) TFE. Djeya1, solid black; [Aib10]Djeya1, solid grey; [Aib13]Djeya1, hashed black; [Aib16]Djeya1, hashed grey.
Figure 2.
Influence of bioportides upon head remodelling. Transverse amputation at the post-auricle and pre-pharynx level induces the formation the unpigmented blastema, eye regeneration and head remodelling (a,b). (b) shows regeneration of the anterior pole and eyespots in a representative planaria treated with PAM alone 8 days post amputation. (c) and (d) demonstrates a noticeable absence of anterior pole regeneration and development of eyespots. Representative images were taken at day 8 post amputation.
Figure 2.
Influence of bioportides upon head remodelling. Transverse amputation at the post-auricle and pre-pharynx level induces the formation the unpigmented blastema, eye regeneration and head remodelling (a,b). (b) shows regeneration of the anterior pole and eyespots in a representative planaria treated with PAM alone 8 days post amputation. (c) and (d) demonstrates a noticeable absence of anterior pole regeneration and development of eyespots. Representative images were taken at day 8 post amputation.
Figure 3.
Qualitative uptake analyses using live confocal cell imaging. (a) U373MG cells were treated with 5 μM TAMRA-labelled peptides and 5μg mL-1 CellMaskTM to label the plasma membrane for 1 h prior to visualization. Tat and C105Y were used as positive controls. (b) U373MG cells were treated for 5 h with 5 μM TAMRA-labelled Aib-substituted Djeya1 analogues. Confocal images are also presented with images using photomultiplier for transmitted light (T-PMT) to highlight subcellular distribution.
Figure 3.
Qualitative uptake analyses using live confocal cell imaging. (a) U373MG cells were treated with 5 μM TAMRA-labelled peptides and 5μg mL-1 CellMaskTM to label the plasma membrane for 1 h prior to visualization. Tat and C105Y were used as positive controls. (b) U373MG cells were treated for 5 h with 5 μM TAMRA-labelled Aib-substituted Djeya1 analogues. Confocal images are also presented with images using photomultiplier for transmitted light (T-PMT) to highlight subcellular distribution.
Figure 4.
Quantitative peptide uptake analyses. Comparative analyses of peptide translocation efficacies of Aib-substituted Djeya1 analogues were performed using U373MG cells (a) and U251 cells (b) incubated with TAMRA-labelled peptides for 1 h at 37 °C at the concentrations indicated. Both Tat and C105Y were used as positive controls. Data are expressed as mean fluorescence minus background ± SEM. Data from 2 experiments performed in triplicate.
Figure 4.
Quantitative peptide uptake analyses. Comparative analyses of peptide translocation efficacies of Aib-substituted Djeya1 analogues were performed using U373MG cells (a) and U251 cells (b) incubated with TAMRA-labelled peptides for 1 h at 37 °C at the concentrations indicated. Both Tat and C105Y were used as positive controls. Data are expressed as mean fluorescence minus background ± SEM. Data from 2 experiments performed in triplicate.
Figure 5.
Cytotoxicity profiles of Aib-substituted Djeya1 analogues. U373MG cells were treated with Djeya1 and Aib-substituted analogues for 4 h at the concentrations indicated. Cell viability was measured by MTT conversion and expressed as a percentage of those cells treated with vehicle (medium) alone. The mitochondriotoxic peptide Mitoparan (MitP) was used as a positive control [
11,
31]. Data points are mean ± SEM from 2 experiments performed in triplicate. Statistical analyses employed a non-parametric Mann-Whitney test to compare changes in viability to that of MitP at 30 μM, (***
p = 0.0001, **
p = 0.0022), GraphPad Prism 9 software.
Figure 5.
Cytotoxicity profiles of Aib-substituted Djeya1 analogues. U373MG cells were treated with Djeya1 and Aib-substituted analogues for 4 h at the concentrations indicated. Cell viability was measured by MTT conversion and expressed as a percentage of those cells treated with vehicle (medium) alone. The mitochondriotoxic peptide Mitoparan (MitP) was used as a positive control [
11,
31]. Data points are mean ± SEM from 2 experiments performed in triplicate. Statistical analyses employed a non-parametric Mann-Whitney test to compare changes in viability to that of MitP at 30 μM, (***
p = 0.0001, **
p = 0.0022), GraphPad Prism 9 software.
Figure 6.
Growth curves of high Eya expressing U251 cells expressed as optical density. U251 cells were treated with Aib-substituted analogues or the p42/44 MAPK inhibitor U1026 at the concentrations indicated from 4-72 h (a, b, c). MTT conversion is expressed as Abs@540 nm minus background and data points are mean ± SEM from 2 experiments performed in sextruplicate. 4 h and 72 h, 1 experiment performed in sextruplicate. Control denotes cells treated with medium alone. Statistical analyses comparing significant differences in cell viability to the untreated control were performed at 48 h and 72 h using the unpaired, 2-tailed, non-parametric Mann Whitney test, (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.005, ***p = 0.0001, ****p < 0.0001), using GraphPad Prism 9 software.
Figure 6.
Growth curves of high Eya expressing U251 cells expressed as optical density. U251 cells were treated with Aib-substituted analogues or the p42/44 MAPK inhibitor U1026 at the concentrations indicated from 4-72 h (a, b, c). MTT conversion is expressed as Abs@540 nm minus background and data points are mean ± SEM from 2 experiments performed in sextruplicate. 4 h and 72 h, 1 experiment performed in sextruplicate. Control denotes cells treated with medium alone. Statistical analyses comparing significant differences in cell viability to the untreated control were performed at 48 h and 72 h using the unpaired, 2-tailed, non-parametric Mann Whitney test, (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.005, ***p = 0.0001, ****p < 0.0001), using GraphPad Prism 9 software.
Figure 7.
Aib-substituted Djeya1 analogues enhance PC-3 cell migration. Wound closure was measured after 48 h. All analogues demonstrated a significant enhancement in percentage wound closure compared to untreated cells, p < 0.05 using the paired, 2-tailed non-parametric Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test (*p = 0.0353, **p = 0.0015, ***p = 0.0002, ****p < 0.0001), GraphPad Prism 9 software.
Figure 7.
Aib-substituted Djeya1 analogues enhance PC-3 cell migration. Wound closure was measured after 48 h. All analogues demonstrated a significant enhancement in percentage wound closure compared to untreated cells, p < 0.05 using the paired, 2-tailed non-parametric Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test (*p = 0.0353, **p = 0.0015, ***p = 0.0002, ****p < 0.0001), GraphPad Prism 9 software.
Table 1.
Sequence conservation within the α5 helix of ED.
Table 1.
Sequence conservation within the α5 helix of ED.
Table 2.
Primary sequences of CPPs and bioportides.
Table 2.
Primary sequences of CPPs and bioportides.