Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New Anthrax Antitoxin Works Great in Mice (my title)
Nature Biotechnology ^ | 10/2001 | press release

Posted on 10/08/2001 1:30:57 AM PDT by jennyp

A possible breakthrough in development of an effective antrax anti-toxin just happened to be announced in the October 2001 issue of Nature Biotechnology.

The Press Release:

Combating anthrax

Anthrax is a deadly disease that could potentially be used in biological terrorism or warfare. The bacterium that causes anthrax produces a toxin that is extremely deadly, causing a disease that is invariably fatal if not treated immediately with antibiotics. Now, a group of researchers led by John Collier and George Whitesides may have come up with a means of combating the toxin. They have designed a polyvalent inhibitor (PVI) of the toxin that protects rats for at least one week after receiving doses of toxin 10-times the minimum lethal amount. Rats exposed to the toxin in the absence of PVI normally survive for only a few hours.

Using their knowledge that the anthrax bacterium secretes three nontoxic proteins that assemble into toxin complexes on mammalian cell membranes, Collier and his team screened peptide libraries for an inhibitor that prevents the toxin assembly process. Their screen identified a 12-amino acid peptide that inhibited assembly, albeit weakly. They then set about creating a PVI by covalently linking multiple copies of this inhibitor to a flexible polyacrylamide backbone, increasing the inhibitory activity of the peptide by about 7,500-fold.

Their method of developing synthetic, polymeric, polyvalent inhibitors of protein-protein interactions may also turn out to be a useful tool for increasing the therapeutic potency of drugs such as antitumor peptides, growth factor receptor agonists, or molecules with related mechanisms of action.

The Abstract (free registration req'd)October 2001 Volume 19 Number 10 pp 958 - 961


Designing a polyvalent inhibitor of anthrax toxin

Michael Mourez1, Ravi S. Kane2, Jeremy Mogridge1, Steve Metallo2, Pascal Deschatelets2, Bret R. Sellman1, George M. Whitesides2 & R. John Collier1

1. Department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, Harvard Medical School, 200 Longwood Avenue, Boston, MA 02115.
2. Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Harvard University, 12 Oxford Street, Cambridge, MA 02138.
Correspondence should be addressed to R J Collier. e-mail: jcollier@hms.harvard.edu

Screening peptide libraries is a proven strategy for identifying inhibitors of protein–ligand interactions. Compounds identified in these screens often bind to their targets with low affinities. When the target protein is present at a high density on the surface of cells or other biological surfaces, it is sometimes possible to increase the biological activity of a weakly binding ligand by presenting multiple copies of it on the same molecule. We isolated a peptide from a phage display library that binds weakly to the heptameric cell-binding subunit of anthrax toxin and prevents the interaction between cell-binding and enzymatic moieties. A molecule consisting of multiple copies of this nonnatural peptide, covalently linked to a flexible backbone, prevented assembly of the toxin complex in vitro and blocked toxin action in an animal model. This result demonstrates that protein–protein interactions can be inhibited by a synthetic, polymeric, polyvalent inhibitor in vivo.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
And not a moment too soon!
1 posted on 10/08/2001 1:30:57 AM PDT by jennyp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jennyp
Thank God. We wouldn't want to accidentally eliminate the rodent population.
2 posted on 10/08/2001 1:35:42 AM PDT by tbeatty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tbeatty
I hope you were kidding.

You die from the toxin, not the anthrax. If we can beat the toxin, as well as take down the anthrax bacteria it becomes a far less pressing threat.

This is very good news, even if it's just working in mice. That's a significant step towards working in humans.

3 posted on 10/08/2001 1:57:56 AM PDT by newzjunkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
BUMP!
4 posted on 10/08/2001 1:58:08 AM PDT by newzjunkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nebullis; Pharmboy; other biochemists
How easy is it to produce 12-mer peptides? And how easy is it to stick them onto the "flexible backbone" the article mentions?

If they really pushed it, how soon do you think they could do a test on humans, and also how soon could they ramp up production assuming it works in humans?

5 posted on 10/08/2001 2:02:51 AM PDT by jennyp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey
You die from the toxin, not the anthrax. If we can beat the toxin, as well as take down the anthrax bacteria it becomes a far less pressing threat.

Yes, this explains why you tend to die if you don't get on antibiotics until you start showing symptoms. By that time, even if all the bacteria were killed immediately, they've been busy producing the toxin, which is still there in the bloodstream doing its dirty work.

6 posted on 10/08/2001 2:05:53 AM PDT by jennyp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
'scuse me: "Works great in RATS".
7 posted on 10/08/2001 2:06:50 AM PDT by jennyp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
Quote of the Day by JohnHuang2
8 posted on 10/08/2001 2:47:15 AM PDT by RJayneJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
Hey, jennyp, thanks for the heads-up.

I am no expert on the production of oligopeptides, but I imagine a few of the biotech comapnies in CA and Boston could get their collective acts together in short order.

Your timing was good since I just heard on the radio that a second case of anthrax was confirmed in one of the co-workers of the index case in Boca (they both worked at the national tabloid The Sun.

9 posted on 10/08/2001 5:29:13 AM PDT by Pharmboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
Usually the pharmaceutical pipeline is about 10 years long. A peptide of this small size would likely be chemically produced and setting up large-scale production and purification facilities would take considerable time and expense. For research purposes, synthesizers can churn out amounts large enough for testing, which can be carried out simultaneously. Presumably, clinical trials would be highly accelerated. I think you'd still be looking at a process on the order of years.
10 posted on 10/08/2001 11:15:40 AM PDT by Nebullis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Nebullis
Presumably, clinical trials would be highly accelerated. I think you'd still be looking at a process on the order of years.

Hmmm. Well, maybe we could get the terrorists to hold off on using up their inventory for a while. :-)

11 posted on 10/08/2001 12:47:44 PM PDT by jennyp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson