PSI Structural Biology Knowledgebase

PSI | Structural Biology Knowledgebase
Header Icons

Related Articles
Signaling: A Platform for Opposing Functions
May 2015
Protein Folding and Misfolding: It's the Journey, Not the Destination
March 2015
Molecular Portraits of the Cell
February 2015
Nuclear Pore Complex: A Flexible Transporter
February 2015
Nuclear Pore Complex: Higher Resolution of Macromolecules
February 2015
Nuclear Pore Complex: Integrative Approach to Probe Nup133
February 2015
Piecing Together the Nuclear Pore Complex
February 2015
Updating ModBase
January 2015
Transmembrane Spans
December 2014
Mining Protein Dynamics
May 2014
Novel Proteins and Networks: Assigning Function
May 2014
Cancer Networks: Predicting Catalytic Residues from 3D Protein Structures
November 2013
The Immune System: A Brotherhood of Immunoglobulins
June 2013
The Immune System: Super Cytokines
June 2013
Infectious Diseases: Targeting Meningitis
May 2013
PDZ Domains
April 2013
Protein Interaction Networks: Adding Structure to Protein Networks
April 2013
Design and Discovery: Flexible Backbone Protein Redesign
February 2013
Pocket changes
July 2012
Predictive protein origami
July 2012
Refining protein structure prediction
March 2012
Metal mates
February 2012
Devil is in the details
January 2012
Playing while you work
November 2011
Docking and rolling
October 2011
Fit to serve
October 2011
Rosetta hone
July 2011
Structure from sequence
July 2011
An easier solution for symmetry
June 2011
Solutions in the solution
June 2011
Regulating nitrogen assimilation
January 2011
Guard cells pick up the SLAC
December 2010
Alpha/Beta Barrels
October 2010
Modeling RNA structures
May 2010
Deducing function from small structural clues
February 2010
Spot the pore
January 2010
Network coverage
November 2009
GPCR modeling: any good?
August 2009
Protein modeling made easy
July 2009
Model proteins in your lunch break
April 2009
Click for cancer-protein interactions
December 2008
Modeling with SAXS
October 2008
Designing activity
September 2008

Technology Topics Modeling

The Immune System: Super Cytokines

SBKB [doi:10.1038/sbkb.2012.146]
Technical Highlight - June 2013
Short description: Crystal structures of cytokine receptor complexes pinpoint target regions to create 'superkines' with altered cell specificity.

The main receptor binding sites on the D-helices of IL-4 (left) and IL-13 (right). Left, positions randomized in IL-4 site 2 are shown. Right, IL-13 D-helix (purple) is superimposed to that of IL-4 (green); substituted residues are in red. 1

Cytokines orchestrate wide-ranging signaling cascades in cells. Cytokine receptor activation is initiated by interaction with one receptor chain followed by a second. The second interaction is of much lower affinity, so its manipulation is considered promising for potential therapeutic applications; this is the interaction Garcia and colleagues targeted in their study of interleukin-4 (IL-4). IL-4 first binds the receptor IL-4Rα with high affinity; a subsequent interaction with either γc or IL-13Rα1 results in, respectively, type I and type II ternary complexes. Secondary cytokine receptors are expressed at different levels in various cells, thus enabling cell-type specific signaling.

Recently solved crystal structures reveal how γc and IL-13Rα1 bind IL-4. To alter affinity to type II receptors, the authors compared structures of IL-4 and IL-13 bound to IL-13Rα1, which led them to engineer a high-affinity version of IL-4 by substituting three residues from the native high-affinity binder IL-13. With no such information for the type I receptor, the researchers used in vivo evolution. These respective approaches resulted in the development of high-affinity triple mutant 'superkines' KFR and RGA.

In vitro, as measured by surface plasmon resonance (SPR), binding affinity of KFR–IL-4Rα for the type II receptor IL-13Rα1 was 440-fold greater than that of wild-type IL-4–IL-4Rα, and for the type I receptor γc, about twofold lower. In contrast, binding affinity of RGA–IL-4Rα for its destined receptor γc was 3,700-fold greater than that of wild-type cytokine complex, also with a decrease in affinity to IL-13Rα1. Structural analysis of the RGA–γc interface (PDB 3QB7) pinpointed changes responsible for the affinity increase.

This binding specificity was preserved in vivo, in cells that naturally express different amounts of type I and type II receptors. The differences, however, were not as dramatic as those observed by SPR, which the authors attribute to differences in diffusion rates when one of the components is soluble in the latter setup, or to co-localization of receptors in vivo. Nevertheless, this proof-of-principle work suggests the possibility of engineering, for therapeutic applications, superkines with high affinities to target receptors and those with minimal affinity to other receptors, thus limiting side effects.

Irene Kaganman


  1. I.S. Junttila et al. Redirecting cell-type specific cytokine responses with engineered interleukin-4 superkines.
    Nat. Chem. Biol. 8, 990-998 (2012). doi:10.1038/nchembio.1096

Structural Biology Knowledgebase ISSN: 1758-1338
Funded by a grant from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health