Synthetic control of mammalian-cell motility by engineering chemotaxis to an orthogonal bioinert chemical signal

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Impact Factor: 9.67). 04/2014; 111(16). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1402087111
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Directed migration of diverse cell types plays a critical role in biological processes ranging from development and morphogenesis to immune response, wound healing, and regeneration. However, techniques to direct, manipulate, and study cell migration in vitro and in vivo in a specific and facile manner are currently limited. We conceived of a strategy to achieve direct control over cell migration to arbitrary user-defined locations, independent of native chemotaxis receptors. Here, we show that genetic modification of cells with an engineered G protein-coupled receptor allows us to redirect their migration to a bioinert drug-like small molecule, clozapine-N-oxide (CNO). The engineered receptor and small-molecule ligand form an orthogonal pair: The receptor does not respond to native ligands, and the inert drug does not bind to native cells. CNO-responsive migration can be engineered into a variety of cell types, including neutrophils, T lymphocytes, keratinocytes, and endothelial cells. The engineered cells migrate up a gradient of the drug CNO and transmigrate through endothelial monolayers. Finally, we demonstrate that T lymphocytes modified with the engineered receptor can specifically migrate in vivo to CNO-releasing beads implanted in a live mouse. This technology provides a generalizable genetic tool to systematically perturb and control cell migration both in vitro and in vivo. In the future, this type of migration control could be a valuable module for engineering therapeutic cellular devices.

Download full-text


Available from: Orion D Weiner, Oct 06, 2014
20 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In the emerging field of synthetic biology, scientists are focusing on designing and creating functional devices, systems, and organisms with novel functions by engineering and assembling standardised biological building blocks. The progress of synthetic biology has significantly advanced the design of functional gene networks that can reprogram metabolic activities in mammalian cells and provide new therapeutic opportunities for future gene- and cell-based therapies. In this review, we describe the most recent advances in synthetic mammalian gene networks designed for biomedical applications, including how these synthetic therapeutic gene circuits can be assembled to control signalling networks and applied to treat metabolic disorders, cancer, and immune diseases. We conclude by discussing the various challenges and future prospects of using synthetic mammalian gene networks for disease therapy.
    FEBS Letters 05/2014; 588(15). DOI:10.1016/j.febslet.2014.05.003 · 3.17 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Synthetic biology has significantly advanced the design of mammalian trigger-inducible transgene-control devices that are able to programme complex cellular behaviour. Fruit-based benzoate derivatives licensed as food additives, such as flavours (e.g. vanillate) and preservatives (e.g. benzoate), are a particularly attractive class of trigger compounds for orthogonal mammalian transgene control devices because of their innocuousness, physiological compatibility and simple oral administration. Capitalizing on the genetic componentry of the soil bacterium Comamonas testosteroni, which has evolved to catabolize a variety of aromatic compounds, we have designed different mammalian gene expression systems that could be induced and repressed by the food additives benzoate and vanillate. When implanting designer cells engineered for gene switch-driven expression of the human placental secreted alkaline phosphatase (SEAP) into mice, blood SEAP levels of treated animals directly correlated with a benzoate-enriched drinking programme. Additionally, the benzoate-/vanillate-responsive device was compatible with other transgene control systems and could be assembled into higher-order control networks providing expression dynamics reminiscent of a lap-timing stopwatch. Designer gene switches using licensed food additives as trigger compounds to achieve antagonistic dual-input expression profiles and provide novel control topologies and regulation dynamics may advance future gene- and cell-based therapies.
    Nucleic Acids Research 07/2014; 42(14). DOI:10.1093/nar/gku545 · 9.11 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The seven-transmembrane (7TM) helix fold of G-protein coupled receptors (GPCRs) has been adapted for a wide variety of physiologically important signaling functions. Here, we discuss the diversity in the structured and disordered regions of GPCRs based on the recently published crystal structures and sequence analysis of all human GPCRs. A comparison of the structures of rhodopsin-like receptors (class A), secretin-like receptors (class B), metabotropic receptors (class C) and frizzled receptors (class F) shows that the relative arrangement of the transmembrane helices is conserved across all four GPCR classes although individual receptors can be activated by ligand binding at varying positions within and around the transmembrane helical bundle. A systematic analysis of GPCR sequences reveals the presence of disordered segments in the cytoplasmic side, abundant post-translational modification sites, evidence for alternative splicing and several putative linear peptide motifs that have the potential to mediate interactions with cytosolic proteins. While the structured regions permit the receptor to bind diverse ligands, the disordered regions appear to have an underappreciated role in modulating downstream signaling in response to the cellular state. An integrated paradigm combining the knowledge of structured and disordered regions is imperative for gaining a holistic understanding of the GPCR (un)structure–function relationship.
    Current Opinion in Structural Biology 08/2014; 27(1):129–137. DOI:10.1016/ · 7.20 Impact Factor
Show more