Next Article in Journal
Broad-Spectrum Antiviral Activity of 3D8, a Nucleic Acid-Hydrolyzing Single-Chain Variable Fragment (scFv), Targeting SARS-CoV-2 and Multiple Coronaviruses In Vitro
Next Article in Special Issue
The Advantages and Challenges of Using Endolysins in a Clinical Setting
Previous Article in Journal
Treatment with the Immunomodulator AIC649 in Combination with Entecavir Produces Antiviral Efficacy in the Woodchuck Model of Chronic Hepatitis B
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Phage-Displayed Peptides for Targeting Tyrosine Kinase Membrane Receptors in Cancer Therapy

Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University Magna Graecia of Catanzaro, 88100 Catanzaro, Italy
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Co-last authors.
Viruses 2021, 13(4), 649; https://doi.org/10.3390/v13040649
Submission received: 12 March 2021 / Revised: 4 April 2021 / Accepted: 7 April 2021 / Published: 9 April 2021

Abstract

:
Receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs) regulate critical physiological processes, such as cell growth, survival, motility, and metabolism. Abnormal activation of RTKs and relative downstream signaling is implicated in cancer pathogenesis. Phage display allows the rapid selection of peptide ligands of membrane receptors. These peptides can target in vitro and in vivo tumor cells and represent a novel therapeutic approach for cancer therapy. Further, they are more convenient compared to antibodies, being less expensive and non-immunogenic. In this review, we describe the state-of-the-art of phage display for development of peptide ligands of tyrosine kinase membrane receptors and discuss their potential applications for tumor-targeted therapy.

1. The Evolution of Phage Display

Phage display represents a useful technique for studying protein–protein interactions that regulate the biological processes [1]. Bacteriophages, which are viruses infecting bacteria, can express recombinant peptides on their surface coat following the cloning of random short DNA sequences within their genome. The phage display technique was first described in 1985 by George P. Smith, who demonstrated the expression of a foreign insert on a filamentous phage surface following its cloning in frame with the minor coat protein pIII [2]. In the same year, George Pieczenik patented the production of random peptide libraries for phage display (US Patent, 5,866,363). In 1988, the selection of phage ligands of target proteins was improved by using a process called “biopanning”, which significantly reduced antibody requirements compared to the original procedure published in 1985 [3]. In the 1990s, combinatorial phage libraries containing 40 million 6-mer peptides [4] or 20 million 15-mer peptides [5] were built. As predicted by Smith, the use of these libraries allowed an effective investigation of the specific affinity binding to antibody epitopes, receptors, or other proteins using simple recombinant DNA methods. What Smith did not imagine was the wide number of applications of his invention in various biomedical fields. The phage display technology was further developed and improved by the following research teams: G. Winter and J. McCafferty of the Medical Research Council, Laboratory of Molecular Biology; R. Lerner and C. Barbas of the Scripps Research Institute; F. Breitling and S. Dübel of the German Cancer Research Center [6,7,8,9,10,11]. All these researchers pursued the creation of phage-displayed combinatorial antibodies libraries, which were further improved by several other laboratories in the following years [12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20]. As recognition of the phage display contribution to scientific advances in chemistry and pharmaceutics, George P. Smith and Sir Gregory P. Winter received the 2018 Nobel Prize in Chemistry “for phage visualization of peptides and antibodies” [21]. More recently, the phage display has been useful for the mapping of antibody binding epitope and the screening of combinatorial peptide libraries in drugs discovery [22,23,24]. A timeline of phage display development is shown in Figure 1.
Nowadays, the phage display allows the production of vast libraries of peptides displayed on the surface of phage particles, which can differ for quantities and length of peptides, allowing the selection of binding partners for several applications in medicine, biotechnology, and pharmacology [25]. Among the enormous diversity of peptide or protein variants shown in a phage library (109–1010 different phages), those with high affinity and specificity for the target are isolated through affinity selection loops [26]. In this way, large amounts of peptide ligands can be quickly identified and amplified by an in vitro selection process called “panning”. Phage clones selected for high affinity binding to the bait can be easily sequenced at the genomic level in order to determine the amino acid sequence of the peptide insert required for the binding [27]. The high flexibility of phages to display proteins with various sizes and properties without prior knowledge of their structure and sequence has led to new applications. Hence, a modern era in drug discovery has emerged concurrently with the development of phage display technology.

2. Phages Used for Peptide Display

The bacteriophage genome can be genetically modified in order to express specific amino acid sequences within the coating proteins of the surface [28]. The first experimental approach of George Smith was based on the use of the filamentous phage M13 [2]. Later, phages such as T4 [29], T7 [30], and lambda [31] were also used. However, the most used phage display system is based on lysogenic filamentous phages, such as M13 [32,33]. The term lysogenic refers to the ability of bacteriophages to remain silently integrated within the bacterial genome (prophage state) upon infection. Lysogenic phages can be expanded by culturing the host bacteria in order to create peptide libraries of up to 1010 different fusion variants for the following purposes: (i) analysis of protein-binding interactions; (ii) identification of binding site for receptor and antibody; (iii) identification of epitopes for monoclonal antibodies; (iv) identification of the enzyme-substrate interaction. M13 phages belong to the F-positive phage family and infect Escherichia coli as host. During infection, the phage M13 absorbs on the bacterial pilus through its pIII capsid protein. The single-stranded DNA (ssDNA, also named “+ strand”) penetrates the cell and is converted into a circular double-stranded molecule, named “replicative form” (RF). When about 100–200 copies of the phage have been synthesized, pV binds to the + single strands and prevents them from replicating. The filaments can thus interact with the cell membrane through pVII and pIX, and once the contact is made, pV is replaced by pVIII during deportation, and pIII is added at one proximal end of the phage. The assembled phage is extruded from the host cells without lysing it. The first bacterial infection produces about 1000 phages, and this number decreases to 100–200 particles in the next generations. As a disadvantage, the M13 phage exhibits a physical limitation because it requires periplasmic transport of the peptide/protein library during amplification and has low efficiency for the visualization of cytoplasmic proteins [34]. In the 1990s, the phage display technique also used the bacteriophages T7 and T4 with appropriate modifications [35,36]. Advantages of using these bacteriophages in place of M13 phage include the ability to display large proteins due to the ability of these phages to carry 40 up to 160 kb DNA insert in their genome [34], and the ability to be released from the host cell following lysis. Unlike M13, the phage T7 has a lytic cycle and can bind the E. coli host even if the capsid protein is involved in the binding to the bait. This allows the rapid phage recovery and amplification without carrying out the elution step [37,38]. Further, the inserted peptide is displayed at the C terminal of the capsid protein without requiring the removal of the stop codon. Bacteriophage T4 can visualize foreign polypeptides using fusion with non-essential proteins of the capsid (SOC and HOC). Instead, the lambda phage has a life cycle that allows it to reside as prophage into the host genome or to enter the lytic phase, during which it kills and lyses the bacterium to produce offspring [39]. The main characteristics of the various phages are summarized in Table 1.

3. Biopanning

The screening of the phage displayed peptide library consists of sequential steps of phages selection for affinity binding to the bait, so called “biopanning”. To build a random peptide library, it is first necessary to clone the DNA sequences of random peptides in frame with the sequence of the bacteriophage coat protein and to amplify the resulting phage library in the host bacteria [40]. The recombinant phages are incubated with the bait molecule to allow their binding through the displayed peptides. Once the incubation time elapses, the unbound and non-specific phages are removed using sequential washings with increased stringency conditions. The phages linked to the bait molecule are then separated by competitive elution with natural ligands or by washing with acidic buffer. To optimize the screening strategy, other parameters must be considered in the selection steps: (i) washing buffer stringency by increasing saline or detergent concentration to select peptides with higher affinity; (ii) determining the yield of phages with a high affinity binding that are still able to survive [32]. Incubation time of the phages with the target, number of washing steps, elution conditions, and target concentration/density are all to be considered for an accurate selection of phage binders [41,42].
The eluted phages are then amplified by bacterial infection and again incubated with the bait to enrich the number of phage binders by several steps of affinity binding [40]. It has to be considered that the phages that display peptide sequences that disable the correct folding of the phage membrane are lost during the rounds of amplification by biopanning because of the lack of infectivity (Figure 2).
The phage ligands are generally selected by 3–5 cycles of affinity-driven biopanning, followed by sequencing of their DNA insert to determine the primary structure of the displayed peptides [43].

4. Phage Display for Selection of Peptide Ligands of Membrane Receptors

The screening of a phage-displayed peptide library involves the risk of selecting peptides that are unable to maintain their binding specificity when isolated outside of the phage context or when tested for the binding to the natural bait in the physiological context [44]. For example, the selection of peptide ligands of membrane receptors as baits poses the question of how to preserve the conformation of the receptor detached from the cellular membrane. In fact, the conformation of a membrane receptor as purified recombinant protein may differ from the native conformation exposed on the cell surface. To this end, the screening of a phage-displayed peptide library must be adjusted to the physiological in vitro and in vivo conditions for selecting peptide ligands with high affinity and specificity for the target receptor.
The in vitro whole-cell screening is very useful for identifying numerous peptides that bind specifically to membrane receptors of cell lines and primary cells in culture, or fixed cells. The choice between live or fixed cells depends on the final application of the selected ligand. By this experimental procedure, the maintenance of the biological functions, expression level, and three-dimensional structure of the membrane receptors as bait are preserved. Thus, the whole-cell screening by phage display allows the selection of peptides that are able to bind the native membrane receptors in physiological conditions and to compete with natural ligands [45,46].
The screening of peptide ligands can be also performed by intravenous injection of phage-displayed random peptide libraries in animals, allowing the in vivo binding of phages to the target cells [47,48]. Following in vivo incubation, the animals are perfused to remove unbound phages and then sacrificed. Chosen organs are harvested and homogenized in order to isolate the bound phages, which are then amplified and enriched by additional rounds of in vivo selection. By this approach, peptide ligands of different cancer types as well as tissue-specific or tumor vasculature-homing peptides have been identified [49,50,51]. For instance, vasculature targeting peptides containing RGD (arginine/glycine/aspartic acid) motif specifically bind to integrins or cell surface molecules or receptors overexpressed on tumor blood vessels [49]. The cyclic peptide CNGRC containing the NGR (asparagine/glycine/arginine) motif selectively targets angiogenic endothelial cells [52]. Another peptide, TLTYTWS—binding to collagen IV and processed by proteolytic activity of MMP-2—has been identified by phage display and showed the inhibition of tumor-homing capabilities in a lung carcinoma mouse model, with consequent antiangiogenic effects [53]. Further investigations on intra-species differences of peptide binding are required to improve the translational application of peptide ligands from the animal models to humans [46].

5. Phage Display for Analysis of Protein–Protein Interaction Domains

Increasing knowledge on the molecular basis of protein–protein interaction has facilitated the discovery, design, and development of novel drugs for targeted therapy in human diseases. In addition to the selection of membrane receptors peptide ligands, the phage display represents an efficient method for the analysis of other protein–protein interactions that are mediated by highly conserved modular protein domains. In particular, the SrC homology (SH) 2 and 3 domains are relevant as they bind tyrosine phosphorylated target proteins acting in the downstream signaling of tyrosine kinase receptors [1]. Particularly relevant has been the use of phage display to study the SH3 domain-mediated protein–protein interaction. The SH3 domain contains highly conserved protein modules of 50–70 amino acids, which interact with adaptor and tyrosine kinase proteins involved in signaling pathways regulating the proliferation and cytoskeleton organization. The SH3 domain usually binds proline residues in a specific conformation termed “proline-rich domains” (PRD) and folds into a globular structure. Karkkainen et al. generated a library displaying all human SH3 domains in M13 bacteriophage coat to identify potential protein partners and identified the interaction with several proteins functionally unrelated [54]. Other scientists focused on the interaction of SH3 domains with intracellular regions of Fas ligand by similar screening and identified numerous additional SH3 binding partners interacting with FasL [55]. Phage display was also used for the screening of peptides able to specifically bind the PSD-95/Discs-large/ZO-1(PDZ) domains, which interact with linear motifs present at the C-terminus of target proteins, allowing the prediction of human PDZ–peptide interactions by bioinformatics [56]. Libraries of peptides and phage display antibodies have been built to define antibody binding sites in isolated immunoglobulins [57], improving the fields of immunotherapy and vaccine development [58].

6. Optimization of Peptides for Targeting

The screening of highly diversified peptide libraries by phage display is a new promising approach for drug discovery [59]. In fact, the structure of peptide ligands selected by phage display can be analyzed by bioinformatics in order to identify the chemical interactions with the target molecules, allowing the design of pharmacophores for drugs development [60]. The use of peptides as potential drugs may provide several benefits. Compared to other pharmaceutical molecules, peptides have fewer side effects [61]. They are smaller than antibodies and can be easily synthesized and modified to improve stability, solubility, tissue penetration, and biocompatibility [62,63]. However, the low bioavailability of peptides still represents a weak point that requires further investigation [64]. In perspective, peptides can be powerful tools for tumor monitoring and targeted-therapy when selected for their ability to bind to tumor biomarkers [65]. For example, cytotoxic “pore-forming” peptides (such as those derived from the Bcl-2 family) are promising anti-cancer agents that can be effective against tumor cells at low concentrations while being non-lethal to normal tissue. Among them, most cytotoxic peptides are in pre-clinical stages of testing and have yet to enter clinical trials for cancer [66]. Compared to antibodies, peptides have a higher penetration in solid tumors due to their small size and can target overexpressed membrane receptors, dense extracellular matrixes, and tumor stromal cells [67,68]. An important characteristic of peptides is their affinity binding to the target, i.e., the strength of interaction. This interaction is unique as the peptide is unable to bind to the target through multiple interactions [69]. Further, peptides ligands can be optimized for targeting by combining the phage display-based selection with the computational modeling of peptide structure. The peptide optimization can be achieved by chemical modifications that increase their affinity, avidity, target specificity, and water solubility [70].
Regarding the solubility in water, the peptide length must be considered. Peptides with less than 5 amino acids are more soluble in water compared with longer peptides. Solubility influences the peptide activity and could reduce the ability to maintain a fixed three-dimensional conformation in aqueous solution, thus altering a specific binding to the cognate receptor [71]. To counteract this problem, phage display libraries have been created in order to express the constrained circular structure of the peptides through disulfide bridges between the amino- and carboxy-terminal cysteines. Further, betaine can increase the solubilization of peptides by reducing peptide [72]. Different strategies have been used to improve the pharmacokinetic properties of targeting peptides in vivo. Nanoparticles can be functionalized with peptide ligands for the delivery of miRNAs, siRNAs, or small ncRNAs into target cells or tissues [73]. Small regulatory RNAs, such as microRNAs, can silence their target mRNAs. Nanoparticles can be functionalized with microRNAs in order to interfere with the expression of specific oncogenes promoting tumor growth. Optimization of microRNAs delivery to tumor cells can be achieved by the inclusion of peptide ligands of tumor-receptors within the nanoparticles. In this regard, cationic peptides, protamine, and cell penetrating peptides have emerged as potential components of nanocarriers for targeted delivery of RNAs with low toxicity, as they enhance cell internalization and confer an effective RNA delivery [74].
In fact, the peptide assemblage with nanocarriers increases the likelihood of interacting with specific ligands [75]. The use of peptide ligands with cyclic structure facilitates the correct position of their amino acid sequence with respect to the target epitope. In vitro chemical modifications of these peptides provide greater serum stability with an extended half-life in vivo due to the increased protease-resistance in tissues and serum and to the reduced degradation. Consequently, the peptide dose required for effective action can be reduced, lowering the risk of adverse effects associated with activation of immune response. Peptide ligands can be labeled with fluorescent dyes, such as fluorescein isothiocyanate, for flow cytometry and confocal microscopy in vitro detection of the target molecule expressed on tumor cells, and for ex vivo detection on primary and metastatic tumor cells and tissues. Targeting peptides can also be radiolabeled with different contrast agents (99mTc, 123I, 111In, 18F, 64Cu, 68Ga, 90Y and 177Lu) for in vivo tumor detection. Moreover, several peptides are under clinical investigation as potential candidates for the diagnosis of different tumors [76]. Examples of these peptides for diagnostic purposes are: HER3P1 peptide labelled with 68Ga used as agent for PET imaging; ERBB2-targeted peptide 1-D03 labeled with 111In-DOTA used for SPECT imaging of breast carcinoma; and gastrin-releasing peptide, epidermal growth factor, and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor tested for imaging in early cancer diagnosis. The aforementioned approaches have also been used in our laboratory to monitor the in vitro and in vivo binding of peptide ligands to the immunoglobulin B-cell receptor (IgBCR) of tumor B cells. In particular, a radiolabeled peptide ligand detected in vitro and in vivo A20 murine B-cell lymphoma cells [77]. FITC-conjugated peptide ligands were used to monitor the exosomes secreted in a murine multiple myeloma as biomarkers of tumor growth [78]. Peptide ligands of the IgBCR expressed by chronic lymphocytic leukemia primary cells were also used to monitor tumor populations in disease progression [79].

7. Membrane Receptors in Cancer Cells

Membrane receptors are central players of biochemical and electrical signaling transduction regulating different cellular processes [80]. Deregulated activity of membrane receptors is often associated with neoplastic transformation [81]. In particular, overexpression of growth factor receptors has a prominent role in tumor growth. In fact, the altered membrane receptor signaling can upregulate the transcription of anti-apoptotic and proliferative genes, causing an unbalance between cell proliferation and cell death, which must be strictly regulated to counteract tumorigenesis [82]. The receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs) family includes membrane receptors whose tyrosine kinase activity is induced upon the conformational change caused by binding with their specific growth factors. The intracellular signaling of RTKs promotes cell growth, differentiation, survival, migration, and metabolism. To date, 58 different RTKs have been identified and clustered in 20 families. These receptors share a similar molecular architecture that includes: an extracellular region, termed ectodomain, with one or more ligand-binding sites; a hydrophobic transmembrane helix; a juxtamembrane regulatory region; and a cytoplasmic region composed of the tyrosine kinase domain (TKD) and a C-terminal tyrosine-rich tail [83]. As a result of the binding of the growth factor to the receptor extracellular domain, the receptor undergoes conformational changes resulting in the formation of a ligand-bound dimeric complex [84]. Upon the receptor dimerization, the intracellular TKDs are activated and, in turn, induce autophosphorylation of tyrosine residues present in the C–terminus of the receptor tail (Figure 3). The phosphorylated tyrosines become docking sites for the SH2 (Src-homology 2) or PTB (phosphotyrosine-binding) domains of cytoplasmic signaling proteins, which initiate a signal transduction cascade resulting in the activation of transcription factors that upregulate the expression of genes involved in cell survival and proliferation [85].
The deregulation of kinase signaling pathways can be caused by different mechanisms. For example, the increased expression of RTKs on the cell membrane as well as mutations of the receptor or its downstream effector proteins can transduce mitogenic signals regardless of the ligand stimulation [86,87]. Much attention has been put on identifying potential agents against single components of RTK-related signaling pathways, in search of new effective tumor treatments [88]. Indeed, membrane receptor proteins account for around 70% of FDA-approved drug targets [89]. In particular, the accessible position of the receptor ectodomain, including the ligand-binding sites, has been considered an attractive target with which to block an aberrant RTK activation. Nowadays, there are two clinically approved cancer treatment strategies in place: monoclonal antibodies (mAb) and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Both approaches were designed to block the activities of the receptor and the enzymes of downstream signaling [90]. An alternative approach is the exploitation of receptor overexpression for the targeted administration of anticancer drugs. In this regard, the peptide ligands selected by phage display can be used to target an overexpressed RTK on tumor cells [91]. The peptide ligands of RTKs can directly bind the receptor extracellular domains and modulate their activities as agonist, antagonist, or allosteric modulators [41]. In addition, peptides can be conjugated to nanoparticles for tumor-targeted delivery of anticancer drugs [92]. For instance, different short and multicyclic peptides with high affinity binding for the epidermal growth factor receptor were discovered by phage display screening and represent a promising alternative for targeted drug delivery systems.

8. The Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Family

The epidermal growth factor receptor (ErbB/HER) family represents the most studied type of RTK. It includes four structurally related members: Erb1 (EGFR), ErbB2 (Her2/Neu), ErbB3 (Her3), and ErbB4 (Her4) [93]. ERB1/EGFR was the first tyrosine kinase receptor to be discovered and linked to cancer [94]. It is a large transmembrane receptor (170–180 kDa) that contains four extracellular domains, two of which are cysteine-rich and responsible for ligand binding. EGFR can bind seven ligands, of which the epidermal growth factor (EGF) is the most studied [95]. The binding of the ligand to the receptor induces the homo- or hetero-dimerization with other members of the ErbB family, activating the cascade of intracellular events of receptor signaling. The main physiological role of EGFR is to regulate the development and homeostasis maintenance of the epithelial tissue [96]. Genetic alterations of EGFR are found in several tumors, including glioblastoma, lung, breast, gastric, and colorectal cancers. The aberrant activation of EGFR is caused by gene amplification, point mutations, in-frame deletions, or protein overexpression and contributes to the malignant transformation of epithelial cells [97]. Due to the main modulation of tumor cell growth, signaling, and survival [98], EGFR is a good candidate for tumor-targeted anticancer therapy [99]. Monoclonal antibodies, such as cetuximab and panitumumab, and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have been developed and approved for the treatment of EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), EGFR-expressing metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with KRAS wild type, and head and neck cancers [100]. These therapies, alone or in combination, demonstrated an initial improvement in patient survival, but they were unfortunately followed by acquired drug-resistance due to new mutations and alternative bypass signaling pathways [101]. Various preclinical and clinical studies have also evaluated the effect of EGFR-TKIs in combination with other chemotherapeutic agents and therapies interfering with the proteins of downstream EGFR signaling in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) [102,103]. Great effort has been put to overcome the problems of acquired resistance to anti-EGFR therapies. In particular, several studies have been conducted for selecting peptide ligands of EGFR as promising tools for targeting overexpressed EGFR receptors in different cancer cell types [104]. For colorectal cancer treatment in the pre-, early-, and late-tumor phase, 17 EGFR-specific peptides were selected by phage display: QRHKPRE, HAHRSWS, YLTMPTP, TYPISFM, KLPGWSG, IQSPHFF, YSIPKSS, SHRNRPRNTQPS, NRHKPREKTFTD, TAVPLKRSSVTI, GHTANRQPWPND, LSLTRTRHRNTR, RHRDTQNHRPTN, ARHRPKLPYTHT, KRPRTRNKDERR, SPMPQLSTLLTR, and NHVHRMH (Patent WO 2016/029125 A1—Peptide reagents and methods for detection and targeting of dysplasia, early cancer, and cancer). In the photodynamic therapy of colorectal adenocarcinoma, the peptide QRHKPRE was conjugated with zinc phthalocyanine to be used for photodynamic therapy of colorectal adenocarcinoma [105]. The KLPGWSG peptide was used to target murine neural stem cells for nerve regeneration, as it stimulated cell differentiation toward the neuronal phenotype [106]. The IQSPHFF peptide was developed to detect NIR dyes that can be used for various applications, such as site-specific protein imaging and target molecule identification [107]. Moreover, this peptide had UV-responsive properties, inducing a morphological change by converting the peptide microparticles into nanotube forms [108]. By phage display screening using human hepatoma cells and human chronic myeloid leukemia cells, the phage clone encoding the peptide sequence YHWYGYTPQNVI (GE11) specific for EGFR was enriched [109]. The GE11 peptide conjugated with 18-fluorine was developed as a new radiolabeled peptide probe for imaging tumors that overexpress EGFR [110]. Two novel peptide ligands specific for EGFR were identified by phage display on an EGFR-overexpressing A-431 epidermal cell line. These peptides inhibited EGFR-induced phosphorylation in a concentration-dependent manner, and their binding was inhibited by the natural EGF ligand [111]. To provide a rapid method for producing antibodies for sensitive immunoassays, an immunoassay-like selection strategy was provided from a synthetic scFV phage display library to isolate antibodies against EGFR [112]. To identify monoclonal antibodies against EGFR currently used in cancer therapy, two peptides (P19 and P26), recognized specifically by panitumumab, were isolated by phage display. The recombinant fusion protein of P19/P26/heat shock-related protein (HSP) 70, used for immunization, induced the production of specific antibodies against the peptides and EGFR. This allowed consideration of these peptides as mimotopes suitable for vaccines for anti-EGFR immunotherapy in tumors [113]. HER2 is a 185-kDa transmembrane glycoprotein with an extracellular domain of 105 kDa (p105HER2 ECD). HER2 lacks a ligand, so it is activated upon homo- or hetero-dimerization with another ligand-occupied ErbB member or by proteolytic cleavage of its ECD [114]. HER2 expression is low in epithelial cells, while it is upregulated in cancer. HER2 protein overexpression and gene amplification represent a therapeutic target for breast and gastric/esophageal cancers. They are also found in the ovary, bladder, lung, head and neck, and colon cancers [115]. Different anti-HER2 therapies were developed: (i) humanized monoclonal antibodies, such as trastuzumab and pertuzumab, which inhibit the formation of receptor heterodimers by binding specific domains of the HER2 receptor; (ii) small TKIs, such as lapatinib, tucatinib, or neratinib, which block the intrinsic kinase activity; and (iii) antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) that bind the receptor and mediate the entry of cytotoxic drugs into the tumor cells overexpressing HER2 [116]. Despite the therapeutic benefits in patients with HER2-positive breast or gastric cancers, the HER2 intra-tumoral heterogeneity and acquired drug-resistance were mainly responsible for treatment failure [117]. As an additional therapeutic strategy, phage display was used to identify HER2-specific peptide ligands to block the receptor activity [118]. Houimel et al. screened two random hexapeptide phage libraries and selected three linear peptides sequences (MARSGL, MARAKE, or MSRTMS), which specifically bound the ErbB-2 extracellular domain. To increase the peptide avidity, three anti-ErbB2 peptabodies were developed by fusion of the selected peptide with pentameric recombinant antibody; this peptide fusion was shown to inhibit in vitro cell growth of SK-BR-3 cells [119]. The peptide KCCYSL was also selected by phage display with high specificity for the ErbB-2 receptor, showing specific binding to breast and prostate cancer cells [120]. Another HER2-specific peptide (APTHER2) was conjugated with super-paramagnetic nanoparticles (SPION) and injected in HER2-positive tumor-bearing mice, in which it accumulated in the tumor mass, proving the in vivo binding ability to cancer cells [121]. In this regard, other Her2-targeted peptides have been analyzed in biomedical imaging and treatment as promising tools for imaging HER2-positive cancer patients [122].

9. Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor

The vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGF) family and their ligands regulate the development, differentiation, and homeostasis of endothelial cells during normal and tumor-associated angiogenesis [123]. There are three types of receptors (VEGFR 1 to 3) that are expressed on the surface of normal endothelial cells in blood vessels and in hypoxic regions of tumor mass. The extracellular region contains seven immunoglobulin (Ig)-like domains, and only two of them, Ig-domains 2 and 3, are necessary for the binding to the specific ligand, causing the receptor dimerization [124]. The alternative splicing of VEGFR pre-mRNAs produces different protein isoforms with anti-angiogenic activities, which can be found as membrane-bound (mbVEGFR) or soluble (sVEGFR) forms [125,126]. The VEGF signaling has been implicated in the development of cancer and autoimmune diseases [127]. Indeed, the targeting of tumor vasculature emerged as a promising strategy for developing novel anti-angiogenic agents to block tumor growth and metastasis. Bevacizumab (avastin) was the first monoclonal antibody approved for the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer in combination with chemotherapy [128]. Other recombinant antibodies were selected by phage display to compete with the binding of VEGF to its receptor and counteract the VEGF-dependent tumor angiogenesis [129,130,131]. As potential alternative tools to monoclonal antibodies, a number of peptides have been selected by phage display for their ability to interfere with VEGF binding to VEGFR [132]. The screening of a heptapeptide library was performed with two different approaches in vitro using as bait a CHO ovary cell line expressing a recombinant KDR/VEGFR-2 or an anti-VEGF antibody. In vitro and in vivo assays demonstrated that the peptide ATWLPPR induced a complete inhibition of VEGF binding to cell-expressing KDR, inhibited the VEGF-dependent proliferation of endothelial cells, and completely repressed the VEGF-induced angiogenesis in a rabbit corneal model. Thus, the peptide ATWLPPR (also termed A7R) could represent a potential inhibitory agent for cancer-associated angiogenesis and metastasis [133]. The A7R peptide has been also analyzed for additional biomedical applications. In fact, it was radiolabeled for diagnosis based on imaging of tumor vasculature, or it was conjugated to nanocarriers for targeted drug delivery to normal and tumor endothelial cells [134]. In 2001, Giordano et al. developed an alternative selection method, known as BRASIL (biopanning and rapid analysis of selective interactive ligands), which was based on the sorting of cell-bounded phages from free phages by differential centrifugation. This additional separation step was used to screen a phage-displayed random peptide library with VEGF-stimulated HUVEC cells and to select the peptide CPQPRPL that bound to VEGFR1 and neuropilin-1 with higher specificity as compared to currently used selection methods. The motif PQPRPL was also demonstrated to be a chimeric VEGF-B-family mimic [135]. Another peptide K237-(HTMYYHHYQHHL) selected by phage display abrogated the VEGF/KDR interaction, inhibited the in vitro proliferation of primary endothelial cells, and showed anti-angiogenic properties in animal models in vivo [136]. Another selection of antagonizing peptides of VEGFR-1/Flt-1 receptor was performed by phage display dodecapeptide library using the recombinant receptor protein as bait. Among the seven selected peptides, F56 (WHSDMEWWYLLG) blocked VEGF binding to the Flt-1 receptor in vitro and inhibited blood vessel formation, tumor growth, and breast cancer metastasis in vivo [137]. As the pan-VEGF inhibitory peptides selected by phage display target all three members of VEGFR family, they may share common binding sites of these RTKs, and thus could be powerful anti-angiogenic drugs.

10. Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor

There are six subfamilies of secreted fibroblast growth factors (FGF-1, FGF-4, FGF-7, FGF-8, FGF-9, and FGF-19) that activate four FGF receptors (FGFR 1 to 4). The members of the FGFR family contain three extracellular Ig-like domains [138]. The binding of a ligand with a specific FGFR isoform activates the paracrine or endocrine signaling pathways that regulate various physiological and pathological processes, such as embryonic development, epithelial–mesenchymal interactions, metabolism regulation, migration, and angiogenesis [139]. FGFR is frequently mutated in genetic disorders, including Kallman’s syndrome [140], craniosynostosis syndromes [141], achondroplasia [142], and different cancers [143,144,145,146,147]. The selection of peptide ligands of hyper-expressed FGFR is certainly a strategic approach for cancer therapy. The LSPPRYP peptide was identified by phage display after three biopanning cycles using as bait murine fibroblasts overexpressing FGFR1c and FGFR2c isoforms and human keratinocytes overexpressing FGFR2. The LSPPRYP peptide competed with the natural ligand bFGF for binding to its receptor and showed strong anti-proliferative activity in vitro and in vivo. Therefore, this peptide was considered a promising candidate for anticancer therapy [148]. A phage-displayed library of 6-mer phage peptides was screened using Sf9 insect cells to select specific peptide ligands of FGFR1. The peptide VYMSPF was developed, which inhibited the mitogenic activity of aFGF, thus representing a good antagonist of aFGF for the therapy of human angiogenic diseases [149]. By screening a library of phage display heptapeptides on prostate cancer cells, Wang et al. identified the peptide HSQAAVP, named P12, which was a specific ligand of fibroblast growth factor 8b (FGF8b), antagonized the FGF8b activity and was useful for prostate cancer therapy [150]. The FGF peptide P7 (PLLQATL), showing high sequence homology to Ig-like domain IIIc of FGFR1 and FGFR2, was identified by screening a library of random heptapeptide by phage display using bFGF-stimulated murine fibroblasts [151]; this peptide inhibited cell proliferation by acting on the cell cycle and the Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinase (MAPK) signaling pathway [152]. The P7 peptide activity was investigated in different cancers, such as MDA-MB-231 breast cancer cells, in which proliferation was stimulated by bFGF and inhibited by P7 [153]. The therapeutic potential of P7 was also tested in bFGF-stimulated SKOV3 epithelial ovarian cancer cells, whose proliferation and migration were inhibited, suggesting that the P7 peptide could be a good candidate for targeted therapy of breast and ovarian cancers [154].

11. Platelet-Derived Growth Factor Receptor

The platelet-derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR) family includes four tyrosine kinase receptors (PDGF-A, -B, -C, and -D) that can homo- or hetero-dimerize [155]. The PDGFR consists of two subunits (alpha and beta), each one encoded by a different gene [156]. In the monomeric form, PDGFR is inactive; when PDGF binds to one of PDGFR isoforms (alpha or beta), the receptor dimerizes with three possible subunit combinations, named -αα, -ββ, and -αβ. The extracellular region of the receptor consists of five immunoglobulin-like domains, and the intracellular region contains a tyrosine kinase domain. PDGF-BB is the only PDGF ligand that can bind all three combinations of receptors with high affinity [157]. The cellular expression of PDGFR isoforms is variable as some cells display only one of the PDGFR isoforms while others express more isoforms. PDGF/PDGFR isoforms regulate several cell proliferation processes, differentiation, and apoptosis [158]. They promote the differentiation of mesenchymal cells, such as fibroblasts and pericytes, the main components of the tumor microenvironment involved in promoting tumor proliferation, metastasis, and response to therapy [159]. PDGFRβ is highly expressed in many tumors, playing a key role in activating angiogenesis and regulating tumor interstitial fluid pressure [160,161,162]. The decreased interstitial fluid pressure with consequent improved trans-capillary molecular transport was the basis for new therapeutic approaches [163]. The role of PDGFRβ in various pathophysiological mechanisms makes this receptor a promising candidate for targeted therapy of tumors associated with high expression of PDGF-BB [164]. Although many PDGFRβ inhibitors have been developed and tested, most of these inhibitors were not specific for PDGFRβ and showed activity to other kinases [165]. The monoclonal antibody 2AIE2 has been developed against the extracellular region of the PDGFR. It is particularly mapped to the fifth Ig- domain of the PDGF-beta receptor, which implies that this domain is essential for inhibiting the binding between ligand and receptor [166]. In addition to monoclonal antibodies for therapeutic targeting, a new approach uses peptides with specific targeting characteristics. To identify human PDGFRβ-specific binding peptides, Askoxylakis et al. performed biopanning using as bait the immobilized recombinant extracellular domain of PDGFRβ and subsequently the biotinylated form in suspension. After four rounds of selection, 40% of the clones isolated on the immobilized protein and 80% of the clones isolated on the biotinylated target in suspension showed the peptide sequence IPLPPPSRPFFK [167]. To determine the properties of PDGFR-P1 on tumor cells, the peptide binding was evaluated on human pancreatic and breast cancer cells that overexpress PDGFRβ. The in vivo biodistribution studies showed a more significant accumulation of the peptide in the tumor than in most healthy tissues. This study suggested that the peptide PDGFR-P1 could be useful for developing novel peptide-based ligands of platelet-derived growth factor receptor beta for tumor monitoring. There is still very little information about the role of the PDGF-B/PDGFR-β axis in aggressive triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) subtypes [168]. Applying phage display to select peptide ligands of PDGFR expressed in TNBC could be useful for developing original reagents for interfering with the receptor signaling, and for getting new insights into the molecular mechanisms of this cancer type.

12. Discussion

It is well known that tyrosine kinase receptors play crucial roles in cell growth and differentiation and in cancer, as they act as important mediators for a myriad of cell signaling pathways. For this reason, RTKs represent a prominent class of receptors as therapeutic targets in a variety of pathological diseases. Remarkably, understanding mechanisms that cause abnormal activation of RTKs in cancers attracted researchers to study new techniques for discovering innovative drugs. Several monoclonal antibodies target the extracellular domain of these receptors, and small tyrosine kinase inhibitors, which target the ATPase intracellular kinase domain or downstream effector proteins, are under pre-clinical and clinical studies or already FDA-approved. However, there are still critical points to address, such as drug resistance, target selection, and immunogenicity. The search for peptide ligands of RTKs was undertaken to overcome these problems as a new strategy for targeting overexpressed RTKs in cancer cells [169]. The use of peptides was first associated with many drawbacks: the hydrophilic nature of peptides and their conformational flexibility, which sometimes led to problems in crossing some physiological barriers; the necessity of administration by injection because oral administration and the presence of proteolytic enzymes in the digestive tract causes a rapid degradation; and peptides’ quick hepatic and renal elimination from the blood circulation [170]. Despite the problems of in vivo stability and short half-life, the peptides have multiple advantages for drug discovery and therapeutic applications. In fact, they are characterized by small size, bioactivities, and safety from adverse reactions of the immune system. A growing number of studies have been conducted to improve the chemical properties of peptides and their targeted delivery toward a specific in vivo target [171]. Innovation in the study of peptides was the introduction of phage display technology, which in 2018 won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, allowing the selection of specific ligands from phage libraries that expose thousands of random peptides on their surface coat. There are various methods of biopanning screening and selection of peptide binders with high affinity [172]. Thanks to this technique it has been possible to identify specific ligands of membrane receptors, and therefore to study the modulation of related signaling pathways [173]. This allowed the discovery of peptide candidates for targeted tumor therapies and, in some cases, early monitoring of cancer. In this review, we examined novel peptides specific to the main RTKs families ErbB, VEGFR, FGFR, and PDGFR. All these peptides have been identified by phage display libraries screening and have shown potential application in oncological therapy [40]. As these RTKs are overexpressed in different cancer types, showing aggressiveness and decreased patient survival, the peptides that negatively modulate the activity of these receptors are useful models for drug development [174]. Further, the conjugation of peptide ligands with nanocarriers can represent a new potential drug delivery system in cancer therapy.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.A., N.N., and E.I.; writing—original draft preparation, A.A. and N.N.; illustration and post-production, N.N. and A.A.; review and editing, A.A., N.N., E.I., D.M., E.V., S.M., and G.F.; visualization, A.A., N.N., E.I., and I.Q.; supervision, E.I. and I.Q. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the following grants: POR FES/FESR 2014-20-ATS ALCMEONE cup J18C17000610006 to I.Q.; MIUR-PRIN 2017MHJJ55_002 to I.Q.; E.I. was supported by funds from GILEAD Fellowship 2018; S.M. was supported by funds from the EU project PONAIM1897004–1; D.M. was supported by funds from the EU project FSE-FESR PON-RI2014-2020.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Hertveldt, K.; Belien, T.; Volckaert, G. General M13 phage display: M13 phage display in identification and characterization of protein-protein interactions. Methods Mol. Biol. 2009, 502, 321–339. [Google Scholar]
  2. Smith, G.P. Filamentous fusion phage: Novel expression vectors that display cloned antigens on the virion surface. Science 1985, 228, 1315–1317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Parmley, S.F.; Smith, G.P. Antibody-selectable filamentous fd phage vectors: Affinity purification of target genes. Gene 1988, 73, 305–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Scott, J.K.; Smith, G.P. Searching for peptide ligands with an epitope library. Science 1990, 249, 386–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Devlin, J.J.; Panganiban, L.C.; Devlin, P.E. Random peptide libraries: A source of specific protein binding molecules. Science 1990, 249, 404–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. McCafferty, J.; Griffiths, A.D.; Winter, G.; Chiswell, D.J. Phage antibodies: Filamentous phage displaying antibody variable domains. Nature 1990, 348, 552–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Clackson, T.; Hoogenboom, H.R.; Griffiths, A.D.; Winter, G. Making antibody fragments using phage display libraries. Nature 1991, 352, 624–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Hawkins, R.E.; Russell, S.J.; Winter, G. Selection of phage antibodies by binding affinity. Mimicking affinity maturation. J. Mol. Biol. 1992, 226, 889–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Micheel, B.; Heymann, S.; Scharte, G.; Bottger, V.; Vogel, F.; Dubel, S.; Breitling, F.; Little, M.; Behrsing, O. Production of monoclonal antibodies against epitopes of the main coat protein of filamentous fd phages. J. Immunol. Methods 1994, 171, 103–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Winter, G.; Griffiths, A.D.; Hawkins, R.E.; Hoogenboom, H.R. Making antibodies by phage display technology. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 1994, 12, 433–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Vaughan, T.J.; Williams, A.J.; Pritchard, K.; Osbourn, J.K.; Pope, A.R.; Earnshaw, J.C.; McCafferty, J.; Hodits, R.A.; Wilton, J.; Johnson, K.S. Human antibodies with sub-nanomolar affinities isolated from a large non-immunized phage display library. Nat. Biotechnol. 1996, 14, 309–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Gao, C.; Mao, S.; Kaufmann, G.; Wirsching, P.; Lerner, R.A.; Janda, K.D. A method for the generation of combinatorial antibody libraries using pIX phage display. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2002, 99, 12612–12616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Sanz, L.; Kristensen, P.; Blanco, B.; Facteau, S.; Russell, S.J.; Winter, G.; Alvarez-Vallina, L. Single-chain antibody-based gene therapy: Inhibition of tumor growth by in situ production of phage-derived human antibody fragments blocking functionally active sites of cell-associated matrices. Gene Ther. 2002, 9, 1049–1053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Broders, O.; Breitling, F.; Dubel, S. Hyperphage. Improving antibody presentation in phage display. Methods Mol. Biol. 2003, 205, 295–302. [Google Scholar]
  15. Schofield, D.J.; Pope, A.R.; Clementel, V.; Buckell, J.; Chapple, S.; Clarke, K.F.; Conquer, J.S.; Crofts, A.M.; Crowther, S.R.; Dyson, M.R.; et al. Application of phage display to high throughput antibody generation and characterization. Genome Biol. 2007, 8, R254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Dubel, S.; Stoevesandt, O.; Taussig, M.J.; Hust, M. Generating recombinant antibodies to the complete human proteome. Trends Biotechnol. 2010, 28, 333–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Pershad, K.; Pavlovic, J.D.; Graslund, S.; Nilsson, P.; Colwill, K.; Karatt-Vellatt, A.; Schofield, D.J.; Dyson, M.R.; Pawson, T.; Kay, B.K.; et al. Generating a panel of highly specific antibodies to 20 human SH2 domains by phage display. Protein Eng. Des. Sel. 2010, 23, 279–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Andris-Widhopf, J.; Steinberger, P.; Fuller, R.; Rader, C.; Barbas, C.F., 3rd. Generation of human Fab antibody libraries: PCR amplification and assembly of light- and heavy-chain coding sequences. Cold Spring Harb. Protoc. 2011, 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Hust, M.; Frenzel, A.; Meyer, T.; Schirrmann, T.; Dubel, S. Construction of human naive antibody gene libraries. Methods Mol. Biol. 2012, 907, 85–107. [Google Scholar]
  20. Deyle, K.; Kong, X.D.; Heinis, C. Phage Selection of Cyclic Peptides for Application in Research and Drug Development. Acc. Chem. Res. 2017, 50, 1866–1874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Barderas, R.; Benito-Pena, E. The 2018 Nobel Prize in Chemistry: Phage display of peptides and antibodies. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2019, 411, 2475–2479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ibsen, K.N.; Daugherty, P.S. Prediction of antibody structural epitopes via random peptide library screening and next generation sequencing. J. Immunol. Methods 2017, 451, 28–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Fuhner, V.; Heine, P.A.; Zilkens, K.J.C.; Meier, D.; Roth, K.D.R.; Moreira, G.; Hust, M.; Russo, G. Epitope Mapping via Phage Display from Single-Gene Libraries. Methods Mol. Biol. 2019, 1904, 353–375. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  24. Qi, H.; Ma, M.; Hu, C.; Xu, Z.W.; Wu, F.L.; Wang, N.; Lai, D.Y.; Li, Y.; Zhang, H.; Jiang, H.W.; et al. Antibody binding epitope Mapping (AbMap) of hundred antibodies in a single run. Mol. Cell Proteom. 2021, 20, 100059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Malik, P.; Terry, T.D.; Gowda, L.R.; Langara, A.; Petukhov, S.A.; Symmons, M.F.; Welsh, L.C.; Marvin, D.A.; Perham, R.N. Role of capsid structure and membrane protein processing in determining the size and copy number of peptides displayed on the major coat protein of filamentous bacteriophage. J. Mol. Biol. 1996, 260, 9–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Azzazy, H.M.; Highsmith, W.E., Jr. Phage display technology: Clinical applications and recent innovations. Clin. Biochem. 2002, 35, 425–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lowman, H.B. Phage Display for Protein Binding. In Encyclopedia of Biological Chemistry, 2nd ed.; Lennarz, W.J., Lane, M.D., Eds.; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 431–436. ISBN 9780123786319. [Google Scholar]
  28. Glisic, S.; Veljkovic, V. Chapter 9—Design of targeting peptides for nanodrugs for treatment of infectious diseases and cancer. In Drug Targeting and Stimuli Sensitive Drug Delivery Systems; Grumezescu, A.M., Ed.; William Andrew Publishing: Norwich, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 343–381. ISBN 9780128136898. [Google Scholar]
  29. Malys, N.; Chang, D.Y.; Baumann, R.G.; Xie, D.; Black, L.W. A bipartite bacteriophage T4 SOC and HOC randomized peptide display library: Detection and analysis of phage T4 terminase (gp17) and late sigma factor (gp55) interaction. J. Mol. Biol. 2002, 319, 289–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Deng, X.; Wang, L.; You, X.; Dai, P.; Zeng, Y. Advances in the T7 phage display system (Review). Mol. Med. Rep. 2018, 17, 714–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Nicastro, J.; Sheldon, K.; Slavcev, R.A. Bacteriophage lambda display systems: Developments and applications. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2014, 98, 2853–2866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Smith, G.P.; Petrenko, V.A. Phage Display. Chem. Rev. 1997, 97, 391–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Barbas, C.F., III; Burton, D.R.; Scott, J.K.; Silverman, G.J. Phage Display a Laboratory Manual; Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press: Cold Spring Harbor, NY, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  34. Takakusagi, Y.; Takakusagi, K.; Sugawara, F.; Sakaguchi, K. Use of phage display technology for the determination of the targets for small-molecule therapeutics. Expert Opin. Drug Dis. 2010, 5, 361–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Rosenberg, A.; Griffin, K.; Studier, F.W.; McCormick, M.; Berg, J.; Novy, R.; Mierendorf, R. T7Select® Phage Display System: A powerful new protein display system based on bacteriophage T7. Innovations 1996, 6, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  36. Castagnoli, L.; Zucconi, A.; Quondam, M.; Rossi, M.; Vaccaro, P.; Panni, S.; Paoluzi, S.; Santonico, E.; Dente, L.; Cesareni, G. Alternative bacteriophage display systems. Comb. Chem. High Throughput Screen. 2001, 4, 121–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. McKenzie, K.M.; Videlock, E.J.; Splittgerber, U.; Austin, D.J. Simultaneous identification of multiple protein targets by using complementary-DNA phage display and a natural-product-mimetic probe. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2004, 43, 4052–4055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Takakusagi, Y.; Ohta, K.; Kuramochi, K.; Morohashi, K.; Kobayashi, S.; Sakaguchi, K.; Sugawara, F. Synthesis of a biotinylated camptothecin derivative and determination of the binding sequence by T7 phage display technology. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2005, 15, 4846–4849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Griffiths, A.; Miller, J.; Suzuki, D.; Lewontin, R.; Gelbart, W. An Introduction to Genetic Analysis, 7th ed.; W.H. Freeman & Co. Ltd: New York, NY, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  40. Saw, P.E.; Song, E.W. Phage display screening of therapeutic peptide for cancer targeting and therapy. Protein Cell 2019, 10, 787–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Bratkovic, T. Progress in phage display: Evolution of the technique and its applications. Cell. Mol. Life Sci 2010, 67, 749–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Hamzeh-Mivehroud, M.; Alizadeh, A.A.; Morris, M.B.; Church, W.B.; Dastmalchi, S. Phage display as a technology delivering on the promise of peptide drug discovery. Drug Discov. Today 2013, 18, 1144–1157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Omidfar, K.; Daneshpour, M. Advances in phage display technology for drug discovery. Expert Opin. Drug Dis. 2015, 10, 651–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kim, S.; Kim, D.; Jung, H.H.; Lee, I.H.; Kim, J.I.; Suh, J.Y.; Jon, S. Bio-Inspired Design and Potential Biomedical Applications of a Novel Class of High-Affinity Peptides. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2012, 51, 1890–1894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Zhao, P.; Grabinski, T.; Gao, C.; Skinner, R.S.; Giambernardi, T.; Su, Y.; Hudson, E.; Resau, J.; Gross, M.; Woude, G.F.V.; et al. Identification of a met-binding peptide from a phage display library. Clin. Cancer Res. 2007, 13, 6049–6055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Sun, J.M.; Zhang, C.; Liu, G.B.; Liu, H.; Zhou, C.P.; Lu, Y.X.; Zhou, C.; Yuan, L.; Li, X.N. A novel mouse CD133 binding-peptide screened by phage display inhibits cancer cell motility in vitro. Clin. Exp. Metastasis 2012, 29, 185–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Laakkonen, P.; Porkka, K.; Hoffman, J.A.; Ruoslahti, E. A tumor-homing peptide with a targeting specificity related to lymphatic vessels. Nat. Med. 2002, 8, 751–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Lo, A.; Lin, C.T.; Wu, H.C. Hepatocellular carcinoma cell-specific peptide ligand for targeted drug delivery. Mol. Cancer Ther. 2008, 7, 579–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Koivunen, E.; Wang, B.; Ruoslahti, E. Phage libraries displaying cyclic peptides with different ring sizes: Ligand specificities of the RGD-directed integrins. Biotechnology 1995, 13, 265–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Pasqualini, R.; Ruoslahti, E. Organ targeting in vivo using phage display peptide libraries. Nature 1996, 380, 364–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ruoslahti, E. Targeting tumor vasculature with homing peptides from phage display. Semin. Cancer Biol. 2000, 10, 435–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Arap, W.; Kolonin, M.G.; Trepel, M.; Lahdenranta, J.; Cardo-Vila, M.; Giordano, R.J.; Mintz, P.J.; Ardelt, P.U.; Yao, V.J.; Vidal, C.I.; et al. Steps toward mapping the human vasculature by phage display. Nat. Med. 2002, 8, 121–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Mueller, J.; Gaertner, F.C.; Blechert, B.; Janssen, K.P.; Essler, M. Targeting of tumor blood vessels: A phage-displayed tumor-homing peptide specifically binds to matrix metalloproteinase-2-processed collagen IV and blocks angiogenesis in vivo. Mol. Cancer Res. 2009, 7, 1078–1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Karkkainen, S.; Hiipakka, M.; Wang, J.H.; Kleino, I.; Vaha-Jaakkola, M.; Renkema, G.H.; Liss, M.; Wagner, R.; Saksela, K. Identification of preferred protein interactions by phage-display of the human Src homology-3 proteome. EMBO Rep. 2006, 7, 186–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Voss, M.; Lettau, M.; Janssen, O. Identification of SH3 domain interaction partners of human FasL (CD178) by phage display screening. BMC Immunol. 2009, 10, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Luck, K.; Trave, G. Phage display can select over-hydrophobic sequences that may impair prediction of natural domain-peptide interactions. Bioinformatics 2011, 27, 899–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Mimmi, S.; Vecchio, E.; Iaccino, E.; Rossi, M.; Lupia, A.; Albano, F.; Chiurazzi, F.; Fiume, G.; Pisano, A.; Ceglia, S.; et al. Evidence of shared epitopic reactivity among independent B-cell clones in chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients. Leukemia 2016, 30, 2419–2422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  58. Hoogenboom, H.R. Overview of antibody phage-display technology and its applications. Methods Mol. Biol. 2002, 178, 1–37. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  59. Henninot, A.; Collins, J.C.; Nuss, J.M. The Current State of Peptide Drug Discovery: Back to the Future? J. Med. Chem. 2018, 61, 1382–1414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Katz, B.A. Structural and mechanistic determinants of affinity and specificity of ligands discovered or engineered by phage display. Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. 1997, 26, 27–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Dan, N.; Samanta, K.; Almoazen, H. An Update on Pharmaceutical Strategies for Oral Delivery of Therapeutic Peptides and Proteins in Adults and Pediatrics. Children 2020, 7, 307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ladner, R.C.; Sato, A.K.; Gorzelany, J.; de Souza, M. Phage display-derived peptides as a therapeutic alternatives to antibodies. Drug Discov. Today 2004, 9, 525–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Mimmi, S.; Maisano, D.; Quinto, I.; Iaccino, E. Phage Display: An Overview in Context to Drug Discovery. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 2019, 40, 87–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Choonara, B.F.; Choonara, Y.E.; Kumar, P.; Bijukumar, D.; du Toit, L.C.; Pillay, V. A review of advanced oral drug delivery technologies facilitating the protection and absorption of protein and peptide molecules. Biotechnol. Adv. 2014, 32, 1269–1282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Tripathi, P.P.; Arami, H.; Banga, I.; Gupta, J.; Gandhi, S. Cell penetrating peptides in preclinical and clinical cancer diagnosis and therapy. Oncotarget 2018, 9, 37252–37267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Boohaker, R.J.; Lee, M.W.; Vishnubhotla, P.; Perez, J.M.; Khaled, A.R. The use of therapeutic peptides to target and to kill cancer cells. Curr. Med. Chem. 2012, 19, 3794–3804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Scodeller, P.; Asciutto, E.K. Targeting Tumors Using Peptides. Molecules 2020, 25, 808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  68. Mangini, M.; Iaccino, E.; Mosca, M.G.; Mimmi, S.; D’Angelo, R.; Quinto, I.; Scala, G.; Mariggio, S. Peptide-guided targeting of GPR55 for anti-cancer therapy. Oncotarget 2017, 8, 5179–5195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  69. Vauquelin, G.; Charlton, S.J. Exploring avidity: Understanding the potential gains in functional affinity and target residence time of bivalent and heterobivalent ligands. Br. J. Pharmacol. 2013, 168, 1771–1785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Bolhassani, A. Improvements in chemical carriers of proteins and peptides. Cell Biol. Int. 2019, 43, 437–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Morales, P.; Jimenez, M.A. Design and structural characterisation of monomeric water-soluble alpha-helix and beta-hairpin peptides: State-of-the-art. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 2019, 661, 149–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Xiao, J.; Burn, A.; Tolbert, T.J. Increasing solubility of proteins and peptides by site-specific modification with betaine. Bioconjug. Chem. 2008, 19, 1113–1118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Mousavizadeh, A.; Jabbari, A.; Akrami, M.; Bardania, H. Cell targeting peptides as smart ligands for targeting of therapeutic or diagnostic agents: A systematic review. Colloid Surf. B 2017, 158, 507–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Shukla, R.S.; Qin, B.; Cheng, K. Peptides used in the delivery of small noncoding RNA. Mol. Pharm. 2014, 11, 3395–3408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Jeong, W.J.; Bu, J.; Kubiatowicz, L.J.; Chen, S.S.; Kim, Y.; Hong, S. Peptide-nanoparticle conjugates: A next generation of diagnostic and therapeutic platforms? Nano Converg. 2018, 5, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Li, C.Y.; Li, J.; Xu, Y.; Zhan, Y.; Li, Y.; Song, T.T.; Zheng, J.; Yang, H. Application of Phage-Displayed Peptides in Tumor Imaging Diagnosis and Targeting Therapy. Int. J. Pept. Res. Ther. 2021, 27, 587–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Palmieri, C.; Falcone, C.; Iaccino, E.; Tuccillo, F.M.; Gaspari, M.; Trimboli, F.; De Laurentiis, A.; Luberto, L.; Pontoriero, M.; Pisano, A.; et al. In vivo targeting and growth inhibition of the A20 murine B-cell lymphoma by an idiotype-specific peptide binder. Blood 2010, 116, 226–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Iaccino, E.; Mimmi, S.; Dattilo, V.; Marino, F.; Candeloro, P.; Di Loria, A.; Marimpietri, D.; Pisano, A.; Albano, F.; Vecchio, E.; et al. Monitoring multiple myeloma by idiotype-specific peptide binders of tumor-derived exosomes. Mol. Cancer 2017, 16, 159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Mimmi, S.; Maisano, D.; Nistico, N.; Vecchio, E.; Chiurazzi, F.; Ferrara, K.; Iannalfo, M.; D’Ambrosio, A.; Fiume, G.; Iaccino, E.; et al. Detection of chronic lymphocytic leukemia subpopulations in peripheral blood by phage ligands of tumor immunoglobulin B cell receptors. Leukemia 2021, 35, 610–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Deller, M.C.; Jones, E.Y. Cell surface receptors. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2000, 10, 213–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Hanahan, D.; Weinberg, R.A. Hallmarks of Cancer: The Next Generation. Cell 2011, 144, 646–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Guo, M.; Hay, B.A. Cell proliferation and apoptosis. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 1999, 11, 745–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Schlessinger, J. Cell signaling by receptor tyrosine kinases. Cell 2000, 103, 211–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Maruyama, I.N. Mechanisms of Activation of Receptor Tyrosine Kinases: Monomers or Dimers. Cells 2014, 3, 304–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  85. Lemmon, M.A.; Schlessinger, J. Cell Signaling by Receptor Tyrosine Kinases. Cell 2010, 141, 1117–1134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Du, Z.F.; Lovly, C.M. Mechanisms of receptor tyrosine kinase activation in cancer. Mol. Cancer 2018, 17, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Haglund, K.; Rusten, T.E.; Stenmark, H. Aberrant receptor signaling and trafficking as mechanisms in oncogenesis. Crit. Rev. Oncog. 2007, 13, 39–74. [Google Scholar]
  88. Santos, R.; Ursu, O.; Gaulton, A.; Bento, A.P.; Donadi, R.S.; Bologa, C.G.; Karlsson, A.; Al-Lazikani, B.; Hersey, A.; Oprea, T.I.; et al. A comprehensive map of molecular drug targets. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2017, 16, 19–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Ardito, F.; Giuliani, M.; Perrone, D.; Troiano, G.; Lo Muzio, L. The crucial role of protein phosphorylation in cell signaling and its use as targeted therapy. Int. J. Mol. Med. 2017, 40, 271–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Imai, K.; Takaoka, A. Comparing antibody and small-molecule therapies for cancer. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2006, 6, 714–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Loktev, A.; Haberkorn, U.; Mier, W. Multicyclic Peptides as Scaffolds for the Development of Tumor Targeting Agents. Curr. Med. Chem. 2017, 24, 2141–2155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Elzoghby, A.O.; Elgohary, M.M.; Kamel, N.M. Implications of Protein- and Peptide-Based Nanoparticles as Potential Vehicles for Anticancer Drugs. Adv. Protein Chem. Struct. Biol. 2015, 98, 169–221. [Google Scholar]
  93. Seshacharyulu, P.; Ponnusamy, M.P.; Haridas, D.; Jain, M.; Ganti, A.K.; Batra, S.K. Targeting the EGFR signaling pathway in cancer therapy. Expert Opin. Ther. Targets 2012, 16, 15–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  94. Wang, Z. ErbB Receptors and Cancer. Methods Mol. Biol. 2017, 1652, 3–35. [Google Scholar]
  95. Sabbah, D.A.; Hajjo, R.; Sweidan, K. Review on Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) Structure, Signaling Pathways, Interactions, and Recent Updates of EGFR Inhibitors. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 2020, 20, 815–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Sigismund, S.; Avanzato, D.; Lanzetti, L. Emerging functions of the EGFR in cancer. Mol. Oncol. 2018, 12, 3–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Roskoski, R., Jr. The ErbB/HER family of protein-tyrosine kinases and cancer. Pharmacol. Res. 2014, 79, 34–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Engelman, J.A.; Cantley, L.C. A sweet new role for EGFR in cancer. Cancer Cell 2008, 13, 375–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Rajaram, P.; Chandra, P.; Ticku, S.; Pallavi, B.K.; Rudresh, K.B.; Mansabdar, P. Epidermal growth factor receptor: Role in human cancer. Indian J. Dent. Res. 2017, 28, 687–694. [Google Scholar]
  100. Mazzarella, L.; Guida, A.; Curigliano, G. Cetuximab for treating non-small cell lung cancer. Expert Opin. Biol. Ther. 2018, 18, 483–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Nagano, T.; Tachihara, M.; Nishimura, Y. Mechanism of Resistance to Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor-Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors and a Potential Treatment Strategy. Cells 2018, 7, 212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  102. El Guerrab, A.; Bamdad, M.; Kwiatkowski, F.; Bignon, Y.J.; Penault-Llorca, F.; Aubel, C. Anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies and EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors as combination therapy for triple-negative breast cancer. Oncotarget 2016, 7, 73618–73637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  103. Nakai, K.; Hung, M.C.; Yamaguchi, H. A perspective on anti-EGFR therapies targeting triple-negative breast cancer. Am. J. Cancer Res. 2016, 6, 1609–1623. [Google Scholar]
  104. Yavari, B.; Mahjub, R.; Saidijam, M.; Raigani, M.; Soleimani, M. The Potential Use of Peptides in Cancer Treatment. Curr. Protein Pept. Sci. 2018, 19, 759–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Xue, E.Y.; Wong, R.C.H.; Wong, C.T.T.; Fong, W.P.; Ng, D.K.P. Synthesis and biological evaluation of an epidermal growth factor receptor-targeted peptide-conjugated phthalocyanine-based photosensitiser. RSC Adv. 2019, 9, 20652–20662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  106. Caprini, A.; Silva, D.; Zanoni, I.; Cunha, C.; Volonte, C.; Vescovi, A.; Gelain, F. A novel bioactive peptide: Assessing its activity over murine neural stem cells and its potential for neural tissue engineering. New Biotechnol. 2013, 30, 552–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Kelly, K.A.; Carson, J.; McCarthy, J.R.; Weissleder, R. Novel Peptide Sequence (“IQ-tag”) with High Affinity for NIR Fluorochromes Allows Protein and Cell Specific Labeling for In Vivo Imaging. PLoS ONE 2007, 2, e665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  108. Wei, R.; Jin, C.C.; Quan, J.; Nie, H.L.; Zhu, L.M. A Novel Self-Assembling Peptide with UV-Responsive Properties. Biopolymers 2014, 101, 272–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Li, Z.H.; Zhao, R.J.; Wu, X.H.; Sun, Y.; Yao, M.; Li, J.J.; Xu, Y.H.; Gu, J.R. Identification and characterization of a novel peptide ligand of epidermal growth factor receptor for targeted delivery of therapeutics. FASEB J. 2005, 19, 1978–1985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Li, X.L.; Hu, K.Z.; Liu, W.F.; Wei, Y.F.; Sha, R.H.; Long, Y.X.; Han, Y.J.; Sun, P.H.; Wu, H.B.; Li, G.P.; et al. Synthesis and evaluation of [F-18]FP-Lys-GE11 as a new radiolabeled peptide probe for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) imaging. Nucl. Med. Biol. 2020, 90–91, 84–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Hamzeh-Mivehroud, M.; Mahmoudpour, A.; Dastmalchi, S. Identification of New Peptide Ligands for Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Using Phage Display and Computationally Modeling their Mode of Binding. Chem. Biol. Drug Des. 2012, 79, 246–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Ki, M.K.; Kang, K.J.; Shimi, H. Phage Display Selection of EGFR-specific Antibodies by Capture-sandwich Panning. Biotechnol. Bioprocess Eng. 2010, 15, 152–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Wang, A.D.; Cui, M.; Qu, H.; Di, J.B.; Wang, Z.Z.; Xing, J.D.; Wu, F.; Wu, W.; Wang, X.C.; Shen, L.; et al. Induction of anti-EGFR immune response with mimotopes identified from a phage display peptide library by panitumumab. Oncotarget 2016, 7, 75293–75306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  114. Perrier, A.; Gligorov, J.; Lefevre, G.; Boissan, M. The extracellular domain of Her2 in serum as a biomarker of breast cancer. Lab. Investig. 2018, 98, 696–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Iqbal, N.; Iqbal, N. Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2) in Cancers: Overexpression and Therapeutic Implications. Mol. Biol. Int. 2014, 2014, 852748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Ocana, A.; Amir, E.; Pandiella, A. HER2 heterogeneity and resistance to anti-HER2 antibody-drug conjugates. Breast Cancer Res. 2020, 22, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Rye, I.H.; Trinh, A.; Saetersdal, A.B.; Nebdal, D.; Lingjaerde, O.C.; Almendro, V.; Polyak, K.; Borresen-Dale, A.L.; Helland, A.; Markowetz, F.; et al. Intratumor heterogeneity defines treatment-resistant HER2+ breast tumors. Mol. Oncol. 2018, 12, 1838–1855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  118. Diderich, P.; Heinis, C. Phage selection of bicyclic peptides binding Her2. Tetrahedron 2014, 70, 7733–7739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Houimel, M.; Schneider, P.; Terskikh, A.; Mach, J.P. Selection of peptides and synthesis of pentameric peptabody molecules reacting specifically with ERBB-2 receptor. Int. J. Cancer 2001, 92, 748–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Karasseva, N.G.; Glinsky, V.V.; Chen, N.X.; Komatireddy, R.; Quinn, T.P. Identification and characterization of peptides that bind human ErbB-2 selected from a bacteriophage display library. J. Protein Chem. 2002, 21, 287–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Park, J.; Park, S.; Kim, S.; Lee, I.H.; Saw, P.E.; Lee, K.; Kim, Y.C.; Kim, Y.J.; Farokhzad, O.C.; Jeong, Y.Y.; et al. HER2-specific aptide conjugated magneto-nanoclusters for potential breast cancer imaging and therapy. J. Mater. Chem. B 2013, 1, 4576–4583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Ducharme, M.; Lapi, S.E. Peptide Based Imaging Agents for HER2 Imaging in Oncology. Mol. Imaging 2020, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Siveen, K.S.; Prabhu, K.; Krishnankutty, R.; Kuttikrishnan, S.; Tsakou, M.; Alali, F.Q.; Dermime, S.; Mohammad, R.M.; Uddin, S. Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) Signaling in Tumour Vascularization: Potential and Challenges. Curr. Vasc. Pharmacol. 2017, 15, 339–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Koch, S.; Tugues, S.; Li, X.J.; Gualandi, L.; Claesson-Welsh, L. Signal transduction by vascular endothelial growth factor receptors. Biochem. J. 2011, 437, 169–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  125. Albuquerque, R.J.C.; Hayashi, T.; Cho, W.G.; Kleinman, M.E.; Dridi, S.; Takeda, A.; Baffi, J.Z.; Yamada, K.; Kaneko, H.; Green, M.G.; et al. Alternatively spliced vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2 is an essential endogenous inhibitor of lymphatic vessel growth. Nat. Med. 2009, 15, 1023–1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Stevens, M.; Oltean, S. Modulation of Receptor Tyrosine Kinase Activity through Alternative Splicing of Ligands and Receptors in the VEGF-A/VEGFR Axis. Cells 2019, 8, 288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  127. Shibuya, M. Vascular endothelial growth factor and its receptor system: Physiological functions in angiogenesis and pathological roles in various diseases. J. Biochem. 2013, 153, 13–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  128. Hurwitz, H. Integrating the anti-VEGF-A humanized monoclonal antibody bevacizumab with chemotherapy in advanced colorectal cancer. Clin. Colorectal Cancer 2004, 4 (Suppl. S2), S62–S68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Zhang, J.; Li, H.; Wang, X.; Qi, H.; Miao, X.; Zhang, T.; Chen, G.; Wang, M. Phage-derived fully human antibody scFv fragment directed against human vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 blocked its interaction with VEGF. Biotechnol. Prog. 2012, 28, 981–989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Lamdan, H.; Gavilondo, J.V.; Munoz, Y.; Pupo, A.; Huerta, V.; Musacchio, A.; Perez, L.; Ayala, M.; Rojas, G.; Balint, R.F.; et al. Affinity maturation and fine functional mapping of an antibody fragment against a novel neutralizing epitope on human vascular endothelial growth factor. Mol. Biosyst. 2013, 9, 2097–2106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  131. Kordi, S.; Rahmati-Yamchi, M.; Asghari Vostakolaei, M.; Etemadie, A.; Barzegari, A.; Abdolalizadeh, J. Isolation of a Novel Anti-KDR3 Single-chain Variable Fragment Antibody from a Phage Display Library. Iran. J. Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2019, 18, 289–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Giordano, R.J.; Cardo-Vila, M.; Salameh, A.; Anobom, C.D.; Zeitlin, B.D.; Hawke, D.H.; Valente, A.P.; Almeida, F.C.; Nor, J.E.; Sidman, R.L.; et al. From combinatorial peptide selection to drug prototype (I): Targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor pathway. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 5112–5117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  133. Binetruy-Tournaire, R.; Demangel, C.; Malavaud, B.; Vassy, R.; Rouyre, S.; Kraemer, M.; Plouet, J.; Derbin, C.; Perret, G.; Mazie, J.C. Identification of a peptide blocking vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-mediated angiogenesis. EMBO J. 2000, 19, 1525–1533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  134. Lu, L.; Chen, H.; Hao, D.; Zhang, X.; Wang, F. The functions and applications of A7R in anti-angiogenic therapy, imaging and drug delivery systems. Asian J. Pharm. Sci. 2019, 14, 595–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Giordano, R.J.; Cardo-Vila, M.; Lahdenranta, J.; Pasqualini, R.; Arap, W. Biopanning and rapid analysis of selective interactive ligands. Nat. Med. 2001, 7, 1249–1253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Hetian, L.; Ping, A.; Shumei, S.; Xiaoying, L.; Luowen, H.; Jian, W.; Lin, M.; Meisheng, L.; Junshan, Y.; Chengchao, S. A novel peptide isolated from a phage display library inhibits tumor growth and metastasis by blocking the binding of vascular endothelial growth factor to its kinase domain receptor. J. Biol. Chem. 2002, 277, 43137–43142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  137. An, P.; Lei, H.; Zhang, J.; Song, S.; He, L.; Jin, G.; Liu, X.; Wu, J.; Meng, L.; Liu, M.; et al. Suppression of tumor growth and metastasis by a VEGFR-1 antagonizing peptide identified from a phage display library. Int. J. Cancer 2004, 111, 165–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Beenken, A.; Mohammadi, M. The FGF family: Biology, pathophysiology and therapy. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2009, 8, 235–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  139. Mohammadi, M.; Olsen, S.K.; Ibrahimi, O.A. Structural basis for fibroblast growth factor receptor activation. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev. 2005, 16, 107–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Dode, C.; Levilliers, J.; Dupont, J.M.; De Paepe, A.; Le Du, N.; Soussi-Yanicostas, N.; Coimbra, R.S.; Delmaghani, S.; Compain-Nouaille, S.; Baverel, F.; et al. Loss-of-function mutations in FGFR1 cause autosomal dominant Kallmann syndrome. Nat. Genet. 2003, 33, 463–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  141. Kan, S.H.; Elanko, N.; Johnson, D.; Cornejo-Roldan, L.; Cook, J.; Reich, E.W.; Tomkins, S.; Verloes, A.; Twigg, S.R.; Rannan-Eliya, S.; et al. Genomic screening of fibroblast growth-factor receptor 2 reveals a wide spectrum of mutations in patients with syndromic craniosynostosis. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2002, 70, 472–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  142. Webster, M.K.; Donoghue, D.J. FGFR activation in skeletal disorders: Too much of a good thing. Trends Genet. 1997, 13, 178–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Wang, J.; Stockton, D.W.; Ittmann, M. The fibroblast growth factor receptor-4 Arg388 allele is associated with prostate cancer initiation and progression. Clin. Cancer Res. 2004, 10 Pt 1, 6169–6178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  144. Massari, F.; Ciccarese, C.; Santoni, M.; Lopez-Beltran, A.; Scarpelli, M.; Montironi, R.; Cheng, L. Targeting fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) pathway in renal cell carcinoma. Expert Rev. Anticancer Ther. 2015, 15, 1367–1369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  145. Shi, S.; Li, X.; You, B.; Shan, Y.; Cao, X.; You, Y. High Expression of FGFR4 Enhances Tumor Growth and Metastasis in Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma. J. Cancer 2015, 6, 1245–1254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  146. Rodriguez-Vida, A.; Saggese, M.; Hughes, S.; Rudman, S.; Chowdhury, S.; Smith, N.R.; Lawrence, P.; Rooney, C.; Dougherty, B.; Landers, D.; et al. Complexity of FGFR signalling in metastatic urothelial cancer. J. Hematol. Oncol. 2015, 8, 119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  147. Criscitiello, C.; Esposito, A.; De Placido, S.; Curigliano, G. Targeting fibroblast growth factor receptor pathway in breast cancer. Curr. Opin. Oncol. 2015, 27, 452–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Wu, X.P.; Huang, H.X.; Wang, C.; Lin, S.Q.; Huang, Y.D.; Wang, Y.; Liang, G.; Yan, Q.X.; Xiao, J.; Wu, J.Z.; et al. Identification of a novel peptide that blocks basic fibroblast growth factor-mediated cell proliferation. Oncotarget 2013, 4, 1819–1828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Fan, H.; Duan, Y.; Zhou, H.; Li, W.; Li, F.; Guo, L.; Roeske, R.W. Selection of peptide ligands binding to fibroblast growth factor receptor 1. IUBMB Life 2002, 54, 67–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Wang, W.; Chen, X.; Li, T.; Li, Y.; Wang, R.; He, D.; Luo, W.; Li, X.; Wu, X. Screening a phage display library for a novel FGF8b-binding peptide with anti-tumor effect on prostate cancer. Exp. Cell Res. 2013, 319, 1156–1164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  151. Wu, X.; Yan, Q.; Huang, Y.; Huang, H.; Su, Z.; Xiao, J.; Zeng, Y.; Wang, Y.; Nie, C.; Yang, Y.; et al. Isolation of a novel basic FGF-binding peptide with potent antiangiogenetic activity. J. Cell. Mol. Med. 2010, 14, 351–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  152. Wang, C.; Lin, S.Q.; Li, X.K.; Wu, X.P. Mechanism of inhibitory effect of P7 on 3T3 cell proliferation induced by basic fibroblast growth factor. Yao Xue Xue Bao 2010, 45, 314–317. [Google Scholar]
  153. Li, Q.; Gao, S.; Yu, Y.; Wang, W.; Chen, X.; Wang, R.; Li, T.; Wang, C.; Li, X.; Wu, X. A novel bFGF antagonist peptide inhibits breast cancer cell growth. Mol. Med. Rep. 2012, 6, 210–214. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  154. Chen, Q.; Yang, Z.; Chen, X.; Shu, L.; Qu, W. Peptide P7 inhibits the bFGF-stimulated proliferation and invasion of SKOV3 cells. Exp. Ther. Med. 2019, 17, 3003–3008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  155. Andrae, J.; Gallini, R.; Betsholtz, C. Role of platelet-derived growth factors in physiology and medicine. Genes Dev. 2008, 22, 1276–1312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  156. Heldin, C.H.; Westermark, B. Platelet-derived growth factor: Three isoforms and two receptor types. Trends Genet. 1989, 5, 108–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Cao, Y.; Cao, R.; Hedlund, E.M. R Regulation of tumor angiogenesis and metastasis by FGF and PDGF signaling pathways. J. Mol. Med. (Berl.) 2008, 86, 785–789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  158. Williams, L.T. Signal transduction by the platelet-derived growth factor receptor. Science 1989, 243, 1564–1570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  159. Ostman, A. PDGF receptors in tumor stroma: Biological effects and associations with prognosis and response to treatment. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2017, 121, 117–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Pietras, K.; Rubin, K.; Sjoblom, T.; Buchdunger, E.; Sjoquist, M.; Heldin, C.H.; Ostman, A. Inhibition of PDGF receptor signaling in tumor stroma enhances antitumor effect of chemotherapy. Cancer Res. 2002, 62, 5476–5484. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  161. Shen, J.Q.; Vil, M.D.; Prewett, M.; Damoci, C.; Zhang, H.F.; Li, H.L.; Jimenez, X.N.; Deevi, D.S.; Iacolina, M.; Kayas, A.; et al. Development of a Fully Human Anti-PDGFR beta Antibody That Suppresses Growth of Human Tumor Xenografts and Enhances Antitumor Activity of an Anti-VEGFR2 Antibody. Neoplasia 2009, 11, 594–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  162. Klosowska-Wardega, A.; Hasumi, Y.; Burmakin, M.; Ahgren, A.; Stuhr, L.; Moen, I.; Reed, R.K.; Rubin, K.; Hellberg, C.; Heldin, C.H. Combined anti-angiogenic therapy targeting PDGF and VEGF receptors lowers the interstitial fluid pressure in a murine experimental carcinoma. PLoS ONE 2009, 4, e8149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  163. Starling, N.; Hawkes, E.A.; Chau, I.; Watkins, D.; Thomas, J.; Webb, J.; Brown, G.; Thomas, K.; Barbachano, Y.; Oates, J.; et al. A dose escalation study of gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin in combination with imatinib for gemcitabine-refractory advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Ann. Oncol. 2012, 23, 942–947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  164. Tsioumpekou, M.; Cunha, S.I.; Ma, H.; Ahgren, A.; Cedervall, J.; Olsson, A.K.; Heldin, C.H.; Lennartsson, J. Specific targeting of PDGFRbeta in the stroma inhibits growth and angiogenesis in tumors with high PDGF-BB expression. Theranostics 2020, 10, 1122–1135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Roberts, W.G.; Whalen, P.M.; Soderstrom, E.; Moraski, G.; Lyssikatos, J.P.; Wang, H.F.; Cooper, B.; Baker, D.A.; Savage, D.; Dalvie, D.; et al. Antiangiogenic and antitumor activity of a selective PDGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, CP-673,451. Cancer Res. 2005, 65, 957–966. [Google Scholar]
  166. Ramakrishnan, V.; Escobedo, M.A.; Fretto, L.J.; Seroogy, J.J.; Tomlinson, J.E.; Wolf, D.L. A Novel Monoclonal-Antibody Dependent on Domain-5 of the Platelet-Derived Growth Factor-Beta-Receptor Inhibits Ligand-Binding Receptor Activation. Growth Factors 1993, 8, 253–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  167. Askoxylakis, V.; Marr, A.; Altmann, A.; Markert, A.; Mier, W.; Debus, J.; Huber, P.E.; Haberkorn, U. Peptide-Based Targeting of the Platelet-Derived Growth Factor Receptor Beta. Mol. Imaging Biol. 2013, 15, 212–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  168. Jitariu, A.A.; Raica, M.; Cimpean, A.M.; Suciu, S.C. The role of PDGF-B/PDGFR-BETA axis in the normal development and carcinogenesis of the breast. Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol. 2018, 131, 46–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Liu, R.; Li, X.; Xiao, W.; Lam, K.S. Tumor-targeting peptides from combinatorial libraries. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2017, 110–111, 13–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  170. Bruno, B.J.; Miller, G.D.; Lim, C.S. Basics and recent advances in peptide and protein drug delivery. Ther. Deliv. 2013, 4, 1443–1467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  171. Newman, M.R.; Benoit, D.S.W. In Vivo Translation of Peptide-Targeted Drug Delivery Systems Discovered by Phage Display. Bioconjug. Chem. 2018, 29, 2161–2169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  172. McGuire, M.J.; Li, S.; Brown, K.C. Biopanning of phage displayed peptide libraries for the isolation of cell-specific ligands. Methods Mol. Biol. 2009, 504, 291–321. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  173. Molek, P.; Strukelj, B.; Bratkovic, T. Peptide phage display as a tool for drug discovery: Targeting membrane receptors. Molecules 2011, 16, 857–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  174. Ronca, R.; Benzoni, P.; De Luca, A.; Crescini, E.; Dell’era, P. Phage displayed peptides/antibodies recognizing growth factors and their tyrosine kinase receptors as tools for anti-cancer therapeutics. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2012, 13, 5254–5277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Figure 1. Milestones of phage display technique from discovery to date.
Figure 1. Milestones of phage display technique from discovery to date.
Viruses 13 00649 g001
Figure 2. Screening of a phage-displayed random peptide library using a protein as bait.
Figure 2. Screening of a phage-displayed random peptide library using a protein as bait.
Viruses 13 00649 g002
Figure 3. Activation mechanism of a tyrosine kinase receptor. In absence of the ligand, the tyrosine kinase receptor is inactive. The binding of the ligand induces a conformational change of the receptor, causing dimerization and cross-interaction of the dimerization loop within the ectodomain with the ligand. The ligand can be a natural ligand, such as a cytokine or growth factor, or a peptide selected by phage display acting as mimotope of the ligand. The active receptor tyrosine kinase auto-phosphorylates specific tyrosines within the intracellular domain, acting as docking sites for molecules of downstream signaling. A peptide ligand can act as agonist or antagonist of the receptor signaling.
Figure 3. Activation mechanism of a tyrosine kinase receptor. In absence of the ligand, the tyrosine kinase receptor is inactive. The binding of the ligand induces a conformational change of the receptor, causing dimerization and cross-interaction of the dimerization loop within the ectodomain with the ligand. The ligand can be a natural ligand, such as a cytokine or growth factor, or a peptide selected by phage display acting as mimotope of the ligand. The active receptor tyrosine kinase auto-phosphorylates specific tyrosines within the intracellular domain, acting as docking sites for molecules of downstream signaling. A peptide ligand can act as agonist or antagonist of the receptor signaling.
Viruses 13 00649 g003
Table 1. Specific characteristics of the main bacteriophages used in phage display.
Table 1. Specific characteristics of the main bacteriophages used in phage display.
BacteriophageLengthSizeGenomeProteinsDisplayed Copies/
Virions
Viral Life Cycle
M13930 nm6.4 kbss DNAReplication proteinspII, pX, pV3–5 on pIII110 KdaLysogenic
Morphogenetic proteinspI, pIV2700 on pVIII10 Kda
Structural proteinspIII, pVIII, pVI, pVII, pIX
T7Head
55 nm
40 kbds DNACapsid proteinsgp10A, gp10BUp to 1200 polypeptide132 KdaLytic
Inner core proteinsgp16, gp15, gp14
Tail 19 nmConnector proteinsgp8, gp6, gp7, gp11, gp121–415 peptide
Tail proteingp17
T490 nm wide168 kbds DNA Head proteingp20, gp23, gp24810 copies of polypeptides on SOC proteins710 KdaLytic
200 nm longTail proteingp15, gp13, gp14, gp18, gp19, gp34, gp35, gp36, gp9, gp10, gp11, gp12155 copies of polypeptides on HOC proteins
LambdaHead
64 nm
48.5 kbds DNA Head proteingpD, gpE, gpC, gpB, gpW405 on pD proteinsLysogenic/ lytic
Tail
150 nm
Tail proteingpU, gpV, gpJ, gpH6 copies on pV proteins
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Aloisio, A.; Nisticò, N.; Mimmi, S.; Maisano, D.; Vecchio, E.; Fiume, G.; Iaccino, E.; Quinto, I. Phage-Displayed Peptides for Targeting Tyrosine Kinase Membrane Receptors in Cancer Therapy. Viruses 2021, 13, 649. https://doi.org/10.3390/v13040649

AMA Style

Aloisio A, Nisticò N, Mimmi S, Maisano D, Vecchio E, Fiume G, Iaccino E, Quinto I. Phage-Displayed Peptides for Targeting Tyrosine Kinase Membrane Receptors in Cancer Therapy. Viruses. 2021; 13(4):649. https://doi.org/10.3390/v13040649

Chicago/Turabian Style

Aloisio, Annamaria, Nancy Nisticò, Selena Mimmi, Domenico Maisano, Eleonora Vecchio, Giuseppe Fiume, Enrico Iaccino, and Ileana Quinto. 2021. "Phage-Displayed Peptides for Targeting Tyrosine Kinase Membrane Receptors in Cancer Therapy" Viruses 13, no. 4: 649. https://doi.org/10.3390/v13040649

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop