Selective suppression and biasing of chemokine receptors CCR9 and ACKR4 through targeting CCL25 with de novo miniproteins
Curation statements for this article:-
Curated by eLife
eLife Assessment
This important study describes computationally designed proteins that bind to the chemokine CCL25. The authors present evidence that some binders simply prevent chemokine binding to the CCR9 receptor, while one binder changes the downstream signaling triggered by chemokine binding. The evidence is solid overall, but some uncertainty remains with respect to functional selectivity due to sensitivity differences between functional assays and the degree of binder selectivity between the large family of chemokine ligands.
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
- Evaluated articles (eLife)
Abstract
Chemokines and their receptors mediate cell migration and coordinate immune responses, while dysregulation can lead to inflammation. Therapeutic modulation of the chemokine signaling axis has proven difficult. Most drug discovery efforts target the receptors, whereas natural regulatory mechanisms focus on the chemokines. Despite this insight, development of effective chemokine-directed modulators has remained elusive. Recent advances in de novo protein design offer an unprecedented opportunity to produce high-affinity binders that efficiently block protein-protein interactions. We implemented a computational workflow leveraging the BindCraft platform to generate miniprotein binders against CCL25, the chemokine ligand for the receptors CCR9 and ACKR4 and implicated in inflammatory bowel diseases. The unbiased development results in several miniproteins designed to block the receptor N-terminus from wrapping the chemokine and prevent productive engagement. Thus, these proteins suppress CCL25-mediated effector coupling and halt MOLT-4 lymphoblast migration. Another class of miniprotein, represented by VUP25111, is predicted to bind CCL25 along the chemokine β1 strand and retained receptor binding. This complex inhibited arrestin recruitment to CCR9, but not to ACKR4, indicating receptor specificity. Additionally, G protein signaling through CCR9 was unimpeded by VUP25111, suggesting that the miniprotein biased the native balanced agonist towards G proteins. These results demonstrate the effectiveness of differentially targeting CCL25 to suppress CCR9 signaling and new tools to resolve the structural basis of chemokine receptor activation and bias.
Article activity feed
-
eLife Assessment
This important study describes computationally designed proteins that bind to the chemokine CCL25. The authors present evidence that some binders simply prevent chemokine binding to the CCR9 receptor, while one binder changes the downstream signaling triggered by chemokine binding. The evidence is solid overall, but some uncertainty remains with respect to functional selectivity due to sensitivity differences between functional assays and the degree of binder selectivity between the large family of chemokine ligands.
-
Reviewer #1 (Public review):
Summary:
In this manuscript, the authors describe the use of BindCraft computational protein design to create a series of binders to the chemokine CCL25. This chemokine normally mediates CCR9-dependent trafficking of immune cells to the gut, making it a potential target for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease and related conditions. Importantly, CCL25 also binds a scavenging receptor, ACKR4. The computational protein design approach used does not involve defining particular epitopes to be targeted, allowing a free search for any potential interaction surface.
Among four designs tested, three were predicted to interact at a similar site on the chemokine, while a fourth clone, VUP25111, was predicted to bind to a different site. All four designs showed binding to CCL25, with similar high-nM KD values …
Reviewer #1 (Public review):
Summary:
In this manuscript, the authors describe the use of BindCraft computational protein design to create a series of binders to the chemokine CCL25. This chemokine normally mediates CCR9-dependent trafficking of immune cells to the gut, making it a potential target for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease and related conditions. Importantly, CCL25 also binds a scavenging receptor, ACKR4. The computational protein design approach used does not involve defining particular epitopes to be targeted, allowing a free search for any potential interaction surface.
Among four designs tested, three were predicted to interact at a similar site on the chemokine, while a fourth clone, VUP25111, was predicted to bind to a different site. All four designs showed binding to CCL25, with similar high-nM KD values in all cases. The first three clones showed evidence of direct competition with the receptor for CCL25 binding, while VUP25111 showed incomplete inhibition of binding. In functional assays, all clones acted as antagonists except for VUP25111, which inhibited arrestin recruitment by CCR9, but did not affect G protein activation by CCR9 or arrestin recruitment by ACKR4 (which signals exclusively through arrestin and not G protein).
Strengths:
The work is completed to a high technical standard, and the functional diversity of the clones is intriguing. It is exciting to see pathway-selective modulation of signaling, and this basic paradigm is likely to generalize to other chemokine/receptor systems. The exceptional complexity of chemokine signaling makes this an excellent area to explore the development of modulators that can restrict signaling to a specific subset of receptors.
Weaknesses:
No major weaknesses were noted by this reviewer.
-
Reviewer #2 (Public review):
This study from de Boer, Lamme, Verdwaald and Schafer describes the de novo AI-guided design of miniproteins that target the chemokine CCL25, with the aim to modulate the activation and signalling of the chemokine receptors CCR9 and ACKR4. The study focuses on characterising four miniproteins that all bind CCL25 with good affinity. Three designs appear to prevent CCL25 binding to both CCR9 and ACKR4, with increasing concentrations of miniproteins resulting in decreased arrestin (both receptors) and mini G protein recruitment (CCR9), less inhibition of forskolin-stimulated cAMP (CCR9), and decreased GRK3 recruitment and receptor internalisation (CCR9). One miniprotein, VUP25111, changes the properties of CCL25 rather than preventing ligand/receptor interactions, resulting in greater selectivity for CCR9 over …
Reviewer #2 (Public review):
This study from de Boer, Lamme, Verdwaald and Schafer describes the de novo AI-guided design of miniproteins that target the chemokine CCL25, with the aim to modulate the activation and signalling of the chemokine receptors CCR9 and ACKR4. The study focuses on characterising four miniproteins that all bind CCL25 with good affinity. Three designs appear to prevent CCL25 binding to both CCR9 and ACKR4, with increasing concentrations of miniproteins resulting in decreased arrestin (both receptors) and mini G protein recruitment (CCR9), less inhibition of forskolin-stimulated cAMP (CCR9), and decreased GRK3 recruitment and receptor internalisation (CCR9). One miniprotein, VUP25111, changes the properties of CCL25 rather than preventing ligand/receptor interactions, resulting in greater selectivity for CCR9 over ACKR4 and a G protein-biased signalling profile (maintenance of mini G protein recruitment, GRK3 recruitment, inhibition of cAMP and receptor internalisation, but loss of arrestin recruitment). VUP25111 also maintained chemotactic migration in MOLT-4 T lymphoblast cells, whereas this response was lost in the presence of the other three miniproteins.
Overall, this is a very interesting application of AI-designed de novo miniproteins to modulate GPCR responses by directly binding the ligand rather than the receptor. This is a conceptually very intriguing approach that could, in principle, be extended to other GPCR systems beyond the chemokine family. The authors deploy an impressive array of assays spanning multiple signalling endpoints, providing a thorough picture of how each miniprotein influences receptor activation and downstream signalling. The presentation of concentration-response relationships for CCL25 alone and in the presence of each miniprotein is particularly informative, and the figures are very well constructed throughout. The inclusion of clear cartoons illustrating the basis of each assay is a nice touch that will help readers from outside the immediate field follow the logic of each experiment.
There are two main conclusions that are not currently as well-supported by the evidence as they might be, and that would benefit from some qualification. The first concerns the selectivity of the miniproteins for CCL25. Testing the impact of the miniproteins on CXCL12 activation of CXCR4 is an important and welcome experiment, but it addresses selectivity against only one other chemokine system, and the current claim of specificity is therefore stronger than the data allow. Additionally, at the highest concentration tested (10 µM), the more potent miniproteins (VUP25101, VUP25107) appear to show some inhibition of arrestin recruitment to CXCR4 - perhaps unsurprising given the degree of structural conservation among chemokines. The statements regarding selectivity and the lack of effect on the CXCL12/CXCR4 system would benefit from revision to more accurately reflect these observations.
The second concern relates to the interpretation of the preserved GRK3 recruitment, but the complete loss of arrestin recruitment observed with VUP25111. In the GRK3 recruitment experiments, 20 nM CCL25 was used, representing an EC40 concentration in this assay. VUP25111 causes a concentration-dependent reduction in CCL25-induced GRK3 recruitment, down to approximately 15% of the maximal response. It is worth considering whether this degree of reduction in GRK3 recruitment could itself be sufficient to disrupt patterns of receptor phosphorylation and thereby prevent observable arrestin recruitment. Both interpretations are complicated by the fact that the GRK3 recruitment and arrestin recruitment assays likely differ in their sensitivity and dynamic windows, making direct quantitative comparisons between them difficult. In the absence of direct measurements of CCR9 phosphorylation in the presence of VUP25111, the alternative interpretation remains open and would benefit from acknowledgement. Given recent work from the same group demonstrating that receptor internalisation is only partially dependent on arrestins (Lamme et al., 2025, J Biol Chem), further discussion of the relationship between GRK and arrestin recruitment and CCR9 internalisation would be of value to the broader GPCR audience this work is likely to attract.
Finally, some additional justification for the use of 20 nM CCL25 across all assays would strengthen the study, as this concentration represents different points on the concentration-response curve depending on the assay and receptor in question. It ranges from an EC40 for CCR9 GRK3 recruitment and internalisation, to an EC50 for CCR9 arrestin and mini-Gi recruitment, an EC80 for CCR9 cAMP inhibition, and an EMax for ACKR4 arrestin recruitment. This has potential consequences for the interpretation and cross-assay comparison of miniprotein potency, and the authors are encouraged to acknowledge and discuss this in the context of their conclusions.
-
Reviewer #3 (Public review):
Summary:
The authors employed the BindCraft platform to develop binders targeting the chemokine CCL25, a selective activator of the chemokine receptor CCR9. They successfully generated two classes of binders: one that inhibits all CCL25-mediated CCR9 activation, and another that permits CCR9 G protein signaling while simultaneously preventing arrestin recruitment. These tools will enable the dissection of arrestin involvement in regulating cell migration.
My comments, in the order of reading:
(1) Title: I strongly recommend removing the term "biasing" from the title. In this context, it does not convey a specific mechanistic concept. The term "biased signaling" has been used for a very broad range of mechanistically distinct pharmacological phenomena, and without a precise definition, it adds more confusion …
Reviewer #3 (Public review):
Summary:
The authors employed the BindCraft platform to develop binders targeting the chemokine CCL25, a selective activator of the chemokine receptor CCR9. They successfully generated two classes of binders: one that inhibits all CCL25-mediated CCR9 activation, and another that permits CCR9 G protein signaling while simultaneously preventing arrestin recruitment. These tools will enable the dissection of arrestin involvement in regulating cell migration.
My comments, in the order of reading:
(1) Title: I strongly recommend removing the term "biasing" from the title. In this context, it does not convey a specific mechanistic concept. The term "biased signaling" has been used for a very broad range of mechanistically distinct pharmacological phenomena, and without a precise definition, it adds more confusion than clarity. I therefore suggest refraining from using it in the title.
(2) Abstract, line 34: The term "bias" should be replaced. As currently used, it appears to suggest a dichotomy between G protein signaling and arrestin recruitment. However, arrestin recruitment is a consequence of G protein signaling, and it is not conceptually sound to compare a signaling event mediated by one protein family with a protein-protein interaction involving another protein family. A meaningful comparison requires experimental paradigms that differ by a single variable; in this case, there are two - distinct protein families and fundamentally different types of readouts (signaling versus protein-protein interaction).
(3) Abstract, line 34: The term "balanced agonist" should be removed. Any chosen reference ligand is, by definition, the "balanced" agonist for that analysis, regardless of its actual signaling profile. Consequently, the expression "balanced agonist" adds no mechanistic information beyond "the agonist used as reference in a particular bias calculation" and is potentially misleading, as it implies that this ligand possesses a uniquely unbiased, system‑independent signaling profile, which is not the case.
(4) Abstract, line 36: I also recommend removing the term "bias" at this point. The concept of bias typically arises from experiments that quantitatively compare more than one variable. As currently written, the phrasing suggests a dichotomy between G protein- and arrestin-mediated signaling, yet the study does not assess arrestin signaling, only arrestin recruitment. Under these conditions, the use of "bias" is not appropriate. The data are clear and compelling on their own without the need for this potentially misleading terminology.
(5) Introduction: This is interesting to read and generally well written, though certain statements would benefit from improved semantic precision. For example, in lines 110-111, the phrase "G protein-biased complex" should be reconsidered, as it relies on the notion of G protein- versus arrestin-mediated signaling. Arrestins themselves do not signal; what is measured here is their recruitment. Comparing G protein signaling with arrestin recruitment is therefore conceptually unsound, since arrestin engagement is a downstream consequence of G protein activation. Comparisons become meaningful only when designed to differentiate between G protein-dependent and G protein-independent arrestin recruitment, which is not the case in this study.
(6) Results, 122,123: The authors should consider being more precise; possibly, the truncated CCL25 is somewhat less potent on CCR9. The authors should make a statistical test and then decide whether to rephrase or not for enhanced precision.
(7) Figure S5: This figure is currently confusing and needs clarification. The authors state in the main text that CXCR4 is stimulated with CXCL12, yet the figure legend refers to CCL25; this discrepancy should be corrected to ensure consistency. In addition, inhibition of CXCR4 by the miniprotein binders should be analyzed and presented with normalization to CXCR4 responses, not to CCL25-stimulated CCR9. To avoid misinterpretation, inhibition by the miniproteins should be quantified separately for CCR9 and CXCR4, each normalized to its own receptor-specific and functionally equivalent stimulation condition, rather than to the "other" receptor.
(8) Results, lines 211-213: The authors should be more semantically precise. They state that no binder has any effect on arrestin recruitment to CXCR4. If I see the data, this is not really true, as 25101 and 25107 inhibit arrestin recruitment by about 50 % or more at the highest applied concentrations; only 111 and 112 are completely inactive. As already commented, normalization should be done to arrestin recruitment of CXCR4 and not CCR9.
-
Author response:
We thank the editors and reviewers for thoroughly reviewing our manuscript and offering thoughtful and constructive feedback. We appreciate the positive reception of our work and welcome the opportunity to address the lingering concerns. In the coming revisions, we will be directly addressing the question of the miniprotein’s specificity and increase the precision in the language used to discuss our findings.
-
