Dan-Hong Zhu

Enamel matrix protein interactions.

The recognized structural proteins of the enamel matrix are amelogenin, ameloblastin, and enamelin. While a large volume of data exists showing that amelogenin self‐assembles into multimeric units referred to as nanospheres, other reports of enamel matrix protein‐protein interactions are scant. We believe that each of these enamel matrix proteins must interact with other organic components of ameloblasts and the enamel matrix. Likely protein partners would include integral membrane proteins and additional secreted proteins.

Altering Biomineralization by Protein Design

To create a bioceramic with unique materials properties, biomineralization exploits cells to create a tissue-specific protein matrix to control the crystal habit, timing, and position of the mineral phase. The biomineralized covering of vertebrate teeth is enamel, a distinctive tissue of ectodermal origin that is collagen-free. In forming enamel, amelogenin is the abundant protein that undergoes self-assembly to contribute to a matrix that guides its own replacement by mineral. Conserved domains in amelogenin suggest their importance to biomineralization. We used gene targeting in mice to replace native amelogenin with one of two engineered amelogenins. Replacement changed enamel organization by altering protein-to-crystallite interactions and crystallite stacking while diminishing the ability of the ameloblast to interact with the matrix. These data demonstrate that ameloblasts must continuously interact with the developing matrix to provide amelogenin-specific protein to protein, protein to mineral, and protein to membrane interactions critical to biomineralization and enamel architecture while suggesting that mutations within conserved amelogenin domains could account for enamel variations preserved in the fossil record.

Functional Domains for Amelogenin Revealed by Compound Genetic Defects

We have previously used the yeast two‐hybrid assay and multiple in vitro methodologies to show that amelogenin undergoes self‐assembly involving two domains (A and B). Using transgenic animals, we show that unique enamel phenotypes result from disruptions to either the A‐ or B‐domain, supporting the role of amelogenin in influencing enamel structural organization. By crossbreeding, animals bearing two defective amelogenin gene products have a more extreme enamel phenotype than the sum of the defects evident in the individual parental lines. At the nanoscale level, the forming matrix shows alteration in the size of the amelogenin nanospheres. At the mesoscale level of enamel structural hierarchy, 6‐week‐old enamel exhibits defects in enamel rod organization caused by perturbed organization of the precursor organic matrix. These studies reflect the critical dependency of amelogenin self‐assembly to form a highly organized enamel organic matrix, and that amelogenins engineered to be defective in self‐assembly produce compound defects in the structural organization of enamel.

Overexpression of TRAP in the Enamel Matrix Does Not Alter the Enamel Structural Hierarchy

The secreted, full-length amelogenin is the dominant protein of the forming enamel organ. As enamel mineralization progresses, amelogenin is quickly subjected to proteolytic activity, and eliminated from the enamel environment. Mature enamel contains only traces of structural proteins, including enamelin and the sheath protein ameloblastin. In addition, a proteolytic fragment of amelogenin, known as the tyrosine-rich amelogenin peptide or TRAP, is present in low but isolatable quantities. By overexpressing TRAP during enamel development we sought to determine if such overexpression would result in structural alterations to the mature enamel. We reasoned that overexpressing a protein associated with enamel maturation, at an inappropriate developmental stage, would result in alterations to the enamel protein assembly and hence, alterations in enamel structure and morphology. As judged by transmission and scanning electron microscopy, the enamel formed by overexpressing TRAP showed little morphological differences when compared to the enamel of normal nontransgenic animals. Based on scanning electron-microscopic images, there was modest hypomineralization evident in the interrod enamel of the TRAP-overexpressing animals. However, this finding was inconsistent and inconsequential from a structural and functional perspective. From these results it appears that additional amounts of TRAP protein in the immature enamel matrix are not sufficient to alter the properties of the enamel extracellular matrix to an extent that the hierarchical structure of mature enamel is altered.

Transgene Animal Model for Protein Expression and Accumulation into Forming Enamel

Understanding the cellular and molecular events that regulate the formation of enamel is a major driving force in efforts to characterize critical events during amelogenesis. It is anticipated that through such an understanding, improvements in prevention, diagnosis and treatment-intervention into heritable and acquired diseases of enamel could be achieved. While knowledge of the precise role of an enamel-specific protein in directing the formation of inorganic crystallites remains refractory, progress has been made with other aspects of amelogenesis that can be brought to bear on the subject. One such area of progress has been with the identification of an ameloblast-lineage specific amelogenin gene promoter. This promoter can be used to direct the expression of enamel-specific proteins, as well as the expression of proteins foreign to amelogenesis, into the enamel extracellular matrix where their effect on biomineralization can be ascertained in a prospective manner. The resulting enamel from such animals can be examined by morphologic and biochemical modalities in order to identify the effect of the transgene protein on enamel crystallite formation and subsequent biomineralization. This manuscript outlines such a strategy with the potential for enhancing our understanding of amelogenesis.

Ultrastructure of forming enamel in mouse bearing a transgene that disrupts the amelogenin self-assembly domains.

The mouse X-chromosomal amelogenin gene promoter was used to drive the expression of mutated amelogenin proteins in vivo. Two different transgenic mouse lines based on deletions to either the amino-terminal (A-domain deletions) or to the carboxyl-region (B-domain deletions) were bred. In the molars of newborn A-domain deleted transgenic mice the formation of the initial layer of aprismatic enamel was delayed. There were severe structural alterations in the enamel of incisors of newborn mice bearing the A-domain deletion which were not apparent in animals bearing the B-domain deletion. In the A-domain-deleted animals, stippled material accumulated throughout the entire thickness of the forming enamel apparently causing a disruption of the normal rod-to-inter-rod relationship. This stippled material was likened to and interpreted as being groupings of amelogenin nanospheres. In the B-domain-deleted animals the stippled material was detected only in minute defects of the forming enamel. These data suggest significant differences in nanosphere assembly properties for animals bearing either the A-domain or the B-domain-deleted transgene. The present in vivo experimental approach suggests that at early stages of enamel formation, the A-domain plays a greater role than does the B-domain in amelogenin self-assembly, and consequently in enamel architecture and structure.

A simplified genetic design for mammalian enamel

A biomimetic replacement for tooth enamel is urgently needed because dental caries is the most prevalent infectious disease to affect man. Here, design specifications for an enamel replacement material inspired by Nature are deployed for testing in an animal model. Using genetic engineering we created a simplified enamel protein matrix precursor where only one, rather than dozens of amelogenin isoforms, contributed to enamel formation. Enamel function and architecture were unaltered, but the balance between the competing materials properties of hardness and toughness was modulated. While the other amelogenin isoforms make a modest contribution to optimal biomechanical design, the enamel made with only one amelogenin isoform served as a functional substitute. Where enamel has been lost to caries or trauma a suitable biomimetic replacement material could be fabricated using only one amelogenin isoform, thereby simplifying the protein matrix parameters by one order of magnitude.