You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
  • Review
  • Open Access

2 August 2022

The Screening of Therapeutic Peptides for Anti-Inflammation through Phage Display Technology

,
,
and
Chengdu Institute of Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chengdu 610041, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
This article belongs to the Special Issue Mechanisms of Therapeutic Peptides

Abstract

For the treatment of inflammatory illnesses such as rheumatoid arthritis and carditis, as well as cancer, several anti-inflammatory medications have been created over the years to lower the concentrations of inflammatory mediators in the body. Peptides are a class of medication with the advantages of weak immunogenicity and strong activity, and the phage display technique is an effective method for screening various therapeutic peptides, with a high affinity and selectivity, including anti-inflammation peptides. It enables the selection of high-affinity target-binding peptides from a complex pool of billions of peptides displayed on phages in a combinatorial library. In this review, we will discuss the regular process of using phage display technology to screen therapeutic peptides, and the peptides screened for anti-inflammation properties in recent years according to the target. We will describe how these peptides were screened and how they worked in vitro and in vivo. We will also discuss the current challenges and future outlook of using phage display to obtain anti-inflammatory therapeutic peptides.

1. Introduction

A number of diseases are driven by inflammation, such as rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease (AD), cancer, and atherosclerosis, as well as autoimmune, respiratory, and cardiovascular diseases [1,2]. A complex network of numerous mediators, a variety of cells, and several pathways are involved in inflammation. Current therapy for inflammatory diseases is limited to steroidal and non-steroidal medications. Moreover, the anti-inflammatory drugs on the market and used in research usually have significant side effects, particularly when long-term use is involved [3,4].
Finding a safe and effective drug with which to control inflammation represents a significant challenge; therefore, many researchers are committed to developing anti-inflammation drugs. In the past few years, peptides have attracted increasing amounts of attention due to their specific biochemical and therapeutic features, such as diverse bio-functionalities based on their components (amino acids) and high binding affinity with specific targets in a wide range, even though small molecules still dominate the therapeutic industry [5,6]. Peptide discovery optimization has a significant resource advantage over small molecules; the relatively simple and increasing automation of the synthesis required facilitates the success of much smaller teams of medicinal chemists, many-fold smaller than the sizes necessary for a comparable effort in small molecules. A peptide drug is easy to produce and has a lower immunogenicity compared with the antibody. With the improvements made in this technology, the disadvantages of the peptide drug, such as it being membrane-impermeable and biologically unstable, can be solved under certain conditions by direct structural change, enzyme inhibitors, absorption enhancers, carrier systems, and transdermal delivery technologies, promoting peptide drug innovation [7].
Phage display is a powerful tool for developing new peptide drugs, as it can largely maintain the conformations and functions of the expressed protein and peptide simultaneously, thereby maximizing their retention of biological activities with little risk of the recombinant phage infecting the host [8]. The genes expressed on the surface of phages interact directly with various specific targets. For this reason, they are commonly used as a powerful high-throughput screening tool allowing the potential peptide to quickly connect to various specific cellular targets, including membrane receptors and enzymes [9]. To detect ligand–receptor interactions, the displayed phage can be screened against the target proteins immobilized on the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) plate. In this way, large peptide libraries can be presented on the surface of the phage and panned during repeated cycles, including binding, washing, elution, and amplification. After this, sequencing the genome of the gradually enriched phage provides the display peptide sequence, which can then be used to synthesize the peptide in recombinant or synthetic form. Finally, unique binding agents with a high affinity and specificity for the desired target can be identified [10]. Phage display peptide libraries usually contain up to 1010 diverse variants [9]; phages can appear with peptides of a variety of sizes and structures on their surfaces. Natural peptides that are directly separated using traditional separation methods, including high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), are usually present in complex mixtures of biological components at relatively low concentrations. Phage display, on the other hand, is more effective and economical in selecting peptide ligands that interact with inflammatory mediators [11,12].
Therefore, it could be effective to use phage display technology to select peptides for anti-inflammation purposes. However, it remains unclear as to whether these peptides are effective candidates for developing medicine to treat disease clinically, which has practical value. In this review, we will summarize the peptides screened for anti-inflammation activity through the phage display technique. Then, we will discuss the current achievements, pros and cons, and prospects relating to this topic.

2. How to Use the Phage Display to Screen Peptides

The phage display method was first defined by G. P. Smith et al. in 1985 to express cloned antigens on the viral surface [13]. It is a combinatorial technology that has attracted a great deal of attention regarding its potential in the future of drug discovery. This method is a robust tool in drug discovery, principally for peptide drug identification. It enables researchers to construct libraries and rapidly isolate and identify specific protein interactions of molecular targets [14].
Current phage display systems are based on various bacteriophage vectors, including Ml3 phage, T7 phage, λ phage, and T4 phage display systems [15]. The M13 phage display is the most frequently used of these phage systems. There are two main methods used to screen out therapeutic peptides (Figure 1). One employs different targets to obtain a peptide from a random peptide library. In this method, researchers always use different targets associated with inflammation, and the phage display peptide library Ph.D.-7 is the most commonly used library. This method is relatively convenient because it does not require a phage library to be built. Another method involves constructing a phage according to specific demands. For example, some researchers want to obtain functional peptides from a mixture as with a natural product. They would use their mixture to construct a phage that could display these candidate peptides on the surface, then use the target for biopanning to obtain the peptides which have affinity with the target. For researchers aiming to build a new peptide library according to their demands, the T7 system is most likely to be used. As a phage display platform, M13 contains single-stranded DNA, whereas T7 contains double-stranded DNA, which exhibits increased stability and is less prone to mutation during replication. The T7 phage does not depend on a protein secretion pathway in the lytic cycle. Its display system inserts the gene that encodes the specific peptide into its genome so that the target peptide is fused to the C-terminus of the 10B capsid; thus, the target peptide is expressed on the surface of the phage particle, thereby avoiding problems associated with steric hindrance [16]. T7 phage particles exhibit a high stability under extreme conditions, such as high temperatures, and low pH values, which facilitates effective high-throughput affinity elutriation [17].
Figure 1. This figure depicts the two most commonly used methods for screening anti-inflammatory therapeutic peptides. The left is the flowchart of screening the peptide from the random peptide library; the right is the flowchart of screening the peptide from the construct library.
Although the techniques used to screen the peptides are different, the methods followed to verify their function are quite similar. Firstly, researchers need to verify the affinity between the target and the peptides. Surface plasmon resonance technology (SPR), a major tool used for characterizing and quantifying interactions between biomolecules, is the commonly used and effective way to confirm this affinity. SPR is a technology developed in the 1990s [18], which can monitor the dynamic interaction between ligands and receptors in a fluid environment in real time, so that the affinity constants between ligands and receptors can be calculated [19]. Besides SPR, there are other means to examine the affinity, such as coimmunoprecipitation, but SPR is the most common method used in recent years because it offers exceptional advantages such as being label-free, being able to be used in situ, and providing real-time measurement ability [20].
After confirming the peptides’ affinity, various animal disease models, such as collagen-induced arthritis, lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced paw edema, carrageenan-induced paw edema, etc., can be used to verify peptides’ anti-inflammatory activity. In their study, Vogel et al. [21] described many kinds of in vivo and in vitro methods that are used for the pre-clinical assessment of anti-inflammatory drugs. Kalpesh et al. [22] then summarized the advantages and limitations of these animal disease models, so we will not go into detail here.

4. Conclusions and Future Perspectives

Due to its advantages of a large screening capacity, enabling mass production through fermentation, being high-throughput, and having a straightforward method of execution, phage display has been widely used in bioengineering and biomedicine, especially for diagnostics and therapeutics. With the advent of next-generation sequencing and microfluidic technologies, phage display has become an even more powerful and popular tool for use in drug discovery and development.
However, it also has some limitations. In some constructed libraries, because the peptides displayed on the surface of phages lack modification and the original peptides conformations are different to a certain extent, constructed libraries cannot fully display the original conformations of peptides in vivo. Although the screened peptides have a binding force, they might not play an antagonistic role or even have a therapeutic function. For example, using semaphorin 3F (SEMA3F)/plexin-A2 as the target to screen a peptide with affinity, researchers obtained four peptides AV1, AV2, AcBl3, and AcBl4, which have affinity but which cannot be used in an animal model [117]. We believe there are many peptides, that have not yet been reported, that do not have anti-inflammatory function despite being an inhibitor of the target. Therefore, it is necessary to improve the screening techniques through designs based on experience. Some researchers have combined phage display with other techniques, such as high-throughput sequencing [118], which could help us to better understand and categorize phages after screening.
The therapeutic peptide market is an emerging field that is currently growing, and there are some problems relating to peptide drugs that still need to be solved. For example, the pharmacokinetic properties, the cost of synthetic peptides, and the delivery of peptides to their specific target need to be improved [119,120,121], as these are technical hurdles to the development of more effective peptide-based therapeutics.
Nevertheless, the natural sources or random libraries from which active peptides can be isolated are virtually unlimited. Thus, the appearance of new peptides will not stop soon. According to Craik et al., the market for protein and peptide-based drugs represents about 10% of the total pharmaceutical market, and this proportion is still increasing [120]. Numerous scientific publications demonstrate the intense basic research that is currently taking place in this field, with thousands of peptides being studied as we write, of which 400 to 600 are enrolled in preclinical studies [122]. Although more researchers have used phage displays to screen peptides with anti-inflammatory properties over the past 20 years, the anti-inflammatory peptides developed as drugs are frequently only tested in cells and animals, and clinical trials are required to verify their efficacy. Further research is still needed to improve the effectiveness of screening and the use of peptides as anti-inflammatory drugs.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.Z. and Y.L.; methodology, K.Z. and Y.L.; validation, Y.L. and Y.T.; investigation, K.Z. and Y.L.; resources, K.Z. and Y.L.; data curation, K.Z. and Y.L.; writing—original draft preparation, K.Z. and Y.L.; writing—review and editing, K.Z., Y.L., Q.C. and Y.T.; visualization, K.Z. and Y.L.; supervision, K.Z., Y.L. and Y.T.; project administration, Y.L., Q.C. and Y.T.; funding acquisition, Y.L., Q.C. and Y.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China: 2018YFB1304702; National Natural Science Foundation of China: 31970423; National Natural Science Foundation of China: 32071242; Nature Science Foundation of Sichuan Province: 2022NSFSC0579.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Eltzschig, H.K.; Carmeliet, P. Mechanisms of Disease: Hypoxia and Inflammation. N. Engl. J. Med. 2011, 364, 656–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Chen, L.; Deng, H.; Cui, H.; Fang, J.; Zuo, Z.; Deng, J.; Li, Y.; Wang, X.; Zhao, L. Inflammatory responses and inflammation-associated diseases in organs. Oncotarget 2018, 9, 7204–7218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Paul, A.T.; Gohil, V.M.; Bhutani, K.K. Modulating TNF-alpha signaling with natural products. Drug Discov. Today 2006, 11, 725–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Bindu, S.; Mazumder, S.; Bandyopadhyay, U. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and organ damage: A current perspective. Biochem. Pharmacol. 2020, 180, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Hamley, I.W. Small Bioactive Peptides for Biomaterials Design and Therapeutics. Chem. Rev. 2017, 117, 14015–14041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Morimoto, B.H. Therapeutic peptides for CNS indications: Progress and challenges. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 2018, 26, 2859–2862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. 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] [Green Version]
  8. Liu, P.; Han, L.; Wang, F.; Petrenko, V.A.; Liu, A.H. Gold nanoprobe functionalized with specific fusion protein selection from phage display and its application in rapid, selective and sensitive colorimetric biosensing of Staphylococcus aureus. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2016, 82, 195–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Smith, G.P.; Petrenko, V.A. Phage display. Chem. Rev. 1997, 97, 391–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Koivunen, E.; Arap, W.; Rajotte, D.; Lahdenranta, J.; Pasqualini, R. Identification of receptor ligands with phage display peptide libraries. J. Nucl. Med. 1999, 40, 883–888. [Google Scholar]
  11. Sclavons, C.; Burtea, C.; Boutry, S.; Laurent, S.; Elst, L.V.; Muller, R.N. Phage Display Screening for Tumor Necrosis Factor- alpha -Binding Peptides: Detection of Inflammation in a Mouse Model of Hepatitis. Int. J. Pept. 2013, 2013, 348409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Chirinos-Rojas, C.L.; Steward, M.W.; Partidos, C.D. A peptidomimetic antagonist of TNF-alpha-mediated cytotoxicity identified from a phage-displayed random peptide library. J. Immunol. 1998, 161, 5621–5626. [Google Scholar]
  13. 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]
  14. Ercan, I.; Tufekci, K.U.; Karaca, E.; Genc, S.; Genc, K. Peptide Derivatives of Erythropoietin in the Treatment of Neuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration. In Therapeutic Proteins and Peptides; Donev, R., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; Volume 112, pp. 309–357. [Google Scholar]
  15. Tan, Y.Y.; Tian, T.; Liu, W.L.; Zhu, Z.; Yang, C.Y.J. Advance in phage display technology for bioanalysis. Biotechnol. J. 2016, 11, 732–745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Danner, S.; Belasco, J.G. T7 phage display: A novel genetic selection system for cloning RNA-binding proteins from cDNA libraries. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2001, 98, 12954–12959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Deng, X.Y.; Wang, L.; You, X.L.; Dai, P.; Zeng, Y.H. Advances in the T7 phage display system. Mol. Med. Rep. 2018, 17, 714–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Homola, J.; Yee, S.S.; Gauglitz, G. Surface plasmon resonance sensors: Review. Sens. Actuator B Chem. 1999, 54, 3–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Green, R.J.; Frazier, R.A.; Shakesheff, K.M.; Davies, M.C.; Roberts, C.J.; Tendler, S.J.B. Surface plasmon resonance analysis of dynamic biological interactions with biomaterials. Biomaterials 2000, 21, 1823–1835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Patil, P.O.; Pandey, G.R.; Patil, A.G.; Borse, V.B.; Deshmukh, P.K.; Patil, D.R.; Tade, R.S.; Nangare, S.N.; Khan, Z.G.; Patil, A.M.; et al. Graphene-based nanocomposites for sensitivity enhancement of surface plasmon resonance sensor for biological and chemical sensing: A review. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2019, 139, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Boominathan, R.; Parimaladevi, B.; Mandal, S.C.; Ghoshal, S.K. Anti-inflammatory evaluation of Ionidium suffruticosam Ging. in rats. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2004, 91, 367–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Patil, K.R.; Mahajan, U.B.; Unger, B.S.; Goyal, S.N.; Belemkar, S.; Surana, S.J.; Ojha, S.; Patil, C.R. Animal Models of Inflammation for Screening of Anti-inflammatory Drugs: Implications for the Discovery and Development of Phytopharmaceuticals. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 4367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Zhang, K.R.; Liu, Y.; Tang, Y.Z. Screening of TNFR1 Binding Peptides from Deinagkistrodon acutus Venom through Phage Display. Toxins 2022, 14, 155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Zhang, C.; Guo, S.; Wang, J.; Li, A.; Sun, K.; Qiu, L.; Li, J.; Wang, S.; Ma, X.; Lu, Y. Anti-Inflammatory Activity and Mechanism of Hydrostatin-SN1 From Hydrophis cyanocinctus in Interleukin-10 Knockout Mice. Front. Pharmacol. 2020, 11, 930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Bernatchez, P.N.; Tao, B.; Bradshaw, R.A.; Eveleth, D.; Sessa, W.C. Characterization of a Novel Caveolin Modulator That Reduces Vascular Permeability and Ocular Inflammation. Transl. Vis. Sci. Technol. 2021, 10, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zapi-Colin, L.A.; Gutierrez-Gonzalez, G.; Rodriguez-Martinez, S.; Cancino-Diaz, J.C.; Mendez-Tenorio, A.; Perez-Tapia, S.M.; Gomez-Chavez, F.; Cedillo-Pelaez, C.; Cancino-Diaz, M.E. A peptide derived from phage-display limits psoriasis—Like lesions in mice. Heliyon 2020, 6, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Xiao, H.; Wang, M.H.; Fan, X.B.; Xu, W.; Zhang, R.; Wu, G.Q. A novel peptide binding to the C-terminal domain of connective tissue growth factor for the treatment of bleomycin-induced pulmonary fibrosis. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020, 156, 1464–1473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Vazquez-Sanchez, E.A.; Mendoza-Figueroa, J.S.; Gutierrez-Gonzalez, G.; Zapi-Colin, L.A.; Torales-Cardena, A.; Briseno-Lugo, P.E.; Diaz-Toala, I.; Cancino-Diaz, J.C.; Perez-Tapia, S.M.; Cancino-Diaz, M.E.; et al. Heptapeptide HP3 acts as a potent inhibitor of experimental imiquimod-induced murine psoriasis and impedes the trans-endothelial migration of mononuclear cells. Mol. Med. Rep. 2020, 22, 507–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Sohn, Y.-K.; Son, S.; Choi, Y.; Hwang, D.-E.; Seo, H.-D.; Lee, J.-J.; Kim, H.-S. Effective inhibition of C3a-mediated pro-inflammatory response by a human C3a-specific protein binder. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2020, 117, 1904–1908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Huang, C.; Dai, X.-Y.; Cai, J.-X.; Chen, J.; Wang, B.B.; Zhu, W.; Wang, E.; Wei, W.; Zhang, J.V. A Screened GPR1 Peptide Exerts Antitumor Effects on Triple-Negative Breast Cancer. Mol. Ther. Oncolytics 2020, 18, 602–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Shoari, A.; Rasaee, M.J.; Kanavi, M.R.; Daraei, B. Functional mimetic peptide discovery isolated by phage display interacts selectively to fibronectin domain and inhibits gelatinase. J. Cell. Biochem. 2019, 120, 19699–19711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Maola, K.; Wilbs, J.; Touati, J.; Sabisz, M.; Kong, X.D.; Baumann, A.; Deyle, K.; Heinis, C. Engineered Peptide Macrocycles Can Inhibit Matrix Metalloproteinases with High Selectivity. Angew. Chem. Int. Edit. 2019, 58, 11801–11805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Li, J.; Yang, L.; Wang, J.; Yang, Y.; Wu, Y.; Jiang, Q.; Yang, Y.; Ma, D.; Zhang, R.; Huang, N.; et al. Alternaria B Cell Mimotope Immunotherapy Alleviates Allergic Responses in a Mouse Model. J. Immunol. 2019, 203, 31–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Gomez-Soler, M.; Gehring, M.P.; Lechtenberg, B.C.; Zapata-Mercado, E.; Hristova, K.; Pasquale, E.B. Engineering nanomolar peptide ligands that differentially modulate EphA2 receptor signaling. J. Biol. Chem. 2019, 294, 8791–8805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Koolpe, M.; Dail, M.; Pasquale, E.B. An ephrin mimetic peptide that selectively targets the EphA2 receptor. J. Biol. Chem. 2002, 277, 46974–46979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Wang, Y.Q.; Sha, J.C.; Wang, H.; An, L.F.; Liu, T.; Li, L. P-FN12, an H4R-Based Epitope Vaccine Screened by Phage Display, Regulates the Th1/Th2 Balance in Rat Allergic Rhinitis. Mol. Ther. Methods Clin. Dev. 2018, 11, 83–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  37. O’Dwyer, R.; Kovaleva, M.; Zhang, J.; Steven, J.; Cummins, E.; Luxenberg, D.; Darmanin-Sheehan, A.; Carvalho, M.F.; Whitters, M.; Saunders, K.; et al. Anti-ICOSL New Antigen Receptor Domains Inhibit T Cell Proliferation and Reduce the Development of Inflammation in the Collagen-Induced Mouse Model of Rheumatoid Arthritis. J. Immunol. Res. 2018, 2018, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Issa, E.; Moss, A.J.; Fischer, M.; Kang, M.; Ahmed, S.; Farah, H.; Bate, N.; Giakomidi, D.; Brindle, N.P.J. Development of an Orthogonal Tie2 Ligand Resistant to Inhibition by Ang2. Mol. Pharm. 2018, 15, 3962–3968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Abraham, M.; Wald, H.; Vaizel-Ohayon, D.; Grabovsky, V.; Oren, Z.; Karni, A.; Weiss, L.; Galun, E.; Peled, A.; Eizenberg, O. Development of novel Promiscuous anti-chemokine Peptibodies for Treating autoimmunity and inflammation. Front. Immunol. 2017, 8, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  40. Liu, S.; Desharnais, J.; Sahasrabudhe, P.V.; Jin, P.; Li, W.; Oates, B.D.; Shanker, S.; Banker, M.E.; Chrunyk, B.A.; Song, X.; et al. Inhibiting complex IL-17A and IL-17RA interactions with a linear peptide. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Burtea, C.; Laurent, S.; Sanli, T.; Fanfone, D.; Devalckeneer, A.; Sauvage, S.; Beckers, M.-C.; Rorive, S.; Salmon, I.; Elst, L.V.; et al. Screening for peptides targeted to IL-7R alpha for molecular imaging of rheumatoid arthritis synovium. Arthritis Res. Ther. 2016, 18, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Vaz, E.R.; Fujimura, P.T.; Araujo, G.R.; Silva, C.A.T.D.; Silva, R.L.; Cunha, T.M.; Lopes-Ferreira, M.; Lima, C.; Ferreira, M.J.; Cunha-Junior, J.P.; et al. A Short Peptide That Mimics the Binding Domain of TGF-beta 1 Presents Potent Anti-Inflammatory Activity. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0136116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Zhou, W.W.; Lu, S.; Su, Y.J.; Xue, D.; Yu, X.L.; Wang, S.W.; Zhang, H.; Xu, P.X.; Xie, X.X.; Liu, R.T. Decreasing oxidative stress and neuroinflammation with a multifunctional peptide rescues memory deficits in mice with Alzheimer disease. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 2014, 74, 50–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Fang, L.; Xu, Z.; Wang, G.S.; Ji, F.Y.; Mei, C.X.; Liu, J.; Wu, G.M. Directed Evolution of an LBP/CD14 Inhibitory Peptide and Its Anti-Endotoxin Activity. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e101406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Yu, H.; Segers, F.; Sliedregt-Bol, K.; Bot, I.; Woltman, A.M.; Boross, P.; Verbeek, S.; Overkleeft, H.; Marel, G.A.V.D.; Kooten, C.V.; et al. Identification of a novel CD40 ligand for targeted imaging of inflammatory plaques by phage display. FASEB J. 2013, 27, 4136–4146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Houimel, M.; Mazzucchelli, L. Chemokine CCR3 ligands-binding peptides derived from a random phage-epitope library. Immunol. Lett. 2013, 149, 19–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Tolg, C.; Hamilton, S.R.; Zalinska, E.; McCulloch, L.; Amin, R.; Akentieva, N.; Winnik, F.; Savani, R.; Bagli, D.J.; Luyt, L.G.; et al. A RHAMM Mimetic Peptide Blocks Hyaluronan Signaling and Reduces Inflammation and Fibrogenesis in Excisional Skin Wounds. Am. J. Pathol. 2012, 181, 1250–1270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Stanger, K.; Steffek, M.; Zhou, L.; Pozniak, C.D.; Quan, C.; Franke, Y.; Tom, J.; Tam, C.; Elliott, J.M.; Lewcock, J.W.; et al. Allosteric peptides bind a caspase zymogen and mediate caspase tetramerization. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2012, 8, 655–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Shanmugam, A.; Rajoria, S.; George, A.L.; Mittelman, A.; Suriano, R.; Tiwari, R.K. Synthetic Toll Like Receptor-4 (TLR-4) Agonist Peptides as a Novel Class of Adjuvants. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e30839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  50. Segers, F.M.E.; Yu, H.; Molenaar, T.J.M.; Prince, P.; Tanaka, T.; Berkel, T.J.C.V.; Biessen, E.A.L. Design and Validation of a Specific Scavenger Receptor Class AI Binding Peptide for Targeting the Inflammatory Atherosclerotic Plaque. Arterioscler. Thromb. Vasc. Biol. 2012, 32, 971–978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Su, Y.; Sun, H.-X.; Li, X.-Y.; Mo, X.-M.; Zhang, G. Screening for a Peptide That Inhibits Expression of a Broad-spectrum of Chemokines Using Models of Endotoxin Tolerance and LIPS-induced Pro-inflammation. Prog. Biochem. Biophys. 2013, 40, 461–470. [Google Scholar]
  52. Shibata, H.; Yoshioka, Y.; Ohkawa, A.; Minowa, K.; Mukai, Y.; Abe, Y.; Taniai, M.; Nomura, T.; Kayamuro, H.; Nabeshi, H.; et al. Creation and X-ray structure analysis of the tumor necrosis factor receptor-1-selective mutant of a tumor necrosis factor-alpha antagonist. J. Biol. Chem. 2008, 283, 998–1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  53. Shibata, H.; Yoshioka, Y.; Ohkawa, A.; Abe, Y.; Nomura, T.; Mukai, Y.; Nakagawa, S.; Taniai, M.; Ohta, T.; Mayumi, T.; et al. The therapeutic effect of TNFR1-selective antagonistic mutant TNF-alpha in murine hepatitis models. Cytokine 2008, 44, 229–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Shibata, H.; Yoshioka, Y.; Abe, Y.; Ohkawa, A.; Nomura, T.; Minowa, K.; Mukai, Y.; Nakagawa, S.; Taniai, M.; Ohta, T.; et al. The treatment of established murine collagen-induced arthritis with a TNFR1-selective antagonistic mutant TNF. Biomaterials 2009, 30, 6638–6647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Takagi, T.; Arisawa, T.; Yamamoto, K.; Hirata, I.; Nakano, H.; Sawada, M. Identification of ligands binding specifically to inflammatory intestinal mucosa using phage display. Clin. Exp. Pharmacol. Physiol. 2007, 34, 286–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Molenaar, T.J.M.; Appeldoorn, C.C.M.; Haas, S.A.M.D.; Michon, N.N.; Bonnefoy, A.; Hoylaerts, M.F.; Pannekoek, H.; Berkel, T.J.C.V.; Kuiper, J.; Biessen, E.A.L. Specific inhibition of P-selectin-mediated cell adhesion by phage display-derived peptide antagonists. Blood 2002, 100, 3570–3577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  57. Kaminska, B. MAPK signalling pathways as molecular targets for anti-inflammatory therapy—From molecular mechanisms to therapeutic benefits. BBA Proteins Proteom. 2005, 1754, 253–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Hendrayani, S.F.; Al-Harbi, B.; Al-Ansari, M.M.; Silva, G.; Aboussekhra, A. The inflammatory/cancer-related IL-6/STAT3/NF-kappa B positive feedback loop includes AUF1 and maintains the active state of breast myofibroblasts. Oncotarget 2016, 7, 41974–41985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Kyriakis, J.M.; Avruch, J. Mammalian mitogen-activated protein kinase signal transduction pathways activated by stress and inflammation. Physiol. Rev. 2001, 81, 807–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Henriquez-Olguin, C.; Altamirano, F.; Valladares, D.; Lopez, J.R.; Allen, P.D.; Jaimovich, E. Altered ROS production, NF-kappa B activation and interleukin-6 gene expression induced by electrical stimulation in dystrophic mdx skeletal muscle cells. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Mol. Basis Dis. 2015, 1852, 1410–1419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Kollias, G.; Douni, E.; Kassiotis, G.; Kontoyiannis, D. On the role of tumor necrosis factor and receptors in models of multiorgan failure, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis and inflammatory bowel disease. Immunol. Rev. 1999, 169, 175–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Annibaldi, A.; Meier, P. Checkpoints in TNF-Induced Cell Death: Implications in Inflammation and Cancer. Trends Mol. Med. 2018, 24, 49–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Jarosz-Griffiths, H.H.; Holbrook, J.; Lara-Reyna, S.; McDermott, M.F. TNF receptor signalling in autoinflammatory diseases. Int. Immunol. 2019, 31, 639–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  64. Stone, M.B.; Shelby, S.A.; Veatch, S.L. Super-Resolution Microscopy: Shedding Light on the Cellular Plasma Membrane. Chem. Rev. 2017, 117, 7457–7477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Netea, M.G.; Balkwill, F.; Chonchol, M.; Cominelli, F.; Donath, M.Y.; Giamarellos-Bourboulis, E.J.; Golenbock, D.; Gresnigt, M.S.; Heneka, M.T.; Hoffman, H.M.; et al. A guiding map for inflammation. Nat. Immunol. 2017, 18, 826–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Weinelt, N.; Karathanasis, C.; Smith, S.; Medler, J.; Malkusch, S.; Fulda, S.; Wajant, H.; Heilemann, M.; Wijk, S.J.L.V. Quantitative single-molecule imaging of TNFR1 reveals zafirlukast as antagonist of TNFR1 clustering and TNFα-induced NF-ĸB. J. Leukoc. Biol. 2021, 109, 363–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Efimov, G.A.; Kruglov, A.A.; Tillib, S.V.; Kuprash, D.V.; Nedospasov, S.A. Tumor Necrosis Factor and the consequences of its ablation in vivo. Mol. Immunol. 2009, 47, 19–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Antoni, C.; Braun, J. Side effects of anti-TNF therapy: Current knowledge. Clin. Exp. Rheumatol. 2002, 20, S152–S157. [Google Scholar]
  69. Medler, J.; Wajant, H. Tumor necrosis factor receptor-2 (TNFR2): An overview of an emerging drug target. Expert Opin. Ther. Targets 2019, 23, 295–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Medler, J.; Nelke, J.; Weisenberger, D.; Steinfatt, T.; Rothaug, M.; Berr, S.; Hunig, T.; Beilhack, A.; Wajant, H. TNFRSF receptor-specific antibody fusion proteins with targeting controlled Fc gamma R-independent agonistic activity. Cell Death Dis. 2019, 10, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Fischer, R.; Kontermann, R.E.; Pfizenmaier, K. Selective Targeting of TNF Receptors as a Novel Therapeutic Approach. Front. Cell. Dev. Biol. 2020, 8, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Lo, C.H.; Schaaf, T.M.; Grant, B.D.; Lim, C.K.W.; Bawaskar, P.; Aldrich, C.C.; Thomas, D.D.; Sachs, J.N. Noncompetitive inhibitors of TNFR1 probe conformational activation states. Sci. Signal. 2019, 12, eaav5637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Lo, C.H.; Vunnam, N.; Lewis, A.K.; Chiu, T.L.; Brummel, B.E.; Schaaf, T.M.; Grant, B.D.; Bawaskar, P.; Thomas, D.D.; Sachs, J.N. An Innovative High-Throughput Screening Approach for Discovery of Small Molecules That Inhibit TNF Receptors. SLAS Discov. 2017, 22, 950–961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  74. Zheng, Z.; Jiang, H.; Huang, Y.; Wang, J.; Qiu, L.; Hu, Z.; Ma, X.; Lu, Y. Screening of an anti-inflammatory peptide from Hydrophis cyanocinctus and analysis of its activities and mechanism in DSS-induced acute colitis. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  75. Wu, G.S.; Wang, J.J.; Luo, P.F.; Li, A.; Tian, S.; Jiang, H.L.; Zheng, Y.J.; Zhu, F.; Lu, Y.M.; Xia, Z.F. Hydrostatin-SN1, a Sea Snake-Derived Bioactive Peptide, Reduces Inflammation in a Mouse Model of Acute Lung Injury. Front. Pharmacol. 2017, 8, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  76. Xia, J.; Wu, H.; Xiang, Y. Selection of peptide ligands for TNF receptor imaging. Chin. J. Nucl. Med. 2005, 25, 43–45. [Google Scholar]
  77. Fu, H.; Wu, H.; Zhang, X.; Huang, J.; He, X.; Chen, L.; Guo, W.; Guo, X.; Hao, B.; Li, Y. Pre-clinical study of a TNFR1-targeted F-18 probe for PET imaging of breast cancer. Amino Acids 2018, 50, 409–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Schonbeck, U.; Libby, P. The CD40/CD154 receptor/ligand dyad. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 2001, 58, 4–43. [Google Scholar]
  79. Kooten, C.V.; Banchereau, J. CD40-CD40 ligand: A multifunctional receptor-ligand pair. In Advances in Immunology; Dixon, F.J., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1996; Volume 61, pp. 1–77. [Google Scholar]
  80. Clark, L.B.; Foy, T.M.; Noelle, R.J. CD40 and its ligand. In Advances in Immunology; Dixon, F.J., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1996; Volume 63, pp. 43–78. [Google Scholar]
  81. Richards, D.M.; Sefrin, J.P.; Gieffers, C.; Hill, O.; Merz, C. Concepts for agonistic targeting of CD40 in immuno-oncology. Hum. Vaccines Immunother. 2020, 16, 377–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Berger, A. Science commentary: Th1 and Th2 responses: What are they? Br. Med. J. 2000, 321, 424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Mosmann, T.R.; Cherwinski, H.; Bond, M.W.; Giedlin, M.A.; Coffman, R.L. 2 types of murine helper T-cell clone. I. definition according to profiles of lymphokine activities and secreted proteins. J. Immunol. 1986, 136, 2348–2357. [Google Scholar]
  84. Raphael, I.; Nalawade, S.; Eagar, T.N.; Forsthuber, T.G. T cell subsets and their signature cytokines in autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. Cytokine 2015, 74, 5–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  85. Gaffen, S.L. Structure and signalling in the IL-17 receptor family. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2009, 9, 556–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  86. Korn, T.; Bettelli, E.; Oukka, M.; Kuchroo, V.K. IL-17 and Th17 Cells. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 2009, 27, 485–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Hwang, S.Y.; Kim, J.Y.; Kim, K.W.; Park, M.K.; Moon, Y.; Kim, W.U.; Kim, H.Y. IL-17 induces production of IL-6 and IL-8 in rheumatoid arthritis synovial fibroblasts via NF-kappa B- and PI3-kinase/Akt-dependent pathways. Arthritis Res. Ther. 2004, 6, R120–R128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  88. Onishi, R.M.; Gaffen, S.L. Interleukin-17 and its target genes: Mechanisms of interleukin-17 function in disease. Immunol. 2010, 129, 311–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Mills, K.H.G. Induction, function and regulation of IL-17-producing T cells. Eur. J. Immunol. 2008, 38, 2636–2649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Luo, Y.; Xu, J.; Zhang, C.Y.; Jiang, C.Y.; Ma, Y.F.; He, H.J.; Wu, Y.; Devriendt, B.; Cox, E.; Zhang, H.B. Toll-like receptor 5-mediated IL-17C expression in intestinal epithelial cells enhances epithelial host defense against F4+ ETEC infection. Vet. Res. 2019, 50, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Crowley, J.J. Humanized monoclonal antibody demonstrating dual inhibition of IL-17A and IL-17F Treatment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. Drugs Future 2018, 43, 483–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Raychaudhuri, S.P.; Raychaudhuri, S.K. Mechanistic rationales for targeting interleukin-17A in spondyloarthritis. Arthritis Res. Ther. 2017, 19, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Dubash, S.; McGonagle, D.; Marzo-Ortega, H. New advances in the understanding and treatment of axial spondyloarthritis: From chance to choice. Ther. Adv. Chronic Dis. 2018, 9, 77–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  94. Chung, S.H.; Ye, X.Q.; Iwakura, Y. Interleukin-17 family members in health and disease. Int. Immunol. 2021, 33, 723–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Borden, E.C.; Sen, G.C.; Uze, G.; Silverman, R.H.; Ransohoff, R.M.; Foster, G.R.; Stark, G.R. Interferons at age 50: Past, current and future impact on biomedicine. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2007, 6, 975–990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Muskardin, T.L.W.; Niewold, T.B. Type I interferon in rheumatic diseases. Nat. Rev. Rheumatol. 2018, 14, 214–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Mazewski, C.; Perez, R.E.; Fish, E.N.; Platanias, L.C. Type I Interferon (IFN)-Regulated Activation of Canonical and Non-Canonical Signaling Pathways. Front. Immunol. 2020, 11, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Niewold, T.B. Interferon Alpha as a Primary Pathogenic Factor in Human Lupus. J. Interferon Cytokine Res. 2011, 31, 887–892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Marketos, N.; Cinoku, I.; Rapti, A.; Mavragani, C.P. Type I interferon signature in Sjogren’s syndrome: Pathophysiological and clinical implications. Clin. Exp. Rheumatol. 2019, 37, 185–191. [Google Scholar]
  100. Skaug, B.; Assassi, S. Type I interferon dysregulation in Systemic Sclerosis. Cytokine 2020, 132, 154635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Guo, X.; Higgs, B.W.; Rebelatto, M.; Zhu, W.; Greth, W.; Yao, Y.H.; Roskos, L.K.; White, W.I. Suppression of soluble T cell-associated proteins by an anti-interferon-alpha monoclonal antibody in adult patients with dermatomyositis or polymyositis. Rheumatology 2014, 53, 686–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  102. Ceuninck, F.D.; Duguet, F.; Aussy, A.; Laigle, L.; Moingeon, P. IFN-a: A key therapeutic target for multiple autoimmune rheumatic diseases. Drug Discov. Today 2021, 26, 2465–2473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Agrawal, A.; Romero-Perez, D.; Jacobsen, J.A.; Villarreal, F.J.; Cohen, S.M. Zinc-binding groups modulate selective inhibition of MMPs. Chem. Med. Chem. 2008, 3, 812–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  104. Murphy, G.; Nagase, H. Progress in matrix metalloproteinase research. Mol. Asp. Med. 2008, 29, 290–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  105. Benjamin, M.M.; Khalil, R.A. Matrix metalloproteinase inhibitors as investigative tools in the pathogenesis and management of vascular disease. Exp. Suppl. 2012, 103, 209–279. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  106. Dunkelberger, J.R.; Song, W.C. Complement and its role in innate and adaptive immune responses. Cell Res. 2010, 20, 34–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  107. Kemper, C.; Verbsky, J.W.; Price, J.D.; Atkinson, J.P. T-cell stimulation and regulation: With complements from CD46. Immunol. Res. 2005, 32, 31–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Kennedy, A.J.; Davenport, A.P. International Union of Basic and Clinical Pharmacology CIII: Chemerin Receptors CMKLR1 (Chemerin(1)) and GPR1 (Chemerin(2)) Nomenclature, Pharmacology, and Function. Pharmacol. Rev. 2018, 70, 174–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  109. Goralski, K.B.; Jackson, A.E.; McKeown, B.T.; Sinal, C.J. More Than an Adipokine: The Complex Roles of Chemerin Signaling in Cancer. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 4778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  110. Garmpis, N.; Damaskos, C.; Garmpi, A.; Nikolettos, K.; Dimitroulis, D.; Diamantis, E.; Farmaki, P.; Patsouras, A.; Voutyritsa, E.; Syllaios, A.; et al. Molecular Classification and Future Therapeutic Challenges of Triple-negative Breast Cancer. Vivo 2020, 34, 1715–1727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. Erridge, C.; Bennett-Guerrero, E.; Poxton, I.R. Structure and function of lipopolysaccharides. Microbes Infect. 2002, 4, 837–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Bishop, R.E. Fundamentals of endotoxin structure and function. Contrib. Microbiol. 2005, 12, 1–27. [Google Scholar]
  113. Dauphinee, S.M.; Karsan, A. Lipopolysaccharide signaling in endothelial cells. Lab. Investig. 2006, 86, 9–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  114. Schumann, R.R. Function of lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-binding protein (LBP) and CD14, the receptor for LPS/LBP complexes—A short review. Res. Immunol. 1992, 143, 11–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Xu, Z.; Qian, G.S.; Li, Q.; Feng, Q.J.; Wu, G.M.; Li, K.L. Screening of mimetic peptides for CD14 binding site with LBP and antiendotoxin activity of mimetic peptide in vivo and in vitro. Inflamm. Res. 2009, 58, 45–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Inoue, M.; Ando, D.; Kamada, H.; Taki, S.; Niiyama, M.; Mukai, Y.; Tadokoro, T.; Maenaka, K.; Nakayama, T.; Kado, Y.; et al. A trimeric structural fusion of an antagonistic tumor necrosis factor-alpha mutant enhances molecular stability and enables facile modification. J. Biol. Chem. 2017, 292, 6438–6451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  117. Kunath, J.; Delaroque, N.; Szardenings, M.; Neundorf, I.; Straub, R.H. Sympathetic nerve repulsion inhibited by designer molecules in vitro and role in experimental arthritis. Life Sci. 2017, 168, 47–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Parola, C.; Neumeier, D.; Reddy, S.T. Integrating high-throughput screening and sequencing for monoclonal antibody discovery and engineering. Immunology 2018, 153, 31–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Pattabiraman, V.R.; Bode, J.W. Rethinking amide bond synthesis. Nature 2011, 480, 471–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Craik, D.J.; Fairlie, D.P.; Liras, S.; Price, D. The Future of Peptide-based Drugs. Chem. Biol. Drug Des. 2013, 81, 136–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Albericio, F.; Kruger, H.G. Therapeutic peptides foreword. Future Med. Chem. 2012, 4, 1527–1531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  122. Sachdeva, S. Peptides as ‘Drugs’: The Journey so Far. Int. J. Pept. Res. Ther. 2017, 23, 49–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.