Albert Braeuning1, Silvia Vetter. 1. Department of Toxicology, Institute of Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany. albert.braeuning@uni-tuebingen.de
Abstract
Photinus pyralis (firefly) luciferase is widely used as a reporter system to monitor alterations in gene promoter and/or signalling pathway activities in vitro. The enzyme catalyses the formation of oxyluciferin from D-luciferin in an ATP-consuming reaction involving photon emission. The purpose of the present study was to characterize the luciferase-inhibiting potential of (E)-2-fluoro-4'-methoxystilbene, which is known as a potent inhibitor of the NF-κB (nuclear factor κB) signalling pathway that is used to modulate the NF-κB signalling pathway in vitro. Results show that (E)-2-fluoro-4'-methoxystilbene effectively inhibits firefly luciferase activity in cell lysates and living cells in a non-competitive manner with respect to the luciferase substrates D-luciferin and ATP. By contrast, the compound has no effect on Renilla and Gaussia luciferases. The mechanism of firefly luciferase inhibition by (E)-2-fluoro-4'-methoxystilbene, as well as its potency is comparable to its structure analogue resveratrol. The in vitro use of trans-stilbenes such as (E)-2-fluoro-4'-methoxystilbene or resveratrol compromises firefly luciferase reporter assays as well as ATP/luciferase-based cell viability assays.
Photinus pyralis (firefly) luciferase is widely used as a reporter system to monitor alterations in gene promoter and/or signalling pathway activities in vitro. The enzyme catalyses the formation of oxyluciferin from D-luciferin in an ATP-consuming reaction involving photon emission. The purpose of the present study was to characterize the luciferase-inhibiting potential of (E)-2-fluoro-4'-methoxystilbene, which is known as a potent inhibitor of the NF-κB (nuclear factor κB) signalling pathway that is used to modulate the NF-κB signalling pathway in vitro. Results show that (E)-2-fluoro-4'-methoxystilbene effectively inhibits firefly luciferase activity in cell lysates and living cells in a non-competitive manner with respect to the luciferase substrates D-luciferin and ATP. By contrast, the compound has no effect on Renilla and Gaussia luciferases. The mechanism of firefly luciferase inhibition by (E)-2-fluoro-4'-methoxystilbene, as well as its potency is comparable to its structure analogue resveratrol. The in vitro use of trans-stilbenes such as (E)-2-fluoro-4'-methoxystilbene or resveratrol compromises firefly luciferase reporter assays as well as ATP/luciferase-based cell viability assays.
Luciferase reporter systems are widely used reporter genes that allow for an easy
luminescence detection of the activity of gene promoters and/or transcriptionally
relevant signalling pathways in response to a variety of stimuli and modulators.
Among the different luciferases known, Photinus pyralis (firefly)
luciferase was the first to be cloned in 1985 [1] and is still most widely used. In a two-step reaction, the second of
which is coupled to photon emission, firefly luciferase converts its substrate
D-luciferin into oxyluciferin in an ATP- and oxygen-consuming reaction.
For a detailed description of the chemistry of luciferase-catalysed reactions, see
[2-5]. The luciferase reaction is also used in cytotoxicity/cell viability
assays based on assessing cellular ATP levels. Often, coenzyme A is also present in
firefly luciferase assay buffers as a light stabilizer due to its ability to perform
thiolysis of dehydroluciferyl-AMP, a product of the luciferase reaction capable of
inhibiting the enzymatic reaction; e.g. see [5] and references therein.A number of chemical substances have been described which inhibit firefly luciferase
activity by either competitive or non-competitive action. For example, different
classes of firefly luciferase inhibitors and their mechanisms of action are
discussed in a recent review by Leitao and Esteves da Silva [3], and additional firefly luciferase inhibitors were identified
by Auld et al. [6]; as one might expect,
various analogues of the substrate luciferin as well as structurally related
benzothiazoles inhibit the reaction in a competitive manner [3,6,7]. ATP analogues are also capable of inhibiting firefly
luciferase activity [6,8]. The luciferase-inhibitory potential of other classes of
chemicals is less self-evident: among others, a number of alcohols, small alkanes,
fatty acids, quinoline analogues, substituted benzylamides, different halogenated
compounds used as general anaesthetics and certain ionic liquids also interfere with
the activity of firefly luciferase [3,6,9,10], as well as the p53 inhibitor
pifithrin-α [11] and the widely used
antioxidant 3,5,4′-trihydroxy-trans-stilbene, better known
as resveratrol [12]. Resveratrol is a potent
non-competitive inhibitor of firefly luciferase with a reported
Ki value of ~2 μM [12]. The authors of the latter paper stress
that luciferase-based analyses of resveratrol-treated cells (e.g. resveratrol is
often used for the assessment of antioxidative effects in cell culture) might be
biased by the direct luciferase-inhibiting action of the compound. Of course, the
same holds true for other luciferase inhibitors if used in cell culture for a
purpose different from luciferase inhibition.In the present study, we demonstrate that (E)-2-fluoro-4′-methoxystilbene
{also known as NFκBAI4 [NF-κB (nuclear factor κB) activation
inhibitor 4]; Figure 1A}, a resveratrol
analogue without antioxidative properties used as a specific inhibitor of
NF-κB activation [13], inhibits
firefly luciferase, but not other luciferases, in vitro with a
potency comparable with resveratrol. In contrast with resveratrol, inhibition of
firefly luciferase by NFκBAI4 is sustained for >24 h in living
cells, much longer than inhibition by resveratrol.
Figure 1
Inhibition of firefly luciferase by the NF-κB inhibitor
NFκBAI4
(A) Chemical structures of NFκBAI4 and its analogue
resveratrol. (B) Inhibition of firefly luciferase activity is
observed in mouse hepatoma cells transiently transfected with the
β-catenin-driven firefly luciferase reporter STF after 24 h of
incubation of the cells with 20 μM NFκBAI4. Luciferase
signals were normalized to cell vitality, as determined by the Alamar Blue
assay. Means±S.D. (n=4) are given;
*P<0.05. (C) Lack of
inhibition of the known β-catenin target genes Axin2 and Gpr49 by
24 h treatment of cells with 20 μM NFκBAI4.
Means±S.D. (n=6) are given. (D)
Inhibition of firefly luciferase signals after addition of
20 μM NFκBAI4 [1% (v/v) of 2 mM NFκBAI4
solution in DMSO] to lysates of untreated, transiently luciferase-expressing
Hepa1c1c7, 70.4 and 55.1c cells 5 min prior to measurement. No
inhibition of Gaussia or Renilla
luciferases is observed. Means±S.D. (n=3 and 4) are
given; *P<0.05. (E) Inhibition
of commercially available firefly luciferase by 10 μM
NFκBAI4 at different concentrations of the enzyme. The means of two
experiments are shown. (F) Inhibition of firefly luciferase
activity in living stably luciferase-expressing cells (cell lines 70.4 K15
and 55.1c K65) by NFκBAI4. Cells were pre-incubated with
20 μM NFκBAI4 for 30 min prior to analysis.
Means±S.D. (n=4) are given;
*P<0.05. (G) Luciferase
inhibition in living cells was also monitored using a CCD camera system. A
representative image from 55.1c K65 cells is shown. (H)
Inhibition of luminescence signals from the CellTiter-Glo cell viability
assay kit, which is based on luciferase-dependent detection of cellular ATP,
by addition of 200 μM NFκBAI4. Please note that
200 μM NFκBAI4 is needed for ~50% inhibition of
the Ultra-Glo luciferase used in this assay. Means±S.D.
(n=3–5, each experiment performed in eight
determinations) are given; *P<0.05.
Inhibition of firefly luciferase by the NF-κB inhibitor
NFκBAI4
(A) Chemical structures of NFκBAI4 and its analogue
resveratrol. (B) Inhibition of firefly luciferase activity is
observed in mousehepatoma cells transiently transfected with the
β-catenin-driven firefly luciferase reporter STF after 24 h of
incubation of the cells with 20 μM NFκBAI4. Luciferase
signals were normalized to cell vitality, as determined by the Alamar Blue
assay. Means±S.D. (n=4) are given;
*P<0.05. (C) Lack of
inhibition of the known β-catenin target genes Axin2 and Gpr49 by
24 h treatment of cells with 20 μM NFκBAI4.
Means±S.D. (n=6) are given. (D)
Inhibition of firefly luciferase signals after addition of
20 μM NFκBAI4 [1% (v/v) of 2 mM NFκBAI4
solution in DMSO] to lysates of untreated, transiently luciferase-expressing
Hepa1c1c7, 70.4 and 55.1c cells 5 min prior to measurement. No
inhibition of Gaussia or Renilla
luciferases is observed. Means±S.D. (n=3 and 4) are
given; *P<0.05. (E) Inhibition
of commercially available firefly luciferase by 10 μM
NFκBAI4 at different concentrations of the enzyme. The means of two
experiments are shown. (F) Inhibition of firefly luciferase
activity in living stably luciferase-expressing cells (cell lines 70.4 K15
and 55.1c K65) by NFκBAI4. Cells were pre-incubated with
20 μM NFκBAI4 for 30 min prior to analysis.
Means±S.D. (n=4) are given;
*P<0.05. (G) Luciferase
inhibition in living cells was also monitored using a CCD camera system. A
representative image from 55.1c K65 cells is shown. (H)
Inhibition of luminescence signals from the CellTiter-Glo cell viability
assay kit, which is based on luciferase-dependent detection of cellular ATP,
by addition of 200 μM NFκBAI4. Please note that
200 μM NFκBAI4 is needed for ~50% inhibition of
the Ultra-Glo luciferase used in this assay. Means±S.D.
(n=3–5, each experiment performed in eight
determinations) are given; *P<0.05.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Chemicals and reagents
NFκBAI4 (catalogue no. 481412; Merck) and resveratrol (catalogue no.
R5010; Sigma) were dissolved in DMSO in concentrations up to 20 mM and
stored at −20°C for no longer than 4 weeks before use. Cell
culture media, supplements and transfection reagents were purchased from
Invitrogen. Chemicals for the preparation of luciferase assay buffers were
purchased from PJK. D-Luciferin-ethylester was from Gentaur and firefly
luciferase was from Roche; passive lysis buffer for luciferase assays was
purchased from Promega. All other chemicals were purchased from Merck, if not
otherwise indicated.
Cell culture and treatment
Mousehepatoma cell lines Hepa1c1c7, 70.4 and 55.1c were grown in DMEM
(Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium)/F-12 medium supplemented with 10% fetal
calf serum and antibiotics at 37°C and 5% CO2 in a humidified
atmosphere. Cells were seeded at a concentration of 50000 cells/cm2
24 h prior to transfection and treated with the indicated concentrations
of the compounds 24 h later. Concentration of the solvent DMSO was
limited to 0.1% in all assays except for the in vivo monitoring
of firefly luciferase activity, in which 1% DMSO was present.70.4- and 55.1c-derived subclones stably transfected with the artificial
β-catenin-driven firefly luciferase reporter plasmid STF (SuperTopflash)
[14] and a plasmid-mediating
resistance against G418 (pSV2neo; BD Biosciences) were routinely grown in medium
additionally supplemented with 400 μg/ml G418 [15]. The selection antibiotic was removed
from the cultures when plating them for experiments. Stably transfected cell
lines are referred to as 70.4STF K15, 70.4STF K31 (both 70.4-derived), and
55.1cSTF K16, K60, K53 and K65 (55.1c-derived).
Cell viability assays
Cell viability/cytotoxicity of all compounds was analysed by the Neutral Red
uptake and Alamar Blue assays using standard methodology. All concentrations
used for cell treatment in the presented experiments did not cause any
significant alterations in cell viability. Analyses with the CellTiter-Glo
Luminescent Cell Viability Assay Kit (Promega) based on the detection of
cellular ATP levels by a firefly luciferase-dependent reaction (modified
Ultra-Glo recombinant luciferase) were performed as recommended by the
manufacturer.
Transfections
Cells were transfected with the STF reporter plasmid (see above), the CMV
(cytomegalovirus) promoter-driven Renilla luciferase expression
plasmid pRL-CMV (Promega), or an AP-1-responsive Gaussia
luciferase expression vector [16] using
Lipofectamine™ 2000 according to the manufacturer's instructions. Stably
transfected cells derived from the 55.1c cell line were established as recently
described [15].
Luciferase activity assays
Firefly luciferase activity was determined in a 96-well plate reader (Victor3V;
PerkinElmer) as described previously [17]
using a reaction buffer containing 20 mM tricine, 2.67 mM
MgSO4, 0.1 mM EDTA, 33.3 mM DTT (dithiothreitol),
270 μM co-enzyme A, 470 μM D-luciferin and
530 μM ATP at pH 7.8 [18]. Renilla luciferase reaction buffer contained
220 mM K3PO4, 1.1 M NaCl, 2.2 mM
EDTA, 0.44 g/l BSA, 1.3 mM NaN3 and
1.43 μM coelenterazine at pH 5.0 [19]. The same buffer was used for measurement of
Gaussia luciferase with the only modification that it
contained 5.72 μM coelenterazine. Then 10 μl of cell
lysate (firefly, Renilla; prepared in 1× passive lysis
buffer) or cell culture medium supernatant (Gaussia) was mixed
with 50 μl of the respective reaction buffer.
Renilla buffer was added to the lysate/firefly reaction
buffer mix after measurement of firefly luciferase activity. Luminescence was
measured for a period of 10 s. For analysis of decay rates of the enzyme
reaction, luminescence was continuously monitored for 9 min after
addition of the reaction buffer. If luminescence counts are presented in the
Figures instead of relative luciferase activity, counts/s are shown. In the case
of the addition of substances dissolved in DMSO to one of the luciferase assay
buffers, DMSO concentration was limited to 5%. The firefly luciferase stock
solution was prepared by dissolving 1 mg of the protein in 1 ml
luciferase assay buffer, without ATP and D-luciferin, supplemented with
0.1% BSA.Monitoring of luciferase in living cells was performed similar to [20] using a buffer containing 25 mM
Tris/HCl, pH 7.5, 150 mM NaCl, 100 μM
D-luciferin-ethylester and 1% DMSO. Cells were pre-incubated with
20 μM NFκBAI4 in culture medium for 30 min at
37°C and 5% CO2 followed by washing with PBS. Then, pre-warmed
(37°C) assay buffer was added to the cells and luciferase signals were
assessed after an additional 5 min of incubation in the plate reader or
by the use of a CCD (charge-coupled device) camera (Raytest) using a time frame
of 4 min (plate reader) or 8 min (CCD camera).For the calculation of relative luciferase activity values, luminescence counts
for each well were normalized to its corresponding cell vitality, as determined
by the Alamar Blue assay, prior to cell lysis. Cell vitality-normalized
luciferase activities are given relative to cell vitality-normalized values of
untreated cells (percentage of control).
RNA isolation and real-time RT–PCR (reverse
transcription–PCR)
Isolation of total RNA, RT by avian myeloblastosis reverse transcriptase
(Promega), and real-time RT–PCR on a LightCycler instrument by the use of
the FastStart DNA Master SYBR Green I kit (Roche) have been described recently
[21]. Target gene expression was
normalized to 18S rRNA expression according to [22]. PCR primers were as follows: Axin2_fwd,
5′-CGACGCACTGACCGACGATT-3′; Axin2_rev,
5′-TCCAGACTATGGCGGCTTTCC-3′; 18S rRNA_fwd,
5′-CGGCTACCACATCCAAGGAA-3′; 18S rRNA_rev,
5′-GCTGGAATTACCGCGGCT-3′.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Inhibition of firefly but not Renilla or
Gaussia luciferases by NFκBAI4
In a series of experiments aimed at analysing a possible interplay of
β-catenin signalling and other cellular signalling pathways, the murinehepatoma cell lines Hepa1c1c7, 70.4 and 55.1c were transiently transfected with
the β-catenin-driven firefly luciferase reporter STF and treated with
20 μM NFκBAI4 for 24 h. As shown in Figure 1(B), NFκBAI4 treatment caused
an unexpected strong decrease of luminescence in all three cell systems. A
similar inhibitory effect of NFκBAI4 was observed when a number of stably
STF-transfected cell clones derived from the 70.4 or 55.1c cell lines were
treated with the compound (Figure 3B). This
was, however, not accompanied by a decrease in mRNA levels of the known
β-catenin target genes Axin2 and Gpr49 (G-protein-coupled receptor 49)
[15], thus casting doubt on a true
inhibition of the pathway (Figure 1C),
especially as a considerable concomitant reduction of target gene expression and
reporter activity can be achieved by transfection of siRNA (small interfering
RNA) directed against β-catenin mRNA (results not shown). One possible
explanation for this discrepancy of β-catenin-dependent firefly
luciferase reporter and target mRNA data was that NFκBAI4 causes an
inhibition of the firefly luciferase reaction. To test this hypothesis,
20 μM NFκBAI4 was added directly into lysates of untreated
Hepa1c1c7, 70.4 and 55.1c cells which had been transiently transfected with
expression vectors for the firefly, Renilla or
Gaussia luciferase 24 h before. NFκBAI4
strongly inhibited firefly luciferase signals in all cell lines, whereas the
other luciferases, i.e. Gaussia and Renilla
luciferase, were not affected (Figure 1D),
demonstrating the specificity of NFκBAI4 for firefly luciferase. Pure
commercially available firefly luciferase was also inhibited by NFκBAI4,
demonstrating that the observed effects are not due to other components present
in cell lysates (Figure 1E). Inhibition of
firefly luciferase activity was further monitored in living
luciferase-expressing cells incubated with a buffer containing the
cell-permeable D-luciferin derivative D-luciferin-ethylester
[20] following exposure of the cells
to NFκBAI4 (Figures 1F and 1G).
Figure 3
Time-dependent firefly luciferase inhibition by
NFκBAI4 in cell culture and analysis of the inhibition
mechanism
Luciferase activity was assessed in lysates from various cell lines,
derived from 70.4 or 55.1c mouse hepatoma cells, with stable expression
of firefly luciferase. Then 20 μM NFκBAI4 was added
to cell cultures and incubated for 1 h (A),
24 h (B) or 48 h (C) prior to
lysis and measurement. Luciferase signals were normalized to cell
vitality, as determined by the Alamar Blue assay. Means±S.D.
(n=3 and 4) are given;
*P<0.05. For comparison see data for
firefly luciferase inhibition by resveratrol in Supplementary Figure S2
at http://www.bioscirep.org/bsr/032/bsr0320531add.htm.
(D) Dose-response analysis of firefly luciferase
activity for the substrates D-luciferin and ATP in the presence
of different amounts of NFκBAI4. When varying
D-luciferin content of the reaction mixture, ATP was kept
constant at 500 μM; when varying ATP levels,
D-luciferin was kept constant at 1000 μM. Solid
lines represent a global fit of the mixed hyperbolic equation and show
the expected non-competitive inhibition of firefly luciferase activity
by NFκBAI4. For comparison, see results obtained with resveratrol
in [12]. (E) Decay
of the firefly luciferase reaction during a 9 min time frame
after addition of coenzyme A-free reaction buffer in the presence or
absence of 1 μM NFκBAI4. The means of two
experiments are given.
Using a commercially available cell viability assay based on the detection of
cellular ATP levels by a modified firefly luciferase (Ultra-Glo recombinant
luciferase, derived from the luciferase of the firefly Photinus
pennsylvanica; Promega), the inhibition of luciferase activity by
NFκBAI4 was also detectable (Figure
1H). However, much higher concentrations of NFκBAI4 were
needed for the inhibition of Ultra-Glo luciferase
(IC50≈200 μM), as compared with conventional
firefly luciferase.
Comparison with the structurally related firefly luciferase inhibitor
resveratrol
It has been reported that resveratrol, structurally related to NFκBAI4,
inhibits firefly luciferase [6,12]. We thus compared the ability of both
compounds to inhibit firefly luciferase activity derived from lysates of
untreated firefly luciferase-expressing cells (Figure 2, and Supplementary Figure S1 at http://www.bioscirep.org/bsr/032/bsr0320531add.htm). The
inhibitory potency of both substances was very similar in all four cell lines
analysed, with IC50 values of ~1 μM (Table 1). Almost identical
concentration-dependent inhibition (IC50≈1 μM)
of firefly luciferase by NFκBAI4 was detected when a reaction buffer
without coenzyme A was used (results not shown; for comparison, see also results
in Figure 3E). Values obtained with
resveratrol were comparable with a previously reported IC50 value of
~2 μM [12].
Figure 2
Dose–dependency of firefly luciferase inhibition by
NFκBAI4 and resveratrol
Dose-effect curves of luciferase inhibition by NFκBAI4
(A) or resveratrol (B) are shown in
lysates from untreated 70.4STF K15 and 55.1cSTF K65 cells with stable
expression of firefly luciferase. Then 20 μM
NFκBAI4 was added to lysates of untreated cells 5 min
prior to measurement. Means±S.D. (n=4) are
given. Inhibition of firefly luciferase activity in lysates derived from
other cell lines is depicted in Supplementary Figure S1 at http://www.bioscirep.org/bsr/032/bsr0320531add.htm.
Table 1
IC50 values for firefly luciferase inhibition by
NFκBAI4 and resveratrol
Values were obtained with lysates from four stably luciferase-expressing
mouse hepatoma cell lines. Underlying data are shown in Figure 2(A) and Supplementary Figure
S1 at http://www.bioscirep.org/bsr/032/bsr0320531add.htm.
IC50 (μM)
Cell line
NFκBAI4
Resveratrol
70.4STF K15
0.85
1.11
70.4STF K31
0.88
0.77
55.1cSTF K53
0.95
0.90
55.1cSTF K65
1.42
1.30
Dose–dependency of firefly luciferase inhibition by
NFκBAI4 and resveratrol
Dose-effect curves of luciferase inhibition by NFκBAI4
(A) or resveratrol (B) are shown in
lysates from untreated 70.4STF K15 and 55.1cSTF K65 cells with stable
expression of firefly luciferase. Then 20 μM
NFκBAI4 was added to lysates of untreated cells 5 min
prior to measurement. Means±S.D. (n=4) are
given. Inhibition of firefly luciferase activity in lysates derived from
other cell lines is depicted in Supplementary Figure S1 at http://www.bioscirep.org/bsr/032/bsr0320531add.htm.
Time-dependent firefly luciferase inhibition by
NFκBAI4 in cell culture and analysis of the inhibition
mechanism
Luciferase activity was assessed in lysates from various cell lines,
derived from 70.4 or 55.1c mousehepatoma cells, with stable expression
of firefly luciferase. Then 20 μM NFκBAI4 was added
to cell cultures and incubated for 1 h (A),
24 h (B) or 48 h (C) prior to
lysis and measurement. Luciferase signals were normalized to cell
vitality, as determined by the Alamar Blue assay. Means±S.D.
(n=3 and 4) are given;
*P<0.05. For comparison see data for
firefly luciferase inhibition by resveratrol in Supplementary Figure S2
at http://www.bioscirep.org/bsr/032/bsr0320531add.htm.
(D) Dose-response analysis of firefly luciferase
activity for the substrates D-luciferin and ATP in the presence
of different amounts of NFκBAI4. When varying
D-luciferin content of the reaction mixture, ATP was kept
constant at 500 μM; when varying ATP levels,
D-luciferin was kept constant at 1000 μM. Solid
lines represent a global fit of the mixed hyperbolic equation and show
the expected non-competitive inhibition of firefly luciferase activity
by NFκBAI4. For comparison, see results obtained with resveratrol
in [12]. (E) Decay
of the firefly luciferase reaction during a 9 min time frame
after addition of coenzyme A-free reaction buffer in the presence or
absence of 1 μM NFκBAI4. The means of two
experiments are given.
IC50 values for firefly luciferase inhibition by
NFκBAI4 and resveratrol
Values were obtained with lysates from four stably luciferase-expressing
mousehepatoma cell lines. Underlying data are shown in Figure 2(A) and Supplementary Figure
S1 at http://www.bioscirep.org/bsr/032/bsr0320531add.htm.We further compared the luciferase-inhibiting ability of NFκBAI4 and
resveratrol in cells after different periods of incubation with
20 μM of the respective substance. NFκBAI4 strongly
inhibited firefly luciferase after 1 h of incubation and the effect was
still pronounced after 24 h (Figures
3A and 3B). Following
48 h of incubation with NFκBAI4, the inhibitory effect was still
visible in 70.4-derived, but not in 55.1c-derived, cell lines (Figure 3C). By contrast, inhibition of
firefly luciferase activity by resveratrol was weaker after 1 h and
disappeared in all cell lines already at 24 h after addition of the
compound to the cells (see Supplementary Figure S2 at http://www.bioscirep.org/bsr/032/bsr0320531add.htm). A possible
explanation for this dissimilar behaviour of the two substances which share an
equal potency of firefly luciferase inhibition directly after addition to the
cell lysates can be taken from the chemical structure of both molecules:
resveratrol possesses hydroxy groups that allow for an easy and rapid cellular
metabolism via conjugation with glucuronic acid or sulfate [23,24]. The lack of hydroxy groups in the NFκBAI4 molecule makes
it necessary to chemically modify the molecule prior to further metabolism,
which is a type of reaction that is typically carried out by
xenobiotic-metabolizing enzymes from the cytochrome P450 family. The 55.1c and
70.4 hepatoma cell lines exhibit much lower levels of most cytochromes P450 than
normal liver (results not shown), meaning that one would expect a rather slow
metabolism of NFκBAI4.
Mechanism of enzyme inhibition
To exclude an attenuation of luciferase signals caused by absorption of the
emitted photons by NFκBAI4, we recorded UV/visual spectra of
NFκBAI4 in aqueous solution. An absorption peak at 315 nm
was observed, whereas no absorption was detected at higher wavelengths (results
not shown). The 315 nm peak is far away from the emission peak of firefly
luciferase at 560 nm [25]. Thus
the inhibitory effect of NFκBAI4 is not due to light absorption by the
compound.Resveratrol was shown to inhibit firefly luciferase in a non-competitive manner
with respect to its substrates ATP and D-luciferin [12]. We assayed firefly luciferase activity
in the presence of various amounts of NFκBAI4 and different
concentrations of its substrates ATP and D-luciferin, similar to the
analyses performed with resveratrol [12].
A mixed hyperbolic equation was fitted to the data (Figure 3D). The results appear almost identical with those
reported for resveratrol [12],
demonstrating that firefly luciferase is inhibited by NFκBAI4 in a
non-competitive manner, comparable with resveratrol (Figure 3D).We further analysed whether NFκBAI4 would affect the decay of the
luminescence signal. For this purpose, lysates were treated with
1 μM NFκBAI4 (equivalent to the IC50 of the
compound). Analyses were performed in the absence of coenzyme A. As expected, an
overall decreased intensity of the luminescence signal was observed when the
inhibitor was present (Figure 3E). After a
rapid initial decay of the signal during the first 2 min, signal
intensity declined more slowly during the rest of the observation period when
the untreated lysate was used, whereas the decrease appeared to be somewhat less
pronounced in the presence of NFκBAI4 (Figure 3E).
Improvement of a dual luciferase assay buffer by NFκBAI4
An inhibition of firefly luciferase might be desired under certain conditions:
for example, dual luciferase assays normally consist of an analysis of firefly
luciferase activity followed by the assessment of Renilla
luciferase activity in the same cell lysate. This implies that the activity of
firefly luciferase is effectively quenched before measuring luminescence
produced by the Renilla enzyme, an issue that is solved by a
change of buffer composition and pH in the reaction tube. Using our buffers,
residual activity of firefly luciferase is ~0.02% of the initial
activity, as determined by measuring lysates containing only firefly but not
Renilla luciferase before and after addition of the
Renilla buffer (Figure
4A). The addition of 20 μM NFκBAI4 to the
Renilla buffer further improved its ability to quench the
firefly signal (Figure 4A), but did not
influence Renilla luciferase activity, as determined by the
addition of 20 μM NFκBAI4 to the Renilla
luciferase reaction buffer in a classic dual luciferase assay with transiently
transfected Hepa1c1c7 cells (Figure 4B).
Thus, in principle, dual luciferase systems might be improved by addition of a
firefly luciferase inhibitor to the Renilla luciferase reaction
buffer.
Figure 4
Improvement of the ability of a Renilla luciferase
reaction buffer to quench firefly luciferase activity
(A) Remnant activity of firefly luciferase in
Renilla buffer is further reduced by addition of
20 μM NFκBAI4. Values are given as percentage of
control (i.e. lysate with firefly buffer prior to the addition of
Renilla buffer) (B)
Renilla luciferase activity is not altered by the
presence of NFκBAI4. Renilla luciferase activity
was assayed using Renilla buffer with or without
20 μM NFκBAI4 in lysates from transiently
transfected Hepa1c1c7 cells. Means±S.D. (n=6)
are given; *P<0.05.
Improvement of the ability of a Renilla luciferase
reaction buffer to quench firefly luciferase activity
(A) Remnant activity of firefly luciferase in
Renilla buffer is further reduced by addition of
20 μM NFκBAI4. Values are given as percentage of
control (i.e. lysate with firefly buffer prior to the addition of
Renilla buffer) (B)
Renilla luciferase activity is not altered by the
presence of NFκBAI4. Renilla luciferase activity
was assayed using Renilla buffer with or without
20 μM NFκBAI4 in lysates from transiently
transfected Hepa1c1c7 cells. Means±S.D. (n=6)
are given; *P<0.05.
Conclusions
The potential of NFκBAI4 to inhibit firefly luciferase is important to
know when conducting luciferase reporter analyses in lysates from cells treated
with the compound, since these analyses might be compromised by the direct
action of NFκBAI4 on the luciferase enzyme. The same applies to cell
vitality assays that make use of firefly luciferase to determine the levels of
cellular ATP as an indicator of metabolically active intact cells. In accordance
with previous work [6,12], we found that the structurally related
molecule resveratrol also inhibits firefly luciferase, in a manner comparable
with NFκBAI4. Moreover, the glutamate receptor antagonist SIB-1893 [26], a trans-stilbene like
NFκBAI4 and resveratrol, has been shown to inhibit firefly luciferase
with a somewhat lower efficacy than NFκBAI4 [6] (please note that the compound is erroneously depicted as
a cis-stilbene in the latter paper). Thus, it seems likely that
trans-stilbenes constitute a structural class of firefly
luciferase-inhibiting molecules which, however, has not been clearly identified
as such in previous studies.The problems caused by conducting luciferase assays in the presence of
NFκBAI4 can be circumvented by using different luciferases (e.g.
Gaussia luciferase). Another alternative might be the
modified Ultra-Glo luciferase, which is present in Promega's cell viability
assay kit. The latter enzyme was inhibited by NFκBAI4 in our
analyses, but only at very high concentrations of the compound which exceed the
concentrations routinely used in cell culture. Although a direct quantitative
comparison with the degree of inhibition obtained with the wild-type is impeded
by the different reaction conditions of the assays, it is highly plausible that
the modified enzyme is more resistant against inhibition by NFκBAI4, as
it is generally more resistant with respect to several other luciferase
inhibitors [27]. This idea is supported
by data presented on the Promega Corporation web page demonstrating that
Ultra-Glo luciferase is more resistant against inhibition by the NFκBAI4
structural analogue resveratrol (http://www.promega.com/de-de/resources/scientific_posters/posters/compound-interference-of-celltiterglo-vs-pe-atplite-1step-poster/).
Authors: Chongwoo Yu; Young Geun Shin; Anita Chow; Yongmei Li; Jerome W Kosmeder; Yong Sup Lee; Wendy H Hirschelman; John M Pezzuto; Rajendra G Mehta; Richard B van Breemen Journal: Pharm Res Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 4.200
Authors: Mollisa M Elrick; Willis K Samson; John A Corbett; Alison S Salvatori; Lauren M Stein; Grant R Kolar; Aaron Naatz; Gina L C Yosten Journal: Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol Date: 2015-11-11 Impact factor: 3.619
Authors: Pascal Schulthess; Alexandra Löffler; Silvia Vetter; Luisa Kreft; Michael Schwarz; Albert Braeuning; Nils Blüthgen Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2015-05-01 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: Marta Cykowiak; Robert Kleszcz; Małgorzata Kucińska; Jarosław Paluszczak; Hanna Szaefer; Adam Plewiński; Hanna Piotrowska-Kempisty; Marek Murias; Violetta Krajka-Kuźniak Journal: Cells Date: 2021-12-16 Impact factor: 6.600