Active-site directed probes are powerful in studies of enzymatic function. We report an active-site directed probe based on a warhead so far considered unreactive. By replacing the C-terminal carboxylate of ubiquitin (Ub) with an alkyne functionality, a selective reaction with the active-site cysteine residue of de-ubiquitinating enzymes was observed. The resulting product was shown to be a quaternary vinyl thioether, as determined by X-ray crystallography. Proteomic analysis of proteins bound to an immobilized Ub alkyne probe confirmed the selectivity toward de-ubiquitinating enzymes. The observed reactivity is not just restricted to propargylated Ub, as highlighted by the selective reaction between caspase-1 (interleukin converting enzyme) and a propargylated peptide derived from IL-1β, a caspase-1 substrate.
Active-site directed probes are powerful in studies of enzymatic function. We report an active-site directed probe based on a warhead so far considered unreactive. By replacing the C-terminal carboxylate of ubiquitin (Ub) with an alkyne functionality, a selective reaction with the active-site cysteine residue of de-ubiquitinating enzymes was observed. The resulting product was shown to be a quaternary vinyl thioether, as determined by X-ray crystallography. Proteomic analysis of proteins bound to an immobilized Ub alkyne probe confirmed the selectivity toward de-ubiquitinating enzymes. The observed reactivity is not just restricted to propargylated Ub, as highlighted by the selective reaction between caspase-1 (interleukin converting enzyme) and a propargylated peptide derived from IL-1β, a caspase-1 substrate.
Ubiquitination is among the
most abundant post-translational protein modifications. Ubiquitin
(Ub), a 76 amino acid protein, can be covalently linked through its
C-terminal carboxylate to the ε-amine of a lysine residue or
the N-terminus of a target protein. This process can be reversed by
the action of de-ubiquitinating enzymes (DUBs). Ubiquitination and
de-ubiquitination are important in cellular homeostasis and signaling.[1] As DUBs are involved in a host of cell biological
processes, they constitute an attractive therapeutic target.[4]C-terminally propargylated Ub (Ub-Prg,
Figure 1A) was synthesized, using a previously
reported linear solid-phase
peptide synthesis procedure.[5] We generated
Ub-Prg as a substrate for triazole-linked peptide-Ub[6] conjugations using click chemistry.[7] In a fluorescence polarization-based DUB activity assay,[9] Ub-Prg inhibited the human DUB, ubiquitin carboxyl-terminal
hydrolase isozyme L3 (UCHL3), with approximately equimolar stoichiometry
(Figure 1B). This finding was surprising, as
terminal alkynes are considered inert under physiological conditions.[10] LC-MS (Figure 1C) and
SDS-PAGE analysis (Figure S1) revealed
that Ub-Prg forms a covalent bond with UCHL3 that is resistant to
denaturing conditions. This reaction could be abolished by inhibition
of UCHL3 with N-ethylmaleimide, a cysteine alkylating
reagent, prior to addition of Ub-Prg. In contrast, a 1000-fold excess
of propargylamine, N-glycinylpropargylamide,
or free thiol (DTT, β-mercaptoethanol, or glutathione)
over UCHL3 did not affect the reaction outcome (Figure S1). Titration of Ub-Prg against UCHL3 confirmed the
1:1 reaction stoichiometry (Figure S2).
Figure 1
(A) Ubiquitin
functionalized with propargylamine replacing
Gly76. (B) Fluorescence polarization-based substrate turnover assay
measuring UCHL3 activity, showing Ub-Prg as 105 times more
powerful an inhibitor than Ub. Dotted line represents the concentration
of UCHL3 (60 pM) used. (C) Deconvoluted mass of UCHL3 (calcd monoisotopic
mass, 26 166 Da) before/after reaction with Ub-Prg. A mass
increase of 8544 Da is observed, corresponding to one Ub-Prg molecule.
(A) Ubiquitin
functionalized with propargylamine replacing
Gly76. (B) Fluorescence polarization-based substrate turnover assay
measuring UCHL3 activity, showing Ub-Prg as 105 times more
powerful an inhibitor than Ub. Dotted line represents the concentration
of UCHL3 (60 pM) used. (C) Deconvoluted mass of UCHL3 (calcd monoisotopic
mass, 26 166 Da) before/after reaction with Ub-Prg. A mass
increase of 8544 Da is observed, corresponding to one Ub-Prg molecule.To determine the reaction rate, we performed an in vitro time course experiment (Figure
S3). UCHL3
showed quantitative reaction with Ub-Prg within 1 min, similar to
the rate previously reported for the Ub-based DUB-probe, Ub vinyl
methyl ester (Ub-VME).[11] Reaction between
UCHL3 and Ub-Prg yielded a product equal in mass to the sum of both
reactants. The acid lability of the purified UCHL3·Ub-Prg complex
(Figure S4) suggested the formation of
a vinyl thioether linkage. The nature of
the linkage formed was confirmed by solving the crystal structure
of a DUB in complex with Ub-Prg. The viral ovarian tumor DUB (vOTU)
encoded by Crimean Congo hemorrhagic fever virus (CCHFV)[12] was reacted with Ub-Prg. The resulting complex
was crystallized and its structure determined at 2.3 Å resolution
(Figure 2A, Table S1). The refined structure closely resembles previously determined
vOTU·Ub complexes[13] (rmsd = 0.4–0.6
Å2). Refinement of the complex structure excluding
the propargyl group at the C-terminus of Ub yielded positive difference
electron density (|Fo| – |Fc) connecting Gly75 to the catalytic Cys40 residue
of vOTU (Figure 2A). The electron density obtained
unambiguously revealed the attachment of the Cys thiol atom to the
quaternary carbon in Ub-Prg (Figure 2B), confirming
a vinyl thioether linkage.
Figure 2
Structure of vOTU (blue) in complex with
Ub-Prg (yellow). (A) Electron
density maps (blue represents 2|Fo| – |Fc| contoured at 1σ; green represents |Fo| – |Fc at 3σ) covering the catalytic Cys of vOTU and
the C-terminus of Ub-Prg, before (top) and after refinement (bottom)
with the vinyl thioether linker. (B) Reaction between vOTU and
Ub-Prg (top) and representation of the reaction product as observed
by X-ray crystallography (bottom), showing the vinyl thioether
linkage in the Ub-Prg complexed structure.
Structure of vOTU (blue) in complex with
Ub-Prg (yellow). (A) Electron
density maps (blue represents 2|Fo| – |Fc| contoured at 1σ; green represents |Fo| – |Fc at 3σ) covering the catalytic Cys of vOTU and
the C-terminus of Ub-Prg, before (top) and after refinement (bottom)
with the vinyl thioether linker. (B) Reaction between vOTU and
Ub-Prg (top) and representation of the reaction product as observed
by X-ray crystallography (bottom), showing the vinyl thioether
linkage in the Ub-Prg complexed structure.We assessed the scope and limitations of this reaction
by studying
the reaction between UCHL3 and a series of Ub-Prg analogues (Figure 3). An allylic variant 1 of the alkyne
showed minor reactivity. Ub-propyl, with (2) or without
(4) an N-terminal tetramethylrhodamine (TMR) label,
did not react with UCHL3. The terminally methylated alkyne (2-butynyl)
derivative 3 failed to react, suggesting an important
role for the terminal CH proton. A 2,2-dimethylated variant (2-methyl-3-butyn-2-amine-modified, 5) did not react with UCHL3, suggesting either steric hindrance
around the C2-atom being inhibitory or an essential role for a proton
at this position. The amide group β to the alkyne moiety did
not contribute to the reaction, as a but-3-ynyl analogue (6) reacted equally well. An analogue, with the
last two glycine residues replaced by a hex-5-ynyl-1-amine (7) to afford an isostere of Ub-Prg, reacted as well, albeit
at a lower rate. This is likely due to the absence of the H-bonding
amide linkage between Gly75 and Gly76 and UCHL3, which contribute
to binding affinity. Together these data suggest that the mildly electron-withdrawing
effect of the amide bond is not essential. Based on these observations,
we consider three possible mechanisms for this reaction: (1) direct
nucleophilic attack on the quaternary propargyl carbon; (2) formation
of an allene followed by nucleophilic or radical attack; and (3) formation
of a thiol radical in the enzyme active site followed by radical reaction
with the quaternary carbon center of the alkyne.
Figure 3
SDS-PAGE gel showing
reaction of Ub-Prg derivatives. R1 = N-terminally TMR-labeled
Ub1–75, R2 = unlabeled Ub1–75, and R3 = Ub1–74. Only probes 6, 7,
and Ub-Prg show significant
reactivity toward UCHL3.
Radical-mediated
reactions between thiols and alkynes have been
described.[16] In thiol-yne reactions, alkynes
can undergo a double thiol addition resulting in a dithioether.
Sterically hindered alkynes or thiols on the other hand can undergo
a single addition, resulting in a vinyl thioether.[17] To study the involvement of a radical intermediate
in the reaction, we reacted UCHL3 and Ub-Prg in the presence of NO-generating
reagents[18] (NONOates, Figure S5), as NO is a small, potent, and water-soluble radical
scavenger. Pre-incubation of Ub-Prg with NO for 30 min followed by
incubation with UCHL3 did not affect the reaction outcome, nor did
addition of a different scavenger, galvinoxyl free radical.[19] These data together do not support a radical
mechanism.Formation of an allene intermediate in solution prior
to binding
the enzyme is unlikely, as the reaction proceeds under acidic conditions
(Figure S6), and strong bases are usually
required for allene formation. The establishment of an allenic equilibrium
in the active site followed by nucleophilic attack by the active-site
cysteine cannot be excluded based on the current data.SDS-PAGE gel showing
reaction of Ub-Prg derivatives. R1 = N-terminally TMR-labeled
Ub1–75, R2 = unlabeled Ub1–75, and R3 = Ub1–74. Only probes 6, 7,
and Ub-Prg show significant
reactivity toward UCHL3.We next analyzed whether the reaction was restricted
to UCHL3 or
other classes of DUBs could react with Ub-Prg as well. We found Ub-Prg
to react with recombinant members of all four families of cysteine
DUBs (Figures 4A and S7), including A20, a notoriously unreactive member of the OTU-DUB
family that does not react with other Ub-based active site probes.[20] Other classes of cysteine proteases, including
the protease for the Ub-like modifier SUMO, SENP6, did not react with
Ub-Prg, nor did Ub-activating enzyme E1 (Figure
S7).
Figure 4
(A) SDS-PAGE analysis of in vitro reaction of
three different classes of DUBs with Ub-Prg. (B) GFP fusions of DUBs
from the USP and OTU-clades were transfected in MelJuSo cells, and
their reaction with Ub-Prg was visualized using anti-GFP Western blot.
DUBs annotated with -CS are catalytic cysteine-to-serine mutants.
For images of direct fluorescence scans see Figure
S8. (C) Comparison of DUB labeling between TMR-Ub-VME and TMR-Ub-Prg.
Third and fifth lanes are pretreated with unlabeled Ub-Prg and Ub-VME,
respectively. Labeled lysates were analyzed using SDS-PAGE, and tagged
DUBs were visualized by fluorescence scanning. An overexposed fluorescent
image showing DUBs 3–5 is available as Figure S10.
Fluorescent activity-based probes[21] accelerate
the process of activity-based protein profiling.[22] To determine whether Ub-Prg could be used as a general
fluorescent activity-based profiling reagent, we incubated a TMR-labeled
version of Ub-Prg (TMR-Ub-Prg) with a panel of GFP-labeled recombinant
DUBs in MelJuso cell lysates. A fluorescence gel scan (Figure S8) showed that cysteine DUBs could be
labeled in lysates. Western blot analysis (Figure 4B) showed band shifts corresponding to one Ub moiety, compared
to unlabeled DUBs. Mutation of the active-site cysteine residue to
serine abolished DUB labeling. TMR-Ub-Prg could also be used to label
native DUBs in cell lysates (Figure 4B,C).This ability to label DUBs in lysates was compared to that of the
commonly used probe Ub-VME. The above panel of DUBs expressed in MelJuSo
cells was labeled under identical conditions with Ub-Prg or Ub-VME
(Figure S9). While Ub-VME reacted with
some but not all tested DUBs in this assay, Ub-Prg modified all active
DUBs tested. Differences in labeling between Ub-Prg and Ub-VME were
further studied by pre-incubating EL-4 lysate with unlabeled Ub-Prg
and Ub-VME, respectively. After depletion of DUBs, the remaining active
DUBs were visualized with a fluorescently labeled competitor probe,
showing four unique DUBs labeled by Ub-Prg, after Ub-VME depletion,
indicated by arrows (Figures 4C and S10).(A) SDS-PAGE analysis of in vitro reaction of
three different classes of DUBs with Ub-Prg. (B) GFP fusions of DUBs
from the USP and OTU-clades were transfected in MelJuSo cells, and
their reaction with Ub-Prg was visualized using anti-GFP Western blot.
DUBs annotated with -CS are catalytic cysteine-to-serine mutants.
For images of direct fluorescence scans see Figure
S8. (C) Comparison of DUB labeling between TMR-Ub-VME and TMR-Ub-Prg.
Third and fifth lanes are pretreated with unlabeled Ub-Prg and Ub-VME,
respectively. Labeled lysates were analyzed using SDS-PAGE, and tagged
DUBs were visualized by fluorescence scanning. An overexposed fluorescent
image showing DUBs 3–5 is available as Figure S10.The stability of the propargyl moiety allowed direct
immobilization
of Ub-Prg on CNBr-activated sepharose resin (Figure
S11). This resin was used to verify the selectivity of Ub-Prg
for DUBs and its breadth of reactivity across the different DUB families
in cell lysates. The binding capacity of the resin was tested by incubating
decreasing amounts of resin with a known amount of UCHL3 in the presence
of cysteine-rich bovine serum albumin (Figure
S12). This allowed easy separation of UCHL3 from albumin. Using
this methodology, the loading of the resin was determined to be 0.4–0.7
μmol/g of resin. We then used the resin to covalently capture
active DUBs from cell lysates of the mouse lymphoma cell line (EL-4),
as a benchmark cell line for the study of active-site directed DUB
probes.[17] The covalent attachment of DUBs
to immobilized Ub-Prg allowed for very stringent denaturing washing
conditions to remove nonspecifically bound proteins. To release the
isolated DUBs from the resin, we applied the lability of vinyl thioethers
to strong acidic conditions (Figure S12).[23] This allowed for SDS-PAGE analysis
of the pulldown products prior to trypsinolysis. Samples could
also be analyzed directly using on-bead trypsinolysis followed
by LC-MS/MS.Identification of the isolated DUBs by LC-MS/MS
(Figures 5 and S13) showed that
members of all four known classes of cysteine DUBs were retrieved
in a single simple experiment. Using a dimethyl-labeling-based quantitative
proteomics approach,[24] all recovered DUBs
displayed a selective enrichment over background (Figure 5). For all recovered DUBs, with the exception of
UCHL3, no signal was observed in the control sample. Nonspecific interactors
were not found to be significantly enriched. Only the E3-ligase HUWE1
was found, which has also been reported using other active-site directed
probes.[25] The general applicability of
this reaction was tested on another member of the family of Ub-like
proteins, Nedd8 (Figure S14). A synthetic
propargylated Nedd8 reacted efficiently with UCHL3, which is
known to cross-react with Nedd8.[26]
Figure 5
Quantification
of DUBs precipitated from EL-4 lysate after on-bead
reaction with Ub-Prg. Ratios of ion intensities of proteins retrieved
from Ub-Prg-resin pulldown vs pulldown with a control resin are shown.
Quantification
of DUBs precipitated from EL-4 lysate after on-bead
reaction with Ub-Prg. Ratios of ion intensities of proteins retrieved
from Ub-Prg-resin pulldown vs pulldown with a control resin are shown.To test whether reaction of alkynes with active
site cysteine nucleophiles
is limited to the class of Ub-like proteases or can be applied to
other families of cysteine proteases as well, we synthesized propargyl
analogues of common peptide aldehyde-based cysteine protease inhibitors
by directly converting the aldehyde to alkyne using Bestmann–Ohira
reagent[27] (Figure S15). The Prg analogues of the inhibitors of cathepsins (leupeptin)
and caspases (Ac-YVAD-CHO) showed no significant inhibitory potentials
compared to the parent aldehydes (Figure S16). We postulated this was due to the low affinity of the short peptide
fragments for these proteases. To test this, we synthesized two extended
cyanine 5 (Cy5) fluorophore-labeled (16 and 26 amino acid) peptide
fragments derived from pro-IL1-β (a natural substrate of caspase-1),
carrying a C-terminal propargylated aspartic acid residue (Figure 6). Notably, both peptides selectively labeled caspase-1,
and this labeling could readily be abolished by the addition of the
general cysteine protease inhibitor iodoacetamide.
Figure 6
Labeling of recombinant caspase-1 with alkyne-based caspase-1 probe
analyzed by fluorescent scanning of SDS-PAGE gel. Recombinant caspase-1
was labeled with two different lengths of caspase probe (left) and
doped in U937 lysate (right), showing selective labeling of caspase-1
in lysate.
Caspase-1
doped into U937 cell lysate, which is low in native active
caspase-1, was also selectively labeled using this probe, showing
the high selectivity of the method (Figure 6). These results suggest that the reaction of C-terminal alkynes
with active-site cysteine residues can be extended to other classes
of enzymes.Labeling of recombinant caspase-1 with alkyne-based caspase-1 probe
analyzed by fluorescent scanning of SDS-PAGE gel. Recombinant caspase-1
was labeled with two different lengths of caspase probe (left) and
doped in U937 lysate (right), showing selective labeling of caspase-1
in lysate.In conclusion, we show that alkynes attached to
substrate proteins
and peptides can react with the active-site cysteine nucleophile of
target proteases. We confirmed this for DUBs and for caspase-1. The
reaction described is highly selective. The alkyne moiety does not
react with excess thiol nor with cysteine residues present in nontargeted
proteins, in contrast to strained cyclooctynes, which can react with
cysteine nucleophiles present in serum albumin.[28] The inertness of the alkyne moiety under a range of chemical
conditions and reversibility of the linkage under acidic conditions
allow direct immobilization of these probes on resin and triggered
release of captured proteins. This allows for facile activity-based
proteomics using very stringent purifications.
Authors: Anna Borodovsky; Huib Ovaa; Nagamalleswari Kolli; Tudeviin Gan-Erdene; Keith D Wilkinson; Hidde L Ploegh; Benedikt M Kessler Journal: Chem Biol Date: 2002-10
Authors: Glenn C Capodagli; Marissa A McKercher; Erica A Baker; Emily M Masters; Joseph S Brunzelle; Scott D Pegan Journal: J Virol Date: 2011-01-12 Impact factor: 5.103
Authors: Terrence W James; Natalia Frias-Staheli; John-Paul Bacik; Jesica M Levingston Macleod; Mazdak Khajehpour; Adolfo García-Sastre; Brian L Mark Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2011-01-18 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Annemieke de Jong; Remco Merkx; Ilana Berlin; Boris Rodenko; Ruud H M Wijdeven; Dris El Atmioui; Zeliha Yalçin; Craig N Robson; Jacques J Neefjes; Huib Ovaa Journal: Chembiochem Date: 2012-09-25 Impact factor: 3.164
Authors: Koen Wagner; Mark J Kwakkenbos; Yvonne B Claassen; Kelly Maijoor; Martino Böhne; Koenraad F van der Sluijs; Martin D Witte; Diana J van Zoelen; Lisette A Cornelissen; Tim Beaumont; Arjen Q Bakker; Hidde L Ploegh; Hergen Spits Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2014-11-10 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: M K Deaton; J V Dzimianski; C M Daczkowski; G K Whitney; N J Mank; M M Parham; E Bergeron; S D Pegan Journal: J Virol Date: 2016-08-26 Impact factor: 5.103
Authors: Chi Zhang; Peng Dai; Alexander A Vinogradov; Zachary P Gates; Bradley L Pentelute Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2018-04-26 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Amy L Palmer; Annemieke de Jong; Yves Leestemaker; Paul P Geurink; Ruud H Wijdeven; Huib Ovaa; Brian P Dolan Journal: J Immunol Date: 2017-12-27 Impact factor: 5.422
Authors: Yesid A Ramirez; Thomas B Adler; Eva Altmann; Theresa Klemm; Christian Tiesmeyer; Florian Sauer; Stefan G Kathman; Alexander V Statsyuk; Christoph Sotriffer; Caroline Kisker Journal: ChemMedChem Date: 2018-09-06 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: Katherine Windsor; Thiago C Genaro-Mattos; Hye-Young H Kim; Wei Liu; Keri A Tallman; Sayuri Miyamoto; Zeljka Korade; Ned A Porter Journal: J Lipid Res Date: 2013-07-04 Impact factor: 5.922
Authors: David E Mortenson; Gabriel J Brighty; Lars Plate; Grant Bare; Wentao Chen; Suhua Li; Hua Wang; Benjamin F Cravatt; Stefano Forli; Evan T Powers; K Barry Sharpless; Ian A Wilson; Jeffery W Kelly Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2017-12-21 Impact factor: 15.419