Julie K-L Sinclair1, Elizabeth V Denton, Alanna Schepartz. 1. Department of Chemistry and ‡Department of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology, Yale University , New Haven, Connecticut 06520-8107, United States.
Abstract
The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase is implicated in a large number of human cancers. Most EGFR inhibitors target the extracellular, growth factor-binding domain or the intracellular, ATP-binding domain. Here we describe molecules that inhibit the kinase activity of EGFR in a new way, by competing with formation of an essential intradimer coiled coil containing the juxtamembrane segment from each member of the receptor partnership. The most potent molecules we describe bind EGFR directly, decrease the proliferation of wild-type and mutant EGFR-dependent cells lines, inhibit phosphorylation of EGFR and downstream targets, and block coiled coil formation as judged by bipartite tetracysteine display. Potency is directly correlated with the ability to block coiled coil formation within full-length EGFR in cells.
The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase is implicated in a large number of humancancers. Most EGFR inhibitors target the extracellular, growth factor-binding domain or the intracellular, ATP-binding domain. Here we describe molecules that inhibit the kinase activity of EGFR in a new way, by competing with formation of an essential intradimer coiled coil containing the juxtamembrane segment from each member of the receptor partnership. The most potent molecules we describe bind EGFR directly, decrease the proliferation of wild-type and mutant EGFR-dependent cells lines, inhibit phosphorylation of EGFR and downstream targets, and block coiled coil formation as judged by bipartite tetracysteine display. Potency is directly correlated with the ability to block coiled coil formation within full-length EGFR in cells.
The epidermal growth factor
receptor (EGFR)[1−3] tyrosine kinase is implicated in a large number of
humancancers.[4] Four EGFR inhibitors have
been approved for use: cetuximab[5,6] is a monoclonal antibody
that directly inhibits the binding of growth factors to the EGFR extracellular
domain,[7] whereas gefitinib, erlotinib,
and afatinib[8−11] are tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) that directly inhibit the
binding of ATP to the intracellular catalytic domain.[4,12] Other molecules in these two categories, including reversible and
irreversible TKIs that inhibit the drug-resistant EGFR double mutant,
are in clinical development.[13−19] Here we describe molecules that inhibit EGFR in a third way, via
allostery,[20,21] by blocking the formation of
a coiled coil dimer in the juxtamembrane (JM) segment (Figure 1A) that is essential for assembly of the active,
asymmetric kinase dimer.
Figure 1
(A) Potential equilibria between EGFR monomers and dimers
±
growth factor (EGF) and allosteric inhibitors. (B) Helical wheel representation
and sequences of hydrocarbon-stapled peptides. Z, X, and B represent
(R)-2-(7′-octenyl)alanine, (S)-2-(4′-pentenyl)alanine, and (R)-2-(4′-pentenyl)alanine,
respectively. Peptides constrained with a hydrocarbon staple are indicated
with the superscript S.
Recently we reported, using a tool
known as bipartite tetracysteine
display,[22,23] that the binding of the epidermal growth
factor (EGF)[24] to the extracellular domain
of full-length EGFR[1−3] leads to the assembly of an antiparallel coiled coil
composed of the JM segment from each member of the protein pair. The
JM segment is located between the transmembrane helix and the kinase
domain (Figure 1A) and is essential for kinase
function.[25−27] EGFR variants that lack a JM segment[28] or contain amino acid substitutions that reduce α-helix
propensity[26,29] are catalytically inactive. Other
variants that disfavor assembly of the active, asymmetric kinase dimer[26] do not support formation of the JM coiled coil.[25] These observations suggest that ligands capable
of inhibiting coiled coil formation should inhibit the EGFR kinase
via an allosteric mechanism. Indeed, a polypeptide containing the
EGFR JM segment fused to a polycationic region from HIV Tat (TE-64562)
inhibits EGFR signaling, but neither its binding mode nor its mechanism
of action is understood, as kinase activity itself was unaffected.[30](A) Potential equilibria between EGFR monomers and dimers
±
growth factor (EGF) and allosteric inhibitors. (B) Helical wheel representation
and sequences of hydrocarbon-stapled peptides. Z, X, and B represent
(R)-2-(7′-octenyl)alanine, (S)-2-(4′-pentenyl)alanine, and (R)-2-(4′-pentenyl)alanine,
respectively. Peptides constrained with a hydrocarbon staple are indicated
with the superscript S.Previous work has shown that peptides containing judiciously
positioned i+3, i+4, and i+7 macrocyclic
bridges (often referred to as hydrocarbon staples) can display improved
α-helix content, protease resistance, and, in some cases, cellular
uptake when compared to unmodified peptides with similar sequences.[31−33] These features make hydrocarbon-stapled peptides uniquely suited
to evaluate the JM coiled coil as an allosteric regulatory site for
EGFR. To begin this evaluation, we synthesized five peptides comprising
the 17-residue JM-A segment (EGFR residues 645–662) and a single
hydrocarbon staple at one of five positions around the helix circumference
(Figure 1B and Supporting
Information, Figures S1 and S2). Four of the peptides (E1S, E2S, E4S, and T4S) contain
a hydrocarbon staple on the helix face opposite that used for EGF-stimulated
coiled coil formation.[25] One peptide (T1S), prepared as a control, contains a hydrocarbon staple that
blocks the helix face used for EGF-stimulated coiled coil formation.[25,26] Two additional peptides contain the unmodified JM-A sequence fused
to a polycationic region of HIV Tat (TE-64562)[30] or not (JM-WT). As expected, all hydrocarbon-stapled peptides
displayed greater α-helical content than JM-WT or TE-64562 (Figure S3). We reasoned that if the JM coiled
coil regulates EGFR activity via allostery, then ligands E1S, E2S, E4S, and T4S should inhibit
EGFR activity and decrease the viability of EGFR-dependent cell lines,
albeit to varying degree, whereas T1S and JM-WT should
have little or no effect.Effect of native and hydrocarbon-stapled peptides
on cell proliferation.
Plot of % viable cells remaining after 18 h treatment with [ligand]
shown. Viability was assessed by monitoring oxyluciferin production
by Ultra-Glow luciferase, a reaction that requires ATP. Error bars
show standard error of the mean.We evaluated the effect of each molecule on the viability
of four
EGFR-dependent cell lines that differ in cancer/tissue type as well
as EGFR expression level and mutational state and one cell line that
does not express EGFR (Figures 2 and S4 and Table S3). A431 and H2030 cells express
wild-type EGFR, whereas H3255 and H1975 cells express single (L858R)
or double (L858R/T790M) mutant forms, respectively; SK-N-MC cells
express ErbB2- 4 but not EGFR.[3,34−36] Examination of the dose–response curves reveals several trends.
First, as expected, cells expressing wild-type EGFR (A431) or the
L858R mutant (H3255) are sensitive to gefitinib in the expected concentration
range, whereas those expressing the EGFR double mutant (H1975) or
no EGFR (SK-N-MC) are not.[37] Second, none
of the cells are sensitive to JM-WT, an unmodified (and non-cell-permeable)
peptide containing the EGFR JM-A sequence; fusion of JM-WT to a polycationic
region of HIV Tat results in moderate decreases in viability after
18 h incubation, as reported;[30] potency
is mitigated significantly after 72 h, perhaps because of degradation
(Figure S5).
Figure 2
Effect of native and hydrocarbon-stapled peptides
on cell proliferation.
Plot of % viable cells remaining after 18 h treatment with [ligand]
shown. Viability was assessed by monitoring oxyluciferin production
by Ultra-Glow luciferase, a reaction that requires ATP. Error bars
show standard error of the mean.
Most importantly, all
EGFR-expressing cell lines are sensitive
to one or more hydrocarbon-stapled peptides, with potency following
the order E1S > E2S ≫ T4S ≥
E4S. T1S was inactive in all cell lines tested.
In all cases, the most potent inhibitor (E1S) carries the
hydrocarbon bridge on the helix face that lies opposite that used for EGF-induced coiled coil formation,[25] whereas the least potent molecule (T1S) is bridged
within this face, with the bridge replacing two leucine side chains
that contribute to the antiparallel coiled coil interface.[26] Both of these molecules gain entry to the cytosol,
as judged by a previously reported[38,39] image-based
translocation assay (Figure S11). E1S is 10-fold more potent than E1ΔLS, in which the two leucines are replaced by alanine, and was between
2 and 10 times more potent than the previously reported TE-64562 peptide,[30] with the largest difference in H3255 cells that
express L858R EGFR. These observations suggest that the decrease in
cell viability observed in the presence of E1S results
from a direct interaction of the helical peptide mimetic with the
JM region of EGFR.Activation of EGFR upon growth factor binding
leads to a well-characterized
pattern of Tyr and Ser/Thr autophosphorylation events that initiate
downstream signaling networks.[40] Molecules
that block growth factor binding to the extracellular domain, or ATP
binding to the intracellular kinase domain, inhibit the phosphorylation
of both EGFR and downstream factors such as Erk and Akt.[4] We used immunoblots to evaluate whether the effects
of native and hydrocarbon-stapled peptides on the viability of EGFR-dependent
cell lines correlated with their effects on EGFR phosphorylation and
the phosphorylation of downstream factors. We probed specifically
for phosphorylation at EGFRtyrosines 845, 1045, 1068, 1086, 1148,
and 1173 and for phospho-Akt and phospho-Erk1/2 (Figures 3 and S6).
Figure 3
Effect of native and
hydrocarbon-stapled peptides on phosphorylation
of EGFR, Akt, and Erk1/2. A431 cells were treated with 10 μM
of the ligand shown for 2 h, stimulated with 10 ng/mL EGF, and then
lysed, immunoblotted, and visualized. Plots show the increase (green)
or decrease (red) in intensity of the indicated phospho-protein band
between treated and untreated cells. Error bars represent the standard
error of the mean over at least four trials.
Incubation
of A431
cells with 1–50 μM E1S led to a dose-dependent
decrease in EGFR phosphorylation at positions
Y845, Y1045, Y1086, and Y1173 (Figure 3, red
bars); phosphorylation at Y1068 and Y1148 was affected minimally,
if at all (see also Figure S7). A431 cells
treated with E1S also showed decreased levels of phospho-Akt
and phospho-Erk; the levels of EGFR, Akt, and Erk themselves were
unaffected. The pattern of phosphorylation changes induced by E1S paralleled those observed with TE-64562. E2S and
E1ΔLS, which had more modest effects on
cell viability (Figure 2), caused little or
no decrease in phosphorylation at any position, whereas T1S, E4S, and T4S led to small increases in phosphorylation
at many positions. Thus, in A431 cells, there is a correlation between
the effect of hydrocarbon-stapled peptides on cell viability and decreases
in EGFR autophosphorylation and downstream signaling.Effect of native and
hydrocarbon-stapled peptides on phosphorylation
of EGFR, Akt, and Erk1/2. A431 cells were treated with 10 μM
of the ligand shown for 2 h, stimulated with 10 ng/mL EGF, and then
lysed, immunoblotted, and visualized. Plots show the increase (green)
or decrease (red) in intensity of the indicated phospho-protein band
between treated and untreated cells. Error bars represent the standard
error of the mean over at least four trials.Two additional experiments were performed to evaluate whether
the
E1S-induced viability changes and decreases in EGFR and
Erk/Akt phosphorylation resulted from a direct interaction with the
EGFR JM segment. First, we evaluated the extent to which biotinylated
analogues of E1S and T1S as well as JM-WT and
E1ΔLS (BE1S, BT1S, BJM-WT, and BE1ΔLS, respectively) could sequester full-length
EGFR (wtEGFR) from transiently transfected CHO-K1 cell lysates. Each
biotinylated analogue (25 μM) was incubated for 1 h with lysates
from wtEGFR-expressing cells, and then with Mag-Sepharose streptavidin
beads overnight. A mock reaction lacking a biotinylated analogue was
run alongside. After washing, the sequestered proteins were eluted,
resolved by SDS-PAGE, probed with a commercial anti-EGFR antibody,
visualized with a horseradish peroxidase-tagged mouse anti-rabbit
secondary antibody, and quantified with chemiluminescent detection. BE1S and, less effectively, BE1ΔLS sequestered full-length, wild-type EGFR from the cell
lysates, whereas BT1S and BJM-WT
did not (Figure 4). Little or no EGFR was sequestered
when no biotinylated peptide was added (mock), providing additional
support for a direct interaction between the hydrocarbon-stapled peptide
E1S and the JM segment of wild-type EGFR.
Figure 4
BE1S sequesters wtEGFR from CHO-K1 cell lysates.
Lysates were treated with 25 μM of the biotinylated peptide
shown (1 h) and then incubated with streptavidin-coated beads overnight.
Sequestered proteins were eluted, electrophoresed, and immunoblotted
to detect EGFR. Band intensities were measured using ImageJ.[41]
BE1S sequesters wtEGFR from CHO-K1 cell lysates.
Lysates were treated with 25 μM of the biotinylated peptide
shown (1 h) and then incubated with streptavidin-coated beads overnight.
Sequestered proteins were eluted, electrophoresed, and immunoblotted
to detect EGFR. Band intensities were measured using ImageJ.[41]Finally, we made use of a previously reported bipartite tetracysteine
display[22,23] assay to probe whether E1S inhibited
intradimer coiled coil formation within the JM region of full-length
EGFR on the mammalian cell surface (Figure 5).[25] We used CHO cells expressing
an EGFR variant (CCH-1) with a cysteine pair within the
JM whose location supports ReAsH binding and fluorescence upon EGF-induced
coiled coil assembly.[25] We reasoned that
if E1S inhibits formation of the JM coiled coil, it should
also decrease the ability of CCH-1 to bind ReAsH and fluoresce
in the presence of EGF.
Figure 5
Monitoring
EGFR coiled coil formation using TIRF-M and bipartite
tetracysteine display. CHO cells were transfected with EGFR CCH-1, treated with 1 μM ligand for 1 h, stimulated with
100 ng/mL EGF for 30 min, and labeled with ReAsH.[25] Plot shows the change in ReAsH fluorescence of n cells after correction for differences in expression.
Errors represent standard error of the mean: **p <
0.01, ****p < 0.0001; one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni
post-analysis accounting for multiple comparisons.
CHO cells transiently expressing the
EGFR variant CCH-1 on the cell surface were exposed to
native and hydrocarbon-stapled
peptides, stimulated with EGF, and incubated with ReAsH, and the fluorescence
increase due to ReAsH was quantified using total internal reflectance
fluorescence microscopy (TIRF-M). Treatment with EGF alone led to
the expected increase in ReAsH fluorescence at the cell surface; this
increase was unchanged by the presence of JM-WT, E4S, T1S, or T4S, consistent with their inability to decrease
the viability of EGFR-expressing cells (Figure 2) and sequester transfected EGFR from CHO cell lysates (Figure 3). However, treatment of cells with 1 μM E1S, E2S, E1ΔLS, and,
to a lesser extent, TE-64562 led to a significant loss in ReAsH fluorescence,
which we infer to represent a loss in coiled coil structure. At a
lower concentration only E1S and E1ΔLS reduced the ReAsH signal (Figure S8). Identical results were observed when cells were treated first
with EGF and then with peptide (Figure S9). No peptide tested affected ReAsH fluorescence in the absence of
EGF (Figure S10). These data support a
model in which E1S, E1ΔLS,
E2S, and, to a lesser extent, TE-64562 interact with the
EGFR JM segment to inhibit formation of the intradimer coiled coil.
Taken with the cell viability, pull-down, and immunoblotting experiments,
we propose that E1S allosterically inhibits EGFR by disrupting
intradimer coiled coil formation within the juxtamembrane segment.Monitoring
EGFR coiled coil formation using TIRF-M and bipartite
tetracysteine display. CHO cells were transfected with EGFRCCH-1, treated with 1 μM ligand for 1 h, stimulated with
100 ng/mL EGF for 30 min, and labeled with ReAsH.[25] Plot shows the change in ReAsH fluorescence of n cells after correction for differences in expression.
Errors represent standard error of the mean: **p <
0.01, ****p < 0.0001; one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni
post-analysis accounting for multiple comparisons.
Authors: M Prewett; P Rockwell; R F Rockwell; N A Giorgio; J Mendelsohn; H I Scher; N I Goldstein Journal: J Immunother Emphasis Tumor Immunol Date: 1996-11
Authors: Frances A Shepherd; José Rodrigues Pereira; Tudor Ciuleanu; Eng Huat Tan; Vera Hirsh; Sumitra Thongprasert; Daniel Campos; Savitree Maoleekoonpiroj; Michael Smylie; Renato Martins; Maximiliano van Kooten; Mircea Dediu; Brian Findlay; Dongsheng Tu; Dianne Johnston; Andrea Bezjak; Gary Clark; Pedro Santabárbara; Lesley Seymour Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-07-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Shiqing Li; Karl R Schmitz; Philip D Jeffrey; Jed J W Wiltzius; Paul Kussie; Kathryn M Ferguson Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: D Li; L Ambrogio; T Shimamura; S Kubo; M Takahashi; L R Chirieac; R F Padera; G I Shapiro; A Baum; F Himmelsbach; W J Rettig; M Meyerson; F Solca; H Greulich; K-K Wong Journal: Oncogene Date: 2008-04-14 Impact factor: 9.867
Authors: Sami Aifa; Jan Aydin; Gunnar Nordvall; Ingemar Lundström; Samuel P S Svensson; Ola Hermanson Journal: Exp Cell Res Date: 2005-01-01 Impact factor: 3.905
Authors: Jeffrey E Montgomery; Justin A Donnelly; Sean W Fanning; Thomas E Speltz; Xianghang Shangguan; John S Coukos; Geoffrey L Greene; Raymond E Moellering Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2019-09-26 Impact factor: 15.419