David M Mofford1, Gadarla Randheer Reddy, Stephen C Miller. 1. Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, University of Massachusetts Medical School , 364 Plantation Street, Worcester, Massachusetts 01605, United States.
Abstract
Firefly luciferase adenylates and oxidizes d-luciferin to chemically generate visible light and is widely used for biological assays and imaging. Here we show that both luciferase and luciferin can be reengineered to extend the scope of this light-emitting reaction. D-Luciferin can be replaced by synthetic luciferin analogues that increase near-infrared photon flux >10-fold over that of D-luciferin in live luciferase-expressing cells. Firefly luciferase can be mutated to accept and utilize rigid aminoluciferins with high activity in both live and lysed cells yet exhibit 10,000-fold selectivity over the natural luciferase substrate. These new luciferin analogues thus pave the way to an extended family of bioluminescent reporters.
Firefly luciferase adenylates and oxidizes d-luciferin to chemically generate visible light and is widely used for biological assays and imaging. Here we show that both luciferase and luciferin can be reengineered to extend the scope of this light-emitting reaction. D-Luciferin can be replaced by synthetic luciferin analogues that increase near-infrared photon flux >10-fold over that of D-luciferin in live luciferase-expressing cells. Firefly luciferase can be mutated to accept and utilize rigid aminoluciferins with high activity in both live and lysed cells yet exhibit 10,000-fold selectivity over the natural luciferase substrate. These new luciferin analogues thus pave the way to an extended family of bioluminescent reporters.
Fireflies are beetles
that have evolved the remarkable ability
to emit visible light based on a chemical reaction. Instead of a photon
of light, firefly luciferase uses adenosine triphosphate and the chemical
energy of oxygen to convert its substrate d-luciferin into
an excited-state molecule of oxyluciferin (Figure 1A).[1] This bioluminescent reaction
has been widely used as a biological reporter both in vitro[2] and in vivo.[3] Although
bioluminescence has much lower background than fluorescence and is
more sensitive for in vivo imaging, it has been limited by the relative
lack of luciferases and luciferins compared to the broad palette of
fluorescent probes.
Figure 1
(A) Firefly luciferase catalyzes the adenylation and oxidation
of its native substrate d-luciferin to emit a photon of light.
(B) Previously synthesized aminoluciferin analogues. (C) New
aminoluciferins from this work.
In nature, d-luciferin is the only
luminogenic substrate
for beetle luciferases. Over the past few years, many new luciferin
analogues have been described, including several that yield peak light
emission well into the red.[4−9] Synthetic luciferins thus have the potential to extend bioluminescence
imaging to wavelengths where tissue is more transparent to light.
However, there is already a significant red and near-infrared component
to luciferase emission with d-luciferin, and shifting the
peak wavelength does not necessarily mean that the overall level of
red light has actually increased.[9−11] The synthetic luciferin
CycLuc1 (Figure 1) performs better than d-luciferin for bioluminescence imaging in live mice, primarily
due to its improved ability to access the luciferase rather than a
red-shift in light emission.[12] Therefore,
substrates that combine this ready access to intracellular luciferase
in live cells with a red-shift in total emission are expected to be
candidates to further improve in vivo performance.[13]Structural differences between luciferins could also
potentially
allow the creation of orthogonal luciferases. Although mutant firefly
luciferases that exhibit luciferin selectivity have been reported, d-luciferin remains a light-emitting substrate.[14] Surprisingly, recent work has identified the Drosophila fatty acyl-CoA synthetase CG6178 as a latent luciferase that emits
light with CycLuc2 but not d-luciferin.[15] While this demonstrates that it is possible to retain luciferase
activity in beetle luciferase homologues that are unresponsive to d-luciferin, higher rates of photon emission are desirable for
use as reporters.With all of these considerations in mind,
we synthesized compact,
rigid aminoluciferins modeled after CycLuc1 and CycLuc2 (Figure 1).[4,14] We found that these new substrates
could greatly increase the total photon flux of near-IR light from
live luciferase-expressing cells over d-luciferin. Moreover,
high photon flux was observed from a newly identified mutant luciferase
that gave virtually no light emission with the natural substrate.
Chemical modification of the luciferin substrate can thus extend the
scope of bioluminescence beyond what is possible with d-luciferin.[13](A) Firefly luciferase catalyzes the adenylation and oxidation
of its native substrate d-luciferin to emit a photon of light.
(B) Previously synthesized aminoluciferin analogues. (C) New
aminoluciferins from this work.
Results and Discussion
Synthesis of New Rigid Aminoluciferins
The synthetic
aminoluciferins CycLuc1 and CycLuc2 have 5′,6′-fused
five-membered indoline rings (Figure 1B). To
evaluate the effect of this ring fusion on bioluminescence, we synthesized
new luciferin analogues with fused six-membered rings of varying composition.
Luciferin analogues CycLuc3 and CycLuc4, containing a six-membered
oxazine ring, were readily accessed following a slight modification
of the CycLuc1 synthesis paradigm[4] (Scheme 1).
Scheme 1
Synthesis of CycLuc3 and CycLuc4
CycLuc5 and CycLuc6 were designed
to emit light at longer wavelengths
and to test the scope of substrates that could be accommodated by
the luciferase (Scheme 2). These bulky, lipophilic
analogues incorporate 2,2,4-trimethyl-dihydroquinoline, a scaffold
that has been widely used to red-shift the emission of many classes
of fluorophores, including coumarins,[16] rhodamines,[16,17] and oxazines.[18] Attempted synthesis of intermediate 16 by
trifluoroacetylation of the corresponding nitroarene as in Scheme 1 failed, presumably due to a combination of steric
hindrance and electronic deactivation.[19] We therefore synthesized the Boc-protected compound 14,[20] which suffers the same steric hindrance
but was anticipated to be less electronically deactivated. Gratifyingly,
trifluoroacetylation of this intermediate was successful,[19] and subsequent TFA deprotection readily afforded 16. Elaboration as shown in Scheme 2 afforded the desired luciferin analogues CycLuc5 and CycLuc6.
Scheme 2
Synthesis of CycLuc5 and CycLuc6
The corresponding saturated tetrahydroquinoline
aminoluciferin
analogues CycLuc7 and CycLuc8 were synthesized using the same general
synthetic route as CycLuc1–CycLuc4 (Figure 1C and Scheme 3).
Scheme 3
Synthesis of CycLuc7–CycLuc10
Surprisingly, attempts to access
the 5′,6′-fused
ring—differing from CycLuc1 by only a single methylene—primarily
yielded the 6′,7′-fused product in a >8:1 ratio.
Nonetheless,
elaboration of 32b to the 5′,6′-fused cyclic
alkylaminoluciferins CycLuc7 and CycLuc8 proceeded uneventfully.
The 6′,7′-fused product 32a was similarly
converted into 6′,7′-fused cyclic alkylaminoluciferins
CycLuc9 and CycLuc10. Finally, 5′,6′-fused cyclic aminoluciferins
CycLuc11 and CycLuc12 were synthesized as bulkier and more lipophilic
analogues of CycLuc7 and CycLuc8, where the gem-dimethyl
substituents also direct exclusive formation of the 5′,6′-fused
isomers (Figure 1C and Scheme 4).
Scheme 4
Synthesis of CycLuc11 and CycLuc12
Luciferase Activity in Vitro
At
the outset of this
work, it was anticipated that some subset of the rigid luciferin analogues
would not be well accommodated by the luciferase. However, all of
the new aminoluciferin analogues are substrates, further underscoring
the generality of the light emission chemistry and the tolerance of
luciferase for modifications.When purified firefly luciferase
is treated with d-luciferin or an aminoluciferin, a
high initial rate of light emission (burst) is observed in the first
few seconds, which is then followed by a substantial decrease in the
rate of sustained light output. This effect is more pronounced for
high-affinity aminoluciferins than for d-luciferin
itself, and all of the new substrates exhibited this same general
behavior under saturating substrate conditions (Figure 2 and Supplementary Figure 3). Relative
to d-luciferin with the wild-type (WT) luciferase, the initial
rate of photon flux ranged from a high of 43% for CycLuc4 to a low
of 2% for CycLuc11. This initial rate is high compared to luciferin
analogues in which the benzothiazole has been replaced.[8,21,22] However, aminoluciferins
have reduced emission 1 min after substrate addition, consistent with
product inhibition as the primary factor limiting the light emission
in vitro (Figure 2 and Supplementary Figure 3).[4,23]
Figure 2
Initial and sustained
bioluminescence from luciferin analogues
(250 μM) with purified WT firefly luciferase (0.2 nM): (A) initial
rates of emission relative to d-luciferin and (B) relative
emission 1 min after substrate addition.
Initial and sustained
bioluminescence from luciferin analogues
(250 μM) with purified WT firefly luciferase (0.2 nM): (A) initial
rates of emission relative to d-luciferin and (B) relative
emission 1 min after substrate addition.
Bioluminescence Emission Wavelengths
Peak bioluminescence
emission for the aminoluciferins ranged from 594 to 642 nm (Figure 3, Supplementary Table 1, and
Supplementary Figure 1). As expected, CycLuc6 yielded strongly
red-shifted bioluminescence (636 nm), exceeding that of red-emitting
mutant firefly luciferases,[11] railroad
worm (beetle) luciferase,[10] and the red-shifted
emission from 6′-Me2NLH2.[4] However, we were surprised to find that CycLuc10 yielded
an even more red-shifted peak (642 nm). To determine whether these
differences are inherent to each luciferin, we measured the fluorescence
emission wavelengths of the substrates. The fluorescence and bioluminescence
emission wavelengths of aminoluciferins were found to be strongly
correlated, suggesting that the bioluminescence wavelength is primarily
dictated by the photophysical properties of the luciferin (Supplementary Figure 2). Bioluminescence is red-shifted
by 50–75 nm from the substrate fluorescence in phosphate-buffered
saline, which is expected since the oxyluciferin emitter produced
in the luciferase has increased conjugation with respect to the substrate.
Figure 3
Bioluminescence emission spectra for WT luciferase with
selected
substrates.
The fluorescence emission of acyclic monoalkylated aminoluciferins
generally ranges from 520 to 540 nm,[23] more
red-shifted than that of 6′-aminoluciferin (517 nm) but
less so than for dialkylated substrates such as 6′-Me2NLH2 (554 nm). CycLuc6 fluoresces at still longer wavelength
(567 nm), while CycLuc10 is the most red-shifted of all the luciferin
analogues (576 nm). While this was initially surprising, Atkins and
Bliss have described similar behavior for aminocoumarin derivatives.[24]Bioluminescence emission spectra for WT luciferase with
selected
substrates.
Mutation of Luciferase
Modulates Emission
We have previously
found that the luciferase active-site mutant R218K increases the rate
of light emission from CycLuc1, CycLuc2, 6′-MeNHLH2, and 6′-Me2NLH2.[14] This effect is not particularly selective, as it is observed
with all of the aminoluciferins (Figures 4 and 5, Supplementary
Figure 3). For instance, CycLuc7 exhibits higher initial and
sustained emission rates with R218K compared to WT (Figure 4). The R218K mutant also resulted in a slight red-shift
in bioluminescence for most substrates, pushing the maximal emission
wavelength for CycLuc10 to 648 nm (Supplementary
Table 1 and Supplementary Figure 1).
Figure 4
Light emission from d-luciferin and CycLuc7 (250 μM)
treated with equal amounts of purified WT and mutant luciferases (0.2
nM). The assay was performed in triplicate and is represented as the
mean ± SEM.
Figure 5
Initial and sustained
bioluminescence from each luciferin (250
μM) with equal amounts of three different purified luciferases
(0.2 nM, see text): (A) peak intensity within the first 2 s of substrate
addition and (B) sustained light emission 1 min post-injection. The
assay was performed in triplicate and is represented as the mean ±
SEM.
Light emission from d-luciferin and CycLuc7 (250 μM)
treated with equal amounts of purified WT and mutant luciferases (0.2
nM). The assay was performed in triplicate and is represented as the
mean ± SEM.Initial and sustained
bioluminescence from each luciferin (250
μM) with equal amounts of three different purified luciferases
(0.2 nM, see text): (A) peak intensity within the first 2 s of substrate
addition and (B) sustained light emission 1 min post-injection. The
assay was performed in triplicate and is represented as the mean ±
SEM.
Toward Orthogonal Luciferases
In principle, chemical
and structural differences in luciferin substrates could be exploited
to create new orthogonal luciferases. However, active-site mutations
such as R218K and L286M raise the Km of d-luciferin but do not prevent its utilization as a substrate.[14] A more selective point mutant, S347A, raises
the Km and lowers the rate of emission
from d-luciferin, possibly because it removes a hydrogen-bonding
interaction with the benzothiazole nitrogen that may be more
important for d-luciferin binding and orientation than for
aminoluciferins.[14,25] Yet d-luciferin remains
a substrate for this mutant luciferase as well. Thus, previous work
has not established whether high luciferase activity can be retained
in luciferase mutants that do not yield light emission from d-luciferin.Here we find that the combination of R218K, L286M,
and S347A renders d-luciferin essentially inactive. The purified
triple-mutant luciferase dramatically reduced both the initial and
sustained rates of photon emission from d-luciferin by >10 000-fold
(Figure 4 and Supplementary
Figure 3). Gratifyingly, this is not due to a lack of luciferase
activity, as the photon flux from CycLuc2, CycLuc7, and CycLuc11 actually
increased compared to that of the WT enzyme (Figure 5 and Supplementary Figure 3). CycLuc7
is the optimal substrate for the triple-mutant luciferase in vitro,
achieving 46% of the initial rate of d-luciferin with WT
luciferase. This result demonstrates that high luciferase activity
can be maintained in a luciferase mutant that is essentially unresponsive
to the native substrate d-luciferin. Furthermore, product
inhibition has largely been eliminated, as there is little diminution
in flux after the initial burst (Figures 4 and 5 and Supplementary Figure 3).
Luciferin Emission in Live Luciferase-Expressing Cells
We next compared the aminoluciferins to d-luciferin
in live WT luciferase-expressing Chinese Hamster Ovary (CHO) cells.
Under these conditions, the luciferin substrate must cross the cell
membrane to access the luciferase. In marked contrast to what is observed
in vitro, almost all of the alkylated aminoluciferins yield
higher flux than d-luciferin when assayed at a concentration
<30 μM (Figure 6 and Supplementary Figure 4). At high substrate concentration (250
μM), the relative emission from d-luciferin is still
equaled or exceeded by those of CycLuc1, CycLuc10, and CycLuc12 (Figure 6). However, if the cell membrane is removed by cell
lysis, d-luciferin is the superior substrate at both high
and low doses, suggesting that substrate access is the primary factor
limiting luciferins in live cells (Supplementary
Figure 5).
Figure 6
Photon flux from luciferase-expressing CHO cells. (A)
Live cells
expressing the indicated luciferase and treated with high or low doses
of luciferin. (B) Comparison of total and near-IR photon flux from
WT luciferase with the indicated luciferins. (C,D) Comparison of photon
flux from WT and triple-mutant luciferase with d-luciferin
or CycLuc7 in live cells (C) or lysed cells (D). All assays were performed
in triplicate and are represented as the mean ± SEM.
Photon flux from luciferase-expressing CHO cells. (A)
Live cells
expressing the indicated luciferase and treated with high or low doses
of luciferin. (B) Comparison of total and near-IR photon flux from
WT luciferase with the indicated luciferins. (C,D) Comparison of photon
flux from WT and triple-mutant luciferase with d-luciferin
or CycLuc7 in live cells (C) or lysed cells (D). All assays were performed
in triplicate and are represented as the mean ± SEM.
Near-IR Photon Flux in Live Cells
The peak emission
wavelengths of aminoluciferins are red-shifted in vitro. To
assess the near-IR emission from each luciferin in live cells, we
measured the relative photon flux passing through a Cy5.5 filter (695–770
nm). All of the aminoluciferins exhibited greater relative photon
flux in the near-IR than d-luciferin (Figure 6B and Supplementary Figure 6).
For every substrate except 6′-aminoluciferin and CycLuc3,
this translated to a higher total near-IR photon flux from live cells
than d-luciferin under both low-dose and high-dose conditions
(Supplementary Figure 6). CycLuc10 gave
the greatest fraction of near-IR light emission: 13.9% of the total
photon flux, >10-fold higher than that of d-luciferin
(Figure 6B). However, total near-IR flux of
CycLuc10 was
slightly exceeded by that of CycLuc12. Thus, the substrate that yields
the highest cellular near-IR light emission is a function of substrate
access (affinity and cell permeability) as well as wavelength.
Mutant
Luciferases in Live and Lysed Cells
Transfection
of CHO cells with R218K luciferase instead of WT luciferase improved
relative photon flux from synthetic luciferins compared to d-luciferin (Figure 6 and Supplementary Figure 4). CycLuc2 yielded the highest signal
in live cells, and most alkylated aminoluciferins were superior
to d-luciferin at both low and high substrate concentrations
(Figure 6 and Supplementary
Figure 4). Further highlighting the importance of factors other
than peak emission wavelength on the total emission of red-shifted
photons in live cells, CycLuc2 yielded the highest Cy5.5-filtered
signal at 250 μM, while CycLuc6 was best at low concentration
(Figure 6 and Supplementary
Figure 6). The longer emission wavelength of CycLuc6 (Figure 3) and its higher cell permeability likely lead to
its superior flux at low concentrations, while the higher maximal
rate of photon emission for CycLuc2 ultimately prevails at high substrate
concentration (Figure 5). Thus, the best-performing
substrates are context-dependent.No signal above background
could be measured from live cells expressing the triple-mutant luciferase
after treatment with d-luciferin (Figure 6C). In contrast, CycLuc2, CycLuc7, and CycLuc11 achieve high
photon flux (Figure 6). The triple mutant possesses
lower affinity for its substrates compared to WT or R218K luciferase,
yielding reduced photon flux at low substrate concentration (Figure 6 and Supplementary Figure 4). However, in lysed cells, the lower affinity of the triple mutant
improved the signal from CycLuc7 and CycLuc11 due to its lessened
product inhibition (Figure 6D and Supplementary Figure 5). CycLuc7 is the best
substrate in cell lysates, achieving ∼20% of the d-luciferin signal with the WT luciferase (Figure 6D and Supplementary Figure 5).
Mutant and WT luciferase protein expression is equivalent in transfected
cells by Western blot (Supplementary Figure 7), and the differences between luciferases in cell lysates (Supplementary Figure 5) generally mirrors what
is observed with equal concentrations of purified proteins in vitro
(Figure 5). The triple-mutant luciferase is
thus a significant step toward orthogonal bioluminescent reporters
of gene expression in both live and lysed cells, as it yields high
light output with (alkylated) aminoluciferins but little to
no signal with d-luciferin. We speculate that the triple
mutant primarily discriminates between substrates by lowering substrate
affinity and removing an interaction important for orienting the native
substrate (S347). Luciferin analogues possessing high affinity for
luciferase and an alternative “handle” for proper orientation
remain effective substrates.[14,15] Given that the mutations
that comprise the triple mutant were originally identified to individually
improve luciferase activity with CycLuc1,[14] it is likely that further improvements in selectivity and function
are possible for this broadened palette of luciferins. Ironically,
the identification of a luciferase that emits strongly with d-luciferin but does not respond to synthetic luciferins has been
more elusive. The development of fully orthogonal luciferin–luciferase
reporter pairs will therefore require further work, perhaps by eschewing d-luciferin altogether in favor of two or more synthetic substrates.
Conclusion
There is reason to expect that substrate performance
in live cells,
rather than with purified protein or cell lysates, is more predictive
of in vivo behavior. In recent collaborative work we have found that
CycLuc1 allows dramatically improved bioluminescence imaging in live
mice compared to the standard imaging conditions with d-luciferin.[12] Tumor cells can be imaged with 20–200-fold
less substrate than d-luciferin, and luciferase expression
deep in the brain that cannot be detected with d-luciferin
is detectable with CycLuc1.[12] Many of the
substrates described here provide higher total and red-shifted photon
flux in live cells, suggesting that they may also have superior properties
for in vivo imaging. Differences in substrate affinity, lipophilicity,
and functionality are also anticipated to affect the pharmacokinetics
of the luciferins in vivo, perhaps allowing tuning of bioluminescent
half-lives and/or tissue distribution. Moreover, we have found that
mutation of luciferase can essentially eliminate light output from
the native d-luciferin substrate while retaining or improving
light emission from one or more aminoluciferin substrates to levels
comparable to or, in live cells, superior to that of d-luciferin
with the WT luciferase. Thus, these synthetic luciferins and mutant
luciferases not only expand the palette of luminogenic molecules but
transcend the emission properties of d-luciferin and firefly
luciferase. They are therefore expected to have significant potential
for bioluminescence imaging applications both in vitro and in vivo.
Authors: N Panchuk-Voloshina; R P Haugland; J Bishop-Stewart; M K Bhalgat; P J Millard; F Mao; W Y Leung; R P Haugland Journal: J Histochem Cytochem Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 2.479
Authors: Bruce R Branchini; Tara L Southworth; Neelum F Khattak; Elisa Michelini; Aldo Roda Journal: Anal Biochem Date: 2005-10-01 Impact factor: 3.365
Authors: Kimberly M Bonger; Sascha Hoogendoorn; Chris J van Koppen; Cornelis M Timmers; Herman S Overkleeft; Gijsbert A van der Marel Journal: ChemMedChem Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: Carolyn C Woodroofe; John W Shultz; Monika G Wood; Jean Osterman; James J Cali; William J Daily; Poncho L Meisenheimer; Dieter H Klaubert Journal: Biochemistry Date: 2008-09-05 Impact factor: 3.162
Authors: Bruce R Branchini; Tara L Southworth; Martha H Murtiashaw; Henrik Boije; Sarah E Fleet Journal: Biochemistry Date: 2003-09-09 Impact factor: 3.162
Authors: Rachel C Steinhardt; Jessica M O'Neill; Colin M Rathbun; David C McCutcheon; Miranda A Paley; Jennifer A Prescher Journal: Chemistry Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 5.236
Authors: Krysten A Jones; William B Porterfield; Colin M Rathbun; David C McCutcheon; Miranda A Paley; Jennifer A Prescher Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2017-02-03 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Bruce R Branchini; Danielle M Fontaine; Tara L Southworth; Brian P Huta; Allison Racela; Ketan D Patel; Andrew M Gulick Journal: Biochemistry Date: 2019-10-10 Impact factor: 3.162
Authors: Spencer T Adams; David M Mofford; G S Kiran Kumar Reddy; Stephen C Miller Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2016-03-17 Impact factor: 15.336