Jinping Lei1, Yanzi Zhou, Daiqian Xie, Yingkai Zhang. 1. Institute of Theoretical and Computational Chemistry, Laboratory of Mesoscopic Chemistry, School of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Nanjing University , Nanjing 210093, China.
Abstract
Aspirin, one of the oldest and most common anti-inflammatory agents, has recently been shown to reduce cancer risks. The principal pharmacological effects of aspirin are known to arise from its covalent modification of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) through acetylation of Ser530, but the detailed mechanism of its biochemical action and specificity remains to be elucidated. In this work, we have filled this gap by employing a state-of-the-art computational approach, Born-Oppenheimer molecular dynamics simulations with ab initio quantum mechanical/molecular mechanical potential and umbrella sampling. Our studies have characterized a substrate-assisted inhibition mechanism for aspirin acetylating COX: it proceeds in two successive stages with a metastable tetrahedral intermediate, in which the carboxyl group of aspirin serves as the general base. The computational results confirmed that aspirin would be 10-100 times more potent against COX-1 than against COX-2, and revealed that this inhibition specificity between the two COX isoforms can be attributed mainly to the difference in kinetics rate of the covalent inhibition reaction, not the aspirin-binding step. The structural origin of this differential inhibition of the COX enzymes by aspirin has also been elucidated.
Aspirin, one of the oldest and most common anti-inflammatory agents, has recently been shown to reduce cancer risks. The principal pharmacological effects of aspirin are known to arise from its covalent modification of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) through acetylation of Ser530, but the detailed mechanism of its biochemical action and specificity remains to be elucidated. In this work, we have filled this gap by employing a state-of-the-art computational approach, Born-Oppenheimer molecular dynamics simulations with ab initio quantum mechanical/molecular mechanical potential and umbrella sampling. Our studies have characterized a substrate-assisted inhibition mechanism for aspirin acetylating COX: it proceeds in two successive stages with a metastable tetrahedral intermediate, in which the carboxyl group of aspirin serves as the general base. The computational results confirmed that aspirin would be 10-100 times more potent against COX-1 than against COX-2, and revealed that this inhibition specificity between the two COX isoforms can be attributed mainly to the difference in kinetics rate of the covalent inhibition reaction, not the aspirin-binding step. The structural origin of this differential inhibition of the COX enzymes by aspirin has also been elucidated.
Aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid,
or ASA), an ancient anti-inflammatory agent, is a classic wonder drug.[1] Besides its wide use in the treatment of inflammation,
fever, and pain for over a century and its well-known benefit in the
prevention/treatment of cardiovascular diseases,[1f,1g] regular aspirin intake has recently been convincingly shown to reduce
the overall risk of certain cancers.[1a−1e]Like many other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory
drugs (NSAIDs),
the primary principal pharmacological molecular target for aspirin
is cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2).[2] However,
the biochemical mechanism of aspirin’s therapeutic action is
unique: aspirin covalently modifies the COX-2 enzyme through acetylation
of Ser530 near its active site, which prevents proper binding of the
native substrate and thus leads to its irreversible inhibition.[3] Actually, aspirin can covalently inhibit both
major isoforms of COX and is 10–100 times more potent against
COX-1 than against COX-2.[4] In light of
COX-1’s role in gastric protection[5] and COX-2’s role in inflammation,[2a,6] lack
of COX-2 selectivity has generally been considered as a main drawback
of aspirin, which accounts for aspirin’s main side effects,
such as the gastric ulceration.[7] In spite
of significant efforts being devoted to develop aspirin-like molecules
in order to improve its COX-2 selectivity[8] or reduce the gastrotoxicity,[9] there
has been little understanding regarding how this difference in aspirin
inhibition potency against the two COX isoforms is achieved. To fill
this gap, here we have employed state-of-the-art computational approaches
to systematically investigate aspirin covalent inhibition of both
COX isoforms.The time-dependent and irreversible inhibition
of COX by aspirin
is generally believed to occur in two steps, in which a rapid reversible
non-covalent binding is followed by an irreversible first-order reaction,[7a] i.e.,where [EI] is the non-covalent binding complex
of COX and aspirin, a key intermediate in this irreversible inhibition
process. Unfortunately, due to its transient nature, no structure
of the COX-aspirin non-covalent complex has been determined in spite
of extensive structural work on COX enzymes. Thus, our first essential
task is to computationally characterize this important intermediate
for both COX enzymes. Here we first docked aspirin into the active
site of crystal structure of COX-1 and COX-2 (PDB codes 1Q4G and 3NT1, respectively[10,11]) using Autodock 4.2,[12] and carried out
extensive explicit water classical molecular dynamics (MD) simulations
with the amber99SB force field[13] and the
Amber11 molecular dynamic package.[14] As
shown in Figure 1, our simulation results indicate
that the binding mode of aspirin is very similar between two COX enzymes:
aspirin is stabilized in the active site by forming hydrogen bonds
with hydroxyl groups of Tyr385 and Ser530, and the carboxyl group
of aspirin is open to bulk waters and forms three additional hydrogen
bonds with water molecules on average. Furthermore, we have carried
out classical MD simulations to determine free energy of binding between
COX and aspiring during this non-covalent binding process by employing
alchemical transformations.[15] The calculated
absolute non-covalent binding energies of aspirin are −3.5
± 0.4 and −3.8 ± 0.5 kcal/mol for COX-1 and COX-2,
respectively, in good agreement with the experimental value of −2.4
kcal/mol deduced from Ki.[16] (Experimentally determined Ki = k–1/k1 = 20 mM.) Thus, our simulations are very consistent with
experiment results that aspirin is a weak non-covalent binder to COX
enzymes, and indicate that the observed aspirin inhibition potency
difference between the two COX isoforms does not come from the reversible
non-covalent binding step.
Figure 1
Structures of COX-aspirin noncovalent binding
complexes (EI) for
COX-1 and COX-2.
Structures of COX-aspirin noncovalent binding
complexes (EI) for
COX-1 and COX-2.With modeled COX-aspirin
non-covalent binding complexes, our next
essential task was to characterize the irreversible acetylation step.
Here we employed Born–Oppenheimer B3LYP/6-31+G* quantum mechanical/molecular
mechanical (QM/MM) molecular dynamics simulations[17] with umbrella sampling,[18] a
computational tour de force to study biochemical reactions. This state-of-the-art
computational approach has been demonstrated to be powerful in characterizing
the reaction mechanism for a number of complex systems.[19] All our QM/MM simulations have been carried
out with modified Q-Chem[20] and Tinker[21] programs. More computational details are presented
in the Supporting Information.Our
simulations have characterized a substrate-assisted inhibition
mechanism for aspirin acetylating COX[3b,16,22] as shown in Scheme 1 and Figure 2. It proceeds in two successive stages with a metastable
tetrahedral intermediate (TI): in the initial step, the oxygen atom
of hydroxyl group of Ser530 attacks the carbonyl carbon atom of aspirin
to form TI, in which the carboxyl group of aspirin serves as the general
base
to abstract the proton from the hydroxyl group; in the second step,
the C–O bond of aspirin carboxylic ester site breaks to yield
salicylic acid (SA) and acetyl-COX (EI*) and release SA, during which
the proton will transfer from the carboxylic oxygen atom to phenolic
oxygen atom of SA. Comparing to the acylation mechanism employed by
serine protease,[19f] we can see that the
mechanism of aspirin acetylating COX is quite similar, in which the
carboxyl group of aspirin serves as the general base and Tyr385 serves
as the role of the oxyanion hole to stabilize the TI. As presented
in Figure 2, and in Supporting
Information, Tables S1 and S2, the overall structural characters
of the active site are very similar between COX-1 and COX-2 during
the covalent inhibition process. At the non-covalent binding complex
state (EI), the aspirin is ideally located in a binding pocket near
Ser530, with its carbonyl carbon atom positioned to be nucleophilically
attacked by the serine hydroxyloxygenOG. The two transition states
during the reaction process are close to the structures of TI, and
only the structures of TI are shown in Figure 2. At the TI state, the proton has already transferred to the carboxyl
group of aspirin, and forms a hydrogen bond with the OG atom of Ser530
(see Scheme1 for the atom names), the scissile
bond of aspirin has elongated by about 0.2 Å. For the resulted
EI* structure, its active site overlaps well with that in the crystal
structure of aspirin covalently bound to COX-1 (PDB code 3N8Y), as shown in Supporting Information, Figure S5. During the
whole reaction, the side chain of Tyr385 forms a hydrogen bond with
the carbonyl oxygen atom O2 to stabilize the negative charge on it.
After a few nanoseconds of classic MD simulation for EI*, the SA will
drift about 5 Å to form hydrogen bonds with the side chain of
Arg120, as shown in Supporting Information, Figure
S6, which is consistent with the crystal structure of the acetylated
enzyme.[22a] One water molecule can get close
to the carbonyl carbon of acetylated Ser530 (Ac-Ser530), with its
oxygen atom in the position for nucleophilic attacking this carbon
atom, but the hydrolysis reaction of Ac-Ser530 is hindered due to
the lack of a general base.
Scheme 1
Reaction Mechanism of Aspirin Acetylating
Ser530 of COX
The names for different O
atoms are also illustrated.
Figure 2
Critical structures for
the acetylation reactions of COX-1 and
COX-2. EI refers to the COX-aspirin noncovalent binding complex state,
TI represents the tetrahedral intermediate, and EI* is the COX-aspirin
covalent binding complex state.
Reaction Mechanism of Aspirin Acetylating
Ser530 of COX
The names for different O
atoms are also illustrated.Critical structures for
the acetylation reactions of COX-1 and
COX-2. EI refers to the COX-aspirin noncovalent binding complex state,
TI represents the tetrahedral intermediate, and EI* is the COX-aspirin
covalent binding complex state.The computed free energy profiles for aspirin acetylating
COX with
B3LYP(6-31+G*) QM/MM MD simulations and umbrella sampling are presented
in Figure 3 for both isoforms of COX. The activation
free energy barrier is 16.2 ± 0.1 kcal/mol for COX-1, which is
in reasonable agreement with the experimental value of 19.2–19.7
kcal/mol derived from kinact,[16,23] considering approximations in our computational methods as well
as assumptions in estimating reaction barriers from experimental kinetic
studies. Our calculated activation energy barrier for aspirin acetylating
COX-2 is 2.4 kcal/mol higher than that for COX-1, which indicates
that ratio of kincat for aspirin inhibiting
COX-1 and COX-2 is around 49. This is consistent with the experimental
result that aspirin would be 10–100 times more potent against
COX-1 than against COX-2. From Figure 3, we
can see that the free energy of EI* is more than 10 kcal/mol lower
than the corresponding EI state, which indicates that the covalent
inhibition reaction is exothermic and the EI* is much more stable
than the EI. Thus, our simulations are consistent with experimental
results that aspirin is a time-dependent and irreversible inhibitor
of COX enzymes, and indicate that this inhibition specificity between
the two COX isoforms mainly come from the difference in kinetics rate
of the covalent inhibition reaction.
Figure 3
Calculated free energy changes and their
statistical errors during
acetylation reactions of COX-1 and COX-2 by aspirin. TS1 and TS2 refer
to two transition states.
Calculated free energy changes and their
statistical errors during
acetylation reactions of COX-1 and COX-2 by aspirin. TS1 and TS2 refer
to two transition states.In order to elucidate structural origin of this differential
inhibition
of the COX enzymes by aspirin, we have calculated the individual residue
contribution to the transition state stabilization during the acetylation
process, and the contributions from some important residues are listed
in Figure 4. The negative value indicates that
the residue helps decrease the activation barrier, whereas the positive
one indicates that the residue would deter the reaction. As expected,
Tyr385 and Tyr348, that constitute a hydrogen-bonding network together
to stabilize the accumulated negative charge on the O2 atom of aspirin
during Ser530 acetylation, stabilize the TS1 for both isoforms of
COX by about 4 and 2 kcal/mol, respectively. This is consistent with
the site-directed mutagenesis studies of COX-2 that Tyr385Phe and
Tyr348Phe mutants would decrease the inhibition of aspirin, especially
Tyr385Phe, and confirmed that Tyr385 plays a vital role in COX-2 inhibition.[24] However, from Figure 4, we can see that the difference in their contribution between COX-1
and COX-2 is negligible, and thus these two residues are not responsible
for observed differential inhibition of the COX enzymes by aspirin.
Figure 4
Overlap
of the structures of COX-1 and COX-2 at EI state. The carbon
atoms are colored green in COX-1, while cyan in COX-2. Contributions
from some important residues to stabilization the transition state
are also labeled in red for COX-1 (in kcal/mol), and in blue for COX-2.
The negative value indicates that the residue helps decrease the activation
barrier, whereas the positive one indicates that the residue would
deter the reaction.
Overlap
of the structures of COX-1 and COX-2 at EI state. The carbon
atoms are colored green in COX-1, while cyan in COX-2. Contributions
from some important residues to stabilization the transition state
are also labeled in red for COX-1 (in kcal/mol), and in blue for COX-2.
The negative value indicates that the residue helps decrease the activation
barrier, whereas the positive one indicates that the residue would
deter the reaction.Arg120 is the only conserved
positively charged residue in the
COX active site, which has been shown experimentally to be important
for binding of inhibitors containing a carboxylic acid moiety.[25] However, the results in Figure 4 indicate that Arg120 would destabilize the transition state
during the COX acetylation inhibition reaction. This brings the question
how our computational studies can account for the observed role of
Arg120 in aspirin inhibition of COX-1[25b] and COX-2.[24] Here we mutated Arg120 to
Ala, and calculated the change in the binding free energy of mutants
ΔΔG for the non-covalent binding of aspirin
by thermodynamic integration.[26] The calculation
results indicate that the mutation of Arg120 to Ala would significantly
weaken the non-covalent binding of aspiring by increasing binding
free energies of 4.3 ± 0.3 and 5.6 ± 0.2 kcal/mol for COX-1
and COX-2 respectively. Thus, although Arg120 does not directly form
the salt bridge with aspirin in the active site, its proximity plays
an important role in facilitating the formation of the initial non-covalent
COX-aspirin binding complex. Meanwhile, Arg120 is conserved between
COX-1 and COX-2, and thus it is not responsible for the aspirin inhibition
potency difference between COX-1 and COX-2 either.As Figure 4 shows, close to the binding
pocket of aspirin in COX-2, there is another positive residue Arg513,
while the corresponding residue in COX-1 is His513. Our analysis indicates
that the presence of Arg513 in COX-2 would increase the activation
barrier of acetylation reaction, while the corresponding His513 in
COX-1 plays almost no role in transition state destabilization. By
examining structures, we can see that, in comparison with His513 of
COX-1, the interaction between the positively charged guanidinium
group of Arg513 of COX-2 and the negatively charged carboxylic group
of aspirin would disfavor the protonation of aspirin’s carboxylic
group during the reaction process and thus could slow down the covalent
inhibition reaction of COX-2. This is consistent with experimental
results that the derivatization of the carboxylate moiety of the inhibitor
can always increase the COX-2 selectivity.[25a] Thus, it would be interesting to experimentally study R513H mutant
of COX-2, including its enzyme activity and its inhibition by aspirin.In summary, we have provided detailed insights into the biochemical
inner workings of aspirin by employing state-of-the-art computational
approaches. The covalent inhibition of COX by aspirin proceeds in
two successive stages with a metastable tetrahedral intermediate.
The difference in aspirin inhibition potency against the two COX isoforms
is found to mainly come from the difference in kinetics rate of the
covalent inhibition reaction, not from the non-covalent aspirin-binding
step. Our results suggest that the presence of Arg513 in COX-2 (the
corresponding residue in COX-1 is His513) would increase the activation
barrier for the aspirin acetylation reaction, which is likely to be
an important factor that makes aspirin a weaker covalent inhibitor
against COX-2 than against COX-1.
Authors: Yihan Shao; Laszlo Fusti Molnar; Yousung Jung; Jörg Kussmann; Christian Ochsenfeld; Shawn T Brown; Andrew T B Gilbert; Lyudmila V Slipchenko; Sergey V Levchenko; Darragh P O'Neill; Robert A DiStasio; Rohini C Lochan; Tao Wang; Gregory J O Beran; Nicholas A Besley; John M Herbert; Ching Yeh Lin; Troy Van Voorhis; Siu Hung Chien; Alex Sodt; Ryan P Steele; Vitaly A Rassolov; Paul E Maslen; Prakashan P Korambath; Ross D Adamson; Brian Austin; Jon Baker; Edward F C Byrd; Holger Dachsel; Robert J Doerksen; Andreas Dreuw; Barry D Dunietz; Anthony D Dutoi; Thomas R Furlani; Steven R Gwaltney; Andreas Heyden; So Hirata; Chao-Ping Hsu; Gary Kedziora; Rustam Z Khalliulin; Phil Klunzinger; Aaron M Lee; Michael S Lee; Wanzhen Liang; Itay Lotan; Nikhil Nair; Baron Peters; Emil I Proynov; Piotr A Pieniazek; Young Min Rhee; Jim Ritchie; Edina Rosta; C David Sherrill; Andrew C Simmonett; Joseph E Subotnik; H Lee Woodcock; Weimin Zhang; Alexis T Bell; Arup K Chakraborty; Daniel M Chipman; Frerich J Keil; Arieh Warshel; Warren J Hehre; Henry F Schaefer; Jing Kong; Anna I Krylov; Peter M W Gill; Martin Head-Gordon Journal: Phys Chem Chem Phys Date: 2006-06-12 Impact factor: 3.676
Authors: Garrett M Morris; Ruth Huey; William Lindstrom; Michel F Sanner; Richard K Belew; David S Goodsell; Arthur J Olson Journal: J Comput Chem Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 3.376