Jakob Fuhrmann1, Paul R Thompson2,3. 1. Department of Chemistry, The Scripps Research Institute , 130 Scripps Way, Jupiter, Florida 33458, United States. 2. Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, UMass Medical School , 364 Plantation Street, Worcester, Massachusetts 01605, United States. 3. Program in Chemical Biology, UMass Medical School , 364 Plantation Street, Worcester, Massachusetts 01605, United States.
Abstract
The post-translational modification of arginine residues represents a key mechanism for the epigenetic control of gene expression. Aberrant levels of histone arginine modifications have been linked to the development of several diseases including cancer. In recent years, great progress has been made in understanding the physiological role of individual arginine modifications and their effects on chromatin function. The present review aims to summarize the structural and functional aspects of histone arginine modifying enzymes and their impact on gene transcription. We will discuss the potential for targeting these proteins with small molecules in a variety of disease states.
The post-translational modification of arginine residues represents a key mechanism for the epigenetic control of gene expression. Aberrant levels of histone arginine modifications have been linked to the development of several diseases including cancer. In recent years, great progress has been made in understanding the physiological role of individual arginine modifications and their effects on chromatin function. The present review aims to summarize the structural and functional aspects of histone arginine modifying enzymes and their impact on gene transcription. We will discuss the potential for targeting these proteins with small molecules in a variety of disease states.
Epigenetic
regulation of gene
expression is essential to eukaryotic life, and its dysregulation
is involved in numerous human diseases. This regulatory mechanism
is controlled, at least in part, by a diverse set of post-translational
modifications (PTMs) of histone proteins.[1] Histone proteins are small, basic proteins that constitute the building
blocks of nucleosomal particles. These proteins form octamers around
which the genomic DNA is spooled. Projecting out of this nucleosomal
core are unstructured lysine/arginine-rich N-terminal tails.[2] Notably, the N-terminal tails of each histone
harbor the majority of known PTMs that are critical for the epigenetic
control of gene expression. Since arginine residues are important
for DNA binding and protein–protein interactions, it is not
surprising that they are subject to extensive modification. Currently,
there are four known types of enzymatic arginine modifications, i.e.,
methylation, citrullination, phosphorylation, and ADP-ribosylation,[3,4] and all four have been shown to occur on histone arginine residues.[4] The best characterized modifications, however,
are arginine methylation and citrullination. In this review, we discuss
the chemical biology of protein arginine modifications in the epigenetic
control of gene transcription, focusing on the enzymes that catalyze
protein citrullination and arginine methylation as well as their regulatory
effects on the core histone tails and chromatin function. Additionally,
we highlight the recent progress in targeting these proteins using
small molecule inhibitors.
The Epigenetic Role of Arginine Modifications
The
Biological Effects of Histone Arginine Methylation
Protein
arginine methylation is a common post-translational modification,
with many cytoplasmic and nuclear proteins being methylated on arginines.[5−7] In fact, arginine methylation impacts numerous cellular pathways,
and, when dysregulated, human disease, particularly the development
and progression of cancer.[8] This modification
is mediated by a family of nine protein arginine methyltransferases
(PRMTs) that can be grouped into three types based on their arginine
methylation products, i.e., monomethylarginine (MMA), asymmetric dimethylarginine
(ADMA), and symmetric dimethylarginine (SDMA; for a detailed description,
see below). Histone proteins are well-established PRMT substrates
for all types of PRMTs.[7] The main sites
of histone arginine methylation include H2AR3 and R11, H2BR29, R31
and R33, H3R2, R8, R17 and R26, H4R3, R17, R19, and R23 (Figure ). In addition, there
is evidence that arginine methylation affects not only the histone
tails but also the histone core, such as in H3R42me2a,
where it is implicated in transcriptional activation by weakening
the histone–DNA interactions.[9] Typically,
asymmetric dimethylation of histones has been associated with transcriptional
activation while symmetric dimethylation is linked to transcriptional
repression.[10] Here, we provide a brief
overview about individual PRMT members and their influence on histone
methylation.
Figure 1
Sites and types of histone arginine modifications. Arginine
methylation
and citrullination sites of individual histone N-terminal tails. Abbreviations:
Me, monomethylation; Me2a, asymmetric dimethylation; Me2s, symmetric dimethylation; Cit, citrullination. The inset
on the left depicts the nucleosome core particle (PDB code: 1AOI); DNA is colored
in red, and the histone octamer is highlighted in blue, including
a protruding H3-derived histone tail that is otherwise barely defined
for the other histone proteins in the crystal structure.
Sites and types of histone arginine modifications. Arginine
methylation
and citrullination sites of individual histone N-terminal tails. Abbreviations:
Me, monomethylation; Me2a, asymmetric dimethylation; Me2s, symmetric dimethylation; Cit, citrullination. The inset
on the left depicts the nucleosome core particle (PDB code: 1AOI); DNA is colored
in red, and the histone octamer is highlighted in blue, including
a protruding H3-derived histone tail that is otherwise barely defined
for the other histone proteins in the crystal structure.PRMT1 is an essential gene product and is responsible
for the majority
of ADMA modifications in mammalian cells.[11] The PRMT1 deposited methylation mark (H4R3me2a) is associated
with transcriptional activation of nuclear receptor regulated genes.[12] This coactivator activity is facilitated by
the subsequent acetylation of the H4 tails by the histone lysine acetyltransferase
p300.[12] Notably, the previous acetylation
of H4 by p300 prevents the methylation by PRMT1,[12] most likely by reducing the positive charges in the remote
sequences that are required for efficient PRMT binding (see below).
In addition, PRMT1 functions synergistically with CARM1 and p300 as
transcriptional coactivators of the tumor suppressor p53.[13] Blythe and colleagues showed that during embryonic
development, β-catenin recruits PRMT2 to distinct promoters,
where it asymmetrically dimethylates H3R8, thereby priming a genetic
program for dorsal development.[14] The PRMT4/CARM1
enzyme was shown to be responsible for transcriptional activation
by the asymmetric dimethylation of H3R17 and H3R26 and to be required
for the maintenance of cellular pluripotency[15] and also muscle cell differentiation.[16] Moreover, upon growth stimulation, PRMT4 is recruited to the Cyclin
E1 encoding gene promoter where it methylates histone H3 at R17 and
R26 and thereby functions as a transcriptional coactivator and likely
accelerates tumor progression.[17] In contrast
to the ADMA mark deposited by type I PRMTs, the symmetric dimethylation
of H4R3 by PRMT5 represents a repressive mark that is required for
the formation of DNMT3A-mediated transcriptionally repressive DNA
methylation.[7,18,19] PRMT5 methylates histones H2A and H4 at R3, respectively, as well
as H3 at R2 and R8. Interestingly, the cooperator of PRMT5, COPR5,
binds to the amino terminus of histone H4 and thereby recruits PRMT5
to preferentially methylate histone H4 at R3.[20] A similar recruitment of PRMT5 to histones is also mediated by the
protein MEP50, which interacts with the histone fold of the H3–H4
tetramer and thus promotes the proper positioning of the substrate
arginine to the catalytic site.[21] Notably,
Alinari and colleagues reported that B cells transformed with Epstein–Barr
virus (EBV) show high levels of nuclear PRMT5 and a concomitant increase
in PRMT5-mediated H4R3me2s and H4R8me2s symmetric
dimethylation marks and a decrease of the type I PRMT-dependent asymmetric
dimethylation of H4R3me2a.[22]Similar to PRMT1, PRMT6 was shown to deposit ADMA marks on
H2AR3
and H4R3, and these modifications have been shown to be linked to
transcriptional activation.[23] However,
PRMT6 can also asymmetrically methylate H3R2, and this modification
is associated with transcriptional repression by blocking the recruitment
of transcriptional activators to trimethylated H3K4.[24] PRMT7 mediates the monomethylation of H2AR3 and H4R3 that
are both associated with DNA damage repair.[25] The presence of these monomethylation marks blocks the transcription
of DNA polymerase encoding genes.[25]Furthermore, epigenetic regulation of gene expression by arginine
methylation goes beyond histone methylation and can also directly
impact the activity of diverse transcription factors such as CBP,[26] ERα,[27] p53,[28] and BRCA1,[29] as well
as RNA polymerase II.[30] Although, there
is only limited information available regarding the readers of the
histone methylarginine marks, it is now well established that several
members of the Tudor protein family specifically recognize methylarginine.[31] For instance, the Tudor domain containing protein
TDRD3 recognizes ADMA modified H3R317 and H4R3 and acts as a transcriptional
coactivator.[32] It remains to be shown whether
other proteins specifically bind to methylarginines or whether competition
with other histone modifications is the primary mode of action of
these marks.
The Biological Effects of Histone Citrullination
Protein
citrullination is mediated by a family of five enzymes called protein
arginine deiminases (PADs), which hydrolyze the arginine guanidinium
into a urea group. Based on electrostatic considerations, histone
arginine citrullination best compares to histone lysine acetylation.
In both cases, the positively charged functionalities (guanidinium
group in arginine and amino group in lysine) are converted into neutral
forms (urea in citrulline and acetamide in acetyllysine). Since histone
lysine acetylation is usually associated with an open chromatin structure
that can be accessed by RNA polymerases as well as transcription factors
and thus typically correlates with gene activation,[1] a similar trend was expected for histone arginine citrullination.
Indeed, it was recently shown that PAD4 induced citrullination of
the linker histone H1 at R54 leads to extensive chromatin decondensation
in pluripotent stem cells.[33] The loosened
chromatin structure allows for the enhanced expression of genes involved
in stem cell development and maintenance such as Klf2, Tcl1, Tcfap2c, Kit, and Nanog.[33] It was
proposed that the observed overexpression of PADs in several cancers might induce a similar chromatin decondensation
and thus promote a stem-cell-like state.[34]However, more detailed analyses regarding the functional effects
of histone citrullination reveals that this mark is associated with
both transcriptional repression and activation.[35−37] It was suggested
that its distinct roles on gene expression can be mediated either
by preventing activating arginine-methylation events or by the recruitment
of further histone modifying enzymes.[36,38] PAD4 was shown
to citrullinate histone H3 on arginines 2, 17, and 26, as well as
histones H2A and H4 on arginine 3, respectively (Figure ).[35,36,39] Specifically, the citrullination at H3R17
represses the expression of estrogen receptor regulated genes.[36] Moreover, PAD4 seems to act as a p53 corepressor
by H3 citrullination at the p21 promoter site, thereby blocking downstream
gene transcription.[40] Histone H3 citrullination
at the promoter region of the pro-apoptotic tumor suppressor gene OKL38 was shown to associate with transcriptional repression
as well.[41] Estrogen-induced stimulation
of PAD4 induces citrullination of H3R8 that is linked to transcriptional
activation at ERα-dependent promoters by interfering with the
H3K9me3 directed binding of HP1α.[42] There, it was shown that the citrullination of H3R8 in peripheral
blood mononuclear cells is involved in the increased expression of
cytokines TNFα and IL8; the
overexpression of these cytokines is associated with an uncontrolled
immune response and T-cell activation in multiple sclerosis.[42] Besides the direct effect of histone citrullination
on transcriptional regulation, the citrullination of the histone acetyltransferase
p300 was shown to enhance its coactivator ability to stimulate gene
transcription indicating a role for nonhistone mediated epigenetic
functions of protein citrullination.[43]Based on cellular localization studies employing overexpressed
PAD enzymes, PAD4 is the only isozyme located in the nucleus and thus
has been suggested to be solely responsible for histone H2A, H3, and
H4 citrullination.[44] Moreover, sequence
analysis revealed that only PAD4 contains a canonical nuclear localization
signal.[45] However, several recent studies
revealed that PAD2 can also reside in the nucleus, where it citrullinates
histone H3 at arginines R2, R8, R17, and R26.[37,46,47] The PAD2 catalyzed citrullination of histone
H3 in EGF stimulated mammary epithelial cells has been suggested to
modulate the expression of lactation related genes during the estrous
cycle.[46] In addition, stimulation of estrogen
receptor α (ERα)-positive cells with 17 β-estradiol
(E2) induced PAD2 dependent citrullination of H3R26 at ERα target
genes.[37] This modification leads to local
chromatin decondensation, thereby increasing the accessibility for
ERα to its target sites and consequently transcriptional activation
of ERα regulated genes.[37,47] Guertin and colleagues
further proposed that PAD2 mediated citrullination at H3R26 might
be a potential prognostic marker for estrogen receptor positive (ER+)
tumor development.[47]Apart from the
epigenetic consequences of histone citrullination,
PAD4-mediated hypercitrullination of histones is critical for the
innate immune system and the development of inflammatory diseases
such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and lupus. Specifically, it was
shown that PAD4 is essential for neutrophil extracellular trap (NET)
formation,[48] also termed NETosis, a specialized
pro-inflammatory form of cell death that is involved in the defense
against bacterial infection.[49] During NETosis,
histone hypercitrullination promotes chromatin unraveling on such
a massive scale that the chromatin complex is extruded from the cell
to form a web-like structure that captures pathogens. These large
extracellular structures of decondensed chromatin include hypercitrullinated
histone H3, which is a key marker of this form of cell death.[48,50] Notably, aberrantly increased NETosis has been recognized as a central
player in the pathogenesis of several systemic autoimmune diseases,
including lupus and RA, as well as Alzheimer’s disease.[51−54] Interestingly, citrullination of H4R3 was also shown to be associated
with apoptosis in osteosarcoma cells and suggested to promote apoptotic
fragmentation by increasing the accessibility of genomic DNA for DNase
attack.[55]
Structure and Function
of Arginine Modifying Enzymes
The Structure and Function of PRMTs
PRMTs catalyze
the transfer of a methyl group from a donor molecule, S-adenosylmethionine
(SAM), to the terminal guanidino nitrogens of arginine residues. As
mentioned above, there are currently nine known PRMTs that can be
further classified into three distinct types according to their regiospecificity,
i.e., the generation of (i) ADMA, performed by type I enzymes, (ii)
SDMA, mediated by type II PRMTs, and (iii) MMA, which is catalyzed
by type III enzymes (Figure A).[4,7] Notably, the mono- or dimethylation of arginine
residues does not alter the overall positive charge on the arginineguanidinium group; however, it affects the hydrogen bonding capabilities
of this residue.[4] The availability of numerous
crystal structures of type I and type II PRMTs reveals a conserved
architecture wherein two monomers form a head-to-tail homodimer. The
dimer interface is stabilized by interactions between the catalytic
domain and the helix-turn-helix dimerization arm that protrudes from
the C-terminal β-barrel domain (Figure B).[56−60] Notably, the known structures of all the dimethylation specific
PRMTs show a central hole and two opposing active sites that are separated
by ∼3 nm. By contrast, the only type III enzyme, PRMT7, lacks
the central cavity and consists of a monomer constituting two consecutive
PRMT modules that fold into a homodimer-like structure.[61,62] The PRMT active site contains a SAM binding pocket that consists
of a series of highly conserved sequence motifs that are critical
for SAM binding and the structural organization of the active site.
In addition, the arginine binding pocket is characterized by two invariant
glutamate residues (E144 and E153 in PRMT1), which are located on
the double E-loop and are thought to properly align and orient the
substrate guanidinium group for nucleophilic attack.[57,63]
Figure 2
Structure
and mechanism of PRMTs. (A) Schematic representation
of the PRMT catalyzed arginine methylation reactions including the
different types of PRMTs mediating these enzymatic reactions. The
classification of individual PRMT members is shown on the right side.
(B) The crystal structure of dimeric PRMT1 bound to SAH and arginine
(PDB code: 1OR8). The protomer on top is shown as surface representation colored
according to its electrostatic potential (negative electrostatic potentials
are highlighted in red, whereas positive electrostatic potentials
are illustrated in blue). The inset on the right depicts a close up
view of the PRMT1 active site residues implicated in substrate and
cofactor binding as well as catalysis.
Structure
and mechanism of PRMTs. (A) Schematic representation
of the PRMT catalyzed arginine methylation reactions including the
different types of PRMTs mediating these enzymatic reactions. The
classification of individual PRMT members is shown on the right side.
(B) The crystal structure of dimeric PRMT1 bound to SAH and arginine
(PDB code: 1OR8). The protomer on top is shown as surface representation colored
according to its electrostatic potential (negative electrostatic potentials
are highlighted in red, whereas positive electrostatic potentials
are illustrated in blue). The inset on the right depicts a close up
view of the PRMT1 active site residues implicated in substrate and
cofactor binding as well as catalysis.The structural determinants that dictate product selectivity
and
thereby steer the formation of ADMA, SDMA, or MMA remain unclear.
However, recent biochemical studies and the availability of high resolution
crystal structures of several PRMT members reveals striking signature
features specific for each PRMT type.[56,57,59−61,64] For instance, a conserved methionine residue (M48 in PRMT1), present
in all type I and type III enzymes, is replaced by a phenylalanine
in the type II enzyme PRMT5 (F327). It was shown that swapping this
residue from a methionine to a phenylalanine in PRMT1 led to the slight
formation of SDMA.[65] The complementary
experiment, i.e., replacing the phenylalanine in PRMT5 to a methionine
residue, results in the generation of both ADMA and SDMA.[64] These experiments highlight the important role
that this residue plays in specifying the regiospecificity of the
PRMTs. However, the very recent demonstration that PRMT9 acts as a
type II enzyme[66,67] questions the general importance
of this site for product specificity, as this enzyme possesses a methionine
at this position.[4] More recently, it was
proposed that subtle steric constraints, among different PRMT types,
may be important for conferring the observed product selectivity.[4,61,68] In this respect, two major determinants
have been suggested. The first one consists of differences in the
THW loop-motif. This motif is only present in type I and type III
enzymes, and the critical histidine residue is thought to narrow the
substrate arginine binding pocket. In the case of type II enzymes,
the histidine is replaced with a serine (in PRMT5) or cysteine (in
PRMT9) residue that increases the available volume to fit a methylated
nitrogen atom while placing the other nonmethylated guanidinenitrogen
close to the SAM methyl transfer site.[4] This orientation is compatible with the formation of symmetrically
dimethylated arginine residues. The second critical determinant comprises
the conserved YF/YXXY motif in the αY helix that is only found
in type I PRMTs. There, the two invariant tyrosine hydroxyl groups
hydrogen bond to one glutamate residue of the double E-loop, thereby
forming a small pocket that allows the accommodation of a methyl group
on the attacking nitrogen atom for asymmetric dimethylation.[68]Apart from the generation of different
methylation products, individual
PRMTs also have distinct substrate specificities. Typically, PRMTs
prefer to methylate glycine and arginine-rich (GAR) sequences as encountered
in numerous RNA binding proteins and the histones H2A and H4.[4,6,69,70] A plausible reason for the requirement of glycine residues is their
enhanced conformational flexibility and the ability to form β-turn-like
structures that are critical for the enzyme–substrate interaction
as shown in the crystal structure of PRMT5 bound to a histone H4 peptide.[60,71] However, the substrate specificity of PRMT5 is not only restricted
to GAR sequences as it can also accommodate arginines within a wider
spectrum of sequence contexts.[72] Notably,
PRMT4 (CARM1) mainly methylates arginine residues present within proline-,
glycine-, and methionine-rich (PGM) sequence motifs as found in several
splicing factors and histone H3.[73] The
type III enzyme, PRMT7, specifically monomethylates arginines within
an RXR motif encountered in H2B and H4 (Figure ).[74] In addition,
substrate recognition in most PRMTs is drastically enhanced by remote
sequences that are typically more than 10 residues apart from the
arginine methylation site.[75−77] The recognition of distal substrate
elements is mainly mediated by electrostatic interactions. In this
respect, it is interesting to note that all PRMTs have acidic isoeletric
points (pI), with typical pI values
between 5.0 and 5.3. The only exceptions are PRMT5 (pI, 5.9), PRMT4 (pI, 6.3), and PRMT8 (pI, 6.5), which possess slightly higher pI’s.
Notably, PRMTs contain large areas of negative electrostatic potentials
located on the β-barrel domain and the catalytic domain (Figure B) that are proposed
to bind the positively charged residues of the remote substrate regions.[56,57,75,78] This effect is further enhanced by the presence of dimeric PRMTs
that can act as a negatively charged “sponge” to tether
the positively charged substrates close to the active site cavity.
This in turn facilitates the processive dimethylation of arginine
residues, where the remote sequence elements anchor the substrate,
while the arginine methylation site can swing from one active site
into the other thereby promoting efficient dimethylation reactions.
Evidence for such a mechanism stems from kinetic studies that show
a partially or semiprocessive mechanism of dimethylation for PRMT1
and PRMT6.[75,79,80] Interestingly, the extent of processivity is influenced by the substrate
employed, and thus different patterns of methylation can be obtained
by the same PRMT enzyme in a substrate-dependent manner.[80] Conversely, the type II enzyme PRMT5 uses a
distributive mechanism for the symmetric dimethylation of histone
H4.[81] This might be a consequence of much
slower reaction kinetics of symmetric methylation compared to asymmetric
dimethylation reactions and a weaker interaction between the monomethylated
substrate and PRMT5.[21]
The Structure
and Function of PADs
As mentioned above,
citrullination is the conversion of arginine into citrulline via the
hydrolysis of the guanidinium group to form the neutral urea. In essence,
an imine is replaced by a carbonyl; therefore this is termed a deimination
reaction. Protein citrullination is mediated by the PAD enzymes (Figure A). There are five humanPAD isozymes that show distinct tissue
distributions and cellular localizations.[4,45,82] Four of these enzymes (PADs 1–4)
are catalytically active, whereas PAD6 appears to be a pseudoenzyme
with no detectable enzymatic activity.[83] Interestingly, PAD activity is strictly dependent on the availability
of high concentrations of calcium (K0.5,Ca = 130–710 μM) and the enzymes bind to five (PADs 1,
3, and 4) or six (PAD2) calcium ions at distinct sites.[84−86] Although, calcium is not directly involved in catalysis, the recent
crystal structures of apo and calcium-bound PAD2 show that calcium
induces a series of structural rearrangements that are essential for
the formation of a catalytically competent active site.[86] In particular, the movement of the catalytically
important cysteine, C645 in PAD4 and C647 in PAD2, into the active
site is triggered by calcium. Interestingly, calcium binding itself
occurs in an ordered fashion, and residues involved in calcium interactions
are conserved across the PAD family.[86]
Figure 3
Structure
and mechanism of PADs. (A) Schematic representation of
the PAD catalyzed citrullination reaction. (B) The crystal structure
of the PAD4 C645A dimer bound to the arginine mimicking substrate
BAA (PDB code: 1WDA). The structure on top is colored according to domain organization.
The C-terminal catalytic domain (orange) contains the bound substrate
(BAA, gray). The bound calcium ions are illustrated as purple spheres.
The inset on the right shows the PAD4 active site residues implicated
in catalysis. The protomer on the bottom is shown as a surface representation
colored according to its electrostatic potential.
Structure
and mechanism of PADs. (A) Schematic representation of
the PAD catalyzed citrullination reaction. (B) The crystal structure
of the PAD4C645A dimer bound to the arginine mimicking substrate
BAA (PDB code: 1WDA). The structure on top is colored according to domain organization.
The C-terminal catalytic domain (orange) contains the bound substrate
(BAA, gray). The bound calcium ions are illustrated as purple spheres.
The inset on the right shows the PAD4 active site residues implicated
in catalysis. The protomer on the bottom is shown as a surface representation
colored according to its electrostatic potential.On the basis of sequence analyses and structural comparisons,
PADs
belong to the pentein superfamily that is characterized by the pentameric
arrangement of five subdomains around a central hollow, forming an
α/β propeller.[87,88] This central cavity
accommodates the active site within the catalytic domain. Besides
the C-terminal catalytic domain, PADs also contain an N-terminal domain
that is further composed of two immunoglobulin-like (Ig) subdomains
(Figure B). Like the
PRMTs, PADs exist as homodimeric proteins, with the individual monomers
arranged in a head-to-tail fashion such that both active site pockets
are located on the same side of the dimer.[88] The active site cavity of an individual monomer harbors all the
critical residues for catalysis (Figure B). These residues include a strictly conserved
cysteine (C645 in PAD4) that is important for nucleophilic attack
onto the central guanidiniumcarbon atom of the arginine substrate,
as well as two invariant aspartate residues (D350 and D473 in PAD4),
which are thought to attract and properly position the arginine guanidinium
group via electrostatic interactions. In addition, the active site
contains a histidine (H471 in PAD4) that is important for the protonation
of the ammonia leaving group and the subsequent activation of an incoming
water molecule that ultimately cleaves the thiouronium reaction intermediate.[89]The proposed reaction mechanism, including
the covalent intermediate,
is shared by other members of the guanidino-group modifying pentein
superfamily, such as dimethylarginine dimethylaminohydrolase (DDAH)
and arginine deiminases (ADI).[90,91] However, in contrast
to these proteins, PADs modify peptidyl-arginine residues.[84] As a result, PADs have evolved a more accessible
active site and contain several residues that specifically recognize
the substrate peptide backbone.[92] For example,
residue R374 is critical for the formation of a bidendate hydrogen
bond with two substrate peptide carbonyls. The structures of PAD4
bound to histone peptides reveal that substrate recognition is mainly
mediated via interactions with the substrate peptide backbone.[92] As such, there is limited sequence specificity
regarding PAD4 substrate selection. In addition, and in contrast to
PRMTs, substrate recognition by the PADs does not depend on long-range
interactions originating from remote sequences in the substrate.[84] Despite limited sequence specificity, it was
shown that PAD4 bound peptide substrates adopt a β-turn-like
conformation, similar to PRMT bound substrates.[92] Therefore, the propensity of peptide substrates to adopt
such kinked conformations might dictate substrate selection in PADs.
Moreover, apart from structural constraints, PAD substrate specificity
may be regulated by the accessibility of arginine residues in chromatin
structures, through interaction of a PAD with other proteins and by
cross-talk with distinct PTMs, such as arginine methylation. In this
regard, it was claimed that PADs can also act on methylated arginine
residues.[35] However, several lines of evidence
questioned the physiological relevance of this activity and even indicated
that arginine methylation prevents arginines from being PAD substrates.[36,84,93,94] Thus, citrullination and arginine methylation are now considered
to be antagonistic modifications.[4,95]
Inhibitors
of Arginine Modifying Enzymes
PRMT Inhibitors
In recent years,
a diverse set of PRMT
inhibitors have been discovered. The most common and general PRMT
inhibitors are S-adenosyl-L-homocysteine
(SAH, 1) and sinefungin (2). These molecules
are structurally related to SAM, and numerous biochemical and crystallographic
data confirm that they are SAM-competitive inhibitors that block PRMT
activity in the low micro- to nanomolar range (Table ).[96] SAH is the
reaction product of SAM-dependent methyl transfer reactions. Normally,
it is rapidly degraded by SAH hydrolase; however, its activity can
be blocked by adenosine dialdehyde to artificially increase the endogenous
level of SAH.[97] This approach is frequently
employed to study the global effects of inhibiting cellular methyltransferases
including the PRMTs. The natural product sinefungin was originally
isolated from Streptomyces species[98] and
was shown to act as a pan-methyltransferase inhibitor similar to SAH.[99]
Table 1
General Methyltransferase
Inhibitors
One of the first
high-throughput screens to identify small molecule
inhibitors of PRMT1 was performed by the Bedford group.[100] These screening efforts led to the identification
of several compounds termed arginine methyltransferase inhibitor (AMI).
One of these small molecules, AMI-1, was shown to be cell-permeable
and to inhibit cellular PRMT1 in a concentration dependent manner.[100] However, most of these small molecules were
nonspecific and also inhibited protein lysine methyltransferases.
In addition, subsequent studies revealed that AMI-1 actually does
not bind to PRMTs but rather interacts with the histone substrates
via electrostatic interactions, thereby preventing substrate access.[101]To obtain PRMT specific inhibitors, Spannhoff et al. employed a target-based virtual screening approach.[102] The identified compounds include the diamidinestilbamidine (3; Table ) and the dapsone derivative allantodapsone (4) that both act as competitive inhibitors of the protein
substrate. Moreover, these compounds were shown to block PRMT1 methylation
of H4R3 in cellular assays while having minimal inhibitory effects
on lysine methylation of H3K4.[102] However,
they show limited potency and PRMT isozyme specificity. Recently,
an improved diamidine compound, furamidine (5), was described.[103] This small molecule is selective for PRMT1
with a ∼18-fold lower IC50 for PRMT1 compared to
PRMT5. Based on molecular modeling studies, the positively charged
amidinium in 5 was proposed to bind to the substrate
binding site, occupying the position of the substrate guanidinium
group. In addition, furamidine was shown to be cell permeable, resulting
in inhibition of cellular PRMT1 and a decrease in cell proliferation
in leukemia cell lines.[103] However, care
has to be taken regarding the utilization of diamidine derivatives
as PRMT-specific inhibitors because they are also reported to bind
DNA with high affinity;[104] as such we do
not recommend their use as PRMT inhibitors.
Table 2
Inhibitors
of PRMTs
There are several
studies on PRMT inhibitor development strategies
aimed at substrate, cofactor, and in particular partial bisubstrate
analogs.[105−110] Although these compounds showed decent inhibition, they are usually
nonspecific with regard to different PRMT isozymes. For example, one
of the most potent compounds (6), consisting of the SAMadenosine moiety linked to a guanidinium group, shows an IC50 of 560 nM for PRMT4 but also effectively blocks the activity of
PRMT1 and PRMT5.[110] An exception is the
peptide-based inhibitor C21 (7) that is composed of the
first 21 residues of histone H4 and contains a chloroacetamidine warhead
instead of the substrate arginine guanidinium group.[106] This compound acts as an irreversible inhibitor wherein
the chloroacetamidine group reacts with a hyperreactive cysteine,
C101 present in the PRMT1 active site, to form a stable thioether
bond.[111] Notably, the peptide inhibitor
C21 is >100-fold more potent than the chloroacetamidine warhead
containing
compound Cl-amidine (19, Table , discussed below).[106] These data further highlight the requirement of remote sequences,
distal from the arginine substrate site for efficient inhibitor/substrate
peptide binding. C21 shows high preference for PRMT1 over PRMT3 and
PRMT4 with an IC50 of 1.8 μM for PRMT1; however,
it can also block the activity of PRMT6 (IC50, 8.8 μM).
In addition, C21 was adapted as a chemical probe by incorporating
either fluorescein or biotin reporter tags to monitor and isolate
active PRMT1.[112] On the basis of a previously
identified cyanine scaffold,[113] Hu and
colleagues developed a PRMT1 inhibitor (8), denoted as
E-84.[114] This small molecule inhibitor
blocks PRMT1 with an IC50 of 3.4 μM and shows 6-fold
selectivity over PRMT4 and over 10- and 25-fold selectivity over PRMT5
and PRMT8. On the basis of molecular docking studies, it was proposed
that E-84 binds to the SAM binding pocket as well as the arginine
substrate binding site. In addition, this compound slightly reduced
the level of asymmetrically dimethylated arginine in leukemia cells
and displays cytotoxic activity toward these cells.[114] However, experimental evidence of target engagement is
still lacking, and it thus remains to be shown if this compound directly
interacts with PRMTs.
Table 3
Inhibitors of PADs
In recent years, several
highly potent isozyme-specific and more
drug-like PRMT inhibitors have been developed. One of these compounds, 9, represents an optimized hit derived from a HTS approach
that selectively targets PRMT3.[115,116] This compound
is an allosteric inhibitor that does not bind the active site pocket.
Structural analysis revealed that 9 binds at the PRMT3
homodimerization interface and prevents the proper orientation of
helix αY for catalysis.[116] In addition,
it was shown that 9 is active in cellular assays and
efficiently blocks the PRMT3-dependent dimethylation of H4R3 with
nanomolar efficacy.[116] Sack and colleagues
described the identification of two PRMT4 (CARM1) selective inhibitors,
the pyrazole derivative 10 and the indole derivative 11.[117] Both of these compounds
were derived after optimization of compounds identified from initial
HTS screens.[118] Detailed structural investigations
showed that these small molecule inhibitors bind to the arginine-substrate
binding cavity of PRMT4 and require bound SAH.[117] In addition to PRMT3 and PRMT4, specific inhibitors of
PRMT5 have also been identified. The carbazole ring containing CMP5
(12) was shown to block PRMT5 activity but did not inhibit
PRMT1, PRMT4, or PRMT7.[22] This compound
was predicted to occupy the SAM binding pocket and form π–π
stacking interactions with the signature phenylalanine (F327) residue
implicated in product selectivity of PRMT5. Cellular studies indicate
that treatment of transformed B-cells, expressing high levels of PRMT5,
with CMP5 blocks Epstein–Barr virus driven B-lymphocyte transformation
while leaving normal B cells unaffected.[22] Another highly selective and even more potent PRMT5 inhibitor was
recently developed by Chan-Penebre et al.(119) This small molecule, EPZ015666 (13), is an optimized version of a compound derived from a library of
370 000 compounds. Inhibition studies with PRMT5 revealed that
EPZ015666 is competitive with the peptide substrate, and this was
further confirmed by structural analyses.[119] Similar to PRMT4 inhibitors, it was shown that the binding affinity
of EPZ015666 for PRMT5 was greatly increased by SAM binding. Interestingly,
EPZ015666 also engages in π–π stacking interaction,
via its critical tetrahydroisoquinoline moiety, with F327 of PRMT5
as predicted for compound CMP5. These data highlight the potential
for developing selective PRMT inhibitors by harnessing isozyme specific
differences in the active site such as the characteristic phenylalanine
residue, F327, of PRMT5. On the basis of functional studies, EPZ015666
reduces the level of global symmetric dimethylation in the mantle
cell lymphoma (MCL) cell line Z-138. Moreover, EPZ015666 exerts antiproliferative
effects in numerous MCL cell lines at nanomolar concentrations, and
oral administration of this compound induces antitumor activity in
different MCL xenograft mouse models.[119] Very recently, a PRMT6 specific inhibitor, EPZ020411 (14), has been reported.[120] This compound
shows high potency, IC50 = 10 nM, for PRMT6, and good selectivity
over PRMT1 (12-fold) and PRMT8 (22-fold) and excellent selectivity
(>100-fold) compared to PRMT3, PRMT4, PRMT5, and PRMT7. The crystal
structure of EPZ020411 bound to a ternary PRMT6-SAH complex revealed
that the inhibitor binds into the arginine substrate site via its
diamine side chain and the pyrazole core structure.[120]
PAD Inhibitors
Since dysregulated
citrullination levels
have been implicated in numerous diseases including rheumatoid arthritis,
several autoimmune diseases, as well as cancer, PADs represent a promising
target for pharmaceutical intervention.[121] Thus, several small molecules have been developed that block the
activity of this enzyme class. Because of the involvement of PADs
in the development of RA, a small panel of disease modifying antirheumatic
drugs were tested for the presence of potential PAD inhibitors.[122] Interestingly, some of these compounds showed
modest PAD inhibition in the low milli- to micromolar range. One of
the most potent inhibitors was the tetracycline derivative minocycline.
Further investigations, using different tetracycline derivatives,
revealed chlortetracycline (15) as a modest PAD4 inhibitor
with an IC50 of ∼100 μM (Table ).[122] However, due to the weak inhibitory activity, it is unlikely that
these compounds exert inhibition of cellular PAD4. Since the arginineguanidinium moiety is the major contributor for efficient PAD–substrate
interactions, several guanidinium group containing compounds have
also been evaluated. In this respect, the derivatized guanidine compound 16 displays 36% inhibition of PAD4 activity at 10 μM.[123] Moreover, the acylguanidine derivative 17 was shown to block PAD3 with an IC50 of 100
nM.[124] However, given that acylguanidines
have a low pKa value, typically several
orders of magnitude lower than that of guanidines, and are expected
to be poorly suited as arginine substrate mimicking inhibitors, the
strong inhibitory activity of 17 needs further validation.
Although it was hypothesized that these compounds act as competitive
inhibitors, their detailed mode of inhibition has not been studied.
The limited potency for these reversible PAD inhibitors likely relates
to the small active site pocket that only accommodates the side chain
of an arginine residue. Therefore, the recent discovery of a distinct
binding site occupied by compounds GSK 199 and its more potent derivative
GSK 484 (18) opens a promising approach to develop high
affinity reversible PAD inhibitors.[125] Specifically,
structural studies revealed that these compounds bind to the solvent
exchange channel in PADs and induce large conformational changes around
the active site.[125] In addition, compound 18 is a PAD4 specific inhibitor that displays at least 35-fold
selectivity for PAD4 over the other PAD isozymes. Interestingly, 18 preferentially binds a calcium-deficient form of PAD4 that
lacks calcium in the Ca2 binding site and has an IC50 value
in the nanomolar range in the absence of calcium, whereas calcium
binding decreases its potency by at least 5-fold.[125] These data further highlight the dynamic nature of the
PAD4 active site that fluctuates between different conformations in
a calcium dependent manner. Moreover, it further indicates that these
conformational states (calcium-deficient, inactive and calcium-bound,
active) can be targeted by distinct inhibitors and pave the way for
developing conformer-specific PAD inhibitors. Inhibitors targeting
the resting apoenzyme are of particular interest as they stabilize
the inactive conformation that likely represents the major form inside
the cell. By shifting the equilibrium toward the inactive conformation,
these inhibitors do not directly compete with endogenous substrates
and might be better suited to prevent burst activation of PADs such
as during NETosis, triggered by massive calcium influx. In this respect,
pretreatment of stimulated mouse neutrophils with 10 μM GSK484
markedly diminished hypercitrullination of histone H3 and NET formation,
thus highlighting the biological activity of this compound.[125] Apart from these reversible inhibitors, substantial
progress has been made in developing irreversible PAD inhibitors.
One of the most widely used and best characterized irreversible PAD
inhibitors is Cl-amidine (19), which blocks PAD4 activity
with an IC50 of 5 μM.[126] This compound contains a reactive haloacetamidine warhead, as in
the PRMT inhibitor C21 (7). The positively charged electrophilic
group acts as a mimic of the substrate guanidinium group and covalently
attaches to the active site cysteine residue (C645 in PAD4) forming
a stable thioether bond.[126,127] By varying the side
chain length in a Cl-amidine derivative, it was confirmed that a three-carbon
linker between the chloroacetamidine moiety and the amino acid backbone
is most effective.[128] Notably, and in contrast
to GSK484, haloacetamidine inhibitors require the high-calcium bound
form of PAD4, thus confirming their substrate mimicking mode of inhibition
and preference for the calcium primed conformation of PAD4.[126] Cl-amidine has been used successfully in several
preclinical models of RA,[129] lupus,[130] colitis,[131] and
even breast cancer,[132] by effectively reducing
aberrant hypercitrullination levels. To improve the potency and specificity
of Cl-amidine, several derivatives were developed. For instance, the ortho-carboxylate containing Cl-amidine derivative 20 has a more than 2-fold higher inhibitory activity compared
to 19 but a similar PAD isozyme selectivity profile.[133] On the basis of a peptide library approach,
the fluoroacetamidine containing compound TDFA (21) has
been identified.[134] The tripeptide TDFA
shows high selectivity for PAD4 compared to the other PADs with more
than 15-fold preference for PAD4 inhibition over PAD1. Interestingly,
both, 20 and 21, contain a negatively charged
carboxylate group that occupies a similar position in PAD4-inhibitor
crystal structures and is involved in direct or water mediated interactions
with the side chain amide of Q346 that might explain the increased
potency of these compounds over Cl-amidine.[4,133,134] Since Cl-amidine is a polar and highly water-soluble
compound and thus exhibits poor bioavailability, several attempts
to increase its hydrophobicity have been undertaken. For example,
Wang et al. attached a diverse set of hydrophobic
groups to the amide backbone of Cl-amidine.[135] One of the most potent compounds of this series, YW3–56 (22), contains an N-terminal dimethyl-naphthylamine and C-terminal
methylbenzene moiety. Yw3–56 shows similar rates of inhibition
compared to Cl-amidine, but its antiproliferative activity toward
mousesarcoma cells was increased by a factor of 50.[135] The same trend of increased cellular activity, bioavailability,
and in vivo half-life was observed with BB-Cl-amidine
(23) that possesses an N-terminal biphenyl and a C-terminal
benzimidazole group.[136] Notably, using
the PAD4 expressing U2OSosteosarcoma cell line, the EC50 value of BB-Cl-amidine has been demonstrated to be 8.8 μM
compared to >200 μM for Cl-amidine.[136] Biphenyl-tetrazole-tert-butyl-Cl-amidine (24), a further apolar derivative of Cl-amidine, preferentially
inhibits PAD2.[137] This compound harbors
a C-terminal tert-butyl-tetrazole group that was
shown to increase the specificity toward PAD2 over other PAD isozymes.
Employing a fluorophore labeled Cl-amidine derivative in a fluorescence
polarization HTS assay, Knuckley et al. described
the identification of streptonigrin (25) as a potent
and very selective PAD4 inhibitor.[138] Streptonigrin
acts as an irreversible inactivator of PAD4 and was shown to block
PAD4 activity in cellular studies; however, it also binds to several
off targets thereby limiting its physiological utility.[138,139] Recently, Jamali and colleagues employed a substrate-fragment discovery
approach to identify a PAD3 isozyme selective inhibitor (26) that shows >10 selectivity for PAD3 over other PAD enzymes.[140] This compound contains a chloroacetamidine
warhead for reactivity as well as a biphenyl-hydantoin group for selectivity.
Conclusions and Perspective
In the past decade, there
has been tremendous progress in our understanding
of the epigenetic influences of histone arginine methylation and citrullination;
however, much remains to be learned about the chemistry and biology
of these fascinating modifications. In future studies, it will be
interesting to test whether protein arginine methylation and citrullination
are reversible modifications. Although it was proposed that the Jmjd6
protein acts as an argininedemethylase,[141] subsequent studies showed that it does not remove the methyl mark
from methylated arginine residues and actually acts as a lysine hydroxylase.[142,143] Nonetheless, the dynamic appearance and disappearance of citrullination
and arginine methylation marks on histones hints at the existence
of enzymes that might reverse these modifications.[36,144] In this respect, it will also be of great importance to identify
proteins that act as “readers” to recognize the modified
arginine residues such as the tudor domain-containing proteins that
were shown to bind methylated arginine residues.[31] Moreover, it will be interesting to evaluate the scope
and impact of other enzymatic and nonenzymatic arginine modifications
such as phosphorylation,[145−147] ADPribosylation,[148,149] carbonylation,[150] and the formation of
arginine derived advanced glycation end products[151] on epigenetic regulation. The goal is to combine this information
with other histone PTMs to generate a map of individual histone modifications
and to delineate the underlying crosstalk to ultimately decipher the
“language” of histone PTMs.
Authors: Sarmistha Halder Sinha; Eric A Owens; You Feng; Yutao Yang; Yan Xie; Yaping Tu; Maged Henary; Yujun George Zheng Journal: Eur J Med Chem Date: 2012-06-21 Impact factor: 6.514
Authors: Alexander A Chumanevich; Corey P Causey; Bryan A Knuckley; Justin E Jones; Deepak Poudyal; Alena P Chumanevich; Tia Davis; Lydia E Matesic; Paul R Thompson; Lorne J Hofseth Journal: Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol Date: 2011-03-17 Impact factor: 4.052
Authors: Robert J Sims; Luis Alejandro Rojas; David B Beck; Roberto Bonasio; Roland Schüller; William J Drury; Dirk Eick; Danny Reinberg Journal: Science Date: 2011-04-01 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Huw D Lewis; John Liddle; Jim E Coote; Stephen J Atkinson; Michael D Barker; Benjamin D Bax; Kevin L Bicker; Ryan P Bingham; Matthew Campbell; Yu Hua Chen; Chun-Wa Chung; Peter D Craggs; Rob P Davis; Dirk Eberhard; Gerard Joberty; Kenneth E Lind; Kelly Locke; Claire Maller; Kimberly Martinod; Chris Patten; Oxana Polyakova; Cecil E Rise; Martin Rüdiger; Robert J Sheppard; Daniel J Slade; Pamela Thomas; Jim Thorpe; Gang Yao; Gerard Drewes; Denisa D Wagner; Paul R Thompson; Rab K Prinjha; David M Wilson Journal: Nat Chem Biol Date: 2015-01-26 Impact factor: 15.040
Authors: Bo Sun; Nishant Dwivedi; Tyler J Bechtel; Janet L Paulsen; Aaron Muth; Mandar Bawadekar; Gang Li; Paul R Thompson; Miriam A Shelef; Celia A Schiffer; Eranthie Weerapana; I-Cheng Ho Journal: Sci Immunol Date: 2017-06-09
Authors: Caroline Chandra Tjin; Rebecca F Wissner; Haya Jamali; Alanna Schepartz; Jonathan A Ellman Journal: ACS Med Chem Lett Date: 2018-09-14 Impact factor: 4.345