Wenxiao Wu1, Jing Su2,3, Chunchao Tang1, Haixiu Bai1, Zhao Ma1, Tianchao Zhang1, Zenglin Yuan2, Zhenzhen Li3, Wenjuan Zhou4, Huateng Zhang1, Zhenzhen Liu1, Yue Wang4, Yubin Zhou5, Lupei Du1, Lichuan Gu2, Minyong Li1. 1. Department of Medicinal Chemistry, Key Laboratory of Chemical Biology, School of Pharmacy, Shandong University , Jinan, Shandong 250012, China. 2. State Key Laboratory of Microbial Technology, School of Life Sciences, Shandong University , Jinan, Shandong 250100, China. 3. Faculty of Light Industry, Province Key Laboratory of Microbial Engineering, Qilu University of Technology , Jinan, Shandong 250353, China. 4. Department of Neurobiology, Shandong Provincial Key Laboratory of Mental Disorders, School of Medicine, Shandong University , Jinan, Shandong 250012, China. 5. Center for Translational Cancer Research, Institute of Biosciences and Technology, Texas A&M University Health Science Center , Houston, Texas 77030, United States.
Abstract
To enhance the efficiency of firefly luciferase/luciferin bioluminescence imaging, a series of N-cycloalkylaminoluciferins (cyaLucs) were developed by introducing lipophilic N-cycloalkylated substitutions. The experimental results demonstrate that these cyaLucs are effective substrates for native firefly luciferase (Fluc) and can produce elevated bioluminescent signals in vitro, in cellulo, and in vivo. It should be noted that, in animal studies, N-cyclobutylaminoluciferin (cybLuc) at 10 μM (0.1 mL), which is 0.01% of the standard dose of d-luciferin (dLuc) used in mouse imaging, can radiate 20-fold more bioluminescent light than d-luciferin (dLuc) or aminoluciferin (aLuc) at the same concentration. Longer in vivo emission imaging using cybLuc suggests that it can be used for long-time observation. Regarding the mechanism of cybLuc, our cocrystal structure data from firefly luciferase with oxidized cybLuc suggested that oxidized cybLuc fits into the same pocket as oxyluciferin. Most interestingly, our results demonstrate that the sensitivity of cybLuc in brain tumor imaging contributes to its extended application in deep tissues.
To enhance the efficiency of firefly luciferase/luciferin bioluminescence imaging, a series of N-cycloalkylaminoluciferins (cyaLucs) were developed by introducing lipophilic N-cycloalkylated substitutions. The experimental results demonstrate that these cyaLucs are effective substrates for native firefly luciferase (Fluc) and can produce elevated bioluminescent signals in vitro, in cellulo, and in vivo. It should be noted that, in animal studies, N-cyclobutylaminoluciferin (cybLuc) at 10 μM (0.1 mL), which is 0.01% of the standard dose of d-luciferin (dLuc) used in mouse imaging, can radiate 20-fold more bioluminescent light than d-luciferin (dLuc) or aminoluciferin (aLuc) at the same concentration. Longer in vivo emission imaging using cybLuc suggests that it can be used for long-time observation. Regarding the mechanism of cybLuc, our cocrystal structure data from firefly luciferase with oxidized cybLuc suggested that oxidized cybLuc fits into the same pocket as oxyluciferin. Most interestingly, our results demonstrate that the sensitivity of cybLuc in brain tumor imaging contributes to its extended application in deep tissues.
As a consistently
sensitive,
convenient, and noninvasive approach for understanding in vivo biology
that facilitates the visualization of distinctive characteristics,
bioluminescent imaging (BLI) has been comprehensively applied for
monitoring pathogen detection, tumor growth, patterns of gene regulation
in response to therapy, measuring protein–protein interactions,
and other uses.[1] The luciferin–luciferase
system from the North American firefly (Photinus pyralis) is one of the principal bioluminescent systems found in insects.[2] On the basis of this system, caged-luciferin
analogues have been developed as highly responsive bioluminescent
sensors for specific biomolecules, such as caspase,[3] β-galactosidase,[4] β-lactamase,[5] aminopeptidase N,[6] hydrogen peroxide,[7,8] fluoride,[9] and hydrogen sulfide.[10] Although the
general availability of various luciferase substrates is crucial for
bioluminescent sensor development, the high selectivity and specificity
between the enzyme and luciferin-based substrates limits the choice
of new luciferase substrates. Most BLI studies rely exclusively on
the native substrate d-luciferin (dLuc, 1, Figure ) or its analogue,
aminoluciferin (aLuc, 2, Figure ), which can emit a realistic bioluminescent
signal in the presence of firefly luciferase (Fluc), ATP, Mg2+, and O2. Therefore, a large pool of light-emitting Fluc
substrates are required for various biological applications, such
as probing or imaging biological processes.[11]
Figure 1
Structures
of firefly luciferase substrates: (1) d-luciferin
(dLuc); (2) aminoluciferin (aLuc);
(3) aminoluciferin alkylated derivatives; (4) hydroxyalkyl aminoluciferins; (5) cyclic alkylaminoluciferins;
(6) selenium-substituted aminoluciferin; (7) electronically modified luciferins; (8) pH-dependent
difluoroluciferin (F2-Luc); (9) infra-luciferin;
(10) near-infrared-emitting firefly luciferins; (11) PEG–luciferin; (12) N-cycloalkylaminoluciferins (cyaLucs) described in the current paper.
Structures
of firefly luciferase substrates: (1) d-luciferin
(dLuc); (2) aminoluciferin (aLuc);
(3) aminoluciferin alkylated derivatives; (4) hydroxyalkyl aminoluciferins; (5) cyclic alkylaminoluciferins;
(6) selenium-substituted aminoluciferin; (7) electronically modified luciferins; (8) pH-dependent
difluoroluciferin (F2-Luc); (9) infra-luciferin;
(10) near-infrared-emitting firefly luciferins; (11) PEG–luciferin; (12) N-cycloalkylaminoluciferins (cyaLucs) described in the current paper.A known limitation of in vivo
BLI experiments is the strong attenuation
of bioluminescent signals that are emitted below 600 nm, which results
from the absorption and scattering of light by tissue.[12] Consequently, the applications of this system
are restricted mainly to small animals and at superficial depths.
In 1966, White et al. established that an amino group can replace
the 6′-hydroxyl group of dLuc (1), resulting in
aLuc (2),[13] which emits light
at 590 nm and has ∼10-fold higher affinity for luciferase than
dLuc.[14] Since then, modified luciferins
have been widely developed (Figure ); these include, for example, monoalkylated and dialkylated
aminoluciferins (3[17] and 4(15)), conformation-restricted cyclic
alkylaminoluciferin analogues (5),[16,17] a selenium analogue of dLuc (6),[18] electronically modified luciferins (7),[19] pH-dependent difluoroluciferin (8),[20] and red-shifted infra-luciferin (9) for various Fluc mutants.[21] Moreover,
cyclic alkylaminoluciferins (5) allow robust red-shifted
light emission and overall light emission that is higher than that
of dLuc.[16] A recent report based on bioluminescence
resonance energy transfer (BRET) described the development of an aminoluciferin
NIR fluorophore (Cy5, BODIPY 650/665, SiR700, and Cy7) conjugate (10) that emits in the near-infrared region.[22] This type of modification, however, alters the cellular
uptake properties of the substrate and likely changes its biodistribution
in vivo. Although these substrates can emit an intense initial burst
of light similar to dLuc, they subsequently release much lower levels
of sustained bioluminescence light output.Another factor to
consider is the relatively short circulatory
half-life of luciferin in vivo. For example, Shinde et al. modified
aLuc to glycine-aminoluciferin, which had a longer in vivo circulation
time; yet the bioluminescent signals were attenuated.[14] Gross et al. implanted microosmotic pumps into transgenicrats for continuous, long-term delivery of bioluminescent substrates,[23] and Chandran et al. attached an aminoluciferin
to poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG) (11, Figure ) to improve tumor uptake via
the enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) effect, thus allowing
the possibility of long-term observations in animals.[24] Although these studies solved the difficult problem of
half-life to some extent, preparation of these compounds is too complicated
for extensive applications, and thus a solution to this problem is
still required.The sensitivity of bioluminescence is one deficiency
of the
large-scale
application of BLI because most available luciferins, such as dLuc,
only possess a modest cell permeability. Even if these available luciferins
have been widely applied to in vitro and in vivo imaging, they tend
not to be the ideal substrate for imaging in deep tissues such as
mouse brain. To enhance the permeability, one possible chemical strategy
is to increase the lipophilicity and reduce the polarity of the molecule.
For example, Evans et al. developed a cyclic alkylaminoluciferin (5, Figure ) with improved sensitivity in vivo,[25] while Kuchimaru et al. obtained an alkylated luciferin analogue
AkaLumine–HCl with deep penetration and near-infrared emission.[26] Moreover, recently Miller and co-workers introduced
an FAAH-sensitive luciferinamides for brain bioluminescence imaging.[27−29]With that starting point and constraining ourselves with the
molecular
weight and lipophilicity (ideally, logD 2.5 in consideration
of the blood–brain barrier), we proposed to introduce lipophilic
N-cycloalkyl groups onto aLuc shown in Scheme S1 as potential candidates to enhance the cell permeability,[30,31] as well as to increase the bioluminescence sensitivity and to boost
imaging in the brain. After evaluation, the bioluminescence sensitivities
of the proposed N-cycloalkylaminoluciferins (cyaLucs, 12, Figure ) exhibited properties superior to those of dLuc and aLuc in vitro
and in vivo. Moreover, cyaLucs allowed robust red-shifted light emission
and overall light emission that were higher than those of dLuc and
aLuc. We synthesized cyaLucs that increased the total photon flux
of light in vivo. In addition, the circulatory life of cybLuc in vivo
was longer than that of dLuc and aLuc. As a result, cybLuc could improve
relative bioluminescence signals in the brain.
Experimental Section
All reagents and solvents were obtained from commercial sources
and were used as received unless otherwise noted. Milli-Q water was
used to prepare all aqueous solutions. Bioluminescence spectra were
collected using a Hitachi F4500 fluorescence spectrophotometer (Hitachi
High Technologies America, Inc., Schaumburg, IL, U.S.A.) with a blocked
excitation path at 37 °C. Measurements for bioluminescent assays
were performed at 37 °C in 50 mM Tris buffer, pH 7.4, containing
10 mM MgCl2 and 0.1 mM ZnCl2. An IVIS kinetic
imaging system (Caliper Life Sciences, Hopkinton, MA, U.S.A.) equipped
with a cooled CCD camera was used for bioluminescent imaging at 37
°C.
Synthesis
The cyaLucs can be prepared with a facile
and efficient method as depicted in Scheme S1. In brief, 6-aminobenzo[d]thiazole-2-carbonitrile
(13) was included in a one-pot reaction with cyclanones
and sodium cyanoborohydride in the presence of acetic acid (as a solvent
and catalyst) to obtain pure monocycloalkyl intermediates 14a–c after column separation. A subsequent cross-coupling
reaction of the intermediates 14a–c with d-cysteine hydrochloride resulted in cyaLucs (12a, cybLuc; 12b, cypLuc; 12c, cyhLuc)
under a N2 atmosphere in the absence of light. The details
for the preparation of all substrates and their NMR and high-resolution
mass spectrometry (HR-MS) spectra can be found in the Supporting Information.
In Vitro Bioluminescence
Measurements
Fifty microliters
of Tris–HCl buffer containing 20 μg/mL luciferase and
2 mM ATP was added to solutions of the substrate at various concentrations
(0.01–1 μM) in Tris buffer (50 μL), and the bioluminescent
signals were then detected with an acquisition time of 0.5 s.Fifty microliters of substrate (20 μM) solutions was added
to various concentrations of ATP (0.25–10 μM) solutions
in Tris–HCl buffer containing 20 μg/mL luciferase (50
μL), and the bioluminescent signals were then detected with
an acquisition time of 0.5 s.
Bioluminescence Cell Imaging
ES-2-Fluc cells were passed
and plated (4 × 104 cells per well) in 96-well black
plates with clear bottoms. When the cells became approximately 95%
confluent, the medium was removed, and various concentrations of substrate
in NS were added. The bioluminescence was measured immediately after
the addition
of the substrates with an acquisition time of 1 or 20 s. Photon emission
was collected using a cooled CCD camera.ES-2-Fluc cells were
passed and plated at various concentrations (1250, 2500, 5000, 10 000,
20 000, and 40 000 cells per well) in black 96-well
plates with clear bottoms. When the cells became approximately 95%
confluent, the medium was removed, and 50 μL of substrate (20
μM) in normal saline (NS) were added. The bioluminescence was
measured immediately after the addition of the substrates with an
acquisition time of 1 s. Photon emission was collected using a cooled
CCD camera.
In Vivo Bioluminescence Imaging
All animal studies
were approved by the Ethics Committee and IACUC of Qilu Health Science
Center, Shandong University and were conducted in compliance with
European guidelines for the care and use of laboratory animals. Balb/c
nude mice, 8 weeks of age, were purchased from the Animal Center of
the China Academy of Medical Sciences (Beijing, China). To generate
tumor xenografts in mice, ES-2-Fluc cells (1 × 107) were implanted subcutaneously under the right forelimb armpit of
each 6–8 week old nude mouse. Mice were housed singly or in
groups and maintained on a 12:12 light–dark cycle at 22 °C
with free access to food and water. The tumor was harvested and cut
into pieces, and then 10 mg tumor pieces were implanted subcutaneously
into the right armpit region. The tumor xenografts were allowed to
grow for 2 weeks before imaging. Mice bearing ES-2-Fluc subcutaneous
tumors were anesthetized with isoflurane and injected intraperitoneally
(ip) with 100 μL of various concentrations of substrate (10
μM, 100 μM, 1 mM, 4 mM and 10 mM). After 10 min, bioluminescent
images were acquired at various acquisition times (60, 30, 20, 10,
and 1 s), and again at 6 ± 1 min until the intensity stabilized.
When the signal reached a plateau, the intensity was measured using
a cy5.5 filter.Pathogen-free luciferase-expressing
transgenic mice (FVB-Tg(CAG-luc,-GFP)L2G85Chco/FathJ17) were obtained
from the Jackson Laboratory. The mice used were littermates (8 weeks
of age, males) and were housed singly or in groups and maintained
on a 12:12 light–dark cycle at 22 °C with free access
to food and water. The dLuc, aLuc, and cybLuc substrates were injected
[100 μL of 1 mM solutions in NS, intravenously (iv)] into luciferase-expressing
FVB transgenic mice. Then, the bioluminescent images were acquired
with an acquisition time 1 s and again at 5 ± 1 min until the
intensity stabilized. The heads and backs of the mice are the regions
of interests (ROIs), ROI 1 and ROI 2, respectively. The ratio of ROI
1 and ROI 2 can be used as an index of crossing of the blood–brain
barrier.The ES-2-Fluc cell suspensions were maintained on ice
during surgery
and were subsequently injected into the brain with a Hamilton syringe
(180 μm needle) using a micropump system with flow rates of
1.500 nL/min (withdrawal) and 500 nL/min (injection) after leaving
the needle in place for 2 min. After 12 days, mice bearing ES-2-Fluc
subcutaneous tumors were anesthetized with isoflurane and injected
with dLuc, aLuc, or cybLuc (ip, 1 mM, 200 μL). Bioluminescent
images were acquired with a 10 s acquisition time and again at 5 min
until the intensity stabilized.
Crystallization of Fluc
and Fluc–cybLuc Complex
Details of clone, expression,
and purification are described in the Supporting Information. Luciferases were concentrated
to 8 mg/mL. Crystal of native luciferases was initially obtained by
sitting-drop vapor diffusion at 293 K. After optimization, crystals
were grown in hanging drops by mixing equal volumes of protein solution
and reservoir solution (0.5 M Li2SO4, 15% PEG8000,
0.1 M Tris pH 8.0) at 293 K. To obtain crystal of Fluc–cybLuc
complex, luciferase was incubated with compound cybLuc at 20 °C
for 16 h under followed conditions: 3.2 mM ATP, 1.2 mM compound cybLuc,
and 12 mM MgCl2. The incubated enzyme was filtered and
mixed with an equal volume of reservoir solution (0.1 M HEPES pH 7.5,
20% PEG8000) sitting drop to obtain crystals at 293 K. The crystals
obtained were flash-frozen in liquid nitrogen after soaking in a cryoprotectant
solution consisting of the respective reservoir solution with 15–20%
glycerol used as a cryoprotectant, and all data sets were collected
at 100 K in a nitrogen stream.
Data Collection, Processing,
and Structure Determination
X-ray diffraction data were collected
at 100 K on beamline BL17U
at SSRF, Shanghai, China equipped with a MAR Mosaic CCD 225 detector.
The data were integrated and scaled using the HKL-200 program suite.[32] The Fluc crystal belongs to space group P41212 with unit cell parameters of a = 117.967 Å, b = 117.967 Å, c = 95.681 Å, α = β = γ = 90°
and diffracts to 2.4 Å resolution. The Fluc–cybLuc crystal
belongs to P41 space group with unit cell
parameters of a = 73.101 Å, b = 73.101 Å, c = 96.465 Å, α = β
= γ = 90° and diffracts to 2.3 Å resolution. The structures
of Fluc and Fluc–cybLuc were solved by molecular replacement
using Phaser from the CCP4 suite of programs[33] with firefly luciferase (PDB entry 1BA3) as the search model. The initial model
of luciferase was refined using PHENIX[34] with additional rounds of manual rebuilding using the Coot molecular
graphics program.[35] In the final steps
of refinement, water molecules were finally checked for hydrogen bonding
in Coot and modified if necessary. The compound cybLuc was added to
the complex model by Coot based on the FO–FC density map of the ligand
structure. The same refinement was carried out as for the Fluc–cybLuc
structure. The final model has a Rwork = 0.1781 and a Rfree = 0.2266 based
on a subset of 22 634 of the reflections.X-ray diffraction
data collection and refinement statistics are presented in Table S2. The final model was checked and validated
using PROCHECK,[36] QMEAN,[37] and ProQ,[38] which indicated
a good-quality model. The mean temperature factors for protein and
solvent were calculated using BAVERAGE from the CCP4 program suite.[29] Molecular graphics was illustrated with PyMOL.[39] The atomic coordinates and structure factors
of Fluc and Fluc–cybLuc have been deposited in the Protein
Data Bank with accession codes 5DV9 and 5DWV, respectively.
Statistical Analysis
Data values were expressed as
means ± SD or SEM of at least two independent experiments and
evaluated using Student t test for unpaired samples.
Results and Discussion
cyaLucs Sustained Robust Bioluminescence
ex Vivo
The
emission wavelengths of cyaLucs (cybLuc, cypLuc, and cyhLuc) with
Fluc in the presence of ATP, Mg2+, and oxygen were evaluated.
The results exhibited that these cyaLucs were competent substrates
for native Fluc as indicated by the production of a red-shifted bioluminescence
signal. The bioluminescence emission peaks for dLuc, aLuc, cybLuc,
cypLuc, and cyhLuc were 560, 591, 603, 603, and 607 nm, respectively
(Figure S1). It should be emphasized that
these red-shifted bioluminescence profiles for cyaLucs are of significance
for penetrating tissues in live animal imaging. In our case, the most
potent compound cybLuc has up to 60-fold Km and a lower Vmax than parent aminoluciferin.
As the bulky size of N-cycloalkylated substitution grows, Km of cyaLucs intends to be larger so that the
affinity of cyaLucs to luciferase becomes lower (Figure S2 and Table S1).To further strengthen the relationships between the bioluminescent
emission intensities of cyaLucs as substrates or ATP concentrations,
we treated Fluc with increasing concentrations of cyaLucs or ATP.
As a result, with the increased substrate concentration (0.01–1
μM), light emission intensities are enhanced, and compared to
dLuc, there is no obvious difference on bioluminescent intensities
within ATP (0.25–100 μM). These results clearly indicated
that the bioluminescence induced by Fluc directly correlated with
the concentrations of the cyaLucs, and cyaLucs with ATP-dependent
manner to bioluminescence were inferior compared with dLuc within
ATP (0.25–10 μM). Furthermore, compared to dLuc or aLuc,
the concentrations of cyaLucs were lower, and thus, the sensitivities
were higher (Figure , parts a and b). To determine the light-emitting properties of these
cyaLucs at the cellular level, we incubated cyaLucs with native Fluc-expressing
humanovarian cancer ES-2 cells (ES-2-Fluc). The bioluminescent intensities
of cyaLucs increased with increasing concentrations of substrates
and with increasing amounts of cells (Figure , parts c and d). Other cell lines expressing
Fluc produced the similar results (Figure S3). In a dose-dependent experiment, the bioluminescent intensities
from dLuc and aLuc continue to grow; in the meanwhile, cyaLucs reach
a plateau in vitro and a slight decline in cellulo at >25 μM
substrate concentration (Figure S5). It
appears that dLuc would be brighter than cybLuc at 200 μM. Moreover,
it should be underlined that, in the cell-based examination, cyaLucs
presented their superior bioluminescent emission to dLuc and aLuc
at >1 μM concentration, and a case in point is that the emission
intensity of cyaLucs at 6.25 μM is stronger than of dLuc and
aLuc at 100 μM (Figure S5). These
promising results evidently suggested that cyaLucs possess efficient
cell penetration.
Figure 2
Dose–response analysis of substrates (a) and ATP
(b): (a)
0.01–1 μM substrates incubated with 10 μg/mL native
luciferase in 50 mM Tris–HCl buffer containing 10 mM MgCl2, 0.1 mM ZnCl2, and 1 mM ATP (pH 7.4); (b) 0.25–10
μM ATP incubated with 10 μg/mL native luciferase in 50
mM Tris–HCl buffer containing 10 mM MgCl2, 0.1 mM
ZnCl2, and 10 μM luciferins (pH 7.4). Dose–response
bioluminescence analysis of substrates (c) and cells (d): (c) bioluminescence
imaging of (0.01–12.50 μM) substrates incubated with
ES-2-Fluc cells (4 × 104 cells per well) and quantification
of the bioluminescent imaging signal; (d) bioluminescence imaging
of substrates incubated with various concentrations of ES-2-Fluc cells
(1.25 × 103 to 4 × 104 per well) and
quantification of the bioluminescent imaging signals. All assays were
performed in triplicate and presented as the mean ± SEM.
Dose–response analysis of substrates (a) and ATP
(b): (a)
0.01–1 μM substrates incubated with 10 μg/mL native
luciferase in 50 mM Tris–HCl buffer containing 10 mM MgCl2, 0.1 mM ZnCl2, and 1 mM ATP (pH 7.4); (b) 0.25–10
μM ATP incubated with 10 μg/mL native luciferase in 50
mM Tris–HCl buffer containing 10 mM MgCl2, 0.1 mM
ZnCl2, and 10 μM luciferins (pH 7.4). Dose–response
bioluminescence analysis of substrates (c) and cells (d): (c) bioluminescence
imaging of (0.01–12.50 μM) substrates incubated with
ES-2-Fluc cells (4 × 104 cells per well) and quantification
of the bioluminescent imaging signal; (d) bioluminescence imaging
of substrates incubated with various concentrations of ES-2-Fluc cells
(1.25 × 103 to 4 × 104 per well) and
quantification of the bioluminescent imaging signals. All assays were
performed in triplicate and presented as the mean ± SEM.
Application of cybLuc in
Animal Bioluminescence Imaging
The standard method for BLI
with dLuc and aLuc is to inject 150 mg/kg
intraperitoneally, which equates to 0.1 mL of a 100 mM dLuc solution
for an average mouse, and to image the mice after approximately 10
min, when the emission is typically at its peak.[40] Considering that cyaLucs emit more robust light than dLuc
and aLuc in cellular tests at the micromolar levels, bioluminescent
intensities in living animals were also evaluated. Various concentrations
of substrates (in 0.1 mL volume) were injected intraperitoneally into
well-established mouse xenograft tumor models. The results obtained
suggested very favorable light-emitting behaviors for cyaLucs in living
animals, particularly cybLuc, which produced an ∼20-fold higher
bioluminescent signal than dLuc and aLuc at equivalent doses (Figure , parts a and b).
Interestingly, cybLuc is capable of emitting detectable bioluminescence
for 13 h (Figure S4), which is a breakthrough
for the challenge of short-time imaging in vivo. Given this outstanding
performance of cybLuc, we evaluated the capabilities of cybLuc in
luciferase-expressing transgenic mice. Intravenous injections of cybLuc
revealed bioluminescent behavior in luciferase-expressing transgenicmice, and the intensity and circulatory life were superior to dLuc
and aLuc as before. In addition, the ratio of the cybLuc bioluminescence
total flux in the brain was higher than dLuc and aLuc (Figure , parts c–e); thus,
we can infer that cybLuc can access brain tissue more readily.
Figure 3
Bioluminescence
imaging of substrates with ES-2-Fluc tumors in
nude mice (a and b): (a) integrated bioluminescence emission for mice
using various concentrations of luciferins (ip; 10 μM, 100 μM,
1 mM, 4 mM, and 10 mM; 100 μL); (b) representative bioluminescence
images of a nude mouse implanted with ES-2-Fluc xenografts after intraperitoneal
injections of various luciferins (10 μM, 0.1 mL). Comparison
of dLuc, aLuc, and cybLuc in luciferase-expressing transgenic mice
(c–e): (c) representative bioluminescence images of luciferase-expressing
transgenic mice administered dLuc, aLuc, and cybLuc iv (1 mM, 0.1
mL); (d) total photon output from the heads of luciferase-expressing
FVB transgenic mice treated with dLuc, aLuc, or cybLuc; (e) head-to-back
ratio of bioluminescence. All assays were performed in triplicate
and presented as the mean ± SEM; *, P < 0.05.
Bioluminescence
imaging of substrates with ES-2-Fluc tumors in
nude mice (a and b): (a) integrated bioluminescence emission for mice
using various concentrations of luciferins (ip; 10 μM, 100 μM,
1 mM, 4 mM, and 10 mM; 100 μL); (b) representative bioluminescence
images of a nude mouse implanted with ES-2-Fluc xenografts after intraperitoneal
injections of various luciferins (10 μM, 0.1 mL). Comparison
of dLuc, aLuc, and cybLuc in luciferase-expressing transgenic mice
(c–e): (c) representative bioluminescence images of luciferase-expressing
transgenic mice administered dLuc, aLuc, and cybLuc iv (1 mM, 0.1
mL); (d) total photon output from the heads of luciferase-expressing
FVB transgenic mice treated with dLuc, aLuc, or cybLuc; (e) head-to-back
ratio of bioluminescence. All assays were performed in triplicate
and presented as the mean ± SEM; *, P < 0.05.Considering the high ratio of
cybLuc bioluminescence total flux
in the brain, we further assessed cybLuc for BLI sensitivity in the
rodent brain. We imaged mice to measure bioluminescence 12 days after
they were treated with ES-2-Fluc cells in the brain hippocampus.[41] The results obtained (Figure a) verified the advantageous effects of cybLuc
on the stability of bioluminescence in vivo. When the intensity of
the bioluminescence reached a plateau, cybLuc maintained its status
for more than 30 min, whereas aLuc and dLuc did so for less than 5
min (Figure b). Furthermore,
the intensity with cybLuc was 18-fold higher than with dLuc and aLuc.
At high substrate concentration (100 mM dLuc, 10 mM cybLuc), the results
demonstrated that the bioluminescent intensity of cybLuc declined
from 10 min compared to dLuc from 15 min (Figure S6), Moreover, 10 mM cybLuc displays stronger bioluminescent
signal than 100 mM dLuc. It needs to be noted that ip injection of
10 mM cybLuc can provide about 7-fold higher signal than of 100 mM
dLuc (Figure S6), which suggests that cybLuc
can proficiently cross the blood–brain barrier and access deep
brain tissues more efficiently (Figure c).
Figure 4
Bioluminescence imaging of substrates with ES-2-Fluc in
nude mouse
brain: (a) representative bioluminescence images after intraperitoneal
injection of dLuc, aLuc, and cybLuc (1 mM, 0.2 mL) over time; (b)
total flux for mice with dLuc, aLuc, and cybLuc (1 mM, 0.2 mL) from
above; (c) total flux for mice with dLuc, aLuc, and cybLuc at plateau
points (dLuc, 10 min; aLuc, 15 min; cybLuc, 35 min). All assays were
performed in triplicate and presented as the mean ± SEM.
Bioluminescence imaging of substrates with ES-2-Fluc in
nude mouse
brain: (a) representative bioluminescence images after intraperitoneal
injection of dLuc, aLuc, and cybLuc (1 mM, 0.2 mL) over time; (b)
total flux for mice with dLuc, aLuc, and cybLuc (1 mM, 0.2 mL) from
above; (c) total flux for mice with dLuc, aLuc, and cybLuc at plateau
points (dLuc, 10 min; aLuc, 15 min; cybLuc, 35 min). All assays were
performed in triplicate and presented as the mean ± SEM.
Crystallization of Oxidized
cybLuc with Fluc
To better
understand the mechanism of action of cybLuc, the structures of apo-form
of luciferase (Fluc) and holo-form complex with oxidized cybLuc (Fluc–cybLuc)
were determined to 2.1 and 2.3 Å resolution, respectively, by
molecular replacement (Table S2) using
the crystal structure of luciferase from P. pyralis (Protein Data Bank accession number: 1BA3) as a model. The final models of Fluc
and Fluc–cybLuc show that each asymmetric unit contains one
monomer. All atoms of the Fluc model are well-defined except for two
amino acid residues at the N-terminus and seven amino acid residues
at C-terminus. The amino acids of Fluc–cybLuc model from N-terminal
to Arg437 are well-defined except for two disordered amino acid residues
at N-terminus and a loop from Gly200 to Gly203.In the Fluc–cybLuc
structure, oxidized cybLuc gives a clear density in the active site
(Figure a). The oxy-cybLuc
(products) is bound in a hydrophobic pocket consisting of α8
(amino acid residues 246–258), β11 (284–287),
β12 (311–314), β13 (337–340), β14
(349–351), and a loop (341–348) (Figure b). A water molecule, Wat 25, is hydrogen-bonded
to N7 of cybLuc (3.0 Å). His245 forms a hydrogen bond with the
hydroxyl of cybLuc (3.5 Å). Ser314 forms a hydrogen bond with
the amino group of cybLuc (3.7 Å). Phe247 has a hydrophobic interaction
with the phenyl moiety of cybLuc, as well as Ser314, Gly315, Arg337,
and Gln338 line a hydrophobic network with a cyclobutyl ring. Among
the interactions, the methylene of the Arg337 side chain has a hydrophobic
interaction with the cyclobutyl ring of cybLuc. As a result, cybLuc
can
combine more tightly than dLuc with luciferase. The details of active-site
residues are depicted in Figure c.
Figure 5
Overall structure of Fluc–cybLuc complex and oxy-cybLuc
binding site: (a) stereoview of the structure around oxy-cybLuc and FO–FC OMIT
map contoured at 3.0σ shows electron density for oxy-cybLuc,
a water, and interaction amino acids in the binding site; (b) cartoon
model representation of Fluc–cybLuc complex structure in wheat
color; the oxy-cybLuc binding site (α8, β11, β12,
β13, β14, and a loop) are drawn in red color; the oxy-cybLuc
is shown in green stick model; (c) a schematic drawing of oxy-cybLuc
binding site; (d) stereoview superposition of LcrLuc–AMP/oxyluciferin
complex structure (gray) and Fluc–cybLuc complex structure
(wheat); (e) stereoview superposition of apo-Fluc
(blue) and Fluc–cybLuc (green).
Overall structure of Fluc–cybLuc complex and oxy-cybLuc
binding site: (a) stereoview of the structure around oxy-cybLuc and FO–FC OMIT
map contoured at 3.0σ shows electron density for oxy-cybLuc,
a water, and interaction amino acids in the binding site; (b) cartoon
model representation of Fluc–cybLuc complex structure in wheat
color; the oxy-cybLuc binding site (α8, β11, β12,
β13, β14, and a loop) are drawn in red color; the oxy-cybLuc
is shown in green stick model; (c) a schematic drawing of oxy-cybLuc
binding site; (d) stereoview superposition of LcrLuc–AMP/oxyluciferin
complex structure (gray) and Fluc–cybLuc complex structure
(wheat); (e) stereoview superposition of apo-Fluc
(blue) and Fluc–cybLuc (green).We align the Fluc–cybLuc structure to the LcrLuc–AMP/oxyluciferin
complex structure (Protein Data Bank accession number: 2D1R),[42] indicating that the oxidized cybLuc has a suitable superposition
to oxyluciferin except for the cyclobutyl ring of oxidized cybLuc.
Therefore, we ascertain that cybLuc has the same interaction site
in luciferase. The hydrophobic pocket of Fluc is most similar to LcrLuc,
except for β12 of Fluc has about 1.0 Å distance to β13
of LcrLuc and Leu286 side chain of Fluc–cybLuc has 3.1 Å
distance with Ile 288 of LcrLuc (Figure d). The structure of Fluc–cybLuc is
essentially different with apo-Fluc between the loops
(Gly315-Ala317). The loop in Fluc–cybLuc has obvious movement,
which seems
to be the switching of the compound cybLuc to the luciferase protein
(Figure e).
Conclusion
In summary, by introducing a lipophilic N-cycloalkylated substitution
into aLuc, we produced a series of sensitive N-cycloalkylaminoluciferins
(cyaLucs) for use in the firefly luciferase–luciferin bioluminescence
system. The experimental results clearly demonstrated that these cyaLucs
were competent substrates for native Fluc and could produce high levels
of bioluminescent signals in vitro, in cellulo, and in vivo. In addition,
the red-shifted bioluminescent emissions and the increased cell permeability
of cyaLucs are of significance for penetrating tissues in live animal
imaging. In animal studies, up to 10 μM (0.1 mL) of cybLuc,
which is 0.01% of the standard dose of dLuc used in mouse imaging
studies, can produce a 20-fold higher bioluminescence signal than
dLuc or aLuc at the same concentration. It should be noted that such
a small dose is not only economical, but is also precise for detection
in biological studies. In our studies, longer emission during in vivo
imaging of cybLuc was observed. Regarding the mechanism of cybLuc,
our cocrystal structure data from firefly luciferase with oxidized
cybLuc suggested that oxidized cybLuc fits into the same pocket as
oxyluciferin. These results indicate that cybLuc can be used in applications
requiring long-time observation in vivo. Moreover, cybLuc is able
to detect luciferase expression in brain tumors with greater sensitivity
than dLuc or aLuc, and thus, it can be used in brain tumor imaging
and in other applications for deep tissues, for example, in the brain.
We believe that these novel firefly luciferase substrates will expand
the imaging toolkit and inspire new applications for bioluminescence
technology. It is our expectation that, based on such a tailor-made
lipophilic strategy, a variety of firefly luciferase substrates will
become available for BLI purposes. Currently, additional efforts are
in progress to develop a panel of excellent substrates for firefly
luciferase following this type of strategy.
Authors: L Betti; G Biagi; G Giannaccini; I Giorgi; O Livi; A Lucacchini; C Manera; V Scartoni Journal: J Med Chem Date: 1998-02-26 Impact factor: 7.446
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
Authors: Melanie S Evans; Joanna P Chaurette; Spencer T Adams; Gadarla R Reddy; Miranda A Paley; Neil Aronin; Jennifer A Prescher; Stephen C Miller Journal: Nat Methods Date: 2014-02-09 Impact factor: 28.547
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: Piotr Jurgielewicz; Stefan Harmsen; Elizabeth Wei; Michael H Bachmann; Richard Ting; Omer Aras Journal: Cell Mol Life Sci Date: 2017-07-03 Impact factor: 9.261
Authors: Aleksey Yevtodiyenko; Arkadiy Bazhin; Pavlo Khodakivskyi; Aurelien Godinat; Ghyslain Budin; Tamara Maric; Giorgio Pietramaggiori; Sandra S Scherer; Marina Kunchulia; George Eppeldauer; Sergey V Polyakov; Kevin P Francis; Jeffrey N Bryan; Elena A Goun Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2021-05-11 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Mary P Hall; Carolyn C Woodroofe; Monika G Wood; Ivo Que; Moniek Van't Root; Yanto Ridwan; Ce Shi; Thomas A Kirkland; Lance P Encell; Keith V Wood; Clemens Löwik; Laura Mezzanotte Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2018-01-09 Impact factor: 14.919