| Literature DB >> 28545389 |
Mario A Bianchet1,2, Ying H Pan3, Leighanne A Brammer Basta4, Harry Saavedra3, Evan P Lloyd5, Pankaj Kumar6, Rohini Mattoo6, Craig A Townsend5,7, Gyanu Lamichhane8,9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The carbapenem subclass of β-lactams is among the most potent antibiotics available today. Emerging evidence shows that, unlike other subclasses of β-lactams, carbapenems bind to and inhibit non-classical transpeptidases (L,D-transpeptidases) that generate 3 → 3 linkages in bacterial peptidoglycan. The carbapenems biapenem and tebipenem exhibit therapeutically valuable potencies against Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb).Entities:
Keywords: Biapenem; Carbapenem; Enzyme inactivation; L,D-transpeptidase; Mycobacterium tuberculosis; Peptidoglycan; Tebipenem
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28545389 PMCID: PMC5445500 DOI: 10.1186/s12858-017-0082-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Biochem ISSN: 1471-2091 Impact factor: 4.059
Data collection and refinement statistics
| Crystals | Apo | Biapenem | Tebipenem |
|---|---|---|---|
| Source | ALS 5.0.2 | Rotating anode | FRE+ Superbright™ |
| Wavelength (Å) | 1.5418 | ||
| Resolution range (Å) | 48.62–2.49 (2.58–2.49) | 37.02–2.18 (2.26–2.18) | 43.16–2.45 (2.54–2.45) |
| Space group | P 1 211 | ||
| Unit cell | 61.3 95.6 75.6 90 92.6 90 | 60.8 93.4 75.2 90 92.6 90 | 60.9 94.4 75.4 90 92.9 90 |
| Total reflections | 548790 | 1196329 | 570849 |
| Unique reflections | 29184 (2480) | 42181 (3780) | 31106 (2957) |
| Multiplicity | 3.6 (2.8) | 3.6 (2.9) | 3.7 (2.9) |
| Completeness (%) | 98.6 (85.2) | 96.4 (87.2) | 99.1 (94.4) |
| Mean I/sigma (I) | 22.1 (2.1) | 23.3 (4.25) | 21.6 (3.45) |
| Wilson B-factor | 47.76 | 28.13 | 26.49 |
| Rmerge | 0.085 (0.44) | 0.06 (0.20) | 0.07 (0.20) |
| Rwork | 0.16 (0.24) | 0.16 (0.18) | 0.17 (0.21) |
| Rfree | 0.22 (0.315) | 0.21 (0.24) | 0.21 (0.28) |
| No non-hydrogen atoms | 5646 | 6214 | 6013 |
| Protein | 5358 | 5411 | 5402 |
| Ligands | 95 | 201 | 216 |
| Water Molecules | 193 | 602 | 395 |
| Protein residues | 702 | 705 | 707 |
| RMS (bonds) | 0.009 | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| RMS (angles) | 1.07 | 1.06 | 0.71 |
| Ramachandran favored (%) | 97 | 97.5 | 96.8 |
| Ramachandran outliers (%) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Average B-factor (Å2) | 45.5 | 32.7 | 30.6 |
| Protein | 44.8 | 30.7 | 26.4 |
| MTOA (Occupancy) | — | 42.5 (0.7) | 56.2 (0.93) |
| Other Ligands (Occupancy) | 88.4 | 69.75 (0.99) | 62.5 (0.99) |
| Solvent | 44.0 | 39.3 | 55.4 |
Diffraction and refinement statistics for apo-LdtMt2, LdtMt2-biapenem and LdtMt2-tebipenem complexes. Statistics for the highest-resolution shell are shown in parentheses
Fig. 1Apo-LdtMt2 and adduct structures. a Overlap of the apo- (brown), biapenem- (pink), and tebipenem-complexes (cyan) of LdtMt2. BlgA (aa 56–150) and BlgB (aa 150–250) are Bacterial Immunoglobulin-like (BIg) domains and CD (aa 251–408) is the catalytic domain. b & c Simulating annealing omit map at the active site of LdtMt2-biapenem (b) and LdtMt2-tebipenem (c). The refined structure of the respective catalytic site and adduct are shown. The adduct atoms were omitted during a mock refinement cycle including a torsional simulated annealing step using the refinement program PHENIX. The omit maps were contoured at 3.5 σ level. In both panels the MTOA-adducts are colored green (stereo views in Additional file 1). d Chemical structure of the common β-lactam core of the anticipated non-degraded adducts. e Chemical structure of the observed adduct in both complexes
Fig. 2Adducts bound to the outer cavity of the LdtMt2 catalytic site. a Overlay of the LdtMt2-biapenem (enzyme carbon atoms colored in blue) and LdtMt2-tebipenem (in orange) catalytic sites as viewed from the outer cavity. The protein residues that interact with the MTOA adducts are shown and common hydrogen bond interactions indicated as cyan dashed lines. b Similar view of the catalytic site of the tebipenem complex crystal structure showing a portion of the solvent accessible surface of the outer cavity and tunnel connecting to the inner cavity, displaying the adduct and residues of the Ldt motif participating in the interaction with the it. The MTOA adduct is colored green
Fig. 3Heat exchange during biapenem and tebipenem adduct formation with LdtMt2. Both carbapenem show exothermic heat exchanges after the addition of the carbapenem to the reaction cell containing enzyme
UPLC-HRMS of Inhibited LdMt2 species
| m/z (Da) | Species | Intensity from the maximum % |
|---|---|---|
| (56-408)LdtMt2 (exact mass Mn = 38085.5 Da) | ||
| 38085.5 | [Mn + H]+ | 100% |
| biapenem (exact mass = 352.1 Da) | ||
| 38225.0 | [Mn + 139.5 + H]+ | 100% |
| tebipenem (exact mass = 384.1 Da) | ||
| 38469.6 | [Mn + 384 + H]+ | 44% |
| 38425.0 | [Mn + 339 + H]+ | 39% |
| 38117.0 | [Mn + 32 + H]+ | 13% |
M/z for native LdtMt2 and its species inactivated by biapenem and tebipenem. The exact mass for apo-LdtMt2 was calculated using ExPASy MW server. See also in Additional file 1: Figure S2 for the mass spectra
Difference between primary peaks of the MALDI/TOF spectra of apo-LdtMt2 and LdtMt2 inactivated by biapenem and tebipenem at different reaction times
| Δm/z (Da) | Incubation time |
|---|---|
| LdtMt2-biapenem | |
| 225 | 15 min |
| 180 | 40 min |
| LdtMt2-tebipenem | |
| 345 | 40 min |
| 345 | 24 h |
See also in Additional file 1: Figure S4 for the experimental spectra
Fig. 4Structural comparison of Mtb Ldts with different carbapenem adducts. a Overlay of catalytic domains of apo-LdtMt1 (colored blue) and apo-LdtMt2 (colored cyan). Red arrows show the displacement of the β-hairpin flap between paralogs. b Two views related by a counterclockwise 90° rotation of the overlay of outer cavity-bound adducts of LdtMt1-imipenem (4VYM; carbon atoms of enzyme and adduct are colored blue and green, respectively) and LdtMt2-MTOA corresponding to the biapenem/LdtMt2 complex structure (colored in cyan and magenta). c Overlay of the LdtMt2 catalytic domains of LdtMt2-meropenem (3VYO; magenta) and LdtMt2-MTOA adduct (cyan). Red arrows show the displacement of the β-hairpin flap between these complexes forming inner- and outer-cavity adducts, respectively. d Overlay of the catalytic site of LdtMt2-meropenem (carbon atoms of the enzyme and the adduct are colored orange and green, respectively) and LdtMt2-MTOA (cyan and magenta). Red arrows in the panels (b) and (d) show the displacement of the conserved Tyr318 on the β-hairpin flap that in LdtMt1-imipenem and LdtMt2-meropenem interacts with the carbapenems hydroxyacetyl substituent, such interaction is loss in MTOA by the elimination of this group after adduct formation
Fig. 5Predicted binding models of the biapenem and tebipenem interactions with LdtMt2. Docking results of the binding of intact (a) biapenem and (b) tebipenem to the outer cavity of LdtMt2. Left panels of (a) and (b) show the solvent accessible surface corresponding to the outer cavity and tunnel connecting to the inner cavity. The carbapenems (biapenem carbon atoms are yellow; tebipenem carbon atoms are orange) and LdtMt2 residues that participate in binding (cyan). The protein-ligand interactions are shown in the right panels. Residues circled are in Van der Waals contact with the ligand; those colored green and pink are hydrophobic and hydrophilic residues, respectively. Hydrogen bonds are marked as black dashed arrows starting in the proton donor. The red dashed arrow highlights the Cys354-C7 tether used for the steered docking simulation. Purple clouds around carbapenem atoms indicate solvent exposure, and the size of the clouds indicates the degree of exposure. Offset blue circles indicate partial exposure of the protein residue. The drawing and analysis were performed using MOE
Fig. 6The different accessibilities of the thioester-bond in the two observed binding modes. a View from the outer cavity of the meropenem-adduct of LdtMt2 [20]. b View from the inner cavity of the MTOA-adduct of LdtMt2
Fig. 7Proposed mechanisms of biapenem and tebipenem adduct formation and degradation. The figure shows the chemical steps (steps 1–10) to reach the crystallographically observed adducts from the expected initial (intact) carbapenem adduct of the enzyme. The expected mass differences in each step of the reaction are annotated for comparison with the observed species in the mass spectrometry experiments. A final decarboxylation step (step 11), where the product is observed in the ESI mass spectra but not in the crystal, is included as a possible explanation. The mass increases caused by the adducts were calculated using the program ChemDraw®(v 15.0.0.106; 1985-2015 PerkinElmer Informatics, Inc.)