Marta Artola1, Liang Wu2, Maria J Ferraz1, Chi-Lin Kuo1, Lluís Raich3, Imogen Z Breen2, Wendy A Offen2, Jeroen D C Codée1, Gijsbert A van der Marel1, Carme Rovira3,4, Johannes M F G Aerts1, Gideon J Davies2, Herman S Overkleeft1. 1. Department of Bio-organic Synthesis and Department of Medical Biochemistry, Leiden Institute of Chemistry, Leiden University, P.O. Box 9502, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Chemistry, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, U.K. 3. Departament de Química Inorgànica i Orgànica (Secció de Química Orgànica) and Institut de Química Teòrica i Computacional (IQTCUB), Universitat de Barcelona, Martí i Franquès 1, 08028 Barcelona, Spain. 4. Fundació Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats (ICREA), Passeig Lluís Companys 23, 08010 Barcelona, Spain.
Abstract
The essential biological roles played by glycosidases, coupled to the diverse therapeutic benefits of pharmacologically targeting these enzymes, provide considerable motivation for the development of new inhibitor classes. Cyclophellitol epoxides and aziridines are recently established covalent glycosidase inactivators. Inspired by the application of cyclic sulfates as electrophilic equivalents of epoxides in organic synthesis, we sought to test whether cyclophellitol cyclosulfates would similarly act as irreversible glycosidase inhibitors. Here we present the synthesis, conformational analysis, and application of novel 1,6-cyclophellitol cyclosulfates. We show that 1,6-epi-cyclophellitol cyclosulfate (α-cyclosulfate) is a rapidly reacting α-glucosidase inhibitor whose 4C1 chair conformation matches that adopted by α-glucosidase Michaelis complexes. The 1,6-cyclophellitol cyclosulfate (β-cyclosulfate) reacts more slowly, likely reflecting its conformational restrictions. Selective glycosidase inhibitors are invaluable as mechanistic probes and therapeutic agents, and we propose cyclophellitol cyclosulfates as a valuable new class of carbohydrate mimetics for application in these directions.
The essential biological roles played by glycosidases, coupled to the diverse therapeutic benefits of pharmacologically targeting these enzymes, provide considerable motivation for the development of new inhibitor classes. Cyclophellitol epoxides and aziridines are recently established covalent glycosidase inactivators. Inspired by the application of cyclic sulfates as electrophilic equivalents of epoxides in organic synthesis, we sought to test whether cyclophellitol cyclosulfates would similarly act as irreversible glycosidase inhibitors. Here we present the synthesis, conformational analysis, and application of novel 1,6-cyclophellitol cyclosulfates. We show that 1,6-epi-cyclophellitol cyclosulfate (α-cyclosulfate) is a rapidly reacting α-glucosidase inhibitor whose 4C1 chair conformation matches that adopted by α-glucosidase Michaelis complexes. The 1,6-cyclophellitol cyclosulfate (β-cyclosulfate) reacts more slowly, likely reflecting its conformational restrictions. Selective glycosidase inhibitors are invaluable as mechanistic probes and therapeutic agents, and we propose cyclophellitol cyclosulfates as a valuable new class of carbohydrate mimetics for application in these directions.
The huge diversity
of oligosaccharide, polysaccharide, and glycoconjugate
structures found in nature reflect their many roles in biological
processes. Such diversity is mirrored in the numerous enzymes that
have evolved to degrade these biopolymers. Hydrolytic carbohydrate
degrading enzymes, glycoside hydrolases or glycosidases, are classified
into over 140 distinct sequence (and hence structural) families in
the CAZy database.[1] This classification
provides a powerful framework upon which aspects of conformational
analysis and enzyme inhibition can be constructed.Most retaining
glycosidases employ a conserved mechanism, in which
the acetals (occasionally ketals) that make up interglycosidic linkages
are hydrolyzed using two key carboxylic acid residues (Asp or Glu),
which function as catalytic nucleophile and catalytic acid/base.[2] Central to glycosidase activity are the considerable
conformational distortions undergone by the sugar substrate throughout
the catalytic cycle, which are necessary to satisfy the stereoelectronic
and orbital overlap requirements for glycoside hydrolysis.[3]Upon binding to the enzyme, a retaining
glycosidase substrate in
the Michaelis complex initially adopts a conformation in which the
leaving group is axially or pseudoaxially positioned, allowing for
favorable in-line attack by the catalytic nucleophile. Nucleophilic
attack, with concurrent protonation of the glycosidic oxygen by the
catalytic acid/base, leads to a high-energy state (the transition
state, TS) with considerable oxocarbenium ion character. This transition
state must necessarily adopt a conformation in which C5–O5–C1–C2
are coplanar, to allow for partial oxocarbenium double bond development
between O5 and C1. Following this transition state, the substrate
forms a covalent intermediate with the glycosidase nucleophile, which
is intercepted by water (following the reverse conformational itinerary)
to liberate free sugar and enzyme. For retaining α- and β-glucosidases,
the typical conformational itineraries for the Michaelis complex →
TS → intermediate enzymatic half reactions are 4C1 → 4H3⧧ → 1S3 and 1S3 → 4H3⧧ → 4C1 respectively
(Figure a), with the 4H3 TS conformation common to both α- and
β-glucosidases.[4−7]
Figure 1
Conformational
itinerary of retaining glucosidase reaction pathways
and conformation of covalent inhibitors. (a) Reaction itineraries
of retaining β-glucosidases and retaining α-glucosidases,
showing conformations of the Michaelis complex, transition state,
and covalent intermediates. (b) Structures of cyclophellitol (1), cyclophellitol aziridine (2), 1,6-epi-cyclophellitol (3), 1,6-epi-cyclophellitol aziridine (4), α-cyclosulfate (5), and β-cyclosulfate (6).
Conformational
itinerary of retaining glucosidase reaction pathways
and conformation of covalent inhibitors. (a) Reaction itineraries
of retaining β-glucosidases and retaining α-glucosidases,
showing conformations of the Michaelis complex, transition state,
and covalent intermediates. (b) Structures of cyclophellitol (1), cyclophellitol aziridine (2), 1,6-epi-cyclophellitol (3), 1,6-epi-cyclophellitol aziridine (4), α-cyclosulfate (5), and β-cyclosulfate (6).Mimicry of transition state features
is a powerful strategy for
the design of enzyme inhibitors, and thus the majority of competitive
glycosidase inhibitors bind by virtue of mimicking either the positive
charge or the conformational shape of the transition state.[3,8,9] Conformational mimicry can also
aid the reaction of irreversible covalent glycosidase inhibitors,[10] such as cyclitol epoxides and aziridines.[10−12] The natural product, cyclophellitol (1), and its synthetic
analogue, cyclophellitol aziridine (2), are glucose configured
inhibitors, which mimic the 4H3 conformation
adopted by retaining β-glucosidase substrates in their transition
state.[3,13,14] Upon binding
to the enzyme active site, nucleophilic attack by the catalytic nucleophile
residue opens the epoxide or aziridine ring, irreversibly inhibiting
the enzyme via formation of a covalent enzyme–cyclophellitol
(aziridine) adduct.In general, reactive cyclophellitol analogues,
locked into TS-like
conformations, are rapid irreversible inactivators of retaining glycosidases.[12,15,16] We recently demonstrated that
replacement of the cyclophellitol epoxide or aziridine ring by a nonhydrolyzable
cyclopropane also yields reversible glycosidase inhibitors with micromolar
to nanomolar affinity.[9] Thus, conformation,
rather than just electrophilic reactivity, may make a substantial
contribution to the inhibitory potency of cyclophellitol analogues.Given the success of reactive sugar epoxides and aziridines as
conformationally enhanced retaining glycosidase inactivators,[10,12,17] we sought to expand the concept
to other electrophilic species. Cyclic sulfate electrophiles are often
used in synthetic organic chemistry as equivalents of epoxides in
nucleophilic additions, sometimes showing superior reactivity and
regioselectivity.[18] We therefore sought
to test if cyclophellitol configured cyclosulfates could act as a
new class of covalent glycosidase inhibitors. Specificity for “α”
and “β” enzymes can be conferred simply through
choice of the appropriately configured cyclosulfate. We additionally
reasoned that substitution of the epoxide in 1 and 3 by a 1,2-cis-cyclic sulfate should yield
compounds favoring a 4C1 conformation. “α-Configured”
1,6-epi-cyclophellitol cyclosulfate 5 (hereafter referred to as α-cyclosulfate) should match, conformationally,
the 4C1 Michaelis complex conformation of substrates
for α-glucosidases and thus be readily poised for in-line nucleophilic
attack by the enzyme, yielding a rapid and potent irreversible inhibitor.
In contrast, a “β-configured” 1,6-cyclophellitol
cyclosulfate 6 (β-cyclosulfate) locked into a 4C1 conformation would likely disfavor reactivity
on retaining β-glucosidases, whose Michaelis complex is 1S3.Here, we present the synthesis of a panel
of 1,6-cyclophellitol
cyclosulfates which favor 4C1 chair conformations.
α-Cyclosulfate 5 irreversibly inhibits retaining
α-glucosidases with affinity on a par with 1,6-epi-Cyclophellitol aziridine 4, whereas β-cyclosulfate 6 is a substantially weaker β-glucosidase inhibitor
compared to its cognate aziridine 2. 3-D structures of
covalent adducts from both “α” and “β”
cyclosulfates, bound to representative α- and β-glucosidases,
combined with inhibitory kinetic studies and competitive activity
based protein profiling (ABPP), demonstrate the high specificity and
active center–nucleophile reactivity of these molecules.The development of selective inhibitors of carbohydrate processing
enzymes is of major interest both for the understanding of biological
processes involved in glycan processing and in the discovery of new
therapeutics.[19] Only minor advances have
been observed regarding the development of new irreversible glycosidase
inhibitors since the discovery of cyclophellitol[20] (aziridines)[21] or 5-fluoro-[22] and 2-deoxy-2-fluoro-[23] glycosides, the latter some 30 years ago.[24] Cyclophellitol cyclosulfates thus provide a conceptually novel and
powerful tool for further study of glycosidases in health and disease.
Results
and Discussion
Conformational Free Energy Landscapes of
Cyclophellitol Cyclosulfates
Cyclophellitol cyclosulfates 5 and 6 were
conceived as putative inhibitors of retaining glucosidases. To determine
the likely conformations of these molecules, we first calculated their
conformational free energy landscapes (FELs) using ab initio metadynamics (Supporting Information).[25] For both 5 and 6,
the calculated ground state conformation was centered at 4C1, with a wide energy minimum expanding toward the 2H3–E3–4H3 region (Figure a).
Figure 2
Conformational free energy landscapes of cyclosulfates 5 and 6. Cyclosulfates 5 (a) and 6 (b) adopt 4C1 ground state conformations,
with a broad energy minimum extending toward 4H3. The x and y axes of each graph
correspond to the φ and θ Cremer–Pople puckering
coordinates (in degrees), respectively. Isolines are 1 kcal/mol.
Conformational free energy landscapes of cyclosulfates 5 and 6. Cyclosulfates 5 (a) and 6 (b) adopt 4C1 ground state conformations,
with a broad energy minimum extending toward 4H3. The x and y axes of each graph
correspond to the φ and θ Cremer–Pople puckering
coordinates (in degrees), respectively. Isolines are 1 kcal/mol.We reasoned that the conformational
preference of 5 should render it a potent inactivator
of α-glucosidases, as
its 4C1 conformation matches that of a typical
α-glucosidase Michaelis complex, with the 4H3 TS conformation also energetically accessible. In contrast, 6 should not be able to access the 1S3 β-glucosidase Michaelis complex conformation, although the 4H3 TS conformation could still be accessible. Thus,
while 6 may still inhibit β-glucosidases, it should
do so with less potency compared to 5 vs α-glucosidases.
Synthesis of Cyclic Sulfates 5 and 6
Key intermediate 7 was synthesized from d-xylose in nine steps as optimized in our group based on the
total synthesis of cyclophellitol 1 by Madsen and co-workers
(Figure a).[26,27] Benzylation of the free alcohols in 7 yielded alkene 8, which was oxidized (ruthenium trichloride/sodium periodate)
to afford a mixture of cis diols 9 and 10. Compound 10, emulating α-glucopyranosides
in configuration, was obtained pure after silica gel column chromatography,
whereas β-analogue 9 necessitated recrystallization
from methanol and diethyl ether in order to obtain homogeneous material.
Generation of the cyclic sulfites by treatment of thionyl chloride
and subsequent oxidation gave perbenzylated cyclic sulfates 11 and 12, the benzyl ethers of which were removed
by hydrogenolysis using catalytic palladium on carbon to afford compounds 5 and 6. In line with FEL calculations, analysis
of experimental J-coupling values for compounds 5 and 6 showed that these analogues indeed adopt
a 4C1 conformation in solution (Table S1).
Figure 3
Synthesis of cyclophellitol cyclosulfates 5 and 6, and inactivation of GAA by compound 5. (a)
Compounds 5 and 6 were prepared from cyclohexene 11. Reagents and conditions: (i) BnBr, TBAI, NaH, DMF, rt,
18 h, 70%; (ii) RuCl3, NaIO4, EtOAc, ACN, 0
°C, 2 h (13, 39%; 14, 26%); (iii) (a)
SOCl2, Et3N, DCM, 0 °C, (b) RuCl3, NaIO4, CCl4, ACN, 0 °C, 3 h (15, 59%; 16, 62%); (iv) H2, Pd/C, MeOH, rt,
18 h (5, 71%; 6, 72%). (b) Semilogarithmic
plots of residual activity of GAA versus time at 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4,
3, and 2 μM α-cyclosulfate 5. (c) Plot of
pseudo first order rate constants from panel c vs concentration of 5.
Synthesis of cyclophellitol cyclosulfates 5 and 6, and inactivation of GAA by compound 5. (a)
Compounds 5 and 6 were prepared from cyclohexene 11. Reagents and conditions: (i) BnBr, TBAI, NaH, DMF, rt,
18 h, 70%; (ii) RuCl3, NaIO4, EtOAc, ACN, 0
°C, 2 h (13, 39%; 14, 26%); (iii) (a)
SOCl2, Et3N, DCM, 0 °C, (b) RuCl3, NaIO4, CCl4, ACN, 0 °C, 3 h (15, 59%; 16, 62%); (iv) H2, Pd/C, MeOH, rt,
18 h (5, 71%; 6, 72%). (b) Semilogarithmic
plots of residual activity of GAA versus time at 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4,
3, and 2 μM α-cyclosulfate 5. (c) Plot of
pseudo first order rate constants from panel c vs concentration of 5.
In Vitro Inhibition of α- and β-Glucosidases
and Kinetic Studies
To establish the activity of cyclosulfates 5 and 6 in relation to their calculated conformations,
we assessed their ability to inhibit representative α- and β-glucosidases
compared to cyclophellitol epoxides and aziridines 1–4, utilizing both purified glycosidases and human cell/tissue
lysates.We first tested inhibition against human β-glucosidases
GBA1 (recombinant Cerezyme protein from Genzyme, classified into the
CAZy glycoside hydrolase family GH30) and GBA2 (GBA2 overexpressing
HEK293T lysate, family GH116), and α-glucosidases GAA (recombinant
Myozyme from Genzyme, family GH31) and GANAB (Pompe disease fibroblast
lysates, family GH31; Table ). Consistent with our previous findings, cyclophellitol 1 and cyclophellitol aziridine 2 were potent
inhibitors of GBA1 and GBA2, and 1,6-epi-cyclophellitol 3 and 1,6-epi-cyclophellitol aziridine 4 inhibited GAA and GANAB.[10,17,28] In line with our predictions regarding Michaelis
complex mimics as strong retaining glycosidase inhibitors, α-cyclosulfate 5 proved to be a potent nanomolar α-glucosidase inhibitor
(IC50 82 nM vs GAA; 29 nM vs GANAB) with no reactivity
toward β-glucosidases. In contrast, β-cyclosulfate 6 was only a modest inhibitor of β-glucosidases (IC50 119 μM for GBA1 and 58 μM for GBA2). IC50s determined against representative recombinant bacterial
glucosidases (β-glucosidases from Thermotoga maritima, TmGH1,[3,29] and Thermoanaerobacterium
xylanolyticum, TxGH116;[30] α-glucosidase from Cellvibrio japonicus, CjAgd31B[10,31]) showed the same trend
as for the human enzymes: strong inhibition by 5, and
poor inhibition by 6 (Table S2). To confirm that 5 and 6 were stable
under the acidic conditions utilized for these enzymatic assays, the
solvolytic stability of these compounds in McIlvaine buffer pH 4.0
was assessed by NMR. We observed no spontaneous hydrolysis after 24
h for either 5 or 6 (Figure S2).
Table 1
Enzyme Inhibition
Efficacy of Compounds 1–6a
IC50
β-glucosidase
α-glucosidase
compd
GBA1
GBA2
GAA
GANAB
1
165 ± 4 nM
139 ± 60 nM
>100 μM
>100 μM
2
304 ± 5 nM
14 ± 1 nM
>100 μM
>100 μM
3
>100 μM
>100 μM
15 ± 2 μM
>100 μM
4
21 ± 1 μM
>100 μM
38 ± 3 nM
1.4 ± 0.1 μM
5
>100 μM
>100 μM
82 ± 1 nM
29 ± 2 nM
6
119 ± 9.8 μM
58 ± 4.5 μM
>100 μM
>100 μM
Apparent IC50 values
for in vitro inhibition of GBA1, GBA2, GAA, and GANAB.
Reported values are mean ± standard deviation from 3 technical
replicates.
Apparent IC50 values
for in vitro inhibition of GBA1, GBA2, GAA, and GANAB.
Reported values are mean ± standard deviation from 3 technical
replicates.We next determined
kinetic parameters of inhibition by 1–6 against recombinant human GBA1 and GAA, as
well as bacterial β-glucosidase TmGH1 (Table , Figure S3).[32] Epoxides 1 and 3 irreversibly inhibited GBA and GAA, with initial
binding constants (KI) of 9.2 μM
and 1.4 mM, and inactivation rate constants (kinact) of 0.7 and 0.5 min–1 respectively.
Consistent with their greater reactivity, aziridines 2 and 4 inhibited GBA and GAA considerably faster than
epoxides (full inhibition typically within 30 s at higher concentrations),
limiting us to measuring a combined kinact/KI ratio for these molecules.
Table 2
Kinetic Parameters of Compounds 1–6a
β-glucosidase
GBA1
α-glucosidase
GAA
compd
kinact (min–1)
KI
kinact/KI (min–1 mM–1)
kinact (min–1)
KI
kinact/KI (min–1 mM–1)
1
0.72
9.2 μM
77.7
>500 μM
2
nd
nd
19.0
9.6 μM*
3
>500 μM
0.52
1.4 mM
0.37
4
6.8 μM*
nd
nd
58.0
5
>500 μM
nd
nd
64.3
6
0.015
3.6 mM
4.3 × 10–3
>500 μM
Inactivation rates and inhibition
constants (kinact and KI) for human recombinant β-glucosidase GBA1 and
α-glucosidase GAA; nd, not determined due to fast inhibition;
*, reversible inhibition observed.
Inactivation rates and inhibition
constants (kinact and KI) for human recombinant β-glucosidase GBA1 and
α-glucosidase GAA; nd, not determined due to fast inhibition;
*, reversible inhibition observed.α-Cyclosulfate 5 displayed rapid
pseudo first
order inhibition kinetics against GAA (kinact/KI = 64 min–1 mM–1), comparable to 1,6-epi-cyclophellitol
aziridine 4 (Figure b,c, Table ), illustrating the potency of α-configured cyclosulfates
locked in a Michaelis complex conformation favoring nucleophilic interception.
Conversely, irreversible inhibition of GBA1 by 6 was
several orders of magnitude slower (KI = 3.6 mM; kinact = 0.015 min–1; kinact/KI = 4.33 × 10–3 min–1 mM–1), suggesting a limited ability of this molecule to
adopt the 1S3 conformation required for nucleophilic
attack and β-glucosidase reactivity. Comparison of KI values for 6 and 1 against
GBA1 also showed initial binding of 6 to the enzyme to
be substantially weaker compared to 1 (3.5 mM and 9 μM
respectively). These values are consistent with the tighter binding
affinities often displayed by TS shape analogues compared to molecules
locked into other conformations.Interestingly, while irreversible
inhibition by aziridines 2 and 4 was largely
specific toward α-
or β-glucosidases respectively, these molecules were also observed
to be less specific reversible inhibitors for glucosidases
of the opposite anomeric specificity (competitive inhibition of GAA
by 2, KI = 9.6 μM;
competitive inhibition of GBA1 by 4, KI = 6.8 μM; Table ). We reason that the common 4H3 transition state utilized by both α- and β-glucosidases
may allow these enzymes to bind aziridines of either “anomeric”
configuration. Thus, the conformational preference of cyclophellitol
cyclosulfates presents an advantage in specificity when compared to
aziridine type inhibitors, by virtue of mimicking a reactive conformation
receptive to nucleophilic attack, not shared between α- or β-glucosidases.
Structural Characterization of Enzyme–Cyclosulfate Interactions
Because of the key role of conformation in the contrasting inhibitory
potency of cyclophellitol cyclosulfates against α- vs β-glucosidases,
we set out to structurally characterize the conformational itinerary
of 5 and 6 when reacted with representative
bacterial glucosidases.Crystal structures of 5 in complex with the GH31 α-glucosidase/tranglycosidase CjAgd31B from Cellvibrio japonicus(10,31) were obtained by soaking crystals of wild type CjAgd31B with 5. We observed density for a covalent adduct
bound to the enzyme nucleophile (Asp412) corresponding to ring opened
cyclosulfate in a 1S3 conformation (Figure a), matching the
conformation previously observed for reacted aziridine 4,[10] as well as a complex of CjAgd31B reacted with 5-fluoro-α-glucosyl fluoride[31] (Figure b; PDB codes 5I24 and 4BA0 respectively).
Structures of unreacted 5 were also obtained in complex
with an inactive D412N nucleophile mutant of CjAgd31B.
Density for unreacted 5 in the CjAgd31B
active site matched a 4C1 conformation as predicted
by FEL calculations and NMR analysis (Figure a), demonstrating that 5 indeed
binds to α-glucosidases as a conformational Michaelis complex
analogue, allowing unimpeded access for in-line attack by the enzyme
nucleophile. Difference density in the active site of CjAgd31B D412N after soaking with 4 corresponded to an
unreacted cyclophellitol aziridine in 4H3 conformation
(Figure b), consistent
with this molecule acting as a TS shape mimic when unreacted.
Figure 4
Structures
of reacted 4 and 5 bound to
wild type CjAgd31B and reacted 6 bound
to wild type TxGH116. (a) Unreacted (left) and reacted
(right) 5 in complex with CjAgd31B D412N
nucleophile mutant and wt CjAgd31B respectively.
Unreacted 5 adopts a 4C1 ring conformation
in the active site of CjAgd31B, mimicking the Michaelis
complex conformation of GH31 α-glucosidase substrates. Reacted 5 adopts a 1S3 covalent intermediate
conformation. (b) Unreacted (left) and reacted (right) 4 in complex with CjAgd31B D412N nucleophile mutant
and wt CjAgd31B respectively. Unreacted 4 adopts a 4H3 TS conformation. Reacted 4 adopts the same 1S3 intermediate conformation
as observed for 5. (c) Unreacted (left) and reacted (right)
β-cyclosulfate 6 with TxGH116.
Unreacted 6 in complex with GH116 β-glucosidase TxGH116 adopts a 4C1 conformation
in the enzyme active site, which is poorly poised for attack by the
enzyme nucleophile Glu441, and thus reacts extremely slowly. (Two
conformations for the enzyme catalytic acid/base Asp593 can be seen
in this complex.) Reacted 6 can be observed after extended
soaking, and also adopts a 4C1 conformation,
covalently bound to the enzyme nucleophile. Electron density for protein
side chains is REFMAC maximum-likelihood/σA-weighted 2Fo – Fc contoured to 0.44–0.51 and 0.40–0.42
electron/Å3 for CjAgd31B and TxGH116 complexes, respectively. Electron density for ligand
is Fo – Fc maps calculated just prior to building in ligand, contoured
to 0.17–0.26 and 0.27–0.35 electron/Å3 for CjAgd31B and TxGH116 complexes,
respectively. nuc. = nucleophile; a./b. = acid/base.
Structures
of reacted 4 and 5 bound to
wild type CjAgd31B and reacted 6 bound
to wild type TxGH116. (a) Unreacted (left) and reacted
(right) 5 in complex with CjAgd31B D412N
nucleophile mutant and wt CjAgd31B respectively.
Unreacted 5 adopts a 4C1 ring conformation
in the active site of CjAgd31B, mimicking the Michaelis
complex conformation of GH31 α-glucosidase substrates. Reacted 5 adopts a 1S3 covalent intermediate
conformation. (b) Unreacted (left) and reacted (right) 4 in complex with CjAgd31B D412N nucleophile mutant
and wt CjAgd31B respectively. Unreacted 4 adopts a 4H3 TS conformation. Reacted 4 adopts the same 1S3 intermediate conformation
as observed for 5. (c) Unreacted (left) and reacted (right)
β-cyclosulfate 6 with TxGH116.
Unreacted 6 in complex with GH116 β-glucosidase TxGH116 adopts a 4C1 conformation
in the enzyme active site, which is poorly poised for attack by the
enzyme nucleophile Glu441, and thus reacts extremely slowly. (Two
conformations for the enzyme catalytic acid/base Asp593 can be seen
in this complex.) Reacted 6 can be observed after extended
soaking, and also adopts a 4C1 conformation,
covalently bound to the enzyme nucleophile. Electron density for protein
side chains is REFMAC maximum-likelihood/σA-weighted 2Fo – Fc contoured to 0.44–0.51 and 0.40–0.42
electron/Å3 for CjAgd31B and TxGH116 complexes, respectively. Electron density for ligand
is Fo – Fc maps calculated just prior to building in ligand, contoured
to 0.17–0.26 and 0.27–0.35 electron/Å3 for CjAgd31B and TxGH116 complexes,
respectively. nuc. = nucleophile; a./b. = acid/base.We then utilized the β-glucosidase from Thermoanaerobactrium
xylanolyticum TxGH116 for structural studies with 6. Due to its slow reactivity as an irreversible β-glucosidase
inhibitor, we were able to capture an unreacted complex of 6 with crystals of wild type TxGH116 by utilizing
shorter ligand soaking times. After 10–20 min soaks, a single
molecule of unreacted 6 was observed within the active
site of TxGH116, adopting a 4C1 conformation in line with FEL calculations and NMR spectra. This 4C1 conformation renders the equatorial C1–O
bond of 6 poorly poised for in-line attack by the enzyme
nucleophile Glu441, thus providing a structural rationale for the
slow reactivity of this inhibitor against β-glucosidases. Extended
ligand soaking times (∼24 h) were required to produce a reacted
covalent complex of 6 with TxGH116.
Reacted 6 was observed bound to the TxGH116 catalytic nucleophile (Glu540) in a 4C1 covalent intermediate conformation, consistent with the typical
retaining β-glucosidase conformational itinerary utilized by
this enzyme and matching the 4C1 conformation
previously observed for reacted 2-deoxy-2-fluoroglucoside (PDB code 5BX2).We also
investigated the structural basis for “off-target”
inhibition by cyclophellitol aziridines, which we had observed to
competitively inhibit glucosidases of “opposing” anomeric
specificity. A crystal structure of 2 in complex with CjAgd31B showed a single molecule of inhibitor occupying
the enzyme active site, with the aziridine nitrogen H-bonding to the
catalytic nucleophile carboxylate (∼2.6 Å between aziridine
N and Asp O Oδ; Figure S5). The presence
of an unreacted aziridine between the nucleophile and the plane of
the cyclitol ring induces an E3 conformation for the inhibitor,
rather than the 4H3 observed for an unreacted
“correct” aziridine (Figure b). It is likely that the competitive inhibition
of α-glucosidases by 4 is based around a similar
interaction between the unreacted aziridine nitrogen and catalytic
nucleophile.
Competitive ABPP of α-Glucosidases
by Cyclosulfate 5
To assess the utility of cyclosulfates
as enzyme
inhibitors in complex biological samples, we examined the activity
and selectivity of α-cyclosulfate 5 by competitive
activity-based protein profiling (ABBP), against 13(10) (Figure S1), a fluorescent
retaining α-glucosidase aziridine probe which labels GAA at
pH 4 (isoforms at 70 and 76 kDa) and both isoforms of GANAB (∼100
kDa) at pH 7.We first preincubated fibroblast lysates with
varying concentrations (1, 0.3, 0.1, and 0.03 μM) of 5 for 15, 30, or 60 min at pH 4 or pH 7, and subsequently labeled
with 13 (1 μM) for 30 min. SDS–PAGE followed
by fluorescence scanning showed time dependent inhibition of both
GAA and GANAB by 5 at pH 4 and 7 respectively (Figure a). Competitive ABPP
in GBA2 and GBA3 overexpressing HEK293T lysates (GBA2+ and GBA3+)
against β-glucosidase probe 14 (Figure S1) showed no inhibition of retaining β-glucosidases
by 5, demonstrating the high selectivity of this inhibitor
class (Figure S5).
Figure 5
In vitro and in situ inhibition
of GAA and GANAB. (a) 5 inhibits labeling of GAA and
GANAB by fluorescent ABP 13 in fibroblast lysates in
a concentration and time dependent manner. (b) 5 inhibits
labeling of several α-glucosidases in mouse intestine lysate
by 13. Sucrase-isomaltase (Sis), maltase-glucoamylase
(MGAM), GAA, and GANAB are labeled by 13, as well as
some off-target β-glucosidase labeling (LPH and GBA). α-Glucosidase
labeling can be abrogated by preincubation with 5, while
β-glucosidase labeling persists, demonstrating the superior
selectivity of 5 compared to 13. (c) In situ inhibition of GAA and GANAB in fibroblasts at pH
4.0 and 7.0 respectively by 5 at incubation times of
2 and 24 h, followed by labeling of GAA and GANAB by cyclophellitol
aziridine Cy5 probe 13. (d) Apparent IC50s
for in situ inhibition of GAA and GANAB enzyme activity
by 5. Reported IC50s are mean ± standard
deviation from two biological replicates, each with three technical
replicates.
In vitro and in situ inhibition
of GAA and GANAB. (a) 5 inhibits labeling of GAA and
GANAB by fluorescent ABP 13 in fibroblast lysates in
a concentration and time dependent manner. (b) 5 inhibits
labeling of several α-glucosidases in mouse intestine lysate
by 13. Sucrase-isomaltase (Sis), maltase-glucoamylase
(MGAM), GAA, and GANAB are labeled by 13, as well as
some off-target β-glucosidase labeling (LPH and GBA). α-Glucosidase
labeling can be abrogated by preincubation with 5, while
β-glucosidase labeling persists, demonstrating the superior
selectivity of 5 compared to 13. (c) In situ inhibition of GAA and GANAB in fibroblasts at pH
4.0 and 7.0 respectively by 5 at incubation times of
2 and 24 h, followed by labeling of GAA and GANAB by cyclophellitol
aziridine Cy5 probe 13. (d) Apparent IC50s
for in situ inhibition of GAA and GANAB enzyme activity
by 5. Reported IC50s are mean ± standard
deviation from two biological replicates, each with three technical
replicates.Acarbose, miglitol, and
voglibose are α-glucosidase inhibitors
(AGIs) widely used in diabetes mellitus type II patients. These inhibitors
delay the absorption of carbohydrates, decrease postprandial hyperglycemia
and hyperinsulinemia, and thus improve insulin sensitivity and release
stress on beta cells.[33−35] Prompted by the potential of AGIs as leads for diabetes
mellitus type II drug development, we investigated the inhibition
of a group of key metabolic α-glucosidases in murine gastrointestinal
tract tissues using competitive ABPP. Our studies showed that, in
addition to GAA and GANAB, 5 inhibited two α-glucosidases
expressed specifically in intestinal tissue: sucrase-isomaltase (SIS)
and maltase-glycoamylase (MGAM) (Figure b). Significantly, β-glucosidases lactase-phlorizin
hydrolase (LPH) and GBA1, which are labeled in an off-target fashion
by 13, are not outcompeted by preincubation with 5, clearly demonstrating superior selectivity of cyclosulfate
inhibitors compared to aziridines.Lastly, we investigated whether
α-cyclosulfate 5 is able to cross the cell membrane.
Human fibroblasts were exposed
to varying concentrations (10, 1, 0.1, 0.01, 0.001, and 0 μM)
of 5 for 2 and 24 h, followed by extensive washing and
lysate preparation. Lysates were incubated with 13 (0.5
μM) for 30 min and then separated by SDS–PAGE, followed
by fluorescence scanning. Time dependent abrogation of ABP 13 fluorescence was observed, illustrating that 5 could
cross the cell membrane to act in situ as α-glucosidase
inhibitor (Figure c). Loss of ABP labeling was also accompanied by a corresponding
loss of α-glucosidase enzymatic activity in harvested fibroblast
lysates. Activity assays utilizing 4-methylumbelliferyl-α-glucose
suggested robust in situ inhibition of both GAA and
GANAB by 5, with IC50s of 3.0 and 1.6 μM
respectively (Figure d).
Conclusion
In this study, we have presented a new class
of irreversible glycosidase
inhibitors: cyclophellitol cyclosulfates. We have shown that their
irreversible action is specific for α- and β-glucosidases
in a manner reflecting both the “anomeric” stereochemistry
of the cyclophellitol cyclosulfates and the conformational itinerary
of the target enzyme.We have demonstrated, through ab initio metadynamics
approaches and 3-D structures of enzyme ligand complexes, that unreacted
α-cyclosulfate 5 favors a 4C1 “Michaelis complex like” conformation which is perfectly
poised for nucleophilic attack by α-glucosidases utilizing a 4C1 → 4H3 → 1S3 glycosylation itinerary. Thus, 5 is a nanomolar mechanism-based retaining α-glucosidase inactivator,
which follows pseudo first order kinetics, and displays superior selectivity
compared to existing mechanism-based inhibitors due to its unique
conformational behavior. We have also shown that 5 inhibits
the intestinal retaining α-glucosidases SIS, MGAM, GAA, and
GANAB, without affecting β-glucosidases intestinal LPH or GBA1.
Thus, 5, which is also able to cross the cell membrane,
may be a good starting point for the development of agents for the
treatment of type II diabetes.β-Cyclosulfate 6 also adopts a 4C1 conformation in its unreacted
state, which does not match
the 1S3 conformation of typical β-glucosidase
Michaelis complexes. When applied to retaining β-glucosidases
following a 1S3 → 4H3 → 4C1 conformational itinerary, 6 reacts extremely slowly compared to its congener 5.FEL calculations show that the ground state conformation
of 6 is centered around 4C1, a
conformation
with an equatorial C1–O bond that precludes in-line attack
from the nucleophile. Crystal structures of unreacted 6 in complex with β-glucosidase TxGH116 show
that the β-cyclosulfate continues to adopt this 4C1 conformation even within the enzyme active site. However,
FEL calculations also suggest that it is energetically possible for 6 to access a TS-like 4H3 conformation.
Transient sampling of this TS conformation may allow for occasional
reaction of 6 with β-glucosidases, as the cyclosulfate
adopts a conformation better suited to nucleophilic attack by the
enzyme. However, the slow rate of irreversible inhibition observed
for 6 suggests that its predominant conformation within
the enzyme active site is one where nucleophilic attack from the enzyme
is disfavored.The last 10–20 years have provided us
a deep appreciation
of reaction coordinates of diverse glycosidases.[6,7,10,36] This conformational
canvas inspires the design and application of chemical species to
mimic specific species along the reaction coordinate. Much existing
work has focused on the design of noncovalent transition state mimics,
or conformationally restricted species that mimic a species along
only certain reaction trajectories, such as the specific inhibition
of GH47 α-mannosidases by kifunensine.[37,38] Recent years have, however, seen a resurgence in the development
of irreversible enzyme inhibitors as clinical probes and diagnostics.[10,11,16,39] With such applications in mind, the development of conformationally
restrained irreversible inhibitors primed for nucleophilic attack
through mimicry of the Michaelis complex, coupled to more electrophilic
reaction centers, inspires creation of conceptually new, potent and
selective glycosidase inhibitors. We envision that our design strategy
will also be applied for other glycosidases, both those following
a similar 4C1 → 4H3 → 1S3 conformational itinerary and
those following other conformational trajectories, guided by the conformational
preference of the reaction pathway.
Materials and Methods
All chemicals were obtained from Sigma-Aldrich, unless otherwise
stated. Pompe disease fibroblasts, HEK293T cells (ATCC-CRL-3216),
and normal fibroblast cell lines were obtained from the American Type
Culture Collection (ATCC) and transfected for GBA2 and GBA3 overexpression
(Supporting Information). Cell lines were
cultured in DMEM/F-12 (Ham) medium (Invitrogen) supplemented with
10% (v/v) fetal calf serum (FCS; Sigma) and 1% penicillin/streptomycin
(Sigma). Mouse tissues were isolated according to guidelines approved
by the ethical committee of Leiden University (DEC#13191). Human recombinant
enzymes rGBA1 (Cerezyme) and rGAA (Myozyme) were donated by Genzyme,
GBA2 was overexpressed in HEK293T lysates, and GANAB was obtained
from fibroblasts of Pompe patients diagnosed on the basis of absence
of GAA (Supporting Information). Bacterial
enzymes TmGH1,[29]TxGH116,[30] and CjAgd31B[31] were expressed as previously
described. All cell or tissue lysates were prepared in KPI buffer
(25 mM potassium phosphate pH 6.5, supplemented with protease inhibitor
1× cocktail (Roche)) via homogenization on ice with SilentCrusher
S equipped with Typ 7 F/S head (30 × 1000 rpm, 3 × 7 s).
Lysate protein concentrations were determined with BCA Protein Assay
Kit (Pierce). Lysates and proteins were stored in small aliquots at
−80 °C until use.
IC50 and Inhibition Kinetics Determination
Detailed protocols for IC50 and inhibition kinetics
measurements
can be found in the Supporting Information.In brief, apparent IC50 values were determined
by preincubating enzymes with a range of inhibitor concentrations
in a 25 μL volume for 30 min at 37 °C (for human enzymes)
or 25 °C (for bacterial enzymes). Following preincubation, 25
μL of the enzyme–inhibitor mixture was transferred into
100 μL of the appropriate 4-MU–Glc substrate mixture
to determine residual activity. Reactions were quenched with 1 M NaOH–glycine
(pH 10.3) upon completion, and 4-MU fluorescence was measured with
a LS55 fluorescence spectrophotometer (PerkinElmer) (λEX 366 nm; λEM 445 nm). IC50 values reported
are the mean values from three technical replicates.In situ IC50 values were determined
by incubating normal human dermal fibroblasts (grown to confluency)
with 5 for 2 and 24 h. Cells were washed three times
with PBS and harvested by scraping into KPI buffer supplemented with
0.1% (v/v) Triton X-100 and 1× cOmplete protease inhibitor cocktail
(Roche). Residual GAA and GANAB activity was measured on the basis
of hydrolysis of 4-MU−α-Glc at pH 4 or 7. In
situ IC50 values are mean values from two biological
replicates, each with 3 technical repeats (Figure d).For kinetics, enzyme and relevant
concentrations of inhibitor were
preincubated for 0.5, 2, 3.5, 5, and 8 min for fast inhibitors and
0.5, 20, 60, 120, 180, 240, and 360 min for slow inhibitors. At relevant
time points, 5 μL of this enzyme–inhibitor mixture was
added to 2,4-DNP–Glc substrate, and release of 2,4-dinitrophenolate
was monitored via absorbance at 400 nm to determine the rate of hydrolysis
after inhibition (V) compared to a no inhibitor control
(V0).Pseudo first order rate constants
(kobs) were obtained from a linear fit
of −ln V/V0 against
time for each value of [I].
A plot of kobs against [I] fitted to the
hyperbolic equation kobs = (kinact[I]/KI + [I]) was used
to determine kinact and KI. Where fast inhibition was observed (>50% after 30
s),
the kinact/KI ratio was determined at low values of [I] (≪KI), using the approximation kobs ≈ kinact[I]/KI, where kinact/KI is the slope of a linear fit of kobs vs [I]. Where reversible inhibition was observed (no variation
of −ln V/V0 with
time), KI was determined
by use of Lineweaver–Burk plots at different values of [I].
Time and Concentration Dependent in Vitro Inhibition
of GAA and GANAB
Homogenates of human normal dermal fibroblast
(17.6 μg total protein) were preincubated on ice for 5 min in
150 mM McIlvaine buffer pH 4 or 7 in a total volume of 10 μL.
Samples were then incubated for 15, 30, and 60 min at 37 °C with
2.5 μL inhibitor dilutions in McIlvaine buffer pH 4 or 7 to
obtain a final concentration of 5, 1.5, 0.5, 0.15, and 0 μM.
Afterward, the samples were further incubated with 2.5 μL of
ABP 13 (1 μM), diluted in McIlvaine buffer pH 4
or 7 for 30 min at 37 °C. Finally, samples were denatured with
5 μL of 4× Laemmli sample buffer for 5 min at 98 °C,
and resolved by 10% (w/v) SDS–PAGE. Wet slab gels were subjected
to Cy5 fluorescence scaning (Typhoon FLA9500, GE, λEX ≥ 635 nm, λEM ≥ 665 nm).
In
Vitro Inhibition of α-Glucosidases
in Mouse Gastrointestinal Lysate
Mixtures of mouse duodenum,
jejunum, and ileum homogenates containing 40 μg total protein
were incubated on ice for 5 min with McIlvaine buffer at pH 4 or 7,
in a total volume of 10 μL. Samples were subsequently incubated
with 2.5 μL of 5 for 1 h at 37 °C at various
inhibitor dilutions in McIlvaine buffer at pH 4.0 or 7.0 to obtain
a final concentration of 150, 50, 15, 5, 1.5, 0.5, 0.15, 0.05, 0.015,
0.005, and 0 μM. Then, the samples were further incubated with
2.5 μL of 13 (6 μM, diluted in McIlvaine
buffer at pH 4.0 or 7.0) for 30 min at 37 °C. Samples were denatured
by boiling with 3.75 μL of 4× Laemmli sample buffer for
5 min, and resolved by 10% (w/v) SDS–PAGE. Wet slab gels were
subjected to Cy5 fluorescence scanning (Typhoon FLA9500, GE, λEX ≥ 635 nm, λEM ≥ 665 nm).
In Situ inhibition of GAA and GANAB
Human
normal dermal fibroblasts were grown to confluence and in
situ treated with inhibitor 5 at various
concentrations (10, 1, 0.1, 0.01, 0.001, and 0 μM) in duplicates
for 2 or 24 h. Cells were harvested by first washing three times with
PBS and subsequently lysed with KPI buffer (25 mM K2HPO4/KH2PO4, pH 6.5, 0.1% (v/v) Triton X-100,
protease inhibitor cocktail (Roche)) on ice for 30 min. Homogenates
were collected by scraping, vortexed, and stored at −80 °C.
Lysates containing 4 μg total protein were equilibrated to pH
4 or 7 in 150 mM McIlvaine buffer for 5 min on ice, and incubated
with probe 13 (0.5 μM) for 30 min at 37 °C
at either pH 4 or 7 in a total volume of 15 μL. Samples were
denatured, resolved by SDS–PAGE, and subjected to fluorescent
scan (Typhoon FLA9500, GE, λEX ≥ 635 nm, λEM ≥ 665 nm)
Authors: Tracey M Gloster; Peter Meloncelli; Robert V Stick; David Zechel; Andrea Vasella; Gideon J Davies Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2007-02-06 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Floris A van de Laar; Peter L Lucassen; Reinier P Akkermans; Eloy H van de Lisdonk; Guy E Rutten; Chris van Weel Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Casper de Boer; Nicholas G S McGregor; Evert Peterse; Sybrin P Schröder; Bogdan I Florea; Jianbing Jiang; Jos Reijngoud; Arthur F J Ram; Gilles P van Wezel; Gijsbert A van der Marel; Jeroen D C Codée; Herman S Overkleeft; Gideon J Davies Journal: RSC Chem Biol Date: 2020-07-28
Authors: Fredj Ben Bdira; Marta Artola; Herman S Overkleeft; Marcellus Ubbink; Johannes M F G Aerts Journal: J Lipid Res Date: 2018-10-02 Impact factor: 5.922
Authors: Amjad M Husaini; Kyoko Morimoto; Balakumaran Chandrasekar; Steven Kelly; Farnusch Kaschani; Daniel Palmero; Jianbing Jiang; Markus Kaiser; Oussama Ahrazem; Hermen S Overkleeft; Renier A L van der Hoorn Journal: Plant Physiol Date: 2018-03-19 Impact factor: 8.340
Authors: Marina A Woeste; Sina Stern; Diana N Raju; Elena Grahn; Dominik Dittmann; Katharina Gutbrod; Peter Dörmann; Jan N Hansen; Sophie Schonauer; Carina E Marx; Hussein Hamzeh; Heinz G Körschen; Johannes M F G Aerts; Wolfgang Bönigk; Heike Endepols; Roger Sandhoff; Matthias Geyer; Thomas K Berger; Frank Bradke; Dagmar Wachten Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2019-01-20 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Lina Irsheid; Thomas Wehler; Christoph Borek; Werner Kiefer; Ruth Brenk; Maria Elena Ortiz-Soto; Jürgen Seibel; Tanja Schirmeister Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-05-08 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Sybrin P Schröder; Liang Wu; Marta Artola; Thomas Hansen; Wendy A Offen; Maria J Ferraz; Kah-Yee Li; Johannes M F G Aerts; Gijsbert A van der Marel; Jeroen D C Codée; Gideon J Davies; Herman S Overkleeft Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2018-04-04 Impact factor: 15.419