Endocannabinoids, an important class of signaling lipids involved in health and disease, are predominantly synthesized and metabolized by enzymes of the serine hydrolase superfamily. Activity-based protein profiling (ABPP) using fluorescent probes, such as fluorophosphonate (FP)-TAMRA and β-lactone-based MB064, enables drug discovery activities for serine hydrolases. FP-TAMRA and MB064 have distinct, albeit partially overlapping, target profiles but cannot be used in conjunction due to overlapping excitation/emission spectra. We therefore synthesized a novel FP-probe with a green BODIPY as a fluorescent tag and studied its labeling profile in mouse proteomes. Surprisingly, we found that the reporter tag plays an important role in the binding potency and selectivity of the probe. A multiplexed ABPP assay was developed in which a probe cocktail of FP-BODIPY and MB064 visualized most endocannabinoid serine hydrolases in mouse brain proteomes in a single experiment. The multiplexed ABPP assay was employed to profile endocannabinoid hydrolase inhibitor activity and selectivity in the mouse brain.
Endocannabinoids, an important class of signaling lipids involved in health and disease, are predominantly synthesized and metabolized by enzymes of the serine hydrolase superfamily. Activity-based protein profiling (ABPP) using fluorescent probes, such as fluorophosphonate (FP)-TAMRA and β-lactone-based MB064, enables drug discovery activities for serine hydrolases. FP-TAMRA and MB064 have distinct, albeit partially overlapping, target profiles but cannot be used in conjunction due to overlapping excitation/emission spectra. We therefore synthesized a novel FP-probe with a green BODIPY as a fluorescent tag and studied its labeling profile in mouse proteomes. Surprisingly, we found that the reporter tag plays an important role in the binding potency and selectivity of the probe. A multiplexed ABPP assay was developed in which a probe cocktail of FP-BODIPY and MB064 visualized most endocannabinoidserine hydrolases in mouse brain proteomes in a single experiment. The multiplexed ABPP assay was employed to profile endocannabinoid hydrolase inhibitor activity and selectivity in the mouse brain.
The endocannabinoid
system (ECS)
influences many physiological processes in the human body, including
food intake, energy balance, motor coordination, pain sensation, memory
formation, and anxiety.[1,2] The ECS has, therefore, been under
active investigation for therapeutic exploitation.[3,4] There
are two main cannabinoid receptors, CB1R and CB2R, which belong to the family of G-protein coupled receptors. They
are activated by two endogenous ligands, i.e., anandamide
(AEA) and 2-arachidonoyl glycerol (2-AG).[5,6] The
production and degradation of these endocannabinoids is mainly performed
by serine hydrolases (Figure A). Diacylglycerollipase α and β (DAGL-α
and -β) are the main enzymes responsible for the biosynthesis
of 2-AG through the hydrolysis of diacylglycerol (DAG).[7−9] Monoacylglycerol lipase (MAGL) and α,β-hydrolase-domain
containing enzymes 6 and 12 (ABHD6 and ABHD12) account for 99% of
the 2-AG hydrolysis to arachidonic acid (AA) and glycerol in the brain.[10,11] The Ca2+-dependent biosynthesis of endogenous AEA is
mediated by the subsequent actions of PLA2G4E[12] and N-acylphosphatidylethanolamine-phospholipase
D (NAPE-PLD) or ABHD4,[13] although other
biosynthetic pathways have also been uncovered.[3,4,14] Fatty acidamide hydrolase (FAAH) is the
key enzyme for the hydrolysis of AEA to AA.[15,16] Inhibitors of these enzymes are crucial to investigating the biological
role of the hydrolases and may serve as drug candidates to modulate
the endocannabinoid levels in human disease.
Figure 1
Endocannabinoid system,
activity-based probes, and the labeling
profiles of FP-TAMRA (1) and FP-BODIPY (3). (A) Schematic overview of the main biosynthetic pathways within
the endocannabinoid system. All enzymes except NAPE-PLD belong to
the serine hydrolase protein family. PC, phosphatidylcholine; PE,
phosphatidylethanolamine; DAG, diacylglycerol; NAPE, N-acylphosphatidylethanolamine; AA, arachidonic acid; PLA2G4E, phospholipase
A2 group IVE; DAGL, diacylglycerol lipase; NAPE-PLD, N-acylphosphatidylethanolamine phospholipase D; MAGL, monoacylglycerol
lipase; ABHD, α,β-hydrolase-domain containing enzyme;
FAAH, fatty acid amide hydrolase. (B) Chemical structures of the four
activity-based probes used in this study. (C) Direct comparison of
FP-TAMRA (1) and FP-BODIPY (3) labeling
patterns of seven mouse tissue lysates.
Endocannabinoid system,
activity-based probes, and the labeling
profiles of FP-TAMRA (1) and FP-BODIPY (3). (A) Schematic overview of the main biosynthetic pathways within
the endocannabinoid system. All enzymes except NAPE-PLD belong to
the serine hydrolase protein family. PC, phosphatidylcholine; PE,
phosphatidylethanolamine; DAG, diacylglycerol; NAPE, N-acylphosphatidylethanolamine; AA, arachidonic acid; PLA2G4E, phospholipase
A2 group IVE; DAGL, diacylglycerollipase; NAPE-PLD, N-acylphosphatidylethanolamine phospholipase D; MAGL, monoacylglycerol
lipase; ABHD, α,β-hydrolase-domain containing enzyme;
FAAH, fatty acidamide hydrolase. (B) Chemical structures of the four
activity-based probes used in this study. (C) Direct comparison of
FP-TAMRA (1) and FP-BODIPY (3) labeling
patterns of seven mouse tissue lysates.All endocannabinoid hydrolases except NAPE-PLD belong to
the family
of serine hydrolases, which consists of over 200 proteins that use
a nucleophilic serine to hydrolyze ester-, amide-, or thioesterbonds
in small molecules and proteins via a covalent acyl-protein intermediate.[17,18] This mode of action is exploited in activity-based protein profiling
(ABPP).[19,20] Herein, a chemical probe, typically consisting
of a reactive “warhead” and a reporter tag, reacts with
the catalytically active nucleophilic serine. The reporter tag can
be either a fluorophore to visualize the probe-protein adduct by SDS-PAGE
and fluorescence scanning[21] or a biotin
group to enrich proteins from proteomes for identification by LC-MS/MS[22] or visualization by Western blotting.[23] ABPP is used in drug discovery to efficiently
profile activity and selectivity of inhibitors over a protein family
in native biological samples.The archetypical activity-based
probe (ABP) for serine hydrolases
is the fluorophosphonate (FP) probe (FP-TAMRA (1), Figure B), which was introduced
by Liu et al. almost 20 years ago.[23] This
probe is widely used to study serine hydrolases in complex proteomes.[24,25] Although the FP-based probes are known for their broad reactivity,
they do not react with all serine hydrolases.[20] Most notably, DAGL-α is among the enzymes which cannot be
visualized by FP-based ABPs.[26] To study
DAGL-α, MB064 (2, Figure B), a tailored chemical probe with a BODIPY-TMR
as a fluorophore, was developed.[27] In terms
of experimental efficiency with respect to time, cost of reagents,
and use of valuable biological samples, it would be optimal to combine
the commercially available FP-TAMRA (ActivX) and MB064 in the same
experiment. However, MB064 cannot be applied in conjunction with FP-TAMRA
(1), because the excitation/emission spectra of their
fluorophores overlap. Therefore, the aim of the current study was
to synthesize, characterize, and apply a new FP-based probe (3) with a different reporter tag (BODIPY-FL) that is compatible
with MB064. Such a multiplexed assay, using different activity-based
probes, has been shown to work for other enzyme classes in the past.[21,28,29] Here, a multiplexed ABPP assay
with ABP (3) and MB064 was developed and used to study
endocannabinoid hydrolase activity and to profile inhibitors on activity
and selectivity in mouse brain proteomes.
Results and Discussion
FP-BODIPY probe (3) was synthesized using a previously
described method (Scheme S1).[30] In addition, commercially available FP-TAMRA
(probe 1) and control compound FP-TAMRA (4), containing the same linker as 3, were synthesized
using similar procedures (Schemes S2 and S3, respectively).To obtain a broad view of serine hydrolase
labeling by the FP probes
in various tissues, we first incubated FP-TAMRA (1) and
FP-BODIPY (3) with membrane and cytosol fractions of
a panel of seven mouse tissues (brain, testes, kidney, spleen, heart,
liver, and pancreas) at a concentration of 500 nM (Figure C). The proteins were resolved
using SDS-PAGE, and probe-labeled proteins were visualized by fluorescent
scanning of the gel. The overall labeling profile in the various proteomes
was comparable between probes 1 and 3, but
several differences were observed, denoted with boxes. In the brain,
for example, membrane proteome FP-BODIPY (3) labeled
additional targets, including in the top left box DAGL-α, the
identity of which was confirmed by competition with LEI104 (Figure S1).Brain lysates were selected
for further profiling of probes 1 and 3,
as well as control probe 4, because the brain is the
most studied target organ of the ECS.
In an initial screen, the three ABPs were incubated with both brain
membrane and soluble proteomes (Figure A, Supporting Information). While the labeling profile in the soluble proteome was not significantly
different between the three probes, FP-BODIPY (3) labeled
various proteins at lower concentrations in the membrane proteome.
To determine the half-maximum effect (EC50) values of serine
hydrolase labeling in the membrane proteome, the probes were dosed
at a wide range of concentrations (10 pM to 10 μM), and the
fluorescent signal of 18 distinct bands was quantified and corrected
for protein loading by coomassie staining (Figures S2 and S3). To study the effect of fluorophore and linker length
on serine hydrolase labeling by FP probes in the mouse brain membrane
proteome, the change in pEC50 of ABP 3 and 4 relative to ABP 1 was calculated (Figure B and Table S1). The increased linker length did not
significantly alter the labeling efficiency for FP-TAMRA for most
proteins, except for FAAH (left plot, Figure C), whereas the change in fluorophore led
to a 10-fold increased potency in labeling for several proteins (bands:
3, 8, and 18). Of note, FAAH labeling was already visualized at 10
nM FP-BODIPY 3 and DAGL-α (band 3) at 500 nM (Figure C, A, respectively).
The third plot in Figure B, comparing probes 3 and 4, which
only differ in reporter tag, shows that almost all the difference
between the commercial FP-TAMRA probe 1 and the newly
synthesized FP-BODIPY probe 3 observed in the central
plot is due to the change in fluorophore. The most likely explanation
for the observed potency increase when changing from TAMRA to BODIPY-FP
is the strong increase in lipophilicity. The CLogP of BODIPY-FL is
3.7 points higher than that of TAMRA, which would make it more favorable
to stick to proteins and membranes, causing a higher local concentration
and thus better labeling. This explanation is in line with the observation
that the strongest differences are observed in the membrane fractions
and, between organs, in the brain. Finally, the impact of the addition
of a reporter tag was visualized by preincubation with “dark”
alkyne-FP (5; Figure S4).
This competitive labeling shows that alkyne-FP only completely prevented
labeling by the fluorescent probes at 5–10 μM, demonstrating
the significantly reduced affinity of the fluorophosphonate inhibitor
when lacking the reporter tag. All together, these data demonstrate
that the choice of fluorophore influences the labeling efficiency
of FP-based probes.
Figure 2
Concentration dependent labeling of probes 1, 3, and 4. (A) Four doses of the FP probes
label
the mouse brain proteome in a distinct pattern with different affinities.
(B) Quantified affinity differences among the evaluated FP probes
for the 18 bands denoted in A. A # indicates a pEC50 ≤
6 for one of the two probes, meaning that the difference is most likely
greater than the given value. A ∼ indicates a pEC50 ≤ 6 for both probes, meaning that both probes label these
proteins only at high concentrations. All quantifications assumed
100% labeling of protein at 10 μM probe. (C) Example of the
labeling pattern of band 8 (FAAH) and corresponding pEC50 curves and values.
Concentration dependent labeling of probes 1, 3, and 4. (A) Four doses of the FP probes
label
the mouse brain proteome in a distinct pattern with different affinities.
(B) Quantified affinity differences among the evaluated FP probes
for the 18 bands denoted in A. A # indicates a pEC50 ≤
6 for one of the two probes, meaning that the difference is most likely
greater than the given value. A ∼ indicates a pEC50 ≤ 6 for both probes, meaning that both probes label these
proteins only at high concentrations. All quantifications assumed
100% labeling of protein at 10 μM probe. (C) Example of the
labeling pattern of band 8 (FAAH) and corresponding pEC50 curves and values.Next, we tested whether the activity and selectivity profile
of
serine hydrolase inhibitors would be dependent on the reporter group
of the activity-based probe. To this end, we tested a covalent irreversible
FAAH inhibitor, PF-04457845,[31] and a reversible
inhibitor, LEI104,[27] in a competitive ABPP
setting using probe 1 (500 nM) and probe 3 (500 and 10 nM; Figure A). Importantly, the pIC50 values of both inhibitors
were not dependent on the fluorescent reporter group of the probe,
nor the probe concentration. This indicated that FP-BODIPY 3 can be used in a drug discovery setting to profile inhibitor activity
using ABPP.
Figure 3
Illustration of the applicability of the prepared probe cocktail.
(A) Dose response inhibition of FAAH using PF-04457845, covalent irreversible,
and LEI104, reversible, to test the dependency of the pIC50 determination on probe affinity and concentration. No statistical
significant differences have been found between the probe pairs (P > 0.05, two-sided Student’s t test).
(B) Seven inhibitors targeted for different endocannabinoid serine
hydrolases were shown to inhibit their specific targets using the
probe cocktail. (C) Dose response inhibition with LEI104 shows, in
one gel, the inhibition of DAGL-α and FAAH. Quantification shows
agreement of the pIC50 with literature values.
Illustration of the applicability of the prepared probe cocktail.
(A) Dose response inhibition of FAAH using PF-04457845, covalent irreversible,
and LEI104, reversible, to test the dependency of the pIC50 determination on probe affinity and concentration. No statistical
significant differences have been found between the probe pairs (P > 0.05, two-sided Student’s t test).
(B) Seven inhibitors targeted for different endocannabinoidserine
hydrolases were shown to inhibit their specific targets using the
probe cocktail. (C) Dose response inhibition with LEI104 shows, in
one gel, the inhibition of DAGL-α and FAAH. Quantification shows
agreement of the pIC50 with literature values.Having developed two complementary probes (FP-BODIPY
(3) and MB064) with different reporter groups and distinct
labeling
patterns, we tested whether they can be used in a multiplexed ABPP
assay to profile the activity and selectivity of compounds inhibiting
biosynthetic or metabolic enzymes of the ECS.[24,25,32] To this end, a cocktail of FP-BODIPY 3 (10 nM) and MB064 2 (250 nM) was incubated
with mouse brain membrane proteomes. This enabled the simultaneous
visualization and quantification of DAGL-α, DDHD2, ABHD16a,
FAAH, MAGL, ABHD6, and ABHD12 activities in a single experiment (Figure B). Bands were identified
based on previous studies.[27,33] PLA2G4E and ABHD4 can
be labeled by FP-BODIPY and MB064, respectively, but their endogenous
expression in the brain is too low to be visualized.[12] A panel of inhibitors consisting of JZL184 (MAGL),[34] DH376 (DAGL-α, ABHD6),[32] THL (DAGL-α, ABHD6, ABHD12, ABHD16a, DDHD2),[35] PF-04457845 (FAAH),[31] LEI104 (DAGL-α, FAAH),[27] and LEI105
(DAGL-α)[33] (Figure S5) was used to confirm the identity of each fluorescent
band (Figure B). As
a final validation, we confirmed that the inhibitory activity of LEI104
on DAGL-α and FAAH in this new multiplexed ABPP assay was in
line with previously reported data (Figure C).[27]The
validated assay was employed to study the selectivity and activity
of two MAGL inhibitors. First, we tested the recently published β-lactam
based MAGL inhibitor NF1819 (6; Figure A), which was active in several animal models
of multiple sclerosis, pain, and predator stress-induced long-term
anxiety.[36,37] The target-interaction profile of NF1819
(6) was compared to the experimental drug ABX-1431 (7), currently in phase 2 clinical trials for the treatment
of Tourette syndrome.[38−40] To this end, they were incubated at various concentrations
with mouse brain membrane proteome (Figure B, C and Figure S6). Inhibition of MAGL was confirmed with a pIC50 of 8.1
± 0.1 for 6 and 6.7 ± 0.1 for 7 (Figure D, F), in
accordance with previously published data.[36,38] Of note, for 6, various off-targets were observed,
including ABHD6, LYPLA, and an unidentified protein (Figure E). ABHD6 was inhibited at
equal potency, whereas LYPLA demonstrated a 50-fold lower potency.
FAAH labeling was only slightly reduced at concentrations >10 μM.
The target-interaction landscape of 7 is clean; even
at 10 μM, no clear off-targets were observed. The relatively
small selectivity window of 6 over ABHD6 should be taken
into account during the biological evaluations of this inhibitor as
it may contribute to the rise of 2-AG levels.
Figure 4
Off-target profiling
of β-lactam based MAGL inhibitor (6) and clinical
candidate ABX-1431 in mouse brain membrane
proteome. (A) Chemical structure of 6 and 7. (B) Dose response inhibition with 6 shows several
off-targets in the mouse brain membrane. (C) Dose response inhibition
with 7 shows selective MAGL inhibition in the mouse brain
membrane. (D) pIC50 curves and values of 6 against MAGL. (E) pIC50 curves and values of 6 against its off-targets. (F) pIC50 curves and values
of 7 against MAGL.
Off-target profiling
of β-lactam based MAGL inhibitor (6) and clinical
candidate ABX-1431 in mouse brain membrane
proteome. (A) Chemical structure of 6 and 7. (B) Dose response inhibition with 6 shows several
off-targets in the mouse brain membrane. (C) Dose response inhibition
with 7 shows selective MAGL inhibition in the mouse brain
membrane. (D) pIC50 curves and values of 6 against MAGL. (E) pIC50 curves and values of 6 against its off-targets. (F) pIC50 curves and values
of 7 against MAGL.In conclusion, FP-BODIPY (3) was synthesized
and characterized
as a new ABP, thereby we have extended the chemical toolbox to study
serine hydrolase activity in native biological samples. We emphasize
that the choice of fluorophore when designing ABPs can be of great
influence on labeling patterns, even for broadly reactive probes such
as fluorophosphonates. FP-BODIPY (3) in conjunction with
MB064 (2) was used to develop a multiplexed ABPP assay,
which was validated by profiling inhibitor activity and selectivity
on a broad range of endocannabinoid hydrolases in mouse brain tissue
in a single experiment. This multiplexed ABPP assay was applied to
investigate the specificity of a recently published in vivo active MAGL inhibitor and an experimental drug currently going through
clinical trials.
Authors: Gerjan de Bruin; Bo Tao Xin; Marianne Kraus; Mario van der Stelt; Gijsbert A van der Marel; Alexei F Kisselev; Christoph Driessen; Bogdan I Florea; Herman S Overkleeft Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2015-10-29 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Justin S Cisar; Olivia D Weber; Jason R Clapper; Jacqueline L Blankman; Cassandra L Henry; Gabriel M Simon; Jessica P Alexander; Todd K Jones; R Alan B Ezekowitz; Gary P O'Neill; Cheryl A Grice Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2018-08-23 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: Douglas S Johnson; Cory Stiff; Scott E Lazerwith; Suzanne R Kesten; Lorraine K Fay; Mark Morris; David Beidler; Marya B Liimatta; Sarah E Smith; David T Dudley; Nalini Sadagopan; Shobha N Bhattachar; Stephen J Kesten; Tyzoon K Nomanbhoy; Benjamin F Cravatt; Kay Ahn Journal: ACS Med Chem Lett Date: 2011-02-10 Impact factor: 4.345
Authors: Giulia Donvito; Sara R Nass; Jenny L Wilkerson; Zachary A Curry; Lesley D Schurman; Steven G Kinsey; Aron H Lichtman Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2017-08-31 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Marjolein Soethoudt; Sara C Stolze; Matthias V Westphal; Luuk van Stralen; Andrea Martella; Eva J van Rooden; Wolfgang Guba; Zoltan V Varga; Hui Deng; Sander I van Kasteren; Uwe Grether; Adriaan P IJzerman; Pal Pacher; Erick M Carreira; Herman S Overkleeft; Andreea Ioan-Facsinay; Laura H Heitman; Mario van der Stelt Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2018-02-16 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Annelot C M van Esbroeck; Zoltan V Varga; Xinyu Di; Eva J van Rooden; Viktória E Tóth; Zsófia Onódi; Mariusz Kuśmierczyk; Przemyslaw Leszek; Péter Ferdinandy; Thomas Hankemeier; Mario van der Stelt; Pál Pacher Journal: Pharmacol Res Date: 2019-11-30 Impact factor: 7.658
Authors: Vivian S Lin; Regan F Volk; Adrian J DeLeon; Lindsey N Anderson; Samuel O Purvine; Anil K Shukla; Hans C Bernstein; Jordan N Smith; Aaron T Wright Journal: Chem Res Toxicol Date: 2020-01-10 Impact factor: 3.973
Authors: Annelot C M van Esbroeck; Vasudev Kantae; Xinyu Di; Tom van der Wel; Hans den Dulk; Anna F Stevens; Simar Singh; Alexander T Bakker; Bogdan I Florea; Nephi Stella; Herman S Overkleeft; Thomas Hankemeier; Mario van der Stelt Journal: Front Mol Neurosci Date: 2019-11-26 Impact factor: 5.639
Authors: Jian Cao; Lisa M Boatner; Heta S Desai; Nikolas R Burton; Ernest Armenta; Neil J Chan; José O Castellón; Keriann M Backus Journal: Anal Chem Date: 2021-01-20 Impact factor: 6.986
Authors: Juan Zhou; Elliot D Mock; Karol Al Ayed; Xinyu Di; Vasudev Kantae; Lindsey Burggraaff; Anna F Stevens; Andrea Martella; Florian Mohr; Ming Jiang; Tom van der Wel; Tiemen J Wendel; Tim P Ofman; Yvonne Tran; Nicky de Koster; Gerard J P van Westen; Thomas Hankemeier; Mario van der Stelt Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2020-08-13 Impact factor: 7.446