Wei Li1, Casey M Stevens2, Amitkumar N Pandya3, Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz2, Pankaj Bhattarai3, Weiwei Tong1, Mercedes Gonzalez-Juarrero1, E Jeffrey North3, Helen I Zgurskaya2, Mary Jackson1. 1. Mycobacteria Research Laboratories, Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Pathology , Colorado State University , 1682 Campus Delivery , Fort Collins , Colorado 80523 , United States. 2. Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry , University of Oklahoma , 101 Stephenson Parkway , Norman , Oklahoma 73019 , United States. 3. School of Pharmacy & Health Professions, Department of Pharmacy Sciences , Creighton University , 2500 California Plaza , Omaha , Nebraska 68178 , United States.
Abstract
MmpL3, an essential transporter involved in the export of mycolic acids, is the proposed target of a number of antimycobacterial inhibitors under development. Whether MmpL3 serves as the direct target of these compounds, however, has been called into question after the discovery that some of them dissipated the proton motive force from which MmpL transporters derive their energy. Using a combination of in vitro and whole-cell-based approaches, we here provide evidence that five structurally distinct MmpL3 inhibitor series, three of which impact proton motive force in Mycobacterium tuberculosis, directly interact with MmpL3. Medium- to high-throughput assays based on these approaches were developed to facilitate the future screening and optimization of MmpL3 inhibitors. The promiscuity of MmpL3 as a drug target and the mechanisms through which missense mutations located in a transmembrane region of this transporter may confer cross-resistance to a variety of chemical scaffolds are discussed in light of the exquisite vulnerability of MmpL3, its apparent mechanisms of interaction with inhibitors, and evidence of conformational changes induced both by the inhibitors and one of the most commonly identified resistance mutations in MmpL3.
MmpL3, an essential transporter involved in the export of mycolic acids, is the proposed target of a number of antimycobacterial inhibitors under development. Whether MmpL3 serves as the direct target of these compounds, however, has been called into question after the discovery that some of them dissipated the proton motive force from which MmpL transporters derive their energy. Using a combination of in vitro and whole-cell-based approaches, we here provide evidence that five structurally distinct MmpL3 inhibitor series, three of which impact proton motive force in Mycobacterium tuberculosis, directly interact with MmpL3. Medium- to high-throughput assays based on these approaches were developed to facilitate the future screening and optimization of MmpL3 inhibitors. The promiscuity of MmpL3 as a drug target and the mechanisms through which missense mutations located in a transmembrane region of this transporter may confer cross-resistance to a variety of chemical scaffolds are discussed in light of the exquisite vulnerability of MmpL3, its apparent mechanisms of interaction with inhibitors, and evidence of conformational changes induced both by the inhibitors and one of the most commonly identified resistance mutations in MmpL3.
Entities:
Keywords:
MmpL3; drug development; mycolic acids; proton motive force; tuberculosis
The mycolic
acid transporter
MmpL3 has received much attention lately as the putative target of
multiple novel series of compounds with activity against Mycobacterium
tuberculosis (Mtb) or nontuberculous mycobacteria
(NTM). MmpL3 is required for the translocation of mycolic acids in
the form of trehalose monomycolates (TMM) from the cytoplasm to the
periplasmic space where mycolic acids can then be used in assembly
of the mycobacterial outer membrane.[1−4] The steep decrease in Mtb viability that follows the chemical or genetic inhibition of MmpL3 in vitro, inside macrophages, and in acute and chronic mouse
models of tuberculosis (TB) infection points to the exquisite vulnerability
of this transporter.[1−3,5−10] The potency that MmpL3 inhibitors display against multidrug resistant
(MDR) strains of Mtb and their synergistic interactions
with a number of anti-TB drugs and drug candidates[11,12] further highlight the potential that MmpL3 inhibitors have to reduce
the duration of TB and MDR-TB treatments. Accordingly, a number of
MmpL3 inhibitors are currently under development; among them, SQ109,[13] which has completed phase II efficacy studies
in TBpatients in Africa, and a number of indolecarboxamide- and tetrapyrazolopyrimidine-based
inhibitors selected on the basis of their mycobactericidal activity,
tolerability, favorable pharmacokinetic profiles and efficacy in acute
and chronic murine models of TB and NTM infections.[6−8,14−20] The lack of simple and relatively high-throughput assays to rapidly
screen optimized analogues of these compounds currently represents
an obstacle to their further development. The finding that some of
these inhibitors have more than one target in Mtb (including other targets in the mycolic acid biosynthetic pathway)[16,21] together with the observation that a subset of them may exert their
inhibitory effect on MmpL3 by dissipating the proton motive force
(PMF) from which MmpL transporters derive their energy[21−24] has further raised questions as to their direct or indirect mechanism
of inhibition of MmpL3. Recently, Xu and collaborators[25] provided evidence of a direct interaction between
MmpL3 and one of its inhibitors, known as BM212,[26] by showing that the [14C]-labeled inhibitor
bound to the purified MmpL3 protein from Mycobacterium smegmatis (Msmg). The same investigators developed a spheroplast-based
flippase assay for MmpL3.[25] Although informative
in that this assay provided the first direct evidence of the buildup
of TMM in the inner leaflet of the plasma membrane following MmpL3
inhibition, the rather cumbersome preparation of spheroplasts that
this assay requires and the fact that it does not readily distinguish
between direct and indirect mechanisms of inhibition of the transporter
limit its usefulness for compound screening.Because of the
growing interest in MmpL3 as the putative target
of multiple new small molecule inhibitors of Mtb and
NTM and the importance of understanding the mechanism of action of
these compounds to drive their optimization process, we here report
on the development of in vitro and whole-cell-based
assays enabling the identification of direct inhibitors of MmpL3 from Mtb and their use to validate the interaction of five of
the most studied series of inhibitors to date with the transporter.
Biolayer interferometry- and surface-plasmon-resonance-based assays
point to some inhibitors inducing conformational changes in MmpL3.
Limited proteolysis experiments further point to one of the most commonly
identified resistance mutations in MmpL3 causing conformational changes
in the protein, thereby providing a plausible mechanism through which
missense mutations may confer cross-resistance to a broad variety
of inhibitors. Finally, the disclosure of the crystal structure of
MmpL3 alone and in complex with SQ109, an adamantyl urea and indolecarboxamide,[27] while we were in the final stages of preparing
this manuscript largely confirms our conclusion of a common inhibitor
binding site located in the middle region of the transmembrane domain
of MmpL3[4] and provides a strong structural
rationale for the functionality of our assays.
Results
Cross-Resistance
between MmpL3 Inhibitors
Six representative
MmpL3 inhibitors were selected for the purpose of this study, including
the adamantyl ureaAU1235,[1] the 1,2-diamineSQ109,[2] the tetrahydropyrazolopyrimidineTHPP1,[8] the 1,5-diarylpyrroleBM212,[26] and the indolecarboxamidesNITD-304 and NITD-349[6] (Figure A). The first four compounds have previously been reported
to inhibit the transfer of mycolic acids to their cell envelope acceptors
in Mtb or M. bovis BCG.[1,2,8,16] That
NITD-304 and NITD-349 displayed the same expected property of MmpL3
inhibitors was verified by metabolic labeling of Mtb H37Rv with [1,2-14C]acetate upon treatment with increasing
concentrations of the two compounds (Figure S1).
Figure 1
Chemical structures of the six MmpL3 inhibitors (A) and four inhibitor
probes (B) used in this study..
Chemical structures of the six MmpL3 inhibitors (A) and four inhibitor
probes (B) used in this study..A number of mutations in mmpL3 were reported
to
increase the resistance of Mtb to one or more of
the compounds listed above. To rigorously compare the level of resistance
conferred by these mutations to each of the six compounds and more
precisely delineate the regions of MmpL3 associated with cross-resistance,
77 different variants of the Mtb mmpL3 gene (mmpL3tb), including variants harboring missense mutations
previously reported to confer resistance to the inhibitors listed
above, were expressed in the background of a Msmg mmpL3 deletion mutant (MsmgΔmmpL3), and the resulting recombinant strains were tested for MICs against
all six compounds. Of all the MmpL3tb variants tested, 11 increased
at least 4-fold the level of resistance of the recombinant strains
to one or more compounds. These variants are listed in Table . With few exceptions that are
described below, the variants conferred resistance to at least three
out of the six compounds indicative of extensive cross-resistance
between structurally unrelated chemotypes. The Q372R resistance mutation,
in contrast, was found to be specific to the NITD compounds, whereas
F644C specifically impacted susceptibility to SQ109 and THPP1, and
T311I impacted the MICs of only AU1235 and THPP1. BM212 was the compound
for which the fewest resistance mutations were found.
Table 1
Resistance Profile of Msmg
mmpL3 Mutants Rescued with Mutated Variants of mmpL3tba
MIC values are
in μg/mL.
Red boxes indicate an increase in MIC over MsmgΔmmpL3 expressing wild-type mmpL3tb of eightfold
or more; green indicates a fourfold increase in MIC. No color indicates
a maximum of twofold change in MIC, which is considered within the
experimental margin of error. The MICs of North 131 and North 132
against Msmg expressing WT mmpL3tb are 32 and 64 μg/mL, respectively.
MIC values are
in μg/mL.
Red boxes indicate an increase in MIC over MsmgΔmmpL3 expressing wild-type mmpL3tb of eightfold
or more; green indicates a fourfold increase in MIC. No color indicates
a maximum of twofold change in MIC, which is considered within the
experimental margin of error. The MICs of North 131 and North 132
against Msmg expressing WT mmpL3tb are 32 and 64 μg/mL, respectively.To gain further insight into the apparent lack of
specificity of
a number of resistance mutations, we modified the nature of the mutations
at positions L189, G253, S591, F644, and V684 of MmpL3tb so as to
change the size, polarity, and/or charge of these cross-resistance-associated
residues and analyzed how these changes affected the MICs of each
inhibitor. Interestingly, while amino acid changes introduced at positions
189, 591, and 644 of MmpL3tb restored the transporter’s susceptibility
to all inhibitor series, compound-specific susceptibility patterns
were observed in response to some of the mutations introduced at positions
253 (compare G253R and G253W) and 684 (compare V684W and V684I) (Table ). Of note is the
importance of a negative charge at position 253 (G253E) for resistance
to THPP1, SQ109, AU1235, and both indolecarboxamides, whereas a positive
charge at position 189 (L189R) appears to be needed for resistance
to the same inhibitors (Table ). These results provide support to the hypothesis that direct
and specific interactions between the inhibitors and the side chains
of some MmpL3 amino acid residues are critical to their activity.
Table 2
Effect of Modifying the Nature of
the Amino Acid Residue at Positions of MmpL3tb Associated with Cross-Resistance
on MICsa
Mutations in
bold letters correspond
to the original resistance mutations identified by whole genome sequencing
of spontaneous resistant mutants. They are identical to the resistance
mutations shown in Table and are referred to as the parent mutants. Other mutations
were generated for the purpose of this experiment and similarly expressed
in the background of MsmgΔmmpL3 as described under Methods. Mutations that
reverted the resistance phenotype of the parent mutants to at least
three inhibitor series are indicated in red font. Mutations that reverted
the resistance phenotype of the parent mutants to no more than one
or two inhibitors are indicated in green font. MIC values are in μg/mL.
CIP, ciprofloxacin (control drug).
Mutations in
bold letters correspond
to the original resistance mutations identified by whole genome sequencing
of spontaneous resistant mutants. They are identical to the resistance
mutations shown in Table and are referred to as the parent mutants. Other mutations
were generated for the purpose of this experiment and similarly expressed
in the background of MsmgΔmmpL3 as described under Methods. Mutations that
reverted the resistance phenotype of the parent mutants to at least
three inhibitor series are indicated in red font. Mutations that reverted
the resistance phenotype of the parent mutants to no more than one
or two inhibitors are indicated in green font. MIC values are in μg/mL.
CIP, ciprofloxacin (control drug).Consistent with earlier findings, all cross-resistance
mutations
mapped to the central region of transmembrane segments of MmpL3 (Figure S2) that are thought to be important
for proton translocation or proton-driven conformational changes in
the transporter.[4] Accordingly, the majority
of these mutations were found to negatively impact the transport activity
of MmpL3, as evidenced by the slower growth of the mutants on agar
medium and reduced rates of mycolic acid transfer to the cell wall
(Figure S3). That the resistance phenotype
associated with these mutations did not result from a significant
increase in the level of expression of mmpL3tb in
the mutants was verified by qRT-PCR (Figure S4).Collectively, our results support the hypothesis that MmpL3
inhibitors
interact directly and with a relative specificity to a common transmembrane
region of MmpL3tb that is critical to the activity of the transporter.
Synthesis of IC and Urea-Based Inhibitor Probes and Evidence
of Colocalization with MmpL3tb in Intact Cells
The finding
of what appeared to be a common inhibitor binding region in MmpL3tb
next prompted us to design fluorescent inhibitor probes targeted to
the same region of the transporter. Both adamantyl urea-based (North
132) and indolecarboxamide-based (North 100, North 114, North 131)
probes harboring either tetramethylrhodamine (TAMRA) or BODIPY FL
fluorophores (Figure B) were designed and synthesized as detailed in the Supplementary Methods. That all of the probes were on-target
and thus displayed the expected inhibitory effect on the transfer
of mycolic acids to trehalose dimycolate and arabinogalactan in intact MsmgΔmmpL3/pMVGH1-mmpL3tb cells was first verified by metabolic labeling with [1,2-14C]acetate (Figure S5). Importantly, the
same MmpL3tb mutations found to confer resistance to multiple series
of compounds also increased resistance to the inhibitor probes North
100 and/or North 114 (Table ), indicating that these probes should be able to effectively
compete with test inhibitors for the same binding region of MmpL3tb.
North 131 and North 132 had too high MICs against MsmgΔmmpL3 expressing wild-type mmpL3tb to be tested against the mutants (Table ).The TAMRA-labeled North 100 and
North 114 probes were incubated with the Msmg strainMsmgΔmmpL3/pMVGH1-mmpL3tb-GFP expressing MmpL3tb C-terminally fused to GFP. As reported previously,[28] the MmpL3tb-GFP fusion protein concentrated
at the old pole and septum of the cells with the greatest fluorescence
intensity mapping to the septum (Figure ). Fluorescence microscopic analyses of MsmgΔmmpL3/pMVGH1-mmpL3tb-GFP cells labeled with North 100 and North 114 clearly pointed to the
colocalization of the probes with MmpL3tb-GFP (Figure and Figure S6). In contrast, no colocalization was observed when a TAMRA-labeled
probe unrelated to MmpL3 inhibitors (TAMRA-mannose) was used (Figure S6).
Figure 2
Colocalization of North 100 with MmpL3tb-GFP
at the old poles and
septa of an M. smegmatis mmpL3 deletion mutant expressing
an mmpL3tb-gfp fusion.
Colocalization of North 100 with MmpL3tb-GFP
at the old poles and
septa of an M. smegmatis mmpL3 deletion mutant expressing
an mmpL3tb-gfp fusion.
Evidence of Inhibitor Probe Binding to MmpL3tb in Vitro and Development of a Competition Binding Assay
To directly
assess the ability of the fluorescent probes to interact with purified
MmpL3tb in vitro, the MmpL3tb and MmpL3tb-GFP proteins
that we purified from the Msmg strains MsmgΔmmpL3/pMVGH1-mmpL3tb and MsmgΔmmpL3/pMVGH1-mmpL3tb-gfp, respectively, were bound to polystyrene particles as described
in the Methods, and the particles were exposed
to various concentrations of North 100, North 114, and North 132 for
15 min at room temperature. Flow cytometry analysis of the MmpL3tb-
and MmpL3tb-GFP-coated particles revealed a concentration-dependent
binding of all probes to the particles (Figure A; Figure S7).
Negligible probe binding was observed in the absence of MmpL3tb or
MmpL3tb-GFP on the particles (i.e., both untreated particles and particles
treated with the mouse anti-His IgG antibody only) (data not shown),
on particles harboring the GFP protein alone, or when the TAMRA-mannose
probe was used (Figure A).
Figure 3
Evidence of inhibitor probe binding to purified MmpL3tb-GFP and
flow-cytometry-based competition binding assay using purified MmpL3tb-GFP.
(A) Comparative analysis of the binding of indolecarboxamide probes
to MmpL3tb-GFP bound to polystyrene particles. MmpL3tb-GFP-coated
beads were incubated for 15 min at room temperature with different
concentrations of North 100 and North 114. After three washes in PBS
pH 7.0–5% glycerol, the TAMRA mean fluorescence intensity (MFI)
of the beads was analyzed by flow cytometry. The histograms show the
absence of binding of the TAMRA-mannose probe to MmpL3tb-GFP-coated
beads, while North 100 and North 114 bind to particles coated with
different concentrations of MmpL3tb-GFP. The graph shows the concentration-dependent
binding of North 100 and North 114 to particles coated with MmpL3tb-GFP;
no binding is observed on particles coated with GFP alone. The MFI
reported are mean values ± SD of technical triplicates and are
representative of at least two independent experiments. (B) Flow-cytometry-based
competition binding assay performed on purified MmpL3-GFP. Cells were
cotreated with 2 μM North 114 and increasing concentrations
of the inhibitors as described in the Methods. The concentrations of inhibitors are indicated under the x-axis. Shown on the y-axis are the MFI
of the polystyrene particles from each treatment group expressed relative
to that of particles not treated with any inhibitor (relative fluorescence
value [RFI] arbitrarily set to 1). MFIs were determined by analyzing
10 000 particles under each condition. The data reported are
mean values ± SD of technical duplicates and are representative
of at least three independent experiments. Asterisks denote statistically
significant decreases in fluorescence intensity between no inhibitor
control (blue bars) and beads cotreated with North 114 and various
concentrations of the inhibitors pursuant to the Student’s t-test (P < 0.05). No significant displacement
was seen with the negative control drugs isoniazid (INH) and rifampicin
(RIF), whose mechanisms of action are independent of MmpL3tb (with
the exception of INH at 2 μM but not 4 μM).
Evidence of inhibitor probe binding to purified MmpL3tb-GFP and
flow-cytometry-based competition binding assay using purified MmpL3tb-GFP.
(A) Comparative analysis of the binding of indolecarboxamide probes
to MmpL3tb-GFP bound to polystyrene particles. MmpL3tb-GFP-coated
beads were incubated for 15 min at room temperature with different
concentrations of North 100 and North 114. After three washes in PBS
pH 7.0–5% glycerol, the TAMRA mean fluorescence intensity (MFI)
of the beads was analyzed by flow cytometry. The histograms show the
absence of binding of the TAMRA-mannose probe to MmpL3tb-GFP-coated
beads, while North 100 and North 114 bind to particles coated with
different concentrations of MmpL3tb-GFP. The graph shows the concentration-dependent
binding of North 100 and North 114 to particles coated with MmpL3tb-GFP;
no binding is observed on particles coated with GFP alone. The MFI
reported are mean values ± SD of technical triplicates and are
representative of at least two independent experiments. (B) Flow-cytometry-based
competition binding assay performed on purified MmpL3-GFP. Cells were
cotreated with 2 μM North 114 and increasing concentrations
of the inhibitors as described in the Methods. The concentrations of inhibitors are indicated under the x-axis. Shown on the y-axis are the MFI
of the polystyrene particles from each treatment group expressed relative
to that of particles not treated with any inhibitor (relative fluorescence
value [RFI] arbitrarily set to 1). MFIs were determined by analyzing
10 000 particles under each condition. The data reported are
mean values ± SD of technical duplicates and are representative
of at least three independent experiments. Asterisks denote statistically
significant decreases in fluorescence intensity between no inhibitor
control (blue bars) and beads cotreated with North 114 and various
concentrations of the inhibitors pursuant to the Student’s t-test (P < 0.05). No significant displacement
was seen with the negative control drugs isoniazid (INH) and rifampicin
(RIF), whose mechanisms of action are independent of MmpL3tb (with
the exception of INH at 2 μM but not 4 μM).Having established that our indolecarboxamide and
adamantyl urea-based
probes bound to purified MmpL3tb, we next determined whether a displacement
of North 114 would occur upon addition of increasing concentrations
of each of the six prototypical inhibitors to the reaction mixture.
The results that are presented in Figure B revealed a clear concentration-dependent
displacement of North 114 by NITD-304, NITD-349, AU1235, BM212, and
THPP1. The displacement was not significant for SQ109. The residual
binding of North 114 to MmpL3tb might be explained by the relatively
high hydrophobicity of this probe, making it prone to accumulate in
the hydrophobic environment of MmpL3tb. In summary, whether due to
a competition between the test inhibitors and the fluorescent probe
for the same binding site on MmpL3tb or to conformational changes
in MmpL3tb induced by the test inhibitors[27] reducing the affinity of the protein for the fluorescent probe,
five out the six test compounds clearly proved capable of displacing
North 114 in a concentration-dependent manner, indicative of their
direct interaction with the mycolic acid transporter.
Competition
Binding between MmpL3 Inhibitor and Inhibitor Probes
in Intact Mycobacterial Cells
Since the metabolic labeling
of probe-treated MsmgΔmmpL3/pMVGH1-mmpL3tb cells (Figure S5) and the colocalization of North 100 and North 114 with
MmpL3tb-GFP in intact bacilli (Figure and Figure S6) both indicated
that the inhibitor probes reached their target in whole cells, we
next adapted the flow-cytometry-based displacement assay described
above to intact cells and assessed the potential of this relatively
simple assay in the rapid screening of MmpL3tb inhibitors. Flow-cytometry-based
competition binding assays between North 114 or North 100 and MmpL3
inhibitors were run using MsmgΔmmpL3/pMVGH1-mmpL3tb cells as a source of MmpL3tb target.
Prior to performing these assays, we first verified by metabolic labeling
with [1,2-14C]acetate that BM212, THPP1, NITD-304, NITD-349,
and SQ109 actually targeted MmpL3tb in our Msmg recombinant
system (Figure S8). That this was the case
for AU1235 was previously established by Grzegorzewicz et al.[1]The addition of increasing concentrations
of the six prototypical compounds to MsmgΔmmpL3/pMVGH1-mmpL3tb cells previously labeled
with either North 100 or North 114 revealed a concentration-dependent
displacement of the probe by all six inhibitors that was not observed
with the control drugs INH and RIF (Figure ).
Figure 4
Flow-cytometry-based competition binding assay
using intact Msmg cells expressing MmpL3tb. Flow-cytometry-based
competition
binding assay was performed in an Msmg mmpL3 deletion
mutant expressing the wild-type mmpL3tb gene fused
to gfp (MsmgΔmmpL3/pMVGH1-mmpL3tb). Cells were labeled with 4 μM
North 100 (top graph) or North 114 (bottom graph) and subsequently
treated with increasing concentrations of the inhibitors as described
in the Methods. The concentrations of inhibitors
are indicated under the x-axis. Shown on the y-axis are the MFI of the bacilli from each treatment group
expressed relative to that of bacilli not treated with any inhibitor
(relative fluorescence value [RFI] arbitrarily set to 1). MFIs were
determined by analyzing 10 000 bacilli under each condition.
The data reported are mean values ± SD of technical duplicates
and are representative of at least three independent experiments.
Asterisks denote statistically significant decreases in fluorescence
intensity between no inhibitor controls (blue bars) and bacilli cotreated
with North 100 or North 114 and various concentrations of the inhibitors
pursuant to the Student’s t-test (P < 0.05).
Flow-cytometry-based competition binding assay
using intact Msmg cells expressing MmpL3tb. Flow-cytometry-based
competition
binding assay was performed in an Msmg mmpL3 deletion
mutant expressing the wild-type mmpL3tb gene fused
to gfp (MsmgΔmmpL3/pMVGH1-mmpL3tb). Cells were labeled with 4 μM
North 100 (top graph) or North 114 (bottom graph) and subsequently
treated with increasing concentrations of the inhibitors as described
in the Methods. The concentrations of inhibitors
are indicated under the x-axis. Shown on the y-axis are the MFI of the bacilli from each treatment group
expressed relative to that of bacilli not treated with any inhibitor
(relative fluorescence value [RFI] arbitrarily set to 1). MFIs were
determined by analyzing 10 000 bacilli under each condition.
The data reported are mean values ± SD of technical duplicates
and are representative of at least three independent experiments.
Asterisks denote statistically significant decreases in fluorescence
intensity between no inhibitor controls (blue bars) and bacilli cotreated
with North 100 or North 114 and various concentrations of the inhibitors
pursuant to the Student’s t-test (P < 0.05).
Detection of Inhibitor Binding to MmpL3 Using Biolayer Interferometry
and Surface Plasmon Resonance
As an alternative and more
direct approach to monitor inhibitor binding to purified MmpL3tb,
a biolayer interferometry (BLI) assay and a surface plasmon resonance
(SPR) assay were further developed.For the BLI assay, MmpL3tb
purified from Msmg was immobilized onto the surface
of sensor tips, and compound interaction with MmpL3tb was monitored
by first dipping the sensors into microplate wells containing increasing
concentrations of test compounds (association), followed by dipping
into wells containing buffer alone (dissociation). The kinetics of
compound binding and dissociation to MmpL3tb was monitored in real-time.
Among the compounds tested, SQ109, North 4 and North 21 (the structural
analogues of North 114 and North 100 devoid of TAMRA fluorophore,
respectively) (Table ) consistently bound to MmpL3tb with the strongest signals (Figure S9). A weak binding signal was also detected
for AU1235. BM212 is poorly soluble and yielded only weak binding
signals. No signal was detected for THPP1, NITD-304, or NITD-349.
Finally, the fluorescence of North 100 and North 114 interferes with
the BLI detection method; these probes could thus not be tested for
binding using this method.For the SPR assay, the purified MmpL3tb
protein was immobilized
onto the surface of CM5 chips, and increasing concentrations of inhibitors
were injected over the surface. Unlike BLI, SPR is insensitive to
fluorescence, and both the North 100 and North 114 probes were thus
included in the SPR experiments. We found that all tested compounds
bind to MmpL3tb specifically, albeit with signals of different strengths
and different apparent affinities (Figure ). Fitting the data into kinetic models yielded
the on- and off-rates and the dissociation constants for each compound
(Table S1). The best fit for all (with
the exception of North 114) was found for the two-state reaction model
that postulates a conformational change following inhibitor binding.
Indeed, binding of small molecule inhibitors to large proteins such
as immobilized MmpL3tb is unlikely to lead to large changes in mass.
Hence, the strong SPR signals observed in the case of North 100, North
114, AU1235, SQ109, NITD-304, and THPP1 are most likely due to conformational
changes in the transporter induced by the binding of these inhibitors,
a hypothesis now supported by the high-resolution crystal structure
of MmpL3 from Msmg in complex with SQ109 and an indolecarboxamide
inhibitor.[27] The dissociation constants
(KD) describing the binding of the inhibitors to MmpL3tb range from
the low millimolar to low micromolar concentrations with NITD-349,
NITD-304, AU1235, and North 100 having the highest affinities to the
transporter (Table S1). North 114 was the
only compound presenting a submicromolar affinity for one of the MmpL3tb
states and further studies are needed to understand the molecular
mechanism of these interactions.
Figure 5
Direct interactions of inhibitors with
MmpL3tb as measured by surface
plasmon resonance. The MmpL3tb protein was immobilized at the density
∼12 000 response units (RU), and compounds were injected
in HEPES-TX buffer supplemented with 5% DMSO at concentrations 1.625,
3.75, 7.5, 15, 30, and 60 μM for BM212 and 12.5, 25, 50, 100,
200, and 400 μM for the rest of the compounds. The SPR sensorgrams
(black lines) were fitted into different kinetic models, and the best
fits are shown as red lines.
Direct interactions of inhibitors with
MmpL3tb as measured by surface
plasmon resonance. The MmpL3tb protein was immobilized at the density
∼12 000 response units (RU), and compounds were injected
in HEPES-TX buffer supplemented with 5% DMSO at concentrations 1.625,
3.75, 7.5, 15, 30, and 60 μM for BM212 and 12.5, 25, 50, 100,
200, and 400 μM for the rest of the compounds. The SPR sensorgrams
(black lines) were fitted into different kinetic models, and the best
fits are shown as red lines.
Conformational Changes in MmpL3 upon Inhibitor Binding
Assuming
that the inhibition of MmpL3 by some of the compounds results
from conformational changes in the transporter upon inhibitor binding,
it is possible that mutations conferring resistance to these inhibitors
themselves alter the conformation of MmpL3 to protect its activity.
Such mutations may either prevent the inhibitor from binding to MmpL3
or restore TMM export activity despite inhibitor-induced conformational
changes. The G253E variant of MmpL3tb confers resistance to all prototypic
inhibitors with the exception of BM212 (Table ). We thus purified this MmpL3tb variant
and compared the interactions of inhibitors with WT MmpL3tb versus
MmpL3tb(G253E) by BLI. Surprisingly, while no binding to MmpL3tb(G253E)
was detected for SQ109 and North 21, the binding of North 4 to MmpL3tb
was unaltered by the G253E mutation (Figure S9). No differences in BLI signals were found for the other tested
compounds. Thus, the G253E substitution specifically affects the interactions
of some inhibitors with MmpL3tb.To determine whether the binding
of inhibitors and the G253E substitution affected the conformation
of MmpL3tb, we next used a partial proteolysis approach. To this end,
the purified parent and G253E MmpL3tb variants were treated with increasing
concentrations of trypsin in the presence and absence of inhibitors.
We found that the proteolytic patterns of the WT and G253E variants
differ from one another. The tryptic profiles of WT MmpL3tb comprise
four fragments with approximate molecular masses of 78 kDa (band 1),
69 kDa (band 2), 65 kDa (band 3), and 59 kDa (band 4) that are reproducibly
present on the gels (Figure ). The last three tryptic fragments are the most stable and
accumulate at the highest concentration of trypsin (1 μg/mL).
In contrast, in addition to the 69, 65, and 59 kDa fragments that
are common with the WT, the proteolytic profiles of MmpL3tb(G253E)
contain two unique bands with estimated molecular masses of 90 kDa
(band 5) and 75 kDa (band 6). This result strongly suggests that the
G253E substitution stabilizes a different conformation of MmpL3tb,
which could be contributing to changes in inhibitor binding and resistance.
Figure 6
Proteolytic
profiles of the wild-type MmpL3WT and its
resistant variant MmpL3G253E in the presence and absence
of inhibitors. Purified proteins (100 nM final concentrations) were
incubated with increasing concentrations of trypsin (0.01, 0.1, and
1.0 μg/mL). Inhibitors were added where indicated to the final
concentration of 200 μM prior to trypsin. The digest was carried
out for 30 min at 37 °C, and the tryptic fragments were separated
by 12% SDS-PAGE followed by silver nitrate staining. The dominant
bands are indicated by arrowheads.
Proteolytic
profiles of the wild-type MmpL3WT and its
resistant variant MmpL3G253E in the presence and absence
of inhibitors. Purified proteins (100 nM final concentrations) were
incubated with increasing concentrations of trypsin (0.01, 0.1, and
1.0 μg/mL). Inhibitors were added where indicated to the final
concentration of 200 μM prior to trypsin. The digest was carried
out for 30 min at 37 °C, and the tryptic fragments were separated
by 12% SDS-PAGE followed by silver nitrate staining. The dominant
bands are indicated by arrowheads.The addition of a molar excess of inhibitors changed the
relative
amounts of tryptic fragments but not the proteolytic profiles of the
MmpL3tb WT and G253E variants (Figure and Figure S10). This result
is consistent with transient changes in MmpL3tb upon inhibitor binding
and is in agreement with the fast on- and off-kinetics of their interactions
with the protein (Figure and Figure S9).
Effect of MmpL3
Inhibition versus Inhibitors on the PMF of Mtb
The deleterious
impact of MmpL3 inhibition on the PMF and energy
production of mycobacterial cells has been suggested by two independent
studies. First was the report by Degiacomi et al.[10] which showed that genetically silencing mmpL3 in Mtb leads to the repression of a number of genes
involved in energy production, including atpB, which
encodes a component of the ATP synthase, and nuoB, nuoD, and nuoH, which encode
subunits of the NADH dehydrogenase. Second was the observation that Msmg mutants resistant to a novel class of MmpL3 inhibitors
and whose growth properties were consistent with reduced MmpL3 activity
displayed a membrane potential significantly higher than that of their
WT parent strain.[29] Because treating mycobacteria
with some MmpL3 inhibitors has been reported to alter the transmembrane
potential (ΔΨ), the transmembrane electrochemical proton
gradient (ΔpH), or both components of the PMF,[21−24] these observations called into question whether the inhibitors themselves
were responsible for PMF dissipation (i.e., independent of their binding
to MmpL3) as suggested earlier,[21] or whether
their impact on PMF was secondary to the inhibition of MmpL3.To differentiate between these two hypotheses, we first measured
the effect of genetically silencing mmpL3 on each
of the two components of the PMF of Mtb. To this
end, an mmpL3 conditional knock-down previously generated
in our laboratory (MmpL3-DUC)[3] was used
to measure the impact of mmpL3 silencing on the ΔΨ
and ΔpH of Mtb by labeling with 3,3′-diethyloxacarbocyanine
iodide [DiOC2(3)] and 5-chloromethyl-fluorescein diacetate
(CMFDA), respectively. While the progressive silencing of mmpL3 with increasing concentrations of anhydro-tetracycline (ATc) did not significantly impact the intracellular
pH of the cells, a clear ATc concentration-dependent increase in ΔΨ
(up to 2-fold above WT levels) was noted, which stabilized at ATc
concentrations at and above 1 ng/mL (Figure ). Thus, the decrease in proton uptake associated
with MmpL3-mediated substrate export that follows mmpL3 silencing leads to a significant increase in ΔΨ in Mtb.
Figure 7
Effect of silencing mmpL3 expression
on the membrane
potential (ΔΨ) and electrochemical proton gradient (ΔpH)
of Mtb. The ΔΨ (A) and inner bacterial
pH (B) of wild-type (WT) Mtb and mmpL3 knock-down (MmpL3-DUC) cells grown in the presence of 0, 0.2, 1,
5, or 10 ng/mL anhydro-tetracycline were determined.
The expression of mmpL3 was previously shown to be
inhibited in an anhydro-tetracycline concentration-dependent
manner in the MmpL3-DUC knock-down strain.[3] The values represent the averages and standard deviations of measurements
performed on three independent bacterial suspensions after exposure
to CCCP (4× MIC; 25 μM) (gray bars) or the DMSO solvent
(1%) solvent alone (green bars) for 30 min at 37 °C. Results
are representative of two independent tests. Asterisks denote statistically
significant differences between WT and DUC mutant cells pursuant to
the Student’s t-test (P <
0.05).
Effect of silencing mmpL3 expression
on the membrane
potential (ΔΨ) and electrochemical proton gradient (ΔpH)
of Mtb. The ΔΨ (A) and inner bacterial
pH (B) of wild-type (WT) Mtb and mmpL3 knock-down (MmpL3-DUC) cells grown in the presence of 0, 0.2, 1,
5, or 10 ng/mL anhydro-tetracycline were determined.
The expression of mmpL3 was previously shown to be
inhibited in an anhydro-tetracycline concentration-dependent
manner in the MmpL3-DUC knock-down strain.[3] The values represent the averages and standard deviations of measurements
performed on three independent bacterial suspensions after exposure
to CCCP (4× MIC; 25 μM) (gray bars) or the DMSO solvent
(1%) solvent alone (green bars) for 30 min at 37 °C. Results
are representative of two independent tests. Asterisks denote statistically
significant differences between WT and DUC mutant cells pursuant to
the Student’s t-test (P <
0.05).Next, the same labeling approach
with the fluorescent dyes DiOC2 and CMFDA was used to investigate
the effect of all six MmpL3
inhibitors on the PMF of the same Mtb H37Rv mc26206 wild-type parent strain as above (rather than that of Msmg as was done previously).[21] Consistent with earlier findings in Msmg,[21] SQ109 dissipated ΔΨ in a concentration-dependent
manner, while BM212 showed an effect on ΔΨ only at the
highest concentration tested (8× MIC), and other MmpL3 inhibitors
failed to show any effect at all at concentrations up to 20×
their MIC value (Figure A). BM212 at 8× MIC and SQ109 at 4× and 20× MIC further
collapsed ΔpH, whereas other MmpL3 inhibitors showed no such
effect in this assay (Figure B). The effect of BM212 and SQ109 on ΔpH further reflected
in a succinate-driven proton translocation assay with the fluorescent
substrate ACMA[22] using Mtb H37Rv mc26206 inverted membrane vesicles (IMVs). Interestingly,
AU1235 also collapsed ΔpH in this assay when used at fourfold
MIC concentration (Figure S11A). Reasons
why the effect of AU1235 on ΔpH was detected in the IMV assay
but not in the assay using intact Mtb bacilli may
be due to the inefficient or slow penetration of this compound inside
cells and to the relatively short time of exposure of intact bacilli
to the inhibitor (30 min). Speaking for the broad-spectrum uncoupling
activity of SQ109, this inhibitor similarly dissipated the pH gradient
of IMVs prepared from E. coli which are naturally
devoid of MmpL3. BM212, AU1235, and the three other MmpL3 inhibitors,
in contrast, showed no such activity (Figure S11B).
Figure 8
Effect of SQ109, BM212, THPP1, AU1235, NITD-304, and NITD-349 on
the membrane potential (ΔΨ) and electrochemical proton
gradient (ΔpH) of intact Mtb bacilli. (A) Effect
of inhibitors on ΔΨ (A) and ΔpH (B) of intact Mtb cells. The ΔΨ and inner bacterial pH of Mtb cells treated with DMSO and water (solvent controls;
brown bars), control antibiotics (isoniazid, rifampicin, and ciprofloxacin),
PMF dissipaters (valinomycin, nigericin, and CCCP), or the MmpL3 inhibitors
SQ109, THPP1, AU1235, NITD-304, and NITD-349 at 4× and 20×
their MIC value were determined. For solubility reasons, BM212 and
nigericin were tested at 2× and 8× their MIC value (MIC
values: NITD-304, 0.02 μM; NITD-349, 0.05 μM; SQ109, 2.36
μM; AU1235, 0.48 μM; BM212, 3.76 μM; THPP1, 13.44
μM; INH, 0.58 μM; RIF, 0.19 μM; nigericin, 4.31
μM; CCCP, 6.25 μM). Green bars are for the 2× and
4× MIC treatments; gray bars are for the 8× or 20×
MIC treatments. Results are representative of three independent tests.
The values represent the averages and standard deviations of measurements
performed on three independent bacterial suspensions after exposure
to the test compounds or solvents for 30 min at 37 °C. Asterisks
denote statistically significant differences between water or DMSO
controls and inhibitor-treated cells pursuant to the Student’s t-test (P < 0.05).
Effect of SQ109, BM212, THPP1, AU1235, NITD-304, and NITD-349 on
the membrane potential (ΔΨ) and electrochemical proton
gradient (ΔpH) of intact Mtb bacilli. (A) Effect
of inhibitors on ΔΨ (A) and ΔpH (B) of intact Mtb cells. The ΔΨ and inner bacterial pH of Mtb cells treated with DMSO and water (solvent controls;
brown bars), control antibiotics (isoniazid, rifampicin, and ciprofloxacin),
PMF dissipaters (valinomycin, nigericin, and CCCP), or the MmpL3 inhibitors
SQ109, THPP1, AU1235, NITD-304, and NITD-349 at 4× and 20×
their MIC value were determined. For solubility reasons, BM212 and
nigericin were tested at 2× and 8× their MIC value (MIC
values: NITD-304, 0.02 μM; NITD-349, 0.05 μM; SQ109, 2.36
μM; AU1235, 0.48 μM; BM212, 3.76 μM; THPP1, 13.44
μM; INH, 0.58 μM; RIF, 0.19 μM; nigericin, 4.31
μM; CCCP, 6.25 μM). Green bars are for the 2× and
4× MIC treatments; gray bars are for the 8× or 20×
MIC treatments. Results are representative of three independent tests.
The values represent the averages and standard deviations of measurements
performed on three independent bacterial suspensions after exposure
to the test compounds or solvents for 30 min at 37 °C. Asterisks
denote statistically significant differences between water or DMSO
controls and inhibitor-treated cells pursuant to the Student’s t-test (P < 0.05).Because the impact of BM212, AU1235, and SQ109 on PMF dissipation
is (i) not shared by all classes of MmpL3 inhibitors and (ii) does
not phenocopy the effect of silencing mmpL3 in Mtb, we thus conclude from these experiments that the observed
effects of a subset of MmpL3 inhibitors on ΔΨ and ΔpH
is not consecutive to the suppression of MmpL3 activity but rather
a consequence of secondary effects of these compounds on the bacilli.
Discussion
Multiple independent lines of evidence, including
direct detection
of fluorescent and unlabeled inhibitor binding to purified MmpL3tb,
colocalization of inhibitor probes and MmpL3tb in intact bacilli,
comparative proteolysis of MmpL3 WT in the presence and absence of
inhibitors, and in vitro and whole-cell-based competition
binding assays, point to the direct binding of all analyzed structurally
different series of compounds to the transporter. BLI, SPR, and limited
proteolysis of the MmpL3tb protein further point to important conformational
changes in the transporter as a result of the binding of most compounds.
Collectively, our results are in agreement with the recent analysis
of cocrystal structures of MmpL3 in complex with SQ109, AU1235, and
an indolecarboxamide.[27] The observation
by Zhang and collaborators[27] that three
series of inhibitors all bind to the same site within the proton translocation
channel of the transporter further helps understand how some single
missense mutations may confer cross-resistance to multiple compounds
and provides a structural rationale for the functionality of our probe
displacement assays.The existence of both direct and indirect
mechanisms of inhibition
of MmpL3 (the latter involving the dissipation of PMF in treated cells)
has been proposed as a possible explanation for the promiscuity of
MmpL3 as a drug target. The results of our study now clearly favor
a direct mechanism of inhibition of MmpL3 by all compound series analyzed
to date, whether or not they display additional effects on PMF that
potentiates their activity. The typical lipophilicity associated with
MmpL3 inhibitors,[12] which likely favors
their partitioning in the phospholipid bilayer where they interact
with MmpL3,[4,27] is most probably a key driver
of their efficacy. Given the extreme vulnerability of MmpL3,[3] it is to be expected that compounds with even
weak binding affinity to the transporter may still show potency, thereby
explaining the bias of phenotypic screens toward hits targeting MmpL3.[30] A correlate of this is that MmpL3 inhibition
may easily mask potential secondary effects or targets of selected
hits. Both the facts that SQ109, BM212, and some THPP compounds show
activity against nonreplicating persistent Mtb bacilli[21] and that SQ109, BM212, and AU1235 dissipate
one or both components of the PMF in Mtb (unlike
most other MmpL3 inhibitors) are clear indications that these inhibitors
target more than one aspect of the physiology of mycobacteria. The
interaction between THPP1 and MmpL3 revealed by our studies further
helps explain why this compound, which was reported to target another
protein required for mycolic acid synthesis known as EchA6,[16,31] initially leads to the buildup of TMM in treated cells despite inhibiting
mycolate synthesis and why spontaneous THPP1-resistant mutants consistently
display mutations in MmpL3 rather than EchA6.[8,16,32]The specificity of a subset of resistance
mutations for some compound
series contrasts with the finding of a number of mutations conferring
broad-spectrum resistance to chemically diverse inhibitors (Table ). In light of the
conformational change induced by the G253E mutation (Figure ), it is tempting to speculate
that some of these broad-spectrum resistance mutations may function
to either restore TMM export to levels sufficient to sustain growth
or to simultaneously prevent multiple series of compounds from accessing
their binding site on the transporter. Support for both hypotheses
was in fact obtained from our BLI experiments wherein the MmpL3tb
G253E variant lost the ability to bind some inhibitors (North 21;
SQ109) yet retained the ability to bind others (North 4) (Figure S9) despite having become resistant to
all of them (Table ).An intriguing observation resulting from the analysis of
PMF in
a Mtb mmpL3 conditional knock-down was the finding
that mmpL3 silencing leads to a dramatic increase
in ΔΨ (Figure ). This finding is in line with the results of earlier transcriptomics
studies that pointed to important perturbations in the membrane energetics
of Mtb cells upon mmpL3 silencing.[10] It is suggestive of the important impact of
MmpL3 transport activity on the PMF of intact cells as a whole, and
tentatively speaks for the amount of energy required by mycobacteria
to carry out the essential physiological process of exporting mycolic
acids during active growth.Having now established that SQ109,
THPP1, BM212, adamantyl ureas,
and indolecarboxamides interact with MmpL3, future studies may focus
on optimizing some of these series into next-generation inhibitors
with improved potency by structure-based drug design and establishing
through the development of ad hoc biochemical assays,
whether these inhibitors abolish proton translocation in the transporter
as suggested by recent structural studies[27] or whether they act through different mechanisms.
Methods
Bacterial Strains
and Growth Conditions
The avirulent
auxotrophic Mtb H37Rv strain mc26206 (ΔpanCDΔleuCD) was grown at 37 °C
in Middlebrook 7H9-OADC-0.05% tyloxapol supplemented with 0.2% casamino
acids, 48 μg/mL pantothenate and 50 μg/mL l-leucine
or on similarly supplemented Middlebrook 7H11-OADC agar medium. Msmg mc2155 was grown in Middlebrook 7H9 broth
(Difco) with 10% albumin-dextrose-catalase (ADC) supplement and 0.05%
Tween 80, Luria–Bertani (LB) medium (10 g/L Bacto-tryptone,
5 g/L yeast extract and 5 g/L NaCl) (Difco) and on 7H11-ADC or LB
agar at 37 °C. Kanamycin (Kan; 25 μg/mL), streptomycin
(Str, 20 μg/mL), and hygromycin (Hyg; 50 μg/mL) were added
as needed.
Expression of Mutated Variants of MmpL3tb
Seventy-seven
mutated variants of MmpL3tb were tested for susceptibility to MmpL3
inhibitors. They include the C-terminally truncated and point-mutated
MmpL3tb variants generated as part of functional studies reported
earlier[4] (total of 59 variants). Other
mutants (L189A, L189R, G253E, G253R, G253W, S288T, T311I, Q372R, L567P,
S591I, S591W, S591G, F644C, F644Y, V684A, V684G, V684I, and V684W)
were generated using a standard two-step PCR overlap method or PCR-amplified
from the genomic DNA of AU1235-, NITD-304-, and NITD-349-Mtb spontaneous resistant mutants generated in-house. All variants were
cloned in the mycobacterial expression mycobacterial plasmid, pMVGH1,
under control of the hsp60 promoter and expressed
in the background of a Msmg mmpL3 deletion mutant
(MsmgΔmmpL3) as described
previously.[1,4]MsmgΔmmpL3/pMVGH1-mmpL3tb-gfp was similarly generated by expressing
in MsmgΔmmpL3 the mmpL3 gene from Mtb fused to gfp at its 3′-end.
Drug-Susceptibility Testing
The
susceptibility of MsmgΔmmpL3 expressing different variants
of MmpL3tb to inhibitors and control drugs was determined in 96-well
microtiter plates at 37 °C in 7H9-ADC-0.05% Tween 80 medium using
the resazurin blue test.[33]
Whole Cell
Radiolabeling Experiments
Radiolabeling
of Msmg and Mtb (0.5 μCi/ml;
specific activity, 54.3 Ci/mol, PerkinElmer) was performed for 3 h
(Msmg) or 24 h (Mtb) at 37 °C
with shaking. MmpL3 inhibitors and inhibitor probes were added at
the same time as [1,2-14C]acetic acid to the bacterial
cultures.
Lipid and Mycolic Acid Analyses
Total lipid extraction
from bacterial cells and preparation of fatty acid and mycolic acid
methyl esters from extractable lipids and delipidated cells followed
earlier procedures.[1] [1,2-14C]acetic acid-derived lipids and fatty acid/mycolic acid methyl esters
were separated by TLC on aluminum-backed silica gel 60-precoated plates
F254 (E. Merck) and revealed by PhosphorImaging.
Membrane
Potential and Electrochemical Proton Gradient Measurements
in Intact Mtb Cells
The effects of inhibitors on the transmembrane
potential (ΔΨ) and transmembrane electrochemical proton
gradient (ΔpH) of intact Mtb H37Rv mc26206 cells were determined by fluorescence quenching of the membrane
potential-sensitive probe 3-3′diethyloxacarbocyanine iodide
[DiOC2(3)] (ThermoFisher) and the pH-sensitive probe 5-chloromethyl-fluorescein
diacetate (CMFDA) (ThermoFisher), respectively, essentially as described.[24] For ΔΨ measurements, Mtb cells were labeled with 60 μM DiOC2 in PBS supplemented
with 50 mM KCl, pH 7.2, for 4 h at 37 °C. For ΔpH measurements, Mtb cells were labeled with 10 μM CMFDA in PBS, pH
7.0, for 4 h at 37 °C. Changes in fluorescence due to the disruption
of ΔΨ or ΔpH upon inhibitor treatment were monitored
for 30 min with a fluorescence spectrophotometer (Victor X5, PerkinElmer).
DiOC2(3) was excited at 485 nm, and emission was measured
at 615 and 535 nm. The ratio of fluorescence intensity at 615 vs 535
nm is relative to the strength of ΔΨ. The excitation wavelengths
for the ΔpH assay were 440 and 490 nm, and fluorescence emission
was measured at 520 nm. The pH of the bacterial cytoplasm was measured
by calculating the ratio of fluorescence intensity excited at 490
vs 440 nm.
Microscopy
MsmgΔmmpL3/pMVGH1-mmpL3tb-gfp cultures grown to exponential
phase and treated for 4 h with 2 μM of North 100 and North 114
at 37 °C were collected, washed twice in phosphate-buffered saline
containing 0.05% Tween 80, and fixed in freshly prepared 2% paraformaldehyde
for 30 min at room temperature. Approximately 106 cells
were next transferred to a glass slide by Cytospin, mounted with Fluoro-Gel
(Electron Microscopy Science) and visualized using a KEYENCE BZ-X700
fluorescence microscope. Alternatively, cells were visualized using
an Olympus FV-1000 confocal microscope. Multiple independent experiments
were performed, and images from one representative experiment are
shown.
Binding of Purified MmpL3tb to Flow Beads and Competition Binding
Assays with Inhibitor Probe(s)
Purified MmpL3tb-GFP and MmpL3tb
(see Supplementary Methods) were coated
onto goat antimouse IgG (H&L)-coated polystyrene particles (Spherotech)
previously treated with a mouse anti-His IgG antibody (Sigma). To
assess fluorescent probe binding and for competition binding assays,
MmpL3tb- and MmpL3tb-GFP-coated beads were incubated for 15 min at
room temperature with different concentrations of the probes in the
presence or absence of test inhibitors. After three washes in PBS
pH 7.0–5% glycerol, the TAMRA and BODIPY FL mean fluorescence
intensities of the beads was analyzed by flow cytometry on a Cytek
Aurora Spectral cytometer. Flow Cytometry Standard (FCS) file data
were analyzed using Flowjo software (Treestar Inc., Ashland, OR).
Competition Binding Assays Using Intact Msmg Cells
Competition
binding assays in intact MsmgΔmmpL3/pMVGH1-mmpL3tb bacilli were conducted
by treating the cells with 4 μM of probe North 114 or North
100 for 1 h at 37 °C, prior to washing the cells twice with 7H9-ADC-0.05%
Tween 80 and resuspending them with different concentrations of the
test compounds for another hour at 37 °C. Treated cells washed
with 7H9-ADC-0.05% Tween 80 and fixed with 2% paraformaldehyde were
finally resuspended in PBS-0.05% Tween 80 and subjected to flow cytometry
analysis as described above.
Surface Plasmon Resonance
For the amino-coupling of
MmpL3tb, CM5 chip surfaces were activated with 0.05 M N-hydroxysuccinimide and 0.2 M N-ethyl-N-(3-diethylaminopropyl)carbodiimide (BIAcore). MmpL3tb was injected
over surfaces immediately after activation. After immobilization,
the excess of reactive groups was blocked by injecting 0.5 M ethanolamine
HCl (pH 8.0). The immobilization and subsequent binding experiments
were conducted in running buffer containing 25 mM HEPES-KOH (pH 7.0),
150 mM NaCl, 0.2% Triton X-100 (HEPES-TX). The CM5 chip contains four
chambers, one of which contained the immobilized MmpL3tb (ligand),
whereas the second (control surface) was activated and processed in
the same way but protein was omitted during the immobilization step.
For kinetic modeling, we considered only the simplest models that
would be compatible with one or two distinct events during both inhibitor
binding and dissociation. These four models are (i) simple 1:1 binding
model; (ii) heterogeneous ligand (HL), in which different protein
populations on chip surface have different kinetic properties; (iii)
two-state reaction or ligand-induced conformational change, wherein
conformational change occurs on the same time scale as ligand binding;
and (iv) bivalent analyte, where multiple analytes bind independently
at nonidentical sites. Distinguishing between these models is possible
if the data are fit globally; that is, by fitting all sensorgrams
obtained at various protein concentrations using the same set of parameters.[34]
Limited Proteolysis
Proteolysis
of MmpL3tb was carried
as follows. The purified protein was diluted in assay buffer (150
mM NaCl, 20 mM HEPES-KOH pH 8.0, 0.2% Triton X-100) to a final concentration
of 100 nM. Compounds were added to the protein sample to a final concentration
of 200 μM (solubility permitting) in DMSO (5% final concentration)
and allowed to incubate for 5 min at room temperature prior to digestion
with 0.01, 0.1, and 1.0 μg/mL trypsin for 30 min at 37 °C.
Protein samples were analyzed by SDS-PAGE and visualized by silver
staining.
Authors: Amit N Pandya; Pavan K Prathipati; Pooja Hegde; Wei Li; Kyle F Graham; Subhra Mandal; Kristen M Drescher; Christopher J Destache; Diane Ordway; Mary Jackson; E Jeffrey North Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2019-02-26 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Elena B Tikhonova; Vishakha Dastidar; Valentin V Rybenkov; Helen I Zgurskaya Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2009-09-02 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Srinivasa P S Rao; Suresh B Lakshminarayana; Ravinder R Kondreddi; Maxime Herve; Luis R Camacho; Pablo Bifani; Sarath K Kalapala; Jan Jiricek; Ng L Ma; Bee H Tan; Seow H Ng; Mahesh Nanjundappa; Sindhu Ravindran; Peck G Seah; Pamela Thayalan; Siao H Lim; Boon H Lee; Anne Goh; Whitney S Barnes; Zhong Chen; Kerstin Gagaring; Arnab K Chatterjee; Kevin Pethe; Kelli Kuhen; John Walker; Gu Feng; Sreehari Babu; Lijun Zhang; Francesca Blasco; David Beer; Margaret Weaver; Veronique Dartois; Richard Glynne; Thomas Dick; Paul W Smith; Thierry T Diagana; Ujjini H Manjunatha Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2013-12-04 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Anna E Grzegorzewicz; Ha Pham; Vijay A K B Gundi; Michael S Scherman; Elton J North; Tamara Hess; Victoria Jones; Veronica Gruppo; Sarah E M Born; Jana Korduláková; Sivagami Sundaram Chavadi; Christophe Morisseau; Anne J Lenaerts; Richard E Lee; Michael R McNeil; Mary Jackson Journal: Nat Chem Biol Date: 2012-02-19 Impact factor: 15.040
Authors: Shichun Lun; Haidan Guo; Oluseye K Onajole; Marco Pieroni; Hendra Gunosewoyo; Gang Chen; Suresh K Tipparaju; Nicole C Ammerman; Alan P Kozikowski; William R Bishai Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2013 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Kai Li; Lici A Schurig-Briccio; Xinxin Feng; Ashutosh Upadhyay; Venugopal Pujari; Benoit Lechartier; Fabio L Fontes; Hongliang Yang; Guodong Rao; Wei Zhu; Anmol Gulati; Joo Hwan No; Giovana Cintra; Shannon Bogue; Yi-Liang Liu; Katie Molohon; Peter Orlean; Douglas A Mitchell; Lucio Freitas-Junior; Feifei Ren; Hong Sun; Tong Jiang; Yujie Li; Rey-Ting Guo; Stewart T Cole; Robert B Gennis; Dean C Crick; Eric Oldfield Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2014-04-01 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: Modesto J Remuiñán; Esther Pérez-Herrán; Joaquín Rullás; Carlos Alemparte; María Martínez-Hoyos; David J Dow; Johnson Afari; Nalini Mehta; Jorge Esquivias; Elena Jiménez; Fátima Ortega-Muro; María Teresa Fraile-Gabaldón; Vickey L Spivey; Nicholas J Loman; Mark J Pallen; Chrystala Constantinidou; Douglas J Minick; Mónica Cacho; María José Rebollo-López; Carolina González; Verónica Sousa; Iñigo Angulo-Barturen; Alfonso Mendoza-Losana; David Barros; Gurdyal S Besra; Lluís Ballell; Nicholas Cammack Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-04-17 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Thomas R Ioerger; Theresa O'Malley; Reiling Liao; Kristine M Guinn; Mark J Hickey; Nilofar Mohaideen; Kenan C Murphy; Helena I M Boshoff; Valerie Mizrahi; Eric J Rubin; Christopher M Sassetti; Clifton E Barry; David R Sherman; Tanya Parish; James C Sacchettini Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-09-23 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: John T Williams; Elizabeth R Haiderer; Garry B Coulson; Kayla N Conner; Edmund Ellsworth; Chao Chen; Nadine Alvarez-Cabrera; Wei Li; Mary Jackson; Thomas Dick; Robert B Abramovitch Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2019-09-23 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Arek K Rainczuk; Stephan Klatt; Yoshiki Yamaryo-Botté; Rajini Brammananth; Malcolm J McConville; Ross L Coppel; Paul K Crellin Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2020-03-26 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Ming Li; Zheng Yen Phua; Yu Xi; Zhujun Xu; Samuel A Nyantakyi; Wei Li; Mary Jackson; Ming Wah Wong; Yulin Lam; Shu Sin Chng; Mei Lin Go; Thomas Dick Journal: ACS Infect Dis Date: 2020-05-29 Impact factor: 5.084