Yuqing Jia1, Laura A Claessens2, Alfred C O Vertegaal2, Huib Ovaa1. 1. Department of Cell and Chemical Biology, Oncode Institute , Leiden University Medical Center , Leiden , The Netherlands. 2. Department of Cell and Chemical Biology , Leiden University Medical Center , Leiden , The Netherlands.
Abstract
SUMOylation is a reversible and highly dynamic post-translational modification of target proteins by small ubiquitin-like modifiers (SUMO). It is orchestrated by SUMO-activating, -conjugating, and -ligating enzymes in a sequential manner and is important in regulating a myriad of predominantly nuclear processes. DeSUMOylation is achieved by SUMO-specific proteases (SENPs). Deregulation of SUMOylation and deSUMOylation results in cellular dysfunction and is linked to various diseases, including cancer. In recent years, SENPs have emerged as potential therapeutic targets. In this review, we will describe the inhibitors and activity-based probes of SENPs. Furthermore, we will summarize the biochemical assays available for evaluating the activity of SENPs to identify inhibitors.
SUMOylation is a reversible and highly dynamic post-translational modification of target proteins by small ubiquitin-like modifiers (SUMO). It is orchestrated by SUMO-activating, -conjugating, and -ligating enzymes in a sequential manner and is important in regulating a myriad of predominantly nuclear processes. DeSUMOylation is achieved by SUMO-specific proteases (SENPs). Deregulation of SUMOylation and deSUMOylation results in cellulardysfunction and is linked to various diseases, including cancer. In recent years, SENPs have emerged as potential therapeutic targets. In this review, we will describe the inhibitors and activity-based probes of SENPs. Furthermore, we will summarize the biochemical assays available for evaluating the activity of SENPs to identify inhibitors.
SUMOylation is a reversible and
highly dynamic post-translational modification of lysine residues
in target proteins by small ubiquitin-like modifiers (SUMOs). SUMOylation
of proteins can affect their activity, stability, localization, and
interaction with other proteins. SUMOylation is important in regulating
a multitude of cellular processes, including cell cycle progression,
genome stability, transcription, and DNA repair.[1−3] SUMO is attached
to target proteins (Figure ) by a SUMO-activating enzyme (E1), a SUMO-conjugating enzyme
(E2), and a SUMO ligase (E3)[4] in a stepwise
manner. First, a thioester bond is formed between the active site
cysteine of the SUMO E1 and the C-terminus of SUMO, which requires
ATP. Next, SUMO is transferred to the catalytic cysteine residue of
the SUMO E2 UBC9. In the last step, a SUMO E3 stimulates the E2-mediated
conjugation of SUMO to target proteins. This results in an isopeptide
linkage between the C-terminus of SUMO and the ε-amino group
of a lysine residue within the target protein. This lysine residue
is frequently located in the SUMOylation consensus motif ψKxE,
where ψ is an amino acid with a large hydrophobic side-chain.
SUMO can be conjugated to a single lysine residue in proteins (mono-SUMOylation)
or multiple lysine residues (multi-SUMOylation) or form SUMO chains
(poly-SUMOylation).
Figure 1
Schematic overview of the pathway of SUMOylation and deSUMOylation.
Precursor SUMO (pro-SUMO) must be activated by a SENP into its mature
form before entering the pathway of SUMOylation. Mature SUMO forms
a thioester with SUMO-activating enzyme (E1) in an ATP-dependent manner.
Subsequently, SUMO is transferred to the SUMO-conjugating enzyme (E2).
Finally, a SUMO ligase (E3) stimulates the E2-mediated conjugation
of SUMO to a lysine in target proteins. Deconjugation of SUMO from
target proteins is catalyzed by SENPs.
Schematic overview of the pathway of SUMOylation and deSUMOylation.
Precursor SUMO (pro-SUMO) must be activated by a SENP into its mature
form before entering the pathway of SUMOylation. Mature SUMO forms
a thioester with SUMO-activating enzyme (E1) in an ATP-dependent manner.
Subsequently, SUMO is transferred to the SUMO-conjugating enzyme (E2).
Finally, a SUMO ligase (E3) stimulates the E2-mediated conjugation
of SUMO to a lysine in target proteins. Deconjugation of SUMO from
target proteins is catalyzed by SENPs.Mammalian cells express at least three SUMO isoforms, SUMO-1, SUMO-2,
and SUMO-3. SUMO is translated as an inactive precursor (pro-SUMO)
and is activated by SUMO-specific proteases (SENPs), exposing a diglycine
motif that is required for conjugation.[5,6] SENPs are also
required for deconjugation of SUMOs from target proteins, thereby
tightly regulating the SUMOylation levels of individual target proteins
required for normal cell physiology. Mammalian cells express six SENPs,
designated SENP1–3 and SENP5–7. All are cysteine proteases
and have catalytic triads (Cys–His–Asp) in a conserved
protease domain. They differ in their subcellular localization, substrate
specificity, and selectivity for SUMO precursor processing versus
deconjugation (Table ).[5−7] Recently, three other SUMO proteases were identified with low sequence
identity to SENPs: deSUMOylating isopeptidase 1 (DESI1), DESI2, and
ubiquitin-specific protease-like 1 (USPL1).[8,9]
Table 1
Biological Properties of SENPs
SENPs
localization
substrate preference
precursor processing
deconjugation
refs
SENP1
nuclear pore and nuclear foci
SUMO-1/2/3
yes
yes
(19−21)
SENP2
nuclear pore and nuclear foci
SUMO-2/3 > SUMO-1
yes
yes
(22−24)
SENP3
nucleolus
SUMO-2/3
unknown
yes
(25)
SENP5
nucleolus and mitochondria
SUMO-2/3
yes
yes
(25, 26)
SENP6
nucleoplasm
poly SUMO-2/3
no
yes
(27−29)
SENP7
nucleoplasm
poly SUMO-2/3
no
yes
(27, 30, 31)
Deregulation of SENPs leads
to cellulardysfunction and is linked to various human diseases, including
cancer.[10−12] SENP1 increases the transcriptional activity of androgen
receptor (AR) in AR signaling, which correlates with the development
of prostate cancer.[13] In addition, SENP1
and SENP3 deSUMOylate and stabilize hypoxia-inducible factor 1α
(HIF-1α) during hypoxia, a key step in forming new blood vessels
and supporting tumor growth.[14,15] Furthermore, increased
levels of SENP1 and SENP3 were found in colon, prostate, ovary, and
lung cancers.[12] Elevated levels of SENP5
associate with poor prognosis in breast cancerpatients.[16] Moreover, silencing of SENP5 resulted in the
inhibition of cell proliferation in oral squamous cell carcinoma.[17,18] Collectively, this makes SENPs attractive targets for cancer therapeutics.Early research on SENP inhibitors and activity based probes focused
on assembling an electrophilic reactive group at the C-terminal glycine
residue of full length or truncated SUMOs. In recent years, some small
molecule inhibitors and probes were also developed. In addition, some
well-established biochemical assays are available to measure the activity
of SENPs. In this review, we will discuss the inhibitors and activity-based
probes of SENPs and the assays for investigating the activity of SENPs in vitro.
Inhibitors and Activity-Based Probes of SENPs
Peptide
and Protein-Based Inhibitors and Activity-Based Probes of SENPs
In 2000, the first inhibitor of SUMO proteases 1 (Figure ) was reported by
Mossessova and Lima.[32] The authors elegantly
generated Smt3aldehyde through the in situ reduction
of a Ulp1 (a SUMO protease of budding yeast) and Smt3 (the yeast SUMO
homologue), using sodium borohydride.
Figure 2
Overview of inhibitors and probes of SENPs.
Compounds 1–6 are peptide- and protein-based
inhibitors and activity-based probes of SENPs, compounds 7–19 are small molecule inhibitors and activity
based probes of SENPs. (Of these inhibitors, only compounds 12 and 13 have been demonstrated to be active
in cells.)
Overview of inhibitors and probes of SENPs.
Compounds 1–6 are peptide- and protein-based
inhibitors and activity-based probes of SENPs, compounds 7–19 are small molecule inhibitors and activity
based probes of SENPs. (Of these inhibitors, only compounds 12 and 13 have been demonstrated to be active
in cells.)In 2003, Hemelaar et al. reported[33]2 and that SUMO-1-VS
(Figure ), containing
a vinyl sulfone (VS) reactive functional group at the C-terminus of
SUMO-1, could form an irreversible adduct with the catalytic domain
of SENP2. The authors further confirmed that the active site cysteine
of SENP2 is required for the catalysis, since the formation of an
adduct was prevented after the incubation of alkylating agent NEM
(N-ethylmaleimide) and SENP2. They also showed that SUMO-1-VS could
react with SUMO E1 and SUMO E2 covalently, although to a lesser extent
than with SENP2. The commercially available SUMO-VS probes[34] have been developed with an HA tag at the N-terminus
to detect SENPs by immunoblotting.Since vinyl sulfonesare
able to react with the active site cysteine residues of SENPs, Borodovsky et al. developed[35] a series of
biotinylated VS-based probes harboring either 5, 9, or 13 amino acids
of the SUMO-1 C-terminus to profile SENPs. In a cell lysate labeling
experiment, all of them proved efficient at labeling SENP1 equally,
but only the probe containing five-amino-acid residues, 3 (Figure ), showed
selective labeling of SENP1.In 2012, Dobrota et al. reported a peptidyl activity based probe 4 (Figure ) for SENP1 and SENP2.[36] This probe contains the final seven amino acids
of SUMO-2 with a reactive electrophile fluoromethylketone at its C-terminus,
showing a preference for SENP1/2 above other cysteine proteases in
labeling experiments. However, its inhibitory activity on SENP2 was
twice as high compared to SENP1. Moreover, this probe could compete
with SUMO-1 from a SUMO-1–SENP1 complex, suggesting that it
has the same binding site on SENP1.In 2018, our group[37] reported the total chemical synthesis of all
three isoforms of SUMO based probes 5 (Figure ), with an alkyne and a rhodamine
dye incorporated at the C-terminus and the N-terminus, respectively.
Alkynes were discovered as covalent warheads for cysteine proteases
by Ekkebus et al. and Sommer et al.(38,39) The labeling result was consistent with the substrate
preference of SENPs. SENP1 and SENP2 could be labeled by all three
isoforms of SUMO probes. SENP3 and SENP7 had a more clear preference
for SUMO-2/3 probes than SENP6. In addition, in order to assess whether
SENPs proteolytically cleave SUMO chains, a K11 linked diSUMO-2 probe 6 (Figure ) was synthesized.
Small Molecule Inhibitors and Activity Based
Probes
In 2011, Ponder et al. identified
one compound, 7 (Figure ), as an inhibitor of recombinant SENP1 of human parasite
pathogen Plasmodium falciparum (pfSENP1) from a library of irreversible cysteine protease inhibitors.[40] This lead compound, 7, has a non-natural
peptide backbone and an epoxide reactive group, displaying inhibitory
activity on pfSENP1 with an IC50 of 17.9
μM. Medicinal chemistry efforts led to compound 8 (Figure ) with the
same potency as 7. Both compound 7 and 8 could effectively inhibit humanSENP1 and SENP2. Compound 7 showed an IC50 of 9.0 μM and 4.7 μM
on SENP1 and SENP2, respectively, while compound 8 showed
a higher potency with an IC50 of 7.1 μM and 3.7 μM
on SENP1 and SENP2, respectively. Furthermore, the authors designed
a series of compounds harboring an acyloxymethylketone (AOMK) reactive
group to explore the inhibitory activity on human SENPs.[41] Compound 9 (Figure ) with a QTGG natural amino acid sequence
was the most potent inhibitor for SENP1 (IC50 = 3.6 μM)
and SENP2 (IC50 = 0.25 μM), while compound 10 (Figure ) with a LRGG sequence was the most potent inhibitor for SENP6 (IC50 = 4.2 μM) and SENP7 (IC50 = 4.3 μM).
The most potent epoxide and AOMK inhibitors 8 and 9 were converted into biotinylated and Cy5 fluorescently labeled
probes. All of them showed activity toward SENP1 and SENP2, but only
the AOMK based probe 11 (Figure ) was highly specific in cell lysate labeling
experiments.In 2011, Zhou et al. developed
a panel of benzodiazepine based compounds,[42] aiming to change the poor pharmacokinetic property of peptide inhibitors.
Two compounds, 12 and 13 (Figure ), with the best inhibitory
activity were discovered, showing an IC50 of 15.5 μM
and 9.2 μM against SENP1 and an IC50 of 13.0 μM
and 35.7 μM against prostate cancer cells PC3. The structure–activity
relationship revealed that the C4 formyl group is required
for the inhibitory activity by forming a covalent adduct with the
catalytic site cysteine of SENP1.At the same time, Uno et al. developed a series of 1-[4-(N-benzylamino) phenyl]-3-phenylurea
derivatives as selective SENP1 inhibitors based on hypoxia inducible
factor inhibitors.[43] At first, the target
proteinSENP1 was found in a pulldown experiment when using a biotin
conjugated probe based on HIF-1α inhibitor 14a (Figure ). From there, SENP1
inhibitor 14b (Figure ) was obtained with an IC50 value of 29.6
μM.In 2012, Zhang et al. reported 2-(4-chlorophenyl)-2-oxoethyl
4-benzamidobenzoates as noncovalent SENP1 inhibitors.[44] The lead compound, 15a (Figure ), was identified by virtual screening of
180 000 compounds. According to the docking model of 15a-SENP1, the structure relationship was further investigated
and two compounds with different substitutes at the meta position
of the benzoate showed stronger inhibitory activity: compound 15b (Figure ) contains a benzyl group with an IC50 of 1.1 μM,
which is probably caused by a π–π interaction with
the phenyl ring of Phe496 of SENP1, while compound 15c (Figure ) contains
an electron-withdrawing bromine atom with an IC50 of 1.2
μM.In 2013, Madu and co-workers reported a new class
of noncovalent inhibitors of SENPs containing 2-fold symmetry by virtual
screening.[45] The inhibition kinetics of
these inhibitors are noncompetitive, confirmed by nuclear magnetic
resonance. Among them, compound 16 (Figure ) showed the highest potency
against SENP1 and SENP2, showing different inhibitory activity for
SUMO-1 (IC50 = 32.8 μM, IC50 = 1.42 μM)
and SUMO-2 (IC50 = 1.88 μM, IC50 = 1.1
μM) precursors.In 2014, Kumar et al. characterized a class of 1,2,5-oxadiazoles as SENP2 inhibitors using in silico screening.[46] From the
initial round of screening of 4 000 000 compounds, two
compounds, 17a and 18a (Figure ), were used for a second round
of screening of analogs to improve the inhibitory potency. The two
best compounds, 17b and 18b (Figure ), of each scaffold, containing
a Cl atom at the 4-position, showed an IC50 of 5.9 μM
and 3.7 μM on SENP2, respectively. The structure–activity
relationships further revealed that the electron withdrawing groups
at the 4-position are of great importance in increasing SENP2 inhibitory
activity. However, compound 17b also displayed moderate
SENP1 inhibitory activity with an IC50 of 9.7 μM.In 2016, Zhou et al. found 11 different scaffolds
with SENP1 inhibitory activity by virtual screening of a 200 000
compound library.[47] The most potent compound, 19 (Figure ), with an IC50 of 3.5 μM was found by structural
modifications of these scaffolds.
Figure 3
Gel-based assays. (A) Pro-SUMO substrate
can used to measure the endopeptidase activity of SENPs. (B) Isopeptide-linked
SUMOylated substrates can be used to measure the isopeptidase activity
of SENPs).
Gel-based assays. (A) Pro-SUMO substrate
can used to measure the endopeptidase activity of SENPs. (B) Isopeptide-linked
SUMOylated substrates can be used to measure the isopeptidase activity
of SENPs).
Biochemical Assays for
Measuring Activity of SENPs
Gel-Based Assays
Pro-SUMOs[48] and isopeptide-linked SUMOylated substrates[49] have been used in gel-based assays to measure
the activity of SENPs (Figure ). Pro-SUMOs contain short C-terminal sequences present in
precursor SUMOs, while isopeptide linked SUMOylated substrates contain
an isopeptide bond between the C-terminal glycine of SUMO and the
lysine residue of substrates. Both of them can be recognized and hydrolyzed
by SENPs. The fraction of remaining pro-SUMO or isopeptide-linked
SUMOylated substrates can be visualized by Coomassie Blue staining
followed by SDS-PAGE, which has a linear relationship with endopeptidase
or isopeptidase activity of SENPs, respectively. Mencía and
Lorenzo[50] have established a method to
obtain large quantities of physiological SUMOylated proteins in E. coli. RanGAP1-SUMO is the substrate primarily utilized
to study the deconjugation activity of SENPs, but not the only substrate.
This method has the advantage of using the physiological SUMO but
is difficult to quantitate and laborious.[51] Ponder et al. have used this assay to identify
inhibitors of pfSENP.[40]
Fluorescence Based Assays
The substrate of a fluorescence
resonance energy transfer (FRET)-based assay (Figure ) consists of two fluorescent proteins, donor
cyan fluorescent protein (CFP) and acceptor yellow fluorescent protein
(YFP), at the N-terminus and C-terminus of SUMO, respectively.[52] When SUMO is not processed, these two fluorescent
proteinsare in proximity, and the substrate has a strong FRET signal
at the YFP emission wavelength. Once SUMO is processed by SENPs, the
distance between them will increase. YFP will no longer be excited,
and therefore, the only light that will be emitted comes from CFP.
The FRET signal of YFP emission versus CFP emission can be used to
monitor the activity of SENPs. The assay is quantitative and real-time
but lacks sensitivity and therefore requires a high concentration
of substrate.[53] This leads to measurement
problems due to background noise.
Figure 4
Fluorescence based assay. (A) A FRET-based
assay. (B) An AMC-based fluorogenic assay. (C) An AFC-based fluorogenic
assay. (D) SUMO-PLA2 based enzyme coupled assay. (E) Bioluminescence-based
assay reagents.
Fluorescence based assay. (A) A FRET-based
assay. (B) An AMC-based fluorogenic assay. (C) An AFC-based fluorogenic
assay. (D) SUMO-PLA2 based enzyme coupled assay. (E) Bioluminescence-based
assay reagents.
Fluorogenic Assays
This assay is based on a fluorophore attaching to the substrate of
SENPs via an amide bond (Figure ). SENPs can recognize and hydrolyze the amide bond,
releasing the fluorophore. The fluorescent signal can be easily read
out by fluorometry to evaluate the activity of SENPs. Dang et al. reported[54] the first SUMO
based fluorogenic substrate of SENPs, SUMO-AMC (7-amido-4-methylcoumarin).
In 2008, Drag et al.(55) started employing specific tetrapeptidefluorogenic substrates to
monitor activities of SENPs. They found that SENP1, -2, and -5 have
a preference for QTGG-AFC (7-amino-4-trifluoromethylcoumarin), which
represents the C-terminus of mature SUMO-1/2/3, while SENP6 and -7
do not show activity on QTGG-AFC. Surprisingly, they found that SENP6
and -7 have a preference for LRGG-AFC, which resembles the C-terminus
of ubiquitin and Nedd8. Ponder et al.(41) have used these two tetrapeptide substrates
to identify inhibitors of SENPs. This assay is sensitive, but the
detection of fluorophores requires wavelengths in the UV range, and
many compounds absorb or emit in this range, which can result in false
positives. It should be noted that these short fluorogenic peptide
substrates do not mimic the full interaction of SUMO and SENPs that
recognizes key elements of the entire Ub fold of SUMO. Consequently,
inhibitors that target this interface would be missed when using these
short peptide substrates.
An Enzyme Coupled Assay Based on a SUMO Phospholipase
A2 Fusion Protein
An assay reagent called SUMO–CHOP
(Figure ) has been
developed[56] by Nicholson et al. using a SUMO-PLA2 (phospholipase A2) fusion protein as a substrate.
Once the substrate is bound to a SENP, the amide linkage between SUMO
and the PLA2 will be cleaved. PLA2 will be activated as it requires
a free amino terminus for activity. Subsequently, PLA2 can cleave
the fluorogenic substrate C6-Nbd-PC to generate a fluorescent signal.
The fluorescent signal obtained upon PLA2 cleavage can be used to
measure the activity of SENPs. However, false positives will occur
if compounds can inhibit PLA2 directly. A commercially available SUMO–CHOP
reporter has been used to evaluate the inhibitory activity of benzodiazepine-based
compounds.[42]
Bioluminescence-Based Assay
Reagents
RLRGG-luciferin is the first substrate reported
to be used in bioluminescence-based assays to measure the activity
of SENPs[52,57] (Figure ). It is a pentapeptide substrate containing the GG
motif, which can be recognized by SENPs, ubiquitin, and Nedd8 proteases.[57] It does not represent a physiological and specific
substrate for SENPs, and it does not contain extended binding sites
for SENPs. But it can provide useful information on whether a candidate
compound inhibits the catalytic activity of a SENP. In 2012, Orcutt et al. developed[57] SUMO-2-luciferin
as a substrate which mimics the full length SUMO physiological substrate
with enhanced sensitivity and specificity. Once the substrate is recognized
and cleaved by SENPs, the amino-terminus of luciferin can be released
and subsequently oxidized by luciferase to produce light. The relative
light units can be used to monitor the activity of SENPs. The background
noise in this assay is very low since luciferin cannot produce luminescence
by itself, making this assay more sensitive. However, some test compounds
may inhibit luciferase, thus resulting in false positives.
Conclusion
SENPs are potential drug targets due to their involvement in the
development of various diseases, particularly cancer. Different types
of inhibitors and probes are currently available to study SENPs. Although
the probes are very potent reagents reporting SENP activity, small
molecule inhibitors so far lack potency and selectivity. Good probe
molecules are urgently needed to study the biology of SUMO proteases.
More selective and potent chemical tools of SENPs will be helpful
in shedding light on their possible mechanisms in tumorigenesis, and
in exploring new strategies for cancer therapy. However, it is a major
challenge to discover inhibitors and probes with isoform specificity,
since all SENPs are cysteine proteases and process similar substrates.
The second main challenge is to identify selective fluorescent activity
based probes to report the activity of SENPs in cells and animals.
The continuing development of more and better biochemical assays will
accelerate the discovery of chemical tools.
Authors: Anna Borodovsky; Huib Ovaa; Wim J N Meester; Emily S Venanzi; Matthew S Bogyo; Brian G Hekking; Hidde L Ploegh; Benedikt M Kessler; Herman S Overkleeft Journal: Chembiochem Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 3.164
Authors: Barbara Stefanska; David Cheishvili; Matthew Suderman; Ani Arakelian; Jian Huang; Michael Hallett; Ze-Guang Han; Mamun Al-Mahtab; Sheikh Mohammad Fazle Akbar; Wasif Ali Khan; Rubhana Raqib; Imrana Tanvir; Haseeb Ahmed Khan; Shafaat A Rabbani; Moshe Szyf Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2014-04-24 Impact factor: 12.531