| Literature DB >> 31892271 |
Yuliya V Sherstyuk1, Nikita V Ivanisenko2, Alexandra L Zakharenko1, Maria V Sukhanova1, Roman Y Peshkov3, Ilia V Eltsov3, Mikhail M Kutuzov1, Tatjana A Kurgina1, Ekaterina A Belousova1, Vladimir A Ivanisenko2, Olga I Lavrik1, Vladimir N Silnikov1, Tatyana V Abramova1.
Abstract
We report on the design, synthesis and molecular modeling study of conjugates ofEntities:
Keywords: DNA repair; NAD+ analogs; PARP; molecular modeling; morpholino nucleosides
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31892271 PMCID: PMC6982223 DOI: 10.3390/ijms21010214
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Figure 1The structure of the beta-oxidized nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD+)-molecule.
Figure 2Morpholino nucleoside adenosine dinucleotides (MorXppA).
Scheme 1Synthesis of the conjugates of adenosine diphosphate (ADP) with 2′-hydroxymethylmorpholino nucleosides. Reagents and conditions: (a) NaIO4, EtOH/H2O, 15 min; (NH4)2B4O7·4H2O, Et3N, 1.5 h; NaBH3CN, 40 min; trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), pH 3–4, 1 h; TrCl, Et3N, dimethylformamide (DMF), 3 h; yield 60%–70%; (b) POCl3, Py, –15 °C, 15 min; 1 M triethylammonium bicarbonate (TEAB), yield 75%–90%; (c) Ph3P/(PyS)2, MeIm, 1,3-dimethyl-2-imidazolidinone (DMI); n-Bu3NH+ salt of AMP; conc. aq. NH3 for compounds 4A,G,C; 80% aq. AcOH (v/v); yield 70%–80%.
Scheme 2Synthesis of the conjugates of ADP with 2′-aminomethylmorpholino nucleosides. Reagents and conditions: (a) Ph3P, Im, DCE, I2, 0 °C → rt, 5 h; (b) NaN3, DMF, 12 h; (c) H2, 10% Pd/C, MeOH; (d) Ph3P, CBr4, DMI; (e) Ph3P (2 eq), Py; conc. aq. NH3; (f) ADP n-Bu3N salt, Ph3P, (PyS)2, MeIm, DMI; conc. aq. NH3 for compounds 10A,G,C; 80% aq. AcOH (v/v).
Residual PARP-1 and PARP-2 activity (%) in the presence of 1 mM compounds 4 and 10 or IC50 (μМ).
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Compound | PARP-1 | PARP-2 | Compound | PARP-1 | PARP-2 |
|
| 80% ± 14% | 421 ± 6 μM |
| 353 ± 4 μM | 63 ±10 μM |
Residual PARP-1 and PARP-2 activity (%) or IC50, μМ, in the presence of 1 mM morpholino nucleosides and ribonucleosides.
|
| Ribonucleosides | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Compound | PARP-1 | PARP-2 | Compound | PARP-1 | PARP-2 |
|
| 82% ± 6% | 90 % ± 11% |
| 77% ± 21% | 86% ± 1% |
|
| 139% ± 21 μМ | 64% ± 25% |
| 60% ± 13% | 46% ± 25% |
|
| 200% ± 20 μМ | 58% ± 6% |
| 81% ± 16% | 85% ± 4% |
|
| 91% ± 24% | 97% ± 8% |
| 7% 4 ± 20% | 96% ± 10% |
|
| 148 ± 53 μМ | 114 ± 32 μМ |
| 277 ± 107 μМ | 330 ± 61 μМ |
|
| 53 ± 12 μМ | 85 ± 9 μМ |
| 49 ± 9 μМ | 26.5 ± 3.5 μМ |
|
| 61 ± 16 μМ | 210 ± 48 μМ |
| 244 ± 83 μМ | 190 ± 16 μМ |
|
| 233 ± 25 μМ | 378 μМ |
| 82% ±17 % | 196 ± 25 μМ |
Figure 3Graphs of Km (left) and Vmax (right) values versus inhibitor concentration. 3-AB, a commercially-available PARP-1 inhibitor [75], was used as a positive control.
Figure 4Basic activity of PARP-3 in DNA (A) and protein ADP-ribosylation (B) and the influence of the inhibitors on these reactions. (A) Activity of PARP-3 on [32P]-labeled one-window gapped DNA substrate in the absence (lanes 1–4) or presence of inhibitors in the different concentrations (lanes 5–32) on the upper panel. The reactions were performed using increasing concentration of NAD+. Lane c corresponds to initial electrophoretic mobility of the DNA substrate. The chart on the bottom panel is reflected of the reaction yield of the ADP-ribosylated DNA in percentage terms. (B) Activity of PARP-3 on gap1 DNA substrate in the absence (lanes 1–3) or presence of inhibitors in the different concentrations (lanes 4–18) on the upper panel. The reactions were performed using increasing concentration of NAD+ in the presence of [32P]-labeled NAD+. Lane c corresponds to reaction mixture without PARP-3. The chart on the bottom panel is reflected of the reaction yield of the ADP-ribosylated PARP-3 in the presence of inhibitor normalized on the yield of the autoribosylation of PARP-3 in percentage terms. The ticks on the chart mark the bars with the 0.5 mM of inhibitor in the experiment.
Figure 5Structural model of the PARP-2 catalytic domain in complex with NAD+ at the donor binding site and ADP fragment at the acceptor binding site. The molecular surface illustrates ADP binding subsites of acceptor substrate (gray color), nicotinamide riboside fragment of donor NAD+ substrate (orange color) and the ADP fragment of donor NAD+ substrate (blue color). HD domain is not shown for simplicity. Substrates are shown in green color.
Figure 6Predicted binding poses of 11IU (A) and 5-I-Urd (B) bound to the NA binding site of the PARP-2 catalytic domain. Hydrogen bonds are depicted as green dashed lines. Small molecules are shown in green color.
Figure 7Predicted binding mode of 10IU with the donor binding site of the PARP-2 catalytic domain. (A) The close-view of the donor binding site. (B) Structural alignment of the binding poses of 10IU (green color) with NAD+ (cyan color) and 5-I-Urd (black color). (C) Representative conformations of 10IU from the molecular dynamics trajectory, the conformation with the intramolecular hydrogen bond with the non-bridging α-phosphate oxygen of ADP (bottom) and the conformation with the hydrogen bond with carbonyl oxygen of the heterocyclic base of the modified nucleoside (top) are shown. The molecular surface of the binding site is shown. Hydrogen bonds are depicted as green dashed lines.
Figure 8Predicted binding pose of 10A with the acceptor binding site of the PARP-1/2 catalytic domain. (A) The structural alignment of PARP-1 and PARP-2. Variable loops are indicated in red and yellow colors for PARP-1 and PARP-2, respectively. Detailed view of 10A interaction with PARP-1 (B) and PARP-2 (C) is shown. (D) PARP-3 acceptor binding site with superimposed binding pose of 10A from PARP-2/10A complex. Steric clashes are shown with red disks. Unsatisfied hydrogen bond donor and acceptor atoms of the PARP-3 acceptor binding site hindered by ligand are shown as spheres. Hydrogen bonds are depicted as dashed lines. HD domain is not shown for simplicity.