Elisabeth Eger1, Adam Simon2, Mahima Sharma3, Song Yang2, Willem B Breukelaar1, Gideon Grogan3, K N Houk2, Wolfgang Kroutil1. 1. Department of Chemistry, Organic and Bioorganic Chemistry , University of Graz , Heinrichstrasse 28 , 8010 Graz , Austria. 2. Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry , University of California , Los Angeles , California 90095-1569 , United States. 3. Department of Chemistry , University of York , Heslington , York YO15 5DD , U.K.
Abstract
The Pictet-Spengler reaction is a valuable route to 1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-β-carboline (THBC) and isoquinoline scaffolds found in many important pharmaceuticals. Strictosidine synthase (STR) catalyzes the Pictet-Spengler condensation of tryptamine and the aldehyde secologanin to give (S)-strictosidine as a key intermediate in indole alkaloid biosynthesis. STRs also accept short-chain aliphatic aldehydes to give enantioenriched alkaloid products with up to 99% ee STRs are thus valuable asymmetric organocatalysts for applications in organic synthesis. The STR catalysis of reactions of small aldehydes gives an unexpected switch in stereopreference, leading to formation of the (R)-products. Here we report a rationale for the formation of the (R)-configured products by the STR enzyme from Ophiorrhiza pumila (OpSTR) using a combination of X-ray crystallography, mutational, and molecular dynamics (MD) studies. We discovered that short-chain aldehydes bind in an inverted fashion compared to secologanin leading to the inverted stereopreference for the observed (R)-product in those cases. The study demonstrates that the same catalyst can have two different productive binding modes for one substrate but give different absolute configuration of the products by binding the aldehyde substrate differently. These results will guide future engineering of STRs and related enzymes for biocatalytic applications.
The Pictet-Spengler reaction is a valuable route to 1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-β-carboline (THBC) and isoquinoline scaffolds found in many important pharmaceuticals. Strictosidine synthase (STR) catalyzes the Pictet-Spengler condensation of tryptamine and the aldehyde secologanin to give (S)-strictosidine as a key intermediate in indole alkaloid biosynthesis. STRs also accept short-chain aliphatic aldehydes to give enantioenriched alkaloid products with up to 99% ee STRs are thus valuable asymmetric organocatalysts for applications in organic synthesis. The STR catalysis of reactions of small aldehydes gives an unexpected switch in stereopreference, leading to formation of the (R)-products. Here we report a rationale for the formation of the (R)-configured products by the STR enzyme from Ophiorrhiza pumila (OpSTR) using a combination of X-ray crystallography, mutational, and molecular dynamics (MD) studies. We discovered that short-chain aldehydes bind in an inverted fashion compared to secologanin leading to the inverted stereopreference for the observed (R)-product in those cases. The study demonstrates that the same catalyst can have two different productive binding modes for one substrate but give different absolute configuration of the products by binding the aldehyde substrate differently. These results will guide future engineering of STRs and related enzymes for biocatalytic applications.
Isoquinoline and β-carboline
derivatives are both widespread
structural motifs found in alkaloids isolated from various plants
and animals. The isoquinoline scaffold is a building block of many
pharmaceutically important drugs such as the antispasmodic papaverine
and the analgesic codeine.[1] β-Carboline
alkaloids exhibit a wide range of psychopharmacological effects through
inhibition of monoamine oxidases or by binding to benzodiazepine receptors.[2]The Pictet–Spengler reaction, by
which 1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-β-carbolines
(THBCs) and isoquinolines are synthesized from amines and aldehydes,
represents an important synthetic procedure for the preparation of
alkaloid derivatives and pharmaceuticals since its discovery more
than a century ago.[3] The development of
asymmetric synthetic versions of the reaction has sparked great interest.
In addition to diastereoselective approaches, where stereocontrol
can be exerted by either the amine[4] or
the carbonyl substrate,[5] using a chiral
auxiliary,[6] several procedures employing
chiral catalysts, such as Bronsted acids,[7] Lewis acids,[8] or thiourea compounds,[9] have also been described in literature.In nature, the equivalent reaction is catalyzed by enzymes known
as “Pictet–Spenglerases” (PSases). Since the
identification of the first PSase in 1976[10] this enzyme family has been constantly growing. In addition to the
well-investigated representatives norcoclaurine synthase (NCS)[11] and strictosidine synthase (STR), many PSases,
such as deacetylipecoside synthase (DIS) and deacetylisoipecoside
synthase (DIIS) from Alangium lamarckii,[12] SfmC-C from Streptomyces lavendulae,[13] McbB from Marinactinospora
thermotolerans,[14] and NscbB (from Nocardiopsis synnemataformans DSM 44143),[15] have been identified; however, structural, mechanistic,
or biosynthetic applications of the latter have not been intensively
studied.The first identified representative of “Pictet–Spenglerases”,
STR from Rauvolfia serpentina (RsSTR, EC 4.3.3.2), catalyzes the stereoselective condensation of tryptamine
(1) and secologanin, leading to the formation of (S)-strictosidine, a central intermediate in the biosynthetic
pathway of indole alkaloids (Scheme A).[16] Crystal structures
of RsSTR and mechanistic studies revealed that the
reaction is catalyzed by a glutamate residue, Glu309, in the active
site pocket, likely assisted by neighboring tyrosine and histidine.[17] Evaluation of the synthetic potential of this
and other STRs revealed a relatively broad applicability of various
tryptamine analogues as substrates.[17c,18] In addition
to secologanin analogues,[18c,19] selected aldehydes
bearing shorter side chains were accepted by the enzyme, although
with lower activities.[20] However, interestingly,
we discovered that for small aliphatic aldehydes (e.g., 2a–d) the corresponding (R)-configured
THBC products were obtained employing, for example, the STR from Ophiorrhiza pumila (OpSTR) or RsSTR with an ee of >98% for 3a (Scheme B), in contrast to the absolute configuration
of the natural (S)-configured product (S)-strictosidine.[20b]
Scheme 1
Reactions Catalyzed
by Strictosidine Synthase (STR)
Results published previously.[20b]
A: natural reaction of tryptamine with secologanin yielding (S)-strictosidine; B: reactions between tryptamine and small
aliphatic aldehydes 2a–d resulted
in the formation of the corresponding (R)-configured
tetrahydro-β-carbolines 3.
Reactions Catalyzed
by Strictosidine Synthase (STR)
Results published previously.[20b]A: natural reaction of tryptamine with secologanin yielding (S)-strictosidine; B: reactions between tryptamine and small
aliphatic aldehydes 2a–d resulted
in the formation of the corresponding (R)-configured
tetrahydro-β-carbolines 3.We have now investigated the origin of this switch in stereopreference
from (S) for the natural reaction (tryptamine with
secologanin) to (R) when using non-native aldehydes 2a–d as substrates with tryptamine employing
the STR from Ophiorrhiza pumila (OpSTR). We use X-ray crystallography, mutational analysis, and MD simulations
to determine the origin of this unexpected phenomenon.
Results and Discussion
In a first attempt to elucidate the origin of the (R)-stereoselectivity of OpSTR with aldehydes 2b–d (Scheme B), X-ray crystallographic studies were performed
with OpSTR cocrystallized with racemic THBC products 3a–c as ligands. The overall architecture
of OpSTR is a six-bladed β-propeller fold (Figure ), as previously
observed in crystal structures of related enzymes such as RsSTR. Here each blade consists of a four-stranded antiparallel
β-sheet arranged around a central axis. The individual strands
are twisted, resulting in an almost perpendicular orientation of the
fourth strand to the first inner strand. One of these β-sheets
(β-sheet 1, Figure ) is formed from one strand from the N-terminus and three
strands from the C-terminus, forming the so-called “velcro
closure” present in most β-propeller proteins. Additionally,
four short α-helices located at the outer surface of the propeller
are present in the structure of OpSTR. One of these
helices situated on top of the central axis of the enzyme forms the
entrance to the active site pocket. Two of these helices are connected
by a conserved disulfide bridge formed between residues Cys60 and
Cys72 in OpSTR (numbering of residues is adapted
to the amino acid sequence devoid of a N-terminal signal peptide that
is removed for improved expression[20b]).
Figure 1
Overlay
of structures of OpSTR (blue) and RsSTR (gray, PDB 2v91). Residues mentioned in this paper are highlighted
in cyan. Ligands are not displayed.
Overlay
of structures of OpSTR (blue) and RsSTR (gray, PDB 2v91). Residues mentioned in this paper are highlighted
in cyan. Ligands are not displayed.Soaking experiments with apo-crystals of OpSTR
with THBCs were unsuccessful. However, OpSTR readily
cocrystallized in the presence of racemic THBCs rac-3a–c and yielded diffracting crystals
with the corresponding ligand coordinated in the active site pocket.
In the observed orientation of ligand 3 in the active
site, the aliphatic substituent of the THBCs (isobutyl for 3a) points into the active site pocket; thus, the β-carboline
is pointing outside. This is in contrast to the structures of STR
from Rauvolfia serpentina with the natural product
(S)-strictosidine (PDB code: 2v91), where the β-carboline
points into the active site pocket and the aldehyde side chain protrudes
from the active site. Despite the switched orientation of the molecule,
the position of the nitrogen atom of the indole moiety of the ligands
(S)-strictosidine and 3a is similar
and in close proximity to the active site glutamate residue (Glu309
in RsSTR, Glu276 in OpSTR; Figure A). All ligands found
in crystal structures determined from cocrystallization experiments
with racemic THBCs (3a–c) adopted
a similar orientation in the active site (Figure B). The distances from the N atom to Glu276
found in the crystal structures range between 2.8 Å (structure
with 3b) and 3.6 Å (structure with 3c). The most surprising finding however was that in all cases exclusively
the (S)-enantiomers of 3a–c were identified in the active site of OpSTR, which represents the opposite enantiomer of the preferred (R)-product formed in the corresponding enzymatic reactions.
However, no crystals were formed when using optically pure (R)-3a, which is produced by the enzyme with
>98% ee, as ligand for cocrystallization,
Figure 2
OpSTR
and RsSTR with THBCs as
ligands. (A) Comparison of OpSTR (blue) containing 3a (orange) with RsSTR (gray mesh) containing
(S)-strictosidine (gray, PDB: 2V91). (B) Alignment
of different THBC ligands coordinated in OpSTR. The
active site glutamate Glu276 coordinating the N atom is displayed
as stick representation. The ligands are depicted in the following
colors: 3a, orange; 3b, yellow; 3c, cyan.
OpSTR
and RsSTR with THBCs as
ligands. (A) Comparison of OpSTR (blue) containing 3a (orange) with RsSTR (gray mesh) containing
(S)-strictosidine (gray, PDB: 2V91). (B) Alignment
of different THBC ligands coordinated in OpSTR. The
active site glutamate Glu276 coordinating the N atom is displayed
as stick representation. The ligands are depicted in the following
colors: 3a, orange; 3b, yellow; 3c, cyan.Because the obtained crystal structures
contained the (S)- and not the expected (R)-enantiomers,
it was suspected that the (S)-THBC may act as inhibitor,
due to the higher affinity of this enantiomer to the enzyme. Indeed,
when testing the OpSTR in a reaction between 1 and 2a adding (S)-, (R)-, or rac-3d, the IC50 values calculated from experimentally determined reaction
rates indicate that 3d has inhibitory effects on OpSTR (Table ).
Table 1
Summary of IC50 Values
Determined from Curve Fits of Experimentally Determined Values (determined
from Figures S4–S6, Supporting Information)a
compound
IC50 [mM]
rac-3d
3.4 ± 0.3
(S)-3d
1.6 ± 0.1
(R)-3d
n.a.
Reactions
were run with 10 mM tryptamine 1, 50 mM isovaleraldehyde 3a in PIPES (500 μL,
50 mM, pH 7.0, 10% v/v DMSO) in the presence of 3d (0.01–20
mM) catalyzed by 100 μg of purified OpSTR (∼5.5
μM) at 35 °C, 650 rpm. Velocities were determined by following
the formation of product for 3 h. Normalized reaction rates were plotted
in a semilogarithmic plot using the SigmaPlot Standard Curves Analysis
macro to determine the IC50 values. n.a.: not applicable.
Reactions
were run with 10 mM tryptamine 1, 50 mM isovaleraldehyde 3a in PIPES (500 μL,
50 mM, pH 7.0, 10% v/v DMSO) in the presence of 3d (0.01–20
mM) catalyzed by 100 μg of purified OpSTR (∼5.5
μM) at 35 °C, 650 rpm. Velocities were determined by following
the formation of product for 3 h. Normalized reaction rates were plotted
in a semilogarithmic plot using the SigmaPlot Standard Curves Analysis
macro to determine the IC50 values. n.a.: not applicable.While the (S)-enantiomer (S)-3d led to inhibition
of the reaction already at low concentration,
the mirror image (R)-3d led to inhibition
only at higher concentrations. Thus, product inhibition is mainly
caused by the (S)-enantiomer. On the basis of this
observation, we concluded that the crystal structures obtained most
likely did not show the product ligand in a catalytically productive
conformation but rather revealed the inhibition of the enzyme by (S)-THBCs.Despite the acquisition of the OpSTR structures,
the ligand complexes did not provide information on the binding mode
of (R)-THBCs and thus did not explain the observed
stereopreference. To gain more insight into the basis for selective
transformation by OpSTR, a stable amine mimic 4 of the imine intermediate int-I formed from
tryptamine and isobutyraldehyde 2a was designed (Figure ). In the structure
of OpSTR obtained by cocrystallization with 4, two ligand molecules were found in each protein monomer.
The active site was occupied by one ligand, while another ligand was
bound to the periphery of the enzyme (Figure ). In the peripheral site, the amine nitrogen
was approximately 3.0 Å from the side chain of Glu6, but mutation
of this residue to alanine gave a mutant with activity comparable
to the wild type, suggesting that this is not a secondary active site.
In contrast, the Glu276Ala variant was not active, showing that this
is the residue responsible for activity. In the active site, the aliphatic
side chain of 4 was pointing into the active site pocket,
while the indole moiety was pointing toward the enzyme surface, in
different orientations in each monomer dictated by rotation around
the side chain, suggestive of the mobility required to achieve proximity
to the imine bond for ring closure in a reactive complex. The alicyclic
nitrogen atom is located at a distance of 4.2–4.7 Å from
the side chain of Glu279, in approximately the same location as the
endocyclic nitrogen of (S)-3a, with
the isobutyl group again held in a hydrophobic pocket formed by Phe197,
Trp120, and Tyr122, in a similar mode to that seen in (S)-3a.
Figure 3
OpSTR cocrystallized with amine 4 as ligand. The figure shows a comparison between OpSTR with amine 4 (green) bound (displayed
in blue) and OpSTR with THBC 3a (protein
depicted in gray,
ligand in orange). Furthermore, the orientations of 4 found in the active site of OpSTR and in the outer
coordination site at Glu6 are displayed.
OpSTR cocrystallized with amine 4 as ligand. The figure shows a comparison between OpSTR with amine 4 (green) bound (displayed
in blue) and OpSTR with THBC 3a (protein
depicted in gray,
ligand in orange). Furthermore, the orientations of 4 found in the active site of OpSTR and in the outer
coordination site at Glu6 are displayed.To investigate the influence of these active site residues including
the essential Glu276 on the reaction, variants were generated (Table S5). The exchange of Glu276 to aspartate
yielded an active variant; however, the stereoselectivity in reactions
between 1 and 2a or 2d dropped
significantly from >98% ee and 76% ee to 92% and 8%, respectively.
The same effect was observed for variants of Trp120 with sterically
less demanding residues such as alanine, phenylalanine, and tyrosine
and for Tyr122Phe. Variant Tyr122Leu was not active. Actually, also
products with lower ee were obtained for the variants Phe197Tyr/Trp/Leu.
Thus, the variants generated indicate that all these active side residues
contribute to the high stereoselectivity observed by the wild type
enzyme for the transformation of isovaleraldehyde 2a with 1, but they do not give a hint for the switch of stereopreference
compared to the reaction of secologanin with 1.To better understand the switch of stereopreference, a combined
density functional theory (DFT) and molecular dynamics (MD) study
was undertaken. The Pictet–Spengler reaction follows a well-studied
mechanism,[3,17c,17d,20a,21] and we computed the free energy barrier for the analogue to confirm
the rate-determining step (Figure ) at the M06-2X/6-311++G(2d,2p)-SMD // M06-2X/6-31+G(d,p)-SMD
level of theory with the water solvation model. All intermediates
and transition structures were computed from exhaustive conformational
searches, and the lowest-energy conformations are shown in Figure . In agreement with
previous computational studies,[9b] we found
the cyclization barrier from iminium int-I to be low
and reversible (ΔG⧧ = 13.9
kcal/mol), leading to the carbocation intermediate int-II. This is consistent with the structural data that showed the mobility
of the indole in the binding site. We modeled the deprotonation and
rearomatization step with a free acetate molecule to simulate the
catalytic glutamate residue. The deprotonation transition structure TS-II has a barrier of 23.8 kcal/mol, leading directly to
the product 3a. It is well-known that the deprotonation
step is rate-determining, while the cyclization establishes the stereochemistry
of the new stereogenic center. Based on these results, and previous
studies, the cyclization step is reversible, and the enzyme deprotonates
only one of the stereoisomeric intermediates to form the product.
We chose to model the carbocation intermediate int-II for both the analogue and strictosidine in molecular dynamics simulations
to determine which stereoisomeric intermediate is able to acquire
the best near-attack-conformation for deprotonation.[22]
Figure 4
Free energy profile of the Pictet–Spengler reaction between
tryptamine (1) and 2a calculated at the
M06-2X/6-311++G(2d,2p)-SMD // M06-2X/6-31+G(d,p)-SMD level of theory.
Distances are in angstroms (Å). Energies are shown in kcal/mol.
Free energy profile of the Pictet–Spengler reaction between
tryptamine (1) and 2a calculated at the
M06-2X/6-311++G(2d,2p)-SMD // M06-2X/6-31+G(d,p)-SMD level of theory.
Distances are in angstroms (Å). Energies are shown in kcal/mol.To understand first the stereopreference of the
STR for the natural
strictosidine substrate, we performed molecular dynamics simulations
on the carbocation intermediate int-II for (S)- and (R)-strictosidine. The intermediates were
docked into the binding pocket with Autodock Vina,[23] and the best-scoring pose was selected as the input for
500 ns of MD simulations using Amber.[24] The purpose of the MD simulations was to determine which stereoisomeric
intermediate is stable in the binding pocket and best resembles the
near-attack-conformation for deprotonation. In principle, the intermediate
with the optimal near-attack-conformation between the hydrogen (of
the carbocation) and the catalytic glutamate residue would be predicted
to have a lower energy barrier for rearomatization.Snapshots
for (S)- and (R)-strictosidine-int,
the analogous carbocation intermediates of int-II for
strictosidine, are shown in Figure . Figure A illustrates a snapshot of the carbocation (S)-strictosidine-int
in the protein pocket. The interaction between the glutamate oxygen
and hydrogen for deprotonation is shown in blue dashed lines. The
catalytic triad (tyrosine, glutamate, and histidine) as well as residues
that interact strongly with the glucose side chain of strictosidine
are shown. Figure B shows a snapshot of the carbocation (R)-strictosidine-int
in the protein pocket. The interaction between the glutamate oxygen
and hydrogen for deprotonation is shown in red dashed lines. Similarly,
only the catalytic triad and residues interacting with strictosidine
are shown for clarity.
Figure 5
Results from MD simulation with (S)-
and (R)-strictosidine-int. (A) Snapshot of MD trajectory
of (S)-strictosidine-int. (B) Snapshot of MD trajectory
of (R)-strictosidine-int. (C) Plot of hydrogen (of
(R/S)-strictosidine-int) to oxygen
(of glutamate)
distances vs time in nanoseconds throughout the MD trajectory. The
blue line represents the distance for (S)-strictosidine-int
and the red line represents the distance for (R)-strictosidine-int.
Results from MD simulation with (S)-
and (R)-strictosidine-int. (A) Snapshot of MD trajectory
of (S)-strictosidine-int. (B) Snapshot of MD trajectory
of (R)-strictosidine-int. (C) Plot of hydrogen (of
(R/S)-strictosidine-int) to oxygen
(of glutamate)
distances vs time in nanoseconds throughout the MD trajectory. The
blue line represents the distance for (S)-strictosidine-int
and the red line represents the distance for (R)-strictosidine-int.The distance between the hydrogen HA and the oxygens
on the catalytic glutamate were monitored throughout the MD simulation,
which is plotted in Figure C. For the (S)-strictosidine-int carbocation,
the trajectory showed that conformations are sampled for roughly 150
ns until a highly stable conformation is located at 175 ns, which
remains for the 500 ns simulation. This is shown for one trajectory
in Figure C by the
blue line. These results are found in triplicate MD simulations. The
(R)-strictosidine-int carbocation, by contrast, is
unable to find a stable conformation in the binding pocket and adopts
a binding pose to the surface of the protein. The red line in Figure C shows the H···O
distance and illustrates how the intermediate changes conformations
roughly every 50 ns until the 150 ns region where the intermediate
exits from the binding pocket. These results are found in triplicate,
unless a different starting geometry is used for (R)-strictosidine-int where the hydrogen for deprotonation is on the
opposite face of the indole ring.In these MD simulations, the
polar interactions between the residues
in Figure A and 5B with the strictosidineglucose unit were observed.
For the (S)-intermediate, the interactions are maintained
throughout the 500 ns of the MD simulation. In contrast, the (R) intermediate cannot accommodate those interactions while
being in a near-attack-conformation for HA and the glutamate
oxygen. When the carbocation is flipped, a stable conformation is
found with proximal polar interactions in the MD simulation, but deprotonation
cannot occur from this geometry. Thus, we can extrapolate that the
strictosidine synthase shows the known stereopreference because the
polar glucose unit anchors the substrate into the binding pocket by
binding to a specific region of the protein surface. This conformation
places the tryptamine unit of the carbocation tightly in the hydrophobic
region of the binding pocket. The observed stereoisomer, (S)-strictosidine, forms because a near-attack-conformation
is highly preferred. The alternative stereoisomer is not formed because
there are insufficient stabilizing interactions for the (R)-strictosidine intermediate around the binding pocket to anchor
the substrate to the catalytic residue, and consequently the deprotonation
is very slow.While the stereospecificity of strictosidine was
established with
MD simulations, we continued to investigate why the stereoselectivity
switches with small aliphatic aldehydes such as isovaleraldehyde 2a. We performed MD simulations on the stereoisomers of the
analogue substrate carbocations int-II. Snapshots for
each 500 ns MD simulation [(R)- and (S)-int-II] are shown in Figure A and 6B. In both
MD simulations, the isobutyl substituent on the chiral center prefers
to bind on the inside of the binding pocket, in contrast to strictosidine
which prefers tryptamine in the binding pocket. In each snapshot,
only the catalytic triad is shown. During the 500 ns trajectories,
stable conformations are found for both stereoisomers within close
distances to the catalytic glutamate.
Figure 6
Results from MD simulation with (R)- and (S)-int-II. (A) Snapshot
of MD trajectory of
(R)-int-II. (B) Snapshot of MD trajectory
of (S)-int-II. (C) Plot of hydrogen
(of int-II) to oxygen (of glutamate) distances vs C–H–O
angles throughout the MD trajectory, with the transition state geometry
shown in green. The blue data points are results from the MD trajectory
with (R)-int-II, and the red data points
are results from the MD trajectory with (S)-int-II.
Results from MD simulation with (R)- and (S)-int-II. (A) Snapshot
of MD trajectory of
(R)-int-II. (B) Snapshot of MD trajectory
of (S)-int-II. (C) Plot of hydrogen
(of int-II) to oxygen (of glutamate) distances vs C–H–O
angles throughout the MD trajectory, with the transition state geometry
shown in green. The blue data points are results from the MD trajectory
with (R)-int-II, and the red data points
are results from the MD trajectory with (S)-int-II.However, the trajectories differ
for the stereoisomeric intermediates
at the near-attack-conformation geometry. In snapshot A, the (R)-int-II H–O distance is proximal,
and the catalytic triad is conserved with close interactions. However,
(S)-int-II, shown in snapshot B, the
catalytic triad fails to form a strong hydrogen bond consistently
for a majority of the 500 ns trajectory. This occurs for a majority
of the 500 ns trajectory. The glutamate, while proximal to the substrate,
develops a C–H–O angle between 60° and 120°
throughout the MD simulation. Few snapshots reach the near-attack-conformation
and a geometry near the quantum chemical transition structure for
the (S)-analogue. The distances between the hydrogen
of the carbocations and the oxygen of the glutamates were plotted
against the C–H–O angle, which are both required parameters
for the deprotonation, shown in Figure C. The green data point represents the ideal transition
structure optimized with density functional theory in Figure . The data in Figure C show a clear trend in which
(R)-int-II often achieves a conformation
close to the transition structure, or an optimal near-attack-conformation,
whereas (S)-int-II has a poor geometry
for deprotonation despite being proximal to the catalytic residue.
The difference in geometry between (R)-int-II and (S)-int-II is the location of
the isobutyl group. In (R)-int-II, the
isobutyl group moves into the area that is occupied by the tryptamine
core in strictosidine, whereas in (S)-int-II the isobutyl group adopts a position close to the backbone of the
protein and interferes sterically with the glutamate residue, similar
to that observed for the inhibiting enantiomer in the X-ray complex
with (S)-3a as well as for amine 4. This illustrates the switch in stereopreference, as well
as the lack of stereospecificity with the smaller aldehydes. Because
both stereoisomers can reach a near-attack-conformation with a stable
geometry, both stereoisomers are formed but (R)-int-II is preferred.Due to the suggested changed binding
mode of tryptamine 1 in the reaction with 2a compared to the natural reaction
with secologanin, the KM for tryptamine 1 was determined in the reaction between 1 and 2a and found to be 1.24 ± 0.13 mM. This value is just
about twice the value reported for the KM of tryptamine 1 with secologanin (0.5 mM) for OpSTR.[25] Literature values for
the KM for the natural substrate secologanin
vary between 3.9 × 10–2 mM[17c] and 4 mM[18e] for STR wild types,
while the here determined KM for the non-natural
substrate isovaleraldehyde 2a is slightly higher at 5.36
± 0.83 mM.It is also worth to mention that Glu276 is the
active residue in
the active site in the natural reaction (tryptamine with secologanin)
as well as in the here-described inverted binding mode. This was demonstrated
by the exchange of Glu276 to alanine, which resulted in an inactive
protein.
Conclusions
In the (organo)catalytic Pictet–Spengler
reaction investigated,
the stereochemistry-determining reaction involves the deprotonation
of the (S)- and (R)-intermediates.
The MD simulations indicate clearly a binding mode of the natural
intermediate and the substrate in which the indole part is pointing
to the periphery of the enzyme, a conformation that was also observed
for the inhibiting enantiomer in the X-ray complex with (S)-3a as well as for amine 4 mimicking the
iminium int-II. By contrast, the alkyl group of the aldehyde,
not bound by hydrogen binding present for secologanin, dominates binding
with unnatural aldehydes. Thus, it can be concluded that the observed
switch in stereopreference is due to a switch of positioning of the
reacting substrate parts compared to the natural reaction of tryptamine
with secologanin. Remarkably, the same catalyst can have two different
productive binding modes for one substrate, here tryptamine, which
lead finally to opposite absolute configurations of the product. Furthermore,
as tryptamine serves as one reaction partner for both reactions, the
one with the natural substrate secologanin as well as the reaction
with isovaleraldehyde, the binding mode seems to be controlled by
the aldehyde and not the tryptamine part. Furthermore, the investigations
revealed that the minor enantiomer formed in the reaction may act
as an inhibitor. These insights have profound significance for the
future engineering of STRs to ensure on the one hand that the amino
acids in the appropriate region are addressed for tuning the catalyst
and on the other hand to consider that the minor enantiomer is either
not formed or cannot bind. STRs thus present an unusual set of considerations
for the engineering of enzyme activity that may have relevance to
other systems where enzymes are required to transform substrates very
different from those accepted in the native reaction.
Authors: Eric D. Cox; Linda K. Hamaker; Jin Li; Peng Yu; Kevin M. Czerwinski; Li Deng; Dennis W. Bennett; James M. Cook; William H. Watson; Mariusz Krawiec Journal: J Org Chem Date: 1997-01-10 Impact factor: 4.354
Authors: Justin J Maresh; Lesley-Ann Giddings; Anne Friedrich; Elke A Loris; Santosh Panjikar; Bernhardt L Trout; Joachim Stöckigt; Baron Peters; Sarah E O'Connor Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2008-01-16 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Desiree Pressnitz; Eva-Maria Fischereder; Jakob Pletz; Christina Kofler; Lucas Hammerer; Katharina Hiebler; Horst Lechner; Nina Richter; Elisabeth Eger; Wolfgang Kroutil Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2018-06-21 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Marianna Boccia; Dagny Grzech; Adriana A Lopes; Sarah E O'Connor; Lorenzo Caputi Journal: Front Plant Sci Date: 2022-06-22 Impact factor: 6.627
Authors: Elisabeth Eger; Joerg H Schrittwieser; Dennis Wetzl; Hans Iding; Bernd Kuhn; Wolfgang Kroutil Journal: Chemistry Date: 2020-11-03 Impact factor: 5.236