Ubiquitin carboxy-terminal hydrolase L1 (UCHL1) is a deubiquitylating enzyme that is proposed as a potential therapeutic target in neurodegeneration, cancer, and liver and lung fibrosis. Herein we report the discovery of the most potent and selective UCHL1 probe (IMP-1710) to date based on a covalent inhibitor scaffold and apply this probe to identify and quantify target proteins in intact human cells. IMP-1710 stereoselectively labels the catalytic cysteine of UCHL1 at low nanomolar concentration in cells. We further demonstrate that potent and selective UCHL1 inhibitors block pro-fibrotic responses in a cellular model of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, supporting the potential of UCHL1 as a potential therapeutic target in fibrotic diseases.
Ubiquitin carboxy-terminal hydrolase L1 (UCHL1) is a deubiquitylating enzyme that is proposed as a potential therapeutic target in neurodegeneration, cancer, and liver and lung fibrosis. Herein we report the discovery of the most potent and selective UCHL1 probe (IMP-1710) to date based on a covalent inhibitor scaffold and apply this probe to identify and quantify target proteins in intact human cells. IMP-1710 stereoselectively labels the catalytic cysteine of UCHL1 at low nanomolar concentration in cells. We further demonstrate that potent and selective UCHL1 inhibitors block pro-fibrotic responses in a cellular model of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, supporting the potential of UCHL1 as a potential therapeutic target in fibrotic diseases.
Targeting the ubiquitin (Ub)
proteasome system is an emerging therapeutic strategy, and deubiquitylating
enzymes (DUBs) have attracted increasing interest as drug targets.[1] To study DUB biology and inhibition, Ub-derived
activity-based probes (ABPs) have been developed that covalently bind
to DUB active sites, allowing isolation or profiling in cell lysates.[2] However, they are not selective between DUBs
and limited to cell-free applications, highlighting a need for complementary
small-molecule ABPs to profile DUB activity in intact cells.[3,4]Ubiquitin carboxy-terminal hydrolase L1 (UCHL1) belongs to
the
UCH protease family, which feature a characteristic Cys-His-Asp catalytic
triad.[5] Although its biological functions
are not yet fully understood, UCHL1 is abundantly expressed in the
brain, where it is involved in apoptosis regulation, learning, and
memory, while UCHL1 dysregulation is linked to diseases including
neurodegeneration,[5] cancers,[6−8] and fibrosis.[9]A screening and
hit optimization campaign by Mission Therapeutics
identified a series of novel cyanamide-containing UCHL1 inhibitors.[10] Recognizing the potential of these inhibitors
as covalent probes for UCHL1, we selected a potent example (1; example 27 in ref (10)) and designed analogue IMP-1710 (2) bearing
an alkyne tag strategically placed in line with established structure–activity
relationships (Figure a),[10] enabling functionalization and analysis
postinhibition with “capture” reagents via copper(I)-catalyzed
azide–alkyne cycloaddition (CuAAC).[11,12]
Figure 1
Potency
and selectivity of UCHL1 inhibitor (1), alkyne
ABP (IMP-1710, 2), control compound (IMP-1711, 3), and LDN-57444. (a) Structures and UCHL1 IC50 values (Ub-Lys-TAMRA FP assay; *maximum assay concentration). (b)
Selectivity profiling of 1 and 2 against
DUBs in FP and FI assays (Ub-Lys-TAMRA and Ub-Rho110, respectively).
See Supporting Information for 3 and LDN-57444 profiling. Data represent mean ± SEM (n = 2). (c) Immunoblot analysis of HA-Ub-VME UCHL1 labeling
following HEK293T treatment with 1, 2, or 3 for 1 h. Dose-dependent competition for UCHL1 labeling occurs
for active compounds, but not inactive enantiomer 3.
Potency
and selectivity of UCHL1 inhibitor (1), alkyneABP (IMP-1710, 2), control compound (IMP-1711, 3), and LDN-57444. (a) Structures and UCHL1 IC50 values (Ub-Lys-TAMRA FP assay; *maximum assay concentration). (b)
Selectivity profiling of 1 and 2 against
DUBs in FP and FI assays (Ub-Lys-TAMRA and Ub-Rho110, respectively).
See Supporting Information for 3 and LDN-57444 profiling. Data represent mean ± SEM (n = 2). (c) Immunoblot analysis of HA-Ub-VMEUCHL1 labeling
following HEK293T treatment with 1, 2, or 3 for 1 h. Dose-dependent competition for UCHL1 labeling occurs
for active compounds, but not inactive enantiomer 3.We first examined biochemical UCHL1 inhibition
in a fluorescence
polarization (FP) assay using Ub-Lys-TAMRA.[13] Compound 2 showed improved UCHL1 inhibition (IC50 38 nM, 95% CI 32–45 nM) over parent compound 1 (IC50 90 nM, 95% CI 79–100 nM), following
30 min of preincubation. However, the (R)-enantiomer
of 1 (IMP-1711, 3) was >1000-fold less
active
than 1, demonstrating a highly stereoselective interaction
with UCHL1 and providing a useful negative control (Figures a and S1). We further characterized inhibition kinetics for 1 (kobs/I = 7400 M–1 s–1, 95% Cl 5200–9700) and 2 (kobs/I = 11000
M–1 s–1, 95% Cl 7700–13 000
M–1 s–1); slow recovery of activity
following dilution demonstrated these inhibitors are slowly reversible
(Figure S2), in line with previous reports
on cyanamide warheads.[14] Cross-screening
against 20 DUBs demonstrated exquisite selectivity for 1 and 2 for UCHL1 (Figure b), whereas control compound 3 was inactive
against all tested DUBs (Figure S1). Cellular
UCHL1 activity was demonstrated in breast cancer cells (Cal51) stably
expressing FLAG-UCHL1 using a Ub-vinyl methyl ester probe (HA-Ub-VME)
by a homogeneous time-resolved fluorescence (HTRF) assay.[15] Compounds 1 and 2 engaged
UCHL1 with an in-cell IC50 of 820 and 110 nM, respectively
(Figure S3). Selective in-cell concentration-dependent
competition by 1 and 2 for UCHL1 was confirmed
through immunoblot analysis against HA-Ub-VME labeling (Figures c and S4). Cellular potencies were in line with biochemical data (Figure S1), and compound 3 did not
inhibit UCHL1 in cells.We next compared our probes to the most
potent known UCHL1 inhibitor,
isatin O-acyloximeLDN-57444 (Figure a), reported as a reversible Ub-competitive
UCHL1 inhibitor with IC50 880 nM against recombinant UCHL1[16] and widely used as a tool inhibitor in UCHL1
studies in disease models.[7,9,17,18] However, engagement of UCHL1
in intact cells has not previously been demonstrated, and we were
surprised to discover that LDN-57444 failed to engage UCHL1 in a range
of assays, including biochemical activity and capacity to bind UCHL1
in intact cells (Figures S1, S3, S4).Direct target engagement by 2 was examined in HEK293
cells treated for 60 min, followed by lysis and CuAAC ligation to
azide-TAMRA-biotin capture reagent (AzTB, Figure
S5) (Figure a).[11] In-gel fluorescence revealed one
major target at ∼25 kDa labeled in a concentration-dependent
manner and saturated at 130 nM 2, with some off-target
labeling of >500 nM (Figure b). Labeling was confirmed by biotin pulldown and immunoblotting,
with UCHL1 significantly enriched at 30 nM 2 and maximal
at 130 nM, with minimal or no detectable labeling of UCHL3, UCHL5,
and DUBs from other families (Figures c and S6). Time course experiments
demonstrated maximal labeling within 60 min (Figure
S7), and 2 remained stable in media for >72
h
without loss of activity (Figure S8). Incubation
of recombinant UCHL1 (5 μM) with 1 or 2 (13 μM) for 60 min led to single modification of UCHL1 by
LC-ESI-MS (Figure a), occurring specifically at the catalytic cysteine (Cys90) by tryptic
digest and nanoLC-MS/MS (Figure S9, Supplementary Data S1). To confirm dependence
on UCHL1 catalytic activity for cellular target engagement, we overexpressed
FLAG-tagged wild-type (WT) UCHL1 or C90A or C90S mutants in HeLa cells,
which do not express UCHL1, and demonstrated that only WT UCHL1 is
labeled by 2 (Figures b and S10).[19] Taken together, these data demonstrate 2 is
a bona fide UCHL1ABP that rapidly targets endogenous UCHL1 in cells
in a strictly activity-dependent manner.
Figure 2
UCHL1 activity profiling
using ABP 2 in HEK293 cells.
(a) Chemical proteomics workflow. Cells were incubated with 2 and labeled proteins ligated via CuAAC to AzTB for in-gel
fluorescence and/or affinity enrichment for immunoblotting and proteomic
profiling. (b) In-gel fluorescence shows dose-dependent labeling by 2. (c) Probe-labeled protein identification by enrichment
and immunoblotting.
Figure 3
UCHL1 labeling with 1 or 2 exclusively
at catalytic Cys90 in vitro and in intact cells.
(a) LC-ESI demonstrating single UCHL1 covalent modification with 1 or 2. (b) HeLa cells lacking endogenous UCHL1,
transfected to express UCHL1 wild-type (WT) or catalytic cysteine
mutants (C90A and C90S); pulldown following treatment with 2 and AzTB functionalization confirms specific Cys90 labeling.
UCHL1 activity profiling
using ABP 2 in HEK293 cells.
(a) Chemical proteomics workflow. Cells were incubated with 2 and labeled proteins ligated via CuAAC to AzTB for in-gel
fluorescence and/or affinity enrichment for immunoblotting and proteomic
profiling. (b) In-gel fluorescence shows dose-dependent labeling by 2. (c) Probe-labeled protein identification by enrichment
and immunoblotting.UCHL1 labeling with 1 or 2 exclusively
at catalytic Cys90 in vitro and in intact cells.
(a) LC-ESI demonstrating single UCHL1 covalent modification with 1 or 2. (b) HeLa cells lacking endogenous UCHL1,
transfected to express UCHL1 wild-type (WT) or catalytic cysteine
mutants (C90A and C90S); pulldown following treatment with 2 and AzTB functionalization confirms specific Cys90 labeling.To determine selectivity across the proteome, unbiased
quantitative
chemical proteomic profiling (Figure a) was employed in HEK293 cells treated with 2 (2, 20, or 200 nM) or vehicle (DMSO) control, for 10, 60,
or 180 min. CuAAC ligation of proteins to azide-arginine-biotin (AzRB, Figure S5) capture reagent[11] and enrichment on dimethylated NeutrAvidin-agarose beads
were followed by on-resin digestion with LysC followed by trypsin[20] and labeling with tandem mass tags (TMT) to
enable relative quantification between conditions following nanoLC-MS/MS
analysis. UCHL1 was significantly enriched by 2 in a
concentration-dependent manner, with marginal enrichment of UCHL3
at higher concentrations and no significant enrichment of any other
DUB (Figures a and S11); UCHL1 enrichment was similar at all time
points, in line with in-gel fluorescence analysis (Figure S7). Only two proteins, UCHL1 and fibroblast growth
factor receptor 2 (FGFR2), were significantly enriched at 20 nM 2, with UCHL1 by far the major target (Figure b, Supplementary Data
S2). Full dose–response analysis by immunoblotting demonstrated
that FGFR2 enrichment was barely detectable at any concentration up
to 2 μM (Figure c), compared to UCHL1, which was strongly enriched and reached saturation
at 130 nM (Figure c), suggesting that FGFR2 is minimally engaged by 2 at
concentrations that strongly inhibit UCHL1. No significant abundance
change was detected in whole proteome analysis (Figure S12, Supplementary Data S3), suggesting that 2 does not substantially alter global
protein homeostasis. In-gel fluorescence and immunoblot analysis further
confirmed 2 can profile activity of endogenous UCHL1
with excellent selectivity in cell types including endothelial cells
(EA.hy926) and adenocarcinomahuman alveolar basal epithelial cells
(A549) (Figure S13).
Figure 4
Chemical proteomic analysis
of ABP 2 labeling in HEK293
cells. (a) Selected DUB quantitative profiling by 2,
demonstrating dose-dependent enrichment of UCHL1. Data represent mean
± SEM (n = 3). (b) Volcano plots showing log2 difference (fold change) and significance (−log10p-value) between protein enrichment at
20 or 200 nM 2 compared to DMSO control (two sample t test, n = 3, permutation-based FDR =
0.01, S0 = 1). (c) FGFR2 shows negligible enrichment by 2, as determined by pulldown and immunoblotting. (d, e, f) Compound 1 selectively competes with ABP 2, while 3 and LDN-57444 do not. Competition for ABP 2 labeling was confirmed by (d) in-gel fluorescence; (e) pulldown
and UCHL1 immunoblotting; (f) pulldown and whole proteome quantitative
proteomic analysis. Data represent mean ± SEM (n = 3).
Chemical proteomic analysis
of ABP 2 labeling in HEK293
cells. (a) Selected DUB quantitative profiling by 2,
demonstrating dose-dependent enrichment of UCHL1. Data represent mean
± SEM (n = 3). (b) Volcano plots showing log2 difference (fold change) and significance (−log10p-value) between protein enrichment at
20 or 200 nM 2 compared to DMSO control (two sample t test, n = 3, permutation-based FDR =
0.01, S0 = 1). (c) FGFR2 shows negligible enrichment by 2, as determined by pulldown and immunoblotting. (d, e, f) Compound 1 selectively competes with ABP 2, while 3 and LDN-57444 do not. Competition for ABP 2 labeling was confirmed by (d) in-gel fluorescence; (e) pulldown
and UCHL1 immunoblotting; (f) pulldown and whole proteome quantitative
proteomic analysis. Data represent mean ± SEM (n = 3).To identify selective targets
of parent compound 1 and differentiate between selective
labeling and nonspecific pulldown,
competitive activity-based protein profiling (ABPP) was performed.[21,22] HEK293 cells were treated with 1, 3, or
LDN-57444 for 1 h, followed by 2 (20 nM) for 10 min.
Immunoblot analysis demonstrated dose-dependent UCHL1 labeling reduction
with parent compound 1 at nanomolar concentrations, whereas
no competition was observed with control compound 3 or
LDN-57444, confirming 3 as an effective negative control
and LDN-57444 as inactive against UCHL1 in cells (Figure d and e). In-cell proteome-wide
competitive ABPP was performed by quantitative chemical proteomics,
showing that across the whole proteome UCHL1 responds strongly to 1 in a concentration-dependent manner, but does not respond
with inactive control 3 or LDN-57444 (Figure f and S14, Supplementary Data S4). UCHL3 shows a
small response to 1, while outside the DUB family FGFR2
responds (Figure S14), suggesting these
proteins are possible minor off-targets of 1.Pharmacological
UCHL1 inhibition was next investigated in primary
human lung cells derived from idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF)
patients based on the potential of UCHL1 as a therapeutic target in
fibrosis.[9,23] Fibroblast–myofibroblast transition
(FMT) was stimulated by transforming growth factor beta 1 (TGF-β1)
using alpha-smooth muscle actin (αSMA) as a disease-relevant
marker for transition (Figure a)[24,25] and validated by high content
imaging analysis (HCA) of three donor cell lines alongside response
to 1 h pretreatment with 1 μM TGF-β1 receptor kinase inhibitor
SB525334 (Figure S15).[26] Donor cells were treated with compounds 1, 2, 3, LDN-57444, or the FDA-approved IPF drug
nintedanib,[27] and response to TGF-β1
and cell viability were measured after 3 days by staining and HCA
quantification of αSMA and nuclei (DAPI), respectively.
Figure 5
Phenotypic
effects of selective UCHL1 inhibition in idiopathic
pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). (a) Schematic of TGF-β1-mediated fibroblast-to-myofibroblast
transition in primary human lung fibroblasts, increasing alpha-smooth
muscle actin (αSMA) transdifferentiation marker. (b) Primary
fibroblasts from IPF donors were preincubated with 1 μM 1, 2, 3, LDN-57444, or IPF approved
drug (nintedanib) for 1 h followed by TGF-β1 treatment for 3
days. αSMA expression was analyzed by high content imaging,
demonstrating 1, 2, and nintedanib, but
not 3 or LDN-57444, inhibit transdifferentiation (N.S.
nonsignificant, *P ≤ 0.05, ***P ≤ 0.01). Plots represent median values (center lines) and
25th/75th percentiles (box limits) with Tukey whiskers.
Phenotypic
effects of selective UCHL1 inhibition in idiopathic
pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). (a) Schematic of TGF-β1-mediated fibroblast-to-myofibroblast
transition in primary human lung fibroblasts, increasing alpha-smooth
muscle actin (αSMA) transdifferentiation marker. (b) Primary
fibroblasts from IPF donors were preincubated with 1 μM 1, 2, 3, LDN-57444, or IPF approved
drug (nintedanib) for 1 h followed by TGF-β1 treatment for 3
days. αSMA expression was analyzed by high content imaging,
demonstrating 1, 2, and nintedanib, but
not 3 or LDN-57444, inhibit transdifferentiation (N.S.
nonsignificant, *P ≤ 0.05, ***P ≤ 0.01). Plots represent median values (center lines) and
25th/75th percentiles (box limits) with Tukey whiskers.Compounds 1 and 2 (1 μM)
demonstrated
>50% FMT inhibition (IC50 100 and 740 nM, respectively),
with comparable potency to nintedanib (Figure b), and inactive control compound 3 showed minimal αSMA inhibition compared to 1 and 2. While the dose–response observed for inhibition
suggests a potentially complex role for UCHL1 in FMT, nuclear count
remained stable at <5 μM, providing a good window between
inhibition and cytotoxicity (Figure S16).
Although LDN-57444 showed evidence for weak αSMA inhibition,
this was concurrent with increased cytotoxicity over the same concentration
range, suggesting that LDN-57444toxicity may drive decreased αSMA
(Figure S16).In summary, we report
the discovery and characterization of the
most potent and selective small-molecule DUB ABP (2)
to date, enabling robust detection of UCHL1 activity in living cells
at low nanomolar concentrations. The only previously reported UCHL1ABP is >150-fold less potent than 2 and has multiple
significant off-targets,[14] with no selectivity
over UCHL3. UCHL1 labeling by 2 is strictly activity-dependent,
occurring only at the catalytic cysteine and providing a new chemical
tool to examine UCHL1 activity in various intact cell types. ABPP
demonstrated that parent compound 1 is a potent UCHL1
inhibitor that targets the active site cysteine residue with impressive
selectivity in cells and that UCHL1 inhibition is highly stereoselective,
providing an ideal control compound (3) for future studies.
Further, evidence from multiple assays (biochemical, cellular, proteomics)
demonstrates that LDN-57444 showed negligible inhibition compared
to 1 and 2.[16,28] Previous studies
with multiple batches of LDN-57444 suggest that its reported biochemical
activity may be assay-dependent[29] and further
support reinterpretation of previous cellular studies using this compound.
Finally, we show that selective UCHL1 inhibitors can suppress fibrotic
phenotypes in IPF cellular models without substantial cytotoxicity.
While the precise role of UCHL1 in fibrosis remains to be determined,
UCHL1 was recently identified as a potential target in triple-negative
breast cancer (TNBC), where it promotes TGF-β1 signaling[8] and suppresses estrogen receptor expression.[30]1 and 2 represent
powerful and selective probes to explore UCHL1 activity with potential
application to substrate identification, mode of action studies, and
cellular target profiling, which can accelerate future development
of UCHL1 inhibitors as potential therapeutics.The mass spectrometry
proteomics data have been deposited to the
ProteomeXchange Consortium via the PRIDE partner repository[31] with the data set identifier PXD015825.
Authors: Luca Richeldi; Roland M du Bois; Ganesh Raghu; Arata Azuma; Kevin K Brown; Ulrich Costabel; Vincent Cottin; Kevin R Flaherty; David M Hansell; Yoshikazu Inoue; Dong Soon Kim; Martin Kolb; Andrew G Nicholson; Paul W Noble; Moisés Selman; Hiroyuki Taniguchi; Michèle Brun; Florence Le Maulf; Mannaïg Girard; Susanne Stowasser; Rozsa Schlenker-Herceg; Bernd Disse; Harold R Collard Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-05-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Elisabeth M Storck; Julia Morales-Sanfrutos; Remigiusz A Serwa; Nattawadee Panyain; Thomas Lanyon-Hogg; Tanya Tolmachova; Leandro N Ventimiglia; Juan Martin-Serrano; Miguel C Seabra; Beata Wojciak-Stothard; Edward W Tate Journal: Nat Chem Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 24.427
Authors: James A Clulow; Elisabeth M Storck; Thomas Lanyon-Hogg; Karunakaran A Kalesh; Lyn H Jones; Edward W Tate Journal: Chem Commun (Camb) Date: 2017-05-04 Impact factor: 6.222
Authors: Hidefumi Iwashita; Erika Castillo; Marco S Messina; Raymond A Swanson; Christopher J Chang Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2021-03-02 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Raymond Kooij; Sijia Liu; Aysegul Sapmaz; Bo-Tao Xin; George M C Janssen; Peter A van Veelen; Huib Ovaa; Peter Ten Dijke; Paul P Geurink Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2020-09-18 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Aaron D Krabill; Hao Chen; Sajjad Hussain; Chad S Hewitt; Ryan D Imhoff; Christine S Muli; Chittaranjan Das; Paul J Galardy; Michael K Wendt; Daniel P Flaherty Journal: Molecules Date: 2021-02-25 Impact factor: 4.411
Authors: E Josue Ruiz; Adan Pinto-Fernandez; Andrew P Turnbull; Linxiang Lan; Thomas M Charlton; Hannah C Scott; Andreas Damianou; George Vere; Eva M Riising; Clive Da Costa; Wojciech W Krajewski; David Guerin; Jeffrey D Kearns; Stephanos Ioannidis; Marie Katz; Crystal McKinnon; Jonathan O'Connell; Natalia Moncaut; Ian Rosewell; Emma Nye; Neil Jones; Claire Heride; Malte Gersch; Min Wu; Christopher J Dinsmore; Tim R Hammonds; Sunkyu Kim; David Komander; Sylvie Urbe; Michael J Clague; Benedikt M Kessler; Axel Behrens Journal: Elife Date: 2021-10-12 Impact factor: 8.140