Structure-based Inhibitor Discovery against Adenylyl Cyclase Toxins from Pathogenic Bacteria That Cause Anthrax and Whooping Cough*

Sandriyana Soelaiman {ddagger} §, Binqing Q. Wei § ¶, Pamela Bergson {ddagger}, Young-Sam Lee ||, Yuequan Shen {ddagger}, Milan Mrksich ||, Brian K. Shoichet ** {ddagger}{ddagger} and Wei-Jen Tang {ddagger} §§

From the {ddagger}Ben-May Institute for Cancer Research, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637, the Department of Molecular Pharmacology and Biological Chemistry, Northwestern University Medical School, Chicago, Illinois 60611, the ||Department of Chemistry, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637, and the **Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, University of California, San Francisco, California 94143

Received for publication, February 4, 2003 , and in revised form, March 25, 2003.


    ABSTRACT
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Edema factor (EF) and CyaA are adenylyl cyclase toxins secreted by pathogenic bacteria that cause anthrax and whooping cough, respectively. Using the structure of the catalytic site of EF, we screened a data base of commercially available, small molecular weight chemicals for those that could specifically inhibit adenylyl cyclase activity of EF. From 24 compounds tested, we have identified one quinazoline compound, ethyl 5-aminopyrazolo[1,5-a]quinazoline-3-carboxylate, that specifically inhibits adenylyl cyclase activity of EF and CyaA with ~20 µM Ki. This compound neither affects the activity of host resident adenylyl cyclases type I, II, and V nor exhibits promiscuous inhibition. The compound is a competitive inhibitor, consistent with the prediction that it binds to the adenine portion of the ATP binding site on EF. EF is activated by the host calcium sensor, calmodulin. Surface plasmon resonance spectroscopic analysis shows that this compound does not affect the binding of calmodulin to EF. This compound is dissimilar from a previously described, non-nucleoside inhibitor of host adenylyl cyclase. It may serve as a lead to design antitoxins to address the role of adenylyl cyclase toxins in bacterial pathogenesis and to fight against anthrax and whooping cough.


    INTRODUCTION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
The 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States have spurred an intense effort to discover new drugs to combat this dangerous biowarfare agent (1). Anthrax is caused by the pathogenic bacterium Bacillus anthracis. The anthrax bacterium secretes three major exotoxins, protective antigen (PA),1 lethal factor (LF), and edema factor (EF) (2). PA is a pH-dependent transporter that delivers LF and EF into host cells. To do so, 83-kDa PA (PA83) first associates with the cell surface protein tumor endothelial marker 8 (TEM-8) (3). The N-terminal 20-kDa domain of PA83 is then cleaved by a surface furin-like protease to form a PA63 heptamer. Two PA63 domains within the PA63 heptamer form a surface to bind an EF or LF molecule so that up to 3 mol of EF/LF mixtures can be delivered by a PA63 heptamer (4). Upon endocytosis and acidification, PA forms a pore to deliver EF or LF into the cytosol of host cells (5). EF is a calmodulin (CaM)-activated adenylyl cyclase that can elevate intracellular cAMP to pathological levels (6). LF is a metallo-protease that can cleave and inactivate a family of mitogenactivated kinase kinases including mitogen-activated protein kinase/extracellular signal-regulated kinase kinase and p38 kinase (7, 8). All three toxins work in concert with a poly-D-glutamate capsule to make the anthrax bacterium deadly (9).

The molecular structures of all three anthrax toxins have been determined recently, providing an excellent starting point to develop specific inhibitors against the action of these toxins (6, 10, 11). Several peptide-based reagents including the extracellular domain of TEM-8, dominant-negative PA mutants, and oligomers of PA-binding peptides have been developed to block PA from interacting with TEM-8, forming a functional pore, and associating with EF/LF, respectively (3, 12, 13). In addition, sensitive assays to search for LF inhibitors and low nano-molar affinity inhibitors of LF have been developed recently (14, 15). However, to date no inhibitor against EF has been identified.

We have determined the molecular structure of EF with and without CaM (6). Based on the structure of EF, we have found that the catalytic site of this enzyme is different from host adenylyl cyclases. This contrast suggests that it should be feasible to identify small molecular weight compounds that can specifically inhibit the activity of EF without affecting host adenylyl cyclases. The deletion of the EF gene in B. anthracis not only impairs the germination of the anthrax bacterium in mouse peritoneal macrophages but also raises the LD50 value by 2 orders of magnitude in a rodent model (16, 17). These results suggest that the blockage of adenylyl cyclase activity of EF may significantly reduce the lethality of anthrax bacterium, thereby providing a wider window to treat patients with anthrax infection. The adenylyl cyclase domain of EF also shares homology with other adenylyl cyclase toxins, CyaA and ExoY (18, 19). CyaA is vital for the colonization of Bordetella pertussis in the respiratory tract; successful colonization results in whooping cough, a major health threat to infants (20). ExoY is a toxin delivered by the type III secretion system of Pseudomonas aeruginosa, a bacterium that accounts for 20% of hospital-acquired infections (19). In addition, a secreted fraction having adenylyl cyclase activity and a gene homologous to known adenylyl cyclase toxins were found in Yersinia pestis, a bacterium that causes bubonic and pneumonic plagues (2123). Thus, molecules that can block the action of adenylyl cyclase toxins may have a broad usage to combat illness caused by several deadly human pathogens.

Here we describe the identification of specific inhibitors of EF and CyaA among commercially available chemicals. We first docked ~200,000 molecules from the Available Chemical Directory (MDL Information Systems Inc., San Leandro, CA) in multiple orientations and conformations into the ATP binding site of EF. Twenty-four high scoring molecules were selected for experimental studies to identify those that specifically inhibit EF and CyaA compared with corresponding host adenylyl cyclases and subsequently to block the intoxication of adrenocortical Y1 cells caused by edema toxin (a combination of EF and PA). This study identified a family of quinazoline compounds, the best of which specifically inhibited EF and CyaA with a Ki value of 20 µM without inhibiting mammalian type I, II, and V adenylyl cyclases.


    EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Materials—Compounds 2-phenylaminoadenosine, (3ar,4s,7r,7as)-7-(carbobenzyloxyamino)-3a,4,7,7a-tetrahydro-2,2-dimethyl-1,3-benzodioxol-4-ol, and 2,7-diamino-3-cyano-4-phenyl-4n-benzopyrane were purchased from Sigma; n(2)-(4-nitrophenyl)[1,3]thiazolo[5,4-d]pyrimidine-2,7-diamine and 2-amino-4-(2-furyl)-5-oxo-5,6,7,8-tetrahydro-4n-chromene-3-carbonitrile were from Bionet (Camelford, UK); PU120 and PU574 were from Menai (Gwynedd, UK); 16/06-35 was from Buttpark (Bath, UK); 6,8-dibromoquinazolin-4-ol, 5-amino-8-(trifluoromethyl)pyrido[2,3-e][1,2,3]triazolo[1,5-a]pyrimidine-3-carbonitrile, 3-phenyl-8-(trifluoromethyl)pyrido[2,3-e][1,2,3]triazolo[1,5-a]pyrimidin-5-amine, (2-amino-4,5-dimethyl-3-thienyl)(4-chlorophenyl) methanone, ethyl 5-aminopyrazolo[1,5-a]quinazoline-3-carboxylate, (5-amino[1,2,3]triazolo[1,5-a]quinazolin-3-yl)(morpholino)methanone, n3-(4-pyridylmethyl)-5-amino [1,2,3]triazolo[1,5-a]quinazoline-3-carboxamide, 9-fluoro-5n-chromeno[4,3-d]pyrimidin-2-amine, 2-[(3-amino-4-oxo-4n-[1,2,4]triazino[3,4-b][1,3,4]thiadiazol-7-yl)thio]acetic acid, 7-methoxy-1,2-dihydrobenzo[e][1,2,4]triazolo[3,4-c][1,2,4]triazin-1-one, 8-(methylthio)-4,5-dihydrothieno[3',4':5,6]benzo[c]isoxazole-6-carboxamide, 6,8-difluoro-2,3-dihydro-1n-pyrazolo[4,3-c]quinolin-3-one, 4-amino-1-hydroxy-5,5-dimethyl-2-phenyl-3-imidazoline-3-oxide, 7-chloro-1,2-dihydrobenzo[e] [1,2,4]triazolo[3,4-c] [1,2,4]triazin-1-one, n3-ethyl-5-amino[1,2,3]triazolo[1,5-a]quinazoline-3-carboxamide, and (5-amino-7-chloro[1,2,3]triazolo[1,5-a]quinazolin-3-yl)(2-thienyl)methanone were from Maybridge (Cornwall, UK). Anthrax protective antigen was purchased from List Biological Laboratory (Campbell, CA), restriction enzymes were from New England Biolabs (Beverly, MA), and the QuikChange kit for site-directed mutagenesis was from Stratagene (La Jolla, CA). [{alpha}-32P]ATP and the Big-Dye kit for automatic DNA sequencing were from PerkinElmer Life Sciences. Mouse adrenocortical Y1 cells were obtained from ATCC. Tissue culture reagents were obtained from Invitrogen and Cambrex Bio Science Walkersville, Inc. (Walkersville, MD).

Docking—The Northwestern University version (2427) of DOCK (28, 29) was used to screen the Available Chemical Directory (version 2000.2, MDL) against the 3'-dATP binding site of the EF·CaM structure (Protein Data Bank code 1K90 [PDB] ). To prepare the site for docking, 3'-dATP and all water molecules were removed. The observed ytterbium ion was treated as a magnesium ion, which is a tightly bound, nondisplaceable group. Protonation of enzyme residues was done with Sybyl (Tripos, St. Louis, MO). To generate docking "spheres," which are used to orient ligand, we used both the positions of the 3'-dATP atoms and sphere positions identified by SPHGEN (28). Several selective spheres were labeled based on the chemical functionality of the nearby residues. The program DISTMAP was used to compute the excluded volume grid of EF (30), which is used as an initial steric filter in docking calculation. Electrostatic and van der Waals energy potential grids were calculated by DelPhi (31) and CHEMGRID (29), respectively.

Ligand partial atomic charges and solvation energies were calculated with AMSOL (27, 32, 33). Conformations of ligand molecules were calculated with Omega (OpenEye, Santa Fe, NM) before docking, and up to 2000 conformers for each molecule were generated. An ensemble of conformations was stored and docked in a hierarchical manner that allows for rapid pruning of conformations that clash with the binding pocket (25). Alternative protonation states of ligand ionizable groups were sampled. The distance tolerance parameter (dislim) for orientation matching was set to 0.8 Å. The ligand and receptor bin sizes were each 0.3 Å, and ligand and receptor overlap were each 0.2 Å. Chemical matching (34) and "critical clusters" were used to guide the matching of ligand atoms to the spheres. Docking energies were corrected for the cost of desolvating the ligands (26, 27). Each ligand orientation that passed the steric filter was refined with up to 20 iterations of rigid body minimization (35). The 500 top scoring molecules of the 205,226 Available Chemical Directory molecules docked were displayed with Midas-Plus (36), and 19 molecules were selected for experimental testing as inhibitors of EF. Following initial enzyme inhibition assays, the ISIS program (MDL) was used to select five high scoring analogs of compounds 1 and 2, two initial docking "hits" that were found to inhibit EF, for testing.

Purification of EF, EF3, CyaA-N, and CaM—EF3 and CyaA-N, the catalytic domains of EF and CyaA, respectively, as well as calmodulin were purified as described previously (37, 38). To express edema factor that has a hexahistidine tag substituted for its leader peptide (amino acids 1–33) and can be delivered by anthrax-protective antigen into host cells, a plasmid, pProEx-H6-EF, was constructed as follows. The 3.2-kb EcoRI-XhoI fragment was excised from pSE42 (kindly provided by S. Leppla, National Institutes of Health) and inserted into pBluescript. A NotI site was then introduced at the sequence encoding amino acids 32–34 of EF by site-directed mutagenesis, and the mutation was confirmed by DNA sequencing. The 3.2-kb NotI-XhoI fragment encoding amino acids 35–800 of EF was subsequently moved into pProEx-H6. To make recombinant H6-EF, an N-terminal hexahistidine-tagged EF, pProEx-H6-EF was transformed into BL21(DE3) that harbored pUBS520, a plasmid that encoded tRNA for the AGA and AGG codons. The resulting cells were grown in a modified T7 medium with 50 µg/ml ampicillin and 25 µg/ml kanamycin at 30 °C to A600 = 0.4, induced by adding isopropyl-1-thio-{beta}-D-galactopyranoside to a final concentration of 200 µM, and harvested 19 h postinduction. The purification of EF was done by using a nickel-nitrilotriacetic acid column followed by Q-Sepharose column to yield ~20 mg from each liter of Escherichia coli culture. The protein concentrations of all recombinant proteins were determined by Bradford assay using bovine serum albumin as the standard.

Enzymatic Assays—Adenylyl cyclase activities were measured in the presence of 20 mM HEPES (pH 7.2), the indicated ATP concentration with a trace amount of [32P]ATP, 1 mM EDTA, 10 mM MgCl2, and 1 µM free calcium for a 10-min incubation at 30 °C. ATP and cAMP were separated by Dowex and alumina columns (39). Sf9 cell membrane containing type I, II, or V adenylyl cyclase was prepared as described previously (39). The compounds were dissolved in Me2SO, and a minimal volume (1 µl) was added to the assay to avoid the inhibitory effect by Me2SO. TEM-1 {beta}-lactamase was expressed and purified to homogeneity as described previously (40). Kinetic measurements of TEM-1 were performed in 50 mM Tris buffer (pH 7.0) using 200 µM nitrocefin as a substrate in methacrylate cuvettes; reactions were monitored at 482 nm. Reactions were initiated either by the addition of enzyme or, if inhibitor-enzyme preincubation was being tested, by the addition of substrate.

Dynamic Light Scattering—Compounds were dissolved to 20 mM in Me2SO and diluted with filtered 50 mM pH 7.0 potassium phosphate buffer (KPi). All compounds were analyzed with a 3-watt argon-ion laser at 514.4 nm with optical systems from Brookhaven Instrument Corp. The laser power and integration times were comparable for all experiments. Calculation of mean particle diameter was performed by the cumulate analysis tool of a 400-channel BI9000AT digital autocorrelator with the last four channels used for base-line measurement. The detector angle was 90°. Three to five independent measurements were performed for each concentration of each compound at 22 °C.

Cell Round-up Assay of Adrenocortical Y1 Cells—Y1 cells were maintained at 37 °C with 5% CO2 in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium/F-12 supplemented with 2.5% fetal bovine serum and 12.5% horse serum. Plates and flasks were coated with 1% gelatin before cells were plated to facilitate cell attachment and spreading. Y1 cells were plated in 96-well plates at 200 µl/well and used when they reached 50–80% confluence (about 5 x 104 cells/well). For the round-up assay of Y1 cells, compounds were dissolved in Me2SO at concentrations ranging from 50 mM to 390 µM in 2-fold dilutions, and 2 µl of each concentration were added to the appropriate wells. After a 1-h incubation, EF and PA were added to 3 and 25 ng/ml final concentrations, respectively. The morphology of Y1 cells was examined after 1 h, 4 h, and overnight incubation.

Surface Plasmon Resonance Spectroscopy—The ability of EF to bind cutinase-CaM was monitored by surface plasmon resonance spectroscopy as described previously (38, 41). In brief, EF (0.24 nM–2 µM) in the binding buffer (10 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.0, 1.0 mM EGTA, 10 mM MgCl2, 100 mM KCl, 0.96 mM CaCl2) was mixed with compound 3 or 5. This mixture was then allowed to interact with cutinase-CaM immobilized on 2% phosphonate surface with a flow rate of 3 µl/min for 20 min, and the amount of bound EF was determined from the change of surface plasmon spectroscopic response.


    RESULTS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Full-length EF (H6-EF) and the Catalytic Domain of EF (EF3) Have Similar Sensitivities to Calcium and CaM—Due to the problem in expressing the full-length EF, we have expressed and characterized the 60-kDa adenylyl cyclase domain of EF, named EF3 (37). By optimizing the expression, we now have effectively expressed and purified recombinant 90-kDa H6-EF, which contains both the catalytic domain and PA-binding domain of EF. After nickel-nitrilotriacetic acid and Q-Sepharose columns, ~20 mg of 90% pure H6-EF was obtained from each liter of E. coli culture (Fig. 1A), a 5-fold improvement over the previously reported expression and purification protocols (42). H6-EF can be stimulated by CaM with Vmax and EC50 values identical to those of EF3 (Fig. 1B). We have recently shown that physiological calcium concentrations can promote the association between CaM and EF3 as well as directly inhibit the catalytic rate of EF3; such regulation is also found in H6-EF (Fig. 1C) (38). Thus, our data showed that the catalytic properties of EF are identical to those of EF3. For the subsequent studies, we used EF3 for the in vitro enzymatic assay to avoid the potential complication of the PA-binding domain of EF and used H6-EF for tissue culture cells where the PA-binding domain is required for EF to enter into cells.



View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
FIG. 1.
Effect of CaM and calcium ion on adenylyl cyclase activity of EF, a full-size EF, and EF3, a catalytic domain of EF. A, purified EF and EF3. 1 µg of purified EF and EF3 were run on an SDS-polyacrylamide gel and stained by Coomassie Blue. B, adenylyl cyclase assays were performed with 0.78 nM EF (open circles) and 0.85 nM EF3 (filled circles) in the presence of 1.0 µM free Ca2+. C, adenylyl cyclase activities were measured with 0.52 nM EF (open circles) and 0.56 nM EF3 (filled circles) in the presence of 10 µM CaM. Mean ± S.E. are representative of at least two experiments.

 

Identification of Compounds That Can Inhibit the Catalytic Domain of EF—Our goal was to identify low molecular weight molecules that can specifically inhibit adenylyl cyclase toxins without affecting host adenylyl cyclases and block the cellular intoxication by edema toxin (PA and EF). To do so, we targeted our structure-based inhibitor discovery to the catalytic site of EF. The 3'-dATP binding site of the EF·CaM complex was screened against a data base of 205,226 small molecules. On average, each compound was sampled in 447 orientations and 294 conformations, and overall 2.7x 1010 configurations were scored. Top scoring molecules were visually examined in the context of the binding site, and 19 compounds were initially chosen based on electrostatic or polar complementarity as well as favorable nonpolar interactions. These compounds were purchased and tested for their ability to inhibit adenylyl cyclase activity of EF3, a recombinant protein containing only the catalytic portion of EF. Two pyrido[2,3-e][1,2,3]triazolo[1,5-a]pyrimidine-5-amines (compounds 1 and 2) and one phenyl-methanone (compound 8) were found to have IC50 values lower than 300 µM (Fig. 2 and Table I). Five high scoring analogs (compounds 3–7) of compounds 1 and 2, which have IC50 values of about 100 µM, were picked from the Available Chemical Directory based on chemical similarity and were also tested for inhibition of EF (Fig. 2 and Table I). Three of these (compounds 3, 5, and 7) have IC50 values lower than 100 µM.



View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
FIG. 2.
Effects of eight compounds on adenylyl cyclase activity of EF3. The adenylyl cyclase assay was done in the presence of 16 pM EF3, 1 µM CaM, 1 µM free Ca2+, and the indicated concentrations of compounds dissolved in Me2SO. To avoid the effect of Me2SO, only 1 µl of the compound solution (or Me2SO as the solvent control) was added into the 100-µl reaction. Means ± S.E. are representatives of at least two experiments, and specific activities of EF3 without compounds in these experiments were in the range of 0.6–1.6 ms1.

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE I
Summary of eight compounds and their effect on EF

 

Filtering the Active Compounds by Promiscuity Assays— Chemical compounds may form aggregates that promiscuously inhibit the activity of EF instead of specifically occupying its active site; such phenomena have been observed for many inhibitors from virtual and high throughput screening as well as for protein kinases (4345). To eliminate the compounds with this unwanted effect, we first investigated the effect of preincubation of compounds with EF (Fig. 3, A and B; not shown for compound 8). We found that compounds 7 and 8 had reduced IC50 values, an indication of promiscuous inhibition. In addition, the same set of compounds also had increased IC50 values when 10-fold more EF was used, which also suggested promiscuous inhibition. We then investigated the activities of compounds 1, 2, 3, and 5 against a completely unrelated enzyme, {beta}-lactamase. Compounds 1, 3, and 5 at 200–300 µM concentrations did not inhibit {beta}-lactamase and showed no preincubation effect, while compound 2 at 70 µM almost completely inhibited {beta}-lactamase activity. The inhibition of {beta}-lactamase by compound 2 increased after preincubation and decreased when the enzyme concentration was raised by 10-fold (data not shown). We then used dynamic light scattering experiments to test whether compounds 1, 3, and 5 can form aggregates, which is a characteristic of some promiscuous inhibitors (43, 45). Compound 1 at a concentration comparable to its IC50 for EF showed high intensity scatter that decayed on the 1,000–100,000 µs time scale, suggesting that particles larger than 1 µm in diameter were present (Fig. 3C). Compounds 3 and 5, at up to 200 µM, gave low intensity, poorly defined autocorrelation functions, consistent with the absence of particles (Fig. 3D, not shown for compound 5). These phenomena are consistent with the notion that compounds 3 and 5 are classical, specific inhibitors of EF, while part of the inhibition of EF by compounds 1, 2, 7, and 8 may be caused by the aggregation-based mechanism (43, 45).



View larger version (30K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
FIG. 3.
The promiscuity of compounds based on the in vitro adenylyl cyclase assays (A and B) and on dynamic light scattering (C and D). Adenylyl cyclase assays were performed in the same way as in Fig. 2 except that 160 pM EF3 was used in the 10x EF condition and a 10-min incubation at 20 °C prior to the assay was done in the 20 °C condition. Means ± S.E. are representative of at least two experiments, and specific activities of EF3 without compounds in these experiments were in the range of 1.4–2.4 ms1. Autocorrelation functions from dynamic light scattering of 100 µM compound 1 (C) and 200 µM compound 3 (D) were performed in 50 mM KPi.

 

Compounds 3 and 5 Block Round-up of Adrenocortical Y1 Cells Induced by EF and PA—The increase of intracellular cAMP can cause actin-cytoskeleton rearrangement and rounding up of mouse adrenocortical Y1 cells (46); such changes are commonly induced by bacterial toxins (47). To monitor whether compounds 1–7 can block the production of cAMP by EF, we took advantage of the rapid morphological change (within 1 h) seen in mouse adrenocortical Y1 cells in response to agents that increase cAMP. When H6-EF and PA were added to cells together, we observed the expected round-up of Y1 cells (Fig. 4). However, neither H6-EF nor PA alone also could induce round-up of Y1 cells (not shown). We then tested compounds 1–7 in Table I and found that only compounds 3 and 5 could block the cAMP-induced round-up of Y1 cells at concentrations of 125 µM and above (Fig. 4 and Table I). The other compounds had no effect on the round-up of Y1 cells even at a concentration of 1 mM (data not shown). These data together with the results above led us to focus our subsequent analysis on compounds 3 and 5.



View larger version (99K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
FIG. 4.
Effect of compounds 3 and 5 on the morphology of Y1 cells. Pictures were taken 1 h after addition of EF and PA to final concentrations of 3 and 25 ng/ml, respectively. Y1 cells were incubated without EF and PA; with EF and PA; with EF, PA, and 250 µM compound 3; or with EF, PA, and 250 µM compound 5 as indicated.

 

Specificity of Compounds 3 and 5We then tested the specificity of compounds 3 and 5 on CyaA-N, the adenylyl cyclase domain of CyaA, which is an exotoxin secreted by B. pertussis (Fig. 5, A and B). We found that compounds 3 and 5 inhibited CaM-activated activity of CyaA-N with IC50 values of 40 and 80 µM, respectively. There are nine isoforms of membrane-bound adenylyl cyclase found in mammals (48). We expressed three of them (type I, II, and V adenylyl cyclase) using Sf9 cells and tested whether compounds 3 and 5 could modulate the activity of these enzymes (Fig. 5, C and D). All three enzymes are activated by forskolin and recombinant Gs{alpha}, the {alpha} subunit of the stimulatory G protein Gs. We found that, up to 500 µM, compound 3 reduced by 20–45% the activity of all three mammalian adenylyl cyclases, while compound 5 only marginally reduced the activities of those three enzymes.



View larger version (50K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
FIG. 5.
Effect of compounds 3 and 5 on bacterial (A and B) and mammalian (C and D) adenylyl cyclases. The adenylyl cyclase assays with EF or CyaA were done in the presence of 16 and 22 pM enzyme, 1 µM CaM, 1 µM free Ca2+, 100 µM ATP, and the indicated concentrations of compounds. The mammalian adenylyl cyclase assay was done using 20 µg of Sf9 membranes containing mAC1, mAC2, or mAC5 in the presence of 1 µM Gs{alpha}, 50 µM forskolin, and 100 µM ATP. Mean ± S.E. are representative of at least two experiments.

 

Mechanism of Inhibition of EF by Compounds 3 and 5We also examined the mechanism of how compounds 3 and 5 inhibit the catalytic activity of EF3 (Fig. 6). By varying substrate and inhibitor concentrations, the kinetics of inhibition by compounds 3 and 5 were found to fit well for a competitive inhibition mechanism, indicating that they compete directly with the binding of ATP (Fig. 6A, data not shown for compound 3). The estimated Ki values were 50 and 20 µM for compounds 3 and 5, respectively. Both EF and CyaA are activated by CaM. By loading a cutinase-CaM fusion protein to a self-assembled monolayer using active site-directed immobilization, we have used surface plasmon resonance spectroscopy to show that EF can specifically bind to the immobilized CaM in a calcium-dependent manner (38). Using this method, we then examined whether compounds 3 and 5 affected the interaction between EF and CaM (Fig. 6B). We found that the addition of compounds 3 and 5 did not change the affinity of EF to CaM at 10 µM free Ca2+. This result indicated that these compounds did not affect the interaction between EF and CaM.



View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
FIG. 6.
Characterization of compounds 3 and 5 on the mechanism of inhibition. A, kinetic properties in the inhibition of EF by compound 5. The adenylyl cyclase assay was done in the presence of 16 pM EF3, 1 µM CaM, 1 µM free Ca2+, and the indicated concentrations of compounds. The Vmax, Km, and Ki values were estimated to be 5 ms1, 50 µM, and 20 µM, respectively. B, the effect of compounds 3 and 5 on the binding of EF to CaM. Apparent Kd was calculated using a simple one-to-one-binding model: Req = RMax x ([EF]/([EF] + )) where, Req, RMax, and are responses at equilibrium, maximum response at excess EF, and apparent dissociation constant, respectively. The SPR spectroscopy was performed in the presence of Me2SO alone (open triangles), 500 µM compound 3 (filled circles), and 500 µM compound 5 (open circles). Mean ± S.E. are representative of at least two experiments.

 


    DISCUSSION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Compound 5 is a novel, specific inhibitor of adenylyl cyclase toxins from B. anthracis and B. pertussis. It blocks the morphological change in Y1 cells induced by edema toxin without the inhibition of mammalian type I, II, and V adenylyl cyclases. Despite its modest affinity (20 µM), its specificity and activity in cell culture make it a potentially good lead for an antitoxin against anthrax and whooping cough. Thus, it is appropriate to consider how the affinity of the inhibitor might be improved. In the absence of a crystal structure of an EF·inhibitor complex, we turned to the docking-predicted geometries to understand the binding of this compound. Based on our docking model, compound 5 overlaps primarily with the adenine group of the 3'-dATP structure, consistent with our data that the mechanism of inhibition is competitive (Fig. 7A). The quinazolino ring fragment fits snugly into the pocket where the adenine group binds where it would form the same three hydrogen bonds with the backbone atoms of residues Thr-579 and Thr-548 as the adenine group does (distances are between 3.0 and 3.4 Å). In addition, compound 5 appears to form a hydrogen bond with the O{gamma} of Thr-548 through its ester oxygen atom (distance is 2.8 Å). The ethoxyl group of compound 5 fits into a shallow groove on the enzyme surface.



View larger version (39K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
FIG. 7.
Data interpretation using the structural models. A, docked structure of compound 5 compared with the observed structure of 3'-dATP bound to the EF·CaM complex. Pictures are in stereoview. Protein backbones are represented as green tubes. 3'-dATP and selective active residues are shown in stick representation. Carbon atoms of the proteins are colored in gray, and carbon of compound 5 is in cyan. Oxygen atoms are in red, nitrogen is in blue, phosphorus is in orange, and magnesium ion is in magenta. Four hydrogen bonds between EF and compound 3 are illustrated by dashed lines, and the bond distances are between 2.8 and 3.4 Å. B, the modeled conformation of compound 6. The intramolecular hydrogen bond is illustrated by a dashed line, and the bond distance between the two nitrogen atoms is 2.9 Å.

 

Our model suggests that it will be possible to improve the affinity of this compound to EF without compromising the specificity. EF binds the ribose moiety of ATP in a manner that differs significantly from mAC. His-351 of EF is believed to interact with the 3'-OH of the ribose, while a catalytic metal is proposed to serve as the catalytic base. In addition, a hydrophobic pocket centered around Phe-586 of EF has also been shown to play a vital role in the binding of 3'-anthranyl group of the 2'-deoxy-3'-anthranyl-ATP of EF·CaM complex (38). This pocket is proximal to the putative binding site of compound 5 but is not currently used by this compound; derivatives might be able to do so, thus improving affinity. Finally the highly positively charged pocket formed by a catalytic metal and a group of basic amino acids (Arg-329, Lys-346, Lys-353, and Lys-372), which interacts with the phosphate groups of the nucleotide substrate, is not exploited by compound 5 (6).

Compound 5 represents the first non-nucleoside-based inhibitor of adenylyl cyclase toxins. It is dissimilar from nucleoside analogs and NKY80, a previously described non-nucleosidebased inhibitor of host adenylyl cyclases (49, 50). Several triazolo[1,5-a]quinazoline compounds, which are structurally similar to compound 5 (5-aminopyrazolo[1,5-a]quinazoline-3-carboxylate) have been synthesized and characterized recently (51). A subset of triazolo[1,5-a]quinazoline compounds is found to act as antagonists of the adenosine receptor and the benzodiazepine receptor. Together with our result, this suggests that azolo[1,5-a]quinazolines may be well suited to mimic adenine.

Our data show that substituting the ester of compound 5 with a secondary amide (compound 6) decreased the affinity by 10-fold. The presence of an intramolecular hydrogen bond in compound 6 (Fig. 7B) may favor a conformation that poorly fits the catalytic site of EF. As a tertiary amide, compound 3 cannot form this intramolecular hydrogen bond and adopts a conformation better suited to the binding site. The lack of activity of compound 4, which also has a secondary amide, is consistent with this view. Other possibilities such as the difference in solvation energy may also explain our observation. Further structure-activity studies are required to resolve this issue.

Our data also show that inhibitors against the catalytic site of EF from B. anthracis can be identified by structure-based inhibitor discovery. The hit rate in this computational approach, about 5%, is consistent with a recent docking screen for novel inhibitors of {beta}-lactamase as is the potency of the inhibitors discovered (52). The hit rate is almost 10-fold lower than that in a large scale effort against a tyrosine phosphatase (53) and is lower than that found by several other docking programs (for a recent review, see Ref. 54). However, we have gone to considerable effort to consider only non-promiscuous, biologically active molecules as "true" hits, which diminished their numbers. We note that promiscuous, aggregating small molecules appear to be relatively common in hit lists from both virtual and high throughput screening (44), and even widely used biological reagents such as kinase inhibitors rottlerin (against protein kinase C-{delta}) and K-252c (against cAMP-dependent protein kinase and protein kinase C) can act this way at micromolar concentrations (45). Therefore, care must be taken to exclude these promiscuous aggregators from hit lists in inhibitor discovery projects.


    FOOTNOTES
 
* This research was supported by National Institutes of Health Grants GM62548 and GM53459, and an American Heart Association Established Investigator Award (to W.-J. T.), National Institutes of Health Grant 59957 (to B. K. S.), and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Grant N00173-01-G010 and National Science Foundation Grant DMR-9808595 (to M. M.). The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact. Back

§ Both authors contributed equally to this work. Back

{ddagger}{ddagger} To whom correspondence may be addressed: Dept. of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, University of California, Genentech Hall, 600 16th St., San Francisco, CA 94143. E-mail: shoichet{at}cgl.ucsf.edu.

§§ To whom correspondence may be addressed: Ben-May Inst. for Cancer Research, The University of Chicago, 924 East 57th St., Chicago, IL 60637. E-mail: wtang{at}midway.uchicago.edu.

1 The abbreviations used are: PA, protective antigen; EF, edema factor; LF, lethal factor; CaM, calmodulin; EF3, catalytic domain of EF (amino acids 291–800); CyaA-N, catalytic domain of CyaA (amino acids 1–393); TEM, tumor endothelial marker; mAC, mammalian adenylyl cyclase. Back


    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
We thank MDL for use of the Available Chemical Directory data base and the program ISIS and OpenEye Software for the conformation generation program Omega. We thank the Northwestern Keck Biophysics Facility for the dynamic light scattering instrument.



    REFERENCES
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Inglesby, T. V., O'Toole, T., Henderson, D. A., Bartlett, J. G., Ascher, M. S., Eitzen, E., Friedlander, A. M., Gerberding, J., Hauer, J., Hughes, J., McDade, J., Osterholm, M. T., Parker, G., Perl, T. M., Russell, P. K., and Tonat, K. (2002) J. Am. Med. Assoc. 287, 2236–2252[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Mourez, M., Lacy, D. B., Cunningham, K., Legmann, R., Sellman, B. R., Mogridge, J., and Collier, R. J. (2002) Trends Microbiol. 10, 287–293[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  3. Bradley, K. A., Mogridge, J., Mourez, M., Collier, R. J., and Young, J. A. (2001) Nature 414, 225–229[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  4. Mogridge, J., Cunningham, K., and Collier, R. J. (2002) Biochemistry 41, 1079–1082[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  5. Miller, C. J., Elliott, J. L., and Collier, R. J. (1999) Biochemistry 38, 10432–10441[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  6. Drum, C. L., Yan, S. Z., Bard, J., Shen, Y., Lu, D., Soelaiman, S., Grabarek, Z., Bohm, A., and Tang, W.-J. (2002) Nature 415, 396–402[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  7. Duesbery, N. S., Webb, C. P., Leppla, S. H., Gordon, V. M., Klimpel, K. R., Copeland, T. D., Ahn, N. G., Oskarsson, M. K., Fukasawa, K., Paull, K. D., and Vande Woude, G. F. (1998) Science 280, 734–737[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Park, J. M., Greten, F. R., Li, Z. W., and Karin, M. (2002) Science 297, 2048–2051[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Mock, M., and Fouet, A. (2001) Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 55, 647–671[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  10. Pannifer, A., Wong, T. Y., Schwarzenbacher, R., Renatus, M., Petosa, C., Bienkowska, J., Lacy, D. B., Collier, R. J., Park, S., Leppla, S. H., Hanna, P. C., and Liddington, R. C. (2001) Nature 414, 229–233[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  11. Petosa, C., Collier, R. J., Klimpel, K. R., Leppla, S. H., and Liddington, R. C. (1997) Nature 385, 833–838[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  12. Mourez, M., Kane, R. S., Mogridge, J., Metallo, S., Deschatelets, P., Sellman, B. R., Whitesides, G. M., and Collier, R. J. (2001) Nat. Biotechnol. 19, 958–961[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  13. Sellman, B. R., Mourez, M., and Collier, R. J. (2001) Science 292, 695–697[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Cummings, R. T., Salowe, S. P., Cunningham, B. R., Wiltsie, J., Park, Y. W., Sonatore, L. M., Wisniewski, D., Douglas, C. M., Hermes, J. D., and Scolnick, E. M. (2002) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 99, 6603–6606[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Tonello, F., Seveso, M., Marin, O., Mock, M., and Montecucco, C. (2002) Nature 418, 386[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  16. Brossier, F., Weber-Levy, M., Mock, M., and Sirard, J. C. (2000) Infect. Immun. 68, 1781–1786[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Guidi-Rontani, C., Levy, M., Ohayon, H., and Mock, M. (2001) Mol. Microbiol. 42, 931–938[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  18. Ladant, D., and Ullmann, A. (1999) Trends Microbiol. 7, 172–176[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  19. Yahr, T. L., Vallis, A. J., Hancock, M. K., Barbieri, J. T., and Frank, D. W. (1998) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 95, 13899–13904[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Goodwin, M. S., and Weiss, A. A. (1990) Infect. Immun. 58, 3445–3447[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  21. Michankin, B. N., Chevchenko, L. A., and Asseeva, L. E. (1992) Bull. Soc. Pathol. Exot. 85, 17–21[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  22. Shevchenko, L. A., and Mishankin, B. N. (1987) Zh. Mikrobiol. Epidemiol. Immunobiol. 7, 59–63[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  23. Parkhill, J., Wren, B. W., Thomson, N. R., Titball, R. W., Holden, M. T., Prentice, M. B., Sebaihia, M., James, K. D., Churcher, C., Mungall, K. L., Baker, S., Basham, D., Bentley, S. D., Brooks, K., Cerdeno-Tarraga, A. M., Chillingworth, T., Cronin, A., Davies, R. M., Davis, P., Dougan, G., Feltwell, T., Hamlin, N., Holroyd, S., Jagels, K., Karlyshev, A. V., Leather, S., Moule, S., Oyston, P. C., Quail, M., Rutherford, K., Simmonds, M., Skelton, J., Stevens, K., Whitehead, S., and Barrell, B. G. (2001) Nature 413, 523–527[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  24. Lorber, D. M., and Shoichet, B. K. (1998) Protein Sci. 7, 938–950[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Lorber, D. M., Udo, M. K., and Shoichet, B. K. (2002) Protein Sci. 11, 1393–1408[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Shoichet, B. K., Leach, A. R., and Kuntz, I. D. (1999) Proteins 34, 4–16[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  27. Wei, B. Q., Baase, W. A., Weaver, L. H., Matthews, B. W., and Shoichet, B. K. (2002) J. Mol. Biol. 322, 339–355[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  28. Kuntz, I. D., Blaney, J. M., Oatley, S. J., Langridge, R., and Ferrin, T. E. (1982) J. Mol. Biol. 161, 269–288[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  29. Meng, E. C., Shoichet, B. K., and Kuntz, I. D. (1992) J. Comput. Chem. 13, 505–524
  30. Shoichet, B. K., Bodian, D. L., and Kuntz, I. D. (1992) J. Comput. Chem. 13, 380–397
  31. Nicholls, A., and Honig, B. (1991) J. Comput. Chem. 12, 435–445
  32. Chambers, C. C., Hawkins, G. D., Cramer, C. J., and Truhlar, D. G. (1996) J. Phys. Chem. 100, 16385–16398[CrossRef]
  33. Li, J. B., Zhu, T. H., Cramer, C. J., and Truhlar, D. G. (1998) J. Phys. Chem. A 102, 1820–1831[CrossRef]
  34. Shoichet, B. K., and Kuntz, I. D. (1993) Protein Eng. 6, 723–732[Abstract]
  35. Meng, E. C., Gschwend, D. A., Blaney, J. M., and Kuntz, I. D. (1993) Proteins 17, 266–278[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  36. Ferrin, T. E., Huang, C. C., Jarvis, L. E., and Langridge, R. (1988) J. Mol. Graph. 6, 13–27[CrossRef]
  37. Drum, C. L., Yan, S. Z., Sarac, R., Mabuchi, Y., Beckingham, K., Bohm, A., Grabarek, Z., and Tang, W. J. (2000) J. Biol. Chem. 275, 36334–36340[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  38. Shen, Y., Lee, Y. S., Soelaiman, S., Bergson, P., Lu, D., Chen, A., Beckingham, K., Grabarek, Z., Mrksich, M., and Tang, W. J. (2002) EMBO J. 21, 6721–6732[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  39. Tang, W. J., Krupinski, J., and Gilman, A. G. (1991) J. Biol. Chem. 266, 8595–8603[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  40. Wang, X., Minasov, G., and Shoichet, B. K. (2002) Proteins 47, 86–96[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  41. Hodneland, C. D., Lee, Y.-S., Min, D.-H., and Mrksich, M. (2002) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 99, 5048–5052[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  42. Kumar, P., Ahuja, N., and Bhatnagar, R. (2001) Infect. Immun. 69, 6532–6536[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  43. McGovern, S. L., Caselli, E., Grigorieff, N., and Shoichet, B. K. (2002) J. Med. Chem. 45, 1712–1722[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  44. Shoichet, B. K., McGovern, S. L., Wei, B., and Irwin, J. J. (2002) Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 6, 439–446[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  45. McGovern, S. L., and Shoichet, B. K. (2003) J. Med. Chem. 46, 1478–1483[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  46. Han, J. D., and Rubin, C. S. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 29211–29215[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  47. Barbieri, J. T., Riese, M. J., and Aktories, K. (2002) Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 18, 315–344[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  48. Tang, W.-J., and Hurley, J. H. (1998) Mol. Pharmacol. 54, 231–240[Free Full Text]
  49. Tesmer, J. J., Dessauer, C. W., Sunahara, R. K., Murray, L. D., Johnson, R. A., Gilman, A. G., and Sprang, S. R. (2000) Biochemistry 39, 14464–14471[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  50. Onda, T., Hashimoto, Y., Nagai, M., Kuramochi, H., Saito, S., Yamazaki, H., Toya, Y., Sakai, I., Homcy, C. J., Nishikawa, K., and Ishikawa, Y. (2001) J. Biol. Chem. 276, 47785–47793[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  51. Bertelli, L., Biagi, G., Giorgi, I., Livi, O., Manera, C., Scartoni, V., Lucacchini, A., Giannaccini, G., and Barili, P. L. (2000) Eur. J. Med. Chem. 35, 333–341[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  52. Powers, R. A., Morandi, F., and Shoichet, B. K. (2002) Structure (Camb.) 10, 1013–1023[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  53. Doman, T. N., McGovern, S. L., Witherbee, B. J., Kasten, T. P., Kurumbail, R., Stallings, W. C., Connolly, D. T., and Shoichet, B. K. (2002) J. Med. Chem. 45, 2213–2221[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  54. Abagyan, R., and Totrov, M. (2001) Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 5, 375–382[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]