Structure-guided microbial targeting of antistaphylococcal prodrugs

  1. Justin J Miller
  2. Ishaan T Shah
  3. Jayda Hatten
  4. Yasaman Barekatain
  5. Elizabeth A Mueller
  6. Ahmed M Moustafa
  7. Rachel L Edwards
  8. Cynthia S Dowd
  9. Paul Planet
  10. Florian L Muller
  11. Joseph Jez
  12. Audrey R Odom John  Is a corresponding author
  1. Washington University School of Medicine, United States
  2. The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, United States
  3. Washington University in St Louis, United States
  4. Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, United States
  5. The George Washington University, United States

Abstract

Carboxy ester prodrugs are widely employed to increase oral absorption and potency of phosphonate antibiotics. Prodrugging can mask problematic chemical features that prevent cellular uptake and may enable tissue specific compound delivery. However, many carboxy ester promoieties are rapidly hydrolyzed by serum esterases, limiting their therapeutic potential. While carboxy ester-based prodrug targeting is feasible, it has seen limited use in microbes as microbial esterase specific promoieties have not been described. Here we identify the bacterial esterases, GloB and FrmB, that activate carboxy ester prodrugs in Staphylococcus aureus. Additionally, we determine the substrate specificities for FrmB and GloB and demonstrate the structural basis of these preferences. Finally, we establish the carboxy ester substrate specificities of human and mouse sera, ultimately identifying several promoieties likely to be serum esterase-resistant and microbially labile. These studies will enable structure-guided design of anti-staphylococcal promoieties and expand the range of molecules to target staphylococcal pathogens.

Data availability

Sequencing data and structure data is provided in the manuscript and deposited on the NCBI BioProject database (PRJNA648156) or in the protein data bank (FrmB accession code 7L0A, GloB accession code 7L0B).

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Justin J Miller

    Pediatrics, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9400-8916
  2. Ishaan T Shah

    Pediatrics, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Jayda Hatten

    Pediatrics, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Yasaman Barekatain

    Cancer Systems Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Elizabeth A Mueller

    Biology, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5482-6551
  6. Ahmed M Moustafa

    Pediatrics Infectious Diseases, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9949-6936
  7. Rachel L Edwards

    Pediatrics, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Cynthia S Dowd

    Chemistry, The George Washington University, Washington DC, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Paul Planet

    Pediatrics Infectious Diseases, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Florian L Muller

    Cancer Systems Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Joseph Jez

    Biology, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Audrey R Odom John

    Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, United States
    For correspondence
    johna3@email.chop.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8395-8537

Funding

National Institutes of Health (R01 AI103280; R21 AI123808; R21 AI130584)

  • Audrey R Odom John

National Center for Research Resources (UL1 RR024992)

  • Joseph Jez

Burroughs Wellcome Fund (PATH)

  • Audrey R Odom John

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Bavesh D Kana, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa

Version history

  1. Preprint posted: December 15, 2020 (view preprint)
  2. Received: January 18, 2021
  3. Accepted: July 16, 2021
  4. Accepted Manuscript published: July 19, 2021 (version 1)
  5. Version of Record published: July 28, 2021 (version 2)
  6. Version of Record updated: November 25, 2021 (version 3)

Copyright

© 2021, Miller et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 2,199
    views
  • 316
    downloads
  • 6
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Justin J Miller
  2. Ishaan T Shah
  3. Jayda Hatten
  4. Yasaman Barekatain
  5. Elizabeth A Mueller
  6. Ahmed M Moustafa
  7. Rachel L Edwards
  8. Cynthia S Dowd
  9. Paul Planet
  10. Florian L Muller
  11. Joseph Jez
  12. Audrey R Odom John
(2021)
Structure-guided microbial targeting of antistaphylococcal prodrugs
eLife 10:e66657.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.66657

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.66657

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Katarzyna Marta Zoltowska, Utpal Das ... Lucía Chávez-Gutiérrez
    Research Article

    Amyloid β (Aβ) peptides accumulating in the brain are proposed to trigger Alzheimer’s disease (AD). However, molecular cascades underlying their toxicity are poorly defined. Here, we explored a novel hypothesis for Aβ42 toxicity that arises from its proven affinity for γ-secretases. We hypothesized that the reported increases in Aβ42, particularly in the endolysosomal compartment, promote the establishment of a product feedback inhibitory mechanism on γ-secretases, and thereby impair downstream signaling events. We conducted kinetic analyses of γ-secretase activity in cell-free systems in the presence of Aβ, as well as cell-based and ex vivo assays in neuronal cell lines, neurons, and brain synaptosomes to assess the impact of Aβ on γ-secretases. We show that human Aβ42 peptides, but neither murine Aβ42 nor human Aβ17–42 (p3), inhibit γ-secretases and trigger accumulation of unprocessed substrates in neurons, including C-terminal fragments (CTFs) of APP, p75, and pan-cadherin. Moreover, Aβ42 treatment dysregulated cellular homeostasis, as shown by the induction of p75-dependent neuronal death in two distinct cellular systems. Our findings raise the possibility that pathological elevations in Aβ42 contribute to cellular toxicity via the γ-secretase inhibition, and provide a novel conceptual framework to address Aβ toxicity in the context of γ-secretase-dependent homeostatic signaling.