Stereospecific lasofoxifene derivatives reveal the interplay between estrogen receptor alpha stability and antagonistic activity in ESR1 mutant breast cancer cells

Abstract

Chemical manipulation of estrogen receptor alpha ligand binding domain structural mobility tunes receptor lifetime and influences breast cancer therapeutic activities. Selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) extend ERα cellular lifetime/accumulation. They are antagonists in the breast but agonists in the uterine epithelium and/or in bone. Selective estrogen receptor degraders/downregulators (SERDs) reduce ERα cellular lifetime/accumulation and are pure antagonists. Activating somatic ESR1 mutations Y537S and D538G enable resistance to first-line endocrine therapies. SERDs have shown significant activities in ESR1 mutant setting while few SERMs have been studied. To understand whether chemical manipulation of ERα cellular lifetime and accumulation influences antagonistic activity, we studied a series of methylpyrollidine lasofoxifene derivatives that maintained the drug's antagonistic activities while uniquely tuning ERα cellular accumulation. These molecules were examined alongside a panel of antiestrogens in live cell assays of ERα cellular accumulation, lifetime, SUMOylation, and transcriptional antagonism. High-resolution x-ray crystal structures of WT and Y537S ERα ligand binding domain in complex with the methylated lasofoxifene derivatives or representative SERMs and SERDs show that molecules that favor a highly buried helix 12 antagonist conformation achieve the greatest transcriptional suppression activities in breast cancer cells harboring WT/Y537S ESR1. Together these results show that chemical reduction of ERα cellular lifetime is not necessarily the most crucial parameter for transcriptional antagonism in ESR1 mutated breast cancer cells. Importantly, our studies show how small chemical differences within a scaffold series can provide compounds with similar antagonistic activities, but with greatly different effects of the cellular lifetime of the ERα, which is crucial for achieving desired SERM or SERD profiles.

Data availability

All protein crystal structures have been deposited in the PDB under accession codes: 6PSJ, 7KBS, 7UJC, 7UJ8, 7UJM, 7UJY, 7UJF, 7UJW, 7UJO, 7UJ7, 6V8T, and 6VPF.

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. David J Hosfield

    Ben May Department for Cancer Research, University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Sandra Weber

    Institute for Research in Immunology and Cancer, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Nan-Sheng Li

    Ben May Department for Cancer Research, University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Madline Suavage

    Institute for Research in Immunology and Cancer, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Carstyn F Joiner

    Department of Cancer Biology, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Govinda R Hancock

    Department of Cancer Biology, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Emily A Sullivan

    Department of Cancer Biology, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Estelle Nduwke

    Ben May Department for Cancer Research, University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  9. Ross Han

    Ben May Department for Cancer Research, University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  10. Sydney Cush

    Ben May Department for Cancer Research, University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  11. Muriel Lainé

    Ben May Department for Cancer Research, University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  12. Sylvie C Mader

    Institute for Research in Immunology and Cancer, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  13. Geoffrey L Greene

    Ben May Department for Cancer Research, University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6894-8728
  14. Sean W Fanning

    Department of Cancer Biology, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, United States
    For correspondence
    sfanning@luc.edu
    Competing interests
    Sean W Fanning, In the interest of transparency, Dr. Fanning's laboratory receives sponsored research funds from Olema Oncology Inc. Olema was not involved in this study. This work has no impact on the company..
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9428-0060

Funding

Susan G. Komen (CCR19608597)

  • Sean W Fanning

Ludwig Fund for Metastasis Research

  • Geoffrey L Greene

Canadian Institutes of Health Research

  • Sylvie C Mader

The funders had no role in the execution of this study.

Copyright

© 2022, Hosfield 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

  • 2,287
    views
  • 469
    downloads
  • 25
    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. David J Hosfield
  2. Sandra Weber
  3. Nan-Sheng Li
  4. Madline Suavage
  5. Carstyn F Joiner
  6. Govinda R Hancock
  7. Emily A Sullivan
  8. Estelle Nduwke
  9. Ross Han
  10. Sydney Cush
  11. Muriel Lainé
  12. Sylvie C Mader
  13. Geoffrey L Greene
  14. Sean W Fanning
(2022)
Stereospecific lasofoxifene derivatives reveal the interplay between estrogen receptor alpha stability and antagonistic activity in ESR1 mutant breast cancer cells
eLife 11:e72512.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.72512

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.72512

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Kira Breunig, Xuifen Lei ... Luiz O Penalva
    Research Article

    RNA binding proteins (RBPs) containing intrinsically disordered regions (IDRs) are present in diverse molecular complexes where they function as dynamic regulators. Their characteristics promote liquid-liquid phase separation (LLPS) and the formation of membraneless organelles such as stress granules and nucleoli. IDR-RBPs are particularly relevant in the nervous system and their dysfunction is associated with neurodegenerative diseases and brain tumor development. Serpine1 mRNA-binding protein 1 (SERBP1) is a unique member of this group, being mostly disordered and lacking canonical RNA-binding domains. We defined SERBP1’s interactome, uncovered novel roles in splicing, cell division and ribosomal biogenesis, and showed its participation in pathological stress granules and Tau aggregates in Alzheimer’s brains. SERBP1 preferentially interacts with other G-quadruplex (G4) binders, implicated in different stages of gene expression, suggesting that G4 binding is a critical component of SERBP1 function in different settings. Similarly, we identified important associations between SERBP1 and PARP1/polyADP-ribosylation (PARylation). SERBP1 interacts with PARP1 and its associated factors and influences PARylation. Moreover, protein complexes in which SERBP1 participates contain mostly PARylated proteins and PAR binders. Based on these results, we propose a feedback regulatory model in which SERBP1 influences PARP1 function and PARylation, while PARylation modulates SERBP1 functions and participation in regulatory complexes.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    Parnian Arafi, Sujan Devkota ... Michael S Wolfe
    Research Article

    Missense mutations in the amyloid precursor protein (APP) and presenilin-1 (PSEN1) cause early-onset familial Alzheimer’s disease (FAD) and alter proteolytic production of secreted 38-to-43-residue amyloid β-peptides (Aβ) by the PSEN1-containing γ-secretase complex, ostensibly supporting the amyloid hypothesis of pathogenesis. However, proteolysis of APP substrate by γ-secretase is processive, involving initial endoproteolysis to produce long Aβ peptides of 48 or 49 residues followed by carboxypeptidase trimming in mostly tripeptide increments. We recently reported evidence that FAD mutations in APP and PSEN1 cause deficiencies in early steps in processive proteolysis of APP substrate C99 and that this results from stalled γ-secretase enzyme-substrate and/or enzyme-intermediate complexes. These stalled complexes triggered synaptic degeneration in a Caenorhabditis elegans model of FAD independently of Aβ production. Here, we conducted full quantitative analysis of all proteolytic events on APP substrate by γ-secretase with six additional PSEN1 FAD mutations and found that all six are deficient in multiple processing steps. However, only one of these (F386S) was deficient in certain trimming steps but not in endoproteolysis. Fluorescence lifetime imaging microscopy in intact cells revealed that all six PSEN1 FAD mutations lead to stalled γ-secretase enzyme-substrate/intermediate complexes. The F386S mutation, however, does so only in Aβ-rich regions of the cells, not in C99-rich regions, consistent with the deficiencies of this mutant enzyme only in trimming of Aβ intermediates. These findings provide further evidence that FAD mutations lead to stalled and stabilized γ-secretase enzyme-substrate and/or enzyme-intermediate complexes and are consistent with the stalled process rather than the products of γ-secretase proteolysis as the pathogenic trigger.