Compound Mutations in the Abl1 Kinase Cause Inhibitor Resistance by Shifting DFG Flip Mechanisms and Relative State Populations

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors used weighted ensemble enhanced sampling molecular dynamics (MD) to test the hypothesis that a double mutant of Abl favors the DFG-in state relative to the WT and therefore causes the drug resistance to imatinib.

Strengths:

The authors employed three novel progress coordinates to sample the DFG flip of ABl. The hypothesis regarding the double mutant's drug resistance is novel.

Weaknesses:

The study contains many uncertain aspects. As such, major conclusions do not appear to be supported.

Comments on revisions:

The authors have addressed some of my concerns, but these concerns remain to be addressed:

(1) Definition of the DFG conformation (in vs out). The authors specified their definition in the revised manuscript, but it has not been validated for a large number of kinases to distinguish between the two states. Thus, I recommend that the authors calculate the FES using another definition (see Tsai et al, JACS 2019, 141, 15092−15101) to confirm their findings. This FES can be included in the SI.

(2) There is no comparison to previous computational work. I would like to see a comparison between the authors' finding of the DFG-in to DFG-out transition and that described in Tsai et al, JACS 2019, 141, 15092−15101.

(3) My previous comment: "The study is not very rigorous. The major conclusions do not appear to be supported. The claim that it is the first unbiased simulation to observe DFG flip is not true. For example, Hanson, Chodera et al (Cell Chem Biol 2019), Paul, Roux et al (JCTC 2020), and Tsai, Shen et al (JACS 2019) have also observed the DFG flip." has not been adequately addressed.

The newly added paragraph clearly does not address my original comment.

"Through our work, we have simulated an ensemble of DFG flip pathways in a wild-type kinase and its variants with atomistic resolution and without the use of biasing forces, also reporting the effects of inhibitor-resistant mutations in the broader context of kinase inactivation likelihood with such level of detail. "

(4) My previous comment, "Setting the DFG-Asp to the protonated state is not justified, because in the DFG-in state, the DFG-Asp is clearly deprotonated." has not been addressed.

In the authors's response stated:

According to previous publications, DFG-Asp is frequently protonated in the DFG-in state of Abl1 kinase. For instance, as quoted from Hanson, Chodera, et al., Cell Chem Bio (2019), "Consistent with previous simulations on the DFG-Asp-out/in interconversion of Abl kinase we only observe the DFG flip with protonated Asp747 ( Shan et al., 2009 ). We showed previously that the pKa for the DFG-Asp in Abl is elevated at 6.5."

Since the pKa of DFG-Asp is 6.5, it should be deprotonated at the physiological pH 7.5. Thus, the fact that the authors used protonated DFG-Asp contradicts this. I am not requesting the authors to redo the entire simulations, but they need to acknowledge this discrepancy and add a brief discussion. See a constant pH study that demonstrates the protonation state population shift for DFG-Asp as the DFG transitions from in to out state (see Tsai et al, JACS 2019, 141, 15092−15101).

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This is a well-written manuscript on the mechanism of the DFG flip in kinases. This conformational change is important for the toggling of kinases between active (DFG-in) and inactive (DFG-out) states. The relative probabilities of these two states are also an important determinant of the affinity of inhibitors for a kinase. However, it is an extremely slow/rare conformational change, making it difficult to capture in simulations. The authors show that weighted ensemble simulations can capture the DFG flip and then delve into the mechanism of this conformational change and the effects of mutations.

Strengths:

The DFG flip is very hard to capture in simulations. Showing that this can be done with relatively little simulation by using enhanced sampling is a valuable contribution. The manuscript gives a nice description of the background for non-experts.

Weaknesses:

The anecdotal approach to presenting the results is disappointing. Molecular processes are stochastic and the authors have expertise in describing such processes. However, they chose to put most statistical analysis in the SI. The main text instead describes the order of events in single "representative" trajectories. The main text makes it sound like these were most selected as they were continuous trajectories from the weighted ensemble simulations. It is preferable to have a description of the highest probability pathway(s) with some quantification of how probable they are. That would give the reader a clear sense of how representative the events described are.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews.

Reviewer #1:

Specifically, the authors need to define the DFG conformation using criteria accepted in the field, for example, see https://klifs.net/index.php.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. In the manuscript, we use pseudodihedral and bond angle-based DFG definitions that have been previously established by literature cited in the study (re-iterated below) to unambiguously define the side-chain conformational states of the DFG motif. As we are interested in the specific mechanics of DFG flips under different conditions, we’ve found that the descriptors defined below are sufficient to distinguish between DFG states and allow a more direct comparison with previously-reported results in the literature using different methods.

We amended the text to be more clear as to those definitions and their choice:

DFG angle definitions:

Phe382/Cg, Asp381/OD2, Lys378/O

Source: Structural Characterization of the Aurora Kinase B "DFG-flip" Using Metadynamics. Lakkaniga NR, Balasubramaniam M, Zhang S, Frett B, Li HY. AAPS J. 2019 Dec 18;22(1):14. doi: 10.1208/s12248-019-0399-6. PMID: 31853739; PMCID: PMC7905835.

“Finally, we chose the angle formed by Phe382's gamma carbon, Asp381's protonated side chain oxygen (OD2), and Lys378's backbone oxygen as PC3 based on observations from a study that used a similar PC to sample the DFG flip in Aurora Kinase B using metadynamics \cite{Lakkaniga2019}. This angular PC3 should increase or decrease (based on the pathway) during the DFG flip, with peak differences at intermediate DFG configurations, and then revert to its initial state when the flip concludes.”

DFG pseudodihedral definitions:

Ala380/Cb, Ala380/Ca, Asp381/Ca, Asp381/Cg

Ala380/Cb, Ala380/CA, Phe382/CA, Phe382Cg

Source: Computational Study of the “DFG-Flip” Conformational Transition in c-Abl and c-Src Tyrosine Kinases. Yilin Meng, Yen-lin Lin, and Benoît Roux The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 2015 119 (4), 1443-1456 DOI: 10.1021/jp511792a

“For downstream analysis, we used two pseudodihedrals previously defined in the existing Abl1 DFG flip simulation literature \cite{Meng2015} to identify and discriminate between DFG states. The first (dihedral 1) tracks the flip state of Asp381, and is formed by the beta carbon of Ala380, the alpha carbon of Ala380, the alpha carbon of Asp381, and the gamma carbon of Asp381. The second (dihedral 2) tracks the flip state of Phe382, and is formed by the beta carbon of Ala380, the alpha carbon of Ala380, the alpha carbon of Phe381, and the gamma carbon of Phe381. These pseudodihedrals, when plotted in relation to each other, clearly distinguish between the initial DFG-in state, the target DFG-out state, and potential intermediate states in which either Asp381 or Phe381 has flipped.”

Convergence needs to be demonstrated for estimating the population difference between different conformational states.

We agree that demonstrating convergence is important for accurate estimations of population differences between conformational states. However, as the DFG flip is a complex and concerted conformational change with an energy barrier of 30 kcal/mol [1], and considering the traditional limitations of methods like weighted ensemble molecular dynamics (WEMD), it would take an unrealistic amount of GPU time (months) to observe convergence in our simulations. As discussed in the text (see examples below), we caveat our energy estimations by explicitly mentioning that the state populations we report are not converged and are indicative of a much larger energy barrier in the mutant.

“These relative probabilities qualitatively agree with the large expected free energy barrier for the DFG-in to DFG-out transition (~32 kcal/mol), and with our observation of a putative metastable DFG-inter state that is missed by NMR experiments due to its low occupancy.”

“As an important caveat, it is unlikely that the DFG flip free energy barriers of over 70 kcal/mol estimated for the Abl1 drug-resistant variants quantitatively match the expected free energy barrier for their inactivation. Rather, our approximate free energy barriers are a symptom of the markedly increased simulation time required to sample the DFG flip in the variants relative to the wild-type, which is a strong indicator of the drastically reduced propensity of the variants to complete the DFG flip. Although longer WE simulations could allow us to access the timescales necessary for more accurately sampling the free energy barriers associated with the DFG flip in Abl1's drug-resistant compound mutants, the computational expense of running WE for 200 iterations is already large (three weeks with 8 NVIDIA RTX3900 GPUs for one replicate); this poses a logistical barrier to attempting to sample sufficient events to be able to fully characterize how the reaction path and free energy barrier change for the flip associated with the mutations. Regardless, the results of our WE simulations resoundingly show that the Glu255Lys/Val and Thr315Ile compound mutations drastically reduce the probability for DFG flip events in Abl1.”

(1) Conformational states dynamically populated by a kinase determine its function. Tao Xie et al., Science 370, eabc2754 (2020). DOI:10.1126/science.abc2754

The DFG flip needs to be sampled several times to establish free energy difference.

Our simulations have captured thousands of correlated and dozens of uncorrelated DFG flip events. The per-replicate free energy differences are computed based on the correlated transitions. Please consult the WEMD literature (referenced below and in the manuscript, references 34 and 36) for more information on how WEMD allows the sampling of multiple such events and subsequent estimation of probabilities:

Zuckermann et al (2017) 10.1146/annurev-biophys-070816-033834

Chong et al (2021) 10.1021/acs.jctc.1c01154

The free energy plots do not appear to show an intermediate state as claimed.

Both the free energy plots and the representative/anecdotal trajectories analyzed in the study show a saddle point when Asp381 has flipped but Phe382 has not (which defines the DFG-inter state), we observe a distinct change in probability when going to the pseudodihedral values associated with DFG-inter to DFG-up or DFG-out. We removed references to the putative state S1 as we we agree with the reviewer that its presence is unlikely given the data we show.

The trajectory length of 7 ns in both Figure 2 and Figure 4 needs to be verified, as it is extremely short for a DFG flip that has a high free energy barrier.

We appreciate this point. To clarify, the 7 ns segments corresponds to a collated trajectory extracted from the tens of thousands of walkers that compose the WEMD ensemble, and represent just the specific moment at which the dihedral flips occur rather than the entire flip process. On average, our WEMD simulations sample over 3 us of aggregate simulation time before the first DFG flip event is observed, in line with a high energy barrier. This is made clear in the manuscript excerpt below: “Over an aggregate simulation time of over 20 $\mu$s, we have collected dozens of uncorrelated and unbiased inactivation events, starting from the lowest energy conformation of the Abl1 kinase core (PDB 6XR6) \cite{Xie2020}.”

The free energy scale (100 kT) appears to be one order of magnitude too large.

As discussed in the text and quoted in response to comment 2, the exponential splitting nature of WEMD simulations (where the probability of individual walkers are split upon crossing each bin threshold) often leads to unrealistically high energy barriers for rare events. This is not unexpected, and as discussed in the text, we consider that value to be a qualitative measurement of the decreased probability of a DFG flip in Abl1 mutants, and not a direct measurement of energy barriers.

Setting the DFG-Asp to the protonated state is not justified, because in the DFG-in state, the DFG-Asp is clearly deprotonated.

According to previous publications, DFG-Asp is frequently protonated in the DFG-in state of Abl1 kinase. For instance, as quoted from Hanson, Chodera, et al., Cell Chem Bio (2019), “C onsistent with previous simulations on the DFG-Asp-out/in interconversion of Abl kinase we only observe the DFG flip with protonated Asp747 ( Shan et al., 2009 ). We showed previously that the pKa for the DFG-Asp in Abl is elevated at 6.5.”

Finally, the authors should discuss their work in the context of the enormous progress made in theoretical studies and mechanistic understanding of the conformational landscape of protein kinases in the last two decades, particularly with regard to the DFG flip. and The study is not very rigorous. The major conclusions do not appear to be supported. The claim that it is the first unbiased simulation to observe DFG flip is not true. For example, Hanson, Chodera et al (Cell Chem Biol 2019), Paul, Roux et al (JCTC 2020), and Tsai, Shen et al (JACS 2019) have also observed the DFG flip.

We thank the reviewer for pointing out these issues. We have revised the manuscript to better contextualize our claims within the limitations of the method and to acknowledge previous work by Hanson, Chodera et al., Paul, Roux et al., and Tsai, Shen et al.

The updated excerpt is described below

“Through our work, we have simulated an ensemble of DFG flip pathways in a wild-type kinase and its variants with atomistic resolution and without the use of biasing forces, also reporting the effects of inhibitor-resistant mutations in the broader context of kinase inactivation likelihood with such level of detail. “

Reviewer #2:

I appreciated the discussion of the strengths/weaknesses of weighted ensemble simulations. Am I correct that this method doesn't do anything to explicitly enhance sampling along orthogonal degrees of freedom? Maybe a point worth mentioning if so.

Yes, this is correct. We added a sentence to WEMD summary section of Results and Discussion discussing it.

“As a supervised enhanced sampling method, WE employs progress coordinates (PCs) to track the time-dependent evolution of a system from one or more basis states towards a target state. Although weighted ensemble simulations are unbiased in the sense that no biasing forces are added over the course of the simulations, the selection of progress coordinates and the bin definitions can potentially bias the results towards specific pathways \cite{Zuckerman2017}. Additionally, traditional WEMD simulations do not explicitly enhance sampling along orthogonal degrees of freedom (those not captured by the progress coordinates). In practice, this means that insufficient PC definitions can lead to poor sampling.”

I don't understand Figure 3C. Could the authors instead show structures corresponding to each of the states in 3B, and maybe also a representative structure for pathways 1 and 2?

We have remade Figure 3. We removed 3B and accompanying discussion as upon review we were not confident on the significance of the LPATH results where it pertains to the probability of intermediate states. We replaced 3B with a summary of the pathways 1 and 2 in regards to the Phe382 flip (which is the most contrasting difference).

Why introduce S1 and DFG-inter? And why suppose that DFG-inter is what corresponds to the excited state seen by NMR?

As a consequence of dropping the LPATH analysis, we also removed mentions to S1 as it further analysis made it hard to distinguish from DFG-in, For DFG-inter, we mention that conformation because (a) it is shared by both flipping mechanisms that we have found, and (b) it seems relevant for pharmacology, as it has been observed in other kinases such as Aurora B (PDB 2WTV), as Asp381 flipping before Phe382 creates space in the orthosteric kinase pocket which could be potentially targeted by an inhibitor.

It would be nice to have error bars on the populations reported in Figure 3.

Agreed, upon review we decided do drop the populations as we were not confident on the significance of the LPATH results where it pertains to the probability of intermediate states.

I'm confused by the attempt to relate the relative probabilities of states to the 32 kca/mol barrier previously reported between the states. The barrier height should be related to the probability of a transition. The DFG-out state could be equiprobable with the DFG-in state and still have a 32 kcal/mol barrier separating them.

Thanks for the correction, we agree with the reviewer and have amended the discussion to reflect this. Since we are starting our simulations in the DFG-in state, the probability of walkers arriving in DFG-out in our steady state WEMD simulations should (assuming proper sampling) represent the probability of the transition. We incorrectly associated the probability of the DFG-out state itself with the probability of the transition.

How do the relative probabilities of the DFG-in/out states compare to experiments, like NMR?

Previous NMR work has found the population of apo DFG in (PDB 6XR6) in solution to be around 88% for wild-type ABL1, and 6% for DFG out (PDB 6XR7). The remaining 6% represents post-DFG-out state (PDB 6XRG) where the activation loop has folded in near the hinge, which we did not simulate due to the computational cost associated with it. The same study reports the barrier height from DFG-in to DFG-out to be estimated at around 30 kcal/mol.

(1) Conformational states dynamically populated by a kinase determine its function. Tao Xie et al., Science 370, eabc2754 (2020). DOI:10.1126/science.abc2754

(we already have that in the text, just need to quote here)

“Do the staggered and concerted DFG flip pathways mentioned correspond to pathways 1 and 2 in Figure 3B, or is that a concept from previous literature?”

Yes, we have amended Figure 3B to be clearer. In previous literature both pathways have been observed [1], although not specifically defined.

Source: Computational Study of the “DFG-Flip” Conformational Transition in c-Abl and c-Src Tyrosine Kinases. Yilin Meng, Yen-lin Lin, and Benoît Roux The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 2015 119 (4), 1443-1456 DOI: 10.1021/jp511792a