Recognition and Cleavage of Human tRNA Methyltransferase TRMT1 by the SARS-CoV-2 Main Protease

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

D'Oliviera et al. have demonstrated cleavage of human TRMT1 by the SARS-CoV-2 main protease in vitro. Following this, they solved the structure of Mpro-C145A bound to TRMT1 substrate peptide, revealing binding conformation distinct from most viral substrates. Overall, this work enhances our understanding of substrate specificity for a key drug target of CoV2. The paper is well-written and the data is clearly presented. It complements the companion article by demonstrating the interaction between Mpro and TRMT1 and TRMT1 cleavage under isolated conditions in vitro. Importantly, the revelation of flexible substrate binding of Nsp5 is fundamental for understanding Nsp5 as a drug target. Trmt1 cleavage assays revealed similar kinetics for TRMT1 cleavage as compared to the nsp8/9 viral polyprotein cleavage site, however, it would have been more rigorous for the authors to independently reproduce the kinetics reported for nsp8/9 using their specific experimental conditions. The finding that murine TRMT1 lacks a conserved consensus sequence is interesting, but is not experimentally tested here and is reported elsewhere. I am unable to comment critically on the structural analyses as it is outside of my expertise. Overall, I think that these findings are important for confirming TRMT1 as a substrate of Mpro and defining substrate binding and cleavage parameters for an important drug target of SARS-CoV-2.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:
The manuscript 'Recognition and Cleavage of Human tRNA Methyltransferase TRMT1 by the SARS-CoV-2 Main Protease' from Angel D'Oliviera et al., uncovers that TRMT1 can be cleaved by SARS-CoV-2 main protease (Mpro) and defines the structural basis of TRMT1 recognition by Mpro. They use both recombinant TRMT1 and Mpro as well as endogenous TRMT1 from HEK293T cell lysates to convincingly show cleavage of TRMT1 by the SARS-CoV-2 protease. To understand how Mpro recognizes TRMT1, they solved a co-crystal structure of Mpro bound to a peptide derived from the predicted cleavage site of TRMT1. This structure revealed important protein-protein interfaces and highlights the importance of the conserved Q530 for cleavage by Mpro. They then compared their structure with previous X-ray crystal structures of Mpro bound to substrate peptides derived from the viral polyprotein and proposed the concept of two distinct binding conformations to Mpro: P3´-out and P3´-in conformations (here P3´ stands for the third residue downstream of the cleavage site). It remains unknown what is the physiological role of these two binding conformations on Mpro function, but the authors established that Mpro has dramatically different cleavage efficiencies for three distinct substrates. In an effort to rationalize this observation, a series of mutations in Mpro's active site and the substrate peptide were tested but unexpectedly had no significant impact on cleavage efficiency. While molecular dynamic simulations further confirmed the propensity of certain substrates to adopt the P3´-out or P3´-in conformation, they did not provide additional insights into the dramatic differences in cleavage efficiencies between substrates. This led the authors to propose that the discrimination of Mpro for preferred substrates might occur at a later stage of catalysis after binding of the peptide. Overall, this work will be of interest to biologists studying proteases and substrate recognition by enzymes as well as help efforts to target Mpro with peptide-like drugs.

Strengths:
• The authors' statements are well supported by their data, and they used relevant controls when needed. Indeed, they used the Mpro C145A inactive variant to unambiguously show that the TRMT1 cleavage detected in vitro is solely due to Mpro's activity. Moreover, they used two distinct polyclonal antibodies to probe TRMT1 cleavage.

• Their 1.9 Å crystal structure is of high quality and increases the confidence in the reported protein-protein contacts seen between TRMT1-derived peptide and Mpro.

• Their extensive in vitro kinetic assay was performed in ideal conditions although it is unclear how many replicates were performed.

• The authors test multiple hypotheses to rationalize the preference of Mpro for certain substrates.

• While this reviewer is not able to comment on the rigor of the MD simulations, the interpretations made by the authors seem reasonable and convincing.

• The concept of two binding conformations (P3´-out or P3´-in) for the substrate in the active site of Mpro is significant and can guide drug design.

Weaknesses:
• While the authors convincingly show that TRMT1 is cleaved by Mpro, the exact cleavage site was never confirmed experimentally. It is most likely that the predicted site is the main cleavage site as proposed by the authors (region 527-534). Nevertheless, in Fig 1C (first lane from the right) there are two bands clearly observed for the cleavage product containing the MT Domain. If the predicted site was the only cleavage site recognized by Mpro, then a single band for the MT domain would be expected. This observation suggests that there might be two cleavage sites for Mpro in TRMT1. Indeed, residues RFQANP (550-555) in TRMT1 might be a secondary weaker cleavage site for Mpro, which would explain the two observed bands in Fig 1C. A mass spectrometry analysis of the cleaved products would clarify this.

• A control is missing in Fig 1D. Since the authors use western blots to show the gradual degradation of endogenous TRMT1, a control with a protein that does not change in abundance over the course of the measurement is important. This is required to show that the differences in intensity of TRMT1 by western blotting are not due to loading differences etc.

• The two polyclonal antibodies used by the authors seem to have strong non-specific binding to proteins other than TRMT1 but did not impact the author's conclusions. This is a limitation of the commercially available antibodies for TRMT1, and unless the authors select a new monoclonal antibody specific to TRMT1 (costly and lengthy process), this limitation seems out of their control.

• The recombinantly purified TRMT1 seems to have some non-negligible impurities (extra bands in Fig 1C). This does not impact the conclusions of the authors but might be relevant to readers interested in working with TRMT1 for biochemical, structural, or other purposes.

• Despite the reasonable efforts of the authors, it remains unknown why Mpro shows higher cleavage efficiency for the nsp4/5 sequence compared to TRMT1 or nsp8/9 sequences.

• The peptide cleavage kinetic assay used by the authors relies on a peptide labelled with a fluorophore (MCA) on the N-terminus and a quencher (Dpn) on the C-terminus. This design allows high-throughput measurements compatible with plate readers and is a robust and convenient tool. Nevertheless, the authors did not control for the impact of the labels (MCA and Dpn) on the activity of Mpro. It is possible that the differences in cleavage efficiencies between peptides are due to unexpected conformational changes in the peptide upon labelling. Moreover, the TRMT1 peptide has an E at the N-terminus and an R at the C-terminus (while the nsp4/5 peptide has an S and M, respectively). It is possible that these two terminal residues form a salt bridge in the TRMT1 peptide that might constrain the conformation of the peptide and thus reduce its accessibility and cleavage by Mpro. Enzymatic assays in the absence of labels and MD simulations with the bona fide peptides (including the labels) used in the kinetic measurements are needed to prove that the cleavage efficiencies are not biased by the fluorescence assay.

• The authors used A431S variant in TRMT1-derived peptide to disrupt the P3´-in conformation. While this reviewer agrees with the rationale behind A431S design, it is important to confirm experimentally that the mutation disrupted the P3´-in conformation in favor of the P3´-out conformer. The authors could use their MD simulations to determine if the TRMT1 A431S variant favors the P3´-out conformation.

• An unanswered question not addressed by the authors is if the peptides undergo conformational changes upon Mpro binding or if they are pre-organized to adopt the P3´-out and P3´-in conformations.

• While the authors describe at great length the hydrogen bonds involved in the substrate recognition by Mpro, they occluded to highlight important stacking interactions in this interface. For instance, Phe533 from TRMT1 stacks with Met49 while L529 from TRMT1 packs against His41 of Mpro. Both hydrogen bonding and stacking interactions seem important for TRMT1-derived peptide recognition by Mpro.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:
In this manuscript, the authors have used a combination of enzymatic, crystallographic, and in silico approaches to provide compelling evidence for substrate selectivity of SARS-CoV-2 Mpro for human TRMT1.

Strengths:
In my opinion, the authors came close to achieving their intended aim of demonstrating the structural and biochemical basis of Mpro catalysis and cleavage of human TRMT1 protein. The combination of orthogonal approaches is highly commendable.

Weaknesses:
It would have been of high scientific impact if the consequences of TRMT1 cleavage by Mpro on cellular metabolism were provided. Furthermore, assays to investigate the effect of inhibition of this Mpro activity on SARS-CoV-2 propagation and infection would have been extremely useful in providing insights into host- SARS-CoV-2 interactions.

Author Response

We very much appreciate all the reviewers’ positive feedback and additional comments and suggestions for this manuscript!

In this provisional reply, we’d like to quickly address only one selected key point, for which we have already collected relevant experimental data:

Reviewer 1 suggests that ‘it would have been more rigorous for the authors to independently reproduce the kinetics reported for nsp8/9 using their specific experimental conditions.’ We absolutely agree with this and have already carried out these kinetic experiments while our paper was under review. We have now measured kinetic parameters for cleavage of the nsp8/9 peptide in our own hands under the same conditions as we used for nsp4/5 and TRMT1. We measured kcat and KM values of 0.019 +/- 0.002 s-1 and 40 +/- 7.5 µM, respectively, for nsp8/9 cleavage; these data are very much in line with the previously reported values from MacDonald et al (kcat = 0.013 +/- 0.001 s-1, KM = 36 +/- 6.0 µM) that we used for comparison in Figure 4 and listed in Table S2. We will add our own measured kinetic values for nsp8/9 in the next version of our manuscript, but wanted to report these numbers as soon as possible, because this further supports and validates our claim that the human TRMT1 sequence is cleaved at a similar rate to the known nsp8/9 viral polypeptide cleavage site.

We will provide a detailed, point-by-point reply to all reviewer comments accompanying the forthcoming revised manuscript, in which we intend to have new and updated data and additional MD simulations that directly address key questions raised by the reviewers.