Direct modulation of TRPM8 ion channels by rapamycin and analog macrolide immunosuppressants

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this valuable study, the authors found that the macrolide drug rapamycin, which is an important pharmacological tool in the clinic and the research lab, is less specific than previously thought. They provide solid functional evidence that rapamycin activates TRPM8 and develop an NMR method to measure the specific binding of a ligand to a membrane protein.

Strengths:

The authors use a variety of complementary experimental techniques in several different systems, and their results support the conclusions drawn.

Weaknesses:

Controls are not shown in all cases, and a lack of unity across the figures makes the flow of the paper disjointed. The proposed location of the rapamycin binding pocket within the membrane means that molecular docking approaches designed for soluble proteins alone do not provide solid evidence for a rapamycin binding pocket location in TRPM8, but the authors are appropriately careful in stating that the model is consistent with their functional experiments.

Impact:

This work provides still more evidence for the polymodality of TRP channels, reminding both TRP channel researchers and those who use rapamycin in other contexts that the adjective "specific" is only meaningful in the context of what else has been explicitly tested.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

Tóth and Bazeli et al. find rapamycin activates heterologously-expressed TRPM8 and dissociated sensory neurons in a TRPM8-dependent way with Ca2+-imaging. With electrophysiology and STTD-NMR, they confirmed the activation is through direct interaction with TRPM8. Using mutants and computational modeling, the authored localized the binding site to the groove between S4 and S5, different than the binding pocket of cooling agents such as menthol. The hydroxyl group on carbon 40 within the cyclohexane ring in rapamycin is indispensable for activation, while other rapalogs with its replacement, such as everolimus, still bind but cannot activate TRPM8. Overall, the findings provide new insights into TRPM8 functions and may indicate previously unknown physiological effects or therapeutic mechanisms of rapamycin.

Strengths:

The authors spent extensive effort on demonstrating that the interaction between TRPM8 and rapamycin is direct. The evidence is solid. In probing the binding site and the structural-function relationship, the authors combined computational simulation and functional experiments. It is very impressive to see that "within" a rapamycin molecule, the portion shared with everolimus is for "binding", while the hydroxyl group in the cyclohexane ring is for activation. Such detailed dissection represents a successful trial in the computational biology-facilitated, functional experiment-validated study of TRP channel structural-activity relationship. The research draws the attention of scientists, including those outside the TRP channel field, to previously neglected effects of rapamycin, and therefore the manuscript deserves broad readership.

Weaknesses:

The significance of the research could be improved by showing or discussing whether a similar binding pocket is present in other TRP channels, and hence rapalogs might bind to or activate these TRP channels. Additionally, while the finding on TRPM8 is novel, it is worthwhile to perform more comprehensive pharmacological characterization, including single-channel recording and a few more mutant studies to offer further insight into the mechanism of rapamycin binding to S4~S5 pocket driving channel opening. It is also necessary to know if rapalogs have independent or synergistic effects on top of other activators, including cooling agents and lower temperature, and their dependence on regulators such as PIP2.

Additional discussion that might be helpful:

The authors did confirm that rapamycin does not activate TRPV1, TRPA1 and TRPM3. But other TRP channels, particularly other structurally similar TRPM channels, should be discussed or tested. Alignment of the amino acid sequences or structures at the predicted binding pocket might predict some possible outcomes. In particular, rapamycin is known to activate TRPML1 in a PI(3,5)P2-dependent manner, which should be highlighted in comparison among TRP channels (PMID: 35131932, 31112550).

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

Rapamycin is a macrolide of immunologic therapeutic importance, proposed as a ligand of mTOR. It is also employed as in essays to probe protein-protein interactions.
The authors serendipitously found that the drug rapamycin and some related compounds, potently activate the cationic channel TRPM8, which is the main mediator of cold sensation in mammals. The authors show that rapamycin might bind to a novel binding site that is different from the binding site for menthol, the prototypical activator of TRPM8. These solid results are important to a wide audience since rapamycin is a widely used drug and is also employed in essays to probe protein-protein interactions, which could be affected by potential specific interactions of rapamycin with other membrane proteins, as illustrated herein.

Strengths:

The authors employ several experimental approaches to convincingly show that rapamycin activates directly the TRPM8 cation channel and not an accessory protein or the surrounding membrane. In general, the electrophysiological, mutational and fluorescence imaging experiments are adequately carried out and cautiously interpreted, presenting a clear picture of the direct interaction with TRPM8. In particular, the authors convincingly show that the interactions of rapamycin with TRPM8 are distinct from interactions of menthol with the same ion channel.

Weaknesses:

The main weakness of the manuscript is the NMR method employed to show that rapamycin binds to TRPM8. The authors developed and deployed a novel signal processing approach based on subtraction of several independent NMR spectra to show that rapamycin binds to the TRPM8 protein and not to the surrounding membrane or other proteins. While interesting and potentially useful, the method is not well developed (several positive controls are missing) and is not presented in a clear manner, such that the quality of data can be assessed and the reliability and pertinence of the subtraction procedure evaluated.