Cysteine protease I29 propeptide from Calotropis procera R. Br. As a potent cathepsin L inhibitor and its suppressive activity in breast cancer metastasis.
Anti-cancer therapy
Breast cancer
Cathepsin L
High-molecular-weight protein inhibitor
I29 domain
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 Oct 2024
05 Oct 2024
Historique:
received:
07
05
2024
accepted:
18
09
2024
medline:
6
10
2024
pubmed:
6
10
2024
entrez:
5
10
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Breast cancer metastasis is associated with a poor prognosis and a high rate of mortality. Cathepsin L (CTSL) is a lysosomal cysteine protease that promotes tumor metastasis by degrading the extracellular matrix. Gene set enrichment analysis revealed that CTSL expression was higher in tumorous than in non-tumorous tissues of breast cancer patients and that high-level CTSL expression correlated positively with the epithelial-mesenchymal transition. Therefore, we hypothesized that inhibiting CTSL activity in tumor cells would prevent metastasis. In this study, we characterized the inhibitory activity of SnuCalCpI15, the I29 domain of a CTSL-like cysteine protease from Calotropis procera R. Br., and revealed that the propeptide stereoselectively inhibited CTSL in a reversible slow-binding manner, with an inhibitory constant (K
Identifiants
pubmed: 39368988
doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-73578-3
pii: 10.1038/s41598-024-73578-3
doi:
Substances chimiques
Cathepsin L
EC 3.4.22.15
Cysteine Proteinase Inhibitors
0
CTSL protein, human
EC 3.4.22.15
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
23218Subventions
Organisme : Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea
ID : RS-2021-RD009467
Organisme : National Research Foundation of Korea
ID : NRF-2022R1A2C1011914
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Fig. Cancer Statistics (2022). https://www.cancer.org/research/cancer-facts-statistics/all-cancer-facts-figures/cancer-facts-figures-2022.html (2022).
Weigelt, B. & Peterse, J. L. T veer, L. J. Breast cancer metastasis: Markers and models. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 5, 591–602. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc1670 (2005). van.
doi: 10.1038/nrc1670
Dahan, M., Cortet, M., Lafon, C. & Padilla, F. Combination of focused ultrasound, immunotherapy, and chemotherapy. J. Ultrasound Med. 42, 559–573. https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.16053 (2023).
doi: 10.1002/jum.16053
Lei, S. et al. Global patterns of breast cancer incidence and mortality: A population-based cancer registry data analysis from 2000 to 2020. Cancer Commun. (Lond). 41, 1183–1194. https://doi.org/10.1002/cac2.12207 (2021).
doi: 10.1002/cac2.12207
Caputo, R. et al. Sacituzumab Govitecan for the treatment of advanced triple negative breast cancer patients: A multi-center real-world analysis. Front. Oncol. 14, 1362641. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2024.1362641 (2024).
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1362641
Rizzo, A., Cusmai, A., Acquafredda, S., Rinaldi, L. & Palmiotti, G. Ladiratuzumab vedotin for metastatic triple negative cancer: preliminary results, key challenges, and clinical potential. Expert Opin. Investig. Drugs. 31, 495–498. https://doi.org/10.1080/13543784.2022.2042252 (2022).
doi: 10.1080/13543784.2022.2042252
Rizzo, A. et al. Hypertransaminasemia in cancer patients receiving immunotherapy and immune-based combinations: the MOUSEION-05 study. Cancer Immunol. Immunother. 72, 1381–1394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00262-023-03366-x (2023).
doi: 10.1007/s00262-023-03366-x
Schipilliti, F. M. et al. Datopotamab deruxtecan: a novel antibody drug conjugate for triple-negative breast cancer. Heliyon. 10, e28385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e28385 (2024).
doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e28385
Guven, D. C. et al. Immune checkpoint inhibitor-related hearing loss: A systematic review and analysis of individual patient data. Support Care Cancer. 31, 624. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-023-08083-w (2023).
doi: 10.1007/s00520-023-08083-w
Guven, D. C. et al. The association between albumin levels and survival in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front. Mol. Biosci. 9, 1039121. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmolb.2022.1039121 (2022).
doi: 10.3389/fmolb.2022.1039121
Tan, G. J., Peng, Z. K., Lu, J. P. & Tang, F. Q. Cathepsins mediate tumor metastasis. World J. Biol. Chem. 4, 91–101. https://doi.org/10.4331/wjbc.v4.i4.91 (2013).
doi: 10.4331/wjbc.v4.i4.91
Rawlings, N. D. et al. The MEROPS database of proteolytic enzymes, their substrates and inhibitors in 2017 and a comparison with peptidases in the PANTHER database. Nucleic Acids Res. 46, 624–632. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkx1134 (2017).
doi: 10.1093/nar/gkx1134
Sudhan, D. R. & Siemann, D. W. Cathepsin L targeting in cancer treatment. Pharmacol. Ther. 155, 105–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pharmthera.2015.08.007 (2015).
doi: 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2015.08.007
Lah, T. T. et al. Stefins and lysosomal cathepsins B, L and D in human breast carcinoma. Int. J. Cancer. 50, 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.2910500109 (1992).
doi: 10.1002/ijc.2910500109
Thomssen, C. et al. Prognostic value of the cysteine proteases cathepsins B and cathepsin L in human breast cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 1, 741–746 (1995).
Ruan, J. et al. Increased expression of cathepsin L: A novel independent prognostic marker of worse outcome in hepatocellular carcinoma patients. PLoS One. 9, e112136. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0112136 (2014).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0112136
Zhang, L. et al. Cathepsin L is involved in proliferation and invasion of ovarian cancer cells. Mol. Med. Rep. 11, 468–474. https://doi.org/10.3892/mmr.2014.2706 (2015).
doi: 10.3892/mmr.2014.2706
Rawlings, N. D., Tolle, D. P. & Barrett, A. J. Evolutionary families of peptidase inhibitors. Biochem. J. 378, 705–716. https://doi.org/10.1042/bj20031825 (2004).
doi: 10.1042/bj20031825
Pogorzelska, A., Żołnowska, B. & Bartoszewski, R. Cysteine cathepsins as a prospective target for anticancer therapies-current progress and prospects. Biochimie. 151, 85–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biochi.2018.05.023 (2018).
doi: 10.1016/j.biochi.2018.05.023
Hanada, K. et al. Isolation and characterization of E–64, a new thiol protease inhibitor. Agric. Biol. Chem. 42, 523–528. https://doi.org/10.1080/00021369.1978.10863014 (1978).
doi: 10.1080/00021369.1978.10863014
Katunuma, N., Tsuge, H., Nukatsuka, M., Asao, T. & Fukushima, M. Structure-based design of specific cathepsin inhibitors and their application to protection of bone metastases of cancer cells. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 397, 305–311. https://doi.org/10.1006/abbi.2001.2709 (2002).
doi: 10.1006/abbi.2001.2709
Cianni, L. et al. Can cysteine protease cross-class inhibitors achieve selectivity? J. Med. Chem. 62, 10497–10525. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jmedchem.9b00683 (2019).
doi: 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.9b00683
Kwon, C. W., Yeo, S. & Chang, P. S. Characterization and molecular docking study of cathepsin L inhibitory peptides (SnuCalCpIs) from Calotropis procera R. Br. Sci. Rep. 12, 5825. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-09854-x (2022).
doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-09854-x
Shi, X. & Zhang, Y. A humanized antibody inhibitor for cathepsin L. Protein Sci. 29, 1924–1930. https://doi.org/10.1002/pro.3913 (2020).
doi: 10.1002/pro.3913
Coulombe, R. et al. Structure of human procathepsin L reveals the molecular basis of inhibition by the prosegment. Embo J.15, 5492–5503 (1996).
doi: 10.1002/j.1460-2075.1996.tb00934.x
Jerala, R., Zerovnik, E., Kidric, J. & Turk, V. pH-induced conformational transitions of the propeptide of human cathepsin L. A role for a molten globule state in zymogen activation. J. Biol. Chem.273, 11498–11504. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.273.19.11498 (1998).
doi: 10.1074/jbc.273.19.11498
Kwon, C. W. et al. Cysteine protease profiles of the medicinal plant Calotropis procera R. Br. revealed by de novo transcriptome analysis. PLoS One 10, e0119328, doi: (2015). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0119328
Han, H. L., Kwon, C. W., Choi, Y. & Chang, P. S. Antifungal activity of α-helical propeptide SnuCalCpI15 derived from Calotropis procera R. Br. Against food spoilage yeasts. Food Control. 133, 108628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2021.108628 (2022).
doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2021.108628
Qin, G. et al. Cathepsin L is involved in proliferation and invasion of breast cancer cells. Neoplasma. 63, 30–36. https://doi.org/10.4149/neo_2016_004 (2016).
doi: 10.4149/neo_2016_004
Harbeck, N. et al. Prognostic impact of tumor biological factors on survival in node-negative breast cancer. Anticancer Res. 18, 2187–2197 (1998).
Sudhan, D. R., Rabaglino, M. B., Wood, C. E. & Siemann, D. W. Cathepsin L in tumor angiogenesis and its therapeutic intervention by the small molecule inhibitor KGP94. Clin. Exp. Metastasis. 33, 461–473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10585-016-9790-1 (2016).
doi: 10.1007/s10585-016-9790-1
Zhang, L. et al. COVID-19 receptor and malignant cancers: Association of CTSL expression with susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2. Int. J. Biol. Sci. 18, 2362–2371. https://doi.org/10.7150/ijbs.70172 (2022).
doi: 10.7150/ijbs.70172
Huang, Z. Impact of impurities on IC50 values of P450 inhibitors. Drug Metab. Lett. 5, 156–162. https://doi.org/10.2174/187231211796905008 (2011).
doi: 10.2174/187231211796905008
Böttger, R., Hoffmann, R. & Knappe, D. Differential stability of therapeutic peptides with different proteolytic cleavage sites in blood, plasma and serum. PLoS One. 12, e0178943. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178943 (2017).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0178943
Morrison, J. F. The slow-binding and slow, tight-binding inhibition of enzyme-catalysed reactions. Trends Biochem. Sci. 7, 102–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/0968-0004(82)90157-8 (1982).
doi: 10.1016/0968-0004(82)90157-8
Abbasi, W. A., Yaseen, A., Hassan, F. U., Andleeb, S. & Minhas, F. U. A. A. ISLAND: in-silico proteins binding affinity prediction using sequence information. BioData Min. 13, 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13040-020-00231-w (2020).
doi: 10.1186/s13040-020-00231-w
Quraishi, O. et al. The occluding loop in cathepsin B defines the pH dependence of inhibition by its propeptide. Biochem. 38, 5017–5023. https://doi.org/10.1021/bi981950o (1999).
doi: 10.1021/bi981950o
Renko, M., Požgan, U., Majera, D. & Turk, D. Stefin A displaces the occluding loop of cathepsin B only by as much as required to bind to the active site cleft. FEBS J. 277, 4338–4345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-4658.2010.07824.x (2010).
doi: 10.1111/j.1742-4658.2010.07824.x
Chowdhury, S. F. et al. Exploring inhibitor binding at the S′ subsites of cathepsin L. J. Med. Chem. 51, 1361–1368. https://doi.org/10.1021/jm701190v (2008).
doi: 10.1021/jm701190v
Levicar, N. et al. Selective suppression of cathepsin L by antisense cDNA impairs human brain tumor cell invasion in vitro and promotes apoptosis. Cancer Gene Ther. 10, 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.cgt.7700546 (2003).
doi: 10.1038/sj.cgt.7700546
Novinec, M. et al. Interaction between human cathepsins K, L, and S and elastins: Mechanism of elastinolysis and inhibition by macromolecular inhibitors. J. Biol. Chem. 282, 7893–7902. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M610107200 (2007).
doi: 10.1074/jbc.M610107200
Gianotti, A., Sommer, C. A., Carmona, A. K. & Henrique-Silva, F. Inhibitory effect of the sugarcane cystatin CaneCPI-4 on cathepsins B and L and human breast cancer cell invasion. Biol. Chem. 389, 447–453. https://doi.org/10.1515/bc.2008.035 (2008).
doi: 10.1515/bc.2008.035
Creasy, B. M., Hartmann, C. B., White, F. K. & McCoy, K. L. New assay using fluorogenic substrates and immunofluorescence staining to measure cysteine cathepsin activity in live cell subpopulations. Cytometry A. 71, 114–123. https://doi.org/10.1002/cyto.a.20365 (2007).
doi: 10.1002/cyto.a.20365
Zhu, J. et al. Self-masked aldehyde inhibitors of human cathepsin L are potent anti-CoV-2 agents. Front. Chem. 10, 867928. https://doi.org/10.3389/fchem.2022.867928 (2022).
doi: 10.3389/fchem.2022.867928
Masson, P. & Lushchekina, S. V. Slow-binding inhibition of cholinesterases, pharmacological and toxicological relevance. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 593, 60–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.abb.2016.02.010 (2016).
doi: 10.1016/j.abb.2016.02.010
Sebaugh, J. L. Guidelines for accurate EC
doi: 10.1002/pst.426
Cha, S. Tight-binding inhibitors-I. kinetic behavior. Biochem. Pharmacol. 24, 2177–2185. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-2952(75)90050-7 (1975).
doi: 10.1016/0006-2952(75)90050-7
Győrffy, B. Survival analysis across the entire transcriptome identifies biomarkers with the highest prognostic power in breast cancer. Comput. Struct. Biotechnol. J. 19, 4101–4109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csbj.2021.07.014 (2021).
doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2021.07.014
Mirdita, M. et al. ColabFold: making protein folding accessible to all. Nat. Methods. 19, 679–682. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-022-01488-1 (2022).
doi: 10.1038/s41592-022-01488-1
Yan, Y., Zhang, D., Zhou, P., Li, B. & Huang, S. Y. HDOCK: a web server for protein-protein and protein-DNA/RNA docking based on a hybrid strategy. Nucleic Acids Res. 45, 365–373. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkx407 (2017).
doi: 10.1093/nar/gkx407
Varadi, M. et al. AlphaFold protein structure database: Massively expanding the structural coverage of protein-sequence space with high-accuracy models. Nucleic Acids Res. 50, 439–444. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkab1061 (2021).
doi: 10.1093/nar/gkab1061
Musil, D. et al. The refined 2.15 Å X-ray crystal structure of human liver cathepsin B: The structural basis for its specificity. Embo J. 10, 2321–2330. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1460-2075.1991.tb07771.x (1991).
doi: 10.1002/j.1460-2075.1991.tb07771.x
Turk, D., Podobnik, M., Kuhelj, R., Dolinar, M. & Turk, V. Crystal structures of human procathepsin B at 3.2 and 3.3 angstroms resolution reveal an interaction motif between a papain-like cysteine protease and its propeptide. FEBS Lett. 384, 211–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-5793(96)00309-2 (1996).
doi: 10.1016/0014-5793(96)00309-2
Liu, Y. et al. CB-Dock2: Improved protein-ligand blind docking by integrating cavity detection, docking and homologous template fitting. Nucleic Acids Res. 50, 159–164. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkac394 (2022).
doi: 10.1093/nar/gkac394