5. What have we learned towards the design of a PAM targeted
therapeutic
When viewed collectively, patterns emerge from the studies of the PHM
inhibitors and inactivators. Clearly, PHM prefers a free carboxylate
conjugated to a hydrophobic moiety positioned as close as possible to
the penultimate amino acid for the glycine-extended peptide substrates.
Incorporation of a sulfur-containing group that can coordinate with one
of the PHM-bound copper atoms would likely increase binding affinity.
Other possibilities to increase binding affinity in future PHM
inhibitors/inactivators would be to link mimosine (or a mimosine analog)
to a compound that binds at the peptide site to create a bifunctional
inhibitor. The identification of a putative mimosine-binding site
(Fig.3C ) in conjunction with the published PHM structures (W.
A. Francisco, Blackburn, & Klinman, 2003; Prigge et al., 2004) and the
wealth of structure-activity data for PHM substrates and inhibitors
provide an excellent starting point for in silico modeling of
high affinity PHM inhibitors or inactivators. Another possible
bifunctional inhibitor could include a copper-chelator linked to a
compound that binds at the peptide site in PHM. Inhibitors/inactivators
with high affinity unique to PAM could possess a PHM binder linked to
the PAL-specific pyruvate-extended amino acids. Without a structure for
bifunctional PAM, a series of compounds with different length spacers
between the PHM inhibitor and the PAL inhibitor would be required to
define the compound with the highest affinity for PAM. The appropriate
incorporation of mimosine into a PAM inhibitor could yield a
tight-binding trifunctional inhibitor with a group that binds into the
mimosine site of PHM, the peptide site of PHM, and the substrate site of
PAL.
The development of a high affinity PHM (or PAM) inhibitor will encounter
significant hurdles that could hinder clinical use. One concern is
delivery. PHM is found within the lumen of the secretory pathway (Kumar,
Mains, et al., 2016), a challenging site for drug delivery. As discussed
above, the clinical use of a PHM inhibitor is likely dependent upon a
molecular zip code for the secretory system or the surface of specific
cell types. Perhaps an engineered version of the Shiga toxin might
enable the delivery of a high affinity PHM/PAM inhibitor to the
secretory system (Luginbuehl, Meier, Kovar, & Rohrer, 2018). Another
concern is the diversity of the amidated products produced in
vivo by PHM. The inhibition of PHM would produce unselective blocking
of the biosynthesis of many amidated peptides and lipids. One solution
to this concern is not a PHM inhibitor, but the development of inhibitor
that binds selectively and with high affinity to one glycine-extended
substrate, which inhibits the amidation of only one PHM substrate
(Weiss, McIntyre, McLaughlin, & Merkler, 2006).
The inactivators require at least one trans -olefinic bond
positioned β- to a carboxylate for the most efficient inactivation.
Inactivators with the highest affinity have the inactivating moiety
attached to the C-terminus of a peptide or a hydrophobic group like a
phenyl group. The hydrophobic group must be appropriately spaced away
from the inactivating species for the highest affinity, exactly as was
observed for the glycine-extended substrates and the PHM inhibitors.
Again, the available structure-activity data and PHM structures provide
an excellent backdrop for the in silico design of high affinity
inactivators. The decoration of such high affinity inactivators with the
appropriate imaging reagent could yield a PHM-specific imaging reagent,
demonstrating that the molecular targeting was in fact successful.
Another application would be decoration with biotin to enable the
profiling of PHM similar to the activity-based profiling strategies
developed by Cravatt et al. (Cravatt, Wright, & Kozarich, 2008).
However, additional research is required to unravel uncertainties in the
PHM inactivation chemistry to fully exploit the development of a
PHM-specific imaging reagent.