Ternatin and improved synthetic variants kill cancer cells by targeting the elongation factor-1A ternary complex

  1. Jordan D Carelli
  2. Steven G Sethofer
  3. Geoffrey A Smith
  4. Howard R Miller
  5. Jillian L Simard
  6. William C Merrick
  7. Rishi K Jain
  8. Nathan T Ross
  9. Jack Taunton  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of California, San Francisco, United States
  2. Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research, United States
  3. Case Western Reserve University, United States

Abstract

Cyclic peptide natural products have evolved to exploit diverse protein targets, many of which control essential cellular processes. Inspired by a series of cyclic peptides with partially elucidated structures, we designed synthetic variants of ternatin, a cytotoxic and anti-adipogenic natural product whose molecular mode of action was unknown. The new ternatin variants are cytotoxic toward cancer cells, with up to 500-fold greater potency than ternatin itself. Using a ternatin photo-affinity probe, we identify the translation elongation factor-1A ternary complex (eEF1A∙GTP∙aminoacyl-tRNA) as a specific target and demonstrate competitive binding by the unrelated natural products, didemnin and cytotrienin. Mutations in domain III of eEF1A prevent ternatin binding and confer resistance to its cytotoxic effects, implicating the adjacent hydrophobic surface as a functional hot spot for eEF1A modulation. We conclude that the eukaryotic elongation factor-1A and its ternary complex with GTP and aminoacyl-tRNA are common targets for the evolution of cytotoxic natural products.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Jordan D Carelli

    Chemistry and Chemical Biology Graduate Program, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Steven G Sethofer

    Department of Cellular and Molecular Pharmacology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Geoffrey A Smith

    Chemistry and Chemical Biology Graduate Program, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Howard R Miller

    Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Jillian L Simard

    Department of Cellular and Molecular Pharmacology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. William C Merrick

    Department of Biochemistry, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Rishi K Jain

    Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Nathan T Ross

    Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Jack Taunton

    Department of Cellular and Molecular Pharmacology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    For correspondence
    jack.taunton@ucsf.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Ben Cravatt, The Scripps Research Institute, United States

Version history

  1. Received: July 20, 2015
  2. Accepted: November 26, 2015
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: December 10, 2015 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: March 1, 2016 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2015, Carelli et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 5,015
    views
  • 809
    downloads
  • 41
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Jordan D Carelli
  2. Steven G Sethofer
  3. Geoffrey A Smith
  4. Howard R Miller
  5. Jillian L Simard
  6. William C Merrick
  7. Rishi K Jain
  8. Nathan T Ross
  9. Jack Taunton
(2015)
Ternatin and improved synthetic variants kill cancer cells by targeting the elongation factor-1A ternary complex
eLife 4:e10222.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.10222

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.10222

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Claudia D Consalvo, Adedeji M Aderounmu ... Brenda L Bass
    Research Article

    Invertebrates use the endoribonuclease Dicer to cleave viral dsRNA during antiviral defense, while vertebrates use RIG-I-like Receptors (RLRs), which bind viral dsRNA to trigger an interferon response. While some invertebrate Dicers act alone during antiviral defense, Caenorhabditis elegans Dicer acts in a complex with a dsRNA binding protein called RDE-4, and an RLR ortholog called DRH-1. We used biochemical and structural techniques to provide mechanistic insight into how these proteins function together. We found RDE-4 is important for ATP-independent and ATP-dependent cleavage reactions, while helicase domains of both DCR-1 and DRH-1 contribute to ATP-dependent cleavage. DRH-1 plays the dominant role in ATP hydrolysis, and like mammalian RLRs, has an N-terminal domain that functions in autoinhibition. A cryo-EM structure indicates DRH-1 interacts with DCR-1’s helicase domain, suggesting this interaction relieves autoinhibition. Our study unravels the mechanistic basis of the collaboration between two helicases from typically distinct innate immune defense pathways.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Damien M Rasmussen, Manny M Semonis ... Nicholas M Levinson
    Research Article

    The type II class of RAF inhibitors currently in clinical trials paradoxically activate BRAF at subsaturating concentrations. Activation is mediated by induction of BRAF dimers, but why activation rather than inhibition occurs remains unclear. Using biophysical methods tracking BRAF dimerization and conformation, we built an allosteric model of inhibitor-induced dimerization that resolves the allosteric contributions of inhibitor binding to the two active sites of the dimer, revealing key differences between type I and type II RAF inhibitors. For type II inhibitors the allosteric coupling between inhibitor binding and BRAF dimerization is distributed asymmetrically across the two dimer binding sites, with binding to the first site dominating the allostery. This asymmetry results in efficient and selective induction of dimers with one inhibited and one catalytically active subunit. Our allosteric models quantitatively account for paradoxical activation data measured for 11 RAF inhibitors. Unlike type II inhibitors, type I inhibitors lack allosteric asymmetry and do not activate BRAF homodimers. Finally, NMR data reveal that BRAF homodimers are dynamically asymmetric with only one of the subunits locked in the active αC-in state. This provides a structural mechanism for how binding of only a single αC-in inhibitor molecule can induce potent BRAF dimerization and activation.