Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
PPAR Research
Volume 2015, Article ID 254560, 6 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/254560
Research Article

Identification of Bexarotene as a PPAR Antagonist with HDX

Department of Molecular Therapeutics, The Scripps Research Institute, Scripps Florida, Jupiter, FL 33458, USA

Received 26 June 2015; Accepted 23 August 2015

Academic Editor: John B. Bruning

Copyright © 2015 David P. Marciano et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

The retinoid x receptors (RXRs) are the pharmacological target of Bexarotene, an antineoplastic agent indicated for the treatment of cutaneous T cell lymphoma (CTCL). The RXRs form heterodimers with several nuclear receptors (NRs), including peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPARγ), to regulate target gene expression through cooperative recruitment of transcriptional machinery. Here we have applied hydrogen/deuterium exchange (HDX) mass spectrometry to characterize the effects of Bexarotene on the conformational plasticity of the intact RXRα:PPARγ heterodimer. Interestingly, addition of Bexarotene to PPARγ in the absence of RXRα induced protection from solvent exchange, suggesting direct receptor binding. This observation was confirmed using a competitive binding assay. Furthermore, Bexarotene functioned as a PPARγ antagonist able to alter rosiglitazone induced transactivation in a cell based promoter:reporter transactivation assay. Together these results highlight the complex polypharmacology of lipophilic NR targeted small molecules and the utility of HDX for identifying and characterizing these interactions.

1. Introduction

The retinoid x receptors (, , and ) form heterodimers with a subclass of nuclear receptors (NRs) that include PPARs, LXRs, FXRs, PXRs, RARs, CAR, TR, and VDR to cooperatively modulate gene expression [1, 2]. These heterodimers can be classified as permissive, whereby agonists for either heterodimer partner can activate gene expression, or nonpermissive for which RXR agonists alone have no effect on transcriptional activity but can synergistically induce hyperactivation with partner agonists [3, 4]. The structural determinants delineating permissive and nonpermissive RXR heterodimers have been the focus of significant study, as heterodimer-selective retinoids may hold therapeutic potential for the treatment of metabolic disease [5].

Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPARγ) is a permissive RXR heterodimer partner [6] and the pharmacological target of the thiazolidinedione (TZD) class of insulin sensitizers that include rosiglitazone [7]. RXR targeted retinoids have also been demonstrated to act as insulin sensitizers in rodent models [8], through what appear to be both conserved and unique mechanisms [9, 10]. While the TZDs have been shown to increase body weight and fat mass in both rodents and humans (and perhaps food intake in rodents), retinoids, partly mediated by the CNS, reduce food consumption and decrease body weight and fat mass in rodents [11, 12]. It is interesting to note that a similar phenotype has been reported with pharmacological PPARγ repression in the CNS [13].

Bexarotene (Targretin, formerly LGD1069) is a third generation retinoid antineoplastic agent that potently activates RXRs [14] and is approved for the treatment of cutaneous T cell lymphoma (CTCL) [15]. Bexarotene potently activates adipocyte differentiation in multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells but with 20% maximal efficacy relative to PPARγ agonist rosiglitazone [16]. To characterize the effects of Bexarotene binding to RXRα on the conformational plasticity of its permissive coreceptor PPARγ, we applied hydrogen-deuterium exchange (HDX) coupled with mass spectrometry to analyze the intact heterodimer. These studies revealed that Bexarotene directly binds to PPARγ at functionally relevant concentrations. Additional studies demonstrate that Bexarotene functions as a PPARγ antagonist. The results presented here highlight the complex polypharmacology of lipophilic small molecules targeting nuclear receptors and the utility of HDX in characterizing these interactions.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. HDX-MS

Solution-phase amide HDX experiments were carried out using a fully automated system as described previously [17]. The PPARγ and RXRα LBDs were expressed and purified as previously reported [18]. 10 μM of PPARγ and RXRα LBD protein (20 mM KPO4, pH 7.4, 50 mM KCl) was preincubated with 1 : 2 molar excess of compound or DMSO control. 5 μL of protein solution was mixed with 20 μL of D2O-containing HDX buffer (20 mM KPO4, pH 7.4, 50 mM KCl) and incubated at 4°C for 10 s, 30 s, 60 s, 900 s, and 3,600 s. Following on-exchange, unwanted forward or back exchange was minimized and the protein was denatured by dilution with 25 μL of quench solution (0.1% v/v TFA in 3 M urea). Samples were then passed through an immobilized pepsin column at 200 μL min−1 (0.1% v/v TFA, 15°C) and the resulting peptides were trapped on a C8 trap column (Hypersil Gold, Thermo Scientific, CA). The bound peptides were then gradient-eluted (5–50% CH3CN w/v and 0.3% w/v formic acid) across a 2 mm × 50 mm C18 HPLC column (Hypersil Gold, Thermo Scientific, CA) for 5 min at 4°C. The eluted peptides were then subjected to electrospray ionization directly coupled to a high resolution Orbitrap QExactive mass spectrometer (Thermo Scientific, CA). Each HDX experiment was carried out in triplicate and the intensity weighted average m/z value (centroid) of each peptide isotopic envelope was calculated with in-house HDX Workbench software [19].

2.2. PPARγ Binding Assay

PPARγ competitive binding assay (Invitrogen) was performed according to the manufacturer’s protocol. A mixture of 5 nM glutathione -transferase fused with human PPARγ ligand binding domain (GST–PPARγ–LBD), 5 nM Tb-GST-antibody, 5 nM Fluormone Pan-PPAR Green, and serial dilutions of compound beginning at 10 μM downwards was added to wells of black 384-well low-volume plates (Greiner) to a total volume of 18 μL. All dilutions were made in TR-FRET PPAR assay buffer. DMSO at 2% final concentration was used as a no-ligand control. Experiments were performed in triplicate and incubated for 2 h in the dark before analysis in Perkin Elmer ViewLux ultra HTS microplate reader. The FRET signal was measured by excitation at 340 nm and emission at 520 nm for fluorescein and 490 nm for terbium. The fold change over DMSO was calculated by 520 nm/490 nm ratio. Graphs were plotted in GraphPad Prism (La Jolla, CA) as fold change of compound FRET signal over DMSO-only control and EC50 calculated.

2.3. Cell Based Transactivation Assay

HEK293T cells (ATCC; cat# CRL-3216) were cotransfected in batch by adding 4.5 μg human PPARγ2-Gal4, with 4.5 μg UAS-luciferase reporter and 27 μL X-treme Gene 9 transfection reagent in serum-free Opti-mem reduced serum media (Gibco). After 18-hour incubation at 37°C in a 5% CO2 incubator, transfected cells were plated in quadruplicate in white 384-well plates (Perkin Elmer) at a density of 10,000 cells per well. After replating, cells were treated with either DMSO only or the indicated compounds in increasing doses from 2 pM to 10 μM. After 18-hour incubation, treated cells were developed with Brite Lite Plus (Perkin Elmer) and read in 384-well Luminescence Perkin Elmer EnVision Multilabel Plate Reader. Graphs were plotted as fold change of treated cells over DMSO-treated control cells.

3. Results

To characterize the allosteric effects of ligand binding to RXRα on the conformational plasticity of PPARγ, differential HDX was applied to study the intact complex (Figure 1(a)). Addition of Bexarotene resulted in significant protection throughout the RXRα ligand binding domain (Figures 1(b) and 1(c)), consistent with high affinity receptor binding [20]. In contrast, several regions of the PPARγ LBD demonstrated increased exchange including a region at the dimer interface (Figure 1(d)). These data suggest that Bexarotene allosterically alters the conformational dynamics of the PPARγ coreceptor upon binding to RXRα.

Figure 1: Differential HDX of PPARγ:RXRα heterodimer with Bexarotene: (a) residues colored corresponding to the average percent change in deuteration between apo and Bexarotene bound complex over 6 time points (10, 30, 60, 300, 900, and 3600 seconds) run in triplicate () overlaid on PDB:1 K74. HDX buildup curves of (b) RXRα helix 10/11 peptide (RSIGLKC) at the dimer interface, (c) RXRα peptide (SHRSIAVKDGIL) containing arginine 316 known to form a hydrogen bond with Bexarotene in crystal structure PDB 4K61, and (d) PPARγ LBD helix 11 peptide (RQIVTEHVQL) at dimer interface.

To confirm that the alterations in HDX kinetics observed on PPARγ were indeed allosteric, HDX analysis of PPARγ alone in the presence and absence of Bexarotene was performed. Surprisingly, addition of Bexarotene to PPARγ alone altered deuterium exchange kinetics similar to that observed in analysis of ligands known to directly bind PPARγ, including similar protection to exchange on helix 3 (Figures 2(a) and 2(b)) [21]. Notably, Bexarotene had no effect on helix 12 deuterium incorporation (Figure 2(c)), mirroring the HDX profile of SR1664, a known PPARγ antagonist [18]. To confirm direct binding of Bexarotene to PPARγ, a TR-FRET competitive displacement assay was performed demonstrating an μM (Figure 3(a)). A cotransfection promoter:reporter gene assay was performed, and the results revealed that Bexarotene alone cannot transactivate the reporter gene (Figure 3(b)). However, in a competitive assay, Bexarotene right shifted the of rosiglitazone mediated reporter gene transactivation (Figure 3(c)), confirming that it binds directly to PPARγ and functions as an antagonist.

Figure 2: Differential HDX of PPARγ with Bexarotene: (a) residues colored corresponding to the average percent change in deuteration between apo and Bexarotene bound PPARγ over 6 time points (10, 30, 60, 300, 900, and 3600 seconds) run in triplicate () overlaid on PDB:1K74. HDX buildup curves of (b) PPARγ LBD helix 3 peptide IRIFQGCQ (blue) and (c) PPARγ LBD helix 11 RXIVTEHVQL (orange).
Figure 3: Biochemical characterization of Bexarotene on PPARγ: (a) TR-FRET competitive displacement assay (). (b) Dose dependent transcriptional activity of a PPARγ:PPRE-luciferase promoter-reporter assay in HEK293T cells (). (c) Dose dependent transcriptional activity of rosiglitazone ±1 μM Bexarotene in a PPARγ:PPRE-luciferase promoter-reporter assay in HEK293T cells ().

4. Discussion

The strategy of repurposing pharmaceuticals has emerged in response to the challenges and expense of obtaining regulatory approval for new drugs [22, 23]. Drug repurposing is particularly common in personalized cancer treatments, where tumors are screened for aberrant pathways to rationally intervene with appropriate therapies. An important compliment to expand the reach of already approved drugs is to characterize their complex polypharmacology and drug interactomes. Nuclear receptor pharmacology efforts to date have focused primarily on subtype selectivity for preferential isoform targeting [24, 25]. While this remains an important consideration, it has become apparent that the polypharmacology of NR targeted lipophilic small molecules spans the entire superfamily and beyond [26, 27]. This will be an important consideration with the emerging focus on delineating closely related ligands to improve therapeutic index using pathway analysis, particularly with the expanded repertoire of complexity now appreciated for nuclear receptor signaling [28]. While screening kinase panels has become requisite in the development of novel inhibitors [29], this has yet to become routine for nuclear receptor pharmacology despite the homology of ligand binding domains and redundancy in endogenous ligands [30, 31]. HDX is well-positioned to interrogate in vitro pharmacomic interactions with the advent of automated platforms and data processing software compatible with requisite screening throughputs [32].

Bexarotene is approved for the treatment of CTCL and, like most chemotherapies, has been investigated for efficacy in other cancer types [33]. Bexarotene has also been reported to reduce amyloid plaque and improve mental function in the APP/PS1 Alzheimer’s mouse model [34], with clinical trials ongoing to determine whether this will translate to man. Here we have demonstrated off-target binding of Bexarotene to PPARγ, also a target that has emerged for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease [35]. A systematic analysis of the interactome for these promising repurposing candidates will be important in identifying the true mechanism of action along with minimizing off-target adverse effects. For example, the off-target affinity of Bexarotene for PPARγ may contribute to the reported insulin-sensitizing efficacy of retinoids through modulation of receptor posttranslational modifications [28].

5. Conclusion

Here we have applied HDX to identify the off-target binding of Bexarotene to PPARγ and confirmed this with a competitive binding assay. Bexarotene acts as a PPARγ antagonist in a cell based promoter:reporter transactivation assay, competing with rosiglitazone, and has a HDX profile consistent with other known PPARγ antagonists. The ability of Bexarotene to modulate PPARγ may contribute to the beneficial effects observed in animal models of insulin resistance and Alzheimer’s disease. Together these results highlight the complex polypharmacology of NR ligands, the utility of HDX in characterizing these interactions, and the importance of characterizing ligands across the NR superfamily.

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

References

  1. D. J. Mangelsdorf and R. M. Evans, “The RXR heterodimers and orphan receptors,” Cell, vol. 83, no. 6, pp. 841–850, 1995. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. P. Lefebvre, Y. Benomar, and B. Staels, “Retinoid X receptors: common heterodimerization partners with distinct functions,” Trends in Endocrinology and Metabolism, vol. 21, no. 11, pp. 676–683, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. I. G. Schulman, C. Li, J. W. R. Schwabe, and R. M. Evans, “The phantom ligand effect: allosteric control of transcription by the retinoid X receptor,” Genes & Development, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 299–308, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. R. M. Cesario, K. Klausing, H. Razzaghi et al., “The rexinoid LG100754 is a novel RXR:PPARγ agonist and decreases glucose levels in vivo,” Molecular Endocrinology, vol. 15, no. 8, pp. 1360–1369, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. E. Pérez, W. Bourguet, H. Gronemeyer, and A. R. de Lera, “Modulation of RXR function through ligand design,” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta—Molecular and Cell Biology of Lipids, vol. 1821, no. 1, pp. 57–69, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. M.-J. Sanz, F. Albertos, E. Otero, M. Juez, E. J. Morcillo, and L. Piqueras, “Retinoid X receptor agonists impair arterial mononuclear cell recruitment through peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-γ activation,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 189, no. 1, pp. 411–424, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. J. M. Lehmann, L. B. Moore, T. A. Smith-Oliver, W. O. Wilkison, T. M. Willson, and S. A. Kliewer, “An antidiabetic thiazolidinedione is a high affinity ligand for peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor γ (PPARγ),” The Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 270, no. 22, pp. 12953–12956, 1995. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. R. Mukherjee, P. J. A. Davies, D. L. Crombie et al., “Sensitization of diabetic and obese mice to insulin by retinoid X receptor agonists,” Nature, vol. 386, no. 6623, pp. 407–410, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. H. S. Ahuja, S. Liu, D. L. Crombie et al., “Differential effects of rexinoids and thiazolidinediones on metabolic gene expression in diabetic rodents,” Molecular Pharmacology, vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 765–773, 2001. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. J. M. Lenhard, M. E. Lancaster, M. A. Paulik et al., “The RXR agonist LG100268 causes hepatomegaly, improves glycaemic control and decreases cardiovascular risk and cachexia in diabetic mice suffering from pancreatic beta-cell dysfunction,” Diabetologia, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 545–554, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. K. M. Ogilvie, R. Saladin, T. R. Nagy, M. S. Urcan, R. A. Heyman, and M. D. Leibowitz, “Activation of the retinoid X receptor suppresses appetite in the rat,” Endocrinology, vol. 145, no. 2, pp. 565–573, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. M. D. Leibowitz, R. J. Ardecky, M. F. Boehm et al., “Biological characterization of a heterodimer-selective retinoid X receptor modulator: potential benefits for the treatment of type 2 diabetes,” Endocrinology, vol. 147, no. 2, pp. 1044–1053, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. K. K. Ryan, B. Li, B. E. Grayson, E. K. Matter, S. C. Woods, and R. J. Seeley, “A role for central nervous system PPAR-γ in the regulation of energy balance,” Nature Medicine, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 623–626, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. M. F. Boehm, L. Zhang, L. Zhi et al., “Design and synthesis of potent retinoid X receptor selective ligands that induce apoptosis in leukemia cells,” Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, vol. 38, no. 16, pp. 3146–3155, 1995. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. R. Gniadecki, C. Assaf, M. Bagot et al., “The optimal use of bexarotene in cutaneous T-cell lymphoma,” British Journal of Dermatology, vol. 157, no. 3, pp. 433–440, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. S. C. Yanik, A. H. Baker, K. K. Mann, and J. J. Schlezinger, “Organotins are potent activators of PPARγ and adipocyte differentiation in bone marrow multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells,” Toxicological Sciences, vol. 122, no. 2, pp. 476–488, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. M. J. Chalmers, S. A. Busby, B. D. Pascal et al., “Probing protein ligand interactions by automated hydrogen/deuterium exchange mass spectrometry,” Analytical Chemistry, vol. 78, no. 4, pp. 1005–1014, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. J. H. Choi, A. S. Banks, T. M. Kamenecka et al., “Antidiabetic actions of a non-agonist PPARgamma ligand blocking Cdk5-mediated phosphorylation,” Nature, vol. 477, no. 7365, pp. 477–481, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. B. D. Pascal, S. Willis, J. L. Lauer et al., “HDX workbench: software for the analysis of H/D exchange MS data,” Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 1512–1521, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. S. Liu, K. M. Ogilvie, K. A. Y. Klausing et al., “Mechanism of selective retinoid X receptor agonist-induced hypothyroidism in the rat,” Endocrinology, vol. 143, no. 8, pp. 2880–2885, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. D. P. Marciano, D. S. Kuruvilla, S. V. Boregowda et al., “Pharmacological repression of PPARγ promotes osteogenesis,” Nature Communications, vol. 6, article 7443, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  22. M. Wadman, “New cures sought from old drugs,” Nature, vol. 490, no. 7418, p. 15, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. J. S. Shim and J. O. Liu, “Recent advances in drug repositioning for the discovery of new anticancer drugs,” International Journal of Biological Sciences, vol. 10, no. 7, pp. 654–663, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. G. Chiellini, J. W. Apriletti, H. A. Yoshihara, J. D. Baxter, R. C. J. Ribeiro, and T. S. Scanlan, “A high-affinity subtype-selective agonist ligand for the thyroid hormone receptor,” Chemistry and Biology, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 299–306, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. A. K. Shiau, D. Barstad, J. T. Radek et al., “Structural characterization of a subtype-selective ligand reveals a novel mode of estrogen receptor antagonism,” Nature Structural Biology, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 359–364, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. S. A. F. Morad, J. C. Levin, S.-F. Tan, T. E. Fox, D. J. Feith, and M. C. Cabot, “Novel off-target effect of tamoxifen—inhibition of acid ceramidase activity in cancer cells,” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta—Molecular and Cell Biology of Lipids, vol. 1831, no. 12, pp. 1657–1664, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. B. R. Hoffmann, M. F. El-Mansy, D. S. Sem, and A. S. Greene, “Chemical proteomics-based analysis of off-target binding profiles for rosiglitazone and pioglitazone: clues for assessing potential for cardiotoxicity,” Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, vol. 55, no. 19, pp. 8260–8271, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. D. P. Marciano, M. R. Chang, C. A. Corzo et al., “The therapeutic potential of nuclear receptor modulators for treatment of metabolic disorders: PPARγ, RORs, and Rev-erbs,” Cell Metabolism, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 193–208, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. E. Jacoby, G. Tresadern, S. Bembenek et al., “Extending kinome coverage by analysis of kinase inhibitor broad profiling data,” Drug Discovery Today, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 652–658, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. J. P. V. Heuvel, “Nutrigenomics and nutrigenetics of ω3 polyunsaturated fatty acids,” Progress in Molecular Biology and Translational Science, vol. 108, pp. 75–112, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. T. P. Burris, L. A. Solt, Y. Wang et al., “Nuclear receptors and their selective pharmacologic modulators,” Pharmacological Reviews, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 710–778, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. D. P. Marciano, V. Dharmarajan, and P. R. Griffin, “HDX-MS guided drug discovery: small molecules and biopharmaceuticals,” Current Opinion in Structural Biology, vol. 28, pp. 105–111, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. M. M. Gottardis, E. D. Bischoff, M. A. Shirley, M. A. Wagoner, W. W. Lamph, and R. A. Heyman, “Chemoprevention of mammary carcinoma by LGD1069 (Targretin): an RXR-selective ligand,” Cancer Research, vol. 56, no. 24, pp. 5566–5570, 1996. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  34. P. E. Cramer, J. R. Cirrito, D. W. Wesson et al., “ApoE-directed therapeutics rapidly clear β-amyloid and reverse deficits in AD mouse models,” Science, vol. 335, no. 6075, pp. 1503–1506, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  35. J. B. Jahrling, C. M. Hernandez, L. Denner, and K. T. Dineley, “PPARγ recruitment to active ERK during memory consolidation is required for Alzheimer's disease-related cognitive enhancement,” The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 34, no. 11, pp. 4054–4063, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus