Multivalent binding is an efficient means to enhance the affinity and specificity of chemical probes targeting multidomain proteins in order to study their function and role in disease. While the theory of multivalent binding is straightforward, physical and structural characterization of bivalent binding encounters multiple technical difficulties. We present a case study where a combination of experimental techniques and computational simulations was used to comprehensively characterize the binding and structure–affinity relationships for a series of Bromosporine-based bivalent bromodo-main ligands with a bivalent protein, Transcription Initiation Factor TFIID subunit 1 (TAF1). Experimental techniques—Isothermal Titration Calorimetry, X-ray Crystallography, Circular Dichroism, Size Exclusion Chromatography-Multi-Angle Light Scattering, and Surface Plasmon Resonance—were used to determine structures, binding affinities, and kinetics of monovalent ligands and bivalent ligands with varying linker lengths. The experimental data for monomeric ligands were fed into explicit computational simulations, in which both ligand and protein species were present in a broad range of concentrations, and in up to a 100 s time regime, to match experimental conditions. These simulations provided accurate estimates for apparent affinities (in good agreement with experimental data), individual dissociation microconstants and other microscopic details for each type of protein–ligand complex. We conclude that the expected efficiency of bivalent ligands in a cellular context is difficult to estimate by a single technique in vitro, due to higher order associations favored at the concentrations used, and other complicating processes. Rather, a combination of structural, biophysical, and computational approaches should be utilized to estimate and characterize multivalent interactions.

No abstract

Canonical targeting of Polycomb Repressive Complex 1 (PRC1) to repress developmental genes is mediated by cell type-specific, paralogous chromobox (CBX) proteins (CBX2, 4, 6, 7 and 8). Based on their central role in silencing and their misregulation associated with human disease including cancer, CBX proteins are attractive targets for small molecule chemical probe development. Here, we have used a quantitative and target-specific cellular assay to discover a potent positive allosteric modulator (PAM) of CBX8. The PAM activity of UNC7040 antagonizes H3K27me3 binding by CBX8 while increasing interactions with nucleic acids and participation in variant PRC1. We show that treatment with UNC7040 leads to efficient PRC1 chromatin eviction, loss of silencing and reduced proliferation across different cancer cell lines. Our discovery and characterization of UNC7040 not only revealed the most cellularly potent CBX8 specific chemical probe to date, but also corroborates a mechanism of polycomb regulation by non-histone lysine methylated interaction partners.

Many common disease-causing mutations result in loss-of-function (LOF) of the proteins in which they occur. LOF mutations have proven recalcitrant to pharmacologic intervention, presenting a challenge for the development of targeted therapeutics. Polycomb repressive complex 2 (PRC2), which contains core subunits (EZH2, EED, and SUZ12), regulates gene activity by trimethylation of histone 3 lysine 27. The dysregulation of PRC2 catalytic activity by mutations has been implicated in cancer and other diseases. Among the mutations that cause PRC2 malfunction, an I363M LOF mutation of EED has been identified in myeloid disorders, where it prevents allosteric activation of EZH2 catalysis. We describe structure-based design and computational simulations of ligands created to ameliorate this LOF. Notably, these compounds selectively stimulate the catalytic activity of PRC2-EED-I363M over wildtype-PRC2. Overall, this work demonstrates the feasibility of developing targeted therapeutics for PRC2-EED-I363M that act as allosteric agonists, potentially correcting this LOF mutant phenotype.

T he stereo configuration of compounds drawn in the original Figure 3A, Scheme S3, and Figure S7 and listed in the NMR data contained an error. The compounds in the corrected figure are drawn correctly as the S isomers. The synthesis section in the Supporting Information also contained this error, and it was corrected accordingly.