Letters pubs.acs.org/acschemicalbiology
Distant Polypharmacology among MLP Chemical Probes Albert A. Antolín† and Jordi Mestres*,† †
Systems Pharmacology, Research Program on Biomedical Informatics, IMIM Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute and Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Doctor Aiguader 88, 08003 Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain S Supporting Information *
ABSTRACT: Small molecules are essential tool compounds to probe the role of proteins in biology and advance toward more efficient therapeutics. However, they are used without a complete knowledge of their selectivity across the entire proteome, at risk of confounding their effects due to unknown off-target interactions. Current state-of-the-art computational approaches to predicting the affinity profile of small molecules offer a means to anticipate potential nonobvious selectivity liabilities of chemical probes. The application of in silico target profiling on the full set of chemical probes from the NIH Molecular Libraries Program (MLP) resulted in the identification of biologically relevant in vitro affinities for proteins distantly related to the primary targets of ML006, ML123, ML141, and ML204, helping to lower the risk of their further use in chemical biology.
T
always limited capacity of experimental in vitro testing, the risk for nonobvious distant polypharmacology to confounding proteins beyond those tested will be always there, as exemplified by the recent identification of a kinase off-target in a PARP chemical probe and their translation into different kinase polypharmacology among PARP drug candidates.13,14 In silico approaches to target profiling have been successfully used to identify novel targets for drugs15−17 and hits from phenotypic screening.18 These methodologies allow for estimating the polypharmacology of small molecules across a significantly larger portion of the proteome covered by regular in vitro profiling panels.19 Here, we illustrate the application of in silico target profiling to particularly difficult cases of chemical probes that show unexpected distant polypharmacology to confounding targets unrelated to their respective primary targets. To this end, the NIH MLP chemical probe collection was profiled in silico using a ligand-based approach (see Methods) that has been widely validated prospectively on its ability to identify novel antagonists for all four members of the adenosine receptor family,20 to anticipate the affinity profile of cyclobenzaprine,17 and to predict novel off-targets for a PARP chemical probe.13 Accordingly, information on the MLP collection was downloaded, and the PubChem Compound Identifiers (CIDs) were used to extract the structures of the entire set of 178 unique MLP chemical probes.21 From those, 133 (75%) were classified as target-based probes taking into account the title of the probe report, the specific aim of the probe project, and when necessary, by visually inspecting the assay description in the probe report. Then, we checked the commercial availability of those MLP probes among chemical
he ability of small molecules to interact with macromolecules has long been used as a noninvasive means to probe the role of proteins in biology and therapy, complementing more invasive techniques like RNA interference (RNAi) and leading to advances in both biological understanding and therapeutics.1,2 Today, new chemical probes continue to be strongly sought to functionally annotate the undrugged human genome3 and further validate molecular targets,4,5 thus representing a cornerstone to the advancement of chemical biology and follow-on drug discovery.6 Accordingly, there has been a strategic investment in public screening campaigns to support the identification of tool compounds. Among those initiatives, the National Institute of Health Molecular Libraries Program (MLP) has taken a leading role, and the result has been the identification of almost 200 chemical probes that were recently released and made publicly available.7,8 The use of chemical probes is however not exempt from fundamental risks, and objective guidelines to the appropriate development of high-quality probes and controls continue to be a matter of much concern and discussion.2,5,9−11 In this respect, defining the ideal properties of a useful small molecule tool for biology is not straightforward, and being too strict on their quality criteria could compromise innovation and scientific advancement.2 In particular, selectivity for the primary protein being targeted by the chemical probe is foreseen as a critical parameter since a poor understanding of its mechanism of action and unawareness of potential masked off-target confounding effects could lead to misinterpretations of the results that may ultimately translate into persistent scientific distractions and unnecessarily increased economic costs.12 To address this selectivity issue, all chemical probes are usually tested in vitro on a sample of proteins phylogenetically related to their primary target, and many of them are also profiled in vitro against larger sets of diverse targets.2 However, given the © XXXX American Chemical Society
Received: May 19, 2014 Accepted: November 3, 2014
A
dx.doi.org/10.1021/cb500393m | ACS Chem. Biol. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
ACS Chemical Biology
Letters
Table 1. Name of the Chemical Probe, Canonical Target, Reported in Vitro IC50/EC50, Identified Distantly-Related Off-Target, Predicted IC50, in Vitro IC50, and Fold Selectivity between the Affinities of the Chemical Probe for Its Canonical Target and the Novel Off-Target Identified chemical probe
canonical target
IC50/EC50 (μM)
distantly related off-target
predicted IC50 (μM)
IC50/EC50 (μM)
fold-selectivity (off-target/target)
ML006 ML123 ML141 ML204
S1P3 TRPML3/2 Cdc42 GTPase TRPC4/5
6.63 0.873 0.2 0.96
mTOR kinase Sigma-1 receptor Carbonic Anhydrase 2 AChE
1.6 0.008 0.08 0.5
7.4 31 0.53 0.84
1.1 35.5 2.7 0.9
Figure 1. Dose−response curves for the novel, distantly related, off-targets of (a) ML141, (b) ML204, (c) ML006, and (d) ML123.
efficiency and cost-effectiveness of such an approach for lowering the risk of chemical probe utilization (Supporting Information). A detailed description of the results obtained and a discussion on the implications of the newly identified offtargets for each chemical probe is provided next. ML141 was disclosed in 2010 as a potent and selective reversible noncompetitive inhibitor of Cdc42 GTPase with an in vitro IC50 of 200 nM that increased to 1−10 μM in cell-based assays.22 No prior art describing selective Cdc42 inhibitors was available at the time, highlighting the importance of this discovery. The selectivity of ML141 was assessed in vitro against a panel of Rho GTPases (Rac1, Rab2, Rab7, and Ras) and further profiled across 263 assays from the Molecular Libraries Program. ML141 was only found active in four phenotypic screens, all of them considered Cdc42-dependent,22 and consequently was considered selective. However, in a cellbased assay, ML141 was found to inhibit EGF-stimulated intracellular Rac1 at 1−10 μM. This result was difficult to interpret on the basis of the known targets and was thus
suppliers. Of the 133 target-based probes, 35 (26%) were available from one of a selected list of priority chemical suppliers (Supporting Information). The next step was to predict the target profile and check whether the assays would be available in contract research organizations. Biologically relevant affinities for proteins phylogenetically unrelated to the described primary targets were predicted for 30 (86%) chemical probes (Supporting Information). Among those, 25 (83%) had predicted affinities that could be experimentally tested in vitro. To optimize the process, the chemical supplier from which we could purchase the largest number of those probes was selected. In the end, a final set of eight commercially available MLP probes was acquired and tested for their interaction with one of the distant off-targets predicted (Supporting Information). Experimental in vitro results confirmed that four of these probes, namely ML006, ML123, ML141, and ML204, have biologically relevant affinity for a nonobvious distant off-target (Table 1, Image 1) that might compromise its utilization to selectively probe their primary target, thus demonstrating the B
dx.doi.org/10.1021/cb500393m | ACS Chem. Biol. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
ACS Chemical Biology
Letters
ascribed to off-target effects.22 Lack of selectivity of ML141 was also suggested in the first reported use of this chemical probe.23 In that work, Chen et al. used ML141 (at 20 μM) to demonstrate the role of Cdc42 inhibition in reverting Tamoxifen resistance in BLBC cells, opening a new therapeutic strategy in cancer. Although the shRNA experiments and other controls undoubtedly demonstrated the role of Cdc42 at reverting Tamoxifen resistance, the use of such a high concentration of ML141 increases the chances of confounding off-target effects. More recently, ML141 was also used at high concentrations to demonstrate the role of Cdc42 in cytoskeleton-driven protein accumulation in cartilage (5 and 20 μM) and in a mouse model of anxiety.24,25 In silico target profiling of ML141 predicted submicromolar affinity for human carbonic anhydrase II (CA2; Table 1, Supporting Information). Even though this prediction may seem not surprising given the presence of a metal-binding sulphonamide group in ML141, CA2 is nonetheless phylogenetically distant from GTPases and had not been considered before as a possible off-target of this chemical probe. In vitro experimental testing confirmed that ML141 is a reversible CA2 inhibitor with an IC50 of 530 nM (Figure 1a, Supporting Information). CA2 overexpression has been linked to a protective anticancer effect,26 whereas its expression is partially regulated by Ras GTPase.27 Moreover, CA2 has been also found to be highly expressed in a mouse model of anxiety.28 Therefore, caution should be taken when using ML141 to probe the functional role of Cdc42 at concentrations higher than 1 μM, at the same time that the implication of CA2 in the biological process under study should be always controlled, especially in cancer and anxiety models. ML123 (also known as SF-21) was discovered in the first attempt to identify agonists of transient receptor potential channels 3 and 2 (TRPML3 TRPML2), together with ML122 (SF-41) and other compounds,29 and was further validated as a chemical probe.30 ML123 was found to be more potent than ML122, with EC50 values of 0.873 μM and 1.43 μM in HEK293 cells transfected with the human TRPML3-YPF, respectively. Both probes were found to be weak activators of TRPML2 (54.5% and 23.5% at 10 μM, respectively), and the same assay was used to demonstrate their selectivity over TRPN1, with more than 20-fold difference in activity.30 Additional Ca2+ imaging assays were used to confirm those results and demonstrate that the two MLP probes are inactive against hTRPML1, hTRPM2, mTRPV2, hTRPC3, drTRPN1, and hTRPA1 at 10 μM. ML123 was also found inactive in several cytotoxicity assays and at inhibiting several cellular pathways. Overall, ML123 was tested in 371 PubChem Bioassays and only found active in three TRPML3 assays. In conclusion, ML123 was considered a suitable highly selective compound to probe the biological role of TRPML3/2.30 ML123 was recently used (at 10 μM) for the first time to demonstrate the functional activity of TRPML2.31 We predicted and further confirmed that ML123 also binds in vitro to the human sigma-1 receptor in a dose-dependent manner (Figure 1b) with an IC50 of 31 μM (Supporting Information). The sigma-1 receptor is a unique ligand-regulated molecular chaperone that regulates many cellular processes, including several ion channels.32 However, a growing body of evidence suggests that some sigma-1 ligands affect Ca2+ signaling by directly binding to ion channels (including the TRP ion channels TRPM3 and TRPC5), inhibiting them independently of the sigma-1 receptor.33 This way, the use of
sigma-1 ligands with unknown ion channel polypharmacology could have yielded to misassumptions on some of the functions attributed to the sigma-1 receptor or their extent. Interestingly, here we report off-target effects the other way around as we have demonstrated that the TRPML3 ion channel chemical probe ML123 binds to the sigma-1 receptor. However, it ought to be mentioned that the sigma-1 receptor is a notoriously promiscuous protein in screening panels, so the identification of this off-target affinity may not be considered unusual. In addition, ML123 shows sufficiently weak affinity for the sigma-1 receptor to offer a window for its safe utilization as a selective probe of TRPML3. Accordingly, since biochemical and cellular affinities can vary drastically depending on factors including permeability, we would only recommend caution when using this chemical probe at concentrations higher than 10 μM. If higher concentrations were needed, they should probably be accompanied by the corresponding controls to rule out sigma-1 confounding effects. In this case, we would recommend the use of additional control probes, both active (such as ML122) and inactive, following recent suggestions for optimal target validation.5 ML006 was reported during the pilot phase of the Molecular Libraries Probe Production Centres Network (together with ML003, ML004, and ML005), as a low micromolar agonist probe of the Sphingosine 1-phosphate Receptor 3 (S1P3).34 Specifically, ML006 was found to have an EC50 of 6.63 μM in a cell-based assay and to show high selectivity over S1P1.34 In a crowdsourcing quality assessment of MLP chemical probes, ML006 was already classified among those having medium confidence on the basis of its weak affinity and other potential liabilities identified by a group of experts.9 We predicted and further confirmed in vitro that ML006 is also a competitive inhibitor of human mTOR kinase with an IC50 of 7.4 μM, an off-target affinity very close to its target affinity, illustrating the danger of employing probes with weak activity (Figure 1c, Supporting Information). The fact that mTOR and S1P receptors share signaling pathways warns the future use of ML006 as a selective S1P3 probe.35 However, in this particular case other chemical probes could be used instead, and more importantly, a better chemical probe (ML249) has been recently made available, highlighting the importance of developing several tool compounds for the same target. ML249 is an allosteric agonist of nanomolar potency, and its selectivity has been evaluated over a panel of other S1P receptors. Nonetheless, the fact that S1P receptors and mTOR share signaling pathways and biologic functions could also open the door to synergistic multitarget applications in diseases such as cancer,35 backing the use of ML006 in disease models where both S1P3 and mTOR could be relevant. Finally, ML204 was discovered as the first selective transient receptor potential channel 4/5 (TRPC4/C5) antagonist with an IC50 of 0.96 μM in a HEK293 cell line expressing TRPC4β.36,37 Its 19-fold selectivity over TRPC6 and its weaker inhibition of TRPC5 (65% at 10 μM) were assessed using the same assay. Its selectivity over a panel of TRP channels from different families was studied measuring changes in Ca2+, and ML204 showed no inhibition of TRPA1, TRPM8, TRPV1, and TRPV3 up to 22 μM. Furthermore, selectivity over other voltage-gated sodium, potassium, and calcium channels was evaluated using whole-cell voltage clamp recording in mouse neurons, with ML204 showing no significant inhibition (50% at 10 μM) was identified for seven targets, the sigma-1 receptor being the most potent among them (83% of inhibiton at 10 μM).36,37 Although the IC50 was not determined, the affinity for those targets is likely to be in the low micromolar range, and thus, interference with TRPC4/C5 inhibition would occur only if ML204 is used at high concentrations, like in its recent use at 10−20 μM to link TRPC4/C5 to the effects of thyrotropin-releasing hormone (TRH) in neuron excitability or their use at 3 μM to demonstrate the role of TRPC5 in albuminuria.38,39 In silico target profiling of ML204 predicted submicromolar affinity for the human acetylcholinestearase (AChE). Interestingly, this target was absent in the predefined diversity screening sets on which ML204 was profiled. The in vitro assay confirmed that ML204 inhibits AChE with an IC50 of 0.84 μM (Figure 1d, Supporting Information). For the sake of comparison, ML204 inhibits 90.7% of AChE function at 10 μM (Figure 1d, Supporting Information), being therefore a more potent inhibitor of AChE than for any of the targets included in the diversity panel (vide supra). Although it is not possible to formally compare the in vitro affinity of ML204 for AChE (0.84 μM) with its cellular affinity for TRPC4 (0.96 μM), they are sufficiently similar to anticipate potential selectivity issues, especially since ML204 has been used at 10−20 μM in native cellular conditions36−39 and acetylcholinestearase is transported outside cells to perform its primary function.40 Acetylcholinestearase is a serine protease that hydrolyzes the neurotransmitter acetylcholine to terminate its signaling at the synapse.40 The fact that TRPC4 transduces smooth muscle contraction evoked by muscarinic acetylcholine receptor activation41 warns the future use of ML204 to study this biological function, as the inhibition of acetylcholine hydrolysis could confound the effect of TRPC4 blockade. Therefore, due to the off-target polypharmacology of ML204 for AChE, caution is recommended for the use of this compound to probe TRPC4/5 biology. Moreover, the recent demonstration that TRPC5 inhibition can protect from kidney injury in animal models using gene knockouts and ML204 could foster the development of ML204 analogs as drug candiates.39 However, acetylcholinestearase could be antagonistic of this benefical effect since acetylcholine is known to increase Ca2+ levels in podocites.42 Any drug discovery project using ML204 as a hit should be very careful about their off-target effects. It has been advocated that, when it comes to selectivity between on- and off-target activity, chemical probes should be held to a higher standard than drugs.4 The question is how can we ensure these high standards? We cannot. We can push our screening capacity to the maximum to minimize the risk of offtarget interactions. But even with these efforts, we have shown that testing on a list of phylogenetically related targets is certainly not enough, and even profiling against hundreds of targets is not sufficient either (vide supra). As a complementary strategy, we can apply current state-of-the-art in silico methodologies to anticipate affinities for proteins beyond the current coverage of in vitro assays. Here, we report four cases in which unexpected, biologically relevant, in vitro affinities for proteins distantly related to the primary targets of MLP chemical probes were predicted by in silico target profiling. These results are illustrative of the fact that the specificity of a chemical probe is inversely proportional to how hard off-targets have been investigated, and these off-targets may well be
genetically and structurally unrelated to the desired target. Therefore, distant polypharmacology to confounding targets should always be given due consideration. One may argue though that the lack of selectivity is not necessarily detrimental to the use of a small molecule as a chemical probe. The traditional paradigm that small molecules should probe selectively a single protein should be updated to accommodate investigating the biological effects of interfering with multiple targets.11 If chemical biology is to deliver compounds for follow-on therapeutics, maybe what is needed is to develop chemical probes that address therapeutically relevant target profiles. In this respect, chemical biology should follow on the recent adaptation of drug discovery to the ample evidence that drugs tend to interact with multiple proteins43 and accept that studying the function of proteins in the context of complex biological processes may benefit from using a catalogue of both selective and multitarget chemical probes.
■
METHODS
■
ASSOCIATED CONTENT
In Silico Target Profiling. Chemical probes were processed with the ligand-based target profiling approach implemented in the CTlink software. Details on the methodology are provided as Supporting Information. In Vitro Binding and Cellular Assays. All assays were performed at Cerep (http://www.cerep.fr). Details on the materials and protocols used in every assay are provided as Supporting Information. S Supporting Information *
Supplementary in silico and in vitro screening assay methods and results, including single 10 μM concentration screening, dose−response curves, and IC50 determination. This material is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.
■
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail:
[email protected]. Notes
J.M. is the founder of Chemotargets S.L., the company that develops and distributes the CTlink software.
■
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was funded by the Catalan Government grant 2013FIB2-00073 (A.A.A.), the Spanish Ministerio de Economiá y Competitividad grant BIO2011-26669 (J.M.), and the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (J.M.).
■
REFERENCES
(1) Schreiber, S. L. (2005) Small molecules: the missing link in the central dogma. Nat. Chem. Biol. 1, 64−66. (2) Workman, P., and Collins, I. (2010) Probing the probes: fitness factors for small molecule tools. Chem. Biol. 17, 561−577. (3) Knapp, S., Arruda, P., Blagg, J., Burley, S., Drewry, D. H., Edwards, A., Fabbro, D., Gillespie, P., Gray, N. S., Kuster, B., Lackey, K. E., Mazzafera, P., Tomkinson, N. C. O., Willson, T. M., Workman, P., and Zuercher, W. J. (2013) A public-private partnership to unlock the untargeted kinome. Nat. Chem. Biol. 9, 3−6. (4) Editorial (2013) Stay on target. Nat. Chem. Biol. 9, 193. (5) Bunnage, M. E., Chekler, E. L. P., and Jones, L. H. (2013) Target validation using chemical probes. Nat. Chem. Biol. 9, 195−199. (6) Thompson, A. D., Makley, L. N., McMenimen, K., and Gestwicki, J. E. (2012) The three cornerstones of chemical biology: innovative probes, new discoveries, and enabling tools. ACS Chem. Biol. 7, 791− 796. D
dx.doi.org/10.1021/cb500393m | ACS Chem. Biol. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
ACS Chemical Biology
Letters
(7) Austin, C. P., Brady, L. S., Insel, T. R., and Collins, F. S. (2004) NIH Molecular Libraries Initiative. Science 306, 1138−1139. (8) Molecular Libraries Program. https://mli.nih.gov/mli/. (9) Oprea, T. I., Bologa, C. G., Boyer, S., Curpan, R. F., Glen, R. C., Hopkins, A. L., Lipinski, C. A., Marshall, G. R., Martin, Y. C., Ostopovici-Halip, L., Rishton, G., Ursu, O., Vaz, R. J., Waller, C., Waldmann, H., and Sklar, L. A. (2009) A crowdsourcing evaluation of the NIH chemical probes. Nat. Chem. Biol. 5, 441−447. (10) Frye, S. V. (2010) The art of the chemical probe. Nat. Chem. Biol. 6, 159−161. (11) Garcia-Serna, R., and Mestres, J. (2011) Chemical probes for biological systems. Drug Discovery Today 16, 99−106. (12) Editorial (2010) Retooling chemical probes. Nat. Chem. Biol. 6, 157. (13) Antolín, A. A., Jalencas, X., Yélamos, J., and Mestres, J. (2012) Identification of pim kinases as novel targets for PJ34 with confounding effects in PARP biology. ACS Chem. Biol. 7, 1962−1967. (14) Antolín, A. A., Mestres, J. (2014) Linking off-target kinase pharmacology to the differential cellular effects observed among PARP inhibitors, Oncotarget, PMID: 24632590. (15) Keiser, M. J., Setola, V., Irwin, J. J., Laggner, C., Abbas, A. I., Hufeisen, S. J., Jensen, N. H., Kuijer, M. B., Matos, R. C., Tran, T. B., Whaley, R., Glennon, R. A., Hert, J., Thomas, K. L. H., Edwards, D. D., Shoichet, B. K., and Roth, B. L. (2009) Predicting new molecular targets for known drugs. Nature 462, 175−181. (16) Gregori-Puigjané, E., Setola, V., Hert, J., Crews, B. A., Irwin, J. J., Lounkine, E., Marnett, L., Roth, B. L., and Shoichet, B. K. (2012) Identifying mechanism-of-action targets for drugs and probes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 109, 11178−11183. (17) Mestres, J., Seifert, S. A., and Oprea, T. I. (2011) Linking pharmacology to clinical reports: cyclobenzaprine and its possible association with serotonin syndrome. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 90, 662− 665. (18) Laggner, C., Kokel, D., Setola, V., Tolia, A., Lin, H., Irwin, J. J., Keiser, M. J., Cheung, C. Y. J., Minor, D. L., Jr., Roth, B. L., Peterson, R. T., and Shoichet, B. K. (2012) Chemical informatics and target identification in a zebrafish phenotypic screen. Nat. Chem. Biol. 8, 144−146. (19) Koutsoukas, A., Simms, B., Kirchmair, J., Bond, P. J., Whitmore, A. V., Zimmer, S., Young, M. P., Jenkins, J. L., Glick, M., Glen, R. C., and Bender, A. (2011) From in silico target prediction to multi-target drug design: current databases, methods and applications. J. Proteomics 74, 2554−2574. (20) Areias, F. M., Brea, J., Gregori-Puigjané, E., Zaki, M. E., Carvalho, M. A., Domínguez, E., Gutiérrez-de-Terán, H., Proença, M. F., Loza, M. I., and Mestres, J. (2010) In silico directed chemical probing of the adenosine receptor family. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 18, 3043−3052. (21) MLP Probe Reports, update of March 19th, 2012. https://mli. nih.gov/mli/mlp-probes-2/ (accessed May 19, 2014). (22) Surviladze, Z., Waller, A., Strouse, J. J., Bologa, C., Ursu, O., Salas, V., Parkinson, J. F., Phillips, G. K., Romero, E., Wandinger-Ness, A., Sklar, L. A., Schroeder, C., Simpson, D., Nöth, J., Wang, J., Golden, J., and Aubé, J. (2010) A potent and selective inhibitor of Cdc42 GTPase, in Probe Reports from the NIH Molecular Libraries Program, National Center for Biotechnology Information (US), Bethesda, MD. (23) Chen, H.-Y., Yang, Y. M., Stevens, B. M., and Noble, M. (2013) Inhibition of redox/Fyn/c-Cbl pathway function by Cdc42 controls tumour initiation capacity and tamoxifen sensitivity in basal-like breast cancer cells. EMBO Mol. Med. 5, 723−736. (24) McNary, S. M., Athanasiou, K. A., and Reddi, A. H. (2014) Transforming growth factor β-induced superficial zone protein accumulation in the surface zone of articular cartilage is dependent on the cytoskeleton. Tissue Eng. Part A 20, 921−929. (25) Hanin, G., Shenhar-Tsarfaty, S., Yayon, N., Hoe, Y. Y., Bennett, E. R., Sklan, E. H., Rao, D. C., Rankinen, T., Bouchard, C., GeifmanShochat, S., Shifman, S., Greenberg, D. S., and Soreq, H. (2014) Competing targets of microRNA-608 affect anxiety and hypertension. Hum. Mol. Genet. 23, 4569−4580.
(26) Zhou, R., Huang, W., Yao, Y., Wang, Y., Li, Z., Shao, B., Zhong, J., Tang, M., Liang, S., Zhao, X., Tong, A., and Yang, J. (2013) CA II, a potential biomarker by proteomic analysis, exerts significant inhibitory effect on the growth of colorectal cancer cells. Int. J. Oncol. 43, 611− 621. (27) Naka, S., Minakata, M., Tatamiya, T., Kimura, H., Kumegawa, M., Ishida, N., and Takeya, T. (2000) Activation of human CAII gene promoter by v-Src: existence of Ras-dependent and -independent pathways. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 272, 808−815. (28) Zhang, Y., Filiou, M. D., Reckow, S., Gormanns, P., Maccarrone, G., Kessler, M. S., Frank, E., Hambsch, B., Holsboer, F., Landgraf, R., and Turck, C. W. (2011) Proteomic and metabolomic profiling of a trait anxiety mouse model implicate affected pathways. Mol. Cell Proteomics 10, No. M111.008110. (29) Grimm, C., Jörs, S., Saldanha, S. A., Obukhov, A. G., Pan, B., Oshima, K., Cuajungco, M. P., Chase, P., Hodder, P., and Heller, S. (2010) Small molecule activators of TRPML3. Chem. Biol. 17, 135− 148. (30) Saldanha, S., Grimm, C., Mercer, B., Choi, J., Allais, C., Roush, W., Heller, S., and Hodder, P. (2010) Campaign to identify agonists of transient receptor potential channels 3 and 2 (TRPML3 & TRPML2), in Probe Reports from the NIH Molecular Libraries Program, National Center for Biotechnology Information (US), Bethesda, MD. (31) Grimm, C., Jörs, S., Guo, Z., Obukhov, A. G., and Heller, S. (2012) Constitutive activity of TRPML2 and TRPML3 channels versus activation by low extracellular sodium and small molecules. J. Biol. Chem. 287, 22701−22708. (32) Maurice, T., and Su, T.-P. (2009) The pharmacology of sigma-1 receptors. Pharmacol. Ther. 124, 195−206. (33) Gao, X.-F., Yao, J.-J., He, Y.-L., Hu, C., and Mei, Y.-A. (2012) Sigma-1 receptor agonists directly inhibit Nav1.2/1.4 channels. PLoS One 7, e49384. (34) Probes. http://mlpcn.florida.scripps.edu/index.php/probes/ probe-reports.html. (35) Taniguchi, M., Kitatani, K., Kondo, T., Hashimoto-Nishimura, M., Asano, S., Hayashi, A., Mitsutake, S., Igarashi, Y., Umehara, H., Takeya, H., Kigawa, J., and Okazaki, T. (2012) Regulation of autophagy and its associated cell death by “sphingolipid rheostat”: reciprocal role of ceramide and sphingosine 1-phosphate in the mammalian target of rapamycin pathway. J. Biol. Chem. 287, 39898− 39910. (36) Miller, M., Shi, J., Zhu, Y., Kustov, M., Tian, J., Stevens, A., Wu, M., Xu, J., Long, S., Yang, P., Zholos, A. V., Salovich, J. M., Weaver, C. D., Hopkins, C. R., Lindsley, C. W., McManus, O., Li, M., and Zhu, M. X. (2011) Identification of ML204, a novel potent antagonist that selectively modulates native TRPC4/C5 ion channels. J. Biol. Chem. 286, 33436−33446. (37) Miller, M. R., Shi, J., Wu, M., Engers, J., Hopkins, C. R., Lindsley, C. W., Salovich, J. M., Zhu, Y., Tian, J.-B., Zhu, M. X., McManus, O. B., and Li, M. (2010) Novel chemical inhibitor of TRPC4 channels, in Probe Reports from the NIH Molecular Libraries Program, National Center for Biotechnology Information (US), Bethesda, MD. (38) Zhang, L., Kolaj, M., and Renaud, L. P. (2013) GIRK-like and TRPC-like conductances mediate thyrotropin-releasing hormoneinduced increases in excitability in thalamic paraventricular nucleus neurons. Neuropharmacology 72, 106−115. (39) Schaldecker, T., Kim, S., Tarabanis, C., Tian, D., Hakroush, S., Castonguay, P., Ahn, W., Wallentin, H., Heid, H., Hopkins, C. R., Lindsley, C. W., Riccio, A., Buvall, L., Weins, A., and Greka, A. (2013) Inhibition of the TRPC5 ion channel protects the kidney filter. J. Clin. Invest. 123, 5298−5309. (40) Soreq, H., and Seidman, S. (2001) Acetylcholinesterase–new roles for an old actor. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2, 294−302. (41) Holzer, P. (2011) TRP channels in the digestive system. Curr. Pharm. Biotechnol 12, 24−34. (42) Nitschke, R., Henger, A., Ricken, S., Müller, V., Köttgen, M., Bek, M., and Pavenstädt, H. (2001) Acetylcholine increases the free E
dx.doi.org/10.1021/cb500393m | ACS Chem. Biol. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
ACS Chemical Biology
Letters
intracellular calcium concentration in podocytes in intact rat glomeruli via muscarinic M(5) receptors. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 12, 678−687. (43) Mestres, J., Gregori-Puigjané, E., Valverde, S., and Solé, R. V. (2008) Data completeness–the Achilles heel of drug-target networks. Nat. Biotechnol. 26, 983−984.
F
dx.doi.org/10.1021/cb500393m | ACS Chem. Biol. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
