br Functional repercussions of each
Functional repercussions of each trimming pathway A main difference between the two pathways presented in Fig. 1 lies in enzyme kinetics and selectivity. In pathway #1, the substrate for ERAP1 is free peptide, and so both kinetics and selectivity are determined by interactions between the peptide and ERAP1. In pathway #2 however, the ERAP1 substrate is the MHCI-peptide complex, and it is reasonable to argue that in this case both kinetics and selectivity are determined not only by interactions between the peptide and ERAP1, but also by as well as interactions between MHCI and ERAP1. Although a direct ERAP1/MHCI interaction has not been demonstrated up to date, parallels between the formation of a transient MHCI-ERAP1 complex and the formation of Peptide Loading Complex can be easily drawn (Cresswell et al., 1999). Several studies have analyzed the kinetics and specificity of ERAP1 trimming Isoniazid mg in solution and in general have found good, albeit not absolute, agreement between solution trimming and cell-based experiments (Zervoudi et al., 2011; Reeves et al., 2013; Hearn et al., 2009). On-MHCI ERAP1 trimming kinetic analysis has not been reported, although it may be a powerful tool to compare these two modes of action.
Differential effects on generation of immunopeptidome A key distinction between the two pathways is the shift of the burden from determining selectivity of the antigen generation process from ERAP1 (pathway #1) to MHCI (pathway #2), a distinction that could strongly alter our understanding of how the immunopeptidome is generated. According to the on-MHC trimming pathway, the peptide is still partially bound onto MHC and as a result these peptide-MHCI interactions could guide peptide generation. Such a model reduces the importance of ERAP1 in shaping the immunopeptidome and highlights the importance of peptide-MHCI interactions, which are already well studied (Ayres et al., 2017). The effects of ERAP1 on the immunopeptidome are now well-documented by multiple studies, including specific effects on sequence (Nagarajan et al., 2016; Barnea et al., 2017; Martin-Esteban et al., 2017; Guasp et al., 2016) making it difficult to imagine its role being limited to that of a general aminopeptidase activity. However, solution overtrimming could account for significant effects on the immunopeptidome, even if in the case of an on-MHC trimming pathway. More high-resolution proteomic studies may be necessary to discern the exact effect of ERAP1 selectivity in shaping the immunopeptidome.
Effects of trimming models on inhibitor design Crystallographic analysis of ERAP1 has shown that the active site is reconfigured between the two known conformations and based on those reconfigurations it has been proposed that the closed conformation is the one that is enzymatically active (Nguyen et al., 2011; Kochan et al., 2011).As noted above, the experimentally determined open conformation has a poorly structured S1 specificity pocket and a catalytic Tyr438 facing away from the Zn(II) atom, casting doubt on its catalytic efficiency. These considerations make structure-based or mechanism-based inhibitor design based on the open conformation difficult and as a result, the closed conformation of ERAP1 has been used for such approaches till now (Zervoudi et al., 2013; Papakyriakou et al., 2015; Kokkala et al., 2016). However, if the on-MHC trimming pathway with a “wide-open” conformation (Papakyriakou and Stratikos, 2017) is dominant in the cell, such design efforts may have to be redirected to using open conformations of ERAP1 for efficient targeting. Indeed, in a recent study, ERAP1 variants with weakened domain-closure interactions were found to be much more weakly inhibited by a mechanism-based transition-state analog inhibitor (Stamogiannos et al., 2017). It should be noted however that the same compound as well as similar structure-inspired inhibitors have been found to be active in cells, indirectly suggesting that the closed ERAP1 conformation is indeed relevant in the cellular context (Aldhamen et al., 2015; Zervoudi et al., 2011; Chen et al., 2016b; Papakyriakou et al., 2015).