Monitoring and characterizing soluble and membrane-bound ectonucleotidases CD73 and CD39

Said A Goueli; Kevin Hsiao

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0220094

. 2019 Oct 25;14(10):e0220094. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0220094

Monitoring and characterizing soluble and membrane-bound ectonucleotidases CD73 and CD39

Said A Goueli ^1,^*, Kevin Hsiao ¹

Editor: Paul A Beavis²

PMCID: PMC6814236 PMID: 31652269

Abstract

The success of immunotherapy treatment in oncology ushered a new modality for treating a wide variety of cancers. However, lack of effect in some patients made it imperative to identify other pathways that are exploited by cancer cells to circumvent immune surveillance, and possibly synergize immune checkpoint treatment in those cases. It has been recently recognized that adenosine levels increase significantly in the tumor microenvironment and that adenosine/adenosine receptors play a powerful role as immunosuppressive and attenuating several effector T cell functions. The two main enzymes responsible for generating adenosine in the microenvironment are the ectonucleotidases CD39 and CD73, the former utilizes both ATP and ADP and produces AMP while the latter utilizes AMP and generates adenosine. Thus, these two enzymes combined are the major source for the bulk of adenosine produced in the microenvironment. They were shown to be validated targets in oncology leading to several clinical trials that include small molecules as well as antibodies, showing positive and encouraging results in the preclinical arena. Towards the development of novel drugs to target these enzymes, we have developed a platform that can be utilized to monitor the activities of both enzymes in vitro (biochemical) as well as in cells (cell based) assays. We have developed very sensitive and homogenous assays that enabled us to monitor the activity of both enzymes and demonstrate selectivity of known inhibitors as well as monoclonal antibodies. This should speed up screening for novel inhibitors that might lead to more effective cancer therapy.

Introduction

Although immunecheckpoint inhibitors showed tremendous success in the clinic, many patients failed to respond to such treatments. Thus, identifying other pathways exploited by cancer cells to circumvent immune surveillance, novel pharmacological agents that will be synergistic with immune checkpoint inhibitors are needed [1]. The insightful observation that a significant increase in adenosine levels was seen in the cancer microenvironment triggered interest in the role played by this nucleoside in tumor onset and progression [2]. Elevated adenosine concentrations within neoplastic milieu, and activation of adenosine receptors were shown to have powerful immunosuppressive activity and attenuation of several effector T cell functions. Adenosine accumulation in solid tumors at high concentrations stimulated tumor growth and angiogenesis. It also inhibited cytokine synthesis, functions of T cells, macrophages, and natural killer cells [3]. Overexpression of an ecto-5’-nucleotidase (CD73), the enzyme that dephosphorylates extracellular adenosine monophosphate (AMP) to adenosine, within the cancer microenvironment, was recognized as the leading candidate in the generation of a strong immunosuppressive and pro-angiogenic adenosine halo, that facilitates cancer onset and progression, reviewed in [4,5, 6, and 7]. Besides cancer, CD73 expression has been implicated in many other diseases such as autoimmune diseases, ischemia-reperfusion injuries, arterial calcifications, and atherosclerosis [7].

It was also realized that other ectonucleotidases such as CD39 was highly expressed in human ovarian cancer [8]. This enzyme, in sequential reactions, can increase adenosine concentration, by dephosphorylation of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and adenosine diphosphate (ADP), leading to AMP formation, and the latter is the substrate for CD 73 generating adenosine [8,9]. High extracellular adenosine increased the recruitment of regulatory T (T_reg) cells by ovarian cancer and correlated with an increase in mortality by suppression of the host spontaneous immune response. The presence of highly expressed CD39 and CD73 on ovarian cancer produces biologically active adenosine which can be as high as 30–60 times higher than that produced by T_reg and augmenting the immunosuppressive effect of adenosine on the host immune system [4]. Furthermore, it was recently reported that high level of CD73 expression was found to correlate with a worse prognosis of ovarian cancer patients [10] and in non-small-cell lung carcinoma [11]. In combination with extracellular adenosine, CD73 increased tumor growth and expression of anti-apoptotic Bcl-2 family proteins in tumor cells in vitro [10]. Down regulation of CD73 and CD39 on glioma cells correlated with good prognosis for patients with malignant glioblastomas highlights the validity of CD73 and CD39 as therapeutic targets [12]. Towards this goal, blocking antibodies against CD39 or CD73 showed dampened adenosine production by ovarian cancer cell lines and restored cytotoxicity of NK cells and stimulated proliferation of CD4⁺ T cells in co-culture with ovarian cancer cells [13]. The observation that inhibition of CD39 and CD73 using antisense oligonucleotides improved immunity against tumors confirm the notion that both ectonucleotidases are promising drug targets, as they act in concert to convert all adenine nucleotides to adenosine [14].

Since CD73-derived adenosine had a wide-ranging effect on the phenotype of both lymphoid and myeloid-derived cells, shaping both the innate and adaptive arms of antitumor immunity, targeting it has become a very high priority in the small molecule, and immunotherapy strategies. Hay et al [15] demonstrated the efficacy of CD73-selective human monoclonal antibodies (MEDI9447) in reversing adenosine-mediated CD4⁺ T cell suppression, and the pharmacological blockade of CD73 with MEDI9447 was associated with increased antigen presentation and enhanced lymphocyte activation, resulting in a greater release of proinflammatory Th1 cytokines (IFNγ, IL-1β, and TNFα). Blockade of CD73 with MEDI9447 increased the infiltration of several immune cell populations, such as CD8⁺ T cells and activated macrophages, into the cancer niche with synergic activity upon its combined administration with anti-PD-1 antibodies, further supporting the potential value of relieving adenosine-mediated immunosuppression. This human antibody inhibited CD73 in noncompetitive manner via its binding to the N-terminal domain of CD73 and inhibited the conversion of both membrane-bound and soluble CD73 from the inactive open conformer to the catalytically active closed state [16]. This antibody does not compete with endogenous nucleotide binding to the active site and thus does not require blocking of multiple substrates at the active site and most importantly it inhibits both soluble and membrane bound CD73 through either mono- or bivalent engagement. Since it does not have an effect on AMP binding to CD73, this antibody has promising clinical utility due to low cross reactivity with other nucleotides. Furthermore, this makes it ideal for combination therapy with existing therapeutic agents that target complementary immune modulating pathways. In recent reports supporting the role of CD73 in tumor growth using engineered mice lacking CD73 displayed resistance to the onset of neoplasia and metastasis, while those receiving therapy targeting CD73 such as small molecule inhibitors [17] or monoclonal anti CD73 antibodies showed antitumor activity [16]. Finally, it has been reported most recently that blocking antibodies targeting the CD39/CD73 immunosuppressive pathway unleashed the immune responses in combination cancer therapies using immune checkpoint inhibitors and chemotherapies [18].

A recent strategy of co-targeting A2AR antagonism and CD73, via antibody directed therapy that engage Fcγ receptors were reported to show effectiveness and indicates that combinatorial treatment with A2AR antagonist and CD73 may provide a promising approach in the clinic [19]. In fact, preclinical trials using a combination therapy that include check point inhibitors showed the A2AR compound AZD4635 induced anti-tumor immunity alone and in combination with anti-PD-L1 (durvalumab) by reversing adenosine-mediated T cell suppression and boosting antitumor immunity [20]. The ability of AZD4635 to block A2A signaling demonstrated the capacity to reduce tumor growth both when administered alone and in combination with PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors [20]. In other studies, targeted blockade of CD73 enhanced the therapeutic activity of anti-PD1 and anti-CTLA-4 mAbs and provides a potential therapeutic strategy targeting immune checkpoint inhibition [21]. It was reported recently that co-expression of CD39 and CD103 identifies a unique population of CD8 TILs that can only be found within the tumor microenvironment, and higher frequencies of CD103+CD39+ CD8 TILs in patients with head and neck cancer are associated with better overall survival [22].

It is apparent from the above-mentioned observations that the CD39/CD73-adenosine axis may prove to be very promising pathways in immune-oncology, and in fact, great effort is being made to design and develop chemical inhibitors of adenosine receptor as well as ectonucleotidase enzymatic activity and anti-CD73 mAbs, as potential therapeutic approaches aimed at inducing antitumor immune responses.

Because both CD73 and CD39 play a major role (s) in modulation of the immune system and the tumor microenvironment as well as the tumor itself, we have developed an assay platform that monitors the activity of both of these enzymes in vitro (biochemically) and in cell-based assay formats. We further characterized the selectivity profile of compounds inhibiting these enzymes biochemically and in cell-based formats and speculating on which is the preferred route to address this adenosine generating axes. The assays are very simple, homogeneous and are high throughput ready, which facilitate the discovery of next generations inhibitors for CD73 and CD39.

Materials and methods

Chemical, reagents, and assay components

Adenosine 5'-(α, β-methylene) diphosphate (AMP-CP), Millipore Sigma (St. Louis, MO). ARL 67156 Trisodium Salt (6-N,N-Diethyl-D-β,γ-dibromomethyleneATP trisodium salt) and POM 1(Sodium metatungstate) were obtained from Tocris Bioscience, R&D Systems (Minneapolis, MN), RPMI Medium 1640, DMEM (4.5g/L D-Glucose, L-Glutamine, and 11mg/L Sodium Pyruvate), Pen Strep, 0.25% Trypsin are from Gibco Life technologies (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA). FBS (Premium Grade Fetal Bovine Serum (Seradigm, VWR Life Science, Radnor, PA), and Hank’s balanced salt solution (HBSS) with or without phenol red from Lonza (Walkersville, MD). Cell lines MDA-MB-231 (human mammary gland/breast adenocarcinoma), T-47D (human mammary gland ductal carcinoma), SK-MEL-2 (human malignant melanoma), A375 (human malignant melanoma). SK-OV-3 ((human ovary adenocarcinoma), Farage (human B cell lymphoma), DG-75 (human Burkitt’s lymphoma), Jurkat Cloe E6-1 (human acute T cell leukemia), and EMEM were purchased from ATCC (Manassas, VA). Active cN-II (human cytosolic 5’nucleotidase) was from NovoCIB SAS (Lyon, France). Active CD73 enzyme (Recombinant Human 5'-Nucleotidase/CD73 Protein, CF) and active CD39 (His-Tag Human) were from R&D Systems, Minneapolis, MN). ADP-Glo, PKA Kinase Enzyme System, PKCα Kinase Enzyme System, SRC Kinase Enzyme System, PI3K Class I Lipid Kinases—p110α/p85α, and Kinase-Glo^® Max were obtained from Promega (Madison, WI), Adenosine 5’-Triphosphatase from porcine cerebral cortex (Na+/K+-ATPase), Acetate Kinase, Hexokinase, and D-(+)-Glucose were from Millipore Sigma (St. Louis, MO, and Burlington, MA). Other substrates for kinases were included in kits for each kinase tested (Promega corp., Madison, WI). Total protein kit, Micro Lowry Peterson’s Modification was from Millipore Sigma (St. Louis, MO). Antibodies: for Anti CD73 antibodies: PA 5–11871, PA 5–29750, PA 5–27336, and 410200 were purchased from Thermo Fisher Scientific (Waltham, MA). Ab54217 (7G2), Ab71322, Ab81720 were purchased from Abcam (Cambridge, MA). MABD122 was from Merck Millipore Corporation (Billerica, MA). And Ab 13160S was from Cell Signaling (Danvers, MA). For anti CD39 antibodies we used Ab189258 [A1] and Ab108248 [EPR3678(2)] from Abcam (Cambridge, MA). Detailed description of the antibody clones including immunogen and host are shown in S1 Table. Hank’s Balanced Salt Solution (HBSS) Buffer with or without phenol red was from Lonza (Walkersville, MD). Protease Inhibitor Cocktail was from Promega (Madison, WI) and PhosStop as phosphatase inhibitor was purchased from Roche Diagnostics (Indianapolis, IN). Precast Tris-Glycine 4–20% gel was purchased from BIO-RAD Laboratories, Inc. (Hercules, CA).

Reagents for SDS-PAGE include Tris-Glycine Running Buffer: 25mM Trizma base, 192mM glycine free base, with 0.1% SDS. Sample buffer with 85mM DTT: 62.5 mM Tris-HCl, pH 6.8, 2.5% SDS, 0.002% Bromophenol Blue, 85mM DTT (freshly prepared), and 10% glycerol.

For Western Blot, TBS buffer (50mM Tris Buffer, pH 7.5, 150mM NaCl), TBST (50mM Tris Buffer, pH 7.5, 150mM NaCl, and 0.1% Tween 20), and antibody dilution buffer (TBST with 5% BSA) were used. Blot-Qualified BSA from Promega Corporation (Madison, WI). Secondary antibodies: Donkey Anti-Rabbit IgG (H+L), and HRP Conjugate, Anti-Mouse IgG (H+L), HRP Conjugate from Promega Corporation (Madison, WI). Protein Markers: Precision Plus Protein^™ Dual Color Standard from BIO-RAD Laboratories, Inc. (Hercules, CA), and MagicMark^™ XP Western Standard from Thermo Fisher Scientific (Waltham, MA). HRP substrate: ECL Western Blotting Substrate from Promega Corporation (Madison, WI).

AMP-Glo^™ Assay Kit (Promega, Madison, WI) contains: AMP-Glo^™ Reagent I, AMP-Glo^™ Reagent II, Kinase-Glo® One Solution, AMP (10mM), and Ultra-Pure ATP (10mM).

Luminescence Microplate Reader (Luminometer); GloMax^® Discover multimode microplate luminescent reader, Promega Corporation, Madison, WI, or equivalent can be used. Gel electrophoresis, BIO-RAD Criterion^™ cell gel unit was from BIO-RAD Laboratories, Inc. (Hercules, CA), or equivalent.

Western Transfer Blot, iBlot^® and/or iBlot^®2 Dry Blotting, Invitrogen (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA). iBlot^®2 NC Regular Stacks was purchased from Thermo Fisher Scientific (Waltham, MA), or equivalent. Western Blot Image Unit, any commercial image unit can be used such as ImageQuant^™ LAS4000, GE Healthcare Bio-Science AB (Uppsala, Sweden; Piscataway, NJ, USA).

Assay Plates, 96-well Treated solid white and clear bottom, 384 well, and low volume 384-well non-Treated white polystyrene or EIA/RIA plate 96-well Half Area non-Treated white polystyrene (Corning Costar: 3912, 3903, 3917, 3693, 3572, 3693, and 4512, Corning Incorporated, Corning, NY), or equivalent.

Assay protocols

AMP-Glo^™ assay general protocol

The AMP-Glo^™ assay can be performed in a single tube, 96-, or 384-well plate format.

ADP-Glo^™ assay general protocol

Assay format is flexible, i.e., volumes of standards (ADP/ATP) utilizing reactions as well as both reagent volumes can be maintained at ration of 1:1:2 regardless of the absolute volumes used in enzyme reactions. Thus, for 96-well format, we recommend using 25μl: 25μl: 50μl.

Cells preparation for in vivo AMP-Glo^™ assay

Cells from 75 cm² flasks were trypsinized and counted. Cells were diluted with full medium, followed by plating in tissue culture grade solid white plate at cell density of 25,000 cell per well or as desired using full medium (10% Serum with or without 1% Pen/Strep) for overnight at 37°C in 5% CO₂ incubator.

I. Monitoring enzymatic activity of purified CD73 and CD39

Determination of enzyme activity of purified CD73. In a 25 μl reaction buffer (10mM HEPES, pH 7.4, 2mM MgCl₂, 1mM CaCl₂, and 0.1mg/ml BSA) containing enzyme and AMP substrate at 1μM to 10μM (96-well format), enzyme activity was performed at 23°C for specified time period and terminated by the addition of equal volume (25μl) of AMP-Glo^™ Reagent I containing 50 μM (final concentration) of known CD73 inhibitor, such as AMPCP. Reactions were mixed well and incubated for additional 30 min at 23°C. This was followed by the addition of 50 μl of AMP Detection Solution (10μl of AMP-Glo^™ Reagent II per ml of Kinase-Glo^® One Solution) and incubated for additional 60 min at 23°C before reading luminescence.

The assay format is flexible, i.e., volumes of the standards (AMP) or any AMP utilizing reactions as well as both reagents volumes can be maintained at the ratio of 1:1:2 regardless of the absolute volumes used (CD73 reaction: AMP-Glo^™ Reagent I: Detection Solution). Thus, for 96-well format, we recommend using 25μl:25μl:50μl or multiples of these volumes.

2
Determination of enzyme activity of purified cytosolic cN-II. Activity of purified cN-II (Human cytosolic 5'-Nucleotidase) was determined using 25μl reaction buffer (50mM HEPES, pH 7.0, 100mM KCl, 20mM MgCl₂, 5mM DTT, 2.5mM dATP, and 0.1mg/ml BSA) containing enzyme and AMP substrate at 10μM (96-well format). Reaction continued at 37°C for 60 minutes or for a certain time period and terminated by the addition of equal volume (25μl) of AMP-Glo^™ Reagent I. Reactions were mixed well and incubated for additional 30 min at 23°C. This was followed by the addition of 50 μl of AMP Detection Solution (10μl of AMP-Glo^™ Reagent II per ml of Kinase-Glo^® One Solution) and incubated for additional 60 min at 23°C before reading luminescence.
3
Determination of enzyme activity of purified CD39. Activity of CD39 was determined using reaction buffer that contains 25mM Tris, pH 7.5, 5mM CaCl₂, and 0.1mg/ml BSA), with 1μM to 5μM ATP or ADP as substrate, respectively. When ATP is used as a substrate, an equal volume of Kinase-Glo^® One Solution was added to CD39 reactions and incubated for 15 min before reading luminescence using a luminometer. When ADP is used as a substrate for CD39, after enzyme reaction completion, an equal volume of AMP Detection Solution with a known CD39 known inhibitor, such as POM 1 at 50μM final concentration was added. Reactions were mixed well and incubated for 60min before reading luminescence using luminometer. For enzyme dilution, reaction buffer can be used for dilution of enzymes.

II. Monitoring the activities of ectoCD73 and ectoCD39 in cell-based format

Adherent Cells preparation and assay protocol. Cells grown in 75cm² flasks were trypsinized and counted, and were diluted with full medium, and plated to a tissue culture grade solid white or clear bottom plate, at cell density of 25K cells in full medium (10% FBS and 1% Pen/Strep) per well, and kept overnight at 37°C in a 5% CO₂ incubator. Fresh medium was added an hour before use by pipetting out ¾ volume of overnight medium from each well and replaced with a ¾ volume of fresh full growing medium. Cells were washed twice with HBSS by taking out whole medium from each well and replaced with fresh 100μl of HBSS to each well. After withdrawing all HBSS, cells were washed one more time with Hank’s Buffer before starting treatment by withdrawing all Hank’s Buffer out and 100μl cells were added per well in a 96-well plate per cell line per set, experiments were initiated by adding 50μl of each test compound in HBSS and pre-incubated with cells for 5-10min at 37°C, and reactions were started by addition of 100μl of 2.5X AMP, ADP, or ATP to a final concentration of 5μM ADP or ATP for CD39, or 10μM AMP for CD73 in HBSS. Cells were constantly mixed on a shaker at 100rpm kept at 37°C.

For CD73 activity using AMP as substrate, 25μl aliquots were withdrawn from each well at the desired time point and added to assay solid white plate (Corning Costar 3912 or equivalent) followed by the addition of 25μl of AMP-Glo^™ Reagent I to each well, mixed well and incubated for 30min at 23°C.This was followed by the addition of 50μl per well of AMP-Glo^™ Detection Solution (1ml of Kinase-Glo^™ One Solution mixed with 10μl of AMP-Glo^™ Reagent II), see AMP-Glo^™ TM#384. This was followed by incubating the mixture for 60min at 23°C, before reading the plate using a luminometer. For comprehensive coverage of AMP Glo assay, please see Mondal et al [23]

For CD39 activity, since it uses both ADP and ATP, we determined its activity using 5 μM final concentration each, as substrate as described above. In a separate plate or microcentrifuge tube, a 25μl aliquots were withdrawn from each well at desired time point and delivered into an assay solid white plate (Corning Costar 3912 or equivalent).

For ADP as substrate, detection of remaining ADP was carried out by preparing AMP Detection Solution (adding 10μl AMP-Glo^™ Reagent II to one-ml of Kinase-Glo® One Solution, gently mixing well by inverse tube couple times). To the 25 μl aliquoted from the medium supernatant that was cooled down to room temperature, 25μl of AMP Detection Solution is added to each well, mixed well and incubated for 60min at 23°C, the plates were read using luminometer.

For ATP as substrate, detection of remaining ATP, was carried out using 25μl withdrawn from the medium supernatant that was cooled down to room temperature and 25μl of Kinase-Glo® One Solution were added to each well, mixed well and incubated for 10min at 23°C, then the plate was read using luminometer.

B
Suspension cells. Cells were harvested and washed two times with HBSS by centrifugation at 1,000 rpm at room temperature for 8~10min, discarding the supernatant and cell pellets were diluted to a desired cell number per ml before experiments.

For plate format: Plate 100μl cells per well in a 96-well plate per cell line per set, start the experiments with adding 50μl of each treatment with compounds in HBSS and pre-incubated with cells for 5-10min at 37°C, and reactions were started by addition of 100μl of 2.5X AMP, ADP, or ATP to a final concentration of 5μM ADP or ATP for CD39, or 10μM AMP for CD73 in HBSS. Cells were constantly mixed on a shaker at 100rpm kept at 37°C.
For microcentrifuge tube (1.5ml): 250μl cells in HBSS were used per sample per tube, by adding 50μl compound in HBSS, then reactions were started by addition of 200μl of 2.5X AMP, ADP, and ATP to a final concentration of 5μM ADP or ATP for CD39 activity, or 10μM AMP for CD73 activity). Cells were constantly mixed on a shaker at 100rpm keep at 37°C (no Vortex).

Cell suspensions were centrifuged at 1,000 rpm (plate format) or 2,500 rpm (microcentrifuge tube format) for 2-3min and 25μl samples were withdrawn out of each well or sample tube for detection of reaction products as shown above for adherent cells.

Electrophoresis and western blotting of cell lysates

Sample preparation

Cells were grown in one 75cm² flask till 80~90% confluence. Cells were treated with trypsin and collected using 300 g for 10min and lysed with 1ml of lysis buffer containing protease and phosphatase inhibitors. The lysis buffer contains 50mM Tris, pH 8.0, 150mM NaCl, 0.5% Triton X-100, 1mM Na₃VO₄, 1mM DTT, 5mM EGTA, 5mM EDTA, 10mM NaF, 10mM Na₂P₂O₇, with protease inhibitors (80μM Aprotinin, 2mM Leupeptin, 1.5mM Pepstatin A, 104mM AEBSF, 1.4mM E64, 4mM Bestatin) and phosphatase inhibitors (PhosSTOP, one tablet per 10ml of lytic buffer). Cell lysates were sonicated for 8 pulses on ice (Output set at 3.5 for micro tip, and 35% of Duty Cycle SONIFIER 450, Branson (Danbury, CT), and kept on ice after sonication for 5min. Cell lysates were centrifuged in pre-chilled 4°C centrifuge for 10min at 10,000 g, and the supernatant was tested for total protein estimate using Total Protein kit from Millipore Sigma (see material section) and cell lysate was frozen at -70°C for electrophoresis where 10μg or 20 μg per sample in sample buffer was heated up at 95°C for 5 min and run in Tris-Glycine gel followed by dry transfer for Western blot detection following the instruction for using iBlot® and/or iBlot®2 Dry Blotting with Blot®2 NC Regular Stacks.

Western blot

After transferring from dry blot, nitrocellulose membranes were quick washed twice with 1X TBS Buffer. Membranes were blocked with 1X TBS containing 5% BSA for 1 hour at room temperature. Membranes were then washed with TBST three time, 10min each wash with constant rocking. Primary antibody with proper dilution in TBST containing 5% BSA were added and incubated overnight at 4°C. The primary antibodies were discarded followed by three times washes with TBST,10min each, with constant rocking. Secondary antibodies with proper dilution in TBST containing 5% BSA were added and incubated for 1 hour at room temperature. Secondary antibodies were discarded, washed twice with TBST 10-min each, then with TBS washed twice with constant rocking. Membranes were kept in TBS before adding HRP substrate, and development and imaging for documentation.

Results and discussion

As presented in the introduction, the two ectonucleotidases CD39 and CD73 are validated drug targets. [24, 25, 23,24]. CD39 is an integral membrane protein that hydrolyses ATP and ADP in a calcium and magnesium dependent reaction generating AMP. It is activated upon glycosylation and translocation to the cell surface membrane where it displays its enzyme activity as an ectonucleotidase. CD73, the potent suppressor of antitumor immune responses [5], is a dimer anchored to the plasma membrane via a C-terminal serine residue that is linked to glycosylphosphatidyl inositol (GPI) without any membrane traversing protein. There is also a soluble form of this enzyme that exists through shedding from the membrane by the action of phosphatidylinositol-specific phospholipase which hydrolyzes the GPI anchor. Interestingly, this enzyme is inhibited by ATP and ADP in a competitive manner to its substrate AMP. In fact, the most potent inhibitor for CD73 is an ADP analog (AMP-CP). There is also cytosolic 5’-nucleotidase that is structurally distinct from the ectonucleotidase CD73.

Because of the significance of these enzymes and the role they play in multiple signaling and inflammatory pathways we developed an assay that can be used to monitor their activities not only in a biochemically purified enzyme forms but also in a cell-based assay. The assay platform is simple, easy to perform, homogenous and less susceptible to generation of false hits and ready for use in high throughput screening (HTS) programs searching for modulators of these enzymes.

The principle of the assay is shown in S1 Fig where ATP and ADP as substrates for CD39 (S1A Fig) can be monitored by two distinct assay formats, decrease in ATP utilized by the enzyme or an increase in ADP formation generated. When ADP is used as substrate for CD39, the remining ADP is converted to ATP and the latter is detected using luciferin/luciferase reaction. The activity of CD73 is monitored by the utilization of AMP substrate (S1B Fig), and thus a decrease in AMP concentration (decrease in luminescence) is proportional to the activity of the enzyme; i.e., a reciprocal relationship between the RLU values generated and the activity of the enzyme.

Since both enzymes are ectonucleotidases, we used an isosmotic medium to keep cellular integrity and we then added the substrates to the medium and monitored changes in the nucleotides concentration in the medium without disrupting cellular membranes. Similar detection steps were used as described above for the purified enzymes.

Fig 1A, 1B and 1C show that we were able to determine the concentrations of AMP, ADP, and ATP at nanomolar concentrations. Thus, we can monitor minute changes in the concentrations of these metabolites in a biochemical reaction as well as in the medium aspirated from cell culture plates.

Monitoring the enzymatic activity of soluble and membrane-associated CD73

A
Monitoring enzymatic activity of soluble purified CD73. Since AMP is the major substrate for CD73 we generated standard curve to establish the linearity of the assay. As shown in the figure, we can detect as low as 30 nM AMP in the reaction. AMP determination is based on the conversion of AMP to ADP followed by converting ADP to ATP followed by detection of ATP using luciferase/luciferin reaction. After establishing the linearity of AMP concentrations, we tested purified CD73 for its enzymatic activity by monitoring depletion of AMP, i.e., reciprocal relationship between enzyme activity and luminescence output (Fig 2).

Fig 2 — A. Activity determination of recombinant human 5'-Nucleotidase/CD73 using increasing concentrations of enzyme and 10μM AMP substrate. The reaction was carried out at 23°C for 30min using AMP-Glo Assay System as described in Materials and Methods section. Activity of CD73 is monitored by how much AMP has been consumed in (A), RLU corresponds to the amount of AMP remaining and thus the activity of the enzyme is reciprocally correlated with RLU (see S1A Fig; (B) Net RLU after subtracting the control (no-enzyme) from the RLU values at each point of enzyme concentration. The experiment was done in triplicates; results shown are mean ± SD. SD, standard deviation.

B
K_m determination for AMP and inhibitor selectivity. Fig 3A shows that the assay is very sensitive by detecting low concentration of CD73 using AMP as substrate. The amount of enzyme required for 50% of maximum activity was as low as 80 picogram (pg) of CD73 for a 20 minutes reaction, and 200 pg for 5-minute reaction. In order to use the assay for determination of kinetic parameters of the ectonucleotidases, we used the initial velocity values of CD73 enzyme activity at varying concentrations of AMP substrate to calculate Km value for AMP and IC₅₀ of known inhibitor. As shown in Fig 3B, CD73 has a K_m of 2.53 μM. Next, we tested the inhibition of enzyme activity using Adenosine 5′-(α, β-methylene) diphosphate (AMP-CP), a potent and selective inhibitor for CD73 using two different concentrations of AMP (5 and 10 μM) in a 5-minute reaction time. The results in Fig 3C show that we obtained an IC₅₀ of 0.157 μM and 0.30 μM for the enzyme using 5 and 10 μM AMP as substrate, respectively, indicating a competitive inhibition mode of action for the inhibitor with respect to the substrate AMP, which is similar to what was reported by others, IC₅₀ = 0.236 μM [25, 26].

Fig 3 — A) Time course study using recombinant human 5'-Nucleotidase CD73 protein titration and 25μM AMP for 5,10, and 20 minutes reaction time at 23°C. Activity was determined using AMP-Glo assay. Data are shown as net RLU after subtracting values for no enzyme control from the RLUs values at each point of enzyme concentration. EC₅₀ represents the amount of enzyme required for 50% maximal activity. Each point represents the average of triplicates; error bars represent SD. B) Determination of Km value for AMP using 0.01ng recombinant human 5'-Nucleotidase/CD73 protein per reaction and varying AMP concentrations for 5min reaction at 23°C followed by AMP-Glo assay protocol. Data shown as net RLU vs. AMP concentration. The experiment was done in triplicates; results shown are mean ± SD. C) Determining IC50 for AMP-CP using 0.1 ng of recombinant human 5'-Nucleotidase/CD73 protein and either 5μM or 10μM AMP and different concentrations of inhibitor (AMP-CP). Reactions were carried out for 5min at 23°C and activity was monitored using AMP Glo assay. Experiments were done in triplicates, and results are shown as mean ± SD.

We also tested our assay using purified cytosolic CD73 (cN-II) so it can be tested for inhibition by the known ecto CD73 selective inhibitor AMP-CP. Fig 4A shows an activity curve for cN-II enzymatic activity using 25 μM AMP as substrate and we show that the amount of enzyme that gives 50% of maximum activity was 0.0366 mU attesting to the sensitivity of the assay. We also observed that the presence of dATP in the reaction, which is carried out at its optimal temperature, 37°C, significantly augmented the activity of the enzyme (results not shown), that is similar to what was reported by others [27].

Fig 4 — A) Enzyme reaction for cN-II (Human cytosolic 5'-Nucleotidase) was carried out using increasing concentrations of enzyme and 10μM AMP for 60min at 37°C and activity was determined following AMP-Glo assay as described in Materials and Methods section. The results are shown as net RLU after subtraction of no enzyme control. The experiment was done in triplicates; results shown are mean ± SD. B) Selectivity of the inhibitor AMP-CP against CD73 and cytosolic cN-II was determined using purified CD73 (0.1 ng/Rx) and cN-II (0.6 mU/Rx) by AMP-PC using 10μM AMP substrate at 23°C for 5 min (CD73) and at 37°C for 30 min (cN-II). Activities were determined following AMP-Glo protocol. The inhibitor inhibited CD73 activity with an IC₅₀ value of 3x10^-7M with minimal or no inhibition of cN-II. Experiments were done in triplicates; results shown are mean ± SD. C) Monitoring enzymatic activity of membrane-associated CD73 in cell-based assay.

It is interesting that AMP-CP showed no inhibition of the cytosolic enzyme which is in accord with what has been reported in the literature [28] while ecto CD73 showed again inhibition by the compound with an IC₅₀ of 0.3 μM (Fig 4B). Thus, the assay not only can determine soluble CD73 (purified enzyme) and membrane-associated CD73 (see below), but it also confirms the selectivity of the inhibitor AMP-CP towards the ecto CD73 but lacks activity towards structurally non-related cN-II nucleosidase.

After successfully determined CD73 enzymatic activity in its pure form, we then attempted to monitor the activity of membrane-associated ectonucleotidase CD73 of several cell lines. As shown in Fig 5A, it is apparent that the activity of CD73 as measured by the decrease in luminescence upon AMP utilization increases in all cell lines tested with incubation time up to 2 hrs. It is also apparent that MDA-MB-231 has the highest activity and SK-OV3 showed the lowest, while the other cell lines (T-47D, SK-MEL2, and A375) gave intermediate values for the enzyme activity or none. To confirm that the activity of ectonucleotidase CD73 we observed, reflects the level of the membrane associated enzyme, we isolated membranes from these same cells and solubilized them for SDS gel electrophoresis and western blotting using anti CD73 antibodies. As shown in Fig 5B, when 10 μg of cell lysate of each cell line were used, the density of the bands that correspond to CD73 was highest in MDA-MB-231 and lowest in SK-OV3 cells while the other cell lines showed intermediate band densities corresponding to the enzyme activity determined using whole cells. These data support our enzyme activity data and that the assay can monitor the activity of CD73 of purified enzyme as well as membrane-associated enzyme.

Fig 5 — A) Five cell lines were evaluated for their CD73 enzyme activity in intact cells using AMP Glo protocol for cells as described in the method section. Time course of enzyme activity with 10 μM AMP following AMP-Glo protocol. Cells: T-47D (circle), MDA-MB-231(square), SK-MEL2 (triangle), A375 (reverse triangle), and SK-OV3 (diamond). B) Determination of abundance of CD73 in membranes of five cell lines using western blotting. Cell lysates (10μg) from each cell line and pure CD73 (0.2μg) as positive control (lane 7) were run on gels and immunoblotted using primary antibodies (anti- NT5E/CD73, Cell Signaling), incubated overnight at 4°C followed by HRP-ECL as described in the method section. C) Membrane associated CD73 bound MDA-MB-231 activity was determined in presence (open circle) and absence (closed circle) of 50μM AMP-PC. Reactions contained 25k MDA-MB-231 cell per well and incubated at 37°C with 10μM AMP in final 250μl per well. Aliquots of 25μl per sample were withdrawn at each time point and activity was determined following AMP-Glo assay. Each point represents the average of triplicates; the error bars represent the SD.

It is critical for the assay to be used successfully in monitoring the activity of ecto CD73 on membrane to demonstrate that inhibition of CD73 that we observed with purified soluble enzyme can be also demonstrated using membrane-associated enzyme. To carry out these studies we selected MDA-MB-231 cell line since it contains the highest ecto CD73. As shown in Fig 5C, AMP-CP inhibited the enzyme activity while the activity of the enzyme was not affected with time in the absence of the inhibitor.

To check once more for the selectivity of the assay in monitoring the activity of CD73, we tested purified CD73 using known CD39-inhbitors. As shown in Fig 6A, the two inhibitors ARL 67156, and POM1 had no effect on CD73 enzyme activity while AMP-CP inhibited purified enzyme with IC₅₀ 0.588 μM (Fig 6B), and membrane associated enzyme with IC₅₀ of 2.1 μM (Fig 6B).

Three compounds with inhibitory activity against CD73 (AMP-PC, solid circle) and against CD39 (ARL 67156 and POM 1, square and triangle, respectively) were tested using purified CD73 and MDA-MB-231 bound CD73. (A) Purified CD73, 0.1ng per reaction with 1μM AMP for 5 min reaction at 23°C, and (B) cell-based MDA-MB-231, 25K cells per well with 5μM AMP for 90min at 37°C. Each point represents the average of triplicates; the error bars represent the SD

To find out whether CD73-selective antibodies block the activity of membrane-associated CD73, we tested nine CD73 commercially available antibodies, plus a CD39 selective antibodies as control antibody (see S1 Table) for their effect during incubation with MDA-MB-231 cells for up to 16 hrs. to assess the mode of action of these antibodies (Fig 7A and 7B). We even used two antibodies that recognize the same epitope but supplied by two different vendors to check on the quality of data generated using our platform. As expected, the CD39 antibody and the control (no antibodies) showed minimal effect on the activity of the membrane-associated CD73 (maximum of 10% at 10 μg/ml for 6 hrs. of incubation with the cells), while the others showed variable effect on the enzymatic activity with antibodies #4, #5, demonstrating highest potency towards CD73; 75% and 62% inhibition of CD73 at 1 μg/ml and 5 μg/ml for antibody #4 and #5 respectively (Fig 7B).

Commercially available antibodies against CD73 were tested using cell-based membrane-associated CD73 from MDA-MB-231 following AMP-Glo cell-based assay. (A) Using 9 different commercially available antibodies against CD73 with an antibody against CD39 as a negative control. For details on the antibodies tested including immunogen and host, see S1 Table. Antibodies were applied at 10μg/ml per well and incubated with MDA-MB-231 cells for 1, 3, 6, and 16 hrs. Activities are expressed as percentage of control (cells without antibodies). (B) Effect of antibodies concentration of the most effective antibodies (Ab4 and Ab5) and the control CD39 selective antibodies (Ab10) on the activity of membrane bound CD-73. Activities are expressed as percentage of control (cells without antibodies). All antibodies were tested using 25K cells per well cells and incubated at 37°C. Activities were determined in the presence of 10μM AMP substrate for 30min at 37°C. Each point represents the average of triplicates; the error bars represent the SD

A
Monitoring the enzymatic activity of soluble and membrane-associated CD39. As we discussed in the method section, CD39 can use both ATP and ADP as substrates and therefore we designed two different protocols to assess the activity of this enzyme in soluble purified enzyme form as well as membrane-associated cell-based form. The first protocol monitors the depletion of the substrate while the other monitors the formation of the product ADP. The results in Fig 8 show that the activity of the enzyme can be monitored by both protocols with EC₅₀ for CD39 of 0.052 ng/reaction using 10 μM ATP as substrate (Fig 8A) and 0.019 ng/reaction using 10 μM ADP as substrate (Fig 8B).

Fig 8 — CD 39 enzyme activity was determined using either ATP (A) or ADP (B) as substrate and various enzyme concentrations as described in the method section. The results show that purified CD39 can use both substrates ATP (8A, 10μM) and ADP (8B, 10μM) at 37°C for 30min reaction, followed by AMP-Glo assay. The experiment was done in triplicates; results shown are mean ± SD. Inhibitors study was carried out using purified CD39 (0.1 ng) with 10 μM ATP (C) or 10 μM ADP (D) as substrates are shown. Two known CD39 inhibitors (ARL 67156 and POM1) were tested for their inhibition of purified CD39 following assay protocol. Results show the percent remaining activity in the presence of ARL 67156 (circle) and POM1 (square) in comparison to no compound control. Both compounds inhibited CD 39 enzyme activity with either substrate but with different potency. Each point represents average of a typical experiment done in triplicates; results shown are mean ± SD.

We then followed this by checking the ability of the two protocols in assessing the selectivity of known CD39 inhibitors, such as 6-N, N-Diethyl-D-β-γ-dibromomethylene ATP trisodium salt (ARL67156) and sodium metatungstate 3NaWO₄.9 WO₃.H₂O (POM1). The IC₅₀ for both inhibitors with ATP (10 μM) as substrate and 0.1 ng enzyme were 4.48x10^-6 M and 0.33x10^-7M for ARL 67156 and POM1, respectively Fig 8C). The IC₅₀ for the same inhibitors using 10 μM of ADP as substrate and 0.1 ng of enzyme were 2.8x10^-4 M and 3.7x10^-6 M, respectively (Fig 8D).

It is apparent that POM1 is more potent inhibitor of soluble CD39 using both assay formats. To check whether we could assay the activity of membrane-associated CD39, we used three cell lines for these experiments. As it is apparent, human B Cell lymphoma (Farag) showed the highest CD39 activity while human Burkitt’s lymphoma (DG-75) and human acute T cell leukemias (Jurkat E6-1) showed very low activity (Fig 9A).

Fig 9 — (A) Determination of CD39 activity in cell membranes using three different cell lines, Farage cell (solid circle) has the highest CD39 activity using ATP as substrate. However, DG-75 (square) and Jurkat-E6-1 (triangle) show low or no CD39 activity. Reactions contained 200k cells per ml with 5μM ATP as substrate. (B) Typical western blotting results of CD39 abundance in membranes of the three cell lines tested in (A). Cell membrane from each cell (20μg per sample) and pure CD39 (10ng) as positive control were used and anti-CD39 antibodies. The experiment of CD39 activity was done in triplicates; results shown are mean ± SD. (c) Monitoring CD39 activity using Farage cells with (square) and without (solid circle) 50μM POM 1. Reactions contained 200K cell per ml of Farage cells per sample and incubated with 5μM ATP at 37°C with constant shaking at 100rpm. Aliquots of 30μl were withdrawn from each sample at certain time followed by the addition of equal volume of Kinase-Glo® One Solution to monitoring ATP consumption by Farage cells. Each point represents average of a typical experiment done in triplicates; results shown are mean ± SD.

To confirm that the activity of the membrane associated enzyme observed with Farag cell truly represents CD39 enzyme activity and not as much with the other cells, we ran a western blotting of cell membranes using anti CD39 antibodies. As shown in Fig 9B, the intensity of the bands corresponding to CD39 is proportional to the enzyme activity observed in Fig 9A. Testing the inhibitor potency on cell based membrane-associated CD39, we incubated Farage cells with 5 μM ATP, in the presence or absence of 50μM POM1. As shown in Fig 9C, CD39 activity was observed in the absence of POM1 while its activity in the presence of POM1 was inhibited.

To check on the selectivity of the inhibitors, we tested the effect of CD73 inhibitor AMP-CP and the CD39 inhibitors ARL67156 and POM1 using 10 μM ATP or 10 μM ADP as substrates using purified CD39 (Fig 10A and 10B). It is apparent that AMP-CP has no inhibitory effect on CD39 but POM1 and ARL67156 inhibited its activity with POM1 showing higher potency as we observed earlier (Fig 9). This selectivity was maintained using cell-based membrane associated CD39 and ATP as well as ADP as substrates (Fig 10C and 10D).

Fig 10 — Inhibitors of CD39 and CD73 were incubated with purified CD39 (A, B) and Farage associated enzyme (C, D) and assayed for CD39 activity using ATP (A, C) or ADP (B, D) as substrate. Results show percentage inhibition of CD39 activity using ARL 67156 (circle), POM1 (solid square), and AMP-CP (triangle). Purified CD39 (0.1ng) and 10μM ATP or ADP in each reaction for 30min at 37°C; for cell-based Farage cells (200K cells) were incubated with 10μM ATP or ADP in each reaction for 20min at 37°C. Experiments were carried out in triplicates; results shown are mean ± SD.

Finally, since CD39 uses ATP as a substrate, that is similar to kinases, we tested for the selectivity of the most potent CD39 inhibitor POM1 on different kinases to validate whether it is selective for CD39 or it is a promiscuous inhibitor and inhibiting diverse set of kinases. It is apparent from the results presented in Fig 11A that POM1 is not selective at all against four protein kinases (PKA, PKCα, Src, ACKα), sugar kinase (HK), lipid kinase (PI3Kα), and K⁺/Na⁺-ATPases. Since its inhibitory potency for many kinases is in the very low micromolar concentrations range, this compound cannot be used as a selective inhibitor for CD39 since many of those enzymes listed here are present either on cell membranes or may leak out of the cells thus distorting the results significantly. We believe that because POM1 is mainly composed of the heavy metal metatungstate, it is not surprising that it inhibited the other enzymes with similar potency to its effect on CD39. In contrast, the selective inhibitor for CD73 AMP-CP showed relatively higher selectivity since it has not inhibited all those enzymes tested except that at very high concentration compared to those used for CD73 where it showed some inhibitory effect (Fig 11B). Therefore, it may be prudent to focus on CD73 with small molecules inhibitors or selective antibodies but with CD39, the focus should be placed on use of selective CD39 antibodies to evade any cross inhibition of other targets.

Fig 11 — Testing the specificity of CD39 inhibitor POM1 (A) and CD73 inhibitor AMP-CP (B) on the activity of different kinases, ATPase, as well as CD39 and CD73. Enzyme tested are protein serine/threonine/tyrosine, lipid, sugar, and inorganic kinases, and K/Na ATPase. Results show that the majority of enzymes are inhibited by POM1 (A), but the more selective CD73 inhibitor AMP-PC) was highly selective for CD73 with minimal inhibition for PKA and no inhibition of the other enzymes. PKA, protein kinase A (solid circle), PKCα (solid square), Src, protein tyrosine Src kinase (solid triangle), Acka, acetate kinase from *Escherichia coli* (solid reverse triangle), HK, hexokinase from *Saccharomyces cerevisiae* (solid circle), PI3αKinase, p110α/p85α (square), K/K ATPase, Adenosine 5´-Triphosphatase from porcine cerebral cortex (circle), CD39 (ATP substrate, triangle), and CD39 (ADP substrate, reverse triangle); for CD73 (triangle) in panel B. Each point represents average of a typical experiment done in triplicates; results shown are mean ± SD.

Conclusion

Current technologies for monitoring the activities of CD39 and CD73 enzymatic activities are based on radioactive substrates such as ³²P-ATP, ³²P-ADP, and ³²P-AMP; or HPLC using UV Absorption detection system of the various nucleotides, or measuring inorganic phosphate using colorimetric detection system. The radioactivity-based method provides accurate results but is health hazardous and generates large amount of radioactive waste. The use of HPLC to monitor the release of products such as ADP or adenosine provides accurate data but requires sophisticated equipment, personnel training, and is not easily amenable to HTS, and most certainly not homogenous. The release of inorganic phosphate as a product of these enzymatic reactions (CD39 and CD73) using ATP and AMP as substrates for CD39 and CD73, respectively, was also used. However, this method is not homogenous, and since it is colorimetric, it does not provide the sensitivity required for low enzyme activity, and encounter interference from phosphate intolerant chemicals. Thus, we believe the bioluminescent platform described here provides, easily to perform, homogenous, sensitive and most important is amenable to HTS which is required for development of novel therapeutics. The assay platform enables monitoring the activity of CD73 and CD39 in their soluble as well as membrane-associated forms. The assays proved to be very sensitive to very low concentration of these enzymes and enable screening for the selectivity of inhibitors of these enzymes in a homogenous format that suits HTS experimental design. The assay platform is the only one that combines determination of both soluble and membrane associated activities of CD73 and CD39. The assays can discriminate between selective inhibitors and promiscuous ones in pure enzyme as well membrane associated enzymes reactions. What is unique about this assay platform is that not only can it detect the effect of small molecule modulators but also of antibodies specific in blocking enzyme activities of these enzymes using intact cells, and thus it can be used to screen for any modulator of these enzymes in purified enzyme as well as membrane associated form.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Schematic representation for detection of CD 39 and CD73 enzyme activities using adenine nucleotides modifying enzymes.

(A) Monitoring the enzyme activity of CD39 using either ATP or ADP as substrate. The principle of the assay is based on the consumption of ATP as substrate by CD39 which can be monitored by determining the amount of ATP remaining in the reaction by an ATP utilizing luciferase reaction. Alternatively, when ADP is used as a substrate, remaining ADP after CD39 reaction can be converted to ATP using adenylate kinase and the ATP generated is determined by an ATP utilizing luciferase reaction. (B) Monitoring the activity of CD73 using AMP substrate and converting remaining AMP in the reaction to ATP via two enzymes (AMP-polyphosphate phosphotransferase and adenylate kinase) and the generated ATP is detected using luciferase reaction.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(2.3MB, tif)}

S1 Table. List of Antibodies tested including immunogen/Host information.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16.3KB, docx)}

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper.

Funding Statement

Promega Corp. provided support in the form of salaries for authors to SG and KH, but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

1.Sharma P, Hu-Lieskovan S, Wargo J.A, Ribas A. Primary, adaptive, and acquired resistance to cancer immunotherapy. Cell 2017; 168: 707–723 10.1016/j.cell.2017.01.017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2.Blay J, White T.D, Hoskin D.W. The extracellular fluid of solid carcinomas contains immunosuppressive concentrations of adenosine. Cancer Res. 1997;57: 2602–2605 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3.Spychala J. Tumor-promoting functions of adenosine. Pharmacology &Therapeutics 2000; 87:161–173 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.Antonioli L, Yegutkin GG, Pacher P, Blandizzi C, Hasko G. Anti-CD73 in cancer immunotherapy: Awakening new opportunities. Trends in Cancer 2016; 2: 95–109 10.1016/j.trecan.2016.01.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5.Beavis P.A, Stagg J, Darcy P.K, Smyth M.J. CD73: a potent suppressor of antitumor immune responses Trends in Immunology 2012; 33: 231–237 10.1016/j.it.2012.02.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6.Di Virgilio F, Adinolfi E. Extracellular purines, purinergic receptors, and tumor growth. Oncogene 2017; 36: 293–303 10.1038/onc.2016.206 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7.Yang J, Department of Physiology and Pathophysiology, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, China Liao X, Department of Oncology, Ganzhou People`s Hospital, Ganzhou, 341000, China Yu J, Department of Medicine, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292, United States Zhou P. Role of CD73 in Disease: Promising Prognostic Indicator and Therapeutic Target. Cur. Med. Chem. 2018; 25: 2260–2271 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8.Bastid J, Regairaz A, Bonnefoy N, Cecile D, Giustiniani J, Laheurte C, et al. Inhibition of CD39 enzymatic function at the surface of tumor Cells alleviates their immunosuppressive activity. Cancer Immunol Res. 2015; 3:254–264 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-14-0018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9.Hunsucker S.A, Mitchell BS, Spychala J. The 5’-nucleotidases as regulators of nucleotide and drug metabolism. Pharmacology and Therapeutics 2005;107: 1–30 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2005.01.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10.Turcotte M, Spring K, Pommey S, Chouinard G, Cousineau I, George J, et al. CD73 is associated with poor prognosis in high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Cancer Res. 2015; 75: 4494–4503 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-14-3569 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11.Inoue Y, Yoshimura K, Kurabe N, Kahyo T, Kawase A, Tanahashi M et al. Prognostic impact of CD73 and A2A adenosine receptor expression in non-small-cell lung cancer. Oncotarget. 2017; 8:8738–8751 10.18632/oncotarget.14434 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12.Xu S, Shao QQ, Sun JT, Yang N, Xie Q, Wang DH et al. Synergy between the ectoenzymes CD39 and CD73 contributes to adenosinergic immunosuppression in human malignant gliomas. Neuro Oncology 2013;15: 1160–1172 10.1093/neuonc/not067 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13.Hausler SF, Del Barrio IM, Diessner J, Stein RG, Strohschein J, Honig A et al. Anti-CD39 and anti-CD73 antibodies A1 and 7G2 improve targeted therapy in ovarian cancer by blocking adenosine-dependent immune evasion. Am J Transl. Res. 2014; 6: 129–139 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14.Hilmenyuk T, Kallert S, Klar R, Hinterwimmer L, Schell M, Van Ark M et al. Inhibition of Cd39 and Cd73 by 3rd-generation antisense oligonucleotides to improve immunity against tumors. Proceedings: AACR Annual Meeting 2018;78, Issue 13 Supplement Chicago, IL
15.Hay CM, Sult E, Huang Q, Mulgrew K, Fuhrmann SR, McGlinchey KA. et al. Targeting CD73 in the tumor microenvironment with MED19447. Oncoimmunology 2016; 5: e1208875 10.1080/2162402X.2016.1208875 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16.Geoghegan JC, Diedrich G, Lu X, Rosenthal K, Sachsenmeier LF, Wu H, et al. Inhibition of CD73 AMP hydrolysis by a therapeutic antibody with a dual, non-competitive mechanism of action. MABS 2016; 8: 454–467 10.1080/19420862.2016.1143182 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17.Yang X, Pei S, Wang H, Jin Y, Yu F, Zhou B, et al. D. Tiamulin inhibits breast cancer growth and pulmonary metastasis by decreasing the activity of CD73. BMC Cancer 2017; 17: 255–266 10.1186/s12885-017-3250-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18.Perrot I, Michaud HA, Giraudon-Paoli M, Vivier E, Pature lC, Bonnefoy N. Blocking Antibodies Targeting the CD39/CD73 Immunosuppressive Pathway Unleash Immune Responses in Combination Cancer Therapies. Cell Reports 2019; 27: 2411–2425 10.1016/j.celrep.2019.04.091 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19.Young A, Ngiow SF, Barkauskas DS, Suit E, Hay C, Blake SJ et al. Co-inhibition of CD73 and A2AR Adenosine signaling improves anti-tumor immune responses. Cancer Cell 2016; 30: 391–403 10.1016/j.ccell.2016.06.025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20.Borodovsky A, Wang Y, Ye M, Shaw JC, Sachsenmeier K; Deng N et al. Inhibition of A2AR by AZD4635 induces anti-tumor immunity alone and in combination with anti-PD-L1 in preclinical models AACR Annual Meeting 2018; DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.AM2018-3751 [DOI]
21.Allard B, Pommey S, Smyth MJ, Stagg J. Targeting CD73 enhances the antitumor activity of anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 mAbs. Clinical Cancer Res, 2013; 19: 5626–5635 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22.Duhen T, Duhen R, Montler R, Moses J, Moudgil T, de Miranda NF, et al. Co-expression of CD39 and CD103 identifies tumor-reactive CD8 T cells in human solid tumors. Nature Commun.2018; 9:1–13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23.Mondal S, Hsiao K, Goueli S. Utility of adenine monophosphate detection system for monitoring the activities of diverse enzyme reactions. Assay and Drug Development Technologies 2017; 15: 330–341 10.1089/adt.2017.815 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24.Bono MR, Fernandez D; Flores-Santibanez F, Rosemblatt M, Sauma D. CD73 and CD39 ectonucleotidaes in T cell differentiation: Beyond immunosuppression. FEBS Letters 2015; 589: 3454–3460 10.1016/j.febslet.2015.07.027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25.Yegutkin GG Nucleotide-and nucleoside-converting ectoenzymes: Important modulators of purinergic signaling cascade. Biochem. Biophys. Acta. 2008; 1783: 673–694 10.1016/j.bbamcr.2008.01.024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26.Freundlieb M, Zimmermann H, Müller CE. A new, sensitive ecto-5'-nucleotidase assay for compound screening. Anal Biochem 2014; 446: 53–58 10.1016/j.ab.2013.10.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27.Bianchi V, Spychala. Mammalian 5’-nucleotidases. J. Biol. Chem. 2003; 278:46195–46198 10.1074/jbc.R300032200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28.Knapp K, Zebisch M, Pippel J, El-Tayeb A, Muller CE, Strater N Crystal structure of the human ecto-5’-nucleotidase (CD73): Insights into the regulation of purinergic signaling. Structure 2012; 20: 2161–217 10.1016/j.str.2012.10.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0220094.r001

Decision Letter 0

Paul A Beavis

7 Aug 2019

PONE-D-19-18985

Monitoring and characterizing soluble and membrane-bound ectonucleotidases CD73 and CD39

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Goueli,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

Please refer to reviwers' comments below with particular reference to including increased emphasis on how this approach is superior to currently established protocols e.g. potential to use with live cells. Both reviewers have also commented on the length and number of figures. Please try to more succinctly present the data.

As suggested by reviewer 1, an introduction that includes a wider characterisation of the role of CD73 and CD39 in human physiology/ pathology is warranted.

==============================

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Sep 21 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Paul A Beavis

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please note that PLOS does not permit references to “data not shown.” Authors should provide the relevant data within the manuscript, the Supporting Information files, or in a public repository. If the data are not a core part of the research study being presented, we ask that authors remove any references to these data.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Financial Disclosure section:

The authors acknowledge the financial support by Promega Corp for carrying out this research.

We note that you received funding from a commercial source: Promega Corp

Please provide an amended Competing Interests Statement that explicitly states this commercial funder, along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, marketed products, etc.

Within this Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your amended Competing Interests Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Reviewer comments

Due to the increasing interest in targeting the CD73/CD39 and adenosine receptor axis in the context of immunotherapy to treat cancer, and promising outcomes both in pre-clinical and clinical settings, there is a need to develop new and effective therapeutic agents targeting these receptors. The authors have developed and clearly demonstrated a sensitive assay platform utilizing Promega’s own AMP-GLO or ADP-GLO kits to test the efficacy and specificity of small molecule inhibitors and antibodies for inhibiting the activity of CD39 and CD73. There are however several issues that need to be addressed as outlined below.

Major

A potential limitation of using a luciferase-based detection assay is inhibition of luciferase by inhibitors used. POM1 was mentioned in prior literature to inhibit luciferase in a different enzyme activity kit (doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1003884). Have the authors confirmed their assay using orthogonal methods, such as alternative enzyme assay or testing their inhibitors at varying concentrations in the absence of CD73 or CD39? It may be important for future screening to include in the protocol a test for potential inhibitors interfering with the output of the AMP-GLO or ADP-GLO kits.

Protein concentration used in western blots for CD79 or CD39 in cells should be shown using either a housekeeping control, or the total protein concentration shown if other methods were used. Alternatively, a FACS based assay could be performed to show expression of cell surface CD79 or CD39.

One of the advantages of this assay as described by the authors is that a homologous detection protocol could be adapted to broad range of kinases and proteins that metabolise ATP. This is great for identifying cross reactivity, which is an advantage over other assays. However, it is difficult to decipher between groups in Figure 17A and 17B. It does appear that at high concentrations of inhibitor POM1, there is inhibition of enzyme activity in each group, but POM1 could be specific at lower doses. Showing the X-axis as a Log10[inhibitor] will make these figures easier to interpret.

Include statistics and p-values.

State competing interests, such as funding from Promega.

Minor

The large number of figures is unnecessary and some streamlining of the figures can make the paper easier to read. Joining Fig 3+4+5, figure 6+7, Figures 8+9+10, figures 12+13, figures 14+15+16 into their respective figures for example. The Figure legends will need to be modified in each case.

Error bars in several figures are hidden behind the point. It may be relevant to show these in front for consistency.

Higher resolution figures should also be provided for most of the figures, this is especially relevant for figure 11.

Including several examples from literature on the advantages of using membrane bound proteins rather than purified proteins in screening for inhibitors, could enhance the rationale of using this approach on live cells. Is it possible to use this assay for primary mouse or human cells, and if so, could this lead to other applications for this assay, such as regulation of enzyme function on cells in response to stimuli, or confirming active inhibition of receptors in vivo after therapy?

Optimization of cell numbers for adherent or non-adherent cells in the assay may be of interest to readers and could be provided as supplementary.

Sufficient references used, covering several studies targeting the CD39/CD73 and adenosine axis in combination with checkpoint inhibitors to treat tumors. Identified its importance in tumor escape, regulation of anti-tumor immunity (both myeloid and lymphoid populations) in both preclinical and clinical studies. Increased tumor CD73 and CD39 expression correlate with poorer patient outcomes. It may be prudent to include J.Stagg 2010 PNAS paper, which is the original paper that utilized anti CD73 against cancer. More recent papers have also linked CD39 expression as a marker of tumor-reactive T cells in tumor infiltrating CD8 populations in both primary and metastatic tumors. Citing these in the text can be relevant.

Relating to the methods for preparation of adherent cells for the assay, it was not clearly mentioned if these cells need to be re-trypsinized after culture overnight in clear bottom plate to be transferred into 96 well plate?

Few spelling errors throughout the paper to be corrected.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript highlights a system to accurately assess the activity of CD73 and CD39 in vitro, an important assay as CD73 and CD39 inhibitors and antibodies are of increasing interest clinically. However, the manuscript requires a number of changes to improve and increase its readability for a greater audience. Many of the sections could be condensed to highlight further the main message of the manuscript succinctly.

Major points:

The introduction is long and highlights much detail about the combinatorial potential of targeting the adenosinergic pathway alongside other therapeutic modalities in cancer, the authors should consider whether their may be a more appropriate introduction to provide a better understanding to their results and the assay they have developed.

Methods section provides numerous details about the reagents used, however, this could be more strategically integrated within the methods.

Please highlight the clones of antibodies being used in addition to their catalogue number. Ab71322 is no longer available from the company and the authors should reconsider use of this data.

In scheme 1 – please include in part (a) adenylate kinase as mentioned in the legend for this section. In (b) please keep the names of the reagents or symbols used to identify them consistent to that in (a).

The number of figures is excessive, many could be combined to make a multiple figure panel, increasing the flow of the paper. Within the figure legends it describes that these figures are performed in triplicate, is that biological or technical triplicates?

In Figure 1 – the inset graph in panel A is not well defined.

Figure 2 – the legend references schematic 1A, it is unclear how this section of the schema relates to the figure, should this be a reference to Scheme 1B where CD73 activity is performed? Figure 2 is also not referenced by number in the body of the text (see line 415 “as shown in figure”).

Figure 3 – uses the same concentration of AMP, in line 433 in reference to this figure the text states “…using different concentrations of AMP”. Please keep units consistent within the manuscript ie in this figure the units used are ng whereas pg has been used in the text. Similarly, line 466 includes mU which are not utilized elsewhere.

Figure 11 – please highlight which antibody number relates to which antibody and the specific clone (this may be most practical to do in the methods section). Some antibodies within the methods section highlight the same clone from different companies being used in this assay, please detail their reproducibility. In addition, many of the CD73 antibodies did not inhibit with CD73 enzymatic activity, please discuss whether this is in keeping with what is known about that antibodies specificity. Line 543 preceding this figure also states that “control antibodies showed minimal effect…” it is unclear within the figure which control antibodies are used and whether any in addition to CD39 are apparent.

Figure 13 – Anti-CD39 was also used in this figure as a negative control for CD73 activity – it would be of interest to look at this antibodies ability to impede CD39 enzymatic activity alongside POM1 and ARL67156.

In Figure 17, POM1 is shown to lack specificity to CD39 and instead inhibits multiple enzymes, it would be of value to comment on the use of POM1 to delineate CD39-mediated anti-tumor efficacy.

In general, the figure legends contain a large amount of information that belongs in the material and methods, please look to make these more succinct.

It would be of interest to utilize this system to measure CD73 and CD39 activity, or the inhibition of enzymatic activity from samples ex vivo rather than in vitro. Can this system be used to measure the presence and activity of CD73 and CD39 inhibitors in circulation? The presence of increased soluble CD73/CD39 or exosome-derived CD73/CD39? Or the enzymatic activity in the tumor microenvironment ex vivo? Please comment or display the utility of this assay in these settings.

Please comment on the advantages/disadvantages of this system compared to those currently utilized. In addition, very limited discussion of the impact of the results is provided throughout and a greater emphasis should be placed towards ensuring this is clear to the reader.

Minor points:

Please check the manuscript for consistency regarding CD73, CD39 and the Farage cell line as well as other nomenclature.

Please provide some reference to the differences in temperature used within the assays. For example, figure 2 at 23 degrees C while Figure 12 is 37 degrees.

Please see some small errors to correct:

Line 19 – increased to increase

Line 20 /65– immunosuppressant, generally refers to a drug type reconsider use of this word throughout.

Line 22/25 – CD39 while upstream of CD73 and the conversion of AMP to adenosine, should not be referres to as a major source for adenosine.

Line 34 – specify the what novel inhibitors you refer too for cancer therapy.

Line 36 – simplify “immune-checkpoint blockers drugs”

Line 70/71 – Rephrase sentence

Line 92 – Replace effector with CD8+ T cells

Line 104/105 – Please explain low cross reactivity with other nucleotides? Do you mean ectonucleotidases?

Line 115 – Fc should have the gamma symbol not that currently shown.

Line 116/118 – refer as A2AR inhibitor or antagonist, not anti A2AR.

Line 121 – AZD4635’s remove the ‘s

Line 124/126 – rephrase sentence

Line 133 – why refer to them as tentative therapeutic approaches?

Line 136 – should read “as well as the tumor itself”

Line 137 – should read monitors

Line 157 – EMEM?

Line 166 – rephrase kinases kits.

Line 272 – per what well?

Line 284 – A.1.?

Line 354 – should read “a very potent immunosuppressive”

Line 354 – 365 – redundant or better included in the introduction please revise.

Line 369/370 – relevance for the discussion of the bacterial enzyme within this paper?

Line 425 – delete i.e.,

Line 444 – should read “Fig. 4, CD73..”

Line 534 – Delete three.

Line 540/541 – refers to CD39 antibodies should read antibody as only one is used and the use of control antibodies which are not clearly shown within the figure should be clarified.

Line 564 – should read “while the other monitors”

Line 608 – remove the use of totally.

Line 656 – should read panel not penal.

Figure 13/17 legends please check for incorrectly formatted symbols.

Line 659 replace that with to.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2019 Oct 25;14(10):e0220094. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0220094.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

30 Aug 2019

Dear Reviewers:

Your comments are shown in BLACK text and our response to your questions are provided in RED

5. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: Reviewer comments

Major

We have tested POM1 on the luciferase activity as control and we found no inhibitory effect of the compound on its activity. Although we have not tested this assay using orthogonal assay, very recent publication used this technology (AMP Glo) to develop what they called “an exceptionally potent inhibitor of human CD37” (Bowman CE, da Silva RG, Pham A, Young SW. An exceptionally potent inhibitor of human CD73. Biochemistry 2019; 58: 3331-3334) and compared their kinetic data using inorganic phosphate release and the data confirmed the validity of bioluminescence approach. Furthermore, since we launched ADP Glo for kinases and ATPases, it has been cited in over 1500 citations as well as numerus patents, and it is the main assay used for large scale screening for inhibitors in HTS laboratories. Besides, we have not found potent inhibitors of this assay other than few luciferase inhibitors which would be excluded when controls were run simultaneously.

Protein concentration used in western blots for CD39 or CD39 in cells should be shown using either a housekeeping control, or the total protein concentration shown if other methods were used. Alternatively, a FACS based assay could be performed to show expression of cell surface CD79 or CD39.

We have provided the protein concentrations used in the legends of the two figures (Fig 5 for CD73 and Figure 9 for CD39). We have used 10 micrograms of cell lysate protein in Figure 5 and 20 micrograms of cell lysate protein in Figure 9.

One of the advantages of this assay as described by the authors is that a homologous detection protocol could be adapted to broad range of kinases and proteins that metabolize ATP. This is great for identifying cross reactivity, which is an advantage over other assays. However, it is difficult to decipher between groups in Figure 17A and 17B. It does appear that at high concentrations of inhibitor POM1, there is inhibition of enzyme activity in each group, but POM1 could be specific at lower doses. Showing the X-axis as a Log10[inhibitor] will make these figures easier to interpret.

Include statistics and p-values.

State competing interests, such as funding from Promega.

We have replotted Figure 17 A and B (Now Fig 11 A and B) to highlight the lower concentrations of POM1 tested against other kinases and as clearly shown that the compound inhibits these kinases at low concentrations which is not surprising since it inhibits ATPase activity of CD39 and thus it appears to be a competitive inhibitor towards ATP as substrate. It is noteworthy that POM1, up to 50 Micromolar, does not inhibit CD73 which uses AMP as substrate as shown in Figure 10.

We also indicated that Promega supported this research.

Minor

Error bars in several figures are hidden behind the point. It may be relevant to show these in front for consistency.

Higher resolution figures should also be provided for most of the figures, this is especially relevant for figure 11.

We have implemented the reviewer’s recommendations by combining the figures and now we have 11 figures plus the scheme instead of 17 figures plus the scheme. Error bars are clearly shown. Also, we have increased the resolutions of those figures as recommended.

We do not anticipate encountering problems using this assay for other cell types such as primary mouse or human cells since it was tested with many different cell types as long as these two enzymes CD39 and CD73 are expressed on the surface of cell membrane and thus their catalytic activity can be monitored using substrates added to the medium.

Optimization of cell numbers for adherent or non-adherent cells in the assay may be of interest to readers and could be provided as supplementary.

We have described how we optimized cell number for detection of enzyme activities

Sufficient references used, covering several studies targeting the CD39/CD73 and adenosine axis in combination with checkpoint inhibitors to treat tumors. Identified its importance in tumor escape, regulation of anti-tumor immunity (both myeloid and lymphoid populations) in both preclinical and clinical studies. Increased tumor CD73 and CD39 expression correlate with poorer patient outcomes. It may be prudent to include J. Stagg 2010 PNAS paper, which is the original paper that utilized anti CD73 against cancer. More recent papers have also linked CD39 expression as a marker of tumor-reactive T cells in tumor infiltrating CD8 populations in both primary and metastatic tumors. Citing these in the text can be relevant.

We are aware of the contribution of Dr. Stagg to the field , and in fact we have already cited him in references #18 and 19. Although we have included several references on the role of CD39 in tumor responses, we also added the reference Duhen, et al (Ref#22) as recommended by the reviewer which focused on CD39 role in CD8 T Cells in solid tumors.

18 Allard B, Pommey S, Smyth MJ, Stagg J. Targeting CD73 enhances the antitumor activity of anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 mAbs. Clinical Cancer Res, 2013; 19: 5626-5635

19 Beavis, P.A, Stagg, J, Darcy, P.K, Smyth, M.J. CD73: a potent suppressor of antitumor immune responses Trends in Immunology 2012; 33: 231-237

20 Xu S, Shao QQ, Sun JT, Yang N, Xie Q, Wang DH et al. Synergy between the ectoenzymes CD39 and CD73 contributes to adenosinergic immunosuppression in human malignant gliomas. Neuro Oncology 2013;15: 1160-1172

22. Duhen T, Duhen R, Montler R, Moses J, Moudgil T, de Miranda NF, et al. Co-expression of CD39 and CD103 identifies tumor-reactive CD8 T cells in human solid tumors. Nature Commun.2018; 9:1-13

We did not need to re-trypsinize cells because cells were trypsinized and suspended for counting before aliquoting into wells and left overnight to attach and ready for treatment.

Few spelling errors throughout the paper to be corrected.

These have been taken care as advised

Major points:

The introduction is long and highlights much detail about the combinatorial potential of targeting the adenosinergic pathway alongside other therapeutic modalities in cancer, the authors should consider whether there may be a more appropriate introduction to provide a better understanding to their results and the assay they have developed.

It is our understanding that the main interest in monitoring the activities of CD39 and CD73 is that they ultimately generate adenosine and thus they are highlighted as drug targets since adenosine and adinosinergic modulators are intimately involved in immunosuppression and improving the microenvironment for the tumor. We have emphasized the role of these two enzymes as drug targets with the inclusion of biochemical; small molecule inhibitors as well as monoclonal antibodies targets these enzymes as potential therapeutics. In fact, most of the current literature show a strong interest and an increased clinical trial targeting these enzymes. We believe the introduction embodies the two targeted enzymes, the therapeutic potential, and their clinical relevance as targeted by small and large molecules modulators. It is noteworthy that one reviewer wanted to expand it to include additional information which we briefly did and added one additional reference

Methods section provides numerous details about the reagents used; however, this could be more strategically integrated within the methods.

We have condensed part of the method section as recommended.

Please highlight the clones of antibodies being used in addition to their catalogue number. Ab71322 is no longer available from the company and the authors should reconsider use of this data.

We understand that the clone Ab71322 may no longer available, but when we did these studies, we were able to get it for our studies. Other antibodies are continually being made and future manuscripts might expand the list as long as clinical interest continue for these targets.

Since adenylate kinase is a component of AMP-Glo Reagent II, we added it within the label AMP-Glo Reagent II

We have followed the advice of the reviewers and combined the figures as was recommended. Figures were condensed into 11 instead of 17

These experiments were carried out three times and the results show the mean +/- SD

In Figure 1 – the inset graph in panel A is not well defined.

The inset is an expanded scale of AMP concentrations shown in the main figure to show that the AMP can be detected at very low concentrations.

Figure 2 was listed on line 422 of the original manuscript. We followed the reviewer recommendation and made the change

Regarding AMP concentrations, we corrected the text on line 433 of the original manuscript. The reason we use ng and pg when necessary, is to avoid the inclusion of many decimals, and thus, whole numbers are easy to read as long as we specify ng or pg. We understand that for cN-II, units were used since we did not receive protein concentration from the vendor and thus since we are using relative activity, the lower the units or amount of enzyme the more sensitive the assay. Also, percent inhibition will not be affected by using enzyme units or protein concentration.

Figure 11 – please highlight which antibody number relates to which antibody and the specific clone (this may be most practical to do in the methods section). Some antibodies within the methods section highlight the same clone from different companies being used in this assay, please detail their reproducibility. In addition, many of the CD73 antibodies did not inhibit with CD73 enzymatic activity, please discuss whether this is in keeping with what is known about that antibody’s specificity. Line 543 preceding this figure also states that “control antibodies showed minimal effect…” it is unclear within the figure which control antibodies are used and whether any in addition to CD39 are apparent.

These antibodies all recognize CD73 and they were ordered from the vendors as CD73 antibodies with only one that is made against CD39. Of these antibodies, two recognize the same epitope on CD73 but from two different vendors to test the reproducibility of our assay against membrane bound CD73. We have no idea in advance of our work whether these antibodies inhibit CD73 enzymatic activity since the data sheets we received from the vendors show only western blots and purity of the antibodies. I believe we are the first to show the reactivity of these antibodies against CD73 enzymatic activity and thus we think these are valuable information for the field. It appears that some of these antibodies recognize different motifs on CD73 which does not affect its enzymatic activity. The two controls in our studies are CD39 selective antibody and no antibody addition.

We have not carried out this particular experiment, but we anticipate combined effect) additive, synergistic, or no effect if they bind to the same catalytic site. Since we are monitoring the activity, it appears that inhibition would be predicted but might be synergistic, i.e., lower concentration of both small molecule and antibody might lower the concentration of either one alone.

In Figure 17, POM1 is shown to lack specificity to CD39 and instead inhibits multiple enzymes, it would be of value to comment on the use of POM1 to delineate CD39-mediated anti-tumor efficacy.

I believe we have highlighted this point in our discussion as indicated that due to the lack of specificity of this inhibitor, and unless a very selective inhibitor is found for CD39, we recommend targeting CD73 if small molecules will be tested since the small molecule inhibitor of CD73 shows high selectivity at low concentration. However, due to the high selectivity of monoclonal antibodies towards their targets, it might be appropriate to target either one or both targets.

In general, the figure legends contain a large amount of information that belongs in the material and methods, please look to make these more succinct.

We have condensed the figure into 11 instead of 17 in the previous manuscript and thus the legends were also combined and made succinct.

We do not anticipate encountering problems using this assay for other cell types such as primary mouse or human cells since it was tested with many different cells as long as these two enzymes CD39 and CD73 are expressed on the surface of cell membrane and thus their catalytic activity can be monitored using substrates added to the medium. Similarly, the activity of these two enzymes can be also done with exosome derived CD39/CD73. Regarding the presence of CD39 and CD73 in circulations, it would be advisable to immunoprecipitate these enzymes using appropriate antibodies for enrichments and increased detectability.

Current technologies for monitoring the activities of these enzymes are based on radioactive substrates such as 32P-ATP, 32P-ADP, and 32P-AMP which is health hazardous and generates large amount of radioactive waste. Other methods rely on the use of HPLC to monitor the release of products such as ADP or adenosine. This approach provides accurate data but requires sophisticated equipment, personnel training, and not easily amenable to HTS, and most certainly not homogenous. It is noteworthy that bioluminescence data we generated showed its higher sensitivity than HPLC at the nanomolar concentrations. One other approach is using detection of released inorganic phosphate from both ATP and AMP as substrates for both enzymes respectively. However, this method is not homogenous, not sensitive enough, and encounter interference from phosphate intolerant chemicals. Thus, we believe this platform described here provides, easily to perform, homogenous, sensitive and above amenable to HTS which is required for development of novel therapeutics.

Minor points:

Please check the manuscript for consistency regarding CD73, CD39 and the Farage cell line as well as other nomenclature.

Please provide some reference to the differences in temperature used within the assays. For example, figure 2 at 23 degrees C while Figure 12 is 37 degrees.

The activity assays were carried out at the optimal temperatures provided by the manufacturer for these enzymes and therefore, we followed their enzymatic assay conditions.

Please see some small errors to correct:

Line 19 – increased to increase

Done

Line 20 /65– immunosuppressant, generally refers to a drug type reconsider use of this word throughout.

Done

Line 22/25 – CD39 while upstream of CD73 and the conversion of AMP to adenosine, should not be referred to as a major source for adenosine.

We respectfully referred to the combined effect of CD39 and CD73 as the major source for adenosine in the tumor microenvironment

Line 34 – specify the what novel inhibitors you refer too for cancer therapy.

The sentence was corrected to may lead to more effective cancer therapy and we included the following two references. Junker, A et al (2019) Structure relationship of purine and pyrimidine nucleotides as ect-5’-nucleotidase (CD73) inhibitors. J Med. Chem 62: 3677-3695) and Bowman, CE et al (2019) An exceptionally potent inhibitor of human CD73. Biochemistry 58: 3331-3334

Line 36 – simplify “immune-checkpoint blockers drugs”

Simplified to immune checkpoint inhibitors

Line 70/71 – Rephrase sentence

The sentence was divided into two for readability

Line 92 – Replace effector with CD8+ T cells

Done

Line 104/105 – Please explain low cross reactivity with other nucleotides? Do you mean ectonucleotidases?

Because this antibody does not bind to the AMP binding site, it indicates that AMP binding is not involved in the inhibition and consequently any other nucleotides will not be relevant in inhibiting CD73.

Line 115 – Fc should have the gamma symbol not that currently shown.

Corrected

Line 116/118 – refer as A2AR inhibitor or antagonist, not anti A2AR.

Corrected

Line 121 – AZD4635’s remove the ‘s

Done

Line 124/126 – rephrase sentence

Done

Line 133 – why refer to them as tentative therapeutic approaches?

We changed it to potential therapeutic approaches

Line 136 – should read “as well as the tumor itself”

Fixed

Line 137 – should read monitors

Done

Line 157 – EMEM?

Eagle's Minimum Essential Medium, Catalog No. 30-2003 from ATCC.

Line 166 – rephrase kinases kits.

(done)

Line 272 – per what well?

Response rewritten

Line 284 – A.1.?

Corrected

Line 354 – should read “a very potent immunosuppressive”

Reworded

Line 354 – 365 – redundant or better included in the introduction please revise.

Line 369/370 – relevance for the discussion of the bacterial enzyme within this paper?

Thus, not only the phylogenetic classification of this enzyme during evolution (bacterial and eukaryotic) is important, but also within the eukaryotes, the cellular localization of the enzyme lead to diverse substrate preference for these isoforms

Line 425 – delete i.e.,

Done

Line 444 – should read “Fig. 4, CD73.”

Corrected

Line 534 – Delete three.

Removed

Line 540/541 – refers to CD39 antibodies should read antibody as only one is used and the use of control antibodies which are not clearly shown within the figure should be clarified.

Single antibody was used, and the wording was corrected

Line 564 – should read “while the other monitors”

Done

Line 608 – remove the use of totally.

Removed

Line 656 – should read panel not penal.

Done

Figure 13/17 legends please check for incorrectly formatted symbols.

Line 659 replace that with to.

Done

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers-PLOS ONE paper Augsut 26, 2019.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(25.7KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0220094.r003

Decision Letter 1

Paul A Beavis

25 Sep 2019

PONE-D-19-18985R1

Monitoring and characterizing soluble and membrane-bound ectonucleotidases CD73 and CD39

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Goueli,

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

There are some minor points that require a bit more attention to make the manuscript acceptable for publication. Please refer to the comments of reviewer 2 with regards to Figure 7 in particular.

==============================

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Nov 09 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Paul A Beavis

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: It will be prudent to go over the text and legends again before final submission as I have spotted several grammar and spelling errors that haven't been corrected. Figure 1A legend needs clarification, as it is unclear if the figures shown are performed in the presence or absence of 100uM ATP? Aside from these, the paper is much more readable and most comments have been sufficiently addressed.

Reviewer #2: Some points were addressed but there remains a major need to provide appropriate level of detail for the interpretation of figures.

Major points:

- Figure 7 – antibody details must be provided within – it is not sufficient to label with just Ab1, Ab2 etc without detailing which antibody clone it relates to. It is unclear which of the bars represents the control (non-CD73/CD39 antibodies), these are essential details in the interpretation of the graph. In addition, clones for all antibodies should be detailed within methods, not just catalog info.

- The figure quality is very poor and must be improved for publication. Labels are difficult to read as they are in many cases blurry.

Minor points:

Authors should check for spelling and grammatical errors throughout the manuscript see below for some identified.

- Correct the misspelling of Farage cell line, often referred to as Farag as well as Jurkat referred to as Jurkate.

- Define A2AR at the first time it is abbreviated.

- Line 34 – delete (,)

- Line 51 – should read “leading candidate in…”

- Line 57 – Ref 8 is strange – primary article by Bastid, Cancer Immunology Research, 2015 would serve this statement better and broader across multiple cancers.

- Line 70 – delete ‘That…’

- Line 119 – should read checkpoint

- Line 115 and 120 – delete “anti” in relation to A2AR – misleading suggestive that it’s an antibody, please ensure this is removed throughout the text.

- Line 123 – should read A2AR

- Line 142 – delete (s)

- Line 221 – 96-well is repeated

- Line 259 – should read ‘or for a certain time period’

- Line 267 – aberrant )

- Line 272 – should read “known CD39 inhibitor…”

- Line 334 – should read 80-90%

- Line 355 – should read “, 10 min”

- Line 390 – should read “remaining”

- Line 621 – should read “antibody”

- Line 711 – should read from not form.

- Line 757 - should read ‘a diverse set’

- Line 763 - should read ‘that because POM1’

- Line 789 – should read ‘and is not easily’

- Line 805 – should read ‘not only can it’

- Reference 22 and 29 is listed as the same

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

PLoS One. 2019 Oct 25;14(10):e0220094. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0220094.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1

2 Oct 2019

Please see the cover letter to the editor and response to the reviewers in which all concerns have been addressed and all questions have been answered as requested.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers Oct 2019.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(14.5KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0220094.r005

Decision Letter 2

Paul A Beavis

8 Oct 2019

Monitoring and characterizing soluble and membrane-bound ectonucleotidases CD73 and CD39

PONE-D-19-18985R2

Dear Dr. Goueli,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Paul A Beavis

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Thank you for making the remaining changes to the manuscript.

Reviewers' comments:

N/A.

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0220094.r006

Acceptance letter

Paul A Beavis

17 Oct 2019

PONE-D-19-18985R2

Monitoring and characterizing soluble and membrane-bound ectonucleotidases CD73 and CD39

Dear Dr. Goueli:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Paul A Beavis

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

S1 Fig. Schematic representation for detection of CD 39 and CD73 enzyme activities using adenine nucleotides modifying enzymes.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(2.3MB, tif)}

S1 Table. List of Antibodies tested including immunogen/Host information.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16.3KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers-PLOS ONE paper Augsut 26, 2019.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(25.7KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers Oct 2019.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(14.5KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

All relevant data are within the paper.

[pone.0220094.ref001] 1.Sharma P, Hu-Lieskovan S, Wargo J.A, Ribas A. Primary, adaptive, and acquired resistance to cancer immunotherapy. Cell 2017; 168: 707–723 10.1016/j.cell.2017.01.017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0220094.ref002] 2.Blay J, White T.D, Hoskin D.W. The extracellular fluid of solid carcinomas contains immunosuppressive concentrations of adenosine. Cancer Res. 1997;57: 2602–2605 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0220094.ref003] 3.Spychala J. Tumor-promoting functions of adenosine. Pharmacology &Therapeutics 2000; 87:161–173 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0220094.ref004] 4.Antonioli L, Yegutkin GG, Pacher P, Blandizzi C, Hasko G. Anti-CD73 in cancer immunotherapy: Awakening new opportunities. Trends in Cancer 2016; 2: 95–109 10.1016/j.trecan.2016.01.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0220094.ref005] 5.Beavis P.A, Stagg J, Darcy P.K, Smyth M.J. CD73: a potent suppressor of antitumor immune responses Trends in Immunology 2012; 33: 231–237 10.1016/j.it.2012.02.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0220094.ref006] 6.Di Virgilio F, Adinolfi E. Extracellular purines, purinergic receptors, and tumor growth. Oncogene 2017; 36: 293–303 10.1038/onc.2016.206 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0220094.ref007] 7.Yang J, Department of Physiology and Pathophysiology, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, China Liao X, Department of Oncology, Ganzhou People`s Hospital, Ganzhou, 341000, China Yu J, Department of Medicine, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292, United States Zhou P. Role of CD73 in Disease: Promising Prognostic Indicator and Therapeutic Target. Cur. Med. Chem. 2018; 25: 2260–2271 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0220094.ref008] 8.Bastid J, Regairaz A, Bonnefoy N, Cecile D, Giustiniani J, Laheurte C, et al. Inhibition of CD39 enzymatic function at the surface of tumor Cells alleviates their immunosuppressive activity. Cancer Immunol Res. 2015; 3:254–264 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-14-0018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0220094.ref009] 9.Hunsucker S.A, Mitchell BS, Spychala J. The 5’-nucleotidases as regulators of nucleotide and drug metabolism. Pharmacology and Therapeutics 2005;107: 1–30 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2005.01.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0220094.ref010] 10.Turcotte M, Spring K, Pommey S, Chouinard G, Cousineau I, George J, et al. CD73 is associated with poor prognosis in high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Cancer Res. 2015; 75: 4494–4503 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-14-3569 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0220094.ref011] 11.Inoue Y, Yoshimura K, Kurabe N, Kahyo T, Kawase A, Tanahashi M et al. Prognostic impact of CD73 and A2A adenosine receptor expression in non-small-cell lung cancer. Oncotarget. 2017; 8:8738–8751 10.18632/oncotarget.14434 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0220094.ref012] 12.Xu S, Shao QQ, Sun JT, Yang N, Xie Q, Wang DH et al. Synergy between the ectoenzymes CD39 and CD73 contributes to adenosinergic immunosuppression in human malignant gliomas. Neuro Oncology 2013;15: 1160–1172 10.1093/neuonc/not067 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0220094.ref013] 13.Hausler SF, Del Barrio IM, Diessner J, Stein RG, Strohschein J, Honig A et al. Anti-CD39 and anti-CD73 antibodies A1 and 7G2 improve targeted therapy in ovarian cancer by blocking adenosine-dependent immune evasion. Am J Transl. Res. 2014; 6: 129–139 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0220094.ref014] 14.Hilmenyuk T, Kallert S, Klar R, Hinterwimmer L, Schell M, Van Ark M et al. Inhibition of Cd39 and Cd73 by 3rd-generation antisense oligonucleotides to improve immunity against tumors. Proceedings: AACR Annual Meeting 2018;78, Issue 13 Supplement Chicago, IL

[pone.0220094.ref015] 15.Hay CM, Sult E, Huang Q, Mulgrew K, Fuhrmann SR, McGlinchey KA. et al. Targeting CD73 in the tumor microenvironment with MED19447. Oncoimmunology 2016; 5: e1208875 10.1080/2162402X.2016.1208875 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0220094.ref016] 16.Geoghegan JC, Diedrich G, Lu X, Rosenthal K, Sachsenmeier LF, Wu H, et al. Inhibition of CD73 AMP hydrolysis by a therapeutic antibody with a dual, non-competitive mechanism of action. MABS 2016; 8: 454–467 10.1080/19420862.2016.1143182 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0220094.ref017] 17.Yang X, Pei S, Wang H, Jin Y, Yu F, Zhou B, et al. D. Tiamulin inhibits breast cancer growth and pulmonary metastasis by decreasing the activity of CD73. BMC Cancer 2017; 17: 255–266 10.1186/s12885-017-3250-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0220094.ref018] 18.Perrot I, Michaud HA, Giraudon-Paoli M, Vivier E, Pature lC, Bonnefoy N. Blocking Antibodies Targeting the CD39/CD73 Immunosuppressive Pathway Unleash Immune Responses in Combination Cancer Therapies. Cell Reports 2019; 27: 2411–2425 10.1016/j.celrep.2019.04.091 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0220094.ref019] 19.Young A, Ngiow SF, Barkauskas DS, Suit E, Hay C, Blake SJ et al. Co-inhibition of CD73 and A2AR Adenosine signaling improves anti-tumor immune responses. Cancer Cell 2016; 30: 391–403 10.1016/j.ccell.2016.06.025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0220094.ref020] 20.Borodovsky A, Wang Y, Ye M, Shaw JC, Sachsenmeier K; Deng N et al. Inhibition of A2AR by AZD4635 induces anti-tumor immunity alone and in combination with anti-PD-L1 in preclinical models AACR Annual Meeting 2018; DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.AM2018-3751 [DOI]

[pone.0220094.ref021] 21.Allard B, Pommey S, Smyth MJ, Stagg J. Targeting CD73 enhances the antitumor activity of anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 mAbs. Clinical Cancer Res, 2013; 19: 5626–5635 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0220094.ref022] 22.Duhen T, Duhen R, Montler R, Moses J, Moudgil T, de Miranda NF, et al. Co-expression of CD39 and CD103 identifies tumor-reactive CD8 T cells in human solid tumors. Nature Commun.2018; 9:1–13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0220094.ref023] 23.Mondal S, Hsiao K, Goueli S. Utility of adenine monophosphate detection system for monitoring the activities of diverse enzyme reactions. Assay and Drug Development Technologies 2017; 15: 330–341 10.1089/adt.2017.815 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0220094.ref024] 24.Bono MR, Fernandez D; Flores-Santibanez F, Rosemblatt M, Sauma D. CD73 and CD39 ectonucleotidaes in T cell differentiation: Beyond immunosuppression. FEBS Letters 2015; 589: 3454–3460 10.1016/j.febslet.2015.07.027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0220094.ref025] 25.Yegutkin GG Nucleotide-and nucleoside-converting ectoenzymes: Important modulators of purinergic signaling cascade. Biochem. Biophys. Acta. 2008; 1783: 673–694 10.1016/j.bbamcr.2008.01.024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0220094.ref026] 26.Freundlieb M, Zimmermann H, Müller CE. A new, sensitive ecto-5'-nucleotidase assay for compound screening. Anal Biochem 2014; 446: 53–58 10.1016/j.ab.2013.10.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0220094.ref027] 27.Bianchi V, Spychala. Mammalian 5’-nucleotidases. J. Biol. Chem. 2003; 278:46195–46198 10.1074/jbc.R300032200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0220094.ref028] 28.Knapp K, Zebisch M, Pippel J, El-Tayeb A, Muller CE, Strater N Crystal structure of the human ecto-5’-nucleotidase (CD73): Insights into the regulation of purinergic signaling. Structure 2012; 20: 2161–217 10.1016/j.str.2012.10.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Monitoring and characterizing soluble and membrane-bound ectonucleotidases CD73 and CD39

Said A Goueli

Kevin Hsiao

Roles

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Chemical, reagents, and assay components

Assay protocols

AMP-Glo™ assay general protocol

ADP-Glo™ assay general protocol

Cells preparation for in vivo AMP-Glo™ assay

I. Monitoring enzymatic activity of purified CD73 and CD39

II. Monitoring the activities of ectoCD73 and ectoCD39 in cell-based format

Electrophoresis and western blotting of cell lysates

Sample preparation

Western blot

Results and discussion

Fig 1. Assay sensitivity in monitoring AMP, ADP, and ATP concentrations.

Monitoring the enzymatic activity of soluble and membrane-associated CD73

Fig 2. Determination of enzyme activity of purified CD73.

Fig 3. Effect of enzyme concentration, substrate concentration and IC50 determination using purified recombinant human CD73.

Fig 4. Determination of enzyme activity of purified cytosolic cN-II and inhibitor selectivity.

Fig 5. Determination of membrane bound CD73 and effect of its inhibitor (AMP-CP) on soluble and membrane bound CD73 activity.

Fig 6. Selectivity of various inhibitors against soluble CD73 and membrane bound CD73 enzyme using assay protocol for purified and cell-based assays.

Fig 7. Effect of various anti-CD73 antibodies on blocking the activity of CD73 bound MDA-MB-231 cells.

Fig 8. Determination of the enzyme activity and inhibitory potency on purified CD39.

Fig 9. Determination of membrane bound CD39 enzyme activity and CD39 inhibitor potency on membrane associated CD39 activity.

Fig 10. Inhibitor selectivity using purified and membrane associated CD39.

Fig 11. Determining the specificity of CD39 and CD73 inhibitors against other enzymes.

Conclusion

Supporting information

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Paul A Beavis

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

Paul A Beavis

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 1

Decision Letter 2

Paul A Beavis

Roles

Acceptance letter

Paul A Beavis

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases

AMP-Glo^™ assay general protocol

ADP-Glo^™ assay general protocol

Cells preparation for in vivo AMP-Glo^™ assay

Fig 3. Effect of enzyme concentration, substrate concentration and IC₅₀ determination using purified recombinant human CD73.