Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Jun 22;17(6):e0267651. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0267651

Design and synthesis of Nrf2-derived hydrocarbon stapled peptides for the disruption of protein-DNA-interactions

Bianca Wiedemann 1,#, Dominic Kamps 1,2,#, Laura Depta 1,#, Jörn Weisner 1, Jana Cvetreznik 1, Stefano Tomassi 3, Sascha Gentz 4, Jan-Erik Hoffmann 4, Matthias P Müller 1, Oliver Koch 5, Leif Dehmelt 1,2, Daniel Rauh 1,*
Editor: Alessio Lodola6
PMCID: PMC9216541  PMID: 35731722

Abstract

Misregulation and mutations of the transcription factor Nrf2 are involved in the development of a variety of human diseases. In this study, we employed the technology of stapled peptides to address a protein-DNA-complex and designed a set of Nrf2-based derivatives. Varying the length and position of the hydrocarbon staple, we chose the best peptide for further evaluation in both fixed and living cells. Peptide 4 revealed significant enrichment within the nucleus compared to its linear counterpart 5, indicating potent binding to DNA. Our studies suggest that these molecules offer an interesting strategy to target activated Nrf2 in cancer cells.

Introduction

The transcription factor Nrf2 (nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor 2) belongs to the cap’n’collar (CNC) basic-region leucine zipper (bZIP) transcription factor family and consists of a total of seven domains [1, 2]. Nrf2 is a central component of the cellular detoxification machinery and mediates the transcription of approximately 250 genes. Those genes encode a variety of enzymes involved in the metabolism of protein degradation and the regulation of inflammatory responses such as Peroxiredoxin-1 (PRDX1), glutathione S-transferase (GST) and multidrug resistance-associated protein 1 (MRP). This allows for a multifaceted cellular response to endogenous and exogenous oxidative stress that ensures maintenance of homeostasis [3].

The versatile cytoprotective properties of the Keap1/Nrf2 pathway serve as a protective function against diseases underlying oxidative stress or inflammatory mechanisms. Overactivation of Nrf2 has also been observed in tumor cells [4]. In this case, the proteasomal degradation of Nrf2 is suppressed by genetic alterations in Nrf2 and Keap1, but also by oncogenes such as KRASG12D or BRAFV619E, and the protective functions of the resulting gene products are exploited for the metabolization of chemotherapeutic agents or for the defense against radicals produced as a result of radiation therapy. This leads to increased tumor progression, metastasis and therapy resistance in cancer, making Nrf2 an attractive therapeutic target [2, 59]. Unfortunately, proteins like Nrf2 are intrinsically difficult to target due to their disordered structure in solution and their lack of known binding pockets responsible for their activity [10]. For several transcription factors (Tfs), addressing protein-protein interaction interfaces has proven to be a successful strategy [11]. However, none of these approaches have succeeded in downregulation of Nrf2 to target its detrimental role in cancer development [12, 13]. A promising alternative strategy is to target the protein-DNA-interactions (PDI) [14]. Multiple binders of DNA have been known for several years, but a lack of specificity prevented their use for therapeutic approaches [15]. Thus, the development of molecules that are able to bind highly specifically to certain DNA sequences while retaining cellular permeability is a novel, challenging, and promising approach to overcome the limitations outlined above [14]. Within the last decade, stabilized helical peptides have been successfully employed to target so called “undruggable” proteins and especially protein-protein-interactions [1628]. Here, we report the synthesis of α-helical hydrocarbon stapled peptides derived from Nrf2 for the inhibition of its interaction with DNA.

Materials and methods

Unless otherwise noted, all reagents and solvents were purchased from Acros, Fluka, Sigma-Aldrich, Merck or Okeanos Technology Co., Ltd. and used without further purification. Dry solvents were purchased as anhydrous reagents from commercial suppliers. Compounds were purified by a preparative Agilent HPLC system (1200 series) with a VP 125/21 Nucleodur C18 column from Macherey-Nagel and monitored by UV at λ = 210 nm and 280 nm. All final compounds were purified to >95% purity as determined by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC).

Homology modeling

The Uniprot protein sequence Q16236 (NF2L2_HUMAN) was used as starting point. A blast search (https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi) using Q16236 revealed the complex structure pdb 1skn as suitable template structure. Homology modeling was performed using the “homology modeling” tool implemented in MOE 2013. The option “include selected atoms as environment for induced fit option” was enabled to transfer the DNA to the homology model. A comparison to a solution nmr structure of NRF2 (pdb 2lz1) showing the lower helix bundle reveals a perfect structural overlap of corresponding residues indicating a high quality model [29].

Peptide synthesis

The peptides were prepared on solid support and via Fmoc-based synthetic strategy incorporating non-natural amino acids ((S)-N-Fmoc-2-(4´-pentenyl)alanine (S5), (R)-N-Fmoc-2-(4´-pentenyl)alanine (R5), (R)-N-Fmoc-2-(7´octenyl)alanine) (R8) at the respective stapling positions. All peptides were prepared bearing a C-terminal amide on Rink amide or MBHA Rink amide resin. PyClocK in DMF was used as a coupling reagent solution. Amino acid building blocks were coupled in four-fold excess respectively, while non-natural aa were used in 3-fold excess. For the formation of the macrocycle via ring closing metathesis, 1st gen. Grubbs catalyst in dry DCE was used while N2 was guided through the solution. Piperidine (25%) in DMF was used as the deprotection solution. Peptides were either modified with a fluorescent label or capped at the N-terminus. Implementation of FITC as label needed an additional linker between the N-terminal amino acid and the label to prevent undesired side reactions. All peptides were cleaved using a cocktail of 95% trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) and 5% triisopropylsilane (TIS), subsequently precipitated with diethylether, and purified via HPLC.

CD measurements

CD measurements were carried out on a JASCO J-715 spectrometer using water as the solvent for all measurements. The peptides were solved in water to a concentration of 20 μM. The linear peptide 5 was used as a control compound. The helical fraction for peptides 15 was calculated from the observed ellipticity [θ]obs at 222 nm using established methods [30].

Fluorescence polarization assay

For DNA hybridization, equimolar amounts of fluorescein- or 6FAM-labeled sense and unlabeled antisense oligonucleotides were mixed in 1X annealing buffer (10 mM Tris pH 7.5, 100 mM NaCl, 1 mM EDTA) to yield a final concentration of 20 μM of dsDNA. Subsequently, mixtures were heated to 95°C for 10 min followed by cooling to 20°C at a rate of 1°C per minute. Afterwards, dsDNA probes were diluted to 10 nm in FP assay buffer (50 mM Tris/HCl pH 7.5, 100 mM NaCl, 2 mM MgCl2, 0.5 mM EDTA, 10 μg/mL BSA, 0.1 mM DTT, 0.01% Tween-20) and mixed with serial dilutions of peptides 16 (25 μM—6.1 nm), that were generated with the Echo 520 liquid handler (Labcyte Inc.), in a total volume of 10.2 μL per well in black 384-well small volume microplates (Greiner Bio-One). The microplates were shaken at 1500 rpm for 30 s, centrifuged at 200 x g for 60 s and subsequently incubated for 60 min in a humidified, dark chamber at room temperature. Finally, the fluorescence polarization was analyzed on an Infinite® M1000 microplate reader (Tecan) using the appropriate settings for fluorescein/6FAM, i.e. an excitation wavelength of 470 ± 2.5 nm and an emission wavelength of 520 ± 7.5 nm.

Each concentration was analyzed in quadruplicates and resulting mean fluorescence polarization and standard deviation was fit to a four parameter logistic model with Origin (OriginLab, Northampton, MA) using the following equation:

y=A1A21+xx0p+A2

Each experiment was performed in three independent replicates.

Electrophoretic mobility shift assay

DNA hybridization was performed as described above. Afterwards, 1 pmol of the dsDNA probe was incubated with the respective excess of peptide in 1X assay buffer (10 mM Tris pH 7.5, 100 mM KCl, 2 mM MgCl2, 0.5 mM EDTA, 10 μg/mL BSA, 0.1 mM DTT, 2.5% glycerol) in a final volume of 10 μL and incubated for 30 min at room temperature. Prior to gel electrophoresis, samples were mixed with 2 μL of 6X loading buffer (60 mM Tris pH 7.5, 15% Ficoll 400) and the reaction mixtures were then loaded onto hand-cast, native 15% TBE polyacrylamide gels. Separation was performed for 45 min at a current of 20 mA per gel in a cold room at 4°C and the gels were analyzed on a Typhoon FLA 9500 laser scanner (GE Healthcare) using the 473 nm laser for excitation and a 510 nm long-pass filter (LPB (510LP)) for emission of fluorescein and FAM, respectively.

Cell culture and pharmacological treatments

HeLa cells (ATCC CCL-2) were cultured in Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle Medium (DMEM) supplemented with 10% FBS (Pan Biotech), 2 mM L-glutamine, 100 U/ml penicillin and 100 μg/ml streptomycin at 37°C and 5% CO2.

For fixing and permeabilization, HeLa cells were incubated with pre-warmed 4% formaldehyde for 20 min at 37°C, followed by permeabilization with 0.25% Triton-X 100 for 20 min at room temperature. For the evaluation of the effect of proteases, cOmplete protease inhibitor mix (1X) 500 μl was added to the fixed cells for 30 min. Peptides were incubated at 1 μM for 3 h in the presence of the protease inhibitor mix, followed by 3 min incubation with 1 μM of the nucleic acid marker DAPI, then extensively washed with DPBS and subjected to wide-field imaging.

To investigate the cell permeability of peptide 4, living HeLa cells were washed twice and incubated for 5 min with DPBS + Mg/Ca, (100 mg/ml CaCl2, 133 mg/ml MgCl2) in a CO2 incubator. Cells were subsequently incubated in the presence of 10 μM of peptide 4 in DPBS + Mg/Cl for 5 min, followed by two washes with DPBS + Mg/Cl and final addition of HEPES-buffered imaging medium containing 0.5 μM propidium iodide.

Imaging was performed using an Olympus IX81 microscope with 20x and 60x UPLSAPO objectives and standard fluorescence filter sets.

Results and discussion

Using the crystal structure of the Tf Skn1 (PDB 1skn), [31] we created a homology model of the DNA binding domain of Nrf2 for the design of our peptides (S1 Fig in S1 File). Critical evaluation of this model guided the classification of the Nrf2 amino acids (aa) into four groups (Fig 1): a) aa from the a-helical segment docking in the DNA major groove and forming hydrogen bonds with either the DNA bases or the phosphate backbone; b) aa within the sequence of a) but facing away from the DNA; c) aa within reach of the DNA that do not interact with it; d) aa 452–500 and 519–525 that are too remote from the DNA to allow interactions (these aa were excluded from further consideration for the design of the stapled peptides).

Fig 1. Homology model of the helix-loop-helix domain of Nrf2 based on Skn1 (PDB 1skn) bound to DNA.

Fig 1

Amino acids (aa) of group a) which interact with the DNA are colored in purple; aa from group b) which are suitable to introduce a staple are colored in white; aa from group c) which are suitable for modification are colored in rose; aa from group d) which have no interaction with the DNA are colored in blue. Bottom: aa sequence used for the design of stapled peptides. The aa are divided into groups a)-d) according to color code.

For our first design, we left aa from groups a) and c) unchanged and engaged those from group b) for potential all-hydrocarbon stapling. We further varied the position and length of the staples to elucidate the best position within the sequence for induction of an α-helical character (the general synthesis scheme is depicted in Fig 2A). We chose positions 505/509 (1) and 501/505 (2) for an i,i+4 stapling system, 509/512 (3) for an i,i+3 stapling system and 509/516 (4) for an i,i+7 stapling system (Fig 2B).

Fig 2.

Fig 2

A: Synthesis scheme for stapled peptides. a) 25% piperidine in DMF, 2 x 15 min, rt; b) 4 eq. PyClocK, 4 eq Fmoc-NH-aa-COOH, 4–8 eq DIPEA in DMF, 2 h, rt; for non-natural aa: 3–4 eq. PyClocK, 3 eq. Fmoc-NH-aa-COOH, 4–6 eq. DIPEA in DMF, 2 h, rt; c) 10 mol% 1st gen. Grubbs catalyst in DCE, 3 x 1 h, rt; d) 4 eq. Ac2O, 8 eq. DIPEA, DMF, 45 min, rt; e) 5 eq. FITC, 10 eq. DIPEA, DMF, 24 h, rt; f) excess TFA with 5% TIS, 2 h, rt. B: Sequence of stapled peptides 1–5 derived from Nrf2. Derivative 1 (i,i+4 stapling); derivative 2 (i,i+4 stapling); derivative 3 (i,i+3 stapling); derivative 4 (i,i+7 stapling). Color coding according to Fig 1.

Subsequent CD measurements were used to determine the α-helical content of the respective peptides (S2 Fig and S3 Table in S1 File). While the non-stapled linear peptide 5 had an α-helical content of 6%, this value was significantly increased upon introduction of all-hydrocarbon staples. Indeed, peptide 3 exhibited the highest α-helical content with 36%, followed by peptide 1 (20%) and peptide 4 (18%). Conversively, peptide 2 revealed an α-helicity of 9% which is in the same range of the linear peptide 5 (α-helicity = 6%) thus showing that placing an all-hydrocarbon staple between 501/505 positions is detrimental for the α-helical induction.

To evaluate the binding affinities of these peptides to the Nrf2 binding site, the double stranded DNA sequence responsive to Nrf2, we performed fluorescence polarization experiments (Fig 3 and S5 Fig in S1 File) and electrophoretic mobility shift assays (S6-S8 Figs in S1 File).

Fig 3. Fluorescence polarization assay of peptides 1–6 with 6FAM-labeled MARE23 sequence.

Fig 3

We used three FAM-labelled double stranded DNA sequences in these experiments: MARE23 as a known Nrf2:sMaf binding sequence, [32] a scrambled version of this sequence (MARE23_scr) and an additional randomized DNA sequence as controls.

The FP measurements show a higher binding affinity for the stapled peptides 1 (KD = 1.6 ± 0.04 μM), 2 (KD = 3.9 ± 0.2 μM), 3 (KD = 1.5 ± 0.2 μM) and 4 (KD = 1.2 ± 0.3 μM) to MARE23 compared to the linear peptide 5 (KD = 7.9 ± 0.1 μM) and the scrambled peptide 6 (KD = 8.1 ± 0.1 μM). (Fig 3) Additionally, the stapled peptide 4 is able to induce a mobility shift of DNA at a lower concentration than the unstapled peptide 5 (S6-S8 Figs in S1 File). However, the FP measurements and electrophoretic mobility shift studies indicated that the stapled peptide also binds to the randomized DNA sequences used as negative controls thus indicating the need for further optimization of the peptides to obtain higher sequence selectivity.

Modification of peptide 4 and the non-stapled peptide 5 at the N-terminus with a fluorescent label rendered the peptides detectable via fluorescence microscopy. Since direct modification with FITC would cause the terminal aa to undergo Edman degradation, a suitable linker was incorporated. We chose γ-amino-butyric-acid (GABA) for this purpose, thereby providing a suitable spacing function between the fluorophore and the studied peptide sequence.

To analyze their potential interaction with cellular DNA, we incubated peptides FITC-4 and FITC-5 with fixed, permeabilized HeLa cells. As shown in Fig 4, peptide FITC-4 was selectively enriched in the DNA-rich nucleus. In contrast, only small amounts of linear peptide FITC-5 were detectable in cells and no enrichment in the nucleus could be observed for peptide FITC-5, suggesting that nuclear enrichment of the peptides is dependent on stapling and the resulting higher affinity towards DNA.

Fig 4. Enrichment of peptide 4 in DNA-rich nuclei.

Fig 4

A-C: Fixed and permeabilized HeLa cells were incubated with peptides 4 and 5 and imaged using wide-field fluorescence microscopy. Representative images of FITC-labeled peptides (top panels), DAPI (middle panels), and the combined images (bottom panels) are shown. A, B: Images showing peptides 4 and 5, respectively, with identical exposure times and image scaling. C: Images of peptide 5 with 30-fold increased image contrast to visualize weak fluorescence of FITC signals.

These data corroborate the results of the fluorescence polarization assay, indicating a higher binding affinity of the stapled peptide 4 compared to the linear peptide 5. Similar results were obtained conducting the same cellular microscopy experiments but in the presence of protease inhibitors (S9 Fig in S1 File). This shows that the differences in cell permeability and subcellular localization observed for peptides FITC-4 and FITC-5 were most probably not caused by selective degradation of the unstapled peptide by residual protease activity (S9 Fig in S1 File). In addition to binding nuclei in fixed and permeabilized cells, the FITC labeled peptide FITC-4 also showed high membrane permeability in living cells (Fig 5). After incubation in the presence of 10 μM of peptide FITC-4 and subsequent washing, cytosolic and nuclear localization of the peptide was observed, with increased signal in nuclear substructures that resemble nucleoli (Fig 5B).

Fig 5. Cell permeability of peptide 4 in living cells.

Fig 5

A: Representative combined image of HeLa cells treated with FITC labeled peptide 4 under serum- free conditions. Propidium iodide was added to stain a small subpopulation of necrotic and late apoptotic cells, which are permeable due to membrane defects. B: Localization of peptide 4 in the cytosol and enrichment in nuclear substructures (yellow arrows).

Addition of the membrane impermeable dye propidium iodide confirmed that uptake of peptide FITC-4 was not simply due to defects in the plasma membrane and that the majority of peptide-containing cells were alive. Based on these findings, we will focus on another round of improved stapled peptides guided by our presented design and results in the future, maintaining the stapling system featured by peptide 4 (i,i+7) and focusing on the modification of aa of the aforementioned group c) (see above).

Conclusion

In summary, we successfully designed and synthesized a library of Nrf2 derived stapled peptides to address nucleic acids in cells. For one of these peptides, we successfully demonstrate nucleic acid binding and efficient uptake in living cells. The stapled peptides were designed to bind the major groove of a specific DNA sequence known as the antioxidant response element. In cells, compared to its linear counterpart, the stapled derivative exhibited elevated binding, in particular to nuclear areas. Indicated by the electrophoretic mobility shift experiments and the fluorescence polarization assay, the stapled peptides 14 show an improved binding affinity for DNA than unstapled peptide 5 and the scrambled peptide 6, but still require optimization in terms of the selectivity towards different DNA sequences. Recently, Simov et al. reported a series of peptides that demonstrate high affinity and selective binding to the Antioxidant Response Element (ARE) DNA and thereby displace NRF2 from its promoter, indicating the general applicability of this approach [33]. Further studies for the optimization of sequence specificity of our peptide library are underway. For this purpose, replacement of critical amino acids with, e.g., unnatural mimetics could render the peptides more potent.

The approach described above will, however, not only be applicable to DNA but also represents a promising tool to address RNA. Folding of RNAs into secondary structures like loops, pseudo-knots, and quadruplexes are frequently found in RNA and can be associated with a gain of function for these molecules [3436]. Tight hydrogen bonds within these folded nucleic acids render therapeutic means like RNAi futile [34, 36]. Small molecules are also prone to fail in such cases due to the large shallow surface areas that these RNAs offer for binding. Thus, employing stapled peptides to address these nucleic acid structures might yield a better understanding of their function to ultimately facilitate the treatment of associated diseases. However, due to the overall negative charge of nucleic acids, great care must be taken to ensure that nonspecific electrostatic interactions do not interfere with the desired specific binding, requiring careful design and evaluation of the stapled peptide library.

Supporting information

S1 File

(DOCX)

S1 Raw images

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Tom Grossmann and Adrian Glas for helpful discussions.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This work was co funded by the German Federal ministry for Education and Research (NGFNPlus and e:Med) (Grant No. BMBF 01GS08104, 01ZX1303C), the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), the German federal state North Rhine Westphalia (NRW) and the European Union (European Regional Development Fund: Invest In Your Future) (EFRE-800400), NEGECA (PerMed NRW) and EMODI. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Moi P et al.; Isolation of NF-E2-related factor 2 (Nrf2), a NF-E2-like basic leucine zipper transcriptional activator that binds to the tandem NF-E2/AP1 repeat of the beta-globin locus control region. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America vol. 91,21 (1994): 9926–30. doi: 10.1073/pnas.91.21.9926 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Itoh K., Chiba T., Takahashi S., Ishii T., Igarashi K., Katoh Y., et al T.; An Nrf2/Small Maf Heterodimer Mediates the Induction of Phase II Detoxifying Enzyme Genes through Antioxidant Response Elements. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1997, 236, 313–322. doi: 10.1006/bbrc.1997.6943 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Ma Qiang, Role of Nrf2 in Oxidative Stress and Toxicity; Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology 2013. 53:1, 401–426. doi: 10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-011112-140320 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.de la Vega M. R., Chapman E., & Zhang D. D. (2018). NRF2 and the hallmarks of cancer. Cancer cell, 34(1), 21–43. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2018.03.022 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Pajares M., Cuadrado A., Rojo A. I.; Modulation of proteostasis by transcription factor NRF2 and impact in neurodegenerative diseases. Redox Biol 2017, 11, 543–553. doi: 10.1016/j.redox.2017.01.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Wang X. J., Sun Z., Villeneuve N. F., Zhang S., Zhao F., Li Y., et al.; Nrf2 enhances resistance of cancer cells to chemotherapeutic drugs, the dark side of Nrf2. Carcinogenesis 2008, 29, 1235–1243. doi: 10.1093/carcin/bgn095 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Hayes J. D., McMahon M.; NRF2 and KEAP1 mutations: permanent activation of an adaptive response in cancer. Trends in biochemical sciences 2009, 34, 176–188. doi: 10.1016/j.tibs.2008.12.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Shen G., Kong A. N.; Nrf2 plays an important role in coordinated regulation of Phase II drug metabolism enzymes and Phase III drug transporters. Biopharm Drug Dispos 2009, 30, 345–355. doi: 10.1002/bdd.680 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Ma Q.; Role of Nrf2 in Oxidative Stress and Toxicity. Annual review of pharmacology and toxicology 2013, 53, 401–426. doi: 10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-011112-140320 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.de Vega M. J., Martin-Martinez M., Gonzalez-Muniz R.; Modulation of Protein-Protein Interactions by Stabilizing/Mimicking Protein Secondary Structure Elements. Current topics in medicinal chemistry 2007, 7, 33–62. doi: 10.2174/156802607779318325 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Bykov V. J. N., Eriksson S. E., Bianchi J., Wiman K. G.; Targeting mutant p53 for efficient cancer therapy. Nat Rev Cancer 2018. doi: 10.1038/nrc.2017.109 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Lau A., Villeneuve N. F., Sun Z., Wong P. K., Zhang D. D.; Dual roles of Nrf2 in cancer. Pharmacological research: the official journal of the Italian Pharmacological Society 2008, 58, 262–270. doi: 10.1016/j.phrs.2008.09.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Rotblat B., Melino G., Knight R. A.; NRF2 and p53: Januses in cancer? Oncotarget 2012, 3, 1272–1283. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.754 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Payne S. R., Pau D. I., Whiting A. L., Kim Y. J., Pharoah B. M., Moi C., et al.; Inhibition of Bacterial Gene Transcription with an RpoN-Based Stapled Peptide. Cell Chem Biol 2018, 25, 1059–1066. doi: 10.1016/j.chembiol.2018.05.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Nekkanti S., Tokala R., Shankaraiah N.; Targeting DNA minor Groove by Hybrid Molecules as Anticancer Agents. Curr Med Chem 2017, 24, 2887–2907. doi: 10.2174/0929867324666170523102730 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Kim Y. W., Grossmann T. N., Verdine G. L.; Synthesis of all-hydrocarbon stapled α-helical peptides by ring-closing olefin metathesis. Nature protocols 2011, 6, 761–771. doi: 10.1038/nprot.2011.324 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Bayliss R., Burgess S. G., McIntyre P. J.; Switching Aurora-A kinase on and off at an allosteric site. FEBS J 2017, 284, 2947–2954. doi: 10.1111/febs.14069 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Chee S. M. Q., Wongsantichon J., Siau J., Thean D., Ferrer F., Robinson R. C., et al.; Structure-activity studies of Mdm2/Mdm4-binding stapled peptides comprising non-natural amino acids. PLoS One 2017, 12, e0189379. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189379 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Dietrich L., Rathmer B., Ewan K., Bange T., Heinrichs S., Dale T. C., et al.; Getting a Grip on the Undrugged: Targeting β-Catenin with Fragment-Based Methods. Cell Chem Biol 2017, 24, 958–968 e955. doi: 10.1002/cmdc.202000839 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Findeisen F., Campiglio M., Jo H., Abderemane-Ali F., Rumpf C. H., Pope L., et al.; Stapled Voltage-Gated Calcium Channel (CaV) α-Interaction Domain (AID) Peptides Act As Selective Protein–Protein Interaction Inhibitors of CaV Function. ACS Chem Neurosci 2017, 8, 1313–1326. doi: 10.1021/acschemneuro.6b00454 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Fulton M. D., Hanold L. E., Ruan Z., Patel S., Beedle A. M., Kannan N., et al.; Conformationally constrained peptides target the allosteric kinase dimer interface and inhibit EGFR activation. Bioorg Med Chem 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.bmc.2017.08.051 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Luong H. X., Kim D. H., Lee B. J., Kim Y. W.; Antimicrobial activity and stability of stapled helices of polybia-MP1. Arch Pharm Res 2017, 40, 1414–1419. doi: 10.1007/s12272-017-0963-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Wachter F., Morgan A. M., Godes M., Mourtada R., Bird G. H., Walensky L. D.: Mechanistic validation of a clinical lead stapled peptide that reactivates p53 by dual HDM2 and HDMX targeting. Oncogene 2017, 36, 2184–2190. doi: 10.1038/onc.2016.361 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Wu Y., Li Y. H., Li X., Zou Y., Liao H. L., Liu L., et al.; A novel peptide stapling strategy enables the retention of ring-closing amino acid side chains for the Wnt/β-catenin signalling pathway. Chem Sci 2017, 8, 7368–7373. doi: 10.1039/c7sc02420g [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Cromm P. M., Wallraven K., Glas A., Bier D., Fürstner A., Ottmann C., et al.; Constraining an Irregular Peptide Secondary Structure through Ring‐Closing Alkyne Metathesis. Chembiochem 2016, 17, 1915–1919. doi: 10.1002/cbic.201600362 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Perell G. T., Staebell R. L., Hairani M., Cembran A., Pomerantz W. C. K.; Tuning Sulfur Oxidation States on Thioether-Bridged Peptide Macrocycles for Modulation of Protein Interactions. Chembiochem 2017, 18, 1836–1844. doi: 10.1002/cbic.201700222 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Wu H., Acharyya A., Wu Y., Liu L., Jo H., Gai F., et al.; Design of a Short Thermally Stable α-Helix Embedded in a Macrocycle. Chembiochem 2018, 19, 902–906. doi: 10.1002/cbic.201800026 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Bakail M., Rodriguez-Marin S., Hegedus Z., Perrin M. E., Ochsenbein F., Wilson A. J.; Recognition of ASF1 by Using Hydrocarbon‐Constrained Peptides. Chembiochem 2019, 20, 891–895. doi: 10.1002/cbic.201800633 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Molecular Operating Environment (MOE), 2013.08; Chemical Computing Group ULC, 1010 Sherbooke St. West, Suite #910, Montreal, QC, Canada, H3A 2R7, 2013.
  • 30.Wallimann P., Kennedy R.J. and Kemp D.S. (1999), Large Circular Dichroism Ellipticities for N-Templated Helical Polypeptides Are Inconsistent with Currently Accepted Helicity Algorithms. Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 38: 1290–1292. doi: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Rupert P. B., Daughdrill G. W., Bowerman B., Matthews B. W.; A new DNA-binding motif in the Skn-1 binding domain–DNA complex. Nature structural biology 1998, 5, 484–491. doi: 10.1038/nsb0698-484 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Yamamoto T., Kyo M., Kamiya T., Tanaka T., Engel J. D., Motohashi H., et al.; Predictive base substitution rules that determine the binding and transcriptional specificity of Maf recognition elements. Genes Cells 2006, 11, 575–591. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2443.2006.00965.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Simov Vladimir, Altman Michael D., Bianchi Elisabetta, DelRizzo Sonia, DiNunzio Edward N., Feng Guo, et al., Discovery and characterization of novel peptide inhibitors of the NRF2/MAFG/DNA ternary complex for the treatment of cancer, European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, Volume 224, 2021, 113686, ISSN 0223-5234. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmech.2021.113686 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Klein A. F., Gasnier E., Furling D.; Gain of RNA function in pathological cases: Focus on myotonic dystrophy. Biochimie 2011, 93, 2006–2012. doi: 10.1016/j.biochi.2011.06.028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.O’Rourke J. R., Swanson M. S.; Mechanisms of RNA-mediated Disease. J Biol Chem 2009, 284, 7419–7423. doi: 10.1074/jbc.R800025200 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Bernat V., Disney M. D.; RNA Structures as Mediators of Neurological Diseases and as Drug Targets. Neuron 2015, 87, 28–46. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2015.06.012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Alessio Lodola

2 Apr 2022

PONE-D-22-01699Design and Synthesis of Nrf2-Derived Hydrocarbon Stapled Peptides for the Disruption of Protein-DNA-InteractionsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Rauh,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration also based on my own reading, we feel that it has scientific 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. Editor's suggestions1) Could the authors give more details about the homology modeling  procedure in the main text (now is reported in the SI)? It is a critical part of the work as it has inspired the design and synthesis of the peptide library.2) The authors  commented on the flexibility of their approach which could lead to agents able to interfere with RNA activity. I agree with their vision, but I suggest them to also mention the potential selectivity issues emerging from the direct targeting of nucleic acids with peptides.  Please submit your revised manuscript by May 17 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're 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.

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). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alessio Lodola, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

1. 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

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“We are grateful to Tom Grossmann and Adrian Glas for helpful discussions. This work was co funded by the German Federal ministry for Education and Research (NGFNPlus and e:Med) (Grant No. BMBF 01GS08104, 01ZX1303C), the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), the German federal state North Rhine Westphalia (NRW) and the European Union (European Regional Development Fund: Invest In Your Future) (EFRE-800400), NEGECA (PerMed NRW) and EMODI.”

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

 “This work was co-funded by the German Federal ministry for Education and Research (NGFNPlus and e:Med) (Grant No. BMBF 01GS08104, 01ZX1303C), the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), the German federal state North Rhine Westphalia (NRW) and the European Union (European Regional Development Fund: Invest In Your Future) (EFRE-800400), NEGECA (PerMed NRW) and EMODI.

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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

**********

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: The authors describe the design, synthesis and testing of stapled peptides meant to target a specific DNA sequence. The authors show convincingly that the peptides bind to DNA, albeit they are not specific to the targeted sequence but bind to other DNA sequences equally well.

The experiments are generally described and carried out well, thus the results are well worse publishing in PLOS one. (Note: I am not an expert in peptide synthesis, therefore I can’t comment on this part of the work and my comments relate only to the non-synthesis parts of the manuscript.)

However, the following minor comments should be addressed before publication:

1) The authors treat cells with a linear peptide and a stapled peptide. For the latter one, enrichment in the nucleus was observed and therefore the authors concluded that the enrichment is due to stapling. However, both peptides were used at the same concentration, even so the binding affinity for the stapled peptide for DNA is about 6-fold higher than for the linear one. The authors should therefore discuss if the observed enrichment in the nucleus could be rather driven by affinity than the stapling itself.

2) The result and discussion section ends rather sudden. In the last sentence, it says that the authors decided to embark in a second round of optimization. However, the optimization is not described in the paper. Is there something lacking in the manuscript or is the second round of optimization a future project?

3) Page 7, line 148, “DNA hybridization was performed as described previously”. Is there are reference lacking or do the authors rather mean “above” instead of “previously”?

4) Page 10, line 216, this should read “… is able to induce a mobility shift”

5) Next line: “… at a lower concentration in respect to the unstapled peptide 5 ..”. This is unclear. Should this read “… at a lower concentration than the unstapled peptide 5 …”?

6) Figure S1: Which colour hast the model and which colour the NMR structure?

**********

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: Yes: Ruth Brenk

[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.]

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 PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Jun 22;17(6):e0267651. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0267651.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


11 Apr 2022

Response to Decision Letter: Wiedemann et al.

[PONE-D-22-01699]

Editor’s suggestions

1. Could the authors give more details about the homology modeling procedure in the main text (now is reported in the SI)? It is a critical part of the work as it has inspired the design and synthesis of the peptide library.

We agree that the homology model is an essential part of our presented work. We now include the homology modeling procedure in the main text (line 103-111).

2. The authors commented on the flexibility of their approach which could lead to agents able to interfere with RNA activity. I agree with their vision, but I suggest them to also mention the potential selectivity issues emerging from the direct targeting of nucleic acids with peptides.

We thank the editor for this comment. We now address the selectivity issues in the conclusion.

The text reads:” However, due to the overall negative charge of nucleic acids, great care must be taken to ensure that nonspecific electrostatic interactions do not interfere with the desired specific binding, requiring careful design and evaluation of the stapled peptide library.“

Reviewer #1:

The authors describe the design, synthesis and testing of stapled peptides meant to target a specific DNA sequence. The authors show convincingly that the peptides bind to DNA, albeit they are not specific to the targeted sequence but bind to other DNA sequences equally well. The experiments are generally described and carried out well, thus the results are well worth publishing in PLOS one.

We are very grateful and thank the reviewer for the positive assessment of our manuscript.

1. The authors treat cells with a linear peptide and a stapled peptide. For the latter one, enrichment in the nucleus was observed and therefore the authors concluded that the enrichment is due to stapling. However, both peptides were used at the same concentration, even so the binding affinity for the stapled peptide for DNA is about 6-fold higher than for the linear one. The authors should therefore discuss if the observed enrichment in the nucleus could be rather driven by affinity than the stapling itself.

We thank the reviewer for the comment and agree that the wording needs to be more precise to clarify this. What we meant to say is that stapling increases the affinity of the peptide and thereby leads to stronger binding and enrichment in the nucleus.

The manuscript now reads:” In contrast, only small amounts of linear peptide FITC-5 were detectable in cells and no enrichment in the nucleus could be observed for peptide FITC-5, suggesting that nuclear enrichment of the peptides is dependent on stapling and the resulting higher affinity towards DNA.”

2. The result and discussion section ends rather sudden. In the last sentence, it says that the authors decided to embark in a second round of optimization. However, the optimization is not described in the paper. Is there something lacking in the manuscript or is the second round of optimization a future project?

This point is well taken. We will focus on another round of improved stapled peptides guided by our presented design and results in the future.

To clarify this, we rephrased the sentence:” Based on these findings, we will focus on another round of improved stapled peptides guided by our presented design and results in the future, maintaining the stapling system featured by peptide 4 (i,i+7) and focusing on the modification of aa of the aforementioned group c) (see above).

3. Page 7, line 148, “DNA hybridization was performed as described previously”. Is there are reference lacking or do the authors rather mean “above” instead of “previously”?

We corrected for this. The text now reads:” DNA hybridization was performed as described above.”

4. Page 10, line 216, this should read “… is able to induce a mobility shift”

We corrected for this.

5. Next line: “… at a lower concentration in respect to the unstapled peptide 5 ..”. This is unclear. Should this read “… at a lower concentration than the unstapled peptide 5 …”?

We corrected for this. The sentence now reads: “Additionally, the stapled peptide 4 is able to induce a mobility shift of DNA at a lower concentration than the unstapled peptide 5 (Fig. S6 8).”

6. Figure S1: Which colour has the model and which colour the NMR structure?

We added the colours to make this more clear.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_Wiedemann et al._PLOS ONE.docx

Decision Letter 1

Alessio Lodola

13 Apr 2022

Design and Synthesis of Nrf2-Derived Hydrocarbon Stapled Peptides for the Disruption of Protein-DNA-Interactions

PONE-D-22-01699R1

Dear Dr. Rauh,

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

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. 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 help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- 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.

Kind regards,

Alessio Lodola, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Alessio Lodola

4 May 2022

PONE-D-22-01699R1

Design and Synthesis of Nrf2-Derived Hydrocarbon Stapled Peptides for the Disruption of Protein-DNA-Interactions

Dear Dr. Rauh:

I'm 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 let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, 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.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr Alessio Lodola

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 File

    (DOCX)

    S1 Raw images

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_Wiedemann et al._PLOS ONE.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES