Comparison of the modes of action of Apremilast and Roflumilast

The phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) family are cAMP specific phosphodiesterases that play an important role in the inflammatory response and is the major PDE type found in inflammatory cells. A significant number of PDE4 specific inhibitors have been developed and are currently being investigated for use as therapeutic agents. Apremilast, a small molecule inhibitor of PDE 4 is in development for chronic inflammatory disorders and has shown promise for the treatment of psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis as well as other inflammatory diseases. It has been found to be safe and well tolerated in humans and in March 2014 it was approved by the US food and drug administration for the treatment of adult patients with active psoriatic arthritis. The only other PDE4 inhibitor on the market is Roflumilast and it is used for treatment of respiratory disease. Roflumilast is approved in the EU for the treatment of COPD and was recently approved in the US for treatment to reduce the risk of COPD exacerbations. Roflumilast is also a selective PDE4 inhibitor, administered as an oral tablet once daily, and is thought to act by increasing cAMP within lung cells. As both (Apremilast and Roflumilast) compounds selectively inhibit PDE4 but are targeted at different diseases, there is a need for a clear understanding of their mechanism of action (MOA). Differences and similarity of MOA should be defined for the purposes of labelling, for communication to the scientific community, physicians, and patients, and for an extension of utility to other diseases and therapeutic areas. In order to obtain a complete comparative picture of the MOA of both inhibitors, additional molecular and cellular biology studies are required to more fully elucidate the signalling mediators downstream of PDE4 inhibition which result in alterations in pro- and anti-inflammatory gene expression. My studies were conducted to directly compare Apremilast with Roflumilast, in order to substantiate the differences observed in the molecular and cellular effects of these compounds, and to search for other possible differentiating effects. Therefore the main aim of this thesis was to utilise cutting-edge biochemical techniques to discover whether Apremilast and Roflumilast work with different modes of action. In the first part of my thesis I used novel genetically encoded FRET based cAMP sensors targeted to different intracellular compartments, in order to monitor cAMP levels within specific microdomains of cells as a consequence of challenge with Apremilast and Roflumilast, which revealed that Apremilast and Roflumilast do regulate different pools of cAMP in cells. In the second part of my thesis I focussed on assessing whether Apremilast and Roflumilast cause differential effects on the PKA phosphorylation state of proteins in cells. I used various biochemical techniques (Western blotting, Substrate kinase arrays and Reverse Phase Protein array and found that Apremilast and Roflumilast do lead to differential PKA substrate phosphorylation. For example I found that Apremilast increases the phosphorylation of Ribosomal Protein S6 at Ser240/244 and Fyn Y530 in the S6 Ribosomal pathway of Rheumatoid Arthritis Synovial fibroblast and HEK293 cells, whereas Roflumilast does not. This data suggests that Apremilast has distinct biological effects from that of Roflumilast and could represent a new therapeutic role for Apremilast in other diseases. In the final part of my thesis, Phage display technology was employed in order to identify any novel binding motifs that associate with PDE4 and to identify sequences that were differentially regulated by the inhibitors in an attempt to find binding motifs that may exist in previously characterised signalling proteins. Petide array technology was then used to confirm binding of specific peptide sequences or motifs. Results showed that Apremilast and Roflumilast can either enhance or decrease the binding of PDE4A4 to specific peptide sequences or motifs that are found in a variety of proteins in the human proteome, most interestingly Ubiquitin-related proteins. The data from this chapter is preliminary but may be used in the discovery of novel binding partners for PDE4 or to provide a new role for PDE inhibition in disease. Therefore the work in this thesis provides a unique snapshot of the complexity of the cAMP signalling system and is the first to directly compare action of the two approved PDE4 inhibitors in a detailed way.

Stabilising suppressor of cytokine signalling 3 (SOCS3) protein levels to limit neointimal hyperplasia

Suppressor of cytokine signalling 3 (SOCS3) is a potent inhibitor of the mitogenic, migratory and pro-inflammatory pathways responsible for the development of neointimal hyperplasia (NIH), a key contributor to the failure of vascular reconstructive procedures. However, the protein levels of SOCS3, and therefore its potential to reduce NIH, is limited by its ubiquitylation and high turnover by the proteasome. I hypothesised that stabilisation of endogenous SOCS3 by inhibiting its ubiquitylation has the potential to limit vascular inflammation and NIH. Consequently, the aim of this PhD was to identify the mechanisms promoting the rapid turnover of SOCS3. Initial experiments involved the identification of residues involved in regulating the turnover of SOCS3 at the proteasome. I assessed the ubiquitylation status of a panel of FLAG tagged SOCS3 truncation mutants and identified a C-terminal 44 amino acid region required for SOCS3 ubiquitylation. This region localised to the SOCS box which is involved in binding Elongin B/C and the formation of a functional E3 ubiquitin ligase complex. However, the single lysine residue at position 173, located within this 44 amino acid region, was not required for ubiquitylation. Moreover, Emetine chase assays revealed that loss of either Lys173 or Lys6 (as documented in the literature) had no significant effect on SOCS3 stability 8 hrs post emetine treatment. As mutagenesis studies failed to identify key sites of ubiquitylation responsible for targeting SOCS3 to the proteasome, LC-MS-MS analysis of a SOCS3 co-immunoprecipitate was employed. These data were searched for the presence of a Gly-Gly doublet (+114 Da mass shift) and revealed 8 distinct sites of ubiquitylation (Lys23, Lys28, Lys40, Lys85, Lys91, Lys173, Lys195, Lys206) on SOCS3 however Lys6 ubiquitylation was not detected. As multiple Lys residues were ubiquitylated, I hypothesised that only a Lys-less SOCS3, in which all 8 Lys residues were mutated to Arg, would be resistant to ubiquitylation. Compared to WT SOCS3, Lys-less SOCS3 was indeed found to be completely resistant to ubiquitylation, and significantly more stable than WT SOCS3. These changes occurred in the absence of any detrimental effect on the ability of Lys-less SOCS3 to interact with the Elongin B/C components required to generate a functional E3 ligase complex. In addition, both WT and Lys-less SOCS3 were equally capable of inhibiting cytokine-stimulated STAT3 phosphorylation upon co-expression with a chimeric EpoR-gp130 receptor. To assess whether SOCS3 auto-ubiquitylates I generated an L189A SOCS3 mutant that could no longer bind the Elongins and therefore form the E3 ligase complex required for ubiquitylation. A denaturing IP to assess the ubiquitylation status of this mutant was performed and revealed that, despite an inability to bind the Elongins, the L189A mutant was poly-ubiquitylated similar to WT SOCS3. Together these data suggested that SOCS3 does not auto-ubiquitylate and that a separate E3 ligase must regulate SOCS3 ubiquitylation. This study sought to identify the E3 ligase and deubiquitylating (DUB) enzymes controlling the ubiquitylation of SOCS3. Our initial strategy was to develop a tool to screen an E3 ligase/DUB library, using an siARRAY, to sequentially knockdown all known E3 ligases in the presence of a SOCS3-luciferase fusion protein or endogenous SOCS3 in a high content imaging screening platform. However, due to a poor assay window (<2) and non-specific immunoreactivity of SOCS3 antibodies available, these methods were deemed unsuitable for screening purposes. In the absence of a suitable tool to screen the si-ARRAY, LC-MS-MS analysis of a SOCS3 co-immunoprecipitate (co-IP) was investigated. I performed a SOCS3 under conditions which preserved protein-protein interactions, with the aim of identifying novel E3 ligase and/or DUBs that could potentially interact with SOCS3. These data were searched for E3 ligase or DUB enzymes that may interact with SOCS3 in HEK293 cells and identified two promising candidates i) an E3 ligase known as HectD1 and ii) a DUB known as USP15. This thesis has demonstrated that in the presence of HectD1 overexpression, a slight increase in K63-linked polyubiquitylation of SOCS3 was observed. Mutagenesis also revealed that an N-terminal region of SOCS3 may act as a repressor of this interaction with HectD1. Additionally, USP15 was shown to reduce SOCS3 polyubiquitylation in a HEK293 overexpression system suggesting this may act as a DUB for SOCS3. The C-terminal region of SOCS3 was also shown to play a major role in the interaction with USP15. The original hypothesis of this thesis was that stabilisation of endogenous SOCS3 by inhibiting its ubiquitylation has the potential to limit vascular inflammation and NIH. Consistent with this hypothesis, immunohistochemistry visualisation of SOCS3, in human saphenous vein tissue derived from CABG patients, revealed that while SOCS3 was present throughout the media of these vessels the levels of SOCS3 within the neointima was reduced. Finally, preliminary data supporting the hypothesis that SOCS3 overexpression may limit the proliferation, but not migration, of human saphenous vein smooth muscle cells (HSVSMCs) is presented. It is expected that multiple E3 ligases and DUBs will contribute to the regulation of SOCS3 turnover. However, the identification of candidate E3 ligases or DUBs that play a significant role in SOCS3 turnover may facilitate the development of peptide disruptors or gene therapy targets to attenuate pathological SMC proliferation. A targeted approach, inhibiting the interaction between SOCS3 and identified E3 ligase, that controls the levels of SOCS3, would be expected to reduce the undesirable effects associated with global inhibition of the E3 ligase involved.