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.

A biochemical analysis into the co-translational folding of a G protein-coupled receptor; GPR35

The folding and targeting of membrane proteins poses a major challenge to the cell, as they must remain insertion competent while their highly hydrophobic transmembrane (TM) domains are transferred from the ribosome, through the aqueous cytosol and into the lipid bilayer. The biogenesis of a mature membrane protein takes place through the insertion and integration into the lipid bilayer. A number of TM proteins have been shown to gain some degree of secondary structure within the ribosome tunnel and to retain this conformation throughout maturation. Although studies into the folding and targeting of a number of membrane proteins have been carried out to date, there is little information on one of the largest class of eukaryotic membrane proteins; the G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). This project studies the early folding events of the human ortholog of GPR35. To analyse the structure of the 1st TM domain, intermediates were generated and assessed by the biochemical method of pegylation (PEG-MAL). A structurally-similar microbial opsin (Bacterioopsin) was also used to investigate the differences in the early protein folding within eukaryotic and prokaryotic translation systems. Results showed that neither the 1st TM domain of GPR35 nor Bacterioopsin were capable of compacting in the ribosome tunnel before their N-terminus reached the ribosome exit point. The results for this assay remained consistent whether the proteins were translated in a eukaryotic or prokaryotic translation system. To examine the communication mechanism between the ribosome, the nascent chain and the protein targeting pathway, crosslinking experiments were carried out using the homobifunctional lysine cross-linker BS3. Specifically, the data generated here show that the nascent chain of GPR35 reaches the ribosomal protein uL23 in an extended conformation and interacts with the SRP protein as it exits the ribosome tunnel. This confirms the role of SRP in the co-translational targeting of GPR35. Using these methods insights into the early folding of GPCRs has been obtained. Further experiments using site-directed mutagenesis to reduce hydrophobicity in the 1st TM domain of GPR35, highlighted the mechanisms by which GPCRs are targeted to the endoplasmic reticulum. Confirming that hydrophobicity within the signal anchor sequence is essential of SRP-dependent targeting. Following the successful interaction of the nascent GPR35 and SRP, GPR35 is successfully targeted to ER membranes, shown here as dog pancreas microsomes (DPMs). Glycosylation of the GPR35 N-terminus was used to determine nascent chain structure as it is inserted into the ER membrane. These glycosylation experiments confirm that TM1 has obtained its compacted state whilst residing in the translocon. Finally, a site-specific cross-linking approach using the homobifunctional cysteine cross-linker, BMH, was used to study the lateral integration of GPR35 into the ER. Cross-linking of GPR35 TM1 and TM2 could be detected adjacent to a protein of ~45kDa, believed to be Sec61α. The loss of this adduct, as the nascent chain extends, showed the lateral movement of GPR35 TM1 from the translocon was dependent on the subsequent synthesis of TM2.