A R T I C L E S
Hollenhorst et al.
With such precedents, we sought an analogous role for
modification of an aminoacyl thioester covalently attached to
DdaD. The adjacent ORF DdaC has homology to the Fe(II)/
R-KG-dependent dioxygenase family of enzymes, which typi-
cally catalyze O2-dependent substrate hydroxylations.12 Ex-
amples of members of this family include the syringomycin
biosynthetic enzyme SyrP30 and the kutzneride pathway en-
zymes KtzO and P,31 which carry out ꢀ-hydroxylations of T
domain-tethered aspartate and glutamate, respectively. In ad-
dition to hydroxylations, members of this family have been
shown to carry out a range of other oxidative transformations.12
Evidence from bioconversion and cell extract studies has
implicated Fe(II)/R-KG enzymes in epoxidation reactions,32,33
but to our knowledge no in vitro characterization of a purified
epoxidase in this class has been reported previously.
In the context of the known dapdiamide family members
(Figure 1A) it seemed likely that DdaC could be an epoxidase
that acts on the fumaroyl/fumaramoyl moiety of an intermediate
tethered in thioester linkage to the T domain of DdaD. In
addition, DdaE is a predicted thioesterase; thus, the tandem
action of DdaD, C, and E could be a branch pathway for
selection and activation of an olefin-containing pathway inter-
mediate, epoxidation, and then hydrolysis to produce an
epoxysuccin(am)oyl building block for condensation with
another monomer via DdaG and/or DdaF. (We have not been
able to heterologously express DdaE in a soluble form in E.
coli to establish such a thioesterase role.)
Validation of the proposed roles for DdaD and DdaC started
with determination of the selectivity of the A domain of DdaD.
Using the classical ATP-[32P]PPi exchange assay, diagnostic
for reversible formation of tightly held (amino)acyl-AMPs in
enzyme active sites, DdaD showed clear preference for
NꢀFmmDAP. The Km value for DdaD with respect to
NꢀFmmDAP was found to be 420 µM, comparable to Km values
reported for other NRPS A domains.28,34,35 These results
provided a key early insight: DdaD is indeed selecting an olefin-
containing pathway intermediate for activation as the AMP
mixed anhydride. This was strongly suggestive that the fuma-
ramoyl moiety of thioester-tethered FmmDAP would be the
species epoxidized.
To validate the second step of A-T didomain function, the
predicted covalent loading of NꢀFmmDAP-AMP onto the Ppant
arm of the T domain of DdaD, we turned to mass spectrometry.
We found that apo-DdaD could be post-translationally converted
to the Ppant-containing holo-DdaD by action of purified Sfp.
Incubation of holo-DdaD with ATP and NꢀFmmDAP allowed
detection of the NꢀFmmDAP-S-Ppant adduct in the T domain
by peptide mass analysis and by the release of the NꢀFmmDAP-
S-Ppant thioester fragment ion. Thus, the second step of A-T
didomain function, the covalent tethering of the substrate
activated by the A domain, was operant.
When DdaC was incubated with the covalent NꢀFmmDAP-
S-DdaD enzyme intermediate, a mass increase of +16 Da was
observed for both the T domain active site tryptic peptide
containing the tethered acyl-DAP thioester and the ejected Ppant
ion. We found that, as anticipated for a member of the Fe(II)/
R-KG family, the activity of DdaC is dependent on R-KG.
Additionally, incubation under 18O2(g) resulted in a +18 Da
mass shift, demonstrating that DdaC uses molecular oxygen as
a cosubstrate.
The ejected pantetheinyl fragment from DdaC/D experiments
had the M + 16 Da mass increase anticipated for the epoxide
product. However, it was formally possible that the introduction
of one oxygen atom into the FmmDAP moiety arose not by
epoxidation of the double bond but by C- or N-hydroxylation
of the DAP residue. MSn fragmentation of Ppant ejection ions
from both HS-DdaD loaded with authentic Nꢀ-trans-EpSmDAP
and from NꢀFmmDAP-S-DdaD incubated with DdaC resulted
in the same fragmentation pattern, suggesting that DdaC indeed
acts as an epoxidase.
Our studies of DdaC have generated a number of questions
to be answered in future investigations. We have not
attempted to determine single-turnover kinetics of the enzyme
because of the difficulty of quantifying its substrate, the
covalent N-acylaminoacyl thioester adduct of DdaD. We have
also been unable to obtain sufficient NꢀEpSmDAP from
DdaC/D incubations to directly determine the stereochemistry
of the epoxide carbons in the product, nor have we yet
evaluated the epoxidation mechanism. In analogy to proposed
mechanisms for Fe(II)/R-KG hydroxylases, an Fe(IV)-oxo
intermediate is the likely oxygen transfer species. However,
whether C-O bond formations are stepwise and ionic or
radical, as suggested in Scheme S2 (Supporting Information),
is yet to be probed.
Additionally, the question arises of why P. agglomerans
makes both the enamide electrophile (fumaramoyl) and the
epoxide electrophile (epoxysuccinamoyl) as parallel N-acyl
warheads in this antibiotic family. Two future studies will
compare the epoxysuccinamoyl versus the fumaramoyl
groups. First, minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC)
determinations of the Nꢀ molecules dapdiamide A and
NꢀEpSmDAP-Val will test for any differences in uptake by
susceptible bacteria and fungi. Once taken up by the
oligopeptide permease systems, intracellular proteases are
thought to liberate the Nꢀ-acyl-DAPs as the proximal
inactivators for glucosamine synthase. Thus, it will be useful
to compare FmmDAP and EpSmDAP side by side against
the target enzyme to determine inactivation efficiencies. It
is possible that the epoxide warhead is more selective than
the enamide: the epoxide may require acid catalysis in the
enzyme active site for covalent capture, whereas Michael
addition to the fumaramoyl moiety may not. In that context
a proteomics36 study to evaluate how many proteins in a
susceptible cell are targeted covalently would offer a global
comparison of “off-target” labeling by the two types of
electrophilic N-acyl warheads.
(28) Couch, R.; O’Connor, S. E.; Seidle, H.; Walsh, C. T.; Parry, R. J.
Bacteriol. 2004, 186, 35–42.
(29) Vaillancourt, F. H.; Yeh, E.; Vosburg, D. A.; O’Connor, S. E.; Walsh,
C. T. Nature 2005, 436, 1191–1194.
(30) Singh, G. M.; Fortin, P.; Koglin, A.; Walsh, C. T. Biochemistry 2008,
47, 11310–11320.
(31) Strieker, M.; Nolan, E. M.; Walsh, C. T.; Marahiel, M. A. J. Am.
Chem. Soc. 2009, 131, 13523–13530.
(32) Watanabe, M.; Sumida, N.; Murakami, S.; Anzai, H.; Thompson, C. J.;
Tateno, Y.; Murakami, T. Appl. EnViron. Microbiol. 1999, 65, 1036–
1044.
Acknowledgment. We thank Emily Balskus, Christopher Neu-
mann, Elizabeth Sattely, and Albert Bowers for helpful discussions.
We thank John Heemstra for providing synthetic BODIPY-CoA,
(33) Hashimoto, T.; Matsuda, J.; Yamada, Y. FEBS Lett. 1993, 329, 35–
39.
(34) Mootz, H. D.; Marahiel, M. A. J. Bacteriol. 1997, 179, 6843–6850.
(35) Ehmann, D. E.; Shaw-Reid, C. A.; Losey, H. C.; Walsh, C. T. Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2000, 97, 2509–2514.
(36) Han, X.; Aslanian, A.; Yates, J. R., III. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2008,
12, 483–490.
9
15780 J. AM. CHEM. SOC. VOL. 132, NO. 44, 2010