C O M M U N I C A T I O N S
Figure 2. Changes in activity and membrane affinity of 2 and 2a (Bc,d) in response to ligands 3c (A and B) and 3a (C), blockers (pE, Bf and D), and
enzymes (PLE, E and F) in lipid bilayers. (A) Fractional change in CF emission I (λex 492 nm, λem 517 nm) as a function of time during addition of rod 2
(100 nM (a-g) and 0 nM (h)) and ligand 3c (0 (a), 5 (b), 10 (c), 20 (d), 22 (e), 30 (f), and 50 µM (g and h)) to EYPC-LUVs⊃CF (250 µM EYPC) in buffer
(10 mM HEPES, 107 mM NaCl, pH 7.0), calibrated by final lysis (excess Triton X-100). (B) Same for addition sequences (a) 2 (100 nM), (b) 2 (100 nM)
f 3c (50 µM), (c) 3c (50 µM) f 2a (1 µM), (d) 2a (1 µM), (e) 2 (100 nM) f 3c (50 µM) f EYPC-LUVs⊃CF (250 µM EYPC), and (f) 3b (6 µM) f
2 (500 nM) f pE (1 µM). (C) Fractional activity of pore 2 (500 nM) as a function of the concentration of ligand 3a (b, fit to Hill eq) and BODIPY emission
under identical conditions (×). (D) Fractional activity of pore 2 (500 nM) with ligand 3a (1 µM) as a function of the concentration of blocker pE (b, fit to
Hill eq) and BODIPY emission under identical conditions (×). (E) Fractional change in CF emission I as a function of time during addition of rod 2 (100
nM), proligand 5 (600 µM), and pig liver esterase (0 (a), 0.10 (b), 0.25 (c), 0.50 (d), 1.00 (e), and 10.0 units/ml (f)) to EYPC-LUVs⊃CF (250 µM EYPC).
(F) Initial velocity of formation of ligand 3c as a function of esterase concentration (summary E).
Table 1. Data on Ligand Gating and Blockage of Pore 1a
Acknowledgment. We thank A. Som and N. Sorde´ for
IC50 (nM)c
IC50 (nM)c
heparin
experimental assistance, D. Jeannerat, A. Pinto, and J.-P. Saulnier
for NMR measurements, P. Perrottet and the group of F. Gu¨lac¸ar
for ESI-MS, H. Eder for elemental analyses, one referee for helpful
suggestions, and the Swiss NSF (200020-101486 and National
Research Program “Supramolecular Functional Materials” 4047-
057496; S.M.), Delta Proteomics (A.N.L.), and the CNRS (A.W.C.)
for financial support.
liganda
EC50
(
µ
M)b
polyglutamate
3a
3b
3c
0.44 ( 0.04
3.30 ( 0.50
14.80 ( 2.40
42.0 ( 2.2
47.0 ( 4.0
41.0 ( 7.1
24.6 ( 3.3
19.0 ( 1.2
4.2 ( 0.5
a See Figure 1 for structures. b Concentration of ligand 3 required for
50% pore activation. c Concentration of blocker required for 50% pore
blockage.
Supporting Information Available: Experimental details and brief
discussion of FRET experiments. This material is available free of
surface, whereas pE was recognized by spatially separated internal
active sites to give complex 4 (Figure 1). The functional evidence
for noncompetitive pore blockage was corroborated on the structural
level by unchanged FRET from fluorescent pore 1 to BODIPY
lipids during blockage by pE (Figure 2D(×)).
References
(1) Sakai, N.; Matile, S. Chem. Commun. 2003, 2514-2523.
(2) Matile, S.; Som, A.; Sorde´, N. Tetrahedron 2004, 60, 6405-6435.
(3) Gokel, G. W.; Mukhopadhyay, A. Chem. Soc. ReV. 2001, 30, 274-286.
(4) Kirkovits, G. J.; Hall, C. D. AdV. Supramol. Chem. 2000, 7, 1-47.
(5) Scrimin, P.; Tecilla, P. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 1999, 3, 730-735.
(6) Bayley, H.; Cremer, P. S. Nature 2001, 413, 226-230.
(7) Terrettaz, S.; Ulrich, W.-P.; Guerrini, R.; Verdini, A.; Vogel, H. Angew.
Chem., Int. Ed. 2001, 40, 1740-1743.
(8) Deamer, D. W.; Branton, D. Acc. Chem. Res. 2002, 35, 817-825.
(9) The terms “ligand gating” and “blockage” together with “open(ing)” and
“close/closing” are used to refer explicitly to function without any
structural implications (i.e., increase and decrease in “pore activity” in
response to ligands and blockers, respectively). We emphasize that the
structural basis of “ligand gating” in this study (i.e., ligand-mediated
changes in pore-membrane interactions) is designed to differ from many
cases of biological “ligand gating” (i.e., ligand-mediated changes in pore/
channel conformation).
We have previously shown that synthetic multifunctional pores
are of practical use as adaptable detectors of enzyme activity.15,16
The continuous detection of enzyme activity was, however,
problematic with pores that operate on blockage because substrates
bound within pores seem to be less accessible to enzymes, whereas
continuous detection of pore closing upon production of blockers
is incompatible with routine fluorescence detection. This challenge
was therefore ideal for probing the practical usefulness of ligand-
gated pore sensors. Pyrenebutyrate methylester 5 was considered
as a substrate of pig liver esterase (PLE) that would yield ligand
3c as a product (Figure 1). Addition of PLE to a mixture of substrate
5, rod 2, and CF vesicles caused the CF efflux indicative for
“enzyme gating” (Figure 2E). Linear dependence on enzyme
concentration suggested that the observed initial velocity of CF
efflux reflected the initial velocity of ligand formation (i.e., enzyme
kinetics (Figure 2F)). We summarize that the rational design of
synthetic multifunctional pores that can be opened9 and closed
noncompetitively by external ligands9 and internal blockers is
possible, and that such pores can be of practical use for, namely,
the continuous fluorometric detection of chemical processes.
(10) Sakai, N.; Matile, S. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2003, 125, 14348-14356.
(11) Da Silva, E.; Lazar, A. N.; Coleman, A. W. J. Drug Del. Sci. Technol.
2004, 14, 3-20.
(12) Das, G.; Matile, S. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2002, 99, 5183-5188.
(13) Weiss, L. A.; Sakai, N.; Ghebremariam, B.; Ni, C.; Matile, S. J. Am.
Chem. Soc. 1997, 119, 12142-12149.
(14) Mohamadi, F.; Richards, N. G. J.; Guida, W. C.; Liskamp, R.; Lipton,
M.; Caufield, C.; Chang, G.; Hendrickson, T.; Still, W. C. J. Comput.
Chem. 1990, 11, 440-467. (b) Halgren, T. A. J. Comput. Chem. 1999,
20, 720-748.
(15) Das, G.; Talukdar, P.; Matile, S. Science 2002, 298, 1600-1602.
(16) Sorde´, N.; Das, G.; Matile, S. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2003, 100,
11964-11969.
JA045987+
9
J. AM. CHEM. SOC. VOL. 126, NO. 42, 2004 13593