$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
Cytosolic glutathione S-transferase enzymes (GSTs, EC 2.5.1.18) catalyze the conjugation of glutathione (GSH) into various electrophilic compounds, such as chemotherapeutic agents, to detoxify and eliminate them easily from the body1. Seven isoforms of cytosolic GST have been identified as alpha, mu, pi, sigma, omega, theta, and zeta. GSTs are mainly expressed in the liver, testes, lungs, and gastrointestinal tract2. The GST alpha 1 (GSTA1) isoform is highly expressed in hepatocytes. The body heterogeneously expresses other subtypes, including GST pi 1 (GSTP1) predominantly in the brain, heart, and lungs, and GST mu 1 (GSTM1) in the liver and testes3. Although there is high sequence homology between GST isoforms, each exhibits substrate specificity and is implicated in drug metabolism and cancer in different ways, according to its differential expression4,5.
Electrophilic compounds either enter the body exogenously or are produced endogenously. Pesticides, prostaglandins, carcinogens, and chemotherapeutic drugs are some of the potential substrates for glutathione conjugation reactions6. For example, any electron-deficient reactive compound formed within a cell is likely to become an electrophilic substrate. Alkylating agents such as chlorambucil or melphalan are eliminated as conjugates of GSH catalyzed by GSTs, and increased levels of these enzymes have been correlated with resistance to these compounds6,7.
Another important role of cytosolic GSTs is regulating the activity of mitogen-activated protein kinases (MAPK) such as MAPK8 (also known as c-Jun N-terminal kinase, or JNK1) and MAP3K5 (also known as apoptosis signal-regulating kinase 1, or ASK1)8. Some isoforms in their monomeric conformation will bind to these proteins and thus block the phosphorylation cascade. Under normal conditions, the GSTP1 isoform will sequester MAPK8 (the activator of the c-Jun protein). Combining the c-Jun with the c-Fos protein forms the activator protein 1 (AP-1) transcription factor, which is responsible for transcribing pro-apoptotic genes. In stressed cells, the complex formed by GSTP1 and MAPK8 dissociates, c-Jun is activated, and the genes leading to apoptosis start to be expressed9. Greater expression of this GST isoform might therefore block the pathway, leading to increased cell viability, more cellular proliferation, and lower cellular sensitivity to chemotherapy. Similar scenarios may occur with paralogs of GSTP1, for example, GSTM1, which interacts with MAP3K510.
The roles played by GSTs in drug metabolism and in the sequestration of MAPKs led to the hypothesis that a greater expression of GSTs might be a sign of a tumoral resistance mechanism to chemotherapeutic treatment6,11. For example, GSTP1 is overexpressed in numerous cancers and its presence has been correlated with a poor prognosis and an increased incidence of relapse8. Polymorphism in these genes has also shown differential drug exposure and survival rates for patients presenting various diseases, reinforcing the idea that these enzymes are crucial to mechanisms of drug resistance. For instance, individuals with the GSTM1 null genotype are associated with lower drug clearance and better survival12,13. There are several potential means of countering this overexpression, such as the use of GSH analogues, prodrugs that are activated by conjugation with GSTs, or direct GST inhibitors14,15.
All these methods are currently under investigation, and a few compounds have begun clinical trials for their potential usage among patients. However, to the best of our knowledge, there are no compounds in use as GST inhibitors in clinical settings15. Indeed, a lack of specificity for certain isoforms or the depletion of GSH in normal cells, which may lead to toxicities caused by the accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) in organ systems, are just some of the drawbacks which reduce the potential of GST inhibitors14,15. The risk that these compounds might exert other pharmacodynamic effects on the body are also limiting their usage. Ethacrynic acid, for instance, is the most widely studied GST inhibitor in laboratory environments, but because it is primarily used as a strong diuretic, this property limits its use in combination with other drugs in clinical settings. Curcumin is another natural compound successfully screened as a GST inhibitor. This molecule is a polyphenol ether extracted from the Curcuma longa species of turmeric. It has shown promising results as a possible treatment option against cancer by inducing the apoptosis of various kind of tumor cell lines16,17. The compound can regulate diverse cellular pathways, such as the tyrosine kinase18 or the GST pathway. Studies with pure proteins have shown its inhibition potency on GSTA1, GSTM1 and GSTP119,20. However, conflicting results were observed in cancer cells, where greater intracellular GST activity was measured when cells were treated with curcumin21. Thus, it is important to investigate half-maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50) and the constant of inhibition (Ki) of any putative GST inhibitor using a clearly described protocol with proper controls before planning any further cellular experiments.
Screening and testing potential new GST inhibitors is therefore of significant clinical interest, and any new compound found must be safe and efficient for use in combination with electrophilic drugs. Focusing research on isoform-specific inhibitors might enable GST inhibition in tumor tissues exhibiting specific patterns of GST expression, thus allowing the development of an effective combination therapy. Finding inhibitors with differential modes of inhibition might also be of interest. For instance, a competitive inhibitor that uses GSH as a substrate can induce its depletion. This reduction of the GSH concentration in cells was shown to induce oxidative stress in neurons, leading to apoptosis. Another common mode of inhibition—uncompetitive inhibition—cannot be reversed even if the substrate is present in high concentrations.
The rate of enzymatic activity is represented by the Michaelis-Menten constant (Km) and the maximum velocity (Vmax), which can be determined by plotting a Michaelis-Menten graph, with the substrate concentration against the velocity of the reaction23. Km is the concentration of substrate required to occupy half the enzymatic active sites, meaning that a high Km represent less affinity. Vmax represents the maximum velocity of the reaction, reached when all the active sites are occupied by the substrate. Km is equal to half Vmax. There are three most common modes of inhibition: competitive, uncompetitive, and noncompetitive. In case of competitive inhibition, the inhibitor binds to the active site of the enzyme and competes with the substrate. Hence, Vmax does not change after addition of the inhibitor, but Km increases, as more substrate is needed to counter the inhibition. Uncompetitive inhibition occurs only when the substrate forms a complex with the enzyme. In this case, as the level of inhibition depends on the substrate and enzyme concentration, Vmax and Km decrease when the inhibitor is added to the reaction. The last mode of inhibition is non-competitive and is a mix of the two other inhibition patterns. The inhibitor can bind to the active site of the enzyme whether the enzyme is bound to its substrate or not. Here Vmax decreases after addition of the inhibitor, but Km does not change24.
A spectrophotometric assay that measured the GST activity was first developed by Habig et al. in 1974 using 1-chloro-2,4-dinitrobenzene (CDNB) as the substrate for the reaction22. Conjugation between GSH and CDNB forms GS-DNB, which exhibits a maximum light absorbance at the wavelength of 340 nm, recordable with a spectrophotometer. Most of the technique explained below is derived from Habig et al., including information on the best settings and important optimization points for an inhibitory assay. The technique can be applied to screening potential GST inhibitors, whether chosen by rational drug selection using computational predictions or by literature review. How to adapt the protocol to newly synthesized GST proteins or specific isoforms is also discussed. For instance, testing the inhibitory potency of GST isoforms exhibiting a clinically relevant polymorphism or of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) could be potential uses for this protocol, targeting patient-specific GSTs.
This protocol provides a quick, feasible, and effective method for the screening of potential GST inhibitors in vitro before any other functional studies. The steps needed to evaluate the most commonly measured characteristics of an enzymatic inhibitor are described: the inhibitory concentration 50 (IC50) that is concentration of inhibitor required to decrease the enzymatic activity by half; and the constant of inhibition (Ki) that represents the equilibrium constant of the dissociation between the inhibitor and the enzyme, characteristic of the affinity between these two molecules. These two values are measured by non-linear regression and using equations specific for each mode of inhibition, respectively. We also demonstrate the assessment of this pattern of inhibition, using Michaelis-Menten plots to determine the change of Vmax and Km after addition of the inhibitor23,25,26.