Eltanexor | ATPases Signal

Chemoproteomic Profiling of Covalent XPO1 Inhibitors to Assess Target Engagement and Selectivity
Jeffrey G. Martin , Jennifer A. Ward , Felix Feyertag, Lu Zhang, Shalise Couvertier,

Kevin Guckian, Kilian V. M. Huber, and Douglas S. Johnson*
[a]

Introduction

Exportin 1 (XPO1), also known as chromosome region main- tenance 1 (CRM1) is a protein transporter involved in shuttling cargo in nucleocytoplasmic transport. XPO1 is responsible for the nuclear export of over 200 different proteins. XPO1 is upregulated in many cancers and, as a result, has become an

attractive anticancer target. It has been proposed that blocking XPO1 offers a mechanism of inhibiting the export of tumor suppressor proteins from their functional location, thereby restoring normal genomic surveillance. In addition, XPO1 inhibitors have been studied in models of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), a progressive neurodegenerative disease that kills motor neurons. For example, inhibition of XPO1 has been reported to extend cellular survival in neuronal models and lessen the severity of motor symptoms in a rat model of ALS. Silencing of XPO1 has also been reported to enhance autophagy by increasing levels of TFEB/HLH-30 in the nucleus in both cellular models and neuroprotection in a fly model of ALS.
XPO1 inhibitors currently in the clinic include selinexor and eltanexor. Selinexor has been approved for use in combina- tion with dexamethasone for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Addi- tionally, selinexor has received Fast Track designation by the FDA for the treatment of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and has been granted orphan designation for both multiple myeloma and DLBCL. Eltanexor is currently undergoing trials in patients with RRMM, metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), and higher-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (HR-MDS). Additional XPO1 inhibitors are being evaluated for the treat- ment ALS.
XPO1 contains a reactive cysteine residue at position 528 inside the XPO1 cargo-binding pocket. Most XPO1 inhibitors, including selinexor and eltanexor, are known to covalently bind to this active site Cys528. Mutation of Cys528

[a] J. G. Martin,

L. Zhang, S. Couvertier, D. S. Johnson
[14]
confers resistance to these inhibitors in anticancer models. Additionally, it has recently been shown that Cys528 is able to

Biogen, Chemical Biology & Proteomics
225 Binney Street, Cambridge, MA 02142 (USA)
E-mail: [email protected]
[b] J. A. Ward, F. Feyertag, K. V. M. Huber
Centre for Medicines Discovery, Nuffield Department of Medicine University of Oxford
Oxford, OX3 7DQ, (UK)
[c] J. A. Ward, F. Feyertag, K. V. M. Huber
⦁ arget Discovery Institute, Nuffield Department of Medicine
⦁ niversity of Oxford
Oxford, OX3 7FZ, (UK)
[d] K. Guckian
Biogen, Medicinal Chemistry
225 Binney Street, Cambridge, MA 02142 (USA)
[ ] These authors contributed equally to this work.
⦁ upporting information for this article is available on the WWW under https://doi.org/10.1002/cbic.202100038⦁
⦁ his article is part of a Special Collection on Chemical Translational Biology. Please see our ⦁ homepage⦁ for more articles in the collection.
be liganded by fragment electrophiles, some of which show structural similarities to selinexor and eltanexor.
Covalent inhibitors have potential advantages over rever- sible compounds, such as increased efficiency where non- equilibrium binding limits the competition with high endoge- nous substrate/ligand concentrations and prolonged target engagement resulting in pharmacodynamic effects that outlast the pharmacokinetics of the inhibitor if the target protein resynthesis is not too fast. However, toxicity issues can be a concern particularly if the compound is promiscuous and lacks specificity. Therefore it is key to understand the target engagement and proteome-wide selectivity of covalent drugs. To this end, the development of chemical probes of covalent inhibitors has enabled selectivity profiling and target engagement studies using both in gel fluorescence and mass

ChemBioChem 2021, 22, 1 –9
These are not the final page numbers!

[16,18–29]
[30,31]
[37]
[38]
[32,33]
[34]
[15,28,29]
[35,36]
[10]

ChemBioChem
Communications
doi.org/10.1002/cbic.202100038

spectrometry readouts. In addition, cellular thermal profiling methods can provide an orthogonal label free way to study target engagement, irrespective of the inhibitor’s mode of binding.
To further understand the proteome-wide selectivity and target engagement of covalent XPO1 inhibitors, we designed alkyne-modified clickable probes based on the structures of selinexor (1) and eltanexor (3; Figure 1) and used them to treat live cells. We selected KMS11, a human patient derived multiple myeloma cell line and SH-SY5Y, a human neuroblastoma cell line, as live cell systems since XPO1 is a therapeutic target in both oncology and ALS. XPO1 is highly expressed in both KMS11 and SH-SY5Y cells. We demonstrate that these probes label XPO1 potently and selectively at sub-micromolar concen- trations, enabling XPO1 target engagement studies through competition experiments with in gel fluorescence and/or quantitative chemical proteomic readouts. In addition, reactive cysteine chemoproteomic profiling and thermal profiling methods were utilized to evaluate the selectivity of selinexor (1) in an orthogonal manner. Isothermal dose response (ITDR) analysis reveals that XPO1 cellular target engagement can be observed at nano-molar inhibitor concen- trations. We expect that these selinexor-yne (2) and eltanexor- yne (4) XPO1 probes, along with the reported ITDR assay, will aid in further understanding the efficacy and biology of XPO1 inhibitors through target engagement studies in relevant cellular and in vivo model systems.

Results and Discussion

Probe design

We developed activity-based probes of the XPO1 inhibitors selinexor (1) and eltanexor (3) by installing alkyne handles to the compounds to provide the clickable probes selinexor-yne (2) and eltanexor-yne (4; Figure 1). The position of the selinexor modification was based on previous knowledge that an analog,

Figure 1. Design of XPO1 clickable probes. Structures of selinexor, selinexor- yne, eltanexor and eltanexor-yne.

which was biotinylated at this position, retained activity and was still able to covalently label XPO1. For eltanexor, the amide position was chosen for the alkyne modification because this portion of the molecule was thought to be solvent exposed based on a crystal structure of XPO1 with a covalent inhibitor.

Probe validation: Labeling, competition, knockdown, and enrichment experiments in live cells

Selinexor-yne (2) labeling was assessed in SH-SY5Y neuro- blastoma cells and eltanexor-yne (4) labeling was assessed in KMS11 cells. Briefly, cells were treated with a concentration range of the probes to determine the optimal concentration for probe labeling. Cells were harvested, lysed, and probe–modified proteins were ligated to a fluorophore azide by copper catalyzed azide –alkyne cycloaddition (CuAAC). Visualization of labeled proteins by in-gel fluorescence revealed that both probes efficiently labeled a prominent band in the correct molecular weight region for XPO1 (123 kDa). For selinexor-yne (2), 300 nM was selected as the optimal labeling concentration for the competition experiments (Figure 2A). For eltanexor-yne (4), 100 nM was selected as the optimal labeling concentration (Figure S1A in the Supporting Information). The concentrations selected resulted in sufficient labeling of XPO1, without saturating the labeling.
Next, competition experiments were performed where cells were first treated with increasing concentrations of selinexor (1) or eltanexor (3) for 30 minutes, followed by incubation with 300 nM selinexor-yne (2) or 100 nM eltanexor-yne (4) for 60 minutes. Cells were harvested, lysed, and probe –modified proteins were conjugated with a fluorophore-azide by CuAAC and visualized by in-gel fluorescence. The prominent fluores- cent band at ~ 100 kDa was competed by selinexor in a concentration-dependent manner with an IC50 of 52 9 nM (Figure 2B, C). This is in agreement with previously reported Occ 50 values for selinexor in MM.1S cells. Furthermore, eltanexor-yne (4) labeling was competed by both selinexor (1) and eltanexor (3) in a concentration-dependent manner (Fig- ure S1B). These studies demonstrate the utility of these clickable probes to profile the cellular activity of XPO1 inhibitors.
To validate the selinexor-yne (2) labeled band at ~ 100 kDa was XPO1, we performed siRNA knockdown followed by selinexor-yne (2) probe labeling. After siRNA knockdown of XPO1, the band was no longer present, confirming that the band was XPO1 (Figure 2D). For further validation, and to demonstrate the ability of the selinexor-yne (2) probe to enrich endogenous XPO1, we performed a probe labeling experiment of 500 nM selinexor-yne (2) for 60 minutes followed by click chemistry with biotin-azide and enrichment with streptavidin beads. An XPO1 western blot performed on the enriched proteins showed that XPO1 was enriched by the selinexor-yne probe (Figure 2E).

ChemBioChem 2021, 22, 1 –9 www.chembiochem.org These are not the final page numbers!

[39,40]

ChemBioChem
Communications
doi.org/10.1002/cbic.202100038

Figure 2. In-gel fluorescence and western blot analysis of XPO1 clickable probe-labeled proteins. A) In-gel fluorescence analysis of selinexor-yne-labeled proteins in SH-SY5Y neuroblastoma cells. Live SH-SY5Y cells were incubated with increasing concentrations of 2 for 60 min, followed by cell lysis, click chemistry with TAMRA-azide, and SDS-PAGE. Concentration-dependent labeling of a band corresponding to the molecular weight of XPO1 was observed. B) Competition of selinexor-yne-labeled protein(s) by increasing doses of selinexor in SH-SY5Y cells. Live SH-SY5Y cells were incubated with increasing concentrations of selinexor for 30 min, followed by incubation with 300 nM of selinexor-yne for 60 min, followed by cell lysis, click chemistry with TAMRA- azide, and SDS-PAGE. Concentration-dependent competition of XPO1 was observed. C) Quantitation of the XPO1 band from competition of selinexor-yne with increasing doses of selinexor as shown in (B). D) siRNA knockdown of XPO1 reduces the intensity of the selinexor-yne-labeled fluorescent band at ~ 100 kDa, thus confirming its identity as XPO1. Western blotting with an anti-XPO1 antibody shows the efficient knockdown of XPO1. E) Enrichment of selinexor-yne- labeled proteins, followed by XPO1 western blot further demonstrates that endogenous XPO1 is labeled and enriched by 2.

Chemoproteomics experiments

To determine the cellular selectivity of these XPO1 inhibitors, a chemoproteomics experiment was performed using eltanexor- yne (4) with selinexor (1) and eltanexor (3) as competitors. KMS11 cells were pretreated with DMSO, selinexor (1) or eltanexor (4; 0.1 or 1.0 μM) for 30 minutes followed by eltanexor-yne (4; 100 nM) for 60 minutes before being washed, harvested, and lysed. Probe-modified proteins were ligated to biotin-azide by CuAAC, enriched on NeutrAvidin-Agarose resin, trypsin digested, and the desalted samples were analyzed by LC-MS/MS. Label-free quantification (LFQ) revealed significant

competition of eltanexor-yne (4) labeled XPO1 by selinexor (1) and eltanexor (3) at both concentrations (Figures 3 and S2, Supporting Dataset 1). Though labeling of LCN1, JAK1, and LYZ was somewhat competed by 1 μM pre-treatment with selinexor (1) or eltanexor (3; Figure 3) the effect was much less compared to XPO1. The data supports that selinexor (1) and eltanexor (3) have high selectivity for XPO1.
We also found that the clickable probes enriched SUMO1. SUMOylation, the covalent addition of protein small ubiquitin- like modifier (SUMO) to a lysine residue on a target protein, is a post translational modification (PTM) associated with numerous cellular processes, including nuclear-cytosolic transport.

ChemBioChem 2021, 22, 1 –9 www.chembiochem.org These are not the final page numbers!

[41]
[42,43]
[15,28,29]
[30,31]

ChemBioChem
Communications
doi.org/10.1002/cbic.202100038

Figure 3. Mass spectrometry-based ABPP selectivity profiling using XPO1 clickable probes. Volcano plot analysis of 4-enriched proteome from KMS11 cells.

Targets significantly (FDR =0.05, S
0
=2) competed by A) 1 μM1 and B) 1 μM3 are labeled. C) Concentration-dependent competition for proteins is indicated.

SUMOylation plays an integral role in the Ran signaling path- way, with several pathway proteins identified as SUMOylation targets, including XPO1. In addition, XPO1 and SUMO1 are known interactors that have been previously confirmed by affinity enrichment of polySUMO conjugates, though the site of SUMOylation is uncharacterized to date. It is likely that the enrichment of SUMO1 observed in our experiments comes from the probe labeling and enrichment of SUMOylated XPO1 rather than direct binding of the probe to SUMO1 protein although we were not able to confirm this by Western blot with an anti-SUMO1 antibody (data not shown).

Reactive cysteine ABPP experiments

To further characterize the selectivity of selinexor (1), reactive cysteine chemoproteomic profiling was performed. Briefly, mouse brain homogenate (2 mg/mL) was treated with DMSO or selinexor (1; 1 or 10 μM) for 90 minutes at room temperature. Selinexor- and vehicle-treated homogenates were then treated with heavy and light iodoacetamide alkyne probes, respectively at 100 μM for 1 hour to label available reactive cysteines. The heavy and light samples were quenched, combined, and digested to peptides. Iodoacetamide alkyne labeled peptides were clicked to azide-disulfide-biotin and enriched on streptavi- din beads. The disulfide linker was cleaved using DTT, capped

with iodoacetamide, and the peptides were desalted and analyzed by LC-MS/MS. A schematic of the workflow is provided in Figure S3. Analysis of the competed targets revealed that selinexor (1) is highly selective for Cys528 of XPO1 (Figures 4A and S4, Supporting Dataset 2). In addition, dose dependent competition with selinexor (1) was observed from 1 to 10 μM (Figure 4B). Despite being ubiquitously expressed, SUMO1 was not identified by reactive cysteine profiling. This further supports SUMO1 being detected as a covalent modification of XPO1, rather than a direct target. Of the other selinexor (1) hits from the clickable probe chemoproteomics experiments, JAK1 did not show competition (H/L <2) and LCN1 and LYZ were not identified in the reactive cysteine pulldown experiments from mouse brain homogenate.

Cellular thermal-shift experiments

As an orthogonal approach to assess target engagement and selectivity, thermal proteome profiling was employed. Like a classical thermal shift assay using recombinant protein, thermal profiling detects changes in the thermal stability of a protein on binding to a small molecule, but it does this in the proteome-wide cellular environment. Unlike ABPP approaches, which rely on the use of an activity-based probe and competition with the parent molecule, thermal profiling is a

ChemBioChem 2021, 22, 1 –9 www.chembiochem.org These are not the final page numbers!

ChemBioChem
Communications
doi.org/10.1002/cbic.202100038

Figure 4. Reactive cysteine selectivity profiling of selinexor by mass spectrometry. A) Over 3700 cysteine-modified sites were labeled by iodoacetamide alkyne, enriched, and quantified in at least 3 out of 8 replicates. Competition ratios were determined from heavy/light isotopic ratios normalized to probe vs. probe controls. XPO1-Cys528 was the top site competed by selinexor at 10 μM. B) Dose-dependent competition of XPO1-Cys528 with increasing amounts of selinexor competitor (DMSO, 1 μM, 10 μM) was observed.

label-free approach that can be used to assess target engage-

41, 45, 49, 53, 57, 61, 65, 69 or 73

C) for 3 minutes followed by

ment of the parent compound directly. Briefly, KMS11 cells
rapid cooling to 4
°C. Following cell lysis, immunoblot analysis

were treated with 10 μM selinexor (1) to ensure high binding
revealed target engagement and strong thermal stabilization of

site occupancy, or DMSO control for 30 minutes before being
XPO1 by selinexor (1) at 53
°C (Figure 5A). Further ITDRF analysis

harvested, pelleted, and subjected to a fixed temperature (37,
of selinexor (1; 50.0, 12.5, 3.12, 0.78, 0.20, 0.050, 0.010, 0.003 or

Figure 5. Cellular thermal profiling of selinexor in myeloma cell lines. A) Immunoblot analysis of XPO1 thermal stability in the presence of selinexor relative to

DMSO control. B) Selinexor isothermal dose–response immunoblot analysis of XPO1 thermal stability at 53 in the presence of selinexor in intact KMS11 and D) MM1.s cells.
°
C. C) LC-MS/MS thermal-profiling analysis of XPO1

ChemBioChem 2021, 22, 1 –9 www.chembiochem.org These are not the final page numbers!

ChemBioChem
Communications
doi.org/10.1002/cbic.202100038

0 μM) at 53

C demonstrated that thermal stabilization of XPO1

to prolong the duration of the XPO1-adduct, suggesting

is observed at nano-molar concentrations (Figure 5B). This data demonstrates the broad detection range (>4-log-fold) available for XPO1 target engagement by ITDRF and offers an alternative method of measurement. Thermal stabilization of XPO1 was also confirmed using mass spectrometry-based TMT quantita- tive proteomics in both KMS11 (Figure 5C) and MM1.s cells (Figure 5D).

XPO1-adduct degradation and XPO1 resynthesis in live cells

To further understand the turnover of XPO1, we performed time course experiments to measure the degradation of the XPO1 selinexor-yne adduct and the resynthesis of new XPO1 protein in live SH-SY5Y cells. To measure the duration of the XPO1-adduct, live SH-SY5Y cells were incubated with 300 nM of selinexor-yne (2) for 1 h, washed with PBS, then allowed to culture for 0, 2, 4, 8, 16, or 24 h, followed by cell lysis, click chemistry with TAMRA-azide, and SDS-PAGE. A time dependent decrease in a fluorescent band corresponding to the molecular weight of XPO1 was observed (Figures 6A, B and S5). Proteasome inhibition with 10 μM MG-132 treatment was able
proteasome-mediated degradation (Figure 6A, B). During this time course the total protein level of XPO1 as a ratio to β-actin remained stable (Figure S6A).
To measure the rate of resynthesis of XPO1 after selinexor treatment, live SH-SY5Y cells were incubated with 500 nM of selinexor (1) for 1 h, washed with PBS to remove excess compound, then allowed to culture for 0, 2, 4, 8, 16, or 24 h followed by incubation of selinexor-yne (2) for 1 h, cell lysis, click chemistry with TAMRA-azide, and SDS-PAGE. We observed a time dependent increase of a band corresponding to the molecular weight of the XPO1-adduct (Figures 6C, D, S5 and S7). This band was greatly reduced when cells were cotreated with the protein synthesis inhibitor cycloheximide (50 μg/mL; Figure 6C, 6). During this time course the total protein level of XPO1 as a ratio to β-actin remained stable (Figures S6B and S7).

Conclusions

In summary, we have described the development and applica- tion of XPO1 clickable probes selinexor-yne (2) and eltanexor- yne (4), which show efficient cellular labeling of XPO1. We have

Figure 6. XPO1-adduct degradation and XPO1 resynthesis in live cells. A) In-gel fluorescence of selinexor-yne XPO1-adduct degradation in live SH-SY5Y neuroblastoma cells. Live SH-SY5Y cells were incubated with 300 nM of selinexor-yne for 1 h, washed with PBS, then allowed to culture for 0, 2, 4, 8, 16, or 24 h, followed by cell lysis, click chemistry with TAMRA-azide, and SDS-PAGE. A time-dependent decrease in labeling of a band corresponding to the molecular weight of XPO1 was observed. Proteasome inhibition with 10 μMMG132 treatment was able to prolong the duration of the XPO1 adduct. B) Quantification of XPO1-adduct degradation with and without 10 μMMG-132 (n =4). Degradation of the adduct is normalized to the baseline (0 h =1). Data are expressed as fluorescent intensity SEM. C) In-gel fluorescence analysis of selinexor-yne timecourse of XPO1 resynthesis in live SH-SY5Y cells. Live SH-SY5Y cells were incubated with 500 nM of selinexor for 1 h, washed with PBS, then allowed to culture for 0, 2, 4, 8, 16, or 24 h followed by incubation of selinexor- yne for 1 h, cell lysis, click chemistry with TAMRA-azide, and SDS-PAGE. A time-dependent increase in labeling of a band corresponding to the molecular weight of XPO1 was observed, which was slowed by treatment with 50 μg/mL cycloheximide protein synthesis inhibitor. D) Quantification of XPO1 protein resynthesis with and without 50 μg/mL cycloheximide (n =4). Resynthesis of XPO1 is baseline normalized (0 h =0, 24 h =1). Data are expressed as fluorescent intensity SEM.

ChemBioChem 2021, 22, 1 –9 www.chembiochem.org These are not the final page numbers!

ChemBioChem
Communications
doi.org/10.1002/cbic.202100038

used these probes to demonstrate the high selectivity of these compounds for XPO1 and for measuring live-cell target engage- ment. We have also used orthogonal target engagement and selectivity profiling methods such as thermal profiling and reactive cysteine profiling to confirm target engagement and the high selectivity of these XPO1 inhibitors. Further develop- ment of an ITDR XPO1 engagement assay provides a further method of interrogating target occupancy. We expect that these probes and assays will allow us to further understand XPO1 function and inhibitor efficacy in complex biological systems.

Acknowledgements

We thank B. Kessler, S. Bonham and R. Fischer from the TDI Discovery Proteomics Facility, Oxford University, for their support. J. A. W, F. F, and K. V. M. H are grateful for support by Myeloma UK and the Joyce and Norman Freed Trust.This project has received funding from the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking (JU) under grant agreement No 875510. The JU receives support from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme and EFPIA and Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, Royal Institution for the Advancement of Learning McGill University, Kungliga Tekniska Hoegskolan, Dia- mond Light Source Limited. We acknowledge Eric Stefan, John Turman, and Sivaraman Dandapani from Biogen for chemistry support and discussions.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

[1] S. C. Fu, H. C. Huang, P. Horton, H. F. Juan, Nucleic Acids Res. 2013, 41, 338–343.
[2] D. Xu, N. V. Grishin, Y. M. Chook, Mol. Biol. Cell 2012, 23, 3673–3676.
[3] A. Y. Wang, H. Liu, Stem Cell Investig. 2019, 6, 6.
[4] J. Taylor, M. Sendino, A. N. Gorelick, A. Pastore, M. T. Chang, A. V. Penson, E. I. Gavrila, C. Stewart, E. M. Melnik, F. Herrejon Chavez, L. Bitner, A. Yoshimi, S. C.-W. Lee, D. Inoue, B. Liu, X. J. Zhang, A. R. Mato, A. Dogan, M. G. Kharas, Y. Chen, D. Wang, R. K. Soni, R. C. Hendrickson, G. Prieto, J. A. Rodriguez, B. S. Taylor, O. Abdel-Wahab, Cancer Discovery 2019, 9, 1452.
[5] U. H. Gandhi, W. Senapedis, E. Baloglu, T. J. Unger, A. Chari, D. Vogl, R. F. Cornell, Clin. Lymph. Myel. Leuk. 2018, 18, 335–345.
[6] H. C. Archbold, K. L. Jackson, A. Arora, K. Weskamp, E. M. Tank, X. Li, R. Miguez, R. D. Dayton, S. Tamir, R. L. Klein, S. J. Barmada, Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 4606.
[7] M. J. Silvestrini, J. R. Johnson, A. V. Kumar, T. G. Thakurta, K. Blais, Z. A. Neill, S. W. Marion, V. St Amand, R. A. Reenan, L. R. Lapierre, Cell Rep. 2018, 23, 1915–1921.
[8] J. Steyaert, W. Scheveneels, J. Vanneste, P. Van Damme, W. Robberecht, P. Callaerts, E. Bogaert, L. Van Den Bosch, Hum. Mol. Genet. 2018, 27, 4103–4116.
[9] T. Vercruysse, J. De Bie, J. E. Neggers, M. Jacquemyn, E. Vanstreels, J. L. Schmid-Burgk, V. Hornung, E. Baloglu, Y. Landesman, W. Senapedis, S.

Shacham, A. Dagklis, J. Cools, D. Daelemans, Clin. Cancer Res. 2017, 23, 2528–2541.
[10] M. L. Crochiere, E. Baloglu, B. Klebanov, S. Donovan, D. Del Alamo, M. Lee, M. Kauffman, S. Shacham, Y. Landesman, Oncotarget 2016, 7, 1863– 1877.
[11] J. Etchin, T. Sanda, M. R. Mansour, A. Kentsis, J. Montero, B. T. Le, A. L. Christie, D. McCauley, S. J. Rodig, M. Kauffman, S. Shacham, R. Stone, A. Letai, A. L. Kung, A. Thomas Look, Brit. J. Haematol. 2013, 161, 117–127.
[12] J. Etchin, Q. Sun, A. Kentsis, A. Farmer, Z. C. Zhang, T. Sanda, M. R. Mansour, C. Barcelo, D. McCauley, M. Kauffman, S. Shacham, A. L. Christie, A. L. Kung, S. J. Rodig, Y. M. Chook, A. T. Look, Leukemia 2013, 27, 66–74.
[13] R. Lapalombella, Q. Sun, K. Williams, L. Tangeman, S. Jha, Y. Zhong, V. Goettl, E. Mahoney, C. Berglund, S. Gupta, A. Farmer, R. Mani, A. J. Johnson, D. Lucas, X. Mo, D. Daelemans, V. Sandanayaka, S. Shechter, D. McCauley, S. Shacham, M. Kauffman, Y. M. Chook, J. C. Byrd, Blood 2012, 120, 4621–34.
[14] J. E. Neggers, E. Vanstreels, E. Baloglu, S. Shacham, Y. Landesman, D. Daelemans, Oncotarget 2016, 7, 68842–68850.
[15] K. M. Backus, B. E. Correia, K. M. Lum, S. Forli, B. D. Horning, G. E. González-Páez, S. Chatterjee, B. R. Lanning, J. R. Teijaro, A. J. Olson, D. W. Wolan, B. F. Cravatt, Nature 2016, 534, 570–4.
[16] D. S. Johnson, E. Weerapana, B. F. Cravatt, Fut. Med. Chem. 2010, 2, 949– 64.
[17] A. Lin, C. J. Giuliano, A. Palladino, K. M. John, C. Abramowicz, M. L. Yuan, E. L. Sausville, D. A. Lukow, L. Liu, A. R. Chait, Z. C. Galluzzo, C. Tucker, J. M. Sheltzer, Sci. Transl. Med. 2019, 11, eaaw8412.
[18] J. A. Ward, L. McLellan, M. Stockley, K. R. Gibson, G. A. Whitlock, C. Knights, J. A. Harrigan, X. Jacq, E. W. Tate, ACS Chem. Biol. 2016, 11, 3268–3272.
[19] J. A. Ward, A. Pinto-Fernandez, L. Cornelissen, S. Bonham, L. Díaz-Sáez, O. Riant, K. V. M. Huber, B. M. Kessler, O. Feron, E. W. Tate, J. Med. Chem. 2020, 63, 3756–3762.
[20] M. J. Niphakis, B. F. Cravatt, Ann. Rev. Biochem. 2014, 83, 341–377.
[21] D. S. Johnson, J. D. Majmudar, Cell Chem. Biol. 2017, 24, 1317–1318. [22] H. Xu, M. I. Jesson, U. I. Seneviratne, T. H. Lin, M. N. Sharif, L. Xue, C.
Nguyen, R. A. Everley, J. I. Trujillo, D. S. Johnson, G. R. Point, A. Thorarensen, I. Kilty, J. B. Telliez, ACS Chem. Biol. 2019, 14, 1235 –1242.
[23] K. Ahn, S. E. Smith, M. B. Liimatta, D. Beidler, N. Sadagopan, D. T. Dudley, T. Young, P. Wren, Y. Zhang, S. Swaney, K. Van Becelaere, J. L. Blankman, D. K. Nomura, S. N. Bhattachar, C. Stiff, T. K. Nomanbhoy, E. Weerapana, D. S. Johnson, B. F. Cravatt, J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 2011, 338 , 114–24.
[24] B. R. Lanning, L. R. Whitby, M. M. Dix, J. Douhan, A. M. Gilbert, E. C. Hett, T. O. Johnson, C. Joslyn, J. C. Kath, S. Niessen, L. R. Roberts, M. E. Schnute, C. Wang, J. J. Hulce, B. Wei, L. O. Whiteley, M. M. Hayward, B. F. Cravatt, Nat. Chem. Biol. 2014, 10, 760–767.
[25] D. K. Nomura, T. J. Maimone, Curr. Top. Microbiol. Immunol. 2019, 420, 351–374.
[26] M. Gehringer, S. A. Laufer, J. Med. Chem. 2019, 62, 5673–5724.
[27] T. Zhang, J. M. Hatcher, M. Teng, N. S. Gray, M. Kostic, Cell Chem. Biol. 2019, 26, 1486–1500.
[28] M. Abo, C. Li, E. Weerapana, Mol. Pharm. 2018, 15, 743–749.
[29] E. Weerapana, C. Wang, G. M. Simon, F. Richter, S. Khare, M. B. D. Dillon, D. A. Bachovchin, K. Mowen, D. Baker, B. F. Cravatt, Nature 2010, 468 , 790–795.
[30] M. M. Savitski, F. B. M. Reinhard, H. Franken, T. Werner, M. F. Savitski, D. Eberhard, D. M. Molina, R. Jafari, R. B. Dovega, S. Klaeger, B. Kuster, P. Nordlund, M. Bantscheff, G. Drewes, Science 2014, 346, 1255784.
[31] K. V. M. Huber, K. M. Olek, A. C. Müller, C. S. H. Tan, K. L. Bennett, J. Colinge, G. Superti-Furga, Nat. Meth. 2015, 12, 1055–1057.
[32] M. Namba, T. Ohtsuki, M. Mori, A. Togawa, H. Wada, T. Sugihara, Y. Yawata, T. Kimoto, In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol. 1989, 25, 723–729.
[33] W. F. Lenoir, T. L. Lim, T. Hart, Nucleic Acids Res. 2017, 46, D776-D780. [34] H. Xicoy, B. Wieringa, G. J. Martens, Mol. Neurodegener. 2017, 12, 10. [35] H. Franken, T. Mathieson, D. Childs, G. M. Sweetman, T. Werner, I. Tögel,
C. Doce, S. Gade, M. Bantscheff, G. Drewes, F. B. Reinhard, W. Huber, M. M. Savitski, Nat. Protoc. 2015, 10, 1567–93.
[36] M. M. Savitski, F. B. Reinhard, H. Franken, T. Werner, M. F. Savitski, D. Eberhard, D. Martinez Molina, R. Jafari, R. B. Dovega, S. Klaeger, B. Kuster, P. Nordlund, M. Bantscheff, G. Drewes, Science 2014, 346, 1255784.
[37] J. E. Neggers, T. Vercruysse, M. Jacquemyn, E. Vanstreels, E. Baloglu, S. Shacham, M. Crochiere, Y. Landesman, D. Daelemans, Chem. Biol. 2015, 22, 107–116.

ChemBioChem 2021, 22, 1 –9 www.chembiochem.org These are not the final page numbers!

ChemBioChem
Communications
doi.org/10.1002/cbic.202100038

[38] Z. A. Hing, H. Y. J. Fung, P. Ranganathan, S. Mitchell, D. El-Gamal, J. A. Woyach, K. Williams, V. M. Goettl, J. Smith, X. Yu, X. Meng, Q. Sun, T. Cagatay, A. M. Lehman, D. M. Lucas, E. Baloglu, S. Shacham, M. G. Kauffman, J. C. Byrd, Y. M. Chook, R. Garzon, R. Lapalombella, Leukemia 2016, 30, 2364–2372.
[39] J. A. Rodríguez, Semin. Cancer Biol. 2014, 27, 11–19.
[40] C. Ptak, R. W. Wozniak, SUMO and Nucleocytoplasmic Transport, SUMO Regulation of Cellular Processes (Ed.: V. G. Wilson), Springer, Cham, 2017, pp. 111–126.
[41] E. Da Silva-Ferrada, F. Lopitz-Otsoa, V. Lang, M. S. Rodríguez, R. Matthiesen, Biochem. Res. Int. 2012, 2012, 875148.

[42] D. Wen, Z. Xu, L. Xia, X. Liu, Y. Tu, H. Lei, W. Wang, T. Wang, L. Song, C. Ma, H. Xu, W. Zhu, G. Chen, Y. Wu, J. Proteome Res. 2014, 13, 3571 –3582.
[43] R. Bruderer, M. H. Tatham, A. Plechanovova, I. Matic, A. K. Garg, R. T. Hay, EMBO Rep. 2011, 12, 142–148.

Manuscript received: January 24, 2021
Revised manuscript received: March 19, 2021
Version of record online: ■■■, ■■■■

ChemBioChem 2021, 22, 1 –9 www.chembiochem.org These are not the final page numbers!

COMMUNICATIONS

J. G. Martin, J. A. Ward, F. Feyertag, L. Zhang, S. Couvertier, K. Guckian, K. V. M. Huber, D. S. Johnson*
1 –9
Chemoproteomic Profiling of
Covalent XPO1 Inhibitors to
Assess Target Engagement and
Selectivity

Target engaged? We report clickable probes based on the XPO1 inhibitors selinexor and eltanexor for the labeling of XPO1 in live cells to assess target engagement and selectivity.
We used mass spectrometry-based
chemoproteomic workflows to profile
the proteome-wide selectivity of selinexor and eltanexor and show that they are highly selective for XPO1.