Results and Discussion Incubation of either ketoaldehyde 1 or its aldol product 2 with seed-free Aβ1–40 (pH 7.5, 37°C, no stirring) leads to Aβ amyloidogenesis ( Fig. 1 A and B). In contrast, no Aβ amyloidogenesis is observed within 72 h in the absence of 1 and 2. The extent and rate of amyloidogenesis depended on the concentration of 1 or 2. Amyloidogenesis was followed by TfT fluorescence, which is proportional to the amount of amyloid formed ( 29). AFM images ( Fig. 1C) show that Aβ in the presence of 1 (50 μM) forms abundant, roughly spherical assemblies 5–8 nm in diameter within 1 h. These assemblies are similar to those thought to be the principal neurotoxic Aβ aggregates in AD ( 8, 13, 32, 33). Comparable aggregates are barely detectable without 1 ( Fig. 1D). AFM time courses of Aβ aggregation with and without 1 are shown in Fig. 6, which is published as supporting information on the PNAS web site. They show that aggregates began forming within 10 min of initiating the aggregation reaction of Aβ (100 μM) with 1 (50 μM). The number of aggregates adsorbed to the substrate peaked at 1 h, after which fewer, but larger, aggregates were observed. Few aggregates were observed in the sample of Aβ in the absence of 1, even after 64 h. It has been shown that 1 is converted to 2 in the presence of whole blood, plasma, serum, and several amino acids ( 22). Preliminary experiments indicate that Aβ also catalyzes the conversion of 1 to 2 by Schiff base formation with Aβ (data not shown). We therefore make no distinction between Aβ- 1 and Aβ- 2 and represent monoadducts of Aβ with cholesterol ozonolysis products as Aβ- 1( 2). The formation of fibrillar aggregates is a hallmark of AD ( 34). To determine whether the spherical aggregates formed by incubation of Aβ with 1 were competent to form fibrils, fibrillar seeds (1% wt/wt) were added to the aggregation reaction after a 48 h incubation of Aβ (100 μM) with 1 (50 μM). On seed addition, the spherical aggregates rapidly converted into fibrils, as indicated both by the jump in TfT fluorescence ( Fig. 2A) and by AFM images obtained before seeding ( Fig. 2B, which shows a few large aggregates, consistent with the time course in Fig. 6) and 1 h after seeding ( Fig. 2C). This process is much slower in the absence of 1, as revealed by AFM time courses of Aβ aggregation with and without 1 seeded with fibrils after 48 h (see Fig. 7, which is published as supporting information on the PNAS web site). | Fig. 2.(A) Aβ aggregation at several concentrations of 1 was monitored for 48 h, as described in Fig. 1A. After 48 h, 1% wt/wt of Aβ seeds was added, and aggregation was monitored for another week. (B and C) AFM images obtained just before ( (more ...) |
Aβ exists as a mixture of 40 and 42 residue peptides in vivo ( 35). As with Aβ1–40 alone, incubation of 1 with a mixture of Aβ1–40 and Aβ1–42 (3:1 ratio, 50 μM) initiates aggregation ( Fig. 2D). The extent of aggregation in the presence of 1 with this peptide composition is slightly (10–20%) but consistently higher than that of Aβ1–40 alone ( Fig. 2D). A comparison of Aβ1–40 with Aβ1–42 aggregation versus the concentration of 1 reveals that the rate of Aβ1–40 amyloidogenesis becomes similar to that of Aβ1–42 when the concentration of 1 is ≥50 μM ( Fig. 2D). These data support the hypothesis that metabolite-modified Aβ1–40 could be as efficient at initiating AD pathology as familial mutations that lead to increased concentrations of Aβ1–42 relative to Aβ1–40 ( 35). To assess to what extent covalent modification of Aβ occurs during incubation with 1, aggregation reactions of Aβ1–40 (100 μM) in the presence of 1 (100 μM) that had been incubated at 37°C for 3 h were centrifuged (100,000 × g), and the supernatant and pellet were separated. NaBH 4 was added to the supernatant and pellet fractions to reduce the presumed Schiff base adducts of Aβ with 1( 2) and any unreacted 1( 2). HPLC analysis of the NaBH 4-treated supernatant and pellet fractions revealed that 6% of the initial quantity of Aβ was present in the pellet as unmodified Aβ, whereas 8% was present in the pellet as Aβ -1( 2) ( Fig. 3A). Another 1% could be the bisadduct Aβ -1( 2) 2 (eluting at 31 and 33 min in Fig. 3A), but the small quantity precluded its identification. Proteolysis of the Aβ adducts followed by preliminary mass spectrometry analysis (see Supporting Text, which is published as supporting information on the PNAS web site) indicate modification at Lys-16, Lys-28, and the N terminus of the Aβ in the pellet, but it is not yet possible to know which adducts were the most amyloidogenic. The distribution of adducts among the various sites at which Aβ is susceptible to modification requires further investigation. | Fig. 3.(A) HPLC traces from the NaBH4-reduced supernatant and pellet of Aβ (100 μM) incubated with 1 (100 μM) for 3 h.(B) Fluorescence-detection HPLC trace from the NaBH4-reduced supernatant of Aβ (100 μM) incubated with (more ...) |
Given that Aβ misfolding is generally described by a nucleation-dependent polymerization model, the concentration of soluble Aβ remaining after an aggregation reaction has reached completion is equivalent to the critical concentration for aggregation [the concentration below which aggregation is negligible ( 10)]. No Aβ- 1( 2) adducts were found in the NaBH 4-treated supernatant samples analyzed by HPLC with UV detection. This finding implies that the critical concentration for Aβ- 1( 2) adducts was below the limit of detection of this method (≈500 nM). The limit of detection can be decreased to ≈50 nM by derivatizing Aβ with fluorescamine and by using fluorescence detection for the HPLC analysis. To determine whether the critical concentration of Aβ- 1( 2) could be determined by using fluorescamine derivatization, Aβ (100 μM) was incubated in the presence of 1 (100 μM) for 16 h and centrifuged at 100,000 × g. The supernatant and pellet were separated, treated with NaBH 4 as described above, and derivatized with fluorescamine. HPLC analysis with fluorescence detection ( Fig. 3B) showed that the concentration of Aβ- 1( 2) was still near the limit of detection; a small shoulder on the main fluorescamine-derivatized Aβ peak, corresponding to a concentration of at most 90 nM, was the only peak that eluted at the retention time corresponding to fluorescamine-derivatized Aβ- 1( 2)( RT ≈ 30.5 min). The critical concentration for Aβ- 1( 2) was therefore at most 90 nM. This value is much lower than the ≈15 μM critical concentration reported for unmodified Aβ ( 10, 36). This dramatic lowering of the Aβ critical concentration on metabolite modification may explain how physiological concentrations of Aβ (typically in the nanomolar range) could form amyloid in individuals lacking predisposing mutations. In the brain, Aβ has to compete with other, much more abundant proteins to be modified by metabolites. To determine whether the presence of other proteins could affect Aβ adduct formation, Aβ was incubated with 1 in the presence of human serum albumin (15 μM, 885 μM in reactive Lys residues) and TTR (3.6 μM, 115 μM in reactive Lys residues). TTR had a negligible effect on Aβ amyloidogenesis in the presence of 1, whereas albumin reduced the extent of amyloidogenesis by ≈15% ( Fig. 4A). It is reasonable to surmise that the reactions of albumin and TTR with 1 are essentially reversible, leaving the concentration of 1 available for reaction with Aβ roughly unchanged. We also note that 1 does not induce albumin or TTR to form amyloid, perhaps because their critical concentrations for aggregation are not lowered substantially. The origin of the selective effect of 1 and 2 on Aβ aggregation requires further investigation. | Fig. 4.(A) Influence of albumin (15 μM, 885 μM in Lys residues) or TTR (3.6 μM, 115μM in Lys residues) on Aβ (50 μM, pH 7.5, 37°C) amyloidogenesis with 1 (50 μM). (B) Compounds related to 1 and (more ...) |
To determine whether 1 and 2 are unique in their ability to accelerate Aβ amyloidogenesis, we evaluated a panel of other small molecules for their ability to enhance Aβ misfolding ( Fig. 4B). Of compounds 3- 9, only 8, 4-hydroxynonenal, accelerated Aβ aggregation to an extent similar to 1 and 2 ( Fig. 4C). It is plausible that the reactivity of 8 with Aβ may be enhanced, because in addition to the 1,2 addition between the Lys ε-amine and the aldehyde group, it can undergo a Michael-type alkylation of Aβ through both His and Lys side chains ( 25). Seco-prostaglandin 9 is a γ-ketoaldehyde that is a minor byproduct arising from cyclooxygenase I- and II-mediated oxidation of arachidonic acid. This molecule has previously been shown to enhance Aβ1–42 oligomer formation ( 37). Aldehyde 9 is not commercially available, but its endoperoxide precursor 10 is ( Fig. 4B). Salomon and coworkers ( 38) have shown that the prostaglandin endoperoxide 10 undergoes a solvent-induced fragmentation in phosphate buffer (0.2 M sodium phosphate, pH 7.9) at 37°Ctogive 9 in 22% yield. Fig. 4C shows that the extent of Aβ amyloidogenesis in the presence of 10 (200 μM), which, according to the data above, should yield 9 at ≈40 μM, is ≈25% of that seen with 1, 2, and 8. (Note that the concentration of 9 was not directly measured.) Alcohol 3 did not affect Aβ amyloidogenicity during the first 120 h of incubation, demonstrating that the aldehyde is a critical structural feature for metabolite-initiated Aβ amyloidogenesis on this timescale. However, the slight effect of 3 on the course of the aggregation reaction observed after 120 h becomes much more pronounced after 168 h (the TfT fluorescence increases to 1.1 at 168 h; data not shown). Although we have not yet sought the cause of this phenomenon, we speculate that it may be due to the formation of an aldehyde by a retro-aldol reaction in the A ring of 3 ( Fig. 4B). The 9-oxononanoyl ester of cholesterol ( 5), derived from low-density lipoprotein oxidation ( 39), also had a negligible effect on Aβ amyloidogenicity. Preliminary experiments indicate that this may be due to its not reacting efficiently with Aβ (data not shown). Aldehyde 6, which also did not accelerate Aβ amyloidogenesis, was investigated because Mihara and Takahashi ( 40) had shown that increasing the hydrophobicity of the termini of coiled-coil peptides with similar structures accelerated their conversion to amyloid. Cholesterol ( 4), which lacks an aldehyde, was unable to accelerate Aβ aggregation. These data suggest that an aldehyde is necessary but not sufficient to trigger amyloidogenesis. A hydrophobic structural component in the correct orientation with respect to the aldehyde is also required. Given that 1 and 2 greatly enhance Aβ amyloidogenesis, we turned to an analysis of brain tissue to see whether these molecules could be detected. Eleven age-matched, frozen, and unfixed brain specimens (four from AD brains and seven from brains without any pathology) were analyzed as described ( 22). In brief, the aldehydes were extracted from brain tissue, derivatized with 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine, and analyzed by LC-MS. Peaks corresponding to the hydrazones of 1 and 2 were present in the chromatograms of all but two of the samples, with combined concentrations as high as 1.38 pmol/mg ( Fig. 5A). In one sample, the concentrations of 1 and 2 were high enough to be unambiguously detected by MS ( Fig. 5B). The average combined concentrations of 1 and 2 were approximately the same in the AD (0.44 pmol/mg) and control (0.35 pmol/mg) brains. This similarity in the concentrations of cholesterol ozonolysis products is not inconsistent with a model for metabolite-initiated misfolding whereby the levels of 1 and 2 transiently increase, initiating the nucleation of Aβ amyloidogenesis. Once nucleated, the propagation of Aβ amyloidogenesis is fast, making the initiating event traceless (see below). | Fig. 5.(A) Quantification of the concentrations of 1 and 2 in four human AD and seven age-matched control brains by HPLC analysis after derivatization with 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine. The combined concentrations of 1 and 2 in each brain are indicated by black (more ...) |
The results above demonstrate that metabolite modification of a peptide or protein must now be considered in addition to sequence and environment as factors capable of influencing the conformational energy landscape and aggregation propensity of a given polypeptide chain. Metabolite modification of physiological proteins has precedent in the case of the hedgehog tissue-patterning family of proteins, which must be esterified by cholesterol for their function ( 41). Although other modifications of Aβ have been implicated in amyloidogenesis [e.g., Met oxidation, glycation, proteolysis of the hydrophilic N terminus, deamination, and pyroGlu formation ( 42)], none of these match the enhancement of amyloidogenicity seen with 1, 2, or 8 [although they can be significant for other amyloidogenic peptides ( 43)]. Schiff base formation by 1( 2) converts either or both of the Lys side chains in Aβ to the most hydrophobic of all of the α-amino acid side chains, rationalizing the lowered critical concentration and accelerated amyloidogenicity. Covalent modifications of Aβ and α-synuclein that inhibit amyloidogenesis are also known ( 44, 45). The convergence of risk factors for AD and atherosclerosis ( 18), including the apoE ε4 genotype, hypercholesterolemia, and inflammation, suggest overlapping causes. Abnormal metabolites 1( 2) have already been associated with atherosclerosis ( 22), and the results described above suggest a scenario where inflammation (not necessarily initiated by AD) leads to a transient or sustained increase in the concentration of aldehydes 1, 2, and 8 that initiates or exacerbates the process of Aβ amyloidogenesis, leading ultimately to the neurodegeneration associated with AD ( 14, 15). The ozonolysis of cholesterol may be the chemical link between atherosclerosis and AD. The concepts presented here differ from the usual view of how changes in the chemistry of the organism lead to disease. Typically, proteins and nucleic acids change their function by mutation and/or up- or down-regulation, leading to diseases like the hemoglobinopathies or cancer. There are also several diseases that result from fluctuations in the concentration of one or more chemically unaltered metabolites, e.g., glycolipids in lysosomal storage diseases ( 46). Here we suggest a new paradigm where a ubiquitous metabolite (e.g., cholesterol) is transformed into an abnormal metabolite with unusual reactivity [e.g., 1( 2)], whereas the protein remains unaltered in sequence and concentration. Pathology is initiated only when the new functional group(s) on the reactive metabolite forms a covalent bond with a protein or related macromolecule. This hypothesis is supported by the ability of 1( 2) and 8 to enhance Aβ amyloidogenicity in vitro and by the detection of 1( 2) in human brains reported herein. In some instances, metabolite initiation of misfolding may be traceless because the covalent modification may accelerate the slow (nucleation) step but not the fast propagation step. Propagation involves the energetically favorable addition of the unmodified amyloidogenic peptide to the metabolite-modified seed, leading to substantial dilution of Aβ- 1( 2) or Aβ- 8 by Aβ, making metabolite-modified Aβ difficult or impossible to detect. In other words, once the seed is formed in a transient event there is no further need for 1( 2) or 8. The detection of metabolite-modified Aβ adducts, e.g., Aβ- 1( 2), is rendered even more challenging by their hydrolytic instability. In summary, we have shown that cholesterol ozonolysis products 1 and 2 exist in human brains. These and related metabolites (e.g., 8) modify Aβ, lowering its critical concentration and accelerating its amyloidogenesis. These modifications perturb the conformational energy landscape of Aβ to the extent that Aβ1–40 becomes as aggregation-prone as the Aβ1–42-rich peptide distribution found in familial Alzheimer's patients. Taken together, these results indicate that metabolite-initiated Aβ amyloidogenesis may explain the genesis of sporadic AD and related amyloidoses. |
References 1. Anfinsen, C. B. (1973) Science 181:, 223–230. [PubMed]. 2. Colon, W. & Kelly, J. W. (1992) Biochemistry 31:, 8654–8660. [PubMed]. 3. Kelly, J. W. (1996) Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 6:, 11–17. [PubMed]. 4. Hammarstrom, P., Jiang, X. & Kelly, J. W. (2002) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99:, 16427–16432. [PubMed]. 5. Booth, D. R., Sunde, M., Bellotti, V., Robinson, C. V., Hutchinson, W. L., Fraser, P. E., Hawkins, P. N., Dobson, C. M., Radford, S. E., Blake, C. C. F. & Pepys, M. B. (1997) Nature 385:, 787–793. [PubMed]. 6. Hardy, J. & Selkoe, D. J. (2002) Science 297:, 353–356. [PubMed]. 7. Selkoe, D. J. (1997) Science 275:, 630–631. [PubMed]. 8. Lamber, M. P., Barlow, A. K., Chromy, B. A., Edwards, C., Freed, R., Liosatos, M., Morgan, T. E., Rozovsky, I., Trommer, B., Viola, K. L., et al. (1998) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95:, 6448–6453. [PubMed]. 9. Bitan, G., Kirkitadze, M. D., Lomakin, A., Vollers, S. S., Benedek, G. B. & Teplow, D. B. (2003) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100:, 330–335. [PubMed]. 10. Harper, J. D. & Lansbury, P. T., Jr. (1997) Annu. Rev. Biochem. 66:, 385–407. [PubMed]. 11. Lashuel, H. A., Hartley, D., Petre, B. M., Walz, T. & Lansbury, P. T. (2002) Nature 418:, 291. 12. Soreghan, B., Joseph, K. & Glabe, C. (1994) J. Biol. Chem. 269:, 28551–28554. [PubMed]. 13. Walsh, D. M., Klyubin, I., Fadeeva, J. V., Cullen, W. K., Anwyl, R., Wolfe, M. S., Rowan, M. J. & Selkoe, D. J. (2002) Nature 416:, 535–539. [PubMed]. 14. Meda, L., Cassatella, M. A., Szendrei, G. I., Otvos, L. J., Baron, P., Villalba, M., Ferrari, D. & Rossi, F. (1995) Nature 374:, 647–650. [PubMed]. 15. Bradt, B. M., Kolb, W. P. & Cooper, N. R. (1998) J. Exp. Med. 188:, 431–438. [PubMed]. 16. Eikelenboom, P., Zhan, S.-S., van Gool, W. A. & Allsop, D. (1994) Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 15:, 447–450. [PubMed]. 17. Jarvik, G. P., Wijsman, E. M., Kukull, W. A., Schellenberg, G. D., Yu, C. & Larson, E. (1995) Neurology 45:, 1092–1096. [PubMed]. 18. Hartmann, T. (2001) Trends Neurosci. 24:, S45–S48. [PubMed]. 19. Refolo, L. M., Pappolla, M. A., Malester, B., LaFrancois, J., Bryant-Thomas, T., Wang, R., Tint, G. S., Sambamurti, K. & Duff, K. (2000) Neurobiol. Dis. 7:, 321–331. [PubMed]. 20. Simons, M., Keller, P., De Strooper, B., Beyreuther, K., Dotti, C. G. & Simons, K. (1998) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95:, 6460–6464. [PubMed]. 21. Wentworth, P., Jr., McDunn, J. E., Wentworth, A. D., Takeuchi, C., Nieva, J., Jones, T., Bautista, C., Ruedi, J. M., Gutierrez, A., Janda, K. D., et al. (2002) Science 298:, 2195–2199. [PubMed]. 22. Wentworth, P., Jr., Nieva, J., Galve, R., Takeuchi, C., Wenworth, A. D., Dilley, R. B., DeLaria, G. A., Saven, A., Babior, B. M., Janda, K. D., et al. (2003) Science 302:, 1053–1056. [PubMed]. 23. Sayre, L. M., Zelasko, D. A., Harris, P. L. R., Perry, G., Salomon, R. G. & Smith, M. A. (1997) J. Neurochem. 68:, 2092–2097. [PubMed]. 24. Ando, Y., Brannstrom, T., Uchida, K., Nyhlin, N., Nasman, B., Suhr, O., Yamashita, T., Olsson, T., El Salhy, M., Uchino, M. & Ando, M. (1998) J. Neurol. Sci. 156:, 172–176. [PubMed]. 25. Magni, F., Galbusera, C., Tremolada, L., Ferrarese, C. & Kienle, M. G. (2002) Rapid Commun. Mass Spec. 16:, 1485–1493. 26. Markesbery, W. R. & Lovell, M. A. (1998) Neurobiol. Aging 19:, 33–36. [PubMed]. 27. Zarkovic, K. (2003) Mol. Aspects Med. 24:, 293–303. [PubMed]. 28. Fezoui, Y., Hartley, D. M., Harper, J. D., Khurana, R., Walsh, D. M., Condron, M. M., Selkoe, D. J., Lansbury, P. T., Jr., Fink, A. L. & Teplow, D. B. (2000) Amyloid 7:, 166–178. [PubMed]. 29. LeVine, H., III (1999) Methods Enzymol. 309:, 274–284. [PubMed]. 30. Lorenzan, A. & Kennedy, S. W. (1993) Anal. Biochem. 214:, 346–348. [PubMed]. 31. Bantan-Polak, T., Kassai, M. & Grant, K. B. (2001) Anal. Biochem. 297:, 128–136. [PubMed]. 32. Wang, H.-W., Pasternak, J. F., Kuo, H., Ristic, H., Lambert, M. P., Chromy, B., Viola, K. L., Klein, W. L., Stine, W. B., Krafft, G. A. & Trommer, B. L. (2002) Brain Res. 924:, 133–140. [PubMed]. 33. Caughey, B. & Lansbury, P. T., Jr. (2003) Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 26:, 267–298. [PubMed]. 34. Sipe, J. D. (1994) Crit. Rev. Clin. Lab. Sci. 31:, 325–354. [PubMed]. 35. Suzuki, N., Cheung, T. T., Cai, X. D., Odaka, A., Otvos, L. J., Eckman, C., Golde, T. E. & Younkin, S. G. (1994) Science 264:, 1336–1340. [PubMed]. 36. Sengupta, P., Garai, K., Sahoo, B., Shi, Y., Callaway, D. J. E. & Maiti, S. (2003) Biochemistry 42:, 10506–10513. [PubMed]. 37. Boutaud, O., Ou, J. J., Chaurand, P., Caprioli, R. M., Montine, T. J. & Oates, J. A. (2002) J. Neurochem. 82:, 1003–1006. [PubMed]. 38. Salomon, R. G., Miller, D. B., Zagorski, M. G. & Coughlin, D. J. (1984) J. Am. Chem. Soc. 106:, 6049–6060. 39. Kawai, Y., Saito, A., Shibata, N., Kobayashi, M., Yamada, S., Osawa, T. & Uchida, K. (2003) J. Biol. Chem. 278:, 21040–21049. [PubMed]. 40. Mihara, H. & Takahashi, Y. (1997) Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 7:, 501–508. [PubMed]. 41. Porter, J. A., Young, K. E. & Beachy, P. A. (1996) Science 274:, 255–259. [PubMed]. 42. Head, E., Garzon-Rodriguez, W., Johnson, J. K., Lott, I. T., Cotman, C. W. & Glabe, C. (2001) Neurobiol. Dis. 8:, 792–806. [PubMed]. 43. Nilsson, M. R., Driscoll, M. & Raleigh, D. P. (2002) Protein Sci. 11:, 342–349. [PubMed]. 44. Conway, K. A., Rachet, J.-C., Bieganski, R. M. & Lansbury, P. T., Jr. (2001) Science 294:, 1346–1349. [PubMed]. 45. Dickerson, T. J. & Janda, K. D. (2003) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100:, 8182–8187. [PubMed]. 46. Sawkar, A., Cheng, W.-C., Beutler, E., Wong, C. H., Balch, W. E. & Kelly, J. W. (2002) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99:, 15428–15433. [PubMed]. |