Search

Highly purified, recombinant preparations of the virally encoded proteases from human immunodeficiency viruses (HIV) 1 and 2 have been compared relative to 1) their specificities toward non-viral protein and synthetic peptide substrates, and 2) their inhibition by several P1-P1' pseudodipeptidyl-modified substrate analogs. Hydrolysis of the Leu-Leu and Leu-Ala bonds in the Pseudomonas exotoxin derivative, Lys-PE40, is qualitatively the same for HIV-2 protease as published earlier for the HIV-1 enzyme (Tomasselli, A. G., Hui, J. O., Sawyer, T. K., Staples, D. J., FitzGerald, D. J., Chaudhary, V. K., Pastan, I., and Heinrikson, R. L. (1990) J. Biol. Chem. 265, 408-413). However, the rates of cleavage at these two sites are reversed for the HIV-2 protease which prefers the Leu-Ala bond. The kinetics of hydrolysis of this protein substrate by both enzymes are mirrored by those obtained from cleavage of model peptides. Hydrolysis by the two proteases of other synthetic peptides modeled after processing sites in HIV-1 and HIV-2 gag polyproteins and selected analogs thereof demonstrated differences, as well as similarities, in selectivity. For example, while the two proteases were nearly identical in their rates of cleavage of the Tyr-Pro bond in the HIV-1 gag fragment, Val-Ser-Gln-Asn-Tyr-Pro-Ile-Val, the HIV-1 protease showed a 64-fold enhancement over the HIV-2 enzyme in hydrolysis of a Tyr-Val bond in the same template. Accordingly, the HIV-2 protease appears to have a different specificity than the HIV-1 enzyme; it is better able to hydrolyze substrates with small amino acids in P1 and P1', but is variable in its rate of hydrolysis of peptides with bulky substituents in these positions. In addition to these comparisons of the two proteases with respect to substrate specificity, we present inhibitor structure-activity data for the HIV-2 protease. Relative to P1-P1' statine or Phe psi [CH2N]Pro-modified pseudopeptidyl inhibitors, compounds having Xaa psi[CH(OH)CH2]Yaa inserts were found to show significantly higher affinities to both enzymes, generally binding from 10 to 100 times stronger to HIV-1 protease than to the HIV-2 enzyme. Molecular modeling comparisons based upon the sequence homology of the two enzymes and x-ray crystal structures of HIV-1 protease suggest that most of the nonconservative amino acid replacements occur in regions well outside the catalytic cleft, while only subtle structural differences exist within the active site.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

The virally encoded proteases from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and avian myeloblastosis virus (AMV) have been compared relative to their ability to hydrolyze a variant of the three-domain Pseudomonas exotoxin, PE66. This exotoxin derivative, missing domain I and referred to as LysPE40, is made up of a 13-kilodalton NH2-terminal translocation domain II connected by a segment of 40 amino acids to enzyme domain III of the toxin, a 23-kilodalton ADP-ribosyltransferase. HIV protease hydrolyzes two peptide bonds in LysPE40, a Leu-Leu bond in the interdomain region and a Leu-Ala bond in a nonstructured region three residues in from the NH2-terminus. Neither of these sites is cleaved by the AMV enzyme; hydrolysis occurs, instead, at an Asp-Val bond in another part of the interdomain segment and at a Leu-Thr bond in the NH2-terminal region of domain II. Synthetic peptides corresponding to these cleavage sites are hydrolyzed by the individual proteases with the same specificity displayed toward the protein substrate. Peptide substrates for one protease are neither substrates nor competitive inhibitors for the other. A potent inhibitor of HIV type 1 protease was more than 3 orders of magnitude less active toward the AMV enzyme. These results suggest that although the crystallographic models of Rous sarcoma virus protease (an enzyme nearly identical to the AMV enzyme) and HIV type 1 protease show a high degree of similarity, there exist structural differences between these retroviral proteases that are clearly reflected by their kinetic properties.