4.4 Article

Potent Inhibitors of HIV-1 Integrase Display a Two-Step, Slow-Binding Inhibition Mechanism Which Is Absent in a Drug-Resistant T66I/M154I Mutant

Journal

BIOCHEMISTRY
Volume 48, Issue 7, Pages 1644-1653

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/bi802141y

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. [GSK364735]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Two-metal binding HIV-1 integrase inhibitors (INIs) are potent inhibitors of HIV-1 in vitro and in patients. We report here for the first time the kinetics of inhibition of integrase-catalyzed strand transfer. First, the IC50 values for each of six structurally distinct INIs decreased when a preincubation was included: S-1360 (1.3 mu M vs 0.12 mu M), L-731,988 (130 nM vs 9 nM), L-870,810 (130 nM vs 4 nM), raltegravir (300 nM vs 9 nM), elvitegravir (90 nM vs 6 nM), and GSK364735 (90 nM vs 6 nM). When reactions with these INIs were initiated with integrase, progress curve analyses indicated time-dependent inhibition, which could be fitted to a two-step mechanism of binding. Overall fitted K-i values matched the IC50 values measured with a preincubation: S-1360 (0.17 mu M), L-731,988 (34 nM), L-870,810 (2.4 nM), raltegravir (10 nM), elvitegravir (4.0 nM), and GSK364735 (2.5 nM). To begin to understand the mechanism for this slow onset of inhibition and its possible impact on drug resistance, studies of resistance mutations were initiated. T66I/M154I exhibited little if any time-dependent inhibition by any of the six INIs, as measured by differences in potency upon preincubation or by progress curve analysis. These data demonstrate that slow binding is a signature of two-metal binding INIs, and that the second slow step is required for full potency. We discuss a possible structural explanation of the second slow step of inhibition and also the relationship between loss of time-dependent inhibition and drug resistance of this important new class of HIV-1 antiretroviral drugs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available