Systematic analysis shows single- and double-halogen modifications improve binding potency of m6A to YTHDF1, suggesting new therapeutic strategies.
N6-methyladenosine (m6A) is the most plentiful internal modification event in eukaryotic RNAs and regulated dynamically by a variety of its cognate functional partners in a context-dependent manner, namely writers, erasers and readers. The YTHDF1 is a well-documented cytoplasmic m6A reader that can specifically recognize and interact with m6A via its YT521-B homology (YTH) domain. In this study, the three methyl hydrogens of m6A mononucleotide were systematically swapped with four halogens (X = F, Cl, Br and I), totally resulting in the 4 single-, 10 double- and 20 triple-halogen modified counterparts of m6A (i.e. N6-halomethyladenosine, Xm6A). Energetic analyses and affinity assays indicated a moderate binding potency of m6A mononucleotide to YTHDF1 YTH domain, which can be improved by different single-halogen modifications. The electron-correlation calculations revealed that the affinity improvement is primarily donated from formation of additional halogen-π interactions with YTH aromatic cage upon the halogenations. Bromine, but not the bulky iodine, modification reaches the affinity maximum at Brm6A - this can be considered as a compromise between the favorable halogen-π interactions and the unfavorable steric effects caused by halogen modifications. For the same reason, single- and double-modifications generally contribute more favorably to YTH-Xm6A binding than triple-modifications. Further competition assays observed that the m6A mononucleotide and its single-modified Brm6A counterpart can competitively displace a m6A-containing RNA bound in the binding site of YTHDF1 YTH domain in moderate and high potencies, respectively, implying that halogen-modified Xm6A mononucleotides could be exploited as therapeutic strategy by competitively disrupting the cognate intermolecular interaction between YTH domain and RNA m6A.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Xiao et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: