Structural determination of human SLC19A2 and SLC19A3
Thiamine transporters (~ 55 kDa) lack discernable extramembrane domains apart from the 12 transmembrane helices (TMs). To facilitate the cryo-EM analysis, we immunized mice with a shorter version of human SLC19A3 construct (residues 6-472) that lacks the disordered but highly immunogenic N- and C-termini (SLC19A3cryo, Extended Data Fig. 1a). We isolated a high-affinity fragment antigen-binding region (Fab) against SLC19A3, and successfully determined the cryo-EM structures of SLC19A3-Fab in the apo state and in complex with thiamine, pyridoxine, fedratinib, amprolium, and metformin (Fig. 1 and Extended Data Figs. 1–5). The truncated construct (SLC19A3cryo) showed the radiolabeled thiamine (3H-thiamine) uptake activity similar to wild-type in stably transfected HEK293T cells (Extended Data Fig. 1d), therefore it was still referred to as SLC19A3 hereafter. Notably, all of these SLC19A3 structures were captured in the outward-facing state by the intracellular side Fab binder, implying a conformation-specific antibody generated by the antigen vaccination strategy.
To aid in the structural identification of SLC19A3, we also employed a different strategy by adding a helical MPER peptide prior to the amino-end of TM1 helix (SLC19A3MPER) and assembling a stable complex with its high-affinity antibody (Fab_10E8v4, Extended Data Fig. 1b)30. SLC19A3MPER retains robust 3H-thiamine uptake in HEK293T cells, with activity levels approximately half those of wild-type SLC19A3, possibly due to perturbed surface localization (Extended Data Fig. 1d); therefore, this MPER-fusion construct was also denoted as SLC19A3 for simplicity. Interestingly, such an approach enabled the capture of SLC19A3 in a distinct inward-facing conformation, either in the presence of thiamine or the antineoplastic drug fedratinib (Fig. 1 and Extended Data Figs. 2–5).
We also used the same MPER-fusion approach for human SLC19A2. In accordance, the N-terminal 30 residues of SLC19A2 were removed to design the contiguous helix formation of MPER segment with TM1 (SLC19A2MPER, Extended Data Fig. 1c). The SLC19A2MPER protein accumulated moderately less 3H-thiamine compared to wild-type in HEK293 cells (Extended Data Fig. 1f), likely due to the decreased surface expression, as shown by Said and colleagues that the N-terminal sequence (residues 19–29) is important for cell surface localization of SLC19A231. For simplicity, the fusion construct is still referred to as SLC19A2. By using the same MPER-Fab binder, we obtained the inward-facing conformation of SLC19A2 in complex with either thiamine or pyridoxine (Fig. 1 and Extended Data Figs. 3–5). Notably, the relative orientation of this MPER/Fab differs in the two closely related transporters (Extended Data Fig. 6a), as the MPER segment failed to form a seamless helix with SLC19A2 TM1, probably because of the variation in junction residues (Phe30/Leu31 in hSLC19A2 vs Ile13/Tyr14 in hSLC19A3, Extended Data Fig. 7).
Thiamine recognition and transport in SLC19A3
As expected, apo SLC19A3 adopts the canonical MFS fold, with the translocation passage formed between two pseudo-symmetrically related domains: N-domain TMs 1–6, and C-domain TMs 7–12. Two helical bundles are connected by a long intracellular linker (Lys194 to Lys276) between TM6 and TM7 (Figs. 2a-b). A well-resolved density for an amphipathic helical stretch (Phe262-Cys272) in the outward-facing map is embedded parallelly in the membrane. Compared to the 3.15-Å resolution apo SLC19A3 map, both the 3.0-Å outward-facing and the 3.36-Å inward-facing maps with thiamine supplemented exhibit an additional density that fits well for a thiamine molecule in the translocation funnel (Figs. 2c-f). The electropositive thiamine sits snugly in the overall electronegative cavity, which is positioned close to the extracellular side of SLC19A3 TMD (Figs. 2c and 2e). Such a superficial location of substrate binding pocket is reminiscent of the homologous SLC19A1 bound by folate27–29.
Comparison of the thiamine-bound outward- and inward-facing SLC19A3 structures reveals that the transporter adopts a similar rocker-switch movement as seen in other MFS members. Notably, SLC19A3 pivots at one-third of the funnel axis, close to the extracellular side, whereas other MFS transporters typically rock around the central site25,26. A closer look at the thiamine binding pocket reveals both similarities and differences between the outward- and inward-facing states. In the outward-facing conformation, thiamine is mainly embraced by residues from the N-domain (Fig. 2d). Specifically, the aminopyrimidine ring of thiamine wedges deeply into the N-domain helical bundle along the horizontal membrane plane, and stacks against Tyr113 on TM4 and, to a lesser extent, Trp59 on TM2 via π-π interactions. The primary amine and the adjacent ring-nitrogen fully engage with Glu110 on TM4 through hydrogen-bonding. The methyl group on the aminopyrimidine moiety points to a hydrophobic cage lined by Val109 on TM4, and Thr93 and Leu97 on TM3. Linked to the aminopyrimidine by a methylene bridge, the thiazolium ring on the other side of thiamine is bent nearly perpendicular to the aminopyrimidine ring, and faces the ample translocation funnel that establishes π stacking against Phe56 on TM2. Glu32 on the substantially unwound segment of TM1 is in close vicinity of the second ring-nitrogen of aminopyrimidine (3.4 Å) and the positively charged thiazolium nitrogen (5.5 Å), which may provide additional electrostatic attraction and selectivity for cationic thiamine. The hydroxyethyl tail of thiamine is approaching the backbone carbonyl oxygen of Asn297 on TM7, the only contact with the C-domain bundle in the outward-facing conformation.
Along with the conformational transition of SLC19A3 from outward-facing to inward-facing state, thiamine exhibits a substantial rearrangement. In the inward-facing SLC19A3 structure, the thiamine molecule adopts a more extended conformation, compared to the bent posture in the outward-facing state (Fig. 2e). While the aminopyrimidine moiety of thiamine remains accommodated by the similar set of residues on N-domain, the thiazolium ring swings away from Phe56 toward the interior of translocation funnel. This substantial movement establishes the primary amine on aminopyrimidine ring bonding with Asn297, reorients the thiazolium ring sandwiched between TM1 and TM7, moves the thiazolium nitrogen closer to Glu32 (4.8 Å), and approaches the hydroxyethyl tail to Glu320 on TM8. Moreover, additional interactions between thiamine and Tyr151, Leu296, and Gln300 are also established (Fig. 2f). Thus, the thiamine is fully coordinated by both N-domain and C-domain when SLC19A3 transits from outward- to inward-facing state. The interaction network is further validated by our mutagenesis analysis on the cellular uptake of 3H-thiamine (Fig. 2g and Extended Data Fig. 1e).
Unique features in thiamine-SLC19A2 interaction
Human SLC19A2 is the first identified high-affinity thiamine transporter5, which shares ~ 48% sequence identity with its close homolog SLC19A3 (Extended Data Fig. 7). Both transporters can transport thiamine efficiently, while SLC19A2 has a slightly larger Km and higher import Vmax values than SLC19A3, and their transport profiles can be altered differently by pH conditions, suggesting different mechanisms underlying SLC19A2 and SLC19A3-mediated thiamine absorption5–7. To address this issue, we first measured the thiamine binding affinity with purified SLC19A2 or SLC19A3 in different pH buffers via a microscale thermophoresis (MST) assay (Fig. 3). At pH 7.5, thiamine exhibits a comparable affinity with both SLC19A2 (Kd ~ 85.9 µM) and SLC19A3 (Kd ~ 66.4 µM, Fig. 3a), consistent with the reported Km difference7. Surprisingly, thiamine binds more strongly to SLC19A2 (Kd ~ 1.2 µM), and even tighter to SLC19A3 (Kd ~ 0.05 µM) at pH 6.0 (Fig. 3b).
To gain a deeper understanding of the different behavior, we prepared thiamine-bound SLC19A2 sample under the same condition as thiamine-bound SLC19A3MPER, and determined a 3.28-Å inward-facing structure at pH 6.0 (Extended Data Fig. 5). As expected, the overall structure of SLC19A2 is similar to that of SLC19A3, with the main chain Cα root mean standard deviation (RMSD) of 0.8 Å (Extended Data Fig. 6b). Consistently, thiamine occupies the cavity of similar interaction elements on SLC19A2 as described above for SLC19A3 (Figs. 3e and 3f), which is consistent with alterations in cellular uptake capacity of 3H-thiamine upon alanine substitution of pocket residues (Fig. 3k). However, closer inspection into the substrate pocket did reveal some unique features. First, residues Tyr74, Leu127, Phe169 and Val313 on SLC19A2 are replaced by Phe56, Val109, Tyr151 and Leu296 at equivalent positions on SLC19A3 (Extended Data Fig. 7). In the inward-facing SLC19A3, the thiazolium ring of thiamine is approached by Tyr151 hydroxyl group at its sulfur on one side, and by the hydrophobic Leu296 on the other side (Fig. 2f). Instead, SLC19A2 Phe169 lacks the hydroxyl group, while Val313 has a shorter side chain. Second, Asn297 establishes a hydrogen bond with the primary amine group of thiamine in SLC19A3, while the counterpart Asn314 of SLC19A2 orients away from thiamine (Fig. 3f). Therefore, these minor but significant variations may contribute to a slightly lower affinity of thiamine for SLC19A2 than for SLC19A3, resulting in divergent kinetics for the two transporters.
Pyridoxine binding sites on SLC19A2 and SLC19A3
Thiamine transporters SLC19A2/A3 have been recently identified as the long-seeking carrier for pyridoxine (vitamin B6) absorption, a protonophore-sensitive process that favors acidic conditions over neutral to basic conditions7. Our MST measurements revealed that pyridoxine binds relatively weaker to SLC19A2 (Kd ~ 161.4 µM) than to SLC19A3 (Kd ~ 88.8 µM) at pH 6.0 (Fig. 3c), consistent with previous cellular uptake Km values7. Interestingly, both transporters showed substantially increased affinity for pyridoxine at pH 7.5 (Fig. 3d).
To understand the molecular mechanism for pyridoxine recognition and transportation, we further determined the structures of pyridoxine in complex with SLC19A3 and SLC19A2 (Extended Data Figs. 4 and 5). The outward-facing pyridoxine-bound SLC19A3 structure is nearly identical to thiamine-bound SLC19A3 (Cα RMSD 0.43 Å, Extended Data Fig. 6c), with pyridoxine inserted at the similar cavity to thiamine and embraced by almost the same set of residues exclusively on the N-domain (Figs. 3g and 3h). Specifically, the pyridine ring is clamped by Phe56 and Tyr113 through π-π stacking, contacted by Glu32 and Glu110 via hydrogen bonding, and buttressed by Trp59, Thr93, Trp94, Leu97 and Val109 upon hydrophobic interaction (Fig. 3h). Likewise, the inward-facing pyridoxine-bound SLC19A2 structure is also similar to thiamine-bound SLC19A2 (Cα RMSD 1.04 Å, Extended Data Fig. 6d), with pyridoxine occupying the same cluster of hydrophilic or hydrophobic residues in thiamine binding site (Figs. 3i and 3j). These observations thus corroborate the notion that pyridoxine is a competitive substrate for thiamine transporters7.
Inhibition of SLC19A3 by antineoplastic fedratinib
Fedratinib (Inrebic®) is a newly FDA-approved selective inhibitor of Janus kinase 2 (JAK-2) to treat myeloproliferative diseases including myelofibrosis32, with a boxed warning regarding the risk of potentially fatal encephalopathy. The clinical development of fedratinib was halted in 2013, when several cases consistent with Wernicke’s encephalopathy were reported in some participants20. We confirmed the inhibitory effect of fedratinib on both SLC19A2- and SLC19A3-mediated thiamine absorption in HEK293T cells (Fig. 4a), and assessed the direct binding of fedratinib to purified SLC19A3 (Kd ~ 0.54 µM), and to a lesser extent to SLC19A2 (Kd ~ 6.78 µM), by the MST assay (Fig. 4b). The 10-fold difference in in vitro binding affinity likely underpins the mechanism that fedratinib inhibits thiamine uptake by SLC19A3 slightly stronger than by SLC19A2 (IC50: 1.09 µM for SLC19A3 vs 10.7 µM for SLC19A2, respectively)33. We then determined the structures of SLC19A3 with fedratinib in the outward- and inward-facing conformations at 3.1-Å and 3.0-Å resolution, respectively (Extended Data Figs. 4 and 5).
Both fedratinib-bound structures share an overall similar architecture with the corresponding thiamine-bound outward-facing (Cα RMSD 0.37 Å) and inward-facing SLC19A3 (Cα RMSD 0.73 Å), respectively (Extended Data Figs. 6e and 6f). In the outward-facing structure, fedratinib adopts a bent conformation with its two semi-equal length branches kinking around the 2,4-diaminopyrimidine moiety (Fig. 4c). Interestingly, this 2,4-diaminopyrimidine group occupies the same position as the aminopyridine ring of thiamine bound in outward-facing SLC19A3, which allows the establishment of π-π stacking against Tyr113, and hydrogen bonding with two acidic residues Glu32 and Glu110 via its two amine nitrogens. In addition, the benzene ring on the pyrrolidine branch also π-stacks with Phe56 on TM5, a mimic of the thiamine thiazolium ring, and the terminal pyrrolidine ring approaches Asn297, Tyr298 and Ile301 on TM7. On the opposite sulfonamide branch, the sulfonyl group H-bonds with Tyr113 and is proximal to Arg29 on TM1, and the distal hydrophobic tert-butyl group is close to Tyr151 and Leu296 (Fig. 4d).
In the inward-facing state, however, fedratinib adopts an even more compact conformation (Fig. 4e). Although the diaminopyrimidine group and the sulfonamide branch remain in nearly the same position as that in the outward-facing state, the pyrrolidine branch swings away from Phe56 and bends toward the intracellular exit, with the benzene ring T-stacking against Trp59 indole group and the pyrrolidine ring facing its sulfonamide group (Fig. 4f). This conformational rearrangement of fedratinib is similar to that of the thiamine transitions from outward- to inward-facing state. These features further support the concept that fedratinib inhibits thiamine transporters by structurally mimicking thiamine20.
Metformin and amprolium interactions with SLC19A3
Thiamine-like drugs and other structurally unrelated cationic compounds have been demonstrated interaction with thiamine transporters21,33. Our cellular 3H-thiamine uptake assays confirmed the inhibitory effects of thiamine analogues (amprolium, oxythiamine, trimethoprium, pyrimethamine), tyrosine kinase inhibitors (fedratinib, momelotinib, imatinib), antidepressant sertraline, as well as metformin. We further expanded the inhibitor list to include CDKs inhibitor abemaciclib and reverse transcriptase inhibitor etravirine (Extended Data Fig. 8a). Most, if not all, of the drugs have an aminopyrimidine core, a typical characteristic suitable for recognition by thiamine transporters21,33. To further elucidate the molecular basis of these compounds in addition to fedratinib, we determined SLC19A3 structures in complex with coccidiostat amprolium and antidiabetic metformin, both in outward-facing conformation at 3.1-Å resolution (Extended Data Figs. 4 and 5).
In contrast to the bent conformation of thiamine, amprolium adopts an extended pose in the similar binding pocket on SLC19A3 N-domain (Fig. 5a). The aminopyrimidine ring of amprolium overlaps with that of thiamine and is engaged by the same cluster of residues, as anticipated. The propyl chain adorned on pyrimidine ring extends to the hydrophobic cage composed of Thr93, Trp94, Leu97 and Val109. The pyridine ring, a substitute for thiamine’s thiazolium ring, stacks nearly face-to-face with Trp59 and edge-to-face against Phe56 (Fig. 5b-c). The semi-conserved interaction network thus maintains a tight contact for amprolium with SLC19A3 and SLC19A2 (Kd ~ 0.45 µM and ~ 3.05, respectively) at pH 6.0, with comparable binding affinities to thiamine (Extended Data Fig. 8b).
The metformin-SLC19A3 structure demonstrates a similar coordination network for the biguanide to that of thiamine, albeit without an aminopyrimidine ring (Fig. 5d). Specifically, metformin is clamped by Phe56, Trp59 and Tyr113 via cation-π interactions and balanced by flanking hydrogen bonds with Glu32 and Glu110. The dimethyl substituent inserts into the same hydrophobic cage as described above (Figs. 5e-f). This interaction pattern differs from that of organic cation transporter 1 (OCT1), a well-known carrier for metformin34, which has a similar millimolar affinity to SLC19A3 (Extended Data Fig. 9). Despite cation-π stacking against neighboring aromatic residues, metformin did not interact with the acidic residues Glu386 or Asp474 in the inward-facing OCT1 structure35. Notably, in the same study, the thiamine was also distant from either Glu386 or Asp474 on OCT1 (Extended Data Fig. 9). Nevertheless, our data support the notion that metformin is a substrate and inhibitor of SLC19A319.