| Literature DB >> 21604746 |
Sébastien Fortin1, Lianhu Wei, Emmanuel Moreau, Jacques Lacroix, Marie-France Côté, Eric Petitclerc, Lakshmi P Kotra, René C-Gaudreault.
Abstract
Sixty-one phenyl 4-(2-oxoimidazolidin-1-yl)benzenesulfonates (PIB-SOs) and 13 of their tetrahydro-2-oxopyrimidin-1(2H)-yl analogues (PPB-SOs) were prepared and biologically evaluated. The antiproliferative activities of PIB-SOs on 16 cancer cell lines are in the nanomolar range and unaffected in cancer cells resistant to colchicine, paclitaxel, and vinblastine or overexpressing the P-glycoprotein. None of the PPB-SOs exhibit significant antiproliferative activity. PIB-SOs block the cell cycle progression in the G(2)/M phase and bind to the colchicine-binding site on β-tubulin leading to cytoskeleton disruption and cell death. Chick chorioallantoic membrane tumor assays show that compounds 36, 44, and 45 efficiently block angiogenesis and tumor growth at least at similar levels as combretastatin A-4 (CA-4) and exhibit low to very low toxicity on the chick embryos. PIB-SOs were subjected to CoMFA and CoMSIA analyses to establish quantitative structure-activity relationships.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21604746 PMCID: PMC3131785 DOI: 10.1021/jm200488a
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Chem ISSN: 0022-2623 Impact factor: 7.446
Figure 1Structures of CA-4 and 2–81.
Scheme 1
Reagents and conditions: (i) Al2O3/KF, CH3CN.
Scheme 2
Reagents and conditions: (i) 2-chloroethyl isocyanate or 3-chloropropyl isocyanate, DCM; (ii) NaH, THF; (iii) triphosgene, TEA, THF; (iv) ClSO3H, CCl4; (v) relevant phenol, triethylamine, DCM; (vi) H2, Pd/C 10%, EtOH; (vii) TBAF, THF.
Evaluation of the Antiproliferative Activity of PIB-SOs, PPB-SOs, CA-4, and Compound 6 on HT-29, M21, and MCF7 Cells
The dash (−) indicates “not applicable”.
IC50 is expressed as the concentration of drug inhibiting cell growth by 50%.
Effects of the Most Potent PIB-SOs, CA-4, and Compound 6 on Cell Cycle Progression, Cytoskeleton Integrity, and Results of a Competition Assay with EBI
For cell cycle progression, M21 cells were incubated in presence of PIB-SOs at 5 times their respective IC50 for 24 h.
For competition assay with EBI, MDA-MB-231 cells were incubated in the presence of PIB-SOs at 1000 times their respective IC50 for 2 h and afterward in the presence of 100 μM EBI for 1.5 h.
Inhibition coding: +++, strong inhibition; ++, significant inhibition; +, weak inhibition; −, no inhibition; N/A, not applicable.
M21 cells were treated for 16 h with the drug at 5 times their respective IC50, and cellular microtubule structures were visualized using indirect immunofluorescence using an anti-β-tubulin monoclonal antibody.
Antiproliferative Activity of Compounds 12, 26, 31, 35, 36, 38, 44–46, 60, Colchicine, Paclitaxel, and Vinblastine on CHO, K562, L1210, P388D1, B16F0, DU-145, HT-1080, MDA-MB-231, SKOV3, and CEM Cells
| IC50 (nM) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| compd | CHO | K562 | L1210 | P388D1 | B16F0 | DU 145 | HT-1080 | MDA-MB-231 | SKOV3 | CEM |
| 240 | 240 | 250 | 260 | 510 | 650 | 240 | 760 | 320 | 250 | |
| 18 | 18 | 21 | 19 | 49 | 57 | 24 | 69 | 29 | 19 | |
| 73 | 65 | 67 | 76 | 91 | 170 | 65 | 100 | 72 | 68 | |
| 32 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 65 | 72 | 34 | 55 | 42 | 20 | |
| 18 | 16 | 17 | 19 | 46 | 58 | 19 | 45 | 22 | 17 | |
| 17 | 14 | 19 | 18 | 30 | 57 | 19 | 48 | 23 | 17 | |
| 7.3 | 7.5 | 6.4 | 7.8 | 25 | 25 | 8.2 | 14 | 6.8 | 7.1 | |
| 7.4 | 2.5 | 5.4 | 2.7 | 9.2 | 8.5 | 5.9 | 9.4 | 6.1 | 7.1 | |
| 17 | 7.2 | 9.6 | 7.4 | 41 | 66 | 18 | 26 | 16 | 16 | |
| 230 | 180 | 140 | 240 | 250 | 550 | 190 | 360 | 210 | 200 | |
| Col | 220 | 6.8 | 6.9 | 28 | 13 | 10 | 1.1 | 2.9 | 2.1 | 7.9 |
| Pac | 170 | 0.71 | 0.40 | 35 | 28 | 1.3 | 0.15 | 9.1 | 2.6 | 0.27 |
| Vbl | 17 | 0.36 | 0.16 | 1.8 | 0.099 | 0.063 | 0.099 | 0.12 | 0.039 | 0.38 |
Col, colchicine.
Pac, paclitaxel.
Vbl, vinblastine.
IC50: concentration of drug inhibiting cell growth by 50%.
Antiproliferative Activity of Compounds 12, 26, 31, 35, 36, 38, 44–46, 60, Colchicine, Paclitaxel, and Vinblastine on Chemoresistant TAX 5-6, CHO-VV 3-2, and CEM-VLB Cells
| compd | IC50 (nM) | ratio resistant/wild-type | IC50 (nM) | ratio resistant/wild-type | IC50 (nM) | ratio resistant/wild-type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 200 | 0.83 | 250 | 1.0 | 320 | 1.3 | |
| 14 | 0.78 | 21 | 1.2 | 23 | 1.2 | |
| 38 | 0.52 | 74 | 1.0 | 87 | 1.3 | |
| 12 | 0.38 | 39 | 1.2 | 32 | 1.6 | |
| 9.3 | 0.52 | 20 | 1.1 | 20 | 1.2 | |
| 8.9 | 0.52 | 20 | 1.2 | 18 | 1.1 | |
| 5.2 | 0.71 | 15 | 2.1 | 9.2 | 1.3 | |
| 3 | 0.41 | 8.2 | 1.1 | 9.5 | 1.3 | |
| 6.1 | 0.36 | 20 | 1.2 | 19 | 1.2 | |
| 86 | 0.37 | 260 | 1.1 | 270 | 1.4 | |
| Col | 140 | 0.64 | 620 | 2.8 | 360 | 46 |
| Pac | 520 | 3.1 | 140 | 0.82 | 3340 | 12370 |
| Vbl | 6.9 | 0.41 | 66 | 3.9 | 600 | 1579 |
Col, colchicine.
Pac, paclitaxel.
Vbl, vinblastine.
IC50: concentration of drug inhibiting cell growth by 50%.
Paclitaxel-resistant CHO-TAX 5-6 cells.
Colchicine-and vinblastine-resistant CHO-VV 3-2 cells.
Multidrug-resistant leukemia CEM-VLB cells.
Figure 2Effect of compounds 12, 26, 31, 35, 36, 38, 44–46, 60, and CA-4 on HT 1080 tumor growth and embryo’s toxicity using the CAM model. Gray bars represent the percentage of tumor-wet weight of tumors treated with and without excipient. Black bars represent the percentage of chick embryo mortality.
Figure 3(A) Alignment hypothesis generated using Surflex-Sim mutual alignment module from compounds 26 and 45. (B) Superposition of the derivatives of PIB-SOs and PPB-SOs onto the alignment hypothesis.
Statistical Data of QSAR Method with CoMSIA against Antiproliferative Activity on HT-29, M21, and MCF7 Cells
| CoMSIA 1 | CoMSIA 2 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| model A | model B | model C | model D | model E | model F | |
| fields and parameters | CoMSIA FF, similarity, IM2, LogP, MW | CoMSIA FF, similarity, IM2, LogP, MW | CoMSIA FF, similarity, IM2, LogP, MW | CoMSIA FF, MR | CoMSIA FF, MR | CoMSIA FF, MR |
| 0.684 | 0.660 | 0.670 | 0.618 | 0.619 | 0.569 | |
| 0.697 | 0.668 | 0.680 | 0.612 | 0.609 | 0.551 | |
| STEPloo | 0.520 | 0.541 | 0.518 | 0.584 | 0.579 | 0.601 |
| ONC | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
| SEENoValidation | 0.350 | 0.352 | 0.352 | 0.308 | 0.302 | 0.318 |
| 0.863 | 0.859 | 0.852 | 0.893 | 0.896 | 0.879 | |
| 71.406 (n1 = 6, n2 = 68) | 95.801 (n1 = 6, n2 = 68) | 70.591 (n1 = 6, n2 = 68) | 94.985 (n1 = 6, n2 = 68) | 97.938 (n1 = 6, n2 = 68) | 82.390 (n1 = 6, n2 = 68) | |
Models A, B, and C are optimized CoMSIA models with similarity descriptor. Models D, E, and F are CoMSIA models without similarity descriptor.
CoMSIA FF: steric, electrostatic, hydrophobic, donor, acceptor.
q2 = cross-validated correlation coefficient from LOO.
r2cv = cross-validated correlation coefficient (10 groups).
STEP = standard error of prediction.
ONC = optimal number of components.
SEE = standard error of estimate.
F = r2/(1 – r2).
Statistical Data of QSAR Method with CoMFA against Antiproliferative Activity on HT-29, M21, and MCF7 Cells
| CoMFA 1 | CoMFA 2 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| model G | model H | model I | model J | model K | model L | |
| fields and parameters | CoMFA FF, similarity, MW | CoMFA FF, similarity, MW | CoMFA FF, similarity, MW | CoMFA FF, LogP | CoMFA FF, LogP | CoMFA FF, LogP |
| 0.667 | 0.632 | 0.643 | 0.538 | 0.539 | 0.513 | |
| 0.662 | 0.617 | 0.638 | 0.503 | 0.512 | 0.473 | |
| STEPloo | 0.537 | 0.561 | 0.539 | 0.637 | 0.632 | 0.634 |
| STEPcv | 0.541 | 0.573 | 0.543 | 0.661 | 0.651 | 0.660 |
| ONC | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| SEENoValidation | 0.368 | 0.370 | 0.378 | 0.326 | 0.321 | 0.340 |
| 0.844 | 0.840 | 0.824 | 0.879 | 0.882 | 0.860 | |
| 94.467 (n1 = 4, n2 = 70) | 91.731 (n1 = 4, n2 = 70) | 82.105 (n1 = 4, n2 = 70) | 100.253 (n1 = 5, n2 = 69) | 102.718 (n1 = 5, n2 = 69) | 84.958 (n1 = 5, n2 = 69) | |
Models G, H, and I are optimized CoMFA models with similarity descriptor. Models J, K, and L are CoMFA models without similarity descriptor.
CoMFA FF: steric, electrostatic.
q2 = cross-validated correlation coefficient from LOO.
r2cv = cross-validated correlation coefficient (10 groups).
STEP = standard error of prediction.
ONC = optimal number of components.
SEE = standard error of estimate.
F = r2/(1 – r2).
Figure 4Contour maps of CoMSIA fields contributing to ligand binding generated by PLS analysis in model A (HT-29). Compound 45 (ball-and-stick model) was shown in the figure as a reference to depict the field region. (A) Contour map of steric field. Green areas present favored steric groups, and yellow areas present disfavored steric groups. (B) Contour map of electrostatic field. Blue areas favored electrostatic field (higher positive charge will increase the activity) and red areas disfavored electrostatic field (lower positive charge will increase the activity). (C) Contour map of hydrophobic field. Yellow areas show favored hydrophobic region, and cyan areas show disfavored hydrophobic region. (D) Contour map of hydrogen bond donor field. Cyan regions are the hydrogen bond donor preferred region, and purple regions are where hydrogen bond donor is not favored. (E) Contour map of hydrogen bond acceptor field. Magenta regions depict the favored hydrogen bond acceptor region, and red regions illustrate the hydrogen bond disfavored region.
Figure 5Contour maps of CoMFA fields contributing to ligand binding generated by PLS analysis in model G (HT-29). Compound 45 (ball-and-stick model) is shown as a reference to depict the field region. (A) Contour map of steric field. Green areas present the favored steric interaction from the ligands, and the yellow areas show the regions that disfavored steric contribution. (B) Contour map of electrostatic field. Blue areas depict favored electrostatic regions; increasing positive charge will contribute to higher activity. Red areas show the disfavored electrostatic areas, where higher ligand binding does not like higher positive charge.