The Hedgehog signaling pathway is involved in the development of multicellular organisms and, when deregulated, can contribute to certain cancers, among other diseases. The molecular characterization of the pathway, which has been enabled by small-molecule probes targeting its components, remains incomplete. Here, we report the discovery of two potent, small-molecule inhibitors of the Sonic Hedgehog (Shh) pathway, BRD50837 and BRD9526. Both compounds exhibit stereochemistry-based structure-activity relationships, a feature suggestive of a specific and selective interaction of the compounds with as-yet-unknown cellular target(s) and made possible by the strategy used to synthesize them as members of a stereochemically and skeletally diverse screening collection. The mechanism-of-action of these compounds in some ways shares similarities to that of cyclopamine, a commonly used pathway inhibitor. Yet, in other ways their mechanism-of-action is strikingly distinct. We hope that these novel compounds will be useful probes of this complex signaling pathway.
The Hedgehog signaling pathway is involved in the development of multicellular organisms and, when deregulated, can contribute to certain cancers, among other diseases. The molecular characterization of the pathway, which has been enabled by small-molecule probes targeting its components, remains incomplete. Here, we report the discovery of two potent, small-molecule inhibitors of the Sonic Hedgehog (Shh) pathway, BRD50837 and BRD9526. Both compounds exhibit stereochemistry-based structure-activity relationships, a feature suggestive of a specific and selective interaction of the compounds with as-yet-unknown cellular target(s) and made possible by the strategy used to synthesize them as members of a stereochemically and skeletally diverse screening collection. The mechanism-of-action of these compounds in some ways shares similarities to that of cyclopamine, a commonly used pathway inhibitor. Yet, in other ways their mechanism-of-action is strikingly distinct. We hope that these novel compounds will be useful probes of this complex signaling pathway.
The Hedgehog (Hh) signaling
pathway plays an important role in
embryonic development and the overall growth and morphology of insects
and vertebrates.[1,2] Improper Hh signaling can result
in developmental diseases, such as holoprosencephaly.[3] Somatic genomic alterations in genes encoding members of
the pathway drive the development and maintenance of several cancers,
especially basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and medulloblastoma.[4−7]The pathway becomes activated when an extracellular secreted
protein
from the Hh family, most commonly Sonic Hedgehog (Shh), binds patched
(Ptch), a transmembrane receptor. In the absence of this binding,
Ptch represses the G-protein coupled transmembrane receptor, smoothened
(Smo). Formation of the Shh/Ptch complex in some still unknown way
derepresses Smo, causing its translocation to the primary cilium where
it influences the state of the transcription regulator Gli. Smo enables
a release of Gli from a repressor complex comprising Gli and, among
others, suppressor of fused (SuFu). The resulting activated form of
Gli translocates to the nucleus and activates genes involved in cell
proliferation and differentiation.[4,8,9]Several small-molecule modulators of this complex
pathway have
been discovered, with many acting on Smo directly. Prominent examples
are cyclopamine (a natural product found in Veratrum
Californicum) and vismodegib (an FDA-approved drug
for the treatment of BCC).[10−12] Other inhibitors have been reported
to act on Shh (robotnikinin),[13] modulate
the motor protein dynein (ciliobrevin A),[14] or disrupt DNA–Gli interactions (GANT-61).[15]In addition to this ‘canonical’ Hh
signaling, Hh
proteins also promote ‘noncanonical’ signaling that
is Gli-independent.[16−18] Further complexities are evidenced by the findings
that different small-molecule inhibitors of Smo can result in different
cellular outcomes. For example, vismodegib prevents Smo translocation
to the primary cilium, while cyclopamine promotes Smo accumulation
in the primary cilium.[19,20]To enhance our molecular
understanding of the pathway, we aimed
to discover novel small-molecule probes of Hh signaling. We first
performed a cell-based high-throughput screen for novel inhibitors
of Gli-induced transcription. We discovered a group of small molecules
having compelling stereochemistry-based structure–activity
relationships (SAR), which we interpret as indirect evidence for a
selective interaction with cellular target(s). Synthetic chemistry
to generate analogs resulted in the elucidation of additional building
block-based SAR and characterization of the novel Shh pathway inhibitors
BRD50837 and BRD9526 with a mechanism-of-action distinct from cyclopamine.
Results
and Discussion
We first screened 21 753 compounds
in a cell-based assay
using Shh light II cells. These cells are derived from NIH/3T3 cells
by cotransfection with a Gli-responsive Firefly luciferase reporter.[10,21] All compounds were screened in duplicate at a single concentration.
Screening positives (mean inhibition ≥65%) were retested in
dose, and their toxicity was assessed using CellTiter-Glo to measure
cellular adenosine triphosphate (ATP) levels as a surrogate for viability
(Figure S1a-b). A total of 390 hits were
identified and advanced for further investigation.Both the
primary screen and multiple dose-retest data revealed
a striking correlation between activity and stereochemistry of members
of a library of the screening collection. These compounds were initially
synthesized using the build/couple/pair strategy of diversity-oriented
synthesis (DOS).[22,23] As a consequence, all possible
stereoisomers of each structural type are included in the collection.
The compounds in the library screened include ∼6700 compounds
with varying eight-membered rings that are formed by nucleophilic
aromatic substitution reactions. Based on the primary screening data,
two of the eight stereoisomers of several compounds having the same
eight-membered ring skeleton were active, the RSR and the SSR isomers,
with the sole difference being the configuration of the extra-annular
methyl group (Figure 1). These initial findings
were confirmed in a second biological assay that measures Hh-induced
differentiation of C3H10T1/2 cells into osteoblasts.[24] Retesting all eight stereoisomers of several hit compounds
in dose using Shh-conditioned medium-induced C3H10T1/2 cells confirmed
that BRD50837 selectively blocks the Hh pathway in cells (Figures 1b and S1c).
Figure 1
(a) Primary
screening data are displayed as percent luciferase
activity in Shh light II cells. Each small block displays a heat map
associated with eight stereoisomeric compounds having the same skeleton
and appendages. The overall panel A displays a near-complete matrix
of multiple skeletons (only one shown in C) and building blocks used
for R2 and R3 (displayed on the left (y-axis) and bottom (x-axis)). In the heat
maps, blue represents inhibition (−100), yellow represents
no activity (0), and red represents activation (100) normalized to
DMSO control. Empty cells represent compounds not tested. Values shown
are from testing compounds twice in single dose. (b) The highlighted
block represents the dose–response data of eight stereoisomers
of a primary subject of this report (BRD50837). (c) Dose–response
curve of BRD50837 in C3H10T1/2 cell differentiation assay and structure
of BRD50837 highlighting positions of building block attachment. All
values shown are generated from three independent experiments run
in duplicate (values are calculated average ± SD).
(a) Primary
screening data are displayed as percent luciferase
activity in Shh light II cells. Each small block displays a heat map
associated with eight stereoisomeric compounds having the same skeleton
and appendages. The overall panel A displays a near-complete matrix
of multiple skeletons (only one shown in C) and building blocks used
for R2 and R3 (displayed on the left (y-axis) and bottom (x-axis)). In the heat
maps, blue represents inhibition (−100), yellow represents
no activity (0), and red represents activation (100) normalized to
DMSO control. Empty cells represent compounds not tested. Values shown
are from testing compounds twice in single dose. (b) The highlighted
block represents the dose–response data of eight stereoisomers
of a primary subject of this report (BRD50837). (c) Dose–response
curve of BRD50837 in C3H10T1/2 cell differentiation assay and structure
of BRD50837 highlighting positions of building block attachment. All
values shown are generated from three independent experiments run
in duplicate (values are calculated average ± SD).All hits were tested in the secondary differentiation
assay using
C3H10T1/2 cells to substantiate their on-pathway activity (Tables 1 and S1). Additionally,
to rule out gross toxicity as source of signal, all compounds were
tested in a viability assay using CellTiter-Glo as a means to estimate
cellular levels of ATP (Table S1). BRD50837
displayed high potency with an EC50 of 0.09 μM. A
PubChem search of other assays wherein BRD50837 (CID 44499307) was
screened revealed that, as of May 27, 2013, BRD50837 had been tested
in 31 different assays but only scored in our initial screen, suggesting
that it is not broadly active. Compared to other similarly potent
compounds, BRD50837 showed good phosphate buffered saline (PBS) solubility
(64.3 μM) and was thus chosen as a starting point for further
experimentation.
Table 1
EC50 in C3H10T1/2 Cells
and PBS Solubility of Analogs of BRD50837
Solubility was measured for compounds
that were considered for subsequent experimentation based on their
EC50.
To elucidate additional building block-based
SAR, we synthesized
novel analogs, varying the attachments on the aniline and the extra-annular
amine as well as removing the extra-annular alcohol. BRD50837 (7) and additional novel analogs 8–19 were synthesized using an abbreviated synthetic pathway
relative to the previously reported solid-phase synthesis (Schemes 1 and S1). For the synthesis
of 7–16, intermediate 4a was synthesized from 1 and 2a as previously
reported.[22,23] Subsequently, the nitrobenzene was reduced
to an aniline that was acylated with acyl chlorides to yield anilides 5. After deprotection of the extra-annular nitrogen with hydrogen
fluoride (HF)/pyridine and addition of a sulfonyl chloride, the para-methoxybenzyl ether (PMB) group was removed with 2,3-dichloro-5,6-dicyanobenzo-quinone
(DDQ), resulting in the final compounds.
Scheme 1
To synthesize analog 18, 2b was used
instead of 2a as a starting material, and the final PMB
deprotection step was omitted. Analog 17 was synthesized
by preparing intermediate 5a as before, removing the
PMB group with DDQ, deprotecting the tert-butoxycarbonyl
(Boc) group with trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) and forming the tertiary
amine 17 by reductive amination with para-chlorobenzaldehyde. Compound 19 was prepared by treating
intermediate 4a with sodium nitrate and sodium bisulfate,
which resulted in the deaminated product 6. Subsequent
deprotection of the Boc group with HF/pyridine, addition of the sulfonyl
chloride and removal of the PMB group with DDQ yielded 19. All compounds were purified by column chromatography (30 min, 0–100%
ethyl acetate in hexanes) and if necessary by HPLC purification (SI, synthetic procedures).Both new and
previously synthesized analogs were tested in C3H10T1/2
cells using Shh-conditioned medium-induced differentiation as readout
of Hh signaling (Tables 1 and S1). Viability for all compounds was tested in this system
as well, using CellTiter-Glo as a measure of ATP levels (Table S1). Changes on the aniline moiety of the
compound were tolerated, but activity was optimal for saturated ring
systems (BRD50837, 12, 20). The cyclopropyl
derivative (BRD50837) proved to have better solubility in PBS than
the cyclohexyl derivatives (12, 20) making
it the more favorable candidate. Complete removal of the aniline moiety
(19, Table S1) resulted in
a loss of activity. Ureas instead of amides also showed activity but
were less soluble (21, 25, 26, Table S1).Solubility was measured for compounds
that were considered for subsequent experimentation based on their
EC50.Changing
the sulfonamide building block from para-chlorobenzene
sulfonyl chloride to ortho- or meta-chlorobenzene sulfonyl chloride (13, 14) resulted in reduced activity. An additional chlorine in
the ortho position of the sulfonamide building block (BRD9526 (15)) did not impact the activity, suggesting that the chlorine
in the para position is interacting with a putative cellular target,
while that in the ortho position is not. This was also reinforced
by the previous observation that the compound lacking the chlorine
entirely had reduced activity (24). When testing the
previously synthesized compounds it was additionally shown that the
chlorine derivative is more active as compared to the fluorine and
methyl derivatives (22, 23). Having an additional
methylene in the sulfonyl chloride also resulted in a decrease of
activity (16, Table S1). Preparing
the tertiary amine (17) rather than the sulfonamide resulted
in a decrease of activity, demonstrating a possible electronic or
spatial requirement for the sulfonamide connector. This was also reflected
by additional tertiary amines tested in previous SAR studies (27, 28, Table S1).Removing the extra-annular alcohol (18) resulted in
a loss of activity, showing that the alcohol, which originally was
used as a point of attachment in solid-phase synthesis, is necessary.The original DOS pathway also yielded compounds having eight-membered
rings where the aniline moiety is in the para instead of the ortho
position, and nine-membered rings where the aniline moiety is also
in the para position.[22] BRD50837s analogs
having these structural elements were not active (29, 30, Table S1).We prioritized
BRD50837 and BRD9526 (15) for further
experimentation as both displayed good EC50s (Figure 2a) and similar PBS solubility (Table 1). Neither showed significant toxicity based on measuring
ATP levels as a surrogate for growth or viability (Figure 2b). Reduction of Gli1 expression in C3H10T1/2 cells
by 1 μM treatments of these two compounds was confirmed (Figure S2a).
Figure 2
All values are shown and generated from
three independent experiments
run in duplicate (values are calculated average ± SD). (a) Inhibition
of Shh-conditioned medium (CM) induced differentiation of C3H10T1/2
cells by BRD50837, BRD9526, and cyclopamine after 48 h. (b) Viability
of CM-induced C3H10T1/2 cells in response to 48 h treatment by BRD50837,
BRD9526, and cyclopamine. (c) Inhibition of SAG-induced differentiation
of C3H10T1/2 cells by BRD50837, BRD9526, and cyclopamine after 48
h. (d) β-galactosidase expression response of Ptch–/– cells to 48 h treatment with BRD50837, BRD9526, and cyclopamine.
All values are shown and generated from
three independent experiments
run in duplicate (values are calculated average ± SD). (a) Inhibition
of Shh-conditioned medium (CM) induced differentiation of C3H10T1/2
cells by BRD50837, BRD9526, and cyclopamine after 48 h. (b) Viability
of CM-induced C3H10T1/2 cells in response to 48 h treatment by BRD50837,
BRD9526, and cyclopamine. (c) Inhibition of SAG-induced differentiation
of C3H10T1/2 cells by BRD50837, BRD9526, and cyclopamine after 48
h. (d) β-galactosidase expression response of Ptch–/– cells to 48 h treatment with BRD50837, BRD9526, and cyclopamine.To understand the mechanisms-of-action
of these compounds, we tested
the response to BRD50837 and BRD9526 in several epistasis experiments
and a competition assay in comparison to cyclopamine, a commonly used
Smo inhibitor. We first tested the compounds in C3H10T1/2 cells that
were treated with SAG (a small-molecule activator of Smo) rather than
Shh-conditioned medium to activate the Hh pathway (Figure 2c).[21] Like cyclopamine,
the compounds suppressed SAG-induced differentiation, suggesting a
mechanism-of-action involving modulation of a step in the signaling
cascade at or following Smo signaling. In parallel, we tested the
compounds in Ptch–/– cells, mouse embryonic
fibroblasts that contain a β-galactosidase reporter gene instead
of the Ptch gene after the Ptch promoter.[10] Lacking the repressor Ptch, the Hh pathway is constitutively active
in these cells. In this assay cyclopamine maintained its inhibition
of the pathway, but BRD50837 and BRD9526 had no effect (Figure 2d). When viewing the overall pathway as a linear
set of response nodules, these results are apparently in contrast
to the previous observation; they suggest that the compounds act at
the level of Ptch or a step upstream of Ptch signaling. However, we
also identified compounds from the original screen with responses
similar to cyclopamine in Ptch–/– cell-based,
SAG/C3H10T1/2 cell-based, and BODIPY-cyclopamine displacement assays
(data not shown), which gave us confidence that the assays accurately
measure compound/activity profiles.With these puzzling results
in hand, we performed two additional
assays to characterize the compounds. We first tested the compounds
in a competition assay to determine whether they displace BODIPY-cyclopamine
in a cellular assay, thus suggesting that they bind Smo in the cyclopamine-binding
site.[25] Unlike cyclopamine, both BRD50837
and BRD9526 did not lead to a reduction of BODIPY-cyclopamine binding
(Figures 3a and S3), suggesting that BRD50837 and BRD9526 do not interfere with cyclopamine
binding.
Figure 3
(a) Effects of cyclopamine, BRD50837, and BRD9526 on BODIPY-cyclopamine
(10 nM) binding to exogenously expressed Smo. blue (Hoechst 33342),
red (anti-myc), green (BODIPY-cyclopamine). (b) Gli1 expression in
Sufu–/– cells treated with cyclopamine, vismodegib,
GANT61, BRD50837, and BRD9526. All values are shown and generated
from three independent experiments run in duplicate (values are calculated
average + SD).
We next tested the activity of BRD50837 and BRD9526
in SuFu–/– cells. These mouse embryonic fibroblasts
lack the pathway repressor SuFu, which leads to constitutively active
Hh signaling.[26] It has been reported that
Smo antagonists do not inhibit this signaling while the pathway inhibitor
GANT-61 does.[15] In our experiments, cyclopamine
partially inhibited downstream Gli1 expression (Figure 3b), perhaps due to an off-target activity observed at high
concentrations.[27,28] However, another more potent
Smo inhibitor (vismodegib)[11] showed no
suppression of Gli1 expression, consistent with the existing model
of SuFu being downstream of Smo (Figure 3b).
BRD50837 and BRD9526, like cyclopamine, partially lowered Gli1 expression
at concentrations of 2 and 10 μM (Figure 3b). This partial inhibition may reflect an off-target effect at high
concentrations, but it is also possible that these compounds act in
a way that influences the pathway at the level of or downstream of
SuFu signaling.(a) Effects of cyclopamine, BRD50837, and BRD9526 on BODIPY-cyclopamine
(10 nM) binding to exogenously expressed Smo. blue (Hoechst 33342),
red (anti-myc), green (BODIPY-cyclopamine). (b) Gli1 expression in
Sufu–/– cells treated with cyclopamine, vismodegib,
GANT61, BRD50837, and BRD9526. All values are shown and generated
from three independent experiments run in duplicate (values are calculated
average + SD).The compounds therefore
act similar to cyclopamine, a well-characterized
pathway inhibitor, in some aspects (SAG/C3H10T1/2 cell-based and SuFu–/– cell-based assays) but seem to have a different
mechanism-of-action in other aspects (Ptch–/– cell-based and BODIPY-cyclopamine displacement assays). These data
suggest that BRD50837 and BRD9526 may function by mechanisms-of-action
that are distinct from cyclopamine and not easily described by traditional
linear models of the pathway. Consistent with this notion, BRD50837/BRD9526
repressed Gli1 expression in C3H10T1/2 cells to a lesser extent than
cyclopamine when the compounds were tested at concentrations that
yield similar responses in Shh-conditioned medium-induced differentiation
of C3H10T1/2 cells (1 μM, and 10 μM, respectively, Figure S2a).
Conclusion
We
report here the discovery of BRD50837 and BRD9526, two selective
small-molecule inhibitors of the Shh pathway. Though similar in some
respects to traditional pathway inhibitors, the compounds show a distinct
pattern of activity in cells perturbed for components of the pathway.
The basis for these differences is not yet known, but it hints at
the complexity of the pathway. Elucidating the compounds’ mechanism-of-action
will help to realize their full potential as probes and enable the
study of this enigmatic pathway.
Experimental
Section
For complete experimental information, please refer
to the Supporting Information.
Authors: Yu Wang; Anthony C Arvanites; Lance Davidow; Joel Blanchard; Kelvin Lam; Jin Woo Yoo; Shannon Coy; Lee L Rubin; Andrew P McMahon Journal: ACS Chem Biol Date: 2012-05-03 Impact factor: 5.100
Authors: Lisa A Marcaurelle; Eamon Comer; Sivaraman Dandapani; Jeremy R Duvall; Baudouin Gerard; Sarathy Kesavan; Maurice D Lee; Haibo Liu; Jason T Lowe; Jean-Charles Marie; Carol A Mulrooney; Bhaumik A Pandya; Ann Rowley; Troy D Ryba; Byung-Chul Suh; Jingqiang Wei; Damian W Young; Lakshmi B Akella; Nathan T Ross; Yan-Ling Zhang; Daniel M Fass; Surya A Reis; Wen-Ning Zhao; Stephen J Haggarty; Michelle Palmer; Michael A Foley Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2010-11-10 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Kirk D Robarge; Shirley A Brunton; Georgette M Castanedo; Yong Cui; Michael S Dina; Richard Goldsmith; Stephen E Gould; Oivin Guichert; Janet L Gunzner; Jason Halladay; Wei Jia; Cyrus Khojasteh; Michael F T Koehler; Karen Kotkow; Hank La; Rebecca L Lalonde; Kevin Lau; Leslie Lee; Derek Marshall; James C Marsters; Lesley J Murray; Changgeng Qian; Lee L Rubin; Laurent Salphati; Mark S Stanley; John H A Stibbard; Daniel P Sutherlin; Savita Ubhayaker; Shumei Wang; Susan Wong; Minli Xie Journal: Bioorg Med Chem Lett Date: 2009-08-15 Impact factor: 2.823
Authors: Robert L Yauch; Stephen E Gould; Suzie J Scales; Tracy Tang; Hua Tian; Christina P Ahn; Derek Marshall; Ling Fu; Thomas Januario; Dara Kallop; Michelle Nannini-Pepe; Karen Kotkow; James C Marsters; Lee L Rubin; Frederic J de Sauvage Journal: Nature Date: 2008-08-27 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Marek M Nagiec; Adam P Skepner; Joseph Negri; Michelle Eichhorn; Nicolas Kuperwasser; Eamon Comer; Giovanni Muncipinto; Aravind Subramanian; Clary Clish; Kiran Musunuru; Jeremy R Duvall; Michael Foley; Jose R Perez; Michelle A J Palmer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-03-26 Impact factor: 3.240