BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: PDE4 inhibition suppresses experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE), an animal model of multiple sclerosis (MS). However, side effects hinder PDE4 inhibitors clinical use. PDE7 inhibition might constitute an alternative therapeutic strategy, but few data about the anti-inflammatory potential of PDE7 inhibitors are currently available. We have used the EAE model to perform a comparative evaluation of PDE4 and PDE7 inhibition as strategies for MS treatment. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: Two PDE7 inhibitors, the sulfonamide derivative BRL50481 and the recently described quinazoline compound TC3.6, were assayed to modulate EAE in SJL mice, in comparison with the well-known PDE4 inhibitor Rolipram. We evaluated clinical signs, presence of inflammatory infiltrates in CNS and anti-inflammatory markers. We also analysed the effect of these inhibitors on the inflammatory profile of spleen cells in vitro. KEY RESULTS: TC3.6 prevented EAE with efficacy similar to Rolipram, while BRL50481 had no effect on the disease. Differences between both PDE7 inhibitors are discussed. Data from Rolipram and TC3.6 showed that PDE4 and PDE7 inhibition work through both common and distinct pathways. Rolipram administration caused an increase in IL-10 and IL-27 expression which was not found after TC3.6 treatment. On the other hand, both inhibitors reduced IL-17 levels, prevented infiltration in CNS and increased the expression of the T regulator cell marker Foxp3. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: These results provide new information about the effects of Rolipram on EAE, underline PDE7 inhibition as a new therapeutic target for inflammatory diseases and show the value of TC3.6 to prevent EAE, with possible consequences for new therapeutic tools in MS.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: PDE4 inhibition suppresses experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE), an animal model of multiple sclerosis (MS). However, side effects hinder PDE4 inhibitors clinical use. PDE7 inhibition might constitute an alternative therapeutic strategy, but few data about the anti-inflammatory potential of PDE7 inhibitors are currently available. We have used the EAE model to perform a comparative evaluation of PDE4 and PDE7 inhibition as strategies for MS treatment. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: Two PDE7 inhibitors, the sulfonamide derivative BRL50481 and the recently described quinazoline compound TC3.6, were assayed to modulate EAE in SJL mice, in comparison with the well-known PDE4 inhibitor Rolipram. We evaluated clinical signs, presence of inflammatory infiltrates in CNS and anti-inflammatory markers. We also analysed the effect of these inhibitors on the inflammatory profile of spleen cells in vitro. KEY RESULTS: TC3.6 prevented EAE with efficacy similar to Rolipram, while BRL50481 had no effect on the disease. Differences between both PDE7 inhibitors are discussed. Data from Rolipram and TC3.6 showed that PDE4 and PDE7 inhibition work through both common and distinct pathways. Rolipram administration caused an increase in IL-10 and IL-27 expression which was not found after TC3.6 treatment. On the other hand, both inhibitors reduced IL-17 levels, prevented infiltration in CNS and increased the expression of the T regulator cell marker Foxp3. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: These results provide new information about the effects of Rolipram on EAE, underline PDE7 inhibition as a new therapeutic target for inflammatory diseases and show the value of TC3.6 to prevent EAE, with possible consequences for new therapeutic tools in MS.
Authors: Ma José Jerez; Miguel Jerez; Coral González-García; Sara Ballester; Ana Castro Journal: J Comput Aided Mol Des Date: 2013-01-08 Impact factor: 3.686
Authors: Miriam Redondo; José Brea; Daniel I Perez; Ignacio Soteras; Cristina Val; Concepción Perez; Jose A Morales-García; Sandra Alonso-Gil; Nuria Paul-Fernandez; Rocío Martin-Alvarez; María Isabel Cadavid; María Isabel Loza; Ana Perez-Castillo; Guadalupe Mengod; Nuria E Campillo; Ana Martinez; Carmen Gil Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2012-03-16 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: Miriam Redondo; Valle Palomo; José Brea; Daniel I Pérez; Rocío Martín-Álvarez; Concepción Pérez; Nuria Paúl-Fernández; Santiago Conde; María Isabel Cadavid; María Isabel Loza; Guadalupe Mengod; Ana Martínez; Carmen Gil; Nuria E Campillo Journal: ACS Chem Neurosci Date: 2012-08-08 Impact factor: 4.418
Authors: E M Medina-Rodríguez; F J Arenzana; J Pastor; M Redondo; V Palomo; R García de Sola; C Gil; A Martínez; A Bribián; F de Castro Journal: Cell Mol Life Sci Date: 2013-05-10 Impact factor: 9.261
Authors: L Mestre; M Redondo; F J Carrillo-Salinas; J A Morales-García; S Alonso-Gil; A Pérez-Castillo; C Gil; A Martínez; C Guaza Journal: Br J Pharmacol Date: 2015-07-14 Impact factor: 8.739
Authors: Scott A Myers; Leila Gobejishvili; Sujata Saraswat Ohri; C Garrett Wilson; Kariena R Andres; Amberly S Riegler; Hridgandh Donde; Swati Joshi-Barve; Shirish Barve; Scott R Whittemore Journal: Neurobiol Dis Date: 2018-12-14 Impact factor: 5.996
Authors: Jose A Morales-Garcia; Valle Palomo; Miriam Redondo; Sandra Alonso-Gil; Carmen Gil; Ana Martinez; Ana Perez-Castillo Journal: ACS Chem Neurosci Date: 2014-01-17 Impact factor: 4.418
Authors: Beatriz Bravo; Marta I Gallego; Ana I Flores; Rafael Bornstein; Alba Puente-Bedia; Javier Hernández; Paz de la Torre; Elena García-Zaragoza; Raquel Perez-Tavarez; Jesús Grande; Alicia Ballester; Sara Ballester Journal: Stem Cell Res Ther Date: 2016-03-17 Impact factor: 6.832
Authors: Artur Świerczek; Elżbieta Wyska; Sebastian Baś; Marta Woyciechowska; Jacek Mlynarski Journal: Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol Date: 2017-07-20 Impact factor: 3.000
Authors: Michael D Brooks; Erin Jackson; Nicole M Warrington; Jingqin Luo; Jason T Forys; Sara Taylor; Diane D Mao; Jeffrey R Leonard; Albert H Kim; David Piwnica-Worms; Robi D Mitra; Joshua B Rubin Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-09-09 Impact factor: 3.240