| Literature DB >> 24063434 |
Javier P Martinez1, Bettina Hinkelmann, Eric Fleta-Soriano, Heinrich Steinmetz, Rolf Jansen, Juana Diez, Ronald Frank, Florenz Sasse, Andreas Meyerhans.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Drug-resistance and therapy failure due to drug-drug interactions are the main challenges in current treatment against Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) infection. As such, there is a continuous need for the development of new and more potent anti-HIV drugs. Here we established a high-throughput screen based on the highly permissive TZM-bl cell line to identify novel HIV inhibitors. The assay allows discriminating compounds acting on early and/or late steps of the HIV replication cycle.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24063434 PMCID: PMC3852058 DOI: 10.1186/1475-2859-12-85
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microb Cell Fact ISSN: 1475-2859 Impact factor: 5.328
Figure 1Overview of the HIV screen assay. (A) Two step infection approach used for the primary screen. In Part 1, TZM-bl cells are seeded on 384-well plates, incubated with the test compounds for 2 h and infected with HIV. 48 h post-infection, supernatants from infected cells are used to infect fresh TZM-bl cells (beginning of Part 2). Cells from Part 1 are assayed for Tat-dependent luciferase expression and, in parallel, for compound-related toxicity. 48 h after re-infection, cells of Part 2 are assayed in the same manner (See text for details). (B) Scheme showing the possible outcomes of the two-step HIV screen. A compound inactive against HIV will not show significant reductions in Tat-dependent luciferase expression compared to solvent controls for both Part 1 and Part 2 of the screen (left). A compound truly acting on early steps of the HIV cycle will show reductions in luciferase expression in Part 1 that will be reflected in Part 2 of the screen (middle). A compound acting on late events might show little or no decrease in relative luciferase in Part 1, but it will show a significant reduction of luciferase expression in cells assayed in Part 2.
Figure 2Screen validation and hit identification. (A) The screen protocol was validated with the known HIV inhibitors Zidovudine (AZT), Enfuvirtide (T20) and Indinavir (IND). Values are plotted as % mean luciferase expression relative to solvent controls. (B-D) The results of the myxobacterial library screen are shown for Viability (B), infectivity Part 1 (C) and re-infection Part 2 (D). For each test compound, the % mean RLU of the control is plotted vs. the calculated robust Z-score. Hits are defined as compounds inhibiting HIV by at least 50% of the untreated controls (infectivity Z-score < 0) and with less than 30% compound-related toxicity (viability Z-score > 0) (blue boxes). Error bars are standard deviations of quadruple measurements.
Figure 3Summary of the strongest myxobacterial hits. The plot shows the viability Z-score vs. the infectivity Z-score of compounds having the strongest antiviral activity (Z score < -1) for both Part 1 and Part 2 (inlay). The figure shows a clear clustering of compounds based on structural similarities and known function (right). The commercial drugs AZT, T20 and IND are included as positive controls. Compounds are abbreviated to prevent figure congestion. Corresponding compound names are given in Table 1.
Robust Z-score ranking of the myxobacterial hits for both part 1 (upper) and part 2 (bottom) of the screen
| | | | | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tubulysin l* | Tlsl | -2.47 | 3.70 | 1.27 | -0.08 | 92.04 | 4.38 |
| Kulkenon | Kulk | -2.41 | 5.15 | 1.09 | 0.03 | 93.01 | 18.62 |
| Epothilon A* | EpoA | -2.38 | 0.49 | 0.15 | 0.24 | 87.72 | 10.27 |
| Spirangien B | SpiB | -2.38 | 1.09 | 0.19 | 0.08 | 85.71 | 4.14 |
| Epothilon C* | EpoC | -2.37 | 0.54 | 0.14 | -0.25 | 81.63 | 4.07 |
| Epothilon D* | EpoD | -2.37 | 1.52 | 0.54 | 1.00 | 97.33 | 11.03 |
| Terrestribisamid A | TerA | -2.35 | 6.70 | 0.26 | 0.34 | 95.99 | 10.58 |
| Enfuvirtide (Control) | T20 | -2.30 | 2.26 | 0.18 | 1.36 | 97.21 | 0.05 |
| Sulfangolid C | SulfC | -2.29 | 8.13 | 1.26 | 1.73 | 109.20 | 13.03 |
| Zidovudine (Control) | AZT | -2.24 | 4.29 | 0.21 | 1.59 | 98.62 | 1.59 |
| Apicularen B* | ApiB | -1.93 | 13.77 | 2.40 | -0.16 | 82.77 | 4.37 |
| Disorazol A4* | DszA4 | -1.78 | 20.37 | 2.01 | 0.21 | 94.79 | 14.99 |
| Tubulysin B* | TlsB | -1.61 | 24.04 | 1.01 | 0.38 | 89.55 | 10.43 |
| Disorazol B1* | DszB1 | -1.55 | 25.89 | 3.60 | 1.25 | 104.59 | 15.96 |
| Disorazol E1* | DszE1 | -1.54 | 26.22 | 3.20 | -0.13 | 91.48 | 18.83 |
| Stigmatelin A | StgA | -1.43 | 29.56 | 2.80 | -0.34 | 80.43 | 3.79 |
| Tubulysin A* | TlsA | -1.42 | 29.95 | 4.87 | -0.11 | 83.33 | 9.78 |
| Archazolid A* | ArcA | -1.40 | 30.47 | 4.01 | -0.35 | 80.30 | 4.86 |
| Tubulysin G* | TlsG | -1.34 | 32.46 | 3.73 | 0.34 | 88.98 | 2.54 |
| Soraphen F | SorphF | -1.32 | 31.43 | 7.72 | 1.58 | 107.80 | 6.05 |
| Disorazol E3* | DszE3 | -1.31 | 31.74 | 4.50 | -0.05 | 92.32 | 3.12 |
| Maltepolid B | MalB | -1.16 | 35.34 | 8.71 | -0.11 | 91.76 | 7.42 |
| Crocacin A | CroA | -1.06 | 41.32 | 6.39 | 0.15 | 86.66 | 2.43 |
| Noricumazol B | NoricB | -1.01 | 43.03 | 6.34 | 0.86 | 95.47 | 5.54 |
| Socein A | SoceinA | -0.97 | 40.09 | 7.31 | 0.68 | 99.20 | 13.69 |
| | | | | ||||
| Rhizopodin A | RhiA | -2.11 | 0.00 | 0.00 | -1.38 | 67.39 | 11.37 |
| Indinavir (control) | IND | -1.93 | 2.73 | 0.10 | 1.43 | 91.21 | 8.50 |
| Leupyrrin B1 | LeuB1 | -1.85 | 3.12 | 0.24 | -0.01 | 67.54 | 11.23 |
| Crocapeptin B* | CrpB | -1.80 | 11.38 | 1.78 | -1.40 | 67.17 | 6.95 |
| Soraphen A | SorA | -1.49 | 22.24 | 2.69 | 0.15 | 86.61 | 6.68 |
| Cruentaren A | CruA | -1.25 | 31.05 | 5.38 | 0.66 | 93.01 | 5.04 |
Corresponding % relative infectivity and cell viability is shown. Compounds are listed by infectivity Z-scores. Control drugs are shown for comparison. *: Compounds with anti-HCV activities according to [40].
Figure 4Dose response curves of five of the HIV hits. TZM-bl cells were pre-incubated with 10-fold serial dilutions of compounds and vehicle control for 2 h and infected with HIVLAI at an MOI = 0.5. 48 h after initial infection luciferase expression was quantified (see Materials and Methods). Cell toxicity was measured in parallel plates. Curves show the drug dose vs. the response normalized to the control. Error bars are standard error of the mean.
Compound names, structures, EC50, CC50 and SI values for five of the preliminary hits
| Nevirapine | 0.07 | 81.8 | >1000 | |
| Sulfangolid C | 0.41 | 8.18 | 20.2 | |
| Soraphen F | 0.30 | 5.02 | 16.5 | |
| Epothilon D | 0.0005 | 0.012 | 24.4 | |
| Spirangien B | 0.007 | 0.35 | 52 | |
| Kulkenon | 0.07 | 0.36 | 5.3 |
*SI: Selectivity Index.