DNA methyltransferases (DNMTs) are important enzymes involved in epigenetic control of gene expression and represent valuable targets in cancer chemotherapy. A number of nucleoside DNMT inhibitors (DNMTi) have been studied in cancer, including in cancer stem cells, and two of them (azacytidine and decitabine) have been approved for treatment of myelodysplastic syndromes. However, only a few non-nucleoside DNMTi have been identified so far, and even fewer have been validated in cancer. Through a process of hit-to-lead optimization, we report here the discovery of compound 5 as a potent non-nucleoside DNMTi that is also selective toward other AdoMet-dependent protein methyltransferases. Compound 5 was potent at single-digit micromolar concentrations against a panel of cancer cells and was less toxic in peripheral blood mononuclear cells than two other compounds tested. In mouse medulloblastoma stem cells, 5 inhibited cell growth, whereas related compound 2 showed high cell differentiation. To the best of our knowledge, 2 and 5 are the first non-nucleoside DNMTi tested in a cancer stem cell line.
DNA methyltransferases (DNMTs) are important enzymes involved in epigenetic control of gene expression and represent valuable targets in cancer chemotherapy. A number of nucleosideDNMT inhibitors (DNMTi) have been studied in cancer, including in cancer stem cells, and two of them (azacytidine and decitabine) have been approved for treatment of myelodysplastic syndromes. However, only a few non-nucleosideDNMTi have been identified so far, and even fewer have been validated in cancer. Through a process of hit-to-lead optimization, we report here the discovery of compound 5 as a potent non-nucleosideDNMTi that is also selective toward other AdoMet-dependent protein methyltransferases. Compound 5 was potent at single-digit micromolar concentrations against a panel of cancer cells and was less toxic in peripheral blood mononuclear cells than two other compounds tested. In mousemedulloblastoma stem cells, 5 inhibited cell growth, whereas related compound 2 showed high cell differentiation. To the best of our knowledge, 2 and 5 are the first non-nucleosideDNMTi tested in a cancer stem cell line.
Epigenetic regulation
of gene expression is mediated through at
least five series of events involving changes of chromatin at the
molecular level: DNA modifications, histone modifications, histone
variants, noncoding RNAs, and nucleosome remodeling.[1,2] Epigenetic control of transcription is essential to drive cells
toward their normal phenotype, and epigenetic deregulation could lead
to initiation and progression of human diseases including cancer.[3−5] In contrast to genetic origins of cancer, epigenetic aberrations
are reversible events that occur at early stages in tumor genesis,
and in the past decade, many interactions and connections have been
reported between genetic and epigenetic changes that highlight the
complex, multifactorial nature of such disease.[4] Among the five epigenetic events, DNA methylation has been
extensively studied. Three DNA methyltransferases (DNMTs), DNMT1,
DNMT3A, and DNMT3B, catalyze the transfer of a methyl group from S-adenosyl-l-methionine (AdoMet) to the C5-position
of cytosine predominantly in CpG dinucleotides.[6−9] The maintenance methyltransferase
DNMT1 is most abundant in somatic cells and has a greater activity
for hemi- rather than unmethylated substrates.[8,9] Differently,
de novo methyltransferase DNMT3A is only present in low amounts in
somatic cells and shows no preference for hemi- or unmethylated DNA.[10]In normal cells, DNA methylation plays
a key role in many physiological
events (genomic imprinting control, X-chromosome inactivation, maintenance
of chromosomal stability, silencing of genes and endogenous retroviruses,
and embryonic development), following a pattern according to which
certain genomic sites are hypermethylated (gene silencing), whereas
other sites, such as CpG islands, are hypomethylated (gene transcription).[9,11] In cancer cells, aberrant DNA methylation leads to hypermethylation
at CpG islands, joined to a global hypomethylation, giving rise to
genomic instability and inactivation of tumor-suppressor genes.[9,11] Hypermethylation of CpG islands is so biologically relevant and
specific that for each cancer a typical hypermethylome can be drawn.[12] In addition to cancer, very recently aberrant
DNA methylation has been linked to premature senescence and aging
diseases such as Hutchinson–Gilford Progeria and Werner syndrome,[13,14] to neural plasticity and GABAergic signaling modulation,[15,16] and to heart failure and atrial fibrillation through methylation
of the homeobox gene Pitx2c.[17] Moreover, DNMT1 and DNMT3A proteins have been found to be overexpressed
in rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis.[18]DNMT inhibitors (DNMTi) have been validated as useful tools
to
reactivate tumor-suppressor genes and to reprogram cancer cells toward
growth arrest and death.[9,19,20] Two nucleoside analogue DNMTi (azacytidine and decitabine, Chart 1) have been approved by the U.S. FDA for clinical
use against hematological malignancies, but despite their high efficacy,
such drugs suffer from poor bioavailability, chemical instability,
and toxic side effects.[9,19] Some non-nucleoside compounds
have been reported as DNMTi (Chart 1), but
they typically share low potency and/or low selectivity for DNMTs,
and their mechanism of inhibition is unknown.[21−25]
Chart 1
Nucleoside and Non-nucleoside DNMT Inhibitors
Among non-nucleoside inhibitors,
SGI-1027 (1) (Figure 1), identified
among a series of quinoline-based
compounds developed as anticancer drugs, has attracted our attention
because of its high potency in both enzyme and cell assays.[26] Because the structure of 1 shows
four fragments (4-aminoquinoline + 4-aminobenzoic acid + 1,4-phenylenediamine
+ 2,4-diamino-6-methylpyrimidine) linked in sequence with para/para
orientation, we prepared a series of regioisomers of 1 by shifting each fragment’s linkage from the para to the
meta or ortho position (Figure 1) and obtained
compounds 2–9 (Figure 1). In addition, we prepared two related compounds (10 and 11) showing either a bis-quinoline or bis-pyrimidine
structure and two truncated compounds (12 and 13) lacking the “right” pyrimidine or the “left”
quinoline portion, respectively (Figure 1).
Figure 1
Chemical
structures of SGI-1027 (1) and related analogues 2–13 described in this study. Their IC50 values (μM) from nanoscale HTS against human DNMT1
are reported in the brackets.
Chemical
structures of SGI-1027 (1) and related analogues 2–13 described in this study. Their IC50 values (μM) from nanoscale HTS against humanDNMT1
are reported in the brackets.
Chemistry
Compounds 1–9 were prepared by
coupling the 2-, 3-, or 4-(quinolin-4-ylamino)benzoic acid, 14a–c, with the N4-(2-, 3-, or 4-aminophenyl)-6-methylpyrimidine-2,4-diamine, 15a–c, in the presence of benzotriazol-1-yl-oxytripyrrolidinophosphonium
hexafluorophosphate (PyBOP) and triethylamine in dry N,N-dimethylformamide as solvent (Scheme 1). Intermediate compounds 14a–c were prepared by reaction between 4-chloroquinoline with
the appropriate ethyl 2-, 3-, or 4-aminobenzoate and 37% hydrochloric
acid in ethanol at 80 °C. The obtained ethyl benzoates, 16a–c, underwent basic hydrolysis using
2 N potassium hydroxide to afford the corresponding acids, 14a–c. The same reaction conducted with 4-chloro-6-methylpyrimidin-2-amine
and the opportune 2-, 3-, or 4-nitroanilines in the presence of 37%
hydrochloric acid and ethanol at 80 °C furnished the nitro-intermediates, 17a–c, which were in turn reduced with
stannous chloride dihydrate and 37% hydrochloric acid in ethanol to
the corresponding anilines, 15a–c.
Scheme 1
Synthesis of Compounds 1–9
Reagents and conditions:
(a)
37% HCl, CH3CH2OH, 80 °C, 2 h; (b) 2 N
KOH, CH3CH2OH; (c) stannous chloride dihydrate,
37% HCl, CH3CH2OH, 1 h, 80 °C; (d) (C2H5)3N, PyBOP, anhydrous DMF, N2 atmosphere, room temperature, 1 h.
Chemical and physical data of final compounds 1–13 (Table S1) as
well as those
of intermediate compounds 14–22 (Table S2) are listed in the Supporting Information.
Synthesis of Compounds 1–9
Reagents and conditions:
(a)
37% HCl, CH3CH2OH, 80 °C, 2 h; (b) 2 N
KOH, CH3CH2OH; (c) stannous chloride dihydrate,
37% HCl, CH3CH2OH, 1 h, 80 °C; (d) (C2H5)3N, PyBOP, anhydrous DMF, N2 atmosphere, room temperature, 1 h.
Synthesis
of Compounds 10 and 11
Reagents and conditions: (a)
37% HCl, CH3CH2OH, 80 °C, 2 h; (b) stannous
chloride dihydrate, 37% HCl, CH3CH2OH, 80 °C,
1 h; (c) (C2H5)3N, PyBOP, anhydrous
DMF, N2 atmosphere, room temperature, 1 h; (d) 2 N KOH,
CH3CH2OH.Bisquinoline 10 was obtained by treating 4-chloroquinoline
with 4-nitroaniline and, after reduction of the nitro group of the
resulting intermediate 18 to the corresponding aniline 19, by coupling 19 with 16c (Scheme 2A). Treatment of 4-chloro-6-methylpyrimidin-2-amine
with ethyl 4-aminobenzoate afforded intermediate ester 20, which was hydrolyzed to acid 21 and was then coupled
with 17c to furnish bispyrimidine 11 (Scheme 2B). Truncated compounds 12 and 13 were prepared by reaction of 16c with 4-phenylendiamine
(12) or by reaction of 17c with 4-nitrobenzoic
acid and subsequent reduction of the nitro group of intermediate 22 to the corresponding amine (13) (Scheme 3).
Scheme 2
Synthesis
of Compounds 10 and 11
Reagents and conditions: (a)
37% HCl, CH3CH2OH, 80 °C, 2 h; (b) stannous
chloride dihydrate, 37% HCl, CH3CH2OH, 80 °C,
1 h; (c) (C2H5)3N, PyBOP, anhydrous
DMF, N2 atmosphere, room temperature, 1 h; (d) 2 N KOH,
CH3CH2OH.
Scheme 3
Synthesis of Compounds 12 and 13
Reagents and conditions: (a)
(C2H5)3N, PyBOP, anhydrous DMF, N2 atmosphere, room temperature, 1 h; (b) stannous chloride
dihydrate, 37% HCl, CH3CH2OH, 80 °C, 1
h.
Synthesis of Compounds 12 and 13
Reagents and conditions: (a)
(C2H5)3N, PyBOP, anhydrous DMF, N2 atmosphere, room temperature, 1 h; (b) stannous chloride
dihydrate, 37% HCl, CH3CH2OH, 80 °C, 1
h.
Results and Discussion
DNMT1, DNMT3A2/3L, PRMT1,
and GLP Inhibition Assays
From a nanoscale prescreen performed
on 1–13 against humanDNMT1 using
poly(dI–dC) as substrate,
compounds 2, 4, and 5, obtained
by replacing either or both the para with the meta linkages in the
structure of 1, emerged as highly efficient DNMT1 inhibitors,
whereas the ortho regioisomers were less potent (3 and 6–8) or totally inactive (9). Bisquinoline 10 displayed a similar potency as 1 against DNMT1, whereas bispyrimidine 11 was
slightly less efficient, and truncated compounds 12 and 13 showed a severe drop in inhibition (Figure 1).To perform a more wide and accurate inhibition assay
against DNMTs, we tested the most potent compounds, 2, 4, 5, 10, and 11, in comparison with 1 against humanDNMT1 using a hemimethylated
substrate and against the humanDNMT3A2/DNMT3L complex using an unmethylated
substrate (Figure 2). Under these assay conditions,
meta/meta analogue 5 (IC50 = 9 μM) displayed
a 4-fold higher activity than 1 against DNMT1, whereas
the para/meta (2) and meta/para (4) analogues
were 1.5- and 7.6-fold less potent, respectively. Bisquinoline 10 showed the same DNMT1 inhibiting activity as 1, whereas bispyrimidine 11 was 2-fold less potent.
Figure 2
Inhibitory activities of 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, and 11 against
human DNMT1 (hemimethylated substrate) and the DNMT3A2/DNMT3L complex
(unmethylated substrate).
Against DNMT3A2/DNMT3L, all of the inhibitors were more efficient
than against DNMT1, and 5 was again the most potent,
with IC50 = 2.8 μM [IC50 (1) = 10 μM]. Among the remaining compounds, 11 and 2 were 2-fold, 10 was 3-fold, and 4 was 4-fold less potent than 1 (Figure 2).Inhibitory activities of 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, and 11 against
humanDNMT1 (hemimethylated substrate) and the DNMT3A2/DNMT3L complex
(unmethylated substrate).To determine the mechanism of DNMT1 inhibition by compound 5, we carried out competition experiments by varying the concentration
of either AdoMet or DNA, and we used both the IC50 and
the velocity plot methods to analyze the data. As shown in Figure 3, the IC50 analysis of 5 against the AdoMet concentration shows nearly constant IC50 values as the AdoMet concentration increases (Figure 3A,B), suggesting a noncompetitive inhibition.[27] Differently, the IC50 of 5 increases
linearly with DNA concentration, suggesting a DNA-competitive behavior
(Figure 3C,D).[27] The velocity plot against DNA concentration displays sigmoidal deformations.
These deformations have been described by Copeland and Horiuchi[28] and are explained by potential nonspecific substrate–inhibitor
interactions (DNA interactions), tight-binding, or a time-dependent
inhibitor.[28] Competition studies performed
on structurally different compound 11 gave similar results
(Figure S1 in the Supporting
Information).
Figure 3
Competition experiments performed with compound 5 on
DNMT1 by varying AdoMet concentrations at a near-saturating DNA concentration
(A, B) or by varying DNA concentrations at a near-saturating AdoMet
concentration (C, D). (A) IC50 of compound 5 plotted against [AdoMet]/KmAdoMet. (B) Velocity plot against [AdoMet] for different concentrations
of compound 5. The lines represent the nonlinear regressions
by the Michaelis–Menten equation. (C) IC50 of 5 plotted against [DNA]/KmDNA. The line represents the linear regression. (D) Velocity
plot against [DNA] for different concentrations of 5.
The lines represent the nonlinear regressions with sigmoidal dose–response.
On each graph, the mean of two independent experiments is represented
± SEM.
Competition experiments performed with compound 5 on
DNMT1 by varying AdoMet concentrations at a near-saturating DNA concentration
(A, B) or by varying DNA concentrations at a near-saturating AdoMet
concentration (C, D). (A) IC50 of compound 5 plotted against [AdoMet]/KmAdoMet. (B) Velocity plot against [AdoMet] for different concentrations
of compound 5. The lines represent the nonlinear regressions
by the Michaelis–Menten equation. (C) IC50 of 5 plotted against [DNA]/KmDNA. The line represents the linear regression. (D) Velocity
plot against [DNA] for different concentrations of 5.
The lines represent the nonlinear regressions with sigmoidal dose–response.
On each graph, the mean of two independent experiments is represented
± SEM.To determine the specificity
of 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, and 11 for
DNMTs among other AdoMet-dependent enzymes, we tested them against
PRMT1, a protein arginine methyltransferase,[29] and G9a-like protein (GLP), a histone H3 lysine 9 methyltransferase.[30,31] Under the tested conditions, the new derivatives showed very low
(if any) PRMT1- and GLP-inhibiting activities, resulting in the tested compounds being more DNMT-selective than 1, which displayed only 4- and 1.9-fold lower activities against PRMT1
and GLP, respectively, when compared with DNMT1 inhibition. In contrast, 5 was 33- and 11-fold less potent against PRMT1 and GLP than
against DNMT1 (Table 1).
Table 1
Inhibitory Activities of 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, and 11 against PRMT1
and GLPa
PRMT1
GLP
compound
IC50 (μM)
DNMT1 selectivity
IC50 (μM)
DNMT1 selectivity
1
139
4.0
65
1.9
2
300
5.8
600
11.5
3
300
1.1
400
1.5
4
300
33.3
100
11.1
5
100
3.0
100
3.0
6
>1000
>14.7
500
7.3
The DNMT1 selectivity
(as the
PRMT1 or GLP/DNMT1 IC50 ratio) for each compound is reported.
Inhibition assays were performed in duplicate. The errors in the determinations
of IC50’s are within ±20% of their values.
The DNMT1 selectivity
(as the
PRMT1 or GLP/DNMT1 IC50 ratio) for each compound is reported.
Inhibition assays were performed in duplicate. The errors in the determinations
of IC50’s are within ±20% of their values.
Docking Studies of Compound 5 in DNMT1 Structures
To delineate better the mechanism(s)
for the inhibitory potency
of 5 against DNMT1, molecular modeling studies were performed.
In particular, compound 5 was docked in two different
DNMT1 structures available in the Protein Data Bank (PDB): DNMT1 (residues
600–1600) crystallized in complex with sinefungin (PDB 3SWR, Hashimoto and Cheng,
unpublished data) and DNMT1 (residues 646–1600) in complex
with both AdoHcy and a 19 bp DNA duplex (PDB 3PTA).[32] These two DNMT1 structures share a similar overall 3D arrangement,
with some conformational differences mainly in the DNA-binding CXXC
domain region (residues 646–692, Figure
S2 in the Supporting Information). The latter is adjacent to the methyltransferase domain, which
is the putative inhibitor binding site, and in principle its conformation
could influence the inhibitor binding. Therefore, we decided to dock 5 in both of the aforementioned structures by employing the
Glide program of the Schrödinger package.[33]Docking results achieved on the DNMT1 structure alone
(unbound to DNA) revealed that in the lowest-energy binding conformation
(docking score −6.95) 5 should be able to span
between the AdoMet binding site and the CXXC region (Figure 4). Indeed, changing one or both the para/meta linkages
(1, 2, 4, and 5) with ortho ones (3 and 6–9) by modifying the ligand shape from a stretched to a more
condensed one should prevent the ligand from spanning between the
two sites, explaining why the presence of ortho linkages is not productive
in terms of inhibitory potency. As depicted in Figure 4, the 4-aminoquinoline fragment of 5 is embedded
in a lipophilic region normally occupied by the AdoMetadenine ring,
establishing hydrophobic contacts with I1167, M1169, P1225, and I1247
as well as a T-shaped interaction with F1145. In this position, substitution
of the quinoline ring with a smaller pyrimidine one (11) or with a hydrogen (13) would cause a partial loss
of the interactions within the aforementioned cleft, thus explaining
the drop in inhibitory potency. Also, the attached central fragment
(3-aminobenzoic acid + 1,3-phenylenediamine) of 5 is
embedded in a region in which cation−π and π–π
interactions are established with R1574 and W1170, respectively. The
intrinsic rigidity of this fragment allows to project the 2,4-diamino-6-methylpyrimidine
terminal at the crevice between the CXXC and methyltransferase domains.
In this position, the terminal hydrophilic head of 5 forms
three H-bonds with the M694 and P692 backbone CO and with the D1571
side chain. Given the critical role of the CXXC region for the DNMT1
enzymatic activity,[34] it might be speculated
that favorable ligand interactions with this region should also be
critical for inhibitory potency, thus explaining why replacement of
the 2,4-diamino-6-methylpyrimidine (5) fragment with
a quinoline (10) one or with an hydrogen (12) does not enhance DNMT1 inhibition.
Figure 4
Predicted binding mode of 5 in the DNMT1 structure
unbound to DNA (PDB 3SWR). Compound 5 is depicted as orange sticks, and the
enzyme catalytic and CXXC domains are depicted as cyan (right side)
and brown (left side) ribbons and sticks, respectively. H-bonds are
depicted as dashed red lines.
Predicted binding mode of 5 in the DNMT1 structure
unbound to DNA (PDB 3SWR). Compound 5 is depicted as orange sticks, and the
enzyme catalytic and CXXC domains are depicted as cyan (right side)
and brown (left side) ribbons and sticks, respectively. H-bonds are
depicted as dashed red lines.Interestingly, the same calculations did not succeed in suggesting
a well-defined binding pose for compound 5 in the enzyme/DNA
structure. Indeed, in the DNMT1/DNA complex, when merging the coordinates
of 5 achieved in the absence of DNA, it seems clear that
the subtle rearrangements of the CXXC domain induced by the presence
of DNA would sterically hamper 5 from spanning from the
AdoMet interaction site to the crevice between the CXXC and methyltransferase
domains (Figure S4b in the Supporting Information). Results of analogous
docking studies performed on 1 are reported in the Supporting Information (Figures
S3 and S4a). Almost the same binding orientations were obtained
either in the free DNMT1 or in the DNMT1/DNA structure, suggesting
that, whereas 5 can in principle be recognized by the
DNA-unbound enzyme conformation (i.e., in a DNA-competitive binding
mode), 1 should be able to bind DNMT1 independently from
the presence of DNA.Competition experiments also outline that
the inhibitory potency
of 5 is not affected by increasing concentrations of
the AdoMet cofactor. These data might suggest that either the ligand
is also able to adapt to binding sites that are different from that
of the cofactor or the same compound can also bind the enzyme/cofactor
complex. In this respect, the DNMT1 structures (PDB 3PTA and 3SWR) were also searched
for different binding sites with the SiteMap software available within
the Maestro suite.[33] Results of these predictions
demonstrate that the most probable site is the one occupied by the
cofactor, whereas four additional less probable sites could exist
(Figure S5a). Nevertheless, when Glide
was employed to predict a possible binding position of 5 in these enzyme regions, weak binding affinities were predicted
(docking scores below 5.0), mainly because the selected clefts, being
rather shallow and solvent-exposed, are less prone to provide efficient
ligand interactions. This would suggest that the highest affinity
DNMT1 binding site is the cofactor one. We then attempted to dock 5 in the DNMT1/AdoHcy (mimicking AdoMet substrate analogue)
complex to probe whether the ligand is still able to bind this complex.
Indeed, these studies suggest that in the presence of the cofactor
the ligand would still positively interact with the enzyme complex,
adopting a conformation (docking score −6.76, Figure S5b) in which the ligand is sandwiched between the
substrate and part of the enzyme CXXC domain region (residues 646–650).
This might rationalize why increasing AdoMet concentrations do not
abrogate the ligand inhibition efficiency.
Effects of Quinoline-Based
DNMTi in a Panel of Cancer Cell Lines
To study the effects
of these DNMTi in a cellular context, we tested 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, and 11 in a panel of cancer cells (histiocytic lymphoma,
U-937; breast cancer, MDA-MB-231; Burkitt’s lymphoma, RAJI;
and prostate cancer, PC-3). Trypan blue exclusion assays were carried
out to determine their effects on cell proliferation and viability.
The effect of the tested compounds in peripheral blood mononuclear
cells (PBMCs) was also determined to assess for differential toxicity.
In full agreement with their DNMT-inhibition potency, compounds 1, 2, and 5 displayed the highest
antiproliferative effects and the strongest cell-death induction in
all of the cancer cells tested (Figure 5a–d).
Compounds 4, 10, and 11 showed
both lower activity and cytotoxicity in these assays (Figure S6 in the Supporting
Information). Compounds 1 and 5 showed
comparable potency against tumor cells, but 5 was the
less toxic in PBMCs (Figure 5e,f). Nuclear
morphological changes were further observed by fluorescence microscopy
after Hoechst and propidium iodide (PI) staining in both U-937 and
RAJI cells treated with increasing doses of 5 to assess
the levels of necrosis and apoptosis induced by the compound (Figure 5g). In U-937 cells, 5 displayed massive
apoptosis at 10 μM followed by necrosis at 25 μM, whereas
in RAJI cells, 5 mainly led to necrosis at 25 μM
without triggering any apoptotic response at lower concentrations.
Figure 5
Cellular
studies on quinoline-based DNMTi. (a–e) Antiproliferative
effects (left) and cell-death induction (right) of 1, 2, and 5 on U-937 (a), RAJI (b), MDA-MB-231 (c),
PC-3 (d), and PBM (e) cells. (f) IC50 values of cell viability
relative to the above cells treated with 1, 2, and 5 for 48 h. (g) Nuclear-morphology analysis after
Hoechst and PI staining in U-937 and RAJI cells treated with increasing
doses of 5 for 72 h. Data represent the mean (±SD)
of at least three independent experiments. Pictures are representative
of three independent experiments.
Cellular
studies on quinoline-based DNMTi. (a–e) Antiproliferative
effects (left) and cell-death induction (right) of 1, 2, and 5 on U-937 (a), RAJI (b), MDA-MB-231 (c),
PC-3 (d), and PBM (e) cells. (f) IC50 values of cell viability
relative to the above cells treated with 1, 2, and 5 for 48 h. (g) Nuclear-morphology analysis after
Hoechst and PI staining in U-937 and RAJI cells treated with increasing
doses of 5 for 72 h. Data represent the mean (±SD)
of at least three independent experiments. Pictures are representative
of three independent experiments.
Effects of 2 and 5 in Medulloblastoma
Stem Cells (MbSCs)
DNA methylation also plays a key role
in cancer stem cells: A comparison of the epigenomes of normal and
cancer stem cells and pluripotent and differentiated states revealed
a clear link between DNMTs and transcribed loci.[35] In cancer stem cells, the effect of DNMT inhibitors has
been poorly investigated. Azacytidine has been shown to reactivate SALL4 expression and transcription in acute promyelocytic
leukemia NB4 cells[36] as well as in colorectal
cancers[37] through DNMT inhibition. In IDH1
mutant glioma cells, decitabine induced a dramatic loss of stemlike
properties and efficient adoption of markers of differentiation as
well as decreased replicative potential and tumor growth in vivo.[38] To date, no non-nucleosideDNMTi has been tested
in a cancer stem cell context. We tested compounds 2 and 5 at different dosages in mouse MbSCs, a cancer stem cell
line expressing high levels of DNMTs (Figure S7 in the Supporting Information), to determine
their effects on cell proliferation and differentiation. In these
assays, compound 5 arrested the MbSC clonogenic activity,
induced cell adhesion and differentiation, and impaired significantly
the MbSC growth rate, evaluated by both quantifying PCNA levels and
MTT assay (Figure 6a,b), whereas 2 was less effective. In MbSCs differentiation assays, evaluated by
both βIII-tubulin RT-PCR and phase-contrast images (Figure 6c,d), 2 showed the highest differentiation
effect after treatment with lower doses (10 μM), whereas 5 required higher concentrations (50 μM) to reach significance.
To the best of our knowledge, 2 and 5 are
the first examples of non-nucleosideDNMTi tested in cancer stem cells
(CSCs).
Figure 6
Effects of 2 and 5 in MbSCs. (a) PCNA
mRNA levels and (b) MTT assay of MbSCs after 48 h of 2 and 5 treatment or DMSO as control (Ctr). *P < 0.05 versus untreated cells (ctr). (c) mRNA levels
of βIII-tubulin (βIIItub) in 2- and 5-treated MbSCs for 48 h. DMSO was used as control.*P < 0.05 versus untreated cells (ctr). (d) Representative
bright-field images of MbSCs after 2 or 5 treatment (48 h, 10 μM) or DMSO as control.
Effects of 2 and 5 in MbSCs. (a) PCNA
mRNA levels and (b) MTT assay of MbSCs after 48 h of 2 and 5 treatment or DMSO as control (Ctr). *P < 0.05 versus untreated cells (ctr). (c) mRNA levels
of βIII-tubulin (βIIItub) in 2- and 5-treated MbSCs for 48 h. DMSO was used as control.*P < 0.05 versus untreated cells (ctr). (d) Representative
bright-field images of MbSCs after 2 or 5 treatment (48 h, 10 μM) or DMSO as control.
Conclusions
Through chemical manipulation
applied on the structure of 1, we identified compound 5, a novel non-nucleosideDNMTi more potent than 1 and more selective toward other
AdoMet-dependent protein methyltransferases (PRMT1 and GLP). Tested
on a panel of cancer cells (leukemia, U937; breast cancer, MDA-MB-231;
Burkitt’s lymphoma, RAJI; and prostate cancer, PC-3) as well
as on PBMCs, compound 5 displayed comparable activity
as 1 and with less toxicity. In MbSCs at 10 μM, 5 significantly blocked proliferation but required higher
doses (50 μM) to induce differentiation, whereas related compound 2, which was less potent as an antiproliferative agent, showed
high differentiating activity. The anticancer activity displayed by 2 and 5 in the tested cancer cells, including
in cancer stem cells, suggests their use as potent and selective non-nucleosideDNMTi for cancer therapy.
Experimental Section
Chemistry
Melting points were determined on a Buchi
530 melting-point apparatus and are uncorrected. 1H NMR
and 13C NMR spectra were recorded at 400 MHz on a Bruker
AC 400 spectrometer; chemical shifts are reported in δ (ppm)
units relative to the internal reference, tetramethylsilane (Me4Si). EIMS spectra were recorded with a Fisons Trio 1000 spectrometer;
only molecular ions (M+) and base peaks are given. All
compounds were routinely checked by TLC, 1H NMR, and 13C NMR spectra. TLC was performed on aluminum-backed silica
gel plates (Merck DC, Alufolien Kieselgel 60 F254) with spots visualized
by UV light. All solvents were reagent grade and, when necessary,
were purified and dried by standard methods. Concentration of solutions
after reactions and extractions involved the use of a rotary evaporator
operating at reduced pressure of ca. 20 Torr. Organic solutions were
dried over anhydrous sodium sulfate. Elemental analysis was used to
determine the purity of the described compounds, which was found to
be >95%. Analytical results are within ±0.40% of the theoretical
values. All chemicals were purchased from Aldrich Chimica, Milan (Italy),
or from Alfa Aesar, Milan (Italy), and were of the highest purity.
General Procedure for the Synthesis of Ester Intermediates 16a–c and 20 and Nitro Intermediates 17a–c and 18
Example:
Synthesis of Ethyl 3-(Quinolin-4-ylamino)benzoate (16b)
4-Chloroquinoline (6.05 mmol, 0.99 g), ethyl
3-aminobenzoate (6.05 mmol, 1 g), and a catalytic amount (4 drops)
of 37% hydrochloric acid were refluxed for 2 h. The reaction was allowed
to cool to room temperature, and the precipitated solid was filtered
off, washed with water (3 × 5 mL), and recrystallized by methanol
to afford pure 16b as a hydrochloride salt. 1H NMR (DMSO-d6, 400 MHz) δ 1.34
(t, 3H, J = 7.2 Hz, −COOCH2CH3), 4.36 (q, 2H, J = 7.2 Hz,
−COOCH2CH3), 6.88 (d,
1H, J = 5.2 Hz, quinoline proton), 7.74 (m, 2H, benzene
protons), 7.84 (t, 1H, J = 7.4 Hz, benzene proton),
8.00 (d, 1H, J = 8.2 Hz, quinoline proton), 8.06–8.12
(m, 3H, quinoline and benzene protons), 8.56 (d, 1H, J = 8.2 Hz, quinoline proton), 8.81 (d, 1H, J = 5.2
Hz, quinoline proton), 11.08 (bs, 1H, −NH),
14.68 (bs, 1H, H+). 13C NMR
(DMSO-d6, 100 MHz) δ 14.1, 60.9,
112.8, 114.2, 119.9, 121.6, 122.1, 124.2, 125.7, 129.2, 129.6, 130.9,
133.7, 138.7, 142.3, 149.7, 151.6, 165.9. MS (EI) m/z [M]+ calcd for C18H16N2O2, 292.1212; found, 292.1218.
General Procedure for the Synthesis of Acid Intermediates 14a–c and 21
Example: Synthesis of 3-(Quinolin-4-ylamino)benzoic
Acid (14b)
A solution of ethyl 3-(quinolin-4-ylamino)benzoate 16b (1.71 mmol, 0.5 g) and 2 N KOH (6.84 mmol, 0.38 g) in
ethanol (15 mL) was stirred overnight at room temperature. Then, the
solvent was evaporated, and 2 N HCl was slowly added until pH 5.0
was obtained. The colorless solid was filtered, washed with water
(3 × 5 mL), and recrystallized from methanol to obtain pure 14b. 1H NMR (DMSO-d6, 400 MHz) δ 7.00 (d, 1H, J = 5.2 Hz, quinoline
proton), 7.51–7.58 (m, 2H, quinoline and benzene protons),
7.63 (d, 1H, benzene proton), 7.68–7.75 (m, 2H, quinoline and
benzene protons), 7.90–7.93 (m, 2H, quinoline and benzene protons),
8.39 (d, 1H, J = 8.0 Hz, quinoline proton), 8.51
(d, 1H, J = 5.2 Hz, quinoline proton), 9.17 (bs,
1H, NH), 12.0 (bs, 1H, COOH). 13C NMR
(DMSO-d6, 100 MHz) δ 112.8, 119.5
(2C), 120.2, 121.6, 124.2, 125.7, 129.2, 129.6, 131.1 (2C), 138.7,
149.7, 151.1, 151.6, 169.3. MS (EI) m/z [M]+ calcd for C16H12N2O2, 264.0899; found, 264.0902.
General Procedure
for the Synthesis of Anilines 15a–c, 19, and 13
Example: Synthesis of N4-(3-Aminophenyl)-6-methylpyrimidine-2,4-diamine
(15b)
To a cooled solution of 6-methyl-N4-(3-nitrophenyl)pyrimidine-2,4-diamine 17b (1.63 mmol, 0.5 g) and stannous chloride dihydrate (8.15
mmol, 1.84 g) in ethanol (10 mL) was slowly added a 37% hydrochloric
acid solution (0.3 mL) at 0 °C. The reaction was then kept at
80 °C for 1 h. Afterward, the reaction was quenched at room temperature
by a 2 N sodium carbonate solution (20 mL), and the mixture was extracted
with ethyl acetate (3 × 30 mL), washed with brine (3 × 30
mL), dried with anhydrous sodium sulfate, filtered, and concentrated
under reduced pressure. The crude solid was recrystallized from cyclohexane
to give the pure product 15b. 1H NMR (DMSO-d6, 400 MHz) δ 2.06 (s, 3H, −CH3), 4.92 (bs, 2H, −NH2-aniline), 5.87 (s, 1H, pyrimidine proton), 5.97 (bs,
2H, -NH2-pyrimidine), 6.19 (d, 1H, J = 8.0 Hz, aniline proton), 6.80 (d, 1H, J = 8.0 Hz, aniline proton), 6.87–6.91 (m, 2H, aniline protons),
8.64 (bs, 1H, −NH). 13C NMR (DMSO-d6, 100 MHz) δ 23.9, 93.8, 102.7, 105.0,
107.8, 130.3, 143.2, 147.8, 163.1, 164.5, 170.2. MS (EI) m/z [M]+ calcd for C11H13N5, 215.1171; found, 215.1167.
General Procedure
for the Synthesis of Compounds 1–12 and 22
Example: Synthesis of N-(3-(2-Amino-6-methylpyrimidin-4-ylamino)phenyl)-3-(quinolin-4-ylamino)benzamide
(5)
Triethylamine (3.04 mmol, 0.42 mL) and benzotriazol-1-yl-oxytripyrrolidinophosphonium
hexafluorophosphate (PyBOP) (0.91 mmol, 0.47 g) were added to a solution
of 3-(quinolin-4-ylamino)benzoic acid14b (0.76 mmol,
0.2 g) in anhydrous N,N-dimethylformamide
(5 mL) under a nitrogen atmosphere. The resulting mixture was stirred
for 30 min at room temperature followed by the addition of N4-(3-aminophenyl)-6-methylpyrimidine-2,4-diamine 15b (0.76 mmol, 0.16 g) under a nitrogen atmosphere, and the
reaction was stirred overnight. The reaction was quenched with water
(50 mL) and extracted with ethyl acetate (3 × 30 mL). The combined
organic extracts were dried, and the residue obtained upon evaporation
of solvent was purified by column chromatography (SiO2 eluting
with ethyl acetate/methanol 10:1) to provide pure 5. 1H NMR (DMSO-d6, 400 MHz) δ
2.10 (s, 3H, −CH3), 5.94 (s, 1H,
pyrimidine proton), 6.07 (bs, 2H, −NH2-pyrimidine), 7.06 (d, 1H, J = 4.8 Hz, quinoline
proton), 7.26 (t, 1H, J = 8.0 Hz, benzene proton),
7.35 (d, 1H, J = 7.6 Hz, quinoline proton), 7.55–7.61
(m, 4H, benzene and quinoline protons), 7.72–7.75 (m, 2H, benzene
protons), 7.91 (d, 1H, J = 8.0 Hz, quinoline proton),
7.95 (s, 1H, benzene proton), 8.03 (s, 1H, benzene proton), 8.42 (d,
1H, J = 8.4 Hz, quinoline proton), 8.52 (d, 1H, J = 5.6 Hz, quinoline proton), 9.04 (bs, 1H, −NH-pyrimidine), 9.16 (bs, 1H, −NH-quinoline), 10.18 (s, 1H, −CONH−). 13C NMR (DMSO-d6, 100 MHz) δ
23.9, 93.8, 108.0, 111.6, 111.8, 112.8, 113.4, 117.5, 121.2, 121.6,
124.2, 125.7, 129.2, 129.6, 129.7, 133.9, 135.0, 136.7, 138.7, 142.5,
142.6, 149.7, 151.6, 163.1, 164.5, 164.7, 170.2. MS (EI) m/z [M]+ calcd for C27H23N7O, 461.1964; found, 461.1969.
Compounds 1–13 were
tested in 10-dose IC50 mode with 2-fold serial dilutions
at a starting concentration of
500 μM against humanDNMT1 using poly(dI–dC) (0.001 mg/mL)
as a substrate in the presence of AdoMet (1 μM) as a cofactor.
Control compounds, AdoHcy (S-(5′-adenosyl)-l-homocysteine)
and sinefungin, were tested in 10-dose IC50 mode with 3-fold
serial dilutions starting at 100 μM.
Protein Purification
The expression and purification
of humanDNMT1 with an N-terminal deletion of 600 residues (residues
601–1600) and the humanDNMT3A2/DNMT3L complex have been described.[7] Recombinant ratPRMT1[27] and the humanG9a-like protein (GLP) C-terminal fragment containing
both the ankyrin repeats and catalytic SET domain (residues 734–1235;
pXC758)[29] were purified as described.
DNMT1 Inhibition Assay
For DNMT1, methyl transfer activity
inhibition assays were performed in 20 μL reactions containing
4.6 mM [methyl-3H]-AdoMet (10.0 Ci/mmol; PerkinElmer),
1.0 mM DNA oligonucleotides, 0.2 μM DNMT1, 1 mM EDTA, and 50
mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.5. The DNA substrates were 36 bp hemimethylated
(GAC)12. Enzymes were preincubated with AdoMet and various
concentrations of inhibitors for 5 min at 37 °C before the addition
of substrate DNA. After a 15 min incubation, the reactions were terminated
by the addition of 1% SDS and 1 mg/mL of protease K and heating at
50 °C for 15 min. The reaction mixtures were spotted on DE81
paper circles (Whatman), washed with 5 mL of cold 0.2 M NH4HCO3 (twice), 5 mL of deionized water (twice), and 5 mL
of ethanol (once). The dried circles were subjected to liquid scintillation
counting with Cytoscint scintillant. All curves were fit individually
using Origin 7.5 software (OriginLab).
DNMT3A Inhibition Assay
For the DNMT3a2/3L complex,
the inhibition assays were performed 20 μL reactions containing
4.6 mM [methyl-3H]-AdoMet, 1.0 mM DNA oligonucleotides,
0.3 μM enzyme, 0.5 mM tris(2-carboxyethyl)phosphine (TCEP),
2.5% (v/v) glycerol, and 50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.5. The DNA substrates
were 28 bp and contained two CpG sites: 5′-ACA GTA CGT CAA GAT CTT GACGTA CTG T-3′ and the complementary strand.
PRMT1
and GLP Inhibition Assays
For histone methylation
inhibitions, the assays were performed in 20 μL reactions containing
4.6 mM [methyl-3H]-AdoMet, 50 μg/mL histone from
calf thymus (Sigma), 12 μg/mL (0.3 μM) PRMT1 or 10 μg/mL
(0.17 μM) GLP, 100 mM KCl, 5 mM dithiothreitol (DTT), and 50
mM Tris-HCl, pH 8.5. Enzymes were preincubated with AdoMet and various
concentrations of inhibitors for 5 min at 37 °C (for PRMT1) or
30 °C (for GLP) before the addition of histone substrates. After
incubation (6.5 min for PRMT1 or 5 min for GLP), the reactions were
terminated by the addition of 20% trichloroacetic acid (TCA, Fisher
Scientific). The reaction mixtures were spotted on GF/A paper circles
(Whatman) and washed three times with 3 mL of 10% TCA and once with
3 mL of ethanol. The dried circles were subjected to liquid scintillation
counting with Cytoscint scintillant. All curves were fit individually
using Origin 7.5 software (OriginLab).
Competition Studies
Competition studies were performed
on humanDNMT1 according to Gros et al.[39] Briefly, the reaction was started by the addition of 94.5 nM DNMT1
to a mix containing the tested compound (up to 1% DMSO), an AdoMet/[methyl-3H]-AdoMet mix in a ratio of 3:1 (isotopic dilution 1*:3),
and biotinylated DNA duplex in a 10 μL final volume. In AdoMet
competition studies, AdoMet was varied between 0.5 and 15 μM
while DNA was kept at a near-saturating concentration. In DNA competition
studies, DNA was varied between 0.1 and 0.6 μM while AdoMet
was kept at a near-saturating concentration. The tested compounds
were spanned from IC10 to IC80. For each substrate
concentration, the IC50 of the tested compound was calculated
by nonlinear regression fitting with sigmoidal dose response (variable
slope). The linear regressions of IC50 against [DNA]/KmDNA or [AdoMet]/KmAdoMet were displayed only if their slopes
were significantly different from 0. Velocity plots were fitted by
Michaelis–Menten regression or nonlinear regression fitting
with sigmoidal dose response (variable slope). All regressions were
performed with GraphPad Prism 4.03.
Molecular Modeling
Prior to docking calculations, Epik
software[40] was used to calculate the most
relevant ionization and tautomeric state of compounds 5 and 1. Then, the Glide program of the Schrödinger
package[33] was used to dock these compounds
into the two selected DNMT1 X-ray structures (PDB 3SWR, Hashimoto and Cheng,
unpublished data, and PDB 3PTA(32)). The receptor grid generation
was performed for the box with a center in the putative binding sites
of the two structures. The size of the box was determined automatically.
The extra precision mode (XP) of Glide was used for docking. The ligand
scaling factor was set to 1.0. The geometry of the ligand binding
site of the complex between 5 (or 1) and
the DNMT1 structures was then optimized. The binding site was defined
as 5 (or 1) and all amino acid residues
located within 8 Å from the ligands. All of the receptor residues
located within 2 Å from the binding site were used as a shell.
The following parameters of energy minimization were used. The OPLS2005
force field was used. Water was used as an implicit solvent, and a
maximum of 5000 iterations of the Polak–Ribier conjugate gradient
minimization method was used with a convergence threshold of 0.01
kJ mol–1 Å–1. All complex
pictures were rendered employing the UCSF Chimera software.[41]
U-937, RAJI, PC-3, MDA-MB-231, and PBM Cellular
Assays
U-937 (histiocytic lymphoma), RAJI (Burkitt’s
lymphoma), PC-3
(prostate cancer), MDA-MB-231 (breast cancer) cell lines were purchased
from Deutsche Sammlung für Mikroorganismen and Zellkulturen
(DSZM). Cells were cultured in RPMI 1640 (Lonza) supplemented with
10% fetal calf serum (Lonza) and 1% antibiotic–antimycotic
(Lonza). Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) were isolated
and cultured as previously described.[42] Cells in exponential growth phase were treated with compounds at
the indicated concentrations. Proliferation and viability were assessed
by trypan blue exclusion analysis at the indicated time points. Morphological
determination of apoptosis and necrosis was performed as described
previously.[43]
Medulloblastoma Cancer
Stem Cell (MbSC) Assays and Stem Cell
Cultures and Treatments
MbSCs were isolated and cultivated
as described.[44] In detail, MbSCs were isolated
from fresh tumor specimens from Ptch1+/–. Cells were
obtained after mechanical and enzymatic dissociation and cultured
in serum-free DMEM-F12 supplemented with glucose (0.6%), insulin (25
mg/mL), N-acetyl-l-cystein (60 mg/mL), heparin
(2 mg/mL), B27 (1×), EGF (20 ng/mL), and bFGF (20 ng/mL). MbSCs
were also treated to differentiate in vitro after withdrawal of EGF/bFGF
and addition of differentiating factors (platelet derived growth factor,
PDGF) for 48 h. Compounds 2 and 5 were resuspended
in DMSO at 1 mM. Cells were treated with increasing concentration
of 2 or 5 (1, 10, and 50 μM) for 48
h, and DMSO was used as control. Unless otherwise indicated, media
and supplements were purchased from Gibco-Invitrogen (Life Science),
and chemicals were from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO).
RNA Isolation
and Real-Time qPCR
Total RNA was isolated
with Tri-Reagent (Ambion) according to the manufacturer’s procedure,
and sample quantification was done using a Nanodrop spectophotometer
(Thermo Scientific). The reverse transcription was performed using
a high-capacity cDNA reverse-transcription kit (Applied Biosystem),
and quantitative RT-PCR analysis of βIII-tubulin, PCNA, DNMT1,
DNMT3A, and DNMT3B was performed using a TaqMan assay from Lifetech.
mRNA expression was analyzed using the ABI Prism 7900HT sequence detection
system (Applied Biosystem) with a TaqMan gene-expression assay according
to the manufacturer’s protocol (Applied Biosystem). Each amplification
reaction was performed in triplicate, and the average of the three
threshold-cycle values was used to calculate the relative amount of
transcripts in the sample (SDS 2.3 software, Applied Biosystem). mRNA
quantification was expressed, in arbitrary units, as the ratio of
the sample quantity to the calibrator or to the mean values of control
samples. All values were normalized to three endogenous controls:
β-actin, β2-microglobulin, and HPRT.
Western Blot
Assay
Cells were lysed using RIPA buffer
(Tris-HCl, pH 7.6, 50 mM, deoxycholic acid sodium salt 0.5%, NaCl
140 mM, NP40 1%, EDTA 5 mM, NaF 100 mM, sodium pyrophosphate 2 mM)
and protease inhibitors. Lysates were separated on an 8% acrylamide
gel and immunoblotted using standard procedures. The following antibodies
were used: anti-DNMT1 (sc-20701; Santa Cruz Biotechnology), anti-DNMT3a
(sc-365769; Santa Cruz Biotechnology), and anti-DNMT3b (sc-10236;
Santa Cruz Biotechnology).
MTT Assay
MbSC were treated with
1, 10, and 50 μM
of compound 2 or 5 for 48 h. The growth
of drug-treated cells relative to untreated cells was measured by
MTT assay. Each sample was measured in triplicates and repeated at
least three times.
Authors: Oleg A Volkov; Anthony J Brockway; Stephen A Wring; Michael Peel; Zhe Chen; Margaret A Phillips; Jef K De Brabander Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2018-01-05 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: Melissa B Pappalardi; Kathryn Keenan; Mark Cockerill; Wendy A Kellner; Alexandra Stowell; Christian Sherk; Kristen Wong; Sarath Pathuri; Jacques Briand; Michael Steidel; Philip Chapman; Arthur Groy; Ashley K Wiseman; Charles F McHugh; Nino Campobasso; Alan P Graves; Emma Fairweather; Thilo Werner; Ali Raoof; Roger J Butlin; Lourdes Rueda; John R Horton; David T Fosbenner; Cunyu Zhang; Jessica L Handler; Morris Muliaditan; Makda Mebrahtu; Jon-Paul Jaworski; Dean E McNulty; Charlotte Burt; H Christian Eberl; Amy N Taylor; Thau Ho; Susan Merrihew; Shawn W Foley; Anna Rutkowska; Mei Li; Stuart P Romeril; Kristin Goldberg; Xing Zhang; Christopher S Kershaw; Marcus Bantscheff; Anthony J Jurewicz; Elisabeth Minthorn; Paola Grandi; Mehul Patel; Andrew B Benowitz; Helai P Mohammad; Aidan G Gilmartin; Rab K Prinjha; Donald Ogilvie; Christopher Carpenter; Dirk Heerding; Stephen B Baylin; Peter A Jones; Xiaodong Cheng; Bryan W King; Juan I Luengo; Allan M Jordan; Ian Waddell; Ryan G Kruger; Michael T McCabe Journal: Nat Cancer Date: 2021-09-27
Authors: Xuan Yang; Dacheng Fan; Aidan Henry Troha; Hyunjun Max Ahn; Kun Qian; Bo Liang; Yuhong Du; Haian Fu; Andrey A Ivanov Journal: Bioorg Med Chem Date: 2021-07-22 Impact factor: 3.461