Histone deacetylase (HDAC) enzymes have been demonstrated as critical components in maintaining chromatin homeostasis, CNS development, and normal brain function. Evidence in mouse models links HDAC expression to learning, memory, and mood-related behaviors; small molecule HDAC inhibitor tool compounds have been used to demonstrate the importance of specific HDAC subtypes in modulating CNS-disease-related behaviors in rodents. So far, no direct evidence exists to understand the quantitative changes in HDAC target engagement that are necessary to alter biochemistry and behavior in a living animal. Understanding the relationship between target engagement and in vivo effect is essential in refining new ways to alleviate disease. We describe here, using positron emission tomography (PET) imaging of rat brain, the in vivo target engagement of a subset of class I/IIb HDAC enzymes implicated in CNS-disease (HDAC subtypes 1, 2, 3, and 6). We found marked differences in the brain penetrance of tool compounds from the hydroxamate and benzamide HDAC inhibitor classes and resolved a novel, highly brain penetrant benzamide, CN147, chronic treatment with which resulted in an antidepressant-like effect in a rat behavioral test. Our work highlights a new translational path for understanding the molecular and behavioral consequences of HDAC target engagement.
Histone deacetylase (HDAC) enzymes have been demonstrated as critical components in maintaining chromatin homeostasis, CNS development, and normal brain function. Evidence in mouse models links HDAC expression to learning, memory, and mood-related behaviors; small molecule HDAC inhibitor tool compounds have been used to demonstrate the importance of specific HDAC subtypes in modulating CNS-disease-related behaviors in rodents. So far, no direct evidence exists to understand the quantitative changes in HDAC target engagement that are necessary to alter biochemistry and behavior in a living animal. Understanding the relationship between target engagement and in vivo effect is essential in refining new ways to alleviate disease. We describe here, using positron emission tomography (PET) imaging of rat brain, the in vivo target engagement of a subset of class I/IIb HDAC enzymes implicated in CNS-disease (HDAC subtypes 1, 2, 3, and 6). We found marked differences in the brain penetrance of tool compounds from the hydroxamate and benzamideHDAC inhibitor classes and resolved a novel, highly brain penetrant benzamide, CN147, chronic treatment with which resulted in an antidepressant-like effect in a rat behavioral test. Our work highlights a new translational path for understanding the molecular and behavioral consequences of HDAC target engagement.
Histone deacetylase (HDAC) enzymes,
particularly isoforms from class I (HDAC 1, 2, 3, and 8), class IIa
(HDAC 4, 5, 7, and 9), and class IIb (HDAC 6 and 10), have been demonstrated
as critical components in maintaining chromatin homeostasis, CNS development,
and normal brain function. Altered HDAC expression has been linked
to CNS diseases including Alzheimer’s disease, bipolar disorder,
schizophrenia, and major depressive disorder via post-mortem human
brain research.[1−4] Modulating HDAC expression in mice has been shown to impact learning,
memory, and mood-related behaviors.[5−7] Further, small molecule
HDAC inhibitor tool compounds have been used to demonstrate the importance
of specific HDAC subtypes in modulating CNS-disease-related behaviors
in rodents.[5,8,9]However,
only indirect evidence, obtained via invasive, destructive
methods, exists to demonstrate the engagement of HDAC targets in brain.
Inhibitor-induced changes in acetylation of histone proteins and altered
gene expression from dissected brain tissue are related to HDAC function
but do not provide information about the quantitative changes in HDAC
target engagement necessary to alter biochemistry or behavior in a
living animal.We describe here, using positron emission tomography
(PET) imaging
of rat brain, the in vivo target engagement of a
subset of class I/IIb HDAC enzymes implicated in regulating CNS-disease-related
behaviors. Using a [11C]labeled probe that permits direct
visualization of HDAC subtypes 1, 2, 3, and 6,[10] we demonstrate evidence of the mechanism of HDAC inhibitors
in brain with known and novel HDAC inhibitors from the hydroxamate
and ortho-aminoanilide chemical classes.Understanding
the relationship between target engagement and in vivo effect is essential in refining new ways to alleviate
disease. This concept is established for dopamine D2-receptor drug
studies, where binding measured by the D2/D3 probe raclopride (among
many others) has facilitated dose-finding for human trials and provided
insight into the phamacodynamic origins of clinical dopaminergic drug
effects.[11−13] Here, our work highlights a new translational path
for understanding the molecular and behavioral consequences of HDAC
target engagement.
Results
The target engagement of
HDAC subtypes 1, 2, 3, and 6 in living
rodent brain has not yet been evaluated, impeding the interpretation
of treatment effect relationships for myriad HDAC inhibitors in preclinical
research. Therefore, we used [11C]martinostat, a radiotracer
that we have recently described[10] with
robust potency and selectivity for a subset of HDACs that make it
an excellent in vivo PET probe (Figure 1 A and synthesis Scheme S1, Supporting
Information). We first measured “baseline” tracer
uptake and averaged binding in whole brain in vehicle-treated rats
(n = 9). Dynamic uptake is represented in the averaged
time–activity curve (Figure 2B), with
raw data scaled to 100% whole brain uptake at time = 600 s post-[11C]martinostat administration. Time–activity curve
profiles were consistent across all scans, with percent radiotracer
bound declining from a scaled mean of 100% (t = 600
s) to 95% ± 2.2% (t = 3600 s, mean ± SEM).
The average variance for this time range was 12.4%.
Figure 1
[11C]Martinostat
and HDAC inhibitor tool compounds.
(A) [11C]-labeled martinostat is a versatile HDAC imaging
probe characterized by (i) potent induction of histone acetylation
in cells (EC50 = 100 nM for histone H3 lysine 9 acetylation
and histone H4 lysine 12 acetylation compared with >1900 for SAHA)
and (ii) robust selectivity for HDAC subtypes 1, 2, 3, and 6 (IC50 = 0.3–4.0 nM) in a recombinant human enzyme assay.
(B) Hydroxamate HDAC inhibitor tool compounds. (C) ortho-Aminoanilide tool compounds and the short-chain fatty acid, valproic
acid.
Figure 2
Uptake of [11C]martinostat in rat
brain. (A) Timeline
schematic of blocking dose administration and PET/CT imaging. All
animals were stabilized on anesthesia at least 20 min prior to [11C]martinostat administration. (B) Dynamic tracer uptake in
whole brain was evaluated using ROI analysis on dynamic imaging data
sets from n = 9 “baseline” rats blocked
with vehicle (10% DMSO, 10% Tween 80, 80% saline) 5 min prior to tracer
administration. Data are expressed as percent uptake in whole brain
relative to uptake at time = 600 s (mean ± standard deviation).
(C) Self-blocking of [11C]martinostat tracer binding (change
in % of whole brain [11C] uptake) is demonstrated via pretreatment
(5 min, iv) with a dose range (0.001–1 mg/kg, n = 1/group or 2.0 mg/kg, n = 3/group) of unlabeled
martinostat and compared with baseline controls, described in panel
B. (D) Quantification of [11C] activity in whole brain
at time 3600 s measured via trend in accumulated radioactivity from
time 10 min to time 60 min for baseline (white bar, 0 mg/kg) and each
blocking condition (grayscale). (E) Spearman correlation with directional t test identified significant dose–response relationships
for relative [11C] blockade in whole brain in rat (gray
triangles, r = 0.89; p = 0.006)
and whole-brain volume of distribution (VT) from analogous PET experiments in nonhuman primate (NHP; white
squares, r = 0.90; p = 0.042); *
indicates blocking doses scaled for NHP equivalent dose (mg/kg). (F)
Pretreatment with unlabled martinostat (1 mg/kg) 5 min, 4 h, or 24
h prior to tracer administration demonstrated time-dependent effects
of target engagement, calculated as difference from baseline (100%
– % blocked binding).
[11C]Martinostat
and HDAC inhibitor tool compounds.
(A) [11C]-labeled martinostat is a versatile HDAC imaging
probe characterized by (i) potent induction of histone acetylation
in cells (EC50 = 100 nM for histone H3 lysine 9 acetylation
and histone H4 lysine 12 acetylation compared with >1900 for SAHA)
and (ii) robust selectivity for HDAC subtypes 1, 2, 3, and 6 (IC50 = 0.3–4.0 nM) in a recombinant human enzyme assay.
(B) HydroxamateHDAC inhibitor tool compounds. (C) ortho-Aminoanilide tool compounds and the short-chain fatty acid, valproic
acid.Uptake of [11C]martinostat in rat
brain. (A) Timeline
schematic of blocking dose administration and PET/CT imaging. All
animals were stabilized on anesthesia at least 20 min prior to [11C]martinostat administration. (B) Dynamic tracer uptake in
whole brain was evaluated using ROI analysis on dynamic imaging data
sets from n = 9 “baseline” rats blocked
with vehicle (10% DMSO, 10% Tween 80, 80% saline) 5 min prior to tracer
administration. Data are expressed as percent uptake in whole brain
relative to uptake at time = 600 s (mean ± standard deviation).
(C) Self-blocking of [11C]martinostat tracer binding (change
in % of whole brain [11C] uptake) is demonstrated via pretreatment
(5 min, iv) with a dose range (0.001–1 mg/kg, n = 1/group or 2.0 mg/kg, n = 3/group) of unlabeled
martinostat and compared with baseline controls, described in panel
B. (D) Quantification of [11C] activity in whole brain
at time 3600 s measured via trend in accumulated radioactivity from
time 10 min to time 60 min for baseline (white bar, 0 mg/kg) and each
blocking condition (grayscale). (E) Spearman correlation with directional t test identified significant dose–response relationships
for relative [11C] blockade in whole brain in rat (gray
triangles, r = 0.89; p = 0.006)
and whole-brain volume of distribution (VT) from analogous PET experiments in nonhuman primate (NHP; white
squares, r = 0.90; p = 0.042); *
indicates blocking doses scaled for NHP equivalent dose (mg/kg). (F)
Pretreatment with unlabled martinostat (1 mg/kg) 5 min, 4 h, or 24
h prior to tracer administration demonstrated time-dependent effects
of target engagement, calculated as difference from baseline (100%
– % blocked binding).Specific target binding was demonstrated with self-blocking
experiments.
Radioprobe bound in whole brain was decreased following intravenous
(iv) pretreatment with a dose range of unlabeled ([12C])martinostat,
5 min prior to radiotracer administration (Figure 2C). Blocked binding of the radiotracer by the nonradioactive
martinostat was quantified by measuring the change in the radioactivity
accumulated from time 600 s to time 3600 s, and demonstrated tracer
binding was reduced dose-dependently from 86.7% to 36.5% of baseline
levels by pretreatment with martinostat at 0.001–2 mg/kg. (Figure 2D). We measured the blocked binding with replicate
experiments at the 2 mg/kg pretreatment dose of martinostat and resolved
good reproducibility from three independent experiments (36.5% ±
1.75%, mean ± SEM, Figure 2D), with an
average variance over the time range of 10.7%, consistent with the
baseline group. Formal comparison by Student’s t test revealed a significant difference in radiotracer binding between
rats pretreated with 2 mg/kg martinostat and baseline controls (Figure 2D, *p = 2.0 × 10–8). Given the similarity in variance at low (baseline) and high (2
mg/kg self-blocking) measures of HDAC target engagement, we performed
power analysis calculations (two-sample z test) using a representative
standard deviation of 6.2% (Supportive Information, Table S1). These results showed that for blocked binding measurements
≤85% of baseline, statistical significance could be achieved
with ≤3 replicates, a feasible group size for preclinical imaging
throughput. Moreover, we calculated that blocked binding measurements
≤92.5% of baseline could resolve statistically significant
differences using a higher, but achievable 15 animals/group. Therefore,
we hereafter considered blocked binding experiments demonstrating
≤92.5% of baseline tracer uptake in brain as positive initial
evidence for measurable target engagement.Quantification of
absolute radiotracer uptake via total distribution
volume (VT) analysis requires normalization
to full arterial input function from blood sampling and was not feasible
in rats. However, VT quantification was
achieved at baseline and in a range of self-blocking doses in analogous
experiments conducted in nonhuman primates (NHPs) (described in detail
in a forthcoming manuscript). We found that the dose-dependent decreases
observed in NHP VT were significantly
correlated (Figure 2E, white squares, r = 0.90; p = 0.042). We also observed
a significant correlation by the same test using scaled whole brain
uptake levels of total [11C] activity in rat (Figure 2E, gray triangles, r = 0.89; p = 0.006). This comparison gave confidence that in rat,
in the absence of a blood input function, relative HDAC target binding
could be resolved using the time–activity curve slope, given
the unique tracer kinetics of [11C]martinostat, which show
a relatively nondynamic time–activity curve within the scan
duration.Using this method, we then varied the pretreatment
time for nonradioactive
martinostat (1 mg/kg) from 5 min to 4 h and 24 h before radiotracer
administration. Target binding was blocked most (40% reduction) after
a short, 5 min, blocking dose pretreatment (Figure 2F) with a lesser blockade observed 4 h after pretreatment
and no appreciable change observed 24 h after nonradioactive martinostat
pretreatment (n = 1 rat/blocking condition; 5 min
time point same data as in Figure 2C,D.) These
data demonstrate a relative peak of binding of the nonradioactive
martinostat at the 5 min pretreatment time point and are consistent
with the established, fast-binding kinetics of hydroxamateHDAC inhibitors
like martinostat.The hydroxamic acid class of HDAC inhibitors
has been reported
to modulate behavioral response in CNS-disease-related paradigms in
rodents; however the extent of target engagement in the brain has
not yet been demonstrated. Therefore, we next applied the metric of
[11C]martinostat target binding in whole rat brain to investigate
the relative HDAC1–3 and 6 engagement of structurally distinct
hydroxamateHDAC inhibitors (structures shown in Figure 1B). Anesthetized rats were pretreated with known and novel
hydroxamateHDAC inhibitors as indicated (iv pretreatement, 3–10
min prior to tracer administration). Quantification of dynamic imaging
data revealed that the hydroxamates SAHA and givinostat both resulted
in only subtle blockade of radiotracer binding in whole brain (Figure 3A), consistent with recent reports demonstrating
poor brain penetrance of the prototypical hydroxamic acidHDAC inhibitor,
SAHA.[14,15] Poor brain penetrance was overcome in the
development of martinostat by the addition of an adamantyl group,
a chemical moiety frequently used developing in CNS-penetrant compounds.[10] Therefore, we tested PK5 and PK6, two hydroxamateHDAC inhibitor compounds containing heterocyclic capping groups often
found in CNS drugs.[16] We found that pretreatment
resulted in a modest ∼20% decrease in whole brain target binding
of [11C]martinostat (n = 2 replicates/condition,
mean ± SEM). Further, we quantified a 40% reduction in whole
brain target binding of [11C]martinostat following pretreatment
with CN54, a heterocycle-capped hydroxamateHDAC inhibitor identified
from the patent literature base[17] that
showed a robust 4.5:1 ratio of brain/plasma partitioning after iv
treatment. Taken together, these data support that [11C]martinostat
binding can quantify target engagement of structurally distinct, brain-penetrant
hydroxamateHDAC inhibitors in living rat brain.
Figure 3
HDAC inhibitor pretreatment
blocks [11C]martinostat
uptake in brain. (A) Pretreatment with hydroxamic acids (iv) resulted
in a 10–14% blockade of tracer uptake in whole brain for the
known hydroxamic acids, SAHA and givinostat (n =
1/group), with greater, 18–22%, blockade for the two novel
compounds, PK5 and PK6 (n = 2/group; mean ±
SEM). Imaging experiments revealed robust 40% blockade of whole brain
[11C] levels by the hydroxamic acid, CN54 (n = 1/group). (B) Pretreatment with the protypical orthoaminoanilide
benzamide, CI-994, via ip injection revealed modest blockade (9–14%)
with limited impact of dose (15–60 mg/kg) acute pretreatment
blocking time (2.5–4 h) or duration of treatment (7 days treatment
with final treatment 4 h prior to tracer administration). (C) Pretreatment
(ip) with the HDAC subtype-selective benzamides Cpd60 and RGFP966
also resulted in limited, 7–10%, blockade of [11C]martinostat binding in whole brain. A 500 mg/kg ip dose of sodium
valproate, administered 30 min prior to tracer administration blocked
uptake by 16%. (D) Brain penetrance of novel benzamides was evaluated
via blocked tracer binding for the tool compound CN147. CN147 demonstrated
robust 23% tracer blockade at 5 mg/kg (ip, 2.5 h pretreatment). At
1 mg/kg (ip), maximal blocking effects were observed 4 h after pretreatment
and were maintained at a lower dose of 0.1 mg/kg. Consistent with
the slow-binding kinetics of benzamide HDAC inhibitors, no appreciable
blockade was observed following a short, 5 min, pretreatment time
with CN147, 5 mg/kg, ip (data not shown).
HDAC inhibitor pretreatment
blocks [11C]martinostat
uptake in brain. (A) Pretreatment with hydroxamic acids (iv) resulted
in a 10–14% blockade of tracer uptake in whole brain for the
known hydroxamic acids, SAHA and givinostat (n =
1/group), with greater, 18–22%, blockade for the two novel
compounds, PK5 and PK6 (n = 2/group; mean ±
SEM). Imaging experiments revealed robust 40% blockade of whole brain
[11C] levels by the hydroxamic acid, CN54 (n = 1/group). (B) Pretreatment with the protypical orthoaminoanilide
benzamide, CI-994, via ip injection revealed modest blockade (9–14%)
with limited impact of dose (15–60 mg/kg) acute pretreatment
blocking time (2.5–4 h) or duration of treatment (7 days treatment
with final treatment 4 h prior to tracer administration). (C) Pretreatment
(ip) with the HDAC subtype-selective benzamides Cpd60 and RGFP966
also resulted in limited, 7–10%, blockade of [11C]martinostat binding in whole brain. A 500 mg/kg ip dose of sodium
valproate, administered 30 min prior to tracer administration blocked
uptake by 16%. (D) Brain penetrance of novel benzamides was evaluated
via blocked tracer binding for the tool compound CN147. CN147 demonstrated
robust 23% tracer blockade at 5 mg/kg (ip, 2.5 h pretreatment). At
1 mg/kg (ip), maximal blocking effects were observed 4 h after pretreatment
and were maintained at a lower dose of 0.1 mg/kg. Consistent with
the slow-binding kinetics of benzamideHDAC inhibitors, no appreciable
blockade was observed following a short, 5 min, pretreatment time
with CN147, 5 mg/kg, ip (data not shown).HDAC inhibitor tool compounds from the ortho-aminoanilide
(OAA) class (Figure 1C) have been demonstrated
to selectively inhibit a subset of class I HDAC isoforms and as a
result have emerged as a way to evaluate selective inhibition of specific
HDAC isoforms in the CNS.[5,8,9,18,19] We investigated the impact of benzamideHDAC inhibitor treatment
on [11C]martinostat target binding in whole brain. Given
the slow kinetics described for members of the OAA class of HDAC inhibitors,[9,18] we administered compounds via intraperitoneal (ip) injection 2.5–7.5
h prior to tracer administration. Treatment with the prototypical
benzamide-based OAAHDAC inhibitor, CI-994, a selective inhibitor
for HDAC subtypes 1, 2, and 3 recently shown to enhance memory reconsolidation
in mice,[5] revealed that radiotracer binding
was reduced by <14% (Figure 3B). The reduction in target binding was not altered by CI-994 dose
(15, 30, or 60 mg/kg) or by protracted treatment (Figure 3B, striped bar; 15 mg/kg, 7 days of daily ip treatment
with an additional treatment on the day of PET imaging, 4 h before
tracer administration).Radiotracer target binding in whole
brain was also blocked, at
7–10%, by Cpd60 and RGFP966, two selective OAAHDAC inhibitors
previously shown to modulate behavior in rodents.[8,9] These
two compounds differ in their reported selectivity for recombinant
HDACs with Cpd60 demonstrated as a selective nanomolar inhibitor of
HDAC 1 and 2[9] and RGFP966 reported as selective
for HDAC3.[8] We observed a more robust 16%
reduction in basal HDAC target engagement following pretreatment with
500 mg/kg of sodium valproate, a short-chain fatty acid containing
anticonvulsant and mood stabilizer with selective class I HDAC inhibitory
properties (Figure 3C).[20,21] These data are consistent with prior findings indicating limitations
for brain penetrance of OAA as a compound class.[9,22,23] They also support the notion that valproic
acid may function as an HDAC inhibitor in vivo within
the dose ranges that result in behavioral effects.[24−26]To test
whether benzamide brain penetrance could be improved using
a strategy of adamantane incorporation, we synthesized the novel compound
CN147 (MW 429.3, Figure 1C and synthesis in
Scheme S2, Supporting Information). In
HDAC biochemical assays with recombinant human enzymes, this compound
demonstrated HDAC selectivity (HDAC 1, 2, 3) and potency (IC50 150–600 nM) similar to CI-994, a close structural homologue.
We then evaluated target engagement in brain by [11C]martinostat
PET imaging. We identified a 25% blockade of tracer uptake that varied
by dose (5, 1, or 0.1 m/kg) and pretreatment time (ip 2.5, 4, or 7.5
h prior to tracer administration; Figure 3D,
solid grayscale bars).Given the robust HDAC engagement indicated
for CN147 by our PET
data, we wanted to confirm presence in brain using an independent
method. Therefore, we obtained pharmacokinetic data for CN147 (1 mg/kg)
in rat brain tissue and in blood using established (invasive and destructive)
LC-MS/MS methodology (Figure 4A).[27] The brain pharmacokinetic profile for CN147
revealed a Cmax of 315 nM, a half-life
of 6.8 h, and that the compound was present in the brain 8–24
h after ip or iv administration, a result similar to that reported
for other benzamides.[9,28] The brain to plasma exposure
profile for CN147 was in marked contrast to that obtained for CI-994
(brain/plasma ratio 1:10), as measured by the same method, following
a 10 mg/kg ip treatment (Figure 4B). The robust
20:1 brain partitioning of CN147 compared with CI-994 was further
illustrated by coplotting brain/plasma ratios for (Figure 4C).
Figure 4
Pharmacokinetics in rat brain and plasma. Acute treatment
following
single systemic treatment with (A) CN147 (1 mg/kg) or (B) CI-994 (10
mg/kg) was used to evaluate the concentration of each compound by
LC-MS/MS in plasma (red) or brain tissue (blue) 5 min to 24 h after
administration using n = 3 rats per compound per
time point. (C) Brain/plasma ratios for CN147 and CI-994 demonstrate
dramatic differences in CNS vs systemic exposure.
Pharmacokinetics in rat brain and plasma. Acute treatment
following
single systemic treatment with (A) CN147 (1 mg/kg) or (B) CI-994 (10
mg/kg) was used to evaluate the concentration of each compound by
LC-MS/MS in plasma (red) or brain tissue (blue) 5 min to 24 h after
administration using n = 3 rats per compound per
time point. (C) Brain/plasma ratios for CN147 and CI-994 demonstrate
dramatic differences in CNS vs systemic exposure.A growing number of reports have described the beneficial
impact
of OAA-based HDAC inhibitors in CNS-relevant rodent behavioral tests.[5,8,9] On the basis of the promising
brain penetration data and evidence for HDAC target engagement from
our PET imaging, we prioritized CN147 for evaluating the impact of
HDAC inhibition on behavior. As a first step to provide evidence of
behavioral changes induced by CN147, we chose the modified forced
swim test because another OAA, Cpd60 was recently demonstrated to
be ameliorative in the mouse FST after 7–10 days systemic treatment
at 45 mg/kg.[9] Given that the brain/plasma
exposure of Cpd60 was 0.5 (1:20) in mice after a single 45 mg/kg ip
dose, we rationalized (equilibrating for species differences in body
surface area)[29] that a dose of CN147 in
rat of 0.025–1 mg/kg would result in brain exposure close to
that achieved by Cpd60 in mice.We observed an antidepressant-like
effect after 7 days ip treatment
with 0.1 mg/kg CN147 treatment compared with vehicle-treated controls
(two-tailed Student’s t test p = 0.16, n = 4/treatment group; Figure 5A). Rats treated with 0.1 mg/kg CN147 showed a 17%
reduction in FST immobility time compared with controls, albeit not
significant by Student’s t test (p = 0.17). Notably, comparison of the reduced FST immobility times
(0.1 mg/kg) with rats treated at a dose of 0.025 mg/kg (n = 4/group) revealed a significant difference (p = 0.035). Further, regression analysis by Spearman correlation indicated
immobility time and CN147 dose (0, 0.025, or 0.1 mg/kg) were significantly
correlated (r = −0.6072; two-tailed p = 0.0196), supporting the observed antidepressant-like
effects by chronic 0.1 mg/kg CN147 treatment (Figure 5A). We confirmed our ability to detect reduced FST immobility
in an independent cohort of rats using an established subchronic administration
of the antidepressant imipramine, which significantly reduced immobility
times (104 ± 3.2 s, mean ± SEM) compared with rats injected
with vehicle (185.7 ± 19.8 s; n = 3 rats/treatment
group; Student’s t test p = 0.014).
Figure 5
Initial behavioral impact of the novel brain penetrant HDAC inhibitor,
CN147. (A) Chronic (7 days) treatment with CN147 at 0.1 mg/kg resulted
in a 17% reduction in forced-swim test immobility compared with vehicle-treated
controls as evaluated by a trained scorer blinded to treatment groups.
Treatment with CN147 at a lower dose (0.025 mg/kg) had no appreciable
effect on FST immobility score compared with controls, and analysis
by Spearman correlation revealed that CN147 dose and FST immobility
times were significantly correlated (Spearman r =
−0.0671, two-tailed p = 0.0192). (B) Locomotor
effects of CN147 treatment were evaluated after 7 days treatment with
0.5 mg/kg or 2.0 mg/kg compared with vehicle-treated controls; distance
traveled (cm) was lower in CN147-treated rats than in control animals
and was not considered a confound to interpretation of decreased immobility
observed in the forced-swim test. No treatment-group differences were
observed in rat weight gain (data not shown).
Initial behavioral impact of the novel brain penetrant HDAC inhibitor,
CN147. (A) Chronic (7 days) treatment with CN147 at 0.1 mg/kg resulted
in a 17% reduction in forced-swim test immobility compared with vehicle-treated
controls as evaluated by a trained scorer blinded to treatment groups.
Treatment with CN147 at a lower dose (0.025 mg/kg) had no appreciable
effect on FST immobility score compared with controls, and analysis
by Spearman correlation revealed that CN147 dose and FST immobility
times were significantly correlated (Spearman r =
−0.0671, two-tailed p = 0.0192). (B) Locomotor
effects of CN147 treatment were evaluated after 7 days treatment with
0.5 mg/kg or 2.0 mg/kg compared with vehicle-treated controls; distance
traveled (cm) was lower in CN147-treated rats than in control animals
and was not considered a confound to interpretation of decreased immobility
observed in the forced-swim test. No treatment-group differences were
observed in ratweight gain (data not shown).Locomotor activity in a novel open field was evaluated in
the same
vehicle/CN147-treated rats, following a subsequent one-week treatment
paradigm with vehicle or a 20-fold increased dose of CN147 (treatment
group assignments were increased in dose, but not scrambled). Results
from a 10 min session showed that rats treated with CN147 had a lower
distance traveled in a novel open field compared with vehicle-treated
controls. The locomotor activity that we observed in vehicle-treated
rats during the 10 min session was consistent with previously reported
independent results for the same strain.[30] This result clarifies that CN147 treatment did not induce locomotor
stimulatory effects and, thus, did not confound the observed antidepressant-like
effect in the FST (Figure 5B). Furthermore,
it suggests that CN147, and by inference class I HDACs, may impact
neurocircuits involved in both mood and anxiety-related behavior.[31]
Discussion
We demonstrate here the
immediate preclinical utility of investigating
the brain uptake and in vivo target engagement of
known and novel small molecule HDAC inhibitors. Increasing reports
indicate the therapeutic benefit of HDAC inhibitor compounds in preclinical
models, including behavioral testing of wild-type rodents,[9,32,33] in ameliorating behavioral deficits
in a genetic[5,6] or etiological (stress) model
of brain disease.[34] Until now, no tool
has been available to profile the density or engagement of HDAC targets
in such models. This, in part, has impeded translational studies of
novel HDAC inhibitor drugs in humans with CNS dysfunction, despite
the fact that HDAC density changes have been reported in post-mortem
human brain.[1−4] We begin here to understand the relationship between HDAC density
and occupancy and disease and treatment related behaviors in a living animal.The expression of HDACs in the
brain is robust and widespread,[35,36] and the optimal reference
region to evaluate nonspecific binding
of [11C]martinostat has not yet been resolved due to the
recent development of this tool. We have shown that relative measures
of binding can be made in the absence of a reference region or blood
sampling, providing a readily applicable HDAC imaging tool for rodents.Identifying lead HDAC inhibitor molecules in preclinical and translational
research can be catalyzed using PET imaging with [11C]martinostat,
which demonstrated a high proportion of specific binding, with more
than 60% of probe binding in brain prevented in homologous ([12C]martinostat) and heterologous (CN54) in vivo blocking experiments.Our imaging results highlight a novel,
highly brain penetrant HDAC
inhibitor, CN147, which demonstrated an antidepressant-like effect
in the forced swim test after chronic treatment. OAA compounds with
similar features have been previously shown to result in beneficial
changes in preclinical behavioral responses relevant to mood and memory
disorders, including Cpd60, CI-994, and RGFP966.[5,8,9] Investigating the impact of CN147 in additional
behavioral paradigms and disease models will further clarify the role
of HDAC targets in the brain. Additionally, it will be important to
investigate the behavioral impact of other novel HDAC inhibitors to
clarify whether a low level of HDAC target occupancy in CNS is sufficient
to induce meaningful molecular and behavioral changes, which is relevant
for current efforts to determine whether HDACs can be targeted for
beneficial therapeutic effects in a range of CNS disorders.[37−40]One potential explanation for a mechanism by which low engagement
of HDAC targets could differentially result in such profound changes
at the level of behavior is inhibitor binding selectivity at the level
of HDAC multiprotein complexes. HDAC subtypes, particularly HDAC 1,
2, and 3, are members of distinct protein complexes. Efficient engagement
of HDAC inhibitors to HDAC targets in vivo likely
depends in part on other components of HDAC protein complexes and,
potentially, on activity-dependent conformational changes.[41] Therefore, it is fully possible that in vivo, OAAHDAC inhibitors only bind to class I HDAC targets
in a subset of protein complexes. Further work using isolation of
endogenous HDAC complexes from specific tissues of interest like the
brain along with detailed analysis of selectivity and potency in combination
with the use of autoradiography methods[36] will likely provide an additional layer of clarification and complexity
to the impact of HDAC inhibitors on transcription, neural signaling,
and brain output. In doing so, this strategy holds promise to facilitate
improvements in HDAC radiotracer development and the application of
neuroimaging to novel therapeutic development efforts.
Authors: Yajie Wang; Yan-Ling Zhang; Krista Hennig; Jennifer P Gale; Yijia Hong; Anna Cha; Misha Riley; Florence Wagner; Stephen J Haggarty; Edward Holson; Jacob Hooker Journal: Epigenetics Date: 2013-06-11 Impact factor: 4.528
Authors: Joey L Methot; Dawn Mampreian Hoffman; David J Witter; Matthew G Stanton; Paul Harrington; Christopher Hamblett; Phieng Siliphaivanh; Kevin Wilson; Jed Hubbs; Richard Heidebrecht; Astrid M Kral; Nicole Ozerova; Judith C Fleming; Hongmei Wang; Alexander A Szewczak; Richard E Middleton; Bethany Hughes; Jonathan C Cruz; Brian B Haines; Melissa Chenard; Candia M Kenific; Andreas Harsch; J Paul Secrist; Thomas A Miller Journal: ACS Med Chem Lett Date: 2014-01-02 Impact factor: 4.345
Authors: Annis O Mechan; Paula M Moran; MartinJ Elliott; Andrew J Young; Michael H Joseph; RichardA Green Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2001-09-22 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Frederick A Schroeder; Daniel B Chonde; Misha M Riley; Christian K Moseley; Michael L Granda; Colin M Wilson; Florence F Wagner; Yan-Ling Zhang; Jennifer Gale; Edward B Holson; Stephen J Haggarty; Jacob M Hooker Journal: Neurosci Lett Date: 2013-06-25 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Ji-Song Guan; Stephen J Haggarty; Emanuela Giacometti; Jan-Hermen Dannenberg; Nadine Joseph; Jun Gao; Thomas J F Nieland; Ying Zhou; Xinyu Wang; Ralph Mazitschek; James E Bradner; Ronald A DePinho; Rudolf Jaenisch; Li-Huei Tsai Journal: Nature Date: 2009-05-07 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Johannes Gräff; Damien Rei; Ji-Song Guan; Wen-Yuan Wang; Jinsoo Seo; Krista M Hennig; Thomas J F Nieland; Daniel M Fass; Patricia F Kao; Martin Kahn; Susan C Su; Alireza Samiei; Nadine Joseph; Stephen J Haggarty; Ivana Delalle; Li-Huei Tsai Journal: Nature Date: 2012-02-29 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Tonya M Gilbert; Nicole R Zürcher; Christine J Wu; Anisha Bhanot; Baileigh G Hightower; Minhae Kim; Daniel S Albrecht; Hsiao-Ying Wey; Frederick A Schroeder; Anais Rodriguez-Thompson; Thomas M Morin; Kamber L Hart; Amelia M Pellegrini; Misha M Riley; Changning Wang; Steven M Stufflebeam; Stephen J Haggarty; Daphne J Holt; Marco L Loggia; Roy H Perlis; Hannah E Brown; Joshua L Roffman; Jacob M Hooker Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2018-12-10 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Jawad B Belayet; Sarah Beamish; Mizzanoor Rahaman; Samer Alanani; Rajdeep S Virdi; David N Frick; A F M Towheedur Rahman; Joseph S Ulicki; Sreya Biswas; Leggy A Arnold; M S Rashid Roni; Eric Y Cheng; Douglas A Steeber; Karyn M Frick; M Mahmun Hossain Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2022-02-08 Impact factor: 8.039
Authors: Hsiao-Ying Wey; Changning Wang; Frederick A Schroeder; Jean Logan; Julie C Price; Jacob M Hooker Journal: ACS Chem Neurosci Date: 2015-03-25 Impact factor: 4.418
Authors: Martin G Strebl; Changning Wang; Frederick A Schroeder; Michael S Placzek; Hsiao-Ying Wey; Genevieve C Van de Bittner; Ramesh Neelamegam; Jacob M Hooker Journal: ACS Chem Neurosci Date: 2015-12-21 Impact factor: 4.418
Authors: Frederick A Schroeder; Tonya M Gilbert; Ningping Feng; Brendan D Taillon; Nora D Volkow; Robert B Innis; Jacob M Hooker; Barbara K Lipska Journal: ACS Chem Neurosci Date: 2016-12-13 Impact factor: 4.418