Yujun Zhao1, Angelo Aguilar, Denzil Bernard, Shaomeng Wang. 1. University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center and Departments of Internal Medicine, Pharmacology, and Medicinal Chemistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109, United States.
Abstract
Design of small-molecule inhibitors (MDM2 inhibitors) to block the MDM2-p53 protein-protein interaction has been pursued as a new cancer therapeutic strategy. In recent years, potent, selective, and efficacious MDM2 inhibitors have been successfully obtained and seven such compounds have been advanced into early phase clinical trials for the treatment of human cancers. Here, we review the design, synthesis, properties, preclinical, and clinical studies of these clinical-stage MDM2 inhibitors.
Design of small-molecule inhibitors (MDM2 inhibitors) to block the MDM2-p53 protein-protein interaction has been pursued as a new cancer therapeutic strategy. In recent years, potent, selective, and efficacious MDM2 inhibitors have been successfully obtained and seven such compounds have been advanced into early phase clinical trials for the treatment of humancancers. Here, we review the design, synthesis, properties, preclinical, and clinical studies of these clinical-stage MDM2 inhibitors.
Interplay
between Tumor Suppressor p53 and
Its Negative Regulator MDM2
The transcription factor p53
plays vital roles in the regulation of cellular processes and suppression
of tumor development.[1−5] Mice lacking p53 develop normally but are prone to the development
of a variety of tumors.[6]TP53, the gene encoding the p53 protein, is mutated or deleted in nearly
50% of humancancers, rendering p53 nonfunctional as a tumor suppressor.[7] Although p53 retains wild-type status in the
remaining 50% of humancancers, its function is effectively inhibited
by a variety of mechanisms. One major inhibitory mechanism is through
overexpression of MDM2 (also called HDM2 in humans). The role of MDM2
as a primary negative endogenous regulator of p53 is supported by
evidence that MDM2-null is embryonically lethal in
mice which can only be rescued by concurrent deletion of the TP53 gene.[8,9]Inhibition of p53 by MDM2 and MDMX.In cells, MDM2 and p53 regulate
each other mutually through the
autoregulatory feedback loop shown in Figure 1.[10,11] The autoregulatory feedback loop of the
p53–MDM2 interplay operates as follows: upon activation, p53
transcribes MDM2, leading to an increase of MDM2 mRNA and protein
and in turn, MDM2 protein binds to p53 directly through their N-termini
and inhibits p53 function through three major mechanisms: (1) upon
binding, MDM2 ubiquitinates p53 by functioning as an E3 ligase promoting
proteasomal degradation of p53; (2) interaction of MDM2 with p53 blocks
the binding of p53 to its targeted DNA, rendering p53 ineffective
as a transcription factor; (3) MDM2 promotes export of p53 out of
the cell nucleus, leaving p53 inaccessible to targeted DNA and reducing
its transcriptional ability.[10−12] Through these three inhibitory
mechanisms, MDM2 functions as an effective antagonist of wild-type
p53.
Figure 1
Inhibition of p53 by MDM2 and MDMX.
Consistent with its role as an efficient inhibitor of p53tumor
suppressor, MDM2 in cells, when overexpressed, is oncogenic.[13] An analysis of 28 different types of cancers
involving nearly 4000 humantumor samples shows that in 7% of humancancers, the MDM2 gene has been amplified.[14] In addition to MDM2 gene amplification, MDM2
overexpression can be caused by a variety of mechanisms, such as single
nucleotide polymorphism at nucleotide 309 (SNP309) in its gene promoter,
enhanced transcription, or increased translation.[15−18] MDM2 overexpression correlates
with poor clinical prognosis and poor response to current cancer therapies.[15−18] In supporting its powerful inhibitory role of p53tumor suppressor
function, MDM2 gene amplification and TP53 gene mutation
are mutually exclusive in humancancers.[19,20]
Targeting the MDM2–p53 Interaction
as a New Cancer Therapeutic Strategy
Because MDM2 plays a
primary role in inhibition of the p53tumor suppressor function and
antagonizes p53 through their direct interaction, blockade of the
MDM2–p53 protein–protein interaction would liberate
p53 from MDM2, thus restoring the tumor suppressor function of wild-type
p53. Agents designed to block the MDM2–p53 interaction may
have a therapeutic potential for the treatment of humancancers retaining
wild-type p53.The MDM2–p53 interaction has been mapped
to the first ∼120 N-terminal amino acid residues of MDM2 and
the first 30 N-terminal residues of p53.[17,18] In 1996, a high-resolution cocrystal structure of MDM2 with a p53
peptide (residues 15–29) was reported (Figure 2, PDB code 1YCR).[21] The cocrystal structure showed that
the MDM2-bound p53 peptide adopts an α-helical conformation
and interacts with MDM2 primarily through three hydrophobic residues,
Phe19, Trp23, and Leu26. In this review, these p53 binding pockets
on the MDM2 surface will be referred to as the Phe19, Trp23, and Leu26
pockets. These three p53 binding pockets in MDM2 are compact and well-defined
and suggest the feasibility of the design of high-affinity, non-peptide
inhibitors that bind in the MDM2 pockets (MDM2 inhibitors) and block
the MDM2–p53 interaction.
Figure 2
MDM2 (surface)–p53 (green line
and sticks) complex.
MDM2 (surface)–p53 (green line
and sticks) complex.Several reviews have summarized the progress in the design
of MDM2
inhibitors.[1,5,22−30] In this review, we will focus on those MDM2 inhibitors that have
been advanced into human clinical trials and discuss the outlook of
MDM2 inhibitors as a new class of anticancer agents.
MDM2 Inhibitors in Clinical Trials for Treatment
of Human Cancer
Currently, seven small molecule MDM2 inhibitors
have advanced into
clinical trials for treatment of humancancers (Table 1). Of these clinical-stage compounds, the chemical structures
for RG7112 (3),[31,32] RG7388 (6),[33,34] MI-77301/SAR405838 (10),[35,36] and AMG 232 (14)[37,38] have been disclosed
but no structural information is available for the other three compounds.
Table 1
MDM2 Inhibitors in Human Clinical
Trials for Cancer Treatments
compd
clinical
trial phase
originator
developer
ref
3 (RO5045337)
phase I
Roche
Roche
(31, 32)
6 (RO5503781)
phase I
Roche
Roche
(33, 34)
14
phase I
Amgen
Amgen
(37, 38)
CGM097
phase I
Novartis
Novartis
(53)
DS-3032b
phase I
Daiichi Sankyo
Daiichi Sankyo
(54)
10 (SAR405838)
phase I
University
of Michigan
Sanofi
S.A.
(35, 36)
MK-8242 (SCH 900242)
phase I
Merck
Merck
(51)
RG7112
Discovery and Optimization
The
first MDM2 inhibitor to enter phase I clinical trials was 3 (Figure 3), discovered at Hoffmann-La Roche
and based on a class of compounds called nutlins (Figure 3).[39]
Figure 3
Nutlins and their analogs.
Nutlins and their analogs.In 2004, cis-diphenyl
substituted imidazoline-containing
compounds, called the “nutlins”, were reported as a
first class of potent, specific, and orally active small molecule
MDM2 inhibitors.[39] One of the most potent
compounds in the initial report was nutlin 3a (1), which
binds to MDM2 protein with IC50 = 90 nM. A cocrystal structure
of MDM2 complexed with nutlin 2[39] (2, Figure 4, PDB code 1RV1) was obtained at
a resolution of 2.3 Å, which provided for the first time structural
information for a non-peptide, small-molecule inhibitor bound to MDM2.
Superimposition of the cocrystal structures of MDM2/2 and MDM2/p53 peptide (Figure 4) shows that
two 4-bromophenyl rings and ethoxy substituent of 2 occupy
the Trp23, Leu26, and Phe19 pockets of MDM2, respectively. This study
provides an elegant example of a non-peptide, druglike, small molecule
mimicking the α-helical p53 peptide structure in its binding
to MDM2.
Figure 4
Cocrystal structure of 2 and MDM2. The p53 peptide
is green.
Cocrystal structure of 2 and MDM2. The p53 peptide
is green.Compound 1 activates
wild-type p53 in cancer and normal
cells but selectively kills tumor cells. It inhibits cell growth with
IC50 of 1–2 μM in humancancer cell lines
with wild-type p53 (SJSA-1, HCT116, and RKO) and demonstrates approximately
10-fold selectivity over cancer cells harboring mutated p53 (MDA-MB-435
and SW480).[39] These observations are consistent
with the hypothesis that the antitumor activity of MDM2 inhibitors
should be p53-dependent. In vivo, oral administration of 1 dose-dependently activates p53 and induces expression of p53 targeted
genes, including p21 and MDM2. Importantly,
90% inhibition of tumor growth is achieved in the SJSA-1 tumor xenograft
model in mice upon treatment with nutlin 3 (the racemic form of 1) at 200 mg/kg orally twice a day for 20 days with no sign
of toxicity in treated animals.Further optimization of 1 to improve its binding affinity
to MDM2, cellular potency, pharmacokinetics, and chemical stability
ultimately yielded 3 (Figure 3),[32] the first MDM2 inhibitor to advance
into clinical trials.[31,32] Four major modifications were
made to 1 to yield 3: (i) dimethyl groups
on the imidazoline ring were added to prevent oxidation of the imidazoline
ring; (ii) an ethyl ether group replaced the isopropyl ether in 1, reducing the molecular weight slightly while retaining
good MDM2 binding affinity; (iii) a tert-butyl group
was used to replace the methoxyl group in 1, which is
a metabolic “soft spot”; (iv) a 3-(methylsulfonyl)propyl
group was introduced into the piperidine ring to enhance MDM2 binding
and improve pharmacokinetic (PK) properties. Notwithstanding these
substantial modifications to the 1 structure, 3 and 1 interact with MDM2 very similarly based upon
superposition of their cocrystal structures (Figure 5, PBD codes 4IPF and 4J3E).
The two 4-chlorophenyl groups occupy the Trp23 and Leu26 pockets of
MDM2, and the ethoxyl group is in the Phe19 pocket. The methylsulfonyl
moiety of 3 extends out of the binding pocket and is
exposed to solvent.
Figure 5
Superposition of cocrystal structures of MDM2 to 3 (cyan) and 1 (orange).
Superposition of cocrystal structures of MDM2 to 3 (cyan) and 1 (orange).
Properties of the Clinical Compound 3
Compared with 1, 3 shows
enhanced MDM2 binding affinity (IC50 = 18 nM). It effectively
inhibits cell growth in cancer cell lines with wild-type p53 (IC50 = 0.18–2.2 μM) and demonstrates good selectivity
over cancer cell lines with a p53 mutation (IC50 = 5.7–20.3
μM). 3 robustly activates wild-type p53 in vitro and in vivo, and upon oral administration at 50 mg/kg in mice, good
systemic exposure is achieved with a high AUC (251.2 μg·h/mL)
and Cmax (15.5 μg/mL) and slow clearance
(t1/2 = 8.8 h). In two xenograft models
of SJSA1 and MHM osteosarcoma cell lines with MDM2 gene amplification
and overexpression of MDM2 protein, 3 dose-dependently
inhibits tumor growth and achieves partial tumor regression at 100
mg/kg daily, oral administration without signs of toxicity in mice.
Results from Clinical Trials of 3
Compound 3 has been tested in clinical trials
against a wide range of cancers, including sarcoma, myelogenous leukemia,
and hematologic neoplasms,[31,32] and results of phase
I studies of 3 in chemotherapy-naive patients with MDM2-amplified
liposarcoma have recently been reported.[40] Upon treatment with 3, a good human PK profile was
achieved and a steady state was reached on day 8. Clear activation
of p53, increase in p21 protein, and apoptosis induction in tumors
were observed. Treatment with 3 showed signs of antitumor
activity in patients; post-treatment, 14 patients were found to have
stable disease and one had a confirmed partial response. In addition,
16 out of 20 patients were treated with 3 for more than
6 months. All patients treated with 3 had at least one
adverse event, and 12 serious adverse events were observed in eight
patients, including neutropenia (six patients) and thrombocytopenia
(three patients). It was found that exposure to 3 was
correlated with hematological toxicity. On the basis of the clinical
data for 3, it was concluded that the potential for late
hematological toxicity, particularly thrombocytopenia, should be considered
in future clinical trials of MDM2 inhibitors.[40]
Synthesis of 3
The
synthesis of 3, based on published reports, is summarized
in Scheme 1.[32]
Scheme 1
Synthesis of 3
Reagents and reaction
conditions:
(a) AlMe3, toluene, reflux; (b) phosgene, Et3N; (c) Et3N; (d) resolution by chiral chromatography.
Synthesis of 3
Reagents and reaction
conditions:
(a) AlMe3, toluene, reflux; (b) phosgene, Et3N; (c) Et3N; (d) resolution by chiral chromatography.
RG7388
On the
basis of the structures of MI-219 (8, Figure 8)[41] and 3, the Hoffmann-La Roche group designed and synthesized the pyrrolidine-containing
compound 4(33) as an MDM2 inhibitor.
The two phenyl groups in 4 adopt a trans configuration,
in contrast to 3 and 8 in which the two
substituted phenyl groups are in a cis configuration. Compound 4 binds to MDM2 with a good affinity (IC50 = 196
nM) but is weaker than 3.
Figure 8
Structures and MDM2 binding of spiro-oxindole-containing
compounds.
MDM2 binding
of pyrrolidine-containing MDM2 inhibitors.The cocrystal structure of MDM2/4 (Figure 7, PBD code 4JRG) shows that the 4-chlorophenyl group and neopentyl
group of 4 occupy the Trp23 and Phe19 pockets, respectively,
while the 2-chlorophenyl group occupies the Leu26 pocket and partakes
in a π–π interaction with the His96 residue. Additionally,
the carbonyl group of 4 forms a hydrogen bond with NH
of His96.
Figure 7
Cocrystal structure of MDM2 and 4.
Cocrystal structure of MDM2 and 4.Pharmacokinetic studies showed that 4 has a high clearance
rate and poor oral bioavailability, issues that were addressed in
further modification efforts. Subsequent structure–activity
relationship (SAR) analyses show that addition of fluorine atoms to
the two phenyl rings of 5(33) enhances the MDM2 binding affinity. The dihydroxybutyl side chain
of 5 was replaced with a variety of groups with the goal
of improving the MDM2 binding affinity, cellular potency, microsomal
stability, and PK properties. This led to the identification of m-methoxybenzoic acid group as an optimal group at this
site, which ultimately resulted in the discovery of 6 (also known as RO5503781, Figure 6) for clinical
development.[33]
Figure 6
MDM2 binding
of pyrrolidine-containing MDM2 inhibitors.
Properties
of 6
Compound 6 binds to MDM2 with
IC50 = 6 nM. It displays potent
cell growth inhibitory activity in cancer cell lines containing wild-type
p53 (average IC50 = 30 nM) and displays >100-fold selectivity
over cancer cell lines containing mutated p53. Furthermore, it has
good microsomal stability and good PK properties. In mice, it has
high oral bioavailability (80%), moderate clearance (t1/2 = 1.6 h), and good systemic exposure and metabolic
stability and is more potent than 3 and 1 in induction of p53 activation in vivo. With oral daily administration,
it achieves tumor regression in the SJSA-1 osteosarcoma xenograft
model in mice at 25 mg/kg. It is currently in three phase I clinical
trials for treatment of patients with solid tumors, acute myelogenous
leukemia, or advanced malignancies as a single agent and in combination
with chemotherapeutics.[42]
Results from Clinical Trials of 6
The
initial phase I clinical data for 6 have
recently been reported.[34] The maximum tolerated
dose for 6 is 500 mg in a daily dosing (q.d.), 5 day
schedule, 500 mg in a twice-daily (b.i.d.), 3-day schedule and 1600
mg in a b.i.d., weekly schedule. Activation of p53, as measured by
MIC-1 concentration in plasma, was observed either with daily dosing
for 5 days or with b.i.d. dosing for 3 days, but it is stronger with
daily, 5-day dosing. Interestingly, no clear p53 activation was observed
with weekly b.i.d. dosing. Thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, febrile
neutropenia, and diarrhea were the dose-limiting toxicities. FLT PET
demonstrated that 6 causes decreased proliferation in
tumors. The recommended phase II dose is 500 mg with daily, 5-day
scheduling.
Synthesis of 6
The
published synthesis of 6 is summarized in Scheme 2.[33]
Scheme 2
Synthesis of 6
Reagents and reaction conditions:
(a) AgF, Et3N, CH2Cl2, rt, 18 h;
(b) CF3CO2H, CH2Cl2, rt,
18 h; (c) Resolution by chiral chromatography; (d) Ph2POCl,
(i-Pr)2NEt, CH2Cl2, rt; (e) aq NaOH, THF, methanol, 40 °C.
The
small molecule MDM2 inhibitor 10 (Figure 8), discovered at the
University of Michigan, was advanced into phase I clinical trials
by Sanofi in 2012.[35,36]Compound 10 was obtained through extensive optimization of a class of spirooxindoles,
such as 7,[43] first reported
in 2005 from our laboratory. Compound 7 was designed
using a structure-based approach to mimic three key p53 binding residues
(Phe19, Trp23, and Leu26) but has weak MDM2 binding affinity (Ki = 8.46 μM).[43] Subsequent modifications of the two phenyl rings and the aliphatic
and the amide side chain were carried out to improve its MDM2 binding
affinity, cellular potency, and in vivo PK properties. Addition of
a 3-chloro substituent atom on the phenyl ring and replacement of
the isopropyl group with neopentyl improves the MDM2 protein binding
affinity, as does replacement of the dimethylamide with a monosubstituted
amine. The addition of a fluorine atom next to the chlorine on the
oxindole ring generally improves the PK profile of spiro-oxindole-containing
MDM2 inhibitors. Following these modifications, a potent compound, 8(41) (Figure 8) was obtained. This compound binds to MDM2 with Ki = 23.5 nM and activates wild-type p53 in cancer cells. 8 shows fairly potent cell growth inhibitory activity (IC50 ≈ 1 μM) in cancer cell lines with wild-type
p53, and it is more than 10-fold less potent in cancer cells harboring
mutated or deleted p53.[41,44] It has good oral bioavailability
in rats and mice. Upon oral administration, it induces robust p53
activation in SJSA-1 xenograft tumor tissues in mice.[45] Oral administration of 8 at a dose of 300
mg/kg twice daily completely inhibits tumor growth inhibition but
fails to achieve tumor regression in the SJSA-1 xenograft tumor model.[41]Structures and MDM2 binding of spiro-oxindole-containing
compounds.Further optimization
of 8 led to 9(44) (MI-888), in which the spiro-oxindole scaffold
has a different stereochemistry. The trans conformation of two substituted
phenyl rings in 9 was found to be critical for improved
MDM2 binding affinity. In addition, removal of the fluorine atom from
the oxindole ring is beneficial to MDM2 binding affinity and addition
of a single fluoro substituent on the phenyl ring improves the PK
profile. Finally, the soluble tail, the cis-3-hydroxy-3-methyl-cyclobutylamino
group, also contributes to the improved MDM2 binding affinity and
a good in vivo PK profile. 9 has an excellent MDM2 binding
affinity (Ki = 0.44 nM) and shows potent
cell growth inhibition potency in SJSA-1 and RS4;11 cell lines (IC50 of 80 and 60 nM, respectively).[44] It displays >100-fold selectivity for cancer cell lines with
wild-type TP53 over those with mutated or deleted TP53. It is stable in mouse, rat, and human microsomes and
has high systemic
exposure in a mouse PK study. Oral daily administration of 9 at 100 mg/kg achieves complete and durable tumor regression in both
the SJSA-1 osteosarcoma and acute leukemia RS4;11 xenograft models
in mice without signs of toxicity.Replacement of the cis-3-hydroxy-3-methylcyclobutylamino
group of 9 with a trans-4-hydroxycyclohexylamino
group led to clinical compound 10.[35,36,46]
Properties of Clinical
Lead Compound 10
Compound 10 binds
to MDM2 with a Ki value of 0.88 nM.[36] A cocrystal structure of the MDM2/10 complex (Figure 9) was determined and provided
a structural basis
for its high binding affinity to MDM2. 10 mimics the
three key p53 binding residues (Phe19, Trp23, and Leu26) in hydrophobic
contacts and hydrogen bonding in its interaction with MDM2 but captures
additional interactions. The Cl atom in the oxindole group of 10 has extensive hydrophobic contacts with MDM2. There is
π–π stacking between the His96 of MDM2 and the
2-fluoro-3-chlorophenyl in 10, and a hydrogen bond between
the imidazole side chain of His96 and the carbonyl group in 10. Interestingly, the N-terminus of MDM2 (residues 10–18)
refolds and enjoys extensive interactions with 10 through
Val14 and Thr16, which contributes 25-fold to the binding affinity.
In contrast, the N-terminus of MDM2 (residues 1–18) has no
significant contribution to the binding of p53 peptides and 1.
Figure 9
X-ray cocrystal structure of MDM2/10.
Compound 10 inhibits cell growth with
IC50 values of 100–200 nM in SJSA-1, RS4;11, LNCaP,
and HCT116cancer cell lines containing wild-type p53 and demonstrates
>100-fold selectivity over cancer cells lines with mutated or deleted
p53.[36] Compound 10 effectively
activates wild-type p53 in cancer cell lines at concentrations as
low as 30 nM in vitro and in xenograft tumor tissue of leukemia and
solid tumors, leading to p53-dependent cell cycle arrest and/or apoptosis
in tumor cells. With daily oral administration at 100 mg/kg, it achieves
complete and durable tumor regression in mouse xenograft models of
SJSA-1 osteosarcoma and RS4;11 acute leukemia, partial (80%) regression
in the LNCaPprostate cancer xenograft model, and complete tumor growth
inhibition in the HCT116colon cancer xenograft model. A single oral
dose of compound 10 at 200 mg/kg induces strong apoptosis
in the SJSA-1 tumor tissue with the effect lasting for >3 days
and
complete tumor regression in 100% of animals. Mechanistically, robust
transcriptional up-regulation of PUMA induced by 10 is
associated with robust apoptosis in cancer cell lines in vitro, tumor
tissue in vivo, and complete tumor regression in xenograft models
in mice. These preclinical data suggest the strong therapeutic potential
of compound 10 for the treatment of different types of
humancancer.X-ray cocrystal structure of MDM2/10.In 2012, Sanofi initiated a phase
I clinical trial of compound 10 to assess its safety,
tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and
biological activity in patients with advanced cancer.[35] A second phase I trial was initiated in 2013 to evaluate 10 in combination with pimasertib, an allosteric inhibitor
of MEK1/2 in patients with solid tumors.[35] The phase I clinical trial results for 10 have not
been published.
Compound 14 (Figure 10), discovered
and developed
by Amgen, entered phase I clinical trials for the treatment of humancancer in 2012.[37,38] This compound was obtained through
structure-based design and extensive optimization of a new class of
MDM2 inhibitors containing piperidin-2-one.[38,48]
Figure 10
Structures of piperidinone-containing compounds.
Structures of piperidinone-containing compounds.The piperidinone-containing compound 11(48) (Figure 10) was designed
as an MDM2 inhibitor based upon a structural analysis of known MDM2
inhibitors, such as 1, 8, and a previously
reported MDM2 inhibitor by Amgen, to mimic three key binding residues
in p53. Compound 11 binds to MDM2 with IC50 = 34 nM and served as an excellent lead compound for further optimization.
Upon the basis of the NMR and cocrystal structures of 11 or its analogues complexed with MDM2 (Figure 11, PDB codes 4HMB and 2LZG),[49] further optimization of two sites of 11 yielded 12 (AM 8553),[48] which
has an IC50 value of 1.1 nM to MDM2 (Kd = 0.4 nM to MDM2). Compound 12 effectively
activates wild-type p53 in vitro and in vivo and dose-dependently
inhibits tumor growth in the SJSA-1 xenograft model in mice. At 150
and 200 mg/kg daily oral dosing for 2 weeks, it achieves partial tumor
regression (27%) after 2 weeks of treatment. It was further optimized
for potency, pharmacokinetic properties, and in vivo efficacy. This
yielded a series of potent and orally active MDM2 inhibitors including 13(38) and 14, whereas
the latter was selected for clinical development.
Figure 11
NMR structure of MDM2/11 (left) and X-ray crystal
structures of MDM2/11 analogue (middle and right).
NMR structure of MDM2/11 (left) and X-ray crystal
structures of MDM2/11 analogue (middle and right).X-ray cocrystal structure of MDM2/13 (cyan).Several high-resolution
cocrystal structures of MDM2 complexed
with members of this class of MDM2 inhibitors have been determined[38,48,49] and provide structural insights
into their high affinity binding. In the MDM2/13 cocrystal
structure (Figure 12, PDB code 4OAS), the 3-chlorophenyl
and 4-chlorophenyl groups project into the Leu26 and Trp23 pockets,
respectively.[38] The Phe19 pocket is occupied
by the ethyl group. The sulfonyl tert-butyl group
resides in the small pocket around G58, and the carboxylic acid forms
a salt bridge with the His96 residue of MDM2. The cocrystal structure
for MDM2/14 has not been reported, but Amgen scientists
predict that 14 has a similar binding model as 13.[38] Furthermore, binding between
inhibitors in this class (e.g., 11) and MDM2 induces
reorganization of the extreme N-terminus of the MDM2 protein and promotes
additional hydrophobic contacts between the m-chlorophenyl
moiety in the inhibitors and the Val14 and Thr16 residues in MDM2
(Figure 11, right).[49] Hence, 14 not only mimics the three key p53 residues
but captures additional interactions not observed between p53 and
the refolded MDM2 to achieve a very high binding affinity with MDM2.
Figure 12
X-ray cocrystal structure of MDM2/13 (cyan).
Properties of Clinical Lead Compound 14
Compound 14 binds to MDM2 with IC50 = 0.6 nM in a competitive binding assay and has a Kd value of 0.045 nM with MDM2, determined by
surface plasmon resonance (SPR).[38] It potently
inhibits cell proliferation with IC50 values of 9.1 and
10 nM in an BrdU proliferation assay in the SJSA-1 and HCT-116 cell
lines, respectively, and demonstrates over >1000-fold selectivity
over the HCT-116p53 knockout (p53–/–) cell
line. In efficacy studies using humantumor xenograft models in mice,
it effectively inhibits tumor growth in the SJSA-1 osteosarcoma model
with an ED50 of 9.1 mg/kg with daily oral administration
and demonstrates complete tumor regression in 10 of 12 animals treated
with 60 mg/kg daily. It also effectively and dose-dependently inhibits
tumor growth in the HCT-116 xenograft model with twice daily dosing
with an ED50 of 16 mg/kg and achieves tumor stasis (100%
tumor growth inhibition) without tumor regression. In preclinical
safety evaluations, no significant liability was found for 14 to preclude it from clinical development; it was projected to have
a low clearance rate and consequently a long half-life in humans.
The MDM2 inhibitor
MK-8242,[41] also known
as SCH 900242,[51] developed by Merck has
been tested since 2011 as a single agent or in combination with cytarabine
in patients with advanced solid tumors or leukemia. The MDM2 inhibitors,
CGM097 (35)[39] developed by
Novartis International AG and DS-3032b (36)[40] developed by Daiichi Sankyo Inc., have also
entered phase I clinical trials in 2013. Compound 35 is
to be tested in selected patients who have advanced solid tumors with
p53 wild status. Compound 36 will be tested in patients
who have advanced solid tumors or lymphomas. The chemical structures
and preclinical data for these three clinical-stage MDM2 inhibitors
have not been disclosed.
Other MDM2 Inhibitors Reported
by Industrial
and Academic Groups
In addition to the seven compounds that
have been advanced into
clinical development, there are several additional classes of MDM2
inhibitors that have been reported by industrial and academic groups.
Johnson & Johnson reported a class of benzodiazepine-containing
compounds as MDM2 inhibitors.[52] One of
the better compounds they reported was 15 (Figure 13 and Table 2), which had
MDM2 binding affinity (Kd = 80 nM), while
its corresponding enantiomer was 50 times less potent.[53,54] Compound 15 has low cell permeability, rapid in vivo
clearance, and low bioavailability.[53] Subsequent
modifications led to 16, in which soluble tails were
added and the carboxylic acid moiety was replaced by a substituted
benzyl group.[55] Compound 16 shows MDM2 binding (IC50 = 394 nM) and BrdU incorporation
(IC50 = 1.1 μM) in the MCF-7 cell line.
Figure 13
Examples
of reported MDM2 inhibitors in the literature.
Table 2
Summary of Other MDM2 Inhibitors
entry
compd
MDM2 binding
IC50
cell line; assay; IC50
PDB code
in vivo data
ref
1
15
80 nMa
MCF7; BrdU; 38 μM
1T4E
(53, 54)
2
16
394 nM
MCF7; BrdU; 1.1 μM
(55)
3
17
170 nM
SJSA-1; SRB; 5.2 μM
(56)
4
18
350 nM
SJSA-1; p21; 12 μM
PK data
(57)
5
19
>5 μM
MCF-7; MTT; 40 nM
(58)
6
20
9.2 nM
3VZV
(59)
7
21
58 nM
MV4;11; luminescent; 220
nM
3W69
PK and efficacy in SCID
mice
(59)
8
22
30 nM
4DIJ
(60)
9
23
916 nMb
3LBK
(61)
10
24
130 nMb
(62)
11
25
150 nMb
A549; MTT; 1.97 μM
efficacy in nude mice
(63)
12
26
0.90 μM
SJSA-1; SRB; 102.3
μM
(64)
13
27
0.8 μMa
(61)
14
28
169 nM
SJSA-1; 4.7 μM
(65, 66)
15
29
41 nM
SJSA-1; 1 μM
(65, 66)
16
30
0.4 nM
SJSA-1; EdU; 25 nM
4OBA
PK and efficacy
in nude
mice
(67)
17
31
0.1 nM
SJSA-1; EdU; 16 nM
4ODE
PK and efficacy
in nude
mice
(68)
18
32
6 nM
av of three;c MTT; 15 nM
PK and efficacy in nude
mice
(69)
19
33
7 nM
av of three;c MTT; 7 nM
4LWV
PK
and efficacy in nude
mice
(69)
Binding affinity was measured as K;
Binding affinity
was measured as K
Average of three cell lines SJSA-1,
HCT116, and RKO
Examples
of reported MDM2 inhibitors in the literature.Binding affinity was measured as K;Binding affinity
was measured as KAverage of three cell lines SJSA-1,
HCT116, and RKOResearchers
at the University of Newcastle reported isoindolinone-containing
compounds as MDM2 inhibitors.[56,70,71] Subsequent optimization efforts guided by NMR analysis led to the
identification of compound 17 (Figure 8),[56] which has binding affinity
to MDM2 (IC50 = 0.17 μM) in an ELISA assay and cell
growth inhibition (GI50 = 5.2 μM) in the SJSA-1 cell
line.In addition to 14, scientists from Amgen
reported
a class of chromenotriazolopyrimidine[72] compounds as MDM2 inhibitors. Extensive modifications of these compounds
led to 18,[57] which binds to
MDM2 with IC50 = 350 nM and shows moderate cellular activity
and microsomal stability, high oral bioavailability (54%), and slow
clearance in rodents.In 2010, a class of spiro(oxindole-3,3′-thiazolidine)-containing
compounds was first reported as possible MDM2 inhibitors.[73] Chemical modifications led to 19,[58] which has cellular growth inhibition
activity >20 times that of nutlin-3 in a selected subset of cancer
cell lines.Researchers from Daiichi Sankyo reported a class
of 5,6-dihydroimidazo[2,1-b][1,3]thiazol-containing
compounds (20, 21) as potent MDM2 inhibitors.[59]20 has high MDM2 binding affinity
(IC50 =
9.2 nM) but poor metabolic stability, resulting in weak in vivo antitumor
efficacy in an MV4-11 xenograft model. After extensive modifications, 21 was obtained and shows high MDM2 binding potency (IC50 = 58 nM), moderate solubility (25 μg/mL) in pH 6.8
phosphate buffer, good hepatic microsomal stability, and high systemic
exposure in mice. It also showed ∼50-fold selectivity in TP53 wild type over TP53-mutated cell lines
(GI50 = 0.22 μM in MV4;11 vs GI50 = 10
μM in DLD-1). Upon oral administration of 21 at
a daily dose of 200 mg/kg, 76% TGI was achieved at the end of treatment
in mouse MV4;11 tumor xenograft model with no sign of acute toxicity.A class of compounds featuring a 3-(1H-imidazol-5-yl)-1H-indole-2-carboxylic acid structure was reported independently
by two groups. Scientists from Novartis reported 22,
which has an MDM2 binding affinity of IC50 = 30 nM.[60] In addition, 23 was synthesized
by Dömling’s group at the University of Pittsburgh by
means of a three-component reaction[61] and
was found to have MDM2 binding affinity (Ki = 916 nM)[74] in a fluorescent polarization
assay. Another class of 2-indolecarboxylic acid containing MDM2 inhibitors
also has three hydrophobic groups converging on a sp3 carbon
and 24; the best of these compounds binds to MDM2 with Ki = 130 nM.[62]In 2012, 1H-pyrrolone-containing compounds, such
as 25, were reported as MDM2 inhibitors. 25 has MDM2 binding (Ki = 0.15 μM)
and cell growth inhibition (IC50 ≈ 1.97–28.11
μM) in Saoc-2, U-2OS, A549, and NCI-H1299 cell lines.[63] Using pharmacophore-based virtual screening,
Wang and co-workers identified thiophene-containing compounds as MDM2
inhibitors.[64] One of the most potent of
these compounds, MCL0527-3 (26), shows MDM2 binding affinity
(IC50 = 0.90 μM) and cell growth inhibition (IC50 of 2.41, 0.59, and 102.3 μM in A549, HCT116, and SJSA-1
cell lines, respectively). A dihydroimidazole-containing compound
PB11 (27), synthesized from a multiple component reaction
followed by amidation, has MDM2 binding affinity (Kd = 0.8 μM).[61]Merck scientists recently reported a class of piperidine-containing
compounds (28, 29) with MDM2 binding (IC50 of 169 and 41 nM, respectively).[65,66,75] Detailed SAR studies and computational calculations
suggested that substituents on the 2-position of the piperidine ring,
for example the allyl moiety of 28, can stabilize the
binding conformation of the piperidine ring and are compatible with
both polar and nonpolar functional groups. However, both compounds 28 and 29 inhibit CYP 3A4 (IC50 <
5 μM), a liability that may need to be addressed for further
development for this class of compounds.A class of morpholinone-containing
MDM2 inhibitors, such as 30, was recently reported by
Amgen scientists.[67] Compound 30 has MDM2 binding (IC50 = 0.4 ± 0.1 nM) and BrdU
incorporation (IC50 = 25 ± 9 nM) in the SJSA-1 cell
line. With oral administration
of 30 at 100 mg/kg daily, partial tumor regression was
achieved at the end of treatment in an SJSA-1 female athymic nude
mice xenograft. Most interestingly, 30 has slower clearance
in rats and higher hepatocyte stability than the corresponding piperidinone-containing
analogue. Metabolite profiling showed that metabolic oxidation and
glucuronidation of 30 are significantly slower than those
of its corresponding piperidinone-containing analogue. These data
indicate that morpholinone-containing MDM2 inhibitors such as 30 do have advantages in their DMPK profile relative to piperidinone-containing
MDM2 inhibitors such as 14. Additional modification of 14 focused on replacement of its carboxylic acid moiety with
corresponding isosteres.[68] It was interesting
to find that heterocycles such as a thiazole group are a good replacement
for the carboxylic acid group and forms hydrogen bonds with the imidazole
NH of His96 through the nitrogen atom. This modification led to identification
of 31 (AM 6761), which has good MDM2 binding (IC50 = 0.1 nM), good cellular potency (SJSA-1 IC50 = 16 nM), and favorable pharmacokinetic properties. Upon oral administration
of 31 at a daily dose of 50 mg/kg, 5.6% tumor regression
was achieved in SJSA-1 female athymic nude mice xenografts after 12
days of treatment. The metabolite profiles of 31 in mouse,
rat, dog, monkey, and human hepatocytes suggest that 31 is primarily cleared through oxidative pathways and thus is distinct
from the main metabolism of 14 which is through glucuronidation.Very recently, Zhang and coauthors reported 32 (RO2468)
and 33 (RO5353) as potent MDM2 inhibitors with useful
in vivo antitumor activity.[69] The medicinal
chemistry optimization was based on 34 (RO8994) and the
clinical drug 6 and featured incorporation of a pyridine
or thiophene ring as a replacement of one of the phenyl rings of 34. Compounds 32 and 33 have MDM2
binding in the low nanomolar region, with average cellular IC50 values in three cancer cell lines of 15 and 7 nM, and good
oral pharmacokinetic profiles comparable to that of 6. Upon oral administration of 32 at 10 mg/kg daily dose,
complete tumor regression is achieved in SJSA-1 nude mice xenograft
at the end of a 14-day treatment. In the same mousetumor model, oral
administration of 33 at a daily dose of 10 mg/kg also
achieves significant tumor regression.
Concluding
Remarks and Outlook for Small-Molecule
MDM2 Inhibitors as a New Class of Drugs for Cancer Treatment
Intense research efforts in the past decade have led to the discovery
of a number of classes of highly potent and selective MDM2 inhibitors,
and seven such compounds are now in clinical trials. Several of these
clinically tested MDM2 inhibitors bind to MDM2 with a very high affinity
(Kd or Ki of
<1 nM) and demonstrate significant selectivity over MDMX, a homologue
of MDM2, and other proteins tested. Cocrystal structures of a large
number of high-affinity inhibitors in complex with MDM2 show that
these MDM2 inhibitors not only mimic the three key p53 binding residues
(Phe19, Trp23, and Leu26) but also capture additional interactions
not observed between p53 and MDM2. In particular, both 10 and 14 have π–π stacking with His96
and induce refolding of the extreme N-terminus of MDM2, gaining additional
hydrophobic interactions, with residues Thr12 and Val14.[36,49] Furthermore, 14 also forms a surface electrostatic
interaction with the G58 “shelf” region in MDM2. As
a result, these small-molecule MDM2 inhibitors can achieve binding
affinities to MDM2 that are >1000 times better than the affinities
of p53 peptides. Pharmacokinetic properties, including oral bioavailability,
have also been extensively optimized for these clinical-stage MDM2
inhibitors. The successful discovery of these highly potent and selective
MDM2 inhibitors with optimized pharmacokinetic properties is a success
of modern medicinal chemistry in targeting protein–protein
interactions.When the interaction of MDM2 with p53 is blocked,
these potent
MDM2 inhibitors inhibit MDM2-mediated p53 ubiquitination and degradation,
leading to accumulation and activation of p53 protein in cells with
wild-type p53. Activation of p53 results in transcription of p53-targeted
genes, including p21,[76] a cell cycle regulator,
and PUMA,[77] a proapoptotic protein, leading
to cell cycle arrest and/or apoptosis in tumor cells. Since MDM2 is
also a p53-targeted gene, MDM2 inhibitors also induce up-regulation
of MDM2 mRNA and protein.[20,39] As expected, these
potent and selective MDM2 inhibitors dose-dependently and effectively
activate p53 in tumor cells with wild-type p53 but not in tumor cells
harboring mutated or deleted p53. They potently inhibit cell growth
in cancer cell lines with wild-type p53 and show high selectivity
over cancer cell lines with mutated or deleted p53. Interestingly,
while MDM2 inhibitors can inhibit cell cycle progression in all tumor
cell lines with wild-type p53, they effectively induce apoptosis in
only some cancer cell lines.[78] Analysis
of p53-regulated proapoptotic genes, PUMA, Noxa, and Bax, in a number
of cancer cell lines revealed that PUMA, but not Noxa and Bax, was
induced by MDM2 inhibitors and the magnitude of PUMA induction correlates
with the degree of apoptosis induction.[36]Although earlier generations of MDM2 inhibitors such as 1 and 8 are capable of inhibiting 100% tumor
growth in
xenograft models of humancancer, they are unable to achieve complete
tumor regression. However, recently discovered MDM2 inhibitors such
as 10 and 14, with improved binding affinities
to MDM2, cellular potencies, and significantly optimized pharmacokinetic
properties, can effectively induce complete tumor regression in the
SJSA-1 osteosarcoma xenograft model in mice. The SJSA-1 osteosarcoma
cell line has MDM2 gene amplification and is sensitive to MDM2 inhibitors
in apoptosis induction. Although only ∼7% of all humancancers
have an amplified MDM2 gene,[14] a higher
frequency of MDM2 gene amplification occurs in certain tumor types,
including well-differentiated liposarcomas (>80%), soft tissue
tumors
(20%), osteosarcomas (16%), and esophageal carcinomas (13%).[79,80] The complete tumor regression achieved by these new MDM2 inhibitors
in the SJSA-1 xenograft model suggests their therapeutic potential
as single agents for the treatment of humancancers with MDM2 gene
amplification. Additionally, MDM2 inhibitors such as 6 and 10 have been shown to achieve tumor regression
in leukemia xenograft models in mice.[33,36] In other xenograft
models, such as the xenograft model of the HCT-116colon cancer cell
line, MDM2 inhibitors effectively inhibit tumor growth (tumor stasis)
but fail to achieve tumor regression.[36] This is consistent with their ability to effectively inhibit cell
cycle progression and their inability to induce apoptosis in the HCT-116
cell line. Taken together, these in vivo data suggest that MDM2 inhibitors
may have a strong therapeutic potential for the treatment of a subset
of humansolid tumors and leukemia.In addition to the development
of MDM2 inhibitors as single agents,
MDM2 inhibitors have been evaluated in combination with both traditional
chemotherapeutic agents and molecularly targeted agents. These potent
MDM2 inhibitors in clinical development are highly selective for MDM2,
but they fail to target MDMX, which directly interacts with p53 and
inhibits its function. Since a number of chemotherapeutic agents such
as irinotecan and doxorubicincan effectively down-regulate MDMX,
their combination with MDM2 inhibitors can be very effective for the
treatment of humancancers with high expression of both MDM2 and MDMX
proteins. In addition to these traditional chemotherapeutic agents,
MEK inhibitors such as trametinib are very effective in induction
of down-regulation of MDMX.[81] Indeed, MEK
inhibitors such as trametinib and pimasertib are currently being evaluated
in combination with either 10 or 14 in clinical
trials for the treatment of patients with acute myeloid leukemia or
solid tumors.[35,37]Acquired resistance of
tumor cells to cancer drugs is a major clinical
challenge in drug development. Because MDM2 inhibitors are only effective
in targeting tumor cells with wild-type p53, they may select resistant
tumor cells that acquire p53 mutation(s) that escape MDM2 control.
Indeed, treatment of SJSA-1 cells with nutlin 3 in cell cultures has
resulted in selection of colonies that contain p53 mutations in DNA
binding domain and become highly resistant to nutlin 3.[82] Therefore, combinations of MDM2 inhibitors with
agents that are effective against tumor cells with p53 mutations should
be tested to prevent or delay acquired resistance.Since MDM2
inhibitors also activate p53 in normal cells and normal
tissues, there is a concern that activation of p53can cause toxicity
in those normal tissues sensitive to p53 activation, such as bone
marrow, spleen, and small intestines. Data from phase I clinical trials
of 3(40) and 6(34) showed that these MDM2 inhibitors cause thrombocytopenia
(decrease of platelets in blood), which is a major dose-limiting toxicity.
Mechanistic studies[83] showed that 3 promoted apoptosis of megakaryocyte (MK) progenitor cells,
resulting in a reduction of their numbers and affected mature MK cells
by blocking DNA synthesis during endomitosis and impairing platelet
production. Therefore, determination of appropriate dose schedules
that can achieve robust p53 activation and strong antitumor activity
but have manageable on-target toxicity will be another critical task
for the successful development of these potent MDM2 inhibitors.
Authors: Ana Z Gonzalez; John Eksterowicz; Michael D Bartberger; Hilary P Beck; Jude Canon; Ada Chen; David Chow; Jason Duquette; Brian M Fox; Jiasheng Fu; Xin Huang; Jonathan B Houze; Lixia Jin; Yihong Li; Zhihong Li; Yun Ling; Mei-Chu Lo; Alexander M Long; Lawrence R McGee; Joel McIntosh; Dustin L McMinn; Jonathan D Oliner; Tao Osgood; Yosup Rew; Anne Y Saiki; Paul Shaffer; Sarah Wortman; Peter Yakowec; Xuelei Yan; Qiuping Ye; Dongyin Yu; Xiaoning Zhao; Jing Zhou; Steven H Olson; Julio C Medina; Daqing Sun Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2014-03-04 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: Ana Z Gonzalez; Zhihong Li; Hilary P Beck; Jude Canon; Ada Chen; David Chow; Jason Duquette; John Eksterowicz; Brian M Fox; Jiasheng Fu; Xin Huang; Jonathan Houze; Lixia Jin; Yihong Li; Yun Ling; Mei-Chu Lo; Alexander M Long; Lawrence R McGee; Joel McIntosh; Jonathan D Oliner; Tao Osgood; Yosup Rew; Anne Y Saiki; Paul Shaffer; Sarah Wortman; Peter Yakowec; Xuelei Yan; Qiuping Ye; Dongyin Yu; Xiaoning Zhao; Jing Zhou; Steven H Olson; Daqing Sun; Julio C Medina Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2014-03-27 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: Anna Czarna; Barbara Beck; Stuti Srivastava; Grzegorz M Popowicz; Siglinde Wolf; Yijun Huang; Michal Bista; Tad A Holak; Alexander Dömling Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2010-07-19 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Emilie A Chapeau; Agnieszka Gembarska; Eric Y Durand; Emeline Mandon; Claire Estadieu; Vincent Romanet; Marion Wiesmann; Ralph Tiedt; Joseph Lehar; Antoine de Weck; Roland Rad; Louise Barys; Sebastien Jeay; Stephane Ferretti; Audrey Kauffmann; Esther Sutter; Armelle Grevot; Pierre Moulin; Masato Murakami; William R Sellers; Francesco Hofmann; Michael Rugaard Jensen Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2017-03-06 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Dima Kozakov; David R Hall; Stefan Jehle; Sefan Jehle; Lingqi Luo; Stefan O Ochiana; Elizabeth V Jones; Michael Pollastri; Karen N Allen; Adrian Whitty; Sandor Vajda Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2015-04-27 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Xingjuan Chen; Degang Liu; Donghui Zhou; Yubing Si; David Xu; Christopher W Stamatkin; Mona K Ghozayel; Matthew S Ripsch; Alexander G Obukhov; Fletcher A White; Samy O Meroueh Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2018-10-24 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Lenora W M Loo; Chong Gao; Yurii B Shvetsov; Danielle R Okoro; Brenda Y Hernandez; Jill Bargonetti Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2018-11-23 Impact factor: 4.872