Dabrafenib (Tafinlar) was approved in 2013 by the FDA as a selective single agent treatment for patients with BRAFV600E mutation-positive advanced melanoma. One year later, a combination of dabrafenib and trametinib was used for treatment of BRAFV600E/K mutant metastatic melanoma. In the present study, we report on hitherto not described photosensitivity of dabrafenib both in organic and aqueous media. The half-lives for dabrafenib degradation were determined. Moreover, we revealed photoinduced chemical conversion of dabrafenib to its planar fluorescent derivative dabrafenib_photo 2. This novel compound could be isolated and biologically characterized in vitro. Both enzymatic and cellular assays proved that 2 is still a potent BRAFV600E inhibitor. The intracellular formation of 2 from dabrafenib upon ultraviolet irradiation is shown. The herein presented findings should be taken in account when handling dabrafenib both in preclinical research and in clinical applications.
Dabrafenib (Tafinlar) was approved in 2013 by the FDA as a selective single agent treatment for patients with BRAFV600E mutation-positive advanced melanoma. One year later, a combination of dabrafenib and trametinib was used for treatment of BRAFV600E/K mutant metastatic melanoma. In the present study, we report on hitherto not described photosensitivity of dabrafenib both in organic and aqueous media. The half-lives for dabrafenib degradation were determined. Moreover, we revealed photoinduced chemical conversion of dabrafenib to its planar fluorescent derivative dabrafenib_photo 2. This novel compound could be isolated and biologically characterized in vitro. Both enzymatic and cellular assays proved that 2 is still a potent BRAFV600E inhibitor. The intracellular formation of 2 from dabrafenib upon ultraviolet irradiation is shown. The herein presented findings should be taken in account when handling dabrafenib both in preclinical research and in clinical applications.
Dabrafenib was the second selective
BRAFV600E inhibitor after vemurafenib that was approved
for the treatment of BRAFV600 mutated melanoma.[1,2] It showed significant clinical benefits compared to alkylating chemotherapeutic
agent dacarbazine in clinical studies.[3] The median progression free survival (PFS) for patients treated
by dabrafenib is about five months. Unfortunately, almost all patients
suffer from relapses due to acquired resistance after half a year.[4] To overcome the resistance development, combined
therapy targeting different kinases in the MAPK signaling pathway
was proposed. Accordingly, the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib
(MEK inhibitor) showed improved clinical efficacy compared to dabrafenib
monotherapy in clinical trials.[5] The median
PFS could be increased to 9 months. Based on this data the combination
regimen of dabrafenib with trametinib was approved in 2014 by FDA.[6] Despite superior response rates and longer therapeutic
benefits of the combination therapy, most patients still relapse within
one year.[7] Therefore, the acquired resistance
and partially severe side effects during the BRAFV600E–inhibitor
therapy require further research and developments in the melanoma
field.In the course of our research on photoactivatable kinase
inhibitors,[8−10] we set out to design and synthesize photoprotected
prodrugs of dabrafenib.
A photostable parent compound is a fundamental requirement for successful
caging approach. Thus, to prove the photostability of dabrafenib we
irradiated 200 μM solution of the inhibitor in DMSO with 226
W/m2 ultraviolet light (UV) at 365 nm. To our surprise,
dabrafenib was not stable under the described conditions forming a
number of decay products. We examined the time dependency of the photoinduced
degradation and performed HPLC measurements of irradiated samples.
As shown in Figure , the degradation is a first-order reaction with a half-life for
dabrafenib of 65.0 s. Interestingly, parallel to decomposition of
dabrafenib formation of a major new compound was observed (red line
in Figure ). Accordingly
to the experimental setup, we named this substance “dabrafenib_photo”
(2).
Figure 1
Photoinduced conversion of dabrafenib (1)
to “dabrafenib_photo”
(2). A 200 μM solution of 1 in DMSO
was irradiated at 365 nm with 226 W/m2 for up to 5 min.
The irradiated samples were diluted 1:2 with methanol and analyzed
by HPLC. The determined areas under the HPLC peaks were converted
to appropriate compound concentrations based on calibration curves
(Supplementary Figure S1) (n = 4).
Photoinduced conversion of dabrafenib (1)
to “dabrafenib_photo”
(2). A 200 μM solution of 1 in DMSO
was irradiated at 365 nm with 226 W/m2 for up to 5 min.
The irradiated samples were diluted 1:2 with methanol and analyzed
by HPLC. The determined areas under the HPLC peaks were converted
to appropriate compound concentrations based on calibration curves
(Supplementary Figure S1) (n = 4).Next, we isolated compound 2 and characterized it
as N-(5-amino-2-(tert-butyl)-11-fluorobenzo[f]thiazolo[4,5-h]quinazolin-10-yl)-2,6-difluorobenzenesulfonamide
(Scheme ). Therefore,
we postulated the photoinduced conversion of dabrafenib (1) to the novel compound 2 in the sense of a 6-π-photocyclization
followed by oxidation as described in Scheme .
Scheme 1
Photoinduced Conversion of Dabrafenib (1) to Dabrafenib_photo
(2)
It is noteworthy to mention that under the conditions
used in our
experiments the photoinduced conversion of dabrafenib (1) to 2 in DMSO solution is not a quantitative reaction.
In line with this notion, small amounts of not further characterized
byproducts were detected by HPLC analysis.As kinase inhibitors
were typically used in in vitro assays we next investigated
whether the photoinduced degradation
of dabrafenib (1) and the formation of 2 occurs in aqueous media too. Thus, we repeated the experiment described
before but now the dabrafenib solution was prepared in cell culture
medium DMEM instead of pure DMSO. When irradiated under the previously
described settings the photoreaction (Scheme ) proceeded only by approximately 10% (Supplementary Figure S2a). However, when the
radiation power was increased to 1130 W/m2 significant
conversion of dabrafenib (1) to 2 could
be detected (Supplementary Figure S2b,
half-live of the dabrafenib decay was 294 s). A similar photoinduced
reaction was also observed in phosphate buffered salineDPBS (Supplementary Figure S3a). Herein, the half-life
of dabrafenib in DPBS was 145 s when irradiated with 1130 W/m2 at 365 nm. Interestingly, in DMSOdabrafenib decayed significantly
more readily than in aqueous solutions: half-life of 1 in DMSO was 19.5 s at 365 nm illumination by 1130 W/m2. Moreover, the nascent 2 was not stable in DMSO under
this high irradiation power and photolyzed further to several not
identified products (Supplementary Figure S3b). The determined values for half-lives in different solutions are
summarized in Supplementary Table S1.Motivated by these results, we became interested in the fate of
dabrafenib in aqueous solution under normal lab conditions. Indeed,
under daylight exposure dabrafenib reacted relatively fast both in
DMSO and in DMEM (Supplementary Figures S4 and S5). Especially in DMSO the degradation proceeded within the
range of minutes and the solution became yellowish due to formation
of dabrafenib_photo (2). In contrast to the described
photoinduced conversion, we found no evidence for thermal decomposition
of dabrafenib at 37 °C in the dark (Supplementary Figure S6).The presented results are highly relevant
when handling dabrafenib
solutions in the lab. As consequence all dabrafenib solutions should
be protected from light exposure. To our best knowledge the revealed
photoinduced degradation of dabrafenib (1) has not been
described previously. Interestingly, the CHMP (Committee for Medicinal
Products for Human Use) assessment report states “...the drug
substance manufactured by the proposed supplier is sufficiently stable...”.[11]Having the photoconverted product 2 in hand, we wanted
to examine the photochemical properties and the biological activities
of this novel compound in more detail. Accordingly, we synthesized
dabrafenib_photo (2) in larger quantities and characterized
it both photochemically and in vitro.Dabrafenib_photo
(2) reveals different spectroscopic
characteristics than the parent dabrafenib (1). The UV/vis
spectra of the compounds show increased absorption of 2 around 400 nm in comparison to 1 (Supplementary Figure S7). The bathochromic shift can be explained
by the formation of a pan-aromatic phenanthrene derivative in 2. Interestingly, this conjugated planar ring system causes
green fluorescence of 2 when excited by 375 nm (Supplementary Figure S8). Therefore, when incubating
cells with dabrafenib_photo 2 its intracellular localization
has been analyzed by fluorescence microscopy (see below).To
further examine the biological activity of 2 several
approaches were performed. First, we assumed that 2 could
be a DNA intercalator due to its planar aromatic structure. However,
spectrophotometric investigation (Supplementary Figure S13) and gel electrophoresis analysis (Supplementary Figure S14) have not provided any evidence for
an interaction of 2 with DNA.Based on structural
similarity to dabrafenib (1) we
supposed that 2 could also be a BrafV600E inhibitor.
Molecular modeling studies predicted similar binding modes of both
dabrafenib (1) and dabrafenib_photo (2)
in the active site of BrafV600E. The calculated 2D ligand
interaction diagrams are shown in Figure . For the 3D binding modes, see Supplementary Figure S10.
Figure 2
Modeled ligand interaction
diagrams of (a) dabrafenib (1) and (b) dabrafenib_photo
(2) in the active site of
BRAFV600E (pdb 4XV2). Key ligand–protein interactions are shown.
H-bonds between the ligand and the protein backbone are indicated
by purple arrows. The binding modes of both compounds are closely
related: The aminopyrimidine moieties of both compounds address the
hinge region of the kinase by two H-bonds. The sulfonamide residues,
respectively, bind to the aspartate594 via one (1) or
two (2) H-bonds. The difluorobenzene moieties occupy
the deeper hydrophobic pocket I, and the tert-butyl
residues are exposed to the solvent.
Modeled ligand interaction
diagrams of (a) dabrafenib (1) and (b) dabrafenib_photo
(2) in the active site of
BRAFV600E (pdb 4XV2). Key ligand–protein interactions are shown.
H-bonds between the ligand and the protein backbone are indicated
by purple arrows. The binding modes of both compounds are closely
related: The aminopyrimidine moieties of both compounds address the
hinge region of the kinase by two H-bonds. The sulfonamide residues,
respectively, bind to the aspartate594 via one (1) or
two (2) H-bonds. The difluorobenzene moieties occupy
the deeper hydrophobic pocket I, and the tert-butyl
residues are exposed to the solvent.Therefore, our modeling studies support the assumption that 2 is a BRAFV600E inhibitor even though the calculated
docking score (Schrödinger Glide) for dabrafenib (−15.7)
is higher than for 2 (−11.7).To prove our
hypothesis, we determined the IC50 values
of both 1 and 2 toward BRAFV600E (Supplementary Figure S11). In our assay
the measured IC50 value of 1 was 9.0 nM and
was thus comparable to the IC50 described in the literature
(0.8 nM).[2,12] The IC50 of 2 was
280 nM. Hence, these results are in line with our modeling studies:
dabrafenib_photo (2) is a BRAFV600E inhibitor
although less potent than dabrafenib (1).After
proving the inhibitory activity of 2 toward
BRAFV600E, we set out to examine the selectivity of this
compound. Thus, selectivity profiles of both 1 and 2 were measured in a panel of 321 kinases. The residual kinase
activities after incubation with 1 μM compounds are displayed
as TREEspottm Kinase dendrograms in Figure . Herein, it is obvious that 2 inhibits significantly less kinases than 1. Moreover, 2 has also a better selectivity score than 1 (Supplementary Table S2). Therefore, we concluded
that the novel inhibitor 2 is more selective for BRAFV600E than dabrafenib.
Figure 3
Dendrogram representation of the selectivity
profile of compounds 1 (a) and 2 (b) at
a concentration of 1 μM
against 321 kinases. The residual kinase activity was determined compared
to DMSO control. Images were generated using TREEspot Software Tool,
DISCOVERX CORPORATION 2010. The complete raw data are shown in the Supplementary Table S2 (ProQinase, Freiburg,
Germany).
Dendrogram representation of the selectivity
profile of compounds 1 (a) and 2 (b) at
a concentration of 1 μM
against 321 kinases. The residual kinase activity was determined compared
to DMSO control. Images were generated using TREEspot Software Tool,
DISCOVERX CORPORATION 2010. The complete raw data are shown in the Supplementary Table S2 (ProQinase, Freiburg,
Germany).Next, we examined the cytotoxic
activity of 1 and 2 toward BRAFV600E-dependent melanoma cell line
SKMEL28.[13] The cellular growth was measured after 48 h incubation with different
concentrations of 1 and 2. Additionally,
the first approved BRAFV600E inhibitor vemurafenib was
included as reference. The results of these antiproliferative experiments
are shown in Figure a.
Figure 4
Antiproliferative activity of tested compounds on BRAFV600E-dependent melanoma SKMEL28 cells. (a) Dose–response curves
of dabrafenib (1), dabrafenib_photo (2),
and the approved BRAFV600E inhibitor vemurafenib (Vem)
without UV irradiation. (b) SKMEL28 cells were incubated for 1 h with
the compounds and then irradiated at 365 nm (1.13 kW/m2) for 5 min. Cell growth was determined 48 h after incubation with
the compounds. GI50 = 50% growth inhibition; TGI = total
growth inhibition; LC50 = 50% lethal concentration; n = 4. Error bars represent standard deviation.
Antiproliferative activity of tested compounds on BRAFV600E-dependent melanomaSKMEL28 cells. (a) Dose–response curves
of dabrafenib (1), dabrafenib_photo (2),
and the approved BRAFV600E inhibitor vemurafenib (Vem)
without UV irradiation. (b) SKMEL28 cells were incubated for 1 h with
the compounds and then irradiated at 365 nm (1.13 kW/m2) for 5 min. Cell growth was determined 48 h after incubation with
the compounds. GI50 = 50% growth inhibition; TGI = total
growth inhibition; LC50 = 50% lethal concentration; n = 4. Error bars represent standard deviation.The cellular growth assays revealed that the novel
compound 2 exhibits cytostatic activity on melanoma cells
in a concentration
range between 10 nM and 30 μM, while at higher concentrations
the effect becomes cytotoxic. The TGI-value, compound concentration
at which the cell growth is completely inhibited, has been determined
to be 8.9 μM for 2. Consequently, dabrafenib_photo
(2) can be considered as an antiproliferative agent against
BRAFV600E-mutated melanoma cells in vitro although less potent than vemurafenib (TGI = 2.0 μM). Strikingly,
the dose–response curve for dabrafenib (1) does
not show the typical sigmoidal fit. Although 1 exhibits
nanomolar cytostatic activity, in a higher concentration range between
1 and 30 μM the dose–response curve showed reproducibly
unusual results with only weak inhibition of cell growth (Figure a). This unconventional
cellular response at lower micromolar dabrafenib concentrations may
indicate a special situation in SKMEL28 cells, e.g., efflux pump-mediated
resistance, and should be explored in more detail in future studies.The proliferation assays described above were repeated with the
compound treated SKMEL28 cells exposed to UV light at 365 nm (5 min,
1.13 kW/m2). The determined dose–response curves
are shown in Figure b. As expected from our former studies,[8] there is no change in the cellular response to the reference inhibitor
vemurafenib caused by irradiation. However, irradiated dabrafenib
(1) shows a comparable dose–response curve to
dabrafenib_photo (2) providing strong evidence for the
photoinduced intracellular conversion of 1 to 2in vitro.To further prove our hypothesis
of intracellular photoinduced transformation
of dabrafenib (1) to its derivative 2, we
used the autofluorescence of 2 (Supplementary Figure S8b) and performed fluorescence microscopy experiments.
First, the melanoma cells SKMEL28 were incubated with dabrafenib_photo
(2). The compound passed cellular membrane and could
be clearly detected within the cells (Figure a). In contrast, dabrafenib (1) was not visible under the same fluorescent microscopic conditions
(Figure b, second
column left) because of its different excitation wavelength. Treating
cells with dabrafenib (1) and exposure to increasing
dosage of UV irradiation at 365 nm shows that photoinduced transformation
of dabrafenib (1) to fluorescent 2 takes
place (increasing fluorescence by enduring irradiation, Figure b). The control nuclei counterstaining
with DAPI did not show any changes upon irradiation.
Figure 5
(a) SKMEL28 cells were
incubated with dabrafenib_photo (2). The inhibitor was
applied at 100 μM concentration and is
shown in green. The cell nuclei were counterstained with 1 μg/mL
DAPI and are marked in blue. The microscopic image was taken with
60× magnification. (b) SKMEL28 cells were seeded in 48 wells
of a 96-well plate. The cells in the first column were incubated with
dabrafenib_photo (2) without UV exposure. The cells in
the columns 2 to 10 were incubated with dabrafenib (1) and exposed to increasing dosage of UV light at 365 nm (see captions
above the columns). The cells in the last two right columns were not
incubated with any compound but just irradiated with the highest UV
amount. The overview image of the plate consists of single well images
taken with 10× magnification. (c) The same cell plate from (b).
All cell nuclei in the plate were counterstained with 1 μg/mL
DAPI and are marked in blue.
(a) SKMEL28 cells were
incubated with dabrafenib_photo (2). The inhibitor was
applied at 100 μM concentration and is
shown in green. The cell nuclei were counterstained with 1 μg/mL
DAPI and are marked in blue. The microscopic image was taken with
60× magnification. (b) SKMEL28 cells were seeded in 48 wells
of a 96-well plate. The cells in the first column were incubated with
dabrafenib_photo (2) without UV exposure. The cells in
the columns 2 to 10 were incubated with dabrafenib (1) and exposed to increasing dosage of UV light at 365 nm (see captions
above the columns). The cells in the last two right columns were not
incubated with any compound but just irradiated with the highest UV
amount. The overview image of the plate consists of single well images
taken with 10× magnification. (c) The same cell plate from (b).
All cell nuclei in the plate were counterstained with 1 μg/mL
DAPI and are marked in blue.The combined staining and irradiation experiments displayed
in Figure provided
strong
evidence for the intracellular transformation of dabrafenib (1) to the novel compound 2 upon UV light exposure.To explore the cellular mechanism of action of dabrafenib_photo
(2) in more detail, we sent compound 2 for
the NCI 60 cell line screening[14] to the
National Cancer Institute (NCI, Rockville, MD, USA). Herein, the cell
growth of 59 different cancer cell lines was measured after incubation
with 10 μM dabrafenib_photo (2). The determined
one-dose mean graph is presented in the Supplementary Figure S12. Furthermore, we evaluated the data using the COMPARE
Analysis tool.[15] Shortly, the cellular
response to 2 was compared to cellular responses of 100
synthetic compounds in the NCI 60 database. The database compounds
were then ranked in the order of similarity compared to dabrafenib_photo
(2) assuming compound 2 may possess a similar
mechanism of action to the compounds with high correlation coefficient
in this ranking.[15] The results of the COMPARE
analysis are shown in Supplementary Table S3. Strikingly, the first nine top-ranked entries are all either approved
BRAFV600E inhibitors (dabrafenib and vemurafenib “Zelboraf”)
or 5-(2-substituted pyrimidin-4-yl)imidazo[2,1-b]thiazole
derivatives (NSC: S755437, S755453, S761592, SS761584, S761586) previously
described as antiproliferative agents against BRAFV600E-mutated melanoma cell line A375.[16,13] Thus, the
correlation results of the COMPARE analysis are further evidence that
the novel compound 2 is an effective BRAFV600E inhibitor in vitro.To summarize, we have
revealed the photoinduced transformation
of the approved kinase inhibitor dabrafenib (1) to a
novel compound 2. Dabrafenib solutions were evaluated
to be instable upon exposure to both ultraviolet and daylight irradiation.
This photoinduced degradation should be taken into account when handling
dabrafenib solutions. The novel compound 2 was characterized
as a BRAFV600E inhibitor in vitro. The
enhanced autofluorescence of 2 could be used successfully
for intracellular imaging of the inhibitor. The improved selectivity
profile of 2 compared to dabrafenib (1)
could be used as a starting point for development of more selective
BRAFV600E inhibitors.
Authors: Georgina V Long; Daniil Stroyakovskiy; Helen Gogas; Evgeny Levchenko; Filippo de Braud; James Larkin; Claus Garbe; Thomas Jouary; Axel Hauschild; Jean Jacques Grob; Vanna Chiarion Sileni; Celeste Lebbe; Mario Mandalà; Michael Millward; Ana Arance; Igor Bondarenko; John B A G Haanen; Johan Hansson; Jochen Utikal; Virginia Ferraresi; Nadezhda Kovalenko; Peter Mohr; Volodymyr Probachai; Dirk Schadendorf; Paul Nathan; Caroline Robert; Antoni Ribas; Douglas J DeMarini; Jhangir G Irani; Michelle Casey; Daniele Ouellet; Anne-Marie Martin; Ngocdiep Le; Kiran Patel; Keith Flaherty Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-09-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Axel Hauschild; Jean-Jacques Grob; Lev V Demidov; Thomas Jouary; Ralf Gutzmer; Michael Millward; Piotr Rutkowski; Christian U Blank; Wilson H Miller; Eckhart Kaempgen; Salvador Martín-Algarra; Boguslawa Karaszewska; Cornelia Mauch; Vanna Chiarion-Sileni; Anne-Marie Martin; Suzanne Swann; Patricia Haney; Beloo Mirakhur; Mary E Guckert; Vicki Goodman; Paul B Chapman Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-06-25 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Melanie Zindler; Boris Pinchuk; Christian Renn; Rebecca Horbert; Alexander Döbber; Christian Peifer Journal: ChemMedChem Date: 2015-06-15 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: Tara R Rheault; John C Stellwagen; George M Adjabeng; Keith R Hornberger; Kimberly G Petrov; Alex G Waterson; Scott H Dickerson; Robert A Mook; Sylvie G Laquerre; Alastair J King; Olivia W Rossanese; Marc R Arnone; Kimberly N Smitheman; Laurie S Kane-Carson; Chao Han; Ganesh S Moorthy; Katherine G Moss; David E Uehling Journal: ACS Med Chem Lett Date: 2013-02-07 Impact factor: 4.345