| Literature DB >> 27922047 |
Dharmendra K Yadav1,2, Reeta Rai3, Naresh Kumar4, Surjeet Singh5, Sanjeev Misra1, Praveen Sharma1, Priyanka Shaw4, Horacio Pérez-Sánchez6, Ricardo L Mancera7, Eun Ha Choi4, Mi-Hyun Kim2, Ramendra Pratap5.
Abstract
The anti-cancer activity of the benzo[h]quinolines was evaluated on cultured human skin cancer (G361), lung cancer (H460), breast cancer (MCF7) and colon cancer (HCT116) cell lines. The inhibitory effect of these compounds on the cell growth was determined by the MTT assay. The compounds 3e, 3f, 3h and 3j showed potential cytotoxicity against these human cancer cell lines. Effect of active compounds on DNA oxidation and expression of apoptosis related gene was studied. We also developed a quantitative method to measure the activity of cyclin-dependent kinases-2 (CDK2) by western blotting in the presence of active compound. In addition, molecular docking revealed that benzo[h]quinolines can correctly dock into the hydrophobic pocket of the targets receptor protein aromatase and CDK2, while their bioavailability/drug-likeness was predicted to be acceptable but requires future optimization. These findings reveal that benzo[h]quinolines act as anti-cancer agents by inducing oxidative stress-mediated DNA damage.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27922047 PMCID: PMC5138627 DOI: 10.1038/srep38128
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Synthesis of 6-aryl-4-sec.amino-2-oxo-2H-pyran-3-carbonitriles 1 and 2-amino-5-aryl-4-sec.amino-1-yl-benzo[h]quinoline-6-carbonitriles 3a.
IC50 values of benzo[h]quinolines(3a-3j) for the growth of G361, H460, MCF7 and HCT116 cells.
| Compound | IC50 (μM) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| G361 | H460 | MCF7 | HCT116 | |
| 3a | 42.3 (±0.1) | 9.5 (±0.03) | 7.5 (±1.3) | 9.6 (±0.9) |
| 3b | 34.8 (±1.1) | 8.2 (±2.0) | 11 (±2) | 7.6 (±1.1) |
| 3c | 29.2 (±1.1) | 8.4 (±0.2) | 10.9 (±0.7) | 10.7 (±1) |
| 3d | 7.4 (±0.2) | 7.0 (±1.2) | (9.7±0.7) | 7.2 (±1.6) |
| 3e | 5.3 (±1.7) | 6.8 (±0.7) | 7.6 (±1.2) | 6.8 (±0.2) |
| 3f | 7.4 (±0.5) | 5.4 (±0.6) | 4.7 (±0.9) | 4.9 (±0.2) |
| 3g | 14.5 (±2.4) | 8.2 (±1.0) | 6.8 (±1.5) | 9.2 (±1.2) |
| 3h | 5.5 (±0.03) | 5.4 (±0.4) | 5.2 (±1) | 7.2 (±0.2) |
| 3i | 19.1 (±0.05) | 9.5 (±0.1) | 8.9 (±0.4) | 6.9 (±0.1)/ |
| 3j | 7.4 (±0.3) | 4.8 (±0.3) | 5.2 (±1.2) | 6.8 (±0.5) |
Figure 2Change in cell viability upon exposure to different concentrations of compounds 3e-3f in different cell lines: (a) G361; (b) H460 (c) MCF7 and (d) HCT116. In each experiment a negative control (no drug treatment) and a standard anticancer drug, Doxorubicin was used. All values are expressed as triplicate averages ± SD.
Figure 3Flow cytometry analysis of the G361, H460, MCF7 and HCT116 cell lines after exposure to compound 3e at IC50.
Figure 4Changes in intracellular ROS and DNA oxidation.
(a) Level of intracellular ROS in all cancer cells after exposure tocompounds 3e, 3f, 3h, 3j and Doxorubicin. All values are expressed as the fluorescence intensity ratio between compound and control. All values are expressed as triplicate averages ± SD. (b) Qualitative analysis of intracellular ROS level after exposure to compound 3e in all cancer cells from fluorescence microscopy using the fluorescent probe H2DCFDA. (c) Amount of 8-OHdG production upon DNA oxidation upon exposure to compounds 3e, 3f, 3h, 3j and Doxorubicin. (d) Western blot analysis of CDK2 expression after exposure to compound 3e in all cancer cells. All values are expressed as triplicate averages ± SD. A Student t-test was performed with respect to the control (*denotes P < 0.05 and **denotes P < 0.01).
Figure 5Apoptosis-related mRNA expression of H2AX, Bax, ATM, and 18 s rRNA (reference gene) after 24 h incubation with different compounds: (a) 3e, (b) 3f, (c) 3h (d) 3j and (e) Doxorubicin. The relative value of mRNA expression of these genes was measured by quantitative real-time PCR. All values are expressed as triplicate averages ± SD. A Student t-test was performed with respect to the control (* denotes P < 0.05 and ** denotes P < 0.01).
Figure 6Binding interactions of compound 3e upon docking onto cyclin-dependent kinase-2 (PDB ID: 2R3J).
A top docking energy (total score) of 5.4981 was predicted. Formation of two H-bonds of length 1.9 and 2.1 Å to residues Leu-86 and His-84, respectively, in the binding site were predicted.
Comparison of predicted binding affinities of active benzo[h]quinoline derivatives and Doxorubicin against cyclin-dependent kinase-2.
| Compound | Total docking score | Amino acids in the binding site within 3.0 Å of ligand (H-bonding residues shown in bold) | H-bond length Ă | No. of H-bonds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5.8273 | Ile-10, Gly-11, Glu-12, Gly-13, Val-18, Ala-31, Lys-33, Phe-82, | 2.0 | 1 | |
| 5.5206 | Ile-10, Gly-11, Glu-12, Gly-13, Val-18, Ala-31, Lys-33, Phe-82, | 2.1 | 1 | |
| 5.1238 | Ile-10, Gly-11, Val-18, Ala-31, Phe-82, | 1.9 | 1 | |
| 5.4981 | Ile-10, Gly-11, Val-18, Ala-31, Phe-82, | 1.9 2.1 | 2 | |
| Doxorubicin | 5.1647 | Ile-10, Val-18, Ala-31, Val-64, Phe-80, Phe-82, | 1.9 2.0 2.1 | 3 |
*Surflex-Dock scores (total scores) are expressed in -log10(K)2 units to represent binding affinities.
Figure 7Binding interactions of compound 3f upon docking onto cyclin-dependent kinase-2 (PDB ID: 2R3J).
A top docking energy (total score) of 5.5206 was predicted. Formation of a H-bond of length 2.1 Å to residue Leu-83in the binding site was predicted.
Comparison of predicted binding affinities of active benzo[h]quinoline derivatives and Doxorubicin against breast cancer receptor aromatase.
| Compound | Total docking score | Amino acidsin the binding site within 3.0 Å of ligand (H-bonding residues shown in bold) | H-bond length Ă | No. of H-bonds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3f | 5.4971 | Arg-115, Ile-132, Ile-133, Phe-134, Trp-224, Ala-306, Asp-309, Thr-310, Val-370, Leu-372, Val-373, Met-374, Cys-437, | 1.9 | 1 |
| 3g | 5.2132 | Arg-115, Ile-132, Ile-133, Phe-134, Phe–221, Trp-224, Ila-305, Ala-306, Asp-309, Val-370, Leu-372, Val-373, Met-374, Cys-437, Ala-438, Leu-477 | — | — |
| 3h | 2.6056 | Arg-115, Ile-133, Phe-134, Trp-224, Ile-305, Ala-306, | 2.0 | 1 |
| 3j | 5.0609 | Arg-115, Ile-133, Phe-134, Trp-224, Ile-305, Ala-306, | 2.1 2.0 | 2 |
| Doxorubicin | 2.2253 | Arg-115, Ile-132, Ile-133, Phe-134, Trp-224, Ala-306, Thr-310, Met-311, Ser-314, Val-370, Val-373, Phe-430, Cys-437, Ala-438 | — | — |
*Surflex-Dock scores (total scores) are expressed in -log10(K)2 units to represent binding affinities.
Figure 8Binding interactions of Compound 3f upon docking onto breast cancer receptor aromatase (PDB ID: 3EQM).
A top docking energy (total score) of 5.4971 was predicted. A H-bond of length 1.9 Å to residue Ala-438 in the binding side was predicted to be formed.
Figure 9Binding interactions of compound 3h upon docking onto breast cancer receptor aromatase (PDB ID: 3EQM).
A top docking energy (total score) of 2.6056 was predicted. Formation of a H-bond of length 2.0 Å to residue Asp-309 in the binding site was predicted.
Figure 10Binding interactions of compound 3j upon docking onto breast cancer receptor aromatase (PDB ID: 3EQM).
A top docking energy (total score) of 5.0609 was predicted. Formation of two H-bonds of length 2.0 and 2.1 Å to the residues Asp-309 and Met-374, respectively, in the binding site were predicted.
Predicted ADME parameters of benzo[h]quinoline derivatives.
| Compound | Aqueous solubility | CYP2D6 binding | Hepatotoxicity | BBB penetration | Plasma protein binding |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3a | 1 (poor) | False (non-inhibitor) | True (toxic) | 0 (Good) | True (highly bound) |
| 3b | 1 (poor)) | False (non-inhibitor) | True (toxic) | 0 (Good) | True (highly bound) |
| 3c | 0 (poor) | False (non-inhibitor) | True (toxic) | 0 (Good) | True (highly bound) |
| 3d | 1 (poor) | False (non-inhibitor) | True (toxic) | 0 (Good) | True (highly bound) |
| 3e | 1 (poor) | False (non-inhibitor) | True (toxic) | 0 (Good) | True (highly bound) |
| 3f | 1 (poor) | False (non-inhibitor) | True (toxic) | 0 (Good) | True (highly bound) |
| 3g | 1 (poor) | True (inhibitor) | True (toxic) | 0 (Good) | True (highly bound) |
| 3h | 1 (poor) | False (non-inhibitor) | True (toxic) | 0 (Good) | True (highly bound) |
| 3i | 1 (poor) | False (non-inhibitor) | True (toxic) | 0 (Good) | True (highly bound) |
| 3j | 1 (poor) | False (non-inhibitor) | True (toxic) | 0 (Good) | True (highly bound) |
| Doxorubicin | 2 (low) | False (non-inhibitor) | True (toxic) | 0 (Good) | False (low bound) |
Cytochrome (CYP-2D6) binding, hepatotoxicity and plasma-protein binding predictions using Discovery Studio 4.0 (Biovia).
Predicted toxicity risk parameters of benzo[h]quinolines.
| Compound | Reproductive/developmental toxicity | Ames test | TOPKAT skin irritancy | TOPKAT Ames score | TOPKAT rat oral LD50 (mg/kg) | TOPKAT rat carcinogenic potency TD50 (mg/kg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3a | Non-Toxic | Mutagen | Non-Irritant | 4.52304 | 0.193812 | 3.84699 |
| 3b | Non-Toxic | Mutagen | Non-Irritant | 0.925525 | 0.229992 | 1.03367 |
| 3c | Toxic | Non-Mutagen | Non-Irritant | −0.762268 | 0.236661 | 1.06625 |
| 3d | Toxic | Mutagen | Non-Irritant | 3.26021 | 0.159558 | 0.531709 |
| 3e | Non-Toxic | Mutagen | Non-Irritant | 4.41803 | 0.197063 | 0.8887 |
| 3f | Non-Toxic | Mutagen | Non-Irritant | 3.89661 | 0.184627 | 1.06061 |
| 3g | Non-Toxic | Mutagen | Non-Irritant | 1.38151 | 0.131322 | 1.14982 |
| 3h | Non-Toxic | Mutagen | Non-Irritant | 2.43415 | 0.377348 | 0.472136 |
| 3i | Toxic | Mutagen | Non-Irritant | 0.450189 | 0.51522 | 0.486793 |
| 3j | Toxic | Mutagen | Non-Irritant | 4.8735 | 0.281606 | 0.242827 |
| Doxorubicin | Toxic | Mutagen | Non-Irritant | 23.0401 | 0.192388 | 0.756873 |