Benjamin Spangler1,2, Shaun D Fontaine2, Yihui Shi3, Lidia Sambucetti3, Aras N Mattis, Byron Hann4, James A Wells2,5, Adam R Renslo2. 1. Graduate Program in Chemistry and Chemical Biology, University of California-San Francisco , San Francisco, California 94158, United States. 2. Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, University of California-San Francisco , San Francisco, California 94158, United States. 3. SRI International , Menlo Park, California 94025-3493, United States. 4. Preclinical Therapeutic Core, University of California-San Francisco , San Francisco, California 94158, United States. 5. Department of Cellular and Molecular Pharmacology, University of California-San Francisco , San Francisco, California 94158, United States.
Abstract
Here we describe a new approach for tumor targeting in which augmented concentrations of Fe(II) in cancer cells and/or the tumor microenvironment triggers drug release from an Fe(II)-reactive prodrug conjugate. The 1,2,4-trioxolane scaffold developed to enable this approach can in principle be applied to a broad range of cancer therapeutics and is illustrated here with Fe(II)-targeted forms of a microtubule toxin and a duocarmycin-class DNA-alkylating agent. We show that the intrinsic reactivity/toxicity of the duocarmycin analog is masked in the conjugated form and this greatly reduced toxicity in mice. This in turn permitted elevated dosing levels, leading to higher systemic exposure and a significantly improved response in tumor xenograft models. Overall our results suggest that Fe(II)-dependent drug delivery via trioxolane conjugates could have significant utility in expanding the therapeutic index of a range of clinical and preclinical stage cancer chemotherapeutics.
Here we describe a new approach for tumor targeting in which augmented concentrations of Fe(II) in cancer cells and/or the tumor microenvironment triggers drug release from an Fe(II)-reactive prodrug conjugate. The 1,2,4-trioxolane scaffold developed to enable this approach can in principle be applied to a broad range of cancer therapeutics and is illustrated here with Fe(II)-targeted forms of a microtubule toxin and a duocarmycin-class DNA-alkylating agent. We show that the intrinsic reactivity/toxicity of the duocarmycin analog is masked in the conjugated form and this greatly reduced toxicity in mice. This in turn permitted elevated dosing levels, leading to higher systemic exposure and a significantly improved response in tumor xenograft models. Overall our results suggest that Fe(II)-dependent drug delivery via trioxolane conjugates could have significant utility in expanding the therapeutic index of a range of clinical and preclinical stage cancer chemotherapeutics.
The recent development
of molecularly targeted cancer therapeutics
has been accompanied by renewed interest in technologies for the tumor/cell-selective
delivery of potent but intrinsically nonselective cytotoxic agents.
These technologies include antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs)
that recognize cell-surface antigens and tumor-activated prodrugs
(TAPs) that exploit nutrient transporters[1−3] or differences
in hypoxia associated with the tumor microenvironment.[4,5] Accumulating evidence suggests that an increase in reactive, “labile”
intracellular iron is another metabolic signature of cancer, as recently
reviewed.[6] Tumor targeting strategies designed
to exploit changes in iron homeostasis remain largely unexplored however,
despite clinical precedent for iron-dependent pharmacology in antimalarial
therapy with artemisinins.[7,8]Redox cycling
of iron in enzyme cofactors is essential for cellular
processes ranging from de novo nucleotide synthesis to the maintenance
of genomic stability, cell cycle regulation, and mitochondrial respiration.[6] However, when unbound and unregulated, redox
active iron promotes the disproportionation of hydrogen peroxide (Fenton
reaction) to produce hydroxyl and hydroperoxyl radicals, reactive
oxygen species (ROS) that confer cellular damage and can lead to apoptosis
or ferroptosis.[9−11] Iron homeostasis is therefore highly regulated to
ensure sufficient labile iron is available to support essential enzyme
function while limiting exposure to unbound, redox active iron species.[12−14]Rapidly proliferating cells have increased requirements for
DNA
synthesis, repair, and mitochondrial respiration and therefore have
increased demands for iron cofactor biosynthesis. Accordingly, iron
acquisition and export pathways are altered in many cancers so as
to increase the labile iron pool.[6,15−18] Furthermore, iron has been shown to contribute to tumor initiation
and growth[15,19] and epidemiological evidence
has established links between tumoriron metabolism and clinical outcomes
in breast cancerpatients.[17,20] Given that labile Fe(II)
promotes Fenton chemistry, we sought to develop a tumor-targeting
strategy in which Fenton reaction of a peroxidic prodrug was coupled
to release of drug payloads. Recognizing that antimalarial agents
such as arterolane[21−24] exhibit finely tuned iron(II) reactivity,[25−28] we subsequently developed[29,30] an arterolane-inspired small molecule platform (denoted TRX herein)
for Fe(II)-dependent drug delivery. These TRX-drug conjugates function
via initial Fe(II)-promoted fragmentation of a 1,2,4-trioxolane ring
to afford a cyclohexanone intermediate, followed by spontaneous β-elminiation
and decarboxylation to release the drug payload (Figure and Supporting Information Figure S1). In previous studies, we demonstrated
the utility of the TRX scaffold by efficiently and selectively delivering
antimalarial payloads to ferrous iron/heme rich compartments of the
malaria parasite, both in vitro[30,31] and in vivo.[32,33]
Figure 1
Mechanism of iron(II)-dependent payload
release from 1,2,4-trioxolane
conjugates. Iron(II)-promoted Fenton-type reduction of the trioxolane
ring affords the cyclohexanone species shown which then undergoes
spontaneous β-elimination and decarboxylation to release free
payload. This process occurs with high efficiency and ferrous-iron
selectivity in mammalian cancer cell lines, as described recently.[34]
Mechanism of iron(II)-dependent payload
release from 1,2,4-trioxolane
conjugates. Iron(II)-promoted Fenton-type reduction of the trioxolane
ring affords the cyclohexanone species shown which then undergoes
spontaneous β-elimination and decarboxylation to release free
payload. This process occurs with high efficiency and ferrous-iron
selectivity in mammaliancancer cell lines, as described recently.[34]While the iron-dependent pharmacology of 1,2,4-trioxanes
and 1,2,4-trioxolanes
in malaria is widely accepted,[25−28] extending this concept to TAPs for oncology applications
required a means to assess whether sufficient labile iron is present
in cancer cells to efficiently and selectively activate TRX-based
conjugates. To address this question, we synthesized a TRX conjugate
of the aminonucleoside antibiotic puromycin (i.e., TRX-PURO) as a
probe of intracellular labile iron (Figure where R–NH2 = puromycin).
We found that puromycin release from TRX-PURO in cells was dependent
on ferrous iron as expected and was not affected by the addition of
other biologically relevant metal ions and reducing agents.[34] These initial studies with TRX-PURO also confirmed
that labile iron pools are generally augmented in cancer cells when
compared to nontumorigenic cells.[34] Our
findings thus suggested that the TRX scaffold might indeed be applied
to produce a novel class of TAPs for cancer chemotherapy.Here
we describe prototypical TRX-drug conjugates designed to confer
tumor-selective delivery of a microtubule toxin (a combretastatin
analog) or DNA-alkylating agent (a duocarmycin analog) in an Fe(II)-dependent
fashion. We show that the intrinsic cytotoxicity of these agents can
be ablated in TAP forms and then restored following activation in
cancer cells. We show that cancer cell lines of diverse origins are
generally susceptible to TRX-based TAPs but that a nontumorigenic
cell line (MCF10A) is highly resistant. We further show that the resistant
MCF10A cell line can be measurably sensitized to the TAP when transformed
with the oncogene cMyc and that this likely derives from oncogenic
changes to iron metabolism. Finally, we show that the TAP of a duocarmycin
analog is tolerated in mice at doses up to 50-fold higher than the
parent cytotoxin and this, combined with targeted toxin release within
tumor, translates to superior efficacy in PC-3 and MDA-MB-231 xenograft
models. These studies provide the first evidence that reactive iron
in tumor cells and/or the tumor microenvironment can be exploited
to afford improved selectivity in the delivery of cancer chemotherapeutics.
Results
Conjugate
Design, Synthesis, and Validation in Cell Culture
To explore
ferrous iron-dependent drug delivery in cancer cells
we synthesized a known small molecule microtubule toxin (1)[35] and its trioxolane conjugate 2 (Figure a and Supporting Information Figure S2). A nonperoxidic dioxolane conjugate (3) was also prepared
to confirm that the cytotoxicity of 1 is ablated in conjugated
forms and that intracellular release of active 1 from 2 is peroxide-dependent (Figure a and Figure S2). Finally, trioxolane analog 4(29) lacking the microtubule toxin was prepared to control for intrinsic
cytotoxicity of the TRX moiety (Figure a). The cytotoxicity of the trioxolane-conjugate 2 and control compounds 1, 3, and 4 was then assessed across a small panel of cell lines. The
results were unequivocal. In MDA-MB-231 cells, trioxolane-conjugate 2 displayed activity in the low nM range (EC50 =
21 nM), 3 orders of magnitude more potent than either of the negative
controls (3 or 4) and nearly as potent as
the free toxin (1) applied directly (EC50 =
11 nM) (Figure b).
These results confirm that release of 1 from 2 in these cells is both efficient and peroxide-dependent. Moreover,
the lack of measurable toxicity exhibited by 3 demonstrates
that the intrinsic cytotoxicity of 1 is effectively blocked
in TAP form.
Figure 2
Exploiting augmented ferrous iron pools for selective
drug delivery.
(a) Chemical structure of microtubule inhibitor 1 and
corresponding conjugates and controls 2–4. (b) Cytotoxicity of compounds 1–4 in MDA-MB-231 cells after 24 h of exposure as determined
by cell counting (n = 3; error bar, mean ± SEM).
(c) Cytotoxicity of 1 and its trioxolane-conjugate 2 after 24 h of exposure in MDA-MB-231 and MCF10A cells as
determined by cell counting (n = 3; error bar, mean
± SEM). The shift in EC50 value for 1 and its trioxolane conjugate 2 is illustrated. Dividing
the EC50 value for 1 by that for 2 in a given cell line produces an “EC50 ratio”
that is used to compare the efficiency of drug release across cell
lines. This ratio is 0.54 for sensitive MDA-MB-231 cells (2-fold EC50 shift) and 0.04 for relatively resistant, nontumorigenic
MCF10A cells (25-fold EC50 shift). (d) EC50 ratios
calculated as described in (c) for a small panel of cell lines. Error
bars represent SEM from three individual experiments each conducted
in biological triplicates. (e) EC50 ratios for an expanded
panel of mammalian cell lines. The EC50 values for 1 and 2 were determined after a 72 h incubation
using the CellTiter-Glo cell viability assay. Error bars represent
SEM (n = 3).
Exploiting augmented ferrous iron pools for selective
drug delivery.
(a) Chemical structure of microtubule inhibitor 1 and
corresponding conjugates and controls 2–4. (b) Cytotoxicity of compounds 1–4 in MDA-MB-231 cells after 24 h of exposure as determined
by cell counting (n = 3; error bar, mean ± SEM).
(c) Cytotoxicity of 1 and its trioxolane-conjugate 2 after 24 h of exposure in MDA-MB-231 and MCF10A cells as
determined by cell counting (n = 3; error bar, mean
± SEM). The shift in EC50 value for 1 and its trioxolane conjugate 2 is illustrated. Dividing
the EC50 value for 1 by that for 2 in a given cell line produces an “EC50 ratio”
that is used to compare the efficiency of drug release across cell
lines. This ratio is 0.54 for sensitive MDA-MB-231 cells (2-fold EC50 shift) and 0.04 for relatively resistant, nontumorigenic
MCF10A cells (25-fold EC50 shift). (d) EC50 ratios
calculated as described in (c) for a small panel of cell lines. Error
bars represent SEM from three individual experiments each conducted
in biological triplicates. (e) EC50 ratios for an expanded
panel of mammalian cell lines. The EC50 values for 1 and 2 were determined after a 72 h incubation
using the CellTiter-Glo cell viability assay. Error bars represent
SEM (n = 3).Normalizing the activity of conjugate 2 to that
of
its cytotoxic payload (1) provided a convenient metric
(“EC50 ratio”) to compare efficiency of payload
release from 2 across different cell lines. In MDA-MB-231
cells, this ratio was found to be 0.54 (EC50 = 11 nM and
21 nM for 1 and 2, respectively). Among
the other cell lines examined, U2OS and RKO cells were nearly as susceptible
to 2 as MDA-MB-231 cells (EC50 ratio of 0.46)
while PC-3 and HeLa cells were somewhat less sensitive (EC50 ratio of 0.30–0.32), though 2 was still effective
in these cells at therapeutically relevant, low-nM concentrations
(Figure d and Supporting Information Table S1). Consistent
with our previous finding that nontumorigenic cells possess a smaller
reactive iron pool,[34] MCF10A cells were
highly resistant to the trioxolane-conjugate 2 with an
EC50 ratio of just 0.04 (Figure c,d).Encouraged by these initial findings,
we further explored the cytotoxicity
of 1 and 2 across a larger panel of cancer
cell lines from diverse origins using a CellTiter-Glo assay to assess
cell viability (Figure e). We found EC50 ratios varied by about 9-fold across
the different cell lines, from 0.89 for the most susceptible cells
(PC-3) cells to 0.11 for the least susceptible cells (EKVX). Despite
the range of responses, TAP 2 produced EC50 values in the nM range for even the least responsive cell lines
(e.g., EKVX EC50 = 43 nM, Supporting Information Table S2). As expected, the EC50 values
for trioxolane control 4 across this panel were in the
μM regime and typically ≥2 log units less potent than 2 (Supporting Information Table S2). This confirms that the cytotoxicity of TAP 2 derives
from release of 1 and not significantly from the trioxolane
moiety itself.
Oncogenic Transformation and Susceptibility
to Trioxolane Conjugates
Having found that nontumorigenic
MCF10A cells were highly resistant
to TRX-conjugates, we explored whether oncogenic transformation of
these cells would increase their reactive iron pools and thus sensitize
them to trioxolane conjugates. Bandyopadhyay and co-workers recently
reported the generation of a panel of cell lines expressing single
oncogenes in MCF10A cells.[36] Using these
well-characterized cell lines, we examined the effects of the oncogenes
Ras and Myc, whose effects on iron metabolism have been studied previously.[6,16,18,37,38] First, we used qRT-PCR to evaluate the transcriptional
profile of a panel of iron regulatory proteins in the MCF10A cells
constitutively expressing HRas. In previous work in different cell
types, oncogenic HRas has been variously reported to decrease ferritin
mRNA levels and increase labile iron[38] or
to have no effect on ferritin levels or labile iron.[16] In the MCF10A cells expressing HRas we observed no significant
transcriptional changes to ferritin, transferrin receptor, or any
other of the iron regulatory transcripts probed (Figure and Supporting Information Figure S3). It was therefore unsurprising that
the HRas-expressing MCF10A cells were no more susceptible to 2 than MCF10A cells transformed with the empty vector (Figure b). In contrast,
MCF10A cells transformed with cMyc showed substantial down regulation
of the iron exporter ferroportin and up regulation of the ferrireductase
STEAP3 (Figure a).
Interestingly, we did not observe an effect of cMyc on ferritin heavy
chain mRNA, as has been reported previously.[18] Nevertheless, the changes observed predict for increased labile
iron in the cMyc-transformed MCF10A cells, and indeed, these cells
were found to be more sensitive to trioxolane-conjugate 2 than cells transformed with the empty vector, as evidenced by a
significant 3.2-fold shift in the EC50 ratio (Figure b). These results
indicate that oncogene induced changes to the reactive iron pool can
sensitize cells to the delivery of potent cytotoxins from TRX-based
TAPs in an otherwise isogenic background.
Figure 3
Profiling the effects
of oncogenic transformation on the ferrous
iron pool of MCF10A cells. (a) Relative mRNA levels for ferroportin,
ferritin, and the ferrireductase STEAP3 in MCF10A cells stably transfected
with empty vector (control) or with vectors expressing the oncogenes
Myc or Hras (n = 3; error bar, mean ± SEM; (∗∗) P ≤ 0.01, (∗∗∗∗) P ≤ 0.0001, two-way ANOVA with Dunnett’s multiple
comparisons test). (b) EC50 ratio (1/2) for MCF10A cells stably transfected with HRas or cMyc oncogenes
or the empty vector (control) as assessed by cell counting after 24
h of compound exposure. Error bars represent SEM from three independent
experiments each conducted in biological triplicates ((∗∗) P ≤ 0.01, one-way ANOVA with Dunnett’s multiple
comparisons test).
Profiling the effects
of oncogenic transformation on the ferrousiron pool of MCF10A cells. (a) Relative mRNA levels for ferroportin,
ferritin, and the ferrireductase STEAP3 in MCF10A cells stably transfected
with empty vector (control) or with vectors expressing the oncogenes
Myc or Hras (n = 3; error bar, mean ± SEM; (∗∗) P ≤ 0.01, (∗∗∗∗) P ≤ 0.0001, two-way ANOVA with Dunnett’s multiple
comparisons test). (b) EC50 ratio (1/2) for MCF10A cells stably transfected with HRas or cMyc oncogenes
or the empty vector (control) as assessed by cell counting after 24
h of compound exposure. Error bars represent SEM from three independent
experiments each conducted in biological triplicates ((∗∗) P ≤ 0.01, one-way ANOVA with Dunnett’s multiple
comparisons test).
In Vivo PK/PD Studies of
a Duocarmycin Conjugate
The
highly cytotoxic cyclopropylbenzindoline (CBI) class of natural products
like CC-1065 and duocarmycin SA function by alkylating adenine bases
in duplex DNA.[39−42] Synthetic “seco”-CBI analogs are latent cytotoxins
that can undergo spontaneous Winstein-type spirocylization to form
the active cyclopropylbenzindoline (CBI) species (i.e., seco-5 → 5, Figure a and Supporting Information Figure S4). This activation step can be prevented
by acylation or carbamoylation of the aniline or phenolic function,
and the ability to “cage” seco-CBI
derivatives in this way has made these compounds popular as cytotoxic
effectors in antibody–drug conjugates[2,42] and
tumor-activated prodrugs.[3,41] We synthesized a known
seco-CBI analog[40] and further converted
the material into the desired TAP 6 and the 1,3-dioxolane-CBI
conjugate 7 (DXL-CBI), a nonperoxidic control (Figure a).
Figure 4
Structures and in vitro
activity of trioxolane–duocarmycin
conjugates. (a) Structure of duocarmycin type DNA-alkylator seco-5 (latent form), the corresponding activated
form 5 that reacts with nucleophilic bases of DNA (:Nu),
trioxolane–duocarmycin conjugate 6, and negative
control dioxolane-conjugate 7. (b) Cytotoxicity of compounds 5 and 6 in PC-3 cells after 72 h of exposure
as determined by cell counting (n = 3; error bar,
mean ± SEM). (c) Cytotoxicity of compounds 5 and 6 in MDA-MB-231 cells after 72 h of exposure as determined
by cell counting (n = 3; error bar, mean ± SEM).
Structures and in vitro
activity of trioxolane–duocarmycin
conjugates. (a) Structure of duocarmycin type DNA-alkylator seco-5 (latent form), the corresponding activated
form 5 that reacts with nucleophilic bases of DNA (:Nu),
trioxolane–duocarmycin conjugate 6, and negative
control dioxolane-conjugate 7. (b) Cytotoxicity of compounds 5 and 6 in PC-3 cells after 72 h of exposure
as determined by cell counting (n = 3; error bar,
mean ± SEM). (c) Cytotoxicity of compounds 5 and 6 in MDA-MB-231 cells after 72 h of exposure as determined
by cell counting (n = 3; error bar, mean ± SEM).We evaluated the cytotoxicity
of seco-5, TAP 6, and control 7 following 72 h of
exposure in MDA-MB-231 and PC-3 cells (Figure b,c). As expected, seco-5 and its TAP 6 exhibited potent cytotoxic effects
in cells, while the dioxolane conjugate 7 was noncytotoxic
at all concentrations examined. The inactivity of 7 confirms
that conjugation of seco-5 via its aniline
function effectively blocks formation of the activated (and toxic)
CBI electrophile. The potent effects of 6 in cells are
thus due to peroxide-dependent release of free seco-5 as desired. We further found that conversion of seco-5 to the TAP 6 dramatically
improves its chemical stability in the extracellular environment.
Thus, while free seco-5 degraded over
several hours upon thawing from a DMSO stock solution, TRX conjugate 6 (and DXL conjugate 7) were chemically stable
for more than a year at room temperature in DMSO (Supporting Information Figure S5). Stability toward premature
hydrolysis likely explains why TAP 6 was measurably more potent than seco-5 itself
in both cell lines examined (Figure b,c). Control experiments confirmed that 6 is stable for more than a week in cell culture media at 37 °C,
indicating that its cellular toxicity in the 72 h assays (Figure b,c) results from intracellular release of seco-5 as desired.The cell culture studies of 5–7 above revealed the effective ablation of 5-mediated
toxicity by chemical conjugation at an aniline function (Figure a–c). We next
asked whether this caging effect would translate to reduced in vivo
toxicity for TAP 6 as compared to 5. To
determine a maximally tolerated dose (MTD), nontumor bearing female
NSG mice were administered three ip doses of either seco-5 or 6 at 4-day intervals (Q4d). These
studies revealed that seco-5 is highly
toxic to mice (MTD ≈ 0.3 mg/kg), consistent with previous observations
for related duocarmycin analogs.[41] By contrast,
TAP 6 could be administered at significantly higher doses,
with an MTD of 7.5 mg/kg, using the same three dose Q4d regimen. A
subsequent MTD study of 6 with Q7d dosing returned a
somewhat higher MTD of ∼10 mg/kg.Previous work with
duocarmycin analogs related to 5 has shown dose-limiting
hepatotoxicity in mice[43] and insufficient
therapeutic index leading to failures
in human clinical trials.[44] We were therefore
interested in exploring the toxic effects of 5 in mice
and whether administration in the TRX-conjugated form 6 could protect from these toxicities. In fact, mice treated with
0.3 mg/kg seco-5 showed substantially
(∼10-fold) higher concentrations of liver transaminase enzymes
(ALT and AST) than did mice treated with 7.5 mg/kg of 6 (Figure c). Since
hepatotoxicity of duocarmycin analogs has previously been observed
to occur with a delayed onset, mice receiving escalating doses of 5 or 6 were observed for 50 days postdosing,
then sacrificed and their livers collected and assessed for altered
morphology and signs of toxicity. Even at well-tolerated doses of 5, mice grossly showed darkened and roughened capsular and
parenchymal changes indicative of hepatotoxicity in addition to enlarged
intestines and serosanguinous ascites near the site of administration.
The liver pathology showed increased hepatic lobular lymphohistiocytic
infiltrates, reactive cellular changes, and minimal periportal fibrosis.
In contrast, the livers of mice treated with 7.5 mg/kg of 6 appeared normal, and the dose limiting toxicity appeared instead
to be localized toxicity at the site of administration as evidenced
by enlarged intestines. The pathology in these was free of significant
inflammation or fibrosis (Figure d).
Figure 5
Pharmacokinetic profile and in vivo tolerability of 5 and its trioxolane conjugate 6. (a) Plasma
concentrations
of 5 in female NSG mice following a single 0.3 mg/kg
ip dose. Three mice were sampled at each time point. (b) Plasma concentrations
of 6, released 5, and the retro-Michael
intermediate 16 in female NSG mice following a single
7.5 mg/kg ip dose of 6. An authentic sample of 16 was synthesized as described in the Supporting Information. The study design and numbers of mice
per group were the same as in (a). (c) Measured levels of alkaline
phosphatase (Alk. Phosp.), serum alanine aminotransferases (ALT),
aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and creatine phosphokinase (CPK)
in blood samples from mice treated with either 5 (0.3
mg/kg) or trioxolane-conjugate 6 (7.5 mg/kg). (d) Microscopic
histology stains of representative mouse liver samples show only mildly
increased reactive changes in the group receiving 0.3 mg/kg 5, including minimally increased lobular lymphohistiocytic
infiltrates. In mice receiving the higher 7.5 mg/kg dose of 6 (right column), only mild simple steatosis was detected.
Top two rows of images show representative H&E sections of centrizonal
or periportal areas. Bottom row of images show representative trichrome
stains for evaluation of relative fibrosis, which shows no significant
fibrosis; scale bars are in μm as indicated.
Pharmacokinetic profile and in vivo tolerability of 5 and its trioxolane conjugate 6. (a) Plasma
concentrations
of 5 in female NSG mice following a single 0.3 mg/kg
ip dose. Three mice were sampled at each time point. (b) Plasma concentrations
of 6, released 5, and the retro-Michael
intermediate 16 in female NSG mice following a single
7.5 mg/kg ip dose of 6. An authentic sample of 16 was synthesized as described in the Supporting Information. The study design and numbers of mice
per group were the same as in (a). (c) Measured levels of alkaline
phosphatase (Alk. Phosp.), serum alanine aminotransferases (ALT),
aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and creatine phosphokinase (CPK)
in blood samples from mice treated with either 5 (0.3
mg/kg) or trioxolane-conjugate 6 (7.5 mg/kg). (d) Microscopic
histology stains of representative mouse liver samples show only mildly
increased reactive changes in the group receiving 0.3 mg/kg 5, including minimally increased lobular lymphohistiocytic
infiltrates. In mice receiving the higher 7.5 mg/kg dose of 6 (right column), only mild simple steatosis was detected.
Top two rows of images show representative H&E sections of centrizonal
or periportal areas. Bottom row of images show representative trichrome
stains for evaluation of relative fibrosis, which shows no significant
fibrosis; scale bars are in μm as indicated.To compare the pharmacokinetic properties of seco-5 and its TRX conjugate 6, healthy NSG
mice were administered a single ip dose of seco-5 (0.3 mg/kg) or conjugate 6 (7.5 mg/kg), representing
the respective MTD values. Analysis of blood samples showed seco-5 to have a reasonably long half-life
(t1/2 = 3.8 h), moderate clearance (CL/F = 20 mL min–1 kg–1) and a high volume of distribution (V/F = 6.7 L/kg) (Figure a,b, Supporting Information Table S3). Conjugate 6 exhibited a
significantly longer half-life (t1/2 =
20.4 h), moderate-high clearance (CL/F = 31.3 mL
min–1 kg–1) and a very high volume
of distribution (V/F = 55 L/kg). In animals receiving 6, total
exposure to 6 (AUC = 5050 h·ng/mL) exceeded that
of released seco-5 by approximately
8-fold, indicating a small degree of drug release in normal tissues
of healthy mice. Maximum plasma concentrations of free seco-5 in mice receiving 7.5 mg/kg of 6 were
still lower than those in mice treated with 0.3 mg/kg of seco-5 directly (Cmax = 48 ng/mL
vs 108 ng/mL). Most importantly, the total systemic exposure of 6 was ∼20-fold greater than for seco-5 when both agents were administered at their respective
MTD (AUC0–24h = 5050 and 246 h·ng/mL, respectively).
The higher in vivo exposure achievable with TAP 6 was
thus expected to result in superior efficacy in tumor bearing mice,
where 6 would be converted to the active agent (5) selectively in the tumor.To see whether the higher
in vivo exposure levels achievable with
conjugate 6 translated to improved in vivo efficacy,
we treated PC-3 and MDA-MB-231 xenograft-bearing mice with 6 or seco-5 and compared body weights
and rates of tumor growth under different dosing regimens (Figure ). In MDA-MB-231
xenograft mice, three 0.3 mg/kg doses of seco-5 given Q4d produced only a minor reduction in the rate of
tumor growth (Figure a). Significantly, the mice in this group showed substantial weight
loss over the course of the study, presumably reflecting compound-related
toxicity (Figure b).
Comparatively, mice treated under the same regimen with 2.5 mg/kg
of 6 exhibited a similar reduction in tumor growth rate
but unlike 5-treated mice had negligible weight loss,
suggesting reduced toxicity under a comparably efficacious regimen
(Figure a). Using the same regimen but increasing the dose of 6 to
its MTD of 7.5 mg/kg produced a substantially improved effect on tumor
growth and with much less severe weight loss than was observed with
a 25-fold lower dose of seco-5 (Figure a,b). These findings
were replicated in a follow-up study that also included the evaluation
of dioxolane conjugate 7 (Supporting Information Figure S6). As expected, compound 7 at 10 mg/kg had no effect on tumor growth or mouse weight, indicating
that the beneficial in vivo effects of 6 result from
peroxide-dependent activation and release of 5 in tumor.
Figure 6
Efficacy
of 5 and 6 in mouse xenograft
models. (a) Changes in tumor volume over time as determined by calipers
in MDA-MB-231 xenograft bearing female SCID-beige mice treated with
the indicated doses of 5 or 6 via ip administration
on a Q4d dosing schedule (3 total doses) as compared to mice treated
with vehicle. Error bars represent SEM from dosing cohorts of 8 mice
per condition. (b) Changes in mouse weight over time for the mice
in (a). (c) Changes in tumor volume over time as determined by calipers
in PC-3 xenograft bearing female nude mice (NCR nu/nu, Taconic) treated
with the indicated doses of 5 or 6 via ip
administration on a Q4d dosing schedule (3 total doses) as compared
to mice treated with vehicle. Mice treated with the highest dose of 6 (15 mg/kg, orange line) received three ip doses on a Q7d
schedule. Error bars represent SEM from dosing cohorts of 8 mice per
condition. (d) Changes in mouse weight over time for the mice in (c).
Efficacy
of 5 and 6 in mouse xenograft
models. (a) Changes in tumor volume over time as determined by calipers
in MDA-MB-231 xenograft bearing female SCID-beige mice treated with
the indicated doses of 5 or 6 via ip administration
on a Q4d dosing schedule (3 total doses) as compared to mice treated
with vehicle. Error bars represent SEM from dosing cohorts of 8 mice
per condition. (b) Changes in mouse weight over time for the mice
in (a). (c) Changes in tumor volume over time as determined by calipers
in PC-3 xenograft bearing female nude mice (NCR nu/nu, Taconic) treated
with the indicated doses of 5 or 6 via ip
administration on a Q4d dosing schedule (3 total doses) as compared
to mice treated with vehicle. Mice treated with the highest dose of 6 (15 mg/kg, orange line) received three ip doses on a Q7d
schedule. Error bars represent SEM from dosing cohorts of 8 mice per
condition. (d) Changes in mouse weight over time for the mice in (c).The results described above for
MDA-MB-231 xenograft mice were
qualitatively replicated in PC-3 xenograft bearing mice. Thus, administration
of 6 at 7.5 mg/kg (3×, Q4d, ip) produced comparable
if not superior effects on tumor growth rate without the weight loss
observed in mice receiving seco-5 at
0.3 mg/kg (Figure c,d). Since the MTD and pathology studies had suggested that the
dose-limiting toxicity of TAP 6 was localized GI toxicity
near the site of administration, we considered that an altered dosing
regimen might mitigate this toxicity and enable a higher dose. Indeed,
by increasing the dose of 6 to 15 mg/kg but extending
the dosing interval from Q4d to Q7d (once weekly), we observed robust
tumor regression (Figure c, orange line), albeit with weight loss that was similar
to the animals receiving the 0.3 mg/kg Q4d regimen of 5. The tumor regression produced with 15 mg/kg Q7d dosing of 6 was found to be quite durable, with no evidence of further
tumor growth observed for the remainder of the study, several weeks
after the third and final dose.
Discussion
The
search for more effective and better tolerated cancer therapies
has yielded the first molecularly targeted agents[45,46] (e.g., kinase inhibitors, PARP inhibitors) and new technologies
to more selectively deliver potent cytotoxins to tumors (e.g., antibody–drug
conjugates). Herein we have described a new class of tumor activated
prodrugs engineered to release a drug payload upon encountering reactive
iron(II) in the tumor microenvironment. The trioxolane-based scaffold
employed in these studies is the same one we used previously to study
intracellular labile ferrous iron in cells, revealing larger iron(II)
pools in cancer-derived cell lines compared to nontumorigenic lines.[34] Here we exploited this knowledge and the tools
we developed to deliver cytotoxic payloads to diverse cancer cell
lines and to target tumors in two different mouse xenograft models.The trioxolaneTAP scaffold used here was engineered to confer
“traceless” release of drug payloads, thereby enabling
a broad scope of potential applications encompassing molecularly targeted
and generally cytotoxic agents possessing suitable amine or alcohol
functionality for conjugation. When this strategy is employed, the
site of drug conjugation is selected so that the intrinsic activity/toxicity
of tethered drug is ablated, thereby preventing or minimizing exposure
of active drug in nontargeted tissues. To exemplify this approach,
we prepared amine-linked TAP conjugates 2 and 6 from the microtubule inhibitor 1 and duocarmycin analog seco-5, respectively. We confirmed that the
activity/toxicity of these agents was ablated in the TAP form by preparing
dioxolane-drug conjugates 3 and 7, which
proved inactive at the highest concentrations tested (Figure b and Figure b,c). The lack of measurable activity for 3 and 7 thus confirms that drug release from 2 and 6 is peroxide dependent. Consistent with
the expected mechanism of iron(II)-dependent drug release, the relative
sensitivity of cells to 2 (Figure d) largely mirrored the response of the TRX-PURO
probe to intracellular labile iron in the same cell lines.[34]We found that sensitivity to TRX-CMB conjugate 2 varied
by about 9-fold across a panel of cancer cell lines from diverse origins
(Figure e). Further
interrogation of these data may provide insight into the specific
alterations of iron metabolism that predict for increased tumor susceptibility
toward TRX-drug conjugates. In our preliminary study of oncogenic
changes and related effects on iron metabolism, we observed that Myc-driven
changes in MCF10A cells produced increased sensitivity to trioxolane
conjugate 2. Consistent with these observations, several
of the most 2-susceptible cell lines examined here, such
as RKO and MDA-MB-231, are known to overexpress Myc.[36,47] Thus, iron(II)-dependent drug delivery could find utility in targeting
Myc-driven tumors indirectly via the alteration of iron metabolism
induced by this prevalent oncogene. These findings are particularly
relevant given how intractable Myc driven tumors have been toward
other targeted therapies.[48]To examine
the utility of trioxolane-mediated drug delivery in
vivo, we prepared trioxolaneTAP 6 in which a potent
duocarmycin-class cytotoxin (seco-5)
is stabilized chemically and inactivated biologically (while in prodrug
form). Significantly, conjugate 6 was tolerated in mice
at doses up to 50-fold higher than seco-5 and produced superior efficacy in two different xenograft models
when administered at or near its MTD. A pharmacokinetic study in healthy
mice revealed that administration of seco-5 in the form 6 not only limited exposure to free drug
(to ∼15% of the total dose) but also significantly improved
distribution to tissues and the total duration of drug exposure. These
properties of 6 enabled safe administration at a relatively
high dose of 15 mg/kg once weekly, and this dosing regimen produced
a particularly robust and durable tumor regression in a PC-3 xenograft
model. Overall, our studies indicate that trioxolane-based TAPs release
their drug payload in proportion to the concentration of labile iron(II)
encountered in different cell/tissue types. While intracellular iron(II)
pools are likely implicated in TAP activation, it is possible that
other aspects of tumor biology in vivo (e.g., hypoxia, macrophage
infiltration, tumor necrosis) contribute to the presence of excess
reactive iron(II) in the tumor microenvironment.In conclusion,
trioxolane-mediated iron(II)-dependent drug delivery
is a new approach for cell/tissue selective drug targeting that leverages
elevated reactive iron(II) concentrations in tumor cells and in the
tumor microenvironment. Here
we described two prototypical trioxolane-drug conjugates bearing cytotoxins
with distinct mechanisms of cellular toxicity. We confirmed that the
intrinsic toxicity of these agents could be ablated in conjugated
forms and yet fully realized following cell- or tumor-selective release
at their intended site of action. These results should encourage further
study of this concept to identify drugs and tumor types that best
leverage this new drug delivery approach.
Experimental
Section
The known cytotoxic agents 1(35) and seco-5[40] were prepared as previously described. These
compounds were coupled
to known trioxolane[29] and dioxolane[30] intermediates via activated nitrophenyl carbonate
or isocyanate intermediates as we have described previously[29−31] and as further detailed in the Supporting Information.All compounds tested in cells or animals were judged to be
of >95%
purity as determined using a Waters Micromass ZQTM, equipped with
Waters 2795 separation module, Waters 2996 photodiode array detector
(254 nm), and Waters 2424 ELS detector. Separations were carried out
with an XTerra MS C18, 5 μm, 4.6 mm × 50 mm column, at
ambient temperature (unregulated) using a mobile phase of water–methanol
containing a constant 0.10% formic acid. Representative LC chromatograms
are provided in the Supporting Information.Mammalian cell lines were maintained in an atmosphere of
5% CO2 in RPMI 1640 media purchased from HyClone supplemented
with
10% FBS (Gibco), Pen/Strep (1× final concentration, Gemini Bio-Products),
and nonessential amino acids (UCSF Cell Culture Facility). Unless
otherwise noted, cell lines were obtained from ATCC and verified by
STR profiling. Graphing and analysis of data were done using GraphPad
Prism 6 software and Microsoft Excel 2010. Figures were prepared with
Adobe Design Standard CS6 software.
Statistics
Error
bars in all figures represent SEM
unless otherwise indicated. When three or more mean values were compared,
one- or two-way ANOVA tests were applied as required with Dunnett’s
multiple comparisons tests used to determine significance. Statistical
significance is indicated as follows: ∗ = P ≤ 0.05, ∗∗ = P ≤ 0.01,
∗∗∗ = P ≤ 0.001, ∗∗∗∗
= P ≤ 0.0001.
Toxicity by Nuclei Counting
Cells were plated in 96-well
Greiner black μClear tissue culture plates at 3000–6000
cells per well in RPMI 1640 cell culture media (or the appropriate
growth medium as specified) and incubated at 37 °C in 5% CO2 incubators for at least 16 h prior to exposure to compounds.
Cells were then treated in triplicate with escalating concentrations
of compounds performed in medium containing 0.1% DMSO (100 μL
of media, per well). 24–72 h after treatment (as specified),
medium was removed and cells were washed with 100 μL of PBS
and then fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde for 10 min at rt and stained
with Hoechst nuclear stain at a final concentration of 10 μg/mL
in PBS for 10 min at rt. After fixing, the cells were stored in 100 μL
of PBS for imaging. Wells were imaged with an IN Cell 2000 automated
cell imager at 10× magnification with 9 images per well (complete
coverage) in bright field and DAPI channel fluorescence, and images
were analyzed for nuclei count by IN Cell developer software. EC50 values were calculated in GraphPad Prism from normalized
dose–response curves.
Toxicity by CellTiter-Glo
Cells
were harvested, resuspended,
and plated with a Wellmate liquid handler (Thermo Scientific) into
384-well plates and cultured for 24 h before dosing. Master compound
plates were made with a Janus (PerkinElmer), then further diluted
to achieve uniform final concentrations of DMSO of 0.1% in media for
all treatment conditions. Compound treatments in media were added
to the cell plates with a Matrix Platemate (Thermo Scientific). Cell
viabilities were determined 72 h after treatment by Cell-Titer Glo
assay (Promega) on the Envision multilabel plate reader (PerkinElmer).
Relative luminescent units (RLU) were plotted against corresponding
drug concentrations and fitted with a standard four-parameter sigmoidal
curve with GraphPad Prism 6. Data were further fit for EC50 shift parameters in GraphPad Prism 6 to determine EC50 ratios for 1/2. Data are reported as the
EC50 ratio, and error bars represent SEM (n = 3). Data for cell lines in which EC50 ratio fits were
ambiguous, R2 values were less than 0.9,
or response to the free drug was less than 40% were not reported.
Quantitative PCR
Cells were seeded at 300 000
cells per well in 6-well plates and grown to confluence and then collected
with trypsin (0.05%), washed with PBS, and snap-frozen in liquid N2 and then stored at −78 °C. Cell pellets were
processed for mRNA isolation using Qiagen RNeasy Mini Kit with QIAshredder
lysate homogenizers and on column DNA digest. Isolated mRNA was analyzed
for concentration and purity on a ThermoScientific NanoDrop 2000c
spectrophotometer, and 1000 ng of mRNA from each sample was translated
to cDNA using Invitrogen SuperScript III First-Strand Synthesis System.
The resulting cDNA was used for qRT-PCR analysis (10 ng/reaction)
with SsoAdvanced Universal SYBR Green Supermix in a Roche LightCycler
480. GAPDH was used as an endogenous control, and relative mRNA levels
were calculated from a standard curve of pooled samples with LightCycler
480 software used for second derivative maximum analysis and standard
curve fitting. Samples were prepared and run in biological triplicates,
and error bars represent SEM. A list of the gene specific primers
used is provided in the Supporting Information.
Maximum Tolerable Dose Studies
To evaluate the tolerability
of the experimental agents, groups of three NSG (NOD SCID gamma) mice
were treated with three ip injections of test article (Q4d or Q7d
in separate studies) in a formulation comprising 50:40:10 PEG 400/20%
2-hydroxypropylcylcodextrine in water/DMSO. Individual groups
(n = 3) received doses that increased in 2- or 3-fold
steps until a given dose caused one or more mice in the group to reach
protocol limits for tolerance (>20% weight loss) at any point post
dosing.
Pharmacokinetics Studies
To evaluate the in vivo pharmacokinetic
properties of the experimental agents, female NSG mice were treated
with a single ip injection of test compounds formulated in 50:40:10
PEG 400/20% 2-hydroxypropylcylcodextrine in water/DMSO. Blood
samples were collected 5 min, 15 min, 30 min, 1 h, 2 h, 4 h, 8 h,
12 h, and 24 h after dosing (3 mice were sampled per time point; each
group of mice was sampled ≤3 times over 24 h) and analyzed
for plasma concentrations of each compound via MS/MS analysis conducted
by Integrated Analytical Solutions, Inc. (Berkeley, CA). The resulting
data were analyzed with WinNonlin software to calculate standard PK
parameters.
Efficacy Studies
To evaluate the
in vivo properties
of the experimental agents, we used the heterotopic indirect tumor
xenograft model in nude mice (NCR nu/nu, Taconic) and SCID-beige mice.
Early passage PC-3 cells were harvested, and a cell suspension (1:1
serum free DMEM/Matrigel) was injected subcutaneously (sc) into the
right flank of anesthetized donornude mice (106 cells/mouse
in 0.1 mL). For MDA-MB-231 xenografts, cells were injected into the
mammary fat pad of anesthetized female SCID-beige mice (106 cells/mouse in 0.1 mL of PBS). When the mean tumor volume was 250–400
mm3, tumor-bearing mice were treated with the indicated
doses of compounds formulated in 50:40:10 PEG 400/20% 2-hydroxypropylcylcodextrine
in water/DMSO via ip administration with the indicated frequency.
Tumor volume (by caliper) and mouse weight were monitored twice weekly.
Authors: Jonathan L Vennerstrom; Sarah Arbe-Barnes; Reto Brun; Susan A Charman; Francis C K Chiu; Jacques Chollet; Yuxiang Dong; Arnulf Dorn; Daniel Hunziker; Hugues Matile; Kylie McIntosh; Maniyan Padmanilayam; Josefina Santo Tomas; Christian Scheurer; Bernard Scorneaux; Yuanqing Tang; Heinrich Urwyler; Sergio Wittlin; William N Charman Journal: Nature Date: 2004-08-19 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Neena Valecha; Srivicha Krudsood; Noppadon Tangpukdee; Sanjib Mohanty; S K Sharma; P K Tyagi; Anupkumar Anvikar; Rajesh Mohanty; B S Rao; A C Jha; B Shahi; Jai Prakash Narayan Singh; Arjun Roy; Pawandeep Kaur; Monica Kothari; Shantanu Mehta; Anirudh Gautam; Jyoti K Paliwal; Sudershan Arora; Nilanjan Saha Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2012-05-14 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Benjamin Spangler; Charles W Morgan; Shaun D Fontaine; Mark N Vander Wal; Christopher J Chang; James A Wells; Adam R Renslo Journal: Nat Chem Biol Date: 2016-07-04 Impact factor: 15.040
Authors: Allegra T Aron; Marie C Heffern; Zachery R Lonergan; Mark N Vander Wal; Brian R Blank; Benjamin Spangler; Yaofang Zhang; Hyo Min Park; Andreas Stahl; Adam R Renslo; Eric P Skaar; Christopher J Chang Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2017-11-14 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Brian R Blank; Poulami Talukder; Ryan K Muir; Erin R Green; Eric P Skaar; Adam R Renslo Journal: ACS Infect Dis Date: 2019-06-11 Impact factor: 5.084
Authors: Andrea K Miyahira; Jelani C Zarif; Catherine C Coombs; Robert R Flavell; Joshua W Russo; Samir Zaidi; Di Zhao; Shuang G Zhao; Kenneth J Pienta; Howard R Soule Journal: Prostate Date: 2021-11-03 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: Rikki A M Brown; Kirsty L Richardson; Tasnuva D Kabir; Debbie Trinder; Ruth Ganss; Peter J Leedman Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2020-04-09 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Honglin Jiang; Ryan K Muir; Ryan L Gonciarz; Adam B Olshen; Iwei Yeh; Byron C Hann; Ning Zhao; Yung-Hua Wang; Spencer C Behr; James E Korkola; Michael J Evans; Eric A Collisson; Adam R Renslo Journal: J Exp Med Date: 2022-03-09 Impact factor: 17.579
Authors: Ning Zhao; Yangjie Huang; Yung-Hua Wang; Ryan K Muir; Ying-Chu Chen; Junnian Wei; Nima Hooshdaran; Pavithra Viswanath; Youngho Seo; Davide Ruggero; Adam R Renslo; Michael J Evans Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2020-11-27 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Michael M Gaschler; Alexander A Andia; Hengrui Liu; Joleen M Csuka; Brisa Hurlocker; Christopher A Vaiana; Daniel W Heindel; Dylan S Zuckerman; Pieter H Bos; Eduard Reznik; Ling F Ye; Yulia Y Tyurina; Annie J Lin; Mikhail S Shchepinov; Amy Y Chan; Eveliz Peguero-Pereira; Maksim A Fomich; Jacob D Daniels; Andrei V Bekish; Vadim V Shmanai; Valerian E Kagan; Lara K Mahal; K A Woerpel; Brent R Stockwell Journal: Nat Chem Biol Date: 2018-04-02 Impact factor: 15.040