| Literature DB >> 28000737 |
Urban Košak1, Boris Brus1, Damijan Knez1, Roman Šink1, Simon Žakelj1, Jurij Trontelj1, Anja Pišlar1, Jasna Šlenc1, Martina Gobec1, Marko Živin2, Larisa Tratnjek2, Martina Perše3, Kinga Sałat4, Adrian Podkowa4, Barbara Filipek4, Florian Nachon5, Xavier Brazzolotto5, Anna Więckowska4, Barbara Malawska4, Jure Stojan6, Irena Mlinarič Raščan1, Janko Kos1, Nicolas Coquelle7,8,9, Jacques-Philippe Colletier7,8,9, Stanislav Gobec1.
Abstract
Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 28000737 PMCID: PMC5175178 DOI: 10.1038/srep39495
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1ChE inhibitors and structures of huBChE and its active site gorge.
(a) Structures and IC50 values against the ChEs of the currently approved drugs for the treatment of AD symptoms that exploit ChE inhibition (donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine) and selective huBChE inhibitors (bisnorcymserine and compound 1). (b) The overall structure of huBChE (PDB code 4TPK) shown as a green cartoon with the key amino acids of the active site shown as sticks. (c) The active site gorge of huBChE shown as a gray surface. The principal contributors to the peripheral site (Asp70; blue), the choline-binding site (Trp82; orange), the catalytic triad (Ser198, Glu325, His438; red), and the acyl-binding pocket (Trp231, Leu286, Val288; gray) are shown as sticks.
Figure 2Design of sulfonamide analogs of hit compound 1.
The modifications introduced during each design step are indicated in red.
Inhibitory potencies and structures of hit compound 1 and the most potent of the type I to V inhibitors.
aCn = compound number.bPds = piperidine disubstitution pattern.cRA = residual activity.d%RA > 75% was considered as no inhibition.
Figure 3Chiral HPLC resolution of racemic compound (±)-2 into pure enantiomers, and their kinetic evaluation.
(a) Semi-preparative reversed-phase HPLC of racemic compound (±)-2 (Supplementary Methods [method A; 254 nm]). (b) Analytical reversed-phase chiral HPLC of (+)-2 (Supplementary Methods [method B; 254 nm]). (c) Analytical reversed-phase chiral HPLC of (−)-2 (Supplementary Methods [method B; 254 nm]). (d) Progress curves for hydrolysis of 44 μM butyrylthiocholine iodide by huBChE in the absence (E0) and presence of 50 nM of each pure enantiomer of compound 2 (as indicated). Data were obtained using a stopped-flow apparatus. (e) A competitive single-step inhibition mechanism with fast association (high k2, k4) for each pure enantiomer fully reproduced the progress curves obtained. S, substrate; P, product; E, enzyme; EA, acylated enzyme; I, (−)-2; K, (+)-2; k0–k5, kinetic constants.
Figure 4Crystal structures of huBChE in complex with compounds 2, 7, and 8.
(a) Two-dimensional structures of the co-crystalized sulfonamides 2, 7, and 8 and hit compound 1. (b) Alignment of crystal structures of compounds 2 (purple), 7 (green), and 8 (cyan) in their complexes with huBChE (gray surface). These inhibitors fully occupy the acyl-binding and choline-binding pockets with their naphthalene and benzyl moieties, respectively. (c) The polar interactions of compound 2 (purple sticks) with the amino-acid residues of the huBChE active site (blue) contribute significantly to the binding affinity. The observed H-bond between Thr120 and the sulfonamide moiety is shown as yellow dashes (distance, 3.1 Å). Compound 2 forms cation-π and π-π aromatic interactions with Tyr332 and Trp82, respectively. (d) Alignment of crystal structures of compound 2 (purple) and hit compound 1 (white) in their complexes with huBChE (white surface). PDB codes: 5DYW (compound 2), 5DYY (compound 7), and 5DYT (compound 8).
Figure 5Inhibition of BChE in rat brain slices.
Representative coronal section from a rat brain in the region of the thalamus processed for BChE histochemical staining using 4 mM butyrylthiocholine iodide (BTCI), in the absence (left) and presence (right) of 300 μM compound 2. Here, 10 mM BW-284C51 (BW) was added to completely block AChE activity. Vascular structures in the cortex (black oval highlight) and BChE-rich neurons in the laterodorsal thalamic nucleus (black box highlight) in the absence (a,c) (respectively) and presence (b,d) (respectively) of compound 2. Magnification, 10×. The relative optical density (ROD) scores for the staining intensity for BChE activity are shown on the right.
Figure 6Effects of compound 2 and rivastigmine on scopolamine-induced memory impairment in the passive avoidance (a) and the Morris water maze tasks (b–e). (a) Data are mean step-through latencies ± SEM (n = 9–10 mice per group). Significance: +p < 0.05; ++p < 0.01; +++p < 0.001; ++++p < 0.001, versus scopolamine-treated control (in the retention phase). (b–e) Learning curves showing acquisition phase for vehicle-treated mice and scopolamine-treated control mice (b), scopolamine-treated control mice and scopolamine-induced memory-impaired mice treated with 30 mg kg−1 compound 2 (c), or 1 mg kg−1 (d) or 2.5 mg kg−1 (e) rivastigmine. Data are mean escape latency ± SEM from four daily trials. Significance versus scopolamine-treated control: +p < 0.05; ++p < 0.01.
Figure 7Effects of compound 2 and rivastigmine on scopolamine-induced memory impairment in the two-day radial arm water maze task.
Spatial learning deficits expressed as mean number of errors ± SEM in 15 trials in five blocks (T1–T5) of three trials on day 1 (a–d) and day 2 (e–h) of the RAWM task. Vehicle-treated mice and scopolamine-treated control mice (a,f), scopolamine-treated control mice and scopolamine-induced memory-impaired mice treated with 30 mg kg−1 compound 2 (b,f), or 1 mg kg−1 (c,g) or 2.5 mg kg−1 (d,h) rivastigmine. Significance versus scopolamine-treated control mice: +p < 0.05; +++p < 0.001.