| Literature DB >> 28796151 |
Yasuhiro Tsume1, Adam J Drelich2, David E Smith3, Gordon L Amidon4.
Abstract
One of the main obstacles for cancer therapies is to deliver medicines effectively to target sites. Since stroma cells are developed around tumors, chemotherapeutic agents have to go through stroma cells in order to reach tumors. As a method to improve drug delivery to the tumor site, a prodrug approach for gemcitabine was adopted. Amino acid and dipeptide monoester prodrugs of gemcitabine were synthesized and their chemical stability in buffers, resistance to thymidine phosphorylase and cytidine deaminase, antiproliferative activity, and uptake/permeability in HFF cells as a surrogate to stroma cells were determined and compared to their parent drug, gemcitabine. The activation of all gemcitabine prodrugs was faster in pancreatic cell homogenates than their hydrolysis in buffer, suggesting enzymatic action. All prodrugs exhibited great stability in HFF cell homogenate, enhanced resistance to glycosidic bond metabolism by thymidine phosphorylase, and deamination by cytidine deaminase compared to their parent drug. All gemcitabine prodrugs exhibited higher uptake in HFF cells and better permeability across HFF monolayers than gemcitabine, suggesting a better delivery to tumor sites. Cell antiproliferative assays in Panc-1 and Capan-2 pancreatic ductal cell lines indicated that the gemcitabine prodrugs were more potent than their parent drug gemcitabine. The transport and enzymatic profiles of gemcitabine prodrugs suggest their potential for delayed enzymatic bioconversion and enhanced resistance to metabolic enzymes, as well as for enhanced drug delivery to tumor sites, and cytotoxic activity in cancer cells. These attributes would facilitate the prolonged systemic circulation and improved therapeutic efficacy of gemcitabine prodrugs.Entities:
Keywords: cytosine deaminase; gemcitabine prodrugs; metabolism; pancreatic cancer; stroma cells
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28796151 PMCID: PMC5826767 DOI: 10.3390/molecules22081322
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Stability of gemcitabine prodrugs in pH 7.4 Buffer and pancreatic cancer cell homogenates. (Mean ± S.D., n = 3).
| Prodrug | Buffer pH 7.4 t1/2 (min) | Panc-1 Cell Homogenates t1/2 (min) | Capan-2 Cell Homogenates t1/2 (min) | MDCK Cell Homogenates t1/2 (min) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gemcitabine | >120 * | >120 # | 5.2 ± 2.4 | 72.9 ± 29.1 |
| 5′- | >120 * | 9.8 ± 1.2 | 1.4 ± 0.1 | 4.8 ± 1.2 |
| 5′- | >120 * | 29.2 ± 5.7 | 14.2 ± 0.4 | 94.9 ± 15.7 |
| 5′- | >120 * | 23.9 ± 0.7 | 4.8 ± 1.3 | >120 |
| 5′- | >120 * | >120 | >120 | >120 |
| 5′- | 33.6 ± 1.4 | 30.2 ± 1.1 # | 8.0 ± 2.3 | 60.2 ± 2.3 |
* Previously reported in [38]; # Previously reported in [16].
Figure 1The metabolic pathway of gemcitabine and gemcitabine prodrugs with relevant enzymes.
Stability of gemcitabine and gemcitabine prodrugs in the presence of thymidine phosphorylase (mean ± S.D., n = 3).
| Prodrug/Drug | t1/2 (min) |
|---|---|
| Gemcitabine | 6.0 ± 1.8 * |
| 5′- | 31.9 ± 5.0 * |
| 5′- | >120 * |
| 5′- | >120 * |
| 5′- | >120 * |
| 5′- | 63.0 ± 0.3 |
| 3′- | 56.0 ± 6.9 |
* Previously reported [38].
Stability of gemcitabine and gemcitabine prodrugs in the presence of cytidine deaminase (mean ± S.D., n = 3).
| Prodrug/Drug | t1/2 (min) |
|---|---|
| Gemcitabine | <3 |
| 5′- | 44.6 ± 18.8 |
| 5′- | >120 |
| 5′- | >120 |
| 5′- | >120 |
| 5′- | >120 |
[3H] Gly-Sar uptake inhibition of gemcitabine and gemcitabine prodrugs in Caco-2 cells (mean ± S.D., n = 3).
| Prodrug/Drug | IC50 Caco-2 (mM) |
|---|---|
| Gemcitabine | 26.8 ± 9.3 |
| 5′- | 0.7 ± 0.3 |
| 5′- | 3.4 ± 0.7 |
| 5′- | 1.6 ± 0.6 |
| 5′- | 2.8 ± 1.1 |
| 5′- | 1.6 ± 0.3 |
Figure 2Uptake study of Gem and Gem prodrugs in HFF cells (Mean ± S.D., n = 4).
Amino acid ester prodrugs of gemcitabine.
| Prodrug | LogP a |
|---|---|
| 5′- | −0.37 |
| 5′- | 0.42 |
| 5′- | 1.04 |
a Calculated using ChemDraw.
Apparent permeability coefficients (P) of gemcitabine and monoester prodrugs of gemcitabine in the apical-to-basolateral direction across HFF monolayers (mean ± S.D., n = 3).
| Prodrug/Drug | |
|---|---|
| Gemcitabine | 1.6 ± 0.1 |
| 5′- | 2.7 ± 0.3 |
| 5′- | 3.9 ± 0.4 |
| 5′- | 1.7 ± 0.3 |
| 5′- | 5.1 ± 1.0 |
| 5′- | 5.1 ± 0.3 |
Cell growth inhibition in Panc-1, Capan-2, and MDCK cells (mean ± S.D., n = 3–6).
| Prodrug/Drug | GI50 Panc-1 (mM) | GI50 Capan-2 (mM) | GI50 MDCK (mM) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gemcitabine | None * | 8.5 ± 0.2 | 58.9 ± 3.8 |
| 5′- | 2.8 ± 0.1 | 7.6 ± 2.3 | 7.1 ± 2.9 |
| 5′- | 3.0 ± 0.1 | 6.3 ± 2.0 | 79.3 ± 3.4 |
| 5′- | 3.0 ± 0.3 | 5.8 ± 0.6 | None |
| 5′- | 3.6 ± 0.2 | 5.5 ± 0.8 | None |
| 5′- | 3.2 ± 0.7 * | 3.6 ± 1.3 | None |
None—No inhibitory activity detected. * Previously reported in [16].