| Literature DB >> 32326556 |
Ilaria Cicalini1,2, Barbara De Filippis3, Nicola Gambacorta4, Antonio Di Michele3, Silvia Valentinuzzi1,3, Alessandra Ammazzalorso3, Alice Della Valle3, Rosa Amoroso3, Orazio Nicolotti4, Piero Del Boccio1,3, Letizia Giampietro3.
Abstract
A simple, quick, easy and cheap tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) method for the determination of adenosine monophosphate (AMP) and cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) has been newly developed. This novel MS/MS method was applied for the evaluation of the inhibitory effect of a novel 2-oxo-1,2-dihydropyridine-3-carbonitrile derivative, also named DF492, on PDE3 enzyme activity in comparison to its parent drug milrinone. Molecule DF492, with an IC50 of 409.5 nM, showed an inhibition of PDE3 greater than milrinone (IC50 = 703.1 nM). To explain the inhibitory potential of DF492, molecular docking studies toward the human PDE3A were carried out with the aim of predicting the binding mode of DF492. The presence of different bulkier decorating fragments in DF492 was pursued to shift affinity of this novel molecule toward PDE3A compared to milrinone in accordance with both the theoretical and experimental results. The described mass spectrometric approach could have a wider potential use in kinetic and biomedical studies and could be applied for the determination of other phosphodiesterase inhibitor molecules.Entities:
Keywords: AMP; cyclic AMP; dihydropyridine; docking studies; phosphodiesterases activity; tandem mass spectrometry
Year: 2020 PMID: 32326556 PMCID: PMC7221589 DOI: 10.3390/molecules25081817
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Chemical structures of milrinone and new analogue DF492.
Advantages and disadvantages of methods used for the quantification of adenosine monophosphate (AMP) and cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) or for the measurement of phosphodiesterases (PDE) activity.
| Method | AMP | cAMP | PDE Enzyme Activity | Advantages | Disadvantages | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| + | + | HPLC is associated with speed, efficiency and accuracy; it can be automated and requires minimal training | can be costly, requires a large amount of expensive organics, has low sensitivity for certain compounds | [ | |
|
| + | pre-steady and steady-state kinetics; real-time detection | micromolar detection limit | [ | ||
|
| + | dynamic range of quantification, high sensitivity and precision | not ideal for multiplexing, setting up requires high technical skills, high equipment cost, intra- and inter-assay variation, RNA lability, DNA contamination | [ | ||
|
| + | [ | ||||
|
| + | + | accuracy, high sensitivity, specificity | laborious assay procedure | [ | |
|
| + | implicity and high sensitivity | a scintillation counter is required | [ | ||
|
| + | high sensitivity, rapid and simple, great dynamic range | requires special instrument capable to read A-counts | [ | ||
|
| + | a single set of detection reagents can be used for all of the enzymes in a family and all acceptors substrates | no need for fluorescently labelled substrates, no signal background, expensive kit | [ | ||
|
| + | an antibody-independent system | may interfere with other negatively charged reactants | [ | ||
|
| + | ease of detection for kinase inhibitors | may interfere with ATP and other negatively charged compounds in high concentrations | [ |
HPLC-MS: high performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry; CD: circular dichroism; IHC: immunohistochemistry; qPCR: quantitative polymerase chain reaction; ELISA: enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; RIA: radioimmunoassay; IMAP/FP: IMAP (Immobilized Metal Ion Affinity Particle) assay in fluorescence polarization detection mode; IMAP/TR-FRET: IMAP assay/time-resolved fluorescence energy transfer.
Figure 2Representative chromatograms and mass spectrum obtained from tandem mass (MS/MS) analysis. Panel (A) and (B) show chromatogram peaks and mass spectrum from adenosine monophosphate (AMP) and cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) fragmentation, respectively.
Intra- and inter-day assay of cAMP and AMP by comparing mean peak area, in terms of standard deviation (SD) and coefficient of variation CV%.
| Analyte | Intra-day Assay | Inter-day Assay | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean Area | SD | CV% | Mean Area | SD | CV% | |
|
| 410,008.4 | 36,306.9 | 8.85 | 358,897.8 | 25,369.85 | 7.06 |
|
| 137,478.4 | 17,339.6 | 12.6 | 120,487.7 | 15,879.38 | 13.17 |
Figure 3A correlation curve was performed using five solutions prepared at increasing concentrations, specifically 0.35, 0.87, 1.75, 2.6 and 3.5 pmol/μL for cAMP and 0.25, 0.32, 0.4, 0.7 and 0.9 pmol/μL for AMP (n = 4).
Figure 4Enzymatic activity evaluated by the ratio of AMP area and AMP+cAMP areas after enzyme incubation at different time points (0, 5, 10, 15, 20 min after incubation) (n = 3).
Residual enzymatic activity % calculated by adding different solutions at increasing concentrations of milrinone, as inhibitor. SD: Standard Deviation; RSD: Relative Standard Deviation.
| [milrinone] (nM) | Residual | SD (n = 3) | RSD% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20 | 90.73 | 1.03 | 1.13 |
| 200 | 74.95 | 1.53 | 2.04 |
| 400 | 59.62 | 0.14 | 0.23 |
| 600 | 47.83 | 0.84 | 1.75 |
| 1200 | 43.18 | 0.97 | 2.24 |
Residual enzymatic activity % calculated by adding different solutions at increasing concentrations of DF492, as inhibitor.
| [DF492] (nM) | Residual | SD (n = 3) | RSD% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20 | 84.04 | 4.25 | 5.05 |
| 200 | 71.75 | 0.69 | 0.96 |
| 400 | 53.77 | 1.65 | 3.06 |
| 600 | 35.18 | 2.1 | 5.97 |
Figure 5Non-linear regression evaluated by using a “dose-response inhibition” build-model to calculate the concentration of inhibitor that gives a response halfway between bottom and top (IC50). The figure shows the residual activity% versus the logarithm of milrinone (red line) and DF492 (blue line) concentrations and the calculated IC50.
Statistical comparison between two models considered: “log inhibitors versus normalized response” and “log inhibitors versus normalized response − variable slope” for each inhibitor. The table lists the LogIC50 and IC50 obtained from the comparison, the Hill slope considered and the preferred model resulted. ** means p-value < 0.01, NS means Not significant at t test.
| Milrinone | DF492 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| log(inhibitor) vs. Normalized Response | log(inhibitor) vs. Normalized Response − Variable slope | log(inhibitor) vs. Normalized Response | log(inhibitor) vs. Normalized Response − Variable slope | |
|
| 2.808 | 2.847 | 2.612 | 2.617 |
|
| 643.2 | 703.1 | 409.5 | 414.1 |
|
| −1.0 | −0.7113 | −1.0 | −0.8530 |
|
| 0.0008 (**) | 0.6527 (NS) | ||
|
| log(inhibitor) vs. normalized response − Variable slope | --- | ||
Figure 6Zoomed in view of the PDE3A binding site. DF492is rendered as green sticks in the representation, the most relevant residues are reported as gray sticks, the magnesium ions are indicated as violet spheres, and the water molecules are depicted as wireframes. The red arrows indicate the hydrogen bonds.
Figure 7Zoomed in view of the PDE3A binding site. Milrinone is rendered as green sticks in the representation, the most relevant residues are reported as gray sticks, the magnesium ions are indicated as violet spheres, and the water molecules are depicted as wireframes. The red and blue arrows indicate the hydrogen bonds and the π-π interactions.