| Literature DB >> 33666424 |
Jean-Olivier Zirimwabagabo1, Ameera B A Jailani2, Paris Avgoustou2, Matthew J Tozer3, Karl R Gibson4, Paul A Glossop4, James E J Mills4, Roderick A Porter5, Paul Blaney6, Ning Wang2, Timothy M Skerry2, Gareth O Richards2, Joseph P A Harrity1.
Abstract
Class B G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) remain an underexploited target for drug development. The calcitonin receptor (CTR) family is particularly challenging, as its receptors are heteromers comprising two distinct components: the calcitonin receptor-like receptor (CLR) or calcitonin receptor (CTR) together with one of three accessory proteins known as receptor activity-modifying proteins (RAMPs). CLR/RAMP1 forms a CGRP receptor, CLR/RAMP2 forms an adrenomedullin-1 (AM1) receptor, and CLR/RAMP3 forms an adrenomedullin-2 (AM2) receptor. The CTR/RAMP complexes form three distinct amylin receptors. While the selective blockade of AM2 receptors would be therapeutically valuable, inhibition of AM1 receptors would cause clinically unacceptable increased blood pressure. We report here a systematic study of structure-activity relationships that has led to the development of first-in-class AM2 receptor antagonists. These compounds exhibit therapeutically valuable properties with 1000-fold selectivity over the AM1 receptor. These results highlight the therapeutic potential of AM2 antagonists.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33666424 PMCID: PMC8006142 DOI: 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.0c02191
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Chem ISSN: 0022-2623 Impact factor: 7.446
Figure 1Docking of telcagepant (magenta) and compound 1 (purple) in our pseudo (hybrid)-model of the AM2 receptor-binding pocket. The Glu74 residue from RAMP3 is indicated in green. CLR is shown in yellow and RAMP3 in cyan. Hydrogen bonds are shown as dotted lines. Compound 1 has similar spatial occupancy and interactions to telcagepant (magenta) as observed in the CGRP receptor crystal structure (PDB code 3N7R(36)).
Figure 2Compound 1 structure analysis for SAR.
Investigating the Effect of Different CLR-Binding Fragments on the Antagonism against the AM2 Receptor
pIC50 Values of RAMP with N-Alkyl-Substituent SAR Library against the AM2 Receptor Compared to Those of AM1 and CGRP Receptorsa
nd: not determined.
Scheme 1Reagents and General Conditions
(a) Ethyl bromoacetate, N,N-diisopropylethylamine (DIPEA), dimethylformamide (DMF) or benzylbromoacetate, Et3N, tetrahydrofuran (THF; when amine was used) and glycine ethyl ester hydrochloride, NaBH3CN, MeOH (when aldehyde or ketone was used); (b) (i) PivCl, DIPEA, dichloromethane (DCM); (ii) 2.5 N NaOH, MeOH or LiOH·H2O, MeOH/THF/H2O; (c) HATU, NMM, DM or EDCI, HOAt, DIPEA, DMF.
Scheme 2Reagents and Conditions
(a) (i) NaOH, PTC*, toluene/H2O; (ii) recrystallized from toluene/MeOH; (b) (i) MsOH, toluene, 90 °C; (ii) ∼10% Pd/C, H2, HCl/MeOH, rt, o/n. PTC*: Chiral phase transfer catalyst. Please see Experimental Section for details.
Figure 3Docking of compound (R)-25 in our pseudo (hybrid)-model of the AM2 receptor-binding pocket. Glu74 residues from RAMP3 are indicated in green. CLR is shown in yellow and RAMP3 in cyan. Hydrogen bonds are shown as dotted lines. The protonated amine of compound (R)-25 forms salt bridges with the carboxylate of Glu74 and the carboxylate of Asp71 (an asparagine carboxamide in RAMP3).
Figure 4AM2 receptor antagonist inhibits in vitro viability of human breast cancer cell line MDA-MB-231 as well as subcutaneous MDA-MB-231 tumor growth in BALB/c nude mice. (a) Daily treatment with small molecule AM2 receptor antagonists significantly decreased the viability of MDA-MB-231 cells in vitro by 55% after 3 days when treated with 10 μM (±)-25, compared to that of vehicle-treated controls (p < 0.01, unpaired t-test). Data are from three independent experiments and presented as mean ± SD. (b) Mice (n = 10 per group) were inoculated subcutaneously with MDA-MB-231 cells to generate tumors, and first treatment was given on the day of the first tumor volume measurement (arrow). Tumor growth rates were significantly reduced in mice treated daily with 20 mg/kg ip (±)-25 (p < 0.001, simple linear regression comparing the line of best fit). Data are presented as mean ± SD.
Scheme 3Synthesis of 2 and 4
Scheme 4Synthesis of 5, 6, 9–14, 16–21, 24, 25, and 29
(a) Ethyl bromoacetate, SIPEA, DMF, rt or benzyl bromoacetate, Et3N, THF, rt (from amine) or glycine ethyl ester hydrochloride, NaBH3CN, MeOH, rt (fromaldehyde or ketone); (b) (i) PivCl, DIPEA, DCM, rt; (ii) 2.5 N NaOH, MeOH, rt; (c) D, HATU, NMM, DMF, rt or D, EDCl, HOAt, DIPEA, DMF, rt; (d) H2, Pd/C, NH4COOH, MeOH, reflux; (e) TFA, DCM, rt or TsOH, MeOH, rt; (f) (i) pTsOH, acetone, rt; (ii) MeNH2, HCl, DIPEA, Na2SO4, DCM, rt then NaBH(OAc)3, rt; (g) 20% Pd(PPh3)4, 1,3-dimethylbarbituric acid, DCM, 35 °C; (h) Zn(CN)2, Pd(PPh3)4, DMF, 130 °C, MW; (j) H2, Raney-Ni, 2M NH3 in MeOH, 55 °C; (k) 4-benzyl-3,5-dimethyl-1H-pyrazole-1-carboximidamide hydrochloride, 5 equiv, Et3N, MeCN/THF, MW, 90 °C; (m) (i) pTsOH, acetone, rt; (ii) NH4OAc, MeOH, reflux; then NaBH3CN, rt; (n) H2O2, H2O, NaOH, DMSO, rt.
Scheme 5Synthesis of 28
Scheme 6Synthesis of 7, 8, 23, 26, and 27