| Literature DB >> 35267421 |
Abel Tesfaye Anshabo1, Laychiluh Bantie1, Sarah Diab1, Jimma Lenjisa1, Alemwork Kebede1, Yi Long1, Gary Heinemann1, Jasmine Karanjia1, Benjamin Noll1, Sunita K C Basnet1, Manjun Li1, Robert Milne1, Hugo Albrecht1, Shudong Wang1.
Abstract
Mutations in FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3) occur in approximately one-third of AML patients and are associated with a particularly poor prognosis. The most common mutation, FLT3-ITD, is a self-activating internal tandem duplication (ITD) in the FLT3 juxtamembrane domain. Many FLT3 inhibitors have shown encouraging results in clinical trials, but the rapid emergence of resistance has severely limited sustainable efficacy. Co-targeting of CDK9 and FLT3 is a promising two-pronged strategy to overcome resistance as the former plays a role in the transcription of cancer cell-survival genes. Most prominently, MCL-1 is known to be associated with AML tumorigenesis and drug resistance and can be down-regulated by CDK9 inhibition. We have developed CDDD11-8 as a potent CDK9 inhibitor co-targeting FLT3-ITD with Ki values of 8 and 13 nM, respectively. The kinome selectivity has been confirmed when the compound was tested in a panel of 369 human kinases. CDDD11-8 displayed antiproliferative activity against leukemia cell lines, and particularly potent effects were observed against MV4-11 and MOLM-13 cells, which are known to harbor the FLT3-ITD mutation and mixed lineage leukemia (MLL) fusion proteins. The mode of action was consistent with inhibition of CDK9 and FLT3-ITD. Most importantly, CDDD11-8 caused a robust tumor growth inhibition by oral administration in animal xenografts. At 125 mg/kg, CDDD11-8 induced tumor regression, and this was translated to an improved survival of animals. The study demonstrates the potential of CDDD11-8 towards the future development of a novel AML treatment.Entities:
Keywords: CDK9; FLT3; cancer; leukemia; targeted therapy
Year: 2022 PMID: 35267421 PMCID: PMC8909834 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14051113
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancers (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6694 Impact factor: 6.639
Figure 1Structure and kinase inhibition of CDDD11-8. A kinome-wide selectivity test was carried out against 369 human kinases using 1 µM (~120 × CDK9 Ki value) compound concentration. All data were generated with radioactive assays by Reaction Biology (Malvern, PA, USA). Red, yellow, and green dots represent >90%, 80–90%, and <80% inhibition of the kinase, respectively. IC50 values were determined from concentration–response experiments and the apparent inhibition constants (Ki) were calculated from IC50 values using the Cheng–Prusoff equation [32].
Antiproliferative activities of CDDD11-8 against leukemia cell lines having different genetic backgrounds *.
| Cell Line | Leukemia Type | Oncogenic Drivers | CDDD11-8 |
|---|---|---|---|
| MV4-11 | AML | MLL-AF4, FLT3ITD/ITD | 0.015 ± 0.004 |
| MO91 | AML | ETV6-NTRK3 | 0.032 ± 0.003 |
| MOLM-13 | AML | MLL-AF9, FLT3ITD/WT | 0.070 ± 0.020 |
| PL21 | AML | K-RAS, FLT3ITD/WT | 0.339 ± 0.034 |
| THP-1 | AML | MLL-AF9, FLT3WT/WT | 0.459 ± 0.040 |
| NB4 | AML | PML-RARA | 0.473 ± 0.107 |
| HL60 | AML | N-RAS | 0.475 ± 0.025 |
| JURKAT | ALL | FLT3 NULL | 0.599 ± 0.090 |
| U937 | AML | MLLT10-PICALM | 0.713 ± 0.093 |
| K-562 | CML | BCR-ABL | 1.495 ± 0.047 |
* MLL-AF4 and MLL-AF9, a fusion of proteins formed due to t(4; 11) (q21; q23) and t(9; 11) (p22; q23) chromosomal rearrangement mutations, respectively; PML-RARA, a t(15; 17) (q22; q21) translocation mutation involving genes encoding PML and retinoic acid receptor alpha (RARA) [36]; MLLT10-PICALM is a fusion of MLLT10 and PICALM proteins as a result of t(10; 11) (p13; q14-21) chromosomal translocation mutation [37]; BCR-ABL, a Philadelphia chromosome formed by a reciprocal translocation between chromosome 9 (encoding abelson tyrosine kinase, ABL) and chromosome 22 (encoding breakpoint cluster region protein, BCR) [38]; GI50 values represent the mean ± standard deviation (SD) of at least two independent experimental replicates.
Figure 2Induction of apoptosis and cell cycle effect of CDDD11-8 on leukemia cell lines. (A) MV4-11, MOLM-13, and THP-1 cells were incubated with CDDD11-8 using the concentrations and incubation times as indicated. Induction of early apoptosis was monitored using flow cytometry with Annexin V staining. (B) Comparison of Annexin V-positive MV4-11 and MOLM-13 cells incubated with CDDD11-8 for 24 h (no washout) or 6 h followed by a 24 h drug-free period (washout). (C) MV4-11 and MOLM-13 cells were incubated with 0.3 and 1 µM CDDD11-8 for 6 or 24 h, and their cell cycle progression was investigated using flow cytometry with fixed- and PI-stained cells. Data for (A,B) represent the mean ± SD values of two independent experiments. Data for (C) represent the average values of at least two independent experimental replicates.
Figure 3Effect of CDDD11-8 on cellular signaling pathways in leukemia cell lines. (A) Western blot analysis of lysates prepared from MV4-11 and MOLM-13 cells incubated with increasing concentrations of CDDD11-8 for 24 h. (B) MV4-11 cells were analyzed by western blot after being incubated with concentrations of 0.3 and 1 µM for the indicated times. β-Actin, GAPDH, or β-Tubulin were used as loading controls. Representative blots of two independent experiments are shown. For MOLM13 cells, the dotted lines indicate that the images were cropped from nonadjacent wells of the same gel.
Pharmacokinetic parameters of CDDD11-8 in mice.
| Route | IV * | Oral * | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dose (mg/kg) | 2 | 10 | 100 |
| Cmax (ng/mL) | - | 496 ± 108 | 3597 ± 822 |
| tmax (h) | - | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 2.0 ± 0.6 |
| AUC (ng/mL/h) | 906 ± 90 | 1364 ± 249 | 25,369 ± 3973 |
| t½ (h) | 1.8 ± 0.3 | 0.68 ± 0.30 | 6.8 ± 3.7 |
| CL (mL/h/kg) | 2208 ± 219 | - | - |
| Vss (mL/kg) | 1713 ± 246 | - | - |
| F (%) | - | 30 | 56 |
* Parameters (± standard error of the estimate, n = 10 per route of administration) were determined using compartmental analysis (Phoenix, Certara, NJ, USA).
Biopharmaceutic properties of CDDD11-8.
| Aqueous Solubility a | μM | >100 |
| Partition Coefficient b | LogD7.4 (octanol) | 1.87 |
| Dissociation Constant c | pKa | 2.75, 4.95, 9.89 |
| Caco-2 Permeability d | A-B Papp (10−6 cm/s) | 6.06 ± 0.49 |
| B-A Papp (10−6 cm/s) | 29.5 ± 8.47 | |
| Efflux ratio | 4.87 | |
| Blood to plasma ratio | In mice | 0.71 |
a By turbidimetric method; b by shake flask assay; c by PH metric assay; d apparent permeability coefficient across the Caco-2 monolayer; efflux ratio = Papp B-A/Papp A-B (Cyprotex Ltd., Macclesfield, UK).
Figure 4MV4-11 tumor-bearing mice (n = 7) were treated orally with vehicle, CDDD11-8 (75 or 125 mg/kg), daily for 28 days. (A) Mean tumor volumes on across dosing periods. (B) Kaplan–Meier survival analysis. Another group of MV4-11 tumor-bearing mice (n = 3) were treated with vehicle, CDDD11-8 at 75 or 125 mg/kg, for 5 days, and tumors were harvested at 4 h post final dose for (C) immunoblotting to study in vivo target engagement and (D) determining drug concentration in plasma and tumor. MST: median survival time. Error bars indicate SEM. *** p < 0.002, compared to vehicle treatment. α refers to p values on (Table 4).
Statistical significance of the differences between the means of tumor volumes across dosing period.
| Measurement Days | Comparison of Tumor Volume ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Vehicle vs. CDDD11-8 75 mg/kg | Vehicle vs. CDDD11-8 | CDDD11-8 | |
| 1 | 0.9997 | 0.9994 | 0.9999 |
| 3 | 0.7745 | 0.62 | 0.9658 |
| 5 | 0.3783 | 0.1869 | 0.9064 |
| 7 | 0.0868 | 0.018 | 0.8129 |
| 9 | 0.0024 | 0.0001 | 0.7113 |
| 11 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | 0.8224 |
| 13 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | 0.8602 |
| 15 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | 0.9495 |
| 17 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | 0.9534 |
| 19 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | 0.9462 |
| 21 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | 0.9486 |
| 23 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | 0.876 |
| 25 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | 0.4531 |
| 27 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | 0.0526 |
* Statistical differences in tumor volume between groups were analyzed using two-way ANOVA, where days on which the tumor volume was measured and treatments were the two independent factors, with a two-tailed significance cut-off level of p < 0.05.
Percent of tumor volume in treatment group to tumor volume in vehicle treatment group *.
| Measurement Days | T/C% at Dose of CDDD11-8 (mg/kg) * | |
|---|---|---|
| 75 | 125 | |
| 1 | 101 | 102 |
| 3 | 75 | 66 |
| 5 | 60 | 47 |
| 7 | 50 | 36 |
| 9 | 32 | 16 |
| 11 | 22 | 12 |
| 13 | 12 | 4 |
| 15 | 8 | 3 |
| 17 | 6 | 2 |
| 19 | 5 | 2 |
| 21 | 5 | 2 |
| 23 | 5 | 1 |
| 25 | 9 | 1 |
| 27 | 15 | 1 |
* Percent T/C was calculated by dividing the average tumor volume of mice in CDDD11-8 treated group to average tumor volume of mice in vehicle treated group at a particular tumor measurement day.