Joshua P Smalley1, India M Baker2, Wiktoria A Pytel1, Li-Ying Lin3, Karen J Bowman2, John W R Schwabe3, Shaun M Cowley2, James T Hodgkinson1. 1. Leicester Institute of Structural and Chemical Biology, School of Chemistry, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, U.K. 2. Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, U.K. 3. Leicester Institute of Structural and Chemical Biology, Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, U.K.
Abstract
Class I histone deacetylase (HDAC) enzymes 1, 2, and 3 organize chromatin as the catalytic subunits within seven distinct multiprotein corepressor complexes and are established drug targets. We report optimization studies of benzamide-based Von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) E3-ligase proteolysis targeting chimeras (PROTACs) and for the first time describe transcriptome perturbations resulting from these degraders. By modifying the linker and VHL ligand, we identified PROTACs 7, 9, and 22 with submicromolar DC50 values for HDAC1 and/or HDAC3 in HCT116 cells. A hook effect was observed for HDAC3 that could be negated by modifying the position of attachment of the VHL ligand to the linker. The more potent HDAC1/2 degraders correlated with greater total differentially expressed genes and enhanced apoptosis in HCT116 cells. We demonstrate that HDAC1/2 degradation by PROTACs correlates with enhanced global gene expression and apoptosis, important for the development of more efficacious HDAC therapeutics with reduced side effects.
Class I histone deacetylase (HDAC) enzymes 1, 2, and 3 organize chromatin as the catalytic subunits within seven distinct multiprotein corepressor complexes and are established drug targets. We report optimization studies of benzamide-based Von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) E3-ligase proteolysis targeting chimeras (PROTACs) and for the first time describe transcriptome perturbations resulting from these degraders. By modifying the linker and VHL ligand, we identified PROTACs 7, 9, and 22 with submicromolar DC50 values for HDAC1 and/or HDAC3 in HCT116 cells. A hook effect was observed for HDAC3 that could be negated by modifying the position of attachment of the VHL ligand to the linker. The more potent HDAC1/2 degraders correlated with greater total differentially expressed genes and enhanced apoptosis in HCT116 cells. We demonstrate that HDAC1/2 degradation by PROTACs correlates with enhanced global gene expression and apoptosis, important for the development of more efficacious HDAC therapeutics with reduced side effects.
Class I histone deacetylase
(HDAC) enzymes, HDAC1, 2, 3, and 8,
are four out of eleven zinc-dependent HDAC enzymes, catalyzing the
hydrolysis of acetyl groups in N-ε-acetyl-l-lysine residues in histones and nonhistone proteins.[1] HDAC1/2 shares over 80% sequence homology, is
localized in the nucleus, and exists in several multiprotein corepressor
complexes including Sin3, CoREST, MiDAC, and NuRD.[1,2] HDAC3
shares approximately 50% sequence homology with HDAC1/2, is also predominantly
localized in the nucleus, and exists exclusively in the SMRT/NCoR
corepressor complex.[1,3] HDAC8, in contrast to HDAC1/2
and 3, can be found in both the nucleus and cytoplasm and is not present
in corepressor complexes.[1,4]Four HDAC inhibitors
(HDACi) have been approved by the US FDA including
the hydroxamic acids vorinostat, panobinostat, and belinostat and
the cyclic peptide natural product romidepsin. These drugs are primarily
used for the treatment of hematological cancers, with other HDACi
currently in clinical trials. The approved hydroxamic acid HDACi drugs
chelate Zn2+ in the eleven zinc-dependent HDAC enzymes,
and despite being potent, HDACi generally exhibits limited selectivity
between isoforms.[5] The disulfide prodrug
romidepsin lacks selectivity between HDAC1, 2, 3, 10, and 11.[5] A lack of HDAC isoform selectivity among approved
HDAC drugs might contribute to the undesired side effects associated
with these drugs.[6−8] Additionally, it has also been proposed that the
rearrangement of the hydroxamic acid functional group present in many
HDACi drugs to an isocyanate can lead to mutagenicity.[9]Toward more efficacious HDAC therapeutics with reduced
side effects,
a number of studies have demonstrated that the selective targeting
of HDAC1/2 and/or HDAC3 may be advantageous for specific diseases.[10−15] For example, selective inhibitors of HDAC1/2 were more effective
at inducing apoptosis in B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia compared
to other B-cell malignances,[10] while cutaneous
T-cell lymphoma cell lines exhibited enhanced sensitivity to an HDAC3
selective inhibitor.[13] Additionally, each
of the individual corepressor complexes that incorporate HDAC1/2 and
3 has a distinct cellular function, and therefore, the selective targeting
of individual complexes may have potential therapeutic benefits in
differing clinical applications.[16,17]Investigating
novel approaches to target HDAC1/2 and 3, we previously
reported benzamide-based Von Hippel–Lindau (VHL) E3-ligase
proteolysis targeting chimeras (PROTACs) as an alternative strategy
to degrade, rather than inhibit, enzyme activity.[18] PROTACs consist of a ligand for the protein of interest
(POI), an E3-ligase ligand, and a linker that covalently bonds the
two ligands.[19] PROTACs recruit the endogenous
ubiquitination machinery via the E3-ligase to polyubiquitinate the
POI, tagging it for degradation by the proteasome.[20,21] PROTAC 1 (JPS004) was based on the benzamide inhibitor
CI-994, which exhibits selectivity for HDAC1/2 and 3 (Figure ).[18] We discovered a dependence on the linker length for HDAC1/2 and
3 degradation. Alkyl linkers consisting of 12 carbon atoms resulted
in HDAC1/2 and 3 degradation in HCT116 colon cancer cells, while alkyl
linkers of 6 carbon atoms, although inhibiting the HDAC1/CoREST complex
in vitro, showed no activity in cells. The VHL E3-ligase ligand,[21] in combination with the 12-atom alkyl linker,
resulted in the most effective degradation. We wanted to carry out
optimization studies of 1 with the aim of discovering
novel PROTACs with enhanced degradation of HDAC1/2 and 3 and with
differing selectivity profiles between these enzymes, allowing us
to study the effects of removing these enzymes from the cell via proteasome-mediated
degradation. To achieve this, we synthesized 23 novel heterobifunctional
molecules making rationalized modifications to the benzamide, linker,
and VHL E3-ligase ligand components (Chart ). As HDAC1/2 and 3 also play an important
role in the chromatin structure and transcription, for the first time,
we also wanted to test the ability of such PROTACs to regulate global
gene expression.
Figure 1
CI-994—HDAC1-, 2-, and 3-selective inhibitor. 1 (JPS004)—HDAC1, 2, and 3 protein degrader.[18] This study; optimization studies of 1 (JPS004)
on HDAC1, 2, and 3 degradation; and effects on global gene expression.
Chart 1
Compound Library Tested in This Study.
CI-994—HDAC1-, 2-, and 3-selective inhibitor. 1 (JPS004)—HDAC1, 2, and 3 protein degrader.[18] This study; optimization studies of 1 (JPS004)
on HDAC1, 2, and 3 degradation; and effects on global gene expression.
Results
We first wanted to investigate the effects of the
PROTAC linker
length and composition on their ability to induce HDAC1/2 and 3 degradation.
PROTACs were synthesized with alkyl linkers, alkyl linkers incorporating
one or two oxygen atoms, poly ethylene glycol (PEG) linkers, and a
piperazine substituted linker, with lengths ranging from 8 to 15 atoms
(Figure ) (see the
Experimental Section and the Supporting Information). Initially, each PROTAC was tested at 0.1, 1, and 10 μM in
HCT116 cells for 24 h; then, cell extracts were prepared and evaluated
for HDAC1/2 and 3 degradation by quantitative western blotting. For
direct comparison, novel PROTACs were screened side by side with our
original PROTAC 1 at a concentration of 10 μM,
which previously caused maximum HDAC1/2 and 3 degradation (Figure ) (blots available
in Supporting Information Figure S1). To
examine their ability to engage with HDAC enzymes in cells, we measured
the ability of novel PROTACs to regulate levels of histone H3 Lys
56 acetylation (H3K56ac), a known HDAC1/2 substrate,[22] which also provides an indirect indication of PROTAC cell
permeability (blots available in Supporting Information Figure S2).
Figure 2
(A) Compounds 2–13 were screened at
0.1, 1.0,
and 10 μM with HDAC1, 2, and 3 abundance determined by quantitative
western blotting with specific antibodies to HDAC1, 2, and 3 in HCT116
cells. CI-994 and 1 (JPS004) were also included at 10
μM. Error bars represent the standard deviation of two independent
biological replicates. Statistical analysis of the significance of
degradation for 1, 7, and 9 can be found in the Supporting Information (Figure S7). (B) Representative western blots demonstrating degradation
by 8 and 9 (JPS016). (C) H3K56ac blot and
fold change at 10 μM. Error bars represent the average of two
independent biological replicates.
(A) Compounds 2–13 were screened at
0.1, 1.0,
and 10 μM with HDAC1, 2, and 3 abundance determined by quantitative
western blotting with specific antibodies to HDAC1, 2, and 3 in HCT116
cells. CI-994 and 1 (JPS004) were also included at 10
μM. Error bars represent the standard deviation of two independent
biological replicates. Statistical analysis of the significance of
degradation for 1, 7, and 9 can be found in the Supporting Information (Figure S7). (B) Representative western blots demonstrating degradation
by 8 and 9 (JPS016). (C) H3K56ac blot and
fold change at 10 μM. Error bars represent the average of two
independent biological replicates.There was a stepwise increase in HDAC1 degradation with increasing
alkyl linker length from 9 to 11 carbon atoms (2, 3, and 4) at 1 and 10 μM (Figure A). The 11-atom linker, 4, exhibited HDAC1 degradation levels directly comparable
to those of the 12-atom linker 1 at 10 μM. The
same trend was also observed for HDAC2 with increasing alkyl linker
length (2, 3, and 4); however,
overall HDAC2 degradation was less pronounced in comparison to that
of HDAC1. HDAC3 levels for 2, 3, and 4 were not greatly reduced with these subtle changes in linker
length. H3K56ac levels also increased with increasing linker length
(Figure C—compare 2, 3, and 4), suggesting increased
cell permeability and/or HDAC engagement with increasing linker length.
The 11-atom linker 4 increased H3K56ac levels to the
same degree as the 12-atom linker 1 (Figure C). The 14-atom alkyl linker 5 exhibited comparable HDAC1 and HDAC2 degradation to the
shorter linkers (1, 3, and 4); however, there was only a modest increase in H3K56ac compared
to the shorter linkers, and we also noted solubility issues with 5.The incorporation of one oxygen atom into 12-atom
linkers 6 and 7 (JPS014) resulted in HDAC1
and HDAC2
degradation comparable to that of 1 and even enhanced
for 7 at 10 μM, while HDAC3 degradation for both
these PROTACs was also significantly enhanced compared to that of 1 surprisingly with the greater HDAC3 degradation at the lower
concertation of 1 μM. Compounds 6 and 7 also increased H3K56ac to comparable or greater levels than CI-994
and 1.The incorporation of two oxygen atoms into
a 12-atom linker, 8, resulted in a loss of HDAC3 degradation
compared to 6 and 7, while HDAC1 degradation
was comparable
to that of 1 but not maintained at 1 μM. However,
H3K56ac levels for 8 matched those of CI-994, suggesting
that this molecule, while not an effective degrader as other compounds
in the library, can still act as a class I HDACi. Incorporating 2
oxygen atoms into a 15-atom linker, 9 (JPS016), resulted
in enhanced degradation levels compared to those of 1 for both HDAC1 and HDAC3 even at 1 μM, while HDAC2 degradation
was marginally increased compared to 1 at 10 μM
(Figure A,B). This
degradation was mirrored with increased H3K56ac levels to the same
levels as CI-994 (Figure C).The compounds that incorporated PEG linkers, 10, 11, and 12, or a piperazine, 13,
resulted in an almost complete loss of HDAC1/2 degradation; HDAC3
degradation was also generally compromised. Additionally, compounds 10, 11, 12, and 13 did
not increase H3K56ac levels compared to the dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO)
control, suggesting that in HCT116 cells, these compounds do not act
as degraders or inhibitors; we speculate that these compounds may
not be reaching their class I HDAC targets in the nucleus. Overall,
PROTACs 7 and 9 enhanced degradation compared
to 1, with 9 showing enhanced degradation
for HDAC1 and HDAC3 at 1 μM.We next sought to investigate
substitutions on the benzamide HDAC
ligand of the PROTAC as it has been previously reported that substitutions
with a fluorine atom on the 4-position of the anilide can increase
selectivity for HDAC3,[23,24] while the introduction of a thiophene
heterocycle on the 5-position of the anilide can enhance HDAC1/2 inhibitory
potency and selectivity.[25] The 12-carbon
linker with a fluorine atom, 15, directly analogous to 1, exhibited enhanced HDAC3 degradation compared to 1; however, despite this increase, HDAC1 degradation was still
marginally elevated over HDAC3 at 10 μM (Figure ). For the 15-atom linker, 17, HDAC3 degradation was also enhanced at 1 μM compared to 1 and degradation levels for HDAC3 were now greater than those
of HDAC1 and HDAC2; however, significant HDAC1 degradation was also
still observed at 1 μM. The remaining fluorine-functionalized
molecules 14 and 16 exhibited no gains in
HDAC3 selectivity, with the PEG linker 16 exhibiting
only modest HDAC3 degradation at 10 μM. Compounds 14–17 did not increase H3K56ac to the same levels as 1 or
CI-994, with only 17 exhibiting a greater than twofold
increase in H3K56ac compared to the DMSO control (see Supporting Information Figure S2).
Figure 3
Compounds 14–20 were screened
at 0.1, 1.0, and 10 μM with HDAC1, 2, and 3 abundance determined
by quantitative western blotting with specific antibodies to HDAC1,
2, and 3 in HCT116 cells. CI-994 and 1 (JPS004) also
included at 10 μM. Error bars represent the standard deviation
of two independent biological replicates.
Compounds 14–20 were screened
at 0.1, 1.0, and 10 μM with HDAC1, 2, and 3 abundance determined
by quantitative western blotting with specific antibodies to HDAC1,
2, and 3 in HCT116 cells. CI-994 and 1 (JPS004) also
included at 10 μM. Error bars represent the standard deviation
of two independent biological replicates.Introduction of the thiophene moiety unfortunately did not result
in enhanced degradation potency of HDAC1/2 in 18, 19, or 20. However, 20, with the
PEG linker, did increase H3K56ac to levels similar to 1, suggesting that this molecule can act as an inhibitor (Figure S2). Apart from the PEG linker analogue, 20, we also noted that the thiophene-substituted analogues
exhibited exceptionally poor aqueous solubility. Overall, aside from
a modest enhancement in HDAC3 degradation levels comparatively to
HDAC1 and HDAC2 with 17, substitutions on the benzamide
did not influence degradation selectivity or potency greatly. This
perhaps suggests that formation of the ternary complex between the
HDAC and VHL E3-ligase is more important for degradation than the
affinity of the HDAC ligand in the PROTAC, which has been reported
in other PROTACs also utilizing lower affinity ligands for the POI.[26,27]We wanted to investigate modifying the VHL E3-ligand as it
had
been previously shown that modifying the VHL-E3 ligand connectivity
to the linker can modify the degradation selectivity profile of the
PROTAC overall (Figure ).[26] At 10 μM, 21 (JPS035)
exhibited comparable HDAC1 and HDAC2 degradation to 1, while 22 (JPS036) exhibited a reduction in HDAC1 and
HDAC2 degradation compared to 1. However, in addition,
the fluorinated cyclopropane VHL analogue, 22, reported
to have higher affinity for VHL-E3 ligase than the acetyl VHL analogue
in 21,[28] exhibited significantly
enhanced HDAC3 degradation compared to 1 at both 1 and
10 μM. This may suggest that recruitment of the VHL E3-ligase
with 22 is more favorable toward forming a ternary complex
with HDAC3 over HDAC1/2. Compound 21 increased H3K56ac
levels significantly but not to the same levels as 1,
while the more prominent HDAC3 degrader 22 did not alter
H3K56ac levels (Figure S2). Analogues 23 and 24 exhibited only modest degradation of
HDAC1, and these compounds did not increase H3K56ac levels greater
than the DMSO control (Figure S2).
Figure 4
(A) Compounds 21–24 were screened at 0.1, 1.0,
and 10 μM with HDAC1, 2, and 3 abundance determined by quantitative
western blotting with specific antibodies to HDAC1, 2, and 3 in HCT116
cells. CI-994 and 1 (JPS004) also included at 10 μM.
Error bars represent the standard deviation of two independent biological
replicates. Statistical analysis of the significance of degradation
for 21 and 22 can be found in the Supporting Information (Figure S7). (B) Representative
western blots demonstrating degradation by 5, 21 (JPS016), and 22 (JPS036).
(A) Compounds 21–24 were screened at 0.1, 1.0,
and 10 μM with HDAC1, 2, and 3 abundance determined by quantitative
western blotting with specific antibodies to HDAC1, 2, and 3 in HCT116
cells. CI-994 and 1 (JPS004) also included at 10 μM.
Error bars represent the standard deviation of two independent biological
replicates. Statistical analysis of the significance of degradation
for 21 and 22 can be found in the Supporting Information (Figure S7). (B) Representative
western blots demonstrating degradation by 5, 21 (JPS016), and 22 (JPS036).Physiochemical property predictions of 1–24 were calculated using SwissADME[29] and compared with the maximal degradation values observed for HDAC1,
HDAC2, and HDAC3 with 1–24 (Table S1). The majority of molecules that exhibited
≥50% maximal degradation of either HDAC1, HDAC2, or HDAC3 had
a clogP of ≥ 5.0 and topological polar surface
area (TPSA) values of ≤ 242.6 Å2 with 8 and 23 being the only exceptions. The remaining
molecules (exhibiting less than 50% maximal degradation of HDAC1,
HDAC2, or HDAC3) had clogP values of < 5.0 with
four exceptions, three of these exceptions exhibiting TPSA values
> 242.6 Å2. Overall, in designing future class
I HDAC
PROTACs, in terms of physiochemical properties, maintaining a clogP of ≥ 5.0 and TPSA of ≤ 242.6 Å2 may serve as potential guidelines.We next sought to
determine DC50 values for PROTACs 7, 9, and 22, which all exhibited
>50% degradation for HDAC1 and/or HDAC3 at 1 μM, while 21 was also chosen for direct comparison to structurally similar 22. 7 and 9 maintained submicromolar
DC50 values for HDAC1 and HDAC3, with 7 displaying
DC50 values of 0.91 ± 0.02 and 0.64 ± 0.03 μM
for HDAC1 and HDAC,3 respectively (Figure ); 9 exhibited near-identical
DC50 values of 0.55 ± 0.18 and 0.53 ± 0.13 μM
for HDAC1 and HDAC3, respectively. However, there was a notable observation
in the dose–response curves of 7 and 9 for HDAC3 (all containing an amide bond to the l-tert-leucine residue of VHL); these PROTACs did not exhibit
a standard dose–response curve for HDAC3 (Figure ). At concentrations greater
than 1 μM, HDAC3 abundance increased rather than decreased,
similar to the trend observed in the initial screening (Figure ). This looks like a hook effect
for HDAC3, while at concentrations greater than 1 μM, HDAC1/2
levels continue to decrease, suggesting that at higher concentrations,
HDAC3 degradation is compromised over HDAC1/2 degradation for these
PROTACs. Intriguingly, this hook effect on HDAC3 was lost with PROTACs 21 and 22 (all containing an ether bond to the
substituted phenyl substituent of VHL), with 22 exhibiting
much more selective HDAC3 degradation over HDAC1/2. 21 and 22 now exhibited greater maximal degradation for
HDAC3 over HDAC1, in comparison to 7 and 9, which exhibit greater maximal degradation for HDAC1 over HDAC3.
Notably, 22 exhibited a DC50 value of 0.44
± 0.03 μM for HDAC3 and a Dmax value of 77% for HDAC3,
with the least HDAC1 and HDAC2 degradation (Dmax values 41 and 18%,
respectively) compared to the other three PROTACs. One explanation
for the loss of the hook effect and enhanced selectivity for HDAC3
in 21 and 22 could be the differential orientation
of the recruited VHL E3-ligase in ternary complex formation compared
to 7 and 9.[26]
Figure 5
(A)
Dose response curves, DC50 and Dmax calculations
for compounds 7 (JPS014), 9 (JPS016), 21 (JPS035), and 22 (JPS036) in HCT116 cells
after 24 h by quantitative western blotting. IC50 values
also determined with the HDAC1-CoREST-LSD1, HDAC2-CoREST-LSD1, and
HDAC3-SMRT complexes (see Supporting Information Figure S8). DC50 and Dmax values represent the average
of two independent biological replicates, and IC50 values
represent the average of three replicates. (B) Representative blots
after 24 h in HCT116 cells with 9 (JPS016) and 22 (JPS036) (for all blots, see Supporting Information Figure S3).
(A)
Dose response curves, DC50 and Dmax calculations
for compounds 7 (JPS014), 9 (JPS016), 21 (JPS035), and 22 (JPS036) in HCT116 cells
after 24 h by quantitative western blotting. IC50 values
also determined with the HDAC1-CoREST-LSD1, HDAC2-CoREST-LSD1, and
HDAC3-SMRT complexes (see Supporting Information Figure S8). DC50 and Dmax values represent the average
of two independent biological replicates, and IC50 values
represent the average of three replicates. (B) Representative blots
after 24 h in HCT116 cells with 9 (JPS016) and 22 (JPS036) (for all blots, see Supporting Information Figure S3).We also determined the IC50 values for 7, 9, 21, and 22 and CI-994
with the purified HDAC1-LSD1-CoREST complex, HDAC2-LSD1-CoREST complex,
and HDAC3-SMRT complex (Figures and S8). CI-994 exhibited
IC50 values of 0.53 ± 0.09 μM for HDAC1 and
0.62 ± 0.07 μM for HDAC2 in the CoREST complex and 0.13
± 0.01 for the HDAC3-SMRT complex, comparable to the previous
literature.[30] The IC50 values
for 7 and 9 remained in the submicromolar
range for all three HDAC-containing complexes. However, surprisingly, 22 had a significant reduction in IC50 values compared
to CI-994 in all three HDAC-containing complexes. This loss of inhibition,
while maintaining submicromolar HDAC3 degradation, further supports
a hypothesis for the promotion of a more favorable ternary complex
between HDAC3 and 22.We investigated the effects
of 9 over 2, 4, 8, 15,
24, 36, and 48 h on HDAC1, 2, and 3 and levels H3K56ac at 1 μM
(see Supporting Information Figure S4)
and 10 μM (Figure A,B). Notable HDAC1/2 degradation was observed after only 4 h at
10 μM, and degradation continued to increase over the 48 h time
period, reaching Dmax values of 84% for HDAC1 and 51% for HDAC2 (Figure A). A twofold increase
in H3K56ac was observed compared to the DMSO control after 8 h, reaching
a maximum fold change after 36 h (Figure B). At 1 μM, a similar trend was observed
for HDAC1/2 degradation (Figure S4); however,
maximal degradation was achieved after 24 h, and at 36 and 48 h, HDAC1/2
levels increased, possibly indicating inactivation of 9 at 1 μM by metabolism or other pathways. At 10 μM, over
24 h, little degradation was observed for HDAC3, as previously seen
due to the hook effect (Figure A). However, at 36 and 48 h, HDAC3 degradation reached approximately
50%; we speculate that the metabolism of 9 may reduce
its concentration, whereby the hook effect is negated for HDAC3. At
1 μM, HDAC3 degradation was apparent from 4 h, and degradation
reached maximum levels after 15 h (Figure S4). This was followed by HDAC3 levels starting to increase after 24
h, again supporting a possible time-dependent inactivation of 9 at 1 μM.
Figure 6
(A) HDAC1, 2, and 3 degradation levels over
48 h with 9 (JPS016) at 10 μM (B) H3K56ac with 9 (JPS016)
at 10 μM and fold change over 48 h; error bars represent the
standard deviation of two independent biological replicates. (C) Representative
LSD1 and SIN3A HDAC1/2 complex partner blots after 24 and 48 h with 1 (JPS004), 7 (JPS014), and 9 (JPS016),
performed in three independent biological replicates (see Supporting Information Figure S6).
(A) HDAC1, 2, and 3 degradation levels over
48 h with 9 (JPS016) at 10 μM (B) H3K56ac with 9 (JPS016)
at 10 μM and fold change over 48 h; error bars represent the
standard deviation of two independent biological replicates. (C) Representative
LSD1 and SIN3A HDAC1/2 complex partner blots after 24 and 48 h with 1 (JPS004), 7 (JPS014), and 9 (JPS016),
performed in three independent biological replicates (see Supporting Information Figure S6).To confirm that degradation was occurring via the proteasome
and
VHL E3-ligase, we synthesized a modified compound of 9 with the inactive VHL diasteroisomer, which as expected compromised
degradation (see the Supporting Information, compound 25 and Figure S5). We also performed control
experiments to investigate the effects on degradation in the presence
of the proteasome inhibitor MG132 and competition experiments with
the VHL ligand itself (Figure S5). The
proteasome inhibitor alone modestly affected HDAC3 levels; however,
despite this, degradation was still compromised in all other control
experiments, providing strong evidence that 9 is recruiting
the VHL E3-ligase to degrade HDAC1, 2, and 3 via the proteasome.As class I HDACs exist in multiprotein corepressor complexes in
vivo, we next wanted to determine the effects of PROTACs on components
of these complexes.[1] HDAC1/2 and 3 all
contribute structurally to the integrity of their respective complexes;[31,32] we therefore hypothesized that loss of the HDAC following degradation
should also effect the stability of their binding partners. PROTACs 1, 7, and 9 were screened for their
effects on lysine-specific demethylase 1 (LSD1), a component of the
CoREST complex,[33] and SIN3A central component
of the SIN3 complex. After 24 h, modest reductions in LSD1 levels
were observed for 9; however, after 48 h, when HDAC1/2
degradation is also more prominent, LSD1 was significantly reduced
with all three PROTACs in comparison to the DMSO and CI-994 controls.
The most potent HDAC1/2 degrader, 9, reduced LSD1 levels
to approximately 40% of controls. After 24 h with 7 and 9, SIN3A levels were reduced to 50 and 60% abundance, respectively
at 10 μM; this was maintained after 48 h. However, we were surprised
to observe that SIN3A levels were also significantly reduced in the
presence of the inhibitor CI-994 especially after 48 h to near–same
levels as PROTACs, suggesting that the effects are due to a combination
of both HDAC inhibition and ubiquitin-dependent degradation pathways.The effects of novel PROTACs on cell viability were investigated
with 1, 7, 9, 21, and 22 using CellTiter-Glo and flow cytometry (Figure ). After 24 h, 7 and 9, the more potent HDAC1/2 degraders, had
the highest percentage of cells in the sub-G1 phase, indicating substantial
cell death when treated with PROTACs. After 48 h, 9 had
the highest percentage of cells in the sub-G1 phase, followed equally
by 1, 7, and Cl-994. A similar trend was
observed in the CellTiter-Glo assay after 48 h with cells showing
the greatest sensitivity to treatment with 9, 1, and 7 exhibiting EC50 values of 5.2 ±
0.6, 4.3 ± 0.5, and 7.3 ± 0.5 μM, respectively, with
the inhibitor CI-994 exhibiting an EC50 value of 8.4 ±
0.8 μM. Interestingly, the HDAC3-selective PROTAC 22, DC50 0.44 ± 0.03 μM and Dmax = 77% for HDAC3,
and PROTAC 21 had little effects on cell viability (Figure ). This implies that
targeting HDAC1/2 is more important toward compromising cell viability
in HCT116 cells than HDAC3. We also noted that at 10 μM, 21 exhibits effective HDAC1/2 and 3 degradation at the 24
h time point (Figure ) but does not compromise cell viability. However, in terms of DC50,21 is approximately a seven- and fourfold
less-potent degrader of HDAC1 (20 DC50 = 3.51
μM, HDAC1) than 9 and 7, respectively.
We screened the inactive VHL diasteroisomer of 9 in flow
cytometry with 9 and CI-994 (Figure S9) to further probe the differences between inhibition and
degradation. The population of cells in the sub-G1 phase was equal
between 9 and the inactive VHL diasteroisomer of 9 after 24 and 48 h. This suggests that inhibition with 9 is as effective in compromising cell viability and likely
reflects that 9 and presumably the inactive VHL diastereoisomer
of 9 are also effective submicromolar inhibitors of HDAC1,
HDAC2, and HDAC3 (Figure ).
Figure 7
CellTiter-Glo and flow cytometry with CI-994, 1 (JPS004), 7 (JPS014), 9 (JPS016), 21 (JPS035),
and 22 (JPS036). CellTiter-Glo experiments were performed
with four independent biological replicates and EC50 values
represent the average of the four replicates. Error bars in the flow
cytometry experiments represent the standard deviation of two independent
biological replicates.
CellTiter-Glo and flow cytometry with CI-994, 1 (JPS004), 7 (JPS014), 9 (JPS016), 21 (JPS035),
and 22 (JPS036). CellTiter-Glo experiments were performed
with four independent biological replicates and EC50 values
represent the average of the four replicates. Error bars in the flow
cytometry experiments represent the standard deviation of two independent
biological replicates.HDAC1/2 and 3 regulate
global gene expression by manipulating histone
acetylation levels across the genome. To examine the impact of PROTAC-mediated
degradation on the HCT116 transcriptome, we performed RNA-seq with
CI-994, 1, 7, 9, 21, and 22. Differential gene analysis (Figure A) revealed substantial transcriptional changes
resulting from the majority of the PROTACs used (p-adjusted value of < 0.01 and a log2 fold change of 1). PROTACs 1, 7, and 9 all displayed a striking
phenotype, akin to CI-994. Differentially expressed gene (DEG) sets
were subjected to gene ontology (GO) analysis. PROTAC treatment elicits
a range of transcriptional changes to key cellular processes, including
enrichment in cell cycle, apoptosis, and histone modification pathways
(Figure B). The pronounced
change in cell cycle-related genes is highlighted by the prominent
downregulation of core regulatory factors, such as E2F1, CDK1, and
cyclin E1, while there was upregulation of cell cycle inhibitors including
p21 (CDKN1A) and p15 (CDKN2B) shown in Figure C. These changes are consistent between CI994, 1, 7, and 9, showing that both inhibition
and degradation produce a strong antiproliferative phenotype in cancer
cells. In addition, genes associated with apoptosis were also found
to be significantly enriched (Figure S10, see the Supporting Information), including proapoptotic TP63 and PMAIP1
and DHSRS2, which has been previously characterized in the promotion
of HDACi-mediated apoptosis through the attenuation of MDM2-dependent
p53 degradation.[34,35] There was a distinct correlation
between the potency of degradation and the number of DEGs (compare Figure A with Figure D). PROTAC 9,
identified as the most potent HDAC1/2 degrader and cytotoxic compound
by flow cytometry, exhibited the greatest level of differential gene
expression with 2464 and 1477 up- and downregulated DEGs, respectively.
Compared to CI-994, both 7 and 9 appear
to show an increased number of DEGs, consistent with their ability
to promote apoptosis (Figure D). In contrast, the less-potent HDAC1/2 and 3 degrader 21 showed approximately 10-fold less DEGs. However, perhaps
even more interestingly, the HDAC3-selective PROTAC 22 (Figure A) showed
the least effects on DEGs (Figures D and S10), indicating that
HDAC1/2 compexes are the dominant HDAC isoforms in this cell type.
Despite being relatively few, the majority of DEGs for 22 are upregulated, suggesting that HDAC3, as part of the NCoR/SMRT
complex, operates as a classical corepressor complex, while HDAC1/2-containing
complexes play roles in both gene repression and active gene transcription.
Figure 8
RNA-sequencing
analysis in HCT116 cells reveals notable changes
in gene expression following CI-994 or PROTAC treatment. (A) Volcano
plots characterizing DEG patterns observed in HCT116 cells treated
with the indicated PROTACs for 24 h. Performed with three independent
biological replicates for each PROTAC or control. Significant DEGs
were distinguished as exhibiting a p-adjusted value
of < 0.01 and a log2 fold change of > 1 (fold change
> 2). (B) Enrichment of key GO terms resulting from PROTAC treatment.
(C) Heatmap of integral cell cycle regulator genes. (D) Number of
significant DEGs following treatment with indicated PROTAC.
RNA-sequencing
analysis in HCT116 cells reveals notable changes
in gene expression following CI-994 or PROTAC treatment. (A) Volcano
plots characterizing DEG patterns observed in HCT116 cells treated
with the indicated PROTACs for 24 h. Performed with three independent
biological replicates for each PROTAC or control. Significant DEGs
were distinguished as exhibiting a p-adjusted value
of < 0.01 and a log2 fold change of > 1 (fold change
> 2). (B) Enrichment of key GO terms resulting from PROTAC treatment.
(C) Heatmap of integral cell cycle regulator genes. (D) Number of
significant DEGs following treatment with indicated PROTAC.
Discussion
Through modifications
to the linker and VHL ligand of benzamide-based
class I HDAC PROTACS, we have discovered 7 (JPS014), 9 (JPS016), and 22 (JPS036) submicromolar degraders
of HDAC1 and/or HDAC3. Subtle alterations in the VHL ligand and attachment
to the linker can have significant effects on the degradation profile
of these PROTACs. For example, 7 and 9 exhibit
the hook effect for HDAC3, while 21 and 22 exhibit a standard dose response curve for HDAC3. We unexpectedly
found that substitution of the acetyl group for a fluorinated cyclopropane
ring in VHL led to an HDAC3-selective degrader 22, although
loss of HDAC3 alone did not cause significant cell death or changes
in the transcriptome.The more potent HDAC1/2 degraders 7 and 9 compromise LSD1 stability as part of
the CoREST complex, highlighting
a potential advantage to degrading class I HDACs, in addition to inhibition
in situ. We also observed a strong correlation between HDAC1/2 degradation,
induced cell death, and differential gene expression. PROTAC 9 appears to be improved in comparison to 1 with
regards to changes in the transcriptome and apoptosis (Figures and 8D). Both 7 and 9 showed a striking cell
arrest phenotype when added to HCT116 cells with a significant reduction
in proteins that promote G1/S transition, such E2F1, cyclin E1, and
CDK2, with a concomitant increase in p21 (CDKN1A) and p15 (CDKN2B),
similar to CI-994.While HDAC3 and HDAC6 degraders have previously
been reported in
the literature,[23,36−39] degraders of HDAC1 are less common.
As far as we are aware, 7 and 9 are the
first submicromolar degraders of HDAC1 reported. In a recent chemoproteomic
study reported by Xiong et al. with PROTAC design based on pan-HDACi,
HDAC3 and HDAC6 were found to be the most commonly degraded HDAC enzymes,
with HDAC1/2 and HDAC9 being the least.[36] Complementary to this study, we have demonstrated through a focused
VHL-recruiting benzamide PROTAC library that effective HDAC1/2 degraders
can be obtained. We anticipate that there will be great interest in
more potent HDAC1/2 degraders as potential therapeutics and as reagents
to unlock the diverse function of different corepressor complexes.
We are optimistic that a degradation strategy can be harnessed to
target individual class I HDAC complexes selectively and thus generate
improved therapeutics that retain the benefits of HDACi activity but
with much reduced side effects.
Chemistry
Heterobifunctional
molecules 1–20 were prepared
in five steps (Scheme ). Monoprotected linkers (37a–e, 39a–c, 44a–b, 45, 47, and 51) were conjugated to substituted benzamides 35a–c by amide coupling with hexafluorophosphate azabenzotriazole tetramethyl
uronium (HATU). For the full synthesis and characterization of linkers
and substituted benzamides, see the Supporting Information. The carboxyl protecting group in intermediates 52a–t was removed by base saponification or hydrogenolysis
to yield intermediates 53a–t, which were conjugated
to commercially available VH_032 amine via HATU-mediated
amide coupling to give 54a–t. The Boc protecting
groups in intermediates 54a–t were removed in
trifluoroacetic acid (TFA)/dichloromethane (DCM), and after work-up,
residual TFA was removed using a carbonate-based solid support resin,
and final compounds 1–20 were purified by semipreparative
high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) or column chromatography.
Heterobifunctional molecules 21 and 22 were
prepared in four steps (Scheme ), the main difference to the preparation of 1–20 being a substitution reaction between 56 and VH_032 phenol in the preparation of 21 and 56 and VH_101 phenol in the preparation of 22. Compounds 23 and 24 were prepared
by amide coupling via HATU with VH_032 phenol-alkylC4-amine and 58 and 49b, respectively, followed
by Boc removal.
Scheme 1
Compounds 1–20
Reagents
and conditions: (a)
HATU, N,N-diisopropylethylamine
(DIPEA), dimethylformamide (DMF), r.t., overnight; (b) H2, Pd/C (10% weight), methanol (MeOH) or tetrahydrofuran (THF), r.t.,
overnight; (c) NaOH (0.4 M), MeOH or MeOH/DCM = 1:9, r.t., 4–16
h; (d) VH_032 amine, HATU, DIPEA, DMF, r.t., overnight;
(e) TFA, DCM, r.t., 4 h; and (f) MP-carbonate resin, MeOH, r.t., 2
h.
All reagents were purchased
from commercially available sources and used without further purification. VH_032 amine, VH_032 phenol, VH_101 phenol, and VH_032 phenol-alkylC4-amine were purchased from
Tocris Bioscience. Preparative column chromatography and flash column
chromatography using a Biotage Isolera purification system were both
performed using silica gel 60 (230–400 mesh). Semipreparative
HPLC was performed on a Thermo Fisher Ultimate 3000 system with Chromeleon
software on a Phenomenex Luna C18 column. The mobile phases were water
and acetonitrile with a flow rate of 10 mL/min, 45 min gradient. NMR
spectra were acquired using a Bruker 400 (1H, 400 MHz; 13C 101 MHz) instrument at ambient temperature using a deuterated
solvent as a reference. High-resolution mass spectra (HRMS) were recorded
on a Water Aquity XEVO Q ToF machine and measured in m/z. Analytical UPLC-MS data were collected on a
Xevo G2-XS QToF mass spectrometer (Waters) coupled to an Acquity LC
system (Waters) using an Acquity UPLC BEH C18 column (130 Å,
1.7 μm, 2.1 × 50 mm, Waters). The mobile phases were water
and acetonitrile with a flow rate of 0.6 mL/min, 10 min gradient.
The purities of all final compounds were over 95% as determined by
LC–MS analysis monitored at 260 nm and 310 nm. HPLC traces
for 1 (JPS004), 7 (JPS014), 9 (JPS016), 21 (JPS035), and 22 (JPS036) are included in
the Supporting Information. All intermediates
and final compounds were fully assigned by 1H and 13C NMR using 2D NMR spectra (see the Supporting Information for full analysis). See the Supporting Information for synthetic schemes and general procedures
for the preparation of carboxylic acid linker intermediates (37a–e, 39a–c, 44a–b, 45, 47, and 51) and HDACi
intermediates (35a–c).
General Procedure for Preparing
Compounds 1–20 as Described in Scheme , Showing the Synthesis of 7 (JPS014) as an Example
To a solution of 47 (130.0 mg, 0.403 mmol) in dry
dimethylformamide (DMF) (4 mL) at 0 °C, N,N-diisopropylethylamine (DIPEA) (0.18 mL, 1.03 mmol) and
HATU (183.9 mg, 0.484 mmol) were added. The reaction mixture was stirred
for 15 min, after which a solution of amine 35a (110.0
mg, 0.336 mmol) in DMF (2 mL) was added slowly, and the resultant
solution was stirred at room temperature overnight. The reaction mixture
was diluted in EtOAc (30 mL) and then washed with sat. NaHCO3 (2 × 15 mL) and sat. NaCl (2 × 15 mL). The organic layer
was dried over MgSO4, filtered, and concentrated in vacuo
to give the corresponding crude, which was chromatographically purified
(0–100% EtOAc in hexane) to afford 52g (157.4
mg, 0.247 mmol, 73% yield) as a colorless tar.To a solution
of the benzyl ester-protected HDACi-linker conjugate 52g (120.2 mg, 0.190 mmol) in tetrahydrofuran (THF), Pd/C (10% wt) was
added. The reaction flask was filled with nitrogen and evacuated three
times using a Schlenk line, before a balloon of hydrogen was added,
and the resultant mixture was stirred vigorously overnight. The reaction
mixture was filtered through a glass microfiber filter paper, and
the filtrate was concentrated in vacuo to afford 53g (105.6
mg, 0.189 mmol, 99% yield) as a white solid.To a solution of
HDACi-linker acid 53g (52.8 mg, 0.097
mmol) in dry DMF (1 mL) at 0 °C, DIPEA (0.042 mL, 0.239 mmol)
and HATU (44.4 mg, 0.117 mmol) were added. The reaction mixture was
stirred for 15 min, after which a solution of (4R)-3-methyl-l-valyl-4-hydroxy-N-[[4-(4-methyl-5-thiazolyl)phenyl]methyl]-l-prolinamide hydrochloride (VH_032 amine, 40.0
mg, 0.080 mmol) in DMF (1 mL) was added slowly, and the resultant
solution was stirred at room temperature for 16 h. The reaction mixture
was diluted in EtOAc (10 mL) and then washed with sat. NaHCO3 (2 × 5 mL) and sat. NaCl (2 × 5 mL). The organic layer
was dried over MgSO4, filtered, and concentrated in vacuo
to give the corresponding crude, which was chromatographically purified
(0–10% MeOH in DCM) to afford 54g (72.9 mg, 0.076
mmol, 95% yield) as a pale-yellow/white solid.TFA (0.4 mL)
was added to a stirring solution of Boc-protected
PROTAC 54g (52.8 mg, 0.097 mmol) in DCM (2 mL), and the
resulting reaction mixture was stirred at room temperature for 4 h.
The reaction mixture was concentrated in vacuo, dissolved in MeOH
(2 mL), agitated in MP-carbonate resin (3.02 mmol/g loading capacity)
for 3 h, and then filtered. The filtrate was concentrated in vacuo,
and the resulting solid was dissolved in MeCN/H2O (1:1)
and lyophilized to remove residual TFA impurities, affording 7 (50.6 mg, 0.059 mmol, 93% yield) as a pale-yellow solid.
Prior to biological evaluation, the PROTAC was further purified by
semipreparative HPLC (5–95% MeCN in H2O, 260 nm,
45 min gradient).
Synthesis of Intermediate 56 as Described in Scheme
To a solution
of acid linker 55 (332.6 mg, 1.19 mmol) in dry DMF (4
mL) at 0 °C, DIPEA (0.48 mL, 2.75 mmol) and HATU (522.7 mg, 1.37
mmol) were added. The reaction mixture was stirred for 15 min, after
which a solution of 35a (300.0 mg, 0.92 mmol) in DMF
(2 mL) was added slowly, and the resultant solution was stirred at
room temperature overnight. The reaction mixture was diluted in EtOAc
(40 mL) and then washed with sat. NaHCO3 (2 × 20 mL)
and sat. NaCl (2 × 20 mL). The organic layer was dried over MgSO4, filtered, and concentrated in vacuo to give the corresponding
crude, which was purified by column chromatography (0–50% EtOAc
in hexane) to give 56 (207.0 mg, 0.35 mmol, 38% yield)
as a white solid.
A mixture of
(2S,4R)-1-((S)-2-acetamido-3,3-dimethylbutanoyl)-4-hydroxy-N-(2-hydroxy-4-(4-methylthiazol-5-yl)benzyl)pyrrolidine-2-carboxamide
(VH_032 phenol, 17.2 mg, 0.034 mmol), 56 (20.0 mg, 0.034 mmol), and K2CO3 (3 equiv)
in dry DMF (0.8 mL) was stirred at 70 °C overnight. The reaction
mixture was concentrated in vacuo to give the corresponding crude,
which was purified by column chromatography (0–10% MeOH in
DCM) to afford 57a (17.8 mg, 0.018 mmol, 52% yield) as
a white solid.TFA (0.4 mL) was added to a stirring solution
of Boc-protected PROTAC 57a (17.8 mg, 0.018 mmol) in
DCM (2 mL), and the resulting reaction mixture was stirred at room
temperature for 4 h. The reaction mixture was concentrated in vacuo,
dissolved in MeOH (2 mL), agitated in MP-carbonate resin (3.02 mmol/g
loading capacity) for 3 h, and then filtered. The filtrate was concentrated
in vacuo, and the resulting solid was dissolved in MeCN/H2O (1:1) and lyophilized to remove residual TFA impurities, affording 21 (16.1 mg, 0.018 mmol, 99% yield) as a white solid.
A mixture of
(2S,4R)-1-((S)-2-(1-fluorocyclopropane-1-carboxamido)-3,3-dimethylbutanoyl)-4-hydroxy-N-(2-hydroxy-4-(4-methylthiazol-5-yl)benzyl)pyrrolidine-2-carboxamide
(VH_101 phenol, 18.6 mg, 0.034 mmol), 56 (20.0 mg, 0.034 mmol), and K2CO3 (3 equiv)
in dry DMF (0.8 mL) was stirred at 70 °C overnight. The reaction
was concentrated in vacuo to give the corresponding crude, which was
purified by column chromatography (1–10% MeOH in DCM) to afford 57b (24.2 mg, 0.022 mmol, 64% yield) as a white solid.TFA (0.4 mL) was added to a stirring solution of Boc-protected PROTAC 57b (24.2 mg, 0.022 mmol) in DCM (2 mL), and the resulting
reaction mixture was stirred at room temperature for 4 h. The reaction
mixture was concentrated in vacuo, dissolved in MeOH (2 mL), agitated
in MP-carbonate resin (3.02 mmol/g loading capacity) for 3 h, and
then filtered. The filtrate was concentrated in vacuo and then purified
by column chromatography (2–5% MeOH in DCM) to afford 22 (11.7 mg, 0.012 mmol, 57% yield) as a white solid.
General Procedure for Preparing Compounds 23 and 24 as Described in Scheme , Showing Synthesis of 23 (JPS014)
as
an Example
To a solution of HDACi-linker acid 58 (19.7 mg, 0.043 mmol) in dry DMF (1 mL) at 0 °C, DIPEA (0.019
mL, 0.109 mmol) and HATU (18.0 mg, 0.047 mmol) were added. The reaction
mixture was stirred for 15 min, after which a solution of (2S,4R)-1-((S)-2-acetamido-3,3-dimethylbutanoyl)-N-(2-(4-aminobutoxy)-4-(4-methylthiazol-5-yl)benzyl)-4-hydroxypyrrolidine-2-carboxamide
(VH032 phenol-alkylC4-amine, 24.0 mg, 0.034 mmol) in
DMF (1 mL) was added slowly, and the resultant solution was stirred
at room temperature overnight. The reaction mixture was diluted in
EtOAc (10 mL) and then washed with sat. NaHCO3 (2 ×
5 mL) and sat. NaCl (2 × 5 mL). The organic layer was dried over
MgSO4, filtered, and concentrated in vacuo to give the
corresponding crude, which was purified by column chromatography (2–10%
MeOH in DCM) to afford 59a (28.5 mg, 0.028 mmol, 83%
yield) as a white solid.TFA (0.4 mL) was added to a stirring
solution of Boc-protected PROTAC 59a (22.9 mg, 0.023
mmol) in DCM (2 mL), and the resulting reaction mixture was stirred
at room temperature for 4 h. The reaction mixture was concentrated
in vacuo, dissolved in MeOH (2 mL), agitated in MP-carbonate resin
(3.02 mmol/g loading capacity) for 3 h, and then filtered. The filtrate
was concentrated in vacuo, and the resulting solid was dissolved in
MeCN/H2O (1:1) and lyophilized to remove residual TFA impurities,
affording 23 (20.2 mg, 0.022 mmol 97% yield) as a pale-yellow
solid.
HCT116 human colon carcinoma
cells were grown in Dulbecco’s modified Eagle medium (GIBCO,
41965-039) supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (Sigma) and 1X
glutamine/penicillin/streptomycin (GIBCO, 10378–016). This
cell line was incubated at 37 °C with 5% CO2. Cells
were treated with PROTACs (0.01–10 μM) alongside HDACi
CI-994 (10 μM).
Western Blotting
HCT116 cells were
seeded into 6-well
plates (4 × 105 cells/well for 24 h, 2 × 105 cells/well for 48 h) for 24 h and then treated with DMSO
or compounds at the indicated concentrations in fresh medium (5 mL
total). After desired treatment time, the cells were harvested and
then lysed in lysis buffer (50 mM Tris-HCl, 150 mM NaCl, 0.5% NP-40,
0.5% Triton X-100) supplemented with a protease inhibitor (Sigma,
P8340). The suspension was incubated on ice for 30 min and centrifuged
(18,000 rcf, 15 min, 4 °C); then, the supernatant was collected,
and protein concentrations were quantified via Bradford Assay using
Protein Assay Dye Reagent Concentrate (BIO-RAD). For histone extraction,
an equal volume of 0.4 N H2SO4 was added to
the pellets, and the extracts were placed at 4 °C overnight and
centrifuged (18,000 rcf, 15 min, 4 °C), and then, the supernatant
(histone extract) was collected. Western blots were run on NuPAGE
4–12% bis–Tris gels with 30 μg of protein or 10
μL of acid-extracted histone loaded per lane, using NuPAGE LDS
sample buffer (4×). PageRuler Plus Prestained Ladder was used
for size standards. After gel electrophoresis at 140 V for 90 min,
the separated proteins were transferred onto a nitrocellulose membrane
at 30 V for 60 min. The membranes were probed with primary antibodies
(see the Supporting Information) for 60–90
min. Blots were developed with complimentary IRDye-conjugated secondary
antibodies, and the bands were visualized using an Odyssey infrared
imaging system. Image processing and band intensity quantification
were performed using Image Studio Lite.
CellTiter-Glo 2.0 Cell
Viability Assay
Exponentially
growing HCT116 cells (ATCC) were seeded at 3000 cells/well in 100
μL medium into white, flat-bottomed, 96-well tissue culture
plates (655083, Greiner Bio-One GmbH, Frickenhausen, Germany). The
plates were incubated for 24 h and then treated with a range of concentrations
of compounds (0.1–100 μM) in fresh medium, in triplicate
wells, at 1 or 0.1% DMSO (vehicle control = 1% or 0.1% DMSO) for 24,
48, or 72 h, in a total volume of 100 μL. CellTiter-Glo 2.0
Reagent (Promega UK Ltd, G9242) was equilibrated to room temperature
and added to the wells in a ratio of 1 volume reagent:5 volumes medium.
Background luminescence was determined using medium alone plus reagent.
The plates were shaken on an orbital shaker for 2 min to induce cell
lysis and then incubated in the dark at room temperature for 10 min
to stabilize the luminescent signal. Luminescence was captured on
a CLARIOstar plate reader (BMG Labtech Ltd, UK) at 22 °C to give
relative luminescence units and analyzed using BMG Labtech software.
EC50 values were calculated by nonlinear regression (Hill
plot) and log (inhibitor) versus response—variable slopes (four
parameters) using GraphPad Prism 9 software. Each compound dose response
was repeated as four independent biological replicates (n = 4).
Apoptosis Flow Cytometry Assay
HCT116 cells were seeded
(5 × 105 cells/plate) into 6 cm tissue culture plates
for 24 h and then treated with 10 μM compounds (with 0.1% DMSO
vehicle) or 0.1% DMSO control in fresh medium (5 mL total). The cells
were then exposed to the compounds (10 μM) for 24 or 48 h. To
harvest the cells, the medium was transferred from each sample plate
to 15 mL centrifuge tubes. Each well was washed with 1 mL of phosphate-buffered
saline (PBS) and the PBS was transferred to the corresponding 15 mL
centrifuge tube. The plates were trypsinized, 2 mL of medium was added,
and the cells and medium were transferred to the corresponding 15
mL centrifuge tubes. The harvested cells were pelleted by centrifugation
(200g, 5 min, 4 °C), washed with 1 mL PBS, and
then pelleted again by centrifugation (200g, 5 min,
4 °C). The supernatant was discarded, and the pellets resuspended
in 1 mL of 70% ethanol (ice-cold) to fix the cells. Samples were stored
at 4 °C and analyzed within two weeks. PBS (1 mL) was added to
each sample tube containing cells fixed in 70% ethanol. The cells
were pelleted by centrifugation (200g, 5 min, 4 °C),
and the PBS wash was repeated. The supernatant was discarded, and
the pellet was resuspended in 50 μL of RNase A (1 μg/mL,
Thermo Scientific, EN0531) and left at room temperature for 10 min
to digest contaminating RNA. A total of 500 μL of PI stain (50
μg/mL, Invitrogen, P3566) was added to each tube, and the tubes
were incubated in the dark, at room temperature, for 30 min. Results
were acquired on a BD FACSCanto II flow cytometer and analyzed using
BD FACSdiva software. Sub-G1 population was calculated as a percentage
of total cell population. Two independent biological replicates were
performed.
RNA Sequencing (Seq)
RNA-seq analysis
was performed
in HCT116 cells treated with PROTACs (JPS004, JPS014, JPS016, JPS035,
and JPS036) for 24 h at 10 μM concentration. Total RNA was isolated
using a Tri-reagent RNA miniprep kit (Zymogen; R2053), before RNA
integrity, size, and purity were assessed using an Agilent Bioanalyzer.
Library preparation and sequencing were performed by Novogene, using
a NovaSeq 6000 PE150 platform at a read depth of 20 million. For bioinformatics
analysis, see the Supporting Information. RNA-seq data from the study was deposited at the GEO database (GSE197985).
Authors: Stacey M Frumm; Zi Peng Fan; Kenneth N Ross; Jeremy R Duvall; Supriya Gupta; Lynn VerPlank; Byung-Chul Suh; Edward Holson; Florence F Wagner; William B Smith; Ronald M Paranal; Christopher F Bassil; Jun Qi; Giovanni Roti; Andrew L Kung; James E Bradner; Nicola Tolliday; Kimberly Stegmaier Journal: Chem Biol Date: 2013-05-23
Authors: Jay H Kalin; Muzhou Wu; Andrea V Gomez; Yun Song; Jayanta Das; Dawn Hayward; Nkosi Adejola; Mingxuan Wu; Izabela Panova; Hye Jin Chung; Edward Kim; Holly J Roberts; Justin M Roberts; Polina Prusevich; Jeliazko R Jeliazkov; Shourya S Roy Burman; Louise Fairall; Charles Milano; Abdulkerim Eroglu; Charlotte M Proby; Albena T Dinkova-Kostova; Wayne W Hancock; Jeffrey J Gray; James E Bradner; Sergio Valente; Antonello Mai; Nicole M Anders; Michelle A Rudek; Yong Hu; Byungwoo Ryu; John W R Schwabe; Andrea Mattevi; Rhoda M Alani; Philip A Cole Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2018-01-04 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Blake E Smith; Stephen L Wang; Saul Jaime-Figueroa; Alicia Harbin; Jing Wang; Brian D Hamman; Craig M Crews Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2019-01-10 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Natsuko Macabuag; William Esmieu; Perla Breccia; Rebecca Jarvis; Wesley Blackaby; Ovadia Lazari; Liudvikas Urbonas; Maria Eznarriaga; Rachel Williams; Annelieke Strijbosch; Rhea Van de Bospoort; Kim Matthews; Cole Clissold; Tammy Ladduwahetty; Huw Vater; Patrick Heaphy; Douglas G Stafford; Hong-Jun Wang; John E Mangette; George McAllister; Vahri Beaumont; Thomas F Vogt; Hilary A Wilkinson; Elizabeth M Doherty; Celia Dominguez Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2022-09-13 Impact factor: 8.039