| Literature DB >> 36232997 |
Aleksandra Sochacka-Ćwikła1, Marcin Mączyński1, Żaneta Czyżnikowska2, Benita Wiatrak3, Izabela Jęśkowiak3, Albert Czerski4, Andrzej Regiec1.
Abstract
Cancer is a large group of diseases in which the rapid proliferation of abnormal cells generally leads to metastasis to surrounding tissues or more distant ones through the lymphatic and blood vessels, making it the second leading cause of death worldwide. The main challenge in designing a modern anticancer therapy is to develop selective compounds that exploit specific molecular targets. In this work, novel oxazolo[5,4-d]pyrimidine derivatives were designed, synthesized, and evaluated in vitro for their cytotoxic activity against a panel of four human cancer cell lines (lung carcinoma: A549, breast adenocarcinoma: MCF7, metastatic colon adenocarcinoma: LoVo, primary colon adenocarcinoma: HT29), along with their P-glycoprotein-inhibitory ability and pro-apoptotic activity. These oxazolo[5,4-d]pyrimidine derivatives, which are structurally similar to nucleic purine bases in general, are characterized by the presence of a pharmacologically favorable isoxazole substituent at position 2 and aliphatic amino chains at position 7 of the condensed heterocyclic system. In silico analysis of the obtained compounds identified their potent inhibitory activity towards human vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2 (VEGFR-2). Molecular docking was performed to assess the binding mode of new derivatives to the VEGFR-2 active site. Then, their physicochemical, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacological properties (i.e., ADME-administration, distribution, metabolism, and excretion) were also predicted to assess their druglikeness. In particular, compound 3g (with a 3-(N,N-dimethylamino)propyl substituent) was found to be the most potent against the HT29 cell line, with a 50% cytotoxic concentration (CC50) of 58.4 µM, exceeding the activity of fluorouracil (CC50 = 381.2 μM) and equaling the activity of cisplatin (CC50 = 47.2 µM), while being less toxic to healthy human cells (such as normal human dermal fibroblasts (NHDFs)) than these reference drugs. The results suggest that compound 3g is a potentially promising candidate for the treatment of primary colorectal cancer.Entities:
Keywords: VEGFR-2 inhibitors; anticancer activity; antimetabolites; cytotoxicity; isoxazole; molecular docking; oxazolo[5,4-d]pyrimidines
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36232997 PMCID: PMC9569971 DOI: 10.3390/ijms231911694
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 6.208
Figure 1Small-molecule inhibitors with anti-VEGFR activity for the treatment of various types of cancer.
Figure 2Oxazolo[5,4-d]pyrimidines reported as anticancer agents with identified molecular mechanisms of action.
Figure 3Purine antagonists used as drugs in cancer therapies.
Scheme 1Synthetic pathway for the preparation of new oxazolo[5,4-d]pyrimidines 3a–j. r.t.: room temperature.
Cytotoxic activity of compounds 3a–j and reference drugs against the tested cell lines determined in the MTT assay and expressed as the cytotoxic concentration (CC) that causes a 50% reduction in viable cells. SD is the standard deviation. SI is the selectivity index, which is the ratio of the cytotoxic concentration (CC) against healthy cells (NHDFs) to the cytotoxic concentration against cancer cells. N/A (i.e., not assessed) means that CC50 could not be correctly determined in these cases.
| Compound | L929 | NHDF | A549 | MCF7 | LoVo | HT29 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CC50 ± SD a | CC50 ± SD a | CC50 ± SD a | SI | CC50 ± SD a | SI | CC50 ± SD a | SI | CC50 ± SD a | SI | |
|
| Non-toxic b | Non-toxic | 245.15 ± 19.02 | >>1 c | N/A | - | N/A | - | 158.76 ± 12.07 | >>1 |
|
| 235.08 ± 11.54 | Non-toxic | N/A | - | 192.79 ± 16.90 | >>1 | N/A | - | 194.20 ± 15.36 | >>1 |
|
| 90.64 ± 8.75 | 171.81 ± 14.47 | N/A | - | 199.26 ± 16.06 | 0.862 | N/A | - | 224.32 ± 23.05 | 0.766 |
|
| Non-toxic | 126.17 ± 9.87 | 178.95 ± 14.85 | 0.705 | 133.63 ± 14.03 | 0.944 | 226.05 ± 8.28 | 0.558 | 153.79 ± 13.38 | 0.820 |
|
| 89.20 ± 6.04 | 124.65 ± 11.46 | 124.77 ± 12.05 | 0.999 | 155.03 ± 15.54 | 0.804 |
| 0.702 |
| 0.963 |
|
| 207.49 ± 16.47 | 171.62 ± 20.70 | 147.81 ± 13.80 | 1.161 | 194.73 ± 11.97 | 0.881 | 235.26 ± 13.02 | 0.729 | 152.69 ± 15.02 | 1.124 |
|
| 83.67 ± 4.42 | 155.58 ± 15.49 | 138.50 ± 12.86 | 1.123 | 208.65 ± 9.67 | - | 223.93 ± 17.09 | 0.695 |
|
|
|
| 145.75 ± 11.11 | Non-toxic | N/A | - | N/A | - | N/A | - | N/A | - |
|
| 171.36 ± 22.77 | Non-toxic | N/A | - | 251.20 ± 22.05 | >>1 | N/A | - | N/A | - |
|
| 52.85 ± 9.51 | Non-toxic | N/A | - | 197.49 ± 13.08 | >>1 | N/A | - |
|
|
|
| 30.05 ± 5.07 | 11.49 ± 3.02 | 8.17 ± 2.39 | 1.406 | 29.72 ± 5.25 | 0.387 | 27.39 ± 8.01 | 0.419 | 47.17 ± 7.43 | 0.244 |
|
| 38.15 ± 7.13 | 20.37 ± 2.97 | 269.45 ± 17.15 | 0.076 | 217.47 ± 20.01 | 0.094 | 72.20 ± 14.43 | 0.282 | 381.16 ± 25.51 | 0.053 |
a The values of CC50 were estimated based on nonlinear regression using the dependence of the biological effects on the molar concentrations of the compounds (four-parameter logistic model with Hill slope). The solutions of the compounds were prepared at 8 different concentrations (i.e., 1, 5, 10, 25, 50, 100, 250, and 500 μM). Four samples of each concentration were taken. The entire test was performed three times independently. Homogeneity of variances was checked with Levene’s and Brown–Forsythe tests. To avoid type I error, the statistical significance of differences in the mean CC50 values of all of the compounds within a single cell line and in the mean CC50 values of each individual compound for cancerous cell lines and healthy reference cells was tested with conservative Tukey’s HSD and Bonferroni post hoc tests for multiple comparisons. Moreover, the statistical significance of the differences in the mean CC50 values of the tested compounds in relation to the mean CC50 values of the reference drugs was also tested with Dunnett’s post hoc test. The threshold for significance was set at α = 0.05; hence, the differences in the means with a p-value (probability value) < 0.05 (i.e., for confidence level > 95%) were considered statistically significant. b No toxicity was observed in the tested concentration range of 1–500 µM. c >> 1 means a very high value due to no cytotoxic effect of the tested compound against the healthy NHDF cells.
Figure 4Rhodamine accumulation after incubation with the tested compounds at various concentration ranges in HT29 cells; * p < 0.05—significant difference compared to the negative control. E/E0—E is the result for the measured sample, and E0 is the result for the control.
Figure 5Apoptosis in cells treated with 1, 2, 5, and 10 µM concentrations of compounds 3a, 3e, 3f, 3g, and 3j for 24 h in comparison to cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil.
Figure 6Effects of the tested compounds on the migration of cells in the scratch assay after 24 h of incubation for the HT29 cell line. Control T0 is the width of the scratch, i.e., the wound at the beginning before the administration of the compound (T0 = 544,366.45 ± 22,895.3). Control T is the width of the wound when no compound was administered (T = 155,558.2 ± 35,476.2). * p < 0.05—significant difference compared to the negative control.
Figure 7Scratch tests: (A) control T0; (B) compound 3g T0; (C) cisplatin T0; (D) 5-FU T0; (E) control T; (F) compound 3g T; (G) cisplatin T; (H) 5-FU T. Compound 3g, cisplatin, and 5-FU at concentrations of 100 µM. The red lines indicate the width of the scratch. Microscope magnification was set at 4×.
The changes in the expression of selected signaling molecules induced by 3g in cultures of the colon adenocarcinoma cell line (HT29).
| Signaling Molecules | Compound 3g | Standard Deviation (SD) |
|---|---|---|
| BCL-2 | 0.41 [pg/mL] | ±0.11 |
| Caspase-3 | 12.27 [ng/mL] | ±3.03 |
| p53 | 4.22 [U/mL] | ±0.97 |
The best docking conformations rated by scoring functions, including in terms of free energy of binding, inhibition constant, and intermolecular interaction observed during molecular docking to the active site of VEGFR-2.
| Compound 3a | Compound 3e | Compound 3f | Compound 3g | Compound 3j | Tivozanib | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| −38.5 | −39.3 | −40.0 | −41.0 | −47.3 | −48.1 |
|
| 0.16 | 0.11 | 0.09 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.02 |
|
| Glu917 | Glu917 | Glu917 | Glu917 | Glu917 | Glu885 |
|
| Ala866 | - | Ala866 | Glu885 | Glu885 | Leu840 |
|
| Phe918 | Phe918 | Phe918 | Phe918 | Phe918 | Phe918 |
|
| Leu840 | Leu840 | Leu840 | Leu840 | Leu840 | Val848 |
|
| Leu1035 | Leu1035 | Leu1035 | Val848 | Val848 | Leu889 |
|
| Val867 | Val867 | Val867 | Val914 | Val867 | Ile888 |
|
| - | - | Cys1045 | - | - | - |
Figure 8The binding pose of the most potent designed inhibitor 3g (magenta), the 5-methyl analog of compound 3g (SCM9) (blue), and tivozanib (yellow) in the active center of VEGFR-2.
Figure 9The comparison of the intermolecular interactions of the drug tivozanib, compound 3g, and the 5-methyl analog of compound 3g (SCM9) (shown from top to bottom, respectively) with the active center of VEGFR-2.
Figure 10The main pharmacophoric features of newly designed VEGFR-2 inhibitors 3a–j, as exemplified by the most active compound 3g, developed on the basis of the theoretical study.
Cytotoxic activity (expressed as 50% inhibitory concentration) on the A549, MCF7, LoVo, and HT29 tumor cell lines, collected from the literature, of a few drugs that are confirmed inhibitors of the VEGFR-2 receptor, among others.
| Drug Name | IC50 (µM) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A549 | MCF7 | LoVo | HT29 | |
|
| 0.19 ± 0.04 a | 0.25 ± 0.03 a | No data | No data |
|
| No data | No data | 2 b | 2.75 ± 0.18 c |
|
| 9.52 ± 0.91 d | 14.26 ± 0.87 e | No data | 11.5 ± 1.1 d |
|
| No effect f | No data | No data | 431 g |
|
| 4.88 ± 0.83 h | No data | No data | 13.12 ± 1.84 h |
|
| 2.7 ± 0.5 i | 12.23 ± 0.28 j | 3.5 ± 0.9 k | 10 ± 0.4 k |
|
| 4–6 l | 6.29 m | No data | >5 n |
|
| 6.98 o | 7.30 o | 4.18 ± 0.27 p | 4.89 o |
|
| 5.62 ± 2.13 r | 7.26 ± 0.3 s | 31 u | 17.28 ± 3.8 r |
a Cytotoxic data taken from reference [64], b cytotoxic data taken from reference [65], c cytotoxic data taken from reference [66], d cytotoxic data taken from reference [67], e cytotoxic data taken from reference [68], f cytotoxic data taken from reference [69], g cytotoxic data taken from reference [70], h cytotoxic data taken from reference [71], i cytotoxic data taken from reference [72], j cytotoxic data taken from reference [73], k cytotoxic data taken from reference [74], l cytotoxic data taken from reference [75], m cytotoxic data taken from reference [76], n cytotoxic data taken from reference [77], o cytotoxic data taken from reference [78], p cytotoxic data taken from reference [79], r cytotoxic data taken from reference [80], s cytotoxic data taken from reference [81], t cytotoxic data taken from reference [82], u cytotoxic data taken from reference [83].