Open Access

Synthesis and preliminary cytotoxicity study of a cephalosporin-CC-1065 analogue prodrug

  • Yuqiang Wang1Email author,
  • Huiling Yuan1,
  • Susan C Wright1,
  • Hong Wang1 and
  • James W Larrick1
BMC Chemical Biology20011:4

DOI: 10.1186/1472-6769-1-4

Received: 8 October 2001

Accepted: 2 November 2001

Published: 2 November 2001

Abstract

Background

Antibody-directed enzyme prodrug therapy (ADEPT) is a promising new approach to deliver anticancer drugs selectively to tumor cells. In this approach, an enzyme is conjugated to a tumor-specific antibody. The antibody selectively localizes the enzyme to the tumor cell surface. Subsequent administration of a prodrug substrate of the enzyme leads to the enzyme-catalyzed release of the free drug at the tumor site. The free drug will destroy the tumor cells selectively, thus, reducing side effects.

Results

A CC-1065 analogue was conjugated to a cephalosporin affording prodrug 2. The prodrug and its corresponding free drug, 1, have IC50 values of 0.9 and 0.09 nM, respectively, against U937 leukemia cells in vitro.

Conclusions

For the first time, a prodrug comprised of a cephalosporin and a CC-1065 analogue has been synthesized. The preliminary in vitro studies show that the prodrug was 10-fold less toxic than the free drug. Prodrug 2 has the potential to be useful in cancer treatment using the ADEPT approach.

Background

Antibody-directed enzyme prodrug therapy (ADEPT) [15] is one of the promising new approaches that selectively target tumor cells, thus reducing toxic side effects to patients. In this approach, an enzyme is conjugated to a tumor-specific antibody. The antibody selectively localizes the enzyme to the tumor cell surface. Subsequent administration of a prodrug substrate of the enzyme leads to the enzyme-catalyzed release of the free drug at the tumor site. This strategy addresses the stoichiometry, controlled drug release and poor antibody penetration problems associated with the use of monoclonal antibody-drug conjugates [68]. In addition, because the process of drug release is enzymatic, a single enzyme can generate a large amount of free drug. Consequently, a small amount of antibody can be used to reduce immunogenicity.

It is important that the free drug in the ADEPT approach be highly toxic. Using highly toxic agents can reduce the amount of the monoclonal antibody required, thereby reducing side effects. CC-1065 (Figure 1) is among the most potent antitumor agents discovered [913]. It binds to double-stranded B-DNA within the minor groove with a sequence preference for 5'-d(A/GNTTA)-3' and 5'-d(AAAAA)-3', and alkylates the N3 position of the 3'-adenine with its left-hand CPI segment [14, 15]. CC-1065 also inhibits gene transcription by interfering with binding of the TATA box-binding protein to its target DNA [16]. Despite its high potency and broad spectrum of antitumor activity, CC-1065 cannot be used in humans because it causes delayed death in experimental animals [17]. To pursue compounds possessing the potent antitumor activity but devoid of the toxic side effects of the parent compound, many CC-1065 analogues have been synthesized [1826].
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1472-6769-1-4/MediaObjects/12897_2001_Article_4_Fig1_HTML.jpg
Figure 1

Structures of CC-1065 and related Compounds

Beta-lactamases have been widely investigated for their role in the metabolism of antibiotics including cephalosporins and penicillins. Because of the high catalytic efficiency and broad substrate specificity, β-lactamases have been extensively used in the ADEPT approach to activate prodrugs of vinca alkaloids [27], nitrogen mustard [2832], doxorubicin [3336] and others [37]. To take advantage of the potent antitumor activity of the CC-1065 class of compounds and the ADEPT approach, we have synthesized β-lactam prodrugs. Herein, we report synthesis and preliminary cytotoxic effects of a prodrug comprised of a cephalosporin and a CC-1065 analogue (Figure 1).

Prodrug 2 is expected to be less toxic than its corresponding free drug 1. However, it is expected that the prodrug will be converted to the potent free drug by β-lactamases localized on the tumor cell surface by an antibody (Figure 2). This selective activation of prodrug 2 at the tumor site will lead to enhanced antitumor therapeutic efficacy.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1472-6769-1-4/MediaObjects/12897_2001_Article_4_Fig2_HTML.jpg
Figure 2

Activation of prodrug to free drug

Results and discussion

Prodrug 2 was synthesized as shown in Figure 3. The key intermediate, 7, was made using methods developed by Jungheim et al. [33], and Rodrigues, et al. [35, 36] with modifications. The spectra data including NMR and MS of compounds 4–7 were identical to those as reported. Compound 1 was treated with 7 in DMF to afford the protected prodrug 8. Removal of the t-butyl protection group from 8 generated the targeted prodrug 2 with good yield.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1472-6769-1-4/MediaObjects/12897_2001_Article_4_Fig3_HTML.jpg
Figure 3

Synthesis of prodrug 2

The cytotoxicity of prodrug 2 and its corresponding free drug 1 was tested against U937 leukemia cells, and the results are presented in Table 1. When the drugs were incubated with U937 cells for a period of 48-h, prodrug 2 (IC50: 0.9 nM) is 10-fold less toxic than its corresponding free drug 1 (IC50: 0.09 nM). As observed for other compounds of the CC-1065 class [25, 37, 38], both prodrug 2 and the free drug 1 caused DNA fragmentation, and the cells died by apoptosis (data not shown).
Table 1

Cytotoxicity of compounds 1 and 2 against U937 leukemia cells in vitroa

Compd.

IC50 (nM)b

1

0.09

2

0.9

aCells were incubated with drugs for 48 h and the experiments were performed according to our previously published method;27bIC50 values are defined as the minimal drug concentration necessary to inhibit incorporation of [3H]thymidine by 50%, and are the averages of three experiments.

Conclusion

This is the first report demonstrating synthesis of a prodrug comprised of a cephalosporin and a CC-1065 analogue. The preliminary in vitro studies show the prodrug to be less toxic than the free drug. Due to the slow non-enzymatic degradation of the cephalosporins in solution [39], the ratio of toxicity of cephalosporin-containing prodrugs to their corresponding free drugs is generally not very high. However, some of the prodrugs are very effective against tumors in mouse models. For example, a cephalosporin-doxorubicin prodrug was 9-fold less toxic than free doxrubicin against tumor cells in vitro, but caused tumor regression when tested in tumor xenograft models [40]. A cephalosporin-vinca alkaloid prodrug was 5-fold less toxic than the free drug against tumor cells in vitro, but was highly effective in tumor xenograft models in vivo [41]. When taxol was conjugated to a cephalosporin, the resulting prodrug was approximately 10-fold less toxic than free taxol against tumor cells in vitro [36]. Thus, prodrug 2 has the potential to be useful in cancer treatment using the ADEPT approach. We will report more biological data in due course.

Materials and methods

Cephalothin sodium, 3, (2.5 g, 5.98 mmol) was suspended in dichloromethane (150 mL). Anhydrous hydrogen chloride (4 N in dioxane, 2 mL, 8 mmol) was added, and the reaction mixture was stirred for 30 min at room temperature. tert-Butyl trichloroacetimidate (3.2 mL, 17.84 mmol) was added, and the reaction mixture was stirred overnight at room temperature. The reaction mixture was washed consecutively with water (150 mL), saturated sodium hydrogen carbonate solution (150 mL) and water (150 mL). The organic solution was dried using sodium sulfate. The solvent was removed, and the product was purified by flash column chromatography eluting with a solvent consisting of dichloromethane, ethyl acetate and hexane (1/1/3, v/v) affording 1.2 g of 4 (44% yield).

Compound 4 (1 g, 2.21 mmol) was dissolved in methanol (70 mL), and solid potassium carbonate (120 mg) was added. The mixture was stirred for 2 h at room temperature, and acetic acid (200 μL) was added to quench the reaction. The solvent was removed, and the product was purified by flash column chromatography eluting with 8% acetone in dichloromethane to afford 220 mg of 5 (24% yield).

Compound 5 (280 mg, 0.68 mmol) was dissolved in anhydrous THF (40 mL), and dimethylaminopyridine (1 mg), p-nitrophenylchloroformate (0.2 g, 1 mmol) and 2, 6-lutidine (120 μL), 1 mmol) were added sequentially. The reaction mixture was stirred overnight at room temperature. The solvent was removed, and the product was purified by flash column chromatography eluting with 5% ethyl acetate in dichloromethane to afford 271 mg of 6 (69% yield).

To a solution of 6 (50 mg, 87 μmol) in dichloromethane (2 mL) cooled to 0°C was added m- chloroperoxybenzoic acid (CPBA, 26 mg, 93 μmol) in 0.5 mL of dichloromethane. The reaction mixture was stirred for 15 min at 0°C, and was then washed with 5% potassium hydrogen carbonate solution followed by brine. The solvent was removed, and the product was purified by flash column chromatography eluting with 8% ethyl acetate in dichloromethane to afford 34 mg of 7 (66% yield).

Compound 7 (15 mg, 25 μmol) was added to a solution of 1 (9 mg, 23 μmol) in DMF (0.3 mL), which was synthesized as we reported previously [20], and the reaction mixture was stirred overnight at room temperature. The product was purified by thin layer chromatography eluting with ethyl acetate and hexane (3/1, v/v) to afford 12 mg of 8 (62% yield). 1H NMR (DMF-d7, ppm): 10.70 (s, 1 H), 9.15 (s, 1 H), 8.63 (s, 1 H), 8.25–7.85 (m, 4 H), 7.60–7.19 (m, 7 H), 7.05–6.95 (m, 2 H), 6.05–6.01 (m, 1 H), 5.39–5.30 (d, 1 H), 5.12–4.79 (m, 5 H), 4.35–4.27 (m, 1 H), 4.19–3.75 (m, 6 H), 1.58 (s, 9 H). FAB MS m/e 866.0 (M + Na)+.

To a solution of 8 (5 mg, 5.9 μmol) in DMF (0.2 mL) and dichloromethane (1 mL) was added trifluroacetic acid (1 mL), and the solution was stirred for 2 h at room temperature. The solvent was removed, and ethyl ether was added. The solid was filtered, and washed with ether to afford prodrug 2 (3.7 mg, 79% yield). 1H NMR (DMF-d7, ppm): 11.56 (s, 1 H), 10.50 (s, 1 H), 9.65 (s, 1 H), 8.25–7.85 (m, 4 H), 7.60–7.24 (m, 7 H), 7.10–6.96 (m, 2 H), 6.10–6.01 (m, 1 H), 5.42–5.38 (d, 1 H), 5.10–4.60 (m, 5 H), 4.35–4.25 (m, 1 H), 4.20–3.75 (m, 6 H). FAB MS m/e 787.1.

Declarations

Acknowledgment

We thank Jolande Murray for help with the manuscript. This work was supported in part by a grant from the National Institutes of Health (CA79357-01 to Y. W.).

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Panorama Research, Inc

References

  1. Bagshawe KD: Antibody directed enzymes revive anticancer prodrugs concept. Br J Cancer. 1987, 56: 531-532.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Senter PD, Saulnier MG, Schreiber GJ, Hirschberg DL, Brown JP, Hellström I, Hellström KE: Anti-tumor effects of antibody-alkaline phosphatase conjugates in combination with etoposide phosphate. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1988, 85: 4842-4846.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Jungheim LN, Shepherd TA: Design of antitumor prodrugs: substrates for antibody targeted enzymes. Chem Rev. 1994, 94: 1553-1566.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Connors TA, Knox RJ: Prodrugs in cancer chemotherapy,. Stem Cells,. 1995, 13: 501-511.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. de Groot FM, Damen EW, Scheeren HW: Anticancer prodrugs for application in monotherapy: targeting hypoxia, tumor-associated enzymes, and receptors. Curr Med Chem. 2001, 8: 1093-122.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Murray JL: Current clinical applications of monoclonal antibodies,. The Cancer Bulletin. 1991, 43: 152-159.Google Scholar
  7. Ward RL, Hawkins NJ, Smith GM: Unconjugated antibodies for cancer therapy: lessons from the clinic,. Cancer Treat Rev. 1990, 23: 305-319.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Green MC, Murray JL, Hortobagyi GN: Monoclonal antibody therapy for solid tumors,. Cancer Treat Rev. 2000, 26: 269-86. 10.1053/ctrv.2000.0176.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Hanka LJ, Dietz A, Gerpheide SA, Kuentzel SL, Martin DG: CC-1065 (NSC-218223), A new antitumor antibiotic. Production, in vitro biological activity, microbiological assays, and taxonomy of the producing microorganisms. J Antibiot. 1978, 31: 1211-1217.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Martin DG, Chidester CG, Duchamp DJ, Mizsak SA: Structure of CC-1065 (NSC-218223), a new antitumor antibiotic. J Antibiot. 1980, 33: 902-903.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Martin DG, Biles C, Gerpheide SA, Hanka LJ, Kroeger WC, McGovern JP, Mizsk SA, Neil GL, Stewart JC, Visser J: CC-1065 (NSC-218223), a potent new antitumor agent, improved production and isolation, characterization and antitumor activity. J Antibiot. 1981, 34: 1119-1125.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Bhuyan BK, Newell KA, Crampton SL, Von Hoff DD: CC-1065 (NSC-218223), a most potent antitumor agent: Kinetics of inhibition of growth, DNA synthesis and cell survival. Cancer Res. 1982, 42: 3532-3537.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Reynolds VL, McGovern JP, Hurley LH: The chemistry, mechanism of action, and biological properties of CC-1065, a potent antitumor antibiotic. J Antibiot. 1986, 33: 319-329.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Hurley LH, Reynolds VL, Swenson DH, Petzold GL, Scahill TA: Reaction of the antitumor antibiotics CC-1065 with DNA: Structure of a DNA adduct with DNA sequence specificity. Science. 1984, 226: 843-844.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Reynolds VL, Molineaux IJ, Kaplan DJ, Swenson DH, Hurley LH: Reaction of antitumor antibiotic CC-1065 with DNA. Location of the site of thermally induced strand breakage and analysis of DNA sequence specificity. Biochemistry. 1985, 24: 6220-6237.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Chiang SY, Welch J, Rauscher FJ, Beerman TA: Effects of minor groove binding drugs on the interaction of TATA box binding protein and TFIIA with DNA. Biochemistry. 1994, 33: 7033-7040.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. McGovren JP, Clarke GL, Pratt EA, DeKoning TF: Preliminary toxicity studies with the DNA-binding antibiotic CC-1065. J Antibiot. 1984, 37: 63-70.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Aristoff PA: CC-1065 Analogs: Sequence Specific DNA-alkylating Antitumor Agents. Adv Med Chem. 1993, 2: 67-110. (b) Boger DL, Boyce C. W, Garbaccio RM, Goldberg JA:CC-1065 and the Duocarmycins: Synthetic Studies.Chem Rev 1997, 97:787-820, and references cited.Google Scholar
  19. Wang Y, Wright SC, Larrick JW: DNA-binding indole derivatives, their prodrugs and immunoconjugates,. U. S. Patent US 5,843,937,. 1998Google Scholar
  20. Boger DL, Santillán A, Searcey M, Jin Q: Critical role of the linking amide in CC-1065 and the duocarmycins: implications on the source of DNA alkylation catalysis. J Am Chem Soc. 1998, 120: 11554-11557. 10.1021/ja9818093.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Fukuda Y, Seto S, Furuta H, Ebisu H, Oomori Y, Terashima S: The novel cyclopropapyrroloindole (CPI) bis-alkylators bearing 3,3'-(1,4-phenylene)diacryloyl group as a linker. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 1998, 8: 2003-2004. 10.1016/S0960-894X(98)00346-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Boger DL, Turnbull P: Synthesis and evaluation of a carbocyclic analogue of the CC-1065 and duocarmycin alkylation subunit: Role of the vinylogous amide and implications on DNA alkylation catalysis. J Org Chem. 1998, 63: 8004-8011. 10.1021/jo981698q.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Boger DL, Santillán A, Searcey M, Jin Q: Synthesis and evaluation of duocarmycin and CC-1065 analogues containing modifications in the subunit linking amide. J Org Chem. 1999, 64: 5241-5244. 10.1021/jo990452y.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Milbank JBJ, Tercel M, Atwell GJ, Wilson WR, Hogg A, Denny WA: Synthesis of 1-substituted 3-(chloromethyl)-6-aminoindoline (6-amino-seco-CI) DNA minor groove alkylating agents and structure-activity relationships for their cytotoxicity. J Med Chem. 1999, 42: 649-658. 10.1021/jm980545s.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Wang Y, Yuan H, Ye W, Wright SC, Wang H, Larrick JW: Synthesis and Preliminary Biological Evaluations of CC-1065 Analogs: Effects of Different Linkers and Terminal Amides on Biological Activity. J Med Chem. 2000, 43: 1541-1549. 10.1021/jm990514c.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Boger DL, Stauffer F, Hedrick MP: Substituent effects within the DNA binding subunit of CBI analogues of the duocarmycins and CC-1065. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2001, 11: 2021-2024. 10.1016/S0960-894X(01)00372-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Shepherd TA, Jungheim LN, Meyer DL, Starling JJ: A novel targeted delivery system utilizing a cephalosporin-oncolytic prodrug activated by an antibody beta-lactamase conjugate for the treatment of cancer. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 1991, 1: 21-26. 10.1016/S0960-894X(01)81083-0.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Svensson HP, Kadow JF, Vrudhula VM, Wallace PM, Senter PD: Monoclonal antibody-beta-lactamase conjugates for the activation of a cephalosporin mustard prodrug. Bioconjugate Chem. 1992, 3: 176-181.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Alexander RP, Beeley NRA, O'Driscoll M, O'Neill FP, Millican TA, Pratt AJ, Willenbrock FW: Cephalosporin nitrogen mustard carbamate prodrugs for 'ADEPT'. Tetrahedron Lett. 1991, 32: 3269-3272. 10.1016/S0040-4039(00)79741-3.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Vrudhula VM, Svensson HP, Kennedy KA, Kadow JF, Senter PD, Wallace PM: Antitumor activities of a cephalosporin prodrug in combination with monoclonal antibody-beta-lactamase conjugates. Bioconjugate Chem. 1993, 4: 334-340.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Hanessian S, Wang J: Design and synthesis of a cephalosporin-carboplatinum prodrug activatable by a beta-lactamase. Can J Chem. 1993, 71: 896-906.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Hudyma TW, Bush K, Colson KL, Firestone RA, King HD: Synthesis and release of doxorubicin from a cephalosporin based prodrug by a beta-lactamase-immunoconjugate. Bioorg Med Chem. 1993, 3: 323-328. 10.1016/S0960-894X(01)80902-1.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Jungheim LN, Shepherd TA, King JK: Synthesis of a cephalosporin-doxorubicin antitumor prodrug: a substrate for an antibody-targeted enzyme. Heterocycles. 1993, 35: 339-348.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Vrudhula VM, Svensson HP, Senter PD: Cephalosporin derivatives of doxorubicin as prodrugs for activation by monoclonal antibody-beta-lactamase conjugates. J Med Chem. 1995, 38: 1380-138.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Rodrigues ML, Presta LG, Kotts CE, Wirth C, Mordenti J, Osaka G, Wong WLT, Nuijens A, Blackburn BK, Carter P: Development of a humanized disulfide-stabilized anti-pl85HER2 Fv-beta-lactamase fusion protein for activation of a cephalosporin doxorubicin prodrug. Cancer Res. 1995, 55: 63-70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Rodrigues ML, Carter P, Wirth C, Mullins S, Lee A, Blackburn BK: Synthesis and beta-lactamase-mediated activation of a cephalosporin-taxol prodrug. Chem & Biology. 1995, 2: 223-227.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Wrasidlo W, Johnson DS, Boger DL: Induction of endonucleolytic DNA fragmentation and apoptosis by the duocarmycins. Bioorg Med Chem. 1994, 4: 631-636. 10.1016/S0960-894X(01)80168-2.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Wright SC, Schellenberger U, Wang H, Wang Y, Kinder DH: Chemotherapeutic drug activation of the AP24 protease in apoptosis: Requirement for caspase 3-like proteases. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1998, 245: 797-803. 10.1006/bbrc.1998.8508.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Yamana T, Tsiji A: Comparative stability of cephalosporin in aqueous solution: kinetics and mechanisms of degradation. J Pharm Sci. 1976, 65: 1563-1574.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Kerr DE, Schreiber GJ, Vrudhula VM, Svensson HP, Hellström I, Hellström KE, Senter PD: Regressions and cures of melanoma xenografts following treatment with monoclonal antibody beta-lactamase conjugates in combination with anticancer prodrugs. Cancer Res. 1995, 55: 3558-3563.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Meyer DL, Hungheim LN, Law KL, Mikolajczyk SD, Shepherd TA, Mackensen DG, Briggs SL, Startling JJ: Site-specific prodrug activation by antibody-beta-lactamase conjugates: regression and long-term growth inhibition of human colon carcinoma xenograft models. Cancer Res. 1993, 53: 3956-3963.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Wang et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2001

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article: verbatim copying and redistribution of this article are permitted in all media for any purpose, provided this notice is preserved along with the article's original URL.