H. Paritala, S. M. Firestine / Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 19 (2009) 1584–1587
1587
ing conformation of the thiazole orange binding site). In contrast,
Acknowledgments
for molecules like 18, there is a direct competition with thiazole or-
ange for binding to the terminal tetrad.29,30 Given this, we predict
that 11 and 18 likely bind to the terminal tetrad of the quadruplex
whereas compounds 8, 10 and 13 probably intercalate or bind to
the grooves of the quadruplex.
The fluorescence displacement assay also provided us with a
method to determine the selectivity of our agents (Table 1).29,30
An examination of the selectivity ratio of these compounds indi-
cates that most agents display a preference for duplex DNA (22G/
17 bp ratio below 1). However, two compounds, 11 and 18 show
marked selectivity for quadruplex DNA. Compound 11 binds to
quadruplex DNA approximately 10-times better than duplex
DNA, while 18 binds 7-times better.
The authors thank Wayne State University and the Juvenile Dia-
betes Research Foundation for funding. We also thank Dr. W. David
Wilson (Georgia State University) and members of his research
group for conducting surface plasmon resonance studies on our
agents.
References and notes
1. Neidle, S.; Parkinson, G. N. Biochimie 2008, 90, 1184.
2. Burge, S.; Parkinson, G. N.; Hazel, P.; Todd, A. K.; Neidle, S. Nucleic Acids Res.
2006, 34, 5402.
3. De Cian, A.; Lacroix, L.; Douarre, C.; Temime-Smaali, N.; Trentesaux, C.; Riou, J.
F.; Mergny, J. L. Biochimie 2008, 90, 131.
4. Huppert, J. L.; Balasubramanian, S. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005, 33, 2908.
5. Blackburn, E. H. Trends Biochem. Sci. 1991, 16, 378.
6. Xue, Y.; Kan, Z. Y.; Wang, Q.; Yao, Y.; Liu, J.; Hao, Y. H.; Tan, Z. J. Am. Chem. Soc.
2007, 129, 11185.
7. Li, J. L.; Harrison, R. J.; Reszka, A. P.; Brosh, R. M., Jr.; Bohr, V. A.; Neidle, S.;
Hickson, I. D. Biochemistry 2001, 40, 15194.
8. Lew, A.; Rutter, W. J.; Kennedy, G. C. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2000, 97, 12508.
9. Catasti, P.; Chen, X.; Moyzis, R. K.; Bradbury, E. M.; Gupta, G. J. Mol. Biol. 1996,
264, 534.
10. Siddiqui-Jain, A.; Grand, C. L.; Bearss, D. J.; Hurley, L. H. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
U.S.A. 2002, 99, 11593.
11. Hurley, L. H.; Wheelhouse, R. T.; Sun, D.; Kerwin, S. M.; Salazar, M.; Fedoroff, O.
Y.; Han, F. X.; Han, H.; Izbicka, E.; Von Hoff, D. D. Pharmacol. Ther. 2000, 85, 141.
12. Alberti, P.; Ren, J.; Teulade-Fichou, M. P.; Guittat, L.; Riou, J. F.; Chaires, J.;
Helene, C.; Vigneron, J. P.; Lehn, J. M.; Mergny, J. L. J. Biomol. Struct. Dyn. 2001,
19, 505.
We next conducted surface plasmon resonance (SPR) studies to
examine binding affinities and selectivity for our agents.31,32 These
experiments were done on a Biacore instrument using biotin-la-
beled oligonucleotides immobilized onto a streptavidin-coated
chip. In these experiments we examined binding of our agents to
the human telomeric sequence, which is known to adopt a G-quad-
ruplex structure, and to duplex DNA. Steady-state analysis was
performed with multiple injections at various drug concentrations.
The relative response of the instrument was then used to deter-
mine the binding constants of the compounds.31–33 Most com-
pounds displayed either weak affinity or non-specific interactions
with the surface which precluded a determination of binding affin-
ity. Compounds 8 and 11 were among the agents that displayed
non-specific binding to the chip. However, we found that 10, 13
and 18 bound to quadruplex DNA with equilibrium binding con-
stants of 0.4, 0.5, and 0.3 ꢀ 105 Mꢁ1, respectively. These values
are roughly equivalent to the affinity calculated by the fluores-
cence displacement assay for compounds 10 and 13, but approxi-
mately 10-fold weaker for 18. The difference in affinity for 18
could be the result of surface effects or covalent attachment of
the oligonucleotide to the chip. Incubation of 10, 13, and 18 to
dsDNA-containing chips resulted in weak signals that could not
be accurately fitted to generate binding constants. While this indi-
cates that 10, 13 and 18 possess some measure of selectivity for
quadruplex DNA, the magnitude of the selectivity could not be
determined by SPR.
In conclusion, we have described the synthesis and evaluation
of a series of 2- and 3- substituted benzo(h)quinolinones as quad-
ruplex binding agents. These agents display binding affinities in
the range of 0.05–4 ꢀ 105 Mꢁ1 for G-quadruplex sequences and
two agents possess a 7–10-fold selectivity for quadruplex over du-
plex DNA. Competition with the well-known fluorescent dye, thia-
zole orange, suggests that these agents probably bind to the
terminal tetrad. Both regioisomers appear to possess affinity for
quadruplex DNA; however, the three-substituted isomer generally
binds with greater affinity to the G-quadruplex. Given the ease
with which these compounds can be synthesized, we believe that
these agents may be of benefit for the future preparation of G-
quadruplex binding agents.
13. Schultes, C. M.; Guyen, B.; Cuesta, J.; Neidle, S. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2004, 14,
4347.
14. Keating, L. R.; Szalai, V. A. Biochemistry 2004, 43, 15891.
15. Koeppel, F.; Riou, J. F.; Laoui, A.; Mailliet, P.; Arimondo, P. B.; Labit, D.;
Petitgenet, O.; Helene, C.; Mergny, J. L. Nucleic Acids Res. 2001, 29, 1087.
16. Clark, G. R.; Pytel, P. D.; Squire, C. J.; Neidle, S. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2003, 125, 4066.
17. Range, K.; Mayaan, E.; Maher, L. J., 3rd; York, D. M. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005, 33,
1257.
18. Baker, E. S.; Lee, J. T.; Sessler, J. L.; Bowers, M. T. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2006, 128,
2641.
19. Brassart, B.; Gomez, D.; De Cian, A.; Paterski, R.; Montagnac, A.; Qui, K. H.;
Temime-Smaali, N.; Trentesaux, C.; Mergny, J. L.; Gueritte, F.; Riou, J. F. Mol.
Pharmacol. 2007, 72, 631.
20. Hooda, J.; Bednarski, D.; Irish, L.; Firestine, S. M. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 2006, 14,
1902.
21. Foster, R. E.; Lipscomb, R. D.; Thompson, T. J.; Hamilton, L. S. J. Am. Chem. Soc.
1946, 68, 1327.
22. Muirhead, K. M.; Botting, N. P. ARKIVOC 2002, 2002, 37.
23. Mergny, J. L.; Maurizot, J. C. ChemBioChem 2001, 2, 124.
24. De Cian, A.; Guittat, L.; Kaiser, M.; Sacca, B.; Amrane, S.; Bourdoncle, A.; Alberti,
P.; Teulade-Fichou, M. P.; Lacroix, L.; Mergny, J. L. Methods 2007, 42, 183.
25. Boger, D.; Fink, B.; Hedrick, M. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2000, 122, 6382.
26. Boger, D.; Fink, B.; Brunette, S.; Tse, W.; Hedrick, M. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2001, 123,
5878.
27. Tse, W. C.; Boger, D. L. Acc. Chem. Res. 2004, 37, 61.
28. Boger, D. L.; Tse, W. C. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 2001, 9, 2511.
29. Monchaud, D.; Allain, C.; Teulade-Fichou, M. P. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2006,
16, 4842.
30. Monchaud, D.; Allain, C.; Bertrand, H.; Smargiasso, N.; Rosu, F.; Gabelica, V.; De
Cian, A.; Mergny, J. L.; Teulade-Fichou, M. P. Biochimie 2008, 90, 1207.
31. Nguyen, B.; Tanious, F. A.; Wilson, W. D. Methods 2007, 42, 150.
32. Redman, J. E. Methods 2007, 43, 302.
33. Carrasco, C.; Rosu, F.; Gabelica, V.; Houssier, C.; De Pauw, E.; Garbay-
Jaureguiberry, C.; Roques, B.; Wilson, W. D.; Chaires, J. B.; Waring, M. J.;
Bailly, C. ChemBioChem 2002, 3, 1235.