S. Ozaki et al. / Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 20 (2010) 1141–1144
1143
The TGase inhibitors described in this Letter are readily synthe-
sized and yet are very strong inhibitors of TGase. Therefore, they
may be strong candidates as therapeutic drugs for many diseases
caused by abnormal protein cross-linking (isopeptide bonds). They
may slow or block the progression of diseases (e.g., Alzheimer’s,
Huntington’s, celiac, and cataract), and various disorders in the
skin, liver, and immune system.
The products were purified by alumina column and were ob-
tained as viscous oils. The inhibitory activity against tissue TGase
was evaluated by our improved assay.33 The resultant IC50 values
of aminoketones are summarized in Table 1.
Among b-aminoketones, when R1 of compound 4 was aliphatic,
TGase inhibitory activity was very weak (IC50 >30 lM). We there-
fore showed only TGase inhibitory activities of aryl b-aminoketones.
Among aryl b-aminoketones, when a single hydrogen atom was
attached at N,N-positions of the amino group (NHR), TGase inhibi-
References and notes
tory activities were very weak (IC50 >30
only aryl N,N-disubstituted b-aminoethyl ketone 4 as shown in this
Letter.
l
M). Therefore we present
1. Griffin, M.; Casadio, R.; Bergamini, C. M. Biochem. J. 2002, 368(Pt 2), 377.
2. Lorand, L.; Graham, R. M. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2003, 4, 140.
3. Candi, E.; Schmidt, R.; Melino, G. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2005, 6, 328.
4. Norlund, M. A.; Lee, J. M.; Zainelli, G. M.; Muma, N. A. Brain Res. 1999, 851, 154.
5. Selkoe, D. J.; Abraham, C.; Ihara, Y. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1982, 79, 6070.
6. Mastroberardino, P. G.; Iannicola, C.; Nardacci, R.; Bernassola, F.; De Laurenzi,
V.; Melino, G.; Moreno, S.; Pavone, F.; Oliverio, S.; Fesus, L.; Piacentini, M. Cell
Death Differ. 2002, 9, 873.
7. Jeitner, T. M.; Matson, W. R.; Folk, J. E.; Blass, J. P.; Cooper, A. J. J. Neurochem.
2008, 106, 37.
8. Karpuj, M. V.; Becher, M. W.; Springer, J. E.; Chabas, D.; Youssef, S.; Pedotti, R.;
Mitchell, D.; Steinman, L. Nat. Med. 2002, 8, 143.
9. Dedeoglu, A.; Kubilus, J. K.; Jeitner, T. M.; Matson, S. A.; Bogdanov, M.; Kowall,
N. W.; Matson, W. R.; Cooper, A. J.; Ratan, R. R.; Beal, M. F.; Hersch, S. M.;
Ferrante, R. J. J. Neurosci. 2002, 22, 8942.
10. Lorand, L. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1996, 93, 14310.
11. Hoffner, G.; Djian, P. Front. Biosci. 2005, 10, 3078.
12. Grierson, A. J.; Johnson, G. V.; Miller, C. C. Neurosci. Lett. 2001, 298, 9.
13. Hartley, D. M.; Zhao, C.; Speier, A. C.; Woodard, G. A.; Li, S.; Li, Z.; Walz, T. J. Biol.
Chem. 2008, 283, 16790.
14. De Young, L.; Ballaron, S.; Epstein, W. J. Invest. Dermatol. 1984, 82, 275.
15. Malorni, W.; Farrace, M. G.; Rodolfo, C.; Piacentini, M. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2008,
14, 278.
16. Azari, P.; Rahim, I.; Clarkson, D. P. Curr. Eye Res. 1981, 1, 463.
17. Schroeder, W. T.; Thacher, S. M.; Stewart-Galetka, S.; Annarella, M.; Chema, D.;
Siciliano, M. J.; Davies, P. J.; Tang, H. Y.; Sowa, B. A.; Duvic, M. J. Invest. Dermatol.
1992, 99, 27.
18. Choi, K.; Siegel, M.; Piper, J. L.; Yuan, L.; Cho, E.; Strnad, P.; Omary, B.; Rich, K.
M.; Khosla, C. Chem. Biol. 2005, 12, 469.
19. Tatsukawa, H.; Fukaya, Y.; Frampton, G.; Martinez-Fuentes, A.; Suzuki, K.; Kuo,
T. F.; Nagatsuma, K.; Shimokado, K.; Okuno, M.; Wu, J.; Iismaa, S.; Matsuura, T.;
Tsukamoto, H.; Zern, M. A.; Graham, R. M.; Kojima, S. Gastroenterology 2009,
136, 1783.
20. Lorand, L.; Rule, N. G.; Ong, H. H.; Furlanetto, R.; Jacobsen, A.; Downey, J.; Oner,
N.; Bruner-Lorand, J. Biochemistry 1968, 7, 214.
21. Stenberg, P.; Nilsson, J. L.; Eriksson, O.; Lunden, R. Acta Pharm. Suec. 1971, 8,
415.
22. Fesus, L. Surv. Immunol. Res. 1982, 1, 297.
23. Piper, J. L.; Gray, G. M.; Khosla, C. Biochemistry 2002, 41, 386.
24. Hovhannisyan, Z.; Weiss, A.; Martin, A.; Wiesner, M.; Tollefsen, S.; Yoshida, K.;
Ciszewski, C.; Curran, S. A.; Murray, J. A.; David, C. S.; Sollid, L. M.; Koning, F.;
Teyton, L.; Jabri, B. Nature 2008, 456, 534.
25. Duval, E.; Case, A.; Stein, R. L.; Cuny, G. D. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2005, 15,
1885.
When we compared the aryl group R1 of 4 by looking vertically
at the top left line of Table 1, heteroaryls were more potent than
phenyls and naphthyls. Among heteroaryl groups, thienyl ap-
peared the most potent. Among thienyls, 5-bromo-2-thienyl was
the most potent, followed by 5-chloro-2-thienyl and 2-benzothie-
nyl, 2-thienyl in that order. The second most potent in the hete-
roaryls was the furyl group. Among the furyl group, the 2-furyl
group was better than the 3-furyl group and the 5-methyl-2-furyl
group. The pyridyl group was also effective. The 3-pyridyl group
was potent, followed by 4-pyridyl and 2-pyridyl. The 2-pyrazinyl
group and 6-ethyl 2-pyrazinyl group were also effective. 2-Thiazol-
yl groups were not very effective. Phenyl groups were quite
effective. 4-Cyanophenyl had potent activity, followed by phenyl,
4-chlorophenyl, and 4-fluorophenyl in that order. 2-Naphtyl,
chloronaphtyl, diphenyl methane, phenoxyphenyl groups also gave
active compounds.
When we compared R2 (NR3R4 in the reaction scheme) by
looking horizontally at the top line of Table 1, N-t-butyl N-benzyl
amino showed the most potent activity followed by N-isopropyl
N-benzylamino, N-isopropyl, and N,N-bis-2-hydroxyethylamino
groups. The N,N-dibenzylamino, and N,N-diphenylamino group
showed very weak activity (IC50 >30
pounds are not shown in Table 1.
lM). Therefore these com-
We synthesized 10 types of N-monosubstituted b-aminoethyl
ketones. These compounds showed very weak activities (IC50
>30
Letter.
Duval et al.25 reported that thienopyrimidines LDDN-80042 has
an IC50 value of 0.13 M. This was the highest value that was found
in our literature search. Griffin et al.26 reported on peptidyl methyl
ketones which had an IC50 value of 3
M. Watts et al.27 had re-
lM). Therefore these compounds are also not shown in this
l
l
26. Griffin, M.; Mongeot, A.; Collighan, R.; Saint, R. E.; Jones, R. A.; Coutts, I. G.;
Rathbone, D. L. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2008, 18, 5559.
27. Watts, R. E.; Siegel, M.; Khosla, C. J. Med. Chem. 2006, 49, 7493.
28. Pardin, C.; Pelletier, J. N.; Lubell, W. D.; Keillor, J. W. J. Org. Chem. 2008, 73,
5766.
29. Lai, T. S.; Liu, Y.; Tucker, T.; Daniel, K. R.; Sane, D. C.; Toone, E.; Burke, J. R.;
Strittmatter, W. J.; Greenberg, C. S. Chem. Biol. 2008, 15, 969.
30. Arend, M.; Westermann, B.; Risch, N. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 1998, 37, 1044.
31. Brown, G. R.; Bamford, A. M.; Bowyer, J.; James, D. S.; Rankine, N.; Tang, E.; Torr,
V.; Culbert, E. J. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2000, 10, 575.
ported on dihydroisozazoles earlier, but the IC50 value was not re-
ported. Pardin et al.28 studied cinnamoyl benzotriazoyl amide
which had an IC50 value of 18 l
M. Lai et al.29 reported that 2-naph-
tyl (N-isopropyl N-benzyl)-aminoethyl ketone was the most potent
in existing drug libraries. The IC50 value of this compound (132)
was 4 lM by our assay. The most potent compound presented in
this Letter, 5-bromo-2-thienyl-(N-t-butyl N-benzyl)-aminoethyl
ketone (1),35 had an IC50 value of 0.081
lM. This value is currently
32. Mannkind cooporation. Intracellular Kinase Inhibitors. PCT WO 2007/136790
A2.
the best.
33. The inhibitory activities of compounds against TGase were evaluated by our
improved high-throughput screening. We applied the method established for
the measurement of TGase activity34 to a high-throughput screening using the
functional drug screening system, FDSS 3000 (Hamamatsu Photonics,
Shizuoka, Japan). The synthesized compounds were added to 0.1 ml enzyme
reaction solutions containing 100 mM HEPES-NaOH (pH 7.5), 1 mM CaCl2,
Interestingly, our best compound had a thiophene ring. This
supports the theory that the thiophene ring is critical to inhibitory
activity, as reported by Duval et al.25 Our best compound had a
bromine atom. Watts et al.27 also reported that compounds with
bromine atoms were potent. In this way, these two structures
make it feasible for us to obtain the strongest TGase inhibitors.
Hartley et al.13 reported that TGase induced Ab oligomerization.
The TGase inhibitor LDDN-80042 (a gift from Cuny laboratory) was
highly effective in attenuating Ab aggregation. Aggregation was
20 lM monodansyl cadaverine, 0.05 mg/ml N,N-dimethylcasein, 5 lg/ml
guinea-pig liver TGase in a 96-well plate (Nunc, 96-Well Black Plate with
clear bottom). We measured fluorescence emissions at 510 nm after excitation
at 340 nm. We calculated the velocity of the fluorescent increase to evaluate
enzyme activity. Compounds were dissolved and diluted with DMSO to
prepare final concentrations of 3.0, 10, and 30 lM. When the compounds were
effective at these concentrations, we diluted the compounds to determine the
IC50 values at submicromolar concentrations. DMSO was added to the reaction
mixture as a control in the same 96-well plate and enzyme activity expressed
as a percentage of control. The IC50 values were calculated by nonlinear
blocked at concentrations ranging from 0.1 to 10 lM, suggesting
that TGase may constitute a specific therapeutic target for slowing
(or blocking) the progression of Alzheimer’s disease.