ACS Medicinal Chemistry Letters
Letter
the FDA approved neuroleptic drug, pimozide, as a potent
inhibitor of STAT5 phosphorylation, resulting in the down-
regulation of STAT5 target gene expression in Ba/f3 FLT3
ITD cells. The authors believe pimozide is an effector of
negative regulators that modulate STAT5 phosphorylation.13,14
We have previously prepared a library of phosphopeptide-
mimicking salicylic acid-based compounds to target STAT3′s
SH2 domain. Screening against STAT5 via FP15 identified
compounds 1 and 2 as STAT5 binders with 2−3-fold selectivity
over STAT3 (Figure 1). In whole cells, 1 showed selective
Figure 2. (A) STAT5a’s SH2 domain with three binding pockets:
hydrophilic, red; amphiphilic, green; amphiphilic, blue; (B) in silico
docking of 1 interacting with R618, S622, and N639; 2 interacting
with R618 and S622, as well as a cationic−π interaction of the R1
benzyl with K644.
protein structure, allowing for ligand flexibility using a
Lamarckian Genetic Algorithm (GA) with the global and
adaptive local search parameters through 50 trials of the “long”
GA runs. 1 and 2 occupied two amphiphilic pockets. The first
pocket contained residues N639, L640, and W641 (blue region,
Figure 2A,B), which interact with the sulfonamide mesityl and
toluyl of 1 and 2, respectively. The adjacent pocket containing
W631, L643, and K644 (green) was found to interact with the
R1 substituents of both leads. Interestingly, for 2 (R1 = Ph),
docking poses showed favorable cationic−π interactions with
K644. In contrast, the binding of 1 (R1 = cyclohexylphenyl) was
dominated by van der Waal’s interactions with L643. Since the
K644 residue is unique to STAT5, we elected to prepare
analogs possessing hydrophobic, electron rich, aromatic R1
substituents to derive selectivity. The R3 substituents were
carried forward from previous SAR studies, owing to their
favorable biological profiles.
To survey the R1 binding pocket, we explored 24 substituents
of varying size and chemical diversity, including furan (8a,m),
thiophene (8b,n), imidazole (8c,o), cyclopropyl (8d,p), and
bicyclo[2.2.1]heptane (8e,q) heterocycles, naphthyl, and
phenyl; these were chosen for their small size and rich
electronic character, instead of the cyclohexylphenyl moiety of
1 (Table 1). The R3 position was left either as a mesityl or
pentafluorobenzyl substituent. The tolyl group of 2 was not
retained due to poor solubility.
The library was screened through a previously reported high-
throughput STAT5B FP assay which measures the disruption
of phosphopeptide−STAT5B SH2 domain interactions.15 FP
measurements were taken every 15 min for an hour against the
fluorescein conjugated phosphopeptide−STAT5B complex to
verify that the phosphopeptide probe (5-FAM-GpYLVLDKW)
was not being displaced over time.
Time intervals identified the optimal time point at which the
maximum change in fluorescence polarization was observed. In
general, the smaller heterocyclic R1 substituents had no
observable activity at inhibitor concentrations up to 100 μM.
In contrast, only aromatic derivatives 8j, 8l, 8v, and 8x
demonstrated similar potencies relative to the parent leads, with
Ki values of 6.62, 4.77, 12.36, and 11.51 μM, respectively
(Supporting Information Figure S4 and Table S1). We noted
that the electron rich, hydrophobic di-tert butyl benzyl groups
of 8l and 8x consistently engaged in cation−π interactions with
Figure 1. STAT5 inhibitors BP-1-108 (1) and SF-1-088 (2).
suppression of STAT5 Tyr phosphorylation (IC50 ∼ 20 μM)
and STAT5 target genes, MYC and CCND1, at μM
concentrations (∼40 μM).16 However, progress toward a
potent and selective nanomolar (nM) inhibitor of STAT5 has
been slow. Herein, we describe the identification of the first
nM, STAT5-selective inhibitor using in silico-directed efforts.17
Scaffolds 1 and 2 were selected as a starting point for
structural optimization. Interestingly, both leads possessed
opposing lipophilic trends for the substituents found at the R1
position. Increasing lipophilicity and bulk at R1 seems to favor
selectivity for the STAT3 protein. However, bulky hydrophobic
substituents on the R2 position seem to dictate the largest
selectivity for the STAT5 protein, suggesting structural
variability within the STAT3 and STAT5 SH2 domains.16 To
exploit these observed differences, we probed the SH2 domain
pocket using computational docking simulations.
While the activated STAT5−STAT5 dimer structure has yet
to be solved, the pY binding pocket of the SH2 domain was
identified by comparing and contrasting the structural
architectures and binding sites of 121 SH2 domain-containing
proteins.18 SH2 domains are defined by an antiparallel β-sheet
flanked by two α helices. The pY binds in a pocket located
within the βB, C, and D strands. Specifically, a conserved
R(XXX) residue on the βB strand participates in electrostatic
interactions with pY.19 Notably, STAT3′s structure was
resolved in both the unphosphorylated (PDB: 3CWB) and
phosphorylated (PDB: 1BG1) states.20,21 Superimposition of
structures revealed that STAT3′s SH2 domain structure is not
significantly altered upon phosphopeptide binding.22 Thus, we
reasoned that the unphosphorylated STAT5 structure (PDB:
1Y1U) is suitable for in silico-based drug design. Analogous to
the canonical pY-SH2 domain binding, the STAT5 pY likely
docks proximal to the conserved R618 (βB strand), making H-
bonding/electrostatic interactions with nearby polar residues,
K600 (αA), T628 (βC), and S622 (βB and βC) Figure 2A.
Next, using AutoDock4.2, we performed global searches of
the conformational space along with careful local searches to
derive the best conformational fit within the STAT5 SH2
domain. Docking simulations were carried out with a rigid
B
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ml500165r | ACS Med. Chem. Lett. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX