M. Yang, et al.
Bioorganic&MedicinalChemistryLettersxxx(xxxx)xxxx
might benefit more from the stronger electron-withdrawing ability of
the fluorine substituent. On the other side, electron-donating groups
such methyl, methoxy and t-butyl reduce the migration inhibitory po-
tency as demonstrated by decreased inhibition rates of analog 7b
through 7d. Especially, as methoxy is the strongest electron-donating
among the three substituents, the inhibition rate of the methoxy-sub-
stituted analog (7c) reaches the lowest within the three analogs. Among
the halogenated analogs 7e through 7h, the inhibition rate decreases
continuously as the periodic number of the halogen substituent in-
creases, implying that the smaller and more electron-withdrawing ha-
logen substituent could enhance the inhibitory effect on cell migration,
whereas the larger and less electron-withdrawing one would undermine
the effect. Among the three brominated analogs (7g, 7i and 7j), 7i has
the largest inhibition rate, meaning that the bromine substitution at the
phenyl meta position is beneficial to the inhibition potency. The better
activity of the meta-bromo substituted analog might be due to bromine’s
para or ortho positions.21 Considering the above structure–activity re-
lationships, it seems that the electron-withdrawing capacity of the
substituent could be the potency-increasing factor for the peptidomi-
metics with the same type of substituents. One of the consequences with
a stronger electron-withdrawing substituent on the phenyl ring is the
increased acidity of the adjacent benzamide group, making it a better
hydrogen donor, which might render a stronger binding with a target
protein and possibly a higher level of antimigration activity. This kind
of correlation between the acidity of an amide group and the anti-
migration potency of the whole molecule was also observed among the
isoxazoline-based cell migration inhibitors.11 In addition, the results of
the inhibition rates also indicate that there might be some other factors
that could influence the potency of the migration inhibitors because the
chlorinated analog 7f is less active than the methylated one 7b even
through a chlorine atom is more electron-withdrawing than a methyl
group and comparable in size with the group. One plausible reason is
that a chlorine atom and a methyl group differ not only in electron-
withdrawing capacity but also in some other electrosteric aspects such
as static field and shape etc. More in-depth study is needed to under-
stand the structure–activity relationship of these compounds.
Figure 2. The cell viability of MDA-MB-231 cells in the presence of the pepti-
domimetics 7. It was measured with CCK8-kit after cells were dosed with the
DMSO solution of the 7a through 7j, respectively, or neat DMSO as a reference
(V.C.) and then incubated for 48 h.
cell viability assay to check if there is a correlation between the two
effects on cells. By comparing the amount of a metabolite generated by
life dosed cells with the amount of the same metabolite by life undosed
cells, we obtained the cell viability in the presence of compounds 7
(Figure 2).23 The figure indicates that cells treated with all of the
compounds at 1 μM concentration had no significant loss in viability,
meaning these compounds affect little toxicity to the breast cancer cells
at the concentration. The viability decreased as the concentration of the
compounds was increased up to 10 μM. However, most analogs except
7j still imposed no significant toxicity since their viability values re-
main around 90%. And the most potent migration inhibitors (7e) did
not affect any viability loss at both concentrations. The other analogs
such as 7a and 7d did not have their cell viability significantly reduced
either. The most toxic analog is 7j, which reduced cell viability by al-
most 30% at 10 μM, is the least potent inhibitors. Therefore, the cy-
totoxicity of the compounds is not correlated with their migration in-
hibition capacity. Therefore, the migration inhibitory effect of these
compounds is least likely due to their cytotoxicity.
To confirm the antimigration effect of the peptidomimeitcs in a
different setting, we performed a scratch assay with the same line of
cancer cells without using lipase sPLA2-IIA to induce cell migration.
Based on the reduction in the area recovered by dosed cells in com-
parison to the undosed ones in the absence of the chemotaxi agent, we
acquired the rates of inhibition on cells’ spontaneous migration by the
compounds 7 (the blue markers in Figure 1).22 As the blue markers
(15–49%) against cell migration even though no exogenous chemotaxi
agent was added. These data suggest that the compounds could take
effect on the intrinsic cellular motility as well. Also the scratch in-
hibition rates of 7 show the same trend as the transwell inhibition rates
of these compounds. For example, the analog with the 4-methoxy
substituent remains the least active among the alkyl and alkoxy sub-
stituted analogs (7a through 7d). Also the fluorinated analog 7e still
has the strongest potency among all analogs. And the scratch inhibition
rate also decreases from 7e through 7h as the periodic number of the
halogen substituent increases. At last, the analog with the 3-bromo
substituent also has a larger inhibition rate than the other bromo ana-
logs in the scratch assay. However, there still are some differences be-
tween the two inhibition rates. One difference is that the scratch in-
hibition rates of the most analogs are larger than the transwell ones.
This might be due to the higher concentration of the compounds tested
in the scratch assay. The larger inhibition rates at the higher con-
centration of the most analogs imply that there might be a good cor-
relation between the migration inhibition and the concentration of the
peptidemimetics.
After the antimigration effect of peptidomimetics 7 were confirmed
in the above assays, we then checked if the effect was specific to the
breast cancer cells. Since compound 7e has the most potency and no
apparent cytotoxicity, we run a transwell migration assay with two
other metastatic cells, such as lung cancer cells A549 and cervical
cancer cells HELA using the same assay parameters as with the breast
cancer cells. In the assay the A549 and HELA cells were dosed with the
DMSO solution of the compound and cells in a control well were treated
with the same volume of neat DMSO solution as of the compound so-
lution. After all the cells were incubated as in the previous transwell
assay, the cells that migrated into the lower chamber were counted. The
percentage ratio of the cell counts of dosed migrating cells to that of the
migrating cells in the control well were calculated and shown as re-
lative migration rates in Figure 3. As shown in the figure, the relative
migration rates of both A549 and HELA cells were reduced to about
60% of the one of the vehicle control after the cells were dosed with
compound 7e, meaning the compound can significantly inhibit the
migration of both cancer cells by about 40%, which is a comparable
potency as in the assay with the breast cancer cells. Also, our previous
work indicates that 7a could stop cells U937 from migrating.19 There-
fore, as this type of the compound demonstrated the inhibitory effect on
migration of at least the four lines of cancer cells in total, it would serve
as a valuable lead structure for the development of antimetastatic
therapeutics against a broad spectrum of cancers.
To rule out the possibility that the antimigration activity of the
peptidomimetics 7 is attributable to their cytotoxicity, we performed a
As compound 7e demonstrated the strongest inhibitory effect on cell
migration in the previous assay, we chose this compound to study the
3