P.M. Ramanujulu et al. / European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 63 (2013) 378e386
385
remaining in the donor and acceptor wells after permeation time
and is determined from Equation (2). CA and CD in Equation (2) refer
triple quadrupole linear ion trap mass spectrometer (Applied Bio-
systems/MDS Sciex, Concord, Ontario, Canada) for the other com-
pounds. Separations were made on a C18 column Luna 3u C18(2)
to the concentrations (
wells respectively.
mM) of compound in acceptor and donor
100 A column (2.0 ꢂ 50 mm, i.d., 3
m
M, Phenomenex, Aschaffenburg,
Germany or Eclipse Plus C18 column, 4.6 ꢂ 150 mm, i.d., 3.5
mM,
h
ꢀ
ꢁi
ꢀ
ꢁ
Agilent Technologies, Palo Alto, CA, USA) with a security guard car-
tridge (3.0 ꢂ 4 mm, Agilent Technologies, Palo Alto, CA, USA). Mobile
phase was 0.1% formic acid in acetonitrile e water as mobile phase.
Flow rate was set at 0.2 or 0.6 mL/min and the column temperature
S ¼ ðVA=VDÞ ꢂ
C
AðtÞ=CDð0Þ
þ
C
DðtÞ=CAð0Þ
(2)
The Pe of each compound was obtained from at least 3 separate
experiments using 2 different stock solutions. For each indepen-
dent determination, triplicates (3 wells) were run for each
compound.
was 30ꢁ or 40 ꢁC. 2 or 5
mL full loop sample injection was used.
Data processing was performed with AnalystTM 1.4.2 software
package (Applied Biosystems, MA, USA). The corresponding mul-
tiple reaction monitoring (MRM) transition of the test compound
was selected and used for peak configuration in Analyst 1.4.2 for
semi-quantification. The peak areas of test compound at different
time points were expressed as a % of the peak area of test com-
pound at time ¼ 0 min (¼100%). The resulting % test compound
(average of 3 measurements with SD) was plotted against incuba-
tion time drug (Fig. 1). In vitro half life (T1/2 min) was calculated
from Equation (3) where k is the slope of the line obtained from a
plot of loge (% Test compound) versus time.
5.8. Assessment of aggregation tendency by dynamic light
scattering (DLS)
Stock solutions (10 mM) of test compounds prepared in DMSO,
diluted to 1 mM with DMSO and then serially diluted with potassium
phosphate buffer (5 mM, pH 7.4, prefiltered before use) to give final
concentrations of 1 mM and 10 mM. Final concentration of DMSO was
1% v/v. Measurements were carried out on the Malvern Instrument
Zetasizer Nano ZS system equipped with a 4 mW HeeNe laser at
633 nm and detector angle of 90ꢁ. Three or more determinations of
derived count rates (kilocounts per second, kcps) were obtained
from each concentration of test compound, using two separately
prepared stock solutions. Data collection was carried out using the
software supplied with the instrument. Results are represented as
mean ꢀ standard deviation. The positive control was benzyl ben-
T1=2 ¼ 0:693=k ðminÞ
(3)
where k is the slope of the plot.
Estimated in vitro clearance was determined from Equation (4):
CLint; in vitro ¼ V ꢂ 0:693=T1=2
where V (
(4)
zoate (250
m
M) which gave a count rate of 1180 kcps (ꢀ35). The
vehicle (phosphate buffer, 1% DMSO) gave a reading of 14.9 ꢀ 0.4.
m
L/mg) ¼ Volume of incubation mixture/amount of
microsomal protein in the incubation mixture.
5.9. Determination of in vitro stability of cysmethynil, 2 and 15 in
the presence of rat liver microsomes
5.10. Estimation of log D (pH 7.4) and solubilities
The test compound was incubated with pooled male rat liver
microsomes (BD Gentest Corp, Woburn, MA) in a mixture (total
volume 500 uL) comprising the following: rat liver microsomes
These were estimated using ACD Labs Release 12 (Toronto,
Canada).
(0.3 mg microsome protein/mL), test compound (6
mM, except
cysmethynil which was evaluated at 3 M) and phosphate buffer
m
Acknowledgments
(0.1 M, pH 7.4, containing 1 mM EDTA). The mixture was pre-
incubated for 5 min at 37 ꢁC in a shaking water bath, after which the
The work is supported by a grant from the Biomedical Research
Council (Grant number: 10/1/21/19/664) to MW and MLG. Support
from the Drug Development Unit for Physiochemical Character-
ization is gratefully acknowledged. The authors thank Dr Holger
reaction was started by adding 50
prepared in phosphate buffer) to give a final concentration of 1 mM
NADPH in the mixture. Aliquots of 50 L were withdrawn imme-
mL of 10 mM NADPH (freshly
m
diately on addition of NADPH (time 0) and then at 5, 15, 30 and
45 min. On removal of the sample, reaction was quenched by
Fischer for determining the free energies of amphiphilicity (DDGAM
of cysmethynil, 2 and 15.
)
addition of chilled methanol (100
mL) which also contained the
internal standard (N-ethyl-N-{[5-(4-methylsulfonylphenyl)-1-
octyl-1H-indol-3-yl]methyl} ethanamine, compound 7, Table 1) at
Appendix A. Supplementary data
2
m
M. The mixture was then centrifuged at 10,000ꢂ g to remove the
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at
protein and the content of the test compound in the supernatant
was measured by LCMS.
For each test compound, the metabolic stability of a positive
control, midazolam (Yichang Humanwell Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd,
Yichang, Hubei) which is a known cytochrome P450 substrate, was
concurrently determined to evaluate the adequacy of the experi-
mental conditions. The internal standard used for the LCMS quan-
tification of midazolam was also compound 7 at 2 mM. The stability
of the test compound to microsomal degradation in the absence of
NADPH was also monitored.
Analysis was carried out by LCeMSeMS on a 1200 HPLC instru-
ment (Agilent Technologies, Palo Alto, CA, USA) coupled to a Q
TrapTM 3200 hybrid triple quadrupole linear ion trap mass spec-
trometer (Applied Biosystems/MDS Sciex, Concord, Ontario, Canada)
for cysmethynil, or a Shimadzu UFLC system (Shimadzu Scientific
Instruments, Columbia, MD) coupled to a Q TrapTM 3200 hybrid
References
[1] P.J. Casey, M.C. Seabra, Protein prenyltransferases, J. Biol. Chem. 271 (1996)
5289e5292.
[2] F.L. Zhang, P.J. Casey, Protein prenylation: molecular mechanisms and func-
tional consequences, Annu. Rev. Biochem. 65 (1996) 241e269.
[3] M.N. Ashby, CaaX converting enzymes, Curr. Opin. Lipidol. 9 (1998) 99e102.
[4] Q. Dai, E. Choy, V. Chiu, J. Romano, S.R. Slivka, S.A. Steitz, S. Michaelis,
M.R. Philips, Mammalian prenylcysteine carboxyl methyltransferase is in the
endoplasmic reticulum, J. Biol. Chem. 273 (1998) 15030e15034.
[5] A.M. Winter-Vann, R.A. Baron, W. Wong, J. dela Cruz, J.D. York, D.M. Gooden,
M.O. Bergo, S.G. Young, E.J. Toone, P.J. Casey, A small-molecule inhibitor of
isoprenylcysteine carboxyl methyltransferase with antitumor activity in
cancer cells, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 102 (2005) 4336e4341.
[6] F. Tamonoi, C.L. Gau, C. Jiang, H. Edamatus, K. Kato-Stankiewicz, Protein
farnesylation in mammalian cells: effects of farnesyltransferase inhibitors on
cancer cells, Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 58 (2001) 1636e1649.