To investigate the protective abilities of these chelators, a
spontaneously transformed cell line of oligodendroglia origin
(OLN 93) was chosen as a model for neural cells. These cells
were previously used to demonstrate a remarkable sensitivity to
genotoxic stress, culminating in cell death when both divalent
iron and H2O2 were added to cells.26 In the present experiments,
OLN 93 cells were seeded in 96-well polyethyleneimine pre-
coated plates, and after 24 h attachment were further incubated
for 3 h with the synthetic analogs at various concentrations. A
Fenton reaction (50 lM FeII and 0.75 mM H2O2) was initiated,
and after 2 h reagents were removed, and at designated times cell
survival then measured by a neutral-red assay.27 The survival rate
is directly proportional to lysosomal dye uptake as measured by
the absorbance at 550 nm.28
Fig. 5 Comparing the survival rate of OLN cells incubated with 200 lM
DFO or analog 5 after oxidative stress.
Fig. 3 demonstrates the protective effect of analogs 5–7 at
a 200 lM concentration of chelator. Each data point is an
average of seven wells. It is clear that all analogs exert some
protective effect by increasing the overall survival rate of cells
treated with H2O2 and FeII. We decided to focus on analog 5,
which displayed the highest protective effect (87% survival rate)
of all three analogs.
binding constants of all compounds are expected to be similar.
Instead, we suggest that the lipophilic character of these analogs
is the key element, allowing these compounds to cross the cell
membrane, and so protect the cells from oxidative stress.
In conclusion, we have presented a series of FeIII chelators
that all show a protective effect on oligodendrial cells that were
exposed to FeII and H2O2. One analog (5) showed profound
protection and was far more effective than the commercially
available FeIII chelator, DFO. Current efforts are directed
toward improving the lipophilic character of these analogs
by introducing hydrophobic side chain groups on the amino
acids. Such modifications are expected to improve the chelators’
activity by lowering the required dosage for effective protection.
We thank Rachel Lazar for her synthetic assistance. Support
from the Gulton Foundation NY (EY) and the Helen and
Martin Kimmel Center for Molecular Design (AS) is greatly
acknowledged. AS holds the Siegfried and Irma Ulmann
professorial chair.
Fig. 3 The protective effect of analogs 5–7 as determined by a
neutral-red assay. Cells were treated with FeII (50 lM) and H2O2
(750 lM) in the presence of 200 lM of chelator.
References
1 Metal ions in biological systems: Iron Transport and Storage in
Microorganisms, Plants and Animals, ed. A. S. H. Sigel, M. Dekker,
New York, 1998, vol. 35.
2 F. Foury and M. Kucej, Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol., 2002, 6, 106.
3 Z. M. Qian and Q. Wang, Brain Res. Rev., 1998, 27, 257.
4 K. A. Jellinger, Drugs Aging, 1999, 14, 115.
5 Y. Ke and Z. M. Qian, Lancet Neurology, 2003, 2, 246.
6 A. Yamamoto, R. W. Shin, K. Hasegawa, H. Naiki, H. Sato, F.
Yoshimasu and T. Kitamoto, J. Neurochem., 2003, 86, 1568.
7 R. S. Britton, K. L. Leicester and B. R. Bacon, Int. J. Haematol.,
2002, 76, 219.
Fig. 4 presents a concentration gradient of analog 5. Some ap-
parent protection is observed at 40 lM concentration of chelator,
and close to unity protection is observed at a concentration of
200 lM.
8 J. B. Galey, J. Dumats, I. Beck, B. Fernandez and M. Hocquaux, Free
Radical Res., 1995, 22, 67.
9 J. B. Galey, J. Dumats, S. Genard, O. Destree, P. Pichaud, P. Cctroux,
L. Marrot, I. Beck, B. Fernandez, G. Barre, M. Seite, G. Hussler and
M. Hocquaux, Biochem. Pharmacol., 1996, 51, 103.
10 J. B. Galey, O. Destree, J. Dumats, P. Pichaud, J. Marche, S. Genard,
G. Bracciolli, L. Le Capitaine, H. Plessix, L. Brambilla and O.
Cantoni, Free Radical Biol. Med., 1998, 25, 881.
11 J.-B. Galey, O. Destree, J. Dumats, S. Genard and P. Tachon, J. Med.
Chem., 2000, 43, 1418.
12 E. Grunblatt, S. Mandel and M. B. H. Youdim, J. Neurol., 2000, 247,
95.
13 D. Kaur and J. K. Andersen, Aging Cell, 2002, 1, 17.
14 S. Mandel, E. Grunblatt, P. Riederer, M. Gerlach, Y. Levites and
M. B. H. Youdim, CNS Drugs, 2003, 17, 729.
15 H. L. Persson, Z. Q. Yu, O. Tirosh, J. W. Eaton and U. T. Brunk, Free
Radical Biol. Med., 2003, 34, 1295.
Fig. 4 Survival rate of OLN cells, after oxidative stress, at a varying
concentration of analog 5.
16 D. R. Richardson, Expert Opin. Invest. Drugs, 2003, 12, 235.
17 T. F. Tam, R. Leung-Toung, W. R. Li, Y. S. Wang, K. Karimian and
M. Spino, Curr. Med. Chem., 2003, 10, 983.
18 K. Zaman, H. Ryu, D. Hall, K. O’Donovan, K. I. Lin, M. P. Miller,
J. C. Marquis, J. M. Baraban, G. L. Semenza and R. R. Ratan,
J. Neurosci., 1999, 19, 9821.
19 B. Halliwell and J. M. C. Gutteridge, Mol. Aspects Med., 1985, 8, 89.
20 M. J. Davies, R. Donkor, C. A. Dunster, C. A. Gee, S. Jonas and
R. L. Willson, Biochem. J., 1987, 246, 725.
In order to determine whether this effect is unique to these
compounds, we compared the most potent analog (5) to DFO
(Fig. 5). While analog 5 almost fully protects the cells from
oxidative stress (77% increase in cell survival), it is clear that
DFO has a negligible effect (7.5% increase in cell survival). We
attribute these differences to the lipophilic character of these
synthetic analogs in comparison to the relatively hydrophilic
character of DFO.29
21 E. Yavin, L. Weiner, R. Arad-Yellin and A. Shanzer, J. Phys. Chem.
A, 2001, 105, 8018.
22 R. Margalit and A. Shanzer, Biochim. Biophys. Acta, 1981, 649, 441.
It is unlikely that the observed protection of analogs 5–7 in
comparison to DFO is based solely on FeIII binding, as the
2 6 8 6
O r g . B i o m o l . C h e m . , 2 0 0 5 , 3 , 2 6 8 5 – 2 6 8 7