4778
A. Nakao et al. / Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 20 (2010) 4774–4778
5. Wagner, G.; Laufer, S. Med. Res. Rev. 2006, 26, 1.
volume of normal animals. % Inhibition = {1 À (swelled foot volume of animal
on days 21)/(mean swelled foot volume of the control group on day 21)} Â 100
23. Adjuvant arthritis was induced as described above. On day 18, adjuvant
arthritis was established in most adjuvant-injected animals and the swelled
foot volume almost reached a plateau. We selected animals with prominent
swelling of the adjuvant-injected foot (foot volume P 2.75 mL). These animals
were divided into groups so that the mean value of the adjuvant-injected foot
volume in each group was about the same. The test compounds were
suspended in 0.5% CMC aqueous solution at the appropriate concentrations,
and orally administered at 5 mL/kg twice a day from day 18 to day 24 (7 days).
The volume of both feet was measured on days 18, 20, 23, and 25 (0, 2, 5, and
7 days after the first administration) by a plethysmometer (Ugo Basile) by
soaking the hind paw from the toe to the hairline in the bath of the
plethysmometer. The swelled foot volume and the ratio of the swelled foot
volume were calculated with the equations below, and the % inhibition against
control group was obtained. We used the volume of adjuvant-injected foot
(right hind foot) for the calculation because the swelling of the adjuvant-
injected foot was more prominent and stable than that of the uninjected foot.
The swelled foot volume (mL) = right hind foot volume of animals À mean
right hind foot volume of normal animals. The ratio of swelled foot
volume = {(right hind foot volume of animals on day 25 À mean right hind
foot volume of normal animal on day 25)/(right hind foot volume of animals on
day 18 À mean right hind foot volume of normal animal on day 18)} Â 100
24. The experiment was performed according to the method by Kuzuna et al.
(Kuzuna, S.; Kawai, K. Chem. Pharm. Bull. 1975, 23, 1184) with slight
modifications. Heat-killed, dried M. butyricum was ground with an agate
mortar, and was suspended in dry, sterilized liquid paraffin to make a 4.0 mg/
mL suspension. Then, the suspension was sonicated. Adjuvant arthritis was
6. Westra, J.; Limburg, P. C. Mini-Rev. Med. Chem. 2006, 6, 867.
7. (a) Papadakis, K. A. Expert Rev. Clin. Immunol. 2006, 2, 11; (b) Mease, P. J. Expert
Opin. Biol. Ther. 2005, 5, 1491; (c) Lee, S. J.; Kavanaugh, A. Therapy 2005, 2, 13.
8. (a) Gaestal, M.; Mengel, A.; Bothe, U.; Asadullah, K. Curr. Med. Chem. 2007, 14,
2214; (b) Peifer, C.; Wagner, G.; Laufer, S. A Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 2006, 6, 113;
(c) Margutti, S.; Laufer, S. A. Chem. Med. Chem. 2007, 2, 1116.
9. Nakao, A.; Ohkawa, N.; Nagasaki, T.; Doi, H.; Shimozato, T.; Ushiyama, S.; Aoki,
K. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2010, 20, 2435.
10. Nakao, A.; Ohkawa, N.; Nagasaki, T.; Doi, H.; Shimozato, T.; Ushiyama, S.; Aoki,
K. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2009, 16, 4607.
11. The crude ratio of regioisomers was approximately 1:1 by NMR studies. The
isolated yield is indicated in Scheme 1.
12. Harrison, J. R.; O’Brien, P.; Porter, D. W.; Smith, N. M. J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans.
1 1999, 24, 3623.
13. The program, PALLAS from Infocom Corporation, was used to calculate the log P
value.
14. John, M. K.; Joseph, A. Physiol. Rev. 2001, 81, 807.
15. (a) Cuenda, A.; Rouse, J.; Doza, Y. N.; Meier, R.; Cohen, P.; Gallagher, T. F.;
ˇ
´
ˇ
´
Young, P. R.; Lee, J. C. FEBS Lett. 1995, 364, 229; (b) Baranccıka, M.; Bohaccovab,
ˇ
´
´
ˇ
´
V.; Kvacckajova, J.; Hudecova, S.; Krizcanova, O.; Breierb, A. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci.
2001, 14, 29.
16. Nerad, J. L.; Griffiths, J. K.; Van der Meer, J. W. M.; Endres, S.; Poutsiaka, D. D.;
Keusch, G. T.; Bennish, M.; Salam, M. A.; Dinarello, C. A.; Cannon, J. G. J.
Leukocyte Biol. 1992, 52, 687.
17. Badger, A. M.; Bradbeer, J. N.; Votta, B.; Lee, J. C.; Adams, J. J.; Griswold, D. E. J.
Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 1996, 279, 1453.
18. Griffiths, R. J.; Stam, E. J.; Downs, J. T.; Otterness, I. G. J. Immunol. 1995, 154,
2821.
induced in rats by injecting the adjuvant (M. butyricum, 200 lg/0.05 mL/paw)
19. Bryniarski, K.; Ptak, M.; Ptak, W. Immunopharmacology 1996, 34, 73.
20. Terato, K.; Hasty, K. A.; Reife, R. A.; Cremer, M. A.; Kang, A. H.; Stuart, J. M. J.
Immunol. 1992, 148, 2103.
21. Terato, K.; Harper, D. S.; Griffiths, M. M.; Hasty, D. L.; Ye, X. J.; Cremer, M. A.;
Seyer, J. M. Autoimmunity 1995, 22, 137.
22. The experiment was carried out according to the method described by Winder
et al. (Winder, C. V.; Lembke, L. A.; Stephens, M. D. Arthritis Rheum. 1969, 12,
472–482). Heat-killed, dried Mycobacterium butyricum was ground with an
agate mortar, and then suspended in dry-sterilized liquid paraffin to make a
4.0 mg/mL suspension. Then, this suspension was sonicated. Adjuvant arthritis
intradermally in the heel of the right hind paw on day 0. The rats with well-
established arthritis were fasted overnight on day 17. On the day of the
experiment (day 18), ‘pain-positive’ rats were selected as follows: the tarso-
tibial joint of the uninjected foot of rats was gently flexed five times at intervals
of 4–5 s, and rats squeaking at every flection were defined as ‘pain-positive’.
The pain-positive rats were then divided into groups at 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 24, 48,
and 72 h after administration in the same way. The pain score of each rat was
recorded by counting the number of times the animal squeaked. Statistical
analysis: IC50 and ID50 values were calculated from liner regression curves
obtained from the % inhibition and the logarithmic value of the concentrations
or dosages of the test compounds by the last-squares method. The 95%
confidence intervals (C.I.) were calculated by Fieller’s theorem. ID30 value (dose
which decreased the ratio of swelled foot volume of the control group by 30%)
was induced in rats by injecting the adjuvant (M. butyricum, 200 lg/0.05 mL/
paw) intradermally in the heel of the right hind paw on day 0. The test
compounds were suspended in 0.5% CMC aqueous solution at the appropriate
concentrations, and orally administrated at 5 mL/kg once a day from day 0
through day 20. The vehicle was administrated to the control group. The
volume of both feet was measured on days 3, 5, 7, 10, 13, 15, 18, and 21 by a
plethysmometer (Ugo Basile) by soaking the hind paw from the toe to the
hairline in the bath of the plethysmometer. The swelled foot volume and the %
inhibition of treated animals over the control on day 21 were calculated with
the equations below. We used the volume of adjuvant-injected foot (right hind
foot) for the calculation because the swelling of the adjuvant-injected foot was
more prominent and stable than that of the uninjected foot. The swelled foot
volume (mL) = right hind foot volume of animals À mean right hind foot
was calculated by the following equation: the
% inhibition = 60/[1 + exp
{Àb0 À b1 log (dose)}] (b0 and b1; parameters to be estimated). IC50 and ID50
values, and their 95% C.I. values were calculated using the SAS System for
Windows (SAS Institute Inc.).
25. Wada, Y.; Nakajima-Yamada, T.; Yamada, K.; Tsuchida, J.; Yasumoto, T.;
Shimozato, T.; Aoki, K.; Kimura, T.; Ushiyama, S. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 2005, 506,
285.
26. Brown, K. K.; Heitmeyer, S. A.; Hookfin, E. B.; Hsieh, L.; Buchalova, M.; Taiwo, Y.
O.; Janusz, M. J. J. Inflamm. 2008, 5, 22.