3552
J. J. Hangeland et al. / Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 14 (2004) 3549–3553
the 30-phenyl series, however, improved TR-b selectivity
was not universally observed. For example, the SAR
revealed by compounds 9a–j shows that both good
affinity and improved selectivity is obtained when the 30-
phenyl ring is either unsubstituted or substituted by a
small, hydrophobic group in the meta position. In con-
trast, compound 9b, which bears a small hydrophobic
group in the ortho position of the 30-phenyl ring, pref-
erentially gains affinity for TR-a and hence has lower
TR-b selectivity relative to compound 9a. These SAR
data point to the likelihood that specific contacts be-
tween the 30-group of the ligand and the 30-binding
pocket of the LBD provide additional determinants for
influencing selectivity for TR-b or for TR-a. The details
of such interactions and their potential impact on the
design of selective thyromimetics awaits further X-ray
crystal analysis.
Figure 2. X-ray crystal structure of 15c/TR-b1 LBD complex12 illus-
trating the movement of M442 (shown in yellow for the X-ray struc-
ture of 2/TR-b1 LBD5).
Improvements to the TR-b1 selectivity and potency of
KB-141 have been achieved through SAR studies that
vary the steric bulk of R30 hydrophobic groups. This
study, in agreement with others reported previously,6b;c
showed that increasing the steric bulk of the 30-group of
thyromimetics is a general approach for improving
selectivity for TR-b. These results further suggest that
partial agonists and, perhaps, antagonists18 can be de-
signed by varying the trajectories and steric bulk of
groups located at the 30-position of thyromimetics in a
way distinct from those needed to create selective
agonists.
TR-b1 LBD complexed separately to 25 and 15c12 (Fig.
2). Comparison of key hydrogen bonding interactions
between the LBD and the two ligands (e.g., arg282 and
arg320 and the R1 acetic acid side chain; his435 and the
R40 phenol) showed the location and orientation of the
R1 side chain and biaryl ether core of 15c and 2 to be
substantially the same. The key structural difference
between the two complexes was movement of met442
(shown in yellow for the 2/TR-b1 complex), resulting in
significant enlargement of the 30-binding pocket imme-
diately adjacent to the 30-phenyl ethyl amide of 15c in a
manner similar to that previously disclosed.6c The phen-
yl ethyl side chain of the ligand adopted a gauche
conformation, complementing the shape of the enlarged
binding pocket.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to than thank Dr. Minsheng
Zhang and Ms. Yolanda Caringal for insightful com-
ments during the course of this study.
Investigation into the significance of these findings was
carried out by docking compounds 15a–e into a binding
site model based on the 15c/TR-b1 structure.17 The
computed energies (Eass kJ/mol) for this series correlated
well with their observed TR-b1 IC50 values (r2 ¼
0:93; n ¼ 5) suggesting that once the bulky 30-substi-
tuents displaced met442, the differences in relative
binding affinities were largely accounted for by steric
interactions in the newly formed pocket. Movement of
met442 may be involved in the binding of selective
analogs from the 30-phenyl and 30-phenoxy series as well.
The influence that this conformational change has on
isoform selectivity is difficult to pinpoint owing to the
lack of a complementary X-ray crystal structure with the
TR-a1 LBD. In a separate study, a detailed analysis of
binding data and crystallographic data for a novel TR-b
selective thyromimetic, GC-25, and its progenitor GC-1,
provided evidence that the 30-binding pocket of TR-b is
more flexible compared to that of TR-a and that this
difference plays a dominant role in the improved selec-
tivity of GC-25 for TR-b.6c It is reasonable to speculate,
therefore, that a similar mechanism may be partly
responsible for the increased TR-b selectivity observed
for each of the three series describe in this work and for
compounds disclosed by the group at Pfizer.6b Within
References and notes
1. (a) Brent, G. Endocrinology: Basic and Clinical Principles;
Humana: Totowa, NJ, 1997, Chapter 19; (b) Lazar, M. A.
Endocr. Rev. 1993, 14, 184.
2. Forrest, D. Semin. Cancer Biol. 1994, 5, 167.
€
3. (a) Wilkstrom, L.; Johansson, C.; Salto, C.; Barlow, C.;
Barrow, A. G.; Baas, F.; Forrest, D.; Thoren, P.;
ꢁ
ꢁ
€
Vennstrom, B. EMBO J. 1998, 17, 455; (b) Johansson,
€
€
ꢁ
C.; Gothe, S.; Forrest, D.; Vennstrom, B.; Thoren, P. Am.
J. Physiol. 1999, 276, H2006.
4. (a) Trost, S. U.; Swanson, E.; Gloss, B.; Wang-Iverson,
D. B.; Zhang, H.; Volodarsky, T.; Grover, G. J.; Baxter,
J. D.; Chiellini, G.; Scanlan, T. S.; Dillmann, W. H.
Endocrinology 2000, 141, 3057; (b) Grover, G. J.; Mel-
€
lstrom, K.; Ye, L.; Malm, J.; Li, Y.-L.; Bladh, L.-G.;
Sleph, P. G.; Smith, M. A.; George, R.; Vennstrom, B.;
Mookhtiar, K.; Horvath, R.; Speelman, J.; Egan, D.;
Baxter, J. D. PNAS 2003, 100, 10067.
€
€
5. Ye, L.; Li, Y.-L.; Mellstrom, K.; Bladh, L.-G.; Koehler,
K.; Garg, N.; Garcia Collazo, A. M.; Litten, C.; Husman,
B.; Persson, K.; Ljunggren, J.; Grover, G.; Sleph, P. G.;
George, R.; Malm, J. J. Med. Chem. 2003, 46, 1580.