Y. B. Kim et al. / Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 14 (2004) 541–544
543
Table 2. Apoptosis induced in HT-29 by various stimuli using
FACScan
Stimuli
Percentage of
apoptotic cells
Control
Echinomycin
1a
9.6ꢁ1.1
47.5ꢁ0.9
28.9ꢁ0.8
HT-29 cells were treated with echinomycin (2 mg/mL) and 1a (10 mg/
mL) for 24 h (each concentration is the lowest one to initiate the
apoptosis of HT-29 cell).
The percentage of apoptotic cells was assessed by flow cytometry.
Results are expressed as meanꢁSEM of at least three separate
experiments.
In summary, the synthesis of new compounds 1a, 1b, 2a,
3a, 4a and 4b were successfully achieved. According to
the eukaryotic or prokaryotic data, the novel compound
1a might be a first analogue to replace echinomycin.
Acknowledgements
Scheme 2. Oxidation of 1a by m-CPBA and 1a,b by dimethyldioxir-
ane.
This work was supported by Grant No. R02-2002-000-
00097-0 from Korea Science & Engineering Foundation.
a
Table 1. MTT assay for IC50 values of novel antibiotics on various
cell lines
References and notes
1a 1b 2a
3a 4a
4b Echinomycin
1. (a) Otsuka, H.;Shoji, J.;Kawano, K.;Kyogoku, Y.
J.
HT-29 (colon)
PANC-1 (pancreas)
BeWO (placenta)
5.0 >20 >20 >20 >20 >20
4.0 >20 >20 >20 >20 >20
2.7 >20 >20 >20 >20 >20
2.2
1.8
1.
Antibiotics 1976, 29, 107. (b) Martin, D. A.;Mizsak,
S. A.;Biles, C.;Meulman, P. A. J. Antibiotics 1975, 28,
332.
B16 (mouse myeloma) 1.4 >20 >20 >20 >20 >20
0.4
2. Shoji, J.;Katakiri, K. J. Antibiotics Ser. A 1961, 14, 335.
3. Mutssuura, S. J. Antibiotics Ser. A 1965, 18, 335.
4. Waring, M. J.;Makoff, A. Mol. Pharmacol. 1974, 10, 214.
5. (a) Waring, M. J.;Wakelin, L. P. G. Nature 1974, 252,
653. (b) Waring, M. J.;Wakelin, L. P. G. Biochem. J.
1976, 157, 721.
a IC50 was defined as the concentration that caused 50% inhibition of
cell growth (unit: mg/mL).
As expected the new echinomycin analogue 1a shows a
remarkable IC50 effect. However, others of 1b, 2a, 3a, 4a
and 4b show low biological activities.
6. (a) Kuroya, M.;Ishida, N. J. Antibiotics Ser. A 1961, 14,
324. (b) Mutssuura, S. J. Antibiotics Ser. A 1965, 18, 43.
7. (a) Ciardelli, T. L.;Chakravarty, P. K.;Olsen, R. K. J.
Am. Chem. Soc. 1978, 100, 7684. (b) Ciardelli, T. L.;
Olsen, R. K. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1977, 99, 2806. (c) Chak-
ravarty, P. K.;Olsen, R. K. Tetrahedron Lett. 1978, 19,
1613. (d) Chew, W. Y.;Hsu, R. K.;Olsen, R. K. J. Org.
Chem. 1975, 40, 3110. (e) Dhaon, M. K.;Gardner, J. H.;
Olsen, R. K. Tetrahedron 1982, 38, 57. (f) Shin, M.;
Inouye, K.;Otsuka, H. Bull. Chem. Soc. Jpn. 1984, 57,
2203. (g) Shin, M.;Inouye, K.;Higuchi, N.;Kyogoku, Y.
Bull. Chem. Soc. Jpn. 1984, 57, 2211. (h) Boger, D. L.;
Ichikawa, S. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2000, 122, 2956. (i) Boger,
D. L.;Lee, J. K. J. Org. Chem. 2000, 65, 5996.
8. Park, Y. S.;Kim, Y. H. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 1998, 8,
731.
9. Van Veen, A. G.;Hyman, A. J. Recl. Yrav. Chim. Pays-
Bas 1935, 54, 493.
10. Corey, E. J.;Bhattacharyya, S. Tetrahedron Lett. 1977,
18, 3919.
11. (a) McDermott, J. R.;Benoiton, N. L. Can. J. Chem.
1973, 51, 1915. (b) Cheung, S. T.;Benoiton, N. L. Can. J.
Chem. 1977, 55, 2987.
12. (a) McElvain, S. M.;Nelson, J. W. J. Am. Chem. Soc.
1942, 64, 1825. (b) Undhein, K.;Eidem, A. Acta Chem.
Scand. 1970, 24, 3129. (c) Veber, D. F.;Milkowski, J. D.;
Varga, S. L.;Denkewalter, R. G.;Hirschmann, R. J. Am.
Novel compounds 1–4 were designed to circumvent
echinomycin’s hydrophobicity as well as to attenuate
immune cell toxicity.19 Of novel analogues, 1a clearly
enabled to induce apoptosis of HT-29 cells (Table 2).
The signaling mechanism exerted by echinomycin or 1a
is differential in inducing apoptosis of cancer cells (data
not shown). It is noteworthy that 1a had comparable
cytotoxicity against solid cancer cells compared to
echinomycin via novel signaling pathway.
Moreover, 1a is active VRE (vancomycin-resistant ent-
erococci) within MIC range 0.5–8.0 mg/mL (cf. echino-
mycin: 0.25 mg/mL). Echinomycin and related com-
pounds owe their antitumor and antimicrobial activities
to the binding ability to DNA which they do by the
mechanism of bifunctional intercalation20 as well as
signaling inhibition. This mechanism of action would
suggest the plausible antimicrobial actions against VRE.
However, clinical trials of echinomycin raised the need
to broaden the therapeutic margins as well as to reduce
the toxicity. This disadvantage of echinomycin may be
overcome by 1a, analogues of echinomycin.