L. Smith et al. / Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 16 (2006) 5102–5106
5105
Table 3. Inhibition results for diazepines9
As seen in our earlier report, some compounds in this
study display little correlation between enzymatic
activity and cellular activity. Poor solubility of such
compounds is a possible explanation for these discrep-
ancies. In summary, we have identified and studied the
structure–activity relationships of a novel series of
R
A
NH
N
H
N
N
non-quinazoline compounds containing
a tricyclic
O
oxazepine, thiazepine or diazepine ring system. While
the oxazepines were in general more potent EGFR
kinase inhibitors than thiazepines, the diazepines
showed somewhat different SAR, and were moderately
potent inhibitors of the KDR kinase as well. Further-
more, both oxazepines and diazepines demonstrated
significant ability to inhibit cell-based phosphorylation
in DiFi cells (generally, IC50 values in the single-digit
micromolar to submicromolar range). Mono- and
multi-kinase targeting and orally efficacious analogs of
these compound series have been obtained and will be
reported in due course.
N
H
O
Compound
R
A
Enzymatic DiFi cell
a
IC50 (lM) IC50a (lM)
4a
4b
4c
4d
4e
3-Br —
3-Cl–4-F CH2
1.5
0.3
0.8
0.2
nt
1.6
3-MeO
CH2
CH2
11.7
0.9
H
H
(R)-MeCH 0.15
0.5
nt, not tested; enzymatic activity too low to be tested in cellular assay.
a Data are reported as means of n P 2 determinations.
Acknowledgments
to the pyrimidine ring led to poorly active compounds
(3h–3q). Replacing the bridge nitrogen with an oxygen
(3r, 3s) also significantly decreased activity. Having a
sulfur bridge as in (3t) and (3u) actually maintained
some of the potency relative to (3a), (2r) and (2s).
Because of their overall moderate enzymatic potencies,
only a handful of thiazepines were assayed for their
cellular potency in DiFi cells. Analogs that were tested
showed weak activity (IC50 P 17 lM).
We are grateful to Dr. Peter Bohlen and Dr. Marc
Labelle for their strong support.
References and notes
1. Traxler, P. Exp. Opin. Ther. Patents 1998, 8, 1599.
2. (a) Bradenber, J.; Danenberg, K. D.; Metzger, R.;
Schneider, P. M.; Park, J.; Salonga, D.; Holscher, D.;
Danenberg, P. V. Clin. Cancer Res. 2001, 7, 1850; (b)
Christensen, J. G.; Schreck, R.; Burrows, J.; Kuruganti,
P.; Chan, E.; Le, P.; Chen, J.; Wang, X.; Ruslim, L.;
Blake, R.; Lipson, K. E.; Ramphal, J.; Do, S.; Cui, J. J.;
Cherrington, J. M.; Mendel, D. B. Cancer Res. 2003, 63,
7345.
3. (a) Garcia-Echeverria, C.; Fabbro, D. Mini-Rev. Med.
Chem. 2004, 4, 273; (b) Hao, D.; Rowinsky, E. K. Cancer
Invest. 2002, 20, 387.
4. Li, S.; Schmitz, K. R.; Jeffrey, P. D.; Wiltzius, J. J. W.;
Kussie, P.; Ferguson, K. M. Cancer Cell 2005, 7, 301.
5. McKillop, D.; Partridge, E. A.; Kemp, J. V.; Spence, M.
P.; Kendrew, J.; Barnett, S.; Wood, P. G.; Giles, P. B.;
Patterson, A. B.; Bichat, F.; Guilbaud, N.; Stephens, T. C.
Mol. Cancer Ther. 2005, 4, 641.
Table
3 summarizes the activity profiles of the
diazepines. Compound (4a) showed reduced activity
compared to the oxazepine counterpart (1c). However,
when the nitrogen bridge was extended by one methy-
lene unit (A = CH2), the activity was less sensitive to
the substituent variation on the phenyl ring such that
even a methoxy group (4c) or lack of a substituent
(4d) led to enzymatic potencies comparable to that of
(1c). Indeed, an additional methyl moiety on the bridge
(4e) did not adversely affect potency at all. When
assayed in the DiFi cells, (4e) emerged as the most
potent compound among the diazepines, and equipotent
to (1c).
6. Herbst, R. S.; Johnson, D. H.; Mininberg, E.; Carbone, D.
P.; Henderson, T.; Kim, E. S.; Blumenschein, G., Jr.; Lee,
J. J.; Liu, D. D.; Truong, M. T.; Hong, W. K.; Tran, H.;
Tsao, A.; Xie, D.; Ramies, D. A.; Mass, R.; Seshagiri, S.;
Eberhard, D. A.; Kelley, S. K.; Sandler, A. J. Clin. Oncol.
2005, 23, 2544.
7. (a) Smith, L. M., II.; Hadari, Y. PCT. Int. Appl.
20055009384, Chem. Abstr. 2005, 142, 172179; (b) Smith,
L., II; Piatnitski, E. L.; Kiselyov, A. S.; Ouyang, X.; Chen,
X.; Burdzovic-Wizemann, S.; Xu, Y.; Wang, Y.; Rosler,
R. L.; Patel, S. N.; Chiang, H. H.; Milligan, D. L.;
Columbus, J.; Wong, W. C.; Doody, J. F.; Hadari, Y. R.
Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2006, 16, 1643.
8. (a) Rewcastle, G. W.; Denny, W. A.; Bridges, A. J.; Zhou,
H.; Cody, D. R.; McMichael, A.; Fry, D. W. J. Med.
Chem. 1995, 38, 3482; (b) Rewcastle, G. W.; Palmer, B. D.;
Bridges, A. J.; Hollis Showalter, H. D.; Sun, L.; Nelson, J.;
McMichael, A.; Kraker, A. J.; Fry, D. W.; Denny, W. A.
J. Med. Chem. 1996, 39, 918.
Since KDR (or VEGFR-2), another receptor tyrosine
kinase, has long been within our area of interest,15
some of the test compounds were also assayed for
their enzymatic inhibitory activity against the KDR
kinase.16 While the oxazepines in general showed very
weak KDR activity (IC50 > 10 lM), diazepines
(4b–4e) displayed appreciable potency with IC50 in
the range of 2–5 lM. It is perceivable that the diaze-
pine nitrogen between two aromatic rings, and the
adjacent pyrimidine nitrogen together form hydrogen
bonding interactions at the active site, analogous to
that proposed for AEE788 which is a pyrrolo[2,3-
d]pyrimidine reported to be an inhibitor of both
EGFR and KDR.17 This is in contrast to the oxaze-
pines and thiazepines that lack a potential hydrogen
bond donating group present in the diazepine
scaffold.