M. A. Ashwell et al. /Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 14 (2004) 2025–2030
Table 4. SAR of N-(2-phenyl-2-(piperazin-1-yl)ethyl)phenylsulfonamides
R1
2029
O O
S
R2
N
H
N
N
OH
O
12
R3
Compound
R1
R2
R3
Na site 2 IC50 In silico CYP 2D6
(nM)
CYP 2D6 HLM stability
(% inhibition (% remaining @
3A4 inhibi-
tion (%)
Ki (lM)
@ 2 lM)
t ¼ 30 min)
53
12a
12b
12c
CF3
H
3-Me
2,5-Di-OMe
2-Cl
Br
Br
F
95a
522
76a
10
30
10
27
25
56
76
100
77
4892
CF3
a % Inhibition at 1 lM.
although SAR trends showed that the introduction of
methoxy groups at R2 or R3 was detrimental to the
overall profile (e.g., compare 7l to 7k and 7c to 7a)
suggesting strategies to follow beyond lead expansion.
From these series 7j and 10h represent new structural
motifs, which together with their associated SAR may
provide sodium channel site 2 blockers of therapeutic
value.
The most potent compound in this set, 7j was a potent
site 2 binder (IC50¼149 nM) with no CYP2D6 inhibi-
tion, good HLM stability, and low CYP3A4 inhibition.
Acknowledgements
In another of our templates we reversed the amide of 7,
providing structure 10. The predicted CYP2D6 values
indicated that this would result in a series with a
decrease in CYP2D6 inhibition. This proved to be the
case when these compounds were synthesized and
screened in vitro. Individual compounds were identified,
which combined good blocking activity at site 2 with
low CYP2D6 inhibition (e.g., 10e and 10d in Table 3).
Again, as with scaffold 7, additional eADME screening
revealed important SAR trends such as the detrimental
effect of a 4-OMe group as R3, which resulted in reduced
HLM stability and increased CYP3A4 inhibition
(compare 10i and 10h).
We thank Dr. Toan Nguyen for his molecule modeling
assistance and Dr. Steve Gallion for his project leader-
ship. In addition we also wish to acknowledge the
many valuable contributions made to the voltage-gated
ion channel project at ArQule, without which work
described in this paper would not have been possible.
References and notes
1. (a) Gallion, S.; Hardy, L.; Sheldon, A. Curr. Drug Discov.
2002, 1, 25–27; (b) Sections of this work have been
2. Brown, G. B. J. Neurosci. 1986, 6, 2064–2070.
3. Anger, D.; Madge, D. J.; Mulla, M.; Riddal, D. J. Med.
Chem. 2001, 44, 115–137.
4. Compounds were screened against the TTXr current
recorded from dissociated rat DRG cells. Each compound
was screened at a concentration of 10 lM and applied to
each cell for 4 min. In addition compounds were screened
against the TTXs sodium current. For more details see
Elliott, A. A.; Elliott, J. R. J. Physiol. 1993, 463, 39–56.
5. Tredger, J. M.; Stoll, S. Hosp. Pharmacist 2002, 9, 167–
173.
6. Bertilsson, L. Clin. Pharmacokinet. 1995, 29, 192–209.
7. The predictive competitive inhibition model for CYP2D6
was constructed from data using probe substrates and an
in house compound set. The output for this model is given
as a binding constant or Ki (expressed in lM). The
technical details of these models will be published
elsewhere.
It was expected from the in silico CYP2D6 model that
extending the design to the sulfonamides 12 would also
provide lower levels of CYP2D6 inhibition. This proved
to be the case. Site 2 blockers where prepared which had
reduced inhibition of CYP2D6 (12a and 12b). However,
12a and 12b were found to be significant CYP3A4
inhibitors and so these were not pursued further (Table
4).
In conclusion we have utilized a strategy incorporating
parallel in silico modeling of sodium site 2 blocking
activity and CYP2D6 inhibition to identify new scaf-
folds. Using this approach together with in vitro bio-
logical screening we have identified a number of series of
potent sodium channel blockers with a range of ADME
profiles. Two series (7 and 10) were of particular interest
for their overall favorable activity and ADME profiles.