1. Siegel, R. L.; Miller, K. D.; Jemal, A. CA: a cancer
journal for clinicians 2016, 66, 7.
2.
A.Titus, M.; Schell, M. J.; Lih, F. B.; B.Tomer, K.;
L.Mohler, J. Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the
American Association for Cancer Research 2005, 11, 4653.
3.
4.
C, H.; CV, H. Cancer Res. 1941, 1, 293.
Chen, C. D.; Welsbie, D. S.; Tran, C.; Baek, S. H.; Chen,
R.; Vessella, R.; Rosenfeld, M. G.; Sawyers, C. L. Nature medicine
2004, 10, 33.
5.
T. L.; Vessella, R. L.; Visakorpi, T. Cancer Res. 2001, 61, 3550.
6. Gregory, C. W.; Johnson, R. T. J.; Mohler, J. L.; French,
F. S.; Wilson, E. M. Cancer research 2001, 61, 2892.
7. Koivisto, P.; Visakorpi, T.; Kallioniemi, O. P. Scand J
Clin Lab Invest Suppl. 1996, 226, 57.
Linja, M. J.; Savinainen, K. J.; Saramaki, O. R.; Tammela,
Fig. 4. Compounds 18 and 19 competitively inhibit androgen binding to AR.
8.
and metabolism: TEM 2010, 21, 315.
Knudsen, K. E.; Penning, T. M. Trends in endocrinology
Sprague-Dawley (SD) rats (n=4, males) were orally separately
administered with 10 mg/kg of compounds 18 and 19 (Fig. 3). As
shown in Table 2, compound 19 exhibited a 1.8-fold increase in
Cmax (ng/ml) (1697 292) compared to 18 (946 43). And the
AUC0-∞ was also increased by almost 2-fold to 28729 752
h·ng/ml (19) from 14752 1997 h·ng/ml (18). The t1/2 values were
not statistically different for 18 (7.4 0.4 h) and 19 (8.9 2.2 h). 19
exhibited clearly better PK parameters than 18 after oral
administration.
9.
Scher, H. I.; Sawyers, C. L. Journal of clinical oncology :
official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2005,
23, 8253.
10.
Attard, G.; Cooper, C. S.; de Bono, J. S. Cancer cell 2009,
16, 458.
11.
S.; Wegelin, J.; DiTommaso, D.; Karnofski, K.; Gulati, R.; Penson,
Etzioni, R.; Tsodikov, A.; Mariotto, A.; Szabo, A.; Falcon,
D. F.; Feuer, E. Cancer causes & control : CCC 2008, 19, 175.
12.
Attard, G.; Reid, A. H.; A' Hern, R. J. Clin. Oncol. 2009,
LNCaP/AR cells (prostate cancer cells overexpressing AR)
were used to confirm the affinity of compound 19 for AR by the
competitive inhibition experiment. As shown in Fig. 4, both 19
and 18 inhibited the binding of [3H]-R1881 (methyltrienolone) to
AR with IC50 values of 15.41 nM and 16.25 nM, respectively.
These results indicated that 19 and 18 had similar affinity for AR
in vitro. Although there are measurable differences in physical
chemical properties between hydrogen and deuterium,18, 19 they
are too small to impact the drug-like properties except metabolic
27, 3742.
13.
Clegg, N. J.; Wongvipat, J.; Joseph, J. D.; Tran, C.; Ouk,
S.; Dilhas, A.; Chen, Y.; Grillot, K.; Bischoff, E. D.; Cai, L.;
Aparicio, A.; Dorow, S.; Arora, V.; Shao, G.; Qian, J.; Zhao, H.;
Yang, G.; Cao, C.; Sensintaffar, J.; Wasielewska, T.; Herbert, M. R.;
Bonnefous, C.; Darimont, B.; Scher, H. I.; Smith-Jones, P.; Klang,
M.; Smith, N. D.; De Stanchina, E.; Wu, N.; Ouerfelli, O.; Rix, P. J.;
Heyman, R. A.; Jung, M. E.; Sawyers, C. L.; Hager, J. H. Cancer
research 2012, 72, 1494.
stability of
a deuterated drug, for example absorption,
14.
Tran, C.; Wongvipat, J. Journal of medicinal chemistry 2010, 53,
Jung, M. E.; Ouk, S.; Yoo, D.; Sawyers, C. L.; Chen, C.;
distribution and interaction with target. Especially when only
three H atoms of 18 have been replaced by D, compound 19
showed very similar potency to bind to AR compared to 18.
2779.
15.
Tran, C.; Ouk, S.; Clegg, N. J.; Chen, Y.; Watson, P. A.;
Arora, V.; Wongvipat, J.; Smith-Jones, P. M.; Yoo, D.; Kwon, A.;
Wasielewska, T.; Welsbie, D.; Chen, C. D.; Higano, C. S.; Beer, T.
M.; Hung, D. T.; Scher, H. I.; Jung, M. E.; Sawyers, C. L. Science
2009, 324, 787.
16. O'Ferrall, R. A. M. Journal of Physical Organic Chemistry
2010, 23, 572.
In summary, in order to get a more metabolic stable AR
inhibitor, we designed and synthesized
a few deuterated
derivatives of apalutamide. Among the deuterated compounds
studied, compound 19 exhibited the best PK profiles with similar
affinity than apalutamide 18 for AR in vitro. In rats, compound
19 displayed almost 2-fold increase in drug exposure compared
to compound 18. Whether this PK profile improvement would
transfer into in vivo efficacy needs to be answered and the
experiment is progress.
17. Zhu, Y.; Zhou, J.; Jiao, B. ACS medicinal chemistry letters
2013, 4, 349.
18.
Meanwell, N. A. Journal of medicinal chemistry 2011, 54,
2529.
19.
B.; Trager, W. F. Int. J. Pharm. 1984, 19, 271.
El Tayar, N.; van de Waterbeemd, H.; Gryllaki, M.; Testa,
20.
21.
Gant, T. G. Journal of medicinal chemistry 2014, 57, 3595.
Graham, P.; Sabounjian, L.; Shipley, J.; Braman, V.;
Acknowledgements
Harnett, M. American Journal of Kidney Diseases 2012, 59, A38.
22.
This work is financially supported by Hinova Pharmaceuticals
Inc. and also partially supported by National Natural Science
Foundation of China (No. 81472418). We also thank Prof.
Xiaoyan Chen, and Prof. Zhiwei Gao (Shanghai Institute of
Materia Medica, Chinese Academy of Sciences) for the technical
support of Pharmacokinetic experiments.
Testa, C.; Stamler, D.; Frank, S. Neurotherapeutics 2014,
11, 222.
23.
Schofield, J.; Brasseur, D.; de Bruin, B.; Vassal, T.;
Klieber, S.; Arabeyre, C.; Bourrie, M.; Sadoun, F.; Fabre, G. Journal
of labelled compounds & radiopharmaceuticals 2013, 56, 504.
24.
Helfenbein, J.; Lartigue, C.; Noirault, E.; Azim, E.;
Legailliard, J.; Galmier, M. J.; Madelmont, J. C. J. Med. Chem.
2002, 45, 5806.
25. Wang, Y.; Kumar, D.; Yang, C.; Keli Han; Shaik, S. J.
Phys. Chem. B 2007, 111, 7700.
A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data (experimental procedures and biological
measuring methods) associated with this article can be found in
the online version.
26.
Jiang, J.; Pang, X.; Li, L.; Dai, X.; Diao, X.; Chen, X.;
Zhong, D.; Wang, Y.; Chen, Y. Drug design, development and
therapy 2016, 10, 2181.
27.
Gibbons, J. A.; Ouatas, T.; Krauwinkel, W.; Ohtsu, Y.; van
References
der Walt, J. S.; Beddo, V.; de Vries, M.; Mordenti, J. Clinical
pharmacokinetics 2015, 54, 1043.