Search

The response profiles of 36 para-substituted diphenylethylenes (DPEs) and triphenylacrylonitriles (TPEs) have been compared by multivariate analysis. The responses measured were (a) relative binding affinity (RBA) for the cytosol estrogen receptor (ER), (b) ability to promote the growth of the human MCF7 breast cancer cell-line, (c) cytotoxicity in MCF7 cells, and (d) ability to stimulate or inhibit protein kinase C (PKC) III activity under three different conditions of enzyme activation. The prime object of the analysis was to observe the simultaneous influence of diverse combinations of substituents on all these in vitro responses. To do this, the minimum spanning tree (MST) method was used to organize the molecules into a network in which proximate molecules are closely related with regard to their responses whereas remote molecules are distinct. The MST of this population of molecules had four main branches. E2 and its TPE mime were located in a central position within the trunk whereas the tips of the branches tended toward molecules of different specificity, i.e., cytotoxic molecules that bind to ER and interfere with PKC, noncytotoxic molecules that also bind to ER and interfere with PKC but promote cell growth, molecules only active on PKC, and molecules active on all parameters except PKC stimulation. A parallel MST analysis of the relationships among the response parameters themselves confirmed previous conclusions: For this population of molecules, RBAs for ER are fairly closely related to ability to promote MCF7 cell growth and only little to cytotoxicity (Bignon et al. J. Med. Chem. 1989, 32, 2092). Cytotoxicity is much more clearly correlated with inhibition of diacylglycerol-stimulated PKC activity than with RBAs for ER. PKC inhibition differs substantially depending upon whether the substrate is H1 histone or protamine sulfate.

The relative binding affinities of 48 steroids for four classes of hormone receptor (progestin, PR; androgen, AR; glucocorticoid, GR; mineralocorticoid, MR) have been analyzed by correspondence analysis. The steroids were, for the most part, derivatives of nortestosterone, differing by their degree of unsaturation, by the presence or absence of a 17 alpha-ethynyl group, and by the length of the C-13 alkyl substituent. Derivatives of norprogesterone were included as reference compounds. Distribution maps visualizing the results of the mathematical analysis revealed that the majority of the test steroids were within the zone of influence of AR and PR and had limited affinity for GR and MR. Overall lack of specificity and enhanced affinity for GR and MR were induced by increasing unsaturation and by the presence of a C-13 ethyl group. The general and specific conclusions of the analysis confirm and extend previous intuitive and partial interpretations of the data. Correspondence analysis, however, has the advantage of taking into account the sum total of the available information, without any preconceived notion of the relative importance of a specific structural feature or biological parameter and, furthermore, enables simultaneous representation on a single graph of the receptor and steroid fields. The present example demonstrates the use of this type of methodology in processing routine screening data involving multiple parameters.

The relative binding affinities of over 30 steroids have been measured for the cytosol glucocorticoid receptor (GR) of thymus, liver, and hepatoma tissue culture cells and for progestin, androgen, and mineralocorticoid receptors. The data have been analyzed by correspondence analysis to reveal the singularities among the receptors of different hormonal classes, the similarities in GR of different origins, and the different specificities of the ligands. Additional data on new steroids have been injected into the system as well as results on a further parameter, namely the induction of tyrosine aminotransferase (TAT) activity, to illustrate the power and flexibility of the methodology. The analysis has confirmed previous correlations between GR binding and TAT response but also highlighted the antiglucocorticoid activity of progestins. This method should prove to be a substantial aid to the interpretation of increasingly complex data, in particular with regard to the action of existing and newly synthesized steroids on glucocorticoid systems of differential sensitivity.

In a study of a series of 26 triphenylacrylonitrile derivatives (TPEs), we investigated the influence of several possibly interrelated factors on the proliferation of human breast cancer cell lines. (1) Chemical substituents: the test compounds were for the most part para-hydroxylated with increasingly bulky hydrophobic and/or basic side chains [isopropyloxy or (diethylamino)ethoxy] or standard reference compounds. (2) Relative binding affinities (RBAs): they competed diversely for [3H]estradiol (E2) binding to calf uterus cytosol and little, if at all, for binding to the [3H]tamoxifen-labeled antiestrogen binding site (AEBS) in lower speed supernatant. A multiparametric comparison of RBAs recorded for calf, rat, and mouse uterus cytosol estrogen receptor (ER) revealed a possible influence of species-specific receptor conformation and/or environment on binding. (3) Estrogen/antiestrogen potency: their stimulation and inhibition of the proliferation of the ER-positive human breast cancer cell line (MCF7) was measured. Compounds with only hydroxy substituents stimulated proliferation more markedly than methylated derivatives and had a maximum effect at 10(-11)-10(-6) M. Stimulation was related to the RBA for ER. Compounds with isopropyloxy or (diethylamino)ethoxy side chains only weakly stimulated MCF7 cell growth and more powerfully antagonized E2-promoted growth. The extent of inhibition depended upon the bulk of the side chain and could be reversed by 10(-7) M E2. Within the same concentration ranges, the test compounds were without effect on the BT20 ER-negative cell line. (4) Cytostatic and/or cytolytic activity: most compounds could arrest the proliferation of both MCF7 and BT20 cells at concentrations above 3 x 10(-6) M. This activity was thus independent of ER. Nevertheless, those compounds with a charged hydrophobic side chain, which were the most powerful antagonists of E2-promoted cell growth, were also the most cytotoxic. The overall results for all molecules on all parameters were submitted to a multivariate analysis (correspondence analysis) which revealed the progressive influence of increasing substitution by hydroxy and more bulky groups on the generation of antagonist activity and cytotoxicity.

The crystal structures of 21-(phenylseleno)progesterone (1), which binds with moderate affinity to the progestin receptor, and 17 alpha-(phenylseleno)progesterone (2), which binds hardly at all, have been studied in an attempt to explain these differences in affinity and to obtain further information on the location of the progestin receptor binding site with respect to the progesterone molecule. The crystal structures were refined by isotropic thermal approximation to R values of 0.082 for 1 and 0.084 for 2. The unusual 17 beta side-chain orientation of 2 with a C16-C17-C20-O20 torsion angle of +13 degrees compared to -7 degrees for progesterone would seem to preclude hydrogen bonding with the progestin receptor binding site and provides strong supporting evidence for the contention that this site is located above the beta face of the molecule. Any rotation of the C21 methyl group into a more appropriate position is furthermore impeded by the presence of the 17 alpha-phenylseleno substituent. On the other hand, some hydrogen bonding can occur in the case of 1 (C16-C17-C20-O20 = 31 degrees) despite the fact that the difference in torsion angle (24 degrees) with respect to progesterone is, in absolute values, greater than that for 2 (20 degrees). This is because the orientation of the 17 beta-acetyl side chain of 1 is directed above the beta face closer to the progestin binding site, as previously defined on the basis of data on a large number of molecules, and because the 21-phenylseleno substituent constitutes only limited steric hindrance to binding. Thus, the difference in affinity of these two compounds is entirely consistent with observations that the H-bond donor is located toward O20 in the beta region of C16.