Comprehensive in Vitro Characterization of the LSD1 Small Molecule Inhibitor Class in Oncology

Anticancer Drugs of Lysine Specific Histone Demethylase-1 (LSD1) Display Variable Inhibition on Nucleosome Substrates

Lysine specific demethylase-1 (LSD1) serves as a regulator of transcription and represents a promising epigenetic target for anticancer treatment. LSD1 inhibitors are in clinical trials for the treatment of Ewing's sarcoma (EWS), acute myeloid leukemia, and small cell lung cancer, and the development of robust inhibitors requires accurate methods for probing demethylation, potency, and selectivity. Here, the inhibition kinetics on the H3K4me2 peptide and nucleosome substrates was examined, comparing the rates of demethylation in the presence of reversible [CC-90011 (PD) and SP-2577 (SD)] and irreversible [ORY-1001 (ID) and tranylcypromine (TCP)] inhibitors. Inhibitors were also subject to viability studies in three human cell lines and Western blot assays to monitor H3K4me2 nucleosome levels in EWS (TC-32) cells, enabling a correlation of drug potency, inhibition in vitro, and cell-based studies. For example, SP-2577, a drug in clinical trials for EWS, inhibits activity on small peptide substrates (Ki = 60 ± 20 nM) using an indirect coupled assay but does not inhibit demethylation on H3K4me2 peptides or nucleosomes using direct Western blot approaches. In addition, the drug has no effect on H3K4me2 levels in TC-32 cells. These data show that SP-2577 is not an LSD1 enzyme inhibitor, although the drug may function independent of demethylation due to its cytotoxic selectivity in TC-32 cells. Taken together, this work highlights the pitfalls of using coupled assays to ascribe a drug's mode of action, emphasizes the use of physiologically relevant substrates in epigenetic drug targeting strategies, and provides insight into the development of substrate-selective inhibitors of LSD1.

Targeting Group 3 Medulloblastoma by the Anti-PRUNE-1 and Anti-LSD1/KDM1A Epigenetic Molecules

Medulloblastoma (MB) is a highly malignant childhood brain tumor. Group 3 MB (Gr3 MB) is considered to have the most metastatic potential, and tailored therapies for Gr3 MB are currently lacking. Gr3 MB is driven by PRUNE-1 amplification or overexpression. In this paper, we found that PRUNE-1 was transcriptionally regulated by lysine demethylase LSD1/KDM1A. This study aimed to investigate the therapeutic potential of inhibiting both PRUNE-1 and LSD1/KDM1A with the selective inhibitors AA7.1 and SP-2577, respectively. We found that the pharmacological inhibition had a substantial efficacy on targeting the metastatic axis driven by PRUNE-1 (PRUNE-1-OTX2-TGFβ-PTEN) in Gr3 MB. Using RNA seq transcriptomic feature data in Gr3 MB primary cells, we provide evidence that the combination of AA7.1 and SP-2577 positively affects neuronal commitment, confirmed by glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP)-positive differentiation and the inhibition of the cytotoxic components of the tumor microenvironment and the epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) by the down-regulation of N-Cadherin protein expression. We also identified an impairing action on the mitochondrial metabolism and, consequently, oxidative phosphorylation, thus depriving tumors cells of an important source of energy. Furthermore, by overlapping the genomic mutational signatures through WES sequence analyses with RNA seq transcriptomic feature data, we propose in this paper that the combination of these two small molecules can be used in a second-line treatment in advanced therapeutics against Gr3 MB. Our study demonstrates that the usage of PRUNE-1 and LSD1/KDM1A inhibitors in combination represents a novel therapeutic approach for these highly aggressive metastatic MB tumors.

GFI1B and LSD1 repress myeloid traits during megakaryocyte differentiation

The transcription factor Growth Factor Independence 1B (GFI1B) recruits Lysine Specific Demethylase 1 A (LSD1/KDM1A) to stimulate gene programs relevant for megakaryocyte and platelet biology. Inherited pathogenic GFI1B variants result in thrombocytopenia and bleeding propensities with varying intensity. Whether these affect similar gene programs is unknow. Here we studied transcriptomic effects of four patient-derived GFI1B variants (GFI1BT174N,H181Y,R184P,Q287*) in MEG01 megakaryoblasts. Compared to normal GFI1B, each variant affected different gene programs with GFI1BQ287* uniquely failing to repress myeloid traits. In line with this, single cell RNA-sequencing of induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC)-derived megakaryocytes revealed a 4.5-fold decrease in the megakaryocyte/myeloid cell ratio in GFI1BQ287* versus normal conditions. Inhibiting the GFI1B-LSD1 interaction with small molecule GSK-LSD1 resulted in activation of myeloid genes in normal iPSC-derived megakaryocytes similar to what was observed for GFI1BQ287* iPSC-derived megakaryocytes. Thus, GFI1B and LSD1 facilitate gene programs relevant for megakaryopoiesis while simultaneously repressing programs that induce myeloid differentiation.

Uncovering New Conformational States of the Substrate Binding Pocket of LSD1 Potential for Inhibitor Design via Funnel Metadynamics

Lysine-specific demethylase 1 (LSD1) is a promising therapeutic target for cancer therapy. So far, over 80 crystal structures of LSD1 in different complex states have been deposited in the Protein Data Bank, which are valuable resources for performing structure-based drug design. However, among all of the crystal structures of LSD1, the substrate binding pocket, which is the most efficient druggable site for designing LSD1 inhibitors at present, is very similar no matter whether LSD1 is in the apo or any holo forms, which is inconsistent with its versatile demethylase functions. To investigate whether the substrate binding pocket is rigid or exhibits other representative conformations different from the crystal conformations that are feasible for designing new LSD1 inhibitors, we performed funnel metadynamics simulations to study the conformation dynamics of LSD1 in the binding process of two effective LSD1 inhibitors (CC-90011 and 6X0, CC-90011 undergoing clinical trials). Our results showed that the entrance of the substrate binding pocket is very flexible. Two representative entrance conformations of LSD1 counting against binding with the substrate of histone H3 were detected, which may be used for structure-based LSD1 inhibitor design. Besides, alternative optimal binding modes and prebinding modes for both inhibitors were also detected, which depicted that the key interactions changed along with the binding process. Our results should provide great help for LSD1 inhibitor design.

Current and future therapeutic strategies for high-grade gliomas leveraging the interplay between epigenetic regulators and kinase signaling networks

Targeted therapies, including small molecule inhibitors directed against aberrant kinase signaling and chromatin regulators, are emerging treatment options for high-grade gliomas (HGG). However, when translating these inhibitors into the clinic, their efficacy is generally limited to partial and transient responses. Recent studies in models of high-grade gliomas reveal a convergence of epigenetic regulators and kinase signaling networks that often cooperate to promote malignant properties and drug resistance. This review examines the interplay between five well-characterized groups of chromatin regulators, including the histone deacetylase (HDAC) family, bromodomain and extraterminal (BET)-containing proteins, protein arginine methyltransferase (PRMT) family, Enhancer of zeste homolog 2 (EZH2), and lysine-specific demethylase 1 (LSD1), and various signaling pathways essential for cancer cell growth and progression. These specific epigenetic regulators were chosen for review due to their targetability via pharmacological intervention and clinical relevance. Several studies have demonstrated improved efficacy from the dual inhibition of the epigenetic regulators and signaling kinases. Overall, the interactions between epigenetic regulators and kinase signaling pathways are likely influenced by several factors, including individual glioma subtypes, preexisting mutations, and overlapping/interdependent functions of the chromatin regulators. The insights gained by understanding how the genome and epigenome cooperate in high-grade gliomas will guide the design of future therapeutic strategies that utilize dual inhibition with improved efficacy and overall survival.

Lysine-Specific Demethylase 1 (LSD1) Inhibitors: Peptides as an Emerging Class of Therapeutics

Aberrant expression of the epigenetic regulator lysine-specific demethylase 1 (LSD1) has been associated with the incidence of many diseases, particularly cancer, and it has evolved as a promising epigenetic target over the years for treatment. The advent of LSD1 inhibitor-based clinical utility began with tranylcypromine, and it is now considered an inevitable scaffold in the search for other irreversible novel LSD1 inhibitors (IMG-7289 or bomedemstat, ORY1001 or iadademstat, ORY-2001 or vafidemstat, GSK2879552, and INCB059872). Moreover, numerous reversible inhibitors for LSD1 have been reported in the literature, including clinical candidates CC-90011 (pulrodemstat) and SP-2577 (seclidemstat). There is parallel mining for peptide-based LSD1 inhibitors, which exploits the opportunities in the LSD1 substrate binding pocket. This Review highlights the research progress on reversible and irreversible peptide/peptide-derived LSD1 inhibitors. For the first time, we comprehensively organized the peptide-based LSD1 inhibitors from the design strategy. Peptide inhibitors of LSD1 are classified as H3 peptide and SNAIL1 peptide derivatives, along with miscellaneous peptides that include naturally occurring LSD1 inhibitors.

Comparison of pharmacological inhibitors of lysine-specific demethylase 1 in glioblastoma stem cells reveals inhibitor-specific efficacy profiles

Introduction

Improved therapies for glioblastoma (GBM) are desperately needed and require preclinical evaluation in models that capture tumor heterogeneity and intrinsic resistance seen in patients. Epigenetic alterations have been well documented in GBM and lysine-specific demethylase 1 (LSD1/KDM1A) is amongst the chromatin modifiers implicated in stem cell maintenance, growth and differentiation. Pharmacological inhibition of LSD1 is clinically relevant, with numerous compounds in various phases of preclinical and clinical development, but an evaluation and comparison of LSD1 inhibitors in patient-derived GBM models is lacking.

Methods

To assess concordance between knockdown of LSD1 and inhibition of LSD1 using a prototype inhibitor in GBM, we performed RNA-seq to identify genes and biological processes associated with inhibition. Efficacy of various LSD1 inhibitors was assessed in nine patient-derived glioblastoma stem cell (GSC) lines and an orthotopic xenograft mouse model.

Results

LSD1 inhibitors had cytotoxic and selective effects regardless of GSC radiosensitivity or molecular subtype. In vivo, LSD1 inhibition via GSK-LSD1 led to a delayed reduction in tumor burden; however, tumor regrowth occurred. Comparison of GBM lines by RNA-seq was used to identify genes that may predict resistance to LSD1 inhibitors. We identified five genes that correlate with resistance to LSD1 inhibition in treatment resistant GSCs, in GSK-LSD1 treated mice, and in GBM patients with low LSD1 expression.

Conclusion

Collectively, the growth inhibitory effects of LSD1 inhibition across a panel of GSC models and identification of genes that may predict resistance has potential to guide future combination therapies.

Chemical Inhibitors Targeting the Histone Lysine Demethylase Families with Potential for Drug Discovery

The dynamic regulation of histone methylation and demethylation plays an important role in the regulation of gene expression. Aberrant expression of histone lysine demethylases has been implicated in various diseases including intractable cancers, and thus lysine demethylases serve as promising therapeutic targets. Recent studies in epigenomics and chemical biology have led to the development of a series of small-molecule demethylase inhibitors that are potent, specific, and have in vivo efficacy. In this review, we highlight emerging small-molecule inhibitors targeting the histone lysine demethylases and their progress toward drug discovery.

Role of histone methylation in skin cancers: Histone methylation-modifying enzymes as a new class of targets for skin cancer treatment

Histone methylation, one of the most prominent epigenetic modifications, plays a vital role in gene transcription, and aberrant histone methylation levels cause tumorigenesis. Histone methylation is a reversible enzyme-dependent reaction, and histone methyltransferases and demethylases are involved in this reaction. This review addresses the biological and clinical relevance of these histone methylation-modifying enzymes for skin cancer. In particular, the roles of histone lysine methyltransferases, histone arginine methyltransferase, lysine-specific demethylases, and JmjC demethylases in skin cancer are discussed in detail. In addition, we summarize the efficacy of several epigenetic inhibitors targeting histone methylation-modifying enzymes in cutaneous cancers, such as basal cell carcinoma (BCC), squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), and melanoma. In conclusion, we propose histone methylation-modifying enzymes as novel targets for next-generation pharmaceuticals in the treatment of skin cancers and further provide a rationale for the development of epigenetic drugs (epidrugs) that target specific histone methylases/demethylases in cutaneous tumors.

Discovery of novel tranylcypromine-based derivatives as LSD1 inhibitors for gastric cancer treatment

As an important epigenetic regulator, histone lysine specific demethylase 1 (LSD1) has become an attractive target for the discovery of anticancer agents. In this work, a series of tranylcypromine-based derivatives were designed and synthesized. Among them, compound 12u exhibited the most potent inhibitory potency on LSD1 (IC₅₀ = 25.3 nM), and also displayed good antiproliferative effects on MGC-803, KYSE450 and HCT-116 cells with IC₅₀ values of 14.3, 22.8 and 16.3 μM, respectively. Further studies revealed that compound 12u could directly act on LSD1 and inhibit LSD1 in MGC-803 cells, thereby significantly increasing the expression levels of mono-/bi-methylation of H3K4 and H3K9. In addition, compound 12u could induce apoptosis and differentiation, inhibit migration and cell stemness in MGC-803 cells. All these findings suggested that compound 12u was an active tranylcypromine-based derivative as a LSD1 inhibitor that inhibited gastric cancer.

A comprehensive comparative study on LSD1 in different cancers and tumor specific LSD1 inhibitors

LSD1 was significantly over-expressed in several cancer types, and its aberrant overexpression was revealed to play a crucial role in the initiation and progression of cancer. Several LSD1 inhibitors that were discovered and developed so far were found to be effective in attenuating tumor growth in both in vivo and in vitro studies. However, the major challenge associated with the development of cancer therapies is personalized treatment. Therefore, it is essential to look in detail at how LSD1 plays its part in carcinogenesis and whether there are any different expression levels of LSD1 in different tumors. Here in this review, fresh insight into a list of function correlated LSD1 binding proteins are provided, and we tried to figure out the role of LSD1 in different cancer types, including hematological malignancies and solid tumors. A critical description of mutation preference for LSD1 in different tumors was also discussed. Recent research findings clearly showed that the abrogation of LSD1 demethylase activity via LSD1 inhibitors markedly reduced the growth of cancer cells. But there are still many ambiguities regarding the role of LSD1 in different cancers. Therefore, targeting LSD1 for treating different cancers is still reductionist, and many challenges need to be met to improve the therapeutic outcomes of LSD1 inhibitors.

New Approaches to Myelodysplastic Syndrome Treatment

OPINION STATEMENT

The treatment of myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) begins with risk stratification using a validated tool such as the International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) or its revised version (IPSS-R). This divides patients into lower- and higher- risk categories. Although treatment objectives in lower-risk MDS (LR-MDS) have traditionally been directed at improving cytopenias (usually anemia) as well as quality of life, recent data supports a potential role for early intervention in delaying transfusion dependency. In addition, careful individualized risk stratification incorporating clinical, cytogenetic, and mutational data might help identify patients at higher-than-expected risk for progression. Given the need for supportive care with red blood cell (RBC) transfusions leading to iron overload, iron chelation should be considered for patients with heavy transfusion requirements at risk for end-organ complications. For patients with LR-MDS and isolated anemia, no high-risk features, and endogenous erythropoietin (EPO) levels below 500 U/L, erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) can be attempted to improve anemia. Some LR-MDS patient subgroups may also benefit from specific therapies including luspatercept (MDS with ring sideroblasts), lenalidomide (MDS with deletion 5q), or immunosuppressive therapy (hypocellular MDS). LR-MDS patients failing the above options, or those with multiple cytopenias and/or higher-risk features, can be considered for oral low-dose hypomethylating agent (HMA) therapy. Alternatively, these patients may be enrolled on a clinical trial with promising agents targeting the transforming-growth factor beta (TGF-β) pathway, the hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) pathway, telomerase activity, inflammatory signaling, or the splicing machinery. In higher-risk MDS (HR-MDS), therapy seeks to modify the natural history of the disease and prolong survival. Eligible patients should be considered for curative allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (aHSCT). Despite promising novel combinations, the HMAs azacitidine (AZA) or decitabine (DAC) are still the standard of care for these patients, with intensive chemotherapy-based approaches being a potential option in a small subset of patients. Individuals who fail to respond or progress after HMA experience dismal outcomes and represent a major unmet clinical need. Such patients should be treated as part of a clinical trial if possible. Experimental agents to consider include venetoclax, myeloid cell leukemia 1 (MCL-1) inhibitors, eprenetapopt, CPX-351, immunotherapies (directed towards CD47, TIM3, or CD70), interleukin-1 receptor-associated kinase 4 (IRAK4) inhibitors, pevonedistat, seclidemstat, and eltanexor. In this review, we extensively discuss the current landscape of experimental therapies for both LR- and HR-MDS.