Human equilibrative nucleoside transporter 1 (hENT1) predicts the Asian patient response to gemcitabine-based chemotherapy in pancreatic cancer

Rapamycin-inspired macrocycles with new target specificity

Rapamycin and FK506 are macrocyclic natural products with an extraordinary mode of action—they form binary complexes with FKBP through a shared FKBP-binding domain before forming ternary complexes with their respective targets, mTOR and calcineurin, respectively. Inspired by this, we sought to build a rapamycin-like macromolecule library to target new cellular proteins by replacing the effector domain of rapamycin with a combinatorial library of oligopeptides. We developed a robust macrocyclization method using ring-closing metathesis and synthesized a 45,000-compound library of hybrid macrocycles that are named rapafucins using optimized FKBP-binding domains. Screening of the rapafucin library in human cells led to the discovery of rapadocin, an inhibitor of nucleoside uptake. Rapadocin is a potent, isoform-specific and FKBP-dependent inhibitor of the equilibrative nucleoside transporter 1 and is efficacious in an animal model of kidney ischemia reperfusion injury. Together, these results demonstrate that rapafucins are a new class of chemical probes and drug leads that can expand the repertoire of protein targets well beyond mTOR and calcineurin.

Enhancing Drug Efficacy and Therapeutic Index through Cheminformatics-Based Selection of Small Molecule Binary Weapons That Improve Transporter-Mediated Targeting: A Cytotoxicity System Based on Gemcitabine

The transport of drug molecules is mainly determined by the distribution of influx and efflux transporters for which they are substrates. To enable tissue targeting, we sought to develop the idea that we might affect the transporter-mediated disposition of small-molecule drugs via the addition of a second small molecule that of itself had no inhibitory pharmacological effect but that influenced the expression of transporters for the primary drug. We refer to this as a “binary weapon” strategy. The experimental system tested the ability of a molecule that on its own had no cytotoxic effect to increase the toxicity of the nucleoside analog gemcitabine to Panc1 pancreatic cancer cells. An initial phenotypic screen of a 500-member polar drug (fragment) library yielded three “hits.” The structures of 20 of the other 2,000 members of this library suite had a Tanimoto similarity greater than 0.7 to those of the initial hits, and each was itself a hit (the cheminformatics thus providing for a massive enrichment). We chose the top six representatives for further study. They fell into three clusters whose members bore reasonable structural similarities to each other (two were in fact isomers), lending strength to the self-consistency of both our conceptual and experimental strategies. Existing literature had suggested that indole-3-carbinol might play a similar role to that of our fragments, but in our hands it was without effect; nor was it structurally similar to any of our hits. As there was no evidence that the fragments could affect toxicity directly, we looked for effects on transporter transcript levels. In our hands, only the ENT1-3 uptake and ABCC2,3,4,5, and 10 efflux transporters displayed measurable transcripts in Panc1 cultures, along with a ribonucleoside reductase RRM1 known to affect gemcitabine toxicity. Very strikingly, the addition of gemcitabine alone increased the expression of the transcript for ABCC2 (MRP2) by more than 12-fold, and that of RRM1 by more than fourfold, and each of the fragment “hits” served to reverse this. However, an inhibitor of ABCC2 was without significant effect, implying that RRM1 was possibly the more significant player. These effects were somewhat selective for Panc cells. It seems, therefore, that while the effects we measured were here mediated more by efflux than influx transporters, and potentially by other means, the binary weapon idea is hereby fully confirmed: it is indeed possible to find molecules that manipulate the expression of transporters that are involved in the bioactivity of a pharmaceutical drug. This opens up an entirely new area, that of chemical genomics-based drug targeting.

Nucleoside transporter proteins as biomarkers of drug responsiveness and drug targets

Nucleoside and nucleobase analogs are currently used in the treatment of solid tumors, lymphoproliferative diseases, viral infections such as hepatitis and AIDS, and some inflammatory diseases such as Crohn. Two gene families are implicated in the uptake of nucleosides and nucleoside analogs into cells, SCL28 and SLC29. The former encodes hCNT1, hCNT2, and hCNT3 proteins. They translocate nucleosides in a Na⁺ coupled manner with high affinity and some substrate selectivity, being hCNT1 and hCNT2 pyrimidine- and purine-preferring, respectively, and hCNT3 a broad selectivity transporter. SLC29 genes encode four members, being hENT1 and hENT2 the only two which are unequivocally implicated in the translocation of nucleosides and nucleobases (the latter mostly via hENT2) at the cell plasma membrane. Some nucleoside-derived drugs can also interact with and be translocated by members of the SLC22 gene family, particularly hOCT and hOAT proteins. Inter-individual differences in transporter function and perhaps, more importantly, altered expression associated with the disease itself might modulate the transporter profile of target cells, thereby determining drug bioavailability and action. Drug transporter pharmacology has been periodically reviewed. Thus, with this contribution we aim at providing a state-of-the-art overview of the clinical evidence generated so far supporting the concept that these membrane proteins can indeed be biomarkers suitable for diagnosis and/or prognosis. Last but not least, some of these transporter proteins can also be envisaged as drug targets, as long as they can show “transceptor” functions, in some cases related to their role as modulators of extracellular adenosine levels, thereby providing a functional link between P1 receptors and transporters.

How drugs get into cells: tested and testable predictions to help discriminate between transporter-mediated uptake and lipoidal bilayer diffusion

One approach to experimental science involves creating hypotheses, then testing them by varying one or more independent variables, and assessing the effects of this variation on the processes of interest. We use this strategy to compare the intellectual status and available evidence for two models or views of mechanisms of transmembrane drug transport into intact biological cells. One (BDII) asserts that lipoidal phospholipid Bilayer Diffusion Is Important, while a second (PBIN) proposes that in normal intact cells Phospholipid Bilayer diffusion Is Negligible (i.e., may be neglected quantitatively), because evolution selected against it, and with transmembrane drug transport being effected by genetically encoded proteinaceous carriers or pores, whose “natural” biological roles, and substrates are based in intermediary metabolism. Despite a recent review elsewhere, we can find no evidence able to support BDII as we can find no experiments in intact cells in which phospholipid bilayer diffusion was either varied independently or measured directly (although there are many papers where it was inferred by seeing a covariation of other dependent variables). By contrast, we find an abundance of evidence showing cases in which changes in the activities of named and genetically identified transporters led to measurable changes in the rate or extent of drug uptake. PBIN also has considerable predictive power, and accounts readily for the large differences in drug uptake between tissues, cells and species, in accounting for the metabolite-likeness of marketed drugs, in pharmacogenomics, and in providing a straightforward explanation for the late-stage appearance of toxicity and of lack of efficacy during drug discovery programmes despite macroscopically adequate pharmacokinetics. Consequently, the view that Phospholipid Bilayer diffusion Is Negligible (PBIN) provides a starting hypothesis for assessing cellular drug uptake that is much better supported by the available evidence, and is both more productive and more predictive.

Prognostic factors related with survival in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma

The prognosis in patients with pancreatic cancer is poor and this cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Although surgical resection is the only curative treatment of choice for pancreatic cancer, the majority of patients are diagnosed at an advanced stage, thus only 10%-15% of them are suitable for curative resection and the overall survival is less than 5%. Chemotherapy for metastatic disease is to palliate symptoms of patients and to improve survival. Therefore, prognostic factors are important and a correct definition of poor prognostic factors may help to guide more aggressive adjuvant or aggressive treatment protocols in patients with pancreatic cancer. This article reviews the prognostic factors affecting survival of patients with pancreatic cancer in the light of recent advances in the literature.

Prognostic value of human equilibrative nucleoside transporter1 in pancreatic cancer receiving gemcitabin-based chemotherapy: a meta-analysis

Background

The potential prognostic value of human equilibrative nucleoside transporter1 in pancreatic cancer receiving gemcitabine-based chemotherapy is variably reported.

Objective

The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review of literature evaluating human equilibrative nucleoside transporter1 expression as a prognostic factor in pancreatic cancer receiving gemcitabine-based chemotherapy and to conduct a subsequent meta-analysis to quantify the overall prognostic effect.

Methods

Related studies were identified and evaluated for quality through multiple search strategies. Only studies analyzing pancreatic cancer receiving gemcitabine-based chemotherapy were eligible for inclusion. Data were collected from studies comparing overall, disease-free and progression-free survival (OS, DFS and PFS) in patients with low human equilibrative nucleoside transporter1 levels and those having high levels. The hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% confidence interval (95%CI) were used to assess the strength of associations. Hazard ratios greater than 1 reflect adverse survival associated with low human equilibrative nucleoside transporter1 levels.

Results

A total of 12 studies (n = 875) were involved in this meta-analysis (12 for OS, 5 for DFS, 3 for PFS). For overall and disease-free survival, the pooled HRs of human equilibrative nucleoside transporter1 were significant at 2.93 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 2.37–3.64) and 2.67 (95% CI, 1.87–3.81), respectively. For progression-free survival, the pooled HR in higher human equilibrative nucleoside transporter1 expression in pancreatic cancer receiving gemcitabine-based chemotherapy was 2.76 (95% CI, 1.76–4.34). No evidence of significant heterogeneity or publication bias was seen in any of these studies.

Conclusion

These results support the case for a low human equilibrative nucleoside transporter1 level representing a significant and reproducible marker of adverse prognosis in pancreatic cancer receiving gemcitabine-based chemotherapy.