Abstract
A series of inhibitors of the soluble epoxide hydrolase (sEH) containing lipophilic groups of natural origin (camphanyl, norcamphanyl, furan-2-yl) were developed. Inhibitory potency ranging from 0.4 nM to 2.16 μM were obtained. While having the same level of inhibitory activity bicyclic ureas are up to 10-fold more soluble than the corresponding ureas containing adamantyl or 4-trifluoromethoxyphenyl substituents. This makes them easier to formulate, more bioavailable and thus more promising as therapeutic sEH inhibitors. Endo/exo-form of compound 2b derived from L-camphor is 14-fold more potent than the corresponding analogue derived from D-camphor (IC50 = 3.7 nM vs. 50.6 nM) indicating enantiomeric preference.
Keywords: soluble epoxide hydrolase, inhibitor, adamantane, urea, camphor, norcamphane
The human soluble epoxide hydrolase (sEH) is involved in metabolism of epoxides derived from arachidonic acid and other natural epoxy-fatty acids,1 which have multiple, largely beneficial, physiological activities.2 sEH converts epoxides into the corresponding vicinal diols through the addition of a water molecule, thus affecting pain, inflammation and other pathological states.2 Thereby inhibition of sEH could be beneficial in treatment of numerous cardiovascular, neuronal and renal diseases.3,4
Although, thousands of various sEH inhibitors (sEHI) have been designed and synthesized over the last decades5–7, they are characterized by low water-solubility, which makes them hard to formulate, as well diminishes their bioavailability and in vivo efficacy. Good solubility appears critical to their success as a potential medicines for the treatment of neurological diseases.8 Hundreds of sEH inhibitors featuring a common structure of R-Ad-X-NH-C(O)-NH-R’, where Ad is adamantan-1-yl or adamantan-2-yl, X is an alkyl or aryl linker and R and R’ are alkyl, aryl or heterocyclic groups, have been synthesized and evaluated in vitro and in several in vivo models.9–12 However, poor metabolic stability of adamantane containing ureas limits their usefulness and application in some cases.
Recently, ureas containing polycycles such as bisnoradamantane and diamantane were investigated as sEH inhibitors.13 The replacement of adamantane with larger lipophilic groups led to increase of inhibitory activity but was accompanied by tremendous decrease in metabolic stability and water solubility. In attempt to improve water solubility and metabolic stability, herein, we changed one of the most common sEHI lipophilic fragment, an adamantane group, with natural occurring cyclic and bicyclic groups such as furan-2-yl, camphanyl and norcamphanyl and investigated the effects of such substitution on the potency and properties of the resulting compounds.
Reaction of either bicyclic isocyanates14 with amines of bicyclic amines15 with isocyanates were used to synthesize ureas 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2d, 2e and 3a-c (Scheme 1). Furan-2-ylmethanamine was used for compound 2c.
Scheme 1.
Reagents and conditions: a. DMF, Et3N, rt, 8h.
Moreover, ureas containing both adamantyl and bicyclic (4a, 4b) or furan-2-yl (4c) moieties were synthesized (Scheme 2).
Scheme 2.
Reagents and conditions: a. DMF, Et3N, rt, 8h.
Diureas containing two adamantyl fragments with two urea groups linked with aliphatic spacer are also potent sEHI.10 High potency of these compounds is supposed to be due to the binding of second urea group with Ser374 of the sEH active site. In this case it is of interest to evaluate the effect of bioisosteric substitution in diureas (Scheme 3).
Scheme 3.
Reagents and conditions: a. DMF, Et3N, rt, 8h.
For ureas containing camphanyl moiety (2b, 2e, 3b, 3c and 5c-f) starting camphanylamine (1,7,7-trimethylbicyclo[2.2.1]heptan-2-amine) is a mixture of four stereoisomers: S and R enantiomers, each containing both exo and endo isomers derived from L-camphor and D-camphor respectively. To test the impact of each enantiomer on inhibition potency pure S and R forms of compound 2b were synthesized. Exo and endo diastereomers were not separated. To our knowledge, no studies showing the effect of stereochemistry on sEH inhibitory activity has been performed before. Potency of the compounds was measured against the human sEH, and their solubility determined in phosphate buffer (Table 1).
Table 1.
IC50 values and some physicochemical properties for ureas 1a, 1b, 2a-e, 3a-c, 4a-c and 5a-i.
# | Structure | mp (°C) | logPa | Solubility (μM)b | Human sEH IC50 (nM)c |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1a | ![]() |
143–144 | 3.77 | 350±25 | 1.5 |
1b | ![]() |
324–325 | 4.20 | 300±25 | 35.3 |
t-AUCB | ![]() |
250–2555 | 5.18 | 160 ±2011 | 2.05 |
t-TUCB | ![]() |
244–2735 | 4.92 | 519 | 1.0±0.120 |
2a | ![]() |
195–196 | 3.09 | 325±25 | 6.8 |
2b | ![]() |
238–239 | 4.23 | 225±25 | 14.4 |
(S)-2b | ![]() |
241–242 | 4.23 | 225±25 | 3.7 |
(R)-2b | ![]() |
235–236 | 4.23 | 225±25 | 50.6 |
2c | ![]() |
137–138 | 2.22 | 425±25 | 635 |
2d | ![]() |
150–151 | 3.95 | - | 0.4 |
2e | ![]() |
125–126 | 5.08 | - | 2.5 |
3a | ![]() |
110–111 | 1.52 | >2000 | 1,579 |
3b | ![]() |
90–91 | 2.65 | >2000 | 2,166 |
3c | ![]() |
67–68 | 5.87 | 125±25 | 6.5 |
4a | ![]() |
223–224 | 4.20 | - | 0.7 |
4b | ![]() |
263–264 | 4.03 | - | 0.9 |
4c | ![]() |
135–136 | 3.34 | 300±25 | 44.8 |
5a | ![]() |
248–249 | 2.75 | - | 21.0 |
5b | ![]() |
148–149 | 5.78 | - | 0.4 |
5c | ![]() |
274–275 | 2.79 | 75±5 | 11.8 |
5d | ![]() |
215–216 | 4.81 | - | 0.4 |
5e | ![]() |
308–309 | 5.05 | 10±2 | 2.3 |
5f | ![]() |
263–264 | 7.08 | 10±2 | 0.4 |
5g | ![]() |
225–226 | 1.04 | 225±25 | 1,802 |
5h | ![]() |
194–195 | 2.05 | 100±10 | 86.3 |
5i | ![]() |
190–191 | 3.06 | 50±10 | 214 |
Calculated using Molinspiration (http://www.molinspiration.com) © Molinspiration Cheminformatics.
Solubilities were measured in sodium phosphate buffer (pH 7.4, 0.1 M) containing 1% of DMSO.
Determined via a kinetic fluorescent assay. Results are means of three separate experiments.16
A vast majority of synthesized ureas showed high potency, inhibiting sEH in concentrations as low as 0.4 nM. The only exceptions are compounds 3a (~1.58 μM), 3b (2.17 μM) and 5g (1.80 μM). Relatively low activity of compounds 3a and 3b correlates with previous results on adamantane ureas and thioureas with the same lipophilic part.17 In all series of diureas 5a-i, elongation of the aliphatic chain between the two urea fragments led to a remarkable increase in potency. Endo/exo-S-form of compound 2b is 14-fold more active than the corresponding R-form, meaning that more active species of camphene-containing compounds 2e, 3c, 5e and 5f could be synthesized.
Solubility in sodium phosphate buffer for the most of synthesized compounds lays in a range (100–300 μM) much higher than the original adamantane derivatives. For example, for ureas containing trans-4-[(4-aminocyclohexyl)oxy]benzoic acid part, compound 1a (norcamphane lipophilic group, IC50 = 1.5 nM) is 2-fold more soluble than t-AUCB (adamantane lipophilic group, IC50 = 2.0 nM) and significantly more soluble than t-TUCB (4-(trifluoromethoxy)phenyl lipophilic group, IC50 = 2.0 nM).
To understand the effect of inhibitor spatial configuration on potency, all ureas containing camphane-2-amine isomers (2b) were docked in similar poses with 2-fluorophenyl moiety of ligand maintaining π-π stacking interactions with W336 and urea fragment interacting with catalytic residues Y466, Y383 and D335 of the active site (Fig. 1).
Figure 1.
The docking results of the isomers of N-(camphan-2-yl)-N`−2-(fluorophenyl)urea (endo-(R) - blue, exo-(R) - red, endo-(S) - green, exo-(S) - yellow). Hydrogen bonds are marked with dashed lines. Hydrogen atoms are omitted for clarity.
The analysis of the molecular dynamics simulation results demonstrated low variation among the calculated binding energy results. Also, in general, the S-isomers are better binders in terms of calculated values which are consistent with experimental results. The internal dielectric constant (indi) was varied to probe the protein environment as it may depend on amino acid composition of the binding site. Per-residue binding decomposition energy was performed for MM-PBSA (Table 2), results obtained with indi equals to 4 are the more consistent with experimental results, and in some cases worked better.18 The configurational change in the camphanyl scaffold leads to redistribution of the energy contributions between two main catalytic residues (D335, Y466) which structurally is interpreted by differences in hydrogen bond stability between catalytic residues and the isomers of N-(camphan-2-yl)-N’-(2-fluorophenyl)urea.
Table 2.
End-state free energy calculation results for the isomers of N-(camphan-2-yl)-N’-(2-fluorophenyl)urea
Compound | MM-PBSA ± std. (indi = 2), kcal/mol | MM-PBSA ± std. (indi = 4), kcal/mol | MM-PBSA ± std. (indi = 8), kcal/mol |
---|---|---|---|
endo-(R) | −4.1 ± 3.2 | −10.4 ± 2.7 | −13.3 ± 2.7 |
exo-(R) | −5.1 ± 3.0 | −10.4 ± 2.5 | −13.1 ± 2.5 |
endo-(S) | −4.6 ± 3.5 | −11.2 ± 2.8 | −14.4 ± 2.7 |
exo-(S) | −6.2 ± 3.1 | −11.3 ± 2.5 | −13.8 ± 2.5 |
In conclusion, the replacement of adamantyl and 4-(trifluoromethoxy)phenyl groups with natural bicyclic lipophilic groups yielded a series of sEHI with similar potency as the original compounds. However, the new compounds are up to 10-fold more soluble than the corresponding ureas containing adamantyl or 4-trifluoromethoxyphenyl substituents, which makes them easier to formulate, more bioavailable and thus more promising as therapeutic sEH inhibitors. Interestingly, the endo/exo-(S)-form (3.7 nM) of camphanyl-containing compound 2b is 14-fold more active than the corresponding endo/exo-(R)-form (50.6 nM), demonstrating enantiomeric preference in inhibitor binding.
Supplementary Material
Figure 2.
The results of binding energy decomposition for the isomers of N-(camphan-2-yl)-N’-(2-fluorophenyl)urea (MM-PBSA, indi = 4).
Ureas with bicyclic lipophilic groups were studied as sEH inhibitors.
24 ureas with bicyclic lipophilic groups were synthesized.
Bicyclic ureas 10-fold more soluble than the ureas containing adamantyl or aromatic groups.
Effect of stereochemistry on sEH inhibitory activity was shown.
Acknowledgments
This work was partially supported by grant of the Russian Science Foundation project no. 19-73-10002 (synthesis of compounds 1a, 1b, 2b-e and 5a-i), Russian Fund for Basic Research grant number 19-33-60024 (synthesis of compounds 2a, 3a-c, 4a-c), National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) grant R35 ES030443.
Footnotes
Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
References
- 1.Arand M; Grant DF; Beetham JK; Friedberg T; Oesch F; Hammock BD FEBS Lett. 1994, 338, 251. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Imig JD; Zhao X; Zaharis CZ; Olearczyk JJ; Pollock DM; Newman JW; Kim IH; Watanabe T; Hammock BD Hypertension. 2005, 46, 975. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Fleming I; Rueben A; Popp R; Fisslthaler B; Schrodt S; Sander A; Haendeler J; Falck JR; Morisseau C; Hammock BD; Busse R Arterioscler. Thromb. Vasc. Biol 2007, 27, 2612. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Imig JD Expert Opin. Drug Metab. Toxicol 2008, 4, 165. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Hwang SH; Tsai HJ; Liu JY; Morisseau C; Hammock BD J. Med. Chem 2007, 50, 3825. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Morisseau C; Goodrow MH; Newman JW; Wheelock CE; Dowdy DL; Hammock BD Biochem. Pharm 2002, 63,1599. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Burmistrov V; Morisseau C; Harris TR; Butov G; Hammock BD Bioorg. Chem 2018, 76, 510. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Zarriello S; Tuazon JP; Corey S; Schimmel S; Rajani M; Gorsky A; Incontri D; Hammock BD; Borlongan CV Prog. Neurobiol 2018, 172, 23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Jones PD; Tsai H-J; Do ZN; Morisseau C; Hammock BD Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett 2006, 16, 5212. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Burmistrov V; Morisseau C; Lee KSS; Shihadih DS; Harris TR; Butov GM; Hammock BD Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett 2014, 24, 2193. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Burmistrov V; Morisseau C; Harris TR; Butov GM; Hammock BD Bioorg. Chem 2018, 76, 510. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Kim I-H; Park Y-K; Nishiwaki H; Hammock BD; Nishi K Bioorg. Med. Chem 2015, 23, 7199. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Codony S; Valverde E; Leiva R; Brea J; Loza MI; Morisseau C; Hammock BD; Vázquez S Bioorg. Med. Chem 2019, 27, 115078. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Burmistrov VV; D’yachenko VS; Rasskazova EV; Butov GM Russ. J. Org. Chem 2019, 55, 1166. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Novakov IA; Nawrozkij MB; Mkrtchyan AS; Voloboev SN; Vostrikova OV; Vernigora AA; Brunilin RV Russ. J. Org. Chem 2019, 55, 1742. [Google Scholar]
- 16.Jones PD; Wolf NM; Morisseau C; Whetstone P; Hock B; Hammock BD Anal. Biochem 2005, 343, 66. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Burmistrov VV; D’yachenko VS; Rasskazova EV; Butov GM Russ. J. Org. Chem 2016, 52, 582. [Google Scholar]
- 18.Karlov DS; Lavrov MI; Palyulin VA; Zefirov NS Journal of Biomolecular Structure and Dynamics, 2018, 36, 2508. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Wagner K; Inceoglu B; Dong H; Yang J; Hwang SH; Jones P; Morisseau C; Hammock BD Eur. J. Pharm 2013, 700, 93. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Ulu A; Appt SE; Morisseau C; Hwang SH; Jones PD; Rose TE; Dong H; Lango J; Yang J; Tsai HJ; Miyabe C; Fortenbach C; Adams MR; Hammock BD British J. Pharm 2012, 165, 1401. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.