Advertisement

Cytotoxicity of multicellular cancer spheroids, antibacterial, and antifungal of selected sulfonamide derivatives coupled with a salicylamide and/or anisamide scaffold

  • Alaaeldin M. F. GalalEmail author
  • Walid Fayad
  • Walaa S. A. Mettwally
  • Sanaa K. Gomaa
  • Esam R. Ahmed
  • Heba A. El-Refai
  • Atef G. Hanna
Original Research

Abstract

In an attempt to overcome the drawbacks of the cancer monolayers model (2D), the 3-dimensional (3D) multicellular cancer spheroids (MCS) have been developed. Nine of most active sulfonamide derivatives coupled with a salicylamide scaffold were screened for cytotoxicity on two human cancer cell line spheroids (MCF7 and HCT116) in addition to one human normal cell line spheroid (RPE-1). 5-Chloro-N-[(N-4-chlorophenyl) 4-sulfamoylbenzyl] salicylamide (9) was found to be the most active compound among all tested compounds. It showed 70% inhibition on HCT116 spheroids, almost double the activity of cisplatin, and higher activity than cisplatin on MCF7 spheroids. Also, 5-chloro-N-[(N-benzyl) 4-sulfamoylbenzyl] salicylamide (18) and 5-chloro-N-[(N-2-phenylethyl) 4-sulfamoylbenzyl] salicylamide (19) showed cytotoxicity against HCT116 slightly lower than that of cisplatin (32% and 31%, respectively) but with much lower cytotoxicity against the normal cell (4% and 10% vs. 39%, respectively). Based on in silico virtual screening against DHPS enzyme, some sulfonamide derivatives coupled with a salicylamide and/or anisamide scaffold were tested in vitro against four bacterial and fungal pathogens. 5-Chloro-N-[(N-2-nitro-4-methylphenyl) 4-sulfamoylbenzyl] salicylamide (17) and 5-chloro-N-[(N-2-nitro-4-methylphenyl) 4-sulfamoylbenzyl] anisamide (5) showed strong antifungal activity on the tested organism, while the first one (17) have the strongest antibacterial activity against the G +ve and G −ve bacterium. In vitro, dihydropterate synthase (DHPS) enzyme assay showed that, compounds 5 and 17 effectively inhibit dihydropterate synthase (DHPS) enzyme by 93.78% and 95.15%, respectively, while miconazole inhibit the enzyme with only 87.50%. In addition, their effect upon amylase, lipase and protease enzymes was reported. The most active compounds 5, 9, 17–19 could be subjected to in vivo investigation as new drugs.

Keywords

Cytotoxicity Multicellular cancer spheroids Sulfonamides Antimicrobial DHPS inhibitors. 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful for Professor Stig Linder, Karolinska Institute, Sweden, for kindly providing us with HCT116, MCF7, and RPE1 cell lines.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

44_2019_2382_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (628 kb)
Supplementary Information

References

  1. Ali A, Reddy GS, Cao H, Anjum SG, Nalam MN, Schiffer CA, Rana TM (2006) Discovery of HIV-1 protease inhibitors with picomolar affinities incorporating N-aryl-oxazolidinone-5-carboxamides as novel P2 ligands. J Med Chem 49(25):7342–7356Google Scholar
  2. Ali AI, Ogbonna CC, Rahman AT (1998) Hydrolysis of certain Nigerian starches using crude fungal amylase. Niger J Biotechnl 9:24–36Google Scholar
  3. Babaoglu K, Qi J, Lee RE, Whilte SW (2004) Crystal structure of 7,8-dihydropteroate synthase from Bacillus anthracis: mechanism and novel inhibitor design. Structure 12(9):1705–1717Google Scholar
  4. Baker BM, Chen CS (2012) Deconstructing the third dimension: how 3D culture microenvironments alter cellular cues. J Cell Sci 125(Pt 13):3015–3024Google Scholar
  5. Baker NA, Sept D, Joseph S, Holst MJ, McCammon JA (2001) Electrostatics of nanosystems: application to microtubules and the ribosome. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98(18):10037–10041Google Scholar
  6. Batubara I, Mitsunaga T, Ohashi H (2009) Screening antiacne potency of Indonesian medicinal plants: antibacterial, lipase inhibition, and antioxidant activities. J Wood Sci 55:230–235Google Scholar
  7. Bertacine Dias MV, Santos JC, Libreros-Zúñiga GA, Ribeiro JA, Chavez-Pacheco SM (2018) Folate biosynthesis pathway: mechanisms and insights into drug design for infectious diseases. Future Med Chem 10(8):935–959Google Scholar
  8. Chiarino D, Napoletano M, Sala A (1988) Synthesis of 4,7‐dihydro‐4‐oxoisoxazolo[5,4‐b]pyridine‐5‐carboxylic acid derivatives as potential antimicrobial agents. J. Heterocyclic Chem 25(1):231–233Google Scholar
  9. Cupp-Enyard C (2008) Sigma’s non-specific protease activity assay—casein as a substrate. J Vis Exp 19:899Google Scholar
  10. Curnis F, Sacchi A, Corti A (2002) Improving chemotherapeutic drug penetration in tumors by vascular targeting and barrier alteration. J Clin Invest 110(4):475–482Google Scholar
  11. Davie BJ, Christopoulos A, Scammells PJ (2013) Development of M1 mAChR allosteric and bitopic ligands: prospective therapeutics for the treatment of cognitive deficits. ACS Chem Neurosci 4(7):1026–1048Google Scholar
  12. Ekert JE, Johnson K, Strake B, Pardinas J, Jarantow S, Perkinson R, Colter DC (2014) Three-dimensional lung tumor microenvironment modulates therapeutic compound responsiveness in vitroimplication for drug development. PLoS One 9(3):e92248Google Scholar
  13. Fayad W, Rickardson L, Haglund C, Olofsson MH, D’Arcy P, Larsson R, Linder S, Fryknas M (2011) Identification of agents that induce apoptosis of multicellular tumor spheroids: enrichment for mitotic inhibitors with hydrophobic properties. Chem Biol Drug Des 78(4):547–557Google Scholar
  14. Friedrich J, Eder W, Castaneda J, Doss M, Huber E, Ebner R, Kunz-Schughart LA (2007) A reliable tool to determine cell viability in complex 3-d culture: the acid phosphatase assay. J Biomol Screen 2(7):925–937Google Scholar
  15. Galal AMF, Shalaby EM, Abouelsayed A, Ibrahim MA, Al-Ashkar E, Hanna AG (2018) Structure and absolute configuration of some 5-chloro-2-methoxy-N-phenylbenzamide derivatives. Spectrochim Acta A Mol Biomol Spectrosc 188:213–221Google Scholar
  16. Galal AMF, Soltan MM, Ahmed ER, Hanna AG (2018) Synthesis and biological evaluation of novel 5-chloro-N-(4-sulfamoylbenzyl) salicylamide derivatives as tubulin polymerization inhibitors. MedChemComm 9(9):1511–1528Google Scholar
  17. Galateanu B, Hudita A, Negrei C, Ion RM, Costache M, Stan M, Nikitovic D, Hayes AW, Spandidos DA, Tsatsakis AM, Ginghina O (2016) Impact of multicellular tumor spheroids as an in vivo-like tumor model on anticancer drug response. Int J Oncol 48(6):2295–2302Google Scholar
  18. Galiana-Roselló C, Bilbao-Ramos P, Dea-Ayuela MA, Rolón M, Vega C, Bolas-Fernández F, Garcia-España E, Alfonso J, Coronel C, Gonzlez- Rosende ME (2013) In vitro and in vivo antileishmanial and trypanocidal studies of new N-benzene- and N-naphthalenesulfonamide derivatives. J Med Chem 56(22):8984–8998Google Scholar
  19. Gangjee A, Kurup S, Namjoshi O (2007) Dihydrofolate reductase as a target for chemotherapy in parasites. Curr Pharm Des 13(6):609–639Google Scholar
  20. Hanan EJ, Fucini RV, Romanowski MJ, Elling RA, Lew W, Purkey HE, Vanderporten EC, Yang W (2008) Design and synthesis of 2-amino-isoxazolopyridines as Polo-like kinase inhibitors. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 18(19):5186–5189Google Scholar
  21. Hanauske AR, Depenbrock H, Shirvani D, Rastetter J (1994) Effects of the microtubule-disturbing agents docetaxel (Taxotere), vinblastine and vincristine on epidermal growth factor-receptor binding of human breast cancer cell lines in vitro. Eur J Cancer 30A(11):1688–1694Google Scholar
  22. Hanson AD, Gregory III JF (2011) Folate biosynthesis, turnover, and transport in plants. Annu Rev Plant Biol 62:105–125Google Scholar
  23. Hawser S, Lociuro S, Islam K (2006) Dihydrofolate reductase inhibitors as antibacterial agents. Biochem Pharmacol 71(7):941–948Google Scholar
  24. Hay M, Thomas DW, Craighead JL, Economides C, Rosenthal J (2014) Clinical development success rates for investigational drugs. Nat Biotechnol 32(1):40–51Google Scholar
  25. Hemaiswarya S, Kruthiventi AK, Doble M (2008) Synergism between natural products and antibiotics against infectious diseases. Phytomedicine 15(8):639–652Google Scholar
  26. Ho RI, Corman L, Mores SA, Schneider H (1975) Structure-activity of sulfones and sulfonamides on dihydropteroate synthetase from Neisseria meingitidis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 7(6):758–763Google Scholar
  27. Höhn H, Polacek I, Schulze E (1973) Potential antidiabetic agents. Pyrazolo(3,4-b)pyridines. J Med Chem 16(12):1340–1346Google Scholar
  28. Ivascu A, Kubbies M (2006) Rapid generation of single-tumor spheroids for high-throughput cell function and toxicity analysis. J Biomol Screen 11(8):922–932Google Scholar
  29. Keche AP, Hatnapure GD, Tale RH, Rodge AH, Birajdar SS, Kamble VM (2012) A novel pyrimidine derivatives with aryl urea, thiourea and sulfonamide moieties: synthesis, anti-inflammatory and antimicrobial evaluation. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 22(10):3445–3448Google Scholar
  30. Kim TH, Mount CW, Gombotz WR, Pun SH (2010) The delivery of doxorubicin to 3-D multicellular spheroids and tumors in a murine xenograft model using tumor-penetrating triblock polymeric micelles. Biomaterials 31(28):7386–7397Google Scholar
  31. Kimlin LC, Casagrande G, Virador VM (2013) In vitro three-dimensional (3D) models in cancer research: an update. Mol Carcinog 52(3):167–182Google Scholar
  32. Kobayashi H, Man S, Graham CH, Kapitain SJ, Teicher BA, Kerbel RS (1993) Acquired multicellular-mediated resistance to alkylating agents in cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 90(8):3294–3298Google Scholar
  33. Lee GY, Kenny PA, Lee EH, Bissell MJ (2007) Three-dimensional culture models of normal and malignant breast epithelial cells. Nat Methods 4(4):359–365Google Scholar
  34. Lee HY, Pan SL, Su MC, Liu YM, Kuo CC, Chang YT, Wu JS, Nien CY, Mehndiratta S, Chang CY, Wu SY, Lai MJ, Chang JY, Liou JP (2013) Furanylazaindoles: potent anticancer agents in vitro and in vivo. J Med Chem 56(20):8008–8018Google Scholar
  35. Lee J, Cuddihy MJ, Kotov NA (2008) Three-dimensional cell culture matrices: state of the art. Tissue Eng Part B Rev 14(1):61–86Google Scholar
  36. McCullough JL, Maren TH (1973) Inhibition of dihydropteroate synthase from Escherichia coli by sulfones and sulfonamides. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 3(6):665–669Google Scholar
  37. McGuire JJ (2003) Anticancer antifolates: current status and future directions. Curr Pharm Des 9(31):2593–2613Google Scholar
  38. Mohan R, Banerjee M, Ray A, Manna T, Wilson L, Owa T, Bhattacharyya B, Panda D (2006) Antimitotic sulfonamides inhibit microtubule assembly dynamics and cancer cell proliferation. Biochemistry 45(17):5440–5449Google Scholar
  39. Mohapatra BR, Bapuji M, Sree A (2003) Production of industrial enzymes (amylase, carboxymethylcellulase and protease) by bacteria isolated from marine sedentary organisms. Acta Biotechnol 23(1):75–84Google Scholar
  40. Mostafa H, El-Hadi AA (2010) Immobilization of Mucor racemosus NRRL 3631 lipase with different polymer carriers produced by radiation polymerization. Malay J Microbiol 6(2):149–155Google Scholar
  41. Murado MA, Siso MaIG, Gonzalez MaP, Montemayor MI, Pastrana L, Miron J (1993) Characterization of microbial biomasses and amylolytic preparations obtained from mussel processing waste treatment. Bioresource Technol 43(2):117–125Google Scholar
  42. Owa T, Yokoi A, Yamazaki K, Yoshimatsu K, Yamori T, Nagasu T (2002) Array-based structure and gene expression relationship study of antitumor sulfonamides including N-[2-[(4-hydroxyphenyl)amino]-3-pyridinyl]-4-methoxybenzenesulfonamide and N-(3-chloro-7-indolyl)-1,4-benzenedisulfonamide. J Med Chem 45(22):4913–4922Google Scholar
  43. Owa T, Yoshino H, Okauchi T, Yoshimatsu K, Ozawa Y, Sugi N, Nagasu T, Koyanagi N, Kitoh K (1999) Discovery of novel antitumor sulfonamides targeting G1 phase of the cell cycle. J Med Chem 42(19):3789–3799Google Scholar
  44. Pei RS, Zhou F, Ji BP, Xu J (2009) Evaluation of combined antibacterial effects of eugenol, cinnamaldehyde, thymol, and carvacrol against E. coli with an improved method. J Food Sci 74(7):M379–M383Google Scholar
  45. Pillai SK, Moellering RC, Eliopoulos GM (2005) Antimicrobial combinations. In: Lorian V (ed) Antibiotics in laboratory medicine, 5th ed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, p 365–440Google Scholar
  46. Poręba K, Pawlik K, Rembacz KP, Kurowska E, Matuszyk J, Długosz A (2015) Synthesis and antibacterial activity of new sulfonamide isoxazolo[5,4-b]pyridine derivatives. Acta Pol Pharm 72(4):727–735Google Scholar
  47. Pretorius JC, Magama S, Zietsman PC, van Wyk BE (2003) Growth inhibition of plant pathogenic bacteria and fungi by extracts from selected South African plant species. South African J Botany 69(2):186–192Google Scholar
  48. Procopiou PA, Barrett JW, Barton NP, Begg M, Clapham D, Copley RCB, Ford AJ, Graves RH, Hall DA, Hancock AP, Hill AP, Hobbs H, Hodgson ST, Jumeaux C, Lacroix YML, Miah AH, Morriss KML, Needham D, Sheriff EB, Slack RJ, Smith CE, Sollis SL, Staton H (2013) Synthesis and structure-activity relationships of indazole arylsulfonamides as allosteric CC-chemokine receptor 4 (CCR4) antagonists. J Med Chem 56(5):1946–1960Google Scholar
  49. Shamsi TN, Fatima S (2016) Protease inhibitors as ad-hoc antibiotics. Open Pharma Sci J 3:131–137Google Scholar
  50. Smith SJ, Wilson M, Ward JH, Rahman CV, Peet AC, Macarthur DC, Rose FR, Grundy RG, Rahman R (2012) Recapitulation of tumor heterogeneity and molecular signatures in a 3D brain cancer model with decreased sensitivity to histone deacetylase inhibition. PLoS One 7(12):e52335Google Scholar
  51. Suganthi C, Mageswari A, Karthikeyan S, Anbalagan A, Sivakumar K, Gothandam M (2013) Screening and optimization of protease production from a halotolerant Bacillus licheniformis isolated from saltern sediments. J Gen Eng Biotechnol 11(1):47–52Google Scholar
  52. Sunitha VH, Ramesha A, Savitha J, Srinivas C (2012) Amylase production by endophytic fungi Cylindrocephalum sp. isolated from medicinal plant Alpinia calcarata (Haw.) Roscoe. Braz J Microbiol 43(3):1213–1221Google Scholar
  53. Supuran CT, Casini A, Scozzafava A (2003) Protease inhibitors of the sulfonamide type: anticancer, antiinflammatory, and antiviral agents. Med Res Rev 23(5):535–558Google Scholar
  54. Supuran CT, Scozzafava A (2000) Carbonic anhydrase inhibitors: aromatic sulfonamides and disulfonamides act as efficient tumor growth inhibitors. J Enzyme Inhib 15(6):597–610Google Scholar
  55. Supuran CT, Scozzafava A, Clare BW (2002) Bacterial protease inhibitors. Med Res Rev 22(4):329–372Google Scholar
  56. Sutherland RM, McCredie JA, Inch WR (1971) Growth of multicell spheroids in tissue culture as a model of nodular carcinomas. J Natl Cancer Inst 46(1):113–120Google Scholar
  57. Tang YB, Lu D, Chen Z, Hu C, Yang Y, Tian JY, Ye F, Wu L, Zhang ZY, Xiao Z (2013) Design, synthesis and insulin-sensitising effects of novel PTP1B inhibitors. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 23(8):2313–2318Google Scholar
  58. Tannock IF, Lee CM, Tunggal JK, Cowan DS, Egorin MJ (2002) Limited penetration of anticancer drugs through tumor tissue: a potential cause of resistance of solid tumors to chemotherapy. Clin Cancer Res 8(3):878–884Google Scholar
  59. Trott O, Olson AJ (2010) AutoDock Vina: improving the speed and accuracy of docking with a new scoring function, efficient optimization, and multithreading. J Comput Chem 31(2):455–461Google Scholar
  60. Tunggal JK, Cowan DS, Shaikh H, Tannock IF (1999) Penetration of anticancer drugs through solid tissue: a factor that limits the effectiveness of chemotherapy for solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res 5:1583–1586Google Scholar
  61. Uchima Y, Sawada T, Nishihara T, Maeda K, Ohira M, Hirakawa K (2004) Inhibition and mechanism of action of a protease inhibitor in human pancreatic cancer cells. Pancreas 29(2):123–131Google Scholar
  62. Vaidya S, Rathore P (2015) Isolation, screening and characterization of amylase producing bacteria from soil of potato dump sites from different regions of madhya pradesh. Conference PaperGoogle Scholar
  63. Wallace DI, Guo X (2013) Properties of tumor spheroid growth exhibited by simple mathematical models. Front Oncol 3:51Google Scholar
  64. Weidel E, de Jong JC, Brengel C, Storz MP, Braunshausen A, Negri M, Plaza A, Steinbach A, Müller R, Hartmann RW (2013) Structure optimization of 2-benzamidobenzoic acids as PqsD inhibitors for Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections and elucidation of binding mode by SPR, STD NMR, and molecular docking. J Med Chem 56(15):6146–6155Google Scholar
  65. Wenzel C, Riefke B, Gründemann S, Krebs A, Christian S, Prinz F, Osterland M, Golfier S, Räse S, Ansari N, Esner M, Bickle M, Pampaloni F, Mattheyer C, Stelzer EH, Parczyk K, Prechtl S, Steigemann P (2014) 3D high-content screening for the identification of compounds that target cells in dormant tumor spheroid regions. Exp Cell Res 323(1):131–143Google Scholar
  66. Wilkinson BL, Bornaghi LF, Wright AD, Houston TA, Poulsen SA (2007) Anti-mycobacterial activity of a bis-sulfonamide. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 17(5):1355–1357Google Scholar
  67. Zanoni M, Piccinini F, Arienti C, Zamagni A, Santi S, Polico R, Bevilacqua A, Tesei A (2016) 3D tumor spheroid models for in vitro therapeutic screening: a systematic approach to enhance the biological relevance of data obtained. Sci Rep 6:19103Google Scholar
  68. Zouaoui B, Bouziane A (2011) Isolation, optimisation and purification of lipase production by Pseudomonas Aeruginosa. J Biotechnol Biomater 1:120Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alaaeldin M. F. Galal
    • 1
    Email author
  • Walid Fayad
    • 2
  • Walaa S. A. Mettwally
    • 3
  • Sanaa K. Gomaa
    • 3
  • Esam R. Ahmed
    • 4
  • Heba A. El-Refai
    • 3
  • Atef G. Hanna
    • 1
  1. 1.Chemistry of Natural Compounds Department, Pharmaceutical and Drug Industries Research DivisionNational Research CentreGizaEgypt
  2. 2.Drug Bioassay-Cell Culture Laboratory, Pharmacognosy DepartmentNational Research CentreGizaEgypt
  3. 3.Chemistry of Natural and Microbial Products Department, Pharmaceutical and Drug Industries Research DivisionNational Research CentreGizaEgypt
  4. 4.Confirmatory Diagnostic UnitGizaEgypt

Personalised recommendations