Comparison of the modes of action of Apremilast and Roflumilast

The phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) family are cAMP specific phosphodiesterases that play an important role in the inflammatory response and is the major PDE type found in inflammatory cells. A significant number of PDE4 specific inhibitors have been developed and are currently being investigated for use as therapeutic agents. Apremilast, a small molecule inhibitor of PDE 4 is in development for chronic inflammatory disorders and has shown promise for the treatment of psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis as well as other inflammatory diseases. It has been found to be safe and well tolerated in humans and in March 2014 it was approved by the US food and drug administration for the treatment of adult patients with active psoriatic arthritis. The only other PDE4 inhibitor on the market is Roflumilast and it is used for treatment of respiratory disease. Roflumilast is approved in the EU for the treatment of COPD and was recently approved in the US for treatment to reduce the risk of COPD exacerbations. Roflumilast is also a selective PDE4 inhibitor, administered as an oral tablet once daily, and is thought to act by increasing cAMP within lung cells. As both (Apremilast and Roflumilast) compounds selectively inhibit PDE4 but are targeted at different diseases, there is a need for a clear understanding of their mechanism of action (MOA). Differences and similarity of MOA should be defined for the purposes of labelling, for communication to the scientific community, physicians, and patients, and for an extension of utility to other diseases and therapeutic areas. In order to obtain a complete comparative picture of the MOA of both inhibitors, additional molecular and cellular biology studies are required to more fully elucidate the signalling mediators downstream of PDE4 inhibition which result in alterations in pro- and anti-inflammatory gene expression. My studies were conducted to directly compare Apremilast with Roflumilast, in order to substantiate the differences observed in the molecular and cellular effects of these compounds, and to search for other possible differentiating effects. Therefore the main aim of this thesis was to utilise cutting-edge biochemical techniques to discover whether Apremilast and Roflumilast work with different modes of action. In the first part of my thesis I used novel genetically encoded FRET based cAMP sensors targeted to different intracellular compartments, in order to monitor cAMP levels within specific microdomains of cells as a consequence of challenge with Apremilast and Roflumilast, which revealed that Apremilast and Roflumilast do regulate different pools of cAMP in cells. In the second part of my thesis I focussed on assessing whether Apremilast and Roflumilast cause differential effects on the PKA phosphorylation state of proteins in cells. I used various biochemical techniques (Western blotting, Substrate kinase arrays and Reverse Phase Protein array and found that Apremilast and Roflumilast do lead to differential PKA substrate phosphorylation. For example I found that Apremilast increases the phosphorylation of Ribosomal Protein S6 at Ser240/244 and Fyn Y530 in the S6 Ribosomal pathway of Rheumatoid Arthritis Synovial fibroblast and HEK293 cells, whereas Roflumilast does not. This data suggests that Apremilast has distinct biological effects from that of Roflumilast and could represent a new therapeutic role for Apremilast in other diseases. In the final part of my thesis, Phage display technology was employed in order to identify any novel binding motifs that associate with PDE4 and to identify sequences that were differentially regulated by the inhibitors in an attempt to find binding motifs that may exist in previously characterised signalling proteins. Petide array technology was then used to confirm binding of specific peptide sequences or motifs. Results showed that Apremilast and Roflumilast can either enhance or decrease the binding of PDE4A4 to specific peptide sequences or motifs that are found in a variety of proteins in the human proteome, most interestingly Ubiquitin-related proteins. The data from this chapter is preliminary but may be used in the discovery of novel binding partners for PDE4 or to provide a new role for PDE inhibition in disease. Therefore the work in this thesis provides a unique snapshot of the complexity of the cAMP signalling system and is the first to directly compare action of the two approved PDE4 inhibitors in a detailed way.

New prophylactic and therapeutic treatments to combat pathogenic Enterohaemorrhagic Escherichia coli

Bacterial diarrhoeal diseases have significant influence on global human health, and are a leading cause of preventable death in the developing world. Enterohaemorrhagic Escherichia coli (EHEC), pathogenic strains of E. coli that carry potent toxins, have been associated with a high number of large-scale outbreaks caused by contaminated food and water sources. This pathotype produces diarrhoea and haemorrhagic colitis in infected humans, and in some patients leads to the development of haemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS), which can result in mortality and chronic kidney disease. A major obstacle to the treatment of EHEC infections is the increased risk of HUS development that is associated with antibiotic treatment, and rehydration and renal support are often the only options available. New treatments designed to prevent or clear E. coli infections and reduce symptoms of illness would therefore have large public health and economic impacts. The three main aims of this thesis were: to explore mouse models for pre-clinical evaluation in vivo of small compounds that inhibit a major EHEC colonisation factor, to assess the production and role of two proteins considered promising candidates for a broad-spectrum vaccine against pathogenic E. coli, and to investigate a novel compound that has recently been identified as a potential inhibitor of EHEC toxin production. As EHEC cannot be safely tested in humans due to the risk of HUS development, appropriate small animal models are required for in vivo testing of new drugs. A number of different mouse models have been developed to replicate different features of EHEC pathogenesis, several of which we investigated with a focus on colonisation mediated by the Type III Secretion System (T3SS), a needle-like structure that translocates bacterial proteins into host cells, resulting in a tight, intimate attachment between pathogen and host, aiding colonisation of the gastrointestinal tract. As E. coli models were found not to depend significantly on the T3SS for colonisation, the Citrobacter rodentium model, a natural mouse pathogen closely related to E. coli, was deemed the most suitable mouse model currently available for in vivo testing of T3SS-targeting compounds. Two bacterial proteins, EaeH (an outer membrane adhesin) and YghJ (a putative secreted lipoprotein), highly conserved surface-associated proteins recently identified as III protective antigens against E. coli infection of mice, were explored in order to determine their suitability as candidates for a human vaccine against pathogenic E. coli. We focused on the expression and function of these proteins in the EHEC O157:H7 EDL933 strain and the adherent-invasive E. coli (AIEC) LF82 strain. Although expression of EaeH by other E. coli pathotypes has recently been shown to be upregulated upon contact with host intestinal cells, no evidence of this upregulation could be demonstrated in our strains. Additionally, while YghJ was produced by the AIEC strain, it was not secreted by bacteria under conditions that other YghJ-expressing E. coli pathotypes do, despite the AIEC strain carrying all the genes required to encode the secretion system it is associated with. While our findings indicate that a vaccine that raises antibodies against EaeH and YghJ may have limited effect on the EHEC and AIEC strains we used, recent studies into these proteins in different E. coli pathogens have suggested they are still excellent candidates for a broadly effective vaccine against E. coli. Finally, we characterised a small lead compound, identified by high-throughput screening as a possible inhibitor of Shiga toxin expression. Shiga toxin production causes both the symptoms of illness and development of HUS, and thus reduction of toxin production, release, or binding to host receptors could therefore be an effective way to treat infections and decrease the risk of HUS. Inhibition of Shiga toxin production by this compound was confirmed, and was shown to be caused by an inhibitory effect on activation of the bacterial SOS response rather than on the Shiga toxin genes themselves. The bacterial target of this compound was identified as RecA, a major regulator of the SOS response, and we hypothesise that the compound binds covalently to its target, preventing oligomerisation of RecA into an activated filament. Altogether, the results presented here provide an improved understanding of these different approaches to combating EHEC infection, which will aid the development of safe and effective vaccines and anti-virulence treatments against EHEC.