An investigation of the molecular pharmacology of G protein-coupled receptor 35

G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are seven-pass integral membrane proteins that act as transducers of extracellular signals across the lipid bilayer. Their location and involvement in basic and pathological physiological processes has secured their role as key targets for pharmaceutical intervention. GPCRs are targeted by many of the best-selling drugs on the market and there are a substantial number of GPCRs that are yet to be characterised; these could offer interest for therapeutic targeting. GPR35 is one such receptor that, as a result of gene knockout and genome wide association studies, has attracted interest through its association with cardiovascular and gastrointestinal disease. Elucidation of the basic physiological function of GPR35 has, however, been difficult due a paucity of potent and selective ligands in addition to a lack of consensus on the endogenous ligand. Herein, a focussed drug discovery effort was carried out to identify agonists of GPR35. Various in vitro cellular assays were employed in conjunction with N- or C-terminally manipulated forms of the receptor to investigate GPR35’s signalling profile and to provide an assay format suitable for the characterisation of newly identified ligands. Although GPR35 associates with both Gαi/o and Gα13 families of small heterotrimeric G proteins, the G protein-independent β-arrestin-2 recruitment format was found to be the most suited to drug screening efforts. Small molecule compound screening, carried out in conjunction with the Medical Research Council Technology, identified compound 1 as the most potent ligand of human GPR35 reported at that time. However, the lower efficacy and potency of compound 1 at the rodent species orthologues of GPR35 prevented its use in in vivo studies. A subsequent effort, carried out with Novartis, focused on mast cell stabilisers as putative agonists of GPR35, revealed lodoxamide and bufrolin as highly potent agonists that activated human and rat GPR35 with equal potency. This finding offered–for the first time–the opportunity to employ the same GPR35 ligand between species at a similar concentration, an important factor to consider when translating rodent in vivo functional studies to those in man. Additionally, using molecular modelling and site directed mutagenesis studies, these newly identified compounds were used to aid characterisation of the ligand binding pockets of human and rat GPR35 to reveal the molecular basis of species selectivity at this receptor. In summary, this research effort presents GPR35 tool compounds that can now be used to dissect the basic biology of GPR35 and investigate its contribution to disease.

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.

Using induced pluripotent stem cells (IPSCS) as a replacement for in vivo models to screen novel therapies in chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML)

Tyrpsine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) effectively target progenitors and mature leukaemic cells but prove less effective at eliminating leukaemic stem cells (LSCs) in patients with chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML). Several reports indicate that the TGFβ superfamily pathway is important for LSC survival and quiescence. We conducted extensive microarray analyses to compare expression patterns in normal haemopoietic stem cells (HSC) and progenitors with CML LSC and progenitor populations in chronic phase (CP), accelerated phase (AP) and blast crisis (BC) CML. The BMP/SMAD pathway and downstream signalling molecules were identified as significantly deregulated in all three phases of CML. The changes observed could potentiate altered autocrine signalling, as BMP2, BMP4 (p<0.05), and ACTIVIN A (p<0.001) were all down regulated, whereas BMP7, BMP10 and TGFβ (p<0.05) were up regulated in CP. This was accompanied by up regulation of BMPRI (p<0.05) and downstream SMADs (p<0.005). Interestingly, as CML progressed, the profile altered, with BC patients showing significant over-expression of ACTIVIN A and its receptor ACVR1C. To further characterise the BMP pathway and identify potential candidate biomarkers within a larger cohort, expression analysis of 42 genes in 60 newly diagnosed CP CML patient samples, enrolled on a phase III clinical trial (www.spirit-cml.org) with greater than 12 months follow-up data on their response to TKI was performed. Analysis revealed that the pathway was highly deregulated, with no clear distinction when patients were stratified into good, intermediate and poor response to treatment. One of the major issues in developing new treatments to target LSCs is the ability to test small molecule inhibitors effectively as it is difficult to obtain sufficient LSCs from primary patient material. Using reprogramming technologies, we generated induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) from CP CML patients and normal donors. CML- and normal-derived iPSCs were differentiated along the mesodermal axis to generate haemopoietic and endothelial precursors (haemangioblasts). IPSC-derived haemangioblasts exhibited sensitivity to TKI treatment with increased apoptosis and reduction in the phosphorylation of downstream target proteins. 4 Dual inhibition studies were performed using BMP pathway inhibitors in combination with TKI on CML cell lines, primary cells and patient derived iPSCs. Results indicate that they act synergistically to target CML cells both in the presence and absence of BMP4 ligand. Inhibition resulted in decreased proliferation, irreversible cell cycle arrest, increased apoptosis, reduced haemopoietic colony formation, altered gene expression pattern, reduction in self-renewal and a significant reduction in the phosphorylation of downstream target proteins. These changes offer a therapeutic window in CML, with intervention using BMP inhibitors in combination with TKI having the potential to prevent LSC self-renewal and improve outcome for patients. By successfully developing and validating iPSCs for CML drug screening we hope to substantially reduce the reliance on animal models for early preclinical drug screening in leukaemia.