Microtubules are extraordinarily dynamic assemblies, which are involved in many cellular activities including maintenance of cell structure and regulation of cell motility, membrane transport processes and cell proliferation (reviewed in (1) ). The process of continuous addition and loss of tubulin dimers from microtubule ends, termed dynamic instability(2) , allows rapid remodeling of these structures, but also makes them susceptible to chemical agents that disrupt microtubule structure and function. Inhibition of microtubule dynamics in the mitotic spindle is thought to be the basis for the anticancer activities of drugs that promote the depolymerization of microtubules, e.g. Vinca alkaloids, or that stabilize microtubules, e.g. taxanes(3, 4, 5, 6, 7) . These compounds are widely used clinically; however, the ability of tumor cells to develop resistance to these, and most other, natural product anticancer drugs often limits their ultimate efficacy (reviewed in (8, 9, 10) ).

We have recently described the ability of a cyanobacterial cytotoxic macrolide, termed cryptophycin, to induce the depletion of microtubules in intact cells(11) . Importantly, cryptophycin is able to circumvent a common form of multiple drug resistance, i.e. P-glycoprotein-mediated efflux of natural product anticancer drugs. This confers a significant theoretical advantage to this compound over currently utilized antimitotic drugs in that tumors should be less able to develop resistance to cryptophycin. Cryptophycin has demonstrated excellent in vivo activity against several types of tumor xenografts, including those of cells that are poorly inhibited by Vinca alkaloids(12) . Because of the potential usefulness of cryptophycin as an anticancer drug, we have now examined the molecular mechanism of its antimicrotubule actions. These studies have revealed that cryptophycin interacts with the Vinca alkaloid binding domain of tubulin; however, a number of unique molecular details of cryptophycin binding have been identified.

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

Materials

Figure 1: Structure of cryptophycin.

Isolation of Microtubule Protein and Tubulin

()

Polymerization Assays

1) To examine the effects of drugs on microtubule depolymerization, MTP was polymerized in the absence or presence of 10 µM paclitaxel for 30 min under the conditions described above. Cryptophycin or vinblastine was then added, and the A was monitored for approximately 30 min.

2) To examine the effects of drugs on microtubule morphology, MTP samples were incubated with drug under polymerizing conditions for 30 min. The samples were then fixed with 0.2% glutaraldehyde, absorbed onto carbon-coated grids, and stained with 0.5% uranyl acetate for electron microscopy.

3) To test the effects of cryptophycin on the critical concentration of tubulin, the amount of MTP was varied from 0.25 to 5 mg/ml (2-40 µM tubulin) and cryptophycin concentrations were varied from 0 to 10 µM. Polymerization was initiated and monitored as indicated above.

4) To test the reversibility of the inhibitory effect of cryptophycin, MTP was incubated with 5 µM cryptophycin for 30 min at room temperature in MTP polymerizing buffer (without GTP). The samples were then diluted 10-fold with cold MTP polymerizing buffer and concentrated 10-80-fold by ultrafiltration using Centricon-10 centrifugal concentrators (Amicon, Inc., Beverly, MA), which contain M 10,000 cut-off filters. After measurement of the volume of the concentrate, the samples were diluted to their original volume (0.25 ml) so that the MTP was restored to its original concentration and cryptophycin was reduced to 0.5 µM. A 0.2-ml aliquot was then combined with 0.5 mM GTP and warmed to 37 °C, and polymerization was monitored as indicated above. The remainder of the sample was combined with 9 volumes of cold EtOH, and precipitated protein was pelleted by centrifugation at 15,000 g for 10 min. The supernatant was serially diluted and tested for cytotoxicity toward MCF-7 cells as described previously (11) . The actual amount of cryptophycin in each centrifuged sample was determined by comparison with the cytotoxicities of cryptophycin standards.

Ligand Binding and GTPase Assays

1) In the colchicine binding assay(18) , triplicate samples of bovine brain MTP (10 µM tubulin) were incubated with cryptophycin, podophyllotoxin or vinblastine in 0.1 M MES, pH 6.6, containing 1 mM MgCl, 1 mM GTP, 100 mM glucose 1-phosphate(19) , for 5 min before the addition of 10 µM colchicine. After 30 min, the fluorescence of the MTP mixture were determined using an excitation wavelength of 357 nm and an emission wavelength of 435 nm. Increased fluorescence of colchicine is observed upon its binding to tubulin (18) . Samples without colchicine or without MTP were utilized as blanks.

2) In the [H]vinblastine binding assay(20) , triplicate samples of MTP (2 µM tubulin) were incubated in 0.1 M MES, pH 6.9, containing 0.5 mM MgCl, 2% dimethyl sulfoxide, and 5 µM [H]vinblastine (0.1 µCi) with several concentrations of test drugs for 30 min at 21 °C. The samples (0.15 ml) were then applied to 0.5-ml columns of Sephadex G-50 equilibrated with incubation buffer without vinblastine and centrifuged at 100 g for 2 min. Additional buffer (0.3 ml) was then added to each column, and the samples were centrifuged again. An aliquot of the filtrate (0.25 ml) containing bound [H]vinblastine was analyzed by liquid scintillation counting. Blank samples did not contain MTP, and their counts were subtracted from test samples.

3) In the [H]GTP binding assay, triplicate samples of MTP (20 µM tubulin) were incubated in 0.1 M MES, pH 6.9, containing 0.5 mM MgCl, 2% dimethyl sulfoxide, and 0.1 mM [H]GTP (0.2 µCi) with several concentrations of test drugs for 30 min at 21 °C. Bound [H]GTP was determined by centrifugal filtration on Sephadex G-50 as described above. Blank samples did not contain MTP, and their counts were subtracted from test samples.

4) In the GTPase assay(21) , triplicate samples of 20 µM purified tubulin were incubated in 1 M glutamate, pH 6.9, containing 0.5 mM MgCl, 2% dimethyl sulfoxide, and 0.1 mM [-P]GTP (0.1 µCi) (22) with several concentrations of test drugs for 5 min at 37 °C. Reactions were terminated by the addition of 1 ml of 300 mM perchloric acid containing 10 mg of activated charcoal (23) . Samples were then incubated at room temperature for 5 min to allow adsorption of the nucleotide to the charcoal, followed by centrifugation at 3,000 g for 5 min. An aliquot (0.25 ml) of the supernatant was removed and analyzed by liquid scintillation counting to determine the amount of released PO. Blank samples did not contain MTP, or were stopped immediately after the addition of [-P]GTP, and their counts were subtracted from test samples.

5) To quantify the rates of tubulin denaturation(24) , purified tubulin (5 µM) was incubated at 37 °C in 100 mM MES, pH 6.4, containing 0.1 mM EDTA, 1 mM EGTA, 1 mM GTP, 0.5 mM MgCl, and 1 mM -mercaptoethanol in the absence or presence of cryptophycin. At 30-min intervals, samples were combined with 25 µM bisANS and the fluorescence was determined using an excitation wavelength of 385 nm and an emission wavelength of 490 nm (24) . Samples without bisANS or without tubulin were utilized as blanks.

Tubulin Immunofluorescence Assay

Photolabeling of Tubulin with [H]Colchicine

Topoisomerase Inhibition Assays

Additionally, the K/SDS precipitation assay was used to test the effects of drugs on topoisomerases in intact cells(27) . Briefly, SKOV3 cells were grown for 24 h in the presence of [H]thymidine (1 µCi/ml) in 24-well tissue culture plates. At that time, the medium was replaced with unlabeled medium containing 10% fetal bovine serum and cells were exposed to multiple doses of test drugs for 45 min. The cells were then lysed with 1.25% SDS, and protein-complexed DNA was precipitated by the addition of 325 mM KCl. Pellets were washed twice, and the amount of precipitated H was determined by liquid scintillation counting.

RESULTS

Effects of Cryptophycin on Microtubule Polymerization in Vitro

Figure 2: Effects of antimitotic drugs on MTP polymerization. Microtubule protein (20 µM tubulin) was incubated with EtOH (), 5 µM colchicine (), 5 µM vinblastine (), or 5 µM cryptophycin () for 15 min before the addition of GTP and warming to 37 °C as described under ``Materials and Methods.'' Polymerization was monitored as light scattering (A) at 20-s intervals.

Substoichiometric doses of cryptophycin (with respect to tubulin) suppressed microtubule assembly (Fig. 3A), such that polymerization was decreased by approximately 50% by a cryptophycin:tubulin ratio of 0.1. Cryptophycin concentrations of 0.5 µM and below did not affect microtubule assembly. In contrast with vinblastine(4) , high doses of cryptophycin (up to at least 40 µM) did not promote the formation of aberrant tubulin aggregations that result in increased light scattering (data not shown). Cryptophycin also suppressed the ability of purified tubulin to assemble into microtubules (Fig. 3B), indicating that the molecular target of the compound is tubulin rather than a MAP. To examine the polymerization of tubulin in the absence of MAPs, it is necessary to utilize reaction conditions which strongly promote microtubule assembly, i.e. 1 M glutamate, pH 6.6, containing 4% dimethyl sulfoxide(4) . The reduced effect of cryptophycin on purified tubulin most likely reflects the difficulty in blocking assembly under these conditions.

Figure 3: Dose-response curves for inhibition of polymerization by cryptophycin. A, microtubule protein (20 µM tubulin) was incubated with 0 (), 2(), 5 (), or 10 () µM cryptophycin for 15 min before polymerization was initiated as described under ``Materials and Methods.'' B, purified tubulin (20 µM tubulin) was incubated with 0 (), 0.5 (), or 5 () µM cryptophycin for 15 min before polymerization was initiated as described under ``Materials and Methods.''

Experiments in which the concentrations of both tubulin and cryptophycin were varied indicated that the compound altered the percentage of tubulin which was competent for assembly, but did not alter the critical concentration of tubulin required for assembly (Fig. 4). These effects of cryptophycin are clearly substoichiometric with respect to tubulin, e.g. increasing tubulin from 10 to 40 µM allowed only a small increase in assembly in the presence of 5 µM cryptophycin. Electron microscopy revealed that MTP incubated with cryptophycin accumulated as rings (Fig. 5). The scattered aggregates of protein do not have structural similarity with spirals formed in the presence of vinblastine ( (28) and data not shown).

Figure 4: Effect of cryptophycin on the critical concentration of tubulin. Dilutions of MTP containing the indicated concentrations of tubulin were incubated with 0 (), 2 (), 5 (), or 10 () µM cryptophycin for 15 min before polymerization was initiated as described under ``Materials and Methods.'' In all cases, polymerization plateaued by 30 min, and this maximum increase in A is indicated. These results are from one of two virtually identical experiments.

Figure 5: Electron microscopy of cryptophycin-treated MTP. Microtubule protein was incubated with 5 µM cryptophycin before assembly was initiated as indicated in Fig. 2. After 30 min, samples were fixed with glutaraldehyde and examined by transmission electron microscopy as indicated under ``Materials and Methods.'' A typical field is shown. Magnification, 150,000.

Pretreatment of intact cells with paclitaxel prevents microtubule depletion upon exposure to cryptophycin or vinblastine(11) . To test the effects of paclitaxel in vitro, microtubules were assembled in the absence or presence of 10 µM paclitaxel and then exposed to cryptophycin or vinblastine. As demonstrated in Fig. 6, addition of cryptophycin to microtubules assembled in the absence of paclitaxel led to rapid, partial disassembly, manifested as a decrease in turbidity. In contrast, vinblastine was ineffective in reducing the state of microtubule assembly. Paclitaxel enhanced microtubule assembly, in agreement with previous studies(29) , and markedly reduced the ability of cryptophycin to induce disassembly.

Figure 6: Effects of vinblastine and cryptophycin on MTP depolymerization. Microtubule protein (20 µM tubulin) was incubated with EtOH (open symbols) or 10 µM paclitaxel (closed symbols) for 15 min before polymerization was initiated (time = 0). After 20 min, 10 µM vinblastine (, ) or 10 µM cryptophycin (, ) was added and light scattering was monitored for an additional 20 min.

Treatment of cells with cryptophycin results in irreversible depletion of microtubules(11) . To test the reversibility of the in vitro effects of the compound, MTP was treated with 5 µM cryptophycin, concentrated 10- or 30-fold by ultrafiltration, and then diluted to the original volume. Residual concentrations of cryptophycin in the MTP sample were quantified by a bioassay for cytotoxicity and were found to amount to 0.16 and 0.085 µM. Results from six samples indicated that actual residual cryptophycin concentrations averaged 48 ± 8% of the theoretical residual concentration, i.e. calculated on the basis of the dilution factor, suggesting limited binding to the concentrator. The polymerization ability of MTP incubated in the absence of cryptophycin was reduced by approximately 50% by these manipulations. However, MTP that had been incubated with cryptophycin was unable to assemble (Fig. 7), even when residual levels of cryptophycin were reduced to 0.085 µM. This concentration of cryptophycin has no effect on MTP assembly, indicating that treatment with cryptophycin caused persistent inhibition of assembly.

Figure 7: Lack of reversibility of effects of cryptophycin. Microtubule protein was incubated with 0 () or 5 (, ) µM cryptophycin for 15 min as described for Fig. 2. The samples were then diluted 10-fold, concentrated by ultrafiltration either 10-fold () or 30-fold () using Centricon-10 centrifugal concentrators and diluted to the original volume as described under ``Materials and Methods.'' The residual concentrations of cryptophycin were measured by a bioassay, and were found to be 0 (), 0.05 (), and 0.5 () µM. Results from one of four experiments (in which concentration factors ranged from 10- to 80-fold) are shown.

Incubation of tubulin at 37 °C results in time-dependent denaturation that can be monitored as increased binding of bisANS to hydrophobic sites(24) . Cryptophycin (5 µM or greater) completely blocked the spontaneous increase in the ability of tubulin to bind bisANS (data not shown). This stabilization of tubulin supports the hypothesis that cryptophycin binds directly to tubulin and indicates that the persistence of the inhibitory effect of cryptophycin of polymerization is not due to nonspecific denaturation of tubulin.

Effects of Cryptophycin on the Drug Binding Domains of Tubulin

Figure 8: Effects of antimitotic drugs on vinblastine and colchicine binding to tubulin. Panel A, microtubule protein was incubated with the indicated concentrations of colchicine (), vinblastine (), podophyllotoxin (), rhizoxin (), or cryptophycin () before the binding of [H]vinblastine was determined as indicated under ``Materials and Methods.'' Values represent the mean ± S.E. for three experiments with each ligand. Panel B, microtubule protein was incubated with the indicated concentrations of cryptophycin (), vinblastine (), or podophyllotoxin () before the addition of 10 µM colchicine. After 30 min the fluorescence at 435 nm was determined. Additional samples were incubated with the indicated concentrations of cryptophycin () without the addition of colchicine. The fluorescence value of MTP in the absence of drug was subtracted from each sample. Data from one of three similar experiments are shown.

Colchicine binding to tubulin can be monitored by an increase in its fluorescence at 435 nm(18) . Pretreatment of MTP with podophyllotoxin strongly reduced colchicine binding, whereas neither vinblastine nor cryptophycin altered the increased fluorescence of colchicine upon its interaction with tubulin (Fig. 8B). Cryptophycin alone did not alter fluorescence at 435 nm (open triangles), or the absorption spectrum of the MTP (data not shown). In a complimentary assay, the effects of these agents on the photolabeling of tubulin by [H]colchicine (26) were determined. Covalent incorporation of [H]colchicine into tubulin dimers upon exposure to UV light was inhibited by pretreatment of the MTP with 20 µM of either podophyllotoxin or unlabeled colchicine (to 57 and 51% of the control value, respectively). In contrast, pretreatment with 20 µM vinblastine or rhizoxin did not have reduce the photolabeling of tubulin by [H]colchicine, and cryptophycin reduced labeling to only 79% of the control value.

Cryptophycin and vinblastine caused virtually parallel dose-dependent inhibitions of the hydrolysis of [-P]GTP by purified tubulin, each reaching 10% of the control activity at 10 µM (data not shown). Neither cryptophycin nor vinblastine altered [H]GTP binding to MTP (data not shown).

To verify the ability of cryptophycin to modulate the Vinca binding domain of tubulin, its effects on the formation of vinblastine-tubulin paracrystals in intact cells were examined. Treatment of ovarian carcinoma (SKOV3) cells with 5 µM vinblastine resulted in the depletion of microtubules and the formation of large paracrystals of vinblastine-tubulin (Fig. 9). Treatment of cells with 5 µM colchicine, 5 µM rhizoxin, or 25 nM cryptophycin depleted microtubules, resulting in diffuse cytoplasmic staining of -tubulin. Addition of vinblastine to colchicine-treated cells resulted in the formation of paracrystals; however, no paracrystals were formed in cells pretreated with either rhizoxin or cryptophycin. Similarly, pretreatment of MTP in vitro with 10 µM cryptophycin blocked the ability of high doses of vinblastine (up to at least 80 µM) to cause tubulin aggregation (data not shown).

Figure 9: Effects of antimitotic drugs on vinblastine-tubulin paracrystal formation. SKOV3 cells were treated with EtOH (top row), 5 µM colchicine (second row), 5 µM rhizoxin (third row), or 25 nM cryptophycin (bottom row) for 3 h before the addition of 0 (left column) or 5 µM vinblastine (right column). Cells were incubated an additional 18 h, and -tubulin was stained as indicated under ``Materials and Methods.''

Lack of Effect of Cryptophycin on Topoisomerases

DISCUSSION

Our initial descriptions of the actions of cryptophycin were limited to cellular studies in which this cyanobacterial natural product demonstrated extremely potent cytotoxicity, which was closely correlated with mitotic arrest, and pronounced, irreversible depletion of cellular microtubules(11) . A major point of interest with this compound is its ability to kill cells that are resistant to other antimitotic drugs, including vinblastine and paclitaxel. Because of this, cryptophycin is an attractive agent for development as an anticancer drug. To further characterize the molecular actions of cryptophycin, we have now examined the effects of this compound on tubulin function in vitro.

Antimitotic compounds commonly disrupt mitotic spindle function by interfering with microtubule dynamics(30, 31, 32) , and this effect is reflected in their abilities to modulate the assembly of microtubules in vitro. As with other microtubule-depleting agents, cryptophycin strongly suppressed the ability of microtubules to assemble in vitro, indicating that the target of its action is contained in these preparations. Cryptophycin inhibited the assembly of purified tubulin, prevented tubulin denaturation, inhibited tubulin's ability to bind [H]vinblastine and to hydrolyze [-P]GTP. These results demonstrate that cryptophycin directly interacts with tubulin. Similar reduced efficacy for inhibition of the assembly of purified tubulin in comparison with assembly of microtubules from MTP has been observed with other antimitotic compounds (19, 33, 34) and most likely reflects the difficulty in preventing polymerization under conditions that strongly favor assembly, i.e. high glutamate and dimethyl sulfoxide concentrations(4) .

Microtubules assembled in the presence of paclitaxel were stable upon treatment with cryptophycin, suggesting that cryptophycin binds to unpolymerized tubulin and prevents the growth of microtubules. Additionally, the effects of paclitaxel on alterations of microtubules in intact cells by cryptophycin (11) are fully mimicked by the MTP preparation, indicating that no other regulatory proteins mediate the actions of cryptophycin.

Interestingly, cryptophycin did not alter the critical concentration for microtubule assembly as has been reported for other tubulin-binding agents(35, 36, 37, 38) . Instead, cryptophycin induced substoichiometric reductions in the maximum extent of assembly. This is consistent with an ``end-poisoning'' model in which addition of tubulin-cryptophycin complexes to the microtubule blocks further elongation(39, 40) . In support of this mechanism, electron microscopy indicated that the modest increase in turbidity of MTP incubated in the presence of cryptophycin is associated with the accumulation of tubulin rings (Fig. 3). These structures have been previously observed under conditions in which the formation of microtubules is prevented by low temperature or lack of GTP(41) , and strikingly contrast with the effects of vinblastine and colchicine which induce the accumulation of spirals (28) and twisted ribbons(42) , respectively.

It may be noted that microtubule depletion in intact cells can be accomplished by nanomolar doses of cryptophycin, while inhibition of microtubule polymerization in vitro requires micromolar levels of the compound. This apparent discrepancy is also observed with Vinca alkaloids(43) , paclitaxel (32) and colchicine, ()and is due to the high concentration of tubulin needed to measure microtubule assembly in vitro, i.e. 20 µM. Consequently, effects mediated by stoichiometric binding of the agent to tubulin are observed only at micromolar concentrations. Additionally, other tubulin-binding drugs have been shown to concentrate >100-fold within cells, greatly increasing their effective levels at the target site. It is likely that this consideration also applies to cryptophycin. Recent work has demonstrated that microtubule dynamicity, i.e. addition and removal of tubulin dimers from microtubule ends, is considerably more sensitive to inhibition by antimitotic drugs than are alterations of total cellular microtubule mass(30, 31, 32) . In support of a similar mechanism for cryptophycin, dual-labeling studies have demonstrated that cryptophycin induces mitotic arrest and apoptosis in cells with intact cytoplasmic microtubules. ()

Since the time that tubulin was identified as the intracellular binding site of colchicine(44) , a number of natural and synthetic compounds that alter microtubule structure and function have been characterized. Natural products that act as antimitotic agents due to depletion of cellular microtubules have been classified according to their abilities to bind to either the colchicine site or the vinblastine site of tubulin(4) . While neither drug-binding site has been structurally characterized, some similarities among compounds interacting with these sites can be recognized. The classification of new compounds generally relies on study of their effects on the binding of colchicine and vinblastine. To date, compounds (and their analogues) have segregated quite well into these two categories. For example, Vinca alkaloids, rhizoxin(45) , maytansinoids(46) , phomopsins(47) , dolastatins(48) , halichondrins(33) , ustiloxins(49) , and spongistatin (50) interact with the ``vinblastine'' site, while colchicine, podophyllotoxins(51) , steganacin(52) , combrestatins(53) , and curacin A (54) interact with the ``colchicine'' site.

Interaction of cryptophycin with the Vinca alkaloid binding site of tubulin is indicated by its ability to inhibit the binding of [H]vinblastine, as well as its ability to inhibit the formation of drug-tubulin paracrystals in cells or MTP treated with high doses of vinblastine. Attempts to use the DEAE-filter assay to measure [H]colchicine binding to tubulin (19) resulted in very low binding stoichiometry (<0.1), clearly indicating that the reaction had not reached equilibrium. This probably reflects the relatively low k for colchicine interaction with tubulin (4, 55) and the instability of the colchicine binding site of tubulin incubated at 37 °C(4) . Therefore, two independent assays were used to examine the interaction of cryptophycin with tubulin. These studies indicated that cryptophycin did not alter photolabeling of tubulin by [H]colchicine or alter increases in colchicine fluorescence upon its binding to tubulin (Fig. 8B).

The properties of previously known natural products which modulate the Vinca alkaloid domain of tubulin have recently been summarized by Luduena et al.(56) and indicate that cryptophycin has molecular effects that are unique. For example, vinblastine, phomopsin A, and dolastatin 10 enhance colchicine binding to tubulin, whereas cryptophycin is without effect. Tubulin decay in vitro is strongly inhibited by cryptophycin, vinblastine, phomopsin A, ustiloxin A, and dolastatin 10, but is increased or not affected by maytansine, rhizoxin, homohalichondrin B, and halichondrin B. Binding of GTP to tubulin is not affected by cryptophycin or vinblastine, but is inhibited by the other natural products. Cryptophycin and vinblastine have markedly different effects on tubulin structure both in vitro and in intact cells. Therefore, cryptophycin binding to tubulin is mechanistically different from previously described compounds and so should be useful in further defining drug binding domains on this important protein.

Although it is not yet possible to determine the dissociation constant for cryptophycin binding to tubulin, cryptophycin, and rhizoxin demonstrated similar potencies for reducing the binding of [H]vinblastine to tubulin (Fig. 8A). Since direct binding studies with [H]rhizoxin have suggested a k of approximately 0.2 µM and a stoichiometry of 1 for that drug(57) , it is likely that the affinity of cryptophycin for this site is similar. We are currently synthesizing H-labeled cryptophycin to directly determine the kinetic constants and stoichiometry of its association with tubulin. It is notable that cryptophycin is significantly more potent than vinblastine and rhizoxin with regard to its antimicrotubule effects in intact cells. For example, treatment of cells with only 25 nM cryptophycin blocked paracrystal formation in response to 5 µM vinblastine, while 5 µM rhizoxin was required for similar competition with vinblastine (Fig. 9). The roles of differences in rate constants for drug binding to and dissociation from tubulin and/or differential intracellular accumulation of the drugs are not yet known.

The apparent irreversibility of the effects of cryptophycin on microtubules both in intact cells and in vitro may prove useful for structural studies. Because of the propensity of high concentrations of tubulin to form amorphous aggregates, the three-dimensional structure of this protein has remained unsolved by either crystallographic or NMR technologies. Complexes of cryptophycin and tubulin may form crystals suitable for x-ray analysis.

In summary, the newly described antimitotic agent cryptophycin is able to interact with the Vinca alkaloid-binding site of tubulin with high potency and efficacy. This interaction causes markedly substoichiometric and virtually irreversible inhibition of microtubule polymerization. Therefore, while the overall effects of cryptophycin are similar to those of other antimitotic drugs, the molecular details of its interaction with tubulin are unique.

FOOTNOTES

*

This work was supported by Grant CA 64631 from the National Institutes of Health (to C. D. S.). The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore by hereby marked ``advertisement'' in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

§

To whom correspondence should be addressed: Dept. of Pharmacology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, 7701 Burholme Ave., Philadelphia, PA 19111. Tel.: 215-728-3141; Fax: 215-728-4333; cd_smith{at}fccc.edu.

()

The abbreviations used are: MTP, microtubule protein (consisting of tubulin and MAPs); bisANS, bis(8-anilinonaphthalene 1-sulfonate); MAP, microtubule-associated protein; MES, 2-(N-morpholino)ethanesulfonic acid.

()

C. D. Smith and X. Zhang, unpublished observations.

()

X. Zhang, A.-M. Helt, and C. D. Smith, manuscript in preparation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

REFERENCES

1. Cleveland, D. W. (1993) in Guidebook to the Cytoskeletal and Motor Proteins (Kreis, T., and Vale, R., eds) pp. 101-105, Oxford University Press, New York
2. Mitchison, T., and Kirschner, M. W. (1984) Nature 312, 237-242 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
3. Rowinsky, E. K., and Donehower, R. C. (1991) Pharmacol. Ther. 52, 35-84, [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
4. Hamel, E. (1990) in Microtubule Proteins (Avila, J., ed) pp. 89-191, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL
5. Deconti, R. C., and Creasey, W. A. (1975) in The Catharanthus Alkaloids: Botany, Chemistry, Pharmacology and Clinical Use (Taylor, W. I., and Farnsworth, N. R., eds) pp. 237-278, Marcel Dekker, New York
6. Gerzon, K. (1980) in Anticancer Agents Based on Natural Product Models (Cassady, J. M., and Douros, J. D., eds) pp. 271-331, Academic Press, Inc., New York
7. Taylor, E. W. (1965) J. Cell Biol. 25, 145-160 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
8. Endicott, J. A., and Ling, V. (1989) Annu. Rev. Biochem. 58, 137-171 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
9. Gottesman, M. M., and Pastan, I. (1993) Annu. Rev. Biochem. 62, 385-427 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
10. Moscow, J. A., and Cowan, K. H. (1988) J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 80, 14-20 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
11. Smith, C. D., Zhang, X., Mooberry, S. L., Patterson, G. M. L., and Moore, R. E. (1994) Cancer Res. 54, 3779-3785 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
12. Trimurtulu, G., Ohtani, I., Patterson, G. M. L., Moore, R. E., Corbett, T. H., Valeriote, F. A., and Demchik, L. (1994) J. Am. Chem. Soc. 116, 4729-4737 [CrossRef]
13. Barrow, R. A., Hemscheidt, T., Liang, J., Paik, S, Moore, R. E., and Tius, M. A. (1995) J. Am. Chem. Soc. 117, 2479-2490 [CrossRef]
14. Kobayashi, M., Wang, W., Ohyabu, N., Kurosu, M., and Kitagawa, I. (1995) Chem. Pharm. Bull. 43, 1598-1600
15. Vallee, R. B. (1986) Methods Enzymol. 134, 89-104 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
16. Andreu, J. M., Gorbunoff, M. J., Lee, J. C., and Timasheff, S. N. (1984) Biochemistry 23, 1742-1752 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
17. Bai, R., Pettit, G. R., and Hamel, E. (1990) Biochem. Pharmacol. 39, 1941-1949 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
18. Bhattacharyya, B., and Wolff, J. (1974) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 71, 2627-2631 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
19. Borisy, G. G. (1972) Anal. Biochem. 13, 373-385
20. Bai, R., Pettit, G. R., and Hamel, E. (1990) J. Biol. Chem. 265, 17141-17149 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
21. Heusele, C., and Carlier, M.-F. (1981) Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 103, 332-338 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
22. Hamel, E., and Lin, C. M. (1984) J. Biol. Chem. 259, 11060-11069 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
23. Smith, C. D., and Wells, W. W. (1984) J. Biol. Chem. 259, 11890-11894 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
24. Prasad, A. R. S., Luduena, R. F., and Horowitz, P. M. (1986) Biochemistry 25, 739-742 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
25. Smith, C. D., Mooberry, S. L., Zhang, X., and Helt, A.-M. (1994) Cancer Lett. 79, 213-219 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
26. Uppuluri, S., Knipling, L., Sackett, D. L., and Wolff, J. (1993) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 90, 11598-11602 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
27. van der Graaf, W. T. A., de Vries, E. G. E., Timmer-Bosscha, H., Meersma, G. J., Mesander, G., Vellenga, E., and Mulder, N. H. (1994) Cancer Res. 54, 5368-5373 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
28. Himes, R. C., Kersey, R. N., Heller-Bettinger, I., and Samson, F. E. (1976) Cancer Res. 36, 3798-3802 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
29. Schiff, P. B., Fant, J., and Horwitz, S. B. (1979) Nature 277, 665-667 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
30. Toso, R. J., Jordan, M. A., Farrell, K. W., Matsumoto, B., and Wilson, L. (1993) Biochemistry 32, 1285-1293 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
31. Wilson, L., Toso, R. J., and Jordan, M. A. (1993) Cell. Pharmacol. 1,(Suppl. 1), S35-S40
32. Jordan, M. A., Toso, R. J., Thrower, D., and Wilson, L. (1993) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 90, 9552-9556 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
33. Bai, R., Paull, K. D., Herald, C. L., Malspeis, L., Pettit, G. R., and Hamel, E. (1991) J. Biol. Chem. 266, 15882-15889 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
34. Dahllof, B., Billstrom, A., Cabral, F., and Hartley-Asp, B. (1993) Cancer Res. 53, 4573-4581 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
35. Peyrot, V., Leynadier, D., Sarrazin, M., Briand, C., Rodriquez, A., Nieto, J. M., and Andreu, J. M. (1989) J. Biol. Chem. 264, 21296-21301 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
36. Friden, B., Rutberg, M., Deinum, J., and Wallin, M. (1991) Biochem. Pharmacol. 42, 997-1006 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
37. de Ines, C., Leynadier, D., Barasoain, I., Peyrot, V., Garcia, P., Briand, C., Rener, G. A., and Temple, C., Jr. (1994) Cancer Res. 54, 75-84 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
38. Vandecandelaere, A., Martin, S. R., Schilstra, M. J., and Bayley, P. M. (1994) Biochemistry 33, 2792-2801 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
39. Olmsted, J. B., and Borisy, G. G. (1973) Biochemistry 12, 4282-4289 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
40. Farrell, K. W., and Wilson, L. (1984) Biochemistry 23, 3741-3748 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
41. Engelborghs, Y. (1990) in Microtubule Proteins (Avila, J., ed) pp. 1-35, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL
42. Andreu, J. M., Wagenknecht, T., and Timasheff, S. N. (1983) Biochemistry 22, 1556-1566 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
43. Jordan, M. A., Thrower, D., and Wilson, L. (1991) Cancer Res. 51, 2212-2222 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
44. Weisenberg, R. C., Borisy, G. G., and Taylor, E. W. (1968) Biochemistry 7, 4466-4479 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
45. Iwasaki, S. (1989) in Novel Microbial Products for Medicine and Agriculture (Demain, A. L., Somkuti, G. A., Hunter-Cevera, J. C., and Rossmoore, H. W., ed) pp. 79-89, Society for Industrial Microbiology, Annandale, VA
46. York, J., Wolpert-DeFilippes, M. K., Johns, D. G., and Sethi, V. S. (1981) Biochem. Pharmacol. 30, 3239-3243 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
47. Luduena, R. F., Prasad, V., Roach, M. C., and Lacey, E. (1989) Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 272, 32-38 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
48. Bai, R., Pettit, G. R., and Hamel, E. (1990) Biochem. Pharmacol. 39, 1941-1949
49. Luduena, R. F., Roach, M. C., Prasad, V., Banerjee, M., Koiso, Y., Li, Y., and Iwasaki, S. (1994) Biochem. Pharmacol. 47, 1593-1599 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
50. Bai, R., Cichacz, Z. A., Herald, C. L., Pettit, G. R., and Hamel, E. (1993) Mol. Pharmacol. 44, 757-766 [Abstract]
51. Cortese, F., Bhattacharyya, B., and Wolff, J. (1977) J. Biol. Chem. 252, 1134-1140 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
52. Schiff, P. B., Kende, A. S., and Horwitz, S. B. (1978) Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 85, 737-746 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
53. Hamel, E., and Lin, C. M. (1983) Biochem. Pharmacol. 32, 3864-3867 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
54. Gerwick, W. H., Proteau, P. J., Nagle, D. G., Hamel, E., Blokhin, A., and Slate, D. L. (1994) J. Org. Chem. 59, 1243-1245 [CrossRef]
55. Engleborghs, Y., and Vandecandelaere, A. (1993) Cell. Pharmacol. 1, (Suppl. 1), S23-S26
56. Luduena, R. F., Roach, M. C., Prasad, V., Pettit, G. R., Cichacz, Z. A., and Herald, C. L. (1995) Drug Dev. Res. 35, 40-48 [CrossRef]
57. Takahashi, M., Iwasaki, S., Kobayashi, H., Okuda, S., Murai, T., and Sato, Y. (1987) Biochim. Biophys. Acta 926, 215-222 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

This article has been cited by other articles:

				H. P. Cho, Y. Liu, M. Gomez, J. Dunlap, M. Tyers, and Y. Wang The Dual-Specificity Phosphatase CDC14B Bundles and Stabilizes Microtubules Mol. Cell. Biol., June 1, 2005; 25(11): 4541 - 4551. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Goodin, M. P. Kane, and E. H. Rubin Epothilones: Mechanism of Action and Biologic Activity J. Clin. Oncol., May 15, 2004; 22(10): 2015 - 2025. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. P. Stevenson, W. Sun, M. Gallagher, R. Johnson, D. Vaughn, L. Schuchter, K. Algazy, S. Hahn, N. Enas, D. Ellis, et al. Phase I Trial of the Cryptophycin Analogue LY355703 Administered as an Intravenous Infusion on a Day 1 and 8 Schedule Every 21 Days Clin. Cancer Res., August 1, 2002; 8(8): 2524 - 2529. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Verdier-Pinard, J. A. Kepler, G. R. Pettit, and E. Hamel Sustained Intracellular Retention of Dolastatin 10 Causes Its Potent Antimitotic Activity Mol. Pharmacol., January 1, 2000; 57(1): 180 - 187. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				D. Panda, K. DeLuca, D. Williams, M. A. Jordan, and L. Wilson Antiproliferative mechanism of action of cryptophycin-52: Kinetic stabilization of microtubule dynamics by high-affinity binding to microtubule ends PNAS, August 4, 1998; 95(16): 9313 - 9318. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Submit a Letter to Editor Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Smith, C. D. Articles by Zhang, X. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Smith, C. D. Articles by Zhang, X. Social Bookmarking                      What's this?