Lippert B
Fachbereich Chemie, Universität Dortmund, Germany.
Met Ions Biol Syst. 1996;33:105-41.
The question raised, i.e., "trans-diammineplatinum(II)--what makes it different from its cis isomer?" permits a number of answers, relating to various aspects of the chemistry of the two compounds, but the crucial one concerning antitumor activity is yet to be answered. In principle, any of the following reasons or combinations thereof might account for the observed differences in biological effects, but some are more likely than others: 1. TARGET MOLECULES: It is generally accepted that DNA is the most important target molecule of cisplatin and that inhibition of DNA synthesis correlates with antitumor activity. This fact does not contradict observations on extensive reaction with other biomolecules. The mutagenic effects of trans-a2Pt(II), although weaker than for cis-DDP, point toward DNA as being an important target for trans-DDP as well. 2. DNA ADDUCTS: As a consequence of the inherent difference in geometry, the two isomers form different adducts. Specifically, trans-DDP cannot form 1,2-intrastrand crosslinks, which represent by far the most abundant adducts of cis-DDP. On the other hand, the trans isomer displays a greater variation in nucleobase donor sites (cf. Sec. 4.2). 3. DNA STABILITY: While the 1,2-intrastrand adducts of cis-DDP, regardless if GG or AG, consistently cause DNA kinking and lead to thermal destabilization, the effects of trans-DDP adducts seem to be of a greater variability, causing thermal stabilization or destabilization. For intrastrand 1,3 adducts in puXpu sequences, the intervening base X appears to be important in this respect (cf. Sec. 4.3). 4. DNA REPAIR: In living cells, higher doses of trans-DDP as compared to cis-DDP are required to bind an equal number of Pt atoms per nucleotide [66]. On the other hand, bifunctional DNA adducts of either isomer inhibit DNA replication to the same extent [66,150,151]. This finding has been interpreted in terms of a differential repair of adducts of the two isomers [66], but an alternative explanation has also been offered [152]. It is to be noted that repair of monofunctional trans-DDP lesions does not require enzymatic repair but rather may be accomplished by any nucleophile within the cell exercising a reasonably high trans influence, e.g., an S-donor of glutathione. 5. INTRINSIC REACTIVITY: Differences in hydrolysis kinetics of the two isomers (unfavorable equilibrium concentration of trans-[(NH3)2Pt-Cl(OH2)]+ [37]) and in reaction rates of various hydrolysis species with DNA constituents [36] could, in principle, explain a difference in biological effects. On the other hand, the kinetics of reactions of the dichloro species of both isomers with DNA (in the absence of any repair agents) appear not to be that largely different to produce a strong point for differential reactivity of this species. Model studies have shown at least one more distinct difference between mono(nucleobase) adducts of both isomers: While cis-[a2PtLCl]+ can lose the amine trans to Cl, in trans-[a2PtLCl]+ Cl is capable of displaying L (cf. Sec. 6.1). Both reactions are not very fast with Cl-, but any good nucleophile replacing Cl- would do so with high efficiency. In the case of trans-DDP, such a reaction leads to removal of Pt from DNA, unlike in the case of cis-DDP (even though we are aware that cis effects may also be operative). With respect to amine displacement from monoadducts of cis-DDP, it is interesting to speculate on the fate of (toxic) NH3. Is it capable of undergoing condensation reactions with biomolecules? In theory, such a scenario might provide possibilities for the role of the amine ligands in cis-(amine)2Pt(II) compounds alternative to those commonly accepted (e.g., role of NH protons in stabilizing DNA adducts [153]). 6. TRANSPORT AND DISTRIBUTION: Despite differences in water solubility of the two isomers (trans-DDP less soluble), this property is unlikely to be important at physiological concentrations...
提出的问题,即“反式二氨合铂(II)——它与顺式异构体有何不同?”有多种答案,涉及这两种化合物化学性质的各个方面,但关于抗肿瘤活性的关键问题尚未得到解答。原则上,以下任何一个原因或它们的组合都可能解释所观察到的生物效应差异,但有些原因比其他原因更有可能:1. 靶分子:一般认为DNA是顺铂最重要的靶分子,并且DNA合成的抑制与抗肿瘤活性相关。这一事实与与其他生物分子广泛反应的观察结果并不矛盾。反式-a2Pt(II)的诱变作用虽然比顺铂弱,但也表明DNA是反式-DDP的重要靶标。2. DNA加合物:由于几何结构的固有差异,两种异构体形成不同的加合物。具体而言,反式-DDP不能形成1,2-链内交联,而这是顺式-DDP迄今为止最丰富的加合物。另一方面,反式异构体在核碱基供体位点表现出更大的变化(参见第4.2节)。3. DNA稳定性:虽然顺式-DDP的1,2-链内加合物,无论GG还是AG,始终会导致DNA扭结并导致热不稳定,但反式-DDP加合物的影响似乎变化更大,导致热稳定或不稳定。对于puXpu序列中的链内1,3加合物,中间碱基X在这方面似乎很重要(参见第4.3节)。4. DNA修复:在活细胞中,与顺式-DDP相比,需要更高剂量的反式-DDP才能使每个核苷酸结合相等数量的Pt原子[66]。另一方面,两种异构体的双功能DNA加合物对DNA复制的抑制程度相同[66,150,151]。这一发现已根据两种异构体加合物的差异修复进行了解释[66],但也有人提出了另一种解释[152]。需要注意的是,单功能反式-DDP损伤的修复不需要酶修复,而是可以由细胞内任何具有相当高反式影响的亲核试剂完成,例如谷胱甘肽的S供体。5. 固有反应性:两种异构体水解动力学的差异(反式-[(NH3)2Pt-Cl(OH2)]+的平衡浓度不利[37])以及各种水解产物与DNA成分的反应速率[36]原则上可以解释生物效应的差异。另一方面,两种异构体的二氯物种与DNA的反应动力学(在没有任何修复剂的情况下)似乎没有太大差异,不足以成为该物种差异反应性的有力依据。模型研究表明,两种异构体的单(核碱基)加合物之间至少还有一个明显的差异:虽然顺式-[a2PtLCl]+可以失去与Cl反位的胺,但在反式-[a2PtLCl]+中,Cl能够表现出L(参见第6.1节)。这两个反应与Cl-的反应都不是很快,但任何取代Cl-的良好亲核试剂都会高效地进行反应。在反式-DDP的情况下,这样的反应会导致Pt从DNA中去除,这与顺式-DDP的情况不同(尽管我们知道顺式效应也可能起作用)。关于从顺式-DDP单加合物中取代胺,推测(有毒的)NH3的命运很有趣。它能够与生物分子发生缩合反应吗?理论上,这种情况可能为顺式-(胺)2Pt(II)化合物中胺配体的作用提供不同于通常接受的作用的可能性(例如,NH质子在稳定DNA加合物中的作用[153])。6. 转运和分布:尽管两种异构体的水溶性存在差异(反式-DDP溶解度较小),但在生理浓度下,这一性质不太可能起重要作用……