Proteins that discriminate between cisplatin-DNA adducts and oxaliplatin-DNA adducts are thought to be responsible for the differences in tumor range, toxicity, and mutagenicity of these two important chemotherapeutic agents. However, the structural basis for differential protein recognition of these adducts has not been determined and could be important for the design of more effective platinum anticancer agents. We have determined high-resolution NMR structures for cisplatin-GG and undamaged DNA dodecamers in the AGGC sequence context and have compared these structures with the oxaliplatin-GG structure in the same sequence context determined previously in our laboratory. This structural study allows the first direct comparison of cisplatin-GG DNA and oxaliplatin-GG DNA solution structures referenced to undamaged DNA in the same sequence context. Non-hydrogen atom rmsds of 0.81 and 1.21 were determined for the 15 lowest-energy structures for cisplatin-GG DNA and undamaged DNA, respectively, indicating good structural convergence. The theoretical NOESY spectra obtained by back-calculation from the final average structures showed excellent agreement with the experimental data, indicating that the final structures are consistent with the NMR data. Several significant conformational differences were observed between the cisplatin-GG adduct and the oxaliplatin-GG adduct, including buckle at the 5′ G6•C19 base pair, opening at the 3′ G7•C18 base pair, twist at the A5G6•T20C19 base pair step, slide, twist, and roll at the G6G7•C19C18 base pair step, slide at the G7C8•C18G17 base pair step, G6G7 dihedral angle, and overall bend angle. We hypothesize that these conformational differences may be related to the ability of various DNA repair proteins, DNA binding proteins, and DNA polymerases to discriminate between cisplatin-GG and oxaliplatin-GG adducts. † This work was supported by NIH Grant CA8440 (to S.G.C.) and NIEHS Grant P30ES10126 (to J.A.S.). ‡ Coordinates are available from the Protein Data Bank (PDB): 2NPW for the averaged structure of the CP-GG adduct and 2NQ0 for the family of the 15 best structures, 2NQ1 for the averaged structure of undamaged DNA in the AGGC sequence context, and 2NQ4 for the family of the 15 best structures.

Early studies on cis-PtA2(d(G*pG*)) (A2 = diamine or two amines, G* = N7-platinated G) and cis-Pt(NH3)2(d(G*pG*)) models for the key cisplatin−DNA cross-link suggested that they exist exclusively or mainly as the HH1 conformer (HH1 = head-to-head G* bases, with 1 denoting the normal direction of backbone propagation). These dynamic models are difficult to characterize. Employing carrier A2 ligands designed to slow dynamic interchange of conformers, we found two new conformers, ΔHT (head-to-tail G* bases with a Δ chirality) and HH2 (with 2 denoting the backbone propagation direction opposite to normal). However, establishing that the non-HH1 conformations exist as an intrinsic feature of the 17-membered Pt(d(G*pG*)) ring requires exploring a range of different carrier ligands. Here we employ the planar aromatic sp2 N-donor 5,5‘-Me 2 bipy (5,5‘-dimethyl-2,2‘-bipyridine) ligand, having a shape very different from those of previously used nonplanar sp3 N-donor bidentate carrier ligands, which often bear NH groups. The 5,5‘-Me 2 bipy H6 and H6‘ protons project toward the d(G*pG*) moiety and hinder the dynamic motion of 5,5‘-Me 2 bipyPt(d(G*pG*)). We again found HH1, HH2, and ΔHT conformers with typical properties, supporting the conclusions that the new ΔHT and HH2 conformers exist universally in dynamic cis-PtA2(d(G*pG*)) adducts, including cis-Pt(NH3)2(d(G*pG*)), and that the carrier ligand typically has little influence on the overall structure of the Pt(d(G*pG*)) macrocyclic ring of a given conformer. The sizes of the G* H8 to H6/H6‘ NOE cross-peaks indicate little base canting in all 5,5‘-Me 2 bipyPt(d(G*pG*)) conformers, suggesting that carrier-ligand NH groups favor the canting of one G* base in the HH1 and HH2 conformers of typical cis-PtA2(d(G*pG*)) adducts.

Mismatch repair proteins, DNA damage-recognition proteins and translesion DNA polymerases discriminate between Pt-GG adducts containing cis-diammine ligands (formed by cisplatin (CP) and carboplatin) and trans-RR-diaminocyclohexane ligands (formed by oxaliplatin (OX)) and this discrimination is thought to be important in determining differences in the efficacy, toxicity and mutagenicity of these platinum anticancer agents. We have postulated that these proteins recognize differences in conformation and/or conformational dynamics of the DNA containing the adducts. We have previously determined the NMR solution structure of OX-DNA, CP-DNA and undamaged duplex DNA in the 5'-d(CCTCAGGCCTCC)-3' sequence context and have shown the existence of several conformational differences in the vicinity of the Pt-GG adduct. Here we have used molecular dynamics simulations to explore differences in the conformational dynamics between OX-DNA, CP-DNA and undamaged DNA in the same sequence context. Twenty-five 10 ns unrestrained fully solvated molecular dynamics simulations were performed starting from two different DNA conformations using AMBER v8.0. All 25 simulations reached equilibrium within 4 ns, were independent of the starting structure and were in close agreement with previous crystal and NMR structures. Our data show that the cis-diammine (CP) ligand preferentially forms hydrogen bonds on the 5' side of the Pt-GG adduct, while the trans-RR-diaminocyclohexane (OX) ligand preferentially forms hydrogen bonds on the 3' side of the adduct. In addition, our data show that these differences in hydrogen bond formation are strongly correlated with differences in conformational dynamics, specifically the fraction of time spent in different DNA conformations in the vicinity of the adduct, for CP- and OX-DNA adducts. We postulate that differential recognition of CP- and OX-GG adducts by mismatch repair proteins, DNA damage-recognition proteins and DNA polymerases may be due, in part, to differences in the fraction of time that the adducts spend in a conformation favorable for protein binding.

Complexes of the types LPtCl2 and [L2Pt]X2 [L = substituted 3-(pyridin-2'-yl)-1,2,4-triazine] were synthesized and characterized by NMR spectroscopy and, for the first time, by X-ray crystallography in an effort to determine the coordination properties of this novel class of inorganic medicinal agents possessing HIV-1 virucidal activity. The agents containing either one or two sp2 N-donor bidentate ligands are referred to as ptt (platinum triazine) agents. The X-ray structures of three LPtCl2 compounds revealed the expected pseudo-square-planar geometry. The X-ray structure of [(pyPh2t)2Pt](BF4)2 [pyPh2t = 3-(pyridin-2'-yl)-5,6-diphenyl-1,2,4-triazine] has the expected trans relationship of the unsymmetrical L and is essentially planar, an unusual property for a Pt(II) complex with two bidentate sp2 N donors. HIV-1 is an RNA virus; the guanosine ribonucleoside (Guo) binds (MepyMe2t)PtCl2 at both (inequivalent) available coordination sites to form [(MepyMe2t)Pt(Guo)2]2+ [MepyMe2t = 3-(4'-methylpyridin-2'-yl)-5,6-dimethyl-1,2,4-triazine]. This adduct has four nearly equally intense Guo H8 signals attributed to two pairs of head-to-tail (HT) and head-to-head (HH) conformers, which interchange rapidly within each pair. However, equilibration between pairs requires rotation of the Guo cis to the MepyMe2t pyridyl ring, and the H6' proton on this ring projects toward the Guo and hinders Guo rotation about the Pt-N7 bond. Thus, the HT/HH pairs do not interchange; such behavior is rare. Guo did not add to [(MepyMe2t)2Pt]2+, a result suggesting the possibility that the virucidal activity of LPtCl2 and [L2Pt]2+ ptt agents arises respectively from covalent and noncovalent (possibly intercalative interactions favored by [L2Pt]2+ planarity) binding to biomolecular targets.

For LC-MS-based targeted quantification of biotherapeutics and biomarkers in clinical and pharmaceutical environments, high sensitivity, high throughput, and excellent robustness are all essential but remain challenging. For example, though nano-LC-MS has been employed to enhance analytical sensitivity, it falls short because of its low loading capacity, poor throughput, and low operational robustness. Furthermore, high chemical noise in protein bioanalysis typically limits the sensitivity. Here we describe a novel trapping-micro-LC-MS (T-μLC-MS) strategy for targeted protein bioanalysis, which achieves high sensitivity with exceptional robustness and high throughput. A rapid, high-capacity trapping of biological samples is followed by μLC-MS analysis; dynamic sample trapping and cleanup are performed using pH, column chemistry, and fluid mechanics separate from the μLC-MS analysis, enabling orthogonality, which contributes to the reduction of chemical noise and thus results in improved sensitivity. Typically, the selective-trapping and -delivery approach strategically removes >85% of the matrix peptides and detrimental components, markedly enhancing sensitivity, throughput, and operational robustness, and narrow-window-isolation selected-reaction monitoring further improves the signal-to-noise ratio. In addition, unique LC-hardware setups and flow approaches eliminate gradient shock and achieve effective peak compression, enabling highly sensitive analyses of plasma or tissue samples without band broadening. In this study, the quantification of 10 biotherapeutics and biomarkers in plasma and tissues was employed for method development. As observed, a significant sensitivity gain (up to 25-fold) compared with that of conventional LC-MS was achieved, although the average run time was only 8 min/sample. No appreciable peak deterioration or loss of sensitivity was observed after >1500 injections of tissue and plasma samples. The developed method enabled, for the first time, ultrasensitive LC-MS quantification of low levels of a monoclonal antibody and antigen in a tumor and cardiac troponin I in plasma after brief cardiac ischemia. This strategy is valuable when highly sensitive protein quantification in large sample sets is required, as is often the case in typical biomarker validation and pharmaceutical investigations of antibody therapeutics.