Advertisement
Small Molecule Therapeutics

Rapid Induction of the Unfolded Protein Response and Apoptosis by Estrogen Mimic TTC-352 for the Treatment of Endocrine-Resistant Breast Cancer

Balkees Abderrahman, Philipp Y. Maximov, Ramona F. Curpan, Sean W. Fanning, Jay S. Hanspal, Ping Fan, Charles E. Foulds, Yue Chen, Anna Malovannaya, Antrix Jain, Rui Xiong, Geoffrey L. Greene, Debra A. Tonetti, Gregory R.J. Thatcher and V. Craig Jordan
DOI: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-20-0563 Published January 2021

Abstract

Patients with long-term estrogen-deprived breast cancer, after resistance to tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors develops, can experience tumor regression when treated with estrogens. Estrogen's antitumor effect is attributed to apoptosis via the estrogen receptor (ER). Estrogen treatment can have unpleasant gynecologic and nongynecologic adverse events; thus, the development of safer estrogenic agents remains a clinical priority. Here, we study synthetic selective estrogen mimics (SEM) BMI-135 and TTC-352, and the naturally occurring estrogen estetrol (E4), which are proposed as safer estrogenic agents compared with 17β-estradiol (E2), for the treatment of endocrine-resistant breast cancer. TTC-352 and E4 are being evaluated in breast cancer clinical trials. Cell viability assays, real-time PCR, immunoblotting, ERE DNA pulldowns, mass spectrometry, X-ray crystallography, docking and molecular dynamic simulations, live cell imaging, and Annexin V staining were conducted in 11 biologically different breast cancer models. Results were compared with the potent full agonist E2, less potent full agonist E4, the benchmark partial agonist triphenylethylene bisphenol (BPTPE), and antagonists 4-hydroxytamoxifen and endoxifen. We report ERα's regulation and coregulators’ binding profiles with SEMs and E4. We describe TTC-352′s pharmacology as a weak full agonist and antitumor molecular mechanisms. This study highlights TTC-352′s benzothiophene scaffold that yields an H-bond with Glu353, which allows Asp351-to-helix 12 (H12) interaction, sealing ERα's ligand-binding domain, recruiting E2-enriched coactivators, and triggering rapid ERα-induced unfolded protein response (UPR) and apoptosis, as the basis of its anticancer properties. BPTPE's phenolic OH yields an H-Bond with Thr347, which disrupts Asp351-to-H12 interaction, delaying UPR and apoptosis and increasing clonal evolution risk.

Introduction

Estrogen therapy can cause tumor regression in patients with breast cancer, who were long-term estrogen-deprived (LTED) with tamoxifen (TAM), which blocks estrogen binding to the breast cancer estrogen receptor (ER), or aromatase inhibitors (AI), which inhibit estrogen synthesis via the breast cancer aromatase enzyme system (1). Long-term adjuvant TAM therapy (2) became the translational strategy of choice for LTED treatment (3), whereby 5-year TAM therapy leads to a new phase of endocrine resistance, characterized by TAM-induced breast cancer growth and 17β-estradiol (E2)–induced breast cancer apoptosis (4). Today, AIs are widely used for LTED in treating postmenopausal women with ER-positive breast cancer. The Oxford overview analyses show that at least 50% of breast cancer recurrences occur more than 5 years after diagnosis (5). This prompted investigators to provide a guide (6) to improve the risk benefit of long-term adjuvant endocrine therapy in concordance with the patient's individualized risk for early- versus late-distant recurrence.

Estrogen triggers an endoplasmic reticulum (EnR) stress response, the unfolded protein response (UPR), and induces apoptosis in LTED breast cancer models (7). Numerous clinical trials (8–12) demonstrated the benefit of estrogen-induced tumor regression in patients with LTED breast cancer. However, estrogen therapy can have unpleasant gynecologic and nongynecologic adverse events. The research and development of safer estrogenic agents for the treatment of drug-resistant or metastatic breast cancer (MBC) remains a clinical priority, especially with breast cancer expected to double by 2030 than it was in 2011 (13), and MBC being associated with significantly higher health care costs (14). The majority of breast cancer will be ER-positive, which has a high risk of recurrence and residual relapse even with clinically low-risk disease (T1N0; ref. 15).

Three Selective Human ER Partial Agonists (ShERPAs; including pilot BMI-135 and clinically tested TTC-352; Fig. 1; ref. 16) are proposed as safer estrogen mimics for the treatment of endocrine-resistant breast cancer. In preclinical studies, TTC-352 demonstrated efficacy and tolerability (17). A clinical trial using TTC-352 in patients with hormone receptor–positive MBC, who had progressed on at least two lines of endocrine therapy, shows manageable safety and early clinical evidence of activity (11).

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

Chemical structures of planar estrogens, angular estrogens, SERMS, and ShERPAs. The box (in green) highlights the benzothiophene scaffold embedded in raloxifene and arzoxifene structures, of which the ShERPAs' structures were based upon. The continuous box (in yellow) highlights the phenyl ring bearing OH of TPEs: trihydroxytriphenylethylene (3OHTPE) and BPTPE (46), which makes them angular estrogens/partial agonists. The dashed box (in brown) highlights the absence of OH on the phenyl ring of the Z-isomer of dihydroxytriphenylethylene (Z2OHTPE), which makes it an angular estrogen/full agonist like E2 and diethylstilbestrol (DES; ref. 46).

Estetrol (E4; Fig. 1), a fetal estrogen that activates the nuclear ERα with a vasculoprotective effect, is proposed as a safer estrogen for the treatment of endocrine-resistant breast cancer (12), advanced prostate cancer, and use for hormone replacement therapy as well as oral contraception. The combination of E4 and progestin drospirenone is subject to FDA approval, with the possibility of E4 becoming the first natural estrogen approved in a contraceptive product in the United States and the first new estrogen introduced in the United States in 50 years. A clinical trial using E4, to treat advanced breast cancer, shows that the majority of patients experienced favorable subjective effects on wellbeing, and 1 patient completed the phase 1/IIA with stable disease after 24 weeks of treatment (12).

The ER in LTED breast cancer is at the crossroads of mediating the antitumor actions of therapeutics as well as breast cancer growth through ERα-activating mutations (18). Investigating ERα's regulation and DNA-or-ligand-binding profiles with ShERPAs and E4 enhances our understanding of how these therapeutics influence cancer through ER.

ERα gene ESR1 point mutations in the ligand-binding domain (LBD) lead to constitutive hormone-independent activation of ER and are identified in approximately 40% of MBC (19). These mutations are especially enriched in patients with breast cancer pretreated with AIs (20).

The expression level and stability of ER is modulated by estrogens and antiestrogens. Two regulatory mechanisms that govern the steady-state of ER messenger RNA (mRNA) and protein levels in breast cancer cells are documented (21). Model I ER regulation reflects the rapid downregulation of the steady state of ER mRNA and protein levels upon estrogen exposure, and is exemplified in MCF-7:WS8 breast cancer, ovarian carcinoma (PEO4), and the rat and mouse uterus. Model II ER regulation reflects the upregulation of the steady-state level of ER mRNA, alongside the maintenance of the ER protein level upon estrogen exposure, and is exemplified in T47D:A18 breast cancer. In MCF-7:WS8 and T47D:A18, the antiestrogen 4-hydroxytamoxifen (4OHT) has little effect on the ER mRNA level, but accumulates the ER protein over time (21). The Selective ER Downregulator ICI 182,780 fulvestrant (ICI) has little effect on the ER mRNA level in MCF-7:WS8, whereas it causes its reduction in T47D:A18, and ICI dramatically reduces the ER protein level in both (21).

ERα's transcriptional control of diverse downstream gene expression is dictated by the ability of bound estrogens or antiestrogens (22) to recruit and assemble primary steroid receptor coactivators [steroid receptor coactivator-3 (SRC-3), also known as nuclear receptor coactivator-3 (NCOA3), and A1B1], followed by secondary coactivators [p300/E1A-binding protein p300 (EP300)], in what is known as minimal receptor–coactivator complex (23). This facilitates chromatin remodeling and transcriptional activation. A model was proposed for the assembly mechanism of the quaternary complex: the two ligand-bound ERα monomers each, independently, recruit one SRC-3 protein through the transactivation domain of ERα, and the two SRC-3s, subsequently, bind to different regions of one p300 protein via multiple contacts (23).

We investigate ShERPAs and E4's influence on breast cancer through studying their ERα regulation and coactivators’ binding profiles in biologically different breast cancer models. Furthermore, we present the first X-ray crystallography of TTC-352 with the mutant ER, its pharmacology, and molecular mechanisms of tumor regression in LTED endocrine-resistant breast cancer.

Materials and Methods

Materials

E2, E4, 4OHT, and raloxifene (Ralox) were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich. Endoxifen (Endox) was purchased from Santa Cruz Biotechnology, and ICI from Tocris Bioscience. Triphenylethylene bisphenol (BPTPE) was originally synthesized at the Organic Synthesis Facility, Fox Chase Cancer Center (Philadelphia, PA; ref. 24). The ShERPAs BMI-135 and TTC-352 were a gift from Drs. Debra A. Tonetti and Gregory R.J. Thatcher (University of Chicago, IL). The PERK inhibitor GSK G797800 was purchased from Toronto Research Chemicals. The IRE1α Inhibitor MKC-3946 was purchased from Calbiochem. Thioflavin T (ThT) was purchased from Sigma-Aldrich. For Western blotting, anti-ERα (sc-544), anti-eIF2α (D-3), and anti–β-actin (C-4) were purchased from Santa Cruz Biotechnology. Anti–phospho-eIF2α (Ser51; #9721), anti-ATF4 (D4B8), anti-CHOP (L63F7), and anti-cleaved PARP (Asp214; 19F4) were purchased from Cell Signaling Technology. Anti-XBP1 (isoforms nonspliced and spliced, ab37152) was purchased from Abcam. For immunoblotting validations for the ERE DNA pulldowns, the antibodies used were: anti-MLL4 (Millipore Sigma, ABE1867), anti-NCOA1 (Santa Cruz Biotechnology, sc-32789), anti-NCOA3 (custom-made in Bert W. O’Malley's laboratory, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; ref. 25), anti-MED6 (Santa Cruz Biotechnology, clone D-2), anti-MED17 (Novus Biologicals, clone 4D4), and anti-ERα (Santa Cruz Biotechnology, sc-543). For chromatin immunoprecipitation's (ChIP's) pulldowns, the antibodies used were: anti–SRC-3 (clone AX15.3, 1 μg/μL; 5 μg per reaction; Abcam), and normal mouse IgG as IP negative control (2 μg/μL; 5 μg per reaction; Santa Cruz Biotechnology).

Cell culture

Wild-type (WT) estrogen-dependent breast cancer MCF-7:WS8 (26); mutant p53 estrogen-dependent breast cancer T47D:A18 (27); estrogen-responsive, ER-positive, progesterone receptor (PgR)–positive, and HER2-positive luminal B breast cancer BT-474 (28); estrogen-responsive, ER-positive, PgR-positive, and androgen receptor–positive luminal A breast cancer ZR-75–1 (29); the first in vitro cellular model recapitulating acquired TAM resistance developed in athymic mice in vivo MCF-7:PF (30); antihormone-resistant estrogen-independent breast cancer MCF-7:5C (31); antihormone-sensitive estrogen-independent breast cancer MCF-7:2A (32); antihormone (raloxifene)-resistant, estrogen-independent breast cancer MCF-7:RAL (33); TAM-sensitive, estrogen-independent, ER-positive breast cancer LCC1 (34, 35); TAM-resistant and ICI-sensitive, estrogen-independent, ER-positive breast cancer LCC2 (36); and TAM and ICI cross-resistant, ER-positive breast cancer LCC9 (37) were cultured as described previously.

Cell viability and proliferation assays

The biological properties of compounds (E2, BMI-135, TTC-352, BPTPE, 4OHT, endoxifen, and raloxifene) in cells lines were evaluated by assessing the DNA content of the cells, as a measure of cell viability, using a DNA fluorescence Quantitation kit (Bio-Rad Laboratories) as described previously (38). The DNA fingerprinting pattern of these cell lines is consistent with that reported by the ATCC. All cell lines were validated according to their short tandem repeat (STR) profiles at UT MD Anderson Cancer Center Characterized Cell Line Core (CCLC). The STR patterns of all cell lines were consistent with those from the CCLC standard cells (Supplementary Table S1). The calculated half maximal effective concentration (EC50) for all test compounds, used in treating these cell lines, is summarized in Supplementary Table S2.

Quantitative real-time RT-PCR

Total RNA was isolated from MCF-7:WS8 and MCF-7:5C cells using MagMAX-96 Total RNA Isolation Kit (Applied Biosystems) and processed using Kingfisher Duo Prime magnetic particle processor (Thermo Scientific). The cDNA was synthesized using High Capacity cDNA Reverse transcription kit (Applied Bioscience). Quantitative real-time PCR assays were performed using Power SYBR Green PCR Master Mix (Applied Biosystems) and a QuantStudio 6 Flex real-time PCR System (Applied Biosystems). All primers were synthesized by Integrated DNA Technologies Inc. All data were normalized using reference gene 36B4.

Immunoblotting

Cells were treated with different compounds [E2 (1 nmol/L), BMI-135 (1 μmol/L), TTC-352 (1 μmol/L), E4 (1 μmol/L), BPTPE (1 μmol/L), 4OHT (1 μmol/L), endoxifen (1 μmol/L), raloxifene (1 μmol/L), ICI (1 μmol/L), thapsigargin (1 μmol/L), GSK G797800 (10 μmol/L), and MKC-3946 (20 μmol/L)], for different periods, and harvested in cell lysis buffer (Cell Signaling Technology) supplemented with Protease Inhibitor Cocktail Set I and Phosphatase Inhibitor Cocktail Set II (Calbiochem). Immunoblotting was performed as described previously (38). Analysis was validated by densitometry using Image J (National Institutes of Health). Densitometry data are presented in Supplementary Tables S3 and S4.

ERE DNA pulldowns

MCF-7:WS8 and MCF-7:5C cells were grown in 20 to 30 15-cm dishes, and nuclear extracts (NE) were made. The 4x estrogen response element (ERE) DNA pulldown assays were performed, by first immobilizing four copies of the Xenopus Vitellogennin ERE sequences onto Dynabeads M280 streptavidin as described previously (39). One milligram of NE from MCF-7:WS8 or MCF-7:5C cells, and 0.5 μg recombinant ERα protein (Invitrogen) were added to 4xERE-beads, with either vehicle controls (ethanol or DMSO), or E2 (100 nmol/L), BMI-135 (1 μmol/L), TTC-352 (1 μmol/L), E4 (1 μmol/L), BPTPE (1 μmol/L), and endoxifen (1 μmol/L), for a 1.5-hour incubation at 4°C. After performing three washes, the final coregulator-ERα-ERE DNA complexes were eluted from the beads in 30 μL 2x SDS-sample buffer for mass spectrometry (MS) as described previously (39). The detailed methodology is presented in Supplementary Materials.

MS

Label-free LC-MS was performed with quantification, by intensity-based absolute quantification (iBAQ; ref. 40), and the ERE/ER coregulator–binding reactions were analyzed as described previously (39). Samples were electrophoresed on 10% NuPAGE gels, 4 broad-region bands were excised, and the proteins were in-gel digested with trypsin. For each experiment, the peptides were combined into two pools and measured on a Thermo Scientific Orbitrap Elite mass spectrometer coupled to an EASY nLC1200 UHPLC system. The raw data were searched in Proteome Discoverer suite (PD2.2) with Mascot 2.5 engine. For peptide quantification, the PD 2.2 Peak Area Detector module was used, and for gene-centric inference and label-free quantitation based on the iBAQ method, the gpGrouper software was used. All raw MS and gpGrouper result files are deposited into the ProteomeXchange Consortium (http://proteomecentral.proteomexchange.org; ref. 41). Compiled results are provided in Supplementary Table S5.

X-ray crystallography

The 6 × His-TEV–tagged ER-Y537S LBD mutant was expressed in E. coli BL21 (DE3) and purified as described previously (42). The LBD (5 mg/mL) was incubated with 1 mmol/L TTC-352 and 2.5 mmol/L GRIP peptide at 4°C overnight. The detailed methodology is presented in Supplementary Materials. Each structure was validated and deposited in the Protein Data Bank (accession code 7JHD).

Molecular dynamics simulations

Molecular dynamics (MD) simulations were performed for the following systems: hERαLBD in complex with E2, TTC-352, and BPTPE, using the Desmond software (Schrödinger Release 2019–3, Schrödinger, LLC, 2019). The detailed methodology is presented in Supplementary Materials.

Live cell imaging and analysis to detect cellular stress

MCF-7:5C cells were seeded into three 15-μ slide 2-well chambered coverslip slides (Ibidi). After 24 hours, cells were treated with vehicle control [DSMO (0.1%)], positive control thapsigargin (1 μmol/L), TTC-352 (1 μmol/L), and 4OHT (1 μmol/L). After 72-hour treatment, ThT was prepared as described previously (43) and used in cotreating the cells for 1 hour. The Hoechst 33342 dye (Thermo Fisher Scientific) was prepared at a final concentration of 5 μg/mL and used in staining the cells for 15 minutes. Live cell images were taken at a 38 ms exposure under a 20X/0.7 objective with ZEISS Celldiscoverer 7 (Carl Zeiss AG). Fluorescent images were converted to 12-bit before being quantified by the ZEISS Zen Software Module-Image Analysis. Cells from each image were manually counted to normalize the fluorescent data per cell. Relative intensity per cell = ThT intensity/cell count was generated for each treatment per image. An average of the relative intensity per cell (using three images per treatment) was then calculated to give a final quantification. The excitation and emission settings were: Hoechst 33342 (Ex. 348 nm, Em. 455 nm), and ThT (Ex. 433 nm, Em. 475 nm).

Annexin V–binding assays to detect apoptosis

A FITC Annexin V Apoptosis Detection Kit I (BD Pharmingen) was used to quantify apoptosis of cells through flow cytometry. In brief, MCF-7:5C, MCF-7:2A, and MCF-7:RAL cells were seeded in 10-cm dishes. After 24 hours, the cells were treated with different compounds [E2 (1 nmol/L), TTC-352 (1 μmol/L), 4OHT (1 μmol/L), raloxifene (1 μmol/L), GSK G797800 (10 μmol/L), and MKC-3946 (20 μmol/L)] for different time periods. Cells were suspended in 1x binding buffer, and 1 × 105 cells were stained simultaneously with FITC-labeled Annexin V and propidium iodide (PI) for 15 minutes at room temperature. The cells were analyzed using a BD Accuri C6 plus flow cytometer.

ChIP assays

The ChIP assay was performed as described previously (44, 45). The DNA fragments were purified using Qiaquick PCR purification kit (Qiagen). Then, 2 μL of eluted DNA was used for RT-PCR analysis. The primer sequences used are: GREB1 proximal ERE enhancer site amplification: 5′-GTGGCAACTGGGTCATTCTGA-3′ sense, 5′-CGACCCACAGAAATGAAAAGG-3′ antisense (Integrated DNA Technologies). The data are expressed as percent input, of starting chromatin material, after subtracting the percent input pulldown of the IP-negative control.

Statistical analysis

All reported values are mean ± SD. Statistical comparisons were assessed using two-tailed Student t tests. Results were considered statistically significant if the P value was less than 0.05.

Results

Effects of TTC-352 on cell viability in multiple breast cancer models

Cell viability assays were used to test the biological properties of compounds. TTC-352 exhibits a full agonist action, similar to E2, across eight breast cancer cell lines that are estrogen-dependent (MCF-7:WS8, T47D:A18, BT-474, ZR-75–1, and MCF-7:PF), estrogen-independent (MCF-7:5C, MCF-7:2A, and MCF-7:RAL), endocrine-sensitive (MCF-7:2A), endocrine-resistant (MCF-7:PF, MCF-7:5C, and MCF-7:RAL), mutant p53 (T47D:A18), HER2-positive (BT-474), luminal A (ZR-75–1), and luminal B (BT-474).

The concentration 1 μmol/L for TTC-352 achieved either the maximal cellular growth (P value < 0.05 compared with vehicle control; Supplementary Fig. S1A–S1E) or the maximal cellular death (P < 0.05 compared with vehicle control; Supplementary Fig. S1F–S1H). TTC-352 was shown to be a less potent full agonist compared with E2 (Supplementary Fig. S1 and Supplementary Table S2). The calculated EC50s are summarized in Supplementary Table S2, and the detailed results are presented in Supplementary Materials.

TTC-352 induces the transcriptional activity of ER similar to E2 in WT breast cancer MCF-7:WS8 and apoptotic-type breast cancer MCF-7:5C

qRT-PCR was used to assess the transcriptional activity of ERα on estrogen-responsive genes (TFF1 and GREB1) with TTC-352. After 24-hour treatment in MCF-7:WS8, TTC-352 significantly (P < 0.05) increased the levels of TFF1 and GREB1 mRNAs compared with vehicle controls (Fig. 2A–B). On the other hand, BPTPE induced a partial increase in the levels of TFF1 and GREB1 mRNAs, significantly (P < 0.05) less than that of E2 and TTC-352 (Fig. 2A–B). The minimal concentration that produced a complete increase in the levels of TFF1 and GREB1 was at 10−6 mol/L for TTC-352 (P < 0.05 compared with vehicle control).

Figure 2.
Figure 2.

Transcriptional activity of well-characterized estrogen-responsive genes TFF1 and GREB1 in WT MCF-7:WS8 and LTED endocrine-resistant MCF-7:5C with test compounds. A, mRNA expression of TFF1 (or pS2) in MCF-7:WS8 cells after 24-hour treatment with 1 nmol/L E2, and 1 μmol/L for other test compounds. B, mRNA expression of GREB1 in MCF-7:WS8 cells after 24-hour treatment with 1 nmol/L E2, and 1 μmol/L for other test compounds. C, mRNA expression of TFF1 in MCF-7:5C cells after 24-hour treatment with 1 nmol/L E2, and 1 μmol/L for other test compounds. D, mRNA expression of GREB1 in MCF-7:5C cells after 24-hour treatment with 1 nmol/L E2, and 1 μmol/L for other test compounds.

After 24-hour treatment in MCF-7:5C, TTC-352 significantly (P < 0.05) increased the levels of TFF1 and GREB1 mRNAs compared with vehicle controls (Fig. 2C–D). On the other hand, BPTPE induced a partial increase in the levels of TFF1 and GREB1 mRNAs, significantly (P < 0.05) less than that of E2 and TTC-352 (Fig. 2C–D). The minimal concentration that produced a complete increase in the levels of TFF1 and GREB1 was at 10−6 mol/L for TTC-352 (P < 0.05 compared with vehicle control).

Overall, the induction of the levels of TFF1 and GREB1 mRNAs by TTC-352 in MCF-7:WS8 and MCF-7:5C is similar to that by full agonist E2, only at a higher concentration.

Effects of TTC-352, BMI-135, and E4 on ERα regulation in multiple breast cancer models

Western blotting and densitometry were used to assess the regulation of ERα protein levels with compounds. In MCF-7:WS8, TTC-352 was able to downregulate the protein levels of ERα after 72-hour treatment, compared with vehicle control, and similar to E2 and E4 (Model I; Fig. 3A and Supplementary Table S3). Whereas BMI-135 seems to have a different effect by slightly downregulating ERα's protein levels by 72 hours, compared with vehicle control (Supplementary Fig. S2A and Supplementary Table S4). This downregulation is less than that with BPTPE; nonetheless, BMI-135 does not accumulate the receptor compared to 4OHT and endoxifen (Supplementary Fig. S2A and Supplementary Table S4). This regulation trend with TTC-352, BMI-135, and E4 in MCF-7:WS8 is replicated in MCF-7 ATCC (Supplementary Fig. S2B and Supplementary Table S3).

Figure 3.
Figure 3.

ERα protein levels in multiple breast cancer cell lines after 24-, 48-, and 72-hour treatments with test compounds. A, ERα protein levels in MCF-7:WS8. B, ERα protein levels in T47D:A18. C, ERα protein levels in BT-474. D, ERα protein levels in ZR-75–1. E, ERα protein levels in MCF-7:5C. F, ERα protein levels in MCF-7:2A. G, ERα protein levels in MCF-7:RAL. H, ERα protein levels in LCC1. I, ERα protein levels in LCC2. J, ERα protein levels in LCC9. Densitometry data are presented in Supplementary Table S3.

In T47D:A18, TTC-352 and BMI-135 maintain the protein levels of ERα (Model II), compared with vehicle control, and similar to E2 and E4 (Fig. 3B, Supplementary Fig. S2C and Supplementary Tables S3 and S4). BPTPE, 4OHT, and endoxifen accumulate the receptor by 72 hours (Supplementary Fig. S2C and Supplementary Table S4).

In BT474, TTC-352 downregulates the protein levels of ERα by 72 hours, compared with vehicle control, and similar to E2 and E4 (Model I; Fig. 3C; Supplementary Fig. S2E; and Supplementary Tables S3–S4). Whereas BMI-135 seems to have a similar trend except that the protein levels by 72 hours are similar to vehicle control (Supplementary Fig. S2E and Supplementary Table S4). The protein levels are upregulated by 72 hours with BPTPE, and more so with endoxifen and 4OHT (Supplementary Fig. S2E and Supplementary Table S4).

In ZR-75–1, TTC-352 slightly downregulates the protein levels of ERα after 72-hour treatment, compared with vehicle control, and similar to E2 and E4 (Model I; Fig. 3D; Supplementary Fig. S2D and Supplementary Tables S3–S4). Whereas BMI-135 seems to have a different trend whereby by 72 hours the protein levels become similar to vehicle control (Supplementary Fig. S2D and Supplementary Table S4). The protein levels are maintained by 72 hours with BPTPE, 4OHT, and endoxifen, compared with vehicle control (Supplementary Fig. S2D and Supplementary Table S4).

In MCF-7:5C, MCF-7:2A, and MCF-7:RAL, TTC-352, BMI-135, and E4 downregulate the protein levels of ERα by 72 hours, compared with vehicle control, and similar to E2 (Model I; Fig. 3E–G and Supplementary Fig. S3D–S3F). In MCF-7:2A, ER66 and ER77 protein levels with BMI-135, TTC-352, and E4 are similarly regulated over time (Model I; Fig. 3F; Supplementary Fig. S3E; ref. 32). In these cell lines, the protein levels are slightly downregulated with BPTPE, and maintained or accumulated with endoxifen, 4OHT, and raloxifene (in MCF-7:RAL; Supplementary Fig. S3D–S3F).

In LCC1, LCC2, and LCC9, TTC-352, BMI-135, and E4 downregulate the protein levels of ERα by 72 hours, compared with vehicle control, and similar to E2 (Model I; Fig. 3H–J, Supplementary Fig. S3A–S3C, and Supplementary Table S3). In these cell lines, the protein levels are downregulated with BPTPE and maintained or accumulated with endoxifen and 4OHT (Supplementary Fig. S3A–S3C and Supplementary Table S3).

In 11 breast cancer cell lines, TTC-352 regulated the protein levels of ERα in a similar manner to E2 (Fig. 3 and Supplementary Table S3) and different from that with BPTPE (Supplementary Figs. S2–S3 and Supplementary Table S4), and ICI significantly downregulated the protein levels of ERα (Fig. 3 and Supplementary Figs. S2–S3).

Effects of TTC-352, BMI-135, and E4 on coregulator recruitment to DNA-bound ER in WT breast cancer MCF-7:WS8 and apoptotic-type breast cancer MCF-7:5C

Cell-free ERE DNA pulldown (39) and LC-MS assays were used to assess the composition of coregulators recruited to ER bound to ERE DNA with compounds, using E2 and endoxifen as positive and negative controls, respectively, for coactivator binding.

In MCF-7:WS8, E2 recruited major coactivators such as NCOA1–3, the Mediator complex (MED; see subunits in Fig. 4), and Lysine Methyltransferase 2D (KMT2D or MLL4; Fig. 4A), which is consistent with prior proteomic publications (39). Endoxifen did not recruit these coactivators (Fig. 4A). BPTPE did not recruit many of the E2-enriched coactivators and only a subset of endoxifen-enriched coregulators (Fig. 4A). Estetrol recruited NCOAs and KMT2D in a similar fashion to E2, but failed to recruit many MED subunits at the level promoted by E2 (Fig. 4A). TTC-352 and BMI-135 are different from BPTPE in terms of coactivator recruitment, chiefly recruiting NCOA1–2 and MED subunits, with NCOA3 not readily enriched compared with E2 and E4 (Fig. 4A).

Figure 4.
Figure 4.

Proteomics of major ER coregulators in MCF-7:WS8 and MCF-7:5C breast cancer with test ligands, and immunoblots of KMT2D, NCOA1 and 3, and MED17 to validate MS data. A, Proteomics of major coregulators differentially recruited to DNA-bound recombinant ER in MCF-7:WS8 and MCF-7:5C cells, treated with E2 (100 nmol/L), E4 (1 μmol/L), TTC-352 (1 μmol/L), BMI-135 (1 μmol/L), BPTPE (1 μmol/L), and endoxifen (1 μmol/L). Ethanol or DMSO served as the vehicle control. ERE DNA pulldown cell-free reactions were performed, and MS data are depicted as a heatmap for coregulator enrichment (light to dark red color) or repulsion (light to dark blue color). The values represent quantification with label-free iBAQ method, normalized to ESR1 amount, and are shown (as estimated % relative to ESR1). Official gene symbols are shown (on the leftmost column). NCOA1–3, KMT2D, and MEDs were defined previously as E2-enriched coactivators (25, 39). B, Immunoblotting to validate MS data of KMT2D, NCOA1 and 3, and MED17, recruited in MCF-7:WS8 and MCF-7:5C NE to DNA-bound ER (ESR1), when treated with E2 (100 nmol/L), E4 (1 μmol/L), TTC-352 (1 μmol/L), and BMI-135 (1 μmol/L). Protein size standards are shown (on the left side as kDa), and 3% input is shown (on the left side; representing 3% of WS8 or 5C NE that was added to each 4xERE DNA bead).

In MCF-7:5C, E2 recruited NCOA2–3, KMT2D, and the MED subunits, with slightly different distribution of affinities, whereas endoxifen repelled them, as expected for this Selective ER Modulator (SERM), and BPTPE did not have much of a coactivator binding (Fig. 4A). Estetrol recruited similar levels of NCOA3 and KMT2D, and many of the same MED subunits (Fig. 4A). TTC-352 and BMI-135 recruited NCOA3 and KMT2D at much lower levels than E2 and E4 (Fig. 4A). Interestingly, TTC-352 recruited more MED subunits than E2, whereas BMI-135 displayed shared MED subunit recruitment with E4 (Fig. 4A).

The recruitment of KMT2D, NCOA1, NCOA3, and MED17, in MCF-7:WS8 and MCF-7:5C, was further validated by immunoblotting (Fig. 4B and Supplementary Fig. S9).

Comparative analysis of the X-ray structures of hERαLBD in complex with ligands E2, TTC-352, and BPTPE

The experimental X-ray structure (Fig. 5G–I) of hERαLBD in complex with TTC-352 shows the ligand binding to the agonist conformation of ERα [i.e., helix 12 (H12) is docked over the active site, in a grove between helices H5 and H11, leaning on H3, and closing the ligand inside the hydrophobic binding pocket; Fig. 5A]. The superposition with hERαLBD in complex with E2 indicates minor differences between these two structures, with an average root mean square deviation (RMSD) of 0.55 Å; calculated based on Cα atoms. However, a difference has been noticed in the positioning of H12, with it being slightly displaced in the TTC-352:ERα structure by an average RMSD of 0.85Å, compared with the E2:ERα structure (Fig. 5A). The binding mode of TTC-352 to the active site shares similar features with that of E2. The benzothiophene moiety of TTC-352 overlaps well with the A and B rings of E2, being involved in π–π stacking interactions with Phe404, and forming the H-bond network between the hydroxyl group and the side-chains of residues Glu353, Arg394, and a crystallization water molecule. The phenoxy ring occupies the same region of the binding pocket as the D ring of E2, but it is buried slightly deeper in the active site, and oriented parallel with the imidazole ring of His524, favoring the formation of the H-bond with the hydroxyl group, like E2 (Fig. 5B).

Figure 5.
Figure 5.

Representation of ERα-LBD with E2, TTC-352, and BPTPE. Comparison of the WT structures of E2 (yellow), TTC-352 (blue), and BPTPE (green) bound to hERα. The superposition of the X-ray structures of hERαLBD:E2 with hERαLBD:TTC-352 (A), and of hERαLBD:E2 with hERαLBD:BPTPE (D). The closer views of the active sites show the binding modes of E2 (yellow), in comparison with TTC-352 (blue; B) and BPTPE (green; E), together with the H-bond contacts between H3 and H12 for E2, TTC-352 (C), and BPTPE (F). The superposition of the mutant Tyr537Ser X-ray structures of hERαLBD in complex with E2 (orange) and TTC-352 (teal; G), together with the binding site alignment of the ligands (H), and a close view of the H-bond interactions between Asp351 and Ser537 (I). Amino acid residues involved in direct interactions (i.e., H-bonds and hydrophobic contacts) are labeled and shown in sticks, together with the amino acids directly involved in H-bonds with H12. In the overall structures, H12 is labeled together with the helices that form the ligand-binding site (i.e., H3, H6, H8, H11) and part of the coactivator site (i.e., H5, H9, H10). The H-bonds are displayed (dashed lines) in yellow, blue, and green in the structures of E2, TTC-352, and BPTPE, respectively.

The analysis of the X-ray structure of hERαLBD in complex with BPTPE reveals good overlapping with the E2:ERα structure with an average RMSD of 1.28 Å (Fig. 5D). Regarding the ligand-binding mode, BPTPE's alignment in the active site is comparable with E2 and TTC-352 (Fig. 5E), preserving the same interactions with the exception of few noteworthy changes. First, the absence of the H-bond to His524, the residue's side-chain, is flipped out of the binding site, and the space freed is partially occupied by the phenyl ring of BPTPE. This observation could explain the displacement of BPTPE by 0.7 Å towards H11, compared with TTC-352. Second, the presence of an H-bond between the phenoxy ring of BPTPE and Thr347 (Fig. 5E–F). This contact leads to an alternative orientation of Thr347, with the methyl group pointing toward Tyr537, which results in a different conformation, and the displacement of Tyr537 relative to its position, compared with TTC-352:ERα or E2:ERα (Fig. 5C and F). This repositioning at the base of H12, together with the reorientation of Leu540 due to the large phenoxy ring of BPTPE, alters the H-bond pattern in the vicinity. As a result, the H-bonds between Asp351 (H3) and the backbone of Leu539 and Leu540 (H12), which normally stabilize the orientation of H12 in the agonist conformation with E2:ERα (Fig. 5C), are absent with BPTPE (Fig. 5F), but are present with TTC-352 (Fig. 5C).

MD simulations were performed to investigate the dynamics of hERαLBD and of ligand binding, specifically, the interactions responsible for binding, to highlight the differences that could discriminate between the ligands and explain their observed biological behaviors in tumor cells. The influence of the ligands on H12 conformation was also investigated, by monitoring the key interactions that are known to stabilize H12 in the agonist conformation (Fig. 5C and F).

Evaluation of the trajectory stability from MD simulations

Note that 165 ns MD simulations were performed for all systems. The RMSDs of the protein backbone atoms, relative to their position in the first frame, were monitored to evaluate the equilibration and stability of the simulations. The RMSD evolution for all simulations, together with the stability of H12 and amino acids of the binding sites, is displayed (Supplementary Fig. S4A–S4C) and detailed in Supplementary Materials. Briefly, the data indicate that all systems reached equilibrium and that the trajectories were stable (Supplementary Fig. S4A). Similar trends were observed for the systems of TTC-352 and E2, whereas BPTPE showed more conformational changes in the segment corresponding to H12 (Supplementary Fig. S4B). No significant conformational changes were detected in the active site of all structures (Supplementary Fig. S4C).

To gain insights into the local flexibility of the receptor chain, root mean square fluctuation was monitored along the trajectories of all complexes (Supplementary Fig. S4D–S4F), with detailed results presented in Supplementary Materials. In summary, the data suggest that the large fluorophenyl moiety of TTC-352 induces more flexibility in the loop between H11 and H12, than the phenoxy ring of BPTPE. However, this is not translating into larger flexibility of H12, mainly because of the stabilizing effect of the H-bonds between Asp351, and the backbone of Leu539 and Leu540 with TTC-352, but not with BPTPE (Fig. 5C and F). Moreover, in the system of BPTPE, increasingly large fluctuations have been detected at the terminal residues of H12. This indicates more mobility in this region of the helix, which destabilizes and hinders the proper closing of H12 over the binding pocket, leading to the inability of BPTPE complex to reach the full-agonist conformation of the receptor.

Analysis of E2, TTC-352, and BPTPE binding modes from MD simulations

The interaction maps of the ligands with key residues of the binding site, together with the occurrences for specific contacts, are displayed (Fig. 6), and the detailed results are presented in Supplementary Materials. The MD simulations confirmed that the H-bonds to Glu353 and His524 are highly stable for TTC-352 and E2 (Fig. 6A–B). As reported previously (46), the H-bond to Thr347 is the most stable interaction for BPTPE, being maintained during the entire simulation, which indicates a strong bond, whereas the H-bond to Glu353 shows a significantly decreased frequency, which indicates a weaker bond (Fig. 6C).

Figure 6.
Figure 6.

2D ligand–ERα interaction maps highlighting key interactions between the ligands and ERα's amino acids during the simulations. These maps were generated from the recorded trajectories and the occurrences of the key contributing interactions between E2 (A), TTC-352 (B), BPTPE (C), and the amino acids in the binding site of ERα, as shown.

Analysis of the binding-free energy decomposition for E2, TTC-352, and BPTPE

To gain a deeper understanding of the ligand–receptor interactions and highlight the subtle differences that could discriminate between these ligands, we performed ligand-binding energy calculations using the MM-GBSA method for the simulated systems. The contribution of each residue to the binding process was analyzed, by decomposing the binding energy into ligand-residue pairs, with the results displayed (Supplementary Fig. S5) and detailed in Supplementary Materials.

The data show that the H-bonding to Glu353 is the driving force of binding for TTC-352, similar to E2. This interaction is crucial for agonist binding. The H-bond between BPTPE and Glu353 is weaker, and the binding of BPTPE is governed by the H-bond to Thr347 (Fig. 6C). This leads to instability in this region of H3, which could have an impact on the conformation of Asp351 that is found in close proximity and could explain why the H-bonds to Leu539 and Leu540 are missing for BPTPE:ERα. In addition, the strong interaction with Thr347 stabilizes the ligand in the active site, but perturbs the local environment and disrupts the H-bond between Tyr537 and Asn348. Finally, the stability of H12 and proper closing specific for the agonist conformation are affected in the structure of BPTPE:ERα.

TTC-352 induces ThT fluorescence as a marker of UPR

Thioflavin T was used to detect and quantify the EnR stress or UPR in living cells, as it interacts directly with the accumulated misfolded protein amyloid during the UPR (43). The “blue” Hoechst 33342 fluorescent dye was used as a nuclear counterstaining dye in MCF-7:5C living cells (Fig. 7, channel A), the “green” ThT fluorescent dye was used as a UPR-indicative dye (channel B), and a colocalization of ThT and Hoechst 33342 dyes is shown (channel C).

Figure 7.
Figure 7.

Detection of EnR stress in live MCF-7:5C cells using ThT dye. A, Hoechst 33342 dye single panel (blue). B, ThT dye single panel (green). C, A colocalization panel of ThT and Hoechst 33342 dyes (blue and green). Treatments included vehicle control [DMSO (0.1%)], positive control thapsigargin (1 μmol/L), and TTC-352 (1 μmol/L). After 72-hour treatment, cells were cotreated with ThT (5 μmol/L) for 1 hour. The previous culture media were then swiped with Hoechst 33342 dye (5 μg/mL) in warm PBS for 15 minutes. Live cell imaging was done by the ZEISS Celldiscoverer 7 microscope. Scale bar, 50 μm.

TTC-352 induced ThT fluorescence by 72 hours compared with vehicle control, and somewhat similar to the induction seen with positive control thapsigargin (i.e., triggers EnR stress by disrupting EnR Ca2+ homeostasis; Fig. 7B). The ThT relative intensity/cell for thapsigargin was 3.320555, and 2.025762 for TTC-352, compared with 0.4725 for vehicle control.

TTC-352 triggers apoptosis in multiple estrogen-independent and endocrine-resistant breast cancer models

Flow cytometry was used to assess if the type of stress-induced cell death was actually apoptosis, when treated with 1 μmol/L TTC-352. In MCF-7:5C, TTC-352 induces apoptosis (Annexin staining 22.9% vs. vehicle control 6.9%; Fig. 8A), similar to the time course of 1 nmol/L E2 (Annexin staining 23.4% vs. control 6.7%; Supplementary Fig. S7A), which is in 3 days.

Figure 8.
Figure 8.

Flow cytometry and Western blotting in MCF-7:5C cells treated with TTC-352 and its combination with a PERK inhibitor and an IRE1α inhibitor. A, MCF-7:5C cells were treated with vehicle control [DMSO (0.1%)], GSK G797800 (10 μmol/L), TTC-352 (1 μmol/L), and TTC-352 plus GSK G797800, for 3 days, and then stained with Annexin V–FITC and PI, and analyzed by flow cytometry. Viable cells (left bottom quadrant) are Annexin V–FITC− and PI−; early apoptotic cells (right bottom quadrant) are Annexin V–FITC+ and PI−; dead cells (left top quadrant) are PI+; and late apoptotic cells (right top quadrant) are Annexin V–FITC+ and PI+. An increased, late apoptotic effect is observed in the right top quadrant. B, p-eIF2α, total eIF2α, ATF4, CHOP, and cleaved PARP protein levels, in MCF-7:5C, after 72-hour treatments with vehicle control DMSO (0.1%), UPR +ve control thapsigargin (1 μmol/L), TTC-352 (1 μmol/L), and TTC-352 (1 μmol/L) plus GSK 797800 (10 μmol/L). C, MCF-7:5C cells were treated with vehicle control [DMSO (0.1%)], MKC-3946 (20 μmol/L), TTC-352 (1 μmol/L), and TTC-352 plus MKC-3946, and analyzed by flow cytometry. D, XBP1s, and XBP1 protein levels, in MCF-7:5C, after 72-hour treatments with vehicle control DMSO (0.1%), TTC-352 (1 μmol/L), and TTC-352 (1 μmol/L) plus MKC-3946 (20 μmol/L). A and C, ***, P < 0.001.

In MCF-7:2A, TTC-352 induces apoptosis (Annexin staining 21.2% vs. control 2.7%), similar to the time course of E2 (Annexin staining 20.4% vs. control 2.7%; Supplementary Fig. S7B), which is in 9 days.

In MCF-7:RAL, TTC-352 induces apoptosis (Annexin staining 8.4% vs. control 1.5%), similar to the time course of E2 (Annexin staining 9.1% vs. control 1.5%; Supplementary Fig. S7C), which is in 14 days.

Inhibition of PERK UPR pathway blocks apoptosis in MCF-7:5C with TTC-352 treatment

Blocking the UPR transducer PERK with 10 μmol/L GSK G797800 in combination with 1 μmol/L TTC-352 by 72 hours inhibited apoptosis (Annexin staining 6.9% vs. control 6.9%; Fig. 8A), compared with TTC-352 alone treatment (Fig. 8A; Annexin staining 22.9% vs. vehicle control 6.9%), and compared with 10 μmol/L GSK G797800 alone treatment (Annexin staining 8.3% vs. control 6.9%; Fig. 8A).

PERK downstream targets p-eIF2α, ATF4, and CHOP as well as apoptosis target cleaved PARP are upregulated after 72-hour treatment with TTC-352, whereas the addition of GSK 797800 inhibits this UPR/apoptosis effect (Fig. 8B).

Inhibition of IRE1α:XBP1s UPR pathway enhances apoptosis in MCF-7:5C with TTC-352 treatment

Inhibiting the UPR transducer IRE1α, by inhibiting basal XBP1 splicing, with 20 μmol/L MKC-3946 in combination with 1 μmol/L TTC-352 by 72 hours, enhanced apoptosis (Annexin staining 35.5% vs. vehicle control 1.4%; Fig. 8C), compared with TTC-352 alone treatment (Annexin staining 27.9% vs. vehicle control 1.4%; Fig. 8C), and compared with 20 μmol/L MKC-3946 alone treatment (Annexin staining 8.8% vs. vehicle control 1.4%; Fig. 8C).

IRE1α downstream target XBP1 (or spliced XBP1) is upregulated after 72-hour treatment with TTC-352, whereas the addition of MKC-3946 inhibits this splicing effect (Fig. 8D).

Transcriptional–translational, UPR, and apoptotic effects of TTC-352 are mediated via ERα

TTC-352 was shown to function via ERα. The combination of TTC-352 and 4OHT blocked SRC-3 recruitment compared with TTC-352 alone treatment (Fig. 9A); inhibited ERE activation compared with TTC-352 alone treatment (Fig. 9B); blocked the antiproliferative effects of TTC-352 alone treatment (Supplementary Fig. S8A–S8C); inhibited the UPR PERK pathway activation (Fig. 9C–D); and prevented apoptosis (Fig. 9C and E–G).

Figure 9.
Figure 9.

Mediation of the transcriptional–translational, UPR, and apoptotic effects of TTC-352 via ERα. A, Recruitment of SRC-3, in MCF-7:5C cells, after 45-minute treatment with indicated ligands (1 μmol/L). Recruitment of SRC-3 was calculated as percentage of the total input after subtracting the IgG recruitment. B, mRNA expression of GREB1, in MCF-7:5C cells, after 24-hour treatment with ligands (1 μmol/L). C, p-eIF2α, total eIF2α, ATF4, CHOP, and cleaved PARP protein levels, in MCF-7:5C, after 72-hour treatments with vehicle control DMSO (0.1%), TTC-352 (1 μmol/L), and TTC-352 (1 μmol/L) plus 4OHT (1 μmol/L). D, Detection of UPR, in live MCF-7:5C cells, using ThT dye, after 72-hour treatments with vehicle control DMSO (0.1%), TTC-352 (1 μmol/L), and TTC-352 (1 μmol/L) plus 4OHT (1 μmol/L). Scale bar, 50 μm. E, MCF-7:5C cells were treated with vehicle control DMSO (0.1%), TTC-352 (1 μmol/L), and TTC-352 (1 μmol/L) plus 4OHT (1 μmol/L) for 3 days, and analyzed by flow cytometry. F, MCF-7:2A cells were treated with vehicle control DMSO (0.1%), TTC-352 (1 μmol/L), and TTC-352 (1 μmol/L) plus 4OHT (1 μmol/L) for 9 days, and analyzed by flow cytometry. G, MCF-7:RAL cells were treated with vehicle control DMSO (0.1%), TTC-352 (1 μmol/L), and TTC-352 (1 μmol/L) plus 4OHT (1 μmol/L) for 14 days, and analyzed by flow cytometry. E–G, ***, P < 0.001.

Discussion

TTC-352 is a member of a new class of estrogen mimics (Fig. 1; 16), which is currently being evaluated in endocrine-resistant MBC clinical trials (11). This work reports: (i) the X-ray crystallography of TTC-352:mutant ER with clinical implications given that many patients with MBC harbor ER mutations (Fig. 5G–I; refs. 19, 20, 47); (ii) the molecular mechanisms of TTC-352′s breast cancer regression in patients with LTED (Figs. 7–10); and (iii) the key interactions at the molecular and atomic levels of the benchmark partial agonist BPTPE:WT ER, involving Asp351 and H12 (Figs. 5 and 6), which explains the delayed ERα-induced UPR and apoptosis (48) compared with TTC-352 (Fig. 8).

Figure 10.
Figure 10.

Schematic representation of the study's conclusions highlighting major ER coactivator-binding differences in MCF-7:5C between E2, E4, ShERPAs, and BPTPE, and with ShERPA TTC-352 between WT MCF-7:WS8 and LTED endocrine-resistant MCF-7:5C breast cancer. A, E2, E4, ShERPA BMI-135, ShERPA TTC-352, and BPTPE major ER coactivators' recruitment, and antitumor molecular mechanism in MCF-7:5C. E2:ERα and E4:ERα complexes mainly recruit NCOA3, KMT2D, and many of the same MEDs, and induce a high threshold of stress, through the synthesis of unfolded and/or misfolded proteins, leading to rapid apoptosis. TTC-352 (referred to as TT in the illustration) recruited more MED subunits than E2, but less NCOA3 and KMT2D than E2 and E4, with a similar threshold of stress and timing of apoptosis to E2 and E4. BMI-135 (referred to as BM in the illustration) recruited less NCOA3 and KMT2D than E2 and E4, and shared MED subunit recruitment with E4, which generated a lower threshold of stress and delayed apoptosis (48) compared with E2, E4, and TTC-352. BPTPE (referred to as BP in the illustration) did not have much of a coactivator recruitment, which generates a very low threshold of stress and a much more delayed course of apoptosis (48) compared with E2, E4, TTC-352, and BMI-135. This differential ligand:ERα:coactivator-recruitment-and-induced EnR stress sets the therapeutics apart, in terms of the timing of activating the UPR, followed by inducing apoptosis. The box (in gray) highlights the observed recruitment patterns: thick arrow (red) represents relatively more recruitment, thin arrow (burgundy) is relatively less recruitment, thin arrow (burgundy with green border) is shared subunit recruitment, and thin arrow (blue) is no recruitment. B, TTC-352′s paradoxical effect in WT growth-inducing breast cancer MCF-7:WS8 versus LTED apoptosis-inducing breast cancer MCF-7:5C. NCOA3, KMT2D, and many MEDs (especially MED12–16 and MED23) are recruited to ER, in MCF-7:5C treated with TTC-352 (thick arrow in maroon), compared with E2, but these same coactivators are reduced upon the treatment of MCF-7:WS8 with TTC-352 (thin arrow in rose). This differential ligand:ERα:coactivator-recruitment-and-induced EnR stress phenotypically sets the two breast cancer models apart.

Earlier pharmacologic studies classified ER-binding ligands into agonists, partial agonists, and antagonists (49), and complimented the subsequent X-ray crystallography studies of the agonist and antagonist ER complexes of the LBD (22, 50). Earlier biological studies described E2-induced apoptosis (51). Current study concludes that TTC-352 is a less potent full estrogen agonist in numerous biologically different breast cancer models (Figs. 2–6 and 9; Supplementary Fig. S1; and Supplementary Table S2), with a rapid apoptotic effect (through the UPR) in estrogen-independent and endocrine-resistant breast cancer models (Figs. 7–10 and Supplementary Fig. S7B–S7C).

This research area is of particular importance given that breast cancer is projected to double by 2030 than it was in 2011 (13). The majority will be ER-positive with a high risk of recurrence, even with clinically low-risk disease (T1N0; ref. 15). Moreover, treated metastases often harbor private “driver” mutations, compared with untreated metastases (52). In the case of ER-positive HER2-negative breast cancer, metastases treated with endocrine therapy acquire somatic single-nucleotide variants (47). This highlights the need to evaluate and develop new rapidly-acting breast cancer therapeutics such as estrogens. The recent long-term follow-up results of the Women's Health Initiative Trials (53, 54) reaffirm the clinical potential of novel and safe estrogenic therapy in significantly reducing breast cancer incidence and mortality in patients with LTED.

MD simulations and MM-GBSA calculations for WT ERα in complex with TTC-352, E2, and BPTPE are valuable methodologies to discover key ligand–receptor interactions, which aid the pharmacologic classification of TTC-352. Most importantly, they identify key structural components of estrogenic therapeutics that ensure the appropriate closure of the ERα LBD by H12 in LTED breast cancer. This closure is a prerequisite for the activation of ERE-mediated UPR and apoptosis, which is the basis of their antitumor properties.

The H-bonds of TTC-352′s benzothiophene scaffold to Glu353, followed by the H-bond to His524, are the most stable contacts contributing to the binding mechanism of TTC-352, which are also the two binding features specific for the estrogenic activity of E2 (E2's A ring to Glu353; Fig. 6A–B). Such strong H-bond between TTC-352 and Glu353 induces stability in the LBD and, consequently, to H3. This supports the formation of the H-bonds between the side-chain of Asp351 (H3) to the backbone of Leu539 and Leu540 (H12), which stabilizes H12 in the full-agonist conformation (Fig. 5C). Such LBD-stabilizing network of H-bonds is preserved with TTC-352, but more so with E2, which explains the altered potency of TTC-352:ERα compared with E2:ERα. By contrast, BPTPE's binding mechanism is governed by the H-bond of BPTPE's angular phenolic OH to Thr347, followed by the hydrophobic contacts, and a significantly weaker H-bond to Glu353 (Figs. 5E and 6C). Although the H-bond between BPTPE's angular phenolic group and Thr347 stabilizes its binding, it disturbs the H-bond network within H3 and the stabilizing H-bonds to H12 (i.e., Asp351 to Leu 539 and Leu540). As a result, H12 is prevented from adopting the proper orientation specific for the ER full-agonist conformation (Fig. 5F). This is consistent with BPTPE's reduced recruitment of coactivators (Fig. 4A), and our previous reports (48) of its delayed activation of ERα-induced UPR and apoptosis as well as its functional modulation from a partial agonist (3OHTPE) to a full agonist (Z2OHTPE) by the removal of the para-phenol substitution (46).

Both, Asp351 and H12, play a critical role in modulating the estrogenic and antiestrogenic intrinsic efficacy of the ligand–ER complex. The natural mutation Asp351Tyr was discovered and overexpressed in TAM-stimulated MCF-7 tumors grown in athymic mice (55). The molecular pharmacology of the WT ER (56) and Asp351Tyr ER (57) was established by stable transfection into ER-negative MDA-MB-231 breast cancer. Unexpectedly, Asp351Try ER converted the raloxifene:WT Asp351 ER complex from antiestrogenic to estrogenic (58). Subsequent X-ray crystallography of the raloxifene:ER LBD (22) demonstrated the critical role of the antiestrogenic side-chain containing a piperidine ring N to shield and neutralize Asp351, which prevented the closure of H12 and the subsequent ERE activation. Subsequent interrogation of the structural modulation of raloxifene and its interactions with Asp351 demonstrated how Asp351 modulates the estrogenic and antiestrogenic efficacy of the ligand–ER complex (59).

ESR1 somatic mutations, Y537S and D538G, stabilize ERα in the agonist state and are linked to acquired resistance to endocrine therapies (60). Mutations Tyr537Ser and Asp538Gly were most prevalent in breast cancer metastases (47), especially patients with AI-resistant breast cancer. These mutations improve the closure of H12 over ERα's LBD, through interacting with Asp351 and recruiting coactivators in the absence of estrogen, which increases the estrogen-like properties of the complex (47).

ERE DNA pulldowns and MS are valuable methodologies to determine if TTC-352 has an ERα:coactivators’ binding profile of a full or partial agonist, and better understand why the TTC-352:ERα:coactivators’ complex in the LTED endocrine-resistant MCF-7:5C is phenotypically apoptosis-promoting, whereas such complex in WT MCF-7 is phenotypically growth-promoting.

In MCF-7:WS8 breast cancer, TTC-352 and BMI-135 are different from BPTPE in terms of NCOA1–2 (or SRC-1–2) and MED subunit recruitments, with NCOA3 (or SRC-3) not being readily enriched with either ShERPAs compared with E2 and E4 (Fig. 4A). BPTPE did not recruit many of the E2-enriched coactivators and only a subset of endoxifen-enriched coregulators (Fig. 4A). In MCF-7:5C breast cancer, TTC-352 and BMI-135 recruited NCOA3 and KMT2D at much lower levels than E2 and E4, with TTC-352 recruiting more MED subunits than E2, while BMI-135 displaying shared MED subunit recruitment with E4 (Fig. 4A). BPTPE did not have much of coactivator binding (Fig. 4A).

TTC-352′s differential recruitment of MED subunit types alongside their differential enrichment levels could explain its ability to cause a higher threshold of stress of ER-mediated unfolded proteins followed by earlier apoptosis, compared with that with BMI-135 (Fig. 10A). In MCF-7:5C, NCOA3, KMT2D, and many MEDs (especially MED12–16 and MED23) are recruited to ERα with TTC-352, compared with E2, but these coactivators are reduced upon the treatment of MCF-7:WS8 with TTC-352 (Supplementary Table S5). TTC-352′s higher recruitment of major ER coactivators in MCF-7:5C, compared with MCF-7:WS8, can explain its ability to cause a high threshold of stress of ER-mediated unfolded proteins followed by apoptosis, making it phenotypically apoptosis-promoting versus the growth-promoting MCF-7:WS8 (Fig. 10B). The altered recruitment patterns of major ER coactivators for transcriptional activation, with TTC-352, BMI-135, and E4, in comparison with the levels promoted by E2 or BPTPE, can better explain the observed differences in their potency and ERα-mediated UPR.

Our MD simulations data complement the MS data whereby the dynamics of H12 orchestrate ER's coactivator-mediated transcriptional activity. In the agonist complex structure, H12 forms one side of a hydrophobic coactivator-binding pocket, which allows the recruitment of an LXXLL motif present in many transcriptional cofactors (61). This is, especially, true with SRC-1–3 that possess three LXXLL motifs, two of which bridge across the ER dimer (at least for an extended polypeptide containing all three motifs), which accounts for the 100-fold higher affinity relative to the single LXXLL-containing peptide (62). The overexpression of SRC-3 is observed in over 50% of breast cancers and leads to constitutive ER-mediated transcriptional activity in the agonist confirmation, conferring endocrine resistance in preclinical models and in patients treated with TAM (63). E2, E4, TTC-352, and BMI-135 in complex with ERα yield an agonist confirmation of the ligand–ER complex (Figs. 5–6; ref. 48) and, subsequently, recruit more coactivators (Fig. 4A), opposite to BPTPE. H12 acts as a molecular switch with the contribution of those H-Bond networks (Fig. 6) and such coactivators (Fig. 4A).

We demonstrate that the structure-function model of the synthetic estrogen mimic TTC-352 is a less potent full estrogen agonist compared with E2, allowing H12 to seal the LBD, which recruits many E2-enriched coactivators and induces rapid ERα-mediated UPR and apoptosis. This contradicts the model of the benchmark partial agonist BPTPE, not allowing H12 to seal the LBD properly, which does not recruit many E2-enriched coactivators, and induces delayed ERα-mediated UPR and apoptosis. These data suggest that patients with breast cancer would potentially benefit more from full agonists like TTC-352 rather than partial agonists, because of BPTPE's delayed UPR-apoptotic effect. A partial agonist with delayed apoptosis might create a higher probability of tumor clonal evolution and acquired resistance (64).

Authors' Disclosures

C.E. Foulds reports other from Coactigon, Inc., outside the submitted work. R. Xiong reports grants from NIH and grants from University of Illinois at Chicago during the conduct of the study, and has a patent for US 9475791 issued and licensed to TTC Oncology. G.L. Greene reports grants and personal fees from Sermonix Pharmaceuticals, other from Olema Pharmaceuticals, and personal fees from H3 Biomedicine outside the submitted work. D.A. Tonetti reports personal fees from G1 Therapeutics outside the submitted work; has a patent for US 9895348 issued, licensed, and with royalties paid from TTC Oncology and a patent for US 9475791 issued, licensed, and with royalties paid from TTC Oncology; and is Chief Scientific Officer at TTC Oncology. G.R.J. Thatcher reports other from TTC Oncology outside the submitted work and has a patent for US 475791 issued and licensed to TTC Oncology. No disclosures were reported by the other authors.

Authors' Contributions

B. Abderrahman: Conceptualization, resources, data curation, software, formal analysis, supervision, validation, investigation, visualization, methodology, writing-original draft, project administration, writing-review and editing. P.Y. Maximov: Data curation. R.F. Curpan: Data curation, software, formal analysis, writing-original draft. S.W. Fanning: Methodology. J.S. Hanspal: Data curation. P. Fan: Resources. C.E. Foulds: Methodology. Y. Chen: Data curation. A. Malovannaya: Software, methodology. A. Jain: Data curation. R. Xiong: Resources. G.L. Greene: Methodology. D.A. Tonetti: Resources. G.R.J. Thatcher: Resources. V.C. Jordan: Conceptualization, supervision, funding acquisition, project administration, writing-review and editing.

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. Robert Clarke for providing the LCC breast cancer cell line series. B. Abderrahman holds a dual position: the Dallas/Ft. Worth Living Legend Fellow of Cancer Research at the Department of Breast Medical Oncology, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (TX, USA), and a split-site PhD trainee under Model C “Applicants of Very High Quality” at the Faculty of Biological Sciences, the University of Leeds (West Yorkshire, UK). This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health MD Anderson Cancer Center Support Grant (P.W. Pisters, CA016672); the George and Barbara Bush Foundation for Innovative Cancer Research (V.C. Jordan); the Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT) for the STARs and STARs Plus Awards (V.C. Jordan); the Dallas/Ft. Worth Living Legend Fellowship of Cancer Research (B. Abderrahman); the Coriolan Dragulescu Institute of Chemistry of the Romanian Academy (R.F. Curpan, Project no. 1.1/2020); the Adrienne Helis Malvin Medical Research Foundation through direct engagement with the continuous active conduct of medical research in conjunction with BCM (C.E. Foulds and Y. Chen); the Baylor College of Medicine Mass Spectrometry Proteomics Core supported by the Dan L. Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Center grant (A. Malovannaya, NIH P30 CA125123) and CPRIT Proteomics and Metabolomics Core Facility Award (A. Malovannaya, RP170005); and the Argonne National Laboratory, Structural Biology Center (SBC), at the Advanced Photon Source operated by UChicago Argonne, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy, and supported by the Office of Biological and Environmental Research (G.L. Greene, DE-AC02–06CH11357).

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Footnotes

  • Note: Supplementary data for this article are available at Molecular Cancer Therapeutics Online (http://mct.aacrjournals.org/).

  • Mol Cancer Ther 2021;20:11–25

  • Received July 9, 2020.
  • Revision received August 30, 2020.
  • Accepted October 23, 2020.
  • Published first November 11, 2020.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Jordan VC,
    2. Brodie AM
    . Development and evolution of therapies targeted to the estrogen receptor for the treatment and prevention of breast cancer. Steroids 2007;72:7–25.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Salmon SE,
    2. Jones SE
    1. Jordan VC,
    2. Dix CJ,
    3. Allen KE
    . The effectiveness of long-term treatment in a laboratory model for adjuvant hormone therapy of breast cancer. In: Salmon SE, Jones SE , editors. Adjuvant therapy of cancer II. New York: Grune and Stratton; 1979. p. 19–26.
  3. 3.↵
    Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group. Tamoxifen for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 1998;351:1451–67.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Yao K,
    2. Lee ES,
    3. Bentrem DJ,
    4. England G,
    5. Schafer JI,
    6. O’Regan RM,
    7. et al.
    Antitumor action of physiological estradiol on tamoxifen-stimulated breast tumors grown in athymic mice. Clin Cancer Res 2000;6:2028–36.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Davies C,
    2. Godwin J,
    3. Gray R,
    4. Clarke M,
    5. Cutter D,
    6. et al.
    Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group Davies C, Godwin J, Gray R, Clarke M, Cutter D, et al. Relevance of breast cancer hormone receptors and other factors to the efficacy of adjuvant tamoxifen: patient-level meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet 2011;378:771–84.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Sgroi DC,
    2. Sestak I,
    3. Cuzick J,
    4. Zhang Y,
    5. Schnabel CA,
    6. Schroeder B,
    7. et al.
    Prediction of late distant recurrence in patients with oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer: a prospective comparison of the breast-cancer index (BCI) assay, 21-gene recurrence score, and IHC4 in the TransATAC study population. Lancet Oncol 2013;14:1067–76.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Ariazi EA,
    2. Cunliffe HE,
    3. Lewis-Wambi JS,
    4. Slifker MJ,
    5. Willis AL,
    6. Ramos P,
    7. et al.
    Estrogen induces apoptosis in estrogen deprivation-resistant breast cancer through stress responses as identified by global gene expression across time. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2011;108:18879–86.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Lonning PE,
    2. Taylor PD,
    3. Anker G,
    4. Iddon J,
    5. Wie L,
    6. Jorgensen LM,
    7. et al.
    High-dose estrogen treatment in postmenopausal breast cancer patients heavily exposed to endocrine therapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2001;67:111–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Ellis MJ,
    2. Gao F,
    3. Dehdashti F,
    4. Jeffe DB,
    5. Marcom PK,
    6. Carey LA,
    7. et al.
    Lower-dose vs high-dose oral estradiol therapy of hormone receptor-positive, aromatase inhibitor-resistant advanced breast cancer: a phase 2 randomized study. JAMA 2009;302:774–80.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Iwase H,
    2. Yamamoto Y,
    3. Yamamoto-Ibusuki M,
    4. Murakami KI,
    5. Okumura Y,
    6. Tomita S,
    7. et al.
    Ethinylestradiol is beneficial for postmenopausal patients with heavily pre-treated metastatic breast cancer after prior aromatase inhibitor treatment: a prospective study. Br J Cancer 2013;109:1537–42.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Dudek AZ,
    2. Liu LC,
    3. Fischer JH,
    4. Wiley EL,
    5. Sachdev JC,
    6. Bleeker J,
    7. et al.
    Phase 1 study of TTC-352 in patients with metastatic breast cancer progressing on endocrine and CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2020;183:617–27.
    OpenUrl
  12. 12.↵
    1. Schmidt M,
    2. Hönig A,
    3. Zimmerman Y,
    4. Verhoeven C,
    5. Almstedt K,
    6. Battista M,
    7. et al.
    Abstract P5–11–15: estetrol for treatment of advanced ER+/HER2- breast cancer. Cancer Res 2020;80).
  13. 13.↵
    1. Rosenberg PS,
    2. Barker KA,
    3. Anderson WF
    . Estrogen receptor status and the future burden of invasive and in situ breast cancers in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst 2015;107:djv159.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Reyes C,
    2. Engel-Nitz NM,
    3. DaCosta Byfield S,
    4. Ravelo A,
    5. Ogale S,
    6. Bancroft T,
    7. et al.
    Cost of disease progression in patients with metastatic breast, lung, and colorectal cancer. Oncologist 2019;24:1209–18.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Schroeder B,
    2. Zhang Y,
    3. Stal O,
    4. Fornander T,
    5. Brufsky A,
    6. Sgroi DC,
    7. et al.
    Risk stratification with breast cancer index for late distant recurrence in patients with clinically low-risk (T1N0) estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. NJP Breast Cancer 2017;3:28.
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.↵
    1. Xiong R,
    2. Patel HK,
    3. Gutgesell LM,
    4. Zhao J,
    5. Delgado-Rivera L,
    6. Pham TND,
    7. et al.
    Selective human estrogen receptor partial agonists (ShERPAs) for tamoxifen-resistant breast cancer. J Med Chem 2016;59:219–37.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Tonetti DA,
    2. Xiong R,
    3. Zhao J,
    4. Gutgesell L,
    5. Dudek AZ,
    6. Thatcher GR
    . (Abstract e14090) Efficacy, maximal tolerated dose, and toxicokinetics of TTC-352 in rats and dogs, a partial ER agonist for metastatic ER+ breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2017;35(suppl 15):509.
    OpenUrl
  18. 18.↵
    1. Jordan VC,
    2. Curpan R,
    3. Maximov PY
    . Estrogen receptor mutations found in breast cancer metastases integrated with the molecular pharmacology of selective ER modulators. J Natl Cancer Inst 2015;107:djv075.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Pejerrey SM,
    2. Dustin D,
    3. Kim JA,
    4. Gu G,
    5. Rechoum Y,
    6. Fuqua SAW
    . The impact of ESR1 mutations on the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Horm Cancer 2018;9:215–28.
    OpenUrl
  20. 20.↵
    1. Niu J,
    2. Andres G,
    3. Kramer K,
    4. Kundranda MN,
    5. Alvarez RH,
    6. Klimant E,
    7. et al.
    Incidence and clinical significance of ESR1 mutations in heavily pretreated metastatic breast cancer patients. Onco Targets Ther 2015;8:3323–8.
    OpenUrl
  21. 21.↵
    1. Pink JJ,
    2. Jordan VC
    . Models of estrogen receptor regulation by estrogens and antiestrogens in breast cancer cell lines. Cancer Res 1996;56:2321–30.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    1. Brzozowski AM,
    2. Pike AC,
    3. Dauter Z,
    4. Hubbard RE,
    5. Bonn T,
    6. Engstrom O,
    7. et al.
    Molecular basis of agonism and antagonism in the oestrogen receptor. Nature 1997;389:753–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Yi P,
    2. Wang Z,
    3. Feng Q,
    4. Pintilie GD,
    5. Foulds CE,
    6. Lanz RB,
    7. et al.
    Structure of a biologically active estrogen receptor-coactivator complex on DNA. Mol Cell 2015;57:1047–58.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Maximov PY,
    2. Myers CB,
    3. Curpan RF,
    4. Lewis-Wambi JS,
    5. Jordan VC
    . Structure-function relationships of estrogenic triphenylethylenes related to endoxifen and 4-hydroxytamoxifen. J Med Chem 2010;53:3273–83.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Gates LA,
    2. Gu G,
    3. Chen Y,
    4. Rohira AD,
    5. Lei JT,
    6. Hamilton RA,
    7. et al.
    Proteomic profiling identifies key coactivators utilized by mutant ERα proteins as potential new therapeutic targets. Oncogene 2018;37:4581–98.
    OpenUrl
  26. 26.↵
    1. Jiang SY,
    2. Wolf DM,
    3. Yingling JM,
    4. Chang C,
    5. Jordan VC
    . An estrogen receptor positive MCF-7 clone that is resistant to antiestrogens and estradiol. Mol Cell Endocrinol 1992;90:77–86.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Murphy CS,
    2. Pink JJ,
    3. Jordan VC
    . Characterization of a receptor-negative, hormone-nonresponsive clone derived from a T47D human breast cancer cell line kept under estrogen-free conditions. Cancer Res 1990;50:7285–92.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. 28.↵
    1. Lasfargues EY,
    2. Coutinho WG,
    3. Redfield ES
    . Isolation of two human tumor epithelial cell lines from solid breast carcinomas. J Natl Cancer Inst 1978;61:967–78.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Engel LW,
    2. Young NA,
    3. Tralka TS,
    4. Lippman ME,
    5. O’Brien SJ,
    6. Joyce MJ
    . Establishment and characterization of three new continuous cell lines derived from human breast carcinomas. Cancer Res 1978;38:3352–64.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. 30.↵
    1. Fan P,
    2. Agboke FA,
    3. Cunliffe HE,
    4. Ramos P,
    5. Jordan VC
    . A molecular model for the mechanism of acquired tamoxifen resistance in breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 2014;50:2866–76.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Lewis JS,
    2. Osipo C,
    3. Meeke K,
    4. Jordan VC
    . Estrogen-induced apoptosis in a breast cancer model resistant to long-term estrogen withdrawal. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 2005;94:131–41.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Pink JJ,
    2. Jiang SY,
    3. Fritsch M,
    4. Jordan VC
    . An estrogen-independent mcf-7 breast-cancer cell-line which contains a novel 80-kilodalton estrogen receptor-related protein. Cancer Res 1995;55:2583–90.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. 33.↵
    1. Liu H,
    2. Lee ES,
    3. Gajdos C,
    4. Pearce ST,
    5. Chen B,
    6. Osipo C,
    7. et al.
    Apoptotic action of 17beta-estradiol in raloxifene-resistant MCF-7 cells in vitro and in vivo. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:1586–97.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Clarke R,
    2. Brunner N,
    3. Katzenellenbogen BS,
    4. Thompson EW,
    5. Norman MJ,
    6. Koppi C,
    7. et al.
    Progression of human breast cancer cells from hormone-dependent to hormone-independent growth both in vitro and in vivo. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1989;86:3649–53.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. 35.↵
    1. Brunner N,
    2. Boulay V,
    3. Fojo A,
    4. Freter CE,
    5. Lippman ME,
    6. Clarke R
    . Acquisition of hormone-independent growth in MCF-7 cells is accompanied by increased expression of estrogen-regulated genes but without detectable DNA amplifications. Cancer Res 1993;53:283–90.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. 36.↵
    1. Brunner N,
    2. Frandsen TL,
    3. Holsthansen C,
    4. Bei M,
    5. Thompson EW,
    6. Wakeling AE,
    7. et al.
    Mcf7/Lcc2 - a 4-hydroxytamoxifen resistant human breast-cancer variant that retains sensitivity to the steroidal antiestrogen Ici-182,780. Cancer Res 1993;53:3229–32.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. 37.↵
    1. Brunner N,
    2. Boysen B,
    3. Jirus S,
    4. Skaar TC,
    5. HolstHansen C,
    6. Lippman J,
    7. et al.
    MCF7/LCC9: an antiestrogen-resistant MCF-7 variant in which acquired resistance to the steroidal antiestrogen ICI 182,780 confers an early cross-resistance to the nonsteroidal antiestrogen tamoxifen. Cancer Res 1997;57:3486–93.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. 38.↵
    1. Fan P,
    2. Griffith OL,
    3. Agboke FA,
    4. Anur P,
    5. Zou X,
    6. McDaniel RE,
    7. et al.
    c-Src modulates estrogen-induced stress and apoptosis in estrogen-deprived breast cancer cells. Cancer Res 2013;73:4510–20.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. 39.↵
    1. Foulds CE,
    2. Feng Q,
    3. Ding C,
    4. Bailey S,
    5. Hunsaker TL,
    6. Malovannaya A,
    7. et al.
    Proteomic analysis of coregulators bound to ERalpha on DNA and nucleosomes reveals coregulator dynamics. Mol Cell 2013;51:185–99.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    1. Malovannaya A,
    2. Lanz RB,
    3. Jung SY,
    4. Bulynko Y,
    5. Le NT,
    6. Chan DW,
    7. et al.
    Analysis of the human endogenous coregulator complexome. Cell 2011;145:787–99.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    1. Saltzman AB,
    2. Leng M,
    3. Bhatt B,
    4. Singh P,
    5. Chan DW,
    6. Dobrolecki L,
    7. et al.
    gpGrouper: a peptide grouping algorithm for gene-centric inference and quantitation of bottom-up proteomics data. Mol Cell Proteomics 2018;17:2270–83.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  42. 42.↵
    1. Speltz TE,
    2. Fanning SW,
    3. Mayne CG,
    4. Fowler C,
    5. Tajkhorshid E,
    6. Greene GL,
    7. et al.
    Stapled peptides with gamma-methylated hydrocarbon chains for the estrogen receptor/coactivator interaction. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 2016;55:4252–5.
    OpenUrl
  43. 43.↵
    1. Beriault DR,
    2. Werstuck GH
    . Detection and quantification of endoplasmic reticulum stress in living cells using the fluorescent compound, Thioflavin T. Biochim Biophys Acta 2013;1833:2293–301.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    1. Sengupta S,
    2. Sharma CG,
    3. Jordan VC
    . Estrogen regulation of X-box binding protein-1 and its role in estrogen induced growth of breast and endometrial cancer cells. Horm Mol Biol Clin Investig 2010;2:235–43.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    1. Obiorah I,
    2. Sengupta S,
    3. Curpan R,
    4. Jordan VC
    . Defining the conformation of the estrogen receptor complex that controls estrogen-induced apoptosis in breast cancer. Mol Pharmacol 2014;85:789–99.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  46. 46.↵
    1. Maximov PY,
    2. Abderrahman B,
    3. Hawsawi YM,
    4. Chen Y,
    5. Foulds CE,
    6. Jain A,
    7. et al.
    The structure-function relationship of angular estrogens and estrogen receptor alpha to initiate estrogen-induced apoptosis in breast cancer cells. Mol Pharmacol 2020;98:24–37.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  47. 47.↵
    1. Toy W,
    2. Shen Y,
    3. Won H,
    4. Green B,
    5. Sakr RA,
    6. Will M,
    7. et al.
    ESR1 ligand-binding domain mutations in hormone-resistant breast cancer. Nat Genet 2013;45:1439–45.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. 48.↵
    1. Abderrahman B,
    2. Maximov PY,
    3. Curpan RF,
    4. Hanspal JS,
    5. Fan P,
    6. Xiong R,
    7. et al.
    Pharmacology and molecular mechanisms of clinically-relevant estrogen estetrol and estrogen mimic BMI-135 for the treatment of endocrine-resistant breast cancer. Mol Pharmacol 2020;98:364–81.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  49. 49.↵
    1. Jordan VC,
    2. Lieberman ME
    . Estrogen-stimulated prolactin synthesis in vitro. Classification of agonist, partial agonist, and antagonist actions based on structure. Mol Pharmacol 1984;26:279–85.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  50. 50.↵
    1. Shiau AK,
    2. Barstad D,
    3. Loria PM,
    4. Cheng L,
    5. Kushner PJ,
    6. Agard DA,
    7. et al.
    The structural basis of estrogen receptor/coactivator recognition and the antagonism of this interaction by tamoxifen. Cell 1998;95:927–37.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. 51.↵
    1. Jordan VC
    . The new biology of estrogen-induced apoptosis applied to treat and prevent breast cancer. Endocr Relat Cancer 2015;22:R1–31.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  52. 52.↵
    1. Hu Z,
    2. Li Z,
    3. Ma Z,
    4. Curtis C
    . Multi-cancer analysis of clonality and the timing of systemic spread in paired primary tumors and metastases. Nat Genet 2020;52:701–8.
    OpenUrl
  53. 53.↵
    1. Chlebowski RT,
    2. Anderson GL,
    3. Aragaki AK,
    4. Manson JE,
    5. Stefanick ML,
    6. Pan K,
    7. et al.
    Association of menopausal hormone therapy with breast cancer incidence and mortality during long-term follow-up of the women's health initiative randomized clinical trials. JAMA 2020;324:369–80.
    OpenUrl
  54. 54.↵
    1. Jordan VC
    . Molecular mechanism for breast cancer incidence in the women's health initiative. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 2020;13:807–16.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  55. 55.↵
    1. Wolf DM,
    2. Jordan VC
    . The estrogen receptor from a tamoxifen stimulated MCF-7 tumor variant contains a point mutation in the ligand binding domain. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1994;31:129–38.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. 56.↵
    1. Jiang SY,
    2. Jordan VC
    . Growth regulation of estrogen receptor-negative breast cancer cells transfected with complementary DNAs for estrogen receptor. J Natl Cancer Inst 1992;84:580–91.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. 57.↵
    1. Catherino WH,
    2. Wolf DM,
    3. Jordan VC
    . A naturally-occurring estrogen-receptor mutation results in increased estrogenicity of a tamoxifen analog. Mol Endocrinol 1995;9:1053–63.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. 58.↵
    1. Levenson AS,
    2. Catherino WH,
    3. Jordan VC
    . Estrogenic activity is increased for an antiestrogen by a natural mutation of the estrogen receptor. J Steroid Biochem 1997;60:261–8.
    OpenUrl
  59. 59.↵
    1. Liu H,
    2. Park WC,
    3. Bentrem DJ,
    4. McKian KP,
    5. Reyes Ade L,
    6. Loweth JA,
    7. et al.
    Structure-function relationships of the raloxifene-estrogen receptor-alpha complex for regulating transforming growth factor-alpha expression in breast cancer cells. J Biol Chem 2002;277:9189–98.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  60. 60.↵
    1. Fanning SW,
    2. Mayne CG,
    3. Dharmarajan V,
    4. Carlson KE,
    5. Martin TA,
    6. Novick SJ,
    7. et al.
    Estrogen receptor alpha somatic mutations Y537S and D538G confer breast cancer endocrine resistance by stabilizing the activating function-2 binding conformation. Elife 2016;5:e12792.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  61. 61.↵
    1. Shiau AK,
    2. Barstad D,
    3. Radek JT,
    4. Meyers MJ,
    5. Nettles KW,
    6. Katzenellenbogen BS,
    7. et al.
    Structural characterization of a subtype-selective ligand reveals a novel mode of estrogen receptor antagonism. Nat Struct Biol 2002;9:359–64.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. 62.↵
    1. Nolte RT,
    2. Wisely GB,
    3. Westin S,
    4. Cobb JE,
    5. Lambert MH,
    6. Kurokawa R,
    7. et al.
    Ligand binding and co-activator assembly of the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-gamma. Nature 1998;395:137–43.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. 63.↵
    1. Osborne CK,
    2. Bardou V,
    3. Hopp TA,
    4. Chamness GC,
    5. Hilsenbeck SG,
    6. Fuqua SAW,
    7. et al.
    Role of the estrogen receptor coactivator AIB1 (SRC-3) and HER-2/neu in tamoxifen resistance in breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:353–61.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. 64.↵
    1. Rodriguez-Brenes IA,
    2. Wodarz D
    . Preventing clonal evolutionary processes in cancer: insights from mathematical models. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2015;112:8843–50.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
Back to top
View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools
Rapid Induction of the Unfolded Protein Response and Apoptosis by Estrogen Mimic TTC-352 for the Treatment of Endocrine-Resistant Breast Cancer
Balkees Abderrahman, Philipp Y. Maximov, Ramona F. Curpan, Sean W. Fanning, Jay S. Hanspal, Ping Fan, Charles E. Foulds, Yue Chen, Anna Malovannaya, Antrix Jain, Rui Xiong, Geoffrey L. Greene, Debra A. Tonetti, Gregory R.J. Thatcher and V. Craig Jordan
Mol Cancer Ther January 1 2021 (20) (1) 11-25; DOI: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-20-0563
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo

Jump to section

Advertisement