A., Paulovich A., Pomeroy S. on leukemias. fig. S15. BSP profile of cellular receptor activity (ExpresSProfile; CEREP). table S1. Differential scanning fluorimetry profiling of triazolopyridazines against a panel of BRD modules. table S2. MetaCore analysis of gene expression data. table S3. BSP profile of cellular receptor activity data (ExpresSProfile; CEREP). table S4. Data collection and refinement statistics for BRD-BSP complexes. table S5. Primers used for qRT-PCR. Abstract Bromodomains (BRDs) have emerged as compelling targets for cancer therapy. The Temoporfin development of selective and potent BET (bromo and extra-terminal) inhibitors and their significant activity in diverse tumor models have rapidly translated into clinical studies and have motivated drug development efforts targeting non-BET BRDs. However, the complex multidomain/subunit architecture Temoporfin of BRD protein complexes complicates predictions of the consequences of their pharmacological targeting. To address this issue, we developed a promiscuous BRD inhibitor [bromosporine (BSP)] that broadly targets BRDs (including BETs) with nanomolar affinity, creating a tool for the identification of cellular processes and diseases where BRDs have a regulatory function. As a proof of principle, we studied the effects of BSP on leukemic cell lines known to be sensitive to BET inhibition and found, as expected, strong antiproliferative activity. Comparison of the modulation of transcriptional profiles by BSP after a short Temoporfin exposure to the inhibitor resulted in a BET inhibitor signature but no significant additional changes in transcription that could account for inhibition of other BRDs. Thus, nonselective targeting of Temoporfin BRDs identified BETs, but not other BRDs, as Goat Polyclonal to Rabbit IgG master regulators of context-dependent primary transcription response. ((kcal/mol)(kcal/mol)= 30) and are annotated with values obtained from a two-tailed test (* 0.05 and *** 0.001). Table 2 = 4). (B) Colony formation assay in K562, KASUMI-1, MV4;11, and OCI-AML3 cells using 0.1, 0.5, or 1.0 M BSP (top) and the number of cells counted after treatment of cells with BSP for 6 to 10 days (= 4) (bottom). CFU, colony-forming units; ns, not significant. (C) Similarity comparison of significantly expressed genes ( 0.001 and fold change 1.5) in the four cell lines after drug treatment. The heat map represents the intersect matrix for all pairwise comparisons (cell lines and treatments) using euclidean distances and complete linkage after transformation of the intersect counts into similarity Jaccard measures. (D) Venn diagrams showing overlap of the top statistically significant (Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted 0.001) genes (up- or down-regulated with a fold change of 1.5) differentially expressed by BSP or the pan-BET inhibitor JQ1 in four leukemia cell lines (K562, KASUMI-1, OCI-AML3, and MV4;11) after 8 hours of treatment with the inhibitor (0.5 M) (top) and breakdown of the expression in terms of up- and down-regulated genes for each cell line (bottom). (E) Heat map of log fold changes in the expression of the top 50 statistically significant genes in the four cell lines tested, identified using Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted 0.001. Data in (B) represent means SEM (= 4) and are annotated with values obtained from a two-tailed test (* 0.05, ** 0.01, *** 0.001, and **** 0.0001). BSP modulates transcription in leukemic cell lines To better understand the contribution of BRDs to the transcriptional landscape in leukemia, we compared the primary effects on transcription after a short exposure to BSP or JQ1 in the three sensitive AML cell lines (MV4;11, KASUMI-1, and OCI-AML3) and in the less sensitive CML cell line (K562). Principal components analysis revealed that gene expression data sets of each cell line clustered together with no obvious outliers, validating the quality of the gene expression data (fig. S4B). Genes attenuated by either inhibitor were very similar (Fig. 3C). Pairwise comparison of significantly up- and down-regulated genes ( 0.001 and fold change 1.5) showed Temoporfin a strong correlation between the two inhibitors, suggesting that BET BRDs may be principally responsible for the observed effect on transcription (Fig. 3D)..