O⁶-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) constitutes an important cellular mechanism for repairing potentially cytotoxic DNA damage induced by guanine O⁶-alkylating agents and can render cells highly resistant to certain cancer chemotherapeutic drugs. A wide variety of potential MGMT inactivators have been designed and synthesized for the purpose of overcoming MGMT-mediated tumor resistance. We determined the inactivation potency of these compounds against human recombinant MGMT using [³H]-methylated-DNA-based MGMT inactivation assays and calculated the IC₅₀ values. Using the results of 370 compounds, we performed quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR) modeling to identify the correlation between the chemical structure and MGMT-inactivating ability. Modeling was based on subdividing the sorted pIC₅₀ values or on chemical structures or was random. A total of nine molecular descriptors were presented in the model equation, in which the mechanistic interpretation indicated that the status of nitrogen atoms, aliphatic primary amino groups, the presence of O-S at topological distance 3, the presence of Al-O-Ar/Ar-O-Ar/R..O..R/R-O-C=X, the ionization potential and hydrogen bond donors are the main factors responsible for inactivation ability. The final model was of high internal robustness, goodness of fit and prediction ability (R²_pr = 0.7474, Q²_Fn = 0.7375–0.7437, CCC_pr = 0.8530). After the best splitting model was decided, we established the full model based on the entire set of compounds using the same descriptor combination. We also used a similarity-based read-across technique to further improve the external predictive ability of the model (R²_pr = 0.7528, Q²_Fn = 0.7387–0.7449, CCC_pr = 0.8560). The prediction quality of 66 true external compounds was checked using the “Prediction Reliability Indicator” tool. In summary, we defined key structural features associated with MGMT inactivation, thus allowing for the design of MGMT inactivators that might improve clinical outcomes in cancer treatment.

To assess the value of pretreatment O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) expression in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) in predicting haematological toxicity with O6-alkylating agent chemotherapy, we explored this relationship retrospectively in melanoma patients. Ninety-three patients treated with temozolomide or dacarbazine in four clinical trials were assessed, and a model of the interaction between MGMT expression and haematological toxicity was constructed. Nadir white-cell and platelet counts were related to, and hence could be predicted from, pretreatment MGMT. Leucopenia and thrombocytopenia were more prevalent amongst patients with low pretreatment MGMT, according to the highest grades of toxicity experienced and/or the dose intensity patients could sustain. Addition of interferon to chemotherapy or compression of the temozolomide schedule increased the toxicity. The model also predicts significant myelotoxicity where PBMC MGMT is inactivated, consistent with the experience in the clinic with lomeguatrib and O6-benzylguanine. Determination of MGMT in PBMC can identify patients at greatest risk of toxicity or who are suitable for dose intensification.

DNA alkyltransferase and alkyltransferase-like family proteins are responsible for the repair of highly mutagenic and cytotoxic O⁶-alkylguanine and O⁴-alkylthymine bases in DNA. Their mechanism involves binding to the damaged DNA and flipping the base out of the DNA helix into the active site pocket in the protein. Alkyltransferases then directly and irreversibly transfer the alkyl group from the base to the active site cysteine residue. In contrast, alkyltransferase-like proteins recruit nucleotide excision repair components for O⁶-alkylguanine elimination. One or more of these proteins are found in all kingdoms of life, and where this has been determined, their overall DNA repair mechanism is strictly conserved between organisms. Nevertheless, between species, subtle as well as more extensive differences that affect target lesion preferences and/or introduce additional protein functions have evolved. Examining these differences and their functional consequences is intricately entwined with understanding the details of their DNA repair mechanism(s) and their biological roles. In this review, we will present and discuss various aspects of the current status of knowledge on this intriguing protein family.