# Optimization of G-Quadruplex Ligands through a SAR Study by Combining Parallel Synthesis and Screening of Cationic Bis(acylhydrazones)

Oksana Reznichenko, Denis Leclercq, Jaime Franco Pinto, Liliane Mouawad, Valérie Gabelica, Anton Granzhan

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## ► To cite this version:

Oksana Reznichenko, Denis Leclercq, Jaime Franco Pinto, Liliane Mouawad, Valérie Gabelica, et al. Optimization of G-Quadruplex Ligands through a SAR Study by Combining Parallel Synthesis and Screening of Cationic Bis(acylhydrazones). Chemistry - A European Journal, 2022, 10.1002/chem.202202427. [doi: 10.1002/chem.202202427](https://doi.org/10.1002/chem.202202427)

HAL Id: hal-03837862

https://hal.science/hal-03837862

Submitted on 3 Nov 2022

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Take Advantage
and Publish Open Access

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

By publishing your paper open access, you'll
be making it immediately freely available to
anyone everywhere in the world.

That's maximum access and visibility worldwide
with the same rigor of peer review you would
expect from any high-quality journal.

Submit your paper today.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

Chemistry
A European
Journal

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

Chemistry
Europe

European Chemical
Societies Publishing

Accepted Article

**Title:** Optimization of G-Quadruplex Ligands through a SAR Study by Combining Parallel Synthesis and Screening of Cationic Bis(acylhydrazones)

**Authors:** Oksana Reznichenko, Denis Leclercq, Jaime Franco Pinto, Liliane Mouawad, Valérie Gabelica, and Anton Granzhan

This manuscript has been accepted after peer review and appears as an
Accepted Article online prior to editing, proofing, and formal publication
of the final Version of Record (VoR). The VoR will be published online
in Early View as soon as possible and may be different to this Accepted
Article as a result of editing. Readers should obtain the VoR from the
journal website shown below when it is published to ensure accuracy of
information. The authors are responsible for the content of this Accepted
Article.

To be cited as: *Chem. Eur. J.* **2022**, e202202427

Link to VoR: https://doi.org/10.1002/chem.202202427
FULL PAPER

# Optimization of G-Quadruplex Ligands through a SAR Study by Combining Parallel Synthesis and Screening of Cationic Bis(acylhydrazones)

Oksana Reznichenko,[a,b] Denis Leclercq,[a,b] Jaime Franco Pinto,[a,b] Liliane Mouawad,[a,b] Valérie Gabelica,[c] and Anton Granzhan*[a,b]

[a] Dr. O. Reznichenko, D. Leclercq, Dr. J. Franco Pinto, Dr. L. Mouawad, Dr. A. Granzhan CMBC, CNRS UMR9187, Inserm U1196, Institut Curie, PSL Research University F-91405, Orsay (France) E-mail: anton.granzhan@curie.fr

[b] Dr. O. Reznichenko, D. Leclercq, Dr. J. Franco Pinto, Dr. L. Mouawad, Dr. A. Granzhan CMBC, CNRS UMR9187, Inserm U1196, Université Paris Saclay F-91405, Orsay (France)

[c] Dr. V. Gabelica Univ. Bordeaux, CNRS, INSERM, ARNA, UMR 5320, U1212, IECB F-33600, Pessac (France)

Supporting information for this article is given via a link at the end of the document.

**Abstract:** G-quadruplexes (G4s), secondary structures adopted by guanine-rich DNA and RNA sequences, are implicated in numerous biological processes and have been suggested as potential drug targets. Accordingly, there is an increasing interest in developing high-throughput methods allowing the generation of congeneric series of G4-targeting molecules ("ligands") and investigation of their interaction with the targets. Here, we developed an operationally simple method of parallel synthesis to generate "ready-to-screen" libraries of cationic acylhydrazones, a motif that we have previously identified as a promising scaffold for potent, biologically active G4 ligands. Combined with well-established screening techniques, such as fluorescence melting, this method enables rapid synthesis and screening of combinatorial libraries of potential G4 ligands. Following this protocol, we synthesized a combinatorial library of 90 bis(acylhydrazones) and screened it against five different nucleic acid structures. This way, we were able to analyze the structure-activity relationships within this series of G4 ligands, and identified three novel promising ligands whose interaction with G4-DNA of different topologies was carefully studied by a combination of several biophysical techniques, including native mass spectrometry, and molecular modeling.

## Introduction

G-quadruplex (G4) DNA and RNA structures play important roles in regulating DNA- and RNA-related cellular transactions such as replication, transcription, telomere maintenance, epigenetic regulation, DNA damage, as well as translation of mRNA.[1] The effects of G4 structures may stem from the formation of physical roadblocks interfering with the progression of DNA or RNA polymerases,[2-5] promotion of R-loops formation,[6] recruitment of G4-interacting proteins,[7] or other mechanisms.[8] Small molecules (ligands) that specifically bind to G4 structures may interfere with G4-mediated regulation, acting through excessive stabilization of these structures,[9] by competing with G4-interacting proteins,[10] or through the formation of ternary complexes.[11] These effects may be exploited to gain control over G4-regulated biological processes with therapeutic

purposes.[9,12,13] Indeed, a number of G4 ligands demonstrated enticing biological properties, and a few have been admitted to clinical trials.[14-16] However, considering the large number of putative G4-forming loci in the genome,[17] the potential off-target effects of G4 ligands may be disastrous.[18] For these reasons, ligands with a specificity towards a given G4, or at least a given subset of G4 structures, are highly desirable but still extremely scarce.[19,20] While certain progress in the design of more specific G4 ligands has been achieved during the last years,[21] one of the obstacles is the lack of high-throughput technologies combining the synthesis and biochemical evaluation (profiling) of G4-tagerted libraries of putative ligands. In this regard, emerging technologies such as G4-targeted fragment-based screening,[22,23] DNA-encoded chemical libraries,[24] affinity chromatography[25,26] and affinity-selection mass spectrometry,[27,28] or rapid synthesis and evaluation of G4 ligands on a microfluidic platform[29] represent promising alternatives to the classical, robust but time-consuming combinatorial chemistry approaches that rely on the preparative synthesis of putative ligands, followed by their biophysical or biochemical assessment on a one-by-one basis.[30-32]

Within the chemical space of G4 ligands, quaternary heterocyclic bis(carboxamides) represent one of the oldest and most efficient families. The prototype of this series, bisquinolinium PDC (360A, Figure 1) was shown to localize to telomeres and exhibit anti-cancer activity.[33,34] Subsequently, this compound— along with a few others—has been extensively exploited as a scaffold for the development of G4-targeted photocrosslinking,[35] photocleaving,[36] fluorescent,[37,38] and immuno-tagged probes.[39] The phenanthroline derivative PhenDC3[40] currently represents the “gold standard” in terms of G4 affinity (with $K_d$ values down to 2.1–2.4 nM, according to SPR studies) and selectivity compared to duplex DNA,[41] and is being widely used as a reference G4 probe in biological models.[42,43] Likewise, naphthyridine analogues (e.g., 3AQN)[44] also demonstrate efficient G4-binding properties and anti-parasitic (*P. falciparum*) activity,[45] showing evidence of the potential of this molecular scaffold.
FULL PAPER

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** Structures of quinolinium bis(carboxamide) G4 ligands PDC (360A), PhenDC3, and bis(acylhydrazone) analogues PyDH2 and PhenDH2. Counterions are omitted for clarity.</figcaption></figure>

Along these lines, we demonstrated that cationic bis(acylhydrazones) PyDH2 and PhenDH2 (Figure 1) bind to G4-DNA and G4-RNA at least as efficiently as their bis(carboxamide) counterparts. Both compounds were proposed for therapeutic targeting of the G4-RNA-modulated immune evasion of the oncogenic Epstein-Barr virus, especially because of their significantly lower host-cell toxicity as compared to PhenDC3.[46,47] More recently, PhenDH2 was shown to bind to G4-RNA structures in LANA1 mRNA of Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus and interfere with nuclear export, nucleolin binding, and translation of this mRNA more efficiently than PhenDC3.[48] With the aim of further exploration of this promising scaffold, we elaborated the generation of G4-targeted dynamic combinatorial libraries (DCLs) of bis(acylhydrazones) in conditions compatible with native G4-DNA structures.[49] However, the identification of ligands from DCLs turned out to be tedious and not free of bias due to non-specific interactions of ligands with the oligonucleotide support (i.e., streptavidin-coated magnetic beads). Therefore, novel methods for high-throughput synthesis and evaluation of potential ligands are still needed. Towards this end, in this work, we designed a combinatorial chemistry strategy based on the straightforward preparation of “ready-to-screen” libraries of cationic bis(acylhydrazones), coupled with a screening of their interaction with a panel of G4-DNA targets. We demonstrate that this technically simple approach provides valuable information about structure-activity relationships of G4 ligands and results in a successful identification of several novel ligands, that combine an unprecedented level of affinity to G4-DNA with preferential binding to antiparallel structures.

## Results and Discussion

**Library design and synthesis.** We designed a combinatorial library of 90 cationic bis(acylhydrazones) **3Aa-Ji** (Scheme 1) that could be obtained through a one-step condensation of a set of ten bis(acylhydrazides) (**1A-J**) with nine cationic aldehydes (**2a-i**). The set of bis(acylhydrazides) was constructed to include heterocyclic derivatives with a varied number of condensed rings

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>**Scheme 1.** Library design and one-step synthesis of “ready-to-screen” solutions of bis(acylhydrazones).</figcaption></figure>

(1A–E), a benzene counterpart (1F), three aliphatic derivatives with a varied length of the spacer between the acylhydrazide groups (1G–I), as well as carbohydrazide (1J) as the minimal dihydrazide. Chelidamic acid dihydrazide (1K) was also considered but discarded after the initial trials due to the formation of undesired side products during the reaction. The set of cationic aldehydes included the quaternary derivatives of pyridine (2a), quinoline (substituted at different positions with alkyl or benzyl residues, 2b–h), and a pyridinium-substituted benzaldehyde derivative (2i); all derivatives were readily obtained by the quaternization of the corresponding precursors (Supporting Information). Of note, several of the resulting bis(acylhydrazones), including **3Ab** (i.e., PyDH2) and **3Eb** (i.e., PhenDH2), were previously obtained by conventional synthesis.[46]

In order to generate “ready-to-screen” samples of the products, stock solutions of **1A–J** were mixed with solutions of **2a–i** in individual vials, to give reaction mixtures containing 2.0 and 4.4 mM (2.2 molar equivalents) of dihydrazide and aldehyde components, respectively, in DMSO, and supplemented with AcOH (final concentration: 1 M). All 90 reaction vials were simultaneously heated at 60 °C for 48 h, to ensure complete conversion of the dihydrazides. The use of DMSO as reaction solvent allowed to avoid the precipitation of final products, which facilitated the subsequent workflow; moreover, DMSO is the standard solvent for preparation and handling of compound libraries, compatible with most biochemical and even cellular screening protocols. Of note, higher reaction temperature (e.g.,
FULL PAPER

100 °C) and shorter time were disadvantageous, as these conditions led to the formation of significant amounts of dealkylated products resulting from the heat-induced loss of alkyl substituents from quaternary nitrogens.[50] The resulting solutions were analyzed by LC/MS and revealed an average purity of 87% and a minimum purity of 80%, as per peak area (Supporting Information, Table S1), approaching the standards of commercially available pre-plated compound libraries (purity threshold of 85–90%).[51,52] For example, the concentration of products **3Ab** and **3Eb** in crude reaction mixtures was verified by comparison of LC peak areas with that of 2 mM solutions prepared from previously synthesized, analytically pure compounds, and was found 1.83 and 1.74 mM, respectively (Supporting Information, Figure S1). The as-synthesized sample solutions were subsequently employed for screening by fluorescence-melting experiments without further treatment.

**Screening by fluorescence-melting experiments.** The capacity of the as-synthesized, “ready-to-screen” ligands to stabilize G4-DNA was assessed by fluorescence-melting experiments, which monitor thermal denaturation of G4-forming oligonucleotides labeled with a fluorophore-quencher pair.[53–55] Four representative G4-DNA targets belonging to different topology classes were selected for screening: 25TAG (a variant of human telomeric sequence forming *hybrid-2* structure in K⁺ conditions); 22CTA (another variant of human telomeric sequence forming an antiparallel structure), *myc22* (a variant of the *MYC* promoter sequence forming a parallel G4 structure), and *Pu24T* (another variant of the *MYC* promoter sequence forming a parallel G4 structure featuring a unique snap-back diagonal loop), schematically presented in Figure 2, a (sequences: cf. Supporting Information, Table S2). A hairpin with 8 base pairs in the stem part (*hp2*) was included as a mimic of double-stranded DNA with a comparable thermal stability. Since the intrinsic thermodynamic stability of different DNA structures varies, the conditions of melting experiments were adjusted by varying the K⁺ content of the buffers, while keeping the overall ionic strength identical, such that the denaturation of all structures (including *hp2*) was observed at T_m⁰ ≈ 60 °C (Supporting Information, Table S3). This way, ligand-induced stabilization of different G4-DNA can be compared with a minimal bias.[55]

In a preliminary test, fluorescence-melting experiments were carried out using a representative G4-DNA (*myc22*), either in the presence of two as-synthesized samples (**3Ab** and **3Eb**) or with pure compounds obtained by conventional synthesis. The results revealed no significant differences in the ligand-induced stabilization effect (Supporting Information, Figure S2), confirming that neither the impurities formed during the synthesis nor the catalyst (AcOH) interfered with G4 melting or ligand-induced stabilization. Indeed, since the standard conditions of this assay employ a relatively large excess of ligands (1 µM, or 5 molar equivalents), the stabilization effect of high-affinity ligands typically reaches a plateau in the presence of ~ 2.5 molar equivalents of ligands.[56] Conversely, the effect of poor ligands shows a rather weak concentration dependence in the broad range of concentrations. Therefore, minor differences in ligand concentration have no or very little effect on the ΔT_m values or the shape of melting curves. On these premises, the “ready-to-screen” solutions of ligands, after dilutions with the corresponding buffer, were directly employed for fluorescence-melting screening experiments performed in a 96-well microplate format, both in the absence and in the presence of a double-stranded competitor (10 µM *ds26*, i.e., 50 molar equivalents with respect to the G4

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2.** Results of the fluorescence-melting assay with 90 "as-synthesized" bis(acylhydrazone) ligands **3Aa-Ji**. a) Schematic depiction of G4-DNA structures used in the assay; all oligonucleotides were labeled with a fluorophore (5'-FAM) and a quencher (3'-TAMRA). b–e) Heatmaps of ligand-induced stabilization (ΔT_m) of G4-DNA: b) 25TAG, c) 22CTA, d) *myc22*, e) *Pu24T*. Data are average values from three technical replicates. Conditions: c(G4-DNA) = 0.2 µM, c(ligands) ≈ 1 µM, buffers: see Table S3 (Supporting Information). f) Structures of novel bis(acylhydrazone) derivatives selected for detailed studies.</figcaption></figure>

target). The results of this screening, presented as heatmaps of ΔT_m values (Figure 2, b–e; numerical data: Supporting Information, Table S4), allow a direct comparison of the relative capacity of ligands to stabilize different G4 structures and an estimation of their G4-vs.-duplex selectivity.

**Structure-activity relationships and hit identification.** The results of fluorescence-melting screening display some interesting regularities. With respect to molecular structure, the capacity of bis(acylhydrazones) to stabilize G4-DNA structures seems to be governed mostly by the combination of two major factors, namely (i) the nature of the central unit (L in Scheme 1) and (ii) the total number of aryl rings (*N*<sub>Ar</sub>). Regarding the nature of the central unit, the derivatives containing pyridine (A), pyrazine (C), naphthyridine (D), and phenanthroline (E) fragments systematically demonstrated high capacity to stabilize G4-DNA,
FULL PAPER

with the latter giving rise to the most efficient ligands; conversely, ligands containing pyrimidine (B) and benzene (F) fragments, as well as all aliphatic derivatives (G–J) were significantly less efficient. This fact confirms the assumption that G4-binding properties are directly related to the ability of the ligand to adopt a V- or a U-shaped conformation, presumably stabilized by water-mediated hydrogen bonds between the acylhydrazone groups and the central heterocyclic unit, similar to those observed in the solid-state structures of 3Aa and 3Ea.[46] The importance of the second factor, $N_{Ar}$, is demonstrated by the strong, statistically significant positive correlation between $N_{Ar}$ and ligand-induced stabilization ($\Delta T_m$, Figure S3), as can be seen from the corresponding Pearson's *r* values (0.62 to 0.74, *p* << 0.001, Table S5). Accordingly, the derivatives containing “unfavorable” central units but a large number of aromatic rings in side chains, such as carbohydrazone derivatives 3Jc and 3Jh ($N_{Ar}$ = 6) show significant thermal stabilization effects, with $\Delta T_m$ values from 6–9 °C (for *myc22* and *Pu24T*) to 11–14 °C (for *25TAG* and *22CTA*). Finally, the nature of lateral moieties (X in Scheme 1) appears to play a secondary role in G4-stabilizing properties. Thus, 1-methylpyridinium (X = a) and 4-(pyridinium-1-yl)methylphenyl (X = i) substituents, generally, resulted in less efficient G4 stabilizers, compared to quinolinium fragments, unless combined with the phenanthroline unit such as in compounds 3Ea and 3Ei. Conversely, in the case of quinolinium substituents (X = b–h), the G4-binding properties of the ligands were relatively insensitive to the nature or position of the side chain.

Importantly, most ligands behaved rather uniformly with respect to different G4-DNA targets, considering the generally lower susceptibility of parallel G4 (*myc22* and, particularly, *Pu24T*) to ligand-induced thermal stabilization as compared to *25TAG* and *22CTA* (Figure 2, d–e, and Figure S3). This is additionally illustrated by a strong mutual correlation of $\Delta T_m$ values obtained with different G4 structures (*r* = 0.94 to 0.98, *p* << 0.001, cf. Supporting Information, Figure S4 and Table S5) and indicates that selective targeting of one or another G4 structure can hardly be achieved within this series of ligands. However, one notable exception is represented by compound **3Ei** which, in addition to anomalously high stabilization of all four G4-DNA, demonstrated a significant bias towards the antiparallel G4 *22CTA* (Supporting Information, Figure S4, a and d). Finally, none of the compounds had any significant effect on the melting of the hairpin *hp2* ($\Delta T_m$ ≤ 4.0 °C, Supporting Information, Table S4 and Figure S5). Moreover, for most ligands the stabilization effect did not decrease by more than 1–2 °C when the experiments were performed in the presence of double-stranded competitor (Table S4), demonstrating an excellent level of G4-vs.-duplex selectivity.

Considering all the data, we selected and synthesized three compounds (Figure 2, f) in a preparative fashion, in order to obtain analytically pure samples (cf. Supporting Information). Specifically, in addition to compound **3Ei** identified above, we chose its close analogue **3Ef** that consistently demonstrated high stabilization of most G4 structures without skewness towards one of them, as well as ligand **3Cb**, which was considered as a representative moderate-affinity G4 binder of the series (cf. Figure S3). The G4-binding properties of these ligands were studied in more detail and compared with those of PyDH2 (**3Ab**) and PhenDC3.

**Hit validation.** As mentioned above, the conditions of fluorescence melting experiments employed in the screening step (e.g., 5 molar equivalents of ligands) were selected in order to compensate for possible minor differences in ligand concentrations in “ready-to-screen” samples. However, these conditions

are poorly suited for the ranking of high-affinity binders, since the stabilization effect induced by such ligands ($\Delta T_m$ ≥ 36 °C) reaches the experimental limit of the method, and therefore, lower concentrations of ligands (0.2–0.5 µM) have been recommended for the assessment of high-affinity binders.[55,56] For the pure ligands, we studied the ligand-induced stabilization of the four G4 structures a range of ligand concentrations (0.1–1.0 µM). The results (Figure 3) demonstrated that, in all cases, almost no stabilization was observed with 0.1 or 0.2 µM of ligands. However, with *25TAG*, compounds **3Ei** and PhenDC3 yielded an almost maximal stabilization effect ($\Delta T_m$ > 30 °C) already at a 0.4 µM concentration; other ligands were slightly less efficient, but also demonstrated a similar “off / on” stabilization effect with a threshold concentration of ~0.4 µM. Of note, a similar threshold-like effect was recently observed for PhenDC3 and, to a lesser extent, PDC in fluorescence melting experiments with another G4 target.[57] With *22CTA* and *myc22*, the concentration dependence of the stabilization effect was less steep for all ligands. In all cases, the stabilization effect observed with 1 µM of ligand matched the value observed in the screening experiments (“Screen” in Figure 3), giving additional proof that this experiment has an excellent tolerance with respect to minor differences in ligand concentration and the presence of potential impurities resulting from the synthesis procedure. Altogether, a clear ranking of ligands could be observed with all four G4-DNA: **3Ei** ≥ PhenDC3 > **3Ef** > **3Ab** > **3Cb**; the superior activity of compound **3Ei**, compared to PhenDC3, was most evident in the case of *22CTA* (Figure 3).

In order to exclude the possible interference of ligands with the fluorophores inherent to the fluorescence-melting assay, we additionally performed UV-melting experiments by monitoring the G4-characteristic melting transition at 295 nm[58] in the absence and in the presence of 1 and 2 molar equivalents of ligands (Supporting Information, Figure S6). Two additional G4-DNA structures, namely *24TTG* (a variant of human telomeric sequence forming a *hybrid-1* structure in $K^+$ conditions) and

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.** Concentration-dependent stabilization of G4-DNA observed in fluorescence melting experiments: a) *25TAG*; b) *22CTA*; c) *myc22*; d) *Pu24T*. Conditions: c(G4-DNA) = 0.2 µM, buffers: see Table S3 (Supporting Information). Data are means ± s.d. from three technical replicates. The upper limit of $\Delta T_m$ detection is 36 °C (T = 96 °C). The $\Delta T_m$ values observed in screening experiments with “as-synthesized” ligands (Screen) are plotted for comparison.</figcaption></figure>
$hTel21T_{18}$ (a variant forming a stable chair-like, three-layer antiparallel structure, cf. Table S2) were included in this assay. Remarkably, the melting curves observed in the presence of ligands were often biphasic or featured the absence of a transition below 96 °C, in particular in the case of **3Ef** and **3Ei**, precluding an accurate determination of ligand-induced stabilization effects ($\Delta T_m$). This may be due to excessive stabilization of quadruplex structures by these ligands, as the concentrations employed in UV-melting experiments (3 and 6 µM) are higher than the highest concentration used in the fluorescence-melting assay (1 µM). Nonetheless, whenever $\Delta T_m$ values could be calculated (Table S6), they clearly demonstrated a remarkably efficient stabilization of most G4s (e.g. for 22CTA, $\Delta T_m$ = 37 and 25 °C in the presence of 2 molar equivalents of **3Ab** and **3Cb**, respectively). None of the ligands had a significant effect on the melting of the hairpin *hp2* (Figure S6, Table S6).

Next, the G4-binding properties of these ligands were evaluated by the fluorescent indicator displacement (FID) assay, which assesses the capacity of ligands to displace Thiazole Orange (TO), a probe that is dark in the unbound state but fluorescent in the complex with G4- or duplex DNA.[59] In this assay, the capacity of ligands to bind to G4-DNA is quantified by DC₅₀ values (i.e., the concentration required to decrease the fluorescence of G4-bound TO by half of its initial intensity). Notably, the results (Figure 4) demonstrate that the relative capacity of ligands to displace the TO probe was different with respect to G4-stabilization effects observed in melting experiments. Specifically, pyridine and pyrazine derivatives (**3Ab** and **3Cb**, respectively) were systematically more active in the FID assay than phenanthroline derivatives (**3Ef**, **3Ei**, and PhenDC3). A similar discrepancy between the results of FRET-melting and fluorescent probe-displacement assays was already observed upon binding of several bis(acylhydrazone) ligands to G4-RNA[46] as well as with other ligands;[60] this behavior can be attributed to the formation of ternary complexes (TO–G4–ligand, evidenced by native mass spectrometry) instead of, or in parallel to the displacement of the probe.[60] Interestingly, the results shown in Figure 4 point to an intriguing selectivity of compound **3Ei** towards antiparallel G4-DNA 22CTA (DC₅₀ = 0.23 µM), followed by $hTel21T_{18}$ and 24TTG (DC₅₀ = 0.35 and 0.31 µM, respectively), which in line with high thermal stabilization of 22CTA by this compound observed in melting experiments (cf. Figure 3, b). It should be noted, however, that DC₅₀ values lower or too close to the concentration of the oligonucleotide employed in the FID assay (i.e., 0.25 µM) should be treated with caution and interpreted merely as an evidence of high affinity of the ligand ($K_d$ ≤ 0.25 µM). Finally, none of the five compounds induced significant displacement of the probe from the hairpin *hp2* at concentrations < 2.5 µM (Figure 4).

**Circular dichroism (CD) spectroscopy.** The binding of ligands to G-quadruplexes may induce conformational changes of polymorphic structures at temperatures far below denaturation, most likely due to a particularly high affinity of the ligand towards one or another quadruplex fold (including minor or transient conformations) that drives a conformational selection towards these structures.[61–64] The most well-known example of this transformation is the shift from hybrid conformations adopted by the human telomeric sequence in K⁺-rich conditions to an antiparallel form, induced by bis(quinolinium) carboxamide ligands such as PDC (360A), 3AQN, PhenDC3, and their derivatives,[38,44,56,62,65,66] whereas a shift toward a parallel form was observed with several other ligands, including phenanthroline

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4.** Ligand-induced displacement of TO (0.5 µM) from G4-DNA (0.25 µM). Data are presented as DC₅₀ values (i.e., the concentration of the ligand required to displace 50% of TO, mean ± s.d.) obtained from three technical replicates. The experiments were performed in K100 buffer (10 mM LiAsO₂Me₂, 100 mM KCl, 1% v/v DMSO). Note that color scale is not linear.</figcaption></figure>

derivatives devoid of carboxamide groups.[67,68] During the revision of this manuscript, structural details of the PhenDC3-induced conversion of a *hybrid-1* structure (similar to the one formed by 24TTG) into an antiparallel chair-like fold, featuring ligand insertion between two G-quartets and ejection of one K⁺ ion became available, finally shedding light on this intriguing phenomenon.[64] To evaluate the effect of bis(acylhydrazone) ligands on the conformation of G4-DNA, we recorded CD spectra of unlabeled oligonucleotides in the absence and the presence of 0.5, 1, and 2 molar equivalents of selected ligands in K⁺-rich conditions (K100 buffer, 100 mM K⁺). The results demonstrate that all tested ligands induced changes in CD spectra of 25TAG, notably a slight increase of the positive peak at 295 nm and an appearance of a negative peak at 260 nm and a positive peak at 240 nm (Figure 5, a), consistent with a conversion from *hybrid-2* structure adopted by this sequence in the absence of ligands into an antiparallel form. Of note, this transformation was complete with compounds **3Ab** and **3Cb**, but only partial with compounds **3Ef** and **3Ei**. The situation was different with 24TTG whose CD spectra remained consistent with the *hybrid-1* structure in the presence of **3Ab**, **3Cb**, and **3Ef**; only in the presence of compound **3Ei** changes in CD spectra were observed, similar to the ones described above and consistent with the formation of an antiparallel form (Figure 5, b). In the case of antiparallel structures 22CTA (Figure 5, c) and, in particular $hTel21T_{18}$ (Supporting Information, Figure S7, a), addition of ligands **3Ab** and **3Cb** led to a further increase of CD signals characteristic of the antiparallel G4-DNA, namely the negative peak at 260 nm and a positive peak at 295 nm; the effect of compounds **3Ef** and **3Ei** was much less pronounced. Altogether, these results are in line with the phenomena observed with 25TAG and indicate that the ligands are able, to a various extent, induce and/or stabilize antiparallel quadruplex conformations. Finally, CD spectra of parallel G4 *myc22* and *Pu24T* were essentially unaffected in the presence of the ligands, indicating the absence of topology changes (Figure S7, b–c).
FULL PAPER

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5.** CD spectra of a) 25TAG, b) 24TTG and c) 22CTA in the absence (dark green curves) and in the presence of 0.5, 1, and 2 molar equivalents (yellow to red curves) of the indicated ligands. The arrows indicate the ligand-induced changes in CD spectra. c(G4-DNA) = 3 µM in K100 buffer.</figcaption></figure>

The capacity of ligand to induce G4 structures from unfolded oligonucleotides was also investigated. In Bis-Tris buffer devoid of metal cations, CD spectra of all oligonucleotides showed a weak positive band at 260 nm, characteristic of a random-coil conformation; in addition, an even weaker positive band at 290 nm, indicative of the presence of a minor amount of an antiparallel G4 structure, was observed in the case of 22CTA and hTel21T<sub>18</sub> (Supporting Information, Figure S8, c–d). Addition of ligands resulted in drastic, dose-depended changes in CD spectra, observed at ligand concentrations as low as 1.5 µM (i.e., 0.5 molar equivalents). Specifically, in the case of 25TAG, 24TTG, 22CTA and hTel21T<sub>18</sub>, these changes were fully consistent with a ligand-induced antiparallel G4 conformation, characterized by positive peaks at 295 and 240 nm and a negative peak at 260 nm, and with a relative efficacy 3Ab ≈ 3Cb ≈ 3Ei > 3Ef (Figure S8, a–d). In the case of myc22, all ligands induced, with roughly the same efficacy, a parallel G4 structure evidenced by a strong positive CD peak at 260 nm, (Figure S8, e). However, in the case of Pu24T, the induction of a parallel G4 structure was marginal for all ligands (Figure S8, f). Interestingly, this quadruplex is characterized by an exceptionally high cooperativity of K⁺ binding, requiring two cations for the folding.[69] This may explain its reluctance to folding in the absence of K⁺ cations: while most other sequences are able

to fold in the presence of a single K⁺ cation (which is emulated by the ligand in these conditions), Pu24T can accommodate only one ligand in its binding site (see below) which is not sufficient for proper folding of this quadruplex. Altogether, these results highlight the preferential binding of ligands to antiparallel G4 structures, provided they can be formed by a given DNA strand.

**Mass spectrometry (MS) of G4-DNA–ligand complexes.**
Native electrospray (ESI) MS of DNA–ligand complexes is a sensitive method that allows the monitoring of G4 denaturation[70] or conformational changes such as the conversion from a three-quartet to a two-quartet structure, evidenced by the ejection of one of the two K⁺ cations.[62,64,65] We recorded mass spectra of five G4-DNA oligonucleotides previously validated in ESI-MS-compatible conditions (24TTG, 25TAG, 22CTA, myc22, and Pu24T)[71] in the presence of selected compounds (Figure 6 and Supporting Information, Figures S9–S13). The spectra showed the formation of 1:1 and, in most cases, 1:2 (G4 : L) complexes in different ratios. Interestingly, in the case of hybrid G4 structures (24TTG and 25TAG), the formation of complexes with all studied ligands was accompanied by ejection of one of the two K⁺ cations initially present in the predominant structure [G4 + 2K], as evidenced by the appearance of the peaks of complexes [G4 + 1L + 1K] and [G4 + 2L + 1K], in addition to minor peaks of
FULL PAPER

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 6.** Representative ESI mass spectra of a) **25TAG**, b) **24TTG** and c) **22CTA** in the absence (top) and in the presence of equimolar concentrations of ligands **3Ab** (middle) and **3Cb** (bottom). c(G4) = 5 µM in 100 mM TMAA + 1 mM KCl buffer. c.p. = calibration peak (Thermo Tune Mix).</figcaption></figure>

the complexes that maintained two K⁺ ions, [G4 + 1L + 2K] and [G4 + 2L + 2K] (Figure 6, a–b and Supporting Information, Figures S9–S10). Interestingly, in the case of **25TAG**, the ligands differ in their capacity to eject the K⁺ cation and thus to induce a conformational change of this structure, a fact that can be illustrated by a comparison of relative intensities of the peaks of 1:1 complexes [G4 + 1L + 1K] and [G4 + 1L + 2K], with a following trend: PhenCD3 ≈ **3Ab** ≈ **3Cb** > **3Ei** > **3Ef** (Figure 7, a). In contrast, no K⁺ ejection was observed with **22CTA**; instead, the addition of ligands led to the disappearance of the presumably unfolded oligonucleotide species [G4 + 0K] and the formation of complexes predominantly harboring one K⁺ ion (Figure 7, c). Parallel quadruplexes *myc22* and *Pu24T* maintained two K⁺ ions each upon formation of complexes with all ligands (Supporting Information, Figures S11–S13). Altogether, this is reminiscent of the behavior previously observed with PhenDC3, PDC (360A), and pyridostatin (PDS).[65] Taking into account the recently disclosed structural details of the conformational change of the *hybrid-1* structure induced by PhenDC3 and accompanied by K⁺ ejection,[64] this seems to be a general feature of V- or U-shaped bisquinolinium cationic ligands, capable of an insertion between G-quartets.

The relative intensities of molecular peaks of the unbound and ligand-bound species were exploited to obtain the values of apparent dissociation constants ($K_D$) for 1:1 and 1:2 complexes (Table 1).[72] Of note, the strong binding of PhenDC3 to telomeric sequences (**25TAG**: < 1 nM, **22CTA**: 2.1 nM) observed in MS experiments is consistent with the previously reported results of SPR studies ($K_D$ = 2.4 nM).[41] Likewise, bis(acylhydrazones) **3Ab**, **3Cb**, and **3Ei** were also found to tightly bind to telomeric G4 sequences, in particular to *hybrid-2* (**25TAG**) and antiparallel (**22CTA**) structures with low-nanomolar $K_{D1}$ values. Unfortunately, with these structures, the $K_{D1}$ values for several ligands could not be determined with satisfactory accuracy (Table 1) due to essentially complete binding at the employed concentrations (5 µM), resulting in a disappearance of the peak of unbound DNA

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 7.** Relative abundances of K⁺ adducts in mass spectra of a) **25TAG**, b) **24TTG** and c) **22CTA** in the absence of ligands (black) and in 1:1 complexes [G4 + 1L + nK] with **3Ab**, **3Cb**, **3Ef**, **3Ei** and PhenDC3 (red). Experimental conditions are identical to those in Figure 6.</figcaption></figure>

(Supporting Information, Figures S9 and S11). Conversely, binding to the telomeric *hybrid-1* (**24TTG**) and parallel G4 structures (*Pu24T*, *myc22*) was characterized by higher $K_{D1}$ values that, however, were all in the sub-micromolar range.
FULL PAPER

Importantly, this binding preference is in line with the results of CD spectrometry (Figure 5): thus, compounds **3Ab** and **3Cb** that demonstrated the highest affinity to **25TAG** and **22CTA** in MS experiments were most efficient in changing the conformation of **25TAG** towards the antiparallel form, whereas compound **3Ef** characterized by a lower affinity for these structures (**22CTA**: 54 nM, **25TAG**: 80 nM) was much less efficient in inducing the conformational change. Altogether, these observations confirm the hypothesis that conformational change observed with **3Ab**, **3Cb**, PhenDC3, and similar ligands stems from their particularly high affinity to the antiparallel (**22CTA**-like) form of the telomeric sequence. Finally, bis(acylhydrazones) **3Ab**, **3Cb**, and **3Ef** were significantly better than PhenDC3 as ligands for parallel G4 structures, which is also consistent with the results of the FID assay (Figure 4).

<table><caption>**Table 1.** Apparent dissociation constants for 1 : 1 and 1 : 2 complexes ($K_{D1}$ and $K_{D2}$ / nM), obtained from ESI-MS of G4-ligand mixtures.[a]</caption><thead><tr><th>Ligand</th><th></th><th>25TAG</th><th>24TTG</th><th>22CTA</th><th>myc22</th><th>Pu24T</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">3Ab</td><td>$K_{D1}$</td><td></td><td>4.4</td><td>&lt; 1</td><td>53</td><td>81</td></tr><tr><td>$K_{D2}$</td><td>n.a.[b]</td><td>7900</td><td>4700</td><td>12 000</td><td>28 000</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">3Cb</td><td>$K_{D1}$</td><td>&lt; 1</td><td>16</td><td>&lt; 1</td><td>120</td><td>75</td></tr><tr><td>$K_{D2}$</td><td>2100</td><td>63 000</td><td>3200</td><td>50 000</td><td>36 000</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">3Ef</td><td>$K_{D1}$</td><td>80</td><td>420</td><td>54</td><td>210</td><td>58</td></tr><tr><td>$K_{D2}$</td><td>3900</td><td>35 000</td><td>17 000</td><td>n.d.[c]</td><td>n.d.[c]</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">3Ei</td><td>$K_{D1}$</td><td></td><td>310</td><td>4.9</td><td>580</td><td>300</td></tr><tr><td>$K_{D2}$</td><td>n.a.[b]</td><td>2100</td><td>1600</td><td>24 000</td><td>95 000</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">PhenDC3</td><td>$K_{D1}$</td><td>&lt; 1</td><td>22</td><td>2.1</td><td>570</td><td>570</td></tr><tr><td>$K_{D2}$</td><td>n.d.[c]</td><td>7600</td><td>n.d.[c]</td><td>24 000</td><td>41 000</td></tr></tbody></table>

**Fluorescence titrations.** Binding of ligands to fluorophore-labeled G-quadruplexes may induce dose-dependent quenching of the fluorophore's emission, which can be exploited to obtain the values of binding constants in isothermal conditions.[73,74] In this assay, we used four Cy5-labelled G4-forming sequences: 5'-Cy5-25TAG, 5'-Cy5-22CTA, 5'-Cy5-Pu24T, and 5'-Cy5-myc22 (cf. Table S2). Pre-folded oligonucleotides were mixed with serial dilutions of ligand (c = 1.8 nM to 10 µM) and the fluorescence intensity of Cy5 was measured; the corresponding dose-dependent fluorescence quenching curves are shown in Supporting Information, Figure S14. The first transitions in the binding curves were used to obtain the values of dissociation constants through fitting to a 1:1 equilibrium (Table 2); of note, several ligands, in particular, PhenDC3 and **3Ef** gave two-stage titration curves, giving evidence of multi-stage binding processes and/or non-specific quenching at high concentrations (10 µM). However, none of the ligands induced the quenching of the single-stranded hairpin oligonucleotide (5'-Cy5-hp2) at concentrations lower than 5-10 µM (Figure S14), demonstrating the absence of non-specific quenching effects at low concentrations.

<table><caption>**Table 2.** Dissociation constants ($K_d$ / nM) of ligands to G4-DNA determined from fluorimetric titrations with 5'-Cy5-labelled oligonucleotides.[a]</caption><thead><tr><th>Ligand</th><th>25TAG</th><th>22CTA</th><th>myc22</th><th>Pu24T</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>3Ab</td><td>11.3 ± 1.0</td><td>8.3 ± 0.6</td><td>11.2 ± 2.2</td><td>7.5 ± 1.0</td></tr><tr><td>3Cb</td><td>23.8 ± 1.8</td><td>19.1 ± 2.6</td><td>13.9 ± 1.4</td><td>8.5 ± 1.1</td></tr><tr><td>3Ef</td><td>9.2 ± 1.0</td><td>19.7 ± 3.2</td><td>18 ± 26</td><td>14.8 ± 3.8</td></tr><tr><td>3Ei</td><td>&gt; 10 000</td><td>&gt; 10 000</td><td>~ 5500</td><td>~ 2700</td></tr><tr><td>PhenDC3</td><td>3.1 ± 0.2</td><td>16.8 ± 9.4</td><td>8.7 ± 4.0</td><td>6.7 ± 1.6</td></tr></tbody></table>

Among the tested ligands, **3Ab**, **3Cb**, and **3Ef** showed high affinity to all G-quadruplexes ($K_d$ < 30 nM), similar to PhenDC3. While found in the same range, these values did not totally match the $K_D$ values obtained from mass-spectrometric experiments; in addition, this assay was not able to reproduce the preferential binding of **3Ab**, **3Cb**, and PhenDC3 to **25TAG** and **22CTA** suggested by CD spectroscopy and ESI-MS experiments, as the $K_d$ values of these ligands for Pu24T and myc22 were found in the same range (7.5-13.9 nM). Most strikingly, compound **3Ei** did not induce fluorescence quenching of any of the labeled G4-DNA (including **22CTA**) at concentrations lower than 3-10 µM, which is surprising considering its high affinity evidenced by all other techniques. To explain this discrepancy, several hypotheses can be considered. First, it can be proposed that, with all G4 structures, **3Ei** binds to the 3' quartet, i.e., opposite to the fluorophore attachment site (5'), which precludes fluorescence quenching as originally suggested by the authors of this method.[73] However, in the case of Pu24T, this would imply that the binding occurs with the opening of the “bottom” (3') G-quartet that is otherwise hindered by the diagonal snap-back loop (cf. Figure 2, a), which is not consistent with the results of molecular modeling showing that **3Ei** and PhenDC3 occupy similar binding sites (vide infra). The second hypothesis suggests that inefficient fluorescence quenching in the case of **3Ei** may be due to a difference in redox potentials of the N-benzylpyridinium groups in **3Ei** versus N-methylquinolinium groups in **3Ab**, **3Cb**, **3Ef**, and PhenDC3. Since the quenching of the reporter fluorophore by the ligand is most plausibly due to the oxidative photoinduced electron transfer (PeT) process,[38,75] ligands with low reduction potential would perform as poor quenchers in this assay; thus, it is possible that the reduction potential ($E_{red}$) of N-benzylpyridinium substituents in **3Ei** is not sufficient to quench the fluorescence of Cy5. Indeed, a simple comparison of reduction potentials of isolated N-methyl-pyridinium ($E_{red}$ = -1.32 V) and N-methylquinolinium cations ($E_{red}$ = -0.96 V)[76] gives evidence that oxidative PeT is less energetically favorable with N-methylpyridinium cation as a quencher (by 8.3 kcal mol⁻¹, all other parameters being equal). Finally, the third hypothesis suggests that the structure of **3Ei** in the complex may not be favorable for the efficient quenching of Cy5, in particular due to unfavorable distance between the quaternary heterocyclic units of the ligand and the fluorophore; this was further elaborated using molecular modeling.

**Molecular modeling.** In order to get insight into the high affinity of **3Ei** to most G4 structures as well as the inconsistencies observed in fluorimetric titrations described above, we performed

<footnote>[a] Conditions: c(G4-DNA) = c(ligand) = 5 µM in 100 mM TMAA, 1 mM KCl buffer, dT6 (1 µM) was used as internal reference. [b] Not available: the $K_D$ values could not be determined since the concentration of free ligand [L] (Eq. 4, Experimental Section) yielded a negative value due to experimental artifacts. [c] Not detectable: the peak of [G4 + 2L] complex was not observed.</footnote>

<footnote>[a] Conditions: c(5'-Cy5-G4) = 2 nM, c(ligand) = 1.8 nM to 10 µM, buffer: 10 mM LiAsO2Me2, 100 mM KCl, 0.5 w/v % CHAPS, 0.05 v/v % Triton X-100, pH 7.2. Data are means ± s.d. from three independent titrations fitted to a 1:1 model (Experimental Part, Equation 7).</footnote>
molecular docking of selected ligands into two G4 receptors whose structures, in the complex with PhenDC3, were recently determined experimentally. Among these, the telomeric sequence 23TAG (sequence: Supporting Information, Table S2) adopts a *hybrid-1* conformation in the absence of ligand, whereas the binding of PhenDC3 induces a conformational switch into a chair-like antiparallel structure with the insertion of the ligand between two G-quartets (PDB: 7Z9L).[64] Conversely, the snap-back structure adopted by *Pu24T* maintains its parallel conformation upon binding of PhenDC3 (PBD: 2MGN).[77] The validity of the docking protocol was initially validated by redocking the original ligand (PhenDC3). In the case of the antiparallel structure, the *in silico* obtained pose was virtually indistinguishable from the experimentally observed structure (Supporting Information, Figure S15, a); in the case of *Pu24T*, the ligand underwent a conformational change due to the rotation of one carboxamide group, but nonetheless adopted a pose globally similar to the original structure (Figure S15, b) giving evidence of a valid docking protocol. Next, ligands **3Ab**, **3Ef** and **3Ei** were docked into the two receptors. Both **3Ab** and **3Ef** adopted the poses similar to the ones observed with the original ligand, i.e., insertion between two G-quartets in the antiparallel structure and stacking over the top G-quartet in *Pu24T*, driven mostly by π-stacking interactions (Figure 8, a–b). However, in the case of **3Ei**, the positively charged pyridinium substituents were located in the grooves of G4 structures, almost perpendicular to the G4-quartet and the ligand’s plane (Figure 8, c), where they contribute to additional stabilization of the complex due to electrostatic interactions with the phosphate groups. This interaction, particularly efficient in the complex with the antiparallel structure adopted by the telomeric sequence, sheds light on the exceptionally high stabilization of telomeric sequences (25TAG and 22CTA) observed in melting experiments. Finally, the results of molecular modeling indicate that all ligands occupy similar poses with respect to the distance to the 5' terminus which is labelled with the fluorophore in fluorescence titrations, and the differences in ligand poses are therefore unlikely to explain the poor fluorescence quenching observed with **3Ei**. Thus, the origin of this phenomenon is likely to stem from the difference of redox potentials of the ligands as discussed above.

**Cytotoxic effects in human cancer cells.** The cytotoxic effects of four bis(acylhydrazones) (**3Ab**, **3Cb**, **3Ef**, and **3Ei**) were tested in two human cancer cell lines, namely multidrug-resistant glioblastoma line T98G[78] and cisplatin-resistant non-small cell lung carcinoma line A549, as well as non-cancerous lung fibroblast cells MRC-5, and compared with that of PhenDC3. The results (Table 3; growth inhibition curves: Supporting Information, Figure S16) show that bis(acylhydrazone) derivatives were not toxic in T98G cells at concentrations of up to at least 11 µM. whereas PhenDC3 showed significant cytotoxicity (GI₅₀ = 2.9 µM upon 96-h incubation). These results are in line with the earlier data indicating much lower toxicity of compounds **3Ab** (PyDH2) and **3Eb** (PhenDH2) in H1299 (lung carcinoma) cells, compared with PhenDC3.[46] In A549 cells, a clear difference was observed between, on one hand, pyridine (**3Ab**) and pyrimidine (**3Cb**) derivatives that showed low cytotoxicity (GI₅₀ = 57.1 and 64.5 µM, respectively), and on the other hand, phenanthroline derivatives (**3Ef**, **3Ei**, and PhenDC3) that demonstrated GI₅₀ values in the low-micromolar range, with **3Ef** being the most cytotoxic compound (GI₅₀ = 0.4 µM). Finally, all compounds showed rather low cytotoxicity in non-cancerous MRC-5 cells (GI₅₀ > 25–50 µM). Altogether, the selective toxicity of compound **3Ef** in A549 cells

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 8.** Representative docking poses of a) **3Ab**, b) **3Ef** and c) **3Ei** bound to (left) the antiparallel G4 structure adopted by the telomeric sequence 23TAG in the presence of PhenDC3 (from PDB: 7Z9L),[64] and (right) snap-back parallel structure adopted by *Pu24T* (from PDB: 2MGN).[77]</figcaption></figure>

<table><caption>**Table 3.** Cytotoxicity of selected bis(acylhydrazones) and PhenDC3 in T98G, A549 and MRC-5 cell lines upon 96-h incubation.[a]</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Compound</th><th colspan="3">GI<sub>50</sub> / µM, in a cell line</th></tr><tr><th>T98G</th><th>A549</th><th>MRC-5</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><b>3Ab</b> (PyDH2)</td><td>17.8 ± 0.2</td><td>57.1 ± 6.5</td><td>24.8 ± 1.9</td></tr><tr><td><b>3Cb</b></td><td>12.0 ± 0.5</td><td>64.5 ± 2.9</td><td>52.3 ± 15.0</td></tr><tr><td><b>3Ef</b></td><td>11.2 ± 1.4</td><td>0.4 ± 0.06</td><td>26.7 ± 2.4</td></tr><tr><td><b>3Ei</b></td><td>29.7 ± 2.0</td><td>3.2 ± 0.6</td><td>59.1 ± 5.5</td></tr><tr><td>PhenDC3</td><td>2.9 ± 0.2</td><td>6.6 ± 0.6</td><td>34.8 ± 5.0</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote>[a] GI₅₀ is compound concentration inhibiting 50% of cell growth, determined using CellTiter Glo® cell viability assay. Data are means ± s.d. from three biological replicates. Compound vehicle: 0.5% (v/v) DMSO.</footnote>
(with a selectivity index of ~67 with respect to MRC-5 cells) represents a certain therapeutic interest and warrants further investigations, including the profiling of this compound in other cell lines and investigation of the mechanism of cell death. Considering the fact that the G4-binding properties of bis(acyl-hydrazones) are quite close to those of PhenDC3, the differential toxicity profiles may also be attributable to non-G4-related cellular effects; moreover, they may also arise from the differences in cellular uptake of compounds by various cell lines. Finally, the low toxicity of bis(acylhydrazones) in non-cancerous cells may be exploited in applications where direct cell killing is not desired, such as G4-mediated immunotherapy.

## Conclusion

In this work, we developed a simple method for rapid synthesis of "ready-to-screen" G4-targeted libraries of cationic bis(acyl-hydrazones). Specifically, heating of mixtures of aldehyde and N-acylhydrazide building blocks in the presence of a catalyst (AcOH) gives the ligands with acceptable purity (87% on average) as DMSO solutions at approximately 2 mM concentration. Provided both the catalyst (after neutralization through a dilution with a suitable buffer) and the reaction solvent are rather inert in biophysical experiments, these libraries can be used directly, i.e., without any purification step, in parallel screening to estimate their capacity to stabilize various G-quadruplexes (or any other nucleic acid structures). Furthermore, given the non-interfering nature of the catalyst and the solvent, these libraries potentially may be directly used in different kinds of biological screening experiments.

In our hands, screening of a library of 90 bis(acylhydrazones) by fluorescence-melting experiments performed with four G4 sequences of different topologies (and one hairpin control) allowed us to analyze the structure-activity relationships and select three promising novel compounds for further investigations. These compounds were re-synthesized in a preparative manner and their interaction with targets was studied by several additional techniques. First of all, we confirmed that $\Delta T_m$ values obtained in the fluorescence-melting experiment performed with "as-synthesized" compounds did not differ from the values obtained with pure samples. We also performed fluorescence-melting experiments using lower concentrations of ligands (0.1 to 0.8 µM, compared to standard 1 µM) to study dose-dependent thermal stabilization of G4s by ligands in more detail; all these results confirmed the high potential of compound **3Ei** since with all four G4-DNA and, in particular, with **22CTA**, this ligand induced thermal stabilization effects comparable with, or superior to the benchmark G4 ligand PhenDC3. The results of the FID assay, performed with six G-quadruplexes of different topologies, also suggested the selectivity of **3Ei** for the antiparallel structure adopted by **22CTA**. The results of CD spectroscopy point out to a conformational change of the *hybrid-2* structure (25TAG) into an antiparallel structure induced by compounds **3Ab**, **3Cb**, **3Ei**, and, to a lesser extent, **3Ef**, most likely due the insertion of the ligands between the two G-quartets as was recently demonstrated for PhenDC3[64] and corroborated by molecular modelling. In the case of *hybrid-1* structure (24TTG), only compound **3Ei** was able to induce a partial conformational change, presumably due to the higher intrinsic stability of this hybrid fold. Native mass-spectrometric experiments confirmed the high G4 affinity of the novel compounds and corroborated the ligand-induced

conformational changes of the hybrid G4 structures (24TTG and 25TAG) induced by compounds **3Ab**, **3Cb**, **3Ei**, and, to a lesser extent, **3Ef**, evidenced in mass spectra by the ejection of one K⁺ cation upon formation of ligand–G4 complexes. Isothermal fluorimetric titrations with Cy5-labelled G4-DNA showed a homogenous response of **3Ab**, **3Cb**, **3Ef**, and PhenDC3 to all studied G4-sequences; however, in the case of compound **3Ei**, the ligand-induced fluorescence quenching of Cy5 was dramatically less efficient with all G4-forming sequences. This observation gives an evidence of a potential pitfall of this technique that can be most likely attributed to differences in the redox potential of this ligand, resulting in inefficient fluorescence quenching despite a tight binding evidenced by all other techniques and molecular modeling. Finally, cytotoxicity studies in three cell lines demonstrated therapeutically interesting properties of the novel compounds, in particular low cytotoxicity in non-cancerous cells and selective activity of one of the compounds (**3Ef**) in A549 lung cancer cells, that deserve further mechanistic investigations.

## Experimental Section

**Synthesis of "ready-to-screen" samples of bis(acylhydrazones):** In glass screw-cap vials, stock solutions of bis(acylhydrazides) **1A–J** (9 mM in DMSO, 120 µL) were mixed with stock solutions of aldehydes **2a–i** (9 mM in DMSO, 270 µL) and a mixture of DMSO with glacial acetic acid (4:1 v/v, 150 µL), to give total reaction volumes of 540 µL each. The reaction mixtures were sealed and heated at 60 °C (drying oven) for 48 h without stirring. After cooling to room temperature, the solutions were analyzed by LC/MS (Supporting Information, Table S1). Samples with acceptable purity (> 80%, as per LC peak area) were diluted with an appropriate buffer (Table S3) for fluorescence-melting experiments, or frozen at –20 °C for long-term storage.

**Oligonucleotides:** All DNA oligonucleotides used in this work are listed in Table S2. HPLC-purified oligonucleotides were purchased from Eurogentec, dissolved in deionized water at a concentration of 100 µM, and stored at –20 °C when not in use.

**Fluorescence melting experiments:** Fluorimetric thermal denaturation experiments were performed with double-labeled oligonucleotides (5'-FAM, 3'-TAMRA, Table S2) which were annealed (95 °C, 5 min) in the corresponding buffers (Table S3) at a concentration of 0.23 µM prior to analysis. In a 96-well qPCR plate, the annealed oligonucleotide (22 µL) was mixed with samples of a ligand (3 µL of a 8.3 µM solution, prepared by dilution of a "ready-to-screen" sample with an appropriate buffer, or from stock solution of a pure ligand), to give samples with a final concentration of oligonucleotide of 0.2 µM and ligand of 1 µM, in a total volume of 25 µL per well. Thermal denaturation runs were performed with a 7900HT Fast Real-Time qPCR instrument (Applied Biosystems) using a single heating ramp of 0.5 °C min⁻¹ and monitoring the fluorescence intensity in the FAM channel. $T_m$ values were determined through peak analysis of first-order derivative plots of fluorescence vs. temperature, and ligand-induced $T_m$ shifts ($\Delta T_m$) were calculated as a difference of mean denaturation temperatures in the presence and in the absence of ligands, from three independent experiments.

**FID assay:** The non-labeled oligonucleotides were annealed (95 °C, 5 min) in K100 buffer (10 mM LiAsO₂Me₂, 100 mM KCl, pH 7.2) supplemented with 1 mM EDTA and 1% v/v DMSO, at a concentration of 5 µM and, after cooling, supplemented with TO (10 µM). Every row of a black-bottom, 96-well microplate was filled with K100 buffer (q.s.p. 200 µL per well), pre-folded oligonucleotide + TO solution (final concentrations: 0.25 and 0.5 µM, respectively), and an extemporaneously prepared ligand solution (5 µM in the same buffer; final ligand concentration: 0 to 2.5 µM).

for personal use only.
After 5 min of orbital shaking, fluorescence intensity was measured with a Fluostar Omega microplate reader (BMG Labtech) using the following parameters: 20 flashes per well, emission / excitation filters: 485 / 520 nm, gain adjusted at 80% of the fluorescence from the most fluorescent well. The experiments were performed in triplicate. The percentage of TO displacement was calculated from the fluorescence intensity (F) as % (TO displacement) = 100 × (1 - F / F₀), where F₀ is the fluorescence intensity of TO-DNA complex in the absence of ligands. The percentage of displacement was plotted against the concentration of added ligand, and ligand affinity was characterized by the concentration required to decrease the fluorescence of the probe by 50% (DC₅₀) after interpolation of the displacement curve. A control experiment was performed with the hairpin DNA oligonucleotide (hp2) in identical conditions.

**CD spectroscopy:** Samples for CD spectroscopy contained 3 µM oligonucleotides diluted either in K100 buffer (and subsequently annealed at 95 °C), or in 10 mM Bis-Tris-HCl buffer, pH 7.2 (not annealed), and supplemented with 0.5, 1, or 2 molar equiv. of ligands or an equal volume of DMSO (control). CD spectra were recorded with a Jasco J-1500 spectropolarimeter, in quartz cuvettes with an optical path length of 0.5 cm. Parameters used for CD spectra acquisition: wavelength range, 230–330 nm; scan speed, 50 nm min⁻¹; number of averaged scans, 3; data pitch, 0.5 nm; bandwidth, 2 nm; integration time, 1 s; temperature, 22 °C. Spectra were corrected for the blank.

**Mass spectrometry:** Native ESI-MS spectra of DNA and DNA–ligand complexes were obtained using an Exactive ESI–Orbitrap mass spectrometer (Thermo Scientific, Bremen, Germany). ESI spray voltage and capillary voltage were set to 3.50 kV and –3.5 kV, respectively. Capillary temperature was set to 275 °C. The syringe injection rate was 200 µL h⁻¹. The presented spectra (Figures S7–S11) result from 3-min accumulations (1 scan per 1.1 s). The concentrations of the initial stock solutions of DNA (~1 mM) were measured by UV absorbance at 260 nm. 50 µM solutions of DNA were annealed in buffer that contained 100 mM trimethylammonium acetate (TMAA, Ultra for HPLC, Fluka analytical) and 1 mM KCl (>99.999%, Sigma) by heating at 85 °C for 10 min, followed by slow cooling to room temperature. Analyzed samples contained 5 µM of G4-DNA, 0 or 5 µM of ligand, and 1 µM of the oligonucleotide 5'-d(TTTTTT)-3' (dT₆, internal control) in a 100 mM TMAA, 1 mM KCl buffer, and were incubated 2 h before the injection.

The charge state 6– was examined because it contained fewer non-specific potassium adducts. Peak areas (A) of the signals of free G4, G4 + 1L and G4 + 2L complexes (Supporting Information, Table S7) were determined assuming that their response factors are equal; this was supported by the fact that total DNA peak areas compared to the signal of dT₆ did not change significantly without or with ligand. Based on this assumption, the concentration of each species was determined from the mass balance equation and from the peak areas, disregarding any particular distribution of K⁺ adducts (Equations 1–3):

$$[G4]_{\text{free}} = c(G4) \times \frac{A(G4)}{A(G4) + A(G4 + 1L) + A(G4 + 2L)} \quad (1)$$

$$[G4 + 1L] = c(G4) \times \frac{A(G4 + 1L)}{A(G4) + A(G4 + 1L) + A(G4 + 2L)} \quad (2)$$

$$[G4 + 2L] = c(G4) \times \frac{A(G4 + 2L)}{A(G4) + A(G4 + 1L) + A(G4 + 2L)} \quad (3)$$

The concentration of free ligand, [L]free, was determined through the mass balance equation (Equation 4):

$$[L]_{\text{free}} = [L]_{\text{tot}} - [G4 + 1L] - 2[G4 + 2L] \quad (4)$$

Apparent consecutive dissociation constants ($K_{D1}$ and $K_{D2}$) were calculated using Equations (5–6):

$$K_{D1} = \frac{[G4]_{\text{free}} \times [L]_{\text{free}}}{[G4 + 1L]} \quad (5)$$

$$K_{D2} = \frac{[G4 + 1L] \times [L]_{\text{free}}}{[G4 + 2L]} \quad (6)$$

**Fluorescence titrations:** Isothermal fluorescence titrations were performed as described elsewhere.[49,73] 5'-Cy5-labelled oligonucleotides were dissolved at a concentration of 1 µM in K100 buffer (Table S3), annealed at 95 °C for 5 min, slowly cooled to room temperature, and then further diluted with the titration buffer (10 mM LiAsO₂Me₂, 100 mM KCl, 0.5 w/v % CHAPS, 0.05 v/v % Triton X-100, pH 7.2) to a final concentration of 2.22 nM. Ten serial dilutions (1:1) of ligands in H₂O containing 0.1% v/v DMSO were prepared starting from two ligand solutions with initial concentrations of 100 µM and 18 µM, respectively, resulting in a total of 22 solutions with different ligand concentrations and two no-ligand controls. The oligonucleotide solution (90 µL) and ligand solutions (10 µL) were transferred into 96-well black, flat-bottom polystyrene non-binding (NBS) microplates (Corning) (final oligonucleotide concentration: 2 nM, final ligand concentration: from 10 µM to 1.8 nM). After incubation for 2 h at room temperature, fluorescence intensity was measured on a CLARIOstar Plus microplate reader (BMG) using 590BP50 (excitation), LP639 (dichroic) and 675BP50 (emission) filters and an integration time of 0.5 s per well. The fluorescence intensity was normalized by dividing the raw value by the mean intensity of no-ligand wells. The experiments were performed in triplicate. The titration curves (Figure S14) were fitted to a 1:1 binding model using Equation (7) in OriginPro 2020b (OriginLab Corporation, Northampton, MA, USA).

$$F = F_0 - (F_0 - F_b) \times \frac{A + x/c + 1 - \sqrt{(A + x/c + 1)^2 - 4 \times x/c}}{2} \quad (7)$$

where F₀ and F_b are fluorescence intensity in the absence and in the presence of saturating concentration of the ligand, respectively; x is a concentration of the ligand and A = K_d / c, where K_d is the dissociation constant and c is the concentration of labeled oligonucleotide (2 nM).

**Molecular docking:** The NMR-solved structures of the TAG23–PhenDC3[64] and Pu24T–PhenDC3[77] complexes were downloaded from the Protein Data Bank (https://www.rcsb.org, PDB ID: 7Z9L and 2MGN, respectively). Only the first frames, which presented the least NMR constraint violations, were considered for the study. The ligand was removed, and one (7Z9L) or two (2MGN) K⁺ ions (missing in the NMR-derived structures) were positioned at the center of mass of the eight guanine oxygen atoms of each two consecutive G-quartets. These G4 structures were used as receptors for docking. The putative binding sites were defined where PhenDC3 was initially positioned in the PDB structures, i.e., between the first (G3·G11·G15·G23) and the second (G4·G10·G16·G22) G-quartets (7Z9L), or above the 5' (G4·G8·G13·G17) G-quartet (2MGN). To delimit the binding site, the nucleotides at 5 Å around PhenDC3 were selected, and nucleotides beyond this distance were added if necessary to guarantee the continuity of the site. Based on this selection, two cubic boxes were created using Glide package of the Schrödinger suite (version 12.2.012):[79–81] one of 10 Å to determine the space where the center of the ligand will be created, and a bigger one of 30 Å to determine the space where the ligand would be able to move. The two boxes were placed in the center of the binding site. The structures of the ligands were prepared with the LigPrep package from the same Schrödinger suite using the default force field (OPLS 3e) and keeping the charge state (2+) for all ligands. Then Glide was used for docking, with the default parameters. For each ligand, 10 poses were generated and analyzed. Molecular graphics were generated with UCSF Chimera.[82]

**Cytotoxicity assay:** Cytotoxicity of compound was investigated at CIBI platform (ICSN, Gif-sur-Yvette, France). Adherent T98G, A549 and MRC5 cells were grown in Minimum Essential Medium (MEM (1X) + GlutaMAX™, Life Technologies) supplemented with 1% penicillin/streptomycin (Life Technologies), 10% fetal bovine serum (Biowest) and 1% MEM Non-
Essential Amino Acids (MEM NEAA (100X), Life Technologies), kept in humidified atmosphere with 5% CO₂ in air at 37 °C and subcultured twice a week by dispersal with TrypLE™ Express Enzyme (Life Technologies). For growth inhibition experiments, cells were seeded at a 0.125–0.25 × 10⁵ cells mL⁻¹ in a 25 cm² flask 3-4 days before the experiment in the conditions mentioned above. After reaching this time, media was removed and the cells were washed with 5 mL of sterile PBS. For each flask, 100 µL of TrypLE™ Express Enzyme (Life Technologies) was added to the flask for 5–7 minutes at 37 °C, followed by 900 µL of medium. Cells were resuspended in media at a concentration of 0.125 × 10⁵ cells mL⁻¹. 200 µL of this suspension was added per well on a 96 well plate. After 4 h, 1 µL of compound dissolved in DMSO solutions were added to obtain a 25 to 0.015 µM range concentrations (concentration of DMSO per well: 0.5% v/v). The cells were incubated for 96 h in the conditions mentioned above. Cell viability was assessed by using CellTiter Glo® Luminescent Cell Viability Assay as per kit instructions. Cells viability (V, %) was determined as the ratio of the luminescent signal of the cells treated with the compound(s) and the untreated control (DMSO, 0.5% v/v). Each condition was assayed at least three times with two technical replicate per plate. Gl<sub>50</sub> values were obtained by a nonlinear fitting using a dose response curve by plotting the normalized response vs. log (c(ligand) in GraphPad Prism 6 (Supporting Information, Figure S16).

## Acknowledgements

The authors sincerely thank Dr. Jerome Bignon and Ms. Laurie Askenatzis (CIBI Platform, ICSN, Gif-sur-Yvette) as well as Dr. Sophie Bombard (CMBC) for help with cytotoxicity studies, Dr. Eric Largy (ARNA) and Dr. Frédéric Rosu (IECB) for assistance and discussions regarding mass-spectrometry experiments, and Dr. Marie-Paule Teulade-Fichou (CMBC) for a gift of PhenDC3 and stimulating discussions. Dr. Jorge González García is acknowledged for preliminary experiments related to this project. This work was supported by Agence Nationale de la Recherche (grant-in aid ANR-17-CE07-0004-01, to AG), French Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Innovation (PhD fellowship, to OR), European Union's Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (Marie Skłodowska-Curie Grant Agreement No. 666003 through an IC-3i international PhD programme, to JFP), and benefited from access to Plateforme de BioPhysico-Chimie Structurale of the IECB (Univ. Bordeaux, CNRS UMS3033, Inserm US001) for native mass spectrometry.

**Keywords:** G-quadruplexes • N-acylhydrazones • G4 ligands • combinatorial chemistry • nitrogen heterocycles

[1] J. Spiegel, S. Adhikari, S. Balasubramanian, *Trends Chem. 2020*, **2**, 123–136.

[2] B. P. Belotserkovskii, S. M. Mirkin, P. C. Hanawalt, *Chem. Rev.* **2013**, *113*, 8620–8637.

[3] N. Kim, *Curr. Med. Chem.* **2019**, *26*, 2898–2917.

[4] J.-D. Beaudoin, J.-P. Perreault, *Nucleic Acids Res.* **2010**, *38*, 7022–7036.

[5] D. S. M. Lee, L. R. Ghanem, Y. Barash, *Nat. Commun.* **2020**, *11*, 527.

[6] C.-Y. Lee, C. McNerney, K. Ma, W. Zhao, A. Wang, S. Myong, *Nat. Commun.* **2020**, *11*, 3392.

[7] V. Brázda, L. Hároníková, J. Liao, M. Fojta, *Int. J. Mol. Sci.* **2014**, *15*, 17493–17517.

[8] J. Robinson, F. Raguseo, S. P. Nuccio, D. Liano, M. Di Antonio, *Nucleic Acids Res.* **2021**, *49*, 8419–8431.

[9] L. Savva, S. N. Georgiades, *Molecules* **2021**, *26*, 841.

[10] Z.-Y. Sun, X.-N. Wang, S.-Q. Cheng, X.-X. Su, T.-M. Ou, *Molecules* **2019**, *24*, 396.

[11] H. Su, J. Xu, Y. Chen, Q. Wang, Z. Lu, Y. Chen, K. Chen, S. Han, Z. Fang, P. Wang, B.-F. Yuan, X. Zhou, *J. Am. Chem. Soc.* **2021**, *143*, 1917–1923.

[12] S. A. Ohnmacht, S. Neidle, *Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett.* **2014**, *24*, 2602–2612.

[13] S. Neidle, *Nat. Rev. Chem.* **2017**, *1*, 0041.

[14] A. Local, H. Zhang, K. D. Benbatoul, P. Folger, X. Sheng, C.-Y. Tsai, S. B. Howell, W. G. Rice, *Mol. Cancer Ther.* **2018**, *17*, 1177–1186.

[15] H. Xu, M. Di Antonio, S. McKinney, V. Mathew, B. Ho, N. J. O'Neil, N. Dos Santos, J. Silvester, V. Wei, J. Garcia, F. Kabeer, D. Lai, P. Soriano, J. Banáth, D. S. Chiu, D. Yap, D. D. Le, F. B. Ye, A. Zhang, K. Thu, J. Soong, S. Lin, A. H. C. Tsai, T. Osako, T. Algara, D. N. Saunders, J. Wong, J. Xian, M. B. Bally, J. D. Brenton, G. W. Brown, S. P. Shah, D. Cescon, T. W. Mak, C. Caldas, P. C. Stirling, P. Hieter, S. Balasubramanian, S. Aparicio, *Nat. Commun.* **2017**, *8*, 14432.

[16] J. Hilton, K. Gelmon, P. L. Bedard, D. Tu, H. Xu, A. V. Tinker, R. Goodwin, S. A. Laurie, D. Jonker, A. R. Hansen, Z. W. Veitch, D. J. Renouf, L. Hagerman, H. Lui, B. Chen, D. Kellar, I. Li, S.-E. Lee, T. Kono, B. Y. C. Cheng, D. Yap, D. Lai, S. Beatty, J. Soong, K. I. Pritchard, I. Soria-Bretones, E. Chen, H. Feilotter, M. Rushton, L. Seymour, S. Aparicio, D. W. Cescon, *Nat. Commun.* **2022**, *13*, 3607.

[17] V. S. Chambers, G. Marsico, J. M. Boutell, M. Di Antonio, G. P. Smith, S. Balasubramanian, *Nat. Biotechnol.* **2015**, *33*, 877–881.

[18] J. F. Moruno-Manchon, P. Lejault, Y. Wang, B. McCauley, P. Honarpisheh, D. A. Morales Scheihing, S. Singh, W. Dang, N. Kim, A. Urayama, L. Zhu, D. Monchaud, L. D. McCullough, A. S. Tsvetkov, *eLife* **2020**, *9*, e52283.

[19] D. R. Calabrese, X. Chen, E. C. Leon, S. M. Gaikwad, Z. Phyo, W. M. Hewitt, S. Alden, T. A. Hilimire, F. He, A. M. Michalowski, J. K. Simmons, L. B. Saunders, S. Zhang, D. Connors, K. J. Walters, B. A. Mock, J. S. Schneekloth, *Nat. Commun.* **2018**, *9*, 4229.

[20] M.-H. Hu, Y.-Q. Wang, Z.-Y. Yu, L.-N. Hu, T.-M. Ou, S.-B. Chen, Z.-S. Huang, J.-H. Tan, *J. Med. Chem.* **2018**, *61*, 2447–2459.

[21] S. Asamitsu, T. Bando, H. Sugiyama, *Chem. Eur. J.* **2019**, *25*, 417–430.

[22] H. R. Nasiri, N. M. Bell, K. I. E. McLuckie, J. Husby, C. Abell, S. Neidle, S. Balasubramanian, *Chem. Commun.* **2014**, *50*, 1704–1707.

[23] M. Tassinari, A. Lena, E. Butovskaya, V. Pirota, M. Nadai, M. Freccero, F. Doria, S. Richter, *Molecules* **2018**, *23*, 1874.

[24] A. Litovchick, X. Tian, M. I. Monteiro, K. M. Kennedy, M.-A. Guié, P. Centrella, Y. Zhang, M. A. Clark, A. D. Keefe, *Molecules* **2019**, *24*, 2026.

[25] C. Platella, D. Musumeci, A. Arciello, F. Doria, M. Freccero, A. Randazzo, J. Amato, B. Pagano, D. Montesarchio, *Anal. Chim. Acta* **2018**, *1030*, 133–141.

[26] C. Platella, E. Napolitano, C. Riccardi, D. Musumeci, D. Montesarchio, *ChemistryOpen* **2022**, *11*, e20220090.

[27] D. A. Flusberg, N. F. Rizvi, V. Kutilek, C. Andrews, P. Saradjian, C. Chamberlin, P. Curran, B. Swalm, S. Kattar, G. F. Smith, P. Dandliker, E. B. Nickbarg, J. O'Neil, *SLAS Discov. Adv. Sci. Drug Discov.* **2019**, *24*, 142–157.

[28] M. Scalabrin, M. Nadai, M. Tassinari, S. Lago, F. Doria, I. Frasson, M. Freccero, S. N. Richter, *Anal. Chem.* **2021**, *93*, 15243–15252.

[29] V. Rakers, P. Cadinu, J. B. Edel, R. Vilar, *Chem. Sci.* **2018**, *9*, 3459–3469.

[30] J. Amato, R. Morigi, B. Pagano, A. Pagano, S. Ohnmacht, A. De Magis, Y.-P. P. Tiang, G. Capranico, A. Locatelli, A. Graziadio, A. Leoni, M. Rambaldi, E. Novellino, S. Neidle, A. Randazzo, *J. Med. Chem.* **2016**, *59*, 5706–5720.

[31] J. Amato, G. Miglietta, R. Morigi, N. Iaccarino, A. Locatelli, A. Leoni, E. Novellino, B. Pagano, G. Capranico, A. Randazzo, *J. Med. Chem.* **2020**, *63*, 3090–3103.

[32] B. Prasad, R. N. Das, J. Jamroskovic, R. Kumar, M. Hedenström, N. Sabouri, E. Chorell, *Chem. Eur. J.* **2020**, *26*, 9561–9572.

[33] C. Granotier, G. Pennarun, L. Riou, F. Hoffschir, L. R. Gauthier, A. De Cian, D. Gomez, E. Mandine, J. F. Riou, J. L. Mergny, P. Mailliet, B. Dutrillaux, F. D. Boussin, *Nucleic Acids Res.* **2005**, *33*, 4182–4190.

[34] G. Pennarun, C. Granotier, L. R. Gauthier, D. Gomez, F. Hoffschir, E. Mandine, J.-F. Riou, J.-L. Mergny, P. Mailliet, F. D. Boussin, *Oncogene* **2005**, *24*, 2917–2928.
[35] D. Verga, F. Hamon, F. Poyer, S. Bombard, M.-P. Teulade-Fichou, *Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.* **2014**, *53*, 994–998.

[36] M. Schoonover, S. M. Kerwin, *Bioorg. Med. Chem.* **2012**, *20*, 6904–6918.

[37] P. Yang, A. De Cian, M.-P. Teulade-Fichou, J. Mergny, D. Monchaud, *Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.* **2009**, *48*, 2188–2191.

[38] X. Xie, O. Reznichenko, L. Chaput, P. Martin, M.-P. Teulade-Fichou, A. Granzhan, *Chem. Eur. J.* **2018**, *24*, 12638–12651.

[39] T. Masson, C. Landras Guetta, E. Laigre, A. Cucchiarini, P. Duchambon, M.-P. Teulade-Fichou, D. Verga, *Nucleic Acids Res.* **2021**, *49*, 12644–12660.

[40] A. De Cian, E. DeLemos, J.-L. Mergny, M.-P. Teulade-Fichou, D. Monchaud, *J. Am. Chem. Soc.* **2007**, *129*, 1856–1857.

[41] L. Bonnat, L. Bar, B. Génnaro, H. Bonnet, O. Jarjayes, F. Thomas, J. Dejeu, E. Defrancq, T. Lavergne, *Chem. Eur. J.* **2017**, *23*, 5602–5613.

[42] K. G. Zyner, D. S. Mulhearn, S. Adhikari, S. Martínez Cuesta, M. Di Antonio, N. Erard, G. J. Hannon, D. Tannahill, S. Balasubramanian, *eLife* **2019**, *8*, e46793.

[43] M. J. Lista, R. P. Martins, O. Billant, M.-A. Contesse, S. Findakly, P. Pochard, C. Daskalogianni, C. Beauvineau, C. Guetta, C. Jamin, M.-P. Teulade-Fichou, R. Fåhraeus, C. Voisset, M. Blondel, *Nat. Commun.* **2017**, *8*, 16043.

[44] V. Dhamodharan, S. Harikrishna, C. Jagadeeswaran, K. Halder, P. I. Pradeepkumar, *J. Org. Chem.* **2012**, *77*, 229–242.

[45] M. Anas, R. Sharma, V. Dhamodharan, P. I. Pradeepkumar, A. Manhas, K. Srivastava, S. Ahmed, N. Kumar, *Biochemistry* **2017**, *56*, 6691–6699.

[46] O. Reznichenko, A. Quillévéré, R. P. Martins, N. Loaëc, H. Kang, M. J. Lista, C. Beauvineau, J. González-García, R. Guillot, C. Voisset, C. Daskalogianni, R. Fåhraeus, M.-P. Teulade-Fichou, M. Blondel, A. Granzhan, *Eur. J. Med. Chem.* **2019**, *178*, 13–29.

[47] A. Granzhan, R. P. Martins, R. Fåhraeus, M. Blondel, M.-P. Teulade-Fichou, in *Annu. Rep. Med. Chem.*, Elsevier Inc., **2020**, pp. 243–286.

[48] A. J.-L. Zheng, A. Thermou, P. Guixens Gallardo, L. Malbert-Colas, C. Daskalogianni, N. Vaudiau, P. Brohagen, A. Granzhan, M. Blondel, M.-P. Teulade-Fichou, R. P. Martins, R. Fahraeus, *Life Sci. Alliance* **2022**, *5*, e202101232.

[49] O. Reznichenko, A. Cucchiarini, V. Gabelica, A. Granzhan, *Org. Biomol. Chem.* **2021**, *19*, 379–386.

[50] D. Aumann, L. W. Deady, *J. Chem. Soc. Chem. Commun.* **1973**, 32.

[51] R. Brenk, A. Schipani, D. James, A. Krasowski, I. H. Gilbert, J. Frearson, P. G. Wyatt, *ChemMedChem* **2008**, *3*, 435–444.

[52] S. M. Corsello, J. A. Bittker, Z. Liu, J. Gould, P. McCarren, J. E. Hirschman, S. E. Johnston, A. Vrcic, B. Wong, M. Khan, J. Asiedu, R. Narayan, C. C. Mader, A. Subramanian, T. R. Golub, *Nat. Med.* **2017**, *23*, 405–408.

[53] A. De Cian, L. Guittat, M. Kaiser, B. Saccà, S. Amrane, A. Bourdoncle, P. Alberti, M.-P. Teulade-Fichou, L. Lacroix, J.-L. Mergny, *Methods* **2007**, *42*, 183–195.

[54] D. Renčiuk, J. Zhou, L. Beaurepaire, A. Guédin, A. Bourdoncle, J.-L. Mergny, *Methods* **2012**, *57*, 122–128.

[55] A. De Rache, J.-L. Mergny, *Biochimie* **2015**, *115*, 194–202.

[56] A. F. Larsen, M. C. Nielsen, T. Ulven, *Chem. Eur. J.* **2012**, *18*, 10892–902.

[57] T. Santos, J. Lopes-Nunes, D. Alexandre, A. Miranda, J. Figueiredo, M. S. Silva, J.-L. Mergny, C. Cruz, *Biochimie* **2022**, *200*, 8–18.

[58] J. Mergny, L. Lacroix, *Curr. Protoc. Nucleic Acid Chem.* **2009**, *37*, 1–15.

[59] P. L. T. Tran, E. Largy, F. Hamon, M.-P. Teulade-Fichou, J.-L. Mergny, *Biochimie* **2011**, *93*, 1288–1296.

[60] M. Zuffo, A. Guédin, E.-D. Leriche, F. Doria, V. Piroma, V. Gabelica, J.-L. Mergny, M. Freccero, *Nucleic Acids Res.* **2018**, *46*, e115.

[61] Y. Ma, K. Iida, K. Nagasawa, *Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun.* **2020**, *531*, 3–17.

[62] M. J. Lecours, A. Marchand, A. Anwar, C. Guetta, W. S. Hopkins, V. Gabelica, *Biochim. Biophys. Acta - Gen. Subj.* **2017**, *1861*, 1353–1361.

[63] M. Aznauryan, S. L. Noer, C. W. Pedersen, J. Mergny, M. Teulade-Fichou, V. Birkedal, *ChemBioChem* **2021**, *22*, 1811–1817.

[64] A. Ghosh, M. Trajkovski, M. Teulade-Fichou, V. Gabelica, J. Plavec, *Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.* **2022**, *61*, e202207384.

[65] A. Marchand, A. Granzhan, K. Iida, Y. Tsushima, Y. Ma, K. Nagasawa, M. P. Teulade-Fichou, V. V. Gabelica, *J. Am. Chem. Soc.* **2015**, *137*, 750–756.

[66] M. Bončina, Č. Podlipnik, I. Piantanida, J. Eilmes, M.-P. Teulade-Fichou, G. Vesnaver, J. Lah, *Nucleic Acids Res.* **2015**, *43*, 10376–10386.

[67] N. M. Gueddouda, M. R. Hurtado, S. Moreau, L. Ronga, R. N. Das, S. Savrimoutou, S. Rubio, A. Marchand, O. Mendoza, M. Marchivie, L. Elmi, A. Chansavang, V. Desplat, V. Gabelica, A. Bourdoncle, J.-L. Mergny, J. Guillon, *ChemMedChem* **2017**, *12*, 146–160.

[68] M. Perenon, H. Bonnet, T. Lavergne, J. Dejeu, E. Defrancq, *Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.* **2020**, *22*, 4158–4164.

[69] A. Marchand, V. Gabelica, *Nucleic Acids Res.* **2016**, *44*, 10999–11012.

[70] A. Marchand, F. Rosu, R. Zenobi, V. Gabelica, *J. Am. Chem. Soc.* **2018**, *140*, 12553–12565.

[71] A. Ghosh, E. Largy, V. Gabelica, *Nucleic Acids Res.* **2021**, *49*, 2333–2345.

[72] F. Rosu, E. De Pauw, V. Gabelica, *Biochimie* **2008**, *90*, 1074–1087.

[73] D. D. Le, M. Di Antonio, L. K. M. Chan, S. Balasubramanian, *Chem. Commun.* **2015**, *51*, 8048–8050.

[74] A. A. Tanpure, S. G. Srivatsan, *Nucleic Acids Res.* **2015**, *43*, e149.

[75] N. S. Clovis, S. Sen, *J. Phys. Chem. B* **2022**, *126*, 6007–6015.

[76] A. L. Speelman, J. G. Gillmore, *J. Phys. Chem. A* **2008**, *112*, 5684–5690.

[77] W. J. Chung, B. Heddi, F. Hamon, M.-P. Teulade-Fichou, A. T. Phan, *Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.* **2014**, *53*, 999–1002.

[78] G. H. Stein, *J. Cell. Physiol.* **1979**, *99*, 43–54.

[79] Schrödinger Release 2019-4, Schrödinger, LLC, New York, NY, **2019**.

[80] R. A. Friesner, J. L. Banks, R. B. Murphy, T. A. Halgren, J. J. Klicic, D. T. Mainz, M. P. Repasky, E. H. Knoll, M. Shelley, J. K. Perry, D. E. Shaw, P. Francis, P. S. Shenkin, *J. Med. Chem.* **2004**, *47*, 1739–1749.

[81] T. A. Halgren, R. B. Murphy, R. A. Friesner, H. S. Beard, L. L. Frye, W. T. Pollard, J. L. Banks, *J. Med. Chem.* **2004**, *47*, 1750–1759.

[82] E. F. Pettersen, T. D. Goddard, C. C. Huang, G. S. Couch, D. M. Greenblatt, E. C. Meng, T. E. Ferrin, *J. Comput. Chem.* **2004**, *25*, 1605–1612.
FULL PAPER

WILEY-VCH

Entry for the Table of Contents

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /></figure>

**Ready to screen:** A library of cationic bis(acylhydrazones) as putative G4-DNA ligands was prepared by a straightforward condensation of the corresponding building blocks. Screening of the resulting samples (without any isolation or purification steps) by fluorescence-melting experiments resulted in the identification of three novel hits, whose interaction with G4-DNA targets was studied in detail by several biophysical methods and molecular modeling.

Institute and/or researcher Twitter usernames: @OksanaRezniche2; @agranzhan; @ValerieGabelica