Differential effects of mepacrine, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine on superoxide anion generation, phospholipid methylation and arachidonic acid release by human blood monocytes

Abstract

The 4-aminoquinolines chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), and previously the 9-aminoacridine mepacrine (quinacrine) (MP), have been widely used in the treatment of inflammatory disorders such as rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus. Their effects are believed to be mediated through phagocytic cells but the precise biochemical basis remains uncertain. We have investigated the effects of these drugs on monocyte superoxide anion (SO) generation elicited by 5 different stimuli-opsonised zymosan (STZ), FMLP, A23187, TPA and fluoride--and sought correlations with effects on two processes which have been linked with monocyte activation, namely arachidonate (AA) release and transmethylation of phosphatidyl ethanolamine (PE) to phosphatidylcholine (PC). In all experiments conditions were adjusted to achieve leucocyte concentrations of drug comparable to those found during in vivo therapy. Neither CQ nor HCQ had any marked effect on SO release induced by TPA, A23187 or fluoride ion, excluding a significant effect on protein kinase C (PKC), calmodulin-dependent kinase(s) or the membrane-bound, superoxide generating NADP(H) oxidase. In contrast MP inhibited the response to TPA and A23187. Each drug also had different effects on surface receptor-dependent responses; thus HCQ inhibited FMLP- but not STZ-induced SO release, whereas CQ and MP inhibited the response to both stimuli. Each drug also displayed different effects on AA release and phospholipid (PL)-methylation; MP and HCQ, but not CQ, inhibited STZ-stimulated AA release while MP and CQ but not HCQ inhibited basal rates of PL-methylation in mononuclear cells (MNC). However, only MP inhibited PL-methylation in an enriched monocyte population. We conclude that despite their close structural similarity, MP, CQ and HCQ each have different metabolic effects and their actions cannot simply be attributed to inhibition of lysosomal functions. Other possible mechanisms of action are discussed. The selective effects of each drug also provide further evidence for multiple pathways of monocyte activation.