4.5 Article

Validation and Invalidation of Chemical Probes for the Human N-myristoyltransferases

Journal

CELL CHEMICAL BIOLOGY
Volume 26, Issue 6, Pages 892-+

Publisher

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.chembiol.2019.03.006

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Royal Society (Newton International Fellowship) [NF161582]
  2. European Commission (Marie Sklodowska Curie Individual Fellowship) [752165]
  3. MRC CDA [MR/J008060/1]
  4. Cancer Research UK [C29637/A21451, C29637/A20183]
  5. Francis Crick Institute from Cancer Research UK [FC001057, FC001097]
  6. UK Medical Research Council [FC001057, FC001097]
  7. Wellcome Trust [FC001057, FC001097]
  8. Marie Curie Actions (MSCA) [752165] Funding Source: Marie Curie Actions (MSCA)
  9. MRC [MR/J008060/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

On-target, cell-active chemical probes are of fundamental importance in chemical and cell biology, whereas poorly characterized probes often lead to invalid conclusions. Human N-myristoyltransferase (NMT) has attracted increasing interest as target in cancer and infectious diseases. Here we report an in-depth comparison of five compounds widely applied as human NMT inhibitors, using a combination of quantitative whole-proteome N-myristoylation profiling, biochemical enzyme assays, cytotoxicity, in-cell protein synthesis, and cell-cycle assays. We find that N-myristoylation is unaffected by 2-hydroxymyristic acid (100 mu M), D-NMAPPD (30 mu M), or TrisDBA palladium (10 mu M), with the latter compounds causing cytotoxicity through mechanisms unrelated to NMT. In contrast, drug-like inhibitors IMP-366 (DDD85646) and IMP-1088 delivered complete and specific inhibition of N-myristoylation in a range of cell lines at 1 mu M and 100 nM, respectively. This study enables the selection of appropriate on-target probes for future studies and suggests the need for reassessment of previous studies that used off-target compounds.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available