4.6 Review

New pyrrole-based histone deacetylase inhibitors: Binding mode, enzyme- and cell-based investigations

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocel.2008.09.002

关键词

Chromatin remodelling; Histone deacetylase; Aroyl-pyrrolyl-hydroxyamides; Apoptosis; Cytodifferentiation

资金

  1. AIRC 2007
  2. PRIN 2006
  3. European Union [HEALTH-F4-2007-200767, FIRB RBIP067F9E, RETI FIRB RBPR05NWWC_006]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aroyl-pyrrolyl-hydroxy-amides (APHAs) are a class of synthetic HDAC inhibitors described by us since 2001. Through structure-based drug design, two isomers of the APHA lead compound 1, the 3-(2-benzoyl-1-methyl-1H-pyrrol-4-yl)-N-hydroxy-2-propenamide 2 and the 3-(2-benzoyl-1-methyl-1H-pyrrol-5-yl)-N-hydroxy-2-propenamide 3 (iso-APHAs) were designed, synthesized and tested in murine leukemia cells as antiproliferative and cytodifferentiating agents. To improve their HDAC activity and selectivity, chemical modifications at the benzoyl moieties were investigated and evaluated using three maize histone deacetylases: HD2, HD1-B (class I human HDAC homologue), and HD1-A (class II human HDAC homologue). Docking experiments on HD1-A and HD1-B homology models revealed that the different compounds selectivity profiles could be addressed to different binding modes as observed for the reference compound SAHA. Smaller hydrophobic cap groupss improved class II HDAC selectivity through the interaction with HD1-A Asn89-Ser90-IIe91, While bulkier aromatic substituents increased class I HDAC selectivity. Taking into account the whole enzyme data and the functional test results. the described iso-APHAs showed a behaviour of class I/IIb) HDACi, with 4b and 4i preferentially inhibiting class IIb and class I HDACs, respectively. When tested in the human leukaemia U937 cell line, 4i showed altered cell cycle (S phase arrest), joined to high (51%) apoptosis induction and significant (21%) differentiation activity. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据