4.4 Review

Old and New Approaches to Target the Hsp90 Chaperone

期刊

CURRENT CANCER DRUG TARGETS
卷 20, 期 4, 页码 253-270

出版社

BENTHAM SCIENCE PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.2174/1568009619666191202101330

关键词

Cancer; chaperones; geldanamycin; Grp94; Hsp90; novobiocin; TAS-116; TRAP1

类别

资金

  1. National Cancer Institutes [R01CA216919, R01CA213566, R01CA120458]
  2. University of Michigan Genetics Training Program [T32GM007544]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The 90-kDa heat shock protein (Hsp90) is a molecular chaperone that ensures cellular proteostasis by maintaining the folding, stabilization, activation, and degradation of over 400 client proteins. Hsp90 is not only critical for routine protein maintenance in healthy cells, but also during states of cellular stress, such as cancer and neurodegenerative diseases. Due to its ability to affect phosphorylation of numerous client proteins, inhibition of Hsp90 has been an attractive anticancer approach since the early 1990's, when researchers identified a druggable target on the amino terminus of Hsp90 for a variety of cancers. Since then, 17 Hsp90 inhibitors that target the chaperone's N terminal domain, have entered clinical trials. None, however, have been approved thus far by the FDA as a cancer monotherapy. In these trials, a major limitation observed with Hsp90 inhibition at the N-terminal domain was dose-limiting toxicities and relatively poor pharmacokinetic profiles. Despite this, preclinical and clinical research continues to show that Hsp90 inhibitors effectively target cancer cell death and decrease tumor progression supporting the rationale for the development of novel Hsp90 inhibitors. Here, we present an in-depth overview of the Hsp90 inhibitors used in clinical trials. Finally, we present current shifts in the field related to targeting the carboxy-terminal domain of Hsp90 as well as to the development of isoform-selective inhibitors as a means to bypass the pitfalls of current Hsp90 inhibitors and improve clinical trial outcomes.

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

4.4
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