4.8 Article

Design of BET Inhibitor Bottlebrush Prodrugs with Superior Efficacy and Devoid of Systemic Toxicities

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY
卷 143, 期 12, 页码 4714-4724

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jacs.1c00312

关键词

-

资金

  1. XTuit Pharmaceuticals
  2. National Institutes of Health [1R01CA220468-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study introduces a macromolecular prodrug platform for BET protein inhibitors, which demonstrates a correlation between in vitro prodrug activation kinetics and in vivo tumor pharmacokinetics. This platform allows for the predictive design of novel BET protein inhibitors with enhanced anticancer efficacies and reduced dose-limiting toxicities, potentially overcoming hurdles in drug development.
Prodrugs engineered for preferential activation in diseased versus normal tissues offer immense potential to improve the therapeutic indexes (TIs) of preclinical and clinical-stage active pharmaceutical ingredients that either cannot be developed otherwise or whose efficacy or tolerability it is highly desirable to improve. Such approaches, however, often suffer from trial-and-error design, precluding predictive synthesis and optimization. Here, using bromodomain and extra-terminal (BET) protein inhibitors (BETi)-a class of epigenetic regulators with proven anticancer potential but clinical development hindered in large part by narrow TIs-we introduce a macromolecular prodrug platform that overcomes these challenges. Through tuning of traceless linkers appended to a bottlebrush prodrug scaffold, we demonstrate correlation of in vitro prodrug activation kinetics with in vivo tumor pharmacokinetics, enabling the predictive design of novel BETi prodrugs with enhanced antitumor efficacies and devoid of dose-limiting toxicities in a syngeneic triple-negative breast cancer murine model. This work may have immediate clinical implications, introducing a platform for predictive prodrug design and potentially overcoming hurdles in drug development.

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

4.8
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