4.6 Article

Hayatine inhibits amino acid-induced mTORC1 activation as a novel mTOR-Rag A/C interaction disruptor

期刊

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2021.10.014

关键词

Hayatine; mTOR; Rag A; C; Rapamycin

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81602413, 31771573, 31701239, 81874198, 82073086]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study identifies hayatine as a potential mTORC1 inhibitor with unique properties that can suppress cancer cell growth through various mechanisms, offering promise in overcoming rapamycin resistance for cancer treatment.
Abnormal activation of the mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) signaling is commonly observed in many cancers and attracts extensive attention as an oncology drug discovery target, which is encouraged by the success of rapamycin and its analogs (rapalogs) in treatment of mTORC1-hyperactive cancers in both pre-clinic models and clinical trials. However, rapamycin and existing rapalogs have typically short lasting partial responses due to drug resistance, thereby triggering our interest to investigate a potential mTORC1 inhibitor that is mechanistically different from rapamycin. Here, we report that hayatine, a derivative from Cissampelos, can serve as a potential mTORC1 inhibitor selected from a natural compound library. The unique properties owned by hayatine such as downregulation of mTORC1 activities, induction of mTORC1's translocation to lysosomes followed by autophagy, and suppression on cancer cell growth, strongly emphasize its role as a potential mTORC1 inhibitor. Mechanistically, we found that hayatine disrupts the interaction between mTORC1 complex and its lysosomal adaptor RagA/C by binding to the hydrophobic loop of RagC, leading to mTORC1 inhibition that holds great promise to overcome rapamycin resistance. Taken together, our data shed light on an innovative strategy using structural interruption-based mTORC1 inhibitors for cancer treatment. (c) 2021 Elsevier Inc. 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