4.6 Article

Targeting CK2 in cancer: a valuable strategy or a waste of time?

期刊

CELL DEATH DISCOVERY
卷 7, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41420-021-00717-4

关键词

-

资金

  1. Associazione
  2. Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro (AIRC) [IG 18756]
  3. AFM-Telethon [22974]
  4. Fondazione per la Ricerca sulla Fibrosi Cistica (grants FFC) [12/2017, 11/2019]
  5. University of Padova, SID Project [BORG_BIRD2121_01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The newly developed compound SGC-CK2-1, which is more selective than other CK2 inhibitors, has shown poor efficacy in reducing cell growth in different cancer cell lines, raising questions about the anticancer efficacy of CX-4945, the commonly used clinical-grade CK2 inhibitor.
CK2 is a protein kinase involved in several human diseases (ranging from neurological and cardiovascular diseases to autoimmune disorders, diabetes, and infections, including COVID-19), but its best-known implications are in cancer, where it is considered a pharmacological target. Several CK2 inhibitors are available and clinical trials are underway in different cancer types. Recently, the suitability of CK2 as a broad anticancer target has been questioned by the finding that a newly developed compound, named SGC-CK2-1, which is more selective than any other known CK2 inhibitor, is poorly effective in reducing cell growth in different cancer lines, prompting the conclusion that the anticancer efficacy of CX-4945, the commonly used clinical-grade CK2 inhibitor, is to be attributed to its off-target effects. Here we perform a detailed scrutiny of published studies on CK2 targeting and a more in-depth analysis of the available data on SGC-CK2-1 vs. CX-4945 efficacy, providing a different perspective about the actual reliance of cancer cells on CK2. Collectively taken, our arguments would indicate that the pretended dispensability of CK2 in cancer is far from having been proved and warn against premature conclusions, which could discourage ongoing investigations on a potentially valuable drug target.

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