4.6 Article

A Coumarin-Imidazothiadiazole Derivative, SP11 Abrogates Tumor Growth by Targeting HSP90 and Its Client Proteins

期刊

MOLECULES
卷 28, 期 13, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/molecules28135226

关键词

HSP90 inhibitor; DLA mouse tumor model; apoptosis; anticancer therapeutics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite available treatment options, blood cancer still has high mortality rate due to relapse and aggressive nature of the disease. Elevated levels of HSP90 have been associated with poor prognosis in leukemia and lymphoma. The HSP90 inhibitor, SP11, demonstrated cytotoxicity against leukemic cells and induced cell death through apoptosis, while having minimal effect on normal cells. SP11 also showed potential in reducing tumor burden in mouse models without apparent toxicity.
Despite several treatment options for blood cancer, mortality remains high due to relapse and the disease's aggressive nature. Elevated levels of HSP90, a molecular chaperone essential for protein folding, are associated with poor prognosis in leukemia and lymphoma. HSP90 as a target for chemotherapy has been met with limited success due to toxicity and induction of heat shock. This study tested the activity of an HSP90 inhibitor, SP11, against leukemic cells, mouse lymphoma allograft, and xenograft models. SP11 induced cytotoxicity in vitro in leukemic cell lines and induced cell death via apoptosis, with minimal effect on normal cells. SP11 induced cell death by altering the status of HSP90 client proteins both in vitro and in vivo. SP11 reduced the tumor burden in allograft and xenograft mouse models without apparent toxicity. The half-life of SP11 in the plasma was approximately 2 h. SP11 binding was observed at both the N-terminal and C-terminal domains of HSP90. C-terminal binding was more potent than N-terminal binding of HSP90 in silico and in vitro using isothermal calorimetry. SP11 bioavailability and minimal toxicity in vivo make it a potential candidate to be developed as a novel anticancer agent.

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