4.7 Review

Hunting for Novel Routes in Anticancer Drug Discovery: Peptides against Sam-Sam Interactions

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms231810397

关键词

cancer; drug-discovery; Sam domain; EphA2

资金

  1. AIRC (Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro) [IG26121]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review provides an overview of the structural and functional aspects of EphA2-Sam and its interactome. Peptide inhibitors that hinder Sam-Sam interactions could serve as anticancer therapeutics, but further research is needed to improve their affinity and validate their anticancer properties.
Among the diverse protein binding modules, Sam (Sterile alpha motif) domains attract attention due to their versatility. They are present in different organisms and play many functions in physiological and pathological processes by binding multiple partners. The EphA2 receptor contains a Sam domain at the C-terminus (EphA2-Sam) that is able to engage protein regulators of receptor stability (including the lipid phosphatase Ship2 and the adaptor Odin). Ship2 and Odin are recruited by EphA2-Sam through heterotypic Sam-Sam interactions. Ship2 decreases EphA2 endocytosis and consequent degradation, producing chiefly pro-oncogenic outcomes in a cellular milieu. Odin, through its Sam domains, contributes to receptor stability by possibly interfering with ubiquitination. As EphA2 is upregulated in many types of tumors, peptide inhibitors of Sam-Sam interactions by hindering receptor stability could function as anticancer therapeutics. This review describes EphA2-Sam and its interactome from a structural and functional perspective. The diverse design strategies that have thus far been employed to obtain peptides targeting EphA2-mediated Sam-Sam interactions are summarized as well. The generated peptides represent good initial lead compounds, but surely many efforts need to be devoted in the close future to improve interaction affinities towards Sam domains and consequently validate their anticancer properties.

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

4.7
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