4.5 Article

Targeted degradation of the enhancer lysine acetyltransferases CBP and p300

期刊

CELL CHEMICAL BIOLOGY
卷 28, 期 4, 页码 503-+

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.chembiol.2020.12.004

关键词

-

资金

  1. Fulbright scholarship
  2. MGH institutional start-up funds
  3. V Foundation Scholar Award
  4. Leukemia Research Foundation Hollis Brownstein Research Grant
  5. Pablove Foundation Research Grant
  6. NIH R00 award [R00CA190861]
  7. NIH Shared Instrument grant [S10OD025234]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study presents a chemical degrader of p300/CBP, dCBP-1, designed by leveraging structures of ligand-bound p300/CBP through in silico modeling of ternary complex formation. It is exceptionally potent at killing multiple myeloma cells and can abolish the enhancer driving oncogene expression. This efficient degrader provides a useful tool for dissecting the mechanism by which these factors coordinate enhancer activity in normal and diseased cells, alongside domain inhibitors.
The enhancer factors CREB-binding protein (CBP) and p300 (also known as KAT3A and KAT3B) maintain gene expression programs through lysine acetylation of chromatin and transcriptional regulators and by scaffolding functions mediated by several protein-protein interaction domains. Small molecule inhibitors that target some of these domains have been developed; however, they cannot completely ablate p300/CBP function in cells. Here we describe a chemical degrader of p300/CBP, dCBP-1. Leveraging structures of ligand-bound p300/CBP domains, we use in silicomodeling of ternary complex formation with the E3 ubiquitin ligase cereblon to enable degrader design. dCBP-1 is exceptionally potent at killing multiple myeloma cells and can abolish the enhancer that drives MYC oncogene expression. As an efficient degrader of this unique class of acetyltransferases, dCBP-1 is a useful tool alongside domain inhibitors for dissecting the mechanism by which these factors coordinate enhancer activity in normal and diseased cells.

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

4.5
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