4.5 Article

Development of a potent and selective chemical probe for the pleiotropic kinase CK2

期刊

CELL CHEMICAL BIOLOGY
卷 28, 期 4, 页码 546-+

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.chembiol.2020.12.013

关键词

-

资金

  1. AbbVie [1097737]
  2. Bayer Pharma AG
  3. Boehringer Ingelheim
  4. Canada Foundation for Innovation
  5. Eshelman Institute for Innovation
  6. Genome Canada
  7. Genentech
  8. Innovative Medicines Initiative (EU/EFPIA) (ULTRA-DD grant) [115766]
  9. Janssen
  10. Merck KGaA Darmstadt Germany
  11. MSD
  12. Novartis Pharma AG
  13. Ontario Ministry of Economic Development and Innovation
  14. Pfizer
  15. Sao Paulo Research Foundation-FAPESP
  16. Takeda
  17. Wellcome [106169/ZZ14/Z]
  18. NC Biotech Center Institutional Support Grant [2018-IDG-1030]
  19. NIH [1U24DK116204]
  20. DOD ALSRP award [AL190107]
  21. NC Policy Collaboratory at UNC-CH
  22. NC Coronavirus Relief Fund
  23. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [37854]
  24. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada [RGPIN/04186-2014]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A highly potent and cell-active CK2 chemical probe with exclusive selectivity for both human CK2 isoforms was designed, but did not show broad antiproliferative effects in >90% of >140 cell lines tested.
Building on the pyrazolopyrimidine CK2 (casein kinase 2) inhibitor scaffold, we designed a small targeted library. Through comprehensive evaluation of inhibitor selectivity, we identified inhibitor 24 (SGC-CK2-1) as a highly potent and cell-active CK2 chemical probe with exclusive selectivity for both human CK2 isoforms. Remarkably, despite years of research pointing to CK2 as a key driver in cancer, our chemical probe did not elicit a broad antiproliferative phenotype in >90% of >140 cell lines when tested in doseresponse. While many publications have reported CK2 functions, CK2 biology is complex and an available high-quality chemical tool such as SGC-CK2-1 will be indispensable in deciphering the relationships between CK2 function and phenotypes.

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