4.6 Review

Recent progress in the discovery of natural inhibitors against human carboxylesterases

期刊

FITOTERAPIA
卷 117, 期 -, 页码 84-95

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.fitote.2017.01.010

关键词

Carboxylesterases; hCE1; hCE2; Natural inhibitors; High-throughput screening

资金

  1. National Basic Research Program of China [2013CB531805]
  2. NSF of China [81302793, 21602219, 81473181, 81273590, 81402822]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mammalian carboxylesterases (CEs) are important serine hydrolases catalyzing the hydrolysis of ester- or amide-containing compounds into the corresponding alcohols and carboxylic acids. in human, two primary carboxylesterases including hCE1 and hCE2 have been identified and extensively studied in the past decade. hCE1 is known to play crucial roles in the metabolism of a wide variety of endogenous esters, clinical drugs and insecticides, while hCE2 plays a key role in the metabolic activation of anticancer agents including irinotecan and capecitabine. The key roles of hCEs in both human health and xenobiotic metabolism arouse great interest in the discovery of potent and selective hCEs inhibitors to modulate endobiotic metabolism or to improve the outcomes of patients administrated with ester drugs. This review covers the significance and recent progress in the discovery of natural inhibitors against hCEs. The tools for screening and characterization of inhibitors against human CEs, induding traditional LC-based approaches and the newly developed optical substrate-based assays, are summarized and discussed for the first time. Furthermore, the structural information and inhibitory capacities of all reported hCEs inhibitors including fatty acids, flavonoids, tanshinones and triterpenoids have been systematically summarized. All information and knowledge presented in this review will be very helpful for medicinal chemists to develop more potent and highly selective inhibitors against hCEs for potential biomedical applications. (C) 2017 Published by Elsevier B.V.

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