4.7 Article

Design of a Biased Potent Small Molecule Inhibitor of the Bromodonnain and PHD Finger-Containing (BRPF) Proteins Suitable for Cellular and in Vivo Studies

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY
卷 60, 期 2, 页码 668-680

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.6b01583

关键词

-

资金

  1. UCL School of Pharmacy Ph.D. studentship
  2. UCL School of Pharmacy
  3. UCL Faculty of Life Sciences
  4. UCL Business
  5. AbbVie
  6. Bayer Pharma AG
  7. Boehringer Ingelheim
  8. Canada Foundation for Innovation
  9. Eshelman Institute for Innovation
  10. Genome Canada through Ontario Genomics Institute, Innovative Medicines Initiative (EU/EFPIA) [115766]
  11. Janssen
  12. Merck Co.
  13. Novartis Pharma AG
  14. Ontario Ministry of Economic Development and Innovation
  15. Pfizer
  16. Sao Paulo Research Foundation-FAPESP
  17. Takeda
  18. Wellcome Trust
  19. Cancer Research UK [19280] Funding Source: researchfish
  20. Medical Research Council [MC_PC_13078] Funding Source: researchfish
  21. MRC [MC_PC_13078] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The BRPF (bromodomain and PHD finger-containing) family are scaffolding proteins important for the recruitment of histone acetyltransferases of the MYST family to chromatin. Evaluation of the BRPF family as a potential drug target is at an early stage although there is an emerging understanding of a role in acute myeloid leukemia (AML). We report the optimization of fragment hit 5b to 13-d as a biased, potent inhibitor of the BED of the BRPFs with excellent selectivity over nonclass IV BRD proteins. Evaluation of 13-d in a panel of cancer cell lines showed a selective inhibition of proliferation of a subset of AML lines. Pharmacokinetic studies established that 13-d had properties compatible with oral dosing in mouse models of disease (F-po 49%). We propose that NI-42 (13-d) is a new chemical probe for the BRPFs suitable for cellular and in vivo studies to explore the fundamental biology of these proteins.

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