4.7 Article

Impact of Target Warhead and Linkage Vector on Inducing Protein Degradation: Comparison of Bromodomain and Extra-Terminal (BET) Degraders Derived from Triazolodiazepine (JQ1) and Tetrahydroquinoline (I-BET726) BET Inhibitor Scaffolds

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY
卷 61, 期 2, 页码 504-513

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.6b01912

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Research Council [ERC-2012-StG-311460 DrugE3CRLs]
  2. UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) [BB/J001201/2]
  3. European Commission (Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions Individual Fellowship) [H2020-MSCA-IF-2014-655516]
  4. Wellcome Trust [100476/Z/12/Z]
  5. BBSRC [BB/J001201/2, BB/J001201/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/J001201/2, BB/J001201/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The design of proteolysis-targeting chimeras (PROTACs) is a powerful small-molecule approach for inducing protein degradation. PROTACs conjugate a target warhead to an E3 ubiquitin ligase ligand via a linker. Here we examined the impact of derivatizing two different BET bromodomain inhibitors, triazolodiazepine JQ1 and the more potent tetrahydroquinoline I-BET726, via distinct exit vectors, using different polyethylene glycol linkers to VHL ligand VH032. Triazolodiazepine PROTACs exhibited positive cooperativities of ternary complex formation and were more potent degraders than tetrahydroquinoline compounds, which showed negative cooperativities instead. Marked dependency on linker length was observed for BET-degrading and cMyc-driven antiproliferative activities in acute myeloid leukemia cell lines. This work exemplifies as a cautionary tale how a more potent inhibitor does not necessarily generate more potent PROTACs and underscores the key roles played by the conjugation. The provided insights and framework for structure-activity relationships of bivalent degraders are anticipated to have wide future applicability.

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