4.6 Article

Iterative Focused Screening with Biological Fingerprints Identifies Selective Asc-1 Inhibitors Distinct from Traditional High Throughput Screening

期刊

ACS CHEMICAL BIOLOGY
卷 12, 期 2, 页码 519-527

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acschembio.6b00913

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

N-methyl-p-aspartate receptors (NMDARs) mediate glutamatergic signaling that is critical to cognitive processes in the central nervous system, and NMDAR hypofunction is thought to contribute to cognitive impairment observed in both schizophrenia and Alzheimer's disease. One approach to enhance the function of NMDAR is to increase the concentration of an NMDAR coagonist, such as glycine or D-serine, in the synaptic cleft. Inhibition of alanine serine cysteine transporter-1 (Asc-1), the primary transporter of p-serine, is attractive because the transporter is localized to neurons in brain regions critical to cognitive function, including the hippocampus and cortical layers III and IV, and is colocalized with D-serine and NMDARs. To identify novel Asc-1 inhibitors, two different screening approaches were performed with whole-cell amino acid uptake in heterologous cells stably expressing human Asc-1: (1) a high-throughput screen (HTS) of 3 M compounds measuring S-35 L-cysteine uptake into cells attached to scintillation proximity assay beads in a 1536 well format and (2) an iterative focused screen (IFS) of a 45 000 compound diversity set using a H-3 D-serine uptake assay with a liquid scintillation plate reader in a 384 well format. Critically important for both screening approaches was the implementation of counter screens to remove nonspecific inhibitors of radioactive amino acid uptake. Furthermore, a 15 000 compound expansion step incorporating both on- and off-target data into chemical and biological fingerprint-based models for selection of additional hits enabled the identification of novel Asc-1-selective chemical matter from the IFS that was not identified in the full-collection HTS.

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