4.3 Article

Pharmacological evaluation of a series of smoothened antagonists in signaling pathways and after topical application in a depilated mouse model

期刊

出版社

JOHN WILEY & SONS LTD
DOI: 10.1002/prp2.214

关键词

basal cell carcinoma; Hedgehog pathway; smoothened inhibitor; smoothened receptor; sonidegib; topical application; vismodegib

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Hedgehog (HH) pathway has been linked to the formation of basal cell carcinoma (BCC), medulloblastoma, and other cancers. The recently approved orally active drugs vismodegib (GDC-0449) and sonidegib (LDE-225) were not only efficacious for the treatment of advanced or metastatic BCC by antagonizing the smoothened (SMO) receptor, but also produced important side effects, limiting their use for less invasive BCC. Herein, we compared a large series of SMO antagonists, including GDC-0449 and LDE-225, the clinically tested BMS-833923, CUR-61414, cyclopamine, IPI-926 (saridegib), itraconazole, LEQ-506, LY-2940680 (taladegib), PF-04449913 (glasdegib), and TAK-441 as well as preclinical candidates (PF-5274857, MRT-83) in two SMO-dependent cellular assays and for G-protein activation. We report marked differences in inhibitor potencies between compounds as well as a notable disparity between the G-protein assay and the cellular tests, suggesting that classification of drugs is assay dependent. Furthermore, we explored topical efficacies of SMO antagonists on depilated mice using Glil and Ptchl mRNA quantification in skin as biomarkers of the HH signaling inhibition. This topical model rapidly discriminated drugs in terms of efficacies and potencies for inhibition of both biomarkers. SMO antagonists showed also a large variation in their blood and skin partition, suggesting that some drugs are more favorable for topical application. Overall, our data suggested that in vitro and in vivo efficacious drugs such as LEQ-506 and TAK-441 may be of interest for topical treatment of less invasive BCC with minimal side effects.

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

4.3
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