4.7 Article

Insights into the Action of Inhibitor Enantiomers against Histone Lysine Demethylase 5A

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY
卷 61, 期 7, 页码 3193-3208

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.8b00261

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), under NCI Chemical Biology Consortium [HHSN261200800001E]
  2. NIH Grant [GM114306]
  3. Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas Grant [RR160029]
  4. American Cancer Society Research Scholar Grant [RSG-13-384-01-DMC]
  5. DoD Breast Cancer Research Program Award [W81XWH-14-1-0308]
  6. Leslie H. Warner Postdoctoral Fellowship
  7. NATIONAL CENTER FOR ADVANCING TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCES [ZIATR000273] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  8. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [R01GM114306] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Isomers of chiral drugs can exhibit marked differences in biological activities. We studied the binding and inhibitory activities of 12 compounds against KDM5A. Among them are two pairs of enantiomers representing two distinct inhibitor chemotypes, namely, (R)- and (S)-2-((2-chlorophenyl)(2-(piperidin-1-yl)ethoxy)methyl)-1H-pyrrolo[3,2-b]pyridine-7-carboxylic acid (compounds N51 and N52) and (R)- and (S)-N-(1-(3-isopropyl- 1H-pyrazole-5-carbonyl)pyrrolidin-3-yl)cyclopropanecarboxamide (compounds N54 and N55). In vitro, the S enantiomer of the N51/N52 pair (N52) and the R enantiomer of the N54/N55 pair (N54) exhibited about 4- to 5-fold greater binding affinity. The more potent enzyme inhibition of KDM5A by the R-isoform for the cell-permeable N54/N55 pair translated to differences in growth inhibitory activity. We determined structures of the KDMSA catalytic domain in complex with all 12 inhibitors, which revealed the interactions (or lack thereof) responsible for the differences in binding affinity. These results provide insights to guide improvements in binding potency and avenues for development of cell permeable inhibitors of the KDM5 family.

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