4.5 Article

A boronic-chalcone derivative exhibits potent anticancer activity through inhibition of the proteasome

期刊

MOLECULAR PHARMACOLOGY
卷 70, 期 1, 页码 426-433

出版社

AMER SOC PHARMACOLOGY EXPERIMENTAL THERAPEUTICS
DOI: 10.1124/mol.105.021311

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA085563, CA100428, CA16672] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chalcones and their derivatives have been shown to have potent anticancer activity. However, the exact mechanisms of cytotoxic activity remain to be established. In this study, we have evaluated a series of boronic chalcones for their anticancer activity and mechanisms of action. Among the eight chalcone derivatives tested, 3,5-bis-(4-boronic acid-benzylidene)-1- methyl-piperidin-4-one (AM114) exhibited most potent growth inhibitory activity with IC50 values of 1.5 and 0.6 mu M in 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide assay and colony formation assay, respectively. The cytotoxic activity of AM114 was shown to be associated with the accumulation of p53 and p21 proteins and induction of apoptosis. Mechanistic studies showed that AM114 treatment inhibited the chymotrypsin-like activity of the 20S proteasome in vitro, leading to a significant accumulation of ubiquitinated p53 and other cellular proteins in whole cells. In vitro studies showed that AM114 did not significantly disrupt the interaction of p53 and murine double minute 2 protein. It is noteworthy that AM114 as a single agent was preferentially toxic to cells with wild-type p53 expression, whereas combination of this compound with ionizing radiation (IR) significantly enhanced the cell-killing activity of IR in both wild-type p53 and p53-null cells. Together, these results indicate that the boronic chalcone derivative AM114 induces significant cytotoxic effect in cancer cells through the inhibition of the cellular proteasome and provide a rationale for the further development of this class of compounds as novel cancer chemotherapeutic agents.

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

4.5
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