4.7 Article

Selective active site inhibitors of human lactate dehydrogenases A4, B4, and C4

期刊

BIOCHEMICAL PHARMACOLOGY
卷 62, 期 1, 页码 81-89

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0006-2952(01)00636-0

关键词

lactate dehydrogenase; gossypol; dihydroxynaphthoic acids; N-substituted oxamic acids

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM52576] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Human lactate dehydrogenases (LDH-A(4), -B-4, and -C-4) are highly homologous with 84-89% sequence similarities and 69-75% amino acid identities. Active site residues are especially conserved. Gossypol, a natural product from cotton seed, is a non-selective competitive inhibitor of NADH binding to LDH, with K-i values of 1.9, 1.4, and 4.2 muM for LDH-A(4), -B-4, and -C-4, respectively. However, derivatives of gossypol and structural analogs of gossypol in the substituted 2,3-dihydroxy-1-naphthoic acid family exhibited markedly greater selectivity and, in many cases, greater potency. For gossypol derivatives, greater than 35-fold selectivity was observed. For dihydroxynaphthoic acids with substituents at the 4- and 7-positions, greater than 200-fold selectivity was observed. Inhibition was consistently competitive with the binding of NADH, with dissociation constants as low as 30 nM. By comparison, a series of N-substituted oxamic acids, which are competitive inhibitors of the binding of pyruvate to LDH, exhibited very modest selectivity. These results suggest that substituted dihydroxynaphthoic acids are good lead compounds for the development of selective LDH inhibitors. Selective inhibitors of LDH-C, targeted to the dinucleotide fold may hold promise as male antifertility drugs. Selective inhibitors of LDH-A(4) and -B-4 may be useful for studies of lactic acidemia associated with ischemic events. More broadly, the results raise the question of the general utility of drug design targeted at the dinucleotide binding sites of dehydrogenases/reductases. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

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