4.5 Review

Protein chaperones: a composition of matter review (2008-2013)

期刊

EXPERT OPINION ON THERAPEUTIC PATENTS
卷 24, 期 5, 页码 501-518

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1517/13543776.2014.887681

关键词

ATPase; cancer; chaperone; heat shock protein 70; heat shock protein 90; targeted therapy

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R21 CA158609, R01 CA172546,, P01 CA186866, R01 CA172546, R01 CA119001, R01 CA155226] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIAID NIH HHS [R21 AI090501] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIA NIH HHS [R21 AG028811, U01 AG032969] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NIMH NIH HHS [R03 MH076499] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Heat shock proteins (Hsps) are proteins with important functions in regulating disease phenotypes. Historically, Hsp90 has first received recognition as a target in cancer, with consequent efforts extending its potential role to other diseases. Hsp70 has also attracted interest as a therapeutic target for its role as a co-chaperone to Hsp90 as well as its own anti-apoptotic roles. Areas covered: Herein, patents from 2008 to 2013 are reviewed to identify those that disclose composition of matter claimed to inhibit Hsp90 or Hsp70. Expert opinion: For Hsp90, there has been considerable creativity in the discovery of novel pharmacophores that fall outside the three initially discovered scaffolds (i.e., ansamycins, resorcinols and purines). Nonetheless, much of the patent literature appears to build on previously reported structure activity relationship through slight modifications of Hsp90 inhibitor space by finding weaknesses in existing patents. The major goal of future development of Hsp90 inhibitors is not necessarily identifying better molecules but rather understanding how to rationally use these agents in the clinic. The development of Hsp70 inhibitors has lagged behind .It will require a more concerted effort from the drug discovery community in order to begin to realize the potential of this target.

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