4.5 Review

Bromodomains as therapeutic targets

期刊

EXPERT REVIEWS IN MOLECULAR MEDICINE
卷 13, 期 -, 页码 1-21

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1462399411001992

关键词

-

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes for Health Research
  2. Canadian Foundation for Innovation, Genome Canada through the Ontario Genomics Institute
  3. GlaxoSmithKline
  4. Karolinska Institutet
  5. Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation
  6. Ontario Innovation Trust
  7. Ontario Ministry for Research and Innovation
  8. Merck Co., Inc.
  9. Novartis Research Foundation
  10. Swedish Agency for Innovation Systems
  11. Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research
  12. Wellcome Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Acetylation of lysine residues is a post-translational modification with broad relevance to cellular signalling and disease biology. Enzymes that 'write' (histone acetyltransferases, HATs) and 'erase' (histone deacetylases, HDACs) acetylation sites are an area of extensive research in current drug development, but very few potent inhibitors that modulate the 'reading process' mediated by acetyl lysines have been described. The principal readers of e-N-acetyl lysine (K-ac) marks are bromodomains (BRDs), which are a diverse family of evolutionary conserved protein-interaction modules. The conserved BRD fold contains a deep, largely hydrophobic acetyl lysine binding site, which represents an attractive pocket for the development of small, pharmaceutically active molecules. Proteins that contain BRDs have been implicated in the development of a large variety of diseases. Recently, two highly potent and selective inhibitors that target BRDs of the BET (bromodomains and extra-terminal) family provided compelling data supporting targeting of these BRDs in inflammation and in an aggressive type of squamous cell carcinoma. It is likely that BRDs will emerge alongside HATs and HDACs as interesting targets for drug development for the large number of diseases that are caused by aberrant acetylation of lysine residues.

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