4.6 Review

Driving E3 Ligase Substrate Specificity for Targeted Protein Degradation: Lessons from Nature and the Laboratory

Journal

ANNUAL REVIEW OF BIOCHEMISTRY
Volume 91, Issue -, Pages 295-319

Publisher

ANNUAL REVIEWS
DOI: 10.1146/annurev-biochem-032620-104421

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01-GM129325]
  2. Office of Cyber Infrastructure and Computational Biology, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases [131, 132]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Methods to direct protein degradation using proximity-inducing molecules are rapidly advancing. The most commonly used approach is hijacking E3 ligases. This review focuses on the structural determinants of E3 ligase recruitment and substrate recognition, and their implications for the development of chemical tools and therapeutics.
Methods to direct the degradation of protein targets with proximity-inducing molecules that coopt the cellular degradation machinery are advancing in leaps and bounds, and diverse modalities are emerging. The most used and well-studied approach is to hijack E3 ligases of the ubiquitin-proteasome system. E3 ligases use specific molecular recognition to determine which proteins in the cell are ubiquitinated and degraded. This review focuses on the structural determinants of E3 ligase recruitment of natural substrates and neo-substrates obtained through monovalent molecular glues and bivalent proteolysis-targeting chimeras. We use structures to illustrate the different types of substrate recognition and assess the basis for neo-protein-protein interactions in ternary complex structures. The emerging structural and mechanistic complexity is reflective of the diverse physiological roles of protein ubiquitination. This molecular insight is also guiding the application of structure-based design approaches to the development of new and existing degraders as chemical tools and therapeutics.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available