4.4 Article

Initial testing of the investigational NEDD8-activating enzyme inhibitor MLN4924 by the pediatric preclinical testing program

期刊

PEDIATRIC BLOOD & CANCER
卷 59, 期 2, 页码 246-253

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pbc.23357

关键词

developmental therapeutics; MLN4924; preclinical testing

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute [NO1-CM-42216, CA21765, CA108786]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background MLN4924 is an investigational first-in-class small molecule inhibitor of NEDD8-activating enzyme (NAE). NAE is an essential component of the NEDD8 conjugation pathway, controlling the activity of a subset of ubiquitin-proteasome system (UPS) E3 ligases, multiprotein complexes that transfer ubiquitin molecules to substrate proteins. Procedures MLN4924 was tested against the PPTP in vitro panel using 96-hour exposure time at concentrations ranging from 1.0?nM to 10?mu M. It was tested in vivo at a dose of 100?mg/kg [66?mg/kg for the acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) xenografts] administered orally twice daily?x?5 days. Treatment duration was 3 weeks. Results The median relative IC50 for MLN4924 against the PPTP cell lines was 143?nM, (range: 15678?nM) with that for the Ewing panel being significantly lower (31?nM). MLN4924 induced significant differences in EFS distribution compared to control in 20 of 34 (59%) evaluable solid tumor xenografts. MLN4924 induced intermediate activity (EFS T/C values >2) in 9 of the 33 evaluable xenografts (27%), including 4 of 4 glioblastoma xenografts, 2 of 3 Wilm's tumor xenografts, 2 of 5 rhabdomyosarcoma xenografts, and 1 of 4 neuroblastoma xenografts. For the ALL panel, 5 of 8 evaluable xenografts showed intermediate activity for the EFS T/C measure. MLN4924 did not induce objective responses in the PPTP solid tumor or ALL panels. Conclusions MLN4924 showed potent activity in vitro and in vivo showed tumor growth inhibitory activity against a subset of the PPTP solid tumor and ALL xenografts. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2012;59:246253. (c) 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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

4.4
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