4.6 Article

Discovery of Selective Inhibitors Against EBNA1 via High Throughput In Silico Virtual Screening

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 5, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010126

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [R01CA093606, R21NS063906]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [20972174]
  3. Shanghai Committee of Science and Technologyy [10410703900, 08431900800]
  4. State Key Program of Basic Research of China [2009CB918502]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV) latent infection is associated with several human malignancies and is a causal agent of lymphoproliferative diseases during immunosuppression. While inhibitors of herpesvirus DNA polymerases, like gancyclovir, reduce EBV lytic cycle infection, these treatments have limited efficacy for treating latent infection. EBNA1 is an EBV-encoded DNA-binding protein required for viral genome maintenance during latent infection. Methodology: Here, we report the identification of a new class of small molecules that inhibit EBNA1 DNA binding activity. These compounds were identified by virtual screening of 90,000 low molecular mass compounds using computational docking programs with the solved crystal structure of EBNA1. Four structurally related compounds were found to inhibit EBNA1-DNA binding in biochemical assays with purified EBNA1 protein. Compounds had a range of 20-100 mM inhibition of EBNA1 in fluorescence polarization assays and were further validated for inhibition using electrophoresis mobility shift assays. These compounds exhibited no significant inhibition of an unrelated DNA binding protein. Three of these compounds inhibited EBNA1 transcription activation function in cell-based assays and reduced EBV genome copy number when incubated with a Burkitt lymphoma cell line. Conclusions: These experiments provide a proof-of-principle that virtual screening can be used to identify specific inhibitors of EBNA1 that may have potential for treatment of EBV latent infection.

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

4.6
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