4.7 Article

Paralog Specificity Determines Subcellular Distribution, Action Mechanism, and Anticancer Activity of TRAP1 Inhibitors

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY
卷 60, 期 17, 页码 7569-7578

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.7b00978

关键词

-

资金

  1. UNIST Research Fund [1.150098.01]
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grants - MEST [2015R1D1A1A01058016, 2010-0028684, 2016R1A2B2012624]
  3. Korea Drug Development Fund - MSIP
  4. Korea Drug Development Fund - MOTIE
  5. Korea Drug Development Fund - MOHW [KDDF-201512-02]
  6. Korea Evaluation Institute of Industrial Technology (KEIT) [KDDF-201512-02] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)
  7. National Research Foundation of Korea [2016R1A2B2012624, 2015R1D1A1A01058016] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although Hsp90 inhibitors can inhibit multiple tumorigenic pathways in cancer cells, their anticancer activity has been disappointingly modest. However, by forcing Hsp90 inhibitors into the mitochondria with mitochondrial delivery vehicles, they were converted into potent drugs targeting the mitochondrial Hsp90 paralog TRAP1. Here, to improve mitochondrial drug accumulation without using the mitochondrial delivery vehicle, we increased freely available drug concentrations in the cytoplasm by reducing the binding of the drugs to the abundant cytoplasmic Hsp90. After analyzing X-ray cocrystal structures, the purine ring of the Hsp90 inhibitor 2 (BIIB021) was modified to pyrazolopyrimidine scaffolds. One pyrazolopyrimidine, 12b (DN401), bound better to TRAP1 than to Hsp90, inactivated the mitochondrial TRAP1 in vivo, and it exhibited potent anticancer activity. Therefore, the rationale and feasible guidelines for developing 12b can potentially be exploited to design a potent TRAP1 inhibitor.

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

4.7
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