Cargando…

Ubiquitin-based anticancer therapy: Carpet bombing with proteasome inhibitors vs surgical strikes with E1, E2, E3, or DUB inhibitors()

The proteasome inhibitor bortezomib remains the only ubiquitin pathway effector to become a drug (VELCADE®) and has become a successful treatment for hematological malignancies. While producing a global cellular effect, proteasome inhibitors have not triggered the catastrophe articulated initially i...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mattern, Michael R., Wu, Jian, Nicholson, Benjamin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier B.V. 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7127515/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22610084
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbamcr.2012.05.005
_version_ 1783516377842188288
author Mattern, Michael R.
Wu, Jian
Nicholson, Benjamin
author_facet Mattern, Michael R.
Wu, Jian
Nicholson, Benjamin
author_sort Mattern, Michael R.
collection PubMed
description The proteasome inhibitor bortezomib remains the only ubiquitin pathway effector to become a drug (VELCADE®) and has become a successful treatment for hematological malignancies. While producing a global cellular effect, proteasome inhibitors have not triggered the catastrophe articulated initially in terms such as “buildup of cellular garbage”. Proteasome inhibitors, in fact, do have a therapeutic window, although in the case of the prototype bortezomib it is small owing to peripheral neuropathy, myelosuppression and, as recently reported, cardiotoxicity [1]. Currently, several second-generation molecules are undergoing clinical evaluation to increase this window. An alternative strategy is to target ubiquitin pathway enzymes acting at non-proteasomal sites—E1, E2, and E3, associated with ubiquitin conjugation, and deubiquitylating enzymes (“DUBs”)—that act locally on selected targets rather than on the whole cell. Inhibitors (or activators, in some cases) of these enzymes should be developable as selective antitumor agents with toxicity profiles superior to that of bortezomib. Various therapeutic hypotheses follow from known cellular mechanisms of these target enzymes; most hypotheses relate to cancer, reminiscent of the FDA-approved protein kinase inhibitors now marketed. Since ubiquitin tagging controls the cellular content, activity, or compartmentation of proteins associated with disease, inhibitors or activators of ubiquitin conjugation or deconjugation are predicted to have an impact on disease. For practical and empirical reasons, inhibitors of ubiquitin pathway enzymes have been the favored therapeutic avenue. In approximately the time that has elapsed since the approval of bortezomib in 2003, there has been some progress in developing potential anticancer drugs that target various ubiquitin pathway enzymes. An E1 inhibitor and inhibitors of E3 are now in clinical trial, with some objective responses reported. Appropriate assays and/or rational design may uncover improved inhibitors of these enzymes, as well as E2 and DUBs, for further development. Presently, it should become clear whether one or both of the two general strategies for ubiquitin-based drug discovery will lead to truly superior new medicines for cancer and other diseases. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled: Ubiquitin Drug Discovery and Diagnostics.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7127515
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher Elsevier B.V.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-71275152020-04-08 Ubiquitin-based anticancer therapy: Carpet bombing with proteasome inhibitors vs surgical strikes with E1, E2, E3, or DUB inhibitors() Mattern, Michael R. Wu, Jian Nicholson, Benjamin Biochim Biophys Acta Mol Cell Res Article The proteasome inhibitor bortezomib remains the only ubiquitin pathway effector to become a drug (VELCADE®) and has become a successful treatment for hematological malignancies. While producing a global cellular effect, proteasome inhibitors have not triggered the catastrophe articulated initially in terms such as “buildup of cellular garbage”. Proteasome inhibitors, in fact, do have a therapeutic window, although in the case of the prototype bortezomib it is small owing to peripheral neuropathy, myelosuppression and, as recently reported, cardiotoxicity [1]. Currently, several second-generation molecules are undergoing clinical evaluation to increase this window. An alternative strategy is to target ubiquitin pathway enzymes acting at non-proteasomal sites—E1, E2, and E3, associated with ubiquitin conjugation, and deubiquitylating enzymes (“DUBs”)—that act locally on selected targets rather than on the whole cell. Inhibitors (or activators, in some cases) of these enzymes should be developable as selective antitumor agents with toxicity profiles superior to that of bortezomib. Various therapeutic hypotheses follow from known cellular mechanisms of these target enzymes; most hypotheses relate to cancer, reminiscent of the FDA-approved protein kinase inhibitors now marketed. Since ubiquitin tagging controls the cellular content, activity, or compartmentation of proteins associated with disease, inhibitors or activators of ubiquitin conjugation or deconjugation are predicted to have an impact on disease. For practical and empirical reasons, inhibitors of ubiquitin pathway enzymes have been the favored therapeutic avenue. In approximately the time that has elapsed since the approval of bortezomib in 2003, there has been some progress in developing potential anticancer drugs that target various ubiquitin pathway enzymes. An E1 inhibitor and inhibitors of E3 are now in clinical trial, with some objective responses reported. Appropriate assays and/or rational design may uncover improved inhibitors of these enzymes, as well as E2 and DUBs, for further development. Presently, it should become clear whether one or both of the two general strategies for ubiquitin-based drug discovery will lead to truly superior new medicines for cancer and other diseases. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled: Ubiquitin Drug Discovery and Diagnostics. Elsevier B.V. 2012-11 2012-05-17 /pmc/articles/PMC7127515/ /pubmed/22610084 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbamcr.2012.05.005 Text en Copyright © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.
spellingShingle Article
Mattern, Michael R.
Wu, Jian
Nicholson, Benjamin
Ubiquitin-based anticancer therapy: Carpet bombing with proteasome inhibitors vs surgical strikes with E1, E2, E3, or DUB inhibitors()
title Ubiquitin-based anticancer therapy: Carpet bombing with proteasome inhibitors vs surgical strikes with E1, E2, E3, or DUB inhibitors()
title_full Ubiquitin-based anticancer therapy: Carpet bombing with proteasome inhibitors vs surgical strikes with E1, E2, E3, or DUB inhibitors()
title_fullStr Ubiquitin-based anticancer therapy: Carpet bombing with proteasome inhibitors vs surgical strikes with E1, E2, E3, or DUB inhibitors()
title_full_unstemmed Ubiquitin-based anticancer therapy: Carpet bombing with proteasome inhibitors vs surgical strikes with E1, E2, E3, or DUB inhibitors()
title_short Ubiquitin-based anticancer therapy: Carpet bombing with proteasome inhibitors vs surgical strikes with E1, E2, E3, or DUB inhibitors()
title_sort ubiquitin-based anticancer therapy: carpet bombing with proteasome inhibitors vs surgical strikes with e1, e2, e3, or dub inhibitors()
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7127515/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22610084
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbamcr.2012.05.005
work_keys_str_mv AT matternmichaelr ubiquitinbasedanticancertherapycarpetbombingwithproteasomeinhibitorsvssurgicalstrikeswithe1e2e3ordubinhibitors
AT wujian ubiquitinbasedanticancertherapycarpetbombingwithproteasomeinhibitorsvssurgicalstrikeswithe1e2e3ordubinhibitors
AT nicholsonbenjamin ubiquitinbasedanticancertherapycarpetbombingwithproteasomeinhibitorsvssurgicalstrikeswithe1e2e3ordubinhibitors