Systematic Targeting of Protein–Protein Interactions

Trends in Pharmacological Sciences

Volumn 37, Issue 8, 2016, Pages 702-713

  Modell, Ashley E ^a   Blosser, Sarah L ^a   Arora, Paramjit S ^a  

^a NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

fragment based design; inhibitors; protein domain mimics; protein protein interactions; rational design; screening

Indexed keywords

LENALIDOMIDE; MONASTROL; PROTEIN BCL 2; PROTEIN INHIBITOR; PROTEIN MDMX; PROTEIN P53; RO 2443; RO 5963; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG; VENETOCLAX; BIOMIMETIC MATERIAL; PROTEIN;

ALLOSTERISM; ANTINEOPLASTIC ACTIVITY; BETA SHEET; BREAST CANCER; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG MECHANISM; DRUG PROTEIN BINDING; DRUG SCREENING; DRUG STRUCTURE; DRUG TARGETING; HIGH THROUGHPUT SCREENING; PHENOTYPE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN DOMAIN; PROTEIN PROTEIN INTERACTION; PROTEIN QUATERNARY STRUCTURE; PROTEIN STRUCTURE; PROTEIN TERTIARY STRUCTURE; REVIEW; ANIMAL; ANTAGONISTS AND INHIBITORS; CHEMISTRY; HUMAN; METABOLISM; MOLECULARLY TARGETED THERAPY; STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION;

ANIMALS; BIOMIMETIC MATERIALS; DRUG DESIGN; HUMANS; MOLECULAR TARGETED THERAPY; PROTEIN INTERACTION MAPS; PROTEINS; STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP;

EID: 84971622038     PISSN: 01656147     EISSN: 18733735     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tips.2016.05.008     Document Type: Review

References (118)

1. 1 Thompson, A.D., et al. Fine-tuning multiprotein complexes using small molecules. ACS Chem. Biol. 7 (2012), 1311–1320.
2. 2 Swinney, D.C., Anthony, J., How were new medicines discovered?. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 10 (2011), 507–519.
3. 3 Moffat, J.G., et al. Phenotypic screening in cancer drug discovery–past, present and future. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 13 (2014), 588–602.
4. 4 Schenone, M., et al. Target identification and mechanism of action in chemical biology and drug discovery. Nat. Chem. Biol. 9 (2013), 232–240.
5. 5 Mayer, T.U., et al. Small molecule inhibitor of mitotic spindle bipolarity identified in a phenotype-based screen. Science 286 (1999), 971–974.
6. 6 Kapoor, T.M., et al. Probing spindle assembly mechanisms with monastrol, a small molecule inhibitor of the mitotic kinesin, Eg5. J. Cell Biol. 150 (2000), 975–988.
7. 7 Lopez-Girona, A.E.A., Cereblon is a direct protein target for immunomodulatory and antiproliferative activities of lenalidomide and pomalidomide. Leukemia 26 (2012), 2326–2335.
8. 8 Futamura, Y.M., et al. Target identification of small molecules based on chemical biology approaches. Mol. Biosyst. 9 (2013), 897–914.
9. 9 Lenz, T., et al. Probing small molecule–protein interactions: a new perspective for functional proteomics. J. Proteomics 75 (2011), 100–115.
10. 10 Craik, D.J.F., et al. The future of peptide-based drugs. Chem. Biol. Drug Des. 81 (2013), 136–147.
11. 11 Hennemann, H.W., et al. Cell-based peptide screening to access the undruggable target space. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 94 (2015), 489–496.
12. 12 Azzarito, V., et al. Inhibition of alpha-helix-mediated protein–protein interactions using designed molecules. Nat. Chem. 5 (2013), 161–173.
13. 13 Vassilev, L.T., et al. In vivo activation of the p53 pathway by small-molecule antagonists of MDM2. Science 303 (2004), 844–848.
14. 14 Nero, T.L., et al. Oncogenic protein interfaces: small molecules, big challenges. Nat. Rev. Cancer 14 (2014), 248–262.
15. 15 Tsomaia, N., Peptide therapeutics: targeting the undruggable space. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 94 (2015), 459–470.
16. 16 Koes, D., et al. Enabling large-scale design, synthesis and validation of small molecule protein–protein antagonists. PLoS One, 7, 2012, e32839.
17. 17 Cragg, G.M., Newman, D.J., Natural products: a continuing source of novel drug leads. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1830 (2013), 3670–3695.
18. 18 Tan, D.S., Diversity-oriented synthesis: exploring the intersections between chemistry and biology. Nat. Chem. Biol. 1 (2005), 74–84.
19. 19 Biasini, M., et al. SWISS-MODEL: modelling protein tertiary and quaternary structure using evolutionary information. Nucleic Acids Res. 42 (2014), W252–W258.
20. 20 London, N.R., et al. Peptide docking and structure-based characterization of peptide binding: from knowledge to know-how. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 23 (2013), 894–902.
21. 21 Tanrikulu, Y., et al. The holistic integration of virtual screening in drug discovery. Drug Discov. Today 18 (2013), 358–364.
22. 22 Garcia-Garcia, J., et al. Networks of protein–protein interactions: from uncertainty to molecular details. Mol. Inform. 31 (2012), 342–362.
23. 23 Westermarck, J., et al. Identification of protein interactions involved in cellular signaling. Mol. Cell. Proteomics 12 (2013), 1752–1763.
24. 24 De Las Rivas, J., Fontanillo, C., Protein–protein interactions essentials: key concepts to building and analyzing interactome networks. PLoS Comput. Biol., 6, 2010, e1000807.
25. 25 Mohr, S.E., et al. RNAi screening comes of age: improved techniques and complementary approaches. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 15 (2014), 591–600.
26. 26 Shalem, O., et al. High-throughput functional genomics using CRISPR–Cas9. Nat. Rev. Genet. 16 (2015), 299–311.
27. 27 Chan, D.A., Giaccia, A.J., Harnessing synthetic lethal interactions in anticancer drug discovery. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 10 (2011), 351–364.
28. 28 Mullard, A., Pioneering apoptosis-targeted cancer drug poised for FDA approval. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 15 (2016), 147–149.
29. 29 Oltersdorf, T., et al. An inhibitor of Bcl-2 family proteins induces regression of solid tumours. Nature 435 (2005), 677–681.
30. 30 Shuker, S.B., et al. Discovering high-affinity ligands for proteins: SAR by NMR. Science 274 (1996), 1531–1534.
31. 31 Fischer, G., et al. Alternative modulation of protein–protein interactions by small molecules. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 35 (2015), 78–85.
32. 32 Arkin, M.R., et al. Small-molecule inhibitors of protein-protein interactions: progressing toward the reality. Chem. Biol. 21 (2014), 1102–1114.
33. 33 Ostrem, J.M., et al. K-Ras(G12C) inhibitors allosterically control GTP affinity and effector interactions. Nature 503 (2013), 548–551.
34. 34 Wang, N., et al. Dissecting allosteric effects of activator–coactivator complexes using a covalent small molecule ligand. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111 (2014), 12061–12066.
35. 35 Zarzycka, B., et al. Stabilization of protein–protein interaction complexes through small molecules. Drug Discov. Today 21 (2016), 48–57.
36. 36 Thiel, P., et al. Small-molecule stabilization of protein–protein interactions: an underestimated concept in drug discovery?. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 51 (2012), 2012–2018.
37. 37 Chang, Y.S., et al. Stapled α-helical peptide drug development: a potent dual inhibitor of MDM2 and MDMX for p53-dependent cancer therapy. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110 (2013), E3445–E3454.
38. 38 Graves, B., et al. Activation of the p53 pathway by small-molecule-induced MDM2 and MDMX dimerization. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 109 (2012), 11788–11793.
39. 39 Bogan, A.A., Thorn, K.S., Anatomy of hot spots in protein interfaces. J. Mol. Biol. 280 (1998), 1–9.
40. 40 Clackson, T., Wells, J.A., A hot spot of binding energy in a hormone–receptor interface. Science 267 (1995), 383–386.
41. 41 London, N., et al. Druggable protein–protein interactions–from hot spots to hot segments. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 17 (2013), 952–959.
42. 42 Cunningham, B.C., Wells, J.A., High-resolution epitope mapping of hGH-receptor interactions by alanine-scanning mutagenesis. Science 244 (1989), 1081–1085.
43. 43 Kortemme, T., et al. Computational alanine scanning of protein–protein interfaces. Sci. Signal., 2004, 2004, pl2.
44. 44 Massova, I., Kollman, P.A., Computational alanine scanning to probe protein–protein interactions: a novel approach to evaluate binding free energies. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 121 (1999), 8133–8143.
45. 45 Jochim, A.L., Arora, P.S., Systematic analysis of helical protein interfaces reveals targets for synthetic inhibitors. ACS Chem. Biol. 5 (2010), 919–923.
46. 46 Hall, D.R., et al. Lessons from hot spot analysis for fragment-based drug discovery. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 36 (2015), 724–736.
47. 47 Kussie, P.H., et al. Structure of the MDM2 oncoprotein bound to the p53 tumor suppressor transactivation domain. Science 274 (1996), 948–953.
48. 48 Picksley, S.M., et al. Immunochemical analysis of the interaction of p53 with MDM2–fine mapping of the MDM2 binding site on p53 using synthetic peptides. Oncogene 9 (1994), 2523–2529.
49. 49 Yu, S., et al. Potent and orally active small-molecule inhibitors of the MDM2-p53 interaction. J. Med. Chem. 52 (2009), 7970–7973.
50. 50 Yin, H., et al. Terphenyl-based helical mimetics that disrupt the p53/HDM2 interaction. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 44 (2005), 2704–2707.
51. 51 Kritzer, J.A., et al. Helical β-peptide inhibitors of the p53–hDM2 interaction. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 126 (2004), 9468–9469.
52. 52 Rajamani, D., et al. Anchor residues in protein–protein interactions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 101 (2004), 11287–11292.
53. 53 Rooklin, D., et al. AlphaSpace: fragment-centric topographical mapping to target protein–protein interaction interfaces. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 55 (2015), 1585–1599.
54. 54 Laskowski, R.A., SURFNET: a program for visualizing molecular surfaces, cavities, and intermolecular interactions. J. Mol. Graph. 13 (1995), 323–330.
55. 55 Ngan, C.H., et al. FTMAP: extended protein mapping with user-selected probe molecules. Nucleic Acids Res. 40 (2012), W271–W275.
56. 56 Lao, B.B., et al. Rational design of topographical helix mimics as potent inhibitors of protein–protein interactions. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 136 (2014), 7877–7888.
57. 57 Eyrisch, S., Helms, V., Transient pockets on protein surfaces involved in protein–protein interaction. J. Med. Chem. 50 (2007), 3457–3464.
58. 58 Johnson, D.K., Karanicolas, J., Druggable protein interaction sites are more predisposed to surface pocket formation than the rest of the protein surface. PLoS Comput. Biol., 9, 2013, e1002951.
59. 59 Rakers, C., et al. Computational close up on protein–protein interactions: how to unravel the invisible using molecular dynamics simulations?. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Comput. Mol. Sci. 5 (2015), 345–359.
60. 60 Bowman, G.R., Geissler, P.L., Equilibrium fluctuations of a single folded protein reveal a multitude of potential cryptic allosteric sites. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 109 (2012), 11681–11686.
61. 61 Pelay-Gimeno, M., et al. Structure-based design of inhibitors of protein–protein interactions: mimicking peptide binding epitopes. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 54 (2015), 8896–8927.
62. 62 Sperandio, O., et al. Rationalizing the chemical space of protein–protein interaction inhibitors. Drug Discov. Today 15 (2010), 220–229.
63. 63 Turnbull, A.P., et al. Fragment-based drug discovery and protein–protein interactions. Res. Rep. Biochem. 4 (2014), 13–26.
64. 64 Valkov, E., et al. Targeting protein–protein interactions and fragment-based drug discovery. Top. Curr. Chem. 317 (2012), 145–179.
65. 65 Magee, T.V., Progress in discovery of small-molecule modulators of protein–protein interactions via fragment screening. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 25 (2015), 2461–2468.
66. 66 Erlanson, D.A., et al. Site-directed ligand discovery. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 97 (2000), 9367–9372.
67. 67 Erlanson, D.A., et al. In situ assembly of enzyme inhibitors using extended tethering. Nat. Biotechnol. 21 (2003), 308–314.
68. 68 Lodge, J.M., et al. FP Tethering: a screening technique to rapidly identify compounds that disrupt protein-protein interactions. Medchemcomm 5 (2014), 370–375.
69. 69 Arkin, M.R., et al. Binding of small molecules to an adaptive protein–protein interface. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 100 (2003), 1603–1608.
70. 70 Erlanson, D.A., Introduction to fragment-based drug discovery. Top. Curr. Chem. 317 (2012), 1–32.
71. 71 Barile, E., Pellecchia, M., NMR-based approaches for the identification and optimization of inhibitors of protein–protein interactions. Chem. Rev. 114 (2014), 4749–4763.
72. 72 Chu, S., Gochin, M., Identification of fragments targeting an alternative pocket on HIV-1 gp41 by NMR screening and similarity searching. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 23 (2013), 5114–5118.
73. L and Mcl-1. J. Med. Chem. 54 (2011), 6000–6013.
74. 74 Sun, Q., et al. Discovery of small molecules that bind to K-Ras and inhibit Sos-mediated activation. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 51 (2012), 6140–6143.
75. 75 Takeuchi, K., Wagner, G., NMR studies of protein interactions. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 16 (2006), 109–117.
76. 76 Wu, B., et al. HTS by NMR of combinatorial libraries: a fragment-based approach to ligand discovery. Chem. Biol. 20 (2013), 19–33.
77. 77 Scott, D.E., et al. Using a fragment-based approach to target protein–protein interactions. Chembiochem 14 (2013), 332–342.
78. 78 Van Molle, I., et al. Dissecting fragment-based lead discovery at the von Hippel–Lindau protein:hypoxia inducible factor 1α protein–protein interface. Chem. Biol. 19 (2012), 1300–1312.
79. 79 Winter, A., et al. Biophysical and computational fragment-based approaches to targeting protein–protein interactions: applications in structure-guided drug discovery. Q. Rev. Biophys. 45 (2012), 383–426.
80. 80 Guharoy, M., Chakrabarti, P., Secondary structure based analysis and classification of biological interfaces: identification of binding motifs in protein–protein interactions. Bioinformatics 23 (2007), 1909–1918.
81. 81 Johnson, L.M., et al. A potent α/β-peptide analogue of GLP-1 with prolonged action in vivo. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 136 (2014), 12848–12851.
82. 82 Bullock, B.N., et al. Assessing helical protein interfaces for inhibitor design. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 133 (2011), 14220–14223.
83. 83 Watkins, A.M., Arora, P.S., Anatomy of β-strands at protein–protein interfaces. ACS Chem. Biol. 9 (2014), 1747–1754.
84. 84 Gavenonis, J., et al. Comprehensive analysis of loops at protein–protein interfaces for macrocycle design. Nat. Chem. Biol. 10 (2014), 716–722.
85. 85 Watkins, A.M., et al. Protein–protein interactions mediated by helical tertiary structure motifs. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 137 (2015), 11622–11630.
86. 86 Orner, B.P., et al. Toward proteomimetics: terphenyl derivatives as structural and functional mimics of extended regions of an α-helix. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 123 (2001), 5382–5383.
87. 87 Henchey, L.K., et al. Contemporary strategies for the stabilization of peptides in the α-helical conformation. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 12 (2008), 692–697.
88. 88 Sawada, T., Gellman, S.H., Structural mimicry of the α-helix in aqueous solution with an isoatomic α/β/γ-peptide backbone. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 133 (2011), 7336–7339.
89. 89 Kushal, S., et al. Protein domain mimetics as in vivo modulators of hypoxia-inducible factor signaling. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110 (2013), 15602–15607.
90. 90 Walensky, L.D., Bird, G.H., Hydrocarbon-stapled peptides: principles, practice, and progress. J. Med. Chem. 57 (2014), 6275–6288.
91. 91 Milroy, L-G., et al. Modulators of protein–protein interactions. Chem. Rev. 114 (2014), 4695–4748.
92. 92 Angelo, N.G., Arora, P.S., Nonpeptidic foldamers from amino acids: synthesis and characterization of 1,3-substituted triazole oligomers. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 127 (2005), 17134–17135.
93. 93 Bag, S.S., et al. Triazolo-β-aza-ɛ-amino acid and its aromatic analogue as novel scaffolds for β-turn peptidomimetics. Chem. Commun. (Camb.) 51 (2015), 5242–5245.
94. 94 Freire, F., Gellman, S.H., Macrocyclic design strategies for small, stable parallel β-sheet scaffolds. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 131 (2009), 7970–7972.
95. 95 Fuller, A.A., et al. Evaluating β-turn mimics as β-sheet folding nucleators. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106 (2009), 11067–11072.
96. 96 Kang, C.W., et al. β-Strand mimics based on tetrahydropyridazinedione (tpd) peptide stitching. Chem. Commun. (Camb.) 51 (2015), 16259–16262.
97. 97 Kang, C.W., et al. Substituted imidazo[1,2-a]pyridines as β-strand peptidomimetics. Org. Lett. 14 (2012), 6162–6165.
98. 98 Lingard, H., et al. Diphenylacetylene-linked peptide strands induce bidirectional β-sheet formation. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 53 (2014), 3650–3653.
99. 99 Loughlin, W.A., et al. Update 1 of: β-strand mimetics. Chem. Rev. 110 (2010), PR32–PR69.
100. 100 Robinson, J.A., Beta-hairpin peptidomimetics: design, structures and biological activities. Acc. Chem. Res. 41 (2008), 1278–1288.
101. 101 Villar, E.A., et al. How proteins bind macrocycles. Nat. Chem. Biol. 10 (2014), 723–731.
102. 102 Passioura, T., et al. Selection-based discovery of druglike macrocyclic peptides. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 83 (2014), 727–752.
103. 103 White, C.J., Yudin, A.K., Contemporary strategies for peptide macrocyclization. Nat. Chem. 3 (2011), 509–524.
104. 104 Lian, W., et al. Screening bicyclic peptide libraries for protein–protein interaction inhibitors: discovery of a tumor necrosis factor-α antagonist. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 135 (2013), 11990–11995.
105. 105 Adams, J.J., Sidhu, S.S., Synthetic antibody technologies. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 24 (2014), 1–9.
106. 106 Gilbreth, R.N., Koide, S., Structural insights for engineering binding proteins based on non-antibody scaffolds. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 22 (2012), 413–420.
107. 107 Lewis, R.J., Garcia, M.L., Therapeutic potential of venom peptides. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2 (2003), 790–802.
108. 108 Kariolis, M.S., et al. Beyond antibodies: using biological principles to guide the development of next-generation protein therapeutics. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 24 (2013), 1072–1077.
109. 109 Hosse, R.J., et al. A new generation of protein display scaffolds for molecular recognition. Protein Sci. 15 (2006), 14–27.
110. 110 Checco, J.W., et al. Targeting diverse protein–protein interaction interfaces with α/β-peptides derived from the Z-domain scaffold. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112 (2015), 4552–4557.
111. 111 Daniels, D.S., et al. High-resolution structure of a β-peptide bundle. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 129 (2007), 1532–1533.
112. 112 Tavenor, N.A., et al. Comparison of design strategies for α-helix backbone modification in a protein tertiary fold. Chem. Commun. (Camb.) 52 (2016), 3789–3792.
113. 113 Wuo, M.G., et al. An effective strategy for stabilizing minimal coiled coil mimetics. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 137 (2015), 11618–11621.
114. 114 Kaspar, A.A., Reichert, J.M., Future directions for peptide therapeutics development. Drug Discov. Today 18 (2013), 807–817.
115. 115 Mapp, A.K., et al. Targeting transcription is no longer a quixotic quest. Nat. Chem. Biol. 11 (2015), 891–894.
116. 116 Dunker, A.K., et al. Intrinsic disorder and protein function. Biochemistry 41 (2002), 6573–6582.
117. 117 Metallo, S.J., Intrinsically disordered proteins are potential drug targets. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 14 (2010), 481–488.
118. 118 Dyson, H.J., Wright, P.E., Intrinsically unstructured proteins and their functions. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 6 (2005), 197–208.