4mta
Crystal structure of Pim-1 kinase domain in complex with 2-methyl-5-phenylfuran-3-carboxylic acid
Structural highlights
FunctionPIM1_HUMAN Proto-oncogene with serine/threonine kinase activity involved in cell survival and cell proliferation and thus providing a selective advantage in tumorigenesis. Exerts its oncogenic activity through: the regulation of MYC transcriptional activity, the regulation of cell cycle progression and by phosphorylation and inhibition of proapoptotic proteins (BAD, MAP3K5, FOXO3). Phosphorylation of MYC leads to an increase of MYC protein stability and thereby an increase of transcriptional activity. The stabilization of MYC exerted by PIM1 might explain partly the strong synergism between these two oncogenes in tumorigenesis. Mediates survival signaling through phosphorylation of BAD, which induces release of the anti-apoptotic protein Bcl-X(L)/BCL2L1. Phosphorylation of MAP3K5, an other proapoptotic protein, by PIM1, significantly decreases MAP3K5 kinase activity and inhibits MAP3K5-mediated phosphorylation of JNK and JNK/p38MAPK subsequently reducing caspase-3 activation and cell apoptosis. Stimulates cell cycle progression at the G1-S and G2-M transitions by phosphorylation of CDC25A and CDC25C. Phosphorylation of CDKN1A, a regulator of cell cycle progression at G1, results in the relocation of CDKN1A to the cytoplasm and enhanced CDKN1A protein stability. Promote cell cycle progression and tumorigenesis by down-regulating expression of a regulator of cell cycle progression, CDKN1B, at both transcriptional and post-translational levels. Phosphorylation of CDKN1B,induces 14-3-3-proteins binding, nuclear export and proteasome-dependent degradation. May affect the structure or silencing of chromatin by phosphorylating HP1 gamma/CBX3. Acts also as a regulator of homing and migration of bone marrow cells involving functional interaction with the CXCL12-CXCR4 signaling axis.[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Publication Abstract from PubMedA first step in fragment-based drug discovery (FBDD) often entails a fragment-based screen (FBS) to identify fragment "hits." However, the integration of conflicting results from orthogonal screens remains a challenge. Here we present a meta-analysis of 35 fragment-based campaigns at Novartis, which employed a generic 1400-fragment library against diverse target families using various biophysical and biochemical techniques. By statistically interrogating the multidimensional FBS data, we sought to investigate three questions: (1) What makes a fragment amenable for FBS? (2) How do hits from different fragment screening technologies and target classes compare with each other? (3) What is the best way to pair FBS assay technologies? In doing so, we identified substructures that were privileged for specific target classes, as well as fragments that were privileged for authentic activity against many targets. We also revealed some of the discrepancies between technologies. Finally, we uncovered a simple rule of thumb in screening strategy: when choosing two technologies for a campaign, pairing a biochemical and biophysical screen tends to yield the greatest coverage of authentic hits. Large Scale Meta-Analysis of Fragment-Based Screening Campaigns: Privileged Fragments and Complementary Technologies.,Kutchukian PS, Wassermann AM, Lindvall MK, Wright SK, Ottl J, Jacob J, Scheufler C, Marzinzik A, Brooijmans N, Glick M J Biomol Screen. 2014 Dec 30. pii: 1087057114565080. PMID:25550355[8] From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine. See AlsoReferences
| ||||||||||||||||||||
