E3 Ligase Ligands for PROTACs: How They Were Found and How to Discover New Ones

Abstract

Bifunctional degrader molecules, also called proteolysis-targeting chimeras (PROTACs), are a new modality of chemical tools and potential therapeutics to understand and treat human disease. A required PROTAC component is a ligand binding to an E3 ubiquitin ligase, which is then joined to another ligand binding to a protein to be degraded via the ubiquitin-proteasome system. The advent of nonpeptidic small-molecule E3 ligase ligands, notably for von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) and cereblon (CRBN), revolutionized the field and ushered in the design of drug-like PROTACs with potent and selective degradation activity. A first wave of PROTAC drugs are now undergoing clinical development in cancer, and the field is seeking to extend the repertoire of chemistries that allow hijacking new E3 ligases to improve the scope of targeted protein degradation.Here, we briefly review how traditional E3 ligase ligands were discovered, and then outline approaches and ligands that have been recently used to discover new E3 ligases for PROTACs. We will then take an outlook at current and future strategies undertaken that invoke either target-based screening or phenotypic-based approaches, including the use of DNA-encoded libraries (DELs), display technologies and cyclic peptides, smaller molecular glue degraders, and covalent warhead ligands. These approaches are ripe for expanding the chemical space of PROTACs and usher in the advent of other emerging bifunctional modalities of proximity-based pharmacology.

Shown for reading. Its publisher allows quoting it, not republishing it.

References 175

1. 1.

   Sakamoto K. M. Kim K. B. Kumagai A.; et al. Protacs: Chimeric Molecules That Target Proteins to the Skp1-Cullin-F Box Complex for Ubiquitination and Degradation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2001, 98, 8554–8559.

   Not in our library10.1073/pnas.141230798

2. 2.

   Schneekloth J. S. Jr. Fonseca F. N. Koldobskiy M; et al. Chemical Genetic Control of Protein Levels: Selective In Vivo Targeted Degradation. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2004, 126, 3748–3754.

   Not in our library10.1021/ja039025z

3. 3.

   Winter G. E. Buckley D. L. Paulk J.; et al. Drug Development. Phthalimide Conjugation as a Strategy for In Vivo Target Protein Degradation. Science. 2015, 348, 1376–1381.

   Not in our library10.1126/science.aab1433

4. 4.

   Zengerle M. Chan K.-H. Ciulli A. Selective Small Molecule Induced Degradation of the BET Bromodomain Protein BRD4. ACS Chem. Biol. 2015, 10, 1770–1777.

   Not in our library10.1021/acschembio.5b00216

5. 5.

   Itoh Y. Ishikawa M. Naito M.; et al. Protein Knockdown Using Methyl Bestatin-Ligand Hybrid Molecules: Design and Synthesis of Inducers of Ubiquitination-Mediated Degradation of Cellular Retinoic Acid-Binding Proteins. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2010, 132, 5820–5826.

   Not in our library10.1021/ja100691p

6. 6.

   Petrylak D. P. Gao X. Vogelzang N. J.; et al. First-in-Human Phase I Study of ARV-110, an Androgen Receptor (AR) PROTAC Degrader in Patients (pts) with Metastatic Castrate-Resistant Prostate Cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2020, 38 (15_suppl.), 3500.

   Not in our library

7. 7.

   Proof-of-Concept with PROTACs in Prostate Cancer. Cancer Discov. 2020, 10, 1084.

   Not in our library10.1158/2159-8290.cd-nb2020-054

8. 8.

   Semenza G. L. Wang G. L. A Nuclear Factor Induced by Hypoxia via De Novo Protein Synthesis Binds to the Human Erythropoietin Gene Enhancer at a Site Required for Transcriptional Activation. Mol. Cell. Biol. 1992, 12, 5447–5454.

   Not in our library10.1128/mcb.12.12.5447-5454.1992

9. 9.

   Gordan J. D. Thompson C. B. Simon M. C. HIF and c-Myc: Sibling Rivals for Control of Cancer Cell Metabolism and Proliferation. Cancer Cell. 2007, 12, 108–113.

   Not in our library10.1016/j.ccr.2007.07.006

10. 10.

    Tello D. Balsa E. Acosta-Iborra B.; et al. Induction of the Mitochondrial NDUFA4L2 Protein by HIF-1α Decreases Oxygen Consumption by Inhibiting Complex I Activity. Cell Metab. 2011, 14, 768–779.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cmet.2011.10.008

11. 11.

    Forsythe J. A. Jiang B.-H. Iyer N. V.; et al. Activation of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Gene Transcription by Hypoxia-Inducible Factor 1. Mol. Cell. Biol. 1996, 16, 4604–4613.

    Not in our library10.1128/mcb.16.9.4604

12. 12.

    Jiang J. Tang Y.-L. Liang X.-H.; EMT: A New Vision of Hypoxia Promoting Cancer Progression. Cancer Biol. Ther. 2011, 11, 714–723.

    Not in our library10.4161/cbt.11.8.15274

13. 13.

    Semenza G. L. Molecular Mechanisms Mediating Metastasis of Hypoxic Breast Cancer Cells. Trends Mol. Med. 2012, 18, 534–543.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.molmed.2012.08.001

14. 14.

    Maxwell P. H. Wiesener M. S. Chang G.-W.; et al. The Tumour Suppressor Protein VHL Targets Hypoxia-Inducible Factors for Oxygen-Dependent Proteolysis. Nature. 1999, 399, 271–275.

    Not in our library10.1038/20459

15. 15.

    Maher E. R. Kaelin W. G. Jr. Von Hippel-Lindau Disease. Medicine (Baltimore). 1997, 76, 381–391.

    Not in our library10.1097/00005792-199711000-00001

16. 16.

    Kamura T. Koepp D. M. Conrad M. N.; et al. Rbx1, a Component of the VHL Tumor Suppressor Complex and SCF Ubiquitin Ligase. Science. 1999, 284, 657–661.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.284.5414.657

17. 17.

    Stebbins C. E. Kaelin W. G. Jr. Pavletich N. P. Structure of the VHL-ElonginC-ElonginB Complex: Implications for VHL Tumor Suppressor Function. Science. 1999, 284, 455–461.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.284.5413.455

18. 18.
    Crystal Structure of the Cul2-Rbx1-EloBC-VHL Ubiquitin Ligase Complex · 2017

    No notice
19. 19.

    Hon W.-C. Wilson M. I. Harlos K.; et al. Structural Basis for the Recognition of Hydroxyproline in HIF-1 Alpha by pVHL. Nature. 2002, 417, 975–978.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature00767

20. 20.

    Min J.-H. Yang H. Ivan M.; et al. Structure of an HIF-1alpha–pVHL Complex: Hydroxyproline Recognition in Signaling. Science. 2002, 296, 1886–1889.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.1073440

21. 21.

    Buckley D. L. Van Molle I. Gareiss P. C.; et al. Targeting the von Hippel-Lindau E3 Ubiquitin Ligase Using Small Molecules to Disrupt the VHL/HIF-1α Interaction. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2012, 134, 4465–4468.

    Not in our library10.1021/ja209924v

22. 22.

    Buckley D. L. Gustafson J. L. Van Molle I.; et al. Small-Molecule Inhibitors of the Interaction between the E3 Ligase VHL and HIF1α. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2012, 51, 11463–11467.

    Not in our library10.1002/anie.201206231

23. 23.

    Van Molle I. Thomann A. Buckley D. L.; et al. Dissecting Fragment-Based Lead Discovery at the von Hippel-Lindau Protein:Hypoxia Inducible Factor 1α Protein-Protein Interface. Chem. Biol. 2012, 19, 1300–1312.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.chembiol.2012.08.015

24. 24.

    Galdeano C. Gadd M. S. Soares P.; et al. Structure-Guided Design and Optimization of Small Molecules Targeting the Protein-Protein Interaction Between the von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) E3 Ubiquitin Ligase and the Hypoxia Inducible Factor (HIF) Alpha Subunit with In Vitro Nanomolar Affinities. J. Med. Chem. 2014, 57, 8657–8663.

    Not in our library10.1021/jm5011258

25. 25.

    Soares P. Gadd M. S. Frost J.; et al. Group-Based Optimization of Potent and Cell-Active Inhibitors of the von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) E3 Ubiquitin Ligase: Structure-Activity Relationships Leading to the Chemical Probe (2S,4R)-1-((S)-2-(1-Cyanocyclopropanecarboxamido)-3,3-dimethylbutanoyl)-4-hydroxy-N-(4-(4-methylthiazol-5-yl)benzyl)pyrrolidine-2-carboxamide (VH298). J. Med. Chem. 2018, 61, 599–618.

    Not in our library10.1021/acs.jmedchem.7b00675

26. 26.
    Potent and selective chemical probe of hypoxic signalling downstream of HIF-α hydroxylation via VHL inhibition · 2016

    No notice
27. 27.

    Bondeson D. P. Mares A. Smith I. E.; et al. Catalytic In Vivo Protein Knockdown by Small-Molecule PROTACs. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2015, 11, 611–617.

    Not in our library10.1038/nchembio.1858

28. 28.

    Vijay V. M. Ujjwala K. Urvashi I. P. Thalidomide. Bombay Hosp. J. 2008, 50, 472–476.

    Not in our library

29. 29.

    Singhal S. Mehta J. Desikan R.; et al. Antitumor Activity of Thalidomide in Refractory Multiple Myeloma. N. Engl. J. Med. 1999, 341, 1565–1571.

    Not in our library10.1056/nejm199911183412102

30. 30.

    Ito T. Ando H. Suzuki T.; et al. Identification of a Primary Target of Thalidomide Teratogenicity. Science. 2010, 327, 1345–1350.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.1177319

31. 31.

    Krönke J. Udeshi N. D. Narla A.; et al. Lenalidomide Causes Selective Degradation of IKZF1 and IKZF3 in Multiple Myeloma Cells. Science. 2014, 343, 301–305.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.1244851

32. 32.

    Lu G. Middleton R. E. Sun H.; et al. The Myeloma Drug Lenalidomide Promotes the Cereblon-Dependent Destruction of Ikaros Proteins. Science. 2014, 343, 305–309.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.1244917

33. 33.

    Fischer E. S. Böhm K. Lydeard J. R.; et al. Structure of the DDB1-CRBN E3 Ubiquitin Ligase in Complex with Thalidomide. Nature. 2014, 512, 49–53.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature13527

34. 34.

    Chamberlain P. P. Lopez-Girona A. Miller K.; et al. Structure of the Human Cereblon-DDB1-Lenalidomide Complex Reveals Basis for Responsiveness to Thalidomide Analogs. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2014, 21, 803–809.

    Not in our library10.1038/nsmb.2874

35. 35.

    Lu J. Qian Y. Altieri M.; et al. Hijacking the E3 Ubiquitin Ligase Cereblon to Efficiently Target BRD4. Chem. Biol. 2015, 22, 755–763.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.chembiol.2015.05.009

36. 36.

    Baell J. B. Holloway G. A. New Substructure Filters for Removal of Pan Assay Interference Compounds (PAINS) from Screening Libraries and for Their Exclusion in Bioassays. J. Med. Chem. 2010, 53, 2719–2740.

    Not in our library10.1021/jm901137j

37. 37.

    Sekine K. Takubo K. Kikuchi R.; et al. Small Molecules Destabilize cIAP11 by Activating Auto-Ubiquitylation. J. Biol. Chem. 2008, 283, 8961–8968.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m709525200

38. 38.

    Okuhira K. Ohoka N. Sai K.; et al. Specific Degradation of CRABP-II via cIAP11-Mediated Ubiquitylation Induced by Hybrid Molecules That Crosslink cIAP11 and the Target Protein. FEBS Lett. 2011, 585, 1147–1152.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.febslet.2011.03.019

39. 39.

    Ohoka N. Okuhira K. Ito M.; et al. In Vivo Knockdown of Pathogenic Proteins via Specific and Nongenetic Inhibitor of Apoptosis Protein (IAP)-Dependent Protein Erasers (SNIPERs). J. Biol. Chem. 2017, 292, 4556–4570.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m116.768853

40. 40.

    Ohoka N. Ujikawa O. Shimokawa K.; et al. Different Degradation Mechanisms of Inhibitor of Apoptosis Proteins (IAPs) by the Specific and NongeneticIAP1-Dependent Protein Eraser (SNIPER). Chem. Pharm. Bull. (Tokyo). 2019, 67, 203–209.

    Not in our library10.1248/cpb.c18-00567

Cited by papers we hold 5

• Proximity-Based Modalities for Biology and Medicine · 2023
  No notice
• Discovery of small molecule ligands for the von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) E3 ligase and their use as inhibitors and PROTAC degraders · 2022
  No notice
• Key Considerations in Targeted Protein Degradation Drug Discovery and Development · 2022
  Not checked
• Discovery of XL01126: A Potent, Fast, Cooperative, Selective, Orally Bioavailable, and Blood–Brain Barrier Penetrant PROTAC Degrader of Leucine-Rich Repeat Kinase 2 · 2022
  No notice
• An overview of PROTACs: a promising drug discovery paradigm · 2022
  No notice

Reads

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.