Structural and mechanistic insights into ras association domains of phospholipase C epsilon

Ras proteins signal to a number of distinct pathways by interacting with diverse effectors. Studies of ras/effector interactions have focused on three classes, Raf kinases, ral guanylnucleotide-exchange factors, and phosphatidylinositol-3-kinases. Here we describe ras interactions with another effector, the recently identified phospholipase C epsilon (PLCepsilon). We solved structures of PLCepsilon RA domains (RA1 and RA2) by NMR and the structure of the RA2/ras complex by X-ray crystallography. Although the similarity between ubiquitin-like folds of RA1 and RA2 proves that they are homologs, only RA2 can bind ras. Some of the features of the RA2/ras interface are unique to PLCepsilon, while the ability to make contacts with both switch I and II regions of ras is shared only with phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase. Studies of PLCepsilon regulation suggest that, in a cellular context, the RA2 domain, in a mode specific to PLCepsilon, has a role in membrane targeting with further regulatory impact on PLC activity

Separating the mechanism-based and off-target actions of cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitors with CETP gene polymorphisms

BACKGROUND: Cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) inhibitors raise high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, but torcetrapib, the first-in-class inhibitor tested in a large outcome trial, caused an unexpected blood pressure elevation and increased cardiovascular events. Whether the hypertensive effect resulted from CETP inhibition or an off-target action of torcetrapib has been debated. We hypothesized that common single-nucleotide polymorphisms in the CETP gene could help distinguish mechanism-based from off-target actions of CETP inhibitors to inform on the validity of CETP as a therapeutic target. METHODS AND RESULTS: We compared the effect of CETP single-nucleotide polymorphisms and torcetrapib treatment on lipid fractions, blood pressure, and electrolytes in up to 67 687 individuals from genetic studies and 17 911 from randomized trials. CETP single-nucleotide polymorphisms and torcetrapib treatment reduced CETP activity and had a directionally concordant effect on 8 lipid and lipoprotein traits (total, low-density lipoprotein, and HDL cholesterol; HDL2; HDL3; apolipoproteins A-I and B; and triglycerides), with the genetic effect on HDL cholesterol (0.13 mmol/L, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.11 to 0.14 mmol/L) being consistent with that expected of a 10-mg dose of torcetrapib (0.13 mmol/L, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.15). In trials, 60 mg of torcetrapib elevated systolic and diastolic blood pressure by 4.47 mm Hg (95% CI 4.10 to 4.84 mm Hg) and 2.08 mm Hg (95% CI 1.84 to 2.31 mm Hg), respectively. However, the effect of CETP single-nucleotide polymorphisms on systolic blood pressure (0.16 mm Hg, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.60 mm Hg) and diastolic blood pressure (-0.04 mm Hg, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.28 mm Hg) was null and significantly different from that expected of 10 mg of torcetrapib. CONCLUSIONS: Discordance in the effects of CETP single-nucleotide polymorphisms and torcetrapib treatment on blood pressure despite the concordant effects on lipids indicates the hypertensive action of torcetrapib is unlikely to be due to CETP inhibition or shared by chemically dissimilar CETP inhibitors. Genetic studies could find a place in drug-development programs as a new source of randomized evidence for drug-target validation in human

Effects of once-weekly exenatide on cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND: The cardiovascular effects of adding once-weekly treatment with exenatide to usual care in patients with type 2 diabetes are unknown. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with type 2 diabetes, with or without previous cardiovascular disease, to receive subcutaneous injections of extended-release exenatide at a dose of 2 mg or matching placebo once weekly. The primary composite outcome was the first occurrence of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. The coprimary hypotheses were that exenatide, administered once weekly, would be noninferior to placebo with respect to safety and superior to placebo with respect to efficacy. RESULTS: In all, 14,752 patients (of whom 10,782 [73.1%] had previous cardiovascular disease) were followed for a median of 3.2 years (interquartile range, 2.2 to 4.4). A primary composite outcome event occurred in 839 of 7356 patients (11.4%; 3.7 events per 100 person-years) in the exenatide group and in 905 of 7396 patients (12.2%; 4.0 events per 100 person-years) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.00), with the intention-to-treat analysis indicating that exenatide, administered once weekly, was noninferior to placebo with respect to safety (P<0.001 for noninferiority) but was not superior to placebo with respect to efficacy (P=0.06 for superiority). The rates of death from cardiovascular causes, fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction, fatal or nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, and hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome, and the incidence of acute pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, medullary thyroid carcinoma, and serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with type 2 diabetes with or without previous cardiovascular disease, the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events did not differ significantly between patients who received exenatide and those who received placebo