Strategies to inhibit tumour associated integrin receptors: rationale for dual and multi-antagonists

YesThe integrins are a family of 24 heterodimeric transmembrane cell surface receptors. Involvement in cell attachment to the extracellular matrix, motility, and proliferation identifies integrins as therapeutic targets in cancer and associated conditions; thrombosis, angiogenesis and osteoporosis. The most reported strategy for drug development is synthesis of an agent that is highly selective for a single integrin receptor. However, the ability of cancer cells to change their integrin repertoire in response to drug treatment renders this approach vulnerable to the development of resistance and paradoxical promotion of tumor growth. Here, we review progress towards development of antagonists targeting two or more members of the RGD-binding integrins, notably αvβ3, αvβ5, αvβ6, αvβ8, α5β1, and αIIbβ3, as anticancer therapeutics

Outcome of the First wwPDB/CCDC/D3R Ligand Validation Workshop.

Crystallographic studies of ligands bound to biological macromolecules (proteins and nucleic acids) represent an important source of information concerning drug-target interactions, providing atomic level insights into the physical chemistry of complex formation between macromolecules and ligands. Of the more than 115,000 entries extant in the Protein Data Bank (PDB) archive, ∼75% include at least one non-polymeric ligand. Ligand geometrical and stereochemical quality, the suitability of ligand models for in silico drug discovery and design, and the goodness-of-fit of ligand models to electron-density maps vary widely across the archive. We describe the proceedings and conclusions from the first Worldwide PDB/Cambridge Crystallographic Data Center/Drug Design Data Resource (wwPDB/CCDC/D3R) Ligand Validation Workshop held at the Research Collaboratory for Structural Bioinformatics at Rutgers University on July 30-31, 2015. Experts in protein crystallography from academe and industry came together with non-profit and for-profit software providers for crystallography and with experts in computational chemistry and data archiving to discuss and make recommendations on best practices, as framed by a series of questions central to structural studies of macromolecule-ligand complexes. What data concerning bound ligands should be archived in the PDB? How should the ligands be best represented? How should structural models of macromolecule-ligand complexes be validated? What supplementary information should accompany publications of structural studies of biological macromolecules? Consensus recommendations on best practices developed in response to each of these questions are provided, together with some details regarding implementation. Important issues addressed but not resolved at the workshop are also enumerated.The workshop was supported by funding to RCSB PDB by the National Science Foundation (DBI 1338415); PDBe by the Wellcome Trust (104948); PDBj by JST-NBDC; BMRB by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM109046); D3R by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM111528); registration fees from industrial participants; and tax-deductible donations to the wwPDB Foundation by the Genentech Foundation and the Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation.This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from Cell Press via https://doi.org//10.1016/j.str.2016.02.01

Outcome of the First wwPDB/CCDC/D3R Ligand Validation Workshop

Crystallographic studies of ligands bound to biological macromolecules (proteins and nucleic acids) represent an important source of information concerning drug-target interactions, providing atomic level insights into the physical chemistry of complex formation between macromolecules and ligands. Of the more than 115,000 entries extant in the Protein Data Bank (PDB) archive, ∼75% include at least one non-polymeric ligand. Ligand geometrical and stereochemical quality, the suitability of ligand models for in silico drug discovery and design, and the goodness-of-fit of ligand models to electron-density maps vary widely across the archive. We describe the proceedings and conclusions from the first Worldwide PDB/Cambridge Crystallographic Data Center/Drug Design Data Resource (wwPDB/CCDC/D3R) Ligand Validation Workshop held at the Research Collaboratory for Structural Bioinformatics at Rutgers University on July 30–31, 2015. Experts in protein crystallography from academe and industry came together with non-profit and for-profit software providers for crystallography and with experts in computational chemistry and data archiving to discuss and make recommendations on best practices, as framed by a series of questions central to structural studies of macromolecule-ligand complexes. What data concerning bound ligands should be archived in the PDB? How should the ligands be best represented? How should structural models of macromolecule-ligand complexes be validated? What supplementary information should accompany publications of structural studies of biological macromolecules? Consensus recommendations on best practices developed in response to each of these questions are provided, together with some details regarding implementation. Important issues addressed but not resolved at the workshop are also enumerated.This is the publisher’s final pdf. The published article is copyrighted by Elsevier (Cell Press) and can be found at: http://www.cell.com/structure/hom