Home › Research › Drug development
Structural determinants of Tau aggregation inhibitor potency
Schafer KN, Cisek K, Huseby CJ, Chang E, Kuret J.. The Journal of biological chemistry, 2013-09-26
Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models
Small-molecule Tau aggregation inhibitors are under investigation as potential therapeutic agents against Alzheimer disease. Many such inhibitors have been identified in vitro, but their potency-driving features, and their molecular targets in the Tau aggregation pathway, have resisted identification. Previously we proposed ligand polarizability, a measure of electron delocalization, as a candidate descriptor of inhibitor potency. Here we tested this hypothesis by correlating the ground state polarizabilities of cyanine, phenothiazine, and arylmethine derivatives calculated using ab initio quantum methods with inhibitory potency values determined in the presence of octadecyl sulfate inducer under reducing conditions. A series of rhodanine analogs was analyzed as well using potency values disclosed in the literature. Results showed that polarizability and inhibitory potency directly correlated within all four series. To identify putative binding targets, representative members of the four chemotypes were added to aggregation reactions, where they were found to stabilize soluble, but SDS-resistant Tau species at the expense of filamentous aggregates. Using SDS resistance as a secondary assay, and a library of Tau deletion and missense mutants as targets, interaction with cyanine was localized to the microtubule binding repeat region. Moreover, the SDS-resistant phenotype was completely dependent on the presence of octadecyl sulfate inducer, but not intact PHF6/PH6* hexapeptide motifs, indicating that cyanine interacted with a species in the aggregation pathway prior to nucleus formation. Together the data suggest that flat, highly polarizable ligands inhibit Tau aggregation by interacting with folded species in the aggregation pathway and driving their assembly into soluble but highly stable Tau oligomers.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Schafer, K. N., Cisek, K., Huseby, C. J., Chang, E., & Kuret, J. (2013). Structural determinants of Tau aggregation inhibitor potency. The Journal of biological chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.m113.503474
Vancouver
Schafer KN, Cisek K, Huseby CJ, Chang E, Kuret J. Structural determinants of Tau aggregation inhibitor potency. The Journal of biological chemistry. 2013. doi:10.1074/jbc.m113.503474. PMID: 24072703.
BibTeX
@article{schafer2013-24072703,
author = {Schafer, K. N. and Cisek, K. and Huseby, C. J. and Chang, E. and Kuret, J.},
title = {{Structural determinants of Tau aggregation inhibitor potency}},
journal = {The Journal of biological chemistry},
year = {2013},
doi = {10.1074/jbc.m113.503474},
pmid = {24072703},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.m113.503474}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results showed that polarizability and inhibitory potency directly correlated within all four series.
- Together the data suggest that flat, highly polarizable ligands inhibit Tau aggregation by interacting with folded species in the aggregation pathway and driving their assembly into soluble but highly stable Tau oligomers.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 36/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 36 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (The Journal of biological chemistry) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2013 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 24072703) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 21 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 36 out of 100. |
| Total | 36 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.