Cited by 56Protein Degradation and InhibitorsChemical Synthesis and AnalysisUbiquitin and proteasome pathways

Profiling the Landscape of Drug Resistance Mutations in Neosubstrates to Molecular Glue Degraders

Open access
Gosavi, Pallavi M., Ngan, Kevin C., Yeo, Megan J. R., Su, Cindy, Li, Jiaming, Lue, Nicholas Z., Hoenig, Samuel M., Liau, Brian B.·2022·ACS Central Science

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Targeted protein degradation (TPD) holds immense promise for drug discovery, but mechanisms of acquired resistance to degraders remain to be fully identified. Here, we used clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)-suppressor scanning to identify mechanistic classes of drug resistance mutations to molecular glue degraders in GSPT1 and RBM39, neosubstrates targeted by E3 ligase substrate receptors cereblon and DCAF15, respectively. While many mutations directly alter the ternary complex heterodimerization surface, distal resistance sites were also identified. Several distal mutations in RBM39 led to modest decreases in degradation, yet can enable cell survival, underscoring how small differences in degradation can lead to resistance. Integrative analysis of resistance sites across GSPT1 and RBM39 revealed varying levels of sequence conservation and mutational constraint that control the emergence of different resistance mechanisms, highlighting that many regions co-opted by TPD are nonessential. Altogether, our study identifies common resistance mechanisms for molecular glue degraders and outlines a general approach to survey neosubstrate requirements necessary for effective degradation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/acscentsci.1c01603

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Both deep mutational scanning (DMS) and CRISPR tiling have recently highlighted hotspots in ligase and POI that are functionally relevant for degrader activity.

    “For instance, both DMS and CRISPR tiling have recently highlighted hotspots in ligase and POI that are functionally relevant for degrader activity.237,238”
  • A complementary CRISPR-suppressor scanning strategy identifies resistance-causing mutations localized in neo-substrates of known molecular glue degraders.

    “Moreover, an elegant recent study described a complementary approach, which is based on a CRISPR-suppressor scanning strategy, to identify resistance-causing mutations that are localized in neo-substrates of known molecular glue degraders48.”
  • Several functional genomics campaigns have helped map how the repertoire of CRLs and their regulators shape degrader efficacy, outlining putative resistance mechanisms.

    “Several functional genomics campaigns in recent years have helped map how the repertoire of CLRs and their regulators shape degrader efficacy, thus also outlining putative resistance mechanisms.141-151”

    From Chasing molecular glue degraders: screening approaches (2022) · cites this paper as [150]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gosavi, P. M., Ngan, K. C., Yeo, M. J. R., Su, C., Li, J., Lue, N. Z., Hoenig, S. M., & Liau, B. B.
Affiliations
Broad Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Liau, Brian B.
Venue
ACS Central Science
Published
2022-02-14
Volume
8
Issue
4
Pages
417-429
ISSN
  • 2374-7943 (ISSN-L)
  • 2374-7951
OpenAlex
W4226498581
Cited by
56
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 12
FWCI
3.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ACS Central Science (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Ono Pharma Foundation (Ono Pharma Breakthrough Science Initiative Award)
  • National Science Foundation (DGE-1745303)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Degradation and Inhibitors
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Chemical Synthesis and Analysis
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Ubiquitin and proteasome pathways
Keywords
targeted protein degradation, molecular glues, drug resistance mutations, GSPT1, RBM39, cereblon, DCAF15, mutational constraint, sequence conservation, resistance mechanisms

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review