Cited by 176Protein Degradation and InhibitorsUbiquitin and proteasome pathwaysChemical Synthesis and Analysis

Assessing Different E3 Ligases for Small Molecule Induced Protein Ubiquitination and Degradation

Ottis, Philipp, Toure, Momar, Cromm, Philipp M., Ko, Eunhwa, Gustafson, Jeffrey L., Crews, Craig M.·2017·ACS Chemical Biology

Abstract

Proteolysis targeting chimera (PROTAC) technology, the recruitment of E3 ubiquitin ligases to induce the degradation of a protein target, is rapidly impacting chemical biology, as well as modern drug development. Here, we explore the universality of this approach by evaluating different E3 ubiquitin ligases, engineered in their substrate binding domains to accept a recruiting ligand. Five out of six E3 ligases were found to be amenable to recruitment for target degradation. Taking advantage of the tight spatiotemporal control of inducing ubiquitination on a preselected target in living cells, we focused on two of the engineered E3 ligases, βTRCP and parkin, to unravel their ubiquitination characteristics in comparison with the PROTAC-recruited endogenous E3 ligases VHL and cereblon.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/acschembio.7b00485

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Five out of six E3 ligases representing diverse enzymatic and structural classes were amenable to recruitment for target degradation when fused to an artificial ligand-binding domain.

    “Extending the repertoire of E3 ligases exploited by PROTACs is an engaging prospect and is supported by the observation that five out of six E3 ligases representing diverse enzymatic and structural classes were amenable to recruitment for target degradation when fused to an artificial ligand-binding domain 63 .”

    From Targeted protein degradation: expanding the toolbox (2019) · cites this paper as [63]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ottis, P., Toure, M., Cromm, P. M., Ko, E., Gustafson, J. L., & Crews, C. M.
Affiliations
Yale University (US)
Corresponding author
Crews, Craig M.
Venue
ACS Chemical Biology
Published
2017-09-05
Volume
12
Issue
10
Pages
2570-2578
ISSN
  • 1554-8929 (ISSN-L)
  • 1554-8937
OpenAlex
W2740493003
Cited by
176
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 4
FWCI
6.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • ACS Chemical Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (R35CA197589)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Degradation and Inhibitors
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Ubiquitin and proteasome pathways
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Chemical Synthesis and Analysis
Keywords
PROTACs, E3 ubiquitin ligase, protein degradation, ubiquitination, substrate-binding domain, β-TrCP, Parkin, VHL, cereblon, small-molecule ligands, targeted protein degradation
MeSH terms
Cell Line, Cloning, Molecular, Humans, Models, Molecular, Protein Conformation, Molecular Structure, Ubiquitin-Protein Ligases, Ubiquitination, Proteolysis

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