Cited by 487Protein Degradation and InhibitorsUbiquitin and proteasome pathwaysChemical Synthesis and Analysis

Electrophilic PROTACs that degrade nuclear proteins by engaging DCAF16

Open access
Zhang, Xiaoyu, Crowley, Vincent M., Wucherpfennig, Thomas G., Dix, Melissa M., Cravatt, Benjamin F.·2019·Nature Chemical Biology

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Ligand-dependent protein degradation has emerged as a compelling strategy to pharmacologically control the protein content of cells. So far, however, only a limited number of E3 ligases have been found to support this process. Here, we use a chemical proteomic strategy that leverages broadly reactive, cysteine-directed electrophilic fragments coupled to selective ligands for intracellular proteins (for example, SLF for FKBP12, JQ1 for BRD4) to screen for heterobifunctional degrader compounds (or proteolysis targeting chimeras, PROTACs) that operate by covalent adduction of E3 ligases. This approach identified DCAF16-a poorly characterized substrate recognition component of CUL4-DDB1 E3 ubiquitin ligases-as a target of electrophilic PROTACs that promote the nuclear-restricted degradation of proteins. We find that only a modest fraction (~10-40%) of DCAF16 needs to be modified to support protein degradation, pointing to the potential for electrophilic PROTACs to induce neosubstrate degradation without substantially perturbing the function of the participating E3 ligase.

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 · 10.1038/s41589-019-0279-5

Cites

51 of 51 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?

  • Since 2019, covalent recruiters have been used to validate a large proportion of E3 ligases harnessed for targeted protein degradation, including RNF114, RNF4, DCAF16, DCAF11, KEAP1 and FEM1B.

    “Since 2019, covalent recruiters have been used to validate a large proportion of the E3 ligases that have been harnessed for targeted protein degradation, including RING finger protein 114 (RNF114), RNF4, DDB1 and CUL4-associated factor 16 (DCAF16), DCAF11, KEAP1 and, most recently, fem-1 homologue B (FEM1B)187–193.”

    From Advances in covalent drug discovery (2022) · cites this paper as [190]

  • Covalent drug discovery platforms have facilitated expansion of targeted protein degradation by enabling discovery of covalent recruiters against E3 ubiquitin ligases.

    “Covalent drug discovery platforms have facilitated the expansion of targeted protein degradation approaches by enabling the discovery of covalent recruiters against E3 ubiquitin ligases14,187–193.”

    From Advances in covalent drug discovery (2022) · cites this paper as [190]

  • A nuclear E3 ligase, DCAF16, has been shown to restrict target degradation to the nucleus.

    “a nuclear E3 ligase, DCAF16, has been shown to restrict target degradation to the nucleus131.”

    From PROTAC targeted protein degraders: the past is prologue (2022) · cites this paper as [131]

  • A PROTAC that targets nuclear FKBP12 for degradation by engaging DCAF16 has been reported.

    “a PROTAC that targets nuclear FKBP12 for degradation by engaging DCAF16 has been reported [70].”
  • Covalent binding to E3 ligases is acceptable for PROTACs.

    “While covalent binding to E3 ligases is acceptable 31,44 ,”

    From Targeted protein degradation: expanding the toolbox (2019) · cites this paper as [31]

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
Zhang, X., Crowley, V. M., Wucherpfennig, T. G., Dix, M. M., & Cravatt, B. F.
Affiliations
Scripps Research Institute (US)
Corresponding author
  • Zhang, Xiaoyu
  • Cravatt, Benjamin F.
Venue
Nature Chemical Biology
Published
2019-06-17
Volume
15
Issue
7
Pages
737-746
ISSN
  • 1552-4450 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-4469
OpenAlex
W2949485830
Cited by
487
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 59 · 2025: 70 · 2024: 95 · 2023: 56 · 2022: 76 · 2021: 64 · 2020: 45 · 2019: 22
FWCI
17.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Chemical Biology (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (CA212467, CA087660)
  • National Cancer Institute (R50CA211526, K00CA212467, F99CA212467, R37CA087660, R01CA087660, R35CA231991)
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, chemoproteomics
MeSH terms
Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Humans, Ligands, Nuclear Proteins, Structure-Activity Relationship, Molecular Structure, Protein Kinase Inhibitors, HEK293 Cells, 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