Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35671157›Full record

ReviewChemical Society reviews2022

PROTACs: past, present and future.

Ke Li, Craig M Crews

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Chemical Society reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 301 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
301citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

301 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

241 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Ke LiDepartment of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06511, USA. craig.crews@yale.edu.
Craig M CrewsDepartment of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06511, USA. craig.crews@yale.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8456-2005

Funding

Inducing Proximity: An Emerging Paradigm for New Therapeutic ModalitiesR35CA197589 · NCI · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI CRAIG M CREWS · 2015 to 2026
$10.7M
Developing Tumor-specific PROTACsR01CA238570 · NCI · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI CREWS, CRAIG M · 2019 to 2023
$1.9M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA238570NCI NIH HHS R35 CA197589
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Proteolysis-targeting chimeras (PROTACs) are heterobifunctional molecules consisting of one ligand that binds to a protein of interest (POI) and another that can recruit an E3 ubiquitin ligase. The chemically-induced proximity between the POI and E3 ligase results in ubiquitination and subsequent degradation of the POI by the ubiquitin-proteasome system (UPS). The event-driven mechanism of action (MOA) of PROTACs offers several advantages compared to traditional occupancy-driven small molecule inhibitors, such as a catalytic nature, reduced dosing and dosing frequency, a more potent and longer-lasting effect, an added layer of selectivity to reduce potential toxicity, efficacy in the face of drug-resistance mechanisms, targeting nonenzymatic functions, and expanded target space. Here, we highlight important milestones and briefly discuss lessons learned about targeted protein degradation (TPD) in recent years and conjecture on the efforts still needed to expand the toolbox for PROTAC discovery to ultimately provide promising therapeutics.

Indexed as

Proteasome Endopeptidase ComplexProteolysisUbiquitinationUbiquitin-Protein LigasesProteasome Endopeptidase ComplexUbiquitin-Protein Ligases

Identifiers

PMID35671157
PMCPMC10237031

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.