![[Feedback]](/icons/banner/feedbackACT.gif){kind=icon}
![[For Subscribers]](/icons/banner/subscriberACT.gif){kind=icon}
![[Archive]](/icons/banner/archiveACT.gif){kind=icon}
![[Search]](/icons/banner/searchACT.gif){kind=icon}
![[Contents]](/icons/banner/tocACT.gif){kind=icon}
|
|
|
|
|
||
LA Speicher, N Laing, LR Barone, JD Robbins, KB Seamon and KD Tew
Department of Pharmacology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19111.
To identify specific drug targets of the antimitotic drug estramustine, a photoaffinity analogue, 17-O-[[2-[3-(4-azido-3-[125I] iodophenyl)propionamido]ethyl]carbamyl]estradiol-3-N-bis(2- chloroethyl)carbamate, was synthesized and reacted in competition assays with cytoskeletal protein preparations. By attaching the photoaffinity ligand to the 17 beta-position of the steroid D-ring, the cytotoxic properties of the drug were maintained. In cytoskeletal protein preparations from human prostate carcinoma cells (DU 145) or a clonally selected, estramustine-resistant cell line (E4), the major microtubule-associated protein (MAP) present was MAP4. In both cytoskeletal fractions and reconstituted microtubules, 17-O-[[2-[3-(4- azido-3-[125I]iodophenyl)propionamido] ethyl]carbamyl]estradiol-3-N- bis(2-chloroethyl)carbamate bound to both MAP4 and tubulin. From competition assays, the apparent binding constant for MAP4 from DU 145 cells was 15 microM. Similar calculations for tubulin gave values of 13 microM (bovine brain), 19 microM (DU 145 wild-type cells), and 25 microM (E4 cells). The identification of these cytoskeletal proteins as specific drug targets provides a direct explanation for the antimicrotubule and antimitotic effects of estramustine.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  R. D. Couch, N. J. Ganem, M. Zhou, V. M. Popov, T. Honda, T. D. Veenstra, M. B. Sporn, and A. C. Anderson 2-Cyano-3,12-dioxooleana-1,9(11)-diene-28-oic Acid Disrupts Microtubule Polymerization: A Possible Mechanism Contributing to Apoptosis Mol. Pharmacol., April 1, 2006; 69(4): 1158 - 1165. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. M. Tucker, Z. Lipatova, V. Beljanski, D. M. Townsend, and K. D. Tew Evaluation of Lipophilins as Determinants of Tumor Cell Response to Estramustine J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., December 1, 2005; 315(3): 1158 - 1162. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G. Hudes, L. Einhorn, E. Ross, A. Balsham, P. Loehrer, H. Ramsey, J. Sprandio, M. Entmacher, W. Dugan, R. Ansari, et al. Vinblastine Versus Vinblastine Plus Oral Estramustine Phosphate for Patients With Hormone-Refractory Prostate Cancer: A Hoosier Oncology Group and Fox Chase Network Phase III Trial J. Clin. Oncol., October 1, 1999; 17(10): 3160 - 3166. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. Panda, H. P. Miller, K. Islam, and L. Wilson Stabilization of microtubule dynamics by estramustine by binding to a novel site in tubulin: A possible mechanistic basis for its antitumor action PNAS, September 30, 1997; 94(20): 10560 - 10564. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
