Rapid communications in mass spectrometry : RCM · 2021
Validation of ion mobility spectrometry - mass spectrometry as a screening tool to identify type II kinase inhibitors of FGFR1 kinase.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Beeston Helen S, Klein Tobias, Norman Richard A, Tucker Julie A, Anderson Malcolm, Ashcroft Alison E, Holdgate Geoffrey A
Аннотация
RATIONALE: The protein kinase FGFR1 regulates cellular processes in human development. As over-activity of FGFR1 is implicated with cancer, effective inhibitors are in demand. Type I inhibitors, which bind to the active form of FGFR1, are less effective than type II inhibitors, which bind to the inactive form. Screening to distinguish between type I and type II inhibitors is required.
METHODS: X-ray crystallography was used to indicate whether a range of potential inhibitors bind to the active or inactive FGFR1 kinase conformation. The binding affinity of each ligand to FGFR1 was measured using biochemical methods. Electrospray ionisation - ion mobility spectrometry - mass spectrometry (ESI-IMS-MS) in conjunction with collision-induced protein unfolding generated a conformational profile of each FGFR1-ligand complex. The results indicate that the protein's conformational profile depends on whether the inhibitor is type I or type II.
RESULTS: X-ray crystallography confirmed which of the kinase inhibitors bind to the active or inactive form of FGFR1 kinase. Collision-induced unfolding combined with ESI-IMS-MS showed distinct differences in the FGFR1 folding landscape for type I and type II inhibitors. Biochemical studies indicated a similar range of FGFR1 affinities for both types of inhibitors, thus providing confidence that the conformational variations detected using ESI-IMS-MS can be interpretated unequivocally and that this is an effective screening method.
CONCLUSIONS: A robust ESI-IMS-MS method has been implemented to distinguish between the binding mode of type I and type II inhibitors by monitoring the conformational unfolding profile of FGFR1. This rapid method requires low sample concentrations and could be used as a high-throughput screening technique for the characterisation of novel kinase inhibitors.
METHODS: X-ray crystallography was used to indicate whether a range of potential inhibitors bind to the active or inactive FGFR1 kinase conformation. The binding affinity of each ligand to FGFR1 was measured using biochemical methods. Electrospray ionisation - ion mobility spectrometry - mass spectrometry (ESI-IMS-MS) in conjunction with collision-induced protein unfolding generated a conformational profile of each FGFR1-ligand complex. The results indicate that the protein's conformational profile depends on whether the inhibitor is type I or type II.
RESULTS: X-ray crystallography confirmed which of the kinase inhibitors bind to the active or inactive form of FGFR1 kinase. Collision-induced unfolding combined with ESI-IMS-MS showed distinct differences in the FGFR1 folding landscape for type I and type II inhibitors. Biochemical studies indicated a similar range of FGFR1 affinities for both types of inhibitors, thus providing confidence that the conformational variations detected using ESI-IMS-MS can be interpretated unequivocally and that this is an effective screening method.
CONCLUSIONS: A robust ESI-IMS-MS method has been implemented to distinguish between the binding mode of type I and type II inhibitors by monitoring the conformational unfolding profile of FGFR1. This rapid method requires low sample concentrations and could be used as a high-throughput screening technique for the characterisation of novel kinase inhibitors.