Next Article in Journal
Clinical Epigenetics on the Baltic Coast
Next Article in Special Issue
Epigenetic Regulation in Breast Cancer: Insights on Epidrugs
Previous Article in Journal
DNA Hypomethylation May Contribute to Metabolic Recovery of Frozen Wood Frog Brains
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Editorial

Epidrugs: Toward Understanding and Treating Diverse Diseases

Laboratory for Epigenetics Drug Discovery, RIKEN Center for Biosystems Dynamics Research, 1-7-22 Suehiro-cho, Tsurumi, Yokohama 230-0045, Japan
Epigenomes 2022, 6(3), 18; https://doi.org/10.3390/epigenomes6030018
Submission received: 1 July 2022 / Revised: 11 July 2022 / Accepted: 11 July 2022 / Published: 12 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Epidrugs: Toward Understanding and Treating Diverse Diseases)

Abstract

:
Epigenomic modifications are unique in the type and amount of chemical modification at each chromosomal location, can vary from cell to cell, and can be externally modulated by small molecules. In recent years, genome-wide epigenomic modifications have been revealed, and rapid progress has been made in the identification of proteins responsible for epigenomic modifications and in the development of compounds that regulate them. This Special Issue on “Epidrugs: Toward Understanding and Treating Diverse Diseases” aims to provide insights into various aspects of the biology and development of epigenome-regulating compounds.

The epigenome forms, in many of its parts, a basic compacted structure, the nucleosome, consisting of the histone octamer (two copies each of H2A, H2B, H3, and H4) and 145 to 147 base pairs of DNA [1,2]. The major epigenomic modifications include acetylation, methylation, and phosphorylation of the side chains of residues in the N-terminal tails of the histones [3,4]. Another important epigenomic modification is the methylation of cytosine bases in the CpG sequence of DNA [5,6]. In epigenomic regulation, there are often three types of actions for each chemical modification: (1) writing, (2) reading, and (3) erasing [4,7]. The proteins responsible for each action usually contain a cavity to recognize the small epigenetic modifications (such as acetylation or methylation), often allowing their structural and functional control by small molecules, a critical feature for epidrug development.
Several epidrugs that target histone or DNA modifications have already been developed as therapeutic agents for refractory cancers. For example, some histone deacetylase inhibitors, such as vorinostat (SAHA) and romidepsin (FK228), are therapeutic agents for cutaneous T-cell lymphoma [8,9]. In addition, tazemetostat, an inhibitor of the histone methyltransferase EZH2, was recently approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of follicular lymphoma [10,11]. The nucleoside analogues 5-azacytidine and decitabine are known drugs that inhibit DNA methyltransferases (DNMT) in the treatment of myelodysplastic syndromes [12,13]. Nucleoside non-analogues that selectively inhibit DNMT1 [14,15] have also recently been of interest for the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia.
Epidrugs and related chemical probes are expected to be useful not only for disease therapy but also for elucidating the basic functions of the epigenome. For example, trapoxin, a histone deacetylase inhibitor, led to the cloning of the first histone deacetylase gene by the ligand affinity method [16]. Epidrugs have also been useful in analyzing the dynamics of modification in the histone proteome [17] and for developing the chem-seq method to identify the genome-wide location of a compound bound to a protein of interest [18]. In addition, the “bump-and-hole” strategy, in which a target protein can be orthogonally regulated by a compound, has been realized for BET proteins involved in recognizing histone acetylation [19]. Furthermore, inhibitors of BET proteins have been used in studies to degrade target proteins using PROTAC (proteolysis targeting chimera) [20,21,22], leading to the postulation that PROTAC is a promising strategy for future epidrug development.
Finally, epidrug development to date has primarily focused on refractory cancers. Indeed, aberrant gene expression in cancer may be regulated by the positive feedback of epigenomic modification and its recognition [23,24], and epidrugs may suppress many intractable cancers in addition to those mentioned above. Furthermore, clinical trials of epidrugs are increasingly targeting diseases other than cancer, which may lead to the use of epidrugs against a wide variety of diseases in the future.

Funding

This research was funded by grants-in-aid from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS): JP20H03388, JP20K21406, and JP21H05764.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Luger, K.; Mader, A.W.; Richmond, R.K.; Sargent, D.F.; Richmond, T.J. Crystal structure of the nucleosome core particle at 2.8 A resolution. Nature 1997, 389, 251–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Kornberg, R.D.; Lorch, Y. Twenty-five years of the nucleosome, fundamental particle of the eukaryote chromosome. Cell 1999, 98, 285–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Jenuwein, T.; Allis, C.D. Translating the histone code. Science 2001, 293, 1074–1080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Taverna, S.D.; Li, H.; Ruthenburg, A.J.; Allis, C.D.; Patel, D.J. How chromatin-binding modules interpret histone modifications: Lessons from professional pocket pickers. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2007, 14, 1025–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Bird, A. DNA methylation patterns and epigenetic memory. Genes Dev. 2002, 16, 6–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Jones, P.A. Functions of DNA methylation: Islands, start sites, gene bodies and beyond. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2012, 13, 484–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hong, S.; Cheng, X. DNA Base Flipping: A General Mechanism for Writing, Reading, and Erasing DNA Modifications. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 2016, 945, 321–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Manal, M.; Chandrasekar, M.J.; Gomathi Priya, J.; Nanjan, M.J. Inhibitors of histone deacetylase as antitumor agents: A critical review. Bioorg. Chem. 2016, 67, 18–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Li, Y.; Wang, F.; Chen, X.; Wang, J.; Zhao, Y.; Li, Y.; He, B. Zinc-dependent Deacetylase (HDAC) Inhibitors with Different Zinc Binding Groups. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 2019, 19, 223–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Hoy, S.M. Tazemetostat: First Approval. Drugs 2020, 80, 513–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bhat, K.P.; Umit Kaniskan, H.; Jin, J.; Gozani, O. Epigenetics and beyond: Targeting writers of protein lysine methylation to treat disease. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2021, 20, 265–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Stresemann, C.; Lyko, F. Modes of action of the DNA methyltransferase inhibitors azacytidine and decitabine. Int. J. Cancer 2008, 123, 8–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Zhou, Z.; Li, H.Q.; Liu, F. DNA Methyltransferase Inhibitors and their Therapeutic Potential. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 2018, 18, 2448–2457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Gilmartin, A.G.; Groy, A.; Gore, E.R.; Atkins, C.; Long, E.R.; Montoute, M.N.; Wu, Z.; Halsey, W.; McNulty, D.E.; Ennulat, D.; et al. In vitro and in vivo induction of fetal hemoglobin with a reversible and selective DNMT1 inhibitor. Haematologica 2021, 106, 1979–1987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Pappalardi, M.B.; Keenan, K.; Cockerill, M.; Kellner, W.A.; Stowell, A.; Sherk, C.; Wong, K.; Pathuri, S.; Briand, J.; Steidel, M.; et al. Discovery of a first-in-class reversible DNMT1-selective inhibitor with improved tolerability and efficacy in acute myeloid leukemia. Nat. Cancer 2021, 2, 1002–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Taunton, J.; Hassig, C.A.; Schreiber, S.L. A mammalian histone deacetylase related to the yeast transcriptional regulator Rpd3p. Science 1996, 272, 408–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Choudhary, C.; Kumar, C.; Gnad, F.; Nielsen, M.L.; Rehman, M.; Walther, T.C.; Olsen, J.V.; Mann, M. Lysine acetylation targets protein complexes and co-regulates major cellular functions. Science 2009, 325, 834–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Anders, L.; Guenther, M.G.; Qi, J.; Fan, Z.P.; Marineau, J.J.; Rahl, P.B.; Loven, J.; Sigova, A.A.; Smith, W.B.; Lee, T.I.; et al. Genome-wide localization of small molecules. Nat. Biotechnol. 2014, 32, 92–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Baud, M.G.J.; Lin-Shiao, E.; Cardote, T.; Tallant, C.; Pschibul, A.; Chan, K.H.; Zengerle, M.; Garcia, J.R.; Kwan, T.T.; Ferguson, F.M.; et al. Chemical biology. A bump-and-hole approach to engineer controlled selectivity of BET bromodomain chemical probes. Science 2014, 346, 638–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Winter, G.E.; Buckley, D.L.; Paulk, J.; Roberts, J.M.; Souza, A.; Dhe-Paganon, S.; Bradner, J.E. Phthalimide conjugation as a strategy for in vivo target protein degradation. Science 2015, 348, 1376–1381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Lu, J.; Qian, Y.; Altieri, M.; Dong, H.; Wang, J.; Raina, K.; Hines, J.; Winkler, J.D.; Crew, A.P.; Coleman, K.; et al. Hijacking the E3 Ubiquitin Ligase Cereblon to Efficiently Target BRD4. Chem. Biol. 2015, 22, 755–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Zengerle, M.; Chan, K.H.; Ciulli, A. Selective Small Molecule Induced Degradation of the BET Bromodomain Protein BRD4. ACS Chem. Biol. 2015, 10, 1770–1777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Loven, J.; Hoke, H.A.; Lin, C.Y.; Lau, A.; Orlando, D.A.; Vakoc, C.R.; Bradner, J.E.; Lee, T.I.; Young, R.A. Selective inhibition of tumor oncogenes by disruption of super-enhancers. Cell 2013, 153, 320–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Hnisz, D.; Shrinivas, K.; Young, R.A.; Chakraborty, A.K.; Sharp, P.A. A Phase Separation Model for Transcriptional Control. Cell 2017, 169, 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Umehara, T. Epidrugs: Toward Understanding and Treating Diverse Diseases. Epigenomes 2022, 6, 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/epigenomes6030018

AMA Style

Umehara T. Epidrugs: Toward Understanding and Treating Diverse Diseases. Epigenomes. 2022; 6(3):18. https://doi.org/10.3390/epigenomes6030018

Chicago/Turabian Style

Umehara, Takashi. 2022. "Epidrugs: Toward Understanding and Treating Diverse Diseases" Epigenomes 6, no. 3: 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/epigenomes6030018

APA Style

Umehara, T. (2022). Epidrugs: Toward Understanding and Treating Diverse Diseases. Epigenomes, 6(3), 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/epigenomes6030018

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop