Skip to main content
Download PDF

Ubiquitin recruiting chimera: more than just a PROTAC

Biology Direct volume 19, Article number: 55 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Ubiquitinylation of protein substrates results in various but distinct biological consequences, among which ubiquitin-mediated degradation is most well studied for its therapeutic application. Accordingly, artificially targeted ubiquitin-dependent degradation of various proteins has evolved into the therapeutically relevant PROTAC technology. This tethered ubiquitinylation of various targets coupled with a broad assortment of modifying E3 ubiquitin ligases has been made possible by rational design of bi-specific chimeric molecules that bring these proteins in proximity. However, forced ubiquitinylation inflicted by the binary warheads of a chimeric PROTAC molecule should not necessarily result in protein degradation but can be used to modulate other cellular functions. In this respect it should be noted that the ubiquitinylation of a diverse set of proteins is known to control their transport, transcriptional activity, and protein-protein interactions. This review provides examples of potential PROTAC usage based on non-degradable ubiquitinylation.

Background

The ubiquitin recruiting small molecule was first introduced in 2001, when it was shown that the chimeric compound Protac-1 is capable of triggering ubiquitinylation of a protein target, leading to its proteolysis [1]. This technology was dubbed as PROTAC (PROteolysis TArgeting Chimera) and became the first in a series of PROTAC-like techniques that artificially forced post-translational modifications (ubiquitinylation, phosphorylation, and acetylation) of the target proteins due to the chemically-arranged physical proximity to the corresponding enzyme. The concept of induced protein interaction has been confirmed in recent years by a number of successful large-scale studies. In particular, 17 drugs based on protein proteolysis provoked by ubiquitinylation are undergoing clinical trials by 2023 [2].

Capitalizing on the wealth of experimental data that has been accumulated over the last two decades of intense research, the PROTAC approach turned into a routine search of the optimal target – linker – ubiquitin ligase combination (Fig. 1A). The choice of elements in the scheme is determined not so much by the pharmacological and/or research suitability, but by the availability of the relevant tethering compounds. The latter is reflected by the impressive growth of commercially available building blocks for the construction of binary warheads molecules. However, in parallel, data on the involvement of ubiquitin not only in the proteasomal degradation of proteins, but also in other cellular processes were revealed [3,4,5,6,7]. All this opens up promising prospects for a significant expansion of the application range for ubiquitin-targeting chimeras.

Ubiquitinylation is involved in regulation of the wide range of cellular processes and is not limited to the protein degradation. Thus, manipulation of ubiquitinylation by fine-tuning the site of ubiquitinylation and the specificity of the ubiquitin chain allows modulating the protein conformation as well as its interactions with other macromolecules including transcriptional activity, the protein transfer between organelles, selective blockage of different stages of cell cycle and others (Fig. 1B). The desired effect can be achieved through careful selection of the executor E3 ligase, many of which are yet unexplored, and the development of new small molecule ligands that can bind them.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PROTAC principle (A): chimeric molecule brings a protein of interest and an E3 ubiquitin ligase together upon binding of its warhead to the protein of interest and its anchor to the E3 ubiquitin ligase, while the warhead and the anchor are connected by the linker of a certain length providing further ubiquitinylation. Prospects for the use of ubiquitin recruiting chimera (B): while the direction of ubiquitin-mediated proteolysis (PROTAC technology) is actively developing, other modalities of forced selective ubiquitinylation of protein substrates, such as modulating transcriptional activity or transport between cellular compartments, remain unexplored

Full size image

The present review highlights the directions in which one can develop rational design of PROTAC based on forced ubiquitinylation, since such modification of proteins can provoke not only commonly expected proteolysis of the target, but also cause diverse, but predictable consequences for a specific target.

PROTAC

The concept of PROTAC was developed by Deshaies group in 2001 [1], and soon after it gained wide popularity in the field of molecular oncology because it proved to be very useful for the functional analysis of cancer-related kinases and their substrates.

Such a molecular engineering approach using bifunctional chemical probes looks like a versatile tool for targeted degradation of specific proteins. These bifunctional chemical probes consist of two different small molecules linked together where one of them binds the target protein and the other one recruits an E3 ligase, an enzyme that covalently modifies proteins destined for degradation in the proteasome (Fig. 1A) [8].

E3 ligase is an enzyme in the cascade ensuring the attachment of a specific tag, ubiquitin, to proteins, which acts as a signal for protein breakdown in the proteasome. In general, this cascade consists of 4 stages, where ubiquitin is sequentially transferred between several enzymes (E1-E2-E3) until it is finally covalently attached on the target lysine of the substrate protein (Fig. 2). Firstly, the ubiquitin molecule is activated due to the ATP-dependent formation of a high energy thioester bond between the Gly76 residue of ubiquitin and the cysteine residue of E1; then E1 connects the activated Ub to E2, which provides a binding platform for E1, E3, and activated Ub. The participation of highly selective E3 ensures specific recognition of a specific target protein, to the lysine of which several ubiquitins are sequentially attached to form a polyubiquitin chain. Lysine is an abundant amino acid (6% of the entire proteome) and its ε-amine mediates many protein-protein interactions [9], accordingly, each protein has several potential ubiquitinylation sites [10]. Conjugation of multiple ubiquitin units to monoubiquitylated substrates is conducted by E4 ubiquitin-chain elongation factors or E3 ligases with such an activity [11]. The buildup of the polypeptide tag provokes the final stage of the cascade, protein cleavage by the 26S proteasome [12]. In this case, polyubiquitin chains are successfully recognized by proteasomal ubiquitin receptors Rpn1, Rpn10, and Rpn13 of the 19S sub-complex, which initiates protein translocation to the 20S sub-complex for subsequent degradation [13]. Importantly, enzymatic activities of proteasomes may be regulated by ubiquitinylation [14, 15]. Several groups including ourselves have shown that various forms of cellular stress control the activity of 20S proteasomes via post-translational modifications [16, 17].

Fig. 2
figure 2

PROTAC in proteasomal degradation. Ubiquitin activation and formation of ubiquitinylation complex (A): the ubiquitin molecule is activated by the formation of a high energy bond between the residue Gly76 of ubiquitin and the cysteine residue of E1; then E1 attaches the activated Ub to E2 providing the binding platform for E1, E3, and activated Ub. Natural ubiquitinylation of the target by E3 ligase (B): highly selective E3 ensures specific recognition of a specific target protein. Ubiquitinylation of the target by PROTAC (C): PROTAC ensures recruitment the desired E3 to the target protein

Full size image

Although more than 600 E3 ligases are known, which vary significantly both in structure and physiological functions [18], only four ubiquitin ligases are used for the PROTAC-mediated approach: VHL, MDM2, IAPs (inhibitor of apoptosis proteins), and CRBN (cereblon). The major bottleneck for the wider use of the wealth of different E3 ligases in the PROTAC system is the lack of specific chemical probes that would ensure their specific and robust tethering to their respective targets. The latter underscores the necessity of structure-function studies and chemical screening of various libraries to identify additional E3 ligase-targeting probes.

The von Hippel–Lindau (VHL) tumor suppressor substrate receptor interacts with the CRL2 complex (adaptor subunits Elongin B and Elongin C, scaffold subunit Cullin 2, and the RING-containing protein Rbx1), forming Cullin RING ligase complex CRL2VHL [19, 20]. In 2014, VH032, an inhibitor of the VHL E3 ligase interaction with the hypoxia inducible factor HIF-1α, was proposed [21], which formed the basis of VHL-binding PROTACs (Fig. 3A) [22]. In 2024, stage I clinical trials of BCL-XL-targeted PROTAC DT2216 (Fig. 3B) in patients with relapsed/refractory malignancies was completed [23].

In the case of the MDM2 E3 ubiquitin ligase playing a key role in the regulation of apoptosis, a number of inhibitors of various chemical classes have been developed to date [24,25,26]. The pharmacophore concept of MDM2 inhibitors was developed allowing the rational design of the strength of chimeric molecule binding to the enzyme substrate [27,28,29]. Such PROTACs are currently constructed based on the nutlin series such as nutlin-3a and idasanutlin (Fig. 3A) [30, 31]. It is worth noting that a number of PROTACs consider MDM2 not as an E3 ligase, but a protein of interest (POI) [32]. This also fits into a cost-effective approach based on the use of available tools, i.e. proteins for which there are known small molecule ligands, rather than on the search for new tools to solve new tasks.

Cereblon (CRBN) acts as a substrate-specific receptor in the E3 ubiquitin ligase CUL4-RBX1-DDB1-CRBN(CRL4CRBN) complex [33, 34]. It turned out that it is the interaction with CRBN that determines the anti-multiple myeloma activity of thalidomide and analogs [35, 36]. These ligands are readily synthesized, making the design of various CRBN-binding PROTACs relatively simple (Fig. 3A). Similar structures were proposed as degraders of proteins involved in various diseases, including tumors, immune diseases, and neurodegenerative diseases [34, 37,38,39], and dominate clinical trials; in particular, ARV-471 is undergoing stage III clinical trials [40] against advanced-stage ER+HER2− breast cancer (Fig. 3B).

IAP (inhibitor of apoptosis proteins, such as cIAP1 and XIAP) antagonists, which possess ubiquitin ligase activity, are also used to label protein targets, and it is assumed that their concomitant autoubiquitinylation may contribute to the therapeutic effect [41, 42]. Among the ligands similar to specific and nongenetic IAP-dependent protein erasers (SNIPERs) are bestatin, MV1, LCL (Fig. 3A).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Structures underlying the most common PROTACs: VHL inhibitors, MDM2 inhibitors, CRBN ligands, IAP antagonists (A); examples of PROTACs in clinical trials (B)

Full size image

As it has been mentioned earlier, the choice of ligase at the moment is determined not so much by rational analysis of potential effects, but by the availability of well-known and accessible ligands for synthesis. It is this factor that unites the above mentioned enzymes which provide proteolysis of their targets.

On the other end, the only condition for proteins that are targeted by the PROTAC approach is the availability of small molecule ligands capable of potent and selective binding to them [43, 44]. For example, PROTACs for focal adhesion kinase based on the FAK inhibitors defactinib and PND-1186 [45, 46], BCL-XL targeting PROTACs based on A-1,155,463 (selective inhibitor) [47] and navitoclax (ABT263, a BCL-2 and BCL-XL dual inhibitor) [48], BRD4 degraders based on JQ1 [49, 50] is just a few from the everlasting list of new potential targets.

Considering the predictability of the elements used, from which PROTACs are assembled, the current approach of combining “known ligand of a known target + known ligand of a known ubiquitin ligase” limits the translational advantages of PROTACs and does not allow us to fully exploit the advantages of recruiting ubiquitin, since its role in the cell is far from limited to PROteolysis (Fig. 1B).

Ubiquitin

Ubiquitin (ubiquitous immunopoietic polypeptide) is a highly conserved compact 8.5 kDa protein; carboxy-terminal tail (glycine) of ubiquitin is exposed, allowing its covalent linkage to target proteins [51]. It is formed by 76 amino acids including 7 lysines (Lys6, Lys11, Lys27, Lys29, Lys33, Lys48, and Lys63), that is, there are 7 potential autoubiquitinylation sites that provide possible formation of various variants of polyubiquitinylation systems (Fig. 4). In addition to lysine residues, ubiquitins can also bind through Met1, forming several similar or different bonds, which allows the formation of polyubiquitin chains of various types: linear and branched, homotypic and heterotypic, as well as to conduct multiple monoubiquitination of targets. Ubiquitin chain initiation, elongation, and branching often requires an intricate cooperation between different E2 and E3 enzymes [52].

Fig. 4
figure 4

Ubiquitin and its chains. Cartoon representation of ubiquitin; the main residues are shown in colored sticks (A). Diubiquitin conjugates: Lys63 linked (left) and Lys48 linked (right) (B). PDB IDs used: 3A9K [53] and 6Z7V [54]

Full size image

The attachment of ubiquitins alters the potential for post-translational modification of the target, potentially competing with SUMOylation, phosphorylation, acetylation, etc. Ubiquitin itself can also undergo various post-translational modifications, such as phosphorylation and acetylation, which in turn affect the charge and surface properties of ubiquitin [6, 55, 56]. Ubiquitins that “tag” the target can interact with a wide range of proteins containing ubiquitin-binding domains (UBDs), including proteasome subunits, which finally results in degradation of the target. Thus, during the regulation of a large number of cellular processes, the multifaceted ubiquitin code is involved, where ubiquitin acts as a signaling component that can trigger molecular events by operating as a reversible and highly versatile regulatory signal for effector proteins – ubiquitin receptors containing one or more ubiquitin-binding domains [51, 57,58,59,60].

Theoretically, any lysines located on the surface of the target protein can be ubiquitinylated; but in practice this process is strictly regulated and is determined primarily by the specificity of the recruited E3 ligase [10]. On the other hand, many of these enzymes are of low specificity; moreover, mutation of the main ubiquitin site of the target may not interfere with the efficiency of the ubiquitinylation process [61], indicating a more complex regulation than a direct relationship of 1 protein – 1 site – 1 ubiquitin ligase. As a result of the variability in ubiquitinylation, various complexes can be formed (Fig. 5), leading to various cellular effects due to the interaction of the ubiquitinylated substrate with heterogeneous downstream cellular factors, for which both the length of the chain and its branching and modifications are important [10, 62].

Fig. 5
figure 5

Types of substrate ubiquitinylation and their main effects. Variability in attachment modes allows for the production of diversely configured ubiquitinylated substrates. Differences in the length and composition of the ubiquitin chain allow the substrate to interact with heterogeneous downstream cellular factors leading to various cellular effects

Full size image

Ubiquitin chains

The ubiquitin code turned out to be very confusing, and has not yet been completely resolved. However, researchers agree that the polyubiquitinylated tail formed by ≥ 4 Lys48 peptide bonds is recognized by the 26S proteasome and, accordingly, provokes hydrolysis of the target protein [10, 63]. Such long ubiquitin tails provide high affinity to the proteasome, promoting target destruction [64]. Perhaps, it could be explained by the fact that the distance between the two best studied ubiquitin receptors of the proteasome, Rpn10 and Rpn13, fits a Lys48-based tetraubiquitin chain [65, 66].

At the same time, chains of similar length formed through Lys63 do not cause a pronounced effect [67]. It is believed that cellular Lys63 chains, which form extended structures with a minimum of intersubunit contacts, have less proteasomal accessibility, and proteasome-bound Lys63 chains are more rapidly deubiquitinated by proteasome elements, which could cause ineffective degradation of Lys63 conjugates. It was noted in [68] that Lys63 polyubiquitin conjugates in cell lysates were rapidly disassembled compared with Lys48 chains. In this case, branched ubiquitin chains of the Lys48/Lys63 composition can act as a substrate-specific mark for proteasomal degradation [69]; the branched chain can be considered as a Lys48 proteasomal tag on the target-Lys63 conjugate. At the same time, a similar branching had the effect of protecting the conjugate from deubiquitinylation in another study, which suggests that branched chains regulate biological pathways via multiple mechanisms and are functionally distinct from mixed or multiple chains [70]. It is worth noting that the Lys63 ubiquitin tail can play the role of a molecular glue that allows for rapid and reversible formation of pivotal signaling complexes [71] and thus involved in many cellular processes, which can also be used to control their activity and direction.

Polymers of other structures can also become a signal for the proteasome [72]. For example, heterotypic Lys11/Lys48 polyubiquitin chains can bind to the proteasome and signal for degradation, although data on the effectiveness of such a signal compared with Lys48 are contradictory [72, 73]. The authors [74] note differences in the use of Lys11 in the ubiquitin code between the proteasomal degradation systems of cytoplasmic and nuclear misfolded proteins. In turn, Lys29/Lys48-branched ubiquitin chains are considered as accelerators of PROTAC-directed targeted protein degradation, revealing a cooperative mechanism of branched ubiquitin chain assembly unique to the degradation of neo-substrates [75].

Lys11-linked ubiquitin chains may be of particular interest as a research direction for PROTAC developers, since they have proven to be critical regulators of mitotic protein degradation through the proteasome [76]. Their formation and destruction require the recruitment of a specific set of anaphase-promoting complex (APC/C), its specific chain-elongating E2, Ube2S and deubiquitinase [71, 77, 78], although it was shown that homotypic Lys11 chains did not bind to pure proteasomes or proteasome-associated ubiquitin receptors [79].

Monoubiquitination

It turned out that in the case of small proteins, even monoubiquitinylation is sufficient for successful interaction with the proteasome [80, 81]. Up to 50% of proteins are destroyed by the proteasome after (multi-)monoubiquitinylation [82], while modification by a single ubiquitin moiety is sufficient to target proteins with up to ∼150 amino acid residues [66], and ubiquitinylation at several lysines successfully mimic polyubiquitinylation [83]. It is possible that short proteins have less flexible domains and are less bound to the proteasome. Therefore, their binding can be stabilized by fewer modifications, shorter chains, and even a single ubiquitin fragment [66].

It is monoubiquitination that appears to be potentially the most externally controlled way to interfere with cellular mechanisms. Unlike the need to build up the “right” chains to obtain the target effect, in this case it is sufficient to carry out a single conjugation. It was shown that among ubiquitinylated proteins, the majority are monoubiquitinylated [84]. Protein monoubiquitinylation, depending on the target and site, can lead to transcriptional repression/activation, nuclear import/export, inhibition/activation of the target interaction with proteins, lipids and DNA [85,86,87,88].

As noted above, in the case of small proteins, monoubiquitinylation is sufficient for successful hydrolysis in the proteasome, but it plays a role in many processes and opens interesting prospects for practical applications. Monoubiquitinylation, including multiple, affects protein activity and protein-protein interactions; accordingly, it is involved in all cellular processes, including intracellular protein localization, endocytosis, and chromatin regulation [83, 89].

Forced monoubiquitinylation of membrane proteins is seems promising [90]. It was repeatedly shown that in the case of cytoplasmic membrane proteins, monoubiquitinylation is sufficient not only to trigger endocytosis, but also for successful endosomal sorting [91,92,93]. It is ubiquitin that acts as a sorting signal in the endosome membrane, where the ubiquitylated cargo is captured by the endosomal sorting complex for transport (ESCRT) machinery, which recognizes ubiquitylated cargoes and prevents their recycling and retrograde [94, 95].

Ub-dependent but proteasome-independent degradation of substrates

Although the PROTAC approach has significantly expanded the range of druggable proteins, it is only applicable to targets that are recognized by the proteasome, while at the same time a huge number of macromolecules, including transmembrane proteins, are not only transported, but also processed differently in the cell, e.g. through lysosomes. Ubiquitin receptors are compartmentalized along the endocytic pathway (Fig. 6) and might function as specific gating receptors for ubiquitinated cargo at different steps in the endocytic route [96]. Depending on the ubiquitin signal in the endosome membrane, proteins are sent to proteasomal degradation in the case of Lys48 ubiquitinylation, or to lysosomes in the presence of multiple monoubiquitynylation and Lys63-linked polyubiquitinylation [93]. Similar interactions with ubiquitin binding domain (UBD)-containing receptors direct mis-used or aberrantly folded proteins to the proteasome or autophagosome during selective autophagy [97]. However, the main signal for autophagy receptors appears to be the Lys63-linked ubiquitin chain [98,99,100,101]. The marking of cargo with ubiquitin is a rate-limiting step in the initiation of a macroautophagy cascade resulting in the encapsulation of the organelle in a double-membrane autophagosome [102] (Fig. 6).

Fig. 6
figure 6

Degradation of substances through endocytosis and autophagy. Mono- or Lys63-linked polyubiquitinylation of membrane proteins acts as a signal for internalization. From early endosomes, the protein can either return to the membrane or be sorted into multivesicular bodies with subsequent degradation by the lysosome. In the case of misused or aberrantly folded proteins, ubiquitin tags initiate the macroautophagy cascade resulting in the formation of the autophagosome, the role of which is to engulf the cytosolic cargo for subsequent fusion with the lysosome

Full size image

Exploiting the mechanisms of ubiquitin-dependent but proteasome-independent targeting allowed the development of cargo-specific degraders, so-called AUTACs (autophagy-targeting chimera) [103]. This chimera contains a guanine tag, which is associated with subsequent K63-linked polyubiquitination of the target protein. Notably, K63-linked ubiquitinylation destines substrates for selective autophagy but is not recognized by the proteasome. The exploration of this mechanism yielded the ATTECs (AuTophagy-TEthering Compounds) technique [104]. There, the authors proposed to directly recruit LC3, a lipidated protein of autophagosome membranes, which makes it possible to provoke autophagocytosis of a wider range of targets, including those unsuitable for polyubiquitinylation [104]. The authors showed the applicability of this approach for the destruction of cellular lipid droplets (LD-ATTECs) and even mitochondria (mito-ATTECs), which opens up prospects for the specific destruction of non-proteinaceous cellular components, such as other macromolecules and organelles [105, 106]. It is worth noting that the concept of LYTAC (lysosome targeting chimera), which is close to PROTAC, is based on similar principles, where the target protein is attacked by a chimera formed by the receptor ligand that ensures the transfer of plasma membrane-associated or secreted proteins to the lysosome. For example, in [107, 108] the authors targeted the membrane-bound cation-independent mannose-6-phosphate receptor (CI-M6PR) and aasialoglycoprotein receptor (ASGPR). It can be assumed that forced activation of monoubiquitinylation or Lys63 ubiquitinylation of targets can provoke lysosomal degradation of targets.

Specificity of UBD and ligases

The diversity of ubiquitinylation forms provides a wide range of interactions of tagged proteins with ubiquitin-binding domains, present in many proteins (ubiquitin receptors). Most of them noncovalently bind to the hydrophobic patch around Ile44 of ubiquitin [51]. These proteins differ significantly not only in the structure of UBDs, but also in their number, which allows one to vary the spectrum of interactions and their strength. By 2012, a number of UBDs and UBD-containing proteins have been identified [109]. Importantly, UBDs can specifically recognize not only monoubiquitinylation, but also Lys48 and Lys63 chains. This broad specificity is ensured by significant differences in their spatial organization [110−114].

It was noted above that the specificity of Lys63 chains does not allow them to effectively bind to proteasomes, but they are well recognized by the corresponding UBDs. Lys63 linked ubiquitins, in turn, form a closed conformation, resulting in buried hydrophobic patch surfaces, which can still bind to UBD-containing proteins due to a constant transition between open and closed structure [115, 116]. Expanded chains are also formed when ubiquitins bind to each other in a head-to-tail manner (Met1 polyubiquitin chains, linear ubiquitin chains). Such signaling chains are critical for the NF-κB regulation and interferon induction, which prevents inflammation and regulates immune signaling [117–119]. It can be assumed that the existence of other chains (Lys6, Lys11, Lys27, Lys29, Lys33, which are not considered in this review due to their little research, also allows for highly specific interactions with individual UBDs.

Met1 ubiquitin chains can be very interesting, since they are assembled by a separate linear ubiquitin chain assembly complex (LUBAC), consisting of 2 E3 ubiquitin ligases, HOIP and HOIL-1, and the SHARPIN adapter protein. Hydrolysis of such chains can be carried out by several enzymes, among which OTULIN is specific for this type of conjugation [52, 118, 120, 121]. Similarly, Lys11 linked chains require linkage-specific enzymes: the anaphase-promoting complex (APC/C) and its specific chain-elongating E2, Ube2S; for cleavage – the Lys11 specific Cezanne [77, 122–124]. The role of such ubiquitinylation increases during cell division, when these conjugates target cell cycle regulators [122, 125].

Considering the fact that the classical PROTAC E3 ligases are Lys48 ubiquitinylating enzymes [75, 126, 127] it can be assumed that expanding the range of targeting enzymes will significantly expand the range of achievable results.

Conclusions

Ubiquitous protein ubiquitin in the body plays the role of a multifunctional identifier, allowing cell systems to understand each other by reading a single ubiquitin code. Its use for the intended purposes opens up virtually unlimited possibilities for researchers. In addition to the induction of the classical Lys48-polyubiquitin chain, which causes proteasomal hydrolysis, rational selection of an enzyme for the specific target can provide a number of multidirectional consequences. Highly specific enzymes, which are involved exclusively in the formation of Met1 chains that lead to prevention of inflammation and regulation of immune signaling, or Lys11 chains participating in the regulation of cell division, have been identified. Forced monoubiquitinylation, which also appears to be highly selective for the specific target, will allow fine regulation of the transcriptional activity and protein localization. Monoubiquitinylation of membrane proteins, along with universal Lys63 tags, opens up opportunities for their targeted redistribution and cleavage.

The potential for E3 ubiquitin ligase recruitment is enormous, and will only expand as more information is gained about the role of ubiquitin chains with noncanonical bonds and the possibilities of using branched ubiquitin chains. The possibility of modification of nonprotein targets with ubiquitin is also interesting. It can be argued that research in these areas can provide not only scientific but also commercial results.

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Abbreviations

APC/C:

Anaphase-promoting complex

ASGPR:

Asialoglycoprotein receptor

AUTAC:

Autophagy-targeting chimera

ATTEC:

Autophagy-tethering compound

CI-M6PR:

Cation-independent mannose-6-phosphate receptor

CRBN:

Cereblon

LUBAC:

Linear ubiquitin chain assembly complex

Lys:

Lysine

LYTAC:

Lysosome targeting chimera

POI:

Protein of interest

SNIPER:

Specific and nongenetic IAP-dependent protein eraser

SUMO:

Small Ub-like modifier

Ub:

Ubiquitin

UBD:

Ubiquitin binding domain

UPS:

Ubiquitin–proteasome system

VHL:

Von Hippel–Lindau Tumor Suppressor

References

  1. Sakamoto K, Kim K, Kumagai A, Mercurio F, Crews C, Deshaies R. Protacs: chimeric molecules that target proteins to the Skp1-Cullin-F box complex for ubiquitination and degradation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2001;98(15):8554–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Fang Y, Wang S, Han S, Zhao Y, Yu C, Liu H, et al. Targeted protein degrader development for cancer: advances, challenges, and opportunities. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2023;44(5):303–17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Zhou X, Sun SC. Targeting ubiquitin signaling for cancer immunotherapy. Signal Transduct Target Therapy. 2021;6(1):16.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Martinez-Ferriz A, Ferrando A, Fathinajafabadi A, Farras R. Ubiquitin-mediated mechanisms of translational control. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2022;132:146–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Le Guerroue F, Youle RJ. Ubiquitin signaling in neurodegenerative diseases: an autophagy and proteasome perspective. Cell Death Differ. 2021;28(2):439–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lacoursiere RE, Hadi D, Shaw GS, Acetylation. Phosphorylation, ubiquitination (oh my!): following post-translational modifications on the Ubiquitin Road. Biomolecules. 2022;12(3).

  7. Perez-Benavente B, Nasresfahani AF, Farras R. Ubiquitin-regulated cell proliferation and Cancer. Advances in experimental medicine and biology. 2020;1233:3–28.

  8. Garber K. The PROTAC gold rush. Nat Biotechnol. 2022;40(1):12–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hacker SM, Backus KM, Lazear MR, Forli S, Correia BE, Cravatt BF. Global profiling of lysine reactivity and ligandability in the human proteome. Nat Chem. 2017;9(12):1181–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Carroll EC, Marqusee S. Site-specific ubiquitination: deconstructing the degradation tag. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 2022;73:102345.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Mendoza M, Mandani G, Momand J. The MDM2 gene family. Biomol Concepts. 2014;5(1):9–19.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Du X, Song H, Shen N, Hua R, Yang G. The molecular basis of ubiquitin-conjugating enzymes (E2s) as a potential target for Cancer Therapy. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(7):3440.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Martinez-Fonts K, Davis C, Tomita T, Elsasser S, Nager AR, Shi Y, Finley D, Matouschek A. The proteasome 19S cap and its ubiquitin receptors provide a versatile recognition platform for substrates. Nat Commun. 2020;24(1):477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Mittenberg A, Moiseeva T, Barlev N. Role of proteasomes in transcription and their regulation by covalent modifications. Front Biosci (Landmark Ed). 2008;13(18):7184–92.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Kulichkova V, Fedorova O, Tsimokha A, Moiseeva T, Bottril A, Lezina L, Gauze L, Konstantinova I, Mittenberg A, Barlev N. 26S proteasome exhibits endoribonuclease activity controlled by extra-cellular stimuli. Cell Cycle. 2010;9(4):840–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Tsimokha A, Kulichkova V, Karpova E, Zaykova J, Aksenov N, Vasilishina A, Kropotov A, Antonov A, Barlev N. DNA damage modulates interactions between microRNAs and the 26S proteasome. Oncotarget. 2014;5:3555–67.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Moiseeva T, Bottrill A, Melino G, Barlev N. A DNA damage-induced ubiquitylation of proteasome controls its proteolytic activity. Oncotarget. 2013;4:1338–48.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Jevtić P, Haakonsen DL, Rapé M. An E3 ligase guide to the galaxy of small-molecule-induced protein degradation. Cell Chem Biol. 2021;28(7):1000–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kibel A, Iliopoulos O, DeCaprio JA, Kaelin WG Jr. Binding of the Von Hippel-Lindau tumor suppressor protein to Elongin B and C. Science. 1995;269(5229):1444–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Pause A, Lee S, Worrell RA, Chen DY, Burgess WH, Linehan WM, et al. The Von Hippel-Lindau tumor-suppressor gene product forms a stable complex with human CUL-2, a member of the Cdc53 family of proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1997;94(6):2156–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Galdeano C, Gadd MS, Soares P, Scaffidi S, Van Molle I, Birced I, et al. Structure-guided design and optimization of small molecules targeting the protein-protein interaction between the Von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) E3 ubiquitin ligase and the hypoxia inducible factor (HIF) alpha subunit with in vitro nanomolar affinities. J Med Chem. 2014;57(20):8657–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Diehl CJ, Ciulli A. Discovery of small molecule ligands for the Von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) E3 ligase and their use as inhibitors and PROTAC degraders. Chem Soc Rev. 2022;51(19):8216–57.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. http://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04886622. Accessed 20 March 2024.

  24. Krasavin M, Gureyev M, Dar’in D, Bakulina O, Chizhova M, Lepikhina A, Novikova D, Grigoreva T, Ivanov G, Zhumagalieva A, Garabadzhiu A, Tribulovich V. Design, in silico prioritization and biological profiling of apoptosis-inducing lactams amenable by the Castagnoli-Cushman reaction. Bioorg Med Chem. 2018;26(9):2651–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Grigoreva T, Romanova A, Sagaidak A, Vorona S, Novikova D, Tribulovich V. Mdm2 inhibitors as a platform for the design of P-glycoprotein inhibitors. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2020;30(18):127424.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Grigoreva T, Novikova D, Petukhov A, Gureev M, Garabadzhiu A, Melino G, Barlev N, Tribulovich V. Proapoptotic modification of substituted isoindolinones as MDM2-p53 inhibitors. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2017;27:5197–202.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Bueren-Calabuig J, Michel J. Impact of Ser17 phosphorylation on the conformational dynamics of the oncoprotein MDM2. Biochemistry. 2016;55:2500–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Gureev M, Novikova D, Grigoreva T, Vorona S, Garabadzhiu A, Tribulovich V. Simulation of MDM2 N-terminal domain conformational lability in the presence of imidazoline based inhibitors of MDM2-p53 protein-protein interaction. J Comp Aided Mol Des. 2020;34(1):55–70.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Fedorova O, Daks A, Petrova V, Petukhov A, Lezina L, Shuvalov O, Davidovich P, Kriger D, Lomert E, Tentler D, Kartsev V, Uyanik B, Tribulovich V, Demidov O, Melino G, Barlev N. Novel isatin-derived molecules activate p53 via interference with Mdm2 to promote apoptosis. Cell Cycle. 2018;17(15):1917–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Vicente A, Salvador J. MDM2-based proteolysis-targeting chimeras (PROTACs): an innovative drug strategy for cancer treatment. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23:19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Grigoreva T, Sagaidak A, Novikova D, Tribulovich V. New insights into chemoresistance mediated by Mdm2 inhibitors: the benefits of targeted therapy over common cytostatics. Biomedicines. 2024;12:547.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Han X, Wei W, Sun Y. PROTAC degraders with ligands recruiting MDM2 E3 ubiquitin ligase: an updated perspective. Acta Mater Med. 2022;1(2):244–59.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Higgins JJ, Pucilowska J, Lombardi RQ, Rooney JP. A mutation in a novel ATP-dependent lon protease gene in a kindred with mild mental retardation. Neurology. 2004;63(10):1927–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Bricelj A, Steinebach C, Kuchta R, Gutschow M, Sosic I. E3 ligase ligands in successful PROTACs: an overview of syntheses and Linker attachment points. Front Chem. 2021;9:707317.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Ito T, Ando H, Suzuki T, Ogura T, Hotta K, Imamura Y, et al. Identification of a primary target of thalidomide teratogenicity. Science. 2010;327(5971):1345–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Zhu YX, Braggio E, Shi CX, Bruins LA, Schmidt JE, Van Wier S, et al. Cereblon expression is required for the antimyeloma activity of lenalidomide and pomalidomide. Blood. 2011;118(18):4771–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Bassi ZI, Fillmore MC, Miah AH, Chapman TD, Maller C, Roberts EJ, et al. Modulating PCAF/GCN5 Immune Cell function through a PROTAC Approach. ACS Chem Biol. 2018;13(10):2862–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Silva MC, Ferguson FM, Cai Q, Donovan KA, Nandi G, Patnaik D et al. Targeted degradation of aberrant tau in frontotemporal dementia patient-derived neuronal cell models. eLife. 2019;8.

  39. Sun X, Gao H, Yang Y, He M, Wu Y, Song Y, et al. PROTACs: great opportunities for academia and industry. Signal Transduct Target Therapy. 2019;4:64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. http://clinicaltrials.gov/study/ NCT05654623. Accessed 20 Mar 2024.

  41. Naito M, Ohoka N, Shibata N. SNIPERs-Hijacking IAP activity to induce protein degradation. Drug Discov Today Technol. 2019;31:35–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Wang C, Zhang Y, Shi L, Yang S, Chang J, Zhong Y, et al. Recent advances in IAP-based PROTACs (SNIPERs) as potential therapeutic agents. J Enzyme Inhib Med Chem. 2022;37(1):1437–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Bekes M, Langley DR, Crews CM. PROTAC targeted protein degraders: the past is prologue. Nat Rev Drug Discovery. 2022;21(3):181–200.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Yao T, Xiao H, Wang H, Xu X. Recent advances in PROTACs for drug targeted protein research. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23(18).

  45. Cromm PM, Samarasinghe KTG, Hines J, Crews CM. Addressing kinase-independent functions of Fak via PROTAC-Mediated degradation. J Am Chem Soc. 2018;140(49):17019–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Tanjoni I, Walsh C, Uryu S, Tomar A, Nam JO, Mielgo A, et al. PND-1186 FAK inhibitor selectively promotes tumor cell apoptosis in three-dimensional environments. Cancer Biol Ther. 2010;9(10):764–77.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Zhang X, Thummuri D, He Y, Liu X, Zhang P, Zhou D, et al. Utilizing PROTAC technology to address the on-target platelet toxicity associated with inhibition of BCL-X(L). Chem Commun. 2019;55(98):14765–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Khan S, Zhang X, Lv D, Zhang Q, He Y, Zhang P, et al. A selective BCL-X(L) PROTAC degrader achieves safe and potent antitumor activity. Nat Med. 2019;25(12):1938–47.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Winter GE, Buckley DL, Paulk J, Roberts JM, Souza A, Dhe-Paganon S, et al. Phthalimide conjugation as a strategy for in vivo target protein degradation. Science. 2015;348(6241):1376–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Zengerle M, Chan KH, Ciulli A. Selective small molecule induced degradation of the bet bromodomain protein BRD4. ACS Chem Biol. 2015;10(8):1770–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Dikic I, Wakatsuki S, Walters KJ. Ubiquitin-binding domains - from structures to functions. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2009;10(10):659–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Dittmar G, Winklhofer KF. Linear ubiquitin chains: cellular functions and strategies for detection and quantification. Front Chem. 2019;7:915.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Sato Y, Yoshikawa A, Yamashita M, Yamagata A, Fukai S. Structural basis for specific recognition of Lys 63-linked polyubiquitin chains by NZF domains of tables 2 and table 3. EMBO J. 2009;28(24):3903–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Abdul Rehman SA, Armstrong LA, Lange SM, Kristariyanto YA, Grawert TW, Knebel A, et al. Mechanism of activation and regulation of deubiquitinase activity in MINDY1 and MINDY2. Mol Cell. 2021;81(20):4176–e906.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Swatek KN, Komander D. Ubiquitin modifications. Cell Res. 2016;26(4):399–422.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Kwon YT, Ciechanover A. The Ubiquitin Code in the Ubiquitin-Proteasome System and Autophagy. Trends Biochem Sci. 2017;42(11):873–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Shen J, Yang H, Qiao X, Chen Y, Zheng L, Lin J, Lang J, Yu Q, Wang Z. The E3 ubiquitin ligase TRIM17 promotes gastric cancer survival and progression via controlling BAX stability and antagonizing apoptosis. Cell Death Differ. 2023;30(10):2322–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Kuang Z, Liu X, Zhang N, Dong J, Sun C, Yin M, et al. USP2 promotes tumor immune evasion via deubiquitination and stabilization of PD-L1. Cell Death Differ. 2023;30(10):2249–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Yi J, Li H, Chu B, Kon N, Hu X, Hu J, Xiong Y, Kaniskan HU, Jin J, Gu W. Inhibition of USP7 induces p53-independent tumor growth suppression in triple-negative breast cancers by destabilizing FOXM1. Cell Death Differ. 2023;30(7):1799–810.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Cao L, Liu H, Huang C, Guo C, Zhao L, Gao C, Xu Y, Wang G, Liang N, Li S. USP5 knockdown alleviates lung cancer progression via activating PARP1-mediated mTOR signaling pathway. Biol Direct. 2023;18(1):16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Mattiroli F, Sixma TK. Lysine-targeting specificity in ubiquitin and ubiquitin-like modification pathways. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2014;21(4):308–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Pohl C, Dikic I. Cellular quality control by the ubiquitin-proteasome system and autophagy. Science. 2019;366(6467):818–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Thrower JS, Hoffman L, Rechsteiner M, Pickart CM. Recognition of the polyubiquitin proteolytic signal. EMBO J. 2000;19(1):94–102.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Strieter ER, Korasick DA. Unraveling the complexity of ubiquitin signaling. ACS Chem Biol. 2012;7(1):52–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Chen S, Wu J, Lu Y, Ma YB, Lee BH, Yu Z, et al. Structural basis for dynamic regulation of the human 26S proteasome. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2016;113(46):12991–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Livneh I, Kravtsova-Ivantsiv Y, Braten O, Kwon YT, Ciechanover A. Monoubiquitination joins polyubiquitination as an esteemed proteasomal targeting signal. BioEssays: News Reviews Mol Cell Dev Biology. 2017;39(6).

  67. Jacobson AD, Zhang NY, Xu P, Han KJ, Noone S, Peng J, et al. The lysine 48 and lysine 63 ubiquitin conjugates are processed differently by the 26 s proteasome. J Biol Chem. 2009;284(51):35485–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Cooper EM, Cutcliffe C, Kristiansen TZ, Pandey A, Pickart CM, Cohen RE. K63-specific deubiquitination by two JAMM/MPN + complexes: BRISC-associated Brcc36 and proteasomal Poh1. EMBO J. 2009;28(6):621–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Ohtake F, Tsuchiya H, Saeki Y, Tanaka K. K63 ubiquitylation triggers proteasomal degradation by seeding branched ubiquitin chains. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2018;115(7):E1401–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Ohtake F, Saeki Y, Ishido S, Kanno J, Tanaka K. The K48-K63 branched Ubiquitin Chain regulates NF-kappaB signaling. Mol Cell. 2016;64(2):251–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Yau R, Rape M. The increasing complexity of the ubiquitin code. Nat Cell Biol. 2016;18(6):579–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Grice GL, Nathan JA. The recognition of ubiquitinated proteins by the proteasome. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2016;73(18):3497–506.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Meyer HJ, Rape M. Enhanced protein degradation by branched ubiquitin chains. Cell. 2014;157(4):910–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Samant RS, Livingston CM, Sontag EM, Frydman J. Distinct proteostasis circuits cooperate in nuclear and cytoplasmic protein quality control. Nature. 2018;563(7731):407–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Kaiho-Soma A, Akizuki Y, Igarashi K, Endo A, Shoda T, Kawase Y, et al. TRIP12 promotes small-molecule-induced degradation through K29/K48-branched ubiquitin chains. Mol Cell. 2021;81(7):1411–24. e7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Matsumoto ML, Wickliffe KE, Dong KC, Yu C, Bosanac I, Bustos D, et al. K11-linked polyubiquitination in cell cycle control revealed by a K11 linkage-specific antibody. Mol Cell. 2010;39(3):477–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Wu T, Merbl Y, Huo Y, Gallop JL, Tzur A, Kirschner MW. UBE2S drives elongation of K11-linked ubiquitin chains by the anaphase-promoting complex. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2010;107(4):1355–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Bremm A, Freund SM, Komander D. Lys11-linked ubiquitin chains adopt compact conformations and are preferentially hydrolyzed by the deubiquitinase Cezanne. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2010;17(8):939–47.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Grice GL, Lobb IT, Weekes MP, Gygi SP, Antrobus R, Nathan JA. The Proteasome distinguishes between Heterotypic and homotypic lysine-11-Linked Polyubiquitin Chains. Cell Rep. 2015;12(4):545–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Ciechanover A, Stanhill A. The complexity of recognition of ubiquitinated substrates by the 26S proteasome. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2014;1843(1):86–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Shabek N, Herman-Bachinsky Y, Buchsbaum S, Lewinson O, Haj-Yahya M, Hejjaoui M, et al. The size of the proteasomal substrate determines whether its degradation will be mediated by mono- or polyubiquitylation. Mol Cell. 2012;48(1):87–97.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Braten O, Livneh I, Ziv T, Admon A, Kehat I, Caspi LH, et al. Numerous proteins with unique characteristics are degraded by the 26S proteasome following monoubiquitination. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2016;113(32):E4639–47.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Ronai ZA. Monoubiquitination in proteasomal degradation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2016;113(32):8894–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. Woelk T, Oldrini B, Maspero E, Confalonieri S, Cavallaro E, Di Fiore PP, et al. Molecular mechanisms of coupled monoubiquitination. Nat Cell Biol. 2006;8(11):1246–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Li M, Brooks CL, Wu-Baer F, Chen D, Baer R, Gu W. Mono- versus polyubiquitination: differential control of p53 fate by Mdm2. Science. 2003;302(5652):1972–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Espinosa JM. Histone H2B ubiquitination: the cancer connection. Genes Dev. 2008;22(20):2743–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. Nakagawa T, Nakayama K. Protein monoubiquitylation: targets and diverse functions. Genes Cells: Devoted Mol Cell Mech. 2015;20(7):543–62.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Magits W, Sablina AA. The regulation of the protein interaction network by monoubiquitination. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 2022;73:102333.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Chen Y, Zhou D, Yao Y, Sun Y, Yao F, Ma L. Monoubiquitination in Homeostasis and Cancer. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23(11).

  90. Grigoreva T, Sagaidak A, Novikova D, Tribulovich V. Implication of ABC transporters in non-proliferative diseases. Eur J Pharmacol. 2022;935:175327.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Hicke L, Dunn R. Regulation of membrane protein transport by ubiquitin and ubiquitin-binding proteins. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2003;19:141–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Piper RC, Dikic I, Lukacs GL. Ubiquitin-dependent sorting in endocytosis. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2014;6(1).

  93. Raiborg C, Stenmark H. The ESCRT machinery in endosomal sorting of ubiquitylated membrane proteins. Nature. 2009;458(7237):445–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Katzmann DJ, Odorizzi G, Emr SD. Receptor downregulation and multivesicular-body sorting. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2002;3(12):893–905.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Migliano SM, Teis D. ESCRT and membrane protein ubiquitination. Prog Mol Subcell Biol. 2018;57:107–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Di Fiore PP, Polo S, Hofmann K. When ubiquitin meets ubiquitin receptors: a signalling connection. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2003;4(6):491–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Khaminets A, Behl C, Dikic I. Ubiquitin-dependent and independent signals in selective autophagy. Trends Cell Biol. 2016;26(1):6–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Tan JM, Wong ES, Kirkpatrick DS, Pletnikova O, Ko HS, Tay SP, et al. Lysine 63-linked ubiquitination promotes the formation and autophagic clearance of protein inclusions associated with neurodegenerative diseases. Hum Mol Genet. 2008;17(3):431–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Linares JF, Duran A, Yajima T, Pasparakis M, Moscat J, Diaz-Meco MT. K63 polyubiquitination and activation of mTOR by the p62-TRAF6 complex in nutrient-activated cells. Mol Cell. 2013;51(3):283–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  100. Olzmann JA, Li L, Chudaev MV, Chen J, Perez FA, Palmiter RD, et al. Parkin-mediated K63-linked polyubiquitination targets misfolded DJ-1 to aggresomes via binding to HDAC6. J Cell Biol. 2007;178(6):1025–38.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  101. Grumati P, Dikic I. Ubiquitin signaling and autophagy. J Biol Chem. 2018;293(15):5404–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Goodall E, Kraus F, Harper J. Mechanisms underlying ubiquitin-driven selective mitochondrial and bacterial autophagy. Mol Cell. 2022;82(8):1501–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  103. Takahashi D, Moriyama J, Nakamura T, Miki E, Takahashi E, Sato A, Akaike T, Itto-Nakama K, Arimoto H. AUTACs: cargo-specific degraders using selective autophagy. Mol Cell. 2019;76:797–810.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Li Z, Wang C, Wang Z, Zhu C, Li J, Sha T, Ma L, Gao C, Yang Y, Sun Y, et al. Allele-selective lowering of mutant HTT protein by HTT-LC3 linker compounds. Nature. 2019;575:203–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Fu Y, Chen N, Wang Z, Luo S, Ding Y, Lu B. Degradation of lipid droplets by chimeric autophagy-tethering compounds. Cell Res. 2021;31:965–79.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  106. Liu Z, Qin G, Yang J, Wang W, Zhang W, Lu B, Ren J, Qu X. Targeting mitochondrial degradation by chimeric autophagy- tethering compounds. Chem Sci. 2023;14:11192–202.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  107. Banik SM, Pedram K, Wisnovsky S, Ahn G, Riley NM, Bertozzi CR. Lysosome-targeting chimaeras for degradation of extracellular proteins. Nature. 2020;584(7820):291–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  108. Ahn G, Banik SM, Miller CL, Riley NM, Cochran JR, Bertozzi CR. LYTACs that engage the asialoglycoprotein receptor for targeted protein degradation. Nat Chem Biol. 2021;17(9):937–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  109. Husnjak K, Dikic I. Ubiquitin-binding proteins: decoders of ubiquitin-mediated cellular functions. Annu Rev Biochem. 2012;81:291–322.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Varadan R, Assfalg M, Haririnia A, Raasi S, Pickart C, Fushman D. Solution conformation of Lys63-linked di-ubiquitin chain provides clues to functional diversity of polyubiquitin signaling. J Biol Chem. 2004;279(8):7055–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Ryabov Y, Fushman D. Interdomain mobility in di-ubiquitin revealed by NMR. Proteins. 2006;63(4):787–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Ikeda F, Deribe YL, Skanland SS, Stieglitz B, Grabbe C, Franz-Wachtel M, et al. SHARPIN forms a linear ubiquitin ligase complex regulating NF-kappaB activity and apoptosis. Nature. 2011;471(7340):637–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  113. Gerlach B, Cordier SM, Schmukle AC, Emmerich CH, Rieser E, Haas TL, et al. Linear ubiquitination prevents inflammation and regulates immune signalling. Nature. 2011;471(7340):591–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Inn KS, Gack MU, Tokunaga F, Shi M, Wong LY, Iwai K, et al. Linear ubiquitin assembly complex negatively regulates RIG-I- and TRIM25-mediated type I interferon induction. Mol Cell. 2011;41(3):354–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  115. Kirisako T, Kamei K, Murata S, Kato M, Fukumoto H, Kanie M, et al. A ubiquitin ligase complex assembles linear polyubiquitin chains. EMBO J. 2006;25(20):4877–87.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  116. Keusekotten K, Elliott PR, Glockner L, Fiil BK, Damgaard RB, Kulathu Y, et al. OTULIN antagonizes LUBAC signaling by specifically hydrolyzing Met1-linked polyubiquitin. Cell. 2013;153(6):1312–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  117. Jin L, Williamson A, Banerjee S, Philipp I, Rape M. Mechanism of ubiquitin-chain formation by the human anaphase-promoting complex. Cell. 2008;133(4):653–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  118. Bonacci T, Suzuki A, Grant GD, Stanley N, Cook JG, Brown NG et al. Cezanne/OTUD7B is a cell cycle-regulated deubiquitinase that antagonizes the degradation of APC/C substrates. EMBO J. 2018;37(16).

  119. Bonacci T, Emanuele MJ. Impressionist portraits of mitotic exit: APC/C, K11-linked ubiquitin chains and Cezanne. Cell Cycle. 2019;18(6–7):652–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  120. Song L, Rape M. Regulated degradation of spindle assembly factors by the anaphase-promoting complex. Mol Cell. 2010;38(3):369–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  121. Yang J, Huang M, Zhou L, He X, Jiang X, Zhang Y, et al. Cereblon suppresses the lipopolysaccharide-induced inflammatory response by promoting the ubiquitination and degradation of c-Jun. J Biol Chem. 2018;293(26):10141–57.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  122. Wang A, Yang M, Liang R, Zhu F, Zhu F, Liu X, et al. Mouse double minute 2 homolog-mediated Ubiquitination facilitates Forkhead Box P3 Stability and Positively Modulates Human Regulatory T Cell Function. Front Immunol. 2020;11:1087.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  123. Li X, Zhang J, Wang B, Chen C, Zhang E, Lv Z, He Q, Hu Y, Wang X, Zhang F. USP24-dependent stabilization of Runx2 recruits a p300/NCOA3 complex to transactivate ADAMTS genes and promote degeneration of intervertebral disc in chronic inflammation mice. Biol Direct. 2023;18(1):37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  124. Sunzini F, De Stefano S, Chimenti MS, Melino S. Hydrogen sulfide as potential Regulatory Gasotransmitter in Arthritic diseases. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21(4):1180.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  125. Bellomaria A, Barbato G, Melino G, Paci M, Melino S. Recognition mechanism of p63 by the E3 ligase itch: novel strategy in the study and inhibition of this interaction. Cell Cycle. 2012;11(19):3638–48.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  126. Oberst A, Malatesta M, Aqeilan RI, Rossi M, Salomoni P, Murillas R, Sharma P, Kuehn MR, Oren M, Croce CM, Bernassola F, Melino G. The Nedd4-binding partner 1 (N4BP1) protein is an inhibitor of the E3 ligase itch. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007;104(27):11280–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  127. Amelio I, Mancini M, Petrova V, Cairns RA, Vikhreva P, Nicolai S, Marini A, Antonov AA, Le Quesne J, Baena Acevedo JD, Dudek K, Sozzi G, Pastorino U, Knight RA, Mak TW, Melino G. p53 mutants cooperate with HIF-1 in transcriptional regulation of extracellular matrix components to promote tumor progression. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018;115(46):10869–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

The work was financially supported by the Russian Science Foundation (project no. 23-13-00344).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratory of Molecular Pharmacology, St. Petersburg State Institute of Technology (Technical University), St. Petersburg, 190013, Russia

    Tatyana A. Grigoreva, Daria S. Novikova & Vyacheslav G. Tribulovich

  2. Department of Experimental Medicine, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, 00133, Italy

    Gerry Melino

  3. Institute of Cytology RAS, Saint-Petersburg, 194064, Russia

    Nick A. Barlev

  4. Department of Biomedical Studies, School of Medicine, Nazarbayev University, Astana, 010000, Kazakhstan

    Nick A. Barlev

Authors
  1. Tatyana A. Grigoreva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daria S. Novikova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gerry Melino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nick A. Barlev
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. Vyacheslav G. Tribulovich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

T.G. performed a major part of literature search, structured the information, and wrote the main part of the text. D.N. modified the manuscript and designed and prepared the figures. N.B. and G.M. conceptualized the review and structured the information. V.T. edited the main text, supervised the manuscript preparation. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Tatyana A. Grigoreva or Vyacheslav G. Tribulovich.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Grigoreva, T.A., Novikova, D.S., Melino, G. et al. Ubiquitin recruiting chimera: more than just a PROTAC. Biol Direct 19, 55 (2024). https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s13062-024-00497-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s13062-024-00497-8

Keywords

Biology Direct

ISSN: 1745-6150

Contact us