2003
DOI: 10.1021/jm030013y
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Design and Synthesis of Dipeptide Nitriles as Reversible and Potent Cathepsin S Inhibitors.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As can be seen in Figure 2, the overall fold of procathepsin S is very similar to that of the human cathepsin L‐like subfamily members elucidated so far, procathepsins K and L (PDB 1BY8 and PDB 1CS8, respectively) (Coulombe et al 1996; LaLonde et al 1999; data not shown) to procaricain from Carica papaya (PDB 1PCI) (Groves et al 1996). Regarding the overall structure of the catalytic unit (McGrath et al 1998; Turkenburg et al 2002; Ward et al 2002; Pauly et al 2003), there is no difference between the zymogen and the mature enzyme, just as observed previously for cathepsins L and K when compared to their proenzymes (Coulombe et al 1996; LaLonde et al 1999; Sivaraman et al 1999). Superpositon of mature cathepsin S (PDB 1GLO), (Turkenburg et al 2002) onto the catalytic unit of procathepsin S (this study) results in an RMSD on Cαs of only 0.36 Å with no outliers (largest deviation 1.36 Å).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 51%
“…As can be seen in Figure 2, the overall fold of procathepsin S is very similar to that of the human cathepsin L‐like subfamily members elucidated so far, procathepsins K and L (PDB 1BY8 and PDB 1CS8, respectively) (Coulombe et al 1996; LaLonde et al 1999; data not shown) to procaricain from Carica papaya (PDB 1PCI) (Groves et al 1996). Regarding the overall structure of the catalytic unit (McGrath et al 1998; Turkenburg et al 2002; Ward et al 2002; Pauly et al 2003), there is no difference between the zymogen and the mature enzyme, just as observed previously for cathepsins L and K when compared to their proenzymes (Coulombe et al 1996; LaLonde et al 1999; Sivaraman et al 1999). Superpositon of mature cathepsin S (PDB 1GLO), (Turkenburg et al 2002) onto the catalytic unit of procathepsin S (this study) results in an RMSD on Cαs of only 0.36 Å with no outliers (largest deviation 1.36 Å).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 51%
“…Cfor 10 min before initiating the reaction with the addition of 5 mM relevant substrate (Z-Phe-Arg-AMC for Cat L and Cat K, and Z-Val-Val-Arg-AMC for Cat S), respectively 19 . Reactions in microplates were kept at 37 C for another 30 min and then to collect the fluorescent signals from each well in microplates.…”
Section: Cathepsin Activity Assays With Fluorogenic Substratesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Indeed, such a stabilization of the enzymebound thioimidate becomes evident from a published crystal structure of cathepsin S complexed with a dipeptide nitrile, morpholinocarbonyl-leucyl-O-benzylserine nitrile 37 . The nitrogen atom of the thioimidate group formed from the cyano group by attack of the active-site thiol is in hydrogen bond distances of 3.17 Å and 3.05 Å to the backbone nitrogen of Cys 25 and the side chain nitrogen of Gln 19, respectively ( Figure 6).…”
Section: Inhibitory Activitymentioning
confidence: 99%