ABSTRACT
The NLRP3 inflammasome is a pivotal signaling platform of the innate immune system that senses a broad spectrum of microbial, metabolic, and environmental danger signals. Its activation leads to the recruitment of ASC and caspase‐1, driving the maturation of pro‐inflammatory cytokines interleukin (IL)‐1β and IL‐18 as well as the execution of pyroptosis. Aberrant or persistent activation of NLRP3 has been implicated in the pathogenesis of numerous disorders, including autoinflammatory syndromes, metabolic and cardiovascular diseases, neurodegenerative conditions, and cancers. In this review, we provide an updated overview of the molecular mechanisms governing NLRP3 activation and regulation, with particular focus on ion flux, mitochondrial damage, lysosomal rupture, reactive oxygen species, and post‐translational modifications. We further discuss negative regulatory pathways that maintain inflammasome homeostasis and prevent excessive inflammation. Finally, we summarize recent advances in therapeutic strategies targeting the NLRP3 inflammasome, ranging from direct inhibitors and allosteric modulators to biologics and repurposed drugs, and highlight their translational potential. Understanding the fine balance between NLRP3 activation and inhibition offers new opportunities for therapeutic intervention in a wide array of inflammatory and immune‐related diseases.
Keywords: activation mechanisms, inflammatory diseases, innate immunity, NLRP3 inflammasome, therapeutic inhibitors
Diverse diseases converge on NLRP3. We depict a discovery‐to‐clinic track: high‐throughput/phenotypic screens, structure‐guided design, and modality innovation (allosteric inhibitors, interface blockers, degraders) deliver third‐generation, disease‐tailored NLRP3 control. Mechanistic insights into activation and regulation map druggable nodes to indications, enabling precision matching of compounds to patient contexts.

1. Introduction
The innate immune system is the body's first line of defense against infection and injury. It relies on pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) to detect pathogen‐associated molecular patterns (PAMPs) and danger‐associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) [1]. Among the key PRRs are Toll‐like receptors (TLRs), retinoic acid‐inducible gene‐I‐like receptors (RLRs), and nucleotide‐binding oligomerization domain (NOD)‐like receptors (NLRs) [2]. NLRs are highly conserved and comprise at least 23 members in humans, divided into five subfamilies based on their N‐terminal domains: NLRA, NLRB, NLRC, NLRP, and NLRX [3]. The identification of NLRP3 as the causal gene for cryopyrin‐associated periodic syndromes (CAPS) in 2001 marked a major milestone, linking NLRP3 mutations to excessive interleukin (IL)‐1β production and systemic inflammation [4].
The NLRP3 inflammasome functions as a cytosolic sensor that integrates a wide range of microbial and sterile danger signals. Its activation generally follows a two‐step model, comprising a priming phase that upregulates NLRP3 and pro‐inflammatory cytokines, and an activation phase in which diverse perturbations initiate inflammasome assembly and downstream signaling [5]. Beyond this canonical pathway, non‐canonical and alternative routes further expand the contexts in which NLRP3 can be engaged [6, 7, 8, 9]. Structural and biochemical advances have revealed that NLRP3 exists in an autoinhibited cage‐like conformation, requiring NEK7‐mediated licensing and ATP‐dependent oligomerization to form active inflammasomes. This structural flexibility underscores NLRP3's dual nature—highly responsive yet stringently controlled—to balance defense and immune tolerance.
Aberrant or sustained activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome has been implicated in a wide spectrum of diseases, including autoimmune and metabolic disorders, cardiovascular pathologies, and neurodegenerative conditions (Figure 1). Its central role as a convergence point for sterile inflammation has rendered NLRP3 a compelling therapeutic target. Over the past decade, intensive efforts have been devoted to the discovery of small‐molecule inhibitors, leading from early probes such as MCC950 to multiple clinical candidates currently in phase I–III trials. Parallel breakthroughs in structural biology, immunometabolism, and chemical biology have deepened understanding of NLRP3's activation logic and provided diverse pharmacological entry points.
FIGURE 1.

NLRP3‐driven disease contexts.Schematic overview showing NLRP3 inflammasome as a sterile‐ and infection‐associated inflammatory signaling hub activated by pattern recognition and danger cues, contributing to diverse disease settings, including autoinflammatory disorders (CAPS spectrum), autoimmune/inflammatory disorders, metabolic diseases, cardiovascular diseases, mucosal inflammatory diseases, liver/renal diseases, infectious diseases, and acute lung injury, and crystal‐induced inflammatory diseases. CAPS, cryopyrin‐associated periodic syndromes; DAMPs, damage‐associated molecular patterns; IL‐1β, interleukin‐1 beta; NLRP3, NOD‐like receptor family pyrin domain containing 3; PAMPs, pathogen‐associated molecular patterns; SARS‐CoV‐2, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2; TLR, Toll‐like receptor.
This review aims to provide a comprehensive and integrative understanding of the NLRP3 inflammasome, emphasizing how its molecular activation mechanisms, multilayered regulatory circuits, and therapeutic interventions form an interconnected framework. We first discuss the molecular logic that governs NLRP3 activation, including structural licensing, organellar communication, and metabolic integration. We then examine the regulatory mechanisms—ranging from transcriptional and post‐translational control to proteostatic and metabolic modulation—that maintain inflammasome responsiveness and prevent excessive activation. Finally, we summarize current progress in the discovery and optimization of NLRP3 inhibitors, outlining representative chemical scaffolds, discovery paradigms, and translational developments across various inflammatory diseases. Together, these discussions provide an updated conceptual synthesis linking the mechanistic foundations of NLRP3 biology to emerging therapeutic strategies.
2. Mechanisms of NLRP3 Inflammasome Activation
NLRP3 inflammasome activation is a multi‐layered process that integrates diverse extracellular and intracellular signals into a unified inflammatory response. This section summarizes the stepwise mechanisms underlying its activation — from canonical ionic and particulate triggers to mitochondrial and metabolic integration, structural licensing, and non‐canonical pathways. Together, these interconnected mechanisms explain how distinct stimuli converge on a shared molecular architecture to initiate inflammasome assembly and cytokine maturation (Figure 2).
FIGURE 2.

Two‐signal model of NLRP3 inflammasome activation and alternative pathways. Signal 1 (priming) initiated by receptors (e.g., TLR/IL‐1R) activates NF‐κB to upregulate NLRP3 and pro‐IL‐1β/pro‐IL‐18 and to shape permissive PTMs. Signal 2 (activation) integrates diverse cellular stress events—ion fluxes, mitochondrial damage (mtROS/mtDNA), lysosomal rupture with cathepsin release, and Golgi/dTGN PI4P scaffolding—to promote NLRP3 inflammasome assembly, caspase‐1 activation, cytokine maturation, and GSDMD‐mediated pyroptosis. Non‐canonical inflammasome activation via cytosolic LPS activates caspase‐4/5 (human) or caspase‐11 (mouse), inducing GSDMD pore formation and secondary NLRP3 activation. dTGN, dispersed trans‐Golgi network; GSDMD, gasdermin D; IL‐1β, interleukin‐1 beta; IL‐18, interleukin‐18; IL‐1R, interleukin‐1 receptor; LPS, lipopolysaccharide; MAM, mitochondria‐associated membranes; MAVS, mitochondrial antiviral‐signaling protein; Mfn2, mitofusin 2; mtDNA, mitochondrial DNA; mtROS, mitochondrial reactive oxygen species; NF‐κB, nuclear factor kappa B; NLRP3, NOD‐like receptor family pyrin domain containing 3; P2×7, purinergic receptor P2×7; PI4P, phosphatidylinositol 4‐phosphate; PTMs, post‐translational modifications; TLR, Toll‐like receptor.
2.1. Canonical Activation (Proximal Triggers)
The canonical NLRP3 inflammasome is activated through a well‐established two‐signal model. The “priming” signal is mediated by Toll‐like receptors (TLRs), cytokine receptors, or other nuclear factor kappa B (NF‐κB)–activating pathways, which induce transcriptional upregulation of NLRP3, pro‐IL‐1β, and pro‐IL‐18, and introduce post‐translational modifications (PTMs) that set the activation threshold [10, 11]. After priming, a second activation signal arises from proximal cellular perturbations that license assembly.
A fall in cytosolic K+ is a unifying cue for NLRP3 activation, typically driven by P2×7 engagement and, in macrophages, by the K2P channel TWIK2, which couples extracellular ATP to K+ efflux and inflammasome activation [12, 13, 14, 15]; In parallel, Ca2 + mobilization from ER stores and extracellular sources promotes mitochondrial dysfunction and ROS production, thereby facilitating assembly [16, 17]; Cl− efflux via CLIC1/CLIC4, which operates upstream to foster the NEK7–NLRP3 interaction and lower the activation threshold, integrating with K+/Ca2 + signals [18, 19]. Together, these ionic disturbances provide a rapid, conserved licensing layer for inflammasome assembly.
Beyond ionic fluxes, lysosomal destabilization represents a particulate/crystal‐triggered proximal event. Crystalline or aggregated materials (e.g., silica, alum, and cholesterol crystals) are internalized and damage endo‐lysosomes; ensuing lysosomal membrane permeabilization/rupture releases cathepsins (notably cathepsin B), which promote NLRP3 assembly and IL‐1β maturation in multiple settings [20, 21, 22]. This pathway explains how sterile particles provide a cytosolic danger context converging on the inflammasome.
Certain agonists also induce rapid membrane‐platform remodeling that licenses assembly in a parallel, proximal manner. Specifically, trans‐Golgi network (TGN) disassembly generates PI4P‐rich dispersed TGN (dTGN) membranes that recruit and cluster NLRP3 through a polybasic region–PI4P interaction; this routing is functionally coupled to PKD‐dependent phosphorylation at the Golgi and can operate even when mitochondrial cues are limited, thereby acting as an early, common scaffold upstream of full inflammasome assembly [23, 24, 25].
In context‐specific scenarios (e.g., hypotonic stress), LRRC8A‐containing VRAC channels provide an anion/volume‐regulatory route that licenses NLRP3 activation; importantly, this mechanism appears selective for hypotonicity and is dispensable for many DAMP‐driven stimuli, so it is considered an optional proximal input rather than a universal requirement [26]. These proximal signals converge on common events that destabilize ionic gradients and specific membrane platforms, ultimately licensing NLRP3 oligomerization, ASC filament formation, caspase‐1 activation, and the maturation of IL‐1β/IL‐18 [5, 27, 28, 29]. (Mitochondrial danger signals and metabolic/organellar integration are detailed in 2.2).
2.2. Emerging Modulators: Mitochondrial, Metabolic, and Organellar Regulation
Beyond the immediate licensing events, mitochondria and cellular metabolism act as integrators/amplifiers that shape the magnitude and persistence of activation. Mitochondrial dysfunction generates signals—mtROS via reverse electron transport (RET) at complex I, oxidized mtDNA release through permeability transition, and cardiolipin externalization—each capable of engaging NLRP3 directly or indirectly [30, 31]. RET‐derived mtROS act as selective signals for IL‐1β release in inflammatory macrophages, coupling bioenergetics with cytokine output [30]. Defective mitophagy, particularly parkin/PINK1‐dependent clearance, leads to accumulation of these signals and sustained inflammasome activity [32].
Metabolic reprogramming further fine‐tunes NLRP3 activation. Enhanced glycolysis, mediated by PKM2 and the HK1–mTORC1 axis, promotes lactate‐EIF2AK2 signaling and transcriptional induction of glycolytic genes [33, 34], whereas high glucose conditions amplify inflammasome activation through MARK4‐dependent microtubule dynamics and increased mtROS [35, 36]. Within the tricarboxylic acid cycle, succinate accumulation under hypoxic stress stabilizes HIF‐1α to promote NLRP3 activation [37, 38], while itaconate, produced by IRG1, acts as an endogenous inhibitor by covalently modifying NLRP3 and disrupting NEK7 binding [39, 40]. Lipid metabolism exerts bidirectional control: saturated fatty acids such as palmitate induce K+ efflux and mtROS generation [41], whereas ketone bodies like β‐hydroxybutyrate and microbial short‐chain fatty acids suppress inflammasome signaling, linking host diet and gut microbiota to immune regulation [42, 43]. Notably, recent work identifies lactylation as a glycolysis‐driven PTM that bridges metabolism and NLRP3 control—either by directly modifying inflammasome components or via histone lactylation/ALKBH5‐m6A axes in silica injury and AKI‐to‐CKD transition models [44, 45].
Recent studies highlight a tight coupling between carbon metabolism and canonical NLRP3 activation. When glycolysis/energy metabolism is blocked (a “carbon starvation” state), canonical caspase‐1 activation and IL‐1β/IL‐18 maturation are suppressed; however, this metabolic constraint can instead precipitate a distinct, mitochondria‐dependent and ROS‐amplified non‐pyroptotic lytic death termed mitoxyperiosis, which may reshape innate–adaptive immune outcomes during infection [46, 47].
Beyond mitochondria and metabolism, organelle‐specific mechanisms contribute additional layers: ER stress sensors (IRE1, PERK, and ATF6) can couple proteostasis stress to inflammasome readiness, while Golgi–endosome trafficking and spatiotemporal relocalization (e.g., dTGN scaffolds referenced in 2.1) modulate the efficiency and locality of assembly [48]. How these organelles and membranes position NLRP3 to licensing sites—and how trafficking programs interface with assembly competence—is discussed in Section 3.3 (spatial & proteostatic control). Moreover, Apolipoprotein C3 (ApoC3) can potentiate sterile inflammasome signaling through TLR2/4–SCIMP–SYK‐linked calcium influx and ROS production, reinforcing alternative/monocyte‐biased routes [49].
2.3. Structural Licensing and Inflammasome Assembly
NLRP3 is a tripartite protein composed of an N‐terminal pyrin domain (PYD), a central nucleotide‐binding and oligomerization domain (NACHT), and a C‐terminal leucine‐rich repeat (LRR) domain [5, 50] (Figure 3). The PYD mediates homotypic interactions with the adaptor protein ASC, which nucleates filamentous assemblies essential for inflammasome formation [5]. The NACHT domain contains multiple subdomains—including the nucleotide‐binding domain (NBD), helical domains (HD1 and HD2), the winged‐helix domain (WHD), and the FISNA domain—which coordinate ATP‐dependent conformational changes and oligomerization [51, 52]. The LRR domain contributes to autoinhibition, ligand recognition, and recruitment of the regulatory kinase NEK7, a critical licensing factor for NLRP3 activation [53]. Notably, the FISNA subdomain is absent in most other NLR proteins, highlighting evolutionary specialization of NLRP3 for precise structural regulation [54].
FIGURE 3.

Structural basis and conformational transitions of NLRP3 activation and inhibition. (A) Domain architecture of NLRP3, highlighting PYD–NACHT–LRR organization and conserved NACHT motifs, together with a representative cryo‐EM structure of NLRP3 in complex with NEK7. (B) Proposed conformational landscape from inactive NLRP3 monomer to NEK7‐licensed states, ATP‐dependent activation/oligomerization, ASC nucleation and recruitment, caspase‐1 engagement, and mature inflammasome assembly; resting/inhibited states and MCC950‐mediated stabilization of an inactive conformation are indicated. ADP, adenosine diphosphate; ASC, apoptosis‐associated speck‐like protein containing a CARD; ATP, adenosine triphosphate; CARD, caspase activation and recruitment domain; Cryo‐EM, cryo‐electron microscopy; LRR, leucine‐rich repeats; NACHT, NAIP/C2TA/HET‐E/TP1 domain; NEK7, NIMA‐related kinase 7; NLRP3, NOD‐like receptor family pyrin domain containing 3; PYD, pyrin domain; UTR, untranslated region.
In resting cells, cryo‐EM studies show NLRP3 adopts a closed, cage‐like oligomer stabilized by LRR‐LRR interactions, serving as a metastable autoinhibited reservoir [55, 56]. Licensing by NEK7—structurally captured in the NEK7–NLRP3 complex—relieves this autoinhibition by binding the LRR and weakening LRR‐NACHT constraints, thereby permitting NACHT‐mediated oligomerization [53].
Upon licensing, ATP/ADP exchange at NACHT and a characteristic hinge rotation shift NLRP3 into an active conformation that assembles into planar, wheel‐like “disc” oligomers; the active disc architecture has been resolved at near‐atomic resolution and provides a structural basis for ASC recruitment [51]. ASC is then recruited via PYD–PYD interactions to nucleate helical filaments, which in turn engage pro‐caspase‐1 through CARD–CARD contacts, enabling caspase‐1 dimerization, autocatalysis, and downstream processing of pro‐IL‐1β, pro‐IL‐18, and GSDMD. Gain‐of‐function mutations (e.g., CAPS) destabilize the autoinhibited state and lower the activation threshold, driving constitutive activity [57, 58, 59]. These structural insights have informed therapeutic strategies; for instance, MCC950 stabilizes the inactive NACHT conformation and prevents oligomerization [60].
2.4. Non‐Canonical and Alternative Pathways
Distinct non‐canonical and alternative pathways expand the repertoire of NLRP3 activation. The non‐canonical pathway is initiated when cytosolic lipopolysaccharide (LPS) is sensed directly by caspase‐4 and caspase‐5 in humans (or caspase‐11 in mice), independent of TLR4 [61, 62]. Upon LPS binding, these caspases cleave gasdermin D (GSDMD), forming membrane pores that drive ionic efflux and pyroptosis [63]. These cellular disturbances in turn activate NLRP3, highlighting its role as a secondary amplifier of non‐canonical inflammasome signaling [64]. The alternative pathway, first described in human monocytes, is distinct from both canonical and non‐canonical activation. Here, prolonged LPS stimulation engages the TLR4–TRIF–RIPK1–FADD–caspase‐8 axis, leading to NLRP3 activation and IL‐1β release in a manner independent of potassium efflux or ASC speck formation [65]. Recent evidence also indicates that apolipoprotein C3 (ApoC3) can potentiate this pathway by interacting with TLR2/4, promoting calcium influx and ROS production to reinforce inflammasome signaling [66, 67]. These findings underscore NLRP3's role as a versatile integrator beyond classical microbial or crystalline stimuli.
3. Regulatory Mechanisms of the NLRP3 Inflammasome
The activity of the NLRP3 inflammasome is tightly controlled through multiple, interdependent regulatory mechanisms that operate at the transcriptional, post‐transcriptional, and metabolic levels, ensuring an appropriate immune response while preventing excessive inflammation [68]. These regulatory mechanisms collectively determine the threshold, magnitude, and duration of inflammasome activation, providing multiple therapeutic targets for intervention in inflammatory diseases (Figure 4).
FIGURE 4.

Multilayer regulation of NLRP3 abundance, activation, and turnover. NLRP3 activity is regulated at multiple levels: (1) transcriptional control (e.g., NF‐κB–dependent induction) and post‐transcriptional modulation by microRNAs; (2) protein translation and formation of the cytosolic NLRP3 pool; and (3) post‐translational modifications that tune NLRP3 stability/activation versus degradation, with clearance mediated by ubiquitin–proteasome and autophagy–lysosome pathways. K48, lysine‐48–linked ubiquitination; miRNA, microRNA; NF‐κB, nuclear factor kappa B; NLRP3, NOD‐like receptor family pyrin domain containing 3; PTMs, post‐translational modifications; Ub, ubiquitin; UPS, ubiquitin–proteasome system.
3.1. Transcriptional and Epigenetic Priming
Transcriptional priming sets the size and readiness of the NLRP3/pro‐IL‐1β/pro‐IL‐18 pool [69]. The canonical NF‐κB pathway is the primary driver of transcriptional priming, with RelA/p65 binding κB sites within the NLRP3 promoter [10]. Metabolic and environmental cues further influence transcription: hypoxia stabilizes HIF‐1α to enhance NLRP3 expression [37, 38], whereas Nrf2 exerts dual, context‐dependent roles—facilitating transcription under acute oxidative stress yet promoting resolution through antioxidant programs during recovery [70].
Beyond NF‐κB, a set of context‐dependent transcriptional programs either amplify or restrain priming. On the activating side, sterol‐responsive SREBP2 together with its escort SCAP couples cholesterol homeostasis to inflammasome competence, while NFAT5, a tonicity/stress‐responsive factor, links osmotic and inflammatory cues; both have been reported to elevate NLRP3 expression and/or increase its routing/assembly capacity in defined cell types [71, 72]. On the restraining side, the circadian repressor REV‐ERBα/NR1D1 attenuates NLRP3 transcription directly and through secondary anti‐inflammatory programs; aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) ligands diminish NLRP3 expression and activation; the myeloid transcriptional repressor GFI1 curbs pro‐inflammatory gene sets; and lineage‐determinant factors IRF4/IRF8 in dendritic cells can limit inflammasome‐related transcripts in a subset‐ and context‐dependent manner (with IRF8 exerting opposite, pro‐NLRP3 effects in macrophages) [73, 74, 75, 76]. Together, these positive and negative nodes provide a mechanistic basis for why priming thresholds vary across tissues, stimuli, and circadian time.
Epigenetic modifications provide stable yet reversible control over NLRP3 expression [77]. DNA methylation of CpG islands within the NLRP3 promoter silences gene expression, with demethylation leading to transcriptional activation during inflammatory responses [78]. Histone modifications define active chromatin regions permissive for NLRP3 transcription. The enrichment of the active enhancer mark H3K27ac at the NLRP3 promoter region is positively correlated with its transcription level [79]. Moreover, histone methyltransferases such as WDR5 and DOT1L regulate NLRP3 expression through H3K4 and H3K79 methylation [80]. Post‐transcriptionally, microRNAs (miRNAs), such as miR‐223, miR‐30e‐3p, regulate NLRP3 or IL‐1β transcripts, providing rapid and reversible dampening of inflammasome potential in various disease contexts [81, 82, 83].
3.2. PTM Gating of Activation
Once the substrate pool exists, PTMs act as near‐instant gatekeepers of assembly and enzymatic output [84]. Ubiquitination serves as a central regulatory mechanism, with distinct ubiquitin linkages determining NLRP3 fate and function [85]. The E3 ubiquitin ligase FBXL2 targets NLRP3 for polyubiquitination and proteasomal degradation, maintaining low basal levels of NLRP3 in resting cells [86, 87]. Conversely, TRIM31 promotes K48‐linked polyubiquitination of NLRP3, which facilitates its proteasomal degradation and serves as a negative feedback mechanism [88]. The deubiquitinase BRCC3 removes ubiquitin chains from NLRP3, stabilizing the protein and enabling inflammasome activation [89]. Additionally, the linear ubiquitin assembly complex generates M1‐linked ubiquitin chains on NLRP3, which are essential for optimal inflammasome activation [90].
Phosphorylation provides another critical layer of NLRP3 regulation, with multiple kinases targeting specific residues, similarly exerts bidirectional control [91]. JNK1‐mediated phosphorylation of NLRP3 at Ser194 during the priming phase facilitates deubiquitination and protein stabilization, whereas protein kinase A phosphorylation at Ser291 induces inhibitory ubiquitination [11, 92]. Protein kinase D (PKD) phosphorylates NLRP3 at the Golgi apparatus, promoting its recruitment to the TGN dispersal site, while tyrosine phosphatases such as PTPN22 provide additional modulatory input [93, 94].
Emerging modifications, including SUMOylation, acetylation, and lactylation, further fine‐tune inflammasome activity: SUMO2/3 modification prevents NLRP3 oligomerization, reversible by SENP6/7 desumoylases [95, 96], lysine acetylation at K24 is required for full NLRP3 inflammasome activation, highlighting the importance of histone deacetylases (HDACs) in regulation [97]; Recent studies highlight the role of protein lactylation in inflammasome regulation. For instance, lactylation of citrate synthase was shown to promote NLRP3 activation in a kidney injury–fibrosis model, and lactate‐induced H3K18 lactylation upregulates ALKBH5, thereby modulating the NLRP3 pathway in macrophages [44, 45]. These findings tentatively link elevated glycolytic flux and lactylation to structural or functional modulation of NLRP3 regulation.
3.3. Spatial and Proteostatic Control
Beyond canonical signaling cues, the activation competence of the NLRP3 inflammasome is dictated by its spatial itinerary and proteostatic state. In resting cells, NLRP3 resides predominantly in the cytosol or associates with the endoplasmic reticulum (ER), where it is maintained in a “poised but restrained” state by the molecular chaperone complex HSP90–SGT1 [98]. This chaperone buffering preserves the protein's structural integrity and readiness for activation while preventing spontaneous oligomerization. Upon stimulation, however, NLRP3 undergoes a carefully orchestrated trafficking process that integrates subcellular localization, lipid microdomain dynamics, and PTMs, collectively shaping where and when inflammasome assembly occurs.
The ER–mitochondria‐associated membrane (MAM) axis serves as an early platform facilitating proximity between NLRP3 and its licensing partner NEK7, converting a mobile primed pool into an oligomerization‐competent species [99, 100, 101]. Concurrently, activation triggers promote the disassembly of the TGN, generating phosphatidylinositol‐4‐phosphate (PI4P)‐enriched dTGN membranes. A polybasic region within NLRP3 directly binds PI4P, creating an early supramolecular clustering hub for NLRP3 recruitment and self‐association [23]. Subsequent phosphorylation of NLRP3 by PKD and IKKβ reinforces its residency on PI4P‐rich membranes, stabilizing nucleation sites independent of potassium efflux [24].
In addition to Golgi‐associated platforms, endosomal lipid remodeling can generate alternative compartments favorable for NLRP3–ASC engagement, even in the absence of lysosomal rupture [25]. Spatial routing further extends to the cytoskeletal network: HDAC6‐mediated aggresome‐like transport directs NLRP3–ASC complexes along microtubules toward the centrosome, a process tuned by PLK1, thereby optimizing the geometric efficiency of inflammasome assembly [102]. These sequential localization steps reflect a “licensing itinerary,” in which distinct organelles provide transient docking stations that progressively prime NLRP3 for higher‐order assembly.
Parallel to spatial routing, proteostatic systems preserve the assembly competence of NLRP3 during transit. Non‐degradative chaperones such as HSP90 not only maintain proper folding but also shield exposed hydrophobic interfaces, preventing premature oligomerization. Upon activation, localization‐sensitive PTMs (e.g., S‐palmitoylation at Cys837 or phosphorylation at specific serine residues) fine‐tune NLRP3's interaction with membranes and adaptors, regulating whether the molecule remains on permissive membranes or is withdrawn for degradation [103]. While degradative pathways such as macroautophagy, chaperone‐mediated autophagy, and PINK1–Parkin–mediated mitophagy (see Section 3.4) eliminate damaged or overactivated inflammasome components, this non‐degradative proteostatic buffering ensures that only a competent subset of NLRP3 molecules is available for assembly at any given time. Mechanistically, this model explains why identical upstream signals can produce divergent inflammatory outputs across cell types and stimuli—only when spatial routing delivers NLRP3 to permissive membranes and proteostatic chaperones preserve an activation‐competent pool can ASC nucleation and caspase‐1 activation proceed efficiently.
3.4. Proteostasis Control: Autophagy and Mitophagy Brakes
Degradative quality‐control pathways furnish dominant brakes on inflammasome output [5]. Macroautophagy and chaperone‐mediated autophagy remove activation‐competent complexes and dampen feed‐forward amplification; defective autophagy allows accumulation of dysfunctional organelles and protein aggregates that seed activation [104]. The autophagy receptor SQSTM1/p62 binds to NLRP3 and targets it for autophagic degradation, preventing excessive inflammasome assembly [105]. PINK1‐Parkin‐mediated mitophagy removes damaged mitochondria that would otherwise release activating signals such as mitochondrial DNA and ROS [106]. Pharmacological enhancement of autophagy through mTOR inhibition or AMPK activation effectively suppresses NLRP3 inflammasome activity [107].
Beyond degradative proteostasis, endogenous inhibitors and metabolic rheostats provide additional system‐level checks [108]. Pyrin‐only proteins (POP1/POP2) compete with ASC for binding to NLRP3, preventing inflammasome assembly [109], while CARD‐only proteins (CARD16/17/18) sequester ASC and limit caspase‐1 activation [110]. However, the physiological significance of these inhibitory proteins remains unclear, as they are not expressed in mice [111]. Dopamine functions as an endogenous NLRP3 inhibitor by activating dopamine D1‐like receptors and increasing intracellular cAMP levels [112]. As mentioned in 2.2, cellular metabolism, including β‐hydroxybutyratea and omega‐3 fatty acids, profoundly influences NLRP3 inflammasome regulation through multiple interconnected pathways [37, 39, 42, 113, 114].
In sum, PTM gating, transcriptional/epigenetic priming, spatial logistics with chaperone support, and proteostatic brakes—including autophagy/mitophagy and endogenous metabolic circuits—together establish NLRP3 as a finely tuned sensor of danger and homeostasis. Their interconnectivity provides multiple checkpoints to prevent aberrant inflammation while maintaining rapid responsiveness [115, 116].
4. Disease Contexts and Progress in NLRP3 Inflammasome Inhibitors
The multilayered regulation of NLRP3—from transcriptional priming and post‐translational switches to organelle integrity and metabolic checkpoints—creates diverse pharmacological entry points. At the same time, aberrant NLRP3 activation contributes to a spectrum of clinically distinct disorders, in which the dominant pathogenic nodes and inflammatory milieu differ markedly. In this section, we first outline major NLRP3‐driven disease contexts that provide the clinical rationale for targeting this pathway (Section 4.1). We then discuss discovery paradigms, mechanistic nodes, and representative inhibitor lineages (Sections 4.2–4.4), which together define how pharmacology can be tailored to these disease settings. These nodes define distinct therapeutic strategies: direct blockade of NLRP3 activation and oligomerization, interference with essential protein–protein interactions, inhibition of downstream effectors, cytokine or receptor blockade, indirect modulation of upstream pathways, and targeted degradation of inflammasome components. Collectively, these strategies have generated a diverse spectrum of small molecules and biologics, ranging from early chemical probes to approved therapies (Table S1).
4.1. NLRP3‐Driven Disease Contexts and Rationale for Tailored Inhibition
Building on the structural insights and representative inhibitors described above, it becomes clear that the therapeutic potential of NLRP3 inhibitors is highly disease‐context dependent. Different indications are characterized by distinct combinations of genetic lesions, metabolic rewiring, organ‐specific microenvironments, and upstream triggers. Below, we summarize four representative disease clusters in which NLRP3 plays a central pathogenic role and highlight how these mechanisms motivate tailored inhibitory strategies (Table 1).
TABLE 1.
Therapeutics targeting NLRP3 inflammasome signaling in clinical trials.
| Therapeutic | Mechanism | Indication | Trial registry | Phase | Enrollment | Key outcome | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IL‐1 pathway blockade(IL‐1β/IL‐1Ra/IL‐1 Trap) | |||||||
| Canakinumab (Novartis) | IL‐1β neutralizing monoclonal antibody | CAPS | NCT01105507 | I | — | Confirmed safety and efficacy in CAPS patients | Completed |
| Canakinumab (Novartis) | IL‐1β neutralizing monoclonal antibody | CAPS | NCT01276522 | III | ∼60 | Sustained efficacy in Schnitzler's syndrome | Approved |
| Canakinumab (Novartis) | IL‐1β neutralizing monoclonal antibody | FCAS | NCT01302860 | II/III | — | Safety and efficacy confirmed | Completed |
| Canakinumab (Novartis) | IL‐1β neutralizing monoclonal antibody | FCAS | NCT00991146 | I/II | — | Safety and efficacy confirmed | Completed |
| Canakinumab (Novartis) | IL‐1β neutralizing monoclonal antibody | FCAS | NCT00685373 | II | — | Safety and efficacy confirmed | Completed |
| Canakinumab (Novartis) | IL‐1β neutralizing monoclonal antibody | FCAS | NCT00487708 | I | — | Safety and efficacy confirmed | Completed |
| Canakinumab (Novartis) | IL‐1β neutralizing monoclonal antibody | AS | NCT01327846 | II | 10061 | Lower rate of recurrent cardiovascular events independent of lipid‐lowering | Completed |
| Rilonacept (Regeneron) | Soluble IL‐1 decoy receptor (IL‐1 Trap) | CAPS | NCT00288704 | I | — | Confirmed efficacy and safety | Completed |
| Rilonacept (Regeneron) | Soluble IL‐1 decoy receptor (IL‐1 Trap) | Gout | NCT02171416 | II | — | Confirmed efficacy and safety | Completed |
| Rilonacept (Regeneron) | Soluble IL‐1 decoy receptor (IL‐1 Trap) | CAPS | NCT01045772 | I/II | — | Confirmed efficacy and safety | Completed |
| Anakinra/HL2351 (HanAll) | Recombinant IL‐1 receptor antagonist (IL‐1Ra) | CAPS | NCT02853084 | I | 8 | Confirmed safety and efficacy | Active |
| Anakinra/HL2351 (HanAll) | Recombinant IL‐1 receptor antagonist (IL‐1Ra) | Myocardial infarction | NCT04443881 | I/II | 8 | Confirmed safety and efficacy | Active |
| Anakinra/HL2351 (HanAll) | Recombinant IL‐1 receptor antagonist (IL‐1Ra) | Gout | NCT01175018 | I | 8 | Confirmed safety and efficacy | Active |
| Anakinra/HL2351 (HanAll) | Recombinant IL‐1 receptor antagonist (IL‐1Ra) | COVID‐19 pneumonia | NCT02578394 | I/II | 8 | Confirmed safety and efficacy | Active |
| Direct NLRP3 inflammasome inhibitors | |||||||
| Therapeutic | Mechanism | Indication | Trial registry | Phase | Enrollment | Key outcomes/Notes | Status |
| MCC950 (Cayman Chemical) | Small‐molecule NLRP3 inhibitor | Rheumatoid arthritis | NCT02953709 | II | ∼200 | Terminated due to hepatotoxicity | Terminated |
| DFV890/IFM‐2427 (IFM Therapeutics) | Small‐molecule NLRP3 inhibitor | FCAS | NCT04269469 | I/II | 100 | First‐in‐human study initiated | Active |
| DFV890/IFM‐2427 (IFM Therapeutics) | Small‐molecule NLRP3 inhibitor | FCAS | NCT04868968 | II | 4 | To assess the safety and efficacy | Active |
| DFV890/IFM‐2427 (IFM Therapeutics) | Small‐molecule NLRP3 inhibitor | Osteoarthritis | NCT04886258 | II | 108 | To assess the safety and efficacy | Active |
| DFV890/IFM‐2427 (IFM Therapeutics) | Small‐molecule NLRP3 inhibitor | Myeloid diseases | NCT05552469 | 1b | 80 | To assess the safety and efficacy | Active |
| DFV890/IFM‐2427 (IFM Therapeutics) | Small‐molecule NLRP3 inhibitor | COVID‐19 pneumonia | NCT04382053 | II | 143 | Confirmed efficacy and safety for SARS‐CoV‐2‐induced pneumonia | Active |
| Inzomelid (Roche) | NLRP3 inhibitor | Healthy subjects | NCT04015076 | I | 94 | Evaluate safety and PK/PD | Active |
| [] (Roche) | NLRP3 inhibitor | CAPS | NCT04015076 | I | 94 | Evaluate safety and PK/PD | Active |
| Inzomelid (Roche) | NLRP3 inhibitor | Parkinson's disease | NCT04338997 | I | — | Withdrawn | Withdrawn |
| Inzomelid (Roche) | NLRP3 inhibitor | Knee OA | EUCTR2020‐006104‐17 | II | 108 | Study efficacy, safety, and tolerability | Active |
| Inzomelid (Roche) | NLRP3 inhibitor | FCAS | EUCTR2020‐005948‐33 | II | 6 | Assess safety and efficacy | Active |
| RO7486967/Somalix (Roche) | NLRP3 inhibitor | CAPS | NCT04086602 | I | 64 | Assess safety and PK/PD | Active |
| RO7486967/Somalix (Roche) | NLRP3 inhibitor | Coronary artery disease | EudraCT 2020‐000942‐32 | IIb | 132 | Evaluate safety and efficacy to reduce CRP | Active |
| RO7486967/Somalix (Roche) | NLRP3 inhibitor | Parkinson's disease | ISRCTN85338453/NCT05924243 | Ib | 72 | Assess safety and PK/PD | Active |
| RO7486967/Somalix (Roche) | NLRP3 inhibitor | COPD | ISRCTN17672960 | I | 106 | Assess safety and PK/PD | Active |
| RO7486967/Somalix (Roche) | NLRP3 inhibitor | Ulcerative colitis | ISRCTN16847938 | Ib | 19 | Phase 1b study evaluating safety, PK/PD | Active |
| NT‐0796 (NodThera) | CNS‐penetrant NLRP3 inhibitor | Healthy volunteers | ACTRN12621001082897 | I | 88 | Demonstrated safety | Active |
| NT‐0249 (NodThera) | CNS‐penetrant NLRP3 inhibitor | Healthy volunteers | ACTRN12622000195752 | I | 72 | Assess safety and PK/PD | Active |
| NT‐0167 (NodThera) | Oral NLRP3 inhibitor | Healthy volunteers | ACTRN12620000685910 | I | 80 | Assess safety and PK/PD | Active |
| ZYIL1 (Zydus Lifesciences) | Oral NLRP3 inhibitor | Healthy volunteers | NCT04972188/NCT04731324 | I | 18 | Confirmed safety and PK/PD | Completed |
| ZYIL1 (Zydus Lifesciences) | Oral NLRP3 inhibitor | CAPS | NCT05186051 | IIa | 3 | Incidence and severity of adverse events | Completed |
| Dapansutrile (OLT1177, Olatec) | Oral NLRP3 inhibitor | Healthy volunteers | NCT02134964 | I | 36 | Confirmed safety and PK/PD | Completed |
| Dapansutrile (OLT1177, Olatec) | Oral NLRP3 inhibitor | Systolic heart failure | NCT03534297 | Ib | 30 | Confirmed safety and PD | Completed |
| Dapansutrile (OLT1177, Olatec) | Oral NLRP3 inhibitor | Myocardial infarction | NCT05880355 | I | 60 | Evaluate efficacy | Active |
| Dapansutrile (OLT1177, Olatec) | Oral NLRP3 inhibitor | PD‐1 refractory advanced melanoma | NCT04971499 | I/II | 26 | Assess efficacy | Active |
| Dapansutrile (OLT1177, Olatec) | Oral NLRP3 inhibitor | Schnitzler's syndrome | NCT03595371/EUCTR2017‐003282‐98‐NL | II | 10 | Assess safety and efficacy | Active |
| Dapansutrile (OLT1177, Olatec) | Oral NLRP3 inhibitor | COVID‐19‐induced early cytokine release syndrome | NCT04540120 | II | 49 | Terminated due to changing pandemic conditions | Terminated |
| Dapansutrile (OLT1177, Olatec) | Oral NLRP3 inhibitor | Acute gout flare | NCT05658575 | II/III | 300 | Evaluate efficacy in reducing joint pain | Active |
| Tranilast (Kissei) | Oral NLRP3 inhibitor | CAPS | NCT03923140 | II | 71 | Observe efficacy and safety | Active |
| Tranilast (Kissei) | Oral NLRP3 inhibitor | COVID‐19 | IRCT20200419047128N1 | II/III | 60 | Confirmed effectiveness as adjuvant therapy | Active |
| VTX‐2735 (Ventyx Biosciences) | Oral NLRP3 inhibitor | CAPS | NCT05812781 | II | 10 | Evaluate safety and effectiveness | Active |
| VTX‐3232 (Ventyx Biosciences) | CNS‐penetrant NLRP3 inhibitor | Healthy volunteers | — | I | 100 | Evaluate safety and effectiveness | Active |
| VENT‐02 | Small‐molecule NLRP3 inhibitor | Parkinson's disease | NCT05276895 | I | ∼100 | Brain‐penetrant; completed Phase I in healthy volunteers | Active |
| VENT‐02 | Small‐molecule NLRP3 inhibitor | Alzheimer's disease | NCT05276895 | I | ∼100 | Brain‐penetrant; completed Phase I in healthy volunteers | Active |
| YQ128 | Small‐molecule NLRP3 inhibitor | Alzheimer's disease | — | I | ∼100 | Brain‐penetrant; anti‐inflammatory; Phase I in healthy volunteers | Active |
| YQ128 | Small‐molecule NLRP3 inhibitor | Traumatic brain injury | — | I | ∼100 | Brain‐penetrant; anti‐inflammatory; Phase I in healthy volunteers | Active |
| JT002 | Small‐molecule NLRP3 inhibitor | Healthy volunteers | — | I | ∼100 | Inhibits NLRP3‐dependent cytokine production | Active |
| GDC‐2394 | Small‐molecule NLRP3 inhibitor | Healthy volunteers | NCT05552469 | I | ∼100 | Safety, PK/PD evaluation | Active |
| Upstream/alternative inflammasome modulators | |||||||
| Therapeutic | Mechanism | Indication | Trial registry | Phase | Enrollment | Key outcomes/Notes | Status |
| HT‐6184 (Halia Therapeutics) | NEK7 kinase inhibitor | Chronic inflammation‐driven diseases | NCT05447546 | I | 32 | Evaluate safety and PK/PD | Active |
| Colchicine (Generic) | Microtubule inhibitor | Cardiovascular disease | NCT02551094/ACTRN12610000293066/ACTRN12614000093684 | II–III | 2023.6 | FDA approved for CAD | Approved |
| Colchicine (Generic) | Microtubule inhibitor | Myocardial reperfusion injury | NCT05734612 | III | 80 | Evaluate the effect on myocardial reperfusion injury | Active |
| Colchicine (Generic) | Microtubule inhibitor | COVID‐19 | NCT04326790/RBR‐8jyhxh | II | 180 | Inhibited NLRP3 inflammasome activation | Active |
| Colchicine/Tranilast/Oridonin | NLRP3 inhibitor | CAD after PCI | NCT05130892 | IV | 132 | Evaluate the efficacy of different NLRP3 inhibitors | Active |
| Quercetin + Fisetin | Natural flavonoids/NLRP3 suppression | OA | NCT05276895 | — | 60 | Determine efficacy in reducing knee symptoms and effusion‐synovitis | Active |
| ADS032 (Adis Insight) | Dual NLRP3 & NLRP1 inflammasome inhibitor | Interstitial lung disease | ISRCTN35867933 | 0 | 50 | Assess efficacy | Active |
| Nibrozetone (RRX‐001) | Epigenetic/nitrosylating agent, NLRP3 inhibition + Nrf2 activation | Cancers | NCT02215512/NCT02452970/NCT02518958/NCT01359982 | I–III | — | Confirmed safety and efficacy | Active |
| Pralnacasan (Idun) | Caspase‐1 inhibitor | RA | NCT04269469 | II | 100 | Discontinued | Discontinued |
| Pralnacasan (Idun) | Caspase‐1 inhibitor | OA | NCT04269469 | II | 100 | Discontinued | Discontinued |
| Belnacasan (VX‐765) | Caspase‐1 inhibitor | Epilepsy | NCT01048255/NCT01501383/NCT00205465 | II | 60 | Evaluate efficacy in treatment‐resistant patients | Active |
| Belnacasan (VX‐765) | Caspase‐1 inhibitor | Psoriasis | NCT01048255/NCT01501383/NCT00205465 | II | 64 | Evaluate efficacy | Active |
| Belnacasan (VX‐765) | Caspase‐1 inhibitor | COVID‐19 | NCT05164120 | II | 43 | Assess efficacy | Active |
| Fenofibrate | PPAR‐α agonist | IBD | NCT05781698 | II | 60 | Repurposing fenofibrate to modulate mTOR/NLRP3 inflammasome | Active |
| Melatonin | Immunomodulator | COVID‐19 | NCT04409522 | — | 55 | Evaluate therapeutic effects via NLRP3 inhibition | Active |
| AC‐203 | Inflammasome/IL‐1β pathway modulator | Inherited epidermolysis bullosa | NCT03468322 | II | 9 | Test efficacy and safety | Active |
| AC‐203 | Inflammasome/IL‐1β pathway modulator | Bullous Pemphigoid | NCT03286582 | II | 10 | Terminated with partial enrollment | Terminated |
| HY209 | GPCR19 agonist | Atopic dermatitis | NCT03492398 | I | 56 | Assess GPCR19 agonist inhibiting NLRP3 inflammasome | Active |
| HY209 | GPCR19 agonist | Atopic dermatitis | NCT04530643 | II | 80 | Assess GPCR19 agonist inhibiting NLRP3 inflammasome | Active |
Data sources: Public clinical trial registries and regulatory databases (e.g., ClinicalTrials.gov; EU Clinical Trials Register/EudraCT; Chinese Clinical Trial Registry/ChiCTR; FDA; NMPA; PMDA publicly available registration records), accessed November 2025.
Abbreviations: AD, Alzheimer's disease; AS, atherosclerosis; CAD, coronary artery disease; CAPS, Cryopyrin‐associated periodic syndrome; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; COVID‐19, coronavirus disease 2019; FCAS, familial cold autoinflammatory syndrome; GPCR, G protein–coupled receptor; IBD, inflammatory bowel disease; IL‐1Ra, interleukin‐1 receptor antagonist; MAD, multiple ascending dose; MI, myocardial infarction; NEK7, NIMA‐related kinase 7; NLRP3, nucleotide‐binding domain, leucine‐rich–containing family, pyrin domain–containing‐3; Nrf2, nuclear factor erythroid 2–related factor 2; OA, osteoarthritis; PD (in pharmacology), pharmacodynamics; PD, Parkinson's disease; PK, pharmacokinetics; PPAR‐α, peroxisome proliferator–activated receptor alpha; RA, rheumatoid arthritis; RCT, randomized controlled trial; SAD, single ascending dose; UC, ulcerative colitis.
4.1.1. Autoinflammatory Diseases
CAPS exemplifies the genetic contribution to NLRP3‐driven diseases. Mutations in NLRP3 lead to constitutive inflammasome activation and excessive IL‐1β secretion, manifesting as familial cold autoinflammatory syndrome (FCAS), Muckle‐Wells syndrome (MWS), and neonatal‐onset multisystem inflammatory disease (NOMID) [117]. Functional categorization of CAPS‐associated mutations into five classes has provided a framework for linking genetic variation to differential cytokine release and cell death pathways, offering a rationale for patient‐specific interventions. For instance, the newly identified pSer595Asn mutation causes hearing loss via enhanced inflammasome activity, yet anti‐IL‐1 therapy has successfully reversed this phenotype in pediatric patients [118]. Mutations such as Q703K and A350V, widely documented in Infevers and Eurofever databases, similarly illustrate the spectrum of NLRP3 activation in CAPS [119, 120, 121]. Beyond mutation‐driven activation, sustained inflammation involves metabolic reprogramming and deubiquitination pathways, while the HSP90β–SGT1 chaperone complex and Ca2 +‐dependent mechanotransduction through KCNN4 and PIEZO channels further amplify inflammasome activity [122, 123, 124]. These mechanistic insights not only explain variable disease severity across patients but also highlight therapeutic vulnerabilities, such as HSP90β inhibition or blockade of KCNN4, that could complement existing IL‐1–directed therapies. Indeed, IL‐1 inhibitors, including anakinra, canakinumab, and rilonacept, remain the clinical standard, though responses vary depending on disease severity and mutation spectrum [125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130]. Notably, some CAPS mutations confer resistance to MCC950 but retain responsiveness to alternatives like CY‐09, underscoring the promise of genotype‐guided “tailored inhibition” [131].
Recent studies have further clarified genotype‐dependent responses to NLRP3 inhibition. For example, specific NLRP3 gain‐of‐function mutations not only dictate disease severity but also influence inhibitor efficacy, suggesting that genetic profiling could guide patient‐specific therapy [131]. Moreover, small molecule inhibitors such as MCC950 have demonstrated robust suppression of IL‐1β release in patient‐derived cells, although dose‐limiting hepatotoxicity highlights the need for safer derivatives [132]. Emerging PROTAC‐based NLRP3 degraders have shown potent inflammasome suppression in preclinical models, providing a promising avenue for future precision therapy [133].
4.1.2. Inflammatory Arthritis
Rheumatoid arthritis (RA), osteoarthritis (OA), and gouty arthritis (GA) highlight the interplay of innate immunity, crystal‐induced activation, and inflammasome signaling in joint inflammation. In RA, excessive T and B cell activation converges on NLRP3‐mediated IL‐1β release, with genetic variants in NLRP3 and its regulators (CARD8, A20) influencing susceptibility and disease severity [134, 135, 136]. In gout, monosodium urate (MSU) and calcium pyrophosphate crystals activate macrophage NLRP3, driving pyroptosis and amplifying neutrophil infiltration [137]. In OA, where mechanical stress and cartilage degradation dominate, uric acid and other DAMPs act as triggers for NLRP3 activation, accelerating cartilage loss and synovitis [138, 139, 140, 141]. Consistent with these mechanistic insights, therapeutic inhibition of IL‐1β alleviates gout symptoms, while small‐molecule inhibitors such as MCC950 and OLT1177 show efficacy in preclinical arthritis models [142, 143]. Ketogenic diets, β‐hydroxybutyrate, and certain endogenous metabolites have also been shown to attenuate NLRP3 activation [144, 145]. Ongoing clinical trials with Dapansutrile are expected to clarify the potential of targeting NLRP3 across diverse arthritis phenotypes [146]. Collectively, these studies suggest that tailoring inhibition to pathogenic nodes—whether pyroptosis in gout, ASC signaling in RA, or calcification‐associated triggers in OA—could provide disease‐specific benefit.
In RA and other sterile inflammatory arthritis models, recent evidence highlights ASC's role beyond canonical NLRP3 activation. ASC‐deficient CD4+ T cells have increased IL‐10 production, impairing bystander T‐cell proliferation, suggesting that inflammasome‐independent functions of ASC may modulate local inflammation [147, 148]. Consequently, NLRP3 inhibition strategies may require careful consideration of ASC‐dependent pathways to maximize therapeutic benefit. Additionally, the development of covalent inhibitors such as oridonin derivatives shows promise in selectively blocking NLRP3 assembly without affecting basal immune function [149, 150].
4.1.3. Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Both Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) exhibit strong genetic and immunological links to NLRP3 dysregulation. Variants such as NLRP3 R779C or CARD8 T60 promote persistent inflammasome activation, correlating with disease severity and resistance to anti‐TNF‐α therapy [151, 152]. Molecular mechanisms, including BTK‐mediated phosphorylation, OTUD6A‐ and BRCC3‐mediated deubiquitination, and METTL3‐driven m6A modification, amplify inflammasome activity and pyroptosis [153, 154]. Conversely, protective mechanisms such as IRGM‐driven autophagic degradation of NLRP3, HSP‐mediated suppression, or IL‐10–dependent mitophagy maintain mucosal balance [155, 156]. The gut microbiota further modulates NLRP3 responses; for example, Bacteroides fragilis and Lactobacillus acidophilus alleviate colitis via SCFA production and mitophagy, whereas dysbiosis promotes pathogenic signaling [157, 158]. Importantly, NLRP3 not only drives intestinal inflammation but also contributes to extraintestinal manifestations and colitis‐associated cancer. Preclinical studies with MCC950, natural products, and FDA‐approved drugs such as glyburide demonstrate clear benefits, though early‐phase clinical trials with compounds like selnoflast have yielded mixed results [159, 160, 161]. These findings emphasize that therapeutic success will likely depend on precise targeting of patient‐specific pathways—whether genetic variants, microbiota composition, or metabolic context—to achieve durable disease control.
Recent preclinical work has introduced autophagy‐tethering compounds that degrade NLRP3, demonstrating potent anti‐inflammatory effects in DSS‐induced colitis models. For instance, compound MC‐ND‐18 achieved marked suppression of colonic IL‐1β and histological inflammation, illustrating the potential of combining inflammasome inhibition with cellular degradation pathways [162]. These findings suggest that patient stratification based on NLRP3 activity and autophagy status could improve therapeutic precision in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).
4.1.4. Cardiovascular Diseases: Atherosclerosis and Myocardial Infarction
The contribution of NLRP3 to atherosclerosis and myocardial infarction highlights its role as a driver of sterile inflammation in cardiovascular pathology. Cholesterol crystals, oxidized LDL, and hemodynamic stress activate NLRP3, promoting endothelial dysfunction, plaque progression, and thrombosis [163, 164]. Similarly, ischemia/reperfusion injury after myocardial infarction (MI) triggers mitochondrial cfDNA/TLR9 signaling, activating NLRP3 and exacerbating tissue injury [165]. Inhibiting NLRP3 reduces infarct size and improves remodeling, as shown in animal models treated with MCC950 or VX‐765. Clinical translation is progressing: Dapansutrile has entered Phase I trials in systolic heart failure and MI, while colchicine—an established anti‐inflammatory agent now recognized as an NLRP3 inhibitor—has gained FDA approval for cardiovascular indications [166]. Additional approaches, such as bifunctional nanoparticles targeting macrophages or agents blocking Txnip/NLRP3 signaling, demonstrate the potential of tailoring inhibition to the cardiovascular context [167, 168]. Importantly, genetic backgrounds—such as somatic mutations like TET2 mutations driving clonal hematopoiesis—may further refine therapeutic decision‐making [169].
In cardiovascular diseases such as atherosclerosis and myocardial infarction, NLRP3 activation is influenced by metabolic stress and macrophage phenotype. Recent studies highlight that inhibitors like OLT1177 can reduce myocardial inflammation and improve cardiac function in preclinical MI models, while avoiding systemic immunosuppression [170]. Additionally, drug repurposing approaches with tranilast have been demonstrated anti‐atherosclerotic effects by blocking NLRP3 oligomerization [171]. These findings underscore the importance of tailoring NLRP3‐targeted therapy according to disease‐specific inflammatory triggers and patient metabolic profiles.
Taken together, across diseases ranging from rare hereditary syndromes to highly prevalent cardiovascular disorders, the application of NLRP3 inhibition demonstrates that a “one‐size‐fits‐all” strategy is unlikely to succeed. Instead, the integration of genetic, molecular, and environmental determinants of NLRP3 activation provides a path toward precision therapies that match the heterogeneity of inflammasome‐driven diseases. Collectively, these findings highlight that “one‐size‐fits‐all” NLRP3 inhibition is unlikely to achieve optimal efficacy. Instead, integrating disease‐specific mechanisms, patient genetics, and drug pharmacology will be critical for developing precision‐tailored therapies. Future efforts combining small molecule inhibitors, targeted degraders, and genotype‐guided approaches are expected to advance the clinical translation of NLRP3‐targeted interventions across multiple inflammatory conditions.
4.2. Discovery Paradigms and Translational Milestones
No single discovery paradigm has proven universally optimal for NLRP3 inhibitors; successful candidates have emerged from complementary strategies that integrate chemical diversity, biological relevance, and mechanistic insight. Below, we summarize key approaches with representative milestones, which together underpin the therapeutic strategies applied to the disease settings outlined in Section 4.1 (Figure 5).
FIGURE 5.

Therapeutic intervention points along the NLRP3 inflammasome cascade. Potential pharmacological strategies targeting the NLRP3 pathway at distinct stages: (1) upstream/indirect modulators that suppress priming (e.g., NF‐κB inhibition), regulate ion channels (e.g., P2×7), metabolic pathways, ROS, and autophagy; (2) interface/assembly blockers disrupting key protein–protein interactions (e.g., NEK7–NLRP3 licensing, PYD–PYD interactions, and ASC oligomerization); (3) direct NLRP3 inhibitors that block ATPase activity or stabilize inactive conformations; (4) degraders/removal approaches (e.g., NLRP3 degraders and autophagy‐tethering strategies); and (5) downstream blockade targeting caspase‐1/GSDMD or IL‐1 axis biologics to prevent cytokine release and pyroptosis. ASC, apoptosis‐associated speck‐like protein containing a CARD; ATPase, adenosine triphosphatase; ATTECs, autophagosome‐tethering compounds; GSDMD, gasdermin D; IL‐1β, interleukin‐1 beta; IL‐18, interleukin‐18; NEK7, NIMA‐related kinase 7; NF‐κB, nuclear factor kappa B; NLRP3, NOD‐like receptor family pyrin domain containing 3; P2×7, purinergic receptor P2×7; PROTACs, proteolysis‐targeting chimeras; PYD, pyrin domain; ROS, reactive oxygen species.
4.2.1. Phenotypic Drug Discovery
Phenotypic drug discovery (PDD) played a foundational role in revealing the druggability of NLRP3 pathways. Even before NLRP3 was identified, glyburide was shown to inhibit IL‐1β release, highlighting the feasibility of targeting this axis [172]. Subsequent cell‐based assays monitoring IL‐1β secretion, ASC speck formation, or pyroptotic cell death enabled the discovery of MCC950 (CRID3) and numerous natural products or small molecules [173]. By directly capturing functional endpoints, PDD identified compounds affecting complex inflammasome assembly, including indirect metabolic modulators. While some hits required subsequent mechanistic deconvolution, this approach provided critical chemical diversity and biological relevance for early‐stage discovery.
4.2.2. Structure‐Guided and Target‐Informed Discovery
The resolution of NLRP3 structures via cryo‐EM and X‐ray crystallography (7ALV, 7VTQ, 7PZC, 8ETR, etc.) has facilitated structure‐guided discovery (Table S1) [174]. These studies revealed binding modes of MCC950, NP3‐146, and others to the NACHT domain, including interactions with Walker A/B residues and hydrophobic pockets spanning WHD, HD1, and HD2 [56, 174, 132]. Structural insights guided rational SAR modifications, improved selectivity and metabolic stability, and clarified resistance associated with CAPS mutations [132, 175]. Nonetheless, structural guidance alone cannot fully anticipate clinical toxicity, as exemplified by GDC‐2394–related hepatotoxicity [176].
4.2.3. High‐Throughput and High‐Content Screening
High‐throughput (HTS) and high‐content screening (HCS) have expanded the chemical space accessible for NLRP3 inhibitors. Libraries of 103–105 compounds have yielded hits such as PU‐H71 and MPC‐3100 using specialized assays including FLECS, split‐luciferase, and ATP‐competition formats [173, 177, 178, 179]. These approaches enable rapid identification of ATP‐pocket binders and modulators of inflammasome assembly, though promising hits typically require extensive mechanistic and pharmacokinetic optimization.
4.2.4. Computational and AI‐Driven Discovery
Computational approaches, including pharmacophore modeling, virtual libraries exceeding tens of millions of compounds, and deep learning–designed scaffolds (e.g., SN3‐1), have accelerated scaffold innovation and chemical space exploration [180, 181, 182]. While these methods can generate high‐affinity, in vivo–active inhibitors, they rely on high‐quality structural templates or predictive biomarkers and require substantial experimental validation.
The most effective discovery programs combine phenotypic and structure‐guided strategies, supported by HTS, virtual screening, and AI, while integrating early DMPK, hepatotoxicity assessment, and human‐relevant cellular assays. Early target deconvolution, structural determination, and toxicology studies have proven critical for translating NLRP3 inhibitors from cell‐based discovery to clinical development.
4.3. Therapeutic Nodes and Mechanistic Classification
The NLRP3–IL‐1 axis can be therapeutically modulated at multiple levels, and for clarity we group interventions into several operational classes. First, direct NLRP3 inhibitors—typically small molecules targeting the NACHT domain—block ATP hydrolysis and stabilize an inactive conformation, thereby preventing NLRP3 oligomerization and ASC nucleation. These agents intervene at the apex of the pathway and are effective against both canonical and non‐canonical triggers, though challenges include isoform selectivity, on‐target safety, and resistance mutations observed in CAPS [60, 183]. Second, interface and assembly blockers act on critical protein–protein interactions such as NEK7–NLRP3, PYD–PYD, or CARD–CARD, and encompass small molecules, peptides, macrocycles, and degrader‐based approaches; they offer high mechanistic specificity but often face druggability barriers [184, 185]. Third, downstream protease and pore inhibitors—targeting caspase‐1 or GSDMD—halt IL‐1β/IL‐18 maturation or pyroptotic pore formation, which is valuable in diseases where cytokine release or pyroptosis dominate pathology; examples include caspase‐1 inhibitors (VX‐765) and GSDMD inhibitors (disulfiram) [186, 187, 188]. Fourth, cytokine or receptor blockade is well validated clinically: biologics such as anakinra, canakinumab, and rilonacept neutralize IL‐1 signaling and provide benchmarks in clinical trials, though they do not block upstream inflammasome functions such as IL‐18 release or pyroptosis [189, 190]. Fifth, indirect and upstream modulators suppress triggers of NLRP3 activation, including extracellular ATP/P2×7 signaling, ionic flux, defective autophagy, or metabolic dysregulation; such interventions may be particularly relevant in diseases driven by metabolic or stress‐related activation [191, 192, 193]. Finally, protein degradation and targeted removal strategies—including PROTACs and autophagy‐tethering compounds—aim to eliminate NLRP3 or its critical partners, offering an attractive approach in constitutively active or mutation‐driven contexts [194, 195].
This mechanistic classification not only highlights the breadth of potential therapeutic entry points but also supports a precision‐tailored approach, in which interventions are selected based on disease‐specific pathogenic nodes, inflammatory milieu, patient genotype, and metabolic context detailed in 4.4. In the following sections, we detail each class with representative small molecules and biologics, mechanistic rationale, pharmacological profiles, safety considerations, and translational status.
4.4. Representative Molecular Lineages of NLRP3 Inhibitors
NLRP3 inflammasome inhibitors can be broadly classified according to their chemical family and mechanistic strategy. Below, we summarize representative lineages, highlighting benchmark molecules, structural insights, pharmacological optimization, translational challenges, and lessons learned for future development (Figure 6, Table 2, and a detailed summary of more than 100 compounds in Table S1).
FIGURE 6.

Integrated discovery framework for NLRP3‐targeted therapeutics. Conceptual workflow illustrating integrated drug discovery strategies converging on clinical translation, including phenotypic drug discovery (cell‐based IL‐1β, ASC speck, and pyroptosis readouts), structure‐guided/target‐informed design (cryo‐EM and X‐ray structures of NACHT/NEK7 and relevant PPIs), computational and AI‐driven discovery (virtual screening and de novo scaffold design), and high‐throughput/high‐content screening platforms, supported by early DMPK/toxicity evaluation, hit validation and SAR optimization, and incorporation of disease‐relevant pharmacodynamic biomarkers. ASC, apoptosis‐associated speck‐like protein containing a CARD; Cryo‐EM, cryo‐electron microscopy; DMPK, drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics; HCS, high‐content screening; HTS, high‐throughput screening; IL‐1β, interleukin‐1 beta; NACHT, NAIP/C2TA/HET‐E/TP1 domain; NEK7, NIMA‐related kinase 7; PD, pharmacodynamic; PPIs, protein–protein interactions; SAR, structure–activity relationship.
TABLE 2.
Representative NLRP3 inflammasome pathway modulators.
| Name | Scaffold/Class | Activity | Mechanism/Binding site | Key preclinical models | Development status | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MCC950 (CP‐456,773) | Diaryl‐sulfonylurea | IC50 ≈ 8 nM (BMDMs), ≈7–10 nM (PBMC) | Direct NLRP3‐NACHT binder (Walker B/ATPase region); stabilizes inactive conformation | Broad: CAPS models, EAE, NASH, AD, cardiovascular models | Potent tool/advanced preclinical; clinical development halted (Phase II RA) due to liver safety signals | [183] |
| DFV890/IFM‐2427 (aka IFM/DFV890) | Sulfonyl/sulfonamide‐derived small molecule | nM–sub‐µM activity (cell assays) | NLRP3 NACHT/inflammasome assembly inhibitor (oral) | Animal inflammation models; tested in COVID‐19 pneumonia RCT | Phase I/ II trials; human PK/PD & early efficacy studies reported | [196] |
| Inzomelid (IZD174) | MCC950‐like sulfonylurea analogue (Inflazome → Roche) | nM cell activity reported | NLRP3 NACHT binder (MCC950 family targeting ATPase pocket) | CAPS, healthy volunteer PK/PD | Phase I/II trials (some trials ongoing/withdrawn per registry) | [197, 198] |
| Somalix/RO7486967 (selnoflast) | MCC950‐like oral small molecule | nM–sub‐µM in vitro | Oral NLRP3 inhibitor (NACHT targeting) | Arthritis, cardiovascular inflammation models | Phase I/II (several indications) | [198] |
| NT‐0796 (NodThera) | CNS‐penetrant small molecule (NodThera series) | sub‐nM to nM (company PBMC/animal data) | NLRP3 inhibitor (NACHT); brain penetration engineered | Neuroinflammation/PD models; healthy volunteer PK | Phase I completed | [199] |
| ZYIL1 (Zydus) | Oral small molecule (sulfonyl‐like) | nM–µM PK/PD readouts in Phase I | NLRP3 inhibitor (reported NACHT interaction) | Healthy volunteers; small CAPS cohorts | Phase I completed; small Phase IIa in CAPS reported | [198] |
| OLT1177 (dapansutrile) | β‐sulfonyl nitrile small molecule | nM activity (cell lines, J774); oral PD effects in humans | Inhibits NLRP3 activation and ASC assembly; reduces caspase‐1 activation | Gout models, knee OA, heart failure, PD studies; human Phase I/II studies show safety/PK | Multiple Phase I/II trials; Phase II/III programs ongoing for gout/other | [142, 170, 200, 201, 202] |
| CY‐09 | Cyanopyrazole/cyano‐pyrimidine class (small molecule) | µM range in BMDMs (original report ≈2.4 µM) | Binds Walker‐A ATP‐binding motif; inhibits ATP hydrolysis | CAPS mouse models, metabolic disease models | Preclinical (tool lead); SAR efforts ongoing | [178] |
| GDC‐2394 (Genentech) | MCC950‐derived pyrazoloxazine scaffold | nM in vitro | NLRP3 NACHT binder (structural support); oral | Preclinical inflammasome models; entered human SAD/MAD cohorts | Phase I — halted after severe DILI cases during the DDI cohort | [175, 176] |
| SN3‐1 | Novel tricyclic/polycyclic small molecule (AI‐designed candidate) | IC50 ≈ 8 nM (THP‐1); KD ≈ 6.9 nM | NACHT binding (crystallography reported); similar pocket to MCC950 family | Peritonitis, gouty arthritis, and neuro models (rodents) | Preclinical lead (advanced optimization) | [182] |
| NP3‐562/NP3 series | Tricyclic (non‐sulfonyl) small molecules | whole blood IC50 ≈ 214 nM (NP3‐562) | NACHT binding (distinct pocket vs MCC950; X‐ray support) | Peritonitis model; brain‐penetrant analogs for neurodegeneration | Preclinical (structural biology documented) | [203] |
| P33 (Ex‐63 optimized) | Tricyclic/diphenylamine scaffold | nM IC50 in THP‐1/BMDM; KD ≈17.5 nM | Binds NLRP3; blocks ASC oligomerization | Peritonitis, systemic inflammation models; favorable oral PK in animals | Preclinical candidate with good oral exposure | [204] |
| Oridonin (and derivatives) | Natural diterpenoid (ent‐kaurane) | µM → nM reported (derivatives) | Covalent modification of Cys279 in NACHT → disrupts NEK7 binding | Peritonitis, MSU gout, TBI, and MI models | Preclinical; multiple derivatization efforts | [205, 206] |
| RRx‐001 (nibrozetone) | Nitric‐oxide/epigenetic modulator; nitro‐bearing scaffold | ∼200–300 nM (BMDMs) reported | Covalent modification of NLRP3 (Cys409) → blocks NEK7 interaction; Nrf2 activation | Inflammation models, tumor models; some human oncology trials | Clinical anticancer programs (multi‐indication); NLRP3 mechanism documented | [207] |
| INF series (INF39/INF172/INF58) | Michael‐acceptor/acrylate derivatives | µM range (THP‐1/BMDM) | Inhibit NLRP3 ATPase; some block NEK7‐NLRP3 | IBD models, colitis, and peritonitis | Preclinical/optimization stage | [208, 209] |
| Erianin/Costunolide (natural product derivatives) | Natural product sesquiterpene/diterpenoid derivatives | reported nM–µM depending on assay | Bind NACHT cysteines (e.g., Cys463) → affect ATPase | Peritonitis, type‐2 diabetes models, and gout models | Preclinical (tool leads) | [210, 211] |
| 4‐Octyl itaconate (and itaconate derivatives) | Michael acceptor metabolite derivatives | comparable activity to glyburide in some assays | Covalent modification of NLRP3 (e.g., Cys5) → prevent NEK7 binding | Ischemia/reperfusion, TBI, and MI models | Preclinical/tool molecules | [212, 213] |
| KN3014 | Small molecule PYD‐PYD interface inhibitor | PBMC IL‐1β pIC50 ≈ 7.55 (∼14.6 µM reported) | Blocks PYD‐PYD interactions between NLRP3 and ASC → prevents oligomerization | MWS models/inflammasome activation assays | Preclinical tool compound | [214] |
| CSC‐6 | ASC‐oligomerization inhibitor (small molecule) | THP‐1 IC50 ≈ 2.3 µM | Specifically inhibits ASC oligomerization (not direct NACHT ATPase) | Sepsis, gout models | Preclinical tool compound | [215] |
| MC‐ND‐18 (NLRP3 degrader/PROTAC‐like) | NLRP3 targeted degrader (degrader scaffold) | DC50 ≈ 125 nM (cellular) | Induces ubiquitin‐proteasome degradation of NLRP3 (protein level depletion) | UC models (proof‐of‐concept) | Preclinical, proof‐of‐concept degrader | [162] |
| Compound 8 (PET tracer) | Radiolabeled small molecule (imaging probe) | µM binding/tracer performance | PET imaging ligand for NLRP3 (target engagement) | In vivo imaging of NLRP3 activation/PD readout | Research tool (imaging) | [216] |
| Compound 13a (fluorescent probe) | Fluorescent imaging probe | RAW264.7 EC50 ≈ 49 nM (reported) | Imaging & screening probe for NLRP3 | Cellular imaging, probe assays | Research tool | [217] |
| Glyburide (glibenclamide) | Sulfonylurea (repurposed) | BMDM IC50 ≈ 13 µM | Indirect NLRP3 suppression (mechanism partly off‐target) | Diabetes models; early inflammasome discovery work | Marketed (diabetes); repurposing interest | [172] |
| Tranilast | Anthranilic acid derivative (repurposed) | reported tens µM in vitro | Blocks NLRP3 oligomerization (binds NACHT) | Fibrosis, CAPS models; small clinical studies | Clinical repurposing: Phase II trials ongoing for inflammasome indications | [218, 219] |
| HT‐6184 (NEK7 allosteric inhibitor) | NEK7 allosteric small molecule (patent scaffold) | company/patent early PK data | Targets NEK7 to block NEK7‐NLRP3 interaction | Chronic inflammation models (preclinical rationale) | Phase I initiated (NCT05447546) | [220] |
| VENT‐02/VENT series | Brain‐penetrant small molecules (novel scaffold) | nM–µM range in vitro (company data) | NACHT/NLRP3 inhibition with CNS penetration | PD/AD preclinical models; healthy volunteer Phase I completed | Early clinical candidate (Phase I) | [198] |
| YQ128 (lead) | Small molecule (MCC950‐like analog) | nM–low µM in vitro (company reports) | NACHT binding; brain‐penetrant variants reported | Neuro models (AD) | Preclinical to early clinical planning | [198] |
| JT002 (or JT‐series) | Small molecule NACHT inhibitor | reported inhibitory readouts (company) | NLRP3 ATPase/inflammasome inhibition | Healthy volunteer studies/early development | Early clinical/preclinical | [198] |
| RRx‐001 analogue 149‐01 | Nitro‐bearing derivative (RRx‐001 analogue) | ∼180–200 nM (BMDMs) | Covalent modification (Cys409) → blocks NEK7 binding | Peritonitis, EAE | Preclinical/analog development | [221] |
| Auranofin/other repurposed kinase/BTK drugs | Approved drugs with NLRP3‐modulating activity | reported in various cell assays | Indirect NLRP3 suppression (NF‐κB/redox/BTK effects) | NAFLD, inflammatory diseases (preclinical/clinical) | Marketed (other indications); repurposing for the inflammasome suggested | [198] |
| Disulfiram | Repurposed FDA‐approved drug | µM range (THP‐1/BMDM) | Blocks NLRP3 palmitoylation at Cys126, preventing TGN localization and inflammasome assembly | NLRP3‐driven inflammation models | Approved (alcohol use disorder); repurposing candidate for NLRP3‐driven diseases | [188] |
Abbreviations: AD, Alzheimer's disease; CAPS, Cryopyrin‐associated periodic syndrome; EAE, experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis; IBD, inflammatory bowel disease; MAD, multiple ascending dose; MI, myocardial infarction; MSU, monosodium urate; MWS, Muckle–Wells syndrome; NAFLD, non‐alcoholic fatty liver disease; NASH, non‐alcoholic steatohepatitis; OA, osteoarthritis; PD, Parkinson's disease; PD, pharmacodynamics; PK, pharmacokinetics; RCT, randomized controlled trial; SAD, single ascending dose; TBI, traumatic brain injury; UC, ulcerative colitis.
4.4.1. NACHT‐Domain Inhibitors (Sulfonylurea and Non‐Sulfonylurea Scaffolds)
4.4.1.1. Sulfonylurea Derivatives
The sulfonylurea family represents the historical starting point of NLRP3 inhibition. Glyburide (glibenclamide), a sulfonylurea antidiabetic drug, was the first small molecule reported to suppress NLRP3 activity by blocking IL‐1β release (2001, Pfizer) — years before NLRP3 itself was fully identified. Its mechanism is indirect, involving upstream ionic fluxes and metabolic modulation rather than direct inhibition of NLRP3 ATPase activity. Nevertheless, this proof‐of‐concept demonstrated that NLRP3 activity is druggable [172].
The real breakthrough came with MCC950 (2015), a diaryl‐sulfonylurea, that directly binds the NACHT ATPase domain, stabilizing the inactive conformation and preventing oligomerization [60, 183, 222, 223]. Structural studies (e.g., NP3‐146/PDB:7ALV, MCC950 complexes with NLRP3/PDB:7PZC, 7VTQ) revealed how sulfonylurea motifs establish hydrogen‐bond/ionic interactions with residues near the Walker A/B motifs and occupy hydrophobic pockets between WHD/HD1/HD2, thereby conferring exquisite selectivity for NLRP3 over NLRC4 [56, 174, 224]. MCC950 demonstrated sub‐nanomolar potency, excellent selectivity, and robust in vivo efficacy. However, its clinical development in RA was discontinued due to hepatotoxicity, a liability associated with the metabolic instability of the sulfonylurea core [225, 226].
Building on MCC950, medicinal chemists pursued multiple optimization routes. For example, metabolic stabilization by replacing labile furan or benzylic motifs with more robust scaffolds [227, 228]. Electronic modification of the sulfonylurea group (sulfoximine, N‐cyano sulfoximine‐urea, hybrid scaffolds) to reduce oxidative metabolism and improve membrane permeability [227, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234]. Brain penetration design, exemplified by Inzomelid and NT‐0796, for CNS indications [199]. Representative molecules advancing to the clinic include DFV890 (IFM‐2427, Novartis; phase I/II, showing favorable PK and short‐term tolerability), Inzomelid (Roche, CNS‐penetrant), NT‐0796 (NodThera, CNS indications), and Somalix/selnoflast (Inflazome → Roche; multiple indications including CAPS, CAD, PD, COPD, UC) (Table 1) [198, 235, 236, 237, 238].
Despite these advances, metabolic liabilities remain difficult to circumvent. A striking example is GDC‐2394, a Genentech pyrazoloxazine/sulfonamide derivative that replaced earlier furan scaffolds. Structural evidence confirmed high‐affinity binding to NACHT (PDB:8ETR). In first‐in‐human studies, GDC‐2394 demonstrated dose‐proportional PK and potent inhibition of IL‐1β/IL‐18 release [176]. However, in a subsequent drug–drug interaction trial, two participants experienced grade‐4 drug‐induced liver injury (DILI), leading to immediate termination of the program. Both recovered, but the incident highlights a critical translational lesson: potency and structural validation cannot substitute for rigorous early metabolic and hepatotoxicity evaluation [175, 176].
4.4.1.2. Non‐Sulfonylurea Scaffolds
To overcome sulfonylurea liabilities, new NACHT‐targeted scaffolds have been developed, greatly expanding the chemical space:
NP3 series. The NP3 series, exemplified by NP3‐562, represents a class of tricyclic/pyridazine‐based small molecules that bind a unique pocket in the NACHT domain, distinct from the canonical MCC950 site. Structural studies, including X‐ray crystallography, confirm this alternative binding mode. NP3‐562 effectively suppresses IL‐1β release in human whole blood assays and demonstrates oral bioavailability in preclinical animal models, with robust efficacy in inflammatory disease settings. Preliminary toxicological studies suggest a favorable safety profile, although comprehensive evaluations are still pending. This series exemplifies how exploring alternative binding sites can expand the chemical space of NLRP3 inhibitor development and provide opportunities for novel drug candidates [203].
P33. P33, an optimized derivative of the Ex‐63 scaffold, is a tricyclic/diphenylamine‐based inhibitor that directly engages the NACHT domain of NLRP3. By preventing ASC oligomerization, P33 blocks caspase‐1 activation and subsequent release of IL‐1β and IL‐18. It exhibits high binding affinity (KD ≈ 17.5 nM) alongside favorable oral bioavailability in animal models. Early toxicology studies indicate a good safety margin, supporting its potential for further development. P33 illustrates how systematic chemical optimization of existing scaffolds can yield compounds with improved pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties, thereby bridging the gap from chemical probe to translatable therapeutic candidate [204].
SN3‐1. SN3‐1 is a novel tricyclic scaffold designed using deep learning–assisted computational approaches. Crystallographic analyses reveal that SN3‐1 binds with high affinity (KD ≈ 6.9 nM) to the NACHT domain of NLRP3, occupying an inter‐subdomain pocket. Functionally, it potently blocks inflammasome activation without affecting other inflammasomes such as AIM2 or NLRC4. Preclinical pharmacokinetic studies demonstrate oral bioavailability and favorable absorption and distribution, while toxicological evaluations in both acute and chronic models suggest a promising safety profile. As an exemplar of integrating artificial intelligence with structural biology, SN3‐1 underscores the potential of modern computational tools in scaffold innovation and rational drug design [182, 239].
OLT1177 (Dapansutrile). OLT1177 is a β‐sulfonyl nitrile small molecule structurally distinct from traditional sulfonylureas. It inhibits downstream NLRP3 inflammasome signaling by suppressing ASC oligomerization and caspase‐1 activation, thereby interfering with inflammasome assembly, including ASC speck formation [200]. While some studies suggest that OLT1177 may target the NACHT domain of NLRP3, no crystallographic or structural evidence has definitively confirmed this, and its precise molecular target remains controversial [240]. In preclinical and clinical studies, oral formulations of OLT1177 have shown favorable pharmacokinetics, acceptable safety, and improvements in inflammatory biomarkers in multiple Phase I and II trials (e.g., gout, heart failure, and OA; NCT02134964, NCT02104050, NCT01636141, NCT01768975, and NCT07157735) [200, 201, 202, 241, 170]. To date, no severe hepatotoxicity or major organ toxicity has been reported in these small‐scale trials, although rare or long‐term adverse events remain to be evaluated. As one of the few non‐sulfonylurea NLRP3 inhibitors tested in humans, OLT1177 exemplifies the translational potential of non‐canonical NACHT or inflammasome assembly–targeting scaffolds with tolerable oral dosing.
CY‐09. As one of the earliest NACHT inhibitors, CY‐09 targets the Walker‐A ATP‐binding motif and blocks ATP hydrolysis. It demonstrated low‐micromolar activity in vitro and in murine models, but its pharmacokinetics remain suboptimal. While largely used as a research probe, CY‐09 validated ATP‐pocket engagement as an alternative to MCC950's Walker‐B inhibition and serves as proof‐of‐concept for site‐specific NACHT targeting [178, 242].
Tranilast (Repurposed). An anti‐allergic drug already approved for clinical use has been reported to directly bind the NACHT domain of NLRP3 and prevent its oligomerization, thereby suppressing inflammasome activation. With established pharmacokinetics, oral bioavailability, and a well‐documented safety record from decades of clinical use, Tranilast represents an attractive repurposing candidate for inflammatory diseases [218, 219]. However, while its safety profile facilitates rapid clinical translation, further studies are required to validate the selectivity and therapeutic efficacy of NLRP3 targeting in new indications (Table 1).
4.4.2. Covalent and NEK7‐Interface Inhibitors
Covalent modification of the NACHT domain or disruption of the NLRP3–NEK7 interface represents another effective strategy to block inflammasome activation. Compared with reversible ATPase inhibition, covalent strategies typically confer stronger and longer‐lasting inhibition, but they also introduce risks of off‐target modification and irreversible toxicity. In contrast, targeting the NLRP3–NEK7 interface constitutes an “assembly blockade” approach that may theoretically avoid metabolic liabilities associated with direct NACHT inhibition, but raises safety concerns given NEK7's essential role in mitosis.
4.4.2.1. INF series (INF39)
The INF family comprises irreversible Michael acceptor–type inhibitors that covalently modify NLRP3, thereby blocking ATPase activity and disrupting the NLRP3–NEK7 interaction. These compounds demonstrate potent suppression of inflammasome assembly in vitro and efficacy in murine inflammation models. However, their oral bioavailability and pharmacokinetics remain suboptimal, as most remain at the tool compound stage. The electrophilic warhead carries inherent risks of non‐specific protein alkylation, underscoring the need for early chemoproteomics profiling, reactivity optimization, and systematic toxicology studies. To date, no INF‐series compound has advanced beyond preclinical evaluation [208, 209, 243].
4.4.2.2. Oridonin and Derivatives
Oridonin, a natural diterpenoid from Rabdosia rubescens, covalently modifies cysteine 279 in the NACHT domain of NLRP3, disrupting NLRP3–NEK7 binding and thereby blocking inflammasome assembly. Oridonin itself suffers from poor oral bioavailability and rapid metabolism; however, derivatives such as compound D6 have been developed with improved potency, selectivity, and efficacy in murine models of acute lung injury. The oridonin lineage exemplifies the “natural product → mechanistic validation → derivative optimization” pathway in drug discovery. While promising, long‐term toxicological and pharmacokinetic validation remains essential [205, 206, 244].
4.4.2.3. Erianin, Costunolide, and Related Natural Covalent Inhibitors
Other natural products, such as erianin (from Daphne genkwa) and costunolide (from Saussurea lappa), have been reported to covalently modify specific cysteine residues in the NACHT domain (e.g., Cys598), thereby altering ATPase activity and preventing inflammasome assembly. These compounds remain at an early discovery stage, with evidence largely derived from in vitro or murine studies. While natural scaffolds provide unique chemical diversity and privileged reactivity, they typically suffer from poor pharmacokinetics, multi‐target effects, and metabolic instability, requiring rational derivatization for improved drug‐likeness [210, 211].
4.4.2.4. RRx‐001 and Analogues
RRx‐001 is a multifunctional nitroaromatic small molecule that covalently binds cysteine 409 in the NACHT domain of NLRP3, thereby disrupting NLRP3–NEK7 interactions. It also activates Nrf2, providing antioxidative effects. Analogues such as 149‐01 retain potent NLRP3 inhibition with potentially reduced off‐target toxicity. RRx‐001 has been clinically evaluated primarily for oncology indications, where it has demonstrated tolerability across multiple trials, though careful monitoring of off‐target covalent modifications and oxidative stress is warranted (NCT03515538). This lineage illustrates how multi‐functional covalent inhibitors can merge anti‐inflammatory and anticancer mechanisms [221, 245].
4.4.2.5. NEK7 as an Indirect Target (Allosteric/Interface Inhibitors)
Given NEK7's essential role as an adaptor protein in NLRP3 inflammasome assembly, allosteric inhibition of NEK7 offers an indirect strategy to block inflammasome activation. Entrectinib has been shown to interfere with NEK7 residue R121 in vitro, while HT‐6184 (Halia Therapeutics) is a structure‐based allosteric NEK7 inhibitor now in phase I trials. By preventing NEK7–NLRP3 binding, HT‐6184 effectively blocks inflammasome formation without directly targeting NLRP3 itself. This strategy may avoid metabolic liabilities of direct NACHT inhibition, but specificity remains a concern given NEK7's critical role in mitosis, where inhibition could cause cell‐cycle or hematopoietic toxicity [218, 220].
4.4.3. Protein‐Protein Interaction/Assembly Inhibitors
A distinct strategy targets inflammasome assembly rather than ATPase activity. By blocking protein–protein interactions (PPIs)—such as NLRP3–ASC pyrin domain (PYD–PYD) contacts or ASC oligomerization—these molecules disrupt inflammasome formation. This approach theoretically circumvents metabolic liabilities of ATPase inhibitors but is challenged by the flat, featureless nature of PPI interfaces, which complicates drug design.
4.4.3.1. KN3014 (PYD‐PYD Interface Inhibitor)
KN3014 is a piperidine‐containing molecule that selectively blocks the PYD–PYD interaction between NLRP3 and ASC, reducing ASC speck formation and IL‐1β release in human peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs). Unlike ATPase inhibitors, KN3014 does not interfere with NLRP3's enzymatic function. While effective in cellular assays and IDOL mouse models, its potency is modest (cell‐free IC50 ≈ 14.65 µM), and PK optimization is still required. If selectivity can be achieved, PYD‐targeting molecules may offer reduced hepatotoxicity and better tolerability [214].
4.4.3.2. CSC‐6 (ASC Oligomerization Inhibitor)
CSC‐6 binds NLRP3 but primarily inhibits inflammasome activation by preventing ASC oligomerization. In THP‐1 cells, it suppresses IL‐1β secretion (IC50 ≈ 2.3 µM), demonstrates good microsomal stability, and shows low cytotoxicity. In murine sepsis and gout models, CSC‐6 alleviates NLRP3‐driven inflammation. However, ASC is shared among multiple inflammasomes, raising potential specificity and safety concerns [215].
4.4.3.3. Endogenous Metabolite
4‐Octyl itaconate (4‐OI), a derivative of the endogenous metabolite itaconate, suppresses NLRP3 inflammasome activation by covalently modifying NLRP3. In mouse NLRP3, 4‐OI modifies Cys548, blocking NLRP3–NEK7 interaction and thereby preventing ASC oligomerization, caspase‐1 activation, and IL‐1β release. In human cells, 4‐OI also inhibits NLRP3–NEK7 binding, though the exact target site is less defined [212, 213]. While effective in vitro and in vivo, 4‐OI has limited pharmacokinetic characterization and is mainly used as a research tool. Its covalent mode of action raises safety concerns, but its origin from an endogenous metabolite may offer some compatibility. This compound highlights metabolite‐derived scaffolds as starting points for inflammasome‐targeted drug discovery.
4.4.4. Key Component Degradation
4.4.4.1. MC‐ND‐18 (Autophagy‐Tethering Degrader)
MC‐ND‐18 is a targeted NLRP3 degrader that operates via an autophagy‐tethering (ATTEC) mechanism: the molecule links an NLRP3‐binding moiety to an LC3/ autophagy‐engaging motif and thereby promotes autophagic clearance of NLRP3 protein in cells. In THP‐1 cells, MC‐ND‐18 shows a cellular DC50 of ≈125.5 nM [162]. Compared with classical small‐molecule inhibitors, targeted degraders (PROTACs, ATTECs, molecular glues) offer the advantage of protein removal but often present drug‐likeness challenges (high molecular weight, reduced cell/brain permeability, and limited oral bioavailability). Because NLRP3 contributes to normal host‐defense and tissue homeostasis, sustained or systemic depletion of NLRP3 could increase susceptibility to infection or impair immune responses; therefore, careful dose selection, therapeutic window definition, and indication choice are essential. Overall, MC‐ND‐18 exemplifies the shift from inhibition to protein knockdown as a promising strategy to more durably and specifically modulate the NLRP3 inflammasome.
4.4.5. Upstream/Downstream Interventions and Translational Tools
Finally, several upstream and downstream modulators, as well as imaging tools, provide complementary strategies for modulating NLRP3 biology.
4.4.5.1. Upstream redox/Mitochondrial Protectants
Because mitochondrial dysfunction and ROS represent recurrent upstream convergence points for NLRP3 activation, agents that preserve mitochondrial homeostasis and dampen oxidative stress may serve as alternative or adjunct strategies, potentially mitigating liabilities linked to electrophilic/covalent pharmacology or reactive metabolite formation. Representative phytochemicals with long‐standing dietary/medicinal exposure, including theaflavin, baicalin, and scutellarin, have been reported to attenuate NLRP3‐related inflammatory readouts in cellular and/or in vivo models, often in parallel with improved redox or mitochondrial indices [246, 247] These compounds are not NLRP3‐selective drugs and their pleiotropic targets, achievable exposure in humans, and long‐term safety at therapeutic dosing require further clarification; nevertheless, they highlight a practical upstream node summarized in Table S1.
4.4.5.2. Downstream Inhibitors and Biologics
Compounds such as VX‐765 (caspase‐1 inhibitor) and disulfiram (GSDMD inhibitor) act downstream of NLRP3, while biologics such as anakinra (IL‐1R antagonist), canakinumab (anti–IL‐1β), and rilonacept (IL‐1 trap) have already achieved clinical validation. These agents often serve as bridging or adjunct therapies, providing efficacy in acute or systemic inflammatory settings (Table 1).
4.4.5.3. Imaging Probes and Clinical Tools
Small‐molecule probes such as Compound 8 (a PET tracer with a 1,2,3‐triazole scaffold) and Compound 13a (a fluorescent probe) have been developed to monitor NLRP3 engagement in vitro and in vivo [216, 217]. These pharmacodynamic tools provide crucial data on target occupancy, tissue distribution, and biodistribution, helping bridge preclinical efficacy with clinical pharmacology.
5. Conclusion and Perspective
The translational path of NLRP3 inhibitors has revealed that clinical success depends not only on discovering potent chemical matter but on the early integration of pharmacokinetics, toxicology, structural insights, and biomarker validation. Lessons from the clinical discontinuation of MCC950 and GDC‐2394 due to hepatotoxicity highlight the critical need for parallel evaluation of metabolism and toxicity at the preclinical stage. Incorporating human liver microsome profiling, hepatocyte stress assays, bile acid transporter assessments, and early metabolite identification into the discovery‐to‐development continuum should become standard practice, enabling the early elimination of liabilities that otherwise derail clinical translation.
Equally important is the shift toward mechanism‐informed development. Traditional reliance on THP‐1 LPS/ATP models, while useful for throughput, is insufficient to capture the heterogeneity of inflammasome regulation across cell types and species. The use of PBMCs, primary macrophages, and induced pluripotent stem cell models carrying CAPS mutations has demonstrated greater predictive power for human translation. In parallel, structural biology has advanced from fragmentary domain information to near‐complete inflammasome assemblies, allowing rational optimization of NACHT‐binding molecules and early prediction of resistance‐prone variants. Integrating structural data with CAPS mutant binding studies can guide medicinal chemistry away from metabolically soft or reactive liabilities while improving selectivity.
A major determinant of translational success lies in tailoring inhibitors to disease contexts. The highest‐yield indications remain those with clear pathogenic linkage to NLRP3 activation and measurable pharmacodynamic endpoints, such as CAPS, acute gout, certain cardiovascular syndromes, and neuroinflammatory conditions. In these settings, the biological signal is strong, the patient population is molecularly defined, and biomarkers such as ex vivo IL‐1β release, ASC speck imaging, or PET tracers can provide direct readouts of target engagement. In contrast, complex polygenic diseases such as UC pose greater challenges; negative early‐phase results underscore the need for precise patient stratification, disease‐relevant biomarkers, and mechanistic proof‐of‐concept before large trials.
From a chemistry perspective, the field must balance potency with long‐term safety. Covalent or irreversible strategies offer sustained inhibition but raise off‐target and immunogenicity concerns, requiring systematic proteomic profiling and careful optimization. Beyond sulfonylurea derivatives, which provided early scaffolds but also metabolic liabilities, new classes—including interface blockers, atypical scaffolds, and targeted degraders—represent promising alternatives. These approaches expand the pharmacological repertoire and may overcome resistance or safety barriers that hampered earlier candidates.
Looking forward, the most promising trajectory for NLRP3 drug development lies in technology convergence. The integration of AI‐driven compound design, structural biology, high‐content phenotypic screening, and translational biomarker platforms can substantially raise the success rate from probe to clinic. Advances in delivery strategies, including nanocarriers and transdermal systems, together with molecular imaging probes, are expected to be especially transformative for CNS‐directed projects. In this context, the evolution of NLRP3 inhibition is shifting from proof‐of‐concept to precision tailoring—where disease biology, molecular mechanism, and pharmacological design are aligned from the outset. Such a “tailored inhibition” paradigm is likely to define the next generation of safer, more effective inflammasome‐targeted therapeutics.
Author Contributions
C.Z. and S.J. contributed equally to the conception and writing of the manuscript. H.L. and K.Z. assisted in literature collection and discussion. D.C. and G.Y. supervised the work and revised the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Funding
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 22173118, 82304553, 82373064, and 82474009), the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province (No.2022JJ80104, 2023JJ40952, and 2024JJ6618), Health Research Project of Hunan Provincial Health Commission (No. 20254677), and Talent Project Established by Chinese Pharmaceutical Association Hospital Pharmacy Department (No. CPA‐Z05‐ZC‐2023‐003).
Ethics Statement
Not applicable.
Supporting information
Table S1: Summary of representative NLRP3 inflammasome inhibitors, their scaffolds/chemical notes, reported cellular or biochemical potency, proposed mechanism(s) of action, and development status. Evidence codes indicate the type(s) of experimental support available: (S) = structural evidence (cryo‐EM/X‐ray; PDB ID provided where available); (B) = biochemical evidence (ATPase assay, KD/binding assay); (P) = cell‐based, functional, or phenotypic evidence (includes indirect mechanistic readouts and in‐cell assays). For covalent inhibitors, the modified cysteine residue is indicated where reported. Development status is shown where known (Discovery/Preclinical/Phase I/Phase II/Marketing/Repurposed).
Acknowledgments
The authors sincerely thank Professor Guangdi Li from the Xiangya School of Public Health, Central South University, for his valuable guidance and insightful suggestions during the preparation of this review. All figures and the graphical abstract are original and were created by the authors (no BioRender/FigDraw or other third‑party templates were used).
Contributor Information
Dongshen Cao, Email: oriental-cds@163.com.
Guoping Yang, Email: ygp9880@126.com.
Data Availability Statement
No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.
References
- 1. Medzhitov R. and Janeway C. Jr., “Innate Immune Recognition: Mechanisms and Pathways,” Immunological Reviews 173 (2000): 89–97. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Kawai T. and Akira S., “The Roles of TLRs, RLRs and NLRs in Pathogen Recognition,” International Immunology 21 (2009): 317–337. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Ting J. P., Lovering R. C., Alnemri E. S., et al., “The NLR Gene Family: A Standard Nomenclature,” Immunity 28 (2008): 285–287. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Hoffman H. M., Mueller J. L., Broide D. H., Wanderer A. A., and Kolodner R. D., “Mutation of a New Gene Encoding a Putative Pyrin‐Like Protein Causes Familial Cold Autoinflammatory Syndrome and Muckle‐Wells Syndrome,” Nature Genetics 29 (2001): 301–305. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Swanson K. V., Deng M., and Ting J. P., “The NLRP3 Inflammasome: Molecular Activation and Regulation to Therapeutics,” Nature Reviews Immunology 19 (2019): 477–489. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Zhu F., Ma J., Li W., et al., “The Orphan Receptor Nur77 Binds Cytoplasmic LPS to Activate the Non‐Canonical NLRP3 Inflammasome,” Immunity 56 (2023): 753–767. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Viganò E., Diamond C. E., Spreafico R., Balachander A., Sobota R. M., and Mortellaro A., “Human Caspase‐4 and Caspase‐5 Regulate the One‐Step Non‐Canonical Inflammasome Activation in Monocytes,” Nature Communications 6 (2015): 8761. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Lagrange B., Benaoudia S., Wallet P., et al., “Human Caspase‐4 Detects Tetra‐Acylated LPS and Cytosolic Francisella and Functions Differently From Murine Caspase‐11,” Nature Communications 9 (2018): 242. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Gaidt M. M. and Hornung V., “Alternative Inflammasome Activation Enables IL‐1β Release From Living Cells,” Current Opinion in Immunology 44 (2017): 7–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Bauernfeind F. G., Horvath G., Stutz A., et al., “Cutting Edge: NF‐kappaB Activating Pattern Recognition and Cytokine Receptors License NLRP3 Inflammasome Activation by Regulating NLRP3 Expression,” Journal of Immunology 183 (2009): 787–791. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Song N., Liu Z. S., Xue W., et al., “NLRP3 Phosphorylation Is an Essential Priming Event for Inflammasome Activation,” Molecular Cell 68 (2017): 185–197. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Muñoz‐Planillo R., Kuffa P., Martínez‐Colón G., Smith B. L., Rajendiran T. M., and Núñez G., “K+ Efflux Is the Common Trigger of NLRP3 Inflammasome Activation by Bacterial Toxins and Particulate Matter,” Immunity 38 (2013): 1142–1153. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Pétrilli V., Papin S., Dostert C., Mayor A., Martinon F., and Tschopp J., “Activation of the NALP3 Inflammasome Is Triggered by Low Intracellular Potassium Concentration,” Cell Death and Differentiation 14 (2007): 1583–1589. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Xu Z., Chen Z. M., Wu X., Zhang L., Cao Y., and Zhou P., “Distinct Molecular Mechanisms Underlying Potassium Efflux for NLRP3 Inflammasome Activation,” Frontiers in Immunology 11 (2020): 609441. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Di A., Xiong S., Ye Z., et al., “The TWIK2 Potassium Efflux Channel in Macrophages Mediates NLRP3 Inflammasome‐Induced Inflammation,” Immunity 49 (2018): 56–65. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Lee G. S., Subramanian N., Kim A. I., et al., “The Calcium‐Sensing Receptor Regulates the NLRP3 Inflammasome Through Ca2+ and cAMP,” Nature 492 (2012): 123–127. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Murakami T., Ockinger J., Yu J., et al., “Critical Role for Calcium Mobilization in Activation of the NLRP3 Inflammasome,” PNAS 109 (2012): 11282–11287. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Tang T., Lang X., Xu C., et al., “CLICs‐Dependent Chloride Efflux Is an Essential and Proximal Upstream Event for NLRP3 Inflammasome Activation,” Nature Communications 8 (2017): 202. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Green J. P., Yu S., Martín‐Sánchez F., et al., “Chloride Regulates Dynamic NLRP3‐Dependent ASC Oligomerization and Inflammasome Priming,” PNAS 115 (2018): E9371–e9380. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Hornung V., Bauernfeind F., and Halle A., “Silica Crystals and Aluminum Salts Activate the NALP3 Inflammasome Through Phagosomal Destabilization,” Nature Immunology 9 (2008): 847–856. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Rajamäki K., Lappalainen J., Oörni K., et al., “Cholesterol Crystals Activate the NLRP3 Inflammasome in Human Macrophages: A Novel Link Between Cholesterol Metabolism and Inflammation,” PLoS ONE 5 (2010): e11765. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Ma Q. and Lim C. S., “Molecular Activation of NLRP3 Inflammasome by Particles and Crystals: A Continuing Challenge of Immunology and Toxicology,” Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology 64 (2024): 417–433. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Chen J. and Chen Z. J., “PtdIns4P on Dispersed trans‐Golgi Network Mediates NLRP3 Inflammasome Activation,” Nature 564 (2018): 71–76. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Schmacke N. A., O'Duill F., Gaidt M. M., et al., “IKKβ Primes Inflammasome Formation by Recruiting NLRP3 to the Trans‐Golgi Network,” Immunity 55 (2022): 2271–2284. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Zhang Z., Venditti R., Ran L., et al., “Distinct Changes in Endosomal Composition Promote NLRP3 Inflammasome Activation,” Nature Immunology 24 (2023): 30–41. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Green J. P., Swanton T., Morris L. V., et al., “LRRC8A is Essential for Hypotonicity‐, But Not for DAMP‐Induced NLRP3 Inflammasome Activation,” eLife 9 (2020): e59704. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Zhan X., Li Q., Xu G., Xiao X., and Bai Z., “The Mechanism of NLRP3 Inflammasome Activation and Its Pharmacological Inhibitors,” Frontiers in Immunology 13 (2022): 1109938. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Xu Z., Kombe Kombe A. J., Deng S., et al., “NLRP Inflammasomes in Health and Disease,” Molecular Biomedicine 5 (2024): 14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Fu J. and Wu H., “Structural Mechanisms of NLRP3 Inflammasome Assembly and Activation,” Annual Review of Immunology 41 (2023): 301–316. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Casey A. M., Ryan D. G., Prag H. A., et al., “Pro‐Inflammatory Macrophages Produce Mitochondria‐Derived Superoxide by Reverse Electron Transport at Complex I That Regulates IL‐1β Release During NLRP3 Inflammasome Activation,” Nature Metabolism 7 (2025): 493–507. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Billingham L. K., Stoolman J. S., Vasan K., et al., “Mitochondrial Electron Transport Chain Is Necessary for NLRP3 Inflammasome Activation,” Nature Immunology 23 (2022): 692–704. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Lin Q., Li S., Jiang N., et al., “PINK1‐Parkin Pathway of Mitophagy Protects Against Contrast‐Induced Acute Kidney Injury via Decreasing Mitochondrial ROS and NLRP3 Inflammasome Activation,” Redox Biology 26 (2019): 101254. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Xie M., Yu Y., Kang R., et al., “PKM2‐Dependent Glycolysis Promotes NLRP3 and AIM2 Inflammasome Activation,” Nature Communications 7 (2016): 13280. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Chou W. C., Rampanelli E., Li X., and Ting J. P., “Impact of Intracellular Innate Immune Receptors on Immunometabolism,” Cellular and Molecular Immunology 19 (2022): 337–351. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Li X., Thome S., Ma X., et al., “MARK4 regulates NLRP3 Positioning and Inflammasome Activation Through a Microtubule‐Dependent Mechanism,” Nature Communications 8 (2017): 15986. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Paik S., Kim J. K., Silwal P., Sasakawa C., and Jo E. K., “An Update on the Regulatory Mechanisms of NLRP3 Inflammasome Activation,” Cellular and Molecular Immunology 18 (2021): 1141–1160. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Tannahill G. M., Curtis A. M., Adamik J., et al., “Succinate Is an Inflammatory Signal That Induces IL‐1β Through HIF‐1α,” Nature 496 (2013): 238–242. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Wang D., Wang M., Sun S., et al., “Hypoxia‐Induced NLRP3 Inflammasome Activation via the HIF‐1α/NF‐κB Signaling Pathway in human Dental Pulp Fibroblasts,” BMC Oral Health 24 (2024): 1156. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Peace C. G. and O'Neill L. A., “The Role of Itaconate in Host Defense and Inflammation,” Journal of Clinical Investigation 132 (2022): e148548. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Day E. A. and O'Neill L. A. J., “Protein Targeting by the Itaconate Family in Immunity and Inflammation,” Biochemical Journal 479 (2022): 2499–2510. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41. Gianfrancesco M. A., Dehairs J., L'Homme L., et al., “Saturated Fatty Acids Induce NLRP3 Activation in Human Macrophages Through K(+) Efflux Resulting From Phospholipid Saturation and Na, K‐ATPase Disruption,” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta ‐ Molecular and Cell Biology of Lipids 1864 (2019): 1017–1030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42. Youm Y. H., Nguyen K. Y., Grant R. W., et al., “The Ketone Metabolite β‐Hydroxybutyrate Blocks NLRP3 Inflammasome‐Mediated Inflammatory Disease,” Nature Medicine 21 (2015): 263–269. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43. Mank M. M., Zoller K. A., Fastiggi V. A., Ather J. L., and Poynter M. E., “Acidosis Licenses the NLRP3 Inflammasome‐Inhibiting Effects of Beta‐Hydroxybutyrate and Short‐Chain Carboxylic Acids,” BioRxiv (2025). [Google Scholar]
- 44. Su Z., Lan J., Wang Y., et al., “Lactylation‐Driven ALKBH5 Diminishes Macrophage NLRP3 Inflammasome Activation in Patients With G6PT Deficiency,” Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 155 (2025): 1783–1799. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45. Yu F., Meng Y., Wang X., et al., “Protein Lactylation of Citrate Synthase Promotes the AKI‐CKD Transition by Activating the NLRP3 Inflammasome,” Cell Reports 44 (2025): 116084. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46. Xu R., Yuan L. S., Gan Y. Q., et al., “Potassium Ion Efflux Induces Exaggerated Mitochondrial Damage and Non‐Pyroptotic Necrosis When Energy Metabolism Is Blocked,” Free Radical Biology and Medicine 212 (2024): 117–132. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47. Wang Y., Lu J., Carisey A. F., et al., “Innate Immune and Metabolic Signals Induce Mitochondria‐Dependent Membrane Lysis via Mitoxyperiosis,” Cell 188 (2025): 7155–7174. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48. Lerner A. G., Upton J. P., Praveen P. V., et al., “IRE1α Induces Thioredoxin‐Interacting Protein to Activate the NLRP3 Inflammasome and Promote Programmed Cell Death Under Irremediable ER Stress,” Cell Metabolism 16 (2012): 250–264. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49. Pu Z., Wang W., Xie H., and Wang W., “Apolipoprotein C3 (ApoC3) Facilitates NLRP3 Mediated Pyroptosis of Macrophages Through Mitochondrial Damage by Accelerating of the Interaction Between SCIMP and SYK Pathway in Acute Lung Injury,” International Immunopharmacology 128 (2024): 111537. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50. Cescato M., Zhu Y. Y., Corre L. L., Py B. F., Georgin‐Lavialle S., and Rodero M. P., “Implication of the LRR Domain in the Regulation and Activation of the NLRP3 Inflammasome,” Cells 13 (2024): 1365. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51. Xiao L., Magupalli V. G., and Wu H., “Cryo‐EM Structures of the Active NLRP3 Inflammasome Disc,” Nature 613 (2023): 595–600. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52. Lu H. F., Zhou Y. C., Hu T. Y., et al., “Unraveling the Role of NLRP3 Inflammasome in Allergic Inflammation: Implications for Novel Therapies,” Frontiers in Immunology 15 (2024): 1435892. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53. Sharif H., Wang L., Wang W. L., et al., “Structural Mechanism for NEK7‐Licensed Activation of NLRP3 Inflammasome,” Nature 570 (2019): 338–343. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54. Kim Y., Lee S., and Park Y. H., “NLRP3 Negative Regulation Mechanisms in the Resting State and Its Implications for Therapeutic Development,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences 25 (2024): 9018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55. Andreeva L., David L., Rawson S., and Wu H., Full‐length NLRP3 Forms Oligomeric Cages to Mediate NLRP3 Sensing and Activation (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, 2021). [Google Scholar]
- 56. Ohto U., Kamitsukasa Y., Ishida H., et al., “Structural Basis for the Oligomerization‐Mediated Regulation of NLRP3 Inflammasome Activation,” PNAS 119 (2022): e2121353119. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57. Dick M. S., Sborgi L., Rühl S., Hiller S., and Broz P., “ASC Filament Formation Serves as a Signal Amplification Mechanism for Inflammasomes,” Nature Communications 7 (2016): 11929. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58. Boucher D., Monteleone M., Coll R. C., et al., “Caspase‐1 Self‐cleavage Is an Intrinsic Mechanism to Terminate Inflammasome Activity,” Journal of Experimental Medicine 215 (2018): 827–840. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59. Hochheiser I. V., Behrmann H., Hagelueken G., et al., “Directionality of PYD Filament Growth Determined by the Transition of NLRP3 Nucleation Seeds to ASC Elongation,” Science Advances 8 (2022): eabn7583. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60. Coll R. C., Hill J. R., Day C. J., et al., “MCC950 Directly Targets the NLRP3 ATP‐Hydrolysis Motif for Inflammasome Inhibition,” Nature Chemical Biology 15 (2019): 556–559. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61. Kayagaki N., Warming S., Lamkanfi M., et al., “Non‐Canonical Inflammasome Activation Targets Caspase‐11,” Nature 479 (2011): 117–121. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62. Schmid‐Burgk J. L., Gaidt M. M., Schmidt T., Ebert T. S., Bartok E., and Hornung V., “Caspase‐4 Mediates Non‐Canonical Activation of the NLRP3 Inflammasome in Human Myeloid Cells,” European Journal of Immunology 45 (2015): 2911–2917. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63. Shi J., Zhao Y., Wang K., et al., “Cleavage of GSDMD by Inflammatory Caspases Determines Pyroptotic Cell Death,” Nature 526 (2015): 660–665. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64. Rühl S. and Broz P., “Caspase‐11 Activates a Canonical NLRP3 Inflammasome by Promoting K(+) Efflux,” European Journal of Immunology 45 (2015): 2927–2936. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65. Gaidt M. M., Ebert T. S., Chauhan D., et al., “Human Monocytes Engage an Alternative Inflammasome Pathway,” Immunity 44 (2016): 833–846. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66. Hsu C. C., Shao B., Kanter J. E., et al., “Apolipoprotein C3 Induces Inflammasome Activation Only in Its Delipidated Form,” Nature Immunology 24 (2023): 408–411. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67. Zewinger S., Reiser J., Jankowski V., et al., “Apolipoprotein C3 Induces Inflammation and Organ Damage by Alternative Inflammasome Activation,” Nature Immunology 21 (2020): 30–41. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68. Yang J., Liu Z., and Xiao T. S., “Post‐Translational Regulation of Inflammasomes,” Cellular and Molecular Immunology 14 (2017): 65–79. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69. Kodi T., Sankhe R., Gopinathan A., Nandakumar K., and Kishore A., “New Insights on NLRP3 Inflammasome: Mechanisms of Activation, Inhibition, and Epigenetic Regulation,” Journal of Neuroimmune Pharmacology 19 (2024): 7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70. Liu X., Zhang X., Ding Y., et al., “Nuclear Factor E2‐Related Factor‐2 Negatively Regulates NLRP3 Inflammasome Activity by Inhibiting Reactive Oxygen Species‐Induced NLRP3 Priming,” Antioxidants and Redox Signaling 26 (2017): 28–43. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71. Guo C., Chi Z., Jiang D., et al., “Cholesterol Homeostatic Regulator SCAP‐SREBP2 Integrates NLRP3 Inflammasome Activation and Cholesterol Biosynthetic Signaling in Macrophages,” Immunity 49 (2018): 842–856. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72. Ma P., Zha S., Shen X., et al., “NFAT5 Mediates Hypertonic Stress‐Induced Atherosclerosis via Activating NLRP3 Inflammasome in Endothelium,” Cell Communication and Signaling 17 (2019): 102. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73. Wang S., Lin Y., Yuan X., Li F., Guo L., and Wu B., “REV‐ERBα Integrates Colon Clock With Experimental Colitis Through Regulation of NF‐κB/NLRP3 Axis,” Nature Communications 9 (2018): 4246. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74. Zhu L., Meng Q., Liang S., et al., “The Transcription Factor GFI1 Negatively Regulates NLRP3 Inflammasome Activation in Macrophages,” FEBS Letters 588 (2014): 4513–4519. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75. Huai W., Zhao R., Song H., et al., “Aryl Hydrocarbon Receptor Negatively Regulates NLRP3 Inflammasome Activity by Inhibiting NLRP3 Transcription,” Nature Communications 5 (2014): 4738. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76. McDaniel M. M., Kottyan L. C., Singh H., and Pasare C., “Suppression of Inflammasome Activation by IRF8 and IRF4 in cDCs Is Critical for T Cell Priming,” Cell Reports 31 (2020): 107604. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77. Kaszycki J. and Kim M., “Epigenetic Regulation of Transcription Factors Involved in NLRP3 Inflammasome and NF‐kB Signaling Pathways,” Frontiers in Immunology 16 (2025): 1529756. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78. Wei M., Wang L., Wu T., et al., “NLRP3 Activation Was Regulated by DNA Methylation Modification During Mycobacterium Tuberculosis Infection,” BioMed Research International 2016 (2016): 4323281. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79. Guan X., Liu R., Wang B., et al., “Inhibition of HDAC2 Sensitises Antitumour Therapy by Promoting NLRP3/GSDMD‐Mediated Pyroptosis in Colorectal Cancer,” Clinical and Translational Medicine 14 (2024): e1692. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80. Xiao Y., Zhao C., Tai Y., et al., “STING Mediates Hepatocyte Pyroptosis in Liver Fibrosis by Epigenetically Activating the NLRP3 Inflammasome,” Redox Biology 62 (2023): 102691. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81. Jimenez Calvente C., Del Pilar H., Tameda M., Johnson C. D., and Feldstein A. E., “MicroRNA 223 3p Negatively Regulates the NLRP3 Inflammasome in Acute and Chronic Liver Injury,” Molecular Therapy 28 (2020): 653–663. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 82. Akbaba T. H., Akkaya‐Ulum Y. Z., Batu E. D., et al., “Dysregulation of miRNA‐30e‐3p Targeting IL‐1β in an International Cohort of Systemic Autoinflammatory Disease Patients,” Journal of Molecular Medicine 101 (2023): 757–766. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 83. Zhang Q.‐B., Zhu D., Dai F., et al., “MicroRNA‐223 Suppresses IL‐1β and TNF‐α Production in Gouty Inflammation by Targeting the NLRP3 Inflammasome,” Frontiers in Pharmacology 12 (2021): 2021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 84. O'Keefe M. E., Dubyak G. R., and Abbott D. W., “Post‐Translational Control of NLRP3 Inflammasome Signaling,” Journal of Biological Chemistry 300 (2024): 107386. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 85. Liang Z., Damianou A., Di Daniel E., and Kessler B. M., “Inflammasome Activation Controlled by the Interplay Between Post‐Translational Modifications: Emerging Drug Target Opportunities,” Cell Communication and Signaling 19 (2021): 23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 86. Han S., Lear T. B., Jerome J. A., et al., “Lipopolysaccharide Primes the NALP3 Inflammasome by Inhibiting Its Ubiquitination and Degradation Mediated by the SCFFBXL2 E3 Ligase,” Journal of Biological Chemistry 290 (2015): 18124–18133. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 87. Beesetti S., “Ubiquitin Ligases in Control: Regulating NLRP3 Inflammasome Activation,” Frontiers in Bioscience 30 (2025): 25970. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 88. Song H., Liu B., Huai W., et al., “The E3 Ubiquitin Ligase TRIM31 Attenuates NLRP3 Inflammasome Activation by Promoting Proteasomal Degradation of NLRP3,” Nature Communications 7 (2016): 13727. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 89. Py B. F., Kim M. S., Vakifahmetoglu‐Norberg H., and Yuan J., “Deubiquitination of NLRP3 by BRCC3 Critically Regulates Inflammasome Activity,” Molecular Cell 49 (2013): 331–338. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 90. Rodgers M. A., Bowman J. W., Fujita H., et al., “The Linear Ubiquitin Assembly Complex (LUBAC) Is Essential for NLRP3 Inflammasome Activation,” Journal of Experimental Medicine 211 (2014): 1333–1347. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 91. Shim D. W. and Lee K. H., “Posttranslational Regulation of the NLR Family Pyrin Domain‐Containing 3 Inflammasome,” Frontiers in Immunology 9 (2018): 1054. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 92. Guo C., Xie S., Chi Z., et al., “Bile Acids Control Inflammation and Metabolic Disorder Through Inhibition of NLRP3 Inflammasome,” Immunity 45 (2016): 802–816. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 93. Zhang Z., Meszaros G., He W. T., et al., “Protein Kinase D at the Golgi Controls NLRP3 Inflammasome Activation,” Journal of Experimental Medicine 214 (2017): 2671–2693. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 94. Spalinger M. R., Kasper S., Gottier C., et al., “NLRP3 Tyrosine Phosphorylation Is Controlled by Protein tyrosine Phosphatase PTPN22,” Journal of Clinical Investigation 126 (2016): 4388. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 95. Qin Y. and Zhao W., “Posttranslational Modifications of NLRP3 and Their Regulatory Roles in Inflammasome Activation,” European Journal of Immunology 53 (2023): e2350382. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 96. Barry R., John S. W., Liccardi G., et al., “SUMO‐Mediated Regulation of NLRP3 Modulates Inflammasome Activity,” Nature Communications 9 (2018): 3001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 97. Zhang Y., Luo L., Xu X., et al., “Acetylation Is Required for Full Activation of the NLRP3 Inflammasome,” Nature Communications 14 (2023): 8396. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 98. Mayor A., Martinon F., De Smedt T., Pétrilli V., and Tschopp J., “A Crucial Function of SGT1 and HSP90 in Inflammasome Activity Links Mammalian and Plant Innate Immune Responses,” Nature Immunology 8 (2007): 497–503. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 99. Park Y. J., Dodantenna N., Kim Y., et al., “MARCH5‐Dependent NLRP3 Ubiquitination Is Required for Mitochondrial NLRP3‐NEK7 Complex Formation and NLRP3 Inflammasome Activation,” EMBO Journal 42 (2023): e113481. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 100. Pereira A. C., De Pascale J., Resende R., et al., “ER‐Mitochondria Communication Is Involved in NLRP3 Inflammasome Activation Under Stress Conditions in the Innate Immune System,” Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences 79 (2022): 213. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 101. Paik S., Kim J. K., Shin H. J., Park E.‐J., Kim I. S., and Jo E.‐K., “Updated Insights Into the Molecular Networks for NLRP3 Inflammasome Activation,” Cellular & Molecular Immunology 22 (2025): 563–596. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 102. Magupalli V. G., Negro R., Tian Y., et al., “HDAC6 Mediates an Aggresome‐Like Mechanism for NLRP3 and Pyrin Inflammasome Activation,” Science 369 (2020): eaas8995. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 103. Zheng S., Que X., Wang S., et al., “ZDHHC5‐Mediated NLRP3 Palmitoylation Promotes NLRP3‐NEK7 Interaction and Inflammasome Activation,” Molecular Cell 83 (2023): 4570–4585. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 104. Nakahira K., Haspel J. A., Rathinam V. A., et al., “Autophagy Proteins Regulate Innate Immune Responses by Inhibiting the Release of Mitochondrial DNA Mediated by the NALP3 Inflammasome,” Nature Immunology 12 (2011): 222–230. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 105. Shi C. S., Shenderov K., Huang N. N., et al., “Activation of Autophagy by Inflammatory Signals Limits IL‐1β Production by Targeting Ubiquitinated Inflammasomes for Destruction,” Nature Immunology 13 (2012): 255–263. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 106. Wu X., Gong L., Xie L., et al., “NLRP3 Deficiency Protects Against Intermittent Hypoxia‐Induced Neuroinflammation and Mitochondrial ROS by Promoting the PINK1‐Parkin Pathway of Mitophagy in a Murine Model of Sleep Apnea,” Frontiers in Immunology 12 (2021): 628168. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 107. Harris J., Hartman M., Roche C., et al., “Autophagy Controls IL‐1beta Secretion by Targeting Pro‐IL‐1beta for Degradation,” Journal of Biological Chemistry 286 (2011): 9587–9597. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 108. McKee C. M. and Coll R. C., “NLRP3 inflammasome Priming: A Riddle Wrapped in a Mystery inside an Enigma,” Journal of Leukocyte Biology 108 (2020): 937–952. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 109. de Almeida L., Khare S., Misharin A. V., et al., “The PYRIN Domain‐only Protein POP1 Inhibits Inflammasome Assembly and Ameliorates Inflammatory Disease,” Immunity 43 (2015): 264–276. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 110. Le H. T. and Harton J. A., “Pyrin‐ and CARD‐only Proteins as Regulators of NLR Functions,” Frontiers in Immunology 4 (2013): 275. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 111. Dorfleutner A., Chu L., and Stehlik C., “Inhibiting the Inflammasome: One Domain at a Time,” Immunological Reviews 265 (2015): 205–216. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 112. Yan Y., Jiang W., Liu L., et al., “Dopamine Controls Systemic Inflammation Through Inhibition of NLRP3 Inflammasome,” Cell 160 (2015): 62–73. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 113. Hughes M. M. and O'Neill L. A. J., “Metabolic Regulation of NLRP3,” Immunological Reviews 281 (2018): 88–98. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 114. Wen H., Gris D., Lei Y., et al., “Fatty Acid‐induced NLRP3‐ASC Inflammasome Activation Interferes With Insulin Signaling,” Nature Immunology 12 (2011): 408–415. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 115. Paik S., Kim J. K., Shin H. J., Park E. J., Kim I. S., and Jo E. K., “Updated Insights Into the Molecular Networks for NLRP3 Inflammasome Activation,” Cellular and Molecular Immunology 22 (2025): 563–596. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 116. Seok J. K., Kang H. C., Cho Y. Y., Lee H. S., and Lee J. Y., “Regulation of the NLRP3 Inflammasome by Post‐Translational Modifications and Small Molecules,” Frontiers in Immunology 11 (2020): 618231. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 117. Agostini L., Martinon F., Burns K., McDermott M. F., Hawkins P. N., and Tschopp J., “NALP3 forms an IL‐1beta‐processing Inflammasome With Increased Activity in Muckle‐Wells Autoinflammatory Disorder,” Immunity 20 (2004): 319–325. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 118. Birk‐Bachar M., Cohen H., Sofrin‐Drucker E., et al., “Discovery of a Novel Missense Variant in NLRP3 Causing Atypical Cryopyrin‐Associated Periodic Syndromes with Hearing Loss as the Primary Presentation,” Responsive to Anti‐Interleukin‐1 Therapy, Arthritis and Rheumatology 76 (2024): 444–454. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 119. Levy R., Gérard L., Kuemmerle‐Deschner J., et al., “Phenotypic and Genotypic Characteristics of Cryopyrin‐associated Periodic Syndrome: A Series of 136 Patients From the Eurofever Registry,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 74 (2015): 2043–2049. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 120. Stackowicz J., Gaudenzio N., Serhan N., et al., “Neutrophil‐specific Gain‐of‐function Mutations in Nlrp3 Promote Development of Cryopyrin‐associated Periodic Syndrome,” Journal of Experimental Medicine 218 (2021): e20201466. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 121. Frising U. C., Ribo S., Doglio M. G., Malissen B., van Loo G., and Wullaert A., “Nlrp3 inflammasome Activation in Macrophages Suffices for Inducing Autoinflammation in Mice,” EMBO Reports 23 (2022): e54339. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 122. Molina‐López C., Hurtado‐Navarro L., García C. J., et al., “Pathogenic NLRP3 Mutants Form Constitutively Active Inflammasomes Resulting in Immune‐metabolic Limitation of IL‐1β Production,” Nature Communications 15 (2024): 1096. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 123. Karasawa T., Komada T., Yamada N., et al., “Cryo‐sensitive Aggregation Triggers NLRP3 Inflammasome Assembly in Cryopyrin‐associated Periodic Syndrome,” eLife 11 (2022): e75166. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 124. Ran L., Ye T., Erbs E., et al., “KCNN4 links PIEZO‐dependent Mechanotransduction to NLRP3 Inflammasome Activation,” Science Immunology 8 (2023): eadf4699. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 125. Kuemmerle‐Deschner J. B., Verma D., Endres T., et al., “Clinical and Molecular Phenotypes of Low‐Penetrance Variants of NLRP3: Diagnostic and Therapeutic Challenges,” Arthritis and Rheumatology 69 (2017): 2233–2240. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 126. Nakanishi H., Kawashima Y., Kurima K., et al., “NLRP3 Mutation and Cochlear Autoinflammation Cause Syndromic and Nonsyndromic Hearing Loss DFNA34 Responsive to anakinra Therapy,” PNAS 114 (2017): E7766–E7775. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 127. Brogan P. A., Hofer M., Kuemmerle‐Deschner J. B., et al., “Rapid and Sustained Long‐Term Efficacy and Safety of Canakinumab in Patients with Cryopyrin‐Associated Periodic Syndrome Ages Five Years and Younger,” Arthritis and Rheumatology 71 (2019): 1955–1963. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 128. Kuemmerle‐Deschner J. B., Hachulla E., Cartwright R., et al., “Two‐year Results From an Open‐label, Multicentre, Phase III Study Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of canakinumab in Patients With Cryopyrin‐associated Periodic Syndrome Across Different Severity Phenotypes,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 70 (2011): 2095–2102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 129. Hoffman H. M., Throne M. L., Amar N. J., et al., “Efficacy and Safety of Rilonacept (interleukin‐1 Trap) in Patients With Cryopyrin‐associated Periodic Syndromes: Results From Two Sequential Placebo‐controlled Studies,” Arthritis and Rheumatism 58 (2008): 2443–2452. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 130. Terkeltaub R., Sundy J. S., Schumacher H. R., et al., “The Interleukin 1 Inhibitor Rilonacept in Treatment of Chronic Gouty Arthritis: Results of a Placebo‐controlled, Monosequence Crossover, Non‐randomised, Single‐blind Pilot Study,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 68 (2009): 1613–1617. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 131. Cosson C., Riou R., Patoli D., et al., “Functional Diversity of NLRP3 Gain‐of‐function Mutants Associated With CAPS Autoinflammation,” Journal of Experimental Medicine 221 (2024): e20231200. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 132. Ma Q., “Pharmacological Inhibition of the NLRP3 Inflammasome: Structure, Molecular Activation, and Inhibitor‐NLRP3 Interaction,” Pharmacological Reviews 75 (2023): 487–520. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 133. Cao Z., Gu Z., Lin S., et al., “Attenuation of NLRP3 Inflammasome Activation by Indirubin‐Derived PROTAC Targeting HDAC6,” ACS Chemical Biology 16 (2021): 2746–2751. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 134. Guo Q., Wang Y., Xu D., Nossent J., Pavlos N. J., and Xu J., “Rheumatoid Arthritis: Pathological Mechanisms and Modern Pharmacologic Therapies,” Bone Research 6 (2018): 15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 135. Kastbom A., Verma D., Eriksson P., Skogh T., Wingren G., and Söderkvist P., “Genetic Variation in Proteins of the Cryopyrin Inflammasome Influences Susceptibility and Severity of Rheumatoid Arthritis (the Swedish TIRA project),” Rheumatology 47 (2008): 415–417. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 136. Kastbom A., Johansson M., Verma D., Söderkvist P., and Rantapää‐Dahlqvist S., “CARD8 p.C10X Polymorphism Is Associated With Inflammatory Activity in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 69 (2010): 723–726. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 137. Martinon F., Pétrilli V., Mayor A., Tardivel A., and Tschopp J., “Gout‐associated Uric Acid Crystals Activate the NALP3 Inflammasome,” Nature 440 (2006): 237–241. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 138. Martel‐Pelletier J., Barr A. J., Cicuttini F. M., et al., “Osteoarthritis,” Nature Reviews Disease Primers 2 (2016): 16072. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 139. McAllister M. J., Chemaly M., Eakin A. J., Gibson D. S., and McGilligan V. E., “NLRP3 as a Potentially Novel Biomarker for the Management of Osteoarthritis,” Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 26 (2018): 612–619. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 140. Denoble A. E., Huffman K. M., Stabler T. V., et al., “Uric Acid Is a Danger Signal of Increasing Risk for Osteoarthritis Through Inflammasome Activation,” PNAS 108 (2011): 2088–2093. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 141. Jin C., Frayssinet P., Pelker R., et al., “NLRP3 inflammasome Plays a Critical Role in the Pathogenesis of Hydroxyapatite‐associated Arthropathy,” PNAS 108 (2011): 14867–14872. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 142. Marchetti C., Swartzwelter B., Koenders M. I., et al., “NLRP3 inflammasome Inhibitor OLT1177 Suppresses Joint Inflammation in Murine Models of Acute Arthritis,” Arthritis Research & Therapy 20 (2018): 169. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 143. Ni B., Pei W., Qu Y., et al., “MCC950, the NLRP3 Inhibitor, Protects Against Cartilage Degradation in a Mouse Model of Osteoarthritis,” Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity 2021 (2021): 4139048. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 144. Goldberg E. L., Asher J. L., Molony R. D., et al., “β‐Hydroxybutyrate Deactivates Neutrophil NLRP3 Inflammasome to Relieve Gout Flares,” Cell Reports 18 (2017): 2077–2087. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 145. Yang G., Lee H. E., Moon S. J., et al., “Direct Binding to NLRP3 Pyrin Domain as a Novel Strategy to Prevent NLRP3‐Driven Inflammation and Gouty Arthritis,” Arthritis and Rheumatology 72 (2020): 1192–1202. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 146. Klück V., Jansen T., Janssen M., et al., “Dapansutrile, an Oral Selective NLRP3 Inflammasome Inhibitor, for Treatment of Gout Flares: An Open‐label, Dose‐adaptive, Proof‐of‐concept, Phase 2a Trial,” Lancet Rheumatology 2 (2020): e270–e280. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 147. Ippagunta S. K., Brand D. D., Luo J., et al., “Inflammasome‐independent Role of Apoptosis‐associated Speck‐Like Protein Containing a CARD (ASC) in T Cell Priming Is Critical for Collagen‐induced Arthritis,” Journal of Biological Chemistry 285 (2010): 12454–12462. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 148. Narayan S., Kolly L., So A., and Busso N., “Increased Interleukin‐10 Production by ASC‐deficient CD4+ T Cells Impairs Bystander T‐cell Proliferation,” Immunology 134 (2011): 33–40. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 149. Pang L., Liu H., Quan H., Sui H., and Jia Y., “Development of Novel Oridonin Analogs as Specifically Targeted NLRP3 Inflammasome Inhibitors for the Treatment of Dextran Sulfate Sodium‐induced Colitis,” European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 245 (2023): 114919. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 150. He C., Liu J., Li J., et al., “Hit‐to‐Lead Optimization of the Natural Product Oridonin as Novel NLRP3 Inflammasome Inhibitors With Potent Anti‐Inflammation Activity,” Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 67 (2024): 9406–9430. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 151. Villani A. C., Lemire M., Fortin G., et al., “Common Variants in the NLRP3 Region Contribute to Crohn's Disease Susceptibility,” Nature Genetics 41 (2009): 71–76. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 152. Mao L., Kitani A., Similuk M., et al., “Loss‐of‐function CARD8 Mutation Causes NLRP3 Inflammasome Activation and Crohn's Disease,” Journal of Clinical Investigation 128 (2018): 1793–1806. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 153. Liu X., Fang Y., Lv X., et al., “Deubiquitinase OTUD6A in Macrophages Promotes Intestinal Inflammation and Colitis via Deubiquitination of NLRP3,” Cell Death and Differentiation 30 (2023): 1457–1471. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 154. Zhao J., Zhao Z., Ying P., et al., “METTL3‐mediated M(6) A Modification of circPRKAR1B Promotes Crohn's Colitis by Inducing Pyroptosis via Autophagy Inhibition,” Clinical and Translational Medicine 13 (2023): e1405. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 155. Kolly L., Karababa M., Joosten L. A., et al., “Inflammatory Role of ASC in Antigen‐induced Arthritis is Independent of Caspase‐1, NALP‐3, and IPAF,” Journal of Immunology 183 (2009): 4003–4012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 156. Zhang F., Zhao W., Zhou J., et al., “Heat Shock Transcription Factor 2 Reduces the Secretion of IL‐1β by Inhibiting NLRP3 Inflammasome Activation in Ulcerative Colitis,” Gene 768 (2021): 145299. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 157. Shao X., Sun S., Zhou Y., et al., “Bacteroides fragilis Restricts Colitis‐associated Cancer via Negative Regulation of the NLRP3 Axis,” Cancer Letters 523 (2021): 170–181. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 158. Li P., Chen G., Zhang J., et al., “Live Lactobacillus Acidophilus Alleviates Ulcerative Colitis via the SCFAs/Mitophagy/NLRP3 Inflammasome Axis,” Food and Functions 13 (2022): 2985–2997. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 159. Promoda Perera A., Fernando R., Shinde T., et al., “Rajaraman Eri, MCC950, a Specific Small Molecule Inhibitor of NLRP3 Inflammasome Attenuates Colonic Inflammation in Spontaneous Colitis Mice,” Scientific Reports 8 (2018): 8618. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 160. Klughammer B., Piali L., Nica A., et al., “A Randomized, Double‐blind Phase 1b Study Evaluating the Safety, Tolerability, Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of the NLRP3 Inhibitor Selnoflast in Patients With Moderate to Severe Active Ulcerative Colitis,” Clinical and Translational Medicine 13 (2023): e1471. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 161. Haque I., Thapa P., Burns D. M., et al., “NLRP3 Inflammasome Inhibitors for Antiepileptogenic Drug Discovery and Development,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences 25 (2024): 6078. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 162. Yin K., Zhang Z., Mo Y., et al., “Discovery of Autophagy‐tethering Compounds as Potent NLRP3 Degraders for IBD Immunotherapy,” European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 275 (2024): 116581. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 163. Theofilis P., Oikonomou E., Chasikidis C., Tsioufis K., and Tousoulis D., “Inflammasomes in Atherosclerosis‐From Pathophysiology to Treatment,” Pharmaceuticals 16 (2023): 1211. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 164. Jin Y. and Fu J., “Novel Insights into the NLRP3 Inflammasome in Atherosclerosis,” Journal of the American Heart Association 8 (2019): e012219. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 165. Xie D., Guo H., Li M., et al., “Splenic Monocytes Mediate Inflammatory Response and Exacerbate Myocardial Ischemia/Reperfusion Injury in a Mitochondrial Cell‐free DNA‐TLR9‐NLRP3‐dependent Fashion,” Basic Research in Cardiology 118 (2023): 44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 166. Wohlford G. F., Tassell B. W. V., Billingsley H. E., et al., “Phase 1B, Randomized, Double‐Blinded, Dose Escalation, Single‐Center, Repeat Dose Safety and Pharmacodynamics Study of the Oral NLRP3 Inhibitor Dapansutrile in Subjects with NYHA II–III Systolic Heart Failure,” Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology 77 (2021): 49. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 167. Luo Q., Dai L., Li J., et al., “Intracellular and Extracellular Synergistic Therapy for Restoring Macrophage Functions via Anti‐CD47 Antibody‐conjugated Bifunctional Nanoparticles in Atherosclerosis,” Bioactive Materials 34 (2024): 326–337. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 168. Liu Y., Lian K., Zhang L., et al., “TXNIP Mediates NLRP3 Inflammasome Activation in Cardiac Microvascular Endothelial Cells as a Novel Mechanism in Myocardial Ischemia/Reperfusion Injury,” Basic Research in Cardiology 109 (2014): 415. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 169. Sano S., Oshima K., Wang Y., et al., “Tet2‐Mediated Clonal Hematopoiesis Accelerates Heart Failure through a Mechanism Involving the IL‐1β/NLRP3 Inflammasome,” Journal of the American College of Cardiology 71 (2018): 875–886. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 170. Toldo S., Mauro A. G., Cutter Z., et al., “The NLRP3 Inflammasome Inhibitor, OLT1177 (Dapansutrile), Reduces Infarct Size and Preserves Contractile Function after Ischemia Reperfusion Injury in the Mouse,” Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology 73 (2019): 215–222. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 171. Chen S., Wang Y., Pan Y., et al., “Novel Role for Tranilast in Regulating NLRP3 Ubiquitination, Vascular Inflammation, and Atherosclerosis,” Journal of the American Heart Association 9 (2020): e015513. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 172. Lamkanfi M., Mueller J. L., Vitari A. C., et al., “Glyburide Inhibits the Cryopyrin/Nalp3 Inflammasome,” Journal of Cell Biology 187 (2009): 61–70. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 173. Nizami S., Millar V., Arunasalam K., et al., “A Phenotypic High‐content, High‐throughput Screen Identifies Inhibitors of NLRP3 Inflammasome Activation,” Scientific Reports 11 (2021): 15319. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 174. Dekker C., Mattes H., Wright M., et al., “Crystal Structure of NLRP3 NACHT Domain with an Inhibitor Defines Mechanism of Inflammasome Inhibition,” Journal of Molecular Biology 433 (2021): 167309. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 175. McBride C., Trzoss L., Povero D., et al., “Overcoming Preclinical Safety Obstacles to Discover (S)‐N‐((1,2,3,5,6,7‐Hexahydro‐s‐indacen‐4‐yl)carbamoyl)‐6‐(methylamino)‐6,7‐dihydro‐5H‐pyrazolo[5,1‐b][1,3]Oxazine‐3‐sulfonamide (GDC‐2394): A Potent and Selective NLRP3 Inhibitor,” Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 65 (2022): 14721–14739. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 176. Tang F., Kunder R., Chu T., et al., “First‐in‐human Phase 1 Trial Evaluating Safety, Pharmacokinetics, and Pharmacodynamics of NLRP3 Inflammasome Inhibitor, GDC‐2394, in Healthy Volunteers,” Clinical and Translational Science 16 (2023): 1653–1666. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 177. Isazadeh M., Amandadi M., Haghdoust F., Lotfollazadeh S., Orzáez M., and Hosseinkhani S., “Split‐luciferase Complementary Assay of NLRP3 PYD‐PYD Interaction Indicates Inflammasome Formation During Inflammation,” Analytical Biochemistry 638 (2022): 114510. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 178. Jiang H., He H., Chen Y., et al., “Identification of a Selective and Direct NLRP3 Inhibitor to Treat Inflammatory Disorders,” Journal of Experimental Medicine 214 (2017): 3219–3238. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 179. Liao K. C., Sandall C. F., Carlson D. A., et al., “Application of Immobilized ATP to the Study of NLRP Inflammasomes,” Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics 670 (2019): 104–115. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 180. Hayat C., Subramaniyan V., Alamri M. A., et al., “Identification of New Potent NLRP3 Inhibitors by Multi‐level in‐silico Approaches,” BMC Chemistry 18 (2024): 76. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 181. Qin P., Niu Y., Duan J., and Lin P., “Computational Study on the Mechanism of Small Molecules Inhibiting NLRP3 With Ensemble Docking and Molecular Dynamic Simulations,” BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology 26 (2025): 49. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 182. Shi C., Gao T., Lyu W., et al., “Deep‐Learning‐Driven Discovery of SN3‐1, a Potent NLRP3 Inhibitor With Therapeutic Potential for Inflammatory Diseases,” Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 67 (2024): 17833–17854. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 183. Coll R. C., Robertson A. A., Chae J. J., et al., “A Small‐molecule Inhibitor of the NLRP3 Inflammasome for the Treatment of Inflammatory Diseases,” Nature Medicine 21 (2015): 248–255. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 184. Caseley E. A., Poulter J. A., Rodrigues F., and McDermott M. F., “Inflammasome Inhibition Under Physiological and Pharmacological Conditions,” Genes and Immunity 21 (2020): 211–223. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 185. Sylvain A., Stoehr N., Ma F., et al., “A Cereblon‐based Glue Degrader of NEK7 Regulates NLRP3 Inflammasome in a Context‐dependent Manner,” Cell Chemical Biology 32 (2025): 955–968. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 186. McKenzie B. A., Mamik M. K., Saito L. B., et al., “Caspase‐1 Inhibition Prevents Glial Inflammasome Activation and Pyroptosis in Models of Multiple Sclerosis,” PNAS 115 (2018): E6065–e6074. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 187. Dai Z., Liu W. C., Chen X. Y., Wang X., Li J. L., and Zhang X., “Gasdermin D‐mediated Pyroptosis: Mechanisms, Diseases, and Inhibitors,” Frontiers in Immunology 14 (2023): 1178662. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 188. Xu J., Pickard J. M., and Núñez G., “FDA‐approved Disulfiram Inhibits the NLRP3 Inflammasome by Regulating NLRP3 Palmitoylation,” Cell Reports 43 (2024): 114609. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 189. Arnold D. D., Yalamanoglu A., and Boyman O., “Systematic Review of Safety and Efficacy of IL‐1‐Targeted Biologics in Treating Immune‐Mediated Disorders,” Frontiers in Immunology 13 (2022): 888392. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 190. Fenini G., Contassot E., and French L. E., “Potential of IL‐1, IL‐18 and Inflammasome Inhibition for the Treatment of Inflammatory Skin Diseases,” Frontiers in Pharmacology 8 (2017): 278. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 191. Gombault A., Baron L., and Couillin I., “ATP Release and Purinergic Signaling in NLRP3 Inflammasome Activation,” Frontiers in Immunology 3 (2012): 414. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 192. Martínez‐García J. J., Martínez‐Banaclocha H., Angosto‐Bazarra D., et al., “P2×7 receptor Induces Mitochondrial Failure in Monocytes and Compromises NLRP3 Inflammasome Activation During Sepsis,” Nature Communications 10 (2019): 2711. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 193. Biasizzo M. and Kopitar‐Jerala N., “Interplay between NLRP3 Inflammasome and Autophagy,” Frontiers in Immunology 11 (2020): 591803. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 194. Keuler T., Ferber D., Engelhardt J., et al., “Degrading the Key Component of the Inflammasome: Development of an NLRP3 PROTAC,” Chemical Communications 61 (2025): 3001–3004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 195. Wang L. and Cui J., “Palmitoylation Promotes Chaperone‐mediated Autophagic Degradation of NLRP3 to Modulate Inflammation,” Autophagy 19 (2023): 2821–2823. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 196. Gatlik E., Mehes B., Voltz E., et al., “First‐in‐human Safety, Tolerability, and Pharmacokinetic Results of DFV890, an Oral Low‐molecular‐weight NLRP3 Inhibitor,” Clinical and Translational Science 17 (2024): e13789. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 197. Albornoz E. A., Mardon K., Bhalla R., et al., “PET‐MRI Biomarkers Reveal Efficacy of a Novel NLRP3 Inhibitor in Parkinson's disease Models,” Brain (2025): awaf372. Epub ahead of print. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 198. Coll R. C., Schroder K., and Pelegrín P., “NLRP3 and Pyroptosis Blockers for Treating Inflammatory Diseases,” Trends in Pharmacological Sciences 43 (2022): 653–668. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 199. Harrison D., Billinton A., Bock M. G., et al., “Discovery of Clinical Candidate NT‐0796, a Brain‐Penetrant and Highly Potent NLRP3 Inflammasome Inhibitor for Neuroinflammatory Disorders,” Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 66 (2023): 14897–14911. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 200. Marchetti C., Swartzwelter B., Gamboni F., et al., “OLT1177, a β‐sulfonyl Nitrile Compound, Safe in Humans, Inhibits the NLRP3 Inflammasome and Reverses the Metabolic Cost of Inflammation,” PNAS 115 (2018): E1530–E1539. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 201. Lonnemann N., Hosseini S., Marchetti C., et al., “The NLRP3 Inflammasome Inhibitor OLT1177 Rescues Cognitive Impairment in a Mouse Model of Alzheimer's Disease,” PNAS 117 (2020): 32145–32154. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 202. Sánchez‐Fernández A., Skouras D. B., Dinarello C. A., and López‐Vales R., “OLT1177 (Dapansutrile), a Selective NLRP3 Inflammasome Inhibitor, Ameliorates Experimental Autoimmune Encephalomyelitis Pathogenesis,” Frontiers in Immunology 10 (2019): 2578. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 203. Velcicky J., Janser P., Gommermann N., et al., “Discovery of Potent, Orally Bioavailable, Tricyclic NLRP3 Inhibitors,” Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 67 (2024): 1544–1562. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 204. Fu Z., Duan Y., Pei H., et al., “Discovery of Potent, Specific, and Orally Available NLRP3 Inflammasome Inhibitors Based on Pyridazine Scaffolds for the Treatment of Septic Shock and Peritonitis,” Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 67 (2024): 15711–15737. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 205. He H., Jiang H., Chen Y., et al., “Oridonin Is a Covalent NLRP3 Inhibitor With Strong Anti‐inflammasome Activity,” Nature Communications 9 (2018): 2550. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 206. Li M., Ma L., Lv J., et al., “Design, Synthesis, and Biological Evaluation of Oridonin Derivatives as Novel NLRP3 Inflammasome Inhibitors for the Treatment of Acute Lung Injury,” European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 277 (2024): 116760. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 207. Oronsky B., Takahashi L., Gordon R., Cabrales P., Caroen S., and Reid T., “RRx‐001: A Chimeric Triple Action NLRP3 Inhibitor, Nrf2 Inducer, and Nitric Oxide Superagonist,” Frontiers in Oncology 13 (2023): 1204143. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 208. Shi Y., Lv Q., Zheng M., Sun H., and Shi F., “NLRP3 inflammasome Inhibitor INF39 Attenuated NLRP3 Assembly in Macrophages,” International Immunopharmacology 92 (2021): 107358. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 209. Cocco M., Pellegrini C., Martínez‐Banaclocha H., et al., “Development of an Acrylate Derivative Targeting the NLRP3 Inflammasome for the Treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Disease,” Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 60 (2017): 3656–3671. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 210. Zhang X., Hu L., Xu S., Ye C., and Chen A., “Erianin: A Direct NLRP3 Inhibitor with Remarkable Anti‐Inflammatory Activity,” Frontiers in Immunology 12 (2021): 739953. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 211. Xu H., Chen J., Chen P., et al., “Costunolide Covalently Targets NACHT Domain of NLRP3 to Inhibit Inflammasome Activation and Alleviate NLRP3‐driven Inflammatory Diseases,” Acta Pharmaceutica Sinica B 13 (2023): 678–693. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 212. Hooftman A., Angiari S., Hester S., et al., “The Immunomodulatory Metabolite Itaconate Modifies NLRP3 and Inhibits Inflammasome Activation,” Cell Metabolism 32 (2020): 468–478. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 213. Molina‐Lopez C., Hurtado‐Navarro L., and O'Neill L. A. J., “Pelegrin, 4‐octyl Itaconate Reduces human NLRP3 Inflammasome Constitutive Activation With the Cryopyrin‐associated Periodic Syndrome p.R262W, p.D305N and p.T350M Variants,” Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences 82 (2025): 209. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 214. Kaneko N., Kurata M., Yamamoto T., et al., “KN3014, a Piperidine‐containing Small Compound, Inhibits Auto‐secretion of IL‐1β From PBMCs in a Patient With Muckle‐Wells syndrome,” Scientific Reports 10 (2020): 13562. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 215. Shi C., Zhang X., Chi X., et al., “Discovery of NLRP3 Inhibitors Using Machine Learning: Identification of a Hit Compound to Treat NLRP3 Activation‐driven Diseases,” European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 260 (2023): 115784. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 216. Xu Y., Xu Y., Biby S., et al., “Design and Discovery of Novel NLRP3 Inhibitors and PET Imaging Radiotracers Based on a 1,2,3‐Triazole‐Bearing Scaffold,” Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 67 (2024): 555–571. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 217. Zhao J., Li Y., Ma J., et al., “Synthesis and Pharmacological Validation of Fluorescent Diarylsulfonylurea Analogues as NLRP3 Inhibitors and Imaging Probes,” European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 237 (2022): 114338. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 218. Saeedi‐Boroujeni A., Mahmoudian‐Sani M. R., Nashibi R., Houshmandfar S., Tahmaseby Gandomkari S., and Khodadadi A., “Tranilast: A Potential Anti‐Inflammatory and NLRP3 Inflammasome Inhibitor Drug for COVID‐19,” Immunopharmacology and Immunotoxicology 43 (2021): 247–258. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 219. Huang Y., Jiang H., Chen Y., et al., “Tranilast Directly Targets NLRP3 to Treat Inflammasome‐driven Diseases,” EMBO Molecular Medicine 10 (2018): e8689. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 220. Rabinovich E., Fromowitz A., Ajibade O., et al., “The Dual Inflammasome/Myddosome Inhibitor HT‐6184 Restores Erythropoiesis in MDS/AML,” Blood 142 (2023): 1417–1417. [Google Scholar]
- 221. Lin H., Yang M., Li C., et al., “An RRx‐001 Analogue with Potent Anti‐NLRP3 Inflammasome Activity but without High‐Energy Nitro Functional Groups,” Frontiers in Pharmacology 13 (2022): 822833. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 222. Tapia‐Abellan A., Angosto‐Bazarra D., Martinez‐Banaclocha H., et al., “MCC950 closes the Active Conformation of NLRP3 to an Inactive state,” Nature Chemical Biology 15 (2019): 560–564. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 223. Vande Walle L., Stowe I. B., Šácha P., et al., “MCC950/CRID3 potently Targets the NACHT Domain of Wild‐type NLRP3 but Not Disease‐associated Mutants for Inflammasome Inhibition,” PloS Biology 17 (2019): e3000354. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 224. Hochheiser I. V., Pilsl M., Hagelueken G., et al., “Structure of the NLRP3 Decamer Bound to the Cytokine Release Inhibitor CRID3,” Nature 604 (2022): 184–189. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 225. Kennedy C. R., Goya Grocin A., Kovačič T., et al., “A Probe for NLRP3 Inflammasome Inhibitor MCC950 Identifies Carbonic Anhydrase 2 as a Novel Target,” ACS Chemical Biology 16 (2021): 982–990. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 226. Mangan M. S. J., Olhava E. J., Roush W. R., Seidel H. M., Glick G. D., and Latz E., “Targeting the NLRP3 Inflammasome in Inflammatory Diseases,” Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 17 (2018): 688. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 227. Keuler T., Ferber D., Marleaux M., Geyer M., and Gütschow M., “Structure–Stability Relationship of NLRP3 Inflammasome‐Inhibiting Sulfonylureas,” ACS Omega 7 (2022): 8158–8162. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 228. Salla M., Butler M. S., Massey N. L., Reid J. C., Cooper M. A., and Robertson A. A. B., “Synthesis of Deuterium‐labelled Analogues of NLRP3 Inflammasome Inhibitor MCC950,” Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry Letters 28 (2018): 793–795. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 229. Agarwal S., Sasane S., Shah H. A., et al., “Discovery of N‐Cyano‐sulfoximineurea Derivatives as Potent and Orally Bioavailable NLRP3 Inflammasome Inhibitors,” ACS Medicinal Chemistry Letters 11 (2020): 414–418. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 230. Hill J. R., Coll R. C., Sue N., et al., “Sulfonylureas as Concomitant Insulin Secretagogues and NLRP3 Inflammasome Inhibitors,” ChemMedChem 12 (2017): 1449–1457. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 231. Albanese V., Missiroli S., Perrone M., et al., “Novel Aryl Sulfonamide Derivatives as NLRP3 Inflammasome Inhibitors for the Potential Treatment of Cancer,” Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 66 (2023): 5223–5241. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 232. Harrison D., Boutard N., Brzozka K., et al., “Discovery of a Series of Ester‐substituted NLRP3 Inflammasome Inhibitors,” Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry Letters 30 (2020): 127560. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 233. Narros‐Fernández P., Chioua M., Petcu S. A., et al., “Synthesis and Pharmacological Evaluation of New N‐Sulfonylureas as NLRP3 Inflammasome Inhibitors: Identification of a Hit Compound to Treat Gout,” Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 65 (2022): 6250–6260. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 234. Li Z., Chen Y., Jiang X., et al., “Novel Sulfonylurea‐Based NLRP3 Inflammasome Inhibitor for Efficient Treatment of Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis, Endotoxic Shock, and Colitis,” Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 66 (2023): 12966–12989. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 235. Gatlik E., Mehes B., Voltz E., et al., “First‐in‐human Safety, Tolerability, and Pharmacokinetic Results of DFV890, an Oral Low‐molecular‐weight NLRP3 Inhibitor,” Clinical and Translational Science 17 (2024): e13789. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 236. Clarke N., Thornton P., Reader V., et al., “Anti‐Neuroinflammatory and Anti‐Inflammatory Effects of the NLRP3 Inhibitor NT‐0796 in Subjects With Parkinson's Disease,” Movement Disorders 40 (2025): 2199–2208. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 237. Ramachandran R., Manan A., Kim J., and Choi S., “NLRP3 inflammasome: A Key Player in the Pathogenesis of Life‐style Disorders,” Experimental & Molecular Medicine 56 (2024): 1488–1500. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 238. Xu Y., Biby S., Kaur B., and Zhang S., “A Patent Review of NLRP3 Inhibitors to Treat Autoimmune Diseases,” Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Patents 33 (2023): 455–470. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 239. Cabral J. E., Wu A., Zhou H., Pham M. A., Lin S., and McNulty R., “Targeting the NLRP3 Inflammasome for Inflammatory Disease Therapy,” Trends in Pharmacological Sciences 46 (2025): 503–519. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 240. Teske K. A., Corona C., Wilkinson J., et al., “Interrogating Direct NLRP3 Engagement and Functional Inflammasome Inhibition Using Cellular Assays,” Cell Chemical Biology 31 (2024): 349–360.e6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 241. Marchetti C., Swartzwelter B., Koenders M. I., et al., “NLRP3 inflammasome Inhibitor OLT1177 Suppresses Joint Inflammation in Murine Models of Acute Arthritis,” Arthritis Research & Therapy 20 (2018): 1–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 242. Chen Y., He H., Jiang H., et al., “Discovery and Optimization of 4‐oxo‐2‐thioxo‐thiazolidinones as NOD‐Like Receptor (NLR) family, Pyrin Domain‐containing Protein 3 (NLRP3) Inhibitors,” Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry Letters 30 (2020): 127021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 243. Gastaldi S., Boscaro V., Gianquinto E., et al., “Chemical Modulation of the 1‐(Piperidin‐4‐yl)‐1,3‐dihydro‐2H‐benzo[d]Imidazole‐2‐one Scaffold as a Novel NLRP3 Inhibitor,” Molecules 26 (2021): 3975. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 244. Li X., Zhang C.‐T., Ma W., Xie X., and Huang Q., “Oridonin: A Review of Its Pharmacology, Pharmacokinetics and Toxicity,” Frontiers in Pharmacology 12 (2021): 2021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 245. Oronsky B., Takahashi L., Gordon R., Cabrales P., Caroen S., and Reid T., “RRx‐001: A Chimeric Triple Action NLRP3 Inhibitor, Nrf2 Inducer, and Nitric Oxide Superagonist,” Frontiers in Oncology 13 (2023): 2023. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 246. Li C. G., Yan L., Mai F. Y., et al., “Baicalin Inhibits NOD‐Like Receptor Family, Pyrin Containing Domain 3 Inflammasome Activation in Murine Macrophages by Augmenting Protein Kinase A Signaling,” Frontiers in Immunology 8 (2017): 1409. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 247. Chen S. Y., Li Y. P., You Y. P., et al., “Theaflavin Mitigates Acute Gouty Peritonitis and Septic Organ Injury in Mice by Suppressing NLRP3 Inflammasome Assembly,” Acta Pharmacologica Sinica 44 (2023): 2019–2036. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Table S1: Summary of representative NLRP3 inflammasome inhibitors, their scaffolds/chemical notes, reported cellular or biochemical potency, proposed mechanism(s) of action, and development status. Evidence codes indicate the type(s) of experimental support available: (S) = structural evidence (cryo‐EM/X‐ray; PDB ID provided where available); (B) = biochemical evidence (ATPase assay, KD/binding assay); (P) = cell‐based, functional, or phenotypic evidence (includes indirect mechanistic readouts and in‐cell assays). For covalent inhibitors, the modified cysteine residue is indicated where reported. Development status is shown where known (Discovery/Preclinical/Phase I/Phase II/Marketing/Repurposed).
Data Availability Statement
No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.
