Skip to main content
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America logoLink to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
. 1995 Apr 25;92(9):3663–3667. doi: 10.1073/pnas.92.9.3663

Codominance and toxins: a path to drugs of nearly unlimited selectivity.

A Varshavsky 1
PMCID: PMC42021  PMID: 7731961

Abstract

The effectiveness of drugs is often limited by their insufficient selectivity. I propose designs of therapeutic agents that address this problem. The key feature of these reagents, termed comtoxins (codominance-mediated toxins), is their ability to utilize codominance, a property characteristic of many signals in proteins, including degradation signals (degrons) and nuclear localization signals. A comtoxin designed to kill cells that express intracellular proteins P1 and P2 but to spare cells that lack P1 and/or P2 is a multidomain fusion containing a cytotoxic domain and two degrons placed within or near two domains P1* and P2* that bind, respectively, to P1 and P2. In a cell containing both P1 and P2, these proteins would bind to the P1* and P2* domains of the comtoxin and sterically mask the nearby (appropriately positioned) degrons, resulting in a long-lived and therefore toxic drug. By contrast, in a cell lacking P1 and/or P2, at least one of the comtoxin's degrons would be active (unobstructed), yielding a short-lived and therefore nontoxic drug. A comtoxin containing both a degron and a nuclear localization signal can be designed to kill exclusively cells that contain P1 but lack P2. Analogous strategies yield comtoxins sensitive to the presence (or absence) of more than two proteins in a cell. Also considered is a class of comtoxins in which a toxic domain is split by a flexible insert containing binding sites for the target proteins. The potentially unlimited, combinatorial selectivity of comtoxins may help solve the problem of side effects that bedevils present-day therapies, for even nonselective delivery of a comtoxin would not affect cells whose protein "signatures" differ from the targeted one.

Full text

PDF
3663

Images in this article

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Anderson W. F. Human gene therapy. Science. 1992 May 8;256(5058):808–813. doi: 10.1126/science.1589762. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Barnes G., Rine J. Regulated expression of endonuclease EcoRI in Saccharomyces cerevisiae: nuclear entry and biological consequences. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1985 Mar;82(5):1354–1358. doi: 10.1073/pnas.82.5.1354. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Barnes G., Rine J. Regulated expression of endonuclease EcoRI in Saccharomyces cerevisiae: nuclear entry and biological consequences. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1985 Mar;82(5):1354–1358. doi: 10.1073/pnas.82.5.1354. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Beg A. A., Baldwin A. S., Jr The I kappa B proteins: multifunctional regulators of Rel/NF-kappa B transcription factors. Genes Dev. 1993 Nov;7(11):2064–2070. doi: 10.1101/gad.7.11.2064. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Boon T. Toward a genetic analysis of tumor rejection antigens. Adv Cancer Res. 1992;58:177–210. doi: 10.1016/s0065-230x(08)60295-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Ciechanover A. The ubiquitin-proteasome proteolytic pathway. Cell. 1994 Oct 7;79(1):13–21. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(94)90396-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Folkman J. The role of angiogenesis in tumor growth. Semin Cancer Biol. 1992 Apr;3(2):65–71. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Hochstrasser M., Varshavsky A. In vivo degradation of a transcriptional regulator: the yeast alpha 2 repressor. Cell. 1990 May 18;61(4):697–708. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(90)90481-s. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Johnsson N., Varshavsky A. Split ubiquitin as a sensor of protein interactions in vivo. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1994 Oct 25;91(22):10340–10344. doi: 10.1073/pnas.91.22.10340. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Levine A. J. The tumor suppressor genes. Annu Rev Biochem. 1993;62:623–651. doi: 10.1146/annurev.bi.62.070193.003203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Levine A. J. The tumor suppressor genes. Annu Rev Biochem. 1993;62:623–651. doi: 10.1146/annurev.bi.62.070193.003203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Liou H. C., Baltimore D. Regulation of the NF-kappa B/rel transcription factor and I kappa B inhibitor system. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 1993 Jun;5(3):477–487. doi: 10.1016/0955-0674(93)90014-h. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Mulligan R. C. The basic science of gene therapy. Science. 1993 May 14;260(5110):926–932. doi: 10.1126/science.8493530. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Osborne M. A., Silver P. A. Nucleocytoplasmic transport in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Annu Rev Biochem. 1993;62:219–254. doi: 10.1146/annurev.bi.62.070193.001251. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Pastan I., Chaudhary V., FitzGerald D. J. Recombinant toxins as novel therapeutic agents. Annu Rev Biochem. 1992;61:331–354. doi: 10.1146/annurev.bi.61.070192.001555. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Pastan I., Chaudhary V., FitzGerald D. J. Recombinant toxins as novel therapeutic agents. Annu Rev Biochem. 1992;61:331–354. doi: 10.1146/annurev.bi.61.070192.001555. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Rabbitts T. H. Chromosomal translocations in human cancer. Nature. 1994 Nov 10;372(6502):143–149. doi: 10.1038/372143a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Schatz G. The protein import machinery of mitochondria. Protein Sci. 1993 Feb;2(2):141–146. doi: 10.1002/pro.5560020202. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Shigenaga M. K., Hagen T. M., Ames B. N. Oxidative damage and mitochondrial decay in aging. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1994 Nov 8;91(23):10771–10778. doi: 10.1073/pnas.91.23.10771. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Suzuki C. K., Suda K., Wang N., Schatz G. Requirement for the yeast gene LON in intramitochondrial proteolysis and maintenance of respiration. Science. 1994 Apr 8;264(5156):273–276. doi: 10.1126/science.8146662. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Varshavsky A. The N-end rule. Cell. 1992 May 29;69(5):725–735. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(92)90285-k. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Vitetta E. S., Thorpe P. E., Uhr J. W. Immunotoxins: magic bullets or misguided missiles? Immunol Today. 1993 Jun;14(6):252–259. doi: 10.1016/0167-5699(93)90041-I. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Vogelstein B., Kinzler K. W. The multistep nature of cancer. Trends Genet. 1993 Apr;9(4):138–141. doi: 10.1016/0168-9525(93)90209-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Vogelstein B., Kinzler K. W. The multistep nature of cancer. Trends Genet. 1993 Apr;9(4):138–141. doi: 10.1016/0168-9525(93)90209-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Wallace D. C. Mitochondrial genetics: a paradigm for aging and degenerative diseases? Science. 1992 May 1;256(5057):628–632. doi: 10.1126/science.1533953. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America are provided here courtesy of National Academy of Sciences

RESOURCES