Biomolecular Interfaces Provide Universal Markers for Drug Specificity and Personalized Medicine

  • Ariel Fernández Stigliano


Chapter 9 illustrated the power of the wrapping concept as guidance to engineer specificity and enhance safety in a kinase inhibitor. Yet, only a universal selectivity filter, applicable to the entire human kinome—even to kinases with unreported structure——and to idiosyncratic variations of the kinome would be truly useful for the drug designer. This chapter thematically belongs to the bioinformatics realm and addresses this issue at the broadest possible level. The surveyed findings reveal that targeting the epistructural singularities defined by protein dehydrons ushers a new generation of drugs that enable a tighter control of specificity and a personalization of the treatment. The universality of this selectivity filter in the field of therapeutic interference with cell signaling is thus established. The concepts introduced in this chapter are further extended to the realm of personalized molecular therapy (“the right drug for the right person”), since this area is regarded as a major imperative of post-genomic medicine. This perception is reinforced almost daily as promising therapeutic agents are recalled because of idiosyncratic side effects detected in small subpopulations of patients. However pressing the need, rational approaches to personalized drug therapy will ultimately and pivotally depend on our ability to translate genomic individualities and variations into molecular biomarkers that can guide a patient-tailored design. This chapter addresses also this issue and describes how the wrapping design concept can be brought to fruition in the personalization of drug therapy. The chapter introduces plausible scenarios in which genomic idiosyncrasies and oncogenic variations may promote targetable differences in the wrapping patterns of the gene products. Ultimately, the chapter extends an invitation to adopt and exploit protein wrapping as a molecular biomarker for personalized medicine within an enabling platform to tailor drugs to patient idiosyncrasies.


Selectivity Filter Nonpolar Group Kinase Target Nonpolar Residue Backbone Hydrogen Bond 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Bain J, McLauchlan H, Eliott M, Cohen P (2003) The specificities of protein kinase inhibitors: an update. Biochem J 371:199–204CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Druker BJ (2004) Molecularly targeted therapy: have the floodgates opened? Oncologist 9:357–360CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hopkins AL, Mason JS, Overington JP (2006) Can we rationally design promiscuous drugs? Curr Opin Struct Biol 16:127–136CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Huse M, Kuriyan J (2002) The conformational plasticity of protein kinases. Cell 109:275–282CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Knight ZA, Shokat KM (2005) Features of selective kinase inhibitors. Chem Biol 12:621–637CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chothia C (1974) Hydrophobic bonding and accessible surface area in proteins. Nature 248:338–339CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Whittle PJ, Blundell TL (1994) Protein structure-based drug design. Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Struct 23:349–375CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Feng BY, Shelat A, Doman TN, Guy RK, Shoichet BK (2005) High throughput assays for promiscuous inhibitors. Nat Chem Biol 1:146–148CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zhang X, Crespo A, Fernández A (2008) Trung promiscuous kinase inhibitors into safer drugs. Trends Biotech 26:295–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chen JP, Zhang X, Fernández A (2007) Molecular basis for specificity in the druggable kinome: sequence-based analysis. Bioinformatics 23:563–572CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Manning G, Whyte DB, Martinez R, Hunter T, Sudarsanam S (2002) The protein kinase complement of the human genome. Science 298:1912–1934CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Braken C, Iakoucheva LM, Romero PR, Dunker AK (2004) Combining prediction, computation and experiment for the characterization of protein disorder. Curr Opin Struct Biol 14:570–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fernández A, Berry RS (2004) Molecular dimension explored in evolution to promote proteomic complexity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:13460–13465CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fabian MA, Biggs WH, Treiber DK et al (2005) A small molecule kinase interaction map for clinical kinase inhibitors. Nat Biotech 23:329–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Karaman MW, Herrgard S, Treiber DK et al (2008) A quantitative analysis of kinase inhibitor selectivity. Nat Biotech 26:127–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bonneau R, Straus CE, Rohl CA et al (2002) De novo prediction of three-dimensional structures for major protein families. J Mol Biol 322:65–78CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chivian D, Kim DE, Malmstrom L et al (2005) Prediction of CASP6 structures using automated Robetta protocols. Proteins 61(Suppl 7):157–166CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Higgins DG, Thompson JD, Gibson TJ (1996) Using CLUSTAL for multiple sequence alignments. Methods Enzymol 266:383–402CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fraczkiewicz R, Braun W (1998) Exact and efficient analytical calculation of the accessible surface areas and their gradient for macromolecules. J Comput Chem 19:319–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ooi T, Oobatake M, Nemethy G, Scheraga HA (1987) Accessible surface area as a measure of the thermodynamic parameters of hydration of peptides. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 84:3086–3090CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ma B, Elkayam T, Wolfson T, Nussinov R (2003) Protein-protein interactions structurally conserved residues distinguish between binding sites and exposed protein surfaces. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:5772–5777CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fernández A, Maddipati S (2006) A priori inference of cross reactivity for drug-targeted kinases. J Med Chem 49:3092–3100CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fernández A, Sosnick TR, Colubri A (2002) Dynamics of hydrogen bond desolvation in protein folding. J Mol Biol 321:659–675CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fernández A (2004) Keeping dry and crossing membranes. Nat Biotech 22:1081–1084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gazdar A (2009) Personalized medicine and inhibition of EGFR signaling in lung cancer. New Eng J Med 361:1018–1020CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Janne PA, Gray N, Settleman J (2009) Factors underlying sensitivity of cancers to small molecule kinase inhibitors. Nat Rev Drug Discov 8:709–723CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fernández A, Sanguino A, Peng Z, Crespo A, Ozturk E, Zhang X, Wang S, Bornmann W, Lopez-Berestein (2007) Rational drug redesign to overcome drug resistance in cancer therapy: imatinib moving target. Cancer Res 67:4028–4033CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hubbard SR (2004) Oncogenic mutations in B-Raf: some losses yield gains. Cell 116:764–766CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Research Council–CONICETBuenos AiresArgentina
  2. 2.Former Karl F. Hasselmann Endowed Chair Professor of BioengineeringRice UniversityHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations