Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28474232›Full record

ReviewClinical and translational medicine2017

ETS-targeted therapy: can it substitute for MEK inhibitors?

Osamu Tetsu, Frank McCormick

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical and translational medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Dynamics of m6A RNA Methylome on the Hallmarks of Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2021
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Molecular determinants of drug response in TNBC cell lines.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Osamu TetsuDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA. Osamu.Tetsu@ucsf.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1820-7539
Frank McCormickUCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA.
University of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

New Ways of Targeting K-RasR35CA197709 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI MCCORMICK, FRANK PATRICK · 2016 to 2022
$6.7M
NCI NIH HHS R35 CA197709
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe RAS/MAPK pathway has been intensively studied in cancer. Constitutive activation of ERK1 and ERK2 is frequently found in cancer cells from a variety of tissues. In clinical practice and clinical trials, small molecules targeting receptor tyrosine kinases or components in the MAPK cascade are used for treatment. MEK1 and MEK2 are ideal targets because these enzymes are physiologically important and have narrow substrate specificities and distinctive structural characteristics. Despite success in pre-clinical testing, only two MEK inhibitors, trametinib and cobimetinib, have been approved, both for treatment of BRAF-mutant melanoma. Surprisingly, the efficacy of MEK inhibitors in other tumors has been disappointing. These facts suggest the need for a different approach. We here consider transcription factor ETS1 and ETS2 as alternate therapeutic targets because they are major MAPK downstream effectors. MAIN TEXT: The lack of clinical efficacy of MEK inhibitors is attributed mostly to a subsequent loss of negative feedback regulation in the MAPK pathway. To overcome this obstacle, second-generation MEK inhibitors, so-called "feedback busters," have been developed. However, their efficacy is still unsatisfactory in the majority of cancers. To substitute ETS-targeted therapy, therapeutic strategies to modulate the transcription factor in cancer must be considered. Chemical targeting of ETS1 for proteolysis is a promising strategy; Src and USP9X inhibitors might achieve this by accelerating ETS1 protein turnover. Targeting the ETS1 interface might have great therapeutic value because ETS1 dimerizes itself or with other transcription factors to regulate target genes. In addition, transcriptional cofactors, including CBP/p300 and BRD4, represent intriguing targets for both ETS1 and ETS2.

conclusionsETS-targeted therapy appears to be promising. However, it may have a potential problem. It might inhibit autoregulatory negative feedback loops in the MAPK pathway, with consequent resistance to cell death by ERK1 and ERK2 activation. Further research is warranted to explore clinically applicable ways to inhibit ETS1 and ETS2.

Indexed as

Adaptive drug resistanceBRD4CBP/p300c-SrcETS1/2MEK inhibitorsProteolysisTargeted therapyTranscriptional co-activatorsUSP9X

Identifiers

PMID28474232
PMCPMC5418169
OpenAlexW2611450565

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.