↓ Skip to main content

Assessing histone demethylase inhibitors in cells: lessons learned

Overview of attention for article published in Epigenetics & Chromatin, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Assessing histone demethylase inhibitors in cells: lessons learned
Published in
Epigenetics & Chromatin, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13072-017-0116-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephanie B. Hatch, Clarence Yapp, Raquel C. Montenegro, Pavel Savitsky, Vicki Gamble, Anthony Tumber, Gian Filippo Ruda, Vassilios Bavetsias, Oleg Fedorov, Butrus Atrash, Florence Raynaud, Rachel Lanigan, LeAnne Carmichael, Kathy Tomlin, Rosemary Burke, Susan M. Westaway, Jack A. Brown, Rab K. Prinjha, Elisabeth D. Martinez, Udo Oppermann, Christopher J. Schofield, Chas Bountra, Akane Kawamura, Julian Blagg, Paul E. Brennan, Olivia Rossanese, Susanne Müller

Abstract

Histone lysine demethylases (KDMs) are of interest as drug targets due to their regulatory roles in chromatin organization and their tight associations with diseases including cancer and mental disorders. The first KDM inhibitors for KDM1 have entered clinical trials, and efforts are ongoing to develop potent, selective and cell-active 'probe' molecules for this target class. Robust cellular assays to assess the specific engagement of KDM inhibitors in cells as well as their cellular selectivity are a prerequisite for the development of high-quality inhibitors. Here we describe the use of a high-content cellular immunofluorescence assay as a method for demonstrating target engagement in cells. A panel of assays for the Jumonji C subfamily of KDMs was developed to encompass all major branches of the JmjC phylogenetic tree. These assays compare compound activity against wild-type KDM proteins to a catalytically inactive version of the KDM, in which residues involved in the active-site iron coordination are mutated to inactivate the enzyme activity. These mutants are critical for assessing the specific effect of KDM inhibitors and for revealing indirect effects on histone methylation status. The reported assays make use of ectopically expressed demethylases, and we demonstrate their use to profile several recently identified classes of KDM inhibitors and their structurally matched inactive controls. The generated data correlate well with assay results assessing endogenous KDM inhibition and confirm the selectivity observed in biochemical assays with isolated enzymes. We find that both cellular permeability and competition with 2-oxoglutarate affect the translation of biochemical activity to cellular inhibition. High-content-based immunofluorescence assays have been established for eight KDM members of the 2-oxoglutarate-dependent oxygenases covering all major branches of the JmjC-KDM phylogenetic tree. The usage of both full-length, wild-type and catalytically inactive mutant ectopically expressed protein, as well as structure-matched inactive control compounds, allowed for detection of nonspecific effects causing changes in histone methylation as a result of compound toxicity. The developed assays offer a histone lysine demethylase family-wide tool for assessing KDM inhibitors for cell activity and on-target efficacy. In addition, the presented data may inform further studies to assess the cell-based activity of histone lysine methylation inhibitors.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 91 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 32 35%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 18%
Student > Master 7 8%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 13 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 25 27%
Chemistry 22 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 17 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 January 2018.
All research outputs
#13,307,934
of 22,957,478 outputs
Outputs from Epigenetics & Chromatin
#362
of 568 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,906
of 311,244 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Epigenetics & Chromatin
#9
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,957,478 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 568 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 311,244 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.