Fan Chen1, Jie Liu2, Mingfeng Huang2, Mengjie Hu2, Ying Su1, Xiao-Kun Zhang1. 1. School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Xiamen University , Xiamen 361005, China ; Sanford-Burnham Medical Research Institute , 10901 North Torrey Pines Road, La Jolla, California 92037, United States. 2. School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Xiamen University , Xiamen 361005, China.
Abstract
Retinoid X receptor-alpha (RXRα) is implicated in the regulation of many biological processes and also represents a unique intracellular target for pharmacologic interventions. Efforts on discovery of small molecules targeting RXRα have been primarily focused on the molecules that bind to its classical ligand-binding pocket (LBP). Here, we report the identification and characterization of a new RXRα transcriptional antagonist by using structure-based virtual screening. The new antagonist binds with submicromolar affinity to RXRα (Kd = 4.88 × 10-7 M) and selectively inhibits RXRα transactivation. The compound does not bind to the LBP but to a hydrophobic groove on the surface of RXRα. The new compound also effectively suppresses AKT activation and promotes apoptosis of cancer cells in a RXRα-dependent manner by inhibiting tRXRα interaction with the p85α subunit of PI3K. Thus, the compound represents a new RXRα modulator that regulates the nongenomic actions of RXRα by surface binding.
Retinoid X receptor-alpha (RXRα) is implicated in the regulation of many biological processes and also represents a unique intracellular target for pharmacologic interventions. Efforts on discovery of small molecules targeting RXRα have been primarily focused on the molecules that bind to its classical ligand-binding pocket (LBP). Here, we report the identification and characterization of a new RXRα transcriptional antagonist by using structure-based virtual screening. The new antagonist binds with submicromolar affinity to RXRα (Kd = 4.88 × 10-7 M) and selectively inhibits RXRα transactivation. The compound does not bind to the LBP but to a hydrophobic groove on the surface of RXRα. The new compound also effectively suppresses AKT activation and promotes apoptosis of cancer cells in a RXRα-dependent manner by inhibiting tRXRα interaction with the p85α subunit of PI3K. Thus, the compound represents a new RXRα modulator that regulates the nongenomic actions of RXRα by surface binding.
Retinoid X receptor-α (RXRα), a unique member of the nuclear
receptor (NR) superfamily, plays an important role in many biological
processes ranging from apoptosis, cell differentiation, and growth
to lipid metabolism.[1−4] Altered expression and function of RXRα is implicated in the
development of a number of diseases and cancer.[1−4] Thus, RXRα has been an attractive
and important target for pharmacologic interventions and therapeutic
applications.[1−4] The first identified natural RXRα ligand was the vitamin A
derivative retinoid 9-cis retinoic acid (9-cis-RA).[1−4] Some fatty acids such as docosahexaenoic acid, oleic acid, and phytanic
acid also serve as ligands for RXRα. 9-cis-RA
and synthetic ligands (rexinoids) are effective in preventing tumorigenesis
and treating inflammatory diseases. Targretin (bexarotene), a rexinoid,
was approved for treating humancutaneous T-cell lymphoma.[1,5] RXRα acts primarily as a ligand-dependent transcription factor
through forming homodimer with itself or heterodimer with other members
of the NR family.Structurally, RXRα is composed of three
main functional domains: an N-terminal transcriptional activation
function (AF-1) region, a DNA-binding domain and a ligand-binding
domain (LBD).[3,4] The LBD possesses a canonical
ligand-binding pocket (LBP), a transactivation function domain 2 (AF-2)
composed of Helix 12 of the LBD, a coregulator binding surface, and
a dimerization surface.[3,4] The ligand-dependent transcription
regulation is predominately mediated through H12 that is highly mobile.
The coregulator binding surface is a region where the binding sites
of corepressor and the coactivator overlap. Canonical ligands bind
to the LBP to mediate directly the transcriptional activity and so
identifying and optimizing molecules that bind to its classical LBP
has been the focus of drug discovery efforts targeting RXRα.
A large pool of RXRα ligands that bind to the LBP have been
designed and reported.[1,6] However, there are key limitations
of treatment with rexinoids including unwanted side effects such as
rising of plasma triglyceride levels, suppression of the thyroid hormone
axis, and induction of hepatomegaly.[1,4−6] The current challenge is to discover selective RXRα modulators
with the desired pharmacological activities but lacking undesired
side effects.[1,4,6] Therefore,
targeting potential binding sites other than LBP could become a new
paradigm for RXRα-based drug discovery. One of these potential
binding sites is the coregulator-binding site.Compounds that
bind to the coregulator-binding site have been successfully demonstrated
for other NRs, including estrogen receptor (ER),[7] androgen receptor,[8,9] vitamin D receptor,
and thyroid receptor.[10−12] However, compounds that bind to the coregulator-binding
site of RXRα have not been reported. Inspired by the successes
reported for other NRs, we employed docking-based virtual screening
(VS) to identify RXRα modulators targeting the coregulator-binding
site. Here we report the identification and characterization of a
small molecule that binds to the coregulator-binding site of RXRα
to regulate its nongenomic actions.Docking-based VS is a popular
approach used in drug discovery where the structure of the target
or target homologue is available.[13] Many
crystal structures of RXRα LBD have been determined either in
apo form or in complex with ligands or with both ligand and coregulator
peptide,[4,6] offering an excellent opportunity to identify
new RXRα binding compounds using docking-based VS. A chemical
library of 200,000 compounds, commercially available from Specs (www.specs.net), was subjected to a Pipeline Pilot protocol[14] to filter out compounds that failed the Lipinski
rules[15] and that are potentially reactive
and contain undesired groups.[16] About 102,000
compounds left were then docked using Glide[17] to the coactivator binding site on RXRα using the structure
of RXRα LBD in complex with CD3254 and a coactivator peptide
(PDB code 3FUG).[18] Fourteen compounds (Figure S1A, Supporting Information) were selected for purchase
and biological testing after visual evaluation of the first 300 compounds
with the best docking score. Compound 7 (Figure 1A) showed the strongest antagonist activity (Figure
S1B, Supporting Information) among these
candidate compounds. Interestingly, part of 7 is similar
to a recently reported androgen receptor inhibitor that is a diarylhydrazide
and functions also via binding to the coactivator-binding site.[8] Similar to the classical RXRα antagonist
BI1003,[19]7 inhibited 9-cis-RA-induced RXRα transactivation in a dose-dependent
manner (Figure 1A). So analogues of 7 were searched and selected for preliminary SAR studies. Nine analogues
(Figure 1B) were available commercially and
ordered and tested for their RXRα antagonist effect and their
selectivity toward other nuclear receptors including ER, retinoic
acid receptor-γ (RARγ), and Nur77 (Figure 1C), as well as glucocorticoid receptor (GR), PPARγ,
and LXRα (Figure S2, Supporting Information). Among these compounds, 23 (ordered from www.specs.net under catalog number AE-848/34436002) showed an antagonist activity
similar to 7, but demonstrated the best selectivity for
RXRα. It significantly inhibited the activity of RXRα,
but not ER, GR, and Nur77, and showed slight inhibition of transactivation
of RARα, RARγ, PPARγ, and LXRα (Figures 1C and S2, Supporting Information), which are known to heterodimerize with RXRα.[20] Further, compound 23 showed very
little inhibitory effect on transactivation of RXRα/RARα
and RXRα/LXRα heterodimers (Figure S3, Supporting Information). We also tested the antagonist effect
of 23 toward the RXR subtypes RXRγ and RXRβ.
The results showed that overall 23 is more selective
toward RXRα though it demonstrated some inhibition of transactivation
of RXRγ and RXRβ (Figure S4, Supporting
Information). Thus, 23 is a new RXRα-selective
antagonist.
Figure 1
Identification of RXRα-selective antagonist 23. (A) Compound 7 and its antagonist effect on RXRα
transactivation. MCF-7 cells cotransfected with the reporter plasmids
pG5-Luc and pBind-RXRα-LBD were treated with 9-cis-RA (10–7 M) alone or together with 7 or BI1003 for 18 h. Luciferase reporter activities were measured
by using the Dual-Luciferase Reporter Assay System. Transfection efficiency
was normalized to Renilla luciferase activity. (B) Compounds related
to 7 identified by computational approach. (C) Antagonist
effect of compound 7 and analogues. MCF-7 cells cotransfected
with pG5-Luc and pBind-RXRα-LBD, pBind-ER-LBD, pBind-RARγ-LBD,
or pBind-Nur77-LBD were treated, respectively, with 9-cis-RA (10–7 M), propyl pyrazole triol (PPT) (10 μM),
and all-trans-RA (10–7 M), in the
presence or absence of compound (10 μM) for 18 h. Reporter activities
were measured as described above. Data shown are mean ± SD.
Identification of RXRα-selective antagonist 23. (A) Compound 7 and its antagonist effect on RXRα
transactivation. MCF-7 cells cotransfected with the reporter plasmids
pG5-Luc and pBind-RXRα-LBD were treated with 9-cis-RA (10–7 M) alone or together with 7 or BI1003 for 18 h. Luciferase reporter activities were measured
by using the Dual-Luciferase Reporter Assay System. Transfection efficiency
was normalized to Renilla luciferase activity. (B) Compounds related
to 7 identified by computational approach. (C) Antagonist
effect of compound 7 and analogues. MCF-7 cells cotransfected
with pG5-Luc and pBind-RXRα-LBD, pBind-ER-LBD, pBind-RARγ-LBD,
or pBind-Nur77-LBD were treated, respectively, with 9-cis-RA (10–7 M), propyl pyrazole triol (PPT) (10 μM),
and all-trans-RA (10–7 M), in the
presence or absence of compound (10 μM) for 18 h. Reporter activities
were measured as described above. Data shown are mean ± SD.A dose-dependent study showed
that 23 could inhibit 9-cis-RA-induced
RXRα transactivation with an IC50 of 2.45 μM
(Figure 2A). By using Biacore’s Surface
plasmon resonance (SPR) technology, we found that 23 could
bind to RXRα with a Kd of 4.88 ×
10–7 M (Figure 2B). The binding
of 23 to RXRα is unlikely due to its binding to
the RXRα LBP, as it failed to compete with the binding of [3H]9-cis-RA to the RXRα LBP. By contrast,
9-cis-RA competed well with [3H]9-cis-RA for binding to RXRα (Figure 2C).
Figure 2
RXRα antagonist 23 binds RXRα at a site
other than LBP. (A) Dose-dependent effect of 23 on inhibiting
RXRα transactivation. HEK293T cells cotransfected with pG5-Luc
and pBind-RXRα-LBD were treated with 9-cis-RA
(10–-7 M) alone or together with the indicated
concentration of 23 for 18 h. (B) SPR assay. Gradient
concentrations of 23 were injected through flow cells
immobilized with RXRα-LBD. The kinetic profiles are shown. The
dissociation constant (Kd) of the 23/RXRα-LBD complex was calculated to be 4.881 ×
10–7 M. (C) Compound 23 fails to compete
with 9-cis-RA for binding to RXRα LBP. The
bacterially expressed His-tagged RXRα-LBD was incubated with
7.5 nM [3H]-9-cis-RA in the presence or
absence of the indicated concentrations of 9-cis-RA
or 23. The RXRα LBD was captured by nickel-coated
beads. Bound [3H]-9-cis-RA was quantitated
by liquid scintillation counting. Data shown are mean ± SD.
RXRα antagonist 23 binds RXRα at a site
other than LBP. (A) Dose-dependent effect of 23 on inhibiting
RXRα transactivation. HEK293T cells cotransfected with pG5-Luc
and pBind-RXRα-LBD were treated with 9-cis-RA
(10–-7 M) alone or together with the indicated
concentration of 23 for 18 h. (B) SPR assay. Gradient
concentrations of 23 were injected through flow cells
immobilized with RXRα-LBD. The kinetic profiles are shown. The
dissociation constant (Kd) of the 23/RXRα-LBD complex was calculated to be 4.881 ×
10–7 M. (C) Compound 23 fails to compete
with 9-cis-RA for binding to RXRα LBP. The
bacterially expressed His-tagged RXRα-LBD was incubated with
7.5 nM [3H]-9-cis-RA in the presence or
absence of the indicated concentrations of 9-cis-RA
or 23. The RXRα LBD was captured by nickel-coated
beads. Bound [3H]-9-cis-RA was quantitated
by liquid scintillation counting. Data shown are mean ± SD.To confirm that 23 binds to the coregulator-binding site on the surface of RXRα,
mutagenesis in the site was carried out to validate its importance
in the antagonist effect of 23. Mutations in the coactivator-binding
site might impact not only the binding of 23 but also
the binding of coactivator, which would preclude our evaluation by
the reporter assay that depends on the binding of the coactivator.
However, comparison of the interactions of 23 and coactivator
to RXRα identified that Val298 in the Helix 4 of RXRα
is critical for the binding of 23 but not the coactivator
(Figure 3A). Thus, Val298 was mutated to Ser,
and the resulting mutant, RXRα-V298S, was subjected to evaluation
by the reporter assay. 9-cis-RA was able to activate
RXRα-V298S, similar to its effect on RXRα (Figures 3B and S5, Supporting Information), suggesting that mutation of Val298 did not impair the ability
of RXRα to bind to 9-cis-RA and to recruit
the coactivator. Classical antagonists, such as BI1003[19] and UVI3003,[21] also
potently inhibited the 9-cis-RA-induced RXRα-V298S
activity. By contrast, the antagonist effect of 23 was
largely reduced as compared to its inhibitory effect on RXRα.
Thus, Val298 is crucial for the binding of 23 but not classical RXRα
ligands and coregulators.
Figure 3
Coregulator-binding site of RXRα but not
its LBP is critical for the antagonist effect of 23.
(A) Val298 is critical for 23 binding revealed by modeling.
(B) Mutation of Val298 impairs the antagonist effect of 23. HEK-293T cells cotransfected with pG5-Luc and pBind-RXRα/V298S
were treated with the indicated compounds for 18 h. (C) Substitution
of Cys432 and Ala272 in RXRα with Trp impairs 9-cis-RA binding. Lysates of HEK-293T cells transfected with RXRα,
RXRα-C432W, or RXRα/A272W were incubated with 7.5 nM [3H]-9-cis-RA in the presence or absence of
unlabeled 9-cis-RA. The Myc-RXRα was captured
by hydroxylapatite. Bound [3H]-9-cis-RA
was quantitated. (D,E) Transactivation of RXRα LBP mutants.
HEK-293T cells cotransfected with pG5-Luc and the indicated RXRα
or mutant expression vector were treated with 9-cis-RA (10–7 M), BI1003 (1 μM), or the indicated
concentration of 23 for 18 h. Data shown are mean ±
SD.
Coregulator-binding site of RXRα but not
its LBP is critical for the antagonist effect of 23.
(A) Val298 is critical for 23 binding revealed by modeling.
(B) Mutation of Val298 impairs the antagonist effect of 23. HEK-293T cells cotransfected with pG5-Luc and pBind-RXRα/V298S
were treated with the indicated compounds for 18 h. (C) Substitution
of Cys432 and Ala272 in RXRα with Trp impairs 9-cis-RA binding. Lysates of HEK-293T cells transfected with RXRα,
RXRα-C432W, or RXRα/A272W were incubated with 7.5 nM [3H]-9-cis-RA in the presence or absence of
unlabeled 9-cis-RA. The Myc-RXRα was captured
by hydroxylapatite. Bound [3H]-9-cis-RA
was quantitated. (D,E) Transactivation of RXRα LBP mutants.
HEK-293T cells cotransfected with pG5-Luc and the indicated RXRα
or mutant expression vector were treated with 9-cis-RA (10–7 M), BI1003 (1 μM), or the indicated
concentration of 23 for 18 h. Data shown are mean ±
SD.To further exclude the possibility
that 23 binds to the LBP of RXRα, we designed and
constructed RXRα mutants with its LBP blocked. Computational
modeling suggested that substitution of Cys432 and Ala272 in the LBP
with a bulky amino acid such as Trp could block the passage of a ligand
to the LBP. Indeed, RXRα/C432W and RXRα/A272W failed to
show any binding to [3H]-9-cis-RA (Figure 3C), even though the mutant proteins were well expressed
(Figure S6, Supporting Information). In
contrast, RXRα bound well to [3H]-9-cis-RA, which was competed away by unlabeled 9-cis-RA.
F313A mutation is known to shift RXRα from an apo-receptor to
a constitutively active form.[22] In order
to utilize LBP-blocked mutants to evaluate the antagonist effect of 23, Phe313 in RXRα/C432W and RXRα/A272W was substituted
with Ala. As reported,[22] RXRα-F313A
is constitutived as active in the absence of 9-cis-RA. Similar to RXRα-F313A, both RXRα-C432W/F313A and
RXRα-A272W/F313A mutants showed strong constitutive transcriptional
activity (Figure 3D), making them ideal mutants
to evaluate the LBP-independent antagonist effect of 23. Treatment of cells with 23 could effectively inhibit
their constitutive activity in a dose-dependent manner, similar to
its effect on RXRα (Figure 3E). By contrast,
BI1003, which showed potent inhibitory effect on the transactivation
of RXRα and RXRα-F313A by binding to their LBP, had much
reduced inhibitory effect on the constitutive transactivation of both
mutants. Thus, the blockage of the LBP of RXRα, which affects
the activity of 9-cis-RA and the classical RXRα
antagonist BI1003, has no effect on the antagonist activity of 23, further confirming unique RXRα binding activity
of 23.We recently reported that modulation of
RXRα activity by certain RXRα ligands, such as Sulindac
and analogues, could inhibit AKT activation in cancer cells.[23,24] We therefore asked whether the LBP-independent binding of 23 could suppress AKT activation. A549 lung cancer and HepG2
liver cancer cells were treated with 23, and the activation
of AKT was examined. As shown in Figure 4A,
AKT activation in these cells was inhibited by 23 dose-dependently,
with apparent inhibition observed when 5–10 μM of 23 was used. Since TNFα could induce RXRα-dependent
AKT activation,[24] cells were also treated
with TNFα, and its activation of AKT in the absence or presence
of 23 was examined. Treatment of cells with TNFα
enhanced AKT activation, which was also suppressed by 23 (Figure 4A). Similar results were obtained
in PC-3prostate cancer cells (Figure S7, Supporting
Information) and other cancer cells including colon cancer
and pancreatic cancer cells (data not shown). We also evaluated the
apoptotic effect of 23 in cancer cells. A549 and HepG2
cells were treated with 23 in the absence or presence
of TNFα, and the cleavage of PARP, an indication of apoptosis
in cancer cells, was examined by immunoblotting (Figure 4B). Treatment of cancer cells with 23 induced
PARP cleavage, which was further enhanced by TNFα treatment.
Such apoptosis induction by 23 correlated well with its
inhibition of AKT activation, suggesting that AKT inhibition might
play a role in its induction of apoptosis.
Figure 4
Biological evaluation
of 23. (A,B) Inhibition of AKT activation (A) and induction
of apoptosis (B). Cells were pretreated with 23 for 24
h before being exposed to TNFα (20 ng/mL) for an additional
30 min. Lysates prepared were analyzed by Western blotting for AKT
activation (A) or PARP cleavage (B). (C) RXRα-dependent effects
of 23. A549 cells transfected with RXRα siRNA or
control siRNA for 48 h were treated with 23 for 24 h
before being exposed to TNFα (20 ng/mL) for an additional 30
min. Lysates prepared were analyzed by Western blotting. (D) Inhibition
of p85α interaction with tRXRα by 23. A549
cells transfected with myc-RXRα-Δ80 expression vector
were analyzed for their interaction with endogenous p85α by
coimmunoprecipitation assay using anti-Myc antibody. Immunoprecipitates
were analyzed by Western blotting for the presence of p85α and
Myc-RXRα-Δ80. One of three to five similar experiments
is shown.
Biological evaluation
of 23. (A,B) Inhibition of AKT activation (A) and induction
of apoptosis (B). Cells were pretreated with 23 for 24
h before being exposed to TNFα (20 ng/mL) for an additional
30 min. Lysates prepared were analyzed by Western blotting for AKT
activation (A) or PARP cleavage (B). (C) RXRα-dependent effects
of 23. A549 cells transfected with RXRα siRNA or
control siRNA for 48 h were treated with 23 for 24 h
before being exposed to TNFα (20 ng/mL) for an additional 30
min. Lysates prepared were analyzed by Western blotting. (D) Inhibition
of p85α interaction with tRXRα by 23. A549
cells transfected with myc-RXRα-Δ80 expression vector
were analyzed for their interaction with endogenous p85α by
coimmunoprecipitation assay using anti-Myc antibody. Immunoprecipitates
were analyzed by Western blotting for the presence of p85α and
Myc-RXRα-Δ80. One of three to five similar experiments
is shown.To determine whether the expression
of RXRα plays a role in the inhibition of AKT activation and
the induction of apoptosis by 23, A549 cells were transfected
with RXRα siRNA and evaluated for its effect on the role of 23 in AKT activation and apoptosis induction. Transfection
of RXRα siRNA reduced the levels of RXRα and its truncated
version, tRXRα,[24] and diminished
the effect of 23 on inducing PARP cleavage and inhibiting
AKT activation (Figure 4C). Furthermore, the
inhibitory effect of compound 23 on the growth of cancer
cells can be significantly enhanced by RXRα (Figure S8, Supporting Information). These results demonstrate
that RXRα plays a crucial role in mediating the biological effect
of 23 on cell death.We next determined whether 23 could affect tRXRα interaction with the p85α
regulatory subunit of PI3K, an event known to activate PI3K/AKT.[24] A549 cells were transfected with Myc-tagged
RXRα-Δ80, a mutant that mimics tRXRα,[24] and treated with or without TNFα and/or 23. Co-immunoprecipitation assays using anti-Myc antibody
showed that p85α was coimmunoprecipitated together with Myc-RXRα-Δ80
in cells treated with TNFα (Figure 4D),
demonstrating their interaction. However, when cells were cotreated
with 23, TNFα-induced interaction of Myc-RXRα-Δ80
with p85α was almost completely inhibited. Thus, 23 might induce apoptosis by suppressing AKT activation through its
inhibition of tRXRα interaction with p85α.We report
here through virtual screening our identification of a unique RXRα
antagonist, 23, which modulates RXRα activities
through LBP-independent binding. Several lines of evidence showed
that 23 acts through its binding to the surface of RXRα.
First, despite its high affinity for binding to RXRα revealed
by SPR study, 23 failed to compete with 9-cis-RA for binding to the LBP of RXRα revealed by the classical
ligand competition assay (Figure 2C). Second,
mutation of Val298, a critical amino acid residue in the hydrophobic
groove on the surface of RXRα, impaired the antagonist effect
of 23 (Figure 3A). Third, 23 could effectively inhibit the transcriptional activity
of RXRα mutants with impaired LBP (Figure 3D). To our knowledge, compounds that bind to the surface site of
RXRα have not been reported. Thus, 23 represents
the first small molecule capable of functionally binding to the surface
site of RXRα with submicromoloar affinity.Recent studies
demonstrated that RXRα could crosstalk extensively with signal
transduction pathways through its interaction with various signaling
proteins,[24] which are likely mediated through
its surface binding sites. When the effect of 23 on the
PI3K/AKT signaling was examined, we found that it could suppress basal
and TNFα-induced AKT activation (Figure 4A) and induce apoptosis (Figure 4B) in cancer
cells in a RXRα-dependent manner (Figure 4C). Our coimmunoprecipitation assays demonstrated that 23 could block tRXRα interaction with p85α (Figure 4D). Thus, the unique surface binding of 23 could interfere with the binding of some RXRα-interacting
proteins, providing an opportunity to regulate RXRα activities
by targeting the coregulator-binding sites. The report of the structure
of estrogen receptor-β with a second molecule of 4-hydroxytamoxifen
bound in its coactivator-binding surface provides insight into the
possible pharmacological effects of the drug through its binding to
the surface site on NR.[25] Thus, our demonstrations
that 23 could bind to the coregulator-binding site of
RXRα and regulate the PI3K/AKT signaling pathway and apoptosis
in cancer cells provide a new approach to target a functionally important
surface site on RXRα that could represent a new strategy to
tackle the specificity issue.
Authors: Richard A Friesner; Jay L Banks; Robert B Murphy; Thomas A Halgren; Jasna J Klicic; Daniel T Mainz; Matthew P Repasky; Eric H Knoll; Mee Shelley; Jason K Perry; David E Shaw; Perry Francis; Peter S Shenkin Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2004-03-25 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: Virginie Nahoum; Efrén Pérez; Pierre Germain; Fátima Rodríguez-Barrios; Fabio Manzo; Sabrina Kammerer; Geraldine Lemaire; Oliver Hirsch; Catherine A Royer; Hinrich Gronemeyer; Angel R de Lera; William Bourguet Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2007-10-18 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Kornelia J Skowron; Kenneth Booker; Changfeng Cheng; Simone Creed; Brian P David; Phillip R Lazzara; Amy Lian; Zamia Siddiqui; Thomas E Speltz; Terry W Moore Journal: Mol Cell Endocrinol Date: 2019-06-01 Impact factor: 4.102