SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · PPR

Targeting Dual-Impact FBXO7 Mutants Implicated in Parkinson’s Disease and Cancer: An Integrated Approach Using Density Functional Theory, Molecular Docking, and Molecular Dynamics

· 2025-10-15

DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7673889/v1

Check source for accessPreprintOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Abstract Cancer and Parkinson's disease (PD), despite their distinct pathologies, exhibit shared molecular mechanisms, particularly involving the dysregulation of autophagy and the ubiquitin-proteasome system. FBXO7 emerges as a crucial protein at the intersection of these diseases, possessing a subset of five mutations with roles in both neurodegeneration and oncogenesis. This study investigates the FP domain of FBXO7 as a therapeutic target; strikingly, three of these mutations are located within the FP domain, underlining its importance as a therapeutic target. We screened a library of 842 covalent inhibitors against the native (PDB ID: 4L9C) and three dual-impact FBXO7 variants (P225L, T249A, R306H). The selected inhibitors were evaluated through ADMET profiling, pharmacophore modeling, and density functional theory (DFT) analyses. Molecular docking was employed to predict binding affinities, and molecular dynamics simulations were conducted to assess protein-ligand complex stability and dynamics. Our findings identify a potential dual inhibitor, C24H25F3N4O2, that addresses a significant research gap, sheds light on this understudied domain, and highlights its potential to modulate both PD and cancer.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.