Back

Ligand-Induced Structural Dynamics Drive Allosteric Regulation of Translation Initiation Factor eIF4E

Roscioni, A.; D'Amore, V. M.; Rexha, J.; Bianchini, G. R.; La Teana, A.; Di Marino, D.; Romagnoli, A.; Di Leva, F. S.

2026-01-30 biophysics
10.64898/2025.12.23.696204 bioRxiv
Show abstract

The eukaryotic initiation factor 4E (eIF4E) governs cap-dependent translation, and its dysregulation contributes both to cancer and neurological disorders, making it an attractive target for therapeutic intervention. Among the few small-molecule inhibitors developed, 4EGI-1 and its analogue i4EG-BiP have shown promise in cellular and preclinical models. These compounds disrupt eIF4Es interaction with its partner eIF4G while enhancing binding to its negative regulators, the 4E-binding proteins (4E-BPs). Despite their chemical similarity and overlapping functional effects, structural data suggest the two ligands engage different regions of eIF4E, lateral for 4EGI-1 and frontal for i4EG-BiP, raising questions about the basis of their shared activity. Here, we integrate molecular simulations, site-directed mutagenesis, and fluorescence binding assays to elucidate the mechanism of action of both ligands. Funnel metadynamics free-energy calculations reveal that the frontal binding mode is thermodynamically preferred for both compounds. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the conformational rearrangement induced by frontal binding selectively promotes 4E-BP1 over eIF4G association, explaining their common allosteric regulatory effect. These findings reconcile divergent structural observations and highlight how ligand-induced dynamics can be exploited to reprogram eIF4E interactions, offering a framework for next-generation therapeutics targeting dysregulated translation.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.