Bortezomib’s Scientific Origins and Its Tortuous Path to the Clinic

  • Alfred L. Goldberg
Part of the Milestones in Drug Therapy book series (MDT)


The development of bortezomib for the treatment of multiple myeloma was made possible by multiple major advances in our understanding of intracellular protein breakdown. The primary route for degradation of intracellular proteins is the ubiquitin–proteasome pathway, in which protein substrates are linked to ubiquitin chains, which marks them for degradation by the large proteolytic complex, the 26S proteasome. It utilizes ATP to unfold protein substrates and inject them into the 20S proteasome where proteins are digested to small peptides. Its active sites cleave proteins by an unusual mechanism that allows their selective inhibition by bortezomib. This molecule was generated by a small biotechnology company whose initial goal was to synthesize proteasome inhibitors to reduce the excessive proteolysis that causes muscle atrophy and cachexia. However, the availability of proteasome inhibitors suggested other therapeutic possibilities; for example, its role in the activation of the NF-κB suggested anti-inflammatory and antineoplastic actions and led to clinical trials against various cancers. Indications of the special sensitivity of multiple myeloma were observed in Phase I trials, and bortezomib was initially approved after only Phase II trials. In myeloma cells, NF-κB is particularly important for cell growth, but bortezomib has multiple antineoplastic actions, especially its ability to inhibit the selective degradation of misfolded proteins, and myeloma cells are continually generating such abnormal immunoglobins. Although its development was unusually rapid, these efforts encountered many obstacles, and several times were almost terminated. Beyond their major clinical impact, proteasome inhibitors are extremely useful research tools and have enabled enormous advances in our understanding of cell regulation, immune mechanisms, and disease.


Multiple Myeloma Proteasome Inhibitor Proteasome Pathway Protein Breakdown Gate Opening 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The author is grateful to Mary Dethavong for her expert assistance in the preparation of this manuscript (and our other recent articles). The research from Dr. Goldberg’s laboratory reviewed here has been supported by grants from the NIH (NIGMS and NIA), the Muscular Dystrophy Association, the Ellison Foundation, and the Multiple Myeloma Foundation.

Dr. Goldberg receives royalty income from Millennium, Inc. He also has received special considerations and help from his wife, Dr. Joan Goldberg, a practicing hematologist, who thanks to bortezomib is now convinced that working on the proteasome is a worthwhile activity.


  1. 1.
    Goldberg AL (1969) Protein turnover in skeletal muscle II: effects of denervation and cortisone on protein catabolism in skeletal muscle. J Biol Chem 244:3223–3229PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mitch WE, Goldberg AL (1996) Mechanisms of muscle wasting. The role of the ubiquitin-proteasome pathway. N Engl J Med 335(25):1897–1905PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lecker SH et al (1999) Muscle protein breakdown and the critical role of the ubiquitin-proteasome pathway in normal and disease states. J Nutr 129(1S Suppl):227S–237SPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Goldberg AL, Dice JF (1974) Intracellular protein degradation in mammalian and bacterial cells. Annu Rev Biochem 43:835–869PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goldberg AL, St John AC (1976) Intracellular protein degradation in mammalian and bacterial cells: part 2. Annu Rev Biochem 45:747–803PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goldberg AL (1971) A role of aminoacyl-tRNA in the regulation of protein breakdown in Escherichia coli. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 68:362–366PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goldberg AL (1972) Degradation of abnormal proteins in E. coli. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 69:422–426PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goldberg AL (2005) Nobel committee tags ubiquitin for distinction. Neuron 45(3):339–344PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Etlinger JD, Goldberg AL (1977) A soluble ATP-dependent proteolytic system responsible for the degradation of abnormal proteins in reticulocytes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 74(1):54–58PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hershko A, Ciechanover A (1998) The ubiquitin system. Annu Rev Biochem 67:425–479PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Glickman M, Ciechanover A (2002) The ubiquitin-proteasome proteolytic pathway: destruction for the sake of construction. Physiol Rev 82:373–428PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goldberg AL (1992) The mechanism and functions of ATP-dependent proteases in bacterial and animal cells. Eur J Biochem 203(1–2):9–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wickner S, Maurizi MR, Gottesman S (1999) Posttranslational quality control: folding, refolding, and degrading proteins. Science 286(5446):1888–1893PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Coux O, Tanaka K, Goldberg AL (1996) Structure and functions of the 20S and 26S proteasomes. Annu Rev Biochem 65:801–847PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 14a.
    Tanaka K, Waxman L, Goldberg AL (2005) ATP serves two distinct roles in protein degradation in reticulocytes, one requiring and one independent of ubiquitin. J Cell Biol 96(6):1580–1585Google Scholar
  16. 15.
    DeMartino GN, Goldberg AL (1979) Identification and partial purification of an ATP-stimulated alkaline protease in rat liver. J Biol Chem 254:3712–3715PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 16.
    Hough R, Pratt G, Rechsteiner M (1987) Purification of two high molecular weight proteases from rabbit reticulocyte lysate. J Biol Chem 261:2400–2408Google Scholar
  18. 17.
    Waxman L, Fagan JM, Goldberg AL (1987) Demonstration of two distinct high molecular weight proteases in rabbit reticulocytes, one of which degrades ubiquitin conjugates. J Biol Chem 262(6):2451–2457PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 18.
    Orlowski M (1990) The multicatalytic proteinase complex, a major extralysosomal proteolytic system. Biochemistry 29(45):10289–10297PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 19.
    Arrigo A-P et al (1988) Identity of the 19S ‘prosome’ particle with the large multifunctional protease complex of mammalian cells (the proteasome). Nature 331:192–194PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 20.
    Matthews W et al (1989) Involvement of the proteasome in various degradative processes in mammalian cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 86(8):2597–2601PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 21.
    Eytan E et al (1989) ATP-dependent incorporation of 20S protease into the 26S complex that degrades proteins conjugated to ubiquitin. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 86:7751–7755PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 22.
    Driscoll J, Goldberg AL (1990) The proteasome (multicatalytic protease) is a component of the 1500 kDa proteolytic complex which degrades ubiquitin-conjugated proteins. J Biol Chem 265:4789–4792PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 23.
    Bodine SC et al (2001) Identification of ubiquitin ligases required for skeletal muscle atrophy. Science 294:1704–1708PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 24.
    Gomes M et al (2001) Atrogin-1, a muscle-specific F-box protein highly expressed during muscle atrophy. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98(25):14440–14445PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 25.
    Jagoe RT et al (2002) Patterns of gene expression in atrophying skeletal muscles: response to food deprivation. FASEB J 16(13):1697–1712PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 26.
    Lecker SH et al (2004) Multiple types of skeletal muscle atrophy involve a common program of changes in gene expression. FASEB J 18(1):39–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 27.
    Sacheck JM et al (2004) IGF-1 stimulates muscle growth by suppressing protein breakdown and expression of atrophy-related ubiquitin-ligases, atrogin-1 and MuRF1. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 287(4):E591–E601PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 28.
    Tawa NE, Odessey R, Goldberg AL (1997) Inhibitors of the proteasome reduce the accelerated proteolysis in atrophying rat skeletal muscles. J Clin Invest 100:197–203PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 29.
    Rock KL et al (1994) Inhibitors of the proteasome block the degradation of most cell proteins and the generation of peptides presented on MHC class 1 molecules. Cell 78(5):761–771PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 30.
    Silverman N, Maniatis T (2001) NF-kappaB signaling pathways in mammalian and insect innate immunity. Genes Dev 15(18):2321–2342PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 31.
    Lee DH, Goldberg AL (1998) Proteasome inhibitors: valuable new tools for cell biologists. Trends Cell Biol 8(10):397–403PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 32.
    Kisselev AF, Goldberg AL (2001) Proteasome inhibitors: from research tools to drug candidates. Chem Biol 8(8):739–758PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 33.
    Lee DH, Goldberg AL (1999) The proteasome inhibitors and their uses. In: Wolf DH, Hilt W (eds) Proteasomes: The World of Regulatory Proteolysis. Landes Bioscience Publishing Co, Georgetown, TXGoogle Scholar
  35. 34.
    Voges D, Zwickl P, Baumeister W (1999) The 26S proteasome: a molecular machine designed for controlled proteolysis. Annu Rev Biochem 68:1015–1068PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 35.
    Palombella VJ et al (1994) The ubiquitin-proteasome pathway is required for processing the NF-kappa-B1 precursor protein and the activation of NF-kappa-B. Cell 78(5):773–785PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 36.
    Akopian TN, Kisselev AF, Goldberg AL (1997) Processive degradation of proteins and other catalytic properties of the proteasome from Thermoplasma acidophilum. J Biol Chem 272(3):1791–1798Google Scholar
  38. 37.
    Kisselev AF et al (1999) The sizes of peptides generated from protein by mammalian 26S and 20S proteasomes: implications for understanding the degradative mechanism and antigen presentation. J Biol Chem 274(6):3363–3371PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 38.
    Holzl H et al (2000) The regulatory complex of Drosophila melanogaster 26S proteasomes: subunit composition and localization of a deubiquitylating enzyme. J Cell Biol 150(1): 119–129PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 39.
    Besche HC et al (2009) Isolation of mammalian 26S proteasomes and p97/VCP complexes using the ubiquitin-like domain from HHR23B reveals novel proteasome-associated proteins. Biochemistry 48(11):2538–2549PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 40.
    Tanahashi N et al (2000) Hybrid proteasomes. Induction by interferon-gamma and contribution to ATP-dependent proteolysis. J Biol Chem 275(19):14336–14345PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 41.
    Yang Y et al (1995) In vivo assembly of the proteasomal complexes, implications for antigen processing. J Biol Chem 270(46):27687–27694PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 42.
    Gronostajski R, Pardee AB, Goldberg AL (1985) The ATP-dependence of the degradation of short- and long-lived proteins in growing fibroblasts. J Biol Chem 260:3344–3349PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 43.
    Whitby FG et al (2000) Structural basis for the activation of 20S proteasomes by 11S regulators. Nature 408(6808):115–120PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 44.
    Cascio P et al (2002) Properties of the hybrid form of the 26S proteasome containing both 19S and PA28 complexes. EMBO J 21(11):2636–2645PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 45.
    Rechsteiner M, Realini C, Ustrell V (2000) The proteasome activator 11S REG (PA28) and class I antigen presentation. Biochem J 345(1):1–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 46.
    Rock KL, Goldberg AL (1999) Degradation of cell proteins and the generation of MHC class I-presented peptides. Annu Rev Immunol 17:739–779PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 47.
    Goldberg AL et al (2002) The importance of the proteasome and subsequent proteolytic steps in the generation of antigenic peptides. Mol Immunol 1169:1–17Google Scholar
  49. 48.
    Baumeister W et al (1998) The proteasome: paradigm of a self-compartmentalizing protease. Cell 92:367–380PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 49.
    Groll M et al (1997) Structure of 20S proteasome from yeast at 2.4 Å resolution. Nature 386(6624):463–471PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 50.
    Groll M et al (2000) A gated channel into the proteasome core particle. Nat Struct Biol 7(11): 1062–1067PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 51.
    Wenzel T, Baumeister W (1995) Conformational constraints in protein degradation by the 20S proteasome. Nat Struct Biol 2(3):199–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 52.
    Smith DM et al (2005) ATP binding to PAN or the 26S ATPases causes association with the 20S proteasome, gate opening, and translocation of unfolded proteins. Mol Cell 20(5):687–698PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 53.
    Smith DM et al (2007) Docking of the proteasomal ATPases’ carboxyl termini in the 20S proteasome’s alpha ring opens the gate for substrate entry. Mol Cell 27(5):731–744PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 54.
    Peth A, Besche HC, Goldberg AL (2009) Ubiquitinated proteins activate the proteasome by binding to Usp14/Ubp6, which causes 20S gate opening. Mol Cell 36(5):794–804PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 54a.
    Goldberg AL, Rock K (2002) Not just research tools--proteasome inhibitors offer therapeutic promise. Nat Med 8(4):338–340Google Scholar
  57. 54b.
    Soucy TA, Smith PG, Milhollen MA, Berger AJ, Gavin JM, Adhikari S, Brownell JE, Burke KE, Cardin DP, Critchley S, Cullis CA, Doucette A, Garnsey JJ, Gaulin JL, Gershman RE, Lublinsky AR, McDonald A, Mizutani H, Narayanan U, Olhava EJ, Peluso S, Rezaei M, Sintchak MD, Talreja T, Thomas MP, Traore T, Vyskocil S, Weatherhead GS, Yu J, Zhang J, Dick LR, Claiborne CF, Rolfe M, Bolen JB, Langston SP (2009) An inhibitor of NEDD8-activating enzyme as a new approach to treat cancer. Nature 458(7239):732–736Google Scholar
  58. 55.
    Köhler A et al (2001) The axial channel of the proteasome core particle is gated by the Rpt2 ATPase and controls both substrate entry and product release. Mol Cell 7(6):1143–1152PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 56.
    Kisselev AF, Kaganovich D, Goldberg AL (2002) Binding of hydrophobic peptides to several non-catalytic sites promotes peptide hydrolysis by all active sites for 20S proteasomes. Evidence for peptide-induced channel opening in the alpha-rings. J Biol Chem 277(25): 22260–22270PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 57.
    Brannigan JA et al (1995) A protein catalytic framework with an N-terminal nucleophile is capable of self-activation. Nature 378(6555):416–419PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 58.
    Löwe J et al (1995) Crystal structure of the 20S proteasome from the archaeon T. acidophilum at 3.4 Å resolution. Science 268(5210):533–539PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 59.
    Kisselev AF, Songyang Z, Goldberg AL (2000) Why does threonine, and not serine, function as the active site nucleophile in proteasomes? J Biol Chem 275(20):14831–14837PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 60.
    Fenteany G et al (1995) Inhibition of proteasome activities and subunit-specific amino-terminal threonine modification by lactacystin. Science 268(5211):726–731PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 61.
    Bogyo M et al (1997) Covalent modification of the active site Thr of proteasome beta-subunits and the E. coli homologue HslV by a new class of inhibitors. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:6629–6634PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 62.
    Meng L et al (1999) Epoxomicin, a potent and selective proteasome inhibitor, exhibits in vivo antiinflammatory activity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96(18):10403–10408PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 62a.
    Kaneko T, Hamazaki J, Iemura S, Sasaki K, Furuyama K, Natsume T, Tanaka K, Murata S (2009) Assembly pathway of the Mammalian proteasome base subcomplex is mediated by multiple specific chaperones. Cell 137(5):914–925Google Scholar
  67. 62b.
    Besche HC, Peth A, Goldberg AL (2009) Getting to first base in proteasome assembly. Cell 138(1):25–28Google Scholar
  68. 63.
    Kisselev AF, Callard A, Goldberg AL (2006) Importance of the proteasome’s different proteolytic sites and the efficacy of inhibitors varies with the protein substrate. J Biol Chem 281:8582–8590PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 64.
    Glickman MH et al (1998) A subcomplex of the proteasome regulatory particle required for ubiquitin-conjugate degradation and related to the COP9-signalosome and eIF3. Cell 94(5): 615–623PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 65.
    Hochstrasser M (2002) New proteases in a ubiquitin stew. Science 298:549–552PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 66.
    Verma R et al (2002) Role of Rpn11 metalloprotease in deubiquitination and degradation by the 26S proteasome. Science 298(5593):611–615PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 67.
    Benaroudj N et al (2003) ATP hydrolysis by the proteasome regulatory complex PAN serves multiple functions in protein degradation. Mol Cell 11(1):69–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 68.
    Zwickl P, Goldberg AL, Baumeister W (2000) Proteasomes in prokaryotes. In: Wolf DH, Hilt W (eds) Proteasomes: the world of regulatory proteolysis. Landes Bioscience, Georgetown, TXGoogle Scholar
  74. 69.
    Zwickl P et al (1999) An archaebacterial ATPase, homologous to ATPases in the eukaryotic 26S proteasome, activates protein breakdown by 20S proteasomes. J Biol Chem 274(37): 26008–26014PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 70.
    Wilson HL et al (2000) Biochemical and physical properties of the Methanococcus jannaschii 20S proteasome and PAN, a homolog of the ATPase (Rpt) subunits of the eucaryal 26S proteasome. J Bacteriol 182(6):1680–1692PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 71.
    Ogura T, Wilkinson AJ (2001) AAA+ superfamily ATPases: common structure – diverse function. Genes Cells 6(7):575–597PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 72.
    Gottesman S, Maurizi M, Wickner S (1997) Regulatory subunits of energy-dependent proteases. Cell 91:435–438PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 73.
    Raasi S, Wolf DH (2007) Ubiquitin receptors and ERAD: a network of pathways to the proteasome. Semin Cell Dev Biol 18(6):780–791PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 74.
    Medicherla B, Goldberg AL (2008) Heat shock and oxygen radicals stimulate ubiquitin-dependent degradation mainly of newly synthesized proteins. J Cell Biol 182(4):663–673PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 75.
    Benaroudj N, Goldberg AL (2000) PAN, the proteasome activating nucleotidase from archaebacteria, is a molecular chaperone which unfolds protein substrate. Nat Cell Biol 2(11): 833–839PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 76.
    Navon A, Goldberg AL (2001) Proteins are unfolded on the surface of the ATPase ring before transport into the proteasome. Mol Cell 8(6):1339–1349PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 77.
    Rabl J et al (2008) Mechanism of gate opening in the 20S proteasome by the proteasomal ATPases. Mol Cell 30(3):360–368PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 78.
    Yu Y, Smith DM, Kim HM, Rodriguez V, Goldberg AL, Cheng Y (2010) Interactions of PAN's C-termini with archaeal 20S proteasome and implications for the eukaryotic proteasome-ATPase interactions. EMBO J 29(3):692–702Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Basel AG 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Cell BiologyHarvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations