Why BGPT?
logo

Review papers with raw data transparency

Quickly verify claims by accessing the underlying experimental data and figures.







Press Enter ↡ to solve



    Fuel Your Discoveries




     Quick Explanation



    Fumosorinone (Fumos) is reported as a Shp2-selective small-molecule inhibitor
    Key evidence presented: recombinant PTP inhibition (Shp2 IC50 ~6.31 ΞΌM; weaker effects vs several other PTPs), direct binding by SPR (reported Shp2 KD ~40 nM for WT; reduced ~368 nM for Shp2 Y279A), noncompetitive kinetics, and pathway effects in human cells consistent with Shp2 acting upstream of Ras/ERK signaling, plus reduced invasion-associated Src/Paxillin phosphorylation.
    Evidence source:



     Long Explanation



    Paper Review (Rigorous & Skeptical): β€œDiscovery of a Novel Inhibitor of the Protein Tyrosine Phosphatase Shp2”

    Primary reference: 10.1038/srep17626 (Scientific Reports, Dec 02 2015)
    Overall claim (as stated by authors): Fumosorinone is a potent, reported Shp2 inhibitor with selectivity over several other PTPs, binds directly to Shp2 (SPR), modulates EGFβ†’Ras/ERK signaling (and Gab1–Shp2 association), leaves Ras-independent ERK activation (PMA and oncogenic Ras contexts) largely intact, and correlates with reduced Src/Paxillin phosphorylation and invasion. Source:

    Selectivity (In vitro PTP IC50s)

    Evidence traceability: The IC50 values shown above are directly taken from the paper’s Table 1.

    Direct Binding (SPR KD)

    Critical interpretation: The paper uses a single point mutation (Y279A) as mechanistic validation for predicted binding interactions. However, because the authors also state Y279A β€œdid not show any enzyme activity” (reported in Table 1 and kinetic context), there is an intrinsic difficulty in separating β€œbinding-site specificity” from β€œloss of correct catalytic architecture/structure” effects.

    Full-length vs Isolated PTP Domain

    Mechanistic claim (as authors frame it): The paper interprets the lower potency against full-length Shp2 as interference from the N-SH2 autoinhibitory interaction with the catalytic domain, suggesting Fumos may preferentially inhibit activated Shp2.

    Mechanistic wiring diagram (as proposed)

    Important: This is the mechanism diagram as presented/argued by the authors; it is not a fully independent causal proof of direct pathway wiring. The paper’s own discussion notes controversies about the precise Shp2β†’Ras mechanism.

    Skeptical critique: what is strong vs what remains uncertain

    Strengths (within what the paper explicitly shows)

    • Multi-layer target evidence: biochemical inhibition (IC50 panel) + direct binding (SPR KD) + mechanistic mutational association (Y279A binding shift) + cellular pathway modulation consistent with upstream Shp2 control.
    • Selectivity is empirically addressed at the level of an in vitro PTP panel (though panel size is limited vs the full PTP family).
    • Pathway specificity logic: authors argue pathway upstream positioning by showing inhibition of EGF-induced ERK/Ras and Gab1–Shp2 association, while not blocking PMA-induced ERK1/2 and not inhibiting ERK activation in constitutively active Ras contexts.

    Major uncertainties / red flags (explicitly worth testing later)

    • Limited assay breadth for selectivity and lack of a wider off-target enzymatic panel.
    • Y279A is both a binding-importance probe and a catalytic-activity loss probe, complicating interpretation of β€œbinding vs conformational disruption.”
    • Noncompetitive conclusion is based on Lineweaver–Burk fitting, which can be sensitive to experimental noise and model assumptions.
    • Cellular readouts are partly correlative for phenotypes like invasion: reduced invasion is paired with signaling changes, but causality is not fully established within the paper’s excerpt.
    • No in vivo efficacy / PK-Tox validation is shown in the provided full text; translational relevance remains unknown.

    Raw extracted quantitative panel (from paper tables/text)

    Assay module Target / condition Reported metric Value
    In vitro PTP inhibitionShp2 PTP domainIC50 (ΞΌM)6.31 Β± 0.52
    In vitro PTP inhibitionPTP1BIC50 (ΞΌM)14.04 Β± 0.60
    In vitro PTP inhibitionTCPTPIC50 (ΞΌM)29.65 Β± 0.42
    In vitro PTP inhibitionSHP1IC50 (ΞΌM)34.70 Β± 0.37
    In vitro PTP inhibitionSelected other PTPsIC50 (ΞΌM)> 100 (assay ceiling reported)
    In vitro PTP inhibitionShp2 full-lengthIC50 (ΞΌM)26.52 Β± 0.37
    SPR bindingShp2 WTKD (nM)40
    SPR bindingShp2 Y279AKD (nM)368
    Source for table values:

    Methods clarity & reproducibility assessment (based on provided full text)

    • Enzyme assay setup is described (buffer composition, pH, substrate pNPP, 96-well format, incubation conditions), which improves reproducibility.
    • SPR instrument and regeneration protocol are named, supporting technical reproducibility.
    • Statistics are described (one-way ANOVA + Tukey; p<0.01 threshold), but the excerpt does not show full effect-size reporting for every panel.

    Explore further on BGPT



    Feedback:   

    Updated: April 07, 2026

    BGPT Paper Review



    Study Novelty

    80%

    The work is novel mainly in the reported natural-product discovery-to-target engagement pipeline for Shp2 using fumosorinone, with direct binding (SPR) plus signaling-pathway disruption presented as consistent with upstream Shp2 function. Source:



    Scientific Quality

    70%

    Quality is bolstered by triangulation (IC50 panel + SPR + cellular signaling logic), but is limited by (i) reliance on a relatively narrow PTP panel, (ii) kinetic classification from Lineweaver–Burk, (iii) interpretability complications from Y279A losing enzyme activity, and (iv) no in vivo PK/efficacy/tox evidence in the provided text. Source:



    Study Generality

    60%

    The study’s mechanistic scope is centered on Fumos and limited cell models, so general conclusions about Shp2 inhibition class-wide are more limited than scaffold-independent mechanistic insights. Source:



    Study Usefulness

    70%

    Useful as a lead/starting point and for mapping Shp2-dependent signaling nodes (EGFRβ†’Gab1–Shp2β†’Ras/ERK; Src/Paxillinβ†’invasion) with reported biochemical and binding parameters. Source:



    Study Reproducibility

    70%

    Methods give sufficient detail for biochemical/SPR/cell workflows (buffer recipes, substrate, incubation conditions, SPR timings and regeneration buffer; stats approach). Uncertainty remains around full compound characterization and comprehensive panel reporting in the excerpted portion. Source:



    Explanatory Depth

    70%

    Depth is moderate: the paper provides a mechanistic hypothesis supported by docking + Tyr279-dependent binding change and signaling readouts, but acknowledges controversy in the Shp2β†’Ras mechanism and does not fully establish direct causal links for all downstream phenotypes. Source:


    🎁 Authors: Collect 230 Free Science Tokens (β‰ˆ $23.0 USD)

    Claim My Author Tokens

    Use for 57 days of free BGPT access (4 tokens = 1 day) or trade/sell (β‰ˆ $23.0 USD)

     Top Data Sources ExportMCP



     Analysis Wizard



    Ingest IC50 panel and SPR KD values from the paper text you provided, then compute selectivity fold-changes and generate publication-style plots and a tidy summary table.



     Hypothesis Graveyard



    A single-compound selectivity claim may be a misattribution: if Fumos binds broadly across many PTPs in cellular lysates, the downstream β€œShp2-specific” pathway effects would persist even in Shp2 loss-of-function models. Why it’s weaker now: the paper demonstrates in vitro selectivity over a panel and SPR direct Shp2 binding, but the lack of broader cellular target-occupancy checks leaves this still plausible. Source:


    The noncompetitive mechanism could be an artifact of Lineweaver–Burk interpretation: if global nonlinear regression of Michaelis–Menten parameters yields a different inhibition model, the mechanistic kinetic classification would need revision. Why it’s weaker now: authors report Km unaffected and Vmax decreased plus reversibility, but Lineweaver–Burk can be sensitive. Source:

     Science Movie



    Make a narrated HD Science movie for this answer ($32 per minute)




     Discussion








    Get Ahead With Science Insights

    Custom summaries of the latest cutting edge Science research. Every Friday. No Ads.


    My BGPT