Home
 /
Papers
 /
Biochemistry
 /
Dual E3 ligase recruitment by monovalent degraders enables redundant and tuneable degradation of SMARCA2/4
Preprint
Open access
V1
Top 1% · Validated by QED

Dual E3 ligase recruitment by monovalent degraders enables redundant and tuneable degradation of SMARCA2/4

Valentina A. Spiteri, Dmitri Segal, Alejandro Correa-Sáez +12 more
August 2025
 ·
bioRxiv
 ·
DOI 
10.1101/2025.08.04.668513
94
%
Reproducible
QED Impressions
This paper passed independent validation.
QED's automated review checked the evidence supporting each claim, the statistical methods, and whether the results are reproducible from the data provided.

It ranks in the top 1% of preprints assessed in Biochemistry this quarter.
Run full QED analysis
Read paper
Save

Why this is interesting

By showing a monovalent molecular glue redundantly recruits two distinct E3 ligases, this work overturns the foundational assumption of single-ligase dependency and establishes a tunable structural framework to rationally preempt resistance in targeted protein degradation therapies.

QED claims analysis

Summary

A monovalent molecular glue degrader can recruit two distinct E3 ligase complexes, CRL4DCAF16 and CRL1FBXO22, in a functionally redundant manner through covalent modification of DCAF16 at cysteine 173, and ligase selectivity can be rationally tuned through minimal chemical modifications to the degradation tail or single-residue mutations in DCAF16, establishing a framework for designing degraders with programmable E3 ligase profiles that may overcome resistance mechanisms.

See full analysis
Main Claim 1 –

Compound 1 selectively degrades SMARCA2/4 and PBRM1 via CRLs

Supporting evidence

  • Compound 1 degradation requires proteasome, UBA1, and neddylation
Main Claim 2 –

Compound 1 redundantly recruits DCAF16 and FBXO22 to degrade SMARCA2/4

Supporting evidence

  • CRISPR screen identifies DCAF16 as primary ligase for Compound 1
  • BioID confirms Compound 1-induced SMARCA2 proximity to DCAF16
  • Compound 1 forms SMARCA2 ternary complexes with DCAF16 and FBXO22
Main Claim 3 –

DCAF16 Cys173 is essential for Compound 1 activity

Supporting evidence

  • Compound 1 covalently modifies DCAF16 Cys173 without SMARCA2 templating
Main Claim 4 –

Cryo-EM shows DCAF16 Cys173 adduct and distinct SMARCA2 orientation

Abstract

Proteolysis-Targeting Chimeras (PROTACs) and Molecular Glue Degraders (MGDs) canonically target proteins for degradation by recruiting them to a single E3 ligase complex. While heterotrivalent PROTACs that can co-opt multiple E3 ligase complexes have been described, to our knowledge all MGDs reported to date are dependent on a single E3. Here, using orthogonal genetic screening, biophysical and structural analyses, we show that a monovalent MGD can covalently recruit CUL4DCAF16 and CRL1FBXO22 in a parallel and redundant manner to degrade SMARCA2/4. Deep mutational scanning identifies a single cysteine (Cys173) in DCAF16 essential for degrader activity, and intact protein MS confirms covalent adduct at this site. The cryo-EM structure of the DCAF16:SMARCA2:degrader ternary complex reveals a unique binding mode and a distinct interface of neo-interactions, providing insights into degrader specificity. We demonstrate that E3 ligase dependency can be tuned both chemically and genetically. Minimal alterations to the compound’s “degradation tail” switches ligase preference from DCAF16 to FBXO22, while a single L59W mutation on DCAF16 is sufficient to drive DCAF16 engagement for otherwise FBXO22-dependent compounds. These results establish a molecular and structural framework for the design of tuneable dual glue degraders that could mitigate challenges from resistance mechanisms in degrader therapies.

Related papers

How the QED Score works

QED Score is a validated AI-based quality metric that evaluates life science papers on two dimensions: originality and validity. Each manuscript is anonymized, broken down into its claims and supporting evidence, and examined by specialized AI agents for statistical rigor, consistency across figures, and fit with the existing literature. Scores are percentile ranks, so they're comparable across fields. In blinded tests, expert professors sided with QED Score over journal rank in 75% of decisive cases.
Read the methodology

Free access for academic researchers

Create your free QED account to validate your research, strengthen grant proposals, and uncover scientific insights.
We've sent you an access link.
Please check your inbox.

Didn't get your email? Check your spam folder or reach out to info@qedscience.com

Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Looking for QED for pharma, biotech or life science organizations?