The GSK group assembled a library that mimicked AcK: compounds had hydrogen bonding functionality and a small alkyl group. 1376 compounds were tested in a fluorescence anisotropy assay. Of these, 132 (~10%) showed >30% displacement of the fluorogenic ligand. After all actives were fully titrated, compounds were soaked into apo crystals. 40 structures were then analyzed by X-ray. The figure below shows how the native peptide is bound, analysis of the crystals showed that the H-bond interaction with the bridging water dominates that with N156, but both influence ligand positioning.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/baeb0/baeb0f16de987c1c41f8c666e3f983a59203e691" alt=""
And the answer is....[I did say there were two papers] maybe.
People have found compounds which work against bromodomains before (Cpds 1 and 2).
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/47bcf/47bcf8607b8cf4c8937454d173bab8331de9e243" alt=""
As can be seen they are relatively potent (nM) and decently ligand efficient. Cpd 3 and 4 are fragments found in the screen from GSK. Cpd 3 had ~30 % activity against two bromodomains. The authors admit it was far from the best fragment, but "it was small, efficient, novel, and chemically attractive." Who can argue with that.
Following up with this cpd, they found this compound binds in a manner consistent with its selection: one methyl of 3 mimics the terminal methyl of AcK, the second one overlaps the e-CH2 of AcK, and isoxazole N and O mimic the carbonyl. At 2A resolution, they couldn't differentiate which heteroatom was where, so they made 4 to prove their placement: it was.
As a start to the hit expansion, they used a 3D pharmacophore model to search for commerically avaailable analogs: analog by catalog.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/27317/27317f647266693a72a493d44829b5bf2b89d927" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/dad53/dad5349d0427a40a3be2cc87d085aed5f93746c8" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/97ea8/97ea8918e481ed37232e5db2838063b28613305d" alt=""
This work shows that not all protein-protein interactions are flat and featureless. This work also shows that you can target PPI without having to change the rules: no need to relax the Lipinski Rules. These exciting new results show that the hot new targets in drug discovery play by the same rules as the same old targets.
5 comments:
First paper: They use the common ligand of all the bromodomains as a template for their ligand library and then whine when their hits are unseletive? That's dumb. No wait, it's stupid. And that's being generous - any other day I would have said that it was moronic.
I disagree with Morten's assessment; there are plenty of examples of starting from non-specific fragments and getting to selective leads - see here for example. Concerns over selectivity haunted the kinase field for years, but many selective kinase inhibitors contain a non-selective fragment, and there is reason to expect the same will apply to other target families, such as bromodomains.
we actually published it before GSK:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jm200640v?prevSearch=brd4&searchHistoryKey=
Anonymous is right, but its first outing was in GSK's patents.
All comments gratefully received, even ones from Morten when he's having a generous day... We could have screened a diverse fragment set. In fact we could have done both, but we mightn’t necessarily feel the need to publish both together...
What I don't understand is where he got the impression we were whining about selectivity. I see it as a positive thing if multiple targets you’re interested in can all bind the same scaffolds, provided you can discover how to tweak them for each one. In the first draft I made a lot more of Dan’s kinase analogy but my co-authors persuaded me to tone it down a bit…
Post a Comment