Last week we discussed a paper
that characterized commercially available irreversible fragments and screened
them against ten proteins. The “warheads” used were either acrylamides or
chloroacetamides. This week we’re continuing the theme of irreversible
fragments with two papers, each using different warheads.
The first paper, published in Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. by Alexander
Statsyuk and collaborators at University of Houston, Schrödinger, and
Northwestern University, uses a computational approach.
Research we previously
highlighted from the Statsyuk lab found that methyl vinylsulfones have a narrower
range of reactivities than – for example – acrylamides. This property is important
to ensure that differences in binding to
a target are caused by (specific) noncovalent interactions rather than mere
differences in warhead reactivity. For the current campaign, the researchers
constructed a virtual library in which 1648 commercially available carboxylic
acids were coupled to H2N-CH2-CH=CH-SO2-CH3.
The researchers used the CovDock
program from Schrödinger to dock the fragments. (Another computational tool for
doing so is DOCKovalent, which we described back in 2014.) The specific target
chosen was cathepsin L, a cysteine protease which has been implicated in a
variety of diseases from cancer to osteoporosis. The virtual screen yielded 33
high-scoring compounds, five of which were synthesized based on price and
diversity. Unfortunately, most of these had “solubility issues,” but compound
11 did show time-dependent inhibition of cathepsin L. The researchers also found
that the racemic methyl substituent could be removed (compound 13), suggesting
that compound growing might be productive. Compound 13 was also selective
against three other cysteine proteases.
The second paper, by David House,
Katrin Rittinger and collaborators at GlaxoSmithKline, the Francis Crick
Institute, and Cellzome, was published in J.
Am. Chem. Soc. The researchers were interested in protein ubiquitination,
in which the small protein ubiquitin is conjugated to various other proteins to cause
a variety of effects depending on the context. The biology is fiendishly
complex, but the final step is done by an E3 ubiquitin ligase, of which there
are more than 600 in human cells. Needless to say, selective chemical probes
would be useful.
The researchers were specifically
interested in LUBAC, an RBR E3 ubiquitin ligase which conjugates ubiquitin to proteins with an N-terminal methionine to modulate cellular
pathways important in cancer and inflammation. The ligase itself actually
consists of three protein subunits, with HOIP containing the catalytic cysteine
residue. Although a couple inhibitors had been previously reported, the
researchers found these to be nonspecific. Thus, they built and screened their
own fragment library. For a warhead, they chose the 4-aminobut-2-enoate methyl
ester, which Statsyuk had previously shown has a narrow range of reactivity and
is about 10-fold less reactive than the vinylsulfones discussed above. The
researchers constructed a small set of 104 fragments, grouped them into pools
of 4 or 5, and screened these against 2 µM HOIP at 20 µM each using intact
protein mass spectrometry. Compound 5 was one of the best hits.
Compound 5 functionally inhibited
HOIP and was selective against about a dozen other cysteine-containing enzymes.
The researchers obtained a crystal structure of the molecule bound to HOIP,
which confirmed covalent binding to the active site cysteine. Limited SAR
studies led to a slightly more potent analog (containing a six-membered ring
instead of a five-membered ring), and this molecule showed pathway inhibition
in a cell-based assay with EC50 =
37 µM. Activity-based profiling in two cell lines revealed only 8 or 11 proteins that were significantly modified by the compound in addition to HOIP.
The molecules in both of these
papers still require considerable work to become chemical probes, let alone
development candidates. Nonetheless, they are useful starting points, and
together demonstrate the increasing interest and utility of irreversible
covalent fragments.
Thank you Daniel! I promise we will not have “solubility issues” ever again :))) We now pass compounds using computational solubility filters! :)))
ReplyDelete~Statsyuk