12 May 2025

From fragment to macrocyclic Ras inhibitors

At the Drug Discovery Chemistry meeting last month chemist John Taylor described efforts against the oncology target RAS. This story was recently published in J. Med. Chem. by John, Charles Parry, and a team of some three dozen collaborators at CRUK Scotland Institute, Novartis, and Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research.
 
Practical Fragments has highlighted multiple Ras efforts, including the development and approval of sotorasib, which inhibits the G12C mutant of KRAS. Sotorasib binds in the so-called switch II region, next to the site where the nucleotides GDP and GTP bind. Before the discovery of this site, researchers had identified fragments that bind to a different site, switch I-II. 
 
Most of the ligands that bind to either site only inhibit the off-form of Ras proteins, in which the proteins are bound to GDP. One mechanism of resistance for cancer cells is to increase the amount of protein in the active, or GTP-bound state. Thus, the researchers focused on the oncogenic G12D mutant of KRAS bound to a GTP analog and screened it against 656 fragments using SPR. Ligand-detected NMR confirmed five of the hits, including compound 5.
 

Two dimensional 1H-15N HSQC NMR revealed that compound 5 binds in the switch I-II pocket; merging this with a literature fragment generated compound 6. SAR studies led to compound 11, which was characterized crystallographically bound to the protein. The structure suggested trying to make a salt bridge with an aspartic acid residue, leading to compound 13, with sub-micromolar affinity for the inactive form of the protein. A crystal structure of a related compound suggested the possibility of macrocylization, and this turned out to be successful, with compound 21 being the most potent. (All values shown here are determined by NMR or SPR on the G12D KRAS mutant bound to either GDP or the GTP analog GMPPMP.)
 
A number of different macrocycles were made and tested, and all of them were more potent against the inactive than the active form of KRAS. Crystal structures suggested that a glutamic acid side chain adopts a conformation in the the GTP-bound form of KRAS that impedes ligand interactions.
 
Interestingly though, building off the molecules in another direction led to the opening of a small subpocket that had not previously been reported in the literature. Exploiting this “interswitch” region led to compound 36, with a nearly 10-fold preference for the active form of KRAS.
 
Most of the macrocycles in both series were able to block nucleotide exchange in a biochemical assay, meaning they could prevent the exchange of GDP for GTP. A few of the compounds were tested in cell-based assays and could block binding between RAF and multiple Ras isoforms, including two mutants of KRAS as well as wild-type KRAS, HRAS, and NRAS.
 
Unfortunately, and not surprisingly given their high polar surface areas, the compounds had low permeability, high efflux, and high clearance in vitro. Mouse studies on one compound confirmed these liabilities in vivo.
 
Although the compounds could not be advanced, this is still a nice fragment to lead story. The fact that a new pocket could be identified despite so much previous effort on this target is a good reminder that no matter how much you know, there is always room for surprises.

5 comments:

Vladimir said...

> this is still a nice fragment to lead story
And another nice 2-aminothiazole from a primary screen! :)

Dan Erlanson said...

Touché - perhaps a good counterargument to this:

https://practicalfragments.blogspot.com/2015/03/are-prats-privileged-or-pathological.html

Anders said...

About aminothiazoles: According to this ref https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jmedchem.9b01932 "aniline,
aminothiazole, beta-lactam, or cyclopropylamine functional
groups may have an elevated risk of cutaneous AEs" (adverse effects). Likely via metabolism.

John Taylor said...

Good point by Vladimir - if you look at Figure 1 Panel A, the CSP data is suggestive of the original aminobenzothiazole fragment binding in more than one location, which is a known liability of this type of compound (https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jm501402x) - we would certainly have been reticent at taking this hit forward in the absence of any further info. What the AZ data linked also shows however is that acylating the amino group ameliorates the promiscuity of these compounds - that's what we've found too, so fragment merging with our amido-quinoline hit seemed like a safe enough route to follow.
It's perhaps a good argument for not setting hard sub-structural filters and throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but caution around SAR interpretation is needed for sure (but isn't that true for any fragment elaboration?)

Vladimir Talibov said...

Colleagues, this was certainly not a nitpick. I simply wanted to do a backlink to the 2ATs' privileged paper and the corresponding blog entry here. Personally, I love fragments in all their shapes and forms and won’t stress about promiscuity at such an early stage myself.