3D fragments vs the histamine H1 receptor

Last month we highlighted a paper from Iwan de Esch and colleagues at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam about assessing molecular shapeliness. In a new open-access RSC Med. Chem. paper, de Esch and colleagues use a small, shapely library to find and develop potent antagonists of the histamine H₁ receptor (H₁R).

 

The G protein-coupled receptor H₁R is one of four histamine receptors and the target for dozens of antihistamines used for allergic and inflammatory conditions. Thus, it’s well understood and a nice model system.

 

In 2013 we discussed how the de Esch group screened a library of 1010 fragments against several targets, including H₁R. In the new paper, the researchers built a smaller library of just 80 compounds designed to be more shapely, as assessed by Fsp³, plane of best fit (PBF), and principal moment of inertia (PMI). A screen against H₁R using a radioligand displacement assay at 10 and 30 µM yielded a single hit, compound 1a.

 

Compound 1a deviates slightly from the rule of three due to some unusual elements: an azide as a synthetic handle and a butyl moiety to make the compound less explosive. Trimming these features led to compound 3a, a rule-of-three compliant fragment that – while having lower affinity – mostly maintained ligand efficiency and improved lipophilic ligand efficiency (LLE). Fragment growing led to compounds 13a and 13k, and merging with previously reported molecules led to compound VUF26691, with low nanomolar affinity and picomolar antagonistic activity in a cell assay. Throughout the process the cis isomers generally had equal or better potency than the trans isomers, an empirical observation difficult to explain by modeling.

 

This is a nice fragment-to-lead story, and the researchers note that fewer than 40 compounds were synthesized in the journey from compound 3a to VUF26691. Interestingly though, compound 1a was the only hit from the 80 compounds tested, while the hit rate from the larger, flatter library screened in 2013 was nearly three-fold higher, at 3.6%. Although it’s difficult to extrapolate from n=1, the results are consistent with our post last year that more shapely libraries will likely have lower hit rates.

 

Still, this shapely hit makes for a neat scaffold, and if nothing else perhaps it will be easier to establish intellectual property.

Multivalent fragments in the clinic: Muvalaplin

It’s been a couple years since Practical Fragments last updated our “fragments in the clinic” list. Before doing so it makes sense to highlight some of those we’ve missed. Let’s start with an open-access Nature paper from Laura Michael and collaborators at Lilly and Monash University published in 2024. Truth be told I’ve been waiting for a longer discovery paper, but I’ll go with what’s available now.

 

The researchers were interested in lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), which has been linked to cardiovascular diseases. Lp(a) forms when low-density lipoprotein (LDL) binds to apolipoprotein(a), or apo(a). This is a two step process, in which the ten subtypes of so-called Kringle IV (K_IV) domains in apo(a) bind to lysine residues on LDL, followed by disulfide bond formation between apo(a) and LDL. Blocking the first step in this process should reduce levels of Lp(a).

 

Here's the only description of the initial screen: “Biochemical and biophysical compound screens using purified apo(a) K_IV7-8 protein identified interacting small molecules. Optimization of the initial binding molecules led to…LSN3353871.” Whatever the details, LSN3353871 is unequivocally a rule-of-three compliant fragment. It is also a very ligand-efficient binder with high nanomolar affinity for the K_IV8 domain. LSN3353871 disrupted the formation of Lp(a) in vitro at low micromolar levels and decreased levels of Lp(a) in cynomolgus monkeys when dosed orally.

 

As noted above, the apo(a) protein contains multiple K_IV domains, and a classic method for improving potency is by making dimeric ligands that can bind to two domains simultaneously. The researchers did just this in the form of LSN3441732, which binds to apo(a) and disrupts formation of Lp(a) in vitro at picomolar concentrations.

 

If dimeric ligands are better than monomeric ones, why not go for multimeric ligands? The trimeric molecule LY3473329, or muvalaplin, was synthesized and crystallographically shown to bind to three copies of K_IV8. It blocked formation of Lp(a) in vitro and reduced Lp(a) levels in cynomolgus monkeys.

 

Kringle domains are found not just in apo(a) but also in plasminogen, the zymogen form of plasmin, which is responsible for degrading blood clots. Fortunately, subtle differences between the Kringle domains in apo(a) and human plasminogen provide selectivity for the former protein, especially for multivalent ligands such as muvalaplin, and a phase 1 clinical study showed that Lp(a) could be lowered without affecting plasmin activity.

 

This is a nice application of applying fundamental multivalent principles to develop a potent molecule. It is also another example of a molecule that may not look like a drug but works like one: despite containing four basic nitrogen atoms, three carboxylic acid moieties, and sporting a molecular weight above 700 Da, muvalaplin is orally bioavailable. It is currently in a phase 3 trial in up to 10,450 patients. Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in the developed world, and Practical Fragments wishes luck to everyone involved in these studies.

 

In the meantime, watch for more Practical Fragments posts on new entries to our fragments in the clinic list, which will be updated later this year.

xSAR: Crystallographic SAR from crude reactions

Last year we highlighted an example of crystallographic screening of crude reaction mixtures to find inhibitors against the oncology target PHIP(2). Of 957 molecules tested, 22 showed crystallographic binding in two different orientations: 19 in a “lateral” pose and 3 in a “diving” pose. In a new open-access Chem. Sci. article, Philip Biggin and collaborators at Diamond Light Source and University of Oxford try to extract information from both the binders and the non-binders using crystallographic structure-activity relationships, or xSAR.

 

Chemists often think about SAR in qualitative terms: a methyl group here improves affinity, a chlorine atom there reduces it. In xSAR, the researchers sought to take a more quantitative approach. They converted each molecule into “Morgan fingerprints,” a set of more than 2048 binary bits describing structural features such as atom type, hybridization, and connectivity to other atoms within a certain distance. Some bits were found in all binding compounds, and these were referred to as conserved binding bits (CBB), while conserved nonbinding bits (CNB) were found only in non-binding compounds. These bits were then used to calculate Positive and Negative Binding Scores (PBS and NBS); a compound with a PBS of 1 contains all the CBB. Since there were two separate binding modes, the researchers calculated PBS and NBS values for both lateral and diving poses individually as well as for all binders.

 

As the researchers note, false negatives are a likely issue in crude reaction screening for a variety of reasons. To hunt for these, the PBS and NBS values were calculated for all 957 molecules previoulsy tested. A set of 97 pure compounds having mostly high scores were acquired and tested crystallographically, yielding an additional 23 lateral binders and 3 diving binders, more than doubling the initial yield. PBS was particularly informative in this retrospective exercise to recover false negatives, outperforming both NBS as well as other methods such as Tanimoto similarity scores.

 

The researchers also used PBS and NBS scores to search prospectively for new binders in a virtual set of more than 1.7 billion compounds in the Enamine REAL database. After filtering for high PBS/NBS scoring compounds followed by docking, 93 compounds were acquired and tested crystallographically. Interestingly, this yielded a relatively low hit rate of 9 binders, 6 in the lateral pose and three in somewhat different poses. None of the new compounds bound in the diving pose, which the researchers suggest may be due to the small sample size used to calculate PBS and NBS for this binding mode.

 

The 93 new compounds were also tested for binding using grated-coupled interferometry (GCI), and 13 showed measurable affinity, with most better than 50 µM. Two even showed single-digit micromolar affinity, more than an order of magnitude better than the best compound from the screen we discussed last year, and with better ligand efficiencies too. Surprisingly, these two compounds were not hits in the crystallographic screen.

 

This is an interesting paper with a couple important lessons. First, despite the fact that affinity was not used in calculating PBS and NBS, these metrics were nonetheless useful for identifying molecules with better affinity than those in the original training set, arguing for their utility. But perhaps just as importantly, the molecules with the best affinity were missed by crystallographic screening. If anything, this observation only strengthens my conclusion last year that while “there is a strong case for using crystallography first for finding fragments, I am not yet convinced the same applies for optimizing fragments.”

Fragment merging – and flipping – on the leucine zipper of MITF

Transcription factors can be difficult drug targets, particularly those whose primary structure is a “leucine zipper” in which two α-helices gently coil around each other. Their three-dimensional structure provides few pockets suitable for binding small molecules. In a new (open-access) paper in Nat. Commun., Deborah Castelletti, Wolfgang Jahnke, and a large group of multinational collaborators at Novartis and elsewhere present progress toward one of these, microphthalmia-associated transcription factor (MITF), which has been implicated in melanoma.

 

Most of MITF is believed to be disordered, but the DNA-binding domain (DBD) homodimerizes as a basic helix-loop-helix leucine zipper. Unlike related transcription factors, the helices in MITF contain a small kink that keeps them from heterodimerizing and also creates a small “kink pocket.”

 

The researchers expressed the DNA-binding domain of MITF and screened it using ¹⁹F NMR against the LEF4000 library, which we described here. This yielded just 9 hits that confirmed in protein-observed NMR, a hit rate the researchers note “is amongst the lowest that we have observed across multiple FBS campaigns,” consistent with expectations for a difficult target. Two chemical series, represented by compounds 1 and 2, were prioritized, and analogs from the Novartis compound collection were screened to find more-potent compounds 3 and 4.

 

Crystallography revealed that compounds 3 and 4 both bound in the kink pocket. Excitingly, the binding modes are similar and overlapping, inviting fragment merging. This proved successful, yielding a compound that bound 100-fold more tightly than either fragment. Further optimization ultimately led to compounds 7 and 8, with low or sub-micromolar affinity as assessed by isothermal titration calorimetry (ITC).

 

The bound structures of compounds 7 and 8 were determined by crystallography. Compound 7 (gray, left) superimposes nicely onto compounds 3 (cyan) and 4 (magenta), showing successful fragment merging. Compound 8 (green, right), however, is flipped 180 degrees compared to compound 7, despite having similar structure and affinity. Although surprising, this is not too uncommon; we’ve written about previous flippers here, here, and here.

The MITF homodimer is asymmetric, with one helix kinked and the other straight. NMR experiments and molecular dynamics show that both compounds 7 and 8 slow the interconversion between kinked and straight forms, though it is unclear whether this has functional implications. The compounds do not seem to affect DNA binding, and with at best high nanomolar affinity towards MITF no cell data are reported with the molecules.

 

Nonetheless, the successful identification of ligands against a leucine zipper is exciting. The binding pocket is small; as shown in the figure above, the best compounds already stick out on either side of the helices. Further affinity improvements may be difficult, though perhaps covalent approaches could help. Alternatively, perhaps these molecules could be starting points for induced proximity strategies such as PROTACs. It will be fun to watch this story develop.

How best to assess molecular shapeliness?

The shape of a molecule influences its properties. While this is true on a per-compound level, things get a little more controversial when discussing molecules in general. Back in 2009 researchers argued that “three dimensional” molecules have better drug-like properties, though this assertion has been challenged, repeatedly. But how do you assess the shape of a molecule in the first place? In a recent (open-access) Drug Discov. Today paper, Iwan de Esch and collaborators at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam compare the main metrics.

 

The researchers focus on three metrics: fraction of sp³-hybridized carbons (F_Csp³), which we wrote about here; plane of best fit (PBF), which we wrote about here; and principal moment of inertia (PMI), which we wrote about here. F_Csp³, which ranges from 0 to 1, is simple to calculate based on the chemical structure alone, while the other two metrics rely on the three-dimensional shape of the molecule, requiring calculations and indeed choices since many molecules can assume multiple conformations. PBF is measured in angstroms with a minimum of 0 Å and no maximum; a protein, for example, could easily have a PBF above 10 Å. PMI is represented by two normalized PMI ratios, and these are often added to give a number (3D Score or ΣNPR) between 1 and 2.

 

The researchers calculated F_Csp³, PBF, and ΣNPR for a set of nearly half a million commercially available fragments which we discussed here; PBF and ΣNPR were calculated based on the single lowest energy conformation for each molecule. As noted above, PBF is somewhat size-dependent. For example, adamantane and buckminsterfullerene have PBF scores of 0.79 and 1.76 Å but identical ΣNPR scores. Nonetheless, the researchers found a correlation between these two metrics, and this correlation increased when PBF was divided by the root of the molecular volume to attempt to normalize for size.

 

In contrast, no correlation was found between F_Csp³ and PMI, making the former “a poor descriptor for predicting 3D molecular shape.” Is there a simple alternative? F_Csp³ only considers carbon atoms, so the researchers proposed F_HAsp³, which includes nitrogen, oxygen, and sulfur atoms. Perhaps not surprisingly, this didn’t improve the correlation.

 

Three years ago we wrote about “spacial scores,” which were developed to assess molecular complexity. The researchers calculated normalized spacial scores (nSPS) for their set of compounds, but these also showed no correlation to PMI.

 

The researchers conclude that, “once corrected for size, PBF captures three-dimensionality similarly to ΣNPR values. However, unlike a PMI analysis, it is not capable of further distinguishing between rod- and disc-shaped molecules, giving PMI a higher resolution in capturing shape diversity.” Interestingly, this is the opposite conclusion of an analysis Teddy wrote about in 2014. My take is that, if you want to assess shapeliness, steer clear of F_Csp³, but both PBF and PMI are fine.

Fragment events in 2026

Lots of interesting events coming up this year - hope to see you at one!

February 17-19:  The Twelfth NovAliX Conference will be held for the first time in San Diego! You can read my impressions of the 2018 Boston event here, the 2017 Strasbourg event here, and Teddy's impressions of the 2013 event here, here, and here. 

 

April 13-16: CHI’s Fragment-Based Drug Discovery turns 21, old enough to legally drink in the US! The longest-running annual fragment event returns as usual to San Diego. This is part of the larger Drug Discovery Chemistry meeting. You can read impressions of the 2025 meeting, the 2024 meeting, the 2023 meeting, the 2022 meeting, the 2021 virtual meeting, the 2020 virtual meeting, the 2019 meeting, the 2018 meeting, the 2017 meeting, the 2016 meeting; the 2015 meeting here, here, and here; the 2014 meeting here and here; the 2013 meeting here and here; the 2012 meeting; the 2011 meeting; and the 2010 meeting. 

May 10-12: Industrial Biostructures of America will be held in Cambridge, MA. The meeting covers all aspects of structural biology including FBLD, membrane proteins, allostery, cryo-EM, machine learning, and more. 

September 14-16: Fragments X, RSC-BMCS Tenth Fragment-based Drug Discovery Meeting, will be held in Cambridge, UK.  You can read my impressions of the 2024 meeting, the 2013 meeting, and the 2009 meeting.

September 28 to October 1: CHI’s Twenty-Fourth Annual Discovery on Target will be held as always in Boston. As the name implies this event is more target-focused than chemistry-focused, but there are always plenty of FBDD-related talks. You can read my impressions of the 2025 meeting, the 2024 meeting, the 2023 meeting, the 2022 meeting, the 2021 meeting, the 2020 virtual meeting, the 2019 meeting, and the 2018 meeting.

 

November 10-12: CHI holds its third Drug Discovery Chemistry Europe in beautiful Barcelona. This will likely include tracks on lead generation, protein-protein interactions, degraders and glues, and machine learning, with multiple fragment talks throughout. 

Know of anything else? Please leave a comment or drop me a note.

A new tool for covalent ligands: kinact/KI made easy with dDRTC

As covalent drug discovery becomes increasingly common, researchers are becoming more rigorous in how they characterize their molecules. The simple IC₅₀ values used for reversible inhibitors are meaningless for irreversible ligands unless the incubation times are also disclosed. And as molecules become more potent during the course of optimization, the incubation time may need to be shortened. An early hit might require treatment overnight to give 50% protein modification, while a potent lead might completely modify the protein in seconds. How do you quantitatively compare these?

 

The most rigorous parameter to characterize irreversible ligands is k_inact/K_I, sometimes called covalent efficiency, which we recently discussed here and here. Unfortunately, determining k_inact/K_I is a pain: it requires running multiple dose-response studies at multiple time points, and is thus typically only done for key compounds. In a new (open-access) Nat. Commun. paper, Robert Everley and colleagues at Frontier Medicines (including yours truly) provide a shortcut.

 

The new method relies on the fact that, especially for low-affinity fragments, much of the data collected in a conventional dose-response time course (DRTC) is redundant, providing little additional value. For example, if a compound at one concentration gives virtually no modification after 8 hours, it also won’t modify after 1 hour. The trick is to collect just the most informative data in a “diagonal” dose-response time course, or dDRTC.

 

I won’t go into the mathematics and full implementation details since the paper is open-access, but suffice it to say that dDRTC lowers the number of required data points by a factor of eight, thus saving both time and reagents – including precious protein.

 

The paper appropriately notes limitations, such as the fact that for compounds with better affinities (K_I < 50 µM), the values derived from dDRTC can underestimate the true k_inact/K_I. However, this situation is uncommon for fragments, and indeed the potencies for even some clinical compounds such as sotorasib and VVD-133214 are largely driven by (specific) k_inact rather than K_I. The paper shows good agreement for k_inact/K_I values determined using dDRTC with those determined using the conventional approach for compounds having k_inact/K_I from 1 to 2000 M^-1s^-1.

 

Perhaps most relevant for this blog, dDRTC is a practical solution for collecting important data. The next time you’re running a covalent program, give it a try! 

Review of 2025 reviews

Turning and turning in the widening gyre

The falcon cannot hear the falconer…

 

In our small, annual counterweight to Yeats’ “mere anarchy," Practical Fragments looks back on 2025.

 

This year marked the thousandth post on Practical Fragments, a milestone neither Teddy nor I imagined when the blog launched back in 2008. In terms of conferences, I wrote about CHI’s Drug Discovery Chemistry in San Diego here and Discovery on Target in Boston here.

 

For the past decade I’ve participated in annual J. Med. Chem. perspectives covering fragment-to-lead success stories, two of which published this year. The first, spearhead by Rhian Holvey at Astex, covers the year 2023, while Astex’s David Twigg took the lead on covering the year 2024. In addition to the tabular summaries for which these reviews are best known, both also include tables of “near misses,” none of which made the main tables because the starting points were (sometimes just slightly) too large. Four out of six of these heavyweights are covalent fragments, suggesting that the rule of three may need to be relaxed for these. The most recent paper also includes a table showcasing the eight approved FBLD-derived drugs.

 

Two more general publications are also of interest. In a brief (open-access) editorial in J. Med. Chem. Weijun Xu and Congbao Kang at A*STAR summarize fragment-finding methods and approved drugs and discuss future applications of FBLD in PROTACs and targeting RNA. And in Curr. Res. Pharm. Drug Discov., Geoffrey Wells, Exequiel Porta, and colleagues at University College London present a “graphical review” which covers library design, screening strategies, hit validation, fragment optimization, and a few case studies of approved drugs, along with current challenges.

 

In Drug Des. Devel. Ther., Bangjiang Fang and colleagues at Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine present an open-access bibliometrics analysis of 1301 fragment-based drug design papers published between 2015 and the end of 2024, which includes top ten lists of institutions, authors, and papers as well as keyword trends and analyses. Annual growth has averaged 1.4%, and the field is both global and collaborative, with 35% of publications involving more than one country.

 

Targets

Two reviews focus on oncology. The first, in Bioorg. Chem. by Milind Sindkhedkar and collaborators at Manipal College of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Lupin Ltd., briefly covers the history and practice of FBDD before providing short summaries of seven of the eight approved drugs to come from it. The second, published open-access in Chem. Rev. by Vanderbilt’s Steve Fesik, is a concise and highly readable introduction and account of the author’s groundbreaking work on BCL-2 family proteins, KRAS, and WDR5.

 

A much longer open-access review in Chem. Rev. by Paramjit Arora and colleagues at New York University covers protein-protein interactions (PPIs). Much of the focus is on larger molecules such as cyclic peptides, peptide mimetics, and other macrocycles, but there are summaries of fragment-based approaches against KRAS and 14-3-3 proteins.

 

The topic of 14-3-3 proteins is treated more fully in an open-access Acc. Chem. Res. paper by Michelle Arkin and colleagues at UCSF. While the focus of most efforts against PPIs is to find inhibitors, for 14-3-3 the goal is to find stabilizers, or molecular glues. The Arkin lab and others have been succeeding using various approaches, particularly disulfide tethering. We wrote about these efforts most recently in 2023, and the new review provides a nice update.

 

Fragment finding methods and libraries

Sahra St. John-Campbell and Gurdip Bhalay, both at The Institute of Cancer Research, published a massive open-access perspective on “target engagement assays in early drug discovery” in J. Med. Chem., covering a host of biochemical, biophysical, and cell-based assays. A table lists more than 50 different techniques, almost half of which are applicable to FBLD. Each row shows what characteristic(s) are measured as well as critical requirements for  protein, sample, and equipment. The paper is also beautifully illustrated with dozens of figures: one shows which techniques are most useful for different types of targets, and each method gets its own diagram.

 

A more focused open-access review is provided by Stefanie Freitag-Pohl and colleagues at Durham University in Biophys. Rev. After surveying various biophysical techniques, the researchers focus on spectral shift analysis, and in particular the Dianthus instrument from NanoTemper Instruments. This plate-based, high-throughput microfluidics-free instrument can detect changes in fluorescence caused by environment or temperature. Examples demonstrate affinity measurements across several orders of magnitude, up to double-digit millimolar, and a nice scheme shows use of the Dianthus in a fragment-screening workflow.

 

Moving to specific techniques, Jia Gao, Ke Ruan, and colleagues at University of Science and Technology of China Hefei provide an open-access survey of “the rise of NMR-integrated fragment-based drug discovery in China” in Mag. Res. Lett. After a brief overview of NMR approaches, they cover case studies from China, most of which are focused on fragment screening rather than optimization.

 

A less common biophysical method is native mass spectrometry (nMS), the subject of an open-access opinion in RSC Med. Chem. by Louise Sternicki and Sally-Ann Poulsen at Griffith University. This is a good survey of the approach; we highlighted a more fragment-focused review by the same authors last year.

 

The most common fragment-finding approach, X-ray crystallography, is covered in two open-access reviews. The first, in Acta Cryst. F by Sarah Bowman and collaborators at University of Buffalo and Brookhaven National Laboratory, focuses on critical early stages, from protein characterization to sample preparation and various crystallization approaches. The second, in Curr. Opin. Strut. Biol. by Martin Noble and colleagues at Newcastle University, starts by briefly reviewing crystallographic fragment screening before turning to fragment libraries. The paper includes a nice table summarizing publicly available libraries at major synchrotrons, with the text describing these in more detail.

 

The provider of one of these libraries, EU-OPENSCREEN, is the subject of an open-access review in SLAS Discov. by Robert Harmel and collaborators at EU-OPENSCREEN ERIC and Fraunhover ITMP. As we wrote last year, EU-OPENSCREEN is a broad consortium whose mission is to advance early drug discovery by providing access to technology and expertise. The new paper summarizes the four compound collections, including the European Fragment Screening Library (EFSL), and surveys progress to date. It also lays out ambitious plans, including expanding to >30 sites in nine countries.

 

Computational approaches and cryptic sites

Despite the hype about artificial intelligence in the broader world, AI in fragment-based drug discovery has been less common. In Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol., Woong-Hee Shin and colleagues at Korea University College of Medicine summarize applications to fragment growing, merging, and linking. The open-access paper includes a handy table of 13 programs, and includes GitHub links where available.

 

Cryptic binding sites, defined by Ehmke Pohl and collaborators at Durham University and Cambridge Crystallographic Data Centre “as binding pockets that exist in the ligand-bound state of a protein but not in its apo form,” are the focus of an open-access review in Bioinform. Adv. The researchers cover earlier computational approaches for finding these, especially molecular dynamics (MD) and machine learning (ML). They note that a key challenge for ML is the limited quantity and quality of experimental data: undiscovered cryptic sites would be misclassified as non-binding sites.

 

Yowen Dong, Ge-Fei Hao, and colleagues at Guizhou University review “computational methods for identifying cryptic pockets” in Drug Discov. Today. As with the previous review, these are divided between molecular dynamics and AI-based techniques, which are discussed individually and then compared. The researchers apply six approaches to the model bacterial protein TEM-1 β-lactamase and find that, for this highly studied single protein, the AI-based methods are much faster (seconds instead of days) and just as accurate, though MD-based methods provide more insight into formation mechanisms of cryptic pockets.

 

Covalent ligands

Allosteric sites are an important sub-class of cryptic pockets, and in J. Med. Chem. Jianing Li and colleagues at Purdue University discuss covalent allosteric inhibitors. After briefly discussing advantages of covalent molecules, they review examples targeting protein phosphatases, kinases, and GTPases, such as KRAS.

 

Of course, covalent molecules are not limited to allosteric sites. An open-access review in Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. by Walaa Bedewy, John Mulawka, and Marc Adler at Toronto Metropolitan University summarizes published covalent protein ligands, grouping them by target site:  active sites, residues adjacent to an active site, protein-protein interfaces, cofactor binding sites, and allosteric sites.

 

Chem. Rev. published two massive reviews on covalent ligands, each with more than 300 references. The first, by Tomonori Tamura, Masaharu Kawano, and Itaru Hamachi at Kyoto University, covers a wide range of topics, from covalent drugs, to peptide- and protein-based covalent inhibitors, to chemical biology labeling and target engagement strategies, to covalent bifunctional molecules such as PROTACs and radionucleotide-based molecules, and even covalent modification of DNA and RNA. The paper includes 68 figures, many reproduced from the original publications.

 

The second (open-access) Chem. Rev. paper, by Ku-Lung Hsu and colleagues at University of Texas at Austin, focuses on covalent ligands targeting protein residues other than cysteine, particularly lysine and tyrosine; we highlighted some of Hsu’s work recently. The paper also discusses naturally occurring molecules that bind to lysine, such as pyridoxal phosphate and aldose sugars.

 

Methods for finding covalent ligands are the focus on an open-access review in JACS Au by Mengke You, Hong Liu, and Chunpu Li at Shanghai Institute of Materia Medica. Specifically, they review disulfide tethering, activity-based protein profiling (ABPP), covalent DEL, phage and mRNA display, and sulfur(IV) fluoride exchange (SuFEx), with examples for each.

 

The last paper on this topic, in J. Med. Chem., offers a brief but important overview of all covalent FDA-approved small molecule drugs through 2023. Samuel Dalton and collaborators at Isomorphic Laboratories and Merck counted 128 covalent drugs, about 7% of all small molecule drugs. More than half are antibiotics, and more than 85% target serine or cysteine. Only 10% are reversible, but this number is rapidly increasing, with 11 of the 13 reversible covalent drugs approved since 2010. Importantly, the names, chemical structures, indication, target and target residue, warhead, and key references for all the drugs are provided in the supporting information.

 

Miscellaneous

Deconstruction of ligands to smaller fragments that are then “reconstructed” into new leads is a venerable approach in FBLD and the subject of an open-access perspective in J. Med. Chem. by J. Henry Blackwell, Iacovos Michaelidies, and Floriane Gibault at AstraZeneca. Multiple examples dating as far back as the late 1990s are provided, along with appropriate caveats about potential changes in fragment binding modes and protein conformations.

 

Finally, an open-access perspective in J. Med. Chem. by Dean Brown (Jnana Therapeutics) examines the 104 oral drugs approved from 2020 through 2024, including structures, dosing, pharmacokinetics, and safety. Roughly a third of these drugs are dosed more than once per day, and almost a quarter have a black box warning, while 42% have at least one contraindication. Dean warns that “overly prescriptive [development candidate] criteria may inadvertently stifle the development of innovative drugs,” and that it is difficult but important “to be the champion for a compound that others perceive as ‘un-drug like.’” The growing success of covalent drugs illustrates that some organizations are taking this to heart.

 

And that’s it for 2025. Thanks for reading and special thanks for commenting. And in 2026, may the best of us be filled with passionate intensity.

GAS41 revisited: a chemical probe

The YEATS domain of the protein GAS41 is an epigenetic reader that modulates gene expression by binding to acetylated lysine residues in chromatin. Multiple lines of evidence suggest it could be a useful target for various cancers, in particular non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Four years ago Practical Fragments highlighted a paper from Jolanta Grembecka, Tomasz Cierpicki, and colleagues at the University of Michigan describing a fragment screen and subsequent optimization of a hit to molecules with some cellular activity. In a new J. Med. Chem. paper, the same team now describes molecules with better cell potency, as well as a negative control.

 

Compound 1, the initial fragment hit, had weak affinity for GAS41, but replacing the t-butyl group with a proline led to compound 7, with low micromolar activity in a fluorescence polarization assay. On the other side of the molecule, modification and growth of the amide moiety led to compound 16, also with low micromolar activity. In the 2021 paper, molecules related to compound 16 were dimerized to bind to two YEATS domains in close proximity in the GAS41 dimer. This yielded mid-nanomolar inhibitors, but the molecules were also large, with limited cell permeability. In the new paper, the researchers instead combined medicinal chemistry learnings and used structure-based design to generate monomeric molecules, culminating in DLG-41.

 

The affinity of DLG-41 for GAS41 was measured as 1 µM using isothermal titration calorimetry (ITC). In accordance with best practices for chemical probes, the researchers also developed a negative control by replacing the thiophene moiety with a thiazole; this compound, DLG-41nc, shows negligible activity in two different biochemical assays.

 

DLG-41 showed high nanomolar activity in a NanoBRET assay, demonstrating that the molecule is both permeable and binds to the GAS41 protein in cells. Importantly, the IC₅₀ for the negative control DLG-41nc was > 25 µM in this assay. DLG-41 blocked proliferation in a panel of NSCLC cell lines, though DLG-41nc also showed some activity, albeit at higher concentrations. Gene expression studies in one cell line showed that DLG-41 caused changes in hundreds of genes, while DLG-41nc was inactive.

 

This is a nice example of fragment optimization in academia. With both biochemical and cell-based potency around one micromolar, DLG-41 is hovering on the edge of the 2015 suggestions for a chemical probe. But used alongside the negative control, the compound should be useful for further exploring the biology of GAS41.

Surprise – a covalent histidine-targeting PDE3B inhibitor

Earlier this year I wrote about archiving crystallographic fragment data, and indeed a meeting is planned for early next year to establish guidelines. A new paper in J. Med. Chem. by Samuel Eaton and David Christianson at University of Pennsylvania illustrates why this is important.

 

The story starts with a paper published in 2024, also in J. Med. Chem., by Ann Rowley, Gang Yao, and collaborators at GSK and 23andMe. They were interested in finding inhibitors of PDE3B, a cyclic nucleotide phosphodiesterase that has been implicated in metabolic disease. However, this enzyme has a closely related counterpart significantly expressed in cardiac tissue: PDE3A, with 95% amino acid identity near the active site. So the researchers sought an inhibitor highly selective for PDE3B over PDE3A.

 

A DNA-encoded library (DEL) screen of 1.9 trillion(!) molecules was screened against both PDE3B and PDE3A. Hits were resynthesized without the DNA and tested in activity assays, leading to several chemical series, only one of which was selective for PDE3B. A key feature of this series was a boronic acid moiety, which was essential for activity. Optimization led to compounds such as GSK4394835A, with high nanomolar activity against PDE3B and >20-fold selectivity against PDE3A. The GSK researchers deposited a crystal structure of this molecule in the protein data bank (PDB), along with the structure factor amplitudes. It showed the boronic acid making non-covalent interactions with side-chain residues as well as the catalytic magnesium atoms and water molecules.

 

Further optimization at GSK led to compounds with as much as 300-fold selectivity for PDE3B, but like GSK4394835A, these were only high nanomolar inhibitors. The researchers could further improve potency, but this came at the expense of selectivity. Cell activity was modest at best, and the researchers noted that “the boronic acid is, in general, a challenge for development of an orally bioavailable drug.”

 

This is where the University of Pennsylvania researchers take up the story. As their paper points out, several drugs do contain boron, most notably bortezomib, which forms a covalent adduct with a threonine in the proteasome. When Eaton and Christianson took a closer look at the PDB entry showing GSK4394835A bound to PDE3B, they “noticed unusual features such as extra density around the boron atom of GSK4394835A, steric clashes between the boronic acid moiety and H737, and aberrant refinement statistics… from ideal bond lengths.” Upon re-refinement, they found that the boronic acid in fact makes a covalent bond with histidine 737. The structure explains why the boronic acid moiety was essential for activity, and the new paper suggest that other covalent warheads could potentially be used in place of the boronic acid. (Eaton and Christianson write that they contacted the GSK researchers in February of 2024, but it is not clear whether they heard back.)

 

This is a nice correction of the literature and a reminder not to take crystal structures at face value. The beauty of the PDB is that, with the experimental data deposited, the new researchers were enabled to re-refine the data even without input from the original authors.

 

As we’ve previously discussed, this example is not the only misleading crystal structure in the PDB. Many fragment structures have lower occupancy and more ambiguous electron density and would be even more prone to misinterpretation. As the community moves to establish guidelines for depositing fragment structures, it will be important to provide access to the raw data to facilitate this type of reanalysis.