Ligand affinities for isolated proteins vs in cells and cell lysates

Earlier this year we highlighted a study that compared the affinities of kinase inhibitors for isolated proteins vs those same proteins in cells and found differences – sometimes dramatic. A new open-access paper in J. Am. Chem. Soc. by Blake Peterson and colleagues at Ohio State University addresses the same question, and explores insights from cell lysates as well.

 

To measure affinity in cells, the earlier paper used NanoBRET, which relies on a fusion protein consisting of the kinase and a luminescent protein. It is possible that this artificial protein may behave differently from the native protein, so the Peterson group developed the Fluorescent Probe Cellular Binding Assay (FPCBA). This technique makes use of a fluorophore conjugated to a ligand for the protein of interest. The protein of interest is overexpressed, the binding of fluorescent probe causes cells to become fluorescent, and the level of fluorescence can be quantified using flow cytometry. Adding a (non-fluorescent) ligand displaces the fluorescent probe, which is rapidly effluxed, and the loss of fluorescence can be used to calculate the affinity of the ligand.

 

For the sake of brevity I’m skipping lots of important details, such as detailed characterization of efflux and use of a second fluorescent protein to correlate expression of the target, but these are described extensively in the paper. The researchers focus on a fluorescent probe based on dasatinib, an approved drug that binds to dozens of kinases.

 

The researchers compared the affinity of dasatinib and imatinib, another approved drug, to the kinase ABL1 using both FPCBA and NanoBRET. The results were reassuringly similar, though dasatinib bound 3 or 4-fold more tightly in the PBCBA assay than the NanoBRET assay while imatinib bound up to 2-fold less tightly, which might be due to changes in the regulatory mechanism of the ABL1 fusion protein required for NanoBRET.

 

Whole cell assays tend to be lower throughput, so cell lysates are often used instead. For kinases, a common assay makes use of “kinobeads.” Native kinases are captured from cell lysates on beads and quantified using mass spectrometry. An inhibitor blocks binding of the kinase to the bead, and this reduction in binding can be used to calculate the affinity. The researchers measured the affinity of dasatinib and imatinib against a score of kinases using both FPCBA and kinobeads.

 

Of 21 kinases, 14 showed similar affinities (within four-fold) for dasatinib by both FPCBA and kinobeads. Six of the remaining seven showed up to 13-fold tighter binding in FPCBA than kinobeads, which the researchers attribute to the kinases being in a more active state in cells than in lysates. (A similar phenomenon has been seen for the helicase WRN.)  In contrast, the kinase SRC showed 11-fold weaker activity in cells than lysates, which the researchers attribute to autoinhibitory regulation.

 

The situation becomes even more discordant when comparing affinities in cells to the affinities of isolated recombinant kinase domains using the KINOMEscan assay. Since a picture is worth several hundred words (the length of this blog post), I’ve graphed the results. While possible to see a correlation, it is also possible to see dragons in the shapes of clouds.

 

The affinity of dasatinib was generally higher (often by more than 10-fold) in the KINOMEscan than the FPCBA assay, which is not surprising given the lack of ATP in the biochemical assay. But there were exceptions, most notably EPHA4, which binds slightly more tightly to dasatinib in cells than in the KINOMEscan assay. Interestingly, the affinity in the cell lysate assay was lower; the researchers suggest that in cells the kinase is in a more active form than it is in lysates, perhaps due to membrane localization.

 

In the end, this paper is another useful reminder that assays with isolated proteins do not necessarily translate to cells. And of course, activity in cells does not necessarily translate to activity in vivo. Understanding why is part of what makes drug discovery both frustrating and exciting.

Differential scanning fluorimetry (DSF) for covalent ligands

Differential scanning fluorimetry (DSF), also known as a thermal shift assay, is one of the most common techniques for fragment screening according to the most recent methods poll on Practical Fragments. This popularity is in part due to the simplicity of the assay: just mix your protein with a dye such as SYPRO Orange, which binds to the hydrophobic core of unfolded proteins, heat the solution in a PCR thermocycler, and measure the change in fluorescence. Ligands that bind specifically to proteins often stabilize them, increasing the melting temperature. As we noted in 2017, some companies even use DSF to assess the ligandability of new targets.

 

Most of the focus on DSF has involved non-covalent ligands. But the approach also works for covalent ligands, according to a new open-access paper in the British Journal of Pharmacology by Nir London and colleagues at the Weizmann Institute of Science.

 

The researchers acknowledge that they are not the first to explore DSF on covalent ligands; last year we discussed a screen of 47 covalent fragments against 47 kinases, and just last month we highlighted a DSF screen that identified an unexpectedly covalent fragment hit.

 

The new paper starts by performing DSF on five drug targets (BTK, the G12C mutant of KRAS, SARS-CoV-2 MPro, Pin1, and Keap1), each with well-characterized covalent ligands (for example, ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, and evobrutinib for BTK, sotorasib and adagrasib for KRAS^G12C, etc.) For four of the proteins they also tested non-covalent or covalent reversible ligands. Almost all of the ligands increased thermal stability of the bound protein, and covalent ligands tended to have a greater effect.

 

In addition to testing specific ligands, the researchers also performed DSF experiments on the five proteins with three reactive, non-specific covalent ligands: iodoacetamide, ethyl 2-(bromomethyl)acrylate, and a chloroacetamide called RA13. Intact protein mass spectrometry confirmed that these molecules gave essentially complete modification of the five proteins, in some cases at multiple sites.

 

In contrast to the specific ligands, the reactive alkylators tended either to have marginal effects on the melting temperatures of the proteins or to actually destabilize the proteins, sometimes dramatically. That said, there were cases of stabilization. The researchers suggest that “reactive, non-specific, irreversible binders may act as destabilizers, since they form an irreversible covalent bond regardless of molecular recognition, which may result in deformation of the protein if the rest of the binder cannot be accommodated near the modified amino acid.”

 

To assess how well DSF works for covalent fragments more generally, the researchers acquired 2612 acrylamides from Enamine and screened them (each at 8 µM in pools of 5) against Keap1 for 24 hours at 4 ºC. Mass spectrometry showed that just over 100 gave at least 50% modification, which a back of the envelope calculation suggests a covalent efficiency roughly 1 M^-1s^-1. Next, 84 compounds with differing degrees of modification were tested by DSF, and, in contrast to the kinase paper we discussed last year, there was a correlation between extent of modification and either stabilization or destabilization of the protein. But consistent with the specific ligands discussed above, the more reactive fragments (as assessed by glutathione reactivity) were the only ones that caused destabilization.

 

The authors conclude by proposing “DSF as a fast and complementary follow-up approach for electrophilic fragment screening, to prioritize productive and selective covalent binders over promiscuous reactive fragments.” This seems reasonable – what do you think?

Fluorine NMR meets make-on-demand libraries

Last month Practical Fragments wrote about make-on-demand libraries, such as those offered by Enamine. We’ve also written about fluorine-detected NMR screening of fragments, which is both rapid and particularly sensitive for low affinity binders. A new paper in ChemMedChem by Patrick Penner, Anna Vulpetti, and colleagues at Novartis combines these two concepts.

 

The researchers had previously built a library of 5472 fluorinated fragments. These were compared with the 77 billion molecules then in Enamine REAL Space, which are based on a smaller set of building blocks that can be combined using validated chemistries. More than a third of the Novartis library members could be found in REAL Space, and nearly 80% had close analogs, supporting the notion that one could do rapid follow-up studies of fragment hits without requiring resource-intensive in-house chemistry.

 

To test whether this would work in practice, the researchers turned to embryonic ectoderm development protein (EED), an oncology target that Novartis has been pursuing for some time; here’s a 2017 post. An undisclosed number of known fragment ligands were screened against Enamine REAL Space using three computational methods: a search of the 180,000+ Enamine building blocks themselves, SpaceMACS to find close analogs, and FastROCS to find more distant analogs.

 

Of 150 compounds ordered across the three categories, 125 arrived: 66 building blocks, 30 close analogs, and 29 distant analogs. All of these were first tested by SPR, and nine (mostly close analogs) showed at least double-digit micromolar binding.

 

To assess whether ¹⁹F NMR could identify weaker binders, the remaining 116 compounds were screened in mixtures of nine each. This led to 43 additional hits, of which several were characterized in more detail by competing them in a dose-response format against a reporter molecule to calculate dissociation constants. One of these came in at sub-micromolar affinity, though it was a close analog of a known binder; the others were high micromolar.

 

Two of the more novel (and less potent) molecules were used as starting points to select new molecules from Enamine REAL space, and 74 of the 81 selected were delivered and tested by SPR or DSF. Two of these were more potent than the starting molecules, one of them by more than an order of magnitude.

 

In the end, although the results are modest, the paper provides a detailed framework for applying fluorine NMR to make-on-demand libraries. And with only four authors, it seems to be a low-effort approach. Although this work was done at Novartis, it should be suitable for smaller companies or academic labs that have access to an NMR.

Fragment events in 2026 and 2027

We're half-way through 2026, but there are still some good events ahead. And 2027 is already starting to take shape.

September 14-16: Fragments X, RSC-BMCS Tenth Fragment-based Drug Discovery Meeting, will be held in the original 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 brilliant 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 include tracks on lead generation, protein-protein interactions, degraders and glues, and machine learning, with multiple fragment talks throughout. 

2027

April 19-22: CHI’s Drug Discovery Chemistry returns as usual to sunny San Diego, and there are always plenty of fragment talks. You can read impressions of the 2026 meeting, 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. 

September 19-22: FBLD 2027 will be held for the first time in lovely Lund. This will mark the tenth in an illustrious series of conferences organized by scientists for scientists. You can read impressions of FBLD 2024, FBLD 2018, FBLD 2016, FBLD 2014, FBLD 2012, FBLD 2010, and FBLD 2009. 

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

Covalent fragment linking on the SARS-CoV-2 Main Protease

Fragment linking is a compelling approach to advancing fragments, but, as our poll from several years ago showed, it often works better in theory than practice. Also, most examples of fragment linking involve non-covalent molecules. In a new open-access ChemMedChem paper, György Keserű and collaborators at HUN-REN Research Centre for Natural Sciences, University of Ljubljana, and Diamond Light Source apply linking to a covalent fragment.

 

The main protease (3CL^pro or MPro) of SARS-CoV-2 was the first target pursued in the fight against COVID-19. A crystallographic fragment screen was conducted just weeks into the pandemic, yielding dozens of hits. Some of these, such as compound 1, formed covalent bonds to the active-site cysteine. Compound 2 bound noncovalently nearby. In the new paper the researchers used the program DeLinker, a “graph-based deep generative method,” to try to link them.

 

Just three linked molecules were made and tested, each with a different amide connectivity. While two were quite weak, compound 5 showed low micromolar activity. This is especially impressive given that both compounds 1 and 2  themselves were inactive. SAR studies revealed that the nitrile warhead is essential for activity, and a crystal structure of compound 5 bound to 3CL^pro confirmed covalent binding. Surprisingly though, the structure showed that the moiety derived from compound 2 binds in a “flipped” position relative to the non-covalent complex. Further fragment-growing led to compound 28, the most potent compound described in the paper.

 

The researchers also tried warhead swapping, replacing the reversible nitrile warhead with a chloride for irreversible aromatic nucleophilic substitution. Although some of these molecules showed activity, the best was about 30-fold less potent. This observation makes sense, as the cysteine sulfur atom must take different trajectories to react with the different warheads.

 

As the researchers point out, more potent inhibitors of 3CL^pro have been reported; the approved drug nirmatrelvir targets this enzyme. However, the paper is still a rare example of fragment linking starting from a covalent fragment; see here for fragment merging on a different target.

 

Personally what I find most interesting is the fact that it took just three molecules to go from inactive fragments to a low micromolar inhibitor. But given that this  molecule binds in a somewhat different manner than predicted, perhaps a high-throughput approach, such as direct-to-biology, would generate even more potent molecules.

Vast fields of biologically active chemical space

Exactly 17 years ago, I highlighted a paper from Brian Shoichet’s lab in which he hypothesized that only tiny regions of chemical space are biologically relevant. If so, Practical Fragments quoted, “a major reason why the screening of synthetic compounds ever finds notable hits is that our libraries are biased toward the sort of molecules that proteins have evolved to recognize.” The best scientists continually question their assumptions, and this is exactly what Brian, Bryan Roth, and collaborators at University of California San Francisco and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill have done in a new open-access J. Med. Chem. paper.

 

The idea that molecules more closely resembling metabolites and natural products would be more likely to be biologically active is reasonable given the promiscuity of many naturally occurring molecules. As the researchers point out, dopamine signals through 5 receptors, while serotonin binds to 14. Nature is the ultimate recycler, constantly reusing chemical motifs.

 

But since 2009 there has been a massive growth of make-on-demand libraries, and these have increasingly diverged from known molecules. Brian has been among the most prolific explorers of this new chemical space, and as he noted in his keynote at DDC 2026, these gargantuan libraries are yielding more hits against more targets.

 

Are these hits more selective? In other words, are molecules that are less “bio-like” likely to bind to fewer targets? This is the question the new paper addresses, focusing on the 5-HT_2A serotonin receptor (5-HT_2AR), the target for a variety of drugs including psychedelics. The researchers have extensively studied this GPCR; we wrote about a successful computational screen here. In the new paper, the researchers compared hits from a previous “make-on-demand” (MoD) library screen of 1.6 billion molecules with a new screen of 3.5 million “in-stock” molecules. As predicted, the in-stock compounds were much more bio-like than the MoD compounds as assessed by several metrics (Tanimoto similarity, Avalon fingerprints, and RDK7 fingerprints, for the cheminformatics aficionados among you).

 

Both libraries were computationally screened using DOCK3.8 against 5-HT_2AR. Of the top scoring hits, 85 molecules from the in-stock library and 384 molecules from the MoD library were tested in a radio-ligand displacement assay. Hit rates were nearly identical at around 24% each. Functional assays revealed the hits to be active, with some acting as agonists while others were antagonists.

 

When tested against related GPCRs, specifically 5-HT_2BR and 5-HT_2CR, the in-stock molecules were more promiscuous than the MoD molecules. But when tested against a panel of 318 GPCRs there were no differences: the in-stock molecules bound on average 1.7% of the receptors while the MoD molecules bound on average 2.1%. The similar promiscuity persisted even when focusing on the 55 aminergic GPCRs (5-HT_2AR is an aminergic GPCR). In fact, the most promiscuous compound of all came from the MoD set and is distinctly not bio-like.

 

Of course, this is just one study, but I suspect it will generalize. In 2009 I questioned whether biologically relevant chemical space is really so sparse. As I wrote then, “consider a vast field of some crop that can only be harvested by night. There are lights scattered haphazardly throughout the field. One might expect that the crops immediately under the lamp posts would be harvested more intensively than crops in darker parts of the field, even if other areas are equally productive. In this scenario, the lamp posts reveal natural products and similar molecules, but much – or even most – of (unlit) chemical space may also be biologically active, it just hasn’t been sampled yet.”

 

There is grandeur in this view of chemical space, which is supported by the new paper. Imagine yourself in the midst of the field on a moonless night. Turn on your headlamp and step forward in any direction. Drug leads glimmer as far as your light can reach.

An unexpected lysine-reactive covalent fragment against a Pleckstrin Homology domain

Last week we highlighted a study in which an attempt to optimize a covalent fragment led to a non-covalent fragment that bound in a different location. A new open-access paper in J. Med. Chem. by David Spring, Marko Hyvönen and colleagues at University of Cambridge is almost the inverse – a surprisingly covalent binder from a conventional fragment screen.

 

The researchers were interested in Pleckstrin Homology (PH) domains. The 250 or so PH domains in humans bind to the intracellular side of the plasma membrane by interacting with phosphoinositides such as PIP3. Blocking membrane recruitment could be useful for multiple diseases, but the highly charged nature of the interaction (the “P3” in PIP3 means three phosphate groups) makes drugging PH domains difficult, a perfect challenge for fragments.

 

The study focuses on the PH domain from Bruton’s Tyrosine Kinase (BTK), an important oncology and immunology target with several approved drugs, all of which bind to BTK’s kinase domain. Its PH domain was screened against 720 fragments using differential scanning fluorimetry (DSF). Seven fragments stabilized the melting temperature by a whopping 5 degrees C or more. Crystallography was successful for compound 1, which surprisingly revealed that the ketone reacts with the terminal amine of lysine 12, which normally makes electrostatic interactions with two phosphates in phosphoinositides.

 

The crystal structure showed unoccupied space nearby; subsequent fragment growing and optimization led to compound 24, with low micromolar affinity as assessed by DSF. The researchers obtained some two dozen crystal structures, which they were able to correlate with structure-activity relationships (SAR). All of the molecules formed the imine with K12; reducing the ketone to an alcohol abolished stabilization in DSF.

 

Intact protein mass spectrometry was used for assessing SAR and confirming that the covalent bond formation is reversible: adding two fragments with different affinities led to the same distribution of products regardless of the order of addition of the fragments. Not surprisingly, the reaction was faster at higher pH, but nearly complete covalent modification still took place within an hour at pH 7.4.

 

Even at high compound to protein ratios the molecules largely gave single protein modification, and two separate computational studies of the pK_a values of the 15 lysine residues in the BTK PH domain revealed that K12 is an outlier, with a calculated pK_a of 7.1 or 8.8 compared to an average of 10.5 or 10.8 for the others. This means that K12 is largely unprotonated at physiological pH, increasing its reactivity. A similar analysis of four related PH domains suggested that the equivalent lysine residues also have anomalously low pK_a values.

 

The fact that K12 is conserved across related PH domains does raise the question as to whether selectivity will be possible with this type of ligand. Also, no in vitro ADME properties are provided, so it is not clear whether this warhead is advanceable. I wish the researchers had explored other heterocycle alternatives to the furan moiety to assess the tunability of the reactivity; perhaps those will come later. Overall though, this paper is a nice case study where following up on unexpected observations identified a new approach for covalently targeting lysine residues. As Isaac Asimov famously said, “The most exciting phrase to hear in science … is not ‘Eureka!’ but ‘That’s funny.’”

From covalent to noncovalent 14-3-3 modulator, unintentionally

The seven members of the 14-3-3 family act as “hub proteins” that bind to other proteins, bringing them together or affecting their subcellular localization. Some of the client proteins, such as estrogen receptor alpha (ERα), are associated with diseases such as cancer, and stabilizing the interaction with 14-3-3 could thus be useful therapeutically. The idea is that a small “molecular glue” could bind at the interface between 14-3-3 and a client protein, enhancing the interaction. We’ve written here, here, and here about successful examples, both covalent and noncovalent. An open-access paper in ACS Med. Chem. Lett. earlier this year by Richard Doveston and colleagues at University of Leiscester starts with a similar strategy, but ends up somewhere else entirely.

 

The researchers had previously found that WR-1065, the active metabolite of the approved drug amifostine, can covalently bind to C38 of 14-3-3σ. (This is the same cysteine residue that had been targeted by Michelle Arkin and coworkers in 2019 using tethering.) Disulfide bond formation between WR-1065 and 14-3-3σ enhances the affinity of ERα for 14-3-3σ by a modest 2.8-fold.

 

In the new paper, the Doveston group made a small set of analogs in which the thiol was replaced by other warheads. Compound 7, containing an acrylamide, improved the affinity of ERα for 14-3-3σ by nearly two orders of magnitude, from 206 to 2.8 nM. But surprisingly, mass spectrometry revealed no covalent modification. Indeed, compound 7 was also active at low micromolar concentrations against the C38A mutant form of 14-3-3σ, while WR-1065 was inactive.

An examination of the structure-activity relationships (SAR) revealed that the acrylamide was essential; reducing the double bond abolished activity, while replacing the amide nitrogen with an oxygen made it significantly less active. Removing the primary amine or replacing it with a hydroxyl or carboxylic acid was also not tolerated.

 

If compound 7 does not bind covalently to C38, how does it work? Surprisingly, the molecule does not even bind at the interface between 14-3-3σ and ERα. Indeed, it shows additivity with a well-characterized molecular glue (fusicoccin A) known to bind at the interface. Where exactly compound 7 does bind is uncertain. A series of biophysical experiments suggests that it may stabilize the dimeric form of 14-3-3σ, though the mechanism remains to be determined.

 

This paper is a useful reminder that, as the authors conclude, “even rational design approaches can lead to unexpected outcomes.” Sometimes a warhead does not behave as one.

Fragments in the clinic: VVD-214

Just over two years ago we highlighted a new clinical candidate targeting WRN, a covalent inhibitor then called VVD-133214. An open-access paper published near the end of last year in J. Med. Chem. from Shota Kikuchi, David Weinstein, and colleagues at Vividion describes in detail the optimization of the covalent fragment hit to the clinical compound. (Shota presented some of this work at the 2024 DDC meeting.) This paper is also an interesting contrast to non-covalent fragment-finding approaches against this target we wrote about earlier this month.

 

The 2024 post described the chemoproteomic screening that identified compound 1a, which covalently binds to C727 in WRN. An early observation was that some molecules were cooperative with ATP while others were competitive. Given the high concentration of ATP in cells, the researchers prioritized the former category, which led to compound 1f. (Note that while I’m showing only the k_inact/K_I values, the researchers used biochemical and cell-based assays to drive SAR).

 

The vinyl sulfone warhead is unusual amongst covalent clinical compounds, so the researchers sought to characterize it. The rate of reaction with glutathione for compound 1f is comparable to the approved drug osimertinib: reactive, though acceptable. To try to lower the reactivity and also prevent isomerization of the double bond, the researchers introduced a methyl group. Compound 2a not only showed increased stability but also improved activity against WRN and sub-micromolar activity in a cell-based assay. A crystal structure of a later molecule revealed interactions with a hydrophobic patch on the protein, explaining the improvement in potency. Importantly, the other enantiomer was much less potent.

 

Other rings were tried, unsuccessfully, to replace the pyrimidine and the phenyl moieties. However, changing the cyclopentyl ring to a tert-butyl moiety (compound 5d) further improved the potency to the point where the compound could be tested in vivo, where it proved to be active in a mouse xenograft study. Mass spectrometry experiments revealed prolonged occupancy of C727 out to 24 hours after compound dosing even though the compound itself had been cleared, consistent with a long half-life of the WRN protein. The researchers note that high target engagement (TE) at 24 hours was predictive of tumor growth inhibition, which streamlines optimization since it is easier to run a one-day TE experiment than a multi-week efficacy study.

 

Further optimization of ADME properties ultimately led to VVD-214, which was active in a mouse xenograft study and showed good oral bioavailability and pharmacokinetics in mouse, rat, dog, and monkey. This compound was also profiled in a chemoproteomic assay and found to be quite selective for the C727 of WRN.

 

There are several important lessons in this paper. First, the initial fragment is larger than prescribed by the rule of three, consistent with an analysis of covalent inhibitors last year. Second, much of the SAR was empirical; crystallography was not used until relatively late in the campaign. When a crystal structure was finally solved of VVD-214 bound to WRN it revealed no polar contacts between the ligand and the protein, only hydrophobic interactions, which is rare for fragments, let alone drugs. Perhaps because of the lack of polar interactions, it was impossible to measure the inhibition constant (K_I), and saturating the warhead to make it unreactive completely abolished activity. In other words, the binding is largely driven by reactivity, but specific reactivity for WRN rather than generic chemical reactivity.

 

In 2024 just two WRN inhibitors had entered the clinic, the other being a noncovalent molecule called HRO761. We quoted the Vividion team as saying that “this presents a rare opportunity to compare two small molecule oncology drugs targeting the same protein by different mechanisms.” Since then, HRO761 has been quietly discontinued, as has another noncovalent drug, IDE275. Meanwhile, development of VVD-214 is ongoing, and another covalent compound, MOMA-341, which we mentioned here, has also begun human testing. (To be fair, so has yet another non-covalent molecule NDI-219216. And the binding mechanism of a sixth WRN drug, EIK1005, is undisclosed.) While it’s still early in the match, covalent drugs seem to be punching above their weight. May the best drug(s) prevail - Practical Fragments is rooting for them all.

From noncovalent fragments to covalent WRN inhibitors

Last week we described the discovery and early optimization of noncovalent inhibitors against the the DNA helicase WRN, an interesting oncology target both for its conformational flexibility as well as a ‘synthetic lethal’ approach to cancer drugs. Today we continue the theme with a Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. paper from Geoffrey Smith and colleagues at CHARM Therapeutics.

 

At the time the project began, no specific WRN inhibitors had been reported, but a crystal structure of the ADP-bound form of the protein had been published. The computational tool Fpocket, which we wrote about here, was used to identify several ligandable pockets.

 

To find actual ligands, the researchers crystallographically screened a library of 860 "poised" fragments from Enamine and used PanDDA (see here) to identify binders, even those with low occupancies. Several ligands occupied pockets that had been identified by Fpocket. More interestingly, five fragments bound in a previously cryptic site that had not been predicted. This pocket was formed by rotation of two phenylalanine residues as well as peptide backbone movements, consistent with sites able to support high affinity ligands, as we discussed in 2024. Thus, the focus turned to ligands that bind here.

 

Because of its low occupancy in the crystal, the orientation of compound 3 was ambiguous, so the researchers turned to a machine-learning-based protein-ligand co-folding algorithm called DragonFold. This revealed that the fragment binds in close proximity to a cysteine residue, C727, known to be reactive. Scaffold hopping and addition of a covalent warhead led to compound 4d. While the initial compound 3 showed no activity in a WRN helicase assay, compound 4d showed micromolar activity. Moreover, a crystal structure revealed binding to C727. Further SAR led to molecules such as compound 9b, the most potent WRN inhibitor reported in the paper.

 

Compounds were also tested against the closely related helicase Bloom syndrome protein, or BLM, and most of them were active, though the SAR varied between WRN and BLM. The activity against BLM is odd given that the residue corresponding to C727 is a serine, but the researchers note that the molecules might bind to other cysteine residues in BLM. Although no chemical reactivity data are provided for the ligands, I suspect they are somewhat reactive.

 

Several important lessons can be drawn from this brief paper. The fact that an experimental screen was able to identify cryptic pockets missed in a computational screen justifies empirical approaches. The identification of these pockets is all the more impressive given that pre-formed crystals were sufficiently flexible to undergo significant conformational changes. But computational approaches did prove their utility in refining the binding mode of the ligand. And finally, this is another example of appending a covalent warhead onto a non-covalent ligand.

 

Next week we’ll conclude this WRN trilogy with a covalent-first example.

Noncovalent fragments vs WRN

Werner syndrome helicase, or WRN, is an interesting target both for its biological mechanism and its flexible structure. Two years ago we highlighted work out of Vividion describing the discovery of a clinical-stage covalent WRN inhibitor. In a Nat. Commun. paper published earlier this year, Sandra Gabelli, Daniel Wyss, and collaborators at Merck and Proteros describe their noncovalent efforts against this target.

 

Inhibiting WRN kills cancer cells that are already defective for certain DNA repair pathways. It is an example of a “synthetic lethal” approach to drug discovery that expands the number of cancer targets by focusing on oncogenic cells rendered vulnerable by pre-existing mutations. As an ATP-dependent helicase, WRN acts as a molecular machine to unwind DNA. This requires the multidomain protein to undergo dramatic conformational changes, which makes finding ligands challenging: how do you know which conformation(s) to target? Moreover, WRN enzymatic assays are particularly prone to false positives; a paper published in 2024 demonstrated that some previously disclosed inhibitors are at best nonspecific, and at worst downright artifacts. Thus, the researchers chose to use biophysics to identify fragments.

 

A library of 1020 fluorine-containing fragments was screened in pools of up to 21 compounds using ¹⁹F NMR T₂ CPMG experiments. The 31 primary hits were re-screened as pure compounds in this assay as well as three more ligand-detected NMR assays, leading to seven hits taken into crystallography, of which three yielded structures. A separate SPR screen of 500 non-fluorinated fragments followed by confirmation by NMR led to three additional fragments characterized crystallographically. None of the validated fragments from either screen showed functional activity in an enzymatic assay.

 

The fragments bound in three different sites on the protein, which itself underwent significant conformational changes to accommodate the fragments. Fragments 1 and 2 bound in the same site and could be partially superimposed on one another, and these were used to generate a virtual library, of which 17 compounds were made and tested. Compound 4 had the best affinity as assessed by SPR and was also active in a functional assay.

Crystal structures of some of the other compounds bound to WRN were also determined, and these showed significant protein domain rearrangements, even when the compounds themselves were structurally similar. The researchers include a nice movie (link to download here) and suggest that “these structures capture only a few states of WRN as it translocates along the DNA and conducts its helicase and exonuclease functions.”

 

This paper nicely illustrates the challenges of finding ligands, particularly noncovalent ones, against conformationally flexible proteins. We’ll revisit this topic next week.

(Not) getting misled by crystal structures part 6: low ligand occupancies

It’s been a while since our last “getting misled by crystal structures” post. That one described unrecognized conformational heterogeneity of ligands. A more basic issue is ligand occupancy. It’s normally assumed that every protein in the crystal lattice has a bound ligand. A new paper in Structure by Timothy Stachowski and Marcus Fischer at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital reveals that this is not always the case.

 

The researchers selected roughly 10,000 protein-ligand structures from the Protein Data Bank (PDB) and did a simple re-refinement of the ligand occupancies and B-factors (measures of conformational heterogeneity and modeling errors). 10% of the structures already presumed ligand occupancies at or below 0.9, but re-refinement saw the fraction jump to 35%, more than three-fold higher. There were no overall differences between covalent and non-covalent ligands, but 37% of fragments (defined as having MW <300 Da) saw decreased occupancy in re-refinement compared to just 22% of larger ligands. A few structures even saw occupancy drop completely. The authors wrote that “manual reviewing these revealed that ligands were built into spurious electron-density.”

 

Crystallographers use several metrics to assess the quality of their structures. In addition to B-factors, unique to each residue or atom, real-space correlation coefficients (RSCC) and real-space R values are commonly used, and the researchers compared these parameters before and after re-refinement. In many cases the metrics improved with decreased occupancy, but not for all metrics, and not always meaningfully. This means that standard assessments do not always flag partially occupied ligands.

 

OK, so a ligand binds at only 80% occupancy rather than the 100% assumed: does this matter? The researchers describe three categories where the answer may be yes. In the first, correcting ligand occupancy reveals alternative conformations of protein side chains, which could be informative for understanding the mechanism of binding. In the second, correcting ligand occupancy can reveal water molecules that interact with the ligand and/or protein. As we noted more than a decade ago, water is an essential player in protein-ligand interactions, and a single water molecule can make the difference between a binder and a non-binder. Finally, correcting ligand occupancy can reveal alternative binding modes for the ligand, and even ligands binding to other sites.

 

Importantly, this analysis was done on individually refined structures in the PDB, and it seems likely that the issues would be even more severe for structures batch-refined in high-throughput crystallographic fragment screens. As we wrote last year, the community needs to figure out how to deal with the increasing number of these structures.

 

The fact that roughly a third of PDB structures have less than 100% ligand occupancy has implications for training AI models. It also has implications for individual targets. As the researchers note, “non-crystallographers who rely on the PDB often assume that deposition itself is an implicit stamp of approval. Structural biologists, however, know that this is not always the case.” Before using a structure, it would be wise to re-refine it yourself.

Fragments vs DsbA: towards a chemical probe

Despite its ubiquitous use as a model organism, Escherichia coli causes nearly a million deaths each year worldwide. Antibiotics provoke rapid selection for resistance and are becoming ineffective. An interesting alternative is to inhibit virulence factors. Doing so won’t directly kill the bacteria but instead reduce its infectivity, a trait that might be subject to less evolutionary selection.

 

The oxidoreductase DsbA facilitates disulfide bond formation in other bacterial proteins and is a key regulator of resistance. Martin Scanlon’s lab at Monash University has been pursuing this enzyme for some two decades; we described some of their work in 2015. In two recent papers, he and his colleagues describe progress towards a chemical probe.

 

DsbA has more than 300 protein substrates that bind in a shallow, hydrophobic groove. The lack of deep pockets or specific recognition elements makes finding small molecule ligands particularly challenging. Three years ago we highlighted fragment screens that identified two dozen hits in this groove. Intriguingly, that screen also identified a couple fragments that bind in a cryptic pocket close to the groove. This pocket is the focus of a paper published in Angew. Chem. late last year by Martin and collaborators at Monash University, La Trobe University Bundoora, and Scripps.  

 

Crystallography revealed that compound 1 binds in a pocket that is completely enclosed by DsbA. Twenty commercial analogs were purchased and tested by protein-observed [¹⁵N,¹H]-HSQC NMR. Six bound to the protein, but NMR suggested all bound in the hydrophobic groove, not in the cryptic pocket. Undeterred, the researchers made and tested a few dozen analogs, some of which did indeed bind the cryptic pocket and also had slightly higher affinities as measured by NMR and SPR.

 

How do the fragments get inside a pocket with no apparent entrances? Computational, protein-observed NMR, SPR, and HDX experiments suggested that DsbA is dynamic and one region can open up to allow access of the fragments. Interestingly, the fragments bind preferentially to the oxidized (active) form of DsbA, a fact that makes sense given that this state is more dynamic, allowing readier access to the pocket.

 

Unfortunately, the affinity of the best fragments is only around 150 micromolar. The small size of the cryptic pocket makes further affinity improvements unlikely, so the researchers sought to break the bounds of this pocket to gain added affinity. This is the focus of a paper just published in J. Med. Chem. by Martin, Bradley Doak, and collaborators at Monash, Vernalis, University of Western Australia, and The University of Sydney.

 

The researchers first built a small set of compounds that would break out of the pocket. Compound 5 had slightly worse affinity, as measured by SPR, but crystallography confirmed that the alkyne does in fact protrude as designed. A small set of analogs led to compound 13, with mid micromolar affinity. This compound was nearly 30-fold more potent than its enantiomer, with the hydroxyl moiety displacing a conserved water to make hydrogen bond interactions with the protein.

 

To gain additional interactions in the hydrophobic groove, the researchers chose direct-to-biology, screening crude reaction mixtures without purification, an increasingly popular strategy as we noted last week. In this case the researchers used automated flow reactors, allowing air- and moisture-sensitive organometallic chemistry. A set of 92 compounds was made and tested by off-rate screening (ORS) SPR and affinity-selected mass spectrometry (ASMS). Four crude hits were remade, purified, and tested, and compound 17 came in as a low micromolar binder both by SPR and ITC. This molecule also inhibited the enzyme in a functional assay and even showed some activity in a bacterial swarming motility assay.

 

Further improvements in potency will be needed to obtain a chemical probe, let alone a drug, but these two papers describe meaningful progress. They also provide a useful reminder that proteins are far from static. Cryptic pockets are surprisingly common, and even if they are too small and enclosed to support high affinity binding, they can be used as footholds to build larger molecules.

Twenty-First Annual Fragment-Based Drug Discovery Meeting

Last week some 875 people attended the CHI Drug Discovery Chemistry (DDC) meeting in San Diego. I can’t do justice to the 40 or so presentations I attended over four days but can highlight some of the main themes.

 

Reversible fragments

Membrane targets such as G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) pose a challenge for biophysical methods, but three talks presented progress. Matthew Eddy (University of Florida Gainesville) described high-resolution magic angle spinning (HRMAS) NMR, which entails spinning isolated cellular membranes containing GPCRs at high speed (4 kHz!), which miraculously yields sharp NMR signals for bound ligands. Matthew demonstrated applications with the human adenosine A_2A receptor and weak (mM) ligands. He noted that the technique can work with native, poorly expressed proteins, though data collection times can be upwards of 30 minutes.

 

Kris Borzilleri described using ¹⁹F NMR to find ligands against an orphan GPCR at Pfizer. The 2287 fragments screened yielded 87 hits, of which 38 confirmed by SPR. SAR studies eventually yielded low micromolar ligands, but these were difficult to advance in the absence of structure (see here for a more successful example from Merck).

 

Vanessa Porkolab (Eurofins Cerep) described using the Nanotemper Spectral Shift technology to screen 826 fragments against the adenosine A_2A receptor at 300 µM, with a 9.2% hit rate. Many of these ligands stabilized the GPCR in a thermal shift assay and seven were even active (as antagonists) in a cellular assay.

 

Turning to soluble proteins, Paola Di Lello presented a case study from Genentech and Vernalis applying ligand-observed NMR to the protein phosphatase PTPN22. Subsequent protein-observed NMR revealed that most of the 16 validated hits bound to two pockets some distance from the active site. The fragments were optimized to mid-micromolar affinity but showed no functional activity.

 

And Charlotte Hodson presented the eIF4E story from Astex. As we discussed last year, this yielded a low nanomolar ligand that did not have the desired cellular effects. Charlotte noted that subsequent genetic experiments were consistent with the limited efficacy. Still, the target was sufficiently interesting that a chemical probe would have been pursued even knowing it would be high-risk.

 

Covalent ligands

Covalent approaches made appearances throughout the conference. Keriann Backus (UCLA) described chemoproteomic approaches to find cysteine-targeting ligands; she noted that gain of cysteine residues (such as G12C in KRAS) are the most common missense variants in cancer. Keriann also warned how covalent compounds can cause potentially misleading effects in cells, as she described in Nat. Chem. Biol. last year.

 

In 2021 we wrote about the SpotXplorer fragment library from György Keserű (Hungarian Research Centre for Natural Sciences). György has now prepared a PhotoXplorer library, which uses diazirine tags for photochemical screening, which we described here. The new library has produced high hit rates across a variety of targets. György also described a new sulfozone-based photoprobe that is easier to prepare than diazirines.

 

Kelly Craft recounted a DNA-encoded library (DEL) screen at AbbVie against the target BCL2A1, also known as BFL1. This produced an aldehyde-containing low micromolar binder that formed an imine with buried lysine 102. Uncomfortable progressing an aldehyde, the researchers sought to covalently engage cysteine 55, the same cysteine targeted by AstraZeneca, as we wrote about here. The progression included at least one dual-warhead molecule which was crystallographically confirmed to bind both the lysine and cysteine. The effort ultimately yielded cysteine-selective leads.

 

Earlier this year I described the dDRTC method we developed at Frontier Medicines for determining k_inact/K_I, and Svetlana Kholodar presented a nice overview of its scope and utility. My colleague Johannes Hermann spoke in more detail about our covalent technologies, particularly those using AI.

 

Chemical space and the exploration thereof

Brian Shoichet (UCSF) gave an entertaining and wide-ranging account of “directed and random walks in chemical space.” Brian has consistently been on the bleeding edge of high-throughput in silico screens, from 67,000 compounds in 2009 to 138 million molecules in 2019 to 4 billion molecules today. When docking artifacts are avoided (as we discussed here), bigger libraries consistently produce more potent hits for more targets – an observation strikingly consistent with Alex Shaginian’s in 2023 as HitGen expanded their DEL libraries from billions to more than a trillion molecules. Brian is developing methods to computationally screen the >4 trillion make-on-demand molecules now available from companies such as Enamine.

 

Direct-to-biology (DTB) approaches, which rely on microscale chemical reactions screened without purification, have become increasingly popular methods for exploring chemical space. Jack Sadowsky correctly stated that Carmot was the first company formed around this approach; we previously wrote about the role Chemotype Evolution played in the discovery of sotorasib. Jack described how Kimia, which spun out of Carmot, has continued to advance the technology, applying it to find inhibitors selective for single members of closely related kinase families.

 

Allan Jordan described how Sygnature Discovery is applying DTB in a variety of assays including microsome stability and crystallography. (We wrote about crude reaction screening by crystallography earlier this year.) Expanding beyond DTB, Allan called their platform direct-to-discovery, and discussed how it led to a preclinical candidate with STORM Therapeutics in just 18 months.

 

WuXi Apptec is also using DTB. Peichuan Zhang described starting with ligands derived from fragment and DEL screens against the E3 ligase GID4 to make PROTACs to degrade BRD4; DTB was used to explore a wide range of different linkers. And Daniel Blair (St. Jude) described using DTB and affinity selection-mass spectrometry (AS-MS) to find new molecular glues for the oncology target LCK.

 

Computers, DEL, and DTB are not the only way to explore chemical space. Last year we covered Tom Kodadek’s bead-based screening approach at University of Florida Scripps, and Tom presented two talks on the topic, one using macrocycles to find binders to difficult targets such as PTP1B and one using small molecules to find molecular glues.

 

Speaking of PROTACs and glues, plenary keynote speaker Alessio Ciulli (University of Dundee) discussed the “evolution and future of targeted protein degradation.” Alessio noted that there are >25 PROTAC degraders and >10 glues in the clinic, though these collectively target only a small number of E3 ligands, so there is plenty of opportunity for the area to expand.

 

For many of us in industry, drugs represent the most privileged points in chemical space, and these often look quite different than we assume, as Dean Brown (Jnana) noted in his recent analysis of 104 oral small molecule drugs approved by the FDA from 2020 to 2024 (which we mentioned here). Some drugs contain eye-raising moieties such as acetylenes, styrenes, N-O bonds, and nitro groups. Indeed, it is worth remembering that venetoclax, arguably the most successful fragment-derived drug, sports a nitro group.

 

But before getting too complacent, Jonathan Baell (Manas) warned about frequent hitters in libraries of FDA-approved drugs. He notes in Eur. J. Med. Chem. earlier this year that many commercial libraries are actually enriched for molecules that cause spurious biological activity. Jonathan calls on library vendors to remove particularly egregious compounds, though I’d settle for world peace.

 

I’ll close on that pleasant thought, but please feel free to comment. I hope to see you in San Diego next year April 19-22 for the twenty-second iteration of DDC.

Fragments vs the E3 ligase KLHL12

Last week we highlighted work out of Steve Fesik’s lab at Vanderbilt University about PLPro. This week we’ll highlight another paper just published (open access) in J. Med. Chem. on a different subject from Steve, Alex Waterson, and colleagues.

 

Targeted protein degradation has been receiving increasing attention. The most common approach uses bivalent molecules called PROTACs. Imagine a molecular barbell, where the weight plate on each end is a different ligand, one targeting an E3 ligase and the other targeting a protein to degrade. As he discussed at the DDC meeting in 2023, Steve has long been pursuing ligands against previously unexplored E3 ligases with desirable properties, such as tissue-specific expression. A PROTAC using an E3 found predominantly in cancer cells could degrade essential proteins while sparing proteins in normal cells, and so yield safer drugs. The E3 ligase Kelch-like protein 12 (KLHL12) is overexpressed in many cancers but not expressed in heart tissue. The new paper describes fragment screening and optimization of ligands for this ligase.

 

The researchers started with a protein-detected ¹H-¹⁵N correlation NMR screen of 13,824 fragments in pools of 12, each at 0.8 mM. This yielded just 35 hits, of which 15 showed similar chemical shifts to those caused by a peptide substrate, suggesting that they bind in the same site. Dose-response experiments were used to determine affinities, with compound 1 being the best.

A crystal structure of this molecule bound to KLHL12 confirmed that it binds in the substrate-binding cleft, but the resolution was insufficient to determine the precise orientation. Nonetheless, SAR around the aniline moiety led to more potent molecules such as compound 7c, and exploration around the benzimidazole led to compound 7k, with sub-micromolar affinity as assessed both by a fluorescence polarization anisotropy (FPA) assay as well as SPR.

 

A crystal structure of 7k bound to KLHL12 was solved at high resolution, explaining the SAR and also revealing tempting space for further growing. Disappointingly though, most of the dozens of analogs had at best low micromolar affinity, and the few that had comparable activity to compound 7k had significantly worse ligand efficiencies. KLHL12 is homologous to the protein KEAP1, which as we noted last year has also proven challenging for conventionally drug-like ligands.

 

In addition to KEAP1, KLHL12 has more than 35% sequence identity to nine other proteins, so selectivity is a potential concern. Unfortunately, these proteins proved difficult to express. However, one compound tested was selective for KLHL12 over KEAP1.

 

Finally, a small set of compounds was tested for in-cell KLHL12 engagement using a nanoBRET assay. Happily, compound 7k proved active at sub-micromolar concentrations, suggesting that cell permeability would not be an issue.

 

This is a nice fragment to lead story. The relatively flat SAR for many of the compounds, while undoubtedly frustrating, should be useful for further understanding molecular recognition. It is not clear whether compound 7k is sufficiently potent to be useful, but as the researchers conclude, the work “provides a promising foundation for the future design and synthesis of KLHL12-based PROTACs.”

From noncovalent fragment to (non)covalent leads against PLPro

The most successful drug against COVID-19, nirmatrelvir, targets the main protease of SARS-CoV-2. As we discussed just last year, this protein has received considerable attention. But the genome for SARS-CoV-2 also encodes a second cysteine protease, papain-like protease, or PLPro. Despite this enzyme being essential for viral replication, the only previously disclosed chemical series targeting it dates from 2008 efforts against the original SARS. Two new papers in J. Med. Chem. from Stephen Fesik and colleagues at Vanderbilt University introduce new molecules, covalent and non-covalent.

 

One reason progress has been slow against PLPro is that it is inherently challenging. It recognizes the sequence LXGG, where X = Arg, Lys, or Asn. The two glycine residues thread a narrow channel to access the catalytic cysteine, while leucine and the “X” residue bind in solvent-exposed subsites. In 2024 the Fesik group published an open-access paper in ACS Med. Chem. Lett. describing the results of a protein-observed NMR fragment screen. Out of 13,824 fragments screened in pools of 12 at 0.8 mM each, 77 confirmed when tested individually, and 22 had affinities better than 1 mM.

 

An attractive feature of protein-observed NMR is that it tells you where the fragments bind, and in this case there were two main binding sites. One set of fragments bound in the S3 and S4 pockets, where the leucine and lysine residues of the substrate would normally fit, while another group of fragments bound some distance from the active site. Representatives from both groups were tested for inhibition of enzymatic activity. Only those in the first group were active, so these were prioritized.

 

In the first open-access J. Med. Chem. paper this year, the researchers started with compound 11, which fulfills rule-of-three fragment criteria, binds in the S4 pocket, and inhibits the enzyme with high-micromolar activity. Adding a couple methyl groups (compound 15) improved the potency by roughly 10-fold, and building towards the S3 pocket yielded compound 37, with low micromolar activity. Addition of a basic nitrogen, as in compound 46, improved the potency to submicromolar activity, and crystallography revealed that the basic nitrogen interacts with a glutamic acid side chain. This molecule was active in a cellular assay at submicromolar concentration.

 

An increasingly popular strategy for addressing difficult targets is through covalent inhibitors, and this is the subject of the second open-access J. Med. Chem. paper this year. The researchers synthesized and tested 25 analogs based on molecules such as compound 37 in which various warheads were appended by flexible linkers. Although some of these were active at low micromolar concentrations, only a few showed time-dependent activity as would be expected for an irreversible covalent inhibitor.

 

These few were optimized with the aid of molecular dynamics and structure-based design to molecules such as compound 45. Interestingly, despite being nearly 10-fold more potent than the best non-covalent molecule, it was less active in cells; the researchers attribute lower-than-hoped activity to the two hydrogen-bond donors in the diacetylhydrzaine linker. Unfortunately, these turned out to be essential for covalent binding; crystallography revealed that the compound forms four hydrogen bonds in the glycine channel. Indeed, this particular linker-warhead combination had been previously reported, and the inability to improve on it emphasizes the restrictive requirements for this particular protein.

 

This is a nice series of papers that shows how a single fragment can lead to multiple leads. The last paper is also a useful reminder that adding a warhead to a high-affinity binder is not always easy, nor does it necessarily lead to superior molecules. Indeed, neither the covalent nor the noncovalent leads have any reported in vitro ADME or pharmacokinetic data. It would be fun to screen PLPro against a library of covalent fragments to look for even more starting points.

NICELE: everyone gets an A+!

Since the invention of ligand efficiency (LE) more than two decades ago, scholars have been debating its strengths and weaknesses. And alternatives; we've written about LLE, LLE_AT, LELP, %LE, WTF, and more. Just last week we discussed CRE.

 

But all these metrics (with perhaps one exception) have a problem: they sometimes tell you that your molecule is not as good as you hoped. And who wants to hear that? 

 

Maybe you used cutting-edge AI technology to design your ligand, and then moved heaven and earth to make it. When you finally test it the result comes back - meh. But that doesn't mean the haters should win! 

 

You can't (or really shouldn’t) change the assay results, but you can change the scoring system, and now researchers at the University of Durak have come up with a new metric called NICELE (No Insulting Critical Evaluation Ligand Efficiency). Unlike xLE, the calculation is simple:

NICELE = LE + F, where F = (1.0 - LE)

Let's say your fragment comes in with a LE of 0.18 kcal/mol per non-hydrogen atom - not so good. That's OK, the NICELE is a much more impressive 1.0!

 

As a bonus, because LE is removed from the final calculation, NICELE is independent of standard state assumptions, so Dr. Saysno should embrace it.

 

Of course, NICELE makes it harder for those molecules with truly impressive ligand efficiencies to stand out, but they're a bunch of elitists anyway.