The researchers started by confirming that literature
reference compounds behaved as expected. Next, they screened all 16 of the
PDE4A hits against PDE10A, including several that were quite weak against PDE4A
itself. All of these were active in
the enthalpy array assays, with Ki values ranging from 94 to 1400 μM and good
ligand efficiencies. In fact, most of the fragments were more potent against
PDE10A than the phosphodiesterase against which they were original screened –
which perhaps touches on the question of fragment selectivity.
The researchers also screened an additional 85 fragments at
a concentration of 2 mM, leading to 8 more hits. All 24 of the hits were then
soaked into crystals of PDE10A, yielding 16 crystal structures of bound
fragments – a respectable 67% success rate. Interestingly, fragments that
produced structures were more potent (average KI = 590 µM) than
those that didn’t (average KI = 1000 µM), and this difference was
statistically significant.
All of the fragments bound at the active site, and fragment
growing was used to improve the affinity of two of the fragments. This led to
low or sub-micromolar compounds, albeit with a loss in ligand efficiency. These
more potent compounds were also selective for PDE10A over PDE4A, though
solubility limits precluded testing at very high concentrations.
The paper frankly discusses some of the limits of using
enthalpy arrays. For example, since the fragment should be present at a higher
concentration than enzyme, very tight binders would require unfeasibly low enzyme
concentrations. This limits the practical range of the technique to inhibitors
with KIs ranging from ~500 nM to 2 mM. Also, as Morgen G observed in
a comment to the last post, this is more of a biochemical assay (monitoring the
heat of an enzymatic reaction) rather than what most people think of when you
say the word calorimetry (monitoring the heat of binding, as in the case of
isothermal titration calorimetry). Still, enthalpy arrays seem pretty cool;
hopefully folks will warm to them.
OUCH, the punniness. With that said, does this get to a more primal question: what value is thermodynamics? Would it be possible to say that enthalpy measurements correlate with the ability to get crystal structures?
ReplyDelete