Mitogen Activated Protein Kinase Kinase
Kinase Kinase 4, or MAP4K4, is one of the 500+ human kinases that doesn’t get a
whole lot of attention, in part perhaps because there aren’t many good tool
compounds out there. A new paper from Genentech in Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. reports an attempt to change this.
The researchers started with a surface
plasmon resonance (SPR) screen of 2361 fragments, yielding 225 confirmed hits
with KD values between 10 and 2010 µM, all with ligand efficiency
(LE) values above 0.3 kcal/mol/atom. This seems like a good use of LE: with
hundreds of hits to choose from, some sort of triage is necessary, and you
might as well go with those with the highest LE.
Compound 1 had moderate potency and
excellent LE, as well as a structure familiar from other kinase programs.
Modeling suggested growing off the amine, and a small set of compounds were
made including compound 7, which gave a 10-fold boost in potency, albeit with a
loss in LE. Crystallography of a close analog of compound 7 revealed that it
bound as expected, and also suggested a fragment growing approach.
A number of substituents were introduced,
all with an eye towards keeping lipophilicity low (clogD < 3.5). Compound 16
was the most potent, though the solubility was poor, and adding polar
substituents didn’t help much. Compound 25 had similar potency, and in this
case adding a polar substituent (compound 44) improved solubility too. The PK
profile in mice was also reasonable.
Unfortunately, when tested at 1 µM against
63 kinases, compound 44 inhibited 16 of them by at least 75%, suggesting that
it will not make a useful tool compound. The team reported better selectivity earlier this year with
a series of compounds derived from a different fragment hit identified in the
same SPR screen. Yet despite the outcome, this is a nice case study
in using ligand efficiency, calculated hydrophobicity, and structural
information to guide fragment growing.
But how could they expect specificity if they didn't consider it during their elaboration?
ReplyDelete