Covalent fragments provide an
opportunity to both drug difficult targets and to more completely shut down targets. Success has spurred interest, and the literature is exploding.
It has been just over a month since our last post on the topic, and already
three new papers are worth highlighting.
The first, in Eur. J. Med.
Chem. by György Keserű and collaborators at the Hungarian Research Centre
for Natural Sciences and University of Szeged, describes a library of 24
covalent fragments. All of these contain the same relatively simple core but
vary in their covalent warheads or how the warhead is attached.
The idea is to explore warhead
reactivity in the context of a “vanilla” fragment that could provide modest but
nonspecific hydrophobic interactions with proteins. The 14-atom 3,5-bis(trifluoromethyl)phenyl
core was chosen because it is commonly used in medicinal chemistry and lacks
polar atoms likely to make specific interactions to proteins. Also, the electron
withdrawing trifluoromethyl groups make the warheads more reactive. The UV
absorbance and lipophilicity also make derivatives synthetically easy to work
with, and the fluorine atoms are useful for 19F NMR.
The warheads themselves span a vast
range of reactivity as assessed both computationally and experimentally (by reactivity
with glutathione). Some, such as maleimides and isothiocyanates, are so highly reactive
that they are often used for nonspecific protein labeling, while others, such
as styrene and acetylene, are quite unreactive. In the middle are moieties like
acrylamides, chloroacetamides, and epoxides.
The researchers screened the
library (at 100 µM) against four unrelated kinases: BTK, ERK2, RSK2, and
MAP2K6. Unsurprisingly, four of the hottest fragments inhibited all the
kinases, while the seven weakest warheads were inactive. Things got interesting
in the middle though, with different inhibition profiles seen for different
kinases.
Next, the researchers tested
their fragment sets against two new kinases, JAK3 and MELK. Both kinases
yielded several hits. Replacing the vanilla fragment with small hinge-binding
elements for the relevant warheads rapidly yielded nanomolar inhibitors. Covalent
inhibitors had already been reported for JAK3 but not for MELK. The researchers
suggest using their library as a rapid tool for assessing cysteine accessibility.
If you are interested in trying this at home, the authors have offered to send
the library upon request.
The second paper, in ChemBioChem
by György Keserű, Stanislav Gobec, and a large multinational group of collaborators,
describes a slightly expanded covalent library consisting of 28 compounds representing
20 different warhead chemotypes, all with the same 3,5-bis(trifluoromethyl)phenyl
core. Usefully, glutathione reactivity kinetics are provided for all the fragments.
The fragments were screened against six different (non-kinase) targets,
providing hits against all of them. 19F NMR as well as mass spectrometry
was used to confirm binding.
It is always nice to see new
types of covalent warhead chemistries, but medicinal chemistry tends to be somewhat
conservative: if something works clinically and isn’t (too) toxic, we’ll stick
with it. Thus the continuing interesting in acrylamides, which are found in five of the six approved covalent kinase inhibitors. Enter the third paper, in
J. Med. Chem., by Adam Birkholz and colleagues at Amgen, which systematically
explores the glutathione reactivity of substituted N-phenyl acrylamides.
The researchers first examine 11 α-substituted
N-phenyl acrylamides. For the most part electron-withdrawing substituents
increase the reactivity of the warhead, though fluorine has the opposite
effect, attributed to its mesomeric electron-donating ability.
Next, the researchers turn to 21 β-substituted
N-phenyl acrylamides. Again, electron withdrawing substituents increase
the reactivity of the acrylamides. For aminomethyl substituents, the reactivity
is lower than the parent unsubstituted acrylamide for amines with pKa
< 6, while the more basic amines show increased reactivity. All experiments
were conducted at pH 7.4, and computational modeling suggests that the protonated
amine inductively withdraws electron density from the acrylamide, thereby increasing
its reactivity.
While the general trends reported
in the paper are expected, the actual numbers provide a valuable resource. One
of the challenges of covalent drugs is ensuring the warhead is reactive enough
to bind to the target but not so reactive that it binds to other targets or is cleared too
rapidly. By knowing how much a given substituent is likely to increase –
or decrease – reactivity, chemists can more precisely tune their molecules.
Our medicinal chemistry toolkit
is expanding, and covalent molecules are playing a growing role.
Hi Dan,
ReplyDeleteYou might want to take look at the last sentence of the post (some might regard the term ‘covalent molecules’ as tautological). Much (most?) of the published covalent fragment work seems to focus on fragments that bind irreversibly and think the field would benefit from more consideration of reversible binders (especially if targeting catalytic cysteines).
Design is much less complex when covalent bond formation is reversible and differences in IC50 can be interpreted as differences in affinity under this scenario. Furthermore, structures of protein-ligand complexes can be interpreted in pretty much the same way as one would do for non-covalently bound ligands. The inhibitory activity of an irreversibly bound inhibitor is typicallly determined by the extent to which the enzyme stabilizes the transition state (you’ll get 100% inhibition if you wait long enough) and the structure of ‘product’ is not necessarily relevant to design. These notes on reversibility in the context of cysteine protease inhibitor design may be helpful.
Hi Pete,
ReplyDeleteThe three papers I highlighted are primarily focused on irreversible inhibitors. I agree that considering reversible binders is fruitful, as evidenced by the dozens of reversible inhibitors that have gone into the clinic starting from fragments. My point is that, particularly for some challenging targets such as KRASG12C, irreversible inhibitors can be quite useful. Precisely because design of these can be more complex, it is useful to have new tools.