06 September 2021

How fragments become leads

Our most recent poll asked how often synthetic challenges had kept researchers from pursuing a particular fragment or had impeded a fragment-to-lead project. Around two-thirds replied sometimes or often. A new open-access paper in Chem. Sci. by Rachel Grainger, Rhian Holvey, and colleagues at Astex does a deep dive into fragment-to-lead chemistry, provides a powerful visual tool, and ends with something of a call to action.
 
The researchers take as their starting points 131 fragment-to-lead success stories published from 2015 to 2019 and collated in a series of five J. Med. Chem. Perspectives. All of these started with fragments (< 300 Da) for which affinity increased by at least 100-fold, with the resulting leads having affinities of 2 µM or better. As the new paper points out, this could introduce “survivorship bias,” in that less successful projects are not included. However, as the point of the paper is to figure out what works, this likely strengthens the conclusions.
 
The targets themselves are fairly diverse: 24% kinases, 9% proteases, 36% other enzymes, 11% bromodomains, 14% other protein-protein interactions, and 6% other types of targets. The researchers closely examined how the leads related to the initial fragments. Full details are provided in the Supplementary Material (pdf). The researchers have also constructed a handy interactive viewer you can use to do your own analyses. Here is an overlay of an initial fragment (taupe space-filling) with the final lead (yellow surface).
 

What are the results? The first observation is that 93% of leads have at least one polar interaction (such as a hydrogen bond) that is conserved from the initial fragment. The most common functional groups making direct contacts to proteins are N-H hydrogen-bond donors (35%) followed by aromatic nitrogen hydrogen-bond acceptors (23%) and carbonyl oxygen hydrogen-bond acceptors (22%).
 
The second observation is that over 80% of fragments are grown from one or two vectors (examples of one and two, with the second the subject of the figure above). This is perhaps not surprising; growing from three or more vectors would likely result in portly molecules that may be more difficult to advance, venetoclax notwithstanding.
 
But the really interesting observation is that the majority of growth vectors (~80%) originate from carbon atoms. Moreover, more than half of the bonds formed are carbon-carbon bonds. For the non-chemists in the audience, this is significant because carbon-carbon bond forming reactions are not always straightforward, particularly in the presence of polar moieties.
 
In the early days of FBLD, one hope was that including functional groups such as amides in a fragment collection would facilitate fragment growing. The new paper suggests that this is naïve: a functional group in a fragment is likely to interact with the protein and so block potential growth vectors. Indeed, only 18% of growth vectors come from N-H groups, despite the fact that these are among the most synthetically accessible.
 
These findings thus explain why fragment-to-lead efforts can be so challenging. The researchers provide an example of a chemical series they ultimately abandoned due to poor synthetic tractability.
 
The paper also builds on earlier papers from Astex exhorting chemists to further advance chemical methodology. As they conclude:
An “ideal synthesis” of a lead would allow: (1) site-selective formation of bonds at all growing points of a fragment, (2) whilst being mild enough to be compatible with essential polar functionality, and (3) proceeding with minimal or no need for protecting groups….
 
We believe that further development of C-H functionalisation that is tolerant to polar fragments has the potential to transform FBDD.
If you’re in academia, this looks like a good opening for a grant proposal!

4 comments:

Gianni Chessari said...

Thanks Dan for the nice review, which highlights all the key messages we wanted to share with the FBDD and the organic synthesis community. The analysis would not have been possible without all the work you and your co-authors have put into the yearly fragment-to-lead J. Med. Chem. Perspectives.

Marawan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Marawan said...

Great summary. I am wondering if the other targets that had NOT been explored in the analyzed dataset have anything in common. For example, I could not see GPCRs populated, is it because they require large molecular weight compounds to have a measurable "intrinsic activity" to test, then they will be excluded by the 300 Da cut-off, just curious?

Dan Erlanson said...

Hi Marawan,
It's an interesting question, but to paraphrase Chekhov, I suspect the non-analyzed targets are each diverse in their own ways. Our F2L Perspectives note a number of "near misses," and while some fail on the basis of molecular weight, many others fail because the final molecules don't quite cross 2 micromolar, or there is less than 100-fold improvement. In the case of GPCRs in particular, fragment hits can be quite small, as we noted here. I suspect the most frequent challenge is lack of structural information, though as we wrote earlier this year this is not always essential.