08 August 2022

Solving structures with selective labeling and NMR2

Protein-detected NMR first enabled fragment-based lead discovery way back in 1996, but improvements in crystallography have now allowed synchrotrons to surpass big magnets as preeminent tools to determine how fragments bind to proteins. One of the major challenges in NMR is assigning the chemical shift values of atoms in all the individual amino acid residues. A technique called NMR Molecular Replacement (NMR2) sidesteps the need for this tedious, time-consuming process. A refinement to this technique, making it more broadly applicable, has just been published (open-access) in Sci. Reports by Julien Orts (University of Vienna), Martin Scanlon (Monash University) and collaborators.
 
As we discussed previously, NMR2 relies on intensive calculations using experimental intermolecular NOEs between a protein and a ligand to generate a model. Although the method does not require assignment of backbone or side chain chemical shifts, it does require high-quality spectra. For example, if the spectra of several amino acid residues overlap it is impossible to distinguish them (this applies to conventional NMR methods too). The researchers realized that one way to simplify the spectra is through selective labeling, in which the methyl groups of the amino acid residues alanine, isoleucine, leucine, valine, and threonine are isotopically labeled with 13C. Going one step further, the entire protein can be deuterated (rendering most of the protein invisible to NMR), while these methyl groups retain ordinary hydrogen atoms.
 
For the present study, the researchers focused on the protein EcDsbA, an antibacterial target we’ve written about previously. They selectively labeled methyl groups so that, in isoleucine, leucine, and valine, only one of the two methyl groups was labeled. That reduced the total number of protons to just 6% of the unlabeled protein.
 
The researchers then solved the structure of EcDsbA with a previously identified ligand. At 23 heavy atoms the ligand is on the large side, though with an affinity of just 0.9 mM it presents a difficult test case. A total of twelve intermolecular NOEs were used in NMR2 to build a model of the complex. One challenge with NMR2 is that there may not be a single solution. For example, if two methionine methyl groups are both near a ligand, it may be impossible to determine a unique binding mode. This turned out to be the case, and the top two structures had different positions for a carboxylic acid group and a phenyl in the ligand.
 
To benchmark NMR2, the protein-ligand complex was also determined using conventional two-dimensional techniques (HADDOCK and CYANA, which made use of assigned chemical shifts) as well as X-ray crystallography. These all agreed with the NMR2 model in placing a phenylpropyl moiety from the ligand in a hydrophobic groove, but they differed in the placement of the carboxylic acid and the other phenyl moiety: the top scoring NMR2 model agreed with the crystal structure and the CYANA NMR structure but differed from the HADDOCK structure, which was similar to the second-best NMR2 model. Before assuming that the crystallographic structure is correct, though, it is worth noting that the ligand makes crystal contacts with a neighboring protein, and the electron density around the ambiguous phenyl is weak.
 
This is a nice demonstration of the utility of NMR2. It seems to provide similar information as classic NMR methods, but the time taken is “orders of magnitude” less. And selective labeling should make NMR2 applicable to even larger proteins. I look forward to seeing more people use this strategy.

01 August 2022

What rings are found in drugs?

Recently we highlighted the “Ring Replacement Recommender,” which provides suggestions for how to improve affinity by replacing one ring with another. The recommendations are based on an analysis of hundreds of thousands of molecules. But what about the rings found in actual drugs? This is the focus of a J. Med. Chem. paper by Richard Taylor and collaborators at UCB and Bohicket Pharma Consulting.
 
The researchers examined FDA-approved and investigational drugs with disclosed structures as of January 2020. These were fragmented into component “ring systems” for analysis. (Ring systems include not just monocycles but fused rings, such as purine. For example, sotorasib consists of four ring systems: benzene, pyridine, piperazine, and pyrido[2,3-d]pyrimidin-2-one.) More than 90% of drugs contain at least one ring.
 
Approved drugs have just 378 unique ring systems in total – a small increase from when the researchers examined approved drugs in 2014. The phenyl ring is found 727 times, with pyridyl (86 examples) a distant second, followed by piperidine (76 examples) piperazine (65 examples) and cyclohexane (47 examples). After that the numbers drop off sharply, with pyrazine in 50th place with just six examples and fluorene in 100th place with three examples.
 
Investigational drugs at first appear to be more diverse, with 450 unique ring systems, 280 of which are not found in approved drugs. Of these 280, pyridazine is the most common, with nine examples, followed by oxetane, with seven, but things quickly become less common from there, with 271 of the ring systems found just once. In contrast, ring systems found in drugs are found in multiple compounds, and in fact two thirds of investigational drugs only contain previously used ring systems.
 
Many of the new ring systems are closely related to those found in approved drugs, with nearly half differing by at most two atoms. Perhaps because of this the overall properties of the ring systems are similar between approved and investigational drugs, with no significant differences in heteroatom ratio, percentage of sp3 centers, or number of rings per system.
 
What new opportunities exist? The researchers identified nearly half a million synthetically accessible ring systems and winnowed these down to 3902 ring systems that have similar heteroatom ratios to those found in drugs and differ by at most two atoms. This attempt to explore new chemical space is similar to earlier work from the same group (here) as well as that from others (here, here and here).
 
The researchers also examined growth vectors and combinations of rings, the latter by using graph theory. These analyses suggest that investigational drugs do have greater variety. In other words, even if the component rings are shared with approved drugs, they might be combined in new ways.
 
Whether certain ring systems are more likely to fail in the clinic was intentionally not addressed, due to the difficulty of assessing why the failures occurred. For example, drugs can fail for commercial reasons; a company may choose to drop a drug against a particular target rather than be tenth to market. And even when the failure is due to the science, it might not be an indictment of the drug itself. Verubecestat did lower β-amyloid levels in people as designed, but had no effect on Alzheimer’s disease.
 
This paper is a fun read, and it will likely provide ideas for scaffold hopping and library design. It is also a reminder of how much chemical space remains to be explored.