The propensity for some small
molecules to form aggregates in water has bedeviled fragment-finding efforts
for decades. Indeed, the phenomenon was not fully recognized until early this
century. Although plenty of tools are available for detecting aggregates, I
still see too many papers that omit these crucial quality controls. As annoying
as aggregation can be in activity assays, in certain cases it could actually be
useful for formulating drugs. There has been speculation that the good oral bioavailability
of venetoclax is due to aggregation. But despite computational methods to
predict aggregation, the structural features of molecules that cause them to
aggregate are still not well understood. In a new open-access Nature Comm.
paper, Daniel Heller and collaborators at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer
Center and elsewhere provide some answers.
The researchers had previously published
an article describing how indocyanine green (ICG) could be used to stabilize
and visualize aggregates, and they applied the same technique to examine the
aggregation potential of a small set of fragments. Benzoic acid and 2-napthoic
acid did not aggregate, while 4-phenylbenzoic acid did. Intrigued, the
researchers tested a set of 14 4-substituted biphenyl fragments and found that
those containing both a hydrogen bond donor and acceptor, such as acids,
sulfonamides, amides, and ureas, could aggregate, while those containing only
donors (aniline) or acceptors (nitrile) did not.
Fourier transform infrared
spectroscopy was used to examine the stretching region of the carbonyl of
4-phenylbenzoic acid in various states: in an aqueous aggregate, in solution in
either t-butanol or DMSO, or in the solid state. Interestingly, the aggregate
most resembled the solid state, consistent with close-packed self-assembly as
opposed to free in solution.
From all this, the researchers hypothesized
that a combination of aromatic groups and hydrogen bond donors and acceptors
was necessary for aggregation. However, having these features does not mean
aggregation is inevitable. Neither 3-phenylbenzoic acid nor 2-phenylbenzoic
acid formed aggregates, with the former precipitating while the latter remained
completely soluble. These three phenylbenzoic acid isomers behave very differently despite the fact that they have the same calculated logP values,
and the suggestion is that the latter two molecules are less able to form pi-pi
stacking interactions that lead to stable aggregation.
Next the researchers examined the
approved drug sorafenib, which had previously been shown to aggregate. This was
confirmed, and the aggregates were characterized with a battery of biophysical
methods including dynamic light scattering, transmission electron microscopy,
and X-ray scattering, along with molecular dynamics simulations. The conclusion
is that sorafenib forms amorphous aggregates whose assembly is driven by a
combination of pi-pi stacking and hydrogen-bonding. A series of sorafenib
analogs was synthesized, and those that could not form strong intermolecular
hydrogen bonds were less prone to aggregation.
All of this is fascinating from a
molecular assembly viewpoint and will help to explain and predict which
compounds are likely to aggregate, for better or for worse. But as of now, experimental
assessment is still best practice for any new compound.
One can have a different look also - how often aggregates flat the apparent activity of a compound, limiting the free compound concentration? Could be a problem with fragments, whenever high concentration is needed - could be a problem with advanced leads, especially in cellular assays. Examine your concentration-response curves critically!
ReplyDelete