Fragment merging without crystallography for CGRP receptor antagonists

Migraines are the third leading cause of disability worldwide. Although the pathology is complex, blocking the interaction of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) with its receptor, thereby decreasing vasodilation, has proven successful in the clinic. However, some of the early small molecule antagonists were discontinued due to hepatotoxicity. In a recent J. Med. Chem. paper, Naohide Morita, Isao Azumaya, and collaborators at Kissei Pharmaceutical and Toho University describe a new class of inhibitors.

 

CGRP binds at the interface of a heterodimeric receptor comprised of the calcitonin receptor-like receptor (CLR) and receptor activity-modifying protein 1 (RAMP1). To find hits, the researchers screened a library of 2500 fragments (which could be up to 350 Da) at 500 µM against the extracellular CLR/RAMP1 domains using SPR. This yielded 565 hits, which were clustered based on similarity, and 250 were chosen for dose-response studies, leading to 38 confirmed hits. Competition studies with a known CGRP antagonist whittled this number down to just four, with compound 1 being chosen for further study due to ease of analog synthesis.

 

Compound 1 was confirmed as a binder using isothermal titration calorimetry (ITC). Unfortunately, co-crystallography with CLR/RAMP1 was unsuccessful, so the researchers turned to docking using information from known small molecule inhibitors. This work suggested that compound 1 binds to the CGRP receptor but does not interact with RAMP1, a conclusion further supported by mutagenesis studies.

 

To find fragments that bind RAMP1, the researchers performed a second fragment screen, again using SPR. This time the fragments were chosen from those in the first set that had not been tested in dose-response studies, supplemented with several hundred more selected based on structures of known CGRP antagonists. Of 784 fragments screened, 114 were taken into dose-response studies, leading to 8 hits. Compound 2 was the most potent, and mutagenesis studies suggested it interacted with RAMP1.

 

Crystallography of compound 2 was also unsuccessful, but docking, supported by NMR studies, suggested a possible binding mode. Compounds 1 and 2 were merged to yield compound 3, which had a satisfying 2000-fold improvement in potency compared to compound 1. Compound 3 also showed cell activity.

 

Compound 3 contains three stereocenters, so the researchers sought to simplify the molecule. They also needed to improve potency and metabolic stability. Multiparameter optimization ultimately led to compound 15, with picomolar(!) affinity for the receptor, subnanomolar activity in cells, and good pharmacokinetic properties. A standard model for migraine is inhibition of facial blood flow in marmosets, and compound 15 was active. The compound was also clean in tests for hepatotoxicity.

 

Although no further development of compound 15 is reported, this is a nice case study in fragment merging. As the researchers note, it is also one of just a handful of examples that succeeded in the absence of crystallographic data (we wrote about another one here). Hopefully this will further embolden researchers to pursue fragment merging and linking without direct structural information.

Covalent ligand efficiency

Ligand efficiency (LE) was proposed more than two decades ago as “a useful metric for lead selection.” The concept is simple: divide the binding energy of a ligand by the number of non-hydrogen (or heavy) atoms (HA). The higher the number, the higher the binding energy per atom, and thus the more “efficiently” the ligand binds to the protein. LE is particularly useful in fragment-based lead discovery when prioritizing among differently sized hits to ensure that small, weak molecules are not overlooked. While some have criticized the metric’s dependence on standard state, drug hunters have repeatedly found it to be useful, as we’ve discussed here, here, and here.

 

Irreversible covalent drugs are a horse of a different color - or perhaps a different species entirely. Because of their two-step mechanism, binding followed by bonding, time is an essential parameter, and the proper way to characterize them is with the ratio k_inact/K_I. Is it possible to develop a covalent ligand efficiency metric? This is the task that György Ferenczy and György Keserű at HUN-REN Research Centre for Natural Sciences and Budapest University of Technology and Economics set for themselves in a recent (open-access) Drug Discovery Today paper.

 

As we wrote just a couple months ago, an important distinction for covalent drugs is specific vs chemical reactivity: you want the first to be high and the second to be low. For cysteine-reactive molecules, this distinction is often assessed by measuring the rate of reaction with the abundant cellular thiol glutathione (GSH). The researchers sought to incorporate this parameter into their definition of covalent ligand efficiency (CLE) as follows:

 

CLE = LE – LE(GSH) = (-1.4*log₁₀(IC_50,t)/HA) - (1.4*log₁₀(k^2nd_sur*t)/HA)

Where IC_50,t is half maximal inhibitory concentration at time “t” and k^2nd_sur is the second-order rate constant of the ligand reacting with a surrogate nucleophile such as GSH.

 

The researchers cataloged multiple covalent modifiers from the literature. Some had reported glutathione reactivity data. For the rest, the researchers estimated these values based on analogs. They went on to calculate CLE values for the protein-ligand pairs. Laudably, all of these data are provided in the supplementary data.

 

So, how useful would CLE have been in prior lead discovery campaigns? The researchers calculated CLE values for the BFL1 covalent fragment hits we wrote about here. The potencies of the six reported fragment hits varied, reflected in k_inact/K_I values, from 0.7 to 9.5 M^-1s^-1. But their CLE values spanned a narrower range, from 0.08 to 0.12. The fragment that was successfully optimized was one of the most potent, with a k_inact/K_I of 7.5 M^-1s^-1, but had a CLE of just 0.09. If anything, CLE would have deprioritized this fragment, at odds with the stated goal that “CLE is designed to support compound priorization.”

 

As we discussed earlier this year, the researchers previously proposed that covalent fragments may need to be larger than reversible fragments. If this is true, then normalizing for size may be less important for covalent ligands than for noncovalent ones, which can be very small and weak yet still valuable. Indeed, the researchers’ analysis of covalent ligands from the literature shows a smaller range of CLE values than LE values.

 

The researchers acknowledge other oddities too: “there is no smooth transition from CLE to LE as the reactivity of ligands decreases. Moreover, CLE can take negative values for compounds with low affinity and high reactivity.”

 

But for me, the biggest liability is the fact that – unlike LE for reversible binders or k_inact/K_I – the value of CLE depends on the time the measurement was taken. (In the paper, the researchers use a 1 hour incubation, so I would propose the annotation CLE_1h.) This makes it difficult to compare CLE values taken at different time points.

 

The first word of this blog is “practical,” and I’m not convinced this adjective applies to CLE, though I applaud the effort. The popularity of LE spawned a cottage industry of other metrics, some of which we summarized in a 2011 post. I confess that I had nearly forgotten about some of them, but I think they were a useful way for the field to grapple with what characteristics mattered. As covalent drug discovery becomes increasingly popular, perhaps we will see a similar proliferation of metrics. (Indeed, we already wrote about another one here.) It will be interesting to revisit these a decade hence to see which ones have caught on.

Fragment growing in three dimensions made easy

Nearly a decade ago we highlighted a paper from Astex that exhorted chemists to develop new synthetic methodologies useful for fragment-based drug discovery. Peter O’Brien has taken on the challenge, and he and his collaborators at University of York and AstraZeneca report their progress in a recent (open-access) J. Am. Chem. Soc. paper.

 

The O’Brien group has previously published synthetic routes to shapely fragments, which we wrote about here. These could be useful for expanding fragment collections, but that happens infrequently. The new paper focuses on the far more common challenge of what to do when you have a fragment hit.

 

The idea was to create a “modular synthetic platform for the elaboration of fragments in three dimensions.” The researchers designed a set of bifunctional building blocks that could be coupled to existing fragments. The two functionalities were N-methyliminodiacetic acid boronate (BMIDA) and a Boc-protected amine. The amine is a versatile handle for multiple types of chemistry, while the BMIDA moiety is particularly useful for Suzuki-Miyaura cross-coupling. (Indeed, two separate groups of researchers had previously built libraries suited for cross-coupling using halogen-containing fragments, as we discussed here.)

  

For the new building blocks, the researchers considered azetidines, pyrrolidines, and piperidines with fused or spiro-cyclopropyl groups. These are rigid “three-dimensional” units, and the relative locations of the BMIDA group and the amine could provide very different distances and vectors. After modeling 27 possibilities, the researchers chose nine building blocks based on diversity and predicted ease of synthesis. These were synthesized on gram scale, and all nine are now commercially available.

 

To demonstrate that the building blocks would be generally synthetically useful, the researchers coupled them to a variety of (hetero)aryl bromides, with yields ranging from 10-90%, and most >60%. The Boc group was then deprotected and the crude amine was used in a variety of successful reactions.

 

The building blocks were each also coupled to 5-bromopyrimidine, the Boc-group was deprotected, and the free amines were capped as methanesulfonamides. Small molecule crystallography of the resulting compounds confirmed modeling results that the two vectors had a wide range of orientations and were separated by 1.5-4.4 Å. Moreover, most compounds were rule-of-three compliant, had good measured aqueous solubility, and were even stable in human liver microsomes and rat hepatocytes.

 

As a use-case, the researchers considered the approved drug ritlecitinib, an irreversible JAK3 inhibitor. They imagined that its pyrrolopyrimidine moiety was a fragment hit, and then virtually combined it with their nine scaffolds, each functionalized with an acrylamide. These were then virtually docked, and the best two were synthesized and tested. Compound 96 was quite potent, albeit less so than ritlecitinib.

The question of whether three-dimensionality is desirable as a design feature remains unproven, as we noted recently. However, whether the high Fsp³ of the nine new scaffolds is itself a selling point, they do provide new vectors for fragment growing, and their synthetic enablement justifies including them at least in virtual campaigns.

Keeping molecular dynamics cool for fragments

Accurately and reliably predicting fragment binding modes would be preferrable to doing messy, expensive, and sometimes tedious experimental work, but we’re not there yet. One of the biggest problems is that, because fragments usually bind weakly to proteins, it is hard to tell which of several possible binding modes is most favorable. In an open-access J. Chem. Inf. Model. paper published earlier this year, Stefano Moro and colleagues at University of Padova report progress.

 

Their approach, called Thermal Titration Molecular Dynamics (TTMD), analyzes short molecular dynamics simulations across increasing temperatures; if the ligand remains bound to the protein, this indicates a more stable binding mode. (It seems a bit like the dynamic undocking we wrote about here.) The researchers had previously reported good results for larger, drug-sized molecules, but not for four fragment-protein complexes.

 

Recognizing the low affinities of fragments, the researchers decided to lower the (virtual) temperatures. Rather than heating from 300 to 450 K, they heated from 73 to 233 K; ie, from just below the boiling point of liquid nitrogen to a moderately cold winter’s day in Minnesota. They first docked fragments using PLANTS-ChemPLP, which is free for academics, and chose the five best-scoring poses for evaluation.

 

Next, the researchers performed TTMD. There are several different ways to assess how well the ligand remains bound to the protein over the course of a molecular dynamics simulation, and four different scoring methods were chosen. When TTMD was tested on the four fragment-protein complexes that had previously failed, at least two of the scoring methods correctly identified the crystallographic binding mode for three of the fragments.

 

Thus encouraged, the researchers tested ten more compounds bound to six new proteins. The results were quite encouraging, with up to 86% of crystallographic binding modes being correctly identified by at least one of the scoring functions in TTMD vs 50% for docking alone. Impressively, two of the examples were MiniFrag-sized, with just 6 or 7 non-hydrogen atoms, yet the crystallographic pose was identified as the lowest energy in all four TTMD scores.

 

This is nice work, but the question arises how these specific ligands and proteins were chosen. Several years ago we highlighted a curated set of 93 protein-ligand structures that were used to benchmark other virtual approaches, and it would be nice to see how TTMD performs on these. Still, TTMD’s performance on its chosen examples is encouraging, and laudably the researchers have made their code freely available. If you try it out, please let us know how it works in your hands.