Fragments deliver a chemical probe for CBP and EP300

As we mentioned last week, July is bromodomain month at Practical Fragments. Today we’ll start by looking at two closely related bromodomains, one found in cyclic-AMP response element binding protein (CBP) and another from adenoviral E1A binding protein of 300 kDa (EP300). Both proteins have been implicated in a variety of diseases, particularly cancer, so a chemical probe would be very valuable.

Alexander Taylor and collaborators at Constellation Pharmaceuticals, Genentech, and WuXi, describe such a probe in a recent paper in ACS Med. Chem. Lett. The researchers screened about 2000 fragments in a thermal shift assay using 0.8 mM of each fragment. Compounds that increased the melting temperature of the CBP bromodomain by at least 1° C were validated first by time-resolved fluorescence resonance energy transfer and then by ¹⁵N HSQC NMR, ITC, and X-ray crystallography. Compound 1 was one of the more attractive hits, in particular because it was considerably less active against BRD4, whose inhibition causes all sorts of changes to cells.

Crystallography of the racemic compound clearly showed that only one of the enantiomers bound, and this was confirmed in functional assays when both enantiomers were tested separately. The active enantiomer makes some of the same interactions typical of all bromodomains with the natural ligand (N-acetylated lysine). Fragment growing was attempted off the aromatic ring, and although several vectors were tolerated, most decreased selectivity against BRD4. However, close examination of the structures revealed a promising vector that led to compound 14, with good selectivity against BRD4. Further optimization ultimately led to CPI-637, with low nanomolar activity against both CBP and EP300 as well as good cell-based activity. Crystallography revealed that this compound binds in a similar manner as the initial fragment.

The selectivity of CPI-637 against other bromodomains is also good (> 700-fold less active against BRD4), though it does hit BRD9 with sub-micromolar activity. Just as with the initial fragment, the opposite enantiomer of CPI-637 is considerably less active. Although no pharmacokinetic data are provided, at the very least this should be a useful probe for cell-based studies.

Switching gears to another aspect of CBP, the multidomain protein p300/CBP-associated factor (PCAF) has a bromodomain that may bind to CBP, though the biology is not entirely clear. PCAF is known to bind an acetylated HIV protein, and has been proposed as a target for AIDS. Obviously this is another opportunity for a chemical probe! The first steps are reported in a paper by Stefan Knapp and collaborators at Goethe University Frankfurt, University of Oxford, Leiden University, ZoBio, and University of Cambridge, published in J. Med. Chem (and open-access).

The researchers screened two separate fragment libraries using either thermal shift assays (at 1 mM fragment) or TINS. Hits were confirmed using SPR and crystallography, resulting in seven structures. As expected, all the fragments bound at the site where N-acetylated lysine normally binds. The PCAF bromodomain appears to be quite rigid, with little movement in structures with the different bound fragments. A few elaborated molecules were tested, with the best showing low micromolar affinity as assessed by ITC; crystal structures with these molecules are also reported and deposited in the protein data bank. It will be fun to see whether their potency can be improved.

We’ll have another post on bromodomains next week, but first stay tuned later this week for an updated list of fragment-derived drugs that have entered the clinic.

Fragments in the Caribbean

Last week saw the inaugural Zing FBDD conference in Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Zing has been around only since 2007, and seems to focus on small conferences in exotic locales. The benefit is that they are able to attract high-profile speakers, as illustrated by the group photo below. However, in an era of shrinking travel budgets, getting approval to attend a conference at a resort is becoming a bit more challenging. That said, participants enjoyed nearly 30 presentations and great discussion – think of a Gordon Conference without the dorms, and breaks on the beach.

My favorite “equation” from the conference comes from Mike Serrano-Wu of the Broad Institute:

Undruggable = Undone

This was supported by some nice work on the anti-cancer target MCL-1, which makes a protein-protein interaction that was widely consider undruggable just a few years ago. An ¹⁹F NMR fragment screen gave a hit-rate of around 10%, leading eventually to low nanomolar leads. Fragment optimization was facilitated by a new crystal form of the protein that allowed the team to rapidly generate over a dozen protein-ligand co-crystal structures. Rumor has it that more details on this will be disclosed at FBLD 2014 in Basel in September (there are still a few openings available, but register soon.)

MCL-1 also figured heavily in talks by Andrew Petros (AbbVie, see also here) and Steve Fesik (Vanderbilt, see also here), who described cell-permeable molecules with high picomolar activity in biochemical assays. Steve also discussed programs against Ras and RPA, both also using SAR by NMR. As Mike Shapiro (Pfizer) pointed out in his opening presentation, one of the breakthrough ideas of SAR by NMR was to screen a library more than once per target, the second time in the presence of a first ligand to identify another. It is nice to see this strategy continuing to deliver against difficult targets, though preliminary results of our current poll (right hand side of page) indicate that linking is not necessarily easy.

One of the payoffs of doing fragment screens for many years on dozens of targets is a rich internal dataset. Chris Murray (Astex) mentioned that company researchers have solved close to 7000 protein crystal structures, more than a third of them with fragment ligands. A cross-target analysis found that hits tended to be more planar (ie, less “three-dimensional”, with apologies to Pete Kenny) than non-hits. This was particularly true for kinases; for six protein-protein interactions (PPIs) there was no correlation between shape and hit rate. Although defining complexity is difficult, Chris provided evidence that 3D fragments tend to be both larger and more complex.

Rod Hubbard (University of York and Vernalis) mentioned that Vernalis has determined more than 4000 protein crystal structures. Since 2002, 2050 fragments have been screened against more than 30 targets. Based on “sphericality” – the distance from the rod-sphere principle component axis – hits against kinases are marginally less spherical, while PPI hits reflect the shape of the overall library. So, despite the current push for more three-dimensional fragments, it remains to be seen whether this will be useful.

Jonathan Mason (Heptares) described how successful fragment approaches can be against membrane proteins such as GPCRs. Anyone who has worked on these targets will know that the SAR can be razor sharp, and their surfeit of structures is helping to explain this. For example, although many of the protein-ligand interactions appear merely hydrophobic, some displace high-energy water molecules, which can be revealed by crystal structures of both the free and bound forms of the protein. Displacement of high energy water molecules also helps to explain some “magic methyl” effects.

Fragment-finding methods were not neglected. Jonathan mentioned that, for the A2A receptor, SPR identified only orthosteric ligands, while TINS identified only allosteric ligands – the orthosteric ligands were actually too potent to be detected by this technique. John Quinn (Takeda, formerly SensiQ) and Aaron Martin (SensiQ) also discussed SPR, and in particular how variable temperature SPR analyses could be used to rank ligands based on their enthalpic binding, though as Chris Murray warned, this information can be difficult to use prospectively.

I also learned that a selective BCL-2 inhibitor from Vernalis and Servier has just entered into Phase 1 clinical trials. This has been the result of a long-running collaboration that has required creativity on the part of the scientists and patience on the part of management.

There is much more to tell – for example Teddy's extended metaphor of the Silk Road (this one, not this one!) – but in the interest of space I’ll stop here. Feel free to comment if you were there (or even if you weren’t!)

You Probably Already Knew This...

Academics can spend time and resources doing, and publishing, things that people in the industry already "know".  This keeps the grants, the students, the invitations to speak rolling in.  It also allows you to cite their work when proposing something.  This is key for the FBHG community.  There are many luminaries in the FBHG field, and we highlight their work here all the time. Sometimes, they work together as a supergroup.  Sometimes, Cream is the result.

Brian Shoichet and Gregg Siegal/ZoBio have combined to work together.  In this work, they propose to combine empirical screening (TINS and SPR) with in silico screening against AmpC (a well studied target).  They ran a portion of the ZoBio 1281 fragment library against AmpC.  They got a 3.2% active rate, 41 fragments bound.  6 of these were competitive in the active site against a known inhibitor.  35 of 41 NMR actives were studied by NMR; 19 could have Kds determined (0.4 to 5.8 mM).  13 fragments had weak, but uncharacterizable binding; 3 were true non-binders. That's a 90% confirmation rate.  34 of 35 were then tested in a biochemical assay.  9 fragments had Ki below 10 mM.  Of the 25 with Ki > 10mM, one was found to bind to target by X-ray, but 25A from the active site.  They then did an in silico screen with 300,000 fragments and tested 18 of the top ranked ones in a biochemical assay.  

So, what did they find? 

"The correspondence of the ZoBio inhibitor structures with the predicted docking poses was spotty. "  and "There was better correspondence between the crystal structures of the docking-derived fragments and their predicted poses."

So, this isn't shocking, but it is good to know.  This is also consistent with this comment.  So, the take home from this paper is that in silico screening can help explore chemical space that the experimentally much smaller libraries miss.  To that end, the authors then do a a virtual experiment to determine how big a fragment library you would need to cover the "biorelevant" fragment space [I'll save my ranting on this for some other forum].  Their answer is here [Link currently not working, so the answer is 32,000.]

Docking vs TINS on a GPCR

Practical Fragments has featured a number of posts comparing various fragment-finding methods. In some cases there is good agreement, while in others – not so much. Computational methods can in theory sample the greatest swath of diversity space: a virtual library can be orders of magnitude larger than any physical library. In a recent paper in J. Chem. Inf. Model. Gregg Siegal at ZoBio and Leiden University and Jens Carlsson at Stockhom University and their colleagues compare the performance of virtual screening with a biophysical method.

The target they chose, the A_2A adenosine receptor (A_2AAR) is a GPCR implicated in a variety of diseases. It also has the advantage of multiple published co-crystal structures with either agonists or antagonists bound, making it a good candidate for computational screening.

The researchers began by conducting a computational screen of 500 fragments using DOCK 3.6 against the crystal structure of an antagonist-bound A_2AAR and ranked these according to how well they scored. Next, the researchers physically screened the same library of 500 fragments against A_2AAR using an NMR-based screening method called TINS (see also here). This resulted in a whopping 94 primary hits, which were followed up in a radioligand displacement assay to yield 5 confirmed hits with K_i values ranging from 14-600 micromolar. Happily, 4 of the 5 hits from the TINS screen were within the top 5% scoring hits identified in silico.

This is satisfying at first glance, but what does it say about the other top-scoring computational hits? Computational screening virtually docks fragments in many possible positions, or poses, which are automatically evaluated. Manual inspection of the top 50 in silico hits showed that, in some cases, the best poses had desolvated polar groups, which would presumably be energetically unfavorable. Indeed, identifying the “correct” pose seems to be a general problem with docking fragments.

But some of the top-scoring fragments looked fine by visual inspection, so 5 of these were tested in a radioligand displacement assay. Surprisingly, 3 of these were active, with K_i values ranging from 18-128 micromolar. In other words, these were false negatives in the primary TINS assay.

Having found hits that had been missed using a biophysical screen, the researchers then docked 328,000 commercially available fragments against the target – an exercise that took only seven hours on a computer cluster. Of the top hits, 22 were purchased and tested in the radioligand displacement assay, and a remarkable 14 of these were active, with K_i values ranging from 2-240 micromolar. (I do wonder how much chemical intuition played a role in choosing hits to purchase.)

Interestingly, all of the 14 hits from docking had respectable ligand efficiencies (LE > 0.3 kcal/mol/atom, with a single exception). This is consistent with previous fragment docking studies that show that the best results are obtained with the most ligand-efficient fragments. It’s also a nice feature; after all, these are exactly the kind of hits you would hope to find, though of course you want to first filter out any garbage from your virtual library.

This paper provides more evidence that computational approaches can find fragment hits for GPCRs, at least relatively “druggable” ones with good structural characterization. It is also a useful reminder of the importance of using multiple methods, to avoid both false positives and false negatives.

Finally, if you haven't already voted on your fragment-finding methods, please do so on the right side of the page!

30% of all Posts...

NOTE: Blogger blew up my post when I published it.  I have fixed what I can.  Blogger keeps on blowing up this post after I edit it.   I have removed what I think may have been causing some of the problems.  This post should be considered in "Wiki-ese" as a fragment.   Thankfully, the summary was unaffected. 

As I recently said, GPCRs are a theme around here, so this post will talk about work published last year by the folks at ZoBio and Heptares.  [In terms of full disclosure, I had a business relationship with ZoBio until recently.]  This work is also on STaRs, the stabilized GPCRs developed by Heptares.  I noted my concerns with this approach here.  These two papers focus on A2A GPCRs, while previous posts here were on A1A, A3A, and B1A GPCRs.

In the ACS Chemical Biology paper, the authors are using TINS to screen an antagonist-stabilized A2AR StAR.   The immobilized protein showed a ~50% greater retention in activity after 5 days at 4C compared to the native protein in membranes (60% vs. 30% binding competency).  So, immobilized stabilized protein is more stable than non-immobilized, non-stabilized protein.  They then took a subset (531 compounds) of the ZoBio fragment library picked for maximal chemical and shape diversity and screened using OmpA as the reference protein. As shown in the bucketing below the vast majority of the compounds cluster around a T/R of 1.  This indicates that they have a slight preference for the target or the reference. The used a T/R cutoff of less than 0 e.g

. aromatic and aliphatics.  Additionally, the use of the logarithmic plot for the bucketing obscures the spread around T/R=1.  I have never seen a discussion from the creators of TINS discussing the relative error of the method and how to best evaluate the screening data.  In this case, they chose a 0.7 cutoff because there appears to be a discontinuity in the data there.
They followed up on these (see Table 1 in the paper) as orthosteric hits by observing if they can inhibit binding of an inverse orthosteric agonist in a radiolabeled assay using WT A2AR in HEK membranes; five fragments inhibited binding by >30% at 500uM (see below). 

This data in conjunction with the TINS data shows the compounds bind reversibly with a 1:1 stoichiometry.  These fragments also inhibited A1AR, which would not be unexpected for such small molecules.  However, 3 of these compounds have poor LEAN values >0.3.  This is particularly poor for GPCR targeting compounds.

Four additional fragments either one or the other of the inverse agonist or agonist used.  The two most potent AM appear to have some subtype specificity (A2AR over A1AR).  When they tried to test these compounds in a cell-based assay, toxicity was observed so no data could be collected.

In summary, the authors show that TINS is productive in finding fragments that bind to GPCRs.  However, they have to rely on standard biochemical assays for follow up.  It would have been nice to see at least one other method used to verify the active fragments, like SPR.  What I really like is that they did the biochemical assays against WT, which does not necessarily alleviate my concerns about screening against a mutant.  I would have really liked to see a comparison of the biochemical data in the STaR and WT.

So, while people say 30% of marketed drugs target GPCRs, I can assure you 30% of all of our posts are not about GPCRs.

TINS and STD and SPR – oh my!

Following up on our last post on the use of the NMR technique TINS applied to a membrane protein, the same research group has now compared TINS with other techniques on a more conventional target. In addition to TINS, they conducted fragment screens using another commonly used NMR technique as well as surface plasmon resonance (SPR) and high-concentration screening; the results appear in the Journal of Biomolecular Screening.

TINS involves immobilizing a target protein onto a resin, then flowing fragments across the resin and determining whether they bind to the target as assessed by a reduction in their NMR amplitudes. A reference protein is evaluated at the same time; only fragments that bind to the target protein and not the reference are considered hits. In this case, the researchers chose the viral protein RNA-dependent RNA Polymerase (RdRP) as the target and the PH domain from the human protein Akt1 as the reference. Using a total of 4 mg of RdRP, they screened a library of 1270 commercially available fragments in pools of 3 to 5 compounds each, resulting in 74 hits.

One of the most commonly used NMR techniques for fragment screening is saturation transfer difference (STD), in which the magnetization of the protein target is saturated, and so magnetization transfers to any ligands bound to the protein. The researchers tested 133 fragments (both hits and non-hits from the TINS experiments) and found a total of 49 hits, of which 40 had also been found by TINS.

The 83 fragment hits from both TINS and STD were tested for their ability to inhibit polymerase activity at concentrations up to 2 millimolar; 70 of them showed some activity, and a few of these seemed to actually activate the enzyme.

Finally, a selected set of 62 fragments (all of which were hits in at least one of the three assays) were tested in an SPR assay at concentrations up to 0.2 millimolar. Of these, around half showed binding, and these tended to be the fragments that showed the greatest activity in the enzymatic assay.

The authors conclude that TINS picks up more hits than the other assays, though high-concentration screening comes close. This may be true, but it would have been nice if they had run the entire set of 1270 fragments through each of the different methods; it is possible that there were false negatives in the TINS experiments that could have been picked up by the other techniques. Moreover, some of the TINS hits that didn’t confirm in other assays may well have been false positives. Still, there are lots of useful data in this paper, and it demonstrates yet again the importance of using multiple, orthogonal techniques to discover and properly validate fragments.

Fragments vs membrane proteins with TINS

Fragment-based ligand discovery owes much of its success to the rise of biophysical techniques such as NMR, crystallography, and – more recently – surface plasmon resonance. These have allowed the discovery of fragments against a wide range of proteins, but one notable exception has been membrane proteins, the targets of more than half of marketed drugs. In a recent issue of Chemistry and Biology, Gregg Siegal and colleagues take a crack at this diverse group of proteins.

The researchers, from Leiden University, ZoBio, and elsewhere, use an NMR-based technique called target immobilized NMR screening, or TINS. In this method, a protein is immobilized onto a solid support. A reference protein is also immobilized; this reference is usually a well-characterized protein that does not bind to many small molecules. Each protein is then put into its own compartment of a two-compartment flow-cell, and this is inserted into an NMR spectrometer. Mixtures of fragments are then flowed through both chambers: those that interact with protein show a reduction in the amplitudes of their NMR spectra. By choosing fragments that show such a reduction for the target protein and not the reference protein, fragments that bind to the target can be differentiated from those that bind to proteins in general. After each NMR experiment, the fragments are washed away and replaced with a new set of fragments. TINS has been applied to a number of soluble proteins, as reviewed here. Remarkably, the immobilized protein samples often remain stable through hundreds of screening cycles.

Membrane proteins are notoriously difficult to crystallize or characterize by NMR. Moreover, it is often difficult to obtain enough protein to work with. However, since TINS relies on a decrease in signal from the fragment rather than a signal from the protein itself, Siegal and colleagues tested whether they could use the technology to discover fragments that bind to membrane proteins.

The researchers chose a protein called disulphide bond forming protein B (DsbB), which is found on the inner membrane of E. coli and other Gram-negative bacteria and may be important in virulence factor folding. One of the challenges of membrane proteins is keeping them properly folded, and the researchers used two different approaches to do this, either detergent micelles or “nanodiscs,” lipid bilyaers surrounded by a scaffold protein. Using less than 2 milligrams of DsbB, the researchers used TINS to screen a set of 1071 fragments in groups of about 5 each, with each fragment present at 500 micromolar concentration, a process that took 5 and a half days.

The TINS process led to 93 hits, a respectable hit rate of 8.7%. Each of these was then tested in a functional assay at 250 micromolar concentration, and more than half of the hits inhibited DsbB activity by at least 30%. Eight of these were subsequently characterized using full IC50 curves and kinetic analysis. The potencies were impressive, ranging from 7 micromolar to 193 micromolar, with ligand efficiencies as high as 0.45 kcal/mol/atom. DsbB has the advantage that it has been characterized structurally, and the researchers used chemical shift information from 2-dimensional NMR experiments to show that the fragments could be divided into two groups, with one set competing with a quinone cofactor and the other binding at a different site.

This paper demonstrates that it is possible to find fragments that bind to membrane proteins. Of course, the next question is, what can you do with the fragments? In this case there were structural data about the target, but this will not generally be true for membrane proteins, and in the absence of structure, advancing fragments to leads can be challenging. On the other hand, medicinal chemists have been developing drugs against membrane targets for decades without knowing their precise structures, so perhaps the challenge is as much psychological as scientific.

Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry Special FBDD Issue

This year ends with an entire issue of Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry devoted to FBDD. Rob van Montfort and Ian Collins provide a brief editorial overview of the six papers. Collins and colleagues also describe their application of fragment-based methods to develop inhibitors of the anti-cancer target protein kinase B (AKT).

Half the papers cover various forms of fragment screening: the Medical Structural Genomics of Pathogenic Protozoa Consortium describes their crystallographic approach, Helena Danielson discusses the use of SPR, and Gregg Siegal and Johan Hollander present their Target Immobilized NMR Screening (TINS) methodology.

Charles Reynolds and colleagues review metrics, such as ligand efficiency and fit quality, for evaluating fragment hits.

Finally, in the longest article in the collection, Vicki Nienaber discusses how fragment-based methods may be particularly useful for discovering compounds that will cross the blood-brain-barrier to target the central nervous system.

As 2009 comes to a close, Practical Fragments would like to thank our readers, old and new. May you all have a happy and productive 2010!