What do fragment hits look like?

Our last post highlighted a study showing that most of the best fragment hits loosely followed the Rule of 3, even though the library from which they were selected was not strictly Rule of 3 compliant. As it happens, Chris Swain at Cambridge MedChem Consulting has been tabulating fragment hits reported in the literature and has assembled a database of more than 280. Previously he has assessed the physicochemical properties of commercially available libraries; now, he’s analyzed the fragments that have actually been reported as hits and has published the results here.

For the most part the fragments conform to the Rule of 3. Size-wise most of them are truly fragments, with the majority having molecular weights less than 250 Da. Not surprisingly, they also tend to be fairly aromatic. Interestingly, roughly one third of the fragments are charged at physiological pH, with a pretty even split between acids and bases.

Of course, despite the overall Rule of 3 compliance, there are outliers in all the parameters, especially hydrogen-bond acceptors. So perhaps, to paraphrase Darren Begley channeling Bill Murray, the Rule of 3 should be renamed the Guideline of 3.

Privilege or selectivity?

Fragment selectivity is something we’ve covered before (see here and here). Sarah Barelier and Isabelle Krimm at the Université de Lyon have published on this topic (see here), and in a recent issue of Current Opinion in Chemical Biology they review the subject and its implications.

The authors document what many investigators have independently observed: some fragments, as expected theoretically, are less selective than larger molecules, but other fragments are quite selective.

They also note that fragments that bind to any protein tend to be slightly more lipophilic than fragments that don’t bind to any target proteins, suggesting that hydrophobic interactions are important:

Hydrophobic interactions play a major role in protein–ligand interactions and are known to be non-directional, thus allowing binding to a multitude of pockets in different conformations. By contrast, hydrogen bonds were shown to confer specificity but do not always add much binding free energy. This is due to the cost of desolvating both the donor and acceptor of the hydrogen bond, which can nearly equal the benefit of the hydrogen bond formation. Therefore, if the hydrogen bond acceptors or donors are not satisfied in the complex, it is likely that more hydrophobic fragments will be preferred.

This observation—lipophilicity for binding energy, hydrogen bonds for specificity—is consistent with the recent publication from Mike Hann and Andrew Leach, which finds that promiscuity increases with increasing lipophilicity.

One figure in the Barelier and Krimm paper shows 30 fragment-like “privileged scaffolds” that should bind to multiple proteins. What struck me is these molecules’ overwhelmingly planar character: more than half are completely aromatic (such as quinoline and indole), and only one is completely aliphatic. Barelier and Krimm note that:

The low specificity of these molecules is probably owing to their rigid and aromatic structures, well-adapted to protein hydrophobic pockets where π-stacking with phenylalanine and tyrosine are commonly observed.

This reminds me of Tony Giannetti’s talk at the FBLD San Diego meeting earlier this month, where he also noted that fragment hits tend to be relatively flat. Of course, given the negative correlation between aromaticity and good pharmaceutical properties, just because aromatics are frequent hits doesn’t mean they are necessarily the best hits – they may be tricks rather than treats. All of which comes back to a key question for library design: do you focus on the flat “privileged” scaffolds that will likely have high hit rates in your assay but may have baggage, or on the more three-dimensional compounds that may have lower hit rates but may ultimately be more developable?

Not all aromatics stink the same

A couple years ago we highlighted research suggesting that the more aromatic rings in a molecule, the less “developable” it is likely to be. In the February issue of Drug Discovery Today, the same researchers have now published an update in which they dig into the data in more depth and find that not all aromatic rings are created equal.

As before, the researchers turned to the GlaxoSmithKline internal database of tens of thousands of compounds to correlate chemical features with a variety of measured properties that have an impact on drug development, including solubility, logD, human serum albumin binding, inhibition of several cytochrome P450 isozymes, and hERG inhibition. What they found is summarized in the figure:

In short, while an increase in the number of all-carbon aromatic rings (carboaromatics) had a serious negative effect on nearly all parameters, an increase in the number of heteroaromatic rings was much less problematic. All-carbon aliphatic rings were relatively benign (albeit also relatively rare), while heteroaliphatic rings actually improved most of the properties with the exception of hERG inhibition (and this was only a problem with charged molecules).

One point that was unaddressed in the previous paper was whether an increasing number of aromatic rings is problematic in and of itself, or if this is merely a proxy for larger molecules. In this paper, the authors probed this question directly by examining the properties of molecules with similar molecular weights and lipophilicities but different numbers of aromatic rings. Significantly, the deleterious effects of aromatics appear relatively independent of both size and lipophilicity.

The authors also analyzed ring counts in 1200 oral drugs and found that, while the number of carboaromatic and aliphatic rings has remained relatively constant over time, the number of heteroaromatic rings has roughly doubled from the 1960s to today.

These results provide more support for making sure that fragment libraries contain a good assortment of aliphatics - particularly heteroaliphatics. Aromatics are still very useful of course: as the researchers note, there are thousands of commercially available aromatics, many robust chemistries exist for modifying them, and aromatics provide rigid scaffolds. Thus, fragment libraries should still include a fair share of these moieties, but it is probably worth cutting the number of carboaromatics in favor of more heteroaromatics.

Too many aromatics stink

A recent discussion centered on whether fragment libraries should be designed to include more “3-dimensional” molecules and reduce the number of flat, aromatic compounds. Two new papers suggest that doing so may improve pharmaceutical properties. What effect this would have on screening success is still unclear.

The first paper, published by Timothy Ritchie and Simon Macdonald of GlaxoSmithKline in this month’s Drug Discovery Today, correlates the number of aromatic rings with several metrics associated with success in drug development. For this analysis, each ring in a fused system is counted separately, so indole is counted as having two aromatic rings. The researchers conclude that more than three aromatic rings correlates with an increased risk of compound attrition during drug development:

The fewer the number of aromatic rings contained in an oral drug candidate, the more developable that candidate is likely to be.

This is not surprising, but with their access to a vast internal data set the researchers provide considerable supporting evidence. For example, the mean aromatic ring count declines from 3.3 to 2.3 as GSK compounds move from preclinical candidate selection to proof-of-concept in humans. Measured (kinetic) solubility decreases dramatically with increasing ring count: even two aromatic rings leads to many low solubility compounds, and with four aromatic rings the median solubility is only 0.012 mg/ml. Both c log P and log D increase with increasing ring count, as do serum albumin binding, P450 3A4 inhibition, and hERG inhibition – all factors one usually wants to decrease in drug development.

One caveat is that the authors do not control for size. As aromatic rings are added, molecular weight is likely to increase, and thus many of the properties could simply reflect the pharmaceutical liabilities of larger molecules. This is where the second paper comes in. In J. Med. Chem., Frank Lovering and colleagues at Pfizer (nee Wyeth) analyze the effect of aromaticity itself by defining a simple metric:

Fsp3 = number of sp3 hybridized carbons / total carbon count

The smaller the number, the more aromatic the compound; the larger the number, the less aromatic. Besides being a straightforward measure of saturation, the formula inherently controls for molecular size.

When the researchers examined published data sets, they found that the mean Fsp3 increases from 0.36 for 2.2 million molecules in discovery to 0.47 for 1179 approved drugs. They also investigated measured solubility and found a strong correlation: 104 molecules with a log S of -6 (quite insoluble) had an average Fsp3 of 0.31, while 194 molecules with a log S of 0 (very soluble) had an average Fsp3 of 0.56. The effect is even more striking with melting points, which negatively correlate with solubility: 1153 molecules with a melting point of 125 deg. C had an average Fsp3 of 0.31, while 375 molecules with a melting point of 275 deg. C had an average Fsp3 of 0.18.

OK, so let’s say we accept the premise that increasing aromatic character in a molecule leads to lower solubility and worse properties overall. The easiest solution might be to reduce the number of aromatics in a screening collection, but would this really be wise? Ritchie and MacDonald note that aromatics, with their rigid structures, are likely to have increased potency relative to unsaturated molecules. And particularly for fragment libraries, you want all the binding energy you can get.

An interesting study would be to correlate the hit rate for fragments with their aromatic character. Does the hit rate increase with decreasing Fsp3? These data must exist in companies that have been doing FBDD for years. Indeed, at FBLD 2009, Ijen Chen of Vernalis presented a nice analysis of hits against 12 targets, in which she noted that roughly 2/3 of the fragment library members didn’t hit any of the targets. I don’t think she mentioned aromaticity specifically, but she did note that the hits tended to be slightly more rigid and hydrophobic than the non-hits – just what you would expect for low-Fsp3 molecules.

So by all means avoid having too many aromatics, but don’t go to extremes: it’s finding the right balance of binding energy and pharmaceutical properties that makes drug discovery such a tricky business.