Covalent fragments vs RAB27A/B: towards a chemical probe

Last week we highlighted an example of adding a warhead to a fragment-derived, non-covalent protein binder to generate a covalent inhibitor. This is probably the most common method for identifying covalent ligands. But as we noted in 2019, the reverse “covalent-first” approach can be just as effective. A recent open-access paper in J. Am. Chem. Soc. by Elena De Vita, Edward Tate, and collaborators at Imperial College London and University of Nottingham provides another success.

 

The researchers were interested in the closely related proteins RAB27A and RAB27B, two of the more than 60 members of the Rab family, which is itself part of the large Ras superfamily. RAB27A/B are potential antitumor and antiviral targets, but the only reported chemical probe, Nexinhib-20, sets off PAINs alerts.

 

The researchers had previously found two non-conserved reactive cysteine residues, C123 and C188, near the co-called effector binding region, a shallow pocket involved in protein-protein interactions essential for RAB27A/B function. They screened a library of 960 acrylamide-containing fragments, each at 500 µM, in an assay that detects free thiols. Versions of RAB27A in which either C123 or C188 was mutated to a serine were used so the researchers could assess whether compounds were selective for one cysteine. They also screened the compounds against glutathione, the abundant cellular thiol present in all mammalian cells, and focused on those compounds that were at least five-fold more reactive against the protein than against glutathione. The best compound was IMP-1704, which modified C123 much more efficiently than C188.

 

A crystal structure of IMP-1704 bound to RAB27A confirmed that the compound binds in the “WF pocket” of the effector region, with the phenyl ring displacing a tyrosine residue and a sulfonamide oxygen atom making a hydrogen bond to a lysine residue. The researchers also obtained a crystal structure of IMP-1704 bound non-covalently to a C123A mutant of RAB27A and found that it binds in a similar manner. In other words, IMP-1704 does not require the acrylamide warhead to bind the protein, though with no reported affinity it might be quite weak.

 

The crystal structures suggested a fragment growing strategy from the pyrrolidine ring, leading to IMP-1712, which modified the protein twice as rapidly. Interestingly, the enantiomer of this compound was inactive. Further SAR and fragment-growing ultimately led to the most potent compound in the paper, IMP-2552. As with IMP-1712 the enantiomer was inactive, providing a useful negative control

 

Although the covalent efficiency of IMP-2552 is relatively modest, the researchers used an analog with a clickable alkyne probe to assess what proteins it binds to in cells. RAB27A was one of the top protein hits, and engagement with RAB27A could be competed with the non-tagged IMP-2552. Coimmunoprecipitation experiments demonstrated that IMP-2552 could block interaction with an effector protein, while the enantiomer was inactive. IMP-2552 was also active at 10 µM in a phenotypic assay, while the enantiomer was not.

 

Importantly, the researchers also profiled Nexinhib-20, the previously reported inhibitor. In contrast to IMP-2552, Nexinhib-20 reacted with both C123 and C188 and also reacted very rapidly with glutathione, suggesting generic rather than specific reactivity. Moreover, in the phenotypic assay at 10 µM, “Nexinhib-20 showed profound cytotoxicity and cell death.” Hopefully these findings will make people reconsider before using Nexinhib-20 in their assays, or when reading conclusions drawn from using this compound.

 

Overall this paper is a nice example of screening for covalent ligands and optimizing them. It is also another application of covalent fragment screening applied to a GPTase; we’ve written previously about KRAS. In contrast to KRAS and several other covalent programs, the initial hit here is rule-of-three compliant.

 

And although improvements in potency and selectivity are still needed to formally designate IMP-2552 a chemical probe, the molecule appears to be the best we currently have, particularly when used with its negative control.

From fragment linking to covalent RAD52 inhibitor

Targeting proteins involved in DNA repair is a promising approach against cancer. However, finding effective small molecule inhibitors can be difficult because the protein-DNA interface tends to be very polar, with few classically ligandable pockets. In a new J. Am. Chem. Soc. paper, Nicolas Bocquet, Olivier Querolle, Ulrich Lücking, and collaborators at FoRx Therapeutics, WuXi AppTec, Diamond Light Source, University of Bern, Sandexis, and Weizmann Institute of Science provide a proof of concept.

 

The researchers were interested in RAD52, which mediates several DNA repair functions. The N-terminus of the protein forms an oligomeric ring structure, and each subunit contains a solvent-exposed groove that binds to single-stranded DNA. Since DNA is negatively charged, the researchers conducted a crystallographic screen against a library of 320 carboxylic acid containing fragments. This identified three related molecules, of which compound 3 had the highest occupancy. Because the compounds bind at the DNA-binding interface, the researchers developed a fluorescence polarization (FP) DNA-displacement assay and found that the fragments disrupt DNA binding at high micromolar concentrations.

 

Interestingly, the crystal structure revealed two copies of compound 3 bound to each subunit of RAD52: each positioned where a single nucleotide would normally bind, with the carboxylic acids making similar contacts as the phosphates. In other words, the fragments mimic two consecutive bases of a single-stranded oligonucleotide. Naturally, this suggested a linking approach.

Linking two close analogs of compound 3 led to compound 5, with a satisfying two orders of magnitude improvement in activity in the FP assay, which the researchers suggest is largely due to lowering the entropic penalty. Linking directly off the thiazole moieties produced similar results, and a macrocycle had slightly better activity, though not so much better as to justify the synthetic hassle. A crystal structure of compound 5 revealed a small hydrophobic cleft, and this was exploited with a phenyl moiety in compound 11, a high nanomolar inhibitor in the FP assay.

 

A crystal structure of compound 11 bound to RAD52 confirmed that the compound binds as designed. The structure also revealed a cysteine residue (C64) in close proximity to the phenyl moiety. Adding an acrylamide warhead yielded a covalent inhibitor, and further optimization ultimately led to FORX-864, which has low nanomolar activity in the FP assay after 4 hours. The researchers appropriately measured the k_inact/K_I, which came in at a respectable 230,000 M^-1s^-1, better than some covalent clinical compounds. Removing the warhead led to a dramatic loss in potency (IC₅₀ = 27 µM in the FP assay).

 

In a cellular assay to measure single-stranded annealing (SSA), FORX-864 showed roughly 1 micromolar activity, while a compound lacking the warhead was inactive. FORX-864 was also inactive in a cell line in which RAD52 had been knocked out, suggesting on-target activity. The researchers profiled the reactivity of FORX-864 in an activity-based proteomic profiling (ABPP) assay and found that it was reasonably selective. Intravenous dosing in mice showed encouraging pharmacokinetic properties, though with two carboxylic acid moieties oral dosing might be challenging.

 

Overall this is a nice example of liganding a difficult target. Given that FORX-864 mimics a dinucleotide, it may bind to other DNA- or RNA-binding proteins. However, covalent binding is required for high potency, and it is unlikely these other proteins will have cysteine residues in the appropriate position, which should help with selectivity. FORX-864 certainly appears to be the best chemical probe for RAD52 to date.

Covalent allosteric inhibitors of NLRP3

NLRP3 has received considerable attention as an inflammatory disease target. The protein normally exists in an auto-inhibited conformation, but in response to various stimuli it changes shape to help form a multimeric complex called the inflammasome. This in turn activates various inflammatory pathways, including cell death. Several drugs targeting NLRP3 have gone into the clinic, but none have been approved. In a new open-access Br. J. Pharmacol. paper, Brian Cook, Gabriel Simon, and colleagues at Vividion describe a covalent inhibitor that binds to a previously unknown site.

 

As we wrote nearly a decade ago, Vividion pioneered the use of chemoproteomics to identify covalent binders in cells and cell lysates. While exploring the mechanism of the previously reported NLRP3 inhibitor MCC950, they found that cysteine 280 became resistant to modification by electrophiles in the presence of the ligand. MCC950 does not contain an electrophile, arguing against direct interaction with Cys280 and suggesting instead that binding causes a conformational change to the protein which makes Cys280 less accessible. In other words, protein inhibition correlated with Cys280 being less exposed.

 

A screen of Vividion’s library yielded no hits against Cys280 but more than 300 against cysteine 463. Interestingly, modification of C463 also caused a decrease in reactivity of Cys280, suggesting a conformational change similar to the one caused by MCC950. Thus, the researchers pursued Cys463 binders.

 

Two parameters were used to guide compound optimization, target engagement and promiscuity. The first number, TE₅₀, measures the extent of covalent engagement of a given cysteine after 1 hour in cell lysates. The second, P₅₀₀, measures the percentage of all measured cysteines in the sample labeled by at least 40% after incubation with 500 µM compound for 1 hour. One of the initial hits, VVD-124476, gave a low micromolar value for TE₅₀ but labeled some 20% of the measured proteome. Indeed, it was previously reported as a covalent ligand for a completely different protein. To be useful as a NLRP3 inhibitor, the researchers needed to reduce promiscuity, and the most straightforward approach is to reduce general reactivity.

 

To decrease reactivity, the researchers swapped the acrylamide warhead with a butynamide (VVD-142397). Butynamides are reported to be less reactive than acrylamides, a result corroborated at Vividion with chemoproteomic data on 400 matched molecular pairs. The acrylamide to butynamide swap improved selectivity some 20-fold, though it also decreased potency against NLRP3. Increasing the core ring size regained activity, and rigidifying the molecule led to further improvements. Further optimization ultimately led to VVD-338213 and several related molecules.

 

Although the researchers do not report k_inact/K_I values, a back of the envelope calculation puts it around 1200 M^-1s^-1 for VVD-338213, a potency where cell activity might be expected. Happily this turned out to be the case: the molecule blocked IL-1β secretion from human cells at lower concentrations than MCC950. Importantly, in cells where Cys463 had been mutated to alanine, MCC950 was still active while the covalent molecules were inactive.

 

In addition to promising cell activity, many of the covalent molecules had reasonable stability in whole blood, good permeability, and low efflux. (I do wish the ligand efficiency reactivities of the molecules were reported; after all Vividion, introduced this metric.) Some of the molecules also showed good brain penetration. In vivo pharmacodynamic studies are complicated by the fact that Cys463 is not conserved in mice, but fortunately the researchers could run studies on transgenic mice in which human NLRP3 had been introduced. In these animals, IL-1β was decreased by both VVD-338213 and by MCC950.

 

The researchers were also able to obtain a cryo-EM structure of one of their molecules bound to NLRP3, which confirmed covalent binding to Cys463. More importantly, it revealed that the binding site is in a cryptic pocket some 20 Å from where MCC950 binds. (One wonders if the computational technique we discussed last week would have been able to predict this pocket.) Similarly to the WRN inhibitor Vividion has taken into the clinic, the molecule appears to make only hydrophobic contacts with the protein, with no polar interactions. Mechanistically, the “Cys463 ligands act as molecular doorstops, stabilizing the inactive conformation and preventing the structural rearrangements necessary for transition to the active inflammasome disc.”

 

This is a lovely paper and a case study in transforming a highly reactive molecule into a selective molecule with in vivo activity. It is interesting that the starting molecule, with 28 non-hydrogen atoms, flagrantly violates the rule of three. Last year we asked whether covalent fragments need to be larger than their non-covalent counterparts, and this paper provides another example where the answer is yes. Whether or not this chemical series ultimately advances, it is nice to have another chemical probe for this target.

Twenty-First Annual Fragment-Based Drug Discovery Meeting

Last week some 875 people attended the CHI Drug Discovery Chemistry (DDC) meeting in San Diego. I can’t do justice to the 40 or so presentations I attended over four days but can highlight some of the main themes.

 

Reversible fragments

Membrane targets such as G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) pose a challenge for biophysical methods, but three talks presented progress. Matthew Eddy (University of Florida Gainesville) described high-resolution magic angle spinning (HRMAS) NMR, which entails spinning isolated cellular membranes containing GPCRs at high speed (4 kHz!), which miraculously yields sharp NMR signals for bound ligands. Matthew demonstrated applications with the human adenosine A_2A receptor and weak (mM) ligands. He noted that the technique can work with native, poorly expressed proteins, though data collection times can be upwards of 30 minutes.

 

Kris Borzilleri described using ¹⁹F NMR to find ligands against an orphan GPCR at Pfizer. The 2287 fragments screened yielded 87 hits, of which 38 confirmed by SPR. SAR studies eventually yielded low micromolar ligands, but these were difficult to advance in the absence of structure (see here for a more successful example from Merck).

 

Vanessa Porkolab (Eurofins Cerep) described using the Nanotemper Spectral Shift technology to screen 826 fragments against the adenosine A_2A receptor at 300 µM, with a 9.2% hit rate. Many of these ligands stabilized the GPCR in a thermal shift assay and seven were even active (as antagonists) in a cellular assay.

 

Turning to soluble proteins, Paola Di Lello presented a case study from Genentech and Vernalis applying ligand-observed NMR to the protein phosphatase PTPN22. Subsequent protein-observed NMR revealed that most of the 16 validated hits bound to two pockets some distance from the active site. The fragments were optimized to mid-micromolar affinity but showed no functional activity.

 

And Charlotte Hodson presented the eIF4E story from Astex. As we discussed last year, this yielded a low nanomolar ligand that did not have the desired cellular effects. Charlotte noted that subsequent genetic experiments were consistent with the limited efficacy. Still, the target was sufficiently interesting that a chemical probe would have been pursued even knowing it would be high-risk.

 

Covalent ligands

Covalent approaches made appearances throughout the conference. Keriann Backus (UCLA) described chemoproteomic approaches to find cysteine-targeting ligands; she noted that gain of cysteine residues (such as G12C in KRAS) are the most common missense variants in cancer. Keriann also warned how covalent compounds can cause potentially misleading effects in cells, as she described in Nat. Chem. Biol. last year.

 

In 2021 we wrote about the SpotXplorer fragment library from György Keserű (Hungarian Research Centre for Natural Sciences). György has now prepared a PhotoXplorer library, which uses diazirine tags for photochemical screening, which we described here. The new library has produced high hit rates across a variety of targets. György also described a new sulfozone-based photoprobe that is easier to prepare than diazirines.

 

Kelly Craft recounted a DNA-encoded library (DEL) screen at AbbVie against the target BCL2A1, also known as BFL1. This produced an aldehyde-containing low micromolar binder that formed an imine with buried lysine 102. Uncomfortable progressing an aldehyde, the researchers sought to covalently engage cysteine 55, the same cysteine targeted by AstraZeneca, as we wrote about here. The progression included at least one dual-warhead molecule which was crystallographically confirmed to bind both the lysine and cysteine. The effort ultimately yielded cysteine-selective leads.

 

Earlier this year I described the dDRTC method we developed at Frontier Medicines for determining k_inact/K_I, and Svetlana Kholodar presented a nice overview of its scope and utility. My colleague Johannes Hermann spoke in more detail about our covalent technologies, particularly those using AI.

 

Chemical space and the exploration thereof

Brian Shoichet (UCSF) gave an entertaining and wide-ranging account of “directed and random walks in chemical space.” Brian has consistently been on the bleeding edge of high-throughput in silico screens, from 67,000 compounds in 2009 to 138 million molecules in 2019 to 4 billion molecules today. When docking artifacts are avoided (as we discussed here), bigger libraries consistently produce more potent hits for more targets – an observation strikingly consistent with Alex Shaginian’s in 2023 as HitGen expanded their DEL libraries from billions to more than a trillion molecules. Brian is developing methods to computationally screen the >4 trillion make-on-demand molecules now available from companies such as Enamine.

 

Direct-to-biology (DTB) approaches, which rely on microscale chemical reactions screened without purification, have become increasingly popular methods for exploring chemical space. Jack Sadowsky correctly stated that Carmot was the first company formed around this approach; we previously wrote about the role Chemotype Evolution played in the discovery of sotorasib. Jack described how Kimia, which spun out of Carmot, has continued to advance the technology, applying it to find inhibitors selective for single members of closely related kinase families.

 

Allan Jordan described how Sygnature Discovery is applying DTB in a variety of assays including microsome stability and crystallography. (We wrote about crude reaction screening by crystallography earlier this year.) Expanding beyond DTB, Allan called their platform direct-to-discovery, and discussed how it led to a preclinical candidate with STORM Therapeutics in just 18 months.

 

WuXi Apptec is also using DTB. Peichuan Zhang described starting with ligands derived from fragment and DEL screens against the E3 ligase GID4 to make PROTACs to degrade BRD4; DTB was used to explore a wide range of different linkers. And Daniel Blair (St. Jude) described using DTB and affinity selection-mass spectrometry (AS-MS) to find new molecular glues for the oncology target LCK.

 

Computers, DEL, and DTB are not the only way to explore chemical space. Last year we covered Tom Kodadek’s bead-based screening approach at University of Florida Scripps, and Tom presented two talks on the topic, one using macrocycles to find binders to difficult targets such as PTP1B and one using small molecules to find molecular glues.

 

Speaking of PROTACs and glues, plenary keynote speaker Alessio Ciulli (University of Dundee) discussed the “evolution and future of targeted protein degradation.” Alessio noted that there are >25 PROTAC degraders and >10 glues in the clinic, though these collectively target only a small number of E3 ligands, so there is plenty of opportunity for the area to expand.

 

For many of us in industry, drugs represent the most privileged points in chemical space, and these often look quite different than we assume, as Dean Brown (Jnana) noted in his recent analysis of 104 oral small molecule drugs approved by the FDA from 2020 to 2024 (which we mentioned here). Some drugs contain eye-raising moieties such as acetylenes, styrenes, N-O bonds, and nitro groups. Indeed, it is worth remembering that venetoclax, arguably the most successful fragment-derived drug, sports a nitro group.

 

But before getting too complacent, Jonathan Baell (Manas) warned about frequent hitters in libraries of FDA-approved drugs. He notes in Eur. J. Med. Chem. earlier this year that many commercial libraries are actually enriched for molecules that cause spurious biological activity. Jonathan calls on library vendors to remove particularly egregious compounds, though I’d settle for world peace.

 

I’ll close on that pleasant thought, but please feel free to comment. I hope to see you in San Diego next year April 19-22 for the twenty-second iteration of DDC.

Ligand reactivity efficiency (LRE)

As covalent drug discovery continues to rise, the demand for metrics to help guide lead optimization is increasing. Last year we discussed covalent ligand efficiency (CLE). In an open-access paper just published in J. Med. Chem., Benjamin Horning, Brian Cook, and colleagues at Vividion Therapeutics describe ligand reactivity efficiency (LRE). (Benjamin presented LRE at the DDC meeting in 2024.)

 

A key challenge when developing covalent ligands is maximizing specific reactivity towards the target of interest while minimizing intrinsic reactivity towards other proteins; the two types of reactivity are not the same, as we wrote about last year. For molecules that target cysteine residues, intrinsic reactivity is usually determined by assessing reactivity against the small molecule glutathione, which is abundant in cells.

 

For lead optimization more generally, a common metric is lipophilic efficiency (LLE or LipE, see here and here), in which the logP of a molecule is subtracted from the negative log of the IC₅₀ (pIC₅₀). More lipophilic molecules have higher logP values, so maximizing LLE helps to minimize increases in lipophilicity.

 

By analogy, the researchers defined LRE to help minimize increases in intrinsic reactivity. However, distinguishing specific from intrinsic activity is not necessarily straightforward. As we previously discussed, IC₅₀ alone is an inappropriate measurement for covalent inhibitors; the incubation time before the IC₅₀ is measured is an essential variable. The most rigorous value is k_inact/K_I, and although this ratio has been historically time-consuming to determine, we described an easier method earlier this year. Yet an even simpler measurement is the TE_{50(target, 1h)}, the concentration of compound necessary to label 50% of a target after one hour, which is a function of k_inact/K_I. The researchers thus defined LRE as:

 

    LRE = pTE_{50(target, 1h)} – pTE_{50(GSH, 1h)}

 

The variable in the second term, pTE_{50(GSH, 1h)}, is calculated from the reaction rate of the ligand with glutathione; intrinsically reactive ligands have higher rates.

 

In the case of LLE, values above 5 or 6 are generally considered acceptable for advanced leads, and the same is true for LRE. For example, a molecule with TE_{50(target, 1h)} = 10 nM and a (low) GSH reactivity of 0.01 M^-1s^-1 would have an LRE = 6.3. Also analogous to LLE, one can generate plots with pTE_{50(GSH, 1h)} on the x-axis and pTE_{50(target, 1h)} on the y-axis to assess whether LRE values are improving during a lead optimization campaign.

 

In my view, LRE is superior to previously discussed CLE because it explicitly considers the time component. A one hour incubation is practical; a ligand with k_inact/K_I = 10,000 M^-1s^-1 would have TE_{50(target, 1h)} = 19 nM. Also, LRE is more intuitive for medicinal chemists than CLE due to its similarity to LLE.

 

On the minus side, the researchers note that some of the assumptions break down for ligands with high non-covalent affinity (low K_I). Also, some folks may take issue with metrics that take the logarithm of a measurement that has units.

 

The researchers note another alternative metric, the reactivity enhancement factor (REF), which I briefly discussed here. REF is simply the ratio of the specific reactivity to the intrinsic reactivity, which is conceptually simpler to me than LRE. Nonetheless, the researchers state that LRE is commonly used at Vividion, which has put several covalent drugs into the clinic, so clearly it can be useful. Whether REF, LRE, or CLE, ultimately the choice of metric is less important than the ultimate goal: maximizing specific reactivity while minimizing intrinsic reactivity.

A new tool for covalent ligands: kinact/KI made easy with dDRTC

As covalent drug discovery becomes increasingly common, researchers are becoming more rigorous in how they characterize their molecules. The simple IC₅₀ values used for reversible inhibitors are meaningless for irreversible ligands unless the incubation times are also disclosed. And as molecules become more potent during the course of optimization, the incubation time may need to be shortened. An early hit might require treatment overnight to give 50% protein modification, while a potent lead might completely modify the protein in seconds. How do you quantitatively compare these?

 

The most rigorous parameter to characterize irreversible ligands is k_inact/K_I, sometimes called covalent efficiency, which we recently discussed here and here. Unfortunately, determining k_inact/K_I is a pain: it requires running multiple dose-response studies at multiple time points, and is thus typically only done for key compounds. In a new (open-access) Nat. Commun. paper, Robert Everley and colleagues at Frontier Medicines (including yours truly) provide a shortcut.

 

The new method relies on the fact that, especially for low-affinity fragments, much of the data collected in a conventional dose-response time course (DRTC) is redundant, providing little additional value. For example, if a compound at one concentration gives virtually no modification after 8 hours, it also won’t modify after 1 hour. The trick is to collect just the most informative data in a “diagonal” dose-response time course, or dDRTC.

 

I won’t go into the mathematics and full implementation details since the paper is open-access, but suffice it to say that dDRTC lowers the number of required data points by a factor of eight, thus saving both time and reagents – including precious protein.

 

The paper appropriately notes limitations, such as the fact that for compounds with better affinities (K_I < 50 µM), the values derived from dDRTC can underestimate the true k_inact/K_I. However, this situation is uncommon for fragments, and indeed the potencies for even some clinical compounds such as sotorasib and VVD-133214 are largely driven by (specific) k_inact rather than K_I. The paper shows good agreement for k_inact/K_I values determined using dDRTC with those determined using the conventional approach for compounds having k_inact/K_I from 1 to 2000 M^-1s^-1.

 

Perhaps most relevant for this blog, dDRTC is a practical solution for collecting important data. The next time you’re running a covalent program, give it a try! 

Crude success against the SARS-CoV-2 main protease: From covalent fragment to noncovalent lead

With increased throughput and reliability of biophysical and other methods, finding fragments against most targets is now fast and easy. Advancing these fragments to leads, not so much. In a new open-access Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. paper, Jacob Bush and collaborators at GSK, University of Strathclyde, and the Francis Crick Institute provide a case study for how to accelerate the process.

 

Almost exactly five years ago we highlighted early efforts against the main protease (M^pro) from SARS-CoV-2. This target turned out to be a good choice, as demonstrated by the rapid discovery and approval of the drug nirmatrelvir. M^pro is a cysteine protease and thus ideally suited for covalent fragment screening.

 

In the new paper, the researchers screened a library of 219 chloroacetamide-containing fragments (each at 5 µM) individually against 0.5 µM protein for 16 hours at 4 ºC and then analyzed them by intact protein mass spectrometry. Six of these gave at least 75% modification, and further characterization found that the most potent, compound 2, had a k_inact/K_I = 170 M^-1s^-1. This (and the other hits) also inhibited the protein in an enzymatic assay, and additional chemoproteomic experiments revealed that compound 2 could bind to the active site cysteine of M^pro in living cells with surprising selectivity; just 11 targets were more strongly engaged than M^pro.

 

To optimize compound 2, the researchers turned to crude reaction screening, also known as direct-to-biology or D2B. As we described here and here, this entails running reactions at small scale and testing them directly, without purification. To validate the approach, the researchers synthesized a subset of the original 219 chloroacetamides in 384-well plates. HPLC studies confirmed the desired product as the major component for 43 of the 69 attempted syntheses; only four failed. Importantly, there was a good correlation in activity between the crude reaction mixtures and the pure molecules.

 

Next, the researchers synthesized a new D2B library of 193 molecules related to compound 2. HPLC analysis of the crude products showed a 77% success rate, with just nine outright failures. The library was screened against M^pro for 1 hour (as opposed to 16 hours in the first screen), resulting in 14 hits. The best of these, compound 7a, was such a rapid modifier that the a k_inact/K_I could not be easily calculated, but it showed nanomolar activity in the enzymatic assay. It was also more selective than compound 2 in cell-based experiments.

 

Chloroacetamides are not considered advanceable as drugs, so the researchers sought to remove the warhead, initially by replacing it with the simple acetamide in compound 12. Although this molecule showed almost no activity in the enzymatic assay, the researchers coupled a diverse set of 146 carboxylic acids to the amine building block and screened the crude reaction mixtures in a functional assay at 50 µM to identify seven molecules that gave nearly complete inhibition, with compound 13 being the most potent. A second D2B library of analogs around compound 13 was screened at 1 µM, leading to the mid-nanomolar compound 14.

 

This is a nice illustration of the power of crude reaction screening to rapidly identify new chemical matter. It is true that M^pro is quite ligandable; we wrote about other non-covalent fragment success stories here and here. However, as we discussed here, D2B can be applied to more challenging targets. The supporting information in the new paper should be particularly valuable for those hoping to try the approach themselves.

 

At FBLD 2024 Frank von Delft set a goal of taking a “100 µM binder to a 10 nM lead in less than a week for less than £1000.” We’re not there yet, but developments in D2B are moving us forward.