Merck’s journey from flatland

Back in 2009 we highlighted a paper, “Escape from flatland,” suggesting that molecules with higher fractions of sp³-hybridized (ie, non-aromatic) carbons are more likely to become drugs. This hypothesis has been challenged on methodological grounds, and an analysis last year concluded that “Fsp³ may not have been a useful metric to optimize.” Now a new J. Med. Chem. paper by Olivia Garry and colleagues at Merck weighs in on the debate.

 

The researchers calculated Fsp³ (number of sp³-hybridized carbons divided by total carbons) for millions of small molecules (MW < 1200) synthesized at Merck from 2000 through 2024. Interestingly, mean Fsp³ values dropped from 0.34 to 0.31 between 2000 and 2006 or so, coinciding with the increasing popularity of metal-mediated cross coupling reactions during that period. Since then, Fsp³ has risen to 0.40 in 2024, which could be due to the focus on “escaping flatland” as well as the increasing availability of saturated building blocks and new synthetic methodologies.

 

Consistent with the original publication, the average Fsp³ increases as molecules progress through development, from 0.34 overall to 0.36 for those that go into rat pharmacokinetic studies and to 0.38 for preclinical candidates – close to the 0.39 found for drugs approved since 2009 according to the study last year.

 

A key correlation proposed in the original flatland publication was that solubility increased with Fsp³, and this was observed again here. Of 435,280 compounds having Fsp³ between 0.00-0.70 with measured solubility data, 55% of those with more aromatic character had low solubility, while only 15% of those with Fsp³ > 0.65 were poorly soluble. The correlations held for solubility at neutral pH as well as at pH 2. Molecules with lower Fsp³ also tended to have more aromatic rings, and this has previously been shown to lower solubility.

 

In contrast to solubility, lipophilicity (logD) did not correlate with Fsp³ among 503,780 compounds. Apparent permeability showed a complex and noisy correlation for 16,570 compounds, leading the researchers to conclude that “Fsp³ is not a good parameter to optimize P_app.”

 

Inhibition of three cytochrome P450 enzymes, CYP 3A4, 2C8, and 2C9, was examined for 51,760 compounds. Weak trends were observed for the latter two, with highly aromatic compounds being more likely to inhibit the enzymes, but no trend was seen for CYP 3A4.

 

Inhibition of human ether-a-go-go-related gene (hERG) is a major red flag for compound progression, and here there was a correlation, with higher Fsp³ compounds showing lower inhibition. This trend held for both aminergic and nonaminergic molecules, though as with solubility these trends could be driven by aromatic ring count, which has independently been correlated to hERG inhibition.

 

Since the 2009 flatland publication, many solvents have been spilled to replace phenyl rings with more shapely, non-aromatic moieties. The researchers looked at matched molecular pairs for internal compounds to see what effects these changes had on solubility. Simply saturating a phenyl to a cyclohexyl ring tended to decrease solubility, while the best solubility improvements resulted from cyclopropyl or isopropyl substitutions. But these swaps did little for shapeliness: of the eight substitutions for which sufficient data existed, cyclopropyl and isoprproyl had the lowest increase of average Fsp³. As the researchers note, “using Fsp³ without consideration of other properties is not a good strategy to optimize solubility.”

 

Overall this study suggests that leaving the comforts of flatland may be worthwhile. Molecules with higher Fsp³ values are sometimes more challenging to synthesize, but this itself can lead to new intellectual property space.

 

It’s worth emphasizing that the correlations between Fsp³ and solubility, CYP inhibition, and hERG inhibition are limited. In the end, the researchers recommend “considering Fsp³ in combination with other factors in medicinal chemistry optimization as its standalone effect on specific properties is modest.” Just as general risk factors won’t predict whether any given person will contract a disease, metrics won’t predict whether any given molecule will succeed (or fail) as a drug. 

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.