Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Gisbert Schneider
gisbert.schneider@modlab.de
Salicin
(aus Weidenrinde, Entzündungshemmer)
Arachidonsäure
HO
COOH
O-β-D-glucopyranosid
COX
COX
COOH COOH
OH O O COOH
O O
OOH
Salicylsäure Acetylsalicylsäure
PGG2
(Aspirin®, Prodrug)
10.10.1897 Erstsynthese
durch Felix Hoffmann (Bayer)
Prostacyclin Thromboxan A2
• inhibiert COX-1 und COX-2 (1991 entdeckt)
• Acetylierung von Ser530 ( Ala-Mutante) Erweiterung Aggregation
• Problem der Selektivität von Blutgefäßen von Thrombozyten
+ Hemmung der (nur in Thrombozyten)
Thrombozytenaggregation
1
Strukturbasierter Entwurf von Wirkstoffen
Hydrophile Tasche
Ser530
Ser530
„Mickey Mouse“-Grundgerüst
privilegiertes Strukturmotif
Adaptive Optimization
Inference Machine
Hypothesis Data/Facts
Synthesis
2
Similarity-Based Molecular Design
“Seed”
x2
Assumption:
Assumption:
Growing
Growing Distance
Distance ==
Growing
Growing Dissimilarity
Dissimilarity
x1
Mutation - Sampling
ELVISISKING
DIVISISKLNG
PY j
DAYLSLSKLDS
…
σ DAYANDNIGHT
3
Entropy of Peptide Libraries
H = − ∑ ∑ p p , k log 2 p p , k
p k
Cumulative Shannon-Entropy
70 1 2 x1 2
09
Number of active peptides
60 (a ) 1 0 x1 0 9 (b )
x 10-5 units
50
8 x18
0 9
<activity>
40
30 6 x16
09
<activity>
20 4 x14
09
10
2 x12
09
0
00
0 10 20 30 40 50 1 2 3 4 5 6
E n tro p y o f p e p tid e lib ra ry [b its ] < d is ta n c e to s e e d p e p tid e >
O
O O H
H H N
N N
H
NH
Ala Trp Gly
ity
ic
ob
Fitness
ph
ro
yd
H
Vol
um
e
A B C
S1 S2 S3
4
Peptide de novo Design
FFFFGWYGWA*RE
ARRCYNDPKC GWFGGADWHA
5
Best-selling Drugs 2003-2005
OH
O H
N
HN Lipitor® (Atorvastatin) [Pfizer] HO O
O HMG CoA reductase inhibitor HO
N O
Hypercholesterolemia S
OH F
OH OH Hyperlipidemia HO O
Atherosclerosis 11 billion $ F
O
F HH
HO O Zocor® (Simvastatin) [Merck] O
F
O HMG CoA reductase inhibitor
O Adavir® (Fluticasone, Salmetrol) [GSK]
Hypercholesterolemia
Hyperlipidemia Corticosteroid agonist + Beta 2 adrenoceptor agonist
O
H Atherosclerosis
6 billion $ Asthma
6
Stage-by-stage quality assessment
to reduce costly late-stage attrition Bleicher et al. (2003)
7
Assay Methods
Note:
– no strict discrimination possible
– overlapping between subdefinitions
Functional Assays
8
Functional Assays
GPCR: Coupling
R Effector
Proteins
AC PLC
ATP cAMP + PPi PIP2
Functional Assays
9
Functional Assays
Binding Assays
10
Binding Assays
x
IC 50 =
100 %
( − 1)
y
11
Definition and calculation of Ki-value
IC50
Ki = [Ligand] [Protein]
L Ki = Einheit: mol/l
1+ [Ligand x Protein]
Kd
HTS Workstation
12
Screening Methods
Screening plates Screening plates
for HTS „Intelligent LTS“
for LTS
24 well
96 well
Hit-identification strategies
Structure-based
Ligand-based
13
Structure-Based Molecular Design
103 -1020
1 -104
(10100)
14
Navigation is defined as ...
15
Similarity Searching / Neighborhood Behavior
“Cherry-Picking“
16
Library Design by Similarity
x2
PC2
virtual d
optimum
PCA
k-nearest neighbor
x3
PC1
x1
x2
PC2
“Spikes”
PCA
x3
PC1
x1
15
80
10 60
40
5
20
0 0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 1 2
Lipinski
Lipinski et
et al.
al. (1997)
(1997)
Poor
Poor absorption
absorption oror permeation
permeation is
is more
more likely
likely when:
when:
1.
1. There
There are
are more
more than
than 55 H-bond
H-bond donors
donors (expressed
(expressed as
as the
the sum
sum of
of OHs
OHs and
and NHs);
NHs);
2.
2. The
The MW
MW isis over
over 500;
500;
3.
3. The
The LogP
LogP isis over
over 5;
5;
4.
4. There
There are
are more
more than
than 10
10 H-bond
H-bond acceptors
acceptors (expressed
(expressed as
as the
the sum
sum of
of Ns
Ns and
and Os).
Os).
17
Properties of Known Drugs
35 35
MW clogP
30 30
25 25
% 20 % 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
100 300 500 700 > -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
200 400 600 800
• hydrophobicity
• electronic distribution
• hydrogen bonding characteristics
• molecule size and flexibility affect
• pharmacophoric features
18
More Rules of Thumb for „Drug-Likeness“
• Solubility logS
Fragment-based prediction
logS values below -4 indicate possible solubility problems
http://www.molinspiration.com/cgi-bin/properties
MW clogP
Receptor class
(number of cmpds) Avg. Min. Max. σ Avg. Min. Max. σ
GPCR (N = 1,467) 406 121 993 134 3.6 -11.1 13.7 2.6
Protease (N = 1,015) 495 136 945 114 2.9 -8.2 10.3 2.4
Kinase (N = 387) 395 74 717 104 3.1 -5.6 8.7 2.2
Enzyme (N = 839) 364 68 849 119 2.6 -5.2 10.9 2.5
Hormone (N = 227) 336 142 949 115 4.0 -5.2 10.1 2.9
Ion channel (N = 412) 375 208 969 106 3.1 -11.1 10.8 2.7
19
Properties of Ligand Families
5.5
5.0
4.5 hormone receptor
4.0
GPCR
3.5 kinase
<clogP>
3.0 x protease
1.5
320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480 500
<MW>
Fragment-based Design
Cl
R1 R1
N N
N NH
N N N
R2 R2 N
20
The Concept
pseudo-retrosynthetic fragmentation
(e.g., RECAP)
Drug DB Fragment DB
•• Reference
Reference Molecule(s)
Molecule(s)
Reactions •• Fitness
Fitness Functions
Functions
Assemble
(e.g., TOPAS)
Designed
Designed Molecules
Molecules
N
N N N
O
N
O
N+ N
N
N S
O
O
Lactam N aliph. C Arom. C arom. C Sulphonamide
Lewell et al., JCICS 1998.
21
RECAP Applied to the COBRA Database
Fragment analysis
Molecule
Sidechain Framework
Ring
N N
Linker
Sidechain
N S N S
22
Framework extraction
73: 10,44% 34: 4,86% 276: 5,48% 93: 1,85% 82: 1,63% 81: 1,61%
1520: 6,09% 789: 3,16% 668: 2,67% 553: 2,21%
26: 3,72% 20: 2,86% 19: 2,72% 77: 1,53% 68: 1,35% 58: 1,15%
12: 1,72%
13: 1,86%
10: 1,43%
*2 *2 *1
*1
*2
1* 2* *1
22 20 17
2* *1
2* *2 *1
363 289
*2 *2
1* *1 *2
*1 *2
2* *2 2* 2*
16 15 15
*1
1* *2 1* *2
281 273 1*
2* 1*
*2
*2 *2 *1
1* *2 1* 1*
2* *1
2* 12 11 11
*1 *2
*1 2*
2* 2* *2 *2
*2 2*
1* *2 *2
1* 1* *1
11
11 11 *1
1*
2* 2*
2*
2* *1 *2
*2
1* *2 *2 *2 *2
11 11
2*
*2
242 219 205
2*
23
Synthetic drugs vs. Natural products: RECAP results
“N-Chemistry” “O-Chemistry”
HN
O Xenical™ (Orlistat)
O
O O Score = 0.54
Nondrugs
14
12
10 Σ = 76% Σ = 24%
% 8
4 y = f(x)
O 2
0
O HN N
N 25
Drugs 0 Score 1
N
20
Σ = 24% Σ = 76%
O S O % 15
N 10
5
N
0
0 Score 1
Viagra™ (Sildenafil)
Score = 0.94
24
„X-Likeness“ Scores (ANN)
• “Drug-Likeness” prediction
(Schneider 2000, Neural Networks 13:15)
• hERG-liability prediction
(Roche et al. 2002, ChemBioChem 3:455)
Input R1
w(1) N
O
Hidden N R2 OH R2
N
w(2) N O
R2 R1 O
Output
Drug-likeness ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
“Cytotoxicity” + + + ++ ++ –
GPCR-ligand likeness ++ ++ ++ – + +
Kinase-ligand likeness – – – – – +
by supervised R1 R1 R1
O
neural networks N
R2
O N
O
N R2
NH 2 N NH 2
R2
25
R-Group Descriptor
F Distance
E B
D A 1 2 3 4
C
Sum of atomic
a b+c d+f e
values
R1 Distance: topological number of bonds
x2
The task
x2
ANN Solution(s)
x1
x2
x1
SVM Solution
x1
26
Three-layered Feed-forward Network
INPUT x1 x2 xn
w
Hidden Layer
v
OUTPUT
HID IN
f( x ) = act ∑ v h act ∑ whi x hi + ϑ h + θ
h =1 i =1
1 if f ( x) > threshold
class =
0 else
f ( x) = ∑ α i K ( xisv , x) + b
i
1 if f ( x) > 0
class =
0 else
α i : Lagrange multipliers (≥ 0)
K : Kernel function K ( x, x' ) = (( x • x' ) s + 1) 5
x : Input vector
x sv : Support vectors
b : Constant
27
Comparison of ANN & SVM: Drug-Likeness
• Sadowski/Kubinyi data set
• GC + MOE + CATS descriptor
SVM
ANN
28
Comparison of ANN & SVM: Drug-Likeness
F
F
HO N F
N
S
6
Cl
1
O
O
OH
☺ ANN O HN
OH
N
O ANN
SVM
OH O
2
N
7
☺ SVM
N H
O N N O
N
O O
HO O N N N
OH N O O
3
NH2 8 9
H
H2N N OH
O
O 4 O
O NH
N
N Cl
O
HN
S S O O
O O NH2
O
5 10
29
Prediction of “Frequent Hitters”
479 “Frequent-Hitters”
423 “Nonfrequent Hitters” from trade drug collection
30
“Frequent Hitters”: ANN Training
cc = 0.83
31
Pareto-Ranking
1
• Selection of sets of solutions
2
3 Pareto-Front
Dimension 1 Implementation
Multiobjective Genetic Algorithm (MOGA)
„non-dominated“ solution Fonseca & Fleming (1993) In: Genetic Algorithms:
Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference,
Forrest, S. (Ed.), Morgan Kaufmann: San Mateo,
CA, pp. 416-423.
Library
Diversity
SAR Information
32
Adaptive Feature Extraction
Weeding out
Activity
• Drug-Likeness
• ADMET in silico
• Reactive groups
• Frequent Hitters
x
Narrowing down
Activity
• Trend vectors
• Substructure analysis
• Similarity searching
• Profile / landscape analysis
x
Focusing in
Activity
• Structure-based models
• PPP models
• Informed docking & scoring
x • Informed design
33
Virtual Screening
34
Virtual Screening: DNA-Gyrase
Böhm et al. (2000) JMC 43:2664
ACD
Catalyst / LUDI
600 candidates
Structure-based optimization
Met109 Thr106
backbone
amide
Fragment
IC50 = 1.3 mM
Lead
35
Ligand binding modes: EGFR kinase ATP site.
36
Mapping Chemical Space
O O
N N O
N HO N OH H2N N NH2
N
O O O O H2N N OH O
N H N OH
N N
H2N HO OH
N Kohonen map
containing (25x25) O OH
compound classes
O
O O
O O
OH O O
+
N
+
O N
O
O O
N
• source: WDI
+
N N
N +
N
N
• CATS 2D descriptor
• Euclidian distance
• planar topology
37
distribution mqe
COBRA 4.6
• 6.064 cmpds, CATS
• 10x10, toroidal
• Euclidian distance
distribution mqe
COBRA 4.6
• 6.064 cmpds, CATS
• 10x10, toroidal
• Manhattan distance
38
distribution mqe
COBRA 4.6
• 6.064 cmpds, CATS
• 20x20, toroidal
• Euclidian distance
distribution mqe
COBRA 4.6
• 6.064 cmpds, CATS
• 20x20, toroidal
• Manhattan distance
39
Enzyme_5-LO
Ionchannel_gaba
Ligand Space
GPCR_CRF
GPCR_opioid
Enzyme_PDE
Enzyme_Topoisomerase
GPCR_adenosine
GPCR_CCR
GPCR_NK Enzyme_cholinesterase
GPCR_NPY
Hormone_PPAR GPCR_mAChR 64 COBRA SOMs
Enzyme_aromatase
Ionchannel_calcium
Enzyme_PLA
GPCR_5HT7
GPCR_melatonin
Enzyme_COX Enzyme_Estrone Ward’s method
Hormone_estrogen
Enzyme_cholinesterase GPCR_Histamin 1 – Pearson r
GPCR_mAChR
GPCR_5HT7
Enzyme_Estrone GPCR_adrenergic
GPCR_Histamin
GPCR_adrenergic protease_fVIIa
protease_fVIIa
GPCR_dopamine GPCR_dopamine
GPCR_5HT1
GPCR_5HT3
GPCR_5HT2 GPCR_5HT1
Ionchannel_nAChR
GPCR_5HT4 GPCR_5HT3
Ionchannel_potassium
Ionchannel_sodium GPCR_5HT2
Ionchannel_nAChR
Enzyme_NOS
GPCR_5HT6
protease_DPP
GPCR_cannabinoid
Hormone_RAR GPCR_5HT4
Hormone_retinoid
Hormone_RXR
Enzyme_Farnesyltransferase Ionchannel_potassium
protease_thrombin
protease_cathepsin_K Ionchannel_sodium
protease_proteasome
protease_b-secretase Enzyme_NOS
protease_g-secretase
GPCR_CCK
GPCR_somatostatin GPCR 5HT6
protease_cathepsin_D
GPCR_endothelin
protease_HMGCoa
t DPP
GPCR_mGlu
GPCR_prostanoid
“[..] peripheral serotonergic system disturbances
Hormone_GHRP
protease_ECE
protease_papain
protease_caspase
protease_ace
Enzyme_IMPDH
GPCR_P2Y
may predispose to thromboembolic complications [..]”
Ionchannel_P2X
Enzyme_Polymerase
Enzyme_RT
Ionchannel_AMPA
protease_neuramidase Małyszko et al. (2000) Nephron 84:305
O
COBRA 4.6: mqe NH
N N
N
O
N O O
S
O
O
H
N
O
O
O
I
NH N
N N N
N S N+
COBRA 4.6: all H -
N
HO HO
OH
Br O
O P O
O O
O N O
P
HO SH N+
O N O O O-
H
-
O O
O N+
Cl
H
N S
N N
NH O N+ N
Cl O- H
O O
FF
“Cluster Representatives“
40
COBRA 4.6: mqe
NH
H O
N N N O H
HO N
N Cl
N
N
Cl
O S
O Cl N
N
HN HN
N O
O
F N F
F
COBRA 4.6: all O
N
S
N
N
N H
O
Br
N
N
HN O
N N
Cl
O N
O N N O
O HN NH N
N
O
Cl
N NH
N
N
H Lepotex (Clozapine)
N
Sertindole O Ki (D4.2) 40 nM
Ki (5-HT2a) 0.9 nM N Ki (5-HT2a) 3.3 nM
Ki (5-HT2c) 1.3 nM N Ki (5-HT2c) 13 nM
Ki (D1) 210 nM Cl Ki (D1) 540 nM
Ki (D2) 7.4 nM Ki (D2) 150 nM
Ki (D3) 8.2 nM Ki (D3) 360 nM
Ki (D4.2) 21 nM N
Ki (H1) 2.1 nM
Ki (H1) 570 nM Ki (α1) 23 nM
Ki (α1) 1.8 nM Ki (mAChR) 34 nM
F
41
SOM-Training
Distribution of all
Quantization Error • Software: molmap®
compounds
• Descriptor: speedCATS®
• 20,000 cycles
• Toroidal (10 x 10) map
• Gaussian neighborhood, τinit = 1
• Euclidian distance
Projection of
Virtual Combinatorial Libraries
R1 R1
N N
N R2
N N
N
R2 R1 R2
O
N N
O H H
N
NH N
O N S
H
IC50 ~ 3 nM NPY-1
42
Privileged Scaffolds
N R1
O
R3 N R2
N N
Ser-protease inhibitors H H
O
43
SOM: Novel A2a Inhibitors
Scaffold structure
O
R1 N
N
R3
R2 N N
NH2
empty NH2
low
Seed structure 2 (neuron 3/2)
Ki and O
Selectivity O Br
N
N
high
N
N
Selectivity NH2
A2a A1
<Ki> [nM] <Ki> [nM] <Selectivity>
“historical” 102 (101) 860 (1154) 14 (19)
structures
“designed” 50 (93) 974 (1264) 33 (23)
structures
Standard deviations in brackets
Distribution of virtual
Combi-Products
O O MeO O
R1 N N R1 N N
N N N
R2 N N S R2 N N O N N O
Br Br
NH2 NH2 NH2
44
“Antidepressant-Likeness” - SOM
+
Imipramine HN
597 Antidepressants Fluoxetine
N
F3C O
150-dimensional SOM
“chemical space”
(CATS descriptors) NKP-608
O
CF3
empty N
Antidepressants
0%
Fraction of
25 % O NH
CF3
50 %
Cl
N
75 %
Metalloproteinase active-site
Other Zn2+-containing pockets
1. Identify surface pockets empty
2. Assign surface properties
3. Calculate spatial auto-correlation
4. SOM-Training
45
Bindetaschen-SOM
Training-Daten Test-Daten
46
Identifikation von Bindetaschen (1)
1. Errechne Proteinoberfläche
2. Bestimme Gitterpunkte
3. Errechne “Vergrabenheit”
4. Definiere “Tasche”
47
Identifikation von Bindetaschen (2)
http://www.chemcomp.com/Journal_of_CCG/Features/sitefind.htm
Receptor-Ligand
Interactions
48
Reaction-Energy Diagram
N N
+ O
O
protein ligand protein–ligand complex
Energy Coordinate
PL complex
Reaction Coordinate
Raffa (2003)
Protein-Liganden Interaktion
Bindungskonstante
[Ligand] [Protein]
Ki = Einheit: mol/l
[Ligand x Protein]
49
Thermodynamische Beiträge zu ∆G
O O
Enthalpischer Beitrag
solvated receptor-ligand complex
• Brechen und Bilden von H-Brücken
• Bilden lipophiler Kontakte
HO
50
Protein mobility and ligand binding
A protein is considered to exist in two conformations (P and P*) with an energy difference ∆Gconvert. The ligand (L) can bind
the protein (P) to give a complex (PL), or bind to P* to give a complex (P*L). Although P* has a higher free energy, it might
offer greater scope for interaction with L. For instance, P* might represent a conformer in which the binding site has
opened and exposed hydrophobic patches. This is energetically unfavourable, but offers the potential for favourable
interactions with the hydrophobic moiety of a suitable incoming L, thereby giving rise to a large, favourable interaction
∆Gintrinsic. The resulting complex (P*L) has a lower energy than that of the complex PL. The observed affinity of L for the
protein conformational ensemble is governed by ∆Gobs. Slow binding kinetics might well be observed, as P* is a higher-
energy conformer than P and an energy barrier (∆Gbarrier) must be surmounted before optimal binding to L can take place.
Allosteric
site
51
Optimale Interaktion
Beispiel: Biotin-Streptavidin
52
Multiple Bindungsmoden
Soakingexperimente mit
Trypsin + Guanidiniumbenzoat
Sp
e
zif
it
ä ts
ta s
ch
e
katalytisches Ser195
Böhm et al. (1996)
53
Bindungsmoden verschiedener Inhibitoren
Kraftfelder
54
Empirische Scoringfunktionen
2D-Fall
z.B.: Andrews et al. (1984), Mittlere Beiträge funktioneller Gruppen
(in stärksten Protein-Liganden Komplexen ~ 1.5 kJ/mol pro Atom)
3D-Fall
Gewichtungsfaktoren
für verschiedene WW-Typen
Training-Daten !
Wissensbasierte Scoringfunktionen
Pseudo-Paarpotentiale ∆Wij(r)
Beobachtete Paarhäufigkeit
g ij (r ) im Abstand r
∆Wij (r ) ∝ − ln
g ref
P(r) W(r)
r r
55
Calculation of knowledge-based potentials (1)
(for protein folding simulation)
Define a contact: e.g. “distance of Calpha atoms from two residues < threshold” and
count the frequencies this gives the observed frequencies:
A C L
A 1 2 1
C 2 3 1
L 1 1 1
Define a suitable reference state: e.g. statistically expected pair-wise spatial
contacts, calculated from the AS occurrences in the AS-sequence:
A C L
AS sequence: ACLACLAALL A 6 8 16
C 8 1 8
AS counts: A: 4
C: 2 L 16 8 6
L: 4 Diagonals: ½ N (N-1)
Off-diagonals: N*M
A C L A C L
A 1 2 1 A 6 8 16
Counts C 2 3 1 C 8 1 8
L 1 1 1 L 16 8 6
A C L A C L
Relative A 0.077 0.154 0.077 A 0.078 0.104 0.208
Frequency C 0.154 0.231 0.077 C 0.104 0.013 0.104
L 0.077 0.077 0.077 L 0.208 0.104 0.078
A C L
f ab
A 0.027 - 0.894 2.255 ∆EPseudo = − KT ln ref Inverse Boltzmann Law
C - 0.894 - 6.537 0.680 f
L 2.255 0.680 0.027
56
Calculation of Pseudo-Energy
Count the frequencies of contacts for a protein the pseudo-energy for the protein
is then calculated by summing up the pair-wise empirical potentials for all found
contacts.
2F19 (blue) and decoy (green) 2HFL (blue) and decoy (green)
∆ E pseudo = − 123 .9 kJ
∆Gestimated (kcal/mol) =
- 0.7•DOF + 0.7•Csp2 + 0.8•Csp3 + 11.5•N+
+ 1.2•N + 8.2•CO2- + 10•PO42- + 2.5•OH + 3.4•C=O
+ 1.1•(O,S) + 1.3•Hal - 14
57
Andrews analysis of virtual combinatorial libraries
50
40
30
∆Gestimated (kcal/mol)
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 COBRA
R1 R1 R1
R1
N N O
N R2
N R2 O
NH O
N N O R2
N
R2 R2 R1 R3
1 2 3 4 5
R1 O R2
O N R1 R1
O N O R2
R2 H
N R3 N R2 O HO R3
N N S N N
H H H
NH2 N NH2 O R3 R1 O
6 7 8 9
∆G = − RT ln K D
∆g = ∆G
number of non − H atoms
58
Nicht-kovalente Wechselwirkungstypen
Protein Ligand
O H N
H
O H N
+
O H N
O H
H ionic interactions Dopt = 2.7 – 3.0 Å
+
N
O H H
hydrophobic interactions
CH3 H3C
+
N
cation-π interaction
2+ -
Zn S metal complexation
Böhm et al. (1996)
• direktionale WW
• definierte Geometrie
N H O
N H O > 150°
59
Beispiel: Methothrexat in DHFR
H-Brückengeometrie in Protein-Liganden Komplexen sind
oft sehr ähnlich zu Kristallstrukturen aus der Cambridge-DB
60
The Hydrogen-Bridge
X = O führt zu Repulsion!
61
Beitrag von H-Brücken (3)
(Eli-Lilly)
= Analoges des
Übergangszustandes
Böhm et al. (1996)
62
Extrem starke H-Brücken (2)
Beispiel: Inhibition des Enzyms Cytidin-Desaminase
Pharmacophores &
Pharmacophore Descriptors
63
Pharmacophore Definition
GLOSSARY OF TERMS USED IN MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY
(IUPAC Recommendations 1998) http://www.chem.qmul.ac.uk/iupac/medchem/
O
Acceptor N
O
OH H
N NH
Donor + Acceptor
N
H O
Acid O N CF3
N S
N
(negative ionizable) OH N H O
NH
Base N
(positive ionizable) NH2 NH2
Atoms excluded O O
N
N
(„non pharmacophoric“) O O
64
MOE-Atomtypen (PATTY)
Pharmacophore Models:
A Matter of Interpretation?
HO NH3+ NH3+
Dopamine
HO HO
OH
P/D
A/D P/D
L
Generated from
L inspection of other
A/D D
dopamine receptor ligands
•• two
two rotamers
rotamers
•• different
different PPP
PPP models
models
65
Creation of PPP Triplets
Donor
H conformational H
N N
Acceptor analysis
O
HO HO
Donor O
PPP assignment
0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
y
HO O
PPPs
H2N
O O
1 2
N H x
z
1. align along reactive bond & place attachment point at origin
2. rotate and record PPP constellations on a grid
relative orientation of PPs to origin is defined
applicable to active site constraints
Leach et al. (2000) JCICS 40:1262
66
Receptor-derived PPP Fingerprints
Target A 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
• Compound screening Target B 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
• Informative Library Design Target C 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1
Target D 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0
...
Validated hits
Common Pharmacophore (Asp Proteases)
Virtual Screening
Combined Query
Target-Specific Pharmacophore
(Surf2Lead® , Pep2Lead® , PHACIR®)
67
In situ Design
Factor VIIa
O NH
NH
S1 pocket HN NH2
Asp189
Geometrische Parameter
nicht-kovalenter Wechselwirkungen
68
LUDI geometry rules: C=O
• Type: Acceptor
• Compl. Type: Donor
• R: 1.9 + 1 Ǻ
• α: 110-180°
• ω: 0-360°
• Type: Donor
• Compl. Type: Acceptor
• R: 1.9 Ǻ
• α: 150-180°
• ω: 0-360°
69
LUDI geometry rules: COO-
• Type: Acceptor
• Compl. Type: Donor
• R: 1.8 + 1 Ǻ
• α: 100-140°
• ω: -50-50°, 130-230°
• Type: Acceptor
• Compl. Type: Donor
• R: 1.9 + 1 Ǻ
• α: 150-180°
• ω: 0-360°
70
LUDI geometry rules: R-O-R
• Type: Acceptor
• Compl. Type: Donor
• R: 1.9 + 1 Ǻ
• α (sp2): 100-140°
• ω (sp2): -60-60°
• α (sp3): 90-130°
• ω (sp3): -70-70°
• Type: Lipophilic
• Compl. Type: Lipophilic
• R: 4 Ǻ
• α, ω: full sphere
71
LUDI geometry rules: Sulfur
• Type: Lipophilic
• Compl. Type: Lipophilic
• R: 4.8 Ǻ
• α, ω: full sphere
• Type: Aromaticity
Donor
• Compl. Type:
Aromaticitiy Donor and
Acceptor
• R: 6 Ǻ
• Circular plane
72
LUDI geometry rules:
Aromatic Ring Hydrogens
• Type: Aromaticity
Donor
• Compl. Type:
Aromaticitiy Donor and
Acceptor
• R: 6 Ǻ
• Circular plane
73
“Virtual Ligands”
Docking-Free Structure-Based Similarity Searching
Virtual Ligand
74
Example: Factor Xa “Fingerprints”
DD DA DH AA AH HH DD DA DH AA AH HH
HO
COBRA_3743 (Xa/VIIa) O
O S
O N
YM_60828_3743
NH
N O NH2
D: Donor, A: Acceptor, H: Hydrophobic HN
Goodness-of-Hit
H (3 A + H t ) H t − H a
GH = a × 1 −
4Ht A D− A Guner & Henry (2000)
75
SVM-based Feature Relevance (1)
a) b)
maximum
margin
optimal
hyperplane
SVM function:
f (x) = ∑ ai * K (x sv
i , x) + b
i
Separating hyperplane:
∂f (x) ∂K ( x sv
i , x)
R f ( x) = = ∑ ai * +b
∂x f i ∂x f
∂K (x sv sv
i , xj )
R f = ∑ R j (x ) = ∑ ai *
sv
j +b
j i, j ∂x f
76
SVM-based Feature Relevance (3)
c)
Factor Xa vs. COBRA
Factor
e) Xa vs. Thrombin
L
O O
OH S
O
NH O
NH H
H2N
+ NH HN NH
H2N O NH
+ N
H
NH O H2N
HO Br HN
a) b) c) d)
(2+3=5) 3
NH2 Ri = 3
O
OH 3
2 2
Rj = 2
77
Calculation of 3PP Importance (2)
O O
H H
N O N O
S N S N
O H O H
O O O O
NH Gly216 NH
19
H2N NH H2N NH
Gly216 Asp189
Gly219
NH
N COOH N
H N COOH
N
NH O
S O H N O HN NH2
O S O
Asp189 O O
O S NH O NH2
20 NH2
NH O
S1 N NH2
H
H2N NH
Sulfonyl group
a) b)
planar
hydrophobic
Ring B
O
H-bond
N S NH2
acceptor
Ring A F3 C N O
His90
SC-558
78
Virtual Screening for D3 Receptor Ligands (1)
N
D2 Ki < 2 µM Ki = 914 nM
Ki = 4395 nM
7
16
A B
Asp 110
Asp110
Phe 345
Phe345
Ser192
Phe346 Phe 346
Ser 192
79
Naumann & Matter (2002) J. Med. Chem 45:2366
© Dr. Hans Matter
80
GRID Potentials & Block-Scaling
GRID
BUW
BUW coefficients are obtained equalizing the sum of squares of each block of variables
Equal weight of each block (no prior autoscaling!)
Block-Analyse (CPCA)
Eigenwerte (“erklärte Varianz”) werden pro Block errechnet
81
ATP-Bindetasche in Kinasen
82
© Dr. Hans Matter
ATP-purine pocket
83
Correlation-Vector-Representation
of molecules
b
• autocorrelation function ( CV = ∫ a
f ( x ) ⋅ f ( x + l ) ⋅ dx)
• spatial or topological distance
• rotation- and translation invariant („alignment-free“)
• descriptor vector of defined length (similarity calculation)
• easily implemented
84
modlab® Correlation Vector Representations
O
O
O
O
S O
H2N
O
CORINA
PETRA
Gasteiger et al.
CVd = ∑∑ δ ij ⋅ (qi ⋅ q j )d
A A A A
1 A A T
CVdT = ∑∑ δ ij ,d CVdT = ∑∑ δ ijT,d ⋅ wi ⋅ w j
A i =1 j =1 i =1 j =1 i =1 j =1
NH 2
Lipophilic:
Lipophilic: {C(C)(C)(C)(C),
{C(C)(C)(C)(C), Cl}
Cl}
Positive:
Positive: {[+],
{[+], NH2}
NH2}
Negative:
Negative: {[-],
{[-], COOH,
COOH, SOOH,
SOOH, POOH}
POOH}
H-bond
H-bond Donor:
Donor: {OH,
{OH, NH,
NH, NH2}
NH2}
H-bond
H-bond Acc.:
Acc.: {O,
{O, N[!H]}
N[!H]}
85
„Retrospektives Screening“
Library
Bekannte aktive Moleküle
“Query”
COX
COX MMP
MMP
HIVP
HIVP
• COBRA 3.2
• Manhattan distance
86
Similarity Searching → Complementary Results
87
„Retrospektives Screening“ - Beispiele
% found
% of library screened
88
„Retrospektives Screening“ - Methodenvergleich
DaylightFingerprints
H1 receptor antagonist
(query)
FeatureTrees
89
Fusion of CATS2D Ranked Lists
Nuclear Receptor ligands subset of
A∪B∪C∪D∪E∪F∪G the COBRA database, v2.1 (N = 211)
A S P act
ef = act
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 S all P all
cumulative percentage of actives found
Subset Pool
Black
Black bars
bars show
show the
the percentage
percentage of of
(COBRA)
actives
actives that
that were
were retrieved
retrieved by
by the
the
respective
respective similarity
similarity metric
metric and
and no
no more
more
than
than one
one additional
additional similarity
similarity metric.
metric.
Counts Counts
4 4
3.5 3.5 Counts = f ⋅ Countsbin+1
3 3
2.5 2.5 Counts = f ⋅ Countsbin−1
2 2
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Distance / bonds Distance / bonds
Original
Original „Fuzzy“
„Fuzzy“
90
CATS2D: A Ranked List KKi (D1)
(D1)==270
KKi i(D3)
270nM
==21nM
nM
(D3) 21nM
KKi i(D4.2) = 11nM
(D4.2) = 11nM
Query KKi i(5-HT2A) = 25nM
i (5-HT2A) = 25nM
O KKi (α1)
(α1)==19
19nM
nM
Haloperidol OH
KKi i(H1)
(H1)==730
730nM.
nM.
D2-antagonist N Cl i
F
O N
OH N H OH 5-HT2C antagonist
N
D2 ligand N Br
1 F 6 O
O
OH N
O
N O H3 antagonist
D2 ligand 2 F F 7 NH
F
F
5 10 Eliprodil
D2 ligand H2N N
N N (ion channel)
F OH
The previous figure shows the ten highest ranking compounds which were retrieved from the COBRA
database by a topological pharmacophore similarity search (CATS method). The query structure was
Haloperidol, a dopamine (D2) receptor antagonist. Not surprisingly, classic variations of the query structure
are found on ranks 1 and 2. These are not very interesting from the library design or scaffold-hopping point of
view. On ranks 5 and 9 two additional D2-receptor ligands are found, one of which surprisingly is an agonist
(rank 5), and the well-known Melperone structure on rank 9 which represents a substructure of Haloperidol.
Retrieval of the rank 5-molecule could already be regarded as a “scaffold-hop”, as the compound has a
different structure than the query. This molecule is a “D2-ligand” and may be regarded as isofunctional on this
description level of “bioactivity”, but not necessarily exhibit the same kind of functional activity (the
compound on rank 5 is an agonist, not an antagonist as the query molecule). Looking at the first molecules
ranked between known D2-ligands, we find an annotated ion channel blocker (GABA transporter type I,
GAT1) on rank 3, and an antiinflammatory PPAR-γ agonist (Pioglitazone) on rank 4. Based on the similarity
ranking, it would now be worthwhile testing these molecules in a dopamine receptor binding assay. Indeed, a
co-inhibition of dopamine transporter and GAT1 has been reported for Orphanin FQ, an endogenous
antagonist of the dopamine transporter; and Pioglitazone has been found to prevent dopaminergic cell loss.
These are first indications that the similarity search might have produced useful results. Still, only the
biochemical test can validate the results. An argument against the compound on rank 4 might be the lack of a
basic amine function. Looking at the structures on lower ranks, we find a serotonin receptor 5-HT2C
antagonist (rank 6), a histamine receptor H3 antagonist (rank 7), a TNF-alpha inhibitor (rank 8), and another
ion channel blocker (Eliprodil, rank 10). For an assessment of this finding, it is important to learn about other
activities of the query structure: Ki (D1) = 270 nM, Ki (D3) = 21nM, Ki (D4.2) = 11nM, Ki (5-HT2A) = 25nM,
Ki (α1) = 19 nM, Ki (H1) = 730 nM. This means that Haloperidol exhibits binding activity against a whole
family of targets, and is not specific for the D2 receptor. Therefore, retrieving a H3 ligand on rank 7 can be
considered a success if we keep in mind that the query has significant binding potential at the H1 receptor.
This brief example of a pharmacophore-based similarity search demonstrates that one has to be very
careful when analyzing a ranked list, and a seeming contradiction to what was expected as an outcome
of the experiment might be resolved by considering multiple activity of the query structure.
91
How Far Should We Look?
Number
of Hits
0
Distance to Query
Threshold?
Threshold?
N
N
O H
2 IC50: 3 µM - RTTC / FLIPR
N
O N
F N N
H
O CATS Cl N
N
O
O
O O O
O N N
CATS
O O N
O
O N
92
“Fuzzy” Pharmacophores
Assign
Align atom types Determine Local Feature Densities
LFD = 1.46 LFD = 1
LFD = 2.09
LFD = 1.76
LFD = 1.89
LFD = 1.85
1 5 1 6
Wc = min , + min , = 0.96
2 11 2 11
σ =1.3
Fuzzy Pharmacophores:
Quest for Novel COX-2 Inhibitors
1%
5%
10%
93
Fuzzy Pharmacophores Outperform
Single-Query Searching
Fuzzy Pharmacophores:
Quest for Novel Thrombin Inhibitors
H2
D1
H3 a) b) c)
H1
A1
B
d) e) f)
“Fuzziness”
94
Fuzzy Pharmacophores Outperform
Single-Query Searching
Flexible alignment
of 2 and 3 to active
conformation of 1
NMR-structure 1LVJ
with bound inhibitor 1
95
Fuzzy Pharmacophore Model of TAR Binders
Virtual screening
of the SPECS catalogue
10 compounds cherry-picked
Queries
Flexible
Flexible alignment
alignment of
of queries
queries 33--99 (MOE)
(MOE)
conformations
conformations for
for CATS3D
CATS3D
96
New Allosteric Modulators of Metabotrobic Glutamate
Receptor 5 (mGluR5) (2)
Ranked list
97
3D Conformations
Heuristic Conformer Generation
98
• Generation of isomeric structures
Br Br
A meso molecule is one that is superimposable on its mirror image H H
(achiral) but has stereogenic centers. Br Br
The most common kind of mesocompound is a molecule with two H H
stereogenic centers and a plane of symmetry.
(2R,3S)-2,3-dibromobutane
STEREOCHEMISTRY
http://orgchem.colorado.edu/courses/3361manualF04/MMstereofullLM61F04.pdf
http://www.chem.umd.edu/courses/jarvis/chem233spr04/Chapter04Notes.pdf
99
Principles of ROTATE
100
Observed torsion angles (CSD)
Schwab (2003)
n-decan
144 conformers
N
1
RMS XYZ =
N
∑ ( X i − X i ')2 + (Yi − Yi ')2 + (Z i − Z i ')2
i =1
101
Berechnung des RMSXYZ-Wertes
102
Torsionswinkelhistogramm (CSD) und
abgeleitete Potentialfunktion
h(τ)
E(τ) = A • ln h(τ)
(Näherungsverfahren
nach Murray-Rust)
103
Erkennen von rotierbaren Bindungen
Sonderfall 1: Carbonsäureamid
in CSD
104
Sonderfall 2: Keto-Enol Tautomere
in CSD
• graphentheoretischer Ansatz
105
Distribution of intramolecular atom-pair distances
in CORINA-generated conformations of druglike compounds
(COBRA v2.1)
N
average DAB = 15 Å
Molecular Diversity
Subset Sampling
106
Molecular Diversity
Distance-based
• Diversity metrics Cell-based
Variance-based
2D
• Diversity spaces 3D
Physicochemical
Reagent-based
• Diversity sampling Product-based
Adapted from: Agrafiotis et al. (2000) in “Virtual Screening for Bioactive Molecules”
Böhm, Schneider eds., Wiley-VCH.
Often used:
minimum pair-wise distance of compounds i,j in a collection C
D1 (C ) = min d ij
i< j
Problem: D1 depends on a single inter-molecular distance.
107
Distance-based diversity metrics : D4
1
D4 (C ) =
N
∑ min d
i
j ≠i
ij
108
Space partitioning by a k-dimensional tree
left right
left right
up
down down up point coordinates
y are discriminators
x Demo: http://www.rolemaker.dk/nonRoleMaker/uni/algogem/kdtree.htm
D7 (C ) = S max − S
N N
S = −∑∑ pij ln pij
i =1 j =1
109
Cell-based diversity metrics: D8
• Gridding of chemical space
• Absolute positions of compounds (in contrast to diversity-based metrics)
M
D8 (C ) = ∑ δ i if cell is occupied, δi = 1
else δi = 0.
Measure
Measure of
absolute
of
absolute diversity!
diversity!
i =1
D10 (C ) = ∑ ( N i − N * )
2
Cell-based χ2
i
N
Cell-based density D12 (C ) = −∑ N i log i
i Mi
NC number of cells occupied by C
NR number of cells occupied by the reference set
Ni number of compounds in the i-th cell of the subset
N* average number of compounds per cells expected for the subset
Mi number of compounds in the i-th cell of the reference set
110
Subset Selection & Sampling
n!
Number of different subsets = n =
k
(n − k )!k!
n : number of compounds in C
k : number of compounds in the subset
Maxmin Sampling
SELECTION
POOL
111
http://gecco.org.chemie.uni-frankfurt.de/maxminselection/index.html
1 1
b)
0.5 0.5
0 0
0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1
1 1
d)
0.5 0.5
0 0
0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1
2
x 10
3
R1
calculation time [s]
C
O
N R2 2
HN Java
O
R3
1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
number of compounds in pool x 10
4
112
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Statistics
Example:
K* is in [0,1]
⇒ K = 1− K *
Similarity index
Source Library
Flip members
• combinatorial Sub-set
• de novo
• corporate Goal:
K max.
Reference set
if ∆ ≥ 0 then accept
else if exp(-∆/T) > random[0,1] then accept;
113
Kolmogorov-Smirnov for Sampling
An Approach to
Product-Based Diversity Sampling
Reference
Compounds
Actives
Inactives
Byvatov & Schneider (2003)
114
De novo design
of druglike molecules
115
Scaffold analysis with MEQI
www.pannanugget.com
116
Ligand Classes & Structural Feature Classes
Requirements Implementations
• Grow
• Link
• Structure sampling method • Lattice
• Stochastic
• Primary constraints
• Structure assessment method (receptor, ligand)
• Secondary constraints
117
Building Blocks Primary target constraints Combinatorial Search Strategy Structure Sampling
Name Publication Buildin Fragments Receptor Ligand DFSA BFSB Random MCC EAD Grow Link Lattice MDE Stochastic
HSITE/ 2D Skeletons10,29,85 1989 X X X Fitting and clipping of planar skeletons
3D Skeletons30 1990 X X X X
Diamond Lattice31 1990 X X X X
26
BUILDER v1 1992 X X X X X
18
LEGEND 1991 X X X X
LUDI11,12,86-88 1992 X X X X X
NEWLEAD28 1993 X X X X X
SPLICE58 1993 X X X X
GenStar32 1993 X X X X
GroupBuild16 1993 X X X X
CONCEPTS37 1993 X X X X
15,55-57
SPROUT 1993 X X X X X X
23,25
MCSS & HOOK 1994 X X X X
19
GrowMol 1994 X X X X X
MCDNLG59 1995 X X X X
Chemical Genesis20 1995 X X X X X
DLD24,89 1995 X X X X
PRO_LIGAND13,42,90-93 1995 X X X X X X
SMoG39,40,94 1996 X X X
27
BUILDER v2 1995 X X X X
33
CONCERTS 1996 X X X X
21
RASSE 1996 X X X X
PRO_SELECT14,38 1997 X X X X
SkelGen61,62 1997 X X X X X
Nachbar43,95 1998 X X X X
Globus47 1999 X X X X
DycoBlock34,35 1999 X X X X
LEA45 2000 X X X X
22
LigBuilder 2000 X X X X X
46
TOPAS 2000 X X X X
F-DycoBlock36 2001 X X X X
ADAPT65 2001 X X X X
Pellegrini & Field44 2003 X X X X X
SYNOPSIS53 2003 X X X X
CoG48 2004 X X X X X
BREED60 2004 X X X Exhaustive recombination
Link/Grow Strategy
N place
H fragments Ki = 16 µM
O O
link
O
Ile56
N
H OH OH
O Babine et al. (1995)
O
Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 5:1719
O
O N place first
H fragment
Asp37 O
Phe46 O
grow
Define Determine
binding pocket interaction sites
OH
O
(FKBP-12) O
O
O
118
Lattice Strategy
N N
H H
OH
O O
O O
119
Tree model of search
space exploration by an Binding
Pocket
automated structure Initial State
generation method
NH HN
Level 1
• Grow strategy
• Depth-first search x
• Structure-based O
HO
NH NH NH
Level 2
N O
N
x x
...
NH
End State
O Designed Molecule
HO
O
N NH O
evolutionary algorithm
O
O
Initial state
O HN O
N+ N
O
OH
N 0.47
O
HO
O
O
• Mutation / Selection
Tanimoto index (similarity to the template structure)
N
N
H
N NH 0.57
• Depth-first search
N N
N N
N O
• Ligand-based N
O
NH N
0.66
(Reference: Gleevec®) Br NH
H O
N
N N
N
NH N 0.70
N
N Br NH
O
OH
HN
N N 0.81
F N HN
O
O N
N N
H
N
H
N
0.92
N
N F
O N
N N N N
1.0
H H
N
N
End state
120
Generation of favorable ligand-binding positions
121
LUDI (Böhm)
• Finde WW-Zentren
HD: blau
HA: rot
Lipo: grün
• Plaziere Fragmente
• Verknüpfe Fragmente
122
CHARMM
123
DHFR site points
• acceptors
• donors
• ring centroids
• neutrals
• acceptors
• donors
• ring centroids
• neutrals
124
HIV-Protease
• benzene minima
HIV-Protease
• benzene minima
and
• other ring minima
125
Recent combinatorial de novo design examples
O
F3C
• New CB-1 ligand (IC50 = 0.3 µM)
• TOPAS ligand-based approach
CF 3
5 • First step: designs assembled from GPCR-fragments
• Second step: expert inspection & scaffold selection
Rogers-Evans et al. (2004) QCS 23:426
• 6-10% hit rate with IC50 < 10 µM
11
Generate λ 3,788
Reactions
Start diverse Fragments
molecules
Yes No
End Stop?
126
Daylight Toolkit Functions
Aromatic-C + Aromatic-C
([c;R1:1][10*]).([10*][c;R1:2])>>[c;R1:1]-[c;R1:2]
([c;R1:1][10*]).([10*][c;R1:2])>>[c;R1:1]-[c;R1:2]
[10*] [10*]
+
127
The TOPAS II “Flux-Generator”
F F
HN F H HN F
O N O N
H H
N N
F
O O
Parent Structure Child Structure
O O
Step 1 Step 3
Randomly select Synthesize with
N N
a reaction and reaction chosen
retro-synthesize Amide Amide in Step 1
F O
OH F O
H2 N Step 2 OH
HN F H2 N
HN F
OH H2N Randomly pick a OH
O fragment and substitute H
N
O
F by a fragment of the
Fragmented Parent Structure same type Fragmented Child Structure
O O
S NH OH
O
NH
O
T = 0.9 N
NH
H2N
128
Design Examples - Gleevec
O N
• ‘recapped’ COBRA
N N N N • Daylight Fingerprints
H H
N
N • Tanimoto Coefficient
Gleevec
• non-adaptive ES
O N
N N N N
H H
N
N N
T = 0.88
NH
N O N
NH
N N
NH
N
T = 0.87
• ‘recapped’ COBRA
O N
N O
• Daylight Fingerprints
N
D3: 0.92 nM
H • Tanimoto Coefficient
D2: 61 nM BP 897 • non-adaptive ES
Pilla et al. (1999) Nature 400:371-373
NH
Cl
O N O H
N N
N N Cl
T = 0.88 H
O N O
T = 0.80
O
O
N
O
N N
N N
NH
O T = 0.78
T = 0.75
129
Design Examples – Dopamine D3 Ligand
Reference: BP 897
O N
N O
D3 Homology Model
N (Byvatov, Sasse, Stark, Schneider (2004))
H
4-bond spacer
Asp 110
N
H
N N O
O
Phe 345
3-bond spacer
I Phe 346
N
H
N N O Ser 192
O
O 6% Hit-Rate
De novo designs
2
Focused
N
R
F libraries
R
1
R = H; clogP = 6.90
Br; clogP = 7.79
MeSO2; clogP = 5.47 N
N
R'
GPCR-BB
TOPAS DB 10% Hit-Rate
3
130
Combinatorial Design of Novel Kv1.5 Blockers
O
O
S
O NH H
N
IC50 < 1 µM HO
(ICAGEN) O
O
S
NH O
O H
O Evolutionary N
de novo Virtual
Design CombiChem IC50 < 1 µM
O
S
O NH O
H
N
O
Pharmacophore S
O NH O
IC50 ~ 7 µM Matching H
N
IC50 ~ 1 µM
~ 46,000 24,563
Reference molecule
aromatic
aromatic
1-fluoro-2-nitrobenzene o-anisidine nucleophilic
nucleophilic reduction
reduction
substitution
substitution (Pd-catalytic
(Pd-catalytic hydrogenation)
hydrogenation)
condensation
condensation
131
Thrombin inhibitors:
automatic vs. manual design
W60D
Y60A H57
L99
S195
NH 1. Placement of fragments
O 2. Combinatorial optimization
N98 6 • Preferred reaction (red. amination)
A190 NH NH2 • „needle“ approach
G216
W215 G219
Ki = 10 nM
D189
1DWB, 3.16 Å Böhm et al. (1999) JCAMD 13:51
Y60A W60D O
1. Placement of central scaffold
N 2. Modelling
N
3.1
O 3. Fluorine scan
F
N98
7
G219 HN NH2
W215
G216
A190
Ki = 6 nM
1OYT, 1.67Å Obst et al. (1997) Chem. Biol. 4:287
D189
Olsen et al. (2003) Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 42:2507
BUT...
• neglects receptor flexibility
Zhu et al. (2001) JCAMD 15:979 (F-DycoBlock)
Anderson & Wright (2005) Curr. Comp. Aid. Drug Des. 1:103
132