Structure-guided fragment screening for lead discovery

Current Opinion in Drug Discovery and Development

Volumn 7, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 404-410

  Verdonk, Marcel L ^a   Hartshorn, Michael J ^a  

^a ASTEX PHARMACEUTICALS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Fragment based; Lead optimization; X ray crystallography

Indexed keywords

ENZYME INHIBITOR; LIGAND; TRIOSEPHOSPHATE ISOMERASE; CARRIER PROTEIN; LEAD BINDING PROTEINS; LEAD-BINDING PROTEINS;

AFRICAN TRYPANOSOMIASIS; CRYSTAL STRUCTURE; DRUG RESEARCH; DRUG SCREENING; DRUG TARGETING; FRAGMENTATION REACTION; LIGAND BINDING; NONHUMAN; REVIEW; STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; TRYPANOSOMA BRUCEI; X RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHY; AUDIOVISUAL EQUIPMENT; BINDING SITE; BIOLOGY; CHEMICAL MODEL; CHEMISTRY; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG EFFECT; MASS SPECTROMETRY; METHODOLOGY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPY; PHYSIOLOGY;

BINDING SITES; CARRIER PROTEINS; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; CRYSTALLOGRAPHY, X-RAY; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG EVALUATION, PRECLINICAL; MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPY; MASS SPECTROMETRY; MODELS, CHEMICAL; MODELS, STRUCTURAL; STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP;

EID: 4644349994     PISSN: 13676733     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (50)

1. Hird N: Isn't combinatorial chemistry just chemistry? Drug Disc Today (2000) 5(8):307-308.
2. Hann MM, Leach AR, Harper G: Molecular complexity and its impact on the probability of finding leads for drug discovery. J Chem Inf Comput Sci(2001) 41(3):856-864. Using a very simple model, this paper elegantly demonstrates how large compounds have a much lower probability of forming complementary interactions with a binding site than small compounds.
3. Teague SJ, Davis AM, Leeson PD, Oprea T: The design of leadlike combinatorial libraries. Angew Chem Int Ed (1999) 38(24)3743-3748. Describes the differences between drug-like and lead-like compounds (in terms of their molecular weight and ClogP values) and argues that screening libraries should contain lead-like compounds (lower molecular weight and lower ClogP) rather than drug-like compounds.
4. Hopkins AL, Groom CR, Alex A: Ligand efficiency: A useful metric for lead selection. Drug Disc Today (2004) 9(10):430-431.
5. Blundell TL, Jhoti H, Abell C: High-throughput crystallography for lead discovery in drug design. Nat Rev Drug Disc (2002) 1(1):45-54.
6. Boehm HJ, Boehringer M, Bur D, Gmuender H, Huber W, Klaus W, Kostrewa D, Kuehne H, Luebbers T, Meunier-Keller N, Mueller F: Novel inhibitors of DNA gyrase: 3D structure-based biased needle screening, hit validation by biophysical methods, and 3D guided optimization. A promising alternative to random screening. J Med Chem (2000) 43(14)5664-2674. Early fragment-based lead discovery application following an integrated approach using virtual screening with LUDI, NMR and other biophysical methods, and crystallography to find potent leads against a difficult target.
7. Carr R, Jhoti H: Structure-based screening of low-affinity compounds. Drug Disc Today (2002) 7(9):522-527.
8. Fejzo J, Lepre CA, Peng JW, Bemis GW, Ajay, Murcko MA, Moore JM: The SHAPES strategy: An NMR-based approach for lead generation in drug discovery. Chem Biol (1999) 6(10):755-769. An early example of the use of ligand-based NMR screening to focus enzymatic assays.
9. Nienaber VL, Richardson PL, Klighofer V, Bouska JJ, Giranda VL, Greer J: Discovering novel ligands for macromolecules using X-ray crystallographic screening. Nat Biotechnol (2000) 18(10):1105-1108.
10. Shuker SB, Hajduk PJ, Meadows RP, Fesik SW: Discovering high-affinity ligands for proteins: SAR by NMR. Science (1996) 274(5292):1531-1534. A key paper on target-based NMR, describing how the technique was used to identify leads against FK506 binding protein. Two fragment hits were found to interact in two distinct pockets and were then joined to form potent leads.
11. Gill A: New lead generation strategies for protein kinase inhibitors - fragment based screening approaches. Mini Rev Med Chem (2004) 4(3):301-311.
12. Finkelstein AV, Janin J: The price of lost freedom: Entropy of bimolecular complex formation. Protein Eng (1989) 3(1):1 -3. A paper on the loss of rigid-body entropy upon the binding of a ligand to a target. Using simple models, the authors demonstrate that this loss should be independent of the molecular weight of the ligand.
13. Gilson MK, Given JA, Bush BL, Mccammon JA: The statistical-thermodynamic basis for computation of binding affinities: A critical review. Biophys J (1997) 72(3):1047-1069.
14. Murray CW, Verdonk ML: The consequences of translational and rotational entropy lost by small molecules on binding to proteins. J Comput Aided Mol Des (2002) 16(10):741-753.
15. Verlinde CL, Rudenko G, Hol WG: In search of new lead compounds for trypanosomiasis drug design: A protein structure-based linked-fragment approach. J Comput Aided Mol Des (1992) 6(2):131-147.
16. Vertinde CLMJ, Kim H, Bernstein BE, Mande SC, Hol WGJ: Antitrypanosomiasis drug development based on structures of glycolitic enzymes. In: Structure-Based Drug Design. Veerapandian P (Ed), Marcel Dekker Inc, New York, NY, USA (1997):365-394. An early paper discussing the use of X-ray crystallography for lead discovery.
17. Blundell TL, Abell C, Cleasby A, Hartshorn MJ, Tickle IJ, Parasini E, Jhoti H: High-throughput X-ray crystallography for drug discovery. In: Drug Design: Cutting Edge Approaches. Flower DR (Ed), Royal Society of Chemistry. Cambridge, UK (2002):53-59.
18. Jones G, Wiltett P, Glen RC, Leach AR, Taylor R: Development and validation of a genetic algorithm for flexible docking. J Mol Biol (1997) 267(3):727-748.
19. Verdonk ML, Cole JC, Hartshorn M, Murray CW, Taylor RD: Improved protein-ligand docking using GOLD. Proteins (2003) 52(4):609-623.
20. Verdonk ML, Hartshorn M, Mooij WTM, Murray CW. Taylor RD. Watson P: Virtual screening using protein-ligand docking: Avoiding artificial enrichment. J Chem Int Comput Sci (2004) 44(3):793-806.
21. Meyer B, Peters T: NMR spectroscopy techniques for screening and identifying ligand binding to protein receptors. Angew Chem Int Ed (2003) 42(8):864-890.
22. Moy FJ, Haraki K, Mobilio D, Walker G, Powers R, Tabei K, Tong H, Siegel MM: MS/NMR: A structure-based approach for discovering protein ligands and for drug design by coupling size exclusion chromatography, mass spectrometry, and nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Anal Chem (2001) 73(3):571 -581.
23. Tsang SK, Cheh J, Isaacs L, Joseph-McCarthy D, Choi SK, Pevear DC, Whitesides GM, Hogle JM: A structurally biased combinatorial approach for discovering new anti-picomaviral compounds. Chem Biol (2001) 8(1):33-45.
24. Woods VL Jr, Hamuro Y: High resolution, high-throughput amide deuterium exchange-mass spectrometry (DXMS) determination of protein binding site structure and dynamics: Utility in pharmaceutical design. J Cell Biochem (2001) 84(S37):89-98.
25. Zhu MM, Rempel DL, Gross ML: Modeling data from titration, amide H/D exchange, and mass spectrometry to obtain protein-ligand binding constants. J Am Soc Mass Soectrom (2004) 15(3):388-397.
26. Erlanson DA, Braisted AC, Raphael DR, Randal M, Stroud RM, Gordon EM, Wells JA: Site-directed ligand discovery. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2000) 97(17):9367-9372.
27. Goodford PJ: A computational-procedure for determining energetically favorable binding-sites on biologically Important macromolecules. J Med Chem (1985) 28(7):849-857.
28. Laskowski RA, Thornton JM, Humblet C, Singh J: X-SITE: Use of empirically derived atomic packing preferences to Identify favourable Interaction regions in the binding sites of proteins. J Mol Biol (1996) 259(1):175-201.
29. Boer DR, Kroon J, Cole JC, Smith B, Verdonk ML: SuperStar: Comparison of CSD and PDB-based Interaction fields as a basis for the prediction of protein-ligand interactions. J Mol Biol (2001) 312(1)275-287.
30. Verdonk ML, Cole JC, Taylor R: SuperStar: A knowledge-based approach for identifying interaction sites In proteins. J Mol Biol (1999) 289(4):1093-1108.
31. Berman HM, Westbrook J, Feng Z, Gilliland G, Bhat TN, Weissig H, Shindyalov IN, Bourne PE: The Protein Data Bank. Nucleic Acids Res (2000) 28(1)235-242.
32. Allen FH: The Cambridge Structural Database: A quarter of a million crystal structures and rising. Acta Crystallogr B (2002) 58:380-388.
33. Miranker A, Karplus M: Functionality maps of binding sites: A multiple copy simultaneous search method. Proteins (1991) 11(1):29-34.
34. Bohm HJ: The computer-program LUDI: A new method for the de novo design of enzyme-inhibitors. J Comput Aided Mol Des (1992) 6(1):61-78.
35. Honma T: Recent advances in de novo design strategy for practical lead identification. Med Res Rev (2003) 23(5):606-632.
36. Dean PM: De novo drug design. IBC Structure-Guided Drug Design Conference, Stuttgart, Germany (2003).
37. Stahl M, Todorov NP, James T, Mauser H, Boehm HJ, Dean PM: A validation study on the practical use of automated de novo design. J Comput Aided Mol Des (2002) 16(7):459-478.
38. Kuntz ID, Blaney JM, Oatley SJ, Langridge R, Ferrin TE: A geometric approach to macromolecule-ligand interactions. J Mol Biol (1982) 161(2)269-288.
39. Rarey M, Kramer B, Lengauer T, Klebe G: A fast flexible docking method using an incremental construction algorithm. J Mol Biol (1996) 261(3):470-489.
40. Taylor RD, Jewsbury PJ, Essex JW: A review of protein-small molecule docking methods. J Comput Aided Mol Des (2002) 16(3):151-166.
41. Jones G, Wiltett P, Glen RC, Leach AR, Taylor R: Further development of a genetic algorithm for ligand docking and its application to screening combinatorial libraries. In: Rational Drug Design, Novel Methodology and Practical Applications. ACS Symposium Series Vol 719. Parrill AL, Reddy MR (Eds), American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, USA (1999):271-291.
42. Rarey M, Lengauer T: A recursive algorithm for efficient combinatorial library docking. Perspect Drug Disc Design (2000) 20(1):63-81.
43. Sun Y, Ewing TJ, Skillman AG, Kuntz ID: CombiDOCK: Structure-based combinatorial docking and library design. J Comput Aided Mol Des (1998) 12(6):597-604.
44. Pierce AC, Rao G, Bernis GW: BREED: Generating novel inhibitors through hybridization of known ligands. Application to CDK2, p38 and HIV protease. J Med Chem (2004) 47(11):2768-2775.
45. Sanders WJ, Nienaber VL, Lemer CG, McCall JO, Merrick SM, Swanson SJ, Harlan JE, Stoll VS, Stamper GF, Betz SF, Condroski KR et at. Discovery of potent inhibitors of dihydroneopterin aldolase using CrystaLEAD high-throughput X-ray crystallographic screening and structure-directed lead optimization. J Med Chem (2004)47(7):1709-1718.
46. 50 value of 10 μM against FABP4 and 26-fold selectivity over FABP3.
47. Liu G, Xin Z, Pei Z, Hajduk PJ, Abad-Zapatero C, Hutchins CW, Zhao H, Lubben TH, Ballaron SJ, Haasch DL, Kaszubska W et at. Fragment screening and assembly: A highly efficient approach to a selective and cell active protein tyrosine phosphatase 1B inhibitor. J Med Chem (2003) 46(20):4232-4235.
48. Lesuisse D, Lange G, Deprez P, Benard D, School B, Delettre G, Marquette JP, Broto P, Jean-Baptiste V, Bichet P, Sarubbi E et al. SAR and X-ray. A new approach combining fragment-based screening and rational drug design: Application to the discovery of nanomolar inhibitors of Src SH2. J Med Chem (2002) 45(12)2379-2387.
49. Src are identical to those for high affinity binding of full length inhibitors. J Med Chem (2003) 46(24):5184-5195. Comprehensive discussion on the search for low-molecular-weight, non-peptide phosphotyrosine mimetics using crystallographic fragment screening.
50. Verdonk ML: The structural revolution. Curr Drug Disc (2003) 5(3):44-46.