How proteins bind macrocycles

Nature Chemical Biology

Volumn 10, Issue 9, 2014, Pages 723-731

  Villar, Elizabeth A ^a   Beglov, Dmitri ^b   Chennamadhavuni, Spandan ^a   Porco, John A ^a   Kozakov, Dima ^b   Vajda, Sandor ^a,b   Whitty, Adrian ^a  

^a Boston University   (United States)

^b Boston University   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

MACROCYCLIC COMPOUND; PROTEIN;

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; BINDING AFFINITY; BINDING SITE; BIOAVAILABILITY; COMPLEX FORMATION; CRYSTAL STRUCTURE; CYCLIZATION; DRUG PROTEIN BINDING; HUMAN; HYDROGEN BOND; LIPOPHILICITY; MOLECULAR WEIGHT; PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN DATA BANK;

BINDING SITES; BIOLOGICAL AVAILABILITY; CRYSTALLOGRAPHY, X-RAY; DRUG DESIGN; MACROCYCLIC COMPOUNDS; MASS SPECTROMETRY; MODELS, MOLECULAR; MOLECULAR WEIGHT; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; PROTEIN BINDING; PROTEINS; SMALL MOLECULE LIBRARIES;

EID: 84906307859     PISSN: 15524450     EISSN: 15524469     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nchembio.1584     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Hopkins, A.L. & Groom, C.R. The druggable genome. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 1, 727-730 (2002).
2. Berg, T. Small-molecule inhibitors of protein-protein interactions. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Devel. 11, 666-674 (2008).
3. Buchwald, P. Small-molecule protein-protein interaction inhibitors: therapeutic potential in light of molecular size, chemical space, and ligand binding efficiency considerations. IUBMB Life 62, 724-731 (2010).
4. Whitty, A. & Kumaravel, G. Between a rock and a hard place? Nat. Chem. Biol. 2, 112-118 (2006).
5. Wells, J.A. & McClendon, C.L. Reaching for high-hanging fruit in drug discovery at protein-protein interfaces. Nature 450, 1001-1009 (2007).
6. Hajduk, P.J. & Greer, J. A decade of fragment-based drug design: strategic advances and lessons learned. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 6, 211-219 (2007).
7. Scott, D.E. et al. Using a fragment-based approach to target protein-protein interactions. ChemBioChem 14, 332-342 (2013).
8. Morelli, X., Bourgeas, R. & Roche, P. Chemical and structural lessons from recent successes in protein-protein interaction inhibition (2P2I). Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 15, 475-481 (2011).
9. Basse, M.J. et al. 2P2Idb: a structural database dedicated to orthosteric modulation of protein-protein interactions. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, D824-D827 (2013).
10. Singh, J., Petter, R.C., Baillie, T.A. & Whitty, A. The resurgence of covalent drugs. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 10, 307-317 (2011).
11. Walensky, L.D. et al. Activation of apoptosis in vivo by a hydrocarbon-stapled BH3 helix. Science 305, 1466-1470 (2004).
12. Murray, J.K. & Gellman, S.H. Targeting protein-protein interactions: lessons from p53/MDM2. Biopolymers 88, 657-686 (2007).
13. Raj, M., Bullock, B.N. & Arora, P.S. Plucking the high hanging fruit: a systematic approach for targeting protein-protein interactions. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 21, 4051-4057 (2013).
14. Driggers, E.M., Hale, S.P., Lee, J. & Terrett, N.K. The exploration of macrocycles for drug discovery-an underexploited structural class. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 7, 608-624 (2008).
15. Wessjohann, L.A., Ruijter, E., Garcia-Rivera, D. & Brandt, W. What can a chemist learn from nature's macrocycles?-a brief, conceptual view. Mol. Divers. 9, 171-186 (2005).
16. Marsault, E. & Peterson, M.L. Macrocycles are great cycles: applications, opportunities, and challenges of synthetic macrocycles in drug discovery. J. Med. Chem. 54, 1961-2004 (2011).
17. Mallinson, J. & Collins, I. Macrocycles in new drug discovery. Future Med. Chem. 4, 1409-1438 (2012).
18. Yu, X. & Sun, D. Macrocyclic drugs and synthetic methodologies toward macrocycles. Molecules 18, 6230-6268 (2013).
19. Giordanetto, F. & Kihlberg, J. Macrocyclic drugs and clinical candidates: what can medicinal chemists learn from their properties? J. Med. Chem. 57, 278-295 (2014).
20. Ganesan, A. The impact of natural products upon modern drug discovery. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 12, 306-317 (2008).
21. Lipinski, C.A. Drug-like properties and the causes of poor solubility and poor permeability. J. Pharmacol. Toxicol. Methods 44, 235-249 (2000).
22. Vistoli, G., Pedretti, A. & Testa, B. Assessing drug-likeness-what are we missing? Drug Discov. Today 13, 285-294 (2008).
23. Brandt, W., Haupt, V.J. & Wessjohann, L.A. Chemoinformatic analysis of biologically active macrocycles. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 10, 1361-1379 (2010).
24. Bockus, A.T., McEwen, C.M. & Lokey, R.S. Form and function in cyclic peptide natural products: a pharmacokinetic perspective. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 13, 821-836 (2013).
25. White, T.R. et al. On-resin N-methylation of cyclic peptides for discovery of orally bioavailable scaffolds. Nat. Chem. Biol. 7, 810-817 (2011).
26. Brenke, R. et al. Fragment-based identification of druggable 'hot spots' of proteins using Fourier domain correlation techniques. Bioinformatics 25, 621-627 (2009).
27. Landon, M.R., Lancia, D.R. Jr., Yu, J., Thiel, S.C. & Vajda, S. Identification of hot spots within druggable binding regions by computational solvent mapping of proteins. J. Med. Chem. 50, 1231-1240 (2007).
28. Kozakov, D. et al. Structural conservation of druggable hot spots in protein-protein interfaces. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108, 13528-13533 (2011).
29. Gaulton, A. et al. ChEMBL: a large-scale bioactivity database for drug discovery. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, D1100-D1107 (2012).
30. Jorgensen, W.L. The many roles of computation in drug discovery. Science 303, 1813-1818 (2004).
31. Lo Conte, L., Chothia, C. & Janin, J. The atomic structure of protein-protein recognition sites. J. Mol. Biol. 285, 2177-2198 (1999).
32. Nayal, M. & Honig, B. On the nature of cavities on protein surfaces: application to the identification of drug-binding sites. Proteins 63, 892-906 (2006).
33. Ciulli, A., Williams, G., Smith, A.G., Blundell, T.L. & Abell, C. Probing hot spots at protein-ligand binding sites: a fragment-based approach using biophysical methods. J. Med. Chem. 49, 4992-5000 (2006).
34. DeLano, W.L. Unraveling hot spots in binding interfaces: progress and challenges. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 12, 14-20 (2002).
35. Landon, M.R., Lancia, D.R. Jr., Yu, J., Thiel, S.C. & Vajda, S. Identification of hot spots within druggable binding regions by computational solvent mapping of proteins. J. Med. Chem. 50, 1231-1240 (2007).
36. Chuang, G.Y. et al. Binding hot spots and amantadine orientation in the influenza A virus M2 proton channel. Biophys. J. 97, 2846-2853 (2009).
37. Hall, D.H. et al. Robust identification of binding hot spots using continuum electrostatics: application to hen egg-white lysozyme. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 133, 20668-20671 (2011).
38. Buhrman, G. et al. Analysis of binding site hot spots on the surface of Ras GTPase. J. Mol. Biol. 413, 773-789 (2011).
39. Zerbe, B.S., Hall, D.R., Vajda, S., Whitty, A. & Kozakov, D. Relationship between hot spot residues and ligand binding hot spots in protein-protein interfaces. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 52, 2236-2244 (2012).
40. Hall, D.R., Ngan, C.H., Zerbe, B.S., Kozakov, D. & Vajda, S. Hot spot analysis for driving the development of hits into leads in fragment-based drug discovery. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 52, 199-209 (2012).
41. Golden, M.S. et al. Comprehensive experimental and computational analysis of binding energy hot spots at the NF-κB essential modulator/IKKβ protein-protein interface. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 135, 6242-6256 (2013).
42. Roe, S.M. et al. Structural basis for inhibition of the Hsp90 molecular chaperone by the antitumor antibiotics radicicol and geldanamycin. J. Med. Chem. 42, 260-266 (1999).
43. Hajduk, P.J., Huth, J.R. & Fesik, S.W. Druggability indices for protein targets derived from NMR-based screening data. J. Med. Chem. 48, 2518-2525 (2005).
44. Landon, M.R. et al. Novel druggable hot spots in avian influenza neuraminidase H5N1 revealed by computational solvent mapping of a reduced and representative receptor ensemble. Chem. Biol. Drug Des. 71, 106-116 (2008).
45. Rand, A.C. et al. Optimizing PK properties of cyclic peptides: the effect of side chain substitutions on permeability and clearance. Medchemcomm. 3, 1282-1289 (2012).
46. Hopkins, A.L., Groom, C.R. & Alex, A. Ligand efficiency: a useful metric for lead selection. Drug Discov. Today 9, 430-431 (2004).
47. Hajduk, P.J. Fragment-based drug design: how big is too big? J. Med. Chem. 49, 6972-6976 (2006).
48. Veber, D.F. et al. Molecular properties that influence the oral bioavailability of drug candidates. J. Med. Chem. 45, 2615-2623 (2002).
49. Wu, C.Y. & Benet, L.Z. Predicting drug disposition via application of BCS: transport/absorption/ elimination interplay and development of a biopharmaceutics drug disposition classification system. Pharm. Res. 22, 11-23 (2005).
50. Vieth, M. et al. Characteristic physical properties and structural fragments of marketed oral drugs. J. Med. Chem. 47, 224-232 (2004).
51. Lee, B. & Richards, F.M. The interpretation of protein structures: estimation of static accessibility. J. Mol. Biol. 55, 379-400 (1971).
52. Hartshorn, M.J. et al. Diverse, high-quality test set for the validation of protein-ligand docking performance. J. Med. Chem. 50, 726-741 (2007).
53. Kozakov, D. et al. Structural conservation of druggable hot spots in protein-protein interfaces. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108, 13528-13533 (2011).
54. Hall, D.R., Ngan, C.H., Zerbe, B.S., Kozakov, D. & Vajda, S. Hot spot analysis for driving the development of hits into leads in fragment-based drug discovery. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 52, 199-209 (2012).
55. Mann, H. & Whitney, D. On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Ann. Math. Stat. 18, 50-60 (1947).
56. Anderson, T. & Darling, D. Asymptotic theory of certain "goodness-of-fit" criteria based on stochastic processes. Ann. Math. Stat. 23, 193-212 (1952).