Binding thermodynamics discriminates fragments from druglike compounds: a thermodynamic description of fragment-based drug discovery

Drug Discovery Today

Volumn 22, Issue 4, 2017, Pages 681-689

  Williams, Glyn ^a   Ferenczy, György G ^b   Ulander, Johan ^c   Keserű, György M ^b  

^a ASTEX PHARMACEUTICALS   (United Kingdom)

^b INSTITUTE OF EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE   (Hungary)

^c ASTRAZENECA R AND D   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

LIGAND; PROTEIN; PROTEIN BINDING;

DRUG PROTEIN BINDING; HUMAN; LIGAND BINDING; NONHUMAN; PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY; REVIEW; THERMODYNAMICS; BINDING SITE; CHEMISTRY; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; MOLECULAR LIBRARY; PROCEDURES;

BINDING SITES; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG DISCOVERY; HUMANS; LIGANDS; PROTEIN BINDING; PROTEINS; SMALL MOLECULE LIBRARIES; THERMODYNAMICS;

EID: 85007550961     PISSN: 13596446     EISSN: 18785832     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.drudis.2016.11.019     Document Type: Review

References (28)

1. 1 Ferenczy, G.G., Keserű, G.M., Enthalpic efficiency of ligand binding. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 50 (2010), 1536–1541.
2. 2 Ladbury, J.E., et al. Adding calorimetric data to decision making in lead discovery: a hot tip. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 9 (2010), 23–27.
3. 3 Ferenczy, G.G., Keserű, G.M., Thermodynamics of fragment binding. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 52 (2012), 1039–1045.
4. 4 Klebe, G., Applying thermodynamic profiling in lead finding and optimisation. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 14 (2015), 95–110.
5. 5 Hann, M.M., et al. Molecular complexity and its impact on the probability of finding leads for drug discovery. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 41 (2001), 856–864.
6. 6 Olsson, T.S., et al. The thermodynamics of protein–ligand interaction and solvation: insights for ligand design. J. Mol. Biol. 384 (2008), 1002–1017.
7. 7 Hajduk, P.J., et al. Druggability indices for protein targets derived from NMR-based screening data. J. Med. Chem. 48 (2005), 2518–2525.
8. 8 Vajda, S., Guarnieri, F., Characterization of protein–ligand interaction sites using experimental and computational methods. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Dev. 9 (2006), 354–362.
9. 9 Kozakov, D., et al. Ligand deconstruction: why some fragment binding positions are conserved and others are not. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 112, 2015, E2585.
10. 10 Ichihara, O., et al. The importance of hydration thermodynamics in fragment-to-lead optimization. ChemMedChem 9 (2014), 2708–2717.
11. 11 Huggins, D.J., Quantifying the entropy of binding for water molecules in protein cavities by computing correlations. Biophys. J. 108 (2015), 928–936.
12. 12 Breiten, B., et al. Water networks contribute to enthalpy/entropy compensation in protein–ligand binding. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 35 (2013), 15579–15584.
13. 13 Murray, W.C., Verdonk, M.L., The consequences of translational and rotational entropy lost by small molecules on binding to proteins. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 16 (2002), 741–753.
14. 14 Torres, F.E., et al. Higher throughput calorimetry: opportunities, approaches and challenges. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 20 (2010), 598–605.
15. 15 Krimmer, S.G., Klebe, G., Thermodynamics of protein–ligand interactions as a reference for computational analysis: how to assess accuracy, reliability and relevance of experimental data. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 29 (2015), 867–883.
16. 16 Murray, C.W., et al. Fragment-based drug discovery applied to HSP90. Discovery of two lead series with high ligand efficiency. J. Med. Chem. 53 (2010), 5942–5955.
17. 17 Woodhead, A.J., et al. Discovery of (2,4-dihydroxy-5-isopropylphenyl)-[5-(4-methylpiperazin-1-ylmethyl)-1,3-dihydroisoindol-2-yl]methanone (AT13387), a novel inhibitor of the molecular chaperone Hsp90 by fragment based drug design. J. Med. Chem. 53 (2010), 5956–5969.
18. 18 Dolezal, O., et al. Fragment screening for the modelling community: SPR, ITC, and crystallography. Aust. J. Chem. 66 (2013), 1507–1517.
19. 19 Silvestre, H.L., et al. Integrated biophysical approach to fragment screening and validation for fragment-based lead discovery. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 110 (2013), 12984–12989.
20. 20 Dai, R., et al. Fragment-based exploration of binding site flexibility in Mycobacterium tuberculosis BioA. J. Med. Chem. 58 (2015), 5208–5217.
21. 21 Neumann, L., et al. HTS reporter displacement assay for fragment screening and fragment evolution toward leads with optimized binding kinetics, binding selectivity, and thermodynamic signature. Methods Enzymol. 493 (2011), 299–320.
22. 22 Zender, M., et al. Discovery and biophysical characterization of 2-amino-oxadiazoles as novel antagonists of PqsR, an important regulator of Pseudomonas aeruginosa virulence. J. Med. Chem. 56 (2013), 6761–6774.
23. 23 Scott, A.D., et al. Thermodynamic optimisation in drug discovery: a case study using carbonic anhydrase inhibitors. ChemMedChem 4 (2009), 1985–1989.
24. 24 Rühmann, E., et al. Thermodynamic signatures of fragment binding: validation of direct versus displacement ITC titrations. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1850 (2015), 647–656.
25. 25 Ferenczy, G.G., Keserű, G.M., On the enthalpic preference of fragment binding. Med. Chem. Commun. 7 (2016), 332–337.
26. 26 Geschwindner, S., et al. Ligand binding thermodynamics in drug discovery: still a hot tip?. J. Med. Chem. 58 (2015), 6321–6335.
27. 27 Hann, M.M., Molecular obesity, potency and other addictions in drug discovery. Med. Chem. Commun. 2 (2011), 349–355.
28. 28 Erlanson, D.A., et al. Twenty years on: the impact of fragments on drug discovery. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 15 (2016), 605–609.