Fragment-based drug design: how big is too big?

Much has been discussed about the proper physicochemical properties (e.g., molecular weight, hydrophobicity, etc.) that should be considered when utilizing fragment leads in drug design. However, little has been reported as to what emphasis, if any, should be placed on the potency of the resulting fragment leads. In this report, a retrospective analysis of 18 highly optimized inhibitors is described in which the compounds were systematically deconstructed until the minimal binding elements could be identified. An analysis of the potency changes that were observed as the leads were reduced in size indicate that a nearly linear relationship exists between molecular weight and binding affinity over the entire range of sizes and potencies represented in the dataset. On the basis of these observations, prediction maps can be constructed that enable critical and quantitative assessments of the process of lead identification and optimization. These data place well-defined limits on the ideal size and potency of fragment leads that are being considered for use in fragment-based drug design.

[1]  P. Hajduk,et al.  SAR by NMR: An Analysis of Potency Gains Realized Through Fragment‐linking and Fragment‐elaboration Strategies for Lead Generation , 2006 .

[2]  Maurizio Pellecchia,et al.  Solution nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy techniques for probing intermolecular interactions. , 2005, Chemistry & biology.

[3]  Edward R Zartler,et al.  Fragonomics: fragment-based drug discovery. , 2005, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[4]  S. Korsmeyer,et al.  An inhibitor of Bcl-2 family proteins induces regression of solid tumours , 2005, Nature.

[5]  J. T. Metz,et al.  Ligand efficiency indices as guideposts for drug discovery. , 2005, Drug discovery today.

[6]  P. Hajduk,et al.  Druggability indices for protein targets derived from NMR-based screening data. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[7]  S. Smith‐Gill,et al.  Magnitude of the hydrophobic effect at central versus peripheral sites in protein-protein interfaces. , 2005, Structure.

[8]  Christopher W Murray,et al.  Fragment-based lead discovery using X-ray crystallography. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[9]  P. Hajduk,et al.  Utilization of NMR-derived fragment leads in drug design. , 2005, Methods in enzymology.

[10]  J. Bajorath,et al.  Docking and scoring in virtual screening for drug discovery: methods and applications , 2004, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[11]  Brian Dymock,et al.  Design and Characterization of Libraries of Molecular Fragments for Use in NMR Screening against Protein Targets , 2004, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[12]  M. Congreve,et al.  Fragment-based lead discovery , 2004, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[13]  T. O'Brien,et al.  Fragment-based drug discovery. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[14]  A. Hopkins,et al.  Ligand efficiency: a useful metric for lead selection. , 2004, Drug discovery today.

[15]  Philip M Dean,et al.  De novo drug design: integration of structure-based and ligand-based methods. , 2004, Current opinion in drug discovery & development.

[16]  Thomas Peters,et al.  NMR spectroscopy techniques for screening and identifying ligand binding to protein receptors. , 2003, Angewandte Chemie.

[17]  Claudio Dalvit,et al.  NMR screening techniques in drug discovery and drug design , 2002 .

[18]  D. Baker,et al.  A simple physical model for binding energy hot spots in protein–protein complexes , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[19]  H. Jhoti,et al.  Structure-based screening of low-affinity compounds. , 2002, Drug discovery today.

[20]  W. Delano Unraveling hot spots in binding interfaces: progress and challenges. , 2002, Current opinion in structural biology.

[21]  Tudor I. Oprea,et al.  Is There a Difference between Leads and Drugs? A Historical Perspective , 2001, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[22]  C. Lepre,et al.  Library design for NMR-based screening. , 2001, Drug discovery today.

[23]  C. Lipinski Drug-like properties and the causes of poor solubility and poor permeability. , 2000, Journal of pharmacological and toxicological methods.

[24]  I. Kuntz,et al.  The maximal affinity of ligands. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[25]  P. Hajduk,et al.  Discovering High-Affinity Ligands for Proteins: SAR by NMR , 1996, Science.