Fragment screening: an introduction.

There are clearly many different philosophies associated with adapting fragment screening into mainstream Drug Discovery Lead Generation strategies. Scientists at Astex, for instance, focus entirely on strategies involving use of X-ray crystallography and NMR. However, AstraZeneca uses a number of different fragment screening strategies. One approach is to screen a 2000 compound fragment set (with close to "lead-like" complexity) at 100 microM in parallel with every HTS such that the data are obtained on the entire screening collection at 10 microM plus the extra samples at 100 microM; this provides valuable compound potency data in a concentration range that is usually unexplored. The fragments are then screen-specific "privileged structures" that can be searched for in the rest of the HTS output and other databases as well as having synthesis follow-up. A typical workflow for a fragment screen within AstraZeneca is shown below (Figure 24) and highlights the desirability (particularly when screening >100 microM) for NMR and X-ray information to validate weak hits and give information on how to optimise them. In this chapter, we have provided an introduction to the theoretical and practical issues associated with the use of fragment methods and lead-likeness. Fragment-based approaches are still in an early stage of development and are just one of many interrelated techniques that are now used to identify novel lead compounds for drug development. Fragment based screening has some advantages, but like every other drug hunting strategy will not be universally applicable. There are in particular some practical challenges associated with fragment screening that relate to the generally lower level of potency that such compounds initially possess. Considerable synthetic effort has to be applied for post-fragment screening to build the sort of potency that would be expected to be found from a traditional HTS. However, if there are no low-hanging fruit in a screening collection to be found by HTS then the use of fragment screening can help find novelty that may lead to a target not being discarded as intractable. As such, the approach offers some significant advantages by providing less complex molecules, which may have better potential for novel drug optimisation and by enabling new chemical space to be more effectively explored. Many literature examples that cover examples of fragment screening approaches are still at the "proof of concept" stage and although delivering inhibitors or ligands, may still prove to be unsuitable when further ADMET and toxicity profiling is done. The next few years should see a maturing of the area, and as our understanding of how the concepts can be best applied, there are likely to be many more examples of attractive, small molecule hits, leads and candidate drugs derived from the approaches described.

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

[2]  W. Guida,et al.  The art and practice of structure‐based drug design: A molecular modeling perspective , 1996, Medicinal research reviews.

[3]  D F Horrobin,et al.  Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry , 2000, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.

[4]  Gennady M Verkhivker,et al.  Unraveling principles of lead discovery: from unfrustrated energy landscapes to novel molecular anchors. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[5]  W. Jencks,et al.  Entropic contributions to rate accelerations in enzymic and intramolecular reactions and the chelate effect. , 1971, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[6]  Michael M. Hann,et al.  RECAP-Retrosynthetic Combinatorial Analysis Procedure: A Powerful New Technique for Identifying Privileged Molecular Fragments with Useful Applications in Combinatorial Chemistry , 1998, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[7]  Tudor I. Oprea,et al.  The Design of Leadlike Combinatorial Libraries. , 1999, Angewandte Chemie.

[8]  Peter Ertl,et al.  Cheminformatics Analysis of Organic Substituents: Identification of the Most Common Substituents, Calculation of Substituent Properties, and Automatic Identification of Drug-like Bioisosteric Groups , 2003, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[9]  Elena Conti,et al.  X‐ray and spectrophotometric studies of the binding of proflavin to the S1 specificity pocket of human α‐thrombin , 1998 .

[10]  Pickett,et al.  Computational methods for the prediction of 'drug-likeness' , 2000, Drug discovery today.

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

[12]  Jon Read,et al.  Structure-based design of protein tyrosine phosphatase-1B inhibitors. , 2005, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry letters.

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

[14]  Dustin J Maly,et al.  Combinatorial target-guided ligand assembly: identification of potent subtype-selective c-Src inhibitors. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

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

[16]  M. Congreve,et al.  A 'rule of three' for fragment-based lead discovery? , 2003, Drug discovery today.

[17]  G. Bemis,et al.  The properties of known drugs. 1. Molecular frameworks. , 1996, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[18]  Han van de Waterbeemd,et al.  Lipophilicity in PK design: methyl, ethyl, futile , 2001, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[19]  Ian A. Watson,et al.  Characteristic physical properties and structural fragments of marketed oral drugs. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[20]  G. Bemis,et al.  Properties of known drugs. 2. Side chains. , 1999, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

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

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

[23]  Stephen R. Johnson,et al.  Molecular properties that influence the oral bioavailability of drug candidates. , 2002, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[24]  B. Shoichet,et al.  A specific mechanism of nonspecific inhibition. , 2003, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

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

[26]  D. Kostrewa,et al.  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. , 2000, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[27]  J. Lehn,et al.  Virtual combinatorial libraries: dynamic generation of molecular and supramolecular diversity by self-assembly. , 1997, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[28]  G. Rishton Reactive compounds and in vitro false positives in HTS , 1997 .

[29]  G. Rishton Nonleadlikeness and leadlikeness in biochemical screening. , 2003, Drug discovery today.

[30]  Rebecca Deprez-Poulain,et al.  Facts, figures and trends in lead generation. , 2004, Current topics in medicinal chemistry.

[31]  Darren V. S. Green,et al.  Where Are the GaPs? A Rational Approach to Monomer Acquisition and Selection , 2000, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[32]  Jean M. Severin,et al.  Discovery of Potent Nonpeptide Inhibitors of Stromelysin Using SAR by NMR , 1997 .

[33]  Jean-Pierre Marquette,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. , 2002, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[34]  D. Fattori,et al.  Molecular recognition: the fragment approach in lead generation. , 2004, Drug discovery today.

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

[36]  Tudor I. Oprea,et al.  Property distribution of drug-related chemical databases* , 2000, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[37]  Marcel L. Verdonk,et al.  The consequences of translational and rotational entropy lost by small molecules on binding to proteins , 2002, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

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

[39]  Wolfgang Guba,et al.  Development of a virtual screening method for identification of "frequent hitters" in compound libraries. , 2002, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[40]  Andrew R. Leach,et al.  Molecular Complexity and Its Impact on the Probability of Finding Leads for Drug Discovery , 2001, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[41]  P. Andrews,et al.  Functional group contributions to drug-receptor interactions. , 1984, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[42]  Markus Schade,et al.  NMR fragment screening: tackling protein-protein interaction targets. , 2005, Current opinion in drug discovery & development.

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

[44]  Elizabeth Buck,et al.  Disulfide trapping to localize small-molecule agonists and antagonists for a G protein-coupled receptor. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[45]  Jean-Louis Reymond,et al.  Virtual exploration of the small-molecule chemical universe below 160 Daltons. , 2005, Angewandte Chemie.

[46]  R. Powers,et al.  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. , 2001, Analytical chemistry.

[47]  F. Lombardo,et al.  Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings , 1997 .

[48]  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..