Two crystal structures have been solved for separate complexes of alkenyldiarylmethane (ADAM) nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTI) 3 and 4 with HIV-1 reverse transcriptase (RT). The structures reveal inhibitor binding is exclusively hydrophobic in nature and the shape of the inhibitor-bound NNRTI binding pocket is unique among other reported inhibitor-RT crystal structures. Primarily, ADAMs 3 and 4 protrude from a large gap in the back side of the binding pocket, placing portions of the inhibitors unusually close to the polymerase active site and allowing 3 to form a weak hydrogen bond with Lys223. The lack of additional stabilizing interactions, beyond the observed hydrophobic surface contacts, between 4 and RT is quite perplexing given the extreme potency of the compound (IC(50) </= 1 nM). ADAM 4 was designed to be hydrolytically stable in blood plasma, and an investigation of its hydrolysis in rat plasma demonstrated it has a significantly prolonged half-life in comparison to ADAM lead compounds 1 and 2.
Two crystal structures have been solved for separate complexes of n class="Chemical">alkenyldiarylmethane (ADAM) nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTI) 3 and 4 with HIV-1 reverse transcriptase (RT). The structures reveal inhibitor binding is exclusively hydrophobic in nature and the shape of the inhibitor-bound NNRTI binding pocket is unique among other reported inhibitor-RT crystal structures. Primarily, ADAMs 3 and 4 protrude from a large gap in the back side of the binding pocket, placing portions of the inhibitors unusually close to the polymerase active site and allowing 3 to form a weak hydrogen bond with Lys223. The lack of additional stabilizing interactions, beyond the observed hydrophobic surface contacts, between 4 and RT is quite perplexing given the extreme potency of the compound (IC(50) </= 1 nM). ADAM 4 was designed to be hydrolytically stable in blood plasma, and an investigation of its hydrolysis in rat plasma demonstrated it has a significantly prolonged half-life in comparison to ADAM lead compounds 1 and 2.
Authors: A T Brünger; P D Adams; G M Clore; W L DeLano; P Gros; R W Grosse-Kunstleve; J S Jiang; J Kuszewski; M Nilges; N S Pannu; R J Read; L M Rice; T Simonson; G L Warren Journal: Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr Date: 1998-09-01
Authors: R Pauwels; J Balzarini; M Baba; R Snoeck; D Schols; P Herdewijn; J Desmyter; E De Clercq Journal: J Virol Methods Date: 1988-08 Impact factor: 2.014
Authors: A Casimiro-Garcia; M Micklatcher; J A Turpin; T L Stup; K Watson; R W Buckheit; M Cushman Journal: J Med Chem Date: 1999-11-18 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: G Xu; M Micklatcher; M A Silvestri; T L Hartman; J Burrier; M C Osterling; H Wargo; J A Turpin; R W Buckheit; M Cushman Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2001-11-22 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: Kalyan Das; Arthur D Clark; Paul J Lewi; Jan Heeres; Marc R De Jonge; Lucien M H Koymans; H Maarten Vinkers; Frederik Daeyaert; Donald W Ludovici; Michael J Kukla; Bart De Corte; Robert W Kavash; Chih Y Ho; Hong Ye; Mark A Lichtenstein; Koen Andries; Rudi Pauwels; Marie-Pierre De Béthune; Paul L Boyer; Patrick Clark; Stephen H Hughes; Paul A J Janssen; Eddy Arnold Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2004-05-06 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: Maximilian A Silvestri; Muthukaman Nagarajan; Erik De Clercq; Christophe Pannecouque; Mark Cushman Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2004-06-03 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: Suhman Chung; Jennifer T Miller; Barry C Johnson; Stephen H Hughes; Stuart F J Le Grice Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2011-11-21 Impact factor: 5.157