Literature DB >> 25918377

Ligand deconstruction: Why some fragment binding positions are conserved and others are not.

Dima Kozakov1, David R Hall2, Stefan Jehle, Sefan Jehle3, Lingqi Luo4, Stefan O Ochiana5, Elizabeth V Jones5, Michael Pollastri5, Karen N Allen6, Adrian Whitty7, Sandor Vajda8.   

Abstract

Fragment-based drug discovery (FBDD) relies on the premise that the fragment binding mode will be conserved on subsequent expansion to a larger ligand. However, no general condition has been established to explain when fragment binding modes will be conserved. We show that a remarkably simple condition can be developed in terms of how fragments coincide with binding energy hot spots--regions of the protein where interactions with a ligand contribute substantial binding free energy--the locations of which can easily be determined computationally. Because a substantial fraction of the free energy of ligand binding comes from interacting with the residues in the energetically most important hot spot, a ligand moiety that sufficiently overlaps with this region will retain its location even when other parts of the ligand are removed. This hypothesis is supported by eight case studies. The condition helps identify whether a protein is suitable for FBDD, predicts the size of fragments required for screening, and determines whether a fragment hit can be extended into a higher affinity ligand. Our results show that ligand binding sites can usefully be thought of in terms of an anchor site, which is the top-ranked hot spot and dominates the free energy of binding, surrounded by a number of weaker satellite sites that confer improved affinity and selectivity for a particular ligand and that it is the intrinsic binding potential of the protein surface that determines whether it can serve as a robust binding site for a suitably optimized ligand.

Keywords:  binding hot spot; druggability; fragment library; fragment-based drug discovery; protein–ligand interaction

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25918377      PMCID: PMC4443342          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1501567112

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


  60 in total

1.  The Protein Data Bank.

Authors:  H M Berman; J Westbrook; Z Feng; G Gilliland; T N Bhat; H Weissig; I N Shindyalov; P E Bourne
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2000-01-01       Impact factor: 16.971

2.  Discovery of a potent small molecule IL-2 inhibitor through fragment assembly.

Authors:  Andrew C Braisted; Johan D Oslob; Warren L Delano; Jennifer Hyde; Robert S McDowell; Nathan Waal; Chul Yu; Michelle R Arkin; Brian C Raimundo
Journal:  J Am Chem Soc       Date:  2003-04-02       Impact factor: 15.419

3.  A 'rule of three' for fragment-based lead discovery?

Authors:  Miles Congreve; Robin Carr; Chris Murray; Harren Jhoti
Journal:  Drug Discov Today       Date:  2003-10-01       Impact factor: 7.851

4.  Application of fragment growing and fragment linking to the discovery of inhibitors of Mycobacterium tuberculosis pantothenate synthetase.

Authors:  Alvin W Hung; H Leonardo Silvestre; Shijun Wen; Alessio Ciulli; Tom L Blundell; Chris Abell
Journal:  Angew Chem Int Ed Engl       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 15.336

5.  Discovery of potent, selective, and orally bioavailable oxadiazole-based dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitors.

Authors:  Jinyou Xu; Lan Wei; Robert J Mathvink; Scott D Edmondson; George J Eiermann; Huaibing He; Joseph F Leone; Barbara Leiting; Kathryn A Lyons; Frank Marsilio; Reshma A Patel; Sangita B Patel; Aleksandr Petrov; Giovanna Scapin; Joseph K Wu; Nancy A Thornberry; Ann E Weber
Journal:  Bioorg Med Chem Lett       Date:  2006-08-17       Impact factor: 2.823

6.  Requirements for specific binding of low affinity inhibitor fragments to the SH2 domain of (pp60)Src are identical to those for high affinity binding of full length inhibitors.

Authors:  Gudrun Lange; Dominique Lesuisse; Pierre Deprez; Bernard Schoot; Petra Loenze; Didier Bénard; Jean-Pierre Marquette; Pierre Broto; Edoardo Sarubbi; Eliane Mandine
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2003-11-20       Impact factor: 7.446

7.  Probing hot spots at protein-ligand binding sites: a fragment-based approach using biophysical methods.

Authors:  Alessio Ciulli; Glyn Williams; Alison G Smith; Tom L Blundell; Chris Abell
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2006-08-10       Impact factor: 7.446

8.  Targeting the von Hippel-Lindau E3 ubiquitin ligase using small molecules to disrupt the VHL/HIF-1α interaction.

Authors:  Dennis L Buckley; Inge Van Molle; Peter C Gareiss; Hyun Seop Tae; Julien Michel; Devin J Noblin; William L Jorgensen; Alessio Ciulli; Craig M Crews
Journal:  J Am Chem Soc       Date:  2012-02-27       Impact factor: 15.419

Review 9.  Small-molecule inhibitors of the MDM2-p53 protein-protein interaction (MDM2 Inhibitors) in clinical trials for cancer treatment.

Authors:  Yujun Zhao; Angelo Aguilar; Denzil Bernard; Shaomeng Wang
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2014-11-14       Impact factor: 7.446

10.  Is NMR Fragment Screening Fine-Tuned to Assess Druggability of Protein-Protein Interactions?

Authors:  David M Dias; Inge Van Molle; Matthias G J Baud; Carles Galdeano; Carlos F G C Geraldes; Alessio Ciulli
Journal:  ACS Med Chem Lett       Date:  2013-11-03       Impact factor: 4.345

View more
  29 in total

1.  The Ligand Binding Landscape of Diacylglycerol Kinases.

Authors:  Caroline E Franks; Sean T Campbell; Benjamin W Purow; Thurl E Harris; Ku-Lung Hsu
Journal:  Cell Chem Biol       Date:  2017-07-14       Impact factor: 8.116

2.  Dynamic undocking and the quasi-bound state as tools for drug discovery.

Authors:  Sergio Ruiz-Carmona; Peter Schmidtke; F Javier Luque; Lisa Baker; Natalia Matassova; Ben Davis; Stephen Roughley; James Murray; Rod Hubbard; Xavier Barril
Journal:  Nat Chem       Date:  2016-11-14       Impact factor: 24.427

3.  Fluorogenic structure activity library pinpoints molecular variations in substrate specificity of structurally homologous esterases.

Authors:  Alex White; Andrew Koelper; Arielle Russell; Erik M Larsen; Charles Kim; Luke D Lavis; Geoffrey C Hoops; R Jeremy Johnson
Journal:  J Biol Chem       Date:  2018-07-13       Impact factor: 5.157

Review 4.  Twenty years on: the impact of fragments on drug discovery.

Authors:  Daniel A Erlanson; Stephen W Fesik; Roderick E Hubbard; Wolfgang Jahnke; Harren Jhoti
Journal:  Nat Rev Drug Discov       Date:  2016-07-15       Impact factor: 84.694

Review 5.  Computational functional group mapping for drug discovery.

Authors:  Olgun Guvench
Journal:  Drug Discov Today       Date:  2016-07-05       Impact factor: 7.851

6.  When Does Chemical Elaboration Induce a Ligand To Change Its Binding Mode?

Authors:  Shipra Malhotra; John Karanicolas
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2016-12-16       Impact factor: 7.446

7.  Label-free NMR-based dissociation kinetics determination.

Authors:  Pablo Trigo-Mouriño; Christian Griesinger; Donghan Lee
Journal:  J Biomol NMR       Date:  2017-11-16       Impact factor: 2.835

8.  Benchmark Sets for Binding Hot Spot Identification in Fragment-Based Ligand Discovery.

Authors:  Amanda E Wakefield; Christine Yueh; Dmitri Beglov; Marcelo S Castilho; Dima Kozakov; György M Keserű; Adrian Whitty; Sandor Vajda
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2020-12-08       Impact factor: 4.956

9.  qFit-ligand Reveals Widespread Conformational Heterogeneity of Drug-Like Molecules in X-Ray Electron Density Maps.

Authors:  Gydo C P van Zundert; Brandi M Hudson; Saulo H P de Oliveira; Daniel A Keedy; Rasmus Fonseca; Amelie Heliou; Pooja Suresh; Kenneth Borrelli; Tyler Day; James S Fraser; Henry van den Bedem
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2018-12-06       Impact factor: 7.446

10.  New Frontiers in Druggability.

Authors:  Dima Kozakov; David R Hall; Raeanne L Napoleon; Christine Yueh; Adrian Whitty; Sandor Vajda
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2015-08-11       Impact factor: 7.446

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.