| Literature DB >> 28983993 |
Daniel J Foley1,2, Philip G E Craven1,2, Patrick M Collins3, Richard G Doveston1,2, Anthony Aimon1,2, Romain Talon4, Ian Churcher5, Frank von Delft3,4, Stephen P Marsden2, Adam Nelson1,2.
Abstract
The productive exploration of chemical space is an enduring challenge in chemical biology and medicinal chemistry. Natural products are biologically relevant, and their frameworks have facilitated chemical tool and drug discovery. A "top-down" synthetic approach is described that enabled a range of complex bridged intermediates to be converted with high step efficiency into 26 diverse sp3 -rich scaffolds. The scaffolds have local natural product-like features, but are only distantly related to specific natural product frameworks. To assess biological relevance, a set of 52 fragments was prepared, and screened by high-throughput crystallography against three targets from two protein families (ATAD2, BRD1 and JMJD2D). In each case, 3D fragment hits were identified that would serve as distinctive starting points for ligand discovery. This demonstrates that frameworks that are distantly related to natural products can facilitate discovery of new biologically relevant regions within chemical space.Entities:
Keywords: chemical biology; fragments; molecular diversity; natural products; proteins
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28983993 PMCID: PMC5703167 DOI: 10.1002/chem.201704169
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Chemistry ISSN: 0947-6539 Impact factor: 5.236
Scheme 1Overview of our unified approach to diverse natural product‐like scaffolds. Intramolecular [5+2] cycloaddition would yield alternative complex intermediates (e.g. 2) that would be converted into diverse scaffolds by ring cleavage (red; for example, →3), ring expansion (magenta; for example, →4), annulation (blue; for example, →5) or addition/modification (green; for example, →6).
Scheme 2Synthesis of complex intermediate cycloadducts.
Scheme 3Representative syntheses of natural product‐like scaffolds. Scaffolds were prepared from cycloadducts by ring cleavage (red), ring expansion (magenta), ring formation (blue) or substitution (green). Typical conditions (see Supporting Information for full details): (a) NaBH4 then CSA (from 2 a: 77 %; from 2 c: 34 %); (b) NaIO4 then NaBH4, 44 %; (c) NaIO4 then BnNH2, NaBH(OAc)3, 32 %; (d) MeLi (from 2 a: 91 %; from 2 c: 53 %); (e) NH3, Ti(OiPr)4, NaBH4, 77 %; (f) MeOCOCl, Et3N, 63 %; (g) TBAF then NaH, 29 %; (h) ethylene diamine, AcOH, μW, 180 °C, 40 %; (i) 1,2‐diaminobenzene, AcOH, heat (from 2 b: 21 %; from 2 c: 32 %); (j) NH4OAc, paraformaldehyde, 60 °C, 38 %; (k) NaBH4 then 2,2‐dimethoxypropane, p‐TsOH, 60 °C, 71 %; (l) O3 then Me2S then NaBH4, 44 %; (m) LiAlH4, THF, Δ, 75 %; (n) NH3, Ti(OiPr)4, NaBH4, 22 %; (o) NaIO4 then DMBNH2, NaBH(OAc)3, 30 %; (p) MeOCOCl, Et3N then TBAF then NaH, 34 %; (q) EtNO2, PhNCO, NEt3 thenq DDQ, (from 2 d: 37 %; from 2 f: 26 %); (r) NaBH4, CeCl3⋅7 H2O, −78 °C, 87 %; (s) H2, Pd(OH)2/C, HCl, 89 %; (t) 20 mol % Pd(OAc)2, 40 mol % PPh3, NEt3, 11 %; (u) PhB(OH)2, NEt3, 1 mol % [Rh(cod)Cl)]2 then H2, Pd(OH)2/C, HCl, 46 %; (v) NaBH4, 19 % (plus 19 % epimer).
Figure 1Hierarchical scaffold tree. The circles represent frameworks at the graph‐node‐bond level (22 frameworks represented in the 26 scaffolds prepared, outer ring and boxed; simplified frameworks, other circles). The 22 frameworks are related to nine parent (monocyclic) frameworks (identified using an established protocol, ref. 21). At each level of hierarchy, occurrence as substructures of natural products is indicated (green, not found; orange, found in <1 % of natural products; red, found in >1 % of natural products).
Figure 2Natural product likeness of scaffolds and fragments. Panel A: Natural product‐likeness scores for the 26 scaffolds (black), 4,460 natural products (green) and a commercial screening collection (278,365 largely synthetic compounds, grey). Panel B: Natural product likeness scores for the 52 fragments prepared (black), 1,236 commercially‐available fragments (grey) and 128 natural product‐inspired fragments (green). Compounds are binned into 0.5 unit bins.
Figure 3Fragment hits for three epigenetic targets. Panel A: Overview of fragment hit binding sites in JMJD2D (A1), the BRD1 bromodomain (A2) and the ATAD2 bromodomain (A3); the active site of JMJD2D is buried. Panels B: Interaction of exemplar fragment hits with JMJD2D (B1), BRD1 (B2) and ATAD2 (B3).
Figure 4Exemplar fragment hits from high‐throughput crystallographic screens of conventional (hit: 24; magenta) and our natural product‐like (hit: ent‐25; cyan) fragment sets against the ATAD2 bromodomain.