The SARS-CoV-2 main protease (Mpro) is a medicinal chemistry target for COVID-19 treatment. Given the clinical efficacy of β-lactams as inhibitors of bacterial nucleophilic enzymes, they are of interest as inhibitors of viral nucleophilic serine and cysteine proteases. We describe the synthesis of penicillin derivatives which are potent Mpro inhibitors and investigate their mechanism of inhibition using mass spectrometric and crystallographic analyses. The results suggest that β-lactams have considerable potential as Mpro inhibitors via a mechanism involving reaction with the nucleophilic cysteine to form a stable acyl-enzyme complex as shown by crystallographic analysis. The results highlight the potential for inhibition of viral proteases employing nucleophilic catalysis by β-lactams and related acylating agents.
The SARS-CoV-2 main protease (Mpro) is a medicinal chemistry target for COVID-19 treatment. Given the clinical efficacy of β-lactams as inhibitors of bacterial nucleophilic enzymes, they are of interest as inhibitors of viral nucleophilic serine and cysteine proteases. We describe the synthesis of penicillin derivatives which are potent Mpro inhibitors and investigate their mechanism of inhibition using mass spectrometric and crystallographic analyses. The results suggest that β-lactams have considerable potential as Mpro inhibitors via a mechanism involving reaction with the nucleophilic cysteine to form a stable acyl-enzyme complex as shown by crystallographic analysis. The results highlight the potential for inhibition of viral proteases employing nucleophilic catalysis by β-lactams and related acylating agents.
The
inhibition of proteases that hydrolyze viral polyproteins to
give functional proteins is a validated mechanism for antiviral chemotherapy,
as exemplified by pioneering work on human immunodeficiency virus
(HIV) protease and, more recently, hepatitis C virus (HCV) protease
inhibitors.[1] Thus, both the severe acute
respiratory disease coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)[2] main protease (Mpro or 3C-like protease, 3CLpro) and the papain-like protease (PLpro) are targets for
the treatment and, possibly, prevention of coronavirus disease 2019
(COVID-19).[3−8] Mpro is a particularly attractive drug target because
(i) Mpro is vital in the SARS-CoV-2 life cycle, (ii) Mpro is tractable from a small-molecule inhibition perspective
as a nucleophilic cysteine protease, and (iii) the structure and substrate
selectivities of Mpro are different from human proteases,[9,10] suggesting clinically useful selective Mpro inhibition
should be possible.To enable the identification of small-molecule
Mpro inhibitors
for development as human therapeutics, high-throughput in
vitro inhibition assays using recombinant viral Mpro have been developed.[4,9−12] Most reported Mpro inhibition assays employ fluorescence-based methods, though label-free
assays, which directly monitor product formation/substrate depletion
using mass spectrometry (MS) and SARS-CoV-2 polyprotein peptide fragments,
have been reported.[13−15] The availability of efficient high-throughput Mpro inhibition assays and libraries of bioactive and safety-assessed
small molecules has enabled the identification of multiple lead Mpro inhibitors, such as boceprevir (1),[11,16] an HCV serine protease inhibitor,[17,18] SDZ-224015
(2),[19] an investigational
caspase-1 inhibitor,[20] and GC-376 (3),[11,16,21] for (partially) selective inhibition of Mpro (Figure A–C).
Figure 1
Examples of
reported SARS-CoV-2 Mpro small-molecule
inhibitors. (A) Boceprevir (1);[11,16] (B) SDZ-224015 (2);[22] (C)
GC-376 (3);[11,16,21] (D) PF-00835231 (4) and its prodrug PF-07304814 (5);[23,24] (E) N3 (6);[9] (F) α-ketoamide 7;[10] (G) PF-07321332 (8, nirmatrelvir);[25] (H) MI-09 (9);[26] and (I) penicillin V and G sulfone benzyl esters 10 and 11.[15]
Examples of
reported SARS-CoV-2 Mpro small-molecule
inhibitors. (A) Boceprevir (1);[11,16] (B) SDZ-224015 (2);[22] (C)
GC-376 (3);[11,16,21] (D) PF-00835231 (4) and its prodrug PF-07304814 (5);[23,24] (E) N3 (6);[9] (F) α-ketoamide 7;[10] (G) PF-07321332 (8, nirmatrelvir);[25] (H) MI-09 (9);[26] and (I) penicillin V and G sulfone benzyl esters 10 and 11.[15]To date, drug repurposing efforts have not yielded
safe and efficient
Mpro inhibitors for approved human clinical use. Thus, de novo Mpro inhibitor development programs have
been initiated based on the structural information gained from the
identified lead structures in the SARS-CoV-2 Mpro screening
campaigns as well as from structure–activity relationship (SAR)
studies with reported SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV Mpro inhibitors.[5,27−30] Compounds arising from such efforts include PF-00835231 (4) and PF-07304814 (5),[23,24] N3 (6),[9,31] and the α-ketoamide 7, which are all potent SARS-CoV-2 Mpro inhibitors
displaying high in vitro and in vivo potency (Figure D–F). Novel SARS-CoV-2 Mpro inhibitors include
compounds PF-07321332 (8, nirmatrelvir),[25] which is in clinical use,[32] and
MI-09 (9)[26] and structurally
related molecules (Figure G,H).[6,7,33−37]Most Mpro inhibitors work by covalent modification,
in part, likely because of well-precedented mechanisms for inhibiting
proteases and related enzymes by covalent reaction with nucleophilic
serine or cysteine residues,[1] although
noncovalent Mpro inhibitors have also been reported.[38−41] Electrophiles employed in covalently reacting Mpro inhibitors
include, for example, nitrile, α-ketoamide, α-acyloxymethylketone,
aldehyde, and Michael acceptor, amongst other functional groups (Figure ).[42−49] By contrast with the extensive work on alkylating agents such as
SDZ-224015 (Figure B), work on acylating agents, such as β-lactams, which generally
have good safety profiles as antibacterials, has been limited. Because
of their demonstrated efficacy and safety records,[50,51] we are particularly interested in optimizing the potential of β-lactams
and related acylating agents as inhibitors of nucleophilic cysteine
enzymes, in particular, Mpro.Recently, we reported
a solid-phase extraction coupled to MS (SPE-MS)
Mpro assay, which enabled the identification of a certain
penicillin V derivative, i.e., 10, that inhibits Mpro by reaction with the active site cysteine residue; by contrast,
the corresponding penicillin G derivative 11 was inactive
(Figure I).[15] Here, we report SAR studies with penicillin
derivatives, leading to the identification of efficient Mpro inhibitors with a penicillin scaffold; their mechanism of inhibition
was investigated using MS and crystallography. The results highlight
the potential of β-lactams for use as Mpro inhibitors
working by acylation of the nucleophilic cysteine.
To enable
SAR studies, an initial set of penicillin V derivatives
was synthesized based on the identified penicillin V sulfone benzyl
ester Mpro inhibitor (10; Figure I).[15] Half-maximum inhibitory concentrations (IC50 values)
were determined using the reported SPE-MS inhibition assay, monitoring
Mpro-catalyzed hydrolysis of an 11mer substrate peptide
(TSAVLQ/SGFRK-NH2, “/” indicates the Mpro cleavage site), the sequence of which is based on the N-terminal
self-cleavage site of Mpro. However, some of the initially
investigated penicillin V derivatives appeared to suppress product
peptide ionization at high inhibitor concentrations, perturbing the
reliability of the inhibition results. Therefore, the Mpro inhibition assays were performed using an extended 37mer peptide
substrate based on the same Mpro self-cleavage site (ALNDFSNSGSDVLYQPPQTSITSAVLQ/SGFRKMAFPS-NH2),[15] which was less susceptible
to penicillin inhibitor-induced ion suppression. Substituting the
11mer peptide with the 37mer peptide in the SPE-MS Mpro inhibition assays did not affect the IC50 values of reported
selected Mpro inhibitors (Supporting Information Table S1); thus, the 37mer substrate was used
for subsequent IC50 determinations. The observed high Z-factors (>0.5 for each inhibition plate) indicate excellent
SPE-MS assay quality using the 37mer substrate peptide (Supporting
Information Figure S1).The modified
SPE-MS Mpro inhibition assay was used to investigate the
influence of structural features of the penicillin V sulfone benzyl
ester (10) on potency. Unlike 10, neither
commercially sourced penicillin V (12) nor its benzyl
ester (13)[52] inhibited Mpro efficiently, in agreement with previous results using the
11mer Mpro substrate[15] (Table , entries 1 and 2).
Stereoselective oxidation of 13 with meta-chloroperbenzoic acid (mCPBA) afforded the reported penicillin V
(S)-sulfoxide benzyl ester (14),[52] which is a less efficient inhibitor than the
corresponding sulfone 10 (IC50 ∼ 22.9
μM, Table ,
entry 3), highlighting the importance of an additional pro-R-sulfone oxygen of 10 for Mpro inhibition.
Table 1
Inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 Mpro by Penicillin
V Derivatives
Mpro inhibition assays
were performed using SPE-MS as described in the Experimental
Section employing SARS-CoV-2 Mpro (0.15 μM)
and a substrate (2.0 μM). Results are means of at least two
independent runs, each composed of technical duplicates (n ≥ 2; mean ± standard deviation, SD). Representative
dose–response curves are shown in Supporting Information Figure S4.
Contains minor amounts of a decomposition
product, as reported.[53] Bn: −CH2Ph.
Mpro inhibition assays
were performed using SPE-MS as described in the Experimental
Section employing SARS-CoV-2 Mpro (0.15 μM)
and a substrate (2.0 μM). Results are means of at least two
independent runs, each composed of technical duplicates (n ≥ 2; mean ± standard deviation, SD). Representative
dose–response curves are shown in Supporting Information Figure S4.Contains minor amounts of a decomposition
product, as reported.[53] Bn: −CH2Ph.Next, the effect
of the stereochemistry at the C6 stereocenter
on inhibition was investigated by inversion of the (R)-configuration of 10 using a reported protocol.[53] The resultant (6S)-penicillin
V (S)-sulfoxide benzyl ester 15(53) showed reduced Mpro inhibition compared
with 10 (IC50 > 50 μM, Table , entry 4). The corresponding
(6S)-penicillin V sulfone benzyl ester (16), which was obtained from 15 using KMnO4 as an oxidant, was also less efficient in inhibiting Mpro than the (6R)-isomer 10 (IC50 > 50 μM, Table , entry 6). Thus, the (6R)-configuration
at the
penicillin V C6 stereocenter appears to be preferred for efficient
Mpro inhibition.The importance of the β-lactam
ring for efficient Mpro inhibition was investigated by
preparing the corresponding γ-lactam 17, which
was synthesized using a modified literature procedure
(Supporting Information Figure S2). The
potency of 17 was reduced compared to the β-lactam 10 (IC50 ∼ 26.1 μM, Table , entry 7) but was not ablated.
This observation may in part reflect the enhanced and/or less reversible
reaction of β-lactams with nucleophiles compared to γ-lactams.[54,55]
Penicillin Ester Group Fine-Tunes Inhibitor Potency
Having
identified important structural features of penicillin V sulfone
benzyl ester (10) for efficient Mpro inhibition,
the impact of its C2 ester group on potency was investigated. To obtain
a set of varied penicillin V sulfone esters, the commercially sourced
penicillin V potassium salt (18) was initially reacted
with different alkylhalides (Scheme ). The resultant penicillin V esters 19a–r were oxidized using mCPBA to afford a chromatographically separable
mixture of both the sulfones 20a–r and (S)-sulfoxides 21a–r.
Scheme 1
Synthesis of Penicillin
V Ester Derivatives
Reagents and conditions: (a)
alkylhalide (1.2 equiv), DMF, rt, 59–93%; (b) mCPBA, CH2Cl2, 0 °C to rt, 89–94%. Note that
the sulfoxide stereochemistry was tentatively assigned the (S)-configuration based on reported mCPBA-mediated penicillin
ester oxidations to sulfoxides.[52,56,57]
Synthesis of Penicillin
V Ester Derivatives
Reagents and conditions: (a)
alkylhalide (1.2 equiv), DMF, rt, 59–93%; (b) mCPBA, CH2Cl2, 0 °C to rt, 89–94%. Note that
the sulfoxide stereochemistry was tentatively assigned the (S)-configuration based on reported mCPBA-mediated penicillin
ester oxidations to sulfoxides.[52,56,57]The penicillin V sulfone esters 20a–r were
investigated for Mpro inhibition using the SPE-MS assay
with the 37mer peptide substrate (Table ). The preferred phenyl ring substitution
pattern of the benzyl ester group for Mpro inhibition was
investigated by fluorine atom substitution. The results reveal that
a single fluorine substituent in the ortho-, meta-, or para-position does not substantially
alter the potency (Table , entries 1–3). However, the presence of two fluorine meta-substituents, as in 20d, appears to reduce
the potency (IC50 ∼ 16.9 μM, Table , entry 4) while the corresponding
isomer 20e, which bears a fluorine substituent at both
the ortho- and para-positions, is
slightly more potent than the benzyl ester derivative 10 (IC50 ∼ 3.6 μM, Table , entry 5). This trend was clearer when comparing
the trifluorinated benzyl ester derivatives 20f and 20g (Table , entries 6 and 7). The derivative 20f with two fluorine
substituents as the meta-positions and one at the para-position is less potent than the originally identified
benzyl ester 10 (IC50 > 50 μM), while
the derivative 20g with two fluorine substituents as
the ortho-positions and one at the para-position is more potent (IC50 ∼ 1.6 μM).
It is unclear whether these observations reflect alterations in (hydrophobic)
interactions of the fluorinated ester groups with Mpro and/or
(less likely) enhanced β-lactam reactivity due to remote electronic
effects.
Table 2
Inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 Mpro by Penicillin V Sulfone Esters
Mpro inhibition assays
were performed using SPE-MS as described in the Experimental
Section employing SARS-CoV-2 Mpro (0.15 μM)
and a substrate (2.0 μM). Results are means of at least two
independent runs, each composed of technical duplicates (n ≥ 2; mean ± SD). Representative dose–response
curves are shown in Supporting Information Figure S4.
Mpro inhibition assays
were performed using SPE-MS as described in the Experimental
Section employing SARS-CoV-2 Mpro (0.15 μM)
and a substrate (2.0 μM). Results are means of at least two
independent runs, each composed of technical duplicates (n ≥ 2; mean ± SD). Representative dose–response
curves are shown in Supporting Information Figure S4.The benzyl esters 20h and 20i, which
bear a relatively bulky and electron-withdrawing trifluoromethyl or
nitro meta-substituent, inhibited Mpro (Table , entries
8 and 9), while the para-substituted benzyl esters 20j and k, as well as the 2-naphthylmethyl ester 20l, do not, at least efficiently, inhibit Mpro (Table , entries
10–12).The presence of a penicillin C2 benzyl ester
derivative is not
required for efficient Mpro inhibition, as apparent by
the penicillin V sulfone esters 20m and 20n with a heteroaromatic ester group, which inhibit Mpro, albeit with slightly reduced potency compared to 10 (Table , entries
13 and 14). By contrast, the corresponding alkyl esters 20o–r inhibit with similar potency as the penicillin V sulfone benzyl
ester 10 (Table , entries 15–18). However, in general, the corresponding
penicillin V esters 19a–r and the penicillin V
(S)-sulfoxide esters 21a–r did
not manifest substantial levels of Mpro inhibition (Supporting
Information Table S2), in accord with the
initial SAR results (Table ).
Penicillin C6 Side Chain Modulates Mpro Inhibition
A set of penicillin sulfone benzyl
esters with different C6 amido
groups were synthesized in three steps from commercially sourced (+)-6-aminopenicillanic
acid (6-APA, 22) to investigate the impact of the C6
side chain on Mpro inhibition (Scheme ). Initially, 6-APA was transformed into
its benzyl ester (23), which was then used in amide bond-forming
reactions with an appropriate carboxylic acid using COMU[58] as a coupling reagent. The resultant penicillin
derivatives 24a–n were oxidized with mCPBA to
the penicillin sulfones 25a–n.
Scheme 2
Synthesis of Penicillin
Sulfone Benzyl Esters from (+)-6-Aminopenicillanic
Acid (6-APA, 22)
Reagents and conditions: (a)
benzylbromide, triethyl amine, CH2Cl2, 0 °C;
(b) para-toluenesulfonic acid, acetone, rt; (c) NaHCO3, ethyl acetate/H2O, rt, 33% over three steps;
(d) carboxylic acid, COMU,[58] DMF, 0 °C
to rt, 44–82%; (e) mCPBA, CH2Cl2, 0 °C
to rt, 11–71%. Note that the C6 NHCbz penicillin benzyl ester 24a was synthesized by a different sequence, as described
in the Supporting Information.
Synthesis of Penicillin
Sulfone Benzyl Esters from (+)-6-Aminopenicillanic
Acid (6-APA, 22)
Reagents and conditions: (a)
benzylbromide, triethyl amine, CH2Cl2, 0 °C;
(b) para-toluenesulfonic acid, acetone, rt; (c) NaHCO3, ethyl acetate/H2O, rt, 33% over three steps;
(d) carboxylic acid, COMU,[58] DMF, 0 °C
to rt, 44–82%; (e) mCPBA, CH2Cl2, 0 °C
to rt, 11–71%. Note that the C6 NHCbz penicillin benzyl ester 24a was synthesized by a different sequence, as described
in the Supporting Information.The results of using the SPE-MS assay to test the
penicillin sulfone
benzyl esters 25a–n for Mpro inhibition
reveal that the presence and position of a C6 phenoxyacetyl ether
oxygen is important in enabling efficient Mpro inhibition
by the tested compounds (Table ), in agreement with the observation that penicillin G sulfone
benzyl ester 11 did not inhibit Mpro (Table , entry 2).[15] Swapping the C6 phenoxyacetyl ether oxygen from
the amide β-position to the α-position, as in urethane 25a, abolished Mpro inhibition (Table , entry 3). The substitution
of the C6 phenoxyacetyl ether oxygen for a methylene group substantially
diminished Mpro inhibition (IC50 ∼ 45.7
μM, Table ,
entry 4), whereas the substitution of the penicillin V C6 side chain
for the dicloxacillin C6 side chain, which does not bear an oxygen
atom at the same position, abolished inhibition completely (Table , entry 5). Additionally,
substitution of the C6 phenoxyacetyl ether oxygen for an NH group,
as present in penicillin sulfone benzyl esters 25d–g, results in loss of inhibition (Table , entries 6–9).
Table 3
Inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 Mpro by Penicillin Sulfone Benzyl
C6 Derivatives
Mpro inhibition assays
were performed using SPE-MS as described in the Experimental
Section employing SARS-CoV-2 Mpro (0.15 μM)
and a substrate (2.0 μM). Results are means of at least two
independent runs, each composed of technical duplicates (n ≥ 2; mean ± SD). Representative dose–response
curves are shown in Supporting Information Figure S4.
Used as a 1:1
mixture of diastereomers.
Used as the 4-fluorobenzyl ester.
Bn: −CH2Ph, Cy: −C6H11, Bz: −C(O)C6H5, Cbz: −C(O)OCH2Ph.
Mpro inhibition assays
were performed using SPE-MS as described in the Experimental
Section employing SARS-CoV-2 Mpro (0.15 μM)
and a substrate (2.0 μM). Results are means of at least two
independent runs, each composed of technical duplicates (n ≥ 2; mean ± SD). Representative dose–response
curves are shown in Supporting Information Figure S4.Used as a 1:1
mixture of diastereomers.Used as the 4-fluorobenzyl ester.
Bn: −CH2Ph, Cy: −C6H11, Bz: −C(O)C6H5, Cbz: −C(O)OCH2Ph.These results
suggest that the ability of the C6 phenoxyacetyl
ether oxygen to function as a hydrogen bond acceptor/Lewis acid/conformation
restrictor may be important for efficient Mpro inhibition,
as supported by preliminary molecular docking studies.[15] The effect of the Lewis acidity of the C6 phenoxyacetyl
ether oxygen was probed by substituting its phenyl substituent for
an electron-withdrawing pentafluorophenyl substituent (i.e. 25h); however, this substitution did not alter Mpro inhibition substantially (Table , entry 10). By contrast, decreasing the accessibility
of the C6 phenoxyacetyl ether oxygen by introducing an alkyl-substituent
α to the ether oxygen, as in 25i and 25j, resulted in substantially reduced inhibition (Table , entries 11 and 12). Increasing
the electron-donating capability of the phenyl ether by introducing
a methoxy substituent at its para-position (25k) appeared to improve inhibition (IC50 ∼
2.8 μM, Table , entry 13).Modifying the steric bulk of the C6 phenoxyacetyl
ether by substituting
the phenyl group for a benzyl group (25l) appeared to
improve inhibition (IC50 ∼ 2.3 μM, Table , entry 14), while
its substitution by a cyclohexyl group (25m) did not
substantially affect Mpro inhibition (IC50 ∼
4.1 μM, Table , entry 15). By contrast, its substitution by a more bulky and rigid
1-naphthyl group (25n) resulted in substantially decreased
inhibition (IC50 ∼ 42.1 μM, Table , entry 16).
C6 Dibromo-Penicillins
Are Efficient Mpro Inhibitors
Considering the
importance of the penicillin V sulfone benzyl ester
C6 side chain on inhibitor potency, the corresponding C6 mono- and
dibromo-substituted penicillin sulfones 26–32 were prepared because such substitutions alter the reaction
outcome of β-lactams with nucleophilic serine β-lactamases.[59−62] The C6 mono- and dibrominated penicillins were synthesized from
6-APA (22) as reported[63−65] and investigated for
Mpro inhibition using the SPE-MS assay (Table ).
Table 4
Inhibition
of SARS-CoV-2 Mpro by C6 Mono- and Dibromo-Penicillin Derivatives
Mpro inhibition assays
were performed using SPE-MS as described in the Experimental
Section employing SARS-CoV-2 Mpro (0.15 μM)
and a substrate (2.0 μM). Results are means of at least two
independent runs, each composed of technical duplicates (n ≥ 2; mean ± SD). Representative dose–response
curves are shown in Supporting Information Figure S4. Bn: −CH2Ph; PNB: −CH2C6H4(4-NO2).
Mpro inhibition assays
were performed using SPE-MS as described in the Experimental
Section employing SARS-CoV-2 Mpro (0.15 μM)
and a substrate (2.0 μM). Results are means of at least two
independent runs, each composed of technical duplicates (n ≥ 2; mean ± SD). Representative dose–response
curves are shown in Supporting Information Figure S4. Bn: −CH2Ph; PNB: −CH2C6H4(4-NO2).In agreement with the previous SAR
studies (Table ),
neither 6,6-dibromopenicillanic acid 26 nor its para-nitrobenzyl ester derivative 27 inhibited
Mpro (Table , entries 1 and 2). By contrast, the 6,6-dibromopenicillanic
acid sulfone benzyl ester 28 was the most efficient penicillin
Mpro inhibitor identified so far (IC50 ∼
0.7 μM, Table , entry 3), while the corresponding 6-bromopenicillanic acid sulfone
benzyl ester 29 was substantially less efficient in inhibiting
Mpro (IC50 ∼ 10.1 μM, Table , entry 4). Surprisingly,
however, the 6,6-dibromopenicillanic acid sulfone 30,
which is an intermediate in the synthesis of 28, also
showed inhibition (IC50 ∼ 24.2 μM, Table , entry 5); thus,
for the first time in our SAR studies, inhibition was observed for
a penicillanic acid, which is structurally closely related to sulbactam
(33), a penam sulfone that is clinically used as a serine
β-lactamase inhibitor (Table , entry 8).[66,67] The importance of the
C6 dibromo substituents for efficient Mpro inhibition is
further highlighted by the observation that neither sulbactam (33) nor its benzyl ester derivative (34) displayed
notable inhibition (Table , entries 8 and 9), in accord with the reported inability
of sulbactam to inhibit Mpro.[15]By contrast with the previous SAR studies that showed less
efficient
Mpro inhibition of the penicillin V sulfone para-nitrobenzyl ester 20j compared to the benzyl ester 10 (Table ), 6,6-dibromopenicillanic acid sulfone para-nitrobenzyl
ester 31 had a similar potency as the corresponding benzyl
ester 28 (IC50 ∼ 0.6 μM, Table , entry 6); the 6,6-dibromopenicillaic
acid (R)-sulfoxide para-nitrobenzyl
ester 32 also inhibited with similar efficiency (IC50 ∼ 0.5 μM, Table , entry 7). Note that mCPBA oxidation of 27 occurs from the least hindered side to afford a (R)-configured sulfoxide in the absence of a C6 amido directing group.
The combined results suggest that the binding mode and/or mechanism
of inhibition of the C6 mono- and dibromo-penicillin derivatives 28–32 differs compared to those of the
C6 amido penicillin V derivatives previously investigated (Tables –3). Note that studies with β-lactamases imply
the modes of inhibition by the C6 dibromo penicillin derivatives,
which are presently under investigation, might be complex.[59−62]
Mass Spectrometric Evidence That Selected Penicillin Derivatives
Inhibit by Covalent Mpro Modification
Selected
compounds were tested for reaction with Mpro using protein-observed
MS to inform on their mechanism of inhibition (Figure ). Initially, Mpro was incubated
with a ∼6-fold excess of the penicillin sulfone ester for 45
min and then analyzed by MS. The results imply that penicillins 10 and 20q modify Mpro by, at least
predominantly, covalent reaction with a single nucleophilic protein
residue, likely the active site Cys145 (Figure A,C). By contrast, penicillin 25a with a C6 CbzNH group does not modify Mpro covalently
(Figure B). When the
inhibitor concentration was increased to ∼17-fold to account
for the possibility of modifying all 12 Mpro cysteine or
other residues, only low levels of a second covalent Mpro modification by the inhibitors were observed (Figure A–C). No evidence for fragmentation
of the inhibitors once bound to Mpro was accrued.
Figure 2
Evidence that
penicillin V sulfone ester derivatives inhibit Mpro by
selective active site cysteine covalent modification.
Mpro assays with penicillin sulfone ester derivatives 10 (A, D), 25a (B, E), and 20q (C,
F) were performed in the absence (A–C) or presence (D–F)
of TPCK using SPE-MS as described in the Experimental
Section employing SARS-CoV-2 Mpro (2.0 μM),
penicillin sulfone ester derivatives (11 μM for b, and 33 μM
for c and e), and TPCK (10 μM for d and e). The reactions were
incubated for either 45 min (a–c) or 180 min (with TPCK, d
and e) followed by additional 60 min (with a penicillin sulfone ester
derivative, e) prior to analysis by SPE-MS. The reactions were performed
in technical duplicates (Supporting Information Figure S5). Note (i) the clear evidence for the covalent reaction
of 10 and 20q but not 25a,
and (ii) that reaction is ablated by pretreatment of Mpro with the active site binding inhibitor TPCK.
Evidence that
penicillin V sulfone ester derivatives inhibit Mpro by
selective active site cysteine covalent modification.
Mpro assays with penicillin sulfone ester derivatives 10 (A, D), 25a (B, E), and 20q (C,
F) were performed in the absence (A–C) or presence (D–F)
of TPCK using SPE-MS as described in the Experimental
Section employing SARS-CoV-2 Mpro (2.0 μM),
penicillin sulfone ester derivatives (11 μM for b, and 33 μM
for c and e), and TPCK (10 μM for d and e). The reactions were
incubated for either 45 min (a–c) or 180 min (with TPCK, d
and e) followed by additional 60 min (with a penicillin sulfone ester
derivative, e) prior to analysis by SPE-MS. The reactions were performed
in technical duplicates (Supporting Information Figure S5). Note (i) the clear evidence for the covalent reaction
of 10 and 20q but not 25a,
and (ii) that reaction is ablated by pretreatment of Mpro with the active site binding inhibitor TPCK.To investigate the site of covalent modification, Mpro was first preincubated with N-para-toluenesulfonyl-l-phenylalanine chloromethyl ketone (TPCK),
which is reported to selectively alkylate the active site cysteine
(Cys145) versus the other 11 Mpro cysteine residues,[15] then incubated with selected penicillin sulfone
ester derivatives, i.e., 10, 20q, and 25a (Figure D–F). The results reveal that the penicillin sulfone ester
derivatives, in particular 10 and 20q, do
not efficiently react covalently with the active site (Cys145) TPCK-blocked
Mpro, in agreement with a mechanism involving a covalent
reaction with the nucleophilic active site cysteine residue Cys145.
This mode of inhibition is consistent with the results obtained for
the other penicillin sulfone ester derivatives investigated in this
study (Supporting Information Figure S5), while γ-lactam 17 appears to inhibit Mpro via a different mechanism (Supporting Information Figure S6), potentially involving noncovalent
binding.
Crystallographic Evidence That Penicillin Derivatives Selectively
Inhibit Mpro by S-Acylation of Cys145
To investigate the mode of Mpro inhibition by penicillin
derivatives, we carried out crystallographic studies and obtained
a structure of Mpro complexed with a penicillin sulfone 20e-derived ligand following cocrystallization (C2 space group, 2.0 Å resolution; Supporting Information Figure S7). The structure was solved by molecular
replacement using a reported Mpro structure (PDB ID: 6YB7(29)) as a search model. The overall fold of the structure is
similar to those previously reported for Mpro (RMSD = 0.41
Å for Mpro complexed with PF-07321332 (8, nirmatrelvir; PDB ID: 7VH8);[68] Supporting Information Figure S7).Consistent with our MS data
(Figure ), analysis
of the electron density at the Mpro-ligand complex active
site provides clear evidence for active site Cys145 S-acylation via a reaction with the β-lactam ring of penicillin 20e (Figure A), in a manner reminiscent of the covalent reaction of β-lactamases
with penicillins and l,d-transpeptidases employing
a nucleophilic cysteine with carbapenems.[69,70] The thioester carbonyl of the penicillin sulfone 20e-derived complex (corresponding to the β-lactam carbonyl of 20e) is positioned to interact with the main chain amino group
of Cys145 and Gly143 (3.0 and 2.8 Å, respectively) (Figure B). Note that no
evidence for acylation of other Mpro residues by 20e was observed in the crystal structure, indicating a selective
covalent reaction, at least under the cocrystallization conditions,
consistent with the MS studies.
Figure 3
Crystallographic evidence that penicillin
V sulfone ester derivatives
inhibit Mpro by active site cysteine covalent modification.
Color code: Mpro: gray (protomer 1) and cyan (protomer
2); carbon-backbone of the 20e-derived complex is in
orange, with the β-lactam ring-derived carbon-backbone in magenta;
oxygen: red; nitrogen: blue; sulfur: yellow; and fluorine: light blue.
(A) Reaction of penicillin sulfone 20e with SARS-CoV-2
Mpro. (B, C) Representative OMIT electron density map (mFo-DFc) contoured to 2.5σ around Cys145 and
the 20e-derived complex showing clear evidence for (B)
β-lactam ring opening by the active site Cys145 leading to thioester
formation and (C) positioning of the SO2H group of the 20e-derived complex formed by opening of the thiazolidine
sulfone ring to enable interactions with the main chain amino group
of Ser1 of the second Mpro protomer. (D) Phe140, Glu166,
and the SO2H group of the 20e-derived complex
are positioned to interact with Ser1 of the second Mpro protomer. (E) C6 amido penicillin-derived side chain of the 20e-derived complex binds in the hydrophobic S2 Mpro binding site. (F) Superimposition of active sites’ views
of the Mpro:20e-derived complex and the Mpro:PF-07321332 (slate blue: carbon-backbone of 8, nirmatrelvir; PDB ID: 7VH8(68)) structures.
Crystallographic evidence that penicillin
V sulfone ester derivatives
inhibit Mpro by active site cysteine covalent modification.
Color code: Mpro: gray (protomer 1) and cyan (protomer
2); carbon-backbone of the 20e-derived complex is in
orange, with the β-lactam ring-derived carbon-backbone in magenta;
oxygen: red; nitrogen: blue; sulfur: yellow; and fluorine: light blue.
(A) Reaction of penicillin sulfone 20e with SARS-CoV-2
Mpro. (B, C) Representative OMIT electron density map (mFo-DFc) contoured to 2.5σ around Cys145 and
the 20e-derived complex showing clear evidence for (B)
β-lactam ring opening by the active site Cys145 leading to thioester
formation and (C) positioning of the SO2H group of the 20e-derived complex formed by opening of the thiazolidine
sulfone ring to enable interactions with the main chain amino group
of Ser1 of the second Mpro protomer. (D) Phe140, Glu166,
and the SO2H group of the 20e-derived complex
are positioned to interact with Ser1 of the second Mpro protomer. (E) C6 amido penicillin-derived side chain of the 20e-derived complex binds in the hydrophobic S2 Mpro binding site. (F) Superimposition of active sites’ views
of the Mpro:20e-derived complex and the Mpro:PF-07321332 (slate blue: carbon-backbone of 8, nirmatrelvir; PDB ID: 7VH8(68)) structures.The amide carbonyl of the C6 penicillin-derived side chain
is positioned
to interact with the main chain amino group of Glu166 (3.1 Å)
(Figure C). Further,
the C6 amido penicillin-derived side chain binds in the hydrophobic
S2 binding site formed inter alia by the side chains
of His41, Cys44, Met49, Pro52, Tyr54, and Met165. The C6 side chain
phenyl group is positioned to π-stack in an offset manner with
the imidazole side chain of His41 (3.8 Å), which is part of the
catalytic dyad; analogous interactions have been observed with other
Mpro inhibitors.[33,71] It could be that the
C6 phenoxy ether oxygen, which is important for efficient inhibition
(Table ), helps position
the phenyl group of the C6 side chain to productively interact with
His41, though it may also be important in binding prior to covalent
reactions leading to the crystallographically observed complex. Notably,
the S1 binding pocket is not occupied in the Mpro:20e-derived complex structure; substitution at the penicillin
sulfone C6 position is of interest in this regard and will be explored
in future work. The penicillin C2-derived ester projects out the active
site, rationalizing the relatively flat SAR at this position; however,
as with C6 ether oxygen, the C2 ester may be important in initial
inhibitor binding.Interestingly, the crystallographic data
imply that the opening
of the penicillin thiazolidine sulfone ring of 20e via
C5–S bond cleavage follows an initial covalent reaction of
Cys145 with the β-lactam, to give an acyclic enamine/imine.
An analogous reaction occurs during serine β-lactamase inhibition
by sulbactam and tazobactam.[72,73] We carried out trial
refinements with both the enamine and imine complexes; analysis of
the electron density implies the presence of a planar C5–C6
bond (penicillin numbering), suggesting the presence of the enamine,
but we cannot rule out the additional partial presence of the imine
tautomer. The SO2H group formed by opening of the thiazolidine
sulfone ring projects toward the side chain of Glu166 (3.8 Å)
and the main chain amino group of Ser1 (3.0 and 3.3 Å), the latter
being the N-terminus of the second protomer making up the functional
Mpro dimer (Figure C–E).
Discussion
Antibacterial drugs containing
a β-lactam ring are among
the most successful of all small-molecule therapeutics. Their mechanism
of action involves reaction with a nucleophilic serine in bacterial
transpeptidases to afford stable acyl–enzyme complexes.[74] They are also important inhibitors of serine
β-lactamases, which are mechanistically related to transpeptidases.[75] Despite the widespread use of β-lactams
as antibacterials and work showing they have the potential to inhibit
other classes of nucleophilic enzymes,[76,77] including
human[78−83] and viral[84−87] serine proteases, they have found limited utility in other therapeutic
fields. The reasons for this are unclear but, at least in the case
of bicyclic β-lactams such as penicillins, may in part reflect
synthetic challenges and/or long-term stability issues. β-Lactams
also have potential as useful inhibitors of nucleophilic cysteine
enzymes, as shown, for example, by the inhibition of (i) human cathepsins
by monocyclic β-lactams,[88,89] (ii) viral cysteine
proteases by spirocyclic β-lactams,[90] and (iii) mycobacterial l,d-transpeptidases by
bicyclic β-lactams.[69,70,91,92] Although there is considerable
scope for further optimization, our results highlight the potential
of β-lactams as covalently reacting inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2
Mpro and, by implication, other (viral) nucleophilic cysteine
proteases, including SARS-CoV-2 PLpro.Recently,
we reported MS-based SARS-CoV-2 Mpro and PLpro assays, which monitor protease-catalyzed substrate hydrolysis
and/or protease modification and which are suitable for inhibition
studies.[15,93] The MS-based Mpro assays enabled
the identification of certain β-lactams, notably the penicillin
V sulfone benzyl ester 10, as covalently reacting Mpro inhibitors.[15] In the current
study, we report SAR studies that show the potency of 10 can be optimized by about 10-fold, i.e., from IC50 ∼
6.5 μM for 10 to IC50 ∼ 0.6 μM
for 28, 31, and 32 (Table ). In general, for
efficient Mpro inhibition, the penicillin sulfone oxidation
state is preferred over the sulfoxide and sulfide oxidation states
(Table ); however,
while the (S)-configured penicillin sulfoxides do
not inhibit efficiently (Table , entries 3 and 4), the corresponding (R)-configured
sulfoxides do inhibit (Table , entry 9). The importance of the oxidized sulfur in inhibition
is consistent with the ring opening of the thiazolidine ring during
inhibition, as supported by crystallographic studies with 20e (Figure ). Further,
for penicillins bearing a C6 amido side chain, the (6R)-configuration is preferred over the (6S)-configuration
(Table ).Protein-observed
MS and crystallographic studies imply that, at
least, some of the penam sulfones selectively react with the active
site Cys145 thiol to give a stable acyl–enzyme complex (Figures and 3). Crystallographic analysis revealed that, at least in the
case of penicillin 20e, β-lactam opening is followed
by opening of the five-membered penicillin ring to give, at least
predominantly, an acyclic enamine, a reaction precedented in the inhibition
mechanisms of nucleophilic serine β-lactamases by clinically
used drugs sulbactam and tazobactam.[72,73] Although care
should be taken in assuming crystallographically observed complexes
necessarily reflect those relevant in solution, the structure nonetheless
highlights the potential for Mpro inhibition via cysteine-acylation
and for subsequent reaction, leading to a stable acyl–enzyme
complex.The possibility of reactions subsequent to initial
noncovalent
binding/acylation may contribute to the rather complex SAR, including
for the C2 ester derivatives, with both small alkyl (e.g., 20o and 20p) and benzyl esters being potent inhibitors
(Table ). In the Mpro:20e-derived complex structure, the C2 ester
projects away from the active site; the interaction of the SO2H group formed by opening of the thiazolidine sulfone ring
with the main chain amino group of Ser1 of the second Mpro protomer may stabilize this conformation. It is likely that the
C2 ester group occupies a different conformation prior to opening
of the five-membered penicillin ring; thus, it may be important in
initial Mpro binding. Modification of the C2 ester group
may enable tuning of pharmacokinetic properties, for example, to optimize
cell permeability. Crystal structure analysis suggests that the penicillin
C6 amido penicillin side chain binds in the P3 binding pocket (Figure ). The C6 phenoxyacetyl
ether oxygen of penicillin V sulfone derivatives are potent Mpro inhibitors in contrast to the penicillin G derivatives,
which lack the ether oxygen (Table ); the structure suggests the C6 phenoxy ether oxygen
may help position the phenyl group of the C6 side chain to productively
interact with the His41 imidazole ring, though it may also be important
in binding prior to covalent reaction, leading to the crystallographically
observed complex, potentially by interaction with the Asn142 side
chain, as indicated by docking studies.[15]It should be noted that a covalent reaction is not necessarily
a prerequisite for useful inhibition of Mpro by a β-lactam.[15] Although the efficient reaction of penicillin
and related bicyclic β-lactams with transpeptidases/β-lactamases
is often proposed to reflect the reactive nature of the β-lactam
ring, the bicyclic β-lactam ring system is also a mimic of a
strained conformation of the scissile substrate peptide bond,[74] thus β-lactams have the potential as noncovalent
Mpro inhibitors. Notably, a γ-lactam derivative (i.e., 17) was less active than the analogous penicillin 10 (Table ) but still
clearly showed inhibition, suggesting lactams (and related acylating
agents) other than β-lactams have potential as active site binding
Mpro inhibitors, as reported to be the case for transpeptidases/β-lactamases[94,95] and a viral serine protease.[96]Interestingly, among the most potent compounds identified in our
work were the C6 dibromo-penicillin sulfones 28, 31, and 32 (Table ); ongoing mechanistic studies on these compounds involving
protein-observed MS suggest initial covalent Mpro binding
is followed by rapid subsequent reaction to give new species. Although
the precise mechanisms of action of these compounds remain to be determined,
work on penicillin C6 bromo derivatives and β-lactamase inhibition
has shown that related compounds can react to give acyl–enzyme
complexes that undergo subsequent rearrangements.[59−62] These results suggest the unexploited
potential for “mechanism-based” inhibition of Mpro and related nucleophilic cysteine enzymes, which may complement
drug development efforts on mechanistically distinct substrate mimics,
such as PF-07321332 (8, nirmatrelvir, Figures G and 3F).
Conclusions
The combined results highlight the potential
of β-lactams,
including penicillin derivatives prepared by semisynthesis from natural
products, as covalently reacting Mpro inhibitors, though
noncovalent inhibition by them is also possible. Given the proven
efficacy of β-lactams and related covalently reacting groups
as antibacterials and β-lactamase inhibitors, we suggest that
they should be explored as antiviral drugs.
Experimental
Section
The syntheses and characterizations of the penicillin
derivatives
used in this work are disclosed in the associated Supporting Information. All compounds are ≥95% pure
by NMR and HPLC analysis unless stated otherwise. NMR spectra and
HPLC traces are shown in the associated Supporting Information.
Mpro Inhibition Assays
SPE-MS Mpro inhibition assays were performed as reported,[15] however, using a 37mer peptide (ALNDFSNSGSDVLYQPPQTSITSAVLQ/SGFRKMAFPS-NH2) as a substrate rather than an 11mer peptide (TSAVLQ/SGFRK-NH2). The 37mer peptide was synthesized by solid-phase peptide
synthesis as a C-terminal amide and purified by GL Biochem (Shanghai)
Ltd. (Shanghai, China). Recombinant SARS-CoV-2 Mpro was
prepared according to established procedures;[15] note that fresh aliquots, which were not frozen more than once,
were used for inhibition assays. Solutions of the inhibitors (100%
DMSO) were dry-dispensed across 384-well polypropylene assay plates
(Greiner) in an approximately 3-fold and 11-point dilution series
(100 μM top concentration) using an ECHO 550 acoustic dispenser
(Labcyte). DMSO and formic acid were used as negative and positive
inhibition controls, respectively. The final DMSO concentration was
kept constant at 0.5%v/v throughout all experiments (using
the DMSO backfill option of the acoustic dispenser). Each reaction
was performed in technical duplicates in adjacent wells of the assay
plates, and assays were performed in at least two independent duplicates.In brief, the Enzyme Mixture (25 μL/well), containing Mpro (0.3 μM) in buffer (20 mM HEPES, pH 7.5, 50 mM NaCl),
was dispensed across the inhibitor-containing 384-well assay plates
with a multidrop dispenser (Thermo Fischer Scientific) at 20 °C
under an ambient atmosphere. The plates were subsequently centrifuged
(1000 rpm, 10 s) and incubated for 15 min at 20 °C. Note that
we previously incubated Mpro with inhibitors for 30 or
60 min, resulting in more efficient inhibition.[15] The substrate mixture (25 μL/well), containing ALNDFSNSGSDVLYQPPQTSITSAVLQ/SGFRKMAFPS-NH2 (4.0 μM) in buffer (20 mM HEPES, pH 7.5, 50 mM NaCl),
was added using the multidrop dispenser. The plates were centrifuged
(1000 rpm, 10 s), and after incubating for 6 min, the reaction was
stopped by addition of 10%v/v aqueous formic acid (5 μL/well).
The plates were then centrifuged (1000 rpm, 30 s) and analyzed by
MS.MS analyses were performed using a RapidFire RF 365 high-throughput
sampling robot (Agilent) attached to an iFunnel Agilent 6550 accurate
mass quadrupole time-of-flight (Q-TOF) mass spectrometer operated
in the positive ionization mode. Assay samples were aspirated under
vacuum for 0.6 s and loaded onto a C4 solid-phase extraction (SPE)
cartridge. After loading, the C4 SPE cartridge was washed with 0.1%v/v aqueous formic acid to remove nonvolatile buffer salts
(5.5 s, 1.5 mL/min). The peptide was eluted from the SPE cartridge
with 0.1%v/v aqueous formic acid in 85/15v/v acetonitrile/water into the mass spectrometer (5.5 s, 1.5 mL/min),
and the SPE cartridge was re-equilibrated with 0.1%v/v aqueous
formic acid (0.5 s, 1.25 mL/min). The mass spectrometer parameters
were as follows: capillary voltage (4000 V), nozzle voltage (1000
V), fragmentor voltage (365 V), gas temperature (280 °C), gas
flow (13 L/min), sheath gas temperature (350 °C), and sheath
gas flow (12 L/min). For data analysis, the m/z +3 charge state of the 37mer peptide (substrate) and the m/z +1 charge state of the SGFRKMAFPS-NH2 C-terminal product peptide were used to extract and integrate
ion chromatogram data using RapidFire Integrator software (Agilent).
Data were exported into Microsoft Excel and used to calculate the
% conversion using the equation: % conversion = 100 × (integral
C-terminal product peptide)/(integral C-terminal product peptide +
integral 37mer substrate peptide). Normalized dose–response
curves (formic acid and DMSO controls) were obtained from the raw
data by nonlinear regression (GraphPad Prism 9) and used to determine
IC50-values. For compounds 15, 16, 25g, 25c, 29, and 30, the 11mer peptide was used as the substrate.
Protein-Observed
Mpro Assays
Solutions of
the inhibitors (100% DMSO) were dry-dispensed across 384-well polypropylene
assay plates (Greiner) (for 11 or 33 μM top concentrations)
using an ECHO 550 acoustic dispenser (Labcyte). DMSO was used as a
negative control. Each reaction was performed in technical duplicates.
The enzyme mixture (50 μL/well), containing Mpro (2.0
μM) in buffer (20 mM HEPES, pH 7.5), was dispensed across the
penicillin-containing 384-well assay plates with a multidrop dispenser
(Thermo Fischer Scientific). The reaction mixture was incubated for
45 min at 20 °C under an ambient atmosphere prior to analysis
by SPE-MS.To investigate the importance of the covalent modification
of the active site Cys145 for Mpro inhibition, Mpro (2.0 μM) was incubated with the selective Cys145-alkylating
agent TPCK[15] (10 μM) in buffer (20
mM HEPES, pH 7.5) for 3 h at 0 °C. The mixture was then dispensed
across the penicillin-containing 384-well assay plates with a multidrop
dispenser (Thermo Fischer Scientific) and incubated for 1 h at 20
°C under an ambient atmosphere prior to analysis by SPE-MS.MS analyses were performed using a RapidFire RF 365 high-throughput
sampling robot (Agilent) attached to an iFunnel Agilent 6550 accurate
mass Q-TOF mass spectrometer using a C4 cartridge and the same parameters
as described above, with the exception of the gas temperature that
was reduced to 225 °C. Protein spectra were deconvoluted for
the m/z range 850–1350 Da,
with a resolution of 2 Da and with a 10–60 kDa cutoff using
the MaxEnt1 function in Agilent MassHunter Version 7. The deconvoluted
files were extracted as csv files, sorted using Enthought Canopy GUI,
and normalized and plotted using GraphPad Prism 9.
Crystallization
A frozen SARS-CoV-2 Mpro solution was thawed and diluted
to 6 mg/mL (using 20 mM HEPES, pH
7.5, 50 mM NaCl). β-Lactam 20e was added to the
protein solution to a final concentration of 10 mM; the mixture was
incubated for 2 h at ambient temperature prior to dispensing the plates.
The drop composition was: 0.15 μL protein–ligand solution,
0.3 μL 11%v/v PEG 4000, 0.1 M MES, pH 6.5, and 0.05
μL Mpro crystal seed stock. A Mpro crystal
seed stock was prepared by crushing Mpro crystals with
a pipette tip, suspending them in 30% PEG 4000, 5%v/v DMSO,
0.1 M MES pH 6.5, and vortexing for 60 s with approximately 10 glass
beads (1.0 mm diameter, BioSpec products). The reservoir solution
was: 11%v/v PEG 4K, 5%v/v DMSO, 0.1 M MES, pH
6.5. Crystals were grown using the sitting drop vapor diffusion
method at 20 °C and appeared within 24 h, reaching full size
within 36 h. Crystals were looped after 1 week.
Data Collection
and Structure Determination
Diffraction
data were collected on beamline I0-3 at the Diamond Light Source at
100 K using a wavelength of 0.9762 Å. Data were processed using
Dials[97] via Xia2[98] and Aimless[99] within CCP4i2.[100] The datasets were phased using Molrep[101] and the Mpro apo structure (PDB
ID: 6YB7). Ligand
restraints were generated using AceDRG.[102] Typically, 97% of residues are in the favored regions of the Ramachandran
plot, 2% in the allowed region, and 1% in high-energy conformations
(2 residues). Crystal structures were manually rebuilt in Coot and
refined using Refmac,[103] Buster,[104] and PDB_Redo (Supporting Information Table S3).[105]The crystal structure data for SARS-CoV-2 Mpro:20e-derived complex have been deposited in the Protein Data Bank (PDB)
with accession code 7Z59.
Authors: R M Adlington; J E Baldwin; G W Becker; B Chen; L Cheng; S L Cooper; R B Hermann; T J Howe; W McCoull; A M McNulty; B L Neubauer; G J Pritchard Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2001-05-10 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: Kai S Yang; Xinyu R Ma; Yuying Ma; Yugendar R Alugubelli; Danielle A Scott; Erol C Vatansever; Aleksandra K Drelich; Banumathi Sankaran; Zhi Z Geng; Lauren R Blankenship; Hannah E Ward; Yan J Sheng; Jason C Hsu; Kaci C Kratch; Baoyu Zhao; Hamed S Hayatshahi; Jin Liu; Pingwei Li; Carol A Fierke; Chien-Te K Tseng; Shiqing Xu; Wenshe Ray Liu Journal: ChemMedChem Date: 2020-12-10 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: Pankaj Kumar; Amit Kaushik; Evan P Lloyd; Shao-Gang Li; Rohini Mattoo; Nicole C Ammerman; Drew T Bell; Alexander L Perryman; Trevor A Zandi; Sean Ekins; Stephan L Ginell; Craig A Townsend; Joel S Freundlich; Gyanu Lamichhane Journal: Nat Chem Biol Date: 2016-11-07 Impact factor: 15.040
Authors: Julia K Stille; Jevgenijs Tjutrins; Guanyu Wang; Felipe A Venegas; Christopher Hennecker; Andrés M Rueda; Itai Sharon; Nicole Blaine; Caitlin E Miron; Sharon Pinus; Anne Labarre; Jessica Plescia; Mihai Burai Patrascu; Xiaocong Zhang; Alexander S Wahba; Danielle Vlaho; Mitchell J Huot; T Martin Schmeing; Anthony K Mittermaier; Nicolas Moitessier Journal: Eur J Med Chem Date: 2021-12-11 Impact factor: 6.514
Authors: Sang Hoon Han; Christopher M Goins; Tarun Arya; Woo-Jin Shin; Joshua Maw; Alice Hooper; Dhiraj P Sonawane; Matthew R Porter; Breyanne E Bannister; Rachel D Crouch; A Abigail Lindsey; Gabriella Lakatos; Steven R Martinez; Joseph Alvarado; Wendell S Akers; Nancy S Wang; Jae U Jung; Jonathan D Macdonald; Shaun R Stauffer Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2021-08-04 Impact factor: 7.446