The worldwide impact of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic on public health has made imperative the discovery and development of direct-acting antivirals aimed at targeting viral and/or host targets. SARS-CoV-2 3C-like protease (3CLpro) has emerged as a validated target for the discovery of SARS-CoV-2 therapeutics because of the pivotal role it plays in viral replication. We describe herein the structure-guided design of highly potent inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2 3CLpro that incorporate in their structure novel spirocyclic design elements aimed at optimizing potency by accessing new chemical space. Inhibitors of both SARS-CoV-2 3CLpro and MERS-CoV 3CLpro that exhibit nM potency and high safety indices have been identified. The mechanism of action of the inhibitors and the structural determinants associated with binding were established using high-resolution cocrystal structures.
The worldwide impact of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic on public health has made imperative the discovery and development of direct-acting antivirals aimed at targeting viral and/or host targets. SARS-CoV-2 3C-like protease (3CLpro) has emerged as a validated target for the discovery of SARS-CoV-2 therapeutics because of the pivotal role it plays in viral replication. We describe herein the structure-guided design of highly potent inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2 3CLpro that incorporate in their structure novel spirocyclic design elements aimed at optimizing potency by accessing new chemical space. Inhibitors of both SARS-CoV-2 3CLpro and MERS-CoV 3CLpro that exhibit nM potency and high safety indices have been identified. The mechanism of action of the inhibitors and the structural determinants associated with binding were established using high-resolution cocrystal structures.
Severe Acute Respiratory
Syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), the
causative agent of coronavirus disease (COVID-19), is an enveloped,
single-stranded, positive-sense RNA β-coronavirus in the family
Coronaviridae.[1−3] SARS-CoV-2 infections are continuing to have a major
impact on public health worldwide despite the availability of vaccines,[4,5] and this is further exacerbated by the limited armamentarium of
effective countermeasures that can be deployed to combat the virus,
including emerging and reemerging strains, underscoring the urgent
need for the development of small-molecule therapeutics and prophylactics.[6−9]The SARS-CoV-2 genome (∼30 kb) encodes multiple structural
(spike (S), envelope (E), membrane (M), and nucleocapsid (N)) and
nonstructural proteins.[1,10] The homotrimeric spike protein
plays a critical role in viral attachment, fusion, and entry by binding
to the receptor-binding domain of the host receptor (ACE2), followed
by the furin-, transmembrane serine protease 2-, and cathepsin L-mediated
fusion of viral and endosomal membranes, and the release of viral
RNA into the cytosol.[11−13] The replicase is expressed by two open reading frames
that encode two large polyproteins (pp1a and pp1ab), which are processed
by the 3C-like protease (3CLpro) and papain-like protease
(PLpro), to generate mature structural and nonstructural
proteins. The 3CLpro, also called main protease (Mpro), is an induced-fit enzyme with an extended binding cleft,
a Cys-His catalytic dyad, and a primary substrate specificity for
a P1 Gln residue and a preference for a P2 Leu.[14,15] The enzyme is essential for viral replication; consequently, it
is an attractive validated target for the development of direct-acting
antivirals.[16−22] SARS-CoV-2 3CLpro has been under intense investigation
for the development of SARS-CoV-2 therapeutics by us[23−29] and others.[18,30−40] The rationale underlying the targeting of SARS-CoV-2 3CLpro is further buttressed by the first time demonstration of clinical
efficacy by a feline coronavirus 3CLpro inhibitor.[27,28] We report herein the results of preliminary studies related to the
structure-guided design of potent inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2 3CLpro (Figure /general structure I) that incorporate in their structure a spirocyclic
component as a design element to optimally exploit new chemical space
in the active site of the protease.
Figure 1
General structures of spirocyclic (I)
and azetidine (II) inhibitors.
General structures of spirocyclic (I)
and azetidine (II) inhibitors.
Results
and Discussion
Inhibitor Design Rationale
There
is an array of advantages
accrued through the judicious use of spirocycles in drug design, including
improved physicochemical and PK characteristics, structural novelty,
reduced conformational flexibility, and the capture of favorable binding
interactions by probing and exploiting poorly explored regions of
chemical space.[41−43] Importantly, the structural motifs embodied in spirocycles
make possible the rigorous control of the spatial disposition of exit
vectors; consequently, it was envisaged that the attachment of a suitably
decorated spirocycle capable of engaging in favorable binding interactions
with the S4 subsite of SARS-CoV-2 3CLpro to
a recognition element that is congruent with the known substrate specificity
of the enzyme (a Leu-Gln surrogate fragment) can be leveraged to yield
a molecule (Figure /general structure I) with high inhibitory prowess. The validity
of the approach and the design of the inhibitors was further facilitated
by the availability and use of high-resolution cocrystal structures.[16−18,24−26] Finally, for
comparative purposes, a series of azetidine-derived inhibitors (Figure /general structure
II) were also synthesized and evaluated in biochemical and cell-based
assays.
Chemistry
The inhibitors were readily synthesized by
attaching a spirocyclic alcohol to a Leu-Gln surrogate fragment incorporating
an aldehyde warhead or latent aldehyde bisulfite adduct. The spirocyclic
and azetidine-based precursor alcohols were either commercially available
or readily synthesized using commercially available ketone or carboxylic
acid precursors. The appropriate spirocyclic and azetidine alcohol
inputs (Figure ) were
treated with N,N′-disuccinimidyl
carbonate (DSC),[44] followed by coupling
of the resulting mixed carbonate to amino alcohol A.
Dess–Martin periodinane oxidation of dipeptidyl alcohol generated the desired aldehydes , which were subsequently transformed into
the corresponding aldehyde bisulfite adducts c (Scheme ).[45]
Figure 2
Alcohol precursors to 2-azaspiro [3.3]-, 6-azaspiro [3.5]-, 6-azaspiro
[3.4]-, 2-azaspiro [3.4]-, and azetidine-derived inhibitors.
Scheme 1
General Synthesis of Inhibitors 1–18b/c
DSC/TEA/ACN/RT/4h
A/TEA/DCM/RT/3h
DMP/DCM/150C/3h
NaHSO3/EtOAc/EtOH/500C/3h.
Alcohol precursors to 2-azaspiro [3.3]-, 6-azaspiro [3.5]-, 6-azaspiro
[3.4]-, 2-azaspiro [3.4]-, and azetidine-derived inhibitors.
The inhibitory activity of compounds 1–18b/c toward SARS-CoV-2 3CLpro and MERS-CoV 3CLpro
in biochemical assays[23−25,28] as well as the cytotoxicity
of the compounds were
determined, and the results are listed in Tables and 2. For comparative
purposes, the IC50 and CC50 values of GC376
are included in Table .
Table 1
IC50 Values of Spirocyclic
Inhibitors 1-11b/c against SARS-CoV-2 3CLpro and MERS-CoV 3CLpro, and CC50 Values
Mean
± SD of at least three
replicates.
The EC50 values
of the aldehyde
and bisulfite salt adduct were determined to be 0.09 ± 0.01 μM
and 0.08 ± 0.02 μM, respectively.
Table 2
IC50 Values of Azetidine
Inhibitors 12-18b/c against SARS-CoV-2 3CLpro and MERS-CoV 3CLpro, and CC50 Values
Mean
± SD of at least three
replicates.
The EC50 values of the
aldehyde and bisulfite salt adduct were determined to be 0.38 ±
0.07 (μM) and 0.43 ± 0.16 (μM), respectively.
Mean
± SD of at least three
replicates.The EC50 values
of the aldehyde
and bisulfite salt adduct were determined to be 0.09 ± 0.01 μM
and 0.08 ± 0.02 μM, respectively.Mean
± SD of at least three
replicates.The EC50 values of the
aldehyde and bisulfite salt adduct were determined to be 0.38 ±
0.07 (μM) and 0.43 ± 0.16 (μM), respectively.We have previously reported EC50 values determined by
the natural infection of SARS-CoV-2 in Vero E6 cells[26] as well as a cell-based assay with two plasmids expressing
SARS-CoV-2 3CLpro and luciferase fused with the 3CLpro cleavage site (VRLQS) in cells.[25] While the latter system is a safe and fast BSL-2-based assay, EC50 values were relatively higher than those by natural infection
of SARS-CoV-2 in Vero E6 cells. In this study, we used another BSL2
cell-based replicon assay in 293T cells, mimicking the natural cycle
of SARS-CoV-2 replication.[46] As a control,
we used GC376 and the EC50 was calculated at 0.027 ±
0.01 μM in the assay, which is comparable to the value (0.02
μM in 293T cells) previously reported with the same system.[46] Four compounds were selected for the determination
of EC50 values, and inhibition curves by each compound
were consistent with a dose-dependent mode and R2 > 0.9 (Figure ). The selected compounds were potent SARS-CoV-2 inhibitors
with
EC50 values ranging from 0.08 to 0.43 μM (Tables and 2). These were correlated well with IC50 values.
Figure 3
Inhibition
curves of selected compounds 7b, 7c, 14b, and 14c in the cell-based
SARS-CoV-2 replicon assay.
Inhibition
curves of selected compounds 7b, 7c, 14b, and 14c in the cell-based
SARS-CoV-2 replicon assay.
X-ray Crystallographic Studies
To gain insight into
and understanding the binding of the spirocyclic inhibitors to the
active site of the protease, as well as to identify the structural
determinants associated with binding, high-resolution cocrystal structures
of SARS-CoV-2 3CLpro and MERS-CoV 3CLpro were
obtained in complex with spirocyclic and azetidine-derived inhibitors.
For all structures described below, the electron density was consistent
with both the R and S enantiomers at the stereocenter formed by covalent
attachment of the Sγ atom of Cys 145 or Cys 148 in SARS-CoV-2
3CLpro and MERS-CoV 3CLpro, respectively. Therefore,
the alternate conformations were modeled as each enantiomer with 0.5
occupancy.
Azetidine-Derived Inhibitor Bound Structures
In the
case of the azetidine inhibitor 14c, the active site
contained a prominent difference electron density consistent with
the inhibitor covalently bound to Cys 148 and Cys 145 in each subunit
(Figure A,B). Inhibitor 14c forms typical hydrogen bonds to MERS-CoV 3CLpro and SARS-CoV-2 3CLpro (Figure C,D) along with an additional contact to
the backbone nitrogen atom of Ala 191 in the case of SARS-CoV-2 3CLpro. This places the inhibitor deep within the S4 subsites, as shown in Figure S1A,B. Superposition
of the two structures revealed similar binding modes although the
azetidine rings are rotated in the S4 subsite approximately
90o relative to one another (Figure S1C).
Figure 4
Binding mode of the azetidine-derived inhibitor 14c to MERS-CoV 3CLpro (A, C) and SARS-CoV-2 3CLpro (B, D). Fo-Fc omit map (green mesh) contoured at 3σ
(A, B).
Hydrogen-bond interactions (dashed lined) (C, D). PDB IDs: 14c with MERS-CoV 3CLpro (7T41), 14c with SARS-CoV-2 3CLpro (7T4B).
Binding mode of the azetidine-derived inhibitor 14c to MERS-CoV 3CLpro (A, C) and SARS-CoV-2 3CLpro (B, D). Fo-Fc omit map (green mesh) contoured at 3σ
(A, B).
Hydrogen-bond interactions (dashed lined) (C, D). PDB IDs: 14c with MERS-CoV 3CLpro (7T41), 14c with SARS-CoV-2 3CLpro (7T4B).
Similar to the azetidine inhibitors
above, the difference electron
density consistent with inhibitors 2c, 3c, and 4c bound in the SARS-CoV-2 3CLpro active
site covalently to Cys 145 (Figure A–C). For 2c, the spirocyclic portion
of the inhibitor that binds in the S4 subsite appears to
adopt two conformations based on the electron density (Figure A). However, the isopropyl
groups were disordered in both conformations. Inhibitor 3c also adopted two conformations (Figure B), but the benzyl ring at the terminal end
was disordered and could not be modeled. Interestingly, 4c appeared to adopt one conformation in the spirocyclic region of
the inhibitor (Figure C) although electron density for the methylsulfonyl group was not
present, which indicated a certain degree of disorder in this region.
It may be that the larger isopropyl and benzyl groups in 2c and 3c, respectively, interact transiently with different
regions in the S4 subsite and result in the observed dual
conformations in the spirocycle relative to 4c. The inhibitors
form the typical hydrogen bonds to the protein (Figure D–F) with an additional polar contact
observed between the carbonyls of 2c and Leu 167 (Figure D). The diverse conformational
differences in these inhibitors allow the spirocyclic portion of the
compounds to cover a wide region of space within the S4 subsite, as shown in Figure S2. Overall,
the superposition of these structures revealed a high degree of similarity
in the ligand conformations. However, as evident in Figure , a large degree of motion
is present in the spirocyclic region of the compounds with the largest
span covering 8.5 Å in the case of inhibitor 2c.
Superposition of 2c (blue), 3c (gold),
and 4c (green) inhibitors bound to SARS-CoV-2 3CLpro highlighting the broad conformations in the spirocyclic
regions. PDB IDs: 2c (7T42), 3c (7T43), 4c (7T44).
Binding
modes of 2-azaspiro [3.3] inhibitors 2c (A,
D), 3c (B, E), and 4c (C, F) with SARS-CoV-2
3CLpro. Fo-Fc omit map (green mesh) contoured at 3σ
(A–C). Hydrogen-bond interactions (dashed lined) (D–F).
PDB IDs: 2c (7T42), 3c (7T43), 4c (7T44).Superposition of 2c (blue), 3c (gold),
and 4c (green) inhibitors bound to SARS-CoV-2 3CLpro highlighting the broad conformations in the spirocyclic
regions. PDB IDs: 2c (7T42), 3c (7T43), 4c (7T44).
Interestingly, the spirocyclic inhibitors that
contained the larger
six-membered nitrogen heterocycle did not display the same degree
of disorder observed for 2c, 3c, and 4c, which contain the four-membered rings. This was revealed
by the structure determination of 7c, 8c, 9c, 10c, and 11c in complex
with SARS-CoV-2 3CLpro, in which the electron density was
well defined for the majority of these inhibitors (Figures A–C and S3A,B). These inhibitors form similar hydrogen-bond
interactions with the protein that are typically observed that include
His 41, His 163, His 164, Glu 166, Gln 189, and bifurcated H-bonds
between Glu 166 and Phe 140 and the NH of the δ-lactam ring
(Figures D–F
and S3C,D). However, the structure with 9c adopts an additional polar contact (2.81 Å) between
the carbonyl and the backbone carbonyl of Pro 168 (Figure E).
Binding modes of 6-azaspiro
[3.5] inhibitors 8c (A,
D), 9c (B, E), and 10c (C, F) with SARS-CoV-2
3CLpro. Fo-Fc omit map (green mesh) contoured at 3σ
(A–C). Hydrogen-bond interactions (dashed lined) (D–F).
PDB IDs: 8c (7T46), 9c (7T48), 10c (7T49).Notably, the methylsulfonyl group of 10c is
in proximity
to Pro 168 but too far to form an interaction (3.4 Å). The interaction
between Pro 168 and 9c results in the movement (∼2.6
Å) of a nearby loop that includes Leu 167, Pro 168, and Thr 169
relative to the other structures, such as 10c (Figure A).
Overall, the structures with 7c, 8c, and 11c adopt very similar binding modes (Figure B) in which the terminal ends of the inhibitors
are positioned between a cleft formed by Glu 166 and Pro 168 (Figure S4A–C). Inhibitor 10c is in an intermediate position as it is closer to Pro 168 within
the hydrophobic ridge of the S4 subsite and 9c is the extreme case in which the benzyl ring is located on top of
this ridge (Figure S4D,E). As a whole,
these inhibitors occupy a wide range of space within the S4 subsite spanning approximately 9.5 Å (Figure B). Notably, the extended length of the azaspiro[3.5]
inhibitors relative to the azaspiro[3.3] compounds permits further
engagement with the hydrophobic cleft of the S4 subsite.
Presumably, this “locks” the azaspiro[3.5] inhibitors
in a stable conformation and precludes the compounds from adopting
multiple conformations (see Figures S2 and S4).
Figure 8
Comparison of 6-azaspiro [3.5] inhibitors complexed with SARS-CoV-2
3CLpro. Superposition of 9c (coral) and 10c (gray) in complex with SARS-CoV-2 3CLpro. The
protein residues are colored gold and magenta for 9c and 10c, respectively (A). Superposition of 7c (green), 8c (cyan), 9c (coral), 10c (gray), and 11c (pink) (B).
PDB IDs: 7c (7T45), 8c (7T46), 9c (7T48), 10c (7T49), 11c (7T4A).
Comparison of 6-azaspiro [3.5] inhibitors complexed with SARS-CoV-2
3CLpro. Superposition of 9c (coral) and 10c (gray) in complex with SARS-CoV-2 3CLpro. The
protein residues are colored gold and magenta for 9c and 10c, respectively (A). Superposition of 7c (green), 8c (cyan), 9c (coral), 10c (gray), and 11c (pink) (B).
PDB IDs: 7c (7T45), 8c (7T46), 9c (7T48), 10c (7T49), 11c (7T4A).Similarly, the structures of MERS-CoV
3CLpro with 8c, 9c, and 10c yielded well-defined
electron density overall (Figure A–C) although the benzyl ring was disordered
in 9c. The inhibitors form the typical array of hydrogen-bond
interactions with the protein, including Glu 169, His 41, His 166,
and bifurcated H-bonds between Glu 169 and Phe 143 and the NH of the
δ-lactam ring of the inhibitor (Figure D–F). For the structure with 9c, an additional polar contact with the backbone carbonyl
of Ala 171 (3.07 Å) positions the molecule in the S4 subsite in a similar pose to that observed for 8c (Figure S5A,B). Although the carbonyl in the structure
of 8c is in a similar orientation to 9c,
the distance to the backbone carbonyl of Ala 171 is much larger (4.07
Å). The binding mode of 10c differs from 8c and 9c in that the methylsulfonyl group is positioned
deeper within the S4 subsite (Figure S5C) and is positioned 3.4 Å from His 194 potentially
forming a salt-bridge-like interaction. The superimposed structures
of MERS-CoV 3CLpro in complex with 8c, 9c, and 10c (shown in Figure S6) show that these inhibitors span a space within the S4 subsite of approximately 8.0 Å. Collectively, the structural
studies suggest that the use of spirocycles with different exit vectors
is well suited to exploiting new chemical space in and around the
S4 subsite.
A representative
series of spirocyclic inhibitors derived from 2-azaspiro[3.3]-, 2-azaspiro[3.4]-,
6-azaspiro[3.4]-, and 6-azaspiro[3.5]-spirocycles displaying different
exit vectors were synthesized and evaluated in biochemical and cell-based
assays. It is evident from the results shown in Table that the synthesized compounds generally
display high inhibitory activity toward SARS-CoV-2 3CLpro and MERS-CoV 3CLpro, with the IC50 values
of most of the inhibitors in the submicromolar range. Furthermore,
the compounds are devoid of cytotoxic effects. The IC50 values of spirocycles 7b and 3b were found
to be >9-fold and nearly 13-fold lower than that of compound 1b, respectively, suggesting that directional and recognition
effects associated with the nature of the spirocycle and R group,
respectively, are important in enhancing potency. The importance of
exit vectors is also evident in comparing the relative potency of
aldehyde inhibitors 1b, 5b, and 6b, which
are derived from different spirocycles. The potency of compounds 8b, 9b, 10b, and 11b was high and remained invariant to the nature of the R group. Several
of the inhibitors were found to be broadly active against both SARS-CoV-2
3CLpro and MERS-CoV 3CLpro, suggesting a high
likelihood of identifying a broad-spectrum preclinical candidate.
The EC50 values of the aldehyde and the corresponding bisulfite
adduct pairs tested were comparable, and one pair was in the nM range
(Table , compounds 7b/7c). The safety index (SI), defined as CC50/EC50, for the compounds was very high (∼1250). The results
shown in Table are
congruent with the crystallographic studies (vide supra) and validate the use of spirocyclic inhibitors in exploring and
exploiting new chemical space in the S4 region of SARS-CoV-2
3CLpro.In the azetidine series, biochemical evaluation
of the synthesized azetidine inhibitors revealed that the compounds
were fairly potent against both SARS-CoV 3CLpro and MERS-CoV
3CLpro (Table ). The IC50 values of compounds 14b/14c having an extra methylene group were >6-fold better than those
of
the 12b/12c pair. Furthermore, in the series of compounds 14b, 15b, 16b, and 17b, potency was found to be sensitive to the nature of the group attached
to the azetidine nitrogen, with compound 14b being 12-fold
more potent than 17b and with an EC50 value
of 0.38 μM. We previously harnessed the benefits accrued through
deuteration by demonstrating that deuterated variants of GC376 have
enhanced antiviral activity and display efficacy in a fatal mouse
model (K18-hACE2 mice) of SARS-CoV-2 infection.[26] Thus, the effect of deuteration on pharmacological activity
was investigated by determining the IC50 values of a representative
deuterated aldehyde and bisulfite adduct pair 18b/18c. These were found to be comparable to those of the corresponding
nondeuterated compounds 14b/14c. Although not established
in the present studies, it is anticipated that deuterated variants
of inhibitors reported herein will likely display improved PK characteristics.[47] These dipeptidyl compounds, including GC376,
have inhibitory activity against Cathepin L,[62] and thus they could act as entry inhibitors against SARS-CoV-2.
When we examined if 7b/7c and 14b/14c could
inhibit the entry of SARS-CoV-2 using a pseudotyped lentivirus with
S,[63] the inhibition was moderate with EC50 values in the 2–10 μM range. Of note, because
the EC50’s listed in Tables and 2 were determined
with the SARS-CoV-2 replicon system,[46] which
bypasses entry events, the inhibitory action was likely due to blocking
3CLpro.
Conclusions
There is currently a
need for the development of direct-acting
antivirals to complement the use of vaccines and biologics for the
treatment of COVID-19. In this study, we have sought to exploit the
directional and stereochemical control afforded by spirocycles to
optimize potency. The results indicate that the incorporation of spirocyclic
elements embellished with appropriate recognition moieties, combined
with structural information gained from cocrystal structures, into
the design of process has resulted in the identification of highly
effective broad-spectrum inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2 3CLpro and MERS-CoV 3CLpro, with EC50 values and
safety indices in the 0.08–0.43 μM and 1250–233
range, respectively. The structural determinants associated with binding
and the mechanism of action involving the participation of the catalytic
dyad Cys145 and His41 and the formation of a tetrahedral adduct were
elucidated using X-ray crystallography. These studies provide a solid
foundation for conducting further preclinical studies.
Experimental Section
General
Reagents and dry solvents
were purchased from
various chemical suppliers (Advanced ChemBlocks, Sigma-Aldrich, Acros
Organics, Chem-Impex, TCI America, Oakwood chemical, APExBIO, SynQuest,
Fisher, and Bachem) and were used as obtained. The synthesized compounds
were purified using flash chromatography and silica gel (230–450
mesh) (Sorbent Technologies, Atlanta, GA). Normal-phase chromatography
was performed on a Teledyne ISCO CombiFlash system using RediSep normal-phase
silica cartridges (35–70 μm particle size range). Thin-layer
chromatography was performed using Analtech silica gel plates. Visualization
was accomplished using UV light and/or iodine. 1H NMR spectra
were recorded in CDCl3 or DMSO-d6 using a Varian XL-400 spectrometer. Chemical shifts and coupling
constants are reported in parts per million and hertz, respectively.
The following abbreviations are used to describe splitting patterns:
s, singlet; d, doublet; t, triplet; q, quartet; m, multiplet; br,
broad.The purity of the inhibitors was determined by absolute
qNMR analysis using a Bruker AV III 500 NMR spectrometer equipped
with a CPDUL CRYOprobe and CASE autosampler (the University of Kansas
Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Laboratory). Dimethyl sulfone TraceCERT was used as the internal calibrant. High-resolution mass spectrometry
(HRMS) was performed at the Wichita State University Mass Spectrometry
lab using an Orbitrap Velos Pro mass spectrometer (Thermo Fisher,
Waltham, MA) equipped with an electrospray ion source. The purity
of the compounds in the b-series (aldehydes) was
found to be ≥90%, and that of the c-series
(bisulfite adducts) was found to be ≥95%. Note: the generated
aldehydes are prone to facile racemization involving the α-carbon
of the aldehyde group. The protocol used to minimize racemization
included fast and rigorous workup (<1 h) and rapid flash chromatography
(silica gel/ethyl acetate/hexane gradient; <1 h). This protocol
invariably yields aldehydes with racemization in the 0–5% range.
With certain aldehydes, attainment of low racemization resulted in
lower than 95% purity due to incomplete removal of Dess-Periodinane
byproducts.
Synthesis of Compounds
Preparation of Compounds 1–18a
General
Procedure
To a solution of alcohol (1 equiv)
(Table ) in anhydrous
acetonitrile (10 mL/g alcohol) were added N,N′-disuccinimidyl carbonate (1.2 equiv) and TEA (3.0
equiv), and the reaction mixture was stirred for 4 h at room temperature.
The solvent was removed in vacuo, and the residue
was dissolved in ethyl acetate (40 mL/g alcohol). The organic phase
was washed with saturated aqueous NaHCO3 (2 × 20 mL/g
alcohol), followed by brine (20 mL/g alcohol). The organic layers
were combined and dried over anhydrous Na2SO4, filtered, and concentrated in vacuo to yield the
mixed carbonate, which was used in the next step without further purification.To a solution of Leu-Gln surrogate amino alcohol A (1.0 equiv) in dry methylene chloride (10 mL/g of amino alcohol)
was added TEA (1.5 equiv), and the reaction mixture was stirred for
20 min at room temperature (solution 1). In a separate flask, the
mixed carbonate was dissolved in dry methylene chloride (10 mL/g of
carbonate) (solution 2). Solution 1 was added to solution 2, and the
reaction mixture was stirred for 3 h at room temperature. Methylene
chloride was added to the organic phase (40 mL/g of carbonate) and
then washed with saturated aqueous NaHCO3 (2 × 20
mL/g alcohol), followed by brine (20 mL/g alcohol). The organic phase
was dried over anhydrous Na2SO4, filtered, and
concentrated in vacuo. The resultant crude product
was purified by flash chromatography (hexane/ethyl acetate) to yield
dipeptidyl alcohol a as a white solid.
Preparation
of Compounds 1–18b
General Procedure
To a solution of dipeptidyl alcohol a (1 equiv) in anhydrous dichloromethane (100 mL/g dipeptidyl
alcohol) kept at 0–5 °C under a N2 atmosphere
was added Dess–Martin periodinane reagent (3.0 equiv), and
the reaction mixture was stirred for 3 h at 15–20 °C.
The organic phase was washed with 10% aq Na2S2O3 (2 × 100 mL/g dipeptidyl alcohol), followed by
saturated aqueous NaHCO3 (2 × 100 mL/g dipeptidyl
alcohol), distilled water (2 × 100 mL/g dipeptidyl alcohol),
and brine (100 mL/g dipeptidyl alcohol). The organic phase was dried
over anhydrous Na2SO4, filtered, and concentrated in vacuo. The resulting crude product was purified by flash
chromatography (hexane/ethyl acetate) to yield aldehyde b as a white solid.
To a solution
of dipeptidyl aldehyde (1 equiv) in
ethyl acetate (10 mL/g of dipeptidyl
aldehyde) was added absolute ethanol (5 mL/g of dipeptidyl aldehyde)
with stirring, followed by a solution of sodium bisulfite (1 equiv)
in water (1 mL/g of dipeptidyl aldehyde). The reaction mixture was
stirred for 3 h at 50 oC. The reaction mixture was allowed
to cool to room temperature and then vacuum-filtered. The solid was
thoroughly washed with absolute ethanol, and the filtrate was dried
over anhydrous sodium sulfate, filtered, and concentrated to yield
a white solid. The white solid was stirred with dry ethyl ether (3
× 10 mL/g of dipeptidyl aldehyde), followed by careful removal
of the solvent using a pipette, and dried using a vacuum pump for
2 h to yield dipeptidyl bisulfite adduct as a white solid.
Cloning and Expression of the 3CL Protease of SARS-CoV-2 and
FRET Enzyme Assays
The codon-optimized cDNA of full length
of 3CLpro of SARS-CoV-2 (GenBank number MN908947.3) fused
with sequences encoding 6 histidine at the N-terminal was synthesized
by Integrated DNA (Coralville, IA). The synthesized gene was subcloned
into the pET-28a(+) vector. The expression and purification of SARS-CoV-2
3CLpro were conducted following a standard procedure described
previously.[23,28,29]Briefly, a stock solution of an inhibitor was prepared in
DMSO and diluted in assay buffer composed of 20 mM HEPES buffer, pH
8, containing NaCl (200 mM), EDTA (0.4 mM), glycerol (60%), and 6
mM dithiothreitol (DTT). The SARS-CoV-2 protease was mixed with serial
dilutions of inhibitors 1–18b/c or
with DMSO in 25 μL of assay buffer and incubated at 37 °C
for 1 h, followed by the addition of 25 μL of assay buffer containing
substrate (FAM-SAVLQ/SG-QXL520, AnaSpec, Fremont, CA). The substrate
was derived from the cleavage sites on the viral polyproteins of SARS-CoV.
Fluorescence readings were obtained using an excitation wavelength
of 480 nm and an emission wavelength of 520 nm on a fluorescence microplate
reader (FLx800; Biotec, Winooski, VT) 1 h following the addition of
substrate. Relative fluorescence units (RFU) were determined by subtracting
background values (substrate-containing well without protease) from
the raw fluorescence values, as described previously.[29] The dose-dependent FRET inhibition curves were fitted with
a variable slope using GraphPad Prism software (GraphPad, La Jolla,
CA) to determine the IC50 values of the compounds. To assess
if the compounds have a broad-spectrum activity to other coronaviruses,
they were also examined against MERS-CoV 3CLpro as described
before.[23]
Antiviral Assays/Cell-Based
Inhibition Assays
To assess
antiviral effects of selected compounds (dissolved in DMSO) in cell
culture, the SARS-CoV-2 replicon system with pSMART-T7-scv2-replicon
(pSMART BAC V2.0 Vector Containing the SARS-CoV-2, Wuhan-Hu-1 Non-Infectious
Replicon) was used.[46] The synthetic SARS-CoV-2
replicon RNA was prepared from the pSMART-T7-scv2-replicon as described,[47] and the Neon Electroporation system (ThermoFisher,
Chicago, IL) was used for the RNA electroporation to 293T cells. After
the electroporation, the cells were incubated with DMSO (0.1%) or
each compound at 2, 0.5, 0.1, and 0.02 μM for 30 h, and luciferase
activities were measured for antiviral effects. The dose-dependent
inhibition curve for each compound was prepared, and the 50% effective
concentration (EC50) values were determined by GraphPad
Prism software using a variable slope (GraphPad, La Jolla, CA).
Nonspecific Cytotoxic Effects/Measurement of In Vitro Cytotoxicity
Confluent cells grown in 96-well plates were incubated with various
concentrations (1–100 μM) of each compound for 72 h.
Cell cytotoxicity was measured by a CytoTox 96 nonradioactive cytotoxicity
assay kit (Promega, Madison, WI), and the CC50 values were
calculated using a variable slope by GraphPad Prism software. The in vitro safety index was calculated by dividing the CC50 by the EC50.
X-ray Crystallographic
Studies
Crystallization and Data Collection
Purified MERS-CoV
3CLpro and SARS-CoV-2 3CLpro in 100 mM NaCl
and 20 mM Tris pH 8.0 were concentrated to 10 mg/mL (0.3 mM) for crystallization
screening. Stock solutions of the inhibitors were prepared in DMSO
at 100 mM, and the complexes with the 3CL proteases were prepared
by adding 2 mM of each compound and incubating the complexes on ice
for 1 h. All crystallization experiments were setup using an NT8 drop-setting
robot (Formulatrix, Inc.) and UVXPO MRC (Molecular Dimensions) sitting
drop vapor diffusion plates at 18 °C. Protein (100 nL) and crystallization
solution (100 nL) were dispensed and equilibrated against 50 uL of
the latter. Crystals of the MERS-CoV 3CLpro complexes were
obtained from the following conditions. Index HT screen (Hampton Research) 9c: condition E7 (30% (w/v) PEG 550 MME, 100 mM Hepes pH 7.5,
50 mM magnesium chloride), 8c: condition F7 (20% (w/v)
PEG 3350, 100 mM Bis-Tris pH 6.5, 200 mM ammonium sulfate) and 10c: condition F5 (17% (w/v) PEG 10000, 100 mM Bis-Tris pH
5.5, 100 mM ammonium acetate). Proplex HT screen (Molecular Dimensions) 14c: condition E2 (25% (w/v) PEG 3350, 100 mM Hepes pH 7.5,
200 mM magnesium chloride). Crystals of the SARS-CoV-2 3CLpro complexes were obtained from the following conditions. PACT screen
(Molecular Dimensions) : condition
C2 (25% (w/v) PEG 1500, 100 mM PCTP pH 5.0), 3c: condition
C1 (25% (w/v) PEG 1500, 100 mM PCTP pH 4.0), 11c: condition
E1 (20% (w/v) PEG 3350, 20 mM sodium/postassium phosphate) and 10c: condition D4 (25% (w/v) PEG 1500, 100 MMT pH 7.0), Index
HT screen (Hampton Research) 4c: condition F5 (17% (w/v)
PEG 10000, 100 mM Bis-Tris pH 5.5, 100 mM ammonium acetate), 8c: condition F10 (25% (w/v) PEG 3350, 100 mM Bis-Tris pH
5.5, 200 mM NaCl), 14c: condition F11 (25% (w/v) PEG
3350, 100 mM Bis-Tris pH 6.5, 200 mM sodium chloride), : condition G4 (20% (w/v) PEG 3350, 100 mM Hepes
pH 7.5, 200 mM lithium sulfate) and Berkeley screen (Rigaku Reagents) : condition B6 (20% (w/v) PEG 3350, 200 mM
sodium fluoride). Cryoprotectants containing 80% crystallant and 20%
(v/v) PEG 200 were layered onto the drop, the samples were harvested
and stored in liquid nitrogen. For MERS-CoV 3CLpro in complex
with , the crystallization solution
served as the cryoprotectant. X-ray diffraction data were collected
at the Advanced Photon Source beamline 17-ID (IMCA-CAT) and National
Synchrotron Light Source-II, beamline 19-ID (NYX).
Structure
Solution and Refinement
Intensities were
integrated using XDS[48,49] via Autoproc[50] and the Laue class analysis and data scaling were performed
with Aimless.[51] Structure solution was
conducted by molecular replacement with Phaser[52] using a previously determined inhibitor bound structures
of MERS-CoV (5WKK) and SARS-CoV-2 3CLpro (PDB 6XMK) as the search models. Structure refinement
and manual model building were conducted with Phenix[53] and Coot,[54] respectively. Disordered
side chains were truncated to the point for which electron density
could be observed. Structure validation was conducted with Molprobity,[55] and figures were prepared using the CCP4MG package.[56] Crystallographic data are provided in Tables S1 and S2.[57−61]
Authors: Yunjeong Kim; Scott Lovell; Kok-Chuan Tiew; Sivakoteswara Rao Mandadapu; Kevin R Alliston; Kevin P Battaile; William C Groutas; Kyeong-Ok Chang Journal: J Virol Date: 2012-08-22 Impact factor: 5.103
Authors: Chamandi S Dampalla; Athri D Rathnayake; Krishani Dinali Perera; Abdul-Rahman M Jesri; Harry Nhat Nguyen; Matthew J Miller; Hayden A Thurman; Jian Zheng; Maithri M Kashipathy; Kevin P Battaile; Scott Lovell; Stanley Perlman; Yunjeong Kim; William C Groutas; Kyeong-Ok Chang Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2021-12-05 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: Vincent B Chen; W Bryan Arendall; Jeffrey J Headd; Daniel A Keedy; Robert M Immormino; Gary J Kapral; Laura W Murray; Jane S Richardson; David C Richardson Journal: Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr Date: 2009-12-21
Authors: Niels C Pedersen; Yunjeong Kim; Hongwei Liu; Anushka C Galasiti Kankanamalage; Chrissy Eckstrand; William C Groutas; Michael Bannasch; Juliana M Meadows; Kyeong-Ok Chang Journal: J Feline Med Surg Date: 2017-09-13 Impact factor: 2.015
Authors: Arun K Ghosh; Margherita Brindisi; Dana Shahabi; Mackenzie E Chapman; Andrew D Mesecar Journal: ChemMedChem Date: 2020-05-07 Impact factor: 3.540
Authors: Chamandi S Dampalla; Jian Zheng; Krishani Dinali Perera; Lok-Yin Roy Wong; David K Meyerholz; Harry Nhat Nguyen; Maithri M Kashipathy; Kevin P Battaile; Scott Lovell; Yunjeong Kim; Stanley Perlman; William C Groutas; Kyeong-Ok Chang Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2021-07-20 Impact factor: 12.779