Charles E Hendrick1, Jeff R Jorgensen2, Charu Chaudhry2, Iulia I Strambeanu1, Jean-Francois Brazeau3, Jamie Schiffer4, Zhicai Shi1, Jennifer D Venable3, Scott E Wolkenberg1. 1. Discovery Chemistry, Therapeutics Discovery, Janssen Research & Development, LLC,Welsh & McKean Roads, Spring House, Pennsylvania 19477, United States. 2. Discovery Technology and Molecular Pharmacology, Therapeutics Discovery, Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Welsh & McKean Roads, Spring House, Pennsylvania 19477, United States. 3. Discovery Chemistry, Therapeutics Discovery, Janssen Research & Development, LLC, 3210 Merryfield Row, La Jolla, California 92121, United States. 4. Computational Chemistry, Therapeutics Discovery, Janssen Research & Development, LLC, 3210 Merryfield Row, La Jolla, California 92121, United States.
Abstract
A platform to accelerate optimization of proteolysis targeting chimeras (PROTACs) has been developed using a direct-to-biology (D2B) approach with a focus on linker effects. A large number of linker analogs-with varying length, polarity, and rigidity-were rapidly prepared and characterized in four cell-based assays by streamlining time-consuming steps in synthesis and purification. The expansive dataset informs on linker structure-activity relationships (SAR) for in-cell E3 ligase target engagement, degradation, permeability, and cell toxicity. Unexpected aspects of linker SAR was discovered, consistent with literature reports on "linkerology", and the method dramatically speeds up empirical optimization. Physicochemical property trends emerged, and the platform has the potential to rapidly expand training sets for more complex prediction models. In-depth validation studies were carried out and confirm the D2B platform is a valuable tool to accelerate PROTAC design-make-test cycles.
A platform to accelerate optimization of proteolysis targeting chimeras (PROTACs) has been developed using a direct-to-biology (D2B) approach with a focus on linker effects. A large number of linker analogs-with varying length, polarity, and rigidity-were rapidly prepared and characterized in four cell-based assays by streamlining time-consuming steps in synthesis and purification. The expansive dataset informs on linker structure-activity relationships (SAR) for in-cell E3 ligase target engagement, degradation, permeability, and cell toxicity. Unexpected aspects of linker SAR was discovered, consistent with literature reports on "linkerology", and the method dramatically speeds up empirical optimization. Physicochemical property trends emerged, and the platform has the potential to rapidly expand training sets for more complex prediction models. In-depth validation studies were carried out and confirm the D2B platform is a valuable tool to accelerate PROTAC design-make-test cycles.
Proteolysis targeting chimeras
(PROTACs) are an emerging modality with the potential to modulate
protein targets which are challenging to drug with traditional small
molecules. By inducing proximity between an intracellular target protein
and an E3 ligase complex, these heterobifunctional molecules
catalyze formation of a ternary complex, resulting in ubiquitination
of the target protein and its proteosome-mediated degradation.[1−8] PROTACs consist of a ligand for an E3 ligase, such as cereblon (CRBN)
and von Hippel Lindau, and a protein of interest (POI) ligand connected
by a covalent linker. Pioneering efforts have resulted in advancement
of multiple PROTACs to clinical stage development and sparked high
interest in academic and industrial laboratories.[9−12]Optimization of PROTACs
presents a number of challenges. PROTACs
tend to occupy the beyond-rule-of-5 property space associated with
low passive permeability, negatively impacting cell penetration, oral
bioavailability, and central nervous system exposure.[13−16] Structure–activity relationships (SAR) generated in binary
complex binding assays—that is, measuring ligand binding individually
to either target protein or E3 ligase—are valuable but omit
cooperativity effects in the ternary complex. Assessment of functional
ternary complex formation is often performed in cell-based degradation
assays, where SAR can be confounded by permeability effects. While
landmark structural studies have characterized degrader ternary complexes,[17,18] multiple potential complexes may exist in solution, and structure-guided
optimization may not be possible in every case. Degrader optimization
continues to be primarily an empirical process driven by many cycles
of assay data collected from synthesized compounds.To accelerate
PROTAC optimization, we developed a novel platform
combining high-throughput chemistry with high-throughput cell-based
assays. This platform substantially increases the datasets in each
cycle of PROTAC optimization, speeding up empirical optimization and
expanding training datasets for predictive modeling. We applied a
“direct-to-biology” (D2B) approach.[19−22] D2B involves synthesizing large
libraries on a very small scale (<10 μmol reactions in plate-based
formats) and assaying them as unchromatographed mixtures. Extensive
controls and validation enable generation of quantitative SAR across
102–103 analogs, despite the presence
of impurities.PROTAC linkers are hypothesized to play an important
role in degradation,[23,24] ternary complex formation,[25] and ADME
properties;[26−28] therefore, we designed D2B PROTAC linker libraries.
First-generation PROTACs, such as dBET1 (1), contain
flexible linkers, and more recent PROTACs, such as ARV-110 and JNJ-1013,
introduce rigid linkers (Scheme A). In our design, a highly diverse set of linkers
was explored. Test compounds were evaluated in four cell-based assays,[29,30] enabling assessment of in-cell E3 ligase target engagement, degradation,
permeability, and cell toxicity. Physicochemical property trends emerged
from this dataset, and unexpected aspects of linker SAR were discovered
as well. These data, along with in-depth validation studies, confirm
the D2B platform is a valuable tool to accelerate PROTAC design–make–test
cycles.
Scheme 1
(A) PROTAC Structure and Typical Synthesis, Including Time-Intensive
Chromatographic Purification, and (B) Overview of the Direct-to-Biology
(D2B) Strategy, Which Streamlines Plate-Based Synthesis and Evaluation
of Unchromatographed PROTACs
The D2B synthesis library was designed using dBET1 (1, Scheme ) as a model
system to investigate linker SAR for degraders. Using JQ1 (2) as the POI ligand linked to CRBN E3 ligase ligands, such as O-linked pomalidomide (O-Pom) or tolyl-dihydrouracil (tDHU),[31] linker diversity was incorporated using mono-N-Boc diamines as the key building blocks, and the synthesis
consisted of amide bond formation, TFA-mediated Boc deprotection,
and a second amide bond formation. Pilot studies using a set of representative
mono-N-Boc diamines demonstrated robust scope for
amide formation under a single set of conditions using N-hydroxysuccinimide (NHS) esters (Scheme B). JQ1 (2), activated as its
NHS ester (3), was treated with a panel of mono-N-Boc diamines representing varying steric and electronic
contexts. Primary, secondary, and cyclic amines gave high conversion
to amide using DIPEA as base (see the Supporting Information (SI), section III, for additional details). Highly
hindered acyclic secondary amines were nearly unreactive, and this
relatively small class was excluded from the D2B library.
Scheme 2
(A) NHS
Esters Used in D2B Synthesis, (B) Optimization of JQ1 Amide
Formation via HTE Base and Additive Screening Using Four Representative
Mono-N-Boc Diamines, and (C) Three-Step
D2B PROTAC Synthesis
Final conditions shown as
green bars.
Bar graphs
represent purity of unchromatographed PROTACs and demonstrate purity
enrichment though scavenging resin treatment. Blue: desired PROTAC;
yellow, orange, red: reaction byproducts.
(A) NHS
Esters Used in D2B Synthesis, (B) Optimization of JQ1 Amide
Formation via HTE Base and Additive Screening Using Four Representative
Mono-N-Boc Diamines, and (C) Three-Step
D2B PROTAC Synthesis
Final conditions shown as
green bars.Bar graphs
represent purity of unchromatographed PROTACs and demonstrate purity
enrichment though scavenging resin treatment. Blue: desired PROTAC;
yellow, orange, red: reaction byproducts.Development of the telescoped three-step sequence was accomplished
using the cereblon E3 ligase ligand based on tDHU and six model mono-N-Boc-diamines (Scheme C).[32,33] Following initial amide formation,
removal of unreacted starting materials was accomplished using resin-bound
scavengers,[34] which maximized conversion
and purity. The resulting solutions, after concentration, were subjected
to TFA-mediated N-Boc deprotection, concentrated,
and carried into a second amide formation using JQ1 NHS ester. A second
treatment with resin-bound scavengers provided PROTAC product solutions
which, after concentration, were dissolved in DMSO and carried directly
into assays.Linker selection (Figure ) was performed from a pre-filtered collection
of virtual N-Boc diamines (>5000) pooled from
commercial and internal
sources. Additional filtering for incomptable reactive groups and
availability yielded nearly 2800 linkers which were enumerated into
full-length PROTACs, followed by structure-based clustering (FCFP4
fingerprints) and calculation of multiple properties (H-bond donor/acceptor
count, molecular weight, topological diameter, rotatable bonds) (Figure A). From this virtual
library, 91 PROTACs were selected for synthesis to represent the distribution
of calculated property space (Figure B) and chemical space (Figure C), as represented by a self-organizing map
(SOM). Having validated the D2B synthesis and identified a valuable
linker set, we prepared two PROTAC D2B libraries, both containing
nearly identical sets[35] of 91 linkers:
JQ1/variable linker/tDHU and JQ1/variable linker/O-Pom.
Figure 1
(A) Linker
selection funnel from commercial and internal pools
of potential linkers to the diversity set for D2B synthesis. (B) Distribution
of calculated properties within the selected D2B linker set. (C) Self-organizing
map depicting structural diversity of selected targets (purple stars)
versus the larger set.
(A) Linker
selection funnel from commercial and internal pools
of potential linkers to the diversity set for D2B synthesis. (B) Distribution
of calculated properties within the selected D2B linker set. (C) Self-organizing
map depicting structural diversity of selected targets (purple stars)
versus the larger set.Results of the D2B synthesis
are summarized in Scheme . DMSO solutions of unchromatographed
PROTACs were analyzed using a charged aerosol detector (CAD), and
CAD peak area for peaks exhibiting the desired m/z were determined. Concentrations were calculated on the
basis of a CAD calibration curve using noscapine as a standard, and
yields for the three-step D2B sequence were derived. To further validate
the D2B methods, each library was prepared and evaluated in duplicate.
Yields varied across the 91 diamine linkers, and the O-Pom and tDHU
libraries exhibited similar average yields—32% and 27%, respectively
(Scheme B and SI). Duplicate D2B synthesis yields were generally
consistent (Scheme C), with a small number showing significant variation; this observation
indicates that replicate D2B syntheses reduce false negatives. Figure D represents the
synthesis success rate across the 91 linkers using a cutoff of 10%
yield and shows the similarity between the O-Pom and tDHU libraries
(80% success)—this is notable considering the O-Pom glutarimide
is chemically sensitive versus the tDHU.[36] This finding demonstrates that the D2B PROTAC synthesis and resin
scavenging conditions are mild and enables side-by-side assessment
of O-Pom and tDHU libraries in cellular assays.
Scheme 3
(A) General Sequence
for D2B Synthesis Using NHS Esters and Resin
Scavengers, (B) Bar Graph of CAD Yields for O-Pom and tDHU Libraries
Aligned by Plate Position, (C) Scatter Plots Comparing PROTAC Yield
across Duplicates, for O-Pom (left) and DHU (right), and (D) Synthesis
Success Rate Aligned by Plate Position
Green indicates CAD yield
>10%, blue indicates CAD yield <10%. Top two plots are duplicates
of O-Pom library; bottom two plots are duplicates of tDHU library.
Figure 3
Purified versus D2B data for BRD4 HiBit and CTG assays. (A) HiBit
BRD4 DC50. (B) HiBit BRD4 Dmax. (C) Dmax is not correlated with CTG
maximum effect. Colors indicate purity. Dotted line is unity; solid
line is best fit.
(A) General Sequence
for D2B Synthesis Using NHS Esters and Resin
Scavengers, (B) Bar Graph of CAD Yields for O-Pom and tDHU Libraries
Aligned by Plate Position, (C) Scatter Plots Comparing PROTAC Yield
across Duplicates, for O-Pom (left) and DHU (right), and (D) Synthesis
Success Rate Aligned by Plate Position
Green indicates CAD yield
>10%, blue indicates CAD yield <10%. Top two plots are duplicates
of O-Pom library; bottom two plots are duplicates of tDHU library.The two D2B PROTAC linker libraries, JQ-1/variable
linker/tDHU
and JQ1/variable linker/O-Pom, were profiled in four cell-based assays
in 11-point dose–response curves. CRBN target engagement was
measured using a nanoBRET assay in HEK293 cells under live-cell and
permeabilized-cell conditions. Degradation of BRD4 was assessed using
a HEK293 HiBit-tagged BRD4 line, reading out BRD4 concentration to
quantitate DC50 and Dmax. To
deconvolute on-target BRD4 degradation from general cell toxicity,
Cell Titer Glo (CTG) was performed. Individual D2B synthetic samples
were sufficient for all four assays, which were tested in parallel.Control compounds exhibited expected results across all four assays
and were included in each D2B assay plate (Table ). JQ1 carboxylic acid and its NHS ester
were inactive across all assays, as was NHS itself. O-Pom and tDHU
acids are inactive in the live-cell CRBN target engagement assay and
show weak activity in permeabilized cells; neither exhibits BRD4 degradation
activity or cell toxicity. NHS esters of O-Pom and tDHU engage CRBN
in intact cells at high concentrations and are left-shifted in permeabilized
cells, without degradation activity or cell toxicity. An authentic
sample of dBET1 exhibits a profile consistent with published results,[29] and a D2B sample is within 3-fold across assays
with successful degradation of BRD4.
Table 1
D2B Control
Compounds and Resultsa
CRBN live cell
CRBN perm cell
BRD4 degradation
CTG cell viability
control
nanoBRET, IC50 (μM)
nanoBRET, IC50 (μM)
DC50 (μM)/Dmax (%)
EC50 (μM)/Emax (%)
JQ1-CO2H
>50
>50
>50/14.2
>50/14.23
JQ1-NHS ester (3)
>50
>50
>50/11.85
>50/5.26
tDHU-CO2H
>50
1.94
>21.65/20.37
>50/7.84
tDHU-NHS ester (5)
22.16
6.04
>50/15.21
>50/9.24
O-Pom-CO2H
>50
0.83
>50/8.1
>50/7.58
O-Pom-NHS (4)
7.42
1.05
>50/11.97
>50/11.93
N-hydroxysuccinimide
>50
>50
>50/15.34
>50/10.78
dBET1
2.2
0.09
0.48/92.26
ND/25.16
(10 μM)b
dBET1
(D2B synthesis)
0.93
0.056
0.28/49.48
ND/21.72
(12 μM)b
Target
engagement for CRBN was assessed
by nanoBRET CRBN-tracer assay in live and permeabilized (digitonin)
HEK293 cells. Degradation and cell viability were assessed by HiBit-BRD4
by Cell-Titer-Glo assays, respectively, in HEK293 cells. See Supporting Information for additional details.
Concentration at Emax.
Target
engagement for CRBN was assessed
by nanoBRET CRBN-tracer assay in live and permeabilized (digitonin)
HEK293 cells. Degradation and cell viability were assessed by HiBit-BRD4
by Cell-Titer-Glo assays, respectively, in HEK293 cells. See Supporting Information for additional details.Concentration at Emax.To gauge
robustness and intrinsic variability of the four D2B assays,
parameters including the Z′ factor, signal-to-background
(S/B) ratio, and control compound potency and standard deviation were
calculated. The RZ′ values in a 384-well plate
across all four assays was >0.6, indicating robust performance
(SI, Table S5).To validate the D2B
method for quantitative PROTAC SAR, we compared
assay data for D2B samples with those for independently synthesized
and purified samples. CRBN nanoBRET target engagement data exhibit
an excellent correlation between D2B and purified samples across 3
orders of magnitude in both permeabilized and live cells (Figure A,B). The strong
correlation between D2B and purified samples was not dependent on
product yield and suggests that quantification by CAD provides accurate
PROTAC concentrations and dose–response curves.
Figure 2
Purified versus D2B data
for CRBN nanoBRET assays. (A) Permeabilized
cells. (B) Live cells. (C) Relative binding affinity (RBA). Colors
indicate CAD yield. Solid purple line is regression, and dashed line
is unity.
Purified versus D2B data
for CRBN nanoBRET assays. (A) Permeabilized
cells. (B) Live cells. (C) Relative binding affinity (RBA). Colors
indicate CAD yield. Solid purple line is regression, and dashed line
is unity.Measurement of CRBN target engagement
in live and permeabilized
cells enabled calculation of relative binding affinities (RBAs) for
test compounds in D2B.[37] The RBA, defined
as the ratio of CRBN target engagement in live versus permeabilized
cells (IC50-live/IC50-permeabilized), estimates
cellular permeability differences among test compounds, with larger
values indicating lower permeability. As expected, D2B PROTACs exhibit
a range of RBAs, and RBA values calculated from D2B and purified samples
were generally in good agreement (Figure C).D2B and purified sample data were
well correlated for the HiBit
BRD4 degradation assay as well, although greater variability in DC50 was observed compared to that with CRBN nanoBRET (Figure A). Inspection of dose–response curves showed that
D2B Dmax values were reduced versus those
of purified samples (Figure B) and should be accounted for in their interpretation. Importantly,
BRD4 HiBit Dmax is not correlated with
CTG, indicating that degradation activity is not generally an artifact
of cell toxicity (Figure C).Purified versus D2B data for BRD4 HiBit and CTG assays. (A) HiBit
BRD4 DC50. (B) HiBit BRD4 Dmax. (C) Dmax is not correlated with CTG
maximum effect. Colors indicate purity. Dotted line is unity; solid
line is best fit.Representative dose–response
curves for D2B and purified
samples (Figure )
are instructive for how to prioritize PROTACs emerging from D2B libraries.
The most straightforward case, when CRBN target engagement and HiBit
degradation are potent and reach high Dmax, clearly warrants follow-up purification and characterization (9). When CRBN target engagement is potent, HiBit DC50 or inflection point is in a potent range, and Dmax is marginal, follow-up should be strongly considered,
especially when yield or purity is lower (10 and 11). Reduced Dmax values in D2B
can lead to high Dmax values upon purification
and recharacterization.
Figure 4
Representative dose–response curves comparing
D2B and purified
samples.
Representative dose–response curves comparing
D2B and purified
samples.The reduced Dmax in D2B versus purified
samples is presumably due to the presence of reaction byproducts containing
POI or E3 ligand partial PROTACs in D2B samples. While CRBN nanoBRET
assays, where D2B versus purified sample variability is low, reflect
target engagement, degradation is event-driven and catalytic. In a
D2B experiment, binding competition between desired PROTACs and reaction
byproducts may decrease the ternary complex concentration; this effect
is amplified over many catalytic cycles, leading to reduced Dmax. This observation supports the use of multiple
assays—CRBN target engagement, BRD4 degradation, and CTG—to
prioritize D2B PROTACs for follow-up.Validated, high-quality
D2B data enabled comparison of assay results
and calculated physicochemical properties, and multiple trends emerged
for CRBN nanoBRET RBAs. For example, reduced RBA—indicating
higher permeability—was associated with fewer hydrogen-bond
donors and acceptors (see SI, Figure S7A,B).
In addition, lower RBA correlated with increasing clogD, reaching
a consistent value for clogD > 4.0 (see SI, Figure S7C). These trends are consistent with expectations and
represent the starting point for analyzing D2B datasets. Indeed, recent
reports identify conformational effects such as intramolecular hydrogen-bonding
as contributors to PROTAC cell permeability,[38] and the large datasets enabled by the PROTAC D2B approach will accelerate
exploration of more complex prediction models.Additional SAR
emerged from the D2B dataset, and specific examples
are illustrated graphically in Figure . BRD4 HiBit Dmax is plotted
as a function of DC50, which positions the most attractive
compounds toward the upper left quadrant; markers are sized by RBA
(larger corresponds to higher permeability) and colored by CRBN live
cell target engagement. A range of profiles are observed, and matched-pair
analysis reveals significant and unexpected differences between structurally
similar compounds. For example, the O-Pom PROTAC containing a flexible
ether linker (12a) is a significantly more potent BRD4
degrader versus the corresponding tDHU PROTAC (12b),
DC50 = 23 vs 7100 nM. Notably, potent degradation with 12a is observed despite weak CRBN target engagement in the
live cell nanoBRET (1600 nM); this underscores the value of evaluating
PROTACs in target engagement and degradation assays. The divergent
profiles of 12a and 12b are not recapitulated
across O-Pom/tDHU matched pairs; for example, 13a and 13b, which contain the same larger, more rigid linker, exhibit
nearly identical profiles across degradation, CRBN target engagement
potency, and RBA. The size and diversity of the D2B library enabled
observation of additional SAR trends highlighting the complex relationship
between linker and E3 ligase ligand components. For example, a shorter,
more rigid linker with O-Pom (14a) was found to improve
both CRBN engagement and degradation compared to the more flexible 12a; however, when tDHU was instead employed the opposite
was true, with 14b being essentially inactive in BRD4
degradation with only micromolar CRBN target engagement. Furthermore,
the library data revealed that linkers bearing basic amines (15) appear to retain degradation for both O-Pom and tDHU.
The O-Pom analog 15a was significantly more potent in
the live CRBN nanoBRET; however, the degradation potency was comparable
to that of the tDHU (15b) analog, further illustrating
the complex relationship between target engagement and degradation
efficiency.
Figure 5
Representative D2B SAR. Table: matched-pair analysis of O-Pom and
tDHU PROTACs. Scatter plot: BRD4 HiBit Dmax versus DC50, colored by nanoBRET CRBN live cell IC50, sized by inverse RBA (larger indicates higher permeability).
Representative D2B SAR. Table: matched-pair analysis of O-Pom and
tDHU PROTACs. Scatter plot: BRD4 HiBit Dmax versus DC50, colored by nanoBRET CRBN live cell IC50, sized by inverse RBA (larger indicates higher permeability).Evaluation of PROTACs in a telescoped D2B synthesis
provides a
platform to accelerate SAR of linkers in E3 ligase target engagement,
protein degradation potency, permeability, and cell toxicity in cell
assays. The synthetic approach leverages the high diversity of diamine
building blocks and provides degraders with sufficient quantity and
purity for these assays from a single synthesis sample. The throughput
of the D2B methodology enables exploration of a large number of linkers,
informing the relationship between linker structure and E3 ligase
ligand. Extensions of this method, to broaden its utility for PROTAC
optimization, include using linking chemistry beyond amide coupling
as well as incorporation of other assay types, such as ternary complex
readouts. Scalability to higher density plate formats can be explored,
as well as adaptation to automation. Lastly, D2B offers the opportunity
to accelerate empirical optimization while also building toward predictive
modeling through creation of large training datasets. Developments
on these enhancements to the methods will be reported in due course.
Authors: Melanie Schneider; Chris J Radoux; Andrew Hercules; David Ochoa; Ian Dunham; Lykourgos-Panagiotis Zalmas; Gerhard Hessler; Sven Ruf; Veerabahu Shanmugasundaram; Michael M Hann; Pam J Thomas; Markus A Queisser; Andrew B Benowitz; Kris Brown; Andrew R Leach Journal: Nat Rev Drug Discov Date: 2021-07-20 Impact factor: 84.694
Authors: Nathan J Gesmundo; Bérengère Sauvagnat; Patrick J Curran; Matthew P Richards; Christine L Andrews; Peter J Dandliker; Tim Cernak Journal: Nature Date: 2018-04-23 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Weiping Tang; Tuoping Luo; Edward F Greenberg; James E Bradner; Stuart L Schreiber Journal: Bioorg Med Chem Lett Date: 2011-02-02 Impact factor: 2.823
Authors: Radosław P Nowak; Stephen L DeAngelo; Dennis Buckley; Zhixiang He; Katherine A Donovan; Jian An; Nozhat Safaee; Mark P Jedrychowski; Charles M Ponthier; Mette Ishoey; Tinghu Zhang; Joseph D Mancias; Nathanael S Gray; James E Bradner; Eric S Fischer Journal: Nat Chem Biol Date: 2018-06-11 Impact factor: 15.040