Key result
AG7404 demonstrated greater inhibitory capacity against SARS-CoV-2 M pro (IC50 47 μM vs 101 μM) and SARS-CoV-1 M pro (29 μM vs 66 μM) than rupintrivir, though rupintrivir was more potent in cells.
Its licence doesn't allow us to show a copy here.
Why the study?
SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 threaten global public health, and their 3C-like main protease shares structural similarity with enterovirus 3C protease.
Does AG7404 inhibit SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 main proteases compared to rupintrivir?
Does AG7404 inhibit SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 main proteases compared to rupintrivir?
AG7404 demonstrates structural fit and biochemical inhibition of SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 main proteases, though rupintrivir showed higher potency in cell culture.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
AG7404 merits further preclinical testing; leaves open clinical translation for SARS-CoV protease inhibition.
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronaviruses 1 and 2 (SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2) pose a threat to global public health. The 3C-like main protease (M pro ), which presents structural similarity with the active site domain of enterovirus 3C protease, is one of the best-characterized drug targets of these viruses. Here we studied the antiviral activity of the orally bioavailable enterovirus protease inhibitor AG7404 against SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 from a structural, biochemical, and cellular perspective, comparing it with the related molecule rupintrivir (AG7800). Crystallographic structures of AG7404 in complex with SARS-CoV-1 M pro and SARS-CoV-2 M pro and of rupintrivir in complex with SARS-CoV-2 M pro were solved, revealing that all protein residues interacting with the inhibitors are conserved between the two proteins. A detailed analysis of protein-inhibitor interactions indicates that AG7404 has a better fit to the active site of the target protease than rupintrivir. This observation was further confirmed by biochemical FRET assays showing IC 50 values of 47 μM and 101 μM for AG7404 and rupintrivir, respectively, in the case of SARS-CoV-2 M pro . Equivalent IC 50 values for SARS-CoV-1 also revealed greater inhibitory capacity of AG7404, with a value of 29 μM vs. 66 μM for rupintrivir. Finally, the antiviral activity of the two inhibitors against SARS-CoV-2 was confirmed in a human cell culture model of SARS-CoV-2 infection, although rupintrivir showed a higher potency and selectivity index in this assay.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fàbrega-Ferrer et al. (2022) studied SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 infection. AG7404 vs. Rupintrivir (AG7800) was evaluated on IC50 for SARS-CoV-2 M pro. AG7404 demonstrated greater inhibitory capacity against SARS-CoV-2 M pro (IC50 47 μM vs 101 μM) and SARS-CoV-1 M pro (29 μM vs 66 μM) than rupintrivir, though rupintrivir was more potent in cells.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: