In silico modeling demonstrates that omecamtiv mecarbil binds to both cardiac myosin and RyR-2 with similar affinity, suggesting that structural modifications (like those in CK-1032100) may be needed to improve selectivity and reduce potential off-target side effects in heart failure therapy.
Omecamtiv mecarbil's dual affinity may warrant selectivity optimization in analogues; leaves open clinical relevance of RyR-2 binding in HF.
Clinical treatment of heart failure is still not fully solved. A novel class of agents, the myosin motor activators, acts directly on cardiac myosin resulting in an increased force generation and prolongation of contraction. Omecamtiv mecarbil, the lead molecule of this group, is now in human phase 3 displaying promising clinical performance. However, omecamtiv mecarbil is not selective to myosin, because it readily binds to and activates cardiac ryanodine receptors (RyR-2), an effect that may cause complications in case of overdose. In this study, in silico analysis was performed to investigate the docking of omecamtiv mecarbil and other structural analogues to cardiac myosin heavy chain and RyR-2 to select the structure that has a higher selectivity to myosin over RyR-2. In silico docking studies revealed that omecamtiv mecarbil has comparable affinity to myosin and RyR-2: the respective K d values are 0.60 and 0.87 μmol/L. Another compound, CK-1032100, has much lower affinity to RyR-2 than omecamtiv mecarbil, while it still has a moderate affinity to myosin. It was concluded that further research starting from the chemical structure of CK-1032100 may result a better myosin activator burdened probably less by the RyR-2 binding side effect. It also is possible, however, that the selectivity of omecamtiv mecarbil to myosin over RyR-2 cannot be substantially improved, because similar moieties seem to be responsible for the high affinity to both myosin and RyR-2.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nánási et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: