PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 13, 2017Journal of Medicinal Chemistry144 citationsOpen Access

Prospective Evaluation of Free Energy Calculations for the Prioritization of Cathepsin L Inhibitors

View Full Paper
BKBernd KuhnMTMichal TichýLWLingle Wang

Key Points

  • To prospectively compare the performance of four molecular modeling and chemical selection strategies in optimizing the binding affinity of cathepsin L inhibitors.
  • Targeted the apolar S2 pocket of cathepsin L using four prioritization methods: medicinal chemist selection, manual modeling, docking with manual filtering, and free energy calculations (FEP).
  • Prospectively synthesized and measured the biological activity of 36 novel compounds (N=36).
  • Free energy perturbation (FEP) selected compounds with improved binding affinity in 8 out of 10 picks (80%).
  • Chemist selection, manual modeling, and standard docking each yielded improved binding affinity in only 1 out of 10 picks (10%).

Abstract

Improving the binding affinity of a chemical series by systematically probing one of its exit vectors is a medicinal chemistry activity that can benefit from molecular modeling input. Herein, we compare the effectiveness of four approaches in prioritizing building blocks with better potency: selection by a medicinal chemist, manual modeling, docking followed by manual filtering, and free energy calculations (FEP). Our study focused on identifying novel substituents for the apolar S2 pocket of cathepsin L and was conducted entirely in a prospective manner with synthesis and activity determination of 36 novel compounds. We found that FEP selected compounds with improved affinity for 8 out of 10 picks compared to 1 out of 10 for the other approaches. From this result and other additional analyses, we conclude that FEP can be a useful approach to guide this type of medicinal chemistry optimization once it has been validated for the system under consideration.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Kuhn et al. (2017) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a0bac8271bf22a7f695e770https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jmedchem.6b01881
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Molecular recognition of receptor sites using a genetic algorithm with a description of desolvation1995 · 1,549 citations
  2. 2MAB, a generally applicable molecular force field for structure modelling in medicinal chemistry1995 · 600 citations
  3. 3Ligand efficiency: a useful metric for lead selection2004 · 1,848 citations
  4. 4Accelerating drug discovery through tight integration of expert molecular design and predictive scoring2016 · 74 citations
  5. 5Accurate and Reliable Prediction of Relative Ligand Binding Potency in Prospective Drug Discovery by Way of a Modern Free-Energy Calculation Protocol and Force Field2015 · 1,429 citations