slide on the energeticsinfochim.u-strasbg.fr/fc/docs/docking/mg_scoring_fbld6... · 2013-10-24 ·...
Post on 22-Jan-2020
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
5/15/2011
1
Marcus Gastreich
A. Recent Docking Score AdvancementsB. Replacements of Unwanted Molecular Parts “Anybody up for a push in scoring must at least invest 5 years.“
Matthias Rarey, FlexX Original Author
2
A
Recent Advances in Scoring, Hyde.
Esther‘s Slide on the Energetics
13-May-11©2011 BioSolveIT 4
Everything is Water. Thales
© Flickr
13-May-11©2011 BioSolveIT 5
The Hyde Concept: Dehydration + H-Bonds
desolvatibindingatom
interacton on
iΔG ΔG ΔGi i
i
* Reulecke et al., ChemMedChem, 2008
∆Gdesolvation
∆Ginteraction
13-May-11©2011 BioSolveIT 6
Atom-Based Desolvation
acci
conformation‐dependent SAS of atom i
plogPiatom‐based logP contribution
bounddesolvation freeΔG 2.3RT acc acc plogPi i ii
i
i
5/15/2011
2
13-May-11©2011 BioSolveIT 7
Atom-Based Interaction
sati number of interactions(degree of saturation)
fsat reference state(saturation of H-bonds in solvent water)
plogPi atom-based logP contribution
interactio bonsat
und free
2.3RTΔG sat sat plogP
fi i i
i
i
i273Kfsat = 1
310Kfsat = 0.85
13-May-11©2011 BioSolveIT 8
plogP(sp2 oxygen) = ‐1.42
∆G desolvation = 8.09 kJ/mol
plogP(aromatic carbon) = 0.45
∆G desolvation = ‐1.37 kJ/mol
Calibration dataset: 458 small, simple molecules
taken from the Starlist*
21 plogP descriptors used
* Hansch C. et al., American Chemical Society, 1995
Atom-Based logP Contribution
13-May-11©2011 BioSolveIT 9
Input/Output - Reality Check
Correct prediction of:
hydrophobic effect (110 J/Å2)
H‐bonds in vacuum (≈ 16 kJ/mol)
H‐bonds in water (‐2 to ‐6 kJ/mol)
affinity loss of unsatisfied H‐bond (6 kJ/mol)
Experimental logPs of small molecules
plogPincrements
fsat
Score reflects affinity of inhibitor to protein
ΔG = ‐RT ln(K)
Score reflects affinity of inhibitor to protein
ΔG = ‐RT ln(K)
Score reflects affinity of inhibitor to protein
ΔG = ‐RT ln(K)
HYDE
13-May-11©2011 BioSolveIT 10
Very important:
G = -RT lnK
=> Energy doubled means squared affinity!
Take Home Message
13-May-11©2011 BioSolveIT
11
O8
C6N7
Binding Mode Analysis with HYDE
+∆G contribution
‐∆G contribution
no ∆G contribution
HYDE color code:
receptor aromatic carbons -5.2 kJ/mol
ligand aromatic carbon -2.0 kJ/mol
total desolvation gain -7.2 kJ/mol
NH
CO
Here we have a bond!!
receptor amide N desolv 6.3 kJ/mol
interaction energy -7.4 kJ/mol
ligand aromatic N desolv 6.4 kJ/mol
interaction energy -7.5 kJ/mol
Total energy -2.2 kJ/mol
receptor carbonyl oxygen 8.2 kJ/mol
ligand aromatic oxygen 2.4 kJ/mol
total desolvation cost 10.6 kJ/mol
13-May-11©2011 BioSolveIT 12
HYDE: Guiding OptimizationStructure-based design of novel Checkpoint kinase 1 inhibitors:Insights into hydrogen bonding and protein-ligand affinity *
NH
N
N
NH
OH
2BRM
O
N
N
NH
OH
2BRB
* [Foloppe N. et al., JMedChem 2005]
∆Gexp = -34 kJ/mol∆GHyde = -33 kJ/mol
∆Gexp = -28 kJ/mol∆GHyde = -22 kJ/mol
5/15/2011
3
13-May-11©2011 BioSolveIT 13
ΔGHYDE -7 kJ/mol
HYDE Requires Perfection
Crystal structure
∆Gopt = LJpotinter
+ LJpotintraLigand
+ TorsionLigand
+ 2∆GHYDEinteract
+ ∆GHYDEdesolv
Stage 1:
hydrogen bondnetwork
optimization*
ΔGHYDE -29 kJ/mol
* Lippert et al., J.Cheminformatics, 2009
Stage 2:
avoid clashes, optimize
hydrogen bondgeometries
ΔGHYDE -34 kJ/mol
1X8X
13-May-11©2011 BioSolveIT 15
Hyde Results – Improved Docking
”Astex Diverse” Testset as defined for the ACS Docking & Scoring competition 2011.
RMS | ≤0.5Å ≤1.0Å ≤1.5Å ≤2.0Å ≤2.5Å-------------------------------------------------rank 1 | 14.0% 46.7% 62.7% 74.7% 80.7% rank ≤ 32 | 43.3% 80.7% 88.0% 90.7% 96.0%rank any | 57.3% 84.7% 92.0% 95.3% 97.3%
13-May-11©2011 BioSolveIT 16
Hyde Results – Improved Screening
15.8 13.9FlexX/HYDE
DUD
* Cross et al., JCIM, 2009, 49, 1455ff
*
13-May-11©2011 BioSolveIT 17
HYDE – Affinity Assessment
N
N
NN
O
Cl
Pyrazole Urea‐Based Inhibitors of p38 MAP Kinase: From Lead Compound to Clinical Candidate *
* Regan et al., JMedChem, 2002
13-May-11©2011 BioSolveIT 18
HYDE – Affinity Assessment
N
N
NN
O
13-May-11©2011 BioSolveIT 19
HYDE – Affinity Assessment
N
N
NN
O
5/15/2011
4
13-May-11©2011 BioSolveIT 20
HYDE – Affinity Assessment
N
N
NN
O
13-May-11©2011 BioSolveIT 21
HYDE – Affinity Assessment
N
N
N
O
Cl
13-May-11©2011 BioSolveIT 22
HYDE – Affinity AssessmentN
N
NN
O
13-May-11©2011 BioSolveIT 23
HYDE – Affinity AssessmentN
N
NN
O
O
N
O
13-May-11©2011 BioSolveIT 24
HYDE – Affinity Assessment
13-May-11©2011 BioSolveIT 25
HYDE – Affinity Assessment
5/15/2011
5
13-May-11©2011 BioSolveIT 26
HYDE – Affinity Assessment
N
N
NN
O
Cl
N
N
NN
O
O
N
O
13-May-11©2011 BioSolveIT 27
Detailed Affinity Assessment
More than a Simple Lipophilic Contact: A Detailed Thermodynamic Analysis of Nonbasic Residues in the S1 Pocket of Thrombin *
NH2 O
N
O
NH
R1
D-Phe ProS1
occupant
2ZDV
2ZC9
2ZDA
2ZFF
2ZF0
* Baum et al., JMB, 2009
13-May-11©2011 BioSolveIT 28
2ZFF
2ZF0
2ZC9
HYDE Analysis of Thrombin Inhibitors
∆Gexp ∆GHYDE
-32 -30 -25 -5
-31 -34 -25 -9
-35 -30 -17 -13
-35 -36 -22 -14
-46 -40 -20 -20
D-Phe + Pro S1 occupant
NH2 O
N
O
NH
R1
2ZDA
2ZDV
Correlation: 0.77 (rPearson=0.54)
13-May-11©2011 BioSolveIT 29
Conclusions
HYDE ...
is an intuitive and untrained scoring function
scores single atom exchanges correctly
provides a guideline for lead optimization
∆GHYDE -20
∆GHYDE -13
13-May-11©2011 BioSolveIT 32
HYDE in LeadIT v2.0
Tutorial: Score Biotin in Streptavidin (1stp)13-May-11©2011 BioSolveIT 3333
Tutorial Steps: HYDE
1. Fire up LeadIT
2. Prepare your protein carefully1. Receptor -> Load or Prepare2. (Down)load PDB file 1stp.pdb3. Walk through wizard
3. Hyde! The co-crystallised ligand (the “reference ligand“)1. Go to Scoring -> Assess with Hyde2. Get acquainted with the interface, press HYDE!
4. Analyse and export your graphics into PowerPoint/… using a simple drag&drop1. What does the thumb mean?2. Where are favourable contributions in your molecule?3. What would you do to increase ist activity?
5/15/2011
6
34
BPragmatic Replacement of
Unwanted Parts in MoleculesThe Tasks:
Bioisostere + Fragment Replacement
35
1
13-May-11©2011 BioSolveIT
A Molecule Has “Issues“… Physicochemically unwanted:
- Toxic groups- Too hydrophilic/-phobic/…, or no wanted chemistry- Selectivity
Synthetically unwanted:- Hard-to-synthesize moieties- Too expensive building blocks
Strategically unwanted:- Patented scaffolds
Or there is simply something missing to make a molecule (= a link).This is for later…
36 13-May-11©2011 BioSolveIT
Bioisosteres
Bioisosteres are substituents or groups with similar physical or chemical properties which produce broadly similar biological properties to a chemical compound.
37
metabolically unstable
© wikipedia
© wikipedia
13-May-11©2011 BioSolveIT
The Famous Viagra Patent Bust
38
The Software Landscape –A surely non‐comprehensive overview.
39 Marcus Gastreich
2
5/15/2011
7
3D Approaches
40 Marcus Gastreich Feb 2, 2011©2011 BioSolveIT GmbH
BROOD
41Marcus Gastreich
Procedure: 1. Compute shape/electrostatics for a given query; optionally with protein2. Search a library for suitable replacements
Published originally by:• OpenEye (www.eyesopen.com/brood)
Available from: OpenEye Scientific Software
© OpenEye Website
Feb 2, 2011©2011 BioSolveIT GmbH
FieldStere
42Marcus Gastreich
Procedure: 1. Compute molecular fields (similar to pharmacophores)2. Search a library for suitable replacements to fit into the fields
(field comparison); optionally with protein information3. Score using molecular fields and/or shape
Published originally by: Cresset Group
Available from: Cresset (www.cresset.com)
Feb 2, 2011©2011 BioSolveIT GmbH
SHOP
43Marcus Gastreich
Procedure: 1. Compute interaction energy forcefield (GRID) using probes
(protein inclusion indirectly possible)2. Search a library for suitable replacements
Published originally by:• Fontaine et al., ChemMedChem 2009 4 427
Available from: Molecular Discovery
Feb 2, 2011©2011 BioSolveIT GmbH
CAVEAT: A Historical FBLD Helper
44Marcus Gastreich
Procedure: 1. Exit vector definition on query molecule 2. Ranked fragment insertion procedure
(cp. below)
Published originally by:Lauri & Bartlett., J. Comp. Aided Mol. Design 1994, 8, 51-66
Available from: U Berkeleyhttp://www.cchem.berkeley.edu/pabgrp/Data/caveat.html
Some Problems:• Missing simple user interface• Threshold dependence of results• Only fragments are found, but not valid combinations thereof• Synthetic accessibility not considered• No protein inclusion possible• Not all common operating systems supported
O
O
Feb 2, 2011©2011 BioSolveIT GmbH 45Marcus Gastreich
“Scoring“ in CAVEAT
purely geometric ranking
according to Euclidean distance in 4D: distance d
torsion 2x angles a1 and a2 formed with connecting path
d
a1
a2Query Vector
Result Vector
5/15/2011
8
Feb 2, 2011©2011 BioSolveIT GmbH
MOE Linker Pharmacophores
46Marcus Gastreich
Procedure: 1. Define ‘generic pharmacophores‘ on ligand 2. Search a library of fragments with boundary condition of matching the
generic pharmacophore (similar to CAVEAT vectors)3. If sufficiently good superposition can be obtained, form new bond
Published originally on:• Chemical Computing Group website
Available: In MOE, Chemical Computing Group (www.chemcomp.com)
Feb 2, 2011©2011 BioSolveIT GmbH 47Marcus Gastreich
Roche 2007: ReCore
define “Exit Vectors” search 3D fragment library
Software development by Maass, Rarey (ZBH, Hamburg) and Roche Available from: BioSolveIT (www.biosolveit.de/ReCore)
Maaß, Schulz-Gasch, Stahl Rarey, J. Chem. Inf. Mod., 47, 390-399 (2007)
Feb 2, 2011©2011 BioSolveIT GmbH 48Marcus Gastreich
ReCore: Indexed Searching
ReCore has an “index” to search extremely fast: instead of looking at every single possibility, you jump to the answer in seconds:
The Index needs a pre-generated “descriptor”:
telephone book:the alphabet
an index
ReCore: Vector relationships
Feb 2, 2011©2011 BioSolveIT GmbH 49Marcus Gastreich
ReCore: Results Delivery
By design the best fitting replacements are found first The ranking is according to deviation from perfect vector
overlap
Rank 1
Rank 2
Rank 3
Rank 4ReCore Query
Feb 2, 2011©2011 BioSolveIT GmbH 50Marcus Gastreich
A ReCore Specialty: “3D Shredding”
Advantages:• more possibilities• bridging larger gaps• still respect conformation/torsions seen in root structure
(ideally: experiment/bioactive)
“partial enumeration“
trivial fragmentation1
1
2
2
Feb 2, 2011©2011 BioSolveIT GmbH 51Marcus Gastreich
ReCore Needs at least 2 Vectors
Vectors = EVs and Pharm Features (non-spherical pharmacophores):
Sensible Query Scenarios:2 EV + opt’l: any Pharm Features or EVs1 EV + 1 directed Pharm Feature + opt’l: any Pharm Features
Pharm Features
Exit Vectors
5/15/2011
9
Feb 2, 2011©2011 BioSolveIT GmbH 52Marcus Gastreich
Optional Volumes & Shape
Mimick pocket (pocket spheres, = “allowed area“)
Forbid areas (exclusion spheres, opt‘l: SMARTS)
Refine definitions (inclusion w/ optional SMARTS)
[*]
Feb 2, 2011©2011 BioSolveIT GmbH 53Marcus Gastreich
Three Levels of Synthetic Acc‘y Checks
Retrosynthetic shredding rules = more sensible fragments!
Interactivity: Cut where chemist can synthesize!
Forbid unwanted bond formation!
3. Linking
2. Query definition
1. Fragment creation
Feb 2, 2011©2011 BioSolveIT GmbH 54Marcus Gastreich
Synthetic Access Checks & User Chemistry
Input mol2
O
NH
O
NH
S
NH2
ReasonableFragments
RECAP-ishrules
Filters, eg, corporate
O
NH
NH
O
N
Br
OH
F
Index
Interactive Queryingwith chemists being d’accord!
ReCore Search Engine
optional:- shape- binding site- in/exclusions etc.
Feb 2, 2011©2011 BioSolveIT GmbH 55Marcus Gastreich
N
O OA
'C
B
Avoiding Bogus Conformations
1. Torsions within the fragment (typically from expt., or from Corina or the like)
2. Torsions upon forming new single bonds: Link Constraints
N
O SA
'C
B
torsions under control by user, connections can also be forbidden
‘observed’ prior to indexing
Feb 2, 2011©2011 BioSolveIT GmbH
Chemical Correctness vs. Creativity
What would you like to see? ( are new torsions)
56Marcus Gastreich
is correct
is wrong
Would you discard solution B if an interesting residue followed?
A
B
N
O
Feb 2, 2011©2011 BioSolveIT GmbH 57Marcus Gastreich
Be Sure About What You Really Want!
Chemical Correctness Creativity
5/15/2011
10
Feb 2, 2011©2011 BioSolveIT GmbH 58Marcus Gastreich
ReCore: Proof of Concept (Maass et al.)
HIV Reverse Transscriptase: Question: Results Known Inhibitors?
Recore solutions in yellow + MSC194:MSC194
Recore composite solutions in yellow + known inhibitors:
MOZJUGrank 4
CABVADrank 1 XUCPUG
rank 125
1s9e,Janssen1eet 1ddt
Feb 2, 2011©2011 BioSolveIT GmbH
Non-3D Approaches
60Marcus Gastreich
Feb 2, 2011©2011 BioSolveIT GmbH
CATS and DOGS
61Marcus Gastreich
Procedure: (DOGS=Des. of Genuine Structures) 1. Use reaction-originating synthons 2. assemble to druglike compounds using mutation and recombination
mimicking reactions virtually
Molecule is represented by shape and pharmacophore features with the CATS (chemically advanced template search) descriptor (= 2D ph4)
Published originally by: Schneider (JCIM 2007 47 2280 & Meth.Mol.Biol. 2011 672 299.)
Developed at: ETH Zurich / Frankfurt University
Feb 2, 2011©2011 BioSolveIT GmbH
Topomers
62Marcus Gastreich
Procedure:1. Use reference ligand to create fragments along synthetic route2. Compute steric field properties 3. Compare properties to Topomer library members
(the latter comply with synthetis route boundary conditions)4. Choose the Topomers with highest similarity and assemble molecules
combinatorially.
Published by: Cramer et al. J.Med.Chem. 1999 42 3919
Available from: Tripos (www.tripos.com)
Feb 2, 2011©2011 BioSolveIT GmbH
Feature Trees (FTrees) Fragment Spaces
63Marcus Gastreich
Procedure:1. Encode chemistries as Fragment Space
using fuzzy similarities (FTrees)2. Search most similar combination
of chemistry fragments using the Feature Tree descriptor (fragment-by-fragment / buildup)
3. Try to build only those compounds which have a desired minimum similarity with respect to the reference compound
• This way, 1013 virtual compounds can be searched. • The results have a very high likelihood of being accessible.
Selected Success Stories:• Boehringer-Ingelheim (prospective): JCIM 2009 49 270• Pfizer: J.Med.Chem. 2008 51 2468• Arqule (Rojnuckarin at ACS 2009, Salt Lake City)
Published originally by: Rarey and Stahl, JCAMD 2001 15 497.
Available from: BioSolveIT (www.biosolveit.de/FTrees)
Please note: Free KNIME and PipelinePilot modules are available.
N
NH+
N
N
NH2NH2
N
O
NH
O
O
OO
Vol.: 44.27Ring cl: 1Profile:
Aro
Don
Acc
Amd
Hyd
Feature Tree
Don
Acc
Aro
Amd
Hyd
Vol.: 33.9Ring cl: 0Profile:
The Concept of FBLD
64 Marcus Gastreich
3
5/15/2011
11
65 Marcus Gastreich
A Striking Analogy to FBLD
Core Replacement
Merging & Linking Growing
Essentially, this requires dealing with multiple input molecules.
Feb 2, 2011©2011 BioSolveIT GmbH 66Marcus Gastreich
Work One or More Fragments Into One Compound
G = -RT lnK
1. Find fragment hit1. Find fragment hit
2. Fill further cavity/-ies;keep LE high
2. Fill further cavity/-ies;keep LE high
3. Arrive at one compound 3. Arrive at one compound
Doubled energy = squared affinity
Feb 2, 2011©2011 BioSolveIT GmbH 67Marcus Gastreich
Grow (or: Evolve)
Step by step elaboration into further subpocketStep by step elaboration into further subpocket
Feb 2, 2011©2011 BioSolveIT GmbH 68Marcus Gastreich
Merge and Link
Connecting multiple fragments (“Linking“)If overlapping: “Merging“Connecting multiple fragments (“Linking“)If overlapping: “Merging“
Feb 2, 2011©2011 BioSolveIT GmbH 69Marcus Gastreich
Why Fragment-Based Design Is Popular
• Fragments explore larger chemical space • combinatorial!• often easier H2L / LO
• Fragments more likely to bind (though more weakly)
• Synthesis driven by target only
• Two weak binders combined can drastically improve affinity:
G = -RT lnK
=> Energy doubled means squared affinity!
ReCore FBLD Applications
72
4
Some Happy Users:Sanofi-Aventis, Merck, Roche, Novartis, Bayer, Arqule, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Genentech, …
5/15/2011
12
73Marcus Gastreich
Linking / Merging: Examples
Feb 2, 2011©2011 BioSolveIT GmbH 74Marcus Gastreich
Fragment Linking – A First, Simple Example
How close do we get to Howard et al.‘s JMC success with Thrombin?
Howard et al., JMC 49 1346 (2006)
IC50: 330M
IC50: 12M
IC50: 1.4nMN
NNN
Cl
S
OO
NH
NH2
OH
MeO
S
OO
NH
OH
MeO
NH
N
NNN
Cl
Feb 2, 2011©2011 BioSolveIT GmbH 75Marcus Gastreich
Fragment Linking – A First, Simple Example
ReCore Queries with alignment of ligand PDBs 2c93 and 2c90:
This is too easy! Roche do not have simple –CHn– as linkers,so we don’t either…
S
OO
NH
OH
MeO
N
N
NNN
Cl
Feb 2, 2011©2011 BioSolveIT GmbH 76Marcus Gastreich
Fragment Linking – A First, Simple Example
Can we ‘carve out’ the amine? And still link to the chlorophenyl?
S
OO
NH
OH
MeO
N
N
NNN
Cl
Feb 2, 2011©2011 BioSolveIT GmbH 77Marcus Gastreich
Fragment Linking – A First, Simple Example
Can we ‘carve out’ the amine? And still link to the chlorophenyl?
S
OO
NH
OH
MeO
N
N
NNN
Cl
Feb 2, 2011©2011 BioSolveIT GmbH 78Marcus Gastreich
Fragment Linking – A First, Simple Example
Yes, that’s possible:
IC50: 1.4nM
Found first (= Rank 1):
IC50: ??
published structure:
N
S
OO
NH
OH
MeO
N
NNN
Cl
S
OO
NH
OH
MeO
NH
N
NNN
Cl
5/15/2011
13
Feb 2, 2011©2011 BioSolveIT GmbH 79Marcus Gastreich
... and: Fragment Merging
The idea: Connect multiple known fragment binders where they overlap.
Feb 2, 2011©2011 BioSolveIT GmbH 80Marcus Gastreich
A Tough Merging Example
Thymidylate Synthase Inhibition à la Sunesis (Erlanson et al., PNAS 2000 97 9367)
N
SO
O
CO2-
PDB: 1F4EKi: 1.1mM
NH
N NH
N
N
ONH
-O2C
-O2C
O
NH2
mTHFKm: 14mM
“…tosyl group is in roughly the same position and orientation as the benzamide moiety of methylenetetrahydrofolate…”
N
SO
O
CO2-
NH
O
COO-
-O2C
24M,further opt’d to 330nM
Feb 2, 2011©2011 BioSolveIT GmbH 81Marcus Gastreich
A Tough Merging Example
Thymidylate Synthase Inhibition à la Sunesis (Erlanson et al., PNAS 2000 97 9367)
“…tosyl group is in roughly the same position and orientation as the benzamide moiety of methylenetetrahydrofolate…”
mTHF
Tosylproline
Feb 2, 2011©2011 BioSolveIT GmbH 82Marcus Gastreich
A Tough Merging Example
Thymidylate Synthase Inhibition à la Sunesis (Erlanson et al., PNAS 2000 97 9367)
N
SO
O
CO2-
NH
N NH
N
N
ONH
-O2C
-O2C
O
NH2
N
SO
O
CO2-
NH
O
COO-
-O2C
Published Result
N
SO
O
CO2-
NH
COO-
-O2C
ReCore Rank 8after 1sec.
To ensure the result accommodates in the pocket the input ligand envelope shapes were used.
Feb 2, 2011©2011 BioSolveIT GmbH 83Marcus Gastreich
A Tough Merging Example
Feb 2, 2011©2011 BioSolveIT GmbH 84Marcus Gastreich
A Growing Example
5/15/2011
14
Feb 2, 2011©2011 BioSolveIT GmbH 85Marcus Gastreich
Growing into a Interaction Pattern
Bcl-2 protein example from Abbott (Oltersdorf et al, Nature 435 (2005) 677).
Let us try to get the -stacking right as in the original finding in ABT-737
2 vectors are needed for the Query:a) Exit Vector b) -interaction ‘Pharm. Feature’
Site 1 Site 2
N N
Cl
O
NH
SO2
NO2
NH N
S
N N
Cl
O
NH
SO2
NO2
Feb 2, 2011©2011 BioSolveIT GmbH 86Marcus Gastreich
Growing into a Interaction Pattern
Here it is in 3D:
Feb 2, 2011©2011 BioSolveIT GmbH 87Marcus Gastreich
Growing into a Interaction Pattern
The Result in 2D:
ABT-737
ReCore Solution No.11:
N N
Cl
O
NH
SO2
NO2
NH N
S
N N
Cl
O
NH
SO2
NO2
NH N
S
OO
Feb 2, 2011©2011 BioSolveIT GmbH 88Marcus Gastreich
Growing into a Interaction Pattern
Solution No. 11 in comparison to ABT-737 (green): Almost identical positions obtained!
Feb 2, 2011©2011 BioSolveIT GmbH
Further Resources
89
5
Feb 2, 2011©2011 BioSolveIT GmbH
Some Recommended Further ReadingReviews and other publications: Wermuth, C. G. Molecular variations based on isosteric replacements. In The Practice of Medicinal
Chemistry; Wermuth, C. G., Eds.; 1996 202-237. From the medchem bible… Meanwell, N.A., Synopsis of Some Recent Tactical Application of Bioisosteres in Drug Design J. Med.
Chem., 2011, 54 (8), pp 2529–2591 Brilliantly written state-of-the-art overview Sheridan, R. P. The most common chemical replacements in druglike compounds. J. Chem. Inf.
Comput. Sci. 2002, 42, 103–108. Retrospective computer analysis Patani, G. A.; LaVoie, E. J. Bioisosterism: A rational approach in drug design. Chem. Rev. 1996, 96
(8), 3147–3176. Big traditional replacements lists, history, classical vs. non-classical bioisosters Hartenfeller & Schneider Meth. Mol. Biol. 2011 672 299
FBLD computer methods, focus on 2D FBLD methods BioSolveIT Whitepaper on FBLD with FTrees-FS:
http://www.biosolveit.de/whitepapers/archive/WhitepaperMedChem_in_VS.pdf
FBLD Blogs http://practicalfragments.blogspot.com (MedChem focus) http://fbdd-lit.blogspot.com (Literature focus)
FBLD Books (focus on experimental methods) Zartler & Shapiro (Eds.) Fragment-Based Drug Discovery: A Practical Approach (Wiley) Jahnke et al. (Eds.) Fragment-based Approaches in Drug Discovery (Methods and Principle in Medicinal
Chemistry), Wiley-VCH
90Marcus Gastreich
5/15/2011
15
Feb 2, 2011©2011 BioSolveIT GmbH 91
ReCore in LeadIT v2.0
Tutorial: Replace -CN(C)Ph- in 4dfr_minFeb 2, 2011©2011 BioSolveIT GmbH 92
Tutorial Steps: ReCore
Tutorial: Replace -CN(C)Ph- in 4dfr_min
Advanced questions:- Do you find the original fragment?- What happens upon inclusion of
- ligand shape- protein shape
- Import the graphical solution into PPT/Word…
1. Fire up LeadIT2. Go to menu ReCore -> Def. ReCore Query3. “Add“ 4dfr_min 4. Define two exit vectors around the
-C-N(-C)-Ph- group5. Click ReCore6. Browse Results
Thank you so much.
Marcus Gastreichmarcus.gastreich@biosolveit.de
top related