Perspective | Published:

The rise of fragment-based drug discovery

Nature Chemistry volume 1, pages 187192 (2009) | Download Citation

Abstract

The search for new drugs is plagued by high attrition rates at all stages in research and development. Chemists have an opportunity to tackle this problem because attrition can be traced back, in part, to the quality of the chemical leads. Fragment-based drug discovery (FBDD) is a new approach, increasingly used in the pharmaceutical industry, for reducing attrition and providing leads for previously intractable biological targets. FBDD identifies low-molecular-weight ligands (150 Da) that bind to biologically important macromolecules. The three-dimensional experimental binding mode of these fragments is determined using X-ray crystallography or NMR spectroscopy, and is used to facilitate their optimization into potent molecules with drug-like properties. Compared with high-throughput-screening, the fragment approach requires fewer compounds to be screened, and, despite the lower initial potency of the screening hits, offers more efficient and fruitful optimization campaigns. Here, we review the rise of FBDD, including its application to discovering clinical candidates against targets for which other chemistry approaches have struggled.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    Molecular recognition: the fragment approach in lead generation. Drug Discov. Today 9, 229–238 (2004).

  2. 2.

    , , & Recent developments in fragment-based drug discovery. J. Med. Chem 51, 3661–3680 (2008).

  3. 3.

    , & Structural biology and drug discovery. Drug Discov. Today 10, 895–907 (2005).

  4. 4.

    , , & Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 46, 3–26 (2001).

  5. 5.

    Generation of a set of simple, interpretable ADMET rules of thumb. J. Med. Chem. 51, 817–834 (2008).

  6. 6.

    & The influence of drug-like concepts on decision-making in medicinal chemistry. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 6, 881–890 (2007).

  7. 7.

    , , & The design of leadlike combinatorial libraries. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 38, 3743–3748 (1999).

  8. 8.

    et al. Characteristic physical properties and structural fragments of marketed oral drugs. J. Med. Chem. 47, 224–232 (2004).

  9. 9.

    , , , & A comparison of physiochemical property profiles of development and marketed oral drugs. J. Med. Chem. 46, 1250–1256 (2003).

  10. 10.

    et al. Physiochemical drug properties associated with in vivo toxicological outcomes. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 18, 4872–4875 (2008).

  11. 11.

    On the attribution and additivity of binding energies. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 78, 4046–4050 (1981).

  12. 12.

    & Entropic contributions to rate accelerations in enzymic and intramolecular reactions and the chelate effect. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 68, 1678–1683 (1971).

  13. 13.

    & The consequences of translational and rotational entropy lost by small molecules on binding to proteins. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 16, 741–753 (2002).

  14. 14.

    & The price of lost freedom: entropy of bimolecular complex formation. Protein Eng. 3, 1–3 (1989).

  15. 15.

    , , & Fragment-based lead discovery: leads by design. Drug Discov. Today 10, 987–992 (2005).

  16. 16.

    , & Ligand efficiency: a useful metric for lead selection. Drug Discov. Today 9, 430–431 (2004).

  17. 17.

    , , & The maximal affinity of ligands. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96, 9997–10002 (1999).

  18. 18.

    , , & A 'rule of three' for fragment-based lead discovery? Drug Discov. Today 8, 876–877 (2003).

  19. 19.

    & Ligand efficiency indices as guideposts for drug discovery. Drug Discov. Today 10, 464–469 (2005).

  20. 20.

    Fragment-based drug design: how big is too big? J. Med. Chem. 49, 6972–6976 (2006).

  21. 21.

    , & Molecular complexity and its impact on the probability of finding leads for drug discovery. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 41, 856–864 (2001).

  22. 22.

    , , & Fragment screening: an introduction. Mol. Biosyst. 2, 430–446 (2006).

  23. 23.

    , & Virtual exploration of the small-molecule chemical universe below 160 Daltons. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 44, 1504–1508 (2005).

  24. 24.

    & Virtual exploration of the chemical universe up to 11 atoms of C, N, O, F: Assembly of 26.4 million structures (110.9 million stereoisomers) and analysis for new ring systems, stereochemistry, physicochemical properties, compound classes, and drug discovery. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 47, 342–353 (2007).

  25. 25.

    , & The art and practice of structure-based drug design: a molecular modeling perspective. Med. Res. Rev. 16, 3–50 (1996).

  26. 26.

    Cheminformatics analysis of organic substituents: identification of the most common substituents, calculation of substituent properties, and automatic identification of drug-like bioisosteric groups. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 43, 374–380 (2003).

  27. 27.

    et al. Library design for fragment based screening. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 5, 751–762 (2005).

  28. 28.

    , & Fragment-based drug discovery. J. Med. Chem. 47, 3463–3482 (2004).

  29. 29.

    , , & Fragment-based lead discovery. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 3, 660–672 (2004).

  30. 30.

    & Fragment-based activity space: smaller is better. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 12, 260–268 (2008).

  31. 31.

    et al. Identification of inhibitors of protein kinase B using fragment-based lead discovery. J. Med. Chem. 50, 2293–2296 (2007).

  32. 32.

    et al. Identification of N-(4-piperidinyl)-4-(2, 6-dichlorobenzoylamino)-1H-pyrazole-3-carboxamide (AT7519), a novel cyclin dependent kinase inhibitor using fragment-based X-ray crystallography and structure based drug design. J. Med. Chem. 51, 4986–4999 (2008).

  33. 33.

    , , & A comparison of physicochemical property profiles of marketed oral drugs and orally bioavailable anti-cancer protein kinase inhibitors in clinical development. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 7, 1408–1422 (2007).

  34. 34.

    , , & Discovering high-affinity ligands for proteins: SAR by NMR. Science 274, 1531–1534 (1996).

  35. 35.

    & Reaching for high-hanging fruit in drug discovery at protein-protein interfaces. Nature 450, 1001–1009 (2007).

  36. 36.

    , , & Recent developments in fragment-based drug discovery. J. Med. Chem. 51, 3661–3680 (2008).

  37. 37.

    & A decade of fragment-based drug design: strategic advances and lessons learned. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 6, 211–219 (2007).

  38. 38.

    , , , & Probing hot spots at protein-ligand binding sites: a fragment-based approach using biophysical methods. J. Med. Chem. 49, 4992–5000 (2006).

  39. 39.

    et al. Fragment-based design of small molecule x-linked inhibitor of apoptosis protein inhibitors. J. Med. Chem. 51, 7111–7118 (2008).

  40. 40.

    & Fragment-based approaches to enzyme inhibition. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 18, 489–496 (2007).

  41. 41.

    et al. Antibacterial alkoxybenzamide inhibitors of the essential bacterial cell division protein FtsZ. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 19, 524–527 (2009).

  42. 42.

    et al. An inhibitor of FtsZ with potent and selective anti-staphylococcal activity. Science 321, 1673–1675 (2008).

  43. 43.

    et al. Fragment-based lead discovery using X-ray crystallography. J. Med. Chem. 48, 403–413 (2005).

  44. 44.

    & Deconstructing fragment-based inhibitor discovery. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2, 720–723 (2006).

  45. 45.

    & A decade of fragment-based drug design: strategic advances and lessons learned. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 6, 211–219 (2007).

  46. 46.

    et al. An inhibitor of Bcl-2 family proteins induces regression of solid tumours. Nature 435, 677–681 (2005).

  47. 47.

    et al. Discovery of a potent inhibitor of the antiapoptotic protein Bcl-xL from NMR and parallel synthesis. J. Med. Chem. 49, 656–663 (2006).

  48. 48.

    et al. Studies leading to potent, dual inhibitors of Bcl-2 and Bcl-xL. J. Med. Chem. 50, 641–662 (2007).

  49. 49.

    et al. Discovery and structure-activity relationship of antagonists of B-cell lymphoma 2 family proteins with chemopotentiation activity in vitro and in vivo. J. Med. Chem. 49, 1165–1181 (2006).

  50. 50.

    et al. Discovery of an orally bioavailable small molecule inhibitor of prosurvival B-cell lymphoma 2 proteins. J. Med. Chem. 51, 6902–6915 (2008).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge all Astex scientists past and present and Harren Jhoti and Chris Abell for helpful comments on the manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Astex Therapeutics, 436 Cambridge Science Park, Milton Road, Cambridge, CB4 0QA, UK.

    • Christopher W. Murray
    •  & David C. Rees

Authors

  1. Search for Christopher W. Murray in:

  2. Search for David C. Rees in:

Competing interests

The authors are employees of Astex Therapeutics, a drug discovery company that uses fragment-based drug discovery.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David C. Rees.

About this article

Publication history

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/nchem.217

Further reading