Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Deconstructing fragment-based inhibitor discovery

Nature Chemical Biology volume 2, pages 720–723 (2006)Cite this article

Abstract

Fragment-based screens test multiple low–molecular weight molecules for binding to a target1,2,3,4. Fragments often bind with low affinities but typically have better ligand efficiencies (ΔGbind/heavy atom count) than traditional screening hits5. This efficiency, combined with accompanying atomic-resolution structures, has made fragments popular starting points for drug discovery programs2,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13. Fragment-based design adopts a constructive strategy: affinity is enhanced either by cycles of functional-group addition or by joining two independent fragments together. The final inhibitor is expected to adopt the same geometry as the original fragment hit. Here we consider whether the inverse, deconstructive logic also applies—can one always parse a higher-affinity inhibitor into fragments that recapitulate the binding geometry of the larger molecule? Cocrystal structures of fragments deconstructed from a known β-lactamase inhibitor suggest that this is not always the case.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Deconstruction of a β-lactamase inhibitor into fragments.
Figure 2: Fragment binding geometries.
Figure 3: Detailed stereo view of tunnel carboxylate site in the structure of F3 (yellow carbons) bound to β-lactamase (green carbons).
Figure 4: Increasing complexity restores binding orientation.

Similar content being viewed by others

Accession codes

Accessions

Protein Data Bank

References

  1. Erlanson, D.A., McDowell, R.S. & O'Brien, T. Fragment-based drug discovery. J. Med. Chem. 47, 3463–3482 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Erlanson, D.A., Wells, J.A. & Braisted, A.C. Tethering: fragment-based drug discovery. Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct. 33, 199–223 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Verdonk, M.L. & Hartshorn, M.J. Structure-guided fragment screening for lead discovery. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Devel. 7, 404–410 (2004).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rees, D.C., Congreve, M., Murray, C.W. & Carr, R. Fragment-based lead discovery. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 3, 660–672 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Hopkins, A.L., Groom, C.R. & Alex, A. Ligand efficiency: a useful metric for lead selection. Drug Discov. Today 9, 430–431 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Boehm, H.J. et al. Novel inhibitors of DNA gyrase: 3D structure based biased needle screening, hit validation by biophysical methods, and 3D guided optimization. A promising alternative to random screening. J. Med. Chem. 43, 2664–2674 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Shuker, S.B., Hajduk, P.J., Meadows, R.P. & Fesik, S.W. Discovering high-affinity ligands for proteins: SAR by NMR. Science 274, 1531–1534 (1996).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Gill, A. New lead generation strategies for protein kinase inhibitors—fragment based screening approaches. Mini Rev. Med. Chem. 4, 301–311 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Card, G.L. et al. A family of phosphodiesterase inhibitors discovered by cocrystallography and scaffold-based drug design. Nat. Biotechnol. 23, 201–207 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Huth, J.R., Sun, C., Sauer, D.R. & Hajduk, P.J. Utilization of NMR-derived fragment leads in drug design. Methods Enzymol. 394, 549–571 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Nienaber, V.L. et al. Discovering novel ligands for macromolecules using X-ray crystallographic screening. Nat. Biotechnol. 18, 1105–1108 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Blaney, J., Nienaber, V. & Burley, S.K. Fragment-based lead discovery and optimization using X-ray crystallography, computational chemistry, and high-throughput organic synthesis. in Fragment-based Approaches in Drug Discovery (eds. Jahnke, W. & Erlanson, D.) 215–248 (Wiley, New York, 2006).

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Tondi, D., Morandi, F., Bonnet, R., Costi, M.P. & Shoichet, B.K. Structure-based optimization of a non-beta-lactam lead results in inhibitors that do not up-regulate beta-lactamase expression in cell culture. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 127, 4632–4639 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Usher, K.C., Shoichet, B.K., Blaszczak, L., Weston, G.S. & Remington, J.R. The three dimensional structure of AmpC β-lactamase from Escherichia coli bound to a transition-state analog: possible implications for the oxyanion hypothesis and for inhibitor design. Biochemistry 37, 16082–16092 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Powers, R.A. & Shoichet, B.K. Structure-based approach for binding site identification on AmpC beta-lactamase. J. Med. Chem. 45, 3222–3234 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Crichlow, G.V., Nukaga, M., Doppalapudi, V.R., Buynak, J.D. & Knox, J.R. Inhibition of class C beta-lactamases: structure of a reaction intermediate with a cephem sulfone. Biochemistry 40, 6233–6239 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Davis, A.M. & Teague, S.J. Hydrogen bonding, hydrophobic interactions, and failure of the rigid receptor hypothesis. Angew. Chem. Int. Edn Engl. 38, 736–749 (1999).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Stout, T.J., Sage, C.R. & Stroud, R.M. The additivity of substrate fragments in enzyme-ligand binding. Structure 6, 839–848 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Green, N.M. Avidin. Adv. Protein Chem. 29, 85–133 (1975).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Congreve, M.S. et al. Detection of ligands from a dynamic combinatorial library by X-ray crystallography. Angew. Chem. Int. Edn Engl. 42, 4479–4482 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Hajduk, P.J. et al. Discovery of potent nonpeptide inhibitors of stromelysin using SAR by NMR. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 119, 5818–5827 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Miller, B.G. & Wolfenden, R. Catalytic proficiency: the unusual case of OMP decarboxylase. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 71, 847–885 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Powers, R.A. et al. The complexed structure and antimicrobial activity of a non-beta-lactam inhibitor of AmpC beta-lactamase. Protein Sci. 8, 2330–2337 (1999).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Holton, J. & Alber, T. Automated protein crystal structure determination using ELVES. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101, 1537–1542 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Otwinowski, Z. & Minor, W. Processing of X-ray diffraction data collected in oscillation mode. Methods Enzymol. 276, 307–326 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Murshudov, G.N., Vagin, A.A. & Dodson, E.J. Refinement of macromolecular structures by the maximum-likelihood method. Acta Crystallogr. D Biol. Crystallogr. 53, 240–255 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Emsley, P. & Cowtan, K. Coot: model-building tools for molecular graphics. Acta Crystallogr. D Biol. Crystallogr. 60, 2126–2132 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by US National Institutes of Health grant GM59957 (to B.K.S.) and Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award fellowship GM076883 (to K.B). We thank B. Feng, J. Irwin, A. Graves and Y. Chen for reading the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, University of California San Francisco, 1700 4th St., MC 2550, San Francisco, 94158-2330, California, USA

    Kerim Babaoglu & Brian K Shoichet

Authors
  1. Kerim Babaoglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brian K Shoichet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

K.B. and B.K.S. designed the experiments and wrote the manuscript together. K.B. did all of the actual experimental work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brian K Shoichet.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Fig. 1

Electron density maps of fragments (PDF 440 kb)

Supplementary Table 1

Data collection and refinement statistics (PDF 30 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Babaoglu, K., Shoichet, B. Deconstructing fragment-based inhibitor discovery. Nat Chem Biol 2, 720–723 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/nchembio831

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nchembio831

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing