1 / 26

Drug Design / drug discovery

Drug Design / drug discovery. Jerome Baudry Assistant Professor BCMB UT/ORNL Center for Molecular Biophysics. 2 previous incarnations: Research faculty at UIUC Research scientist at Transtech Pharma, Inc. Drug Design / drug discovery. What’s a drug?

gigi
Télécharger la présentation

Drug Design / drug discovery

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Drug Design / drug discovery Jerome Baudry Assistant Professor BCMB UT/ORNL Center for Molecular Biophysics 2 previous incarnations: Research faculty at UIUC Research scientist at Transtech Pharma, Inc.

  2. Drug Design / drug discovery What’s a drug? A substance that treats/cure a disease. A small molecule that interacts with a target, (often protein involved in the disease process; activator/inhibitor) Drug discovery: The process of finding such a small molecule – combination of approaches Drug discovery or drug design? In principle: “Design” is more rational and targeted, and “discovery” is more serendipitous. But design and discovery share a lot and are ~ synonymous in a pharmaceutical context. 5% of human genome is “druggeable” Hoopkins, Groom, Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2002 1(9):727-30.

  3. Drug discovery market Gigantic economic importance: 10 years & $200 to $1,900 million to develop a drug 25 new molecules /year > $340 billion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pharmaceutical_companies Intense scientific activity: very interdisciplinary approach

  4. The drug discovery and design workflow: Target identification Discovery and design (hit/lead/optimisation) Biology: assay (binding/activity; in vitro / in vivo,) Chemistry: synthesis drug development: Pharmacology / testing

  5. The long and winding road to drug discovery Computational chemistry /Molecular modeling useful across the pipeline, but very different techniques aim for success, but if not: fail early, fail cheap

  6. Two pathways to drug discovery / drug seign Structure-based don’t know receptor, known ligands Structure-based know receptor, don’t known ligands ? What will be happy in there? Protein/ligand interactions structure/biophysics docking Statistical analysis of what group(s) are important for biological activity

  7. Structure-based approaches Use knowledge of structure to find something that 1) binds, and 2) does the desired biological activity structure modeling (homology/experimental X-ray/NMR/neutron) Get a structure high-throughput docking/screening Get a “hit” (anything at all) focused library docking fragment-based growth ‘individual’ molecules simulations

  8. Structure-based library screening What do we need: 1) Compounds libraries 2) Protein target 3) Binding site in the protein 4) Docking: generate different (many) possible conformations of the compounds in the binding site 5) Scoring: evaluate the strength of the protein/ligand interactions (score). 6) Select preferred ligands to propose a list of prioritized compounds for experimental screening.

  9. Structure-based approaches Structure modeling Best case scenario, a high-quality experimental structure exists: PDB: http://www.rcsb.org/pdb/ - experimental collection of (49 295) structures, ~18 000 non-redundant sequences - X-Ray & NMR, - nucleic acids, proteins, carbohydrates

  10. Structure-based approaches Structure modeling ~50,000 non-redundant protein structures in the PDB: is that a lot? that’s ~1% of the 5.5 million protein sequences in swissprot(http://www.ebi.ac.uk/swissprot/sptr_stats/index.html) and < ~0.00007% of earth’s proteins, (5E6 organisms, 5K genes/genome, low-end estimate.) …AQRTEVYTYRRS… Must do for new pharmaceutical target protein sequence protein structure (homology, ab-initio folding…) Structure-based drug discovery = “Post genomics challenge”: structural biology, functional genomics, chemical biology…

  11. Structure-based approaches Structure modeling If no available experimental structure – work on that , and in the meantime: Homology modeling: use structure of close (sequence-wise) proteins to build, by analogy, a new protein.

  12. R1 R2 R4 R3 more exploratory more focused Structure-based approaches Compound selection • Databases of compounds • - vendors • - literature • corporate/laboratory • virtual compounds • A priori anything, but we can be smarter than that Library designed against protein target, - based on hits from previous database screening Millions of cmpds’ structures are available from public databases. Major NIH effort to fund & develop libraries: http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/molecularlibraries/ http://blaster.docking.org/zinc/

  13. outside inside deleted Structure-based approaches Binding Site Locate cavities in a protein When site is not known, eraser/flooding techniques binding site (3D) Or…make your life easier and build the site around a co-crystallized ligand If available…

  14. Structure-based approaches docking save Most time-consuming part (by far) YES NO OK BETTER HIGH-THROUGHPUT OR LOW-THROUGHPUT ? fast (initial) accurate (on best cmpds from initial) Choices based on the desired throughput from 10 seconds to 10 minutes / compound 650,000 cmpds library, on 10 processors: from 3 days to 6 months

  15. Structure-based approaches scoring LIGAND PROTEIN Scoring functions. Quantify the energy of protein/ligand interactions such as: hydrogen bond electrostatics van der Waals hydrophobic p/p etc … Several scoring functions exist, more/less specialized, fast etc…

  16. scoring functions: • Force-field based: (CHARMM, AMBER etc). MMFF: very popular one because of “modular parametrisation”: easy to derive parameters from functional groups, well adapted to organic molecules. • Physically ‘accurate’ but slow, parametrisation issues. • Empirical – count the number of interactions and assign a score based on the # of occurrences. E.g. : • H-bonds, ionic interactions (easy because very directional and well quantified) • Hydrophobic interactions (more difficult to assess and quantify) • Number of rotatable bonds frozen (link to entropic cost of binding, quite difficult to estimate) • Knowledge-based – observe known protein/ligand structures, and favor interactions and geometries that are seen often. Idea: directly link to free energy because “real life” distribution (potential of mean force). • But: based on small # of entries. • Intense competition “my scoring function is better than yours” Future: force-field based / even QM-based Different approaches depending on size

  17. Structure-based approaches scoring Often: consensus scoring: choose the few molecules that are ranked consistently well among many docking function 1,000,000 molecules, 30 actives.  1000 selected, 5 actives Enrichment factor = (5/30) / (30/ 1000000) = 166 HUGE SUCCESS

  18. R1 R2 R4 R3 Structure-based approaches scoring 1,000,000 molecules, 30 actives.  1000 selected, 3 actives Enrichment factor = (3/1000) / (30/1,000,000) = 100HUGE SUCCESS Possible to start next round of iteration (or do ‘traditional’ modeling). Redock with improved accuracy (e.g QMMM) Discovery and design (hit/lead/optimisation) Biology: assay (binding/activity; in vitro / in vivo,) Chemistry: synthesis COMPUTATIONAL DOCKING: GENERATE TESTABLE IDEAS

  19. Examples (low-throughput) Works great … in most publications Reproduce know xtal structure HIV protease and inhibitor Ligand-based site Flood-based site crystal structure first round of docking (shape only) final result (after rigid-body minimizations: energetics taken into account) Venkatachalam, et al.; J. Mol. Graph. Model. 2003, 289-307

  20. Examples (low-throughput) But also… fails miserably (rarely in publications !) crystal structure final results (rigid-body minimizations) Illustrate issues with binding site’s shape (there are workarounds) Venkatachalam, et al.; J. Mol. Graph. Model. 2003, 289-307

  21. Example II): discovery of ligand/function for a new P450 Ke et al, Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics 436 (2005) 110–120

  22. high-throughput docking Get a “hit” (anything at all) Development of a database of bio and agrochemical compounds of relevance for P450 (currently ~ 14,000 structures). In-house compounds, KEGG database: (http://www.genome.jp/kegg/ligand.html), Compendium of Pesticide Common Names: (http://www.alanwood.net/pesticides/index.html). Development of CYP120A1 model from CYP107A template (23.6% identity) ~14,000 structures HT-docking (LigandFit). identify 99 compounds consistently predicted to be good binders. Confirmed: retinoic acid Ke et al.. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 2005

  23. CONCLUSIONS • In-silico combinatorial library design & structure-based screening: • fast, efficient and inexpensive tool to : • discover new possible ligands against a macromolecular target • test library design ideas • identify most promising scaffolds and R groups prior to synthesis HT-DOCKING SUCCESS IF: i) FIND A FEW MOLECULES OF INTEREST ii) MUCH QUICKER AND CHEAPER THAN “real” screening

  24. Comparison model / crystal structure residues within 4 Å of heme Green/blue: model, red/orange:crystal

  25. Comparison model / crystal structure Residues around the ligand’s b-ionone ring are very close in both structures (phe182 & Trp76 same pharmacophore) Green/blue: model, red/orange:crystal

  26. De novo design Fragment-based “inside-out” approach Put functional groups in binding site (docking or manually, or combination) Link these groups (docking or manual, or combination): *must* be able to synthesize it – no molecular monsters ii)keep low energy groups link with scaffolds iii) correct binding site, but ≠ too; “lead hopping” i)dock functional groups Caflish, Miranker, Karplus J .Med.Chem. 36, 2142-2167 (1993) Eisen, Wiley, Karplus, Hubbard Proteins Structure, Function and Genetics 19, 199-221 (1994).

More Related