• N&PD Moderators: Skorpio | thegreenhand

Ketamine salts solubility

Status
Not open for further replies.
4-chloropiperidine + in XSS sodium or potassium phenoxide

or

4-bromopiperidine + in XSS sodium or potassium phenoxide

or

4-iodopiperidine + in XSS sodium or potassium phenoxide

Plus suitable solvent, such as THF. Iodo/K+ route A+.
 
Last edited:
1-methyl-3-(2-hydroxy-6-cyclopropyloxy-4-pentylthiophenyl)cyclohexene.png


QUICHE LORRAINE HANSBERRY
1-methyl-3-(2-hydroxy-6-cyclopropyloxy-4-pentylthiophenyl)cyclohexene

  1-methyl-4-(1,4-dioxo-5-hydroxynaphthalene-7-yl)piperazine.png


JUGLONEOXACIN
1-methyl-4-(1,4-dioxo-5-hydroxynaphthalene-7-yl)piperazine

Antibiotic derived from Black Walnut extract

   1-(1,4-dioxo-5-hydroxynaphthalene-7-yl)-2-aminopropane.png


JUGLONEACILLIN
1-(1,4-dioxo-5-hydroxynaphthalene-7-yl)-2-aminopropane

Possible isopropylamino antiobiotic.

   Sodium 2-(1,4-dioxo-5-hydroxynaphthalene-7-yl)-(2-methylethanoate).png


JUGLONE NSAID
sodium 2-(1,4-dioxo-5-hydroxynaphthalene-7-yl)-(2-methylethanoate)

Purported Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Antibiotic

1-dimethylamino-3-(1,4-dioxo-5-hydroxynaphthalene-7-yl)propane.png


DIMETHYLAMINOPROPYLJUGLONE
1-dimethylamino-3-(1,4-dioxo-5-hydroxynaphthalene-7-yl)propane
 
Last edited:
  N,N-diethyl-2-oxo-pyrrolidine-acetamide.png


N,N-DIETHYL-PIRACETAM
N,N-diethyl-2-oxo-pyrrolidine-acetamide

nootropic (smart drug)

1-phenyl-2-diethylaminopropane.png


DEA (DiEthylAmphetamine)
1-phenyl-2-diethylaminopropane

stimulant

1-(3,4-methylenedioxyphenyl)-2-diethylaminopropane.png


MDDEA (MethyleneDioxyDiEthylAmphetamine)
1-(3,4-methylenedioxyphenyl)-2-diethylaminopropane

entactogen

Not to be confused with MDE(A) ['Eve'].

4,5-epoxy-14-carbomethoxy-3-acetoxy-17-ethylmorphinan-6-one.png


SUPER SMACK
4,5-epoxy-14-carbomethoxy-3-acetoxy-17-ethylmorphinan-6-one

  14-methyl-17-methylmorphinan.png


EMINEM
14-methyl-17-methylmorphinan

potent opioid, possibly speedy
 
Last edited:
N,N-diethyl-4-phenyl-2-oxopyrrolidinylacetamide.png


NOOSTACKER
N,N-diethyl-4-phenyl-2-oxopyrrolidinylacetamide

 N,N-diethyl-4-(3,4-methylenedioxyphenyl)-2-oxopyrrolidinylacetamide.png


HIGH ROLLER
N,N-diethyl-4-(3,4-methylenedioxyphenyl)-2-oxopyrrolidinylacetamide

Work Smarter, Not Harder.

 2-oxo-4-phenylpyrrolidinylacetamide.png


PHENYLPIRACETAM
2-oxo-4-phenylpyrrolidinylacetamide
 
Last edited:

benzos were still a problem [checks watch] 32 years ago

"lorazepam is one of the worse benzos for addiction" hmm well let me tell you about Xanax
 
   1-(4-methylthiophenyl)-2-ethylaminopropane.png


MARTHA
1-(4-methylthiophenyl)-2-ethylaminopropane

Atlanta was originally named Marthasville.
 
 1-(3-methylthiophenyl)-1-(piperidine-1-yl)cyclohexane.png


BORODIN ALEXANDER SASHA SHULGIN (BASS)
1-(3-methylthiophenyl)-1-(piperidine-1-yl)cyclohexane
 
1-phenyl-1-(pyrrolidin-1-yl)methanone.png


PYRROLIBENZA
1-phenyl-1-(pyrrolidin-1-yl)methanone

1-(3,4-methylenedioxyphenyl)-1-(pyrrolidin-1-yl)methanone.png


MD-PYRROLIBENZA
1-(3,4-methylenedioxyphenyl)-1-(pyrrolidin-1-yl)methanone

 (2R,2S)-1-phenyl-1-oxo-2-(2-(3-pyridinyl)-pyrrolidinyl)pentane.png


NICO-a-PVP (ABADDON)
(2R,2S)-1-phenyl-1-oxo-2-(2-(3-pyridinyl)-pyrrolidinyl)pentane

(1S, 2S)-1-(1-methyl-2-phenylethyl)-2-(3-pyridinyl)pyrrolidine.png


NIC FIT (APOLLYON)
(1S,2S)-1-(1-methyl-2-phenylethyl)-2-(3-pyridinyl)pyrrolidine

1-(1-methyl-2-(3,4-methylenedioxyphenyl)ethyl)-2-(3-pyridinyl)pyrrolidine.png


BDOIPPP
benzodioxoleisopropylpyrrolidinylpyridine
1-(1-methyl-2-(3,4-methylenedioxyphenyl)ethyl)-2-(3-pyridinyl)pyrrolidine

Fruits Of The Spirit
Your Mileage May Vary

Not Sure How Explosive This One Would Be

  1-(trimethylsilyl)-2,4,6-trinitrobenzene.png


ALFRED E. NEUMAN
1-(trimethylsilyl)-2,4,6-trinitrobenzene
 
Last edited:
Another recent article on the same:

CNBC: Scientists make digital breakthrough in chemistry that could revolutionize the drug industry

In June, the U.S. government purchased the vast majority of world's supply of remdesivir—a FDA-approved antiviral treatment for Covid-19—for July through September. Gilead, the company that makes the compound, recently announced that it would meet international demand by the end of October. Yet all along, digital instructions for whipping up a batch of the nearly 400-atom molecule at the push of a button have been sitting on Github, an online software repository, freely available to anyone with the hardware needed to execute the chemical "program."


A dozen such chemical computers or "chemputers" sit in the University of Glasgow lab of Lee Cronin, the chemist who designed the bird's nest of tubing, pumps, and flasks, and wrote the remdesivir code that runs on it. He's spent years dreaming of a future where researchers can distribute and produce molecules as easily as they email and print PDFs, making not being able to order a drug as archaic as not being able to locate a modern text.


"If we have standard way of discovering molecules, making molecules, and then manufacturing them, suddenly nothing goes out of print," he says. "It's like an ebook reader for chemistry."


Cronin and his colleagues described their machine's capability to produce multiple molecules last year, and now they've taken a second major step toward digitizing chemistry with an accessible way to program with the machine. Their software turns academic papers into chemputer-executable programs that researchers can edit without learning to code, they announced earlier this month in Science. And they're not alone. The team represents one of dozens of groups spread across academia and industry all racing to bring chemistry into the digital age, a development that could lead to safer drugs, more efficient solar panels, and a disruptive new industry.

Robots-inventing-drugs-Quebec-Science-780x470.jpg

H/O Leroy Cronin's chemputer
A chemical computer or "chemputer" sits in the University of Glasgow lab of Leroy Cronin, the chemist who designed the bird's nest of tubing, pumps, and flasks, and wrote the remdesivir code that runs on it. He's spent years dreaming of a future where researchers can distribute and produce molecules as easily as they email and print PDFs.

Leroy Cronin,
The Cronin team hopes their work will enable what they describe as "Spotify for chemistry"— an online repository of downloadable recipes for important molecules that they say could help developing countries more easily access medications, enable more efficient international scientific collaboration, and even support the human exploration of space.

"The majority of chemistry hasn't changed from the way we've been doing it for the last 200 years. It's very manual, artisan driven process," says Nathan Collins, the chief strategy officer of SRI Biosciences, a division of SRI International, a research company developing another automated chemistry system that's not involved in the Glasgow research. "There's billions of dollars of opportunity there."

At the heart of Cronin's new work lies what he calls a chemical description language or XDL (the "X" is pronounced "kai" after the first letter in the Greek word for chemistry). XDL is to the "chemputer" as HTML is to a browser—it tells the machine what to do. The group has also created software called SynthReader that scans a chemical recipe in peer-reviewed literature — like the six-step process for cooking up remdemisvir — and uses natural language processing to pick out verbs like "add," "stir," or "heat;" modifiers like "dropwise;" and other details like durations and temperatures. The system translates those instructions into XDL, which directs the chemputer to execute mechanical actions with its heaters and test tubes.


One of the framework's strengths, according to Cronin, is that chemists can edit the chemical protocol in plain English. This feature lets researchers operate the machine with little training, and, crucially, harness their chemistry expertise to spot bugs in the code. Chemputer crashes can be serious affairs. "The human will always need to be there to make sure you don't have a dumpster on fire," he says.

The researchers tested the system, and no dumpsters burned. The group reported extracting 12 demonstration recipes from the chemical literature, such as the numbing anesthetic lidocaine, all of which the chemputer carried out at efficiencies similar to those of human chemists.

Robotic transformation of chemistry
Cronin built a company called Chemify to sell the chemisty robots and XDL package, although he's also posted free instructions online for building and programming the machine. And already the device is making inroads in the chemical world. In May of 2019, the group installed a prototype at the pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline.

"The chemputer as a concept and the work [Cronin]'s done is really quite transformational," says Kim Branson, the global head of artificial intelligence and machine learning at GSK. The company is exploring various automation technologies to help it make a wide array of chemicals more efficiently, but Cronin's work in particular, Branson says, may let GSK "teleport expertise" around the company. Once a chemist designs a promising molecular recipe, rather than writing up a report or teaching a colleague, they'll just press the share button.

Researchers say that while Chemify isn't the most sophisticated automated chemistry platform, it might be the most accessible. It's built around the traditional tools of beakers and test tubes and functions in the step-by-step "batch" paradigm that chemists have used for centuries. Cronin also intends it to be universal: compatible with any batch chemistry robot. Researchers with their own machines just need tell the software what parts they have and give it figures like how hot their heater can go.

Other groups are betting on a more dramatic break from chemistry's roots. At SRI, Collins oversees the development of a platform called AutoSyn, which uses an alternative approach called "flow" chemistry. Rather than mixing up a batch of one substance in one beaker, and then moving it to another flask, in flow chemistry reactions play out continuously. Chemicals stream together in tubing, react there, and get carried off. With more than 3,000 pathways, AutoSyn, which Collins and colleagues described in a publication in June, can recreate almost any kind of liquid based reaction.

Doing chemistry in flow requires specialized hardware and extra effort to translate chemical procedures from their batch descriptions, but that investment buys an "exquisite" control over aspects like heat transfer and mixing, Collins says. If machines like AutoSyn can automatically run hundreds of subtle variations on a published reaction, the detailed datasets they generate could highlight the best way to make a chemical.

The literature may be a good place to start, but many published experiments have flaws. Collins estimates that chemists spend 30% to 70% of their time just working out missing details in known reactions. "[A reaction] is written up by someone who sits down and bases it on their notes from something they were doing the day before, or maybe something they did six months ago," he says.

While AutoSyn and the Chemputer are both able to reproduce the majority of published reactions today, the next step will be making the machines reliable and "Apple groovy," as Cronin puts it. Collins says that AutoSyn used to need an engineer to keep it functioning for more than half of its runs, but now needs fixing less than 10% of the time. Eventually, he hopes, users will troubleshoot the system over the phone.

"This is still a very new science," he says. "It's started to explode really in the last 18 months."

One force driving that explosion has been the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). It's wrapping up a four-year program called Make-It, of which both the Chemputer and AutoSyn are alumni. The long-term goal of the program's manager, Anne Fischer, is to speed up the discovery of useful molecules, which has historically involved a lot of waiting around while chemists laboriously smithed atoms into novel configurations. "The slow step is always making and testing the molecules," she says.

But now that Make-It has helped produce robotic tools to build molecules like the Chemputer, AutoSyn, and others, she's directing a new DARPA program, Accelerated Molecular Discovery, that looks to the next stage: developing smarter software to tell the robots what molecules to make, and how to make them.

Nathan Collins, Chief Strategy officer of SRI international

"We're now trying now to harness what we've done in Make-It and expand it out so we can teach computers how to discover new molecules," she says.

The secret to doing so, many believe, is machine learning. And some machines capable of rudimentary chemical learning are well underway. Connor Coley, a chemist at MIT, is a member of a team that last year paired an automated flow chemistry system with an algorithm to direct it. The algorithm trained on databases of hundreds of thousands of reactions and was able to predict recipes for new products. "It tries to understand, based on those patterns, what kind of transformations should work for new molecules it's never seen before," Coley said.

He stresses that the system has a long way to go. Its predictions were based on similar molecules and human chemists needed to flesh out details missing from the machine-generated outline. Nevertheless, the work supported the notion that software can come up with useful recipes.

MIT is collaborating with more than a dozen chemical and pharmaceutical companies to advance its molecule-predicting algorithms, and some companies have already put the software to use. Juan Alvarez, the Assistant Vice President of computational and structural chemistry at Merck, says that Coley's machine learning algorithm is one of a variety of chemistry prediction tools that the company has made available to its internal researchers. "It's absolutely being deployed to impact our timeline today," he says.

While each group approaches automation from a different angle, they're all tackling the same problem. A near infinite diversity of possible molecules exist—some of which are surely life-saving drugs or revolutionary new materials—but precious few human beings have the specialized skillset to analyze, make, and test these compounds.

They aim to keep those rare skills from going to waste. In some ways the work of chemists still resembles the work of scribes, who once painstakingly copied and corrected the writings of others. Researchers like Cronin hope that with the chemical equivalents of the printing press, word processor, and autocorrect in hand, tomorrow's chemists will spend less time recreating, and more time composing.
 
1-(2-fluoro-4-bromo-5-methoxyphenyl)-2-aminoethane.png


CHRISTOPHER BORIS FARLEY (CBF)
1-(2-fluoro-4-bromo-5-methoxyphenyl)-2-aminoethane

Gaffy,
Yours looks interesting, but it's probably a far better opioid than a stimulant.

  1-methyl-3-carbomethoxy-4-oxopiperidine.png


SAM ADAMS
1-methyl-3-carbomethoxy-4-oxopiperidine

What Is Love?
Baby, Don't Nuke Me.
Don't Nuke Me, No More!
 
Last edited:
5-(2-methylaminopropyl)-1,3-diazinane-2,4,6-trione.png


SECONALIC METHA AMPHETAMINE (SAM)
5-(2-methylaminopropyl)-1,3-diazinane-2,4,6-trione
 
508799_16_9_rgb_604884.jpg


Engineering a handshake for proteins

IAN LE GUILLOU 26 OCTOBER 2020

Once considered undruggable, chemists are beginning to grasp protein–protein interactions, according to Ian Le Guillou

Proteins rarely work alone. From tightly bound complexes to passing transitory contacts, interactions between proteins play a central role in the function of the cell. By one estimate, there are over 650,000 protein–protein interactions in the human body. This overwhelming array of interactions represents an almost untapped resource of targets for new therapeutic drugs.

For many decades, these interactions were considered to be ‘undruggable’. High-resolution structures of protein–protein interactions (PPIs) in the 1980s and 90s showed that the interfaces were large, flat featureless surfaces. This was entirely different from the deep pockets found in typical drug targets, such as enzymes and receptors, where small molecules can easily bind.

A typical enzyme binding to its substrate is often taught at school as being like a lock and key. To find a drug to block this interaction, we simply need a new molecule that is sufficiently ‘key-shaped’ to jam the lock. By contrast, our knowledge of PPIs made them seem more like handshakes – two flat surfaces coming together firmly. But our understanding has improved to reveal that it is more complicated than that. There is a secret handshake feel to these interactions, with each side responding to the other and hidden points of contact that are of great significance.

By mutating thousands of individual amino acids at protein–protein interfaces, biochemists found that only a small subset of residues was mostly responsible for binding. These ‘hot spots’ were much more relevant to the strength of the interaction than the size of the interaction surface. This improved understanding made PPIs more tractable as targets, and the need for new, effective drugs certainly made them attractive. However, this is still easier said than done.


“I think that protein–protein interactions give you a bit more flexibility”

While some natural products approved as drugs, such as taxanes and rapamycin, act by inhibiting PPIs, this was a result of fortune rather than design. Venetoclax, a drug for chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, became the first drug to be approved for targeting a PPI in 2016 and few have followed since.

Although PPIs may no longer be viewed as undruggable, new approaches are needed to deal with this new class of targets. Inhibiting PPIs will need different libraries, assays and perspectives. Given the variety and complexity of PPIs, a range of techniques may be needed to inhibit different targets. As new approaches are developed, many researchers are turning to PPIs to address problems and therapeutic areas that were not previously manageable with traditional small molecule inhibitors.

Selective entry requirements
Most enzymes act on multiple targets in the cell and rely on their protein binding partners to be selective. An inhibitor that blocks the enzyme’s active site would prevent its activity across all of its targets, potentially causing unintended side effects. ‘I think that PPIs give you a bit more flexibility. You can target them to block subsets of enzymes’ activities in a way that’s pretty challenging to do with traditional small molecule enzyme inhibitors,’ says Louise Walport from the Crick Institute in London, UK.

She is studying a group of proteins called arginine deiminases. These are responsible for modifying arginine amino acid residues to remove their charge, which has a knock-on effect for how the proteins behave. The arginine deiminases have a wide range of targets and PPIs may be responsible for managing this. To block these PPIs, Walport screens the arginine deiminases against a library of cyclic peptides. These are molecules of 8–14 amino acid residues in a circular chain.

“We can find low nanomolar, sometimes picomolar, binders straight out of a screen”

‘I think that PPIs is where peptides have their particular niche because they’re just that bit bigger than small molecules, so they can pick up more small interactions along these featureless surfaces than you can with a small molecule,’ she says. By their cyclic nature there is less entropic cost when they bind to the protein and it helps to make them more stable against being broken down by the body.

The RaPid system, created by Hiroaki Suga from the University of Tokyo in Japan, can generate 10¹⁴ different cyclic peptides – more than the number of stars in the universe. The advantage of this approach is that Walport has been able to find ‘low nanomolar, sometimes picomolar, binders straight out of a screen with no modification, not having done any optimisation’.

The challenge, however, is that these molecules are typically too large to enter the cell, meaning that this approach can be used only for extracellular proteins – or a lot of work is needed to adapt the inhibitor to allow it to penetrate the membrane. One notable exception to this is the natural product and immunosuppressant cyclosporine. It is a cyclic peptide of 11 amino acids, but able to enter the cell. ‘No one really understands it. We’d love to be able to make a cyclosporine. It has this kind of flipping mechanism where it can have its hydrophobic face out for a while and then it goes through the membrane and then it flips round – it’s magic,’ says Walport.

A dynamic problem
If proteins often rely on small hot spots for their interactions, however, then it raises the possibility that smaller inhibitors could do the same job, and cyclic peptides with just six amino acid residues would be able to enter the cell relatively easily. This approach, pioneered by Ali Tavassoli from the University of Southampton in the UK, means that he can screen the compound library in live cells.

One of the main advantages of this approach is to study the PPI in a natural environment, says Tavassoli. ‘With assays in vitro, the protein isn’t dynamic – it’s locked in a single state in biochemical buffer. So the hidden pockets and the dynamic nature of the protein, which is one of the core components of its being, is lost.’

“It’s completely surprising, but you can make sense of it”

Tavassoli studies transcription factors, proteins that can activate or repress genes. By using genetically modified E. coli, Tavassoli can test for compounds that block a PPI responsible for repressing a particular gene. In a life–death assay, the E. coli is placed in a solution containing antibiotics and the PPI is responsible for blocking the gene for antibiotic resistance. If the E. coli survives, then it must mean that the compound has successfully inhibited the PPI.

Through taking advantage of the natural flexibility of the proteins, even very small molecules can interrupt the large interaction surfaces in PPIs. Tavassoli has even found examples where two or three amino acids can block PPIs. One of these even had a 5000Å interaction surface – approximately 100 times larger than a dipeptide.

‘It’s completely surprising, but you can make sense of it,’ says Tavassoli. ‘The fact that we’ve got di-peptides, two amino acids, that disrupt this complex – that tells me that these things can’t be working by just getting in between the interacting proteins and disrupting them.’

He suspects that instead the compound is binding to a hidden pocket in one of the proteins that only exists as part of the dynamic transition and prevents the protein from adopting the conformation needed to form the complex.

The compound library that Tavassoli uses, known as Siclopps, generates 3.2 million different cyclic peptides. While the hits may bind a thousand times less tightly than the larger cyclic peptides from the RaPid library, Tavassoli is not too concerned by this. ‘If you want to compete with the substrate of an enzyme, you are going to have to get quite a lot of your inhibitor in there, or it’s going to have to be super-duper potent for it to be effective,’ he explains. ‘But, compare that to the amount of a given protein that’s present in the cell, which is several log-orders less. Potentially you’re going to have to get a lot less of your compound into the cell and equally it doesn’t have to be quite as potent.’

Stabilisation through chemistry
Protein–protein interactions can activate biological pathways as well as repress them, so it’s not always the case that we would want to inhibit an interaction. Luc Brunsveld from Eindhoven University in the Netherlands is using his background in supramolecular chemistry to devise new compounds that can stabilise protein–protein interactions. ‘Stabilisation of protein assemblies is much more like supramolecular thinking than inhibition. Inhibition is classical med chem where you make a molecule that binds to something. But for stabilisation, you talk about bringing multiple things together and the underlying mechanisms,’ he says.

Rather than using a large library of compounds, Brunsveld favours a more structure-based approach. Using the crystal structure of the protein complex, he is looking for opportunities to design a molecule that will stabilise the complex. ‘We want to see, if you can get two proteins together, do they form a novel composite binding pocket for small molecules? That is where the individual proteins don’t have a clear pocket but the coming together of them forms a new binding pocket,’ he says.

“Every PPI can be different; you really need to adapt to it”

This approach starts with a very small molecule, or fragment, that binds very weakly, and adapting it based on where the fragment binds. There are several techniques that Brunsveld uses to study how they bind to the protein complex, such as soaking them into crystals of the protein complex and using x-ray crystallography to see where it binds or designing the fragments so that they react with the protein in a particular site to form a covalent disulfide bond. ‘For PPI stabilisation, you can’t say there’s a general mechanism; it depends very much on the type of proteins you look at,’ he says.

One of the protein–protein interactions that Brunsveld works on is between 14-3-3, a chaperone protein, and the cystic fibrosis transmembrane ion channel. The ion channel has nine binding sites that can bind to 14-3-3.

This complicated interaction raises questions about how the different binding sites are regulated in the cell and what is the impact of binding to one site over another. For investigating this type of complex, inhibition is unlikely to be successful, says Brunsveld. ‘We see in those multi-valence complexes that inhibition is a big challenge, because as soon as you inhibit one of the nine sites then the others will take over and you will hardly lose affinity [between the two proteins]. But if you specifically stabilise one of the nine binding sites, then that one interaction really becomes dominant and you get huge shifts in the stability of the complex.’

This means that if the different binding sites are important for different processes, then stabilising one will effectively inhibit the others. This provides a very different mechanism for altering biological pathways compared to inhibition. ‘Every PPI can be different; you really need to adapt to it and understand the underlying mechanisms that are acting there,’ says Brunsveld.

Links to cancer:
Stabilising the interaction between two proteins isn’t limited to natural binding partners. Bringing any two proteins together offers a powerful tool for influencing biochemical pathways and can even provide a lateral way to inhibit a protein’s activity – by removing the protein altogether.

Proteolysis-targeting chimeric molecules – Protacs – are a class of small molecules that have two binding interfaces joined by a linker chain. One end is designed to bind to proteins known as E3 ligases, which tag proteins to mark them for destruction in the cell. If the other end of the Protac is tailored to bind to your protein of interest, the target is brought into contact with the E3 ligase, tagged and destroyed.

Protacs were first suggested 20 years ago, but better understanding of the dynamic nature of these complexes has helped researchers to design better compounds. Alessio Ciulli from the University of Dundee, UK, says that the field initially pictured these complexes being like dumbbells. ‘We thought that were these two heads and then a line in the middle, and so conceptually we didn’t think that the proteins were touching. But of course, the dumbbell is flexible – it can twist and turn. Once these proteins are brought into proximity, then they can form very tight interactions,’ he says.

“The binding pocket where the Protac binds is exquisitely conserved”

This close-knit protein–protein interaction seems counter-intuitive for two proteins that would normally have little to do with one another. However, it can be used to increase the selectivity for particular proteins. One of Ciulli’s targets is a protein called BRD4, which is very similar to two other proteins, BRD2 and BRD3, making it difficult to target specifically with small molecule inhibitors. Ciulli has developed a Protac that binds to BRD2, BRD3 and BRD4 with the same affinity, and yet the degradation process is highly selective for just BRD4.

‘The reason is that the binding pocket where the [Protac] binds is exquisitely conserved. There’s no difference between the targets. In contrast, the surface around the binding pocket is much less conserved. That’s the region that forms the new protein–protein contacts with the ligase and that’s what gives us specificity,’ says Ciulli. ‘This has provided proof of concept that this is an added advantage of Protacs: that you can discriminate across highly conserved homologues of targets in ways that you can’t do simply with inhibitors.’

Recent research has shown that BRD4 in particular is linked to aggressive forms of prostate cancer. A drug that selectively targets BRD4 but not similar proteins would potentially have fewer side-effects in patients. Just as the proteins are dynamic, so too is the linker chain in the Protac. Ciulli was able to determine the first crystal structure of a ternary Protac complex, and used this to design a cyclic version that more closely resembles the active conformation. ‘This is the first demonstration of this idea of locking the Protac in a bioactive conformation by forming a macrocycle,’ he says. ‘We saw that the compound was extremely active. Interestingly, as a result of that, we lost a lot of binary binding [between the Protac and the target protein]. Despite that, it was as potent as the uncyclised one. So it clearly demonstrated that cyclisation had done something extremely favourable in the process.’

Much like the cyclic peptides used for inhibiting protein–protein interactions, this approach allows the molecule to slip seamlessly between the two proteins, only this time acting as a glue rather than a barrier.

Targeted approaches:
Proteins can sometimes be viewed as molecular machines – thousands of molecular cogs spinning to keep the cell alive. However, they are also constantly flexing and being influenced by every other molecule around them. This changing and unpredictable nature makes traditional drug discovery enough of an arduous task. But trying to work around the complex interplay of two proteins at once? It is not hard to see why PPIs were once thought to be undruggable.

But out of this complexity comes opportunity. The approaches for targeting PPIs can provide new tools for delicately manipulating biological pathways in a way that isn’t possible with small molecule inhibitors.

“People have had to innovate and invent new things”

As our understanding of these interactions has developed, so have the approaches used to manipulate them. Often the techniques are based on ideas from traditional small molecule drug discovery but with a little twist, whether it’s putting the odds in your favour with an astronomical number of potential inhibitors, looking for the hidden sweet spot or designing a molecule based on existing knowledge.

‘I think what really attracts me is the fact that your traditional approaches just haven’t been working against these targets,’ says Tavassoli. ‘And so people have had to innovate and invent new things, which if you just thought about them you would think that they wouldn’t be suitable, and yet it has taken this sort of outside the box thinking to drive the field forward.’

Ian Le Guillou is a science writer based in Paris, France
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top