-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Compound Enumeration and Ideation for Series 4 #486
Comments
Hi @spadavec - this is excellent. MMP analysis is something OSM needs on this series. Can I immediately request a filter tweak? I'd like cLogP < 3 ideally. Are there compounds that pass that? |
@mattodd in this dataset, I'd say there are only 4 compounds which aren't fragment-like and have cLogP < 3: However, I'm sure I could generate more ideas if I were to use more compounds as seeds for the process. Are there any particular compounds I should use? Unfortunately I can't use all of series 4, as that would likely explode to hundreds of millions of compounds :) @MFernflower no problem! I think I have some SMARTS implementations of PAINS laying around and will filter out those as well. EDIT: Adding table, as the text in images came in so poorly |
I re-ran the calculations using the isoindole (MMV669848), amide/pyridine (MMV670944), and two ethers (MMV670437, MMV670947) as seed compounds, which generated 327 unique compounds which passed PAINS and had following properties: cLogP < 3 There's a bit to sift through, so I've attached a spreadsheet here: OSM_Series4_MMP.zip My filters still let through a few fragment like compounds through, but I left those in just for curiosities sake. EDIT: For the more visually inclined, here are the 29 compounds with cLogP < 2 with predicted potency values ~<1 microM |
Continuing from issue #488 : @MFernflower Given the accuracy of the model, these are equipotent and only END7 and END7-MOD3 are more potent |
Some v interesting predictions above in your set of 29, Vito, wow. @MFernflower The Mod of END196 is similar to MMV688898 (OCHF2 vs CN) which is inactive. END137 is similar to MMV672723 (OCHF2 vs CN, and Ar-Fs) which was 100 nM. END102 has not been made, I don’t think. @edwintse ? I know the model has not been validated @spadavec but I'm interested: what's the prediction for the Norcross compounds? You have an O-bridge in your set (END127). |
@mattodd I've attached the results for the Norcross compounds here Given the accuracy of the model (pEC50 +/- ~0.5), in order to stay roughly equipotent with current best-in-class, predicted pEC50 need to (at minimum) come in <~0. Given this, it looks like the best bets are N12, N11, N15, N16, and N13 |
Great - thanks. Will incorporate this when we re-invigorate approaches to the Norcross compounds which have stalled recently. |
It looks like we are still open to the idea of exploring the SAR of some compounds in series 4 (Issue 483, Issue 481), with a goal of keeping the LogP down and potency in the same ballpark. As such, I've been working on a matched molecular pairs approach (described here) that attempts to explore the chemical space around the lead compound:
MMV669844: O=C(NC1=CC=NC(C(F)(F)F)=C1)C2=CN=CC3=NN=C(C4=CC=C(OC(F)F)C=C4)N32
I was able to generate a list of compounds that have some predicted properties that might spark some ideas among those interested:
For the LogP and predicted pEC50 values, please check my lab notebook, but suffice to say they are all predicted to be LogP < 5 and pEC50 < 0. If there is significant interest, I can enumerate more compounds using other lead compounds as seed ideas.
Some of the ideas aren't so hot (e.g. END8, END34, END11, etc), but I had a rather crude filter to get down to the most decent ideas; this filter can easily be adjusted to something more reasonable by someone more knowledgeable than I.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: