Skip to content
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

Open
spadavec opened this issue Feb 14, 2017 · 10 comments
Open

Compound Enumeration and Ideation for Series 4 #486

spadavec opened this issue Feb 14, 2017 · 10 comments

Comments

@spadavec
Copy link

spadavec commented Feb 14, 2017

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:

endcompounds

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.

@mattodd
Copy link
Member

mattodd commented Feb 14, 2017

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?

@MFernflower
Copy link
Contributor

MFernflower commented Feb 14, 2017

@spadavec @mattodd I would also like a PAINS filter... That peroxy-epoxy compound and that quinone are borderline rocketfuel!

I really do like a few of these hops however! The triethylsilane replacing the phenyl OCHF2 seems like a neat idea for example!

@spadavec
Copy link
Author

spadavec commented Feb 14, 2017

@mattodd in this dataset, I'd say there are only 4 compounds which aren't fragment-like and have cLogP < 3:
marvinjs-output

marvinjs-output 1

marvinjs-output 2

marvinjs-output 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

image

@MFernflower
Copy link
Contributor

MFernflower commented Feb 14, 2017

@spadavec MMV669304 would be interesting as there is no oxygen linker

See issue #400 for some other seed ideas!

@spadavec
Copy link
Author

spadavec commented Feb 15, 2017

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
275 < molwt < 500
# hbond accp < 10
# hbond donor < 5

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

endcompounds

@MFernflower
Copy link
Contributor

@spadavec @edwintse I picked out three that I think might be viable from the zip posted 9 hours ago:
matchedpair

@spadavec
Copy link
Author

spadavec commented Feb 18, 2017

Continuing from issue #488 : @MFernflower

image

Given the accuracy of the model, these are equipotent and only END7 and END7-MOD3 are more potent

@mattodd
Copy link
Member

mattodd commented Feb 28, 2017

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).

@spadavec
Copy link
Author

spadavec commented Feb 28, 2017

@mattodd I've attached the results for the Norcross compounds here
and the Google sheet 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

@mattodd
Copy link
Member

mattodd commented Feb 28, 2017

Great - thanks. Will incorporate this when we re-invigorate approaches to the Norcross compounds which have stalled recently.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants