Two more papers have emerged from GSK using their DNA-encoded library platform. I'm always interested to see how this might be working out. One paper is on compounds for the tuberculosis target InhA, and the other is aimed at a lymphocyte protein-protein target, LFA-1. (I've written about this sort of thing previously here, here, and here).
Both of these have some interesting points - I'll cover the LFA-1 work in another post, though. InhA, for its part, is the target of the well-known tuberculosis drug isoniazid, and it has had (as you'd imagine) a good amount of attention over the years, especially since it's not the cleanest drug in the world (although it sure beats having tuberculosis). It's known to be a prodrug for the real active species, and there are also some nasty resistant strains out there, so there's certainly room for something better.
In this case, the GSK group apparently screened several of their DNA-encoded libraries against the target, but the paper only details what happened with one of them, the aminoproline scaffold shown. That would seem to be a pretty reasonable core, but it was one of 22 diamino acids in the library. R1 was 855 different reactants (amide formation, reductive amination, sulfonamides, ureas), and R2 was 857 of the same sorts of things, giving you, theoretically, a library of over 16 million compounds. (If you totaled up the number across the other DNA-encoded libraries, I wonder how many compounds this target saw in total?) Synthesizing a series of hits from this group off the DNA bar codes seems to have worked well, with one compound hitting in the tens of nanomolar range. (The success rate of this step is one of the things that those of us who haven't tried this technique are very interested in hearing about).
They even pulled out an InhA crystal structure with the compound shown, which really makes this one sound like a poster-child example of the whole technique (and might well be why we're reading about it in J. Med. Chem.) The main thing not to like about the structure is that it has three amides in it, but this is why one runs PK experiments, to see if having three amides is going to be a problem or not. A look at metabolic stability showed that it probably wasn't a bad starting point. Modifying those three regions gave them a glycine methyl ester at P1, which had better potency in both enzyme and cell assays. When you read through the paper, though, it appears that the team eventually had cause to regret having pursued it. A methyl ester is always under suspicion, and in this case it was justified: it wasn't stable under real-world conditions, and every attempt to modify it led to unacceptable losses in activity. It looks like they spent quite a bit of time trying to hang on to it, only to have to give up on it anyway.
In the end, the aminoproline in the middle was still intact (messing with it turned out to be a bad idea). The benzofuran was still there (nothing else was better). The pyrazole had extended from an N-methyl to an N-ethyl (nothing else was better there, either), and the P1 group was now a plain primary amide. A lot of med-chem programs work out like that - you go all around the barn and through the woods, emerging covered with mud and thorns only to find your best compound about fifteen feet away from where you started.
That compound, 65 in the paper, showed clean preliminary tox, along with good PK, potency, and selectivity. In vitro against the bacteria, it worked about as well as the fluoroquinolone moxifloxacin, which is a good level to hit. Unfortunately, when it was tried out in an actual mouse TB infection model, it did basically nothing at all. This, no doubt, is another reason that we're reading about this in J. Med. Chem.. When you read a paper from an industrial group in that journal, you're either visiting a museum or a mausoleum.
That final assay must have been a nasty moment for everyone, and you get the impression that there's still not an explanation for this major disconnect. It's hard to say if they saw it coming - had other compounds been in before, or did the team just save this assay for last and cross their fingers? But either way, the result isn't the fault of the DNA-encoded assay that provided the starting series - that, in this case, seems to have worked exactly as it was supposed to, and up to the infectious animal model study, everything looked pretty good.