Category → Infectious Diseases
We’re almost at the end of National Chemistry week, folks, and the Haystack is finally kicking in to blogger SeeArrOh’s now rampant #ChemCoach carnival. The goal of any carnival is to get a lot of different bloggers to post on the same topic–in this case, to write about how they got to where they are today as a way of educating young chemists on their career options. Round-ups of the dozens of posts this week can be found here, here, and here. Since the science writing field has been well covered here and by our own Carmen Drahl, and because the Haystack is focused on all things pharma, I thought I’d enlist the help of someone with a much more illustrious career than my own. Without further ado, I give you some words of career wisdom from TB Alliance‘s chemistry guru Christopher Cooper:
What you do in a standard “work day.”
What kind of schooling / training / experience helped you get there?
How does chemistry inform your work?
Finally, a unique, interesting, or funny anecdote about your career*
“Picking a fight without Darwin is like going to the moon without Newton,” Read added. “We are in the dark ages when it comes to evolutionary management.”
Read, director of Penn State University’s Center for Infectious Disease Dynamics, sat down with me on Thursday and shared a few principles he thinks the scientific community should keep in mind in order to keep antibiotic resistance in check. Here are his five tips for would-be superbug slayers. Continue reading →
Virulent bacteria are growing increasingly resilient against our best antibiotics. Each day seems to bring a new story: MRSA outbreaks, resistant salmonella, or tough-to-treat tuberculosis. Just last week, World Health Organization director-general Dr. Margaret Chan delivered an address in Copenhagen, where she cautioned: “We are losing our first-line antimicrobials . . . in terms of replacement antibiotics, the pipeline is virtually dry. The cupboard is nearly bare.” (Click here for The Haystack’s past coverage of the development of new antibacterials).
Why have our drugs stopped working?
Recent research from St. Jude’s (Science, 2012, 1110) attempted to answer that question. Using X-ray crystallography, a technique used to see structures at the atomic level, the researchers were able to capture a critical moment when a drug binds to DHPS, its bacterial enzyme target. The scientists could then predict how bacteria evolve to dodge further biocidal bullets.
The antibacterial medicines caught in the act by the St. Jude’s researchers are the sulfa drugs (see right), former front-line treatments many doctors push to the bottom of treatment regimens, due to increasingly resistant bacterial strains. Researchers knew resistance had something to do with the drugs’ mechanism of action; sulfa drugs mimic the binding of PABA – para-aminobenzoic acid, a compound found in many sunscreens (Chemical Note: PABA occurs naturally as bacterial vitamin H1, and can also be found in yeast and plants. Chemists often borrow naturally-occurring compounds for industrial uses; two prominent examples are vanillin and Vitamin C).
Disruption of this PABA binding shuts down bacterial DNA replication, stopping reproduction. Before now, however, no one had succeeded in growing crystals of the active site that actually showed the drugs interacting with the enzymatic intermediate.
Let’s take one more step back: how does PABA attach itself? The enzyme we’re discussing, DHPS, catalyzes bond formation between PABA and intermediates known as pterins (see picture, left). Earlier researchers believed that this molecular hook-up operated by an SN2 mechanism, a reaction where the PABA kicks out a small piece of the pterin to form a new C-N bond. We chemists would say that SN2 means concerted bond formation, meaning that PABA would bind at the same time as the leaving group (OPPi), well, leaves.
Turns out that picture’s not quite right: it’s more SN1-like, which means that the pterin first forms a positively-charged, enzyme-stabilized species! As you can imagine, this is no small feat, since the reaction works at physiological pH, in water, which could hydrate the intermediate (but doesn’t). Nope – instead, this charged molecule sits around waiting for a PABA – or a sulfa drug – to bind to it. When PABA binds, the complex exits the enzyme, but when the drug binds, it locks up the active site.
So how do these models help us to understand resistance?
The group noticed something odd: sulfathiazole (STZ) and sulfamethoxazole (SMX), two standard sulfas, both bound in the normal PABA cavity of DHPS. Unlike PABA, however, they hang their heterocyclic rings “outside” the normal pocket. The researchers built upon earlier observations by another group (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 2010, 20986), speculating that the resistance might not have to do with the active site at all: it’s the external region, where the heterocycle bumps into the protein. To cheat death, all the bacterium needs to do is mutate an amino acid from this “outside” region (nearby proline and phenylalanine residues, see picture), which shuts down drug binding.
Could we design better drugs based on this model? Sure, we could synthesize a complimentary heterocycle, one that binds to the “outside” of mutant
enzymes (more polar for certain mutations, less for others). Another option? Cut the drug down to size: sulfonilamide, the grandfather of the sulfa drugs, should fit almost as snugly in the cavity as PABA, which might function perfectly against resistant bugs.
Medicinal chemists strive to optimize molecules that fit snugly into their proposed targets. But in the quest for potency, we often overlook the local physics that govern drugs’ binding to these receptors. What if we could rationally predict which drugs bind well to their targets?
A new review, currently out on J. Med. Chem. ASAP, lays out all the computational backing behind this venture. Three computational chemists (David Huggins, Woody Sherman, and Bruce Tidor) break down five binding events from the point-of-view of the drug target: Shape Complementarity, Electrostatics, Protein Flexibility, Explicit Water Displacement, and Allosteric Modulation….whew!
Note: Before we dive into this article, let’s clarify a few terms computational drug-hunters use that bench chemists think of differently: ‘decoy’ – a test receptor used to perform virtual screens; ‘ligand’ – the drug docking into the protein; ‘affinity / selectivity’ – a balance of characteristics, or how tightly something binds vs. which proteins it binds to; ‘allosteric’ – binding of a drug molecule to a different site on an enzyme than the normal active site. Regular readers and fans of compu-centric chem blogs such as The Curious Wavefunction and Practical Fragments will feel right at home!
We’ll start at the top. Shape complementarity modeling uses small differences in a binding pocket, such as a methylene spacer in a residue (say, from a Val to Ile swap) to dial-in tighter binding between a target and its decoy. The authors point out that selectivity can often be enhanced by considering a drug that’s literally too big to fit into a related enzymatic cavity. They provide several other examples with a ROCK-1 or MAP kinase flavor, and consider software packages designed to dock drugs into the “biologically active” conformation of the protein.
Electrostatic considerations use polar surface maps, the “reds” and “blues” of a receptor’s electronic distribution, to show how
molecular contacts can help binding to overcome the desolvation penalty (the energy cost involved in moving water out and the drug molecule in). An extension of this basic tactic, charge optimization screening, can be used to test whole panels of drugs against dummy receptors to determine how mutations might influence drug binding.
Because target proteins move and shift constantly, protein flexibility, the ability of the protein to adapt to a binding event, is another factor worth considering. The authors point out that many kinases possess a “DFG loop” region that can shift and move to reveal a deeper binding cavity in the kinase, which can help when designing binders (for a collection of several receptors with notoriously shifty binding pockets – sialidase, MMPs, cholinesterase – see p. 534 of Teague’s NRDD review).
But these shifting proteins also swim in a sea of water and other cytoplasmic goodies. This means that drug designers, whether they like it or not, must account for explicit water molecules. The authors even suggest a sort of “on-off” switch for including the bound water molecules, but contend that more efforts should be directed to accurate modeling of water in these protein settings.
Finally, the authors weigh the effects of allosteric binding, the potential for a modeled molecule to be highly selective for a site apart from where the protein binds its native ligand. The authors consider the case of a PTP1B ligand that binds 20Å away from the normal active site, at the previously mentioned “DFG loop.” Since this binding hadn’t been seen for related phosphatases, it could then be used to control selectivity for PTP1B.
In each section, the authors provide examples of modeling studies that led to the design of a molecule. Two target classes recur often throughout the review: HIV protease inhibitors (saquinavir, lopinavir, darunavir) and COX-2 inhibitors (celecoxib), which have all been extensively modeled.
Two higher-level modeling problems are also introduced: the substrate-envelope hypothesis, which deals with rapidly mutating targets, and tailoring molecules to take rides in and out of the cell using influx and efflux pumps in the membrane. Since different cell types overexpress certain receptors, we can use this feature to our advantage. This strategy has been especially successful in the development of several cancer and CNS drugs.
Overall, the review feels quite thorough, though I suspect regular Haystack readers may experience the same learning curve I did when adapting to the field-specific language that permeates each section. Since pictures are worth a thousand words, I found that glancing through the docking graphics that accompany each section helped me gain a crucial foothold into the text.
Well, 2011 is in the books, and we here at The Haystack felt nostalgic for all the great chemistry coverage over this past year, both here and farther afield. Let’s hit the high points:
1. HCV Takes Off – New treatments for Hepatitis C have really gained momentum. An amazing race has broken out to bring orally available, non-interferon therapies to market. In October, we saw Roche acquire Anadys for setrobuvir, and then watched Pharmasset’s success with PSI-7977 prompt Gilead’s $11 billion November buyout. And both these deals came hot on the heels of Merck and Vertex each garnering FDA approval for Victrelis and Incivek, respectively, late last spring.
2. Employment Outlook: Mixed – The Haystack brought bad employment tidings a few times in 2011, as Lisa reported. The “patent cliff” faced by blockbuster drugs, combined with relatively sparse pharma pipelines, had companies tightening their belts more than normal. Traffic also increased for Chemjobber Daily Pump Trap updates, which cover current job openings for chemists of all stripes. The highlight, though, might be his Layoff Project. He collects oral histories from those who’ve lost their jobs over the past few years due to the pervasive recession and (slowly) recovering US economy.. The result is a touching, direct, and sometimes painful collection of stories from scientists trying to reconstruct their careers, enduring salary cuts, moves, and emotional battles just to get back to work.
3. For Cancer, Targeted Therapies – It’s also been quite a year for targeted cancer drugs. A small subset of myeloma patients (those with a rare mutation) gained hope from vemurafenib approval. This molecule, developed initially by Plexxikon and later by Roche / Daiichi Sankyo, represents the first success of fragment-based lead discovery, where a chunk of the core structure is built up into a drug with help from computer screening.From Ariad’s promising ponatinib P2 data for chronic myeloid leukemia, to Novartis’s Afinitor working in combination with aromasin to combat resistant breast cancer. Lisa became ‘xcited for Xalkori, a protein-driven lung cancer therapeutic from Pfizer. Researchers at Stanford Medical School used GLUT1 inhibitors to starve renal carcinomas of precious glucose, Genentech pushed ahead MEK-P31K inhibitor combinations for resistant tumors, and Incyte’s new drug Jakifi (ruxolitinib), a Janus kinase inhibitor, gave hope to those suffering from the rare blood cancer myelofibrosis.
4. Sirtuins, and “Stuff I Won’t Work With – Over at In the Pipeline, Derek continued to chase high-profile pharma stories. We wanted to especially mention his Sirtris / GSK coverage (we had touched on this issue in Dec 2010). He kept up with the “sirtuin saga” throughout 2011, from trouble with duplicating life extension in model organisms to the Science wrap-up at years’ end. Derek also left us with a tantalizing tidbit for 2012 – the long-awaited “Things I Won’t Work With” book may finally be coming out!
5. Active Antibacterial Development – In the middle of 2011, several high-profile and deadly bacterial infections (Germany, Colorado, among others) shined a spotlight on those companies developing novel antibacterials. We explored front -line antibiotics for nasty Gram-negative E.coli, saw FDA approval for Optimer’s new drug Fidiclir (fidaxomicin) show promise against C. difficile and watched Anacor’s boron-based therapeutics advance into clinical testing for acne, and a multi-year BARDA grant awarded to GSK and Anacor to develop antibacterials against bioterrorism microorganisms like Y. pestis.
6. Obesity, Diabetes, and IBS – Drugs for metabolic disorders have been well-represented in Haystack coverage since 2010. Both Carmen and See Arr Oh explored the vagaries of Zafgen’s ZGN-433 structure, as the Contrave failure threatened to sink obesity drug development around the industry. Diabetes drugs tackled some novel mechanisms and moved a lot of therapies forward, such as Pfizer’s SGLT2 inhibitors, and Takeda’s pancreatic GPCR agonist. Ironwood and Forest, meanwhile, scored an NDA for their macrocyclic peptide drug, linaclotide.
7. The Medicine Show: Pharma’s Creativity Conundrum – In this piece from October, after Steve Jobs’ passing, Forbes columnist Matt Herper both eulogizes Jobs and confronts a real ideological break between computer designers and drug developers. His emphasis? In biology and medical fields, “magical thinking” does not always fix situations as it might in computer development.
We hope you’ve enjoyed wading through the dense forest of drug development with Carmen, Aaron, Lisa, and See Arr Oh this past year. We here at The Haystack wish you a prosperous and healthy 2012, and we invite you to come back for more posts in the New Year!
It’s been a busy six months for new Hepatitis C (HCV) meds: first, Merck and Vertex have their drugs approved in May, and then Pharmasset leaks PSI-7977 clinical data. Now, Anadys Pharmaceuticals has just announced Phase IIb results for its clinical candidate setrobuvir (ANA-598). The pill lowered virus levels to undetectable limits in 78% of patients after 12 weeks of combination treatment with either ribavirin or pegylated interferon. Anadys notes only one major side effect, a rash occurring in 1/3 of the ‘598-treated patients. The therapy targets patients in tough-to-treat HCV genotype 1 (gen1), unlike PSI-7977, which targets gen2 and gen3.
The data seems to have convinced Roche, which acquired Anadys last Monday in all-cash deal analysts say represented a 260% premium over Anadys’s Friday stock closing price. Roche, no stranger to the HCV battle, hopes to integrate setrobuvir into a potential oral drug cocktail with its current suite of polymerase and protease inhibitors.
Setrobuvir interacts with N5SB polymerase at the allosteric “palm” binding site, located in the center of the baseball-mitt shaped enzyme. The drug’s sulfur-nitrogen heterocycle – a benzothiadiazine – is the key to virus inhibition; Anadys has installed the motif in all their HCV inhibitors, going back to their 2005 patents.
Chemists have known about the virus-targeting properties of this heterocycle for a while, but most derivatives have been culled in pre-clinical testing (see J. Antimicrob. Chemoth. 2004, 54, 14-16 for a brief review). Interestingly, chemists initially prepared benzodiathiazines, such as those in Merck’s chlorothiazide (c. 1957, according to the Merck Index), as diuretics, which found use in diabetic treatment. Over the next 40 years, modified medicines treated conditions ranging from epilepsy and cognitive therapy to hypertension and transcriptase regulation. Tweaked benzodiathiazines first showed anti-HIV and anti-CMV activity in the mid-1990s.
One final advantageous wrinkle in this structure: unlike PSI-7977, setrobuvir is not nucleoside-derived. This feature changes its binding behavior, pharmacokinetics, and even its intellectual property strategies, since many current antiviral therapies mimic the nucleosides found in RNA and DNA chains.
An announcement hinting at the possibility of an all-oral hepatitis C treatment had researchers abuzz last week. Pharmasset, a Princeton, NJ company specializing in antiviral discovery, alluded to upcoming conference data that suggested a combination of ribavirin (a generic antiviral) and Pharmasset’s experimental pill PSI-7977 lowered viral counts to near-undetectable levels in a ten-patient trial (kudos to Adam Feuerstein of The Street for initial reports. . . here at The Haystack, editor Lisa Jarvis has also tracked HCV drug development for some time now).
Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a chronic liver virus with an estimated 180 million infected worldwide. Two relatively new extermination options are available: Merck’s Victrelis (boceprevir) and Vertex’s Incivek (telaprevir), approved by the FDA ten days apart last year. Unfortunately, though both drugs are administered orally, each requires co-administration of injected interferon, which can cause severe fatigue and flu-like symptoms. Both oral drugs inhibit the same enzyme: the NS3 protease, which drags down a patient’s immunity and helps the virus to produce new copies of its proteins.
In contrast, the ribavirin and PSI-7977 combination involves no injections, making it easier for patients to follow the appropriate medication schedule, and lessening side effects. The PSI compound also clips a different target: NS5B polymerase, an RNA enzyme that helps viral genetic replication. In addition, the PSI-7977 is “pan-genotypic,” meaning it inhibits several genetically different strains of HCV.
A 2010 article (J. Med. Chem. 2010, 53, 7202) details the full story of PSI-7977’s synthesis. Notice anything interesting? It’s really a nucleotide strapped on to a P-chiral prodrug, a “protected” substance the body later converts to the active drug species. This P-chiral motif is seen more often in asymmetric phosphine ligands (compounds that stick to metal catalysts during reactions to modify catalyst activity) than in drug development – often chemists install drug chirality at carbon or sulfur instead. The initial drug lead was actually a mixture of both phosphorus enantiomers (“Sp” and “Rp”), until process chemists realized they could selectively crystallize out the more potent “Sp” product.
In the meantime, Pharmasset scientists haven’t stopped pushing their HCV portfolio forward: a recent paper (J. Org. Chem., 2011, 76, 3782) details a new lead: PSI-352938, a cyclic phosphate prodrug attached to a purine-fluororibose nucleotide warhead. The team credits this new prodrug design with a 10-100-fold increase in potency over the “naked” adenine drug for NS5B RNA polymerase inhibition. PSI-352938 recently completed a multiple ascending dose Phase I trial, in which a daily 200 mg dose brought HCV titres down below the detection limit in 5 of 8 patients.
GlaxoSmithKline recently announced a contract with the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), a US government preparedness organization (Note: it’s not often pharma-relevant press releases come from the Public Health Emergency website!). The award guarantees GSK $38.5 million over 2 years towards development of GSK2251052, a molecule co-developed with Anacor Pharma a few years back, as a counter-bioterrorism agent. The full funding amount may later increase to $94 million, pending BARDA’s future option.
The goal here is to develop “GSK ‘052”, as it’s nicknamed among med-chemists, into a new antibiotic against especially vicious and virulent Gram negative bacteria, such as the classic foes plague (Yersinia pestis) or anthrax (Bacillus anthracis).
So what’s so special about this molecule? Usually, med-chemists “color” with the same atomic “crayons”: some carbon, sulfur, nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen, with a few halogens or transition metals every now and then (luckily, the golden age of mercury and arsenic therapies has largely passed on!). But seeing boron ensconced in a lead molecule rings alarm bells . . . you don’t usually see boron in pharmaceutical scaffolds!
Look closely at GSK’052 (shown above): that’s a boron heterocycle there! Anacor, a company specializing in boron based lead compounds, first partnered with GSK in 2007 to develop novel benzoxaborole scaffolds. This isn’t the first company to try the boron approach to target proteins; Myogenics (which, after several acquisitions, became Millennium Pharma) first synthesized bortezomib, a boronic acid peptide, in 1995.
Stephen Benkovic (a former Anacor scientific board member) and coworkers at Penn State first discovered Anacor’s early boron lead molecules in 2001, with a screening assay. The molecules bust bacteria by inhibiting leucyl-tRNA synthetase, an enzyme that helps bacterial cells to correctly tag tRNA with the amino acid leucine. Compounds with cyclic boronic acids “stick” to one end of the tRNA, rendering the tRNA unable to cycle through the enzyme’s editing domain. As a result, mislabeled tRNAs pile up, eventually killing the bacterial cell.
Inhibition of synthetase function turns out to be a useful mechanism to conquer all sorts of diseases. Similar benzoxaborozoles to GSK ‘052 show activity against sleeping sickness (see Trypanosoma post by fellow Haystack contributor Aaron Rowe), malaria, and various fungi.
Above: Triatoma sanguisuga, a bug that carries Chagas disease. Photo by Jim Gathany / Arizona Department of Health Services
Late last week, a group of researchers from the University of Ibadan in Nigeria published a paper (Parasitology Res., DOI: 10.1007/s00436-011-2516-z) on several herbal extracts that can kill the parasites that cause sleeping sickness. Unfortunately, important projects like that are few and far between.
I’m almost done writing an article about drugs in development to treat sleeping sickness and Chagas disease, a pair of illnesses caused by a class of protozoans called trypanosomes. My story explains that the current treatments take several weeks, and the drugs have a wide variety of side effects ranging from rashes and headaches to neurological damage and death.
One of my sources seemed to be overly confident that better treatments for these diseases are just around the corner based on the early performance of several compounds that are in clinical trials. I’m not convinced. Not long ago, a compound codenamed DB-289 entered Phase III trials for sleeping sickness. Everything seemed to be going well. And then, suddenly, the trial was halted due to safety concerns.
A handful of promising new drugs are making their way through clinical trials, and a few academic labs are looking for new compounds that can kill trypanosomes. Here is a roundup of some of those substances:
A recent improvement upon the series of phthalazines developed by Manuel Sanchez-Moreno, Fernando Gomez-Contreras, and their colleagues in Granada, Spain.
Very early stage, Chagas disease
Identified by an academic library screening project, this compound inhibits N-myristoyltransferase in the trypanosomes that cause sleeping sickness.
Preclinical, sleeping sickness
An oxaborole similar to the ones developed by Anacor pharmaceuticals, a company that is testing boron-based drugs for a wide variety of antimicrobial applications.
Late stage preclinical, sleeping sickness.
An inhibitor of the protease Cruzain, developed at UCSF, it may enter human trials within a year.
Late stage preclinical, Chagas disease
Already on the market as an antifungal drug, it kills T. cruzi in vitro tests.
Developed by Hoechst and shelved, DNDi resurrected this broad-spectrum agent.
Phase I, sleeping sickness.
Eisai developed this azole prodrug as an antifungal agent. It is formulated as a monolysine salt.
Phase II, Chagas disease
Proved effective, but trials were halted after participants showed signs of liver toxicity and renal insufficiency.
Phase III, sleeping sickness
Sleeping Sickness Drug Targets
Pteridine Reductase, N-myristoyltransferase, Trypanosome alternative oxidase, BILBO1, glycosylphosphatidylinositol membrane anchors
Chagas Disease Drug Targets
Lanosterol 14α-Demethylase, Superoxide Dismutase, cytochrome P450 sterol 14-demethylase, Cruzain
Here are some great sources of further information.
All about diagnostics for Human African Trypanosomiasis, or Sleeping Sickness, by the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics. Link
The rapid strip test for Chagas disease, developed by PATH. PDF Link
Here is an absolutely fantastic video of Professor Jim Mckerrow talking about Chagas disease. Link
And here’s a video of Mckerrow talking about sleeping sickness. Link
The eflornithine story. Link
Here’s my short list of what seems to be needed to beat these diseases.
A noninvasive test that can tell whether someone has stage 2 sleeping sickness, meaning that the parasites have crossed the blood-brain barrier.
Rapid tests that can tell whether Chagas disease or sleeping sickness have been cured, are getting better, or are getting worse.
Rapid tests for Chagas and sleeping sickness that use antibodies as recognition elements.
More safe, oral treatments for both diseases.
Do you have something to add? Please tell me about it. I’ll be updating this post every so often.
Aaron Rowe is this year’s C&EN Intern.
Guest blogger SeeArrOh comments on the limited chemical weapons available to treat E.coli and its Gram-negative brethren. SeeArrOh is a Ph.D. chemist working in industry.
Yesterday’s post at In the Pipeline asking what kind of translational research should be done garnered some remarks about the importance of developing antibiotics for Gram-negative bacteria. It’s a timely appeal, because this May an especially virulent strain of the Gram-negative microbe E. coli, named O104:H4, was discovered in Germany. As reported by the Robert Koch Institute, the German equivalent of the CDC, the outbreak has (to date) killed 35 people and sickened more than 3,200. This deadly strain produces Shiga toxins, which target the kidneys, causing hemolytic-uremic syndrome, a disease characterized by red blood cell death, low platelets, anemia, and kidney failure.
These outbreaks are not uncommon, as bacteria constantly evolve and adapt. So, when a superbug strikes, why don’t we have anything better to fight it with? Continue reading →