Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Computational Chemistry: From Theory to Practice

3,303 views

Published on

This is the talk I gave when I interviewed for my first role at Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Published in: Education, Technology

Computational Chemistry: From Theory to Practice

  1. 1. Computational Chemistry: From Theory to Practice 6th December 2007 David C. Thompson
  2. 2. Overview An introduction to computational chemistry – Which method, where, and why? A novel 3D QM-based descriptor (perhaps?) Computational chemistry for drug design – Fragment-based de novo design
  3. 3. Some background, and some theory
  4. 4. The Problem  Motivation: Top 20 best-selling drugs in America had sales of ~ $65bn in 2005[1]  New drug development costs are in excess of $800M[2]  Roughly 10K structures are made and tested for every new drug reaching the market[3][1] The Best-Selling drugs in America, IMS health, 2006[2] The Tufts Center for the study of drug development[3] Boston Consulting Group, 2005
  5. 5. The Solution Solve the Schrödinger equation: H" = E" Ψ determines all properties of the system!
  6. 6. Unfortunately…“The underlying physical laws necessaryfor the mathematical theory of a large part ofphysics and the whole of chemistry are thuscompletely known, and the difficulty is onlythat the application of these laws leads toequations much too complicated to besoluble.” – P. A. M. Dirac (1929)
  7. 7. The Solution - DFT? The electron density, ρ, can be derived from Ψ And, it turns out that all properties of a system can be derived from ρ – ρ is a function of 3 variables – Ψ is a function of 4N variables This is great, right? – Sure, but didn’t I tell you? In getting this far, I made a functional which contains all of the “confusion”, and I don’t rightly know what it looks like. . .
  8. 8. Accuracy vs. Speed Accuracy Speed Ph.D105-6 EMM 104 EHF 102 EDFT 101 E PD1 PD2 EDFT can be improved but we need to understand the physics of how “electrons get along”: Ec=E-EHF
  9. 9. Gas phase water: An example  A DFT calculation takes ~9s  An “Exact” calculation[4] took 150h, 250Gb of memory, and 800Gb of disk[4] G. K.-L. Chan and M. Head-Gordon, J. Chem. Phys. 118, 8551 2003
  10. 10. Gas phase water: An example Water has 10 electrons The 1A4Q receptor has ~104 valence electrons A full quantum mechanical calculation is just not practical
  11. 11. The Hospital that ate my Wife. . . Information theoretic properties of a model system: Sr = " $ # (r) ln[ #(r)]dr S p = " $ % (p) ln[% (p)]dp ST = Sr + S p Doesn’t Sr look a little familiar? !
  12. 12. A novel descriptor?  Continuous form of a measure used in molecular similarity: S = "# pi ln[ pi ] i  Could we use Sr as a measure of similarity?  Moreover, could Sr be a 3D QM-based ! structural descriptor? – Literature search has shown that this has not been considered before (I think)[5][5] M. Karelson, “Quantum-chemical descriptors in QSAR”, in Computational MedicinalChemistry for Drug Discovery, P. Bultnick et al, Eds., (New York, Dekker, 2003), pp 641-667
  13. 13. A novel descriptor?  We want to make this useful – But we still have the problem of finding ρ in a timely fashion  Why don’t we approximate ρ? – We construct a pro-molecular density from a sum of fitted s-Gaussians[6] "(r) # " Mol (r) = % "$ (r) = % % c$i exp(&$i (r & R$ ) 2 ) $ $ i  Turns out that this isn’t as bad as you might think[7]! P. Constans and R. Carbó, J. Chem. Inf. Sci. 35, 1046 1995 [6] [7] J. I. Rodriguez, D. C. Thompson, and P. W. Ayers Unpublished data
  14. 14. Homebrew quantum mechanics  All of this has been done on my iMac at home  Molecular integrations performed using the Becke/Lebedev grids in PyQuante[8]  Co-opted graduate students into doing MathCad checks for me. . .[8] Python Quantum Chemistry - http://pyquante.sourceforge.net/
  15. 15. Homebrew quantum mechanics H1 Rz H2
  16. 16. Homebrew quantum mechanics Molecule Sr H2O -7.42 H2S 3.94 Benzene -27.09Cyclohexane (chair) -35.94 Perhaps Sr isn’t that discriminatory? Plan B - Sr (r) = " #(r)ln[ # (r)]
  17. 17. And that might look like. . .
  18. 18. Summary Introduced a novel, 3D, quantum mechanics based structural descriptor – Its utility, if any, will be further examined Feedback is encouraged
  19. 19. Some background, and some practice
  20. 20. Project involvement Detailed analysis of in-house high-throughput virtual screening protocol − Detailed curation of large data set of protein-ligand complexes Late-stage discovery project support − Lead optimization − Lead generation Fragment-based de novo design
  21. 21. Fragment-based de novo design: The problem at hand Search space of new molecular entities is essentially infinite – The number of chemically feasible, drug like molecules ~1060-10100 Such a large space cannot be searched exhaustively De novo design offers a broad exploration of chemical space – The range of molecules generated is only limited by the heuristics of the de novo design program
  22. 22. Ligand Efficiency High ligand efficiency area #G RT ln(IC50 ) LE = " $" N N Low ligand efficiency area !R. Carr et al., Drug Discov. Today, 10, 987 2005
  23. 23. Project requirements Exploit potential gaps in literature If possible use in-house chemical equity Modular design Efficient deployment strategy
  24. 24. De novo design: Link or Grow? LINK GROWG. Schneider et al., Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 4, 649 2005
  25. 25. CONFIRM O O- OH d A pre-prepared bridge library is searched using the atom type of the connection points, and the distance d as a search query Bridge library db Bridges that match the search query d are attached to the fragments O O- OH + N N Complete molecules are prepared for docking – enumeration of … O tautomers, isomers, and ionization states N H O O- OH Prepared molecules are docked into the target binding site
  26. 26. Bridge Libraries Bridge library derived from  Application of filters corporate database − Molecular Weight≤ 3 rot. bonds ≤ 4 rot. bonds • <200 MW − No. of rotatable bonds Lib3 Lib4 • ≤3 • ≤4 OMEGA Expansion  Conformational expansion with OMEGA Lib3E Lib4E – 4 bridge libraries • Lib3 → Lib3E • Lib4 → Lib4E
  27. 27. CONFIRM: Novelty  Bridges come from molecules within the Wyeth CORP database: – Bridges obtained “…from a given ring scaffold by removing all of the atoms, except acyclic linker atoms, between pairs of ring systems, and the anchor atoms on the ring system.” [9]  Similar to CAVEAT[10], however: – We do not use orientation of bonds, but location of atoms (vector vs. scalar) – CAVEAT searches 3D databases looking for suitable molecular frameworks to satisfy the vector pairs • We already have well defined positions of small molecule binders[9] R. Nilakantan et al., J. Chem. Inf. Mod. 46(3), 1069-1077 2006[10] G. Lauri, and P. A. Bartlett, J. Comp.-Aided. Mol. Design 8(1), 51-66 1994
  28. 28. CONFIRM: Test Sets Taken from the curated data set of protein-ligand complexes – High crystallographic resolution ≤ 2.2Å – Two well resolved fragment moieties connected via a bridge – Both fragments interact with spatially disparate regions of the protein PDB Ascension RMSD/Å Resolution/Å Code SP XP 1SRJ 1.80 1.19 0.95 1A4Q 1.90 0.27 0.29 1YDR 2.20 0.40 0.43 1FCZ 1.38 0.30 0.43
  29. 29. CONFIRM: 1SRJ example- O O OH N N Bridge 3.7Å Fragment 1 Fragment 2 1SRJ X-ray Structure (green carbons) CONFIRM XP Pose (orange carbons)
  30. 30. CONFIRM: 1A4Q example -O O Bridge O N NH2 O HN O Fragment 1 5.9Å Fragment 2 No. of No. with 1A4Q X-ray Structure (green carbons)Library Unique Fragment 1 and Hits 2 RMSD < 2Å CONFIRM XP Pose (orange carbons) Lib4 274 84Lib4E 370 154
  31. 31. CONFIRM: 1MTU example Important for binding – we wish to keep this fragmentSearch bridge library for suggestions for bridging atoms Use ROCS to search for alternative groups to go here
  32. 32. CONFIRM: 1MTU example Search Lib4E with distance query of 5Å – 2852 bridges Search Lead-like database using ROCS and this query: X O N HN Use Combo score, only keep top 100 Use CONFIRM to enumerate, prepare, and dock
  33. 33. CONFIRM: 1MTU example
  34. 34. CONFIRM: 1MTU example
  35. 35. CONFIRM: 1MTU example
  36. 36. Summary Following comprehensive literature search, multiple algorithms for linking/growing fragments developed Final linking approach, dubbed ‘CONFIRM’, uses in- house chemical equity Modular design, allowed for rapid: − Implementation − Testing − Analysis and modification Publication completed, submitted to . . . Currently exploring use on drug discovery projects
  37. 37. Acknowledgments Computational Chemistry Group at Wyeth Research Cambridge Dr. Christine Humblet Prof. K. D. Sen Prof. P. W. Ayers – J. S. M. Anderson – J. I. Rodriguez

×