Background:The effect of HDAC inhibitor kinetic properties on biological function is currently unknown. Results:The kinetic rate constants of HDAC inhibitors differentially affect histone acetylation, cell viability, and gene expression. Conclusion: Evaluating HDAC inhibitor properties using histone acetylation is not predictive of their function on cellular activity. Significance: Characterizing the biological effect of different HDAC inhibitors will help to evaluate their clinical utility.

No abstract

In contrast with the very well explored concept of structure-activity relationship, similar studies are missing for the dependency between binding kinetics and compound structure of a protein ligand complex, the structure-kinetic relationship. Here, we present a structure-kinetic relationship study of the cyclin-dependent kinase 8 (CDK8)/cyclin C (CycC) complex. The scaffold moiety of the compounds is anchored in the kinase deep pocket and extended with diverse functional groups toward the hinge region and the front pocket. These variations can cause the compounds to change from fast to slow binding kinetics, resulting in an improved residence time. The flip of the DFG motif ("DMG" in CDK8) to the inactive DFG-out conformation appears to have relatively little influence on the velocity of binding. Hydrogen bonding with the kinase hinge region contributes to the residence time but has less impact than hydrophobic complementarities within the kinase front pocket.kinetic profiling | structure-based drug design T he cyclin-dependent kinase 8/cyclin C (CDK8/CycC) complex is a potent oncogene (1-4), involved in transcription and regulation of transcriptional activity (5-10), linked to epigenetic processes (11), and regarded as an attractive drug target. The recent clinical success of the small molecule inhibitors sorafenib (BAY-43006, Bayer Pharma) and imatinib (STI-571, Novartis Pharma AG) has been attributed to their deep pocket binding mode (12). The "deep pocket" (13) is adjacent to the kinase ATP binding site and accessible in protein kinases by the rearrangement of the DFG motif (a short motif composed of the residues AspPhe-Gly near the N-terminal region of the activation loop) from the active (DFG-in) to the inactive state (DFG-out) (13,14). Binding of a type II compound to such a DFG-out conformation often includes slow binding kinetics (15) with a prolonged "residence time," which is defined as the period for which a target is occupied by a compound (16). Residence time is currently considered to be a key success factor for compound optimization during drug discovery and perhaps as important as the apparent affinity such as half-inhibitory concentration (IC 50 ) or dissociation constant (K d ) (16,17). Accordingly, residence time could be a key to providing enhanced potency in vivo (18) and a means to improve the correlation of in vitro and in vivo efficacy of drugs (19). Despite the increased acceptance of the need to understand binding kinetics, the interplay between compound-target interactions and binding kinetics is in general too complex and poorly understood to enable prediction of the essential dynamic properties. The impact of the combination of kinetic data of proteininhibitor interactions with crystallographic studies has been recognized with pioneer studies such as bovine trypsin in complex with the bovine pancreatic trypsin inhibitor (20). The concept of structure-activity relationships describing the interdependency between binding affinity and compound structure has been well explored in the l...

Druglike molecules are defined by Lipinski's rule of 5, to characterize fragment thresholds, they have been reduced from 5 to 3 (Astex's rule of 3). They are applied to assemble fragment libraries, and providers use them to select fragments for commercial offer. We question whether these rules are too stringent to compose fragment libraries with candidates exhibiting sufficient room for chemical subsequent growing and merging modifications as appropriate functional groups for chemical transformations are required. Usually these groups exhibit properties as hydrogen bond donors/acceptors and provide entry points for optimization chemistry. We therefore designed a fragment library (364 entries) without strictly applying the rule of 3. For initial screening for endothiapepsin binding, we performed a biochemical cleavage assay of a fluorogenic substrate at 1 mM. "Hits" were defined to inhibit the enzyme by at least 40%. Fifty-five hits were suggested and subsequently soaked into endothiapepsin crystals. Eleven crystal structures could be determined covering fragments with diverse binding modes: (i) direct binding to the catalytic dyad aspartates, (ii) water-mediated binding to the aspartates, (iii) no direct interaction with the dyad. They occupy different specificity pockets. Only 4 of the 11 fragments are consistent with the rule of 3. Restriction to this rule would have limited the fragment hits to a strongly reduced variety of chemotypes.

Fragment-based lead discovery is gaining momentum in drug development. Typically, a hierarchical cascade of several screening techniques is consulted to identify fragment hits which are then analyzed by crystallography. Because crystal structures with bound fragments are essential for the subsequent hit-to-lead-to-drug optimization, the screening process should distinguish reliably between binders and non-binders. We therefore investigated whether different screening methods would reveal similar collections of putative binders. First we used a biochemical assay to identify fragments that bind to endothiapepsin, a surrogate for disease-relevant aspartic proteases. In a comprehensive screening approach, we then evaluated our 361-entry library by using a reporter-displacement assay, saturation-transfer difference NMR, native mass spectrometry, thermophoresis, and a thermal shift assay. While the combined results of these screening methods retrieve 10 of the 11 crystal structures originally predicted by the biochemical assay, the mutual overlap of individual hit lists is surprisingly low, highlighting that each technique operates on different biophysical principles and conditions.