Drugs in R & D

, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp 217–227 | Cite as

Fragment-Based Approach to Drug Lead Discovery

Overview and Advances in Various Techniques
  • Daniela Fattori
  • Antonella Squarcia
  • Sandra Bartoli
Review Article


In the last 20 years the advent of new technologies, such as high-throughput screening (HTS) and combinatorial chemistry, has produced new tools for the discovery of biologically active molecules. In the past decade, fragment-based drug discovery has emerged as a more rational and focused approach that concentrates on the quality, rather than the quantity, of hits and leads. The principles behind this strategy are different from those that represented the basis of conventional HTS. The starting point of this approach is always a small chemical entity (typically MW 150–200), a fragment, with low affinity for the selected target. Fragments should satisfy key features such as diversity, reduced structural complexity, aqueous solubility and availability. Because of their small size, they occupy a smaller region of chemical space if compared with classical HTS compounds; hence, fragment libraries provide a good diversity with a relatively low number of compounds. Classical biochemical assays are often not suitable to detect the low binding affinities involved, so some well known biophysical techniques, such as nuclear magnetic resonance and x-ray, have been opportunely modified in order to render them able to perform the task. When selecting fragments suitable for subsequent optimization, a useful parameter has been introduced, the ligand efficiency, which is defined as the free energy of binding divided by the non-hydrogen atom count. Once selected, a fragment must undergo a heavy elaboration to improve binding affinity, at the same time acquiring drug-like properties. There are two main ways to go on at this point. The most common one is the so-called ‘fragment evolution’, consisting of a stepwise and systematic addition of chemical functionalities to the starting fragment core, together with a continuous feedback for pharmacological and physicochemical properties. The second one, less common but with great potential, is ‘fragment linking’: when two or more fragment hits are found to bind in adjacent regions of the target protein, they can be linked through appropriate spacers to rapidly produce a single molecule with much higher binding affinity. Two representative case histories are described: Abbott’s ABT 518, an MMP (matrix metalloproteinase) inhibitor, and Eli-Lilly’s LY-517717, an inhibitor of factor Xa serine protease. In addition, a list of molecules claimed to be derived from fragment approach and currently undergoing clinical trials is presented.


  1. 1.
    Wolfson W. Fragmentary solutions: Astex Therapeutics puts the pieces together. Chem Biol 2006; 13: 799–801PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Teague SJ, Davis AM, Leeson PD, et al. The design of leadlike combinatorial libraries. Angew Chem Int Ed 1999; 38: 3743–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Oprea TI, Allu TK, Fara TC, et al. Lead-like, drug-like or ‘publike’: how different are they? J Comput Aided Mol Des 2007; 21: 113–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Proudfoot JR. Drugs, leads, and drug-likeness: an analysis of some recently launched drugs. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 2002; 12: 1647–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bemis JW, Murcko MA. The properties of known drugs: 1. Molecular frameworks. J Med Chem 1996; 39: 2887–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hann MM, Leach AR, Harper G. Molecular complexity and its impact on the probability of finding leads for drug discovery. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2001; 41: 856–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rejto PA, Verkhivker GM. Unraveling principles of lead discovery: from unfrustrated energy landscapes to novel molecular anchors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1996; 93: 8945–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schuffenhauer A, Ruedisser S, Marzinzik AL, et al. Library design for fragment based screening. Curr Top Med Chem 2005; 5: 751–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hajduk PJ, Greer J. A decade of fragment-based drug design: strategic advances and lesson learned. Nature Rev Drug Discov 2007; 6: 211–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hajduk PJ, Hut JR, Tse C. Predicting protein druggability. Drug Discov Today 2005; 10: 1675–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Congreve M, Carr R, Murray C, et al. ‘Rule of three’ for fragment-based lead discovery? Drug Discov Today 2003; 8: 876–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mattos C, Ringe D. Locating and characterizing binding sites on proteins. Nat Biotechnol 1996; 14: 595–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dennis S, Kortvelyesi T, Vajda S. Computational mapping identifies the binding sites of organic solvents on proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2002; 99: 4290–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Clark M, Guarnieri F, Shkurko I, et al. Grand canonical Monte Carlo simulation of ligand-protein binding. J Chem Inf Model 2006; 46: 231–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moore WR. Maximizing discovery efficiency with a computationally driven fragment approach. Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel 2005; 8: 355–64PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Boehm H-J, Boehringer M, Bur D, et al. Novel inhibitors of DNA gyrase: 3D structure based biased needle screening, hit validation by biophysical methods, and 3D guided optimization. A promising alternative to random screening. J Med Chem 2000; 43: 2664–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Armer RE, Cowley PM. Trends in medicinal chemistry. Drug News Perspect 2005; 18: 142–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hajduk PJ, Sheppard G, Nettesheim DG, et al. Discovery of potent nonpeptide inhibitors of stromelysin using SAR by NMR. J Am Chem Soc 1997; 119: 5818–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shuker SB, Hajduk PJ, Meadows RP, et al. Discovering high-affinity ligands for proteins: SAR by NMR. Science 1996; 274: 1531–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Meyer M, Meyer B. Characterization of ligand binding by saturation transfer difference NMR spectroscopy. Angew Chem Int Ed 1999; 38: 1784–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dalvit C, Fogliatto G, Stewart A, et al. WaterLOGSY as a method for primary NMR screening: practical aspects and range of applicability. J Biomol NMR 2001; 21: 349–59PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vanwetswinkel S, Heetebrij RJ, van Duynhoven J, et al. TINS, target immobilized NMR screening: an efficient and sensitive method for ligand discovery. Chem Biol 2005; 12: 207–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nienaber VL, Richardson PL, Klighofer V, et al. Discovering novel ligands for macromolecules using X-ray crystallographic screening. Nat Biotechnol 2000; 18: 1105–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Edward PD, Albert JS, Sylvester M, et al. Application of fragment-based lead generation to the discovery of novel, cyclic amidine ß-secretase inhibitors with nanomolar potency, cellular activity, and high ligand efficiency. J Med Chem 2007; 50: 5912–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Löfas S. Optimizing the hit-to-lead process using SPR analysis. Assay Drug Devel Technol 2004; 2: 407–15Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Biacore A100 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.biacore.com/lifesciences/products/systems_overview/A100/system_information/index.html [Accessed 2008 Jun 19]
  27. 27.
    Seth PP, Miyaji A, Jefferson EA, et al. SAR by MS: discovery of a new class of RNA-binding small molecules for the hepatitis C virus. Internal ribosome entry site IIA subdomain. J Med Chem 2005; 48: 7099–102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ciulli A, Williams G, Smith AG, et al. Probing hot spots at protein-ligand binding sites: a fragment based approach using biophysical methods. J Med Chem 2006; 49: 4992–5000PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Weber PC, Salemme FR. Applications of calorimetric methods to drug discovery and the study of protein interactions. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2003; 13: 115–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Torres EF, Kuhn P, De Bruyker D, et al. Enthalpy arrays. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2004; 101: 9517–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hopkins AL, Groom CR. Ligand efficiency: a useful metric for drug selection. Drug Discov Today 2004; 9: 430–1PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Geschwindner S, Olsson L-L, Albert JS, et al. Discovery of a novel warhead against β-secretase through fragment-based lead generation. J Med Chem 2007; 50: 5903–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wada CK, Holms JH, Curtin ML, et al. Phenoxyphenyl sulfone N-formylhydroxylamines (retorhydroxamates) as potent, selective, orally bioavailable matrix metalloproteinase inhibitors. J Med Chem 2002; 45: 219–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Liebeschuetz JW, Jones SD, Morgan PJ, et al. PRO_SELECT: combining structure-based drug design and array-based chemistry for rapid lead discovery. 2: the development of a series of highly potent and selective factor Xa inhibitors. J Med Chem 2002; 45: 1221–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniela Fattori
    • 1
  • Antonella Squarcia
    • 1
  • Sandra Bartoli
    • 1
  1. 1.Chemistry DepartmentMenarini RicerchePomezia, RomeItaly

Personalised recommendations