Rational Development of MAGL Inhibitors

Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 1824)


Hit identification and hit-to-lead optimization are key steps of the early drug discovery program. Starting from the X-ray crystal structure of the human monoacylglycerol lipase (hMAGL), we herein describe the computational and experimental procedures that we applied for identifying and optimizing a new active inhibitor of this target enzyme. A receptor-based virtual screening method is reported in details, together with enzymatic assays and a first round of hit optimization.

Key words

Hit identification Hit-to-lead optimization Monoacylglycerol lipase inhibitors Virtual screening MAGL 


  1. 1.
    Labar G, Bauvois C, Borel F et al (2010) Crystal structure of the human monoacylglycerol lipase, a key actor in endocannabinoid signaling. Chembiochem 11(2):218–227. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nomura DK, Long JZ, Niessen S et al (2010) Monoacylglycerol lipase regulates a fatty acid network that promotes cancer pathogenesis. Cell 140(1):49–61. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mulvihill MM, Nomura DK (2013) Therapeutic potential of monoacylglycerol lipase inhibitors. Life Sci 92(8-9):492–497. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Scalvini L, Piomelli D, Mor M (2016) Monoglyceride lipase: structure and inhibitors. Chem Phys Lipids 197:13–24. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schlosburg JE, Blankman JL, Long JZ et al (2010) Chronic monoacylglycerol lipase blockade causes functional antagonism of the endocannabinoid system. Nat Neurosci 13(9):1113–1119. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    King AR, Dotsey EY, Lodola A et al (2009) Discovery of potent and reversible monoacylglycerol lipase inhibitors. Chem Biol 16(10):1045–1052. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hernandez-Torres G, Cipriano M et al (2014) A reversible and selective inhibitor of monoacylglycerol lipase ameliorates multiple sclerosis. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 53:13765–13770. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Berman HM, Westbrook J, Feng Z et al (2000) The Protein Data Bank. Nucleic Acids Res 28:235–242. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schalk-Hihi C, Schubert C, Alexander R et al (2011) Crystal structure of a soluble form of human monoglyceride lipase in complex with an inhibitor at 1.35 A resolution. Protein Sci 20(4):670–683. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    OMEGA, version 2.4.6 (2013) Santa Fe, NM: OpenEye Scientific Software.
  11. 11.
    Hawkins PC, Nicholls A (2012) Conformer generation with OMEGA: learning from the data set and the analysis of failures. J Chem Inf Model 52(11):2919–2936. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    ROCS, version 3.2.1 (2013) Santa Fe, NM: OpenEye Scientific Software.
  13. 13.
    Tuccinardi T, Poli G, Romboli V et al (2014) Extensive consensus docking evaluation for ligand pose prediction and virtual screening studies. J Chem Inf Model 54(10):2980–2986. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Poli G, Martinelli A, Tuccinardi T (2016) Reliability analysis and optimization of the consensus docking approach for the development of virtual screening studies. J Enzyme Inhib Med Chem 31:167–173. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Poli G, Giuntini N, Martinelli A, Tuccinardi T (2015) Application of a FLAP-consensus docking mixed strategy for the identification of new fatty acid amide hydrolase inhibitors. J Chem Inf Model 55(3):667–675. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Granchi C, Capecchi A, Del Frate G et al (2015) Development and validation of a docking-based virtual screening platform for the identification of new lactate dehydrogenase inhibitors. Molecules 20(5):8772–8790. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    DOCK, version 6.0 (1998) Molecular design institute. University of California, San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Verdonk ML, Mortenson PN, Hall RJ et al (2008) Protein-ligand docking against non-native protein conformers. J Chem Inf Model 48(11):2214–2225. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    FRED, version 2.2 (2010) Santa Fe, NM, USA: OpenEye Scientific Software.
  20. 20.
    Morris GM, Huey R, Lindstrom W et al (2009) AutoDock4 and AutoDockTools4: automated docking with selective receptor flexibility. J Comput Chem 30(16):2785–2791. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Case DA, Darden TA, III TEC, Simmerling CL, Wang J, Duke RE et al (2010) AMBER 11. University of California, San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tuccinardi T, Granchi C, Rizzolio F et al (2014) Identification and characterization of a new reversible MAGL inhibitor. Bioorg Med Chem 22(13):3285–3291. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Granchi C, Rizzolio F, Bordoni V et al (2016) 4-Aryliden-2-methyloxazol-5(4H)-one as a new scaffold for selective reversible MAGL inhibitors. J Enzyme Inhib Med Chem 31(1):137–146. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Granchi C, Rizzolio F, Palazzolo S et al (2016) Structural optimization of 4-chlorobenzoylpiperidine derivatives for the development of potent, reversible, and selective monoacylglycerol lipase (MAGL) inhibitors. J Med Chem 59(22):10299–10314. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bertrand T, Auge F, Houtmann J et al (2010) Structural basis for human monoglyceride lipase inhibition. J Mol Biol 396(3):663–673. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Griebel G, Pichat P, Beeske S et al (2015) Selective blockade of the hydrolysis of the endocannabinoid 2-arachidonoylglycerol impairs learning and memory performance while producing antinociceptive activity in rodents. Sci Rep 5:7642. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Baell JB, Holloway GA (2010) New substructure filters for removal of pan assay interference compounds (PAINS) from screening libraries and for their exclusion in bioassays. J Med Chem 53(7):2719–2740. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dahlin JL, Nissink JW, Strasser JM et al (2015) PAINS in the assay: chemical mechanisms of assay interference and promiscuous enzymatic inhibition observed during a sulfhydryl-scavenging HTS. J Med Chem 58(5):2091–2113. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PharmacyUniversity of PisaPisaItaly
  2. 2.Division of Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Molecular Biology and Translational ResearchNational Cancer Institute and Center for Molecular Biomedicine, IRCCSPordenoneItaly
  3. 3.Department of Molecular Science and NanosystemsCa’ Foscari Università di VeneziaVenezia-MestreItaly

Personalised recommendations