General structure-free energy relationships of hERG blocker binding under native cellular conditions
Summary (3 min read)
Introduction
- And remedies for, inadvertent blockade of the hERG potassium channel by chemically diverse low molecular weight (LMW) hits, leads, preclinical/clinical candidates, and drugs, this liability remains one of the many unsolved problems in pharmaceutical R&D that are typically addressed via black box trial-anderror optimization.
- The lack of significant progress toward the development of reliable hERG avoidance and mitigation strategies may be attributed to: 1) Poor general understanding of aqueous non-covalent binding between cognate partners, including drugs and targets/off-targets (described below).
- (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder.
- The authors postulate that blocker promiscuity results from the lack of H-bond enriched "gatekeeper" solvation within the pore, thereby relegating the association free energy barrier to steric size/shape complementarity and induced-fit costs, together with pore-mediated blocker desolvation cost (noting that binding is largely nonspecific in the absence of H-bond enriched "gatekeeper" solvation).
Binding free energy is contributed principally by solvation, and the implications thereof for hERG blockade
- In several of their previous works, the authors postulated that non-covalent binding under aqueous conditions is governed principally by the solvation free energy contribution, and in particular, the desolvation and resolvation costs incurred during association and dissociation, respectively.
- The authors further postulate that: 1) Non-covalent free energy is released from binding interfaces during association, principally via mutual desolvation of H-bond depleted solvation (i.e., where such water is replaced by non-polar or weakly polar solute groups).
- 3) Permeability and solubility (neglecting the dissolution component), both of which indirectly affect hERG blocker occupancy, likewise depend on desolvation and resolvation costs, as follows: a) Low solubility equates to high resolvation (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder.
- The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted October 9, 2021.
Materials and methods
- Molecular dynamics (MD) simulations are used extensively for predicting intra-and intermolecular structural rearrangements of proteins and other biomolecules [14] [15] [16] [17] .
- Their simulations are focused on water exchanges between solvation and bulk solvent (which the authors refer to as "solvation dynamics (SD) simulations"), for which they believe that MD approaches are best suited.
- The counts per voxel are always distributed in a Gaussian-like fashion around the mean H and O counts, which correspond to bulk-like solvation (normalized for the 2 H/O ratio).
- The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted October 9, 2021.
- ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.10.07.463585 doi: bioRxiv preprint Alternatively, white HOVs may be indicative of mixed donor/acceptor voxel environments or water molecules that are trapped within non-polar cavities (depending on the context).
5) Bright blue = 100% H visits.
- The LMW SD protocol differs from the HMW protocol described in reference [2] in that LMW structures are fully restrained during the simulations (which would otherwise distribute over a large number of conformations in proportion to their force-field-calculated energies), whereas HMW structures are fully unrestrained (self-limited to high frequency rearrangements among the side chains and loops).
- All blocker structures were generated using the Build Tool of Maestro release 2021-2 (Schrodinger, LLC), and minimized using the default minimization protocol.
- Each structure was then simulated using AMBER 20 PMEMD CUDA (GAFF and ff99sb force-fields) for 100 ns in a box of explicit TIP3P water molecules, and the last 10 ns of each trajectory (40,000 frames) was processed into voxel counts via WATMD, and visualized as spheres using PyMol 2.4.1 (Schrodinger, LLC).
- (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder.
- A subset of the hERG blockers and data compiled by Redfern et al. selected for their study.
Results
- The authors postulated previously that pore occupancy by non-trappable blockers builds and decays transiently during each action potential (AP) cycle, whereas that of trappable blockers accumulates across APs [5, 6] .
- The authors postulate that blockers project their BP moieties into P at a rate governed by the full and partial desolvation costs of BP and BC, respectively, as reflected qualitatively in the sizes of the HOVs surrounding those moieties.
- The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted October 9, 2021.
- (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder.
- The calculated solvation field within the blocker-accessible region of P is predicted to consist principally of H-bond depleted solvation , in agreement with their previously reported WaterMap results [5] (consistent with the largely non-polar lining of P).
Discussion hERG blockers undergo atypical binding
- The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted October 9, 2021.
- 1) Steric constraints on the passage of the bulky, chemically diverse BC moiety of most blockers through the pore entrance, which can be reasonably assumed to depend on timeconsuming induced-fit rearrangements.
- The fact that blocker association is limited to the open state serves as further evidence for equilibrated channel populations in the cryo-EM preparations.
General hERG safety criteria suggested by our findings
- The holistic optimization of primary target activity, permeability, solubility, and mitigation of hERG and other off-target activities, depends on the correct understanding of blocker structurekinetic and structure-free energy relationships leading to the arrhythmic tipping point of hERG occupancy under native cellular conditions.
- The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted October 9, 2021.
- Arrhythmic occupancy by trappable blockers depends on blocker free Cmax relative to hERG IC50 (accumulating to the 50% level at exposures ≈ the true blocker IC50 [5, 6] ), where the rate of fractional occupancy buildup depends on the slower of the antechamber and pore association steps.
- ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.10.07.463585 doi: bioRxiv preprint 1) Free intracellular blocker exposure > hERG IC50 (concentration-driven) and/or kb approaching the rate of channel activation (kb-driven), where kb depends largely on the cost of expelling H-bond enriched blocker solvation in the absence of polar pore replacements.
- (C) Distribution of the ratios of the minimum reported hERG IC50/maximum reported Cmax.
A general hERG mitigation strategy suggested by our findings
- Potent hERG blockers reside within a Goldilocks zone of H-bond depleted and enriched solvation corresponding to optimal solubility, permeability, and hERG binding.
- Successful hERG mitigation depends on the extent to which drug-hERG and drug-target Goldilocks zones are separable.
- 2) Disruption of blocker trappability via incorporation of a bulky group within the putative constriction zone in the closed channel state (as the authors reported previously [4] ).
- 3) Disruption of P-BP shape compatibility (e.g., putatively exemplified by ebastine versus terfenadine).
- 5) Exploring structure-solubility and permeability relationships, which are likewise governed by solvation free energy and membrane desolvation/resolvation costs.
Conclusion
- This work is a follow-on to their previous work in which the authors postulated that hERG blockers are first captured by the intracellular antechamber contained within the CNBH and C-linker domains of the channel, followed by the projection of a single R-group (BP) into the open pore (P) [4] .
- Blocker occupancy is powered primarily by desolvation of H-bond depleted solvation of P, BP, the pore-facing surface of BC, and the peri-pore region of the antechamber (which slows k-b).
- The key determinants of hERG blockade consist of: 1) Steric size/shape complementarity between BP and P, where BP is typically a nonpolar/weakly polar rod-shaped moiety of almost any chemical composition.
- P is predicted by both WaterMap and WATMD to contain H-bond depleted and bulk-like solvation, which incurs no desolvation cost during association and a resolvation cost during dissociation equal to the total free energy of H-bond depleted solvation expelled during association.
- 4) A basic group residing somewhere within BP that is typically used to improve solubility (traded off against a higher desolvation cost).
Did you find this useful? Give us your feedback
Citations
2 citations
References
1,411 citations
1,012 citations
413 citations
374 citations
354 citations
Related Papers (5)
Frequently Asked Questions (13)
Q2. What are the key determinants of hERG blockade?
The key determinants of hERG blockade consist of:1) Steric size/shape complementarity between BP and P, where BP is typically a non-polar/weakly polar rod-shaped moiety of almost any chemical composition.
Q3. What is the kb-speeding contribution of basic groups?
Hbond enriched solvation is further enhanced by basic groups, which additionally speed kb (as a function of increasing pKa) due to electrostatic attraction with the negative field within P. Since blocker potency is typically enhanced by basic groups, it follows that the electrostatic kb-speeding contribution of such groups typically outweighs the kb-slowing desolvation contribution.
Q4. What is the rationale underlying the Pfizer Rule of 5?
2) Permeability is proportional to the desolvation cost of H-bond enriched blocker solvation,which additionally depends on polar groups for replacing the H-bond enriched solvation of membrane phospholipid head groups (the rationale underlying the Pfizer Rule of 5).
Q5. What is the on-rate of a trappable blocker?
The highest maximum occupancy of non-trappable blockers is achieved when kb ≈ the channel opening rate and k-b ≈ the channel closing rate (i.e., noting that k-b is usurped by the rate of channel closing), whereas trappable blockers accumulate to their maximum occupancy over multiple channel gating cycles as the intracellular Cmax builds to n ∙ IC50, where n is occupancy multiplier (n = 1 equates to 50% occupancy, n = 19 equates to 95% occupancy, etc.).
Q6. What is the cost of dissociating the H-bonds?
2) The canonical association barrier consists principally of the total desolvation cost of thebinding interface (contributed by H-bond enriched solvation), and canonical dissociation barrier consists principally of the cost of resolvating H-bond depleted solvation positions expelled during association [1–3,9–12].
Q7. What is the asymmetric distribution of HOVs among BP and BC?
The overall asymmetric distribution of HOVs among BP and BC blocker moieties isconsistent with their proposed binding mode, in which BP (exhibiting the lower desolvation cost/lower association free energy barrier) projects into the pore, while BC (exhibiting the higher desolvation cost/higher association free energy barrier) remains within the solvated antechamber.
Q8. What is the role of the MD simulation in predicting structural rearrangements of proteins?
Molecular dynamics (MD) simulations are used extensively for predicting intra- and intermolecular structural rearrangements of proteins and other biomolecules [14–17].
Q9. What is the role of hERG in the clinical candidate?
Lead optimization often culminates in residual hERG activity at the clinical candidate stage, resulting in potential no-go decisions or mandated clinical thorough QT (TQT) studies, depending on the benefit/risk ratio.
Q10. What is the optimum position of a basic group on BP used for solubility?
Optimal positioning and pKa of a basic group on BP used for solubility (noting thatincreased solubility as a f(pKa) results in higher desolvation cost, but also speeds kb electrostatically).
Q11. What is the default minimization protocol used for the blocker structures?
All blocker structures were generated using the Build Tool of Maestro release 2021-2 (Schrodinger, LLC), and minimized using the default minimization protocol.
Q12. What is the hERG activity of fexofenadine?
The t-butyl acid group located on the distal end of BP explains the weak hERG activity of fexofenadine, whereas the weaker potencies of propafenone and desipramine can be explained by the more distal position of the basic group on BP relative to that of Class 1-2 blockers.
Q13. What is the BP moiety of fexofenadine?
The t-butyl acid and hydroxymethyl groups of the BP moiety in fexofenadine (a metabolite of terfenadine) are spanned by numerous HOVs (Figures 3G and H), consistent with higher BP desolvation cost and the Class 4 designation of this drug.