Independent education resourceInformation here does not replace care from a qualified health professional.
Peptide Therapy GuideClear peptide education

Educational guide

Finding Sense in Sequences

During the lead optimization phase of biologics drug discovery, researchers use the design, make, test, analyze, and report cycle to make incremental changes to the project’s candidate compounds. As part of this cycle, researchers use experimental data from sc

Written by Peptide Therapy Guide Editorial Team
For education only

This guide cannot diagnose a condition or recommend a personal treatment plan. Discuss medical questions with a qualified professional.

During the lead optimization phase of biologics drug discovery, researchers use the design, make, test, analyze, and report cycle to make incremental changes to the project’s candidate compounds. As part of this cycle, researchers use experimental data from screening assays to analyze the performance of a range of related candidate compounds. This analysis is used to consider how modifications to the candidate compounds that were performed in the previous iteration of the cycle altered the performance of those compounds in the ensuing screening assays. Interpretation of the results is then used in the next phase of design changes, and so the cycle continues, refining the candidates progressively (one hopes!) until the properties of the best compounds achieve the level required to progress to the next stage of development.

The nexus of data analysis and interpretation, leading to design changes for the next round of experimentation, is a key point in which the scientific knowledge and experience of researchers is at a premium. In some cases, particularly earlier in the lead optimization phase, it may be possible to simply relate results to the prior set of design changes. However, in many cases, the multiple variables and subtle effects of design changes cannot be fully appreciated by simple inspection or basic statistical analyses. In these cases, advanced analytics methods are necessary to extract full meaning from the data.

Advanced analytics vary in what questions they ask and what they attempt to determine. For biologics, these methods are still relatively new in their development, but at least in the cases described here, they are derived from analogous methods that have been successfully applied in small-molecule drug discovery. In this article, we describe some of these methods and what they aim to achieve.

Principal Components Analysis

Principal components analysis (PCA) is a general-purpose statistical analysis technique used widely to analyze high-dimensional data and to allow visualization of structures or sequences in “likeness” space. It is often used for data exploration, as it reduces the dimensionality of data to highlight which variables are most meaningful in the assay results. With respect to drug discovery, it is typically used to group compounds (small molecules or biological sequences) based on concepts of “likeness.” It is in essence, a clustering technique.

In this mode, PCA analysis is used to create groups of compounds that are “like” based on their chemical structure, or biological sequence. The theory is that successful on-market drugs tend to share structural or sequence features. Therefore, if a given candidate compound occupies a similar area in PCA space, then it might be a stronger candidate than another that occupies an area of PCA space away from any on-market drugs. Factoring in assay data can further strengthen the analysis by showing which areas in PCA space are correlated with good performance in target assays (Figure 1).

It should be remembered, though, that because the type of analysis described above is based on what is already known (that is, on-market drugs) it may be hard to find new classes of compounds. A candidate compound that is “out on its own,” in PCA space might not be a bad candidate, but rather the first member of a new class of wonder compounds.

So, as always, while it is not necessary to understand exactly how an analysis is performed, it is important to understand how to interpret the results.

Matched Pair Analysis

Matched pair analysis (MPA; or matched molecular pairs [MMP] when used for small molecules) is a highly localized analysis method in which two compounds differ by a single identifiable change. For small molecules, this means the pairs differ by a single chemical transformation. For sequences, this means a single residue change, insertion, or deletion. These differences can then be correlated with relative assay performance or another drug development-relevant property. The identifiable and localized nature of the differences affords easy interpretation of the effects.

In most cases, because the differences are typically small with respect to the paired compounds, activity performance is commensurately small. However, in some cases, there can be very significant differences (referred to as activity cliffs) that indicate highly relevant substitutions and/or sensitive positions within the paired compounds. These can inform design choices going forward.

Although MPA is in general, a new and emerging technique for biologic drug discovery, the established technique of alanine scanning may be thought of as a form of MPA. In alanine scanning, the amino acid residues of a native protein are mutated to alanine, progressively along the sequence (Figure 2).

to the mutation.

That is, in the first mutated protein, position 1 is converted to alanine; in the second mutated protein, position 2 is mutated to alanine (and position 1 remains as it is in the native protein); and so on until there is a variant of the native protein where each (non-alanine) position has been mutated. Each variant is then compared to the native protein (that is, a matched pair) to assess the impact on structure and function. Alanine is typically chosen because it has a small side chain that is chemically inert, and so therefore is used to assess which residues in the native protein provide significant functional or structural influences.

Biological Sequence-Activity Relationships

Biological sequence-activity relationship (BSAR) analysis is the sequence equivalent of quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) analysis. In QSAR, which is well established in small molecule drug discovery, the relationship between functional groups of small molecules and performance in screening assays is assessed, with the fundamental assumption being that common properties or features should provide similar assay results. Establishment of QSAR trends can be used to provide guidance for compound design. QSAR may be thought of as a generalization of MPA, summarizing the contributions of multiple changes.

BSAR is an emerging analogous method for sequence-based compounds. Point mutations, insertions, or deletions, especially in critical areas of a sequence such as within the complementary determining region (CDR) or surrounding framework regions of an antibody chain, will likely affect the performance of sequences in screening assays. BSAR can be used to assess the collective impact of identified mutations in specific regions of the sequence, providing input to design considerations in the next cycle of lead optimization.

Accessing the Methods

The techniques described above are nonproprietary and have been published, both for small-molecule and biologics discovery. Implementation can be done from scratch, by finding suitable open-source code, or by using commercial products. Dotmatics provides all three techniques for biologics drug discovery within its Vortex product for data analysis and visualization.

Summary

The ability to make informed design decisions is critical to successful drug discovery programs. The techniques described here are valuable additions to other analytical methods and statistics, allowing complex and high-dimensional data to be interpreted in an objective manner. This increases the likelihood of successful design changes for the next cycle of lead optimization.

Andrew LeBeau, Ph.D. ([email protected]), is senior manager of biologics marketing at Dotmatics.

Connected reading

Helpful context for this guide

Source-derived material selected through this article’s indexed topics.

Related questions

01Undruggable or unscreenable?

Another obstacle to discovering new PPI inhibitors is the lack of libraries designed to hunt for them, points out Philippe Roche, PhD, senior scientist at the Integrative Structural and Chemical Biology team at the Cancer Research Center of Marseilles, France. “If you screen PPIs using libraries that were designed for kinases or GPCRs, that’s why you don’t get a lot of good results,” he says. To that end, his group began assembling a library focused on orthosteric inhibitors of PPIs. The result was 2P2Idb, a hand-curated, structural database cataloguing orthosteric inhibitors of PPIs for which the interface had been 3D characterized. From analyzing these known PPI inhibitors, and what structures they had in common, Roche and his colleagues developed a model to predict whether compounds would likely inhibit PPIs. Using this method, 2P2Idb creates an enriched screening library that dramatically increases the hit rate compared to standard libraries. Having proven their success with a small library of 1600 compounds, they are in the process of expanding the library to 10,000 compounds. Once that’s published, “the idea is to make this library available to labs around the world,” Roche says. “We will provide the library free of charge for people to be able to screen PPI targets.”

Source: www.genengnews.com ↗
02How stable is the antibody?

A crucial question often addressed during preclinical development focuses on the in vivo stability of therapeutic antibodies. Increasing the half-life of a therapeutic antibody has several benefits ranging from higher treatment efficacy to increased advantages for the patients who will have a fewer number of therapy sessions and a reduced cost. Given these compelling benefits, following the identification of therapeutic antibodies with the desired specificity, developers usually subject them to a refinement step to increase their stability. This process is often hindered by the lack of reliable experimental tools to predict the half-life of antibodies in patients. The major hurdle of using mouse models to predict antibody stability in the serum lies in the way immunoglobulin proteins are processed by the organism. In mammals, most proteins circulating in the serum undergo constant uptake by endothelial cells and are routed through the endosomes to the lysosomal compartment for degradation. In the endosomes, immunoglobulin G (IgG) proteins are recognized and bound by a transmembrane protein, called the neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn), which mediates their recycling to the plasma membrane and subsequent release back into the serum. As a result, the half-life of IgGs are significantly extended by this mechanism. Since most therapeutic antibodies belong to the IgG class, this recycling system is very relevant for their relative stability in the body. Remarkably, the relative affinity between IgGs and FcRn is extremely disparate between different species, with the mouse receptor showing a much higher affinity than its human counterpart.

Source: www.genengnews.com ↗
P

About the author

Peptide Therapy Guide Editorial Team

Editorial team for Peptide Therapy Guide.

View all articles →