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

Educational guide

UB research may offer a more streamlined approach to developing cancer drugs

Drug discovery can be a frustrating process of trial and error. Scientists using fragment-based drug discovery link fragments of different molecules together to create a more potent drug but may not know whether a compound works until millions of dollars in re

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.

Drug discovery can be a frustrating process of trial and error.

Scientists using fragment-based drug discovery link fragments of different molecules together to create a more potent drug but may not know whether a compound works until millions of dollars in research and development have already been spent.

New University at Buffalo research may offer a more streamlined approach, allowing drug makers to determine the viability of a fragment-based design earlier in the process.

While developing a fragment-based drug to treat lung cancer, a team co-led by UB found that where they linked fragments together had a large effect on potency.

"Despite consisting of the same molecule fragments, we found that one of our compounds was superadditive, while the other was virtually inactive. The main difference between the two was the points at which their fragments were linked together," says David Heppner, PhD, Jere Solo Assistant Professor of medicinal chemistry in the UB College of Arts and Sciences and co-senior author of the study, which published Feb. 20 in Communications Chemistry, an open-access Nature Portfolio Journal.

Molecule fragments are often linked together using another molecule, typically called linkers. Much attention is paid to their length and the kinds of atoms inside, while their placement on fragments, or the points of connection, is often left up to chance.

But Heppner and his team say that determining the optimal point of connection at the onset, while perhaps cumbersome, is most efficient.

"We believe our approach adds more intelligence to the drug optimization process and minimizes the amount of work needed to find the most potent structure," says co-lead author Blessing Ogboo, a PhD student in Heppner's lab.

The stakes are high in drug discovery: It's estimated that it takes on average 12 years and $2.7 billion to develop a new drug. Most drugs never even make it to the market - for example, 97% of cancer drugs fail clinical trials.

Fragment-based drug discovery, or FBDD, has become a sought-after method. Linked fragments can bind to a drug target, like a protein or enzyme, at multiple sites simultaneously, making them more potent than their parent molecules would be on their own.

The UB team was using FBDD to develop inhibitors that can bind to multiple sites on the kinase domain of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), a key protein in non-small cell lung cancer. One of their inhibitors was linked to a central group, while the other was connected through an outer region of the molecule.

When tested on an EGFR in a cell culture, the inhibitor linked through an outer region was more than 1 million times more potent.

Curious to understand why, the team used x-ray crystallography and molecular dynamic simulations to determine the two inhibitors' 3-D structure and how they bind to EGFR.

The tools showed that the superior potency was due to the placement of its linker allowing for greater mobility and better compatibility with the EGFR's binding site. They also ruled out more conventional attributes - length and atom type - being behind the increased potency.

"Previous studies have highlighted the importance of flexibility for linkers, but we believe our inhibitors are unique given their wide range of potency despite relatively small differences in linker structure," says co-lead author Stefan Laufer, PhD, of the Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen.

Other co-authors from UB include Tahereh Damghani, PhD, a postdoctoral research associate; Surbhi Chitnis, a PhD student; and former graduate students Calvin Pham and Brandon Oligny. Other contributors represent Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Harvard Medical School, the University of Eastern Finland, and AssayQuant Technologies, Inc.

Heppner and Laufer's teams have filed both a U.S. and international patent application on the EGFR inhibitors and are working with UB's Technology Transfer office.

The Heppner lab recently led another study on covalent EGFR inhibitors that was published in the Journal of Medicinal Chemistry. Written in collaboration industry partners, it serves as a perspective on best practices, as well as common pitfalls in drug development.

We hope our recent studies and others like them can better inform decision making in the drug discovery process, creating cost savings and decreasing time to new therapies." David Heppner, PhD, Jere Solo Assistant Professor of medicinal chemistry in the UB College of Arts and Sciences

Both studies were supported by the National Institutes of Health.

Wittlinger, F., et al. (2024). Linking ATP and allosteric sites to achieve superadditive binding with bivalent EGFR kinase inhibitors. Communications Chemistry. doi.org/10.1038/s42004-024-01108-3.

Connected reading

Helpful context for this guide

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

Related questions

01Can you please give an overview of BenevolentBio?

What we're trying to do here at Benevolent is develop systems and processes that allow us to tap into the huge amount of public information and some propriety databases that we have paid to access and through that, generate hypotheses which our scientists can then triage. We've got over ten times the amount of information in our database at present (and it’s growing) than we believe that companies such as Watson have. Bringing that and filtering the signals from the ‘noise’ to our experienced drug discovery chemists and biologists, means, firstly, we can reduce the amount of time we take to triage new hypotheses, and secondly, we can develop more predictive chemical tools to allow us to make better molecules and also to reposition existing molecules for new indication.

Source: www.news-medical.net ↗
02Why are these clinical trial results so groundbreaking?

There are no targeted treatments approved for pancreas cancer, and we haven't had any significant progress for a long time. We've only come up with different chemotherapy combinations, and those are only moderately effective. This new treatment is staggeringly better than chemotherapy. Usually, when we think of an improvement in pancreatic cancer survival, we think of 25% improvement. This medication actually doubled survival in patients with advanced disease. We have patients who participated in the trial who are still alive, which is unheard of because the five-year survival rate for pancreatic cancer patients is only 13%-14%. If the drug is approved by the FDA, it will most likely become the new standard of care for advanced pancreatic cancer and could replace chemotherapy as a first-line treatment.

Source: www.news-medical.net ↗
03In practical drug discovery and safety projects, where do graph-based models outperform traditional quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) approaches, and where do conventional methods still offer advantages?

For molecular design, classical machine learning with traditional fingerprints is not going to generate accurate 3D structures in the way modern graph-based, diffusion, and foundation models can. Where we have large, high-quality datasets, graph neural networks, language models, and foundation models can also outperform classical methods for property prediction. We even see some attempts at generating very large and widely applicable QSAR models, although bespoke models for specific target chemistries and properties remain the main form of QSAR model in use today. However, classical machine learning models are still very useful, especially for small datasets, which are common in early discovery. Classical machine learning models often have fewer parameters and can generalize better in small chemical spaces than larger deep learning models, which may overfit in such spaces. Classical models are also often much faster to train and perform inference with using modest compute infrastructure, such as a laptop. They can also be easier to interpret because many descriptors have a chemical or physical rationale. I do not think classical machine learning belongs in the past. The method pool is broader now, and the researcher's or engineer’s understanding of the data and desired outputs should guide the modeling decision.

Source: www.news-medical.net ↗
04From Spirulina to Seaweed: How are different types of algae integral to human diets?

Algae are photosynthetic aquatic creatures that grow through the consumption of nutrients, light, and carbon dioxide. They are a diverse group of creatures that include tiny single-celled algae and enormous kelp, as well as seaweed 1. Numerous prokaryotic and eukaryotic algae species are desirable food sources for humans due to their inherent qualities 2,3. Human intake of macroalgae such as seaweed and microalgae like phytoplankton dates back many years. Multicellular macroscopic aquatic plants, or macroalgae, are classified into three taxa: Phaeophyceae, or brown algae, Rhodophyta or red algae, and Chlorophyta or green algae. Microalgae, the unicellular counterpart of macroalgae, are categorized in a broader framework that includes prokaryotic cyanobacteria (blue-green algae), Euglenophyta, and Chlorophyta, which are genetically distinct from one another. The ancient populations of Chad and the Aztec culture were already familiar with the cyanobacteria spirulina, which is currently advertised as a superfood in the West 4. In Burma, Vietnam, and India, other cyanobacteria/microalgae, like Spirogyra and Oedogonium, were eaten as food or as a supplement 4. Seaweed is a staple of daily meals in many Asian and Pacific civilizations, including Korea, Japan, and Indonesia, as well as Hawaii and New Zealand 5.

Source: www.news-medical.net ↗
05What supplements really work?

The bulk of vitamins and supplements containing fish oil, biotin, and vitamins A, C, and E can potentially promote nail and hair growth. You can find dietary supplements with higher concentrations of vitamins and minerals that aid skin, hair, and nail health. Fish oil supplements make nails and hair shiny. Fish oil also serves as an agent that can decrease signs of aging. If sun exposure damages the skin, the omega-3 fatty acids in fish oil can help. Biotin, also known as B7, increases hair density and strengthens it. It is found naturally in bananas, eggs, and milk. Vitamins are vital for skin health as well. Vitamin A reduces acne flairs and helps with changes due to aging like wrinkling. A vitamin A deficiency may increase the risk of acne because it becomes difficult for dead skin to slough off hair follicles, blocking pores. Vitamin B lowers the risk of precancerous growths and nonmelanoma skin cancer. Vitamin C is an antioxidant. It leads the fight against free radicals to help stimulate collagen and brighten skin. It also helps to prevent the formation of unneeded melanin that causes uneven skin pigmentation.

Source: www.medicinenet.com ↗
P

About the author

Peptide Therapy Guide Editorial Team

Editorial team for Peptide Therapy Guide.

View all articles →