Thinking About Aqueous Solvation

Given that it was International Women's Day yesterday, I'll open the the post (and blogging for 2025) with a photo of a gravestone at St James' Church in Bramley (Hampshire).

In the current post I’ll be taking a look at some aspects of aqueous solvation and Richard Wolfenden’s 1983 “Waterlogged Molecules” article (W1983) is still worth reading today (as an aside, Prof Wolfenden will turn ninety in May of this year and hopefully mentioning this won't put what is called "goat mouth" in my native Trinidad and Tobago on him as I did for Oscar Niemeyer with the words "ele vive ainda" while studying Portuguese in 2012). As noted in W1983 the formation of a target-ligand complex requires partial desolvation of both target and ligand:

When biological compounds combine, react with each other, or change shape in watery surroundings, solvent molecules tend to be reorganized in the neighborhood of the interacting groups.

Formation of a target-ligand can also be seen as an “exchange reaction” and this point is very well made in SGT2012:

Molecular binding in an aqueous solvent can be usefully viewed not as an association reaction, in which only new intermolecular interactions are introduced between receptor and ligand, but rather as an exchange reaction in which some receptor–solvent and ligand–solvent interactions present in the unbound state are lost to accommodate the gain of receptor–ligand interactions in the bound complex.

In HBD3 I briefly discuss ‘frustrated hydration’ as a phenomenon that could be exploited in drug design and I’ll quote from the Summary section of W1983:  

When two or more functional groups are present within the same solute molecule, their combined effects on its free energy of solvation are commonly additive. Striking departures from additivity, observed in certain cases, indicate the existence of special interactions between different parts of a solute molecule and the water that surrounds it.

I’ll try to explain how this could work for ligand design and let’s suppose that we have two polar atoms that are close together in the binding site. The proximity of the polar atoms in the binding site means that water molecules forming ideal interactions with the polar atoms in the binding sites are also likely to be close together. However, the mutual proximity of the water molecules can lead to unfavourable interactions between the water molecules which ‘frustrate’ the (simultaneous) hydration of the two polar atoms in the binding site. Now if we design a ligand with two polar atoms positioned to form good interactions with polar atoms in the binding site it is likely that these will also be in close proximity and that their hydration will be similarly frustrated. I would generally anticipate that frustration of hydration will not be handled well by implicit solvent models (RT1999 | FB2004 | CBK2008 |  KF2014)  or computational tools such as WaterMap that calculate energetics for individual water molecules (especially in cases where the two hydration sites cannot be simultaneously occupied).

To illustrate frustration of hydration I’ve taken a graphic from a talk from 2023. The unfavorable interactions between solvating water molecules that frustrate hydration are shown as red double-headed water molecules (in some cases these interactions will be repulsive to the extent that only one of the hydration sites can be occupied at a time). You’ll also notice two thick green lines in the right hand panel and these show secondary interactions that stabilize the bound complex. Secondary interactions of this nature were discussed in a molecular recognition context in the JP1990 study and the observation (see A1989) that pyridazine is a better hydrogen bond acceptor (HBA) than its pK_a would have you believe can be seen in a similar light.  Secondary interactions like these only enhance affinity when the proximal polar atoms are of the same ‘type’ (the proximal polar atoms in the 1,8-naphthyridine are both HBAs) and we should anticipate that the secondary interactions for the contact between pyrazole and the ‘hinge’ of a tyrosine kinase will be deleterious for affinity. In contrast to secondary interactions, frustration of hydration can be beneficial for affinity even when the proximal polar atoms are of opposite types, as would be the case for an HBA that is near to a hydrogen bond donor (HBD).     

While it is clearly important to account for aqueous solvation when using physics-based approaches for prediction of binding affinity, passive permeability and aqueous solubility, the measurement of gas-to-water transfer free energy is not exactly routine (I’m not aware that any companies offer measurement aqueous solvation energy as a service nor do I believe that this is an activity that would readily funded). Measurements for aqueous solvation energy reported in the literature tend to be for relatively volatile compounds and I’ll direct readers to the C1981, W1981 and A1990 studies.

A view is that I've held for many years is that a partition coefficient could be used as an alternative to gas-to-water transfer free energy for studying aqueous solvation. It's also worth noting that when we think about desolvation in drug design we're often considering the energetic cost of bringing polar atoms into contact with non-polar atoms (as opposed to transferring the polar atoms to gas phase). Partition coefficient measurement is a lot more routine than solvation free energy measurement and most drug discovery scientists are of aware that the octanol/water partition coefficient (usually quoted as its base 10 logarithm logP) is an important design parameter. However, the octanol/water partition coefficient is not useful for assessing aqueous solvation because the hydroxyl group of octanol can form hydrogen bonds with solutes and the water-saturated solvent is actually quite 'wet' (the DC1992 study reports that the room temperature solubility of water in octanol is 2.5 M). If we’re going to use partition coefficient measurements for studying aqueous solvation then I would argue that we should make these measurements with a saturated hydrocarbon such as cyclohexane or hexadecane that lacks hydrogen bonding capability.

Here’s another slide from that 2023 talk showing that pyridine is lipophilic for octanol/water but hydrophilic for hexadecane/water. The difference in the logP values for a solute is sometimes referred to as ΔlogP (it is equivalent to the hexadecane/water logP value with both solvents water-saturated) and can be considered to quantify the solute’s ability to form hydrogen bonds (see Y1988 | A1994 | T2008). I'll mention in passing that ΔlogP measurements with toluene as the less polar organic solvent have been used to study intramolecular hydrogen bonding (see S2013 | C2016 | C2018).     

It should be stressed  that people have been thinking about using different organic solvents for partition coefficient measurement for a lot longer than me. My view, expressed in K2013, is that the justification in H1963 for using octanol was partly based on a misinterpretation of Collander's C1951 study. I really like this quote from Alan Finkelstein's 1976 article (as an aside the partition coefficient literature is not exactly awash with alkane/water logP measurements for amides and the article reports measured values of the hexadecane/water partition coefficient for acetamide, formamide, urea, butyramide and isobutyramide): 

It has long been fashionable to worry about which organic solvent (and polarity) is the best model for the lipoidal region of a particular cell membrane (Collander, 1954). These solvents have ranged from isobutanol (the most polar) to olive oil (the least polar). I have never understood the point of this. If the lipoidal region of the plasma membrane is a lipid bilayer, then clearly the appropriate model solvent is hydrocarbon. For artificial bilayers this is obviously so. I chose n-hexadecane as the particular hydrocarbon, because its chain length is comparable to that of the fatty acid residues in most phospholipids, and it is conveniently available.

I also need to mention the B2016 study (Blind prediction of cyclohexane–water distribution coefficients from the SAMPL5 challenge) since the the cyclohexane/water distribution coefficient was used as a surrogate for gas-to-water transfer free energy in the challenge:

The inclusion of distribution coefficients replaces the previous focus on hydration free energies which was a fixture of the past five challenges (SAMPL0-4) [1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7]. Due to a lack of ongoing experimental work to generate new data, hydration free energies are no longer a practical property to include in blind challenges. It has become increasingly difficult to find unpublished or obscure hydration free energies and therefore impossible to design a challenge focusing on target compounds, functional groups or chemical classes.

I consider initiatives such as the SAMPL5 cyclohexane/water distribution challenge to be valuable for assessing model predictivity in an objective and transparent manner. Generally, I would avoid including logD measurements for compounds that are significantly ionized under experimental conditions because these require that account be taken of ionization when making predictions (better to measure logD at a pH at which ionizable functional groups are not significantly ionized). While challenges such as SAMPL5 are certainly valuable for assessment of predictivity of models, I consider them less useful in model development which requires measured data for structurally-related compounds. 

The isosteric pairs 1/2  and 3/4 shown in the graphic below will give you an idea of what I'm getting at. The predicted pK_BHX values taken from K2016 suggest that 1 is less polar than than its isostere 2 and I'd expect 3 to be more polar than 4.

While the three N-butylated purines shown in the graphic below are not strictly isosteric I would consider it valid to interpret the cyclohexane/water logP values taken from S1998 as reflecting differences in hydrogen bond acceptor strength.

This is a good point at which wrap up and, given the fundamental importance of aqueous solvation in biomolecular recognition and drug design, I see tangible advantages in having a large body of measured data in the public domain. My view is that to measure gas-to-water transfer free energy for significant numbers of compounds of interest to drug discovery scientists would be both technically demanding and unlikely to get funded although I would be delighted to be proven wrong on either point. This means that we need to learn to use other types of data in order to study aqueous solvation and my view is that an alkane/water partition coefficient would be the best option. Using alkane/water partition coefficients as an alternative to gas-to-water transfer free energies for studying aqueous solvation would also enable enthalpic (see RT1984) and volumetric aspects of aqueous solvation to be investigated more easily.     

Why fragments?

Paramin panorama

Crystallographic fragment screens have been run recently against the main protease (at Diamond) and the Nsp3 macrodomain (at UCSF and Diamond) of SARS-Cov-2 and I thought that it might be of interest to take a closer look at why we screen fragments. Fragment-based lead discovery (FBLD) actually has origins in both crystallography [V1992 | A1996] and computational chemistry [M1991 | B1992 | E1994]. Measurement of affinity is important in fragment-to-lead work because it allows fragment-based structure-activity relationships to be established prior to structural elaboration. Affinity measurement is typically challenging when fragment binding has been detected using crystallography although affinity can be estimated by observation of the response of occupancy to concentration (the ∆G° value of −3.1 kcal/mol reported for binding of pyrazole to protein kinase B was derived in this manner).

Although fragment-based approaches to lead discovery are widely used, it is less clear why fragment-based lead discovery works as well as it appears to. While it has been stated that “fragment hits form high-quality interactions with the target”, the concept of interaction quality is not sufficiently well-defined to be useful in design. I ran a poll which asked about the strongest rationale for screening fragments.  The 65 votes were distributed as follows: ‘high ligand efficiency’ (23.1%), ‘enthalpy-driven binding’ (16.9%), ‘low molecular complexity’ (26.2%) and ‘God loves fragments’ (33.8%). I did not vote.

The belief is that fragments are especially ligand-efficient has many adherents in the drug discovery field and it has been asserted that “fragment hits typically possess high ‘ligand efficiency’ (binding affinity per heavy atom) and so are highly suitable for optimization into clinical candidates with good drug-like properties”. The fundamental problem with ligand efficiency (LE), as conventionally calculated, is that perception of efficiency varies with the arbitrary concentration unit in which affinity is expressed (have you ever wondered why Kd , Ki or IC50 has to be expressed in mole/litre for calculation of LE?). This would appear to be an rather undesirable characteristic for a design metric and LE evangelists might consider trying to explain why it’s not a problem rather than dismissing it as a “limitation” of the metric or trying to shift the burden of proof is onto the skeptics to show that the evangelists’ choice of concentration unit for calculation of LE is not useful.

The problems associated with the arbitrary nature of the concentration unit used to express affinity were first identified in 2009 and further discussed in 2014 and 2019. Specifically, it was noted that LE has a nontrivial dependency on the concentration,  C°, used to define the standard state. If you want to do solution thermodynamics with concentrations defined then you do need to specify a standard concentration. However, it is important to remember that the choice of standard concentration is necessarily arbitrary if the thermodynamic analysis is to be valid. If your conclusions change when you use a different definition of the standard state then you’ll no longer be doing thermodynamics and, as Pauli might have observed, you’ll not even be wrong. You probably don't know it, but when you use the LE metric, you’re making the sweeping assumption that all values of Kd, Ki and IC50 tend to a value of 1 M in the limit of zero molecular size. Recalling the conventional criticism of homeopathy, is there really a difference between a solute that is infinitely small and a solute that is infinitely dilute?

I think that’s enough flogging of inanimate equines for one blog post so let’s take a look at enthalpy-driven binding. My view of thermodynamic signature characterization in drug discovery is that it’s, in essence, a solution that’s desperately seeking a problem. In particular, there does not appear to be any physical basis for claims that the thermodynamic signature is a measure of interaction quality.  In case you’re thinking that I’m an unrepentant Luddite, I will concede that thermodynamic signatures could prove useful for validating physics-based models of molecular recognition and in, in specific cases, they may point to differences in binding mode within congeneric series. I should also stress that the modern isothermal calorimeter is an engineering marvel and I'd always want this option for label-free, affinity measurement in any project.

It is common to see statements in the thermodynamic signature literature to the effect that binding is ‘enthalpy-driven’ or ‘entropy-driven’ although it was noted in 2009 (coincidentally, in the same article that highlighted the nontrivial dependence of LE on C°) that these terms are not particularly meaningful. The problems start when you make comparisons between the numerical values of ∆H (which is independent of C°) and T∆S° (which depends on C°). If I’d presented such a comparison in physics class at high school (I was taught by the Holy Ghost Fathers in Port of Spain), I would have been caned with a ferocity reserved for those who’d dozed off in catechism class.  I’ll point you toward an article which asserts that, “when compared with many traditional druglike compounds, fragments bind more enthalpically to their protein targets”. I have a number of issues with this article although this is not the place for a comprehensive review (although I’ll probably pick it up in ‘The Nature of Lipophilic Efficiency’ when that gets written).

While I don’t believe that the authors have actually demonstrated that fragments bind more enthalpically than ligands of greater molecular size, I wouldn’t be surprised to discover that gains in affinity over the course of a fragment-to-lead (F2L) campaign had come more from entropy than enthalpy. First, the lost translation entropy (the component of ∆S° that endows it with its dependence on C°) is shared over greater number of intermolecular contacts for structurally-elaborated compounds and this article is relevant to the discussion. Second, I’d expect the entropy of any water molecule to increase when it is moved to bulk solvent from contact with molecular surface of ligand or target (regardless of polarity of the molecular surface at the point of contact). Nevertheless, this is something that you can test easily by examining the response of (∆H + T∆S°) to ∆G° (best to not to aggregate data for different targets and/or temperatures when analyzing isothermal titration calorimetry data in this manner). But even if F2L affinity gains were shown generally to come more from entropy than enthalpy, would that be a strong rationale for screening fragments?

This gets us onto molecular complexity and this article by Mike Hann and GSK colleagues should be considered essential reading for anybody thinking about selecting of compounds for screening. The Hann model is a conceptual framework for molecular complexity but it doesn’t provide much practical guidance as to how to measure complexity (this is not a criticism since the thought process should be more about frameworks and less about metrics). I don’t believe that it will prove possible to quantify molecular complexity in an objective manner that is useful for designing compound libraries (I will be delighted to be proven wrong on this point). The approach to handling molecular complexity that I’ve used in screening library design is to restrict extent of substitution (and other substructural features that can be considered to be associated with molecular complexity) and this is closer to ‘needle screening’ as described by Roche scientists in 2000 than to the Hann model.

Had I voted in the poll, ‘low molecular complexity’ would have got my vote.  Here’s what I said in NoLE (it’s got an entire section on fragment-based design and a practical suggestion for redefining ligand efficiency so that perception does not change with C°):

"I would argue that the rationale for screening fragments against targets of interest is actually based on two conjectures. First, chemical space can be covered most effectively by fragments because compounds of low molecular complexity [18, 21, 22] allow TIP [target interaction potential] to be explored [70,71,72,73,74] more efficiently and accurately. Second, a fragment that has been observed to bind to a target may be a better starting point for design than a higher affinity ligand whose greater molecular complexity prevents it from presenting molecular recognition elements to the target in an optimal manner."

To be fair, those who advocate the use of LE and thermodynamic signatures in fragment-based design do not deny the importance of molecular complexity. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that interaction quality can actually be defined and is quantified by the LE value and/or the thermodynamic signature for binding of compound to target. While these are massive assumptions, LE values and thermodynamic signatures are still effects rather than causes.

The last option for poll was ‘God loves fragments’ and more respondents (33.8%) voted for this than any of the first three options. I would interpret a vote for ‘God loves fragments’ in three ways. First, the respondent doesn’t consider any one of the first three options to be a stronger rationale for screening fragments than the other two. Second, the respondent doesn’t consider any of the first three options to be a valid rationale for screening fragments. Third, the respondent considers fragment-based approaches to have been over-sold.

This is a good place to wrap up. While I remain an enthusiast for fragment-based approaches to lead discovery, I do also believe that they have been somewhat oversold. The sensitivity of LE evangelists to criticism of their metric may stem from the use of LE to sell fragment-based methods to venture capitalists and, internally, to skeptical management. A shared (and serious) deficiency in the conventional ways in which LE and thermodynamic signature are quantified is that perception changes when the arbitrary concentration,  C°, that defines the standard state is changed. While there are ways in which this deficiency can be addressed for analysis, it is important that the deficiency be acknowledged if we are to move forward. Drug design is difficult and if we, as drug designers, embrace shaky science and flawed data analysis then those who fund our activities may conclude that the difficulties that we face are of our own making.     

More hydrogen bonding asymmetries

<< Previous

I examined an article on the polarized nature of protein-ligand binding interfaces previously and promised that I'd discuss a completely different type of hydrogen bond asymmetry which is based not on structure but on energetics. Readers may be familiar with hydrogen bond (HB) acidity and basicity which may be quantified by measurement of 1:1 association constants for hydrogen bonded complexes in non-hydrogen bonding solvents (e.g. carbon tetrachloride). Here are three references (1 | 2 | 3) and I'll also mention that molecular electrostatic potential (MEP) can be used for prediction of both HB acidity and HB basicity.

As discussed in this article, measurements of HB acidity and basicity have their limitations when trying to use them to understand and predict solvation behavior in aqueous media. First, measuring the association constant for a 1:1 complex does not tell us what will happen when two water molecules simultaneously donate hydrogen bonds to the oxygen atom of a carbonyl group. Second, the measured association constants cannot be used to compare HB acceptors with HB donors. This may seem a perverse sort of thing to want to do but one of the things that drug designers are interested in is the ease of dragging different HB donors and acceptors out of water.

Lake Liadskoye

Prediction of alkane/water partition coefficients (logPalk) has been a long standing interest (1 | 2 | 3) of mine for a number of years. It turns out that analysis of logPalk values measured for structurally prototypical model compounds can tell us quite a lot about what happens when you drag individual HB donors and acceptors out of water. The analysis is based on the observation of a very strong correlation between molecular surface area (MSA) and logPalk. The figure below shows the response of logPalk to MSA for saturated hydrocarbons, aliphatic alcohols (single hydroxyl group) and aliphatic diols. The lines of fit are essentially parallel and equally spaced which suggests that the effect on logPalk of adding a hydroxyl group to a saturated hydrocarbon or to an aliphatic alcohol is constant. This suggests treating polar groups as perturbations of saturated hydrocarbons for prediction of logPalk and analysis of data like what is shown in Figure 1 can be used to parameterize the perturbations for different polar groups. The approach, described in this article is to first calculate logPalk for a hypothetical saturated hydrocarbon with the same MSA as the compound of interest and then to sum the parameters for the polar groups in the molecular structure to account for the introduction of these polar groups. 

Figure 1. Relationship between alkane/water logP and molecular surface area (MSA) for saturated hydrocarbons, saturated alcohols and saturated diols. Neither of the aliphatic diols (1,4-butanediol and 1,6-hexanediol) would be expected to form intramolecular HBs in water.  

I think we'll need more data (especially for heterocycles and species with intramolecular HBs) to make this approach to prediction of logPalk generally useful.  However, the size of the effect on logPalk of introducing an HB acceptor or donor into a saturated hydrocarbon does tell us how strongly the HB donor or acceptor interacts with water. It was actually this article which was published after our article on logPalk prediction that got me thinking along these lines. In our article, we showed how polarity can be defined for HB acceptors and donors and calculated from measured alkane/water partition coefficients. Polarity defined in this manner brings HB donors and acceptors onto the same scale and allows us to explore another type of hydrogen bonding asymmetry.

Insects exploiting surface tension in Belovezhskaya Pushcha

For HB acceptors, the approach is simple. First you need to identify appropriate model compounds for which logPalk has been measured. These have only the HB acceptor functional group of interest, saturated carbon and hydrogen in their molecular structures. Next, calculate logPalk for a saturated hydrocarbon with the same MSA as that for the model compound (use line for saturated hydrocarbons in Figure 1 to do this) and subtract the measured logPalk value from the calculated value. Things are a bit more complicated for HB donors because you can't usually have these without an HB acceptor (this is the 'baggage' I discussed in the previous post) and you need to deal with these on a case-by-case basis. For example, you might estimate the polarity of an amide NH by subtracting the polarity of the tertiary amide group from that of the secondary amide group.  Here's a table of polarity estimates for some hydrogen bond acceptors and donors (our article explains how these were derived).  

Table 1. Polarity of HB acceptors and donors estimated from measured alkane/water partition coefficient and molecular surface area

The results in Table 1 show that HB donors are typically more easily pulled out of water than HB acceptors and this can be seen as another hydrogen bonding asymmetry. This appears to go against the folklore that HB donors are somehow worse than HB acceptors from the perspective of drug-likeness. The polarity values for the NH (0.8) and carbonyl O (6.8) of the amide group may have some relevance to protein folding. This a good place to wrap up and I'll conclude by noting that, in the supplemental information for our article, you'll find an archive that contains files (in plain text format) of measured values for logPalk, hydrogen bond basicity and pKa that we extracted from the literature (DOI links are included). Here are some more photos from Belarus.  

Até mais!

Flora and fauna of Belovezhskaya Pushcha

Hydrogen bonding asymmetries

Next >>

Have you ever wondered why the Rule of 5 (Ro5) specifies hydrogen bond (HB) thresholds of 10 acceptors but only 5 donors? This is, perhaps, the prototypical example of what I'll call a 'hydrogen bonding asymmetry' and it is sometimes invoked in support of the folklore that HB donors are somehow 'worse' than HB acceptors in drug design. I have, on occasion, tried to track down the source of this folklore but that trail has always gone cold on me. In any case, I don't think the HB asymmetry in Ro5 has any physical significance since HB acceptors (especially as defined for Ro5) tend to be more common in chemical structures of interest to medicinal chemists than HB donors. This was discussed in our correlation inflation article and the bigger Ro5 question for me is why the high polarity limit is defined by counts of HB donors and acceptors while the low polarity limit is defined in terms of lipophilicity. As may become a blogging habit, I'll include some random photos (these are from a visit to India late in 2013) to break up the text a bit. 

Drum fest at Buland Darwaza

It was this article in JCAMD about the 'polarized' nature of protein-ligand interfaces that got me thinking again about hydrogen bonding asymmetries. The study found that proteins donate twice as many HBs as they accepted. While the observation is certainly interesting, I do think that the authors might be over-interpreting it. For example, the authors suggest that it appears to be an underlying explanation for Ro5 and they may find that there are significant differences in their definitions of HB acceptors and those used to apply Ro5. The authors also state "Peptidyl ligands, on the other hand, showed no strong preference for donating versus accepting H-bonds". This observation would more be consistent with 'polarization' of protein-ligand interfaces being determined by nature of the ligand.

The authors assert that "lone pairs available to accept H-bonds are actually 1.6 times as prevalent as protons available to donate, both on the protein and ligand side of the interface." While it is appropriate to count lone pairs in situations where only one lone pair accepts an HB (e.g. when considering 1:1 hydrogen bonded complexes in low polarity solvents), I would argue that it is not appropriate to do so when considering biomolecular recognition in aqueous media because the acceptance of an HB by one oxygen lone pair makes the other lone pair less able to accept an HB. You can see this effect using molecular electrostatic potential as discussed in this article (see polarization effects section and Table 4). Put another way, how often is a carbonyl oxygen observed to accept two HBs from a binding partner? How many docking tools would explictly penalize a pose in which a carbonyl oxygen accepted two HBs?

As I see it, a typical protein is more likely to have a surplus of HB donors under normal physiological conditions. Some parts (e.g. serine, threonine, tyrosine and histidine side chains and the backbone) of a protein can be regarded as having equal numbers of HB donor and acceptor atoms. While the anionic side chains of aspartate and glutamate cannot donate HBs, the cationic side chains of arginine and lysine have five and three donor hydrogen atoms respectively while lacking HB acceptors. The tryptophan side chain has only a single HB donor (although its p-system is likely to be able to accept HBs) while each side chain of aspargine and glutamine has two donor hydrogen atoms and one acceptor oxygen atom. The histidine side chain is sometimes observed to be protonated in X-ray crystal structures which means that it should be considered to be more HB donor than HB acceptor in the constext of protein-ligand recognition. The tyrosine hydroxyl would be expected to be a stronger HB donor (and weaker HB acceptor) than the hydroxyls of either serine or threonine.  

A magical place

The study considers the "possibility is that nature avoids the presence of chemical groups bearing both H-bond donor and acceptor capacity, such as hydroxyl groups, in the binding sites of proteins or ligands" although it is not clear what glycobiologists would have to say about this. Let's think a bit about what happens when a hydroxyl group donates its hydrogen atom. Let's suppose you've spotted a nice juicy hydrogen bond acceptor at the bottom of a deep binding pocket that is otherwise hydrophobic. The ligandability is eye-wateringly awesome (the ligandometer is beeping loudly and appears to have gone into dynamic range overload). Even the tiresome Mothers Against Molecular Obesity (MAMO) are impressed and have recommended that you deploy a hydroxyl group since this will be great for property forecast index (PFI). What could possibly go wrong?

The main problem is that the hydroxyl HB donor comes with baggage. In order to donate an HB to the acceptor at the bottom of that pocket, you're going to need to force an HB acceptor into contact with the non-polar part of that binding pocket. Although this contact is not inherently repulsive, it is destabilizing. Another factor is that donation of an HB by the hydroxyl group is likely to increase the HB basicity of the oxygen (which will exacerbate the problem). You can think of other neutral HB donors (e.g. amide NH) but the vast majority of them come with baggage the form of an accompanying HB acceptor. Exceptions such as NH in pyrrole (not renowned for stability) and indole (steric demands) come with baggage of their own. In contrast, the drug designer has access to a diverse set (e.g. heteroaromatic N, nitrile N, tertiary amide O, sulfoxide O, ether O) of HB acceptors that are not accompanied by HB donors. If you use one of these, you don't have the problem of having to also accommodate a ligand HB donor.

This is a good place to wrap up. In the next post, I'll talk about a completely different type of hydrogen bonding asymmetry, but for now, I'll leave you with some photos from an afternoon spent admiring asses in the Rann of Kutch. 

Até mais!

Hammett

I first became aware of Louis Hammett during the third term of my first year as an undergraduate at the University of Reading. Hammett was a pioneer in physical-organic chemistry and is widely regarded as one of the founders of that field. He would have been 124 today and was less than a year younger than Christopher Ingold, another pioneer in the field. Hammett passed away in 1987 at the age of 92 (here is an excellent obituary).

Today Hammett is remembered primarily for the parameters that describe electronic interactions between aromatic rings and their substituents. He also introduced linear free energy relationships which form the basis of classical QSAR. These days, QSAR has evolved away from its origins in physical-organic chemistry into what many call machine learning and parameters have become less physical (and considerably more numerous). Hammett's work provided an early lesson to wannabe molecular designers in how to think about molecules.

Jens Sadowski and I introduced matched molecular pair analysis (MMPA) in a chapter of a cheminformatics book that was conceived and edited by my dear friend (and favorite Transylvanian) Tudor Oprea. Here's a photo of Tudor and me at an OpenEye meeting (I think CUP II in 2001) during which our props (Tudor is wearing a PoD cape) were provided by the session chair (the formidable Janet Newman who intimidates proteins to the extent that they 'voluntarily' crystallize).

Now you might be wondering what MMPA has to do with Hammett. The short answer is that our book chapter included a table of what are effectively substituent constants for aqueous solubility and these have Hammett's fingerprints all over them. The longer answer is that Hammett introduced the idea of associating parameters with structural relationships (e.g. X is chloro analog of Y) between compounds. This is an important idea because much pharmaceutical design is focused on understanding and predicting the effects of structural modifications on the activity and properties of compounds. One rationale for this focus is the belief that it is easier to predict differences (e.g. relative affinity) in chemical behavior between structurally-related compounds than it is to predict chemical behavior directly from molecular structure.

At first, I didn't see the deeper connection between Hammett's work and pharmaceutical design. The main focus of our book chapter was preparing chemical structures in databases for virtual screening so the full extent of Hammett's influence on MMPA was not immediately recognized. As is often the case, we think we've discovered something really new only to find out later that somebody had been thinking along similar lines many years before. 

Happy 124th birthday, Louis Hammett.