ANNUAL SYMPOSIUM
Australia's science future
3-4 May 2000
Molecular
structure and recognition
Designer medicines
molecules of the future
by Jenny Martin
J.Martin@mailbox.uq.edu.au
Abstract
Recent developments have advanced the field of drug biotechnology so that
it is now feasible to design molecules, such as the Australian anti-influenza
drug Relenza, which have a very specific and novel biological activity.
The design of molecules in this way has the advantage that it can produce
drugs with lower incidence of side effects and toxicity. Celebrex, a new
anti-arthritis drug, is a perfect example of how designer drugs can be
developed to have fewer side effects compared with current therapies.
Even more exciting is the possibility of linking drug design technology
to genomic studies. This means that as we learn more about the molecules
of life and how they interact, function and malfunction, we can begin
to develop new medicines for diseases that are currently untreatable.
What are medicines? Most drugs
are relatively small chemicals. For example, aspirin has only ~10 non-hydrogen
atoms. But drugs exert their pharmacological effect by interacting with
much larger species, 1000 to 1 million atoms, depending on the protein.
For example, the target of aspirin, an enzyme called COX, is a large biological
molecule comprising a few thousand atoms. Ideally, drugs should have a
very specific biological effect, or else side effects may result.
How are new drugs developed? The process of developing
a drug from a chemical on the laboratory bench to a product on the pharmacy
shelves is called the drug pipeline. The pipeline has many stages and
a candidate drug can fail the process at any one of these. Estimates are
that the chances of a drug making it through the pipeline are 1 in 10,000,
the costs are US$300-500 million and the time required is 10-20 years.
How can we reduce the costs and increase the chances of
finding new and better drugs? The later stages of the pipeline are regulated
by the Therapeutic Goods Administration, to ensure that drugs making it
to market are safe and effective. So it is not possible to reduce the
costs or time at these stages. But we can reduce them at the early stages
of the drug pipeline, specifically at the drug discovery step (identification
of lead compounds).
Historically, we have identified lead compounds in a variety
of ways:
- folklore use of natural products (eg, the use of foxglove
to treat dropsy led to the discovery of digitalis);
- serendipity a chance observation meeting a prepared
mind (eg, Fleming and Florey’s discovery of penicillin);
- random screening, searching through thousands of chemicals
until one is found with the desired biological activity, a bit like
finding a needle in a haystack with odds of 1 in 10,000.
However we can be smarter about the way in which we discover
new drug candidates, using a technique called structure-based design,
which reduces the odds to 1 in 300.
So why isn’t structure-based design used all the time?
Because there are certain prerequisites for this to work. The disease
biology must be understood, a target protein must be identified, and its
three-dimensional structure must be known in order to use this technique.
There are currently only a handful of diseases which meet
these criteria, because only relatively few protein structures are known.
The protein structure allows visualisation of hot spots in the protein,
active sites where the enzyme does its work. Once we know what the hot
spots look like, we can design drugs that match their size, shape and
physical and chemical properties.
Recent examples of structure-based drug design are Relenza
and Celebrex.
Relenza is an Australian-designed drug to treat influenza,
for which there was previously no effective treatment. The work was a
collaboration between the research groups of Peter Colman, Mark von Itzstein
and Graeme Laver. It began by profiling the influenza virus, and identifying
the key protein, neuraminidase. The three-dimensional structure of this
protein was then determined and an inhibitor was designed to fit the structure.
The drug was approved for use in humans in 1999.
 |
Structure of the influenza virus neuraminidase enzyme (purple and yellow)
showing how the influenza drug Relenza (green) blocks the function. From
the work of research groups of Peter Colman, Mark von Itzstein and Graeme
Laver.
|
Celebrex is a new treatment for arthritis.
Previous treatments such as aspirin and non-steroidal anti-inflammatories
have side effects because they don’t discriminate between two related
proteins COX-1 and COX-2. COX-2 causes the inflammation of arthritis and
is the real target for anti-arthritic drugs. Scientists determined the
structures of both COX-1 and COX-2 and then designed inhibitors selective
for COX-2. The new drug was approved for use in 1999 and was the most
prescribed drug for treating arthritis.
Genomics will help us profile
more diseases that are currently untreatable. As the album of three-dimensional
structures grows, it will provide pictures of more and more disease targets.
Structure-based drug design will then provide us with the tools for designing
better drugs, and to combat diseases that are currently untreatable. These
methods herald a new era in drug discovery.
Discussion
What proportion of new drugs will employ structure-based design?
Jenny Martin. That requires some crystal ball gazing. It takes
10 to 20 years to get a new drug onto the market and we are only seeing
the first trickling through of structure-based designed drugs now. The
sky’s the limit. If you have all the prerequisites it is possible and
the odds are better. Most drug companies are using these techniques.
John Shine. It should also be noted that the genomic database
is highlighting individual DNA differences that may contribute to disease.
So it is likely that drug design will also become more individualised.
What is driving the search for drugs to cure diseases? The first world?
Jenny Martin. Pharmaceutical companies do have a responsibility
to their investors. But universities are focusing on diseases of developing
countries such as malaria and dengue fever.
Peter Colman. The problem is not limited to this technique. How are the structures derived? Is it automated?
Jenny Martin. Protein structures are generally determined using
X-ray crystallography. High-throughput crystallography is being developed
to increase the speed.
Peter Colman. It is an imaging technique that can be used if you
can crystallise the protein. How many strains of influenza virus does Relenza treat?
Peter Colman. The susceptible site is the same on all wild strains
of influenza. There is always the possibility of resistant strains developing,
but we haven’t seen that happen yet. Is it possible to model the structure of a protein rather than using
X-ray crystallography for determining structures?
Jenny Martin. It depends on the problem. X-ray crystallography
is the experimental method of choice for most proteins because it is not
limited by the size of the protein. It is possible to model a protein
structure from a related protein structure if the sequence identity is
high. When there are no related structures known, it becomes a very difficult
problem. As we determine more experimental structures using X-ray crystallography,
the modelling problem will become easier.
|