Kinase Chemistry – Just a year and a half behind the times.

Schering’s Macrocycles

Posted by kinasepro on July 20, 2007

Aurora Eh? What can I say, I like’m: WO/2007/079982


Related series, complete w/ a Chem Med Chem.

12 Responses to “Schering’s Macrocycles”

  1. shiptorch said


    Sorry to be pedantic, but I think the AurA and AurC values got mixed up. It did make me wonder, though: any idea why they might be so interested in AurC, which apart from being expressed only in testis doesn’t seem to be found anywhere else? Still got a lot to learn…

  2. kinasepro said

    Thanks for the correction, and I think we all have a lot to learn. You likely know more then I on target selection, but I tend to thing the goal of much of this multi-targetting business is a bit like rolling the dice, and finding compounds that doesn’t kill things…

    It sometimes seems that the current Angiogenesis paradigm is to have three lists of enzymes in the screening panel: Good to hit, bad to hit, and don’t know but lets see what happens.

  3. Biotech said

    From a med chem point of view, great looking molecules.. just wonder (as I’ve not seen the literature) how these bind and why they needed a macrocycle in there rather than eg simple N-alkyl?

  4. Docking scores for CDK2 seem to suck for the macrocycles, much much better for the N-methyl analogs. Binding mode looks non-classical, with binding affinity seeming to come mainly from HBs with sulfimine and associated paraphernalia.

  5. Setanta said

    Binding mode “non-classical”? Surely not. anilinopyrimidine methinks. Bromide to gatekeeper. Macrocyclic part sitting in the middle of the pocket.

  6. kinasepro said

    ic50 >> docking scores. Quit modeling and take up something useful, like crystallography k tx! [omfg so harsh]

    The CDK activity is pretty easy to understand, for the general idea, check out 1OIT (AZ / BMCL). Its the Aurora activity that has me wondering what’s so special about the sulfoximine. 2NP8 suggests that it’s got something to do with ARG-137 in Aur-A.

    The tether has got to be about the entropy. ‘Pre-shaping’ the molecule in a position to bind, and also for their enhanced PK.

  7. Haha…that’s why you cannot trust docking scores blindly. Most serious modelers don’t, and certainly not for one or two compounds for a single target. I sort of just wanted to check out everyone’s reaction 😉
    Thanks for the link…what do you think about the latest J. Med. Chem. p38 paper by the way?

  8. milkshake said

    I always thought that N,N’-diaryl ureas awere an abominatination – my last work with them ended a week ago, the two free NH and carbonyl produces the kind of stuff that gells or crystalizes from diluted ethyl acetate solutions. So I am glad that they replaced it in their BIRB series.

  9. kinasepro said

    re: the BI p38 amides

    I haven’t read it yet, but the abstract makes it look worth a look.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if we could learn something about some of the recent Raf series’ containing t-Bu groups from this paper.

  10. kinchem said

    Kinasepro: in response 2 you identify that there are the “Good to hit, bad to hit, and don’t know”. Has there been any lists of the “bad to hit” compiled anywhere?

  11. kinasepro said

    Not that I’m aware of

  12. someone said

    Interesting question, anybody willing to answer?

Leave a Reply to kinasepro Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: