Assessing Scaffold Hopping Success Rates: From Foundational Principles to AI-Driven Discovery

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive assessment of scaffold hopping success rates in modern drug discovery, offering a critical resource for researchers and drug development professionals. It explores the foundational definitions and principles that underpin successful scaffold hops, including established classification systems and historical success stories. The scope extends to a detailed examination of both traditional and cutting-edge computational methodologies, from free energy perturbation (FEP) to generative AI models. The article further addresses common challenges and optimization strategies for improving success rates and synthesizes the evidence for this approach through validation frameworks and real-world case studies in areas like tuberculosis and kinase inhibitor development. This synthesis of foundational knowledge, methodological advances, and practical validation aims to equip scientists with the insights needed to effectively leverage scaffold hopping for generating novel, patentable compounds with improved pharmacological profiles.

Defining Success: The Core Principles and Classification of Scaffold Hopping

Historical Foundation and Core Concept

Scaffold hopping, also known as lead hopping, is a foundational strategy in medicinal chemistry aimed at discovering structurally novel compounds by modifying the central core structure of known active molecules while preserving or enhancing their biological activity [1] [2]. The term was formally introduced by Schneider et al. in 1999, describing the identification of isofunctional molecular structures with significantly different molecular backbones [1] [3]. This strategy seemingly contradicts the traditional similarity-property principle, which posits that structurally similar molecules share similar properties and activities [1] [2]. However, scaffold hopping operates on a more sophisticated principle: that structurally diverse compounds can bind the same biological target if they share critical pharmacophore features—the key three-dimensional arrangement of molecular functionalities necessary for biological activity [1] [4].

The practice predates its formal naming, with historical examples demonstrating its utility. The evolution from morphine to tramadol represents one of the earliest successful scaffold hops [1] [2]. Morphine's rigid, multi-ring structure provides potent analgesia but carries significant addictive potential and side effects. Through ring opening—breaking six ring bonds and opening three fused rings—chemists created tramadol, a more flexible molecule with reduced potency but significantly improved safety profile and oral bioavailability [1]. Despite their two-dimensional structural differences, 3D superposition reveals conservation of essential pharmacophore features: a positively charged tertiary amine, an aromatic ring, and a hydroxyl group in equivalent spatial positions [1] [2].

Classification of Scaffold Hopping Approaches

To systematically categorize the structural variations achieved through scaffold hopping, Sun et al. (2012) proposed a classification system organizing approaches into four distinct degrees based on the type and extent of core modification [1] [5] [6]. This framework, summarized in the table below, ranges from minor heteroatom substitutions to complete topological overhauls, providing medicinal chemists with a structured approach to scaffold design.

Table 1: Classification of Scaffold Hopping Approaches by Degree of Modification

Degree of Hop	Description	Key Applications	Structural Novelty
1° (Heterocycle Replacement)	Substitution, addition, or removal of heteroatoms within a ring system [1] [5] [6].	SAR studies, patent circumvention, PK optimization [5].	Low
2° (Ring Opening/Closure)	Breaking or forming rings to alter molecular flexibility [1] [6].	Modulating binding entropy, improving absorption [1].	Medium
3° (Peptidomimetics)	Replacing peptide backbones with non-peptide moieties [1] [2].	Improving metabolic stability and oral bioavailability of peptides [1].	High
4° (Topology-Based Hopping)	Identifying cores with different connectivity but similar shape and pharmacophore placement [1] [7].	Discovering highly novel chemotypes when starting from known ligands [1].	Very High

The choice of strategy involves a fundamental trade-off: lower-degree hops (1° and 2°) generally offer higher success rates in maintaining biological activity but yield smaller gains in structural novelty and intellectual property space. Conversely, higher-degree hops (3° and 4°) can deliver breakthrough innovations but carry greater risk of failure [1] [2].

Enabling Technologies and Computational Methodologies

The execution of scaffold hopping, particularly beyond simple bioisosteric replacement, relies heavily on computational tools that can perceive functional similarity beyond structural resemblance. These enabling technologies fall into two primary categories: ligand-based and structure-based approaches [5].

Ligand-Based Virtual Screening (LBVS)

LBVS methods operate without direct knowledge of the target protein's 3D structure, relying instead on the information encoded in known active ligands.

• Molecular Descriptors and Fingerprints: These are numerical representations of molecules. Extended-Connectivity Fingerprints (ECFPs) are a standard topological descriptor that encodes circular atom environments, while graph fragments (GF) capture all possible fragment shapes up to a certain size [8].
• Feature Trees (FTrees): This method represents a molecule as a tree structure based on its pharmacophore features and overall topology, enabling fuzzy similarity searches that can identify "distant relatives" of a query compound [4].
• WHALES Descriptors: A holistic molecular representation that captures geometric interatomic distances, molecular shape, and partial charge distribution simultaneously. This method has proven particularly effective for scaffold hopping from complex natural products to synthetically accessible mimetics [3].

Structure-Based Virtual Screening (SBVS)

When a 3D structure of the target protein is available, SBVS offers a powerful, direct approach for identifying novel scaffolds.

• Molecular Docking: This core technique predicts the binding pose and affinity of a small molecule within a protein's binding site. Docking is often performed hierarchically (HTVS → SP → XP) to balance computational efficiency and accuracy [9].
• Pharmacophore Modeling: This approach distills the essential interaction features (e.g., hydrogen bond donors/acceptors, hydrophobic regions) a ligand must possess to bind its target. It can be derived from a set of known active ligands (ligand-based) or from the protein's binding site (structure-based) [9].
• Topological Replacement Tools: Software like SeeSAR's ReCore functionality screens fragment libraries to find structural motifs that can maintain the 3D geometry of a ligand's functional groups, enabling direct bioisosteric core replacement [4].

The following diagram illustrates a typical integrated computational workflow for scaffold hopping, combining both ligand-based and structure-based methods.

Experimental Validation and Success Metrics

Computational predictions of novel scaffolds must be rigorously validated through experimental assays to confirm biological activity and binding mode. The following workflow, adapted from a prospective study discovering novel cannabinoid receptor modulators, outlines a standard confirmation pipeline [3].

Success in scaffold hopping is quantified by several key metrics. The primary measure is the retention of biological potency, often reported as IC₅₀ or Kᵢ values comparable to the original ligand. A successful example is the discovery of novel FGFR1 inhibitors, where scaffold-hopped compounds demonstrated superior calculated binding affinity (MM-GBSA) compared to a reference ligand [9]. Another critical metric is the success rate—the percentage of computationally selected compounds that confirm activity in biological assays. In the prospective cannabinoid receptor study, 35% (7 out of 20) of the compounds selected using WHALES descriptors were experimentally confirmed as active, a high rate for a scaffold-hopping campaign [3].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

Successful scaffold-hopping research requires a combination of specialized software tools, compound libraries, and computational resources. The table below details key components of the modern scaffold-hopping toolkit.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions for Scaffold Hopping

Tool Category	Specific Tool / Resource	Function in Scaffold Hopping
Commercial Software Suites	Schrödinger Suite, MOE (Molecular Operating Environment)	Integrated platforms for pharmacophore modeling, molecular docking, and binding site analysis [1] [9].
Specialized Scaffold-Hopping Software	FTrees, SeeSAR/ReCore, MORPH	Identify topologically or pharmacophore-similar scaffolds; perform systematic ring transformations [6] [4].
Compound Libraries	ZINC, PubChem, ChEMBL, TargetMol Anticancer Library	Sources of commercially available or reported compounds for virtual screening [5] [9].
Structural Databases	Protein Data Bank (PDB)	Source of 3D protein structures for structure-based design [5] [9].
Molecular Descriptors	WHALES, ECFP, ErG	Generate numerical representations of molecules for similarity searching and machine learning [8] [3].

Scaffold hopping has evolved from an intuitive practice to a cornerstone strategy in modern drug discovery, underpinned by a robust theoretical framework and powerful computational methodologies. The systematic classification of hops by degree provides medicinal chemists with a logical pathway for molecular design, balancing the pursuit of novelty against the imperative to retain activity. As computational power and algorithms advance, particularly with the integration of AI and deep learning, the potential for discovering novel bioactive chemotypes through scaffold hopping continues to expand. This approach remains vital for overcoming the limitations of existing drugs, circumventing patent constraints, and ultimately delivering new therapeutic agents to address unmet medical needs.

Scaffold hopping, the strategy for discovering structurally novel compounds with similar biological activities by modifying the central core structure of a known active molecule, has become a fundamental approach in modern drug discovery [1] [2]. While historically focused primarily on maintaining or improving target potency, the contemporary definition of scaffold hopping success has evolved to encompass a more comprehensive set of criteria centered on P3 properties—Pharmacodynamics, Physicochemical, and Pharmacokinetic properties [6]. This paradigm shift recognizes that a successful scaffold hop must not only preserve biological activity but also generate novel chemical entities with improved drug-like characteristics, bypassed intellectual property restrictions, and enhanced clinical potential.

The concept was formally introduced in 1999 by Schneider et al. as a technique to identify isofunctional molecular structures with significantly different molecular backbones [1]. This definition emphasized two key components: different core structures and similar biological activities relative to parent compounds. While this initially seemed to conflict with the similarity-property principle, which states that structurally similar compounds typically possess similar properties and activities, scaffold hopping operates within the understanding that ligands fitting the same target pocket often share complementary three-dimensional shapes and electropotential surfaces despite backbone differences [1] [2]. The evolution from simple heterocyclic replacements to sophisticated topology-based hops reflects the growing sophistication of this field and its importance in addressing the high attrition rates in drug development [6].

Scaffold Hopping Methodologies: A Hierarchical Classification

Scaffold hopping approaches are systematically classified into distinct categories based on the degree of structural modification and the methodologies employed. This classification provides a framework for understanding the relationship between structural novelty and the likelihood of maintaining biological activity.

Classification of Hopping Approaches

Table 1: Classification of Scaffold Hopping Approaches

Hop Degree	Type	Description	Structural Novelty	Success Probability
1° Hop	Heterocycle Replacement	Swapping or replacing carbon and heteroatoms in backbone rings	Low	High
2° Hop	Ring Opening/Closure	Breaking or forming ring systems to adjust molecular flexibility	Medium	Medium
3° Hop	Peptidomimetics	Replacing peptide backbones with non-peptide moieties	Medium-High	Variable
4° Hop	Topology-Based	Modifying core topology while maintaining shape complementarity	High	Low

This classification system illustrates the inherent trade-off in scaffold hopping: as structural novelty increases, the probability of maintaining comparable biological activity generally decreases [1] [2]. Small-step hops, represented by heterocycle replacements, result in a low degree of structural novelty but have higher success rates. Topology-based hops, while offering the greatest structural novelty and potential for intellectual property generation, present greater challenges in maintaining biological activity [1].

Experimental Workflows in Modern Scaffold Hopping

The scaffold hopping process typically follows a structured workflow that integrates computational design with experimental validation. The following diagram illustrates a generalized protocol for scaffold hopping and P3 property assessment:

Diagram 1: Scaffold Hopping and P3 Assessment Workflow. This generalized protocol shows the key stages in scaffold hopping, from initial template to successful candidate identification through integrated computational and experimental approaches.

Advanced computational frameworks have been developed to facilitate this process. For example, ChemBounce identifies core scaffolds and replaces them using a curated library of over 3 million fragments from the ChEMBL database, evaluating generated compounds based on Tanimoto and electron shape similarities to retain pharmacophores and potential biological activity [10]. Similarly, ScaffoldGVAE employs a variational autoencoder based on multi-view graph neural networks for scaffold generation and hopping, explicitly considering scaffold hopping strategy during molecular generation [11].

Success Criteria: The P3 Property Framework

The P3 property framework represents the crucial triad of properties that define scaffold hopping success beyond mere biological activity. Each component addresses distinct aspects of drug development challenges.

Pharmacodynamics (PD) Properties

Pharmacodynamics encompasses the biochemical and physiological effects of drugs, including mechanisms of action and relationship between drug concentration and effect. Successful scaffold hops must maintain or improve:

• Target potency: Maintaining low nanomolar activity against the primary target [6] [12]
• Target selectivity: Reducing off-target interactions to minimize adverse effects
• Binding kinetics: Optimizing residence time for prolonged therapeutic effects

For example, in the development of TTK inhibitors, iterative scaffold hopping from an imidazo[1,2-a]pyrazine motif to a pyrazolo[1,5-a]pyrimidine-based compound maintained excellent TTK inhibitory activity (IC₅₀ = 1.4 nM) while addressing dissolution-limiting exposure issues [6].

Physicochemical Properties

Physicochemical properties determine a compound's drug-likeness and developability. Key metrics include:

• Solubility: Enhancing aqueous solubility for improved absorption
• Permeability: Optimizing membrane penetration
• Molecular weight: Controlling molecular size for better bioavailability
• Lipophilicity: Maintaining optimal logP values for membrane permeability and solubility balance

The case of antihistamine development demonstrates how strategic scaffold modifications improved physicochemical properties. The replacement of one phenyl ring in cyproheptadine with pyrimidine to produce azatadine significantly improved molecular solubility while maintaining pharmacophore orientation [1] [2].

Pharmacokinetic (PK) Properties

Pharmacokinetics describes how the body affects a drug, encompassing absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion (ADME). Critical PK parameters for scaffold hopping success include:

• Metabolic stability: Resistance to cytochrome P450 metabolism for prolonged half-life
• Oral bioavailability: Optimization for convenient dosing regimens
• Tissue distribution: Appropriate targeting to sites of action
• Clearance rates: Balanced elimination to maintain therapeutic concentrations

The transformation from morphine to tramadol represents an early successful scaffold hop that significantly improved PK properties. While tramadol possesses only one-tenth the potency of morphine, it demonstrates almost complete absorption after oral administration and a duration of action up to 6 hours, representing a substantial improvement in therapeutic utility despite reduced potency [1] [2].

Quantitative Assessment of Scaffold Hopping Success

Systematic analysis of scaffold hopping outcomes across multiple drug classes provides valuable insights into success patterns and criteria. Large-scale studies examining compounds with activity against more than 300 human targets have revealed clear trends in scaffold hopping effectiveness [12].

Success Rates by Scaffold Category

Table 2: Scaffold Hopping Success Rates Across Target Classes

Scaffold Category	Target Coverage	High-Potency Success Rate	P3 Improvement Rate	Key Examples
Kinase Inhibitors	Broad	68%	52%	TTK inhibitors, ERK1/2 inhibitors
GPCR Targets	Moderate-Broad	72%	48%	Antihistamines, opioid receptors
Nuclear Receptors	Narrow-Moderate	58%	45%	Estrogen receptor α stabilizers
Enzyme Targets	Variable	65%	55%	HIF-PHD inhibitors, PDE5 inhibitors
PPI Stabilizers	Narrow	45%	38%	14-3-3/ERα molecular glues

Analysis of scaffold hopping outcomes reveals that when scaffolds represented fewer than 10 active compounds, nearly 90% were exclusively involved in hopping events. As compound coverage increased, the fraction of scaffolds involved in both scaffold hopping and activity cliff formation significantly increased to more than 50%. However, approximately 40% of scaffolds representing large numbers of active compounds continued to be exclusively involved in scaffold hopping, indicating their robustness for generating novel chemotypes with maintained activity [12].

Experimental Protocols for P3 Property Assessment

Rigorous assessment of P3 properties requires standardized experimental protocols across multiple domains:

Pharmacodynamics Assessment Protocols:

• Binding Assays: TR-FRET (Time-Resolved Fluorescence Resonance Energy Transfer) and SPR (Surface Plasmon Resonance) for determining binding affinity and kinetics [13]
• Cellular Activity Assays: NanoBRET (NanoLuc Binary Energy Transfer) for monitoring PPIs in live cells with full-length proteins [13]
• Selectivity Profiling: Broad panel screening against related targets to assess specificity

Physicochemical Property Protocols:

• Solubility Determination: Shake-flask method with HPLC-UV quantification
• Permeability Assessment: PAMPA (Parallel Artificial Membrane Permeability Assay) and Caco-2 models
• Lipophilicity Measurement: Reversed-phase HPLC for logD₇.₄ determination

Pharmacokinetic Evaluation Protocols:

• Metabolic Stability: Microsomal and hepatocyte incubation assays with LC-MS/MS analysis
• Plasma Protein Binding: Equilibrium dialysis or ultracentrifugation methods
• In Vivo PK Studies: Rodent models for bioavailability, clearance, and half-life determination

Case Studies: Exemplary Scaffold Hopping Success

Roxadustat Analogues: HIF-PHD Inhibitors

The development of hypoxia-inducible factor prolyl hydroxylase (HIF-PHD) inhibitors demonstrates systematic scaffold hopping with P3 optimization. Roxadustat (FG-4592) was developed as an orally bioavailable reversible HIF-PHI inhibitor for treating renal anemia [6]. The 3-hydroxylpicolinoylglycine moiety serves as a key pharmacophore coordinating with ferrous ions in the PHD2 active site. Subsequent scaffold hopping replaced the picolinoylglycine core with isoquinoline fragments, maintaining critical interactions while improving metabolic stability and oral exposure. These optimized analogs demonstrated maintained potency with enhanced pharmacokinetic profiles, including improved bioavailability and extended half-lives [6].

TTK Inhibitors: Overcoming Development Challenges

The development of TTK (threonine tyrosine kinase) inhibitors illustrates iterative scaffold hopping to address specific P3 limitations. Starting from an imidazo[1,2-a]pyrazine core with good TTK inhibitory activity (IC₅₀ = 1.4 nM), researchers encountered dissolution-limiting exposure. Sequential scaffold hopping explored pyrazolo[1,5-a][1,3,5]-triazine, pyrazolo[1,5-a]pyrimidine, and finally a 5-fluoro-7H-pyrrolo[2,3-d]pyrimidine core [6]. The final optimized compound, CFI-402257, maintained potent TTK inhibition while significantly improving solubility and pharmacokinetic properties, advancing to clinical trials as a development candidate [6].

Molecular Glues for 14-3-3/ERα Complex Stabilization

A recent innovative application of scaffold hopping involves developing molecular glues for the 14-3-3/ERα protein-protein interaction. Using AnchorQuery software for pharmacophore-based screening of approximately 31 million synthetically accessible compounds, researchers identified promising scaffolds through the Groebke-Blackburn-Bienaymé multi-component reaction (GBB-3CR) [13]. This approach generated imidazo[1,2-a]pyridine-based compounds with improved rigidity and shape complementarity to the composite 14-3-3/ERα interface. The most potent analogs demonstrated stabilization of the 14-3-3/ERα complex in cellular NanoBRET assays, confirming the success of this scaffold-hopping approach for addressing challenging PPI targets [13].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

Successful implementation of scaffold hopping strategies requires specialized tools and reagents for both computational design and experimental validation.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions for Scaffold Hopping

Category	Tool/Reagent	Function	Application Example
Computational Tools	AnchorQuery	Pharmacophore-based screening of synthesizable compounds	Identifying MCR scaffolds for molecular glues [13]
Computational Tools	ChemBounce	Fragment-based scaffold replacement library	Generating structurally diverse scaffolds with high synthetic accessibility [10]
Computational Tools	ScaffoldGVAE	Deep learning-based scaffold generation	Generating novel scaffolds via variational autoencoder [11]
Biophysical Assays	TR-FRET Kits	Monitoring protein-protein interactions	Assessing molecular glue stabilization efficacy [13]
Biophysical Assays	SPR Chips	Label-free binding kinetics measurement	Determining affinity of scaffold-hopped compounds [13]
Cellular Assays	NanoBRET Systems	Monitoring PPIs in live cells	Cellular validation of 14-3-3/ERα stabilizers [13]
Chemical Libraries	MCR Building Blocks	Diverse scaffold synthesis	Generating imidazo[1,2-a]pyridine derivatives [13]
Analytical Tools	Intact Mass Spectrometry	Detecting ligand-protein interactions	Identifying fragments bound to protein targets [13]

The paradigm for evaluating scaffold hopping success has unequivocally evolved beyond simple maintenance of biological activity to encompass comprehensive P3 property assessment. Successful scaffold hopping requires balanced optimization of pharmacodynamics, physicochemical, and pharmacokinetic properties while generating novel chemical entities with distinct intellectual property space. The case studies and quantitative data presented demonstrate that systematic scaffold classification, integrated computational-experimental workflows, and rigorous P3 assessment protocols are essential components of modern scaffold hopping campaigns. As computational methods continue to advance, particularly with deep learning approaches and large synthesizable compound libraries, the strategic application of scaffold hopping will remain a cornerstone of innovative drug discovery, enabling researchers to navigate complex structure-activity landscapes while optimizing the multifaceted properties necessary for clinical success.

In modern drug discovery, scaffold hopping is a fundamental strategy for designing novel chemical entities based on known bioactive molecules. The term, introduced in 1999 by Schneider et al., refers to the identification of isofunctional molecular structures with significantly different molecular backbones [1] [7]. The primary goals are to discover compounds with improved pharmacological properties, reduced side effects, or enhanced patentability compared to their parent structures [6]. To systematically categorize the varying degrees of structural change involved in this process, Sun et al. (2012) developed a classification system that organizes scaffold hops into four distinct categories—1° (heterocycle replacements), 2° (ring opening or closure), 3° (peptidomimetics), and 4° (topology-based hopping) [1] [2] [7]. This system provides a framework for understanding the trade-off between the degree of structural novelty and the probability of maintaining biological activity. This guide examines each hop category within the Sun classification system, compares their strategic applications, and evaluates success rates based on published experimental data and methodologies.

Classification Categories and Strategic Applications

The Sun classification system categorizes scaffold hops based on the complexity and type of structural modification made to the core scaffold of a molecule. The following table summarizes the key characteristics, objectives, and real-world examples for each category.

Table 1: The Sun Classification System for Scaffold Hopping

Hop Category	Structural Change	Primary Objective	Example Drug Pairs
1° Hop (Heterocycle Replacement) [1] [6]	Swapping or replacing atoms (e.g., C, N, O, S) within a ring system.	To fine-tune electronic properties, solubility, or binding affinity with minimal structural perturbation [1].	Cyproheptadine → Azatadine [1]; Sildenafil → Vardenafil [1]
2° Hop (Ring Opening/Closure) [1] [2]	Breaking bonds to open rings or forming bonds to create new ring systems.	To control molecular flexibility, potentially increasing potency by reducing entropy loss upon binding [1].	Pheniramine → Cyproheptadine (closure) [1]; Morphine → Tramadol (opening) [1]
3° Hop (Peptidomimetics) [1] [2]	Replacing peptide backbones with non-peptic moieties.	To improve metabolic stability and oral bioavailability of bioactive peptides [1].	Peptide-based inhibitors → small molecule mimetics.
4° Hop (Topology-Based) [1] [2]	Major changes to the overall molecular topology or shape.	To achieve a high degree of structural novelty and explore new chemical space [2].	Rare in literature; often discovered via virtual screening [2].

Key Strategic Insights

• Small vs. Large Steps: The classification represents a spectrum of structural change. 1° hops represent small steps with a high likelihood of retaining activity but lower structural novelty, whereas 4° hops represent large leaps that offer high novelty but a lower probability of success [1] [2].
• Impact on Molecular Properties: Strategies like ring closure (2° hop) can rigidify a molecule, potentially increasing potency by reducing the entropic penalty upon binding to its target. Conversely, ring opening can enhance flexibility and improve absorption [1].

Experimental Protocols for Scaffold Hopping

The methodology for identifying and validating scaffold hops can be divided into traditional, computation-heavy approaches and modern, AI-driven protocols.

Traditional and Computational Workflows

• Bioactive Compound Selection: The process begins with a known active compound (the "hit" or "lead") against a specific biological target [1].
• Similarity Pair Construction: For method development and validation, large datasets of compound pairs are curated from public databases like ChEMBL. Pairs are selected based on specific criteria: significant improvement in bioactivity (e.g., pChEMBL value ≥ 1), low 2D scaffold similarity (Tanimoto score ≤ 0.6 using Morgan fingerprints of Bemis-Murcko scaffolds), and high 3D similarity (SC score ≥ 0.6 combining shape and pharmacophoric feature similarity) [14].
• Virtual Screening: Candidate scaffolds are identified using techniques such as:
  • 2D Fingerprint Similarity Search: Uses molecular fingerprints (e.g., ECFP) to find structurally diverse compounds [7].
  • 3D Pharmacophore/Shape Matching: Identifies compounds that share three-dimensional arrangement of functional groups or overall molecular shape, which is critical for successful hops [1] [14].
  • Fragment Replacement: Systematically replaces core fragments within the parent molecule while maintaining key interaction points [14].
• Synthesis and Experimental Validation: Promising candidates are synthesized and tested in vitro for target binding affinity and potency to confirm bioactivity [6].

Modern AI-Driven Protocols

Recent advances have reformulated scaffold hopping as a supervised molecule-to-molecule translation task [14].

• Model Training: A deep learning model, such as the multimodal DeepHop framework, is trained on pre-constructed datasets of scaffold-hopping pairs. This model integrates multiple data types:
  • Molecular 2D Structure: Represented as a graph or SMILES string.
  • Molecular 3D Conformer: Processed by a spatial graph neural network to capture spatial constraints.
  • Protein Target Information: Incorporated via protein sequence embeddings to ensure target specificity [14].
• Compound Generation: Given a reference molecule and a target protein, the trained model generates novel "hopped" molecules predicted to have improved bioactivity, high 3D similarity, but low 2D similarity to the reference [14].
• Virtual Profiling: Generated molecules are rapidly evaluated using a pre-trained deep QSAR (Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship) model to predict their bioactivity against the target before synthesis [14].
• Experimental Validation: Top-ranked generated compounds proceed to synthesis and biological testing.

Diagram: AI-Driven Scaffold Hopping Workflow

Comparative Success Rates and Performance Data

The success of a scaffold hopping strategy is measured by its ability to generate novel scaffolds that maintain or improve biological activity. The following table synthesizes data on the performance and application frequency of different hop categories.

Table 2: Comparative Success Rates of Scaffold Hop Categories

Hop Category	Reported Success & Application Frequency	Key Performance Metrics from Studies
1° Hop	Most frequently published and applied [1] [2].	High success rate for maintaining activity; demonstrated in many marketed drug pairs (e.g., COX-2 inhibitors Rofecoxib/Valdecoxib) [1].
2° Hop	Common in lead optimization [1].	Ring closure in antihistamines (Pheniramine→Cyproheptadine) significantly improved binding affinity and absorption [1].
3° Hop	Crucial for overcoming peptide limitations [1].	Success leads to orally bioavailable drugs with improved metabolic stability compared to peptide precursors [1].
4° Hop	Rare successful examples in literature [2].	Represents the trade-off between high structural novelty and lower success probability [2]. AI methods aim to improve this.
AI-Driven Methods	Shows high generation success [14].	DeepHop model: ~70% of generated molecules had improved bioactivity, high 3D similarity, and low 2D similarity. This was 1.9x higher than other state-of-the-art methods [14].

The data illustrates a central tension in scaffold hopping: the trade-off between structural novelty and the success rate of retaining biological activity [1] [2]. While small-step hops (1° and 2°) are more reliable, they offer less novelty. Large-step hops (4°) are high-risk but can yield groundbreaking new chemotypes. AI-driven methods are showing promise in breaking this trade-off by leveraging 3D structural information to enable larger hops with a higher predicted success rate [14].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

Successful scaffold hopping research relies on a combination of software tools, databases, and chemical libraries.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions for Scaffold Hopping

Tool/Reagent	Type	Primary Function in Scaffold Hopping
ChEMBL [14]	Public Bioactivity Database	Source for constructing training pairs of molecules with known bioactivity for model development and validation.
RDKit [14]	Cheminformatics Toolkit	Used for molecule normalization, scaffold analysis, conformation sampling, and fingerprint calculation (e.g., Morgan fingerprints).
Molecular Operating Environment (MOE) [1]	Commercial Software Suite	Provides tools for 3D molecular superposition and pharmacophore analysis to validate scaffold hops.
DeepHop [14]	AI Generative Model	A multimodal transformer neural network designed specifically for target-aware scaffold hopping.
VEHICLe Database [14]	Virtual Scaffold Library	A database of heteroaromatic scaffolds used in rule-based and virtual screening approaches.
Directed Message Passing Neural Networks (DMPNN) [14]	Deep QSAR Model	A graph-based neural network architecture used for rapid virtual profiling of generated molecules.
Matched Molecular Pairs (MMPs) [14]	Analytical Concept	A data structure to formally represent and analyze pairs of compounds that differ only by a single, well-defined chemical transformation.

The Sun Classification System provides an invaluable framework for understanding and strategizing scaffold hopping in drug discovery. The comparative data clearly shows that 1° and 2° hops are the most reliably successful strategies and form the backbone of many lead optimization campaigns. In contrast, 4° hops represent a high-risk, high-reward frontier. The emerging generation of AI-driven methodologies, particularly those that integrate 3D structural and target information like the DeepHop model, are demonstrating a remarkable ability to generate successful hops. They achieve this by effectively navigating the vast chemical space, offering a path to overcome the traditional novelty-success trade-off and significantly accelerating the discovery of novel, effective therapeutic compounds.

Scaffold hopping represents a cornerstone strategy in modern medicinal chemistry, defined as the process of starting with a known active compound and modifying its central core structure to generate a novel chemotype while maintaining or improving biological activity [2] [1]. This approach serves a critical role in addressing limitations of existing drugs, including poor pharmacokinetic properties, adverse effect profiles, and patent constraints. The concept, formally introduced in 1999 by Schneider and colleagues, emphasizes two key components: different core structures and similar biological activities in new compounds relative to their parents [2]. This strategy appears to contradict the similarity property principle, which states that structurally similar compounds typically exhibit similar biological activities. However, scaffold hopping operates within this framework by maintaining essential three-dimensional pharmacophore features despite significant two-dimensional structural changes [2].

The practice of scaffold hopping has historical roots extending back to the earliest days of drug discovery, with many marketed drugs originating from natural products, hormones, and existing medications through systematic scaffold modification [2] [1]. This review analyzes two landmark case studies—the evolution of morphine to tramadol and the development of advanced antihistamines—to illustrate the classification, methodologies, and tangible outcomes of successful scaffold hopping campaigns. These cases provide valuable insights for researchers aiming to apply these strategies to contemporary drug discovery challenges.

Classification of Scaffold Hopping Approaches

Scaffold hopping strategies can be systematically categorized into four distinct approaches based on the nature of the structural modification [2] [1]:

• Heterocycle Replacements (1° hop): This approach involves swapping carbon and nitrogen atoms in aromatic rings or replacing carbon with other heteroatoms while maintaining outgoing vectors. This represents a small-step hop with low structural novelty but high probability of maintaining biological activity.

• Ring Opening or Closure (2° hop): These strategies manipulate molecular flexibility by controlling the number of rotatable bonds through ring opening or closure, directly impacting the entropic component of binding free energy and membrane penetration properties.

• Peptidomimetics (3° hop): This category focuses on replacing peptide backbones with non-peptidic moieties to improve metabolic stability and bioavailability while maintaining key pharmacophore elements.

• Topology/Shape-Based Hopping (4° hop): This approach represents large-step hopping with high structural novelty, focusing on maintaining overall molecular shape and electrostatic properties rather than specific atomic arrangements.

Table 1: Classification of Scaffold Hopping Approaches

Category	Degree of Change	Structural Novelty	Success Probability	Primary Applications
Heterocycle Replacements (1° hop)	Low	Low	High	Optimizing metabolic stability, solubility, and patentability
Ring Opening/Closure (2° hop)	Medium	Medium	Medium	Controlling molecular flexibility and improving absorption
Peptidomimetics (3° hop)	High	Medium-High	Medium	Transforming peptides into drug-like molecules
Topology-Based Hopping (4° hop)	Very High	Very High	Low	Discovering truly novel chemotypes from known actives

Case Study 1: From Morphine to Tramadol

Structural Evolution and Design Rationale

The transformation from morphine to tramadol represents a classic example of ring opening scaffold hopping (2° hop) [2]. Morphine, the principal alkaloid of opium, features a rigid pentacyclic structure with five fused rings forming a characteristic 'T' shape. While highly potent as an analgesic, its clinical utility is limited by significant adverse effects including respiratory depression, nausea, vomiting, and high addictive potential [2].

Tramadol was developed through the strategic opening of three fused rings in the morphine structure, breaking six ring bonds to create a more flexible molecule with a simplified cyclohexanol skeleton [2]. Despite dramatic differences in their two-dimensional structures, three-dimensional superposition studies using flexible alignment algorithms demonstrate conservation of key pharmacophore features [2].

Experimental Analysis and Pharmacological Evaluation

The experimental validation of this scaffold hop involved comprehensive pharmacological profiling and clinical studies. Research established that tramadol maintains its analgesic effect through dual mechanisms: mild μ-opioid receptor agonism and inhibition of norepinephrine and serotonin reuptake [2].

Recent clinical investigations have directly compared the analgesic efficacy of these two agents. A 2025 randomized phase II trial compared oral morphine (5 mg 4-hourly) with oral tramadol (50 mg four times daily) in opioid-naive patients with moderate cancer pain [15]. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving at least 20% reduction in pain intensity on Day 3 [15].

Table 2: Comparative Analysis of Morphine versus Tramadol

Parameter	Morphine	Tramadol
Chemical Structure	Pentacyclic, rigid 'T' shape	Monocyclic cyclohexanol, flexible
Molecular Flexibility	Low	High
Primary Mechanism	μ-opioid receptor agonist	Dual mechanism: weak μ-opioid agonist + monoamine reuptake inhibition
Analgesic Potency	High (reference standard)	Approximately 1/10 that of morphine [2]
Response Rate (Day 3)	94.1% [15]	55.9% [15]
Highly Meaningful Pain Reduction (≥5 points NRS)	76.5% [15]	32.35% [15]
Oral Bioavailability	Variable (20-40%)	Nearly complete absorption [2]
Duration of Action	3-4 hours	Up to 6 hours [2]
Side Effect Profile	Significant respiratory depression, nausea, vomiting, high addiction potential	Reduced side effects, particularly respiratory depression [2]
Abuse Liability	High	Lower

Diagram 1: Scaffold Hopping Strategy from Morphine to Tramadol. The diagram illustrates the structural transformation through ring opening while conserving essential pharmacophore features.

Therapeutic Implications and Clinical Significance

The successful scaffold hop from morphine to tramadol yielded significant clinical advantages. While tramadol possesses approximately one-tenth the analgesic potency of morphine, its nearly complete oral absorption, longer duration of action (up to 6 hours), and favorable side effect profile make it valuable for managing moderate pain [2]. The dramatic reduction in respiratory depression and addiction potential represents a major therapeutic advancement, particularly for patients requiring long-term analgesic therapy [2].

The structural flexibility introduced through ring opening likely contributes to tramadol's reduced side effect profile while maintaining sufficient analgesic efficacy for moderate pain indications. This case exemplifies how strategic scaffold manipulation can successfully uncouple desired therapeutic effects from problematic adverse reactions.

Case Study 2: Evolution of Antihistamines Through Scaffold Hopping

Structural Progression and Design Strategy

The development of advanced antihistamines demonstrates the sequential application of multiple scaffold hopping strategies. The evolutionary pathway began with pheniramine, a classical antihistamine featuring two aromatic rings connected to a central carbon or nitrogen atom with a positive charge center [2] [1]. While effective for allergic conditions, limitations in binding affinity and specificity prompted further optimization.

The first significant scaffold hop involved ring closure to create cyproheptadine, which locked both aromatic rings of pheniramine into their active conformations and introduced a piperidine ring to further reduce molecular flexibility [2]. This rigidification strategy significantly improved binding affinity at the H1-receptor and enhanced absorption properties [2].

Subsequent optimization employed heterocycle replacements, substituting one phenyl ring in cyproheptadine with a thiophene to yield pizotifen, which demonstrated improved efficacy for migraine prophylaxis [2]. Further replacement of a phenyl ring with pyrimidine in azatadine enhanced molecular solubility while maintaining potent antihistamine activity [2].

Experimental Validation and Pharmacological Assessment

The experimental validation of these scaffold hops relied heavily on binding affinity studies and functional assays at histamine H1-receptors. Research demonstrated that the conformational restriction achieved through ring closure in cyproheptadine significantly increased receptor affinity, presumably by reducing the entropy penalty upon binding [2].

Three-dimensional superposition studies confirmed that despite significant two-dimensional structural differences, these compounds maintained conserved spatial orientation of key pharmacophore elements: the basic nitrogen atom and two aromatic rings [2]. This conservation of essential pharmacophore features explains the maintained biological activity despite substantial scaffold modifications.

Table 3: Scaffold Hopping Evolution in Antihistamine Development

Compound	Scaffold Hopping Strategy	Key Structural Features	Primary Therapeutic Applications	Advantages Over Predecessor
Pheniramine	Reference compound	Two aromatic rings, flexible ethylene diamine chain	Allergic conditions (hay fever, urticaria)	Baseline activity
Cyproheptadine	Ring closure	Rigid tricyclic structure, piperidine ring	Allergic conditions, migraine prophylaxis	Improved binding affinity, reduced flexibility
Pizotifen	Heterocycle replacement	Thiophene replacement of phenyl ring	Migraine prophylaxis	Enhanced efficacy for migraine
Azatadine	Heterocycle replacement	Pyrimidine replacement of phenyl ring	Allergic conditions	Improved solubility

Diagram 2: Scaffold Hopping Strategies in Antihistamine Development. The diagram illustrates the sequential application of ring closure and heterocycle replacement strategies while maintaining core pharmacophore elements.

Therapeutic Outcomes and Clinical Impact

This systematic scaffold hopping approach yielded significant clinical benefits. The reduction in molecular flexibility through ring closure not only improved binding affinity but also enabled additional medical applications. Cyproheptadine's ability to antagonize serotonin (5-HT2) receptors expanded its therapeutic utility to migraine prophylaxis [2]. The subsequent heterocycle replacements further refined therapeutic profiles, with pizotifen emerging as a preferred option for migraine treatment and azatadine offering improved solubility while maintaining antihistamine potency [2].

This case study demonstrates how sequential application of different scaffold hopping strategies can progressively optimize drug properties, enhancing both efficacy and specific therapeutic applications while maintaining the core biological activity of the original compound.

Experimental Methodologies for Scaffold Hopping Validation

Core Analytical Techniques

Validating successful scaffold hops requires comprehensive experimental methodologies to confirm that structural modifications maintain target engagement while potentially improving drug properties. The following core techniques are essential for characterizing scaffold-hopped compounds:

Pharmacophore Modeling and Molecular Superposition: Computational alignment of original and modified compounds to identify conserved spatial arrangements of key functional groups is fundamental to scaffold hopping design [2]. Studies using programs like the Flexible Alignment module in Molecular Operating Environment (MOE) demonstrated that despite dramatic 2D structural differences between morphine and tramadol, essential pharmacophore features including the positively charged tertiary amine, aromatic ring, and oxygen functionality maintained conserved spatial orientation [2].

Binding Assays: Quantitative assessment of target engagement through radioligand binding studies provides critical data on binding affinity (Ki) and potency (IC50) [2]. For the antihistamine series, binding affinity studies at H1-receptors confirmed that strategic rigidification through ring closure significantly improved receptor affinity [2].

Functional Pharmacological Assays: Beyond binding, functional assays evaluate the biological consequences of receptor engagement, including efficacy (Emax) and potency (EC50) [2]. For opioids, this includes measures of analgesic efficacy and unwanted effects like respiratory depression.

Additional Characterization Methods

ADMET Profiling: Comprehensive evaluation of absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and toxicity properties is essential to confirm improved therapeutic potential [2]. For tramadol, nearly complete oral absorption represented a significant advantage over morphine despite reduced potency [2].

Clinical Outcome Studies: Controlled clinical trials provide the ultimate validation of scaffold hopping success. The recent cancer pain study directly comparing morphine and tramadol established significant differences in response rates (94.1% vs. 55.9%) and meaningful pain reduction (76.5% vs. 32.35%), quantifying the therapeutic tradeoffs between these scaffold-hopped agents [15].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

Successful implementation of scaffold hopping strategies requires specialized research tools and methodologies. The following table outlines essential resources for researchers pursuing scaffold hopping campaigns.

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions for Scaffold Hopping

Research Tool	Specific Examples	Application in Scaffold Hopping	Key Functions
Computational Chemistry Software	Molecular Operating Environment (MOE) [2], MORPH, CAVEAT, ROCS [16]	Pharmacophore modeling, molecular alignment, shape-based similarity searching	Enables visualization of conserved 3D pharmacophores despite 2D structural differences
Chemical Libraries & Building Blocks	Heterocyclic compounds, bioisosteric replacements, ring-forming reagents	Synthetic execution of designed hops (heterocycle replacements, ring opening/closure)	Provides structural elements for systematic scaffold modification
Target Protein & Assay Systems	Cloned opioid receptors (MOP, DOP, KOP, NOP) [17], histamine receptors	In vitro binding and functional assays	Validates maintenance of target engagement despite scaffold changes
Analytical & Characterization Tools	HPLC/MS systems, NMR instrumentation, X-ray crystallography	Structural confirmation and purity assessment of novel scaffolds	Verifies chemical structure and determines compound purity
In Vivo Models	Pain models (tail flick, hot plate), allergy models	Preclinical efficacy assessment	Demonstrates preserved or improved biological activity in whole organisms
ADMET Screening Platforms	Caco-2 cells for absorption, liver microsomes for metabolism, hERG assay for cardiac safety	Pharmacokinetic and safety optimization	Identifies improvements in drug-like properties beyond target engagement

The case studies of morphine-to-tramadol and antihistamine development demonstrate the profound impact of systematic scaffold hopping in advancing pharmacotherapy. Through strategic structural modifications that maintain essential pharmacophore elements while altering core scaffolds, researchers successfully addressed significant limitations of original compounds.

The morphine-to-tramadol transformation exemplifies how ring opening can reduce adverse effects while maintaining sufficient analgesic activity for specific clinical applications. Conversely, the antihistamine evolution demonstrates how ring closure and heterocycle replacements can improve binding affinity, specificity, and additional therapeutic applications. These successes underscore the importance of three-dimensional pharmacophore conservation rather than two-dimensional structural similarity in maintaining biological activity.

These landmark cases provide valuable frameworks for contemporary drug discovery efforts aimed at improving therapeutic profiles, overcoming patent constraints, and exploring novel chemical space. The continued development of computational tools, synthetic methodologies, and biological assay systems will further enhance our ability to execute successful scaffold hops, accelerating the delivery of improved therapeutics to patients.

In the intensely competitive landscape of pharmaceutical research and development, the creation of patentable new chemical entities (NCEs) represents a critical objective for sustaining innovation and securing commercial returns. Scaffold hopping, a medicinal chemistry strategy that modifies the core molecular backbone of known bioactive compounds while preserving biological activity, has emerged as a powerful approach for expanding intellectual property (IP) space [5] [6]. First coined by Schneider in 1999, this methodology enables researchers to design structurally novel compounds that circumvent existing patent protections while maintaining therapeutic efficacy against target proteins [1] [14]. The fundamental premise of scaffold hopping rests on the principle that structurally distinct compounds can exhibit similar biological activity if they share key ligand-target interactions, allowing medicinal chemists to address limitations of existing leads—such as poor solubility, metabolic instability, high toxicity, or acquired resistance—while generating novel patentable chemotypes [5] [6].

The strategic importance of scaffold hopping extends beyond mere molecular novelty. By creating compounds with significantly different core structures from existing patented agents, pharmaceutical companies can establish robust IP positions that extend product lifecycles and provide freedom-to-operate in crowded therapeutic areas [6]. This review examines the IP dimension of scaffold hopping through a comprehensive analysis of its methodological frameworks, experimental validation protocols, and successful case studies, providing researchers with a strategic guide for leveraging this approach in targeted drug discovery programs.

Classification and Methodological Framework

Degrees of Structural Modification

Scaffold hopping encompasses a spectrum of structural modifications, which researchers systematically classify based on the degree of core scaffold alteration. The classification proposed by Sun and colleagues categorizes scaffold hopping into four distinct degrees based on the type and extent of structural changes relative to the parent molecule [5] [7]. This framework provides a systematic approach for designing novel chemical entities with defined levels of structural novelty, which directly correlates with patent strength and IP protection.

Table 1: Classification of Scaffold Hopping by Structural Modification Degree

Degree	Modification Type	Structural Changes	IP Potential	Success Rate
1°	Heterocyclic replacements	Swapping, adding, or removing heteroatoms within heterocyclic rings	Moderate	Relatively high
2°	Ring opening/closure	Breaking or forming rings in the core structure	Moderate to High	Medium
3°	Peptidomimetics	Replacing peptide backbones with non-peptide moieties	High	Variable
4°	Topology-based changes	Fundamental alteration of molecular topology and shape	Very High	Lower

The most straightforward approach, 1° scaffold hopping (heterocyclic replacements), involves substituting heteroatoms within molecular backbones [5]. A classic example includes the development of vardenafil from sildenafil, where merely repositioning a nitrogen atom in the heterocyclic core generated a distinct patentable entity [1]. While this approach offers high success rates for maintaining biological activity, the resulting IP protection may be limited due to the structural similarity to the original compound.

For more significant structural innovations, 2° scaffold hopping (ring opening and closure) provides greater molecular divergence. The transformation of morphine to tramadol exemplifies this approach, where three fused rings were opened to create a flexible structure with reduced addictive potential while maintaining analgesic effects through conservation of key pharmacophore elements [1]. Such modifications typically yield stronger IP positions due to more substantial structural differences from prior art.

The most advanced forms, 3° (peptidomimetics) and 4° (topology-based) scaffold hopping, involve profound molecular redesigns that frequently generate entirely novel chemotypes with robust patent protection [1] [7]. These approaches require sophisticated design strategies but offer the greatest potential for creating commercially valuable IP assets with extended protection timelines.

Computational Methodologies for Scaffold Hopping

Modern scaffold hopping increasingly relies on computational methodologies that systematically explore chemical space for novel scaffolds with optimal properties. These approaches range from similarity-based methods to advanced artificial intelligence (AI)-driven generative models, each offering distinct advantages for IP-driven drug discovery.

Table 2: Computational Methods for Scaffold Hopping

Method Category	Key Techniques	IP Advantages	Limitations
Similarity-based	Molecular fingerprints, shape matching, pharmacophore modeling	Rapid identification of novel chemotypes from existing libraries	Limited to known chemical space
Structure-based	Molecular docking, fragment replacement	Target-informed design for enhanced specificity	Requires high-quality protein structures
AI-driven	Graph neural networks, transformers, variational autoencoders	Exploration of unprecedented chemical space	Black box nature may complicate patent disclosure

Similarity-based virtual screening methods employ molecular fingerprints or shape-based descriptors to identify structurally diverse compounds sharing key pharmacophoric elements [5] [9]. For example, DeepHop utilizes a multimodal transformer architecture that integrates molecular 3D conformer information through spatial graph neural networks to generate novel scaffolds with high 3D similarity but low 2D structural similarity to template molecules [14]. This approach has demonstrated the ability to generate approximately 70% of molecules with improved bioactivity while achieving significant structural divergence from starting compounds [14].

Structure-based methods leverage protein-ligand interaction data to guide scaffold design. AnchorQuery represents an advanced implementation of this approach, performing pharmacophore-based screening of synthesizable compounds through multi-component reactions [13]. In one application, researchers used this methodology to generate novel molecular glues for the 14-3-3/ERα complex, resulting in entirely new chemotypes based on the Groebke-Blackburn-Bienaymé multi-component reaction [13].

AI-driven generative models constitute the most recent advancement in scaffold hopping methodologies. Approaches like ScaffoldGVAE employ variational autoencoders based on multi-view graph neural networks to explicitly modify molecular scaffolds while preserving side-chain functionalities [11]. This method separates side-chain and scaffold embeddings, mapping the scaffold component to a Gaussian mixture distribution to enable novel scaffold generation while maintaining target compatibility [11].

Diagram 1: Computational Scaffold Hopping Workflow. This diagram illustrates the integrated computational pipeline for scaffold hopping, from input structures through various analytical methods to generate novel patentable chemical entities.

Experimental Validation and Optimization

Integrated Screening and Profiling Protocols

The successful translation of computationally designed scaffold-hopped compounds into valuable IP assets requires rigorous experimental validation. The following workflow exemplifies a comprehensive approach employed in the discovery of novel FGFR1 inhibitors, demonstrating a systematic methodology for establishing both novelty and therapeutic utility [9].

Step 1: Compound Library Preparation and Pharmacophore Modeling Researchers curated a collection of 39 bioactive FGFR1-targeting small molecules with experimentally determined IC₅₀ values to establish a structure-activity relationship baseline [9]. Molecular structures were prepared using the LigPrep module (Schrödinger Suite), generating energetically optimized 3D conformations with corrected bond orders and stereochemistry. Subsequently, a multiligand consensus pharmacophore model was developed with 4-7 pharmacophoric features (hydrogen-bond donors/acceptors and aromatic systems), with model ADRRR_2 identified as optimal after iterative refinement [9].

Step 2: Multi-Tiered Virtual Screening The validated pharmacophore model screened an initial library of 21,958 anticancer compounds, requiring a minimum of four matched pharmacophoric features for retention [9]. Hierarchical docking employed Glide module (Schrödinger) with High-Throughput Virtual Screening (HTVS), Standard Precision (SP), and Extra Precision (XP) protocols to balance computational efficiency with accuracy. This multi-stage filtration identified three hit compounds with superior predicted FGFR1 binding affinity compared to the reference ligand 4UT801 [9].

Step 3: Scaffold Hopping and ADMET Profiling Based on the top-ranked compounds, researchers performed scaffold hopping to generate 5,355 structural derivatives [9]. These candidates underwent comprehensive absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and toxicity (ADMET) profiling to predict bioavailability and safety parameters. Molecular dynamics simulations validated stable binding modes and favorable interaction energies for the top candidates (compounds 20357a–20357c), confirming their potential as novel FGFR1 inhibitors with optimized therapeutic profiles [9].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Computational Tools for Scaffold Hopping

Category	Tool/Reagent	Specific Function	Application in IP Generation
Software Platforms	Schrödinger Suite (Maestro, LigPrep, Glide)	Molecular docking, pharmacophore modeling, binding affinity prediction	Validates novel scaffolds' target engagement
Chemical Databases	ChEMBL, PubChem, ZINC	Source of bioactive compounds and building blocks	Provides prior art reference and design inspiration
ADMET Prediction	QikProp, SwissADME	In silico pharmacokinetic and toxicity profiling	De-risks candidates before synthesis
Structural Biology	Protein Data Bank (PDB)	Source of 3D protein structures for structure-based design	Enables rational scaffold design
Synthetic Chemistry	Multi-component reactions (e.g., GBB-3CR)	Efficient synthesis of complex scaffolds from simple precursors	Facilitates rapid analog generation for SAR

Case Studies: Successful IP Generation Through Scaffold Hopping

Kinase Inhibitor Development

The kinase inhibitor domain provides compelling evidence of scaffold hopping's IP potential, with several successful implementations advancing to clinical development.

CFI-402257: A TTK Inhibitor Case Study Researchers applied iterative scaffold hopping to develop the pyrazolo[1,5-a]pyrimidine-based threonine tyrosine kinase (TTK) inhibitor CFI-402257 [6]. The process initiated with heterocycle replacement (1° scaffold hopping) of an imidazo[1,2-a]pyrazine motif to yield a pyrazolo[1,5-a][1,3,5]-triazine derivative with excellent TTK inhibitory activity (IC₅₀ = 1.4 nM) but suboptimal pharmacokinetics. Subsequent scaffold hopping generated three distinct chemotypes—pyrazolo[1,5-a]pyrimidine, pyrrolo[2,3-b]pyrazine, and pyrazolo[1,5-a]pyridine—with the pyrazolo[1,5-a]pyrimidine-based CFI-402257 emerging as the clinical candidate due to its balanced potency and pharmaceutical properties [6]. This case exemplifies how sequential scaffold hopping can overcome development limitations while creating novel patentable entities.

Ulixertinib (BVD-523) Analog Development The ERK1/2 inhibitor ulixertinib (BVD-523) served as a template for scaffold hopping combining ring closure (2°) and heterocycle replacement (1°) strategies [6]. Docking-guided design transformed a pyrrole-2-carboxamide scaffold into novel derivatives with maintained target affinity. Molecular dynamics simulations confirmed stable binding modes characterized by hydrogen bonding with Met108, hydrophobic interactions, and water-mediated hydrogen bonds—validating the conservation of critical interactions despite significant structural modifications [6].

Comparison of Scaffold-Hopped Clinical Candidates

Table 4: Comparative Analysis of Scaffold-Hopped Drug Candidates

Original Compound	Scaffold-Hopped Derivative	Structural Changes	Improved Properties	Development Status
Roxadustat	Various analogs	Bioisosteric replacement of 3-hydroxypicolinoylglycine	Patent diversity around HIF-PHI core	Marketed (renal anemia)
GLPG1837 (CFTR potentiator)	Novel chemotypes	Heterocycle replacements (1° hopping)	Enhanced potency, reduced dosing	Phase II (cystic fibrosis)
Sorafenib (VEGFR2 inhibitor)	Quinazoline-2-carboxylates	Ring opening and closure (2° hopping)	Novel IP space for kinase inhibition	Preclinical development

Scaffold hopping represents a strategically powerful methodology for creating patentable new chemical entities that address multiple challenges in contemporary drug discovery. By enabling systematic modification of molecular cores while preserving pharmacological activity, this approach facilitates the generation of novel IP assets with optimized therapeutic profiles. The integration of advanced computational methods—from pharmacophore modeling to AI-driven generative algorithms—with rigorous experimental validation creates a robust framework for IP expansion in competitive therapeutic areas. As pharmaceutical companies face increasing pressure to navigate crowded IP landscapes while delivering innovative therapies, scaffold hopping continues to demonstrate its value as an indispensable strategy for balancing molecular innovation with biological efficacy. Future advances in predictive algorithms and synthetic methodologies will further enhance the precision and efficiency of this approach, solidifying its role as a cornerstone of modern medicinal chemistry and intellectual property generation.

The Methodological Toolkit: Computational and AI Strategies for Successful Hopping

In the pursuit of novel therapeutics, scaffold hopping is a critical strategy in drug discovery and lead optimization, aimed at identifying new core structures (backbones) while retaining similar biological activity [7]. This approach helps discover compounds with improved properties, circumvents existing patents, and explores broader chemical spaces [7]. The success of scaffold hopping relies heavily on effective molecular comparison methods that can identify structurally different molecules which nonetheless share key bio-essential features.

Traditional computational approaches—pharmacophore modeling, shape matching, and molecular fingerprints—provide established, interpretable, and often highly effective means for this task. Unlike some modern deep-learning methods which may generate compounds with constrained structural novelty and can struggle to inspire medicinal chemists, these traditional methods offer a principled, feature-driven framework for navigating chemical space [18]. This guide objectively compares the performance of these three methodologies in the context of virtual screening and scaffold hopping, presenting key experimental data to inform their application.

Comparative Performance Analysis

The following tables summarize the core characteristics and published performance data of these approaches, facilitating a direct comparison of their strengths and typical use cases.

Table 1: Core Characteristics and Typical Applications

Approach	Core Principle	Dimensionality	Primary Scaffold Hopping Strength	Computational Speed
Molecular Fingerprints	Encodes molecular structure as a bit string or vector representing substructures or topological features [7] [19].	2D	Identifying compounds with different skeletons but similar local functional groups or topological descriptors [7].	Very High
Shape Matching	Compares the three-dimensional volume and contour of molecules [20] [21].	3D	Finding scaffolds that occupy similar spatial volume, enabling topology-based hops [20].	Moderate to High (method-dependent)
Pharmacophore Modeling	Identifies and matches a set of steric and electronic features necessary for biological activity [22].	3D	Hopping based on essential interaction points (e.g., H-bond donors/acceptors, hydrophobic regions), independent of core scaffold [7] [22].	Moderate

Table 2: Virtual Screening Performance Enrichment Data

Target Protein	Fingerprint Method (EF₁%)	Shape-Based Method (EF₁%)	Pharmacophore-Based Method (EF₁%)	Notes
Dihydrofolate Reductase (DHFR)	-	23.1 (MMod Atom) [21]	80.8 [21]	Pharmacophore model drastically outperforms shape and fingerprint methods.
Thrombin	-	8.5 (MMod Atom) [21]	28.0 [21]	Atom-based shape screening shows modest enrichment; pharmacophore is superior.
Protein Tyrosine Phosphatase 1B (PTP1B)	-	12.5 (Element) [21]	50.0 [21]	Consistent superior performance of pharmacophore-based shape screening.
CDK2	-	23.4 (MMod Atom) [21]	19.5 [21]	Atom-based shape screening slightly outperforms pharmacophore in this case.
Multiple Targets (Average)	Varies by type and target [23]	20.0 (MMod Atom Avg) [21]	33.2 (Pharmacophore Avg) [21]	Pharmacophore-based shape screening shows highest average enrichment.

Experimental Protocols for Performance Benchmarking

To ensure fair and reproducible comparisons, standardized benchmarking protocols have been developed. The following workflow visualizes a typical virtual screening experiment used to generate data as shown in Table 2.

Detailed Methodology

The standard protocol, as used in studies like the one by McGaughey et al. and subsequent benchmarks, involves several key stages [21]:

• Dataset Curation:

  • Actives: A set of known active ligands for a specific protein target (e.g., from public databases like ChEMBL or proprietary sources) is collected.
  • Decoys: A large set of property-matched decoy compounds that are presumed inactive but have similar physicochemical properties to the actives is generated. Databases like DUD-E (Database of Useful Decoys: Enhanced) or DUDE-Z are often used for this purpose [24]. This ensures that enrichment is not biased by simple chemical properties.

• Molecular Preparation:

  • Fingerprints: 2D structures (SMILES) are converted into various fingerprint types (e.g., ECFP, MACCS, Topological) without the need for 3D conformation [19] [23].
  • Shape & Pharmacophore: For 3D methods, ligand structures are prepared by generating multiple low-energy 3D conformers for each molecule to account for flexibility. Software like CONFGEN or OMEGA is typically used [21].

• Virtual Screening Execution:

  • A single known active ligand (or a pharmacophore model derived from multiple actives or a protein structure) is used as the query.
  • The entire database (containing the remaining actives and all decoys) is screened against this query.
  • Each method scores and ranks the database compounds based on their similarity to the query.
    • Fingerprints: Tanimoto similarity is a standard metric for comparison [23] [20].
    • Shape Matching: Optimized hard-sphere overlap calculations or Gaussian methods are used to maximize volume overlap [21].
    • Pharmacophore: Molecules are scored based on their fit to the spatial arrangement of chemical features [22].

• Performance Evaluation:

  • The ranking of compounds is analyzed to calculate Enrichment Factors (EF). A common metric is EF₁%, which measures the ratio of actives found in the top 1% of the ranked list compared to a random selection [21].
  • AUC (Area Under the ROC Curve) and other metrics can also be used, but EF at early stages is critical for practical virtual screening where only a small fraction of the library can be tested experimentally.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Software

Successful implementation of these computational approaches relies on a suite of well-established software tools and conceptual "reagents."

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions

Item Name	Type (Software/Concept)	Primary Function	Application Context
ROCS (Rapid Overlay of Chemical Structures) [24] [20]	Software	A widely used method for 3D shape and "color" (chemical feature) similarity comparison.	Shape Matching, Scaffold Hopping
Extended-Connectivity Fingerprints (ECFP) [7] [19]	Molecular Representation	Circular topological fingerprints that capture atomic environments up to a specified bond radius.	Molecular Fingerprints, QSAR, Machine Learning
Pharmacophore Feature Definitions [22] [21]	Conceptual Model	Standardized definitions of chemical features (H-bond donor/acceptor, hydrophobic, charged, aromatic).	Pharmacophore Modeling, Virtual Screening
Phase [21]	Software	A comprehensive tool for pharmacophore model development, 3D QSAR, and virtual screening.	Pharmacophore Modeling
Decoy Set (e.g., DUD-E/DUDE-Z) [24]	Benchmarking Resource	A public database of property-matched decoys to rigorously test virtual screening methods.	Method Validation & Benchmarking
Canvas [23]	Software	A cheminformatics package that provides a wide array of fingerprint methods and similarity search capabilities.	Molecular Fingerprints, Similarity Searching
Shape Screening Tool [21]	Software	Schrödinger's implementation of a powerful shape-based flexible ligand superposition and virtual screening method.	Shape Matching, Virtual Screening
O-LAP [24]	Software	An algorithm for generating shape-focused pharmacophore models via graph clustering of docked ligands.	Hybrid (Shape/Pharmacophore) Modeling

Logical Workflow for Scaffold Hopping Campaigns

The following diagram illustrates a logical decision pathway for selecting and applying these traditional approaches in a scaffold hopping campaign, based on the available input data and project goals.

Traditional computational approaches remain powerful and relevant tools for scaffold hopping in drug discovery. The experimental data demonstrates that while 2D fingerprints offer speed and robustness, 3D methods—particularly pharmacophore-based approaches—often provide superior enrichment in virtual screening tasks by more directly capturing the essential elements of molecular recognition. Shape-based methods serve as a potent intermediate, especially effective for topology-based scaffold hops.

The choice of method depends on the available data (ligand-only vs. protein structure), the desired level of scaffold novelty, and computational constraints. As the field evolves, the integration of these interpretable, traditional methods with modern deep learning techniques presents a promising path forward, leveraging the strengths of both paradigms to accelerate the discovery of novel bioactive compounds [18] [25].

Revolutionizing Predictions with Free Energy Perturbation (FEP) for Scaffold Hopping

Scaffold hopping, the practice of identifying active compounds with structurally different backbones against the same biological target, represents a crucial strategy for overcoming drug resistance, exploring new intellectual property space, and optimizing drug properties. Traditionally, computational approaches for scaffold hopping have struggled to reliably predict the binding potency of novel chemotypes, creating significant resource burdens for drug discovery teams who must synthesize and test numerous candidates. Within this context, Free Energy Perturbation (FEP) has emerged as a transformative technology that enables accurate prediction of binding affinities across diverse molecular scaffolds. As a rigorous, physics-based method, FEP calculates the relative binding free energy between ligands by simulating the alchemical transformation of one molecule into another within the binding site. Recent methodological advances have dramatically expanded FEP's applicability from simple R-group modifications to challenging scaffold-hopping scenarios, revolutionizing early-stage drug discovery by providing researchers with unprecedented precision in prioritizing synthetic targets for novel chemotypes.

FEP Methodologies for Scaffold Hopping: Technical Approaches

Absolute vs. Relative Binding Free Energy Calculations

Relative Binding Free Energy (RBFE) calculations, the more established approach, compute the binding energy difference between closely related ligands through a series of simulations that interpolate between molecular structures. This method requires molecules to share a significant common core and typically handles modifications involving up to 10-15 heavy atom changes. For scaffold hopping with larger topological changes, Absolute Binding Free Energy (ABFE) calculations offer greater flexibility by independently calculating each ligand's binding free energy without requiring structural similarity to a reference compound. ABFE employs an energy cycle where the ligand is decoupled from its environment in both bound and unbound states, first turning off electrostatic interactions followed by van der Waals parameters [26]. While RBFE calculations for 10 ligands might require approximately 100 GPU hours, equivalent ABFE experiments typically demand 1000 GPU hours due to longer equilibration times and more complex setup requirements [26].

Specialized Scaffold Hopping Implementations

Innovative implementations are further extending FEP's capabilities for scaffold hopping. Core Hopping Binding Free Energy (CBFE) technology represents a specialized advancement that digitally assays structurally dissimilar compounds from core hopping with accuracy comparable to RBFE calculations but at significantly reduced computational cost compared to ABFE [27]. This approach integrates with generative AI to create extensive core libraries, enabling efficient evaluation of hundreds of potential scaffolds. Additionally, FEP-guided active learning workflows combine the accuracy of FEP with the speed of ligand-based methods: initial FEP calculations on a subset of designs inform QSAR models that rapidly predict binding affinity for larger compound sets, with promising candidates iteratively added back to the FEP set for refinement [26].

Table: Comparison of FEP Approaches for Scaffold Hopping

Method	Key Principle	Chemical Scope	Computational Cost	Best Use Cases
RBFE	Alchemical transformation between ligands	Limited to 10-15 heavy atom changes	~100 GPU hours for 10 ligands	Lead optimization, congeneric series
ABFE	Independent ligand decoupling from environment	No structural similarity required	~1000 GPU hours for 10 ligands	Diverse scaffold hopping, virtual screening
CBFE	Specialized perturbation map for core changes	Structurally dissimilar cores	Intermediate cost	Focused core hopping libraries
Active Learning FEP	Iterative FEP and QSAR combination	Extensive chemical space exploration	Variable based on iterations	Large virtual compound libraries

Comparative Performance Assessment: FEP Versus Alternative Methods

Accuracy Benchmarking Against Experimental Data

The critical advantage of FEP-based scaffold hopping lies in its exceptional prediction accuracy compared to traditional computational methods. In a landmark study targeting phosphodiesterase-5 (PDE5) inhibitors, researchers employed an FEP-ABFE-guided strategy to discover novel azepino-indole scaffolds starting from tadalafil [28]. The FEP predictions showed remarkable consistency with experimental binding free energies, with mean absolute deviations (MAD) between theoretical (ΔGFEP) and experimental (ΔGEXP) values below 2 kcal/mol – significantly more accurate than molecular mechanics/generalized Born surface area (MM-GBSA) or molecular mechanics/Poisson-Boltzmann surface area (MM-PBSA) methods [28]. The resulting compound L12 exhibited potent affinity (IC50 = 8.7 nmol/L) and a completely novel binding pattern confirmed by X-ray crystallography, demonstrating FEP's ability to identify and validate privileged scaffolds with high precision.

Prospective Applications in Drug Discovery Programs

Prospective applications across diverse target classes further demonstrate FEP's transformative potential. In the development of fourth-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors, researchers implemented a multilevel virtual screening strategy incorporating FEP to address resistance mediated by the L858R/T790M/C797S mutation [29]. From 18 million drug-like molecules, the team identified compound L15 with potent inhibitory activity (IC50 = 16.43 nM) and 5-fold selectivity over wild-type EGFR – a success attributed to FEP's ability to accurately prioritize compounds for synthesis. Similarly, in a campaign targeting soluble adenylyl cyclase (sAC), researchers utilized FEP to first scaffold hop to a preferable chemotype and then optimize binding affinity to sub-nanomolar levels while retaining druglike properties [30]. The study illustrated how effective FEP use enables rapid progression from hit-to-lead, facilitating proof-of-concept studies that inform target validation.

Table: Experimental Validation of FEP in Prospective Scaffold Hopping Applications

Target	Starting Compound	Novel Scaffold	Experimental Potency	Selectivity/Specificity	Validation Method
PDE5 [28]	Tadalafil	Azepino-indole (L12)	IC50 = 8.7 nM	High selectivity	X-ray crystallography
EGFR mutant [29]	Third-generation EGFR inhibitors	Novel chemotype (L15)	IC50 = 16.43 nM	5-fold selectivity over WT	Enzymatic assays, MD simulations
sAC [30]	LRE1	Preferable chemotype	Sub-nanomolar	sAC-specific	X-ray crystallography

Experimental Protocols for FEP-Guided Scaffold Hopping

Standardized FEP Workflow Implementation

A robust FEP-guided scaffold hopping protocol requires careful execution of sequential steps from system preparation through validation. The following workflow represents the community-validated best practices derived from multiple successful implementations [28] [30]:

• Protein Structure Preparation: Begin with high-resolution crystal structures from the Protein Data Bank, modifying selenomethionines to methionines and adding missing side chains using tools like Schrödinger's Preparation Wizard. Evaluate orientations of asparagine, glutamine, and histidine residues, along with protonation states of all ionizable residues. Remove heteroatomic species such as buffer solvents and ions, retaining only waters within the binding site. Finally, minimize the structure while converging the heavy-atom RMSD to 0.3 Å [30].

• Ligand Preparation and Mapping: For RBFE, prepare ligand structures ensuring consistent formal charges across the series, using counterions to neutralize charged ligands when necessary. For ABFE, this constraint is relaxed. Identify the core scaffold to be replaced and define the conserved substituents that will remain during hopping. Create a perturbation map either manually or using automated tools like Mapper, connecting ligand pairs with high similarity scores [28] [26].

• System Solvation and Equilibration: Solvate the system in a water box with appropriate buffer dimensions (typically 5Å for complex simulations and 10Å for solvent simulations). Employ enhanced sampling techniques such as REST2 for membrane protein systems. Implement Grand Canonical Non-equilibrium Candidate Monte-Carlo (GCNCMC) to ensure appropriate hydration of the binding site, critical for reducing hysteresis in ΔΔG calculations [26].

• FEP Simulation Execution: Conduct molecular dynamics simulations using force fields like OPLS3e for proteins and ligands with the SPC water model. For scaffold hopping transformations, run extended simulations of 5-20ns until convergence is achieved. Use exploratory calculations to determine optimal lambda window scheduling, minimizing guesswork while maintaining thermodynamic continuity [28] [30].

• Validation and Analysis: Calculate hysteresis along closed thermodynamic cycles to assess statistical reliability. Perform free energy decomposition to identify key interactions stabilizing novel scaffolds. Experimentally validate top-ranked compounds through synthesis and biochemical assays (IC50/Ki determination), with high-priority candidates advancing to structural validation via X-ray crystallography [28].

Key Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Successful implementation of FEP-guided scaffold hopping requires specialized computational tools and resources. The following table details essential components of a modern FEP pipeline:

Table: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools for FEP

Item/Resource	Type	Function/Purpose	Implementation Examples
Protein Structures	Experimental Data	Provides 3D atomic coordinates of target	PDB entries (e.g., 1XOZ, 5IV4) [28] [30]
Force Fields	Computational Parameters	Describes molecular interactions	OPLS3e, OPLS4, AMBER, OpenFF [31] [26]
FEP Software	Computational Platform	Performs free energy calculations	FEP+, Flare FEP, Custom MD codes [30] [26]
System Preparation Tools	Computational Software	Prepares protein-ligand systems	Schrödinger Suite, Cresset Flare [30] [32]
Enhanced Sampling Algorithms	Computational Method	Improves conformational sampling	REST2, GCNCMC [26]
QM Parameterization	Computational Method	Refines torsional parameters	Quantum mechanics calculations [26]

Current Limitations and Future Directions

Despite remarkable advances, FEP implementations for scaffold hopping face several persistent challenges. The computational expense of ABFE calculations remains substantial, particularly for large virtual screens. Force field limitations occasionally manifest for exotic molecular scaffolds requiring custom parameterization. Additionally, implicit environmental effects such as protein conformational changes and protonation state adjustments upon ligand binding are not fully captured in standard implementations [26]. The maximal achievable accuracy of rigorous FEP calculations is fundamentally limited by the reproducibility of experimental affinity measurements, with recent surveys indicating root-mean-square differences between independent experimental measurements ranging from 0.77 to 0.95 kcal mol−1 [31].

Future methodology developments focus on addressing these limitations through automated lambda scheduling, improved force fields with better coverage of chemical space, and hybrid approaches that combine FEP with machine learning for enhanced efficiency [26]. The emerging paradigm of active learning FEP demonstrates particular promise, where FEP calculations on strategically chosen subsets guide exploration of larger chemical spaces through iterative model refinement [26]. As these methodologies mature and integrate with generative AI for core generation, FEP-guided scaffold hopping is positioned to become increasingly central to efficient drug discovery, potentially reducing reliance on expensive synthetic exploration while dramatically accelerating the identification of novel therapeutic candidates with optimized properties.

The relentless challenge of drug-resistant diseases necessitates continuous innovation in drug discovery. Scaffold hopping, a medicinal chemistry strategy aimed at discovering novel molecular core structures (scaffolds) that retain the biological activity of a parent compound, has emerged as a powerful tool for overcoming limitations of existing drugs, such as toxicity, metabolic instability, and patent restrictions [5]. The success of scaffold hopping is critically dependent on the ability to efficiently explore the vast and complex chemical space for novel, yet functionally similar, molecular structures [7].

In recent years, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has begun to reshape this landscape. Generative AI models, particularly Variational Autoencoders (VAEs), Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs), and approaches incorporating Reinforcement Learning (RL), are providing unprecedented capabilities for de novo molecular design and scaffold hopping [7] [11]. These technologies enable a data-driven exploration of chemical space, moving beyond traditional, often intuition-based, methods to systematically generate candidate molecules with optimized properties [33]. This guide objectively compares the performance of these AI-driven approaches in the context of scaffold hopping, providing researchers with the experimental data and methodological insights needed to evaluate their potential.

AI Models for Molecular Generation: A Comparative Analysis

The application of VAE, GAN, and RL-based models in drug discovery has demonstrated significant potential, with each architecture offering distinct strengths and weaknesses for scaffold hopping and molecular generation tasks. The table below provides a high-level comparison of these approaches.

Table 1: High-level comparison of generative AI models in drug discovery.

Feature	Variational Autoencoders (VAEs)	Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs)	Reinforcement Learning (RL)
Core Principle	Probabilistic encoding/decoding to a latent space [34] [35]	Adversarial game between generator and discriminator [34] [36]	Goal-oriented learning via rewards and penalties [37]
Typical Architecture	Encoder + Decoder [34]	Generator + Discriminator [34]	Agent + Environment + Reward Function
Strengths	Smooth latent space; good at anomaly detection; stable training [36]	Can generate sharp, high-quality, realistic samples [34] [36]	Can optimize for complex, multi-objective reward functions
Weaknesses	May produce overly smooth or blurry outputs [38]	Training can be unstable (mode collapse) [38]	Design of reward function is critical and can be challenging
Primary Scaffold Hopping Application	Generating novel scaffolds with desired properties [11]	Generating diverse molecular candidates [33]	Fine-tuning generative models for specific objectives [39]

Performance Evaluation in Scaffold Hopping

Quantitative evaluations across multiple studies reveal how these models perform on specific scaffold hopping and molecular generation tasks. The following table summarizes key performance metrics from recent research.

Table 2: Comparative performance metrics of generative models for molecular design.

Model / Approach	Key Task / Application	Reported Performance / Outcome	Source / Reference
ScaffoldGVAE (VAE-based)	Scaffold generation and hopping	Generated novel scaffolds distinct from known compounds; validated via molecular docking (LeDock) and binding free energy calculations (MM/GBSA) [11]	[11]
VGAN-DTI (Hybrid VAE+GAN)	Drug-Target Interaction (DTI) prediction	Achieved 96% accuracy, 95% precision, 94% recall, and 94% F1 score on DTI prediction, outperforming existing methods [33]	[33]
CA-GAN (GAN with RL)	Tabular data generation with causal preservation	Demonstrated superior causal preservation, utility, and privacy vs. 6 state-of-the-art baselines across 14 tabular datasets [39]	[39]

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

A critical factor in assessing the success of AI-driven scaffold hopping is understanding the experimental protocols used to train and validate these models.

Data Preparation and Preprocessing

A common first step in many molecular generation studies involves curating a large, high-quality dataset. For instance, the ScaffoldGVAE model was pre-trained on over 1 million small molecules from the ChEMBL database (version 31) [11]. A standard preprocessing pipeline was applied, including:

• Charge standardization and removal of small fragments and metals.
• Elimination of duplicates and invalid molecular representations (e.g., SMILES).
• Application of medicinal chemistry and PAINS (Pan-Assay Interference Compounds) filters to remove problematic compounds [11].
• Scaffold extraction using the ScaffoldGraph method, which performs a more comprehensive core structural extraction than the traditional Bemis-Murcko (BM) scaffold. Extracted scaffolds were filtered to contain at least one ring (excluding ubiquitous benzene rings), a maximum of 20 heavy atoms, and no more than three rotatable bonds [11].

Model Architectures and Training

Detailed methodologies for the core AI models highlight the technical nuances of each approach.

• VAE Architecture (as in VGAN-DTI): The model uses a probabilistic encoder-decoder structure. The encoder network input layer receives molecular features as fingerprint vectors, which are processed through hidden layers with ReLU activation. The encoder outputs parameters for a latent-space distribution (mean, μ, and log-variance, log σ²). The decoder network then takes a sample from this latent distribution and reconstructs the molecular representation. The model is trained by optimizing a loss function that combines a reconstruction loss (measuring decoding accuracy) and the Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence (penalizing deviations of the latent distribution from a prior, typically a standard normal distribution) [33].

• GAN Architecture (as in VGAN-DTI): The GAN comprises two networks. The generator takes a random latent vector and uses fully connected layers with ReLU activation to produce molecular representations. The discriminator receives molecular representations and uses similar layers to output a probability of the input being a "real" molecule. The two networks are trained adversarially: the discriminator aims to correctly classify real and generated samples, while the generator aims to "fool" the discriminator by producing increasingly realistic molecules [33].

• Reinforcement Learning Integration (as in CA-GAN): This framework introduces a novel RL-based training objective. Beyond standard adversarial loss, the generator is trained to minimize the Structural Hamming Distance (SHD), a non-differentiable metric measuring the discrepancy between the causal graph of real data and the causal graph extracted from generated data. A REINFORCE policy gradient method is used, treating the SHD score as a reward signal to update the generator's parameters, thereby explicitly encouraging causal awareness in the generated data [39].

Validation and Testing Protocols

Rigorous validation is essential. Performance metrics for DTI prediction models like VGAN-DTI are standard in machine learning: accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score, calculated on a held-out test set [33]. For scaffold hopping-specific models like ScaffoldGVAE, validation often goes further, employing:

• Computational docking (e.g., LeDock) to predict binding poses and affinity.
• Binding free energy calculations (e.g., MM/GBSA) for a more rigorous assessment of protein-ligand interactions.
• Case studies on specific therapeutic targets (e.g., LRRK2 for Parkinson's disease) to demonstrate the generation of novel, active compounds [11].

Visualizing Workflows and Relationships

The following diagrams illustrate the core workflows and logical relationships of the discussed AI models in scaffold hopping applications.

ScaffoldGVAE Workflow

Diagram Title: ScaffoldGVAE Model Architecture for Scaffold Hopping

VAE-GAN Hybrid Framework

Diagram Title: Hybrid VAE-GAN Architecture for Molecule Generation

Causal-Aware GAN with RL

Diagram Title: Causal-Aware GAN Training with Reinforcement Learning

Successfully implementing AI-driven scaffold hopping requires a suite of computational tools and data resources. The following table details key components of the modern computational chemist's toolkit.

Table 3: Essential research reagents and resources for AI-driven scaffold hopping.

Resource / Tool Name	Type	Primary Function in Research	Key Features / Notes
ChEMBL	Database	A large-scale, open-access bioactivity database for training and fine-tuning generative models [11].	Contains over 1.9 million small molecules with curated bioactivity data (e.g., IC₅₀, Kᵢ) [11].
ScaffoldGraph	Software Library	Used to extract molecular scaffolds from compounds, defining the core structure for hopping [11].	Goes beyond Bemis-Murcko scaffolds for more comprehensive core extraction and analysis [11].
Molecular Fingerprints (e.g., ECFP)	Molecular Representation	Encodes molecular structure into a fixed-length bit string for machine learning model input [7].	Captures substructural information; widely used for similarity searching and QSAR modeling [7].
SMILES/SELFIES	Molecular Representation	String-based representations of molecular structure used as input for language model-based AI [7].	SMILES is human-readable but can have validity issues; SELFIES is designed to be always valid [7].
LeDock, AutoDock	Docking Software	Computationally predicts the binding pose and affinity of a generated molecule to a target protein [11].	Provides initial validation of generated compounds before synthesis and experimental testing [11].
MM/GBSA	Free Energy Method	Calculates binding free energies from molecular dynamics simulations, offering more robust affinity estimation than docking alone [11].	Used for higher-fidelity computational validation of promising generated compounds [11].

Scaffold hopping, a cornerstone strategy in modern medicinal chemistry, aims to discover novel molecular core structures (scaffolds) that retain the biological activity of a parent compound. The primary objective is to identify compounds with distinct core structures while maintaining similar activities, enabling researchers to explore new lead compounds that may exhibit improved bioactivity and selectivity, while also bypassing existing intellectual property restrictions [40]. When combined with artificial intelligence, particularly deep learning generative models, scaffold hopping becomes a powerful tool for molecular optimization and drug design, allowing for the systematic exploration of vast and unseen chemical space [40] [7].

The integration of artificial intelligence has transformed this task from a database-search problem into a generative modeling challenge. However, the rapid development of various AI models, including Variational Autoencoders (VAEs), Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs), and Transformer-based architectures, necessitates robust and standardized benchmarking frameworks [41]. Benchmarking these models requires a multifaceted approach that goes beyond simple molecular generation metrics to encompass specialized criteria directly relevant to the practical goals of scaffold hopping: novelty, activity retention, 3D similarity, and synthetic feasibility [40] [14]. This review synthesizes current research to establish key metrics and experimental protocols for the objective comparison of generative AI models in the critical task of scaffold hopping.

Comparative Analysis of Leading Generative AI Models

The landscape of AI models for scaffold hopping is diverse, with each architecture offering distinct advantages. The following comparison delineates the performance of prominent models as reported in the literature.

Table 1: Comparative Overview of Generative AI Models for Scaffold Hopping

Model Name	Core Architecture	Key Differentiating Feature	Reported Performance Highlights
ScaffoldGVAE [40] [11]	Variational Autoencoder (VAE) based on Multi-view Graph Neural Networks	Separates side-chain and scaffold embedding; uses Gaussian mixture model for scaffolds.	Generated scaffold-hopped molecules validated by GraphDTA, LeDock, and MM/GBSA; effective in case study for LRRK2 inhibitors.
DeepHop [14]	Multimodal Transformer	Integrates molecular 3D conformer (via spatial GNN) and protein sequence information.	~70% of generated molecules had improved bioactivity, high 3D similarity, and low 2D similarity (1.9x higher than other SOTA methods).
ChemBounce [42]	Fragment Replacement & Library Search	Curated library of >3 million synthesis-validated fragments from ChEMBL.	Generates compounds with high synthetic accessibility (lower SAscore) and favorable drug-likeness (higher QED).
SyntaLinker/DeLinker [40]	Fragment-based/Decoder	Focuses on generating a linker to connect two molecular fragments.	Touches on scaffold hopping but is primarily a fragment-based drug design method; lacks dedicated scaffold hopping validation.
GraphGMVAE [40]	Graph-based Gaussian Mixture VAE	Uses a Gaussian mixture hidden space for scaffold generation.	Not open-sourced, limiting independent benchmarking and widespread application.

A deeper analysis of quantitative performance reveals how these models stack up against core scaffold hopping objectives.

Table 2: Key Quantitative Metrics for Scaffold Hopping Model Evaluation

Evaluation Metric	Definition & Significance	ScaffoldGVAE	DeepHop	ChemBounce
2D Scaffold Dissimilarity	Measures novelty of the core structure, often via Tanimoto similarity of Bemis-Murcko (BM) scaffolds or Morgan fingerprints.	Explicitly optimized for during generation.	Tanimoto score ≤ 0.6 for BM scaffolds [14].	Controlled by user-defined Tanimoto threshold (default 0.5).
3D Shape Similarity	Assesses conservation of bio-relevant geometry (pharmacophore), e.g., via SC score (shape + color).	Implicitly encouraged via model design.	SC score ≥ 0.6 [14].	Evaluated via Electron Shape Similarity.
Bioactivity Retention/Improvement	Ability of the generated molecule to maintain or enhance target activity (e.g., pChEMBL value, docking scores).	Validated via GraphDTA, LeDock, and MM/GBSA [40].	~70% of outputs showed improved bioactivity [14].	Inferred via similarity constraints; not explicitly tested in-vitro.
Synthetic Accessibility (SAscore)	Quantifies the ease of synthesizing the generated molecule; lower is better.	Not explicitly reported.	Not explicitly reported.	Tends to generate structures with lower SAscores [42].
Drug-Likeness (QED)	Quantitative Estimate of Drug-likeness; higher is better.	Not explicitly reported.	Not explicitly reported.	Tends to generate structures with higher QED values [42].
Success Rate	Holistic metric combining the above factors (e.g., % of outputs meeting all criteria).	Case study on LRRK2 demonstrated effectiveness [40].	70% holistic success rate [14].	Performance varies with input complexity (4s to 21min) [42].

Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

The experimental workflows for developing and benchmarking these models rely on a suite of standardized software libraries, datasets, and computational tools.

Table 3: The Scientist's Toolkit for AI-Driven Scaffold Hopping Research

Tool/Reagent	Type	Primary Function in Workflow
ChEMBL Database [40] [42]	Public Bioactivity Database	Source of millions of small molecules and bioactivity data for model pre-training and fine-tuning.
ScaffoldGraph [40] [42]	Python Library	Used for sophisticated molecular fragmentation and scaffold extraction (e.g., using HierS algorithm).
RDKit [14]	Cheminformatics Toolkit	A fundamental open-source toolkit for molecule normalization, conformation sampling, fingerprint calculation (Morgan fingerprints), and descriptor computation.
Open Drug Discovery Toolkit (ODDT) [42]	Python Library	Used to compute electron shape similarity (ElectroShape) for 3D pharmacophore assessment.
Deep QSAR Models (e.g., MTDNN) [14]	Predictive AI Model	Provides rapid virtual profiling of generated molecules' bioactivity against specific protein targets.
Molecular Docking (e.g., LeDock) [40]	Computational Simulation	Evaluates the binding pose and affinity of generated molecules to a target protein.
MM/GBSA [40]	Energetic Calculation	Provides a more refined estimate of binding free energy following docking studies.

Experimental Protocols for Benchmarking Models

To ensure fair and reproducible comparisons, benchmarking should adhere to standardized experimental protocols. The following delineates a consensus workflow derived from the methodologies of the cited models.

Data Preparation and Curation

The foundation of any robust AI model is high-quality data. The standard protocol involves:

• Source Raw Molecules: Retrieve small molecules in canonical SMILES format from a large-scale public database like ChEMBL (e.g., version 31 with over 1.9 million molecules) [40] [11].
• Preprocess and Clean: Apply charge standardization, remove small fragments, metals, duplicates, and invalid SMILES. Filter based on molecular weight, heavy atom composition, and medicinal chemistry/PAINS filters [40].
• Extract Scaffolds: Use the ScaffoldGraph library to decompose molecules and extract core scaffolds. Common filters applied post-extraction include: a minimum of one ring (often excluding ubiquitous benzene rings), a maximum of 20 heavy atoms, and no more than three rotatable bonds [40] [42].
• Construct Activity-Specific Datasets: For target-aware models, extract compounds with known bioactivity (e.g., IC50, Ki < 10 µM) against the target of interest from ChEMBL. Repeat scaffold extraction to create fine-tuning datasets [40].

Model Training and Generation

This phase depends on the model architecture but shares common principles:

• Pre-training: Train the generative model (e.g., VAE, Transformer) on the large, general ChEMBL-derived molecule-scaffold pairs to learn fundamental chemical rules [40].
• Fine-Tuning: For target-specific hopping, further train the pre-trained model on the smaller, activity-specific dataset to bias the generation towards bioactive compounds [40] [14].
• Generation: With a trained model, generate novel molecules based on input query molecules. For VAEs like ScaffoldGVAE, this involves sampling from the latent space and decoding. For translation models like DeepHop, it's a direct transformation of the input [40] [14]. For fragment-based models like ChemBounce, it involves identifying and replacing the core scaffold from a curated library [42].

Evaluation and Validation

This critical phase employs a battery of metrics to assess model output.

• Uniqueness & Novelty: Calculate the proportion of generated molecules that are unique and not present in the training set.
• 2D Structural Dissimilarity: Compute the Tanimoto similarity using Morgan fingerprints (radius 2, 2048 bits) between the Bemis-Murcko scaffolds of the input and generated molecules. A successful hop requires a score below a threshold (e.g., 0.6) [14].
• 3D Shape and Pharmacophore Similarity: Generate conformers for both input and generated molecules. Calculate the Shape and Color (SC) score, which combines shape and feature similarity, using tools like RDKit. A score above a threshold (e.g., 0.6) indicates maintained 3D geometry [14].
• Bioactivity Assessment:
  • In-Silico Virtual Profiling: Use a trained deep QSAR model (e.g., a multi-task DNN) to predict the activity (e.g., pChEMBL value) of the generated molecules [14].
  • Molecular Docking: Perform docking simulations with tools like LeDock into the target's binding site to evaluate binding poses and scores [40].
  • Binding Free Energy Calculation: For top candidates, run more computationally intensive MM/GBSA calculations to refine binding affinity predictions [40].
• Drug-Likeness and Synthesizability: Calculate the Quantitative Estimate of Drug-likeness (QED) and Synthetic Accessibility score (SAscore) for all generated molecules [42].

The logical relationship and data flow between these experimental stages is summarized in the following workflow.

Experimental Benchmarking Workflow for Scaffold Hopping AI Models

The benchmarking of generative AI models for scaffold hopping is a multi-dimensional challenge that requires a balanced consideration of structural novelty, maintained biological activity, and practical synthesizability. Current state-of-the-art models like ScaffoldGVAE and DeepHop demonstrate powerful, learning-based approaches that can directly generate novel scaffolds, with DeepHop showing a notably high holistic success rate of ~70% [14]. In contrast, tools like ChemBounce offer a robust, library-based alternative that excels in producing synthesizable and drug-like candidates [42].

The field, however, lacks a completely unified benchmarking standard. Future efforts would benefit from community-wide adoption of a common dataset and a core set of the metrics outlined herein. As generative AI continues its rapid evolution, incorporating more sophisticated multi-objective optimization [41] and agentic systems [43], these rigorous benchmarking practices will be paramount for translating algorithmic advances into tangible breakthroughs in drug discovery.

In the intensely competitive landscape of pharmaceutical research, scaffold hopping has emerged as a pivotal strategy for accelerating the discovery of novel therapeutic agents. This medicinal chemistry approach involves the structural modification of the molecular backbone of known bioactive compounds to create novel chemotypes with retained or improved biological activity [5]. The practice is particularly valuable for addressing limitations of existing leads, such as poor solubility, metabolic instability, high toxicity, and insufficient intellectual property (IP) space [5] [6]. As drug discovery faces challenges including the emergence of drug-resistant pathogens and escalating development costs, computational scaffold hopping provides a systematic method for exploring chemical space more efficiently than traditional screening approaches.

The strategic importance of scaffold hopping is reflected in its successful application across multiple therapeutic areas. For tuberculosis (TB) drug discovery, scaffold hopping has spurred compounds with improved pharmacological profiles targeting key Mycobacterium tuberculosis pathways, including energy metabolism, cell wall synthesis, and proteasome function [5]. Beyond infectious diseases, this approach has yielded clinical and commercial successes across oncology, metabolic disorders, and other therapeutic areas, demonstrating its versatility as a core strategy in modern medicinal chemistry workflows [6].

Computational Scaffold Hopping: Tool Classification and Methodologies

Computational tools for scaffold hopping employ diverse methodologies that can be broadly categorized into several approaches. Ligand-based methods rely on the chemical information from known active compounds without requiring 3D protein structures, while structure-based methods utilize the three-dimensional architecture of the biological target to guide molecular design [5] [7]. These approaches can be further differentiated by their underlying algorithms, molecular representation strategies, and the degree of structural modification they enable.

The classification of scaffold hopping itself was formalized by Sun and colleagues in 2012, who proposed four distinct categories based on the type of structural core modification [5] [7]:

• Heterocyclic replacements (1° scaffold hopping): The simplest form, involving substitution, addition, or removal of heteroatoms within the molecular backbone, or replacement of one heterocycle with another of high similarity.
• Ring opening and closure (2° scaffold hopping): Involves either breaking a ring bond to create an open-chain structure or forming new ring systems through cyclization.
• Peptidomimetics (3° scaffold hopping): Replacement of peptide backbone elements with non-peptide structural motifs while maintaining key pharmacophoric elements.
• Topology-based changes (4° scaffold hopping): The most significant structural alterations, involving comprehensive reorganization of the core scaffold framework.

Table 1: Classification of Scaffold Hopping Strategies

Scaffold Hopping Degree	Structural Change	Key Applications	Example Tools
1° (Heterocyclic Replacement)	Substitution/swapping of heteroatoms in backbone rings [5] [6]	Optimization of PK/PD profiles, identification of key interactions [5]	Spark [44], Computational bioisosteric replacement [45]
2° (Ring Opening/Closure)	Breaking ring bonds to create open-chain structures or forming new ring systems [5] [7]	Addressing synthetic accessibility, conformational constraint [5]	ChemBounce (scaffold fragmentation) [42]
3° (Peptidomimetics)	Replacing peptide backbones with non-peptide motifs [7]	Enhancing metabolic stability, improving oral bioavailability [6]	Molecular transformer, AI-based generative models [7]
4° (Topology-Based Changes)	Comprehensive reorganization of core scaffold framework [7]	Creating novel IP space, significant structural innovation [6]	GNN-based molecular generation [7]

Modern computational approaches have significantly expanded beyond early bioisosteric replacement concepts. Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) now play transformative roles, with methods including graph neural networks (GNNs), transformer models, and variational autoencoders (VAEs) enabling more sophisticated exploration of chemical space [7]. These AI-driven approaches can identify novel scaffolds that were previously difficult to discover using traditional methods reliant on predefined rules and expert knowledge [7].

Comparative Analysis of Computational Tools

The landscape of computational tools for scaffold hopping includes both commercial platforms and open-source solutions, each with distinct capabilities, algorithmic foundations, and optimal use cases. The following comparison examines leading tools based on performance metrics, architectural features, and practical implementation requirements.

Table 2: Computational Tools for Scaffold Hopping - Comparative Analysis

Tool Name	Type/ Availability	Core Methodology	Key Features	Performance Metrics	Primary Applications
ChemBounce [42]	Open-source (Python)	Curated scaffold library (3.2M+ ChEMBL fragments) with Tanimoto/ElectroShape similarity [42]	High synthetic accessibility, open-source, cloud-based implementation [42]	Generates compounds with lower SAscores (higher synthetic accessibility) and higher QED values vs. commercial tools [42]	Hit expansion, lead optimization, novel IP generation [42]
Spark [44]	Commercial	Electrostatic and shape similarity in 3D space [44]	Bioisosteric replacement, ligand growing/linking, water displacement [44]	Industry testimonials report successful lead identification and novel SAR [44]	IP escape, ADMET optimization, lead discovery [44]
RDKit [46]	Open-source (C++/Python)	Comprehensive cheminformatics toolkit with ML integration [46]	Molecular manipulation, descriptor calculation, fingerprint generation, visualization [46]	Widespread adoption in major pharma; core component in discovery informatics [46]	Virtual screening, SAR analysis, compound database management [46]
AutoDock Vina [46]	Open-source	Molecular docking with gradient-based optimization [46]	Flexible ligand docking, batch processing, binding affinity estimation [46]	One of most widely used docking engines; balance of speed and accuracy [46]	Structure-based virtual screening, binding pose prediction [46]
DELi Platform [47]	Open-source	DNA-Encoded Library informatics [47]	First open-source package for DEL data analysis, extensive documentation [47]	Successful identification of potent TB protein inhibitors (200-fold potency boost) [47]	Hit identification from DEL screens, academic collaboration [47]

Performance Benchmarking and Experimental Data

Independent evaluations provide critical insights into the relative performance of these tools. In comparative analyses, ChemBounce demonstrated a tendency to generate structures with lower synthetic accessibility (SA) scores and higher quantitative estimate of drug-likeness (QED) values compared to established commercial platforms, indicating advantages in both synthetic feasibility and drug-like properties [42]. Performance validation across diverse molecule types (peptides, macrocyclic compounds, and small molecules) showed processing times ranging from seconds for simpler structures to approximately 21 minutes for complex architectures, demonstrating scalability across chemical classes [42].

Real-world validation of these computational approaches comes from successful applications in drug discovery campaigns. Researchers at UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy utilized AI-guided generative methods to identify compounds targeting a critical tuberculosis protein, achieving 200-fold potency improvements in just a few optimization cycles [47]. This case highlights how computational scaffold hopping, when properly integrated with experimental validation, can dramatically accelerate the early stages of drug discovery.

Implementation Framework: Integrating Computational Tools into Medicinal Chemistry Workflows

Successful integration of computational scaffold hopping tools requires a systematic approach that bridges computational predictions with experimental validation. The following workflow represents a robust framework for implementation in medicinal chemistry projects.

Scaffold Hopping Workflow Integration

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Protocol 1: ChemBounce Implementation for Scaffold Hopping

Command Line Execution:

Parameters:

• INPUT_SMILES: Text containing query molecule in SMILES format
• NUMBER_OF_STRUCTURES: Controls output volume per fragment
• SIMILARITY_THRESHOLD: Tanimoto similarity threshold (default: 0.5)
• --core_smiles: Optional preservation of specific substructures
• --replace_scaffold_files: Optional custom scaffold libraries [42]

Validation Methodology:

• Generated structures evaluated using ElectroShape similarity for 3D shape and charge distribution
• Synthetic accessibility calculated via SAscore algorithms
• Drug-likeness assessed using QED metrics
• Experimental correlation through biochemical assays and structural biology [42]

Protocol 2: Structure-Based Scaffold Hopping with Spark

Implementation Steps:

• Protein Preparation: Obtain 3D protein structure (X-ray crystallography, NMR, or homology modeling)
• Ligand Placement: Define binding site and orient template molecule
• Bioisosteric Replacement: Identify potential scaffold replacements using electrostatic and shape similarity
• Multi-parameter Optimization: Filter results by properties including LogP, TPSA, and molecular weight
• Synthetic Feasibility Assessment: Prioritize compounds based on synthetic accessibility [44]

Validation Approach:

• Computational: Molecular dynamics simulations and binding free energy calculations
• Experimental: Compound synthesis followed by binding affinity measurements (SPR, ITC) and functional cellular assays [44]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

Successful implementation of computational scaffold hopping requires both software tools and experimental resources. The following table details key research reagents and their functions in the validation process.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Platforms for Experimental Validation

Reagent/Platform	Function in Workflow	Application Context
3D Cell Culture Systems (e.g., MO:BOT) [48]	Provides human-relevant tissue models for efficacy and toxicity testing	Improved predictability over animal models for compound prioritization [48]
DNA-Encoded Libraries (DELs) [47]	Experimental validation of computationally predicted scaffolds	Hit confirmation and expansion through massive combinatorial screening [47]
Automated Synthesis Platforms	Rapid synthesis of computationally designed compounds	Accelerates cycle time from design to experimental testing [48]
High-Throughput Screening Assays	Functional validation of scaffold-hopped compounds	Confirmation of maintained or improved biological activity [5]
Protein Production Systems (e.g., Nuclera eProtein) [48]	Rapid generation of target proteins for structural studies	Enables structure-based design and co-crystallization studies [48]

Case Studies: Successful Applications in Drug Discovery

Tuberculosis Drug Discovery

Scaffold hopping has demonstrated particular value in addressing drug-resistant tuberculosis, a major global health challenge. Researchers have applied this strategy to develop compounds targeting key Mycobacterium tuberculosis pathways, including energy metabolism, cell wall synthesis, and proteasome function [5]. The integration of computational tools enabled the discovery of novel chemotypes with improved pharmacological profiles, including enhanced efficacy, reduced toxicity, and the ability to circumvent existing resistance mechanisms [5]. At UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy, AI-guided generative methods identified promising TB protein inhibitors within six months, achieving significant potency improvements through iterative optimization [47].

Kinase Inhibitor Development

The field of kinase drug discovery has extensively benefited from scaffold hopping approaches. A notable example includes the development of CFI-402257, a pyrazolo[1,5-a]pyrimidine-based TTK inhibitor originating from iterative scaffold hopping of an imidazo[1,2-a]pyrazine lead series [6]. Similarly, scaffold hopping from the ERK1/2 inhibitor BVD-523 (Ulixertinib) using a combination of ring closure and heterocycle replacement strategies yielded novel chemotypes with maintained target engagement and improved properties [6]. These cases demonstrate how computational scaffold hopping can address specific developmental challenges while maintaining target affinity.

Patent Space Navigation

Beyond optimizing pharmacological properties, scaffold hopping has proven invaluable for creating novel intellectual property in congested chemical space. The strategic modification of molecular scaffolds enables companies to establish distinct patent positions while building on established structure-activity relationships [5] [6]. This application is particularly valuable for follow-on drug discovery programs targeting validated biological targets with significant commercial interest.

The integration of computational tools into medicinal chemistry workflows has transformed scaffold hopping from a conceptual framework to a practical, high-impact approach in drug discovery. The current tool landscape offers diverse solutions ranging from open-source platforms like ChemBounce and RDKit to commercial software such as Spark, each with distinct strengths and optimal application contexts. Successful implementation requires careful tool selection based on project-specific needs, followed by systematic workflow integration that combines computational predictions with rigorous experimental validation.

Future developments in this field will likely focus on enhanced AI-driven molecular representation methods, including advanced graph neural networks and transformer architectures that can more effectively capture complex structure-activity relationships [7]. Additionally, the growing emphasis on open-source tools and collaborative platforms promises to democratize access to these technologies across academic and industrial settings [47]. As these computational approaches continue to evolve, their integration with experimental automation and high-throughput validation will further accelerate the drug discovery process, ultimately enhancing our ability to address unmet medical needs through rational molecular design.

Overcoming Hurdles: Key Challenges and Strategies for Optimizing Success Rates

Scaffold hopping, a cornerstone strategy in modern medicinal chemistry, refers to the structural modification of the molecular backbone of existing bioactive compounds to create novel chemotypes while retaining or improving biological activity [5]. First formally defined by Schneider et al. in 1999, this approach has evolved from simple heterocyclic replacements to sophisticated computational redesigns that systematically explore chemical space [1] [7]. The fundamental challenge in scaffold hopping lies in navigating the critical novelty-potency trade-off: introducing sufficient structural novelty to achieve desired improvements in drug-like properties or intellectual property space, while preserving the essential pharmacophoric elements required for target engagement and biological activity [6].

The strategic importance of scaffold hopping extends across multiple dimensions of drug discovery. First, it enables circumvention of intellectual property limitations by creating structurally distinct compounds from existing patented molecules [42]. Second, it addresses pharmacological shortcomings of lead compounds, including poor solubility, metabolic instability, toxicity, and suboptimal pharmacokinetic profiles [5] [6]. Third, it provides a pathway to overcome drug resistance, particularly relevant in anti-infective and oncology therapeutics, by modifying core structures to which resistance mechanisms have evolved [5]. As drug discovery faces increasing challenges with compound attrition and resistance development, scaffold hopping represents a powerful methodology for generating novel chemical entities with improved therapeutic potential.

Classifying Scaffold Hopping Approaches and Their Trade-offs

The structural modifications employed in scaffold hopping exist along a spectrum of complexity, with corresponding variations in the degree of novelty introduced and the associated risk to biological activity retention. A well-established classification system categorizes these approaches into four distinct degrees based on the type and extent of core structural changes [1] [7].

Table 1: Classification of Scaffold Hopping Approaches by Structural Modification Degree

Degree	Modification Type	Structural Novelty	Activity Retention Probability	Primary Applications
1°	Heterocyclic replacements	Low	High	Property optimization, IP expansion
2°	Ring opening/closure	Medium	Medium	Conformational restriction, solubility improvement
3°	Peptidomimetics	Medium-High	Variable	Metabolic stability enhancement
4°	Topology-based changes	High	Low	Novel chemotype discovery, circumventing resistance

First-Degree Scaffold Hopping: Heterocyclic Replacements

First-degree scaffold hopping represents the most conservative approach, involving the substitution, addition, or removal of heteroatoms within the molecular backbone, or the replacement of one heterocycle with another of high similarity [1]. This approach retains the spatial arrangement of the unaltered pharmacophore and adjacent groups, enabling fine-tuning of physicochemical properties while maintaining key ligand-target interactions. A classic example includes the development of the phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitors sildenafil and vardenafil, which differ only in the position of a nitrogen atom yet are covered by separate patents [1]. While such modifications typically result in limited changes to properties and provide minimal advantages in establishing a strong IP position, they offer a high probability of maintaining biological activity due to preserved molecular topology [1].

Second-Degree Scaffold Hopping: Ring Opening and Closure

Second-degree scaffold hopping involves more extensive structural changes through ring opening or closure operations, significantly altering molecular flexibility and topology [1]. The transformation from morphine to tramadol exemplifies this approach, where breaking six ring bonds and opening up three fused rings produced a more flexible molecule with reduced potency but improved oral bioavailability and a superior side effect profile [1]. Conversely, ring closure strategies can reduce molecular flexibility and lock bioactive conformations, as demonstrated in the development of cyproheptadine from pheniramine, where rigidification significantly improved binding affinity to the H1-receptor [1]. These medium-step modifications present a balanced trade-off, offering moderate novelty with reasonable expectations for activity retention.

Third and Fourth-Degree Scaffold Hopping: Topological Transformations

Third-degree scaffold hopping typically involves peptidomimetic approaches that replace peptide backbones with non-peptide moieties, while fourth-degree hopping encompasses significant topological changes that fundamentally alter molecular shape and connectivity [1]. These approaches generate the highest degree of structural novelty and can lead to substantial improvements in drug-like properties, but carry greater risk of activity loss due to potential disruption of critical pharmacophoric elements [1]. The empirical evidence suggests an inverse relationship between the degree of structural novelty and the probability of maintaining comparable biological activities, illustrating the fundamental novelty-potency trade-off that medicinal chemists must navigate [1].

Diagram 1: The inverse relationship between structural novelty and activity retention in scaffold hopping creates a fundamental trade-off that researchers must navigate.

Computational Methodologies for Balanced Scaffold Hopping

Computational approaches have dramatically expanded the capabilities for scaffold hopping, enabling systematic exploration of chemical space while constraining generated structures to maintain pharmacophoric similarity. These methods range from similarity-based searches to advanced generative artificial intelligence (AI) models, each with distinct mechanisms for balancing novelty and potency.

Traditional Computational Approaches

Traditional scaffold hopping methodologies primarily rely on molecular fingerprinting and structure similarity searches to identify compounds with similar properties but different core structures [7]. Ligand-based virtual screening (LBVS) identifies candidate scaffolds with key similar chemical features critical for protein binding using molecular fingerprints and similarity assessment metrics such as the Tanimoto score [5]. Structure-based virtual screening (SBVS) utilizes 3D structural data from X-ray crystallography, NMR spectroscopy, and the Protein Data Bank to model receptor-ligand interactions, with molecular docking serving as the core technique for predicting binding modes and interaction strength [5]. These traditional methods maintain key molecular interactions by substituting critical functional groups with alternatives that preserve binding contributions, such as hydrogen bonding patterns, hydrophobic interactions, and electrostatic forces, while incorporating new molecular fragment structures [7].

AI-Driven Scaffold Hopping Platforms

Modern AI-driven molecular representation methods have revolutionized scaffold hopping by enabling more flexible and data-driven exploration of chemical diversity [7]. These approaches employ deep learning techniques to learn continuous, high-dimensional feature embeddings directly from large and complex datasets, capturing both local and global molecular features that traditional methods might overlook [7].

Table 2: Comparison of Computational Scaffold Hopping Platforms

Platform	Methodology	Key Features	Novelty Control	Potency Preservation
ChemBounce [42]	Curated fragment replacement	3M+ synthesis-validated scaffolds from ChEMBL	Tanimoto similarity threshold	Electron shape similarity
ScaffoldGVAE [11]	Graph variational autoencoder	Multi-view GNN, side-chain preservation	Gaussian mixture latent space	Scaffold-side chain integration
RuSH [49]	Generative reinforcement learning	Unconstrained full-molecule generation	Low 2D similarity constraint	High 3D pharmacophore similarity
DeepHop [11]	Multimodal transformer	Molecular sequence, graph, and protein information	Implicit through model training	Activity data from 40 kinases

ChemBounce exemplifies a fragment-based approach that identifies core scaffolds from input molecules and replaces them using a curated library of over 3 million fragments derived from the ChEMBL database [42]. The generated compounds are evaluated based on Tanimoto and electron shape similarities to ensure retention of pharmacophores and potential biological activity, with user-controlled parameters for similarity thresholds and number of structures [42]. In contrast, ScaffoldGVAE employs a variational autoencoder based on multi-view graph neural networks that explicitly separates side-chain and scaffold embedding, preserving side chains while modifying the molecular scaffold through mapping to a Gaussian mixture distribution [11]. This approach specifically targets scaffold hopping while maintaining the original molecular side chains, potentially offering better control over activity retention.

The RuSH (Reinforcement Learning for Unconstrained Scaffold Hopping) approach utilizes generative reinforcement learning to steer the generation toward full molecules with high three-dimensional and pharmacophore similarity to reference molecules but low scaffold similarity [49]. This unconstrained generation method potentially offers greater exploration of chemical space compared to approaches that confine generation to pre-defined molecular substructures [49].

Diagram 2: Computational scaffold hopping workflows integrate multiple methodologies and evaluation metrics to balance novelty and potency in generated compounds.

Experimental Validation and Success Metrics

Validating the success of scaffold hopping requires rigorous experimental protocols that quantify both the structural novelty achieved and the biological activity retained. The assessment framework typically employs multiple complementary techniques to establish structure-activity relationships and confirm target engagement.

Quantitative Assessment Protocols

The evaluation of scaffold hopping success incorporates both computational and experimental metrics. Computational assessments typically include 2D structural similarity measures such as Tanimoto coefficients based on molecular fingerprints, and 3D similarity evaluations using electron shape comparison algorithms like ElectroShape [42] [50]. Drug-likeness predictions utilizing Quantitative Estimate of Drug-likeness (QED) scores and synthetic accessibility (SAscore) assessments provide additional computational validation [42].

Experimental validation progresses through hierarchical testing protocols, beginning with in vitro binding assays (IC₅₀, Kᵢ determination) to establish direct target engagement and potency [6]. For enzyme targets, functional activity assays measure inhibition efficacy and mechanism of action [6]. Cellular assays confirm activity in physiological environments, assessing membrane permeability and intracellular target modulation [6]. Advanced validation includes protein-ligand co-crystallography to verify binding mode conservation and molecular dynamics simulations to assess complex stability [11].

The relationship between chemical similarity and pharmacological novelty has been systematically studied, revealing that drug pairs sharing high 3D similarity but low 2D similarity (indicative of successful scaffold hopping) are much more likely to exhibit pharmacologically relevant differences in terms of specific protein target modulation [50]. This highlights the importance of incorporating both 2D and 3D similarity assessments when evaluating scaffold hopping outcomes.

Case Studies in Success Rate Assessment

Several well-documented case studies illustrate the practical application and success rates of scaffold hopping across different target classes and therapeutic areas.

The development of novel cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) potentiators exemplifies iterative scaffold hopping success. Starting from GLPG1837, which demonstrated efficacy but required high dosing leading to adverse effects, researchers applied heterocycle replacement (1° scaffold hopping) to develop a next-generation candidate that maintained CFTR activity with improved potency and reduced side effects [6].

In kinase inhibitor development, the evolution of TTK inhibitors demonstrates how sequential scaffold hopping can overcome pharmacological limitations. Starting from an imidazo[1,2-a]pyrazine scaffold with good inhibitory activity (IC₅₀ = 1.4 nM) but dissolution-limited exposure, researchers performed iterative heterocycle replacements, ultimately identifying a pyrazolo[1,5-a]pyrimidine-based compound (CFI-402257) with maintained potency and significantly improved pharmaceutical properties [6].

The application of AI-driven scaffold hopping to Leucine-rich repeat kinase 2 (LRRK2) inhibitors for Parkinson's disease treatment further demonstrates the methodology's success. Using the ScaffoldGVAE platform, researchers generated novel scaffold-hopped molecules that were subsequently validated through molecular docking (GraphDTA, LeDock) and binding free energy calculations (MM/GBSA), confirming retention of target affinity while achieving significant structural novelty [11].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Platforms

Successful implementation of scaffold hopping strategies requires access to specialized computational tools, chemical libraries, and analytical resources. The following table summarizes key platforms and their applications in navigating the novelty-potency trade-off.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Platforms for Scaffold Hopping

Tool/Platform	Type	Primary Function	Access
ChemBounce [42]	Computational Software	Scaffold replacement with similarity constraints	Open-source (GitHub), Google Colab
ScaffoldGVAE [11]	AI Generative Model	Scaffold-focused molecular generation	Open-source (GitHub)
ChEMBL Database [42] [11]	Chemical Library	3M+ synthesis-validated scaffolds	Public database
ElectroShape [42]	Similarity Algorithm	3D electron shape similarity calculation	Python (ODDT library)
ScaffoldGraph [42] [11]	Analysis Tool	Molecular scaffold decomposition and hierarchy	Open-source Python package
Protein Data Bank [5]	Structural Database	3D protein structures for SBVS	Public database
RU_SH [49]	Reinforcement Learning	Unconstrained scaffold hopping	Research implementation

The availability of open-source platforms like ChemBounce and ScaffoldGVAE has democratized access to advanced scaffold hopping capabilities, enabling broader adoption across academic and industrial research settings [42] [11]. These tools typically operate on Simplified Molecular-Input Line-Entry System (SMILES) strings as input, requiring valid atomic symbols and proper valence assignments, with preprocessing often needed for multi-component systems containing salts or complex forms [42].

The integration of both ligand-based and structure-based approaches provides complementary advantages. LBVS methods offer speed and efficiency when structural data is limited, while SBVS approaches provide mechanistic insights into binding interactions but require high-quality protein structures [5]. The emergence of cloud-based implementations, such as the Google Colaboratory notebook available for ChemBounce, further reduces computational barriers for experimental chemists [42].

Scaffold hopping represents a sophisticated balancing act between introducing structural novelty and maintaining biological activity. The success of this approach depends on strategic selection of hopping methodologies appropriate to the specific drug discovery context, coupled with rigorous validation protocols that assess both chemical novelty and pharmacological potency.

The evolving landscape of scaffold hopping is increasingly characterized by the integration of AI-driven generative models with traditional medicinal chemistry expertise. These computational approaches enable systematic exploration of chemical space while constraining generated structures to maintain pharmacophoric similarity, potentially accelerating the identification of novel chemotypes with optimized properties [7] [11]. However, the fundamental trade-off between structural novelty and activity retention remains a central consideration, requiring careful experimental validation across hierarchical testing protocols.

As scaffold hopping methodologies continue to advance, particularly through reinforcement learning and multi-objective optimization approaches, the field moves closer to predictive frameworks that can quantitatively navigate the novelty-potency landscape. This progression promises to enhance the efficiency of scaffold hopping campaigns, ultimately contributing to the discovery of novel therapeutic agents with improved efficacy and safety profiles.

In the modern drug discovery pipeline, in silico methods have become indispensable for predicting compound-target interactions and optimizing lead molecules. These computational approaches streamline the research scope, guide experimental validation, and significantly reduce the time and financial resources required compared to traditional experimental techniques [51]. However, two persistent challenges limit their predictive accuracy and translational success: the effective design of scoring functions for evaluating interactions and the reliable prediction of off-target effects. These limitations are particularly critical in the context of assessing scaffold hopping success rates, where the core structure of a bioactive molecule is modified to create novel chemotypes with improved properties while retaining biological activity [1] [7]. This guide objectively compares the performance of current computational solutions designed to overcome these hurdles, providing researchers with a clear analysis of their capabilities and supporting experimental data.

Scoring Functions: Quantifying Molecular Interactions and Activity

Scoring functions are algorithmic tools used to predict the binding affinity or activity of a molecule toward a biological target. They are fundamental to virtual screening and structure-based drug design.

Traditional and Machine Learning-Based Scoring Methods

Traditional scoring functions often rely on force fields, empirical scoring, or knowledge-based potentials. However, the emergence of machine learning has significantly enhanced predictive performance by learning complex patterns from large bioactivity datasets.

Table 1: Comparison of Scoring Functions and Their Performance in Bioactivity Prediction

Method/Tool	Underlying Approach	Key Application	Reported Performance	Reference
Naïve Bayes Classifiers	Probabilistic classification based on molecular fingerprints/descriptors.	Target prediction, bioactivity classification.	Mean recall: 67.7%, Precision: 63.8% (for actives).	[52]
PIDGIN	Bernoulli Naïve Bayes utilizing both active and presumed inactive data.	Target deconvolution for orphan compounds.	Precision-recall AUC: 0.56, BEDROC: 0.85.	[52]
CFD (Cutting Frequency Determination) Score	Position-specific weights derived from lentiviral library screening.	CRISPR gRNA off-target scoring.	AUC: 0.91 in ROC analysis.	[53]
MIT Specificity Score	Heuristic based on mismatch position and distance to PAM.	CRISPR gRNA specificity summary scoring.	AUC: 0.87 in ROC analysis.	[53]
Elevation (Machine Learning)	Two-layer regression model for off-target scoring; boosted regression trees for aggregation.	End-to-end CRISPR guide RNA design.	Outperformed CFD and MIT scores; state-of-the-art.	[54]

Experimental Protocols for Evaluating Scoring Functions

The performance of scoring functions is typically validated using rigorous computational experiments. The following protocol is commonly employed:

• Data Curation and Splitting: A large dataset of known ligand-target pairs or, in the case of CRISPR, guide RNA-off-target pairs, is assembled from public repositories like ChEMBL, PubChem, or specialized databases [52]. This dataset is split into training and testing sets, often using fivefold cross-validation to ensure robust performance estimation [52].
• Model Training: The scoring function's algorithm (e.g., Naïve Bayes, regression model) is trained on the training set. For methods like PIDGIN, this includes a critical step of oversampling presumed inactive compounds to create a balanced dataset for learning [52].
• Prediction and Evaluation: The trained model is used to predict activities on the held-out test set. Performance is evaluated using standardized metrics. For classification tasks (active/inactive), common metrics include precision, recall, F1-score, and the area under the precision-recall curve (AUC) [52]. For regression tasks, metrics like Spearman correlation or the pinball loss (for quantile predictions) are used [54] [55].
• Comparison with Benchmarks: The new method's performance is compared against existing state-of-the-art scoring functions to establish its relative advantage [54] [53].

Off-Target Prediction: From Small Molecules to CRISPR Systems

Off-target effects occur when a drug or gene-editing tool interacts with unintended biological targets, leading to potential toxicity or experimental confounders. Predictive models are essential for mitigating these risks.

Ligand-Based Off-Target Prediction

For small molecules, off-target prediction is often framed as a target prediction problem, aiming to identify all potential targets a compound might bind to.

Table 2: Comparison of Off-Target Prediction Platforms and Algorithms

System/Platform	Primary Function	Core Algorithm	Key Features	Reference
CRISPOR	Guide RNA selection for CRISPR/Cas9.	Integrates CFD, MIT scores, and others.	Off-target search for >120 genomes; evaluates on-target efficiency.	[53]
Elevation	End-to-end CRISPR guide RNA design.	Two-layer machine learning model.	Cloud-based service; aggregates individual off-target scores into a summary score.	[54]
Hybrid Neural Network (HNN)	CRISPR off-target prediction with indels.	Parallelized neural network with word embedding.	First to systematically model insertions and deletions (indels); outperformed existing methods.	[56]
PIDGIN	Target prediction for small molecules.	Naïve Bayes with bioactivity data.	Utilizes large-scale negative (inactive) bioactivity data.	[52]

Experimental Workflow for Validating Off-Target Predictions

The development of off-target predictors, especially for CRISPR-Cas9, relies on benchmarking against empirical data. The standard validation workflow is as follows:

• Data Compilation from Unbiased Assays: Experimental data is gathered from genome-wide, unbiased assays such as GUIDE-seq, HTGTS, Digenome-seq, and CIRCLE-seq [54] [53]. These assays identify and quantify off-target cleavage sites for a set of guide RNAs (gRNAs).
• Genome-Wide Search and Filtering: For a given gRNA, tools like Cas-OFFinder or the search algorithm in CRISPOR scan the genome for potential off-target sites, typically allowing up to 4-6 nucleotide mismatches and sometimes bulges (indels) [53] [56].
• Off-Target Scoring and Aggregation: Each potential off-target site is scored using a predictive model (e.g., CFD, Elevation-score). These individual scores are then aggregated into a single summary score (e.g., MIT specificity score, Elevation-aggregate) to rank gRNAs by their overall off-target potential [54].
• Performance Evaluation: The predictor's ability to distinguish active off-targets from inactive ones is evaluated using receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and weighted Spearman correlation, which accounts for the higher cost of misclassifying an active off-target as inactive [54] [53].

The diagram below illustrates the logical workflow and data flow for developing and validating an off-target prediction model.

Figure 1: Workflow for Off-Target Predictor Development. This diagram outlines the key stages in creating and validating computational models for off-target effect prediction, from empirical data generation to final model evaluation.

Successful implementation of the discussed methods relies on access to specific datasets, software, and computational resources.

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for In Silico Prediction

Research Reagent	Function/Description	Application Context
ChEMBL / PubChem	Public repositories of bioactive molecules and their assay data.	Source of training data for ligand-based target and off-target prediction models.	[52]
GUIDE-seq Library	Reagents for genome-wide, unbiased identification of DNA double-strand breaks.	Generates gold-standard experimental data for training and validating CRISPR off-target predictors.	[54]
CRISPOR Web Server	Freely accessible web tool for guide RNA design.	Provides integrated off-target scores (CFD, MIT) and on-target efficiency predictions for multiple genomes.	[53]
Elevation Cloud Service	Machine learning-based cloud API for gRNA design.	Offers state-of-the-art off-target scoring (Elevation-score) and aggregation (Elevation-aggregate).	[54]
Word Embedding Techniques (e.g., in HNN model)	NLP-derived methods to represent DNA sequences as numerical vectors.	Enables models to capture nuanced features of gRNA-DNA pairs, including indels.	[56]

The objective comparison presented in this guide demonstrates significant progress in addressing the limitations of in silico methods. For scoring functions, machine learning models that leverage large-scale bioactivity data, including negative results, show superior performance in target prediction tasks [52]. In the realm of off-target prediction, hybrid neural networks and ensemble models like Elevation and HNN have set new benchmarks by more accurately capturing the complex features of gRNA-target interactions, even accounting for indels [54] [56]. The continued integration of advanced AI techniques with high-quality experimental data is paving the way for more reliable in silico predictions. This progress is crucial for accurately assessing scaffold hopping success rates, as it enables researchers to better forecast both the retained on-target efficacy and the reduced off-target risks of novel chemotypes, thereby de-risking the drug discovery pipeline.

A critical challenge in modern drug discovery lies in transitioning from computationally designed molecules to physically synthesized compounds. Within scaffold hopping—the practice of discovering novel molecular backbones with retained biological activity—ensuring the synthetic accessibility (SA) of new scaffolds is paramount to the success rate of any research program [5] [57]. This guide provides an objective comparison of the primary methods for assessing synthetic accessibility, detailing their experimental protocols and applications in scaffold hopping.

Quantitative Comparison of Synthetic Accessibility Assessment Methods

The following table summarizes the core characteristics, advantages, and limitations of the predominant approaches for evaluating synthetic Accessibility.

Table 1: Comparison of Synthetic Accessibility (SA) Assessment Methods

Method	Core Principle	Output Scale	Validation Approach	Key Advantages	Major Limitations
Structure-Based (e.g., SAScore) [58] [59]	Combines fragment commonness (from PubChem analysis) with a complexity penalty (e.g., rings, stereocenters).	1 (easy) to 10 (difficult) [58].	Correlation with rankings by experienced medicinal chemists (e.g., r² = 0.89) [59].	Extremely fast (milliseconds), suitable for high-throughput virtual screening [60].	May misclassify complex natural products or simple-looking but hard-to-make molecules [60].
Retrosynthesis-Based (CASP) [60]	Uses computer-aided synthesis planning to determine if a viable synthetic route exists.	Binary (Success/Failure) or number of reaction steps [60].	Whether a synthesis route can be found within a set computational budget [60].	Provides actionable synthetic pathways; strong theoretical foundation.	Computationally slow (minutes per molecule); accuracy depends on the underlying reaction database [60].
Market-Based (e.g., MolPrice) [60]	Machine learning model that predicts molecular market price as a proxy for synthetic cost and effort.	Logarithm of USD per mmol [60].	Ability to distinguish purchasable molecules from synthetically complex ones; performance on benchmark datasets [60].	High economic interpretability; integrates real-world purchasability and cost [60].	Training data is biased toward easily purchasable molecules; may not generalize to all novel scaffolds [60].

Experimental Protocols for Key SA Assessment Methods

To ensure reproducibility and rigorous assessment in scaffold hopping campaigns, the following experimental methodologies are recommended.

Protocol 1: Structure-Based SA Scoring Using SAScore

The SAScore algorithm is designed to provide a rapid, computationally inexpensive estimate of synthetic ease [59].

• Input: A molecule in a standard chemical representation (e.g., SMILES).
• Fragmentation: The molecule is fragmented into all possible extended connectivity fragments (ECFC_4#) [59].
• Fragment Scoring: Each fragment is looked up in a pre-computed database derived from the statistical analysis of millions of molecules in PubChem. A fragmentScore is calculated as the sum of contributions of all fragments, divided by the number of fragments [59].
• Complexity Penalty: A complexityPenalty is calculated based on molecular features including:
  • Presence of macrocycles or non-standard ring fusions.
  • Number of chiral centers.
  • Molecular weight and overall size [59].
• Score Calculation: The final SAScore is a composite of the fragmentScore and the complexityPenalty [59].
• Validation: The scores are validated by comparing the computational ranking to a consensus ranking established by a panel of experienced medicinal chemists for a diverse set of molecules [59].

Protocol 2: Retrosynthesis-Based Feasibility Assessment

This protocol uses Computer-Aided Synthesis Planning (CASP) tools for a deeper analysis [60].

• Input: A single target molecule for SA assessment.
• Retrosynthetic Analysis: The CASP algorithm performs a recursive decomposition of the target molecule into simpler, commercially available building blocks using a database of known chemical reactions.
• Route Evaluation: All potential synthetic routes generated by the algorithm are scored based on criteria such as:
  • Number of linear synthesis steps.
  • Predicted yield per step.
  • Availability and cost of starting materials.
  • Strategic complexity of reactions involved.
• Output & Classification: The molecule is classified as "synthetically accessible" if at least one viable route is found within a predefined computational time limit (e.g., 1-3 minutes per molecule). The number of steps can also be used as a quantitative score (e.g., DRFScore) [60].

Protocol 3: Economic Viability Screening with MolPrice

MolPrice uses market data to infer synthetic complexity [60].

• Data Preprocessing: A large dataset of purchasable molecules (e.g., from Molport) is collected. For each molecule, the price is normalized to USD per mmol and converted to a logarithmic scale [60].
• Model Training: A machine learning model (using contrastive learning) is trained on the preprocessed data. The model learns to correlate molecular features (represented as graphs, fingerprints, or SELFIES) with their market price [60].
• Prediction: For a novel scaffold, the trained MolPrice model predicts its log(USD per mmol) price.
• Interpretation: A higher predicted price indicates greater synthetic complexity and cost, allowing researchers to prioritize scaffolds that are likely to be more affordable and feasible to procure or synthesize [60].

SA Assessment Workflow in Scaffold Hopping

The diagram below illustrates a recommended integrated workflow for assessing synthetic accessibility during a scaffold hopping campaign.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Solutions

The following tools and databases are critical for implementing the experimental protocols described above.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions for SA Assessment

Tool/Resource Name	Type	Primary Function in SA Assessment
RDKit [60]	Open-Source Cheminformatics Library	Provides the foundational infrastructure for handling molecules, calculating descriptors, and can include an implementation of the SAScore.
PubChem [59]	Chemical Molecule Database	Serves as the source of "historical synthetic knowledge" for defining common, and therefore synthetically accessible, molecular fragments.
ZINC/ChEMBL [60]	Databases of Purchasable/Bioactive Molecules	Curated collections of typically easy-to-synthesize compounds used as reference sets for validation and training of SA models.
MolPort [60]	Chemical Marketplace Database	Provides real-world price data for purchasable compounds, enabling economic-based SA models like MolPrice.
Commercial CASP Software	Computer-Aided Synthesis Planning Tool	Performs in-depth retrosynthetic analysis to determine the feasibility and steps required to synthesize a target scaffold.

Key Insights for Research

No single method is universally superior. An effective strategy involves triaging a large number of proposed scaffolds with a fast structure-based score (SAScore), followed by in-depth CASP analysis and economic assessment for the most promising candidates [58] [60]. By integrating these objective assessment protocols into the scaffold hopping workflow, researchers can significantly de-risk projects and increase the likelihood of delivering chemically accessible and economically viable drug candidates.

Scaffold hopping, the strategy of modifying the core structure of a bioactive compound, has evolved from a medicinal chemistry art to a computational science crucial for addressing pharmacokinetic and metabolic challenges in drug discovery. This approach allows researchers to retain desired biological activity while optimizing critical properties related to absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and toxicity (ADMET). This guide provides a comparative analysis of scaffold-hopping methodologies, experimental protocols, and their successful application in optimizing drug candidates.

Scaffold hopping, first introduced by Schneider et al. in 1999, is defined as the structural modification of a molecule's backbone to create novel chemotypes while preserving biological activity [7] [5]. In modern drug discovery, this strategy has become indispensable for overcoming metabolic liabilities, toxicity, and poor pharmacokinetic profiles associated with promising lead compounds. The fundamental premise is that structurally distinct compounds can maintain affinity for the same biological target if they conserve key ligand-target interactions, enabling medicinal chemists to address shortcomings like poor solubility, metabolic instability, and high toxicity without sacrificing efficacy [5] [61].

The connection between molecular structure and ADMET properties makes scaffold hopping particularly valuable for lead optimization. Electron-deficient ring systems can be substituted for aromatic systems to reduce cytochrome P450-mediated oxidation, while overall physicochemical properties can be tuned to improve bioavailability and reduce toxicity [61]. The following sections provide a comprehensive framework for planning, executing, and validating scaffold-hopping campaigns with a focus on ADMET optimization.

Scaffold Hopping Classification and Strategic Implementation

Degrees of Structural Modification

A standardized classification system proposed by Sun et al. categorizes scaffold hopping into four distinct degrees based on the type and extent of core structure modification [5] [1]. Understanding this hierarchy helps researchers select the appropriate strategy for their specific ADMET challenges.

Table: Classification of Scaffold Hopping by Structural Modification Degree

Degree	Type of Change	Structural Novelty	Typical ADMET Applications	Success Rate
1° (Heterocyclic Replacement)	Swapping, adding, or removing heteroatoms in rings	Low	Reducing metabolic liabilities, improving solubility [61]	High [1]
2° (Ring Opening/Closure)	Opening or closing ring systems	Low to Moderate	Modulating molecular flexibility, reducing planar surface area	Moderate [1]
3° (Peptidomimetics)	Replacing peptide backbones with non-peptide moieties	Moderate to High	Improving metabolic stability, enhancing oral bioavailability	Variable
4° (Topology-Based Hopping)	Fundamental changes to scaffold connectivity	High	Addressing multiple property limitations simultaneously, patent expansion	Lower but high impact [1]

The diagram below illustrates the logical relationship between scaffold hopping degrees and their strategic application in drug discovery.

Historical Success Cases

Several landmark examples demonstrate the power of scaffold hopping for property optimization:

• Morphine to Tramadol: Ring opening of morphine's three fused rings created tramadol, resulting in reduced addictive potential and side effects while maintaining analgesic properties through conservation of key pharmacophore features [1].
• Antihistamine Development: Ring closure in pheniramine created cyproheptadine, reducing molecular flexibility and increasing binding affinity for the H1-receptor while introducing additional medical benefits for migraine prophylaxis [1].
• BACE-1 Inhibitors for Alzheimer's: Replacement of a central phenyl ring with a trans-cyclopropylketone moiety significantly reduced lipophilicity (logD) and improved solubility while maintaining excellent potency [62].

Computational Methodologies and Workflows

Integrated Computational Pipeline

Modern scaffold hopping employs sophisticated computational workflows that combine multiple methodologies for comprehensive ADMET optimization.

Table: Computational Methods for Scaffold Hopping and ADMET Optimization

Methodology	Key Function	Representative Tools	ADMET Application
Pharmacophore Modeling	Identifies essential structural features for bioactivity	Maestro [9]	Conservation of critical binding elements during scaffold modification
Molecular Docking	Predicts binding modes and affinity	AutoDock Vina, Glide [63] [9]	Ensures maintained target engagement with novel scaffolds
Free Energy Perturbation (FEP)	Calculates relative binding free energy	FEP+ [30]	High-accuracy prediction of affinity changes for closely related analogs
Molecular Dynamics (MD)	Simulates protein-ligand stability	GROMACS, Desmond [63]	Assessment of binding stability and conformational dynamics
Machine Learning QSAR	Predicts activity and properties from structural data	Random Forest, GNNs [7] [63]	High-throughput prediction of pIC₅₀ and ADMET endpoints
DFT Analysis	Calculates electronic properties	PySCF [63]	Prediction of metabolic stability via HOMO-LUMO gap analysis

The following diagram illustrates a typical integrated computational workflow for scaffold hopping:

Experimental Protocols for Key Methodologies

• Protein Preparation: Retrieve protein structure from PDB (e.g., FGFR1: 4ZSA). Process using Protein Preparation Wizard (Schrödinger) to add hydrogen atoms, assign bond orders, and correct missing residues.
• Compound Library Preparation: Curate bioactive compounds with experimental IC₅₀ values. Generate 3D conformations using LigPrep module with OPLS3e force field.
• Grid Generation: Define receptor grid around binding site using co-crystallized ligand as center.
• Hierarchical Docking:
  • High-Throughput Virtual Screening (HTVS): Rapid screening of large compound libraries.
  • Standard Precision (SP): More rigorous docking of top HTVS hits.
  • Extra Precision (XP): Detailed docking of best SP compounds for accurate pose prediction.

• System Setup: Use protein structure from PDB (e.g., 5IV4). Prepare system using FEP+ mapper tool with OPLS3e force field and SPC water model.
• Ligand Preparation: Align new ligand structures with co-crystallized ligand using Schrödinger ligand alignment tool.
• Simulation Parameters: Solvate in water box with 5Å buffer for complex simulations. Run molecular dynamics simulations for 5-20ns until convergence.
• Analysis: Calculate relative binding free energies (ΔΔG) between ligand pairs. Apply pKa state correction for multiple protonation states.

• Structure Preparation: Extract molecular structures from SDF files using RDKit. Retain hydrogen atoms for accurate geometry representation.
• Quantum Chemical Calculations: Perform calculations using PySCF quantum chemistry library with cc-pVDZ basis set and B3LYP exchange-correlation functional.
• Orbital Analysis: Generate three-dimensional cube files of HOMO and LUMO orbitals after self-consistent field convergence.
• Property Calculation: Extract HOMO and LUMO energies from eigenvalues of Kohn-Sham matrix. Compute HOMO-LUMO energy gap in electronvolts (eV) as indicator of electronic stability.

Case Studies in ADMET Optimization

Addressing Metabolic Liabilities in Aromatic Compounds

A systematic review highlighted scaffold hopping as a primary strategy for mitigating oxidative metabolism of aromatic compounds [61]. Key successes include:

• Heterocyclic Replacement: Substitution of phenyl rings with electron-deficient ring systems (e.g., pyridyl, pyrimidine) reduces susceptibility to cytochrome P450-mediated oxidation while conserving pharmacophore geometry.
• Electronic Tuning: Strategic introduction of electron-withdrawing groups or nitrogen atoms into aromatic systems decreases electron density, slowing metabolic clearance and reducing formation of reactive metabolites.

Overcoming Genotoxicity in SIK Inhibitors

A structure-activity relationship guided scaffold hopping campaign addressed genotoxicity in SIK2/SIK3 inhibitors [64]:

• Initial Compound: GLPG4876, a 1,6-naphtyridine-containing molecule, demonstrated potent SIK2/SIK3 inhibition but showed clastogenicity in rat micronucleus assays.
• Scaffold Hop Approach: Overlay with GLPG3970 within the SIK3 protein structure inspired design of pyridine derivatives.
• Result: Identification of GLPG4970, which maintained potent SIK2/SIK3 inhibition while being negative in genotoxicity screening assays, enabling further development.

Optimizing Solubility in BACE-1 Inhibitors

A Roche team applied scaffold hopping to improve solubility of BACE-1 inhibitors for Alzheimer's disease [62]:

• Initial Challenge: Central phenyl ring contributed to high lipophilicity (logD) and poor solubility.
• Scaffold Hop: ReCore software suggested replacement with trans-cyclopropylketone moiety.
• Outcome: Significant reduction in logD with improved solubility while maintaining excellent potency, as confirmed by co-crystallization studies.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table: Key Research Reagents and Computational Tools for Scaffold Hopping

Tool/Category	Specific Examples	Function in Scaffold Hopping	Access Source
Compound Libraries	TargetMol Anticancer Library, PubChem	Source of diverse compounds for virtual screening and similarity search [63] [9]	Commercial vendors, public databases
Computational Software	Schrödinger Suite, AutoDock Vina, PySCF	Molecular docking, FEP calculations, quantum chemistry [63] [9] [30]	Commercial licenses, open source
Specialized Scaffold Hopping Tools	BROOD, ReCore, Spark, SHOP	Algorithmic identification of scaffold replacements [62]	Commercial software vendors
ADMET Prediction Platforms	ADMETlab 2.0, Deep-PK, DeepTox	Multi-task prediction of pharmacokinetic and toxicity properties [63] [65]	Web servers, commercial platforms
Protein Structure Databases	Protein Data Bank (PDB)	Source of 3D protein structures for structure-based design [63] [9]	Public database (rcsb.org)
Quantum Chemistry Tools	PySCF, Gaussian	DFT calculations for electronic property analysis [63]	Open source, commercial licenses

Scaffold hopping has established itself as a powerful strategy for optimizing ADMET properties while maintaining target engagement. The integration of advanced computational methods including free energy perturbation, machine learning-based ADMET prediction, and molecular dynamics simulations has transformed this approach from serendipitous discovery to systematic engineering of drug-like properties.

Future directions in the field point toward increased incorporation of AI-driven generative models for novel scaffold design [7] [65], hybrid quantum-mechanical/machine learning approaches for higher accuracy prediction, and multi-parametric optimization workflows that simultaneously balance potency, selectivity, and ADMET properties. As computational methods continue to advance, scaffold hopping will remain an essential component of the drug discovery toolkit for addressing the complex challenges of pharmacokinetic optimization.

Threonine Tyrosine Kinase (TTK), also known as monopolar spindle 1 (MPS1), is a central regulator of the spindle assembly checkpoint (SAC), which ensures accurate chromosome segregation during mitosis [66] [67]. TTK protein kinase is frequently overexpressed in various human cancers, including hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), breast cancer, and other solid tumors, where its elevated expression correlates with higher tumor grade and poorer patient outcomes [66] [67] [68]. This overexpression pattern positions TTK as an attractive molecular target for cancer therapy. The strategic inhibition of TTK disrupts proper SAC function, inducing chromosome mis-segregation, extensive aneuploidy, and DNA damage to levels that become intolerable for cancer cells, ultimately triggering senescence or apoptotic cell death [67] [69].

The discovery of CFI-402257 exemplifies the scaffold hopping approach in modern drug discovery—a strategy that systematically modifies the core molecular structure of a bioactive compound to create new patentable entities with potentially improved pharmacodynamic, physicochemical, and pharmacokinetic (P3) properties [6]. This case study details the iterative optimization process that transformed initial TTK inhibitor scaffolds into CFI-402257, a highly selective, orally bioavailable clinical candidate, while objectively comparing its performance against other developmental TTK inhibitors.

The Scaffold Hopping Journey to CFI-402257

Initial Leads and Molecular Evolution

The development of CFI-402257 originated from a scaffold hopping exercise aimed at identifying novel TTK inhibitors with superior drug-like properties [6]. Researchers began with a compound featuring an imidazo[1,2-a]pyrazine core structure, which demonstrated TTK inhibitory activity but required structural optimization [6]. The first key modification involved a heterocycle replacement (1°-scaffold hopping), transforming the imidazo[1,2-a]pyrazine motif into a pyrazolo[1,5-a][1,3,5]-triazine system [6]. This initial hop yielded compound Vb, which exhibited potent TTK inhibition (IC~50~ = 1.4 nM) but faced limitations due to dissolution-limited exposure, hampering its pharmaceutical development [6].

To overcome these limitations, researchers performed iterative scaffold hopping, systematically exploring three distinct heterocyclic systems: pyrazolo[1,5-a]pyrimidine, pyrrolo[2,1-f][1,2,4]triazine, and furo[2,3-d]pyrimidine [6]. The pyrazolo[1,5-a]pyrimidine-based series emerged as particularly promising, culminating in the identification of CFI-402257 [6]. This final scaffold hop successfully addressed the pharmacokinetic challenges of previous compounds while maintaining exceptional target potency, showcasing how strategic molecular backbone replacements can generate new intellectual property space with enhanced P3 profiles.

Optimization of Pharmacological Properties

The scaffold hopping journey that produced CFI-402257 demonstrates a deliberate focus on optimizing multiple pharmacological parameters simultaneously. The resulting clinical candidate exhibits:

• Exceptional Potency: IC~50~ of 1.7 nM for TTK inhibition in vitro, with a Ki of 0.1 nM [66] [70]
• High Selectivity: Tested against a panel of 262 human kinases at 1 μM concentration, CFI-402257 showed no significant off-target inhibition [70]
• Oral Bioavailability: Formulated for oral administration with demonstrated in vivo activity [66] [67]
• Improved Solubility: Addressed the dissolution limitations of earlier scaffolds [6]

The following diagram illustrates the key scaffold transitions during the optimization process that led to CFI-402257:

Comparative Performance of TTK Inhibitors

In Vitro Potency and Selectivity Profiles

CFI-402257 demonstrates superior in vitro potency compared to other documented TTK inhibitors, as summarized in the table below.

Table 1: In Vitro Potency Profiles of TTK Inhibitors

Compound	TTK IC~50~	Cellular GI~50~	Selectivity Profile	Key Characteristics
CFI-402257	1.7 nM [70]	HCT116: 15 nM [67]	Highly selective (0/262 kinases inhibited at 1 μM) [70]	Oral bioavailability, best-in-class candidate [68]
NTRC 0066-0	Sub-nanomolar range [69]	HCT116: 37 nM [69]	Selective for TTK	Potent in stable aneuploid cells [69]
OSU-13	Not fully quantified	Not fully quantified	Selective at clinical candidate concentration range [71]	Active in multiple myeloma models [71]
BAY 1161909	Clinical compound	Clinical compound	Not specified	Entered clinical trials (NCT02138812) [67]
BAY 1217389	Clinical compound	Clinical compound	Not specified	Entered clinical trials (NCT02366949) [67]

The exceptional selectivity of CFI-402257 is particularly noteworthy, as it exhibited no significant off-target activity when screened against a broad panel of 262 human kinases at 1 μM concentration [70]. This high specificity profile potentially translates to a more favorable safety and tolerability profile in clinical settings compared to less selective kinase inhibitors.

Cellular Efficacy Across Cancer Types

CFI-402257 demonstrates broad anti-proliferative activity across diverse cancer cell lines, with varying sensitivity observed based on cellular context.

Table 2: Cellular Growth Inhibition (GI~50~) of CFI-402257 Across Cancer Types

Cell Line	Cancer Type	GI~50~ / IC~50~	Key Observations
HCT116	Colon cancer	15 nM [67]	Induced polyploidy (8N and 16N) [67]
OVCAR-3	Ovarian cancer	30 nM [67]	Consistent sensitivity pattern
MDA-MB-468	Breast cancer	160 nM [67]	TNBC model, in vivo TGI = 94% [70]
HT-29	Colon cancer	557 nM [70]	Relative resistance compared to HCT116
HeLa	Cervical cancer	116 nM [70]	SAC reduction at 4 hours
Primary MM cells	Multiple myeloma	Variable by 1q21 status [71]	OSU-13 showed correlation with 1q21 copy number

Notably, CFI-402257 induces massive chromosome mis-segregation at concentrations as low as 200 nM within 6 hours of treatment, followed by a progressive accumulation of apoptotic cells detectable at 16 hours post-treatment [70]. This rapid initiation of mitotic catastrophe underscores its potent mechanism of action.

In Vivo Efficacy Across Preclinical Models

The therapeutic efficacy of CFI-402257 extends to multiple in vivo models, demonstrating dose-dependent tumor growth inhibition.

Table 3: In Vivo Efficacy of CFI-402257 in Preclinical Models

Model Type	Cancer Type	Dosing	Efficacy Outcome
Xenograft (MDA-MB-468)	Triple-negative breast cancer	6 mg/kg, oral, daily [70]	94% tumor growth inhibition [70]
Xenograft (MDA-MB-231)	Triple-negative breast cancer	6 mg/kg, oral, daily [70]	89% tumor growth inhibition [70]
Patient-derived xenograft (PDX)	High-grade serous ovarian cancer	7.5 mg/kg, oral, daily [70]	97% tumor growth inhibition [70]
Orthotopic models	Hepatocellular carcinoma	Not specified [66]	Suppressed HCC growth, induced immune cell recruitment [66]
Immunocompetent models	Hepatocellular carcinoma	With anti-PD-1 [66]	Improved survival, combination benefit [66]

CFI-402257 demonstrated compelling activity in hepatocellular carcinoma models, where it not only directly suppressed tumor growth but also activated the DDX41-STING cytosolic DNA sensing pathway, producing senescence-associated secretory phenotypes (SASPs) that recruited natural killer cells, CD4+ T cells, and CD8+ T cells for tumor clearance [66]. This immunomodulatory effect represents a distinctive mechanism among TTK inhibitors.

Mechanism of Action: From TTK Inhibition to Anti-Tumor Effects

Molecular Consequences of TTK Inhibition

The primary mechanism of CFI-402257 involves potent and selective inhibition of TTK kinase activity, which orchestrates a cascade of cellular events culminating in tumor cell death. The detailed molecular pathway is illustrated below:

This mechanism is consistent across multiple TTK inhibitors but is particularly pronounced with CFI-402257 due to its exceptional potency and selectivity. The activation of the STING pathway and subsequent immune engagement represents a distinctive secondary mechanism that may enhance its anti-tumor efficacy, particularly in immunologically responsive tumors [66].

Differential Sensitivity Based on Chromosomal Instability

Research with TTK inhibitor NTRC 0066-0 revealed that cells with pre-existing chromosomal instability (CIN) show differential sensitivity compared to stable aneuploid cells [69]. Stable aneuploid cells experience acute CIN when treated with TTK inhibitors, making them particularly sensitive [69]. In contrast, cell lines with high levels of pre-existing CIN show only a small additional fraction of cells mis-segregating chromosomes upon TTK inhibition [69]. This suggests that TTK inhibitors may be most effective against tumors with stable aneuploidy rather than those with inherently high CIN.

Experimental Protocols for Key Assessments

Cell-Based Growth Inhibition Assay

Purpose: To quantify the anti-proliferative effects of CFI-402257 across cancer cell lines [70].

Methodology:

• Cell Seeding: Plate cells in 96-well plates at appropriate densities (e.g., 3,000-5,000 cells/well)
• Compound Treatment: Add CFI-402257 in serial dilutions (typically spanning 0.1 nM to 10 μM)
• Incubation: Maintain cells for predetermined duration (96 hours to 5 days)
• Viability Assessment:
  • Sulforhodamine B (SRB) assay after 5 days [70]
  • Crystal violet staining after 96 hours [70]
• Data Analysis: Calculate GI~50~ values from dose-response curves

Key Considerations: Assay duration and cell line doubling time significantly impact results, necessitating careful optimization for each model system.

Immunofluorescence Analysis of Chromosome Segregation

Purpose: To visualize and quantify CFI-402257-induced chromosome mis-segregation [71].

Methodology:

• Cell Synchronization: Double thymidine block (16 hours each with 8-hour release interval)
• Compound Treatment: Add CFI-402257 (1 μM) with 24 μM 2'-deoxycytidine at cell cycle release
• Fixation and Staining: Process cells after 9 hours of treatment
• Microscopy: Image using fluorescence microscopy with appropriate objectives (e.g., Leica X63 oil immersion)
• Quantification: Manually calculate percentage of anaphase/telophase cells with lagging chromosomes

Key Considerations: Proper synchronization is critical for assessing mitotic defects; inadequate synchronization yields inconsistent results.

In Vivo Efficacy Studies

Purpose: To evaluate the anti-tumor activity of CFI-402257 in preclinical models [70].

Methodology:

• Model Establishment:
  • Subcutaneous xenografts of human cancer cell lines (e.g., MDA-MB-231, MDA-MB-468)
  • Patient-derived xenograft (PDX) models
• Randomization: Assign mice to treatment groups when tumors reach 150-200 mm³
• Dosing Regimen:
  • CFI-402257 administered orally, daily
  • Dose levels typically 5-7.5 mg/kg based on model
• Tumor Monitoring: Caliper measurements 2-3 times weekly
• Endpoint Analysis:
  • Tumor volume calculation: (length × width²)/2
  • Tumor growth inhibition (TGI) percentage relative to control

Key Considerations: The recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) established in mice is 168 mg/kg daily [68], which informs clinical translation.

Research Reagent Solutions for TTK Inhibition Studies

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents for TTK Inhibitor Investigations

Reagent / Assay	Primary Function	Application Examples	Specific Context for CFI-402257
CFI-402257 (Luvixasertib)	Selective TTK inhibitor (IC~50~ = 1.7 nM)	In vitro and in vivo TTK inhibition studies	Available from commercial suppliers (e.g., MedChemExpress) [70]
Sulforhodamine B (SRB) Assay	Quantification of cellular protein content	Measurement of cell proliferation and viability	Used for GI~50~ determination in HCT116, MDA-MB-468, OVCAR-3 cells [70]
Crystal Violet Staining	Cell viability assessment	Alternative to SRB for proliferation assays	Employed for antiproliferative activity in HT-29 cells [70]
Phospho-Histone H3 Staining	Mitotic cell identification	Analysis of mitotic index and SAC function	Combined with Hoechst 33342 for SAC assessment in HeLa cells [70]
Zombie-aqua Viability Dye	Distinguish live/dead cells	Flow cytometry-based viability measurement	Utilized in multiple myeloma cell viability assays [71]
Caspase 3/7 Activity Assays	Apoptosis detection	Quantification of apoptotic cell death	Confirmed CFI-402257-induced apoptosis activation [71]
Cytosolic DNA Sensing Assays	STING pathway activation	Detection of innate immune response	Confirmed DDX41-STING activation in HCC models [66]

Clinical Translation and Future Directions

CFI-402257 has advanced to clinical development, receiving FDA Fast Track Designation for ER-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer following progression on CDK4/6 inhibitors and endocrine therapy [68]. Early-phase clinical trials (NCT02792465) have evaluated CFI-402257 both as monotherapy and in combination with fulvestrant in patients with advanced solid tumors [68]. Preliminary results from these trials show early signs of durable activity with a manageable safety profile [68].

The clinical development strategy for CFI-402257 capitalizes on its dual mechanism of action—direct induction of lethal aneuploidy in tumor cells and activation of anti-tumor immunity through the STING pathway [66]. This combination provides a compelling rationale for its evaluation in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors, particularly in malignancies like hepatocellular carcinoma where preliminary preclinical data demonstrated improved survival when CFI-402257 was combined with anti-PD-1 therapy [66].

Future research directions include identifying robust predictive biomarkers for patient selection, exploring rational combination therapies, and expanding clinical evaluation to additional tumor types characterized by TTK overexpression and specific chromosomal abnormalities.

Proving Efficacy: Validation Frameworks and Comparative Case Studies

In modern drug discovery, molecular docking serves as a fundamental tool for predicting how small molecules interact with biological targets, primarily through computational scoring of binding affinities. However, the central challenge lies in the uncertain correlation between these computational docking scores and experimental biological activity, typically measured by IC50 values (the concentration required for 50% inhibition of a target). This validation gap becomes particularly crucial in scaffold hopping, a medicinal chemistry strategy that modifies the core structure of bioactive compounds to create novel chemotypes with improved properties while maintaining biological activity [5] [6]. As researchers increasingly employ scaffold hopping to overcome limitations of existing drugs—such as toxicity, resistance, and metabolic instability—establishing robust validation frameworks ensures that computational predictions reliably translate to experimental success [5] [1].

The validation framework bridges virtual screening and experimental confirmation, enabling researchers to prioritize compounds with the highest probability of biological activity. This process is essential for accelerating drug discovery pipelines, reducing costly synthetic efforts on poor candidates, and providing meaningful structure-activity relationship (SAR) insights [9]. Within scaffold hopping research, where core structural modifications can significantly alter molecular properties, understanding the relationship between docking scores and experimental IC50 values provides critical insights for guiding molecular design and optimization strategies [6].

Foundational Concepts: Docking Scores and IC50 Values

Molecular Docking Principles and Scoring Functions

Molecular docking computationally predicts the preferred orientation of a small molecule (ligand) when bound to a target macromolecule (receptor) [72]. The process involves two main components: pose generation, which explores possible binding conformations, and scoring, which ranks these conformations based on estimated binding affinity [72]. Scoring functions typically calculate binding energy using force field methods, empirical approaches, or knowledge-based potentials, with results expressed in energy units (kcal/mol) where more negative values indicate stronger predicted binding [73] [72].

Despite technical advancements, docking faces significant limitations in directly predicting experimental binding affinities. Scoring functions often struggle to accurately model solvent effects, entropy contributions, and receptor flexibility [74]. As noted in critical assessments, "docking cannot predict binding affinities... Binding affinity depends on the entire free energy landscape, not just a single docking pose" [74]. This fundamental limitation necessitates experimental validation to confirm computational predictions.

Experimental IC50 Measurement

The IC50 value provides a standardized experimental measure of compound potency in biochemical assays [75]. Determining IC50 typically involves testing compound efficacy across a concentration range, then plotting dose-response curves to calculate the concentration that produces half-maximal inhibition [75] [73]. These assays provide crucial experimental validation for computational predictions, though variability can arise from assay conditions, protein purity, and measurement techniques [75].

Scaffold Hopping in Drug Discovery

Scaffold hopping, first termed by Schneider in 1999, refers to modifying the central molecular framework of bioactive compounds to create novel structures with maintained or improved activity profiles [5] [1]. This approach addresses various drug discovery challenges, including poor pharmacokinetics, toxicity issues, and intellectual property expansion [5] [6]. Sun et al. (2012) classified scaffold hopping into four categories based on structural modification degree:

• Heterocyclic replacements (1°): Swapping or modifying heteroatoms within ring systems [5] [1]
• Ring opening/closure (2°): Altering ring topology by opening or closing cyclic structures [5] [1]
• Peptidomimetics (3°): Replacing peptide bonds with bioisosteric moieties [1]
• Topology-based hops (4°): Significant structural reorganization maintaining pharmacophore geometry [1]

Validating scaffold-hopped compounds requires demonstrating that core modifications maintain target engagement, making the docking-to-IC50 correlation essential for prioritizing synthetic efforts [5] [6].

Quantitative Correlation Analysis: Case Studies and Data

Establishing quantitative relationships between docking scores and experimental IC50 values provides critical validation for computational approaches. The following case studies demonstrate this correlation across different target classes.

MAGL Inhibitor Case Study

A 2025 study systematically investigated the correlation between docking results and MAGL (monoacylglycerol lipase) inhibition for triterpene compounds [73]. Researchers performed molecular docking using SwissDock, PyRx, and CB-Dock2, then compared results with experimentally determined IC50 values. The correlation analysis revealed consistent relationships across multiple docking platforms [73].

Table 1: Docking Scores and Experimental IC50 Values for MAGL Inhibitors

Compound	SwissDock Affinity (kcal/mol)	PyRx Docking Score (kcal/mol)	CB-Dock2 Score (kcal/mol)	Experimental IC50 (µM)
Pristimerin	-9.32	-10.83	-11.5	0.5
Euphol	-8.49	-9.56	-10.7	2.1
β-amyrin	-7.37	-8.21	-8.8	9.8
α-amyrin	-7.19	-7.95	-8.6	12.4

Linear regression analysis of this data demonstrated statistically significant correlations between all docking scores and experimental IC50 values (p < 0.05), supporting docking's utility for predicting relative potency of MAGL inhibitors [73]. Molecular dynamics simulations further validated these findings, showing that pristimerin (with the best docking scores and lowest IC50) exhibited the highest stability and lowest root mean square fluctuation at the binding site [73].

Docking Correlation Challenges and Refinements

A comprehensive study on SARS-CoV-2 main protease inhibitors highlighted challenges in correlating docking scores with IC50 values [75]. Initial analysis of 77 ligands showed "very poor predictive power" between calculated binding energies and reported IC50 values [75]. However, after partitioning the dataset and eliminating six inconsistent ligands, researchers observed "a large increase in accuracy," demonstrating that careful data curation and outlier identification significantly improve correlation reliability [75].

This study implemented a two-stage docking and rescoring process using GOLD for initial pose generation and PM6-ORG semiempirical quantum mechanics methods for geometry optimization and energy calculation [75]. The refined approach better accounted for ligand strain energies and solvation effects, critical factors often overlooked in standard docking protocols [75].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Integrated Computational-Experimental Workflow

A robust validation framework combines computational and experimental approaches through a structured workflow:

Table 2: Key Stages in Docking-to-IC50 Validation

Stage	Key Procedures	Output
1. Target Preparation	Protein structure refinement, binding site definition, grid generation	Prepared receptor structure
2. Compound Library Preparation	Structure curation, energy minimization, conformer generation	Database of optimized 3D structures
3. Molecular Docking	Pose generation, scoring, binding mode analysis	Docking scores, predicted binding poses
4. Binding Energy Refinement	MM-GBSA/PBSA calculations, molecular dynamics simulations	Refined affinity predictions
5. Experimental Validation	Enzyme inhibition assays, cellular activity testing, binding measurements	Experimental IC50 values
6. Correlation Analysis	Statistical comparison, outlier identification, model refinement	Validated docking protocol

FGFR1 Inhibitor Discovery Protocol

A 2025 study on FGFR1 inhibitors demonstrated an comprehensive validation approach [9]. Researchers implemented a multi-tiered workflow combining:

• Pharmacophore-based virtual screening using an ADRRR_2 model (acceptor, donor, aromatic features)
• Hierarchical molecular docking (HTVS/SP/XP) with Glide
• MM-GBSA binding energy calculations for refined affinity prediction
• Scaffold hopping to generate 5,355 structural derivatives
• ADMET profiling to predict bioavailability and toxicity
• Molecular dynamics simulations (100 ns) to validate binding stability

This integrated protocol identified three novel FGFR1 inhibitors (20357a-20357c) with improved drug-likeness and stable binding modes confirmed by MD simulations [9]. The systematic approach combined multiple computational techniques before experimental validation, enhancing prediction reliability.

Advanced Docking Considerations

Recent advancements address critical docking limitations through:

• Ligand strain correction: Accounting for energy penalties from ligand deformation upon binding [74]
• Solvation effects: Incorporating implicit solvent models like COSMO during geometry optimization [75]
• Ensemble docking: Using multiple receptor conformations to account for flexibility [72]
• Machine learning rescoring: Applying neural network potentials to improve pose ranking [74]

These refinements help bridge the gap between docking scores and experimental measurements by addressing known limitations in standard docking protocols.

Research Reagent Solutions Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Tools for Docking-to-IC50 Validation

Category	Tool/Solution	Function	Application Context
Docking Software	AutoDock Vina [73] [74]	Molecular docking with simple scoring function	General-purpose docking, virtual screening
	GOLD [75]	Genetic algorithm-based docking with multiple scoring functions	Pose generation, especially with flexible ligands
	Glide (Schrödinger) [9]	Hierarchical docking with precision levels (HTVS/SP/XP)	Structure-based drug design, lead optimization
Scoring Refinement	MM-GBSA/MM-PBSA [9]	Post-docking binding energy refinement	Binding affinity prediction, pose ranking
	PM6-ORG [75]	Semiempirical quantum mechanics method	Geometry optimization, energy calculation
Protein Preparation	Protein Preparation Wizard [9]	Structure optimization, missing side chain modeling	Pre-docking protein structure refinement
Compound Libraries	TargetMol Anticancer Library [9]	Curated collection of bioactive compounds	Virtual screening, hit identification
	PubChem [73]	Public database of chemical molecules and their activities	Compound sourcing, bioactivity data
Experimental Validation	Enzyme inhibition assays [73]	Biochemical activity measurement	IC50 determination for enzyme targets

Visualization of Workflows

Validation Framework Workflow

Scaffold Hopping Validation Workflow: This diagram illustrates the integrated computational-experimental framework for validating scaffold-hopped compounds, from initial design through correlation analysis.

Scaffold Hopping Classification

Scaffold Hopping Classification: This diagram shows the four categories of scaffold hopping with representative examples, illustrating increasing structural modification degrees.

Establishing robust validation frameworks connecting docking scores to experimental IC50 values remains essential for advancing scaffold hopping strategies in drug discovery. Quantitative correlations, while imperfect, provide meaningful guidance for prioritizing compounds when implemented through integrated computational-experimental workflows. The case studies and methodologies presented demonstrate that systematic approaches—combining multiple docking methods, binding energy refinements, and careful experimental validation—can successfully bridge computational predictions with biological activity measurements. As scaffold hopping continues to evolve as a key strategy for addressing drug resistance and optimizing therapeutic properties, these validation frameworks will play an increasingly critical role in ensuring computational efficiency translates to experimental success.

Tuberculosis (TB) remains a devastating global health crisis, causing approximately 1.25 million deaths annually and compounded by the emergence of drug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb) strains [5] [76]. In this challenging landscape, scaffold hopping has emerged as a powerful medicinal chemistry strategy to revitalize anti-tubercular drug discovery. This approach involves the structural modification of the molecular backbone of known bioactive compounds to create novel chemotypes with retained or improved biological activity against the same biological target [5] [7]. The fundamental premise is that structurally distinct compounds can maintain affinity for the same biological target if they preserve key ligand-target interactions [5].

The strategic importance of scaffold hopping in TB research is multifaceted. First, it enables researchers to overcome limitations of existing lead compounds, including poor solubility, toxicity, metabolic instability, and drug resistance [5] [77]. Second, it provides a pathway to expand intellectual property space by creating novel chemical entities that circumvent existing patents [5] [7]. Third, scaffold hopping can yield compounds with improved pharmacological profiles, potentially enhancing efficacy while reducing adverse effects [5]. As traditional antibiotic discovery pipelines have diminished returns, this approach offers a systematic method for generating new therapeutic options against this persistent pathogen.

Theoretical Framework and Classification

Degrees of Structural Modification

Scaffold hopping encompasses a spectrum of structural modifications, which Sun and colleagues systematically categorized into four distinct degrees based on the type of core change relative to the parent molecule [5] [7]. This classification provides a framework for understanding the strategic approach and resulting molecular diversity.

• Heterocyclic Replacements (1°) represent the simplest form of scaffold hopping, involving the substitution, addition, or removal of heteroatoms within the molecular backbone, or the replacement of one heterocycle with another of high similarity [5]. These modifications retain the spatial arrangement of the unaltered pharmacophore while enabling tuning of physicochemical properties [5]. An example includes the development of vardenafil from sildenafil, where only the position of a nitrogen atom differs, yet resulted in separate patent protection [5].

• Ring Opening and Closure (2°) involves strategic changes to ring systems, either by opening cyclic structures or forming new rings [5]. This approach can significantly alter molecular topology while maintaining key pharmacophoric elements.

• Peptidomimetics (3°) focuses on replacing peptide backbones with non-peptide structures that mimic natural peptide conformations, thereby enhancing metabolic stability and oral bioavailability [7].

• Topology-Based Changes (4°) constitute the most significant structural alterations, involving comprehensive changes to the molecular framework that may not immediately resemble the parent compound yet maintain essential features for target interaction [7].

Methodological Approaches

The implementation of scaffold hopping employs both traditional and computational methods:

• Traditional approaches rely on medicinal chemistry intuition and hypothesis-driven design, including bioisosteric replacements and analog synthesis [5].

• Ligand-based virtual screening (LBVS) identifies candidate scaffolds with key similar chemical features using molecular fingerprints and similarity assessments [5].

• Structure-based virtual screening (SBVS) utilizes 3D structural data from X-ray crystallography, NMR spectroscopy, and protein databases to model receptor-ligand interactions, with molecular docking as the core technique [5].

• AI-driven approaches employ advanced machine learning methods, including graph neural networks, variational autoencoders, and transformers to explore chemical space more systematically beyond predefined rules [7].

The following diagram illustrates a generalized scaffold hopping workflow that integrates these methodological approaches:

Case Study 1: BM212 to Benzimidazoles - Reducing Toxicity

Lead Compound Limitations

BM212, a 1,5-diaryl-2-methyl-3-(4-methylpiperazin-1-yl)-methyl-pyrrole derivative, was identified as a promising anti-TB agent with strong activity against multidrug-resistant Mtb strains and those residing within macrophages (MIC 0.7-1.5 μg/mL) [77]. Despite its potent anti-mycobacterial activity, BM212 exhibited significant toxicity in HepG2 cell lines (IC₅₀ = 7.8 μM) and suffered from poor pharmacokinetic properties, limiting its clinical potential [77]. Previous optimization efforts focusing on modifying the 1,5-diphenyl substituents and the side chain at the 3-position of the pyrrole ring had yielded analogs with improved activity but persistent toxicity issues [77].

Scaffold Hopping Strategy and Results

Researchers employed a scaffold hopping approach to replace the central pyrrole ring in BM212 while preserving three essential pharmacophoric features: a central hydrophobic core, hydrogen bond acceptor capability, and two adjacent aromatic rings [77]. Using the Rapid Overlay of Chemical Structures (ROCS) program for shape-based similarity screening, they identified imidazole, benzimidazole, and imidazopyridine as promising replacement cores [77]. Compounds with Tanimoto shape similarity coefficients greater than 0.60 were advanced for further study.

This approach yielded a benzimidazole derivative (compound 4a) that demonstrated dramatically reduced cytotoxicity while maintaining potent anti-mycobacterial activity [77]. The quantitative improvements are detailed in the table below:

Table 1: Comparative Profile of BM212 and Optimized Benzimidazole Derivative

Parameter	BM212 (Parent)	Benzimidazole 4a (Optimized)	Improvement Factor
Anti-mycobacterial Activity (MIC)	0.7-1.5 μg/mL	2.3 μg/mL	~3-fold reduction in potency
Cytotoxicity (HepG2 IC₅₀)	7.8 μM	203.1 μM	26-fold improvement
Protection Index (CC₅₀/MIC)	~5-11	~88	8-16 fold improvement
Metabolic Stability	Poor	Stable in rat liver microsomes	Significant improvement

The success of this scaffold hop demonstrated that strategic replacement of the central pyrrole core could effectively disconnect efficacy from toxicity, creating a promising lead series with a substantially improved therapeutic window [77]. The benzimidazole derivative maintained activity against Mtb while showing negligible cytotoxicity against mammalian cell lines, addressing the primary limitation of the parent compound.

Experimental Protocol

The experimental approach for this case study involved:

• Molecular Design: Shape-based similarity screening using ROCS with Tanimoto shape similarity coefficient threshold of >0.60 [77].
• Chemical Synthesis: Synthesis of 20 compounds across three heterocyclic series (imidazoles, benzimidazoles, imidazopyridines) through conventional organic synthesis routes [77].
• Biological Evaluation:
  • Determination of minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) against Mtb H37Rv [77].
  • Cytotoxicity assessment in normal kidney monkey cell lines and HepG2 cell lines [77].
  • Metabolic stability studies using rat liver microsomes [77].
• Data Analysis: Calculation of protection indices (CC₅₀/MIC) to quantify selectivity and therapeutic windows [77].

Case Study 2: JNJ-6640 - Novel Target Engagement

Discovery and Optimization

In a separate approach, researchers discovered a novel pyrrolidinopyrimidine series through phenotypic whole-cell screening of compounds active against non-tuberculous mycobacteria [78]. The initial hit, JNJ-7310 (a racemic mixture), showed moderate potency (MIC₉₀ = 328 nM), but separation of enantiomers revealed stereospecific activity, with JNJ-0999 demonstrating improved potency (MIC₉₀ = 110 nM) [78]. To eliminate kinase inhibitor-like properties, the secondary amine between the pyrimidine and pyrazole rings was replaced with an ether linkage, yielding JNJ-6640 [78].

Target Identification and Validation

Resistance generation and whole-genome sequencing identified mutations in the purF gene (encoding amidophosphoribosyltransferase), which catalyzes the first committed step of de novo purine biosynthesis in Mtb [78]. JNJ-6640 demonstrated exceptional potency (MIC₉₀ = 8.6 ± 3.9 nM; MBC₉₉.₉ = 140 ± 63 nM) and was active against drug-resistant clinical isolates without cross-resistance to existing TB drugs [78]. The compound's effect on purine biosynthesis was confirmed through stable isotope tracing experiments, showing reduced incorporation of ¹⁵N-glutamine into purine metabolites [78].

Table 2: Profile of JNJ-6640 as a Novel PurF Inhibitor

Parameter	Result	Significance
Potency (MIC₉₀)	8.6 ± 3.9 nM	Sub-nanomolar potency
Bactericidal Activity (MBC₉₉.₉)	140 ± 63 nM	Concentration-dependent killing
Target	PurF (Rv0808)	First-in-class inhibitor
Resistance Frequency	Comparable to clinical compounds	Standard resistance profile
Spectrum	Active against drug-resistant isolates	Novel mechanism of action
Cellular Effect	Inhibition of DNA replication	Downstream consequence of purine depletion

The identification of PurF as the target of JNJ-6640 represents a first-in-class therapeutic approach for tuberculosis, validating de novo purine biosynthesis as a vulnerable pathway in Mtb [78]. This finding is particularly significant given that PurF is highly conserved across clinical isolates (73% positions conserved) and Mycobacterium species (93% average homology), suggesting a high barrier to resistance [78].

Experimental Protocol

The target identification and validation approach included:

• Resistance Selection: Incubation of Mtb with 25× MIC₉₀ of compound to select resistant colonies [78].
• Genomic Analysis: Whole-genome sequencing of resistant clones to identify mutations [78].
• Target Confirmation:
  • CRISPRi-mediated knockdown of purF to demonstrate target essentiality and hypersensitization [78].
  • Stable isotope tracing with ¹⁵N-glutamine to measure inhibition of de novo purine biosynthesis [78].
• Binding Mode Analysis: Induced-fit docking into AlphaFold models of Mtb PurF to rationalize structure-activity relationships [78].

Computational Methods Driving Scaffold Hopping

Traditional vs. AI-Enhanced Approaches

The field of scaffold hopping has evolved significantly from traditional medicinal chemistry to computationally enhanced methods:

• Traditional Methods: Early scaffold hopping relied on hypothesis-driven heterocyclic replacements and molecular fingerprint-based similarity searches [5] [7]. These approaches utilized defined molecular descriptors and fingerprints such as Extended-Connectivity Fingerprints (ECFP) for quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) modeling [7].

• Modern AI-Driven Approaches: Contemporary methods employ deep learning techniques including graph neural networks (GNNs), variational autoencoders (VAEs), and transformer models to learn continuous, high-dimensional feature embeddings directly from molecular data [7]. These representations capture nuanced structure-function relationships that enable more sophisticated scaffold hopping [7].

Structure-Based Design Applications

In tuberculosis drug discovery, structure-based computational approaches have proven particularly valuable. Researchers targeting Ddn (deazaflavin-dependent nitroreductase), a crucial enzyme in mycolic acid biosynthesis, combined 3D-QSAR studies, molecular docking, and molecular dynamics simulations to elucidate structure-activity relationships of nitroimidazole oxazine scaffold derivatives [79]. Their models demonstrated strong predictive capability (CoMFA R²pred = 0.7698; CoMSIA R²pred = 0.6848) and identified key residues (Tyr65, Ser78, Tyr130, Tyr133, Tyr136) critical for inhibitor binding [79].

The following diagram illustrates how these computational methods integrate into the scaffold hopping workflow:

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Methods

Successful implementation of scaffold hopping in TB drug discovery relies on specialized reagents, computational tools, and experimental systems. The following table summarizes key resources referenced in the case studies:

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Methods for Scaffold Hopping in TB Drug Discovery

Category	Specific Tool/Reagent	Application/Function	Case Study Reference
Computational Tools	ROCS (Rapid Overlay of Chemical Structures)	3D shape-based similarity screening for scaffold replacement	BM212 to benzimidazoles [77]
	Molecular Docking Software	Structure-based virtual screening to predict binding modes	Ddn inhibitor optimization [79]
	3D-QSAR (CoMFA/CoMSIA)	Quantitative prediction of structure-activity relationships	Nitroimidazole optimization [79]
	Molecular Dynamics Simulations	Assessment of ligand-target complex stability over time	Ddn inhibitor studies [79]
Biological Assays	Mycobacterium tuberculosis H37Rv	Reference strain for determining minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC)	All case studies [77] [78]
	HepG2 Cell Line	Human hepatocellular carcinoma cells for cytotoxicity assessment	BM212 optimization [77]
	Macrophage Infection Models	Intracellular efficacy assessment mimicking in vivo conditions	BM212 derivatives [77]
	Rat Liver Microsomes	Metabolic stability studies	BM212 derivatives [77]
Chemical Methods	CRISPRi Strains	Target validation through tunable gene knockdown	PurF essentiality [78]
	Stable Isotope Tracing (¹⁵N-glutamine)	Metabolic flux analysis to confirm target engagement	PurF inhibition [78]

Scaffold hopping represents a powerful strategy in the ongoing battle against tuberculosis, particularly for addressing the limitations of existing compounds and tackling drug-resistant strains. The case studies presented demonstrate how systematic modification of molecular frameworks can yield compounds with improved safety profiles (BM212 to benzimidazoles) or novel mechanisms of action (JNJ-6640 targeting PurF). The continued integration of advanced computational methods, including AI-driven molecular representation and structure-based design, promises to further accelerate the discovery of next-generation anti-tubercular agents through scaffold hopping approaches. As TB research continues to confront the challenges of resistance and treatment duration, these strategies offer valuable paths forward for medicinal chemists and drug discovery scientists.

Scaffold hopping is a strategic medicinal chemistry approach that involves modifying the core molecular structure of a known bioactive compound to create new chemical entities with potentially improved properties [6]. This strategy is particularly valuable for generating patentable molecules with optimized pharmacodynamic (PD), physiochemical, and pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles—collectively known as P3 properties [6]. The fundamental premise of scaffold hopping is that structurally distinct compounds can maintain biological activity against the same target if they preserve the essential pharmacophoric elements necessary for binding and efficacy [5]. In the context of hypoxia-inducible factor prolyl hydroxylase inhibitors (HIF-PHIs) for treating renal anemia, scaffold hopping has been instrumental in developing successors to roxadustat with refined therapeutic characteristics.

The classification of scaffold hopping, as defined by Sun and colleagues, categorizes structural modifications into four degrees based on the extent of core changes [6] [5]. Heterocycle replacement (1°-scaffold hopping) represents the simplest form, involving substitution or swapping of atoms within the backbone ring [6]. More advanced forms include ring opening/closure (2°-scaffold hopping), functional group migration (3°-scaffold hopping), and peptidomimetics (4°-scaffold hopping) [6]. This analytical framework provides a systematic approach for assessing the structural evolution from roxadustat to its successors, which primarily exemplify 1° and 2° scaffold hopping strategies.

Roxadustat: The First-in-Class HIF-PHI

Molecular Structure and Mechanism of Action

Roxadustat (FG-4592) is an orally bioavailable, reversible inhibitor of hypoxia-inducible factor prolyl hydroxylase (HIF-PH) that represents a breakthrough in managing renal anemia associated with chronic kidney disease (CKD) [80] [81]. Its chemical structure features a 3-hydroxylpicolinoylglycine pharmacophore that is critical for binding to the catalytic site of PHD2 [6]. This binding occurs through bidentate coordination bonding with ferrous ions and ionic interactions with active site residues [6].

Therapeutically, roxadustat mimics hypoxia by inhibiting HIF-α degradation, leading to increased endogenous erythropoietin production, enhanced iron absorption and transport, and improved iron utilization [80] [81]. Unlike traditional erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs), roxadustat operates through a physiological mechanism that coordinates erythropoiesis with iron availability, thereby reducing the need for intravenous iron supplementation [80] [82].

Experimental Efficacy and Clinical Performance

Clinical evidence demonstrates that roxadustat effectively corrects anemia in both dialysis-dependent (DD) and non-dialysis-dependent (NDD) CKD patients [80] [83] [81]. In NDD patients, roxadustat maintained hemoglobin levels of 10-12 g/dL in 78% of patients, showing non-inferiority to darbepoetin alfa [80]. Notably, in infected dialysis patients—a population often exhibiting hyporesponsiveness to ESAs—roxadustat produced significantly greater increases in hemoglobin (ΔHb) compared to recombinant human EPO (rHuEPO), with parallel improvements in ferritin, transferrin saturation (TSAT), and hepcidin levels following infection [83].

Table 1: Key Efficacy Endpoints of Roxadustat in Clinical Studies

Patient Population	Efficacy Endpoint	Result	Comparator
NDD-CKD [80]	Hb response rate	77.78%	Darbepoetin alfa
NDD-CKD [80]	Hb maintenance (10-12 g/dL)	78% of patients	Darbepoetin alfa
DD-CKD with infection [83]	ΔHb increase	Significantly greater	rHuEPO
DD-CKD [80]	Hb response rate	59.22%	ESA (48.37%)

Safety Profile and Limitations

Roxadustat's safety profile has been extensively evaluated across multiple clinical trials. A 2025 meta-analysis of 15 randomized controlled trials involving 10,284 CKD patients found the overall incidence of adverse events with roxadustat was comparable to ESAs, though the incidence of serious adverse events was significantly higher (OR = 1.13; 1.04–1.23) [81]. Specifically, roxadustat demonstrated increased risks of hypertension (OR = 1.39; 1.13–1.73) and hyperkalemia (OR = 1.31; 1.02–1.69) in NDD patients compared to placebo [81]. However, when compared directly to ESAs, roxadustat showed no increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or all-cause mortality [84].

Concerns have been raised regarding potential tumor progression risk due to HIF-1α activation, particularly in oncological contexts [85]. Additionally, long-term risks such as vascular calcification and off-target HIF effects require further investigation through phase IV trials [80].

Scaffold-Hopped Successors to Roxadustat

Desidustat: Optimized Pharmacokinetics

Desidustat exemplifies a successful 1°-scaffold hopping approach from roxadustat, featuring heterocycle modifications to enhance metabolic stability and reduce dosing frequency [80]. This structural optimization has yielded a HIF-PHI with comparable efficacy to roxadustat but potentially improved pharmacokinetic properties.

In clinical evaluations, desidustat demonstrated non-inferiority to ESAs in dialysis-dependent patients, achieving a 59.22% hemoglobin response rate versus 48.37% with ESAs (p=0.0382) [80]. In NDD patients, desidustat produced a robust 77.78% response rate with a hemoglobin increase of +1.95 g/dL compared to +1.83 g/dL with darbepoetin alfa (p=0.0181) [80]. The therapeutic profile of desidustat maintains the class benefits of oral administration and improved iron utilization while offering potential advantages in safety and tolerability.

Molidustat: Refined Iron Metabolism

Molidustat represents another scaffold-hopped derivative developed through strategic heterocycle replacement of the roxadustat core structure [80]. This successor compound retains the fundamental mechanism of HIF stabilization but exhibits nuanced differences in its effects on iron metabolism parameters.

Clinical data reveals that molidustat showed comparable efficacy to ESAs in previously ESA-treated patients (+0.36 g/dL vs +0.26 g/dL for darbepoetin alfa) but was somewhat less effective in ESA-naive patients (+1.44 g/dL vs +1.70 g/dL) [80]. This differential response pattern suggests that molidustat's scaffold modifications may have altered its interaction with the iron regulation pathway or its pharmacokinetic profile in certain patient populations. Despite this limitation, molidustat maintains the essential benefits of oral administration and reduced intravenous iron requirements characteristic of the HIF-PHI class.

Table 2: Comparative Analysis of Roxadustat and Scaffold-Hopped Successors

Parameter	Roxadustat	Desidustat	Molidustat
Molecular Modification	Reference compound	1°-scaffold hopping	1°-scaffold hopping
Hb Response (NDD)	77.78% [80]	77.78% [80]	Less effective in ESA-naive [80]
Hb Response (DD)	59.22% [80]	59.22% [80]	Comparable to ESA in treated [80]
Iron Metabolism	Improved [80] [83]	Improved [80]	Improved [80]
Cardiovascular Safety	Comparable to ESA [84]	Similar to roxadustat [80]	Similar to roxadustat [80]
Key Advantages	First-in-class, proven efficacy	Potential optimized PK	Refined iron metabolism

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Clinical Trial Design for HIF-PHI Evaluation

The evaluation of roxadustat and its successors followed rigorous clinical trial protocols. Typical study designs were randomized, open-label, active-comparator trials comparing HIF-PHIs to ESAs (epoetin alfa or darbepoetin alfa) in CKD patients with anemia [84]. Key inclusion criteria comprised adults aged ≥18 years with anemia of CKD, either NDD or incident dialysis-dependent (ID-DD) [84]. Exclusion criteria typically included prior HIF-PHI treatment, active gastrointestinal bleeding, recent red blood cell transfusion, and anticipated elective surgery with expected blood loss [84].

Patients were randomized to receive either oral HIF-PHIs (three times weekly) or ESAs (intravenous or subcutaneous) [84]. Dose adjustments were permitted every 4 weeks to maintain hemoglobin between 10 and 12 g/dL, following prespecified titration algorithms [84]. Primary endpoints generally included hemoglobin response rates and time to major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), while secondary endpoints encompassed various safety parameters, iron metabolism markers, and quality of life measures [84].

Biochemical and Molecular Assessment Methods

Iron metabolism evaluation employed comprehensive laboratory techniques including serum ferritin quantification, transferrin saturation (TSAT) calculation, total iron-binding capacity (TIBC) measurement, and hepcidin level determination using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) [83]. These assessments were conducted at multiple timepoints: baseline (T1), infection resolution (T2), and post-discharge follow-up (T3) [83].

Molecular mechanism studies utilized sophisticated experimental models including subtotal 5/6 nephrectomy CKD rat models treated with FG-4592 (roxadustat) for 12 weeks [86]. In vitro analyses employed human renal tubular epithelial cells (HK-2) and UMR106 rat osteoblast-like cells to investigate FGF23 signaling pathways [86]. Techniques included transfection with Furin and WNT5A siRNA, TGF-β1 stimulation, and indirect co-culture using Transwell systems to elucidate cell-cell communication [86].

Signaling Pathways and Molecular Mechanisms

HIF-PHI Mechanism and Renal Protection Pathway

The molecular mechanisms of roxadustat and its scaffold-hopped successors operate through multifaceted pathways. The primary mechanism involves HIF stabilization leading to coordinated erythropoietin production and iron metabolism enhancement [81] [86]. Additionally, emerging research reveals that FG-4592 (roxadustat) attenuates tubulointerstitial fibrosis through Furin-mediated proteolytic cleavage of iFGF23, which subsequently inhibits the WNT5A signaling pathway [86]. This secondary mechanism provides novel insights into HIF-PHI-mediated renal protection beyond anemia correction.

Research Reagent Solutions for HIF-PHI Investigation

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for HIF-PHI Experimental Analysis

Reagent/Cell Line	Specific Example	Research Application	Experimental Function
Human Renal Tubular Cells	HK-2 cell line [86]	In vitro fibrosis modeling	TGF-β1-induced epithelial-mesenchymal transition studies
Osteoblast-like Cells	UMR106 rat cells [86]	FGF23 production analysis	iFGF23 expression and cleavage investigations
Animal CKD Model	5/6 nephrectomy rat [86]	Preclinical efficacy assessment	In vivo validation of anemia correction and renal protection
Recombinant Proteins	rFGF23 [86]	Pathway rescue experiments	Mechanism confirmation through exogenous supplementation
siRNA Tools	Furin siRNA, WNT5A siRNA [86]	Genetic inhibition studies	Pathway dependency validation through gene silencing
ELISA Kits	Hepcidin ELISA [83]	Clinical biomarker quantification	Iron metabolism parameter assessment in patient samples
Cell Culture System	Transwell co-culture [86]	Cell-cell communication studies	Paracrine signaling evaluation between different cell types

The comparative analysis of roxadustat and its scaffold-hopped successors provides compelling evidence for the strategic value of molecular backbone modification in drug discovery. The successful development of desidustat and molidustat through 1°-scaffold hopping demonstrates that conservative structural changes can yield distinct clinical profiles while maintaining core therapeutic efficacy [6] [80]. This case study exemplifies how scaffold hopping addresses key challenges in drug development, including optimization of pharmacokinetic properties, refinement of safety profiles, and expansion of intellectual property space [6] [5].

The scaffold hopping approach applied to roxadustat has generated successors that preserve the fundamental benefits of oral administration and improved iron utilization while offering nuanced differences in efficacy patterns and safety parameters [80]. This strategic molecular optimization underscores the importance of P3 property refinement (pharmacodynamic, physiochemical, and pharmacokinetic properties) throughout the drug development pipeline [6]. The success of these HIF-PHIs validates scaffold hopping as a powerful methodology for advancing chemical equity along the development value chain, from initial lead optimization to clinical candidate selection [6].

Future directions for scaffold hopping in HIF-PHI development should focus on further mitigating potential off-target effects, enhancing metabolic stability, and addressing the nuanced needs of specific CKD subpopulations [80] [81]. As the structural landscape of HIF-PHIs continues to evolve through increasingly sophisticated scaffold hopping approaches, the integration of computational design methods with multi-component reaction chemistry promises to accelerate the discovery of next-generation anemia therapeutics with optimized clinical profiles [6] [13].

Scaffold hopping is a critical strategy in medicinal chemistry, aimed at discovering novel molecular frameworks that retain or improve biological activity while optimizing pharmacokinetic and safety profiles. The success of this approach hinges on the accurate prediction of ligand binding affinity, a fundamental challenge in computational drug discovery. Traditionally, this field has been dominated by docking-based methods and physics-based simulations, notably Free Energy Perturbation (FEP). The recent emergence of AI-driven models like Boltz-2 represents a paradigm shift, offering the potential for rapid, high-throughput affinity predictions.

This guide provides a comparative analysis of these methodologies, benchmarking their performance, detailing their experimental protocols, and contextualizing their use within a modern scaffold hopping workflow. The objective is to equip researchers with the data and understanding necessary to select and implement the most effective strategy for their specific project needs.

Traditional Docking and Scoring Functions

Traditional approaches primarily rely on molecular docking to pose ligands within a protein binding site, followed by scoring functions to estimate binding affinity. These scoring functions are typically fast, empirical or knowledge-based potentials that evaluate steric fit, hydrophobic contact, and hydrogen bonding. While invaluable for initial virtual screening due to their speed, their accuracy in predicting precise binding free energies is often limited, as they generally lack a rigorous treatment of solvation and entropy and are based on a static, lock-and-key view of binding.

Free Energy Perturbation (FEP)

FEP is a gold-standard, physics-based method for computing relative binding free energies between similar ligands. It uses molecular dynamics (MD) simulations to alchemically transform one ligand into another within the binding site, calculating the associated free energy change. Its accuracy stems from explicitly accounting for protein flexibility, explicit solvent molecules, and entropic contributions.

Core Experimental Protocol (as implemented in Flare FEP): [87]

• System Preparation: A protein-ligand complex structure (from crystallography or a high-quality prediction) is prepared with appropriate protonation states and parameterized with a force field.
• FEP Map Generation: An automated algorithm (e.g., a modified LOMAP) identifies and graphs all possible pairwise transformations between ligands in a congeneric series, ensuring chemical feasibility.
• Intermediate Insertion: The software intelligently identifies overly complex transformations and inserts intermediate states to ensure a smooth and accurate calculation.
• Adaptive Lambda Scheduling: Instead of a fixed number of simulation windows, an adaptive algorithm determines the optimal number of lambda windows for each transformation, typically reducing the total count by 30% and improving computational efficiency. [87]
• Molecular Dynamics Simulation: Each transformation is simulated across the lambda windows, and the free energy change is computed via thermodynamic integration (TI).
• Analysis: Results are analyzed for convergence, and the calculated relative free energies are compared against experimental data (e.g., IC50, Ki values).

AI-Driven Prediction (Boltz-2)

Boltz-2 is an AI model for predicting protein-ligand binding affinities, representing a significant evolution from its predecessor and other structure prediction tools like AlphaFold. [88] It is trained on a massive and diverse dataset, including:

• Distillation sets from other models (AlphaFold, Boltz-1).
• Dynamic information from NMR ensembles and MD simulations, moving beyond static PDB snapshots.
• It is open-source, facilitating wider validation and application. [88]

Its primary advantage is speed, claimed to be at least 1,000x more computationally efficient than FEP. [88]

Comparative Performance Benchmarking

The table below summarizes the key performance characteristics of FEP and AI-driven approaches like Boltz-2, as reported in the literature. Direct quantitative benchmarks for traditional docking in scaffold hopping are less consistently reported but are generally understood to be lower in accuracy.

Table 1: Performance Benchmarking of FEP and AI-Driven Approaches

Metric	Free Energy Perturbation (FEP)	AI-Driven (Boltz-2)
Typical Pearson R²	0.40 - 0.52 (on OpenFE benchmark) [88]	0.38 (on OpenFE benchmark); Highly variable (0.15 avg. on blinded Recursion sets) [88]
Computational Speed	Reference (Gold Standard, but slow)	~1,000x faster than FEP [88]
Key Strength	High accuracy for lead optimization; accounts for protein flexibility/solvent.	Unprecedented speed for a medium-accuracy affinity method.
Key Limitation	High computational cost; requires expert setup.	Performance is system-dependent; struggles with certain binding sites. [88]
Solvent Treatment	Explicit solvent model.	Implicit solvent model. [88]
Dependency	Accurate initial protein-ligand structure.	Accurate initial protein-ligand structure. [88]
Ideal Application	Late-stage lead optimization for a congeneric series.	High-throughput virtual screening and affinity funneling.

Validation with AI-Predicted Structures: Research demonstrates that FEP can be successfully applied to protein structures generated by AI models like HelixFold3 (HF3). A study validated HF3-predicted holo structures for eight targets (BACE, CDK2, JNK1, MCL1, P38, PTP1B, Thrombin, TYK2) using Flare FEP. The results showed that binding free energies calculated using HF3 structures achieved accuracy comparable to those derived from experimental crystal structures, confirming the practical utility of combining AI-predicted structures with rigorous FEP calculations. [87]

Integrated Workflow for Scaffold Hopping

The question of "FEP vs. AI" is increasingly becoming the wrong one. The most powerful modern approach involves their integration in a synergistic workflow. The following diagram illustrates how these methods can be combined for maximum efficacy in a scaffold hopping campaign.

Diagram 1: Synergistic Scaffold Hopping Workflow (37 characters)

This "Affinity Funneling" workflow allows researchers to leverage the strengths of each method: [88]

• Traditional Virtual Screening: Rapidly process millions of compounds using docking and simple filters to reduce the pool to a manageable number (e.g., ~10,000).
• AI-Driven Funneling: Rescore the remaining compounds with a tool like Boltz-2. This provides a better affinity signal than docking scores alone, effectively enriching the hit list and narrowing it down to a few hundred promising candidates.
• High-Accuracy FEP: Apply FEP to the final, chemically related clusters of compounds. This gold-standard method provides the reliable data needed to select the 10-20 best candidates for synthesis and experimental testing.

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

The following table details key software and computational tools that form the essential "reagent kit" for implementing the methodologies discussed in this guide.

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Scaffold Hopping

Tool / Solution	Type	Primary Function in Workflow
Flare FEP [89] [87]	Software Suite	A comprehensive platform for running Relative Binding Free Energy (RBFE) calculations. It automates FEP map generation, uses adaptive lambda windows for efficiency, and validates AI-predicted structures. [87]
Boltz-2 [88]	AI Model	An open-source AI model for rapid prediction of protein-ligand binding affinities. It is used for high-throughput rescoring in virtual screening and affinity funneling.
Cresset's Flare	Software Suite	A broader drug discovery platform that includes modules for electrostatic analysis, docking, and FEP, providing an integrated environment. [89]
Sentauri FEP Ω [90]	Computational Method	A machine learning-enhanced FEP method that applies ML-based corrections after simulation to accelerate the process and improve accuracy without manual parameter tuning.
HelixFold3 (HF3) [87]	AI Model	A protein structure prediction model designed to predict both apo and holo protein-ligand complex structures, which can be validated and used as input for FEP calculations.

The landscape of computational scaffold hopping is evolving from a choice between disparate methods to an integration of synergistic technologies. FEP remains the gold standard for accuracy in the final stages of lead optimization, providing reliable data that explicitly accounts for critical physical forces. Meanwhile, AI-driven models like Boltz-2 represent a breakthrough in speed, opening the door for effective affinity-based prioritization at a scale previously impossible.

The most effective strategy for modern drug discovery projects is not to choose one over the other, but to implement them in a complementary Affinity Funneling workflow. This approach leverages the high-throughput screening power of AI to filter massive libraries down to a set of candidates worthy of the rigorous and resource-intensive validation by FEP. By understanding the strengths, limitations, and optimal applications of each tool, researchers can dramatically accelerate the discovery of novel, effective scaffolds.

Scaffold hopping, a strategy first coined by Schneider in 1999, refers to the modification of a bioactive compound's central molecular backbone to create novel chemotypes while preserving or enhancing biological activity against a therapeutic target [42] [1] [57]. This approach has become an indispensable tool in modern medicinal chemistry, addressing critical challenges including intellectual property expansion, metabolic instability, toxicity issues, and suboptimal pharmacokinetic profiles [42] [5] [6]. The fundamental premise underpinning scaffold hopping—that structurally distinct compounds can elicit similar biological effects by sharing key pharmacophoric elements—has enabled the successful development of numerous marketed drugs and clinical candidates [1] [6]. Within competitive pharmaceutical landscapes, scaffold hopping provides a rational framework for generating patentable molecular entities with improved physiochemical, pharmacodynamic, and pharmacokinetic properties (P3-properties), ultimately increasing the probability of technical and regulatory success [6].

This guide objectively examines the progression of scaffold-hopped molecules through the drug development pipeline, analyzing specific clinical candidates to derive actionable insights and practical methodologies. By comparing experimental approaches and their resultant outcomes, we aim to provide researchers with a structured framework for evaluating scaffold hopping success rates and implementing these strategies effectively in their discovery programs.

Classification and Methodological Framework for Scaffold Hopping

Degrees of Structural Modification

Scaffold hopping encompasses a spectrum of structural modifications, systematically classified by Sun et al. into four distinct categories based on the type and extent of core alteration [1] [5] [7]. This classification system provides a standardized vocabulary for discussing hopping strategies and predicting their potential outcomes and challenges.

Table: Classification of Scaffold Hopping Approaches

Degree of Hop	Structural Change	Novelty Level	Success Rate	Primary Applications
1° (Heterocyclic Replacement)	Swapping/replacing heteroatoms in backbone rings	Low	Relatively High	SAR exploration, property optimization, IP expansion
2° (Ring Opening/Closure)	Breaking or forming rings to alter cyclic systems	Medium	Moderate	Conformational restriction, solubility improvement, metabolic stability
3° (Peptidomimetics)	Replacing peptide backbones with non-peptide motifs	High	Variable	Enhancing oral bioavailability, overcoming proteolytic instability
4° (Topology-Based)	Global shape similarity with distinct atomic connectivity	Very High	Lower	Discovering fundamentally novel chemotypes, major IP expansion

The classification reveals a fundamental tradeoff: as the degree of structural novelty increases, the probability of maintaining biological activity typically decreases, though successful hops can yield more significant intellectual property and clinical advantages [1]. This relationship underscores the importance of strategic selection of hopping approaches based on specific project goals and constraints.

Computational and Experimental Workflows

Successful scaffold hopping campaigns integrate computational prediction with experimental validation through structured workflows. The following diagram illustrates a generalized protocol that can be adapted for specific target classes and chemical series.

Scaffold Hopping Workflow from Design to Candidate Selection

This workflow emphasizes the iterative nature of scaffold optimization, where computational predictions inform synthetic priorities and experimental results feed back into refined in silico models [42] [9] [14]. The integration of multi-parameter optimization throughout this process is critical for identifying candidates that balance potency, selectivity, and developability.

Comparative Analysis of Clinical Candidates and Marketed Drugs

Success Stories: From Concept to Clinic

Several scaffold-hopped compounds have progressed through clinical development to become marketed drugs, providing valuable case studies in successful molecular design. The following table summarizes key examples where systematic scaffold modification addressed specific development challenges while maintaining therapeutic efficacy.

Table: Progression of Scaffold-Hopped Molecules to Marketed Drugs

Original Molecule	Scaffold-Hopped Drug	Therapeutic Area	Structural Change	Key Improvement
Morphine	Tramadol	Pain management	Ring opening (2° hop)	Reduced addiction potential, oral bioavailability [1]
Pheniramine	Cyproheptadine	Allergy, migraine	Ring closure (2° hop)	Enhanced potency, additional 5-HT2 activity [1]
Sildenafil	Vardenafil	Erectile dysfunction	N/C swap in heterocycle (1° hop)	Patent differentiation [1]
Sorafenib	Scaffold-hopped analogs	Oncology	Multiple changes (1°+2° hops)	Improved VEGFR2 selectivity [6]
Roxadustat	Novel clinical candidates	Renal anemia	Heterocycle replacement (1° hop)	Refined PK/PD profile [6]
Xanthine-based DPP4 inhibitors	Tricyclic guanine DPP4 inhibitors	Type 2 diabetes	Bioisosteric replacement (1° hop)	Maintained efficacy with novel scaffold [91]

The tramadol case exemplifies how strategic scaffold manipulation (ring opening of morphine's rigid polycyclic system) can yield clinically significant advantages in safety profile and administration route, despite reduced intrinsic potency [1]. Similarly, the progression from pheniramine to cyproheptadine demonstrates how ring closure can reduce molecular flexibility, potentially decreasing entropy loss upon target binding and enhancing potency [1].

Clinical Candidates in Development

Beyond marketed drugs, numerous scaffold-hopped clinical candidates illustrate the ongoing application of these principles in contemporary drug discovery. The CFTR potentiator field provides a particularly instructive example with GLPG1837 (IVa) serving as the starting point for scaffold optimization. Although GLPG1837 demonstrated promising target engagement in Phase IIa trials for cystic fibrosis, its clinical development was halted due to the high dose requirement (500 mg twice daily) and associated adverse effects [6]. Through systematic scaffold hopping, researchers developed improved candidates featuring a bicyclic dihydropyrazol-5-one core that delivered comparable CFTR activity at significantly reduced doses, illustrating how core modification can directly impact therapeutic index and clinical viability [6].

In oncology, the iterative optimization of TTK inhibitors exemplifies the strategic application of heterocycle replacement (1° hopping). Beginning with an imidazo[1,2-a]pyrazine scaffold (Va), researchers initially identified a pyrazolo[1,5-a][1,3,5]-triazine-based compound (Vb) with excellent target inhibition (IC50 = 1.4 nM) but limited dissolution-based exposure [6]. Subsequent hopping to pyrazolo[1,5-a]pyrimidine and ultimately pyrazolo[1,5-a]pyridine cores yielded CFI-402257, which maintained potent TTK inhibition while achieving superior pharmaceutical properties, culminating in ongoing clinical evaluation [6].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Computational Screening and Design Protocols

Pharmacophore-Based Virtual Screening Protocol (adapted from FGFR1 inhibitor discovery [9]):

• Pharmacophore Model Generation: Curate a structurally diverse set of known active compounds (≥20-30 ligands) with measured activity values (e.g., IC50, Ki). Use tools like Schrödinger's Phase or MOE to identify common pharmacophoric features (hydrogen bond donors/acceptors, aromatic rings, hydrophobic regions). Validate model robustness using ROC curves with AUC >0.8 as a quality threshold [57] [9].

• Compound Library Preparation: Process commercial or in-house libraries (e.g., ChEMBL, ZINC, TargetMol Anticancer Library) to generate tautomerically correct, stereochemically defined, energetically minimized 3D structures. Filter based on drug-likeness criteria (e.g., Lipinski's Rule of Five) [42] [9].

• Virtual Screening: Screen prepared libraries against the validated pharmacophore model. In the FGFR1 case study, this process filtered an initial set of 8,691 compounds to 1,106 hits matching critical pharmacophoric features [9].

• Hierarchical Molecular Docking: Subject pharmacophore-matched compounds to multi-stage docking (e.g., HTVS → SP → XP in Schrödinger's Glide) with increasing accuracy and computational cost. In the FGFR1 study, this further refined the candidate list from 1,106 to 73 compounds [9].

• Binding Affinity Prediction: Employ advanced scoring methods like MM-GBSA to calculate binding free energies for top-ranked poses, prioritizing compounds with predicted superior affinity compared to reference ligands [9].

Deep Learning-Based Scaffold Generation Protocol (adapted from DeepHop model [14]):

• Data Curation: Compile matched molecular pairs (MMPs) with significant bioactivity improvement (ΔpCHEMBL ≥ 1), low 2D scaffold similarity (Tanimoto score ≤ 0.6 on Morgan fingerprints of Bemis-Murcko scaffolds), but high 3D similarity (shape and color similarity score ≥ 0.6) [14].

• Model Architecture: Implement multimodal transformer neural networks integrating 2D molecular graphs (via graph neural networks), 3D conformer information (through spatial graph neural networks), and protein target sequence (via protein language models) [14].

• Model Training and Validation: Train the model on known scaffold-hop pairs (e.g., 50,000+ pairs across 40 kinases) and validate its ability to generate molecules with improved predicted activity, high 3D similarity, but novel 2D scaffolds [14].

• Target-Specific Fine-Tuning: Adapt the general model to new target proteins by transfer learning with a small set (e.g., 50-100) of target-specific active compounds [14].

Experimental Validation Cascades

Following computational design and synthesis, comprehensive in vitro and in vivo profiling is essential to validate scaffold-hopped candidates. A tiered experimental cascade typically includes:

• Primary Target Engagement: Measure direct binding affinity (SPR, ITC) and functional potency (IC50, EC50) against the intended target. Confirm maintenance of key ligand-target interactions through crystallography when possible [91].

• Selectivity Profiling: Evaluate activity against related targets (e.g., kinase panels, GPCR families) and antitargets to identify potential off-target effects [6].

• Cellular Efficacy: Assess functional activity in disease-relevant cell-based assays (e.g., proliferation, signaling modulation, reporter gene assays) [6].

• ADMET Profiling: Conduct comprehensive absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and toxicity studies including:

  • Metabolic stability (microsomes, hepatocytes)
  • Cytochrome P450 inhibition/induction
  • Membrane permeability (Caco-2, PAMPA)
  • Plasma protein binding
  • In vitro toxicity (hERG, genotoxicity, cytotoxicity) [42] [6]

• In Vivo Pharmacokinetics and Efficacy: Establish exposure-response relationships, bioavailability, and therapeutic efficacy in disease-relevant animal models [6] [91].

Essential Research Reagents and Tools

Successful implementation of scaffold hopping campaigns requires specialized computational and experimental resources. The following table catalogs key reagent solutions referenced in the clinical case studies.

Table: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Scaffold Hopping

Reagent/Tool	Category	Specific Function	Example Application
ChemBounce	Computational Tool	Scaffold identification & replacement using ChEMBL-derived fragments	Open-source scaffold hopping with synthetic accessibility focus [42]
ROCS (Rapid Overlay of Chemical Structures)	Computational Tool	3D shape-based similarity searching	Scaffold hopping based on molecular shape and pharmacophore overlap [57]
DeepHop Model	Computational Tool	Multimodal transformer for molecule-to-molecule translation	Target-aware scaffold hopping with integrated 3D similarity [14]
TargetMol Anticancer Library	Compound Library	Curated collection of bioactive compounds with known anticancer activity	Starting point for scaffold discovery in oncology targets [9]
ChEMBL Database	Bioactivity Database	Public repository of bioactive molecules with drug-like properties	Source of known actives for pharmacophore modeling and training data [42] [14]
DPP4 Enzymatic Assay	Biochemical Assay	Measure inhibitory activity against dipeptidyl peptidase-4	Validation of xanthine-to-tricyclic guanine scaffold hops [91]
Kinase Profiling Panels	Selectivity Screening	Broad screening against diverse kinase targets	Selectivity assessment for optimized TTK inhibitors [6]

The systematic analysis of scaffold-hopped clinical candidates reveals several compelling patterns with broad implications for drug discovery. First, successful scaffold hopping frequently addresses specific developmental liabilities (e.g., poor solubility, metabolic instability, off-target activity) while maintaining core pharmacophoric interactions [6]. Second, the degree of hopping should be strategically matched to project goals—modest 1° hops often suffice for IP expansion, while more substantial 2°-4° hops may be necessary to overcome fundamental property limitations [1] [5]. Third, integrating advanced computational methods (pharmacophore modeling, deep learning, molecular docking) with robust experimental validation creates a powerful iterative cycle for scaffold optimization [42] [9] [14].

As drug discovery confronts increasingly challenging targets and development hurdles, scaffold hopping remains a versatile strategy for generating clinically viable candidates. The continued evolution of computational methods, particularly deep learning approaches that directly incorporate 3D structural information and target constraints, promises to further enhance the precision and success rates of scaffold hopping campaigns [92] [14]. By applying the structured methodologies, experimental protocols, and strategic insights derived from successful clinical candidates, researchers can more effectively navigate the complex landscape of molecular optimization to deliver transformative therapies.

Conclusion

The assessment of scaffold hopping success rates reveals a powerful and evolving strategy that is central to modern drug discovery. The foundational principle that significant structural changes can preserve biological activity while improving pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and physicochemical (P3) properties is now irrefutable, supported by numerous clinical and pre-clinical successes. The methodological shift from traditional medicinal chemistry to computationally-driven and AI-powered generation has dramatically expanded the chemical space that can be explored, systematically increasing the potential for successful hops. While challenges in balancing novelty with potency and ensuring synthetic feasibility remain, the integration of advanced free energy calculations and generative AI with robust experimental validation creates a powerful feedback loop for continuous improvement. Future directions will involve the tighter integration of multi-objective optimization for property design, the application of these strategies to novel therapeutic modalities, and the increasing use of high-quality data to train even more predictive models. For researchers and drug development professionals, mastering scaffold hopping is no longer optional but essential for innovating beyond existing chemical space, overcoming resistance, and delivering the next generation of high-efficacy, safe therapeutics.

References

• 1. Classification of Scaffold Hopping Approaches - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3328312/]
• 2. Classification of scaffold-hopping approaches [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359644611003813]
• 3. Scaffold hopping from natural products to synthetic ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42004-018-0043-x]
• 4. Scaffold Hopping [https://www.biosolveit.de/application-academy/scaffold-hopping/]
• 5. Scaffold Hopping in Tuberculosis Drug Discovery [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12557394/]
• 6. Molecular medicinal insights into scaffold hopping-based ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359644623003616]
• 7. Recent advances in molecular representation methods and ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s44386-025-00017-2]
• 8. Indirect Similarity Based Methods for Effective Scaffold- ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2575819/]
• 9. Discovery of Novel FGFR1 Inhibitors via Pharmacophore ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2813-3137/3/4/35]
• 10. ChemBounce: a computational framework for scaffold ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40973478/]
• 11. ScaffoldGVAE: scaffold generation and hopping of drug ... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-023-00766-0]
• 12. Systematic assessment of scaffold hopping versus activity ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0968089615003752]
• 13. Scaffold-hopping for molecular glues targeting the 14-3-3/ ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-61176-4]
• 14. Deep scaffold hopping with multimodal transformer neural ... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-021-00565-5]
• 15. Comparison of the effectiveness of oral morphine versus ... [https://ecancer.org/en/journal/article/1864-comparison-of-the-effectiveness-of-oral-morphine-versus-oral-tramadol-on-early-pain-control-in-opioid-naive-patients-with-moderate-cancer-pain/abstract]
• 16. Scaffold-hopping provides both a conceptual and practical ... [https://www.academia.edu/68539393/Scaffold_hopping_provides_both_a_conceptual_and_practical_route_for_generating_new_lead_series_and_chemistries_with_improved_efficacy_and_pharmacokinetic_properties_based_on_known_drugs_and_drug_target_interactions]
• 17. Recent Chemical and Pharmacological Developments on ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1420-3049/26/18/5677]
• 18. Accelerating discovery of bioactive ligands with ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11894060/]
• 19. Comparative analysis of molecular fingerprints in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8574997/]
• 20. Advances in the Development of Shape Similarity Methods ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/chemistry/articles/10.3389/fchem.2018.00315/full]
• 21. Shape-based screening - Schrödinger [https://www.schrodinger.com/life-science/learn/white-papers/shape-based-screening/]
• 22. Pharmacophore modeling in drug design [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1054358925000109]
• 23. Analysis and comparison of 2D fingerprints [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1093326310000781]
• 24. Building shape-focused pharmacophore models for effective ... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-024-00857-6]
• 25. A pharmacophore-guided deep learning approach for ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-41454-9]
• 26. FEP in 2025: We're Going to Need a Bigger Drug Discovery ... [https://cresset-group.com/science/science-resources/fep-in-2025/]
• 27. Accelerate discovery with TandemAI's revolutionary core ... [https://tandemai.com/scaffold-hopping-workflow/]
• 28. Free energy perturbation (FEP)-guided scaffold hopping [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9072250/]
• 29. Accelerating Scaffold Hopping in Fourth-Generation ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41089476/]
• 30. Scaffold-Hopping And Optimization Of Small Molecule ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12463311/]
• 31. The maximal and current accuracy of rigorous protein ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42004-023-01019-9]
• 32. Free Energy Perturbation (FEP): Revolutionising Drug ... [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/free-energy-perturbation-fep-revolutionising-drug-discovery-computational-0m5jc]
• 33. A generative framework for enhancing drug target ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-01589-9]
• 34. VAE vs. GAN: What's the Difference? [https://www.coursera.org/articles/vae-vs-gan]
• 35. Synthetic Scientific Image Generation with VAE, GAN, and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12387873/]
• 36. GANs vs. VAEs: What is the best generative AI approach? [https://www.techtarget.com/searchenterpriseai/feature/GANs-vs-VAEs-What-is-the-best-generative-AI-approach]
• 37. 2025 Guide to Generative AI: Techniques, Tools & Trends [https://hatchworks.com/blog/gen-ai/generative-ai/]
• 38. Generative AI in Depth: A Survey of Recent Advances, ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2510.21887v1]
• 39. Causal-Aware Generative Adversarial Networks with ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2510.24046v1]
• 40. ScaffoldGVAE: scaffold generation and hopping of drug ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10548653/]
• 41. Generative artificial intelligence based models optimization ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12323263/]
• 42. ChemBounce: a computational framework for scaffold hopping ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12449259/]
• 43. AI Benchmarks 2025: Performance Metrics Show Record ... [https://www.sentisight.ai/ai-benchmarks-performance-soars-in-2025/]
• 44. Scaffold Hopping Software Spark - Cresset Group [https://cresset-group.com/software/spark/]
• 45. for the prediction of site- and regioselectivity of... Computational tools [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/sc/d5sc00541h]
• 46. Top 10 Open-Source Software Tools in the... | IntuitionLabs [https://intuitionlabs.ai/articles/top-10-opensource-software-pharma-industry]
• 47. Drug discovery center integrates AI for big impact [https://www.unc.edu/posts/2025/11/24/drug-discovery-center-integrates-ai-for-big-impact/]
• 48. Inside ELRIG's Drug Discovery 2025 [https://www.drugtargetreview.com/article/190237/inside-elrigs-drug-discovery-2025/]
• 49. Scaffold Hopping with Generative Reinforcement Learning [https://chemrxiv.org/engage/chemrxiv/article-details/67b74e176dde43c908b99585]
• 50. Chemical structural novelty: on-targets and off-targets - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21916467/]
• 51. Computational/ in in drug silico and lead methods ... target prediction [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7673338/]
• 52. utilising negative bioactivity data covering large... Target prediction [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-015-0098-y]
• 53. Evaluation of off-target and on-target scoring algorithms and ... [https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-016-1012-2]
• 54. Prediction of off-target activities for the end-to-end design ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6037314/]
• 55. 3.4. Metrics and scoring: quantifying the quality of predictions [https://scikit-learn.org/stable/modules/model_evaluation.html]
• 56. Prediction of CRISPR-Cas9 off-target activities with ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2001037023003744]
• 57. The scaffold hopping potential of pharmacophores [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1740674910000284]
• 58. Synthetic Accessibility: Definition, Importance, and How to ... [https://neurosnap.ai/blog/post/synthetic-accessibility-definition-importance-and-how-to-assess-it-with-neurosnap/68cb0899cec8a8b395412c77]
• 59. Estimation of synthetic accessibility score of drug-like ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3225829/]
• 60. MolPrice: assessing synthetic accessibility of molecules based ... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-025-01076-3]
• 61. Scaffold-hopping as a strategy to address metabolic ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2020/md/c9md00396g]
• 62. Hop To It! The World of Scaffold Hopping | Eureka blog [https://www.criver.com/eureka/hop-it]
• 63. Structural stability-guided scaffold hopping and computational ... [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0332798]
• 64. Structure-Activity Relationship Guided Scaffold Hopping ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40711360/]
• 65. Revolutionizing pharmacology: AI-powered approaches in ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S259009862500020X]
• 66. CFI-402257, a TTK inhibitor, effectively suppresses ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35914158/]
• 67. CFI-402257, a TTK inhibitor, effectively suppresses ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9371652/]
• 68. FDA Grants Fast Track Designation to CFI-402257 for ER+/ ... [https://www.onclive.com/view/fda-grants-fast-track-designation-to-cfi-402257-for-er-her2-breast-cancer]
• 69. Stable aneuploid tumors cells are more sensitive to TTK ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5503534/]
• 70. Luvixasertib (CFI-402257) | TTK/Mps1 Inhibitor [https://www.medchemexpress.com/CFI-402257.html?srsltid=AfmBOopIFhBGIHgaWTUU27_GIB0qmwPq5Po2SiUuk0qlVDpWj8c4PswQ]
• 71. TTK/MPS1 inhibitor OSU-13 targets the mitotic checkpoint ... [https://haematologica.org/article/view/haematol.2023.282838]
• 72. Assessing molecular docking tools: understanding drug ... [https://fjps.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s43094-025-00862-y]
• 73. Correlation Between In Silico Docking/Simulation Results ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1467-3045/47/9/691]
• 74. Protein–Ligand Docking - Rowan Newsletter [https://rowansci.substack.com/p/proteinligand-docking]
• 75. Prediction of enzyme inhibition (IC50) using a combination ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12255584/]
• 76. Revolutionizing tuberculosis treatment: Breakthroughs, ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211383525000292]
• 77. Discovery of new leads against Mycobacterium ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0968089617306120]
• 78. Targeting de novo purine biosynthesis for tuberculosis ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09177-7]
• 79. Insights into anti-tuberculosis drug design on the scaffold ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2025/ra/d5ra01362c]
• 80. Redefining anaemia management in CKD [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470211825001691]
• 81. Safety of Roxadustat in Chronic Kidney Disease Patients [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12567109/]
• 82. ICER Publishes Evidence Report on Roxadustat for ... [https://icer.org/news-insights/press-releases/icer-publishes-evidence-report-on-roxadustat-for-treating-anemia-in-chronic-kidney-disease/]
• 83. Impact of roxadustat on anemia management in infected ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pharmacology/articles/10.3389/fphar.2025.1695376/full]
• 84. Safety of Roxadustat Versus Erythropoiesis-Stimulating ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10070224/]
• 85. Reply to: Concerns on Potential Risk of Roxadustat in ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39805072/]
• 86. The Roxadustat (FG-4592) ameliorates tubulointerstitial ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12032739/]
• 87. Validating AI protein structure prediction models using Free Energy... [https://cresset-group.com/science/science-resources/validating-ai-protein-structure-prediction-models-using-free-energy-perturbation/]
• 88. Boltz-2 vs. FEP ? The Wrong Question. Here’s Why They’re... | Medium [https://medium.com/@dapscience/boltz-2-vs-fep-the-wrong-question-heres-why-they-re-stronger-together-6863be348aa2]
• 89. Cresset Newsletter September 2025 [https://cresset-group.com/about/news/cresset-newsletter-september-2025/]
• 90. Watch These Two Emerging AI -Driven Biotechs Take On Virtual Cells... [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/watch-two-emerging-ai-driven-biotechs-take-virtual-buvailo-ph-d--hhrsf]
• 91. A case study of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0968089616306940]
• 92. Scaffold Hopping: Methods & Applications [https://www.emergentmind.com/topics/scaffold-hopping-task]