Scaffold Hopping for Metabolic Stability: Strategies and Applications in Drug Design

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive overview of scaffold hopping as a powerful medicinal chemistry strategy to address metabolic instability in drug candidates. It covers the foundational principles linking molecular structure to oxidative metabolism, detailing how strategic replacement of electron-rich scaffolds with electron-deficient systems can mitigate rapid clearance and reactive metabolite formation. The review systematically classifies scaffold-hopping approaches from simple heterocycle replacements to advanced topology-based changes, supported by recent case studies demonstrating successful optimization of pharmacokinetic profiles. It further explores computational and AI-driven methodologies for scaffold design, troubleshooting common pitfalls, and validation techniques through in vitro and in vivo studies. Aimed at researchers and drug development professionals, this resource synthesizes current knowledge and practical applications to guide the design of metabolically robust therapeutic agents.

Understanding Metabolic Liabilities and Scaffold Hopping Fundamentals

The Critical Challenge of Metabolic Instability in Drug Development

Understanding Metabolic Instability and Scaffold Hopping

What is metabolic instability and why is it a critical challenge in drug development?

Metabolic instability occurs when a drug compound is rapidly broken down and cleared from the body by metabolic enzymes, primarily cytochrome P450 (P450) enzymes in the liver. This presents a critical challenge because it can lead to:

• Insufficient drug exposure: Rapid degradation reduces bioavailability, requiring higher or more frequent dosing.
• Short duration of action: The drug may not remain active long enough to provide therapeutic benefit.
• Formation of toxic metabolites: Metabolic processes can transform parent compounds into reactive, toxic metabolites [1].

Addressing metabolic liabilities early in drug discovery follows a quality by design (QbD) approach that limits the need for retroactive adjustments [1].

How can scaffold hopping address metabolic instability?

Scaffold hopping (also called lead hopping or core hopping) is a strategy that replaces the central core structure of a bioactive molecule with a novel chemotype while maintaining its biological activity [2] [3]. This approach addresses metabolic instability by:

• Electronic tuning: Replacing electron-rich aromatic systems with electron-deficient heterocycles, which are less prone to P450-mediated oxidative metabolism [1].
• Blocking metabolic soft spots: Strategically modifying or replacing structural elements identified as sites of rapid metabolism.
• Patentability: Creating novel chemical entities with improved properties and new intellectual property space [4] [5].

The most common scaffold hopping substitution—replacement of a phenyl ring with a pyridyl substituent—exemplifies this electron-rich to electron-poor strategy [1].

Essential Concepts and Reagent Solutions

Key Research Reagent Solutions

Table 1: Essential Research Reagents for Metabolic Stability Assessment

Reagent/System	Function	Key Considerations
Liver Microsomes	Self-assembling vesicles from endoplasmic reticulum; contain P450s but few conjugative enzymes [1]	Ideal for studying oxidative metabolism; easier to prepare than S9 fractions [1]
Liver S9 Fractions	Derived from liver homogenates; contain both P450s and conjugative enzymes [1]	More comprehensive metabolic profile; includes phase I and II enzymes [1]
Cultured Hepatocytes	Whole liver cells cultured in monolayers or 3D systems [1]	More biologically relevant; contain full complement of enzymes and cofactors [1]
Polarity-Sensitive Fluorescent Dye	Tracks protein unfolding in Differential Scanning Fluorimetry (DSF) [6]	Incompatible with detergents and viscosity-increasing additives [6]
Thermal Shift Assay Buffers	Maintain protein stability and solubility [6]	Must be free of incompatible additives that interfere with fluorescence detection [6]

Electronic Properties of Common Heterocycles

Understanding the electronic properties of heterocycles is crucial for successful scaffold hopping. The energy of the Highest Occupied Molecular Orbital (HOMO) correlates with susceptibility to oxidation—molecules with higher-energy HOMOs undergo oxidation more easily [1].

Table 2: HOMO Energies of Common Heterocycles and Metabolic Implications

Ring Type	Molecule	HOMO Energy (eV)	Metabolic Stability Consideration
5-Membered	Pyrrole	-8.66	High electron density; metabolically labile [1]
5-Membered	Furan	-9.32	Electron-rich; prone to oxidation [1]
5-Membered	Imidazole	-9.16	Moderate electron density [1]
6-Membered	Pyridine	-9.93	Electron-deficient; more robust to oxidation [1]
6-Membered	Pyrimidine	-10.58	Very electron-deficient; good metabolic stability [1]
6-Membered	Benzene	-9.65	Reference point; moderate stability [1]

Experimental Protocols & Methodologies

In Vitro Metabolic Stability Assay Protocol

Purpose: Determine the metabolic stability of compounds using liver fractions.

Metabolic Stability Workflow

Procedure:

• Preparation: Dilute test compound to 1-10 µM in appropriate buffer [1].
• Incubation: Add liver microsomes or S9 fractions (0.1-1 mg/mL protein) and NADPH cofactor [1].
• Time course: Incubate at 37°C and remove aliquots at predetermined timepoints (0, 5, 15, 30, 60 minutes) [1].
• Reaction termination: Add ice-cold acetonitrile or methanol to precipitate proteins and stop the reaction.
• Analysis: Quantify parent compound remaining using LC-MS/MS [1].
• Data analysis: Calculate half-life (t½) and intrinsic clearance (CLint) from the disappearance curve of the parent compound [1].

Troubleshooting:

• No metabolism observed: Verify NADPH is fresh and active; check protein concentration is appropriate.
• Rapid complete metabolism: Use shorter timepoints or lower protein concentration.
• High variability: Ensure consistent temperature control; pre-warm all components.

Scaffold Hopping Workflow for Metabolic Stability

Purpose: Systematically identify metabolically stable scaffolds.

Scaffold Hopping Workflow

Procedure:

• Metabolite identification: Conduct preliminary studies to identify sites of metabolism using LC-MS/MS and NMR techniques [1].
• Scaffold design: Apply appropriate scaffold hopping strategy:
  • Heterocycle replacement: Substitute electron-rich rings with electron-deficient analogs [2].
  • Ring opening/closure: Modify ring systems to block metabolic sites [2].
  • Topology-based hopping: Maintain pharmacophore geometry with structurally distinct cores [2].
• Virtual screening: Use software tools (BROOD, ReCore, SHOP) to screen scaffold databases [3].
• Synthesis: Prepare selected candidates with highest potential for metabolic stability.
• Evaluation: Test synthesized compounds in metabolic stability assays.
• Iteration: Optimize based on results, balancing metabolic stability with other pharmacological properties.

Troubleshooting FAQs

Metabolic Stability Assay Issues

Q: Our metabolic stability assay shows no degradation of compounds, even with positive controls. What could be wrong? A: This suggests a fundamental issue with the enzyme activity:

• Verify NADPH cofactor is fresh and properly prepared
• Check protein concentration is within optimal range (0.1-1 mg/mL)
• Confirm temperature control is maintaining 37°C throughout incubation
• Test positive control compounds with known high clearance to validate system functionality
• Ensure proper storage of liver fractions (-80°C, avoid freeze-thaw cycles) [1]

Q: We're seeing high variability between replicates in metabolic stability measurements. How can we improve consistency? A: High variability typically stems from technical execution:

• Pre-warm all components before starting incubation
• Use master mixes for liver fractions and cofactors to ensure consistent concentrations across samples
• Verify precise timing for aliquot collection and reaction termination
• Check for compound precipitation or adsorption to plates/tubes
• Ensure consistent protein concentration across replicates [1]

Scaffold Hopping Design Challenges

Q: Our scaffold-hopped compounds maintain target activity but show no improvement in metabolic stability. What are we missing? A: This common issue suggests incomplete metabolic assessment:

• Conduct metabolite identification (MetID) on both original and new scaffolds to compare metabolic pathways
• Ensure you're addressing the primary metabolic soft spots identified in the original scaffold
• Consider that you may have introduced new metabolic liabilities with the new scaffold
• Evaluate potential shifts in enzyme selectivity (e.g., from P450 to aldehyde oxidase) [1]
• Verify the electronic properties truly shifted from electron-rich to electron-deficient [1]

Q: How can we balance metabolic stability improvements with maintained target engagement? A: Successful scaffold hopping requires multidimensional optimization:

• Conserve key pharmacophore elements responsible for target binding while modifying the core [2]
• Use structural biology data (X-ray crystallography) to identify non-essential regions tolerant to modification [3]
• Implement matched molecular pair analysis to understand property changes associated with specific scaffold modifications [1]
• Consider progressive hopping - smaller structural changes initially, with larger hops if needed [2]

Analytical Method Issues

Q: Our LC-MS/MS analysis shows inconsistent parent compound depletion curves. What could cause this? A: Inconsistent curves suggest analytical or sample handling issues:

• Check sample stability in injection solvent - some compounds may degrade post-collection
• Verify extraction efficiency is consistent across timepoints
• Ensure internal standard is properly added and consistent
• Check for ion suppression/enhancement in MS detection, particularly early timepoints with higher protein
• Confirm chromatographic separation is resolving parent compound from metabolites [1]

Advanced Applications and Case Studies

Real-World Success Stories

Case Study 1: BACE-1 Inhibitors for Alzheimer's Disease

• Challenge: Central phenyl ring in lead compound contributed to high lipophilicity and poor solubility [3].
• Solution: Scaffold hop replaced phenyl ring with trans-cyclopropylketone moiety [3].
• Result: Significant reduction in logD with improved solubility while maintaining excellent BACE-1 inhibitory potency [3].
• Validation: X-ray co-crystallization confirmed conserved binding mode despite scaffold change [3].

Case Study 2: ROCK1 Kinase Inhibitors

• Challenge: Need for novel intellectual property around known kinase inhibitor scaffold [3].
• Solution: Computational core-hopping workflow identified seven-membered azepinone ring replacement [3].
• Result: Novel chemotype maintained key hinge-binding and P-loop interactions with completely different connecting scaffold [3].
• Validation: X-ray structures showed conserved binding geometry despite significant structural differences [3].

Emerging Technologies

AI-Driven Scaffold Hopping Modern approaches leverage artificial intelligence to expand scaffold hopping capabilities:

• Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) learn continuous molecular representations that capture subtle structure-function relationships [4].
• Transformer models treat molecules as chemical language, enabling prediction of bioisosteric replacements [4].
• Generative models (VAEs, GANs) design entirely novel scaffolds not present in existing databases [4].
• Multimodal learning integrates structural, energetic, and physicochemical constraints for more informed scaffold design [4].

These data-driven methods can identify non-obvious scaffold hops that might be missed by traditional similarity-based approaches, potentially uncovering novel chemical space with improved metabolic properties [4].

FAQs: Core Electronic Principles

What is the fundamental electronic property that makes an aromatic compound susceptible to P450 oxidation?

The energy level of the highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) is a key electronic property. Cytochrome P450 enzymes (CYPs) often act as electrophiles, initiating oxidation by removing an electron from the substrate. Therefore, molecules with higher-energy HOMOs (indicating electrons are less tightly bound) are generally more prone to oxidation [1]. Electron-rich aromatic systems, which typically have high HOMO energies, are common sites of metabolic attack [1].

How can scaffold-hopping be used to mitigate oxidative metabolism?

Scaffold-hopping is a lead optimization strategy that replaces an aromatic system with a more electron-deficient ring to reduce metabolic lability. This strategy conserves the structural features needed for pharmacological activity (the pharmacophore) while increasing robustness against cytochrome P450-mediated oxidation by lowering the HOMO energy [1]. A common example is replacing a phenyl ring with a pyridyl group [1].

Besides HOMO energy, what other factors influence a compound's metabolic fate with P450s?

While HOMO energy is a critical electronic descriptor, other factors significantly influence P450 metabolism:

• Enzyme Active Site Architecture: The size, shape, and amino acid composition of the P450's active site dictate substrate access and orientation [7] [8].
• Substrate Structural Features: The presence of specific heteroatoms (like Nitrogen and Sulfur) and functional groups guides the type of metabolic reaction (e.g., N-dealkylation, S-oxidation) [8].
• Steric Shielding: Bulky groups near a potential metabolic soft spot can sterically hinder the enzyme's access.
• Genetic and Environmental Factors: Genetic polymorphisms in CYP genes and exposure to dietary components or environmental pollutants (the exposome) can dramatically alter enzyme expression and activity [9] [10].

Troubleshooting Guides

Issue 1: High Metabolic Clearance in Microsomal Assays

Problem: Your lead compound shows rapid degradation in human liver microsome stability assays.

Solution:

• Identify the Metabolic Soft Spot: Use metabolite identification (MetID) studies to determine the site of oxidation on your molecule.
• Perform Electronic Analysis: Calculate the HOMO energy and map the electrostatic potential of your lead compound. The metabolic soft spot will often coincide with a region of high electron density.
• Apply Scaffold-Hopping:
  • Consult the HOMO energy table (Table 1) to select an electron-deficient heterocycle as a replacement for the electron-rich ring system.
  • Synthesize the new analog.
  • Re-evaluate the metabolic stability in liver microsomes. The goal is a significant increase in half-life (t1/2) and a decrease in intrinsic clearance (CLint).

Typical Experimental Protocol for Metabolic Stability:

• Incubation: Incubate the test compound (1 µM) in pooled human liver microsomes (0.5 mg/mL protein) with NADPH (1 mM) in phosphate buffer (pH 7.4) at 37°C [1].
• Sampling: Remove aliquots at specific time points (e.g., 0, 5, 15, 30, 45, 60 minutes).
• Analysis: Stop the reaction and analyze compound concentration using LC-MS/MS.
• Data Analysis: Plot percent remaining versus time to determine the in vitro half-life (t1/2) and calculate intrinsic clearance (CLint) [1].

Issue 2: Predicting Metabolic Susceptibility Early in Development

Problem: You need a computational method to prioritize compounds with low P450 oxidation risk before synthesis.

Solution: Use in silico predictions based on frontier molecular orbital theory.

• Geometry Optimization: Use computational software (e.g., Gaussian, Schrödinger) to optimize the 3D structure of your compound at an appropriate level of theory (e.g., DFT with B3LYP functional).
• Orbital Energy Calculation: Calculate the HOMO energy for the optimized structure. A simple linear regression between the computed HOMO energy and known redox potentials can provide a quantitative estimate of oxidation susceptibility [11].
• Virtual Screening: Apply this method to a virtual library of scaffold-hopped analogs to rank them based on predicted metabolic stability, focusing synthesis efforts on the most promising candidates.

Data Presentation

This table allows for direct comparison of the inherent electronic richness of various ring systems, guiding scaffold-hopping decisions.

Ring Type	Molecule	HOMO Energy (eV)
5-Membered	Pyrrole	-8.66
	Furan	-9.32
	Thiophene	-9.22
	Imidazole	-9.16
6-Membered	Pyridine	-9.93
	Pyrimidine	-10.58
	Pyrazine	-10.25
6,6-Fused	Quinoline	-9.18
	Isoquinoline	-9.03
Reference	Benzene	-9.65

Experimental Protocols

Detailed Methodology: Correlating HOMO Energy with Experimental Redox Potential

This protocol outlines a method to establish a predictive model for your chemical series.

1. Computational Calculation of HOMO Energy:

• Software: Use a quantum chemistry package like Gaussian.
• Method: Employ Density Functional Theory (DFT).
• Functional and Basis Set: A common combination is B3LYP/6-31G(d).
• Procedure:
  • Draw and pre-optimize the molecular structure.
  • Perform a geometry optimization calculation to find the most stable conformation.
  • Run a single-point energy calculation on the optimized geometry to obtain the molecular orbital energies.
  • Record the HOMO energy in electronvolts (eV).

2. Experimental Measurement of Redox Potential:

• Technique: Cyclic Voltammetry (CV).
• Setup: Use a standard three-electrode system (working electrode, reference electrode, counter electrode).
• Conditions: Dissolve the compound in anhydrous acetonitrile with a supporting electrolyte (e.g., 0.1 M tetrabutylammonium hexafluorophosphate).
• Procedure:
  • Purge the solution with an inert gas (e.g., nitrogen) to remove oxygen.
  • Run the voltammogram at a specific scan rate (e.g., 100 mV/s).
  • Determine the half-wave potential (E1/2) relative to a reference electrode (e.g., Ag/AgCl). This is used as the experimental oxidation potential.

3. Data Correlation:

• Plot the experimentally measured oxidation potential (E1/2) against the computationally derived HOMO energy for a series of related compounds.
• Perform a linear regression analysis to establish the correlation (y = mx + c). A strong negative correlation is typically observed, confirming that a higher HOMO energy leads to a lower (easier) oxidation potential [11].

Mandatory Visualization

Diagram: Electronic Properties Guide Scaffold Hopping for Metabolic Stability

This diagram visualizes the logical workflow and key relationships between electronic structure, scaffold hopping, and the resulting metabolic outcomes.

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions

Item	Function/Brief Explanation
Human Liver Microsomes (HLM)	Subcellular fractions containing membrane-bound CYP450 enzymes; used for in vitro metabolic stability and metabolite profiling studies [1].
NADPH Regenerating System	Supplies NADPH, the essential electron donor for CYP450-mediated oxidative reactions [1].
LC-MS/MS System	The core analytical platform for quantifying parent compound loss in stability assays and identifying metabolite structures in MetID studies [1].
Quantum Chemistry Software	Software like Gaussian or ORCA used to compute electronic properties, including HOMO/LUMO energies and molecular electrostatic potentials [11].
CYP450 Isoform-Specific Inhibites	Chemical inhibitors (e.g., furafylline for CYP1A2, quinidine for CYP2D6) used in reaction phenotyping to identify which specific enzyme is responsible for metabolizing a compound [12].
Graph Convolutional Network (GCN) Models	Advanced machine learning models that directly learn from molecular structures (graphs) to predict CYP450 substrate liability and other ADMET endpoints [12] [4].

Core Concepts and Definitions

What is the formal definition of scaffold hopping? Scaffold hopping, also known as lead hopping, is a strategy in drug discovery that starts with known active compounds and aims to generate novel chemotypes by modifying the central core structure of the molecule while maintaining or improving its biological activity. The concept, formally introduced by Schneider et al. in 1999, is defined as a technique to identify isofunctional molecular structures with significantly different molecular backbones [2] [13].

How is scaffold hopping classified? Scaffold hopping approaches are typically classified into four major categories based on the degree and nature of structural change [2] [13]:

• 1° Hop: Heterocycle Replacements - Involves replacing or swapping atoms (e.g., carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, sulfur) within a heterocyclic ring while maintaining similar outreaching vectors. This represents a small-degree change with low structural novelty.
• 2° Hop: Ring Opening or Closure - Manipulates molecular flexibility by either opening rings to increase conformational freedom or closing rings to rigidify structures and reduce entropy loss upon binding.
• 3° Hop: Peptidomimetics - Focuses on replacing peptide backbones with non-peptide moieties to improve metabolic stability and bioavailability while maintaining key interactions.
• 4° Hop: Topology-Based Hopping - Utilizes three-dimensional shape similarity or pharmacophore matching to identify structurally diverse scaffolds that occupy similar spatial space. This approach typically yields the highest degree of structural novelty.

What is the key relationship between scaffold hopping and metabolic stability? Scaffold hopping serves as a powerful strategy to address metabolic liabilities, particularly oxidative metabolism of aromatic compounds. A primary mechanism involves replacing electron-rich aromatic systems with electron-deficient heterocycles, which are less prone to cytochrome P450-mediated oxidation. This electronic tuning decreases metabolic clearance while ideally preserving target binding affinity [1].

Fundamental Principles and Experimental Methodology

How do electronic properties guide scaffold hopping for metabolic stability? The metabolic stability of heterocycles correlates strongly with their electronic structure. Cytochrome P450 enzymes typically oxidize electron-rich sites. Therefore, replacing a ring system with one that has a lower-energy Highest Occupied Molecular Orbital (HOMO) generally increases robustness against oxidation [1].

Table 1: HOMO Energies of Common Heterocycles and Their Metabolic Propensity [1]

Ring Type	Molecule	HOMO Energy (eV)	Metabolic Propensity
5-Membered	Pyrrole	-8.66	High
	Furan	-9.32	Moderate
6-Membered	Benzene	-9.65	Moderate
	Pyridine	-9.93	Low
6,6-Fused	Quinoline	-9.18	Moderate to Low

What is a standard computational workflow for scaffold hopping? A typical stability-guided scaffold hopping workflow integrates multiple computational techniques, as demonstrated in a study on Tankyrase inhibitors [14]. The process can be visualized as follows:

What are the detailed steps in this workflow?

• Ligand-Based Screening: A known active compound (e.g., RK-582 from a protein crystal structure) is used as a reference for a structural similarity search in databases like PubChem, often with a high similarity cutoff (e.g., 80%) [14].
• Virtual Screening: Retrieved compounds are filtered using drug-likeness rules to prioritize those with favorable physicochemical properties [14].
• Molecular Docking: Top compounds are docked into the target's active site using software like AutoDock Vina to predict binding modes and affinities [14].
• Density Functional Theory (DFT) Analysis: This step investigates electronic properties. The HOMO-LUMO gap is a key metric, where a larger gap (e.g., ~4.5 - 5.0 eV) indicates higher electronic stability, which is often desirable for metabolic robustness [1] [14].
• Molecular Dynamics (MD) Simulations: Simulations (e.g., for 50-100 ns) assess the conformational stability of protein-ligand complexes in a physiological-like environment. Key metrics include Root-Mean-Square Deviation (RMSD) and Root-Mean-Square Fluctuation (RMSF); lower values indicate more stable complexes [14].
• Machine Learning Activity Prediction: A model trained on known inhibitors (e.g., 236 compounds for Tankyrase) can predict activity (pIC₅₀) for the new candidates, providing an early readout of potency [14].

Troubleshooting Common Experimental Issues

Issue 1: New scaffold hops retain target activity but show poor metabolic stability.

• Potential Cause: The new core may be intrinsically electron-rich or contain unrecognized metabolic soft spots.
• Solutions:
  • Consult HOMO energy tables and replace the most electron-rich ring in your scaffold with an electron-deficient isostere (e.g., pyridine for phenyl) [1].
  • Run in silico metabolite prediction tools available in platforms like ADMETlab 2.0 to identify potential sites of oxidation [14].
  • Consider incorporating fluorine atoms or other groups to block sites of predicted metabolism.

Issue 2: Generated scaffolds are chemically novel but lack binding affinity.

• Potential Cause: The hopping method over-prioritized structural novelty and disrupted critical pharmacophore elements or vector geometry.
• Solutions:
  • Use 3D pharmacophore modeling or shape-based similarity tools (e.g., ROCS) before synthesis to ensure key interactions can be maintained [2] [15].
  • In topology-based hopping, validate that the new scaffold can present key substituents with similar angles and distances as the original (e.g., using a CAVEAT-like approach) [15].
  • Perform a more conservative hop (e.g., 1° or 2°) before attempting a large 4° hop.

Issue 3: Difficulty in identifying a viable replacement scaffold computationally.

• Potential Cause: The search algorithm or constraints are too restrictive, or the wrong molecular representation is used.
• Solutions:
  • Use multiple search strategies: combine 2D fingerprint similarity with 3D shape or pharmacophore searches [2] [4].
  • Leverage modern AI-driven generative models (e.g., graph VAEs, diffusion models) specifically designed for scaffold-constrained generation, which can propose novel structures not present in existing databases [16] [4].
  • Ensure the defined core/scaffold for replacement is correctly specified. Tools like Tencent iDrug require precise SMILES input and will report matching errors [17].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Solutions

Table 2: Key Research Reagents and Computational Tools for Scaffold Hopping

Item / Reagent Solution	Function / Explanation	Example Use in Workflow
Liver Microsomes / S9 Fractions	Subcellular liver fractions used for in vitro metabolic stability studies (e.g., CL~int~ calculation). Microsomes contain P450s; S9 contains P450s and conjugative enzymes [1].	Experimental validation of metabolic stability after in silico design.
DFT Software (e.g., PySCF)	Quantum chemistry software for calculating electronic properties like HOMO-LUMO gap, which informs on stability and reactivity [14].	Prioritize generated scaffolds with high HOMO-LUMO gaps for synthetic pursuit.
MD Simulation Software (e.g., GROMACS)	Software for running molecular dynamics simulations to assess protein-ligand complex stability over time [14].	Confirm the binding stability and interaction pattern of scaffold-hopped candidates.
Scaffold Hopping Platforms (e.g., Tencent iDrug)	Web-based platforms that automate the generation of novel lead molecules by replacing a user-specified scaffold [17].	Rapidly generate ideas for novel chemical series based on a known active molecule.
AI Generative Models (e.g., Graph VAE, Diffusion)	Deep learning models that generate novel molecular structures under constraints (e.g., fixed scaffold, property optimization) [16] [4].	Explore vast chemical space to discover entirely new scaffolds absent from known databases.

Advanced Applications and Final Considerations

How are modern AI methods transforming scaffold hopping? AI-driven methods have moved beyond traditional similarity searches. Key innovations include [16] [4]:

• Graph-based Generative Models: These models embed a scaffold as a fixed subgraph and generate new molecules by sequentially adding atoms and bonds, guaranteeing the scaffold is retained.
• 3D Conditional Diffusion Models: These frame scaffold hopping as 3D molecular generation conditioned on functional groups and protein pocket geometry, leading to designs optimized for specific binding sites.
• Efficient Sampling: Methods like SMILES-based RNNs with constrained sampling or consistency models enable flexible scaffold modifications and drastically accelerated inference speeds.

Is the transition from Viagra (Sildenafil) to Cialis (Tadalafil) a true scaffold hop? This is a nuanced case. While both are PDE5 inhibitors, a structural analysis shows they make different interactions with the target. Only five protein residues are within 3.5 Å of both drugs, with each compound having unique contacts. This suggests that although they inhibit the same target, their binding modes are distinct. Therefore, this may not be a classic scaffold hop where the objective is to maintain identical interactions with a novel core [15]. This highlights that not all same-target inhibitors are successful scaffold hops, and interaction conservation should be verified.

In modern drug discovery, scaffold hopping is a fundamental strategy used to transform a known active compound into a structurally novel chemotype while maintaining or improving its biological activity and pharmacological properties [2] [13]. Also referred to as "lead hopping," this approach is crucial for overcoming limitations of existing compounds, such as poor metabolic stability, toxicity, or undesirable pharmacokinetic profiles [1] [18].

To systematically categorize the diverse range of structural modifications employed in scaffold hopping, researchers have developed a classification system known as the Four-Degree Framework. This framework organizes scaffold hops based on the degree of structural change introduced to the parent molecule's core structure, ranging from minor atomic substitutions to complete topological alterations [2] [13]. Understanding this framework provides medicinal chemists with a structured approach to designing novel compounds with improved properties.

The Critical Role of Scaffold Hopping in Metabolic Stability

A primary application of scaffold hopping is addressing metabolic liabilities in lead compounds. Rapid oxidative metabolism, particularly of electron-rich aromatic systems, presents a significant hurdle in lead optimization [1]. Through strategic scaffold modifications, medicinal chemists can design compounds with enhanced metabolic stability while conserving the essential structural features required for target binding (the pharmacophore) [1].

The relationship between electronic structure and metabolic susceptibility follows principles of physical organic chemistry. Electron-rich aromatic systems typically undergo cytochrome P450-mediated oxidation more readily than electron-deficient systems [1]. This understanding enables rational design of more robust compounds through scaffold hopping, as demonstrated by the successful improvement of metabolic stability in antifungal dihydrooxazole derivatives derived from metabolically unstable l-amino alcohol precursors [18].

The Four-Degree Framework: A Detailed Classification

The following table outlines the core characteristics of each degree of scaffold hopping, from minor heterocycle replacements to major topological changes:

Table 1: The Four-Degree Framework for Scaffold Hopping

Hop Degree	Core Definition	Structural Change Level	Key Strategy	Impact on Novelty
1° Hop	Replacement or swapping of atoms within a ring system [2]	Atomic	Heterocycle replacements [2] [13]	Low structural novelty [2] [13]
2° Hop	Ring opening or closure to alter molecular flexibility [2] [13]	Ring structure	Manipulating ring systems to control conformation [2] [13]	Medium structural novelty [13]
3° Hop	Replacement of peptide backbones with non-peptide moieties [2]	Molecular backbone	Peptidomimetics [2] [13]	High structural novelty [2]
4° Hop	Significant alteration of molecular topology or shape [2] [13]	Global topology	Topology/shape-based modifications [2] [13]	Highest structural novelty [2] [13]

First-Degree (1°) Hop: Heterocycle Replacements

First-degree hops represent the most minimal level of scaffold modification, involving the replacement or swapping of atoms within a ring system, particularly in heterocyclic aromatic rings [2]. This approach is extensively used to fine-tune electronic properties while maintaining similar geometry and vector orientation of substituents.

The primary objective of 1° hops is often to reduce electron density in aromatic systems, thereby decreasing susceptibility to cytochrome P450-mediated oxidation [1]. This strategy is grounded in the correlation between heterocycle electronics and metabolic stability, where higher-energy highest occupied molecular orbitals (HOMOs) generally indicate greater ease of oxidation [1].

Table 2: Electronic Properties and Metabolic Considerations of Common Heterocycles

Heterocycle	HOMO Energy (eV) [1]	Electronic Character	Metabolic Consideration
Pyrrole	-8.66	Electron-rich	More prone to P450 oxidation
Benzene	-9.65	Intermediate	Moderate metabolic stability
Pyridine	-9.93	Electron-deficient	Less prone to P450 oxidation
Pyrazine	-10.25	Electron-deficient	Less prone to P450 oxidation
1H-Tetrazole	-11.41	Highly electron-deficient	Potential for AO/XO metabolism [1]

Real-World Example: The development of azatadine from cyproheptadine demonstrates a practical 1° hop, where replacement of one phenyl ring with a pyrimidine improved solubility while maintaining antihistamine activity [2].

Second-Degree (2°) Hop: Ring Opening and Closure

Second-degree hops involve more extensive modifications through ring opening or closure operations, significantly altering molecular flexibility and conformation [2] [13]. These modifications directly impact the entropic component of binding free energy and can improve membrane penetration and absorption properties [2].

Ring closure strategies often reduce molecular flexibility, potentially increasing target binding affinity by minimizing entropy loss upon receptor engagement [2]. This approach was successfully employed in the development of cyproheptadine, where locking both aromatic rings of pheniramine into the active conformation through ring closure significantly improved binding affinity to the H1-receptor [2].

Ring opening strategies can transform rigid structures into more flexible analogs, sometimes reducing side effects while maintaining therapeutic activity. The classical example of this approach is the transformation of morphine to tramadol, where opening three fused rings created a more flexible molecule with reduced addictive potential while conserving the key analgesic pharmacophore [2] [13].

Third-Degree (3°) Hop: Peptidomimetics

Third-degree hops involve the replacement of peptide backbones with non-peptide moieties, creating peptidomimetics that overcome the inherent limitations of native peptides, such as poor metabolic stability and low oral bioavailability [2]. This approach is particularly valuable for targeting biologically relevant peptide receptors while developing druggable small molecules.

Peptidomimetics aim to mimic the key pharmacophore elements of native peptides, including hydrogen bond donors/acceptors, charged groups, and spatial arrangement of side chains, while replacing the metabolically labile amide bonds with more stable bioisosteres [2]. Successful 3° hops require careful analysis of the native peptide's bioactive conformation to identify critical features that must be conserved in the mimetic.

Fourth-Degree (4°) Hop: Topology-Based Changes

Fourth-degree hops represent the most dramatic level of scaffold modification, involving significant alterations to molecular topology or shape while maintaining the spatial orientation of key pharmacophore elements [2] [13]. These hops yield the highest degree of structural novelty and can potentially lead to breakthrough intellectual property.

Unlike lower-degree hops that maintain some obvious structural relationship to the parent scaffold, 4° hops may produce structures that appear dramatically different in two dimensions but share critical three-dimensional pharmacophore alignment [2]. Successful topology-based hopping requires sophisticated molecular modeling and alignment tools to ensure conservation of the essential features required for target binding.

Experimental Protocols for Metabolic Stability Assessment

Evaluating the success of scaffold hopping modifications requires robust assessment of metabolic stability. The following protocols detail key methodologies used in metabolic stability studies.

Liver Microsomal Stability Assay

Purpose: To assess compound stability against cytochrome P450 and other microsomal enzymes [1] [19].

Protocol:

• Prepare incubation mixture containing liver microsomes (typically 0.5-1 mg protein/mL), test compound (1-5 μM), and NADPH-regenerating system in phosphate buffer [1] [19]
• Pre-incubate for 5 minutes at 37°C
• Initiate reaction by adding NADPH-regenerating system
• Aliquot samples at predetermined time points (e.g., 0, 5, 15, 30, 45, 60 minutes)
• Terminate reactions with ice-cold acetonitrile containing internal standard
• Analyze parent compound depletion using LC-MS/MS [1]
• Calculate half-life (t₁/₂) and intrinsic clearance (CLᵢₙₜ) using first-order kinetics [1]

Troubleshooting Tip: For compounds with high nonspecific binding to plastics, include buffer controls and apply correction assuming similar binding with and without cells [19].

Hepatocyte Relay Method for Low-Clearance Compounds

Purpose: To extend incubation time for low-turnover compounds by sequentially transferring supernatant to fresh hepatocytes [19] [20].

Protocol:

• Prepare primary cryopreserved hepatocytes (0.5-1 million cells/mL) in appropriate medium [19]
• Incubate test compound with hepatocytes for 4 hours at 37°C
• Centrifuge incubation mixture and transfer supernatant to freshly thawed hepatocytes
• Repeat relay process up to 5 times for cumulative 20-hour incubation [19]
• Monitor parent depletion at each relay time point
• Calculate intrinsic clearance using combined depletion data [19]

Application Note: The hepatocyte relay method has demonstrated good correlation with in vivo intrinsic clearance in both human and preclinical species, making it particularly valuable for accurately predicting human pharmacokinetics of low-clearance compounds [19].

Troubleshooting Guide: Common Scaffold Hopping Challenges

Table 3: Troubleshooting Common Issues in Scaffold Hopping for Metabolic Stability

Problem	Potential Cause	Solution	Preventive Measures
Lost bioactivity after hop	Disruption of key pharmacophore elements [2]	Perform 3D pharmacophore analysis to ensure conservation of critical interactions [2]	Conduct molecular docking studies before synthesis [2]
Unexpected metabolic pathway	Emergence of new soft spots or alternative enzyme targeting [1]	Conduct metabolite identification studies early [1]	Consider potential aldehyde oxidase/xanthine oxidase metabolism for electron-poor N-heterocycles [1]
Poor aqueous solubility	Increased lipophilicity from new scaffold [2]	Incorporate solubilizing groups in peripheral positions [2]	Monitor cLogP and polar surface area during design
Insufficient metabolic stability improvement	Incomplete addressing of metabolic soft spots	Use multiple strategies: combine 1° hop with structural blocking [18]	Identify all major metabolic sites before scaffold design

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 4: Key Research Reagents for Scaffold Hopping and Metabolic Stability Studies

Reagent/System	Function	Application Context
Human liver microsomes (HLM)	Contain cytochrome P450s and some conjugative enzymes [1]	Initial metabolic stability screening [1] [19]
Cryopreserved hepatocytes	Contain complete set of hepatic metabolizing enzymes [1] [20]	Comprehensive metabolic stability assessment [19] [20]
Hepatocyte relay system	Enables extended incubation for low-turnover compounds [19]	Measuring clearance of slowly metabolized compounds [19] [20]
HepatoPac coculture system	Micropatterned hepatocyte-fibroblast coculture with prolonged activity [20]	Long-term metabolism studies and metabolite ID [20]

Strategic Decision Framework for Scaffold Hopping

The following diagram illustrates the strategic decision-making process for selecting the appropriate degree of scaffold hop based on project goals and constraints:

Scaffold Hopping Strategy Selection Framework

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: How different must a new scaffold be to qualify as a true "hop"?

According to the literature, scaffolds are considered different if they require different synthetic routes for preparation, regardless of the apparent structural similarity [2]. This practical definition acknowledges that even small changes (like swapping carbon and nitrogen atoms in a ring system) can constitute novel scaffolds from intellectual property and patent perspectives [2].

Q2: Why does scaffold hopping so frequently improve metabolic stability?

Scaffold hopping directly addresses the electronic and structural features that make compounds susceptible to metabolic degradation [1]. By replacing electron-rich aromatic systems with electron-deficient heterocycles (1° hop), or by blocking metabolic soft spots through ring closure (2° hop), the modified scaffolds become less recognizable to metabolic enzymes like cytochrome P450s [1] [18].

Q3: What are the key considerations when planning a scaffold hop?

Successful scaffold hopping requires balancing multiple factors: (1) conservation of essential pharmacophore elements for maintaining target activity [2]; (2) electronic properties that influence metabolic susceptibility [1]; (3) synthetic accessibility of the new scaffold [2]; and (4) overall impact on drug-like properties including solubility, lipophilicity, and molecular weight [2].

Q4: How can I experimentally validate the success of a scaffold hop?

Comprehensive validation includes: (1) biological activity assays to confirm maintained or improved target engagement; (2) metabolic stability studies in liver microsomes and hepatocytes [1] [19]; (3) metabolite identification to confirm elimination of previous metabolic soft spots [18]; and (4) pharmacokinetic studies in relevant animal models to demonstrate improved exposure and half-life [18].

Q5: What software tools are available to assist with scaffold hopping?

Several computational approaches facilitate scaffold hopping, including: 2D fingerprint similarity methods, 3D pharmacophore mapping [2] [13], and shape-based alignment tools [2]. Platforms like the Tencent iDrug Scaffold Hopping module provide specialized functionality for generating novel scaffolds while conserving key molecular features [17].

Scaffold-Hopping Strategies and Practical Implementation

Scaffold hopping is a fundamental strategy in medicinal chemistry used to generate novel compounds from known bioactive molecules by modifying their core molecular structure. Heterocycle replacement, classified as a 1° scaffold hop, is one of the most frequently applied approaches. This method involves the substitution, addition, or removal of heteroatoms within the molecular backbone, or the replacement of one heterocycle with another of high similarity [21] [2].

The primary objective of this approach is to fine-tune the physicochemical properties and pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of a lead compound while retaining its spatial pharmacophore arrangement and key ligand-target interactions [21]. A classic example is the replacement of a carbon-based phenyl ring with a nitrogen-containing pyridyl ring, a bioisosteric swap that can significantly impact a molecule's characteristics without drastically altering its shape or size [2]. This technique is particularly valuable for addressing issues such as poor solubility, metabolic instability, and high toxicity, and for establishing a strong intellectual property (IP) position for novel chemical entities [21] [5].

Within the context of metabolic stability research, heterocycle replacement serves as a strategic tool to overcome ADMET (Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Excretion, and Toxicity) limitations, thereby accelerating the development of viable drug candidates [5].

Key Concepts and Scientific Basis

Defining the Molecular Scaffold

The molecular scaffold or core is the central framework that defines the fundamental structure of a compound. According to the widely accepted Bemis and Murcko (BM) definition, the scaffold is obtained by removing all pendant substituents while retaining the ring systems and the linkers connecting them [21]. This core structure is crucial for determining the three-dimensional orientation of pharmacophoric features.

The Principle of Bioisosterism in Heterocycle Replacement

Heterocycle replacement is an extension of the principle of bioisosterism, where atoms or groups of atoms with similar physical or chemical properties are exchanged [21]. This swap is guided by the understanding that structurally distinct compounds can maintain biological activity for the same target if they share critical interaction patterns with the binding site [21] [2].

For instance, replacing a phenyl ring (C6H5-) with a pyridyl ring (C5H4N-) constitutes a bioisosteric replacement. While their geometries are similar, the key difference lies in the replacement of a CH group in the phenyl ring with a nitrogen atom in the pyridyl ring. This single atom change can profoundly influence the molecule's properties [2]:

• Polarity and Solubility: The nitrogen atom introduces a polarizable lone pair of electrons, which can increase the molecule's overall polarity and potentially improve its aqueous solubility.
• Hydrogen Bonding: The nitrogen can act as a hydrogen bond acceptor, enabling new interactions with the biological target or solvent molecules.
• pKa and Electronic Distribution: The electronegative nitrogen atom alters the electron density of the ring, which can affect the molecule's acidity/basicity and its metabolic susceptibility.
• Metal Coordination: The pyridyl nitrogen can serve as a ligand for metal ions, which can be exploited for binding to metalloenzymes.

The following workflow outlines the strategic decision-making process for implementing a heterocycle replacement in a research project.

Experimental Protocols & Methodologies

General Workflow for a Heterocycle Replacement Campaign

A systematic approach to 1° scaffold hopping ensures efficient use of resources and a higher probability of success.

• Lead Compound Analysis: Begin with a comprehensive profile of your lead compound, identifying specific deficiencies (e.g., low microsomal stability, poor solubility) [21] [5].
• Pharmacophore Modeling: Define the critical pharmacophoric features (hydrogen bond donors/acceptors, hydrophobic regions, aromatic rings) that must be conserved for biological activity [21] [22].
• Heterocycle Selection: Choose candidate heterocycles based on bioisosteric principles, considering size, shape, and electronic distribution. Computational tools can aid in prescreening candidates [2] [22].
• Synthesis: Employ appropriate synthetic routes to incorporate the new heterocycle. This often requires a different synthetic approach than the parent scaffold [21].
• In Vitro Profiling: Test the new analogs for:
  • Primary Biological Activity: Ensure target potency is retained or improved.
  • Physicochemical Properties: LogP/D, solubility, permeability.
  • Metabolic Stability: Assess using liver microsomes or hepatocytes.
  • Selectivity and Early Toxicity: Screen against common off-targets (e.g., hERG) [21] [5].
• Iterative Optimization: Use the data from the first cycle to inform further rounds of design and synthesis.

A Representative Case: Synthesis of Pyridyl-Substituted Isoindolines

This protocol is adapted from a study investigating the antitumor activity of novel isoindoline derivatives, where phenyl groups were systematically replaced with pyridyl groups [23].

Objective: To synthesize pyridyl-substituted isoindolines (e.g., compounds 3e-3i, 4b, 8c-8e) via the reaction of o-phthalaldehyde with substituted pyridyl-containing amines.

Reagents and Materials:

• o-Phthalaldehyde
• Substituted pyridylamines (e.g., 2-aminopyridine, 3-aminopyridine, 4-aminopyridine)
• Suitable solvent (e.g., methanol, ethanol, dichloromethane)
• Acid catalyst (e.g., acetic acid, p-toluenesulfonic acid) for reactions in acidic medium

Procedure:

• Dissolve o-phthalaldehyde (1.0 equiv) and the desired pyridylamine (1.0-2.0 equiv) in an appropriate solvent (e.g., ethanol).
• The reaction can be performed under varied conditions to obtain different regioisomers or products:
  • Condition A (Neutral/Low Temperature): Stir the reaction mixture at temperatures ranging from 0°C to 25°C for several hours. Monitor the reaction by TLC.
  • Condition B (Acidic/High Temperature): Add a catalytic amount of an acid catalyst (e.g., acetic acid) and heat the reaction mixture under reflux (e.g., 80°C) for a defined period.
• Upon completion, concentrate the reaction mixture under reduced pressure.
• Purify the crude product using standard techniques such as recrystallization or column chromatography to obtain the desired pyridyl-substituted isoindoline as a pure solid.

Key Analytical Data:

• Characterization: Confirm the structure of all final compounds using ( ^1 \text{H} ) NMR, ( ^{13}\text{C} ) NMR, and high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS).
• Biological Evaluation: The antiproliferative activity of the synthesized compounds was assessed against a panel of tumor cell lines (e.g., HepG2). In the referenced study, compound 3g showed a selective effect on the HepG2 cell line at micromolar concentrations [23].

Troubleshooting Guide & FAQ

Q1: Our initial pyridyl analog showed a complete loss of potency. What could be the primary reason? A1: This is often due to a disruption of critical pharmacophore interactions. The nitrogen in the pyridyl ring may:

• Cause Unfavorable Electrostatic Repulsion: If the ring is positioned near a negatively charged region in the binding pocket.
• Alter Tautomeric States: If the parent scaffold relied on a specific tautomeric form for activity.
• Steric Hindrance: While similar in size, the electronic cloud of a pyridyl ring differs and can clash with the protein.
• Troubleshooting Steps:
  • Re-examine your pharmacophore model and docking studies.
  • Synthesize and test analogs with the nitrogen atom at different positions (2-, 3-, or 4-pyridyl) to map the tolerance of the binding site.
  • Consider other, less basic heterocycles like pyrimidine or pyrazine if basicity is suspected to be the issue [2] [5].

Q2: The metabolic stability of our pyridyl analog did not improve as expected. What are other common heterocycle replacements to consider? A2: The table below summarizes alternative heterocycles and their potential impacts on metabolic stability and other properties.

Heterocycle Replacement	Key Property Modulation	Rationale & Application Notes
Phenyl → Pyridyl	↑ Solubility, Alters electronic distribution, May modulate metabolism	The nitrogen can block aromatic oxidation (a common metabolic pathway) or introduce new sites for N-oxidation. The net effect on stability depends on the specific molecule and enzyme system [2].
Phenyl → Pyrimidine	↑ Solubility, ↓ Lipophilicity (LogP), Different metabolic profile	The two nitrogen atoms further increase polarity and can engage in additional hydrogen bonding. Often more metabolically stable than pyridyl due to reduced electron density [2] [5].
Phenyl → (Bridged Heterocycles, e.g., Bicyclo[1.1.1]pentane)	Significant ↓ Lipophilicity, ↑ 3D Character, High metabolic stability	Replaces a flat, aromatic ring with a three-dimensional, aliphatic bioisostere. Highly effective at blocking CYP450-mediated metabolism and reducing planarity-related toxicity [24].
Pyrazole → Imidazole	Alters pKa, H-bonding capacity, and metabolic soft spots	A small change in nitrogen position can significantly shift the molecule's electronic properties and its susceptibility to specific oxidative enzymes [21] [25].

Q3: Our new scaffold is synthetically inaccessible with our current methods. How can we plan better? A3: Prioritize synthetic accessibility (SA) during the design phase.

• Use Computational Tools: Leverage tools like ChemBounce or other commercial software (e.g., BROOD, ReCore) that are explicitly designed to suggest synthetically accessible scaffolds from large, synthesis-validated libraries like ChEMBL [22] [3].
• Retrosynthetic Analysis: Before committing to synthesis, perform a thorough retrosynthetic analysis for the top candidate structures.
• Consult with a Synthetic Chemist: Early collaboration can help identify potential roadblocks and suggest feasible alternatives that still meet the design objectives [22].

Q4: How do we ensure our novel scaffold maintains the same mechanism of action? A4: Confirmation of the mechanism is critical and cannot be assumed.

• Binding Assays: Perform direct binding assays (e.g., SPR) to confirm interaction with the intended target.
• Cellular Pathway Analysis: In cell-based assays, use biomarkers or pathway analysis (e.g., Western blotting for phosphorylation status) to verify that the compound is modulating the expected pathway.
• Rescue Experiments: In a cellular context, demonstrate that the biological effect can be reversed (rescued) by a known substrate or activator of the target.
• Structural Biology: If possible, obtaining a co-crystal structure of the new scaffold with the target protein provides unequivocal proof of the binding mode [21] [3].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Solutions

The following table lists key materials and resources used in heterocycle replacement campaigns.

Research Reagent / Resource	Function & Application in 1° Hopping
Commercial Heterocyclic Building Blocks	A wide variety of pyridyl, pyrimidinyl, and other heterocyclic amines, boronic acids, and halides are essential for efficient synthesis via methods like Suzuki coupling or nucleophilic substitution [23].
ChEMBL Database	A publicly available database of bioactive molecules with drug-like properties. Used to mine for novel scaffolds and validate the potential bioactivity of proposed structures [22] [26].
Computational Tools (e.g., ChemBounce, ScaffoldGVAE)	Open-source or commercial software designed to systematically suggest novel, synthetically accessible scaffolds while preserving pharmacophore geometry and potential activity [22] [26].
Human Liver Microsomes (HLM)	An essential in vitro system for the initial assessment of metabolic stability, identifying primary routes of Phase I metabolism for new heterocyclic analogs [5].
CYP450 Inhibition Assay Kits	Fluorescent or LC-MS/MS-based kits to screen new compounds for inhibition of major cytochrome P450 enzymes, a key early toxicity and drug-drug interaction liability assessment [5].

Case Studies and Data Presentation

Case Study: Discovery of a TTK Inhibitor

A project aiming to discover a Threonine Tyrosine Kinase (TTK) inhibitor provides an excellent example of iterative heterocycle replacement for optimization [5].

• The project started with an imidazo[1,2-a]pyrazine core (Va), which showed good inhibitory activity (IC50 = 1.4 nM).
• A hop to a pyrazolo[1,5-a][1,3,5]triazine core (Vb) maintained potency but suffered from poor dissolution-limiting exposure.
• A subsequent hop to a pyrazolo[1,5-a]pyrimidine core successfully addressed the exposure issues, leading to the clinical candidate CFI-402257, which demonstrated excellent potency and improved drug-like properties [5].

This case highlights how even within a 1° hop, different heterocycles can have dramatic effects on physicochemical and pharmacokinetic parameters.

Quantitative Data from a Pyridyl Replacement Study

The following table summarizes experimental data from a study on phenyl and pyridyl substituted isoindolines, illustrating the tangible biological outcomes of such a replacement [23].

Compound ID	Core Substituent	Antiproliferative Activity (HepG2 Cell Line)	DNA Binding Profile
3a	Phenyl	Selective effect at µM concentrations	Did not bind to DNA
3b	Phenyl	Selective effect at µM concentrations	Did not bind to DNA
3g	Pyridyl	Selective effect at µM concentrations	Not specified for 3g
8c	Pyridyl	Strong, non-selective effect at µM concentrations	Potent DNA intercalator

Key Takeaway: The replacement of phenyl with pyridyl rings generated compounds (3g, 8c) that retained or exhibited enhanced antitumor activity compared to their phenyl counterparts (3a, 3b). Furthermore, the pyridyl substitution led to a diverse mechanism of action, with compound 8c acting as a potent DNA intercalator, while the phenyl compound 3b induced apoptosis without targeting DNA [23]. This underscores how a simple heterocycle swap can not only maintain activity but also alter the compound's mechanism.

Advanced Tools and Computational Approaches

Modern scaffold hopping is heavily supported by computational tools that enable a more systematic and expansive exploration of chemical space. The following diagram illustrates the typical workflow of a computational scaffold hopping tool like ChemBounce.

• Tools like ChemBounce operate by fragmenting an input molecule to identify its core scaffold. This scaffold is then replaced with candidate scaffolds from a vast, curated library derived from synthesis-validated sources like ChEMBL. The newly generated molecules are filtered based on similarity metrics (Tanimoto and electron shape) to ensure the retention of the original molecule's pharmacophore and potential biological activity [22].
• Machine Learning Models such as ScaffoldGVAE use a variational autoencoder based on graph neural networks to explicitly perform scaffold generation and hopping. These models learn to separate the scaffold embedding from the side-chain embedding, allowing for the generation of novel core structures while preserving critical substituents [26].

The integration of these computational methods into the drug discovery workflow significantly accelerates the hit expansion and lead optimization phases, providing medicinal chemists with data-driven suggestions for novel, patentable chemotypes with improved P3 (Pharmacodynamics, Physiochemical, Pharmacokinetic) properties [22] [5] [26].

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: What is a scaffold hop, and how does ring manipulation fit into this strategy? A1: Scaffold hopping is a medicinal chemistry strategy to identify novel compounds with significantly different molecular backbones (scaffolds) while maintaining or improving similar biological activity to a parent molecule [2] [13]. Ring opening and closure is classified as a "2° hop"—a medium-degree change that manipulates the core structure's flexibility by either breaking fused rings into more flexible structures or conjugating linear parts into rigid, fused ring systems [2] [13]. This directly modulates the molecule's physicochemical and pharmacokinetic properties.

Q2: Why would I use ring opening or closure to address metabolic instability? A2: Ring opening and closure is a powerful strategy to mitigate rapid oxidative metabolism, a key hurdle in lead optimization [1]. Ring closure can lock a molecule into its active conformation, reducing the entropic penalty upon binding to its target and often leading to improved potency [2]. Crucially, reducing molecular flexibility by introducing rings can block or shield metabolically labile sites (like electron-rich aromatic systems) from cytochrome P450 enzymes, thereby decreasing metabolic clearance [1].

Q3: Can you provide a real-world example where ring opening improved a drug's profile? A3: The transformation from the potent analgesic Morphine to Tramadol is a classic example of ring opening [2] [13]. By breaking six ring bonds and opening three fused rings, the rigid 'T'-shaped morphine scaffold is converted into the more flexible tramadol. While tramadol is less potent, this scaffold hop resulted in reduced addictive potential and side effects, and significantly improved oral absorption [2].

Q4: What are the key electronic properties to consider when hopping to a new heterocycle? A4: When replacing a ring system to evade metabolism, the electron density is a primary consideration. Cytochrome P450 enzymes typically oxidize electron-rich sites. Therefore, replacing an electron-rich ring (e.g., benzene, pyrrole) with an electron-deficient one (e.g., pyridine, pyrimidine) can reduce metabolic liability [1]. This can be predicted by calculating the energy of the Highest Occupied Molecular Orbital (HOMO); a lower HOMO energy generally correlates with reduced susceptibility to oxidation [1].

Table 1: HOMO Energies and Metabolic Propensity of Common Ring Systems

Ring System	HOMO Energy (eV)	General Metabolic Propensity to P450 Oxidation
Pyrrole	-8.66	High
Benzene	-9.65	Medium
Pyridine	-9.93	Low
Pyrimidine	-10.58	Low

Troubleshooting Guides

Issue 1: Poor Metabolic Stability in Microsomal Assays

Problem: Your lead compound shows rapid degradation in human liver microsome (HLM) stability assays, indicating high intrinsic clearance.

Solution:

• Identify the Soft Spot: First, conduct metabolite identification (MetID) studies using LC-MS/MS to pinpoint the site of oxidation [1].
• Design the Hop: If the soft spot is an electron-rich aromatic ring, consider a scaffold hop.
  • Strategy A - Heterocycle Replacement: Replace the electron-rich ring (e.g., phenyl) with an electron-deficient bioisostere (e.g., pyridyl, pyrimidinyl) to lower HOMO energy and resist oxidation [1]. See Table 1.
  • Strategy B - Ring Closure: If flexibility around the soft spot is the issue, use ring closure to rigidify the structure. This can sterically block the metabolically vulnerable site and reduce the number of possible conformations that expose it to enzymes [2] [13].

Validation: Re-synthesize the new analog and measure its in vitro intrinsic clearance (CL~int~) in HLMs. A successful hop will show a longer half-life (t~1/2~) and lower CL~int~ [1].

Issue 2: Maintaining Target Potency During Scaffold Modification

Problem: After a successful ring opening or closure that improved metabolic stability, the compound's activity against the biological target has dropped significantly.

Solution:

• Pharmacophore Conservation: Ensure the 3D spatial arrangement of key pharmacophore features (e.g., hydrogen bond donors/acceptors, aromatic rings, positive charge centers) is conserved. Use molecular superposition tools to align the new scaffold with the original lead [2] [27].
• Leverage Structural Biology: If a co-crystal structure of the lead with the target is available, use it to guide the design. The new ring system should occupy a similar spatial volume and maintain critical interactions without introducing steric clashes [27].
• Computational Free Energy Calculations: Employ advanced simulation methods like Relative Binding Free Energy (RBFE) calculations. Novel methods using auxiliary restraints can now model the thermodynamic impact of ring opening and closure, providing a more accurate prediction of binding affinity changes before synthesis [28].

Validation: Test the new analog in a target-specific bioassay to determine IC~50~ or K~i~. Potency should be within an acceptable range (e.g., within one order of magnitude) of the original lead.

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Conducting an In Vitro Metabolic Stability Assay

Purpose: To determine the intrinsic metabolic stability of a compound using human liver microsomes (HLMs) [1].

Materials:

• Test compound (e.g., 1 mM stock in DMSO)
• Pooled human liver microsomes (e.g., 0.5 mg/mL final protein concentration)
• NADPH-regenerating system (Solution A: NADP+, glucose-6-phosphate, Solution B: glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase)
• Potassium phosphate buffer (100 mM, pH 7.4)
• Magnesium chloride (MgCl~2~, 10 mM)
• Stopping agent (e.g., acetonitrile with internal standard)
• LC-MS/MS system

Method:

• Incubation Preparation: Pre-incubate HLMs with test compound (e.g., 1 µM) and MgCl~2~ in phosphate buffer at 37°C for 5-10 minutes.
• Initiate Reaction: Start the reaction by adding the pre-warmed NADPH-regenerating system.
• Time Points: At predetermined time points (e.g., 0, 5, 15, 30, 45, 60 minutes), remove an aliquot and quench it with ice-cold stopping agent.
• Sample Analysis: Centrifuge the quenched samples, dilute the supernatant, and analyze by LC-MS/MS.
• Data Analysis: Plot the natural logarithm of the percent parent compound remaining versus time. The slope of the linear regression is -k (elimination rate constant). Calculate half-life (t~1/2~ = 0.693/k) and intrinsic clearance (CL~int~ = (0.693 / t~1/2~) / [microsomal protein concentration]) [1].

Protocol 2: A Computational Workflow for Scaffold Hopping Design

Purpose: To use in silico tools for designing and prioritizing novel scaffolds via ring opening/closure or other hops.

Materials:

• Structure of the original active compound
• Molecular modeling software (e.g., MOE, Schrodinger Suite)
• Virtual screening software (e.g., AnchorQuery for pharmacophore-based screening) [27]
• Relative Binding Free Energy (RBFE) simulation platform (e.g., Amber, OpenMM) [28]

Method:

• Pharmacophore Definition: From the original ligand's binding pose, define the essential pharmacophore features (e.g., hydrogen bond donor/acceptor, aromatic ring, hydrophobic region).
• Virtual Screening: Use a tool like AnchorQuery to screen a large database of readily synthesizable scaffolds (e.g., Multi-Component Reaction libraries) for structures that match your pharmacophore while introducing a novel core [27].
• Docking and Scoring: Dock the top virtual hits back into the target's binding site to assess predicted binding modes and scores.
• Free Energy Perturbation (FEP): For the most promising candidates, run RBFE calculations. For ring transformations, use specialized methods (e.g., auxiliary restraints or soft-bond potentials) to accurately compute the binding free energy change relative to the original compound [28].
• Synthesis Priority: Rank the proposed scaffolds based on a combination of predicted binding affinity, synthetic accessibility, and calculated ADMET properties.

The following diagram illustrates this iterative design and optimization cycle.

Scaffold Hop Optimization Cycle

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Resources for Metabolic Stability and Scaffold Hopping Research

Reagent / Resource	Function / Description	Key Application in Research
Human Liver Microsomes (HLMs)	Subcellular liver fractions containing cytochrome P450 enzymes [1].	In vitro determination of intrinsic metabolic clearance (CL~int~) and metabolite profiling.
NADPH-Regenerating System	Biochemical system to continuously supply NADPH, a crucial cofactor for P450 enzymes [1].	Essential for maintaining enzyme activity during microsomal stability incubations.
Pooled Hepatocytes	Liver cells containing a full complement of drug-metabolizing enzymes and transporters [1].	Provides a more physiologically complete model for hepatic clearance than microsomes alone.
Multi-Component Reaction (MCR) Libraries	Large, synthetically accessible virtual libraries of diverse, drug-like scaffolds [27].	A source of novel chemical matter for virtual scaffold hopping campaigns.
AnchorQuery Software	Computational tool for pharmacophore-based screening of MCR libraries [27].	Identifies new scaffolds that match the 3D pharmacophore of a known active compound.
Relative Binding Free Energy (RBFE)	An alchemical free energy calculation method using molecular dynamics [28].	Accurately predicts the change in binding affinity resulting from a scaffold modification prior to synthesis.

In the strategic framework of scaffold hopping for metabolic stability, the concept of "degrees of hopping" categorizes the structural extent of modification. Peptidomimetics represent a third-degree (3°) hop, characterized by the replacement of peptide backbones with non-peptide moieties that mimic the original structure and function [13] [2]. This approach fundamentally addresses the core limitations of therapeutic peptides—such as poor metabolic stability, low bioavailability, and rapid clearance—by creating novel molecular architectures that retain biological activity while gaining drug-like properties [29].

The transformation from a peptide lead to a peptidomimetic involves a significant structural departure from the parent compound. According to the classification of scaffold-hopping approaches, this constitutes a substantial change that goes beyond simple heterocycle replacements (1° hop) or ring opening/closing (2° hop) [13] [2]. The strategic value of this approach lies in its ability to disrupt protein-protein interactions (PPIs), which are often mediated by extended peptide interfaces and represent challenging yet therapeutically valuable targets [30] [31].

Core Concepts and Mechanisms

The Rationale for Peptidomimetic Design

Native peptides and proteins serve as ideal starting points for drug discovery because they often comprise the native ligands for many therapeutically relevant targets. However, their development as drugs faces significant hurdles:

• Poor Metabolic Stability: Peptide bonds are susceptible to proteolytic cleavage by various enzymes in the gastrointestinal tract, blood, and liver [29]
• Low Oral Bioavailability: High molecular weight and polarity prevent efficient absorption through the intestinal barrier [32]
• Rapid Systemic Clearance: Short in vivo half-lives necessitate frequent administration [29]

Peptidomimetics address these limitations through strategic molecular modifications that transform peptide leads into "drug-like" compounds with enhanced metabolic stability, improved bioavailability, and maintained or enhanced receptor affinity and selectivity [29].

Electronic and Structural Principles

The metabolic stability of peptidomimetics often stems from electronic and structural modifications that reduce susceptibility to oxidative metabolism, particularly by cytochrome P450 enzymes. The underlying principle states that compounds with lower-energy highest occupied molecular orbitals (HOMOs) undergo oxidation less readily [1]. This explains why replacing electron-rich aromatic systems in peptides with electron-deficient heterocycles can significantly increase robustness toward oxidative metabolism while conserving the structural requirements of the pharmacophore [1] [33].

Table 1: Highest Occupied Molecular Orbital (HOMO) Energies of Common Heterocycles

Heterocycle	HOMO Energy (eV)	Electron Density
Pyrrole	-8.66	High
Indole	-8.40	High
Benzene	-9.65	Medium
Pyridine	-9.93	Low
Pyrimidine	-10.58	Low
1H-Tetrazole	-11.41	Very Low

Data adapted from Katritzky et al. as cited in [1]

Experimental Approaches and Methodologies

Structure-Based Design Workflow

The development of peptidomimetics typically follows a rational design approach, as demonstrated in the design of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein inhibitors [30]:

• Complex Analysis: Retrieve the crystal structure of the target protein complex (e.g., SARS-CoV-2-ACE2 complex, PDB ID: 6M17)
• Interface Mapping: Examine interface residues and identify critically essential residues involved in interactions using molecular visualization software (UCSF Chimera, ArgusLab)
• Alanine Scanning: Perform alanine scanning for the binding stretch to validate residue importance
• Peptide Design: Design an inhibitory peptide masking the binding site
• Peptidomimetic Conversion: Use critically interacting residues to design peptidomimetics via pharmacophore similarity-based screening (e.g., pep:MMs:MIMIC server)

This workflow enables researchers to systematically transform peptide-protein interaction data into stable, drug-like peptidomimetic compounds.

Key Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Virtual Screening of Peptidomimetic Libraries

Objective: Identify potential peptidomimetics from virtual libraries based on critically interacting peptide residues [30]

Methodology:

• Submit critically interacting residues to specialized servers (e.g., pep:MMs:MIMIC)
• Generate 200+ pharmacophore similarity-based peptidomimetic conformations
• Prepare 3D structures of peptidomimetics as executable pdbqt files
• Assign suitable protonation state, ionization, and tautomerization at physiological pH 7.2 ± 0.2
• Perform high-throughput virtual screening (HTVS) using docking platforms (LibDock, AutoDock Vina)
• Screen for compounds binding exactly at the target site of the original peptide

Protocol 2: Metabolic Stability Assessment in Liver Microsomes

Objective: Evaluate and compare metabolic stability of lead compounds [18]

Methodology:

• Prepare liver microsomes (human or species-specific) through differential centrifugation
• Incubate test compounds (1-5 μM) with microsomal preparation (0.5-1 mg protein/mL) in appropriate buffer
• Maintain reaction at 37°C with NADPH-regenerating system
• Collect aliquots at predetermined time points (0, 5, 15, 30, 60 minutes)
• Terminate reactions with acetonitrile containing internal standard
• Analyze by LC-MS/MS to determine percent remaining at each time point
• Calculate half-life (t₁/₂) using first-order kinetics when possible

Diagram 1: Peptidomimetic Design and Optimization Workflow

Troubleshooting Guide: Common Experimental Challenges

FAQ 1: How can I improve metabolic stability when my peptidomimetic shows rapid degradation in liver microsomes?

Problem: Lead peptidomimetic demonstrates unacceptably short half-life in metabolic stability assays (<15 minutes), similar to the 3.5-minute half-life observed in l-amino alcohol derivatives before optimization [18].

Solution:

• Employ scaffold hopping: Replace metabolically labile aromatic rings with electron-deficient heterocycles. For instance, replacing a phenyl ring with pyridine can significantly reduce cytochrome P450-mediated oxidation [1] [33]
• Introduce steric hindrance: Incorporate substituents adjacent to metabolically vulnerable sites to block enzymatic access
• Reduce flexibility: Implement conformational restraints through ring formation or other structural constraints to reduce entropy and protect labile bonds
• Strategic fluorination: Introduce fluorine atoms at sites of metabolism to block oxidative pathways

Expected Outcomes: The dihydrooxazole antifungal compounds developed through scaffold hopping demonstrated dramatic improvements in metabolic stability, with half-lives increasing from <5 minutes to >145 minutes in human liver microsomes [18].

FAQ 2: What strategies can enhance cellular permeability of charged peptidomimetics?

Problem: Peptidomimetics with multiple charged groups (e.g., carboxylates) show poor cellular permeability despite good target affinity, as observed with tetrapeptide ETAV targeting PSD-95 PDZ2 [32].

Solution:

• Eliminate unnecessary charged groups: Remove or modify carboxyl groups at non-essential positions while monitoring target affinity
• Introduce hydrophobic groups: Incorporate appropriately sized hydrophobic substituents to occupy binding cavities and enhance membrane penetration
• Employ prodrug approaches: Temporarily mask charged groups with ester or other cleavable protecting groups
• Balance hydrophobicity and polarity: Optimize the logP value while maintaining sufficient aqueous solubility for biological activity

Validation Method: Assess cellular permeability using validated in vitro models (e.g., Caco-2 monolayers) and confirm target engagement in cellular assays [32].

FAQ 3: How can I maintain target affinity while substantially modifying the peptide structure?

Problem: Significant structural modifications aimed at improving stability often result in reduced binding affinity due to loss of critical interactions.

Solution:

• Identify anchor residues: Determine which residues are critical for binding through alanine scanning and maintain these in the mimetic design [30]
• Utilize water-mediated interactions: Preserve or incorporate functional groups that participate in key water-mediated hydrogen bonds, as demonstrated in the 14-3-3/ERα molecular glue optimization [27]
• Employ conformational restriction: Lock flexible peptides into their bioactive conformations to reduce entropy penalty upon binding
• Use computational guidance: Implement pharmacophore-based screening of large virtual libraries (e.g., AnchorQuery with 31+ million compounds) to identify scaffolds with conserved 3D shape and interaction capacity [27]

FAQ 4: What analytical techniques are essential for characterizing peptidomimetic stability?

Problem: Incomplete characterization leads to unexpected metabolic liabilities in later development stages.

Solution:

• Comprehensive metabolite identification: Use LC-MS/MS with fragmentation analysis to identify major metabolites [18]
• Plasma stability assessment: Incubate compounds in plasma (human and relevant species) at 37°C to identify esterase or other hydrolase susceptibilities [32]
• Parallel artificial membrane permeability assay (PAMPA): Evaluate passive membrane permeability early in optimization
• Protein binding measurements: Determine plasma protein binding as it affects free drug concentration and metabolic clearance rates [1]

Table 2: Troubleshooting Peptidomimetic Optimization Challenges

Challenge	Root Cause	Solution Strategies	Validation Assays
Rapid hepatic metabolism	Electron-rich aromatic systems	Replace with electron-deficient heterocycles [1]	Liver microsome stability, metabolite ID
Poor cellular permeability	Excessive polarity/charge	Eliminate charged groups, add hydrophobic substituents [32]	Caco-2 permeability, cellular activity
Proteolytic degradation	Peptide bond susceptibility	Incorporate modified isosteres (e.g., retro-inverso, N-methylation) [29]	Plasma stability, S9 fraction incubation
Reduced target affinity	Loss of critical interactions	Conformational restriction, anchor residue conservation [30]	Binding assays (SPR, TR-FRET), computational docking
Low solubility	High crystallinity/logP	Introduce ionizable groups, reduce crystal packing	Kinetic solubility, thermodynamic solubility

Research Reagent Solutions: Essential Tools for Peptidomimetic Research

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Peptidomimetic Development

Reagent/Resource	Specifications	Research Application	Example Sources
Liver microsomes	Human, pooled multiple donors, 20 mg/mL	In vitro metabolic stability assessment [18]	Commercial suppliers (e.g., Xenotech, Corning)
S9 fractions	Liver homogenate supernatant containing phase I and II enzymes	Comprehensive metabolite identification [1]	Tissue preparation labs, commercial suppliers
NADPH-regenerating system	Glucose-6-phosphate, NADP+, G6PDH	Cofactor supply for cytochrome P450 reactions [18]	Commercial kits (e.g., Promega, Thermo)
AnchorQuery software	Virtual library of 31M+ synthesizable compounds	Pharmacophore-based scaffold hopping [27]	Freely accessible academic resource
pep:MMs:MIMIC server	Pharmacophore similarity-based screening	Generating peptidomimetics from peptide sequences [30]	Online server (mms.dsfarm.unipd.it)
Caco-2 cells	Human colorectal adenocarcinoma cell line	Intestinal permeability prediction [32]	ATCC, commercial cell providers
Discovery Studio/LibDock	Molecular docking platform	Virtual screening of peptidomimetic libraries [30]	BIOVIA (commercial software)
AutoDock Vina	Open-source docking software	Validation of molecular docking results [30]	Open-source academic resource

Diagram 2: Strategic Approaches to Address Peptide Limitations

Case Studies and Data Interpretation

Successful Metabolic Stability Improvement

The development of dihydrooxazole antifungals from l-amino alcohol precursors exemplifies successful metabolic stabilization through scaffold hopping [18]:

Initial Compound: l-amino alcohol derivative with potent antifungal activity but poor metabolic stability (t₁/₂ < 5 minutes in human liver microsomes)

Metabolite Identification: Revealed hydroxylation of phenyl rings as primary metabolic pathway

Scaffold Hop: Designed dihydrooxazole core to maintain pharmacophore while introducing metabolic blockers

Optimized Compound: Dihydrooxazole derivative A33 with maintained antifungal activity (MIC 0.03-0.25 μg/mL) and dramatically improved metabolic stability (t₁/₂ > 145 minutes)

Pharmacokinetic Outcome: High bioavailability (77.69%) and extended half-life (9.35 hours intravenous) in rat studies

Balancing Stability and Target Engagement

The development of PSD-95 PDZ2 inhibitors demonstrates the successful optimization of peptidomimetics for neurological targets [32]:

Starting Point: Tetrapeptide ETAV with moderate affinity (Kᵢ ≈ 20 μM) but poor proteolytic stability and cellular permeability

Rational Design: Systematic modification of P₀, P₁, P₂, and P₃ positions with unnatural amino acids

Key Optimization:

• Eliminated carboxyl group at P₃ position to enhance cellular permeability
• Introduced hydrophobic groups to occupy Val178/His225 cavity
• Modified P₂ position to enhance interactions with His225

Optimal Candidate: Compound 32-2 with excellent plasma stability, cellular permeability, neuroprotective effects in vitro (58.31% cell viability at 10 μM), and significant reduction in cerebral infarct volume in tMCAO model

Table 4: Quantitative Comparison of Peptide to Peptidomimetic Optimization

Parameter	Initial Peptide/Compound	Optimized Peptidomimetic	Fold Improvement
Metabolic stability (t₁/₂ in liver microsomes)	3.5 minutes [18]	>145 minutes [18]	>41x
Plasma stability	Rapid degradation (minutes) [32]	Stable (>7000 minutes for some analogs) [32]	>100x
Cellular permeability (Papp)	Low (<1 × 10⁻⁶ cm/s) [32]	Significantly improved	3-5x (qualitative)
In vivo half-life	Short (minutes-hours)	9.35 hours (intravenous) [18]	10-100x
Oral bioavailability	<5% (typical for peptides)	77.69% [18]	>15x

The strategic implementation of peptidomimetics as a third-degree hop in scaffold hopping represents a powerful approach to overcome the inherent limitations of therapeutic peptides while maintaining their biological activity. The case studies and methodologies presented demonstrate that rational design, guided by structural insights and comprehensive ADMET assessment, can yield compounds with dramatically improved metabolic stability and drug-like properties.

Future directions in peptidomimetic research will likely involve more sophisticated computational design methods, including AI-driven scaffold generation and optimization [27]. Additionally, the integration of multi-component reactions (MCRs) offers promising avenues for rapidly generating diverse, drug-like peptidomimetic scaffolds with complex three-dimensional architectures [27]. As these methodologies mature, peptidomimetics will continue to play an increasingly important role in targeting challenging protein-protein interactions and addressing unmet medical needs across therapeutic areas.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: What is the fundamental difference between topology-based hopping and other scaffold hopping categories? Topology-based hopping (classified as a 4° hop) focuses on identifying or designing core structures with significantly different molecular frameworks that maintain similar spatial arrangements of key pharmacophoric features. Unlike simpler heterocycle replacements (1° hop) or ring opening/closure (2° hop), topology-based hops aim for high structural novelty by exploring diverse ring connectivities and shapes, often resulting in scaffolds that are synthetically distinct from the original parent molecule [2] [13].

Q2: Why does my topology-hopped compound, which shows excellent shape similarity, fail to maintain biological activity? High shape similarity is necessary but not sufficient for retaining biological activity. This common issue can arise from several factors:

• Inaccurate Pharmacophore Model: The generated scaffold may not perfectly preserve the directionality of hydrogen bond donors/acceptors or the precise geometry of hydrophobic features [2].
• Synthetic Accessibility: The novel topology might be challenging to synthesize, leading to impurities or incorrect stereochemistry in the final compound that affect binding [22].
• Unaccounted Protein Flexibility: The target protein's binding pocket might have flexibility that wasn't considered in rigid molecular docking, causing the new scaffold to induce unfavorable conformational changes [34].

Q3: What computational tools are available specifically for topology-based scaffold hopping? Several computational frameworks facilitate topology-based hopping. The table below summarizes key tools and their applications:

Tool Name	Methodology	Key Application in Topology-Based Hopping
ChemBounce [22]	Curated scaffold library & shape similarity	Replaces core scaffolds using a library of 3+ million fragments from ChEMBL, evaluating Tanimoto and electron shape similarities.
ScaffoldGVAE [26]	Graph-based Variational Autoencoder	Generates novel molecular scaffolds via a deep learning model that separates and recombines scaffold and side-chain embeddings.
Tencent iDrug [17]	Web-based platform	Allows users to input a molecule and specify a scaffold to be replaced, generating novel lead compounds.
Molecular Dynamics (MD) Simulations [34]	Dynamics & stability analysis	Assesses the stability and interaction dynamics of protein-ligand complexes with new scaffolds over time (e.g., 500 ns simulations).

Q4: How can I validate that a topology-hopped compound is suitable for metabolic stability research? Validation should be multi-faceted:

• In Silico ADMET Prediction: Use tools like ADMETlab 2.0 to predict properties such as cytochrome P450 interactions and metabolic stability early in the design process [34].
• Electronic Property Analysis: Perform Density Functional Theory (DFT) calculations to determine the HOMO-LUMO gap. A larger gap can indicate higher electronic stability and potentially lower susceptibility to oxidative metabolism [1] [34].
• In Vitro Metabolic Assays: Experimentally test metabolic stability in human liver microsomes or S9 fractions to measure the half-life ((t{1/2})) and calculate intrinsic clearance ((CL{int})) [1].

Troubleshooting Guides

Low Structural Novelty in Generated Scaffolds

Problem: Your scaffold hopping algorithm consistently produces scaffolds that are structurally too similar to the original query.

Solutions:

• Diversify the Scaffold Library: Use a larger and more diverse source for scaffold replacement. For instance, ChemBounce leverages a curated library of over 3.2 million unique scaffolds derived from the ChEMBL database, which helps explore a broader chemical space [22].
• Adjust Similarity Constraints: Loosen the constraints on 2D similarity (e.g., lower the Tanimoto similarity threshold) while placing more emphasis on 3D electron shape similarity to prioritize topological novelty over atom-by-atom correspondence [22].
• Employ Generative AI: Utilize deep learning models like ScaffoldGVAE, which is specifically designed for scaffold generation and hopping. Its variational autoencoder architecture maps scaffolds to a Gaussian mixture distribution in latent space, enabling the generation of novel and synthetically accessible core structures that are topologically distinct [26].

Poor Synthetic Accessibility of Hopped Scaffolds

Problem: The proposed topologically novel scaffolds are highly complex, making their synthesis impractical, which hinders experimental validation.

Solutions:

• Incorporate Synthetic Accessibility (SA) Scoring: Integrate SA score evaluation directly into the generation pipeline. Tools like ChemBounce are designed to prioritize fragments with high synthetic accessibility from synthesis-validated libraries [22].
• Apply Structural Filters: During post-generation filtering, implement rules to discard scaffolds with overly complex ring systems, too many stereocenters, or functional groups known to be synthetically challenging [26].
• Leverage Retrosynthetic Analysis: Use retrosynthetic planning software to analyze the proposed novel scaffolds and identify viable synthetic routes before committing to laboratory synthesis.

Loss of Biological Activity Despite Good Shape Overlap

Problem: The new scaffold aligns well with the original molecule's 3D shape but shows a significant drop in potency.

Solutions:

• Refine the Pharmacophore Model: Re-evaluate the critical intermolecular interactions (hydrogen bonds, ionic interactions, π-π stacking) between the original ligand and the target protein. Ensure the new scaffold can satisfy these essential interactions, not just overall shape [2] [13].
• Validate with Advanced Docking and Simulations: Go beyond static docking. Use molecular dynamics (MD) simulations (e.g., for 500 ns) to assess the stability of the protein-ligand complex. A stable complex with low Root-Mean-Square Deviation (RMSD) and Root-Mean-Square Fluctuation (RMSF) is a positive indicator. Analyze specific interactions of key residues over the simulation time [34].
• Check Electronic Properties: Perform quantum chemical calculations (e.g., DFT) to compare frontier molecular orbitals. A significant alteration in the HOMO-LUMO landscape of the new scaffold might affect key electronic interactions with the protein [34].

Experimental Protocols

Computational Workflow for Topology-Based Hopping

The following diagram illustrates a comprehensive protocol for identifying novel scaffolds through topology-based hopping.

Diagram Title: Computational Topology Hopping Workflow

Detailed Protocol:

• Input Preparation:

  • Provide the known active molecule as a SMILES string or a 3D structure file (SDF). If using a SMILES, generate multiple 3D conformers [17].

• Scaffold Identification:

  • Use algorithms like ScaffoldGraph with the HierS methodology to systematically decompose the input molecule. This process identifies the core ring systems (scaffolds) by recursively removing side chains and linkers [22] [26].

• Topology-Based Replacement:

  • Tool-specific Execution:
    • ChemBounce: Run the command-line tool, specifying the input SMILES, output directory, and desired number of structures. It replaces the query scaffold with topologically diverse candidates from its ChEMBL-derived library [22].
    • ScaffoldGVAE: Use this deep learning model to generate novel scaffolds in a latent space designed for scaffold hopping, then decode them back into molecular structures [26].
    • Tencent iDrug: Upload the molecule, manually define or draw the scaffold to be replaced, and submit the task for the platform to generate novel leads [17].

• 3D Conformer Generation & Alignment:

  • Generate low-energy 3D conformers for the newly proposed molecules.
  • Superimpose them onto the original active molecule using flexible alignment software to evaluate the conservation of the overall shape and pharmacophore geometry [2].

• Multi-Parameter In Silico Evaluation:

  • Shape Similarity: Calculate the Electron Shape similarity score (e.g., using ODDT Python library) to ensure the 3D volume and charge distribution are conserved. A high score is critical [22].
  • Pharmacophore Overlap: Verify that key features (e.g., hydrogen bond donors/acceptors, aromatic rings, hydrophobic centers) are maintained in their spatial orientation.
  • ADMET Prediction: Use platforms like ADMETlab 2.0 to predict absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and toxicity profiles early on [34].
  • Drug-likeness: Calculate Quantitative Estimate of Drug-likeness (QED) to filter out compounds with poor physicochemical properties [22].

• Synthetic Accessibility (SA) Filter:

  • Apply an SA score filter to remove generated compounds that are predicted to be prohibitively difficult or expensive to synthesize [22] [26].

• Advanced Binding Mode Analysis:

  • Dock the top-ranking, synthetically accessible candidates into the target protein's binding site (e.g., using AutoDock Vina). Analyze the binding poses to confirm that the novel scaffold engages in key interactions with residues known to be important for activity [34].

• Stability and Dynamics Assessment:

  • For the final few candidates, perform more resource-intensive calculations:
    • Density Functional Theory (DFT): Calculate the HOMO-LUMO gap (in eV) using quantum chemistry libraries (e.g., PySCF). A larger gap often correlates with higher stability, which is desirable for metabolic robustness [1] [34].
    • Molecular Dynamics (MD) Simulations: Run simulations (e.g., 500 ns using Desmond) to evaluate the stability of the protein-ligand complex over time. Assess metrics like RMSD and RMSF to ensure the complex remains stable and the ligand does not drift from its initial binding pose [34].

Experimental Validation for Metabolic Stability

Objective: To experimentally determine the metabolic stability of topology-hopped compounds, specifically assessing their resistance to cytochrome P450-mediated oxidation.

Key Research Reagents and Materials:

Reagent/Material	Function in Experiment
Human Liver Microsomes (HLM)	Subcellular fraction containing cytochrome P450 enzymes; primary system for evaluating oxidative metabolism [1].
NADPH Regenerating System	Cofactor required for P450 enzyme activity; essential for the reaction to proceed.
Test Compound	The novel topology-hopped compound whose metabolic stability is being measured.
LC-MS/MS System	Analytical platform to separate the parent compound from its metabolites and quantify the amount of parent remaining over time [1].
Positive Control (e.g., Verapamil)	A compound with well-characterized high clearance, used to validate the assay performance.

Detailed Procedure:

• Incubation Setup:

  • Prepare incubation mixtures containing human liver microsomes (e.g., 0.5 mg/mL protein), the test compound (e.g., 1 µM), and a NADPH regenerating system in a suitable buffer (e.g., phosphate buffer, pH 7.4).
  • Include control incubations without NADPH to account for non-enzymatic degradation.

• Reaction and Sampling:

  • Start the reaction by adding the NADPH regenerating system and incubate at 37°C.
  • At predetermined time points (e.g., 0, 5, 15, 30, 45, 60 minutes), withdraw aliquots from the incubation mixture and quench the reaction with an equal volume of ice-cold acetonitrile.

• Sample Analysis:

  • Centrifuge the quenched samples to precipitate proteins.
  • Analyze the supernatant using LC-MS/MS to quantify the peak area of the parent compound.

• Data Analysis and Calculation:

  • Plot the natural logarithm of the parent compound concentration (or peak area) remaining versus time. The slope of the linear phase of this plot is the elimination rate constant, ( k ).
  • Calculate the in vitro half-life: ( t_{1/2} = \frac{0.693}{k} ).
  • Calculate the intrinsic clearance: ( CL{int} = \frac{0.693}{t{1/2}} \times \frac{\text{incubation volume}}{\text{microsomal protein}} ).

Interpretation: A longer half-life (( t{1/2} )) and a lower intrinsic clearance (( CL{int} )) indicate a more metabolically stable compound. Successful topology-hopped compounds should show improved metabolic stability compared to the lead molecule while retaining potency [1].

What is the core problem this case study addresses? This case study addresses a common critical path problem in antifungal drug discovery: lead compounds with high in vitro potency but unacceptably low metabolic stability. The featured l-amino alcohol and 5-phenylthiophene derivatives exhibited excellent antifungal activity but had half-lives of less than 5 minutes and 18.6 minutes, respectively, in human liver microsomes, precluding their further development [35] [36].

What is the proposed chemical solution? The implemented solution was a scaffold hopping strategy. The flexible amide fragment in the original lead compounds was replaced with a more rigid 4-phenyl-4,5-dihydrooxazole scaffold [35] [36]. This strategy aimed to:

• Block metabolic soft spots targeted by cytochrome P450 enzymes [35].
• Reduce conformational flexibility, locking the molecule into its bioactive conformation and reducing non-productive metabolism [36].
• Maintain key pharmacophore elements essential for binding to the fungal target, lanosterol 14α-demethylase (CYP51).

The diagram below illustrates this strategic rationale.

Antifungal Activity and Metabolic Stability Data

The scaffold hop successfully generated novel dihydrooxazole derivatives with significantly improved profiles. The following tables summarize the key quantitative results for the most promising compounds.

Table 1: In Vitro Antifungal Activity (MIC in μg/mL) [35] [36]

Compound	C. albicans	C. tropicalis	C. krusei	Fluconazole-Resistant Strains
Original Lead	≤ 0.03	≤ 0.03	0.06	Not Reported
A33	0.06	0.03	0.03	Excellent activity against 7 tested strains [36]
22a	0.03–0.06	0.03–0.06	0.03–0.06	Excellent activity against 7 tested strains [36]
Fluconazole	>64	>64	>64	(Resistant Control)

Table 2: Metabolic Stability and Pharmacokinetic Parameters [35] [36]

Parameter	Original Lead	Compound A33	Compound 22a
Human Liver Microsome T½	< 5 min [35]	> 145 min	70.5 min
Rat Half-life (IV)	Not Reported	9.35 h	4.44 h
Oral Bioavailability	Not Reported	77.69%	15.22%

Experimental Protocols

Protocol: In Vitro Antifungal Susceptibility Testing (Broth Microdilution)

Purpose: To determine the Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) of compounds against susceptible and resistant fungal pathogens [36].

Materials:

• Strains: C. albicans (SC5314), C. tropicalis, C. krusei, and clinical Fluconazole-resistant isolates [35] [36].
• Media: RPMI 1640 broth, buffered to pH 7.0 with MOPS.
• Equipment: 96-well microtiter plates, multichannel pipettes, plate reader.

Procedure:

• Prepare a stock solution of the test compound in DMSO (typically ≤1% final concentration).
• Perform twofold serial dilutions of the compound directly in the broth across the 96-well plate.
• Prepare a fungal inoculum suspension adjusted to a final density of 0.5-2.5 x 10³ CFU/mL in each well.
• Incubate the plates at 35°C for 24-48 hours (depending on the strain growth rate).
• The MIC endpoint is defined as the lowest concentration that visually inhibits 100% of fungal growth compared to the drug-free control well.
• For Minimum Fungicidal Concentration (MFC), plate broth from clear wells onto SDA plates to determine the concentration that kills ≥99.9% of the inoculum [36].

Protocol: Metabolic Stability Assay in Liver Microsomes

Purpose: To evaluate the metabolic stability of compounds by measuring their half-life (T½) in human liver microsomes [35].

Materials:

• Reagents: Human liver microsomes, NADPH regenerating system, Magnesium chloride, Phosphate buffer.
• Equipment: Thermostated water bath, centrifuge, LC-MS/MS system.

Procedure:

• Pre-incubate the microsomal suspension with the test compound at 37°C for 5-10 minutes.
• Initiate the reaction by adding the NADPH regenerating system.
• At predetermined time points (e.g., 0, 5, 15, 30, 60 minutes), withdraw an aliquot and quench the reaction with an equal volume of ice-cold acetonitrile.
• Centrifuge the quenched samples to precipitate proteins.
• Analyze the supernatant using LC-MS/MS to determine the remaining concentration of the parent compound over time.
• Calculate the half-life (T½) from the slope of the linear regression of the natural logarithm of the concentration versus time.

Protocol: In Vivo Pharmacokinetic Study in SD Rats

Purpose: To determine the pharmacokinetic profile, including half-life and oral bioavailability, of lead compounds in a rodent model [35] [36].

Materials:

• Animals: Sprague-Dawley (SD) rats.
• Equipment: Catheters for intravenous administration, gavage needles for oral administration, LC-MS/MS system for bioanalysis.

Procedure:

• Administer the test compound to rats via intravenous (IV) and oral (PO) routes in a crossover design with a washout period.
• Collect blood samples at serial time points post-dose (e.g., 0.083, 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 24 hours).
• Process plasma from blood samples by protein precipitation.
• Analyze plasma samples using a validated LC-MS/MS method to determine the concentration of the parent compound.
• Use non-compartmental analysis to calculate PK parameters: half-life (T½), area under the curve (AUC), clearance (CL), and volume of distribution (Vd).
• Calculate oral bioavailability (F%) using the formula: F% = (AUCₚₒ × Doseᵢᵥ) / (AUCᵢᵥ × Doseₚₒ) × 100.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Reagents and Materials for Scaffold Hopping & Evaluation

Reagent / Material	Function in the Experiment
Human Liver Microsomes	In vitro system to predict human metabolic stability and identify rapid Phase I metabolism [35].
NADPH Regenerating System	Cofactor required for cytochrome P450 enzyme activity in metabolic stability assays [35].
RPMI 1640/MOPS Medium	Standardized broth for antifungal susceptibility testing to ensure reproducible MIC results [36].
Fluconazole-Resistant Strains	Critical for demonstrating the ability of new compounds to overcome common clinical resistance mechanisms [36].
Scaffold Hopping Strategy	A rational drug design approach to replace a molecule's core structure to improve properties while maintaining activity [35] [4] [21].
LC-MS/MS System	Gold-standard instrumentation for quantifying parent drug concentration in metabolic and pharmacokinetic studies [35].

Troubleshooting FAQs

Q1: Our lead compound has excellent MIC but very low microsomal stability. What is the first step in diagnosing the problem? A: The first step is in vitro metabolite identification. As performed in the case study, incubate your lead compound with liver microsomes and NADPH, then use LC-MS/MS to identify the major metabolites [35]. The ion peaks and fragment patterns will reveal the metabolic soft spots (e.g., hydroxylation of a specific phenyl ring), providing a direct structural target for your scaffold hop or other modification.

Q2: After a scaffold hop, the metabolic stability improved, but the antifungal activity dropped significantly. What could be the cause? A: This indicates that the new scaffold is likely disrupting key interactions with the biological target (e.g., CYP51). To resolve this:

• Conduct Molecular Docking: Dock your new, less active compound into the target's active site (e.g., using PDB ID: 4UYM for A. fumigatus CYP51) and compare its binding mode to the original lead [36]. This can reveal lost hydrogen bonds or hydrophobic contacts.
• Check Scaffold Rigidity: The dihydrooxazole ring introduces conformational restraint. Verify that this locked conformation does not cause steric clash within the narrower hydrophobic cavities of certain fungal species [36].
• Iterate Design: Use the docking results to guide further SAR. Small adjustments to substituents on the phenyl ring of the dihydrooxazole (e.g., A33, 22a) can often recover potency while preserving stability [35] [36].

Q3: How do we decide between different degrees of scaffold hops (e.g., heterocycle replacement vs. ring opening/closure)? A: The choice depends on the severity of the problem and the location of the metabolic soft spot.

• For localized metabolism: A 1° (heterocyclic replacement) might suffice, such as swapping one heterocycle for another to block oxidation [21].
• For core flexibility: If the primary issue is a flexible, metabolically labile linker (as in this case study), a 2° (ring opening/closure) hop is ideal. Converting a flexible amide into a rigid dihydrooxazole ring is a classic example that reduces non-productive conformations and blocks hydrolysis [36] [21].
• Start with the simplest hypothesis-driven hop and use computational tools (e.g., shape matching, pharmacophore modeling) to propose and prioritize more significant changes [4] [21].

Q4: Our new scaffold compound shows high protein binding in plasma, impacting its free concentration. How can this be addressed? A: High plasma protein binding is a common distribution challenge.

• Measurement: First, confirm the unbound fraction using methods like equilibrium dialysis.
• Structural Modification: To reduce binding, consider introducing ionizable or polar groups (e.g., carboxylic acids, additional amines) at positions that do not compromise antifungal activity. This can decrease hydrophobic interactions with plasma proteins like albumin.
• Balance is Key: Remember that while a lower bound fraction increases free drug, it may also accelerate clearance. The goal is to find an optimal balance [34].

Q5: The synthetic route to our dihydrooxazole derivative is low-yielding. Are there common pitfalls in this synthesis? A: The synthesis of 4,5-dihydrooxazoles often involves cyclization of an amino alcohol precursor.

• Key Intermediate Purity: Ensure the purity of the l-amino alcohol intermediate. Impurities can carry over and inhibit the cyclization reaction.
• Cyclization Conditions: The cyclization typically requires a dehydrating agent (e.g., 2,2-dimethoxypropane in acetone) [36]. Confirm the reaction is moisture-free and that fresh, high-quality reagents are used.
• Monitoring: Use TLC or LC-MS to monitor the reaction progress closely. If the reaction stalls, exploring alternative cyclization conditions (e.g., different solvents or catalysts) may be necessary.

FAQs and Troubleshooting Guides

Q1: Why is my virtual screening failing to find novel scaffolds, only returning compounds very similar to my known active?

This is a common issue often stemming from an over-reliance on traditional 2D fingerprint-based similarity methods.

• Potential Cause 1: Limited by 2D Molecular Representation. Traditional 2D fingerprints, like ECFP, are excellent at identifying structurally similar compounds but inherently struggle to recognize scaffolds that are structurally different yet functionally equivalent [4].
• Solution: Transition to 3D shape and electrostatic potential-based screening. Tools like ROCS and its AI-accelerated successor ROCS X can identify molecules that share similar 3D characteristics and pharmacophores but possess distinct 2D scaffolds, a process known as topology-based hopping [37] [2] [13]. AI platforms like OpenVS integrate these 3D principles with active learning to efficiently explore vast chemical spaces for novel scaffolds [38].
• Troubleshooting Protocol:
  • Take your known active compound and generate multiple low-energy 3D conformers.
  • Define the key pharmacophore features (e.g., hydrogen bond donors/acceptors, hydrophobic regions, charged groups).
  • Use a 3D similarity tool (ROCS X) to screen a diverse library, prioritizing molecules based on 3D shape and feature overlap (Tanimoto Combo score) rather than 2D fingerprint similarity.
  • Use an AI-driven method like RosettaVS's flexible docking protocol to validate the binding pose of top hits, ensuring the novel scaffold can adopt a similar binding mode [38].

Q2: How can I use virtual screening to specifically improve the metabolic stability of a lead compound?

This is a primary application of scaffold hopping in lead optimization. The strategy involves replacing oxidation-prone, electron-rich scaffolds with more robust, electron-deficient ones [1].

• Potential Cause 1: Rapid oxidative metabolism by Cytochrome P450 enzymes on electron-rich aromatic systems.
• Solution: Employ a scaffold-hopping strategy focused on heterocycle replacement [1] [2] [18]. The core principle is to replace an oxidation-labile ring with a bioisostere that maintains the pharmacophore but has a lower-energy Highest Occupied Molecular Orbital (HOMO), making it less susceptible to oxidation [1].
• Experimental Protocol for Metabolic Stability-Driven Hopping:
  • Identify the Metabolic Hotspot: Conduct in vitro metabolite identification studies using liver microsomes or S9 fractions to pinpoint the site of metabolism on your lead compound [1].
  • Design Bioisosteres: Replace the oxidation-prone ring (e.g., phenyl, pyrrole) with an electron-deficient heterocycle (e.g., pyridine, pyrimidine, pyrazine). Refer to HOMO energy tables for guidance [1].
  • Virtual Screening & Synthesis: Screen a virtual library containing these designed bioisosteres using your VS platform or synthesize a focused set of candidates.
  • Validate Experimentally: Test the new analogs in:
    • In vitro Metabolic Stability Assay: Use human or rat liver microsomes to measure the half-life (t₁/₂) and intrinsic clearance (CLᵢₙₜ) [1] [18]. A successful hop will show a significantly increased t₁/₂.
    • Target Affinity Assay: Confirm that the new scaffold retains potency against your biological target.

Q3: My AI model for molecular generation produces invalid structures or loses the core scaffold. How can I improve this?

This indicates a problem with the model's ability to enforce chemical rules and structural constraints.

• Potential Cause 1: The AI model is not properly constrained to guarantee scaffold retention.
• Solution: Utilize specialized generative models designed explicitly for scaffold hopping [16]. These models use various control strategies to ensure the core structure is preserved throughout the generation process.
• Troubleshooting Guide:
  • Problem: Generated molecules are invalid or violate valency rules.
    • Fix: Use a model that incorporates valency checks or employs a grammar (like SELFIES) that guarantees valid structures [4] [16].
  • Problem: The core scaffold is lost or altered during generation.
    • Fix: Implement a graph-based VAE or diffusion model that treats the scaffold as a fixed, non-modifiable subgraph. The generation process then only adds atoms or functional groups to this fixed core, ensuring its retention [16].
  • Problem: The generated molecules have poor drug-like properties.
    • Fix: Use Reinforcement Learning (RL) or property-conditional generation. The model can be fine-tuned with reward functions that penalize undesirable properties (e.g., high logP) and reward desirable ones (e.g., metabolic stability, target affinity) [16].

Q4: What are the key differences in data requirements between traditional and AI-driven virtual screening?

AI-driven methods, while powerful, have more stringent data quality requirements than traditional similarity-based searches.

• Solution: A data-centric approach is critical for AI success [39]. The performance of an AI model is dictated by four pillars: data representation, quality, quantity, and composition.
• Data Comparison Table:

Factor	Traditional VS (e.g., 2D Similarity)	AI-Driven VS (e.g., Deep Learning)
Data Quantity	Can work with a single known active ligand.	Requires large, diverse datasets of active and inactive compounds for training [39].
Data Quality	Relatively tolerant of noise.	Highly sensitive; label errors in training data (e.g., misclassified actives/inactives) significantly degrade performance [39].
Data Composition	Not applicable for simple similarity searches.	The ratio of active to inactive compounds in the training set is critical. Imbalanced data can lead to models with high false negative or false positive rates [39].
Molecular Representation	Relies on predefined fingerprints (ECFP) or descriptors.	Can learn representations directly from data (e.g., SMILES strings, molecular graphs), but performance is best with optimized representations [4] [39].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Materials

Table: Key Resources for Virtual Screening and Scaffold Hopping Experiments

Item	Function & Application in Research
Liver Microsomes (Human/Rat)	Subcellular fraction used for in vitro metabolic stability assays (t₁/₂, CLᵢₙₜ) to identify metabolic hotspots and validate new scaffolds [1] [18].
S9 Liver Fraction	Contains both cytochrome P450s and conjugative enzymes, providing a more complete in vitro model for metabolite identification studies [1].
Cultured Hepatocytes	Intact liver cells used for a more physiologically relevant assessment of metabolic stability and toxicity [1].
Orion Molecular Design Platform	A comprehensive computational environment (e.g., from Cadence) that integrates tools for molecular design, conformer generation (OMEGA), and virtual screening (ROCS) [37].
AI-Accelerated Screening Platform (e.g., OpenVS, TADAM)	High-performance software that uses AI and active learning to screen billion-member compound libraries in a feasible timeframe, often leveraging HPC clusters [38] [40].
Benchmark Dataset (e.g., DUD-E, CASF)	Curated public datasets used to validate and benchmark the performance of virtual screening protocols and scoring functions [38] [39].

Workflow Diagram: AI-Driven Scaffold Hopping for Metabolic Stability

Overcoming Challenges and Optimizing Scaffold-Hopped Compounds

Balancing Metabolic Stability with Target Potency and Selectivity

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

FAQ 1: What is the primary strategic advantage of using scaffold hopping to improve metabolic stability?

Scaffold hopping is a design strategy that modifies the central core structure of a known bioactive molecule to create novel compounds while aiming to retain key pharmacophoric motifs essential for biological activity [2] [41]. Its primary advantage in metabolic stability is the ability to replace metabolically labile, electron-rich aromatic rings (e.g., benzene) with more robust, electron-deficient heterocycles (e.g., pyridine, pyrimidine) [42]. This electronic tuning makes the core scaffold less susceptible to oxidation by cytochrome P450 enzymes, a major route of metabolic clearance, without necessarily compromising target binding affinity [42] [41].

FAQ 2: How do I determine if my compound has a metabolic stability issue that needs addressing?

Common indicators of metabolic instability emerge from in vitro assays conducted during lead optimization. Key parameters to monitor include:

• Short half-life (t_1/2): A short in vitro half-life in liver fractions indicates rapid degradation [43].
• High intrinsic clearance (CL_int): High clearance values from assays using liver microsomes, hepatocytes, or S9 fractions predict rapid elimination in vivo [42] [44] [43]. A significant drop in "percent remaining" of the parent compound over time in these assays flags a metabolic liability that requires intervention, such as scaffold hopping [42] [45].

FAQ 3: What are the common types of scaffold hopping, and when should I use them?

Scaffold hopping approaches are categorized based on the degree of structural change [2] [41]:

Hop Category	Description	Primary Application
Heterocycle Replacement (1° hop)	Swapping carbon atoms and heteroatoms in a ring (e.g., phenyl to pyridyl) [41].	Addressing specific metabolic soft spots on a ring while making minimal structural changes [42].
Ring Opening or Closure (2° hop)	Breaking bonds to open fused rings or forming new bonds to create rigid, fused ring systems [2].	Drastically altering the scaffold to improve properties; ring closure can reduce flexibility and increase potency [2].
Peptidomimetics	Replacing peptide backbones with non-peptide moieties [2].	Improving the metabolic stability and drug-like properties of bioactive peptides [2].
Topology-Based Hopping	Using computational methods to generate novel cores that present key pharmacophores in 3D space [16].	Discovering highly novel chemotypes with significant structural differences from the starting point [16].

FAQ 4: Can improving metabolic stability through scaffold hopping negatively impact my compound's potency or selectivity?

Yes, this is a central challenge. Modifying the core scaffold can alter the molecule's geometry and electronic distribution, potentially disrupting key interactions with the target protein [42]. To mitigate this:

• Employ Matched Pairwise Analysis: Systematically compare properties between the original and hopped scaffold to understand the impact of the change [42].
• Utilize 3D Pharmacophore Models: Ensure the new scaffold maintains the spatial orientation of critical functional groups needed for target binding [2] [46].
• Iterative Design: Be prepared for several cycles of synthesis and testing to fine-tune the new scaffold, balancing metabolic stability with potency and selectivity [41].

Troubleshooting Guides

Problem 1: Rapid Microsomal Clearance of a Potent Compound

Symptoms: High intrinsic clearance (CL_int) and short half-life (t_1/2) in human liver microsome (HLM) assays [42] [45].

Solution Strategy:

• Identify the Metabolic Soft Spot: Conduct metabolite identification (MetID) studies using LC-MS/MS to pinpoint the site of oxidation on your molecule [42].
• Apply Heterocycle Replacement (1° Hop): If the soft spot is an electron-rich aromatic ring, replace it with an electron-deficient heterocycle. The table below lists common replacements and their electronic properties (HOMO energy), which correlate with susceptibility to oxidation [42].

Original Ring	HOMO Energy (eV)	Potential Replacement Ring	HOMO Energy (eV)	Rationale
Benzene	-9.65	Pyridine	-9.93	Lower HOMO = less prone to oxidation [42].
Indole	-8.40	Benzimidazole	-9.00	Significant reduction in HOMO energy [42].
Pyrrole	-8.66	Pyrazole	-9.71	Introducing nitrogen atoms decreases electron density [42].

• Test and Iterate: Synthesize the new analog and re-run the HLM stability assay. Monitor for any loss of potency in a functional assay [43].

Problem 2: Formation of Reactive Metabolites

Symptoms: Detection of glutathione (GSH) conjugates or other evidence of reactive species in trapping studies, raising toxicity concerns [42].

Solution Strategy:

• Block the Metabolic Pathway: Use scaffold hopping to block the specific metabolic activation. For instance, replacing a phenyl ring with a pyridyl ring can prevent the formation of a reactive epoxide or quinone-imine metabolite [42].
• Change the Scaffold Topology: A more significant (2° or topology-based) scaffold hop can remove the structural motif responsible for the bioactivation altogether, while preserving the essential pharmacophore for target engagement [16] [41].

Problem 3: Poor Aqueous Solubility in a New, Metabolically Stable Scaffold

Symptoms: The new scaffold-hopped compound shows improved metabolic stability but has low solubility, hindering in vivo testing [41].

Solution Strategy:

• Incorporate Solubilizing Heteroatoms: During the heterocycle replacement step, choose a new ring that contains hydrogen bond acceptors/donors (e.g., pyrimidine, pyrazine) to improve aqueous solubility [2] [41].
• Strategic Functionalization: Introduce solubilizing groups (e.g., small polar substituents, amines) at positions on the new scaffold that do not critical for target binding [41].

Essential Experimental Protocols & Workflows

Protocol 1: Conducting an In Vitro Metabolic Stability Assay using Liver Microsomes

This protocol is a cornerstone for identifying metabolic liabilities and evaluating the success of scaffold hopping [44] [43].

Research Reagent Solutions & Materials:

Reagent/Material	Function
Liver Microsomes (Human/Rat)	Subcellular fraction containing cytochrome P450 (CYP) and other Phase I enzymes [42] [44].
NADPH Regenerating System	Provides a constant supply of NADPH, the essential cofactor for CYP-mediated oxidation [43].
Potassium Phosphate Buffer (pH 7.4)	Maintains physiological pH for the incubation [45].
Test Compound	Your scaffold-hopped candidate, typically prepared as a stock solution in DMSO [45].
Organic Solvent (e.g., Acetonitrile)	Stops the metabolic reaction and precipitates proteins [43].
LC-MS/MS System	Analytical instrument for quantifying the parent compound over time [45].

Step-by-Step Methodology:

• Incubation Preparation: Prepare an incubation mixture containing liver microsomes (e.g., 0.5 mg/mL protein), test compound (e.g., 1 µM), and potassium phosphate buffer (e.g., 100 mM, pH 7.4). Pre-incubate for 5 minutes at 37°C [43] [45].
• Initiate Reaction: Start the reaction by adding the NADPH regenerating system [45].
• Time-Point Sampling: At predetermined time points (e.g., 0, 5, 15, 30, 45, 60 minutes), withdraw an aliquot of the incubation mixture and quench it with a cold organic solvent (e.g., acetonitrile) to stop the reaction [43].
• Sample Analysis: Centrifuge the quenched samples to remove precipitated protein. Analyze the supernatant using LC-MS/MS to quantify the concentration of the parent test compound remaining at each time point [45].
• Data Analysis: Plot the natural logarithm of parent compound remaining versus time. The slope of the linear regression is used to calculate the in vitro half-life (t_1/2) and intrinsic clearance (CL_int) [43].

Protocol 2: A Scaffold Hopping Workflow for Metabolic Stability

This workflow integrates computational and experimental steps to systematically improve metabolic stability [41] [46].

Key Steps Explained:

• Identify the Soft Spot: Use metabolite identification (MetID) with LC-MS/MS to determine the exact site of metabolism on your lead compound [42].
• Design Novel Scaffolds: Plan structural changes to address the liability. This often involves heterocycle replacement guided by principles of physical organic chemistry—swapping electron-rich rings for electron-deficient ones [42] [41]. Computational tools can help generate novel scaffold ideas that maintain the essential 3D pharmacophore [16] [46].
• In silico Screening: Virtually screen the proposed scaffolds to predict their metabolic stability, physicochemical properties, and binding affinity to the target before synthesis [16] [41].
• Synthesize and Test: Synthesize the most promising candidates and subject them to in vitro metabolic stability (as in Protocol 1) and target potency assays. The goal is to confirm improved stability without a significant drop in potency [41].
• Iterate: Use the data from testing to inform the next round of design, further optimizing the scaffold until an optimal balance is achieved [41].

FAQs: Core Concepts and Troubleshooting

Q1: What is aldehyde oxidase (AO) and why has it become a significant consideration in modern drug development?

Aldehyde oxidase (AO) is a molybdenum-containing cytosolic enzyme that functions as a metabolizing enzyme independent of NADPH [47] [48]. It primarily catalyzes the oxidation of nitrogen-containing aromatic heterocycles, a common scaffold in many modern drug candidates, particularly kinase inhibitors [1] [49]. Its significance has grown because as medicinal chemists increasingly design compounds to avoid Cytochrome P450 (CYP) metabolism, they often incorporate electron-deficient nitrogen heterocycles, which are prime substrates for AO [1] [48]. This shift has led to clinical failures due to unanticipated rapid clearance and low bioavailability when AO metabolism was not identified early in development [48] [49].

Q2: We observed a major discrepancy between metabolic stability in human liver microsomes and human hepatocytes. What does this indicate?

A significant difference in metabolic stability—specifically, much faster clearance in hepatocytes compared to liver microsomes—is a classic indicator of non-CYP metabolism, potentially from AO [48] [49]. Liver microsomes contain CYP enzymes but lack cytosolic enzymes like AO. Hepatocytes contain the full complement of drug-metabolizing enzymes, including those in the cytosol. Therefore, if a compound is unstable in hepatocytes but stable in microsomes, it suggests a major contribution from a non-CYP, cytosolic pathway such as AO-mediated metabolism [49].

Q3: Our lead compound shows favorable low clearance in dog pharmacokinetic studies, but we are concerned about human clearance. Is this worry justified?

Yes, this is a major justifiable concern. Dogs lack hepatic expression of the AOX1 isoform, the primary functional AO in humans [49] [50]. Consequently, dogs are poor predictors of human AO clearance. A compound that is stable in dogs could exhibit very high clearance in humans due to AO metabolism. This profound species difference has been a pitfall in several drug development programs [49] [50]. Data from preclinical species like guinea pig or monkey, which express AOX1, often provide a more relevant prediction of human AO metabolism [49].

Q4: How can we experimentally confirm that our compound is a substrate for AO?

Confirmation requires a combination of experimental approaches:

• Cofactor Manipulation: Incubate the compound in liver S9 fractions or cytosol without NADPH. Oxidation observed without this CYP cofactor suggests AO (or xanthine oxidase) involvement [48].
• Use of Selective Inhibitors: Conduct incubations in human hepatocytes or cytosol with and without the AO-selective inhibitor hydralazine (after pre-incubation). A significant reduction in metabolic clearance confirms AO involvement [48]. Raloxifene is a potent inhibitor but is less specific in cellular systems like hepatocytes [48] [50].
• Isotope Labeling: Incubations in a buffer containing H₂¹⁸O can identify AO metabolites. AO incorporates an oxygen atom from water, leading to metabolites with a characteristic +18 mass shift, unlike CYP, which uses molecular oxygen [48].

Q5: During lead optimization, we replaced a phenyl ring with a pyridyl ring to reduce CYP metabolism. The new compound is now rapidly cleared by AO. What strategies can we use to mitigate AO metabolism?

This is a common scenario in scaffold hopping [1]. Several medicinal chemistry strategies can be employed:

• Block the Site of Metabolism: Introduce a small substituent (e.g., -F, -CF₃, -CH₃) at the carbon atom susceptible to AO oxidation to sterically block the attack [51] [50].
• Modulate Ring Electronics: Further reduce the electron deficiency of the heterocycle, making it less susceptible to nucleophilic attack by AO. This can involve introducing electron-donating groups or replacing the heterocycle with an even more electron-deficient one (though this requires careful testing) [1] [50].
• Saturate the Ring: Converting an aromatic ring to its partially or fully saturated counterpart can eliminate the AO metabolic soft spot [50].
• Complete Scaffold Hop: Replace the AO-labile heterocycle (e.g., pyrimidine, quinazoline) with an isostere that is not an AO substrate, such as a different heterocyclic system or a carbocyclic ring [1] [52].

Experimental Guide: Key Protocols

Protocol for Assessing AO Contribution in Human Hepatocytes

This protocol uses hydralazine and 1-aminobenzotriazole (ABT) to deconvolute the contribution of AO and CYP enzymes to a compound's overall metabolic clearance [48].

1. Materials:

• Cryopreserved human hepatocytes
• Williams' E medium
• Test compound (typically 1 µM)
• Hydralazine (AO inhibitor, stock solution in water/DMSO)
• 1-Aminobenzotriazole (ABT, pan-CYP inhibitor, stock solution in water)
• Control inhibitor (e.g., Ketoconazole for CYP3A4)
• Incubation equipment (shaking water bath/incubator)

2. Procedure:

• Pre-incubation with Inhibitors: Thaw and viability-test hepatocytes. Prepare three separate incubation mixtures:
  • Control: Hepatocytes + vehicle.
  • ABT Condition: Pre-incubate hepatocytes with 1 mM ABT for 30 minutes.
  • Hydralazine Condition: Pre-incubate hepatocytes with 25 µM hydralazine for 30 minutes.
• Reaction Initiation: Add the test compound to all incubations to start the reaction.
• Sampling: Collect aliquots at pre-determined time points (e.g., 0, 15, 30, 60, 90, 120 minutes).
• Termination and Analysis: Stop the reaction with acetonitrile containing an internal standard. Centrifuge and analyze the supernatant using LC-MS/MS to determine the parent compound's remaining percentage.

3. Data Interpretation:

• The intrinsic clearance (CLint) is calculated from the substrate depletion half-life (t1/2).
• The fraction of metabolism attributable to AO (fm,AO) can be estimated by comparing the CLint in the control to the CLint in the hydralazine-treated group.
• The ABT condition indicates the total contribution of CYP enzymes.

Protocol for a "Litmus Test" for AO Susceptibility

This chemical test uses DFMS as a surrogate for nucleophilic attack by AO, providing a rapid, inexpensive initial assessment [51].

1. Materials:

• Test compound (approx. 5 mg)
• Bis(((difluoromethyl)sulfinyl)oxy)zinc (DFMS, ~12 mg)
• Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO, 150 µL)
• Trifluoroacetic acid (TFA, 2 µL)
• tert-Butyl hydroperoxide (TBHP, 70% aqueous solution, 10 µL)
• LC-MS system

2. Procedure:

• In a vial, combine the test compound, DFMS, and DMSO.
• Add TFA and TBHP.
• Stir the reaction mixture at room temperature for 2 hours.
• Dilute an aliquot with methanol and analyze by LC-MS.

3. Data Interpretation:

• A "positive" test, indicating potential AO liability, is the appearance of a new peak with a characteristic M+50 mass shift (corresponding to the addition of a -CF₂H group) in the total ion chromatogram.
• A "negative" test shows no or negligible (<10% of the parent peak) M+50 product [51]. Note that this test may yield false positives as it cannot account for enzyme binding effects.

Essential Data for Experimental Design

Species Differences in Aldehyde Oxidase Expression

The selection of an appropriate animal model is critical due to significant interspecies differences in AO expression and activity. The table below summarizes the expression of AO isoforms in the livers of common preclinical species [49] [50].

Table 1: Hepatic Aldehyde Oxidase Isoform Expression Across Species

Species	AOX1	AOX3	Other Relevant Isoforms
Human	Yes	No	-
Cynomolgus Monkey	Yes	No	AOX2 (non-hepatic)
Mouse	Yes	Yes	AOX4, AOX2 (non-hepatic)
Rat	Yes	Yes	AOX4, AOX2 (non-hepatic)
Guinea Pig	Yes	No	AOX4, AOX2 (non-hepatic)
Dog	No	No	AOX4, AOX2 (in nasal mucosa/lacrimal glands)

Common Substrates, Inhibitors, and Experimental Systems

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for AO Studies

Reagent / System	Function / Purpose	Key Considerations
Liver Cytosol	In vitro system for direct AO metabolism studies.	Contains cytosolic enzymes (AO, XO); requires no NADPH. Lot-to-lot variability in AO activity is high [48].
Liver S9 Fraction	In vitro system containing both microsomal and cytosolic enzymes.	Useful for differentiating CYP vs. non-CYP metabolism by incubating with/without NADPH [48].
Cryopreserved Hepatocytes	Gold-standard in vitro system containing full enzyme complement.	Best for estimating overall metabolic stability and fraction metabolized by AO (using inhibitors) [48].
Hydralazine	Selective, mechanism-based inhibitor of AO.	Used for reaction phenotyping in hepatocytes and cytosol (pre-incubation required) [48] [49].
Raloxifene	Potent, non-selective inhibitor of AO.	Very low IC₅₀ (~3 nM), but not suitable for cellular systems due to lack of specificity and cellular toxicity [48] [50].
Zoniporide, Carbazeran	Probe substrates for AO.	Used as positive controls in AO activity assays [48] [51].
DFMS (Litmus Test)	Chemical reagent to predict AO substrate liability.	Rapid, inexpensive initial screen based on nucleophilic attack; does not account for enzyme binding [51].

Visual Workflows

Decision Tree for Addressing AO Metabolism

This workflow provides a strategic path for projects where AO metabolism is identified.

Experimental Identification of AO Metabolism

This diagram outlines the key experimental steps to confirm AO involvement.

Core Concepts: The Solubility-Permeability Interplay

What is the solubility-permeability interplay and why is it critical in scaffold hopping?

The solubility-permeability interplay describes the phenomenon where efforts to increase a drug candidate's apparent solubility can directly impact its apparent permeability across biological membranes. In scaffold hopping, where the core molecular structure is modified to improve metabolic stability, this interplay is crucial because these structural changes inherently alter physicochemical properties. Treating solubility and permeability as separate factors may lead to formulation failures, as enhancing one property can inadvertently compromise the other [53].

What theoretical framework explains this interplay?

The intrinsic membrane permeability (Pm°) of a drug is described by the equation: Pm° = (Dm° × Km°)/hm° Where Dm° is the membrane diffusion coefficient, Km° is the membrane/aqueous partition coefficient, and hm° is the membrane thickness. The partition coefficient Km° depends on the drug's aqueous solubility—creating the fundamental link between solubility and permeability. When formulations increase apparent solubility, they often affect the partition coefficient, thereby changing permeability [53].

Troubleshooting Guide: Common Experimental Scenarios

Unexpectedly Low Oral Absorption Despite Improved Solubility

Observation	Potential Cause	Investigation Approach	Solution
High apparent solubility in vitro but low bioavailability in vivo.	Solubility-Permeability Trade-off: Excipients (e.g., surfactants, cyclodextrins) increase solubility but decrease free fraction of drug, reducing the concentration gradient that drives passive diffusion [53].	Measure apparent permeability in the presence and absence of the solubilizing formulation.	Reformulate to balance solubility enhancement with permeability preservation; consider amorphous solid dispersions [53].
Good permeability in Caco-2 assays but poor in vivo performance.	Bile Salt Interactions: Physiological surfactants (bile salts) form micelles that sequester the drug, reducing its free fraction available for absorption [53].	Perform permeability studies with biorelevant media containing bile salts/phospholipids.	Use predictive models that account for luminal composition; optimize formulations to protect the drug from micellar entrapment.

Inconsistent Bioassay Results Post-Scaffold Modification

Observation	Potential Cause	Investigation Approach	Solution
Significant differences in IC50 values between labs or assay types.	Inconsistent Stock Solution Preparation: Differences in DMSO stock concentration or compound solubility can lead to variable bioassay results [54].	Standardize stock solution preparation method and verify concentration analytically.	Use controlled dissolution protocols, confirm stock solution homogeneity, and include internal controls in all assays.
No activity in cell-based assays despite high potency in biochemical assays.	Poor Cellular Permeability: The new scaffold may have poor membrane penetration or be a substrate for efflux transporters [54].	Compare activity in cell-based vs. cell-free assays; use transporter inhibitors to check for efflux.	Employ scaffold hopping to reduce transporter affinity while maintaining target activity [21] [14].

Essential Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Evaluating the Solubility-Permeability Interplay

Objective: Systematically assess how a new scaffold or a solubility-enabling formulation affects both solubility and permeability.

Materials:

• Test compound (new scaffold hop)
• Reference compound (parent scaffold)
• Permeability assay system (e.g., PAMPA, Caco-2 cell monolayers)
• Solubilizing agents (e.g., cyclodextrins, surfactants) for testing
• High-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) system for quantification

Methodology:

• Solubility Measurement: Determine the equilibrium solubility of the test and reference compounds in fasted-state simulated intestinal fluid (FaSSIF) and relevant biorelevant media.
• Permeability Assessment:
  • Conduct permeability studies (e.g., using PAMPA or Caco-2 models) using simple aqueous buffers to establish the "intrinsic" permeability (Pm°).
  • Repeat the permeability measurement in the presence of the solubilizing formulation or in biorelevant media to determine the "apparent" permeability.
• Data Analysis:
  • Calculate the free fraction of the drug in the presence of solubilizers.
  • Model the expected permeability based on the free fraction and compare it to the measured apparent permeability.
  • Use the relationship: Apparent Permeability (Pm,app) ≈ (Dm°/hm°) × (K*m°/ (1 + Kf×[Solubilizer]) to understand the interplay, where Kf is the association constant with the solubilizer [53].

Protocol 2: Computational Stability and Activity Prediction for New Scaffolds

Objective: Prioritize new scaffold hops with a high probability of maintaining target activity and metabolic stability.

Materials:

• Reference active compound structure
• Access to chemical databases (e.g., PubChem) and computational tools
• Molecular docking software (e.g., AutoDock Vina integrated with UCSF Chimera)
• Density Functional Theory (DFT) calculation tools (e.g., PySCF)
• Molecular Dynamics (MD) simulation software

Methodology:

• Similarity Search & Virtual Screening:
  • Use the reference compound to perform a structural similarity search (e.g., 80% cutoff) in PubChem [14].
  • Apply drug-likeness filters (e.g., Lipinski's Rule of Five) to the resulting compounds.
• Density Functional Theory (DFT) Analysis:
  • Perform DFT calculations on the top candidate molecules using the B3LYP functional and a basis set like cc-pVDZ [14].
  • Extract the energies of the Highest Occupied Molecular Orbital (HOMO) and Lowest Unoccupied Molecular Orbital (LUMO).
  • Calculate the HOMO-LUMO gap: A larger gap (e.g., >4.5 eV) indicates higher electronic stability, a desirable property for metabolic stability [14].
• Molecular Docking and Dynamics:
  • Dock the DFT-optimized compounds into the target's active site to predict binding modes and affinity.
  • Run MD simulations (e.g., for 50-100 ns) to assess the stability of the protein-ligand complex. Monitor Root-Mean-Square Deviation (RMSD) and Root-Mean-Square Fluctuation (RMSF); lower values indicate a more stable complex [14].

Experimental Workflow and Decision Pathways

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents & Materials

Reagent/Material	Function in Experimentation
Biorelevant Media (e.g., FaSSIF, FeSSIF)	Simulates the intestinal environment for more predictive solubility and permeability measurements, accounting for bile salt and phospholipid content [53].
PAMPA (Parallel Artificial Membrane Permeability Assay)	A high-throughput, non-cell-based model for predicting passive transcellular permeability during early-stage screening [55].
Caco-2 Cell Line	A human colon adenocarcinoma cell line that, upon differentiation, forms monolayers with intestinal epithelial properties, used for robust permeability and transporter studies [53].
Cyclodextrins (e.g., HP-β-CD)	Molecular complexation agents used to enhance apparent aqueous solubility of lipophilic drugs; require careful monitoring of their effect on apparent permeability [53].
Surfactants (e.g., Polysorbate 80)	Form micelles to solubilize poorly water-soluble compounds; must be evaluated for their potential to reduce the free fraction of drug and impede absorption [53].
Amorphous Solid Dispersions (ASDs)	A formulation strategy that can enhance solubility by creating a high-energy amorphous state, potentially overcoming the solubility-permeability trade-off [53].
DFT Calculation Software (e.g., PySCF)	Used to compute quantum chemical properties like the HOMO-LUMO gap, which predicts the electronic stability and reactivity of a new scaffold [14].
MD Simulation Software (e.g., GROMACS)	Allows for the study of protein-ligand complex stability over time under physiological conditions, confirming the binding stability of a scaffold-hop compound [14].

Troubleshooting Guide: Common DFT and Docking Issues

DFT Calculation Challenges

Problem: Inaccurate or Oscillating Energy Values

• Root Cause: The use of insufficient integration grid sizes is a primary cause, especially for modern meta-GGA (e.g., M06, M06-2X) and B97-based functionals, which exhibit high grid sensitivity. Small grids are also not rotationally invariant, leading to different energies based on molecular orientation [56].
• Solution: Use a (99,590) integration grid for all DFT calculations. This ensures accuracy and rotational invariance, preventing energy fluctuations that can exceed 5 kcal/mol for free energy calculations with smaller grids [56].

Problem: Spurious Low-Frequency Modes in Vibrational Analysis

• Root Cause: Incomplete geometry optimization or the presence of quasi-translational or quasi-rotational modes in the system can lead to artificially low-frequency vibrations. These modes disproportionately inflate entropic corrections due to inverse proportionality [56].
• Solution: After optimization and frequency calculation, apply a correction that raises all non-transition-state modes below 100 cm⁻¹ to 100 cm⁻¹ for entropy computation. This prevents inaccurate predictions of reaction barriers or stereochemical outcomes [56].

Problem: Neglected Symmetry Corrections

• Root Cause: Failure to account for molecular symmetry numbers during thermochemical analysis. High-symmetry molecules have fewer microstates, which lowers their entropy [56].
• Solution: Automatically detect the point group and symmetry number of all species and apply the correction of RTln(σ), where σ is the symmetry number. For example, the deprotonation of water (σ=2) to hydroxide (σ=1) requires a correction of RTln(2), or 0.41 kcal/mol at room temperature [56].

Problem: Poor SCF Convergence

• Root Cause: The self-consistent field (SCF) process for refining electron density can exhibit chaotic behavior, especially with poor initial guesses or challenging systems [56].
• Solution: Employ a hybrid DIIS/ADIIS strategy, apply a default level shift (e.g., 0.1 Hartree), and use a tight two-electron integral tolerance (e.g., 10⁻¹⁴) to stabilize and accelerate convergence [56].

Molecular Docking and Simulation Challenges

Problem: Unreliable Binding Poses and Affinities

• Root Cause: Standard docking scores (like Glide SP) and MM-GBSA calculations can be less accurate than more rigorous methods, especially for scaffold hopping where core structures change significantly [57].
• Solution: For critical lead optimization steps, use Free Energy Perturbation (FEP). FEP predicts relative binding free energies with high accuracy by simulating the alchemical transformation of one ligand into another, making it ideal for guiding scaffold hopping and affinity optimization [57].

Problem: Unstable Protein-Ligand Complex in Simulation

• Root Cause: Insufficient simulation time or inadequate system equilibration can fail to capture the true stability of a complex [14].
• Solution: Run extensive Molecular Dynamics (MD) simulations (e.g., 100-500 ns). Monitor the Root-Mean-Square Deviation (RMSD) and Root-Mean-Square Fluctuation (RMSF) of the protein-ligand complex. A stable, low RMSD indicates a conformationally stable complex, a key metric for validating docking poses [14].

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: Within the context of scaffold hopping for metabolic stability, why do I need both DFT and docking/MD simulations? A1: These methods provide complementary insights crucial for successful scaffold hopping [14] [58]:

• DFT Calculations: Probe the inherent electronic stability of the isolated ligand. A large HOMO-LUMO gap (e.g., ~4.5-5.0 eV) indicates high electronic stability, which is desirable for metabolic resilience [14].
• Docking/MD Simulations: Evaluate the binding stability and conformational dynamics of the ligand within the protein's active site. MD simulations confirm that a stable ligand (per DFT) also maintains a stable binding pose (low RMSD) over time [14].

Q2: What specific DFT parameters are recommended for analyzing novel scaffolds? A2: A robust workflow includes [14] [58]:

• Functional/Basis Set: B3LYP/cc-pVDZ or M06-2X/6-311G(2d,p) for geometry optimization and electronic analysis.
• Key Calculation: Perform a single-point energy calculation to determine the HOMO-LUMO gap, a key indicator of electronic stability and reactivity.
• Solvent Effects: Incorporate solvent effects using a model like the Polarizable Continuum Model (PCM) to simulate a physiological environment [58].
• BSSE Correction: Always correct for Basis Set Superposition Error (BSSE) when calculating interaction energies to avoid overestimation [58].

Q3: My scaffold hop has a different core but similar predicted affinity. How can I further validate it? A3: Beyond docking scores, a multi-faceted computational validation is recommended [14] [57]:

• FEP Calculations: Use Free Energy Perturbation to accurately predict the change in binding free energy relative to your lead compound [57].
• MD Simulation Analysis: Run a 100-500 ns MD simulation. A promising candidate will show low protein-ligand RMSD and RMSF fluctuations, indicating a stable complex [14].
• Machine Learning Prediction: Train or use existing ML models on known inhibitors (e.g., 236 known Tankyrase inhibitors) to predict activity (pIC₅₀) for the new scaffold [14].
• ADMET Profiling: Use tools like ADMETlab 2.0 to predict absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and toxicity profiles, ensuring the new scaffold has improved drug-like properties [14].

Q4: What are the critical post-docking analyses to prioritize compounds? A4: Do not rely solely on docking scores. Prioritize compounds that exhibit [14]:

• Key Protein-Ligand Interactions: Conservation of critical hydrogen bonds, hydrophobic contacts, and π-π stacking interactions observed in the reference ligand complex.
• Favorable Binding Poses: Poses that are logically consistent with the active site geometry and available from multiple docking runs.
• Stability in MD: As confirmed by subsequent MD simulation analysis.

Experimental Protocols & Workflows

Detailed Workflow: From Scaffold Hop to Validated Candidate

The following diagram illustrates the integrated computational workflow for scaffold hopping, from initial design to final validation.

Step-by-Step Protocol:

• Ligand-Based Virtual Screening:

  • Method: Use a known active compound (e.g., RK-582 from a PDB structure) as a reference for a similarity search in databases like PubChem [14].
  • Parameters: Apply a structural similarity cutoff (e.g., 80%). This typically yields hundreds of structurally similar compounds (e.g., 533 compounds) [14].

• Structure-Based Virtual Screening & Docking:

  • Protein Preparation: Obtain the 3D structure from PDB (e.g., PDB ID: 6KRO). Remove crystallographic water, add hydrogens for pH 7.4, and assign charges using a tool like UCSF Chimera [14].
  • Compound Library Preparation: Download compounds in SDF format and perform energy minimization [14].
  • Docking: Use docking software (e.g., AutoDock Vina) to screen the library. Select the top-ranking binding poses based on scoring function and interaction analysis for further study [14].

• Density Functional Theory (DFT) Analysis:

  • Objective: Assess the electronic stability and reactivity of the selected compounds.
  • Methodology:
    • Use a quantum chemistry library (e.g., PySCF).
    • Employ the B3LYP functional with the cc-pVDZ basis set.
    • Calculate the energies of the Highest Occupied Molecular Orbital (HOMO) and Lowest Unoccupied Molecular Orbital (LUMO).
    • Compute the HOMO-LUMO gap (in eV). A larger gap indicates higher electronic stability [14].

• Molecular Dynamics (MD) Simulations:

  • Objective: Explore the conformational stability and dynamic interactions of the protein-ligand complexes.
  • Protocol:
    • Use a force field like OPLS3e with an SPC water model.
    • Solvate the complex in a water box with a buffer zone (e.g., 5-10 Å).
    • Run simulations for a sufficient timescale (e.g., 100-500 ns).
    • Analyze the trajectory by calculating RMSD (overall stability) and RMSF (residual flexibility) of the protein-ligand complex [14] [57].

• Machine Learning Activity Prediction:

  • Method: Train a machine learning model on a dataset of known inhibitors (e.g., 236 known Tankyrase inhibitors).
  • Output: Use the model to predict the negative logarithm of the half-maximal inhibitory concentration (pIC₅₀) for the new scaffold hops. A value close to or better than the reference compound is promising [14].

• ADMET Prediction:

  • Tool: Use a platform like ADMETlab 2.0, which uses a multi-task graph attention model.
  • Parameters: Predict key properties including human intestinal absorption, Caco-2 permeability, plasma protein binding, and metabolic stability [14].

Scaffold Hopping Conceptual Framework

The diagram below categorizes the primary strategies for scaffold hopping in drug discovery.

Quantitative Data Reference

DFT HOMO-LUMO Gap Analysis for Candidate Compounds

Table: Representative DFT and Predictive Data for Tankyrase Inhibitor Scaffold Hops [14]

PubChem CID	HOMO-LUMO Gap (eV)	ML-predicted pIC₅₀	Key Stability Metric (from MD)
138594346	4.473	7.70	Lowest RMSD & RMSF fluctuations
138594428	4.979	7.41	High conformational stability
138594730	Data Not Specified	Data Not Specified	Data Not Specified
Reference (RK-582)	Data Not Specified	7.71	Benchmark for comparison

Critical DFT Calculation Parameters

Table: Recommended DFT Parameters to Avoid Common Errors [56] [58]

Parameter	Common Error/Default	Recommended Setting	Rationale
Integration Grid	Small grids (e.g., SG-1: 50,194)	(99,590) grid points	Ensures rotational invariance and accuracy, especially for meta-GGA functionals and free energies.
Low-Frequency Mode Treatment	Treating all modes as vibrations	Raise modes < 100 cm⁻¹ to 100 cm⁻¹ for entropy	Prevents spurious low-frequency modes from inflating entropy corrections.
Symmetry Number Correction	Often neglected	Automatically detect point group and apply RTln(σ)	Correctly accounts for the entropy of high-symmetry molecules.
Solvation Model	Gas-phase calculation only	Implicit solvent (e.g., PCM)	Models physiological environment for more relevant energies.
BSSE Correction	Not applied	Apply Counterpoise correction	Prevents overestimation of interaction energies.

Research Reagent Solutions

Table: Essential Computational Tools and Resources

Item / Resource	Function in Scaffold Hopping Workflow	Example Tools / Databases
Chemical Database	Source for ligand-based virtual screening and compound library building.	PubChem [14]
Protein Data Bank	Source of high-resolution 3D protein structures for structure-based design.	RCSB PDB (e.g., PDB ID: 6KRO) [14]
Molecular Representation	Converting molecules to computer-readable formats for AI/ML models and similarity searches.	SMILES, SELFIES, Molecular Fingerprints (ECFP) [4]
Docking Software	Predicting binding poses and initial affinity estimates of new scaffolds.	AutoDock Vina [14], Schrödinger Glide [57]
Quantum Chemistry Package	Performing DFT calculations for electronic structure analysis and stability.	PySCF [14], Gaussian [58]
Molecular Dynamics Engine	Simulating the dynamic behavior and stability of protein-ligand complexes.	GROMACS, AMBER, Schrödinger Desmond [14] [57]
Free Energy Perturbation (FEP)	High-accuracy prediction of relative binding free energies for lead optimization.	FEP+ [57]
ADMET Prediction Platform	In silico assessment of pharmacokinetic and toxicity profiles.	ADMETlab 2.0 [14]

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) and Troubleshooting

FAQ 1: How can we objectively define a "scaffold hop" to ensure it is both novel and bioactive?

A successful scaffold hop must satisfy three key criteria simultaneously [59]:

• 3D Similarity ≥ 0.6: The new molecule should have a high shape and pharmacophore (color) similarity to the original compound, ensuring it maintains the interactions with the biological target. This is often measured by the Shape and Color (SC) score.
• 2D Scaffold Similarity ≤ 0.6: The core molecular backbone (Bemis-Murcko scaffold) should have low two-dimensional structural similarity to the original, as measured by the Tanimoto coefficient of Morgan fingerprints. This is a key indicator of novelty.
• Improved Bioactivity: The "hopped" compound should demonstrate a significant improvement in biological activity (e.g., pChEMBL value increase ≥ 1) against the target [59].

Troubleshooting: If your designed molecules fail to meet bioactivity goals despite high 3D similarity, investigate the electronic properties of the new scaffold. Replacing an electron-rich aromatic ring (e.g., benzene) with an electron-deficient one (e.g., pyridine) can reduce metabolic clearance by Cytochrome P450 enzymes, but it may also affect target binding if the electronic interaction is critical. Use HOMO energy calculations to guide your replacements [1].

FAQ 2: What are the primary patent types we should file to protect a scaffold-hopped compound?

A robust patent portfolio for a new pharmaceutical compound uses a multi-layered strategy. The table below details the core patent types and their strategic utility [60].

Table 1: Key Pharmaceutical Patent Types for Scaffold-Hopped Compounds

Patent Type	What It Covers	Strategic Utility
Composition of Matter	The active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) itself—the new chemical compound [60].	This is the strongest, "crown jewel" protection. It provides the broadest competitive advantage by preventing others from making or using the core molecule [60].
Formulation	The specific way a drug is prepared, including inactive ingredients and dosage forms (e.g., sustained-release capsules) [60].	Extends market exclusivity and can improve patient compliance, efficacy, or stability [60].
Method of Use	A novel therapeutic use discovered for the new compound [60].	Allows market expansion to new disease areas and patient populations, extending the commercial lifespan [60].
Process	An innovative method for manufacturing the compound [60].	Protects proprietary and potentially more efficient manufacturing techniques, creating an additional barrier for competitors [60].

FAQ 3: Our scaffold hop is a minor atomic change. Is it still patentable?

Yes. Minor modifications, classified as a 1° hop (e.g., swapping a carbon and nitrogen atom in an aromatic ring), can be sufficient for patentability if the change results in a novel compound that is not obvious to a person skilled in the art. The key is that the new compound must be "novel" and "non-obvious," and it can be patented even if the change is small, as long as it meets these legal criteria. Examples include the PDE5 inhibitors Sildenafil and Vardenafil, which differ by a single atom swap but are covered by separate patents [2].

Troubleshooting: If the patent office argues that your modification is "obvious," be prepared to demonstrate unexpected results. This can include superior metabolic stability, enhanced bioavailability, or a surprising increase in potency that would not have been predicted from the prior art [1] [61].

FAQ 4: When is the best time to file a patent for a new scaffold?

File a patent application before any public disclosure of the invention. In the United States, a provisional patent application can be filed to establish an early priority date with less formal requirements. This gives you 12 months to file a non-provisional application and is not counted in the 20-year patent term calculation, effectively providing up to 21 years of potential protection. Crucially, filing a provisional application first preserves your foreign filing rights, as most other countries operate on an absolute novelty system with no grace period [61].

Experimental Protocols for Validating Scaffold Hops

Protocol 1: In Vitro Metabolic Stability Assay

Objective: To determine the intrinsic metabolic stability of a scaffold-hopped compound compared to its lead compound using liver microsomes [1].

Materials:

• Test Compounds: Lead compound and scaffold-hopped analogs.
• Liver Microsomes: Pooled human liver microsomes (e.g., 0.5 mg/mL final protein concentration).
• Cofactor: NADPH-regenerating system.
• Buffer: Phosphate buffer (100 mM, pH 7.4).
• Stop Solution: Acetonitrile with internal standard.
• LC-MS/MS System: For quantitative analysis.

Workflow:

• Incubation: Pre-incubate microsomes with test compound (1 µM) in buffer at 37°C. Initiate the reaction by adding the NADPH-regenerating system.
• Sampling: At pre-determined time points (e.g., 0, 5, 15, 30, 45, 60 minutes), remove an aliquot and quench the reaction with ice-cold stop solution.
• Analysis: Centrifuge the samples, analyze the supernatant via LC-MS/MS, and measure the peak area of the parent compound at each time point.
• Data Calculation: Plot the natural log of the percent parent remaining versus time. The slope of the linear regression is the elimination rate constant (k). Calculate the in vitro half-life (t_1/2) and intrinsic clearance (CL_int) [1].

Table 2: Key Research Reagents for Metabolic Stability and Bioactivity Assessment

Research Reagent / Tool	Function in Experimentation
Pooled Human Liver Microsomes	Self-assembling vesicles containing cytochrome P450 enzymes; used for in vitro assessment of oxidative metabolic stability [1].
NADPH-Regenerating System	Provides a constant supply of NADPH, a crucial cofactor for cytochrome P450-mediated oxidation reactions [1].
LC-MS/MS System	Used to separate compounds (chromatography) and then quantitatively measure the disappearance of the parent compound over time (mass spectrometry) for clearance calculations [1].
Directed Message Passing Neural Networks (DMPNN)	A deep learning model used for virtual profiling to predict compound bioactivity (e.g., pChEMBL values) based on molecular structure [59].

Protocol 2: Computational Assessment of Scaffold Hop Viability

Objective: To predict the 2D novelty, 3D similarity, and bioactivity of a scaffold-hopped compound before synthesis.

Methodology:

• 2D Scaffold Similarity:
  • Generate the Bemis-Murcko (BM) scaffolds for both the lead and hopped compound using a toolkit like RDKit.
  • Calculate the Tanimoto similarity of their Morgan fingerprints (radius 2, 2048 bits). A score of ≤ 0.6 indicates a successful hop in the 2D space [59].
• 3D Shape and Pharmacophore Similarity:
  • Generate low-energy conformers for both molecules.
  • Align the conformers and calculate the Shape and Color (SC) score, which combines shape overlap and pharmacophoric feature similarity. A score of ≥ 0.6 indicates conserved 3D topology and pharmacophore [59].
• Bioactivity Prediction:
  • Train a deep QSAR (Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship) model, such as a Multi-Task Deep Neural Network (MTDNN), on known bioactive compounds for your target.
  • Use the model to virtually profile and predict the activity (e.g., pChEMBL value) of your novel scaffold-hopped compound [59].

The following diagram illustrates the logical workflow and decision points for this computational protocol:

Evaluating Success: Analytical and Biological Validation Methods

Fundamental Concepts & System Selection

FAQ: What are the key functional differences between liver microsomes and hepatocytes?

A: Liver microsomes and hepatocytes are complementary systems used to predict metabolic stability, but they differ significantly in their composition and the biological processes they model.

The table below summarizes the core characteristics of each system:

Feature	Liver Microsomes	Hepatocytes
Definition	Subcellular fraction derived from the endoplasmic reticulum [62]	Intact liver cells [63]
Key Enzymes	Cytochrome P450s (CYPs), Flavin Monooxygenases (FMOs), some UGTs [62]	Full complement of Phase I (CYPs, AO, MAO) and Phase II (UGTs, SULTs, GSTs) enzymes [63] [64]
Cofactors	Require exogenous addition (e.g., NADPH for CYPs) [62]	Contain endogenous cofactors [64]
Transporter Effects	None	Contain both uptake and efflux transporters [63]
Cellular Architecture	No cell membrane or organelles [62]	Retain cell membrane and intracellular organization [63]
Primary Use	High-throughput screening for CYP-mediated metabolism [64]	Gold standard for intrinsic clearance; study of non-CYP metabolism & transporter interplay [63] [64]

FAQ: How do I choose between microsomes, hepatocytes, and S9 fractions for my assay?

A: The choice depends on your project's stage and the specific metabolic questions you need to answer.

• Liver Microsomes are ideal for high-throughput, early-stage screening focused primarily on Cytochrome P450 (CYP) metabolism. They are cost-effective, easy to use, and easily automated [64].
• Hepatocytes provide a more physiologically complete system and are the gold standard for predicting intrinsic clearance. Use them for later-stage candidates, to study non-CYP pathways (e.g., aldehyde oxidase, UGTs), or to investigate the role of hepatic transporters [63] [64].
• Liver S9 Fractions offer a middle ground, containing both microsomal and cytosolic enzymes (e.g., CYPs, UGTs, sulfotransferases, aldehyde oxidase). They are more comprehensive than microsomes and more cost-effective and automatable than hepatocytes, making them an excellent option for high-throughput screening that includes Phase II metabolism [64].

System Selection Workflow

Experimental Protocols

Standard Protocol: Metabolic Stability Assay in Liver Microsomes

This protocol provides a general procedure for measuring metabolic stability using liver microsomes [62].

Research Reagent Solutions:

Reagent/Equipment	Function
Liver Microsomes	Source of metabolic enzymes (CYPs, UGTs) [62].
NADPH	Regenerating system cofactor for CYP-mediated oxidation [62].
UDPGA, Alamethicin, MgCl₂	Cofactors and activator for measuring UGT activity [62].
Phosphate Buffer (pH 7.4)	Physiologically relevant incubation medium [62].
37°C Water Bath	Maintains physiological temperature for reactions [62].
LC-MS/MS	Analytical instrument for quantifying parent compound loss [62].

Methodology:

• Preparation: Prepare a 100X stock of the test article in a suitable solvent like acetonitrile, ensuring the final organic solvent concentration is <1% [62].
• Thawing: Thaw microsomes slowly on ice. Adjust protein concentration to 20 mg/mL if necessary [62].
• Incubation Setup: For a 200 µL total volume, add 183 µL phosphate buffer, 2 µL of 100X test article, and 5 µL of 20 mg/mL microsomes [62].
• Pre-incubation: Pre-incubate the mixture (buffer, test article, microsomes) in a water bath for 5 minutes at 37°C [62].
• Reaction Initiation: Start the reaction by adding 10 µL of 20 mM NADPH. For UGT activity assays, also include UDPGA, alamethicin, and MgCl₂ in the mix [62].
• Incubation: Incubate for up to 60 minutes at 37°C with gentle agitation [62].
• Termination: Stop the reaction by adding 200 µL of organic solvent (e.g., ethyl acetate) [62].
• Analysis: Vortex, centrifuge, withdraw the supernatant, and analyze via LC-MS/MS to determine the percentage of parent compound remaining over time [62].

Standard Protocol: Metabolic Stability Assay in Cryopreserved Hepatocytes

This protocol outlines the key steps for assessing metabolic stability in hepatocytes [64].

Methodology:

• Thawing: Quickly thaw cryopreserved hepatocytes in a 37°C water bath [64].
• Preparation: Add thawed cells to warm hepatocyte thawing medium. Centrifuge at 60g for five minutes at room temperature [64].
• Resuspension: Remove the supernatant and resuspend the cell pellet in warm Krebs-Henseleit buffer (KHB), pH 7.4 [64].
• Incubation Setup: Transfer suspended hepatocytes to incubation plates at a density of 1x10^6 cells/mL (viability >80%) and spike with the test compound (e.g., 3 µM) [64].
• Incubation: Carry out incubations in a 37°C, 5% CO2 incubator for a set time (e.g., one hour) [64].
• Termination: Stop reactions at designated time points (e.g., 0 and 60 minutes) with ice-cold acetonitrile:methanol (50:50) [64].
• Analysis: Centrifuge, collect supernatants, and analyze by LC-MS/MS for the amount of parent compound remaining [64].

Experimental Workflow Comparison

Troubleshooting & Data Interpretation

FAQ: My compound shows different clearance in microsomes vs. hepatocytes. What does this mean?

A: Discrepancies in intrinsic clearance (CL_int) between systems provide valuable mechanistic insights into the compound's metabolic pathways [63].

The table below guides the interpretation of common scenarios:

Observation	Potential Interpretation	Recommended Action
CLint (Hepatocytes) > CLint (Microsomes)	Metabolism is likely driven by non-CYP enzymes (e.g., UGTs, Aldehyde Oxidase, sulfotransferases) which are present in hepatocytes but absent or diluted in microsomes [63] [64].	Conduct metabolite identification (MetID) studies in hepatocytes. Use chemical inhibitors specific to non-CYP enzymes.
CLint (Microsomes) > CLint (Hepatocytes)	Could indicate low passive permeability, limiting the compound's access to intracellular enzymes in hepatocytes. This is more prevalent for compounds with rapid metabolism [63].	Measure the compound's passive permeability (e.g., in MDCK-LE cells). For rapidly metabolized compounds, higher permeability is needed to avoid rate-limiting uptake [63].
Comparable CLint in both systems	Suggests clearance is predominantly mediated by CYP enzymes [63].	Focus SAR on mitigating CYP metabolism.

FAQ: Why is accounting for non-specific binding (NSB) important, and how is it done?

A: Non-specific binding to in vitro assay components (e.g., microsomal proteins, hepatocytes) reduces the free concentration of compound available for metabolism, leading to an underestimation of the true intrinsic metabolic clearance. This must be accounted for when extrapolating in vitro data to predict in vivo clearance [65].

• Impact: NSB causes an underestimation of CL_int [65].
• Measurement: The fraction unbound (f_u) can be determined experimentally using techniques like equilibrium dialysis [65].
• Prediction: In early discovery, computational models (e.g., Turner-Simcyp, Austin, Hallifax-Houston, Poulin models) can predict f_u based on physicochemical properties like logP and logD, though they are less accurate for acidic or basic compounds [65].
• Correction: The observed CL_int is corrected to an unbound intrinsic clearance: CL_{int, u} = CL_int / f_u [1].

Application in Scaffold Hopping for Metabolic Stability

FAQ: How can scaffold hopping be used to improve metabolic stability?

A: Scaffold hopping is a strategy to design novel molecular backbones (scaffolds) that maintain target affinity but exhibit improved properties, such as metabolic stability [2] [13]. A common approach is to replace an electron-rich aromatic ring prone to Cytochrome P450 oxidation with a more electron-deficient heterocycle [1].

Electronic Properties of Heterocycles: The table below shows the Highest Occupied Molecular Orbital (HOMO) energies for common ring systems; higher HOMO energies generally correlate with increased susceptibility to oxidation [1].

Ring Type	Molecule	HOMO Energy (eV)	Ring Type	Molecule	HOMO Energy (eV)
5-Membered	Pyrrole	-8.66	6-Membered	Benzene	-9.65
"	Furan	-9.32	"	Pyridine	-9.93
"	Thiophene	-9.22	"	Pyrimidine	-10.58
6,6-Fused	Quinoline	-9.18	5,6-Fused	Indole	-8.40
"	Isoquinoline	-9.03	"	Benzo[b]furan	-9.01

Data adapted from Katritzky et al. [1]

Scaffold Hopping Strategies:

• Heterocycle Replacement: A prime example is replacing a phenyl ring (HOMO: -9.65 eV) with a pyrimidine (HOMO: -10.58 eV) to reduce electron density and protect against oxidation [1] [13].
• Ring Opening/Closure: Modifying ring systems can alter molecular flexibility, which impacts both binding entropy and metabolic stability. For instance, ring closure can reduce flexibility and potentially increase potency by reducing entropy loss upon binding [2] [13].
• Topology-Based Hopping: Using computational methods to generate novel scaffolds that maintain the 3D shape and pharmacophore features of the lead molecule but possess a different 2D structure, thereby evading metabolic soft spots [66].

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: What are the most common reasons for failing to identify metabolites in my samples?

Several factors can prevent successful metabolite identification:

• Insufficient sample amount: Below minimum requirements (e.g., <1-2 million cells, <5-25 mg tissue, or <50 μL biofluid) [67].
• Sample preparation issues: Metabolite loss during extraction, improper protocol execution, or solubility problems during reconstitution [67] [68].
• Instrumental limitations: Low metabolite coverage in databases, poor fragmentation spectra acquisition, or inadequate chromatographic separation [69] [67].
• Unexpected metabolites: Compounds formed via uncommon biotransformation reactions not captured by predicted metabolite searches [70].

Q2: How reliable are metabolite identifications from LC-MS/MS data?

Identification confidence follows standardized levels [67]:

• Level 1 (Confirmed): Matched retention time, accurate mass (~1 ppm), isotope pattern, and MS/MS spectrum to authentic standard.
• Level 2 (Probable): Library-matched MS/MS spectrum without retention time confirmation.
• Level 3 (Tentative): Evidence from diagnostic MS/MS fragments or class-specific patterns.
• Level 4 (Unknown): Unidentified signals that can be distinguished from background.

Mass spectrometry has inherent limitations in distinguishing structural and chiral isomers without proper chromatographic separation or distinctive fragmentation patterns [67].

Q3: When should I use NMR spectroscopy versus LC-MS/MS for metabolite identification?

Table: Technique Selection Guide

Consideration	LC-MS/MS	NMR Spectroscopy
Sensitivity	High (detects trace metabolites) [71]	Moderate (requires ~μg amounts) [72]
Structural Elucidation	Provides molecular formula & fragmentation pattern [70]	Determines atomic connectivity & stereochemistry [73]
Sample Throughput	High	Moderate to Low
Quantitation	Relative quantitation possible; absolute requires standards [67]	Absolute quantitation without standards [73]
Isomer Differentiation	Limited unless chromatographically resolved [67]	Excellent for stereoisomers [72]
Destructive	Yes	No

Q4: How can scaffold hopping strategies improve metabolic stability?

Scaffold hopping addresses metabolic liabilities by:

• Replacing electron-rich aromatics with electron-deficient heterocycles to reduce cytochrome P450-mediated oxidation [1].
• Utilizing heterocycle replacements such as pyridine for phenyl rings to increase robustness toward oxidative metabolism while conserving pharmacophore structure [1].
• Considering HOMO energies - lower HOMO energy heterocycles (e.g., pyridine: -9.93 eV) are less prone to oxidation than electron-rich systems (e.g., pyrrole: -8.66 eV) [1].

Troubleshooting Guides

Problem: Poor Metabolite Coverage in Untargeted Analysis

Symptoms: Few metabolites identified despite many detected features; high proportion of unknowns.

Solutions:

• Expand MS/MS coverage: Use data-dependent acquisition (DDA) with inclusion lists or data-independent acquisition (DIA) to increase fragmentation spectra collection [69].
• Multiple ionization modes: Analyze samples in both positive and negative ESI modes to cover metabolites with different ionization efficiencies [68].
• Optimize collision energies: Employ stepped collision energy to fragment metabolites with different stability [70].
• Leverage multi-technique approach: Combine LC-MS/MS with NMR for comprehensive structural elucidation [73].

Problem: Signal Drift in Large-Scale LC-MS Studies

Symptoms: Decreasing signal intensity over long sequences; batch effects in multi-batch studies.

Solutions:

• Quality Control (QC) samples: Inject pooled QC samples regularly throughout sequence for monitoring and correction [68].
• Labeled internal standards: Use deuterated or 13C-labeled analogs covering different chemical classes to track performance [68].
• Normalization strategies: Apply total useful signal (TUS), quality control-based robust locally estimated scatterplot smoothing (QC-RLSC), or similar algorithms to correct systematic errors [68].
• Mobile phase management: Prepare sufficient volumes for entire study to avoid variability [68].

Problem: Inability to Distinguish Structural Isomers

Symptoms: Same molecular formula and similar fragmentation patterns but different retention times.

Solutions:

• Chromatographic optimization: Extend run times, modify gradient programs, or use alternative stationary phases to improve separation [71].
• Mobility separation: Incorporate ion mobility spectrometry (LC-IMS-MS) for additional separation dimension [69].
• NMR spectroscopy: Employ 2D NMR experiments (COSY, HSQC, HMBC) to elucidate atomic connectivity and distinguish isomers [72] [73].
• Chemical derivatization: Modify functional groups to create distinctive fragmentation patterns or retention behaviors [71].

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Comprehensive Metabolite ID Workflow Using HR-MS

Based on high-resolution mass spectrometry approaches [70]

Materials:

• High-resolution mass spectrometer (Q-TOF, Orbitrap)
• UHPLC system with C18 column
• Mobile phases: (A) 0.1% formic acid in water; (B) 0.1% formic acid in acetonitrile
• Data processing software (e.g., Compound Discoverer, XCMS, MS-DIAL)

Procedure:

• Sample Preparation: Extract metabolites using appropriate solvent (e.g., methanol:ethanol 1:1 v/v) [68].
• LC-MS Analysis:
  • Column temperature: 40°C
  • Flow rate: 0.4 mL/min
  • Gradient: 5-100% B over 20 minutes
  • ESI positive/negative mode switching
  • Mass range: 50-1500 m/z
  • Resolution: >30,000
• Data Acquisition:
  • Full scan MS (high resolution)
  • Data-dependent MS/MS (top N ions)
  • Include mass defect filter (MDF) precursor selection
• Data Mining:
  • Apply mass defect filter (±50 mDa from parent)
  • Use product ion filter (PIF) and neutral loss filter (NLF)
  • Perform background subtraction against control samples
• Metabolite Identification:
  • Extract potential metabolites using exact mass (±5 ppm)
  • Interpret MS/MS spectra
  • Confirm with database searching (HMDB, MassBank, LipidMaps)

Protocol 2: Metabolite Structure Elucidation Using NMR

Based on NMR spectroscopy guidance [72] [73]

Materials:

• NMR spectrometer (≥500 MHz)
• NMR tubes
• Deuterated solvent (e.g., D₂O, CD₃OD)
• Reference compound (TSP or DSS)
• pH meter and buffers

Procedure:

• Sample Preparation:
  • Concentrate sample using lyophilization or SPE
  • Reconstitute in 600 μL deuterated solvent
  • Add 0.1 mM TSP or DSS for referencing
  • Adjust pH to 7.4 using buffer if necessary
• 1D ¹H NMR Acquisition:
  • Temperature: 298K
  • Pulse sequence: NOESY-presat for water suppression
  • Spectral width: 12 ppm
  • Relaxation delay: 2s
  • Scans: 64-128
• 2D NMR Experiments:
  • ²J,³J-HH correlation (COSY)
  • ¹J-CH correlation (HSQC)
  • ²J,³J-CH correlation (HMBC)
  • Total correlation spectroscopy (TOCSY)
• Data Processing:
  • Apply exponential line broadening (0.3 Hz)
  • Perform Fourier transformation
  • Phase and baseline correction
  • Reference to TSP (0 ppm)
• Metabolite Identification:
  • Analyze chemical shifts, coupling constants, integrals
  • Establish connectivity through 2D correlations
  • Compare with databases (HMDB, BMRB)
  • Confirm with authentic standards when available

Workflow Visualization

Metabolite Identification Workflow

Scaffold Hopping for Metabolic Stability

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table: Essential Reagents for Metabolite Identification Studies

Reagent/ Material	Function	Application Notes
Labeled Internal Standards (e.g., carnitine-D3, LPC18:1-D7, stearic acid-D5) [68]	Monitor instrument performance; assess extraction efficiency	Select compounds covering various chemical classes and retention times
Deuterated Solvents (D₂O, CD₃OD, CDCl₃) [72]	NMR solvent for locking and referencing	Use 99.8% deuterium minimum; store properly to prevent contamination
NMR Reference Compounds (TSP, DSS) [72]	Chemical shift referencing in NMR	TSP preferred for biofluids without significant protein content
Quality Control Pool [68]	Monitor system performance; correct instrumental drift	Prepare from sample pool representing entire study population
Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) Cartridges [73]	Sample cleanup and concentration	Select phases (C18, HLB, ion exchange) based on metabolite properties
LC-MS Grade Solvents [69]	Mobile phase preparation	High purity to avoid adduct formation; avoid glass-bottled water stored long-term
Authentic Metabolite Standards [67]	Confirmation of metabolite identities	Use for Level 1 identification; create in-house spectral library

Scaffold hopping, a medicinal chemistry strategy involving the structural modification of a compound's molecular backbone to create novel chemotypes, is extensively used to improve unfavorable pharmacokinetic (PK) properties of lead compounds, particularly poor metabolic stability and low oral bioavailability [21] [1]. Successful scaffold hopping maintains or enhances biological activity while optimizing properties like solubility, metabolic robustness, and toxicity profiles [2]. This technical support center provides targeted guidance for researchers quantifying these PK improvements.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

FAQ 1: Why is measuring metabolic stability a critical step in my scaffold-hopping project? Rapid hepatic metabolism is a primary cause of drug failure. Measuring metabolic stability provides an early indicator of a compound's likely in vivo half-life and exposure. The intrinsic clearance (CL_int) derived from liver microsome assays helps prioritize scaffolds with the greatest potential for once- or twice-daily dosing in humans [1].

FAQ 2: How can a scaffold hop improve oral bioavailability? Bioavailability (F) is the fraction of an administered dose that reaches systemic circulation unchanged. A scaffold hop can improve F by:

• Reducing First-Pass Metabolism: Replacing an electron-rich scaffold prone to Cytochrome P450 oxidation with an electron-deficient one can significantly reduce hepatic extraction [1].
• Enhancing Solubility and Permeability: Modifying the core structure can improve a molecule's solubility and its ability to cross biological membranes like the intestinal epithelium, thereby improving absorption [21] [2].

FAQ 3: What is the most definitive proof that my new scaffold has improved pharmacokinetics? While in vitro assays provide strong early signals, the most definitive proof comes from a comparative in vivo pharmacokinetic study in a preclinical species (e.g., rat). Demonstrating a statistically significant increase in systemic exposure (AUC), a longer half-life (t_1/2), and most importantly, a higher calculated oral bioavailability (F) compared to the original scaffold provides conclusive evidence of PK improvement [35].

Troubleshooting Guides

Problem 1: High Metabolic Clearance in Human Liver Microsomes

Potential Causes and Solutions:

• Cause: The scaffold is electron-rich and susceptible to oxidation by Cytochrome P450 enzymes.
  • Solution: Employ a scaffold-hopping strategy to replace the electron-rich core (e.g., phenyl, pyrrole) with an electron-deficient bioisostere (e.g., pyridine, pyrimidine). This lowers the HOMO energy, making the ring less prone to oxidation [1].
• Cause: The molecule contains labile functional groups (e.g., esters, amides) that are targets for hydrolytic enzymes.
  • Solution: Use ring opening or closure (2° scaffold hopping) to sterically block or remove the labile functional group [2].
• Cause: In vitro incubation conditions are not optimized.
  • Solution: Verify microsome quality, protein concentration, and incubation time. Include a positive control with known high clearance to validate the assay.

Problem 2: Low Oral Bioavailability in Preclinical Models

Potential Causes and Solutions:

• Cause: Poor aqueous solubility limits dissolution and absorption in the gastrointestinal tract.
  • Solution: Apply heterocyclic replacements (1° scaffold hopping) to introduce hydrogen bond donors/acceptors or adjust lipophilicity (LogP) to enhance solubility [21] [2].
• Cause: The compound is a substrate for efflux transporters like P-glycoprotein (P-gp), which actively pumps the drug out of enterocytes back into the gut lumen.
  • Solution: Scaffold modification can alter a molecule's interaction with efflux transporters. If this is suspected, run a bidirectional Caco-2 assay to confirm P-gp efflux ratio and assess the impact of the hop [74].
• Cause: High first-pass metabolism, as identified in Problem 1.
  • Solution: The solutions for reducing metabolic clearance directly address this cause of low bioavailability [74] [1].

Experimental Protocols & Data Interpretation

Protocol 1: Metabolic Stability Assay in Liver Microsomes

This protocol measures the in vitro intrinsic clearance (CL_int) of your scaffolds [1].

Workflow Diagram: Metabolic Stability Assay

Research Reagent Solutions:

Reagent/Material	Function in Experiment
Pooled Human Liver Microsomes	Contains the full complement of CYP450 and other hepatic metabolic enzymes.
NADPH Regenerating System	Provides a constant supply of NADPH, essential for CYP450-mediated oxidation.
LC-MS/MS System	Quantifies the precise concentration of the parent compound remaining over time.

Key Calculations:

• In vitro Half-life (t_1/2): Determined from the slope (k) of the natural log of percent remaining vs. time plot: t½ = 0.693 / k
• Intrinsic Clearance (CL_int): CLint = (0.693 / t½) * (Incubation Volume / Microsomal Protein)

Data Interpretation: A longer t_1/2 and lower CL_int indicate improved metabolic stability. The table below shows a successful scaffold hop from a labile lead to a stable derivative [35].

Table: Example Metabolic Stability Data for Antifungal Scaffolds

Compound ID	Scaffold Type	Human Liver Microsome t½ (min)	Intrinsic Clearance (CLint)	Interpretation
Lead Compound 5	l-amino alcohol	3.5	High	Poor stability; not suitable for oral dosing.
A6	Dihydrooxazole	23.2	Moderate	Scaffold hop slightly improved stability.
A33	Optimized Dihydrooxazole	>145	Low	Successful hop; high metabolic stability.

Protocol 2: Assessing Oral Bioavailability in Rodents

This in vivo study provides the definitive comparison of exposure between your scaffolds [35].

Workflow Diagram: Rodent Bioavailability Study

Research Reagent Solutions:

Reagent/Material	Function in Experiment
Sprague-Dawley (SD) Rats	Standard preclinical model for PK studies.
LC-MS/MS System	The gold standard for sensitive and specific quantification of drug concentrations in plasma.
Pharmacokinetic Software	Non-compartmental analysis (NCA) to calculate PK parameters like AUC, Cmax, t1/2.

Key Calculations:

• Absolute Oral Bioavailability (F): F = (AUCₚₒ * Doseᵢᵥ) / (AUCᵢᵥ * Doseₚₒ) * 100% [74] Where AUC is the Area Under the plasma Concentration-time curve.

Data Interpretation: A higher F value and a larger AUC for the oral route directly demonstrate improved absorption and/or reduced first-pass metabolism. The table below shows a highly successful scaffold hop [35].

Table: Example Pharmacokinetic Data from a Rat Study

Compound ID	Route	AUC₀→∞ (ng·h/mL)	t½ (h)	Oral Bioavailability (F)	Interpretation
A33	IV	Reference	9.35	-	Favorable IV PK.
A33	Oral	High	-	77.69%	Successful hop; excellent oral exposure.

Welcome to the Technical Support Center for Metabolic Stability Research. This resource focuses on the advanced drug design strategy of scaffold hopping—the modification of a bioactive compound's core structure to create new, patentable molecules with potentially improved metabolic and pharmacokinetic (P3) profiles [5]. Using the case studies of Roxadustat and GLPG1837, this guide provides troubleshooting support and detailed protocols for researchers developing novel analogs with enhanced metabolic stability.

---

Frequently Asked Questions & Troubleshooting Guides

FAQ 1: What is the primary goal of scaffold hopping in drug discovery?

• Answer: The primary goal is to generate new molecular entities from existing bioactive compounds by altering the central core scaffold. This strategy aims to improve pharmacodynamic (PD), physiochemical, and pharmacokinetic (PK) properties (collectively known as P3 properties), create new intellectual property space, and overcome issues like poor metabolic stability, low efficacy, or suboptimal bioavailability [5].

FAQ 2: Our scaffold-hopped analog of GLPG1837 shows good in vitro potency but poor aqueous solubility. What are the common strategies to address this?

• Answer: Poor solubility is a frequent challenge. Consider these approaches:
  • Introduce Ionizable Groups: As seen in the development of GLPG2737, replacing a carboxylic acid group with acylsulfonamides or acylsulfonylureas can significantly improve aqueous solubility and other ADMET properties [75].
  • Reduce LogP: The introduction of polar functional groups or heteroatoms can reduce the compound's overall lipophilicity.
  • Salt Formation: If an ionizable group is present, forming a salt is a standard method to enhance solubility.
  • Refer to Table 1 for a comparison of how different structural modifications impact key properties.

FAQ 3: When we mutate key binding site residues in our target protein, our lead compound loses all activity. Does this mean scaffold hopping will not be successful?

• Answer: Not necessarily. A loss of activity confirms the importance of that specific protein-ligand interaction. Your scaffold hopping efforts should be re-directed to preserve the essential pharmacophore—the parts of the molecule responsible for its biological activity—while modifying the non-essential core scaffold [5]. For CFTR potentiators, the key interactions are with residues like Y304 and F312; new scaffolds must be designed to maintain these critical contacts [76].

FAQ 4: Our new Roxadustat analog is metabolically unstable in human liver microsome assays. Which modifications can improve metabolic stability?

• Answer: Metabolic instability often arises from susceptible sites on the molecule, such as aromatic rings or labile functional groups. Strategies include:
  • Blocking Metabolic Soft Spots: Introduce stable substituents (e.g., halogens, methyl groups) at positions prone to oxidation.
  • Bioisosteric Replacement: Swap a metabolically labile group with a bioisostere that has similar physicochemical properties but improved stability. A common example is replacing a phenyl ring with a pyridine.
  • Rigidification: Reducing molecular flexibility by incorporating ring structures can shield the molecule from metabolic enzymes.

FAQ 5: How can we experimentally validate that a scaffold-hopped compound binds to the intended target site?

• Answer: A combination of methods is most effective:
  • Site-Directed Mutagenesis: As performed for GLPG1837, mutating predicted binding site residues (e.g., D924, Y304) and measuring changes in compound affinity can validate the binding locus [76].
  • Cryo-Electron Microscopy (Cryo-EM): This technique can directly visualize the ligand bound to its target protein, as demonstrated in CFTR potentiator studies [77].
  • Current Relaxation Analysis: This electrophysiology method can assess the dissociation rate of a modulator from its binding site, providing functional evidence of binding [76].

---

Comparative Data & Experimental Protocols

Table 1: Quantitative Comparison of Roxadustat and GLPG1837 Analog Development

Feature	Roxadustat (HIF-PHI)	GLPG1837 (CFTR Potentiator)
Primary Target	Hypoxia-inducible factor prolyl hydroxylase (HIF-PHD) [78]	Cystic Fibrosis Transmembrane Conductance Regulator (CFTR) [76]
Key Pharmacophore	3-Hydroxypicolinoylglycine [5]	Structural motifs binding to site involving Y304, F312 [76]
Scaffold Hopping Strategy	Heterocycle replacement (1°-scaffold hopping) [5]	Ring closure & heterocycle replacement (2° & 1° hopping) [5]
Goal of Modification	Create backup clinical candidates [5]	Improve efficacy and reduce required dose (from 500 mg BID) [5]
Key Improved Properties	Improved pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) profiles [5]	Improved metabolic stability and ADMET properties [75]
Validated Binding Site Residues	Catalytic site of PHD2 (e.g., ferrous ion coordination) [5]	Transmembrane domain interface (e.g., D924, Y304, F312) [76]
Lead Optimization Technique	Structure-based drug design [5]	Large-scale molecular docking & structure-based optimization [77]

Table 2: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Reagent / Material	Function in Research	Example Application in Case Studies
Site-Directed Mutagenesis Kits	To probe importance of specific amino acids for ligand binding.	Alanine substitutions at Y304, F312 in CFTR decreased GLPG1837 affinity [76].
Inside-Out Membrane Patch Clamp Electrophysiology	Direct measurement of ion channel activity (e.g., CFTR) in real-time.	Used to assess macroscopic CFTR currents potentiated by GLPG1837 and novel compounds [77].
Halide-Sensitive Fluorescent Probes (e.g., YFP)	High-throughput measurement of ion flux in cellular assays.	Halide flux assay in ΔF508 CFBE41o- cells to identify CFTR potentiator leads [77].
Human Liver Microsomes	In vitro assessment of compound metabolic stability.	Used to evaluate ADMET properties of new analogs during optimization [5].
cryo-EM Equipment	High-resolution structural determination of ligand-target complexes.	Revealed binding of Ivacaftor and GLPG1837 to the same allosteric site on CFTR [77].

---

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Assessing CFTR Potentiator Binding via Site-Directed Mutagenesis and Electrophysiology

This protocol is used to validate the binding site and determine the apparent affinity of novel potentiators.

• Plasmid Mutagenesis: Introduce point mutations (e.g., D924N, Y304A, F312A) into the human CFTR gene within a mammalian expression vector using a commercial site-directed mutagenesis kit.
• Heterologous Expression: Transfect the wild-type and mutant CFTR plasmids into a mammalian cell line (e.g., HEK-293 cells) using a standard transfection reagent.
• Inside-Out Patch-Clamp Recording:
  • Prepare cells 24-48 hours post-transfection.
  • Use a patch-clamp amplifier and micropipettes. Establish an inside-out membrane patch excised from a transfected cell.
  • Perfuse the intracellular side of the membrane with a phosphorylation solution (containing PKA and ATP) to activate CFTR.
  • Once a stable CFTR-mediated macroscopic current is established, apply increasing concentrations of the test potentiator (e.g., GLPG1837 or a novel analog) to the perfusion solution.
• Data Analysis:
  • Normalize the current at each compound concentration to the baseline current. Plot the normalized current against the compound concentration and fit the data with a Hill equation to determine the EC₅₀ value.
  • Compare the EC₅₀ and maximal potentiation between wild-type and mutant CFTR channels. A rightward shift in the EC₅₀ (decreased apparent affinity) for a specific mutant indicates the mutated residue is critical for potentiator binding [76].

Protocol 2: Evaluating HIF-PHI Activity via Cell-Based EPO Expression Assay

This protocol measures the functional activity of Roxadustat analogs by quantifying the induction of Erythropoietin (EPO), a key downstream target of HIF.

• Cell Culture: Maintain human hepatoma cells (e.g., Hep3B) in appropriate medium. Plate cells in multi-well plates and allow them to adhere and reach ~80% confluence.
• Compound Treatment: Prepare a serial dilution of the Roxadustat analog in the culture medium. Replace the cell culture medium with the compound-containing medium. Include a DMSO vehicle control and a positive control (e.g., known active HIF-PHI).
• Incubation: Incubate cells with the compound for a predetermined time (e.g., 16-24 hours) under standard culture conditions (37°C, 5% CO₂).
• EPO Quantification:
  • Option A (mRNA): Harvest cells and extract total RNA. Perform reverse transcription followed by quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) using primers specific for human EPO. Normalize EPO mRNA levels to a housekeeping gene (e.g., GAPDH).
  • Option B (Protein): Collect the cell culture supernatant. Measure the concentration of secreted EPO protein using a commercial Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) kit [78].
• Data Analysis: Plot the normalized EPO levels (mRNA or protein) against the logarithm of the compound concentration. Fit the data with a dose-response curve to determine the EC₅₀ value for HIF pathway activation.

---

Signaling Pathways and Workflow Diagrams

HIF Pathway Activation by Roxadustat

Scaffold Hopping Analog Discovery Workflow

We hope this technical support guide enhances your research on scaffold hopping and metabolic stability. For further assistance, consult the cited literature and reach out to your institutional compound management and high-throughput screening facilities.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

FAQ 1: What is scaffold hopping, and why is it used in drug discovery for metabolic stability? Scaffold hopping is a medicinal chemistry strategy that involves modifying the core molecular structure (scaffold) of a known bioactive compound to create novel chemical entities with improved properties while retaining the desired biological activity [21]. In the context of metabolic stability, this approach is crucial because it allows researchers to replace oxidation-prone, electron-rich aromatic rings (e.g., phenyl) with more robust, electron-deficient heterocycles (e.g., pyridyl) [1] [33]. This substitution makes the compound less susceptible to metabolism by cytochrome P450 enzymes, thereby improving its metabolic half-life and overall pharmacokinetic profile without compromising its ability to bind the therapeutic target [1] [35].

FAQ 2: How can machine learning (ML) models predict the ADMET properties of new compounds? ML models learn to predict Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Excretion, and Toxicity (ADMET) properties by establishing Quantitative Structure-Property Relationships (QSPR) [79]. They are trained on large, existing experimental datasets where the molecular structures of compounds (inputs) are linked to their measured ADMET endpoints (outputs) [80] [81]. The models use various molecular representations, such as molecular descriptors or graph-based structures, to identify complex, non-linear patterns that relate structural features to properties like permeability, metabolic clearance, and toxicity [80] [81] [79]. Once trained, these models can forecast the properties of new, unsynthesized molecules, enabling early prioritization of candidates with a higher probability of success [81].

FAQ 3: What are the common ML algorithms used for predicting inhibitory activity and ADMET? The choice of ML algorithm depends on the data characteristics and the specific property being predicted. Commonly used techniques include [80] [81]:

• Supervised Learning Methods: Such as Support Vector Machines (SVM), Random Forests (RF), and Decision Trees, which are trained on labeled datasets for classification (e.g., toxic/non-toxic) or regression (e.g., predicting IC₅₀ values) tasks.
• Deep Learning (DL) and Neural Networks: Including Message-Passing Neural Networks (MPNN) and Graph Neural Networks (GNN), which can directly learn from molecular graph structures (atoms as nodes, bonds as edges) and have demonstrated unprecedented accuracy in ADMET prediction [80] [79].
• Ensemble Methods: Which combine predictions from multiple base models to improve overall accuracy and robustness [81].
• Multi-Task Learning (MTL) Models: These models are trained simultaneously on several related ADMET endpoints, allowing them to leverage shared information across tasks and often leading to more generalizable predictions [79].

FAQ 4: My ML model for metabolic clearance performs well on traditional small molecules but poorly on novel scaffold-hopped compounds. What could be wrong? This is a classic issue of the model's applicability domain [79]. If the novel scaffold-hopped compounds occupy a region of chemical space that was not well-represented in the model's training data, the predictions will be unreliable [82] [79]. Heterobifunctional molecules and some scaffold-hopped compounds often have higher molecular weights and more rotatable bonds than traditional drug-like molecules, placing them "Beyond the Rule of 5" (bRo5) [79]. To address this:

• Employ Transfer Learning: Fine-tune a pre-trained global model on a smaller, project-specific dataset that includes compounds with the novel scaffolds [79].
• Assess Applicability Domain: Before making predictions, use chemical similarity metrics or other methods to verify that your new compounds are within the chemical space covered by the training data [82].
• Use Global Models: Prefer global QSPR models trained on diverse chemical classes over local models trained only on narrow chemical series, as they are more likely to generalize to novel structures [79].

FAQ 5: What are the key data requirements for building a reliable ML model for ADMET prediction? The quality and quantity of data are paramount [80]:

• Data Quality: The input data must be clean, consistent, and well-curated. This involves preprocessing steps such as removing duplicates, handling missing values, and normalizing data distributions [80].
• Data Quantity: A sufficiently large dataset is required for the model to learn the underlying structure-property relationships effectively. Public databases like ChEMBL, PubChem, and specialized ADMET databases are valuable sources [80].
• Feature Quality: The relevance of the molecular descriptors or features used to represent the compounds is more critical than the sheer number of features. Feature selection methods (filter, wrapper, embedded) can help identify the most predictive descriptors for a specific task [80].
• Balanced Data: For classification tasks (e.g., high/low clearance), the dataset should be balanced to avoid model bias toward the majority class. Techniques like data sampling can be used to address imbalance [80].

Troubleshooting Common Experimental Issues

Issue: Poor Correlation Between In Silico ADMET Predictions and Experimental Results

#	Problem Description	Possible Cause	Solution
1	Low Predictive Accuracy on New Scaffolds	The chemical space of your novel scaffold-hopped compounds is outside the model's applicability domain [79].	Use chemical similarity analysis to check the domain. Employ transfer learning to adapt a pre-trained model to your specific chemical series [79].
2	Inconsistent Metabolic Stability Predictions	The model may not account for specific metabolic enzymes relevant to your scaffold, such as Aldehyde Oxidase (AO) for electron-poor N-rich heterocycles [1].	Ensure the training data for metabolic stability includes compounds known to be substrates for these specific enzymes. Use ML models trained on data from relevant in vitro systems (e.g., human liver microsomes or S9 fractions) [1].
3	High Model Error for Specific ADMET Endpoints	The data for that particular endpoint may be noisy, imbalanced, or insufficient in size [80] [82].	Perform rigorous data preprocessing and cleaning. Apply data sampling techniques for imbalanced datasets. If data is scarce, consider using multi-task learning models that leverage information from related endpoints [80] [79].

Issue: Challenges in Integrating ML Predictions into the Scaffold-Hopping Workflow

#	Problem Description	Possible Cause	Solution
1	Difficulty Interpreting "Black Box" ML Predictions	Complex models like deep neural networks lack inherent transparency, making it hard for chemists to trust and act on the results [81] [82].	Utilize explainable AI (XAI) techniques to interpret predictions. For instance, use model-agnostic methods like SHAP to identify which structural fragments contribute most to a predicted property (e.g., metabolic liability) [81] [82].
2	Resistance to Adopting ML-Based Prioritization	The perceived risk of missing promising compounds due to model error or a lack of understanding of the model's strengths and limitations [82].	Implement a decision-support rather than a decision-making role for the ML model. Use predictions to triage and prioritize compounds for synthesis and testing, but not to completely exclude compounds without expert review [82]. Validate models prospectively on a small set of compounds to build trust [79].

Experimental Protocols & Data Presentation

Detailed Protocol: In Vitro Metabolic Stability Assay in Liver Microsomes

This protocol is used to generate experimental data for training or validating ML models that predict metabolic clearance [1].

1. Principle: The intrinsic clearance (CL_int) of a compound is determined by incubating it with liver microsomes (subcellular fractions containing cytochrome P450 enzymes) and measuring the depletion of the parent compound over time. The half-life (t_1/2) and CL_int are calculated from this data [1].

2. Key Research Reagents and Materials:

Research Reagent	Function/Description
Pooled Human Liver Microsomes	Self-assembling vesicles derived from the endoplasmic reticulum of human liver cells; contain cytochrome P450 enzymes and some conjugative enzymes for metabolic reactions [1].
NADPH Regenerating System	Comprises NADP+, glucose-6-phosphate, and glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase; provides a constant supply of NADPH, a crucial cofactor for P450-mediated oxidation [1].
Magnesium Chloride (MgCl₂)	Essential cofactor for several enzymatic reactions in the metabolic pathway [1].
Phosphate Buffered Saline (PBS)	Provides a physiologically relevant pH buffer for the incubation system [1].
Stop Solution	Typically an organic solvent (e.g., acetonitrile) containing an internal standard; used to terminate the metabolic reaction at designated time points [1].

3. Procedure: a. Incubation Preparation: Prepare the incubation mixture containing liver microsomes (e.g., 0.5 mg/mL protein), test compound (e.g., 1 µM), and MgCl₂ (e.g., 5 mM) in phosphate buffer (pH 7.4). Pre-incubate for 5 minutes at 37°C. b. Reaction Initiation: Start the reaction by adding the NADPH regenerating system. c. Sampling: At predetermined time points (e.g., 0, 5, 15, 30, 45, 60 minutes), withdraw an aliquot from the incubation mixture and immediately transfer it to a tube containing the ice-cold stop solution. d. Sample Analysis: Remove precipitated proteins by centrifugation. Analyze the supernatant using Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) to quantify the remaining concentration of the parent compound [1]. e. Data Analysis: Plot the natural logarithm of the percent parent remaining versus time. The slope of the linear regression (k) is used to calculate the in vitro half-life t_1/2 = 0.693 / k. The intrinsic clearance (CL_int) can then be derived [1].

Quantitative Data from Literature

Table 1: Performance of Global ML Models in Predicting Key ADMET Properties for Different Compound Modalities. Data presented as Mean Absolute Error (MAE). Adapted from a comprehensive evaluation on Targeted Protein Degraders and other modalities [79].

ADMET Property	All Modalities	Heterobifunctional TPDs	Molecular Glues
LogD	0.33	0.39	0.24
Human PPB	0.11	0.13	0.08
Rat PPB	0.12	0.13	0.10
CYP3A4 Inhibition (IC₅₀)	0.30	0.31	0.26
Human Microsomal CLint	0.21	0.24	0.18
Caco-2 Permeability	0.22	0.25	0.19

Table 2: Impact of Scaffold Hopping on Metabolic Stability. Example from a study on antifungal agents, showing the improvement from a lead compound to a scaffold-hopped derivative [35].

Compound	Original Scaffold (l-amino alcohol)	Hopped Scaffold (dihydrooxazole)
Description	Lead Compound 5	Optimized Compound A33
In Vitro Half-life (human liver microsomes)	3.5 minutes	>145 minutes
Antifungal Activity (MIC against C. albicans)	Excellent (specific values in [35])	0.03–0.25 µg/mL (retained activity)
Oral Bioavailability in Rats	Not reported	77.69%

Workflow and Pathway Visualizations

Scaffold Hopping & ML Prediction Workflow

ML Model Development Pipeline

Conclusion

Scaffold hopping has proven to be an indispensable strategy for addressing metabolic liabilities in drug discovery, enabling researchers to transform promising but metabolically unstable compounds into viable clinical candidates. The systematic application of heterocycle replacements, ring manipulations, and advanced topology-based changes, guided by both empirical medicinal chemistry and modern computational tools, provides a robust framework for metabolic optimization. As the field advances, the integration of AI-driven molecular representation, machine learning-based activity prediction, and sophisticated simulation techniques will further enhance our ability to design metabolically stable therapeutics with improved pharmacokinetic profiles. The continued evolution of scaffold-hopping methodologies promises to accelerate the development of safer, more effective drugs across therapeutic areas, particularly for challenging targets where metabolic instability remains a key barrier to clinical success.

References

• 1. Scaffold-hopping as a strategy to address metabolic liabilities ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7451012/]
• 2. Classification of Scaffold Hopping Approaches - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3328312/]
• 3. Hop To It! The World of Scaffold Hopping | Eureka blog [https://www.criver.com/eureka/hop-it]
• 4. Recent advances in molecular representation methods and ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s44386-025-00017-2]
• 5. Molecular medicinal insights into scaffold hopping-based ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359644623003616]
• 6. Thermal shift assays in drug discovery [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1056871925008007]
• 7. Insights into drug metabolism by cytochromes P450 from ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2268062/]
• 8. Elucidating the Substrate Specificity of Cytochrome P450 ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095809925004400]
• 9. The impact of the exposome on cytochrome P450-mediated ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12554611/]
• 10. Cytochrome P450 enzymes in drug metabolism [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163725813000065]
• 11. Unlocking the Potential: Predicting Redox Behavior of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10414033/]
• 12. Curated CYP450 Interaction Dataset: Covering the Majority ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-025-05753-8]
• 13. Classification of scaffold-hopping approaches [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359644611003813]
• 14. Structural stability-guided scaffold hopping and computational ... [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0332798]
• 15. Scaffold Hopping? It's Complicated [http://practicalcheminformatics.blogspot.com/2018/08/scaffold-hopping-its-complicated.html]
• 16. Scaffold Hopping: Methods & Applications [https://www.emergentmind.com/topics/scaffold-hopping-task]
• 17. Scaffold Hopping User Guide - Tencent iDrug [https://drug.ai.tencent.com/introduction_en/SCAFFOLD_Userguide/]
• 18. Improving the metabolic stability of antifungal compounds ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S022352342100564X]
• 19. Addressing the Challenges of Low Clearance in Drug ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4365098/]
• 20. Low-Turnover Drug Molecules: A Current Challenge for ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0090955624102310]
• 21. Scaffold Hopping in Tuberculosis Drug Discovery [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12557394/]
• 22. ChemBounce: a computational framework for scaffold hopping ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12449259/]
• 23. Synthesis, antitumor activity and DNA binding features [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25282261/]
• 24. Applications of Bridgehead Heterocycles in Drug Design ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40117080/]
• 25. Heterocyclic compound [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterocyclic_compound]
• 26. ScaffoldGVAE: scaffold generation and hopping of drug ... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-023-00766-0]
• 27. Scaffold-hopping for molecular glues targeting the 14-3-3/ ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-61176-4]
• 28. Scaffold Hopping Transformations Using Auxiliary ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8215533/]
• 29. Peptidomimetic toolbox for drug discovery [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2020/cs/d0cs00102c]
• 30. Structure-Based Design of Novel Peptidomimetics ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7553367/]
• 31. Rational design, synthesis and structural characterization ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2001037023002052]
• 32. Development of cell-permeable and plasma-stable ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S022352342500827X]
• 33. Scaffold-hopping as a strategy to address metabolic ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2020/md/c9md00396g]
• 34. Structural stability-guided scaffold hopping and computational ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12448342/]
• 35. Improving the metabolic stability of antifungal compounds ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S022352342100564X]
• 36. Broadening antifungal spectrum and improving metabolic ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0223523421008047]
• 37. Cadence Unveils AI-Driven ROCS X AI-Enabled Molecular ... [https://www.cadence.com/en_US/home/company/newsroom/press-releases/pr/2025/cadence-unveils-ai-driven-rocs-x-ai-enabled-molecular-search.html]
• 38. An artificial intelligence accelerated virtual screening ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-52061-7]
• 39. Establishing the foundations for a data-centric AI approach ... [https://elifesciences.org/reviewed-preprints/97821v1]
• 40. AI-Based Virtual-Screening [https://selvita.com/drug-discovery/small-molecules/expertise-areas/cadd/ai-based-virtual-screening]
• 41. Molecular medicinal insights into scaffold hopping-based ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359644623003616]
• 42. - Scaffold as a strategy to address hopping liabilities of... metabolic [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2020/md/c9md00396g]
• 43. How to Conduct an In Vitro Metabolic Stability Study [https://synapse.patsnap.com/article/how-to-conduct-an-in-vitro-metabolic-stability-study]
• 44. Metabolic Stability in Drug Development: 5 Assays [https://labtesting.wuxiapptec.com/2023/10/09/metabolic-stability-drug-development-assays/]
• 45. A high throughput metabolic stability screening workflow ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0021967310000464]
• 46. Whitepaper: identification of Novel Lead Compounds using Scaffold ... [https://info.ccdc.cam.ac.uk/whitepaper-scaffold-hopping]
• 47. Aldehyde oxidase [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldehyde_oxidase]
• 48. Challenges and Opportunities with Non-CYP Enzymes ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5354079/]
• 49. Involvement of Aldehyde Oxidase (AOXs) in Drug Metabolism [https://dmpkservice.wuxiapptec.com/articles/65-involvement-of-aldehyde-oxidase-aoxs-in-drug-metabolism-early-prediction-and-coping-strategies/]
• 50. Aldehyde Oxidase [https://www.cambridgemedchemconsulting.com/resources/ADME/aldehyde_oxidase.html]
• 51. A Simple Litmus Test for Aldehyde Oxidase Metabolism ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3983350/]
• 52. Improving metabolic stability and removing aldehyde ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33091850/]
• 53. The solubility–permeability interplay and oral drug ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169409X16301284]
• 54. Drug Discovery Assays Support—Troubleshooting [https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/technical-resources/technical-reference-library/drug-discovery-development-support-center/drug-discovery-assays-support/drug-discovery-assays-support-troubleshooting.html]
• 55. Physicochemical profiling (solubility, permeability and ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11899112/]
• 56. Common Errors in Density-Functional Theory - Rowan Scientific [https://rowansci.com/blog/dft-errors]
• 57. Scaffold-Hopping And Optimization Of Small Molecule ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12463311/]
• 58. Molecular docking, DFT calculation and ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-26133-7]
• 59. Deep scaffold hopping with multimodal transformer neural ... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-021-00565-5]
• 60. The Patent Playbook Your Lawyers Won't Write: Patent ... [https://www.drugpatentwatch.com/blog/the-patent-playbook-your-lawyers-wont-write-patent-strategy-development-framework-for-pharmaceutical-companies/?srsltid=AfmBOoo7Um3-AwVinvCVltY1tRg3srfO9KysYGNl_6I7WZ3Or4gafgB-]
• 61. A deep dive into patent law and exclusivity in the United ... [https://www.iam-media.com/guide/global-life-sciences/2025/article/deep-dive-patent-law-and-exclusivity-in-the-united-states]
• 62. Thawing and Incubating Human and Animal Liver ... [https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/references/protocols/drug-discovery/adme-tox-protocols/microsomes-protocol.html]
• 63. Mechanistic insights from comparing intrinsic clearance ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0223523412003959]
• 64. Efficiency in Drug Discovery: Liver S9 Fraction Assay As a ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5405623/]
• 65. Non-specific binding of compounds in in vitro metabolism ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36222269/]
• 66. Scaffold Hopping with Generative Reinforcement Learning [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12264953/]
• 67. Frequently asked questions – Metabolomics Core Facility [https://www.embl.org/groups/metabolomics/faq/]
• 68. Troubleshooting in Large-Scale LC-ToF-MS Metabolomics ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6918290/]
• 69. Navigating common pitfalls in metabolite identification and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11416380/]
• 70. Drug Metabolite Profiling and Identification by High ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3138308/]
• 71. Metabolite identification by liquid chromatography-mass ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165993610003213]
• 72. A guide to the identification of metabolites in NMR-based ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4821453/]
• 73. NMR-Based Chromatography Readouts: Indispensable Tools ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9658744/]
• 74. Drug Bioavailability - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf - NIH [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK557852/]
• 75. Discovery of GLPG2737, a Potent Type 2 Corrector ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/org/science/article/pii/S1520480424006227]
• 76. Identifying the molecular target sites for CFTR potentiators ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31164398/]
• 77. Structure-based discovery of CFTR potentiators and inhibitors [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11262615/]
• 78. Roxadustat as a Hypoxia-Mimetic Agent - PubMed Central - NIH [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12468147/]
• 79. Application of machine learning models for property ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-49979-3]
• 80. Leveraging machine learning models in evaluating ADMET ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12205928/]
• 81. Machine learning approaches for next-generation ADMET ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359644625002004]
• 82. Applying Machine Learning Techniques to Predict Drug ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12166244/]