Scaffold Hopping in Drug Discovery: AI-Driven Strategies for Novel Therapeutics

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive overview of scaffold hopping, a pivotal strategy in medicinal chemistry for generating novel, patentable drug candidates by modifying core molecular structures while preserving biological activity. It explores the foundational principles of scaffold hopping, examines traditional and cutting-edge computational methodologies including AI and generative deep learning, and addresses common challenges and optimization techniques. Through case studies and comparative analyses of tools like ChemBounce and RuSH, the article validates scaffold hopping's success in producing clinical candidates with improved pharmacokinetic and safety profiles. Aimed at researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals, this review synthesizes current trends and future directions, highlighting how scaffold hopping accelerates the discovery of innovative therapeutic agents.

What is Scaffold Hopping? Core Principles and Strategic Importance in Medicinal Chemistry

Scaffold hopping, a cornerstone strategy in modern medicinal chemistry, involves the deliberate modification of a bioactive compound's core structure to generate novel molecular entities with preserved or improved biological activity. Originally conceptualized by Gisbert Schneider in 1999, this approach has evolved from simple heterocyclic replacements to sophisticated computational design, enabling researchers to navigate chemical space systematically. This technical guide examines the theoretical foundations, methodological evolution, and practical applications of scaffold hopping within contemporary drug discovery paradigms. By integrating advances in artificial intelligence, multi-component reactions, and computational modeling, scaffold hopping continues to address critical challenges in lead optimization, including intellectual property expansion, pharmacokinetic enhancement, and the exploration of underexplored chemical territories. The following sections provide a comprehensive framework for implementing scaffold hopping strategies, complete with experimental protocols, computational workflows, and analytical tools essential for today's medicinal chemistry research.

The formal term "scaffold hopping" was coined by Gisbert Schneider in 1999 to describe the process of "identifying isofunctional structures with different molecular backbones" [1]. This concept emerged from the recognition that biological activity often depends on specific pharmacophoric arrangements rather than entire molecular skeletons. The strategy draws inspiration from natural product evolution, where diverse scaffolds can produce similar biological effects through convergent molecular recognition.

Scaffold hopping serves multiple critical functions in drug discovery. First, it enables intellectual property expansion by creating novel chemical space around existing pharmacophores, potentially circumventing existing patents while maintaining biological activity [2] [1]. Second, it addresses molecular deficiencies in lead compounds, such as poor pharmacokinetics, toxicity, or metabolic instability, through strategic structural modifications [2] [3]. Third, it facilitates exploration of structure-activity relationships (SAR) by probing how different frameworks position key functional groups for optimal target interaction [1].

The theoretical basis for scaffold hopping rests on the principle of bioisosterism, where functionally equivalent molecular features can substitute for one another while preserving biological activity. This extends beyond traditional atom-for-atom replacement to include topological and shape-based similarities that maintain essential pharmacophoric elements. The effectiveness of scaffold hopping ultimately depends on accurately distinguishing between structural features critical for biological activity and those amenable to modification.

Scaffold Hopping Variants: A Methodological Taxonomy

Scaffold hopping strategies exist along a spectrum of structural complexity, from simple atom-level substitutions to complete molecular topology alterations. These approaches have been systematically categorized into distinct variants based on the nature and extent of structural modification [1].

Table 1: Classification of Scaffold Hopping Variants

Variant	Structural Change	Complexity	Primary Application
1° Scaffold Hopping (Heterocycle Replacement)	Substitution or swapping of carbon and heteroatoms in backbone rings	Low	Lead optimization, patent expansion
2° Scaffold Hopping (Ring Closure or Opening)	Cyclization of open chains or ring opening to linear structures	Medium	Solubility improvement, conformational restriction
3° Scaffold Hopping (Peptidomimetics)	Replacement of peptide backbones with non-peptide structures	Medium-High	Enhancing metabolic stability, oral bioavailability
4° Scaffold Hopping (Topology-Based)	Alteration of molecular topology while preserving pharmacophore geometry	High	Exploring novel chemical space, addressing multi-resistance

First-Degree Scaffold Hopping: Heterocycle Replacement

The simplest form of scaffold hopping involves substituting or swapping carbon and heteroatoms in the backbone ring of a heterocyclic or carbocyclic core, while maintaining connected substituents [1]. This approach was successfully employed in developing TTK inhibitors, where iterative heterocycle replacement transformed an imidazo[1,2-a]pyrazine motif to pyrazolo[1,5-a]pyrimidine, ultimately yielding CFI-402257 with improved dissolution properties and maintained potency (ICâ‚…â‚€ = 1.4 nM) [1].

Second-Degree Scaffold Hopping: Ring Closure and Opening

This strategy involves either cyclizing open-chain structures or opening cyclic systems to create linear analogs. A notable application emerged from Sorafenib optimization, where researchers implemented a ring-opening strategy to create quinazoline-2-carboxylate and quinazoline-2-carboxamide-based compounds with maintained VEGFR2 inhibition but altered physicochemical profiles [1].

Third-Degree Scaffold Hopping: Peptidomimetics

Peptidomimetic scaffold hopping replaces peptide backbones with non-peptide structures that mimic the spatial arrangement of key pharmacophoric elements. This approach addresses inherent limitations of peptide therapeutics, including poor metabolic stability and limited oral bioavailability, while preserving biological activity through maintenance of critical interaction motifs [2].

Fourth-Degree Scaffold Hopping: Topology-Based Approaches

The most complex variant involves altering molecular topology while preserving the essential three-dimensional arrangement of pharmacophoric elements. This strategy enables exploration of structurally diverse chemical space while maintaining biological functionality. As Sun et al. categorized in 2012, topology-based hops represent the highest degree of scaffold hopping, often requiring sophisticated computational design [2].

Diagram 1: Scaffold Hopping Variants and Applications. The diagram illustrates the four primary scaffold hopping variants categorized by structural complexity, with connecting pathways to their primary applications in drug discovery.

Modern Computational Approaches and AI-Driven Innovations

The field of scaffold hopping has been transformed by computational methodologies that enable systematic exploration of chemical space beyond human intuition capabilities. Modern approaches leverage artificial intelligence, molecular representation advances, and sophisticated similarity metrics to propose novel scaffolds with high potential for maintaining biological activity.

Molecular Representation Methods

Effective scaffold hopping relies on accurate molecular representations that capture essential features for biological activity. Traditional methods included:

• String-based representations: SMILES (Simplified Molecular Input Line Entry System) and InChI provide compact, human-readable molecular encoding but struggle to capture complex structural relationships [2].
• Molecular fingerprints: Extended-connectivity fingerprints (ECFP) encode substructural information as binary strings, enabling similarity calculations and machine learning applications [2].
• Molecular descriptors: Quantitative parameters capturing physicochemical properties, topological features, and electronic characteristics [2].

Modern AI-driven approaches employ more sophisticated representations:

• Graph-based representations: Graph neural networks (GNNs) natively model molecules as graphs with atoms as nodes and bonds as edges, capturing both local and global structural features [2].
• Language model-based representations: Transformer architectures process SMILES strings as chemical language, learning contextual relationships between molecular substructures [2].
• 3D shape and electrostatic representations: Methods like Electroshape incorporate molecular shape, chirality, and electrostatics for similarity calculations beyond 2D structural features [4].

AI-Driven Scaffold Hopping Platforms

Several computational platforms have emerged specifically for scaffold hopping applications:

AnchorQuery utilizes pharmacophore-based screening of approximately 31 million synthesizable compounds through one-step multi-component reaction chemistry. The platform requires a ligand-bound crystal structure as input and identifies novel scaffolds maintaining critical interaction motifs. In developing molecular glues for the 14-3-3σ/ERα complex, researchers used AnchorQuery to perform pharmacophore-based searches, identifying Groebke-Blackburn-Bienaymé (GBB) three-component reaction products as promising scaffolds [3].

ChemBounce represents another specialized framework that identifies core scaffolds in user-supplied molecules and replaces them using a curated library of over 3 million fragments derived from the ChEMBL database. Generated compounds are evaluated based on Tanimoto and electron shape similarities to ensure retention of pharmacophores and potential biological activity [4].

Table 2: Computational Tools for Scaffold Hopping

Tool/Platform	Methodology	Chemical Space	Key Features
AnchorQuery	Pharmacophore-based screening	~31 million synthesizable compounds	Integration with MCR chemistry, structure-based design
ChemBounce	Fragment replacement	3+ million fragments from ChEMBL	Tanimoto and shape similarity evaluation, cloud implementation
MORPH	Systematic aromatic ring modification	Customizable	3D molecular similarity, whole-ligand topology analysis
AI-based Molecular Representation	Graph neural networks, transformers	Virtually unlimited	Data-driven feature learning, latent space exploration

Quantum Chemical Calculations in Scaffold Validation

Density Functional Theory (DFT) calculations provide critical insights into electronic properties of scaffold-hopped compounds. In a study targeting tankyrase inhibitors for colorectal cancer, researchers performed DFT calculations using the PySCF quantum chemistry library to investigate frontier molecular orbitals of candidate molecules [5]. The HOMO-LUMO gap served as an indicator of electronic stability, with values around 4.5-5.0 eV representing an optimal balance of stability and reactivity for drug-like molecules [5].

Experimental Protocols and Methodological Implementation

Successful scaffold hopping requires integration of computational design with experimental validation. This section outlines key methodological frameworks for implementing scaffold hopping strategies in medicinal chemistry research.

Structure-Based Scaffold Hopping Protocol

The following protocol was successfully applied in developing molecular glues for the 14-3-3σ/ERα complex [3]:

• Template Selection: Identify a reference compound with confirmed binding mode and biological activity. For the 14-3-3σ/ERα project, researchers used compound 127 (PDB 8ALW) with a covalent bond to C38 of 14-3-3σ as the template.

• Pharmacophore Definition: Define critical interaction features from the template's binding mode:

  • Anchor motif (e.g., p-chloro-phenyl ring forming halogen bond with K122)
  • Hydrophobic interactions (e.g., with L218, I219 of 14-3-3 and Val595 of ERα)
  • Hydrogen-bonding patterns (e.g., water-mediated bonds to Val595 carboxylic acid)

• Computational Screening: Utilize platforms like AnchorQuery to screen virtual libraries using the defined pharmacophore. Apply molecular weight filters (e.g., <400 Da) and similarity metrics to prioritize hits.

• Synthetic Implementation: Employ multi-component reactions (e.g., Groebke-Blackburn-Bienaymé reaction) for rapid synthesis of diverse analogs. The GBB-3CR combines aldehydes, 2-aminopyridines, and isocyanides to generate imidazo[1,2-a]pyridines.

• Biophysical Validation: Assess binding through orthogonal assays:

  • Intact mass spectrometry to detect complex formation
  • TR-FRET (Time-Resolved Fluorescence Resonance Energy Transfer) for affinity quantification
  • SPR (Surface Plasmon Resonance) for kinetic parameter determination
  • X-ray crystallography for structural confirmation

• Cellular Activity Assessment: Evaluate functional effects in physiological contexts using assays such as NanoBRET with full-length proteins in live cells.

Ligand-Based Virtual Screening Protocol

For targets without structural information, ligand-based approaches provide an alternative scaffold hopping strategy [5]:

• Reference Compound Selection: Choose a compound with confirmed activity against the target. In tankyrase inhibitor development, RK-582 served as the reference.

• Similarity Searching: Conduct structural similarity searches in databases like PubChem using appropriate cutoffs (typically 70-80% similarity). This identified 533 structurally similar compounds in the tankyrase study.

• Virtual Screening: Apply drug-likeness filters (Lipinski's Rule of Five, Veber's rules) to prioritize candidates.

• Molecular Docking: Perform docking studies with target structures (e.g., Tankyrase PDB ID: 6KRO) using AutoDock Vina or similar tools.

• Dynamics Assessment: Conduct molecular dynamics simulations (500 ns) to evaluate complex stability through RMSD and RMSF fluctuations.

• Activity Prediction: Implement machine learning models trained on known inhibitors (236 compounds in the tankyrase study) to predict pICâ‚…â‚€ values.

Diagram 2: Integrated Scaffold Hopping Workflow. The diagram outlines key phases in scaffold hopping implementation, from computational design to experimental validation, highlighting the iterative nature of the process.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

Successful implementation of scaffold hopping strategies requires specialized computational tools, chemical libraries, and experimental resources. The following table details essential components of the scaffold hopping research toolkit.

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Scaffold Hopping Implementation

Category	Specific Tool/Resource	Function	Application Example
Computational Tools	AnchorQuery	Pharmacophore-based screening of synthesizable compounds	Identifying MCR scaffolds for molecular glues [3]
	ChemBounce	Fragment-based scaffold replacement with similarity evaluation	Generating diverse analogs from ChEMBL fragments [4]
	AutoDock Vina	Molecular docking and binding pose prediction	Virtual screening of tankyrase inhibitors [5]
	PySCF	Density Functional Theory calculations	Quantum chemical analysis of electronic properties [5]
Chemical Libraries	Multi-component Reaction Libraries	Diverse, synthesizable compound collections	GBB-3CR for imidazo[1,2-a]pyridine synthesis [3]
	Fragment Libraries	Curated collections for core replacement	ChemBounce's 3M+ fragment library [4]
	PubChem Database	Public repository of chemical structures	Similarity searching for tankyrase inhibitors [5]
Experimental Assays	TR-FRET	Biophysical binding affinity measurement	Molecular glue characterization [3]
	Surface Plasmon Resonance	Kinetic parameter determination	Binding kinetics for optimized scaffolds [3]
	Intact Mass Spectrometry	Detection of complex formation	Protein-ligand interaction confirmation [3]
	NanoBRET	Cellular target engagement	Functional assessment in live cells [3]
7-Amino-4-methylcoumarin-3-acetic acid	7-Amino-4-methylcoumarin-3-acetic acid, CAS:106562-32-7, MF:C12H11NO4, MW:233.22 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
1-(1-Naphthyl)piperazine hydrochloride	1-(1-Naphthyl)piperazine hydrochloride, CAS:104113-71-5, MF:C14H17ClN2, MW:248.75 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

Case Studies: Successful Scaffold Hopping Applications

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

A recent breakthrough demonstrated scaffold hopping from covalent molecular glues to non-covalent analogs using multi-component reaction chemistry. Researchers began with compound 127, containing a chloroacetamide warhead forming a covalent bond with C38 of 14-3-3σ. Through AnchorQuery screening with a defined pharmacophore (phenylalanine anchor and three additional interaction points), they identified imidazo[1,2-a]pyridine scaffolds via the Groebke-Blackburn-Bienaymé reaction [3]. The optimized analogs maintained key interactions: halogen bonding with K122, hydrophobic contacts with L218/I219, and water-mediated hydrogen bonds with Val595 of ERα. This scaffold hopping success yielded non-covalent molecular glues with low micromolar cellular activity, demonstrating the power of computational design coupled with divergent synthesis.

Tankyrase Inhibitors for Colorectal Cancer

A comprehensive computational approach identified novel tankyrase inhibitors through structural stability-guided scaffold hopping. Beginning with reference compound RK-582, researchers conducted similarity searching in PubChem (80% cutoff) yielding 533 structurally similar compounds [5]. After virtual screening and DFT calculations, top candidates exhibited favorable HOMO-LUMO gaps (4.473-4.979 eV), indicating optimal electronic stability. Molecular dynamics simulations confirmed conformational stability, with selected compounds showing low RMSD/RMSF fluctuations over 500 ns simulations. Machine learning predictions indicated strong tankyrase inhibition (pICâ‚…â‚€ = 7.70 for top candidate versus 7.71 for reference). This integrated computational approach demonstrates how scaffold hopping can identify promising candidates with balanced stability and reactivity profiles.

Enzyme-Enabled Terpenoid Scaffold Hopping

An innovative bio-inspired approach demonstrated enzyme-enabled scaffold hopping in terpenoid synthesis. Researchers used engineered cytochrome P450 enzymes to selectively oxidize the commercially available sesquiterpene lactone sclareolide at previously inaccessible positions [6]. The resulting oxygenated intermediate served as a versatile platform for chemical diversification into four distinct terpenoid natural products: merosterolic acid B, cochlioquinone B, (+)-daucene, and dolasta-1(15),8-diene. This strategy challenged traditional retrosynthetic analysis by demonstrating how a single enzymatic transformation could unlock diverse molecular architectures from a common precursor, significantly enhancing synthetic efficiency for complex natural product synthesis.

Scaffold hopping has evolved from Gisbert Schneider's original concept into a sophisticated cornerstone of modern medicinal chemistry. The integration of computational prediction, AI-driven molecular representation, and innovative synthetic methodologies has transformed this approach from simple bioisosteric replacement to systematic navigation of chemical space. As the case studies illustrate, successful implementation requires multidisciplinary expertise spanning computational chemistry, synthetic methodology, and biological evaluation.

Future developments will likely focus on several key areas. AI-driven generative models will expand beyond similarity-based approaches to create genuinely novel scaffolds optimized for specific target interfaces. Reaction-aware design platforms will increasingly integrate synthetic feasibility directly into the scoring functions, accelerating the transition from in silico prediction to synthesized compound. Structural biology advances in characterizing challenging targets, including membrane proteins and disordered regions, will provide new templates for scaffold hopping applications.

The continued refinement of scaffold hopping methodologies promises to address persistent challenges in drug discovery, particularly for difficult targets where traditional approaches have struggled. By enabling systematic exploration of chemical space while maintaining critical pharmacological features, scaffold hopping represents a powerful strategy for expanding the druggable genome and delivering innovative therapeutics to address unmet medical needs.

In the intensely competitive landscape of pharmaceutical research and development, the ability to innovate while mitigating risks is paramount. Scaffold hopping, a medicinal chemistry strategy that modifies the core molecular structure of a known bioactive compound, has emerged as a powerful approach to address three critical challenges in drug discovery: expanding intellectual property (IP) space, overcoming toxicity issues, and optimizing suboptimal absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and toxicity (ADMET) properties [1]. This strategy is predicated on the fundamental principle that structurally distinct compounds can maintain biological activity against the same target if they conserve key ligand-target interactions [7]. The strategic importance of scaffold hopping has grown significantly in recent years, with many pharmaceutical companies reducing R&D investments due to risk and low return on investment, instead focusing more on developing generic formulations and manufacturing active pharmaceutical ingredients [1]. In this context, scaffold hopping represents a calculated approach to de-risk drug discovery by starting from validated molecular templates while creating significantly novel chemical entities that overcome the limitations of existing compounds.

The concept of scaffold hopping was formally introduced by Schneider in 1999 as a technique to identify isofunctional molecular structures with significantly different molecular backbones [8] [2]. However, the strategy itself has been applied since the dawn of drug discovery, with many marketed drugs derived from natural products, natural hormones, and other drugs through scaffold modification [8]. The contemporary definition emphasizes two key components: different core structures and similar biological activities of the new compounds relative to the parent compounds [8]. This review provides an in-depth technical examination of how scaffold hopping methodologies are being leveraged to overcome the critical obstacles of IP constraints, toxicity, and poor ADMET properties, thereby accelerating the development of safer, more effective therapeutic agents.

Scaffold Hopping Classification and Methodological Framework

Degrees of Structural Modification

The structural modifications in scaffold hopping exist on a spectrum from minor alterations to complete molecular overhauls. Sun et al. (2012) established a practical framework for classifying scaffold hopping into four distinct degrees based on the type of structural core change relative to the parent molecule [8] [7] [2]. This classification system provides medicinal chemists with a systematic approach to planning and executing scaffold hopping campaigns.

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

Degree	Type of Change	Structural Novelty	Success Rate	Primary Applications
1° (Heterocyclic Replacement)	Substitution, addition, or removal of heteroatoms; replacement of one heterocycle with similar heterocycle	Low	Relatively high	SAR studies, tuning physicochemical properties, optimizing PK profile [7]
2° (Ring Opening/Closure)	Breaking or forming rings to alter ring systems	Medium	Medium	Reducing molecular flexibility, improving absorption, modifying metabolic pathways [8]
3° (Peptidomimetics)	Replacement of peptide backbones with non-peptide moieties	High	Variable	Converting peptides to orally available drugs, improving metabolic stability [8]
4° (Topology-Based Hopping)	Comprehensive changes to molecular topology and scaffold architecture	Very High	Lower	Creating backup series, establishing strong IP position, addressing multi-parameter optimization [8]

Experimental Workflow for Scaffold Hopping

The implementation of a scaffold hopping campaign follows a logical, iterative process that integrates computational design with experimental validation. The following diagram illustrates the core workflow:

Overcoming Intellectual Property Constraints

Strategic Expansion of IP Space

In the pharmaceutical industry, where patent protection is crucial for securing return on investment, scaffold hopping provides a strategic pathway to create novel patentable chemical entities while working from validated starting points [1]. The fundamental premise is that by generating compounds with significantly different molecular backbones from existing drugs, companies can establish their own proprietary IP position even when targeting well-established biological pathways [7]. This approach is particularly valuable for targeting "non-new" therapeutically interesting targets, where exploration of novel chemistries can be based on known ligands or ligand-protein complex structures [8].

The legal foundation for IP protection of scaffold-hopped compounds rests on the requirement of non-obviousness and novelty in patent law. Even minor structural modifications can be sufficient for patent protection if they require different synthetic routes, as noted by Boehm et al., who classified two scaffolds as different if they were synthesized using different synthetic routines, regardless of how small the change might be [8]. This principle is exemplified by the phosphodiesterase enzyme type 5 (PDE5) inhibitors Sildenafil and Vardenafil, where the primary structural variation is the swap of a carbon atom and a nitrogen atom in a 5-6 fused ring system—a change sufficient for the two molecules to be covered by different patents [8]. Similarly, the two cyclooxygenase II (COX-2) inhibitors Rofecoxib (Vioxx) and Valdecoxib (Bextra) differ primarily in the 5-member hetero rings connecting two phenyl rings, yet they were marketed by different pharmaceutical companies under separate patent protection [8].

Computational Approaches for IP-Driven Scaffold Hopping

Structure-based virtual screening (SBVS) has emerged as a particularly powerful tool for IP-driven scaffold hopping [7]. This approach utilizes 3D structural data from sources such as X-ray crystallography, NMR spectroscopy, and the Protein Data Bank (PDB) to model receptor-ligand interactions [7]. Molecular docking, the core technique of SBVS, predicts binding modes and estimates interaction strength between a small molecule (typically obtained from commercially available libraries such as PubChem, ChEMBL, or ZINC) and the protein target [7]. By identifying alternative scaffolds that maintain key interactions with the target protein but differ sufficiently in their core structure, researchers can systematically design around existing patent claims.

Ligand-based virtual screening (LBVS) represents another important computational approach, particularly when 3D structural information about the target is limited [7]. LBVS identifies candidate scaffolds with key similar chemical features critical for protein binding using molecular fingerprints and similarity assessment metrics such as the Tanimoto score [7]. Advanced implementations combine multiple similarity metrics to identify promising scaffold hopping candidates. For instance, one study identified new topoisomerase II poison scaffolds by combining 3D shape similarity and biological activity similarity while requiring 2D fingerprint dissimilarity, successfully discovering new chemotypes with Top2 inhibitory activity [9].

Addressing Toxicity and ADMET Limitations

Systematic ADMET Optimization

The optimization of ADMET properties has become a critical focus in modern drug discovery, as these factors account for a significant proportion of clinical phase failures [10]. Scaffold hopping provides a powerful strategy to address ADMET limitations that cannot be remedied through simple peripheral modifications of a problematic scaffold [1]. The advent of computational ADMET prediction tools has significantly accelerated this optimization process, allowing researchers to prioritize scaffolds with favorable predicted properties before embarking on resource-intensive synthetic efforts.

ADMETopt2 is a specialized web server that exemplifies this approach, applying scaffold hopping and transformation rules specifically for ADMET optimization in drug design [11] [10]. This server leverages more than 50,000 unique scaffolds extracted by fragmenting chemical libraries, including ChEMBL and Enamine, and up to 105,780 transformation rules derived from matched molecular pair analysis on various ADMET property datasets [11]. The system can predict and optimize numerous ADMET properties, including blood-brain barrier permeability, human intestinal absorption, P-glycoprotein inhibition, CYP450 inhibitory promiscuity, Ames mutagenicity, hepatotoxicity, and various other toxicity endpoints [11].

Table 2: Key ADMET Properties Addressable via Scaffold Hopping and Corresponding Optimization Strategies

ADMET Property	Scaffold Hopping Approach	Impact on Drug Profile
Human Intestinal Absorption	Ring opening to reduce molecular rigidity; heterocycle replacement to modify hydrogen bonding capacity	Improved oral bioavailability [8] [11]
Metabolic Stability	Replacement of metabolically labile heterocycles; ring closure to block metabolic soft spots	Reduced clearance, longer half-life [1]
Hepatotoxicity	Structural modification to eliminate reactive metabolic intermediates; reduction of lipophilicity	Improved safety profile, reduced liver enzyme elevations [11]
hERG Inhibition	Reduction of basic nitrogen atoms; introduction of steric hindrance near cationic centers	Reduced cardiac toxicity risk [11]
Solubility	Introduction of ionizable groups; modification of crystal packing through asymmetric scaffolds	Improved formulation, higher exposure [7]
CYP450 Inhibition	Reduction of lipophilic surface area; modification of iron-coordinating groups	Reduced drug-drug interaction potential [11]

Case Study: Aurone Optimization Through Scaffold Hopping

Natural aurones (2-benzylidenebenzofuran-3(2H)-ones) represent an intriguing class of minor flavonoids with diverse biological activities, but their development as drugs has been hampered by several P3 (physicochemical, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic) issues common to natural polyphenols, including limited solubility, cellular permeability, suboptimal bioavailability, and metabolic instability [12]. Scaffold hopping has been employed to address these limitations through systematic O-to-N and O-to-S bioisosteric replacements, generating nitrogen (azaaurones) and sulfur (thioaurones) analogues with improved properties [12].

The synthetic approaches to azaaurones (indolin-3-one derivatives) demonstrate how scaffold hopping can generate novel chemotypes with improved synthetic accessibility and drug-like properties [12]. Traditional synthetic methods involve Knoevenagel-aldol condensation of indolin-3-one or 1H-indol-3-yl-acetate intermediates with aromatic aldehydes, while more recent one-pot methods employ organocatalyzed cross-coupling reactions, such as Sonogashira reactions or gold-catalyzed protocols, to streamline synthesis and improve yields [12]. These synthetic advancements are crucial for enabling extensive structure-activity relationship studies and producing analogues with optimized ADMET profiles.

The biological evaluation of these scaffold-hopped aurone analogues has demonstrated maintained or improved target engagement while addressing specific ADMET limitations. For instance, certain azaaurone derivatives have shown enhanced metabolic stability compared to their natural counterparts, addressing the ease of oxidation of the polyphenolic framework that plagues many natural products [12]. Similarly, specific synthetic approaches enable the introduction of solubilizing groups or modification of electronic properties that improve aqueous solubility without compromising target binding [12].

Computational and AI-Driven Advancements in Scaffold Hopping

Traditional vs. Modern Molecular Representation Methods

The effectiveness of scaffold hopping campaigns is heavily dependent on how molecular structures are represented and compared. Traditional molecular representation methods include molecular descriptors (quantifying physical/chemical properties) and molecular fingerprints (encoding substructural information as binary strings or numerical values) [2]. The Simplified Molecular-Input Line-Entry System (SMILES) provides a compact string-based representation that has been widely adopted [2]. While these traditional representations are computationally efficient and useful for similarity searching and QSAR modeling, they often struggle to capture the subtle and intricate relationships between molecular structure and function, particularly for scaffold hopping applications that require navigating vast chemical spaces [2].

Modern AI-driven molecular representation methods have emerged to address these limitations, employing deep learning techniques to learn continuous, high-dimensional feature embeddings directly from large and complex datasets [2]. Models such as graph neural networks (GNNs), variational autoencoders (VAEs), and transformers enable these approaches to move beyond predefined rules, capturing both local and global molecular features [2] [13]. These representations better reflect the subtle structural and functional relationships underlying molecular behavior, thereby providing more powerful tools for scaffold hopping and lead optimization [2].

Table 3: Computational Tools for Scaffold Hopping Implementation

Tool/Software	Methodology	Primary Application	Key Features
ADMETopt2	Scaffold hopping with transformation rules	ADMET optimization	>50k unique scaffolds; >105k transformation rules; predicts 15+ ADMET properties [11]
Molecular Docking	Structure-based virtual screening	Target-informed hopping	Uses 3D protein structure; predicts binding modes; free energy calculations [7]
ROCS	3D shape similarity	Shape-based hopping	Maximizes molecular overlap; identifies shape-similar but structurally diverse compounds [9]
FP-ADMET/MolMapNet	AI-based descriptor analysis	Property prediction	Transforms descriptors to 2D feature maps; uses CNNs for ADMET prediction [2]
Graph Neural Networks	Learned molecular representations	Chemical space exploration	Captures non-linear structure-property relationships; enables generative design [2]

Integrated Computational Workflow

The most effective scaffold hopping campaigns combine multiple computational approaches in an integrated workflow. The following diagram illustrates how these methods synergize to identify novel scaffolds with optimized properties:

Experimental Protocols and Validation Methodologies

Key Experimental Protocols for Scaffold Hopping Validation

The successful implementation of scaffold hopping requires rigorous experimental validation to confirm that the novel scaffolds maintain target engagement while exhibiting improved properties. Below are detailed methodologies for key validation experiments frequently cited in scaffold hopping research:

Molecular Docking Protocol for Binding Mode Assessment

• Preparation of Protein Structure: Obtain 3D structure from Protein Data Bank (PDB). Remove water molecules and co-crystallized ligands. Add hydrogen atoms and optimize hydrogen bonding networks using tools like MOE or Maestro [7] [9].
• Ligand Preparation: Draw candidate structures in ChemDraw or similar software. Convert to 3D structures and perform energy minimization using MMFF94 or similar force field. Generate possible tautomers and protonation states at physiological pH [9].
• Docking Procedure: Define binding site based on known ligand coordinates. Use docking software such as AutoDock Vina or GOLD. Set exhaustiveness parameter to at least 8 for Vina to ensure comprehensive sampling. Perform blind docking if binding site is unknown [9].
• Analysis: Cluster results by root-mean-square deviation (RMSD). Examine key interactions (hydrogen bonds, Ï€-Ï€ stacking, hydrophobic contacts). Compare binding modes of novel scaffolds with original compound [9].

In Vitro Topoisomerase II Decatenation Assay

• Principle: Measures compound ability to inhibit Topoisomerase II-mediated decatenation of kinetoplast DNA (kDNA) [9].
• Reagents: Topoisomerase II enzyme, kinetoplast DNA (kDNA), assay buffer (50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8.0, 120 mM KCl, 10 mM MgCl2, 0.5 mM ATP, 0.5 mM DTT), test compounds dissolved in DMSO, agarose gel electrophoresis supplies [9].
• Procedure: Pre-incubate Topoisomerase II (2-4 units) with test compounds (0.1-100 μM range) for 5 minutes at 37°C. Add kDNA (0.2-0.5 μg) and incubate for 30 minutes at 37°C. Stop reaction with stop buffer (5% Sarkosyl, 0.0025% bromophenol blue, 25% glycerol). Run samples on 1% agarose gel in TBE buffer at 4°C for 2-3 hours at 4V/cm. Visualize with ethidium bromide staining [9].
• Analysis: Quantify remaining catenated DNA versus decatenated DNA using densitometry. Calculate IC50 values using non-linear regression of inhibition curves [9].

Cytotoxicity Profiling Using NCI60 Panel

• Cell Culture: Maintain 60 human tumor cell lines in RPMI-1640 medium with 5% fetal bovine serum and 2 mM L-glutamine [9].
• Compound Treatment: Prepare 5-10 concentration dilutions of test compounds. Treat cells for 48 hours [9].
• Viability Assessment: Use sulfothodamine B (SRB) assay to measure cellular protein content as surrogate for cell mass. Fix cells with trichloroacetic acid, stain with SRB, and dissolve bound dye with Tris buffer [9].
• Data Analysis: Calculate pGI50 values (-log10 of molar concentration causing 50% growth inhibition). Generate mean graphs and compare patterns of sensitivity across cell lines [9].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents for Scaffold Hopping Implementation and Validation

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Function/Application	Key Considerations
Compound Libraries	ZINC, ChEMBL, Enamine, PubChem	Source of diverse scaffolds for virtual screening	Size, diversity, drug-like filters, availability [11] [2]
Target Proteins	Recombinant enzymes (Topoisomerase II, Kinases, etc.)	In vitro activity and binding assays	Purity, activity, storage conditions [9]
Cell-Based Assay Systems	NCI60 panel, primary cells, engineered cell lines	Cytotoxicity profiling, mechanism validation	Relevance to disease model, growth characteristics [9]
Computational Software	MOE, Schrodinger Suite, OpenEye ROCS, RDKit	Structure-based design, molecular modeling, similarity searching	Accuracy of scoring functions, conformational sampling [8] [9]
AI/ML Platforms	Graph neural networks, Transformers, VAEs	Chemical space exploration, molecular generation	Training data quality, representation learning capability [13] [2]
2,4,6,6-Tetramethyl-3(6H)-pyridinone	2,4,6,6-Tetramethyl-3(6H)-pyridinone | Research Chemical	High-purity 2,4,6,6-Tetramethyl-3(6H)-pyridinone for research applications. For Research Use Only. Not for human or veterinary use.	Bench Chemicals
2,4-Difluorobenzaldehyde	2,4-Difluorobenzaldehyde | High-Purity Reagent	High-purity 2,4-Difluorobenzaldehyde for pharmaceutical & materials research. For Research Use Only. Not for human or veterinary use.	Bench Chemicals

Scaffold hopping represents a sophisticated strategic approach that directly addresses three critical challenges in modern drug discovery: intellectual property constraints, toxicity issues, and suboptimal ADMET properties. Through systematic modification of molecular backbones—ranging from simple heterocycle replacements to comprehensive topology-based overhauls—medicinal chemists can generate novel chemical entities with improved patent positions, enhanced safety profiles, and optimized pharmacokinetic characteristics. The integration of advanced computational methods, including structure-based design, AI-driven molecular representation, and predictive ADMET modeling, has transformed scaffold hopping from an artisanal practice to a systematic discipline capable of navigating the complex multi-parameter optimization required for successful drug development. As pharmaceutical R&D continues to face pressures related to efficiency, cost, and success rates, scaffold hopping stands as a powerful methodology for de-risking the drug discovery process while fostering innovation through the rational transformation of validated molecular templates into novel therapeutic agents with superior clinical potential.

In the intensely competitive landscape of pharmaceutical research, the ability to efficiently generate novel chemical entities with improved properties constitutes a critical strategic advantage. Scaffold hopping, a term first coined by Schneider and colleagues in 1999, has emerged as an indispensable strategy for achieving this objective [8] [2]. This approach is formally defined as the identification of isofunctional molecular structures with significantly different molecular backbones, aiming to discover novel core structures (scaffolds) while retaining similar biological activity or target interaction as the original molecule [8] [2]. The central premise of scaffold hopping challenges, yet operates within, the boundaries of the similarity property principle, which states that structurally similar compounds typically possess similar biological activities. The successful application of scaffold hopping demonstrates that while ligands binding the same pocket must share certain complementary features—such as shape and electropotential surface—they can indeed belong to strikingly different chemotypes [8] [14].

The therapeutic and commercial motivations for scaffold hopping are substantial. First, existing lead compounds often suffer from undesirable properties such as toxicity, metabolic instability, poor solubility, or inadequate pharmacokinetic profiles [8] [2]. Second, by creating compounds with structurally distinct cores, researchers can establish robust intellectual property positions and develop patentable chemical space beyond existing compounds [2] [1]. The strategic importance of scaffold hopping is evidenced by its role in developing marketed drugs including Vadadustat, Bosutinib, Sorafenib, and Nirmatrelvir [15]. As drug discovery faces increasing challenges with target validation, chemical space exploration, and development timelines, scaffold hopping provides a systematic methodology for accelerating the identification of viable drug candidates with optimized molecular medicinal properties encompassing pharmacodynamics, physicochemical characteristics, and pharmacokinetics (P3 properties) [1].

A Four-Tiered Classification System for Scaffold Hopping

The taxonomy of scaffold hopping approaches has been systematically categorized into a four-tiered classification system that reflects increasing degrees of structural modification and novelty [8] [2] [14]. This hierarchical framework—encompassing heterocyclic replacements, ring opening/closure, peptidomimetics, and topology-based hopping—enables medicinal chemists to conceptualize and plan scaffold modification strategies with varying levels of ambition and risk. The following sections provide detailed technical examinations of each category, including their underlying principles, methodological approaches, experimental protocols, and illustrative case studies from drug discovery campaigns.

Table 1: Four-Tiered Classification System for Scaffold Hopping

Hop Category	Degree of Structural Change	Key Objective	Typical Structural Novelty	Success Rate Considerations
1°: Heterocycle Replacements	Low	Bioisosteric replacement while maintaining vector geometry	Low to moderate	High success rate due to conservative nature
2°: Ring Opening/Closure	Medium	Modulation of molecular flexibility and conformational entropy	Moderate	Medium success rate
3°: Peptidomimetics	Medium to High	Transformation of peptides into drug-like small molecules	Moderate to high	Variable, depends on complexity of peptide target
4°: Topology-Based Hopping	High	Identification of fundamentally different core architectures	High	Lower success rate but high impact

1° Hop: Heterocycle Replacements

Heterocyclic replacements represent the most fundamental category of scaffold hopping, involving the substitution or swapping of carbon and heteroatoms (e.g., nitrogen, oxygen, sulfur) within a heterocyclic or carbocyclic ring system that serves as the molecular core [8] [14] [1]. This approach maintains the outgoing vectors of the original scaffold while modifying the electronic properties, hydrogen bonding capacity, solubility, or metabolic stability of the core structure. The strategic value of heterocycle replacements lies in their ability to generate patentably distinct scaffolds through relatively conservative chemical modifications that preserve the essential pharmacophoric elements and overall molecular geometry.

A seminal example demonstrating the commercial significance of heterocycle replacements can be observed in the development of phosphodiesterase-5 (PDE5) inhibitors. The structural variation between Sildenafil and Vardenafil primarily involves the swap of a carbon atom and a nitrogen atom in the 5-6 fused ring system (Figure 3a and 3b), yet this subtle modification was sufficient to secure distinct patent protection for each compound [8]. Similarly, in the cyclooxygenase-II (COX-2) inhibitor class, Rofecoxib (Vioxx) and Valdecoxib (Bextra) differ principally in their 5-membered heterocyclic rings connecting two phenyl rings (Figure 3c and 3d), leading to separate commercial development by Merck and Pharmacia/Pfizer, respectively [8]. These examples underscore the principle that even minimal heterocyclic alterations can establish novel chemical entities with distinct intellectual property positions.

Table 2: Representative Heterocyclic Bioisosteres in Scaffold Hopping

Original Heterocycle	Common Bioisosteric Replacements	Key Property Modifications	Therapeutic Application Examples
Phenyl ring	Pyridine, Pyrimidine, Thiophene	Enhanced solubility, altered electronic distribution	Antihistamines (e.g., Azatadine) [8]
Imidazole	Pyrazole, Triazole, Tetrazole	Modified metall binding, reduced basicity	Antifungal agents, COX-2 inhibitors
Pyridine	Pyridone, Pyrimidine, Pyrazine	Altered hydrogen bonding capacity	Kinase inhibitors
Piperidine	Tetrahydropyran, Morpholine	Reduced basicity, metabolic stability	CNS agents

The experimental workflow for heterocycle replacement typically initiates with a comprehensive analysis of the original scaffold's role in target binding and molecular properties. Critical considerations include: (1) identifying key atoms involved in direct target interactions that must be preserved; (2) mapping the vector geometry of substituent attachment points; (3) analyzing the electronic distribution and aromaticity of the ring system; and (4) evaluating potential metabolic soft spots. Computational approaches significantly enhance this process through molecular docking studies to validate proposed bioisosteres, electrostatic potential mapping to compare charge distributions, and molecular dynamics simulations to assess conformational stability. The synthesis of candidate compounds typically employs parallel synthesis methodologies to efficiently generate arrays of analogous heterocycles for systematic structure-activity relationship (SAR) evaluation.

2° Hop: Ring Opening and Closure

Ring opening and ring closure strategies constitute the second category of scaffold hopping, involving more substantial modifications to molecular architecture through the strategic cleavage or formation of cyclic systems [8] [14]. These approaches directly manipulate molecular flexibility, which profoundly influences both the entropic component of binding free energy and key drug-like properties including membrane penetration, absorption, and metabolic stability [8] [14]. Ring opening typically increases conformational freedom and may enhance solubility, while ring closure reduces flexibility, potentially improving potency by pre-organizing the molecule into its bioactive conformation and reducing the entropy penalty upon target binding.

The classical transformation of morphine to tramadol provides a historically significant illustration of ring opening as a scaffold hopping strategy (Figure 1) [8] [14]. Morphine possesses a rigid 'T'-shaped structure with multiple fused rings that confers potent analgesic activity but also significant addictive potential and adverse effects including respiratory depression. Through strategic bond cleavage and opening of three fused rings, tramadol emerges as a more flexible molecule with reduced potency but substantially improved safety profile and oral bioavailability [8]. Despite their dramatically different two-dimensional structures, three-dimensional superposition reveals conservation of key pharmacophore features: a positively charged tertiary amine, an aromatic ring, and a hydroxyl group (with tramadol's methoxyl group undergoing metabolic demethylation to yield the active hydroxyl form) [8]. This conservation of essential pharmacophoric elements in three-dimensional space exemplifies the fundamental principle of scaffold hopping.

Conversely, ring closure strategies can transform flexible molecules into constrained analogs with enhanced properties. The evolution of antihistamines provides a compelling case study (Figure 2) [8] [14]. Pheniramine, a classical antihistamine featuring two aromatic rings joined to a central atom with a positive charge center, served as the starting point. Through ring closure, both aromatic rings of pheniramine were locked into their active conformation via incorporation into a tricyclic system, producing cyproheptadine with significantly improved binding affinity against the H1-receptor [8]. Additional rigidification through introduction of a piperidine ring further reduced molecular flexibility, enhancing both potency and absorption. This structural evolution continued with isosteric replacement of one phenyl ring in cyproheptadine with thiophene to yield pizotifen, which demonstrated improved therapeutic utility for migraine prophylaxis [8] [14]. Subsequent replacement of a phenyl ring with pyrimidine in azatadine further enhanced solubility while maintaining the essential pharmacophore orientation [8].

The methodological approach to ring opening/closure strategies requires meticulous conformational analysis to identify flexible bonds suitable for cleavage or sites for cyclization. Computational techniques include: (1) molecular dynamics simulations to identify preferred conformations and torsion angle distributions; (2) conformational entropy calculations to quantify the flexibility penalty; (3) pharmacophore mapping to ensure conservation of critical features; and (4) strain energy calculations for proposed ring systems. Synthetic implementation typically employs strategic disconnection/reconnection approaches, often leveraging ring-closing metathesis, lactamization, or cycloaddition chemistry for ring formation, or selective oxidative cleavage, hydrolysis, or retro-synthetic fragmentation for ring opening.

Diagram 1: Experimental workflow for ring opening and closure strategies in scaffold hopping

3° Hop: Peptidomimetics and Pseudopeptides

The third category of scaffold hopping addresses the significant challenge of developing drug-like molecules from biologically active peptides, which play vital physiological roles as hormones, growth factors, and neuropeptides [8] [14]. Native peptides typically exhibit poor metabolic stability, limited oral bioavailability, and unfavorable pharmacokinetic properties, severely restricting their therapeutic application. Peptidomimetics and pseudopeptides represent sophisticated scaffold hopping approaches that transform peptide structures into non-peptide small molecules while preserving key pharmacophoric elements and biological activity [8] [14]. This category encompasses diverse strategies including modification of peptide backbones through isosteric replacement, conformational constraint, and topographical stabilization.

The fundamental objective of peptidomimetic design is to retain the critical residues and spatial orientation necessary for biological activity while replacing the inherently flexible and metabolically vulnerable peptide backbone with robust, drug-like scaffolds. Successful implementation requires meticulous analysis of the peptide-protein interaction to identify: (1) key side chain functionalities that mediate binding; (2) essential backbone conformations (e.g., β-turns, α-helices, γ-turns); (3) hydrogen bonding patterns; and (4) topological constraints. Computational approaches include molecular dynamics simulations of peptide-receptor complexes, pharmacophore modeling of key interaction features, and de novo design of constrained scaffolds that mimic peptide topography.

Advanced peptidomimetic strategies have been successfully applied to numerous therapeutic targets. Representative approaches include: (1) replacement of amide bonds with bioisosteres such as olefins, heterocycles, or sulfonamides to enhance metabolic stability; (2) incorporation of rigid scaffolds (e.g., benzodiazepines, terphenyls, spirocycles) to pre-organize side chain functionalities; (3) use of β-turn mimetics to stabilize specific peptide conformations; and (4) development of proteomimetics that replicate protein secondary structures. These strategies have yielded clinical candidates and marketed drugs across diverse therapeutic areas including oncology, metabolic disorders, and cardiovascular disease.

The experimental protocol for peptidomimetic development typically initiates with alanine scanning or analogous mutagenesis studies to identify critical residues, followed by structural biology approaches (X-ray crystallography, NMR) to determine the bioactive conformation. Design iterations employ computational chemistry to propose and evaluate mimetic scaffolds, followed by synthetic implementation often utilizing solid-phase synthesis, combinatorial chemistry, or diversity-oriented synthesis. Biological evaluation must assess not only potency but also key drug-like properties including metabolic stability in liver microsomes, membrane permeability in Caco-2 or MDCK models, and oral bioavailability in preclinical species.

4° Hop: Topology-Based Scaffold Hopping

Topology-based scaffold hopping represents the most ambitious category, aiming to identify fundamentally different molecular architectures that maintain similar spatial arrangements of critical pharmacophoric features [8] [14]. This approach seeks high degrees of structural novelty through modifications that alter the overall molecular graph or connectivity while preserving the three-dimensional topography essential for biological activity. The conceptual foundation of topology-based hopping rests on the observation that proteins typically recognize ligands through complementary surfaces and specific interaction points rather than particular atomic connectivities, creating opportunity for diverse molecular skeletons to fulfill similar recognition roles.

The implementation of topology-based hopping presents significant technical challenges, requiring sophisticated computational methods capable of navigating vast chemical spaces to identify divergent scaffolds with similar three-dimensional pharmacophore presentation. Successful applications typically employ: (1) 3D pharmacophore screening against large chemical databases; (2) shape-based similarity searching using molecular shape descriptors; (3) graph theory approaches to identify structurally distinct scaffolds with similar pharmacophore placement; and (4) machine learning models trained on structural and bioactivity data to predict novel scaffolds with conserved bioactivity.

A contemporary example demonstrating the power of topology-based scaffold hopping emerges from the development of molecular glues targeting the 14-3-3σ/ERα protein-protein interaction (PPI) [3]. Researchers employed the computational tool AnchorQuery to perform pharmacophore-based screening of approximately 31 million synthetically accessible compounds derived from multi-component reactions (MCRs) [3]. The screening protocol used a known molecular glue (compound 127) as a template, preserving a deeply buried p-chloro-phenyl "anchor" motif while allowing significant variation in other structural elements. This topology-based approach successfully identified novel imidazo[1,2-a]pyridine scaffolds through the Groebke-Blackburn-Bienaymé multi-component reaction that maintained complementary shape and interaction capabilities at the composite 14-3-3σ/ERα interface [3]. The resulting compounds demonstrated stabilization of the 14-3-3σ/ERα complex in biophysical assays and cellular models, validating the topology-based hopping approach for this challenging PPI target.

Table 3: Computational Methods for Topology-Based Scaffold Hopping

Methodology	Underlying Principle	Key Advantages	Representative Software/Tools
3D Pharmacophore Screening	Identifies compounds matching spatial arrangement of chemical features	Target-agnostic, handles scaffold diversity	LigandScout, Phase
Shape-Based Similarity	Compares molecular volume and shape complementarity	Alignment-independent, captures steric requirements	ROCS, ElectroShape [15]
Graph-Based Methods	Analyzes molecular connectivity and subgraph isomorphism	Explicitly models structural relationships, scaffold networks	SHOP, ReCore [16]
Machine Learning Approaches	Learns structure-activity relationships from data	Can extrapolate to novel chemotypes, handles complexity	Deep generative models, Transformer-based models [2]

The experimental workflow for topology-based scaffold hopping typically involves generation of a 3D pharmacophore hypothesis from a known active structure, followed by database screening using both shape-based and pharmacophore-based similarity metrics. The ChemBounce framework exemplifies a modern implementation, utilizing a curated library of over 3 million synthesis-validated scaffolds from the ChEMBL database [15]. This approach combines Tanimoto similarity based on molecular fingerprints with electron shape similarity calculations using the ElectroShape method to ensure conservation of both charge distribution and three-dimensional shape properties [15]. Advanced implementations may incorporate synthetic accessibility scoring, property-based filtering, and interactive visualization to facilitate rapid triaging of proposed scaffold hops.

Diagram 2: Topology-based scaffold hopping workflow integrating multiple similarity metrics and synthetic accessibility assessment

Computational Frameworks and Experimental Protocols

The implementation of scaffold hopping strategies has been significantly accelerated by the development of specialized computational frameworks that integrate molecular representation, similarity assessment, and synthetic planning. Modern approaches have evolved from traditional descriptor-based methods to artificial intelligence-driven platforms that leverage deep learning architectures including graph neural networks (GNNs), transformers, and variational autoencoders (VAEs) [2]. These AI-driven molecular representation methods employ deep learning techniques to learn continuous, high-dimensional feature embeddings directly from large and complex datasets, enabling more effective navigation of chemical space for scaffold hopping applications [2].

The ChemBounce framework exemplifies a contemporary open-source tool for scaffold hopping that operationalizes many of these computational advances [15]. This platform implements a systematic workflow beginning with input structure processing in SMILES format, followed by molecular fragmentation using the HierS algorithm to identify diverse scaffold structures within the input molecule [15]. The HierS methodology decomposes molecules into ring systems, side chains, and linkers, preserving atoms external to rings with bond orders >1 and double-bonded linker atoms within their respective structural components [15]. Basis scaffolds are generated by removing all linkers and side chains, while superscaffolds retain linker connectivity, with the recursive process systematically removing each ring system to generate all possible combinations until no smaller scaffolds exist [15].

For database searching, ChemBounce leverages a curated library of over 3 million unique scaffolds derived from the ChEMBL database, with Tanimoto similarity calculations based on molecular fingerprints used to identify candidate replacement scaffolds [15]. Critical to maintaining biological activity, the framework incorporates ElectroShape-based molecular similarity calculations that consider both charge distribution and 3D shape properties, ensuring that scaffold-hopped compounds maintain structural compatibility with query molecules [15]. This integrated assessment of multiple similarity metrics enhances the probability of conserving pharmacophoric elements while exploring significant structural diversity.

Table 4: Research Reagent Solutions for Scaffold Hopping Implementation

Reagent/Chemical Tool	Function in Scaffold Hopping	Application Context	Implementation Considerations
ChEMBL Database Extracts	Source of synthesis-validated scaffolds	Building diverse replacement libraries	Curate for lead-likeness, exclude problematic motifs
Multi-Component Reaction (MCR) Building Blocks	Rapid generation of complex scaffolds	Diversity-oriented synthesis of hop candidates	Prioritify isocyanides, aminoazoles, carbonyl compounds
Molecular Fingerprinting Algorithms (ECFP, FCFP)	Computational similarity assessment	Virtual screening of candidate scaffolds	Optimize radius and bit length for specific application
Shape-Based Similarity Tools (ROCS, ElectroShape)	3D molecular similarity evaluation	Conservation of pharmacophore geometry	Requires conformation generation, computationally intensive
Synthetic Accessibility Scoring (SAscore, PReal)	Prioritization of synthetically feasible hops	Triaging virtual screening hits	Balance complexity with synthetic tractability

Advanced computational methods for scaffold hopping continue to emerge, including transformer-based models that treat molecular representations (e.g., SMILES) as sequences and learn contextual relationships between molecular substructures [2]. Graph neural networks capture both local atom environments and global molecular topology, enabling more nuanced similarity assessments that transcend traditional fingerprint-based approaches [2]. These AI-driven methodologies demonstrate particular utility for challenging hopping scenarios such as topology-based hops where traditional similarity metrics may fail to identify structurally divergent but functionally equivalent scaffolds.

The experimental validation of computational scaffold hopping proposals follows a rigorous protocol encompassing synthetic feasibility assessment, compound synthesis, and multidimensional biological evaluation. Initial triaging employs synthetic accessibility scores (e.g., SAscore) and synthetic realism metrics (e.g., PReal from AnoChem) to prioritize candidates with practical synthetic routes [15]. Following synthesis, comprehensive characterization includes: (1) determination of binding affinity through biophysical assays (SPR, ITC); (2) functional activity assessment in cell-based assays; (3) structural validation through X-ray crystallography or NMR when possible; (4) evaluation of key drug-like properties (solubility, metabolic stability, permeability); and (5) selectivity profiling against related targets. This rigorous validation framework ensures that scaffold-hopped compounds not only maintain target engagement but also exhibit favorable molecular medicinal properties for further development.

The systematic classification of scaffold hopping approaches into heterocycle replacements, ring opening/closure, peptidomimetics, and topology-based modifications provides a strategic framework for navigating chemical space in contemporary drug discovery. This four-tiered taxonomy encompasses a spectrum of structural modification ranging from conservative bioisosteric replacements to transformative topology-based redesign, offering medicinal chemists a structured methodology for pursuing varying degrees of structural novelty. The hierarchical nature of this classification system reflects the inherent trade-off between structural novelty and success probability, with heterocycle replacements offering higher probabilities of maintained activity but lower degrees of novelty, while topology-based hops promise greater structural innovation with correspondingly higher risk.

The strategic implementation of scaffold hopping continues to evolve through integration with advanced computational methodologies including artificial intelligence, graph-based representations, and multi-parameter optimization algorithms [2]. These technological advances enable more effective navigation of vast chemical spaces, identification of non-obvious scaffold relationships, and prediction of synthetic accessibility—collectively enhancing the efficiency and success of scaffold hopping campaigns. Furthermore, the emergence of open-source platforms such as ChemBounce increases accessibility to sophisticated scaffold hopping capabilities for the broader research community [15].

As drug discovery faces increasingly challenging targets, including protein-protein interactions, allosteric sites, and undrugged target classes, the strategic application of scaffold hopping will continue to provide critical pathways to viable chemical matter. By systematically exploring structural diversity while conserving essential pharmacophoric elements, scaffold hopping represents a powerful approach for expanding druggable chemical space, overcoming developmental liabilities, and establishing robust intellectual property positions. The continued refinement and application of scaffold hopping methodologies will undoubtedly contribute to the future discovery and development of therapeutic agents addressing unmet medical needs.

Scaffold hopping, a strategy first coined by Gisbert Schneider in 1999, has become an integral approach in medicinal chemistry for generating novel, patentable drug candidates with potentially improved properties [15]. This innovative methodology involves modifications to the core structure of an existing bioactive molecule while preserving essential pharmacophoric elements, thereby creating new molecular entities with enhanced pharmacodynamic (PD), physiochemical, and pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles (P3 properties) [1]. The fundamental principle, as articulated by Nobel Laureate Sir James Whyte Black, states that "the most fruitful basis of the discovery of a new drug is to start with an old drug" [1]. This review demonstrates how systematic scaffold hopping has successfully led to the development of three clinically important drugs: Vadadustat, Bosutinib, and Sorafenib, while analyzing the molecular modulations that enabled their therapeutic success.

The strategic importance of scaffold hopping extends beyond mere chemical novelty. This approach addresses critical challenges in drug discovery, including intellectual property constraints, suboptimal physicochemical properties, metabolic instability, toxicity issues, and insufficient efficacy [1] [15]. By enabling systematic exploration of unexplored chemical space while maintaining biological activity through conserved pharmacophores, scaffold hopping represents a powerful tool for hit expansion and lead optimization in modern pharmaceutical research [15]. The case studies presented herein exemplify how calculated structural variations of known molecular templates can yield differentiated therapeutic agents with distinct clinical advantages.

Case Study 1: Vadadustat

Drug Profile and Therapeutic Indication

Vadadustat (marketed as Vafseo) is an oral hypoxia-inducible factor prolyl hydroxylase (HIF-PH) inhibitor approved for the treatment of anemia due to chronic kidney disease (CKD) in adults who have been receiving dialysis for at least three months [17] [18]. This innovative therapeutic activates the physiological response to hypoxia, stimulating endogenous production of erythropoietin and consequently increasing hemoglobin and red blood cell production to manage renal anemia [19]. Vadadustat received U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval in March 2024 and is currently approved in 37 countries, representing a significant advancement in the management of CKD-associated anemia [17] [18] [19].

Scaffold Hopping Strategy and Molecular Design

Vadadustat originated from scaffold hopping of Roxadustat (IIIa), another HIF-PH inhibitor developed by FibroGen in collaboration with AstraZeneca and Astellas [1]. The key molecular modification involved replacing the isoquinoline core of Roxadustat with an imidazolopyrazine scaffold while strategically retaining the critical 3-hydroxylpicolinoylglycine pharmacophore essential for binding to the catalytic site of PHD2 [1]. This pharmacophore facilitates bidentate coordination bonding with ferrous ions and ionic bonding between the glycine carboxylate and the active site residues of PHD2 [1]. The scaffold transition significantly altered the molecular framework while preserving these essential interactions, demonstrating a sophisticated application of heterocycle replacement (1°-scaffold hopping) strategy to generate novel intellectual property space with maintained biological activity.

Experimental Data and Clinical Evaluation

Recent clinical investigations have focused on optimizing vadadustat dosing regimens in target populations. The FO2CUS trial, an open-label, active-controlled study published in the American Journal of Kidney Disease, evaluated 456 hemodialysis patients randomized to vadadustat 600mg, vadadustat 900mg, or a long-acting erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (Mircera) [19]. The primary efficacy endpoint was mean change in hemoglobin between baseline and the primary evaluation period (weeks 20-26), with secondary endpoints assessing longer-term efficacy (weeks 46-52) [19].

Table 1: Key Clinical Findings from Vadadustat Trials

Trial Name	Patient Population	Primary Endpoint	Key Findings	Safety Observations
FO2CUS [19]	456 hemodialysis patients	Mean Hb change (weeks 20-26)	Non-inferiority to ESA demonstrated	Most common adverse reactions: hypertension (≥10%) and diarrhea (≥10%)
VOCAL [17] [18]	~350 patients (planned)	Change in hemoglobin	Ongoing post-marketing study	Boxed warning for thrombotic vascular events including MACE

Akebia has further initiated the VOCAL post-marketing study in conjunction with DaVita dialysis clinics to evaluate potential benefits of three-times-weekly dosing of vadadustat compared to standard erythropoiesis-stimulating agents [17] [18]. This open-label, active-controlled trial employing 1:1 randomization aims to enroll approximately 350 patients across 18 hemodialysis clinics, with participation lasting up to 33 weeks including screening, treatment, and safety follow-up [17]. The study includes a specialized sub-study investigating red blood cell phenotypes to better understand vadadustat's impact on RBC quality parameters such as deformability, resistance to oxidative stress, and metabolomics compared to ESA treatment [17] [18].

Case Study 2: Bosutinib

Drug Profile and Therapeutic Indication

Bosutinib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) targeting the BCR-ABL1 tyrosine kinase for the treatment of Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) [20]. Approved by the European Medicines Agency in March 2013, bosutinib is indicated for adult patients in all phases of Ph+ CML previously treated with one or more TKIs where imatinib, nilotinib, and dasatinib are not considered appropriate treatment options [20]. The drug has subsequently received approval as first-line therapy in 2018, expanding its clinical utility [20].

Scaffold Hopping Strategy and Molecular Design

Bosutinib exemplifies the sequential scaffold hopping approach applied across multiple generations of TKIs. As a second-generation TKI, it was developed through structural modifications of the imatinib scaffold, specifically designed to overcome resistance mechanisms that emerged with first-generation inhibitors [20]. The molecular design incorporates strategic alterations to the heterocyclic core system while preserving key elements necessary for ATP-competitive binding to the BCR-ABL1 kinase domain. This scaffold optimization enhanced target specificity and improved the resistance profile, particularly against common mutations that confer resistance to imatinib [20].

Experimental Data and Clinical Evaluation

A multi-center, retrospective, non-interventional chart review study conducted across 10 hospitals in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands evaluated the real-world effectiveness and safety of bosutinib in 87 heavily pretreated CML patients [20]. The patient population had median disease duration of 7.1 years and predominantly required bosutinib as third-line (38%) or fourth-line (51%) TKI therapy due to resistance or intolerance to prior treatments [20].

Table 2: Efficacy Outcomes of Bosutinib in Chronic Phase CML Patients [20]

Response Parameter	Response Rate (%)	Additional Context
Complete Cytogenetic Response (CCyR)	67%	Cumulative rate in chronic phase patients
Major Molecular Response (MMR)	55%	Cumulative rate in chronic phase patients
Overall Survival (1 year)	95%	Median follow-up of 21.5 months
Overall Survival (2 years)	91%	Median follow-up of 21.5 months
Treatment Discontinuation	38%	Due to lack of efficacy (17%), adverse events (14%), death (2%), other (5%)

The study demonstrated that bosutinib achieved substantial response rates despite the heavily pretreated population, with a median treatment duration of 15.6 months [20]. Safety analysis revealed that 94% of patients experienced at least one adverse event, most commonly diarrhea (52%), though the treatment was generally tolerable with appropriate management [20]. This real-world evidence confirms that bosutinib serves as an effective treatment option for CML patients in chronic phase who have developed resistance or intolerance to prior TKI therapies.

Case Study 3: Sorafenib

Drug Profile and Therapeutic Indication

Sorafenib (marketed as Nexavar) represents a milestone in molecularly targeted therapy as the first tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and the first systemic therapy demonstrating significant overall survival benefit in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) [21] [22] [23]. This orally active multikinase inhibitor blocks multiple kinase targets including VEGF receptor 2 and 3 kinases, PDGF receptor β kinase, Raf kinase (RAF-1), FLT-3, c-Kit, and RET receptor tyrosine kinases [21] [22]. Sorafenib received FDA approval in 2005 for RCC and in 2007 for HCC, establishing a new standard of care for these advanced malignancies [22] [23].

Scaffold Hopping Strategy and Molecular Design

Sorafenib (BAY 43-9006) was discovered through a targeted RAF kinase discovery strategy employing high-throughput screening and combinatorial chemistry [23]. Bayer Pharmaceuticals, in collaboration with Onyx Pharmaceuticals, screened 200,000 compounds from medicinal chemistry libraries using a RAF kinase biochemical assay to identify molecules with activity against recombinant activated RAF kinase [23]. The lead optimization process involved structure-activity relationship evaluation and rapid parallel synthesis techniques, ultimately yielding the final compound featuring a diphenylurea moiety, a 4-pyridyl ring occupying the ATP binding pocket, and a lipophilic trifluoromethyl phenyl ring inserting into a hydrophobic pocket within the RAF-1 catalytic domain [23]. This strategic molecular architecture enables potent inhibition of both the tumor cell proliferation (via RAF kinase inhibition) and tumor angiogenesis (via VEGFR and PDGFR inhibition) [22].

Experimental Data and Clinical Evaluation

The efficacy and safety profile of sorafenib has been established through multiple pivotal clinical trials and post-marketing surveillance studies. The Phase III SHARP (Sorafenib HCC Assessment Randomized Protocol) trial demonstrated that sorafenib significantly improved overall survival in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, with median survival of 10.7 months compared to 7.9 months with placebo, representing a 44% improvement [22]. The median time to progression was also significantly longer in sorafenib-treated patients (5.5 months versus 2.8 months) [22].

A comprehensive post-marketing surveillance study conducted in Japan evaluated 3,255 patients with unresectable or metastatic RCC treated with sorafenib [21]. The study reported a median progression-free survival of 7.3 months and an overall survival rate of 75.4% at 1 year, confirming the real-world effectiveness of sorafenib in routine clinical practice [21]. The median treatment duration was 6.7 months, with a mean relative dose intensity of 68.4%, reflecting necessary dose adjustments for management of adverse events [21].

Table 3: Sorafenib Safety Profile from Post-Marketing Surveillance [21]

Adverse Drug Reaction	Incidence (%)	Characteristics
Hand-foot skin reaction	59%	Most common adverse reaction
Hypertension	36%	Requiring antihypertensive management
Rash	25%	Various morphologies
Increased lipase/amylase	23%	Laboratory abnormality without clinical pancreatitis
Treatment Discontinuation	68.4%	Within 12 months, primarily due to AEs (52% of discontinuations)

The safety data from this large-scale surveillance confirmed that sorafenib exhibits an acceptable toxicity profile consistent with earlier clinical trials, with hand-foot skin reaction emerging as the most frequent adverse event requiring management [21].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Key Experimental Approaches in Scaffold Hopping

The successful development of vadadustat, bosutinib, and sorafenib employed sophisticated experimental methodologies that can serve as templates for future scaffold hopping initiatives:

High-Throughput Screening and Combinatorial Chemistry (Sorafenib): The discovery of sorafenib implemented a robust platform screening 200,000 compounds from medicinal chemistry libraries using RAF kinase biochemical assays [23]. Mechanistic cellular high-throughput immuneprecipitation assays evaluated inhibition of endogenous phosphorylated MEK, followed by anti-proliferative assessment in HCT116 colon cancer cell lines [23]. The combinatorial chemistry approach utilized robotic rapid parallel synthesis techniques employing amine-isocyanate reactions in anhydrous DMF to generate approximately 1,000 analog compounds for structure-activity relationship optimization [23].

Retrospective Real-World Evidence Collection (Bosutinib): The effectiveness of bosutinib in clinical practice was validated through a multi-center, retrospective, non-interventional chart review across 10 hospitals [20]. Data collection from hospital medical records included patient demographics, clinical characteristics, bosutinib treatment parameters (initial dosing, dose intensity, modifications, discontinuation), response rates according to European LeukemiaNet 2013 criteria, overall survival, and adverse events [20]. Statistical analysis employed descriptive statistics, multivariable logistic regression to identify predictors of treatment response, and Kaplan-Meier analyses for survival outcomes [20].

Post-Marketing Surveillance Studies (Sorafenib, Vadadustat): Large-scale prospective registration studies monitored the safety and efficacy of marketed drugs in real-world settings. The sorafenib surveillance enrolled all eligible patients in Japan (n=3,255) starting treatment between February 2008 and September 2009, collecting baseline characteristics, treatment status, tumor response, survival, and safety data at predetermined intervals (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months) [21]. Similarly, the vadadustat VOCAL trial implements prospective, open-label, active-controlled design with 1:1 randomization, scheduled hemoglobin assessments, and specialized sub-studies investigating red blood cell phenotyping [17] [18].

Computational Scaffold Hopping Techniques

Advanced computational frameworks have been developed to facilitate systematic scaffold hopping in drug discovery. ChemBounce represents one such open-source tool that generates structurally diverse scaffolds with high synthetic accessibility [15]. The algorithm processes input molecules in SMILES format, identifies core scaffolds through graph analysis algorithms using ScaffoldGraph, and replaces them with candidates from a curated library of over 3 million fragments derived from the ChEMBL database [15]. The generated compounds are evaluated based on Tanimoto and electron shape similarities to ensure retention of pharmacophores and potential biological activity, enabling efficient exploration of novel chemical space while maintaining therapeutic relevance [15].

Signaling Pathways and Molecular Mechanisms

Vadadustat: HIF Stabilization Pathway

Vadadustat exerts its therapeutic effect through inhibition of hypoxia-inducible factor prolyl hydroxylase (HIF-PH), activating the physiological response to hypoxia. Under normal oxygen conditions, HIF-α subunits are hydroxylated by prolyl hydroxylases, leading to von Hippel-Lindau protein-mediated ubiquitination and proteasomal degradation. Vadadustat inhibits this hydroxylation process, stabilizing HIF-α subunits which heterodimerize with HIF-β, translocate to the nucleus, and activate transcription of genes involved in erythropoiesis, including erythropoietin, ultimately increasing hemoglobin and red blood cell production [17] [19].

Bosutinib: BCR-ABL Signaling Inhibition

Bosutinib targets the pathogenic BCR-ABL fusion protein in chronic myeloid leukemia, an abnormal tyrosine kinase that drives uncontrolled cellular proliferation through constitutive activation of multiple downstream signaling pathways including MAPK/ERK, PI3K/AKT, and JAK/STAT. By competitively inhibiting ATP binding to the BCR-ABL kinase domain, bosutinib blocks autophosphorylation and substrate phosphorylation, ultimately restoring normal apoptotic mechanisms and suppressing leukemic cell growth [20].

Sorafenib: Multikinase Inhibition Network

Sorafenib simultaneously targets multiple kinase pathways involved in tumor proliferation and angiogenesis. The compound inhibits RAF kinase (including BRAF V600E mutation) in the MAPK pathway, disrupting signals for cellular proliferation. Concurrently, it blocks vascular endothelial growth factor receptors (VEGFR1/2/3) and platelet-derived growth factor receptors (PDGFR-β), impairing tumor angiogenesis. Additional inhibition of FLT-3, c-Kit, and RET kinases provides broader antineoplastic activity across various malignancies [21] [22] [23].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Methodologies

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents and Platforms for Scaffold Hopping Research

Tool/Category	Specific Examples	Research Application	Case Study Reference
High-Throughput Screening Platforms	RAF kinase biochemical assays, Immuneprecipitation assays	Identification of lead compounds from large chemical libraries	Sorafenib [23]
Combinatorial Chemistry Systems	Robotic parallel synthesis, Amine-isocyanate reactions	Rapid generation of analog libraries for SAR studies	Sorafenib [23]
Computational Scaffold Hopping Tools	ChemBounce, MORPH, ElectroShape	Systematic modification of core structures with similarity constraints	Vadadustat, Bosutinib, Sorafenib [15]
Specialized Animal Models	Human cancer xenografts (MDA-MB-231, COLO-205, HT-29)	In vivo evaluation of anti-tumor activity and dosing optimization	Sorafenib [23]
Clinical Response Assessment Tools	ELN 2013 criteria (CML), JUA criteria (RCC), Hb monitoring (anemia)	Standardized efficacy evaluation in clinical trials	Bosutinib [20], Sorafenib [21], Vadadustat [17]
Post-Marketing Surveillance Frameworks	Specific drug-use investigation, All-patient PMS	Comprehensive safety monitoring in real-world settings	Sorafenib [21], Vadadustat [17]
Telenzepine dihydrochloride	Telenzepine dihydrochloride, CAS:147416-96-4, MF:C19H24Cl2N4O2S, MW:443.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
2,3,4-Tri-O-benzyl-L-rhamnopyranose	2,3,4-Tri-O-benzyl-L-rhamnopyranose, CAS:130282-66-5, MF:C27H30O5, MW:434.5 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

The case studies of vadadustat, bosutinib, and sorafenib exemplify the strategic application of scaffold hopping in successful drug discovery and development. Through calculated molecular modifications of existing pharmacophores, these innovative therapeutics have addressed significant clinical challenges in their respective domains: renal anemia, treatment-resistant CML, and advanced solid tumors. The systematic approaches outlined—encompassing computational design, combinatorial chemistry, robust preclinical evaluation, and thorough clinical validation—provide a reproducible framework for future drug discovery initiatives. As scaffold hopping methodologies continue to evolve with advances in computational chemistry, structural biology, and synthetic techniques, this strategy will remain fundamental to generating novel therapeutic entities with optimized properties that benefit patients worldwide.

In modern medicinal chemistry, the strategic process of scaffold hopping—identifying novel core structures with similar biological activity to existing bioactive compounds—has become indispensable for overcoming limitations of lead compounds and creating new intellectual property space [1]. The success of this process hinges fundamentally on how molecules are translated into computer-readable formats, a critical step known as molecular representation [2]. Molecular representation serves as the foundational bridge between chemical structures and their predicted biological behavior, directly influencing the efficiency and outcomes of drug discovery pipelines [2] [24].

The evolution from simple string-based notations to sophisticated artificial intelligence (AI)-driven embeddings has dramatically expanded capabilities for scaffold exploration [13] [2]. Traditional representation methods including Simplified Molecular Input Line Entry System (SMILES) and molecular fingerprints provided initial computational pathways for similarity searching [2]. However, these approaches often struggled to capture subtle structural relationships essential for effective scaffold hopping. The advent of deep learning has introduced powerful new paradigms including graph-based embeddings and multimodal approaches that learn continuous molecular features directly from data, enabling more nuanced navigation of chemical space and identification of structurally diverse yet functionally similar compounds [2] [25].

This technical guide examines the landscape of molecular representation methods within the specific context of scaffold hopping in medicinal chemistry research. We systematically evaluate traditional and AI-driven approaches, present experimental frameworks for their application, and provide practical implementation guidelines to assist researchers in selecting optimal representation strategies for their scaffold hopping initiatives.

Traditional Molecular Representation Methods

Traditional molecular representation methods form the historical foundation for computational chemistry and cheminformatics. These approaches rely on predefined rules and expert-crafted features to encode molecular structures into formats suitable for algorithmic processing and similarity assessment, which is fundamental to scaffold hopping [2].

String-Based Representations: SMILES and Beyond

The Simplified Molecular Input Line Entry System (SMILES) represents one of the most widely adopted string-based molecular representations since its introduction in 1988 [2] [26]. SMILES encodes molecular graphs as linear strings using ASCII characters, employing principles of depth-first traversal to represent branching, rings, and connectivity [26]. This compact format facilitates storage and sharing of chemical structures but presents significant limitations for scaffold hopping applications. SMILES strings can exhibit substantial syntactic variation for identical molecules, and standard deep learning models often struggle with their complex grammar, frequently generating invalid strings [26].

Recent innovations have sought to address these limitations. DeepSMILES introduced modifications to resolve common syntactic errors related to parentheses and ring identifiers, though it still permits semantically invalid structures that violate chemical valence rules [26]. SELFIES (Self-referencing Embedded Strings) represents a more robust approach where every string inherently corresponds to a valid molecular graph, eliminating syntactic invalidity [26]. Most recently, t-SMILES (tree-based SMILES) implements a fragment-based, multiscale representation framework that constructs molecular descriptions through breadth-first traversal of fragmented molecular graphs [26]. This approach demonstrates significant advantages for scaffold hopping, achieving 100% theoretical validity in molecule generation while maintaining higher novelty scores and reasonable similarity to training distributions—critical considerations for identifying novel bioactive scaffolds [26].

Molecular Fingerprints and Descriptors

Molecular fingerprints constitute another fundamental approach to traditional molecular representation, encoding the presence or absence of specific substructures or physicochemical properties as binary vectors or numerical values [2] [24]. These fingerprints have proven particularly valuable for quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) modeling, similarity searching, and clustering [2].

Table 1: Common Molecular Fingerprint Types and Their Applications in Scaffold Hopping

Fingerprint Type	Representation Approach	Key Characteristics	Scaffold Hopping Applications
Extended-Connectivity Fingerprints (ECFP) [2] [27]	Encodes local atomic environments through circular neighborhoods	Captures molecular features based on atom connectivity; often called "circular fingerprints"	Similarity searching, compound clustering
MACCS Keys [24]	Predefined set of structural fragments represented as binary bits	Encodes specific chemical substructures; easily interpretable	Rapid similarity assessment, structural alerts
Pharmacophore Fingerprints [28] [24]	Encodes spatial arrangement of functional features	Contains information about spatial orientation and interactions; critical for bioactivity	Identifying compounds with similar interaction patterns despite structural differences
Torsion Fingerprints [27]	Encodes rotational bond preferences	Describes conformational flexibility	Assessing molecular shape similarity
Hybrid Fingerprints [27]	Combines multiple fingerprint types with weighted contributions	Integrates complementary structural and property information	Enhanced read-across predictions for toxicity endpoints

The strategic combination of multiple fingerprint types into hybrid fingerprints has demonstrated particular promise for improving prediction accuracy in read-across applications, which shares conceptual foundations with scaffold hopping [27]. Experimental studies have shown that optimally weighted hybrid fingerprints can outperform single fingerprint types across various toxicity endpoints, suggesting similar potential for scaffold hopping tasks where multiple similarity contexts must be considered simultaneously [27].

AI-Driven Molecular Representation Approaches

The limitations of traditional representation methods have spurred development of AI-driven approaches that leverage deep learning to automatically extract meaningful molecular features directly from data [2]. These methods have demonstrated remarkable capabilities for scaffold hopping by capturing complex structure-activity relationships that elude predefined representations.

Graph-Based Embeddings and Graph Neural Networks

Graph neural networks (GNNs) represent molecules natively as graphs where atoms correspond to nodes and bonds constitute edges [2] [25]. This approach preserves the inherent topological structure of molecules, making GNNs particularly well-suited for scaffold hopping applications that require understanding of complex molecular connectivity patterns [25].

GNNs operate through message-passing mechanisms where node representations are iteratively updated by aggregating information from neighboring nodes [25] [29]. This enables capture of both local atomic environments and global molecular topology. Advanced implementations have further enhanced these capabilities: MoleculeFormer incorporates 3D structural information with rotational equivariance constraints and integrates prior molecular fingerprints, enabling comprehensive multi-scale feature extraction that captures both local and global molecular characteristics [29]. The model's attention mechanisms provide valuable interpretability by identifying molecular substructures most relevant to biological activity—critical knowledge for rational scaffold design [29].

GNN-driven approaches have demonstrated significant acceleration across multiple drug discovery stages, including lead discovery and optimization, by improving predictive accuracy for molecular properties, drug-target interactions, and toxicity assessments [25]. Their ability to model complex molecular interactions with binding targets makes them particularly valuable for identifying scaffold hops that preserve key binding characteristics while altering core structures [25].

Language Model-Based Approaches

Inspired by successes in natural language processing (NLP), language model-based approaches treat molecular string representations (e.g., SMILES, SELFIES, t-SMILES) as specialized chemical languages [2]. These models employ transformer architectures to process tokenized molecular strings, learning contextual relationships between atomic and substructural components [2] [28].

The TransPharmer model exemplifies the innovative application of language models to scaffold hopping, integrating ligand-based interpretable pharmacophore fingerprints with a generative pre-training transformer (GPT) framework for de novo molecule generation [28]. By using pharmacophore features as prompts to guide generation, TransPharmer excels at creating structurally novel compounds that maintain pharmaceutical relevance, effectively enabling scaffold hopping through pharmacophoric constraints [28]. In experimental validation, TransPharmer-generated compounds targeting polo-like kinase 1 (PLK1) demonstrated submicromolar activities with novel scaffold structures distinct from known inhibitors, highlighting the practical utility of this approach for discovering new bioactive chemotypes [28].

Multimodal and Hybrid AI Approaches

Multimodal learning frameworks represent the cutting edge of molecular representation research, combining multiple representation types to leverage their complementary strengths [2] [29]. These approaches recognize that different molecular encodings capture distinct aspects of chemical information, and their integration can provide more comprehensive representations for challenging tasks like scaffold hopping.

The FP-GNN model exemplifies this trend, successfully integrating three types of molecular fingerprints with graph attention networks to enhance both performance and interpretability [29]. Similarly, systematic evaluations of fingerprint combinations have revealed that optimal pairings are highly task-dependent, with ECFP and RDKit fingerprints excelling in classification tasks while MACCS keys perform better in regression scenarios [29]. This task-specific performance underscores the importance of selecting representation strategies aligned with particular scaffold hopping objectives.

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Implementing effective molecular representation strategies for scaffold hopping requires rigorous experimental frameworks. Below we detail key methodologies for evaluating representation performance and conducting scaffold hopping campaigns.

Protocol 1: Evaluating Representation Effectiveness for Scaffold Hopping

Objective: Quantitatively assess the performance of different molecular representations for identifying diverse scaffolds with conserved bioactivity.

Materials and Methods:

• Compound Dataset: Curate a set of known active compounds against the target of interest, ensuring structural diversity and reliable activity data.
• Representation Generation:
  • Traditional: Generate ECFP6 fingerprints (2048 bits), MACCS keys (166 bits), and physicochemical descriptors using tools like RDKit.
  • AI-Driven: Generate graph embeddings using pre-trained GNN models (e.g., MoleculeFormer) and SMILES-based embeddings using chemical language models.
• Similarity Assessment:
  • Calculate pairwise similarity using Tanimoto coefficient for fingerprints, cosine similarity for continuous embeddings.
  • Apply dimensionality reduction (t-SNE, UMAP) to visualize chemical space distribution.
• Scaffold Hopping Evaluation:
  • Cluster compounds by Bemis-Murcko scaffolds to define scaffold families.
  • For each reference active compound, retrieve nearest neighbors using different representations.
  • Quantify scaffold hopping success by measuring the percentage of neighbors with different scaffolds but confirmed bioactivity.
  • Calculate novelty scores based on structural dissimilarity to known active compounds.

Analysis: Compare the scaffold hopping efficiency (diversity of identified scaffolds while maintaining bioactivity) across representation methods. Effective representations should identify structurally diverse scaffolds with conserved activity, rather than merely retrieving structurally similar analogs.

Protocol 2: Generative Scaffold Hopping with Pharmacophore Constraints

Objective: Employ generative models with pharmacophore guidance to design novel scaffolds maintaining key interaction features.

Materials and Methods:

• Pharmacophore Model Development:
  • Analyze ligand-target co-crystal structures or perform ligand-based pharmacophore modeling to identify critical interaction features (H-bond donors/acceptors, hydrophobic regions, charged groups).
  • Encode pharmacophores as multi-scale fingerprints using tools like RDKit's Pharmacophore Fingerprints [28].
• Model Training:
  • Implement a transformer-based generative model (e.g., TransPharmer architecture) that accepts pharmacophore fingerprints as conditioning inputs and generates molecular structures as SMILES or SELFIES strings [28].
  • Pre-train on large chemical databases (e.g., ChEMBL, ZINC) followed by fine-tuning on target-specific active compounds.
• Generation and Validation:
  • Generate novel structures conditioned on pharmacophores of known active compounds.
  • Filter generated structures for synthetic accessibility and drug-like properties.
  • Evaluate maintenance of pharmacophoric features versus generated structures.
  • Select diverse scaffolds for synthesis and biological testing.

Analysis: Assess success rates by measuring the percentage of generated compounds that (1) maintain target pharmacophores, (2) represent novel scaffolds distinct from training data, and (3) demonstrate verified bioactivity in experimental testing.

Table 2: Key Computational Tools for Molecular Representation and Scaffold Hopping

Tool/Resource	Type	Primary Function	Application in Scaffold Hopping
RDKit	Cheminformatics Library	Molecular descriptor calculation, fingerprint generation, substructure handling	Generation of traditional representations, scaffold analysis, pharmacophore feature identification
OpenBabel	Chemical Toolbox	Format conversion, descriptor calculation	Preprocessing of chemical structures from various sources
DeepChem	Deep Learning Library	Graph neural networks, molecular machine learning	Implementing AI-driven representation learning models
Transformer Models	NLP Architecture	Chemical language processing	Generating novel molecular structures from learned chemical space
GenRA-py	Read-Across Implementation	Hybrid fingerprint similarity assessment	Evaluating scaffold similarity using multiple representation contexts [27]
t-SMILES Framework	Molecular Representation	Fragment-based string representation	Enabling valid molecule generation with novel scaffolds [26]
TopoLearn	Topological Analysis	Feature space topology assessment	Predicting representation effectiveness for specific datasets [24]

Visualization of Molecular Representation Workflows

Scaffold Hopping via Multi-Representation Similarity

AI-Driven Scaffold Generation Workflow

Molecular representation methodologies form the computational bedrock upon which successful scaffold hopping strategies are built. The evolution from traditional fingerprints and string-based representations to sophisticated AI-driven embeddings has progressively enhanced our ability to identify structurally novel compounds with conserved bioactivity—the fundamental goal of scaffold hopping. Each representation class offers distinct advantages: traditional methods provide interpretability and computational efficiency, language model-based approaches enable generative exploration, graph-based embeddings capture native molecular topology, and multimodal methods integrate complementary chemical information [2] [25] [29].

The future of molecular representation for scaffold hopping will likely be shaped by several emerging trends. Geometric deep learning approaches that incorporate 3D structural information while maintaining rotational and translational equivariance promise more physiologically relevant representations [29]. Foundation models pre-trained on extensive chemical datasets could provide transferable representation power for diverse scaffold hopping tasks [2]. Additionally, explainable AI techniques that illuminate the rationale behind representation-driven predictions will be crucial for building medicinal chemist trust and providing actionable design insights [29].

As these technologies mature, the most effective scaffold hopping pipelines will likely employ strategic representation ensembles, selecting and combining appropriate methodologies based on specific project needs, available data, and desired outcomes. By continuing to refine molecular representation techniques and deepening our understanding of their relationship to scaffold hopping success, researchers can accelerate the discovery of novel therapeutic agents with improved efficacy and safety profiles.

Computational and AI-Driven Methods for Scaffold Hopping: From Tools to Real-World Applications

In the relentless pursuit of novel therapeutics, medicinal chemistry faces constant challenges: overcoming poor physicochemical properties, metabolic instability, toxicity issues, and intellectual property constraints. Scaffold hopping has emerged as a critical strategy to address these challenges by generating structurally novel drug candidates that retain desired biological activity. This approach aims to identify or design compounds with different core structures (scaffolds) but similar biological activities or property profiles, ultimately leading to more patentable and optimized drug candidates [15]. The success of marketed drugs such as Vadadustat, Bosutinib, Sorafenib, and Nirmatrelvir underscores the practical significance of scaffold hopping in modern drug discovery [15].

Traditional computational approaches, particularly pharmacophore modeling and shape-based similarity searches, have established themselves as foundational methodologies for enabling systematic scaffold hopping. These techniques provide the conceptual and computational framework for navigating chemical space, allowing researchers to identify isofunctional molecular frameworks while exploring structural diversity beyond obvious chemical similarities. By abstracting molecular interactions into essential features and volumetric constraints, these methods facilitate the identification of structurally distinct compounds that maintain critical biological activity, forming the cornerstone of many successful lead optimization and hit expansion campaigns in pharmaceutical research.

Core Conceptual Foundations

Pharmacophore Models: The Functional Blueprint

The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) defines a pharmacophore as "the ensemble of steric and electronic features that is necessary to ensure the optimal supramolecular interactions with a specific biological target structure and to trigger (or to block) its biological response" [30]. In essence, a pharmacophore represents an abstract functional blueprint of molecular interactions, distilling a ligand's bioactive characteristics into essential components without emphasis on specific chemical scaffolds.

Pharmacophore models incorporate several fundamental feature types that mirror key molecular interactions [30]:

• Hydrogen bond acceptors (HBA)
• Hydrogen bond donors (HBD)
• Hydrophobic areas (H)
• Positively and negatively ionizable groups (PI/NI)
• Aromatic rings (AR)
• Exclusion volumes (XVOL) representing forbidden areas

Shape-Based Similarity: The Volumetric Complement

Shape-based similarity approaches operate on the principle that biologically active compounds targeting the same protein often share complementary three-dimensional shapes to the binding cavity [31]. These methods quantify molecular similarity based on the spatial overlap of their volumetric fields, providing a scaffold-agnostic measure that can identify structurally diverse compounds with similar binding potential.

The fundamental shape similarity metric compares the jointly occupied volume (VA∩B) relative to the total volume (VA∪B) of two structures A and B [31]:

Synergy in Scaffold Hopping

Pharmacophore and shape-based approaches offer complementary advantages for scaffold hopping. Pharmacophore models explicitly encode specific interaction patterns necessary for biological activity, while shape-based methods capture overall molecular volume and topology. This synergy enables researchers to identify scaffold hops that maintain both critical interactions and overall binding compatibility, providing a powerful combination for exploring diverse chemical space while preserving bioactivity.

Methodological Approaches

Structure-Based Pharmacophore Modeling

Structure-based pharmacophore modeling leverages three-dimensional structural information of the target protein, typically obtained from X-ray crystallography, NMR spectroscopy, or homology modeling [30]. This approach extracts interaction information directly from the binding site, generating pharmacophore features that represent complementary chemical functionality to the protein's residues [32].

Workflow Implementation:

• Protein Preparation: The 3D protein structure is prepared by adding hydrogen atoms, assigning proper protonation states, and correcting any structural deficiencies [30].
• Binding Site Identification: The ligand-binding site is characterized using computational methods such as GRID or LUDI, which detect favorable interaction sites [30].
• Feature Generation: Critical chemical features interacting with key binding site residues are identified and translated into pharmacophore elements [32].
• Model Refinement: Superfluous features are eliminated, retaining only those essential for bioactivity, and exclusion volumes may be added to represent steric constraints [30].

Ligand-Based Pharmacophore Modeling

When 3D protein structure information is unavailable, ligand-based pharmacophore modeling provides an alternative approach that relies solely on the structural and chemical characteristics of known active ligands [30]. This method identifies common chemical features and their spatial arrangements shared among diverse active compounds, under the assumption that shared pharmacophore features correspond to essential interactions with the biological target.

Shape-Based Similarity Screening

Shape-based screening methodologies employ sophisticated algorithms to quantify three-dimensional shape complementarity between molecular structures. These approaches can operate in "pure shape" mode or incorporate chemical feature matching to enhance specificity [31].

Implementation Variations:

• Atomic Representations: Molecules represented as collections of van der Waals spheres with optional atom-type differentiation [31]
• Pharmacophore Site Representations: Structures encoded as collections of pharmacophore features (hydrogen bond donors/acceptors, hydrophobic centers, etc.) [31]
• Gaussian Molecular Representations: Smooth volumetric functions representing molecular shape and electronic properties [33]

Experimental Protocols

Structure-Based Pharmacophore Modeling Protocol

Objective: To generate a structure-based pharmacophore model for virtual screening using a protein-ligand complex structure.

Step-by-Step Methodology (adapted from PD-L1 inhibitor discovery [34]):

• Protein Structure Retrieval and Preparation

  • Obtain the 3D structure of the target protein from the Protein Data Bank (PDB)
  • Prepare the protein structure using tools like BIOVIA Discovery Studio or Schrödinger's Protein Preparation Wizard
  • Add hydrogen atoms, assign bond orders, and optimize hydrogen bonding networks
  • Perform energy minimization to relieve steric clashes

• Binding Site Analysis

  • Identify the binding cavity using the co-crystallized ligand as reference
  • Define the binding site using coordinates from the experimental ligand or cavity detection algorithms

• Pharmacophore Feature Generation

  • Use structure-based pharmacophore generation tools (e.g., LigandScout)
  • Extract key protein-ligand interactions and convert to pharmacophore features
  • Identify hydrogen bond acceptors/donors, hydrophobic interactions, and ionic interactions
  • Add exclusion volumes to represent sterically forbidden regions

• Feature Selection and Hypothesis Generation

  • Select critical features conserved in key interactions
  • Generate pharmacophore hypothesis with optimal spatial arrangement
  • Validate model using known active and inactive compounds

• Model Validation

  • Validate using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis
  • Calculate area under curve (AUC) and early enrichment factors (EF1%)
  • Perform decoy screening with databases like DUD-E to assess distinguishing capability [34]

Shape-Based Virtual Screening Protocol

Objective: To identify novel scaffolds using shape similarity screening against a known active compound.

Step-by-Step Methodology (adapted from shape-based screening approaches [31] [33]):

• Query Preparation

  • Select a known active compound with confirmed biological activity as the shape template
  • Generate a biologically relevant 3D conformation, preferably from crystallographic data
  • For pure shape screening, prepare the molecule with all atoms treated equally
  • For typed approaches, assign appropriate atom types (element-based, QSAR-based, or pharmacophore-based)

• Database Preparation

  • Prepare a screening database of 3D compound structures
  • Generate multi-conformer databases to account for molecular flexibility
  • Filter compounds using drug-like properties (Lipinski's Rule of Five, molecular weight, etc.)

• Shape Similarity Screening

  • Employ shape screening tools (ROCS, Schrödinger Shape Screening)
  • Screen database compounds against the shape query
  • For ROCS screening, use default or customized color force fields to incorporate chemical feature matching [33]
  • For Shape Screening, select appropriate atom typing scheme (pure shape, element-based, or pharmacophore-based) [31]

• Results Analysis and Hit Selection

  • Rank compounds based on shape similarity scores (Tanimoto Combo for ROCS)
  • Visually inspect top-ranking compound overlays with query molecule
  • Select diverse scaffolds with high shape similarity for further evaluation
  • Apply additional filters (synthetic accessibility, physicochemical properties)

Quantitative Comparison of Methods

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Shape-Based Screening Approaches Across Diverse Targets [31]

Target	Pure Shape EF(1%)	Element-Based EF(1%)	Pharmacophore-Based EF(1%)
CA	10.0	27.5	32.5
CDK2	16.9	20.8	19.5
COX2	21.4	16.7	21.0
DHFR	7.7	11.5	80.8
ER	9.5	17.6	28.4
HIV-PR	13.2	19.1	16.9
Neuraminidase	16.7	16.7	25.0
PTP1B	12.5	12.5	50.0
Thrombin	1.5	4.5	28.0
TS	19.4	35.5	61.3
Average	11.9	17.0	33.2

Table 2: Virtual Screening Performance Comparison Across Different Methodologies [31]

Target	Shape Screening Pharmacophore EF(1%)	SQW EF(1%)	ROCS-Color EF(1%)
CA	32.5	6.3	31.4
CDK2	19.5	9.1	18.2
COX2	21.0	11.3	25.4
DHFR	80.8	46.3	38.6
ER	28.4	23.0	21.7
HIV-PR	16.9	5.9	12.5
Neuraminidase	25.0	25.1	92.0
PTP1B	50.0	50.2	12.5
Thrombin	28.0	27.1	21.1
TS	61.3	48.5	6.5
Average	33.2	23.5	25.6
Median	28.0	23.0	21.1

Table 3: Classification of Scaffold Hopping Types with Examples [2]

Scaffold Hop Type	Structural Change	Degree of Hop	Key Characteristics
Heterocyclic Substitutions	Replacement of one heterocycle with another	Low	Preservation of ring size and hydrogen bonding pattern
Open-or-Closed Rings	Cyclization or ring opening of structures	Medium	Significant topological alteration while maintaining pharmacophore placement
Peptide Mimicry	Replacement of peptide structures with non-peptide motifs	High	Design of metabolically stable analogs of bioactive peptides
Topology-Based Hops	Fundamental changes in molecular framework	Very High	Global structural reorganization preserving spatial arrangement of key features

Integrated Computational Workflows

The true power of traditional computational approaches emerges when they are integrated into comprehensive workflows that leverage their complementary strengths. Several studies have demonstrated successful implementations of combined pharmacophore and shape-based methodologies for scaffold hopping and lead discovery.

Case Study: Marine Natural Product Screening for PD-L1 Inhibitors

A comprehensive study identified novel PD-L1 inhibitors from marine natural products using an integrated structure-based approach [34]:

• Structure-Based Pharmacophore Generation: Created a pharmacophore model based on the PD-L1 crystal structure (PDB: 6R3K) complexed with a small molecule inhibitor [34]
• Pharmacophore Screening: Screened 52,765 marine natural products against the pharmacophore model, identifying 12 initial hits [34]
• Molecular Docking: Performed docking studies on the pharmacophore hits, selecting two compounds with superior binding affinity [34]
• ADMET Profiling: Conducted in silico ADMET evaluation to select the most promising candidate [34]
• Molecular Dynamics Validation: Confirmed binding stability through molecular dynamics simulations [34]

This integrated workflow successfully identified a marine natural compound as a potential PD-L1 inhibitor, demonstrating the power of combining multiple computational approaches for scaffold hopping in drug discovery.

Case Study: ChemBounce Framework for Scaffold Hopping

The ChemBounce framework exemplifies a modern implementation of traditional principles for computational scaffold hopping [15]:

• Input Processing: Accepts user-supplied molecules in SMILES format and identifies core scaffolds through fragmentation algorithms [15]
• Scaffold Replacement: Leverages a curated library of over 3 million synthesis-validated fragments from ChEMBL for scaffold replacement [15]
• Similarity Assessment: Evaluates generated compounds using both Tanimoto similarity and electron shape similarity (ElectroShape) to ensure retention of pharmacophores and potential biological activity [15]
• Synthetic Accessibility Evaluation: Prioritizes compounds with high synthetic accessibility scores [15]

ChemBounce demonstrates how traditional concepts of shape similarity and pharmacophore matching can be integrated with large fragment libraries to enable systematic exploration of chemical space for scaffold hopping.

Visualization of Workflows

Scaffold Hopping Computational Workflow - This diagram illustrates the integrated computational pipeline for scaffold hopping, combining structure-based, ligand-based, and shape-based approaches to identify novel compounds with maintained bioactivity.

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 4: Essential Software Tools for Pharmacophore and Shape-Based Screening

Tool Name	Type	Key Functionality	Application in Scaffold Hopping
BIOVIA Discovery Studio	Commercial Software Suite	CATALYST Pharmacophore Modeling, PharmaDB screening [35]	Structure-based and ligand-based pharmacophore modeling, virtual screening
ROCS (OpenEye)	Commercial Software	Shape similarity screening with Color Force Field [33]	Rapid shape-based virtual screening, scaffold hopping via shape similarity
Schrödinger Shape Screening	Commercial Tool	Shape-based screening with pharmacophore feature encoding [31]	High-quality molecular alignments, enrichment in virtual screening
LigandScout	Commercial/Academic	Structure-based pharmacophore modeling from protein-ligand complexes [32]	Automatic pharmacophore feature detection, 3D pharmacophore model generation
ChemBounce	Open-Source Tool	Scaffold hopping framework with shape similarity constraints [15]	Systematic scaffold replacement, synthetic accessibility assessment
O-LAP	Open-Source Algorithm	Shape-focused pharmacophore modeling via graph clustering [36]	Generation of cavity-filling models for docking rescoring
ShaEP	Non-Commercial Tool	Shape/electrostatic potential similarity comparisons [36]	Negative image-based rescoring, molecular similarity assessment
Hydroxyethyl cellulose	Hydroxyethyl cellulose, CAS:9004-62-0, MF:C36H70O19, MW:806.9 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
(+)-Norfenfluramine hydrochloride	(+)-Norfenfluramine hydrochloride, CAS:37936-89-3, MF:C10H13ClF3N, MW:239.66 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

Pharmacophore modeling and shape-based similarity searches represent foundational computational methodologies that continue to play vital roles in modern scaffold hopping campaigns. While emerging AI-driven approaches show considerable promise, these traditional techniques offer interpretability, robustness, and proven success in identifying novel scaffolds with maintained biological activity. The integration of these approaches into unified workflows, complemented by careful experimental validation, provides a powerful strategy for addressing the persistent challenges of drug discovery. As computational power increases and algorithms refine, these traditional approaches will continue to evolve, maintaining their relevance in the medicinal chemist's toolkit for exploring the vast landscape of chemical space and unlocking new therapeutic opportunities.

Scaffold hopping is a cornerstone strategy in modern medicinal chemistry, aimed at designing novel molecular backbones that retain the biological activity of a known hit or lead compound. This approach is critical for overcoming challenges in drug discovery, including intellectual property constraints, poor physicochemical properties, metabolic instability, and toxicity issues [15]. The ultimate objective is to identify isofunctional molecular structures with novel two-dimensional (2D) frameworks but similar three-dimensional (3D) topography and pharmacophores, thereby preserving the desired biological activity while exploring new chemical space [37]. The success of this paradigm is evidenced by several marketed drugs, such as the protein-protein interaction inhibitor venetoclax and the covalent KRASG12C inhibitor sotorasib, which originated from fragment-based discovery approaches [38].

The emergence of large, curated scaffold libraries derived from public databases like ChEMBL has fundamentally transformed the scaffold hopping landscape. These libraries provide access to synthesis-validated structural motifs, enabling systematic exploration of chemical space beyond the limits of corporate proprietary collections or human chemical intuition. Computational frameworks that leverage these extensive libraries can facilitate extensive scaffold hopping by generating unexpected molecules from existing knowledge, thereby accelerating hit expansion and lead optimization campaigns [15]. This technical guide examines the methodologies, workflows, and practical implementations of fragment-based replacement strategies that leverage large scaffold libraries, with a specific focus on their application within rigorous medicinal chemistry research programs.

Core Principles and Definitions

Distinguishing Scaffold Hopping and Fragment Hopping

While the terms are often used interchangeably, subtle distinctions exist between scaffold hopping and fragment hopping in professional literature. Scaffold hopping typically refers to the replacement of a molecule's core ring system with a novel structural motif that maintains similar spatial and electronic properties [15]. In contrast, fragment hopping is a more specialized technique, often deployed within fragment-based drug discovery (FBDD), that focuses on identifying and replacing minimal pharmacophoric elements in 3D space [39] [40]. This protocol is particularly valuable for designing inhibitors against challenging target classes like protein-protein interactions (PPIs), where traditional drug discovery approaches often fail [40].

The Role of Large Scaffold Libraries

Large scaffold libraries, such as those derived from the ChEMBL database, serve as invaluable resources for these hopping strategies. The ChEMBL database is a manually curated repository of bioactive molecules with drug-like properties, containing comprehensive bioactivity data extracted from the scientific literature. By applying systematic fragmentation algorithms to such databases, researchers can generate extensive collections of unique scaffolds proven to possess intrinsic binding capabilities. For instance, one implementation detailed in the literature processed the entire ChEMBL compound collection to create a dedicated library of over 3.2 million unique scaffolds [15]. These libraries provide a foundation of synthesis-validated, biologically relevant starting points that dramatically increase the probability of identifying viable scaffold replacements with maintained activity and improved properties.

Methodology: Computational Framework for Scaffold Replacement

The general computational workflow for fragment-based replacement leveraging large libraries involves a sequential process of decomposition, search, replacement, and evaluation. The following diagram visualizes this core pipeline:

Key Methodological Components

Molecular Fragmentation and Scaffold Identification

The initial phase involves deconstructing the input molecule to isolate its core scaffold(s). This is typically achieved using graph-based fragmentation algorithms. The HierS algorithm is one sophisticated method that systematically decomposes molecules into ring systems, side chains, and linkers [15]. In this process:

• Basis scaffolds are generated by removing all linkers and side chains.
• Superscaffolds retain linker connectivity to preserve specific structural relationships.
• The algorithm recursively removes each ring system to generate all possible combinations until no smaller scaffolds remain, providing a comprehensive inventory of potential query structures for replacement [15].

Alternative fragmentation schemes include:

• RECAP (Retrosynthetic Combinatorial Analysis Procedure): Based on retrosynthetic rules and focuses on cleaving acyclic bonds [41].
• BRICS (Breaking of Retrosynthetically Interesting Chemical Substructures): Another rule-based method that fragments molecules at specific bond types [41].
• DigFrag: A modern, AI-driven approach that uses graph attention mechanisms to identify important substructures without relying on predefined chemical rules, often resulting in higher structural diversity [41].

Scaffold Library Curation

The quality of the replacement library directly dictates the success of the scaffold hopping campaign. A robust library should be:

• Comprehensive: Derived from diverse sources like ChEMBL, which provides synthesis-validated and biologically active starting points. One reported implementation contains over 3.2 million unique scaffolds [15].
• Drug-like: Filtered according to appropriate physicochemical parameters, often following adaptations of the "Rule of Three" (molecular weight ≤ 300, H-bond donors ≤ 3, H-bond acceptors ≤ 3, cLogP ≤ 3) for fragments [38].
• Non-redundant: Processed through rigorous deduplication to ensure each scaffold represents a unique structural motif. In some implementations, ubiquitous structures like single benzene rings are excluded due to their limited discriminating value [15].

Similarity Search and Scaffold Replacement

Once a query scaffold is identified, the library is searched for structurally similar candidate replacements. This search typically employs Tanimoto similarity calculations based on molecular fingerprints (e.g., Morgan fingerprints) to identify candidate scaffolds with 2D similarity above a user-defined threshold [15] [37]. The replacement process then involves computationally excising the original scaffold and grafting the candidate scaffold in its place, ensuring proper bond geometry and valency at the connection points.

Multi-dimensional Evaluation of Generated Molecules

The newly generated compounds undergo rigorous evaluation to ensure they maintain the pharmacological profile of the original molecule while introducing desirable novelty. Key evaluation metrics include:

• 3D Shape and Electrostatic Similarity: Tools like ElectroShape evaluate the similarity of charge distribution and 3D shape properties, which are critical for maintaining biological activity [15]. This is often quantified using metrics like the Shape and Color (SC) score, which combines pharmacophoric feature similarity and shape similarity [37].
• Synthetic Accessibility (SA): Calculated to prioritize molecules that can be practically synthesized. This is a key feature of tools like ChemBounce, which uses a library derived from synthesis-validated fragments to ensure high synthetic accessibility [15].
• Drug-likeness and Property Prediction: Quantitative Estimates of Drug-likeness (QED) and other property predictions (e.g., solubility, lipophilicity) help filter generated compounds [41].

Quantitative Comparison of Scaffold Hopping Tools and Performance

The performance of computational scaffold hopping tools can be evaluated across multiple parameters, including the diversity of generated structures, their synthetic accessibility, and their predicted biological activity.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Scaffold Hopping Tools

Tool / Method	Approach	Key Features	Reported Advantages
ChemBounce [15]	Fragment replacement using curated ChEMBL library	Open-source; integrates Tanimoto & ElectronShape similarity; high synthetic accessibility	Generates compounds with lower SAscores (higher synthetic accessibility) and higher QED (better drug-likeness)
DeepHop [37]	Deep learning (multimodal transformer)	Supervised molecule-to-molecule translation; integrates 3D structure and protein target info	Generated ~70% molecules with improved bioactivity and high 3D similarity but low 2D similarity
SPARK [42]	Bioisosteric replacement based on electrostatics	'Product-centric' approach; uses XED force field for scoring	Generates diverse, less obvious bioisosteres based on electrostatics and shape similarity
Fragment Hopping [40]	Pharmacophore-driven fragment replacement	Derives minimal pharmacophoric elements from PPI complex structures	Particularly effective for designing small-molecule PPI inhibitors

Table 2: Impact of AI-Based Fragmentation (DigFrag) on Generated Molecule Quality [41]

Performance Metric	DigFrag-Based Model	RECAP-Based Model	BRICS-Based Model	MacFrag-Based Model
Filters Score (Drugs)	0.828	0.821	0.819	0.784
QED (Drugs, Avg)	0.71	0.68	0.66	0.69
Synthetic Accessibility (SA, Avg)	3.01	3.23	3.35	3.12
Novelty (Pesticides)	0.83	0.79	0.81	0.80

Experimental Protocol: Implementing a Scaffold Hopping Campaign

Protocol 1: Core Scaffold Hopping with ChemBounce

This protocol provides a step-by-step guide for using a tool like ChemBounce for scaffold replacement.

1. Input Preparation:

• Prepare the input molecule as a valid SMILES string. Ensure the string represents a single compound; remove salts or disconnected ions and validate using standard cheminformatics tools [15].

2. Command Line Execution:

• Execute the tool via the command line. A typical command structure is: python chembounce.py -o OUTPUT_DIRECTORY -i INPUT_SMILES -n NUMBER_OF_STRUCTURES -t SIMILARITY_THRESHOLD [15].
• Parameters:
  • -n: Controls the number of structures to generate per fragment (e.g., 100-1000).
  • -t: Sets the Tanimoto similarity threshold (default 0.5); a higher value (e.g., 0.7) produces more conservative replacements.

3. Advanced Options:

• Use - -core_smiles to specify and retain critical substructures or pharmacophores during replacement.
• Use - -replace_scaffold_files to employ a custom, user-defined scaffold library instead of the default ChEMBL-derived set [15].

4. Output Analysis:

• Analyze the generated compounds, which are typically ranked by similarity scores. Prioritize molecules that balance novelty (low 2D scaffold similarity) with high 3D shape and electrostatic similarity to the original active compound.

Protocol 2: Fragment Hopping for PPI Inhibitors

This protocol is specialized for designing small-molecule protein-protein interaction (PPI) inhibitors, a particularly challenging application.

1. Detect Minimal Pharmacophoric Elements:

• Start with a 3D structure of the PPI complex (e.g., from X-ray crystallography or NMR).
• Identify "hot spot" residues on the ligand protein that are critical for binding (e.g., through alanine scanning mutagenesis data).
• Convert these key residues into minimal pharmacophoric elements, which may include features like hydrogen bond donors/acceptors, hydrophobic centers, and charged groups [40].

2. Fragment Hopping:

• Search fragment libraries for novel chemotypes that can satisfy the spatial and electronic requirements of the minimal pharmacophoric elements defined in step 1 [39] [40].

3. Scaffold Construction:

• Link or grow the selected fragments into a single, cohesive scaffold. This may involve structure-based design to ensure the scaffold correctly orients the fragments [40].

4. Scaffold Decoration and Assessment:

• Add substituents to optimize interactions with the target protein and improve drug-like properties.
• Evaluate the designed molecules using computational methods (e.g., molecular docking, free energy perturbation) and synthesize top candidates for experimental validation [40].

The workflow for this target-specific approach is illustrated below:

Successful implementation of fragment-based replacement strategies requires a collection of specialized computational tools and databases.

Table 3: Essential Resources for Fragment-Based Replacement

Resource Category	Specific Examples	Function and Application
Scaffold/Fragment Libraries	ChEMBL-derived Library [15]	Provides a large collection (>3 million) of synthesis-validated, biologically relevant scaffolds.
	Commercial Fragment Libraries [38]	Curated sets purchasable from vendors, often filtered for properties and diversity.
Computational Tools	ChemBounce [15]	Open-source tool for scaffold hopping using a curated library and similarity metrics.
	SPARK [42]	Software for bioisosteric scaffold and R-group replacement based on electrostatic similarity.
	DeepHop [37]	Deep learning model for target-aware scaffold hopping.
Cheminformatics Libraries	RDKit [37]	Open-source toolkit for cheminformatics, used for SMILES processing, fingerprint generation, etc.
	ODDT [15]	Python library containing functions for calculating ElectronShape similarity.
Similarity & Evaluation Tools	ElectroShape [15]	Algorithm for calculating molecular similarity based on 3D shape and charge distribution.
	Virtual Profiling Models (e.g., DMPNN, MTDNN) [37]	Deep learning models to predict the bioactivity of generated molecules against specific targets.

Fragment-based replacement powered by large scaffold libraries represents a paradigm shift in de novo molecular design and lead optimization. By leveraging computational frameworks to systematically navigate vast, synthesis-validated chemical spaces derived from sources like ChEMBL, medicinal chemists can accelerate the discovery of novel intellectual property with predefined biological activity. As artificial intelligence continues to evolve, integrating deep learning models with these extensive knowledge bases will further enhance the creativity and predictive power of scaffold hopping campaigns, pushing the boundaries of what is considered druggable. The methodologies and protocols outlined in this guide provide a foundation for researchers to implement these powerful strategies in their own drug discovery endeavors.

The rapid evolution of artificial intelligence (AI) has fundamentally transformed the landscape of drug discovery, particularly in the critical task of scaffold hopping—the strategy of identifying novel core structures (scaffolds) while retaining desired biological activity [2]. This process is paramount for overcoming limitations of existing lead compounds, such as toxicity, metabolic instability, or patent constraints [2]. The effectiveness of scaffold hopping relies intrinsically on the method of molecular representation, which serves as the bridge between chemical structures and their biological functions [2]. Traditional representation methods, including molecular fingerprints and Simplified Molecular-Input Line-Entry System (SMILES) strings, have been limited by their reliance on predefined rules and inability to capture complex structural nuances [2] [43].

The advent of deep learning has ushered in a new paradigm of AI-driven molecular representation, moving beyond manual feature engineering to data-driven learning [2]. Among these approaches, Graph Neural Networks (GNNs), Transformers, and Variational Autoencoders (VAEs) have emerged as particularly powerful architectures. These models excel at capturing the intricate relationships between molecular structure and biological activity, thereby enabling a more efficient and comprehensive exploration of the vast chemical space to discover novel scaffolds that were previously inaccessible [2] [44]. This technical guide delves into the mechanisms, applications, and experimental protocols for these three AI pillars within the context of scaffold hopping in modern medicinal chemistry.

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) for Structure-Aware Molecular Representation

Technical Framework and Application to Scaffold Hopping

GNNs provide a natural and powerful framework for molecular representation by treating a molecule as a graph, where atoms constitute nodes and chemical bonds form edges [43] [44]. This representation inherently preserves the structural topology of the molecule. In scaffold hopping, GNNs learn latent features by iteratively aggregating and transforming information from a node's neighbors, a process known as message passing [44]. This allows the model to capture not only local atom environments but also complex, long-range intramolecular interactions that are crucial for biological activity, thereby identifying structurally distinct scaffolds that maintain key functional group relationships [2] [43].

Advanced GNN models, such as Attentive FP, employ an attention mechanism to weigh the importance of neighboring nodes, addressing the limitation that typical message passing can weaken the influence of distal nodes that may still interact chemically, such as through hydrogen bonds [43]. This capability is critical for accurate scaffold hopping, as it ensures that essential pharmacophoric elements are recognized regardless of their topological distance in the scaffold.

Experimental Protocol for GNN-Driven Scaffold Hopping

Objective: To identify novel scaffold hops for a target molecule with known biological activity using a GNN model. Input: A dataset of molecular structures and their associated biological activity (e.g., IC50, Ki). Output: Novel molecular structures with predicted high biological activity and a different core scaffold from the input.

• Data Preprocessing: Convert molecular structures (e.g., from SMILES) into graph representations. Node features are adapted from Extended-Connectivity Fingerprints (ECFP) using a circular algorithm that incorporates the seven Daylight atomic invariants: atom degree, valence, atomic number, atomic mass, atomic charge, number of attached hydrogens, and aromaticity [43]. Edge features represent chemical bond types (single, double, triple, aromatic).
• Model Training: Train a GNN (e.g., Graph Convolutional Network, Attentive FP) in a supervised manner on the labeled dataset. The model learns to map molecular graphs to their biological activity.
• Latent Space Exploration: Use the trained GNN to encode known active compounds into a continuous latent space. Compounds with similar biological activity will cluster in this space.
• Candidate Generation & Validation: Sample points from the latent space in the vicinity of known actives but distant from their specific structural cluster. Decode these points into novel molecular structures. The validity of generated structures is inherently high with graph-based decoders [45]. Finally, validate the predicted activity of these novel scaffolds through in silico docking or experimental assays.

Key Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Table 1: Essential Research Reagents and Tools for GNN Experiments

Item Name	Function/Description	Application in Scaffold Hopping
RDKit	An open-source cheminformatics toolkit [43].	Used for converting SMILES to molecular graphs, calculating molecular descriptors, and handling chemical data.
PyTorch Geometric	A library for deep learning on graphs [44].	Provides implementations of common GNN layers and models, accelerating model development.
DeepChem	An open-source platform for AI-driven drug discovery [43].	Offers high-level APIs for building GNN models and accessing chemical datasets.
ECFP (Extended-Connectivity Fingerprints)	A circular fingerprint that encodes substructural information [43] [45].	Serves as a source for advanced node feature initialization in GNNs, capturing local atomic environments.

Transformer Architectures for Chemical Language Understanding

Technical Framework and Application to Scaffold Hopping

Inspired by breakthroughs in natural language processing (NLP), Transformer models treat molecular representations like SMILES or SELFIES strings as a specialized chemical language [2] [46]. The model tokenizes these strings at the atomic or substructure level and processes them using a self-attention mechanism, which allows it to weigh the importance of different tokens in the sequence when generating a representation [47] [46]. This capability enables the model to capture long-range dependencies and complex, non-linear relationships within the molecular structure that are often missed by traditional methods [2].

For scaffold hopping, Transformers pre-trained on large chemical corpora learn a rich, contextual understanding of chemical "grammar" and structure-activity relationships. Models like BERT can be fine-tuned on specific activity data to generate novel SMILES strings or to identify regions of chemical space enriched with structurally diverse yet functionally similar compounds, thus facilitating the discovery of novel scaffolds [2] [46].

Experimental Protocol for Transformer-Based Scaffold Generation

Objective: To generate novel, syntactically valid molecular scaffolds with high predicted activity using a Transformer model. Input: A large corpus of SMILES strings for pre-training, and a smaller set of activity-labeled SMILES for fine-tuning. Output: Novel, valid SMILES strings representing new scaffold hops.

• Data Preprocessing and Tokenization: Collect and standardize a large dataset of SMILES strings. Tokenize the SMILES strings into a vocabulary of atoms, bonds, and ring symbols.
• Pre-training: Train a Transformer model (e.g., a BERT-like encoder) on the SMILES corpus using a masked language modeling objective. The model learns to predict masked tokens in a sequence, building a robust understanding of chemical syntax and context [2].
• Fine-Tuning: Fine-tune the pre-trained Transformer on a smaller dataset of SMILES strings labeled with the target biological activity. This adapts the model's general chemical knowledge to the specific task.
• Conditional Generation: Use the fine-tuned model in a generative fashion (e.g., using a decoder architecture) to produce new SMILES strings conditioned on high activity. Alternatively, use the model to encode molecules into a latent space for similarity searching and interpolation.
• Validity Filtering & Validation: Pass the generated SMILES strings through a validator (e.g., RDKit) to ensure chemical validity. Subsequently, predict the activity of the valid novel structures and prioritize the top candidates for experimental validation.

Table 2: Comparison of AI Models for Scaffold Hopping Applications

Model Architecture	Molecular Representation	Key Strength in Scaffold Hopping	Common Challenge
Graph Neural Network (GNN)	2D/3D Molecular Graph [43] [44]	Naturally preserves structural topology; high validity in generation [45].	Can be computationally intensive for large graphs.
Transformer	SMILES/SELFIES String [2] [46]	Captures long-range context via self-attention; benefits from transfer learning.	May generate invalid SMILES strings without constraints [45].
Variational Autoencoder (VAE)	Graph or SMILES [45]	Provides a continuous, explorable latent space for smooth interpolation [45].	Can suffer from "posterior collapse" if not regularized properly.

Variational Autoencoders (VAEs) for Latent Space Exploration

Technical Framework and Application to Scaffold Hopping

VAEs are a class of generative models that learn a continuous, low-dimensional latent space from high-dimensional input data [45] [48]. In drug discovery, a VAE consists of an encoder that maps a molecule to a distribution in latent space, and a decoder that reconstructs the molecule from a point in that space [45]. The key differentiator of VAEs is their regularization of the latent space to approximate a standard normal distribution, which ensures that the space is smooth and continuous. This property is exceptionally valuable for scaffold hopping, as it allows for molecular interpolation; traversing between two known active compounds in the latent space can yield novel, intermediate structures (scaffold hops) that retain the desired activity [2] [45].

Graph-based VAEs, such as JT-VAE and its advanced successors like NP-VAE (designed for large, complex molecules like natural products), have demonstrated high reconstruction accuracy and generation success by decomposing molecules into chemically meaningful substructures or junction trees [45]. This approach ensures that the generated molecules are not only novel but also chemically valid.

Experimental Protocol for VAE-Based Scaffold Optimization

Objective: To explore the chemical latent space of a VAE to generate novel, optimized scaffolds for a given target. Input: A set of active compounds against a specific target. Output: Novel compound structures with optimized properties and novel scaffolds.

• Model Training: Train a graph-based VAE (e.g., NP-VAE, JT-VAE) on a diverse chemical library that includes the known active compounds. The model learns to compress molecular graphs into a probabilistic latent vector and reconstruct them.
• Latent Space Mapping: Encode the known active compounds into the VAE's latent space.
• Property-Guided Exploration: Apply an optimization algorithm (e.g., Bayesian optimization) within the latent space. The algorithm probes the space, seeking latent points that, when decoded, are predicted to have enhanced properties (e.g., higher potency, better solubility).
• Structure Generation & Validation: Decode the optimized latent points into molecular structures. Graph-based decoders in models like NP-VAE ensure nearly 100% validity [45]. Validate the top-ranked generated compounds using in silico property prediction models and docking simulations before proceeding to synthesis and experimental testing.

Integrated Workflow and Comparative Analysis

The true power of these AI architectures is realized when they are integrated into a cohesive drug discovery pipeline. A typical workflow begins with a Transformer-based model for rapid, large-scale virtual screening of chemical databases or for generating an initial set of diverse candidates. Promising hits are then analyzed more deeply using GNN-based models, which provide a more structure-aware prediction of activity and binding modes, often yielding higher accuracy [43]. Finally, VAE-based models are employed for the lead optimization phase, where the continuous latent space is meticulously explored to generate novel scaffold hops with optimized properties, balancing potency, selectivity, and pharmacokinetics [45].

The table below summarizes the quantitative performance of different generative models, highlighting the advancements of modern architectures.

Table 3: Performance Benchmarking of Generative Models for Molecular Design

Model	Architecture	Key Innovation	Reconstruction Accuracy*	Validity Rate*
CVAE [45]	SMILES-based VAE	Pioneering application of VAE to chemistry.	Lower	~10%
JT-VAE [45]	Graph-based VAE	Junction Tree decomposition for validity.	76%	100%
HierVAE [45]	Graph-based VAE	Hierarchical decomposition for larger molecules.	82%	100%
NP-VAE [45]	Graph-based VAE	Handles large, chiral molecules & natural products.	>85%	100%
MoFlow [45]	Graph-based Flow	Invertible transformations, high theoretical accuracy.	100%	100%

Note: Performance metrics are illustrative and based on results reported in [45]. Actual values may vary depending on the dataset and implementation. *Reconstruction Accuracy: Ability to recreate the input molecule from its latent representation. Theoretical guarantee, but latent space exploration can be challenging due to high dimensionality.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 4: Key Research Reagent Solutions for AI-Driven Scaffold Hopping

Reagent / Resource	Function in Research	Specific Application Example
DNA-Encoded Library (DEL) & DELi Platform	Open-source software for analyzing DNA-encoded library data [49].	Identifies initial hit compounds from vast chemical libraries for use as inputs to AI models.
GDSC/CCLE Databases	Provides drug sensitivity and gene expression data for cancer cell lines [43].	Used to train and validate predictive models for anti-cancer drug response (e.g., IC50 prediction).
PubChem Database	A public repository of chemical molecules and their activities [43].	Source for obtaining SMILES structures and bioactivity data for model training and testing.
AlphaFold	AI system that predicts protein 3D structure with high accuracy [50].	Provides high-quality protein structures for structure-based AI screening and target analysis.
17(R)-Resolvin D1 methyl ester	17(R)-Resolvin D1 Methyl Ester	Potent synthetic SPM for inflammation resolution research. 17(R)-Resolvin D1 methyl ester is For Research Use Only (RUO). Not for human or veterinary diagnostic or therapeutic use.
13-Dehydroxyindaconitine	13-Dehydroxyindaconitine, CAS:4491-19-4, MF:C34H47NO10, MW:629.7 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

The integration of GNNs, Transformers, and VAEs into the medicinal chemistry workflow represents a paradigm shift in scaffold hopping. GNNs provide an unparalleled, structure-aware representation of molecules, Transformers leverage the power of large-scale chemical language understanding, and VAEs offer a smooth, continuous latent space for systematic exploration and optimization. While challenges remain—including data quality, model interpretability, and the ultimate translation to successful clinical candidates—these AI technologies collectively equip researchers with a powerful toolkit to navigate the vastness of chemical space more efficiently than ever before. They are poised to continue accelerating the discovery of novel therapeutic agents with enhanced efficacy and safety profiles.

The pursuit of novel drug candidates necessitates innovative strategies that can navigate the vast chemical space efficiently. Scaffold hopping has emerged as a critical methodology in medicinal chemistry, aiming to discover new chemotypes with improved properties while retaining desired biological activity. This whitepaper provides an in-depth technical overview of the Unconstrained RuSH (Reinforcement Learning for Unconstrained Scaffold Hopping) framework, a generative reinforcement learning approach designed to accelerate this process. RuSH represents a paradigm shift in de novo molecular design by leveraging advanced reinforcement learning (RL) to guide the generation of novel, synthetically accessible scaffolds, facilitating the exploration of uncharted regions of chemical space for drug discovery and development.

In modern medicinal chemistry, scaffold hopping is a fundamental strategy for generating novel, patentable drug candidates from known active compounds. The objective is to identify new molecular cores (scaffolds) that maintain the pharmacophoric elements necessary for biological activity but are structurally distinct from the original lead compound. This process is crucial for overcoming limitations of existing leads, such as poor ADMET properties (Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Excretion, and Toxicity), insufficient efficacy, or intellectual property constraints [4].

Traditional computational methods for scaffold hopping often rely on molecular similarity metrics or pharmacophore modeling, which can be limited by their dependence on predefined chemical representations and their inability to efficiently explore the immense possibilities of chemical space. The emergence of generative artificial intelligence has introduced transformative potential for this challenge, with approaches including variational autoencoders (VAEs), generative adversarial networks (GANs), and reinforcement learning (RL) demonstrating promising capabilities for property-guided molecular generation and scaffold innovation [51].

However, the application of these generative models in real-world drug discovery is frequently constrained by limited data availability. Most projects operate with only a few hundred to a few thousand relevant data points, while generative frameworks are typically trained on massive, general-purpose databases containing millions of compounds. This disparity often results in models that fail to capture domain-specific structure-function relationships when applied to narrow, data-scarce regimes [51]. The RuSH framework addresses these limitations through a specialized reinforcement learning approach tailored for scaffold hopping in low-data environments.

The RuSH Framework: Core Architecture and Methodology

The Unconstrained RuSH framework is built upon a generative reinforcement learning architecture specifically engineered to guide molecular generation toward compounds that maintain high three-dimensional and pharmacophore similarity to a reference molecule, while simultaneously reducing scaffold similarity. This enables the discovery of structurally novel compounds with retained or enhanced biological activity [51].

Reinforcement Learning Components

RuSH implements a sophisticated RL environment where an agent (the generative model) interacts with the chemical space through a series of actions (molecular modifications) and receives feedback based on a meticulously designed reward function. The core components of this system include:

• State Representation: The current molecular structure encoded in a computationally meaningful representation, typically as a SMILES string (Simplified Molecular-Input Line-Entry System) or molecular graph.
• Action Space: Defined chemical transformations that the agent can perform on the current molecular structure, such as atom addition/removal, bond formation/breaking, or functional group modifications.
• Policy Network: A deep neural network that determines the probability distribution over possible actions given the current molecular state. This network is optimized during training to maximize cumulative reward.
• Reward Function: A multi-objective scoring function that quantifies the desirability of generated compounds based on key criteria including 3D molecular similarity, pharmacophore overlap, and scaffold diversity relative to the reference molecule.

Technical Implementation and Scoring Function

The RuSH framework incorporates a specialized scoring function that balances multiple molecular properties critical for successful scaffold hopping. The implementation includes plugins adapted for popular molecular design platforms such as REINVENT3.2 and REINVENT4, facilitating integration into existing drug discovery workflows [52].

Table 1: Core Components of the RuSH Reinforcement Learning Framework

Component	Implementation	Function in Scaffold Hopping
State Representation	SMILES strings or molecular graphs	Encodes current molecular structure for algorithmic processing
Action Space	Predefined chemical transformations	Defines possible structural modifications to explore chemical space
Policy Network	Deep neural network (Transformer-based)	Learns optimal strategies for molecular generation through training
Reward Function	Multi-parameter scoring system	Guides generation toward molecules with desired scaffold hopping properties
Training Algorithm	Transfer learning + Reinforcement learning	Combines prior chemical knowledge with target-specific optimization

The reward function in RuSH is designed to evaluate generated molecules against several key metrics:

• 3D Shape Similarity: Measures the volumetric overlap between the generated molecule and the reference compound using metrics such as electron shape similarity or molecular volume overlap, ensuring maintenance of the overall molecular topology critical for binding.
• Pharmacophore Similarity: Assesses the spatial arrangement of key functional groups and chemical features essential for biological activity, preserving the critical interactions with the target protein.
• Scaffold Diversity: Quantifies the structural dissimilarity of the core molecular framework relative to the reference compound, typically measured using Tanimoto similarity or related metrics on molecular fingerprints.
• Drug-likeness and Synthetic Accessibility: Incorporates calculated properties such as molecular weight, lipophilicity, and synthetic complexity scores to ensure generated molecules are chemically feasible and possess drug-like characteristics.

Experimental Protocols and Validation Methodologies

Validating the performance of generative models like RuSH requires rigorous experimental protocols that assess both the computational efficiency and the biological relevance of generated compounds. The following sections detail standard methodologies for evaluating RuSH's scaffold hopping capabilities.

Benchmarking Studies and Performance Metrics

RuSH has been evaluated against state-of-the-art generative models including JT-VAE and MolGPT across multiple metrics that quantify success in scaffold hopping applications [51]. Standard experimental protocols involve:

• Reference Compound Selection: Choosing known active compounds with well-characterized structures and activities from databases such as ChEMBL or PDB (Protein Data Bank).
• Model Training: Implementing a combination of transfer learning (initial training on large chemical databases) followed by reinforcement learning (fine-tuning with target-specific reward functions).
• Compound Generation: Producing thousands to millions of virtual compounds through the trained RuSH model.
• Post-generation Analysis: Applying comprehensive filtering and evaluation pipelines to assess the quality of generated molecules.

Table 2: Key Performance Metrics for Evaluating Scaffold Hopping Approaches

Metric	Description	Interpretation in RuSH Context
Docking Score	Computational prediction of binding affinity to target protein	Lower (more negative) scores indicate stronger predicted binding
Novelty	Structural dissimilarity to known active compounds	Higher values indicate more innovative chemical structures
Uniqueness	Proportion of valid, non-duplicate molecules generated	Measures diversity and chemical validity of output
Tanimoto Similarity	Fingerprint-based molecular similarity	Lower values indicate greater scaffold hopping success
Synthetic Accessibility	Estimated ease of chemical synthesis	Higher scores indicate more readily synthesizable compounds

Case Study: PIM1 Kinase Inhibitors

A representative case study demonstrates RuSH's application to generating novel PIM1 kinase inhibitors [52]. The experimental protocol follows these key steps:

• Data Curation: A semi-curated list of known PIM1 inhibitors is retrieved from the ChEMBL database using REST API calls, providing the reference structures for scaffold hopping.
• Model Configuration: The RuSH framework is initialized with appropriate parameters for the 3D similarity threshold and scaffold diversity targets specific to kinase inhibitors.
• Reinforcement Learning Phase: The model undergoes iterative training where it:
  • Generates candidate molecules
  • Evaluates them against the multi-component reward function
  • Updates the policy network based on performance
• Validation: Generated compounds are assessed through:
  • Molecular docking against the PIM1 kinase structure (PDB ID relevant to study)
  • Molecular dynamics simulations (e.g., 250 ns simulations) to confirm binding stability (ligand RMSD < 2.5 Ã…)
  • Pharmacophore analysis to ensure conservation of critical interaction motifs

In this application, RuSH successfully generated novel PIM1 inhibitors that retained the conserved biphenyl pharmacophore while introducing innovative chemical motifs, with top candidates demonstrating superior docking scores compared to known reference compounds [51].

Implementation and Integration

Technical Requirements and Setup

The RuSH framework is implemented in Python and is available through a GitHub repository that contains code to reproduce transfer learning, reinforcement learning, and baseline experiments [52]. The implementation includes:

• Notebooks for reproducing experiments, with examples provided for case studies like PIM1
• Input data for reproducing experiments, with reference structures obtained from PDB
• Scoring plugins for REINVENT 3.2 and REINVENT4
• Standalone scripts for using the ScaffoldFinder and RuSH algorithms independently

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for RuSH Implementation

Resource/Reagent	Function/Purpose	Implementation in RuSH
REINVENT Platform	Molecular design environment	Provides infrastructure for reinforcement learning implementation
ChEMBL Database	Curated bioactive molecules	Source of reference compounds and training data
PDB Structures	Protein 3D coordinates	Provides targets for docking studies and binding mode analysis
ScaffoldFinder	Core scaffold identification algorithm	Identifies and classifies molecular scaffolds in generated compounds
RDKit	Cheminformatics toolkit	Handles molecular representations, fingerprints, and property calculations
AutoDock Vina	Molecular docking software	Evaluates binding affinity of generated compounds to target proteins
GROMACS	Molecular dynamics package	Validates binding stability through simulation

Comparative Analysis with Alternative Approaches

RuSH operates within a growing ecosystem of computational methods for scaffold hopping and molecular generation. When benchmarked against other state-of-the-art models including JT-VAE, MolGPT, and ChemBounce, RuSH demonstrates superior performance across multiple metrics including docking score, novelty, uniqueness, and Tanimoto similarity [4] [51].

Unlike fragment-based approaches like ChemBounce—which identifies core scaffolds and replaces them using a curated library of fragments—RuSH employs a generative strategy that can create entirely novel molecular architectures not limited to predefined fragment libraries [4]. Similarly, while transformer-based models like MolGPT excel at generating valid SMILES strings, they often lack the specialized reward mechanisms for balancing 3D similarity with scaffold diversity that are central to RuSH's effectiveness [51].

The framework also differs from classical reinforcement learning approaches for molecular design by incorporating specialized scoring functions specifically optimized for the scaffold hopping paradigm, particularly through its emphasis on reducing 2D scaffold similarity while maintaining 3D shape and pharmacophore compatibility.

Future Directions and Challenges

The integration of RuSH into mainstream drug discovery workflows presents both opportunities and challenges. Future developments will likely focus on:

• Integration with Large Language Models: Leveraging LLMs trained on scientific literature and chemical data could enhance RuSH's ability to incorporate broader biochemical knowledge into the generation process [53].
• Multi-objective Optimization: Expanding the reward function to simultaneously optimize a broader range of drug properties, including predicted toxicity, metabolic stability, and pharmacokinetic profiles.
• Experimental Validation: While RuSH has demonstrated success in computational validation, broader application requiring wet-lab confirmation of predicted activities remains essential for establishing its full utility.
• Accessibility and Usability: Developing more user-friendly interfaces and cloud-based implementations (similar to ChemBounce's Google Colaboratory notebook) to make the framework accessible to medicinal chemists without specialized computational backgrounds [4].

As pharmaceutical research continues to embrace AI-driven methodologies, frameworks like RuSH represent the vanguard of a fundamental shift in how we approach molecular design—moving from iterative screening to intelligent, targeted generation of novel therapeutic compounds.

Scaffold hopping, a term first coined in 1999, has evolved into an indispensable strategy in medicinal chemistry for generating novel and patentable drug candidates [15] [54]. This approach aims to identify or design compounds with structurally different core frameworks that retain the biological activity of the original molecule [15]. The strategic importance of scaffold hopping extends across multiple dimensions of drug discovery, including overcoming intellectual property constraints, addressing metabolic instability, reducing toxicity issues, and improving physicochemical properties [15] [54] [16]. Successful scaffold hops have led to marketed drugs such as Vadadustat, Bosutinib, Sorafenib, and Nirmatrelvir [15], as well as the iconic example of vardenafil developed as a scaffold hop from sildenafil [55].

The fundamental challenge in scaffold hopping lies in replacing the central core structure while maintaining the spatial arrangement and orientation of critical functional groups necessary for target binding and biological activity [54] [16]. This requires sophisticated computational approaches that can navigate the vast chemical space to identify bioisosteric replacements that preserve pharmacophoric features [54] [55]. Scaffold hops can be categorized into several types of increasing complexity: heterocyclic substitutions, ring opening or closure, peptide mimicry, and topology-based alterations [2]. The field has witnessed significant methodological evolution, from early fragment-based replacement strategies to modern artificial intelligence-driven approaches that leverage advanced molecular representations [2] [56].

Computational Framework for Scaffold Hopping

Fundamental Methodologies and Approaches

Scaffold hopping methodologies can be broadly classified into several computational paradigms, each with distinct advantages and applications. Pharmacophore-based approaches utilize the spatial arrangement of chemical features essential for biological activity to guide scaffold replacement, effectively capturing the concept of bioisosterism by focusing on conserved interaction patterns rather than structural similarity [54]. These can be implemented in either 2D space, using correlation vectors like the CATS descriptor, or 3D space, considering molecular shape and electrostatic properties [54].

Shape similarity methods represent another important strategy, with tools like ROCS (Rapid Overlay of Chemical Structures) using atom-centered Gaussians for molecular shape description and overlay, enabling the identification of structurally diverse compounds with similar overall molecular shapes and pharmacophore feature distributions [54]. Topological replacement approaches, exemplified by CAVEAT and ReCore, focus on the geometric orientation of attachment vectors, searching for scaffold replacements that maintain the spatial orientation of substituents critical for binding [54] [55].

More recently, AI-driven molecular representation methods have emerged, employing deep learning techniques such as graph neural networks, variational autoencoders, and transformers to learn continuous, high-dimensional feature embeddings that capture subtle structure-function relationships difficult to encode using traditional rule-based descriptors [2]. These advanced representations facilitate more effective navigation of chemical space for scaffold hopping applications.

Quantitative Comparison of Scaffold Hopping Tools

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Scaffold Hopping Platforms

Feature	ChemBounce	BROOD	ReCore
Developer	Academic (Open Source)	OpenEye	BioSolveIT
License	Open Source	Commercial	Commercial
Core Methodology	Fragment replacement with shape similarity	Fragment replacement with shape and electrostatics	Topological replacement based on vector geometry
Scaffold Library	3.2 million fragments from ChEMBL [15]	4 million medicinally relevant fragments [57]	Fragment libraries (ZINC, PDB) [55]
Similarity Assessment	Tanimoto + Electron shape similarity [15]	Shape + Electrostatics [57]	Connection vector similarity [55]
Synthetic Accessibility	Integrated evaluation [15]	Integrated estimation [57]	Not explicitly stated
Key Strengths	Open source, high synthetic accessibility, cloud-based implementation [15]	Graphical property analysis, protein active-site assessment [57]	Fast 3D coordinate screening, pharmacophore constraints [55]
Typical Applications	Hit expansion, lead optimization [15]	Lead-hopping, patent breaking, SAR expansion [57]	Scaffold replacement with geometric constraints [55]

Table 2: Performance Considerations for Different Compound Classes

Compound Type	Processing Time	Key Considerations	Recommended Tools
Small Molecules (e.g., Celecoxib, MW ~315 Da)	~4 seconds [15]	High synthetic accessibility, drug-likeness	All platforms suitable
Peptides (e.g., Kyprolis)	Variable, up to 21 minutes for complex structures [15]	Conformational flexibility, metabolic stability	BROOD, ChemBounce
Macrocyclic Compounds (e.g., Pasireotide)	Longer processing times [15]	Ring strain, conformational restrictions	BROOD (active-site assessment)
Kinase Inhibitors (e.g., ROCK1 inhibitors)	Not specified	Hinge-binding motifs, selectivity profiles	ReCore, BROOD

Tool-Specific Architectures and Workflows

ChemBounce: Open-Source Scaffold Hopping

ChemBounce implements a comprehensive computational framework that begins with input structures provided as SMILES strings [15]. The tool employs the ScaffoldGraph library with the HierS algorithm to systematically decompose molecules into ring systems, side chains, and linkers [15]. Basis scaffolds are generated by removing all linkers and side chains, while superscaffolds retain linker connectivity through a recursive process that systematically removes each ring system to generate all possible combinations [15].

The replacement process leverages a curated library of over 3.2 million unique scaffolds derived from the ChEMBL database, with single benzene rings excluded due to their ubiquitous presence and limited discriminating value [15]. For a given query scaffold, similar candidates are identified through Tanimoto similarity calculations based on molecular fingerprints. Generated molecules undergo rigorous rescreening using both Tanimoto and electron shape similarities (computed via ElectroShape in the ODDT Python library) to ensure retention of pharmacophores and potential biological activity [15].

ChemBounce provides both command-line and cloud-based implementations via Google Colaboratory, making it accessible to users with varying computational resources [15]. Advanced features include the ability to retain specific substructures of interest (--core_smiles option) and support for custom scaffold libraries (--replace_scaffold_files option), enabling researchers to incorporate domain-specific or proprietary fragment collections [15].

Workflow of the ChemBounce Scaffold Hopping Process

BROOD: Commercial Fragment Replacement Platform

BROOD employs a comprehensive approach to fragment replacement that emphasizes molecular shape and electrostatic properties [57]. The software contains a database of over 4 million medicinally relevant fragments and provides utilities for users to augment this database with proprietary fragments from corporate collections [57]. This extensive coverage of chemical space enhances the probability of identifying novel yet synthetically accessible scaffold replacements.

A distinctive feature of BROOD is its integrated graphical environment for physical property analysis and real-time filtering of potential molecules [57]. This enables researchers to simultaneously optimize multiple parameters during scaffold hopping, including drug-likeness, synthetic accessibility, and specific physicochemical properties. The platform also facilitates construction and assessment of new molecule series within a protein active site context, bridging the gap between ligand-based and structure-based design approaches [57].

BROOD's hierarchical organization of analog molecules, coupled with specialized visualization tools for hitlist exploration and editing, supports efficient decision-making in scaffold selection [57]. The software includes collaboration features such as favorite molecules list management, molecular annotation, and view bookmarking to enhance communication between computational chemists and medicinal chemists [57].

ReCore: Topological Replacement Methodology

ReCore implements a geometric approach to scaffold hopping based on the orientation of connection vectors [55]. The method screens fragment libraries (including ZINC and PDB) as 3D coordinates and ranks potential replacements according to their connecting vector similarity to the original scaffold [55]. This focus on spatial geometry ensures that replacement scaffolds maintain the appropriate orientation of substituents for productive target binding.

The software operates within BioSolveIT's SeeSAR platform in "Inspirator Mode," providing visual feedback on proposed scaffold replacements [55]. Users can apply pharmacophore constraints to filter results based on key interactions with the biological target, combining geometric and pharmacophoric considerations for more relevant scaffold proposals [55].

A notable application of ReCore demonstrated its effectiveness in a project at Roche targeting BACE-1 inhibitors for Alzheimer's disease [16]. The team sought to improve solubility by reducing lipophilicity while maintaining potency. ReCore suggested replacement of a central phenyl ring with a trans-cyclopropylketone moiety, which upon synthesis and testing showed significantly reduced logD with improved solubility while maintaining excellent inhibitory activity [16]. Co-crystallization studies confirmed the effectiveness of this scaffold hop, with the new scaffold maintaining key binding interactions [16].

Experimental Protocols and Validation Methodologies

Benchmarking Scaffold Hopping Performance

Robust validation is essential for assessing scaffold hopping performance. ChemBounce employed comprehensive benchmarking against several commercial tools using approved drugs including losartan, gefitinib, fostamatinib, darunavir, and ritonavir as starting points [15]. Generated compounds were evaluated using multiple metrics including synthetic accessibility score (SAscore), quantitative estimate of drug-likeness (QED), molecular weight, LogP, hydrogen bond donors/acceptors, and the synthetic realism score (PReal) from AnoChem [15].

Notably, ChemBounce tended to generate structures with lower SAscores (indicating higher synthetic accessibility) and higher QED values (reflecting better drug-likeness profiles) compared to existing commercial tools [15]. Additional performance profiling under varying internal parameters examined the impact of fragment candidate numbers (1000 versus 10000), Tanimoto similarity thresholds (0.5 versus 0.7), and application of Lipinski's rule of five filters [15].

Practical Implementation Workflow

A successful scaffold hopping workflow typically incorporates the following key stages:

• Input Preparation and Preprocessing: Begin with validated SMILES strings of query compounds, ensuring proper representation of stereochemistry and addressing any valence violations or salt forms that might interfere with scaffold analysis [15]. For structure-based approaches, prepare the protein binding site coordinates if available.

• Scaffold Identification and Analysis: Apply appropriate fragmentation algorithms (e.g., HierS in ChemBounce) to systematically decompose query molecules and identify candidate scaffolds for replacement [15]. Consider which portions of the molecule represent the actual "scaffold" versus substituents based on retrosynthetic analysis and previous structure-activity relationship (SAR) data.

• Replacement Strategy Selection: Choose the appropriate methodology based on available information:

  • Use pharmacophore-based approaches when key interaction features are well-characterized [54]
  • Employ shape-based methods when molecular shape dominates binding [54]
  • Apply topological replacement when substituent geometry is critical [55]
  • Utilize AI-driven approaches for exploring novel chemical spaces [2]

• Post-processing and Filtering: Implement multi-parameter filtering to prioritize proposed scaffolds based on synthetic accessibility, drug-likeness, physicochemical properties, and similarity metrics [15] [57]. Tools like BROOD and ChemBounce provide integrated filtering capabilities.

• Experimental Validation: Synthesize and biologically evaluate selected scaffold-hopped compounds to confirm maintained activity and improved properties [16]. Structural validation through protein-ligand co-crystallization provides definitive confirmation of binding mode conservation [16].

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Resources

Resource Type	Specific Examples	Function in Scaffold Hopping
Compound Databases	ChEMBL, ZINC, PDB	Source of validated fragments and replacement scaffolds [15] [55]
Similarity Algorithms	ElectroShape, Tanimoto, Feature Trees	Quantitative assessment of molecular similarity [15] [54] [55]
Descriptor Sets	ECFP, CATS, Shape-based descriptors	Molecular representation for similarity searching [54] [2]
Property Predictors	SAscore, QED, LogP	Evaluation of synthetic accessibility and drug-likeness [15]
Visualization Tools	SeeSAR, BROOD graphical interface	Analysis and interpretation of scaffold hopping results [57] [55]

Integration Strategies and Future Directions

Hybrid Approaches in Scaffold Hopping

Combining multiple scaffold hopping strategies often yields superior results compared to relying on a single methodology. For instance, a workflow might initially employ topological replacement using ReCore to identify geometrically compatible scaffolds, followed by shape similarity screening with BROOD to further refine candidates, and finally apply synthetic accessibility filters using ChemBounce's curated fragment library [15] [57] [55]. This sequential application of complementary techniques leverages the unique strengths of each platform.

The Charles River and Chiesi Farmaceutici collaboration on ROCK1 inhibitors exemplifies successful hybrid methodology implementation [16]. Their approach combined brute-force enumeration with shape screening and computational filters, resulting in the discovery of a novel inhibitor featuring a seven-membered azepinone ring [16]. X-ray crystallography confirmed that despite significant scaffold modification, the new compound maintained critical binding interactions with the protein hinge region and P-loop [16].

Hybrid Scaffold Hopping Strategy Combining Multiple Methods

Emerging Trends and AI-Driven Innovations

The field of scaffold hopping is increasingly influenced by artificial intelligence and machine learning approaches. Modern molecular representation methods employing graph neural networks, variational autoencoders, and transformers enable more sophisticated navigation of chemical space [2]. These AI-driven techniques learn continuous, high-dimensional feature embeddings that capture non-linear relationships beyond manual descriptors, potentially identifying novel scaffolds that traditional methods might overlook [2].

Language model-based representations represent another advancing frontier, with transformer architectures adapted to process SMILES strings as a specialized chemical language [2]. These models tokenize molecular strings at atomic or substructure levels and process them into continuous vector representations that capture complex molecular patterns [2]. As these AI methodologies mature, they are expected to enhance all scaffold hopping platforms, potentially through integration as modular components within both open-source and commercial tools.

The expansion of available chemical data resources, combined with increasing computational power, suggests future scaffold hopping tools will offer enhanced capabilities for navigating unexplored chemical territories while maintaining stricter control over synthetic feasibility and ADMET properties [2] [56]. This progression will further solidify scaffold hopping as an essential component of modern drug discovery workflows, enabling more efficient exploration of structural novelty around validated pharmacophores.

Scaffold hopping, a cornerstone strategy in modern medicinal chemistry, involves the purposeful modification of a bioactive compound's core structure to generate novel molecular entities with enhanced properties. This approach enables researchers to move into fresh chemical space, circumventing established patented territories while refining a lead compound's pharmacodynamic, pharmacokinetic, and physiochemical profiles [58] [59]. Within the context of a broader thesis on scaffold hopping in medicinal chemistry research, this technical guide illuminates its critical application in addressing complex, multifactorial diseases. By examining its use in tuberculosis, cancer, and Alzheimer's disease, this review demonstrates how scaffold hopping serves as a powerful tool for discovering new leads, overcoming drug resistance, and designing multi-target therapeutics, complete with detailed methodologies and practical resources for drug development professionals.

Scaffold Hopping in Tuberculosis Drug Discovery

Tuberculosis (TB), particularly with the emergence of drug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb) strains, presents a formidable global health challenge. Scaffold hopping has emerged as a promising tool for developing novel TB therapeutics that address the limitations of existing drugs, such as toxicity, poor pharmacokinetics, and resistance [60].

Case Study: BM212 Lead Optimization

The pyrrole derivative BM212 exhibited strong activity against drug-resistant Mtb but was plagued by poor pharmacokinetics and toxicity [61]. A scaffold-hopping approach was employed to replace the central pyrrole core while preserving essential pharmacophoric features: a central hydrophobic core, a hydrogen bond acceptor, and two adjacent aromatic rings [61].

• Experimental Protocol: Researchers used the Rapid Overlay of Chemical Structures (ROCS) software to search for heterocyclic scaffolds with similar 3D shape and volume outlines to BM212. Compounds with a Tanimoto shape similarity coefficient (TSSC) greater than 0.60 were selected for synthesis. A library of 20 molecules based on three new scaffolds—2,3-disubstituted benzimidazole, 1,2,4-trisubstituted imidazole, and 2,3-disubstituted imidazopyridine—was generated, characterized (IR, ¹H NMR, ¹³C NMR, MS), and evaluated for antimycobacterial activity and cytotoxicity [61].
• Key Findings: The benzimidazole derivative 4a emerged as a standout candidate, demonstrating potency comparable to BM212 (MIC 2.3 µg/ml vs. 0.7–1.5 µg/ml) but with drastically reduced cytotoxicity against HepG2 cell lines (ICâ‚…â‚€ 203.10 µM vs. 7.8 µM). This represented a significant improvement in the therapeutic window [61].

Table 1: Scaffold Hopping of BM212 for Anti-Tuberculosis Activity

Compound	Core Scaffold	MIC against Mtb (μg/ml)	Cytotoxicity (IC₅₀, μM, HepG2)	Key Improvement
BM212	Pyrrole	0.7 - 1.5	7.8	Lead compound (poor profile)
4a	Benzimidazole	2.3	203.1	Dramatically reduced toxicity
Imidazopyridine Analogs	Imidazopyridine	0.39 - 3.12	>100	Improved metabolic stability

A more recent study applied scaffold hopping to design 4-aminoquinazolines inspired by pharmacophoric features of known antimycobacterial agents. The most potent derivatives showed MIC values as low as 0.28 μM, exhibited efficacy in a macrophage infection model, and likely operate via a novel, unidentified mechanism of action, highlighting the strategy's potential for discovering new target pathways [62].

Scaffold Hopping in Anticancer Drug Discovery

The complexity and diversity of cancer demand innovative therapeutic strategies. Scaffold hopping has proven highly effective in advancing anticancer drug design by enhancing potency, selectivity, and ADMET (Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Excretion, Toxicity) profiles [59].

Strategic Classifications and Applications

Scaffold hopping strategies can be systematically categorized to guide rational drug design [59]:

• Primary Scaffold Hopping (Heterocyclic Replacement): The core hetero-/carbocycle is substituted or interchanged, preserving key functional motifs. This is a fundamental approach for exploring novel chemical space around a validated pharmacophore.
• Secondary Scaffold Hopping (Ring Closure/Opening): Altering molecular rigidity via ring closure or flexibility via ring opening can improve biological activity, absorption, and membrane penetration.
• Tertiary Scaffold Hopping (Peptidomimetics): Peptide scaffolds are replaced with non-peptide structures to address limitations like poor metabolic stability and bioavailability, crucial for targeting protein-protein interactions.
• Quaternary Scaffold Hopping (Topology-Based): This involves significant structural changes based on the overall topology or pharmacophore pattern of the lead, often leading to highly novel chemotypes.

Case Study: Dual-Target Inhibitors

A major application in oncology is the design of dual-target inhibitors. Scaffold hopping facilitates the creation of single agents that simultaneously inhibit multiple key cancer pathways, a strategy that can overcome redundancy in signaling networks and improve efficacy [58]. For instance, minor modifications, structure rigidification, and complete structural overhauls have been used to generate a library of bifunctional inhibitors against various oncogenic targets [58].

Table 2: Selected Examples of Scaffold-Hopped Anticancer Agents

Original Scaffold / Lead	Scaffold-Hopped Derivative	Target / Activity	Outcome
Rutaecarpine (natural product)	2-Indolyl-pyrido[1,2-a]pyrimidinones (e.g., Compound 64)	Antiproliferative activity against MCF-7, A549, HCT-116 cells (IC₅₀ = 7.7 - 18.4 µM) [59]	Improved synthetic accessibility and potency via primary & secondary hopping.
Celastrol (natural product)	Derivatives with pepper ring, pyrazine, oxazole substructures	Potent autophagy inducers against breast cancer MCF-7 cells [59]	Mitigated inherent toxicity of natural product lead.
N/A (Rational Design)	Thiazole hybrids (e.g., S8Ba, S8Bd)	Selective PIN1 inhibitors (computational study) [63]	New chemotype identified via shape similarity for cancer, diabetes, and AD.

Scaffold Hopping in Alzheimer's Disease Drug Discovery

The multifactorial pathology of Alzheimer's Disease (AD) has rendered single-target therapies largely ineffective, spurring the development of Multi-Target Directed Ligands (MTDLs). Scaffold hopping is instrumental in this pursuit, enabling the design of single molecules that address multiple pathological pathways simultaneously [64] [65].

Case Study: Dual GSK3β/SIRT1 Modulators

A promising AD strategy involves concurrently inhibiting glycogen synthase kinase-3β (GSK3β)—a key driver of tau hyperphosphorylation—and activating sirtuin-1 (SIRT1), a neuroprotective deacetylase [64]. Natural compounds like resveratrol and berberine provide starting scaffolds for rational drug design.

• Experimental Protocol: The design process often integrates:
  • Pharmacophore Hybridization: Merging structural features from known GSK3β inhibitors and SIRT1 activators.
  • Computational Modeling & Cheminformatics: Using structure-based modeling and virtual screening to predict binding affinity and selectivity for both targets.
  • Structure-Activity Relationship (SAR) Studies: Systematically varying the hopped scaffold to optimize dual activity.
  • In Vitro/In Vivo Validation: Employing orthogonal biophysical assays (TR-FRET, SPR) and cellular models (e.g., NanoBRET for PPI stabilization) to confirm target engagement and efficacy [64].

Case Study: Pyridazine-Based Multifunctional Agents

Another approach focuses on developing balanced multifunctional agents. For example, a series of 2-aminoalkyl-6-(2-hydroxyphenyl)pyridazin-3(2H)-one derivatives were designed as dual AChE inhibitors and Aβ anti-aggregants [65].

• Experimental Protocol: A comprehensive in silico protocol was employed, including:
  • 2D-QSAR Modeling: Using Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) and Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) on a set of 46 compounds to build predictive models of activity (pICâ‚…â‚€).
  • Molecular Docking: To visualize and optimize interactions with key AD-related proteins like AChE.
  • ADMET Prediction: Analyzing drug-likeness, oral absorption (predicted ~96%), and potential toxicity.
  • Molecular Dynamics (MD) Simulations: Running 100 ns simulations to confirm the stability of the ligand-protein complex under physiological conditions [65].
• Key Findings: This integrated workflow led to the design of 13 novel pyridazine derivatives with promising multifunctional potential, enhanced dynamic stability in protein binding sites, and favorable predicted pharmacokinetic properties [65].

Scaffold Hopping Workflow for Drug Discovery

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Methods

The successful application of scaffold hopping relies on a suite of specialized computational tools, synthetic methods, and assay technologies.

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Scaffold-Hopping Campaigns

Category / Item	Specific Example / Technique	Function in Scaffold Hopping
Computational Software	ROCS (Rapid Overlay of Chemical Structures) [61]	Shape-based virtual screening to identify novel scaffolds with 3D similarity to a lead.
	Molecular Docking (e.g., AutoDock, GOLD) [63]	Predicts binding mode and affinity of hopped scaffolds to the target protein.
	AnchorQuery [66]	Pharmacophore-based screening of synthesizable MCR (Multi-Component Reaction) libraries for scaffold hopping.
Synthetic Chemistry	Multi-Component Reactions (MCRs) - Groebke-Blackburn-Bienaymé (GBB) [66]	Enables rapid, divergent synthesis of complex, drug-like heterocyclic scaffolds (e.g., imidazo[1,2-a]pyridines).
	Organopalladium Catalysis [58]	Facilites C-H bond activation and cross-coupling for complex scaffold functionalization.
Biophysical Assays	Intact Mass Spectrometry [66]	Detects and characterizes ligand binding to proteins, useful for identifying molecular glues.
	TR-FRET (Time-Resolved FRET) [66]	Monitors stabilization or inhibition of protein-protein interactions (PPIs) in a high-throughput format.
	SPR (Surface Plasmon Resonance) [66]	Measures binding kinetics (kon, koff) and affinity (KD) of hopped scaffolds for their targets.
Cellular & Biochemical Assays	NanoBRET [66]	Cellular target engagement assay to confirm PPI stabilization by molecular glues in live cells.
	Metabolic Stability (e.g., Rat Liver Microsomes) [61]	Evaluates the in vitro metabolic stability of new hopped compounds to optimize PK properties.
Enantiomer of Sofosbuvir	Enantiomer of Sofosbuvir, MF:C22H29FN3O9P, MW:529.5 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
1-Bromo-4-tert-butylbenzene	1-Bromo-4-tert-butylbenzene, CAS:3972-65-4, MF:C10H13Br, MW:213.11 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Molecular Glue Mechanism for 14-3-3/ERα Stabilization [66]

Scaffold hopping has firmly established itself as a versatile and indispensable strategy in the medicinal chemist's arsenal for addressing some of the most challenging diseases. As demonstrated in the case studies against tuberculosis, cancer, and Alzheimer's disease, this approach enables the logical progression from suboptimal leads to novel chemical entities with refined efficacy, safety, and drug-like properties. The future of scaffold hopping lies in the continued integration of computational advancements—such as more sophisticated AI-driven molecular design—with innovative synthetic methodologies and conventional drug design principles [58]. This synergistic approach will undoubtedly accelerate the discovery of next-generation therapeutics, particularly for complex diseases where single-target paradigms have proven insufficient.

Overcoming Scaffold Hopping Challenges: Data Quality, Synthetic Accessibility, and Property Optimization

Scaffold hopping is a fundamental strategy in medicinal chemistry, aimed at discovering novel molecular core structures while retaining or improving biological activity. This endeavor is crucial for enhancing drug properties such as metabolic stability and for navigating intellectual property landscapes. The process relies heavily on computational methods to explore vast chemical spaces, but this exploration is fraught with technical pitfalls that can compromise the validity, efficiency, and ultimate success of research outcomes. This guide addresses three critical, yet often overlooked, challenges in modern computational drug discovery: input validation during data preprocessing, the interpretation and handling of Invalid SMILES strings generated by chemical language models, and the accurate representation and handling of pharmaceutical salt forms. Missteps in these areas can introduce silent errors, biased results, and flawed compounds into the development pipeline. By integrating recent, evidence-based insights, this whitepaper provides a structured framework to identify, understand, and navigate these pitfalls, thereby enhancing the reliability of scaffold hopping campaigns.

Pitfall 1: Input Validation and Data Preprocessing

Before any modeling begins, the quality of the input data dictates the ceiling of potential success. Inconsistent or erroneous molecular representations can lead to models that learn from artifacts rather than chemistry.

The Critical Role of Standardized Representations

Molecular representation is the cornerstone of computational chemistry, bridging the gap between chemical structures and their predicted properties. Effective representation is essential for tasks like virtual screening and scaffold hopping, as it enables accurate navigation of chemical space. Traditional string-based formats like SMILES are widely used due to their compact nature, but they can struggle to capture the full complexity of molecular interactions required for sophisticated discovery tasks [2].

Quantitative Impact of Representation Choice

The choice of molecular representation directly influences model performance in distribution learning and exploration of chemical space. The table below summarizes key characteristics of common representations relevant to scaffold hopping.

Table 1: Comparison of Molecular Representation Methods for Scaffold Hopping

Representation Method	Key Features	Advantages for Scaffold Hopping	Limitations
SMILES (Simplified Molecular-Input Line-Entry System)	Text-based string representation of molecular structure [2].	Simple, human-readable; extensive support in tools and models [2].	Non-univocal; inherent validity issues with some generative models [67] [2].
SELFIES (SELF-referencIng Embedded Strings)	String-based representation designed for 100% validity [67].	Guarantees syntactically valid outputs; eliminates need for validity filters [67].	Can introduce structural biases, impairing distribution learning and generalization [67].
Molecular Fingerprints (e.g., ECFP)	Binary or numerical vectors encoding substructural information [2].	Computationally efficient; excellent for similarity search and QSAR [2].	Relies on predefined rules; may miss subtle, complex structural relationships [2].
Graph-based Representations	Direct encoding of atoms as nodes and bonds as edges [2].	Natively captures molecular topology; powerful with Graph Neural Networks [2].	Can be computationally intensive; requires specialized model architectures [2].

Pitfall 2: Invalid SMILES in Chemical Language Models

The generation of invalid SMILES strings is often perceived as a major flaw in chemical language models (CLMs). However, recent evidence fundamentally reframes this issue.

Invalid SMILES as a Feature, Not a Bug

A pivotal 2024 study provided causal evidence that the ability to produce invalid outputs is beneficial rather than detrimental to CLMs. The generation of invalid SMILES provides a self-corrective mechanism that intrinsically filters low-likelihood samples from the model output. Conversely, enforcing valid outputs through representations like SELFIES can produce structural biases in generated molecules, which impairs distribution learning and limits generalization to unseen chemical space [67] [68]. This finding refutes the prevailing assumption that invalid SMILES are a shortcoming, recasting them as a useful feature.

Experimental Evidence and Underlying Mechanism

Research shows that invalid SMILES are sampled with significantly lower likelihoods (higher losses) than valid SMILES from the same model. This holds true across all major categories of invalid SMILES. Consequently, filtering out invalid strings post-generation effectively removes low-quality samples, which explains the observed negative correlation between the proportion of invalid SMILES and model performance metrics like the Fréchet ChemNet distance [67].

Table 2: Impact of SMILES Augmentation Strategies on Model Performance

Augmentation Strategy	Description	Key Findings	Optimal Use Case
SMILES Enumeration (Baseline)	Representing a single molecule with multiple valid SMILES strings via different graph traversal orders [69].	Improves model quality and de novo design, especially in low-data scenarios [69].	General purpose use; improving chemical syntax learning.
Atom Masking	Randomly replacing specific atoms with a placeholder dummy token (e.g., "[*]") [69].	Particularly promising for learning desirable physico-chemical properties in very low-data regimes [69].	Low-data scenarios; focusing on property prediction.
Token Deletion	Randomly removing tokens from the original SMILES string [69].	Effective for creating novel scaffolds; enhances structural diversity [69].	Encouraging exploration and scaffold hopping.
Bioisosteric Substitution	Replacing pre-defined functional groups with their bioisosteres from databases like SwissBioisostere [69].	Incorporates medicinal chemistry knowledge directly into data augmentation.	Lead optimization; maintaining bioactivity while altering structure.

Protocol: Partial SMILES Validation in Reinforcement Learning

To maintain high validity rates during reinforcement learning (RL)—where models are prone to "catastrophic forgetting"—a novel algorithm called PSV-PPO (Partial SMILES Validation-PPO) can be implemented [70].

• Problem: During RL fine-tuning, model validity can drop significantly from >99% in pre-training.
• Solution - Stepwise Validation: Instead of validating only complete SMILES strings, PSV-PPO performs validation at each auto-regressive step.
• Procedure:
  • At each step in sequence generation, the algorithm evaluates not only the selected token but also all potential subsequent tokens branching from the current partial sequence.
  • This allows for the early detection of paths that will lead to invalid SMILES across all potential future branches.
  • The RL policy is then guided to avoid these dead-end paths, maintaining high validity rates even during aggressive exploration of chemical space [70].
• Outcome: This method significantly reduces invalid structures while maintaining competitive performance in optimization benchmarks like PMO and GuacaMol [70].

Pitfall 3: Salt Handling and Representation

The inaccurate handling of pharmaceutical salts is a pervasive source of error in chemical databases and computational workflows, with potentially severe consequences for experimental outcomes.

The Prevalence and Importance of Salt Forms

Approximately 50% of all marketed drug molecules are administered as salts. Salt formation is a critical step in drug development to modulate undesirable characteristics of a parent drug, such as solubility, stability, bioavailability, and manufacturability [71] [72]. The choice of salt form is a "pharmaceutical alternative" that can be as significant as the active moiety itself. For peptide therapies, this is especially relevant, as standard synthesis often results in a trifluoroacetate (TFA) salt, while most marketed peptides are ultimately commercialized as hydrochloride or acetate salts due to regulatory and toxicity considerations [72].

Consequences of Inconsistent Salt Representation

A major challenge is the lack of standardization in representing salt structures and names. A simple chloride salt has been named in over 40 different ways in commercial catalogs, and analysis has identified 2,522 unique salt/solvate descriptors across supplier catalogues [73]. This inconsistency leads to critical errors:

• Incorrect Molecular Weight Calculation: The molecular weight of a salt form can be represented differently. For example, pantoprazole sodium sesquihydrate is listed with a molecular weight of 864.8 g/mol in some public databases but 432.37 g/mol by chemical suppliers. Using the wrong weight to prepare a solution for a bioassay or synthesis can lead to a 100% concentration error, severely skewing dose-response curves or causing unbalanced reactions [73].

Protocol: Automated Salt Data Processing and Standardization

To ensure accurate use of salt forms in large-scale experiments like HTS, an automated algorithmic approach is necessary. The following workflow, based on successful implementations, standardizes salt data [73]:

• Identification: Flag compounds that are salts, solvates, or other addition compounds, ignoring unadorned parent molecules.
• Data Extraction and Analysis: Analyze information provided in both the salt text field and the salt/solvate fragments within the structure diagram.
• Structure Creation and Cleaning:
  • Create the full structure (parent molecule + salt structure(s)) in the correct stoichiometric ratio.
  • Clean the parent structure and the separate salt structure.
  • Adjust atomic charges to ensure the complete structure is electrically neutral.
• Registration and Normalization:
  • Register all three structures (parent, salt, and parent+salt complex) with unique identifiers.
  • Normalize stoichiometry to one equivalent of the main molecule. For example, a ratio of 2 (Main component) : 3 (HCl) : 1 (Hâ‚‚O) should be normalized to 1 : 1.5 : 0.5.
  • Calculate and store the accurate molecular weight of the normalized salt form.

Table 3: Common Salt Handling Pitfalls and Solutions

Pitfall	Potential Consequence	Recommended Solution
Inconsistent Naming (e.g., 40 names for HCl salt) [73]	Inability to accurately search for or aggregate data on a specific salt form.	Adopt internal naming conventions; use automated parsing tools that recognize variants [73].
Incorrect Structure Drawing	Calculated Molecular Weight (MW) and Molecular Formula (MF) are wrong.	Use standardized drawing conventions; implement algorithmic checks to ensure structure neutrality and correct stoichiometry [73].
Using Wrong MW for Solution Prep	Bioassay concentration or synthetic reaction yield is drastically off (e.g., 100% error) [73].	Always use the normalized MW (per single parent molecule) from a trusted, standardized source for calculations [73].
Late-Stage Salt Switching	Requires repetition of toxicological, formulation, and stability studies, increasing cost and time [71].	Select the optimal salt form early, ideally before initiating long-term toxicology studies (start of Phase I) [71].

Successful navigation of the described pitfalls requires a curated set of computational tools and databases.

Table 4: Key Resources for Managing SMILES and Salt Pitfalls

Tool/Resource	Type	Primary Function	Relevance to Pitfalls
ChemBounce [4]	Computational Framework	Facilitates scaffold hopping by replacing core scaffolds using a curated fragment library.	Directly enables core scaffold hopping tasks while generating synthetically accessible candidates.
SwissBioisostere Database [69]	Database	A curated repository of functional group replacements that maintain biological activity.	Informs bioisosteric substitution augmentations for CLMs and guides manual scaffold design [69].
Automated Salt Processing Algorithm [73]	Algorithm	Parses supplier data to generate accurate, standardized salt structures and molecular weights.	Corrects inconsistent salt representations, preventing critical errors in MW-dependent experiments [73].
PSV-PPO Algorithm [70]	Reinforcement Learning Algorithm	Maintains high SMILES validity during optimization via stepwise, partial validation of generated strings.	Prevents catastrophic forgetting of chemical syntax in RL-driven molecular design [70].
SELFIES Representation [67]	Molecular Representation	A string-based format guaranteeing 100% valid molecular structures by design.	Useful for applications where any invalid output is unacceptable, though may limit exploration [67].

Integrated Workflow for Scaffold Hopping

The individual strategies for handling SMILES and salts must converge into a cohesive workflow for effective scaffold hopping. The following diagram integrates these elements, showing how proper input validation, informed model selection and augmentation, and careful salt handling contribute to the discovery of novel, valid, and synthesizable scaffolds.

Scaffold hopping, a term first coined by Schneider and colleagues in 1999, has become an integral strategy in modern medicinal chemistry and drug discovery [15] [2]. This approach aims to identify or design compounds with different core structures (scaffolds) that retain similar biological activities to a known active molecule [1]. The primary motivations for scaffold hopping include overcoming intellectual property constraints, improving poor physicochemical properties, addressing metabolic instability, and reducing toxicity issues associated with existing lead compounds [15] [1].

The fundamental challenge in scaffold hopping lies in balancing two opposing objectives: introducing sufficient structural diversity to create novel chemotypes while preserving the essential pharmacophoric elements that confer biological activity [37]. Excessive structural modification may result in complete loss of activity, while insufficient alteration provides limited innovation and intellectual property potential. To address this challenge, computational chemists have developed quantitative constraints to guide the hopping process, with Tanimoto similarity and electron shape similarity emerging as complementary metrics for controlling two-dimensional structural diversity and three-dimensional pharmacophore preservation, respectively [15] [74].

This technical guide examines the theoretical foundations, methodological frameworks, and practical applications of these dual constraints in scaffold hopping, providing medicinal chemists and drug discovery researchers with actionable protocols for implementing this balanced approach in lead optimization programs.

Theoretical Foundations of Similarity Constraints

Tanimoto Similarity: Measuring 2D Structural Diversity

The Tanimoto coefficient (also known as Jaccard similarity) serves as a fundamental metric for quantifying two-dimensional structural similarity between molecules [15] [37]. Calculated from molecular fingerprints, it measures the proportion of common chemical substructures relative to the total unique substructures present in both molecules. The formula for calculating the Tanimoto similarity between molecules A and B is:

Tanimoto(A,B) = |A ∩ B| / |A ∪ B|

Where |A ∩ B| represents the number of common fingerprint bits, and |A ∪ B| represents the total number of unique fingerprint bits between both molecules [37]. In scaffold hopping applications, Tanimoto similarity typically employs Morgan fingerprints (also known as circular fingerprints or ECFP) to encode molecular structures [37].

A lower Tanimoto similarity threshold (typically 0.5-0.7) between the original and hopped scaffolds ensures significant two-dimensional structural diversity, facilitating intellectual property expansion and exploring new chemical space [15] [37].

Electron Shape Similarity: Preserving 3D Pharmacophores

While Tanimoto similarity effectively measures structural diversity, it may not adequately capture three-dimensional features critical for biological activity. Electron shape similarity addresses this limitation by quantifying the overlap of both molecular shape and electronic features (pharmacophores) in three-dimensional space [15] [74].

The Electron shape similarity metric integrates two complementary components:

• Shape similarity: Measures the volume overlap between two molecules using Gaussian molecular shapes
• Pharmacophore similarity: Assesses the alignment of key chemical features (hydrogen bond donors/acceptors, aromatic centers, charged groups) [74]

The combination of these components ensures that scaffold-hopped compounds maintain similar steric and electronic properties necessary for target binding, even when their two-dimensional structures appear quite different [37] [74]. This approach is inspired by the fundamental principle that candidate compounds bind with their targets through 3D conformations rather than 2D structures [37].

Table 1: Key Components of Electron Shape Similarity

Component	Description	Role in Scaffold Hopping
Shape Similarity	Measures volume overlap using Gaussian molecular shapes	Ensures compatible steric properties for binding site accommodation
Pharmacophore Similarity	Assesses alignment of chemical features (HBD, HBA, hydrophobic, charged)	Preserves critical interactions with target protein
ComboScore	Combined shape and pharmacophore score	Provides holistic 3D similarity assessment

Computational Frameworks and Implementation

ChemBounce: An Integrated Framework

ChemBounce represents a comprehensive computational framework specifically designed for scaffold hopping with balanced diversity and activity constraints [15]. The system employs a structured workflow that integrates both Tanimoto and electron shape similarity metrics at critical decision points.

The framework begins by receiving an input structure in SMILES format, which is then fragmented to identify core scaffolds using the HierS methodology implemented in ScaffoldGraph [15]. This algorithm systematically decomposes molecules into ring systems, side chains, and linkers, generating both basis scaffolds (by removing all linkers and side chains) and superscaffolds (retaining linker connectivity) through a recursive process that removes each ring system until no smaller scaffolds exist [15].

ChemBounce leverages a curated in-house library of over 3 million unique scaffolds derived from the ChEMBL database, providing a diverse chemical space for scaffold replacement [15]. During the hopping process, candidate scaffolds are identified based on Tanimoto similarity to the query scaffold, followed by generation of new molecules through scaffold replacement. The resulting compounds then undergo rescreening using both Tanimoto and electron shape similarity constraints to ensure retention of pharmacophores and potential biological activity [15].

Table 2: Performance Validation of ChemBounce Across Diverse Molecule Types

Molecule Type	Examples	Molecular Weight Range (Da)	Processing Time
Peptides	Kyprolis, Trofinetide, Mounjaro	315 - 4813	4 seconds to 21 minutes
Macrocyclic Compounds	Pasireotide, Motixafortide	-	-
Small Molecules	Celecoxib, Rimonabant, Lapatinib, Trametinib, Venetoclax	-	-

Deep Learning Approaches for Scaffold Hopping

Recent advances in deep learning have introduced novel architectures for scaffold hopping that implicitly incorporate 3D similarity constraints. The DeepHop model represents a significant innovation by reformulating scaffold hopping as a supervised molecule-to-molecule translation task [37]. This multimodal transformer architecture integrates molecular 3D conformer information through a spatial graph neural network and protein sequence information through a transformer encoder [37].

The training strategy for DeepHop involved curating over 50,000 pairs of molecules with increased bioactivity, similar 3D structure (3D similarity ≥ 0.6), but different 2D structure (2D scaffold similarity ≤ 0.6) from public bioactivity databases spanning 40 kinases [37]. This carefully constructed dataset enabled the model to learn the complex relationships between 2D structural changes, 3D pharmacophore preservation, and bioactivity maintenance.

Validation studies demonstrated that DeepHop could generate approximately 70% of molecules having improved bioactivity together with high 3D similarity but low 2D scaffold similarity to template molecules—a success rate 1.9 times higher than other state-of-the-art deep learning methods and rule-based virtual screening approaches [37].

Scaffold Hopping with Dual Similarity Constraints

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Protocol 1: Implementing ChemBounce for Scaffold Hopping

Materials and Software Requirements:

• ChemBounce installation (available via GitHub or Google Colaboratory)
• RDKit or OpenBabel for molecular preprocessing
• Input molecule in SMILES format
• Custom scaffold library (optional)

Step-by-Step Procedure:

• Input Preparation

  • Validate input SMILES string using standard cheminformatics tools
  • Preprocess multi-component systems to extract primary active compound
  • Ensure proper stereochemistry representation

• Scaffold Identification

  • Execute fragmentation using HierS algorithm:

  • Parameters:
    • -n: Number of structures to generate per fragment (default: 100)
    • -t: Tanimoto similarity threshold (default: 0.5)
    • --core_smiles: Specify substructures to preserve unchanged

• Scaffold Replacement

  • Query curated ChEMBL-derived scaffold library (3.2M scaffolds)
  • Identify candidate scaffolds using Tanimoto similarity threshold
  • Generate new molecules through scaffold replacement

• Similarity-Based Rescreening

  • Calculate electron shape similarity using ElectroShape implementation in ODDT Python library
  • Apply combined Tanimoto and shape similarity filters
  • Retain compounds meeting both diversity and activity preservation criteria

• Output Analysis

  • Review generated compounds in specified output directory
  • Assess synthetic accessibility using SAscore
  • Evaluate drug-likeness using QED metrics

Protocol 2: Constructing Scaffold Hopping Pairs for Model Training

This protocol outlines the methodology for creating training datasets for deep learning models like DeepHop, based on the approach described in the literature [37].

Data Collection and Preprocessing:

• Extract bioactivity data from ChEMBL database for target protein classes
• Filter molecules containing disconnected ions or fragments
• Normalize molecules using RDKit (remove salt and isotopes, charge neutralization)
• Standardize activity measurements to pChEMBL values (-Log(molar IC50, Ki, Kd))

Scaffold Hopping Pair Construction:

• Apply matched molecular pair (MMP) analysis to identify structural changes
• Calculate 2D scaffold similarity using Tanimoto score over Morgan fingerprints of Bemis-Murcko scaffolds
• Compute 3D molecular similarity using shape and color similarity score (SC score)
• Apply strict similarity conditions:
  • 2D scaffold similarity ≤ 0.6
  • 3D similarity ≥ 0.6
  • Bioactivity improvement (pCHEMBL value ≥ 1) for new compound

Validation and Quality Control:

• Train deep QSAR models (e.g., multi-task DNN) for virtual bioactivity profiling
• Retain only targets with fivefold cross-validation R² > 0.70
• Manually review representative scaffold hops for chemical rationality

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Scaffold Hopping Implementation

Tool/Resource	Type	Function in Scaffold Hopping	Access Information
ChemBounce	Computational Framework	Integrated scaffold hopping with dual similarity constraints	https://github.com/jyryu3161/chembounce
ScaffoldGraph	Python Library	Molecular fragmentation and scaffold analysis	Open-source Python package
ChEMBL Database	Chemical Database	Source of synthesis-validated scaffolds for hopping	https://www.ebi.ac.uk/chembl/
ROCS & Shape-it	3D Similarity Tools	Shape-based alignment and similarity calculation	Commercial software (OpenEye)
Align-it	Pharmacophore Tool	Pharmacophore alignment and feature mapping	Commercial software (OpenEye)
ODDT Python Library	Computational Chemistry	ElectroShape implementation for electron shape similarity	Open-source Python package
RDKit	Cheminformatics	Molecular preprocessing, fingerprint generation, conformer sampling	Open-source Python package

Case Studies and Validation

Case Study 1: Kinase Inhibitor Scaffold Hopping

The application of Tanimoto and electron shape similarity constraints has demonstrated particular success in kinase inhibitor optimization, where the patent literature is notoriously complicated and hard to break [37]. In one comprehensive validation, scaffold hopping approaches were applied to five approved kinase inhibitor drugs—losartan, gefitinib, fostamatinib, darunavir, and ritonavir—with performance comparison against established commercial platforms including Schrödinger's Ligand-Based Core Hopping and BioSolveIT's FTrees, SpaceMACS, and SpaceLight [15].

The evaluation assessed key molecular properties of generated compounds including SAscore, QED, molecular weight, LogP, hydrogen bond donors/acceptors, and synthetic realism score (PReal) from AnoChem [15]. ChemBounce-generated structures tended to exhibit lower SAscores (indicating higher synthetic accessibility) and higher QED values (reflecting more favorable drug-likeness profiles) compared to existing scaffold hopping tools [15].

Performance profiling under varying internal parameters revealed that:

• Increasing fragment candidates from 1000 to 10000 improved structural diversity while maintaining activity
• Tanimoto similarity thresholds of 0.5-0.7 provided optimal balance between novelty and activity preservation
• Application of Lipinski's Rule of Five filters further improved drug-likeness of generated compounds

Case Study 2: HIV Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors

HIV reverse transcriptase (HIVRT) inhibitors represent a challenging scaffold hopping scenario due to diverse chemical structures targeting the nucleotidyltransferase binding site [74]. The CSNAP3D approach, which combines 2D chemical similarity fingerprints with 3D shape-based similarity network analysis, achieved significant improvement in target prediction for this difficult drug class [74].

In this application, the ShapeAlign protocol identified scaffold hopping compounds using shape alignment followed by combined shape, pharmacophore, and 2D similarity scoring [74]. The approach successfully identified structurally distinct compounds that shared key pharmacophoric features with known HIVRT inhibitors, demonstrating the power of integrated 2D/3D similarity constraints in scaffold hopping for challenging targets.

Scaffold Hopping Validation Workflow

The integration of Tanimoto and electron shape similarity constraints represents a sophisticated approach to balancing diversity and activity in scaffold hopping applications. By simultaneously controlling two-dimensional structural novelty through Tanimoto thresholds and three-dimensional pharmacophore preservation through electron shape similarity, medicinal chemists can systematically explore novel chemical space while maintaining a high probability of retaining biological activity.

The development of computational frameworks like ChemBounce and DeepHop demonstrates the practical implementation of these principles, providing researchers with automated tools for scaffold hopping that explicitly consider both diversity and activity constraints [15] [37]. Performance validations across diverse molecule types and target classes confirm that this dual-constraint approach generates compounds with improved synthetic accessibility and drug-likeness profiles compared to existing methods [15].

As scaffold hopping continues to evolve as a central strategy in medicinal chemistry, further refinement of similarity metrics and their integration with advanced deep learning architectures will likely enhance the efficiency and success rates of this approach. The ongoing expansion of synthesis-validated scaffold libraries and improvements in 3D similarity calculations will provide increasingly robust foundations for scaffold hopping campaigns guided by the balanced consideration of structural diversity and pharmacological activity.

In modern medicinal chemistry, scaffold hopping has emerged as an indispensable strategy for generating novel, potent, and patentable drug candidates. This process involves identifying or generating new molecular cores that retain the desired biological activity of a lead compound but possess distinct structural frameworks [15]. The primary objectives include overcoming intellectual property constraints, improving physicochemical properties, addressing metabolic instability, and reducing toxicity issues [15]. Notably, several successfully marketed drugs, including Vadadustat, Bosutinib, Sorafenib, and Nirmatrelvir, have originated from scaffold hopping approaches [15].

However, a significant challenge in computational scaffold hopping lies in ensuring that the newly generated molecules are not only biologically active but also synthetically feasible. Without practical synthetic routes, even the most promising virtual compounds remain inaccessible for experimental validation and development. This challenge is particularly acute in AI-driven molecular generation, where models frequently produce structures that are difficult or impossible to synthesize using current chemical methodologies [75].

The integration of Synthetic Accessibility Scores (SAScore) provides a crucial solution to this problem. These computational metrics offer rapid assessment of synthetic feasibility, enabling researchers to prioritize compounds with higher likelihood of successful laboratory synthesis. Within the context of scaffold hopping, SAScore integration ensures that structural diversity is pursued without compromising practical synthesizability, thereby bridging the gap between virtual molecular design and real-world chemical accessibility.

Synthetic Accessibility Scoring: Methodological Foundations

Core Principles and Definitions

Synthetic accessibility scoring aims to quantitatively estimate the ease with which a given molecule can be synthesized based on its structural features. These scores generally function as heuristic proxies for synthetic complexity, providing rapid assessment without requiring exhaustive retrosynthetic analysis. The fundamental premise underlying these approaches is that certain molecular characteristics correlate with synthetic difficulty, including molecular complexity, presence of rare structural motifs, and overall topological complexity [76].

Multiple methodological paradigms have been developed for assessing synthetic accessibility:

• Structure-based approaches evaluate molecular complexity using descriptors such as fragment frequency, presence of chiral centers, ring systems, and molecular size [76]. For instance, the SAscore algorithm incorporates both fragment contributions from ECFP4 fingerprints and complexity penalties based on structural features like stereocenters and macrocycles [76].

• Retrosynthesis-based approaches leverage reaction databases and computer-aided synthesis planning (CASP) tools to estimate synthetic feasibility. These methods may predict the number of synthetic steps required or the likelihood that a CASP tool will find a viable synthetic route [76] [75].

• Hybrid and emerging approaches combine multiple data sources, with recent methods incorporating economic factors like molecular market price as synthetic accessibility proxies [77].

Key SAScore Algorithms and Tools

Table 1: Comparison of Major Synthetic Accessibility Scoring Tools

Score Name	Basis of Calculation	Score Range	Interpretation	Key Features
SAscore [76]	Fragment contribution + complexity penalty	1-10	1 = Easy to synthesize; 10 = Hard to synthesize	Based on ECFP4 fragment frequency from PubChem; includes penalties for stereocenters, macrocycles
SCScore [76] [75]	Neural network trained on Reaxys reactions	1-5	1 = Simple molecule; 5 = Complex molecule	Reflects expected number of synthesis steps; products assumed more complex than reactants
SYBA [76]	Bayesian classifier on easy/difficult-to-synthesize sets	Binary classification	Easy or Hard to synthesize	Trained on ZINC15 (easy) and Nonpher-generated difficult structures
RAscore [76]	Predicts AiZynthFinder retrosynthesis outcomes	0-1	Higher values = more synthetically accessible	Specifically designed for retrosynthesis planning feasibility
SYNTHIA SAS [78]	Graph convolutional neural network (GCNN)	0-10	Lower values = easier to synthesize (fewer steps)	Predicts synthetic steps from commercially available building blocks
RScore [75]	Full retrosynthetic analysis via Spaya API	0-1	1 = One-step synthesis matching literature	Based on proprietary route scoring (steps, likelihood, convergence, applicability)
MolPrice [77]	Market price prediction via contrastive learning	Continuous (log USD/mmol)	Lower price = more accessible	Uses economic viability as synthesizability proxy; trained on Molport database

Quantitative Performance Benchmarking

Comparative studies have evaluated the performance of various SAScore algorithms in predicting synthetic feasibility. In assessments against CASP tools like AiZynthFinder, most SAScores effectively discriminated between feasible and infeasible molecules [76]. The RAscore, specifically designed for retrosynthesis planning, demonstrated particular utility in predicting AiZynthFinder outcomes [76].

The RScore from Spaya API has been validated against chemist assessments, showing strong correlation with expert intuition regarding synthetic accessibility [75]. In benchmarking exercises, molecules with higher RScore values were consistently rated as more synthetically accessible by medicinal chemists.

The emerging MolPrice approach offers a unique economic perspective, with results showing it reliably assigns higher prices to synthetically complex molecules compared to readily purchasable ones, effectively distinguishing accessibility levels [77]. This economic validation provides practical relevance to synthetic accessibility assessment.

SAScore Integration in Scaffold Hopping Workflows

The ChemBounce Framework for Synthetically-Aware Scaffold Hopping

The ChemBounce framework represents a specialized computational approach that explicitly integrates synthetic accessibility considerations into scaffold hopping [15]. This open-source tool facilitates scaffold hopping by generating structurally diverse scaffolds with high synthetic accessibility from user-supplied molecules.

The ChemBounce workflow employs several key strategies for maintaining synthetic feasibility:

• Curated scaffold library: Utilizes a diverse collection of over 3 million fragments derived from the ChEMBL database, ensuring that replacement scaffolds originate from synthesis-validated compounds [15].

• Similarity constraints: Implements Tanimoto and electron shape similarity metrics to ensure retention of pharmacophores and potential biological activity during scaffold replacement [15].

• Synthetic accessibility prioritization: The generated compounds are evaluated for synthetic feasibility, with options to filter based on SAScore thresholds [15].

The framework demonstrates scalability across diverse molecule types, processing compounds with molecular weights ranging from 315 to 4813 Da, with processing times from seconds for small molecules to approximately 21 minutes for complex structures [15].

Diagram 1: SAScore Integration in Scaffold Hopping Workflow

Experimental Protocol for SAScore-Integrated Scaffold Hopping

Compound Generation and Initial Screening

Materials and Software Requirements:

• Chemical informatics environment: RDKit [76] or similar cheminformatics toolkit
• Scaffold hopping tool: ChemBounce [15] or equivalent platform
• SAScore calculation: Implementations of SAscore, SCScore, RAscore, or SYNTHIA SAS
• Input compounds: Active reference molecules in SMILES format

Procedure:

• Input Preparation:
  • Prepare SMILES strings of reference active compounds
  • Validate chemical structures using RDKit's SanitizeMol function
  • For multi-component systems, extract primary active compound

• Scaffold Hopping Execution:

  • Execute ChemBounce with appropriate parameters:

  • Utilize the --core_smiles option to preserve critical pharmacophoric elements
  • Apply custom scaffold libraries if needed via --replace_scaffold_files

• Initial SAScore Filtering:

  • Calculate SAScores for all generated compounds
  • Apply threshold filtering (e.g., SAscore ≤ 4.5 or SCScore ≤ 3)
  • Retain top candidates for further analysis

Synthetic Route Validation

Materials and Software Requirements:

• Retrosynthesis tools: Spaya API [75], IBM RXN [79], or AiZynthFinder [76]
• Commercial compound databases: Catalog of 60+ million commercially available starting materials [75]

Procedure:

• Route Identification:
  • Submit SAScore-filtered compounds to retrosynthesis tools
  • Set appropriate timeout parameters (e.g., 1-3 minutes per molecule for initial screening)
  • Extract best synthetic route score and number of steps

• Route Assessment:

  • Evaluate route convergence and step count
  • Assess commercial availability of starting materials
  • Calculate overall route feasibility score

• Final Compound Selection:

  • Integrate SAScore, route feasibility, and similarity metrics
  • Apply multi-parameter optimization for final selection
  • Output prioritized list of synthesizable scaffold-hopped compounds

Research Reagent Solutions for SAScore-Integrated Scaffold Hopping

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Reagent/Tool	Function/Application	Key Features	Access Information
ChemBounce [15]	Scaffold hopping with synthetic accessibility	3M+ ChEMBL-derived fragments; Tanimoto/ElectroShape similarity	https://github.com/jyryu3161/chembounce
RDKit [76]	Cheminformatics infrastructure	SAScore implementation; molecular manipulation	Open-source Python library
Spaya API [75]	Retrosynthetic analysis	Proprietary route scoring; commercial building block database	https://spaya.ai
SYNTHIA SAS [78]	Synthetic Accessibility Score API	Graph neural network; RESTful API	Commercial API access
AiZynthFinder [76]	Retrosynthesis planning	Monte Carlo tree search; open-source	https://github.com/MolecularAI/AiZynthFinder
RAscore [76]	Retrosynthetic accessibility prediction	Gradient boosting machine; AiZynthFinder integration	https://github.com/reymond-group/RAscore
MolPrice [77]	Price-based accessibility	Contrastive learning; economic viability assessment	Research implementation

Case Studies and Experimental Validation

Benchmarking Studies: SAScore Performance in Scaffold Hopping

Comprehensive validation studies have demonstrated the practical utility of SAScore integration in scaffold hopping workflows. In comparative analyses using approved drugs including losartan, gefitinib, fostamatinib, darunavir, and ritonavir, ChemBounce generated structures with lower SAscores (indicating higher synthetic accessibility) and higher QED values (reflecting improved drug-likeness) compared to existing commercial scaffold hopping tools [15].

Performance profiling under varying parameters revealed that:

• Increasing Tanimoto similarity thresholds from 0.5 to 0.7 maintained synthetic accessibility while ensuring structural conservation [15]
• Application of Lipinski's Rule of Five filters further improved drug-like properties without compromising synthetic feasibility [15]
• The number of fragment candidates (1000 vs. 10000) could be optimized based on desired diversity-synthesizability balance [15]

Integrated Workflow Application: PI3K/mTOR Inhibitors

A dedicated study on PI3K/mTOR inhibitors demonstrated the effectiveness of SAScore-integrated scaffold hopping [75]. Researchers applied the RScore from Spaya API to evaluate synthesizability during generative molecular design. The integration of synthetic constraints enabled molecular generators to produce more synthesizable solutions with higher diversity compared to unconstrained approaches [75].

Notably, the RScore was successfully learned by a neural network to create RSPred, a predictive model that approximates RScore values without computationally expensive retrosynthetic analysis [75]. This approach reduced computation time from an average of 42 seconds per molecule to milliseconds while maintaining comparable synthesizability assessment accuracy.

SAScore Correlation with Expert Intuition

Validation against medicinal chemist assessments provides crucial real-world relevance for SAScore approaches. In studies comparing computational scores with chemist intuition, the RScore demonstrated strong alignment with expert synthesizability evaluations [75]. This correlation confirms that computational SAScore integration effectively captures synthetic feasibility considerations that would otherwise require manual expert intervention.

Advanced Integration Strategies and Future Directions

Hybrid SAScore-Retrosynthesis Frameworks

For optimal efficiency in large-scale scaffold hopping campaigns, hierarchical screening approaches have demonstrated significant utility [79]. These frameworks combine rapid SAScore pre-screening with detailed retrosynthetic analysis for top candidates:

• Initial Triage: Apply fast SAScore algorithms (SAscore, SCScore) to thousands of generated compounds
• Intermediate Filtering: Implement more sophisticated scores (RAscore, RSPred) for hundreds of promising candidates
• Detailed Analysis: Perform full retrosynthetic analysis (Spaya, AiZynthFinder) for dozens of top-ranked compounds

This tiered approach balances computational efficiency with synthetic route practicality, enabling comprehensive exploration of chemical space while ensuring synthetic feasibility [79].

SAScore Integration in Generative Molecular Design

Beyond post-hoc filtering, forward-thinking approaches integrate SAScore directly into generative molecular design processes [75]. By incorporating synthetic accessibility as an objective during molecule generation rather than after creation, these methods inherently explore synthetically accessible regions of chemical space.

Implementation strategies include:

• Reinforcement learning with SAScore as a reward signal
• Generative model fine-tuning on synthetically accessible compound libraries
• Transfer learning from retrosynthetic planning tools to generative models

These approaches address the fundamental challenge that "generative models are known to sample many non-accessible molecules" [75], ensuring that synthetic feasibility is considered throughout the molecular design process.

Economic and Sustainability Considerations

Emerging SAScore approaches incorporate economic factors to provide practical synthesizability assessment. The MolPrice algorithm exemplifies this trend, using market price predictions as synthetic accessibility proxies [77]. This methodology recognizes that synthetic feasibility encompasses not only chemical possibility but also practical affordability within research budgets.

Future SAScore developments will likely integrate additional practical considerations, including:

• Green chemistry metrics for sustainable synthesis
• Supply chain availability of starting materials
• Reaction safety and scalability for translation to manufacturing

These advancements will further bridge the gap between computational molecular design and practical chemical synthesis in scaffold hopping applications.

The integration of Synthetic Accessibility Scores into scaffold hopping workflows represents a critical advancement in medicinal chemistry. By systematically addressing synthetic feasibility during molecular design, researchers can significantly improve the transition rate from virtual compounds to experimentally accessible candidates. The methodologies, tools, and protocols outlined in this technical guide provide a comprehensive framework for implementing SAScore-aware scaffold hopping in drug discovery pipelines.

As SAScore algorithms continue evolving—incorporating retrosynthetic planning, economic factors, and sustainability metrics—their integration will become increasingly sophisticated and essential. This progression will further accelerate the discovery and development of novel therapeutic agents through computationally guided yet synthetically feasible scaffold hopping approaches.

• P3 optimization introduction: Introduces P3 properties and scaffold hopping's role in drug discovery.
• Scaffold hopping classification: Uses a table to categorize and explain scaffold hopping techniques.
• Case studies: Provides a table with real-world examples of P3 optimization via scaffold hopping.
• Experimental workflow: Details the iterative scaffold hopping process with a diagram.
• Methodology: Covers computational, synthetic, and analytical techniques for P3 optimization.
• AI and future directions: Discusses AI-driven scaffold hopping and advanced methodologies.
• Conclusion: Summarizes the strategic value of scaffold hopping in P3 optimization.

---

Optimizing P3 Profiles: Simultaneous Improvement of Pharmacodynamic and Pharmacokinetic Properties

In contemporary medicinal chemistry, the concept of P3 properties—encompassing Pharmacodynamics (PD), Physicochemical properties, and Pharmacokinetics (PK)—represents a crucial paradigm for holistic drug optimization. The simultaneous improvement of these interconnected properties presents one of the most significant challenges in drug development, as optimization of one aspect often comes at the expense of another. Scaffold hopping, defined as the strategic modification of a bioactive compound's core structure while preserving its biological activity, has emerged as a powerful approach to address this challenge [1]. This technique enables medicinal chemists to navigate chemical space systematically, generating novel molecular entities with improved therapeutic profiles and intellectual property positions.

The fundamental premise of scaffold hopping rests on the preservation of pharmacophore elements—the spatial arrangement of functional groups essential for target recognition—while altering the molecular framework that connects these elements. This approach has evolved from simple heterocycle replacements to sophisticated computational methodologies that leverage artificial intelligence and machine learning to predict successful hops with higher precision [13]. Within the context of a broader thesis on scaffold hopping in medicinal chemistry research, this technical guide examines the strategic application of scaffold hopping for simultaneous P3 optimization, providing researchers with both theoretical frameworks and practical methodologies for implementation.

Classification of Scaffold Hopping Approaches

Scaffold hopping techniques can be systematically categorized based on the structural transformation applied to the original molecular scaffold. Understanding this classification system enables medicinal chemists to strategically select the most appropriate approach for their specific P3 optimization challenges.

Table 1: Classification of Scaffold Hopping Approaches for P3 Optimization

Approach	Structural Transformation	Degree of Novelty	Primary P3 Applications
Heterocycle Replacements (1°-hopping)	Swapping carbon and heteroatoms in aromatic rings	Low	Solubility improvement, metabolic stability, intellectual property generation
Ring Opening or Closure (2°-hopping)	Breaking or forming ring systems to alter molecular rigidity	Medium to High	Conformational restriction for potency enhancement, reduction of rotatable bonds for improved permeability
Peptidomimetics	Replacing peptide backbones with non-peptide moieties	High	Oral bioavailability enhancement, metabolic stability, reducing enzymatic cleavage
Topology-Based Hopping	Comprehensive alteration of molecular framework while maintaining pharmacophore geometry	Very High	Overcoming patent constraints, addressing multi-parameter optimization challenges

The classification system presented in Table 1 illustrates the spectrum of scaffold hopping techniques, from conservative heterocycle replacements that typically yield modest improvements in specific P3 parameters to topology-based approaches that can generate dramatically novel chemotypes with comprehensively optimized profiles [8]. The degree of novelty generally correlates with both the potential benefit and the associated risk, as more significant structural changes present greater challenges in maintaining target engagement while improving other properties.

Historical success stories demonstrate the practical application of these approaches. The transformation from morphine to tramadol via ring opening and flexibility adjustment reduced addictive potential while maintaining analgesic effects—a classic example of PK and safety optimization through scaffold hopping [8]. Similarly, in the antihistamine field, the evolution from pheniramine to cyproheptadine through ring closure demonstrated how structural rigidification can enhance both potency and absorption [8].

Case Studies: Successful P3 Optimization Through Scaffold Hopping

Roxadustat Analogs for Renal Anemia Treatment

The development of roxadustat analogs provides an exemplary case of strategic scaffold hopping to optimize P3 properties. Roxadustat itself represents an innovative hypoxia-inducible factor prolyl hydroxylase inhibitor (HIF-PHI) used for treating renal anemia. Researchers performed scaffold hopping through ring closure (2°-hopping) to generate a novel tricyclic isoquinoline core, resulting in compound IIc with maintained target engagement but significantly improved physicochemical properties [1].

The strategic structural modifications addressed multiple P3 parameters simultaneously:

• Pharmacodynamic maintenance: Preservation of the critical 3-hydroxylpicolinoylglycine pharmacophore ensured continued bidentate coordination with ferrous ions in the PHD2 active site
• Pharmacokinetic enhancement: The modified core structure improved metabolic stability and oral bioavailability
• Physicochemical optimization: Enhanced solubility profile supported improved formulation development

This case exemplifies the strategic application of scaffold hopping to generate backup compounds with superior overall profiles while maintaining the desired mechanism of action.

TTK Inhibitor Optimization for Oncology Applications

The optimization of threonine tyrosine kinase (TTK) inhibitors demonstrates a sequential scaffold hopping approach to address specific PK challenges. Starting from an imidazo[1,2-a]pyrazine core (Va) with promising target activity, researchers initially applied heterocycle replacement (1°-hopping) to generate a pyrazolo[1,5-a][1,3,5]-triazine derivative (Vb) that maintained TTK inhibitory activity (IC₅₀ = 1.4 nM) but exhibited dissolution-limited exposure [1].

Iterative scaffold hopping explored three distinct heterocycle replacements, ultimately identifying a pyrazolo[1,5-a]pyrimidine core that delivered the optimal balance of potency and solubility. The final clinical candidate, CFI-402257, emerged from this systematic approach and has progressed to clinical trials for advanced solid tumors. This case highlights the importance of persistent optimization through scaffold hopping when addressing challenging PK limitations like poor dissolution.

Table 2: Case Studies of Successful P3 Optimization via Scaffold Hopping

Original Compound	Therapeutic Area	Scaffold Hop Type	Key P3 Improvements	Resulting Compound
Roxadustat	Renal anemia	Ring closure (2°-hopping)	Improved solubility, metabolic stability, oral bioavailability	Tricyclic isoquinoline analogs
GLPG1837	Cystic fibrosis	Heterocycle replacement (1°-hopping)	Enhanced potency, reduced dosing frequency, improved safety profile	Novel benzothiophene analogs
BVD-523 (Ulixertinib)	Oncology	Ring closure + heterocycle replacement	Improved ERK1/2 inhibition, optimized physicochemical properties	Pyrrole-2-carboxamide analogs
Sorafenib	Oncology	Topology-based hopping	Modified selectivity profile, improved physicochemical properties	Quinazoline-2-carboxylate analogs

CFTR Potentiators for Cystic Fibrosis

The evolution of cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) potentiators illustrates how scaffold hopping can address clinical efficacy and safety concerns. GLPG1837 (IVa) demonstrated promising CFTR activity but required a high dose (500 mg twice daily) to achieve therapeutic effect, resulting in dose-limiting adverse effects [1].

Through systematic heterocycle replacement of the original bicyclic heteroaromatic core, researchers developed novel benzothiophene analogs with significantly improved potency and pharmacokinetics. The optimized compound required lower dosing to achieve comparable CFTR activation, thereby reducing the adverse effect profile. This case demonstrates the critical role of scaffold hopping in optimizing the therapeutic index of clinical candidates, particularly when efficacy is demonstrated but safety concerns limit clinical utility.

Experimental Workflow for Scaffold Hopping

The implementation of a systematic scaffold hopping workflow ensures efficient exploration of chemical space while maintaining the critical pharmacophore elements required for target engagement. The following diagram illustrates the integrated, iterative process for P3 optimization through scaffold hopping:

Scaffold Hopping Workflow for P3 Optimization

Key Workflow Stages

• Comprehensive P3 Profile Analysis: Begin with thorough characterization of the existing compound's limitations across all three P3 dimensions. Identify specific parameters requiring improvement (e.g., metabolic stability, solubility, potency) and establish quantitative targets for each.

• Scaffold Hopping Hypothesis Generation: Based on the P3 limitations, select appropriate scaffold hopping approaches from Table 1. Prioritize structural modifications that address the most critical limitations while preserving essential pharmacophore elements.

• Computational Design and Virtual Screening: Employ molecular modeling, quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) studies, and virtual screening to prioritize proposed scaffolds with the highest probability of success [13]. This step significantly enhances efficiency by reducing synthetic efforts on unpromising candidates.

• Synthesis and Characterization: Implement synthetic routes to access the target scaffolds, with particular attention to efficiency and scalability. Adhere to rigorous analytical characterization standards to confirm structure and purity [80].

• Comprehensive P3 Profiling: Subject synthesized analogs to a battery of assays evaluating all relevant P3 parameters. Compare results against predefined optimization targets to determine success or need for further iteration.

This iterative workflow emphasizes data-driven decision making throughout the optimization process, ensuring that each cycle of design and synthesis yields maximum information to guide subsequent iterations.

Methodologies for P3 Assessment in Scaffold Hopping

Computational and AI-Driven Approaches

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) has dramatically enhanced the efficiency and success rate of scaffold hopping campaigns. Deep learning models can now rapidly explore vast chemical spaces and predict both activity maintenance and P3 improvements resulting from scaffold modifications [13]. These computational approaches include:

• Pharmacophore modeling to identify essential spatial elements for target engagement
• Molecular docking to assess potential binding modes of novel scaffolds
• QSAR and QSPR models to predict activity and property changes resulting from structural modifications
• AI-based generative models that propose novel scaffolds with optimized P3 profiles

The application of these computational methods enables researchers to prioritize the most promising scaffold hopping strategies before committing resources to synthesis, significantly increasing the efficiency of the optimization process [13] [1].

Synthetic Chemistry Considerations

Successful implementation of scaffold hopping strategies requires flexible and efficient synthetic methodologies. Key considerations include:

• Molecular editing techniques that enable precise scaffold modifications
• Functional motif insertion capabilities to maintain critical pharmacophore elements
• Convergent synthetic routes that allow efficient exploration of structural diversity

Recent advances in synthetic methodology, including C-H functionalization, photoredox catalysis, and flow chemistry, have dramatically expanded the accessible chemical space for scaffold hopping applications [1]. Additionally, the implementation of Design of Experiments (DoE) methodology enables more efficient optimization of reaction conditions during analog synthesis, exploring multiple variables simultaneously to identify optimal conditions with fewer experiments [81].

Analytical and Characterization Standards

Rigorous analytical characterization is essential to confirm structural identity and purity of scaffold-hopped compounds. Key requirements include:

• High-field NMR (¹H and ¹³C) for structural confirmation
• High-resolution mass spectrometry for molecular weight confirmation
• HPLC with UV detection for purity assessment (>95% pure for compounds with in vivo data) [82]
• Additional spectroscopic data (IR, UV-Vis) as appropriate for functional group identification

For chiral compounds, specific optical rotation measurements should be reported, while for crystalline materials, melting point ranges provide additional purity confirmation [80]. Comprehensive analytical data should be included in supporting information to ensure reproducibility and validate structural assignments.

Biological Assay Systems

Assessment of pharmacodynamic properties requires robust, reproducible assay systems with appropriate controls:

• Target-based assays to confirm maintained mechanism of action
• Cellular models relevant to the therapeutic indication
• Selectivity profiling against related targets to ensure maintained specificity
• Interference compound controls to eliminate potential false positives from assay artifacts [82]

For pharmacokinetic assessment, a tiered approach is recommended:

• In vitro ADME models (microsomal stability, permeability, plasma protein binding)
• In vivo pharmacokinetic studies in relevant species
• Tissue distribution studies for targets requiring specific tissue penetration

Table 3: The Scientist's Toolkit for Scaffold Hopping and P3 Optimization

Tool Category	Specific Technologies/Methods	Key Applications in P3 Optimization
Computational Design Tools	AI/ML models, Molecular docking, QSAR, Pharmacophore modeling	Virtual screening of proposed scaffolds, Prediction of property changes, Maintenance of target engagement
Synthetic Methodology	Molecular editing, C-H functionalization, DoE optimization, Flow chemistry	Efficient access to novel scaffolds, Rapid analog synthesis, Reaction condition optimization
Analytical Characterization	HPLC, HRMS, NMR (¹H, ¹³C), X-ray crystallography	Structural confirmation, Purity assessment, Physicochemical parameter determination
Biological Profiling	Target-based assays, Cellular models, In vitro ADME, In vivo PK studies	Pharmacodynamic assessment, Pharmacokinetic optimization, Safety profiling

Emerging Trends and Future Directions

AI-Driven Scaffold Hopping

The integration of artificial intelligence into scaffold hopping methodologies continues to accelerate, with deep learning models becoming increasingly sophisticated in their ability to propose novel scaffolds with optimized P3 profiles [13]. These models can now leverage large-scale bioactivity data and predict multi-parameter optimization outcomes with improving accuracy. The emerging trend involves generative AI models that can design novel molecular structures based on desired P3 parameters, significantly expanding the accessible chemical space for medicinal chemists.

Quantitative Systems Pharmacology (QSP) Approaches

The application of quantitative systems pharmacology (QSP) represents a powerful emerging approach for contextualizing scaffold hopping within broader physiological systems. QSP models integrate drug exposure, target biology, and downstream effectors to simulate drug effects in a whole-body context [83] [84]. These models enable researchers to:

• Predict efficacy and safety differentiation within drug classes
• Optimize dosing regimens for scaffold-hopped compounds
• Evaluate drug combinations in specific pathophysiological contexts
• Support rational selection of therapeutic modalities for given targets

The incorporation of QSP modeling into scaffold hopping campaigns provides a systems-level perspective on P3 optimization, potentially de-risking the development of novel scaffolds by providing more comprehensive prediction of their in vivo behavior.

Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic (PBPK) Modeling

Physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling has emerged as a valuable tool for predicting the pharmacokinetic behavior of scaffold-hopped compounds. These mechanistic models simulate ADME processes based on compound properties and human physiology, enabling quantitative prediction of parameters such as tissue distribution, clearance pathways, and drug-drug interactions [85] [84]. Recent applications have even extended to specialized areas such as radiopharmaceutical therapy, where PBPK models optimize dosing schedules to maximize tumor exposure while minimizing organ-at-risk toxicity [85].

The integration of PBPK modeling into scaffold hopping workflows enables more informed decisions during the design phase, particularly for addressing specific PK challenges such as poor oral bioavailability, rapid clearance, or undesirable tissue distribution.

Scaffold hopping represents a sophisticated strategic approach for navigating the complex trade-offs inherent in simultaneous P3 optimization. By systematically modifying molecular scaffolds while preserving critical pharmacophore elements, medicinal chemists can overcome limitations in pharmacodynamics, physicochemical properties, and pharmacokinetics that often impede the development of promising therapeutic candidates. The integration of computational methodologies, including AI and QSP modeling, with advanced synthetic techniques and rigorous analytical characterization creates a powerful framework for efficient exploration of chemical space.

As drug discovery faces increasing challenges with targets requiring multi-parameter optimization, the strategic application of scaffold hopping will continue to grow in importance. The case studies and methodologies presented in this technical guide provide researchers with both theoretical foundations and practical approaches for implementing scaffold hopping in their P3 optimization efforts. Through continued refinement of these approaches and integration of emerging technologies, scaffold hopping will remain a cornerstone strategy for generating novel therapeutic agents with optimized efficacy, safety, and developability profiles.

In the intensely competitive landscape of drug discovery, scaffold hopping has evolved from a simple lead optimization tactic to a central strategy for generating novel chemical entities with improved properties. The broader thesis of modern scaffold hopping posits that strategic modification of a molecule's core structure, while preserving critical pharmacophoric elements, is the most efficient path to overcoming limitations in efficacy, pharmacokinetics, and intellectual property positioning. As traditional methods often struggle to explore the vast chemical space, advanced techniques including molecular editing, functional motif insertion, and fragment linking have emerged as powerful, computationally-driven approaches. These methodologies enable medicinal chemists to perform precisely targeted structural alterations, facilitating the discovery of backup compounds, clinical candidates, and entirely new drugs. This review details these advanced techniques, framing them within the context of a comprehensive scaffold-hopping strategy that integrates computational prediction with experimental validation to systematically navigate chemical space and accelerate the delivery of therapeutic candidates.

Molecular Editing: Precision Surgery for Molecular Cores

Molecular editing represents a set of techniques for making precise, atom-level changes to a scaffold's structure. These minimal alterations can significantly modulate molecular properties while largely maintaining the original shape and pharmacophore presentation.

Heterocycle Replacement and Atom Swapping

The most fundamental form of molecular editing, classified as 1°-scaffold hopping, involves the replacement or swapping of atoms within a core ring system. This technique aims to fine-tune electronic properties, solubility, or metabolic stability without drastically altering the overall molecular topology. A seminal example is the development of the PDE5 inhibitors Sildenafil and Vardenafil, where a single swap of a carbon and nitrogen atom in a fused ring system was sufficient to establish a new patentable entity while retaining potent biological activity [8]. Similarly, the COX-2 inhibitors Rofecoxib (Vioxx) and Valdecoxib (Bextra) differ primarily in their 5-membered heterocyclic rings connecting two phenyl rings, yet were developed and marketed by different pharmaceutical companies [8]. This approach demonstrates that even minimal changes to a scaffold can yield significant intellectual property and clinical advantages.

Table 1: Representative Examples of Molecular Editing via Heterocycle Replacement

Original Drug	Modified Drug/Candidate	Type of Change	Primary Impact
Sildenafil	Vardenafil	C/N swap in fused ring system	Patent differentiation
Rofecoxib	Valdecoxib	Different 5-membered heterocycle	New chemical entity
Cyproheptadine	Pizotifen	Phenyl ring → Thiophene	Improved migraine treatment profile
Cyproheptadine	Azatadine	Phenyl ring → Pyrimidine	Improved solubility

Ring Opening and Closure Strategies

Ring opening and closure strategies, classified as 2°-scaffold hopping, represent more significant structural modifications that can profoundly affect molecular flexibility and binding entropy. The classical transformation of the rigid T-shaped morphine into the more flexible tramadol through ring opening exemplifies this approach [8]. This modification reduced morphine's addictive potential and side effects while maintaining analgesic activity through conservation of key pharmacophore features. Conversely, ring closure was successfully employed in the development of the antihistamine Cyproheptadine from Pheniramine, where locking both aromatic rings into the active conformation through ring formation significantly increased binding affinity to the H1-receptor and improved absorption [8]. These strategies demonstrate how modulating scaffold rigidity can optimize entropic penalties upon binding and fine-tune ADMET properties.

Functional Motif Insertion and Multi-Component Reaction Chemistry

The strategic insertion of functional motifs into existing scaffolds represents a powerful approach to enhancing molecular interactions without complete scaffold redesign. Recent advances have leveraged multi-component reaction (MCR) chemistry to efficiently generate diverse, drug-like scaffolds with multiple points of variation.

The Groebke-Blackburn-Bienaymé (GBB) Reaction in Molecular Glue Development

A cutting-edge application of this approach is demonstrated in the development of molecular glues for stabilizing the 14-3-3/ERα protein-protein interaction (PPI) [66]. Researchers utilized a scaffold-hopping strategy starting from a known molecular glue (compound 127) and employed the AnchorQuery software to perform pharmacophore-based screening of a virtual library of over 31 million synthetically accessible MCR compounds. The top hits predominantly featured the Groebke-Blackburn-Bienaymé (GBB) three-component reaction, which combines aldehydes, 2-aminopyridines, and isocyanides to form imidazo[1,2-a]pyridine scaffolds [66]. This privileged scaffold appears in several marketed drugs, including zolpidem and olprinone, and offered superior rigidity and shape complementarity to the target PPI interface compared to the original lead compound.

Table 2: Key Reagents and Their Functions in MCR-Based Scaffold Hopping

Research Reagent	Function in Scaffold Hopping
AnchorQuery Software	Pharmacophore-based screening of MCR virtual library for scaffold identification
Aldehydes	GBB reaction component providing structural diversity and pharmacophore elements
2-Aminopyridines	GBB reaction component forming core imidazo[1,2-a]pyridine scaffold
Isocyanides	GBB reaction component introducing diverse functional groups
Intact Mass Spectrometry	Biophysical assay for detecting ternary complex formation
TR-FRET Assay	Orthogonal biophysical method for quantifying PPI stabilization
Surface Plasmon Resonance (SPR)	Label-free kinetic analysis of molecular glue binding
NanoBRET Cellular Assay	Confirmation of target engagement and PPI stabilization in live cells

Experimental Protocol for MCR-Based Scaffold Hopping and Optimization

The following workflow details the experimental methodology for implementing MCR-based scaffold hopping, as applied to the 14-3-3/ERα molecular glue system [66]:

• Anchor Identification and Pharmacophore Definition: From a ligand-bound crystal structure (e.g., PDB 8ALW), identify a deeply buried "anchor" motif (e.g., p-chloro-phenyl ring as a phenylalanine bioisostere). Define three additional pharmacophore points representing key ligand-protein interactions.

• Virtual Library Screening: Using AnchorQuery, screen the MCR virtual library (containing ~31 million synthesizable compounds from 27 MCR reaction types) with constraints on molecular weight (<400 Da) and 3D shape complementarity (prioritizing low RMSD fits).

• Scaffold Selection and Synthesis: Select top-ranking scaffolds (e.g., GBB-based imidazo[1,2-a]pyridines) and synthesize analogs using one-pot MCR chemistry to rapidly explore structure-activity relationships.

• Biophysical Characterization: Evaluate synthesized compounds using orthogonal biophysical assays:

  • Intact Mass Spectrometry: Confirm ternary complex formation between 14-3-3, ERα phosphopeptide, and molecular glue.
  • TR-FRET and SPR: Quantify binding affinity and stabilization effects.
  • X-ray Crystallography: Obtain high-resolution structures of ternary complexes to guide rational optimization.

• Cellular Validation: Confirm cellular target engagement using NanoBRET assays with full-length proteins in live cells.

Diagram 1: Workflow for MCR-Based Scaffold Hopping in Molecular Glue Development

Fragment Linking and AI-Driven Scaffold Generation

Fragment linking represents a sophisticated scaffold-hopping strategy that connects distinct molecular fragments through a newly generated core scaffold. This approach has been revolutionized by artificial intelligence methods that can propose optimal linkers to bridge fragment pairs while maintaining desired molecular properties.

PromptSMILES for Constrained Fragment Linking

The PromptSMILES approach enables fragment linking using chemical language models (CLMs) without requiring model retraining [86]. This method frames fragment linking as a prompt-based generation task where one fragment serves as the initial SMILES prompt, and the CLM generates a linker and complete molecular structure conditioned on this input. The methodology involves:

• Fragment Preparation: Select two fragments with specified attachment points.
• SMILES Rooting and Reversal: Generate SMILES representations where the attachment point of the first fragment is the last atom in the string using RDKit.
• Prompt-Based Generation: Use the first fragment as a prompt for the CLM to generate a complete molecular structure.
• Second Fragment Insertion: Introduce the second fragment into the generated sequence at the appropriate attachment point.
• Reinforcement Learning Optimization: Fine-tune the CLM using reinforcement learning to optimize for specific objectives (e.g., binding affinity, synthetic accessibility).

This approach has demonstrated performance comparable to or better than specialized fragment linking methods like SyntaLinker and LinkINVENT, while offering greater flexibility through the use of standard CLMs [86].

ScaffoldGVAE for Scaffold-Centric Molecular Generation

ScaffoldGVAE represents a specialized variational autoencoder framework explicitly designed for scaffold generation and hopping [87]. The model architecture employs:

• Multi-View Graph Neural Network Encoder: Separately encodes node (atom) and edge (bond) information from molecular graphs, then concatenates them into a unified molecular embedding.
• Scaffold-Side Chain Separation: Divides the molecular embedding into scaffold and side-chain components, projecting the scaffold embedding onto a Gaussian mixture distribution while preserving side-chain information.
• RNN-Based Decoder: Reconstructs scaffold SMILES from the latent representation while considering both scaffold and side-chain information.

When fine-tuned on target-specific activity data (e.g., kinase inhibitors), ScaffoldGVAE can generate novel scaffolds with predicted activity against specific proteins, as validated through molecular docking and free energy calculations [87].

Diagram 2: ScaffoldGVAE Architecture for Scaffold Generation and Hopping

Computational and Free Energy Methods for Scaffold Optimization

Advanced computational methods have dramatically enhanced the precision and success rate of scaffold hopping by enabling quantitative prediction of binding affinities for novel scaffolds prior to synthesis.

Free Energy Perturbation (FEP)-Guided Scaffold Hopping

Free Energy Perturbation has emerged as a powerful tool for predicting the binding potency of scaffold-hopped compounds, addressing a critical limitation of traditional virtual screening methods that often fail to accurately rank novel scaffolds [88]. In a landmark study, researchers employed FEP to guide the discovery of novel PDE5 inhibitors based on the pharmacophores of tadalafil and a known potent inhibitor LW1607. The methodology involved:

• Pharmacophore-Based Design: Designing a novel scaffold (L1) that retained key pharmacophore elements (aromatic ring as H-bond donor, hydrophobic aromatic group).
• FEP Binding Affinity Prediction: Using FEP to calculate absolute binding free energies (ΔG_FEP) for the novel scaffold docked into the PDE5 binding site.
• Experimental Validation: Synthesizing top-predicted compounds and measuring IC50 values to validate FEP predictions.

The FEP calculations demonstrated remarkable accuracy, with mean absolute deviations between predicted and experimental binding free energies of less than 2 kcal/mol for most compounds [88]. This approach led to the discovery of compound L12, a potent PDE5 inhibitor (IC50 = 8.7 nmol/L) with a novel scaffold and distinct binding pattern confirmed by X-ray crystallography.

Table 3: Comparison of Computational Methods for Scaffold Hopping

Method	Key Principle	Application in Scaffold Hopping	Advantages	Limitations
Free Energy Perturbation (FEP)	Physics-based calculation of relative binding free energies	Predicting potency of novel scaffolds prior to synthesis	High accuracy (MAD < 2 kcal/mol); Direct affinity prediction	Computationally intensive; Requires expertise
Molecular Dynamics with MM-PBSA/GBSA	End-point free energy methods	Ranking scaffold-hopped compounds	Less expensive than FEP; Provides energy components	Lower accuracy than FEP for novel scaffolds
AnchorQuery with MCR Libraries	Pharmacophore-based screening of synthetically accessible space	Identifying novel molecular glue scaffolds	Rapid exploration of diverse chemical space; Synthetic feasibility	Limited to available MCR chemistry
Chemical Language Models (PromptSMILES)	Prompt-based generation conditioned on molecular fragments	Fragment linking and scaffold decoration	No retraining needed; Flexible application	May require RL fine-tuning for optimization
Graph Neural Networks (ScaffoldGVAE)	Latent space modeling of scaffold-side chain separation	Generating novel scaffolds with preserved side chains	Explicit scaffold manipulation; Property optimization	Requires significant training data

The advanced techniques of molecular editing, functional motif insertion, and fragment linking represent powerful, complementary approaches within a comprehensive scaffold-hopping strategy. When integrated into a systematic workflow that leverages computational prediction, multi-component reaction chemistry, and experimental validation, these methods enable efficient navigation of chemical space to address the multifaceted challenges of modern drug discovery. The continued evolution of these approaches—particularly through the integration of AI-driven generative models and physics-based binding affinity predictions—promises to further accelerate the discovery of novel therapeutic agents with optimized properties. As these methodologies mature, scaffold hopping will continue to serve as a cornerstone strategy for medicinal chemists seeking to expand intellectual property landscapes, optimize drug-like properties, and deliver clinically differentiated molecules to patients.

Validating Scaffold Hops: Performance Benchmarks, Case Studies, and Clinical Translation

Scaffold hopping, the strategy of discovering novel core structures (backbones) that retain the biological activity of a parent molecule, is a cornerstone of modern medicinal chemistry [2] [8]. It enables researchers to improve pharmacokinetic properties, reduce toxicity, and navigate around existing intellectual property [2] [8]. However, the central challenge in scaffold hopping lies in confidently predicting whether a structurally distinct scaffold will maintain the critical interactions with the biological target. This is where a rigorous computational validation pipeline becomes indispensable.

Integrating molecular docking, molecular dynamics (MD) simulations, and Density Functional Theory (DFT) calculations provides a powerful, multi-faceted framework for evaluating novel scaffolds in silico before committing to costly synthetic efforts. Docking offers an initial assessment of binding pose and affinity, MD simulations reveal the stability and dynamic behavior of the protein-ligand complex under physiological conditions, and DFT calculations provide quantum-mechanical insights into the electronic properties that govern binding and reactivity [89] [5]. This whitepaper provides an in-depth technical guide to the application of this integrated computational pipeline for validating proposed scaffold hops, complete with detailed protocols and contemporary case studies.

Integrated Workflow for Computational Validation

The following diagram illustrates the sequential, multi-stage workflow for the computational validation of novel scaffolds, from initial design to final prioritization.

Detailed Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Molecular Docking for Pose and Affinity Prediction

Molecular docking serves as the first computational filter to predict how a proposed scaffold interacts with the target protein's binding site.

• Protein Structure Preparation: A high-resolution crystal structure of the target protein, ideally in complex with a known inhibitor, is retrieved from the Protein Data Bank (PDB). The structure is preprocessed using software like UCSF Chimera or Schrödinger's Protein Preparation Wizard. This involves removing extraneous water molecules and co-factors, adding hydrogen atoms, optimizing hydrogen-bond networks, and assigning appropriate protonation states at physiological pH (e.g., 7.4) [89] [5]. The structure is then energetically minimized to relieve steric clashes.
• Ligand Library Preparation: The 2D structures of the proposed scaffold hops are converted into 3D formats. Energy minimization is performed to ensure proper geometry, and torsional bonds are defined for flexible docking [89].
• Docking Execution: The preprocessed ligand library is docked into the prepared protein's binding site grid using programs such as AutoDock Vina or Glide [89] [90]. The docking algorithm searches for optimal binding conformations (poses) and scores them based on a scoring function.
• Pose Analysis and Selection: The top-ranking poses are analyzed for key interactions with the protein's active site residues, such as hydrogen bonds, hydrophobic contacts, and Ï€-Ï€ stacking. Comparing these interaction patterns to those of the reference ligand is critical for validating the scaffold hop [89].

Deep Learning in Docking: Recent advances include deep learning (DL) methods like diffusion models for superior pose accuracy and hybrid frameworks that integrate AI with traditional conformational searches for a balanced performance [90]. However, a 2025 study cautions that some DL methods can produce physically implausible poses despite favorable root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) scores, underscoring the need for careful validation of interactions [90].

Density Functional Theory (DFT) for Electronic Structure Analysis

DFT provides quantum-mechanical insights into the electronic properties of the proposed scaffolds, which influence reactivity and binding stability.

• System Setup and Geometry Optimization: The 3D structures of the ligands from docking are used as starting points. Hydrogen atoms are retained for accurate geometry representation [89] [5].
• Quantum Chemical Calculation: DFT calculations are performed using quantum chemistry packages like PySCF. A typical setup employs the B3LYP exchange-correlation functional and a basis set such as cc-pVDZ within a restricted Kohn–Sham framework [89] [5]. The calculations are run until self-consistent field convergence is achieved.
• Property Extraction: The energies of the Highest Occupied Molecular Orbital (HOMO) and the Lowest Unoccupied Molecular Orbital (LUMO) are extracted directly from the Kohn–Sham matrix eigenvalues. The HOMO-LUMO gap is then computed as the difference (in eV). A larger gap generally indicates higher electronic stability, while a smaller gap suggests higher chemical reactivity [89] [5]. The 3D distributions of HOMO and LUMO orbitals can also be visualized.

Table 1: Key Electronic Properties Calculated via DFT and Their Significance in Drug Design [89] [5] [91].

Property	Description	Significance in Scaffold Hopping
HOMO Energy	Energy of the highest occupied molecular orbital.	Relates to the molecule's ability to donate electrons; can influence specific protein interactions.
LUMO Energy	Energy of the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital.	Relates to the molecule's ability to accept electrons.
HOMO-LUMO Gap	The energy difference between HOMO and LUMO.	A key indicator of chemical stability and reactivity. A large gap (>4.5 eV) suggests high stability, while a smaller gap may indicate desirable reactivity for certain targets.
Ionization Potential (IP)	Energy required to remove an electron from the molecule.	Related to HOMO energy; important for understanding redox behavior.
Electron Affinity (EA)	Energy change when an electron is added to the molecule.	Related to LUMO energy; important for understanding redox behavior.

High-Throughput Screening with ML: For large libraries, running DFT on every molecule is computationally prohibitive. Recent studies use machine learning models (e.g., AIMNet2) trained on a subset of DFT-calculated molecules to predict electronic properties for entire databases with high accuracy (R² > 0.95), dramatically accelerating the screening process [91].

Molecular Dynamics (MD) Simulations for Assessing Complex Stability

MD simulations model the time-dependent behavior of the protein-ligand complex, providing critical data on the stability and dynamics of the binding interaction that static docking cannot.

• System Preparation: The top protein-ligand complexes from docking are prepared for simulation. This includes placing the complex in a solvation box (e.g., filled with TIP3P water molecules) and adding ions to neutralize the system's charge [89] [92].
• Simulation Execution: MD simulations are performed using software such as Desmond. The system is first energy-minimized and equilibrated under controlled temperature and pressure conditions (e.g., NPT ensemble at 300 K and 1 atm). This is followed by a production run, typically lasting 100 ns to 500 ns, to observe the complex's dynamic behavior [89] [5] [92].
• Trajectory Analysis: The resulting trajectory is analyzed to calculate key metrics:
  • Root-Mean-Square Deviation (RMSD): Measures the conformational stability of the protein and ligand over time. Low, stable RMSD values indicate a stable complex.
  • Root-Mean-Square Fluctuation (RMSF): Assesses the flexibility of specific protein residues. Low RMSF in binding site residues suggests a rigid, well-bound ligand.
  • Interaction Analysis: Identifies and quantifies the fraction of simulation time specific hydrogen bonds, hydrophobic contacts, and salt bridges are maintained [89].

Table 2: Key Metrics from MD Simulations for Validating Scaffold Hop Stability [89] [92] [93].

Metric	What It Measures	Interpretation for Validation
Protein-Ligand RMSD	Average change in position of ligand and protein backbone atoms relative to initial structure.	A complex that stabilizes quickly (within 50-100 ns) and maintains a low, flat RMSD profile (e.g., < 2-3 Ã…) is considered conformationally stable.
Ligand RMSF	Fluctuation of individual ligand atoms around their average position.	Low ligand RMSF indicates the scaffold is firmly bound and not oscillating excessively within the binding pocket.
Protein Residue RMSF	Flexibility of individual amino acid residues in the protein.	Helps identify if binding rigidifies key active site residues, which is often favorable.
Hydrogen Bond Occupancy	Percentage of simulation time a specific hydrogen bond between protein and ligand is present.	Key hydrogen bonds with high occupancy (e.g., >80%) are critical for maintaining the binding mode of the new scaffold.
Solvent Accessible Surface Area (SASA)	Surface area of the ligand or binding site accessible to solvent.	Can indicate the extent of hydrophobic burial upon binding.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Software

Table 3: Key Computational Tools and Resources for Scaffold Hopping Validation.

Category / Tool Name	Primary Function	Application in Validation Pipeline
Protein Data Bank (PDB)	Repository of 3D structural data of proteins and nucleic acids.	Source of high-resolution target structures for docking and MD setup [89] [5].
PubChem	Database of chemical molecules and their activities.	Source for known active compounds and for finding structurally similar compounds for screening [89] [5].
UCSF Chimera	Molecular visualization and analysis.	Protein preparation, visualization of docking poses, and trajectory analysis [89] [5].
AutoDock Vina	Molecular docking software.	Predicting binding poses and affinities of novel scaffolds [89] [90].
Glide (Schrödinger)	High-throughput molecular docking software.	Robust and accurate virtual screening of large compound libraries [90] [94].
Desmond	Molecular dynamics simulator.	Running MD simulations to assess complex stability and dynamics [89].
PySCF	Quantum chemistry software.	Performing DFT calculations to determine electronic properties [89] [5].
ORCA	Ab initio quantum chemistry package.	DFT calculations for electronic properties and redox potentials [91].
RDKit	Cheminformatics and machine learning software.	Handling molecular operations, descriptor calculation, and integrating with ML models [89] [2].
ADMETlab 2.0	Online predictive tool.	Evaluating absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and toxicity (ADMET) profiles of candidates [89] [5].
3-Phenylpropionylglycine	3-Phenylpropionylglycine, CAS:20989-69-9, MF:C11H13NO3, MW:207.23 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
(E)-Masticadienonic acid	(E)-Masticadienonic acid, MF:C30H46O3, MW:454.7 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Case Study: Computational Validation of Novel Tankyrase Inhibitors for Colorectal Cancer

A 2025 study on tankyrase inhibitors for colorectal cancer provides a prototypical example of this integrated pipeline in action [89] [5].

• Scaffold Hopping & Docking: A known tankyrase inhibitor (RK-582, PDB: 6KRO) was used as a reference for a similarity search in PubChem (80% cutoff), yielding 533 compounds. These were filtered via drug-likeness rules and docked into the tankyrase active site using AutoDock Vina [89] [5].
• DFT Analysis: Top-ranking compounds were subjected to DFT calculations. One compound (CID 138594428) showed a large HOMO-LUMO gap of 4.979 eV, indicating high electronic stability, while another (CID 138594346) exhibited a balanced gap of 4.473 eV, suggesting an optimal mix of stability and reactivity [89] [5].
• MD Validation: 500 ns MD simulations were conducted on the complexes. Compound 138594346 demonstrated the most favorable stability profile, with the lowest RMSD and RMSF fluctuations, confirming the conformational stability predicted by docking and DFT [89] [5].
• Activity Prediction: A machine learning model trained on 236 known tankyrase inhibitors predicted pICâ‚…â‚€ values. Compound 138594346 was predicted to be highly active (pICâ‚…â‚€ = 7.70), nearly matching the reference inhibitor (pICâ‚…â‚€ = 7.71) [89] [5].

This multi-step computational validation successfully prioritized specific compounds as promising candidates for further experimental development, showcasing the power of this integrated approach in a scaffold-hopping context.

Scaffold hopping represents a cornerstone strategy in medicinal chemistry, defined as the process of identifying novel core structures that retain the biological activity of a known active compound. This approach is indispensable for overcoming challenges such as poor pharmacokinetic properties, toxicity issues, and intellectual property constraints in drug development [2]. The ultimate objective is to generate chemically distinct compounds that maintain similar biological effects through preservation of key pharmacophoric elements while exploring unprecedented chemical space [66]. Since its conceptual inception in 1999, scaffold hopping has evolved from manual medicinal chemistry approaches to computationally-driven methods, and more recently, to sophisticated artificial intelligence (AI)-powered generative models [2].

The emergence of AI-driven molecular generation has fundamentally transformed the scaffold hopping paradigm. Traditional methods relied heavily on molecular fingerprinting and similarity searches, which were limited by their dependency on predefined rules and expert knowledge [2]. In contrast, modern deep learning techniques—including variational autoencoders (VAEs), generative adversarial networks (GANs), and reinforcement learning (RL) frameworks—enable data-driven exploration of chemical space and can propose novel scaffolds absent from existing chemical libraries [2] [95]. These AI methodologies have demonstrated remarkable potential to accelerate the discovery of novel bioactive compounds with enhanced efficacy and safety profiles. Within this rapidly evolving landscape, multiple computational platforms have been developed, each employing distinct architectural frameworks and optimization strategies for scaffold hopping and related molecular design tasks. This technical analysis provides a comprehensive benchmarking assessment of the established tools DeLinker and Link-INVENT against RuSH, situating their performance within the broader context of AI-driven scaffold hopping methodologies.

Established Tools in Focus: DeLinker and Link-INVENT

DeLinker: A Fragment-Based Linking Approach

DeLinker represents a fragment-based molecular design approach that focuses on generating novel molecules by connecting two provided molecular fragments with an optimally designed linker [87]. The methodology employs a graph-based deep generative model that learns from existing molecular structures to create valid, synthetically accessible linkers that bridge fragment pairs. The key innovation of DeLinker lies in its incorporation of spatial distance and orientation constraints between the input fragments, ensuring that the generated linkers maintain appropriate three-dimensional geometry for potential target binding [87]. This approach has demonstrated particular utility in scaffold hopping applications where specific functional fragments must be preserved while modifying the core structure that connects them. However, a notable limitation of DeLinker is that it does not explicitly define the scaffold, making it challenging to generate molecules that preserve side chains while exclusively modifying the scaffold region [87].

Link-INVENT: Reinforcement Learning for Linker Design

Link-INVENT extends the REINVENT de novo molecular design platform with specialized capabilities for generative linker design using reinforcement learning (RL) [96]. The platform operates by training an agent to generate favorable linkers that connect molecular subunits while satisfying multiple objective criteria relevant to drug discovery. Link-INVENT incorporates a specialized scoring function containing linker-specific objectives, enabling practical application for real-world drug discovery projects including fragment linking, scaffold hopping, and PROTAC design [96]. The reinforcement learning framework allows the model to optimize generated linkers for specific properties, including physicochemical characteristics, synthetic accessibility, and potential for target binding. This approach has demonstrated robust performance across multiple case studies, generating chemically valid and diverse linkers while maintaining core activity requirements [96].

Table 1: Technical Specifications of Established Scaffold Hopping Tools

Tool Name	Core Architecture	Primary Approach	Key Features	Applications
DeLinker	Graph-based Deep Generative Model	Fragment Linking	Incorporates spatial constraints between fragments; Generates linkers in 3D space	Scaffold hopping; Fragment-based drug design
Link-INVENT	Reinforcement Learning (RL)	Linker Optimization	Linker-specific scoring function; Multi-parameter optimization	Fragment linking; Scaffold hopping; PROTAC design

Methodology for Benchmarking AI Performance in Scaffold Hopping

Quantitative Evaluation Metrics

Benchmarking scaffold hopping tools requires a multifaceted evaluation approach that assesses both the computational efficiency and chemical validity of generated molecules. The following quantitative metrics provide a comprehensive framework for performance assessment:

• Chemical Validity: Percentage of generated molecular structures that represent chemically plausible compounds with proper valences and atomic connections [87].
• Uniqueness: Proportion of generated molecules that are distinct from each other, indicating the diversity of the chemical space explored [87].
• Novelty: Percentage of generated compounds not present in the training dataset, measuring the model's ability to propose truly novel structures [87].
• Shape Similarity: Electron shape similarity metrics that evaluate the preservation of three-dimensional molecular shape critical for maintaining biological activity [15].
• Synthetic Accessibility: Synthetic Accessibility score (SAscore) that estimates the ease of synthesis for proposed compounds [15].
• Drug-likeness: Quantitative Estimate of Drug-likeness (QED) that evaluates how closely a molecule adheres to known drug-like properties [15].

Experimental Protocols for Scaffold Hopping Validation

Robust experimental validation of scaffold hopping tools involves multiple orthogonal approaches to confirm both the computational performance and biological relevance of generated compounds:

• Performance Profiling: Evaluate tool performance under varying internal parameters, including number of fragment candidates (1000 versus 10,000), similarity thresholds (0.5 versus 0.7 Tanimoto coefficient), and application of drug-like filters such as Lipinski's Rule of Five [15].
• Cross-Platform Comparison: Comparative analysis against multiple commercial and open-source scaffold hopping platforms using approved drugs as reference compounds [15].
• Experimental Validation: For promising generated compounds, conduct in vitro binding assays (e.g., TR-FRET, SPR), intact mass spectrometry analysis, and cellular stabilization assays (e.g., NanoBRET) to confirm biological activity [66].
• Structural Analysis: Determine crystal structures of ternary complexes with target proteins to validate predicted binding modes and interaction patterns [66].

Diagram 1: Scaffold Hopping Benchmarking Workflow. This workflow illustrates the multi-stage validation process for assessing scaffold hopping tools, incorporating chemical validity checks, pharmacophore preservation assessment, and synthetic accessibility evaluation.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents for Scaffold Hopping Validation

Reagent/Resource	Function/Benefit	Application in Validation
ChEMBL Database	Publicly available database of bioactive molecules with drug-like properties; Contains over 1.9 million small molecules [87]	Source of training data and reference compounds for benchmarking
ScaffoldGraph Library	Open-source Python library for hierarchical scaffold decomposition and analysis [15] [87]	Molecular fragmentation and scaffold identification
ElectroShape (ODDT)	Python library for calculating electron shape similarity of compounds [15]	3D molecular similarity assessment for pharmacophore preservation
AnchorQuery	Pharmacophore-based screening software for ~31 million synthesizable compounds [66]	Virtual screening of MCR chemistry space for scaffold hopping
TR-FRET/SPR Assays	Biophysical techniques for measuring molecular interactions and binding affinity [66]	Experimental validation of generated compounds' biological activity
NanoBRET Cellular Assay	Bioluminescence resonance energy transfer technique for monitoring PPIs in live cells [66]	Cellular validation of PPI stabilization by molecular glues
Tert-butyl N-(4-azidobutyl)carbamate	Tert-butyl N-(4-azidobutyl)carbamate, CAS:129392-85-4, MF:C9H18N4O2, MW:214.27 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
Soficitinib	Soficitinib, CAS:2574524-67-5, MF:C18H21ClN8O, MW:400.9 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Performance Benchmarking: Comparative Analysis of AI Tools

Quantitative Performance Metrics

Comprehensive benchmarking of scaffold hopping tools requires evaluation across multiple performance dimensions. The following table summarizes key quantitative metrics derived from published evaluations of established tools:

Table 3: Comparative Performance Metrics of Scaffold Hopping Tools

Performance Metric	DeLinker	Link-INVENT	ChemBounce	ScaffoldGVAE
Chemical Validity Rate	~90% [87]	>95% [96]	>95% [15]	~94% [87]
Novelty Rate	Moderate [87]	High [96]	High [15]	High [87]
Uniqueness Rate	~70% [87]	>80% [96]	>85% [15]	~80% [87]
Synthetic Accessibility (SAscore)	Moderate [87]	Favorable [96]	Favorable (lower SAscore) [15]	Moderate [87]
Drug-likeness (QED)	Moderate [87]	High [96]	Favorable (higher QED) [15]	High [87]
Shape Similarity Preservation	Incorporates spatial constraints [87]	Optimized via RL [96]	Electron shape similarity constraints [15]	Multi-view GNN approach [87]

Case Study: Application to Kinase Inhibitor Design

A practical application of scaffold hopping tools involves the design of kinase inhibitors with improved selectivity and potency. For instance, ScaffoldGVAE was fine-tuned using activity data from five kinase targets (CDK2, EGFR, JAK1, LRRK2, and PIM1) extracted from the ChEMBL database [87]. The model demonstrated the ability to generate novel scaffolds while preserving side chains critical for kinase binding, with generated compounds subsequently validated through molecular docking (GraphDTA, LeDock) and binding free energy calculations (MM/GBSA) [87]. Similarly, ChemBounce was evaluated using approved kinase inhibitors including gefitinib and fostamatinib, demonstrating its ability to generate structurally diverse analogs with maintained activity profiles [15].

Diagram 2: AI Tool Architecture Comparison. This diagram illustrates the distinct architectural approaches employed by different scaffold hopping tools, highlighting their unique methodological frameworks from input processing to output generation.

Future Directions and Implementation Recommendations

Emerging Trends in AI-Driven Scaffold Hopping

The field of AI-driven scaffold hopping continues to evolve rapidly, with several emerging trends shaping its future development. Multi-component reaction (MCR) chemistry has emerged as a powerful strategy for generating diverse, synthetically accessible scaffolds, as demonstrated by the application of Groebke-Blackburn-Bienaymé reactions in developing molecular glues for the 14-3-3/ERα complex [66]. Similarly, reinforcement learning approaches continue to advance, with platforms like Link-INVENT demonstrating robust performance in generating optimized linkers for complex molecular design challenges [96]. The integration of target structural information represents another significant trend, with models increasingly incorporating protein-ligand interaction data to guide the generation of biologically relevant compounds [97].

Practical Implementation Guidelines

For research teams seeking to implement scaffold hopping tools in their drug discovery pipelines, the following evidence-based recommendations emerge from current literature:

• Tool Selection Criteria: Choose tools based on specific research objectives. DeLinker excels in fragment linking applications with spatial constraints, while Link-INVENT offers superior performance for multi-parameter optimization through reinforcement learning [87] [96].
• Validation Strategy: Implement orthogonal validation approaches combining computational assessment (chemical validity, novelty, diversity) with experimental verification (biophysical assays, structural analysis) [15] [66].
• Data Quality Assurance: Utilize high-quality, curated datasets such as ChEMBL for training and benchmarking, with appropriate preprocessing to remove duplicates, invalid structures, and compounds failing medicinal chemistry filters [87].
• Synthetic Accessibility Prioritization: Emphasize tools that incorporate synthetic accessibility metrics early in the generation process to ensure proposed compounds can be feasibly synthesized for experimental validation [15].

As AI methodologies continue to advance, their integration with medicinal chemistry expertise remains paramount for realizing the full potential of scaffold hopping in accelerating drug discovery and addressing unmet medical needs through novel chemical matter.

Scaffold hopping has emerged as a critical strategy in medicinal chemistry for generating novel, patentable drug candidates while preserving biological activity. This whitepaper provides a comprehensive performance evaluation of ChemBounce, a recently developed open-source computational framework for scaffold hopping, against established commercial platforms. Through comparative analysis of key metrics including synthetic accessibility, drug-likeness, and structural diversity, we demonstrate that ChemBounce generates compounds with superior synthetic accessibility scores (SAscore) and enhanced drug-likeness profiles (QED) compared to several commercial alternatives. The findings position ChemBounce as a valuable open-source tool for hit expansion and lead optimization in modern drug discovery pipelines, particularly for research teams requiring cost-effective solutions without compromising on compound quality.

Scaffold hopping, a term first coined by Schneider and colleagues in 1999, represents an integral approach in medicinal chemistry and drug discovery that aims to identify compounds with different core structures but similar biological activities [15]. This strategy has proven invaluable for overcoming challenges related to intellectual property constraints, poor physicochemical properties, metabolic instability, and toxicity issues in drug development [15]. Notably, scaffold hopping has contributed to the successful development of several marketed drugs, including Vadadustat, Bosutinib, Sorafenib, and Nirmatrelvir [15].

The computational scaffold hopping landscape encompasses diverse methodologies, including pharmacophore-based models, shape similarity approaches, and more recently, fragment-based replacement strategies [15]. While commercial platforms have traditionally dominated this space, the emergence of open-source tools like ChemBounce offers new opportunities for democratizing access to advanced scaffold hopping capabilities. ChemBounce distinguishes itself through its curated library of over 3 million synthesis-validated fragments derived from the ChEMBL database and its integration of both Tanimoto and electron shape similarities for preserving pharmacophores [15] [4].

This technical analysis examines ChemBounce's architectural framework and benchmarking performance against established commercial platforms, providing medicinal chemists and drug discovery researchers with actionable insights for tool selection in scaffold-based drug design campaigns.

Methodology

ChemBounce Framework Architecture

ChemBounce operates through a structured workflow that transforms input molecules into novel compounds with preserved bioactivity potential:

• Input Processing: The framework accepts user-supplied molecules in SMILES format, which are subsequently fragmented to identify core scaffolds using the HierS algorithm [15]. This algorithm systematically decomposes molecules into ring systems, side chains, and linkers, preserving atoms external to rings with bond orders >1 and double-bonded linker atoms within their respective structural components [15].

• Scaffold Identification and Replacement: The recursive fragmentation process systematically removes each ring system to generate all possible combinations until no smaller scaffolds remain. The identified query scaffold is then replaced with candidate scaffolds from ChemBounce's curated library of 3,231,556 unique scaffolds derived from the ChEMBL database [15].

• Similarity Evaluation and Filtering: Generated compounds undergo rigorous rescreening based on Tanimoto similarity and electron shape similarity computed using the ElectroShape method in the ODDT Python library [15]. This dual evaluation ensures retention of critical pharmacophoric elements and potential biological activity.

The following workflow diagram illustrates ChemBounce's scaffold hopping process:

Experimental Benchmarking Protocol

To evaluate ChemBounce's performance against commercial platforms, a rigorous benchmarking methodology was implemented:

Test Compounds: Five approved drugs—losartan, gefitinib, fostamatinib, darunavir, and ritonavir—were selected as reference molecules for scaffold hopping experiments [15].

Comparative Platforms: ChemBounce was evaluated against five established commercial tools: Schrödinger's Ligand-Based Core Hopping and Isosteric Matching, and BioSolveIT's FTrees, SpaceMACS, and SpaceLight [15].

Evaluation Metrics: Generated compounds from all platforms were assessed using multiple quantitative metrics:

• SAscore: Synthetic accessibility score (lower values indicate higher synthetic accessibility)
• QED: Quantitative Estimate of Drug-likeness (higher values indicate more favorable drug-like properties)
• Molecular weight and LogP
• Number of hydrogen bond donors and acceptors
• PReal: Synthetic realism score from AnoChem [15]

Parameter Sensitivity Analysis: ChemBounce's performance was profiled under varying internal parameters, including the number of fragment candidates (1000 versus 10,000), Tanimoto similarity thresholds (0.5 versus 0.7), and application of Lipinski's Rule of Five filters [15].

Results and Comparative Analysis

Performance Metrics Comparison

The comparative analysis revealed significant differences in the quality and characteristics of compounds generated by ChemBounce versus commercial platforms.

Table 1: Comparative Performance of ChemBounce Against Commercial Scaffold Hopping Tools

Platform	SAscore	QED	Molecular Weight	LogP	Synthetic Realism (PReal)
ChemBounce	Lower	Higher	Comparable	Comparable	Higher
Schrödinger Tools	Higher	Lower	Comparable	Comparable	Lower
BioSolveIT FTrees	Higher	Lower	Comparable	Comparable	Lower
BioSolveIT SpaceMACS	Higher	Lower	Comparable	Comparable	Lower
BioSolveIT SpaceLight	Higher	Lower	Comparable	Comparable	Lower

ChemBounce consistently generated structures with lower SAscores, indicating higher synthetic accessibility, and higher QED values, reflecting more favorable drug-likeness profiles compared to existing commercial scaffold hopping tools [15]. This performance advantage is particularly valuable for medicinal chemistry applications where synthetic feasibility is a critical consideration in compound selection.

Chemical Space Coverage and Diversity

ChemBounce demonstrated robust performance across diverse compound classes during validation studies. Processing times varied from 4 seconds for smaller compounds to 21 minutes for complex structures, demonstrating scalability across different molecular classes including peptides (Kyprolis, Trofinetide, Mounjaro), macrocyclic compounds (Pasireotide, Motixafortide), and small molecules (Celecoxib, Rimonabant, Lapatinib, Trametinib, Venetoclax) with molecular weights ranging from 315 to 4813 Da [15].

The platform's ability to handle this diverse range of molecular classes indicates substantial chemical space coverage, potentially enabling identification of novel scaffolds across multiple therapeutic target types.

Parameter Optimization Insights

The parameter sensitivity analysis provided valuable insights for optimizing ChemBounce performance:

Table 2: ChemBounce Parameter Optimization Guide

Parameter	Setting	Impact on Results	Recommended Use Case
Fragment Candidates	1,000	Faster processing, moderate diversity	Initial screening
	10,000	Slower processing, high diversity	Lead optimization
Tanimoto Threshold	0.5	Higher structural diversity	Exploratory scaffold hopping
	0.7	Closer similarity to original	Activity-preserving modifications
Rule of Five Filter	Applied	Improved drug-likeness	Oral drug candidates
	Not applied	Broader chemical space	Specialty targets

Higher Tanimoto similarity thresholds (0.7) produced compounds with closer structural similarity to query molecules, while lower thresholds (0.5) enabled exploration of more diverse chemical space [15]. Similarly, increasing the number of fragment candidates from 1,000 to 10,000 enhanced structural diversity at the cost of increased computational time.

Technical Implementation

Research Reagent Solutions

The following table details essential computational tools and resources referenced in this study that form the foundational infrastructure for scaffold hopping experiments:

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Scaffold Hopping

Resource	Type	Function in Scaffold Hopping	Access
ChEMBL Database	Chemical Database	Source of bioactivity-validated scaffolds for replacement library	Public
ScaffoldGraph	Software Library	Graph analysis for molecular fragmentation and scaffold identification	Open Source
ODDT Python Library	Software Library	Electron shape similarity calculations for pharmacophore preservation	Open Source
ElectroShape	Algorithm	Molecular similarity incorporating shape, chirality and electrostatics	Implementation in ODDT
Google Colaboratory	Platform	Cloud-based execution environment for accessible deployment	Freemium

Operational Framework

ChemBounce is implemented as a command-line tool with the following basic usage:

Advanced functionality includes the --core_smiles option for retaining specific substructures during hopping and the --replace_scaffold_files parameter for incorporating custom scaffold libraries [15].

For researchers implementing scaffold hopping workflows, the following diagram illustrates the critical decision points in configuring the framework for optimal results:

Discussion

Strategic Advantages in Drug Discovery

ChemBounce's performance profile offers several strategic advantages for drug discovery organizations:

• Cost-Efficiency: As an open-source platform with availability through Google Colaboratory, ChemBounce eliminates licensing barriers that often restrict access to commercial scaffold hopping tools [15]. This democratizes access for academic research groups and small biotech companies with limited computational budgets.

• Synthetic Feasibility Focus: The platform's foundation in synthesis-validated fragments from the ChEMBL database translates to generated compounds with higher practical synthetic accessibility, potentially reducing cycle times in medicinal chemistry optimization [15].

• Customization Potential: The support for user-defined scaffold libraries via the --replace_scaffold_files option enables research teams to incorporate proprietary or target-class specific fragment collections, tailoring the platform to specialized research needs [15].

Integration with Modern Drug Discovery Workflows

ChemBounce aligns with the growing emphasis on AI-driven drug discovery, complementing other emerging approaches such as generative chemistry using recurrent neural networks (RNNs), variational autoencoders (VAEs), and generative adversarial networks (GANs) [98]. While these deep learning methods represent promising alternatives for de novo molecular design, fragment-based scaffold hopping retains advantages in interpretability and synthetic tractability.

The platform can be effectively integrated into broader drug discovery workflows alongside molecular docking systems, free energy perturbation (FEP) calculations for binding affinity prediction [99], and ADMET prediction tools to form a comprehensive computer-aided drug design pipeline.

This comparative analysis demonstrates that ChemBounce represents a competitive open-source alternative to commercial scaffold hopping platforms, with particular strengths in generating synthetically accessible compounds with favorable drug-like properties. Its performance advantage in SAscore and QED metrics, combined with zero licensing costs, positions ChemBounce as a valuable tool for hit expansion and lead optimization in both academic and industrial drug discovery settings.

Future developments in scaffold hopping will likely focus on enhanced integration with deep learning approaches, expanded handling of macrocyclic and covalent compounds, and improved prediction of synthetic routes for generated scaffolds. As the field progresses, open-source tools like ChemBounce will play an increasingly important role in democratizing access to advanced drug design capabilities and accelerating the discovery of novel therapeutic agents.

In the context of scaffold hopping for medicinal chemistry, the ability to accurately predict biological activity and pharmacokinetic properties computationally is paramount. Machine learning (ML) has emerged as a transformative tool, enabling researchers to prioritize novel scaffolds with desired pICâ‚…â‚€ (negative logarithm of the half-maximal inhibitory concentration) and favorable ADMET (Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Excretion, Toxicity) profiles before costly synthetic efforts [100] [101]. This guide details the core methodologies and protocols for implementing these predictive techniques within a modern drug discovery pipeline, providing a framework for validating newly proposed chemical scaffolds derived from lead compounds.

Core Concepts and Definitions

pICâ‚…â‚€ and ADMET in Scaffold Hopping

• pICâ‚…â‚€: A measure of a compound's potency, where a higher value indicates greater effectiveness at lower concentrations. Accurate pICâ‚…â‚€ prediction allows for the virtual assessment of a hopped scaffold's potential efficacy [89] [5].
• ADMET Properties: A set of parameters that determine the "drug-likeness" of a molecule. Scaffold hopping aims to modify the core structure of a bioactive compound to optimize these properties while maintaining or enhancing biological activity [102] [100]. Key challenges in scaffold optimization, such as poor solubility or metabolic instability, can be identified early via ADMET prediction [102].
• The Informacophore: An evolution of the traditional pharmacophore concept, the informacophore integrates data-driven insights from ML models with essential chemical features for bioactivity. It represents the minimal structural and feature set, including computed molecular descriptors and learned representations, necessary for activity, thus guiding rational scaffold design in the era of big data [101].

Machine Learning's Role

ML models learn from existing chemical and biological data to establish complex, non-linear relationships between a molecule's structure and its biological activity or ADMET endpoints. This allows for the high-throughput prediction of novel compounds, dramatically accelerating the hit-to-lead optimization cycle [100] [101].

Machine Learning Workflows and Experimental Protocols

A robust ML workflow for activity and property prediction involves a sequence of critical steps, from data collection to model deployment. The following diagram outlines this comprehensive process.

Data Acquisition and Preprocessing

The foundation of any reliable ML model is high-quality, well-curated data.

• Data Sources: Public repositories such as PubChem [89] [5], Therapeutics Data Commons (TDC) [103], and proprietary in-house assays are primary sources for chemical structures and associated properties.
• Data Cleaning Protocol:
  • Standardization: Standardize SMILES strings using tools like the one described by Atkinson et al. [103]. This includes normalizing functional groups, neutralizing charges, and removing salts and solvents to isolate the parent organic compound.
  • Duplicate Removal: Identify and remove duplicate compounds. In cases of conflicting activity or property values for the same molecule, apply a consistency filter (e.g., keep the first entry if values are consistent, or remove the entire group if not) [103].
  • Data Splitting: Split the cleaned dataset into training, validation, and test sets. Scaffold splitting, which ensures that molecules with similar core structures are grouped together, is recommended to assess a model's ability to generalize to truly novel chemotypes [103].

Feature Engineering and Selection

Molecular structures must be converted into numerical representations (features) that ML models can process.

• Feature Types:
  • Molecular Descriptors: Numerical representations of physicochemical properties (e.g., molecular weight, logP, topological surface area) calculated using software like RDKit [103] [100].
  • Fingerprints: Bit-string representations of molecular substructures (e.g., Morgan fingerprints, ECFP) [103] [104].
  • Graph Representations: For Graph Neural Networks (GNNs), molecules are natively represented as graphs with atoms as nodes and bonds as edges [105] [104].
• Feature Selection Protocol: To avoid overfitting and improve model interpretability, use feature selection methods.
  • Filter Methods: Remove low-variance and highly correlated descriptors as a pre-processing step [100].
  • Wrapper Methods: Use iterative algorithms like recursive feature elimination to find the optimal feature subset for a specific model [100].
  • Embedded Methods: Leverage models like Random Forests, which provide built-in feature importance scores, to select the most relevant features [100].

Model Training and Validation

Selecting the right algorithm and rigorously validating it is crucial for generating reliable predictions.

• Algorithm Selection: Common algorithms include:
  • Random Forests (RF): Often a strong baseline for QSAR tasks [103].
  • Gradient Boosting Machines (e.g., LightGBM, CatBoost): Frequently top performers on structured data [103].
  • Graph Neural Networks (GNNs): State-of-the-art for directly learning from molecular graphs, showing superior performance on many ADMET endpoints [105] [104].
• Hyperparameter Optimization Protocol: Use techniques like grid search or Bayesian optimization to tune model-specific parameters (e.g., number of trees in a forest, learning rate for neural networks). To prevent overfitting, perform hyperparameter optimization strictly within the training set and validate performance on a separate validation set [103] [104].
• Model Validation Protocol:
  • Cross-Validation with Statistical Testing: Employ k-fold cross-validation (e.g., 5-fold or 10-fold) and use statistical hypothesis tests (e.g., paired t-tests) to compare model performances robustly, moving beyond simple average performance metrics [103].
  • External Validation: The ultimate test of a model's generalizability is its performance on a completely held-out test set, preferably from a different data source [103] [105].

Case Study: Integrated pICâ‚…â‚€ and ADMET Prediction for Tankyrase Inhibitors

A study on discovering novel tankyrase inhibitors for colorectal cancer provides a exemplary blueprint for an integrated computational workflow [89] [5]. The research combined multiple computational techniques to identify promising scaffold-hopped candidates, yielding quantitative results for several top compounds.

Table 1: Predicted Activity and Properties of Selected Tankyrase Inhibitors [89] [5]

PubChem CID	Predicted pICâ‚…â‚€	HOMO-LUMO Gap (eV)	Key MD Simulation Result
138594346	7.70	4.473	Lowest RMSD/RMSF fluctuations
138594428	7.41	4.979	Conformational stability confirmed
Reference (RK-582)	7.71	-	-

Table 2: ADMET Profile Predictions for Candidate Compounds [89]

ADMET Parameter	Prediction for 138594346	Prediction for 138594428	Tool Used
Human Intestinal Absorption	High	High	ADMETlab 2.0
Caco-2 Permeability	Positive	Positive	ADMETlab 2.0
AMES Mutagenicity	Negative	Negative	ADMETlab 2.0
hERG Inhibition	Low risk	Low risk	ADMETlab 2.0
Hepatotoxicity	Low risk	Low risk	ADMETlab 2.0

Experimental Protocol from the Case Study

• Ligand-Based Virtual Screening: Initiate with a known tankyrase inhibitor (e.g., RK-582). Perform a structural similarity search (≥80% cutoff) in PubChem to identify potential scaffold-hopped analogues [89] [5].
• Molecular Docking: Dock the retrieved compounds into the target protein's active site (e.g., Tankyrase, PDB ID: 6KRO) using software like AutoDock Vina. Select top-ranking poses based on binding affinity and interaction patterns for further analysis [89] [5].
• Density Functional Theory (DFT) Calculations: Perform quantum chemical calculations on the selected compounds. Key outputs include the HOMO-LUMO energy gap, which indicates a molecule's electronic stability and reactivity—a larger gap often suggests higher stability [89] [5].
• Machine Learning pICâ‚…â‚€ Prediction: Train a ML model (e.g., using Random Forests or GNNs) on a dataset of known tankyrase inhibitors (e.g., 236 compounds). Use this model to predict the pICâ‚…â‚€ of the novel candidates [89] [5].
• ADMET Prediction: Input the optimized structures into a predictive ADMET platform like ADMETlab 2.0, which uses a multi-task graph attention model, to obtain comprehensive pharmacokinetic and toxicity profiles [89].
• Molecular Dynamics (MD) Simulations: Finally, simulate the behavior of the protein-ligand complexes in a near-physiological environment (e.g., for 500 ns). Metrics like Root-Mean-Square Deviation (RMSD) and Root-Mean-Square Fluctuation (RMSF) confirm the stability of the binding pose over time [89] [5].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Software

Table 3: Key Computational Tools for pICâ‚…â‚€ and ADMET Prediction

Tool Name	Type/Function	Brief Description of Role
RDKit	Cheminformatics	Open-source toolkit for calculating molecular descriptors, fingerprints, and handling chemical data [103].
PubChem	Database	Massive public repository of chemical compounds and their biological activities for data sourcing [89] [5].
Therapeutics Data Commons (TDC)	Data Benchmarking	Provides curated datasets and benchmarks for ADMET properties and ML model development [103].
ADMETlab 2.0	Web Server	Platform for predicting a wide array of ADMET endpoints using graph attention models [89].
Chemprop	Machine Learning	Message Passing Neural Network (MPNN) specifically designed for molecular property prediction [103] [104].
AutoDock Vina	Molecular Docking	Software for predicting protein-ligand binding poses and affinities [89] [5].
Desmond	Molecular Dynamics	Software for running MD simulations to assess complex stability over time [89].
Tyrphostin AG30	Tyrphostin AG30, MF:C10H7NO4, MW:205.17 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
Vanicoside A	Vanicoside A, MF:C51H50O21, MW:998.9 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

The integration of machine learning for pIC₅₀ and ADMET prediction represents a cornerstone of modern scaffold-hopping strategies. By employing the structured workflows and experimental protocols outlined in this guide—from rigorous data handling and feature selection to advanced model validation and integration with molecular simulations—researchers can de-risk the drug discovery process. This computational-first approach enables the intelligent prioritization of novel, synthetically accessible scaffolds with a high probability of success, ultimately accelerating the development of new therapeutic agents.

The journey from computer-based design to a viable clinical drug candidate represents one of the most significant challenges in modern medicinal chemistry. This transition is particularly crucial within the context of scaffold hopping, a strategy that aims to discover novel core structures while retaining biological activity against therapeutic targets. The fundamental objective of scaffold hopping is to generate chemically distinct compounds that overcome limitations of existing leads—such as toxicity, metabolic instability, or patent constraints—while preserving the essential pharmacophoric elements required for target binding and efficacy. As drug discovery increasingly embraces artificial intelligence (AI), quantum computing, and sophisticated in silico platforms, understanding the methodologies that successfully bridge computational prediction with in vivo success has become imperative for research teams.

This technical analysis examines the integrated workflows, validation strategies, and decision gates that enable successful transition of computationally designed compounds from virtual screening to clinical candidacy. By focusing on quantifiable outcomes from recent drug development campaigns and detailing the experimental protocols that underpin these successes, we provide a structured framework for researchers aiming to optimize their scaffold hopping strategies and improve translational outcomes.

Technological Foundations: AI and Quantum Computing in Drug Discovery

The landscape of early drug discovery has been transformed by computational technologies that enable rapid exploration of chemical space and prediction of molecular behavior with increasing accuracy.

Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Platforms

AI-driven platforms have evolved from supportive tools to central discovery engines that compress traditional discovery timelines. These systems leverage deep learning models trained on vast chemical and biological datasets to propose novel molecular structures satisfying multi-parameter optimization criteria including potency, selectivity, and ADMET (Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Excretion, Toxicity) properties [106]. Leading platforms demonstrate tangible improvements in efficiency; for example, Exscientia reports in silico design cycles approximately 70% faster while requiring 10-fold fewer synthesized compounds than industry norms [106].

The AI-driven discovery process typically employs several core methodologies:

• Generative Chemistry: AI algorithms propose novel molecular structures de novo based on target product profiles
• Virtual Screening: Machine learning models rapidly evaluate billion-compound libraries to identify candidates with highest binding potential
• Predictive ADMET: Models forecast compound behavior in biological systems before synthesis

Quantum Computing Enhancements

Quantum computing represents an emerging frontier in molecular simulation, offering potential to solve complex quantum chemistry problems that are intractable for classical computers. While still in early stages, quantum-classical hybrid models are already demonstrating promising applications in drug discovery [107] [108].

In a 2025 case study targeting the challenging oncology target KRAS-G12D, Insilico Medicine implemented a quantum-enhanced pipeline combining quantum circuit Born machines (QCBMs) with deep learning. This approach screened 100 million molecules, refined candidates to 1.1 million, and ultimately yielded 15 synthesized compounds. From these, two showed biological activity, including one compound (ISM061-018-2) with 1.4 μM binding affinity to KRAS-G12D [107]. This demonstrates how quantum-AI hybridization can identify novel chemotypes for traditionally difficult targets.

Foundation Models for Biology

The emergence of biological foundation models trained on massive genomic, transcriptomic, and proteomic datasets promises to uncover fundamental principles of biology in ways analogous to how large language models learn linguistic patterns [109]. Companies like Bioptimus are building universal AI foundation models that create multi-scale representations of human biology from proteins to tissues, enabling simulation of biological processes across different scales [109]. These models show potential to accelerate identification of novel therapeutic strategies and predict drug responses more accurately.

Table 1: Performance Metrics of AI and Quantum-Enhanced Drug Discovery Platforms

Platform/Technology	Chemical Library Size	Hit Rate	Key Achievement	Representative Clinical Candidate
Exscientia AI Platform	Not specified	~70% faster design cycles	First AI-designed drug (DSP-1181) to Phase I	DSP-1181 (OCD), EXS-21546 (immuno-oncology)
Insilico Medicine Quantum-AI Hybrid	100 million screened	2/15 compounds active	1.4 μM binding to KRAS-G12D	ISM061-018-2 (oncology)
Model Medicines GALILEO	52 trillion to 12 compounds	100% in vitro hit rate	All 12 compounds showed antiviral activity	Undisclosed antivirals (HCV, Coronavirus)
Schrödinger Physics-Based Platform	Not specified	Not specified	Phase III TYK2 inhibitor	TAK-279 (zasocitinib)

Scaffold Hopping: Computational Strategies and Methodologies

Scaffold hopping has emerged as a critical strategy in modern medicinal chemistry, enabling researchers to navigate patent landscapes, improve drug properties, and explore novel chemical space while maintaining target engagement.

Computational Framework for Scaffold Hopping

Specialized computational tools have been developed specifically to facilitate scaffold hopping. ChemBounce represents one such framework designed to generate structurally diverse scaffolds with high synthetic accessibility [4]. Given a user-supplied molecule in SMILES format, ChemBounce identifies core scaffolds and replaces them using a curated library of over 3 million fragments derived from the ChEMBL database. The generated compounds are evaluated based on Tanimoto similarity and electron shape similarities to ensure retention of pharmacophores and potential biological activity [4].

The scaffold hopping process typically follows a structured workflow:

Figure 1: Computational Workflow for AI-Driven Scaffold Hopping

Molecular Representation Methods

Effective scaffold hopping relies heavily on advanced molecular representation methods that translate chemical structures into computer-readable formats. Traditional representations like Simplified Molecular-Input Line-Entry System (SMILES) and molecular fingerprints have been supplemented by AI-driven approaches including [2]:

• Graph Neural Networks (GNNs): Represent molecules as graphs with atoms as nodes and bonds as edges, capturing structural relationships
• Transformer-Based Models: Treat molecular sequences as chemical language, using self-attention mechanisms to learn complex patterns
• Variational Autoencoders (VAEs): Generate novel molecular structures in continuous latent spaces

These modern representation methods enable more nuanced navigation of chemical space during scaffold hopping campaigns, moving beyond predefined rules to data-driven exploration of structural diversity [2].

Classification of Scaffold Hops

Scaffold hopping strategies can be categorized by the degree of structural modification, with Sun et al. (2012) establishing four primary categories of increasing complexity [2]:

• Heterocyclic Replacements: Substitution of one heterocycle for another with similar electronic properties
• Ring Opening/Closure: Strategic modification of ring systems while preserving key pharmacophores
• Peptide Mimetics: Replacement of peptide structures with rigidified non-peptide analogs
• Topology-Based Changes: Fundamental alterations to molecular scaffold geometry

The classification system provides a framework for researchers to strategically plan scaffold hopping campaigns based on desired level of structural innovation.

Case Studies: Successful Transitions to Clinical Candidates

Recent drug development campaigns provide compelling evidence of successful transitions from in silico design to clinical candidates, with several AI-designed molecules now advancing through human trials.

Insilico Medicine's TNIK Inhibitor for Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis

Insilico Medicine's generative AI-designed inhibitor for Traf2- and Nck-interacting kinase (TNIK) represents a benchmark in AI-driven drug discovery. The program progressed from target identification to Phase I trials in just 18 months, significantly compressing the traditional 4-5 year discovery timeline [106]. The TNIK inhibitor (ISM001-055) has demonstrated positive Phase IIa results in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, validating the integrated AI approach [106].

Key aspects of this successful transition included:

• Generative Chemistry: AI algorithms designed novel molecular structures targeting TNIK
• Multi-Parameter Optimization: Simultaneous optimization of potency, selectivity, and drug-like properties
• Rapid Iteration: Accelerated design-make-test-analyze (DMTA) cycles

Schrödinger's TYK2 Inhibitor for Autoimmune Diseases

Schrödinger's physics-based drug design approach yielded the TYK2 inhibitor zasocitinib (TAK-279), which has advanced to Phase III clinical trials [106]. The platform combines physics-based simulations with machine learning to predict molecular behavior with high accuracy. The successful progression of this program through late-stage clinical development demonstrates the viability of computational-first approaches for challenging targets.

Exscientia's DSP-1181 for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder

Exscientia developed DSP-1181 in collaboration with Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma, resulting in the first AI-designed drug candidate to enter Phase I clinical trials [106]. The compound was created using Exscientia's Centaur Chemist approach, which integrates algorithmic creativity with human medicinal chemistry expertise. By 2023, Exscientia had designed eight clinical compounds using this platform, demonstrating accelerated timelines compared to industry standards [106].

Table 2: Quantitative Outcomes from AI-Designed Clinical Candidates

Program	Discovery Timeline	Traditional Benchmark	Compounds Synthesized	Current Status
Insilico Medicine TNIK Inhibitor	18 months	4-5 years	Not specified	Phase IIa (positive results)
Exscientia DSP-1181	<12 months	2-3 years	Substantially fewer	Phase I (first AI-designed drug in trials)
Schrödinger TYK2 Inhibitor	Not specified	Not specified	Not specified	Phase III
Model Medicines Antivirals	Not specified	Not specified	12 compounds (100% hit rate)	Preclinical

Experimental Validation: Bridging In Silico and In Vivo

The transition from computational prediction to viable clinical candidate requires rigorous experimental validation across multiple domains to derisk programs before human trials.

Target Engagement and Mechanistic Validation

Confirming that computationally designed compounds engage their intended targets in physiologically relevant systems represents a critical validation step. Cellular Thermal Shift Assay (CETSA) has emerged as a leading approach for validating direct target engagement in intact cells and native tissue environments [110].

Recent work by Mazur et al. (2024) applied CETSA in combination with high-resolution mass spectrometry to quantify drug-target engagement of DPP9 in rat tissue, confirming dose- and temperature-dependent stabilization ex vivo and in vivo [110]. This methodology provides crucial evidence that computational predictions translate to biological systems.

Experimental Protocol: Cellular Thermal Shift Assay (CETSA)

• Cell Treatment: Expose intact cells or tissue to compound at relevant concentrations
• Heat Challenge: Subject aliquots to different temperatures (typically 37-65°C)
• Cell Lysis: Rapidly lyse cells and separate soluble protein fraction
• Protein Quantification: Use Western blot or mass spectrometry to quantify target protein in soluble fraction
• Data Analysis: Calculate melting temperature (Tm) shifts and determine binding parameters

Advanced In Vitro Models for Human-Relevant Toxicology

Traditional animal models often poorly predict human toxicology, contributing to late-stage clinical failures. Advanced in vitro systems now provide more human-relevant safety assessment earlier in discovery [111] [112].

Organ-on-a-Chip platforms, particularly gut-liver systems, enable evaluation of drug-induced liver injury (DILI)—a major cause of drug attrition. These microphysiological systems incorporate human cells under dynamic flow conditions, better replicating human physiology than static 2D cultures [112].

Experimental Protocol: Gut-Liver-on-a-Chip for DILI Assessment

• System Setup: Fabricate microfluidic device with separate gut and liver compartments
• Cell Seeding: Seed human intestinal epithelial cells (Caco-2) and hepatocyte spheroids in respective chambers
• Compound Exposure: Introduce test compound to gut compartment
• Metabolite Sampling: Collect effluent from liver compartment at timed intervals
• Endpoint Analysis: Measure viability (MTT assay), liver enzymes (ALT/AST), glutathione depletion, and cytokine release

Integrating AI with High-Content Phenotypic Screening

The merger of Recursion and Exscientia exemplifies the powerful integration of AI-driven chemistry with high-content phenotypic screening [106]. This combined approach leverages Recursion's extensive phenomics database—generated through automated microscopy of compound-treated cells—with Exscientia's generative chemistry capabilities [106] [109]. The resulting platform enables:

• Phenotype-first Discovery: Identification of compounds that induce therapeutic cellular states
• Mechanism Deconvolution: AI-based inference of molecular targets from phenotypic signatures
• Chemistry Optimization: Rapid design of improved analogs based on structure-activity relationships

Implementation Toolkit: Methods and Reagents

Successful implementation of scaffold hopping campaigns requires specialized computational tools, experimental platforms, and reagent systems. The following toolkit summarizes essential components for contemporary drug discovery teams.

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Platforms for Scaffold Hopping Validation

Reagent/Platform	Function	Key Features	Application in Workflow
ChemBounce Framework	Scaffold hopping computational tool	3M+ fragment library, Tanimoto and shape similarity	Initial scaffold diversification [4]
CETSA Platform	Target engagement validation	Direct binding measurement in cells and tissues	Mechanistic confirmation [110]
Organ-on-a-Chip Systems	Human-relevant toxicity assessment	Microfluidics, multi-tissue integration	Safety profiling, DILI prediction [112]
IPSC-Derived Cells	Disease modeling and toxicity	Human genetic background, disease phenotypes	Efficacy and safety testing [112]
Cloud-Based AI Platforms (e.g., Exscientia)	Generative molecular design	Scalable computing, closed-loop DMTA cycles	Compound design and optimization [106]
Phenotypic Screening Platforms	High-content biology assessment	Automated imaging, machine learning analysis	Biological validation, mechanism identification [109]
Takeda-6D	Takeda-6D, MF:C27H19ClFN5O3S, MW:548.0 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
Gypenoside Xlvi	Gypenoside Xlvi, MF:C48H82O19, MW:963.2 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

Integrated Workflow for Candidate Transition

The following workflow visualization integrates computational and experimental elements for successful transition from in silico design to in vivo candidate:

Figure 2: Integrated Workflow for Transitioning from In Silico to In Vivo

Critical Success Factors

Based on analysis of successful programs, several factors emerge as critical for transitioning computational designs to viable clinical candidates:

• Iterative Feedback Loops: Continuous refinement of computational models based on experimental data
• Multi-Parameter Optimization: Simultaneous consideration of potency, selectivity, and developability
• Human-Relevant Systems: Early implementation of advanced in vitro models that better predict human response
• Quality Molecular Representations: AI-driven embeddings that capture subtle structure-activity relationships
• Integrated Data Platforms: Unified systems that connect chemical design with biological outcomes

The successful transition from in silico design to in vivo candidate represents an achievable goal when combining modern computational platforms with rigorous experimental validation. Scaffold hopping strategies enhanced by AI, quantum computing, and advanced molecular representations have demonstrated tangible success in generating novel clinical candidates across therapeutic areas. The case studies examined—particularly the AI-designed molecules now advancing through clinical trials—provide compelling evidence that integrated computational-experimental workflows can significantly compress discovery timelines and improve success rates.

As these technologies continue to mature, particularly with the emergence of biological foundation models and more sophisticated quantum-classical hybrids, the transition from virtual design to viable medicine promises to become increasingly efficient and predictable. For research teams, embracing these integrated approaches while maintaining focus on human-relevant validation systems offers the most promising path to delivering novel therapeutics to patients.

Conclusion

Scaffold hopping has evolved from a conceptual framework to a robust, AI-powered strategy that is indispensable in modern drug discovery. By enabling the systematic exploration of chemical space, it facilitates the identification of novel compounds with improved efficacy, safety, and patentability. The integration of advanced computational methods—from fragment-based libraries to generative reinforcement learning—has significantly accelerated the lead optimization process. Future directions will likely involve greater synergy between AI-driven design and automated synthesis, enhanced multi-objective optimization for complex property profiles, and the application of these techniques to novel therapeutic modalities. As computational power and algorithms continue to advance, scaffold hopping is poised to remain a cornerstone strategy for addressing unmet medical needs and accelerating the delivery of new therapies to patients.

References

• 1. Molecular medicinal insights into scaffold hopping-based ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359644623003616]
• 2. Recent advances in molecular representation methods and ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s44386-025-00017-2]
• 3. Scaffold-hopping for molecular glues targeting the 14-3-3 ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12260087/]
• 4. ChemBounce: a computational framework for scaffold ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40973478/]
• 5. Structural stability-guided scaffold hopping and computational ... [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0332798]
• 6. Rice chemists leap across terpenoid landscapes with ... [https://news.rice.edu/news/2025/rice-chemists-leap-across-terpenoid-landscapes-enzyme-enabled-scaffold-hopping]
• 7. Scaffold Hopping in Tuberculosis Drug Discovery [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12557394/]
• 8. Classification of Scaffold Hopping Approaches - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3328312/]
• 9. Identifying new topoisomerase II poison scaffolds by ... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-019-0390-3]
• 10. A Web Server for ADMET Optimization in Drug Design via ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30251842/]
• 11. ADMETopt2 [https://lmmd.ecust.edu.cn/admetsar2/admetopt2/]
• 12. Scaffold-Hopping Strategies in Aurone Optimization [https://www.mdpi.com/1420-3049/29/12/2813]
• 13. Approaches to Scaffold Hopping for Identifying New ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41208066/]
• 14. Classification of scaffold-hopping approaches [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359644611003813]
• 15. ChemBounce: a computational framework for scaffold hopping ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12449259/]
• 16. Hop To It! The World of Scaffold Hopping | Eureka blog [https://www.criver.com/eureka/hop-it]
• 17. Akebia Initiates Vafseo® (vadadustat) Post-Marketing ... [https://ir.akebia.com/news-releases/news-release-details/akebia-initiates-vafseor-vadadustat-post-marketing-study]
• 18. Akebia Initiates Vafseo® (vadadustat) Post-Marketing ... [https://finance.yahoo.com/news/akebia-initiates-vafseo-vadadustat-post-120000756.html]
• 19. Vadadustat Alternative Dosing Study Results Published in ... [https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/vadadustat-alternative-dosing-study-results-published-in-the-american-journal-of-kidney-disease-302304951.html]
• 20. A retrospective observational research study to describe the ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9321569/]
• 21. A large-scale prospective registration study of the safety and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4598240/]
• 22. Sorafenib (Nexavar) Becomes First and Only Approved ... [https://www.onclive.com/view/sorafenib_news_nov2007]
• 23. The discovery and development of sorafenib for the treatment ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4638120/]
• 24. The topology of molecular representations and its influence on ... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-025-01045-w]
• 25. Graph neural networks driven acceleration in drug discovery [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211383525006884]
• 26. t-SMILES: a fragment-based molecular representation ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-49388-6]
• 27. An Exploration of the use of Hybrid Fingerprints in ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S246811132500009X]
• 28. Accelerating discovery of bioactive ligands with ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11894060/]
• 29. MoleculeFormer is a GCN-transformer architecture for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12647147/]
• 30. Drug Design by Pharmacophore and Virtual Screening ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9145410/]
• 31. Shape-based screening - Schrödinger [https://www.schrodinger.com/life-science/learn/white-papers/shape-based-screening/]
• 32. Structure based pharmacophore modeling, virtual ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-83626-x]
• 33. Virtual Screening Software for Drug Discovery | ROCS [https://www.eyesopen.com/rocs]
• 34. Structure-Based Pharmacophore Modeling, Virtual ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8777599/]
• 35. Ligand and Pharmacophore based Design | BIOVIA [https://www.3ds.com/products/biovia/discovery-studio/ligand-and-pharmacophore-based-design]
• 36. Building shape-focused pharmacophore models for effective ... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-024-00857-6]
• 37. Deep scaffold hopping with multimodal transformer neural ... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-021-00565-5]
• 38. Fragment‐based drug discovery—the importance of high ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9627785/]
• 39. Protocol for fragment hopping [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25709033/]
• 40. Fragment hopping protocol for the design of small ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0968089622002711]
• 41. DigFrag as a digital fragmentation method used for artificial ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42004-024-01346-5]
• 42. Spark scaffold hopping and R-group replacement | Cresset [https://cresset-group.com/software/spark-scaffold-hopping-and-r-group-replacement/]
• 43. Drug discovery and mechanism prediction with explainable ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-83090-3]
• 44. Recent Developments in GNNs for Drug Discovery [https://arxiv.org/html/2506.01302v1]
• 45. Variational autoencoder-based chemical latent space for ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42004-023-01054-6]
• 46. Transformers and Large Language Models for Chemistry ... [https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.06083]
• 47. A review of transformer models in drug discovery and beyond [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095177924001783]
• 48. Variational autoencoders for generative modeling of drug ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11215840/]
• 49. Drug discovery center integrates AI for big impact [https://www.unc.edu/posts/2025/11/24/drug-discovery-center-integrates-ai-for-big-impact/]
• 50. Transformative Role of Artificial Intelligence in Drug ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12406033/]
• 51. Valid Property-Enhanced Contrastive Learning for ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2509.00684v1]
• 52. RuSH - Scaffold Hopping with Generative Reinforcement ... [https://github.com/LRossentue/RUSH]
• 53. Large language models for drug discovery and development [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12546459/]
• 54. The scaffold hopping potential of pharmacophores [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1740674910000284]
• 55. Scaffold Hopping [https://www.biosolveit.de/application-academy/scaffold-hopping/]
• 56. Recent Advances in Scaffold Hopping. [https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/44449bf3bc1833b85a77241c552545f9d6e29c1a]
• 57. Fragment Replacement and Molecular Design | BROOD [https://www.eyesopen.com/brood]
• 58. Scaffold hopping approaches for dual-target antitumor drug ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39420580/]
• 59. Targeting cancer using scaffold-hopping approaches [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S135964462400240X]
• 60. Scaffold Hopping in Tuberculosis Drug Discovery [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41055946/]
• 61. Discovery of new leads against Mycobacterium ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0968089617306120]
• 62. Scaffold Hopping Strategy toward New 4 ... [https://acs.figshare.com/collections/Scaffold_Hopping_Strategy_toward_New_4_Aminoquinazolines_Active_Against_Extracellular_and_Intracellular_Mycobacterium_tuberculosis/7901783]
• 63. Scaffold Hopping and Optimization of Thiazole Hybrids as ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40265424/]
• 64. Dual GSK3β/SIRT1 modulators for Alzheimer's [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12477127/]
• 65. In silico design of novel pyridazine derivatives as balanced ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-98182-x]
• 66. Scaffold-hopping for molecular glues targeting the 14-3-3/ ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-61176-4]
• 67. Invalid SMILES are beneficial rather than detrimental to ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42256-024-00821-x]
• 68. Skinnider Study: Invalid SMILES are beneficial rather than ... [https://ludwigcancer.princeton.edu/news/2024/skinnider-study-invalid-smiles-are-beneficial-rather-detrimental-chemical-language-models]
• 69. Going beyond SMILES enumeration for data augmentation in ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/dd/d5dd00028a]
• 70. Leveraging Partial SMILES Validation Scheme for ... [https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.00530]
• 71. Salt Selection in Drug Development [https://www.pharmtech.com/view/salt-selection-drug-development]
• 72. Impact of counterion and salt form on the properties of long ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/fd/d4fd00194j]
• 73. Addressing the challenge of salt forms in drug discovery [https://www.ddw-online.com/addressing-the-challenge-of-salt-forms-in-drug-discovery-18303-202208/]
• 74. 3D Chemical Similarity Networks for Structure-Based Target ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5511031/]
• 75. Integrating synthetic accessibility with AI-based generative ... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-023-00742-8]
• 76. Critical assessment of synthetic accessibility scores in ... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-023-00678-z]
• 77. MolPrice: assessing synthetic accessibility of molecules based ... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-025-01076-3]
• 78. Synthia Synthetic Accessibility Score (SAS) [https://www.synthiaonline.com/resources/application-note/synthia-synthetic-accessibility-score-sas]
• 79. Integrating Synthetic Accessibility Scoring and AI-Based ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2813-2998/4/2/26]
• 80. Guide for authors - Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry [https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/bioorganic-and-medicinal-chemistry/publish/guide-for-authors]
• 81. A Practical Start-Up Guide for Synthetic Chemists to ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12150262/]
• 82. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry - Author Guidelines [https://researcher-resources.acs.org/publish/author_guidelines?coden=jmcmar]
• 83. Quantitative Systems Pharmacology: An Exemplar Model ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6617832/]
• 84. Using quantitative systems pharmacology to evaluate the ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41540-018-0062-3]
• 85. Personalized metronomic radiopharmaceutical therapy ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-86159-9]
• 86. PromptSMILES: prompting for scaffold decoration and ... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-024-00866-5]
• 87. ScaffoldGVAE: scaffold generation and hopping of drug ... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-023-00766-0]
• 88. Free energy perturbation (FEP)-guided scaffold hopping [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9072250/]
• 89. Structural stability-guided scaffold hopping and computational ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12448342/]
• 90. Decoding the limits of deep learning in molecular docking for ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/sc/d5sc05395a]
• 91. High-throughput electronic property prediction of cyclic ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/sc/d5sc04079e]
• 92. Integrating machine learning, docking analysis, molecular ... [https://arabjchem.org/integrating-machine-learning-docking-analysis-molecular-dynamics-and-experimental-validation-for-accelerated-discovery-of-novel-flt3-inhibitors-against-aml/]
• 93. A hybrid of scaffold hopping and molecular dynamics ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1878535221006006]
• 94. Scaffold-Hopping And Optimization Of Small Molecule ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12463311/]
• 95. Unleashing the power of generative AI in drug discovery [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135964462400117X]
• 96. Link-INVENT: generative linker design with reinforcement ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2023/dd/d2dd00115b]
• 97. Bridging chemical space and biological efficacy: advances ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12144013/]
• 98. Generative chemistry: drug discovery with deep learning ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10984615/]
• 99. Breaking Barriers in FEP Benchmarking: A Large-Scale ... [https://chemrxiv.org/engage/chemrxiv/article-details/687294afe1957b8c618d81e6]
• 100. Leveraging machine learning models in evaluating ADMET ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12205928/]
• 101. From Patterns to Pills: How Informatics Is Shaping Medicinal ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12114992/]
• 102. Scaffold-Hopping Strategies in Aurone Optimization [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38930878/]
• 103. Benchmarking ML in ADMET predictions: the practical impact ... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-025-01041-0]
• 104. Advanced machine learning for innovative drug discovery [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-025-01061-w]
• 105. Improving ADME Prediction with Multitask Graph Neural ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12606635/]
• 106. Leading AI-Driven Drug Discovery Platforms [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031699725075118]
• 107. The Future of Drug Discovery: 2025 as the Inflection Year ... [https://modelmedicines.com/newsroom/the-future-of-drug-discovery-2025-as-the-inflection-year-for-hybrid-ai-and-quantum-computing]
• 108. Harnessing AI and Quantum Computing for Revolutionizing ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12306909/]
• 109. 2025 AI in Drug Discovery: Predictions [https://lizard.bio/knowledge-hub/2025-ai-in-drug-discovery-predictions]
• 110. Top 5 Drug Discovery Trends 2025 Driving Breakthroughs [https://www.pelagobio.com/cetsa-drug-discovery-resources/blog/drug-discovery-trends-2025/]
• 111. The increasing pivotal role of predictive in vitro ... [https://www.iptonline.com/collections/ipt-autumn-2025/the-increasing-pivotal-role-of-predictive-in-vitro-technologies]
• 112. Advanced In Vitro Models for Preclinical Drug Safety [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11763796/]