-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Next batch of samples sent for biological evaulation #517
Comments
A lot of the SMILES strings in the table didn't resolve for me, so I re-did them by hand; while I had them, I just ran them through my potency predictor and got the following results (link [here])--apologies for not putting the table in this post. The formatting kept chopping off half of the SMILES patterns for some reason. |
Nice @spadavec . We shall see! |
We have just received the 1st run potency data from Dundee (linked in the original post above). |
Just got the notification! Looks like SF5 is a good functional group and it seems like the smaller the cage the more potent the drug is - Therefore I propose this monstrosity |
Nice data, Ed. Thoughts. OSM-S-391: This was made to compare to the iodocubane. Looks like it was the cubane that was the problem there? Can you just remind us of the comparison compound? OSM-S-394: So how does SF5 compare to OCHF2? OSM-S-396: What effect does that Me have on potency? i.e. compare to non-Me (“des-Me”) compound. OSM-S-415: reinforces idea we need a para-substituent in that position I think. OSM-S-417: given the result for OSM-S-415 I’d say we look exclusively at Norcross compounds with something in the “para” position @maratsydney @mcoster Caged compounds: not great activity, but remarkable that some are as active as they are: OSM-S-398 and OSM-S-406 for example. OSM-S-393 and OSM-S-392 are interesting, in that I had thought they might, in vivo, be equivalent to some extent. Clearly not. Was a ketal ever made there? Don’t think so. OSM-S-409: worth a shot. Again, changes here exert a huge effect. The resolved compounds: This makes little sense, that the mixed fraction is most potent. Can we re-establish exactly what was in each fraction? The Late Stage Functionalisation compounds OSM-S-407 and OSM-S-408. Well, @ConorGraham is going to react these. Things can only get better. OSM-S-106: good ping @mbhebhe |
I think while PhSF5 is about as potent as PhOCHF2 that there are some advantages with the SF5 but they will need to be confirmed experimentally
Regarding the chiral methoxy compounds - I would like to see a steroselective synthesis of the "good" isomer and subsequent rescreen of said compound |
We need some clarity on the resolved compounds (#470). The HPLC traces were posted here. The potency data are confusing. Are we absolutely sure of the correspondence between the samples that were evaluated and the HPLC traces? Obviously under normal circumstances the scalemic compound would not be the most potent. MMV897709 (OSM-S-218): “HPLC Trace”. Racemic. Retention times (Rt) 17.6 18.5. Potency 1.27 uM @edwintse and @alintheopen can you please double-check codes are right, and I'll ping Mark Butler on Twitter. |
This isomer aspect was mentioned already in #533 (comment) but I have split it out as a new point 9. We need to know the error bars for the results above before we can conclude anything. NOBA an obvious internal control is to make a "P1 added to P2" extra activity measurement that should ~ = racemate. NOBA I hope @edwintse can transfer these results across to the Master List sooner rather than later |
I'm curious: How difficult would it be to do a stereoselective synthesis of the "good" isomer and subsequent rescreen of compound? This would greatly clear up confusion about the purified mixtures that were tested |
UPDATE: |
The next batch of compounds from this years work so far (shown below) have now been shipped to Dundee for screening against P. falciparum.
THE RELEVANT POTENCY DATA HAS BEEN RECEIVED AND IS POSTED HERE
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: