The variety and complexity of drug targets are expanding rapidly. At the same time, there is significant interest in exploring a larger chemical space to identify new candidates. Fragment-based screening (FBS) has emerged as a popular alternative to traditional high-throughput screening campaigns to identify such drug candidates. FBS identifies hit fragments that exhibit weak interactions with the target of interest, thereby enabling the rational design of small-molecule compounds from the identified hit fragments, which serve as building blocks. This strategy reduces the number of molecules to screen while also allowing the exploration of a greater chemical space.

Here we use temperature-related intensity change (TRIC) technology to perform FBS against the target MAPK/ERK kinase-1 (Mek1). TRIC describes the change in fluorescence intensity of a fluorescently labeled molecule upon a change in temperature. This intensity variation is dependent on the physicochemical environment in the vicinity of the dye and strongly affected by binding events. Thus, the detection of binding events is independent of mass, making TRIC an ideal tool for FBS.

Using only 150 pmol of labeled Mek1, the authors screened 193 fragments from a prescreened library in less than 1 h of measurement time, leading to 66 hits. Among those hits, they identified more than 80% of the published top hits found using orthogonal techniques. Furthermore, TRIC allowed the identification of fragments that were of poor solubility but could be mistaken as false-positive hits in other methods.

1. Erlanson, D. A., Fesik, S. W., Hubbard, R. E., et al. Twenty Years On: The Impact of Fragments on Drug Discovery. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2016, 15, 605.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline2. Coyle, J., Walser, R. Applied Biophysical Methods in Fragment-Based Drug Discovery. SLAS Discov. 2020, 25, 471−490.
Google Scholar | Medline3. Schiebel, J., Radeva, N., Krimmer, S. G., et al. Six Biophysical Screening Methods Miss a Large Proportion of Crystallographically Discovered Fragment Hits: A Case Study. ACS Chem. Biol. 2016, 11, 1693−1701.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline4. Schulte, C., Khayenko, V., Nordblom, N. F., et al. High-Throughput Determination of Protein Affinities Using Unmodified Peptide Libraries in Nanomolar Scale. iScience 2020, 24, 101898.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline5. Birks, J. B. Fluorescence Quantum Yield Measurements. J. Res. Natl. Bur. Stand. A Phys. Chem. 1976, 80, 389.
Google Scholar | Crossref6. Duhr, S., et Braun, D. Why Molecules Move along a Temperature Gradient. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2006, 103, 19678−19682.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline7. Gupta, A. J., Duhr, S., Baaske, P. Microscale Thermophoresis (MST). In Encyclopedia of Biophysics; Roberts, G., Watts, A. Eds.; Springer: Berlin, 2018; pp 1−5.
Google Scholar | Crossref8. Caunt, C. J., Sale, M. J., Smith, P. D., et al. MEK1 and MEK2 Inhibitors and Cancer Therapy: The Long and Winding Road. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2015, 15, 577−592.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline9. Linke, P., Amaning, K., Maschberger, M., et al. An Automated Microscale Thermophoresis Screening Approach for Fragment-Based Lead Discovery. J. Biomol. Screen. 2016, 21, 414−421.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals10. Bartoschik, T., Galinec, S., Kleusch, C., et al. Near-Native, Site-Specific and Purification-Free Protein Labeling for Quantitative Protein Interaction Analysis by Microscale Thermophoresis. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 4977.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline11. Magnez, R., Thiroux, B., Taront, S., et al. PD-1/PD-L1 Binding Studies Using Microscale Thermophoresis. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 17623.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline