Revealing Atropisomer Axial Chirality in Drug Discovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An often overlooked source of chirality is atropisomerism, which results from slow rotation along a bond axis due to steric hindrance and/or electronic factors. If undetected or not managed properly, this time-dependent chirality has the potential to lead to serious consequences, because atropisomers can be present as distinct enantiomers or diastereoisomers with their attendant different properties. Herein we introduce a strategy to reveal and classify compounds that have atropisomeric chirality. Energy barriers to axial rotation were calculated using quantum mechanics, from which predicted high barriers could be experimentally validated. A calculated rotational energy barrier of 20 kcal mol(-1) was established as a suitable threshold to distinguish between atropisomers and non-atropisomers with a prediction accuracy of 86%. This methodology was applied to subsets of drug databases in the course of which atropisomeric drugs were identified. In addition, some drugs were exposed that were not yet known to have this chiral attribute. The most valuable utility of this tool will be to predict atropisomerism along the drug discovery pathway. When used in concert with our compound classification scheme, decisions can be made during early discovery stages such as "hit-to-lead" and "lead optimization," to foresee and validate the presence of atropisomers and to exercise options of removing, further stabilizing, or rendering the chiral axis of interest more freely rotatable via SAR design, thereby decreasing this potential liability within a compound series. The strategy can also improve drug development plans, such as determining whether a drug or series should be developed as a racemic mixture or as an isolated single compound. Moreover, the work described herein can be extended to other chemical fields that require the assessment of potential chiral axes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".