puzzle picture
2062: VHL ligand design: Round 2
Status: Closed

Summary

Name: 2062: VHL ligand design: Round 2
Status: Closed
Created: 10/27/2021
Points: 100
Expired: 11/03/2021 - 23:00
Difficulty: Intermediate
Description: Design a small molecule which can bind VHL! This is the second in a series of puzzles using the small molecule design tools to design small molecule binders to the von Hippel-Lindau E3 ubiquitin ligase. We don't want you to modify the protein, but instead we'd like you to build new small molecules which fit into the VHL pocket. See the new "Inside the Pocket" and "Fun with Fragments!" tutorials to learn how to use the small molecule design tools.

Note: To get the most out of the small molecule design tools, we recommend changing you view settings:
  • Set Color: Score/Hydro+CPK
  • Set View Protein: Binding Site or Cartoon Ligand
  • Turn on: Show Clashes, Show Voids, Show bonds (non-protein), Show bondable atoms
  • Turn off: Show exposed, Show bonds (sheet), Show bonds (helix), Show bonds (loop), Show bonds (sidechain)

For this round, we're encouraging you to do more to change the core of the compound, specifically the central proline-like five-member ring (pyrrolidine). Changing that group should get you a bonus.

We've also adjusted the objectives to address some issues we saw in round 1. In particular, we've added penalties for enol and enamine groups, which rapidly rearrange in cells. We've also penalized thiocarbonyls. These join the penalty for amide groups and the pyrrolidine in the "Bad Groups" objective. We've also added a cLogP objective to keep the compounds from getting too "greasy", which is bad for drug properties. You'll need to carefully balance removing polar groups to get the TPSA bonus, while not making things too hydrophobic and losing the cLogP bonus.

This is a project in collaboration with Boehringer Ingelheim. Boehringer Ingelheim has committed to help evaluate and test the molecules which Foldit players have designed. All compounds created as part of the collaboration puzzles will be made publicly available. Experimental results from testing the molecules will also be released publicly. All participants and game sponsors of current and future small molecule design games commit to complying with the Foldit Terms of Service including those pertaining to intellectual property.

Categories: Overall, Small Molecule Design

Top Groups

RankGroupScorePoints
1Contenders20,111100
2Gargleblasters20,08073
3Anthropic Dreams20,07952
4Beta Folders19,95136
5Go Science19,90524

Top Evolvers

Top Soloists

RankPlayerGroupScorePoints
1Aubade01 69 42  20,366100
2Nicm25 69 65  20,30295
3fiendish_ghoul 69 13  20,16190
4spvincent 40 22 Contenders20,11185
5Bletchley Park 10 20 Contenders20,08881


Need this puzzle? Log in to download.  

Comments

rmoretti's picture
User offline. Last seen 10 hours 23 min ago. Offline
Joined: 01/15/2010
Groups: Foldit Staff
Objective Information

Information about the objectives in this puzzle. (All objectives give +1000 points when fully satisfied.)

  • Bad Groups - Gives a bonus for groups we're interested in removing, including amide, pyrrolidine, enol, enamine, and thiocarbonyl.
  • Ligand cLogP - A measure of polarity - Keeps the molecule from getting too hydrophobic
  • Ligand TPSA - Topological Polar Surface Area - Keeps the polar surface area (including buried polar surface) low.
  • Ligand Hydrogen Bond Donors - Keep the number of ligand hbond donors low.
  • Molecular Weight - Intended to keep the ligand from getting too big.
  • Number of Rotatable Bonds - Intended to keep the ligand from getting too big and floppy.
  • Ligand Substructure - Identify areas of the small molecule which aren't very drug-like.
  • Synthetic Accessibility - Identify molecules which are likely to be hard to make in the lab.

Most objectives have a "Show" button which should highlight areas of concern in red. (Even when fully satisfied, objectives may highlight groups which may eventually contribute.)

Joined: 12/06/2008
Groups: Contenders
The only way to win...

...is not to play.

No matter what is changed, it triggers one or more of the penalties and/or drops the score hundreds or thousands of points. Get rid of the amide... lose 300 points because cLogP is now too high. Add an oxygen to fix the cLogP... and get a Ligand Hydrogen Bond Donor penalty of 200 points. Add a nitrogen, instead... and get a thousand point penalty for having undesired groups. Why do you think half the players are still at the starting score of 19,760 points?

You've got to give us dummies some guidance on what to do, or we will walk away in frustration.

1/10... would not play, again.

Joined: 12/06/2008
Groups: Contenders
And if anyone wants to know...

... I managed to break past the starting score by literally making random changes, until something scored better. Not the best scientific approach. Is this what we want?

rmoretti's picture
User offline. Last seen 10 hours 23 min ago. Offline
Joined: 01/15/2010
Groups: Foldit Staff
Small molecule design is hard (in an absolute sense)

One of the reasons we aren't giving clear "do this to win" instructions is that we're not sure what is going to work well.

The objectives are based on real considerations -- There's certain groups which cause issues with drug development, so we penalize them. We know that the starting structure is a bit too polar (and too like a peptide) for being a good candidate. On the other hand, if you get too hydrophobic the compounds aren't good either. A good small molecule design has to strike a fine balance between the two extremes. (Enough polar groups such that it's not too hydrophobic, but not too many polar groups, and definitely not certain types of polar groups.) We might be setting the objectives a bit too tight on this puzzle, though.

Keep in mind it's very early days for small molecule design in Foldit. We're still figuring out how to dial in the objectives to get good results. Basically, think of the state of protein folding in Foldit back in 2008, or the de novo protein design puzzles back in the early 2010s. It's a learning experience on both sides -- on our side on how to set up the puzzles to get the sort of designs that are worth making in the wetlab, and on your side to figure out how to work with the puzzle setup to make compounds that score well (and are worth making in the wetlab).

The hope is that the community can come together to produce resources on how to approach small molecule design puzzles from a citizen science perspective. Crowdsourcing drug design isn't something that has a lot of precedence. Experts in big pharmaceutical companies spend a lot of time on similar sorts of problems, with a rather low success rate. There's some resources and institutional knowledge out there for experts, but currently not a lot targeted at citizen scientists.

The Foldit developers (and our collaborators at BI) are certainly willing to help out with information if we can, but we're also a bit in the dark as to what will be maximally useful for you. To some extent, you might want to view these early small molecule design puzzles as a challenge to figure out "how to play" more than one where you apply well-worn techniques. -- There's a bunch of expertise and institutional knowledge that Foldit players have built up over the years for working with proteins. We don't have that (yet) for small molecule design, so we have to muck through together to build that up.

robgee's picture
User offline. Last seen 2 hours 49 min ago. Offline
Joined: 07/26/2013
Little tip

from the 19760 base score, if you replace an atom with the same atom then wiggle your score goes up by a few points, helpful to get it started.

As to method, i just did the same as Boots, make a change, wiggle it, score goes up else reset, repeat.
Yeah i've got no idea what i'm doing and it is frustrating but thats kinda foldit in a nutshell :)

spvincent's picture
User offline. Last seen 9 hours 34 min ago. Offline
Joined: 12/07/2007
Groups: Contenders
Right now it's pretty hit and

Right now it's pretty hit and miss. Mostly miss. A couple of things in particular:

As Boots has already mentioned, the size of the penalties is way too big (exception: the 5 point penalty for an amide). For example make the ligand just a little more hydrophobic by adding a random methyl group somewhere and the cLogP score can drop by 300 or so. In the context of the puzzle that might as well be a million, as there's no way a compensating improvement will be that big.

Also the random crashing continues. It's a little better now the crash on loading issue has been fixed but still the life expectancy of Foldit when playing this puzzle is less than 5 minutes. There doesn't seem anything reproducible about the crashes either. It's a pity because I like the idea of this kind of puzzle but having to restart Foldit all the time is just too tiresome.

Aubade01's picture
User offline. Last seen 3 days 23 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 10/12/2013
Groups: None
Amine nitrogen covalent bonds

A player can form four covalent bonds to an amine nitrogen.

Is this correct?

>>>>> Aubade00/01

cas0362's picture
User offline. Last seen 3 days 2 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 08/15/2017
Groups: BIchallenge
As long as the resulting N is charged - yes

For this game tetra alkyl/aryl ammonium species should likely be avoided. Ideally basic amines in the suggested molecules should be also avoided as this will make it easier to install a basic centre in the protein of interest binder in the resulting PROTAC (if the target protein requires it).

User login
Download links:
  Windows    OSX    Linux  
Windows
(7/8/10)
OSX
(10.12 or later)
Linux
(64-bit)

Are you new to Foldit? Click here.

Are you a student? Click here.

Are you an educator? Click here.
Social Media


Search
Only search fold.it
Other Games: Mozak
Recommend Foldit
Topics
Top New Users
Sitemap

Developed by: UW Center for Game Science, UW Institute for Protein Design, Northeastern University, Vanderbilt University Meiler Lab, UC Davis
Supported by: DARPA, NSF, NIH, HHMI, Amazon, Microsoft, Adobe, Boehringer Ingelheim, RosettaCommons