Recent Advances in Inhibitor Design

The most convenient way of categorizing the classes of cathepsin inhibitors is based on the nature of the electrophilic warhead that interacts with the sulfhydryl group of the active site cysteine residue. Since a large portion of the binding energy of a cysteine protease inhibitor comes from the covalent interaction with this thiol, the properties of the resulting molecules are largely derived from the electrophile. In broad terms, these inhibitors can be broken down into ketone and nitrile-based reversible covalent inhibitors, or the more recent non-covalent inhibitors based on an aminoaniline template. 

The a-ketoamide group is a well-known electrophile for the inhibition of both serine and cysteine proteases. Introducing a pyrazole as the N-substituent of the ketoamide provides potent inhibitors of Cat K [50]. SAR exploration of the P2-P3 residues in a series of Cat K inhibitors led to the identification of the pyrrolidine 

A series of inhibitors containing an electrophilic keto-l,3,4-oxadiazole moiety as the warhead has been reported in which the substituent at the 5-position was varied resulting in the identification of furan as the optimal prime side substituent. Exploration of P3 substituents led to the identification of 10 with a K, of 1 nM against Cat K with 700-fold selectivity over off-target cathepsins (Cat B Ki = 730 nM Cat L Rj = 960 nM Cat S Rj = 700 nM) [54], The potency of this compound was shifted in a functional bone resorption assay (Cat K IC50= 132 nM). 

The final class of inhibitor to be described contains no electrophilic warhead to interact with the sulfhydryl group of the active site cysteine. The binding affinity of these non-covalent, competitive inhibitors is partly achieved through lipophilic PI interactions of an aminoethylaniline moiety [68]. Electron-donating substituents on the aniline are required for potency against Cat K [7]. 

---

Bromme., D. and Kaleta, J. (2002) Thiol-dependent cathepsins pathophysiological implications and recent advances in inhibitor design. Current Pharmaceutical Design, 8 (18), 1639-1658. 

---