So, you are considering writing a grant around an
antimicrobial discovery project. I
actually review a fair number of these.
Mostly I work with NIH (I’m on the Drug Discovery and Resistance study
section), but I also review occasional grant requests from Canada and Europe to
review. I find that, mostly, those of
you in academia are hopelessly lost when it comes to starting out in
antimicrobial discovery and the translation of results through preclinical
development and on into the clinic.
To save us both time, I thought I’d write this blog
in hopes that those of you who are actually considering getting into this area
would read it. This way you would get at
least one viewpoint from an experienced reviewer and drug
hunter-developer. I realize that mine is
not the only point of view out there and I’m sure there will be some that take
issue with what follows – but here goes anyway . . .
This first installment is dedicated to grants around Screening for antimicrobials –
If you are going to undertake a screening program – please
assure that you have the appropriate chemistry and biology expertise to do
this. You can’t just count on some
central screening facility to provide you with an appropriate choice of
molecules to move forward nor can such a facility provide you with the most
appropriate secondary assays to use as a second step. If you do have such
expertise among your key personnel – make sure you describe what role each one
of them will play in the screening process. Most of the screening grants I see
fail because of the failure to provide this expertise or the kind of
information required.
Even if you have the appropriate expertise in your grant
request and you have spelled out what each individual will do within the
screening program – please provide a fairly detailed screening flow chart. This flow diagram should tell how the various
hits will be eliminated or moved forward according to prespecified
criteria. A hint – just because a
compound inhibits your enzyme or binds to your protein in vitro and when you
expose bacteria to the compound, bacterial growth is inhibited – you cannot conclude that
the compound is a bona fide hit. To prove this you must actually show that the growth inhibition you observe is
occurring by the mechanism postulated. This can be accomplished by showing
accumulation of appropriate intermediates in the cell, by using over expressing and
underexpressing strains to show MIC difference or by selecting mutants with
mutations occurring in the correct target genes. The latter is fraught with difficulty since
many such mutations in bacteria arise through efflux and other non-specific
non-target-based mechanisms.
If you are screening an enzyme or a protein in a cell free
system – what are the chances that the compound will actually enter the bacterial
cell – especially a Gram negative one?
Not great! Consider cell-based
screens as either the primary screen or as a secondary assay. Also – consider the library you are
screening. Screening old drugs is great –
but the physiciochemical properties of these drugs are not well aligned with
what is needed in an antibiotic. The same is true for most chemical
libraries. Think about this before you
start.
On the antiviral side of things – most compounds that seem
to inhibit viral replication are actually subtle (or sometimes not so subtle)
cytotoxins. Virus replication is a much
better indicator of cytotoxicity than standard cytotoxicity assays in many
cases. Once again – make sure you have viral assays that prove that viral
growth inhibition is going through the appropriate mechanism and not something
non-specific or off target.
Next we will get into what a screening paradigm might look
like and finally we will talk about early and late preclinical development.
Glad you are doing this! I agree with you so far, David. But I'd like add my favorite caveat for this stage: it's easy to kill bacteria, even MRSA, with the crap that is found in screening libraries, especially detergents and other membrane active agents. That's a major reason why the antibacterial activity displayed by one's favorite enzyme inhibitor must be proven to be due to (solely) that enzyme's inhibition. Carry on!
ReplyDelete