Be essential for interaction with His25 and one compound did not contain a substituent which allows interaction with Asp130. The remaining two compounds contained the tetrahydropyrimidinium moiety as present in the screening hit but again with a substitution that does not allow interaction with Asp130. All compounds showed,15 inhibition at the screening concentration of 33 mM. Compounds 7 and 8 were part of the initial virtual screening library but did not pass the first filter step as they violated the upper limit for number of heavy atoms and ring systems. For a retrospective docking exercise we therefore spiked the HTS library with ligands 3 and 4 docked all compounds into all four receptor setups. While ranked highly when the database was sorted by the score normalized for number of heavy atoms were not among the top MEDChem Express Degarelix scoring compounds with either scoring scheme. This did also not improve when the receptor conformation that was manually adjusted to generate a binding mode for was used for docking. Unfortunately, co-crystallisation of the screening hits with AaIspE was not successful. This might be related to solubility issues and, in the case of 8, conformational changes requiring new crystal forms since the crystals dissolved when the compound was added. However, for three of the four screening hits and their analogues putative binding modes could be modelled. In the suggested binding modes, the ligands bind into the cytidine pocket. They form p-stacking interactions with Tyr24 and Tyr175 and hydrogen bonds with His25 and Asp130. These binding modes are consistent with SAR derived from analogues indicating that disrupting interactions with His25 or Asp130 leads to a drop in binding affinity. However, due to availability issues more subtle changes in the compounds could not be probed. Therefore, SAR Cobimetinib remains tentative. For a more extended chemical evaluation and to increase potency synthetic efforts around the retrieved hits are required. We decided to adopt a virtual screening cascade with a series of increasingly stricter filter steps. The aim of this strategy was to early remove compounds that were not attractive starting points for drug discovery and had no potential to bind to the cytidine binding site of IspE. This made the process faster but also easier to mange as we had to deal with a smaller number compounds for docking. Further, molecular docking can result in poses in which polar groups of the ligands do not form hydrogenbonding interactions with the receptor or vice versa and are therefore likely to be false positive predictions. These can often be removed by using a pharmacophore to filter the docking solutions and such improve the results. Therefore, all docking poses were post processed. The successful application of similar strat
