Our article is written for a bioscience audience and    offers guidance on best practice in chemical probe selection,    evaluation and use.  
    I have     previously postedabout how small molecule chemical    probes of high quality are crucial for investigating the    function of proteins in cells and organisms  and also for    validating them (or not) as drug targets. This applies to all    areas of biomedical research  see articles by     Stephen Fryeand     Mark Bunnage and colleagues.  
    My colleague Julian Blagg and I have     today published a Perspective on choosing and using chemical    probes in the journal Cancer Cellthat is    written specifically with the audience of biologists in mind.  
    There are numerous examples of how the use of     fit-for-purpose chemical probeshas led to important    discoveries in biomedical research. The value of chemical    probes is particularly well demonstrated in the field of        cancer research.  
    A good case in point is the relatively recent rapid growth in    our understanding of the biology and pharmacology of    bromodomains that was triggered by the discovery of potent    chemical probes such as     JQ1and     I-BETand their closely matched inactive partner    compounds used as controls.  
    Yet in my earlier     blogI also drew attention to how loose standards in    the selection and use of chemical probes are leading to serious    errors in biomedical research studies.  
        To be effective as chemical probes, small molecule agents    need to be cell permeable and to bind    potently (i.e. strongly at low concentrations) to the    desired protein target and modulate its function in the cell     as measured by direct target interaction and appropriate    downstream biomarker changes. And they also need to bind    selectively, meaning that they dont interact with and    modulate other cellular targets  or more realistically that    they only affect an acceptable number of additional relevant    proteins.  
    However, use of poorly selective, or otherwise unsuitably    flawed  even frankly dreadful chemical compounds  is    widespread. This is sloppy science and contributes to    what is often referred as a crisis in    the reproducibility and robustness of biological findings.  
    Moreover, recent calculations have suggested that spending $150    on a poor quality, out-of-date chemical compound from a vendor    catalogue, instead of buying a high quality chemical probe,        can cost the scientific community billions of dollars.    There are at least200    historic compoundsthat are often used and should be    replaced with better probes.  
    So misuse of chemical probes is wasting scientists time and    money  and in many instances is undoubtedly leading to delays    in the discovery of much needed medicines.  
    I explained in my     previous posthow, in a Commentary article in the    journal Nature Chemical Biology by Arrowsmith et    alpublished in August 2015, an international panel of    chemical biology scientists (of which I was a member) had    issued a call-to-arms  aimed at eliminating the use of    substandard research tools in biomedical research and promoting    best practice. That call was linked with the launch of a new    community-based, 'TripAdvisor-style' online resource available    at the Chemical Probes    Portal.  
    The non-profit Portal works by offering online expert    annotation and recommendations for use of chemical probes for    particular molecular targets. These are provided by a    Scientific Advisory Board (for full disclosure I am a member of    this and a Board Director)  with about 400 probes assessed to    date.  
    Theres no doubt that great progress has been made in    discovering high quality tools for cancer biology and target    validation. Unfortunately  two years on now from the    publication of the Arrowsmith et al paper and the initial    launch of the Chemical Probes Portal  it is abundantly obvious    that bad practice in the selection and use of chemical probes    is still very widespread in biomedical research, including    numerous, continuing high profile examples in cancer.  
    Its clear that biologists commonly choose chemical probes    based on querying search engines such as Google  which will    lead them to vendor catalogues that provide variable levels of    information, do not prioritize probes based on quality, and    sometimesrecommend    the same compound as a probe for different protein targets.  
    Alternatively, use of search engines like Google Scholar will    return as top hits publications that are the most highly cited,    but that also describe the oldest chemical probes. Such    searches are less likely to find the best, usually more recent    tools. For example, when Chemical Probes Portal staff looked at    10 compounds, randomly selected from the 200 no longer    recommended historical probes listed on the Portal    website, they found that     since 2016 these past-their-sell-by date reagents have been    used in 2,090 publications.  
    A specific illustration is the still very frequent use of one    of the above historical compounds, LY294002  an initially    valuable early inhibitor of the phosphoinositide 3-kinase lipid    kinases (PI3 kinase) that was originally    described in 1994. Although a usefulpathfinder    probe,LY294002 exhibits only weak, micromolar    potency for PI3 kinases and through chemoproteomic studies it    was subsequently found to be active against numerous members of    the PI3 kinase family, and also other unrelated    proteins including bromodomains.  
    LY249002 has been cited in over 30,000 publications; moreover    despite its poor potency and selectivity and its supersedence    by severalsuperior compounds as    chemical probes for PI3K, a recent search for LY294002 on    Google Scholar returned 1,190 publications for the year 2016    alone and this now outdated and flawed probecontinues    to be sold by many commercial vendors.  
    Its clear then that we need to find a way make things change    and especially influence behaviour of biological research    community which is the main user group for chemical probes.    This is why Julian Blagg and I have written our     Perspectivein way that we hope will get the message    out to biologists.  
    As we say in the Abstract of the Perspective:  
    Small-molecule chemical probes or tools have become    progressively more important in recent years as valuable    reagents to investigate fundamental biological mechanisms and    processes causing disease, including cancer. Chemical probes    have also achieved greater prominence alongside complementary    biological reagents for target validation in drug discovery.    However, there is evidence of widespread continuing misuse and    promulgation of poor-quality and insufficiently selective    chemical probes, perpetuating a worrisome and misleading    pollution of the scientific literature. We discuss current    challenges with the selection and use of chemical probes, and    suggest how biologists can and should be more discriminating in    the probes they employ.  
    Despite the efforts so far within the chemical biology    community, we point out that we have been guilty of:    largely preaching to the choir [meaning chemical    biology specialists] and failing to connect to a really    critical audience: namely, the wider cancer biology community    who rely upon small-molecule tool compounds, often in harness    with biological reagents, to interrogate cancer cell biology    and who frequently draw important and highly impactful    biological interpretations, whether correct or misleading, from    such studies.  
    A topical example that we highlight in our     Perspectiveis the initially erroneous discovery and    validation of the proposed target MTH1 in cancer. MTH1 has a    role in breaking down damaged metabolites called nucleotides in    cells and thus preventing them from being incorporated into DNA     and was first published as a cancer target in very high    profile publications in the journal Nature.  
    Small molecule agents that were originally used to validate    MTH1 include compounds TH287 and TH588 as well as    S-crizotinib. We discuss in our     Perspectivethe elegant    publicationfrom AstraZeneca scientists that    identifies three different chemical series of potent and highly    selective chemical probes that clearly inhibit MTH1 in cancer    cells but despite this have no therapeutic effect on cancer    cells.  
    Furthermore, the same article shows that neither small    interfering RNA (siRNA) reagents that deplete MTH1 nor    CRISPR-mediated removal of MTH1 had any beneficial effect of    cancer cells, pointing to off-target activity with the original    siRNA reagent as well the chemical compounds used.  
    Furthermore, the blogger     Derek Lowehas just a couple of days ago updated this    story by discussing a new    publication from researchers at Bayerwho discovered    BAY-707, yet another highly potent and selective inhibitor of    MTH1, and found it to have no therapeutic effect on cancers    cells. Hence at this stage the balance of opinion strongly    indicates that MTH1 is not a valid target for cancer treatment.  
    One piece of evidence in the AstraZeneca study that was    particularly critical in invalidating the initial chemical    probes was the demonstration that both TH287 and    S-crizotinib killed cancer cell lines lacking MTH1     and subsequent protein screening    workshowed that the binding of TH287 and TH588 to    tubulin is responsible for their cytotoxic effects.  
    We provide in the     Perspectiveseveral other examples of how the close    integration of orthogonal chemical and biological tools can be    very powerful, as in the case of studies on SWI/SNF chromatin    remodelling complex components, the transcription factor HIF2    and the Jumonji family of histone lysine demethylases. In    addition, we describe cautionary tales of the problems arising    with uncritical use of claimed chemical probes for proteins    including poly ADP ribose polymerases (PARPs; for which a    flawed PARP compound progressed to the clinic and failed); the    molecular chaperone HSP70; KRAS-regulated autophagy; and    pan-steroid receptor co-activators.  
    We     discusshow a gold-standard test to validate the    functional on-target response to a chemical probe is to    demonstrate reversal of the cellular effects of a proposed    small molecule probe compound by mutation in the protein target    that abrogates compound binding.  
    Another useful technique is to engineer the target to interact    with chemical probes not recognized by the natural (so-called)    wild-type protein. An additional approach now becoming common    is to determine the effects of the chemical probe in cells    where the proposed protein target has been removed by CRISPR    technology.  
    We     point outthat although Small molecules are from    Mars, biological tools are from Venus, they are nevertheless    part of the same overall universe, providing orthogonal and    complimentary approaches to understanding biology and target    validation  a very powerful, multidisciplinary and essential    toolkit for modern biomedical research.  
    Also in our     Perspectivewe highlight and explain an important    aspect of target binding selectivity that is rarely articulated    in discussion of chemical probes  that it is absolutely to be    expected that most small molecules will generally interact with    multiple biological targets in cells and organisms. By    contrast, biological reagents, for example siRNA    oligonucleotides and antibodies, are intrinsically more likely    than small molecules to bind selectively to the desired    biological target as a result of the greater breadth,    complexity and thus specificity of their combined    intermolecular interactions.  
    Of course there are also major problems with the use of    insufficiently selective biological reagents and greater rigour    in their use is important too  as elegantly discussed recently    by     Bill Kaelin but biologists need to be even    more critical in their use of small molecule probes    because their smaller size and lower complexity means that at    least some degree promiscuity is likely to be the rule rather    than the exception. This tendency can be mitigated by careful    design and optimization of the probe  but even then rigorous    and broad experimental testing for selectivity is essential.  
    Indeed, we     strongly advisethe maxim of caveat emptor     let the buyer beware!  when choosing and using chemical probes    for biological exploration and target validation.  
    In discussing the challenge of selectivity, we illustrate how    the off-target effects can range from an interaction with one    or two proteins  perhaps but necessarily related to the target    of interest  through binding to tens of other targets, all the    way to the extreme end of unacceptability where compounds are    frequent hitters or chemical    impostersthat have totally unacceptable features    like indiscriminate chemical reactivity, aqueous insolubility    and self-aggregation that make them worthless for biological    research.  
    Hard to believe, but there are even isolated examples of    vendors supplying the incorrect chemical compound and routine        checking for evidence of authenticity is advisable. Related    to this, in our     Perspectivewe call for further efforts in the    community to eliminate the especially egregious behaviour of    publishing biological results without disclosing compound    structures  which of course means that the suitability    of a probe cannot be assessed, nor can the claims be    independently checked. Reviewers of submitted papers and grant    applications as well as journal editors should be especially    vigilant about this.  
    We recognize that for many if not most biologists these    considerations of the selectivity of chemical probes are not    part of their training or expertise. They may not have ready    access to advice from chemical biology or medicinal chemistry    colleagues. And they may find articles in the specialist    chemical biology literature off-putting and full of jargon  as    most scientific disciplines are.  
    So in our Perspective we provide what we hope will be useful    tools for biologists using chemical probes. Firstly, we include    as     Box 1a Glossary so that that any specialist    terminology that cannot really be avoided is not too much of a    turn-off.  
    We provide in     Box 2a comparison of the desired selectivity profiles    of chemical probes with those of approved drugs  making the    point that in comparison to drugs, chemical probes generally    need to be even more selective than drugs so that probes can be    used with confidence to modulate the intended target of    interest.  
    In     Box 3we summarize the factors that determine the    fitness and quality of chemical probes and in     Figure 2we present an overview of Dos and Donts    for their selection and use. In particular, we strongly    recommend taking a routinely sceptical approach, including the    use of orthogonal chemical and biological reagents; the use of    at least two different chemical series (chemotypes) of probe    along with inactive control compounds; demonstration of potency    and selectivity; and obtaining evidence for selective target    engagement and modulation in cells (e.g. using    thePharmacological    Audit Trail).  
    We advise (on     page 13 of the Perspective) strongly against a common and    dangerous practice, which is to expose cells with ever    increasing concentrations of a chemical probe until a desired    cell effect (phenotype), usually cell death, is seen  and then    attributing this phenotype to the specific effect of the probe    on the protein target under investigation.  
    Higher probe concentrations increase the likelihood of    off-target effects and the general range that should not be    exceeded is 10-20 micromolar to minimize non-specific effects.    Accompanying biomarker evidence of target modulation is also    important.  
    Alongside the general guidance provided in our Cancer Cell    Perspective, we strongly recommend the use of the Chemical Probes    Portalfor expert advice and ratings for specific    probes and targets.  
    We     likenthe provision of advice on the selection and use    of chemical probes to ensuring the biological researcher avoids    being equipped with the equivalent of a defective global    positioning/satellite navigation system, as illustrated in the    cartoon below:  
    Download a larger version of    Professor Julian Blagg's cartoon (PDF, 51KB)  
    Caption: The right way and    wrong way with chemical probes  
    We finish the     Perspectivewith the following strong new    call-to-action:  
    We need to     maximize the promise and minimize the peril of chemical    probes and this requires the broad    research community to use high-quality chemical probes that    have been critiqued with equivalent rigor to biological    reagents. It is time to put our house in order  and biologists    as well as chemists have an important responsibility to do    so.
    Im grateful to my colleague and joint senior co-author of our    Cancer Cell PerspectiveProfessor    Julian Blaggfor his excellent collaboration and    insights. We developed the content of the Perspective very much    in partnership. I also thank Julian for drafting the cartoon    illustration.  
    In addition, I thank many colleagues and collaborators for    helpful discussions and input, including the anonymous    reviewers of the Perspective, and those in the field whose    outstanding work we have built upon.  
Excerpt from:
Call to bioscientists: choose and use your chemicaI probes very carefully - The Institute of Cancer Research (blog)