Discontinued BACE1 Inhibitors in Phase II/III Clinical Trials and AM-6494 (Preclinical) Towards Alzheimer’s Disease Therapy: Repurposing Through Network Pharmacology and Molecular Docking Approach

TL;DR

This study explores how failed BACE1 inhibitors for Alzheimer's disease interact with multiple proteins, suggesting potential repurposing through multitarget mechanisms.

Contribution

The study introduces a network pharmacology and molecular docking approach to uncover multitarget mechanisms of failed BACE1 inhibitors for Alzheimer's.

Findings

Network analysis identified 10 hub proteins central to Alzheimer's disease pathogenesis.

Molecular docking showed strong multitarget binding affinities for the compounds tested.

Failed BACE1 inhibitors interact with proteins involved in autophagy, apoptosis, and inflammation.

Abstract

Background: β-site amyloid precursor protein cleaving enzyme 1 (BACE1) inhibitors demonstrated amyloid-lowering efficacy but failed in phase II/III clinical trials due to adverse effects and limited disease-modifying outcomes. This study employed an integrated network pharmacology and molecular docking approach to quantitatively elucidate the multitarget mechanisms of 4 (phase II/III) discontinued BACE1 inhibitors (Verubecestat, Lanabecestat, Elenbecestat, and Umibecestat) and the preclinical compound AM-6494 in Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Methods: Drug-associated targets were intersected with AD-related genes to construct a protein–protein interaction (PPI) network, followed by topological analysis to identify hub proteins. Gene Ontology (GO) and KEGG pathway enrichment analyses were performed using statistically significant thresholds (p < 0.05, FDR-adjusted). Molecular docking was conducted using AutoDock Vina to quantify binding affinities and interaction modes between the selected compounds and the identified hub proteins. Results: Network analysis identified 10 hub proteins (CASP3, STAT3, BCL2, AKT1, MTOR, BCL2L1, HSP90AA1, HSP90AB1, TNF, and MDM2). GO enrichment highlighted key biological processes, including the negative regulation of autophagy, regulation of apoptotic signalling, protein folding, and inflammatory responses. KEGG pathway analysis revealed significant enrichment in the PI3K–AKT–MTOR signalling, apoptosis, and TNF signalling pathways. Molecular docking demonstrated strong multitarget binding, with binding affinities ranging from approximately −6.6 to −11.4 kcal/mol across the hub proteins. Umibecestat exhibited the strongest binding toward AKT1 (−11.4 kcal/mol), HSP90AB1 (−9.5 kcal/mol), STAT3 (−8.9 kcal/mol), HSP90AA1 (−8.5 kcal/mol), and MTOR (−8.3 kcal/mol), while Lanabecestat showed high affinity for AKT1 (−10.6 kcal/mol), HSP90AA1 (−9.9 kcal/mol), BCL2L1 (−9.2 kcal/mol), and CASP3 (−8.5 kcal/mol), respectively. These interactions were stabilized by conserved hydrogen bonding, hydrophobic contacts, and π–alkyl interactions within key regulatory domains of the target proteins, supporting their multitarget engagement beyond BACE1 inhibition. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that clinically failed BACE1 inhibitors engage multiple non-structural regulatory proteins that are central to AD pathogenesis, particularly those governing autophagy, apoptosis, proteostasis, and neuroinflammation. The identified ligand–hub protein complexes provide a mechanistic rationale for repurposing and optimization strategies targeting network-level dysregulation in Alzheimer’s disease, warranting further in silico refinement and experimental validation.

Figures