Chasing Up Other Potential Co-authors

[mattodd]

It's crucial we ensure that all relevant co-authors are identified and have a chance to input on the paper.

I've invited Mark Gardner (ex Pfizer) to comment/come to a writing session, and am in touch with the team at TCG Life Sciences (original CRO that worked with MMV).

Others from the Pfizer/MMV team I need to reach: Dave Waterson, Mike Palmer (did lots of original design work), James Mills (hit triage), Tanya Parkinson (now sadly deceased, lead biologist in Sandwich).

[mattodd]

Have reached out to Dave, Mike and James via LinkedIn to ensure I can share the paper and secure their inputs. Update 4/5/21: Paper shared with all three, and awaiting any and all inputs.

[mattodd]

Dave Waterson mentioned that there was a poster presented on this series at the RSC Med Chem meeting (September 2013?) and we could dig that up to see if there were other people involved here. He suggested Paul WIllis may have a copy. I have a vague memory of seeing this, and it might be on Labtrove, or @alintheopen or @murrayfold may have a copy (though it's a while ago now). My view, and that of Paul Willis, is that Dave should be an author. I've added him, we need an affiliation.

On Paul's recommendation I've also reached out to Mike Witty who worked on the series too. He's looking at the paper now.

Mike Palmer would be happy with an ackowledgement. He raised some good points via email that I can paraphrase:

• Paper is fine re the series origin
• Acknowledge Pfizer in the abstract in the same way that we acknowledge MMV.
• Scheme 1 could be clearer: maybe detail the bottom left structure as -OR rather than nu and also Nu as ROH above the arrow?
• The series overall and what you might do going forward. I dont get a full sense of what the best compound(s) is/are, how good you think they are and how they might be improved. Tightening the conclusions in this respect would add focus I think. <-- @edwintse has been working on this section (Fig 12). Agree it's crucial.
• In Table 1 acid 336 is referred to as potentially meeting MMV PK/PD criteria, but it's 4 micromolar. Mike thinks this is too remote from decent activity to make this claim, since need <100nm to begin to consider lead criteria. Better to focus on the future progression of the most balanced compounds such as perhaps 670947, 6993155 (in addition to 1581295)? Can Table 1 show data for more of these potential best compounds? <-- Agree may need to qualify, and to loop into consideration of next best steps.
• Why not resolve 947, 155 and see how good the enantiomers are?
• Perhaps do chemistry in that region that does not give a chiral centre? e.g. cyclopropyl compound or other geminal options. Check out this paper where use of a cyclopropyl helps us in terms of metabolism and potency at a benzylic position.

Reached out to James Mills again for any edits and he has said he's happy to provide proofing of the paper and would be happy with an acknowledgement if we think it appropriate. James "was the computational chemist (working with Mike Palmer) that carried out the triage of the HTS that yielded the hit matter that finally led to the series discussed in the paper" so I have added James to the acknowledgements and we should include him in the version that we send out to all authors.

[mattodd]

Michael Witty wrote by email that his involvement in this work from 2009-2011 was as a driver in establishing the MMV/Pfizer collaboration (as an ex-Pfizer employee consulting for Pfizer on Neglected Diseases and as an MMV ESAC member) and subsequently as a consultant to MMV helping progress the TP series. He's not been involved in any of the more recent work and is unable to contribute further to the discussion or the experimental detail which he says has clearly been well-reviewed. He says that the history of the series has been well-captured.
So the decision to list him as the author is something he's left up to us.
I'm happy to add him. He said the best address would be MMV's. (update - now added).

[tscmacdonald]

I don't have any science content to add here, but I thought I'd pop in and say that it's great to see this paper nearing completion (and to see that some of the amides from way back in 2014 made it into the manuscript!). Thanks to all those putting in the hard work to get this written up and published, and I'm looking forward to seeing how it ends up.

[mattodd]

The above is all taken care of, but there is the residual issue of needing to double-check all student reports for any research that ended up in the paper. I think we have everything, but it'll be important to do a last check.