$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
Quality control of fragment library
The fragments from the in-house library were delivered as 50 mM stock solutions in 90% d6-DMSO and 10% D2O (10% of D2O ensures minimization of compound degradation due to repeated freeze-thaw cycles14). Single compound samples consisted of 1 mM ligand in 50 mM phosphate buffer (25 mM KPi pH 6.2 + 50 mM KCl + 5 mM MgCl2), pH 6.0 in 90% H2O/9% D2O/1% d6-DMSO. 1H-NMR experiments of fragments from the iNEXT library were measured on a 500/600 MHz NMR spectrometer. This data was further used for identifying the single compounds in 1H screening campaigns using the CMC-q software which allows the user to fully acquire spectra in an automated manner and the analysis addon CMC-a the quality (solubility and integrity) of fragments was assessed. The results from the automated analysis from CMC-a are shown as a graphical output similar to what is represented in Figure 3. The graphical output shows a representation of a 96-well plate. A red colored circle means that this fragment shows inconsistency in structure or concentration. Green colored wells indicate that the fragment is consistent.

Figure 3: Quality control of fragment library. Schematic representation of CMC-a based automated output. Fragment properties such as concentration and structural integrity are assessed. Green stands for consistent, orange in this case stands for inconsistent. Inconsistent fragments are revised manually following the shown workflow. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Approximately, 65% and 35% of the fragments were classified as consistent and in-consistent, respectively, in both DMSO and buffer. Further, 30% of the inconsistent classified ligands turned consistent after a careful manual inspection of the spectra9.
19F Mixture design
103 fragments containing one or several fluorine groups from the in-house library were divided into 5 mixes (A, B, C, D, E). Each mix has 20 to 21 fragments. In this case the mixtures had to be carefully designed to avoid signal overlap. 19F transverse relaxation experiments were measured for each mixture that apply CPMG pulse trains. These experiments can be modified by varying the relaxation delays. The 19F chemical shift of mixes A-E can be seen in Figure 4.

Figure 4: 19F 1D-NMR spectra of mixture samples from the in-house library. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Sample preparation
The sample preparation in the 19F screening procedure was either done manually or with automated pipetting using a pipetting robot. The fragments in each mixture had a concentration of 2.5 mM in 90% d6-DMSO and 10% D2O. The final volume of a screening sample was 170 µL with 5% D2O as a locking agent. Each mixture was pipetted two times, one in a buffer containing solution (without target) and one into a target containing buffer solution. The ratio of target and fragment was set to 1:1, resulting in a final target/ligand concentration of 50 µM. Additionally control samples are the target biomolecule in screening buffer without a mixture to ensure target integrity as well as a control sample with only buffer and D2O to ensure buffer quality.
NMR screening data of 19F-1D and 19F-CPMG-T2 were measurements as described in section 3.1. For example, in the case of RNA a jump-return echo sequence (pp = zggpjrse,15) was acquired for the single target sample in buffer.
Data Analysis
The 19F screening procedure was applied to the TPP riboswitch thiM from E. coli and protein tyrosine kinase (PtkA) from M. tuberculosis among several other targets16. The 19F screening library has 103 fragments that are divided into 5 Mixes labelled from Mix A to E. Preparation of screening samples can be performed manually without the use of a sample pipetting robot. 40 µM thiM RNA containing solution (buffer conditions) was mixed with 3.2 µL from the mixtures. Further control samples were prepared consisting of buffer only, buffer with 5% of DMSO (previously ensure the stability of the biomacromolecule in the presence of the desired DMSO concentration) and buffer with RNA. These 13 screening samples were prepared and transferred to 3 mm NMR-tubes. Barcodes of NMR tubes are scanned and each mixture in the presence and absence of RNA, as well as control samples were measured according to the aforementioned 19F NMR experiments performed at 298 K. Screening of thiM RNA against the in-house library was performed by conducting T2 measurements with CPMGs of 0 ms and 200 ms for each different sample. Proper shimming and water suppression were monitored after finishing the measurements by comparing all DMSO peaks in terms of line broadening and intensity loss of additionally measured 1H 1D experiments for all samples. Processing of obtained CPMG T2 19F relaxation spectra was performed using a previously prepared and automated macro in TopSpin, respectively. Data analysis was performed following the instructions in the protocol section. The integral data obtained from TopSpin (following the instructions in the protocol) can be evaluated quickly and easily using a pre-made spreadsheet or any similar program, by setting the correct conditions and thresholds. As described previously, thresholds are useful in defining binder, weak binder, or non-binder. Figure 5 shows typical results of CPMG spectra of thiM RNA and PtkA, respectively. In some cases, further expert revision was needed.

Figure 5: Cut out of 19F CPMG NMR spectra showing the intensity changes obtained from different delay times of CPMG based experiments. (A) Representation of a binder (hit) and a non-binder in 19F fragment-based screening performed on TPP riboswitch thiM RNA from E. coli. (B) Representation of a binder and a non-binder in 19F fragment-based screening performed on PtkA from M. tuberculosis. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
1H Screening
Mixture design
The used in-house library is so diverse that for 1H screening purposes no mixture design was performed. This means that 64 mixes were prepared by randomly choosing 12 to be mixing in one mixture.
Sample Preparation
For the 1H screening of an exemplary SARS-CoV-2 RNA, automated pipetting using a pipetting robot was performed to prepare the samples. The fragments in each mixture had a concentration of 4.2 mM in 90% d6-DMSO and 10% D2O. The final volume of a screening sample was 200 µL with 5% D2O as a locking agent. 64 samples each containing a different mixture in 25 mM KPi, 50 mM KCl at pH 6.2 were pipetted without target RNA. Respectively, 64 samples were pipetted with target RNA, each containing a different mixture. The RNA:Ligand ratio was set to 1:20, resulting in an RNA concentration of 10 µM and a ligand concentration of 200 µM.
Data Analysis
For the 1H analysis, the FBS tool in TopSpin was used. To determine if a fragment is a hit, 1D chemical shift, waterLOGSY, and T2 relaxation experiments were conducted. For T2 relaxation, a decrease in intensity greater than 30% was counted as a hit, while for the chemical shift a shift of greater than 6 Hz was the cut-off. The waterLOGSY had to show a significant signal change (from negative to positive in this case). If any two of these three criteria were positive, a fragment was counted as a hit. Two examples for this can be seen in Figure 6.

Figure 6: 1H screening performed on an exemplary SARS-CoV-2 RNA showing hit determination criteria. Acquisition of three different experiments (1H T2 CPMG (5/100 ms), waterLOGSY, and 1D 1H). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Hit-1 shows a T2 decrease of ~50% and a CSP ≥ 6 Hz. The waterLOGSY does not show a significant enough change in signal to also be counted as positive. As two out of three experiments are positive, this fragment is counted as a hit. For Hit-2, the T2 shows a decrease of ~80% signal intensity and a clear signal change can be seen for the waterLOGSY. The CSP is not enough in this case, but as the two previous criteria are positive it is still counted as a hit.