Structural conservation of druggable hot spots in protein–protein interfaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the growing number of examples of small-molecule inhibitors that disrupt protein-protein interactions (PPIs), the origin of druggability of such targets is poorly understood. To identify druggable sites in protein-protein interfaces we combine computational solvent mapping, which explores the protein surface using a variety of small "probe" molecules, with a conformer generator to account for side-chain flexibility. Applications to unliganded structures of 15 PPI target proteins show that the druggable sites comprise a cluster of binding hot spots, distinguishable from other regions of the protein due to their concave topology combined with a pattern of hydrophobic and polar functionality. This combination of properties confers on the hot spots a tendency to bind organic species possessing some polar groups decorating largely hydrophobic scaffolds. Thus, druggable sites at PPI are not simply sites that are complementary to particular organic functionality, but rather possess a general tendency to bind organic compounds with a variety of structures, including key side chains of the partner protein. Results also highlight the importance of conformational adaptivity at the binding site to allow the hot spots to expand to accommodate a ligand of drug-like dimensions. The critical components of this adaptivity are largely local, involving primarily low energy side-chain motions within 6 Å of a hot spot. The structural and physicochemical signature of druggable sites at PPI interfaces is sufficiently robust to be detectable from the structure of the unliganded protein, even when substantial conformational adaptation is required for optimal ligand binding.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".