Protein painting reveals solvent-excluded drug targets hidden within native protein–protein interfaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identifying the contact regions between a protein and its binding partners is essential for creating therapies that block the interaction. Unfortunately, such contact regions are extremely difficult to characterize because they are hidden inside the binding interface. Here we introduce protein painting as a new tool that employs small molecules as molecular paints to tightly coat the surface of protein–protein complexes. The molecular paints, which block trypsin cleavage sites, are excluded from the binding interface. Following mass spectrometry, only peptides hidden in the interface emerge as positive hits, revealing the functional contact regions that are drug targets. We use protein painting to discover contact regions between the three-way interaction of IL1β ligand, the receptor IL1RI and the accessory protein IL1RAcP. We then use this information to create peptides and monoclonal antibodies that block the interaction and abolish IL1β cell signalling. The technology is broadly applicable to discover protein interaction drug targets. Identifying the site where a protein binds to another molecule is an important factor for the design of therapeutics intended to prevent this interaction. Here, the authors coat protein–receptor complexes with surface-binding molecules, and determine their interacting regions using mass spectrometry.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".