Structure-based ligand discovery for the protein–protein interface of chemokine receptor CXCR4
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are key signaling molecules and are intensely studied. Whereas GPCRs recognizing small-molecules have been successfully targeted for drug discovery, protein-recognizing GPCRs, such as the chemokine receptors, claim few drugs or even useful small molecule reagents. This reflects both the difficulties that attend protein-protein interface inhibitor discovery, and the lack of structures for these targets. Imminent structure determination of chemokine receptor CXCR4 motivated docking screens for new ligands against a homology model and subsequently the crystal structure. More than 3 million molecules were docked against the model and then against the crystal structure; 24 and 23 high-scoring compounds from the respective screens were tested experimentally. Docking against the model yielded only one antagonist, which resembled known ligands and lacked specificity, whereas the crystal structure docking yielded four that were dissimilar to previously known scaffolds and apparently specific. Intriguingly, several were potent and relatively small, with IC(50) values as low as 306 nM, ligand efficiencies as high as 0.36, and with efficacy in cellular chemotaxis. The potency and efficiency of these molecules has few precedents among protein-protein interface inhibitors, and supports structure-based efforts to discover leads for chemokine GPCRs.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it