Identifying Small‐Molecule Binding Sites for Epigenetic Proteins at Domain–Domain Interfaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Epigenetics is a rapidly growing field in drug discovery. Of particular interest is the role of post-translational modifications to histones and the proteins that read, write, and erase such modifications. The development of inhibitors for reader domains has focused on single domains. One of the major difficulties of designing inhibitors for reader domains is that, with the notable exception of bromodomains, they tend not to possess a well-enclosed binding site amenable to small-molecule inhibition. As many of the proteins in epigenetic regulation have multiple domains, there are opportunities for designing inhibitors that bind at a domain-domain interface which provide a more suitable interaction pocket. Examination of X-ray structures of multiple domains involved in recognising and modifying post-translational histone marks using the SiteMap algorithm identified potential binding sites at domain-domain interfaces. For the tandem plant homeodomain-bromodomain of SP100C, a potential inter-domain site identified computationally was validated experimentally by the discovery of ligands by X-ray crystallographic fragment screening.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".