How many kinases are druggable? A review of our current understanding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are over 500 human kinases ranging from very well-studied to almost completely ignored. Kinases are tractable and implicated in many diseases, making them ideal targets for medicinal chemistry campaigns, but is it possible to discover a drug for each individual kinase? For every human kinase, we gathered data on their citation count, availability of chemical probes, approved and investigational drugs, PDB structures, and biochemical and cellular assays. Analysis of these factors highlights which kinase groups have a wealth of information available, and which groups still have room for progress. The data suggest a disproportionate focus on the more well characterized kinases while much of the kinome remains comparatively understudied. It is noteworthy that tool compounds for understudied kinases have already been developed, and there is still untapped potential for further development in this chemical space. Finally, this review discusses many of the different strategies employed to generate selectivity between kinases. Given the large volume of information available and the progress made over the past 20 years when it comes to drugging kinases, we believe it is possible to develop a tool compound for every human kinase. We hope this review will prove to be both a useful resource as well as inspire the discovery of a tool for every kinase.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".