Mapping protein binding sites by photoreactive fragment pharmacophores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Fragment screening is a popular strategy of generating viable chemical starting points especially for challenging targets. Although fragments provide a better coverage of chemical space and they have typically higher chance of binding, their weak affinity necessitates highly sensitive biophysical assays. Here, we introduce a screening concept that combines evolutionary optimized fragment pharmacophores with the use of a photoaffinity handle that enables high hit rates by LC-MS-based detection. The sensitivity of our screening protocol was further improved by a target-conjugated photocatalyst. We have designed, synthesized, and screened 100 diazirine-tagged fragments against three benchmark and three therapeutically relevant protein targets of different tractability. Our therapeutic targets included a conventional enzyme, the first bromodomain of BRD4, a protein-protein interaction represented by the oncogenic KRas G12D protein, and the yet unliganded N -terminal domain of the STAT5B transcription factor. We have discovered several fragment hits against all three targets and identified their binding sites via enzymatic digestion, structural studies and modeling. Our results revealed that this protocol outperforms screening traditional fully functionalized and photoaffinity fragments in better exploration of the available binding sites and higher hit rates observed for even difficult targets.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".