Enantioselective protein affinity selection mass spectrometry (E-ASMS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report an enantioselective protein affinity selection mass spectrometry screening approach (E-ASMS) that enables the detection of weak binders, informs on selectivity, and generates orthogonal confirmation of binding. After method development with control proteins, we screen 31 human proteins against a designed library of 8,217 chiral compounds. We identify 16 binders to 12 targets, including many proteins predicted to be “challenging to ligand”, and confirm their interactions through orthogonal biophysical assays. Seven binders to six targets display enantioselective binding, with KD values ranging from 3 to 20 µM. Binders for four targets (DDB1, WDR91, WDR55, and HAT1) are selected for in-depth characterization using X-ray crystallography. In all four cases, the mechanisms underlying enantioselectivity are readily explained. These results demonstrate that E-ASMS enables the identification and characterization of selective and weakly binding ligands for novel protein targets with unprecedented throughput and sensitivity. High-throughput chemical ligand discovery is challenged by false positives. Here, authors introduce a scalable enantioselective affinity-selection mass spectrometry approach for proteome-wide ligand discovery with high sensitivity and selectivity
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".