4 ms·
I haven't worked on the drug-side of things, but here my bio perspective: It's kind of out-of-vogue, but consider the "lock and key" model of proteins and small
by nick238 5y ago
I haven't worked on the drug-side of things, but here my bio perspective: It's kind of out-of-vogue, but consider the "lock and key" model of proteins and small molecules (drugs). For drug design, what you want to do is get a key that fits just one lock (to pull whatever lever) and not others (to avoid side-effects). It's relatively easy to find a molecule that fits a protein, because that protein is what you might spend years researching and probing, but it's tricky to check if it does anything against ~100,000 others in humans. If you could do an in silico computational survey to be like, oh, maybe it'll target this accidentally, you could spot-check those in vitro, and/or stick on some other atoms to your small-molecule to make it not fit that off-target.
Holy grail, IMO, though is being able to design de novo protein sequences (to make "biologics", aka engineered protein drugs) that can a) target (bind/block/enhance) or do (chemical reactions) what you want and only that, b) are easily synthesizeable by bacteria/yeast (cheap to make), and c) are stable (easy to transport/store).
- slownews45 5y agoFirst seems reasonable. I've not heard of anything on the later coming even close credibly - though is an obvious holy grail.
- Duller-Finite 5y agoDavid Baker's group (author of the RoseTTAFold paper out today in science) has multiple exciting examples of de novo design of proteins. For example, see [1] or [2], and [2] was spun off into a company (Neoleukin Therapeutics). [1] https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6531/eabc8182 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6531/eabc8182 [2] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0830-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0830-7