42 ms·
> very had to predict what binds to what, which of course is a multi-billion-dollar industry. Do you need to predict when AP-MS is so cheap? Mapping interacti
by bonsai_spool 4mo ago
> very had to predict what binds to what, which of course is a multi-billion-dollar industry.
Do you need to predict when AP-MS is so cheap?
Mapping interaction interfaces is challenging and is where there is attention. I don’t think we’re going to get complexes as a commercial focus outside of receptors with known quaternary structure. The first issue, as you allude to, is the absence of training data, which itself highlights the relative commercial unimportance of such an endeavor.
- margalabargala 4mo ago> Do you need to predict when AP-MS is so cheap? Yes, because the expensive part is making the thing.
- bonsai_spool 4mo agoI responded to a sibling: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48440267 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48440267 > Yes, because the expensive part is making the thing. I'm not sure what 'making the thing' refers to here. We are very far from creating designer macromolecular complexes outside of very contrived settings—and there's not a clear reason to focus on getting better than we already are.
- chromatin 4mo ago> Do you need to predict when AP-MS is so cheap? Yes because a core reason fro this technology is evaluation of de-novo designs (small peptide binders; scFvs; sdAbs)
- bonsai_spool 4mo ago> Yes because a core reason fro this technology is evaluation of de-novo designs (small peptide binders; scFvs; sdAbs) You are not understanding the distinction. OP was speaking about macromolecular complexes, which are explicitly not what the current round of tools are good at. This is not the same as peptides, small molecules or antibody binding.