Cited by 7Computational Drug Discovery MethodsProtein Structure and DynamicsProtein Interaction Studies and Fluorescence Analysis

The structural basis of drugs targeting protein–protein interactions uncovered with the protein–ligand interaction profiler PLIP

Open access
Bolz, Sarah Naomi, Schake, Philipp, Stitz, Celina, Schroeder, Michael·2025·Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Promiscuity of drugs and targets plays an important role in drug-target prediction, ranging from the explanation of side effects to their exploitation in drug repositioning. A specific form of promiscuity concerns drugs, which interfere with protein-protein interactions. With the rising importance of such drugs in drug discovery and with the large-scale availability of structural data, the question arises on the structural basis of this form of promiscuity and the commonalities of the underlying protein-ligand (PLI) and protein-protein interactions (PPI). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The authors applied the protein-ligand interaction profiler, PLIP, to experimental and predicted structures and characterize drugs in clinical trials, which target PPI. RESULTS: PPIs generally involve more non-covalent interactions than PLI with overlapping interaction patterns and key binding site residues. In contrast to experimental structures, predicted structures fall short in accurately capturing interaction details at the interface. CONCLUSION: Taken together, our analysis shows that PPIs and PLIs have sufficient commonalities to merit future work into computational screenings for drugs targeting PPIs. It will be key to further improve structure prediction, specifically for binding site details.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/17460441.2025.2557599

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Bolz, S. N., Schake, P., Stitz, C., & Schroeder, M.
Affiliations
Center for Scalable Data Analytics and Artificial Intelligence (DE)
Corresponding author
Schroeder, Michael
Venue
Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery
Published
2025-09-16
Volume
20
Issue
11
Pages
1447-1462
ISSN
  • 1746-0441 (ISSN-L)
  • 1746-045X
OpenAlex
W4414022403
Cited by
7
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3
FWCI
3.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Ebira)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Interaction Studies and Fluorescence Analysis
Keywords
protein-protein interaction, protein-ligand interactions, drug promiscuity, drug target prediction, drug repurposing, PLIP, binding site residues, non-covalent interactions, computational screening, clinical trial drugs
MeSH terms
Binding Sites, Pharmaceutical Preparations, Humans, Ligands, Protein Binding, Proteins, Drug Design, Drug Discovery, Drug Repositioning, Molecular Targeted Therapy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review