The structural basis of drugs targeting protein–protein interactions uncovered with the protein–ligand interaction profiler PLIP
Open accessPublished 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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold
Jumper, J., Evans, R., Pritzel, A., Green, T., Figurnov, M., Ronneberger, O., Tunyasuvunakool, K., Bates, R., Žídek, A., Potapenko, A., et al. (2021) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2 · Cited by 43,764 · see citing works
Accurate structure prediction of biomolecular interactions with AlphaFold 3
Abramson, J., Adler, J., Dunger, J., Evans, R., Green, T., Pritzel, A., Ronneberger, O., Willmore, L., Ballard, A. J., Bambrick, J., et al. (2024) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07487-w · Cited by 15,861 · see citing works
Small molecules, big targets: drug discovery faces the protein–protein interaction challenge
Scott, D. E., Bayly, A. R., Abell, C., & Skidmore, J. (2016) · Nature Reviews Drug Discovery · doi:10.1038/nrd.2016.29 · Cited by 1,137 · see citing works
Lu, H., Zhou, Q., He, J., Jiang, Z., Peng, C., Tong, R., & Shi, J. (2020) · Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy · doi:10.1038/s41392-020-00315-3 · Cited by 891 · see citing works
Hot spots—A review of the protein–protein interface determinant amino‐acid residues
Moreira, I. S., Fernandes, P. A., & Ramos, M. J. (2007) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.21396 · Cited by 760 · see citing works
Principles of Protein−Protein Interactions: What are the Preferred Ways For Proteins To Interact?
Keskin, O., Gursoy, A., Ma, B., & Nussinov, R. (2008) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/cr040409x · Cited by 697 · see citing works
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
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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