Elucidation of genome-wide understudied proteins targeted by PROTAC-induced degradation using interpretable machine learning
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Proteolysis-targeting chimeras (PROTACs) are hetero-bifunctional molecules that induce the degradation of target proteins by recruiting an E3 ligase. PROTACs have the potential to inactivate disease-related genes that are considered undruggable by small molecules, making them a promising therapy for the treatment of incurable diseases. However, only a few hundred proteins have been experimentally tested for their amenability to PROTACs, and it remains unclear which other proteins in the entire human genome can be targeted by PROTACs. In this study, we have developed PrePROTAC, an interpretable machine learning model based on a transformer-based protein sequence descriptor and random forest classification. PrePROTAC predicts genome-wide targets that can be degraded by CRBN, one of the E3 ligases. In the benchmark studies, PrePROTAC achieved a ROC-AUC of 0.81, an average precision of 0.84, and over 40% sensitivity at a false positive rate of 0.05. When evaluated by an external test set which comprised proteins from different structural folds than those in the training set, the performance of PrePROTAC did not drop significantly, indicating its generalizability. Furthermore, we developed an embedding SHapley Additive exPlanations (eSHAP) method, which extends conventional SHAP analysis for original features to an embedding space through in silico mutagenesis. This method allowed us to identify key residues in the protein structure that play critical roles in PROTAC activity. The identified key residues were consistent with existing knowledge. Using PrePROTAC, we identified over 600 novel understudied proteins that are potentially degradable by CRBN and proposed PROTAC compounds for three novel drug targets associated with Alzheimer’s disease.
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
Rives, A., Meier, J., Sercu, T., Goyal, S., Lin, Z., Liu, J., Guo, D., Ott, M., Zitnick, C. L., Ma, J., et al. (2021) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2016239118 · Cited by 3,286 · see citing works
Rives, A., Meier, J., Sercu, T., Goyal, S., Lin, Z., Liu, J., Guo, D., Ott, M., Zitnick, C. L., Ma, J., et al. (2019) · doi:10.1101/622803 · Cited by 3,280 · cited 3× · see citing works
“With the tuned hyper-parameters, RF and GBT classification models corresponding to 21 Ifeature descriptors [43], D-Script contact feature [44] and ESM feature [42] were trained to fit the protein kinase degradation data.”
Phthalimide conjugation as a strategy for in vivo target protein degradation
Winter, G. E., Buckley, D. L., Paulk, J., Roberts, J. M., Souza, A., Dhe-Paganon, S., & Bradner, J. E. (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aab1433 · Cited by 1,760 · see citing works
Lessons in PROTAC Design from Selective Degradation with a Promiscuous Warhead
Bondeson, D. P., Smith, B. E., Burslem, G. M., Buhimschi, A. D., Hines, J., Jaime-Figueroa, S., Wang, J., Hamman, B. D., Ishchenko, A., & Crews, C. M. (2018) · Cell Chemical Biology · doi:10.1016/j.chembiol.2017.09.010 · Cited by 923 · see citing works
Addressing Kinase-Independent Functions of Fak via PROTAC-Mediated Degradation
Cromm, P. M., Samarasinghe, K. T. G., Hines, J., & Crews, C. M. (2018) · Journal of the American Chemical Society · doi:10.1021/jacs.8b08008 · Cited by 293 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Therefore, even when the binding site of a PROTAC is not located on the functional domain for certain targeted proteins, such as undruggable proteins, PROTACs can disrupt their functions by facilitating the degradation of the entire protein [7–10].”
PRosettaC: Rosetta Based Modeling of PROTAC Mediated Ternary Complexes
Zaidman, D., Prilusky, J., & London, N. (2020) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.0c00589 · Cited by 224 · see citing works
Functional TRIM24 degrader via conjugation of ineffectual bromodomain and VHL ligands
Gechijian, L. N., Buckley, D. L., Lawlor, M. A., Reyes, J. M., Paulk, J., Ott, C. J., Winter, G. E., Erb, M. A., Scott, T. G., Xu, M., et al. (2018) · Nature Chemical Biology · doi:10.1038/s41589-018-0010-y · Cited by 222 · see citing works
Modulating PCAF/GCN5 Immune Cell Function through a PROTAC Approach
Bassi, Z. I., Fillmore, M. C., Miah, A. H., Chapman, T. D., Maller, C., Roberts, E. J., Davis, L. C., Lewis, D. E., Galwey, N. W., Waddington, K. E., et al. (2018) · ACS Chemical Biology · doi:10.1021/acschembio.8b00705 · Cited by 186 · see citing works
Castillo, E., Leon, J., Mazzei, G., Abolhassani, N., Haruyama, N., Saito, T., Saido, T., Hokama, M., Iwaki, T., Ohara, T., et al. (2017) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-017-17999-3 · Cited by 158 · see citing works
Popow, J., Arnhof, H., Bader, G., Berger, H., Ciulli, A., Covini, D., Dank, C., Gmaschitz, T., Greb, P., Karolyi-Özguer, J., et al. (2019) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/acs.jmedchem.8b01826 · Cited by 138 · see citing works
PROTAC-mediated degradation of class I histone deacetylase enzymes in corepressor complexes
Smalley, J. P., Adams, G. E., Millard, C. J., Song, Y., Norris, J. K. S., Schwabe, J. W. R., Cowley, S. M., & Hodgkinson, J. T. (2020) · Chemical Communications · doi:10.1039/d0cc01485k · Cited by 121 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Xie, L., & Xie, L.
- Affiliations
- The Graduate Center, CUNY (US)
- Corresponding author
- Xie, Lei
- Venue
- PLOS Computational Biology
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2023-08-17
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- e1010974
- ISSN
- 1553-734X (ISSN-L)
- 1553-7358
- PMC
- PMC10464998
- OpenAlex
- W4385931734
- Cited by
- 26
- References
- 12
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 2.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- new_version (2023-08-29)
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- PLoS Computational Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM122845)
- National Institute on Aging (R01AD057555)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Degradation and Inhibitors
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Machine Learning in Bioinformatics
- Keywords
- PROTACs, protein degradation, cereblon, model interpretability, random forest classification, SHAP, in silico mutagenesis, E3 ubiquitin ligase, undruggable proteins
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
