I have a question that hopefully a molecular biologist can answer. Can tools like this potentially create protein structures that specifically bind in certain cells? Or is this more about a way of being able to create proteins for genes / structures we haven't been able to before?
I'm very interested in my research at the moment in pleiotropy, namely mapping pleiotropic effects in as many *omics/QTL measurements and complex traits as possible. This is really helpful for determining which genes / proteins to focus on for drug development.
The problem with drugs is in fact pleiotropy! A single protein can do quite a lot of things in your body, either through a causal downstream mechanism (vertical pleiotropy), or seemingly independent processes (horizontal). This limits a lot of possible drug target as the side-effect / detrimental effect may be too large.
So, if these tools can create ultra specific protein structures that somehow only bind in the areas of interest, then that would be a truly massive breakthrough.
For anyone who would like to know more about designing proteins with a certain function, target, or structure in mind, the term to search for is "rational design."
As an aside, learning the precise terms for concepts in fields in which I'm a layperson (or simply have some cobwebs to shake loose)--and then exploring those terms more--is something that I've found LLMs extraordinarily useful for.
This research is focused on modeling individual protein binding sites. Pleiotropic effects and off-target side effects are caused by interactions beyond the individual binding sites. So I don't think this tool by itself will be able to design a protein that acts in the way you describe (and that's putting aside the delivery concerns - how do you get the protein to the right compartment inside the cell?).
But novel binding domain design could be combined with other tools to achieve this effect. You could imagine engineering a lipid nanoparticle coated in antibodies specific to cell types that express particular surface proteins. So you might use this tool to design both the antibody binding domain on the vector and also the protein encoded by the payload mRNA. Not all cell types can be reached and addressed this way, but many can.
Yes, in principle but there are huge limitations and challenges to using a protein as a drug in living organisms. It has to be injected to avoid digestion, and a protein can't just pass into a cell, it needs to get in somehow. Current peptide drugs like insulin are identical to, or closely mimic natural small peptide hormones that bind to receptors on the outside of a cell. However, there is a possibility of using gene therapy to directly express a novel protein drug inside of the cell. A novel protein is also likely to trigger an immune response- so that type of gene therapy is mostly useful when that is actually desired, e.g. as a vaccine.
they can generate proteins that bind to specific structures with high accuracy, achieving true cell-specificity and avoiding unwanted pleiotropic effects involves many more variables beyond just protein-protein interactions. These tools are more about expanding our ability to target previously "undruggable" proteins rather than solving the cell-specificity problem outright. however they could be valuable components in developing more targeted therapies when combined with comprehensive research on pleiotropic effects across multiple omics levels. real breakthrough will come from integrating these protein design capabilities with a deeper understanding of complex biological systems and developing strategies for precise delivery and regulation of these novel proteins in vivo.
Not an expert, but you could imagine a protein with two receptors that are required for activation. One of them binds to a protein that is only present in the cells of interest, and the other one binds to the actual target.
So I write a completely defensible rant full of truly interesting and well-informed perspective, get downvoted, and then get accused of being an LLM.
A perspective I'm sure the down-voters have zero cred to doubt. Style issues aside, I don't think there's a serious molecular biologist on the planet who would take issue with the actual gist of what I said.
Pleiotropy: a thing happening can cause more than one other thing to happen. We really need jargon to keep that in mind?
An LLM? This is what I get for writing with passion? Creatively? Daring to play with words? I'm an LLM? For writing anything that doesn't fit your norms? Wow.
How do I get MORE downvotes? They seem like badges of honor in this case.
I'm very interested in my research at the moment in pleiotropy, namely mapping pleiotropic effects in as many *omics/QTL measurements and complex traits as possible. This is really helpful for determining which genes / proteins to focus on for drug development.
The problem with drugs is in fact pleiotropy! A single protein can do quite a lot of things in your body, either through a causal downstream mechanism (vertical pleiotropy), or seemingly independent processes (horizontal). This limits a lot of possible drug target as the side-effect / detrimental effect may be too large.
So, if these tools can create ultra specific protein structures that somehow only bind in the areas of interest, then that would be a truly massive breakthrough.