Supplementary Table and Figures

Author response:
<blockquote>
Reviewer #1 (Public review):
Summary:
The authors developed a sequence-based method to predict drug-interacting residues in IDP, based on their recent work, to predict the transverse relaxation rates (R2) of IDP trained on 45 IDP sequences and their corresponding R2 values. The discovery is that the IDPs interact with drugs mostly using aromatic residues that are easy to understand, as most drugs contain aromatic rings. They validated the method using several case studies, and the predictions are in accordance with chemical shift perturbations and MD simulations. The location of the predicted residues serves as a starting point for ligand optimization.
Strengths:
This work provides the first sequence-based prediction method to identify potential drug-interacting residues in IDP. The validity of the method is supported by case studies. It is easy to use, and no time-consuming MD simulations and NMR studies are needed.
Weaknesses:
</blockquote>
The method does not depend on the information of binding compounds, which may give general features of IDP-drug binding. However, due to the size and chemical structures of the compounds (for example, how many aromatic rings), the number of interacting residues varies, which is not considered in this work. Lacking specific information may restrict its application in compound optimization, aiming to derive specific and potent binding compounds.
We fully recognize that different compounds may have different interaction propensity profiles along the IDP sequence. In future studies, we will investigate compound-specific parameter values. The limiting factor is training data, but such data are beginning to be available.
<blockquote>
Reviewer #2 (Public review):
Summary:
In this work, the authors introduce DIRseq, a fast, sequence-based method that predicts drug-interacting residues (DIRs) in IDPs without requiring structural or drug information. DIRseq builds on the authors' prior work looking at NMR relaxation rates, and presumes that those residues that show enhanced R2 values are the residues that will interact with drugs, allowing these residues to be nominated from the sequence directly. By making small modifications to their prior tool, DIRseq enables the prediction of residues seen to interact with small molecules in vivo.
Strengths:
The preprint is well written and easy to follow
Weaknesses:
(1) The DIRseq method is based on SeqDYN, which itself is a simple (which I do not mean as a negative - simple is good!) statistical predictor for R2 relaxation rates. The challenge here is that R2 rates cover a range of timescales, so the physical intuition as to what exactly elevated R2 values mean is not necessarily consistent with "drug interacting". Presumably, the authors are not using the helix boost component of SeqDYN here (it would be good to explicitly state this). This is not necessarily a weakness, but I think it would behove the authors to compare a few alternative models before settling on the DIRseq method, given the somewhat ad hoc modifications to SeqDYN to get DIRseq.
</blockquote>
Actually, the factors that elevate R2 are well-established. These are local interactions and residual secondary structures (if any). The basic assumption of our method is that intra-IDP interactions that elevate R2 convert to IDP-drug interactions. This assumption was supported by our initial observation that the drug interaction propensity profiles predicted using the original SeqDYN parameters already showed good agreement with CSP profiles. We only made relatively small adjustments to the parameters to improve the agreement. Indeed we did not apply the helix boost portion of SeqDYN to DIRseq, and will state as such. We will also compare DIRseq with several alternative models.
<blockquote>
Specifically, the authors previously showed good correlation between the stickiness parameter of Tesei et al and the inferred "q" parameter for SeqDYN; as such, I am left wondering if comparable accuracy would be obtained simply by taking the stickiness parameters directly and using these to predict "drug interacting residues", at which point I'd argue we're not really predicting "drug interacting residues" as much as we're predicting "sticky" residues, using the stickiness parameters. It would, I think, be worth the authors comparing the predictive power obtained from DIRseq with the predictive power obtained by using the lambda coefficients from Tesei et al in the model, local density of aromatic residues, local hydrophobicity (note that Tesei at al have tabulated a large set of hydrophobicity scores!) and the raw SeqDYN predictions. In the absence of lots of data to compare against, this is another way to convince readers that DIRseq offers reasonable predictive power.
</blockquote>
We will compare predictions of these various parameter sets, and summarize the results in a table.
<blockquote>
(2) Second, the DIRseq is essentially SeqDYN with some changes to it, but those changes appear somewhat ad hoc. I recognize that there is very limited data, but the tweaking of parameters based on physical intuition feels a bit stochastic in developing a method; presumably (while not explicitly spelt out) those tweaks were chosen to give better agreement with the very limited experimental data (otherwise why make the changes?), which does raise the question of if the DIRseq implementation of SeqDYN is rather over-parameterized to the (very limited) data available now? I want to be clear, the authors should not be critiqued for attempting to develop a model despite a paucity of data, and I'm not necessarily saying this is a problem, but I think it would be really important for the authors to acknowledge to the reader the fact that with such limited data it's possible the model is over-fit to specific sequences studied previously, and generalization will be seen as more data are collected.
</blockquote>
We have explained the rationale for the parameter tweaks, which were limited to q values for four amino-acid types, i.e., to deemphasize hydrophobic interactions and slightly enhance electrostatic interactions (p. 4-5). We will add that these tweaks were motivated by observations from MD simulations of drug interactions with a-syn (ref 20). As already noted in the response to the preceding comment, we will also present results for the original parameter values as well as for when the four q values are changed one at a time.
<blockquote>
(3) Third, perhaps my biggest concern here is that - implicit in the author's assumptions - is that all "drugs" interact with IDPs in the same way and all drugs are "small" (motivating the change in correlation length). Prescribing a specific lengthscale and chemistry to all drugs seems broadly inconsistent with a world in which we presume drugs offer some degree of specificity. While it is perhaps not unexpected that aromatic-rich small molecules tend to interact with aromatic residues, the logical conclusion from this work, if one assumes DIRseq has utility, is that all IDRs bind drugs with similar chemical biases. This, at the very least, deserves some discussion.
</blockquote>
The reviewer raises a very important point. In Discussion, we will add that it is important to further develop DIRseq to include drug-specific parameters when data for training become available.
<blockquote>
(4) Fourth, the authors make some general claims in the introduction regarding the state of the art, which appear to lack sufficient data to be made. I don't necessarily disagree with the author's points, but I'm not sure the claims (as stated) can be made absent strong data to support them. For example, the authors state: "Although an IDP can be locked into a specific conformation by a drug molecule in rare cases, the prevailing scenario is that the protein remains disordered upon drug binding." But is this true? The authors should provide evidence to support this assertion, both examples in which this happens, and evidence to support the idea that it's the "prevailing view" and specific examples where these types of interactions have been biophysically characterized.
</blockquote>
We will cite several studies showing that IDPs remain disordered upon drug binding.
<blockquote>
Similarly, they go on to say:
"Consequently, the IDP-drug complex typically samples a vast conformational space, and the drug molecule only exhibits preferences, rather than exclusiveness, for interacting with subsets of residues." But again, where is the data to support this assertion? I don't necessarily disagree, but we need specific empirical studies to justify declarative claims like this; otherwise, we propagate lore into the scientific literature. The use of "typically" here is a strong claim, implying most IDP complexes behave in a certain way, yet how can the authors make such a claim?
</blockquote>
Here again we will add citations to support the statement.
<blockquote>
Finally, they continue to claim:
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
"Such drug interacting residues (DIRs), akin to binding pockets in structured proteins, are key to optimizing compounds and elucidating the mechanism of action." But again, is this a fact or a hypothesis? If the latter, it must be stated as such; if the former, we need data and evidence to support the claim.
</blockquote>
We will add citations to both compound optimization and mechanism of action.

Martin Graña

Qiang Cui

eLife Assessment
This study presents a sequence-based method for predicting drug-interacting residues in intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs), addressing an important challenge in understanding small-molecule:IDP interactions. The findings have solid support in illustrative examples that underscore the role of aromatic interactions. While predicted binding sites remain coarse, validation was done on a total of 10 IDPs, four of which thoroughly and six others less so. The method builds on previous work from the authors, with necessarily ad hoc modifications, and offers a starting point for further exploration in this emerging field.

anonymous

Reviewer #1 (Public review):
Summary:
The authors developed a sequence-based method to predict drug-interacting residues in IDP, based on their recent work, to predict the transverse relaxation rates (R2) of IDP trained on 45 IDP sequences and their corresponding R2 values. The discovery is that the IDPs interact with drugs mostly using aromatic residues that are easy to understand, as most drugs contain aromatic rings. They validated the method using several case studies, and the predictions are in accordance with chemical shift perturbations and MD simulations. The location of the predicted residues serves as a starting point for ligand optimization.
Strengths:
This work provides the first sequence-based prediction method to identify potential drug-interacting residues in IDP. The validity of the method is supported by case studies. It is easy to use, and no time-consuming MD simulations and NMR studies are needed.
Weaknesses:
The method does not depend on the information of binding compounds, which may give general features of IDP-drug binding. However, due to the size and chemical structures of the compounds (for example, how many aromatic rings), the number of interacting residues varies, which is not considered in this work. Lacking specific information may restrict its application in compound optimization, aiming to derive specific and potent binding compounds.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):
Summary:
In this work, the authors introduce DIRseq, a fast, sequence-based method that predicts drug-interacting residues (DIRs) in IDPs without requiring structural or drug information. DIRseq builds on the authors' prior work looking at NMR relaxation rates, and presumes that those residues that show enhanced R2 values are the residues that will interact with drugs, allowing these residues to be nominated from the sequence directly. By making small modifications to their prior tool, DIRseq enables the prediction of residues seen to interact with small molecules in vivo.
Strengths:
The preprint is well written and easy to follow
Weaknesses:
(1) The DIRseq method is based on SeqDYN, which itself is a simple (which I do not mean as a negative - simple is good!) statistical predictor for R2 relaxation rates. The challenge here is that R2 rates cover a range of timescales, so the physical intuition as to what exactly elevated R2 values mean is not necessarily consistent with "drug interacting". Presumably, the authors are not using the helix boost component of SeqDYN here (it would be good to explicitly state this). This is not necessarily a weakness, but I think it would behove the authors to compare a few alternative models before settling on the DIRseq method, given the somewhat ad hoc modifications to SeqDYN to get DIRseq.
Specifically, the authors previously showed good correlation between the stickiness parameter of Tesei et al and the inferred "q" parameter for SeqDYN; as such, I am left wondering if comparable accuracy would be obtained simply by taking the stickiness parameters directly and using these to predict "drug interacting residues", at which point I'd argue we're not really predicting "drug interacting residues" as much as we're predicting "sticky" residues, using the stickiness parameters. It would, I think, be worth the authors comparing the predictive power obtained from DIRseq with the predictive power obtained by using the lambda coefficients from Tesei et al in the model, local density of aromatic residues, local hydrophobicity (note that Tesei at al have tabulated a large set of hydrophobicity scores!) and the raw SeqDYN predictions. In the absence of lots of data to compare against, this is another way to convince readers that DIRseq offers reasonable predictive power.
(2) Second, the DIRseq is essentially SeqDYN with some changes to it, but those changes appear somewhat ad hoc. I recognize that there is very limited data, but the tweaking of parameters based on physical intuition feels a bit stochastic in developing a method; presumably (while not explicitly spelt out) those tweaks were chosen to give better agreement with the very limited experimental data (otherwise why make the changes?), which does raise the question of if the DIRseq implementation of SeqDYN is rather over-parameterized to the (very limited) data available now? I want to be clear, the authors should not be critiqued for attempting to develop a model despite a paucity of data, and I'm not necessarily saying this is a problem, but I think it would be really important for the authors to acknowledge to the reader the fact that with such limited data it's possible the model is over-fit to specific sequences studied previously, and generalization will be seen as more data are collected.
(3) Third, perhaps my biggest concern here is that - implicit in the author's assumptions - is that all "drugs" interact with IDPs in the same way and all drugs are "small" (motivating the change in correlation length). Prescribing a specific lengthscale and chemistry to all drugs seems broadly inconsistent with a world in which we presume drugs offer some degree of specificity. While it is perhaps not unexpected that aromatic-rich small molecules tend to interact with aromatic residues, the logical conclusion from this work, if one assumes DIRseq has utility, is that all IDRs bind drugs with similar chemical biases. This, at the very least, deserves some discussion.
(4) Fourth, the authors make some general claims in the introduction regarding the state of the art, which appear to lack sufficient data to be made. I don't necessarily disagree with the author's points, but I'm not sure the claims (as stated) can be made absent strong data to support them. For example, the authors state: "Although an IDP can be locked into a specific conformation by a drug molecule in rare cases, the prevailing scenario is that the protein remains disordered upon drug binding." But is this true? The authors should provide evidence to support this assertion, both examples in which this happens, and evidence to support the idea that it's the "prevailing view" and specific examples where these types of interactions have been biophysically characterized.
Similarly, they go on to say:
"Consequently, the IDP-drug complex typically samples a vast conformational space, and the drug molecule only exhibits preferences, rather than exclusiveness, for interacting with subsets of residues." But again, where is the data to support this assertion? I don't necessarily disagree, but we need specific empirical studies to justify declarative claims like this; otherwise, we propagate lore into the scientific literature. The use of "typically" here is a strong claim, implying most IDP complexes behave in a certain way, yet how can the authors make such a claim?
Finally, they continue to claim:
"Such drug interacting residues (DIRs), akin to binding pockets in structured proteins, are key to optimizing compounds and elucidating the mechanism of action." But again, is this a fact or a hypothesis? If the latter, it must be stated as such; if the former, we need data and evidence to support the claim.

DIRseq: a method for predicting drug-interacting residues of intrinsically disordered proteins from sequences

Figures and data

Four IDPs and drugs that bind to them.

Comparison of DIRseq propensities with NMR CSPs.

Drug-binding sites identified by combining CSP or mutation data with DIRseq predictions.

Drug-binding sites identified by combining CSP or mutation data with DIRseq predictions.

Be the first to read new articles from eLife