Common Binding Sites on Epigenetic Proteins for Protein Degrader Design: Types, Features, and Validation

* Please be kindly noted that our services and products are intended for research use by organizations or companies only and are not intended for individual use.

Consult with Our Experts

What Are Epigenetic Proteins and Why Target Them for Degradation?

Epigenetic proteins regulate how chromatin is organized and how genes are read without changing the underlying DNA sequence. They include writers that install chemical marks, erasers that remove them, readers that recognize modified histones, and regulatory proteins that assemble or stabilize chromatin-associated complexes. Representative target classes include bromodomain proteins, lysine methyltransferases, histone deacetylases, sirtuins, FAD-dependent demethylases, Fe(II)/2-oxoglutarate-dependent demethylases, and reader proteins such as WDR5 and EED.

These proteins are attractive targets for protein degradation because many of them do more than catalyze a single reaction. An epigenetic enzyme may also act as a scaffold, recruit transcriptional partners, or stabilize a multiprotein complex. A conventional inhibitor blocks the occupied binding site, whereas a degrader can remove the entire target protein and therefore disrupt both catalytic and noncatalytic functions. This distinction is especially relevant when genetic depletion produces a stronger phenotype than catalytic inhibition alone.

From a degrader-design perspective, however, an epigenetic target is useful only when its ligand-binding site can support productive E3 recruitment. A practical assessment should answer four questions:

• Is there a ligandable pocket? A known inhibitor, chemical probe, substrate-mimetic, cofactor-site ligand, or PPI ligand can provide the target-binding warhead.
• Is there a usable linker exit vector? At least one ligand position should face solvent or tolerate derivatization without destroying essential binding contacts.
• Can the target surface support a ternary complex? The warhead must present the recruited E3 ligase toward an accessible protein surface containing ubiquitination-compatible lysines.
• Can degradation be separated from inhibition? Binary binding, ternary-complex formation, ubiquitination, protein loss, and downstream epigenetic readouts should be measured separately.

Table 1. Major Epigenetic Protein Binding Sites Relevant to Degrader Design.

Degrader Design for Bromodomain Acetyl-Lysine Binding Pockets

Structural Features of Bromodomain Acetyl-Lysine Pockets

A bromodomain is a compact four-helix bundle (αZ, αA, αB, αC) with two variable loop regions, the ZA loop and the BC loop, that line the entrance to a hydrophobic cavity. That cavity is where acetyl-lysine binds, and it is the most heavily exploited pocket in epigenetic degrader work. Several subfeatures are consistently important:

• Acetyl-lysine mimicry site: ligands usually place a hydrogen-bond acceptor where the acetyl carbonyl sits, often engaging a conserved asparagine. Losing this interaction usually costs most of the affinity.
• WPF shelf: in BET bromodomains, a Trp-Pro-Phe motif forms a hydrophobic shelf used by many high-affinity ligands. It is a reliable affinity anchor and a useful reference point for modeling.
• ZA and BC loop variability: loop length and composition differ between bromodomain families, and this is the main source of selectivity between BET and non-BET members.
• Solvent-facing channel: the entrance region is open to bulk solvent, which is why most successful degraders attach linkers there rather than deep in the acetyl-lysine cavity.
• Tandem domain architecture: BET proteins carry BD1 and BD2 in tandem. Selectivity between them is achievable but must be designed for, since a pan-BET ligand engages both.

The practical consequence is straightforward: preserve the deep acetyl-lysine contacts, and place the linker on a substituent that already points toward solvent. Because the scaffold family is so well characterized structurally, bromodomain programs are usually the fastest epigenetic degrader projects to get to a first testable compound.

Representative Bromodomain Targets and Ligand Scaffolds

Bromodomain ligands should be read as structural templates rather than copied verbatim. The useful question is which scaffold keeps enough binary affinity while offering a chemically accessible exit vector aimed in the right direction.

Table 2. Representative Bromodomain Targets and Ligand Scaffolds for Degrader Design.

BET degraders remain the best-documented group. Reported CRBN- and VHL-based constructs built on JQ1-type warheads have shown that a pan-BET binder can be converted into a degrader with a much narrower cellular degradation profile, because BD1/BD2 geometry and E3 recruitment together determine which BET protein is removed. Non-BET examples extend the same logic: BRD9-directed degraders built on BRD9-selective scaffolds, and SMARCA2/4-directed degraders built on remodeler bromodomain ligands, both show that reader-domain engagement is sufficient to remove a protein whose catalytic function is not being blocked at all. Where a BET program needs a target-specific starting point, PROTACs targeting BET proteins and PROTAC targeting BRD4 summarize warhead and linker options for this family.

Validation Methods for Bromodomain Site Engagement

Bromodomain engagement is one of the easiest epigenetic interactions to validate because competitive peptide-displacement formats are well established.

• Binary binding: fluorescence polarization or TR-FRET acetyl-peptide displacement assays, plus orthogonal biophysical methods such as SPR, BLI, or ITC to confirm that conjugation has not destroyed affinity.
• Selectivity profiling: a bromodomain family panel or competition-binding platform to see whether the warhead still discriminates BD1 from BD2 and BET from non-BET after derivatization.
• Cellular engagement: Cellular BRET target-engagement assay or cellular thermal shift assays to confirm the larger degrader reaches the nuclear target in cells.
• Degradation and mechanism: concentration-dependent protein-level measurement to obtain DC₅₀ and D_max, together with proteasome-dependence and E3-dependence controls.
• E3 choice: comparing CRBN- and VHL-recruiting versions of the same warhead is often the fastest way to explain a failed result. Programs frequently start from either CRBN-based PROTAC development or VHL-based PROTAC development, and a side-by-side comparison is usually more informative than optimizing one recruiter alone.

Degrader Design for Non-Bromodomain Reader and Regulatory Pockets

Structural Features of Reader Pockets and Interaction Grooves

Methyl-lysine readers are structurally very different from bromodomains. Instead of a deep hydrophobic cavity, most present a shallow aromatic cage of two to four aromatic residues that sandwiches the methylammonium group through cation–π interactions. Some are more surface-like than pocket-like, which is why they were historically considered difficult.

• Aromatic cages: chromodomains, Tudor domains, and MBT repeats use a cage geometry whose depth and residue composition varies, offering limited but real selectivity handles.
• Surface grooves: PHD fingers and some WD40 sites present extended, relatively flat interfaces, making ligandability dependent on a few hot-spot residues rather than on a cavity.
• Propeller cavities: WDR5 is a useful exception. Its WIN site is a genuine central cavity that hosts peptide motifs from partner proteins, while the separate WBM site mediates a different set of interactions.
• Allosteric regulatory pockets: EED binds H3K₂₇me₃ through an aromatic cage and additionally carries a distinct allosteric pocket, which has produced both inhibitors and complex-level degraders.
• Interface character: because many of these sites are protein–protein interfaces in function, a degrader only needs to occupy them, not to disrupt a specific interaction completely.

This last point is the reason reader domains are attractive for degradation. A ligand that binds a shallow cage with modest affinity may never produce a functional inhibitor phenotype, but the same ligand, once conjugated to an E3 recruiter, can be sufficient to remove the protein entirely.

Representative Reader Targets and Ligand Scaffolds

Table 3. Representative Non-Bromodomain Reader Targets and Ligand Scaffolds.

WDR5 provides the clearest published lesson in this class. WIN-site ligands were converted into VHL-recruiting degraders that reduce WDR5 levels and, importantly, also reduce chromatin-bound partner components in a way the parent inhibitor does not. EED-directed degraders show the same principle one level up: engaging an allosteric pocket on a non-catalytic subunit is enough to destabilize the assembled PRC2 complex. Programs working on interfaces like these usually benefit from dedicated structural work, and protein-ligand structure analysis combined with in silico protein-protein interactions prediction is often the fastest route to a defensible exit-vector hypothesis.

Validation Methods for Reader-Pocket Engagement

Reader engagement needs both biochemical and cellular evidence, because in-solution affinity often overstates what happens on chromatin.

• Peptide competition: fluorescence polarization or bead-based luminescent proximity assay displacement of a methylated histone peptide is the standard first-pass assay.
• Orthogonal affinity: ITC, SPR, or BLI on purified domain to confirm stoichiometry and to detect non-specific binding, which is common with shallow sites.
• Cellular occupancy: Cellular BRET target-engagement assay or CETSA formats adapted to the reader domain, ideally in a cell line with measurable target expression.
• Interaction readouts: co-immunoprecipitation or proximity-ligation measurement of whether the natural partner interaction is still detectable after degrader treatment.
• Complex-level effects: for EED-, WDR5-, or similar interface-directed degraders, measure partner subunits as well as the direct target, since co-degradation is often the intended mechanism.

Degrader Design for SAM-Dependent Methyltransferase Binding Pockets

Structural Features of SAM and Substrate-Binding Pockets

SAM-dependent methyltransferases share a cofactor-dependent catalytic architecture but differ in how the substrate is presented. Understanding the two-part geometry is what makes warhead selection rational rather than empirical.

• SAM cofactor cavity: the adenosine and methionine portions of SAM occupy a conserved cleft. Most published SET-domain and PRMT inhibitors compete here, which explains both their potency and their family-wide selectivity problems.
• Substrate channel: a narrow groove that positions the target lysine or arginine. It is less conserved than the cofactor site and is the more attractive selectivity handle.
• Catalytic SET geometry: in SET-domain enzymes, the cofactor and substrate channel meet at the catalytic center, and product specificity is governed in part by residues lining the channel.
• Cofactor-cooperative pockets: PRMT family members present additional cavities adjacent to the SAM site, which have been exploited by substrate-cooperative chemotypes.
• Complex dependence: EZH2 only methylates efficiently within PRC2, so ligand engagement can depend on whether the assembled complex or an isolated subunit is being assayed.

Two design cautions follow. First, a SAM-competitive warhead will usually bind other family members, so expect the degradation profile to be set by ternary complex geometry rather than by binary selectivity. Second, because these enzymes work inside complexes, the assay format must match the biology: conclusions drawn from an isolated catalytic domain do not always transfer to the assembled complex.

Representative Methyltransferase Targets and Ligand Scaffolds

Table 4. Representative SAM-Dependent Methyltransferase Targets and Ligand Scaffolds.

PRC2 illustrates why complex-level degradation is worth designing for. Reported EZH2-directed degraders built on SAM-competitive warheads have been shown to reduce not only EZH2 but also SUZ12, EED, and RbAp48 in the same cells, with subunit-level reductions reported in the range of roughly 70–80% at micromolar concentrations. VHL-based versions have generally been reported to remove EZH2 more completely than CRBN-based versions, while CRBN-based versions have been reported to reduce multiple PRC2 subunits simultaneously. Reported EZH2 degraders have also shown greater antiproliferative effects than the parent inhibitor in several cell backgrounds, which is a common argument for degradation over inhibition in this family. Where a program wants to explore co-degradation deliberately rather than by accident, the principles behind molecular glue technology development are directly relevant, and cofactor-pocket dynamics are often best explored with molecular dynamics simulation before synthesis begins.

Validation Methods for Methyltransferase Site Engagement

• Catalytic activity: methyltransferase assays measuring product formation on peptide or nucleosome substrates, with SAM-competition controls to confirm the expected binding mode.
• Binary affinity: SPR or BLI against the isolated catalytic domain and, where feasible, against the assembled complex.
• Mark-level readouts: H3K₂₇me₃ for PRC2 activity, H3K₄me₃ for MLL-family activity, and symmetric dimethylarginine marks for PRMT5 activity.
• Complex-level degradation: quantify each subunit separately rather than assuming that loss of the catalytic subunit implies loss of the complex.
• Mechanism: proteasome dependence, E3-ligand competition, and a non-degrading control to separate mark loss caused by inhibition from mark loss caused by removal of the enzyme.

Degrader Design for Zinc-Dependent HDAC Catalytic Tunnels

Structural Features of HDAC Catalytic Tunnels

Zinc-dependent deacetylases use a narrow, roughly tubular active site. A lysine side chain is threaded down the tunnel to a catalytic Zn²⁺ center at the bottom, where a polarized water performs hydrolysis. Nearly all inhibitors follow a three-part architecture: a zinc-binding group, a linker occupying the tunnel, and a cap group interacting with the rim. For degrader work, the important features are:

• Zinc-binding group: hydroxamates, benzamides, thiols, and carboxylic acids all chelate the catalytic metal. This interaction is essential and should not be modified to install a linker.
• Tunnel length and width: tunnels differ between isoforms, and width differences are a major source of inhibitor selectivity, especially for HDAC6.
• Rim and foot pockets: surface loops around the entrance vary substantially between isoforms, and rim contacts often determine whether a compound is isoform-selective.
• Cap-group orientation: the cap is the solvent-exposed element and is the natural linker exit. Many HDAC ligands already project two distinct cap substituents, giving two candidate attachment directions.
• Class IIa characteristics: class IIa enzymes have a shallower, less catalytically competent pocket, so cap-directed ligands can act without strongly inhibiting catalysis, which is a useful property for degraders.

The key design rule is simple but often violated: keep the zinc-binding group intact, and treat the cap as the conjugation handle. Derivatizing the metal-binding element almost always costs the affinity that the ternary complex depends on.

Representative HDAC Targets and Ligand Scaffolds

Table 5. Representative HDAC Targets and Ligand Scaffolds for Degrader Design.

Three reported observations are worth carrying into any HDAC degrader program. First, a non-selective warhead can still give isoform-selective degradation: a pan-HDAC hydroxamate conjugated to a CRBN recruiter produced near-complete HDAC6 loss at around 80 nM without detectably changing HDAC1, HDAC2, or HDAC4 levels. Second, exit direction matters: a nexturastat A-based series showed that attaching the E3 recruiter to either the aryl arm or the alkyl arm produced active HDAC6 degraders, with one optimized example reported at a DC₅₀ near 1.6 nM and a D_max around 86%. Third, attachment position on the E3 ligand matters as much as the warhead exit vector: HDAC-directed work has shown that shifting the linker position on a VHL ligand can abolish degradation entirely, and can also remove a hook effect seen at high compound concentrations. Warhead availability is rarely the limiting factor in this class, and warhead library screening combined with small molecule target protein ligand design usually produces several viable starting points quickly.

Validation Methods for HDAC Active-Site Engagement

• Enzymatic activity: fluorogenic or LC-MS deacetylation assays per isoform, since a pan-HDAC warhead will inhibit many isoforms equally.
• Binding confirmation: target ligand binding assays after conjugation, to confirm the zinc-binding interaction survived derivatization.
• Isoform-resolved degradation: measure each HDAC separately; class I members in particular are frequently co-regulated and should not be assumed to behave alike.
• Mechanism: proteasome-dependence, E3-competition, and TR-FRET in vitro ubiquitylation assay readouts to confirm ubiquitination rather than transcriptional downregulation.
• Functional readouts: α-tubulin acetylation for HDAC6, histone acetylation marks for class I members, and complex-specific partners where relevant.

Degrader Design for NAD⁺-Dependent Sirtuin Binding Pockets

Structural Features of Sirtuin Cofactor and Substrate Pockets

Sirtuins deacylate lysine using NAD⁺ rather than a metal-activated water. Their catalytic core is a Rossmann-fold domain joined to a smaller zinc-binding module, and NAD⁺ binds in a cleft that can be divided into functionally distinct subpockets. This subdivision is what makes sirtuins designable:

• C-pocket: the nicotinamide-ribose region, occupied by nicotinamide itself during the reaction and by many inhibitors.
• ADP-ribose region: an extended channel that can host larger groups and is exploited by several research ligands.
• Acyl-lysine channel: where the substrate acyl group sits; its length and hydrophobicity differ between isoforms and define acyl-type preference.
• Selectivity pocket: some isoforms, notably SIRT2, present an additional pocket adjacent to the C-site that has been used to obtain isoform selectivity.
• Cofactor competition in cells: because NAD⁺ concentrations are high and compartmentalized, cellular occupancy of cofactor-competitive ligands needs direct measurement rather than inference.

The practical attraction of sirtuins is chemical: no strongly chelating group is required, which avoids the selectivity and stability concerns that come with hydroxamate chemistry. The practical difficulty is that many reported sirtuin tool compounds are modest in potency, so a degrader program here should expect to invest in both ligand quality and ternary complex optimization.

Representative Sirtuin Targets and Ligand Scaffolds

Table 6. Representative Sirtuin Targets and Ligand Scaffolds for Degrader Design.

Because reported sirtuin-directed degraders remain fewer than for HDACs, programs in this class benefit from a broader starting-point search. A focused screening library campaign followed by structural confirmation is usually more productive than committing to a single published chemotype, and co-crystallization is often the deciding step when the only available ligands are fragment-like.

Validation Methods for Sirtuin Site Engagement

• Catalytic assays: NAD⁺-dependent deacylation measured by LC-MS detection of the deacylated product and O-acyl-ADP-ribose, which is more specific than fluorogenic peptide formats.
• Cofactor competition: vary NAD⁺ concentration to distinguish C-site from substrate-channel engagement.
• Cellular occupancy: CETSA or cellular BRET target-engagement assay with attention to subcellular compartment, since sirtuin localization differs by isoform.
• Acyl-mark readouts: α-tubulin K₄₀ acetylation for SIRT2, and histone acetylation or mitochondrial protein acylation for other isoforms, matched to the isoform's known substrates.
• Off-target awareness: broad cofactor-mimetic chemotypes should be checked against unrelated NAD⁺-utilizing enzymes before conclusions are drawn.

Degrader Design for FAD-Dependent Lysine Demethylase Pockets

Structural Features of LSD1 Catalytic and Substrate Pockets

LSD1 (KDM1A) is an FAD-dependent amine oxidase that removes methyl groups from H3K₄me₁/me₂ and, depending on partner context, H3K₉ marks. Its architecture differs sharply from the compact tunnels of HDACs:

• Amine oxidase domain: housing the FAD cofactor and the catalytic center, with a comparatively large and open substrate cavity.
• Substrate cavity: more open than a typical enzyme active site, which is why peptide-mimetic and small-molecule chemotypes have both been explored.
• SWIRM and TOWER domains: the TOWER domain mediates interactions with CoREST and other partners, so the protein has pronounced scaffolding functions beyond catalysis.
• Covalent handle: cyclopropylamine-based inactivators form a covalent adduct with FAD, which is mechanistically useful but creates a turnover problem for degraders.
• Complex residence: LSD1 works within CoREST, NuRD, and other assemblies, and partner identity influences which substrates are processed.

The scaffolding point is the main argument for degradation here. An inhibitor blocks the amine oxidase reaction but leaves LSD1 in place as a complex component, whereas removing the protein addresses catalytic and assembly roles at the same time.

Representative LSD1 Ligands and Attachment Strategies

Table 7. Representative LSD1 Ligands and Attachment Strategies.

The central design decision in this class is reversible versus irreversible. A covalent scaffold gives excellent occupancy and a straightforward mechanism story, but a degrader that cannot dissociate cannot be reused, so degradation becomes stoichiometric rather than catalytic. Where the target is abundant or turns over slowly, that can still be acceptable; where it is not, a reversible warhead usually performs better. Because both options are cheap to make, the recommended sequence is to prepare matched reversible and covalent pairs and let the data decide. Design work here is often supported by PROTAC design based on bioinformatics, and every mechanism claim should be anchored by a PROTAC diastereomer design (negative control) analog that binds the target but cannot recruit the E3 ligase.

Validation Methods for FAD-Dependent Site Engagement

• Adduct confirmation: spectral or LC-MS evidence of FAD adduct formation for covalent chemotypes, with time-dependence to distinguish binding from inactivation.
• Enzymatic activity: formaldehyde-release or coupled-peroxide assays on H3K₄me₂ peptide substrates, noting that FAD-dependent formats need appropriate controls for compound interference.
• Cellular mark readouts: H3K₄me₁/me₂ and, in the appropriate partner context, H3K₉ methylation changes.
• Complex readouts: measure whether partner proteins such as CoREST-associated components remain chromatin-bound after LSD1 removal.
• Degradation and mechanism: DC₅₀ and D_max determination plus ELISA-based in vitro ubiquitylation assay confirmation, and baseline target abundance established by target protein expression profiling before potency comparisons are made.

Degrader Design for Fe²⁺/2OG-Dependent Demethylase Pockets

Structural Features of JmjC Catalytic Pockets

JmjC demethylases are Fe²⁺/2OG-dependent oxygenases built on a β-strand jelly-roll fold. The catalytic center is compact and highly conserved, which is both the opportunity and the problem in this family.

• Metal center: Fe²⁺ is held by a conserved histidine/aspartate triad, and 2OG chelates the metal alongside the cofactor site.
• 2OG subpocket: most reported inhibitors compete here, which produces dependable binding but limited family selectivity.
• Substrate channel: the methyl-lysine channel leading to the metal center is more variable between subfamilies and is the better selectivity lever.
• Chelation risk: many early tool compounds act partly through metal chelation, so apparent potency may not reflect a specific binding mode.
• Mark multiplicity: KDM5, KDM6, and KDM4 subfamilies process different marks, so functional readouts must be matched to the specific enzyme rather than to a generic histone methylation signal.

Degradation sidesteps one of the hardest problems in this family. Because full blockade of a metal-dependent active site is difficult to achieve selectively, a degrader that merely occupies the pocket and recruits an E3 ligase can reach a cleaner phenotype than an inhibitor with the same warhead.

Representative JmjC Demethylase Targets and Ligand Scaffolds

Table 8. Representative JmjC Demethylase Targets and Ligand Scaffolds.

KDM5B has been a particular focus because it combines a tractable 2OG pocket with clear biological interest, and dedicated guidance is available for PROTAC targeting KDM5B. Because the cofactor site is shallow and polar, linker placement tends to dominate outcomes in this family, which makes linker binding site selection and design a higher-value investment than further warhead potency optimization.

Validation Methods for JmjC Site Engagement

• Demethylase activity: antibody-based or LC-MS detection of mark conversion, with formaldehyde or succinate detection as an orthogonal readout.
• Cofactor and metal dependence: vary Fe²⁺ and 2OG concentrations and include a metal-chelation control to confirm that inhibition is not artifactual.
• Selectivity panel: profile against several JmjC subfamily members, since 2OG-site binders commonly cross-react.
• Cellular mark readouts: H3K₄me₃ for KDM5 family activity and H3K₂₇me₃ for KDM6 family activity, measured after degradation rather than only after short inhibition.
• Mechanism confirmation: proteasome dependence, E3 competition, and a non-degrading control to separate mark changes caused by catalytic inhibition from those caused by protein removal.

BOC Sciences Support for Epigenetic Protein Degrader Development

Choosing a binding site on an epigenetic protein is only the first decision. A workable program still needs a warhead that survives conjugation, a linker exit vector aimed in the right direction, an E3 recruiter compatible with the resulting geometry, and a validation cascade that separates inhibition from genuine degradation. BOC Sciences supports projects from epigenetic target structure and binding-site assessment through ligand design, degrader synthesis, engagement testing, and degradation evaluation, and the workflow can be adapted to bromodomain, methyl-lysine reader, methyltransferase, HDAC, sirtuin, LSD1, or JmjC strategies. An overview of how degraders are applied across research programs is available in the role of protein degraders in biopharmaceutical research.

Epigenetic Protein Structure and Binding-Site Analysis

• Compare reader, writer, and eraser pocket opportunities using experimentally determined structures and molecular models
• Assess cofactor sites, substrate channels, catalytic tunnels, and allosteric or interface pockets for ligandability
• Identify solvent exposure, pocket accessibility, potential exit vectors, and surface geometry relevant to E3 recruitment
• Evaluate metal centers and cofactor dependence when zinc-, NAD⁺-, FAD-, or Fe²⁺/2OG-directed chemistries are involved

Target Ligand and Warhead Design

• Select known epigenetic ligands or design new target-binding scaffolds for the chosen pocket class
• Preserve essential metal-binding, cofactor-binding, or cage-occupancy interactions while introducing linker-compatible groups
• Design multiple exit-vector analogs when a single attachment position does not provide sufficient structural confidence
• Compare reversible, covalent, and reversible-covalent warhead options where the target chemistry allows it

PROTAC Design and Custom Synthesis

• Match epigenetic warheads with E3 ligase recruiting ligands and linker architectures
• Generate focused degrader matrices varying exit vector, linker length, linker composition, and E3 recruiter
• Prepare parent-warhead, non-degrading, and matched-linker controls for mechanism interpretation
• Support purification and analytical characterization of custom epigenetic degrader candidates

Target Engagement and Degradation Evaluation

• Measure binary binding and cellular target engagement after warhead derivatization
• Evaluate ternary-complex formation and whether E3 recruitment is compatible with the selected binding geometry
• Measure concentration-dependent degradation, DC₅₀, D_max, kinetics, and recovery where appropriate
• Use mechanism and selectivity controls to distinguish inhibition, engagement, ubiquitination, and true protein depletion

Explore featured products that can expand your research options and accelerate your next discovery.

Access end-to-end service solutions that help bring efficiency, flexibility, and expertise to your research pipeline.

News

• Protein Degradation with New Chemical Modalities: Successful Strategies in Drug Discovery and Chemical Biology
• Degrader Building Blocks for Targeted Protein Degradation
• Recent Progress of PROTACs Targeting Non-enzymatic Functional Proteins
• Discovery of Molecular Glue Degraders

Technical Information

• Proteolysis-Targeting Chimeras (PROTAC)
• Targeted Protein Degradation: The Next Frontier in Drug Discovery
• Overview of 12 Targeted Protein Degradation Technologies
• Peptide and Small Molecule Based PROTACs Technology