Scientific capability / Paralog and Mutation-Aware Covalent Selectivity

Choose the counterscreen that could overturn your selectivity story.

A residue difference is a useful clue. BioTwin’s covalent-selectivity methods examine whether related proteins or mutations also differ in the local conditions that could govern engagement.

Current work Computational selectivity methods

From sequence difference to reaction hypothesis

A sequence alignment identifies conserved and substituted residues. The BioTwin assessment adds modeled structural and electrostatic context around a proposed handle. A residue can be present in two proteins while its environment differs; absence alone also leaves other off-target routes to consider.

Make the comparison experimental

Current output is a computational selectivity hypothesis. Choose relevant paralogs and variants for a matched counterscreen, separating recognition, reaction rate and exposure when they affect interpretation. Neither a non-conserved handle nor a modeled thiolate change proves selective engagement.

Selectivity has more than one source

Local electrostatic design could change target chemistry, while plasma competition could defeat it before engagement. Combining those questions may reveal why a favorable target/paralog comparison fails in a broader setting. Each component and its inputs need to be checked.

Which near neighbor poses the hardest test?

Identify the proposed handle and the paralogs or variants that matter to the program. Use that comparison to frame the counterscreen.