Overcoming the Ternary Complex Prediction Challenge in PROTAC Design: A Guide to Tools, Validation, and Future Directions

Abstract

Accurate prediction of PROTAC-mediated ternary complex structures is a pivotal yet formidable challenge in rational degrader design. This article provides a comprehensive overview for researchers and drug development professionals, exploring the foundational principles of ternary complex dynamics and cooperativity. It systematically benchmarks state-of-the-art computational methodologies like AlphaFold3 and PRosettaC, delves into troubleshooting their limitations, and introduces advanced validation strategies such as molecular dynamics and interface frustration analysis. By synthesizing insights from foundational concepts to cutting-edge validation techniques, this review aims to equip scientists with a nuanced framework for selecting and applying in silico tools to advance the development of targeted protein degradation therapeutics.

Understanding the PROTAC Ternary Complex: Fundamentals, Challenges, and Energetic Landscape

The Critical Role of Ternary Complex Stability in PROTAC Efficacy

For researchers in targeted protein degradation, the stability of the PROTAC-induced ternary complex is not just a biochemical parameter—it is the central determinant of degrader efficacy. A stable complex ensures productive ubiquitination and subsequent degradation of the target protein, while weak or transient interactions lead to failed projects. This guide addresses the critical challenges in predicting and optimizing ternary complex stability, providing troubleshooting frameworks and methodological insights to advance your PROTAC design pipeline.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: Why is predicting the structure of PROTAC-mediated ternary complexes so challenging for computational tools? The primary challenge lies in the small, ligand-mediated nature of the protein-protein interfaces involved. Unlike natural protein complexes that often have large interfaces and evolutionary signatures, PROTAC-stabilized interfaces are typically small and lack co-evolutionary signals. Benchmarking studies have shown that AlphaFold2 and AlphaFold3 struggle specifically with small interfaces, which directly impacts their performance on PROTAC systems [1]. The flexibility of PROTAC linkers further compounds this problem, as it requires sampling vast conformational spaces to identify the optimal geometry for productive complex formation.

Q2: My computational model shows good protein-protein alignment, but the PROTAC molecule is positioned incorrectly. What could be wrong? This is a common issue where the overall complex architecture appears plausible, but the degrader geometry is non-productive. The problem often stems from insufficient sampling of linker conformations or a lack of proper geometric constraints during modeling. PRosettaC, which uses chemically defined anchor points, sometimes produces models where the static prediction poorly aligns with the crystal structure but transiently achieves correct alignment during molecular dynamics simulations [2]. Ensure your modeling protocol includes extensive sampling of linker conformations and consider using dynamic evaluation rather than relying solely on static crystal structure alignment.

Q3: How does the "hook effect" relate to ternary complex stability, and how can I predict it computationally? The hook effect occurs when high PROTAC concentrations saturate the individual binding sites on the E3 ligase and target protein without forming productive ternary complexes, paradoxically reducing degradation efficacy. This phenomenon is directly related to the weak stability or suboptimal cooperativity of the ternary complex. While not explicitly covered in the search results, computational prediction of binding affinities and cooperativity factors for different PROTAC:protein stoichiometries can help identify concentrations where the hook effect might occur, allowing you to design degraders with improved cooperative binding.

Q4: Which computational tool provides more accurate predictions for PROTAC ternary complexes: AlphaFold3 or PRosettaC? Comparative benchmarks show that PRosettaC often outperforms AlphaFold3 in modeling geometrically accurate ternary complexes, particularly when accessory proteins are excluded from the prediction [2]. However, the performance depends on your specific system—AlphaFold3 demonstrates superior ligand positioning in some contexts, especially when explicit ligand atom positions are provided as input rather than just SMILES strings [3]. The table below summarizes the comparative performance metrics from recent studies:

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Ternary Complex Prediction Tools

Tool	Key Strength	Key Limitation	Recommended Use Case
AlphaFold3	Superior ligand positioning when explicit atomic coordinates are provided [4]	Performance can be inflated by accessory proteins that don't contribute to degrader-specific binding [2]	Systems with known ligand binding poses; when including larger biological context
PRosettaC	More geometrically accurate models in select systems; better handles chemically defined anchor points [2]	Often fails with insufficient linker sampling or misaligned constraints [2]	Systems with well-defined warhead binding pockets; linker optimization studies
Boltz-1	Competes with AF3 on overall structural accuracy [4]	Produces fewer high-accuracy models (25 with RMSD < 1Å vs. AF3's 33) [4]	Alternative approach when AF3/PRosettaC underperform

Troubleshooting Guides

Problem: Inconsistent Degradation Efficacy Despite Strong Binary Binding

Symptoms: Your PROTAC shows excellent binding affinity to both the target protein and E3 ligase in isolated assays, but demonstrates poor or inconsistent degradation in cellular models.

Potential Causes and Solutions:

• Weak Cooperative Binding

  • Diagnosis: Measure the cooperativity factor (α) using techniques like SPR or ITC to quantify ternary complex stability.
  • Solution: Optimize linker length and composition to enhance protein-protein interactions at the interface. Even small changes of 2-3 atoms can dramatically impact cooperativity.

• Non-productive Binding Geometries

  • Diagnosis: Use computational modeling to identify whether the PROTAC orients the proteins in ubiquitination-incompetent conformations.
  • Solution: Systematically vary linker attachment points and chemistry to explore different binding modes while maintaining warhead interactions.

• Insufficient Interface Stability

  • Diagnosis: The predicted interface area is too small (<1000 Ų) to form a stable complex.
  • Solution: Consider alternative E3 ligases that may form more extensive interfaces with your target protein, or design PROTACs that engage additional interaction surfaces.

Problem: Computational Predictions Don't Match Experimental Structures

Symptoms: Your computational models show good overall protein structure but poor alignment at the critical interface regions where the PROTAC mediates the interaction.

Solution Protocol:

• Implement Dynamic Evaluation

  • Move beyond static crystal structure comparisons by running molecular dynamics simulations of both predicted and experimental structures.
  • Calculate DockQ scores along the simulation trajectory, as some models may transiently achieve correct alignment not captured in static comparisons [2].

• Enhance Sampling Protocols

  • When using PRosettaC, increase model generation beyond default settings (up to 1000 models per system) to improve sampling of linker conformations and binding modes [2].
  • For AlphaFold3, provide explicit ligand atomic positions rather than just SMILES strings to improve positioning accuracy [3].

• Contextualize with Biological Assemblies

  • Include relevant accessory proteins (e.g., Elongin B/C for VHL, DDB1 for CRBN) in predictions when possible, as they can stabilize native E3 ligase conformations [2].
  • Be aware that including large scaffolds may inflate interface metrics without improving degrader-specific binding accuracy.

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Benchmarking Computational Predictions Against Crystallographic Data

This protocol details how to quantitatively assess ternary complex prediction accuracy using the DockQ metric, based on methodologies from recent literature [2].

Materials:

• Curated set of crystallographically resolved ternary complexes (reference structures)
• Computational prediction tools (AlphaFold3, PRosettaC, or alternatives)
• Molecular visualization software (PyMOL, ChimeraX)
• DockQ scoring script (available from GitHub repositories associated with the benchmark studies)

Procedure: 1. Structure Preparation: - Obtain PDB files for reference crystal structures - Remove solvent molecules and non-essential ions while preserving the PROTAC and key protein residues - Separate chains into individual E3 ligase and target protein components

• Computational Prediction:
  • For each tool, generate models of the ternary complex using only the sequences of the E3 ligase and target protein

• Run predictions under both minimal complex (E3 + target only) and full complex (including accessory proteins) configurations where applicable
• Generate multiple models (minimum 5 for AF3, 200+ for PRosettaC) to assess consistency

• Structural Alignment and Scoring:
  • Use DockQ v2 to quantitatively assess interface accuracy between predicted and reference structures

• Calculate RMSD values for the PROTAC molecule specifically, in addition to global protein alignment
• Classify predictions as high, medium, or low quality based on DockQ thresholds (high > 0.8, medium 0.5-0.8, low < 0.5)

• Dynamic Validation (Advanced):
  • Run short molecular dynamics simulations (100 ns) of both crystal structures and top predictions

• Extract frames and calculate transient DockQ scores to identify models that achieve periodic high alignment
• Analyze interface stability and PROTAC positioning throughout trajectories

Protocol 2: Assessing Ternary Complex Stability via Biophysical Methods

Materials:

• Purified E3 ligase and target protein constructs
• PROTAC molecule in DMSO stock solution
• Bio-layer interferometry (BLI) or surface plasmon resonance (SPR) instrument
• Size exclusion chromatography (SEC) and multi-angle light scattering (MALS) equipment

Procedure: 1. Direct Binding Measurements: - Immobilize E3 ligase on biosensor chips or streptavidin tips - Measure binding kinetics of PROTAC alone to establish binary binding parameters - Pre-incubate target protein with varying PROTAC concentrations and measure complex formation

• Cooperativity Assessment:
  • Design experiments to measure the enhancement of binding affinity in the ternary complex versus binary interactions

• Calculate cooperativity factor (α) using the formula: α = (Kd,binary1 × Kd,binary2) / (Kd,ternary)²

• Size and Stability Analysis:
  • Form the ternary complex in solution and analyze by SEC-MALS

• Compare observed molecular weight to theoretical values to confirm proper stoichiometry
• Monitor complex stability over time to assess dissociation kinetics

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Resources for Ternary Complex Research

Resource Category	Specific Tool / Database	Function and Application	Key Features
Structural Databases	PROTAC-DB [2]	Curated repository of experimentally validated degrader molecules and ternary complexes	Provides structural templates for docking and machine learning workflows
	PROTAC-DataBank [2]	Collection of ternary complex structures with annotated binding modes	Essential for benchmarking computational predictions
Computational Tools	AlphaFold3 [2]	Multimeric protein structure prediction with ligand support	Models full complexes including accessory proteins; server version has residue limitations
	PRosettaC [2]	Rosetta-based protocol specifically for PROTAC ternary complexes	Uses geometric constraints from known warhead binding modes; open-source implementation available
	Boltz-1 [4]	Alternative AI model for protein-ligand complex prediction	Competes with AF3 on overall accuracy; different architectural approach
E3 Ligase Resources	E3 Atlas [2]	Database of E3 ubiquitin ligases and their interactors	Identifies biologically relevant E3-substrate pairs for rational degrader design
Analysis Tools	DockQ v2 [2]	Quantitative interface scoring metric	Validated method for assessing structural fidelity of predicted complexes
	Molecular Dynamics Software	Dynamic evaluation of complex stability	Identifies transient conformational compatibility missed in static analyses

Workflow Visualization

Workflow for Ternary Complex Modeling and Optimization

Tool Selection: AlphaFold3 vs. PRosettaC

FAQs on PROTAC Cooperativity and Ternary Complexes

What is cooperativity in the context of PROTACs?

Cooperativity (α) is a quantitative measure of the change in binding affinity when a PROTAC induces the formation of a ternary complex compared to its binary interactions. It defines the thermodynamic propensity for ternary complex formation [5] [6].

• Positive Cooperativity (α > 1): The ternary complex forms with a higher affinity than expected from the binary interactions alone, often due to favorable, newly formed protein-protein interactions at the interface [5] [7].
• Negative Cooperativity (α < 1): The ternary complex forms with a lower affinity than the binary interactions, which can result from steric clashes or unfavorable interactions between the E3 ligase and the target protein [5].
• No Cooperativity (α = 1): The affinity of the ternary complex is identical to that of the binary complexes [6].

Why is measuring cooperativity critical for PROTAC design?

Measuring cooperativity is critical because it directly correlates with key degradation activity parameters. Positive cooperativity often leads to more potent degraders and faster initial rates of target degradation by stabilizing the productive complex that leads to ubiquitination [5]. Furthermore, cooperativity can impart target selectivity that exceeds the inherent selectivity of the target-binding warhead alone, allowing for the degradation of specific proteins within a closely related family [7].

What are the key experimental techniques for measuring cooperativity?

Several biophysical techniques can be used to measure the binding parameters of ternary complexes. The table below summarizes the most common methods [5] [6].

Table 1: Key Techniques for Measuring Ternary Complex Cooperativity

Technique	Measured Parameters	Key Considerations
Surface Plasmon Resonance (SPR)	Ternary complex affinity (KLPT), Cooperativity (α)	Allows direct measurement of ternary complex affinity using a pre-formed binary complex; provides rich kinetic and thermodynamic data [5].
Isothermal Titration Calorimetry (ITC)	Binding affinity (Kd), Enthalpy (ΔH), Entropy (ΔS)	Provides full thermodynamic parameters but is sample-intensive and time-consuming [6] [7].
Fluorine NMR (¹⁹F NMR)	Inhibition constant (Ki), Cooperativity (α)	A sensitive, competitive binding assay; high protein concentrations can lead to an underestimation of cooperativity for very stable complexes [6].
Fluorescence Polarisation (FP)	Cooperativity (α)	A proximity-based assay that can generate a bell-shaped dose-response curve for ternary complex formation [5] [6].

What are the common challenges in predicting ternary complex structures?

Accurate computational prediction of PROTAC-mediated ternary complexes remains a significant challenge. The primary limitations include [1] [2]:

• Small Interface Size: PROTACs often stabilize relatively small protein-protein interfaces. General protein structure prediction tools like AlphaFold-Multimer and AlphaFold3 (AF3) have demonstrated low accuracy in modeling complexes with small interface areas, which is a hallmark of many PROTAC-induced complexes [1].
• Lack of Co-evolutionary Signal: PROTACs can induce non-physiological complexes between an E3 ligase and a target protein that do not naturally interact. The absence of an evolutionary relationship means there is no co-evolutionary signal for machine learning tools like AlphaFold to leverage [1].
• Limitations of Current Tools: While AF3 integrates ligand input, its performance can be inflated by the presence of large, stabilizing accessory proteins (like Elongin B/C for VHL). When these are excluded, the accuracy of the core ternary complex prediction often drops. Specialized protocols like PRosettaC, which use chemical constraints, can outperform AF3 in some systems but may fail with insufficient linker sampling [2].

How does cooperativity relate to the degradation efficiency of a PROTAC?

While positive cooperativity is generally favorable, it is not the sole determinant of degradation efficiency. A highly cooperative ternary complex must also position the target protein such that lysine residues are accessible to the ubiquitin-loaded E2 enzyme. A high-affinity ternary complex that does not permit proper ubiquitin transfer will not result in efficient degradation [5]. Therefore, cooperativity is a key modulator of the initial step in the degradation pathway, but downstream events are equally critical.

Troubleshooting Guides

Guide: Low or Negative Cooperativity

Problem: Your PROTAC shows poor degradation activity despite good binary binding affinity, and biophysical measurements indicate low or negative cooperativity.

Possible Causes & Solutions:

• Cause: Unfavorable Protein-Protein Interactions. The linker may be forcing the E3 ligase and target protein into an orientation that causes steric clashes or electrostatic repulsion.
  • Solution: Systematically vary the linker length and composition. A shorter or longer linker, or one with different flexibility, can radically alter the relative orientation of the two proteins and the resulting interface [5].
• Cause: Suboptimal Linker Attachment Point. The vector at which the linker is connected to the E3 ligase or target-binding warhead may be incorrect.
  • Solution: Explore different attachment points (vectors) on both warheads to present a different protein surface for interaction [5].
• Cause: Incompatible E3 Ligase. The chosen E3 ligase may be inherently unsuitable for forming a productive interface with your specific target protein.
  • Solution: Consider recruiting a different E3 ligase (e.g., switch from VHL to Cereblon or another ligase) to explore different interface compatibilities [7].

Guide: Interpreting Bell-Shaped Degradation Curves

Problem: Your PROTAC-induced degradation activity follows a bell-shaped curve in a dose-response assay, with activity decreasing at higher concentrations.

Explanation: This is a classic and expected phenomenon for bifunctional degraders. At high concentrations, the PROTAC saturates the binary binding sites on the E3 ligase and target protein independently, which favors the formation of non-productive binary complexes over the productive ternary complex. This "hook effect" does not necessarily indicate a problem with the PROTAC itself [5].

Solution: The potency (DC₅₀) should be determined from the ascending phase of the curve. Focus on optimizing the PROTAC to shift the peak of the bell curve to a lower concentration, which is achieved by improving ternary complex stability and cooperativity [5].

Experimental Protocols

Protocol: Measuring Cooperativity via Surface Plasmon Resonance (SPR)

This protocol outlines the direct measurement of ternary complex affinity (K_LPT) and cooperativity using SPR, based on the methodology described by Ciulli et al. [5]

Workflow: Direct Measurement of Ternary Complex Affinity

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Materials for SPR Cooperativity Assay

Item	Function / Description
SPR Instrument	A biosensor system (e.g., Biacore) to measure biomolecular interactions in real-time without labels.
Sensor Chip	A chip with a carboxymethylated dextran matrix (e.g., CM5) for immobilizing the E3 ligase.
Purified E3 Ligase Complex	The functional E3 ligase unit (e.g., VCB complex for VHL-recruiting PROTACs). Must be highly pure and active.
Purified Target Protein	The protein of interest to be degraded. Should contain the domain that binds the PROTAC's warhead.
PROTAC Molecule	The bifunctional degrader to be tested. Prepare a stock solution in a suitable buffer (e.g., DMSO).
Running Buffer	HBS-EP buffer (10 mM HEPES, 150 mM NaCl, 3 mM EDTA, 0.05% surfactant P20, pH 7.4) is commonly used.

Step-by-Step Procedure:

• Ligase Immobilization: Covalently immobilize the E3 ligase (L) onto a sensor chip using a standard amine-coupling chemistry according to the manufacturer's instructions [5].
• Binary Complex Formation: Pre-incubate the target protein (T) with a large molar excess of the PROTAC (P). The concentration of target should be approximately 25 times its dissociation constant for the PROTAC ([T]ₜ ≈ 25×K_TP) to ensure the PROTAC is predominantly in the binary TP complex [5].
• Ternary Complex Measurement: Inject the pre-formed TP complex over the E3 ligase-functionalized surface at a series of concentrations.
• Data Fitting: The resulting binding response is fit to a model describing the formation of the LPT ternary complex. The equilibrium dissociation constant (K_LPT) is the concentration of the TP complex at which half of the surface-bound ligase is engaged in the ternary complex [5].
• Cooperativity Calculation: Cooperativity (α) is calculated as the ratio of the PROTAC's binary binding affinity for the ligase (K_LP) to the ternary complex affinity (K_LPT): α = K_LP / K_LPT [5].

Protocol: Estimating Cooperativity via Competitive ¹⁹F NMR

This protocol provides an alternative method for estimating cooperativity using ligand-observed Fluorine NMR, which is less sample-demanding than ITC but may have limitations for very tight binders [6].

Workflow: Competitive ¹⁹F NMR Assay

Step-by-Step Procedure:

• Spy Molecule Selection: Identify a fluorinated, high-affinity ligand (the "spy molecule") that binds to one of the proteins in the complex (e.g., the E3 ligase). The spy molecule must cause a measurable change in its ¹⁹F NMR signal upon binding [6].
• Control Measurements: Record the ¹⁹F CPMG spectrum of the spy molecule alone and in the presence of its binding protein to establish the 0% and 100% bound states, respectively [6].
• PROTAC Titration (Binary): Titrate the unlabeled PROTAC into the sample containing the spy molecule and its protein partner. Measure the concentration of PROTAC that displaces 50% of the spy molecule (IC₅₀) and convert this to an inhibition constant (K_i) [6].
• PROTAC Titration (Ternary): Repeat the titration in a solution that contains the spy molecule, its protein partner, and an excess of the second target protein. Measure the new IC₅₀ and calculate the new K_i [6].
• Cooperativity Calculation: The cooperativity factor is calculated as the ratio of the two inhibition constants: α = K_i(PROTAC alone) / K_i(PROTAC + target). A rightward shift in the displacement curve (higher K_i with target present) indicates negative cooperativity (α < 1), while a leftward shift indicates positive cooperativity (α > 1) [6].

Data Presentation

Correlation Between Cooperativity and Degradation Activity

The following table summarizes experimental data demonstrating the relationship between measured ternary complex binding parameters and cellular degradation activity for a series of PROTACs.

Table 3: Relationship between Cooperativity, Buried Surface Area, and Degradation Activity [5] [7]

PROTAC	Target Protein	Ternary Kd (nM)	Cooperativity (α)	Total Buried Surface Area (Ų)	Cellular Degradation Potency / Selectivity
MZ1	Brd4BD2	Not Reported	18 (SPR) / 3.1 (NMR)	2,621	Highly selective for Brd4 over other BET members [7].
MZ1	Brd4BD1	Not Reported	0.9 (SPR)	Not Reported	Lower degradation efficiency compared to Brd4BD2 [5].
MZP-54	Brd4BD2	Not Reported	0.7 (NMR)	Not Reported	Reduced degradation potency [6].
MZP-61	Brd4BD2	Not Reported	0.4 (NMR)	Not Reported	Further reduced degradation potency [6].
VHL Recruiter	SMARCA2	15.4	15.6	2,390	Correlated with high degradation potency and fast initial rate [5].
VHL Recruiter	BRD4	1.8	3.5	2,510	Correlated with high degradation potency and fast initial rate [5].

Note: The correlation between high cooperativity, large buried surface area at the ternary interface, and enhanced degradation outcomes provides a predictive framework for rational PROTAC design [5] [7].

Frequently Asked Questions

FAQ 1: Why do state-of-the-art structure prediction tools like AlphaFold often fail to accurately model PROTAC-mediated ternary complexes?

A primary reason is the small size of the protein-protein interface that the PROTAC stabilizes. AlphaFold2 (AF2) and AlphaFold3 (AF3) show a strong sensitivity to interface size, with the majority of models being incorrect for the smallest interfaces [1]. In a benchmark of 28 PROTAC-mediated dimers, AF3 did not significantly improve upon the low accuracy of AF2 for these complexes. The lack of a natural co-evolutionary signal between the E3 ligase and the target protein, which is a key principle underlying AlphaFold's success, further compounds this problem for non-natural, PROTAC-induced complexes [1].

FAQ 2: What is the "hook effect" and how does it impact PROTAC experiments?

The hook effect is a characteristic biphasic dose-response curve observed with heterobifunctional PROTACs. At low concentrations, target degradation increases as more ternary complexes form. However, at very high concentrations, the efficiency drops because the PROTAC molecules saturate the binding sites on the target protein and E3 ligase independently, forming inert binary complexes instead of the productive ternary complex needed for degradation [8]. This necessitates careful dose titration in experimental protocols to ensure you are working at the optimal concentration [8].

FAQ 3: What role does cooperativity play in ternary complex formation, and how is it quantified?

Cooperativity describes how the binding of one end of the PROTAC to its protein (either the target or the E3 ligase) influences the binding affinity of the other end. It is a critical factor for efficient ternary complex formation [8]. This phenomenon is quantitatively described by the cooperativity factor (α) [8]. A value of α greater than 1 indicates positive cooperativity, meaning the initial binding event makes the second binding event more favorable. A value less than 1 indicates negative cooperativity. This factor is heavily influenced by the PROTAC's linker design and the resulting protein-protein interactions at the interface [8].

FAQ 4: What are the key considerations when choosing a linker for constructing a PROTAC?

The linker is not merely a passive spacer; its length, composition, and attachment points are critical for productive ternary complex formation. Overly rigid or improperly sized linkers can impose constraints that prevent the two proteins from forming a favorable interface [9]. In structural biology, glycine-rich flexible linkers are often used to connect protein domains without interfering with their function, as glycine provides conformational flexibility [9]. The optimal linker must be empirically optimized for each specific PROTAC to promote positive cooperativity [8].

Experimental Protocols & Data

Protocol 1: Benchmarking Computational Tools for Ternary Complex Prediction

This protocol outlines steps to assess the performance of tools like AlphaFold3 or Boltz-1 in modeling your specific ternary complex.

• Dataset Curation: Extract known ternary complex structures from the PDB. Apply filters for resolution (e.g., < 4 Å) and ensure no missing residues at the protein-protein interface [1].
• Structure Preparation: Generate input files for the proteins and the PROTAC ligand. Note that some methods may require the ligand to be provided via its molecular string (SMILES) or explicit 3D atom positions [4].
• Model Prediction: Run the prediction tools according to their specifications. The AF3 web server may not allow PROTAC input, limiting its full capability exploration [1].
• Analysis and Validation: Compare the predicted model to the experimental reference structure using metrics like Root-Mean-Square Deviation (RMSD) for the entire complex and the ligand's position, DockQ score for interface quality, and predicted Template Modeling Score (pTM) [4].

Protocol 2: Mathematical Modeling of Ternary Complex Equilibrium

This protocol provides a framework for quantitatively analyzing ternary complex formation data.

• Define System Parameters: The system is defined by three key equilibrium constants: the binary dissociation constants for the target-PROTAC (K_P1) and E3 ligase-PROTAC (K_E1) interactions, and the cooperativity factor (α) [8].
• Apply Universal Equations: Use the exact mathematical solutions for the concentration of the ternary complex [PLE] at equilibrium. These equations describe the system as a function of the free ligand concentration [L] and the defined equilibrium constants [8].
• Fit Experimental Data: Employ the provided analytical tools to fit experimental dose-response data (e.g., from ITC or SPR) to the model. This allows for the extraction of the cooperativity factor (α) and other equilibrium constants, providing a quantitative measure of PROTAC efficiency [8].

Performance Metrics of Computational Tools for PROTAC Complex Prediction

Table 1: A summary of model performance on a test set of 62 PROTAC complexes from the PDB. [4]

Model	Input Method	Number of Complexes with RMSD < 1 Å	Number of Complexes with RMSD < 4 Å
AlphaFold 3 (AF3)	Ligand Atom Positions	33	46
Boltz-1	Ligand Atom Positions	25	40

Key Reagents and Tools for Ternary Complex Research

Table 2: A list of essential research reagents and computational tools used in the field.

Item	Function / Application	Relevant Context / Example
E3 Ligase Ligands	Binds to the E3 ubiquitin ligase component of the ternary complex.	Known ligands include those for VHL, CRBN, IAP, and MDM2 [8].
Target Protein Ligands	Binds to the protein of interest targeted for degradation.	Often derived from known inhibitors of the target protein [8].
Glycine-Rich Flexible Linkers	Chemically connect the two ligands to form the PROTAC; flexibility helps accommodate protein-protein interactions.	Used in recombinant protein design to connect domains without functional interference; lengths are optimized for each condition [9].
AlphaFold-Multimer	Deep-learning model for predicting protein-protein complex structures.	Shows limited accuracy for PROTAC-mediated complexes, particularly those with small interfaces [1].
RFdiffusion	A deep-learning framework for de novo protein design.	Can generate protein backbones and binders from simple specifications, useful for designing novel interfaces or scaffolds [10].
Boltz-1	A deep-learning model for predicting protein-ligand and protein-protein interactions.	Demonstrates capability in modeling ligand-mediated ternary complexes, with performance benchmarks available against AF3 [4].

The Scientist's Toolkit

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Key materials and resources for troubleshooting PROTAC design experiments.

Tool / Reagent	Explanation	Primary Use Case
Cooperative vs Non-cooperative Model Fitting	Analytical tools to distinguish between cooperative and non-cooperative binding from dose-response data.	Diagnosing whether poor degradation efficiency is due to unfavorable cooperative binding [8].
Linker Length & Composition Library	A collection of PROTACs with systematic variations in linker length and atomic composition.	Empirically optimizing the ternary complex formation for a given pair of E3 and target ligands [9] [8].
Multiple E3 Ligase Ligands	A set of ligands recruiting different E3 ligases (e.g., VHL, CRBN, IAP).	Troubleshooting scenarios where one E3 ligase does not produce a productive ternary complex with a specific target protein [8].
Structure Prediction Benchmarking Suite	A pipeline to evaluate computational models (AF3, Boltz-1) against known structures using RMSD, pTM, and DockQ.	Selecting the most reliable computational tool for a specific PROTAC system before initiating costly experimental trials [4].

Workflow and Pathway Visualizations

PROTAC Ternary Complex Formation Pathway

Computational Prediction Workflow for Ternary Complexes

FAQs: Understanding Interface Frustration in PROTAC Design

What is protein-protein interface frustration? Interface frustration is a concept that quantifies the degree to which residues at a protein-protein interface adopt energetically suboptimal or strained configurations. In the context of PROTAC-mediated ternary complexes, it describes how "uncomfortable" or dissatisfied certain amino acid pairs are when the target protein and E3 ligase are brought into proximity. These frustrated contacts often cluster in flexible loop regions and involve residues like proline, glutamine, and asparagine [11] [12].

Why does frustration correlate with positive cooperativity in PROTAC systems? Counterintuitively, higher frustration at the protein-protein interface correlates with positive cooperativity. This occurs because frustrated contacts keep the interface dynamically poised and flexible, preventing it from locking into a single rigid conformation. This "energetic lubricant" allows the system to adapt and find mutually favorable arrangements as both partners settle into the ternary complex, ultimately enhancing cooperative binding [12]. Traditional perfectly complementary interfaces may be too stable and inert, lacking the dynamic flexibility needed for cooperativity [11].

How can I calculate frustration for my PROTAC ternary complex? Frustration analysis requires molecular dynamics (MD) simulations of your ternary complex structure followed by computational analysis:

• Perform MD Simulations: Run all-atom molecular dynamics simulations (typically microsecond-scale) to sample the conformational landscape [11]
• Calculate Residue-Level Frustration: Use mutational scanning approaches that score how energetically suboptimal each residue pair is compared to plausible alternatives [11]
• Analyze Interface Residues: Focus on the frustration patterns at the target protein-E3 ligase interface, particularly identifying hydrophobic residues and flexible loop regions that frequently show high frustration [13]

My PROTAC has high binary binding affinity but shows poor degradation efficiency. Could interface frustration explain this? Yes, this is exactly where frustration analysis provides crucial insights. Traditional structure-based design methods often fail to predict PROTAC efficiency because they focus on static snapshots and binary affinities. A PROTAC may form a very stable binary complex but create an over-optimized, "too comfortable" interface in the ternary complex that lacks the strategic discontent needed for positive cooperativity. Analyzing interface frustration can reveal why such PROTACs fail despite good binary binding [12] [13].

Troubleshooting Guide: Common Experimental Challenges

Challenge: Poor correlation between calculated binding energies and measured cooperativity

Table 1: Comparison of Traditional vs. Frustration-Based Metrics

Metric	Strengths	Limitations	Applicability to PROTACs
MMGBSA Binding Energies	Fast calculation, well-established	Poor correlation with cooperativity [12]	Limited reliability
Interface Frustration	Correlates with cooperativity, accounts for dynamics	Computationally intensive, requires MD simulations	High predictive value [11] [13]

Solution: Implement frustration analysis instead of relying solely on traditional scoring functions. Studies on both SMARCA2-VHL and BRD4-cereblon systems demonstrate that frustration metrics successfully distinguish between strong and weak degraders where conventional methods fail [11] [13].

Challenge: Identifying which residues contribute most to ternary complex stability

Solution: Focus frustration analysis on hydrophobic residues at the interface. Research on BRD4-cereblon degraders identified that hydrophobic residues in the interface are among the highly frustrated residue pairs and are crucial in distinguishing strong degraders from weak ones [13].

Solution: Pay particular attention to flexible loop regions rather than rigid secondary structures. Frustrated contacts predominantly cluster in disordered loops, not helices or sheets, which provides the necessary flexibility for cooperative binding [11].

Experimental Protocols for Frustration Analysis

Molecular Dynamics Protocol for Ternary Complexes

Sample Preparation:

• Start with crystal structure of ternary complex (POI::PROTAC::E3 ligase)
• Use explicit solvent model with appropriate ion concentration for physiological conditions
• Ensure proper protonation states of all residues

Simulation Parameters:

• Software: Use conventional MD packages (AMBER, GROMACS, or CHARMM)
• Duration: Microsecond-scale simulations recommended [11]
• Ensemble: NPT ensemble with temperature coupling at 300K
• Frame Capture: Save trajectories every 100ps for subsequent analysis

Validation Steps:

• Confirm system stability through RMSD calculations
• Verify preservation of key crystallographic contacts
• Ensure adequate sampling through convergence testing

Frustration Calculation Methodology

Mutational Scanning Approach: For each frame in your MD trajectory, compute frustration using algorithms that:

• Systematically mutate each interface residue to all possible alternatives
• Calculate the energy difference between native and mutant configurations
• Score residue pairs as frustrated if native state is energetically suboptimal [11] [12]

Quantification Metrics:

• Residue Pair Frustration Index: Measures degree of energetic dissatisfaction
• Interface Frustration Density: Number of frustrated contacts per unit interface area
• Dynamic Frustration: Variation in frustration patterns throughout simulation

Signaling Pathways and Workflows

Ternary Complex Formation and Analysis Pathway

Experimental Workflow for Frustration Analysis

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Research Materials for Frustration Analysis

Reagent/Resource	Function	Application Notes
SMARCA2BD Protein	Target protein for degradation studies	Use His6-tagged for TR-FRET assays [11]
VCB Complex	Pre-formed VHL, Elongin-C, Elongin-B	Essential for cooperativity measurements [11]
GEN-1 Based PROTACs	SMARCA bromodomain binders	Reference compounds for validation (P6-P20) [11]
TR-FRET Assay System	Measures cooperativity (α)	Uses FRET donor/acceptor pairs with streptavidin/anti-His tags [11]
VH101 VHL Binder	E3 ligase recruiting moiety	Standard VHL ligand with phenolic hydroxyl exit vector [11]

Key Insights for Experimental Design

When implementing frustration analysis in your PROTAC research:

• Prioritize Dynamic Regions: Focus computational resources on analyzing flexible loop regions rather than rigid structural elements, as these areas show the most significant frustration signals [11]

• Validate with Multiple Systems: The correlation between interface frustration and cooperativity has been demonstrated in both SMARCA2-VHL and BRD4-cereblon systems, suggesting broad applicability [11] [13]

• Embrace Strategic Imperfection: Counter to traditional drug design, deliberately engineering interfaces that are "almost right" rather than perfectly optimized may yield better degraders [12]

• Combine Approaches: Use frustration analysis alongside experimental cooperativity measurements (TR-FRET) and degradation assays for comprehensive characterization [11]

Computational Toolkits for Ternary Complex Prediction: From Docking to AI

Accurate prediction of ternary complex structures is a critical challenge in the design of Proteolysis-Targeting Chimeras (PROTACs). This technical guide addresses a key methodological consideration for researchers using AlphaFold3 (AF3): the impact of using minimal complexes versus full complexes that include accessory proteins like Elongin B/C or DDB1. Recent benchmarking studies reveal that AF3's performance can be significantly inflated by the presence of these accessory proteins, which contribute to overall interface area but not degrader-specific binding [2] [14]. This article provides a structured framework for experimental design, troubleshooting, and interpretation of AF3 results within PROTAC development workflows.

Experimental Findings and Quantitative Benchmarks

Systematic benchmarking against curated datasets of crystallographically resolved ternary complexes provides crucial performance insights. The following table summarizes key quantitative findings from recent studies comparing AF3 performance in different configurations.

Table 1: Benchmarking AF3 Performance on PROTAC Ternary Complexes

Benchmark Metric	AF3 Minimal Complex	AF3 Full Complex	PRosettaC	Notes
Dataset Size	36 complexes [2]	36 complexes [2]	36 complexes [2]	Crystallographically resolved structures
Interface Scoring	DockQ [2]	DockQ [2]	DockQ [2]	Quantitative interface metric
Key Finding	Lower interface score inflation	Performance often inflated by accessory proteins [2]	More geometrically accurate in select systems [2]	Accessory proteins don't contribute to degrader-specific binding
Ligand Positioning (RMSD)	Not specified	33/62 complexes with RMSD < 1 Å; 46/62 with RMSD < 4 Å [4]	Not specified	Superior ligand positioning in another study on 62 complexes
Major Challenge	N/A	Distinguishing degrader-specific vs. scaffold-contributed interfaces [2]	Frequent failure with insufficient linker sampling [2]	Dynamic evaluation reveals transient conformational compatibility

Experimental Protocols

Protocol: AF3 Minimal vs. Full Complex Prediction

This protocol is essential for generating comparable structural predictions and avoiding performance inflation.

A. Input Preparation and Complex Definition

• Minimal Complex: consists solely of the target protein and the E3 ligase (e.g., VHL or CRBN) [2].
• Full Complex: includes accessory proteins known to stabilize the E3 ligase complex, such as Elongin B/C in VHL systems or DDB1 in CRBN systems [2].
• Input Constraints: Due to AF3 server input size limitations, larger scaffold proteins like cullin ring ligases (CUL2, CUL4A) and RING-box domains (RBX1) are typically excluded [2].

B. AF3 Execution Workflow

• Input Format: Use JSON files to define molecular systems [15] [16].
• Sequence Input: Concatenate relevant amino acid sequences without template guidance or manual restraints [2].
• Model Generation: Generate five models per complex using default AF3 multimer settings [2].
• Computational Resources: The following table outlines resource recommendations for different complex sizes:

Table 2: Computational Resource Guidelines for AF3 Predictions

System Size	Recommended GPU	System RAM	Expected Runtime	Partition/Queue
Small Complexes	RTX 3090	32-48 GB	2-4 hours	rtx3090 [15]
Medium Complexes	RTX 3090	48 GB	4-8 hours	rtx3090 [15]
Large Complexes	A100	64 GB	8-12 hours	a100-pcie [15]
Very Large Complexes	A100	128 GB	12-24 hours	a100-pcie [15]

C. Performance Validation

• Primary Metric: Use DockQ for quantitative interface scoring [2].
• Dynamic Evaluation: Implement molecular dynamics (MD) simulations to assess transient conformational compatibility beyond static benchmarking [2] [14].
• Ligand Positioning: Calculate RMSD values for PROTAC molecule placement [4].

Diagram 1: AF3 Complex Prediction Workflow

Protocol: Dynamic Evaluation Using Molecular Dynamics

Static benchmarking often overlooks transient conformational compatibility. This supplemental protocol provides a dynamic evaluation framework.

A. System Setup

• Use crystal structures or predicted models as starting points.
• Solvate the system in an appropriate water model.
• Add ions to neutralize system charge.

B. Simulation and Analysis

• Run production MD simulations (50-100 ns) for conformational sampling.
• Perform frame-resolved analysis comparing predicted models against MD trajectories.
• Identify frames where predicted models achieve high DockQ alignment despite poor static crystal conformation alignment [2] [14].

Troubleshooting Guides and FAQs

FAQ 1: Why do my AF3 predictions show high confidence but inaccurate degrader positioning?

Issue: AF3's performance is often inflated by accessory proteins (Elongin B/C, DDB1) that contribute to overall interface area but not degrader-specific binding [2].

Solutions:

• Run parallel predictions with both minimal and full complexes and compare the interfaces.
• Use DockQ specifically on the target protein-E3 ligase interface to isolate degrader-specific binding [2].
• Implement dynamic evaluation using molecular dynamics simulations to assess transient conformational compatibility [2] [14].

FAQ 2: How can I improve AF3 predictions for PROTACs with flexible linkers?

Issue: Both AF3 and alternative tools like PRosettaC struggle with flexible linker sampling and alignment [2].

Solutions:

• For PRosettaC, increase sampling depth beyond default settings (generate up to 1000 models per system) [2].
• Consider constraint-based modeling approaches that leverage chemically defined anchor points [2].
• Use explicit ligand atom positions as input rather than molecular string representations, which yields more accurate ligand placement [4].

FAQ 3: What are the licensing restrictions for AF3 in academic research?

Key Restrictions:

• Non-commercial use only: Available for academic institutions, non-profits, and government bodies [15] [17].
• No commercial activities: Cannot be used for research on behalf of commercial organizations [15].
• No model training: Outputs cannot be used to train other ML models for biomolecular structure prediction [15].
• Clinical use prohibited: Predictions are for theoretical modeling only, not for clinical purposes [15].

FAQ 4: How do I handle large complexes that exceed AF3 size limitations?

Issue: AF3 has input size constraints that prevent inclusion of larger scaffold proteins like full cullin-ring ligases [2].

Solutions:

• Focus on minimal functional components (target protein + E3 ligase) for degrader-specific interface prediction [2].
• Use two-stage prediction: First model subcomplexes individually, then combine key interfaces.
• Consider hybrid approaches that combine AF3 with docking or molecular dynamics simulations.

Diagram 2: AF3 Troubleshooting Decision Tree

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Resources for PROTAC Ternary Complex Modeling

Resource	Type	Function	Access
AlphaFold3 Server	Prediction Tool	Models protein-ligand complexes with high accuracy	alphafoldserver.com [2]
PRosettaC	Prediction Tool	Rosetta-based protocol for PROTAC-induced ternary complexes	GitHub Repository [2]
DockQ v2	Validation Metric	Quantitative interface scoring for structural fidelity assessment	Open source [2]
PROTAC-DB	Database	Curated repository of experimentally validated degrader molecules	Public access [2]
RCSB PDB	Database	Source for crystallographically resolved ternary complexes	rcsb.org [2]
Boltz-1	Prediction Tool	Alternative to AF3 for modeling ligand-mediated ternary complexes	Research versions [4]

Best Practices and Implementation Recommendations

Experimental Design

• Always run parallel predictions with both minimal and full complexes to distinguish interface contributions.
• Implement dynamic evaluation using MD simulations rather than relying solely on static benchmarking.
• Use multiple metrics (DockQ, RMSD, pTM) for comprehensive assessment [2] [4].

Technical Implementation

• For large-scale predictions, run MSA and inference stages separately to optimize resource utilization [16].
• Request 32 CPUs per node to support parallel JackHMMER processes for MSA generation [17].
• Use explicit ligand atom positions rather than SMILES strings when possible for improved accuracy [4].

Interpretation Guidelines

• Interpret AF3 confidence metrics cautiously when accessory proteins are present.
• Recognize that geometric accuracy does not necessarily correlate with thermodynamic stability [18].
• Consider transient conformational compatibility revealed by MD simulations when evaluating prediction quality [2] [14].

Proteolysis-Targeting Chimeras (PROTACs) represent a revolutionary therapeutic strategy in drug discovery, functioning as heterobifunctional molecules that recruit an E3 ubiquitin ligase to a target protein, thereby inducing its degradation via the ubiquitin-proteasome system [1] [19]. The formation of a stable ternary complex between the target protein, the PROTAC, and the E3 ligase is paramount for successful degradation [19] [20]. However, the rational design of effective PROTACs is hindered by the challenge of accurately predicting the structure of these ternary complexes. PRosettaC was developed as a Rosetta-based computational protocol specifically to address this gap, enabling the modeling of PROTAC-mediated ternary complexes to inform and accelerate rational degrader design [19]. This technical support center provides essential troubleshooting guides and FAQs to help researchers effectively leverage PRosettaC within their PROTAC development pipelines.

FAQs: Core Protocol and Best Practices

1. What is the fundamental operating principle of PRosettaC?

PRosettaC is a combined protocol that alternates between sampling the protein-protein interaction (PPI) space and the conformational space of the PROTAC molecule itself [19]. It does not perform a simple rigid-body docking but uses the known binding modes of the warheads (the E3 ligase binder and the target protein binder) as geometric constraints or "anchor points." The algorithm then explores compatible orientations of the two proteins and the conformational flexibility of the PROTAC linker to generate a set of plausible ternary complex models [2] [19].

2. In what order should I submit my protein sequences, and does it matter?

Yes, the submission order is important due to the asymmetric nature of the global docking step. The original developers note: "In our work, we always used the E3 ligase as the first protein and the degradation target as the second. Generally, due to the asymmetrical property of the global docking step, it is better to submit the bigger protein as the first and the smaller as the second" [21]. Following this guidance is recommended for optimal sampling.

3. What are the requirements for the ligand structure files (.sdf or .pdb)?

The provided ligand files must represent the 3D bound conformation of the ligand. A common mistake is to provide a 2D chemical structure. The server requires "the bound 3D conformation of the ligand in its appropriate structure" [21]. Furthermore, the ligand structure you provide does not need to be identical to the one defined in your SMILES string (e.g., a single methyl change is tolerated), but it must share a "substantial common substructure" for the protocol to execute properly [21].

4. How does PRosettaC's performance compare to AI tools like AlphaFold 3 (AF3)?

Independent benchmarks demonstrate that PRosettaC can outperform AF3 for modeling PROTAC ternary complexes. A 2025 study in Scientific Reports systematically benchmarked both tools and concluded that "PRosettaC outperforms AlphaFold3 for modeling PROTAC ternary complexes" [2]. AF3's performance can be inflated by the presence of accessory proteins (like Elongin B/C for VHL), which contribute to the overall interface area but not necessarily to the degrader-specific binding geometry. PRosettaC, by leveraging chemically defined anchor points, often yields more geometrically accurate models of the core ternary complex [2].

5. My PRosettaC model has a poor DockQ score against the crystal structure. Does this mean it is useless?

Not necessarily. Conventional benchmarking against a single, static crystal structure may overlook biologically relevant conformations. The same 2025 study introduced a dynamic evaluation strategy using molecular dynamics (MD) simulations. They found that "several PRosettaC models, while poorly aligned to the static crystal conformation, transiently achieve high DockQ alignment with specific frames along the MD trajectory" [2]. This suggests that a model with a mediocre static score might still represent a valid, transient state in the dynamic lifecycle of the ternary complex. Evaluating models against MD trajectories can provide a more nuanced assessment.

Troubleshooting Guide

This guide addresses common issues encountered during PRosettaC modeling, their potential causes, and recommended solutions.

Table 1: Common PRosettaC Issues and Solutions

Problem	Potential Cause	Recommended Solution
Failed Protocol Execution	Incorrect ligand file format or content; substantial substructure mismatch with SMILES [21].	Ensure the ligand .sdf file represents a valid 3D bound conformation and has a substantial common substructure with the SMILES string.
Low Model Accuracy	Insufficient sampling of linker conformations or protein-protein orientations [2].	Increase the number of generated models beyond the default (e.g., to 1000 models) to enhance sampling depth [2].
Inaccurate Protein-Protein Interface	Inherent difficulty in predicting small, ligand-stabilized interfaces; lack of co-evolutionary signal [1] [22].	Use the resulting models as a starting point for Molecular Dynamics (MD) simulations to assess stability and identify transiently accurate conformations [2] [20].
Poor Degradation Prediction Despite Good Model	Ternary complex stability does not always guarantee degradation; lysine positioning may be suboptimal [20].	Model the entire degradation machinery (including E2/Ubiquitin) and run MD simulations to check lysine accessibility [20].

Key Research Reagent Solutions

Successful application of the PRosettaC protocol and subsequent validation relies on several key reagents and tools.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Item / Resource	Function in Workflow	Technical Notes
PRosettaC Web Server	The primary tool for generating ternary complex structural models.	Accessible at https://prosettac.weizmann.ac.il/ [21] [19]. Input requires protein structures with warheads, and PROTAC linker as a SMILES string.
Curated Ternary Complex Datasets	For benchmarking and validating PRosettaC predictions.	Sources include the PDB and curated datasets from recent literature (e.g., the 36 complex set used in the AF3 benchmark) [2].
Molecular Dynamics (MD) Software	For assessing model stability, conformational dynamics, and frustration analysis.	Used to validate static models and simulate the entire degradation machinery [22] [20].
DockQ Scoring Metric	A quantitative method for assessing the quality of predicted protein-protein interfaces.	A standard metric for benchmarking predicted complexes against crystal structures [2].
X-ray Crystallography	The gold standard for obtaining experimental ternary complex structures for validation.	Critical for validating computational predictions and understanding cooperative binding [22].

Experimental Protocol and Workflow Visualization

For a robust modeling and validation pipeline, follow this detailed workflow, which integrates PRosettaC with downstream validation steps.

Detailed Workflow for Ternary Complex Modeling & Validation:

• Input Preparation:

  • Obtain 3D structures of the E3 ligase (e.g., VHL, CRBN) and the target protein, each in complex with their respective binding warhead. Remove the original ligands, keeping the protein structures.
  • Prepare an .sdf file for each warhead ligand, ensuring it represents its bound 3D conformation.
  • Define the chemical structure of the full PROTAC, specifically its linker, as a SMILES string.

• PRosettaC Execution:

  • Submit the inputs to the PRosettaC server, specifying the E3 ligase as the first protein and the target as the second (or the larger protein as first).
  • Configure the sampling parameters. For challenging systems, increase the number of output models (e.g., 1000 models) to improve the chance of sampling a near-native conformation [2].

• Model Selection and Analysis:

  • Analyze the generated models based on their energy scores and cluster analysis to identify the most representative, low-energy structures.
  • Use a metric like DockQ to quantitatively compare the top models against a known crystal structure, if available [2].

• Dynamic Validation (Recommended):

  • Subject the top-ranked PRosettaC models to all-atom Molecular Dynamics (MD) simulations (e.g., 500 ns to 1 µs) to assess their stability and conformational flexibility [20] [23].
  • Calculate metrics like Root Mean Square Deviation (RMSD), Radius of Gyration (Rg), and buried surface area over the simulation trajectory.
  • Perform a frustration analysis on the protein-protein interface, as the "degree of frustration correlates with experimentally measured cooperativity" [22].

• Functional Context Modeling (Advanced):

  • For selected stable models, assemble the ternary complex into a larger degradation machinery complex, including accessory proteins like Elongin B/C for VHL or DDB1 and Cullin-RING ligases for CRBN [20].
  • Simulate this larger complex to investigate the essential motions that position surface lysine residues of the target protein near the catalytic pocket of the E2 ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme, which is critical for predicting degradation efficacy [20].

The following diagram illustrates the logical flow of this integrated experimental protocol:

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: What are the common failure modes for Boltz-1 predictions, and how can I diagnose them? Incorrect ligand representation is a primary cause of prediction failures. If you encounter poor structural accuracy, first verify your input file. Use the explicit 3D coordinates of the ligand from a pre-docked structure whenever possible, as this method yields more accurate ligand placement than molecular string representations like SMILES [24]. Diagnose issues by checking the output confidence metrics and comparing the predicted ligand position to a known reference structure using RMSD calculations [25].

Q2: My PROTAC ternary complex model has a good overall pTM but a poor ipTM. What does this indicate? A good pTM (predicted Template Modeling Score) with a poor ipTM (interface pTM) suggests that the overall folds of the individual proteins (the E3 ligase and the POI) are predicted accurately, but their relative orientation and interaction interface in the ternary complex are likely incorrect [24] [25]. This is a critical issue because PROTAC efficacy depends on a productive ternary complex. Focus on optimizing the linker region of your PROTAC and consider using different ligand input methods to improve the interface prediction.

Q3: What are the minimum system requirements for running Boltz-1, and how does its setup differ from AlphaFold 3? Boltz-1 is installed directly via pip (pip install boltz -U) and uses YAML files for input, making it relatively straightforward to set up [25]. In contrast, AlphaFold 3 often requires a more complex installation process, frequently deployed via Docker, which demands greater system resources and familiarity with containerization [24] [25]. Always check for GPU compatibility and sufficient VRAM for larger complexes.

Q4: How can I quantitatively compare a predicted PROTAC complex structure to an experimental one? Use a combination of metrics to evaluate different aspects of the model [25]:

• RMSD (Root Mean Square Deviation): Measures the atomic distance between the predicted and experimental structures. Lower values indicate higher accuracy.
• DockQ Score: A quality measure specifically for protein-protein docking interfaces.
• pTM/ipTM: AlphaFold and Boltz's own confidence metrics for the overall structure and the interface, respectively. Automate this analysis using scripts from resources like the PROTACFold GitHub repository, which can calculate these metrics and generate comprehensive reports [25].

Troubleshooting Guides

Issue: Poor Ligand Positioning in Ternary Complex

Problem: The predicted model shows the PROTAC molecule in an incorrect location, failing to form proper contacts between the E3 ligase and the Protein of Interest (POI).

Solution:

• Verify Input Format: For Boltz-1, ensure your YAML file correctly specifies the ligand. For AlphaFold 3, confirm the JSON input. The most reliable method is to provide explicit 3D atom positions from a pre-docked structure rather than a SMILES string [24].
• Check Component Stoichiometry: Confirm that your input file correctly defines the stoichiometry of the complex (e.g., one E3 ligase, one POI, one PROTAC molecule).
• Use Specialized Tools: Leverage web platforms like protacfold.xyz to automate the generation of correct input files for both AlphaFold 3 and Boltz-1 [25].

Issue: High "Hook Effect" in Cellular Assays Despite Good Model

Problem: Your PROTAC shows good degradation at low concentrations but loses efficacy at high concentrations in cellular assays, even though the structural model predicted a stable ternary complex.

Solution: This is a functional issue related to the mechanism of PROTACs, not a modeling error. At high concentrations, the PROTAC saturates the individual binding sites on the E3 ligase and POI, forming non-productive binary complexes and disrupting the ternary complex [26].

• Experimental Validation: Always test a range of PROTAC concentrations in cellular degradation assays (e.g., western blotting or luminescence-based assays) to identify the DC50 (concentration for 50% degradation) and observe the hook effect [26].
• Refine Design: If the hook effect occurs at low concentrations, revisit the linker design and the binding affinity of your E3 ligase and POI ligands to improve ternary complex cooperativity.

Issue: Low Confidence Scores (pTM/ipTM) for a Specific Complex

Problem: The prediction model returns low confidence scores, making the result unreliable.

Solution:

• Review Input Quality: Ensure the input sequences and structures for the E3 ligase and POI are correct and complete. Missing residues or domains can severely impact prediction quality.
• Benchmark Your Setup: Run the model on a known complex from the PDB (e.g., 7PI4) to verify your installation and setup is functioning correctly [25].
• Compare Models: Run the same prediction on both AlphaFold 3 and Boltz-1. Consistent low scores across models may indicate intrinsic disorder in the proteins or a genuinely challenging complex for current AI tools [24]. Consult the experimental literature to see if the complex is known to be flexible.

Experimental Protocols & Data

Quantitative Performance Benchmarking

The table below summarizes a systematic evaluation of AlphaFold 3 (AF3) and Boltz-1 on 62 experimental PROTAC complexes, demonstrating their performance in structural prediction [24].

Table 1: Benchmarking AF3 and Boltz-1 on PROTAC Ternary Complexes

Metric	AlphaFold 3 (AF3)	Boltz-1	Experimental Context
High-Accuracy Complexes (RMSD < 1 Å)	33 complexes	25 complexes	Evaluation on 62 PDB complexes, including post-2021 structures absent from training data [24]
Medium-Accuracy Complexes (RMSD < 4 Å)	46 complexes	40 complexes
Recommended Ligand Input	Explicit atom positions	Explicit atom positions	Molecular string representations (e.g., SMILES) yielded less accurate placement [24]
Key Advantage	Superior ligand positioning	Effective ternary complex modeling	Both models integrate ligand input during inference [24]

Protocol: Workflow for Predicting a PROTAC Ternary Complex

Title: Predicting a PROTAC-Mediated Ternary Complex Purpose: To generate a structural model of a ternary complex formed by a PROTAC, an E3 ubiquitin ligase, and a Protein of Interest (POI). Materials: See the "Research Reagent Solutions" table below.

Procedure:

• Input Preparation: a. Obtain the protein sequences for the E3 ligase (e.g., VHL, CRBN) and the POI in FASTA format. b. For the PROTAC molecule, obtain either a SMILES string or, preferably, a 3D structure file (e.g., .sdf, .mol2). Using a pre-docked conformation of the PROTAC with its target proteins as input can significantly improve accuracy [24]. c. Use an automated platform like protacfold.xyz or manually create the required input files (JSON for AF3, YAML for Boltz-1) [25].
• Model Execution: a. For AlphaFold 3, run the prediction using the provided Docker container, specifying the input JSON file and output directory [25]. b. For Boltz-1, run the prediction from the command line using the boltz command and your prepared YAML file [25].
• Model Validation: a. Inspect the output confidence metrics (pTM and ipTM). A higher ipTM often indicates a more reliable protein-protein interface [25]. b. If an experimental structure is available, calculate the RMSD, DockQ score, and TM-score using analysis scripts (e.g., utils/evaluation.py from PROTACFold) to quantitatively assess model quality [25].
• Visualization: a. Load the predicted structure (.pdb file) into a molecular viewer like PyMOL or UCSF Chimera. b. Visually inspect the binding mode of the PROTAC and the interface between the E3 ligase and the POI.

Table 2: Research Reagent Solutions

Item	Function in Protocol	Implementation Example
AlphaFold 3	State-of-the-art AI model for predicting protein-ligand and protein-protein interactions, including ternary complexes [24].	Use via Docker container for predicting the 3D structure of the complex from sequences and ligand information [25].
Boltz-1	An open-source biomolecular interaction model from MIT researchers for predicting ternary complexes [25].	Install via pip (pip install boltz -U) and execute with YAML configuration files [25].
PROTACFold Toolkit	A comprehensive suite of scripts for analyzing and comparing predicted PROTAC structures [25].	Use the evaluation.py script to automatically calculate RMSD, DockQ, and other metrics against experimental structures [25].
PROTACFold.xyz	A web platform that automates the preparation of input files for AF3 and Boltz-1 [24] [25].	Input a PDB ID to automatically generate the necessary JSON (AF3) and YAML (Boltz-1) input files.
PyMOL	Molecular graphics system for 3D visualization and structural analysis of the predicted models [27] [25].	Used for visually inspecting the predicted ternary complex and for performing structural alignments with experimental data.

Visualization of Workflows

PROTAC Mechanism and Workflow

Computational Prediction Pipeline

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

FAQ 1: Why do standard protein-protein docking tools often fail to accurately model PROTAC-induced ternary complexes?

Standard docking tools are primarily designed for naturally evolved protein-protein interfaces, which tend to be large and exhibit strong co-evolutionary signals. In contrast, PROTAC-mediated interfaces are typically smaller and are stabilized by a small molecule, creating a non-native complex that lacks evolutionary coupling signals. This fundamental difference means that docking scoring functions, often biased toward native protein-protein interactions, perform poorly for these systems [1] [28]. Furthermore, the problem is inherently a three-body problem (Target-PROTAC-E3 Ligase), which most standard docking protocols are not equipped to handle without significant adaptation [28].

FAQ 2: What is the role of free energy calculations in these integrated workflows, and when should they be applied?

Free energy calculations are used to quantify the cooperativity of ternary complex formation. Cooperativity (ΔΔG) measures how the binding of the PROTAC to one protein (e.g., the target) is influenced by the presence of the other protein (e.g., the E3 ligase) [28]. This is a key metric for predicting PROTAC efficacy. These calculations are computationally intensive and should be applied as a refinement step after initial filtering using faster methods like docking and linker sampling. They provide a physically grounded assessment of complex stability that goes beyond geometric scoring [28].

FAQ 3: My ternary complex model has no steric clashes, but experimental data shows poor degradation. What might be wrong?

A clash-free model is a necessary but insufficient condition for an effective PROTAC. The issue likely lies in the thermodynamic stability or geometry of the predicted complex. A model might be structurally possible but energetically unfavorable. It is crucial to:

• Calculate Cooperativity: Use free energy calculations to determine if the ternary complex formation is favorable (positive cooperativity) or unfavorable (negative cooperativity) [28].
• Check for Productive Poses: The model must position the target protein such that lysine residues are accessible to the E2 ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme for ubiquitination. An otherwise stable complex that blocks E2 access will be ineffective [29].

FAQ 4: How does linker sampling integrate with protein-protein docking in PROTAC modeling?

In traditional workflows, protein-protein docking and linker conformer generation are often done independently, leading to a vast sampling of protein poses that are incompatible with the PROTAC's physical linker [30]. Integrated workflows use linker-constrained docking, which restricts the search to protein-protein conformations that can be physically connected by a PROTAC molecule with a given linker composition and length. This dramatically improves sampling efficiency and model quality [30].

Troubleshooting Guides

Issue 1: Poor Sampling of Linker-Constrained Protein Poses

Problem: The computational workflow fails to generate ternary complex models where the PROTAC's warhead and anchor are correctly positioned in their respective binding pockets.

Solutions:

• Employ Cyclic Coordinate Descent (CCD): Use algorithms like CCD to systematically position the PROTAC into complex-bound configurations. This method efficiently explores the conformational space of the linker while respecting the fixed positions of the protein binding pockets, ensuring the PROTAC is correctly docked [30].
• Leverage Specialized Sampling Tools: Implement protocols from specialized tools like PRosettaC, which uses Rosetta-based sampling to generate linker conformations compatible with pre-defined warhead and anchor binding modes [2]. Increasing the number of sampled models (e.g., from 200 to 1000) can also help overcome convergence issues [2].
• Apply Geometric Constraints: Define distance and angular restraints based on the known binding modes of the warhead and E3 ligase ligand to guide the docking and sampling process, reducing the search space to more plausible conformations [2].

Issue 2: Inaccurate Prediction of Ternary Complex Stability

Problem: Generated models appear structurally sound but do not correlate with experimental degradation activity, often due to incorrect estimation of binding affinity and cooperativity.

Solutions:

• Implement Alchemical Free Energy Calculations: Use methods like Free Energy Perturbation (FEP) or Thermodynamic Integration (TI) to calculate the relative binding free energies. A coarse-grained (CG) model can make these calculations tractable for large ternary complexes while still capturing fundamental physics like the entropic penalty of overly long or short linkers [28].
• Calculate the Buried Surface Area (BSA): As a proxy for complex stability, compute the BSA of the ternary interface. A larger BSA often correlates with a more stable complex and better degradation efficacy, providing a quick computational check [29].
• Incorporate Solvation Effects: The energy landscape of PROTAC-mediated complexes can be dominated by desolvation effects at the protein-protein interface. Using Generalized Born (GB) or Poisson-Boltzmann (PB) models to estimate solvation free energy contributions can significantly improve the accuracy of stability predictions [30].

Issue 3: Tool Failure and Performance Limitations

Problem: Specific software tools, such as AlphaFold, fail to produce accurate models of the ternary complex.

Solutions:

• Understand AlphaFold's Limitations: Recognize that AlphaFold-based models (AF2 and AF3) show low accuracy for PROTAC-mediated complexes, primarily due to the small interface size. Benchmarking shows that PRosettaC can outperform AlphaFold3 in this specific task [1] [2].
• Context is Key for AlphaFold: When using AlphaFold3, include essential accessory proteins (like Elongin B/C for VHL or DDB1 for CRBN) in the prediction, as they can stabilize the E3 ligase and improve model quality, provided you stay within the server's residue count limit [2].
• Explore New Deep Learning Tools: Investigate emerging deep learning methods specifically trained for ternary complexes, such as DeepTernary. These tools can achieve state-of-the-art performance with very fast inference times (seconds versus minutes/hours) [29].

Data Presentation: Benchmarking Computational Tools

The table below summarizes the performance of various computational tools for predicting PROTAC-mediated ternary complex structures, based on benchmarking against crystallographic data.

Table 1: Benchmarking of Ternary Complex Prediction Tools

Tool Name	Methodology	Key Metric (DockQ Score)	Relative Inference Time	Key Strengths	Key Limitations
AlphaFold-Multimer [1]	Deep Learning (DL)	Low (Fails on small interfaces)	Medium	Excellent for natural complexes	Poor performance on small, ligand-stabilized interfaces
AlphaFold 3 [2]	DL	Moderate (Improved with accessory proteins)	Medium	Good for large complexes with scaffolds	Performance can be inflated by non-degrader specific interfaces
PRosettaC [2]	Sampling + Rosetta	Moderate to High	Slow	Chemically defined anchor points; better geometric accuracy	Can fail with insufficient linker sampling
DeepTernary [29]	DL (SE(3)-equivariant)	High (0.65 on PROTAC benchmark)	Very Fast (<10 sec)	Fast, accurate, generalizes from non-PROTAC data	Requires curation of large training dataset (TernaryDB)
Coarse-Grained MD [28]	Physics-Based / Alchemical	N/A (Calculates ΔΔG)	Slow	Physically interprets cooperativity; captures linker entropy	Minimal sequence specificity in current force fields

Table 2: Critical Linker Parameters for Sampling and Design

Parameter	Impact on Ternary Complex	Computational Assessment Method
Length [28] [31]	An optimal intermediate length minimizes configurational entropy penalty and maximizes binding cooperativity.	Scan linker length in silico and calculate ΔΔG for each variant.
Flexibility [31]	Flexible linkers (e.g., PEG) aid in entropy but may reduce complex stability; rigid linkers can pre-organize the PROTAC.	Compare the diversity of sampled poses and the energy of the lowest-energy state.
Linkage Site [31]	The attachment point on the warhead and E3 ligand can drastically alter the geometry of the ternary complex.	Systematically sample different attachment vectors in docking simulations.
Composition [31]	Linker chemistry can influence physicochemical properties (solubility, permeability) and protein-interactions.	Calculate solvation energy and check for potential hydrophobic/electrostatic interactions with the protein surface.

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Alchemical Free Energy Calculation for Cooperativity

This protocol uses coarse-grained molecular dynamics (CGMD) and alchemical methods to calculate the binding cooperativity of a PROTAC [28].

• System Setup:

  • Coarse-Graining: Map proteins onto a coarse-grained representation where approximately every three amino acids are represented by a single large bead. Model the PROTAC warheads as large beads and the linker as a chain of smaller beads (e.g., representing 3 heavy atoms or a PEG unit) [28].
  • Force Field: Apply a minimal force field with volume exclusion and an elastic network model to maintain protein flexibility. Optionally, assign net charges to protein beads based on their constituent residues [28].
  • Initial Coordinates: Initialize the ternary complex with binding pockets facing each other and the PROTAC in a fully extended conformation. Prepare binary complexes (Target-PROTAC and E3-PROTAC) by removing one protein from the ternary setup [28].

• Define the Thermodynamic Cycle:

  • The cooperativity (ΔΔG) is calculated from the difference in PROTAC binding free energy to the target with and without the E3 ligase present: ΔΔG = ΔG({TP}^{binary}) - ΔG({TP}^{ternary}), where T=Target, P=PROTAC, E=E3 ligase [28].

• Run Alchemical Simulations:

  • Use alchemical free energy methods (e.g., FEP, TI) to compute the free energy change (ΔG) associated with "turning on" the interactions between the PROTAC and the protein(s) in both the binary and ternary complexes. This avoids the need to directly simulate binding/unbinding events [28].

• Analysis:

  • Calculate ΔΔG from the simulated ΔG values. A negative ΔΔG indicates positive cooperativity, which is generally desirable for PROTAC function [28].

Protocol 2: PRosettaC Workflow for Ternary Complex Structure Prediction

This protocol outlines the steps for using PRosettaC to generate models of the ternary complex [2].

• Input Preparation:

  • Obtain 3D structures of the target protein and E3 ligase, each with their respective warhead or E3 ligand bound.
  • Define the PROTAC's chemical structure by providing a SMILES string that includes the linker.

• Define Constraints:

  • Specify the atoms in the warhead and E3 ligand that form the covalent connection to the linker. These serve as geometric constraints (anchor points) for the modeling.

• Structure Generation and Sampling:

  • Run the PRosettaC protocol, which uses the Rosetta software suite to:
    • Generate a large ensemble (e.g., 1000 models) of ternary complex conformations.
    • Sample different protein-protein orientations and linker conformations that satisfy the geometric constraints.
    • Score each generated model based on Rosetta's energy function.

• Model Selection:

  • Cluster the generated models based on structural similarity.
  • Select the lowest-energy models from the largest clusters for further analysis or experimental validation.

Workflow and Pathway Visualization

Diagram 1: Integrated computational workflow for PROTAC ternary complex prediction, combining docking, sampling, and free energy calculations.

Diagram 2: Thermodynamic cycle used in alchemical free energy calculations to determine PROTAC binding cooperativity.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Computational Tools and Resources for PROTAC Research

Tool / Resource	Function	Application in Workflow
AlphaFold 3 Server [2]	Protein complex structure prediction	Initial model generation, especially when including accessory proteins.
PRosettaC [2]	Structure prediction of PROTAC ternary complexes	Core sampling engine for generating linker-constrained complex models.
DeepTernary [29]	Deep learning-based ternary complex prediction	Rapid, initial screening of ternary complex poses.
AutoDock Vina [32]	Molecular docking	General-purpose docking; can be integrated into custom pipelines.
dockstring Package [32]	Standardized docking score calculation	Benchmarking and virtual screening of ligands.
Rosetta Software Suite	Biomolecular structure prediction & design	Backbone for PRosettaC; energy scoring and refinement.
DOCKQ [2]	Quality assessment of protein-protein interfaces	Quantitative benchmarking of predicted ternary complexes against crystal structures.
PROTAC-DB / TernaryDB [2] [29]	Curated databases of PROTACs and ternary complexes	Source of experimental data for benchmarking and training models.
Coarse-Grained MD Software (e.g., GROMACS)	Molecular dynamics simulation	Performing alchemical free energy calculations to estimate cooperativity.

Navigating Pitfalls and Enhancing Prediction Accuracy

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the most critical aspects of linker design for successful ternary complex formation? The linker's chemical composition, length, and geometry are critical [33]. An optimal linker must be long and flexible enough to connect the POI and E3 ligase without introducing strain, yet not so long that it reduces the effective local concentration needed for ternary complex formation. Inadequate sampling of these parameters is a primary cause of prediction failure [34].

Why do my computational models of ternary complexes show high energy or clashing, even with known active PROTACs? This often results from misaligned anchor points [34]. The warhead and E3 ligand must be positioned in their respective protein binding pockets in an orientation that the linker can connect without introducing steric clashes or unnatural torsion angles. This alignment is a prerequisite for successful modeling.

My model has a good overall protein-protein interface, but the PROTAC linker is strained. What does this indicate? This typically indicates a problem with linker sampling. The sampling algorithm may not have explored the conformational space sufficiently to find a low-energy linker pose that is compatible with the protein-protein interface [34]. Increasing the number of generated models can help overcome this.

How can I improve the sampling of linker conformations in tools like PRosettaC? You can modify the PRosettaC protocol to generate significantly more models. One study increased the sampling to up to 1000 models per system, surpassing the default limit, to achieve broader conformational exploration [34] [35].

What is the role of protein flexibility in ternary complex prediction, and how can I account for it? Static crystal structures represent a single conformational snapshot. Proteins are flexible, and a PROTAC-compatible pose might be a transient state. Using Molecular Dynamics (MD) simulations after docking can reveal if a poorly-scoring static model transiently samples a high-compatibility conformation, thus explaining its experimental efficacy [34] [35].

What are some key reagents and tools for troubleshooting ternary complex prediction? Essential research reagents and computational tools are listed in the table below.

Item Name	Function in Troubleshooting
PRosettaC	A Rosetta-based protocol specifically designed for modeling PROTAC-induced ternary complexes by enforcing geometric constraints from known binding modes [34].
AlphaFold3 (AF3)	A general-purpose protein complex prediction tool; can be used for comparison but may be influenced by non-degrader related protein interfaces [34] [35].
DockQ v2	A quantitative scoring metric to assess the structural fidelity of predicted complexes against experimental structures by combining interface RMSD, ligand RMSD, and fraction of native contacts [34] [35].
GROMACS	Software for performing Molecular Dynamics (MD) simulations to assess the dynamic behavior and conformational stability of modeled ternary complexes [35].
CGenFF Server	Used to generate force field parameters for PROTAC molecules, making them compatible with MD simulation software like GROMACS [35].
Flare/Hit Expander	A computer-aided drug design tool that can generate small chemical modifications (e.g., methyl, fluoro) to the linker to explore changes in molecular fields and potentially improve properties [36].

---

Troubleshooting Guides

Issue 1: Inadequate Linker Sampling

Problem Statement: Computational predictions fail to identify bioactive ternary complex structures due to an insufficient exploration of possible linker conformations, leading to false negatives or inaccurate models.

Investigation Protocol: To diagnose and resolve inadequate linker sampling, follow these steps and use the following quantitative data as a benchmark for your own experiments.

Step-by-Step Diagnosis:

• Run an extended sampling simulation. Using a tool like PRosettaC, significantly increase the number of models generated per system (e.g., from a default of 200 to 1000 models) to enhance conformational exploration [34].
• Analyze the results. Plot the Rosetta energy score (or the relevant scoring function) against the Root-Mean-Square Deviation (RMSD) of the linker or the entire ternary complex. A rugged landscape with multiple deep wells suggests the need for even more extensive sampling.
• Compare with dynamic frames. Use Molecular Dynamics (MD) trajectories of a known crystal structure and perform a frame-resolved DockQ analysis. This determines if any of your poorly-scoring static models transiently achieve high alignment with a viable conformational state, which would justify further investigation [34] [35].

Quantitative Benchmarks for Linker Sampling Table: The impact of increased conformational sampling on prediction outcomes, as demonstrated in benchmark studies.

Study	Tool	Default Models	Enhanced Sampling	Observed Outcome
Benchmarking the Builders [34] [35]	PRosettaC	200	Up to 1000 models	Improved likelihood of capturing native-like ternary poses, particularly in systems with flexible or elongated linkers.

Resolution Protocol:

• Increase Sampling: As a primary step, always increase the number of models generated by your prediction software beyond its default settings [34].
• Apply Constraints: If available, use experimental data (e.g., from HDX-MS, cross-linking) to define distance restraints within the modeling protocol and guide the sampling toward experimentally plausible regions.
• Functional Group Addition: Use tools like Flare's Hit Expander to systematically add small functional groups (e.g., methyl, fluoro, hydroxyl) to the linker. This changes the molecular fields and can suggest alternative linker chemistries that are more synthetically accessible and may improve solubility or binding [36].

Issue 2: Misaligned Anchor Points

Problem Statement: The warhead and E3 ligand are not correctly positioned in their respective protein binding pockets, leading to a PROTAC geometry that cannot form a productive ternary complex without severe steric clashes or unnatural torsion angles.

Investigation Protocol: To diagnose misaligned anchor points, a systematic comparison of binding modes is required.

Step-by-Step Diagnosis:

• Validate Binary Complexes. Before ternary complex prediction, confirm that the POI-warhead and E3-ligand binary complexes are correctly folded and that the ligands are docked in their experimentally-validated binding modes. Use available crystal structures as a reference.
• Superpose and Analyze. Superpose the predicted ternary complex onto the known crystal structures of the POI and E3 ligase, focusing on the warhead and E3 ligand. Significant deviations in the position of these moieties indicate misalignment.
• Check Linker Vector Geometry. Examine the points where the linker attaches to the warhead and E3 ligand. The vectors from these anchor points should be conducive to connection without forcing the proteins into an impossible orientation.

Resolution Protocol:

• Enforce Known Poses: In tools that allow it, fix the warhead and E3 ligand in their crystallographically-observed positions during the docking or modeling process. This reduces the conformational search space to the linker and protein orientation only.
• Use Chemically Defined Anchors: Employ protocols like PRosettaC that leverage chemically defined anchor points from known warhead binding modes to guide the assembly of the ternary complex [34].
• Iterative Linker Design: If anchor point misalignment persists, the linker itself may be the issue. Consider modifying the linker length or incorporating rigid segments (e.g., piperazines, alkynes) to better match the vector geometry required by the anchor points [33].

The following workflow diagram illustrates the strategic process for diagnosing and resolving these common failure modes.

Diagnostic Workflow for PROTAC Modeling Failures

---

Experimental Protocols

Protocol: PRosettaC Modeling with Enhanced Sampling

Purpose: To generate structurally accurate models of PROTAC-induced ternary complexes by extensively sampling linker conformations and protein orientations.

Methodology:

• Input Preparation:
  • Obtain or generate 3D structures of the target protein and E3 ligase, each with their respective bound warhead or recruiter.
  • Define the PROTAC linker as a SMILES string.
• Model Generation:
  • Use a local implementation of PRosettaC.
  • Modify the protocol to generate a large number of models (e.g., 1000) to enhance sampling depth, surpassing the default limit of 200 [34].
  • The protocol will enforce geometric constraints derived from the known binding modes to assemble the ternary complex.
• Analysis:
  • Score all generated models using the Rosetta energy function, paying particular attention to the total score and interface energy.
  • Rank the final predictions using DockQ v2 by comparing them to an experimental crystal structure, if available [34] [35].

Protocol: Dynamic Evaluation via Molecular Dynamics

Purpose: To assess whether a computationally-predicted ternary complex model is compatible with a dynamically accessible protein conformation, rather than just a static crystal structure.

Methodology:

• System Setup:
  • Use GROMACS 2023.1 with the CHARMM36-jul2022 force field.
  • Solvate the complex in a TIP3P water box with a 1.0 nm buffer and neutralize with ions to 0.15 M concentration.
  • Generate ligand parameters using the CGenFF server.
• Simulation:
  • Perform energy minimization until the maximum force is below 1000 kJ/mol/nm.
  • Equilibrate first under NVT conditions (100 ps) and then NPT conditions (100 ps) with position restraints on protein and ligand heavy atoms.
  • Run a production simulation in the NPT ensemble for 50 ns, saving coordinates every 10 ps to yield 5000 frames [35].
• Frame-Resolved Analysis:
  • Use DockQ v2 to compare your static, predicted model against every frame of the MD trajectory.
  • Identify frames where the DockQ score is significantly higher, indicating transient conformational compatibility that may explain the PROTAC's experimental activity despite a poor static model score [34] [35].

The relationship between computational prediction and dynamic validation is summarized in the diagram below.

Computational Prediction and Validation Workflow

Troubleshooting Guide: Common Issues in Ternary Complex Research

1. Issue: Poor Degradation Efficiency Despite Confirmed Binary Binding

• Problem: Your PROTAC molecule binds to the target protein (POI) and the E3 ligase independently in binary assays, but fails to induce efficient degradation in cellular assays.
• Investigation & Solution:
  • Assess Ternary Complex Formation: Use methods like the NanoBRET Ubiquitination Assay to confirm the formation of the POI-PROTAC-E3 ligase ternary complex in cells [37]. A lack of BRET signal suggests unproductive complex formation.
  • Check Conformational Flexibility: The conformational flexibility of the ternary complex is a key factor influencing successful degradation [37]. Employ computational models to generate an ensemble of ternary complex structures and classify them as "productive" or "unproductive" based on the proximity of the ubiquitin-loaded E2 enzyme to lysine residues on the target protein [37].
  • Optimize the Linker: Experiment with linker length and composition. An unsuitable linker may prevent the complex from adopting a geometry that allows the target protein's lysines to be positioned close to the E2 ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme.

2. Issue: The "Hook Effect" Observed in Dose-Response Curves

• Problem: Degradation efficiency decreases at high concentrations of the PROTAC.
• Investigation & Solution:
  • Understand the Mechanism: The "hook effect" occurs when high concentrations of the heterobifunctional PROTAC saturate the binding sites on the POI and E3 ligase with individual, non-productive binary complexes, thereby disrupting the formation of the productive ternary complex [38].
  • Re-optimize Concentration: This is a known characteristic of PROTACs. The effective degradation window must be determined experimentally, and concentrations should be used that are within this window, not above it.

3. Issue: Computational Models Predict Ternary Structures that Do Not Correlate with Experimental Degradation

• Problem: Your in-silico predictions form ternary complexes, but these structures do not align with experimental degradation data.
• Investigation & Solution:
  • Incorporate Ubiquitination Proximity: Basic docking might generate structures that are sterically possible but functionally inert. Augment your models with a "productiveness" filter. As demonstrated in recent research, align your ternary complex with the full CRL4A ligase complex (including DDB1, CUL4A, Rbx1, NEDD8, E2, and Ubiquitin) and classify structures based on the distance between ubiquitin and exposed target lysines [37].
  • Validate with Experimental Structures: Use reported ternary complex crystal structures (e.g., PDB IDs: 6BOY, 5HXB, 5FQD) to validate and benchmark your computational model's ability to identify productive configurations [37].
  • Evaluate Buried Surface Area (BSA): For predicted structures, calculate the BSA of the ternary complex. A higher BSA often correlates with a more stable complex and higher degradation potency, providing a quantitative metric to rank predictions [39].

4. Issue: Off-Target Degradation or Toxicity

• Problem: The PROTAC degrades proteins other than the intended target, leading to cellular toxicity.
• Investigation & Solution:
  • Profile Warhead and Anchor Selectivity: The warhead (POI ligand) and the anchor (E3 ligase ligand) may have off-target binding partners. Use techniques like chemical proteomics to profile the selectivity of each moiety independently.
  • Explore Tissue-Specific E3 Ligases: To improve selectivity and reduce on-target toxicity in healthy tissues, consider designing PROTACs that recruit E3 ligases with tissue-specific expression [40].
  • Utilize Conditional PROTACs: Investigate advanced strategies like photocaged PROTACs, photo-switchable PROTACs (e.g., PHOTACs), or hypoxia-activated PROTACs. These are designed to be active only in specific spatial, temporal, or disease microenvironmental conditions (e.g., tumor hypoxia), thereby minimizing off-tissue effects [40].

---

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: Why is predicting the structure of a PROTAC-induced ternary complex so challenging? A1: Ternary complex prediction is difficult due to several factors:

• Conformational Flexibility: The PROTAC linker introduces significant flexibility, leading to an ensemble of possible ternary structures rather than a single, rigid conformation [37].
• Data Scarcity: There are very few experimentally determined PROTAC or molecular glue ternary complex structures in databases like the PDB, which limits the training data for computational methods [39].
• Complex Energetics: The formation is governed by cooperative protein-protein interactions (PPIs) induced by the small molecule, which are hard to model accurately with traditional docking.

Q2: What is a key quantitative metric I can use to validate my predicted ternary complex structure? A2: The DockQ score is a standard metric for evaluating the quality of protein-protein docking predictions. A DockQ score ≥ 0.23 is generally considered indicative of a "near-native" pose that is close to the experimentally determined native structure [41]. Additionally, the Buried Surface Area (BSA) calculated from your predicted structure can be used; it has been shown to correlate with experimental degradation potency, with productive complexes often having a BSA in the range of 1100-1500 Ų [39].

Q3: My PROTAC forms a ternary complex, but the target protein isn't ubiquitinated. What could be wrong? A3: Ternary complex formation is necessary but not sufficient for degradation [37]. This problem often lies in the geometry of the complex. The formed complex may be "unproductive," meaning that despite the proteins being brought together, no lysine residues on the target protein are positioned within reach of the E2 ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme. Validate predicted lysine ubiquitination sites through site-directed mutagenesis, replacing key lysines with arginines to see if degradation is abolished [37].

Q4: What are the main advantages of deep learning methods like DeepTernary over traditional docking for ternary complex prediction? A4: As reported in recent studies, deep learning approaches offer distinct advantages [39]:

• Speed: They achieve inference in seconds (~7s for PROTACs) compared to the time-consuming process of traditional docking and ranking.
• Accuracy: They can achieve state-of-the-art performance (e.g., DockQ score of 0.65 on PROTAC benchmarks) by learning fundamental interaction patterns from large, curated datasets of ternary complexes (e.g., TernaryDB), even without prior exposure to known PROTACs.
• No Requirement for Manual Refinement: They are end-to-end models that predict the final complex structure without needing multi-step filtering and refinement protocols.

---

Performance Metrics for Ternary Complex Prediction Methods

The following table summarizes key quantitative benchmarks for evaluating different computational approaches to ternary complex prediction, as reported in recent literature.

Method Name	Method Type	Key Metric (DockQ Score)	Inference Time	Key Innovation / Advantage
DeepTernary [39]	Deep Learning (SE(3)-equivariant GNN)	0.65 (PROTAC benchmark)	~7 seconds	End-to-end prediction; generalizes from non-PROTAC ternary complex data.
BOTCP [41]	Bayesian Optimization & Machine Learning	High rank for near-native clusters	Not Specified	Sample-efficient exploration; uses PROTAC stability and interaction restraints for ranking.
Traditional Docking(e.g., RosettaDock, PIPER) [39]	Sampling & Ranking	Generally lower than deep learning	Time-consuming (hours-days)	Relies on generating large pose pools followed by filtering and refinement.

---

Experimental Protocol: Validating a Productive Ternary Complex

This protocol outlines a combined computational and experimental workflow to validate that a predicted ternary complex leads to target protein ubiquitination.

1. Computational Prediction & Filtering

• Objective: Generate and filter ternary complex structures to identify "productive" poses.
• Steps:
  • Generate Ternary Complex Ensemble: Use a prediction method (e.g., DeepTernary, BOTCP, or docking with FRODock/PIPER) to generate a large ensemble of possible POI-PROTAC-E3 ligase complex structures [39] [41].
  • Model the Full Ligase Complex: Align each ternary complex conformation with an ensemble of structures for the full E3 ligase complex (e.g., CRL4A containing DDB1, CUL4A, Rbx1, NEDD8, E2, and Ubiquitin for CRBN-based PROTACs) [37].
  • Classify as Productive/Unproductive: For each resulting ensemble, classify a structure as productive if a lysine residue on the target protein surface is positioned within proximity (e.g., ~10-15 Å) of the terminal carbon of the ubiquitin glycine residue. Structures not meeting this criterion are classified as unproductive and excluded [37].

2. Experimental Validation via NanoBRET Ubiquitination Assay

• Objective: Experimentally measure PROTAC-induced ubiquitination of the target protein in live cells [37].
• Materials:
  • CRISPR-edited HEK293 cell line expressing endogenous HiBiT-tagged target protein.
  • Plasmids for ectopic expression of LgBiT and HaloTag-Ubiquitin.
  • PROTAC molecule and appropriate controls (e.g., warhead-only ligand).
  • NanoBRET Nano-Glo Substrate and HaloTag Ligand.
• Procedure:
  • Cell Transfection/Engineering: Use a cell line that endogenously expresses your target protein fused to HiBiT. Co-express LgBiT and HaloTag-Ubiquitin.
  • PROTAC Treatment: Treat the cells with your PROTAC and controls for a predetermined time.
  • Signal Detection: Add the NanoBRET substrate and HaloTag ligand. The HiBiT and LgBiT proteins complement to form a functional luciferase, producing a luminescent signal. If the target protein is ubiquitinated, the HaloTag-Ubiquitin is brought into proximity, enabling Bioluminescence Resonance Energy Transfer (BRET) to occur.
  • Data Analysis: Measure the BRET ratio. A significant increase in the BRET ratio in PROTAC-treated cells compared to controls confirms target protein ubiquitination.

3. Validation of Ubiquitination Sites via Mutagenesis

• Objective: Confirm the specific lysine residues predicted by the computational model.
• Steps:
  • Site-Directed Mutagenesis: Mutate the lysine residue(s) identified in Step 1.3 to arginine (a non-ubiquitinatable residue) in your target protein construct.
  • Repeat Assay: Repeat the NanoBRET Ubiquitination Assay with cells expressing the lysine-mutant protein.
  • Interpretation: A significant reduction or abolition of the BRET signal (ubiquitination) in the mutant, while the wild-type protein shows strong ubiquitination, validates the computational prediction of the ubiquitination site [37].

Workflow for Validating a Productive Ternary Complex

---

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Reagent / Tool	Function in Ternary Complex Research
NanoBRET Ubiquitination Assay	A live-cell bioluminescence assay used to measure target-specific ubiquitination induced by a PROTAC, confirming ternary complex functionality [37].
CRISPR-edited HiBiT Tagging	Allows for endogenous tagging of the target protein with the small HiBiT peptide, enabling highly sensitive and physiologically relevant detection in the NanoBRET assay without massive overexpression [37].
DeepTernary Model	A state-of-the-art deep learning tool for the rapid and accurate prediction of ternary complex structures, trained on a large curated dataset (TernaryDB) [39].
Cereblon (CRBN)/Von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) Ligands	Commonly used "anchors" that recruit specific E3 ubiquitin ligases (CRBN or VHL) to the ternary complex. Examples include lenalidomide derivatives for CRBN and VH298 for VHL [38].
Site-Directed Mutagenesis Kits	Essential for mutating predicted ubiquitination lysine residues to arginine to conclusively validate their necessity for degradation [37].

---

Key Signaling Pathways in Targeted Protein Degradation

The following diagram illustrates the core mechanism of Targeted Protein Degradation induced by a heterobifunctional PROTAC, culminating in the proteasomal degradation of the target protein.

PROTAC-Induced Protein Degradation Pathway

Technical Support Center: FAQs & Troubleshooting Guides

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: Why does my ternary complex model have a high overall accuracy but a poorly aligned PROTAC linker? This common issue often arises from an over-reliance on global structural metrics that can be inflated by large, stable protein domains. The accuracy of the core E3 ligase and target protein may be high, but the critical degrader-specific binding interface might be misrepresented. It is recommended to use interface-specific metrics like DockQ alongside visual inspection of the PROTAC binding mode to diagnose this problem [34].

Q2: My computational tool failed to predict a known viable ternary complex. Did the tool fail, or is my hypothesis wrong? Not necessarily either. Conventional static benchmarking may overlook transient conformational compatibility. A model might be poorly aligned with a static crystal structure but accurately represent a low-energy state that the complex samples dynamically. Incorporating molecular dynamics (MD) simulations to perform a frame-resolved analysis can reveal if your model achieves high alignment with transient conformational states along the simulation trajectory [34].

Q3: How does the inclusion of accessory proteins like Elongin B/C or DDB1 in my model affect the prediction of the PROTAC-mediated interface? Including accessory proteins can inflate perceived performance metrics by increasing the total protein-protein interface area, even if the degrader-specific geometry is incorrect. For example, AlphaFold-3's performance in some benchmarks was bolstered by these scaffold proteins. For a precise evaluation of the PROTAC-induced interface, it is crucial to compare predictions from both minimal complexes (target protein and E3 ligase only) and full complexes (with accessory proteins) [34].

Q4: What are the primary limitations of deep learning (DL) models like AlphaFold-3 for flexible protein-ligand docking? While DL models offer speed, they can struggle with generalization beyond their training data and sometimes produce physically unrealistic predictions. Common failures include incorrect stereochemistry, unrealistic bond lengths, and steric clashes. These models are evolving to incorporate full protein flexibility, but this remains a significant challenge. Traditional sampling-based methods may still be required to capture the full range of motion [42].

Q5: For a novel PROTAC design, what is a robust computational workflow to maximize the chance of successful ternary complex modeling? A hybrid approach is often most effective. Start with a constraint-based modeling tool like PRosettaC to generate initial geometries using known warhead binding modes. Then, use protein-protein docking tools like HADDOCK guided by the modeled PROTAC to refine the interface. Finally, validate and assess the stability of your top-ranked models using explicit-solvent molecular dynamics (MD) simulations (e.g., 500 ns) to analyze stability metrics like buried surface area and radius of gyration [34] [23].

Troubleshooting Common Experimental & Computational Issues

Issue: PRosettaC modeling fails or produces very few models.

• Potential Cause 1: Insufficient sampling due to low default model generation.
• Solution: Modify the protocol to increase the number of generated models (e.g., up to 1000 models) to enhance the sampling of linker conformations and protein rotations [34].
• Potential Cause 2: Misaligned chemical constraints or anchor points.
• Solution: Manually verify the input structures of the target and E3 ligase with their respective bound warheads to ensure the defined anchor points for the PROTAC are chemically correct and geometrically feasible [34].

Issue: Molecular dynamics simulations show rapid disintegration of the predicted ternary complex.

• Potential Cause: The initial model, while structurally plausible in a vacuum, may reside in a high-energy state that is not stable in solution.
• Solution: This does not always mean the model is useless. First, ensure the simulation system is properly set up (ionic concentration, neutralization). If the complex still dissociates, re-cluster your initial modeling outputs and select alternative top-ranked models for simulation. A model that is stable in MD may have a higher chance of representing a biologically relevant conformation [34] [23].

Issue: Discrepancy between high DockQ score and poor functional prediction for degradation.

• Potential Cause: DockQ is an excellent metric for interface quality but does not account for the functional orientation required for ubiquitin transfer. The model may have a good overall interface but place the target protein's lysine residues too far from the E2 ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme.
• Solution: Beyond DockQ, perform an in-silico analysis of the distance and orientation between candidate lysine residues on the target protein and the hypothesized location of the E2 enzyme. This provides a more functionally relevant validation metric [34].

Quantitative Benchmarking Data

Table 1: Performance Comparison of AlphaFold-3 vs. PRosettaC on a Curated Dataset of 36 Ternary Complexes

Performance Metric	AlphaFold-3 (Minimal Complex)	AlphaFold-3 (Full Complex with Scaffold)	PRosettaC
Key Strength	High computational speed and ease of use	Improved overall structural fidelity for E3 ligase	Chemically defined anchor points for warheads
Key Limitation	Performance can be inflated by non-contributory scaffold proteins [34]	Input size constraints limit inclusion of larger scaffolds (e.g., Cullins) [34]	Frequent failures with insufficient linker sampling or misalignment [34]
Typical Output Models	5 models per complex (default server settings) [34]	5 models per complex (default server settings) [34]	54 to 878 models per system (modified protocol) [34]
Modeling Strategy	End-to-end deep learning	End-to-end deep learning with biological context	Rosetta-based protocol with geometric constraints

Table 2: Key Reagent Solutions for Ternary Complex Modeling

Research Reagent / Tool	Function in Experiment
HADDOCK	A protein-protein docking-driven approach used to model ternary complexes by incorporating data from induced fit PROTAC docking [23].
PRosettaC	A specialized Rosetta protocol for modeling PROTAC-induced ternary complexes by leveraging known warhead binding modes as chemically defined anchor points [34].
AlphaFold-3 (AF3)	A general-purpose deep learning system for predicting the structure of biomolecular complexes, including proteins and small molecules [34].
Molecular Dynamics (MD) Simulations	Used to simulate the physical movements of atoms over time, providing insights into the stability and dynamic conformation of predicted ternary complexes [34] [23].
DockQ	A quantitative metric specifically designed to score the quality of protein-protein interfaces, providing a more relevant measure for PROTAC models than global metrics [34].
PROTAC-DB / PROTAC-DataBank	Curated databases compiling experimentally validated degrader molecules and ternary complex structures, providing essential templates for modeling [34].

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Benchmarking Structure Prediction Tools

This protocol outlines the systematic benchmarking of tools like AlphaFold-3 and PRosettaC against crystallographically resolved ternary complexes [34].

• Crystal Structure Curation:

  • Source: Query the RCSB Protein Data Bank (PDB) using advanced search criteria (e.g., "ternary complex PROTAC", X-ray diffraction, molecular weight ≥ 450 Da).
  • Screening: Programmatically and manually screen results to confirm the presence of a bifunctional PROTAC ligand simultaneously engaging an E3 ligase (e.g., CRBN, VHL) and a distinct target protein.
  • Output: A non-redundant, high-confidence set of ternary complex structures (e.g., the 36 used in the cited study).

• Computational Predictions:

  • AlphaFold-3 (Minimal Complex): Input the amino acid sequences of only the target protein and the E3 ligase (e.g., VHL alone) into the AF3 server. Generate five models using default multimer settings.
  • AlphaFold-3 (Full Complex): Input the sequences of the target protein, E3 ligase, and its critical accessory proteins (e.g., VHL + Elongin B + Elongin C). Generate five models.
  • PRosettaC (Ternary Complex):
    • Input: Provide PDB structures of the target protein and E3 ligase with their respective warheads bound. Input the PROTAC linker as a SMILES string.
    • Modeling: Run a local implementation of PRosettaC, generating a large number of models (e.g., 200-1000) to ensure sufficient sampling of linker conformations and protein rotations.

• Quantitative Assessment:

  • Primary Metric: Calculate the DockQ score for each predicted model against the reference crystal structure to evaluate the fidelity of the protein-protein interface.
  • Analysis: Compare DockQ scores across the two AF3 configurations and PRosettaC to determine which tool and configuration produces the most geometrically accurate interfaces.

Protocol 2: Dynamic Evaluation via Molecular Dynamics

This protocol validates and refines static models by assessing their stability under dynamic conditions [34] [23].

• System Setup:

  • Starting Structure: Use the top-ranked model from a static prediction tool or the crystal structure itself as a reference.
  • Solvation and Ions: Place the complex in a simulation box of explicit water molecules (e.g., TIP3P model). Add ions (e.g., NaCl) to neutralize the system and achieve a physiological concentration (e.g., 150 mM).

• Simulation Run:

  • Equilibration: Perform step-wise energy minimization and equilibration under NVT (constant Number of particles, Volume, and Temperature) and NPT (constant Number of particles, Pressure, and Temperature) ensembles to stabilize the system.
  • Production Simulation: Run a long-timescale MD simulation (e.g., 500 ns) using a molecular dynamics package (e.g., GROMACS, AMBER, NAMD).

• Frame-Resolved Analysis:

  • Trajectory Sampling: Extract snapshots (frames) from the MD trajectory at regular intervals (e.g., every 1 ns).
  • Dynamic DockQ Scoring: Calculate the DockQ score for the static prediction model against each frame of the MD trajectory of the crystal structure.
  • Interpretation: A model that shows poor alignment with the static crystal structure but achieves high DockQ scores with specific, transient frames along the MD trajectory demonstrates transient conformational compatibility. This suggests the model may represent a viable state that the complex dynamically samples, a fact overlooked by conventional static benchmarking.

Workflow Visualizations

Frequently Asked Questions

FAQ: What are the key challenges in predicting the structure of PROTAC-mediated ternary complexes? The primary challenge lies in the accurate computational modeling of the ternary complex (E3 ligase-PROTAC-target protein). These complexes often feature small protein-protein interfaces that are stabilized by the PROTAC molecule itself, rather than by natural evolutionary signals. Traditional protein-structure prediction tools, like AlphaFold2, often fail to accurately model these complexes because their performance drops significantly with smaller interface sizes and they struggle with the ligand-mediated, non-natural nature of the interaction [1]. While AlphaFold3 (AF3) and specialized tools like PRosettaC have advanced the field, benchmarking shows that their predictions can be inconsistent, and accuracy is highly dependent on the specific system and input strategy [1] [2] [24].

FAQ: How can I select a warhead with a lower risk of off-target effects? Emerging computational frameworks are now available to assess this risk. For instance, the SENTINEL tool uses a graph attention neural network (GAT) to predict the off-target propensity of warheads by analyzing their involvement levels in drug-target interactions. This approach has demonstrated high predictive accuracy (AUC of 0.9600), outperforming classical machine learning methods like random forests. Utilizing such tools during the early design phase can help prioritize warheads with a lower risk of inducing unintended protein degradation [43].

FAQ: What are the critical linker properties to consider during optimization? The linker is not merely a spacer; it critically governs the biodegradation efficacy of a PROTAC. Its design involves balancing multiple characteristics [31]:

• Length: The linker must be long enough to span the distance between the warhead and E3 ligase binding pockets without introducing strain, but not so long that it reduces complex stability or cell permeability.
• Flexibility vs. Rigidity: A flexible linker (e.g., containing PEG chains) can aid solubility and conformational search, while a more rigid linker (e.g., containing alkyl or aromatic rings) can pre-organize the PROTAC for optimal ternary complex formation and improve cell membrane penetration [44] [31].
• Chemical Composition and Linkage Sites: The specific atoms in the linker (e.g., alkyl, ether, acetylene) and the points at which it connects to the warhead and E3 ligase ligand can profoundly influence metabolic stability, physicochemical properties, and the overall geometry of the ternary complex [33] [31].

FAQ: Which computational tools are most effective for modeling ternary complexes? The choice of tool depends on the specific goal. Recent independent benchmarks provide the following insights [2] [24]:

• AlphaFold3 (AF3): Can generate highly accurate models, particularly for the protein components. Its performance can be inflated by the presence of large accessory proteins (like DDB1 for CRBN), and it has limitations on the total number of residues in the input. It shows superior ligand positioning in some studies [2] [24].
• PRosettaC: A specialized Rosetta-based protocol that uses chemically defined warhead and E3 ligase ligand anchor points to model the ternary complex. It has been shown to outperform AF3 in certain systems by producing more geometrically accurate protein-protein interfaces, though its performance can be variable and depends heavily on thorough linker sampling [2] [45].
• Boltz-1: Another deep learning model comparable to AF3. Benchmarks indicate that AF3 generally achieves more accurate ligand positioning, but using explicit ligand atom positions as input (rather than molecular strings) improves the performance of both tools [24].

FAQ: How can molecular dynamics (MD) simulations complement static modeling? Static models from tools like AF3 or PRosettaC provide a single snapshot, which may not represent the biologically relevant conformation. MD simulations reveal that a computationally predicted model with a poor alignment to the static crystal structure might transiently sample high-fidelity conformations during simulation. Therefore, using MD to simulate the flexibility of the ternary complex provides a more dynamic and physiologically relevant evaluation of a PROTAC's predicted geometry [2].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 1: Essential Computational Tools for PROTAC Design

Tool Name	Type	Primary Function in PROTAC Design	Key Consideration
SENTINEL [43]	Graph Neural Network	Predicts warhead off-target propensity by modeling drug-target interactions.	Effective in low-data settings; performance will improve with larger validation sets.
AlphaFold3 (AF3) [2] [24]	Deep Learning Structure Prediction	Models ternary complexes from protein sequences and ligand information.	Server has input size limits; performance can be system-dependent.
PRosettaC [2] [45]	Rosetta-based Modeling	Samples PROTAC linker conformations to build ternary complexes from known warhead poses.	Relies on predefined anchor points; requires extensive sampling for good results.
Molecular Dynamics (MD) [2]	Simulation	Assesses the stability and dynamic conformation of predicted ternary complexes.	Computationally expensive; provides a dynamic view beyond static snapshots.
Schrödinger's Toolkit [46]	Integrated Software Suite	Combines protein-protein docking, linker sampling, and free energy perturbation (FEP+) for PROTAC optimization.	Commercial software; enables end-to-end design and potency prediction.

Experimental Protocols & Data

Protocol: Benchmarking Computational Tools for Ternary Complex Prediction

This protocol is adapted from recent benchmarking studies [1] [2].

• Curate a Dataset: Extract experimentally determined structures of PROTAC-mediated ternary complexes from the Protein Data Bank (PDB). Standard filters include: resolution better than 4 Å, no missing residues at the protein-protein interface, and the presence of a heterobifunctional ligand ≥ 450 Da [1] [2].
• Generate Predictions:
  • For AF3, generate two sets of models for each complex: a "Minimal Complex" (only the target protein and E3 ligase) and a "Full Complex" (including accessory proteins like Elongin B/C for VHL or DDB1 for CRBN, where possible) [2].
  • For PRosettaC, provide the structures of the target protein and E3 ligase with their respective bound warheads, and the PROTAC linker as a SMILES string. Generate a large number of models (e.g., up to 1000) to ensure sufficient sampling [2].
• Evaluate Model Quality: Use the DockQ metric to quantitatively score the quality of the predicted protein-protein interface against the crystallographic reference. Additionally, calculate the ligand Root-Mean-Square Deviation (RMSD) to assess the accuracy of the PROTAC's placement [2] [24].
• Perform Dynamic Validation (Optional but Recommended): Run short molecular dynamics (MD) simulations on the crystal structure and compare the static models against multiple frames from the simulation trajectory. This identifies models that are transiently compatible with a native-like conformation [2].

Table 2: Benchmarking Data of AF3 and PRosettaC on a Curated Dataset of 36 Ternary Complexes [2]

Modeling Tool	Key Strength	Key Limitation	Representative Performance (DockQ)
AlphaFold3	High overall protein structure accuracy (pTM); superior ligand positioning in some tests [24].	Performance can be inflated by large accessory proteins; may miss degrader-specific geometry [2].	Variable; often lower interface accuracy than PRosettaC when accessory proteins are excluded [2].
PRosettaC	More geometrically accurate protein-protein interfaces in select systems; linker is explicitly modeled [2].	Performance is inconsistent and can fail with insufficient linker sampling or misaligned anchors [2].	Outperformed AF3 in specific systems (e.g., VHL-based complexes); overall more reliable for interface geometry [2].

Table 3: Quantitative Assessment of AF3 and Boltz-1 on 62 PROTAC Complexes [24]

Modeling Tool	Input Strategy	Number of Complexes with Ligand RMSD < 1.0 Å	Number of Complexes with Ligand RMSD < 4.0 Å
AlphaFold3	Explicit ligand atom positions	33	46
Boltz-1	Explicit ligand atom positions	25	40

Workflow and Signaling Diagrams

PROTAC Design and Validation Workflow

PROTAC-Induced Degradation Pathway

Benchmarking, Validation, and Emerging Experimental Paradigms

For researchers in targeted protein degradation, accurately modeling Proteolysis-Targeting Chimeras (PROTACs) mediated ternary complexes represents a significant computational challenge. These complexes, comprising an E3 ubiquitin ligase, a target protein, and the heterobifunctional PROTAC molecule, often feature small, dynamic interfaces that are difficult to predict with standard docking tools. The DockQ score has emerged as a vital quantitative metric to objectively assess the quality of predicted interfaces against experimental references. Unlike overall structural similarity measures, DockQ specifically evaluates interface fidelity by integrating multiple geometric and contact-based signals into a single, interpretable score ranging from 0 to 1. This technical guide provides comprehensive troubleshooting and methodological support for researchers implementing DockQ in their PROTAC design pipelines, addressing common challenges in benchmarking computational predictions against experimental structures.

Understanding DockQ: Core Components and Scoring

What is DockQ and what does it measure?

DockQ is a continuous quality measure that assesses protein-protein interface predictions by combining three key metrics into a single score between 0 (incorrect) and 1 (high quality). It specifically evaluates how well a predicted model recreates the native interface compared to an experimental reference structure, typically from X-ray crystallography or cryo-EM [47]. For PROTAC research, DockQ v2 extends this capability to include interfaces involving small molecules, making it particularly valuable for assessing ternary complexes where a PROTAC molecule mediates the interaction between two proteins [48].

How is the DockQ score calculated?

The DockQ score integrates three fundamental interface measurements according to the following formula [48]:

Table: Core Components of the DockQ Score

Metric	Description	Interpretation	Ideal Value
Fnat	Fraction of native interfacial contacts correctly reproduced in the model	Measures residue contact accuracy	Closer to 1.0
iRMSD	Backbone RMSD of interface residues after superposition	Measures interface backbone geometry	Closer to 0 Å
LRMSD	Ligand RMSD after receptor superposition	Measures relative orientation of binding partners	Closer to 0 Å

The scaling constants (1.5 for iRMSD, 8.5 for LRMSD) were optimized to align with CAPRI quality categories and ensure no single component dominates the final score [48].

What DockQ values indicate successful predictions?

DockQ scores correspond to established quality categories from the Critical Assessment of Predicted Interactions (CAPRI) framework [47]:

Table: DockQ Quality Classification Bands

DockQ Score Range	CAPRI Quality Category	Interpretation for PROTAC Complexes
0.80 - 1.00	High Quality	Model suitable for rational design and mechanistic studies
0.49 - 0.79	Medium Quality	Model has correct binding orientation but may need refinement
0.23 - 0.48	Acceptable Quality	Correct binding region but significant structural deviations
< 0.23	Incorrect	Unreliable for downstream applications

Troubleshooting Common DockQ Implementation Challenges

How should I handle low Fnatdespite good RMSD values?

Problem: Your model shows good structural alignment (low iRMSD/LRMSD) but fails to recover the correct interfacial contacts (low F_nat).

Diagnosis and Solutions:

• Check for register shifts: Verify residue numbering matches between your model and reference. Use sequence alignment rather than relying solely on PDB residue numbers, especially when working with homology models [48].
• Validate contact definitions: DockQ defines interfacial contacts as residue pairs with heavy atoms within 5Å across chains. Manually inspect a few missed contacts to ensure they fall outside this threshold legitimately [47].
• Investigate conformational flexibility: In PROTAC complexes, protein flexibility can cause transient contacts. If your model has medium DockQ (0.49-0.79) with strong F_nat but elevated RMSD values, it may represent a valid alternative interface configuration, particularly when induced fit is expected [47].

Why does my high-confidence model have a poor DockQ score?

Problem: Models with high predicted confidence scores (e.g., pLDDT, ipTM) yield unexpectedly low DockQ values.

Root Causes and Mitigation:

• Interface size effects: AlphaFold models show reduced accuracy for small interfaces (<1000 Ų), which are common in PROTAC-mediated complexes [1]. Always cross-validate AF predictions with docking-based methods like PRosettaC for ternary complexes [2].
• Scaffold protein influence: Including accessory proteins (Elongin B/C for VHL, DDB1 for CRBN) in AF3 predictions can inflate interface area and confidence metrics without improving degrader-specific geometry [2]. Compare minimal complex predictions (E3 + target only) against full complex predictions.
• Co-evolutionary signal absence: PROTAC-stabilized interfaces often lack natural co-evolutionary signatures that AlphaFold leverages, leading to overconfident incorrect predictions [1].

How do I interpret conflicting metrics when DockQ is medium quality?

Problem: Your model falls in the medium quality range (0.49-0.79) with conflicting component metrics.

Interpretation Framework:

• High F_nat + High RMSD: Suggests correct binding site with structural deviations. Often occurs with flexible loops or domain movements. Prioritize these models for refinement if key residue contacts are correct [47].
• Low F_nat + Low RMSD: Indicates incorrect sidechain packing or register errors despite good backbone alignment. Use contact map visualization to identify specific residue pairing errors [47].
• Asymmetric performance across interfaces: In multimeric complexes, use per-interface DockQ scores to identify specific problematic interfaces rather than relying solely on GlobalDockQ [48].

What are the best practices for reference structure selection?

Challenge: Choosing appropriate reference structures for PROTAC ternary complexes.

Protocol Recommendations:

• Prefer experimental complexes: Use high-resolution crystal structures (<3.0Å) of ternary complexes when available. The PROTAC-DataBank provides curated structures for benchmarking [2].
• Validate biological assemblies: Ensure your reference represents the biological unit rather than crystallographic contacts. Check PDB biological assembly annotations [47].
• Handle missing components: When only unbound structures exist, create a high-confidence reference using integrative modeling with template-based docking and experimental constraints. Document all modeling steps for reproducibility [47].
• Account for mutations: Note engineered mutations (e.g., cysteine mutants for crystallization) near interfaces that might alter native contacts [47].

Experimental Protocols: Benchmarking Ternary Complex Predictions

Standardized Protocol for PROTAC Ternary Complex Assessment

Objective: Systematically evaluate computational predictions of PROTAC-mediated ternary complexes using DockQ.

Materials and Input Preparation:

• Reference Structure: Experimentally determined ternary complex (PDB format recommended)
• Predicted Models: Output from AF3, PRosettaC, or other prediction tools
• Software Requirements: DockQ v2 (install via pip: pip install dockq)
• Preprocessing: Clean PDB files by removing unwanted alt locs, resolving missing atoms near interfaces, and ensuring consistent residue numbering

Execution Steps:

• Run DockQ Analysis:

• For Complex Assemblies: Enable automatic chain mapping for multimers:

• Generate Detailed Reports: Include interface-specific scores and contact maps:

Interpretation and Quality Control:

• Clash Detection: Review clash reports in DockQ output; excessive clashes may artificially inflate F_nat [48]
• Chain Mapping Validation: Verify automatic chain assignments, especially for symmetric complexes
• Multiple Interface Handling: For complexes with >2 chains, examine per-interface scores alongside GlobalDockQ

Comparative Benchmarking Workflow

Implementation Framework:

DockQ Benchmarking Workflow: Systematic approach for comparing prediction methods using curated reference complexes and quantitative quality assessment.

Research Reagent Solutions: Computational Tools for PROTAC Assessment

Table: Essential Computational Resources for Ternary Complex Prediction and Validation

Tool/Resource	Type	Primary Application	Access
DockQ v2	Quality Assessment	Interface fidelity scoring for proteins, nucleic acids, and small molecules	https://wallnerlab.org/DockQ [48]
AlphaFold 3	Structure Prediction	Ternary complex prediction with ligand input	https://alphafoldserver.com/ [2]
PRosettaC	Specialized Docking	PROTAC-mediated complex modeling with geometric constraints	https://github.com/LondonLab/PRosettaC [2]
PROTAC-DataBank	Data Resource	Curated ternary complex structures for benchmarking	https://protacdb.weizmann.ac.il/ [2]
CAPRI Resource	Assessment Framework	Standardized evaluation metrics and datasets	https://capri.ebi.ac.uk/ [47]

Advanced Applications: Dynamic and Contextual Assessment

How can molecular dynamics enhance DockQ interpretation?

Challenge: Static crystal structures may not represent the full conformational landscape of PROTAC complexes.

Solution: Frame-Resolved DockQ Analysis

• Protocol: Run molecular dynamics (MD) simulations of reference structures, then calculate DockQ between predictions and multiple simulation frames [2]
• Benefit: Identifies models that align with transiently populated states rather than just the static crystal conformation
• Implementation: Several PRosettaC models poorly aligned to crystal structures achieved high DockQ with specific MD frames, revealing transient compatibility overlooked in conventional benchmarking [2]

How should I handle multi-chain complexes and symmetry?

Challenge: Incorrect chain assignments in symmetric complexes distort DockQ scores.

Strategies:

• Leverage Automatic Mapping: DockQ v2 automatically finds optimal chain mappings by permuting equivalent subunits to maximize GlobalDockQ [48]
• Validate Mapping: Review the mapping report to ensure biologically relevant chain pairing
• Per-Interface Inspection: Examine individual interface scores alongside GlobalDockQ to identify specific problematic interactions in multimeric assemblies [47]

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Can DockQ evaluate protein-small molecule interfaces directly?

Yes, DockQ v2 introduced specific functionality for small molecule interfaces. For PROTAC molecules, it calculates pocket-aligned ligand RMSD (LRMSD) using all heavy atoms when the receptor interface is superimposed. For symmetric small molecules, it uses graph matching to find the optimal atom correspondence [48].

How does DockQ relate to AlphaFold confidence metrics?

DockQ complements AlphaFold's internal confidence metrics:

• pLDDT measures local backbone confidence but doesn't guarantee correct placement
• ipTM assesses overall complex confidence but may miss interface-specific errors
• Interface pAE highlights interface uncertainty

High pLDDT with low DockQ often indicates a confidently misplaced pose, while low interface pAE with high DockQ represents an ideal outcome [47].

What is the difference between DockQ and GlobalDockQ?

DockQ scores individual interfaces between chain pairs, while GlobalDockQ provides an assembly-level score for multimeric complexes by averaging individual interface scores. For multimers, start with GlobalDockQ to rank whole assemblies, then inspect per-interface DockQ to diagnose specific strengths and weaknesses [47].

How reliable are DockQ scores for very small interfaces?

Exercise caution with interfaces having sparse contacts (<15 residue pairs). F_nat becomes noisy with small changes significantly impacting the score. In these cases, augment DockQ with visual inspection of key contact residues and consider consistency across multiple replicates [47].

What specific challenges does DockQ address for PROTAC research?

PROTAC-mediated complexes present unique assessment challenges that DockQ specifically addresses:

• Small interface areas: Common in PROTAC-stabilized interactions [1]
• Ternary complex geometry: DockQ evaluates both protein-protein interfaces simultaneously
• Ligand-mediated contacts: DockQ v2 accommodates small molecule components [48]
• Flexible interfaces: The balanced metric prevents over-penalizing structural variations if native contacts are maintained [2]

Frequently Asked Questions and Troubleshooting Guides

System Setup and Preparation

FAQ 1: My ternary complex model falls apart during the initial stages of MD simulation. What are the key preparatory steps to ensure stability?

• Problem Description: The molecular dynamics (MD) simulation of a modeled POI-PROTAC-E3 ligase ternary complex is unstable, resulting in unrealistic structural deformation or dissociation shortly after the simulation begins.
• Solution: A robust preparatory protocol is crucial for simulation stability. Follow these steps:
  • High-Quality Initial Structure: Begin with the highest-quality ternary complex model possible. If an experimental crystal structure is unavailable, use advanced docking and modeling techniques. For VHL-based PROTACs, software like MOE has demonstrated a high predictive power for reproducing experimental 3D structures [49].
  • Solvation and Ionization: Place the ternary complex in a realistic biological environment. Solvate the system in a water box (e.g., TIP3P water model) and add ions (e.g., NaCl) to neutralize the system's charge and achieve a physiologically relevant ionic concentration.
  • Energy Minimization: Perform energy minimization to relieve any steric clashes or strained bonds introduced during the modeling and solvation process. This step ensures the system starts at a local energy minimum.
  • Careful Equilibration: Equilibrate the system in stages. Start with positional restraints on the protein and ligand heavy atoms, allowing the solvent and ions to relax around the complex. Gradually remove these restraints in subsequent equilibration steps under constant number, volume, and temperature (NVT) and constant number, pressure, and temperature (NPT) ensembles to stabilize the temperature and pressure of the system.

FAQ 2: How can I validate that my MD simulation of a ternary complex has converged and produced reliable data?

• Problem Description: It is unclear when an MD simulation has run for a sufficient duration to sample the relevant conformational space of the ternary complex for analysis.
• Solution: Convergence can be assessed by monitoring several quantitative metrics over time. The table below outlines key parameters to track and their interpretation.

Table 1: Key Metrics for Validating MD Simulation Convergence

Metric	Description	What to Look For
Root Mean Square Deviation (RMSD)	Measures the average change in atom positions relative to a reference structure (often the starting model).	The RMSD of the protein backbone (Cα atoms) and the PROTAC molecule plateau and fluctuate around a stable average value, indicating the system is no longer drifting.
Root Mean Square Fluctuation (RMSF)	Measures the flexibility of individual residues over time.	Can identify highly flexible loops or linker regions. The fluctuation profile should become consistent over the production phase.
Radius of Gyration	Measures the compactness of the protein structure.	A stable radius of gyration suggests the overall tertiary structure is maintained.
Protein-Ligand Interactions	Tracks the formation and breakage of hydrogen bonds, hydrophobic contacts, and salt bridges over time.	A consistent pattern of key interactions indicates a stable binding mode.

Simulation Analysis and Interpretation

FAQ 3: How can I use MD simulations to explain differences in degradation efficiency between two similar PROTACs?

• Problem Description: Two PROTACs with nearly identical crystal structures of their ternary complexes show markedly different degradation efficiencies, and the static structures provide no explanation.
• Solution: MD simulations can reveal dynamic properties and conformational ensembles that static models cannot. Research indicates that degradation efficiency is more complex than what can be understood through the thermodynamics of binding or the analysis of static structures alone [50]. Perform the following analyses:
  • Conformational Sampling and Clustering: Run multiple replicas or extended simulations to sample a wide range of conformations. Cluster these snapshots to identify the predominant conformational states. Different degraders may induce distinct dynamic ensembles, which can explain the degradation differential [50].
  • Analysis of Protein-Protein Interactions (PPIs): Quantify the stability of key PPIs at the induced interface. Stable salt bridges, for example, can promote positive cooperativity, extend the complex's half-life, and support efficient ubiquitination [49].
  • Linker and Lysine Accessibility Analysis: Map the flexibility of the PROTAC's linker and the solvent accessibility of lysine residues on the POI. A productive ternary complex must present a lysine residue that is accessible to the E2 ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme for ubiquitin transfer. MD simulations can assess the proximity of lysine residues to the ubiquitination machinery [50].

FAQ 4: What is the role of Free Energy Perturbation (FEP) in PROTAC design, and how does it integrate with MD?

• Problem Description: A research team needs to quantitatively rank the binding affinities of a series of novel PROTAC candidates before synthesis.
• Solution: Free Energy Perturbation (FEP) is a computational method that uses MD simulations to calculate the free energy difference between two states, such as a protein bound to two different ligands. It provides a quantitative evaluation of relative binding energies, which is more reliable and accurate than docking scores alone [51].
  • Protocol: FEP works by gradually transforming one ligand into another through a series of non-physical intermediate states during the simulation. The work required for this transformation is used to calculate the difference in binding free energy between the two ligands.
  • Integration with MD: FEP relies on the conformational sampling provided by MD to obtain statistically meaningful results. It is typically applied to the final, refined candidates after initial screening to reinforce the efficacy and reliability of the generated molecules [51].

Performance and Technical Issues

FAQ 5: My MD simulations are computationally expensive and time-consuming. Are there strategies to improve throughput for screening PROTACs?

• Problem Description: The computational cost of running long-time-scale MD simulations for dozens of PROTAC candidates is prohibitive.
• Solution: Adopt a tiered screening approach to prioritize resources.
  • Rapid Static Modeling and Docking: Use protein-protein docking methods to quickly generate static ternary complex models for a large library of candidates. Software like MOE's Method4B or PRosettaC can be used for this initial screening [49].
  • Coarse-Grained or Short Simulations: For the top hits from docking, consider running shorter, less computationally intensive MD simulations or using coarse-grained models to assess basic stability and identify any obvious failures.
  • Focused All-Atom MD: Reserve detailed, all-atom MD simulations and FEP calculations only for the most promising candidates identified in the earlier stages. This layered strategy ensures computational resources are used efficiently.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Computational Tools and Resources for PROTAC Design

Item/Resource	Function	Relevance to Ternary Complex & MD
PROTAC-DB	A comprehensive database of existing PROTAC molecules, their structures, and bioactivity data [52].	Provides essential prior data for training AI models and validating computational predictions.
MOE (Molecular Operating Environment)	Software suite for protein modeling, protein-protein docking (e.g., Method4B), and molecular mechanics calculations [49].	Used for generating initial static models of ternary complexes, which can serve as starting points for MD simulations.
GROMACS/AMBER	High-performance MD simulation software packages.	The core engines for running all-atom MD simulations to study the dynamics, stability, and conformational ensembles of ternary complexes.
DeepPROTACs	A deep learning model for predicting the degradation ability of PROTACs [52].	Can be used for rapid virtual screening of novel PROTAC designs before committing to resource-intensive MD simulations.
HDX-MS (Hydrogen-Deuterium Exchange Mass Spectrometry)	An experimental technique that measures the hydrogen-deuterium exchange rate of protein backbone amides, revealing protein dynamics and solvent accessibility [50].	Provides experimental data that can be integrated with MD, for example, as constraints in weighted-ensemble MD simulations to guide and validate conformational sampling.

Experimental Protocols and Workflows

Protocol 1: Workflow for Modeling and Dynamically Validating a Ternary Complex

This protocol outlines a comprehensive pipeline for generating and validating a POI-PROTAC-E3 ligase ternary complex using integrated computational methods [51] [49].

Workflow for Modeling and Validating a Ternary Complex

Detailed Methodology:

• Initial Structure Retrieval: Retrieve the original ternary structure of a POI-PROTAC-E3 ubiquitin ligase from the Protein Data Bank (PDB) [51].
• Superimposition: Identify a POI-ligand complex with superior chemical properties but the same binding pocket. Superimpose this new POI-ligand pair onto the original POI-PROTAC pair in the ternary complex. This ensures the congruence of the new pair for subsequent linker design [51].
• Linker Generation: Use a deep neural network (e.g., AIMLinker) that incorporates 3D structural information to generate novel linker molecules that bridge the new POI ligand and the initial E3 ubiquitin ligase ligand [51].
• Comprehensive Screening: Screen the generated molecules using multiple metrics:
  • Root-Mean-Square Deviation (RMSD): Assess the structural deviation from a reference.
  • Binding Free Energy (BFE): Estimate the affinity of the generated PROTAC.
  • Buried Solvent-Accessible Surface Area (SASA): Evaluate the extent of the binding interface [51].
• Dynamic Validation with MD and FEP: Subject the final candidate molecules to molecular dynamics (MD) simulations to assess the robustness and stability of the ternary complex over time. Follow this with free energy perturbation (FEP) simulations to provide a quantitative evaluation of relative binding energies [51].

Protocol 2: Integrating HDX-MS Data with MD Simulations

This protocol uses experimental data to enhance the accuracy of molecular dynamics simulations [50].

Workflow for Integrating HDX-MS with MD

Detailed Methodology:

• HDX-MS Experimentation: Perform Hydrogen-Deuterium Exchange Mass Spectrometry (HDX-MS) on the ternary complex. This experiment measures the rate at which backbone amide hydrogens exchange with deuterium in the solvent, revealing information about protein dynamics and solvent accessibility [50].
• Define Collective Variables (CVs): Translate the HDX-MS protection data into computational collective variables (CVs). These CVs will represent the experimental observables in the simulation [50].
• Weighted-Ensemble MD Simulations: Run weighted-ensemble MD simulations. This advanced sampling technique uses the HDX-MS-derived CVs to guide the simulation, enhancing both the speed and accuracy of predicting biologically relevant ternary complex conformations [50].
• Ensemble and Free Energy Analysis: Use the simulation output to determine the conformational free energy landscapes of the ternary complexes and quantify the populations of different conformational states.
• Full CRL Modeling and Ubiquitination Assessment: Assemble the entire Cullin-RING ligase (CRL) complex around the ternary structure model. Analyze the proximity and orientation of lysine residues on the POI relative to the E2 ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme to explain or predict ubiquitination patterns [50].

Troubleshooting Guides and FAQs

FAQ 1: Why do traditional protein structure prediction tools like AlphaFold fail to accurately model PROTAC-mediated ternary complexes?

Traditional tools like AlphaFold2 (AF2) and AlphaFold3 (AF3) exhibit low accuracy in predicting PROTAC-mediated ternary complexes. The primary reason is their sensitivity to interface size. PROTACs stabilize typically small protein-protein interfaces, and these tools produce largely incorrect models for complexes with small interfaces, a limitation that extends to any prediction task involving small interfaces. Furthermore, the absence of a co-evolutionary signal for these non-natural, chemically-induced complexes exacerbates the problem. While AF3 shows some improvement in general protein-protein complex prediction, it does not significantly enhance accuracy for PROTAC-specific dimers, especially when predictions are made without including the PROTAC molecule itself [1].

FAQ 2: What are the critical parameters for assessing the predicted structure of a ternary complex, and how do they relate to experimental outcomes?

The Buried Surface Area (BSA) is a critical parameter calculated from the predicted ternary structure. It indicates the extent of the interaction surface between the target protein and the E3 ligase, which is directly correlated with the stability and efficacy of the induced degradation. A higher BSA generally suggests a more stable complex and higher degradation potency. For PROTACs, predicted BSA values typically range from 1100 Ų to 1500 Ų, indicating high degradation potential. Correlating the computed BSA from your predicted structures with experimental degradation metrics (e.g., DC₅₀) is a key validation step [39].

FAQ 3: Our team lacks specific ligands for the protein of interest. Is there an experimental method to assess degradation potential without them?

Yes, a technology using a Bioorthogonal Proximity Inducer (BPI) enables site-specific assessment without requiring a specific ligand for your target protein. This method combines genetic code expansion with ultra-fast bioorthogonal chemistry to sensitize specific sites on your protein of interest. The sensitized protein can then be engaged by a generic BPI probe equipped with an E3 ligase ligand. This system has been successfully demonstrated for degrading endogenous BET family proteins by recruiting E3 ligases like VHL and CRBN, providing a powerful framework to explore induced proximity in the absence of specific binders [53].

FAQ 4: What computational tool is currently recommended for the rapid and accurate prediction of ternary complex structures?

For rapid and accurate prediction, DeepTernary is a state-of-the-art, deep learning-based approach. It is an SE(3)-equivariant graph neural network trained specifically on ternary complexes. On PROTAC benchmarks, it achieves a high DockQ score of 0.65, significantly outperforming traditional docking methods. A key advantage is its speed, with an average inference time of approximately 7 seconds for a PROTAC complex, compared to the much longer times associated with classical docking simulations [39].

Table 1: Key Computational Tools for Ternary Complex Prediction

Tool Name	Methodology	Key Performance Metric	Typical Inference Time	Key Advantage
DeepTernary [39]	SE(3)-equivariant Graph Neural Network	DockQ score: 0.65 (PROTAC)	~7 seconds	End-to-end deep learning; high speed and accuracy.
AlphaFold-Multimer (AF2) [1]	Deep Learning (Transformer-based)	Low accuracy on small interfaces	Minutes to hours (varies)	Widely accessible; good for large biological interfaces.
AlphaFold 3 (AF3) [1]	Deep Learning (Diffusion-based)	No significant improvement over AF2 for PROTACs	Not specified	Can consider ligands; improved for some complexes.
Classical Docking (e.g., RosettaDock) [39]	Sampling and scoring poses	Varies; often deviates greatly from experimental structures	Hours to days	Well-established methodology.

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: In Silico Prediction of a Ternary Complex Using DeepTernary

This protocol outlines the steps to predict the structure of a PROTAC-induced ternary complex using the DeepTernary model [39].

• Input Preparation: Prepare the structure files (PDB format) for the two proteins: the E3 ligase (e.g., VHL) and the target protein (POI). Prepare the structure file for the PROTAC molecule, including its warhead, linker, and E3 ligase anchor.
• Graph Representation: The model will automatically disassemble the ternary system into three components: Protein 1 (p1), Ligand (lig, the PROTAC), and Protein 2 (p2). Each component is modeled as a graph where nodes represent atoms or residues.
• Model Inference: Process the graphs through the DeepTernary network. The model uses an SE(3)-equivariant encoder to maintain rotational and translational symmetry, and a ternary inter-graph attention mechanism to capture the intricate relationships between the E3 ligase, PROTAC, and target protein.
• Structure Decoding: The model's query-based pocket points decoder will generate the final 3D coordinates of the ternary complex, including the refined conformation of the PROTAC molecule and the docking poses of the two proteins.
• Post-Prediction Analysis: Calculate the Buried Surface Area (BSA) of the predicted interface using a tool like naccess [1]. The BSA provides a quantitative measure of the interface quality and can be correlated with expected degradation potency.

Protocol 2: Experimental Validation of Degradation Using Bioorthogonal Proximity Inducer (BPI) Technology

This protocol describes a method to assess targeted protein degradation without a specific ligand for the protein of interest, using BPI technology [53].

• Site Selection and Sensitization: Identify a surface residue on your target protein (POI) for potential engagement. Use genetic code expansion to introduce a bioorthogonal amino acid (e.g., an azide-bearing amino acid) at this specific site in mammalian cells. This creates a "sensitized" mutant of the POI.
• BPI Probe Design: Design or obtain a heterobifunctional BPI probe. This probe consists of a reactive group that clicks with the sensitized site on the POI (e.g., a cyclooctyne for azide coupling) connected via a linker to a known ligand for an E3 ubiquitin ligase (e.g., a ligand for VHL or CRBN).
• Cell Treatment and Induction: Treat the cells expressing the sensitized POI mutant with the BPI probe. The probe will covalently tether to the sensitized site via ultra-fast bioorthogonal chemistry, thereby recruiting the E3 ligase to that specific location on the POI.
• Degradation Assessment: After an appropriate incubation period (e.g., 4-24 hours), harvest the cells and measure the protein levels of the target POI using Western blotting or other quantitative proteomic methods. Compare the levels to untreated controls or cells treated with a control probe to confirm E3 ligase-dependent degradation.

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Reagents for Ternary Complex Research

Reagent / Resource	Function and Application in TPD Research
Genetic Code Expansion System [53]	Enables the site-specific incorporation of non-canonical amino acids (e.g., bearing bioorthogonal handles) into proteins in live cells, crucial for creating sensitized proteins for BPI technology.
Bioorthogonal Proximity Inducer (BPI) [53]	A generic heterobifunctional probe that links a sensitized site on a target protein to an E3 ligase, allowing for the assessment of degradation potential without a specific target ligand.
E3 Ligase Ligands (e.g., for VHL, CRBN) [39] [53]	Small molecules used as the "anchor" in PROTAC design or BPI probes to recruit the ubiquitin machinery to the target protein.
Curated Ternary Complex Dataset (TernaryDB) [39]	A large-scale dataset of over 20,000 non-PROTAC ternary complexes from the PDB, used for training and validating deep learning models like DeepTernary.
DeepTernary Software [39]	An end-to-end deep learning model for the rapid and accurate prediction of PROTAC- and molecular glue-mediated ternary complex structures.

Signaling Pathways and Workflow Visualizations

Figure 1: A framework for tackling ternary complex prediction.

Figure 2: Experimental workflow for BPI-mediated degradation.

What are the key limitations of traditional structural methods like X-ray crystallography in studying PROTAC-mediated ternary complexes?

Traditional structural methods face significant challenges when applied to the study of Proteolysis-Targeting Chimeras (PROTACs) and their resulting ternary complexes.

Table 1: Key Challenges in Structural Biology of PROTAC Complexes

Challenge	Impact on Structural Determination	Potential Consequence for Research
Small Interface Size [1]	AlphaFold2 and AlphaFold3 perform poorly on interfaces < 800 Ų; most PROTAC-stabilized interfaces are small [1].	Inability to accurately predict or resolve the ternary complex structure computationally or experimentally.
Transient/Weak Interactions	Ternary complexes formed by PROTACs are often transient to facilitate ubiquitination and degradation [39].	Complexes may be unstable and disassemble during crystal formation or cryo-EM grid preparation.
Membrane Protein Targets [54]	Many therapeutic targets are membrane proteins, which are difficult to solubilize and crystallize.	Inability to obtain diffracting crystals for a large class of important drug targets.
Crystallization Itself [54]	Growing high-quality crystals requires highly pure, monodisperse protein samples and extensive condition screening.	A major bottleneck, consuming significant time and resources with no guarantee of success.
The Phase Problem [55]	The loss of phase information in X-ray diffraction data makes determining the electron density map difficult.	Requires complex experimental phasing or a pre-existing model, which may not be available for novel complexes.

Diagram: Challenges in Ternary Complex Structural Analysis

These limitations create a major bottleneck in the rational design of PROTACs, as researchers lack reliable structural information to guide the optimization of warhead, linker, and E3 ligase anchor components [1] [39].

How does proximity biotinylation (e.g., AirID) provide a solution for studying challenging ternary complexes?

Proximity biotinylation circumvents the need to directly observe a stable ternary complex by providing a proxy for protein interactions in living cells. By fusing a promiscuous biotin ligase to a bait protein, it labels nearby proteins with biotin, which are then identified via mass spectrometry [56] [57].

Table 2: Proximity Biotinylation vs. Traditional PPI Methods

Feature	Proximity Biotinylation (AirID/BioID)	Co-Immunoprecipitation (Co-IP)	Yeast Two-Hybrid (Y2H)
Interaction Context	In vivo, in living cells [58].	Can be non-physiological (cell lysis) [58].	Heterologous system (yeast nucleus) [58].
Detection Scope	Direct interactors and neighboring proteins (~10 nm radius) [56].	Primarily direct, stable interactors [58].	Direct binary interactions.
Ability to Capture	Weak, transient, and insoluble protein interactions [56] [58].	Mostly high-affinity, stable interactions [58].	Varies; can miss some complexes.
Spatial Resolution	Defined labeling radius (~10 nm) [56].	No spatial resolution.	No spatial resolution.
Validation Required	Identifies proximity, not direct physical interaction; requires orthogonal validation [56].	Suggests direct interaction but can have false positives from co-isolation.	Can have false positives from auto-activation.

AirID, a recently engineered biotin ligase, offers superior properties for these studies. It was specifically designed for more specific tagging of interaction partners and lower cellular toxicity compared to other enzymes like TurboID, making it ideal for long-lasting experiments [58] [57].

What is a detailed protocol for using AirID to map protein interactions?

The following protocol outlines the key steps for a proximity biotinylation experiment using AirID.

Basic Protocol: AirID Proximity Biotinylation [57]

• Construct Generation:

  • Fuse the AirID gene to the N- or C-terminus of your bait protein in an appropriate mammalian expression vector. Include epitope tags (e.g., V5) for detection.
  • Critical Control: Generate a construct where an unfused AirID is directed to the same subcellular compartment as your bait. This controls for background biotinylation from the enzyme alone [57].
  • Validate all constructs by sequencing.

• Functional Validation:

  • Transfect your AirID-bait fusion construct into a relevant cell line (e.g., HEK 293T cells).
  • Add biotin (e.g., 100 µM) to the culture medium for a defined labeling period (3-24 hours). The optimal time should be determined empirically.
  • Verify the expression and correct subcellular localization of the fusion protein using immunofluorescence.
  • Confirm biotinylation activity by staining cells with fluorophore-conjugated streptavidin and check for a biotinylation pattern that overlaps with the bait's localization.
  • Use western blotting on cell lysates with streptavidin-HRP to confirm global biotinylation.

• Large-Scale Biotinylation and Cell Lysis:

  • Scale up the transfection and biotinylation for the proteomics experiment. Include triplicate samples and negative controls (e.g., cells expressing the compartment-targeted AirID only, or untransfected cells without biotin).
  • Lyse cells using a stringent RIPA-like buffer (e.g., Co-IP buffer with 1% SDS) containing protease inhibitors to denature proteins and disrupt non-covalent interactions.

• Streptavidin Affinity Purification:

  • Isolate biotinylated proteins by incubating clarified lysates with streptavidin-coated magnetic beads.
  • Key Optimization: A recent benchmarking study showed that a 4-hour incubation is sufficient for complete enrichment, replacing traditional overnight steps [59].
  • Wash beads extensively under denaturing conditions (e.g., with SDS) to remove non-specifically bound proteins.

• On-Bead Digestion and Peptide Identification:

  • Digest the captured proteins on the beads with trypsin. The optimized workflow shortens this to a 1-hour digestion at 47°C [59].
  • Analyze the resulting peptides by liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS).

• Data Analysis:

  • Identify proteins from MS/MS spectra using database search engines.
  • Use quantitative proteomics approaches (e.g., label-free quantification) to compare protein abundance between bait samples and negative controls. Proteins significantly enriched in the bait samples are considered high-confidence proximal interactors.

Diagram: AirID Experimental Workflow

How can researchers validate proximity interactors identified by AirID?

Identifying a protein via AirID-MS indicates proximity, not necessarily direct physical interaction. Therefore, orthogonal validation is crucial [56].

• Co-Immunoprecipitation (Co-IP): The most common method. Perform a standard Co-IP with an antibody against your bait protein and probe for the candidate interacting protein. Reciprocal Co-IP (IPing the candidate) strengthens the evidence [57].
• Immunofluorescence and Microscopy: Confirm that the candidate protein co-localizes with your bait protein in cells, especially under the conditions studied.
• Split-AirID Complementation: A powerful confirmatory tool. AirID is split into two inactive fragments (AirN and AirC). Fuse one fragment to your bait and the other to the candidate protein. Functional biotin ligase activity is only reconstituted if the two proteins interact, providing direct evidence of proximity [57].
• Functional Assays: If possible, perform knockdown or knockout of the candidate protein and assay for a functional effect on the pathway or process mediated by your bait protein.

What are common pitfalls in proximity biotinylation experiments and how can they be troubleshooted?

Table 3: Troubleshooting Guide for AirID Experiments

Problem	Potential Cause	Solution
No/Low Biotinylation	Low fusion protein expression; insufficient biotin; short labeling time.	Verify expression by Western blot (use epitope tag). Titrate biotin concentration (e.g., 50-500 µM) and increase labeling time [57].
High Background (Non-specific biotinylation in controls)	Endogenous biotinylated proteins; overexpressed AirID enzyme; insufficient washing.	Use streptavidin-HRP Western to identify common endogenous biotinylated proteins. Ensure negative control (localized AirID only) is included. Increase wash stringency (e.g., high salt, 1% SDS) [59].
Toxicity or Altered Cell Morphology	Overexpression of bait-AirID fusion or high biotin concentration.	Use a lower-expression vector or inducible promoter. Titrate down biotin concentration. Consider using AirID, which was developed for lower toxicity [58].
Bait Protein Mislocalization or Loss of Function	AirID tag interfering with protein function or localization.	Re-clone with tag on the opposite terminus (N vs. C). Include a longer, more flexible linker between the bait and AirID. Perform a functional assay for the bait protein pre- and post-tagging [57].
Poor MS Results (Low protein yield, high contamination)	Inefficient enrichment or elution; streptavidin contamination.	Ensure beads are not saturated; use optimized, shorter enrichment times [59]. Use protease-resistant streptavidin beads or perform a "bead-boiling" step post-digestion to recover tightly bound peptides [59].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagent Solutions

Table 4: Essential Reagents for Proximity Biotinylation Experiments

Reagent / Tool	Function / Description	Example Use Case
AirID Enzyme	An engineered biotin ligase derived from E. coli BirA, optimized for specific labeling and low toxicity [58] [57].	The core enzyme fused to any bait protein for proximity-dependent biotinylation.
TurboID / miniTurboID	Ultra-fast, engineered biotin ligases for labeling on a minute-scale, but can have higher background/toxicity [58].	Studying very rapid biological processes where minute-scale temporal resolution is critical.
ProtA-Turbo	A recombinant Protein A-TurboID fusion protein for "off-the-shelf" proximity labeling without genetic manipulation [60].	Targeting endogenous proteins in primary cells or sensitive cell lines using specific antibodies.
Split-AirID (AirN/AirC)	Two inactive fragments of AirID that reconstitute activity upon bait-candidate interaction [57].	Orthogonal validation of specific protein-protein interactions in live cells.
Streptavidin Magnetic Beads	High-affinity solid support for purifying biotinylated proteins from complex cell lysates.	The standard method for affinity capture in proteomics workflows. Optimal beads/protein ratio is key [59].
Biotin Antibody Beads	An alternative to streptavidin, useful for peptide-level enrichment with high specificity and low background [59].	When high enrichment specificity is desired and detergent can be minimized in buffers.

Conclusion

The field of ternary complex prediction for PROTAC design is rapidly evolving, moving beyond static structural models to a dynamic and quantitative discipline. Key takeaways indicate that no single computational tool is universally superior; rather, their performance is system-dependent, necessitating a nuanced selection process. The integration of dynamic evaluation through molecular dynamics and the novel concept of interface frustration provides a more realistic assessment of model quality and complex stability. Future advancements will likely hinge on hybrid approaches that combine AI-driven structure prediction with physics-based sampling and rigorous experimental validation using techniques like in-cell proximity labeling. This holistic framework, which acknowledges the profound influence of protein flexibility and transient states, promises to significantly accelerate the rational design of high-efficacy PROTACs for cancer therapy and beyond.

References

• 1. Challenges in predicting PROTAC-mediated protein ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11938821/]
• 2. PRosettaC outperforms AlphaFold3 for modeling PROTAC ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-21502-8]
• 3. Enhancing PROTAC Ternary Complex Prediction with ... [https://chemrxiv.org/engage/chemrxiv/article-details/67c68d98fa469535b9d93fe9]
• 4. Predicting PROTAC-mediated ternary complexes with ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2025/dd/d5dd00300h]
• 5. Affinity and cooperativity modulate ternary complex ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-39904-5]
• 6. Estimating the cooperativity of PROTAC-induced ternary ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8528210/]
• 7. Structural basis of PROTAC cooperative recognition for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5392356/]
• 8. A suite of mathematical solutions to describe ternary complex ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7650257/]
• 9. Linkers in the structural biology of protein–protein interactions [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3588912/]
• 10. De novo design of protein structure and function with ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06415-8]
• 11. in the protein-protein Frustration ... | Nature Communications interface [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-63713-7?error=cookies_not_supported&code=6817ae5d-1617-400f-a93c-cfa93f144875]
• 12. : Exceptions or the rule? Frustrated PROTACs [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/frustrated-protacs-exceptions-rule-ash-jogalekar-baeuc]
• 13. Insights from protein frustration analysis of BRD4–cereblon degrader... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2025/md/d4md00962b]
• 14. A Comparative Analysis of PRosettaC and AlphaFold3 for ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40630526/]
• 15. Alphafold3 [https://scc.dipc.org/docs/software/applications/alphafold3/]
• 16. AlphaFold3 at TACC [https://docs.tacc.utexas.edu/software/alphafold3/]
• 17. AlphaFold 3 | Ohio Supercomputer ... [https://www.osc.edu/resources/available_software/software_list/alphafold_3]
• 18. AlphaFold3 prediction of protein-protein complex: Is it ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2001037025004180]
• 19. PRosettaC: Rosetta Based Modeling of PROTAC Mediated ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32976709/]
• 20. PROTAC-induced Protein Structural Dynamics in Targeted ... [https://elifesciences.org/reviewed-preprints/101127v2]
• 21. PRosettaC - Help [https://prosettac.weizmann.ac.il/pacb/help]
• 22. Frustration in the protein-protein interface plays a central role ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12480974/]
• 23. HADDOCK-Guided modeling and molecular simulations of ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010482525009217]
• 24. Predicting PROTAC-Mediated Ternary Complexes with ... [https://chemrxiv.org/engage/chemrxiv/article-details/686ee8f943bc52e4ec1fbec2]
• 25. NilsDunlop/PROTACFold [https://github.com/NilsDunlop/PROTACFold]
• 26. Methods to accelerate PROTAC drug discovery - PMC - NIH [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12312393/]
• 27. The Biopython Structural Bioinformatics FAQ [https://biopython.org/wiki/The_Biopython_Structural_Bioinformatics_FAQ]
• 28. Exploring PROTAC Cooperativity with Coarse-Grained ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9869335/]
• 29. SE(3)-equivariant ternary complex prediction towards target ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12216337/]
• 30. Mapping the energy landscape of PROTAC-mediated ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2001037023000958]
• 31. Characteristic roadmap of linker governs the rational ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211383524001357]
• 32. DOCKSTRING: Easy Molecular Docking Yields Better ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9364321/]
• 33. Current strategies for the design of PROTAC : a critical review... linkers [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9400730/]
• 34. PRosettaC outperforms AlphaFold3 for modeling PROTAC ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12568945/]
• 35. Benchmarking the Builders: A Comparative Analysis... | Research Square [https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-6866610/v1]
• 36. Improving properties of heterobifunctional degraders via ... [https://cresset-group.com/science/science-resources/improving-properties-heterobifunctional-degraders-via-single-point-changes/]
• 37. Using Structural Computation Models to Predict Productive ... [https://www.promegaconnections.com/protac-ternary-complex/]
• 38. Targeted protein degradation: advances in drug discovery ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-024-02004-x]
• 39. SE(3)-equivariant ternary complex prediction towards ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-61272-5]
• 40. PROTACs: Emerging Targeted Protein Degradation ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10224132/]
• 41. Bayesian optimization for ternary complex prediction ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667318523000168]
• 42. deep learning approaches for fully flexible protein-ligand ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40900115/]
• 43. Predicting PROTAC off-target effects via warhead ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2001037025004301]
• 44. STING-targeting PROTACs: emerging therapeutic tools for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12477151/]
• 45. Methods for computer-assisted PROTAC design [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37858533/]
• 46. Computational tools for PROTAC design and optimization [https://www.schrodinger.com/life-science/resources/webinar/computational-tools-for-protac-design-and-optimization/]
• 47. What is the DockQ score? And when to trust it. | Verso Blog [https://www.vici.bio/blog/what-is-the-dockq-score-and-when-to-trust-it]
• 48. DockQ v2: improved automatic quality measure for protein ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11467047/]
• 49. Ternary Complex Modeling, Induced Fit Docking and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11995253/]
• 50. Predicting the structural basis of targeted protein ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-33575-4]
• 51. A Novel Rational PROTACs Design and Validation via AI- ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11411543/]
• 52. Development of PROTACs using computational approaches [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165614724002165]
• 53. Site-resolved assessment of targeted protein degradation [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451945625001977]
• 54. Common Problems in Protein X-ray Crystallography and ... [https://www.creative-biostructure.com/resource-common-problems-protein-xray-crystallography.htm?srsltid=AfmBOopZdGmTJHpTzGK7c3vuwbAf9CeqDCaHSz74VlvkKEUt_vSRjIgj]
• 55. Learn: Guide to Understanding PDB Data: Crystallographic Data [https://pdb101.rcsb.org/learn/guide-to-understanding-pdb-data/crystallographic-data]
• 56. Proximity-dependent Biotin Identification (BioID) Service [https://www.creative-biolabs.com/proximity-dependent-biotin-identification-bioid-service.html]
• 57. Identifying protein-protein interactions by proximity ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10031415/]
• 58. Proximity labeling: an emerging tool for probing in planta ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8060727/]
• 59. Benchmarking and Automating the Biotinylation ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11247940/]
• 60. Off-the-shelf proximity biotinylation for interaction proteomics [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-25338-4]