Back

Desktop-Scale Hit-Point Discovery for Intrinsically Disordered α-Synuclein Using State-Space Compression and a Discrete Phase-Interference Search Operator

Kim, D. H.; Khenmedekh, G.-O.; Park, i.; Kim, S.

2026-06-28 bioinformatics
10.64898/2026.06.22.733879 bioRxiv
Show abstract

The accessible chemical space dwarfs any tractable screening budget, and most artificial intelligence drug discovery pipelines respond by docking and ranking a small sublibrary. The resulting hit list is agnostic to selectivity, brain penetration, toxicity, synthetic accessibility, and chemical novelty. We present ISTP-DPISO DrugEngine, an end-to-end engine developed by ISTP Tech that integrates the Local Information Criticality Principle (LICP) with a Discrete Phase-Interference Search Operator (DPISO). We demonstrate the engine on the intrinsically disordered protein (IDP) -synuclein, whose non-amyloid-component (NAC, residues 61-95) drives Parkinson-associated aggregation. The resulting LICP active set focuses the expensive LICP-DPISO scoring: in a production-scale run, the engine compressed a ~8.46x108-molecule mirror to a 10,000,000-molecule active set (~85-fold) before scoring, then converged to a compact, safety-gated shortlist plus de novo designs. The entire campaign ran on a single desktop workstation, without any high-performance-computing cluster. Three engine-prioritized, commercially available candidates (2-D08, Uralenol, Herbacetin) and an (-)-epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG) positive control were then tested in a thioflavin-T (ThT) aggregation assay at 100 {micro}M: all three engine-nominated candidates suppressed -synuclein aggregation, giving perfect prospective inhibitor-call concordance (3/3 nominated); together with the EGCG positive control, all four assayed compounds inhibited aggregation (4/4 total), two by [≤]80% plateau reduction. ISTP-DPISO DrugEngine reframes virtual screening from post-hoc score fusion to a single, state-space-compressed, safety-gated, experimentally validated discovery pipeline.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
238 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
30.6%
2
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 24%
6.6%
3
Bioinformatics
1204 papers in training set
Top 4%
6.2%
4
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 29%
5.4%
5
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 17%
5.4%
50% of probability mass above
6
Bioinformatics Advances
203 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
5.4%
7
Communications Chemistry
48 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.1%
8
Artificial Intelligence in the Life Sciences
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.4%
9
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 12%
2.4%
10
Cell Systems
201 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
11
Nature Methods
385 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.0%
12
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
242 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.9%
13
Communications Biology
993 papers in training set
Top 14%
1.7%
14
Journal of Cheminformatics
29 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
15
mAbs
32 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
16
Journal of Molecular Biology
232 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
17
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2444 papers in training set
Top 36%
1.1%
18
NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics
242 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
19
Nucleic Acids Research
1281 papers in training set
Top 11%
1.1%
20
iScience
1154 papers in training set
Top 29%
1.0%
21
Patterns
78 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
22
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 69%
0.6%
23
Briefings in Bioinformatics
354 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.6%
24
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
494 papers in training set
Top 18%
0.6%
25
Nature Machine Intelligence
70 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%