Back

Kryptix-1: Conformational Ensemble Sampling Substantially Improves Cryptic Pocket Detection Relative to Static-Structure and Prior Computational Approaches

Varghese, R.; Tiwary, P.; Oswal, K.

2026-09-24 bioinformatics
10.64898/2026.09.16.752177 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Cryptic binding pockets; sites absent or occluded in a proteins resting-state structure that become druggable only in specific, transiently populated conformations; represent one of the largest untapped opportunities in structure-based drug discovery. Large-scale structural surveys estimate that cryptic pockets occur in on the order of one in six protein families genome-wide, and that accounting for them could expand the druggable fraction of the disease-associated human proteome from roughly 40% to nearly 80%. Detecting cryptic pockets computationally has historically forced a choice btw physics-based conformational sampling, which is reliable but too computationally expensive to deploy across more than a handful of targets, and fast machine-learning pocket predictors trained on static structures, which frequently over-predict and lose the precision needed for practical triage. We report Kryptix-1, an in-house pipeline developed at Covenant Biosciences that combines conformational ensemble generation with a consensus pocket-scoring algorithm, benchmarked here against a matched static-structure baseline and against the published literature on a 10-protein sample from CryptoBench, an independently curated cryptic-pocket reference dataset. On the fields own standard residue-overlap metric (Jaccard index 0.5), Kryptix-1 succeeds on 80% of benchmark proteins, compared to 20% for the static baseline and approximately 40-45% for the best-performing methods reported in an independent comparative evaluation using the same metric. We report these results alongside an explicit accounting of where Kryptix-1s advantage is smaller or reverses, and we are explicit throughout that this is a small pilot evaluation, not a fully powered validation study.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.