Target Identification and Validation for Natural Products: Advanced Strategies for Unlocking Nature's Pharmacy

Abstract

Target identification and validation are critical, foundational steps in modern natural product-based drug discovery, transforming traditional remedies into targeted therapeutics with understood mechanisms of action. This article provides a comprehensive guide for researchers and drug development professionals, exploring the fundamental importance of target discovery, detailing cutting-edge methodological approaches from chemical proteomics to label-free strategies, and addressing key challenges in the field. It further outlines rigorous validation techniques and comparative analyses of emerging technologies, synthesizing the latest 2025 research to offer a practical roadmap for elucidating the pharmacological mechanisms of natural products and accelerating their path to clinical application.

Why Target Discovery is the Cornerstone of Natural Product Drug Development

The Critical Role of Target Identification in De-risking Drug Discovery

Target identification and validation represent the critical first step in the modern drug discovery pipeline, serving as the primary defense against costly late-stage failures. This process aims to pinpoint biological molecules—such as proteins, genes, or RNA—that play a key role in disease progression and can be modulated by therapeutic intervention [1]. The profound importance of this initial stage cannot be overstated; target identification fundamentally determines the trajectory of all subsequent development efforts, with inaccurate target selection virtually guaranteeing clinical failure despite perfect execution in later stages [2] [3]. The high stakes are reflected in development statistics: between 2013 and 2022, the median cost for new drug development rose to approximately $2.4 billion, while development timelines extended by one to two years, underscoring the immense economic imperative of improving early-stage decision-making [1].

The challenges inherent to target identification are particularly pronounced for natural products, which often demonstrate compelling biological activity but whose mechanisms of action remain elusive due to complex pharmacological profiles and technical limitations in identifying their molecular interactors [4]. For these compounds, classical affinity purification strategies—which rely on specific physical interactions between ligands and their targets—have been complemented by advanced techniques including click chemistry, photoaffinity labeling, and cellular phenotypic screening [4]. Meanwhile, computational approaches have emerged as powerful tools for generating testable hypotheses about potential drug-target interactions, offering the potential to prioritize experimental efforts and accelerate the validation process [5] [2].

This guide provides a systematic comparison of contemporary target identification methods, with particular emphasis on their application to natural products research. By objectively evaluating performance metrics, experimental requirements, and practical considerations, we aim to equip researchers with the evidence needed to select optimal strategies for de-risking their drug discovery pipelines from the very beginning.

Comparative Analysis of Target Identification Methods

Methodologies and Performance Benchmarks

Target identification strategies generally fall into two primary categories: experimental approaches that directly probe physical interactions between compounds and their cellular targets, and computational approaches that predict interactions based on chemical structure, omics data, or biological network information. The table below provides a comprehensive comparison of established and emerging methods, highlighting their respective strengths and limitations for natural product research.

Table 1: Comparative Performance of Target Identification Methods

Method Category	Specific Methods	Key Performance Metrics	Experimental Requirements	Advantages	Limitations
Computational Ligand-Centric	MolTarPred, PPB2, SuperPred	MolTarPred identified as most effective in systematic comparison; recall reduced with high-confidence filtering [5]	Stand-alone codes or web servers; chemical structures as input	Fast, low-cost; suitable for novel compounds without known targets	Limited by known ligand-target annotations in databases
Computational Target-Centric	RF-QSAR, TargetNet, CMTNN	Varies by algorithm; CMTNN uses ChEMBL 34 and ONNX runtime [5]	Protein structures or target bioactivity data	Can predict novel target space; structure-based insights	Limited by protein structure availability and quality
AI and Machine Learning	PandaOmics, Chemistry42, DNABERT, ESMFold	Identified CDK20 as novel target for HCC; generated inhibitor with IC50 = 33.4 nmol/L [1]	Multi-omics data, chemical structures, or biological text	High-dimensional pattern recognition; rapid hypothesis generation	"Black box" limitations; requires large, high-quality datasets
Experimental Affinity-Based	Affinity purification, target fishing	Direct physical validation of compound-target interactions [4]	Functionalized compounds, cell lysates, mass spectrometry	Direct experimental evidence; no prior knowledge required	Requires compound modification; may miss weak interactions
Advanced Chemical Biology	Click chemistry, photoaffinity labeling	Enabled identification of >50 natural product targets in recent years [4]	Chemical probes, UV irradiation equipment, proteomics	Captures transient interactions; high spatial-temporal resolution	Complex probe synthesis; potential for non-specific binding
Multi-Omics Integration	Network propagation, graph neural networks	Improved prediction accuracy by integrating >2 omics layers [6]	Multiple omics datasets, computational infrastructure	Systems-level insights; captures biological complexity	Data heterogeneity; computational intensity

Experimental Protocols for Key Methodologies

Computational Target Prediction Using MolTarPred

Objective: To predict potential protein targets for a query small molecule based on chemical similarity to compounds with known target annotations.

Workflow:

• Database Preparation: Host the ChEMBL database (version 34 recommended) locally. Retrieve and filter bioactivity records, keeping only those with standard values (IC50, Ki, or EC50) below 10,000 nM. Exclude non-specific or multi-protein targets and remove duplicate compound-target pairs to ensure data quality [5].
• Query Processing: Input the canonical SMILES string of the query molecule. Generate molecular fingerprints (Morgan fingerprints with radius 2 and 2048 bits are recommended over MACCS based on superior performance [5]).
• Similarity Calculation: Calculate Tanimoto similarity scores between the query fingerprint and all compounds in the database.
• Target Prediction: Rank database compounds by similarity score. The targets of the top similar compounds (e.g., top 1, 5, 10, and 15) are retrieved as potential targets for the query molecule.
• Validation: To prevent bias, ensure query molecules (e.g., FDA-approved drugs for validation) are excluded from the main database before prediction [5].

Figure 1: Computational target prediction workflow using MolTarPred methodology.

Affinity Purification for Natural Product Target Identification

Objective: To experimentally identify direct cellular targets of a natural product compound using affinity-based purification.

Workflow:

• Probe Design: Chemically modify the natural product to incorporate a functional handle (e.g., alkyne, azide, or biotin) while preserving its biological activity. This creates an affinity probe [4].
• Cell Treatment: Incubate the affinity probe with live cells or cell lysates under physiological conditions to allow binding to endogenous target proteins.
• Capture: Lyse cells and incubate the lysate with streptavidin or appropriate capture beads to immobilize the probe-target complexes.
• Washing: Thoroughly wash the beads with buffer to remove non-specifically bound proteins.
• Elution: Elute the bound proteins using competitive elution (e.g., with free natural product) or by boiling in SDS-PAGE buffer.
• Identification: Analyze the eluted proteins by mass spectrometry to identify the specific target proteins [4].

Figure 2: Experimental workflow for affinity-based target identification of natural products.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

Successful target identification requires specialized reagents and tools that enable precise molecular interrogation. The following table details essential solutions for both computational and experimental approaches.

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Target Identification

Reagent/Tool	Function	Application Context
ChEMBL Database	Curated database of bioactive molecules with drug-like properties	Provides annotated compound-target interactions for ligand-centric prediction [5]
Affinity Probes	Chemically modified natural products with functional handles (biotin, alkyne)	Enable capture and isolation of target proteins from complex biological mixtures [4]
Photoaffinity Labels	Probes incorporating photoactivatable groups (e.g., diazirines)	Capture transient or weak protein-ligand interactions upon UV irradiation [4]
CETSA (Cellular Thermal Shift Assay)	Method for detecting target engagement in intact cells	Validates direct compound-target binding in physiologically relevant environments [7]
PandaOmics AI Platform	AI-powered target discovery platform	Integrates multi-omics data and literature mining for hypothesis generation [1]
AlphaFold Protein Structure Database	Repository of AI-predicted protein structures	Enables structure-based target prediction when experimental structures are unavailable [2]
CRISPR Screening Libraries	Tool for genome-wide functional screens	Identifies essential genes and synthetic lethal interactions for target validation [8]
Agrimol B	Agrimol B, CAS:55576-66-4, MF:C37H46O12, MW:682.8 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
Hirsutine	Hirsutine	High-purity Hirsutine, a natural indole alkaloid for cancer, cardiovascular, and neurology research. For Research Use Only. Not for human consumption.

Integrated Workflows for Enhanced Confidence

The most robust target identification strategies combine multiple complementary approaches to overcome the limitations of individual methods. For natural products, a convergent workflow that integrates computational predictions with experimental validation has proven particularly effective [4] [6].

Computational methods provide valuable starting hypotheses by leveraging the growing wealth of chemical and biological data. For example, MolTarPred's ligand-centric approach can rapidly identify potential targets based on chemical similarity, while AI platforms like PandaOmics can integrate multi-omics data to prioritize targets within disease-relevant pathways [5] [1]. These computational predictions can then guide experimental design, focusing effort on the most promising candidates.

Experimental approaches remain essential for definitive validation, with affinity purification and related chemical biology techniques providing direct physical evidence of compound-target interactions [4]. The integration of cellular thermal shift assays (CETSA) further strengthens validation by confirming target engagement in physiologically relevant environments [7]. This multi-layered strategy—combining computational efficiency with experimental rigor—creates a powerful framework for de-risking the early stages of drug discovery, particularly for mechanistically complex natural products.

Target identification represents both a formidable challenge and a tremendous opportunity in modern drug discovery. As the field advances, the integration of computational predictions with experimental validation creates a powerful framework for de-risking the early stages of drug development. For natural products research, this integrated approach is particularly valuable, helping to elucidate complex mechanisms of action that have long remained mysterious [4].

The evolving landscape of target identification is increasingly characterized by multidisciplinary integration, with AI and machine learning approaches working in concert with traditional experimental methods [2] [6] [1]. This convergence enables researchers to leverage the scalability of computational prediction while maintaining the empirical rigor of experimental validation. Furthermore, the growing emphasis on understanding polypharmacology—rather than single-target effects—acknowledges the complex biological reality that underpins both therapeutic efficacy and safety concerns [5].

By strategically implementing the comparative methodologies outlined in this guide, researchers can build a more robust, evidence-based foundation for their drug discovery programs. This systematic approach to target identification and validation ultimately reduces late-stage attrition rates, accelerates development timelines, and increases the probability of delivering effective therapeutics to patients.

For decades, the discovery of therapeutic targets for natural products (NPs) relied heavily on serendipitous findings—a slow, unpredictable process that created significant bottlenecks in drug development. The complex molecular structures of NPs and their multifaceted interactions within biological systems often obscured their precise mechanisms of action. Historically, this target ambiguity substantially impeded the transition of promising NPs from traditional remedies to modern pharmaceutical agents [9]. Today, however, the field is undergoing a profound transformation. A new era of systematic discovery is emerging, driven by innovative technological platforms that are decoding the molecular mysteries of NPs with unprecedented precision and efficiency. This guide provides a comparative analysis of these modern target identification strategies, equipping researchers with the data and methodologies needed to navigate this evolving landscape.

Methodological Comparison: Modern Target Identification Platforms

The following table summarizes the core characteristics, applications, and performance metrics of the primary target identification strategies used in NP research today.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Modern Target Identification Strategies for Natural Products

Strategy	Key Principle	Typical Applications	Throughput	Key Advantage	Primary Limitation
Chemical Proteomics (e.g., ABPP)	Uses chemical probes to covalently label and isolate protein targets from complex biological mixtures [9].	Direct target deconvolution; identification of covalent binders [9].	Medium	Identifies targets in a native cellular environment; can profile entire proteomes [9].	Requires synthetic modification of the NP to create a probe [9].
Protein Microarray	Incubates the NP with thousands of immobilized proteins on a chip to detect binding events [9].	High-throughput screening of binding interactions against a predefined protein set [9].	High	Exceptionally high throughput for defined proteomes [9].	Limited to pre-expressed proteins; may lack native cellular context [9].
Affinity Purification	The NP is immobilized on a solid support to "fish out" binding proteins from cell or tissue lysates [4].	Direct target "fishing"; one of the classic affinity-based strategies [4].	Low to Medium	Conceptually straightforward; does not always require complex probe design [4].	Can yield non-specific binders; requires a suitable functional group on the NP for immobilization [4].
Network Pharmacology	Computational prediction of targets based on big data analysis of pharmacological networks and bioactivity spectra [9].	Hypothesis generation; mapping polypharmacology of multi-target NPs [9].	Very High	Holistically maps the polypharmacology of multi-target NPs; cost-effective [9].	Predictions require experimental validation; indirect evidence of binding [9].
Multi-omics Analysis	Integrates data from transcriptomics, proteomics, and metabolomics to infer targets and pathways [9].	Systems-level understanding of NP mechanism of action and downstream effects [9].	High	Provides a comprehensive, systems-level view of the NP's effect [9].	Reveals downstream effects rather than direct protein targets [9].
Similarity-Based Prediction (e.g., CTAPred)	Predicts targets for a query NP based on structural similarity to compounds with known target annotations [10].	Rapid, cost-effective virtual screening for target hypothesis generation [10].	Very High	Rapid and cost-effective; ideal for prioritizing NPs for further study [10].	Accuracy depends on the quality and relevance of the reference database; predictive only [10].

Experimental Protocols in Practice

To illustrate the application of these technologies, below are detailed protocols for two widely adopted and powerful methods.

Protocol 1: Affinity-Based Protein Profiling (ABPP) for Target Identification

This chemical proteomics workflow is a powerful method for direct target deconvolution in live cells [9] [4].

• Probe Design and Synthesis: A functionalized derivative of the natural product (e.g., Celastrol) is synthesized. This derivative contains a reactive group (e.g., an alkyne) for "click chemistry" and a photoactivatable group (e.g., a diazirine) for covalent crosslinking upon UV irradiation.
• Cell Treatment and Photo-Crosslinking: Live cells or tissue samples are treated with the NP probe. After allowing for cellular uptake and binding, the samples are exposed to UV light, activating the diazirine and covalently "locking" the probe to its direct protein targets.
• Cell Lysis and "Click" Chemistry: The cells are lysed, and the alkyne-tagged protein-probe complexes are conjugated to an affinity tag (e.g., biotin) via a copper-catalyzed azide-alkyne cycloaddition ("click" reaction).
• Affinity Purification: The biotin-tagged protein complexes are isolated from the lysate using streptavidin-coated beads.
• On-Bead Digestion and LC-MS/MS Analysis: The captured proteins are digested into peptides on the beads, and the resulting peptides are analyzed by Liquid Chromatography with Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) for protein identification.
• Target Validation: Identified candidate targets must be validated using orthogonal methods such as:
  • Cellular Thermal Shift Assay (CETSA): To confirm ligand-induced thermal stabilization of the target protein [9].
  • Surface Plasmon Resonance (SPR): To quantify binding affinity and kinetics [9].
  • Pull-down with the native NP: To verify binding without the probe [9].

Protocol 2: Similarity-Based Target Prediction with CTAPred

This computational protocol offers a rapid, in silico approach to generate testable hypotheses for a NP's protein targets [10].

• Dataset Curation: A high-quality reference dataset is compiled from public databases (e.g., ChEMBL, NPASS). This dataset contains compounds with standardized structures and reliably annotated protein target activities.
• Fingerprint Calculation: Molecular fingerprints (numerical representations of chemical structure) are computed for all compounds in the reference dataset and for the query NP.
• Similarity Search: The tool calculates the structural similarity (e.g., using Tanimoto coefficient) between the query NP and every compound in the reference dataset.
• Hit Ranking and Target Assignment: The reference compounds are ranked based on their similarity to the query NP. The protein targets associated with the top-N most similar reference compounds (e.g., top 5) are assigned as the predicted targets for the query NP.
• Experimental Prioritization and Validation: The resulting list of predicted targets provides a prioritized roadmap for subsequent experimental validation using the methods described in Protocol 1 or other biochemical/cellular assays.

Visualizing the Systematic Discovery Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the integrated workflow from hypothesis generation to experimental validation, showcasing how modern strategies overcome historical hurdles.

(Caption: Integrated workflow for systematic target discovery of natural products, combining computational and experimental strategies.)

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

Successful execution of these advanced protocols relies on a suite of specialized reagents and tools.

Table 2: Key Research Reagents for Target Identification Experiments

Reagent / Solution	Function	Example Application
Functionalized NP Probe	A chemically modified derivative of the natural product containing reactive groups (e.g., alkyne, diazirine) for labeling and purification.	Serves as the molecular bait in ABPP to covalently capture direct protein targets [9].
Streptavidin-Coated Beads	Solid-phase support with high affinity for biotin, used for isolating biotin-tagged protein complexes.	Critical for affinity purification steps in ABPP to pull down probe-bound targets from a complex lysate [9] [4].
"Click Chemistry" Reagents	A set of reagents (e.g., biotin-azide, CuSOâ‚„, reducing agent) for the bioorthogonal conjugation of an alkyne group to an azide.	Links the alkyne-tagged NP probe to a biotin affinity tag for subsequent purification [4].
Cellular Thermal Shift Assay (CETSA) Buffers	Specialized cell lysis and protein stabilization buffers for thermal shift experiments.	Validates target engagement by measuring the ligand-induced change in the target protein's thermal stability [9].
Curated Bioactivity Database	A compiled dataset of compounds with known protein target annotations (e.g., from ChEMBL, NPASS).	Serves as the reference library for similarity-based target prediction tools like CTAPred [10].
LC-MS/MS Grade Solvents	Ultra-pure solvents and enzymes (e.g., trypsin) compatible with mass spectrometry.	Essential for digesting and analyzing purified protein samples to identify candidate targets [9].
Rhetsinine	Rhetsinine, CAS:526-43-2, MF:C19H17N3O2, MW:319.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
Flutolanil	Flutolanil	Flutolanil is a succinate dehydrogenase inhibitor (SDHI) fungicide for research on crop diseases like Rhizoctonia. For Research Use Only. Not for human or veterinary use.

The journey from serendipitous discovery to systematic decoding represents a paradigm shift in natural products research. While each technology platform profiled—from the direct capture of chemical proteomics to the predictive power of computational tools—carries its own strengths and limitations, their true power is realized through integration. The future of NP-based drug development lies in leveraging these tools in a complementary fashion, using computational insights to guide experimental design and employing high-precision experimental data to refine predictive models. This synergistic approach is finally dismantling the historical barriers that have long hindered the field, paving a rational and efficient path for transforming traditional remedies into the modern pharmaceuticals of tomorrow.

Defining 'Targets' and 'Validation' in a Natural Product Context

In the realm of natural product research, the terms 'targets' and 'validation' carry specific and critical meanings. A target is typically defined as a specific biological molecule, most often a protein (such as receptors, ion channels, kinases, or transporters), with which a bioactive natural product directly interacts to produce its therapeutic effect [4]. Target validation is the comprehensive process of experimentally confirming that this identified molecule is not only bound by the compound but is also functionally responsible for the observed pharmacological outcome [7]. For natural products with complex mechanisms, moving from a simple observation of bioactivity to a clear understanding of the molecular target is a fundamental challenge. Mastering this process is crucial for elucidating the biological pathways involved, optimizing drug efficacy, minimizing side effects, and guiding the development of novel, safer therapeutics [4]. This guide objectively compares the performance of key technologies used for this purpose, providing a framework for researchers in drug development.

Core Methodologies for Target Identification and Validation

Several established and emerging technologies enable researchers to "fish" for and confirm the cellular targets of natural products. The following section compares these core methodologies, highlighting their principles, applications, and performance data.

Table 1: Comparison of Key Target Identification & Validation Methods

Method	Core Principle	Typical Throughput	Key Advantage	Primary Limitation	Direct Measure of Engagement in Live Cells?
Affinity Purification [4]	Uses an immobilized compound as "bait" to pull down binding proteins from a complex biological lysate.	Medium	Direct physical isolation of target proteins for identification.	Requires chemical modification of the compound; may not work for weak/transient interactions.	No (uses cell lysates)
Photoaffinity Labeling [4]	Incorporates a photoactivatable moiety into a probe; upon UV irradiation, it forms a covalent bond with the target protein.	Low	"Traps" transient interactions, enabling harsh purification steps.	Complex probe synthesis; potential for non-specific labeling.	Yes
Cellular Thermal Shift Assay (CETSA) [7]	Measures the thermal stabilization of a target protein upon ligand binding in an intact cellular environment.	Medium to High	Confirms target engagement in physiologically relevant conditions (live cells/tissues).	Does not directly identify novel/unknown targets.	Yes
Drug Affinity Responsive Target Stability (DARTS) [4]	Exploits the increased proteolytic resistance of a protein when bound to a small molecule.	Medium	Does not require chemical modification of the compound.	Can be prone to false positives from protease substrate preferences.	No (uses cell lysates)
In Silico Target Prediction [11]	Uses AI/machine learning models to predict ligand-target interactions based on chemical structure similarity and known data.	Very High	Rapid, low-cost prioritization of potential targets for experimental validation.	Predictive only; requires empirical confirmation.	N/A

Experimental Protocols for Key Techniques

To ensure reproducibility and facilitate comparison, this section provides detailed methodologies for two pivotal and complementary experimental approaches: one for initial target identification and another for functional validation in a live-cell context.

Protocol 1: Affinity Purification (Target Fishing)

This classic, yet continuously refined, strategy is used for the direct isolation of protein targets [4].

• Step 1: Probe Synthesis

  • Procedure: Chemically modify the natural product of interest to introduce a functional group (e.g., an amino or carboxyl group) without altering its core bioactive structure. This handle is then used to covalently link the compound to solid support beads (e.g., Sepharose or magnetic beads) via a spacer arm [4].
  • Critical Controls: Simultaneously prepare control beads using a structurally similar but inactive compound or beads with the spacer arm alone.

• Step 2: Affinity Purification

  • Procedure: Incubate the compound-conjugated beads with a prepared protein lysate from relevant cells or tissues. After incubation, wash the beads extensively with buffer to remove non-specifically bound proteins. Elute the specifically bound proteins using a competitive agent (e.g., a high concentration of the free natural product) or by denaturing conditions (e.g., SDS buffer) [4] [11].
  • Key Parameter: Use the control beads in a parallel experiment to identify and subtract proteins that bind non-specifically to the matrix or spacer.

• Step 3: Target Identification

  • Procedure: Analyze the eluted proteins by SDS-PAGE followed by in-gel digestion, or directly by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Identify the proteins by searching the resulting mass spectra against protein databases [4].

Protocol 2: Cellular Thermal Shift Assay (CETSA)

This method quantitatively validates target engagement by measuring ligand-induced thermal stabilization of the putative target protein in its native cellular environment [7].

• Step 1: Compound Treatment and Heat Denaturation

  • Procedure: Treat intact cells with the natural product or a vehicle control (DMSO) for a predetermined time. After treatment, divide the cell suspension into aliquots and heat each to a different temperature (e.g., a gradient from 37°C to 65°C) for a fixed time (e.g., 3 minutes) [7].

• Step 2: Protein Solubility Analysis

  • Procedure: Lyse the heat-exposed cells and separate the soluble protein (heat-stable) from the aggregated protein (heat-denatured) by high-speed centrifugation. The target protein, if stabilized by the compound, will remain soluble at higher temperatures compared to the control sample [7].

• Step 3: Quantification

  • Procedure: Quantify the amount of soluble target protein remaining in each sample by immunoblotting (Western blot) for the known putative target or, for an unbiased approach, using high-resolution mass spectrometry [7].
  • Data Analysis: Plot the fraction of soluble protein remaining against the temperature. A rightward shift in the melting curve (increased melting temperature, Tm) for the compound-treated sample confirms direct target engagement [7].

Visualizing Workflows and Pathways

The following diagrams, created using Graphviz DOT language, illustrate the logical workflows of the core methodologies and a generalized signaling pathway impacted by a natural product, helping to clarify the complex relationships involved.

Target Identification and Validation Workflow

Example Natural Product Signaling Pathway

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents and Solutions

Successful target identification and validation relies on a suite of specialized reagents and materials. The table below details essential items for constructing a robust research pipeline.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents for Target ID & Validation

Research Reagent / Solution	Critical Function	Key Considerations
Functionalized Natural Product Probe	Serves as molecular "bait" for affinity purification; contains a chemical handle (e.g., alkyne, biotin) for conjugation [4].	Modification must not impair bioactivity. Control probes are essential.
Solid Support Matrix (e.g., Sepharose 4B, Magnetic Beads)	The solid-phase platform for immobilizing the probe to isolate binding proteins from a complex mixture [4] [11].	Choice depends on lysate type and required binding capacity. Low non-specific binding is critical.
Photoactivatable Moieties (e.g., Diazirine, Benzophenone)	Incorporated into probes for photoaffinity labeling; forms covalent cross-links with proximal proteins upon UV light exposure [4].	Diazirines are smaller and can generate more highly reactive carbenes.
Click Chemistry Reagents (e.g., Azide-Biotin, Cu(I) Catalyst)	Enables bioorthogonal conjugation, such as labeling an alkyne-tagged probe or protein with a detectable tag (biotin, fluorophore) after cellular uptake [4].	Allows for minimal functionalization of the native compound.
CETSA / MS-Compatible Lysis Buffer	Maintains protein stability and solubility during the thermal shift protocol, enabling accurate quantification of soluble protein [7].	Must be compatible with downstream mass spectrometry analysis.
High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry System	The core analytical tool for unbiased identification of pulled-down proteins or thermally stabilized proteins in CETSA workflows [4] [7].	High sensitivity and accuracy are required to detect low-abundance targets.
Kakkalide	Kakkalide, CAS:58274-56-9, MF:C28H32O15, MW:608.5 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
Haloxyfop	Haloxyfop, CAS:69806-34-4, MF:C15H11ClF3NO4, MW:361.70 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

In the competitive landscape of modern drug discovery, natural products (NPs) continue to provide an unparalleled foundation for identifying novel therapeutic targets and lead compounds. Their enduring value stems from two fundamental advantages: immense structural diversity honed through evolutionary processes and inherent biological pre-optimization for interacting with biological systems. While synthetic approaches often pursue single-target specificity, natural products operate through sophisticated polypharmacological mechanisms, simultaneously modulating multiple biological pathways—a characteristic particularly advantageous for treating complex diseases like cancer, chronic inflammation, and neurodegenerative disorders [4] [12]. This review objectively compares the performance of natural product-based approaches against synthetic alternatives within target identification and validation workflows, providing researchers with experimental data and methodologies to inform their mechanistic studies.

The evolutionary refinement of natural products confers distinct advantages in drug discovery. Over millennia, organisms have optimized these compounds for specific biological functions, including defense, signaling, and communication, resulting in molecules with superior biological relevance compared to purely synthetic libraries [13]. These compounds typically exhibit favorable molecular properties—including appropriate molecular weight, rigidity, and stereochemical complexity—that enable effective interaction with biomacromolecules [13]. Furthermore, their inherent structural diversity provides access to chemical space largely unexplored by synthetic compounds, making them invaluable for identifying novel druggable targets [4] [14].

Structural Diversity of Natural Products: A Quantitative Comparison

The structural complexity of natural products represents their most significant advantage over synthetic compound libraries. This diversity manifests in several key metrics that directly impact target identification and drug discovery outcomes.

Chemical Space Coverage and Scaffold Diversity

Natural products access regions of chemical space typically unavailable to synthetic compounds due to their complex ring systems, diverse stereochemistry, and unique functional group arrangements. The following table quantifies this structural diversity across major natural product classes:

Table 1: Structural Diversity Metrics Across Natural Product Classes

Natural Product Class	Representative Examples	Number of Documented Structures	Unique Ring Systems	Stereogenic Centers (Avg.)	Target Classes Identified
Sesterterpenoids	Various fungal metabolites	>1,600 [14]	45+ core scaffolds	5-12	Antimicrobial, Anticancer [14]
Alkaloids	Berberine, Morphine	>12,000	20+ backbone structures	3-8	CNS, Cardiovascular [13]
Flavonoids	Quercetin, Paeoniflorin	>6,000	3 major scaffolds with high decoration	2-5	Kinases, Inflammatory targets [12]
Polyketides	Artemisinin	>10,000	Highly variable	4-15	Antimalarial, Antimicrobial [4]
Glycosides	Ginsenosides, Digoxin	>5,000	Variable aglycone + sugar motifs	5-10	Ion channels, Receptors [4] [13]

This structural complexity directly translates to enhanced target engagement capabilities. Comparative studies indicate that natural products and their derivatives show a 2.3-fold higher hit rate in phenotypic screenings compared to purely synthetic compounds [13]. Furthermore, their inherent molecular rigidity facilitates more specific binding interactions, with natural product-derived leads demonstrating approximately 40% lower entropic penalties upon target binding compared to synthetic compounds [13].

Performance Comparison: Natural Product-Derived vs. Synthetic Compounds

The biological pre-optimization of natural products provides tangible advantages in key drug discovery metrics, as evidenced by comparative analyses of approved therapeutics:

Table 2: Comparative Analysis of Natural Product-Derived vs. Synthetic Drugs (2000-2025)

Parameter	Natural Product-Derived Drugs	Synthetic Drugs	Data Source
Clinical Success Rate	~15%	~7%	[12]
Average Number of Target Proteins	2.4 ± 0.8	1.2 ± 0.3	[4] [11]
Molecular Complexity (Fsp3)	0.47 ± 0.15	0.31 ± 0.12	[15]
Structural Novelty (vs. Known Compounds)	78% novel scaffolds	42% novel scaffolds	[4]
Therapeutic Areas of Dominance	Anti-infectives, Oncology, Immunology	CNS, Cardiovascular	[12] [13]

The data demonstrates that natural product-derived compounds achieve significantly higher clinical success rates, largely attributable to their evolutionary optimization for biological systems. Their structural complexity, quantified by the fraction of sp3 hybridized carbon atoms (Fsp3), correlates with improved physicochemical properties and enhanced clinical outcomes [15]. Furthermore, natural products consistently provide access to novel molecular scaffolds, with approximately 78% of recently discovered natural products representing previously uncharacterized chemical architectures [4].

Experimental Approaches for Target Identification of Natural Products

Identifying molecular targets for natural products presents unique challenges due to their complex structures, low abundance, and multi-target nature. Modern approaches have evolved from single-method strategies to integrated workflows that combine multiple complementary techniques:

Diagram 1: Integrated target identification workflow for natural products showing the multi-technique approach required for comprehensive target deconvolution.

Key Technologies: Principles and Experimental Protocols

Affinity Purification and Chemical Probe Design

The affinity purification strategy represents a cornerstone approach for direct target identification. This method involves modifying natural products with linker molecules while preserving their biological activity, followed by immobilization onto solid supports for target "fishing" from complex biological samples [4].

Protocol: Affinity Matrix Preparation and Target Fishing

• Chemical Probe Design: Introduce functional groups (amino, carboxyl, hydroxyl) to the natural product structure at positions not critical for bioactivity [4].
• Immobilization: Couple the modified natural product to NHS-activated Sepharose 4B beads or magnetic microspheres via amine coupling chemistry [4] [11].
• Control Matrix: Prepare parallel control matrix with identical chemistry but lacking the natural product.
• Incubation: Expose the affinity matrix to cell or tissue lysates (typically 1-5 mg protein/mL) for 2-4 hours at 4°C with gentle agitation.
• Washing: Remove non-specifically bound proteins through sequential washing with lysis buffer containing increasing salt concentrations (0.15-1 M NaCl).
• Elution: Recover specifically bound targets using competitive elution (excess free natural product) or denaturing conditions (SDS buffer).
• Identification: Analyze eluted proteins by SDS-PAGE and liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) [4].

Performance Data: This approach successfully identified CDK2 as a direct target of curcumin, with binding affinity (Kd) of 0.35 μM confirmed by surface plasmon resonance [11]. In another study, affinity purification revealed 138 target proteins for Shouhui Tongbian Capsule, enabling mapping to eight signaling pathways [11].

Cellular Thermal Shift Assay (CETSA)

CETSA has emerged as a powerful label-free method for detecting target engagement in intact cells and native tissues, providing functional validation of direct target interactions [12] [7].

Protocol: CETSA for Natural Product Target Validation

• Compound Treatment: Expose cells (typically 1-2×10^6 cells/mL) to the natural product at relevant concentrations (typically IC50 values) for 2-4 hours.
• Heat Denaturation: Aliquot cell suspensions, subject to a temperature gradient (37-65°C) for 3 minutes in a thermal cycler.
• Cell Lysis: Freeze-thaw cycles or mechanical disruption to liberate soluble proteins.
• Soluble Protein Isolation: Centrifuge at 20,000×g for 20 minutes at 4°C to separate soluble proteins from aggregates.
• Protein Quantification: Analyze soluble fractions by Western blot or quantitative mass spectrometry.
• Data Analysis: Calculate melting temperature (Tm) shifts between treated and untreated samples. Significant rightward shifts (≥2°C) indicate stabilization due to compound binding [7].

Performance Data: CETSA applications have confirmed direct binding between quercetin and 17 cellular targets in anti-aging studies, with thermal shifts ranging from 2.1-6.8°C [12]. In rat tissue studies, CETSA validated DPP9 engagement by experimental compounds with clear dose-dependent and temperature-dependent stabilization [7].

Computational Target Fishing and AI Integration

Computational approaches have dramatically accelerated natural product target identification by prioritizing candidates for experimental validation [11].

Protocol: Computational Target Prediction Pipeline

• Structure Preparation: Obtain 2D/3D molecular structures of natural products from databases (e.g., NPASS, SuperNatural II).
• Descriptor Calculation: Generate molecular descriptors (topological, electronic, geometrical) and molecular fingerprints.
• Similarity Searching: Compare against curated databases of known ligand-target interactions (ChEMBL, BindingDB) using similarity algorithms (Tanimoto coefficient ≥0.85).
• Molecular Docking: Perform flexible docking against potential targets using AutoDock Vina or Glide.
• Machine Learning: Apply trained models (Random Forest, Deep Neural Networks) to predict binding probabilities.
• Network Analysis: Construct compound-target-disease networks to identify biologically relevant targets [11].

Performance Data: Recent implementations integrating deep learning with knowledge graphs have improved target prediction accuracy by 40-60% compared to traditional similarity-based methods [11]. For Beimu compounds used in cough treatment, computational target fishing identified 23 potential target proteins, subsequently validated for 18 targets (78% validation rate) [11].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

Successful target identification for natural products requires specialized reagents and methodologies optimized for their structural complexity:

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Natural Product Target Identification

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function & Application	Key Considerations
Immobilization Matrices	NHS-activated Sepharose 4B, Epoxy-activated magnetic microspheres	Covalent immobilization of natural product probes for affinity purification	Control for non-specific binding; maintain bioactivity post-immobilization [4]
Photoactivatable Groups	Diazirine, Benzophenone	Incorporate into natural products for photoaffinity labeling; enable UV-induced crosslinking with targets	Minimal structural perturbation; efficient crosslinking yield [4]
Bioorthogonal Handles	Azide, Alkyne, Tetrazine	Enable click chemistry conjugation for visualization and pull-down experiments	Metabolic stability; minimal impact on natural product bioactivity [4]
Thermal Shift Assay Kits	CETSA-compatible cell lysis buffers, Proteostasis indicators	Measure target engagement and stabilization in intact cellular environments	Compatibility with mass spectrometry; cell permeability of natural products [7]
Computational Platforms	PharmMapper, SEA, SwissTargetPrediction	In silico target prediction based on structural similarity and pharmacophore mapping	Curated natural product databases; appropriate similarity thresholds [11]
Validation Assays	SPR chips, DARTS reagents, Cellular functional assay kits	Confirm direct binding and functional consequences of target engagement	Physiological relevance; appropriate controls for polypharmacology [12]
Licarin A	Licarin A, MF:C20H22O4, MW:326.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
Lycodoline	Lycodoline, MF:C16H25NO2, MW:263.37 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

Case Studies: Successful Target Identification of Bioactive Natural Products

Artemisinin and Derivatives: Multi-Target Antimalarial Action

The antimalarial natural product artemisinin exemplifies the advantage of natural product complexity in target identification. Recent chemical proteomics approaches revealed an unanticipated human target of artesunate, demonstrating that its therapeutic effects extend beyond malaria parasites to human host targets [4]. Through photoaffinity labeling and clickable probes, researchers identified multiple protein targets involved in heme detoxification, protein degradation, and oxidative stress response, explaining its potent and rapid antimalarial action [4].

Experimental Data: Proteomic profiling identified 124 artemisinin-binding proteins in Plasmodium falciparum, with enrichment in processes including translation, proteolysis, and antioxidant defense. Direct binding to PfATP6 was confirmed with Kd of 2.3 μM, while engagement with human porphobilinogen deaminase suggested additional mechanisms contributing to the drug's efficacy [4].

Berberine: Systems-Level Mechanisms for Metabolic Disease

Berberine provides a compelling case study of how natural products achieve therapeutic effects through multi-target mechanisms. Initially known for antimicrobial properties, target identification efforts revealed its ability to interact with multiple metabolic regulators.

Experimental Approach: Reverse docking predicted 32 potential targets for berberine, while affinity purification using berberine-functionalized matrices captured 15 specific binding proteins from hepatic tissues [11]. Functional validation confirmed direct binding to aldose reductase (Kd = 0.84 μM) and protein tyrosine phosphatase 1B (Kd = 1.2 μM), explaining its insulin-sensitizing effects [11].

Performance Metrics: The multi-target profile of berberine results in a 3.5-fold higher therapeutic index for metabolic syndrome compared to single-target synthetic agents, demonstrating the clinical advantage of natural product polypharmacology [11].

Celastrol: Complex Anti-inflammatory Mechanisms

The anti-inflammatory natural product celastrol exemplifies the need for integrated approaches to fully characterize natural product mechanisms.

Experimental Approach: Combined affinity purification and thermal proteome profiling identified peroxiredoxins and heat shock proteins as direct targets of celastrol [4]. Subsequent functional assays demonstrated that celastrol induces ferroptosis in activated hepatic stellate cells by targeting peroxiredoxins and HO-1, providing a mechanistic basis for its anti-fibrotic effects [4].

Pathway Analysis: The target identification data revealed that celastrol simultaneously modulates Nrf2 antioxidant response, NF-κB inflammatory signaling, and ferroptotic cell death pathways, creating a synergistic anti-inflammatory effect unattainable by single-target synthetic inhibitors [4].

Natural products provide unique advantages in target identification and validation that complement synthetic approaches. Their structural diversity and evolutionary optimization enable access to novel biological targets and pathways, particularly for complex diseases requiring multi-target modulation. The experimental data presented demonstrates that natural product-derived compounds consistently outperform purely synthetic molecules in hit rates, clinical success rates, and polypharmacological potential.

Future advancements in natural product research will increasingly rely on integrated workflows that combine chemical biology, proteomics, and artificial intelligence. As target identification technologies continue to evolve, particularly in areas of chemical proteomics, cellular thermal shift assays, and computational prediction, the unique value proposition of natural products will become increasingly accessible to drug discovery pipelines. For researchers pursuing challenging therapeutic targets, natural products remain an essential component of a comprehensive drug discovery strategy, offering chemical and biological starting points that cannot be replicated by purely synthetic approaches.

For centuries, traditional medicine systems across cultures have relied on botanical remedies to treat myriad health conditions. This accumulated ethnobotanical knowledge represents an invaluable resource for modern drug discovery, providing pre-filtered, bioactivity-enriched starting points that significantly increase the efficiency of identifying therapeutic compounds. The World Health Organization reports that over 80% of people worldwide rely on traditional medicine for primary healthcare, with plant-based treatments forming the cornerstone of these practices [16]. This extensive real-world testing over generations provides a powerful validation filter that modern science can leverage through rigorous target identification and validation approaches.

The historical success of this approach is undeniable, with numerous blockbuster pharmaceuticals tracing their origins to traditional plant medicines. Artemisinin for malaria was discovered through the systematic investigation of Artemisia annua, long used in Chinese traditional medicine [17]. Similarly, the analgesic morphine was isolated from the opium poppy (Papaver somniferum), a plant with centuries of traditional use for pain relief [17]. These successes demonstrate that traditional knowledge can dramatically accelerate modern drug discovery by providing high-confidence hypotheses for pharmacological investigation.

Contemporary research continues to validate this approach. A 2023 large-scale analysis of ethnobotanical patterns demonstrated that congeneric medicinal plants (plants belonging to the same genus) are statistically more likely to be used for similar therapeutic indications across different cultures and geographical regions [18]. This non-random distribution strongly suggests conserved bioactivity driven by shared phytochemistry, providing a systematic framework for prioritizing plants for pharmacological investigation.

Quantitative Evidence: Systematic Analysis of Ethnobotanical Patterns

Recent research provides compelling quantitative evidence supporting the predictive value of traditional plant knowledge. A 2023 large-scale cross-cultural analysis investigated the relationship between taxonomic classification and therapeutic usage patterns across thousands of medicinal plants [18].

Table 1: Correlation Between Taxonomic Relationship and Medicinal Usage Similarity

Taxonomic Relationship	Medicinal Usage Correlation	Statistical Significance
Congeneric plants (same genus)	High correlation for treating similar indications	Strong (p < 0.001)
Confamilial plants (same family)	Moderate correlation	Variable significance
Random plant pairs	No significant correlation	Not significant

This systematic analysis demonstrated that congeneric medicinal plants are significantly more likely to be used for similar therapeutic purposes across disparate cultures and geographical regions [18]. For example, different species of Tinospora growing in India (T. cordifolia) and Nigeria (T. bakis) are both traditionally used to treat liver diseases and jaundice, despite their geographical separation [18]. Similarly, Glycyrrhiza uralensis (Asia) and Glycyrrhiza lepidota (North America) are both used for cough and sore throat [18]. This conserved usage pattern suggests non-random bioactivity resulting from shared phytochemistry due to evolutionary relationships.

The underlying mechanism for these conserved therapeutic properties appears to be phytochemical similarity among related plants. The same study found that taxonomically related medicinal plants not only treat similar diseases but also occupy similar phytochemical space, with chemical similarity correlating significantly with similar therapeutic usage [18]. This provides a scientific foundation for using ethnobotanical knowledge as a prioritization filter in natural product discovery.

Modern Target Identification Technologies: From Traditional Remedies to Validated Mechanisms

Once promising botanical leads are identified through ethnobotanical investigation, modern technologies are essential for identifying their molecular targets and mechanisms of action—a critical step in developing standardized therapeutics.

Proteomics-Driven Target Identification

Affinity-based proteomics approaches enable systematic identification of protein targets that directly interact with bioactive natural compounds:

• Affinity Purification (Target Fishing): This classical approach immobilizes natural compounds or their derivatives on solid supports to "fish" binding proteins from complex biological samples like cell lysates. Specific interactions are identified through mass spectrometry analysis [4].

• Click Chemistry and Photoaffinity Labeling: These techniques incorporate bioorthogonal functional groups or photoreactive moieties into natural product probes, enabling covalent cross-linking with target proteins under physiological conditions for subsequent identification [4].

• Cellular Thermal Shift Assay (CETSA): This method detects drug-target engagement by measuring the thermal stabilization of proteins upon ligand binding in intact cellular environments. When coupled with mass spectrometry (CETSA-MS), it enables proteome-wide mapping of target interactions [12] [7].

Computational and Multi-Omics Integration

Modern target identification increasingly combines experimental approaches with computational methods:

• Molecular Docking and Dynamics Simulations: These in silico approaches predict how natural compounds interact with potential protein targets at atomic resolution, providing mechanistic insights and prioritizing experimental validation [19].

• Multi-Omics Platforms: Integrated genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, and metabolomics provide comprehensive views of natural product effects on biological systems, revealing complex mechanisms and polypharmacology [17].

Table 2: Comparison of Major Target Identification Technologies for Natural Products

Technology	Key Principle	Throughput	Physiological Relevance	Primary Applications
Affinity Purification	Physical capture of binding partners using immobilized compound	Medium	Low (cell lysates)	Initial target discovery, identifying direct interactors
CETSA/CETSA-MS	Thermal stabilization of target proteins upon binding	Medium to High	High (intact cells/tissues)	Target engagement confirmation, proteome-wide screening
Click Chemistry/Photoaffinity Labeling	Covalent cross-linking with bioorthogonal handles	Medium	Medium to High	Identifying transient interactions, subcellular localization
Molecular Docking/Dynamics	Computational prediction of binding poses and stability	High	Variable (structure-dependent)	Hypothesis generation, binding site prediction, mechanism
Multi-Omics Integration	Systems-level analysis of molecular responses	High	High	Comprehensive mechanism elucidation, polypharmacology

Diagram 1: The integrated ethnobotany to therapeutics pipeline shows how traditional knowledge guides modern drug discovery.

Case Study: Integrated Ethnobotanical and Computational Validation of Anti-Influenza Botanicals

A 2024 study on medicinal plants traditionally used for influenza treatment in the Democratic Republic of the Congo exemplifies the integrated approach to validating traditional knowledge [19]. Researchers combined ethnobotanical surveys with computational validation to identify and mechanistically characterize promising botanical therapeutics.

Experimental Protocol

• Ethnobotanical Data Collection: Researchers employed snowball sampling to identify knowledgeable informants, using semi-structured questionnaires to document plants used for influenza-like symptoms. Cultural significance was quantified through informant consensus factor and use agreement value calculations [19].

• Molecular Docking and Dynamics: Bioactive compounds from prioritized plants were computationally screened against influenza virus neuraminidase protein. Molecular dynamics simulations assessed complex stability over time, with specific analysis of hydrogen bonding patterns and binding free energies [19].

Key Findings

The integrated approach identified several plants with strong potential, with two particularly promising species:

• Cymbopogon citratus (Lemongrass): Contains neral, which formed two hydrogen bonds with the neuraminidase active site [19].

• Ocimum gratissimum: Contains eugenol, which formed four hydrogen bonds with key residues (Arg706, Val709, Ser712, Arg721) [19].

Molecular dynamics simulations confirmed stable binding, with approximately 300 amino acid residues participating in ligand interactions, suggesting strong binding affinity and specificity [19]. This mechanistic validation at the molecular level provides scientific support for traditional use while identifying specific compounds for further development.

Diagram 2: Combined workflow shows integration of traditional knowledge with computational validation.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Natural Product Target Identification

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Platforms for Natural Product Target Identification

Research Reagent/Platform	Function in Target Identification	Key Applications in Natural Products Research
CETSA Reagents & Kits	Detect target engagement by measuring thermal stability shifts in cellular systems	Validation of direct target binding in physiologically relevant environments [7]
Photoaffinity Probes	Covalently crosslink natural products to their protein targets for subsequent isolation	Identification of direct molecular targets, especially for weak or transient interactions [4]
Click Chemistry Toolkits	Incorporate bioorthogonal handles into natural products for visualization and pulldown	Target identification in live cells, subcellular localization studies [4]
Affinity Resins	Immobilize natural compounds for fishing experiments	Pull-down of direct binding partners from complex protein mixtures [4]
Molecular Docking Software	Predict binding modes and affinities of natural compounds to potential targets	Virtual screening of natural product libraries, binding hypothesis generation [19]
Multi-Omics Databases	Integrate genomic, proteomic, and metabolomic data for systems biology analysis	Uncovering polypharmacology and complex mechanisms of action [17]
Methyl tridecanoate	Methyl tridecanoate, CAS:1731-88-0, MF:C14H28O2, MW:228.37 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
7-O-Methylaloeresin A	7-O-Methylaloeresin A, MF:C29H30O11, MW:554.5 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

The integration of traditional ethnobotanical knowledge with modern target identification technologies represents a powerful paradigm for natural product-based drug discovery. This approach leverages the best of both worlds: the real-world validation of traditional medicines and the mechanistic precision of modern molecular technologies. As target identification methods continue to advance—particularly through artificial intelligence and multi-omics integration—the path from ethnobotanical leads to validated therapeutics will become increasingly efficient and productive [17] [7]. This synergy promises to accelerate the discovery of novel therapeutic agents while preserving and validating invaluable traditional knowledge systems.

A Practical Guide to Modern Target Identification Techniques: From Chemical Proteomics to AI

In the progression of human disease treatment, a central challenge in drug discovery lies in the precise identification and validation of molecular targets that can modulate disease pathways [11]. This challenge is particularly acute for natural products (NPs), which are pivotal in traditional medicine and modern pharmacology, serving as valuable sources of drugs and drug leads [10]. Historically, the field has relied on conventional strategies such as phenotypic screening, genomics analysis, and chemical genetics approaches [11]. However, these methods often suffer from inherent limitations, including low screening throughput and protracted timelines for target validation, frequently leaving potential targets obscured within biological systems' complexity [11].

To address these limitations, innovative research strategies represented by "target fishing" have emerged, integrating chemical biology, high-resolution proteomics, and artificial intelligence technologies [11]. This approach drives drug discovery from an experience-oriented paradigm toward a data-driven one, using active small molecules as probes to directly "fish" for binding proteins from complex biological samples [11]. Among the various techniques available, chemical proteomics has established itself as the gold standard for direct target identification, enabling researchers to comprehensively identify protein targets of active small molecules at the proteome level in an unbiased manner [20] [21].

Table: Comparison of Target Identification Approaches

Method	Key Principle	Advantages	Limitations
Chemical Proteomics	Uses chemical probes to enrich molecular targets from biological samples [20]	Unbiased, proteome-wide, works in native biological context [21]	Requires probe synthesis, potential for false positives [20]
Computational Prediction	Predicts targets based on chemical similarity to compounds with known targets [10]	Rapid, cost-effective, no synthesis required [10]	Limited by database coverage, may miss novel targets [10]
Transcriptome Profiling	Analyzes gene expression changes after compound treatment [20]	Provides functional context, measures downstream effects [20]	Indirect identification, complex data interpretation [20]
Yeast Two-Hybrid	Detects protein-protein interactions in yeast system [21]	Genetic readout, functional context [21]	Limited applicability, multiple interference [20]

Chemical Proteomics: Principles and Workflows

Chemical proteomics represents a postgenomic version of classical drug affinity chromatography that is coupled to subsequent high-resolution mass spectrometry (MS) and bioinformatic analyses [20]. As an important branch of proteomics, it integrates diverse approaches in synthetic chemistry, cellular biology, and mass spectrometry to comprehensively fish and identify multiple protein targets of active small molecules [20]. The approach consists of two key steps: (1) probe design and synthesis and (2) target fishing and protein identification [20].

Chemical proteomics methodologies can be divided into two principal categories based on their operational workflows: activity-based protein profiling (ABPP) and compound-centric chemical proteomics (CCCP) [20]. ABPP combines activity-based probes and proteomics technologies to identify protein targets, typically employing probes that retain the pharmacological activity of their parent molecules [20]. In contrast, CCCP originates from classic drug affinity chromatography and merges this classical method with modern proteomics by immobilizing drug molecules on a matrix such as magnetic or agarose beads [20].

Figure 1: Core Workflow of Chemical Proteomics Approaches for Target Identification

Probe Design: The Critical First Step

Designing and synthesizing the probe is the initial and pivotal step for target identification in chemical proteomics approaches [20]. Generally, a probe consists of three essential components [20]:

• Reactive group: Derived from the parent drug molecule, ensuring retention of pharmacological activity and ability to bind protein targets
• Reporter tag: Such as biotin, an alkyne, or fluorescence group for target enrichment or detection
• Linker: Sometimes cleavable, connects the reactive group and reporter tag, designed to be long enough to avoid steric hindrance

The structure of the probe varies significantly across different chemical proteomics strategies, with some approaches omitting one or even two of these components depending on the specific application requirements [20].

Comparative Analysis of Chemical Proteomics Strategies

Major Probe Modalities in Chemical Proteomics

Chemical proteomics employs several distinct probe strategies, each with specific characteristics, advantages, and limitations suited to different experimental scenarios.

Immobilized Probes represent one of the earlier approaches, where bioactive natural products are covalently immobilized on biocompatible inert resins such as agarose and magnetic beads to serve as bait for target proteins [20]. This method benefits from the intrinsic properties of the beads, such as their macroscopic size and magnetism, which facilitate easy enrichment of probe-fished proteins for subsequent identification [20]. However, this convenience is counterbalanced by the challenge of high spatial resistance, which can lead to the loss of targets with weak binding affinity [21].

Activity-Based Probes (ABPs) were developed to overcome limitations of immobilized probes [21]. These probes incorporate reporter groups such as biotin for enrichment and fluorescent groups for detection [21]. A significant advancement in this category is the use of click chemistry reactions, particularly the azide-alkyne cycloaddition (AAC), which enables direct binding of the compound to the target in situ within living cells, thereby providing a more accurate depiction of small molecule-protein interactions [21].

Photoaffinity Probes represent an advanced iteration of ABPs based on the concept of photoaffinity labeling (PAL) [21]. These probes integrate photoreactive groups such as benzophenone, aryl azides, and diazirines [21]. Upon binding to the target protein and activation with wavelength-specific light (typically ultraviolet light at 365 nm), these probes release highly reactive chemicals that covalently cross-link proximal amino acid residues, effectively converting non-covalent interactions into covalent ones [21]. This approach is particularly useful for studying integral membrane proteins and identifying compound-protein interactions that may be too transient to detect by other methods [22].

Table: Comparison of Chemical Proteomics Probe Types

Probe Type	Key Components	Best For	Limitations
Immobilized Probes	Natural product covalently linked to solid support (e.g., agarose beads) [20]	High-affinity targets, straightforward enrichment [20]	High spatial resistance, may miss weak binders [21]
Activity-Based Probes (ABPs)	Reactive group + linker + reporter tag (biotin/fluorophore) [21]	Enzymatic targets, activity-based profiling [21]	Large reporter groups may alter compound activity [21]
Photoaffinity Probes	Reactive group + photoreactive moiety + enrichment handle [21]	Membrane proteins, transient interactions [22]	Requires UV activation, potential non-specific crosslinking [21]
Label-Free Approaches	No modification of native compound [22]	Native conditions, avoiding modification artifacts [22]	Challenging for low-abundance proteins [22]

Experimental Performance and Applications

The true value of chemical proteomics is demonstrated through its application in identifying targets for natural products with complex mechanisms of action. For example, Schreiber et al. immobilized FK506 (tacrolimus), a natural immunosuppressant, to identify its protein targets [20]. After complete incubation with cytosolic extracts of bovine thymus and human spleen, followed by competitive elution with FK506, a 14 K protein was enriched and identified, leading to the discovery of FKBP12, which functions as a protein folding chaperone for proteins containing proline residues [20].

In another exemplary application, the structural optimization of berberine, the discovery of a PD-L1 inhibitor, and the elucidation of the mechanism of action of celastrol all validate the distinct advantages of "target fishing" using chemical proteomics in target identification and mechanistic exploration [11]. These successes highlight how chemical proteomics enables the direct identification of molecular targets within biologically relevant contexts, providing a more accurate representation of compound-protein interactions compared to computational predictions alone.

Figure 2: Step-by-Step Experimental Process for Chemical Proteomics

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

Successful implementation of chemical proteomics requires specialized reagents and materials designed to facilitate probe synthesis, target enrichment, and protein identification.

Table: Essential Research Reagents for Chemical Proteomics

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function/Purpose
Solid Supports	Agarose beads, magnetic beads [20]	Provide matrix for compound immobilization and target enrichment
Chemical Linkers	PEG linkers, cleavable linkers [20]	Connect reactive groups to reporter tags, minimize steric hindrance
Reporter Tags	Biotin, fluorescent tags (e.g., TAMRA, BODIPY) [21]	Enable detection and enrichment of target proteins
Click Chemistry Reagents	Azide-alkyne pairs, Cu(I) catalysts, cyclooctynes [21]	Facilitate bioorthogonal conjugation in living systems
Photoaffinity Groups	Benzophenone, aryl azides, diazirines [21]	Enable UV-induced covalent crosslinking with target proteins
Enrichment Matrices	Streptavidin beads, antibody resins [21]	Capture and purify probe-bound protein targets
Mass Spectrometry	LC-MS/MS systems, DIA/DDA capabilities [23]	Identify and quantify enriched proteins with high sensitivity
Onjisaponin B	Onjisaponin B, CAS:35906-36-6, MF:C75H112O35, MW:1573.7 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
Panasenoside	Panasenoside High-Purity Reference Standard	Explore Panasenoside, a high-purity ginsenoside compound for research. This product is For Research Use Only. Not for human or veterinary diagnostic or therapeutic use.

Complementary and Emerging Technologies

While chemical proteomics represents the gold standard for direct target identification, several complementary technologies enhance its utility or offer alternative approaches for specific applications.

Label-Free Target Deconvolution strategies have been developed for cases where compound labeling is disruptive, technically challenging, or otherwise infeasible [22]. One prominent approach—solvent-induced denaturation shift assays—leverages the changes in protein stability that often occur with ligand binding [22]. By comparing the kinetics of physical or chemical denaturation before and after compound treatment, researchers can identify compound targets on a proteome-wide scale without requiring chemical modification of the native compound [22].

Computational Prediction Tools like CTAPred offer a complementary approach that uses similarity-based searches to predict protein targets for natural products [10]. These tools apply fingerprinting and similarity-based search techniques to identify potential protein targets for NP query compounds based on their similarity to reference compounds with known bioactivities [10]. While these computational methods cannot replace experimental validation, they provide valuable preliminary data to guide targeted chemical proteomics experiments.

Automated Proteomics Platforms such as the π-Station represent cutting-edge advancements that enable fully automated sample-to-data systems for proteomic experiments [23]. This platform seamlessly integrates fully automated sample preparation with LC-MS/MS instrumentation and computing servers, enabling direct generation of protein quantification data matrices from biospecimen samples without manual intervention [23]. Such automation significantly enhances reproducibility and throughput while reducing operational variability.

Chemical proteomics has rightfully earned its status as the gold standard for direct target fishing in natural product research. Its ability to experimentally validate protein targets within biologically relevant systems provides an unequivocal advantage over purely computational predictions. The methodology's unique capacity to identify multiple targets simultaneously offers crucial insights into the polypharmacology that often underlies the efficacy of natural products [20] [11].

While newer computational approaches like CTAPred demonstrate promising capabilities for predicting protein targets based on chemical similarity [10], they ultimately require experimental validation through methods like chemical proteomics to confirm biological relevance. The integration of chemical proteomics with emerging technologies—including automated platforms [23], advanced label-free methods [22], and AI-driven predictive tools [24]—creates a powerful synergy that accelerates the drug discovery process while maintaining rigorous experimental validation.

For researchers investigating natural product mechanisms, chemical proteomics provides the most direct and comprehensive approach for target identification, offering unparalleled insights into the complex interactions between small molecules and biological systems that underlie therapeutic efficacy.

In the field of natural product research and drug discovery, identifying the molecular targets of bioactive compounds is a critical step in understanding their mechanism of action. Target identification and validation have been significantly advanced by chemical biology strategies that employ designed molecular probes. These probes enable researchers to capture, isolate, and identify proteins that interact with small molecules in complex biological systems. Among the most powerful approaches are those utilizing biotin labels, alkyne/azide click chemistry, and photoaffinity groups, which can be used individually or in combination to create sophisticated tools for target deconvolution. This guide provides a comparative analysis of these strategies, their optimal applications, and integrated experimental protocols to assist researchers in selecting the most appropriate methodology for their specific research needs.

Core Components of Effective Probe Design

Photoreactive Groups for Target Capture

Photoaffinity labeling (PAL) enables the covalent capture of typically transient protein-ligand interactions through light-activated chemistry. An effective photoaffinity probe incorporates three key functionalities: an affinity/specificity unit (the bioactive compound), a photoreactive moiety, and an identification/reporter tag [25]. The most commonly employed photoreactive groups in probe design each present distinct advantages and limitations, which are summarized in the table below.

Table 1: Comparison of Major Photoreactive Groups Used in Probe Design

Photoreactive Group	Reactive Intermediate	Activation Wavelength	Key Advantages	Key Limitations
Benzophenone (BP)	Triplet diradical	350-365 nm	High selectivity for methionine; can be reactivated repeatedly; stable under ambient light [26].	Bulky structure may cause steric hindrance; requires longer irradiation times, potentially increasing non-specific labeling [25] [26].
Aryl Diazirine (DA)	Carbene	~350 nm	Small size minimizes steric interference; highly reactive carbene intermediate forms stable cross-links rapidly; superior photophysical properties compared to aryl azides [25] [26].	Can be less stable than other groups; the generated carbene has a very short half-life (nanoseconds) [25] [26].
Aryl Azide (AA)	Nitrene	254-400 nm	Relatively easy to synthesize and commercially available; chemically stable in the dark [25] [26].	Requires shorter UV wavelengths that can damage biomolecules; nitrene intermediate can rearrange into less reactive side products, lowering yield [25].

The selection of an appropriate photoreactive group depends on the specific experimental requirements. Diazirines are often preferred for their small size and high reactivity, which is critical for capturing weak or transient interactions [25]. Benzophenones are valuable when precise control over the crosslinking event is needed, thanks to their activatability with longer, less damaging wavelengths of UV light and their ability to be reactivated [26]. Aryl azides offer a cost-effective and synthetically accessible entry into photoaffinity labeling, though their potential for side reactions must be considered [25].

Detection and Enrichment Tags

Following covalent capture, the protein-probe adduct must be detected and isolated from a complex biological mixture. This is typically achieved using a reporter tag.

• Biotin: This is the most widely used reporter group due to the strong, nearly irreversible interaction (Kd ∼ 10⁻¹⁵ mol/L) between biotin and streptavidin/avidin proteins [27]. This interaction allows for powerful enrichment of probe-bound proteins from complex lysates using streptavidin-coated beads. However, this very strength makes elution of intact proteins challenging, often requiring harsh denaturing conditions that can co-elute contaminants [27].
• Cleavable Biotin Probes: To overcome elution challenges, cleavable linkers can be incorporated between biotin and the probe. These allow for mild, specific release of captured proteins, significantly reducing background and improving the purity of samples for downstream mass spectrometry analysis [27]. Various cleavage strategies are available, as detailed in the table below.

Table 2: Comparison of Cleavable Linker Strategies for Biotin Probes

Cleavage Method	Cleavage Trigger	Cleavage Conditions	Key Features
Dialkoxydiphenylsilane (DADPS)	Acid	10% Formic Acid, 0.5 hours [27].	Highly efficient cleavage under mild acidic conditions; leaves a small (143 Da) mass tag on the protein [27].
Disulfide	Reduction	Dithiothreitol (DTT) or Tris(2-carboxyethyl)phosphine (TCEP) [27].	Standard reduction method; requires careful handling to prevent premature cleavage.
Diazobenzene	Reduction	Sodium Dithionite (Naâ‚‚Sâ‚‚Oâ‚„) [27].	A specific chemical reduction trigger.
Photocleavable Linker	UV Light	Irradiation at 365 nm [27].	Provides a physical (non-chemical) trigger for cleavage.

Bioorthogonal Handles for Versatile Tagging

Bioorthogonal chemistry, particularly the azide-alkyne cycloaddition, is a transformative strategy that decouples the probe's function in the biological environment from the subsequent detection and enrichment steps [25]. A probe containing a terminal alkyne (or azide) can be applied to live cells, where it penetrates and covalently binds its target upon photoactivation. After cell lysis, a detection tag (e.g., biotin-azide or a fluorescent dye-azide) is conjugated to the alkyne via a click reaction [25] [28]. This two-step tagging approach avoids the poor cell permeability often associated with large, pre-assembled probes like those linked directly to biotin [25].

There are two primary types of azide-alkyne cycloadditions used:

• Copper-Catalyzed Azide-Alkyne Cycloaddition (CuAAC): This method uses a Cu(I) catalyst and is highly efficient. A comparative proteomics study found that CuAAC with Biotin-Diazo-Alkyne led to the identification of 229 putative O-GlcNAc modified proteins, demonstrating higher identification power and better accuracy compared to the copper-free method [28].
• Strain-Promoted Azide-Alkyne Cycloaddition (SPAAC): This copper-free reaction uses a cyclooctyne reagent (e.g., DIBO) and is essential for experiments where copper toxicity is a concern, though it may be less efficient than CuAAC [28].

Figure 1: Workflow of a typical photoaffinity labeling and click chemistry-based target identification experiment.

Comparative Analysis of Probe Strategies

Each probe design strategy offers a unique balance of characteristics, making them suited for different experimental goals. The table below provides a direct comparison to guide researchers in their selection.

Table 3: Comparative Performance of Different Probe Design Strategies

Probe Characteristic	Pre-Assembled Biotin Probe	Clickable (Alkyne) Probe	Cleavable Clickable Probe
Cell Permeability	Low (due to large size of biotin) [25].	High (small alkyne tag is minimally disruptive) [25].	High (during the labeling phase) [27].
Detection/Enrichment Efficiency	High (direct biotin-streptavidin interaction) [27].	High (after click reaction with biotin-azide) [28].	High, with superior purity (cleavage reduces non-specific binders) [27].
Synthetic Complexity	Moderate to High (single-step synthesis of a large molecule) [25].	Moderate (requires synthesis of alkyne-probe and separate biotin-azide tag) [25].	Highest (requires incorporation of a cleavable linker into the design) [27].
Best Use Cases	In vitro applications with cell lysates or purified proteins.	Live-cell imaging and target identification in intact cellular systems [25].	High-sensitivity proteomics where sample purity is critical for mass spectrometry [27].

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

The following table catalogs key reagents and their critical functions in the design and implementation of effective probes for target identification.

Table 4: Key Research Reagents for Probe-Based Target Identification

Reagent / Tool	Primary Function	Key Considerations
Trifluoromethyl Phenyl Diazirine	Small, highly reactive photoreactive group for covalent crosslinking [25] [29].	Preferred for minimal steric hindrance; carbene reacts rapidly with C-H and X-H bonds [25].
Benzophenone	Bulky, selective photoreactive group activatable with 365 nm light [26].	Ideal when targeting methionine-rich regions; allows for repeated photoactivation attempts [26].
Alkyne Handle	Bioorthogonal handle for post-labeling conjugation via click chemistry [25] [28].	Enables two-step labeling strategy to maintain cell permeability of the initial probe [25].
Biotin-Azide	Detection and enrichment tag conjugated to alkyne-labeled proteins via CuAAC [28].	The azide group reacts selectively with the alkyne handle on the probe for streptavidin-based pulldown.
Streptavidin-Coated Beads	Solid-phase resin for affinity purification of biotinylated protein complexes [27].	The strong biotin-streptavidin interaction requires harsh conditions or cleavable linkers for efficient elution [27].
Dialkoxydiphenylsilane (DADPS) Linker	Acid-cleavable moiety placed between biotin and the probe [27].	Allows mild, efficient release (10% formic acid) of captured proteins, minimizing contaminants [27].

Detailed Experimental Protocol

This section outlines a standard workflow for identifying the protein targets of a natural product using a cleavable, clickable photoaffinity probe.

Probe Design and Synthesis

• Design: Based on Structure-Activity Relationship (SAR) data, identify a suitable position on your natural product to attach a linker terminating in an alkyne handle. Incorporate a photoreactive group (e.g., diazirine) either on the linker or within the pharmacophore itself, ensuring the modifications do not significantly impair the compound's biological activity [25].
• Synthesis: Chemically synthesize the probe molecule. For a cleavable strategy, also synthesize a biotin-azide tag that contains a cleavable linker (e.g., the DADPS linker) [27].

Cell Culture and Labeling

• Treatment: Treat live cells with the synthesized alkyne-bearing photoaffinity probe. Include control groups treated with a large excess of the parent, unmodified natural product to compete for specific binding sites [25] [25].
• Crosslinking: After a suitable incubation period, irradiate the cells with UV light at the appropriate wavelength (e.g., ~350 nm for diazirines) to activate the photoreactive group and covalently crosslink the probe to its target proteins [25].

Sample Preparation and Click Chemistry

• Lysis: Lyse the irradiated cells using a non-denaturing RIPA buffer supplemented with protease inhibitors.
• Click Reaction (CuAAC): To the clarified cell lysate, add the cleavable biotin-azide tag, a Cu(I) catalyst (e.g., Tris(benzyltriazolylmethyl)amine, or TBTA, with CuSOâ‚„), and a reducing agent (e.g., sodium ascorbate). Incubate the reaction for 1-2 hours at room temperature to conjugate the biotin tag to the alkyne-labeled proteins [28].

Affinity Purification and On-Bead Processing

• Enrichment: Incubate the click-reacted lysate with streptavidin-coated beads to capture the biotinylated protein complexes.
• Washing: Wash the beads stringently with sequential buffers (e.g., PBS, high-salt buffer, and denaturing buffer) to remove non-specifically bound proteins [25].
• Elution (Cleavage-Based): Release the captured proteins from the beads by treating them with the appropriate cleavage condition. For a DADPS linker, incubate with 10% formic acid for 30 minutes [27]. Alternatively, elute by boiling in SDS-PAGE loading buffer.

Target Identification and Validation

• Gel Electrophoresis: Separate the eluted proteins by SDS-PAGE. Visualize proteins by silver staining or Coomassie Blue to see specific bands pulled down in the probe-treated sample that are absent in the competition control.
• Mass Spectrometry (MS): Excise the protein bands of interest or process the entire eluate for in-solution digestion. Analyze the resulting peptides by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) to identify the proteins [30].
• Validation: Confirm the identified targets through orthogonal methods such as cellular thermal shift assays (CETSA), surface plasmon resonance (SPR), or biochemical inhibition assays [30].

Figure 2: Schematic structure of a typical multifunctional photoaffinity probe, showing the natural product, linker, photoreactive group, and bioorthogonal handle.

The strategic selection and combination of biotin, alkyne/azide, and photoaffinity functionalities are paramount for successful target identification in natural product research. Pre-assembled biotin probes offer a straightforward approach for in vitro work, while clickable alkyne probes are indispensable for live-cell studies due to their superior cell permeability. For the highest sensitivity and purity in proteomic applications, cleavable clickable probes represent the gold standard, mitigating the key limitation of strong biotin-streptavidin binding. By understanding the comparative advantages and experimental requirements of each strategy, researchers can design more effective probes, thereby accelerating the deconvolution of complex mechanisms of action and fostering innovation in drug discovery.

Activity-Based Protein Profiling (ABPP) for Functional Enzyme Characterization

Activity-Based Protein Profiling (ABPP) has emerged as a transformative chemoproteomic technology that directly interrogates enzyme function in complex biological systems. By employing specially designed chemical probes, ABPP enables researchers to monitor the functional state of enzymes, characterize unannotated proteins, and identify novel therapeutic targets. This review provides a comprehensive comparison of ABPP methodologies, detailing experimental protocols and profiling data across enzyme classes to guide researchers in selecting appropriate strategies for natural product mechanism research and drug discovery programs.

In the post-genomic era, a significant challenge persists in bridging the gap between gene sequencing data and functional protein characterization. While genomic technologies provide massive information on human gene function and disease relevance, understanding protein activity states remains crucial for drug discovery [31]. Activity-Based Protein Profiling (ABPP) addresses this challenge by generating global maps of small molecule-protein interactions in native biological systems, directly reporting on enzyme activity rather than mere abundance [32] [33].

ABPP is particularly valuable within phenotype-based drug discovery, where it helps identify molecular targets responsible for observed phenotypic effects [34] [35]. This approach has become indispensable for profiling natural products and other bioactive compounds, enabling target identification and validation while accounting for post-translational modifications and cellular regulation that escape conventional genomic and proteomic methods [36] [37]. By focusing on functionally active enzymes, ABPP provides critical insights for characterizing natural product mechanisms and expanding the druggable proteome.

Fundamental Principles and Components of ABPP

Core Elements of Activity-Based Probes

ABPP relies on chemical probes that covalently bind to active sites of target proteins. These probes typically consist of three fundamental components:

• Reactive Group (Warhead): An electrophilic moiety that forms covalent bonds with nucleophilic residues in enzyme active sites [32] [35]
• Linker Region: A spacer that modulates warhead reactivity and provides distance between the warhead and reporter tag [32]
• Reporter Tag: A detectable handle (e.g., fluorophore, biotin, or bioorthogonal group) for visualization and enrichment [32] [35]

Table 1: Common Reactive Groups in Activity-Based Probes

Reactive Group	Target Enzymes/Residues	Key Characteristics	Applications
Fluorophosphonates (FP)	Serine hydrolases	Broad reactivity across serine hydrolase superfamily	Global profiling of serine hydrolases [37]
Epoxides	Cysteine proteases	Target nucleophilic cysteine residues	Protease activity profiling [35]
Sulfonate esters	Serine, threonine, tyrosine	React with various catalytic nucleophiles	Multiple enzyme classes [32]
Diarylhalonium salts	Oxidoreductases	Reductive activation mechanism	Oxidoreductase profiling [38]

Probe Classification: Activity-Based vs. Affinity-Based Probes

ABPP strategies employ two primary probe categories with distinct mechanisms and applications:

Activity-Based Probes (ABPs/AcBPs) exploit conserved catalytic mechanisms to label mechanistically related enzyme families. These probes contain an electrophilic warhead designed to irreversibly modify nucleophilic residues in active sites, enabling profiling of entire enzyme classes based on shared catalytic properties [32] [39]. For example, fluorophosphonate (FP) probes broadly target serine hydrolases by covalently modifying their active site serine residues [37].

Affinity-Based Probes (AfBPs) utilize highly selective recognition motifs coupled with photoaffinity groups that label target proteins upon UV irradiation. Unlike ABPs, AfBPs achieve specificity through classical ligand-protein interactions rather than catalytic mechanisms, making them suitable for targeting specific proteins or non-enzymatic targets [32] [39]. This approach requires prior knowledge of target binding ligands but causes less disruption to native protein function.

Comparative Analysis of ABPP Methodologies

Gel-Based vs. Gel-Free ABPP Platforms

ABPP methodologies have evolved from initial gel-based approaches to sophisticated gel-free platforms, each offering distinct advantages and limitations for enzyme characterization.

Gel-Based ABPP represents the original and most accessible format, utilizing SDS-PAGE separation followed by fluorescence scanning or Western blotting. This approach enables rapid comparative and competitive analysis of multiple samples simultaneously, making it ideal for initial screening and inhibitor validation [32] [35]. However, gel-based methods face limitations in resolution and accuracy, as single gel bands may contain multiple co-migrating proteins, and low-abundance enzymes often escape detection [37].

Gel-Free ABPP platforms, particularly those incorporating liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS), provide significantly enhanced sensitivity and resolution. The active site peptide profiling strategy represents an advanced gel-free approach that identifies functional enzymes by enriching and sequencing probe-labelled active site peptides [37]. This method enables precise mapping of probe modification sites and detects low-abundance targets, but requires specialized instrumentation and expertise.

Table 2: Comparison of ABPP Detection Platforms

Platform	Sensitivity	Resolution	Throughput	Key Applications
1D-Gel + Fluorescence	Moderate	Low	High	Rapid inhibitor screening, comparative analysis [32]
2D-Gel + Fluorescence	Moderate	Medium	Medium	Proteoform separation, activity analysis [32]
LC-MS (Gel-Free)	High	High	Medium-High	Comprehensive target identification, precise site mapping [32] [37]
In-Gel Fluorescence Scanning (IGFS)	Moderate	Low	High	Initial probe validation, simple comparative studies [37]

Advanced ABPP Strategies for Expanded Applications

Recent methodological innovations have substantially extended ABPP capabilities for specialized applications in drug discovery:

Competitive ABPP represents the most widely applied strategy for inhibitor discovery and selectivity assessment. This approach measures the ability of test compounds to compete with ABPP probes for enzyme binding sites in native biological systems [34] [31]. By revealing potency and selectivity profiles across entire enzyme families directly in complex proteomes, competitive ABPP bypasses the need for purified proteins and artificial substrates.

isoTOP-ABPP (isotopic Tandem Orthogonal Protease Proteomics) incorporates cleavable linkers and quantitative proteomics to identify and quantify probe-modified amino acids across entire proteomes [35] [40]. This strategy enables comprehensive mapping of ligandable hotspots, particularly cysteine residues, providing unprecedented insights into potential allosteric sites and novel druggable pockets [31].

FluoPol-ABPP (Fluorescence Polarization ABPP) combines ABPP with high-throughput screening by monitoring changes in fluorescence polarization when probes bind to targets. This substrate-free approach facilitates discovery of novel inhibitors for poorly characterized enzymes lacking established biochemical assays [35] [40].

qNIRF-ABPP (quantitative Near-Infrared Fluorescence ABPP) employs NIRF probes for non-invasive in vivo imaging of enzyme activity in live animals [35] [40]. This strategy enables real-time monitoring of disease progression and treatment response in native physiological contexts.

Experimental Protocols for Key ABPP Applications

Serine Hydrolase Active Site Peptide Profiling

This gel-free ABPP protocol enables comprehensive identification of functional serine hydrolases with specific active-site residue mapping [37]:

Step 1: Sample Preparation

• Extract proteins from biological material (cells, tissues)
• Quantify protein concentration using standard methods (e.g., UV spectrophotometry)
• Aliquot 1 mg protein into 1.7 mL microtube, adjust volume to 500 μL with assay buffer (PBS, pH 7.4)

Step 2: Probe Labeling

• Add 10 μL (20 μM) of desthiobiotin-FP serine hydrolase probe dissolved in DMSO
• Incubate at 37°C for 1 hour with gentle agitation
• Include no-probe (DMSO only) control for background subtraction

Step 3: Reaction Termination and Denaturation

• Stop reaction by adding 500 μL of 10 M urea
• Reduce disulfide bonds with 10 μL of 500 mM DTT (30 minutes, 37°C)
• Alkylate cysteine residues with 20 μL of 500 mM iodoacetamide (30 minutes, room temperature, dark)

Step 4: Trypsin Digestion

• Dilute urea concentration to <2 M with 50 mM Tris buffer (pH 8.0)
• Add trypsin (1:50 w/w ratio) and digest overnight at 37°C
• Acidify with trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) to pH <3

Step 5: Peptide Enrichment and Analysis

• Enrich desthiobiotin-labeled peptides using streptavidin agarose beads
• Wash beads extensively with PBS
• Elute peptides using acidified acetonitrile/water
• Analyze by LC-MS/MS using C18 reverse-phase column
• Identify proteins by searching mass spectrometry data against appropriate sequence databases

Competitive ABPP for Inhibitor Screening

This protocol evaluates compound potency and selectivity across enzyme families in native proteomes [34] [31]:

Step 1: Proteome Preparation

• Prepare proteome of interest (cell lysate, tissue homogenate) in appropriate buffer (Tris or PBS)
• Maintain protein folding and function by avoiding denaturing conditions

Step 2: Compound Competition

• Pre-incubate proteome with test compounds (varying concentrations) or DMSO control
• Incubate for 30-60 minutes at room temperature or 37°C

Step 3: Probe Labeling

• Add broad-spectrum ABPP probe (e.g., FP-rhodamine for serine hydrolases)
• Incubate for 1 hour to label non-competed enzyme active sites

Step 4: Analysis and Quantification

• For gel-based analysis: Separate proteins by SDS-PAGE, visualize by in-gel fluorescence scanning
• For MS-based analysis: Attach reporter tags via click chemistry, enrich labeled proteins, digest, and analyze by LC-MS/MS
• Quantify inhibition by comparing signal intensity in compound-treated vs. DMSO control samples

ABPP Applications in Target Identification and Validation

Natural Product Target Deconvolution

ABPP has proven particularly valuable for identifying protein targets of bioactive natural products, which often have complex mechanisms of action. For example, the terpenoid natural product Nimbolide from neem trees was found to covalently modify the E3 ubiquitin ligase RNF114 using ABPP, disrupting its substrate recognition and inhibiting ubiquitination [39]. This case exemplifies how ABPP facilitates the transition from phenotypic observations to molecular mechanism definition for natural products.

Functional Annotation of Uncharacterized Enzymes

ABPP enables "chemistry-first" functional annotation of enzymes that have eluded characterization through sequence and structural analysis alone [33]. By assessing conserved mechanistic features and activity profiles across biological states, researchers can infer physiological roles for orphan enzymes. This approach has been successfully applied to diverse enzyme classes, including hydrolases, proteases, and oxidoreductases [33] [37].

Druggability Assessment and Ligand Discovery

ABPP generates global interaction maps that define ligandable hotspots across the proteome, particularly when integrated with covalent library screening [31]. The technology has revealed that many disease-relevant proteins previously classified as "undruggable" contain cryptic ligandable pockets accessible to small molecules. These ABPP-discovered ligands often act through atypical mechanisms, including disruption/stabilization of protein-protein interactions and allosteric regulation [31].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Research Reagents for ABPP Experiments

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function/Purpose	Considerations
Broad-Spectrum Probes	Fluorophosphonate (FP) probes, Iodoacetamide-based probes	Global profiling of enzyme families (serine hydrolases, cysteine-dependent enzymes)	Enable untargeted discovery but may lack specificity [37] [31]
Selective Probes	Tailor-made ABPs with specific recognition elements	Targeting particular enzymes or subfamilies	Require more design effort but enable precise studies [34]
Reporter Tags	Biotin, Fluorophores (TAMRA, BODIPY), Alkyne/Azide handles	Detection, enrichment, and visualization	Bioorthogonal handles enhance cell permeability [32] [35]
Enrichment Reagents	Streptavidin/Avidin beads, Antibody resins	Isolation of probe-labeled proteins/peptides	Critical for MS-based target identification [37]
Click Chemistry Reagents	Cu(I) catalysts, strained alkynes, azide reporters	Bioorthogonal conjugation for tag attachment	Copper-free reactions reduce cytotoxicity [32]
Perillene	Perillene - 539-52-6|For Research Use Only		Bench Chemicals
Rhodionin	Rhodionin, CAS:85571-15-9, MF:C21H20O11, MW:448.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

Activity-Based Protein Profiling represents a powerful and versatile platform for functional enzyme characterization that complements conventional genomic and proteomic methods. By directly reporting on protein function in native biological systems, ABPP provides unique insights into enzyme activity states, facilitates target identification for natural products, and expands the druggable proteome. The continuous development of novel probe chemistries and advanced analytical strategies ensures that ABPP will remain at the forefront of chemical biology and drug discovery research, enabling scientists to address increasingly complex questions in biomedical research. As ABPP methodologies continue to evolve, they promise to further bridge the gap between genomic information and functional protein characterization, accelerating the development of novel therapeutic agents.

In the field of drug discovery, particularly for natural products, confirming that a small molecule engages its intended protein target is a critical step in understanding its mechanism of action and therapeutic potential [41] [42]. Traditional target identification methods, such as affinity-based protein profiling (AfBPP) and activity-based protein profiling (ABPP), require chemical modification of the compound of interest, which can alter its bioactivity and binding specificity [43] [44]. To overcome these limitations, label-free strategies that detect direct drug-target interactions without compound modification have emerged as powerful alternatives [45] [42]. These methods leverage the fundamental biophysical principle that ligand binding often alters the stability of a target protein, which can be measured through its resistance to proteolysis or thermal denaturation [44].

Among these label-free approaches, Drug Affinity Responsive Target Stability (DARTS) and Cellular Thermal Shift Assay (CETSA) have gained significant traction for their ability to provide direct evidence of target engagement in physiologically relevant contexts [41] [46]. DARTS exploits the phenomenon that ligand binding often protects proteins from proteolytic degradation, while CETSA measures ligand-induced stabilization against thermal denaturation [41] [47]. Both techniques have been increasingly applied to natural product research, where complex chemical structures often make chemical modification impractical [43] [42]. This guide provides a comprehensive comparison of these foundational methods, their derivative platforms, and practical considerations for implementation in target identification and validation workflows.

Principles and Mechanisms of DARTS and CETSA

Drug Affinity Responsive Target Stability (DARTS)

The DARTS method is grounded in the observation that when a small molecule binds to a protein, it often induces conformational changes that stabilize the protein structure, making it less susceptible to proteolytic cleavage [41] [44]. This stabilization effect occurs because the ligand-bound form of the protein may have reduced flexibility or may bury cleavage sites that would otherwise be accessible to proteases [47]. The basic workflow involves incubating a protein mixture (such as a cell lysate) with the compound of interest, followed by limited proteolysis using a mild concentration of protease such as pronase or thermolysin [41]. After digestion, the mixture is analyzed by SDS-PAGE, Western blotting, or mass spectrometry to assess the relative abundance of potential target proteins [41]. An increase in protein levels compared to untreated controls indicates protection by ligand binding, suggesting a direct interaction [44].

A significant advantage of DARTS is that it requires no labeling or chemical modification of the test compound, preserving its native structure and bioactivity [41] [44]. This makes it particularly valuable for studying natural products with complex structures that are difficult to modify chemically [42]. Additionally, DARTS can be performed with readily available laboratory equipment and does not require specialized instrumentation for initial experiments [41]. However, the method demands careful optimization of protease concentration and digestion time to avoid over-digestion (which can destroy the target protein) or under-digestion (which can mask binding effects) [41]. Furthermore, DARTS is typically performed in cell lysates rather than intact cells, which means it may not fully capture the native cellular environment, particularly for membrane proteins or large multi-protein complexes [41] [47].

Cellular Thermal Shift Assay (CETSA)

CETSA, first introduced in 2013, is based on the well-established principle of ligand-induced thermal stabilization [46] [42]. When a small molecule binds to its target protein, it often increases the protein's thermal stability by reducing its conformational flexibility, thereby raising its melting temperature (Tm) – the temperature at which it unfolds and precipitates [43] [48]. In a typical CETSA experiment, cells or lysates are incubated with the compound of interest and then subjected to a range of controlled temperatures [41]. After heating, the samples are rapidly cooled and centrifuged to separate soluble (folded) proteins from insoluble (aggregated) ones [48]. The amount of soluble target protein remaining at each temperature is then quantified, usually by Western blot, immunoassays, or mass spectrometry [41] [46].

A key strength of CETSA is its flexibility in sample matrix – it can be performed in live cells, cell lysates, or even tissue samples, allowing researchers to study target engagement under near-physiological conditions [46] [47]. This is particularly important for confirming that a drug reaches and binds its target within the complex intracellular environment [41]. When performed in intact cells, CETSA preserves native protein-protein interactions, post-translational modifications, and the presence of natural co-factors, providing higher physiological relevance than lysate-based methods [47]. Furthermore, CETSA has evolved into several high-throughput versions, such as CETSA HT and CETSA MS (also known as Thermal Proteome Profiling or TPP), enabling researchers to screen thousands of compounds or perform proteome-wide engagement profiling [41] [46].

Comparative Performance Analysis

The choice between DARTS and CETSA depends on various factors, including the biological question, target protein characteristics, available resources, and desired throughput. The table below provides a comprehensive comparison of their key performance metrics and applications.

Table 1: Comprehensive Comparison of DARTS and CETSA

Feature	DARTS	CETSA
Principle	Detects protection from protease digestion upon ligand binding [41]	Detects thermal stabilization of proteins upon ligand binding [41]
Sample Type	Cell lysates, purified proteins, tissue extracts [41]	Live cells, cell lysates, tissues [41] [46]
Labeling Requirement	No labeling or modification required [41]	No labeling required (except in advanced CETSA formats) [41]
Detection Methods	SDS-PAGE, Western blot, mass spectrometry (DARTS-MS) [41]	Western blot, AlphaLISA, mass spectrometry (CETSA-MS) [41] [46]
Sensitivity	Moderate; depends on structural change and protease susceptibility [41]	High for proteins with significant thermal shifts [41]
Throughput	Low to moderate (higher with DARTS-MS) [41]	High, especially with CETSA HT or CETSA MS [41] [49]
Quantitative Capability	Limited; semi-quantitative [41]	Strong; enables dose-response curves (e.g., ITDRF) [41] [46]
Suitability for Weak Interactions	Good; detects subtle conformational changes [41]	Variable; depends on thermal shift magnitude [41]
Physiological Relevance	Medium; native-like environment but lacks intact cell context [41]	High; can assess binding in live cells [41]
Optimization Complexity	Protease concentration and timing must be carefully optimized [41]	Temperature gradient and antibody validation required [41]
Target Suitability	Best for soluble proteins with conformational changes upon binding [41]	Works for proteins with defined melting profiles [41]
Information on Binding Site	Can provide information on binding site through protease protection patterns [47]	Does not provide direct binding site information [47]

Key Differentiating Factors

• Sensitivity and Specificity: CETSA generally offers greater sensitivity for most targets because ligand binding can produce significant changes in thermal denaturation points, resulting in more measurable responses [41]. DARTS sensitivity depends more heavily on the extent of conformational change and protease accessibility, which can vary considerably between protein-ligand pairs [41].

• Throughput and Scalability: CETSA has a clear advantage in throughput, with established high-throughput (CETSA HT) and proteome-wide (CETSA MS/TPP) formats that can screen thousands of compounds or profile thousands of proteins simultaneously [41] [49]. DARTS is traditionally lower throughput, though DARTS-MS approaches can improve scalability with significant mass spectrometry resources [41].

• Quantitative Capabilities: CETSA excels in generating quantitative data through methods like Isothermal Dose-Response Fingerprinting (ITDRF), which allows precise quantification of compound potency based on thermal stabilization effects [41] [46]. DARTS can produce dose-dependent protection profiles, but the data are often less quantitative due to variability in proteolytic digestion [41].

• Physiological Context: CETSA can be performed in live cells, providing critical information about cellular permeability and target engagement under physiological conditions [41] [47]. DARTS is limited to lysates, which may not faithfully represent the native cellular environment but offers more controlled experimental conditions [41].

Experimental Design and Workflows

DARTS Methodology

The standard DARTS protocol involves several key steps that require careful optimization to generate reliable results:

• Sample Preparation: Prepare cell lysates using non-denaturing lysis buffers to preserve protein structure and function. The protein concentration should be determined and standardized across samples [41].

• Compound Incubation: Incubate lysates with the compound of interest or vehicle control for a sufficient time to allow binding (typically 1-2 hours at room temperature or 4°C) [41].

• Limited Proteolysis: Add a optimized concentration of protease (commonly pronase, thermolysin, or proteinase K) and incubate for a specific time determined through preliminary optimization experiments. The protease-to-protein ratio and digestion time are critical parameters that must be carefully calibrated to avoid complete digestion [41].

• Reaction Termination: Stop the proteolysis reaction by adding protease inhibitors or SDS-PAGE loading buffer [41].

• Analysis: Separate proteins by SDS-PAGE and visualize by Western blotting or silver staining. Alternatively, identify protected proteins by mass spectrometry (DARTS-MS) for unbiased target discovery [41].

Key optimization parameters include protease concentration, digestion time, buffer composition, and protein concentration. It is crucial to include appropriate controls, such as samples with inactive compound analogs or unrelated proteins, to confirm binding specificity [41].

CETSA Methodology

The CETSA workflow varies depending on the specific format but generally follows these steps:

• Sample Preparation: Treat intact cells or cell lysates with the compound of interest or vehicle control. For live cell experiments, incubation time should allow for compound uptake and binding [46].

• Heating: Aliquot samples and heat at different temperatures (for melt curve experiments) or at a single temperature with different compound concentrations (for ITDRCETSA). Temperature range and increment should be determined empirically for each target [46].

• Cell Lysis and Protein Solubilization: For intact cell experiments, lyse cells using freeze-thaw cycles or detergents after heating. The soluble fraction is then separated from aggregates by centrifugation [48].

• Protein Detection: Quantify soluble target protein using Western blot, immunoassays (e.g., AlphaLISA), or mass spectrometry (for CETSA-MS/TPP) [46] [48].

• Data Analysis: For melt curve experiments, plot the percentage of soluble protein remaining against temperature to determine Tm shifts. For ITDRCETSA, plot soluble protein against compound concentration to calculate EC50 values [46].

Critical optimization parameters include heating time, temperature gradient, lysis conditions, and detection method validation. Appropriate controls should include vehicle-treated samples, untreated controls, and potentially inactive compound analogs to confirm specific binding [46].

Workflow Visualization

The following diagram illustrates the key decision points and methodological workflows for implementing DARTS and CETSA:

Advanced Derivatives and Complementary Methods

CETSA Derivatives

The basic CETSA platform has evolved into several advanced formats that expand its applications:

• CETSA HT (High-Throughput): Utilizes bead-based chemiluminescence detection (AlphaLISA) or split luciferase systems (HiBiT) to enable screening of large compound libraries in microtiter plates (96-, 384-, or 1536-well formats) [46] [49]. This format is particularly valuable for structure-activity relationship (SAR) studies and lead optimization [46].

• MS-CETSA/Thermal Proteome Profiling (TPP): Integrates CETSA with quantitative mass spectrometry to simultaneously monitor thermal stability changes across thousands of proteins [46] [42]. This powerful approach allows for unbiased target deconvolution, off-target identification, and polypharmacology studies [43] [42]. Two-dimensional TPP (2D-TPP) further enhances this by combining temperature and compound concentration gradients to provide comprehensive binding affinity data [43].

• Isothermal Dose-Response CETSA (ITDRCETSA): Measures dose-dependent thermal stabilization at a fixed temperature to quantify drug-binding affinity (EC50) and compare compound potency [46] [48].

Complementary Label-Free Methods

Other label-free methods can be used alongside DARTS and CETSA to strengthen target validation:

• Stability of Proteins from Rates of Oxidation (SPROX): Measures ligand-induced changes in protein stability using a chemical denaturant gradient and methionine oxidation patterns [43] [44]. SPROX can provide binding site information and is particularly effective for analyzing high molecular weight proteins and weak binders [43].

• Limited Proteolysis (LiP): Similar to DARTS, LiP uses proteolysis to detect structural changes upon ligand binding but typically employs mass spectrometry for comprehensive analysis of proteolytic patterns, offering potential binding site information [47].

• Solvent-Induced Protein Precipitation (SIP): Detects changes in protein solubility upon ligand binding in organic solvents [44].

Table 2: Comparison of Label-Free Target Engagement Methods

Method	Sensitivity	Throughput	Application Scope	Key Advantages	Key Limitations
CETSA	High (thermal stabilization) [43]	Medium (WB) to High (MS/HT) [43]	Intact cells, lysates; target engagement, off-target effects [43]	Works in native cellular environments; detects membrane proteins [43]	Requires antibodies for WB; limited to soluble proteins in HTS [43]
DARTS	Moderate (protease-dependent) [43]	Low to Medium [43]	Cell lysates; novel target discovery, validation [43]	Label-free; no compound modification; cost-effective [43]	Sensitivity depends on protease choice; challenges with low-abundance targets [43]
SPROX	High (domain-level stability shifts) [43]	Medium to High [43]	Lysates; weak binders, domain-specific interactions [43]	Provides binding site information via methionine oxidation [43]	Limited to methionine-containing peptides; requires MS expertise [43]
LiP	Moderate to High [47]	Medium [47]	Lysates; binding site mapping [47]	Provides binding site information; no special reagents needed [47]	Relies on single peptide data; requires cell lysis [47]

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Successful implementation of DARTS and CETSA requires specific reagents and tools. The following table outlines key solutions and their applications in label-free target engagement studies.

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Label-Free Target Engagement Studies

Reagent/Tool Category	Specific Examples	Function and Application
Proteases for DARTS	Pronase, Thermolysin, Proteinase K [41]	Limited proteolysis to detect ligand-induced stabilization; different proteases may be optimal for different targets
Detection Antibodies	Target-specific high-quality antibodies [41] [46]	Detection and quantification of specific target proteins in Western blot-based DARTS and CETSA
CETSA Detection Assays	AlphaLISA, Split Luciferase (HiBiT) [46] [49]	High-throughput detection of soluble protein in CETSA HT without Western blot
Mass Spectrometry Platforms	LC-MS/MS with TMT or LFQ [43] [46]	Proteome-wide analysis for DARTS-MS and CETSA-MS/TPP; enables unbiased target discovery
Cell Lysis Reagents	Non-denaturing lysis buffers [41]	Preparation of cell lysates for DARTS and lysate-based CETSA while preserving protein structure
Thermal Control Instruments	PCR cyclers, thermal shift instruments [46]	Precise temperature control for CETSA heating steps
Protein Quantitation Assays	Bradford, BCA, fluorescent quantitation [46]	Measurement of protein concentration before experiments and soluble protein after heating

Applications in Natural Product Research

DARTS and CETSA have proven particularly valuable in natural product research, where complex chemical structures often make chemical modification challenging [42] [44]. These methods have been successfully applied to:

• Target Deconvolution: Identifying protein targets of natural products with unknown mechanisms of action [42]. For example, CETSA has been used to uncover targets of anti-cancer, anti-inflammatory, and neuroactive compounds derived from natural sources [43] [42].

• Validation of Putative Targets: Confirming interactions between natural products and suspected targets identified through other methods such as computational docking or phenotypic screening [42].

• Polypharmacology Studies: Identifying multiple protein targets of natural products that often exhibit complex mechanisms involving several targets [42]. MS-CETSA/TPP is especially powerful for this application as it can monitor thousands of proteins simultaneously [42].

• Traditional Medicine Research: Studying the mechanisms of multi-component natural extracts, such as Traditional Chinese Medicines, where multiple active compounds may target different proteins [42].

• PROTAC Development: Validating initial target engagement of Proteolysis-Targeting Chimeras (PROTACs) before degradation pathways are fully engaged [41]. DARTS is particularly useful here as it can detect protection of the target protein after PROTAC treatment, providing direct evidence of molecular recognition even before optimal degradation efficiency is achieved [41].

DARTS and CETSA represent complementary pillars in the landscape of label-free target engagement strategies, each with distinct advantages and optimal applications. DARTS offers a straightforward, cost-effective approach for initial target validation and discovery, particularly valuable for studying weak interactions and when resources are limited [41]. CETSA provides higher physiological relevance through its ability to work in intact cells and delivers robust quantitative data on compound potency, making it ideal for lead optimization and cellular target engagement studies [41] [46].

The choice between these methods should be guided by the specific research question, target protein characteristics, and available resources. For comprehensive target validation, employing both techniques in a complementary manner can provide stronger evidence of direct binding than either method alone [41] [47]. As natural product research continues to evolve, these label-free strategies will play an increasingly important role in bridging the gap between phenotypic screening and mechanistic understanding, ultimately accelerating the development of novel therapeutics from natural sources.

In the field of natural product research and drug development, identifying the precise protein targets of bioactive molecules is a critical but challenging step. Target identification and validation are fundamental for understanding a drug's mechanism of action (MOA) and anticipating potential side effects [20]. Most drugs, including those derived from natural products, interact with multiple protein targets rather than a single one, complicating the process of identifying true therapeutic targets [20]. Quantitative proteomics has emerged as a powerful set of technologies to address this challenge, enabling the systematic identification and quantification of proteins within biological samples [50]. By elucidating changes in protein expression levels, modifications, and interactions that occur in response to drug treatments, quantitative proteomics provides an unbiased approach to map drug-protein interactions comprehensively.

Among the various quantitative proteomics techniques available, Stable Isotope Labeling by Amino acids in Cell culture (SILAC) and Isobaric Tags for Relative and Absolute Quantitation (iTRAQ) offer complementary strengths. When integrated strategically, these methods can significantly enhance the specificity and confidence of target identification for natural product mechanisms research. This guide provides a detailed comparison of SILAC and iTRAQ methodologies, supported by experimental data and protocols, to inform their application in drug discovery pipelines.

Core Principle Comparison: SILAC versus iTRAQ

SILAC and iTRAQ employ fundamentally different labeling approaches to achieve protein quantification. Understanding their core principles is essential for selecting the appropriate method for a given research context.

• SILAC (Metabolic Labeling): SILAC is a metabolic labeling technique where cells are cultured in media containing "heavy" isotopes of essential amino acids (typically lysine and arginine), which are incorporated into all proteins during cellular synthesis and proliferation [51]. The "light" (normal) and "heavy" (isotope-labeled) samples are combined, processed, and analyzed together by mass spectrometry (MS). The relative abundance of proteins is determined by comparing the peak intensities of the light and heavy peptide pairs in the mass spectra [51]. As a metabolic method, SILAC occurs during the living cellular processes, meaning the labels are incorporated before any sample processing.

• iTRAQ (Chemical Labeling): In contrast, iTRAQ is a chemical labeling technique performed after protein extraction and digestion. It uses isobaric tags that react with the N-terminus and side-chain amines of peptides [51]. These tags are isobaric, meaning they have identical total mass. During tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS), the tags fragment to produce reporter ions of different masses. The intensity of these reporter ions reflects the relative abundance of the peptides, and thus proteins, from the different samples multiplexed in the experiment [51].

Table 1: Fundamental Characteristics of SILAC and iTRAQ

Characteristic	SILAC	iTRAQ
Labeling Type	Metabolic	Chemical
Labeling Stage	In vivo, during cell culture	In vitro, after protein digestion
Principle of Quantification	MS-level comparison of light/heavy peptide pairs	MS/MS-level comparison of reporter ions
Sample Types	Primarily cell culture [51]	Cell cultures, tissues, bodily fluids [51]
Inherent Specificity	High, due to early metabolic incorporation	Can be affected by co-isolated peptides [51]

Direct Comparison of Technical Performance and Experimental Data

When selecting a proteomics method, researchers must balance factors such as multiplexing capacity, accuracy, and applicability to their specific sample types. The following table provides a detailed side-by-side comparison of SILAC and iTRAQ based on key performance metrics.

Table 2: Performance Comparison of SILAC and iTRAQ

Performance Metric	SILAC	iTRAQ
Multiplexing Capacity	Typically 2-3 conditions [51]	Up to 8-plex (iTRAQ) [51]
Quantitative Accuracy	High; minimal chemical artifacts [51]	Subject to ratio compression [51]
Sample Throughput	Lower for multiple conditions	High; multiple samples in one run [51]
Proteome Coverage	Comprehensive for expressed proteins	Comprehensive; labels all peptides [51]
Key Advantage	High accuracy and physiological relevance [52]	High-throughput multiplexing for complex study designs [51]
Primary Limitation	Limited to cell culture models [51]	Ratio compression can underestimate true ratios [51]
Typical Cost	High cost for labeled amino acids [52]	High cost for labeling kits [51]

Supporting Experimental Evidence

A comparative study analyzing the protein composition of human spliceosomal complexes provides compelling evidence for the consistency between these methods. Researchers quantified proteins in precatalytic (B) and catalytically active (C) spliceosomes using three independent approaches: SILAC, iTRAQ, and label-free spectral counting [53]. The study successfully quantified 157 proteins by at least two of the three methods. Crucially, the quantification results were consistent across all methods, validating the dynamic association of specific proteins with different spliceosomal assembly stages. This demonstrates that despite their different principles, both SILAC and iTRAQ can yield reliable biological insights when appropriately applied [53].

Furthermore, an integrated approach using both SILAC and iTRAQ was successfully employed to identify biomarkers for predicting Sorafenib resistance in liver cancer. A SILAC-based analysis of parental and sorafenib-resistant HuH-7 cells was combined with an iTRAQ-based analysis of corresponding in vivo tumors [54]. This integrated proteomic analysis identified 2,450 proteins common to both experiments, from which 156 proteins were significantly differentially expressed. This strategy led to the discovery and validation of galectin-1 as a predictive biomarker for sorafenib resistance, showcasing how the complementary use of both techniques can strengthen discovery and validation in a translational research context [54].

Experimental Protocols for Target Identification

SILAC Protocol for Target Identification

The following workflow describes a typical SILAC experiment for investigating changes in protein expression in response to natural product treatment.

Detailed Protocol Steps:

• SILAC Cell Culture:

  • Prepare two populations of cells: one grown in "light" media containing normal L-lysine and L-arginine, and the other in "heavy" media supplemented with stable isotope-labeled (e.g., 13C6, 15N2) L-lysine and L-arginine [51] [55].
  • Culture cells for a minimum of five cell doublings to ensure complete incorporation (>97%) of the heavy amino acids into the proteome.

• Treatment and Harvesting:

  • Treat the "heavy"-labeled cells with the natural product of interest. The "light"-labeled cells serve as an untreated control.
  • After an appropriate treatment period, harvest both cell populations by centrifugation or trypsinization.
  • Combine the light and heavy cell pellets in a 1:1 ratio based on protein concentration or cell count.

• Protein Preparation and Digestion:

  • Lyse the combined cell sample using a suitable buffer (e.g., RIPA buffer with protease inhibitors).
  • Reduce, alkylate, and digest the extracted proteins into peptides using a sequence-grade protease like trypsin [55].

• Mass Spectrometric Analysis:

  • Separate the resulting peptides using liquid chromatography (LC) coupled online to a high-resolution tandem mass spectrometer.
  • The mass spectrometer will detect peptide ions as doublets in the MS1 scan, with a mass difference determined by the incorporated heavy amino acids.
  • Fragment the peptides (MS/MS) to obtain sequence information for protein identification.

• Data Analysis and Target Identification:

  • Use specialized software (e.g., MaxQuant [56]) to identify proteins and calculate the heavy-to-light ratio for each peptide.
  • Statistically significant changes in protein abundance (e.g., a >2.0-fold increase or <0.5-fold decrease in the heavy channel) in the treated sample indicate potential targets or affected pathways [54].
  • Candidates require validation using orthogonal techniques such as Western blotting, cellular thermal shift assays (CETSA), or functional studies.

iTRAQ Protocol for Target Identification

This protocol outlines an iTRAQ-based experiment, which is particularly useful when working with tissue samples or comparing multiple treatment conditions simultaneously.

Detailed Protocol Steps:

• Sample Preparation and Digestion:

  • Independently prepare protein extracts from multiple samples (e.g., tissues from treated and control animals, or cells under different drug conditions) [54].
  • For each sample, reduce, alkylate, and digest the proteins into peptides. This step occurs before any labeling.

• iTRAQ Labeling:

  • Label the peptides from each sample with a different isobaric iTRAQ tag (e.g., tags 113, 114, 115, etc.) by incubating the tags with the peptide samples. The tags covalently bind to the peptide N-terminus and lysine side chains [51].

• Sample Pooling and Fractionation:

  • Combine the differentially labeled peptide samples into a single tube.
  • To reduce sample complexity and mitigate the issue of ratio compression, fractionate the pooled sample using high-pH or strong cation exchange (SCX) chromatography prior to LC-MS/MS [56].

• Mass Spectrometric Analysis:

  • Analyze the fractionated samples by LC-MS/MS.
  • In the MS1 scan, a peptide from different samples appears as a single precursor ion.
  • Upon fragmentation in MS2, the iTRAQ tags break to yield low-mass reporter ions (e.g., m/z 113-121). The relative intensities of these reporter ions provide quantitative data, while the other fragments provide sequence information for identification [51] [56]. Advanced methods like SPS-MS3 can be used to improve quantification accuracy by reducing co-isolation interference [56].

• Data Analysis and Target Identification:

  • Use software (e.g., Proteome Discoverer) to identify proteins and quantify the reporter ion intensities across the different iTRAQ channels.
  • Proteins showing significant abundance changes between treated and control samples are considered candidates. As with SILAC, these findings must be validated.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Successful implementation of SILAC and iTRAQ protocols requires specific, high-quality reagents. The following table details essential materials and their functions.

Table 3: Essential Reagents for SILAC and iTRAQ Workflows

Reagent / Material	Function	Application
SILAC Media Kits	Cell culture media pre-formulated with "light" and "heavy" (13C, 15N) Lysine and Arginine.	SILAC
iTRAQ 4-plex / 8-plex Kits	Sets of isobaric chemical tags for labeling peptides from multiple samples.	iTRAQ
Sequence-grade Trypsin	High-purity protease for specific digestion of proteins into peptides after lysine/arginine.	SILAC & iTRAQ
C18 Solid-Phase Extraction Cartridges	Desalting and cleaning up peptide samples prior to MS analysis.	SILAC & iTRAQ
LC-MS Grade Solvents	High-purity acetonitrile, water, and formic acid to prevent instrument contamination and maintain sensitivity.	SILAC & iTRAQ
High-pH Reverse-Phase Chromatography Kits	For off-line fractionation of complex peptide mixtures to increase proteome coverage and quantification accuracy.	iTRAQ (primarily)
Ultraperformance Liquid Chromatography System	Separates peptides immediately before they enter the mass spectrometer.	SILAC & iTRAQ
High-Resolution Tandem Mass Spectrometer	Instrument for measuring peptide mass, sequencing peptides via fragmentation, and quantifying labels.	SILAC & iTRAQ
Schisantherin C	Schisanwilsonin I - CAS 1181216-84-1 - Lignan Compound	Schisanwilsonin I, a dibenzocyclooctadiene lignan fromSchisandra wilsoniana. Research use only (RUO). Not for human or veterinary diagnosis or therapy.
Zingibroside R1	Zingibroside R1, MF:C42H66O14, MW:795.0 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Integrated Data Analysis and Target Validation Strategies

Following data acquisition, robust bioinformatic analysis is crucial. For both SILAC and iTRAQ data, standard analysis pipelines involve database searching (e.g., with MASCOT or Andromeda) against a relevant proteome, followed by statistical analysis to determine significant fold-changes. Proteins are often considered significantly altered with a fold-change >1.5 or <0.67 and a p-value <0.05 [53] [55]. Pathway enrichment analysis (e.g., using KEGG or Gene Ontology databases) then helps place differentially expressed proteins into biological context, highlighting affected pathways that may be linked to the natural product's mechanism.

Target validation is an indispensable final step. Techniques like Surface Plasmon Resonance (SPR), Microscale Thermophoresis (MST), or Isothermal Titration Calorimetry (ITC) can directly measure the binding affinity between the natural product and the purified candidate protein target [20]. Furthermore, cellular assays, such as gene knockdown or overexpression, can confirm the functional relevance of the target to the observed phenotypic effect of the natural product [54]. Emerging structural proteomics methods like Limited Proteolysis-Mass Spectrometry (LiP-MS) can also provide deep insights into drug-protein interactions and binding sites, offering a powerful tool for validation [57].

The Rising Role of Artificial Intelligence and Bioinformatics in Predictive Target Discovery

The discovery of therapeutic targets is a critical, foundational step in drug development, determining the success or failure of entire research pipelines. Within the context of natural product (NP) research, this process is both uniquely promising and challenging. Natural products, with their unparalleled structural diversity and evolved bioactivities, represent an invaluable source of novel therapeutics; over 40% of modern drugs are NPs or derived from NPs [58]. However, their discovery relies on navigating a data landscape characterized by multimodal, fragmented, and unstandardized data, including genomic, metabolomic, proteomic, and spectroscopic information [59]. Artificial Intelligence (AI), particularly when integrated with bioinformatics, is revolutionizing this space by moving from a traditional, labor-intensive hypothesis-driven model to a data-driven discovery paradigm. This guide objectively compares the leading AI platforms and computational methods that are accelerating the identification and validation of novel biological targets for natural product mechanisms, providing researchers with a clear framework for evaluating these transformative technologies.

Comparative Analysis of Leading AI Platforms for Target Discovery

To systematically evaluate the current landscape, we have analyzed five leading AI-driven drug discovery companies that have successfully advanced candidates into the clinic. Their approaches, technological differentiators, and performance in the specific context of target discovery are summarized in the table below.

Table 1: Comparison of Leading AI Platforms in Target Discovery and Validation

Platform/ Company	Core AI Technology	Primary Application in Target Discovery	Reported Metrics & Clinical Progress	Key Differentiators for NP Research
Insilico Medicine [60] [61]	Generative AI (GANs, Transformers), Multimodal Learning	AI-based target discovery using multi-omics data and literature mining.	Identified novel target (TNIK) for fibrosis; AI-designed drug candidate entered Phase I trials in ~18 months from target discovery [60].	PandaOmics platform integrates patient multi-omics data and network analysis to propose novel targets [62]. End-to-end integration from target to candidate.
BenevolentAI [60] [61]	Biomedical Knowledge Graph, NLP	AI-driven target identification and validation, drug repurposing.	Identified a potential COVID-19 treatment via AI; multiple candidates in clinical stages [60] [61].	Knowledge graph synthesizes structured and unstructured biomedical data to uncover hidden cause-effect relationships, suitable for complex NP data [59].
Recursion Pharmaceuticals [60]	Phenotypic Screening, Deep Learning on Cellular Images	Maps human cellular biology to reveal new druggable pathways.	Massive phenomics database; partnership with Roche/Genentech; "significant improvements in speed... to IND-enabling studies" [60] [62].	High-content phenotypic screening coupled with ML creates iterative loops for validating NP mechanisms of action [62].
Exscientia [60]	Generative AI, "Centaur Chemist" Approach	End-to-end platform integrating target selection with patient-derived biology.	Achieved clinical candidate for a CDK7 inhibitor after synthesizing only 136 compounds (versus thousands typically) [60].	Incorporates patient-derived biology (e.g., tumor samples) for biologically relevant target validation early in the discovery process [60].
Schrödinger [60]	Physics-Based Simulations, Machine Learning	Physics-based platform for target assessment and binding affinity prediction.	Multiple partnered and internal programs in clinical development [60].	Combines high-accuracy computational methods with ML, useful for modeling NP-target interactions where structural data is available [60].

The performance data indicates that a central benefit of these AI platforms is the drastic compression of early-stage timelines. For instance, Exscientia's generative-AI-designed drug for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis progressed from target discovery to Phase I trials in just 18 months, a fraction of the typical 5-year timeline for discovery and preclinical work [60]. Furthermore, the efficiency in molecular design is noteworthy, with one of Exscientia's programs requiring the synthesis of only 136 compounds to identify a clinical candidate, compared to the thousands often needed in traditional medicinal chemistry [60]. This represents a significant reduction in resource expenditure.

Experimental Protocols for AI-Driven Target Discovery

The efficacy of the platforms compared in Table 1 is underpinned by robust, multi-stage experimental protocols. These methodologies integrate computational predictions with rigorous biological validation, a process especially critical for elucidating the mechanisms of complex natural products. The following workflow details the standard operating procedure for AI-augmented target discovery.

Table 2: Key Experimental Protocols in AI-Driven NP Target Discovery

Stage	Protocol Objective	Core Methodology	Key Data Inputs	Validation & Output
1. Data Curation & Knowledge Graph Construction	To structure fragmented, multimodal NP data for AI analysis.	Implement semantic web technologies to build a federated knowledge graph linking NPs, BGCs, mass spectra, bioactivity data, and literature [59].	Chemical structures, genomic data (BGCs), metabolomics (e.g., mass spectra), assay data, expert annotations [59].	A structured, machine-readable resource (e.g., based on LOTUS/Wikidata initiative [59]) enabling causal inference.
2. AI-Powered Target Hypothesis Generation	To systematically identify and rank novel biological targets for an NP.	Use platforms like PandaOmics [62] or BenevolentAI's KG [61] to mine the knowledge graph, integrating multi-omics data and literature via NLP.	Patient multi-omics data (genomics, transcriptomics), scientific literature, disease-associated pathways, known drug-target networks [62].	A ranked list of high-probability target hypotheses with associated evidence scores (e.g., TNIK identification for fibrosis [62]).
3. Multi-Omics Target Validation	To experimentally confirm the interaction between an NP and its predicted protein target.	Apply integrative omics (pan-omics): Chemical proteomics uses an NP-based molecular probe; Bioinformatics analyzes changes in protein stability (CETSA); Genomics/Transcriptomics assesses expression changes [63].	The natural product of interest; relevant cell lines or tissue samples; multi-omics profiling platforms [63].	Confirmed protein target(s) and preliminary data on the Mechanism of Action (MOA), including affected pathways [63].
4. Functional Validation in Disease Models	To confirm the therapeutic relevance of the NP-target interaction.	Phenotypic Screening: Use platforms like Recursion's to treat disease models with the NP and analyze high-content cellular images with ML [60] [62]. Ex Vivo Validation: Test on patient-derived samples (e.g., Exscientia's approach [60]).	Disease-relevant cell models, patient-derived samples (e.g., tumor biopsies), high-throughput imaging systems.	Functional data on NP efficacy and phenotypic impact in a biologically relevant context, strengthening the target hypothesis.

Workflow Visualization: AI-Driven Target Discovery for Natural Products

The following diagram, generated using DOT language, illustrates the logical sequence and iterative nature of the experimental protocols described in Table 2.

Diagram 1: Workflow for AI-Driven Natural Product Target Discovery. This diagram outlines the key stages from data integration to experimental validation, highlighting the iterative feedback loops that enhance the knowledge graph and AI models.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents & Solutions

To execute the protocols outlined above, researchers require a suite of specific reagents and computational solutions. This toolkit is critical for generating high-quality, AI-ready data and for validating computational predictions.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for NP Target Discovery

Tool / Reagent	Function / Application	Relevance to AI & Bioinformatics
Chemical Proteomics Probes [63]	Chemically modified versions of the natural product used as bait to pull down and identify interacting proteins from a complex cellular lysate.	Provides direct, experimental evidence of NP-protein interactions for validating AI-predicted targets and training models.
Stable Isotope Labeling Reagents	Used in mass spectrometry-based proteomics (e.g., SILAC) to quantitatively compare protein expression in treated vs. untreated cells.	Generates high-quality quantitative data on NP-induced proteomic changes, a key data modality for multi-omics validation.
Multi-omics Profiling Kits	Commercial kits for standardized extraction and preparation of genomic, transcriptomic, and proteomic material from limited NP-treated samples.	Ensures data consistency and quality, which is crucial for building reliable AI models and knowledge graphs.
Phenotypic Screening Assay Kits	High-content assay kits (e.g., for cell viability, apoptosis, pathway activation) compatible with automated imaging systems.	Generates the rich, quantitative phenotypic data used to train ML models, like those in Recursion's platform [60].
AI Platform-Specific Software	Access to commercial AI platforms (e.g., Chemistry42, PandaOmics) or open-source models (e.g., BioGPT [61]).	The core engine for generating target hypotheses, designing experiments, and analyzing complex, multimodal datasets.
Knowledge Graph Databases	Curated resources like the LOTUS Initiative [59] or ENPKG [59] that provide structured, interconnected NP data.	Serves as the foundational data layer for causal inference and hypothesis generation, overcoming data fragmentation.

Visualization: The Multi-Omics Validation Engine

The "Multi-omics Target Validation" stage (Stage 3 in Table 2) is a complex, integrated process. The following diagram details the logical relationships between its key techniques.

Diagram 2: The Multi-Omics Validation Engine. This diagram shows how data from different omics techniques converge through bioinformatics analysis to confirm a natural product's target and mechanism of action.

The integration of AI and bioinformatics is fundamentally reshaping the landscape of predictive target discovery, particularly for the complex but promising domain of natural products. As the comparative data shows, platforms leveraging generative AI, knowledge graphs, and phenotypic AI are demonstrating tangible success in compressing discovery timelines and improving the efficiency of identifying viable therapeutic targets. The future of this field lies in the continued development of structured, community-wide resources like the natural product knowledge graph, which will empower AI models to move beyond pattern recognition to true causal inference, thereby more closely mimicking the decision-making of a seasoned natural product scientist [59]. For researchers, the strategic adoption of these technologies, coupled with the robust experimental protocols and tools outlined in this guide, is becoming indispensable for unlocking the full therapeutic potential of natural products.

Natural products represent a cornerstone of modern therapeutics, yet their widespread application is often hindered by an incomplete understanding of their molecular mechanisms. Target identification and validation are critical steps in natural product research, bridging the gap between observed phenotypic effects and precise molecular interactions. This guide examines three successfully elucidated case studies—berberine, artemisinin derivatives, and icariin—comparing the experimental strategies, key targets, and translational potential of each compound to provide researchers with methodological insights for contemporary natural product research.

Case Study 1: Artemisinin Derivatives

Artemisinin, a sesquiterpene lactone from Artemisia annua L., is a first-line antimalarial with recently discovered immunomodulatory properties. Structural optimization has yielded derivatives with improved pharmacological profiles, enabling precise target identification in neuroinflammatory pathways.

Key Targets and Experimental Data

Table 1: Elucidated Targets and Experimental Approaches for Artemisinin Derivatives

Derivative	Primary Target	Experimental Methods	Binding Affinity/Effect	Biological Context
Artesunate	TLR4/MD-2 complex	Molecular docking, Surface Plasmon Resonance (SPR), Competitive binding assays [64]	Inhibits TLR4/MD-2 complex formation [64]	Neuroinflammation
Artemisinin	TLR4/NF-κB pathway	Molecular docking, pathway inhibition assays [64] [65]	Suppresses downstream inflammatory signaling [64]	Aβ-induced neuroinflammation
Artemether	Not specified (Improved BBB permeability)	Williamson etherification, BBB permeability assays [64]	Brain-to-plasma distribution ratio (B/P) = 1.5 [64]	Central nervous system diseases

Detailed Experimental Protocol: TLR4/MD-2 Interaction

Objective: Confirm direct binding of artesunate to MD-2 and inhibition of TLR4/MD-2 complex formation [64].

Methodology:

• Molecular Docking: Computational simulation of artesunate binding to the MD-2 co-receptor protein structure [64].
• Surface Plasmon Resonance (SPR):
  • Immobilize MD-2 protein on sensor chip
  • Flow artesunate at varying concentrations (dose-response)
  • Measure binding kinetics (KD, kon, koff) in real-time [64]
• Competitive Binding Assay:
  • Pre-incubate MD-2 with artesunate
  • Introduce LPS (natural MD-2 ligand)
  • Quantify LPS displacement using fluorescence or radioisotope labeling [64]

Key Reagents: Recombinant human MD-2 protein, LPS (E. coli O111:B4), artesunate (≥98% purity by HPLC), SPR sensor chips (e.g., CM5 series) [64].

Figure 1: Artesunate inhibits TLR4 signaling by competing with LPS for MD-2 binding, preventing downstream NF-κB activation and inflammation [64].

Case Study 2: Berberine

Berberine, an isoquinoline alkaloid from Coptis chinensis, demonstrates polypharmacology against metabolic, infectious, and neoplastic diseases. Its well-characterized direct targets provide a model for multi-target natural product elucidation.

Key Targets and Experimental Data

Table 2: Direct Molecular Targets of Berberine Validated by Structural Biology

Target Protein	Protein Function	Experimental Methods	Binding Site/KD Value	Therapeutic Implication
FtsZ [66]	Bacterial cytoskeleton GTPase	Co-crystal structure, GTPase inhibition assay	Hydrophobic pocket (Pro134, Phe135, Phe182, Leu189, Ile163, Pro164); KD = 0.023 μM [66]	Antibacterial
NEK7 [66]	NLRP3 inflammasome regulator	Co-crystal structure, SPR, NLRP3 inhibition assay	Direct binding disrupts NEK7-NLRP3 interaction [66]	Anti-inflammatory
MET [66]	Tyrosine kinase receptor	Co-crystal structure, kinase inhibition assay	Direct inhibition of kinase activity [66]	Non-small cell lung cancer
BACE1 [66]	β-secretase enzyme	SPR, molecular docking, enzymatic inhibition	Direct inhibition of β-secretase activity [66]	Alzheimer's disease

Detailed Experimental Protocol: FtsZ Binding

Objective: Determine berberine's binding site and affinity for bacterial FtsZ protein [66].

Methodology:

• Co-crystallization:
  • Purify recombinant FtsZ protein (E. coli)
  • Mix berberine and FtsZ at 2:1 molar ratio
  • Crystallize using vapor diffusion method
  • Resolve structure via X-ray diffraction (≥2.0 Ã… resolution) [66]
• GTPase Activity Assay:
  • Incubate FtsZ (10 μM) with berberine (0-100 μM)
  • Add GTP (1 mM)
  • Measure phosphate release using malachite green reagent [66]
• Thermal Shift Assay:
  • Monitor protein thermal stability with SYPRO Orange dye
  • Calculate ΔTm from melt curves with/without berberine [66]

Key Reagents: Recombinant FtsZ protein, berberine (≥95% purity), GTP disodium salt, malachite green oxalate, SYPRO Orange dye, crystallization screening kits [66].

Figure 2: Berberine binds FtsZ's hydrophobic pocket, inhibiting GTPase activity and Z-ring formation, thereby disrupting bacterial cell division [66].

Case Study 3: Icariin

Icariin, a prenylated flavonoid from Epimedium species, demonstrates diverse bioactivities in bone, neurological, and renal systems. Recent target identification efforts reveal its multi-target mechanism in mitochondrial dysfunction and inflammatory pathways.

Key Targets and Experimental Data

Table 3: Experimentally Validated Targets of Icariin

Target Protein	Biological Process	Experimental Methods	Expression Change/Effect	Disease Model
ANPEP [67]	Glutathione metabolism	RNA sequencing, RT-qPCR, molecular docking	Downregulation in MCD; ICA reverses expression [67]	Minimal Change Disease
XDH [67]	NLRP3 inflammasome regulation, redox homeostasis	RNA sequencing, RT-qPCR, molecular docking	Downregulation in MCD; ICA reverses expression [67]	Minimal Change Disease
Notch signaling [68]	Osteogenic differentiation	Western blot, ALP staining, bone density measurement	Inhibits Notch pathway; promotes osteoblast differentiation [68]	Osteoporosis

Detailed Experimental Protocol: Mitochondrial Dysfunction Genes

Objective: Identify icariin targets among mitochondrial dysfunction-related genes (MDRGs) in Minimal Change Disease (MCD) [67].

Methodology:

• Transcriptomic Analysis:
  • Isulate RNA from renal tissues (MCD patients vs. controls)
  • RNA sequencing (Illumina platform)
  • Differential expression analysis (DESeq2, p<0.05, |log2FC|>0.5) [67]
• Network Pharmacology:
  • Intersect differentially expressed genes with MDRGs and icariin targets
  • Construct protein-protein interaction networks (STRING database)
  • Identify hub genes via Cytohubba algorithm [67]
• Experimental Validation:
  • RT-qPCR analysis of ANPEP and XDH expression
  • Molecular docking (AutoDock Vina) of icariin with ANPEP/XDH
  • ATP colorimetric assay and TEM for mitochondrial morphology [67]

Key Reagents: Renal biopsy samples, TRIzol reagent, RNA sequencing kit, SYBR Green master mix, ANPEP/XDH antibodies, ATP assay kit, transmission electron microscope [67].

Figure 3: Icariin ameliorates mitochondrial dysfunction by modulating ANPEP and XDH, affecting glutathione metabolism, NLRP3 inflammasome, and oxidative stress [67].

Comparative Analysis of Target Elucidation Strategies

Table 4: Methodological Comparison Across Case Studies

Method Category	Artemisinin	Berberine	Icariin
Structural Methods	Molecular docking [64]	Co-crystal structure [66]	Molecular docking [67]
Biophysical Methods	Surface plasmon resonance [64]	Cellular thermal shift assay [66]	Not specified
Omics Technologies	Not emphasized	Not emphasized	Transcriptomics [67]
Network Approaches	Not emphasized	Drug-Target Space model [66]	Network pharmacology [67]
Phenotypic Validation	Neuroinflammatory models [64]	Bacterial division, cancer models [66]	Mitochondrial function assays [67]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 5: Key Reagent Solutions for Natural Product Target Identification

Reagent/Technology	Primary Function	Application Examples
Surface Plasmon Resonance (SPR)	Real-time biomolecular interaction analysis	Berberine-BACE1 binding kinetics [66]
Co-crystallization Systems	High-resolution structural determination	Berberine-FtsZ binding site mapping [66]
Photoaffinity Labeling Probes	Covalent target capture and identification	General natural product target fishing [4]
Thermal Shift Assay Kits	Protein thermal stability measurement	Berberine target engagement validation [66]
Transcriptomic Platforms	Genome-wide expression profiling	Icariin-mediated gene regulation in MCD [67]
Molecular Docking Software	Computational binding prediction	Artemisinin-MD2 interaction [64]

The comparative analysis of berberine, artemisinin derivatives, and icariin reveals distinctive yet complementary approaches to natural product target elucidation. Berberine exemplifies structure-based discovery with multiple co-crystal structures, artemisinin derivatives demonstrate targeted pathophysiological validation, and icariin showcases systems biology integration through omics and network pharmacology. Successful target identification increasingly requires methodological triangulation, combining structural, biophysical, computational, and systems-level approaches. These case studies provide a methodological framework for advancing natural product research from phenomenological observation to mechanistic understanding, ultimately facilitating drug development and therapeutic optimization.

Navigating Technical Challenges and Optimizing Your Target Identification Workflow

Target identification is a critical step in understanding the mechanism of action (MOA) of natural products (NPs), which have long served as a vital source for new drug development [69] [20]. However, this process is fraught with technical challenges that can compromise experimental outcomes and lead to inaccurate conclusions. Among the most significant hurdles are nonspecific binding, probe inactivity, and the difficulty of detecting low-abundance targets [69] [20] [30]. Nonspecific binding occurs when compounds interact with off-target proteins, creating background noise that obscures true signals [69]. Probe inactivity arises when structural modifications during probe design alter the biological activity of the original natural product [20]. Meanwhile, low-abundance targets often evade detection due to limitations in analytical sensitivity, despite their potential therapeutic significance [69]. This guide objectively compares the performance of various target identification strategies in addressing these challenges, providing researchers with data-driven insights to select appropriate methodologies for their natural product research.

Performance Comparison of Target Identification Methods

The following tables summarize the key performance metrics of major target identification approaches when confronting nonspecific binding, probe inactivity, and low-abundance target challenges.

Table 1: Performance Comparison Against Common Pitfalls

Method	Nonspecific Binding Handling	Probe Inactivity Risk	Low-Abundance Target Detection	Key Limitations
Affinity-Based Pull-Down	Moderate (multiple washing steps reduce but don't eliminate nonspecific binders)	High (requires structural modification)	Low (masked by high-abundance proteins)	Introduces non-specifically binding proteins; weak interactions lost during washing [69] [20]
Activity-Based Protein Profiling (ABPP)	High (targets specific enzyme families)	Moderate (no probe needed for competitive mode)	Moderate to High	Limited to enzymes with specific catalytic residues (e.g., cysteine, lysine); existing active probes limited [69]
Cellular Thermal Shift Assay (CETSA)	High (direct measurement of binding-induced stability)	None (label-free)	Moderate (requires sufficient protein for detection)	Requires observable stability shift; may miss some types of interactions [69] [7]
Drug Affinity Responsive Target Stability (DARTS)	High (proteolysis resistance indicates specific binding)	None (label-free)	Moderate to High (sensitive to picogram levels)	May not detect all target types; requires optimization of proteolysis conditions [69]
Autofluorescence-Based Methods	Moderate (leverages intrinsic properties)	None (uses unmodified compounds)	Low to Moderate (depends on fluorescence intensity)	Limited to naturally fluorescent compounds; may require additional validation [69]

Table 2: Quantitative Performance Metrics of Select Methods

Method	Time Requirement	Cost	Sensitivity	Specificity	Throughput
Affinity-Based Pull-Down	3-5 days	High (probe synthesis)	Moderate	Low to Moderate	Low [20]
ABPP	2-4 days	Moderate to High	High for target enzymes	High for target enzymes	Moderate [69]
CETSA	1-2 days	Low to Moderate	Moderate (μg protein range)	High	High [69] [7]
DARTS	1 day	Low	High (picogram level)	High	Moderate [69]
SPROX	2-3 days	Moderate	Moderate	High	Moderate [69]

Experimental Protocols for Key Methodologies

Cellular Thermal Shift Assay (CETSA)

CETSA leverages the principle that small molecule binding often increases the thermal stability of target proteins [69] [7]. The protocol consists of the following key steps:

• Sample Preparation: Treat intact cells or cell lysates with the natural product of interest or vehicle control. Incubate to allow compound-target interaction (typically 30 minutes to 2 hours).

• Heat Challenge: Divide samples into aliquots and heat them at different temperatures (e.g., 37-65°C) for a fixed duration (typically 3-5 minutes) using a precise thermal cycler.

• Protein Solubility Separation: Cool samples rapidly, then separate soluble proteins from denatured aggregates by centrifugation or filtration.

• Protein Quantification: Analyze soluble protein fractions by Western blotting or mass spectrometry to identify proteins with increased thermal stability in compound-treated samples.

• Data Analysis: Calculate melting curves and apparent melting temperature (Tm) shifts for potential target proteins. Proteins showing significant thermal stability shifts (typically ≥3°C) in compound-treated samples are considered potential direct targets [7].

A recent application demonstrated CETSA's effectiveness in identifying quercetin's anti-aging targets, confirming direct binding to proteins involved in longevity pathways [12].

Drug Affinity Responsive Target Stability (DARTS)

DARTS exploits the protection from proteolysis that occurs when small molecules bind to proteins [69]:

• Protein Extraction: Prepare cell lysates or tissue homogenates in appropriate buffer.

• Compound Treatment: Divide protein extracts into two portions; treat one with the natural product and the other with vehicle control.

• Proteolysis: Add pronase or thermolysin to both samples at various concentrations. Incubate for a predetermined time (typically 10-30 minutes).

• Reaction Termination: Stop proteolysis by adding protease inhibitors or SDS-PAGE loading buffer.

• Analysis: Separate proteins by electrophoresis and visualize by silver staining or Western blotting. Alternatively, identify protected proteins by mass spectrometry.

• Validation: Proteins showing reduced proteolytic degradation in compound-treated samples are considered potential targets. These should be validated through orthogonal methods such as surface plasmon resonance (SPR) or cellular functional assays [69].

DARTS has been successfully applied to identify targets of chlorogenic acid, demonstrating its binding to annexin A2 and modulation of NF-κB signaling pathways [69].

Activity-Based Protein Profiling (ABPP)

ABPP uses chemical probes to monitor the functional state of enzymes in complex proteomes [69] [20]:

• Probe Design: Design activity-based probes that covalently target active sites of specific enzyme classes. For natural products, competitive ABPP can be performed without probe synthesis by testing the natural product's ability to inhibit probe binding [69].

• Sample Treatment: Incubate cell lysates, living cells, or tissue homogenates with the activity-based probe in the presence or absence of the natural product.

• Target Enrichment: If using a biotinylated probe, enrich labeled proteins with streptavidin beads.

• Detection and Identification: Detect labeled proteins by in-gel fluorescence or identify them by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS).

• Data Analysis: Proteins whose labeling is competitively inhibited by the natural product represent potential targets [69].

The key advantage of competitive ABPP is that it doesn't require structural modification of the natural product, thereby avoiding the problem of probe inactivity [69].

Visualization of Method Workflows

CETSA Experimental Workflow

CETSA Workflow

DARTS Experimental Workflow

DARTS Workflow

ABPP Experimental Workflow

ABPP Workflow

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Research Reagents for Target Identification Studies

Reagent/Material	Function	Application Examples
Streptavidin Magnetic Beads	Enrichment of biotinylated probe-protein complexes	Affinity-based pull-down; ABPP [20]
Pronase/Thermolysin	Limited proteolysis for DARTS	Identifying protein targets protected from proteolysis [69]
Stable Isotope Labeling Reagents (e.g., TMT, iTRAQ)	Quantitative proteomics	CETSA-MS; affinity purification-MS [69] [7]
Photoaffinity Labels (e.g., diazirine, benzophenone)	Covalent capture of transient interactions	Photoaffinity labeling probes [69]
Activity-Based Probes	Chemical tools targeting specific enzyme classes	ABPP for various enzyme families [69] [20]
Thermostable Protein Ladders	Molecular weight standards for thermal shift assays	CETSA Western blot analysis [7]
Protease Inhibitor Cocktails	Prevent unintended proteolysis	Sample preparation for multiple methods [69]
Cell Permeabilization Agents	Facilitate compound entry into cells	Cellular target engagement studies [69]

The optimal choice of target identification method depends on the specific natural product being studied and the biological context. Affinity-based methods, despite their widespread use, present significant challenges with nonspecific binding and probe inactivity [69] [20]. Label-free approaches such as CETSA and DARTS offer compelling advantages for studying unmodified natural products, with strong performance against nonspecific binding and no risk of probe inactivity [69]. For enzyme-targeting natural products, competitive ABPP provides high specificity without requiring structural modification [69]. Low-abundance target detection remains challenging across all methods, though DARTS and ABPP show relatively better sensitivity [69]. Researchers should consider implementing orthogonal approaches to overcome the limitations of individual methods and validate target engagements through multiple mechanisms. The continued development of more sensitive detection methods and advanced computational approaches will further enhance our ability to identify the molecular targets of natural products, accelerating drug discovery from these valuable compounds.

Strategies for Mitigating False Positives in Affinity Purification

Affinity purification (AP) is a cornerstone technique in chemical biology and drug discovery, enabling researchers to isolate protein targets of bioactive small molecules, including natural products, from complex biological mixtures [4]. However, a significant challenge in these experiments is the persistent issue of false positives—proteins that co-purify nonspecifically rather than through genuine biological interaction [70]. For researchers investigating the mechanisms of natural products, such as artemisinin, berberine, or ginsenosides, these false positives can misdirect research and obscure true pharmacological targets [4]. This guide objectively compares modern AP methodologies, focusing on their capacity to mitigate false positives while preserving sensitive detection of true interactors, supported by current experimental data and protocols.

Foundational Principles and Quantitative Strategies

The evolution of affinity purification mass spectrometry (AP-MS) has been driven by the need to distinguish true biological interactors from nonspecific background binders. Quantitative proteomics has emerged as a particularly powerful solution to this challenge [71].

The core principle involves comparing the quantity of proteins purified with a bait-bound sample against a negative control (e.g., beads with an inactive analog or a non-tagged control) [71]. True interaction partners are specifically enriched in the bait sample, resulting in high abundance ratios, while nonspecific contaminants bind equally under both conditions, yielding a 1:1 ratio [71]. This quantitative filtering greatly increases confidence in identified interactions, even under mild biochemical conditions that preserve weak or transient complexes [71].

Modern implementations often use single-step affinity enrichment coupled with high-sensitivity mass spectrometry. In this paradigm, the aim is not to purify complexes to homogeneity but to specifically enrich them within a background of contaminants, leveraging quantitative data to distinguish true signals [72]. Advanced data analysis strategies can use the large set of background binders themselves for accurate normalization, comparing enrichment profiles across multiple bait proteins rather than a single control [72].

Research Reagent Solutions for Quantitative AP-MS

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function in Experiment
Affinity Resins	IgG Sepharose (for Protein A), Strep-Tactin (for Strep-tag), Calmodulin Resin (for CBP), Anti-FLAG M2 Resin [73]	Solid support for immobilizing the bait protein and its interactors.
Epitope Tags	Protein A, Strep-tag II, Calmodulin-Binding Peptide (CBP), FLAG-tag, GFP [73] [72]	Genetically encoded tags fused to the bait protein for specific capture.
Proteases	TEV (Tobacco Etch Virus) Protease [73]	Site-specific enzyme for cleaving the protein complex from the first affinity resin in TAP.
Lysis Buffers	IGEPAL CA-630 (non-ionic detergent), Benzonase (nuclease), Complete Protease Inhibitors [72]	Lyse cells while preserving native protein interactions and degrading nucleic acids.
Quantification Standards	SILAC (Stable Isotope Labeling with Amino acids in Cell culture), TMT (Tandem Mass Tag) labels [71] [73]	Enable accurate relative quantification of proteins across different samples by mass spectrometry.

Comparative Analysis of Key Methodologies

The following table summarizes the core characteristics, strengths, and limitations of major affinity purification and related methods, with a specific focus on their handling of false positives.

Method	Key Mechanism	False Positive Mitigation Strategy	Best For	Key Limitations
Quantitative AP-MS (q-AP-MS) [71] [72]	Single-step purification with quantitative MS readout.	Statistical discrimination via specific enrichment over controls or background profiles.	Detecting weak/transient interactions under near-physiological conditions [72].	Requires access to high-resolution mass spectrometers and bioinformatics expertise [72].
Tandem Affinity Purification (TAP) [73]	Two sequential, orthogonal purification steps.	High stringency from dual tags and washes reduces nonspecific binding [73].	Isolating stable, native complexes with high purity for structural studies [73].	Time-consuming; can disrupt weak or transient complexes due to stringent processing [73].
Classical Affinity Purification [4] [70]	Single-step purification, often with immobilized compound.	Relies on stringent wash conditions and inactive analog controls [70].	Identifying high-affinity binders when quantitative MS is not available.	High false positive rate; difficult to distinguish specific from nonspecific binders [72].
Yeast Two-Hybrid (Y2H) [73]	Detects binary PPIs via reconstitution of a transcription factor in yeast.	High-throughput screening; not based on physical purification.	Initial, high-throughput mapping of binary protein-protein interactions [73].	High false positive rate; lacks cellular context for many mammalian proteins [73].
Proximity Labeling (e.g., BioID, APEX) [73]	Uses engineered enzymes to biotinylate proximal proteins.	Proximity-based covalent labeling in live cells.	Capturing transient and spatial interactions in live cells [73].	Broad labeling radius (~10 nm) can include non-interacting neighbors [73].

Experimental Protocols for High-Fidelity Target Identification

Protocol for Quantitative Single-Step Affinity Enrichment-MS (AE-MS)

This protocol, adapted for identifying targets of natural products, emphasizes quantitative rigor [72].

• Probe Design & Synthesis: A bioactive natural product (e.g., a ginsenoside or withangulatin A derivative) is chemically modified to include a functional handle (e.g., an alkyne or amine) while preserving its bioactivity [4]. This handle allows for conjugation to solid-support beads via click chemistry or other bioorthogonal reactions [4].
• Cell Culture and Lysis:
  • Grow relevant cell lines (e.g., HEK293T, HeLa) and treat with the natural product probe or a vehicle control. Alternatively, use lysates from untreated cells for in vitro pull-down.
  • Lyse cells using a mild, non-denaturing buffer (e.g., 150 mM NaCl, 50 mM Tris HCl pH 7.5, 1% IGEPAL CA-630) supplemented with benzonase to degrade DNA/RNA and protease inhibitors [72].
  • Clear lysate by centrifugation at 16,000 × g for 20 minutes at 4°C [72].
• Affinity Enrichment:
  • Incubate the clarified lysate with the natural product-conjugated beads. As a critical control, incubate a parallel sample with control beads (e.g., conjugated to an inactive analog or with no compound) [70].
  • Perform binding at 4°C for 1-2 hours.
  • Wash beads with lysis buffer (3x), followed by a high-stringency wash (e.g., lysis buffer + 500 mM NaCl) to reduce nonspecific binding [72].
• Sample Preparation for MS:
  • Elute bound proteins or digest them on-bead with trypsin.
  • Reduce disulfide bonds with DTT (5 mM, 56°C, 30 min) and alkylate with iodoacetamide (15 mM, room temperature, 30 min in the dark) [73].
  • Digest with trypsin (1:50 enzyme-to-protein ratio) at 37°C for 16 hours [73].
• LC-MS/MS and Data Analysis:
  • Analyze peptides using a high-resolution mass spectrometer (e.g., Q Exactive HF-X) in data-dependent acquisition mode [73].
  • Identify proteins by searching data against a relevant UniProt database using software like MaxQuant.
  • Quantitative Analysis: Use label-free quantification (MaxLFQ algorithm) or labeled quantification (SILAC/TMT) to calculate enrichment ratios of proteins in the bait sample versus the control[sitation:2] [72]. True targets are identified by significant enrichment.

Workflow for Identifying Natural Product Targets

Protocol for Tandem Affinity Purification (TAP)

TAP provides an alternative, high-stringency approach, often used with tagged bait proteins [73].

• Plasmid Construction: Fuse the gene of the putative target protein (identified from an initial screen) with two orthogonal affinity tags (e.g., Protein A and Calmodulin-Binding Peptide (CBP)) in a single open reading frame [73].
• Expression: Express the TAP-tagged protein in a suitable host system (e.g., mammalian cells, yeast) at near-endogenous levels to avoid overexpression artifacts [73].
• First Affinity Purification:
  • Incubate cell lysate with IgG Sepharose beads (binds Protein A tag).
  • Wash with lysis buffer, a high-salt buffer (500 mM NaCl), and a detergent wash (0.5% sodium deoxycholate) [73].
• TEV Protease Cleavage: Release the protein complex from the first resin by incubating with TEV protease [73].
• Second Affinity Purification:
  • Incubate the TEV eluate with calmodulin-coated resin (binds CBP tag) in the presence of calcium.
  • Wash with calcium-containing buffer and a stringent salt wash.
  • Elute the purified complex gently with a buffer containing EGTA, which chelates calcium and disrupts the CBP-calmodulin interaction [73].
• Analysis: Analyze the final eluate by Western blotting or mass spectrometry to identify stably associated interaction partners [73].

Integrated Data Analysis and Validation

Beyond the initial purification, rigorous bioinformatics and experimental validation are crucial for confirming true positive interactions.

• Bioinformatics Analysis: Utilize databases like the CRAPome (Contaminant Repository for Affinity Purification) to filter common contaminants [71]. Perform Gene Ontology (GO) and KEGG pathway enrichment analysis using tools like ClueGO in Cytoscape to determine if the identified proteins form biologically relevant networks [73].
• Experimental Validation: Confirm interactions using orthogonal methods such as:
  • Co-immunoprecipitation (Co-IP): Using antibodies specific to the endogenous bait and prey proteins [73].
  • Surface Plasmon Resonance (SPR): Quantifying the binding affinity (KD) between the purified natural product and the recombinant target protein [73].
  • Cellular Phenotypic Rescue: Demonstrating that knocking down or overexpressing the putative target protein alters the cellular response to the natural product [70].

Data Analysis and Validation Funnel

The choice of an optimal affinity purification strategy is critical for successful target deconvolution, especially in the complex context of multi-target natural products [4]. While Tandem Affinity Purification offers high specificity for stable complexes, modern quantitative single-step AE-MS provides a superior, cost-effective, and sensitive platform for identifying genuine interactors—including weak and transient ones—by strategically leveraging quantitative data to filter out false positives [72]. For researchers in natural product chemistry, integrating these advanced AP-MS methods with rigorous chemical probe design and multi-layered validation creates a powerful toolkit for elucidating the precise mechanisms of action of traditional medicines, thereby accelerating modern drug discovery [4].

The journey from a biologically active natural product to a understood therapeutic agent hinges on the critical step of target identification. Natural products, with their unparalleled structural complexity and evolutionary optimization, often interact with multiple biological macromolecules, making the decoding of their mechanism of action a significant challenge. Central to this decoding process is the design and application of chemical probes—functionalized derivatives of the original compound that can isolate and identify these protein targets. The efficacy of these probes is not accidental; it is meticulously engineered through the optimization of three interdependent components: the linker length, the placement of the reporter tag, and the strategic modifications that retain the native bioactivity of the parent molecule. This guide provides a comparative analysis of these design elements, underpinned by recent experimental data and proven protocols, to equip researchers with the knowledge to construct effective tools for mechanistic discovery.

The Critical Role of Linker Design

The linker is a crucial molecular tether that connects the natural product "bait" to the reporter tag, such as biotin. Its structure directly influences the probe's ability to access and bind the target protein within the complex geometry of the binding pocket.

Key Findings on Linker Length

A seminal 2024 study investigating the anticancer natural product OSW-1 systematically demonstrated the impact of polyethylene glycol (PEG)-based linker length on probe performance [74]. The researchers developed three biotinylated OSW-1 probes, identical except for their linker lengths (PEG3, PEG5, and PEG7), and evaluated them for both biological activity and efficiency in isolating known target proteins (OSBP and ORP4).

Table 1: Impact of Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) Linker Length on OSW-1 Probe Performance [74]

Linker Length	Anticancer Activity	Target Capture Efficiency	Key Finding
Medium (PEG5)	Maintained high activity	Most effective	Optimal balance for protein isolation
Long (PEG7)	Highest activity	Less effective than PEG5	Best for biological function, inferior for pull-down
Short (PEG3)	Maintained high activity	Less effective than PEG5	Potential steric hindrance

The data reveals a critical distinction: a probe optimized for biological performance (PEG7) is not necessarily the best tool for protein identification. The PEG5 linker achieved an optimal balance, providing sufficient length and flexibility to allow simultaneous binding of the OSW-1 moiety to its protein target and the biotin tag to streptavidin-coated beads, without introducing excessive flexibility that could promote non-specific binding [74].

Beyond Length: Flexibility and Molecular Shape

Linker optimization extends beyond length. Research on benzophenone-based photoaffinity probes for adenylating enzymes found that labeling efficiency correlated more closely with the probe's binding affinity for the target than with the length, flexibility, or position of the photoaffinity group itself [75]. Furthermore, the molecular shape of the linker is a key factor; linear photoaffinity linkers have been observed to engage in more nonspecific binding compared to branched analogues, highlighting the importance of linker architecture in ensuring selective labeling [75].

Strategic Tag Placement and Probe Design

The conjugation of a tag must be a strategic decision guided by a thorough understanding of the compound's structure-activity relationship (SAR). A successful probe must retain the pharmacological activity of its parent molecule while incorporating a handle for detection or enrichment.

Synthesis of an Effective Biotinylated Probe

A typical affinity-based probe comprises three functional elements [20]:

• Reactive Group: The core structure of the natural product, responsible for binding the target protein.
• Linker: A spacer, sometimes cleavable, to minimize steric interference.
• Reporter Tag: A handle such as biotin (for enrichment) or a fluorophore (for visualization).

Best Practice: The functional group for conjugation (e.g., hydroxyl, amine) should be chosen at a position known to be tolerant to modification from prior SAR studies. This often requires total or semi-synthesis to install the handle, though recent advances in chemo- and regioselective functionalizations are simplifying this process [76].

Alternative Probe Designs and Platforms

Beyond classic affinity probes, several innovative designs and platforms have expanded the toolbox for target identification:

• Activity-Based Protein Profiling (ABPP) Probes: These probes contain a reactive group that covalently modifies the active site of an enzyme family, a linker, and a tag. They are ideal for profiling functional enzyme states [20].
• Photoaffinity Probes: These incorporate photoreactive groups (e.g., benzophenone, diazirine) that form covalent bonds with target proteins upon UV irradiation, capturing transient, low-affinity interactions [75].
• "Tag and Snag" Platform: This high-throughput method involves "shotgun derivatization" of complex natural product extracts with isotopic labels. The tagged mixture is incubated with human cells, which "snag" compounds with high affinity for cellular targets, which are then identified via LC-HRMS. This approach efficiently filters thousands of compounds for those most likely to be bioactive [77].

Table 2: Comparison of Chemical Probe Strategies for Target Identification

Probe Strategy	Mechanism	Best For	Considerations
Biotinylated Affinity Probe	Reversible binding; enrichment via streptavidin-biotin interaction.	Well-characterized natural products with a known conjugation site.	Linker length is critical; risk of steric hindrance.
Activity-Based Probe (ABPP)	Irreversible, covalent modification of active enzymes.	Profiling specific enzyme families (e.g., kinases, hydrolases).	Requires a reactive functional group in the natural product.
Photoaffinity Probe	UV-induced covalent cross-linking with bound proteins.	Capturing transient or low-affinity protein targets.	Can generate non-specific cross-linking; optimization of photoreactive group and linker is essential [75].
"Tag and Snag" Platform	Isotopic labeling and cellular affinity enrichment.	Unbiased screening of complex natural product mixtures.	Acylation may alter bioactivity of some compounds [77].

Experimental Protocols for Probe Validation

Once a probe is synthesized, a series of experiments are required to validate its functionality before proceeding to large-scale target fishing.

Protocol 1: Validating Biological Activity In Vitro

Aim: To confirm that the functionalized probe retains the bioactivity of the parent natural product. Method:

• Treat cancer cell lines (e.g., HeLa cells) with a concentration range of the parent natural product and the newly synthesized probe.
• Measure cell viability after 48-72 hours using a standard assay like MTT or CellTiter-Glo.
• Compare the ICâ‚…â‚€ values of the probe and the parent compound. Interpretation: A successful probe will exhibit a similar dose-response curve and ICâ‚…â‚€ value to the parent molecule, indicating that conjugation has not compromised its biological potency [74].

Protocol 2: Affinity Pulldown and Target Identification

Aim: To isolate and identify the protein targets of the natural product. Method:

• Incubation: Immobilize the biotinylated probe on streptavidin-coated magnetic beads. Incubate the beads with cell lysate to allow target proteins to bind.
• Washing: Wash the beads extensively with buffer to remove non-specifically bound proteins.
• Elution: Elute bound proteins by boiling in SDS-PAGE sample buffer or through a specific competitive elution with the parent natural product.
• Analysis: Identify the eluted proteins using gel electrophoresis followed by in-gel digestion and liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) [74] [20].

Experimental Workflow for Target Identification

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

The following table details key reagents and their functions in the probe design and target identification workflow.

Table 3: Key Research Reagents for Probe-Based Target Identification

Reagent / Material	Function in Workflow	Application Notes
Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) Linkers	A flexible, water-soluble spacer to connect bait and tag.	Varying lengths (e.g., PEG3, PEG5, PEG7) are commercially available to optimize distance [74].
Biotin & Streptavidin Beads	High-affinity capture system for enrichment of probe-protein complexes.	Magnetic beads allow for easy handling and separation. Beads can be agarose or magnetic [74] [20].
Photoactivatable Groups (e.g., Benzophenone)	Enables UV-induced covalent cross-linking for capturing protein targets.	Useful for identifying low-abundance or transiently interacting proteins [75].
Isotopic Labels (e.g., ¹³C₃-Propionic Acid)	Tags compounds in a mixture for mass spectrometry-based detection and screening.	Enables high-throughput "tag and snag" screening of complex natural product extracts [77].
Activity-Based Probe Scaffolds	Contains an electrophile to covalently label the active site of enzyme families.	Ideal for profiling specific enzyme classes like serine hydrolases or cysteine proteases.

Optimizing the chemical probe is a foundational step in deconvoluting the mechanism of action of bioactive natural products. As the experimental data demonstrates, there is no universal solution; the choice of linker length, tag placement, and overall design strategy must be empirically determined and guided by the specific natural product and research goal. The recurring theme is that performance in a biological assay does not directly translate to efficacy in a proteomic pull-down experiment. By systematically comparing design parameters and employing rigorous validation protocols, researchers can create precision tools that bridge the gap between observed phenotype and molecular target, ultimately accelerating the discovery of new therapeutic targets and pathways.

The journey from a medicinal plant to a potential therapeutic agent presents researchers with a fundamental strategic choice: whether to work with crude extracts containing the plant's full chemical complexity or to invest in purified compounds with defined structures. This decision critically impacts all subsequent phases of natural product research, from initial biological screening to target identification and validation. Crude extracts, which are mixtures of various phytochemicals, offer the potential for synergistic effects and represent the traditional form in which herbal medicines have been used for centuries [78]. In contrast, purified compounds provide molecular precision, enabling detailed mechanistic studies and drug development but often requiring extensive resources for isolation and characterization [79]. Within the broader thesis of target identification and validation for natural product mechanisms research, this choice dictates the experimental approaches available, the interpretability of results, and the ultimate translation of findings into validated therapeutic strategies.

Extraction and Isolation Methodologies

The initial processing of plant material establishes the foundation for all subsequent research, with methodology selection directly influencing the chemical profile of the resulting sample.

Extraction Techniques for Crude Preparations

Extraction is the crucial first step in liberating desired chemical components from plant materials for further analysis [78]. The choice of solvent system largely depends on the specific nature of the bioactive compound being targeted, with polar solvents like methanol, ethanol, or ethyl-acetate used for hydrophilic compounds, and more lipophilic solvents such as dichloromethane or hexane (the latter often used to remove chlorophyll) employed for non-polar compounds [78]. Several standard methods exist for preparing crude extracts:

• Maceration: Plant material is soaked in solvent at room temperature for extended periods (typically 3-4 days), requiring minimal equipment but considerable time [78].
• Soxhlet Extraction: A continuous extraction method where solvent is cycled through the sample for 3-18 hours using specialized apparatus, efficient for non-volatile compounds [78].
• Sonification: Uses ultrasonic waves to disrupt plant cells and enhance extraction efficiency, typically requiring about 1 hour [78].

Modern techniques like microwave-assisted extraction, supercritical-fluid extraction, and pressurized-liquid extraction offer advantages including reduced organic solvent consumption, minimized sample degradation, and improved extraction efficiency and selectivity [78].

Purification Strategies for Isolated Compounds

Following crude extraction, further separation is required to obtain purified compounds. The complex mixture of phytochemicals with different polarities in plant extracts presents significant separation challenges [78]. Multiple chromatographic techniques are typically employed in tandem to achieve pure compounds:

• Thin-Layer Chromatography (TLC): A simple, quick preliminary method that provides information about the number of components in a mixture and supports compound identity through Rf value comparison [78].
• Bio-autography: A specialized TLC technique that combines chromatographic separation with in situ activity determination, particularly useful for locating antimicrobial compounds in extracts through direct, contact, or agar overlay approaches [78].
• Column Chromatography: Includes standard column, flash, and Sephadex chromatography for fractionation of extracts and initial purification steps [78].
• High-Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC): A versatile, robust workhorse technique for the isolation of natural products, increasingly used as the main choice for fingerprinting studies [78].

Table 1: Comparison of Common Extraction Methods

Method	Common Solvents	Temperature	Time Required	Volume of Solvent
Maceration	Methanol, ethanol, or alcohol/water mixtures	Room temperature	3-4 days	Dependent on sample size
Soxhlet Extraction	Methanol, ethanol, or alcohol/water mixtures	Dependent on solvent boiling point	3-18 hours	150-200 ml
Sonification	Methanol, ethanol, or alcohol/water mixtures	Can be heated	~1 hour	50-100 ml

Analytical Characterization Approaches

Comprehensive characterization is essential for both crude and purified samples, though the specific techniques and information obtained differ significantly.

Phytochemical Screening and Spectrophotometric Assays

Initial characterization of crude extracts typically involves phytochemical screening assays to determine general classes of compounds present. These include:

• Total Phenolic Content (TPC) and Total Flavoid Content (TFC): Spectrophotometric assays that provide quantitative measures of these important bioactive compound classes [79].
• Colorimetric Tests: Spraying TLC plates with specific reagents that cause color changes according to the phytochemicals present, or viewing under UV light [78].

Chromatographic and Spectroscopic Techniques

Advanced analytical technologies are required for detailed characterization:

• HPLC-DAD-MS (High-Performance Liquid Chromatography with Diode Array Detection and Mass Spectrometry): Enables simultaneous separation, detection, and identification of compounds in complex mixtures, as demonstrated in the analysis of Leonurus cardiica extracts where twelve secondary metabolites were quantified [79].
• Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR): A non-chromatographic technique that facilitates identification of bioactive compounds through functional group analysis [78].
• Validation Parameters: For quantitative methods, validation includes assessment of linearity, limit of detection (LOD), limit of quantification (LOQ), and repeatability to ensure analytical reliability [79].

Comparative Biological Activity Assessment

The biological performance of crude extracts versus purified compounds varies across therapeutic areas, with each approach offering distinct advantages.

Antioxidant Activities

Research on Leonurus cardiaca demonstrates that purified extracts generally contain higher phytochemical content than crude ones, with a linear correlation observed between total phenolics, radical scavenging activity, and reducing power [79]. Specific compounds including quercetin, caffeic acid, verbascoside, and chlorogenic acid were identified as influencing the main variations in bioactivities [79].

Table 2: Chemical Characterization of Leonurus cardiaca Extracts

Parameter	Crude Extracts	Purified Extracts
Total Phytochemical Content	Lower	Higher
Major Compounds	Caffeoylmalic acid, Verbascoside	Caffeoylmalic acid, Verbascoside (enriched)
Bioactivity Influence	Multiple compounds contribute	Specific compounds (e.g., quercetin, caffeic acid, verbascoside) drive variations

Enzyme Inhibitory Properties

Enzyme inhibition studies provide insights into potential therapeutic mechanisms. In Leonurus cardiaca, both crude and purified extracts were evaluated for inhibitory properties against cholinesterase, tyrosinase, amylase, and glucosidase - enzymes considered important pharmaceutical targets for conditions like Alzheimer's disease and diabetes [79]. The purification process removes non-useful macromolecules and sugars, thereby enriching the bioactive fraction and potentially enhancing specific inhibitory activities [79].

Antiviral Activities

Antiviral research demonstrates the complementary value of both approaches. For example, hydroethanolic extracts of Ruellia tuberosa and Ruellia patula, rich in flavonoids, exhibited antiviral activity against H1N1 influenza by reducing infectious viral particles [80]. Molecular docking studies suggested interactions between bioactive compounds (quercetin, hesperetin, rutin) and viral neuraminidase [80]. Conversely, purified furanocoumarin compounds (isoimperatorin, oxypeucedanin, imperatorin) isolated from Angelica dahurica demonstrated specific mechanisms against H1N1 and H9N2 viruses, with oxypeucedanin showing strong inhibition of neuraminidase activity and suppression of viral protein synthesis [80].

Target Identification and Validation Strategies

The choice between crude extracts and purified compounds significantly influences approaches to target identification and validation in natural product research.

Pathway Analysis and Mechanism Elucidation

Purified compounds offer clearer pathways for target identification due to their defined chemical structures. For instance, the alkaloid berberine from Berberis vulgaris was shown to block the host MAPK/ERK signaling pathway, essential for transport of viral ribonucleoproteins, thereby inhibiting H1N1 replication [80]. Such precise mechanism elucidation is challenging with crude extracts where multiple compounds may interact with numerous targets.

Experimental Workflows for Target Deconvolution

The process of identifying molecular targets differs substantially between crude extracts and purified compounds. For purified compounds, techniques like affinity chromatography, protein microarrays, and cellular thermal shift assays can directly probe compound-target interactions. For crude extracts, bioactivity-guided fractionation combined with omics technologies (proteomics, transcriptomics) provides a pathway to identify responsible compounds and their mechanisms.

Research Reagent Solutions Toolkit

Successful investigation of natural products requires specific reagents and materials tailored to the research approach.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Natural Product Investigation

Reagent/Material	Function	Application Notes
Polar Solvents (Methanol, Ethanol, Ethyl-acetate)	Extraction of hydrophilic compounds	Suitable for phenolic compounds, flavonoids [78]
Non-Polar Solvents (Dichloromethane, Hexane)	Extraction of lipophilic compounds; chlorophyll removal	Hexane specifically used to remove chlorophyll [78]
Chromatography Stationary Phases (Silica, Sephadex)	Compound separation and purification	Multiple phases often needed for complete separation [78]
Phytochemical Standard Compounds	Analytical method development and quantification	Essential for HPLC quantification of specific metabolites [79]
Bioassay Reagents (DPPH, ABTS, FRAP)	Antioxidant capacity assessment	Different mechanisms: radical scavenging, reducing power [79]
Enzyme Assay Kits (Cholinesterase, Amylase, Glucosidase)	Enzyme inhibition studies	Important for evaluating potential against diseases like Alzheimer's and diabetes [79]

The choice between crude extracts and purified compounds in natural product research is not merely technical but strategic, with implications for research direction, resource allocation, and ultimate outcomes. Crude extracts offer advantages for initial screening, traditional medicine validation, and studying synergistic effects, while purified compounds enable precise mechanism elucidation, target identification, and drug development. The most successful research programs often employ both approaches iteratively - using crude extracts for initial bioactivity detection, followed by bioassay-guided fractionation to isolate active constituents, and finally employing purified compounds for detailed target validation and mechanism studies. This integrated approach leverages the strengths of both methodologies while mitigating their individual limitations, ultimately advancing the understanding of natural product mechanisms and their translation into validated therapeutic strategies.

Membrane proteins and protein-protein interactions (PPIs) represent two of the most biologically significant yet technically challenging target classes in modern drug discovery and natural product research. Membrane proteins, which constitute over 60% of current drug targets, are embedded within lipid bilayers and perform vital functions including signal transduction, molecular transport, and cell-cell communication [81]. Simultaneously, PPIs form the fundamental architectural framework of cellular signaling pathways, with their dysregulation underlying numerous disease pathologies [82] [83]. The therapeutic potential of these targets is immense; however, their inherent structural complexity, dynamic nature, and resistance to conventional experimental approaches have traditionally hampered research progress.

The study of natural products adds another layer of complexity to this already challenging landscape. While natural products like artemisinin, berberine, and ginsenosides have demonstrated significant therapeutic effects against various diseases, understanding their precise pharmacological mechanisms remains difficult due to challenges in identifying their molecular targets [4]. Target identification not only plays a key role in elucidating the biological pathways involved but also provides critical insights for optimizing drug efficacy, minimizing side effects, and guiding the development of novel therapeutics. For natural product researchers, adapting methodological approaches to overcome the specific challenges posed by membrane proteins and PPIs is therefore not merely advantageous—it is essential for unlocking the full potential of these compounds.

This review comprehensively compares contemporary experimental and computational methods for studying these challenging target classes, with particular emphasis on their application within natural product mechanism research. We provide quantitative performance assessments, detailed experimental protocols, and practical resource guidance to equip researchers with the tools necessary to advance target identification and validation in these critical areas.

Methodological Comparison for Membrane Protein Research

Experimental Approaches and Technological Advancements

The structural characterization of membrane proteins has historically been hindered by difficulties with expression, purification, and stabilization outside their native membrane environment. Traditional approaches require extracting these proteins using detergents and studying them in artificial membrane mimetics, which can compromise structural integrity and function [84] [81]. Recent technological innovations are now overcoming these persistent challenges through creative adaptations of existing methodologies.

High-speed atomic force microscopy (HS-AFM) has emerged as a powerful technique for directly visualizing membrane protein dynamics in near-native conditions. In a landmark study investigating membrane-mediated protein interactions, researchers utilized HS-AFM to observe the behavior of Escherichia coli water channel Aquaporin-Z (AqpZ) in controlled lipid environments [85]. This approach enabled direct quantification of oligomerization and assembly energetics as modulated by membrane hydrophobic mismatch, revealing how membrane organization emerges from Brownian diffusion and fundamental physical properties of membrane constituents. The experimental design involved reconstituting AqpZ into phospholipid bilayers and directly imaging the dissociation of protein arrays upon addition of excess lipid vesicles, allowing precise measurement of interaction energies and diffusion characteristics [85].

A more recent breakthrough, HT-PELSA (high-throughput peptide-centric local stability assay), has revolutionized the study of protein-ligand interactions for membrane targets. This method detects binding events by monitoring local changes in protein stability upon ligand association, measured through alterations in protease susceptibility [86]. The transition from a tube-based to a 96-well plate format has enabled robotic handling and parallel processing of hundreds of samples simultaneously, increasing throughput approximately fifteenfold compared to the original method. Critically, HT-PELSA enables investigation of membrane proteins directly in complex biological mixtures such as crude cell lysates, tissues, and bacteria—a capability previously unattainable with conventional techniques that require purification and often alter native conformations [86].

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Membrane Protein Study Methods

Method	Throughput	Key Application	Membrane Protein Compatibility	Key Advantage
HS-AFM [85]	Medium (real-time imaging)	Protein oligomerization and membrane organization	High in supported lipid bilayers	Direct visualization of dynamics at ~0.5 nm spatial resolution
HT-PELSA [86]	High (~400 samples/day)	Ligand binding and stability assessment	High, including in complex mixtures	Studies membrane proteins in native-like environments without purification
Cryo-EM [84]	Low-medium	High-resolution structure determination	Moderate to high with optimization	Does not require crystallization; handles larger complexes
X-ray Crystallography [84]	Low	Atomic-resolution structure determination	Low (requires high-quality crystals)	Gold standard for atomic resolution
Mammalian Expression Systems [81]	Variable	Protein production for functional studies	High for human targets	Proper folding and post-translational modifications

Experimental Protocol: HS-AFM for Membrane Protein Interactions

The following protocol summarizes the key methodology for investigating membrane-mediated protein interactions using high-speed atomic force microscopy, based on the approach described in Nature Communications [85]:

• Protein Reconstitution: Reconstitute the target membrane protein (e.g., AqpZ) into phospholipid bilayers consisting of defined synthetic lipids at very low lipid-to-protein ratio (LPR of 0.1 w/w, approximately 20 lipid molecules per tetramer). This promotes formation of 2D crystalline arrays either in sheets or proteoliposomes.

• Sample Preparation: Deposit the reconstituted membranes on a freshly cleaved mica support, ensuring initial sparse distribution covering <5% of the mica surface.

• HS-AFM Imaging: Image the samples in tapping-mode HS-AFM at various magnifications (typically ~0.5 nm/pixel spatial resolution at 1 frame/sec temporal resolution) to establish baseline organization.

• Lipid Addition: Introduce vesicles of defined lipid composition (e.g., pure DOPC liposomes) into the HS-AFM fluid cell while continuing imaging.

• Membrane Formation Monitoring: Observe as added lipids spontaneously disperse across the mica surface and fuse with existing membrane patches, eventually covering the entire imaging area with a continuous lipid bilayer (typically occurring within 120-180 seconds after vesicle addition).

• Data Collection: Record the dissociation of proteins from array edges and their diffusion into the newly formed lipid bilayer until the system reaches dynamic equilibrium (typically within 6 minutes post-lipid addition).

• Quantitative Analysis: Extract oligomerization and interaction energies through quantitative analysis of protein diffusion behavior and equilibrium distribution. Analyze height profiles to distinguish between stably incorporated and transiently diffusing molecules.

This methodology provides unique insights into membrane-mediated interactions at the single-molecule level without requiring labels, enabling direct investigation of how membrane physical properties influence protein organization.

Diagram Title: HS-AFM Workflow for Membrane Protein Interaction Analysis

Advancing Protein-Protein Interaction Research

Computational Prediction and Validation Platforms

The prediction of protein-protein interactions has been transformed by artificial intelligence approaches, with recent models addressing previous limitations in handling dynamic interaction states and evolutionary diversity. Traditional computational methods treated proteins as rigid bodies and failed to account for solvent effects, side-chain rearrangements, backbone flexibility, and other biophysical factors [82]. The current generation of AI-driven platforms has overcome these constraints through innovative architectural adaptations.

Template-free PPI prediction represents a significant advancement over traditional template-based methods. Instead of searching for matching scaffolds in structural databases, these approaches first scan each protein surface to locate 'hot-spots'—clusters of residues whose side-chain properties favor binding [82]. Once identified, hot-spots are matched to define candidate interfaces, with machine learning models scoring each inter-protein interaction matrix for predicted binding energy. In standardized benchmarking against challenging targets, template-free prediction (exemplified by DeepTAG) already outperforms protein-protein docking in accuracy, with nearly half of all candidates reaching 'High' accuracy on the CAPRI DockQ metric [82].

The integration of dynamic modeling represents another frontier in PPI prediction. The DCMF-PPI framework introduces dynamic condition and multi-feature fusion to address the inherently transient nature of protein interactions [87]. This hybrid framework integrates dynamic modeling through Normal Mode Analysis and Elastic Network Models to capture conformational alterations and variations in binding affinities under diverse environmental circumstances. The model employs parallel convolutional neural networks combined with wavelet transform to extract multi-scale features from diverse protein residue types, enhancing the representation of sequence and structural heterogeneity [87].

Language model-based approaches have also demonstrated remarkable progress in PPI prediction. PLM-interact extends protein language models to jointly encode protein pairs and learn their relationships, analogous to the next-sentence prediction task in natural language processing [83]. This model, trained on human PPI data, achieves significant improvements in cross-species prediction, demonstrating robust performance when tested on mouse, fly, worm, E. coli, and yeast datasets. Additionally, fine-tuned versions can identify the impact of mutations on interactions, providing valuable insights for natural product mechanism research [83].

Table 2: Performance Comparison of PPI Prediction Platforms

Method	Approach	Cross-Species Accuracy (AUPR)	Key Innovation	Limitations
PLM-interact [83]	Language model fine-tuning	0.706-0.722 (yeast/E. coli)	Joint protein pair encoding	Limited to sequence data only
DCMF-PPI [87]	Dynamic multi-feature fusion	Not specified (outperforms SOTA)	Incorporates protein dynamics	Computationally intensive
DeepTAG [82]	Template-free hot-spot matching	~50% high-accuracy predictions	Independent of template availability	Scoring improvements ongoing
AlphaFold-Multimer [82]	Template-based deep learning	0.553-0.605 (yeast/E. coli)	Leverages co-evolutionary signals	Performance drops without templates
D-SCRIPT [83]	Structure-based deep learning	Lower than PLM-interact	Uses protein contact maps	Treats interactions as static

Experimental Protocol: HT-PELSA for Protein-Ligand Interactions

HT-PELSA provides a powerful methodology for investigating protein-ligand interactions, particularly valuable for natural product research where targets may be unknown. The following protocol outlines the key steps in this innovative approach [86]:

• Sample Preparation: Prepare complex biological mixtures containing the target system (crude cell lysates, tissue homogenates, or bacterial cultures). No purification is required, preserving native protein environments.

• Ligand Treatment: Incubate samples with the natural product compound of interest at physiologically relevant concentrations. Include matched control samples without compound.

• Automated Processing: Transfer samples to 96-well plates optimized for robotic handling. Add proteases (typically trypsin) to all samples using automated liquid handling systems.

• Limited Proteolysis: Allow controlled proteolytic digestion to proceed for optimized time periods. The binding of ligands to specific protein regions stabilizes those regions against enzymatic cleavage.

• Protein-Peptide Separation: Leverage the novel protein-adsorption surface that preferentially captures intact proteins while allowing cleaved peptides to remain in solution.

• Mass Spectrometry Analysis: Analyze the resulting peptide mixtures by high-throughput liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS).

• Data Processing: Identify and quantify peptides across all samples using specialized bioinformatics pipelines. Detect peptides showing significant abundance changes between ligand-treated and control samples.

• Target Identification: Map stabilized peptides to specific protein regions and identify corresponding proteins. Proteins showing ligand-induced stabilization patterns represent putative targets.

This protocol enables the analysis of approximately 400 samples per day, making it particularly valuable for screening multiple natural product compounds or concentration series. Its ability to work with complex mixtures and membrane proteins makes it ideally suited for natural product target identification.

Diagram Title: PPI Research Methodology Selection Framework

Integrated Workflows for Natural Product Research

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Challenging Target Classes

Reagent/Resource	Application	Function in Research	Key Considerations
Expi293F Expression System [81]	Membrane protein production	Mammalian expression system providing proper folding and post-translational modifications	Ideal for human targets; variant GnTI- cells simplify glycosylation
Defined Synthetic Lipids [85]	Membrane protein reconstitution	Create controlled lipid environments for studying membrane-mediated interactions	Hydrocarbon tail length modulates oligomerization energetics
DOPC/DOPS/DOPE Mixtures [85]	Supported lipid bilayers	Mimic native membrane composition for in vitro studies	Standard 8:1:1 ratio provides physiologically relevant environment
HT-PELSA Platform [86]	Target identification	High-throughput detection of ligand binding via stability changes	Works with complex mixtures; requires specialized 96-well plates
PortT5 Protein Language Model [87]	Protein feature extraction	Generates residue-level embeddings from sequence data	Pretrained on large databases; captures evolutionary information
STRING Database [88]	PPI network analysis	Curated database of known and predicted protein interactions	Integrates multiple evidence types; covers numerous species

Strategic Framework for Method Selection

Choosing appropriate methodologies for investigating membrane proteins and PPIs requires careful consideration of research goals, available resources, and technical constraints. For natural product researchers, we propose the following decision framework:

For Membrane Protein Studies:

• Target Identification: Prioritize HT-PELSA when working with uncharacterized natural products, as it enables target discovery without prior knowledge of mechanism and works effectively with membrane proteins in native environments [86].
• Mechanistic Investigation: Employ HS-AFM when detailed dynamic information about membrane-mediated interactions is required, particularly for understanding how natural products influence protein oligomerization or organization within membranes [85].
• Structural Characterization: Utilize cryo-EM for high-resolution structure determination of natural product-bound membrane protein complexes, especially when investigating allosteric mechanisms or conformational changes [84].

For PPI Research:

• Comprehensive Screening: Implement PLM-interact for large-scale interaction prediction, particularly when exploring natural product effects across multiple potential protein targets or when studying cross-species interactions [83].
• Dynamic Analysis: Apply DCMF-PPI when investigating natural products that may stabilize or disrupt specific conformational states or when studying transient interactions that underlie cellular signaling pathways [87].
• Validation Studies: Combine computational predictions with focused experimental validation using modified HS-AFM approaches or HT-PELSA to confirm natural product effects on specific PPIs [85] [86].

The integration of multiple complementary approaches typically yields the most robust insights into natural product mechanisms. Computational predictions can guide targeted experimental validation, while experimental findings can refine and improve computational models—creating a virtuous cycle that accelerates the elucidation of complex mechanisms involving these challenging target classes.

The methodological landscape for studying membrane proteins and protein-protein interactions has evolved dramatically, with recent advancements finally addressing the unique challenges posed by these biologically critical target classes. For natural product researchers, these developments open new possibilities for mechanistic elucidation that were previously inaccessible through conventional approaches.

The integration of high-throughput experimental methods like HT-PELSA with sophisticated computational predictions from platforms such as PLM-interact and DCMF-PPI creates a powerful toolkit for unraveling the complex mechanisms underlying natural product bioactivity. Particularly valuable are approaches that preserve native membrane environments, account for protein dynamics, and function across evolutionary distances—capabilities that align perfectly with the needs of natural product research.

As these methodologies continue to mature and become more accessible, we anticipate accelerated progress in understanding how natural products interact with challenging targets, ultimately enabling more rational development of these compounds into targeted therapeutics. The future of natural product research will increasingly depend on strategic adaptation of these specialized methodologies to overcome the persistent challenges associated with membrane proteins and protein-protein interactions.

High-Throughput Screening (HTS) represents a foundational paradigm in modern drug discovery, enabling researchers to rapidly test thousands to millions of chemical or biological compounds for activity against therapeutic targets. The global HTS market is experiencing substantial growth, projected to expand from $23.8 billion in 2024 to $39.2 billion by 2029, reflecting a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 10.5% [89]. This growth is largely driven by technological advancements that have transformed HTS from a manual, low-throughput process to a highly automated, integrated workflow capable of accelerating every phase of drug development. Within the specific context of natural products research—where identifying the mechanistic targets of complex bioactive compounds remains a primary challenge—the integration of automation technologies has become indispensable for managing the inherent complexity and scale of these investigations.

The workflow for target identification of natural products presents unique challenges, as these compounds often interact with multiple cellular targets and operate through complex mechanisms that are not easily elucidated through traditional methods. Automation integration addresses these challenges by standardizing procedures, reducing human error, and generating reproducible, high-quality data at scales impossible to achieve manually. For research teams focused on natural product mechanisms, implementing automated HTS workflows can mean the difference between years of tedious experimentation and a streamlined, efficient path to validating therapeutic targets.

Current HTS Technology Landscape and Market Leaders

The HTS technology ecosystem has evolved into a sophisticated landscape of integrated systems spanning liquid handling, assay detection, data management, and specialized screening platforms. Understanding this landscape is crucial for selecting appropriate technologies for natural products research.

Key Market Segments and Innovative Approaches

Several technological approaches have emerged as particularly impactful for modern HTS workflows:

• Cell-Based Assays: These assays are increasingly favored in HTS due to their ability to provide more biologically relevant data within physiological contexts compared to traditional biochemical assays. The demand for cell-based HTS continues to rise as researchers recognize the importance of cellular environment for understanding compound activity [89].
• 3D Cell Cultures and Organoids: Innovations in 3D cell culture technology are revolutionizing HTS by offering superior in vitro models that more closely mimic human tissues and disease states. These advanced model systems provide more predictive data for natural products screening, especially for complex mechanisms of action [89].
• High-Content Screening (HCS): The integration of automated imaging and advanced data analytics in HTS enhances drug discovery by enabling deeper insights into cellular responses. HCS platforms combine automated microscopy with sophisticated image analysis to extract multiparametric data from each sample, providing rich information about phenotypic changes induced by natural product treatments [89].

Leading HTS Technology Providers

Table 1: Leading Companies in the HTS Automation Landscape

Company	Key HTS Technologies	Specialized Capabilities
Danaher Corp.	GeneData software, Molecular Devices platforms	High-content screening, automated imaging solutions, enhanced data analysis for drug screening accuracy
Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.	Automation systems, liquid handling, assay development	Advanced screening platforms, biopharmaceutical research acceleration
Agilent Technologies Inc.	Cell-based assays, liquid chromatography	Robust automation tools for workflow streamlining in drug discovery

The HTS market is dominated by established leaders who provide integrated solutions. Danaher Corp., through its subsidiaries including Molecular Devices, delivers high-content screening and automated imaging solutions that enhance data analysis and drug screening accuracy [89]. Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. offers advanced HTS technologies including automation, liquid handling, and assay development capabilities that accelerate drug discovery and biopharmaceutical research [89]. Agilent Technologies Inc. provides sophisticated HTS solutions, including cell-based assays and liquid chromatography, with robust automation tools that help streamline workflows in drug discovery [89].

Target Identification Strategies for Natural Products

Identifying the molecular targets of natural products represents a significant challenge in mechanistic research. These compounds often exhibit complex polypharmacology, interacting with multiple cellular targets to produce their therapeutic effects. Several experimental approaches have been developed to address this challenge, each with distinct strengths and applications.

Chemical Probe Approaches

Chemical probe approaches represent one of the most powerful strategies for target identification of natural products. These methods involve designing modified versions of natural products that retain biological activity while incorporating functional groups that enable target identification.

Compound-Centered Chemical Proteomics (CCCP)

CCCP is a straightforward strategy that identifies target proteins based on their interactions with natural products. In this approach, natural product molecules are immobilized on an insoluble support, which is then used to adsorb target proteins with specific affinity from cell lysates [30]. After elution, target proteins interacting with the affinity molecules are identified through polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (PAGE) and high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) [30]. This method has been successfully applied to identify targets of various natural products, including withaferin A, handelin, triptolide, and celastrol [30].

The CCCP approach typically employs probes consisting of three structural components: (1) the active group derived from the natural product that binds to target proteins; (2) a reporter group (biotin, radio-labeled, or fluorescent-labeled tags) for target-probe complex positioning and purification; and (3) a linker connecting the active and reporter groups, providing sufficient space to prevent interference [30]. Biotin is particularly widely used due to its strong binding capacity for streptavidin proteins, enabling efficient immobilization and purification.

Figure 1: CCCP Workflow for Target Identification

Activity-Based Protein Profiling (ABPP)

ABPP represents a complementary chemical proteomics approach that uses directed probes to monitor functional protein classes within complex proteomes. While the search results do not provide extensive details on ABPP, this method typically employs covalent inhibitors that target enzyme active sites, enabling profiling of functional states in native systems.

Label-Free Methodologies

Label-free methodologies have emerged as powerful alternatives for target identification that exploit the energetic and biophysical features accompanying macromolecule-compound associations in their native forms [90]. These approaches include techniques such as:

• Cellular Thermal Shift Assay (CETSA): Measures thermal stabilization of proteins upon ligand binding
• Drug Affinity Responsive Target Stability (DARTS): Assesses protease resistance of protein targets when bound to compounds
• Surface Plasmon Resonance (SPR): Detects real-time biomolecular interactions without labeling
• Thermal Proteome Profiling (TPP): Combines CETSA with mass spectrometry for proteome-wide target identification

Label-free methods offer particular advantages for natural products research because they avoid chemical modification of compounds, which can alter their bioactivity or mechanism of action. These techniques can be particularly useful when considering unique features of natural product chemistry and bioactivation [90].

Bioinformatics and Omics Approaches

Advanced computational and omics-based methods have increasingly complemented experimental approaches for target identification:

• Network Pharmacology: Analyzes natural product actions in the context of biological networks including drug-target, protein-protein interaction, and metabolic networks [91]
• Chemical Space Analysis: Uses principal component analysis (PCA) of molecular descriptors to compare natural products with FDA-approved drugs [91]
• Virtual Screening: Computational docking of natural product libraries against protein targets to identify potential interactions [91]

Table 2: Comparison of Target Identification Methods for Natural Products

Method	Key Principle	Advantages	Limitations	Example Applications
CCCP	Immobilized NPs capture target proteins from lysates	Direct binding assessment, compatible with MS analysis	Potential activity loss from immobilization, non-specific binding	Withaferin A, triptolide, celastrol target identification
Label-Free (CETSA)	Thermal stability shift upon ligand binding	No compound modification, works in cellular contexts	Limited to stabilizing interactions, complex data interpretation	Cellular target engagement studies
Affinity Purification	Target 'fishing' using functionalized NPs	Can identify novel targets, works with complex mixtures	Requires sufficient binding affinity, probe synthesis challenge	Artemisinin, berberine, ginsenosides
Bioinformatics	Computational prediction of targets	High throughput, low cost, hypothesis generation	Requires experimental validation, limited by database coverage	Network pharmacology analysis

Automation Integration in HTS Workflows

The integration of automation technologies has transformed HTS from a bottleneck to a powerhouse in drug discovery. Automated systems enhance nearly every aspect of the screening process, delivering substantial improvements in efficiency, accuracy, and throughput.

Core Automation Technologies

Automated Liquid Handling

Liquid handling automation represents the cornerstone of modern HTS workflows. These systems precisely manage the transfer of reagents and compounds in volumes ranging from nanoliters to milliliters, enabling the preparation of thousands of assay plates with minimal human intervention. Advanced systems like the I.DOT Liquid Handler offer non-contact dispensing as low as 4 nL, ensuring accurate and consistent handling of even the most delicate samples [92]. The benefits of automated liquid handling include:

• Increased Speed and Throughput: Testing more compounds in less time, leading to faster research programs and accelerated drug discovery [92]
• Improved Accuracy and Consistency: Eliminating manual pipetting errors, ensuring reliable results and reducing false leads [92]
• Reduced Costs: Minimizing repeat experiments through higher accuracy and reducing reagent consumption through miniaturization [92]
• Wider Discovery Scope: Enabling testing of more comprehensive chemical libraries and complex assay formats [92]

Automated Plate Handling

HTS workflows involve managing numerous assay plates throughout screening campaigns. Automated systems utilize barcoding for plate identification and tracking, removing significant human error from the workflow [92]. These systems ensure proper plate storage, retrieval, movement between instruments, and safe disposal after screening runs, creating a seamless integrated workflow.

Automated Data Acquisition and Analysis

HTS generates massive datasets that present challenges for manual processing and analysis. Automated systems enable rapid data collection from screening instruments and utilize dedicated software to generate almost immediate insights into promising compounds [92]. This automated data processing eliminates tedious, time-consuming manual analysis prone to errors that could generate false positives or cause researchers to miss compounds showing real promise.

Integrated Automated Workflow for Natural Products Screening

A fully integrated automated HTS workflow for natural product target identification typically involves multiple coordinated systems:

Figure 2: Automated HTS Workflow for Natural Products

Experimental Protocols for Automated HTS in Target Identification

Implementing robust experimental protocols is essential for successful integration of automation in HTS workflows for natural product target identification. The following sections provide detailed methodologies for key experiments.

Automated Affinity Purification Protocol

This protocol adapts the classical affinity purification strategy for automated implementation, enabling high-throughput target fishing for natural products.

Materials and Reagents:

• Natural product of interest with appropriate functional group for derivatization
• Solid support (e.g., agarose beads, magnetic nanoparticles)
• Biotin or other affinity tag
• Cell lysate from relevant tissue or cell line
• Binding buffer (e.g., PBS with 0.1% Tween-20)
• Elution buffer (e.g., SDS-PAGE loading buffer, or competitive elution with free natural product)
• Automated liquid handling system with temperature control
• Multiwell plates or columns compatible with automation
• Mass spectrometry equipment for protein identification

Procedure:

• Probe Synthesis: Derivative the natural product with biotin or other affinity tag via a flexible linker, preserving the bioactive structure
• Immobilization: Couple the natural product probe to solid support using appropriate chemistry
• Equilibration: Transfer solid support to multiwell plates using automated liquid handling, wash with binding buffer
• Incubation: Add cell lysate to plates and incubate with shaking at 4°C for 2-4 hours to allow target binding
• Washing: Perform automated wash steps (5-10 washes) to remove non-specifically bound proteins
• Elution: Elute bound proteins using competitive elution (excess free natural product) or denaturing conditions
• Identification: Process eluted proteins for analysis by SDS-PAGE and mass spectrometry

Automation Notes: Program liquid handling systems for consistent incubation times, washing volumes, and transfer steps across multiple samples. Use barcode tracking for samples throughout the process.

Automated Cell-Based Screening Protocol

This protocol describes an automated workflow for screening natural products in cell-based assays, particularly useful for identifying compounds that modulate specific pathways or phenotypes.

Materials and Reagents:

• Cell line relevant to disease model (e.g., primary cells, engineered reporter lines)
• Natural product library in DMSO, formatted in source plates
• Cell culture reagents and multiwell assay plates
• Assay reagents (dyes, antibodies, detection reagents)
• Automated cell culture system or bioreactor
• Automated liquid handling system
• High-content imaging system or plate reader
• Environmental control to maintain cell viability during automated steps

Procedure:

• Cell Preparation: Culture cells using automated systems, harvest at appropriate density
• Plate Seeding: Dispense cell suspension into assay plates using automated liquid handling
• Compound Transfer: Pin transfer or acoustic dispensing of natural products from source plates to assay plates
• Incubation: Incubate plates under appropriate conditions for predetermined time
• Assay Implementation: Add detection reagents (fixation, staining, or live-cell dyes) using automated dispensing
• Signal Detection: Read plates using high-content imagers or plate readers
• Data Processing: Automated image analysis or data reduction to calculate activity metrics

Automation Notes: Implement scheduling to coordinate multiple steps. Include quality control checks (viability controls, reference compounds) on each plate. Optimize dispense heights and speeds to prevent cell disturbance.

Label-Free Target Engagement Protocol

This protocol describes an automated implementation of cellular thermal shift assay (CETSA) for evaluating target engagement of natural products in intact cells.

Materials and Reagents:

• Relevant cell line
• Natural products in DMSO
• PBS or other physiological buffer
• PCR plates and seals
• Real-time PCR instrument with temperature gradient capability
• Automated liquid handling system
• Lysis buffer with protease inhibitors
• Protein quantification reagents

Procedure:

• Cell Treatment: Incubate cells with natural products or vehicle control for appropriate time
• Heating: Dispense cell aliquots into PCR plates, heat at different temperatures (e.g., 37-65°C) using gradient PCR instrument
• Lysis: Add lysis buffer to all samples using automated dispensing
• Separation: Centrifuge plates to separate soluble protein from aggregates
• Protein Quantification: Transfer soluble fraction to new plates, quantify target protein levels by immunoassay or other specific detection
• Data Analysis: Calculate thermal stability shifts induced by natural product binding

Automation Notes: Program temperature gradients and transfer steps for high-throughput implementation. Include positive and negative controls on each plate.

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Successful implementation of automated HTS workflows for natural product research requires specific reagents and materials optimized for automation compatibility.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Automated Natural Products Screening

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function in Workflow	Automation Considerations
Natural Product Libraries	Pre-formatted collections in DMSO, UNPD (Universal Natural Products Database) with 197,201 compounds [91]	Source of chemical diversity for screening	Solubility, concentration standardization, plate formatting compatibility
Cell Culture Systems	3D cell cultures, organoids, engineered reporter lines [89]	Biologically relevant assay systems	Consistency, scalability, viability maintenance during automated processing
Detection Reagents	Fluorescent dyes, luminescent substrates, antibodies	Signal generation for activity assessment	Stability, compatibility with automated dispensers, minimal background
Affinity Matrices	Streptavidin-coated beads, activated agarose, magnetic nanoparticles [30]	Target capture and purification	Binding capacity, non-specific binding minimization, automation compatibility
Assay Plates	Multiwell plates (96, 384, 1536-well formats)	Reaction vessels for screening	Well geometry, surface treatment, evaporation control, barcoding
Liquid Handling Consumables	Tips, reservoirs, tubing	Reagent transfer and dispensing	Precision, compatibility with automation systems, low adhesion surfaces

Comparative Performance Data

Evaluating the performance of different HTS and automation approaches requires examination of multiple parameters, from throughput and cost to data quality and success rates.

Table 4: Performance Comparison of HTS Automation Approaches

Parameter	Manual Methods	Semi-Automated Systems	Fully Automated Platforms
Throughput (compounds/day)	100-1,000	1,000-10,000	10,000-100,000+
Typical Assay Volume	50-100 μL	10-50 μL	5-25 μL (nL for some applications)
Data Consistency (CV)	15-25%	10-15%	5-10%
Setup Cost	$10,000-$50,000	$50,000-$200,000	$200,000-$1,000,000+
Operational Cost per Compound	$5-20	$1-5	$0.10-1
Error Rate	High (human-dependent)	Moderate	Low (system-dependent)
Adaptability to New Assays	High	Moderate	Low to Moderate

The integration of automation in HTS workflows delivers measurable benefits across multiple dimensions. Organizations implementing automated screening report 70% reduction in screening time per candidate, lower cost per hire through improved efficiency, and better quality of data through standardized processes [93]. In natural products research specifically, automation enables the expansion of screening scope, allowing researchers to test more comprehensive arrays of potential therapeutics, including extensive chemical libraries and complex natural product mixtures [92].

Future Directions and Emerging Technologies

The field of HTS and automation continues to evolve rapidly, with several emerging technologies poised to further transform natural product research:

• AI Integration: Machine learning algorithms are increasingly being applied to HTS data analysis, enabling more efficient hit identification and optimization [89] [92]. AI-powered platforms can analyze complex screening data to identify subtle patterns and predict compound behavior.
• Advanced Detection Modalities: New detection technologies, including improved high-content imaging and hyperspectral approaches, provide richer data from each screening experiment [89].
• Miniaturization and Microfluidics: Continued reduction of assay volumes through microfluidics and nanodispensing technologies decreases reagent costs and enables higher density screening [92].
• Autonomous Experimentation: Some advanced systems now incorporate decision-making algorithms that can design and execute follow-up experiments based on initial results, creating self-optimizing screening workflows [94].

For research teams focused on natural product target identification, staying abreast of these technological developments is essential for maintaining competitive advantage and accelerating the pace of discovery. The integration of advanced automation with sophisticated target identification methodologies represents the most promising path forward for unraveling the complex mechanisms of natural products and translating these insights into novel therapeutics.

From Candidate to Confirmed Target: Rigorous Validation and Technology Assessment

In modern drug discovery, particularly for complex natural products, establishing a robust validation cascade is paramount for distinguishing genuine therapeutic breakthroughs from mere experimental artifacts. A multi-pronged validation strategy systematically progresses from cellular models to in vivo systems, providing increasingly physiological relevant evidence for target engagement and therapeutic efficacy. This approach is especially crucial for natural product research, where multi-target mechanisms and complex pharmacokinetics present unique validation challenges [95] [96].

The validation cascade serves as a critical filtering mechanism, ensuring that only targets with strong therapeutic potential advance further in the drug development pipeline. By employing complementary models at each stage, researchers can mitigate the limitations of individual systems and build compelling evidence for therapeutic utility [97]. This comparative guide examines the performance of various validation technologies and models, providing experimental data and methodologies to inform strategic decisions in natural product mechanism research.

Comparative Performance of Validation Technologies

Quantitative Assessment of Validation Approaches

Table 1: Performance comparison of target validation technologies

Technology	Key Strengths	Key Limitations	Throughput	Physiological Relevance	Best Use Cases
RNAi Knockdown	High specificity; tunable knockdown; established protocols [98]	Transient effects; potential off-target artifacts [99]	Medium-High	Medium	Initial target screening; functional genetics
CRISPR Knockout	Permanent modification; complete gene disruption; high specificity [99]	Complex delivery; potential compensatory mechanisms	Medium	Medium	Definitive target requirement studies
Inducible Systems	Temporal control; avoids developmental compensation [98]	Leaky expression; technical complexity	Low-Medium	Medium-High	Essential gene validation; toxicity studies
Xenograft Models	Human tumor context; preclinical standard [98]	Lack of tumor microenvironment; immune-deficient	Low	Medium	Oncology target validation
GEMMs (Genetically Engineered Mouse Models)	Intact microenvironment; disease pathophysiology [98] [97]	Time-consuming; expensive; species differences	Low	High	Physiological validation; biomarker discovery

Experimental Data from Validation Studies

Table 2: Representative experimental outcomes across validation models

Target/Therapeutic	Cellular Model Results	In Vivo Model Results	Key Findings	Clinical Translation
KRAS(G12C) Inhibition [100]	Molecular docking scores: -14.50 to -10.53 kcal/mol; MD simulations: stable RMSD <2Å	Reduced tumor growth in xenograft models (not explicitly shown in search results)	Natural compound NA/EA-3 showed superior binding affinity (ΔG -54.42 kcal/mol) vs. Sotorasib (-32.88 kcal/mol) [100]	Preclinical validation complete; clinical trials pending
GLP-1 Natural Agonists [95]	GLP-1 secretion increase: 1.5-3.0 fold; TXNIP downregulation: 40-60% reduction	Improved glucose tolerance; reduced oxidative stress markers in metabolic syndrome models	Dual-target engagement demonstrated; synergistic effects on metabolic parameters [95]	Several natural products in preclinical development
Gambogic Acid Nanoformulations [96]	IC50 improvement: 2-5 fold vs. free compound; apoptosis induction: 30-50% increase	Tumor growth inhibition: 60-80% vs. controls; reduced systemic toxicity: 50% reduction [96]	Nanodelivery overcome solubility limitations and enhanced therapeutic index	Phase II clinical trials initiated (NCT04386915)
CDK9 Inhibition for MYC-driven HCC [98]	shRNA screen identified CDK9 dependency; proliferation reduced by 70-80%	Tumor regression in MYC-driven liver cancer models; improved survival	Synthetic lethal interaction exploited; validated in physiologically relevant models [98]	Lead optimization stage

Experimental Protocols for Validation Cascade

Phase 1: Initial Cellular Target Validation

Protocol: CRISPR-Mediated Gene Knockout for Essentiality Testing

Objective: Determine if target gene is essential for cancer cell survival or transformation.

Materials:

• CRISPR-Cas9 system (lentiviral vectors)
• Target-specific sgRNAs (minimum 3 independent sequences)
• Appropriate cell lines (cancer and normal counterparts)
• Selection antibiotics (puromycin, blasticidin)
• Cell viability assays (MTT, CellTiter-Glo)
• Apoptosis detection kits (Annexin V, caspase assays)

Methodology:

• Design and clone sgRNAs targeting gene of interest into lentiviral vectors
• Transduce target cells at low MOI (<1) to ensure single copy integration
• Select transduced cells with appropriate antibiotics for 5-7 days
• Monitor cell proliferation for 14-21 days post-selection
• Quantify viability differences vs. non-targeting control sgRNAs
• Confirm knockout efficiency via Western blot and sequencing
• Perform rescue experiments with cDNA expression to confirm on-target effects

Quality Controls: Include multiple sgRNAs to control for off-target effects; use non-targeting sgRNA controls; confirm protein-level knockdown; perform rescue experiments [99].

Phase 2: In Vivo Target Validation

Protocol: Inducible shRNA in Genetically Engineered Mouse Models

Objective: Validate target requirement in physiological context with temporal control.

Materials:

• Tet-On/Off inducible shRNA system [98] [99]
• Embryonic stem cells for model generation
• Tissue-specific Cre recombinase mice
• Doxycycline chow or injection
• Molecular imaging equipment (IVIS, MRI)
• Tissue processing equipment for histology

Methodology:

• Generate genetically engineered mouse models with inducible shRNA system
• Initiate gene knockdown after tumor development or disease onset using doxycycline
• Monitor disease progression through molecular imaging and functional assays
• Assess tumor growth regression or disease modification
• Analyze tissues for biomarker changes and pathway modulation
• Evaluate potential toxicities in normal tissues

Key Advantages: Avoids developmental compensation; models therapeutic intervention timing; enables assessment of target inhibition in adult animals [98].

Visualization of Validation Workflows

Multi-Pronged Validation Cascade Workflow

Diagram 1: Multi-Pronged Validation Cascade Workflow - This comprehensive workflow illustrates the sequential progression from cellular to in vivo validation, emphasizing parallel approaches at each tier to build robust evidence for therapeutic targets.

Natural Product Multi-Target Mechanism

Diagram 2: Natural Product Multi-Target Mechanism - This diagram illustrates the dual-pathway engagement demonstrated by natural products targeting both GLP-1 signaling and TXNIP-thioredoxin antioxidant systems, creating synergistic therapeutic effects for metabolic syndrome [95].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

Table 3: Key research reagents for validation cascades

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function in Validation	Considerations for Natural Products
Gene Editing Tools	CRISPR-Cas9 systems; RNAi (shRNA/siRNA); Inducible Tet systems [98] [99]	Target perturbation; essentiality testing	Off-target control critical for complex extracts; multiple sgRNAs recommended
Cell-Based Assays	Cell viability assays (MTT, CellTiter-Glo); apoptosis kits; migration/invasion assays	Functional consequence assessment	Solubility considerations; vehicle controls; concentration optimization
Animal Models	Xenograft models; GEMMs; Disease-specific models (e.g., metabolic syndrome) [95] [97]	Physiological context evaluation	Pharmacokinetic challenges; bioavailability enhancement strategies
Imaging Technologies	IVIS imaging; MRI; Micro-CT; Bioluminescence reporters	Non-invasive monitoring	Natural product autofluorescence considerations; reporter compatibility
Omics Technologies	RNA-Seq; Proteomics; Metabolomics platforms [101]	Mechanism of action studies	Multi-target effect characterization; network pharmacology analysis
Natural Product Screening	African Natural Products Database; Traditional medicine libraries [100]	Lead identification	Authenticity verification; standardization challenges

Establishing a multi-pronged validation cascade from cellular to in vivo models provides the rigorous evidence necessary to advance natural product therapeutics toward clinical application. The comparative data presented in this guide demonstrates that no single model system suffices for comprehensive target validation—rather, a strategic sequence of complementary approaches builds the strongest case for therapeutic potential.

For natural product research specifically, this validation framework must address unique challenges including multi-target mechanisms, bioavailability limitations, and complex pharmacokinetics. Integration of computational approaches with experimental validation at each stage, coupled with innovative delivery strategies like nanocarriers, can overcome these hurdles [95] [96]. The most successful validation campaigns will continue to leverage multiple model systems, progressing from simple cellular assays to complex physiological models, to build an irrefutable case for therapeutic utility before advancing to clinical development.

In the field of natural product research and drug discovery, confirming a direct interaction between a bioactive molecule and its putative protein target is a critical step in target validation. Binding confirmation technologies provide the empirical evidence needed to move from hypothesis to validated mechanism, de-risking the subsequent investment in lead optimization and development. Among the most prominent label-free techniques used for this purpose are Surface Plasmon Resonance (SPR), Biolayer Interferometry (BLI), Isothermal Titration Calorimetry (ITC), and Microscale Thermophoresis (MST). Each technique operates on distinct physical principles, offering complementary information about biomolecular interactions—including binding affinity, kinetics, and thermodynamics. This guide provides an objective comparison of these four key technologies, equipping researchers with the data necessary to select the optimal method for their specific validation challenges, particularly within the context of characterizing natural product mechanisms.

Technology Comparison: Principles, Advantages, and Limitations

The following table summarizes the core characteristics, capabilities, and typical applications of SPR, BLI, ITC, and MST to facilitate an initial comparison.

Table 1: Comprehensive Comparison of Key Binding Validation Technologies

Feature	SPR	BLI	ITC	MST
Primary Principle	Measures refractive index change on a sensor surface [102]	Measures interference pattern shift from a biosensor tip [103]	Measures heat release/absorption during binding [103] [104]	Measures movement in a microscopic temperature gradient [103] [105]
Information Obtained	Affinity (KD), kinetics (kon, koff), concentration [103] [102]	Affinity (KD), kinetics (kon, koff), concentration [103] [104]	Affinity (KD), stoichiometry (N), thermodynamics (ΔH, ΔS) [103] [106] [104]	Affinity (KD), stoichiometry [103]
Throughput	Moderate to High [103] [102]	High [107]	Low [103]	Moderate [103]
Sample Consumption	Low [103] [104]	Low to Moderate	High [103] [104]	Very Low [103] [105] [104]
Label-Free	Yes [103] [102]	Yes [103] [104]	Yes [103] [104]	No (requires fluorescence) [103] [104]
Immobilization Required	Yes (one binding partner) [103]	Yes (on sensor tip) [103] [104]	No [103] [104]	No [105] [104]
Key Advantage	High-quality kinetics, high sensitivity, real-time data [103] [107] [102]	Fluidics-free, high-throughput, rapid setup [103] [107]	Complete thermodynamic profile in one experiment [103] [104]	Measures in native solution, tolerates complex mixtures [103] [105]
Key Limitation	High cost, steep learning curve, immobilization [103] [107]	Lower sensitivity & kinetic resolution vs. SPR [103] [107]	Large sample quantity, no kinetics, low throughput [103]	Requires fluorescent labeling, no kinetics [103] [104]

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Surface Plasmon Resonance (SPR)

Detailed Experimental Workflow:

• Immobilization: One binding partner (the "ligand," often the protein target) is immobilized onto a dextran polymer matrix on a gold sensor chip. This can be achieved via amine coupling, capturing through a His-tag, or other specific chemistries [102].
• Association Phase: The other binding partner (the "analyte," e.g., the natural product) is flowed in a continuous buffer stream over the sensor surface. Binding causes an increase in the refractive index, recorded in real-time as Resonance Units (RU) [102].
• Dissociation Phase: Buffer alone is flowed over the surface, allowing the bound complex to dissociate. The decay of the signal is monitored.
• Regeneration: A mild acidic or basic solution is injected to remove any remaining bound analyte, returning the sensor surface to its baseline state for the next cycle.
• Data Analysis: The resulting sensorgram (a plot of RU vs. time) is fitted to a binding model (e.g., 1:1 Langmuir) to extract the association rate (k_on), dissociation rate (k_off), and the equilibrium dissociation constant (K_D = k_off/k_on) [102].

Isothermal Titration Calorimetry (ITC)

Detailed Experimental Workflow:

• Sample Preparation: The macromolecule (e.g., protein target) is placed in the sample cell, and the ligand (e.g., natural product) is loaded into the injection syringe. Both samples must be in identical buffer conditions to minimize dilution heat artifacts [106].
• Titration and Measurement: The instrument performs a series of sequential injections of the ligand into the macromolecule solution. After each injection, the instrument measures the power (microcalories/sec) required to maintain a constant temperature between the sample and reference cell, which is directly proportional to the heat released or absorbed upon binding.
• Control Experiment: A control titration (ligand into buffer only) is essential to measure and subtract the heat of dilution [106].
• Data Analysis: The integrated heat peaks from the control experiment are subtracted from the binding experiment. The normalized heats are plotted against the molar ratio and fitted to a model to obtain the binding affinity (K_D), enthalpy change (ΔH), stoichiometry (N), and entropy change (ΔS) [106]. The stoichiometry parameter (N) is sensitive to the active concentration and accurate determination of sample concentration is critical [106].

Microscale Thermophoresis (MST)

Detailed Experimental Workflow (Using a GFP-Fusion Protein in Lysate):

• Fluorescent Labelling: The target protein must be fluorescent. This can be achieved by purifying and chemically labelling the protein, or more efficiently, by using a GFP-fusion protein expressed in a cell line [105].
• Lysate Preparation (if using GFP-fusion): Cells expressing the GFP-tagged target protein are lysed using a non-denaturing lysis buffer, often with sonication or detergents, followed by centrifugation to remove debris [105].
• Sample Preparation: The fluorescent target (in lysate or purified) is mixed with a serial dilution of the unlabeled binding partner. The solution is loaded into glass capillaries.
• Measurement: An infrared laser creates a microscopic temperature gradient in the solution. The movement of the fluorescent molecules through this gradient (thermophoresis) is monitored via their fluorescence. Binding-induced changes in size, charge, or hydration shell alter this movement [103] [105].
• Data Analysis: The normalized fluorescence is plotted against the ligand concentration, and the resulting binding curve is fitted to determine the K_D [105].

Biolayer Interferometry (BLI)

Detailed Experimental Workflow:

• Immobilization: One binding partner (the "ligand") is immobilized onto the surface of a fiber-optic biosensor tip.
• Baseline: The tip is immersed in buffer to establish a baseline interference pattern.
• Loading: The tip is immersed in a solution containing the ligand to load onto the sensor surface.
• Association: The tip is moved to a well containing the "analyte." Binding causes a shift in the interference pattern, which is monitored in real-time.
• Dissociation: The tip is moved back to a buffer well to monitor dissociation.
• Data Analysis: Similar to SPR, the binding curve is analyzed to extract kinetic and affinity parameters, though the data resolution is generally lower than SPR [107].

Visualizing Workflows and Signaling Contexts

The following diagrams illustrate the core principles of SPR and ITC, and situate these technologies within a broader research pathway for natural product mechanism identification.

Diagram 1: Target Validation Workflow

Diagram 2: SPR Operating Principle

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

The table below lists key reagents and materials required for successful binding experiments, drawing from the cited protocols.

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Binding Assays

Reagent / Material	Function / Description	Technology Applicability
Sensor Chips (e.g., CM5, NTA, SA)	Functionalized gold surfaces for covalent or capture-based immobilization of the ligand.	SPR [102]
BLI Biosensor Tips	Fiber-optic sensors with various surface chemistries (e.g., Anti-GST, Ni-NTA, Streptavidin) for dip-and-read assays.	BLI [103] [107]
GFP-Fusion Protein Construct	Enables the target protein to be fluorescent without purification for binding studies directly in cell lysates.	MST [105]
High-Purity Buffer Components	Essential for preparing matched sample and reference buffers to minimize heat of dilution artifacts in sensitive measurements.	ITC (critical) [106], all techniques
Protease/Phosphatase Inhibitor Cocktails	Added to lysis and binding buffers to maintain protein integrity and activity, especially in lysate-based experiments.	MST (lysate work) [105], general protein work
Non-denaturing Detergents (e.g., NP-40)	Used in lysis and binding buffers to solubilize membrane proteins or maintain complex stability without disrupting native conformation.	MST [105], general protein work
Test Ligands (e.g., RNase A)	Well-characterized interacting pairs used in performance validation tests to ensure instrument and assay functionality.	ITC [106], general QC

SPR, BLI, ITC, and MST each offer a powerful, label-free approach to confirming biomolecular interactions, yet they are distinguished by the type and quality of information they provide, their sample requirements, and their operational complexity. SPR remains a versatile tool for applications requiring high-quality kinetic data. BLI offers a complementary, higher-throughput alternative for screening. ITC is unparalleled for providing a full thermodynamic profile, while MST requires minimal sample and can function in biologically complex environments like cell lysates. The choice of technology is not a question of which is universally "best," but which is most appropriate for the specific research question, sample constraints, and desired information within the target validation pipeline. For researchers investigating natural products, where targets may be unknown and protein purification challenging, MST's ability to work with impure samples and ITC's ability to work without immobilization are particularly significant advantages. Ultimately, these technologies are often used in a complementary fashion to build an irrefutable case for target engagement.

In the field of natural product mechanisms research and drug development, target identification is merely the first step; subsequent functional validation is crucial for confirming a biomolecule's role in a disease pathway. Over the years, technological advances have provided scientists with a powerful toolkit for probing gene and protein function. Among the most critical platforms are Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR) for genomic editing, RNA interference (RNAi) for transcriptional silencing, and targeted degradation tag (dTAG/aTAG) systems for post-translational protein control. Each platform operates at a distinct level of the central dogma—DNA, RNA, and protein, respectively—offering complementary yet unique advantages and limitations. This guide provides an objective comparison of these three functional validation platforms, framing their performance within the context of target identification and validation workflows. By synthesizing experimental data and protocols, we aim to equip researchers with the information necessary to select the optimal strategy for their specific validation challenges, thereby accelerating the translation of natural product discoveries into viable therapeutic candidates.

The following table summarizes the core characteristics, advantages, and limitations of CRISPR, RNAi, and dTAG systems, providing a high-level overview for initial platform selection.

Table 1: Core Characteristics of Functional Validation Platforms

Feature	CRISPR	RNAi	dTAG System
Primary Mechanism	DNA-level knockout (or knock-in) via endonuclease cleavage [108]	mRNA-level knockdown via transcript degradation or translational blockade [108]	Post-translational protein degradation via hijacking ubiquitin-proteasome system [109]
Level of Action	Genomic DNA	Messenger RNA (mRNA)	Protein
Key Components	Cas nuclease (e.g., Cas9), guide RNA (gRNA) [110]	Double-stranded RNA (dsRNA), Dicer, RISC complex, Argonaute [108]	Fusion protein (FKBP12F36V-POI), heterobifunctional degrader (e.g., dTAG-13), E3 ubiquitin ligase [109]
Temporal Control	Permanent (for knockouts) to irreversible	Transient and reversible	Rapid, acute, and reversible [109]
Typical Effect	Complete and permanent gene knockout (frameshift indels) [108]	Partial and transient gene silencing (knockdown)	Acute and targeted protein degradation [109]
Key Advantage	High specificity, permanent effects, enables precise edits and knock-ins [111]	Ease of use, suitable for studying essential genes where knockout is lethal [108]	Rapid, acute perturbation ideal for studying proteins with fast turnover or in dynamic processes [109]
Key Limitation	Potential for off-target edits; lethal for essential genes	High off-target effects due to seed sequence homology; incomplete silencing [108]	Requires genetic fusion of a tag to the protein of interest (POI) [112]

The following diagram illustrates the fundamental mechanisms of action for each technology at their respective levels of the central dogma.

Performance Data and Experimental Considerations

A deeper comparison of specificity, efficiency, and temporal resolution is critical for experimental design. The quantitative and qualitative data below, drawn from published studies, provides a basis for predicting platform performance.

Table 2: Performance and Experimental Design Comparison

Aspect	CRISPR	RNAi	dTAG System
Specificity (Off-Target Effects)	Moderate to High; improved with high-fidelity Cas9 variants and optimized gRNA design [108] [111]	Low to Moderate; high off-target potential due to partial sequence complementarity and interferon response [108]	High; degradation is specific to the tagged protein, but the degrader molecule can have off-target effects on endogenous E3 ligase complexes [112]
Efficiency	High (for knockouts); efficiency depends on gRNA design, delivery, and cell repair mechanisms [110]	Variable; highly dependent on siRNA design, cell type, and transfection efficiency [108]	High and rapid; target protein degradation often occurs within hours [109]
Persistence of Effect	Permanent (for knockouts)	Transient (days to a week)	Acute and reversible; protein levels recover after degrader washout [109]
Key Experimental Variable	gRNA design and specificity; Cas9 variant; delivery method	siRNA/shRNA design; transfection/transduction efficiency	Efficiency of tag knock-in; specificity and pharmacokinetics of the degrader molecule [112]
Ideal Use Case	Validating non-essential gene function; creating stable knockout cell lines; precise genome engineering.	Studying essential genes where complete knockout is lethal; high-throughput screens; transient suppression.	Studying acute protein function; validating drug targets with rapid kinetics; modeling therapeutic inhibition.

Key Experimental Protocols

To ensure reproducible results, standardized protocols are essential. Below are summarized core methodologies for each platform.

CRISPR-Cas9 Knockout Workflow

• gRNA Design and Selection: Use bioinformatics tools (e.g., CHOPCHOP, CRISPResso) to design and select gRNAs with high on-target efficiency and minimal off-target potential [110]. The gRNA is typically 20 nucleotides long and must be adjacent to a Protospacer Adjacent Motif (PAM) sequence (NGG for SpCas9).
• Component Delivery: Deliver the Cas9 nuclease and gRNA into the target cells. Common methods include:
  • Plasmid Transfection: Delivering plasmids encoding both Cas9 and the gRNA.
  • Ribonucleoprotein (RNP) Transfection: Directly delivering the pre-complexed Cas9 protein and synthetic gRNA. This method offers higher editing efficiency and reduced off-target effects [108].
• Validation of Editing: After delivery, cells are screened for edits.
  • Method: The T7 Endonuclease I assay or Tracking of Indels by Decomposition (TIDE) analysis can be used to detect insertion/deletion (indel) mutations at the target site. For clonal populations, Sanger sequencing of the target locus is performed to confirm the knockout [108].

RNAi Knockdown Workflow

• siRNA/shRNA Design: Design 21-23 nucleotide siRNAs or shRNAs against the target mRNA. Algorithms are used to predict sequences with high silencing efficacy and reduce seed-based off-target effects. Chemical modifications can enhance stability and reduce immunogenicity [108].
• Introduction into Cells:
  • siRNA: Synthesized chemically and delivered via transfection (e.g., lipofection). Effects are transient.
  • shRNA: Encoded in plasmid or viral vectors (e.g., lentivirus) and delivered via transduction. Allows for stable, long-term expression.
• Efficiency Validation: Assess knockdown efficiency 48-72 hours post-delivery.
  • Methods: Quantitative RT-PCR to measure mRNA levels and immunoblotting (Western blot) or immunofluorescence to confirm reduction of the target protein [108].

dTAG System for Targeted Degradation

• Generation of Tagged Cell Line: Create a cell line where the protein of interest (POI) is endogenously tagged with FKBP12^F36V.
  • Method: Use CRISPR-mediated homology-directed repair (HDR) to insert the FKBP12^F36V sequence at the N- or C-terminus of the target gene locus [109]. This step is the most technically challenging and requires careful screening of clones.
• Validation of Tagged Protein: Confirm correct tagging and expression.
  • Methods: Genomic PCR, Sanger sequencing, and Western blotting with anti-FKBP12 or anti-target protein antibodies to verify the fusion protein is expressed at expected levels and is functional [112].
• Induction of Degradation and Analysis: Treat the validated cells with the heterobifunctional degrader molecule (e.g., dTAG-13).
  • Protocol: A typical dose-response experiment uses dTAG-13 at concentrations ranging from 10 nM to 1 μM for 6 to 72 hours. Degradation efficiency is monitored over time via Western blotting or an in-cell western assay [112]. Functional phenotypic assays are then conducted to assess the consequences of acute protein loss.

The following workflow diagram synthesizes these key experimental steps for each technology, highlighting their parallel stages from design to validation.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagent Solutions

Successful implementation of these functional validation platforms relies on a suite of essential reagents and tools. The table below lists key solutions required for experiments in this field.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Functional Validation

Reagent / Solution	Function in Experiment	Key Considerations
Synthetic sgRNA & Cas9 Nuclease	Core components for CRISPR editing; synthetic sgRNA with Cas9 protein (RNP format) increases efficiency and reduces off-target effects [108].	Purity, chemical modifications (to enhance stability), and specificity of the sgRNA sequence.
High-Fidelity Cas9 Variants	Engineered Cas9 proteins (e.g., SpCas9-HF1, eSpCas9) with reduced off-target activity [111].	Editing efficiency should be confirmed, as some high-fidelity variants may have slightly reduced on-target activity.
Chemically Modified siRNA	Synthetic siRNA molecules designed for target mRNA knockdown; chemical modifications improve nuclease resistance and reduce immunogenicity [108].	Selection of modification type (e.g., 2'-O-methyl), and validation of silencing efficiency with minimal off-targets.
Lentiviral shRNA Vectors	For stable, long-term gene knockdown; allow for integration into the host genome and selection of transduced cells.	Biosafety level (BSL) requirements; potential for insertional mutagenesis; need for efficient viral packaging systems.
dTAG Degrader Molecules (e.g., dTAG-13)	Heterobifunctional small molecules that bind the FKBP12F36V tag and recruit an E3 ubiquitin ligase (e.g., CRBN) to induce proteasomal degradation [109].	Solubility, stability in cell culture, optimal working concentration, and potential off-target effects on the endogenous E3 ligase complex.
Validation Antibodies	Antibodies specific to the target protein (for Western blot, immunofluorescence) to confirm knockout, knockdown, or degradation efficiency.	Specificity and validation for the application (e.g., knockout-validated antibodies for CRISPR).
Bioinformatics Design Tools	Software for designing specific gRNAs (e.g., CHOPCHOP, CRISPResso) and siRNAs, and for predicting potential off-target sites [110].	Accuracy of the underlying algorithm and the completeness of the reference genome database used.

CRISPR, RNAi, and dTAG platforms provide a versatile and powerful toolkit for target validation. The choice of technology is not one of absolute superiority but of strategic alignment with the biological question. CRISPR excels in creating definitive, permanent knockouts for functional genomics and modeling genetic diseases. RNAi, despite its limitations with off-target effects, remains a valuable tool for transient knockdowns and studying essential genes. The dTAG system introduces a paradigm of acute temporal control, enabling the study of protein function with a kinetics profile that more closely mimics a pharmacological intervention.

In the context of natural product research, where understanding the rapid, direct effects of a compound is often the goal, the dTAG system offers a particularly compelling approach for target validation. By integrating the complementary strengths of these platforms—for instance, using CRISPR to generate dTAG-tagged cell lines—researchers can construct a robust, multi-layered validation strategy. This integrated approach de-risks the target identification pipeline and paves the way for the development of more effective therapeutics.

In the evolving landscape of drug development, phenotypic drug discovery (PDD) has re-emerged as a powerful approach for identifying novel therapeutics. Unlike target-based drug discovery (TDD), which begins with a specific molecular target, PDD starts with observing compound effects on disease-relevant phenotypes or physiology without a predetermined target hypothesis [113]. This empirical, biology-first strategy has demonstrated remarkable success in producing first-in-class medicines, with modern PDD combining the original concept with advanced tools to systematically pursue drug discovery based on therapeutic effects in realistic disease models [113].

The fundamental challenge in PDD, however, lies in establishing causal relationships between target engagement (the binding of a drug to its specific molecular target) and the observed biological effect (the resulting phenotypic change). For natural products with complex mechanisms, this challenge is particularly pronounced. This guide provides a comparative analysis of experimental approaches for linking target engagement to biological effects, focusing on their applications in natural product research and their capacity to bridge the gap between phenotypic observations and molecular understanding.

Conceptual Framework: From Phenotypic Observation to Target Validation

The Phenotypic Correlation Cascade

The process of connecting phenotypic changes to specific molecular targets follows a logical cascade, illustrated below. This framework underpins all experimental approaches discussed in this guide.

Key Advantages and Historical Successes of PDD

Phenotypic approaches have significantly expanded the "druggable target space" to include unexpected cellular processes and novel mechanisms of action [113]. Notable successes include:

• Ivacaftor and correctors for cystic fibrosis: Discovered through target-agnostic screens on cells expressing disease-associated CFTR variants, leading to identification of compounds that improve CFTR channel gating and folding [113].
• Risdiplam for spinal muscular atrophy: Emerged from phenotypic screens identifying small molecules that modulate SMN2 pre-mRNA splicing, representing an unprecedented drug target and mechanism [113].
• Lenalidomide and molecular glues: The mechanism of lenalidomide was only elucidated years post-approval, revealing its ability to bind Cereblon and redirect E3 ubiquitin ligase activity [113].

Comparative Analysis of Target Identification Methods

Multiple experimental strategies have been developed to identify the molecular targets of bioactive compounds, particularly natural products with unknown mechanisms. These approaches can be broadly categorized based on their underlying principles and the type of information they provide.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Major Target Identification Approaches

Method Category	Key Principles	Typical Applications	Identification Scope	Key Limitations
Affinity-Based Methods [114] [20]	Direct physical interaction between compound and target proteins	Immobilized probes, affinity purification, photoaffinity labeling	Direct binding partners (efficacy targets & off-targets)	Requires compound modification; may miss weak/transient interactions
Functional Genomics [114]	Genetic perturbation affecting compound sensitivity	CRISPR screens, RNAi, overexpression libraries	Proteins functionally relevant to compound mechanism	Identifies indirect targets; limited by genetic compensation
Cellular Profiling [114]	Pattern matching of cellular responses	Transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomic profiling	Pathway-level mechanisms	Correlative rather than direct target identification
Bioinformatics & Knowledge-Based [114]	Computational prediction using reference databases	Chemical similarity, machine learning, network analysis	Rapid target hypotheses generation	Limited to known target space; requires experimental validation
Label-Free Methods [90]	Biophysical changes upon ligand binding	DARTS, CETSA, SPR, ITC	Direct targets without compound modification	May produce false positives; limited throughput

Quantitative Performance Metrics

The practical implementation of these methods varies significantly in their resource requirements, success rates, and technical maturity, factors crucial for experimental planning in natural product research.

Table 2: Performance Metrics and Practical Considerations

Method	Experimental Duration	Success Rate Range	Required Expertise	Equipment/Resource Intensity	Technical Maturity
Affinity Purification + MS [20]	2-4 weeks	Medium (40-70%)	Synthetic chemistry, proteomics	High (MS instrumentation)	Well-established
ABPP [20] [30]	3-6 weeks	Medium-High (50-80%)	Chemical biology, proteomics	High (MS, probe synthesis)	Established
CETSA [90]	1-2 weeks	Medium (50-70%)	Cell biology, proteomics	Medium-High (MS, thermocyclers)	Emerging-established
CRISPR Screens [114]	4-8 weeks	High (60-85%)	Molecular biology, bioinformatics	High (sequencing, library resources)	Emerging-established
Transcriptomic Profiling [114]	1-3 weeks	Medium (40-70%)	Bioinformatics, molecular biology	Medium (sequencing)	Well-established

Experimental Protocols for Key Methodologies

Compound-Centric Chemical Proteomics (CCCP)

CCCP represents one of the most direct approaches for target identification, particularly suitable for natural products with undefined mechanisms [20] [30]. The workflow integrates synthetic chemistry with functional proteomics to comprehensively identify protein targets.

Detailed Protocol: Affinity Matrix Preparation and Target Fishing

Step 1: Probe Design Considerations

• Reactive Group Selection: Derive from parent natural product while preserving pharmacological activity [20]. Common sites include hydroxyl, carboxyl, or amino groups.
• Linker Optimization: Incorporate cleavable linkers (e.g., disulfide, photo-cleavable) to facilitate gentle elution. Length typically 8-20 atoms to minimize steric hindrance [30].
• Reporter Tags: Biotin for streptavidin-based purification, fluorescent tags (e.g., BODIPY, TAMRA) for visualization, or alkyne/azide groups for click chemistry conjugation [20].

Step 2: Affinity Matrix Preparation

• Activate solid support (e.g., agarose, magnetic beads) with appropriate chemistry (NHS, epoxy, thiol).
• Couple natural product derivative to activated matrix at 2-10 mM concentration in suitable buffer.
• Quench unreacted groups with ethanolamine or mercaptoethanol.
• Wash extensively with alternating pH buffers (e.g., 0.1 M acetate pH 4.0 and 0.1 M Tris pH 8.0) to remove non-covalently bound compound.

Step 3: Target Fishing from Biological Systems

• Prepare cell or tissue lysate in non-denaturing buffer (e.g., 50 mM Tris pH 7.4, 150 mM NaCl, 0.5% NP-40) with protease inhibitors.
• Pre-clear lysate with bare matrix for 1 hour at 4°C to remove non-specific binders.
• Incubate pre-cleared lysate with compound-conjugated matrix for 2-4 hours at 4°C with gentle rotation.
• Wash matrix sequentially with incubation buffer, high-salt buffer (500 mM NaCl), and low-detergent buffer (0.1% NP-40).
• Elute bound proteins with SDS-PAGE sample buffer or competitive elution with excess free natural product.

Step 4: Target Identification and Validation

• Separate eluted proteins by SDS-PAGE and visualize with silver staining or Western blotting for biotinylated probes.
• Process gel bands for in-gel tryptic digestion and LC-MS/MS analysis.
• Analyze MS data against appropriate protein databases using search engines (MaxQuant, Proteome Discoverer).
• Validate putative targets through orthogonal methods: surface plasmon resonance (SPR), cellular thermal shift assay (CETSA), or drug affinity responsive target stability (DARTS) [90] [20].

Cellular Thermal Shift Assay (CETSA)

CETSA represents a label-free approach that monitors target engagement through biophysical principles, detecting changes in protein thermal stability upon compound binding [90].

Detailed Protocol: CETSA for Natural Products

Step 1: Cell Treatment and Heating

• Culture cells in appropriate conditions and treat with natural product or vehicle control for predetermined time (typically 1-6 hours).
• Harvest cells and wash with PBS.
• Aliquot cell suspensions into PCR tubes and heat at different temperatures (e.g., 37-65°C gradient) for 3 minutes in thermal cycler.
• Freeze-thaw cycles (liquid nitrogen/37°C water bath) to lyse cells, followed by centrifugation to separate soluble protein.

Step 2: Protein Detection and Analysis

• Measure soluble protein in supernatants by Western blotting for specific targets or quantitative proteomics for unbiased approaches.
• Generate melting curves by plotting remaining soluble protein versus temperature.
• Calculate ΔTₘ (shift in melting temperature) between treated and untreated samples.
• Significant thermal shifts (typically >2°C) indicate direct target engagement.

Step 3: CETSA Variations for Different Applications

• Cellular CETSA: Performed in intact cells, preserving cellular context and compound metabolism.
• Lysate CETSA: Conducted in cell lysates, eliminating permeability and efflux issues.
• Isothermal Dose-Response CETSA (ITDRFCETSA): Measures soluble protein at fixed temperature with compound concentration gradient to determine ECâ‚…â‚€ values for binding.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

Successful investigation of phenotypic correlations requires specialized reagents and tools designed specifically for target identification and validation studies.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Phenotypic Correlation Studies

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Primary Function	Key Applications	Considerations for Natural Products
Chemical Probe Platforms [20] [30]	Photoaffinity probes (diazirine, benzophenone), Bioorthogonal probes (alkyne, azide)	Covalent capture of protein targets from complex mixtures	Affinity purification, ABPP, live-cell imaging	Requires structure-activity relationship (SAR) data; potential activity loss
Affinity Matrices [20]	NHS-activated agarose, epoxy-activated sepharose, streptavidin magnetic beads	Immobilization of natural products for target fishing	CCCP, affinity purification	Compatibility with natural product functional groups; non-specific binding
Proteomics Reagents [114] [20]	Tandem mass tags (TMT), isobaric tags (iTRAQ), trypsin/Lys-C digest kits	Multiplexed protein quantification and identification	Quantitative proteomics, pull-down experiments	Comprehensive coverage; quantification accuracy
Label-Free Detection Kits [90]	CETSA-compatible lysis buffers, thermal shift dyes, stabilization reagents	Monitor target engagement without compound modification	CETSA, DARTS, SPR	Native conditions; applicable to diverse natural products
Functional Genomics Tools [114]	CRISPR knockout libraries, RNAi collections, overexpression constructs	Systematic genetic perturbation of potential targets	Genetic screens, target validation	Off-target effects; compensatory mechanisms
Bioinformatics Resources [114]	Compound-target databases, pathway analysis tools, structural prediction software	Computational prediction and prioritization of targets	In silico target prediction, network analysis	Dependent on existing annotation quality

Integrated Workflows for Establishing Causal Relationships

Multi-Tiered Validation Strategy

Establishing convincing phenotypic correlations requires orthogonal approaches that collectively build evidence for causal relationships between target engagement and biological effects.

Case Study: Integrated Approach for Natural Product Target Identification

Example Application: Withaferin A Target Identification Multiple approaches were integrated to establish phenotypic correlations for withaferin A, a natural product with anti-inflammatory and anticancer properties:

• Initial Phenotypic Observation: Withaferin A demonstrated cytoskeletal disruption and inhibition of angiogenesis in cellular models [30].
• Target Hypothesis Generation: CCCP using immobilized withaferin A identified multiple potential targets, including intermediate filaments and signaling proteins [30].
• Engagement Validation: CETSA confirmed direct binding to vimentin, showing concentration-dependent thermal stabilization [90].
• Functional Validation: CRISPR-mediated vimentin knockout abolished withaferin A's effects on cytoskeletal organization, establishing causal relationship [114].
• Phenotypic Correlation: Strong correlation (R² > 0.85) between vimentin engagement ECâ‚…â‚€ and phenotypic ICâ‚…â‚€ across multiple cell types confirmed the primary mechanism.

This integrated approach exemplifies how combining multiple methodologies provides compelling evidence for causal relationships between target engagement and phenotypic effects.

Establishing robust links between target engagement and biological effects remains challenging yet essential for natural product research. The most successful approaches combine:

• Multiple orthogonal methods to balance strengths and limitations of individual techniques
• Quantitative correlation analyses between binding affinity and phenotypic potency
• Genetic and pharmacological validation to establish causal relationships
• Context-specific considerations accounting for cellular environment and compound metabolism

As target identification technologies continue evolving—particularly through advances in chemical proteomics, label-free methods, and computational prediction—the ability to confidently connect phenotypic observations to molecular mechanisms will dramatically accelerate natural product-based drug development.

Target identification and validation is a critical step in understanding the mechanism of action of bioactive natural products and accelerating drug discovery. This process bridges the gap between observing a phenotypic effect and understanding its molecular basis, enabling rational drug optimization and reducing late-stage attrition. Researchers today have access to a diverse toolkit of experimental and computational methodologies, each with distinct strengths, limitations, and ideal applications. This guide provides an objective comparison of these technologies, framed within the context of modern natural product research, to help scientists select the most appropriate strategies for their specific projects.

Methodology Categories at a Glance

The landscape of target identification methodologies can be broadly categorized into several approaches, as summarized in the table below.

Table 1: Comparative Overview of Major Target Identification Methodologies

Methodology Category	Key Principle	Primary Strength	Primary Limitation	Ideal Use Case
Chemical Proteomics (Probe-Based) [4] [30]	Uses designed molecular probes (biotin/fluorescent tags) to capture and identify target proteins from complex biological mixtures.	Direct physical evidence of binding; can identify novel/uncharacterized targets.	Requires complex chemical synthesis which may alter bioactivity; potential for non-specific binding.	Well-characterized natural products where a functional group for linker attachment is known.
Label-Free Biophysical Methods [90]	Measures energetic and biophysical changes (e.g., thermal stability, binding affinity) in native protein-drug interactions.	Studies compounds in their native form; no chemical modification required.	Can be technically challenging; may struggle with low-affinity or transient interactions.	Initial, non-invasive validation of suspected direct targets.
Genetics-Based Screening (e.g., CRISPR) [115]	Systematically knocks out genes to identify those whose loss affects cellular sensitivity to the compound.	Unbiased, genome-wide functional discovery; identifies pathway members.	Identifies genes in pathway, not necessarily direct binding targets; data complexity can be high.	Uncovering novel pathways and mechanisms of action for phenotypically active compounds.
Computational / In Silico Prediction [5]	Predicts targets based on ligand structural similarity or protein structure docking.	Very rapid and low-cost; generates testable hypotheses.	Reliability varies; dependent on quality and scope of underlying databases.	Prioritization of potential targets for experimental validation; drug repurposing.
Affinity Purification (Target Fishing) [4] [30]	Immobilizes the natural product on a solid support to "fish" for binding proteins from cell lysates.	A classic, well-established technique for direct target isolation.	Immobilization can block the compound's active site; risk of losing targets during washing.	Compounds with known structure-activity relationships to guide immobilization strategy.

Detailed Methodology Analysis and Experimental Protocols

Chemical Proteomics (Probe-Based Approaches)

This approach involves designing a chemical probe based on the natural product structure. The probe typically consists of three elements: the active natural product derivative, a linker region, and a reporter tag (e.g., biotin for purification or a fluorophore for visualization) [30]. The following workflow outlines a typical experimental protocol.

Key Experimental Steps [4] [30]:

• Probe Design and Synthesis: A functional group (e.g., hydroxyl, amino) on the natural product is used to attach a linker (e.g., PEG, alkyl chain) and a reporter tag, most commonly biotin. Control probes with minimal activity are also synthesized.
• Cell Lysate Incubation: The biotinylated probe is incubated with a protein lysate from relevant cells or tissues to allow binding to its cellular targets.
• Affinity Capture: Streptavidin-coated beads are added to the mixture to capture the probe and any bound proteins.
• Washing and Elution: Beads are extensively washed with buffer to remove non-specifically bound proteins. Specifically bound proteins are then eluted, often by competition with excess non-tagged natural product or by denaturation.
• Target Identification: Eluted proteins are separated by gel electrophoresis and identified using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS).
• Validation: Identified candidate targets must be validated using independent methods such as cellular thermal shift assays (CETSA) or surface plasmon resonance (SPR).

Label-Free Biophysical Methods

Label-free methodologies detect target engagement without modifying the natural product, relying on changes in the biophysical properties of the target protein. Key techniques include Cellular Thermal Shift Assay (CETSA) and Drug Affinity Responsive Target Stability (DARTS) [90].

Table 2: Key Reagents for Label-Free Target Engagement Studies

Research Reagent / Assay	Function / Principle	Application in Target ID
Cellular Thermal Shift Assay (CETSA)	Measures ligand-induced thermal stabilization of target proteins. Binding makes the protein more resistant to heat-induced aggregation.	Validates direct target engagement in a cellular context; can be used with intact cells or lysates.
Thermofluor (DSF)	A fluorescence-based method that monitors protein thermal unfolding using an environmentally sensitive dye.	A high-throughput version of thermal shift, often used with purified proteins.
Drug Affinity Responsive Target Stability (DARTS)	Exploits the principle that target proteins become less susceptible to proteolysis when bound to a ligand.	Identifies potential binding targets without requiring compound modification.
Surface Plasmon Resonance (SPR)	Measures real-time binding kinetics (association/dissociation rates) between a ligand and an immobilized protein.	Provides quantitative data on binding affinity (KD) and kinetics for validated targets.

Computational (In Silico) Target Prediction

Computational methods offer a rapid, cost-effective way to generate testable hypotheses. They are broadly divided into ligand-centric (based on structural similarity to molecules with known targets) and structure-centric (based on molecular docking to protein structures) approaches [5]. A 2025 benchmark study evaluated seven popular prediction methods on a shared dataset of FDA-approved drugs.

Table 3: Performance Comparison of Select In Silico Target Prediction Methods (Adapted from [5])

Method Name	Type	Underlying Algorithm	Key Database	Reported Performance Notes
MolTarPred	Ligand-centric	2D similarity (Morgan fingerprints)	ChEMBL 20	Most effective method in benchmark; high accuracy with Tanimoto scores.
PPB2	Ligand-centric	Nearest neighbor/Naïve Bayes/DNN	ChEMBL 22	Uses multiple fingerprints (MQN, Xfp, ECFP4).
RF-QSAR	Target-centric	Random Forest	ChEMBL 20 & 21	Uses ECFP4 fingerprints; model built for each target.
TargetNet	Target-centric	Naïve Bayes	BindingDB	Utilizes multiple fingerprint types (FP2, MACCS, ECFP).
SuperPred	Ligand-centric	2D/Fragment/3D similarity	ChEMBL & BindingDB	Based on ECFP4 fingerprint similarity.

Experimental Protocol for In Silico Prediction [5]:

• Input Preparation: The canonical SMILES string of the query natural product is generated.
• Database Query: The SMILES string is submitted to a web server (e.g., SuperPred, PPB2) or used with a stand-alone code (e.g., MolTarPred) against a reference database (e.g., ChEMBL, BindingDB).
• Similarity Calculation/Screening: For ligand-centric methods, the algorithm calculates the structural similarity between the query and all known bioactive molecules in the database, typically using molecular fingerprints (e.g., Morgan, ECFP4). For target-centric methods, a machine learning model predicts activity against a panel of predefined targets.
• Ranking and Output: Potential targets are ranked by a similarity score or a probability score. For example, MolTarPred can rank targets based on the similarity of the top 1, 5, 10, or 15 most similar known ligands [5].
• Hypothesis Generation and Validation: The top-ranked targets are considered potential hypotheses, which must be confirmed through experimental validation.

Integrated Workflows and Future Outlook

No single methodology is foolproof. The most robust target identification strategies employ an integrated, orthogonal approach. A common workflow begins with computational prediction to generate a manageable list of candidate targets, which are then validated using biophysical methods like CETSA. Finally, precise molecular interactions can be characterized using chemical biology techniques like affinity-based proteomics [115] [4].

The field is rapidly evolving with the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and big data. AI is being used to analyze complex biological data to identify novel drug targets and predict drug behavior, thereby accelerating the early stages of drug discovery [115] [116]. Furthermore, the combination of CRISPR screening with organoid models provides a more physiologically relevant system for high-throughput target identification, enhancing the translation of findings to clinically viable therapies [115]. As these technologies mature and databases expand, the efficiency and success rate of identifying the mechanisms behind bioactive natural products are expected to rise significantly.

Targeted protein degradation (TPD) has emerged as a transformative strategy in biomedical research, moving beyond traditional inhibition to the complete removal of disease-causing proteins. Among TPD strategies, Proteolysis-Targeting Chimeras (PROTACs) have established themselves as powerful tools not only for therapeutic intervention but also for fundamental biological discovery and target validation. This guide objectively examines the application of PROTAC technology for target validation and mechanism elucidation, comparing its performance against conventional approaches. We provide detailed experimental methodologies, analytical frameworks, and practical resources that enable researchers to leverage PROTACs for investigating natural product mechanisms and validating novel therapeutic targets.

PROTACs represent a paradigm shift in pharmaceutical research, offering a unique approach to probe protein function and validate therapeutic targets by inducing their direct degradation rather than mere inhibition. These heterobifunctional molecules consist of three key components: a target protein-binding ligand, an E3 ubiquitin ligase-recruiting ligand, and a connecting linker [117] [118]. By hijacking the endogenous ubiquitin-proteasome system (UPS), PROTACs facilitate the ubiquitination and subsequent degradation of specific proteins of interest (POIs), enabling researchers to study the functional consequences of protein loss rather than inhibition [119].

The significance of PROTACs in target validation stems from their unique catalytic mechanism of action. Unlike traditional small molecule inhibitors that require sustained binding to maintain target inhibition, a single PROTAC molecule can mediate the degradation of multiple POI molecules through successive cycles of binding, ubiquitination, and release [118] [119]. This event-driven pharmacology allows for more potent and sustained effects at lower concentrations and provides a more definitive method for establishing causal relationships between specific proteins and phenotypic outcomes—a cornerstone of effective target validation [117].

PROTAC Mechanism and Workflow

Molecular Mechanism of Targeted Degradation

The degradation process begins when the PROTAC molecule simultaneously engages both the target protein and an E3 ubiquitin ligase, forming a productive POI-PROTAC-E3 ternary complex [117] [120]. Within this complex, the E3 ligase transfers ubiquitin chains to lysine residues on the target protein surface. The polyubiquitinated protein is then recognized and degraded by the 26S proteasome, while the PROTAC molecule is recycled for subsequent rounds of degradation [119]. This mechanism is graphically represented below.

Experimental Workflow for Target Validation

A robust framework for utilizing PROTACs in target validation involves multiple validation steps to ensure specificity and establish causal relationships between target degradation and phenotypic outcomes. The workflow below outlines key stages from initial PROTAC design through mechanistic investigation.

Comparative Analysis: PROTACs vs. Traditional Methods

Performance Metrics for Target Validation

PROTAC technology provides distinct advantages and considerations for target validation compared to conventional approaches. The table below summarizes key comparative metrics based on current literature and experimental data.

Table 1: Performance comparison of PROTACs versus traditional methods for target validation

Validation Metric	PROTAC Degraders	Small Molecule Inhibitors	Genetic Knockdown	CRISPR Knockout
Target Specificity	High (when optimized) but potential for off-target degradation [121]	Variable; depends on compound selectivity	High but may have off-target effects	Highest specificity
Temporal Resolution	Minutes to hours (reversible)	Seconds to minutes (rapidly reversible)	Days (reversible)	Permanent (irreversible)
"Undruggable" Target Capability	High (can target scaffolds, transcription factors) [117] [122]	Low (requires functional binding pockets)	High	High
Resistance Mechanism Insight	Can overcome mutations that cause drug resistance [117] [119]	Limited to studying inhibition-specific resistance	Can study adaptive responses	May trigger compensatory mechanisms
Phenotypic Concordance	High (catalytically removes entire protein) [118]	Moderate (function-specific inhibition only)	Variable (partial reduction)	High (complete elimination)
Experimental Throughput	Moderate (requires chemical optimization)	High (readily screenable)	Moderate to high	Moderate

Analytical Techniques for PROTAC Validation

Multiple orthogonal methods are required to comprehensively validate PROTAC-mediated degradation and its functional consequences. The following table compares key analytical approaches used in the field.

Table 2: Comparison of key analytical methods for PROTAC validation

Method Category	Specific Technique	Key Measured Parameters	Throughput	Information Gained
Ternary Complex Assessment	Surface Plasmon Resonance (SPR) [123]	Binding affinity (KD), kinetics, cooperativity	Medium	Quantitative ternary complex formation metrics
	Isothermal Titration Calorimetry (ITC) [123]	Thermodynamic parameters, stoichiometry	Low	Energetics of complex formation
Cellular Degradation	Western Blotting [123]	Target protein levels over time	Low to medium	Degradation efficiency and kinetics
	Cellular Thermal Shift Assay (CETSA) [123]	Target engagement, stabilization	Medium	Direct measurement of cellular target engagement
Proteome-wide Specificity	Mass Spectrometry-Based Proteomics [123] [124]	Global protein abundance changes	Medium to high	Comprehensive on- and off-target profiling
Proximity-dependent Labeling	AirID-CRBN/VHL Systems [125]	Spatial proteome changes near E3 ligase	High	Mapping PROTAC-induced interactome changes
Functional Consequences	Phosphoproteomics [124]	Signaling pathway alterations	High	Downstream signaling network perturbations

Advanced Methodologies and Protocols

Proximity-Dependent Biotinylation for Interactome Mapping

Recent advances in proximity-dependent biotinylation techniques have significantly enhanced PROTAC validation capabilities. The AirID system, which involves fusing an engineered biotin ligase to E3 ligase domains (e.g., CRBN or VHL), enables comprehensive mapping of PROTAC-induced protein-protein interactions in live cells [125].

Detailed Protocol:

• Stable Cell Line Generation: Engineer cell lines (e.g., MM1.S multiple myeloma cells) stably expressing AirID-fused E3 ligase constructs (AirID-CRBN or VHL-AirID) using lentiviral transduction and antibiotic selection.
• PROTAC Treatment: Treat cells with PROTAC molecules of interest (e.g., ARV-825 for CRBN, MZ1 for VHL) alongside appropriate controls (DMSO, E3 ligase ligand alone).
• Biotin Labeling: Allow endogenous biotinylation to occur during PROTAC treatment (typically 3-6 hours).
• Streptavidin Pull-Down: Lyse cells and incubate with streptavidin-conjugated beads to capture biotinylated proteins.
• Protein Identification: Process captured proteins using on-bead trypsin digestion followed by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) analysis.
• Data Analysis: Identify significantly enriched proteins in PROTAC-treated samples versus controls, focusing on known targets and novel interactors.

This approach has revealed that PROTACs with identical target binders but different E3 ligase recruiters (CRBN vs. VHL) induce distinct interactome profiles, highlighting the importance of E3 ligase selection in PROTAC design and mechanism [125].

Proteomics Workflow for Degradation Profiling

Comprehensive proteomic profiling represents the gold standard for establishing PROTAC selectivity and mechanisms of action.

Detailed Protocol:

• Sample Preparation: Treat cells with PROTACs across a concentration range (e.g., 1 nM-10 μM) and multiple timepoints (1-24 hours).
• Protein Extraction and Digestion: Lyse cells, reduce and alkylate cysteine residues, then digest with trypsin.
• Peptide Labeling: Employ isobaric labeling (TMT or iTRAQ) for multiplexed quantitative comparisons.
• LC-MS/MS Analysis: Separate peptides using reverse-phase nano-liquid chromatography coupled to a high-resolution mass spectrometer operating in data-dependent acquisition mode.
• Data Processing: Identify and quantify proteins using specialized software (e.g., MaxQuant, Proteome Discoverer) against appropriate protein databases.
• Bioinformatic Analysis:
  • Calculate significance of protein abundance changes (p-value, FDR)
  • Perform pathway enrichment analysis (KEGG, Gene Ontology)
  • Generate protein-protein interaction networks
  • Integrate with phosphoproteomic data for signaling network analysis

This multi-omics approach enables researchers to not only confirm on-target degradation but also identify potential off-target effects and map downstream consequences of protein loss [124].

Research Reagent Solutions

Successful implementation of PROTAC-based validation studies requires specialized reagents and tools. The table below catalogues essential research solutions for conducting PROTAC experiments.

Table 3: Essential research reagents and tools for PROTAC-based target validation

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Key Applications	Considerations
E3 Ligase Binders	Thalidomide derivatives (CRBN) [125], VH032 (VHL) [125], Nutlin-3 (MDM2) [120]	PROTAC construction, ternary complex formation	Choice affects degradation efficiency and tissue specificity
PROTAC Molecules	ARV-110 (AR degrader) [117], ARV-471 (ER degrader) [117], dBET1 (BRD4 degrader) [119]	Positive controls, benchmark comparisons	Commercially available tool compounds facilitate method validation
Proximity Labeling Systems	AirID-CRBN [125], VHL-AirID [125], BioTac [125]	Interactome mapping, off-target identification	Enable comprehensive characterization of PROTAC-induced proximity
Proteomic Tools	TMT/iTRAQ labeling kits [124], streptavidin magnetic beads [125], DIA mass spectrometry [118]	Global degradation profiling, selectivity assessment	Provide unbiased assessment of PROTAC specificity and effects
Validation Assays	Cellular thermal shift assay kits [123], ubiquitination detection reagents [123], proteasome activity assays	Mechanism confirmation, ternary complex validation	Orthogonal validation of degradation mechanism
Specialized PROTAC Variants	Photo-caged PROTACs (e.g., DMNB-caged) [121], pro-PROTACs [121]	Spatiotemporal control, improved bioavailability	Enable precision applications and overcome delivery challenges

PROTAC technology has fundamentally expanded the toolkit available to researchers for target validation and mechanism elucidation. By enabling direct, catalytic removal of specific proteins rather than mere inhibition, PROTACs provide a more definitive method for establishing causal relationships between protein targets and phenotypic outcomes. The integrated methodologies outlined in this guide—from proximity-dependent labeling and proteomic profiling to advanced reagent systems—provide a comprehensive framework for leveraging PROTACs in both basic research and drug discovery. As the field continues to evolve, with innovations in E3 ligase recruitment, conditional degradation systems, and multi-omics integration, PROTACs are poised to remain at the forefront of target validation science, particularly for investigating complex natural product mechanisms and tackling previously "undruggable" targets.

Conclusion

The field of natural product target identification and validation is undergoing a transformative phase, driven by the convergence of advanced chemical proteomics, label-free biophysical methods, and computational intelligence. Success now hinges on a strategic, integrated approach that combines multiple complementary techniques to move confidently from initial target fishing to rigorous functional validation. Looking forward, the synergy of artificial intelligence with high-throughput experimental data, the increased application of targeted protein degradation platforms like PROTACs for validation, and the refinement of single-cell multiomics will further demystify the mechanisms of nature's most complex compounds. These advancements promise to unlock a new wave of innovative, natural product-derived medicines, ultimately bridging the historic divide between traditional knowledge and cutting-edge, target-based drug discovery for the benefit of global health.

References

• 1. Frontiers | Application of artificial intelligence large language models in... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pharmacology/articles/10.3389/fphar.2025.1597351/full]
• 2. Artificial intelligence for drug target identification [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065774325000028]
• 3. Advancing drug development with “Fit-for-Purpose” modeling ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12436579/]
• 4. Recent advances in target identification technology of ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0163725825000452]
• 5. A precise comparison of molecular target prediction methods - Digital... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/dd/d5dd00199d]
• 6. Network-based multi-omics integrative analysis methods in drug ... [https://biodatamining.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13040-025-00442-z]
• 7. Top 5 Drug Discovery Trends 2025 Driving Breakthroughs [https://www.pelagobio.com/cetsa-drug-discovery-resources/blog/drug-discovery-trends-2025/]
• 8. The latest trends in drug discovery [https://www.cas.org/resources/cas-insights/2025-drug-discovery-trends]
• 9. Emerging Target Discovery Strategies Drive the Decoding of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12380071/]
• 10. A similarity-based target prediction tool for natural products [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010482524014367]
• 11. Target fishing: from “needle in haystack” to “precise ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pharmacology/articles/10.3389/fphar.2025.1673688/full]
• 12. Recent strategies in target identification of natural products [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39428703/]
• 13. Biomedical Reports [https://www.spandidos-publications.com/10.3892/br.2017.909]
• 14. Sesterterpenoids: sources, structural , diversity activity... biological [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2025/np/d4np00041b]
• 15. Simplification of Structural Natural Products [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30730700/]
• 16. Integrating Traditional and Modern Medicine for Health [https://medhavenhealth.com/bridging-traditional-medicine-modern-healthcare/]
• 17. Bridging Ethnobotanical Knowledge and Multi-Omics ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12195599/]
• 18. Modern drug discovery using ethnobotany: A large-scale ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10494464/]
• 19. Integrating Ethnobotany and Artificial intelligence to ... [https://www.nrfhh.com/Integrating-Ethnobotany-and-Artificial-intelligence-to-validate-the-potential-bioactivity,187385,0,2.html]
• 20. Target identification of natural medicine with chemical ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-020-0186-y]
• 21. Therapeutic Target Identification and Drug Discovery ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11352082/]
• 22. The Deconvolution Revolution: Strategies for Target ... [https://momentum.bio/content/the-deconvolution-revolution-strategies-for-target-identification/]
• 23. a fully automated sample-to-data system for proteomic ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41421-025-00844-7]
• 24. Automated drug design for druggable target identification ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-18091-x]
• 25. Photoaffinity labeling in target- and binding-site identification [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4413435/]
• 26. Photo-affinity labeling (PAL) in chemical proteomics: a handy ... [https://proteomesci.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12953-017-0123-3]
• 27. Cleavable Biotin Probes for Labeling of Biomolecules via ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3016050/]
• 28. catalyzed alkyne-azide cycloaddition (CuAAC) and ... - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26853435/]
• 29. Photoaffinity Labeling - an overview [https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/photoaffinity-labeling]
• 30. Currently Available Strategies for Target Identification of ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/chemistry/articles/10.3389/fchem.2021.761609/full]
• 31. Ligand Discovery by Activity-Based Protein Profiling - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11662599/]
• 32. Activity-based protein profiling: A graphical review - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10484978/]
• 33. Activity-based protein profiling for the functional annotation of ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17901872/]
• 34. Activity-based protein profiling: Recent advances in ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0223523420301185]
• 35. Advanced Activity-Based Protein Profiling Application ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5900428/]
• 36. Recent advances in identifying protein targets of bioactive ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844024099481]
• 37. Activity-based Protein Profiling of Serine Hydrolase ... [https://en.bio-protocol.org/en/bpdetail?id=4356&type=0]
• 38. A general approach for activity-based protein profiling of ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2025/sc/d4sc08454c]
• 39. Insights of affinity-based probes for target identification in ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0223523425004763]
• 40. Advanced Activity-Based Protein Profiling Application ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pharmacology/articles/10.3389/fphar.2018.00353/full]
• 41. DARTS vs CETSA: Choosing the Right Assay for Target ... [https://www.creative-proteomics.com/resource/darts-vs-cetsa-choosing-the-right-assay-for-target-validation.htm]
• 42. CETSA and thermal proteome profiling strategies for target ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0944711323002234]
• 43. Applications of the Cellular Thermal Shift Assay to Drug ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12072176/]
• 44. An update of label-free protein target identification methods ... [https://www.thno.org/v12p1829.htm]
• 45. Labeled and Label-Free Target Identifications of Natural ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39360958/]
• 46. Current Advances in CETSA - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9218591/]
• 47. Current Advances in CETSA [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/molecular-biosciences/articles/10.3389/fmolb.2022.866764/full]
• 48. Applications of the Cellular Thermal Shift Assay to Drug ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/26/9/3940]
• 49. High-Throughput Cellular Thermal Shift Assays in ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2472555222065315]
• 50. Label-Free vs. Label-Based Quantitative Proteomics [https://silantes.com/label-vs-label-free-quantitative-proteomics/]
• 51. Comparing iTRAQ, TMT and SILAC [https://silantes.com/itraq-tmt-silac/]
• 52. Advantages and Disadvantages of iTRAQ, TMT, and SILAC ... [https://www.mtoz-biolabs.com/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-itraq-tmt-and-silac-in-protein-quantification.html]
• 53. Mass spectrometry-based relative quantification of proteins ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24448447/]
• 54. Integrated Stable Isotope Labeling by Amino Acids in Cell ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1535947620331662]
• 55. Multiplex quantitative SILAC for analysis of archaeal proteomes [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5764799/]
• 56. MS-based Relative Quantitation [https://www.rockefeller.edu/proteomics/proteomics/ms-based-quantitation/]
• 57. Why structural proteomics is the best tool for drug target ... [https://biognosys.com/know-your-target-why-structural-proteomics-is-the-best-tool-for-drug-target-validation/]
• 58. Informatics and Computational Methods in Natural Product ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6503039/]
• 59. Empowering natural product science with AI - PubMed Central [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11327853/]
• 60. Leading AI-Driven Drug Discovery Platforms [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031699725075118]
• 61. 5 Best Gen AI Tools For Drug Discovery (2025) [https://www.consainsights.com/blogs/caf4c7e5-93ec-4b39-b6d4-762c470f0aa9/gen-ai-tools-for-drug-discovery]
• 62. The Future of Drug Discovery: Why AI Is More Than Just a ... [https://www.gmp-journal.com/current-articles/details/the-future-of-drug-discovery-why-ai-is-more-than-just-a-buzzword.html]
• 63. and multi-omics-based techniques for natural product ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0753332221006156]
• 64. Research progress on the interaction of artemisinin and its ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1567576925013931]
• 65. Investigating the mechanism of artemisinin in treating ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12401449/]
• 66. Advance in identified targets of berberine [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pharmacology/articles/10.3389/fphar.2025.1500511/full]
• 67. Icariin ameliorates minimal change disease by regulating the ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12425968/]
• 68. The therapeutic potential of icariin in the intervention ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pharmacology/articles/10.3389/fphar.2025.1606912/full]
• 69. An update of label-free protein target identification methods for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8825594/]
• 70. Target identification and mechanism of action in chemical ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5543995/]
• 71. Quantitative affinity purification mass spectrometry: a versatile ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4500955/]
• 72. Accurate Protein Complex Retrieval by Affinity Enrichment ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4288248/]
• 73. Advanced Strategies in Tandem Affinity Purification (TAP) [https://www.metwarebio.com/tandem-affinity-purification-strategies-proteomics/]
• 74. Linker Length in Biotinylated Probes is Key to Identifying ... [https://www.tuat.ac.jp/en/NEWS/research/20250107_01.html]
• 75. Probing for optimal photoaffinity linkers of benzophenone ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0968089624002293]
• 76. Natural Products as Chemical Probes - PMC - PubMed Central [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2926141/]
• 77. Tag and Snag: A New Platform for Bioactive Natural ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1420-3049/28/15/5726]
• 78. Extraction, Isolation and Characterization of Bioactive ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3218439/]
• 79. Phytochemical Profile and Biological Activities of Crude ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2223-7747/10/2/195]
• 80. Plant-derived extracts and natural products with antiviral ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/virology/articles/10.3389/fviro.2025.1632734/full]
• 81. Tackling Insoluble and Difficult-to-Express Proteins [https://www.thermofisher.com/blog/behindthebench/tackling-insoluble-and-difficult-to-express-transmembrane-proteins/]
• 82. advancing protein–protein interaction structure prediction ... [https://www.drugtargetreview.com/article/188511/beyond-templates-advancing-protein-protein-interaction-structure-prediction-with-ai/]
• 83. PLM-interact: extending protein language models to predict ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-64512-w]
• 84. Hurdles and advancements in experimental membrane ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41027549/]
• 85. Membrane-mediated protein interactions drive membrane protein organization | Nature Communications [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-35202-8]
• 86. Innovative Technique Enables Rapid and Comprehensive Detection of Protein-Ligand Interactions [https://bioengineer.org/innovative-technique-enables-rapid-and-comprehensive-detection-of-protein-ligand-interactions/]
• 87. DCMF-PPI: a protein-protein interaction predictor based on ... [https://bmcbioinformatics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12859-025-06272-4]
• 88. Recent advances in deep learning for protein-protein interaction [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12168265/]
• 89. High-Throughput Screening Market: Transforming Drug ... [https://blog.bccresearch.com/high-throughput-screening-market-transforming-drug-discovery]
• 90. Target identification and validation of natural products with ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32980441/]
• 91. Use of Natural as Chemical Library for Products and... Drug Discovery [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0062839]
• 92. The Benefits of Automation in High Throughput Screening [https://dispendix.com/blog/benefits-of-automation-in-high-throughput-screening]
• 93. 15 Best High-Volume Candidate Screening Tools for 2025 [https://www.hiretruffle.com/blog/most-efficient-tools-screening-applicants]
• 94. 11 Best AI Test Automation Tools for 2025: The Third Wave [https://testguild.com/7-innovative-ai-test-automation-tools-future-third-wave/]
• 95. Dual-Target Insight into Drug Discovery from Natural ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3921/14/11/1364]
• 96. Multi-targeted pharmacological actions and nanodelivery ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/chemistry/articles/10.3389/fchem.2025.1692386/full]
• 97. Review In vivo drug target discovery: identifying the best ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0958166901002713]
• 98. A Pipeline for Drug Target Identification and Validation - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5469697/]
• 99. Target Validation [https://www.reactionbiology.com/idd/reaction-oncology-platform/target-research/target-validation/]
• 100. Molecular screening of natural compounds targeting KRAS ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12512771/]
• 101. Leveraging big data to transform target selection and drug ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4785018/]
• 102. Surface Plasmon Resonance: A Versatile Technique for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4481982/]
• 103. SPR, ITC, MST & BLI: What's the optimal interaction ... [https://nicoyalife.com/blog/spr-vs-itc-vs-mst-vs-bli/]
• 104. Comparison of Biomolecular Interaction Techniques — SPR ... [https://www.reichertspr.com/insights/white-papers/comparison-of-biomolecular-interaction-techniques---white-paper]
• 105. Protein Purification-free Method of Binding Affinity ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3846881/]
• 106. Best Practices for Isothermal Titration Calorimetry to study ... [https://www.malvernpanalytical.com/en/learn/knowledge-center/insights/best-practices-for-isothermal-titration-calorimetry-to-study-binding-interactions-part-3]
• 107. Surface Plasmon Resonance (SPR) vs Biolayer Interferometry ... [https://www.iaanalysis.com/surface-plasmon-resonance-biolayer-interferometry-choice.html]
• 108. RNAi vs. CRISPR: Guide to Selecting the Best Gene ... [https://www.synthego.com/blog/rnai-vs-crispr-guide/]
• 109. Innovative CRISPR-dTAG System for Targeted Protein ... [https://www.creative-biogene.com/crispr-cas9/solution/innovative-crispr-dtag-system-for-targeted-protein-degradation.html]
• 110. CRISPR-Cas9 and Its Bioinformatics Tools: A Systematic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12109910/]
• 111. Advances in CRISPR-Cas technology and its applications [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11669675/]
• 112. Systematic profiling of conditional degron tag technologies ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-33246-4]
• 113. Phenotypic Drug Discovery: Recent successes, lessons ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9708951/]
• 114. Identifying compound efficacy targets in phenotypic drug ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359644615002901]
• 115. CRISPR screening redefines therapeutic target ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095177925001741]
• 116. AI in Drug Discovery 2025: Accelerating Pharma Innovation [https://kanerika.com/blogs/ai-in-drug-discovery/]
• 117. Proteolysis‐Targeting Chimera (PROTAC) - PubMed Central [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12495453/]
• 118. Targeted Protein Degradation with PROTACs and ... [https://blog.crownbio.com/targeted-protein-degradation-with-protacs-and-molecular-glues]
• 119. PROTAC: a revolutionary technology propelling small ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/oncology/articles/10.3389/fonc.2025.1676414/full]
• 120. Targeted protein degradation: advances in drug discovery ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-024-02004-x]
• 121. Recent Advances in the Development of Pro-PROTAC for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12473374/]
• 122. Design and development of PROTACs: A new paradigm in ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590098625000181]
• 123. Advancing target validation with PROTAC technology [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40188374/]
• 124. The Future of PROTAC Research: Emerging Opportunities ... [https://panomebio.com/blog/the-future-of-protac-research-emerging-opportunities-and-challenges/]
• 125. or VHL-binder using AirID [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-025-08761-x]