OUR RESEARCH
Research.
Propose possibilities. Decide with evidence.
Explore our public research direction and standards of evidence. We distinguish computational possibilities from experimentally established results.
Research focus§ 03Our current public program
PRMT5-targeted protein degraders
We design molecules
to induce PRMT5 degradation.
Our current public program explores targeted degradation of PRMT5, an enzyme involved in protein arginine methylation and an active target in cancer research.
MTAP-deleted cancer biology provides one context for studying PRMT5 dependency. That rationale does not, by itself, establish degrader selectivity or a therapeutic window.
Current stage
Design-stage research
We are developing structure-based design hypotheses and reviewing developability.
Next validation goal
Questions to answer with experimental partners.
Cellular degradation
Does PRMT5 protein actually decrease in cells?
Concentration response
Does the extent of degradation depend on concentration?
Mechanism dependence
Does the observed reduction in PRMT5 depend on the E3 ligase and the proteasome?
Selectivity
Is PRMT5 reduced selectively relative to other proteins?
How targeted protein degradation works
General principle · four-step diagram
- 01
Recognition
The degrader recognizes and binds the target protein to be degraded.
- 02
Proximity
The degrader holds the target protein close to an E3 ubiquitin ligase.
- 03
Tagging
Ubiquitin is attached to the nearby target in a chain that serves as a degradation signal.
- 04
Degradation
The tagged protein is broken down by the cell's proteasome, and the degrader can generally go on to act on another target molecule.
04 BUILDABILITY & EVIDENCE
A plausible design
is only the beginning.
Before recommending the next experiment, we ask whether a hypothesis is biologically grounded, technically buildable and interpretable if it fails.
Biological rationale
Is the mechanism supported by relevant structural, RNA or disease-context evidence?
Modality fit
Should the question be approached through a small molecule, a degrader or an RNA-directed strategy?
Design feasibility
Are binding features, molecular geometry or sequence constraints compatible with the proposed mechanism?
Developability
Which synthesis, permeability, stability or delivery risks could prevent a plausible design from working?
Validation & IP review
Which experiment could change the decision, and which prior-art questions require specialist review?
A useful recommendation can be any of these
- AdvanceTest a defined hypothesis.
- ReviseResolve a specific uncertainty.
- StopRecord why the path does not hold.
The reasoning should be reproducible.
- Inputs & provenance
- Keep the source data, assumptions and evaluation scope with the result.
- Controls & calibration
- Use reference cases and report where a method does not transfer reliably.
- Versioned handoff
- Preserve configurations and checksums so a reviewed analysis can be traced.
- Negative findings
- Keep failed hypotheses and corrections, not just favorable rankings.
LIMITATIONS
Shared limitations
These four points apply to everything on this page.
Computation is not experiment
Computational rankings, scores and agreement between AI models do not establish binding, degradation or efficacy. We claim no efficacy, clinical entry or independently validated performance.
Films and diagrams are simplified
The teaser film and concept diagrams simplify general principles. They do not depict the structure or design of any specific candidate, or experimental results.
What we disclose
PRMT5 is the only program we disclose individually. Other targets, candidate structures and sequences, and unpublished results are discussed only under a confidentiality agreement.
Laboratory and legal work are separate
Synthesis and measurement are carried out by experimental partners; this does not imply in-house laboratory facilities or an existing partnership. Patentability and freedom to operate require independent specialist review.