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

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.
Log in to save this article

Abstract

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

Article activity feed