Recent crystal structure data for protein–protein interactions featuring the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein will inevitably trigger a new wave of research in this area that was not possible before. This Viewpoint outlines a few of the ways that it is already happening.

Secondary structures tend to be recognizable because they have repeating structural motifs, but mimicry of these does not have to follow such well‐defined patterns. Bioinformatics studies to match side‐chain orientations of a novel hydantoin triazole chemotype (1) to protein‐protein interfaces revealed it tends to align well across parallel and antiparallel sheets, like rungs on a ladder. One set of these overlays was observed for the protein‐protein interaction uPA⋅uPAR. Consequently, chemotype 1 was made with appropriate side‐chains to mimic uPA at this interface. Biophysical assays indicate these compounds did in fact bind uPAR, and elicit cellular responses that affected invasion, migration, and wound healing.

Peptidic helix mimics may be formed by “stapling” mid-helix side chains, or “capping” termini so hydrogen bond donors and acceptors there are satisfied. This review considers the differences between them and the potential areas for future development.

No abstract

Secondary structures tend to be recognizable because they have repeating structural motifs, but mimicry of these does not have to follow such well-defined patterns. Bioinformatics studies to match side-chain orientations of a novel hydantoin triazole chemotype (1) to protein-protein interfaces revealed it tends to align well across parallel and antiparallel sheets, like rungs on a ladder. One set of these overlays was observed for the protein-protein interaction uPA·uPAR. Consequently, chemotype 1 was made with appropriate side-chains to mimic uPA at this interface. Biophysical assays indicate these compounds did in fact bind uPAR, and elicit cellular responses that affected invasion, migration, and wound healing.