New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Outsmarting Cancer: Why It's So Tough

A biologist talks about what makes disease-causing proteins so difficult to target with drugs

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Name: Brent Stockwell
Title: Associate professor, Columbia University
Early career scientist, Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Location: New York City

There really is a crisis now occurring in the pharmaceutical industry. For the past 10 to 15 years the number of new drugs has been declining because it’s becoming harder and harder to create new medicines.

A lot of people have speculated about why. One ex­planation I support is that we’ve run out of proteins that can be targeted with drugs. The targets that are left are “undruggable.”


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Proteins that are considered undruggable don’t have large pockets or cavities inside them and instead are relatively flat on their surfaces. There’s no obvious site for a small molecule, a therapeutic candidate, to interact. Fifteen percent of proteins are considered druggable. What percent of proteins modify disease? It might be somewhere around 10 to 15 percent. There’s no correlation between whether a protein is druggable and whether it’s disease-modifying. Most proteins that drive disease processes are actually undruggable.

The reason I wrote The Quest for the Cure [Columbia University Press, 2011] was that I thought this was an important problem that most people are not aware of—even in science, let alone the general public. And if we can get the best minds to tackle this question, I am optimistic that we will ultimately be successful in finding solutions to most, if not all, of these proteins.

In my lab, our goal is to find proteins that control cell-death mechanisms in cancer and neuro­degenerative diseases and then to find small molecules that can inhibit or activate those proteins.

We’re at a relatively early stage, but we have tried to target one class of proteins called E3 ligases, which are involved in pretty much every disease and cellular process. They have been considered undruggable, however, because there are no small molecules that can block their activity. Our strategy was to model, on a computer, the way a small molecule interacts with a particular E3 ligase and to predict small molecules that might interact favorably. Then we picked the best 2,000 compounds to test experimentally.

Out of that came a very striking, potent inhibitor on which we’ll be publishing a paper in the next few months. We are now using this same strategy on other proteins. I think it’s going to become more and more apparent in the next five to seven years that we really are running out of drug targets. Then, in the 10- to 15-year horizon, some of these new approaches will be successful, and that will lead to some powerful new drugs. It will take some time to get there, though.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe