Drug Target Identification Services | Chemical Proteomics

Drug Target Identification Solutions

Q: Can you identify targets for unmodified natural products or small molecules?

Label‑free strategies such as TPP/CETSA‑MS, DARTS, and LiP‑MS can investigate compounds without covalently attaching an affinity or fluorescent tag. This avoids one important source of chemical perturbation, although solubility, permeability, matrix compatibility, and concentration range still need to be evaluated during study design.

Q: Can chemoproteomics directly determine binding affinity (Kd)?

Not routinely from every target‑deconvolution workflow. TPP, DARTS, LiP‑MS, and competitive ABPP generate method‑specific target‑engagement or response metrics, and some concentration‑series designs can support apparent half‑maximal response estimates. When an equilibrium Kd is required, a dedicated biophysical method such as SPR, ITC, or MST is typically more appropriate.

Q: Can membrane proteins such as GPCRs or ion channels be investigated?

Potentially, but feasibility is method‑ and matrix‑dependent. Intact‑cell thermal profiling can preserve membrane context better than lysate‑only workflows, while extraction‑based approaches require careful detergent and buffer selection. We recommend reviewing the target class, cell system, compound permeability, and available material before selecting the assay.

Q: What is the difference between target deconvolution in intact cells and cell lysates?

Intact‑cell workflows retain permeability, subcellular localization, endogenous cofactors, and cellular context, but they can be affected by uptake and metabolism. Lysate workflows remove the permeability barrier and allow tighter control of compound concentration, but they disrupt cellular organization. The better choice depends on the biological question and the target‑engagement method.

Unbiased Target Deconvolution · Label-Free & Probe-Based Chemoproteomics · Off-Target Profiling

Phenotypic drug discovery frequently produces potent small-molecule hits with robust cellular efficacy, but without knowing the physical protein target, optimizing potency, selectivity, and safety remains an empirical bottleneck. In vitro recombinant binding screens fail to capture native multi-protein complexes, endogenous post-translational modifications, and membrane microenvironments that govern drug engagement in living systems.

Creative Proteomics provides an integrated chemoproteomics platform for drug target identification, target deconvolution, and off-target profiling in biologically relevant research matrices. By combining label-free target-engagement strategies (TPP/CETSA-MS, DARTS, LiP-MS) with probe-based chemical biology (ABPP, photoaffinity labeling, chemoproteomic capture), we generate complementary evidence to prioritize direct protein targets, ligand-responsive structural regions, and secondary binding liabilities for follow-up.

Unbiased proteome-scale screening: Survey drug-associated stability, structural, or probe-enrichment changes across thousands of proteins without a predefined target list
Label-free compound compatibility: Deconvolute unmodified natural products, fragile lead compounds, and non-covalent inhibitors via TPP, DARTS, and LiP-MS
Native biological context: Investigate target engagement in intact cells, primary cells, tissue specimens, and native lysates when the selected method is compatible
Peptide-level structural footprinting: Localize ligand-responsive structural regions and conformational changes with LiP-MS instead of assuming universal single-residue resolution
Multi-layered specificity controls: Reduce non-specific candidates through dose-response design, matched vehicle controls, inactive analogs when available, and parent-compound competition

Request a Quote

Mass Spectrometry-Based Drug Target Identification & Deconvolution

Target deconvolution is the systematic identification of cellular protein targets through which a bioactive small molecule, natural product, or therapeutic lead exerts its phenotypic effect. Chemical proteomics couples biophysical or chemical target capture with high-resolution quantitative mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) to measure drug-protein engagement across the entire native proteome.

Unlike classical affinity approaches that require a derivatized ligand, modern chemoproteomics offers both label-free and probe-based modalities. Depending on the method, the resulting evidence may include thermal stability shifts, dose-dependent protease protection or competition trends, probe-enrichment changes, and peptide-level structural responses. These readouts support target prioritization, lead optimization, and research-stage safety investigation; dedicated biophysical assays are used when equilibrium binding constants are required.

Content Guide

When to Apply Chemoproteomics
Method Selection Matrix
What Problems We Solve
Service Advantages
Core Platforms & Technologies
Step-by-Step Workflow
Sample Requirements & Prep
Deliverables & Data Packages

When to Apply Chemoproteomics Target Deconvolution

Phenotypic Hit Deconvolution: Identify direct protein targets of bioactive compounds identified from cell-based phenotypic screens.
Natural Product & Metabolite Target Discovery: Unravel direct cellular receptors of unmodified botanical extracts, secondary metabolites, and endogenous ligands.
Off-Target & Safety Liability Profiling: Screen drug candidates for secondary target-engagement signals that may help explain polypharmacology or potential safety liabilities.
Mechanism of Action (MoA) Elucidation: Differentiate physical target engagement from downstream signaling network rewiring and secondary effector cascades.
PROTAC & Molecular Glue Target Mapping: Characterize ternary complex formation between E3 ligases, small-molecule degraders, and neo-substrates.
Drug Repurposing Research: Generate new target hypotheses and mechanism evidence for established compounds in research models.

Chemoproteomics Method Selection & Comparison Matrix

Match your chemical entity and study design with the optimal target deconvolution strategy.

Method	Chemical Modification	Matrix Compatibility	Binding Mechanism	Structural Resolution	Optimal Compound Class
Thermal Proteome Profiling (TPP / CETSA)	None (Label-Free)	Living cells, lysates, tissues	Non-covalent & covalent	Whole protein	Synthetic drugs, natural products, clinical leads
Drug Affinity Responsive Target Stability (DARTS)	None (Label-Free)	Native cell lysates, tissue extracts	Non-covalent & covalent	Whole protein / domain	Unmodified small molecules, fragile compounds
Limited Proteolysis (LiP-MS)	None (Label-Free)	Complex cell lysates, organelles	Non-covalent & covalent	Peptide-level structural region	All small molecules, metabolites, allosteric leads
Activity-Based Protein Profiling (ABPP)	Probe required (Electrophile + Tag)	Living cells, lysates, membranes	Covalent / Mechanism-based	Protein / probe-labeled site	Covalent inhibitors, kinase/protease inhibitors
Photoaffinity Labeling (PAL) & Capture	Probe required (Photophore + Bioorthogonal Tag)	Living cells, lysates	Non-covalent → Covalent crosslink	Protein & crosslinked peptide	Low-affinity binders, reversible ligands, lipid probes

What Problems Does Chemical Proteomics Solve?

Overcoming the critical blind spots of recombinant assays and transcriptomic profiling.

Unmodified Compound Deconvolution

Deconvolute fragile natural products and unmodified lead molecules via TPP, DARTS, and LiP-MS without chemical tag synthesis.

Native Complex & Membrane Targets

Capture drug-target engagement in intact living cells, preserving multi-protein complexes, endogenous cofactors, and GPCR conformations.

Physical Binding vs. Downstream Effects

Prioritize target-engagement evidence from TPP, LiP-MS, ABPP, or PAL separately from downstream abundance and pathway responses.

Whole-Proteome Off-Target Profiling

Profile proteome-scale target-engagement patterns to identify candidate secondary targets and potential polypharmacology for follow-up.

Binding Pocket & Allosteric Localization

Use LiP-MS to localize ligand-responsive peptide regions and structural changes that can guide binding-site hypotheses and orthogonal follow-up.

Complex and Low-Abundance Target Contexts

Method selection can combine enrichment, fractionation, DIA, or ion-mobility-enabled acquisition when matrix complexity or low target abundance makes confident quantification more difficult.

Advantages of Our Drug Target Identification Services

Multi-Platform Flexibility

Label-Free & Probe-Based

Comprehensive portfolio spanning TPP, DARTS, LiP-MS, ABPP, and photoaffinity capture under one roof.

Deep Proteome Coverage

Proteome-Scale Readout

High-resolution quantitative mass spectrometry supports broad target-engagement profiling, with acquisition depth adapted to matrix, sample amount, and study design.

Physiological Relevance

Living Cells & Tissues

Target-deconvolution strategies can be adapted to intact cells, primary cells, tissue specimens, lysates, and selected subcellular contexts according to method compatibility.

Binding Site Resolution

Peptide-Level Mapping

Structural footprinting via LiP-MS identifies ligand-responsive peptide regions and conformational changes that can refine binding-site hypotheses.

Multi-Tiered QC Strategy

Specificity-Focused Controls

Matched controls, concentration-response patterns, inactive analogs when available, and competition experiments help reduce non-specific target candidates.

Validation Continuity

PRM & CETSA Follow-Up

Prioritized candidates can move into targeted MS, cellular CETSA, biophysical binding assays, or functional experiments according to the validation question.

Core Chemoproteomics Platforms & Technologies

Integrated biophysical and chemical biology platforms for comprehensive target deconvolution

Thermal Proteome Profiling (TPP / CETSA-MS)

Measures compound-associated changes in protein thermal stability across a project-specific temperature design.
Temperature-range TPP and concentration-dependent thermal profiling can be selected according to the target-deconvolution question.
Quantitative MS strategy: TMT-based multiplexing remains established for TPP, while label-free DIA can provide an alternative route for thermal-shift quantification.

Drug Affinity Responsive Target Stability (DARTS)

Tests whether ligand exposure changes susceptibility of proteins to controlled limited proteolysis in native lysates.
Useful for unmodified compounds when chemical tagging is undesirable, with candidate confidence strengthened by concentration-response and orthogonal evidence.
Quantitative MS strategy: Broad LC-MS/MS readout is selected to balance proteome coverage, reproducibility, and sample throughput.

Limited Proteolysis-Coupled MS (LiP-MS)

Generates structurally informative cleavage patterns in complex native lysates and compares ligand-treated versus control conditions.
Identifies ligand-responsive peptide regions and conformational changes, which can approximate binding regions without assuming single-residue resolution.
Quantitative MS strategy: DIA-based LiP-MS can improve peptide-level reproducibility and data continuity in complex semitryptic/tryptic datasets.

Activity-Based Protein Profiling (ABPP) & PAL

Uses reactive or photoaffinity probes to enrich proteins or sites that can be interrogated competitively with an unlabeled compound.
Concentration-series designs can generate assay-dependent competition curves and site/protein engagement metrics rather than a universal equilibrium binding constant.
Quantitative MS strategy: DIA can support reproducible site-centric or enriched chemoproteomic profiling across larger condition sets.

How DIA and 4D-DIA Support Drug Target Deconvolution

DIA and 4D-DIA are quantitative mass-spectrometry acquisition strategies, not standalone target-engagement assays. Their role is to improve the consistency and depth of the proteomic readout generated by TPP, LiP-MS, ABPP/PAL, or global mechanism-of-action studies. The target-identification logic still comes from the experimental perturbation and controls.

Target-Deconvolution Context	Role of DIA / 4D-DIA	Interpretation Boundary
TPP / CETSA-MS	DIA quantitative proteomics can provide label-free thermal-profile quantification when the study benefits from a non-isobaric acquisition strategy.	Thermal stability changes support target-engagement hypotheses but may also reflect indirect protein-state changes; orthogonal confirmation can be important.
LiP-MS	DIA supports reproducible quantification of structurally informative peptide features. When additional gas-phase separation is useful, 4D-DIA quantitative proteomics can be considered for complex peptide mixtures.	LiP-MS identifies ligand-responsive peptide regions and conformational changes; it does not universally assign a single binding residue.
ABPP / PAL	DIA can scale site-centric or enrichment-based competition profiling across larger compound, concentration, or time-course designs.	Competition curves are assay-dependent engagement readouts and should not be presented automatically as equilibrium affinity constants.
Global MoA Proteomics	Discovery proteomics using DIA or 4D-DIA can map treatment-associated abundance changes and pathway responses after compound exposure.	Global abundance changes describe downstream response and do not by themselves prove direct physical binding.

After candidate targets are prioritized, targeted proteomics can support focused PRM/MRM follow-up in additional research samples, while CETSA, SPR, ITC, MST, or functional perturbation can answer complementary validation questions.

Step-by-Step Target Deconvolution Workflow

Our 5-step workflow connects study scoping, target-engagement experiments, quantitative MS, evidence-based prioritization, and an appropriate validation roadmap.

Study Design & Method Scoping

Evaluate compound structure, modifiability, matrix type, and mechanism to select the optimal label-free (TPP, DARTS, LiP-MS) or probe-based approach.

Native Incubation & Target Engagement

Incubate living cells or native lysates with compound concentration series alongside vehicle and competition controls. Apply thermal challenge, limited proteolysis, or UV crosslinking.

High-Resolution LC-MS/MS Acquisition

Select TMT-based multiplexing, DIA, or ion-mobility-enabled DIA/4D-DIA according to the assay format, matrix complexity, number of conditions, and quantitative objective.

Bioinformatic Deconvolution & Modeling

Apply project-appropriate identification and statistical QC, thermal-curve fitting, concentration-response modeling, probe-enrichment analysis, or LiP-MS peptide-level structural analysis as required by the selected method.

Target Prioritization & Validation Roadmap

Deliver ranked target candidates with method-specific engagement metrics, biological context, evidence limitations, and recommended targeted or orthogonal follow-up.

Study Scoping

Method & matrix alignment

Target Engagement

Native cellular perturbation

High-Res MS

Orbitrap Exploris / timsTOF

Deconvolution

ΔT_m & dose-response curve fitting

Target Roadmap

Ranked targets & PRM follow-up

Label-free and probe-based target deconvolution pipelines tailored to compound chemistry
Target-engagement profiling in intact cells, primary cells, tissue specimens, and native lysates when method-compatible
Multi-layered false-positive exclusion using vehicle subtraction and competition assays
Research support from initial phenotypic hit through candidate prioritization and orthogonal target validation

Get a Custom Proposal

Sample Requirements & Preparation Guidelines

Sample preparation for target identification

Preserve Native Protein State: TPP, DARTS, and LiP-MS depend on controlled protein stability or conformation. Lysis and handling conditions should therefore be selected to preserve the native state required by the chosen assay.

Match the Vehicle: Provide the solvent or vehicle used for compound preparation, together with available solubility and stability information.

Material	Planning Information	Main Considerations
Intact Cells	Cell type, treatment design, expected viability, number of conditions, and whether live-cell target engagement is essential	Cell permeability, treatment duration, thermal or probe compatibility, and biological replication
Cell or Tissue Lysates	Matrix, available total protein, lysis history, buffer composition, and storage conditions	Preservation of native structure, detergent compatibility, protease activity, and freeze-thaw history
Research Tissue Specimens	Tissue type, preservation method, available material, heterogeneity, and whether intact tissue or lysate analysis is intended	Sampling consistency, endogenous proteolysis, storage history, and extraction feasibility
Test Compound / Probe	Identity, available amount, purity information, stock concentration, vehicle, solubility, and active/inactive analogs when available	Number of concentrations, replicate structure, probe derivatization feasibility, and competition-control design

*Final input requirements are method- and matrix-dependent. Share your available material and experimental design so the target-deconvolution workflow can be scoped before sample submission.

Data Analysis & Target Deconvolution Deliverables

Clear, auditable, and publication-ready target discovery reports

Thermal Melting Shift Curves: Representative vehicle-versus-compound thermal profiles showing calculated melting points (T_m) and compound-associated thermal shifts (ΔT_m), including stabilization or destabilization where observed.

Dose-Dependent Protease Protection: Quantitative titration curves demonstrating ligand-induced proteolytic stabilization across concentration series in DARTS.

Target Candidate Volcano Plot: Statistical visualization of effect size and significance, highlighting candidate target-engagement signals for prioritization rather than treating every significant protein as a confirmed direct target.

LiP-MS Structural Footprinting Map: Peptide-level coverage maps showing ligand-responsive structural regions that can guide binding-site hypotheses.

Standard Deliverables Checklist

Raw mass spectrometry instrument files (.raw / .d) and search parameter logs
Comprehensive target identification matrix with UniProt accessions and gene symbols
Statistical ranking tables with method-appropriate fold changes, adjusted significance metrics, thermal shifts, protection scores, competition responses, or peptide-level structural evidence
Method-specific concentration-response curves and thermal denaturation profiles when applicable

Peptide-level structural footprinting and binding pocket maps (for LiP-MS)
Biological pathway enrichment and Gene Ontology (GO) annotation
Identification, quantification, replicate, and statistical quality-control summaries appropriate to the selected workflow
Target validation roadmap with recommended targeted MS, CETSA, biophysical, or functional follow-up

Drug Target Identification Frequently Asked Questions

Can you identify targets for unmodified natural products or small molecules?

Label-free strategies such as TPP/CETSA-MS, DARTS, and LiP-MS can investigate compounds without covalently attaching an affinity or fluorescent tag. This avoids one important source of chemical perturbation, although solubility, permeability, matrix compatibility, and concentration range still need to be evaluated during study design.

How do you reduce false-positive and non-specific target candidates?

Confidence comes from convergent evidence rather than a single threshold. Depending on the method, the design can combine matched vehicle controls, biological replication, concentration-response behavior, inactive analogs when available, parent-compound competition, peptide/protein identification QC, and orthogonal confirmation. Candidates are ranked according to the evidence appropriate to the selected target-engagement assay.

Can chemoproteomics directly determine binding affinity (K_d)?

Not routinely from every target-deconvolution workflow. TPP, DARTS, LiP-MS, and competitive ABPP generate method-specific target-engagement or response metrics, and some concentration-series designs can support apparent half-maximal response estimates. When an equilibrium K_d is required, a dedicated biophysical method such as SPR, ITC, or MST is typically more appropriate.

Can membrane proteins such as GPCRs or ion channels be investigated?

Potentially, but feasibility is method- and matrix-dependent. Intact-cell thermal profiling can preserve membrane context better than lysate-only workflows, while extraction-based approaches require careful detergent and buffer selection. We recommend reviewing the target class, cell system, compound permeability, and available material before selecting the assay.

What is the difference between target deconvolution in intact cells and cell lysates?

Intact-cell workflows retain permeability, subcellular localization, endogenous cofactors, and cellular context, but they can be affected by uptake and metabolism. Lysate workflows remove the permeability barrier and allow tighter control of compound concentration, but they disrupt cellular organization. The better choice depends on the biological question and the target-engagement method.

How much compound and sample material are required?

Requirements depend on the selected method, number of conditions, concentration points, biological replicates, matrix, and available sample amount. For project scoping, provide the material type, available quantity, compound stock concentration, vehicle, solubility information, and whether active or inactive analogs are available.

What is the recommended next step after identifying a candidate target?

The next step should answer a different evidentiary question. Targeted PRM/MRM can confirm selected proteins in additional research samples, CETSA can test cellular thermal engagement, SPR/ITC/MST can characterize direct biophysical binding, and genetic or functional perturbation can test whether the candidate contributes to the observed phenotype. A strong validation plan often combines more than one orthogonal readout.

Representative Research Study: Thermal Proteome Profiling Maps Drug Targets in Living Cells

Tracking Cancer Drugs in Living Cells by Thermal Profiling of the Proteome

Journal: Science · Published: 2014 · DOI: 10.1126/science.1255784

7,000+

Proteins profiled in parallel

50+ Targets

Targets delineated for staurosporine

Intact Cells

Native physiological context

Unmodified Compound

No affinity-tag derivatization

Study Overview & Objectives

Researchers used Thermal Proteome Profiling (TPP) to determine thermal profiles for more than 7,000 proteins in human cells and to examine how small-molecule treatment altered protein thermal stability. The study included kinase inhibitors such as staurosporine and dasatinib and demonstrated that proteome-wide thermal shifts can reveal expected targets, additional targets, and downstream protein-state changes in intact cells.

Technical Strategy & Results

Research Dimension	Experimental Approach	Critical Outcome
Intact Cellular Profiling	Living K562 cells incubated with kinase inhibitors across a temperature gradient (37°C–67°C)	Detected target-engagement and drug-responsive thermal shifts in an intact-cell context with endogenous cofactors and protein complexes
Quantitative Mass Spectrometry	Multiplexed TMT 10-plex isobaric labeling on high-resolution Orbitrap systems	Generated proteome-wide thermal profiles for more than 7,000 proteins across the study
Off-Target & Polypharmacology Mapping	Compared thermal shifts (ΔT_m) between broad-spectrum and selective inhibitors	Revealed additional drug-responsive targets and thermal shifts in downstream pathway proteins; downstream shifts were not interpreted automatically as direct binding

Key Findings & Process Implications

Proteome-Wide Target Engagement: TPP detected known drug targets and additional thermal-response proteins without requiring an affinity-tagged compound.
Direct and Indirect Thermal Responses: The study showed that thermal shifts can reflect direct ligand binding as well as downstream protein-state changes, reinforcing the need to interpret candidates in biological context.
Target-Deconvolution Framework: The work established thermal profiling as a broadly useful route for unbiased target-engagement studies in living cells and helped define the modern TPP workflow.

Selected Scientific References:

Savitski MM, Reinhard FBM, Franken H, et al. Tracking cancer drugs in living cells by thermal profiling of the proteome. Science. 2014;346(6205):1255784. doi:10.1126/science.1255784.
Lomenick B, Hao R, Jonai N, et al. Target identification using drug affinity responsive target stability (DARTS). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2009;106(51):21984-21989. doi:10.1073/pnas.0910040106.
Feng Y, De Franceschi G, Kahraman A, et al. Global analysis of protein structural changes in complex systems. Nat Biotechnol. 2014;32(10):1036-1044. doi:10.1038/nbt.2999.
Cravatt BF, Wright AT, Kozarich JW. Activity-based protein profiling: chemical approaches to explore genome biology. Annu Rev Biochem. 2008;77:383-414. doi:10.1146/annurev.biochem.75.101304.124125.
George AL, Sidgwick FR, Watt JE, et al. Comparison of Quantitative Mass Spectrometric Methods for Drug Target Identification by Thermal Proteome Profiling. J Proteome Res. 2023;22(8):2629-2640. doi:10.1021/acs.jproteome.3c00111.
Malinovska L, Cappelletti V, Kohler D, et al. Proteome-wide structural changes measured with limited proteolysis-mass spectrometry: an advanced protocol for high-throughput applications. Nat Protoc. 2023;18(3):659-682. doi:10.1038/s41596-022-00771-x.
Yang F, Jia G, Guo J, Liu Y, Wang C. Quantitative Chemoproteomic Profiling with Data-Independent Acquisition-Based Mass Spectrometry. J Am Chem Soc. 2022;144(2):901-911. doi:10.1021/jacs.1c11053.

* For Research Use Only. Not for use in the treatment or diagnosis of disease.

Online Inquiry

Please submit a detailed description of your project. We will provide you with a customized study plan to meet your requests. You can also send us an email to for inquiries.