Targeted protein degradation (TPD) has emerged as a transformative therapeutic strategy, with proteolysis-targeting chimeras (PROTACs) leading the charge in redirecting cellular machinery to eliminate disease-causing proteins. While much attention has been given to the design of ligands for the protein of interest (POI) and E3 ligases, the linker connecting these two elements plays an equally vital role. Far beyond acting as a passive tether, the linker governs key biophysical and pharmacological properties of the PROTAC molecule.
Linker Properties Dictate PROTAC Efficiency
In PROTAC design, the linker is not merely a structural bridge connecting the ligand for the POI and E3 ligase ligand, it also plays a crucial role in determining the molecule’s overall biophysical behavior, including its conformation, cellular permeability, ternary complex formation, and pharmacokinetic properties. Several key aspects of linker design govern PROTAC efficacy.
1. Linker Length Affects the Formation of Ternary Complex.
The length of the linker is critical for spatially accommodating simultaneous interactions between the POI and the E3 ligase. An overly short linker can lead to steric clashes, preventing ternary complex formation. Conversely, an excessively long linker may reduce the cooperative binding between the proteins, resulting in a less stable and less productive complex. An optimal linker length allows the ligands to adopt favorable orientations while preserving the cooperativity essential for efficient ubiquitination and protein degradation.
2. The group type of the linker affects the cell permeability of the PROTACs.
The chemical nature of the linker significantly influences the PROTAC’s physicochemical properties, such as molecular weight, hydrogen bond donors and acceptors (HBD/HBA), topological polar surface area (TPSA), and lipophilicity (clogP, logD). These parameters collectively affect membrane permeability and metabolic stability. Rational selection or modification of functional groups within the linker can optimize cellular uptake and drug-like behavior without compromising binding affinity or degradation efficiency.
3. Linker flexibility affects the stability of the ternary complex
The conformational flexibility of the linker impacts the ability of the PROTAC to adopt bioactive conformations that support productive ternary complex formation. Excessive flexibility may introduce entropic penalties and result in suboptimal protein-protein interfaces. On the other hand, highly rigid linkers might prevent necessary conformational adjustments. Incorporating semi-rigid structural elements, such as cyclic motifs or aromatic rings – can “pre-organize” the PROTAC, improving the thermodynamic stability and lifetime of the ternary complex.
4. The linkage site of the linker affects the protein-protein interactions.
The precise attachment point of the linker on each ligand, known as the linkage site, has a strong influence on the relative positioning of the POI and E3 ligase in the ternary complex. Poorly chosen linkage sites may lead to geometries that fail to support favorable protein-protein interactions, thereby diminishing degradation efficiency and selectivity. Strategic selection of the linkage site, guided by structural insights or molecular modeling, is therefore essential to ensure optimal alignment of interaction surfaces within the ternary complex.
Synthesis Challenges and Solutions in PROTAC Linker Design
Rational design of PROTAC linkers is a cornerstone of successful targeted protein degradation. However, selecting the optimal linker type, length, and rigidity often requires extensive screening and optimization, posing several synthetic and practical challenges.
1. Empirical Optimization: A Labor-Intensive Process
Traditionally, linker optimization relies on synthesizing a series of PROTAC variants with different linker architectures. Each is tested experimentally to evaluate degradation efficiency and structure-activity relationships (SAR). While informative, this empirical approach is often time-consuming, resource-intensive, and chemically challenging-especially when incorporating rigid linkers, heterocycles, or solubilizing motifs.
2. Computational Tools: Streamlining Discovery
To reduce synthetic burden, structure-based modeling techniques have been applied as:
Protein-protein docking
Molecular dynamics (MD) simulations
Ternary complex modeling
These techniques are increasingly applied to pre-screen linker designs in silico. These methods help prioritize constructs with the best predicted geometry and binding cooperativity. However, their accuracy depends heavily on the available crystal structures and the quality of input data.
3. AI-Powered Innovation: Toward Smarter Linker Design
Machine learning approaches are now transforming PROTAC discovery. Algorithms include:
Deep Neural Networks (DNNs)
Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs)
Transformer-based models
These algorithms can learn from thousands of known bioactive molecules, degradation assays, and structural datasets. These models extract patterns linking molecular features to functional outcomes, helping predict which linker types are likely to succeed. One leading example is AIMLinker, a platform that generates novel linker substructures between two ligands and apply cheminformatics filters to suggest synthetically tractable, high-potential candidates.
Conclusion
Linker design is a decisive factor in PROTAC development, influencing not just ternary complex formation but also cell permeability, degradation selectivity, and overall pharmacokinetics. As the field moves toward clinical translation, integrating synthetic chemistry expertise with computational modeling and AI-driven prediction is key to accelerating PROTAC discovery. At PrecisePEG, we focus on the synthesis and supply of high-quality linkers and ligands-linker conjudates, enabling researchers to streamline their discovery workflows with reliable and versatile building blocks.
Reference
1. Troup, R. I., Fallan, C., & Baud, M. G. J. Current strategies for the design of PROTAC linkers: a critical review. Exploratory Targeted Anti-tumor Therapy, 2020, 1, 273–312. https://doi.org/10.37349/etat.2020.00018
2. Zattoni, J., Vottero, P., Carena, G., Uliveto, C., Pozzati, G., Morabito, B., Gitari, E., Tuszynski, J., & Aminpour, M. A comprehensive primer and review of PROTACs and their In Silico design. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 2025, 264, 108687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2025.108687
3. Zografou-Barredo, N. A., Hallatt, A. J., Goujon-Ricci, J., & Cano, C. A beginner’s guide to current synthetic linker strategies towards VHL-recruiting PROTACs. Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry, 2023, 88–89, 117334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bmc.2023.117334
4. Dong, Y., Ma, T., Xu, T., Feng, Z., Li, Y., Song, L., Yao, X., Ashby, C. R., & Hao, G.-F. Characteristic roadmap of linker governs the rational design of PROTACs. Acta Pharmaceutica Sinica B, 2024, 14(10), 4266–4295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsb.2024.04.007
5. Békés, M., Langley, D. R., & Crews, C. M. PROTAC targeted protein degraders: the past is prologue. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 2022, 21, 181–200. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41573-021-00371-6
6. Vetma, V., O'Connor, S., & Ciulli, A. Development of PROTAC degrader drugs for cancer. Annual Review of Cancer Biology, 2025, 9, 119–140. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-cancerbio-061824-105806
7. Berkley, K., Zalejski, J., Sharma, N., & Sharma, A. Journey of PROTAC: From bench to clinical trial and beyond. Biochemistry, 2025, 64(3), 563–580. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.biochem.4c00577