Talk:Biological target

Merge undruggable protein
The Undruggable protein article stub should be merged into Biological target, as a sub-section within the "Drug targets" section. First, it's awkward to have an article based on a negative concept since it lacks the good context that would be provided by the main concept page. Second, undruggability is not a stable concept, but is more of an opinion or result based on previous and current drug development efforts. Some scientists believe nothing is undruggable (see this interview with Gerard Evan, for example). New techniques can be invented that provide an approach to druggability (see this). So it's better to think in terms of some targets being currently difficult to drug rather than as inherently undruggable.

Other thoughts: It may be useful to have a category to classify articles about genes/proteins that have so far been difficult to target with drugs, though they would need to be re-classified if/when they become easily druggable. Regarding the article's name, 'Undruggable protein': it's better to think in terms of undruggable targets (not just proteins) in order to include biomolecules such as small RNAs that are difficult to target. SteveChervitzTrutane (talk) 22:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * As state here, I think druggability is a better destination for the proposed merger. Boghog (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have been bold and merged undruggable protein into Druggability. Boghog (talk) 10:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Definition of noncovalent
It would be helpful if noncovalent was defined in the article, rather than having the definition linked. Reebok532 (talk) 15:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ in this edit. Cheers.  Boghog (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)