MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

DiSSiMiL: Diverse Small Size Mini‐Libraries applied to simple and rapid epitope mapping of a monoclonal antibody

2001· article· en· W2040877465 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin Burgess, Inn‐Oc Han, Afang Zhang, Wenhua Zheng, H. Uri Saragovi, Kandavel Shanmugam, Mark Featherstone

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Peptide Research · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMonoclonal and Polyclonal Antibodies Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsEpitopePentapeptide repeatMonoclonal antibodyEpitope mappingLinear epitopeComputational biologyChemistryAmino acidBiochemistryMolecular biologyBiologyPeptideAntibodyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Methods for screening protein-protein interactions are useful in protein science and for the generation of drug leads. We set out to develop a simplified assay to rapidly test protein-protein interactions, with a library of 400 pentapeptides comprising the 20 natural amino acids at two variable positions followed by three glycines (NH2-X1X2GGG). The library was used to identify the epitope of monoclonal antibody (mAb) 10D11 directed against the HOXD4 protein. Three pentapeptide 'hits' were selected (VYGGG, PWGGG and WKGGG) from direct binding assays screening for pentapeptide-mAb interactions; and from assays using pentapeptides in solution to competitively block HOXD4-mAb interactions. Alignment of the three 'hit' pentapeptides to the HOXD4 sequence predicts the mAb 10D11 epitope as NH2-VYPWMK. Synthesis of NH2-VYPWMK hexapeptide confirmed this prediction; and an alanine scan of HOXD4 ablated binding by mAb 10D11 when amino acids in the putative epitope were mutated. We propose that these simplified but diverse libraries can be used for rapid epitope mapping of some mAbs, and for generating lead small peptide analogs that interfere with receptor-ligand or other protein-protein interactions, or with enzymatic activity.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.603
Threshold uncertainty score0.728

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.118
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Peptide ResearchSame topicMonoclonal and Polyclonal Antibodies ResearchFrench-language works237,207