MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162427228 · doi:10.1002/prot.22382

<i>De novo</i>identification of binding sequences for antibody replacement molecules

2009· article· en· W2162427228 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen Quirk, Shi Zhong, Rigoberto Hernandez

Bibliographic record

VenueProteins Structure Function and Bioinformatics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMonoclonal and Polyclonal Antibodies Research
Canadian institutionsKimberly-Clark (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiopanningIn silicoPeptide libraryComputational biologySequence (biology)PeptideComputer scienceCombinatorial chemistryDocking (animal)Peptide sequenceChemistryBiologyBiochemistryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new in silico method has been developed that automatically identifies peptide sequences that can bind to targets of known three-dimensional structure. The method is potentially faster and more economical than traditional methods of raising antibodies by means of hybridomas or biopanning technology. The current algorithm creates an initial peptide library that is either completely random or that is constrained by the user. This library represents only a small fraction of possible sequence space and the peptides are created with a specified torsional geometry. The library is used as input to any number of available molecular docking programs and the library is docked and scored. The final rank ordering is then used to create a new library by constraining that library to the sequence conservation pattern deduced from the top N-scoring peptides in the first round. Successive rounds of screening, scoring, and new library creation ultimately results in the system converging to a final solution set of peptides. To test the method, a family of novel peptides that can bind to, and inhibit the enzyme Deoxyribonuclease I has been discovered. The peptides inhibit the enzyme either alone or when placed into a protein backbone structure as has been confirmed experimentally.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score0.293

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProteins Structure Function and BioinformaticsSame topicMonoclonal and Polyclonal Antibodies ResearchFrench-language works237,207