Assessment of Solvated Interaction Energy Function for Ranking Antibody–Antigen Binding Affinities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Affinity modulation of antibodies and antibody fragments of therapeutic value is often required in order to improve their clinical efficacies. Virtual affinity maturation has the potential to quickly focus on the critical hotspot residues without the combinatorial explosion problem of conventional display and library approaches. However, this requires a binding affinity scoring function that is capable of ranking single-point mutations of a starting antibody. We focus here on assessing the solvated interaction energy (SIE) function that was originally developed for and is widely applied to scoring of protein-ligand binding affinities. To this end, we assembled a structure-function data set called Single-Point Mutant Antibody Binding (SiPMAB) comprising several antibody-antigen systems suitable for this assessment, i.e., based on high-resolution crystal structures for the parent antibodies and coupled with high-quality binding affinity measurements for sets of single-point antibody mutants in each system. Using this data set, we tested the SIE function with several mutation protocols based on the popular methods SCWRL, Rosetta, and FoldX. We found that the SIE function coupled with a protocol limited to sampling only the mutated side chain can reasonably predict relative binding affinities with a Spearman rank-order correlation coefficient of about 0.6, outperforming more aggressive sampling protocols. Importantly, this performance is maintained for each of the seven system-specific component subsets as well as for other relevant subsets including non-alanine and charge-altering mutations. The transferability and enrichment in affinity-improving mutants can be further enhanced using consensus ranking over multiple methods, including the SIE, Talaris, and FOLDEF energy functions. The knowledge gained from this study can lead to successful prospective applications of virtual affinity maturation.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".