Antigen recognition by single-domain antibodies: structural latitudes and constraints
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
antibodies. It has been suggested, based on limited evidence, that sdAbs may adopt paratope structures that predispose them to preferential recognition of recessed protein epitopes, but poor or non-recognition of protuberant epitopes and small molecules. Here, we comprehensively surveyed the evidence in support of this hypothesis. We found some support for a global structural difference in the paratope shapes of sdAbs compared with those of conventional antibodies: sdAb paratopes have smaller molecular surface areas and diameters, more commonly have non-canonical CDR1 and CDR2 structures, and have elongated CDR3 length distributions, but have similar amino acid compositions and are no more extended (interatomic distance measured from CDR base to tip) than conventional antibody paratopes. Comparison of X-ray crystal structures of sdAbs and conventional antibodies in complex with cognate antigens showed that sdAbs and conventional antibodies bury similar solvent-exposed surface areas on proteins and form similar types of non-covalent interactions, although these are more concentrated in the compact sdAb paratope. Thus, sdAbs likely have privileged access to distinct antigenic regions on proteins, but only owing to their small molecular size and not to general differences in molecular recognition mechanism. The evidence surrounding the purported inability of sdAbs to bind small molecules was less clear. The available data provide a structural framework for understanding the evolutionary emergence and function of autonomous heavy chain-only antibodies.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it