Molecular Design of Peptide-Fc Fusion Drugs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Peptide-Fc fusion drugs, also known as peptibodies, are a category of biological therapeutics in which the Fc region of an antibody is genetically fused to a peptide of interest. However, to develop such kind of drugs is laborious and expensive. Rational design is urgently needed. METHODS: We summarized the key steps in peptide-Fc fusion technology and stressed the main computational resources, tools, and methods that had been used in the rational design of peptide-Fc fusion drugs. We also raised open questions about the computer-aided molecular design of peptide-Fc. RESULTS: The design of peptibody consists of four steps. First, identify peptide leads from native ligands, biopanning, and computational design or prediction. Second, select the proper Fc region from different classes or subclasses of immunoglobulin. Third, fuse the peptide leads and Fc together properly. At last, evaluate the immunogenicity of the constructs. At each step, there are quite a few useful resources and computational tools. CONCLUSION: Reviewing the molecular design of peptibody will certainly help make the transition from peptide leads to drugs on the market quicker and cheaper.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".