Faculty Opinions recommendation of Deamidation and isomerization liability analysis of 131 clinical-stage antibodies.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contemporary in vivo and in vitro discovery platform technologies greatly increase the odds of identifying high-affinity monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) towards essentially any desired biologically relevant epitope.Lagging discovery throughput is the ability to select for highly developable mAbs with druglike properties early in the process.Upstream consideration of developability metrics should reduce the frequency of failures in later development stages.As the field moves towards incorporating biophysical screening assays in parallel to discovery processes, similar approaches should also be used to ensure robust chemical stability.Optimization of chemical stability in the early stages of discovery has the potential to reduce complications in formulation development and improve the potential for successful liquid formulations.However, at present, our knowledge of the chemical stability characteristics of clinical-stage therapeutic mAbs is fragmented and lacks comprehensive comparative assessment.To address this knowledge gap, we produced 131 mAbs with amino acid sequences corresponding to the variable regions of clinical-stage mAbs, subjected these to low and high pH stresses and identified the resulting modifications at amino acid-level resolution via tryptic peptide mapping.Among this large set of mAbs, relatively high frequencies of asparagine deamidation events were observed in CDRs H2 and L1, while CDRs H3, H2 and L1 contained relatively high frequencies of instances of aspartate isomerization.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.058 | 0.059 |
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".