Optimizing Epitope Conformational Ensembles Using α-Synuclein Cyclic Peptide “Glycindel” Scaffolds: A Customized Immunogen Method for Generating Oligomer-Selective Antibodies for Parkinson’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effectively presenting epitopes on immunogens, in order to raise conformationally selective antibodies through active immunization, is a central problem in treating protein misfolding diseases, particularly neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease or Parkinson’s disease. We seek to selectively target conformations enriched in toxic, oligomeric propagating species while sparing the healthy forms of the protein that are often more abundant. To this end, we computationally modeled scaffolded epitopes in cyclic peptides by inserting/deleting a variable number of flanking glycines (“glycindels”) to best mimic a misfolding-specific conformation of an epitope of α-synuclein enriched in the oligomer ensemble, as characterized by a region most readily disordered and solvent-exposed in a stressed, partially denatured protofibril. We screen and rank the cyclic peptide scaffolds of α-synuclein in silico based on their ensemble overlap properties with the fibril, oligomer-model and isolated monomer ensembles. We present experimental data of seeded aggregation that support nucleation rates consistent with computationally predicted cyclic peptide conformational similarity. We also introduce a method for screening against structured off-pathway targets in the human proteome by selecting scaffolds with minimal conformational similarity between their epitope and the same solvent-exposed primary sequence in structured human proteins. Different cyclic peptide scaffolds with variable numbers of glycines are predicted computationally to have markedly different conformational ensembles. Ensemble comparison and overlap were quantified by the Jensen–Shannon divergence and a new measure introduced here, the embedding depth, which determines the extent to which a given ensemble is subsumed by another ensemble and which may be a more useful measure in developing immunogens that confer conformational selectivity to an antibody.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".