Prediction of Antibody-Antigen Binding via Machine Learning: Development of Data Sets and Evaluation of Methods
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
BACKGROUND: The mammalian immune system is able to generate antibodies against a huge variety of antigens, including bacteria, viruses, and toxins. The ultradeep DNA sequencing of rearranged immunoglobulin genes has considerable potential in furthering our understanding of the immune response, but it is limited by the lack of a high-throughput, sequence-based method for predicting the antigen(s) that a given immunoglobulin recognizes. OBJECTIVE: As a step toward the prediction of antibody-antigen binding from sequence data alone, we aimed to compare a range of machine learning approaches that were applied to a collated data set of antibody-antigen pairs in order to predict antibody-antigen binding from sequence data. METHODS: Data for training and testing were extracted from the Protein Data Bank and the Coronavirus Antibody Database, and additional antibody-antigen pair data were generated by using a molecular docking protocol. Several machine learning methods, including the weighted nearest neighbor method, the nearest neighbor method with the BLOSUM62 matrix, and the random forest method, were applied to the problem. RESULTS: The final data set contained 1157 antibodies and 57 antigens that were combined in 5041 antibody-antigen pairs. The best performance for the prediction of interactions was obtained by using the nearest neighbor method with the BLOSUM62 matrix, which resulted in around 82% accuracy on the full data set. These results provide a useful frame of reference, as well as protocols and considerations, for machine learning and data set creation in the prediction of antibody-antigen binding. CONCLUSIONS: Several machine learning approaches were compared to predict antibody-antigen interaction from protein sequences. Both the data set (in CSV format) and the machine learning program (coded in Python) are freely available for download on GitHub.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it