AlphaBind, a domain-specific model to predict and optimize antibody–antigen binding affinity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antibodies are versatile therapeutic molecules that use combinatorial sequence diversity to cover a vast fitness landscape. Designing optimal antibody sequences, however, remains a major challenge. Recent advances in deep learning provide opportunities to address this challenge by learning sequence–function relationships to accurately predict fitness landscapes. These models enable efficient in silico prescreening and optimization of antibody candidates. By focusing experimental efforts on the most promising candidates guided by deep learning predictions, antibodies with optimal properties can be designed more quickly and effectively. Here we present AlphaBind, a domain-specific model that uses protein language model embeddings and pre-training on millions of quantitative laboratory measurements of antibody–antigen binding strength to achieve state-of-the-art performance for guided affinity optimization of parental antibodies. We demonstrate that an AlphaBind-powered antibody optimization pipeline can deliver candidates with substantially improved binding affinity across four parental antibodies (some of which were already affinity-matured) and using two different types of training data. The resulting candidates, which include up to 11 mutations from parental sequence, yield a sequence diversity that allows optimization of other biophysical characteristics, all while using only a single round of data generation for each parental antibody. AlphaBind weights and code are publicly available at: https://github.com/A-Alpha-Bio/alphabind.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".