Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26473627›Full record

ArticleProtein science : a publication of the Protein Society2016

AB-Bind: Antibody binding mutational database for computational affinity predictions.

Sarah Sirin, James R Apgar, Eric M Bennett, Amy E Keating

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 100 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
100citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

100 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

40 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Sarah SirinDepartment of Biology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 02139.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6995-3059
James R ApgarGlobal Biotherapeutics Technologies, Pfizer Inc, 610 Main Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 02139.
Eric M BennettGlobal Biotherapeutics Technologies, Pfizer Inc, 610 Main Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 02139.
Amy E KeatingDepartment of Biology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 02139.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Antibodies (Abs) are a crucial component of the immune system and are often used as diagnostic and therapeutic agents. The need for high-affinity and high-specificity antibodies in research and medicine is driving the development of computational tools for accelerating antibody design and discovery. We report a diverse set of antibody binding data with accompanying structures that can be used to evaluate methods for modeling antibody interactions. Our Antibody-Bind (AB-Bind) database includes 1101 mutants with experimentally determined changes in binding free energies (ΔΔG) across 32 complexes. Using the AB-Bind data set, we evaluated the performance of protein scoring potentials in their ability to predict changes in binding free energies upon mutagenesis. Numerical correlations between computed and observed ΔΔG values were low (r = 0.16-0.45), but the potentials exhibited predictive power for classifying variants as improved vs weakened binders. Performance was evaluated using the area under the curve (AUC) for receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves; the highest AUC values for 527 mutants with |ΔΔG| > 1.0 kcal/mol were 0.81, 0.87, and 0.88 using STATIUM, FoldX, and Discovery Studio scoring potentials, respectively. Some methods could also enrich for variants with improved binding affinity; FoldX and Discovery Studio were able to correctly rank 42% and 30%, respectively, of the 80 most improved binders (those with ΔΔG < -1.0 kcal/mol) in the top 5% of the database. This modest predictive performance has value but demonstrates the continuing need to develop and improve protein energy functions for affinity prediction.

Indexed as

Antibody AffinityMutationAnimalsAntibodiesBinding Sites, AntibodyComputer SimulationDatabases, ProteinHumansModels, ImmunologicalThermodynamicsAntibodiesaffinity optimizationantibody affinityantibody mutagenesiscomputational affinity predictionmutational databaseprotein interface designprotein-protein interactionsscoring interface mutationsstructure-based modeling

Identifiers

PMID26473627
PMCPMC4815335

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.