Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34478133›Full record

ArticleMethods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.)2022

The Therapeutic Antibody Profiler for Computational Developability Assessment.

Matthew I J Raybould, Charlotte M Deane

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. mAbs · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. A comprehensive overview of recent advances in generative models for antibodies.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
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

2 authors.

Matthew I J RaybouldOxford Protein Informatics Group, Department of Statistics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Charlotte M DeaneOxford Protein Informatics Group, Department of Statistics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. deane@stats.ox.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The need to consider an antibody's "developability" (immunogenicity, solubility, specificity, stability, manufacturability, and storability) is now well understood in therapeutic antibody design. Predicting these properties rapidly and inexpensively is critical to industrial workflows, to avoid devoting resources to non-productive candidates. Here, we describe a high-throughput computational developability assessment tool, the Therapeutic Antibody Profiler (TAP), which assesses the physicochemical "druglikeness" of an antibody candidate. Input variable domain sequences are converted to three-dimensional structural models, and then five developability-linked molecular surface descriptors are calculated and compared to advanced-stage clinical therapeutics. Values at the extremes of/outside of the distributions seen in therapeutics imply an increased risk of developability issues. Therefore, TAP, starting only from sequence information, provides a route to rapidly identifying drug candidate antibodies that are likely to have poor developability. Our web application ( opig.stats.ox.ac.uk/webapps/tap ) profiles input antibody sequences against a continually updated reference set of clinical therapeutics.

Indexed as

SoftwareAntibodiesAntibodies, MonoclonalSolubilityWorkflowAntibodiesAntibodies, MonoclonalAntibody drug discoveryCharge patchesComputational developability assessmentDruglikenessHydrophobic patchesSurface physicochemistry

Identifiers

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.