Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36120542›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in molecular biosciences2022

Comparison of hydrophobicity scales for predicting biophysical properties of antibodies.

Franz Waibl, Monica L Fernández-Quintero, Florian S Wedl, Hubert Kettenberger, Guy Georges, Klaus R Liedl

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in molecular biosciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing 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

31 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Comparative Structure Activity Relationship Characterization of the Biosimilar BAT1806/BIIB800 to Reference Tocilizumab.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Prediction and Evaluation of Protein Aggregation with Computational Methods.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2025
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Franz WaiblDepartment of General, Inorganic and Theoretical Chemistry, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Monica L Fernández-QuinteroDepartment of General, Inorganic and Theoretical Chemistry, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Florian S WedlDepartment of General, Inorganic and Theoretical Chemistry, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Hubert KettenbergerLarge Molecule Research, Roche Pharma Research and Early Development, Roche Innovation Center Munich, Penzberg, Germany.
Guy GeorgesLarge Molecule Research, Roche Pharma Research and Early Development, Roche Innovation Center Munich, Penzberg, Germany.
Klaus R LiedlDepartment of General, Inorganic and Theoretical Chemistry, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While antibody-based therapeutics have grown to be one of the major classes of novel medicines, some antibody development candidates face significant challenges regarding expression levels, solubility, as well as stability and aggregation, under physiological and storage conditions. A major determinant of those properties is surface hydrophobicity, which promotes unspecific interactions and has repeatedly proven problematic in the development of novel antibody-based drugs. Multiple computational methods have been devised for in-silico prediction of antibody hydrophobicity, often using hydrophobicity scales to assign values to each amino acid. Those approaches are usually validated by their ability to rank potential therapeutic antibodies in terms of their experimental hydrophobicity. However, there is significant diversity both in the hydrophobicity scales and in the experimental methods, and consequently in the performance of in-silico methods to predict experimental results. In this work, we investigate hydrophobicity of monoclonal antibodies using hydrophobicity scales. We implement several scoring schemes based on the solvent-accessibility and the assigned hydrophobicity values, and compare the different scores and scales based on their ability to predict retention times from hydrophobic interaction chromatography. We provide an overview of the strengths and weaknesses of several commonly employed hydrophobicity scales, thereby improving the understanding of hydrophobicity in antibody development. Furthermore, we test several datasets, both publicly available and proprietary, and find that the diversity of the dataset affects the performance of hydrophobicity scores. We expect that this work will provide valuable guidelines for the optimization of biophysical properties in future drug discovery campaigns.

Indexed as

antibodiesantibody structuredevelopabilitydevelopability predictionhydrophobic interaction chromatography (HIC)hydrophobicity scalehyrophobicity

Identifiers

PMID36120542
PMCPMC9475378

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.