ArticlePloS one2023
Developing similarity matrices for antibody-protein binding interactions.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- A Paired Database of Predicted and Experimental Protein Peptide Binding Information.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Functional Design and Biophysical Characterization of Analyte-Responsive Polymers.Biomacromolecules · 2025Article
- Using Short Molecular Dynamics Simulations to Determine the Important Features of Interactions in Antibody-Protein Complexes.Proteins · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The inventions of AlphaFold and RoseTTAFold are revolutionizing computational protein science due to their abilities to reliably predict protein structures. Their unprecedented successes are due to the parallel consideration of several types of information, one of which is protein sequence similarity information. Sequence homology has been studied for many decades and depends on similarity matrices to define how similar or different protein sequences are to one another. A natural extension of predicting protein structures is predicting the interactions between proteins, but similarity matrices for protein-protein interactions do not exist. This study conducted a mutational analysis of 384 non-redundant antibody-protein antigen complexes to calculate antibody-protein interaction similarity matrices. Every important residue in each antibody and each antigen was mutated to each of the other 19 commonly occurring amino acids and the percentage changes in interaction energies were calculated using three force fields: CHARMM, Amber, and Rosetta. The data were used to construct six interaction similarity matrices, one for antibodies and another for antigens using each force field. The matrices exhibited both commonalities, such as mutations of aromatic and charged residues being the most detrimental, and differences, such as Rosetta predicting mutations of serines to be better tolerated than either Amber or CHARMM. A comparison to nine previously published similarity matrices for protein sequences revealed that the new interaction matrices are more similar to one another than they are to any of the previous matrices. The created similarity matrices can be used in force field specific applications to help guide decisions regarding mutations in protein-protein binding interfaces.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.