ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2024
Exploring the ability of the MD+FoldX method to predict SARS-CoV-2 antibody escape mutations using large-scale data.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Antibody escape mutations pose a significant challenge to the effectiveness of vaccines and antibody-based therapies. The ability to predict these escape mutations with computer simulations would allow us to detect threats early and develop effective countermeasures, but a lack of large-scale experimental data has hampered the validation of these calculations. In this study, we evaluate the ability of the MD+FoldX molecular modeling method to predict escape mutations by leveraging a large deep mutational scanning dataset, focusing on the SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain. Our results show a positive correlation between predicted and experimental data, indicating that mutations with reduced predicted binding affinity correlate moderately with higher experimental escape fractions. We also demonstrate that better performance can be achieved using affinity cutoffs tailored to distinct antibody-antigen interactions rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. We find that 70% of the systems surpass the 50% precision mark, and demonstrate success in identifying mutations present in significant variants of concern and variants of interest. Despite promising results for some systems, our study highlights the challenges in comparing predicted and experimental values. It also emphasizes the need for new binding affinity methods with improved accuracy that are fast enough to estimate hundreds to thousands of antibody-antigen binding affinities.
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.