ArticleACS omega2024
Machine Learning-Driven Methods for Nanobody Affinity Prediction.
Article in ACS omega, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- AVIDbase: A biologically accurate structural dataset of nanobody-antigen complexes.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2026Article
- Nanotechnology-enhanced CAR-T therapy strategies in cancer, aging, and autoimmune diseases.Journal of hematology & oncology · 2026Review
- Surface Plasmon Resonance (SPR) Workflow for Comparative Analysis of Nanobody Variants Binding to Lysozyme as a Model Ligand.Current protocols · 2026Article
- Machine Learning Methods for Protein-Protein Interaction Prediction Based on Noncovalent Interactions.ACS omega · 2026Article
- Smart CAR-T Nanosymbionts: archetypes and proto-models.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Because of their high affinity, specificity, and environmental stability, nanobodies (Nbs) have continuously received attention from the field of biological research. However, it is tough work to obtain high-affinity Nbs using experimental methods. In the current study, 12 machine learning algorithms were compared in parallel to explore the potential patterns between Nb-ligand affinity and eight noncovalent interactions. After model comparison and optimization, four optimized models (SVMrB, RotFB, RFB, and C50B) and two stacked models (StackKNN and StackRF) based on nine uncorrelated (correlation coefficient <0.65) optimized models were selected. All the models showed an accuracy of around 0.70 and high specificity. Compared to the other models, RotFB and RFB were not capable of predicting nonaffinitive Nbs with lower precision (<0.44) but showed higher sensitivity at 0.6761 and 0.3521 and good model robustness (F1 score and MCC values). On the contrary, SVMrB, C50B, and StackKNN were able to effectively predict the future nonaffinitive Nbs (specificity >0.92) and reduce the number of true affinitive Nbs (precision >0.5). On the other hand, StackRF showed intermediate model performance. Furthermore, an in-depth feature analysis indicated that hydrogen bonding and aromatic-associated interactions were the key noncovalent interactions in determining Nb-ligand binding affinity. In summary, the current study provides, for the first time, a tool that can effectively predict whether there is an affinity between nanobodies and their intended ligands and explores the key factors that influence their affinity, which could improve the screening and design process of Nbs and accelerate the development of Nb drugs and applications.
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.