ArticlePloS one2025
Benchmarking inverse folding models for antibody CDR sequence design.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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.
- Closing the Translational Gap: Closed-Loop AI Discovery Frameworks for Experimental Validation and Clinical Implementation in Cancer Therapeutics.Cancer medicine · 2026Review
- AI-driven discovery in protein science for immunology and infectious disease research.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2026Review
- Benchmarking antigen-aware inverse folding methods for antibody design.Bioinformatics advances · 2026Article
- Design of nanobody targeting SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein using CDR-grafting assisted by molecular simulation and machine learning.PLoS computational biology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Antibody-based therapies are at the forefront of modern medicine, addressing diverse challenges across oncology, autoimmune diseases, infectious diseases, and beyond. The ability to design antibodies with enhanced functionality and specificity is critical for advancing next-generation therapeutics. Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have propelled the field of antibody engineering, particularly through inverse folding models for Complementarity-Determining Region (CDR) sequence design. These models aim to generate novel antibody sequences that fold into desired structures with high antigen-binding affinity. However, current evaluation metrics, such as amino acid recovery rates, are limited in their ability to assess the structural and functional accuracy of designed sequences. This study benchmarks state-of-the-art inverse folding models-ProteinMPNN, ESM-IF, LM-Design, and AntiFold-using comprehensive datasets and alternative evaluation metrics like sequence similarity. By systematically analyzing recovery rates, mutation prediction capabilities, and amino acid composition biases, we identify strengths and limitations across models. AntiFold exhibits superior performance in Fab antibody design, whereas LM-Design demonstrates adaptability across diverse antibody types, including VHH antibodies. In contrast, models trained on general protein datasets (e.g., ProteinMPNN and ESM-IF) struggle with antibody-specific nuances. Key insights include the models' varying reliance on antigen structure and their distinct capabilities in capturing critical residues for antigen binding. Our findings highlight the need for enhanced training datasets, integration of functional data, and refined evaluation metrics to advance antibody design tools. By addressing these challenges, future models can unlock the full potential of AI-driven antibody engineering, paving the way for innovative therapeutic applications.
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.