ArticleJournal of cheminformatics2025
NanoBinder: a machine learning assisted nanobody binding prediction tool using Rosetta energy scores.
Article in Journal of cheminformatics, 2025. 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.
- Reimagining computational macromolecular modeling: AI-driven approaches.Biophysical journal · 2026Review
- Surf2Spot: a surface-informed geometry-aware model for predicting partner-independent binder and nanobody design hotspots.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- A systematic evaluation framework for universal antibody-antigen binding affinity prediction and candidate recommendation.iScience · 2026Article
- A Unified Dataset for Antibody and Nanobody Design Including Sequence, Structure, and Binding Affinity Data.Scientific data · 2026Article
- Nanobodies in biomedicine: from molecular characteristics to fabrication and clinical translation.Military Medical Research · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Nanobodies offer significant therapeutic potential due to their small size, stability, and versatility. Although advancements in computational protein design have made designing de novo nanobodies increasingly feasible, there are limited tools specifically tailored for this purpose. Rosetta with its specialized protocols, is a prominent tool for nanobody design but is limited by a high false-negative rate, necessitating extensive high-throughput screening. This results in increased costs, time, and labor due to the need for large-scale experimentation and detailed structural analysis. To address current challenges in nanobody design, we introduce NanoBinder, an interpretable machine learning model that predicts nanobody-antigen binding using Rosetta energy scores. NanoBinder utilizes a Random Forest model trained on experimentally validated complexes and can be seamlessly integrated into the Rosetta software. It employs SHAP summary plots for interpretability, which helps identify key features influencing binding interactions. Experimentally validated on forty-nine diverse nanobodies, NanoBinder accurately predicts non-binders and shows reasonable performance in identifying binders. This approach significantly enhances predictive accuracy, reduces the need for extensive experimental assays, and accelerates nanobody development, thereby offering a powerful tool to mitigate the costs, time, and labor associated with high-throughput screening.Scientific contribution This study introduces NanoBinder, a machine learning framework for predicting nanobody-antigen binding using Rosetta-derived energy features. Through rigorous experimental validation across diverse nanobody sets, NanoBinder enhances nanobody screening workflows by reducing false positives and minimizing reliance on extensive wet-lab assays. The approach bridges the gap between physics-based modeling and data-driven prediction in nanobody design.
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.