ArticleMolecular biology and evolution2025
A Sitewise Model of Natural Selection on Individual Antibodies via a Transformer-Encoder.
Article in Molecular biology and evolution, 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.
- Entrenchment of germline amino-acid differences in antibody affinity maturation.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Separating selection from mutation in antibody language models.bioRxiv : the preprint server for 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
During affinity maturation, antibodies are selected for their ability to fold and to bind a target antigen between rounds of somatic hypermutation. Previous studies have identified patterns of selection in antibodies using B cell repertoire sequencing data. However, these studies are constrained by needing to group many sequences or sites to make aggregate predictions. In this paper, we develop a transformer-encoder selection model of maximum resolution: given a single antibody sequence, it predicts the strength of selection on each amino acid site. Specifically, the model predicts for each site whether evolution will be slower than expected relative to a model of the neutral mutation process (purifying selection) or faster than expected (diversifying selection). We show that the model does an excellent job of modeling the process of natural selection on held out data, and does not need to be enormous or trained on vast amounts of data to perform well. The patterns of purifying vs diversifying natural selection do not neatly partition into the complementarity-determining vs framework regions: for example, there are many sites in framework that experience strong diversifying selection. There is a weak correlation between selection factors and solvent accessibility. When considering evolutionary shifts down a tree of antibody evolution, affinity maturation generally shifts sites towards purifying natural selection, however this effect depends on the region, with the biggest shifts toward purifying selection happening in the third complementarity-determining region. We observe distinct evolution between gene families but a limited relationship between germline diversity and selection strength.
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.