Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41129205›Full record

ArticleJournal of chemical theory and computation2025

Assessing Computational Strategies for the Evaluation of Antibody Binding Affinities.

Ida Autiero, Damiano Buratto, Fengyi Guo, Wanding Wang, Malay Ranjan Biswal, Kevin C Chan, Ruhong Zhou, Francesco Zonta

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of chemical theory and computation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Ida AutieroDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Institute of Biostructures and Bioimaging, National Research Council (CNR), Napoli 80145, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-8886-8063
Damiano BurattoInstitute of Quantitative Biology, College of Life Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China.
Fengyi GuoDepartment of Biosciences and Bioinformatics, School of Science, Xi'an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, Suzhou 215123, China.
Wanding WangDepartment of Biosciences and Bioinformatics, School of Science, Xi'an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, Suzhou 215123, China.
Malay Ranjan BiswalDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Institute of Biostructures and Bioimaging, National Research Council (CNR), Napoli 80145, Italy.
Kevin C ChanDepartment of Biosciences and Bioinformatics, School of Science, Xi'an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, Suzhou 215123, China.ORCID 0000-0002-3705-1835
Ruhong ZhouInstitute of Quantitative Biology, College of Life Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China.ORCID 0000-0001-8624-5591
Francesco ZontaDepartment of Biosciences and Bioinformatics, School of Science, Xi'an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, Suzhou 215123, China.ORCID 0000-0001-8729-1071

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate evaluation of binding affinity is critical in drug discovery to identify molecules that bind strongly to their targets while minimizing off-target effects. Although binding affinity calculations are theoretically well defined, they require exhaustive sampling of configurational space, a step that often requires significant computational resources. In this study, we compare different methods for calculating the binding energy of antibodies targeting a peptide derived from the N-terminus of CXCR2, a GPCR-family protein. Contrary to some previous reports, we find that equilibrium molecular mechanics Poisson-Boltzmann surface area (MMPBSA) calculations yield better agreement with experimental binding affinities than nonequilibrium potential of mean force evaluations, underscoring the system-dependent performance of these methods. We also observed a modest improvement in accuracy when MMPBSA is combined with replica exchange molecular dynamics, albeit at a significantly higher computational cost. Calculation based on the Rosetta force field, instead, produced results that did not correlate with the experimental data. We attribute these findings to two factors, which could limit the applicability of some methodologies that are widely used in computing the binding energy: the high potency of the antibodies studied and the dominance of hydrophobic interactions between the antibodies and the peptide. Overall, this work provides important insights for optimizing

Indexed as

AntibodiesMolecular Dynamics SimulationHydrophobic and Hydrophilic InteractionsPeptidesProtein BindingThermodynamicsAntibodiesPeptides

Identifiers

PMID41129205
PMCPMC12613313

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.