ArticleJournal of chemical theory and computation2025
Assessing Computational Strategies for the Evaluation of Antibody Binding Affinities.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.