The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Discovery of broadly‐neutralizing antibodies against brown recluse spider and Gadim scorpion sphingomyelinases using consensus toxins as antigens
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Broadly‐neutralizing monoclonal antibodies are becoming increasingly important tools for treating infectious diseases and animal envenomings. However, designing and developing broadly‐neutralizing antibodies can be cumbersome using traditional low‐throughput iterative protein engineering methods. Here, we present a new high‐throughput approach for the standardized discovery of broadly‐neutralizing monoclonal antibodies relying on phage display technology and consensus antigens representing average sequences of related proteins. We showcase the utility of this approach by applying it to toxic sphingomyelinases from the venoms of species from very distant orders of the animal kingdom, the recluse spider and Gadim scorpion. First, we designed a consensus sphingomyelinase and performed three rounds of phage display selection, followed by DELFIA‐based screening and ranking, and benchmarked this to a similar campaign involving cross‐panning against recombinant versions of the native toxins. Second, we identified two scFvs that not only bind the consensus toxins, but which can also neutralize sphingomyelinase activity of native whole venom in vitro. Finally, we conclude that the phage display campaign involving the use of the consensus toxin was more successful in yielding cross‐neutralizing scFvs than the phage display campaign involving cross‐panning.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold
Jumper, J., Evans, R., Pritzel, A., Green, T., Figurnov, M., Ronneberger, O., Tunyasuvunakool, K., Bates, R., Žídek, A., Potapenko, A., et al. (2021) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2 · Cited by 43,764
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 34
- 10.1038/s41598-020-67654-7 · DOI
- 10.1586/epr.11.61 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.cell.2017.09.048 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.tips.2020.05.006 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/jbt.20399 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.bbrc.2004.11.146 · DOI
- 10.1007/s00726-018-2556-0 · DOI
- 10.1038/s41467-019-11639-2 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.toxicon.2004.08.022 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.toxicon.2012.06.002 · DOI
- GlanvilleJ AndradeJC BellinM KimS PletnevS TsaoD et al.Venom protection by antibody from a snakebite hyperimmune subject.2022. · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009880 · DOI
- 10.3390/toxins10060236 · DOI
- 10.1080/19420862.2021.2014296 · DOI
- 10.1201/9780429054204-38 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.tibtech.2021.03.003 · DOI · Paper page
- Laustsen AH, 2018, In vivo neutralization of dendrotoxin‐mediated neurotoxicity of black mamba venom by oligoclonal human IgG antibodies, Nat Commun, 9, 1
- 10.1016/j.drudis.2022.05.002 · DOI
- 10.1038/s41467-023-36393-4 · DOI
- 10.1107/S2059798319011471 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1186/1472-6750-6-46 · DOI
- 10.1038/s41592-022-01488-1 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1186/s12862-015-0561-4 · DOI
- 10.3389/fbioe.2021.811905 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.toxicon.2016.05.011 · DOI
- 10.1038/s41541-017-0019-3 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.toxicon.2010.05.008 · DOI
- 10.1038/s41598-023-37056-6 · DOI
- 10.1093/nar/gkab1061 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1385/1592598900 · DOI
- 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp033 · DOI
- 10.4049/jimmunol.1901161 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.ebiom.2022.104158 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2006.01492.x · DOI · Paper page
Metadata
- Authors
- Rivera‐de‐Torre, E., Lampadariou, S., Møiniche, M., Bohn, M. F., Kazemi, S. M., & Laustsen, A. H.
- Affiliations
- Technical University of Denmark (DK)
- Zagros Herpetological Institute Qom Iran
- Corresponding author
- Rivera‐de‐Torre, Esperanza
- Laustsen, Andreas H.
- Venue
- Protein Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2024-02-15
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- e4901-e4901
- ISSN
- 0961-8368 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-896X
- PMC
- PMC10868436
- OpenAlex
- W4391844144
- Cited by
- 13
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 7
- FWCI
- 3.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Protein Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Technical University of Denmark, DTU Orbit (Technical University of Denmark, DTU) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Wellcome Trust (221702/Z/20/Z)
- European Research Council (850974)
- Villum Fonden (00025302)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Venomous Animal Envenomation and Studies
- Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Monoclonal and Polyclonal Antibodies Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology (medical) › Healthcare and Venom Research
- Keywords
- broadly neutralizing monoclonal antibodies, sphingomyelinase, brown recluse spider venom, phage display, scFv, cross-neutralization
- MeSH terms
- Broadly Neutralizing Antibodies, Animals, Antibodies, Monoclonal, Scorpions, Sphingomyelin Phosphodiesterase, Spider Venoms, Consensus, Brown Recluse Spider
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review