Cited by 13Venomous Animal Envenomation and StudiesMonoclonal and Polyclonal Antibodies ResearchHealthcare and Venom Research

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 access

Published 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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/pro.4901

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. 10.1038/s41598-020-67654-7 · DOI
  2. 10.1586/epr.11.61 · DOI
  3. 10.1016/j.cell.2017.09.048 · DOI
  4. 10.1016/j.tips.2020.05.006 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1002/jbt.20399 · DOI
  6. 10.1016/j.bbrc.2004.11.146 · DOI
  7. 10.1007/s00726-018-2556-0 · DOI
  8. 10.1038/s41467-019-11639-2 · DOI
  9. 10.1016/j.toxicon.2004.08.022 · DOI
  10. 10.1016/j.toxicon.2012.06.002 · DOI
  11. GlanvilleJ AndradeJC BellinM KimS PletnevS TsaoD et al.Venom protection by antibody from a snakebite hyperimmune subject.2022. · DOI
  12. 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009880 · DOI
  13. 10.3390/toxins10060236 · DOI
  14. 10.1080/19420862.2021.2014296 · DOI
  15. 10.1201/9780429054204-38 · DOI
  16. 10.1016/j.tibtech.2021.03.003 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Laustsen AH, 2018, In vivo neutralization of dendrotoxin‐mediated neurotoxicity of black mamba venom by oligoclonal human IgG antibodies, Nat Commun, 9, 1
  18. 10.1016/j.drudis.2022.05.002 · DOI
  19. 10.1038/s41467-023-36393-4 · DOI
  20. 10.1107/S2059798319011471 · DOI · Paper page
  21. 10.1186/1472-6750-6-46 · DOI
  22. 10.1038/s41592-022-01488-1 · DOI · Paper page
  23. 10.1186/s12862-015-0561-4 · DOI
  24. 10.3389/fbioe.2021.811905 · DOI
  25. 10.1016/j.toxicon.2016.05.011 · DOI
  26. 10.1038/s41541-017-0019-3 · DOI
  27. 10.1016/j.toxicon.2010.05.008 · DOI
  28. 10.1038/s41598-023-37056-6 · DOI
  29. 10.1093/nar/gkab1061 · DOI · Paper page
  30. 10.1385/1592598900 · DOI
  31. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp033 · DOI
  32. 10.4049/jimmunol.1901161 · DOI
  33. 10.1016/j.ebiom.2022.104158 · DOI · Paper page
  34. 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
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
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