Cited by 37Monoclonal and Polyclonal Antibodies Researchvaccines and immunoinformatics approachesArtificial Immune Systems Applications

Test of a Statistical Model for Molecular Recognition in Biological Repertoires

ROSENWALD, SHAI, KAFRI, RAN, LANCET, DORON·2002·Journal of Theoretical Biology

Abstract

A chance encounter between members of a random repertoire and a molecular target is characteristic of different biological systems, including the immune and olfactory pathways as well as combinatorial libraries. In such systems, the affinity between the target and members of the repertoire is distributed with a probability function describing the propensity of obtaining a particular affinity value. We have previously proposed a phenomenological receptor affinity distribution (RAD) formalism, which describes this probability function based on simple statistical considerations. In the present analysis, we use published data from diverse experimental systems, including phage display libraries, immunoglobulins and enzymes, to test the RAD model and to compare it to other affinity distribution formalisms. The RAD model is found to provide the best description for binding data for over eight orders of magnitude on the affinity scale, and to account for a relationship between repertoire size and the maximal obtainable affinity within different repertoires. This approach points to a potential universality of the rules that govern affinity distributions in biology.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1006/jtbi.2002.2538

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The inferred receptor affinity distribution was verified by meta-analysis of published data from diverse experimental systems, including phage display libraries, hapten-immunoglobulin interactions and enzyme-substrate recognition.

    “For enhanced rigour, the inferred distribution was verified by meta-analysis of published data from diverse experimental systems, including phage display libraries, hapten–immunoglobulin interactions and enzyme–substrate recognition [81].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 77 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
ROSENWALD, S., KAFRI, R., & LANCET, D.
Affiliations
Crown Human Genome Center (IL)
Corresponding author
LANCET, DORON
Venue
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2002-06
Volume
216
Issue
3
Pages
327-336
ISSN
0022-5193 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2061222114
Cited by
37
References
77
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 4
FWCI
2.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Theoretical Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Monoclonal and Polyclonal Antibodies Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › vaccines and immunoinformatics approaches
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Artificial Immune Systems Applications
Keywords
molecular recognition, phage display library, immunoglobulins, enzyme affinity, combinatorial libraries, immune repertoire, olfactory receptors
MeSH terms
Animals, Antibody Affinity, Ligands, Models, Genetic, Probability, Protein Binding, Receptors, Cell Surface, Models, Statistical

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