Cited by 96Monoclonal and Polyclonal Antibodies Researchvaccines and immunoinformatics approachesComputational Drug Discovery Methods

Machine learning optimization of candidate antibody yields highly diverse sub-nanomolar affinity antibody libraries

Open access
Li, Lin, Gupta, Esther, Spaeth, John, Shing, Leslie, Jaimes, Rafael, Engelhart, Emily, Lopez, Randolph, Caceres, Rajmonda S. +2 more·2023·Nature Communications

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Therapeutic antibodies are an important and rapidly growing drug modality. However, the design and discovery of early-stage antibody therapeutics remain a time and cost-intensive endeavor. Here we present an end-to-end Bayesian, language model-based method for designing large and diverse libraries of high-affinity single-chain variable fragments (scFvs) that are then empirically measured. In a head-to-head comparison with a directed evolution approach, we show that the best scFv generated from our method represents a 28.7-fold improvement in binding over the best scFv from the directed evolution. Additionally, 99% of designed scFvs in our most successful library are improvements over the initial candidate scFv. By comparing a library’s predicted success to actual measurements, we demonstrate our method’s ability to explore tradeoffs between library success and diversity. Results of our work highlight the significant impact machine learning models can have on scFv development. We expect our method to be broadly applicable and provide value to other protein engineering tasks.

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 · 10.1038/s41467-023-39022-2

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Li, L., Gupta, E., Spaeth, J., Shing, L., Jaimes, R., Engelhart, E., Lopez, R., Caceres, R. S., Bepler, T., & Walsh, M. E.
Affiliations
  • MIT Lincoln Laboratory (US)
  • New York Structural Biology Center (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Li, Lin
Venue
Nature Communications
Published
2023-06-12
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
3454-3454
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4380321714
Cited by
96
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 9
FWCI
15.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
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 › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
Keywords
antibody design, scFv, scFv library, Bayesian optimization, language models, library diversity, binding affinity, directed evolution, protein engineering, therapeutic antibodies, machine learning optimization
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Bayes Theorem, Language, Gene Library, Single-Chain Antibodies

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