Improved computational epitope profiling using structural models identifies a broader diversity of antibodies that bind to the same epitope
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
The function of an antibody is intrinsically linked to the epitope it engages. Clonal clustering methods, based on sequence identity, are commonly used to group antibodies that will bind to the same epitope. However, such methods neglect the fact that antibodies with highly diverse sequences can exhibit similar binding site geometries and engage common epitopes. In a previous study, we described SPACE1, a method that structurally clustered antibodies in order to predict their epitopes. This methodology was limited by the inaccuracies and incomplete coverage of template-based modeling. In addition, it was only benchmarked at the level of domain-consistency on one virus class. Here, we present SPACE2, which uses the latest machine learning-based structure prediction technology combined with a novel clustering protocol, and benchmark it on binding data that have epitope-level resolution. On six diverse sets of antigen-specific antibodies, we demonstrate that SPACE2 accurately clusters antibodies that engage common epitopes and achieves far higher dataset coverage than clonal clustering and SPACE1. Furthermore, we show that the functionally consistent structural clusters identified by SPACE2 are even more diverse in sequence, genetic lineage, and species origin than those found by SPACE1. These results reiterate that structural data improve our ability to identify antibodies that bind to the same epitope, adding information to sequence-based methods, especially in datasets of antibodies from diverse sources. SPACE2 is openly available on GitHub ( https://github.com/oxpig/SPACE2 ).
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
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.
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 · see citing works
Evolutionary-scale prediction of atomic level protein structure with a language model
Lin, Z., Akin, H., Rao, R., Hie, B., Zhu, Z., Lu, W., Smetanin, N., Verkuil, R., Kabeli, O., Shmueli, Y., et al. (2022) · doi:10.1101/2022.07.20.500902 · Cited by 5,523 · see citing works
Commonality despite exceptional diversity in the baseline human antibody repertoire
Briney, B., Inderbitzin, A., Joyce, C., & Burton, D. R. (2019) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-019-0879-y · Cited by 544 · see citing works
A new clustering of antibody CDR loop conformations
North, B., Lehmann, A., & Dunbrack, R. L. (2011) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1016/j.jmb.2010.10.030 · Cited by 380 · see citing works
Reddy, S. T., Ge, X., Miklos, A. E., Hughes, R. A., Kang, S. H., Hoi, K. H., Chrysostomou, C., Hunicke-Smith, S. P., Iverson, B. L., Tucker, P. W., et al. (2010) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.1673 · Cited by 292 · see citing works
Antibody structure prediction using interpretable deep learning
Ruffolo, J. A., Sulam, J., & Gray, J. J. (2022) · Patterns · doi:10.1016/j.patter.2021.100406 · Cited by 216 · see citing works
Bioinformatic and Statistical Analysis of Adaptive Immune Repertoires
Greiff, V., Miho, E., Menzel, U., & Reddy, S. T. (2015) · Trends in Immunology · doi:10.1016/j.it.2015.09.006 · Cited by 210 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Predicting the conformational flexibility of antibody and T-cell receptor CDRs
Spoendlin, F. C., Fernández-Quintero, M. L., Raghavan, S. S. R., Turner, H. L., Gharpure, A., Loeffler, J. R., Wong, W. K., Bujotzek, A., Georges, G., Ward, A. B., et al. (2025) · doi:10.1101/2025.03.19.644119 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Spoendlin, F. C., Abanades, B., Raybould, M. I. J., Wong, W. K., Georges, G., & Deane, C. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Deane, Charlotte M.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2023-09-18
- Volume
- 10
- Pages
- 1237621-1237621
- ISSN
- 2296-889X (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC10544996
- OpenAlex
- W4386864280
- Cited by
- 26
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 2.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
- F. Hoffmann-La Roche
- Boehringer Ingelheim
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › vaccines and immunoinformatics approaches
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Monoclonal and Polyclonal Antibodies Research
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
- Keywords
- epitope prediction, antigen-specific antibodies, template-based modeling, antibody repertoire
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