
Abstract The precise targeting of antibodies and other protein therapeutics is required for their proper function and the elimination of deleterious off-target effects. Often the molecular structure of a therapeutic target is unknown and randomized methods are used to design antibodies without a model that relates antibody sequence to desired properties. Here we present a machine learning method that can design human Immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies with target affinities that are superior to candidates from phage display panning experiments within a limited design budget. We also demonstrate that machine learning can improve target-specificity by the modular composition of models from different experimental campaigns, enabling a new integrative approach to improving target specificity. Our results suggest a new path for the discovery of therapeutic molecules by demonstrating that predictive and differentiable models of antibody binding can be learned from high-throughput experimental data without the need for target structural data. Significance Antibody based therapeutics must meet both affinity and specificity metrics, and existing in vitro methods for meeting these metrics are based upon randomization and empirical testing. We demonstrate that with sufficient target-specific training data machine learning can suggest novel antibody variable domain sequences that are superior to those observed during training. Our machine learning method does not require any target structural information. We further show that data from disparate antibody campaigns can be combined by machine learning to improve antibody specificity.
Machine Learning, Humans, Original Papers, Complementarity Determining Regions, Antibodies
Machine Learning, Humans, Original Papers, Complementarity Determining Regions, Antibodies
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 136 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% |
