DOTAD: A Database of Therapeutic Antibody Developability.
Antibody development
Database
Developability
Therapeutic antibody
Journal
Interdisciplinary sciences, computational life sciences
ISSN: 1867-1462
Titre abrégé: Interdiscip Sci
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101515919
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
26 Mar 2024
26 Mar 2024
Historique:
received:
13
08
2023
accepted:
27
01
2024
revised:
25
01
2024
medline:
26
3
2024
pubmed:
26
3
2024
entrez:
26
3
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
The development of therapeutic antibodies is an important aspect of new drug discovery pipelines. The assessment of an antibody's developability-its suitability for large-scale production and therapeutic use-is a particularly important step in this process. Given that experimental assays to assess antibody developability in large scale are expensive and time-consuming, computational methods have been a more efficient alternative. However, the antibody research community faces significant challenges due to the scarcity of readily accessible data on antibody developability, which is essential for training and validating computational models. To address this gap, DOTAD (Database Of Therapeutic Antibody Developability) has been built as the first database dedicated exclusively to the curation of therapeutic antibody developability information. DOTAD aggregates all available therapeutic antibody sequence data along with various developability metrics from the scientific literature, offering researchers a robust platform for data storage, retrieval, exploration, and downloading. In addition to serving as a comprehensive repository, DOTAD enhances its utility by integrating a web-based interface that features state-of-the-art tools for the assessment of antibody developability. This ensures that users not only have access to critical data but also have the convenience of analyzing and interpreting this information. The DOTAD database represents a valuable resource for the scientific community, facilitating the advancement of therapeutic antibody research. It is freely accessible at http://i.uestc.edu.cn/DOTAD/ , providing an open data platform that supports the continuous growth and evolution of computational methods in the field of antibody development.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38530613
doi: 10.1007/s12539-024-00613-2
pii: 10.1007/s12539-024-00613-2
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : National Natural Science Foundation of China
ID : 62071099
Informations de copyright
© 2024. International Association of Scientists in the Interdisciplinary Areas.
Références
Buss NA, Henderson SJ, McFarlane M et al (2012) Monoclonal antibody therapeutics: history and future. Curr Opin Pharmacol 12:615–622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coph.2012.08.001
doi: 10.1016/j.coph.2012.08.001
pubmed: 22920732
Smith SL (1996) Ten years of Orthoclone OKT3 (muromonab-CD3): a review. J Transpl Coord 6:109–19; quiz 120-1. https://doi.org/10.7182/prtr.1.6.3.8145l3u185493182
doi: 10.7182/prtr.1.6.3.8145l3u185493182
pubmed: 9188368
Lyu X, Zhao Q, Hui J et al (2022) The global landscape of approved antibody therapies. Antib Ther 5:233–257. https://doi.org/10.1093/abt/tbac021
doi: 10.1093/abt/tbac021
pubmed: 36213257
pmcid: 9535261
Kaplon H, Chenoweth A, Crescioli S et al (2022) Antibodies to watch in 2022. MAbs. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420862.2021.2014296
doi: 10.1080/19420862.2021.2014296
pubmed: 35030985
pmcid: 9728470
Elgundi Z, Reslan M, Cruz E et al (2017) The state-of-play and future of antibody therapeutics. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 122:2–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2016.11.004
doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2016.11.004
pubmed: 27916504
Carter PJ, Lazar GA (2018) Next generation antibody drugs: pursuit of the “high-hanging fruit.” Nat Rev Drug Discov 17:197–223. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd.2017.227
doi: 10.1038/nrd.2017.227
pubmed: 29192287
Jain T, Sun T, Durand S et al (2017) Biophysical properties of the clinical-stage antibody landscape. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 114:944–949. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1616408114
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1616408114
pubmed: 28096333
pmcid: 5293111
Ahmed L, Gupta P, Martin KP et al (2021) Intrinsic physicochemical profile of marketed antibody-based biotherapeutics. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2020577118
doi: 10.1073/pnas.2020577118
pubmed: 34893539
pmcid: 8740706
Liu Y, Caffry I, Wu J et al (2014) High-throughput screening for developability during early-stage antibody discovery using self-interaction nanoparticle spectroscopy. MAbs 6:483–492. https://doi.org/10.4161/mabs.27431
doi: 10.4161/mabs.27431
pubmed: 24492294
Gentiluomo L, Svilenov HL, Augustijn D et al (2020) Advancing therapeutic protein discovery and development through comprehensive computational and biophysical characterization. Mol Pharm 17:426–440. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.9b00852
doi: 10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.9b00852
pubmed: 31790599
Dobson CL, Devine PW, Phillips JJ et al (2016) Engineering the surface properties of a human monoclonal antibody prevents self-association and rapid clearance in vivo. Sci Rep 6:38644. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep38644
doi: 10.1038/srep38644
pubmed: 27995962
pmcid: 5171805
Lavoisier A, Schlaeppi JM (2015) Early developability screen of therapeutic antibody candidates using Taylor dispersion analysis and UV area imaging detection. MAbs 7:77–83. https://doi.org/10.4161/19420862.2014.985544
doi: 10.4161/19420862.2014.985544
pubmed: 25514497
Azevedo Reis Teixeira A, Erasmus MF, D’Angelo S et al (2021) Drug-like antibodies with high affinity, diversity and developability directly from next-generation antibody libraries. MAbs 13:1980942. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420862.2021.1980942
doi: 10.1080/19420862.2021.1980942
pubmed: 34850665
pmcid: 8654478
Zhou Y, Huang Z, Gou Y et al (2023) AB-Amy: machine learning aided amyloidogenic risk prediction of therapeutic antibody light chains. Antib Ther 6:147–156. https://doi.org/10.1093/abt/tbad007
doi: 10.1093/abt/tbad007
pubmed: 37492587
pmcid: 10365155
Zhou Y, Huang Z, Li W et al (2023) Deep learning in preclinical antibody drug discovery and development. Methods 218:57–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymeth.2023.07.003
doi: 10.1016/j.ymeth.2023.07.003
pubmed: 37454742
Zhou Y, Xie S, Yang Y et al (2022) SSH2.0: a better tool for predicting the hydrophobic interaction risk of monoclonal antibody. Front Genet 13:842127. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2022.842127
doi: 10.3389/fgene.2022.842127
pubmed: 35368659
pmcid: 8965096
Lefranc MP, Lefranc G (2019) IMGT(®) and 30 years of immunoinformatics insight in antibody V and C domain structure and function. Antibodies (Basel). https://doi.org/10.3390/antib8020029
doi: 10.3390/antib8020029
pubmed: 31544835
Raybould MIJ, Marks C, Lewis AP et al (2019) Thera-SAbDab: the therapeutic structural antibody database. Nucleic Acids Res 48:D383–D388. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkz827
doi: 10.1093/nar/gkz827
pmcid: 6943036
Jain T, Boland T, Vásquez M (2023) Identifying developability risks for clinical progression of antibodies using high-throughput in vitro and in silico approaches. MAbs 15:2200540. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420862.2023.2200540
doi: 10.1080/19420862.2023.2200540
pubmed: 37072706
pmcid: 10114995
Dzisoo AM, Kang J, Yao P et al (2020) SSH: a tool for predicting hydrophobic interaction of monoclonal antibodies using sequences. Biomed Res Int 2020:3508107. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/3508107
doi: 10.1155/2020/3508107
pubmed: 32596302
pmcid: 7288208
Nelson PN, Reynolds GM, Waldron EE et al (2000) Monoclonal antibodies. Mol Pathol 53:111–117. https://doi.org/10.1136/mp.53.3.111
doi: 10.1136/mp.53.3.111
pubmed: 10897328
pmcid: 1186915
Scott LJ (2017) Tocilizumab: a review in rheumatoid arthritis. Drugs 77:1865–1879. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40265-017-0829-7
doi: 10.1007/s40265-017-0829-7
pubmed: 29094311
pmcid: 5736769
Grieshaber-Bouyer R, Lorenz HM (2020) Biosimilars: opportunities and risks. Internist (Berl) 61:522–529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00108-020-00784-2
doi: 10.1007/s00108-020-00784-2
pubmed: 32333085
Lu X, Hu R, Peng L et al (2021) Efficacy and safety of adalimumab biosimilars: current critical clinical data in rheumatoid arthritis. Front Immunol 12:638444. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2021.638444
doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.638444
pubmed: 33889152
pmcid: 8055954
Ducancel F, Muller BH (2012) Molecular engineering of antibodies for therapeutic and diagnostic purposes. MAbs 4:445–457. https://doi.org/10.4161/mabs.20776
doi: 10.4161/mabs.20776
pubmed: 22684311
pmcid: 3499339
Schroeder HW Jr, Cavacini L (2010) Structure and function of immunoglobulins. J Allergy Clin Immunol 125:S41-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2009.09.046
doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2009.09.046
pubmed: 20176268
pmcid: 3670108
Vukovic N, van Elsas A, Verbeek JS et al (2021) Isotype selection for antibody-based cancer therapy. Clin Exp Immunol 203:351–365. https://doi.org/10.1111/cei.13545
doi: 10.1111/cei.13545
pubmed: 33155272
Stanfield RL, Zemla A, Wilson IA et al (2006) Antibody elbow angles are influenced by their light chain class. J Mol Biol 357:1566–1574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmb.2006.01.023
doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2006.01.023
pubmed: 16497332
Bailey LJ, Sheehy KM, Dominik PK et al (2018) Locking the elbow: improved antibody fab fragments as chaperones for structure determination. J Mol Biol 430:337–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmb.2017.12.012
doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2017.12.012
pubmed: 29273204
Bailly M, Mieczkowski C, Juan V et al (2020) Predicting antibody developability profiles through early stage discovery screening. MAbs 12:1743053. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420862.2020.1743053
doi: 10.1080/19420862.2020.1743053
pubmed: 32249670
pmcid: 7153844
Hebditch M, Warwicker J (2019) Charge and hydrophobicity are key features in sequence-trained machine learning models for predicting the biophysical properties of clinical-stage antibodies. PeerJ 7:e8199. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.8199
doi: 10.7717/peerj.8199
pubmed: 31976163
pmcid: 6967001
Sule SV, Sukumar M, Weiss WFT et al (2011) High-throughput analysis of concentration-dependent antibody self-association. Biophys J 101:1749–1757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpj.2011.08.036
doi: 10.1016/j.bpj.2011.08.036
pubmed: 21961601
pmcid: 3183799
Estep P, Caffry I, Yu Y et al (2015) An alternative assay to hydrophobic interaction chromatography for high-throughput characterization of monoclonal antibodies. MAbs 7:553–561. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420862.2015.1016694
doi: 10.1080/19420862.2015.1016694
pubmed: 25790175
pmcid: 4622688
Mouquet H, Scheid JF, Zoller MJ et al (2010) Polyreactivity increases the apparent affinity of anti-HIV antibodies by heteroligation. Nature 467:591–595. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09385
doi: 10.1038/nature09385
pubmed: 20882016
pmcid: 3699875
Hötzel I, Theil FP, Bernstein LJ et al (2012) A strategy for risk mitigation of antibodies with fast clearance. MAbs 4:753–760. https://doi.org/10.4161/mabs.22189
doi: 10.4161/mabs.22189
pubmed: 23778268
pmcid: 3502242
Dietlin-Auril V, Lecerf M, Depinay S et al (2021) Interaction with 2,4-dinitrophenol correlates with polyreactivity, self-binding, and stability of clinical-stage therapeutic antibodies. Mol Immunol 140:233–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molimm.2021.10.019
doi: 10.1016/j.molimm.2021.10.019
pubmed: 34773862
O’Connor BF, Cummins PM (2017) Hydrophobic interaction chromatography. Methods Mol Biol 1485:355–363. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-6412-3_18
doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-6412-3_18
pubmed: 27730562
Kohli N, Jain N, Geddie ML et al (2015) A novel screening method to assess developability of antibody-like molecules. MAbs 7:752–758. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420862.2015.1048410
doi: 10.1080/19420862.2015.1048410
pubmed: 25961854
pmcid: 4622974
Ravuluri S, Bansal R, Chhabra N et al (2018) Kinetics and characterization of non-enzymatic fragmentation of monoclonal antibody therapeutics. Pharm Res 35:142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11095-018-2415-4
doi: 10.1007/s11095-018-2415-4
pubmed: 29761239
Xu Y, Roach W, Sun T et al (2013) Addressing polyspecificity of antibodies selected from an in vitro yeast presentation system: a FACS-based, high-throughput selection and analytical tool. Protein Eng Des Sel 26:663–670. https://doi.org/10.1093/protein/gzt047
doi: 10.1093/protein/gzt047
pubmed: 24046438
Jacobs SA, Wu SJ, Feng Y et al (2010) Cross-interaction chromatography: a rapid method to identify highly soluble monoclonal antibody candidates. Pharm Res 27:65–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11095-009-0007-z
doi: 10.1007/s11095-009-0007-z
pubmed: 19911257
Sun T, Reid F, Liu Y et al (2013) High throughput detection of antibody self-interaction by bio-layer interferometry. MAbs 5:838–841. https://doi.org/10.4161/mabs.26186
doi: 10.4161/mabs.26186
pubmed: 23995620
pmcid: 3896597
Kraft TE, Richter WF, Emrich T et al (2020) Heparin chromatography as an in vitro predictor for antibody clearance rate through pinocytosis. MAbs 12:1683432. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420862.2019.1683432
doi: 10.1080/19420862.2019.1683432
pubmed: 31769731
Lecerf M, Kanyavuz A, Rossini S et al (2021) Interaction of clinical-stage antibodies with heme predicts their physiochemical and binding qualities. Commun Biol 4:391. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-021-01931-7
doi: 10.1038/s42003-021-01931-7
pubmed: 33758329
pmcid: 7988133
Jain T, Boland T, Lilov A et al (2017) Prediction of delayed retention of antibodies in hydrophobic interaction chromatography from sequence using machine learning. Bioinformatics 33:3758–3766. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btx519
doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btx519
pubmed: 28961999
Sharma VK, Patapoff TW, Kabakoff B et al (2014) In silico selection of therapeutic antibodies for development: viscosity, clearance, and chemical stability. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111:18601–18606. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1421779112
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1421779112
pubmed: 25512516
pmcid: 4284567
Tomar DS, Li L, Broulidakis MP et al (2017) In-silico prediction of concentration-dependent viscosity curves for monoclonal antibody solutions. MAbs 9:476–489. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420862.2017.1285479
doi: 10.1080/19420862.2017.1285479
pubmed: 28125318
pmcid: 5384706
Lai PK, Fernando A, Cloutier TK et al (2021) Machine learning applied to determine the molecular descriptors responsible for the viscosity behavior of concentrated therapeutic antibodies. Mol Pharm 18:1167–1175. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.0c01073
doi: 10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.0c01073
pubmed: 33450157
Lai PK (2022) DeepSCM: an efficient convolutional neural network surrogate model for the screening of therapeutic antibody viscosity. Comput Struct Biotechnol J 20:2143–2152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csbj.2022.04.035
doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2022.04.035
pubmed: 35832619
pmcid: 9092385
Lai PK, Gallegos A, Mody N et al (2022) Machine learning prediction of antibody aggregation and viscosity for high concentration formulation development of protein therapeutics. MAbs 14:2026208. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420862.2022.2026208
doi: 10.1080/19420862.2022.2026208
pubmed: 35075980
pmcid: 8794240
Schmitt J, Razvi A, Grapentin C (2023) Predictive modeling of concentration-dependent viscosity behavior of monoclonal antibody solutions using artificial neural networks. MAbs 15:2169440. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420862.2023.2169440
doi: 10.1080/19420862.2023.2169440
pubmed: 36705325
pmcid: 9888472
Magnan CN, Randall A, Baldi P (2009) SOLpro: accurate sequence-based prediction of protein solubility. Bioinformatics 25:2200–2207. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btp386
doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp386
pubmed: 19549632
Smialowski P, Doose G, Torkler P et al (2012) PROSO II—a new method for protein solubility prediction. FEBS J 279:2192–2200. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-4658.2012.08603.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1742-4658.2012.08603.x
pubmed: 22536855
Hebditch M, Carballo-Amador MA, Charonis S et al (2017) Protein-Sol: a web tool for predicting protein solubility from sequence. Bioinformatics 33:3098–3100. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btx345
doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btx345
pubmed: 28575391
pmcid: 5870856
Rawi R, Mall R, Kunji K et al (2018) PaRSnIP: sequence-based protein solubility prediction using gradient boosting machine. Bioinformatics 34:1092–1098. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btx662
doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btx662
pubmed: 29069295
Khurana S, Rawi R, Kunji K et al (2018) DeepSol: a deep learning framework for sequence-based protein solubility prediction. Bioinformatics 34:2605–2613. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bty166
doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty166
pubmed: 29554211
pmcid: 6355112
Raimondi D, Orlando G, Fariselli P et al (2020) Insight into the protein solubility driving forces with neural attention. PLoS Comput Biol 16:e1007722. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007722
doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007722
pubmed: 32352965
pmcid: 7217484
Hou Q, Kwasigroch JM, Rooman M et al (2020) SOLart: a structure-based method to predict protein solubility and aggregation. Bioinformatics 36:1445–1452. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btz773
doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btz773
pubmed: 31603466
Wu X, Yu L (2021) EPSOL: sequence-based protein solubility prediction using multidimensional embedding. Bioinformatics. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btab463
doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btab463
pubmed: 34879823
pmcid: 10060731
Hon J, Marusiak M, Martinek T et al (2021) SoluProt: prediction of soluble protein expression in Escherichia coli. Bioinformatics 37:23–28. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa1102
doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa1102
pubmed: 33416864
pmcid: 8034534
Thumuluri V, Martiny HM, Armenteros JJA et al (2021) NetSolP: predicting protein solubility in E. coli using language models. Bioinformatics. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btab801
doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btab801
Han X, Shih J, Lin Y et al (2022) Development of QSAR models for in silico screening of antibody solubility. MAbs 14:2062807. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420862.2022.2062807
doi: 10.1080/19420862.2022.2062807
pubmed: 35442164
pmcid: 9037471
Feng J, Jiang M, Shih J et al (2022) Antibody apparent solubility prediction from sequence by transfer learning. iScience 25:105173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2022.105173
doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2022.105173
pubmed: 36212021
pmcid: 9535432
Kim C, Choi J, Lee SJ et al (2009) NetCSSP: web application for predicting chameleon sequences and amyloid fibril formation. Nucleic Acids Res 37:W469–W473. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkp351
doi: 10.1093/nar/gkp351
pubmed: 19468045
pmcid: 2703942
Emily M, Talvas A, Delamarche C (2013) MetAmyl: a METa-predictor for AMYLoid proteins. PLoS ONE 8:e79722. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0079722
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0079722
pubmed: 24260292
pmcid: 3834037
Thangakani AM, Kumar S, Nagarajan R et al (2014) GAP: towards almost 100 percent prediction for β-strand-mediated aggregating peptides with distinct morphologies. Bioinformatics 30:1983–1990. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btu167
doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu167
pubmed: 24681906
Família C, Dennison SR, Quintas A et al (2015) Prediction of peptide and protein propensity for amyloid formation. PLoS ONE 10:e0134679. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134679
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0134679
pubmed: 26241652
pmcid: 4524629
Burdukiewicz M, Sobczyk P, Rödiger S et al (2017) Amyloidogenic motifs revealed by n-gram analysis. Sci Rep 7:12961. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-13210-9
doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-13210-9
pubmed: 29021608
pmcid: 5636826
Niu M, Li Y, Wang C et al (2018) RFAmyloid: a web server for predicting amyloid proteins. Int J Mol Sci. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms19072071
doi: 10.3390/ijms19072071
pubmed: 30586917
pmcid: 6337502
Wojciechowski JW, Kotulska M (2020) PATH—prediction of amyloidogenicity by threading and machine learning. Sci Rep 10:7721. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-64270-3
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-64270-3
pubmed: 32382058
pmcid: 7206081
Gentiluomo L, Roessner D, Frieß W (2020) Application of machine learning to predict monomer retention of therapeutic proteins after long term storage. Int J Pharm 577:119039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpharm.2020.119039
doi: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2020.119039
pubmed: 31953088
Saha S, Raghava GP (2006) Prediction of continuous B-cell epitopes in an antigen using recurrent neural network. Proteins 65:40–48. https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.21078
doi: 10.1002/prot.21078
pubmed: 16894596
El-Manzalawy Y, Dobbs D, Honavar V (2008) Predicting linear B-cell epitopes using string kernels. J Mol Recognit 21:243–255. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmr.893
doi: 10.1002/jmr.893
pubmed: 18496882
pmcid: 2683948
Sweredoski MJ, Baldi P (2009) COBEpro: a novel system for predicting continuous B-cell epitopes. Protein Eng Des Sel 22:113–120. https://doi.org/10.1093/protein/gzn075
doi: 10.1093/protein/gzn075
pubmed: 19074155
Magnan CN, Zeller M, Kayala MA et al (2010) High-throughput prediction of protein antigenicity using protein microarray data. Bioinformatics 26:2936–2943. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btq551
doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq551
pubmed: 20934990
pmcid: 2982151
Singh H, Ansari HR, Raghava GP (2013) Improved method for linear B-cell epitope prediction using antigen’s primary sequence. PLoS ONE 8:e62216. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062216
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0062216
pubmed: 23667458
pmcid: 3646881
Jespersen MC, Peters B, Nielsen M et al (2017) BepiPred-2.0: improving sequence-based B-cell epitope prediction using conformational epitopes. Nucleic Acids Res 45:W24–W29. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkx346
doi: 10.1093/nar/gkx346
pubmed: 28472356
pmcid: 5570230
Ansari HR, Raghava GP (2010) Identification of conformational B-cell Epitopes in an antigen from its primary sequence. Immunome Res 6:6. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-7580-6-6
doi: 10.1186/1745-7580-6-6
pubmed: 20961417
pmcid: 2974664
Wollacott AM, Xue C, Qin Q et al (2019) Quantifying the nativeness of antibody sequences using long short-term memory networks. Protein Eng Des Sel 32:347–354. https://doi.org/10.1093/protein/gzz031
doi: 10.1093/protein/gzz031
pubmed: 31504835
pmcid: 7372931
Yao B, Zheng D, Liang S et al (2020) SVMTriP: a method to predict B-cell linear antigenic epitopes. Methods Mol Biol 2131:299–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-0389-5_17
doi: 10.1007/978-1-0716-0389-5_17
pubmed: 32162263
Reynisson B, Alvarez B, Paul S et al (2020) NetMHCpan-4.1 and NetMHCIIpan-4.0: improved predictions of MHC antigen presentation by concurrent motif deconvolution and integration of MS MHC eluted ligand data. Nucleic Acids Res 48:W449–W454. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkaa379
doi: 10.1093/nar/gkaa379
pubmed: 32406916
pmcid: 7319546
Prihoda D, Maamary J, Waight A et al (2022) BioPhi: a platform for antibody design, humanization, and humanness evaluation based on natural antibody repertoires and deep learning. MAbs 14:2020203. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420862.2021.2020203
doi: 10.1080/19420862.2021.2020203
pubmed: 35133949
pmcid: 8837241
Marks C, Hummer AM, Chin M et al (2021) Humanization of antibodies using a machine learning approach on large-scale repertoire data. Bioinformatics 37:4041–4047. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btab434
doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btab434
pubmed: 34110413
pmcid: 8760955
Olenyi T, Marquet C, Heinzinger M et al (2023) LambdaPP: fast and accessible protein-specific phenotype predictions. Protein Sci 32:e4524. https://doi.org/10.1002/pro.4524
doi: 10.1002/pro.4524
pubmed: 36454227
pmcid: 9793974
Yang ZR (2009) Predicting sulfotyrosine sites using the random forest algorithm with significantly improved prediction accuracy. BMC Bioinform 10:361. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-10-361
doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-10-361
Gao J, Thelen JJ, Dunker AK et al (2010) Musite, a tool for global prediction of general and kinase-specific phosphorylation sites. Mol Cell Proteomics 9:2586–2600. https://doi.org/10.1074/mcp.M110.001388
doi: 10.1074/mcp.M110.001388
pubmed: 20702892
pmcid: 3101956
Huang SY, Shi SP, Qiu JD et al (2012) PredSulSite: prediction of protein tyrosine sulfation sites with multiple features and analysis. Anal Biochem 428:16–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ab.2012.06.003
doi: 10.1016/j.ab.2012.06.003
pubmed: 22691961
Chauhan JS, Rao A, Raghava GP (2013) In silico platform for prediction of N-, O- and C-glycosites in eukaryotic protein sequences. PLoS ONE 8:e67008. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067008
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0067008
pubmed: 23840574
pmcid: 3695939
Sydow JF, Lipsmeier F, Larraillet V et al (2014) Structure-based prediction of asparagine and aspartate degradation sites in antibody variable regions. PLoS ONE 9:e100736. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0100736
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0100736
pubmed: 24959685
pmcid: 4069079
Lv H, Han J, Liu J et al (2014) CarSPred: a computational tool for predicting carbonylation sites of human proteins. PLoS ONE 9:e111478. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111478
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0111478
pubmed: 25347395
pmcid: 4210226
Jia J, Liu Z, Xiao X et al (2016) iCar-PseCp: identify carbonylation sites in proteins by Monte Carlo sampling and incorporating sequence coupled effects into general PseAAC. Oncotarget 7:34558–70. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.9148
Yan Q, Huang M, Lewis MJ et al (2018) Structure based prediction of asparagine deamidation propensity in monoclonal antibodies. MAbs 10:901–912. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420862.2018.1478646
doi: 10.1080/19420862.2018.1478646
pubmed: 29958069
pmcid: 6152450
Luo F, Wang M, Liu Y et al (2019) DeepPhos: prediction of protein phosphorylation sites with deep learning. Bioinformatics 35:2766–2773. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bty1051
doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty1051
pubmed: 30601936
pmcid: 6691328
Delmar JA, Wang J, Choi SW et al (2019) Machine learning enables accurate prediction of asparagine deamidation probability and rate. Mol Ther Methods Clin Dev 15:264–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omtm.2019.09.008
doi: 10.1016/j.omtm.2019.09.008
pubmed: 31890727
pmcid: 6923510
Wang D, Liu D, Yuchi J et al (2020) MusiteDeep: a deep-learning based webserver for protein post-translational modification site prediction and visualization. Nucleic Acids Res 48:W140–W146. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkaa275
doi: 10.1093/nar/gkaa275
pubmed: 32324217
pmcid: 7319475
Zhang D, Xu Z-C, Su W et al (2020) iCarPS: a computational tool for identifying protein carbonylation sites by novel encoded features. Bioinformatics 37:171–177. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa702
doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa702
Dehzangi I, Sharma A, Shatabda S (2022) iProtGly-SS: a tool to accurately predict protein glycation site using structural-based features. Methods Mol Biol 2499:125–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-2317-6_5
doi: 10.1007/978-1-0716-2317-6_5
pubmed: 35696077