4.4 Article

Machine Learning Enables Accurate Prediction of Asparagine Deamidation Probability and Rate

Journal

MOLECULAR THERAPY-METHODS & CLINICAL DEVELOPMENT
Volume 15, Issue -, Pages 264-274

Publisher

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.omtm.2019.09.008

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. global biologics R&D arm of AstraZeneca

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The spontaneous conversion of asparagine residues to aspartic acid or iso-aspartic acid, via deamidation, is a major pathway of protein degradation and is often seriously disruptive to biological systems. Deamidation has been shown to negatively affect both in vitro stability and in vivo biological function of diverse classes of proteins. During protein therapeutics development, deamidation liabilities that are overlooked necessitate expensive and time-consuming remediation strategies, sometimes leading to termination of the project. In this paper, we apply machine learning to a large (n = 776) liquid chromatographytandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) dataset of monoclonal antibody peptides to create computational models for the post-translational modification asparagine deamidation, using the random decision forest method. We show that our categorical model predicts antibody deamidation with nearly 5% increased accuracy and 0.2 MCC over the best currently available models. Surprisingly, our model also paces or outperforms advanced and conventional models on an independent non-antibody dataset. In addition to deamidation probability, we are able to accurately predict deamidation rate (R-2 = 0.963 and Q(2) = 0.822), a capability with no peer in current models. This method should enable significant improvement in protein candidate selection, especially in biopharmaceutical development, and can be applied with similar accuracy to enzymes, monoclonal antibodies, next-generation formats, vaccine component antigens, and gene therapy vectors such as adeno-associated virus.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available