4.7 Article

Humanization of antibodies using a machine learning approach on large-scale repertoire data

期刊

BIOINFORMATICS
卷 37, 期 22, 页码 4041-4047

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btab434

关键词

-

资金

  1. Medical Research Council [MR/N013468/1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study developed machine learning classifiers to distinguish between human and non-human antibody sequences, and used them to create a computational humanization tool, Hu-mAb, which suggests mutations to reduce immunogenicity of antibody therapeutics. The tool's results show a negative relationship with experimental immunogenicity and can effectively replace trial-and-error humanization experiments in a shorter amount of time.
Motivation: Monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapeutics are often produced from non-human sources (typically murine), and can therefore generate immunogenic responses in humans. Humanization procedures aim to produce antibody therapeutics that do not elicit an immune response and are safe for human use, without impacting efficacy. Humanization is normally carried out in a largely trial-and-error experimental process. We have built machine learning classifiers that can discriminate between human and non-human antibody variable domain sequences using the large amount of repertoire data now available. Results: Our classifiers consistently outperform the current best-in-class model for distinguishing human from murine sequences, and our output scores exhibit a negative relationship with the experimental immunogenicity of existing antibody therapeutics. We used our classifiers to develop a novel, computational humanization tool, Hu-mAb, that suggests mutations to an input sequence to reduce its immunogenicity. For a set of therapeutic antibodies with known precursor sequences, the mutations suggested by Hu-mAb show substantial overlap with those deduced experimentally. Hu-mAb is therefore an effective replacement for trial-and-error humanization experiments, producing similar results in a fraction of the time.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据