Second antibody modeling assessment (AMA‐II)

To assess the state of the art in antibody 3D modeling, 11 unpublished high‐resolution x‐ray Fab crystal structures from diverse species and covering a wide range of antigen‐binding site conformations were used as a benchmark to compare Fv models generated by seven structure prediction methodologies. The participants included: Accerlys Inc, Chemical Computer Group (CCG), Schrodinger, Jeff Gray's lab at John Hopkins University, Macromoltek, Astellas Pharma/Osaka University and Prediction of ImmunoGlobulin Structure (PIGS). The sequences of benchmark structures were submitted to the modelers and PIGS, and a set of models were generated for each structure. We provide here an overview of the organization, participants and main results of this second antibody modeling assessment (AMA‐II). Also, we compare the results with the first antibody assessment published in this journal (Almagro et al., 2011;79:3050). Proteins 2014; 82:1553–1562. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

[1]  Haruki Nakamura,et al.  Structural classification of CDR‐H3 revisited: A lesson in antibody modeling , 2008, Proteins.

[2]  Jeffrey J. Gray,et al.  RosettaAntibody: antibody variable region homology modeling server , 2009, Nucleic Acids Res..

[3]  Robyn L Stanfield,et al.  Crystal structure determination of anti‐DNA Fab A52 , 2014, Proteins.

[4]  P. Labute,et al.  Antibody modeling assessment , 2011, Proteins.

[5]  Jinquan Luo,et al.  Structural evidence for a constrained conformation of short CDR‐L3 in antibodies , 2014, Proteins.

[6]  Paolo Marcatili,et al.  PIGS: automatic prediction of antibody structures , 2008, Bioinform..

[7]  Vincent B. Chen,et al.  Correspondence e-mail: , 2000 .

[8]  Haruki Nakamura,et al.  High‐resolution modeling of antibody structures by a combination of bioinformatics, expert knowledge, and molecular simulations , 2014, Proteins.

[9]  Jamie K. Scott,et al.  Antibody Engineering and Therapeutics , 2013, mAbs.

[10]  Manuel Berrondo,et al.  Automated Aufbau of antibody structures from given sequences using Macromoltek's SmrtMolAntibody , 2014, Proteins.

[11]  P. Labute,et al.  Assessment of fully automated antibody homology modeling protocols in molecular operating environment , 2014, Proteins.

[12]  Jinquan Luo,et al.  Leveraging SBDD in protein therapeutic development: antibody engineering. , 2012, Methods in molecular biology.

[13]  Gary L Gilliland,et al.  Canonical structures of short CDR-L3 in antibodies , 2014, Proteins.

[14]  Alexey Teplyakov,et al.  Antibody modeling assessment II. Structures and models , 2014, Proteins.

[15]  Jinquan Luo,et al.  Structure and specificity of an antibody targeting a proteolytically cleaved IgG hinge , 2014, Proteins.

[16]  Brian D. Weitzner,et al.  Blind prediction performance of RosettaAntibody 3.0: Grafting, relaxation, kinematic loop modeling, and full CDR optimization , 2014, Proteins.

[17]  Haruki Nakamura,et al.  Computer-aided antibody design , 2012, Protein engineering, design & selection : PEDS.

[18]  A. Lesk,et al.  Canonical structures for the hypervariable regions of immunoglobulins. , 1987, Journal of molecular biology.

[19]  Lisa Yan,et al.  Automated antibody structure prediction using Accelrys tools: Results and best practices , 2014, Proteins.

[20]  Dong Xu,et al.  A Protocol for Computer-Based Protein Structure and Function Prediction , 2011, Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE.

[21]  Richard Friesner,et al.  Antibody structure determination using a combination of homology modeling, energy‐based refinement, and loop prediction , 2014, Proteins.