Biophysical Considerations for Rational Antibody and ADC Design

Alberto Ocana; Jorge R. Espinosa

arxiv: 2605.16070 · v1 · pith:DOKN6GXGnew · submitted 2026-05-15 · ❄️ cond-mat.soft · physics.bio-ph

Biophysical Considerations for Rational Antibody and ADC Design

Alberto Ocana , Jorge R. Espinosa This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 18:42 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.soft physics.bio-ph

keywords antibody-drug conjugatescomputational biophysicsmolecular dynamicsconjugation sitelinker chemistrydrug-antibody ratioconformational landscapesADC developability

0 comments

The pith

Computational biophysics can map how conjugation site, linker, and drug ratio reshape antibody shape to predict ADC binding and uptake.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper claims that factors such as where a drug is attached to an antibody, the chemistry connecting them, and the number of drugs per antibody change the molecule's three-dimensional form in ways that control whether it reaches its target, enters cells, and remains stable enough for manufacturing. Molecular dynamics simulations and related free-energy methods make these connections visible at the atomic scale, turning what are now often post-hoc observations into upfront design choices. If the approach works, developers could test fewer candidates in the lab and move promising ADCs toward clinical use with fewer setbacks from unexpected loss of binding or poor stability.

Core claim

The authors contend that molecular dynamics, coarse-grained simulations, and free energy calculations reveal how conjugation site, linker chemistry, and drug-antibody ratio reshape conformational landscapes, with direct implications for antigen binding, internalization, and developability of antibody-drug conjugates.

What carries the argument

Structural coupling between the antibody, linker, and payload, tracked through physics-based simulations that translate molecular interactions into effects on biological function.

If this is right

Optimal attachment sites can be identified in advance to keep antigen recognition intact.
Linker designs can be screened for their influence on payload release timing and off-target toxicity.
Different drug loads per antibody can be evaluated for effects on overall molecular stability before synthesis.
Physics modeling added to development pipelines can cut the number of experimental rounds needed.
Better force fields and hybrid methods will make predictions more accurate for future ADC formats.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same simulation framework could help design bispecific antibodies where two binding arms must stay in register.
Large datasets of approved ADCs could serve as benchmarks to test how well conformational predictions match clinical performance.
Routine use of these tools might move industry practice from fixing problems after conjugation to avoiding them at the design stage.
Connecting simulation outputs to downstream manufacturing yields would require additional models of aggregation and viscosity.

Load-bearing premise

That simulations of conformational changes reliably forecast real differences in antigen binding, cell uptake, and stability once the ADC is made and tested.

What would settle it

An experiment in which simulated shifts in antibody conformation after conjugation fail to match measured drops in binding affinity or internalization efficiency in the same set of ADCs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.16070 by Alberto Ocana, Jorge R. Espinosa.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: From All-Atom to Coarse-Grained Simulations and Experimental Validation of Antibody Properties (a) Workflow illustrating how an all-atom antibody structure can be coarse-grained into a highresolution coarse-grained model (e.g., MARTINI) to investigate mesoscale processes such as antibody aggregation on membranes or internalization efficiency as a function of antibody surface concentration. Through a back-… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Antibody-based therapeutics-including antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), bispecific antibodies, and novel formats-are reshaping oncology, yet key determinants of efficacy, safety, and manufacturability frequently emerge after conjugation and formulation. We argue that computational biophysics provides an underexploited framework to address this gap by connecting molecular interactions to biological outcomes. We highlight how molecular dynamics, coarse-grained simulations, and free energy calculations reveal how conjugation site, linker chemistry, and drug-antibody ratio reshape conformational landscapes. We emphasize structural coupling between antibody, linker, and payload, with implications for antigen binding, internalization, and developability. We propose that integrating physics-based modeling into development pipelines-alongside experimental validation-can reduce empirical iteration and de-risk translation. As force fields, and hybrid physics-machine-learning methods improve, this field is poised to become a central driver of next-generation ADC design.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This is a perspective advocating biophysical simulations for ADC design but with no new data or validations to support the claims.

read the letter

Colleague, This paper is a perspective advocating that computational biophysics can help rationalize ADC design by predicting how conjugation parameters affect antibody conformation and function. It offers no new simulations, data, or validations. What it does reasonably well is describe the biophysical challenges post-conjugation and suggest that MD and free energy methods could link molecular interactions to outcomes like antigen binding and developability. The emphasis on structural coupling between components is a solid framing for why simulations might add value beyond pure experiment. The soft spots are that the central claim rests on the potential of these methods without showing they work well enough yet for this application. The text acknowledges needs for better force fields and ML hybrids, which makes the immediate utility unclear. It's an extension of existing ideas to this subfield rather than a fresh advance. Readers in ADC development or computational structural biology would get the most from it, as a prompt to consider these tools in their pipelines. It could be worth a serious referee's time for a journal focused on drug design or biophysics applications, since it highlights a real gap even if the support is conceptual. I'd recommend putting it through peer review rather than desk rejecting, to see if experts in the area find the argument persuasive enough to influence practice.

Referee Report

1 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a perspective article arguing that computational biophysics methods—including molecular dynamics, coarse-grained simulations, and free energy calculations—offer an underexploited framework for rational design of antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) and related formats. It claims these approaches can connect molecular details of conjugation site, linker chemistry, and drug-antibody ratio to conformational landscapes, with direct implications for antigen binding, internalization, and developability, and proposes their integration into development pipelines alongside experimental validation to reduce empirical iteration as force fields and hybrid physics-ML methods advance.

Significance. If realized, the proposed integration could meaningfully advance ADC development by supplying mechanistic, physics-based insights that complement high-throughput screening and reduce late-stage failures in efficacy, safety, and manufacturability. The perspective correctly identifies post-conjugation determinants as a key gap and highlights structural coupling as a promising focus area. Credit is due for framing the discussion as forward-looking opportunities conditioned on improvements in simulation accuracy rather than claiming current predictive power. As a perspective without new derivations, datasets, or validations, its significance lies in synthesizing existing methods for a translational audience rather than in immediate quantitative impact.

major comments (1)

The central claim that simulations can 'reveal how conjugation site, linker chemistry, and drug-antibody ratio reshape conformational landscapes with direct implications for antigen binding, internalization, and developability' (abstract) rests on an assumption of sufficient accuracy that is not supported by any referenced validation studies or error analysis within the manuscript; this makes the load-bearing link between molecular interactions and biological outcomes forward-looking rather than demonstrated.

minor comments (3)

The abstract and introduction would benefit from one or two concrete literature examples of current ADC design challenges (e.g., specific conjugation-related aggregation or binding loss) that the proposed biophysical methods are positioned to address.
Notation for key quantities such as drug-antibody ratio (DAR) and conformational metrics should be defined consistently on first use to aid readers outside the immediate ADC community.
A short table or schematic summarizing the distinct roles of MD, coarse-grained, and free-energy methods in the proposed workflow would improve clarity of the integration proposal.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive review and for recommending minor revision. We appreciate the acknowledgment that the perspective correctly frames its discussion as forward-looking and conditioned on advances in simulation accuracy rather than claiming current predictive power. We address the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The central claim that simulations can 'reveal how conjugation site, linker chemistry, and drug-antibody ratio reshape conformational landscapes with direct implications for antigen binding, internalization, and developability' (abstract) rests on an assumption of sufficient accuracy that is not supported by any referenced validation studies or error analysis within the manuscript; this makes the load-bearing link between molecular interactions and biological outcomes forward-looking rather than demonstrated.

Authors: We agree that the manuscript, as a perspective, does not include new validation studies or quantitative error analyses for the specific links to biological outcomes, and that the central claim is therefore prospective. The text already conditions the proposed integration on future improvements in force fields and hybrid physics-ML methods (see abstract and final paragraph). To strengthen this distinction, we will revise the abstract and introduction to more explicitly separate current mechanistic insights into conformational landscapes from the anticipated future ability to predict downstream biological effects. We will also insert references to existing validation benchmarks for antibody MD simulations. This constitutes a partial revision to clarify the forward-looking nature without altering the perspective's core argument. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; perspective piece with no load-bearing derivations

full rationale

The manuscript is a forward-looking perspective advocating integration of established methods (MD, coarse-grained simulations, free-energy calculations) into ADC development pipelines. It presents no new quantitative claims, equations, fitted parameters, or predictions that reduce to self-inputs by construction. All statements about conformational landscapes, conjugation effects, and developability are framed as opportunities conditioned on future improvements in force fields and hybrid ML, with explicit calls for experimental validation. No self-citation chains or uniqueness theorems are invoked as load-bearing premises. The argument remains self-contained against external benchmarks and does not exhibit any of the enumerated circularity patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper rests on the domain assumption that physics-based models can bridge molecular details to macroscopic therapeutic properties without providing new models or evidence of predictive accuracy.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Molecular dynamics and free energy calculations can connect conjugation parameters to conformational changes that determine efficacy and safety
Invoked in the abstract as the basis for the proposed framework.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5671 in / 1136 out tokens · 38693 ms · 2026-05-19T18:42:41.273227+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

We highlight how molecular dynamics, coarse-grained simulations, and free energy calculations reveal how conjugation site, linker chemistry, and drug-antibody ratio reshape conformational landscapes.
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

Coarse-grained (CG) and multiscale biophysical models... 12-bead model... MARTINI

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages

[1]

López de Sá, A., et al. (2023). Considerations for the design of antibody drug conjugates (ADCs) for clinical development: lessons learned. J. Hematol. Oncol.J Hematol Oncol 16, 118

work page 2023
[2]

Blay, V ., et al. (2024). Strategies to boost antibody selectivity in oncology. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 45, 1135–1149

work page 2024
[3]

Beck, A., et al. (2017). Strategies and challenges for the next generation of antibody- drug conjugates. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 16, 315–337

work page 2017
[4]

Croitoru, A., et al. (2025). Harnessing computational technologies to facilitate antibody-drug conjugate development. Nat. Chem. Biol. 21, 1138–1147

work page 2025
[5]

Robustelli, P ., et al. (2018). Developing a molecular dynamics force field for both folded and disordered protein states. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 115, E4758–E4766

work page 2018
[6]

Huang, J., et al. (2013). CHARMM36 all-atom additive protein force field: validation based on comparison to NMR data. J. Comput. Chem. 34, 2135–2145

work page 2013
[7]

Karplus, M., et al. (2002). Molecular dynamics simulations of biomolecules. Nat. Struct. Biol. 9, 646–652

work page 2002
[8]

Cruz, V .L., et al. (2025). In silico decrypting of the bystander effect in antibody-drug conjugates for breast cancer therapy. Sci. Rep. 15, 28715

work page 2025
[9]

Huang, J., et al. (2017). CHARMM36m: an improved force field for folded and intrinsically disordered proteins. Nat. Methods 14, 71–73

work page 2017
[10]

Robertson, M.J., et al. (2015). Improved Peptide and Protein Torsional Energetics with the OPLSAA Force Field. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 11, 3499–3509

work page 2015
[11]

Tian, C., et al. (2020). ff19SB: Amino-Acid-Specific Protein Backbone Parameters Trained against Quantum Mechanics Energy Surfaces in Solution. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 16, 528–552

work page 2020
[12]

Vanommeslaeghe, K., et al. (2010). CHARMM general force field: A force field for drug- like molecules compatible with the CHARMM all-atom additive biological force fields. J. Comput. Chem. 31, 671–690

work page 2010
[13]

Robertson, M.J., et al. (2022). Development of OPLS-AA/M Parameters for Simulations of G Protein-Coupled Receptors and Other Membrane Proteins. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 18, 4482–4489

work page 2022
[14]

Wang, J., et al. (2004). Development and testing of a general amber force field. J. Comput. Chem. 25, 1157–1174

work page 2004
[15]

Strop, P ., et al. (2015). Site-specific conjugation improves therapeutic index of antibody drug conjugates with high drug loading. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 694–696. 12

work page 2015
[16]

Lyon, R.P ., et al. (2015). Reducing hydrophobicity of homogeneous antibody-drug conjugates improves pharmacokinetics and therapeutic index. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 733–735

work page 2015
[17]

Abramson, J., et al. (2024). Accurate structure prediction of biomolecular interactions with AlphaFold 3. Nature 630, 493–500

work page 2024
[18]

Mirdita, et al. (2022). ColabFold: making protein folding accessible to all. Nat. Methods 19, 679–682

work page 2022
[19]

Abraham, M.J., et al. (2015). GROMACS: High performance molecular simulations through multi-level parallelism from laptops to supercomputers. SoftwareX 1–2, 19– 25

work page 2015
[20]

Thompson, A.P ., et al. (2022). LAMMPS - a flexible simulation tool for particle-based materials modeling at the atomic, meso, and continuum scales. Comput. Phys. Commun. 271, 108171

work page 2022
[21]

Eastman, P ., et al. (2017). OpenMM 7: Rapid development of high performance algorithms for molecular dynamics. PLoS Comput. Biol. 13, e1005659

work page 2017
[22]

Computational mapping of antibody-receptor energy landscapes to predict internalization

Llombart, P ., et al. Computational mapping of antibody-receptor energy landscapes to predict internalization. bioRxiv 2026.03.13.711720

work page 2026
[23]

von, et al

Bülow, S. von, et al. (2025). AF-CALVADOS: AlphaFold-guided simulations of multi- domain proteins at the proteome level. bioRxiv 2025.10.19.683306

work page 2025
[24]

Garaizar, A., et al. (2022). Aging can transform single-component protein condensates into multiphase architectures. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 119, e2119800119

work page 2022
[25]

Plattner, N., et al. (2015). Protein conformational plasticity and complex ligand- binding kinetics explored by atomistic simulations and Markov models. Nat. Commun. 6, 7653

work page 2015
[26]

Brender, J.R., et al. (2015). Predicting the Effect of Mutations on Protein-Protein Binding Interactions through Structure-Based Interface Profiles. PLoS Comput. Biol. 11, e1004494

work page 2015
[27]

Tejedor, A.R., et al. (2022). Protein structural transitions critically transform the network connectivity and viscoelasticity of RNA-binding protein condensates but RNA can prevent it. Nat. Commun. 13, 5717

work page 2022
[28]

Corrada, D., et al. (2013). Energetic and dynamic aspects of the affinity maturation process: characterizing improved variants from the bevacizumab antibody with molecular simulations. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 53, 2937–2950

work page 2013
[29]

Prass, T.M., et al. (2023). Viscosity Prediction of High-Concentration Antibody Solutions with Atomistic Simulations. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 63, 6129–6140

work page 2023
[30]

Devanaboyina, S.C., et al. (2013). The effect of pH dependence of antibody-antigen interactions on subcellular trafficking dynamics. mAbs 5, 851–859. 13

work page 2013
[31]

Castro, A., et al. (2026). Understanding How Synthetic Impurities Affect Glyphosate Solubility and Crystal Growth Using Free Energy Calculations and Molecular Dynamics Simulations. J. Phys. Chem. B 130, 3217–3226

work page 2026
[32]

Lindsay, R.J., et al. (2021). Effects of pH on an IDP conformational ensemble explored by molecular dynamics simulation. Biophys. Chem. 271, 106552

work page 2021
[33]

Brandt, J.P ., et al. (2010). Construction, MD simulation, and hydrodynamic validation of an all-atom model of a monoclonal IgG antibody. Biophys. J. 99, 905–913

work page 2010
[34]

Franco-Gonzalez, J.F ., et al. (2014). Exploring the dynamics and interaction of a full ErbB2 receptor and Trastuzumab-Fab antibody in a lipid bilayer model using Martini coarse-grained force field. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 28, 1093–1107

work page 2014
[35]

Prass, T.M., et al. (2025). Optimized Protein-Excipient Interactions in the Martini 3 Force Field. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 65, 3581–3592

work page 2025
[36]

Chaudhri, A., et al. (2012). Coarse-grained modeling of the self-association of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies. J. Phys. Chem. B 116, 8045–8057

work page 2012
[37]

Izadi, S., et al. (2020). Multiscale Coarse-Grained Approach to Investigate Self- Association of Antibodies. Biophys. J. 118, 2741–2754

work page 2020
[38]

Godfrin, P .D., et al. (2016). Effect of Hierarchical Cluster Formation on the Viscosity of Concentrated Monoclonal Antibody Formulations Studied by Neutron Scattering. J. Phys. Chem. B 120, 278–291

work page 2016
[39]

Dear, B.J., et al. (2019). X-ray Scattering and Coarse-Grained Simulations for Clustering and Interactions of Monoclonal Antibodies at High Concentrations. J. Phys. Chem. B 123, 5274–5290

work page 2019
[40]

De Michele, C., et al. (2016). Simulation and Theory of Antibody Binding to Crowded Antigen-Covered Surfaces. PLoS Comput. Biol. 12, e1004752

work page 2016
[41]

Prass, T.M., et al. (2025). Predicting the Dynamic Viscosity of High-Concentration Antibody Solutions with a Chemically Specific Coarse-Grained Model. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 16, 12758–12765

work page 2025
[42]

Fernández-Quintero, M.L., et al. (2023). Assessing developability early in the discovery process for novel biologics. mAbs 15, 2171248

work page 2023
[43]

Díaz-Tejeiro, C., et al. (2024). Understanding the Preclinical Efficacy of Antibody-Drug Conjugates. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 25, 12875

work page 2024
[44]

Conti, S., et al. (2022). On the Rapid Calculation of Binding Affinities for Antigen and Antibody Design and Affinity Maturation Simulations. Antibodies Basel Switz. 11, 51

work page 2022
[45]

Goel, H., et al. (2022). Application of Site-Identification by Ligand Competitive Saturation in Computer-Aided Drug Design. New J. Chem. Nouv. J. Chim. 46, 919–932

work page 2022
[46]

Orr, A.A., et al. (2023). Site-Identification by Ligand Competitive Saturation (SILCS)- Biologics Approach for Structure-Based Protein Charge Prediction. Mol. Pharm. 20, 2600–2611. 14

work page 2023
[47]

Lyu, C., et al. (2025). Integrating computational simulation and high-throughput screening for the development of robust ultra-high concentration formulation of IgG1 antibody. mAbs 17, 2577159

work page 2025
[48]

Chen, Z., et al. (2023). Accelerating therapeutic protein design with computational approaches toward the clinical stage. Comput. Struct. Biotechnol. J. 21, 2909–2926

work page 2023
[49]

Feito, A., et al. (2026). Comparative Assessment of Free Energy Computational Methods for Revealing the Interactions Driving PARP1 Selective Inhibition. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 66, 5315–5330

work page 2026
[50]

Weng, G., et al. (2019). HawkDock: a web server to predict and analyze the protein- protein complex based on computational docking and MM/GBSA. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, W322–W330

work page 2019
[51]

Jo, S., Xu, A., et al. (2020). Computational Characterization of Antibody-Excipient Interactions for Rational Excipient Selection Using the Site Identification by Ligand Competitive Saturation-Biologics Approach. Mol. Pharm. 17, 4323–4333

work page 2020
[52]

Roux, K.H., et al. (1997). Flexibility of human IgG subclasses. J. Immunol. Baltim. Md 1950 159, 3372–3382

work page 1997
[53]

Sorkin, A., et al. (2009). Endocytosis and intracellular trafficking of ErbBs. Exp. Cell Res. 315, 683–696

work page 2009
[54]

Lewis Phillips, G.D., et al. (2008). Targeting HER2-positive breast cancer with trastuzumab-DM1, an antibody-cytotoxic drug conjugate. Cancer Res. 68, 9280–9290

work page 2008
[55]

Ogitani, Y ., et al. (2016). DS-8201a, A Novel HER2-Targeting ADC with a Novel DNA Topoisomerase I Inhibitor, Demonstrates a Promising Antitumor Efficacy with Differentiation from T-DM1. Clin. Cancer Res. Off. J. Am. Assoc. Cancer Res. 22, 5097– 5108

work page 2016
[56]

Cardillo, T.M., et al. (2015). Sacituzumab Govitecan (IMMU-132), an Anti-Trop-2/SN-38 Antibody-Drug Conjugate: Characterization and Efficacy in Pancreatic, Gastric, and Other Cancers. Bioconjug. Chem. 26, 919–931

work page 2015
[57]

Majumder, A., et al. (2021). Addressing the Excessive Aggregation of Membrane Proteins in the MARTINI Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 17, 2513–2521

work page 2021
[58]

Gupta, N., et al. (2019). Computationally designed antibody-drug conjugates self- assembled via affinity ligands. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 3, 917–929

work page 2019
[59]

Yu, W., et al. (2023). Integrated Covalent Drug Design Workflow Using Site Identification by Ligand Competitive Saturation. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 19, 3007– 3021

work page 2023
[60]

Harris, R.C., et al. (2020). Predicting Reactive Cysteines with Implicit-Solvent-Based Continuous Constant pH Molecular Dynamics in Amber. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 16, 3689–3698

work page 2020
[61]

Cai, Z., et al. (2023). Basis for Accurate Protein pKa Prediction with Machine Learning. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 63, 2936–2947. 15

work page 2023
[62]

Singh, A.P .,et al. (2015). Application of Pharmacokinetic-Pharmacodynamic Modeling and Simulation for Antibody-Drug Conjugate Development. Pharm. Res. 32, 3508– 3525

work page 2015
[63]

Fernández-Quintero, M.L.,et al. (2021). Ensembles in solution as a new paradigm for antibody structure prediction and design. mAbs 13, 1923122

work page 2021
[64]

Dorywalska, M., et al. (2015). Effect of attachment site on stability of cleavable antibody drug conjugates. Bioconjug. Chem. 26, 650–659

work page 2015
[65]

Guo, J., et al. (2016). Characterization and Higher-Order Structure Assessment of an Interchain Cysteine-Based ADC: Impact of Drug Loading and Distribution on the Mechanism of Aggregation. Bioconjug. Chem. 27, 604–615

work page 2016
[66]

Jaime-Garza, M., et al. (2025). Structural Characterization of Linker Shielding in ADC Site-Specific Conjugates. Pharmaceutics 17, 1568

work page 2025
[67]

Buecheler, J.W., et al. (2018). Impact of Payload Hydrophobicity on the Stability of Antibody-Drug Conjugates. Mol. Pharm. 15, 2656–2664

work page 2018
[68]

Wang, Z., et al. (2023). Antibody-drug conjugates: Recent advances in payloads. Acta Pharm. Sin. B 13, 4025–4059

work page 2023
[69]

Walsh, S.J., et al. (2021). Site-selective modification strategies in antibody-drug conjugates. Chem. Soc. Rev. 50, 1305–1353

work page 2021
[70]

Wen, L., et al. (2025). Fundamental properties and principal areas of focus in antibody-drug conjugates formulation development. Antib. Ther. 8, 99–110

work page 2025
[71]

Watson, J.L., et al. (2023). De novo design of protein structure and function with RFdiffusion. Nature 620, 1089–1100

work page 2023
[72]

Biswas, M., et al. (2018). Metadynamics Enhanced Markov Modeling of Protein Dynamics. J. Phys. Chem. B 122, 5508–5514

work page 2018
[73]

Bennett, N.R., et al. (2026). Atomically accurate de novo design of antibodies with RFdiffusion. Nature 649, 183–193

work page 2026
[74]

Ocana, A., et al. (2025). Integrating artificial intelligence in drug discovery and early drug development: a transformative approach. Biomark. Res. 13, 45

work page 2025
[75]

Welsh, T.J., et al. (2022). Surface Electrostatics Govern the Emulsion Stability of Biomolecular Condensates. Nano Lett. 22, 612–621. 16 Figure 1. Multiscale Computational Frameworks for Antibody Structure Prediction and Property Characterization a) Left: Schematic representation of an antibody molecular structure highlighting the constant (C) and variabl...

work page 2022

[1] [1]

López de Sá, A., et al. (2023). Considerations for the design of antibody drug conjugates (ADCs) for clinical development: lessons learned. J. Hematol. Oncol.J Hematol Oncol 16, 118

work page 2023

[2] [2]

Blay, V ., et al. (2024). Strategies to boost antibody selectivity in oncology. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 45, 1135–1149

work page 2024

[3] [3]

Beck, A., et al. (2017). Strategies and challenges for the next generation of antibody- drug conjugates. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 16, 315–337

work page 2017

[4] [4]

Croitoru, A., et al. (2025). Harnessing computational technologies to facilitate antibody-drug conjugate development. Nat. Chem. Biol. 21, 1138–1147

work page 2025

[5] [5]

Robustelli, P ., et al. (2018). Developing a molecular dynamics force field for both folded and disordered protein states. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 115, E4758–E4766

work page 2018

[6] [6]

Huang, J., et al. (2013). CHARMM36 all-atom additive protein force field: validation based on comparison to NMR data. J. Comput. Chem. 34, 2135–2145

work page 2013

[7] [7]

Karplus, M., et al. (2002). Molecular dynamics simulations of biomolecules. Nat. Struct. Biol. 9, 646–652

work page 2002

[8] [8]

Cruz, V .L., et al. (2025). In silico decrypting of the bystander effect in antibody-drug conjugates for breast cancer therapy. Sci. Rep. 15, 28715

work page 2025

[9] [9]

Huang, J., et al. (2017). CHARMM36m: an improved force field for folded and intrinsically disordered proteins. Nat. Methods 14, 71–73

work page 2017

[10] [10]

Robertson, M.J., et al. (2015). Improved Peptide and Protein Torsional Energetics with the OPLSAA Force Field. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 11, 3499–3509

work page 2015

[11] [11]

Tian, C., et al. (2020). ff19SB: Amino-Acid-Specific Protein Backbone Parameters Trained against Quantum Mechanics Energy Surfaces in Solution. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 16, 528–552

work page 2020

[12] [12]

Vanommeslaeghe, K., et al. (2010). CHARMM general force field: A force field for drug- like molecules compatible with the CHARMM all-atom additive biological force fields. J. Comput. Chem. 31, 671–690

work page 2010

[13] [13]

Robertson, M.J., et al. (2022). Development of OPLS-AA/M Parameters for Simulations of G Protein-Coupled Receptors and Other Membrane Proteins. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 18, 4482–4489

work page 2022

[14] [14]

Wang, J., et al. (2004). Development and testing of a general amber force field. J. Comput. Chem. 25, 1157–1174

work page 2004

[15] [15]

Strop, P ., et al. (2015). Site-specific conjugation improves therapeutic index of antibody drug conjugates with high drug loading. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 694–696. 12

work page 2015

[16] [16]

Lyon, R.P ., et al. (2015). Reducing hydrophobicity of homogeneous antibody-drug conjugates improves pharmacokinetics and therapeutic index. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 733–735

work page 2015

[17] [17]

Abramson, J., et al. (2024). Accurate structure prediction of biomolecular interactions with AlphaFold 3. Nature 630, 493–500

work page 2024

[18] [18]

Mirdita, et al. (2022). ColabFold: making protein folding accessible to all. Nat. Methods 19, 679–682

work page 2022

[19] [19]

Abraham, M.J., et al. (2015). GROMACS: High performance molecular simulations through multi-level parallelism from laptops to supercomputers. SoftwareX 1–2, 19– 25

work page 2015

[20] [20]

Thompson, A.P ., et al. (2022). LAMMPS - a flexible simulation tool for particle-based materials modeling at the atomic, meso, and continuum scales. Comput. Phys. Commun. 271, 108171

work page 2022

[21] [21]

Eastman, P ., et al. (2017). OpenMM 7: Rapid development of high performance algorithms for molecular dynamics. PLoS Comput. Biol. 13, e1005659

work page 2017

[22] [22]

Computational mapping of antibody-receptor energy landscapes to predict internalization

Llombart, P ., et al. Computational mapping of antibody-receptor energy landscapes to predict internalization. bioRxiv 2026.03.13.711720

work page 2026

[23] [23]

von, et al

Bülow, S. von, et al. (2025). AF-CALVADOS: AlphaFold-guided simulations of multi- domain proteins at the proteome level. bioRxiv 2025.10.19.683306

work page 2025

[24] [24]

Garaizar, A., et al. (2022). Aging can transform single-component protein condensates into multiphase architectures. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 119, e2119800119

work page 2022

[25] [25]

Plattner, N., et al. (2015). Protein conformational plasticity and complex ligand- binding kinetics explored by atomistic simulations and Markov models. Nat. Commun. 6, 7653

work page 2015

[26] [26]

Brender, J.R., et al. (2015). Predicting the Effect of Mutations on Protein-Protein Binding Interactions through Structure-Based Interface Profiles. PLoS Comput. Biol. 11, e1004494

work page 2015

[27] [27]

Tejedor, A.R., et al. (2022). Protein structural transitions critically transform the network connectivity and viscoelasticity of RNA-binding protein condensates but RNA can prevent it. Nat. Commun. 13, 5717

work page 2022

[28] [28]

Corrada, D., et al. (2013). Energetic and dynamic aspects of the affinity maturation process: characterizing improved variants from the bevacizumab antibody with molecular simulations. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 53, 2937–2950

work page 2013

[29] [29]

Prass, T.M., et al. (2023). Viscosity Prediction of High-Concentration Antibody Solutions with Atomistic Simulations. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 63, 6129–6140

work page 2023

[30] [30]

Devanaboyina, S.C., et al. (2013). The effect of pH dependence of antibody-antigen interactions on subcellular trafficking dynamics. mAbs 5, 851–859. 13

work page 2013

[31] [31]

Castro, A., et al. (2026). Understanding How Synthetic Impurities Affect Glyphosate Solubility and Crystal Growth Using Free Energy Calculations and Molecular Dynamics Simulations. J. Phys. Chem. B 130, 3217–3226

work page 2026

[32] [32]

Lindsay, R.J., et al. (2021). Effects of pH on an IDP conformational ensemble explored by molecular dynamics simulation. Biophys. Chem. 271, 106552

work page 2021

[33] [33]

Brandt, J.P ., et al. (2010). Construction, MD simulation, and hydrodynamic validation of an all-atom model of a monoclonal IgG antibody. Biophys. J. 99, 905–913

work page 2010

[34] [34]

Franco-Gonzalez, J.F ., et al. (2014). Exploring the dynamics and interaction of a full ErbB2 receptor and Trastuzumab-Fab antibody in a lipid bilayer model using Martini coarse-grained force field. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 28, 1093–1107

work page 2014

[35] [35]

Prass, T.M., et al. (2025). Optimized Protein-Excipient Interactions in the Martini 3 Force Field. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 65, 3581–3592

work page 2025

[36] [36]

Chaudhri, A., et al. (2012). Coarse-grained modeling of the self-association of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies. J. Phys. Chem. B 116, 8045–8057

work page 2012

[37] [37]

Izadi, S., et al. (2020). Multiscale Coarse-Grained Approach to Investigate Self- Association of Antibodies. Biophys. J. 118, 2741–2754

work page 2020

[38] [38]

Godfrin, P .D., et al. (2016). Effect of Hierarchical Cluster Formation on the Viscosity of Concentrated Monoclonal Antibody Formulations Studied by Neutron Scattering. J. Phys. Chem. B 120, 278–291

work page 2016

[39] [39]

Dear, B.J., et al. (2019). X-ray Scattering and Coarse-Grained Simulations for Clustering and Interactions of Monoclonal Antibodies at High Concentrations. J. Phys. Chem. B 123, 5274–5290

work page 2019

[40] [40]

De Michele, C., et al. (2016). Simulation and Theory of Antibody Binding to Crowded Antigen-Covered Surfaces. PLoS Comput. Biol. 12, e1004752

work page 2016

[41] [41]

Prass, T.M., et al. (2025). Predicting the Dynamic Viscosity of High-Concentration Antibody Solutions with a Chemically Specific Coarse-Grained Model. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 16, 12758–12765

work page 2025

[42] [42]

Fernández-Quintero, M.L., et al. (2023). Assessing developability early in the discovery process for novel biologics. mAbs 15, 2171248

work page 2023

[43] [43]

Díaz-Tejeiro, C., et al. (2024). Understanding the Preclinical Efficacy of Antibody-Drug Conjugates. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 25, 12875

work page 2024

[44] [44]

Conti, S., et al. (2022). On the Rapid Calculation of Binding Affinities for Antigen and Antibody Design and Affinity Maturation Simulations. Antibodies Basel Switz. 11, 51

work page 2022

[45] [45]

Goel, H., et al. (2022). Application of Site-Identification by Ligand Competitive Saturation in Computer-Aided Drug Design. New J. Chem. Nouv. J. Chim. 46, 919–932

work page 2022

[46] [46]

Orr, A.A., et al. (2023). Site-Identification by Ligand Competitive Saturation (SILCS)- Biologics Approach for Structure-Based Protein Charge Prediction. Mol. Pharm. 20, 2600–2611. 14

work page 2023

[47] [47]

Lyu, C., et al. (2025). Integrating computational simulation and high-throughput screening for the development of robust ultra-high concentration formulation of IgG1 antibody. mAbs 17, 2577159

work page 2025

[48] [48]

Chen, Z., et al. (2023). Accelerating therapeutic protein design with computational approaches toward the clinical stage. Comput. Struct. Biotechnol. J. 21, 2909–2926

work page 2023

[49] [49]

Feito, A., et al. (2026). Comparative Assessment of Free Energy Computational Methods for Revealing the Interactions Driving PARP1 Selective Inhibition. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 66, 5315–5330

work page 2026

[50] [50]

Weng, G., et al. (2019). HawkDock: a web server to predict and analyze the protein- protein complex based on computational docking and MM/GBSA. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, W322–W330

work page 2019

[51] [51]

Jo, S., Xu, A., et al. (2020). Computational Characterization of Antibody-Excipient Interactions for Rational Excipient Selection Using the Site Identification by Ligand Competitive Saturation-Biologics Approach. Mol. Pharm. 17, 4323–4333

work page 2020

[52] [52]

Roux, K.H., et al. (1997). Flexibility of human IgG subclasses. J. Immunol. Baltim. Md 1950 159, 3372–3382

work page 1997

[53] [53]

Sorkin, A., et al. (2009). Endocytosis and intracellular trafficking of ErbBs. Exp. Cell Res. 315, 683–696

work page 2009

[54] [54]

Lewis Phillips, G.D., et al. (2008). Targeting HER2-positive breast cancer with trastuzumab-DM1, an antibody-cytotoxic drug conjugate. Cancer Res. 68, 9280–9290

work page 2008

[55] [55]

Ogitani, Y ., et al. (2016). DS-8201a, A Novel HER2-Targeting ADC with a Novel DNA Topoisomerase I Inhibitor, Demonstrates a Promising Antitumor Efficacy with Differentiation from T-DM1. Clin. Cancer Res. Off. J. Am. Assoc. Cancer Res. 22, 5097– 5108

work page 2016

[56] [56]

Cardillo, T.M., et al. (2015). Sacituzumab Govitecan (IMMU-132), an Anti-Trop-2/SN-38 Antibody-Drug Conjugate: Characterization and Efficacy in Pancreatic, Gastric, and Other Cancers. Bioconjug. Chem. 26, 919–931

work page 2015

[57] [57]

Majumder, A., et al. (2021). Addressing the Excessive Aggregation of Membrane Proteins in the MARTINI Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 17, 2513–2521

work page 2021

[58] [58]

Gupta, N., et al. (2019). Computationally designed antibody-drug conjugates self- assembled via affinity ligands. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 3, 917–929

work page 2019

[59] [59]

Yu, W., et al. (2023). Integrated Covalent Drug Design Workflow Using Site Identification by Ligand Competitive Saturation. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 19, 3007– 3021

work page 2023

[60] [60]

Harris, R.C., et al. (2020). Predicting Reactive Cysteines with Implicit-Solvent-Based Continuous Constant pH Molecular Dynamics in Amber. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 16, 3689–3698

work page 2020

[61] [61]

Cai, Z., et al. (2023). Basis for Accurate Protein pKa Prediction with Machine Learning. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 63, 2936–2947. 15

work page 2023

[62] [62]

Singh, A.P .,et al. (2015). Application of Pharmacokinetic-Pharmacodynamic Modeling and Simulation for Antibody-Drug Conjugate Development. Pharm. Res. 32, 3508– 3525

work page 2015

[63] [63]

Fernández-Quintero, M.L.,et al. (2021). Ensembles in solution as a new paradigm for antibody structure prediction and design. mAbs 13, 1923122

work page 2021

[64] [64]

Dorywalska, M., et al. (2015). Effect of attachment site on stability of cleavable antibody drug conjugates. Bioconjug. Chem. 26, 650–659

work page 2015

[65] [65]

Guo, J., et al. (2016). Characterization and Higher-Order Structure Assessment of an Interchain Cysteine-Based ADC: Impact of Drug Loading and Distribution on the Mechanism of Aggregation. Bioconjug. Chem. 27, 604–615

work page 2016

[66] [66]

Jaime-Garza, M., et al. (2025). Structural Characterization of Linker Shielding in ADC Site-Specific Conjugates. Pharmaceutics 17, 1568

work page 2025

[67] [67]

Buecheler, J.W., et al. (2018). Impact of Payload Hydrophobicity on the Stability of Antibody-Drug Conjugates. Mol. Pharm. 15, 2656–2664

work page 2018

[68] [68]

Wang, Z., et al. (2023). Antibody-drug conjugates: Recent advances in payloads. Acta Pharm. Sin. B 13, 4025–4059

work page 2023

[69] [69]

Walsh, S.J., et al. (2021). Site-selective modification strategies in antibody-drug conjugates. Chem. Soc. Rev. 50, 1305–1353

work page 2021

[70] [70]

Wen, L., et al. (2025). Fundamental properties and principal areas of focus in antibody-drug conjugates formulation development. Antib. Ther. 8, 99–110

work page 2025

[71] [71]

Watson, J.L., et al. (2023). De novo design of protein structure and function with RFdiffusion. Nature 620, 1089–1100

work page 2023

[72] [72]

Biswas, M., et al. (2018). Metadynamics Enhanced Markov Modeling of Protein Dynamics. J. Phys. Chem. B 122, 5508–5514

work page 2018

[73] [73]

Bennett, N.R., et al. (2026). Atomically accurate de novo design of antibodies with RFdiffusion. Nature 649, 183–193

work page 2026

[74] [74]

Ocana, A., et al. (2025). Integrating artificial intelligence in drug discovery and early drug development: a transformative approach. Biomark. Res. 13, 45

work page 2025

[75] [75]

Welsh, T.J., et al. (2022). Surface Electrostatics Govern the Emulsion Stability of Biomolecular Condensates. Nano Lett. 22, 612–621. 16 Figure 1. Multiscale Computational Frameworks for Antibody Structure Prediction and Property Characterization a) Left: Schematic representation of an antibody molecular structure highlighting the constant (C) and variabl...

work page 2022