Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 54 references

Integrating computational detection and experimental validation for rapid GFRAL-specific antibody discovery

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a computational pipeline—STAR on bulk repertoires plus single-cell light-chain recovery—shortlists GFRAL-binding antibodies with a 50 percent experimental hit rate and delivers a catalog of 67 validated binders.

desk verdict A useful GFRAL binder resource and a clean experimental validation setup, but the headline STAR enrichment claim is not established because the only control that isolates STAR's clustering signal performs no better than random. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.01995 v1 pith:4BK3TBIE submitted 2025-05-19 q-bio.TO

Maria Francesca Abbate , Pierre Toxe , Nicolas Maestrali , Marie Gagnaire , Emmanuelle Vigne , Melody A. Shahsavarian , Thierry Mora , Aleksandra M. Walczak This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.TO
keywords antibodydiscoveryGFRALGDF-15BcellreceptorrepertoireSTARmethodsingle-cellV(D)Jsequencingaffinitymaturationconvergentselection
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to establish a faster antibody-discovery route: instead of screening large libraries or sorting many single cells, run STAR on bulk B-cell receptor sequencing from immunized mice, then use single-cell data only to recover the light chains of the heavy-chain hits. Applied to GFRAL, the receptor for the appetite-regulating cytokine GDF-15, the pipeline selected 40 antibody candidates, and surface plasmon resonance confirmed that 19 of them (50 percent) bind the target. Additional selection strategies raised the total to a catalog of 67 validated anti-GFRAL antibodies. A sympathetic reader would care because GFRAL is the hub of the GDF-15 appetite pathway, making these binders starting points for drugs against cachexia, anorexia, obesity, and diabetes, and because the pipeline's hit rate suggests computational preselection can cut the time and cost of finding therapeutic antibodies.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the STAR hit: a cluster of heavy-chain CDR3 nucleotide sequences that differ by one amino acid and contain more near-neighbors than expected by chance, with a cluster-level threshold of at least 10 over-threshold sequences. STAR scans each bulk time point independently, ranks sequences by neighbor count, and outputs clusters that bear the signature of affinity maturation. The second mechanism is the bulk-to-single-cell mapping: each STAR cluster is represented by its highest-neighbor sequence, and that heavy chain is paired with a light chain found in the single-cell data, yielding an expressible, testable antibody. The mapping is what turns a statistical clump in deep bulk data into a physical reagent.

What would settle it

Express each of the 40 STAR heavy chains with every light chain observed paired to it in the single-cell data, not only the representative chosen by the pipeline, and measure SPR binding; if the 50 percent hit rate collapses or the binding specificities change, the single-cell pairing choice rather than the heavy-chain clump is carrying the result.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors claim that a two-step integration—deep bulk repertoire sequencing plus targeted single-cell pairing—can replace exhaustive single-cell screening as the primary engine of antibody discovery. In three humanized Trianni mice immunized with GFRAL, STAR identified 40 heavy-chain CDR3 clusters with statistically overrepresented affinity-maturation neighborhoods across time points; matching those heavy chains to paired light chains in single-cell data and expressing the reconstructed antibodies yielded 19 SPR-confirmed binders (50 percent), against a 20 percent success rate for randomly chosen single-cell antibodies. High-frequency single-cell sequences alone performed better (80 percent), and heavy chains from the same STAR clusters paired with single-cell light chains but absent from single-cell data bound at 19 percent, showing that reconstructed pairs can expand the candidate pool beyond observed sequences. The paper further reports convergent selection (13 binder sequences shared across mice), a weak positive correlation between single-cell abundance and affinity (Spearman rho = 0.26), an AlphaFold3 interface score (ipTM) that is higher on average for binders but too noisy to classify them, and a CDR3-sequence logistic-regression model that predicts binding with AUROC 0.89 within mice and 0.73 across mice.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that the one light chain recovered from single-cell data for each heavy-chain hit is the functionally correct partner, even though a heavy chain can pair with several light chains.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the 50 percent validation rate holds, computational preselection with STAR can replace the usual practice of screening hundreds of single-cell-derived antibodies, reserving single-cell sequencing for light-chain recovery only.
  • The 67 validated anti-GFRAL binders give drug development programs an immediate panel for testing GDF-15 pathway blockade (cachexia, anorexia) or activation (obesity, diabetes), including antibodies absent from single-cell data.
  • The 80 percent success rate for high-frequency single-cell sequences identifies a simple abundance threshold as a strong predictor of binding, while the weak KD-abundance correlation warns that abundance alone will miss high-affinity rare clones.
  • The cross-mouse convergent CDR3 sequences define reproducible public response motifs that could seed epitope-focused or germline-targeting vaccine designs.
  • Using ipTM as a pre-filter before SPR could raise the hit rate further, since binders score higher on average even though AlphaFold3 cannot reliably separate binders from non-binders.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • This pipeline should transfer to other antigens with strong germinal-center responses, but its hit rate will likely depend on how densely the responding clones expand; weak or T-cell-independent responses may produce no STAR clusters above threshold.
  • A testable extension is to rank STAR hits by the logistic-regression CDR3 weights or AlphaFold3 ipTM before expression; if such ranking lifts the 50 percent validation above, say, 70 percent, the computational steps become a true pre-screen rather than a triage aid.
  • Because a heavy chain can pair with several light chains, the current catalog probably underestimates the true binder space; re-screening the same heavy chains against alternate observed light chains would reveal how many GFRAL specificities were lost to the single-cell pairing rule.
  • Convergent CDR3 motifs shared across mice suggest that some GFRAL epitopes are consistently targeted; mapping those motifs onto the AlphaFold3-predicted structures could nominate the dominant epitope before any competition-binding experiment.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents an integrated antibody discovery pipeline for GFRAL using Trianni mice, combining longitudinal bulk B-cell receptor repertoire sequencing with single-cell paired-chain data. Bulk heavy-chain CDR3 repertoires are analyzed with the STAR method to identify clusters of closely related, putatively antigen-specific sequences; hits present in the single-cell dataset are paired with light chains, expressed, and tested by surface plasmon resonance (SPR). The authors report a 50% success rate among 40 STAR-derived candidates, a catalog of 67 experimentally validated anti-GFRAL antibodies, evidence of convergent selection across mice, AlphaFold3 predictions of antibody-antigen structure, and logistic-regression features predictive of binding.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper provides a practical resource and a useful benchmark: a catalog of experimentally validated anti-GFRAL antibodies, plus a pipeline that leverages bulk repertoire depth for hit discovery and single-cell data for chain pairing. The external SPR readout is a genuine strength and avoids the circularity that can plague purely computational antibody-discovery studies. The paper also ships the STAR code on GitHub, reports multiple controls (including random single-cell antibodies), and is transparent about acknowledged limitations such as the absence of UMIs and the need for single-cell pairing. However, the strength of the central efficiency claim is currently limited by an incomplete control structure and by unresolved numerical inconsistencies in the counts of validated binders.

major comments (3)
  1. [II.B / Fig. 3C] The headline 50% success rate is computed for 40 STAR hits that were additionally required to be present in the single-cell dataset, and the paper's controls do not isolate the STAR signal from single-cell presence or frequency. The single-cell frequency criterion gives an 80% success rate, random single-cell antibodies give 20%, and sequences from the same STAR clusters but absent from single-cell give 19%. To support the claim that STAR itself drives enrichment, the authors should compare STAR hits against random bulk sequences present in single-cell, or stratify STAR hits by single-cell frequency. The statement that finding 19 binders among 40 drawn from 1,530,511 bulk sequences has 'very low' probability is not a valid null model, because the 40 sequences were not randomly drawn; the appropriate baseline is the measured 20% random rate, under which 19/40 is indeed significant (binomial p ≈ 0.0004). Please add the missing frequency- or presence-matched control, or explicitly reframe the 50% figure as the success rate of the integrated STAR-plus-single-cell pipeline rather than of STAR in isolation.
  2. [II.D vs Abstract / II.B] The counts of validated binders are internally inconsistent. The abstract and Section II.B report a catalog of 67 validated binders (19 STAR + 26 single-cell-frequency + 22 bulk-cluster). Section II.D states that of 137 antibodies modeled with AlphaFold3, 70 were binders and 67 non-binders. Since 70+67 = 137, the sentence as written reverses the binder/non-binder split if the catalog contains 67 binders. This is a central deliverable, so the correct totals must be stated and reconciled with the SPR-tested sets enumerated in Section II.B and Figure 3C.
  3. [II.B, criterion 3] The control group used to assess the role of single-cell presence is under-reported. For each of the 40 STAR clusters the authors state they took '3 or 4 sequences' with high/medium/low bulk frequency and mutation levels, which should yield roughly 120–160 tested antibodies, but the manuscript reports only the 19% success rate without the exact number tested or the number of binders. Without the denominator, the comparison with the 20% random rate cannot be evaluated. The sentence 'this 19% success rate has far greater significance compared to the 20% rate' is also confusing, since 19% is not greater than 20%; presumably the intended meaning is that the implications differ because these sequences were absent from single-cell data. Please report exact counts, clarify how light chains were assigned to heavy chains not present in the single-cell dataset, and rephrase the comparison.
minor comments (6)
  1. [II.A / IV.B / Fig. 3A] The bulk blood sampling day is given as day 38 in Section II.A but as day 39 in the Methods (IV.B) and in the Figure 3A caption; please make the time points consistent.
  2. [II.E] The sentence 'To the generalizability of the model more rigorously' appears to be missing a verb; please rephrase.
  3. [Fig. 4B] The text says there is 'no correlation' between KD and single-cell abundance while reporting Spearman rho = 0.26 with p = 0.03; this should be described as a weak or modest correlation rather than no correlation.
  4. [Discussion] The sentence 'A given CDR3 heavy chain may be paired with multiple heavy and light chains' should refer to multiple light chains (and possibly multiple heavy chains in a broader sense); as written it is unclear.
  5. [IV.D] The data availability statement refers to 'the attached Antibody_SPR.xlsx file' but does not give a persistent link or accession; please provide a stable location for the binder catalog.
  6. [Significance Statement] The word 'humaninized' is a typo for 'humanized'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: STAR candidates are independently validated by SPR, so the central claim is externally benchmarked.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular. STAR selects candidate heavy chains from bulk repertoire data using thresholds fixed in the authors' prior publication (ref. 42); the selected 40 sequences are then mapped to paired light chains in single-cell data and expressed, but binding is measured by surface plasmon resonance, an independent experimental assay external to the computational pipeline. The headline '50% demonstrated binding' is an experimental success rate, not an output that is fed back into the model. The 67 validated candidates are defined by SPR results, not by the computational hit definition. STAR is a previously published, code-reproducible method with stated parameters, and its application here does not assume the GFRAL-binding conclusion. The logistic regression in Section II.E is explicitly flagged by the authors as potentially confounded by lineage overlap and is secondary to the main claim. The Discussion openly lists limitations (lack of UMI, single-cell pairing ambiguity, need for generalizability testing), which supports the view that the paper is not presenting a closed self-consistent definitional derivation. The absence of a frequency-matched control for the STAR enrichment and the internal inconsistency in Section II.D (70 vs. 67 binders) are correctness and statistical-control concerns, not circularity: they do not amount to a computational quantity being defined in terms of itself or a fitted parameter being renamed as a prediction. Therefore no specific circular reduction can be exhibited, and the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the STAR clustering premise, the single-cell pairing assumption, the SPR cutoff, and the humanization model. The main free parameters are inherited from STAR or set as experimental thresholds, rather than fit to this dataset. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • STAR cluster size threshold = 10
    In Section II.A, a hit requires a cluster containing at least 10 sequences above the neighbor threshold; this parameter is optimized in the prior STAR paper [42] and used as a fixed input here.
  • SPR binder threshold (%Rmax) = >10%
    Methods C defines binders based on %Rmax > 10; this is a hand-chosen experimental cutoff that determines which antibodies are counted as validated binders.
  • Logistic regression coefficients for CDR3 one-hot encoding = Learned weights
    Section II.E fits coefficients to 80% of antigen-positive sorted sequences to predict binding; this is a secondary analysis, not used in the STAR discovery pipeline, but it is a fitted model reported in the paper.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Neighbor definition: unique CDR3 nucleotide sequences differing by one amino acid are treated as neighbors, and antigen-specific responses appear as overrepresented neighbor clusters.
    Section II.A 'Neighbours are defined as unique CDR3 nucleotide sequences differing by one amino acid.' This is the core premise of STAR that bulk repertoire clustering reflects affinity maturation.
  • domain assumption Single-cell paired sequencing provides the correct heavy-light chain pairing for bulk-derived heavy chain hits.
    Section II.A 'we matched these hits with the single-cell sequencing data to identify the corresponding light chains.' The Discussion notes a heavy chain may pair with multiple light chains, so the uniqueness of the chosen pairing is assumed.
  • domain assumption SPR binding, defined as %Rmax > 10, is a valid proxy for antigen specificity of the expressed antibody.
    Methods C 'Binders were defined based on a %Rmax> 10.' This cutoff determines the labels used for success rates and the catalog.
  • domain assumption Trianni mice produce fully human variable regions representative of a human antibody response.
    Section II.A 'Trianni mice [43] ... produce chimeric antibodies with fully human variable regions (VH,VL).' The human relevance of the resource depends on this premise.
  • standard math STAR's statistical threshold for neighbor overrepresentation is valid as published.
    Section II.A 'a threshold set using the STAR method' relies on statistical machinery from the prior STAR paper [42], which is taken as a validated input.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Integrating computational detection and experimental validation for rapid GFRAL-specific antibody discovery." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4BK3TBIE

@misc{pith2026250601995,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Integrating computational detection and experimental validation for rapid GFRAL-specific antibody discovery},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4BK3TBIE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.01995}
}
read the original abstract

The identification and validation of therapeutic antibodies is critical for developing effective treatments for many diseases. We present a computational approach for identifying antibodies targeting GFRAL-specific receptors, receptors implicated in appetite regulation. Using humanized Trianni mice, we conducted a longitudinal study with repeated blood sampling and splenic analysis. We applied the STAR computational method for antibody discovery on bulk antibody repertoire data sampled at key time points. By mapping the output from STAR to single-cell data taken at the last time point, we successfully identified a pool of antibodies, of which 50% demonstrated binding capabilities. We observed convergent selection, where responding sequences with identical amino acid complementarity determining regions 3 (CDR3) were found in different mice. We provide a catalog of 67 experimentally validated antibodies against GFRAL. The potential of these antibodies as antagonists or agonists against GFRAL suggests therapeutic solutions for conditions like cancer cachexia, anorexia, obesity, and diabetes. This study underscores the utility of integrating computational methods and experimental validation for antibody discovery in therapeutic contexts by reducing time and increasing efficiency.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.01995 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Human immune response to multiple injec- tions of murine monoclonal igg

    Daniel L Shawler, RM Bartholomew, LM Smith, and RO Dillman. Human immune response to multiple injec- tions of murine monoclonal igg. Journal of Immunology (Baltimore, MD.: 1950) , 135(2):1530–1535, 1985

    work page 1950

  2. [2]

    Human im- mune responses to murine monoclonal antibodies

    Robert W Schroff and Henry C Stevenson. Human im- mune responses to murine monoclonal antibodies. In Monoclonal antibody therapy of human cancer , pages 121–138. Springer, 1985

    work page 1985

  3. [3]

    Production of functional chimaeric mouse/human antibody

    Gabrielle L Boulianne, Nobumichi Hozumi, and Marc J Shulman. Production of functional chimaeric mouse/human antibody. Nature, 312(5995):643–646, 1984

    work page 1984

  4. [4]

    Potent antibody therapeutics by design

    Paul J Carter. Potent antibody therapeutics by design. Nature reviews immunology, 6(5):343–357, 2006

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    The use of combinations of monoclonal antibodies in clinical oncology

    Linda M Henricks, Jan HM Schellens, Alwin DR Huitema, and Jos H Beijnen. The use of combinations of monoclonal antibodies in clinical oncology. Cancer treat- ment reviews, 41(10):859–867, 2015

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    Monoclonal antibodies in cancer therapy

    Andrew M Scott, James P Allison, and Jedd D Wolchok. Monoclonal antibodies in cancer therapy. Cancer immu- nity, 12(1), 2012

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    Monoclonal antibodies in clinical immunology

    E Dale Sevier, Gary S David, Joanne Martinis, Walter J Desmond, Richard M Bartholomew, and Robert Wang. Monoclonal antibodies in clinical immunology. Clinical Chemistry, 27(11):1797–1806, 1981

    work page 1981

  8. [8]

    Anti-cgrp monoclonal antibodies: the next era of migraine prevention? Current treatment options in neurology, 19:1–11, 2017

    Amy R Tso and Peter J Goadsby. Anti-cgrp monoclonal antibodies: the next era of migraine prevention? Current treatment options in neurology, 19:1–11, 2017

    work page 2017

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Overview of growth differentia- tion factor 15 (gdf15) in metabolic diseases

    Jian Li, Xiangjun Hu, Zichuan Xie, Jiajin Li, Chen Huang, and Yan Huang. Overview of growth differentia- tion factor 15 (gdf15) in metabolic diseases. Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy, 176:116809, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Therapeutic monoclonal an- tibodies for metabolic disorders: Major advancements and future perspectives

    Pratiksha Jamadade, Neh Nupur, Krushna Ch Maha- rana, and Sanjiv Singh. Therapeutic monoclonal an- tibodies for metabolic disorders: Major advancements and future perspectives. Current Atherosclerosis Reports, pages 1–23, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Monoclonal antibody successes in the clinic

    Janice M Reichert, Clark J Rosensweig, Laura B Faden, and Matthew C Dewitz. Monoclonal antibody successes in the clinic. Nature biotechnology , 23(9):1073–1078, 2005

    2005

  4. [12]

    Monoclonal antibodies: technologies for early discovery and engineering

    Patrick J Kennedy, Carla Oliveira, Pedro L Granja, and Bruno Sarmento. Monoclonal antibodies: technologies for early discovery and engineering. Critical reviews in biotechnology, 38(3):394–408, 2018

    2018

  5. [13]

    Continuous cultures of fused cells secreting antibody of predefined specificity

    Georges K¨ ohler and Cesar Milstein. Continuous cultures of fused cells secreting antibody of predefined specificity. nature, 256(5517):495–497, 1975

    1975

  6. [14]

    An efficient method to make human mon- oclonal antibodies from memory b cells: potent neutral- ization of sars coronavirus

    Elisabetta Traggiai, Stephan Becker, Kanta Subbarao, Larissa Kolesnikova, Yasushi Uematsu, Maria Rita Gis- mondo, Brian R Murphy, Rino Rappuoli, and Antonio Lanzavecchia. An efficient method to make human mon- oclonal antibodies from memory b cells: potent neutral- ization of ...

    2004

  7. [15]

    Rapid cloning of high-affinity human monoclonal anti- bodies against influenza virus

    Jens Wrammert, Kenneth Smith, Joe Miller, William A Langley, Kenneth Kokko, Christian Larsen, Nai-Ying Zheng, Israel Mays, Lori Garman, Christina Helms, et al. Rapid cloning of high-affinity human monoclonal anti- bodies against influenza virus. Nature, 453(7195):667– 671, 2008

    2008

  8. [16]

    Filamentous fusion phage: novel expres- sion vectors that display cloned antigens on the virion surface

    George P Smith. Filamentous fusion phage: novel expres- sion vectors that display cloned antigens on the virion surface. Science, 228(4705):1315–1317, 1985

    1985

  9. [17]

    Phage display derived monoclonal antibodies: from bench to bedside

    Mohamed A Alfaleh, Hashem O Alsaab, Ahmad Bakur Mahmoud, Almohanad A Alkayyal, Martina L Jones, Stephen M Mahler, and Anwar M Hashem. Phage display derived monoclonal antibodies: from bench to bedside. Frontiers in immunology, 11:1986, 2020

    1986

  10. [18]

    Monoclonal antibodies isolated without screening by analyzing the variable-gene reper- toire of plasma cells

    Sai T Reddy, Xin Ge, Aleksandr E Miklos, Randall A Hughes, Seung Hyun Kang, Kam Hon Hoi, Constantine Chrysostomou, Scott P Hunicke-Smith, Brent L Iverson, Philip W Tucker, et al. Monoclonal antibodies isolated without screening by analyzing the variable-gene reper- toire of pl...

    2010

  11. [19]

    Directed evolution of antibody fragments with monovalent femtomolar antigen-binding affinity.Proceed- ings of the National Academy of Sciences , 97(20):10701– 10705, 2000

    Eric T Boder, Katarina S Midelfort, and K Dane Wit- trup. Directed evolution of antibody fragments with monovalent femtomolar antigen-binding affinity.Proceed- ings of the National Academy of Sciences , 97(20):10701– 10705, 2000

    2000

  12. [20]

    Replacing the complementarity-determining regions in a human anti- body with those from a mouse

    Peter T Jones, Paul H Dear, Jefferson Foote, Michael S Neuberger, and Greg Winter. Replacing the complementarity-determining regions in a human anti- body with those from a mouse. Nature, 321(6069):522– 525, 1986

    1986

  13. [21]

    Characterization of a mouse/human chimeric monoclonal antibody (17-1a) to a colon cancer tumor-associated antigen

    DENISE R Shaw, MB Khazaeli, LK Sun, JOHN Ghrayeb, PETER E Daddona, S McKinney, and AF LoBuglio. Characterization of a mouse/human chimeric monoclonal antibody (17-1a) to a colon cancer tumor-associated antigen. Journal of immunology (Bal- timore, Md.: 1950) , 138(12):4534–4538, 1987

    1950

  14. [22]

    Third generation antibody discovery meth- ods: in silico rational design

    Pietro Sormanni, Francesco A Aprile, and Michele Ven- druscolo. Third generation antibody discovery meth- ods: in silico rational design. Chemical Society Reviews, 47(24):9137–9157, 2018

    2018

  15. [23]

    Energy-based generative models for monoclonal antibodies

    Paul Pereira, Herv´ e Minoux, Aleksandra M Walczak, and Thierry Mora. Energy-based generative models for monoclonal antibodies. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.13390, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Atomically accurate de novo design of an- tibodies with rfdiffusion

    Nathaniel R Bennett, Joseph L Watson, Robert J Ragotte, Andrew J Borst, D´ eJena´ e L See, Connor Wei- dle, Riti Biswas, Yutong Yu, Ellen L Shrock, Russell Ault, et al. Atomically accurate de novo design of an- tibodies with rfdiffusion. bioRxiv, pages 2024–03, 2025

    2024

  17. [25]

    Computational design of developable therapeutic antibodies: efficient traversal of binder landscapes and rescue of escape mutations

    Fr´ ed´ eric A Dreyer, Constantin Schneider, Aleksandr Ko- valtsuk, Daniel Cutting, Matthew J Byrne, Daniel A Nissley, Newton Wahome, Henry Kenlay, Claire Marks, David Errington, et al. Computational design of developable therapeutic antibodies: efficient traversal of binder l...

    2024

  18. [26]

    Gfral is the receptor for 11 gdf15 and the ligand promotes weight loss in mice and nonhuman primates

    Shannon E Mullican, Xiefan Lin-Schmidt, Chen-Ni Chin, Jose A Chavez, Jennifer L Furman, Anthony A Arm- strong, Stephen C Beck, Victoria J South, Thai Q Dinh, Tanesha D Cash-Mason, et al. Gfral is the receptor for 11 gdf15 and the ligand promotes weight loss in mice and nonhuma...

    2017

  19. [27]

    Gfral is the receptor for gdf15 and is required for the anti-obesity effects of the ligand

    Linda Yang, Chih-Chuan Chang, Zhe Sun, Dennis Mad- sen, Haisun Zhu, Søren B Padkjær, Xiaoai Wu, Tao Huang, Karin Hultman, Sarah J Paulsen, et al. Gfral is the receptor for gdf15 and is required for the anti-obesity effects of the ligand. Nature medicine, 23(10):1158–1166, 2017

    2017

  20. [28]

    The metabolic effects of gdf15 are mediated by the orphan receptor gfral

    Paul J Emmerson, Feng Wang, Yong Du, Qian Liu, Richard T Pickard, Malgorzata D Gonciarz, Tamer Coskun, Matthew J Hamang, Dana K Sindelar, Kim- berly K Ballman, et al. The metabolic effects of gdf15 are mediated by the orphan receptor gfral. Nature medicine, 23(10):1215–1219, 2017

    2017

  21. [29]

    Non- homeostatic body weight regulation through a brainstem- restricted receptor for gdf15

    Jer-Yuan Hsu, Suzanne Crawley, Michael Chen, Dina A Ayupova, Darrin A Lindhout, Jared Higbee, Alan Ku- tach, William Joo, Zhengyu Gao, Diana Fu, et al. Non- homeostatic body weight regulation through a brainstem- restricted receptor for gdf15. Nature, 550(7675):255–259, 2017

    2017

  22. [30]

    Gdf15 mediates the metabolic effects of ppar β/δ by ac- tivating ampk

    David Aguilar-Recarte, Emma Barroso, Anna Guma, Javier Pizarro-Delgado, Luc´ ıa Pe˜ na, Maria Ruart, Xavier Palomer, Walter Wahli, and Manuel V´ azquez-Carrera. Gdf15 mediates the metabolic effects of ppar β/δ by ac- tivating ampk. Cell Reports, 36(6), 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    Macrophage inhibitory cytokine 1 (mic-1/gdf15) decreases food intake, body weight and improves glucose tolerance in mice on normal & obesogenic diets

    Laurence Macia, Vicky Wang-Wei Tsai, Amy D Nguyen, Heiko Johnen, Tamara Kuffner, Yan-Chuan Shi, Shu Lin, Herbert Herzog, David A Brown, Samuel N Breit, et al. Macrophage inhibitory cytokine 1 (mic-1/gdf15) decreases food intake, body weight and improves glucose tolerance in mi...

    2012

  24. [32]

    The anorec- tic actions of the tgf β cytokine mic-1/gdf15 require an intact brainstem area postrema and nucleus of the soli- tary tract

    Vicky Wang-Wei Tsai, Rakesh Manandhar, Sebas- tian Beck Jørgensen, Ka Ki Michelle Lee-Ng, Hong Ping Zhang, Christopher Peter Marquis, Lele Jiang, Yasmin Husaini, Shu Lin, Amanda Sainsbury, et al. The anorec- tic actions of the tgf β cytokine mic-1/gdf15 require an intact brain...

    2014

  25. [33]

    Tumor-induced anorexia and weight loss are mediated by the tgf-β superfamily cytokine mic-1

    Heiko Johnen, Shu Lin, Tamara Kuffner, David A Brown, Vicky Wang-Wei Tsai, Asne R Bauskin, Liyun Wu, Greg Pankhurst, Lele Jiang, Simon Junankar, et al. Tumor-induced anorexia and weight loss are mediated by the tgf-β superfamily cytokine mic-1. Nature medicine, 13(11):1333–1340, 2007

    2007

  26. [34]

    Gdf15 induces anorexia through nausea and emesis

    Tito Borner, Evan D Shaulson, Misgana Y Ghidewon, Amanda B Barnett, Charles C Horn, Robert P Doyle, Harvey J Grill, Matthew R Hayes, and Bart C De Jonghe. Gdf15 induces anorexia through nausea and emesis. Cell metabolism, 31(2):351–362, 2020

    2020

  27. [35]

    Map3k11/gdf15 axis is a critical driver of cancer cachexia

    L Lerner, J Tao, Q Liu, R Nicoletti, B Feng, B Krieger, E Mazsa, Z Siddiquee, R Wang, L Huang, et al. Map3k11/gdf15 axis is a critical driver of cancer cachexia. j cachexia sarcopenia muscle 7: 467–482, 2016

    2016

  28. [36]

    Antibody-mediated inhibition of gdf15–gfral ac- tivity reverses cancer cachexia in mice

    Rowena Suriben, Michael Chen, Jared Higbee, Julie Oeffinger, Richard Ventura, Betty Li, Kalyani Mon- dal, Zhengyu Gao, Dina Ayupova, Pranali Taskar, et al. Antibody-mediated inhibition of gdf15–gfral ac- tivity reverses cancer cachexia in mice. Nature medicine, 26(8):1264–1270, 2020

    2020

  29. [37]

    Targeting obesity and cachexia: identification of the gfral receptor–mic-1/gdf15 pathway

    Samuel N Breit, Vicky Wang-Wei Tsai, and David A Brown. Targeting obesity and cachexia: identification of the gfral receptor–mic-1/gdf15 pathway. Trends in molecular medicine, 23(12):1065–1067, 2017

    2017

  30. [38]

    Gdf15: emerging biology and thera- peutic applications for obesity and cardiometabolic dis- ease

    Dongdong Wang, Emily A Day, Logan K Townsend, Djordje Djordjevic, Sebastian Beck Jørgensen, and Gre- gory R Steinberg. Gdf15: emerging biology and thera- peutic applications for obesity and cardiometabolic dis- ease. Nature Reviews Endocrinology , 17(10):592–607, 2021

    2021

  31. [39]

    Gdnf family receptor alpha-like antagonist antibody alleviates chemotherapy-induced cachexia in melanoma-bearing mice

    Beom Yong Lee, Jongwon Jeong, Inseong Jung, Han- chae Cho, Dokyung Jung, Jiwon Shin, Jun-kook Park, Eunju Park, Soojeong Noh, Sanghee Shin, et al. Gdnf family receptor alpha-like antagonist antibody alleviates chemotherapy-induced cachexia in melanoma-bearing mice. Journal of ...

    2023

  32. [40]

    Gfral-expressing neurons suppress food in- take via aversive pathways

    Paul V Sabatini, Henriette Frikke-Schmidt, Joe Arthurs, Desiree Gordian, Anita Patel, Alan C Rupp, Jessica M Adams, Jine Wang, Sebastian Beck Jørgensen, David P Olson, et al. Gfral-expressing neurons suppress food in- take via aversive pathways. Proceedings of the National Aca...

    2021

  33. [41]

    Gdf15 promotes weight loss by enhancing energy expenditure in muscle

    Dongdong Wang, Logan K Townsend, Genevi` eve J Des- Ormeaux, Sara M Frangos, Battsetseg Batchuluun, Lau- ralyne Dumont, Rune Ehrenreich Kuhre, Elham Ahmadi, Sumei Hu, Irena A Rebalka, et al. Gdf15 promotes weight loss by enhancing energy expenditure in muscle. Nature, 619(7968...

    2023

  34. [42]

    Computational detection of antigen-specific b cell receptors following immuniza- tion

    Maria Francesca Abbate, Thomas Dupic, Emmanuelle Vigne, Melody A Shahsavarian, Aleksandra M Wal- czak, and Thierry Mora. Computational detection of antigen-specific b cell receptors following immuniza- tion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 121(35):e2401058121, 2024

    2024

  35. [43]

    The trianni mouse: The next genera- tion transgenic platform for the isolation of fully human monoclonal antibodies

    David Meininger. The trianni mouse: The next genera- tion transgenic platform for the isolation of fully human monoclonal antibodies. Immunome Research, 12(S2):38, 2016

    2016

  36. [44]

    Combining mutation and re- combination statistics to infer clonal families in antibody repertoires

    Natanael Spisak, Thomas Dupic, Thierry Mora, and Aleksandra M Walczak. Combining mutation and re- combination statistics to infer clonal families in antibody repertoires. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.11997 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Raxml version 8: a tool for phy- logenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies

    Alexandros Stamatakis. Raxml version 8: a tool for phy- logenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics, 30(9):1312–1313, 2014

    2014

  38. [46]

    Interactive tree of life (itol) v6: recent updates to the phylogenetic tree display and annotation tool

    Ivica Letunic and Peer Bork. Interactive tree of life (itol) v6: recent updates to the phylogenetic tree display and annotation tool. Nucleic Acids Research, page gkae268, 2024

    2024

  39. [47]

    Pymol: An open-source molec- ular graphics tool

    Warren L DeLano et al. Pymol: An open-source molec- ular graphics tool. CCP4 Newsl. Protein Crystallogr , 40(1):82–92, 2002

    2002

  40. [48]

    Accurate structure prediction of biomolecular in- teractions with alphafold 3

    Josh Abramson, Jonas Adler, Jack Dunger, Richard Evans, Tim Green, Alexander Pritzel, Olaf Ronneberger, Lindsay Willmore, Andrew J Ballard, Joshua Bambrick, et al. Accurate structure prediction of biomolecular in- teractions with alphafold 3. Nature, pages 1–3, 2024

    2024

  41. [49]

    Evaluation of alphafold antibody–antigen modeling with implications for improv- ing predictive accuracy

    Rui Yin and Brian G Pierce. Evaluation of alphafold antibody–antigen modeling with implications for improv- ing predictive accuracy. Protein Science , 33(1):e4865, 2024

    2024

  42. [50]

    Logomaker: beauti- ful sequence logos in python

    Ammar Tareen and Justin B Kinney. Logomaker: beauti- ful sequence logos in python. Bioinformatics, 36(7):2272– 2274, 2020

    2020

  43. [51]

    12 Population variability in the generation and selection of t-cell repertoires

    Zachary Sethna, Giulio Isacchini, Thomas Dupic, Thierry Mora, Aleksandra M Walczak, and Yuval Elhanati. 12 Population variability in the generation and selection of t-cell repertoires. PLOS Computational Biology , 16(12):e1008394, 2020

    2020

  44. [52]

    Tirtl-seq: Deep, quantitative, and affordable paired tcr repertoire sequencing

    Mikhail V Pogorelyy, Allison M Kirk, Samir Adhikari, Anastasia A Minervina, Balaji Sundararaman, Kasi Veg- esana, David C Brice, Zachary B Scott, Paul G Thomas, SJTRC Study Team, et al. Tirtl-seq: Deep, quantitative, and affordable paired tcr repertoire sequencing. bioRxiv, 2024

    2024

  45. [53]

    Genetic mea- surement of memory b-cell recall using antibody reper- toire sequencing

    Christopher Vollmers, Rene V Sit, Joshua A Weinstein, Cornelia L Dekker, and Stephen R Quake. Genetic mea- surement of memory b-cell recall using antibody reper- toire sequencing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(33):13463–13468, 2013

    2013

  46. [54]

    Computational approaches to therapeutic antibody design: established methods and emerging trends

    Richard A Norman, Francesco Ambrosetti, Alexan- dre MJJ Bonvin, Lucy J Colwell, Sebastian Kelm, Sandeep Kumar, and Konrad Krawczyk. Computational approaches to therapeutic antibody design: established methods and emerging trends. Briefings in bioinformat- ics, 21(5):1549–1567,...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.