Last month, I had the privilege to attend the Keystone Symposium on Computational Design and Modeling of Biomolecules in beautiful Banff, Canada. This conference gave an incredible insight into the current state of the protein design field, as we are on the precipice of advances catalyzed by deep learning.
From 19th-22nd February I was fortunate enough to participate in the joint Keystone Symposium on Next-Generation Antibody Therapeutics and Multispecific Immune Cell Engagers, held in Banff, Canada. Now in their 51st year, the Keystone Symposia are a comprehensive programme of scientific conferences spanning the full range of topics relating to human health, from studies on fundamental bodily processes through to drug discovery.
We have reached the era of design, not just ‘hunting’. Particularly exciting to me is the de novo design of proteins, which have a wide and ever increasing range of applications from therapeutics to consumer products, biomanufacturing to biomaterials. Protein design has been a) enabled by decades of research that contributed to our understanding of protein sequence, structure & function and b) accelerated by computational advances – capturing the information we have learned from proteins and representing it for computers and machine learning algorithms.
In this blog post, I will discuss three key methodological considerations for computational protein design:
Whenever we order consumables in the Chemistry department, the whole lab gets an email notification once they arrive. So I can understand why I got some puzzled reactions from my colleagues when one such email arrived saying that my ‘artichoke’ was ready to collect from stores. Had I been sneakily doing my grocery shopping on a university research budget?
Artichoke is, in fact, the name of a plasmid designed by the Ebert lab (https://www.addgene.org/73320/), which I have been using in some of my research on targeted protein degradation. The premise is simple enough: genes for two different fluorescent proteins, one of which is fused to a protein-of-interest.
Plants can be genetically engineered to express non-native proteins, for example, crops can be engineered to produce insect toxins in order to improve disease-resistance. However, I was not aware of their ability to express antibodies until, inspired by my expanding collection of house plants, I googled ‘plant immune systems’.
Plants don’t naturally produce antibodies – they do not possess an adaptive immune system or any circulating immune defence cells. Despite this, plants can be made to express and assemble full length antibody heavy chains and light chains. This was first published back in 1989, when Hiatt et al. [1] successfully introduced mouse immunoglobulin genes to tobacco plants and produced functional antibodies with reasonable efficiency. The excellent term ‘plantibody‘ was coined soon after, to refer to antibodies and fragments of antibodies produced by plants transformed with antibody-coding genes.
I was invited to speak at the Antibody Engineering and Therapeutics Conference (presenting mine and Matt’s recently published epitope profiling paper), in San Diego (December 12th – 16th). Unfortunately, the pandemic had other ideas so I decided not to travel but luckily the conference was hybrid.
The conference included 1 day of pre-conference workshops and 4 days of presentations from academic and industry, with livestreaming of the initial keynotes (including one from Charlotte). Remaining talks were recorded and made available after the conference. I’ve highlighted a few of my favourite talks and conference themes, with links to papers where available.
Last month, I was fortunate enough to be able to attend (in person!) and present at the Festival of Biologics European Antibody Congress (9-11 November, 2021) in Basel, Switzerland. The Festival of Biologics is an annual conference, which brings together researchers from industry and academia. It was an excellent opportunity to learn about exciting research and meet people working in the antibody development field.
Here are some of my highlights from the European Antibody Congress, with a focus on antibody design and engineering:
Biologists currently have several options in their arsenal when it comes to gene silencing. if you want to completely vanquish the gene in question, you can use CRISPR to knock the gene out completely. This is a great way to completely eliminate the gene, and hence compare cell phenotypes with and without the gene, but it’s less good if the gene is essential and the cells won’t grow without it in the first place.
Otherwise you can use RNA interference, where small pieces of RNA that complement the mRNA for that gene are introduced to the cell, with the overall effect of blocking transcription of that gene’s mRNA, hence silencing it. However, this method suffers from side effects and varying levels of gene knockdown efficiency. Moreover, it does not vanquish existing protein, it just stops more from being produced.
Antibodies are a highly important class of therapeutics used to treat a range of diseases. Given their success as therapeutics, a wide variety of alternative antibody formats have been developed – these are driving the next generation of antibody therapeutics.
To note, this is not an exhaustive list but rather intended to demonstrate the range of existing antibody formats.
Figure 1. Alternative Antibody Formats Many of these figures were adapted from Spiess et al., 2015. Additionally, some of these formats have multiple variations or further possible forms (e.g., trispecific antibodies) – in these cases, one example is given here.
A – Antibodies
Antibodies – a fitting place to start this post. Antibodies are proteins produced by our immune systems to detect and protect against foreign pathogens. The ability of antibodies to bind molecules strongly and specifically – properties essential to their role in our immune defence – also make them valuable candidates for therapeutics. Antibody therapies have been developed for the treatment of various diseases, including cancers and viruses, and form a market estimated at over $100 billion1.
A protein’s folding time is the time required for it to reach its unique folded state starting from its unfolded ensemble. Globular, cytosolic proteins can only attain their intended biological function once they have folded. This means that protein folding times, which typically exceed the timescales of enzymatic reactions that proteins carry out by several orders of magnitude, are critical to determining when proteins become functional. Many scientists have worked tirelessly over the years to measure protein folding times, determine their theoretical bounds, and understand how they fit into biology. Here, I focus on one of the more interesting questions to fall out of this field over the years: how fast can a protein fold? Note that this is a very different question than asking “how fast do proteins fold?”
Websites store cookies to enhance functionality and personalise your experience. You can manage your preferences, but blocking some cookies may impact site performance and services.
Essential cookies enable basic functions and are necessary for the proper function of the website.
Name
Description
Duration
Cookie Preferences
This cookie is used to store the user's cookie consent preferences.
30 days
These cookies are used for managing login functionality on this website.
Name
Description
Duration
wordpress_logged_in
Used to store logged-in users.
Persistent
wordpress_sec
Used to track the user across multiple sessions.
15 days
wordpress_test_cookie
Used to determine if cookies are enabled.
Session
Statistics cookies collect information anonymously. This information helps us understand how visitors use our website.
Google Analytics is a powerful tool that tracks and analyzes website traffic for informed marketing decisions.
Contains information related to marketing campaigns of the user. These are shared with Google AdWords / Google Ads when the Google Ads and Google Analytics accounts are linked together.
90 days
__utma
ID used to identify users and sessions
2 years after last activity
__utmt
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests
10 minutes
__utmb
Used to distinguish new sessions and visits. This cookie is set when the GA.js javascript library is loaded and there is no existing __utmb cookie. The cookie is updated every time data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
30 minutes after last activity
__utmc
Used only with old Urchin versions of Google Analytics and not with GA.js. Was used to distinguish between new sessions and visits at the end of a session.
End of session (browser)
__utmz
Contains information about the traffic source or campaign that directed user to the website. The cookie is set when the GA.js javascript is loaded and updated when data is sent to the Google Anaytics server
6 months after last activity
__utmv
Contains custom information set by the web developer via the _setCustomVar method in Google Analytics. This cookie is updated every time new data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
2 years after last activity
__utmx
Used to determine whether a user is included in an A / B or Multivariate test.
18 months
_ga
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gali
Used by Google Analytics to determine which links on a page are being clicked
30 seconds
_ga_
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gid
ID used to identify users for 24 hours after last activity
24 hours
_gat
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests when using Google Tag Manager
1 minute
Google reCAPTCHA helps protect websites from spam and abuse by verifying user interactions through challenges.
Name
Description
Duration
_GRECAPTCHA
Google reCAPTCHA sets a necessary cookie (_GRECAPTCHA) when executed for the purpose of providing its risk analysis.