QSAR Implementation for HIC Retention Time Prediction of mAbs Using Fab Structure: A Comparison between Structural Representations
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- The primary sequence (sequence).
- Homology model generated from the primary sequence.
- 3D structure obtained after a 50 ns molecular dynamics (MD) simulation using a homology model as a starting point.
2. Results
2.1. HIC RT Prediction from Primary Sequences
2.2. Impact of Species on Primary Sequence Descriptors
2.3. HIC RT Prediction from 3D Homology Models
2.4. Molecular Dynamics Simulation for Protein Structure Relaxation
2.5. HIC RT Prediction from MD Structures
- Dinutuximab and eldelumab kept in the calibration set and constant domain descriptors kept in the descriptor set.
- Dinutuximab and eldelumab removed from the calibration set and constant domain descriptors kept in the descriptor set.
- Dinutuximab and eldelumab kept in the calibration set and constant domain descriptors removed from the descriptor set.
- Dinutuximab and eldelumab removed from the calibration set and constant domain descriptors removed from the descriptor set.
2.6. Structural Descriptors Important for Prediction of HIC RT
3. Discussion
3.1. Insights from Using Primary Sequences
3.2. Insights from Using Homology Models
3.3. Considerations and Limitations of the MD3D Based Model
4. Materials and Methods
4.1. Data Collection
4.2. HIC Data
4.3. Substructure Identification
4.4. Primary Sequence Descriptors
4.5. Fab Structure Determination
4.6. MD Simulations
4.7. D Structure Descriptors
4.8. QSAR Model Development
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
AC-SINS | Affinity-capture interaction nanoparticle spectroscopy |
CDR | Complementarity-Determining Region |
CH1 | Constant Heavy 1 |
CIC | Cross-Interaction Chromatography |
CL | Constant Light |
EMA | European Medicine Agency |
FAB | Fragment Antigen Binding |
FDA | Food and Drug Administration |
FR | Framework Region |
GA-PLS | Genetic Algorithm—Partial Least Square |
HIC | Hydrophobic Interaction Chromatography |
RT | Retention time |
HOM3D | Homology 3D Descriptors |
IgG | Immunoglobulin |
MD | Molecular Dynamics |
MD3D | Molecular Dynamics 3D Descriptors |
PDB | Protein Data Bank |
QSAR | Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship |
RMSD | Root Mean Square Deviation |
RMSE | Root Mean Square Error |
RMSF | Root Mean Square Fluctuation |
SASA | Solvent Accessible Solvent Area |
Seq2D | Sequence 2D Descriptors |
VH | Variable Heavy |
VL | Variable Light |
References
- Reichert, J.M. Marketed therapeutic antibodies compendium. MAbs 2012, 4, 413–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- EvaluatePharma. World Preview (2018) Outlook to 2024, 10th ed.; EvaluatePharma: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- EvaluatePharma. World Preview (2019) Outlook to 2024, 12th ed.; EvaluatePharma: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Kaplon, H.; Reichert, J.M. Antibodies to watch in 2018. MAbs 2018, 10, 183–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DiMasi, J.A.; Grabowski, H.G.; Hansen, R.W. Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: New estimates of R&D costs. J. Health Econ. 2016, 47, 20–33. [Google Scholar]
- Zurdo, J.; Arnell, A.; Obrezanova, O.; Smith, N.; de la Cuesta, R.G.; Gallagher, T.R.A.; Michael, R.; Stallwood, Y.; Ekblad, C.; Abrahmsen, L.; et al. Early implementation of QbD in biopharmaceutical development: A practical example. BioMed Res. Int. 2015, 2015, 605427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Zurdo, J. Surviving the valley of death. Eur. Biopharm. Rev. 2013, 195, 50–54. [Google Scholar]
- Jain, T.; Sun, T.; Durand, S.; Hall, A.; Houston, N.R.; Nett, J.H.; Sharkey, B.; Bobrowicz, B.; Caffry, I.; Yu, Y.; et al. Biophysical properties of the clinical-stage antibody landscape. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, 944–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Bailly, M.; Mieczkowski, C.; Juan, V.; Metwally, E.; Tomazela, D.; Baker, J.; Uchida, M.; Kofman, E.; Raoufi, F.; Motlagh, S. Predicting antibody developability profiles through early stage discovery screening. MAbs 2020, 12, 1743053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Haverick, M.; Mengisen, S.; Shameem, M.; Ambrogelly, A. Separation of mAbs molecular variants by analytical hydrophobic interaction chromatography HPLC: Overview and applications. MAbs 2014, 6, 852–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kelly, R.L.; Sun, T.; Jain, T.; Caffry, I.; Yu, Y.; Cao, Y.; Lynaugh, H.; Brown, M.; Vásquez, M.; Wittrup, K.D. High throughput cross-interaction measures for human IgG1 antibodies correlate with clearance rates in mice. MAbs 2015, 7, 770–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jacobs, S.A.; Wu, S.-J.; Feng, Y.; Bethea, D.; O’Neil, K.T. Cross-interaction chromatography: A rapid method to identify highly soluble monoclonal antibody candidates. Pharm. Res. 2010, 27, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, J.; Schultz, J.S.; Weldon, C.L.; Sule, S.V.; Chai, Q.; Geng, S.B.; Dickinson, C.D.; Tessier, P.M. Discovery of highly soluble antibodies prior to purification using affinity-capture self-interaction nanoparticle spectroscopy. Protein Eng. Des. Sel. 2015, 28, 403–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Geng, S.B.; Wittekind, M.; Vigil, A.; Tessier, P.M. Measurements of monoclonal antibody self-association are correlated with complex biophysical properties. Mol. Pharm. 2016, 13, 1636–1645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Xu, Y.; Wang, D.; Mason, B.; Rossomando, T.; Li, N.; Liu, D.; Cheung, J.K.; Xu, W.; Raghava, S.; Katiyar, A. Structure, heterogeneity and developability assessment of therapeutic antibodies. MAbs 2019, 11, 239–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Lu, X.; Nobrega, R.P.; Lynaugh, H.; Jain, T.; Barlow, K.; Boland, T.; Sivasubramanian, A.; Vásquez, M.; Xu, Y. Deamidation and isomerization liability analysis of 131 clinical-stage antibodies. MAbs 2019, 11, 45–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Sankar, K.; Hoi, K.H.; Yin, Y.; Ramachandran, P.; Andersen, N.; Hilderbrand, A.; McDonald, P.; Spiess, C.; Zhang, Q. Prediction of methionine oxidation risk in monoclonal antibodies using a machine learning method. MAbs 2018, 10, 1281–1290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Cherkasov, A.; Muratov, E.N.; Fourches, D.; Varnek, A.; Baskin, I.I.; Cronin, M.; Dearden, J.; Gramatica, P.; Martin, Y.C.; Todeschini, R. QSAR modeling: Where have you been? Where are you going to? J. Med. Chem. 2014, 57, 4977–5010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kaliszan, R. QSRR: Quantitative structure-(chromatographic) retention relationships. Chem. Rev. 2007, 107, 3212–3246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ladiwala, A.; Xia, F.; Luo, Q.; Breneman, C.M.; Cramer, S.M. Investigation of protein retention and selectivity in HIC systems using quantitative structure retention relationship models. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2006, 93, 836–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jetha, A.; Thorsteinson, N.; Jmeian, Y.; Jeganathan, A.; Giblin, P.; Fransson, J. Homology modeling and structure-based design improve hydrophobic interaction chromatography behavior of integrin binding antibodies. MAbs 2018, 10, 890–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, J.; Yang, T.; Cramer, S.M. Prediction of protein retention times in gradient hydrophobic interaction chromatographic systems. J. Chromatogr. A 2008, 1177, 207–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hebditch, M.; Warwicker, J. Charge and hydrophobicity are key features in sequence-trained machine learning models for predicting the biophysical properties of clinical-stage antibodies. PeerJ 2019, 7, e8199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kizhedath, A.; Karlberg, M.; Glassey, J. Cross-interaction chromatography-based QSAR model for early-stage screening to facilitate enhanced developability of monoclonal antibody therapeutics. Biotechnol. J. 2019, 14, 1800696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, T.; Breneman, C.M.; Cramer, S.M. Investigation of multi-modal high-salt binding ion-exchange chromatography using quantitative structure-property relationship modeling. J. Chromatogr. A 2007, 1175, 96–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Woo, J.; Parimal, S.; Brown, M.R.; Heden, R.; Cramer, S.M. The effect of geometrical presentation of multimodal cation-exchange ligands on selective recognition of hydrophobic regions on protein surfaces. J. Chromatogr. A 2015, 1412, 33–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Robinson, J.R.; Karkov, H.S.; Woo, J.A.; Krogh, B.O.; Cramer, S.M. QSAR models for prediction of chromatographic behavior of homologous Fab variants. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2017, 114, 1231–1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hou, Y.; Jiang, C.P.; Shukla, A.A.; Cramer, S.M. Improved process analytical technology for protein A chromatography using predictive principal component analysis tools. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2011, 108, 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kizhedath, A.; Wilkinson, S.; Glassey, J. Applicability of predictive toxicology methods for monoclonal antibody therapeutics: Status quo and scope. Arch. Toxicol. 2017, 91, 1595–1612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Gagnon, P. Hydrophobic interaction chromatography. In Purification Tools for Monoclonal Antibodies; Validated Biosystems Inc.: Tucson, AZ, USA, 1996; pp. 103–126. [Google Scholar]
- Lefranc, M.P.; Pommie, C.; Ruiz, M.; Giudicelli, V.; Foulquier, E.; Truong, L.; Thouvenin-Contet, V.; Lefranc, G. IMGT unique numbering for immunoglobulin and T cell receptor variable domains and Ig superfamily V-like domains. Dev. Comp. Immunol. 2003, 27, 55–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lefranc, M.P.; Pommie, C.; Kaas, Q.; Duprat, E.; Bosc, N.; Guiraudou, D.; Jean, C.; Ruiz, M.; Da Piedade, I.; Rouard, M.; et al. IMGT unique numbering for immunoglobulin and T cell receptor constant domains and Ig superfamily C-like domains. Dev. Comp. Immunol. 2005, 29, 185–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McWilliam, H.; Li, W.; Uludag, M.; Squizzato, S.; Park, Y.M.; Buso, N.; Cowley, A.P.; Lopez, R. Analysis tool web services from the EMBL-EBI. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013, 41, W597–W600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ruiz-Blanco, Y.B.; Paz, W.; Green, J.; Marrero-Ponce, Y. ProtDCal: A program to compute general-purpose-numerical descriptors for sequences and 3D-structures of proteins. BMC Bioinform. 2015, 16, 162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Hastie, T.; Tibshirani, R.; Friedman, J. Model assessment and selection. In The Elements of Statistical Learning; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009; pp. 219–259. [Google Scholar]
- Ng, A. Machine Learning Yearning: Technical Strategy for Ai Engineers in the Era of Deep Learning. Available online: https://www.deeplearning.ai/machine-learning-yearning/ (accessed on 15 May 2020).
- Shahrokh Mohammad, E.; Dougherty, E.R. Effect of separate sampling on classification accuracy. Bioinformatics 2013, 30, 242–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, C.-C.; Lin, C.-J. LIBSVM: A library for support vector machines. ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol. 2011, 2, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jurman, G.; Riccadonna, S.; Furlanello, C. A comparison of MCC and CEN error measures in multi-class prediction. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e41882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Gorodkin, J. Comparing two K-category assignments by a K-category correlation coefficient. Comput. Biol. Chem. 2004, 28, 367–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poiron, C.; Wu, Y.; Ginestoux, C.; Ehrenmann, F.; Duroux, P.; Lefranc, M.P. IMGT/mAb-DB: The IMGT® database for therapeutic monoclonal antibodies. Poster no101 2010, 11. Available online: http://www.imgt.org/IMGTposters/Jobim2010_IMGTmAb-DB.pdf (accessed on 16 May 2020).
- Clark, M. Antibody humanization: A case of the ‘Emperor’s new clothes’? Immunol. Today 2000, 21, 397–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wold, S.; Antti, H.; Lindgren, F.; Öhman, J. Orthogonal signal correction of near-infrared spectra. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 1998, 44, 175–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schroeder, H.W., Jr.; Cavacini, L. Structure and function of immunoglobulins. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2010, 125, S41–S52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hebditch, M.; Roche, A.; Curtis, R.A.; Warwicker, J. Models for antibody behavior in hydrophobic interaction chromatography and in self-association. J. Pharm. Sci. 2018, 108, 1434–1441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tsuchiya, Y.; Mizuguchi, K. The diversity of H 3 loops determines the antigen-binding tendencies of antibody CDR loops. Protein Sci. 2016, 25, 815–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Rücker, C.; Rücker, G.; Meringer, M. y-Randomization and its variants in QSPR/QSAR. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47, 2345–2357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feige, M.J.; Hendershot, L.M.; Buchner, J. How antibodies fold. Trends Biochem. Sci. 2010, 35, 189–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Breneman, C.M.; Thompson, T.R.; Rhem, M.; Dung, M. Electron-density modeling of large systems using the transferable atom equivalent method. Comput. Chem. 1995, 19, 161–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beyer, B.; Jungbauer, A. Conformational changes of antibodies upon adsorption onto hydrophobic interaction chromatography surfaces. J. Chromatogr. A 2018, 1552, 60–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fekete, S.; Veuthey, J.-L.; Beck, A.; Guillarme, D. Hydrophobic interaction chromatography for the characterization of monoclonal antibodies and related products. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2016, 130, 3–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hastie, T.; Tibshirani, R.; Friedman, J. Model inference and averaging. In The Elements of Statistical Learning; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009; pp. 261–294. [Google Scholar]
- Eigenbrot, C.; Gonzalez, T.; Mayeda, J.; Carter, P.; Werther, W.; Hotaling, T.; Fox, J.; Kessler, J. X-ray structures of fragments from binding and nonbinding versions of a humanized anti-CD18 antibody: Structural indications of the key role of VH residues 59 to 65. Proteins Struct. Funct. Bioinform. 1994, 18, 49–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Almagro, J.C.; Beavers, M.P.; Hernandez-Guzman, F.; Maier, J.; Shaulsky, J.; Butenhof, K.; Labute, P.; Thorsteinson, N.; Kelly, K.; Teplyakov, A.; et al. Antibody modeling assessment. Proteins 2011, 79, 3050–3066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teplyakov, A.; Luo, J.; Obmolova, G.; Malia, T.J.; Sweet, R.; Stanfield, R.L.; Kodangattil, S.; Almagro, J.C.; Gilliland, G.L. Antibody modeling assessment II. Structures and models. Proteins 2014, 82, 1563–1582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chennamsetty, N.; Voynov, V.; Kayser, V.; Helk, B.; Trout, B.L. Design of therapeutic proteins with enhanced stability. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 11937–11942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Alt, N.; Zhang, T.Y.; Motchnik, P.; Taticek, R.; Quarmby, V.; Schlothauer, T.; Beck, H.; Emrich, T.; Harris, R.J. Determination of critical quality attributes for monoclonal antibodies using quality by design principles. Biologicals 2016, 44, 291–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharma, V.K.; Patapoff, T.W.; Kabakoff, B.; Pai, S.; Hilario, E.; Zhang, B.; Li, C.; Borisov, O.; Kelley, R.F.; Chorny, I.; et al. In silico selection of therapeutic antibodies for development: Viscosity, clearance, and chemical stability. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 18601–18606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Tropsha, A.; Golbraikh, A. Predictive QSAR modeling workflow, model applicability domains, and virtual screening. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2007, 13, 3494–3504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kmiecik, S.; Gront, D.; Kolinski, M.; Wieteska, L.; Dawid, A.E.; Kolinski, A. Coarse-grained protein models and their applications. Chem. Rev. 2016, 116, 7898–7936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Wada, R.; Matsui, M.; Kawasaki, N. Influence of N-glycosylation on effector functions and thermal stability of glycoengineered IgG1 monoclonal antibody with homogeneous glycoforms. MAbs 2019, 11, 350–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bernstein, F.C.; Koetzle, T.F.; Williams, G.J.B.; Meyer, E.F., Jr.; Brice, M.D.; Rodgers, J.R.; Kennard, O.; Shimanouchi, T.; Tasumi, M. The protein data bank: A computer-based archival file for macromolecular structures. Eur. J. Biochem. 1977, 80, 319–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hellberg, S.; Sjostrom, M.; Wold, S. The prediction of bradykinin potentiating potency of pentapeptides. An example of a peptide quantitative structure-activity relationship. Acta Chem. Scand. B 1986, 40, 135–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tian, F.F.; Zhou, P.; Li, Z.L. T-scale as a novel vector of topological descriptors for amino acids and its application in QSARs of peptides. J. Mol. Struct. 2007, 830, 106–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zaliani, A.; Gancia, E. MS-WHIM scores for amino acids: A new 3D-description for peptide QSAR and QSPR studies. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1999, 39, 525–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giudicelli, V.; Chaume, D.; Lefranc, M.-P. IMGT/GENE-DB: A comprehensive database for human and mouse immunoglobulin and T cell receptor genes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005, 33, D256–D261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Webb, B.; Sali, A. Comparative protein structure modeling using MODELLER. Curr. Protoc. Bioinform. 2014, 47, 5.6.1–5.6.32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pettersen, E.F.; Goddard, T.D.; Huang, C.C.; Couch, G.S.; Greenblatt, D.M.; Meng, E.C.; Ferrin, T.E. UCSF Chimera—A visualization system for exploratory research and analysis. J. Comput. Chem. 2004, 25, 1605–1612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lindorff-Larsen, K.; Piana, S.; Palmo, K.; Maragakis, P.; Klepeis, J.L.; Dror, R.O.; Shaw, D.E. Improved side-chain torsion potentials for the Amber ff99SB protein force field. Proteins Struct. Funct. Bioinform. 2010, 78, 1950–1958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hess, B. P-LINCS: A parallel linear constraint solver for molecular simulation. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2008, 4, 116–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Darden, T.; York, D.; Pedersen, L. Particle mesh Ewald: An N log (N) method for Ewald sums in large systems. J. Chem. Phys. 1993, 98, 10089–10092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Berendsen, H.J.C.; Postma, J.P.M.; van Gunsteren, W.F.; DiNola, A.; Haak, J.R. Molecular dynamics with coupling to an external bath. J. Chem. Phys. 1984, 81, 3684–3690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Parrinello, M.; Rahman, A. Polymorphic transitions in single crystals: A new molecular dynamics method. J. Appl. Phys. 1981, 52, 7182–7190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tien, M.Z.; Meyer, A.G.; Sydykova, D.K.; Spielman, S.J.; Wilke, C.O. Maximum allowed solvent accessibilites of residues in proteins. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e80635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kennard, R.W.; Stone, L.A. Computer aided design of experiments. Technometrics 1969, 11, 137–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin, T.M.; Harten, P.; Young, D.M.; Muratov, E.N.; Golbraikh, A.; Zhu, H.; Tropsha, A. Does rational selection of training and test sets improve the outcome of QSAR modeling? J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2012, 52, 2570–2578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ballabio, D.; Consonni, V.; Mauri, A.; Claeys-Bruno, M.; Sergent, M.; Todeschini, R. A novel variable reduction method adapted from space-filling designs. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 2014, 136, 147–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leardi, R. Application of genetic algorithm–PLS for feature selection in spectral data sets. J. Chemom. 2000, 14, 643–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andersen, C.M.; Bro, R. Variable selection in regression-a tutorial. J. Chemom. 2010, 24, 728–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsu, C.-W.; Chang, C.-C.; Lin, C.-J. A Practical Guide to Support Vector Classification. Available online: https://www.csie.ntu.edu.tw/~cjlin/papers/guide/guide.pdf (accessed on 16 May 2020).
- Wong, T.-T. Performance evaluation of classification algorithms by k-fold and leave-one-out cross validation. Pattern Recognit. 2015, 48, 2839–2846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Karlberg, M.; de Souza, J.V.; Fan, L.; Kizhedath, A.; Bronowska, A.K.; Glassey, J. QSAR Implementation for HIC Retention Time Prediction of mAbs Using Fab Structure: A Comparison between Structural Representations. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 8037. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21218037
Karlberg M, de Souza JV, Fan L, Kizhedath A, Bronowska AK, Glassey J. QSAR Implementation for HIC Retention Time Prediction of mAbs Using Fab Structure: A Comparison between Structural Representations. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2020; 21(21):8037. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21218037
Chicago/Turabian StyleKarlberg, Micael, João Victor de Souza, Lanyu Fan, Arathi Kizhedath, Agnieszka K. Bronowska, and Jarka Glassey. 2020. "QSAR Implementation for HIC Retention Time Prediction of mAbs Using Fab Structure: A Comparison between Structural Representations" International Journal of Molecular Sciences 21, no. 21: 8037. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21218037