Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (19)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Choulier, L.
Right arrow Articles by Altschuh, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Choulier, L.
Right arrow Articles by Altschuh, D.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Protein Engineering, Vol. 15, No. 5, 373-382, May 2002
© 2002 Oxford University Press

QSAR studies applied to the prediction of antigen–antibody interaction kinetics as measured by BIACORE

Laurence Choulier1, Karl Andersson2, Markku D. Hämäläinen2, Marc H.V. van Regenmortel1, Magnus Malmqvist2 and Danièle Altschuh1,3

1 UMR7100-CNRS, ESBS, Bld Sébastien Brandt, 67400 Illkirch Cedex, France and 2 Biacore AB, Rapsgatan 7, SE754 50 Uppsala, Sweden

The objective of this work was to investigate the potential of the quantitative structure–activity relationships (QSAR) approach for predictive modulation of molecular interaction kinetics. A multivariate QSAR approach involving modifications in peptide sequence and buffer composition was recently used in an attempt to predict the kinetics of peptide–antibody interactions as measured by BIACORE. Quantitative buffer–kinetics relationships (QBKR) and quantitative sequence–kinetics relationships (QSKR) models were developed. Their predictive capacity was investigated in this study by comparing predicted and observed kinetic dissociation parameters (kd) for new antigenic peptides, or in new buffers. The range of experimentally measured kd variations was small (300-fold), limiting the practical value of the approach for this particular interaction. However, the models were validated from a statistical point of view. In QSKR, the leave-one-out cross validation gave Q2 = 0.71 for 24 peptides (all but one outlier), compared to 0.81 for 17 training peptides. A more precise model (Q2 = 0.92) could be developed when removing sets of peptides sharing distinctive structural features, suggesting that different peptides use slightly different binding modes. All models share the most important factor and are informative for structure–kinetics relationships. In QBKR, the measured effect on kd of individual additives in the buffers was consistent with the effect predicted from multivariate buffers. Our results open new perspectives for the predictive optimization of interaction kinetics, with important implications in pharmacology and biotechnology.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Protein Eng Des SelHome page
I. Mandrika, P. Prusis, S. Yahorava, M. Shikhagaie, and J. E.S. Wikberg
Proteochemometric modelling of antibody-antigen interactions using SPOT synthesised peptide arrays
Protein Eng. Des. Sel., June 22, 2007; (2007) gzm022v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Biol. Chem.Home page
E. De Genst, D. Areskoug, K. Decanniere, S. Muyldermans, and K. Andersson
Kinetic and Affinity Predictions of a Protein-Protein Interaction Using Multivariate Experimental Design
J. Biol. Chem., August 9, 2002; 277(33): 29897 - 29907.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.