Imported from lamm-mit/scienceclaw (skills/antibody-engineering/SKILL.md). Install upstream with npx skills add lamm-mit/scienceclaw --skill antibody-engineering. Copyright stays with the author.

name: tooluniverse-antibody-engineering description: Comprehensive antibody engineering and optimization for therapeutic development. Covers humanization, affinity maturation, developability assessment, and immunogenicity prediction. Use when asked to optimize antibodies, humanize sequences, or engineer therapeutic antibodies from lead to clinical candidate.

Antibody Engineering & Optimization

AI-guided antibody optimization pipeline from preclinical lead to clinical candidate. Covers sequence humanization, structure modeling, affinity optimization, developability assessment, immunogenicity prediction, and manufacturing feasibility.

KEY PRINCIPLES:

1. Report-first approach - Create optimization report before analysis
2. Evidence-graded humanization - Score based on germline alignment and framework retention
3. Developability-focused - Assess aggregation, stability, PTMs, immunogenicity
4. Structure-guided - Use AlphaFold/PDB structures for CDR analysis
5. Clinical precedent - Reference approved antibodies for validation
6. Quantitative scoring - Developability score (0-100) combining multiple factors
7. English-first queries - Always use English terms in tool calls, even if user writes in another language. Respond in user's language

When to Use

Apply when user asks:

• "Humanize this mouse antibody sequence"
• "Optimize antibody affinity for [target]"
• "Assess developability of this antibody"
• "Predict immunogenicity risk for [sequence]"
• "Engineer bispecific antibody against [targets]"
• "Reduce aggregation in antibody formulation"
• "Design pH-dependent binding antibody"
• "Analyze CDR sequences and suggest mutations"

Critical Workflow Requirements

1. Report-First Approach (MANDATORY)

1. Create the report file FIRST:

   • File name: antibody_optimization_report.md
   • Initialize with section headers
   • Add placeholder: [Analyzing...]

2. Progressively update as analysis completes

3. Output separate files:

   • optimized_sequences.fasta - All optimized variants
   • humanization_comparison.csv - Before/after comparison
   • developability_assessment.csv - Detailed scores

2. Documentation Standards (MANDATORY)

Every optimization MUST include:

### Optimized Variant: VH_Humanized_v1

**Original Sequence**: EVQLVESGGGLVQPGG... (mouse)
**Humanized Sequence**: EVQLVQSGAEVKKPGA... (human framework)
**Humanization Score**: 87% human framework
**CDR Preservation**: 100% (all CDR residues retained)

**Metrics**:
| Metric | Original | Optimized | Change |
|--------|----------|-----------|--------|
| Humanness | 62% | 87% | +25% |
| Aggregation risk | 0.58 | 0.32 | -45% |
| Predicted KD | 5.2 nM | 3.8 nM | +27% affinity |
| Immunogenicity | High | Low | -65% |

*Source: IMGT germline analysis, IEDB predictions*

Phase 0: Tool Verification

Required Tools

Workflow Overview

Phase 1: Input Analysis & Characterization
├── Sequence annotation (CDRs, framework)
├── Species identification
├── Target antigen identification
├── Clinical precedent search
└── OUTPUT: Input characterization
    ↓
Phase 2: Humanization Strategy
├── Germline gene alignment (IMGT)
├── Framework selection
├── CDR grafting design
├── Backmutation identification
└── OUTPUT: Humanization plan
    ↓
Phase 3: Structure Modeling & Analysis
├── AlphaFold prediction
├── CDR conformation analysis
├── Epitope mapping
├── Interface analysis
└── OUTPUT: Structural assessment
    ↓
Phase 4: Affinity Optimization
├── In silico mutation screening
├── CDR optimization strategies
├── Interface improvement
└── OUTPUT: Affinity variants
    ↓
Phase 5: Developability Assessment
├── Aggregation propensity
├── PTM site identification
├── Stability prediction
├── Expression prediction
└── OUTPUT: Developability score
    ↓
Phase 6: Immunogenicity Prediction
├── MHC-II epitope prediction (IEDB)
├── T-cell epitope risk
├── Aggregation-related immunogenicity
└── OUTPUT: Immunogenicity risk score
    ↓
Phase 7: Manufacturing Feasibility
├── Expression level prediction
├── Purification considerations
├── Formulation stability
└── OUTPUT: Manufacturing assessment
    ↓
Phase 8: Final Report & Recommendations
├── Ranked variant list
├── Experimental validation plan
├── Next steps
└── OUTPUT: Comprehensive report

Phase 1: Input Analysis & Characterization

1.1 Sequence Annotation

def annotate_antibody_sequence(sequence):
    """Annotate antibody sequence with CDRs and framework regions."""

    # Use IMGT numbering scheme (standard for antibodies)
    # CDR definitions (IMGT):
    # CDR-H1: 27-38, CDR-H2: 56-65, CDR-H3: 105-117
    # CDR-L1: 27-38, CDR-L2: 56-65, CDR-L3: 105-117

    annotation = {
        'sequence': sequence,
        'length': len(sequence),
        'regions': {
            'FR1': sequence[0:26],
            'CDR1': sequence[26:38],
            'FR2': sequence[38:55],
            'CDR2': sequence[55:65],
            'FR3': sequence[65:104],
            'CDR3': sequence[104:117],
            'FR4': sequence[117:]
        }
    }

    return annotation

1.2 Species & Germline Identification

def identify_germline(tu, vh_sequence, vl_sequence):
    """Identify germline genes for VH and VL chains using IMGT."""

    # Search for human germline genes
    vh_germlines = tu.tools.IMGT_search_genes(
        gene_type="IGHV",
        species="Homo sapiens"
    )

    vl_germlines = tu.tools.IMGT_search_genes(
        gene_type="IGKV",  # or IGLV for lambda
        species="Homo sapiens"
    )

    # Get sequences for top matches
    # Calculate identity % for each germline
    # Return closest matches

    return {
        'vh_germline': 'IGHV1-69*01',
        'vh_identity': 87.2,
        'vl_germline': 'IGKV1-39*01',
        'vl_identity': 89.5
    }

1.3 Clinical Precedent Search

def search_clinical_precedents(tu, target_antigen):
    """Find approved/clinical antibodies against same target."""

    # Search Thera-SAbDab for clinical antibodies
    therapeutics = tu.tools.TheraSAbDab_search_by_target(
        target=target_antigen
    )

    approved = [ab for ab in therapeutics if ab['phase'] == 'Approved']
    clinical = [ab for ab in therapeutics if 'Phase' in ab['phase']]

    return {
        'approved_count': len(approved),
        'clinical_count': len(clinical),
        'examples': approved[:3],
        'insights': extract_design_patterns(approved)
    }

1.4 Output for Report

## 1. Input Characterization

### 1.1 Sequence Information

| Property | Heavy Chain (VH) | Light Chain (VL) |
|----------|------------------|------------------|
| **Length** | 118 aa | 107 aa |
| **Species** | Mouse (Mus musculus) | Mouse (Mus musculus) |
| **Humanness** | 62% | 68% |
| **Closest human germline** | IGHV1-69*01 (87% identity) | IGKV1-39*01 (90% identity) |

### 1.2 CDR Annotation (IMGT Numbering)

**Heavy Chain**:
- FR1: 1-26, CDR-H1: 27-38, FR2: 39-55, CDR-H2: 56-65, FR3: 66-104, CDR-H3: 105-117, FR4: 118-128

**CDR Sequences**:
| CDR | Sequence | Length | Canonical Class |
|-----|----------|--------|-----------------|
| CDR-H1 | GYTFTSYYMH | 10 | H1-13-1 |
| CDR-H2 | GIIPIFGTANY | 11 | H2-10-1 |
| CDR-H3 | ARDDGSYSPFDYWG | 14 | - (unique) |
| CDR-L1 | RASQSISSYLN | 11 | L1-11-1 |
| CDR-L2 | AASSLQS | 7 | L2-8-1 |
| CDR-L3 | QQSYSTPLT | 9 | L3-9-cis7-1 |

### 1.3 Target Information

| Property | Value |
|----------|-------|
| **Target** | PD-L1 (Programmed death-ligand 1) |
| **UniProt** | Q9NZQ7 |
| **Function** | Immune checkpoint, inhibits T-cell activation |
| **Disease relevance** | Cancer immunotherapy target |

### 1.4 Clinical Precedents

**Approved antibodies targeting PD-L1**:
1. **Atezolizumab** (Tecentriq) - IgG1, approved 2016
2. **Durvalumab** (Imfinzi) - IgG1, approved 2017
3. **Avelumab** (Bavencio) - IgG1, approved 2017

**Key insights**: All approved anti-PD-L1 antibodies use human IgG1 scaffolds with effector function modifications.

*Source: TheraSAbDab, UniProt*

Phase 2: Humanization Strategy

2.1 Framework Selection

def select_human_framework(tu, mouse_sequence, cdr_sequences):
    """Select optimal human framework for CDR grafting."""

    # Search IMGT for human germline genes
    vh_genes = tu.tools.IMGT_search_genes(
        gene_type="IGHV",
        species="Homo sapiens"
    )

    # For each candidate framework:
    # 1. Calculate sequence identity to mouse FR
    # 2. Check CDR canonical class compatibility
    # 3. Assess structural compatibility
    # 4. Consider clinical precedents

    candidates = []
    for gene in vh_genes[:20]:  # Top 20 human germlines
        gene_seq = tu.tools.IMGT_get_sequence(
            accession=gene['accession'],
            format='fasta'
        )

        score = calculate_framework_score(
            mouse_fr=extract_framework(mouse_sequence),
            human_fr=extract_framework(gene_seq),
            cdr_compatibility=check_cdr_compatibility(cdr_sequences, gene_seq)
        )

        candidates.append({
            'germline': gene['name'],
            'identity': score['identity'],
            'cdr_compatibility': score['cdr_compatibility'],
            'clinical_use': count_clinical_uses(gene['name']),
            'overall_score': score['total']
        })

    # Sort by overall score
    return sorted(candidates, key=lambda x: x['overall_score'], reverse=True)

2.2 CDR Grafting Design

def design_cdr_grafting(mouse_sequence, human_framework, cdr_sequences):
    """Design CDR grafting with backmutation identification."""

    # Graft mouse CDRs onto human framework
    grafted_sequence = graft_cdrs(
        human_framework=human_framework,
        mouse_cdrs=cdr_sequences
    )

    # Identify Vernier zone residues (affect CDR conformation)
    vernier_residues = [2, 27, 28, 29, 30, 47, 48, 67, 69, 71, 78, 93, 94]

    # Identify potential backmutations
    backmutations = []
    for pos in vernier_residues:
        if mouse_sequence[pos] != human_framework[pos]:
            backmutations.append({
                'position': pos,
                'human_aa': human_framework[pos],
                'mouse_aa': mouse_sequence[pos],
                'reason': 'Vernier zone - may affect CDR conformation',
                'priority': 'High' if pos in [27, 29, 30, 48] else 'Medium'
            })

    return {
        'grafted_sequence': grafted_sequence,
        'backmutations': backmutations,
        'humanness_score': calculate_humanness(grafted_sequence)
    }

2.3 Humanization Scoring

def calculate_humanization_score(sequence, human_germline):
    """Calculate comprehensive humanization score."""

    # Framework humanness (% identity to human germline)
    fr_identity = calculate_framework_identity(sequence, human_germline)

    # T-cell epitope content (lower is better)
    tcell_epitope_count = predict_tcell_epitopes(sequence)

    # Unusual residues in human context
    unusual_residues = count_unusual_residues(sequence)

    # Aggregation hotspots
    aggregation_motifs = find_aggregation_motifs(sequence)

    score = {
        'framework_humanness': fr_identity,  # 0-100%
        'cdr_preservation': 100,  # Always 100% initially
        'tcell_epitopes': tcell_epitope_count,
        'unusual_residues': unusual_residues,
        'aggregation_risk': len(aggregation_motifs),
        'overall_score': calculate_weighted_score(
            fr_identity, tcell_epitope_count, unusual_residues, aggregation_motifs
        )
    }

    return score

2.4 Output for Report

## 2. Humanization Strategy

### 2.1 Framework Selection

**Selected Human Frameworks**:

| Chain | Germline | Identity | CDR Compatibility | Clinical Use | Score |
|-------|----------|----------|-------------------|--------------|-------|
| **VH** | IGHV1-69*01 | 87.2% | Excellent | 127 antibodies | 94/100 |
| **VL** | IGKV1-39*01 | 89.5% | Excellent | 89 antibodies | 92/100 |

**Rationale**:
- IGHV1-69*01: Most frequently used human germline in therapeutic antibodies
- High sequence identity minimizes risk of affinity loss
- Excellent CDR canonical class compatibility
- Proven clinical track record

### 2.2 CDR Grafting Design

**Grafting Strategy**: Direct CDR transfer with Vernier zone optimization

| Region | Source | Sequence | Rationale |
|--------|--------|----------|-----------|
| FR1 | IGHV1-69*01 | EVQLVQSGAEVKKPGA... | Human framework |
| CDR-H1 | Mouse | GYTFTSYYMH | Retain binding |
| FR2 | IGHV1-69*01 | VKWVRQAPGQGLE... | Human framework |
| CDR-H2 | Mouse | GIIPIFGTANY | Retain binding |
| FR3 | IGHV1-69*01 | RVTMTTDTSTSTYME... | Human framework |
| CDR-H3 | Mouse | ARDDGSYSPFDYWG | Retain binding |
| FR4 | IGHJ4*01 | WGQGTLVTVSS | Human framework |

### 2.3 Backmutation Analysis

**Identified Vernier Zone Residues** (may require backmutation):

| Position | Human | Mouse | Region | Impact | Priority |
|----------|-------|-------|--------|--------|----------|
| 27 | T | A | CDR-H1 boundary | CDR conformation | High |
| 48 | I | V | FR2 | VH-VL interface | High |
| 67 | A | S | FR3 | CDR-H2 support | Medium |
| 71 | R | K | FR3 | CDR-H2 support | Medium |
| 93 | A | T | FR3 | CDR-H3 base | Medium |

**Recommendation**: Test versions with/without backmutations at positions 27 and 48

### 2.4 Humanized Sequences

**Version 1: Full humanization** (no backmutations)

VH_Humanized_v1 | 87% human framework EVQLVQSGAEVKKPGASVKVSCKASGYTFTSYYMHWVRQAPGQGLEWMGGIIPIFGTANY AQKFQGRVTMTTDTSTSTAYMELRSLRSDDTAVYYCARARDDGSYSPFDYWGQGTLVTVSS

**Version 2: With key backmutations** (positions 27, 48)

VH_Humanized_v2 | 85% human framework + backmutations EVQLVQSGAEVKKPGASVKVSCKASGYAFTSYYMHWVRQAPGQGLEWMVGIIPIFGTANY AQKFQGRVTMTTDTSTSTAYMELRSLRSDDTAVYYCARARDDGSYSPFDYWGQGTLVTVSS

**Humanization Metrics**:
| Metric | Original (Mouse) | v1 (Full) | v2 (Backmut) |
|--------|------------------|-----------|--------------|
| Framework humanness | 62% | 87% | 85% |
| CDR preservation | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| Vernier zone match | Mouse | Human | Mixed |
| Predicted affinity | Baseline | 60-80% | 80-100% |

*Source: IMGT germline database, CDR analysis*

Phase 3: Structure Modeling & Analysis

3.1 AlphaFold Structure Prediction

def predict_antibody_structure(tu, vh_sequence, vl_sequence):
    """Predict antibody Fv structure using AlphaFold."""

    # Combine VH and VL with linker
    fv_sequence = vh_sequence + ":" + vl_sequence  # AlphaFold uses : for chain separator

    # Predict structure
    prediction = tu.tools.AlphaFold_get_prediction(
        sequence=fv_sequence,
        return_format='pdb'
    )

    # Extract pLDDT scores
    plddt_scores = extract_plddt(prediction)

    # Analyze by region
    regions = {
        'VH_FR': np.mean([plddt_scores[i] for i in range(0, 26)]),
        'CDR_H1': np.mean([plddt_scores[i] for i in range(26, 38)]),
        'CDR_H2': np.mean([plddt_scores[i] for i in range(55, 65)]),
        'CDR_H3': np.mean([plddt_scores[i] for i in range(104, 117)]),
        'VL_FR': np.mean([plddt_scores[i] for i in range(len(vh_sequence), len(vh_sequence)+26)]),
        'CDR_L1': np.mean([plddt_scores[i] for i in range(len(vh_sequence)+26, len(vh_sequence)+38)]),
    }

    return {
        'structure': prediction,
        'mean_plddt': np.mean(plddt_scores),
        'regional_plddt': regions,
        'cdr_confidence': np.mean([regions['CDR_H1'], regions['CDR_H2'], regions['CDR_H3']])
    }

3.2 CDR Conformation Analysis

def analyze_cdr_conformation(structure):
    """Analyze CDR loop conformations and canonical classes."""

    # Extract CDR coordinates
    cdr_coords = extract_cdr_regions(structure)

    # Classify canonical structures
    cdr_classes = {
        'CDR-H1': classify_canonical_structure(cdr_coords['H1']),
        'CDR-H2': classify_canonical_structure(cdr_coords['H2']),
        'CDR-H3': 'Non-canonical (14 aa)',  # Usually unique
        'CDR-L1': classify_canonical_structure(cdr_coords['L1']),
        'CDR-L2': classify_canonical_structure(cdr_coords['L2']),
        'CDR-L3': classify_canonical_structure(cdr_coords['L3'])
    }

    # Calculate RMSD to known canonical structures
    rmsd_values = calculate_canonical_rmsd(cdr_coords, cdr_classes)

    return {
        'classes': cdr_classes,
        'rmsd': rmsd_values,
        'confidence': assess_conformation_confidence(rmsd_values)
    }

3.3 Epitope Mapping

def map_epitope(tu, target_protein, antibody_structure):
    """Identify epitope on target protein."""

    # Get target structure or predict
    target_info = tu.tools.UniProt_get_protein_by_accession(
        accession=target_protein
    )

    # Search for known epitopes
    epitopes = tu.tools.iedb_search_epitopes(
        sequence_contains=target_protein,
        structure_type="Linear peptide",
        limit=20
    )

    # Search for structural antibody complexes
    sabdab_results = tu.tools.SAbDab_search_structures(
        query=target_info['protein_name']
    )

    # Analyze binding interface
    interface = {
        'epitope_candidates': epitopes,
        'structural_precedents': sabdab_results,
        'predicted_interface': predict_binding_interface(antibody_structure)
    }

    return interface

3.4 Output for Report

## 3. Structure Modeling & Analysis

### 3.1 AlphaFold Predictions

**Structure Quality**:

| Variant | Mean pLDDT | VH pLDDT | VL pLDDT | CDR pLDDT | Confidence |
|---------|------------|----------|----------|-----------|------------|
| Original (Mouse) | 89.2 | 91.4 | 88.7 | 85.3 | High |
| VH_Humanized_v1 | 87.8 | 89.6 | 88.2 | 83.1 | High |
| VH_Humanized_v2 | 88.9 | 90.8 | 88.5 | 84.8 | High |

**Regional Confidence (v2)**:
- Framework regions: 92.3 (very high)
- CDR-H1, H2, L1, L2: 87-91 (high)
- CDR-H3: 78.4 (moderate - expected for unique CDR-H3)
- VH-VL interface: 90.1 (high)

### 3.2 CDR Conformation Analysis

**Canonical Classes** (Humanized v2):

| CDR | Length | Canonical Class | RMSD to Class | Status |
|-----|--------|-----------------|---------------|--------|
| CDR-H1 | 10 | H1-13-1 | 0.8 Å | ✓ Maintained |
| CDR-H2 | 11 | H2-10-1 | 1.1 Å | ✓ Maintained |
| CDR-H3 | 14 | Non-canonical | N/A | Unique structure |
| CDR-L1 | 11 | L1-11-1 | 0.9 Å | ✓ Maintained |
| CDR-L2 | 7 | L2-8-1 | 0.7 Å | ✓ Maintained |
| CDR-L3 | 9 | L3-9-cis7-1 | 1.0 Å | ✓ Maintained |

**Assessment**: All CDR conformations well-preserved in humanized variants. Low RMSD values indicate minimal structural perturbation from humanization.

### 3.3 Epitope Analysis

**Known PD-L1 Epitopes** (IEDB):

| Epitope | Sequence | Position | Binding Antibodies | Conservation |
|---------|----------|----------|-------------------|--------------|
| Epitope 1 | LQDAG...VPEPP | 19-113 | Durvalumab, Avelumab | 98% |
| Epitope 2 | FTVT...PGPN | 54-68 | Atezolizumab | 100% |
| Epitope 3 | RLEDL...NVSI | 115-127 | Research Abs | 95% |

**Predicted Binding Interface**:
- Primary contact residues: CDR-H3 (70%), CDR-H1 (15%), CDR-H2 (10%)
- Secondary contacts: CDR-L3 (5%)
- Estimated buried surface area: 820 Ų

### 3.4 Structural Comparison

**Superposition with Clinical Antibodies** (SAbDab):

| Reference | PDB ID | VH RMSD | VL RMSD | CDR-H3 RMSD | Notes |
|-----------|--------|---------|---------|-------------|-------|
| Atezolizumab | 5X8L | 1.2 Å | 1.4 Å | 2.8 Å | Similar approach angle |
| Durvalumab | 5X8M | 1.8 Å | 1.5 Å | 3.4 Å | Different epitope |
| Research Ab | 5C3T | 0.9 Å | 1.1 Å | 1.5 Å | Very similar |

*Source: AlphaFold, IEDB, SAbDab*

Phase 4: Affinity Optimization

4.1 In Silico Mutation Screening

def design_affinity_variants(antibody_structure, target_structure):
    """Design affinity maturation variants using computational screening."""

    # Identify interface residues
    interface_residues = identify_interface_residues(
        antibody_structure,
        target_structure,
        distance_cutoff=4.5  # Angstroms
    )

    # Focus on CDR residues
    cdr_interface = [res for res in interface_residues if is_cdr_residue(res)]

    # Design mutations for each position
    variants = []
    for position in cdr_interface:
        # Try all amino acids except original
        for aa in 'ACDEFGHIKLMNPQRSTVWY':
            if aa != antibody_structure.sequence[position]:
                predicted_ddg = predict_binding_energy_change(
                    structure=antibody_structure,
                    mutation=f"{antibody_structure.sequence[position]}{position}{aa}"
                )

                if predicted_ddg < -0.5:  # Favorable change (more negative = better)
                    variants.append({
                        'position': position,
                        'original': antibody_structure.sequence[position],
                        'mutant': aa,
                        'predicted_ddg': predicted_ddg,
                        'predicted_kd_fold': calculate_kd_change(predicted_ddg)
                    })

    # Rank by predicted improvement
    return sorted(variants, key=lambda x: x['predicted_ddg'])

4.2 CDR Optimization Strategies

def cdr_optimization_strategies(cdr_sequence, cdr_name):
    """Identify CDR optimization strategies based on sequence and structure."""

    strategies = []

    # Strategy 1: Extend CDR for increased contact area
    if len(cdr_sequence) < 12 and cdr_name == 'CDR-H3':
        strategies.append({
            'strategy': 'CDR-H3 extension',
            'rationale': 'Add 1-2 residues to increase contact surface',
            'expected_impact': '+2-5x affinity improvement',
            'examples': ['Extension with Gly-Tyr', 'Extension with Ser-Asp']
        })

    # Strategy 2: Tyrosine enrichment
    tyr_count = cdr_sequence.count('Y')
    if tyr_count < 2:
        strategies.append({
            'strategy': 'Tyrosine enrichment',
            'rationale': 'Tyr provides pi-stacking and H-bonds',
            'expected_impact': '+2-3x affinity improvement',
            'targets': suggest_tyr_positions(cdr_sequence)
        })

    # Strategy 3: Charged residue optimization
    if 'PD' in cdr_sequence or 'EP' in cdr_sequence:
        strategies.append({
            'strategy': 'Salt bridge formation',
            'rationale': 'Add charged residues for electrostatic interactions',
            'expected_impact': '+1-2x affinity and pH sensitivity',
            'targets': identify_salt_bridge_opportunities(cdr_sequence)
        })

    return strategies

4.3 Output for Report

## 4. Affinity Optimization

### 4.1 Current Affinity Assessment

| Property | Value | Method |
|----------|-------|--------|
| **Predicted KD** | 5.2 nM | Structure-based prediction |
| **Buried surface area** | 820 Ų | AlphaFold model |
| **Interface hotspots** | 6 residues | Energy decomposition |

**Target**: Single-digit nM affinity (KD < 5 nM)

### 4.2 Proposed Affinity Mutations

**High-Priority Mutations** (predicted >2x improvement):

| Position | Original | Mutant | Region | Predicted ΔΔG | KD Fold Improvement | Rationale |
|----------|----------|--------|--------|---------------|---------------------|-----------|
| H100a | S | Y | CDR-H3 | -1.2 kcal/mol | 7.4x | Pi-stacking with target Phe |
| H52 | I | W | CDR-H2 | -0.9 kcal/mol | 4.8x | Increased hydrophobic contact |
| L91 | Q | E | CDR-L3 | -0.7 kcal/mol | 3.3x | Salt bridge with target Arg |
| H58 | G | S | CDR-H2 | -0.6 kcal/mol | 2.7x | H-bond to target backbone |

**Medium-Priority Mutations** (predicted 1.5-2x improvement):

| Position | Original | Mutant | Region | Predicted ΔΔG | KD Fold Improvement | Rationale |
|----------|----------|--------|--------|---------------|---------------------|-----------|
| H33 | Y | F | CDR-H1 | -0.5 kcal/mol | 2.3x | Optimize stacking geometry |
| L50 | A | T | CDR-L2 | -0.4 kcal/mol | 2.0x | Additional H-bond |

### 4.3 Combination Strategy

**Recommended Testing Order**:

1. **Single mutants**: H100aY, H52W, L91E (test individually)
2. **Double mutants**: H100aY+H52W, H100aY+L91E (best combinations)
3. **Triple mutant**: H100aY+H52W+L91E (if additivity observed)

**Expected Outcome**:
- Single mutants: KD 1.5-2.5 nM (3-7x improvement)
- Best double mutant: KD 0.7-1.2 nM (7-15x improvement)
- Triple mutant: KD 0.3-0.6 nM (15-30x improvement) if additive

### 4.4 CDR Optimization Strategies

**Strategy 1: CDR-H3 Extension**
- Current length: 14 aa
- Proposed: Add Gly-Tyr at C-terminus (16 aa total)
- Rationale: Fill gap in binding interface, Tyr provides pi-stacking
- Expected impact: +2-3x affinity

**Strategy 2: Tyrosine Enrichment**
- Current Tyr count: 3 in CDRs
- Target positions: H33, H52a, L96
- Rationale: Tyr provides both hydrophobic and H-bond contacts
- Expected impact: +2-4x affinity

**Strategy 3: pH-Dependent Binding (Optional)**
- For tumor-selective uptake
- Add His residues at interface: H100a, L91
- pKa ~6.0: Bind at pH 7.4, release at pH 6.0
- Expected impact: Tumor selectivity, faster recycling

*Source: In silico modeling, structural analysis*

Phase 5: Developability Assessment

5.1 Aggregation Propensity

def assess_aggregation(sequence):
    """Comprehensive aggregation risk assessment."""

    # Identify aggregation-prone regions (APR)
    aprs = find_aggregation_motifs(sequence)

    # Hydrophobic patches on surface
    hydrophobic_patches = identify_surface_hydrophobic(sequence)

    # Charge patches (extreme pI regions)
    charge_patches = identify_charge_clusters(sequence)

    # Sequence-based prediction scores
    tango_score = predict_tango_score(sequence)  # Beta-aggregation
    aggrescan_score = predict_aggrescan(sequence)  # General aggregation

    # Isoelectric point
    pi = calculate_isoelectric_point(sequence)

    return {
        'apr_count': len(aprs),
        'apr_regions': aprs,
        'hydrophobic_patches': hydrophobic_patches,
        'charge_patches': charge_patches,
        'tango_score': tango_score,
        'aggrescan_score': aggrescan_score,
        'pi': pi,
        'overall_risk': categorize_risk(tango_score, aggrescan_score, len(aprs))
    }

5.2 PTM Site Identification

def identify_ptm_sites(sequence):
    """Identify post-translational modification liability sites."""

    ptm_sites = {
        'deamidation': [],
        'isomerization': [],
        'oxidation': [],
        'glycosylation': []
    }

    # Deamidation: Asn followed by Gly or Ser (NG, NS motifs)
    for i, aa in enumerate(sequence[:-1]):
        if aa == 'N' and sequence[i+1] in ['G', 'S']:
            ptm_sites['deamidation'].append({
                'position': i,
                'motif': sequence[i:i+2],
                'risk': 'High' if sequence[i+1] == 'G' else 'Medium',
                'region': identify_region(i)
            })

    # Isomerization: Asp followed by Gly or Ser (DG, DS motifs)
    for i, aa in enumerate(sequence[:-1]):
        if aa == 'D' and sequence[i+1] in ['G', 'S']:
            ptm_sites['isomerization'].append({
                'position': i,
                'motif': sequence[i:i+2],
                'risk': 'High',
                'region': identify_region(i)
            })

    # Oxidation: Met and Trp residues
    for i, aa in enumerate(sequence):
        if aa in ['M', 'W']:
            ptm_sites['oxidation'].append({
                'position': i,
                'residue': aa,
                'risk': 'Medium',
                'region': identify_region(i)
            })

    # N-glycosylation: N-X-S/T motif (X != P)
    for i in range(len(sequence)-2):
        if sequence[i] == 'N' and sequence[i+1] != 'P' and sequence[i+2] in ['S', 'T']:
            ptm_sites['glycosylation'].append({
                'position': i,
                'motif': sequence[i:i+3],
                'region': identify_region(i)
            })

    return ptm_sites

5.3 Developability Scoring

def calculate_developability_score(sequence, structure):
    """Calculate comprehensive developability score (0-100)."""

    # Component scores
    aggregation = assess_aggregation(sequence)
    ptm = identify_ptm_sites(sequence)
    stability = predict_thermal_stability(structure)
    expression = predict_expression_level(sequence)
    solubility = predict_solubility(sequence)

    # Scoring rubric (0-100 for each)
    scores = {
        'aggregation': score_aggregation(aggregation),  # 100 = low risk
        'ptm_liability': score_ptm_risk(ptm),  # 100 = no PTM sites
        'stability': score_stability(stability),  # 100 = Tm > 70°C
        'expression': score_expression(expression),  # 100 = >1 g/L
        'solubility': score_solubility(solubility)  # 100 = >100 mg/mL
    }

    # Weighted average
    weights = {
        'aggregation': 0.30,  # Most critical
        'ptm_liability': 0.25,
        'stability': 0.20,
        'expression': 0.15,
        'solubility': 0.10
    }

    overall = sum(scores[k] * weights[k] for k in scores.keys())

    return {
        'component_scores': scores,
        'overall_score': overall,
        'tier': categorize_developability(overall)
    }

5.4 Output for Report

## 5. Developability Assessment

### 5.1 Overall Developability Score

| Variant | Aggregation | PTM Liability | Stability | Expression | Solubility | **Overall** | Tier |
|---------|-------------|---------------|-----------|------------|------------|-------------|------|
| Original (Mouse) | 58 | 45 | 72 | 65 | 70 | **62** | T3 |
| VH_Humanized_v1 | 72 | 55 | 75 | 78 | 75 | **71** | T2 |
| VH_Humanized_v2 | 68 | 58 | 74 | 75 | 73 | **69** | T2 |
| Affinity_opt | 85 | 72 | 78 | 80 | 82 | **79** | T1 |

**Scoring**: 0-100 scale (higher is better), Tiers: T1 (>75), T2 (60-75), T3 (<60)

### 5.2 Aggregation Analysis

**Aggregation-Prone Regions** (APR) in VH:

| Position | Sequence | Region | TANGO Score | Risk | Recommendation |
|----------|----------|--------|-------------|------|----------------|
| 85-92 | STSTAYMEL | FR3 | 42 | Medium | Consider T86S mutation |
| 108-112 | DDGSY | CDR-H3 | 28 | Low | Monitor in formulation |

**Overall Aggregation Risk**:
- VH: Low (TANGO: 15, AGGRESCAN: -12)
- VL: Very Low (TANGO: 8, AGGRESCAN: -18)
- pI: VH 7.2, VL 5.8 (favorable for purification)

**Recommendations**:
- Formulate at pH 6.0-6.5 (below pI of VH)
- Add arginine-glutamate (20-50 mM) to reduce aggregation
- Target concentration: >100 mg/mL achievable

### 5.3 PTM Liability Sites

**High-Risk PTM Sites** (require mitigation):

| Position | Motif | PTM Type | Risk | Region | Mitigation Strategy |
|----------|-------|----------|------|--------|---------------------|
| H54-55 | NG | Deamidation | High | CDR-H2 | Mutate to NQ or QG |
| H84-85 | DS | Isomerization | High | FR3 | Mutate to ES or DA |
| L28 | M | Oxidation | Medium | CDR-L1 | Mutate to Leu or Ile |

**Medium-Risk Sites**:
- H89: Trp (oxidation) - Monitor but likely stable in framework
- L97: Asn (deamidation, NS motif) - Low risk in CDR-L3

**Mitigation Priority**:
1. H54-55 (NG → NQ): Removes high-risk deamidation, retains H-bond capability
2. H84-85 (DS → ES): Removes isomerization, maintains charge
3. L28 (M → L): Reduces oxidation risk, maintains hydrophobicity

**Expected Impact**: Mitigation improves PTM score from 72 → 92

### 5.4 Stability Predictions

**Thermal Stability**:

| Variant | Predicted Tm (°C) | ΔTm vs Original | Aggregation Tonset | Stability Tier |
|---------|-------------------|-----------------|-------------------|----------------|
| Original | 68 | - | 62°C | T3 (Marginal) |
| Humanized_v2 | 71 | +3°C | 64°C | T2 (Good) |
| Affinity_opt | 73 | +5°C | 67°C | T2 (Good) |
| PTM_mitigated | 74 | +6°C | 69°C | T1 (Excellent) |

**Target**: Tm >70°C, Tonset >65°C for long-term stability

**Stability Optimization**:
- Framework humanization improved Tm by +3°C
- Removal of destabilizing motifs: +2°C
- Further optimization possible: Proline introduction in loops

### 5.5 Expression & Manufacturing

**Expression Prediction** (CHO cells):

| Variant | Predicted Titer (g/L) | Soluble Fraction | His-tag Purification | Overall |
|---------|----------------------|------------------|---------------------|---------|
| Original | 1.2 | 75% | Good | T2 |
| Humanized_v2 | 1.8 | 85% | Excellent | T1 |
| Affinity_opt | 2.1 | 88% | Excellent | T1 |

**Manufacturing Considerations**:
- No unusual codons → Good for CHO expression
- No free cysteines → No misfolding risk
- Neutral pI → Easy purification by ion exchange
- Low aggregation → High formulation concentration possible

**Predicted Manufacturing Profile**:
- Expression: 2.0 g/L (CHO fed-batch)
- Purification yield: 75-80%
- Final formulation: >150 mg/mL achievable
- Shelf life: >2 years at 4°C (estimated)

*Source: In silico predictions, sequence analysis*

Phase 6: Immunogenicity Prediction

6.1 T-Cell Epitope Prediction

def predict_tcell_epitopes(tu, sequence):
    """Predict T-cell epitopes using IEDB tools."""

    # MHC-II binding prediction (immunogenicity risk)
    # Query IEDB for predicted epitopes
    predicted_epitopes = []

    # Scan sequence with 9-mer sliding window
    for i in range(len(sequence) - 8):
        peptide = sequence[i:i+9]

        # Search IEDB for similar epitopes
        iedb_results = tu.tools.iedb_search_epitopes(
            sequence_contains=peptide[:5],  # Core sequence
            limit=10
        )

        # If found in IEDB → higher risk
        if len(iedb_results) > 0:
            predicted_epitopes.append({
                'position': i,
                'peptide': peptide,
                'risk': 'High',
                'evidence': f"{len(iedb_results)} similar epitopes in IEDB"
            })

    # Score overall immunogenicity risk
    risk_score = calculate_immunogenicity_risk(predicted_epitopes, sequence)

    return {
        'epitope_count': len(predicted_epitopes),
        'high_risk_epitopes': [e for e in predicted_epitopes if e['risk'] == 'High'],
        'risk_score': risk_score,
        'recommendation': recommend_deimmunization(predicted_epitopes)
    }

6.2 Immunogenicity Risk Scoring

def calculate_immunogenicity_risk(epitopes, sequence):
    """Calculate comprehensive immunogenicity risk score."""

    # Component 1: T-cell epitope count (IEDB-based)
    tcell_score = len(epitopes) * 10  # Each epitope adds 10 points

    # Component 2: Non-human residues in framework
    non_human_residues = count_non_human_residues(sequence)
    non_human_score = non_human_residues * 5

    # Component 3: Aggregation-related immunogenicity
    aggregation_score = assess_aggregation(sequence)['overall_risk'] * 20

    # Total risk (0-100, lower is better)
    total_risk = min(100, tcell_score + non_human_score + aggregation_score)

    return {
        'tcell_risk': tcell_score,
        'non_human_risk': non_human_score,
        'aggregation_risk': aggregation_score,
        'total_risk': total_risk,
        'category': 'Low' if total_risk < 30 else 'Medium' if total_risk < 60 else 'High'
    }

6.3 Output for Report

## 6. Immunogenicity Prediction

### 6.1 T-Cell Epitope Analysis

**Predicted MHC-II Binding Epitopes** (IEDB):

| Position | Peptide | MHC Alleles | IEDB Matches | Risk Level | Region |
|----------|---------|-------------|--------------|------------|--------|
| VH 48-56 | QGLEWMGGI | HLA-DR1, DR4 | 3 | Medium | FR2 |
| VH 78-86 | TDTSTSTA | HLA-DR1 | 5 | High | FR3 (mouse residues) |
| VL 52-60 | LLIYSASSL | HLA-DR1, DR15 | 2 | Medium | FR2 |

**High-Risk Epitope Details**:
- **VH 78-86 (TDTSTSTA)**: Contains mouse-derived residues T84, S85
  - Found in 5 immunogenic peptides in IEDB
  - Recommendation: Backmutate to human consensus (TSTSSAYL)

### 6.2 Immunogenicity Risk Score

| Variant | T-Cell Epitopes | Non-Human Residues | Aggregation Risk | **Total Risk** | Category |
|---------|-----------------|-------------------|------------------|----------------|----------|
| Original (Mouse) | 12 | 38 | High (40) | **118** | High |
| VH_Humanized_v1 | 5 | 13 | Medium (20) | **60** | Medium |
| VH_Humanized_v2 | 4 | 15 | Medium (18) | **53** | Medium |
| Deimmunized | 2 | 10 | Low (12) | **32** | **Low** |

**Risk Scoring**: 0-100 (lower is better)
- Low risk: <30 (clinical candidate ready)
- Medium risk: 30-60 (acceptable with monitoring)
- High risk: >60 (requires optimization)

### 6.3 Deimmunization Strategy

**Recommended Mutations** (to achieve low risk):

| Position | Original | Mutant | Region | Rationale | Impact |
|----------|----------|--------|--------|-----------|--------|
| VH 78 | T | A | FR3 | Human consensus, removes epitope | -15 risk |
| VH 84 | T | S | FR3 | Human consensus, removes epitope | -12 risk |
| VL 55 | S | A | FR2 | Removes MHC-II binding | -8 risk |

**Expected Outcome**:
- Deimmunization reduces risk score: 53 → 32 (Low)
- T-cell epitopes reduced: 4 → 2
- Maintains CDR sequences (no affinity impact)

### 6.4 Clinical Precedent Comparison

**Approved Antibodies - Immunogenicity Rates**:

| Antibody | Target | % ADA (Anti-Drug Antibodies) | Humanization |
|----------|--------|------------------------------|--------------|
| Atezolizumab | PD-L1 | 30% | Fully human |
| Durvalumab | PD-L1 | 6% | Fully human |
| Trastuzumab | HER2 | 13% | Humanized (93%) |
| Rituximab | CD20 | 11% | Chimeric (66%) |

**Our Candidate**:
- Humanization: 85-87% (similar to trastuzumab)
- Predicted ADA risk: 10-15% (after deimmunization)
- Acceptable for clinical development

*Source: IEDB, TheraSAbDab, clinical trial data*

Phase 7: Manufacturing Feasibility

7.1 Expression Optimization

def assess_manufacturing_feasibility(sequence):
    """Assess manufacturing and CMC feasibility."""

    # Codon optimization for CHO
    cho_optimized = optimize_codons(sequence, host='CHO')
    rare_codons = count_rare_codons(sequence, host='CHO')

    # Signal peptide design
    signal_peptide = design_signal_peptide(sequence)

    # Purification considerations
    purification = {
        'protein_a_binding': check_protein_a_binding(sequence),
        'ion_exchange': suggest_ion_exchange_conditions(sequence),
        'hydrophobic': suggest_hic_conditions(sequence)
    }

    # Formulation
    formulation = {
        'target_concentration': predict_max_concentration(sequence),
        'buffer': suggest_buffer_conditions(sequence),
        'stabilizers': suggest_stabilizers(sequence),
        'shelf_life': predict_shelf_life(sequence)
    }

    return {
        'expression': {'cho_optimized': cho_optimized, 'rare_codons': rare_codons},
        'purification': purification,
        'formulation': formulation
    }

7.2 Output for Report

## 7. Manufacturing Feasibility

### 7.1 Expression Assessment

**Expression System**: CHO (Chinese Hamster Ovary) cells

| Parameter | Assessment | Details |
|-----------|------------|---------|
| **Codon optimization** | Good | 5% rare codons (CHO) |
| **Signal peptide** | Native IgG leader | METDTLLLWVLLLWVPGSTG |
| **Predicted titer** | 2.0 g/L | Fed-batch, 14-day culture |
| **Soluble fraction** | 88% | High solubility predicted |

**Recommendations**:
- Use standard CHO expression system (CHO-K1 or CHO-S)
- Express as full IgG1 (not Fab) for Protein A purification
- Standard fed-batch process (no special requirements)

### 7.2 Purification Strategy

**Recommended 3-Step Purification**:

| Step | Method | Purpose | Expected Yield | Purity |
|------|--------|---------|----------------|--------|
| 1. Capture | Protein A affinity | IgG capture | >95% | >90% |
| 2. Polishing | Cation exchange (SP) | Aggregate/variant removal | >90% | >98% |
| 3. Viral | Nanofiltration (20 nm) | Viral clearance | >95% | >99% |

**Overall Process Yield**: 75-80% (from clarified harvest to final product)

**Purification Conditions**:
- Protein A: Standard pH 3.5 elution
- Cation exchange: pH 5.0-5.5 binding, salt gradient elution
- No special requirements (standard IgG process)

### 7.3 Formulation Development

**Recommended Formulation**:

| Component | Concentration | Purpose |
|-----------|---------------|---------|
| **Antibody** | 150 mg/mL | High concentration for SC delivery |
| **Buffer** | 20 mM Histidine-HCl | pH buffering, stability |
| **pH** | 6.0 | Minimizes aggregation (below pI) |
| **Stabilizer** | 0.02% Polysorbate 80 | Reduces surface adsorption |
| **Tonicity** | 240 mM Sucrose | Isotonic, cryoprotectant |

**Formulation Characteristics**:
- Viscosity: <15 cP (suitable for SC injection)
- Osmolality: 300 mOsm/kg (isotonic)
- Stability: >2 years at 2-8°C (predicted)
- Freeze/thaw: Stable for 5 cycles

**Alternative Formulations** (if needed):
- Lower concentration (100 mg/mL) for IV delivery
- Add arginine-glutamate (50 mM) if aggregation observed
- Trehalose (5%) as alternative stabilizer

### 7.4 Analytical Characterization

**Required Assays** (ICH guidelines):

| Assay | Purpose | Specification |
|-------|---------|---------------|
| **SEC-MALS** | Monomer content | >95% monomer |
| **CEX** | Charge variants | Main peak >70% |
| **CE-SDS** | Purity (reduced/non-reduced) | >95% main peak |
| **IEF/cIEF** | Isoelectric point | pI 7.0-7.5 |
| **SPR/ELISA** | Binding affinity | KD <5 nM |
| **DSF** | Thermal stability | Tm >65°C |
| **Cell-based** | Bioactivity | EC50 <10 nM |

### 7.5 CMC Timeline & Costs

**Estimated Development Timeline**:

| Phase | Duration | Activities | Cost Estimate |
|-------|----------|------------|---------------|
| **Cell line development** | 4-6 months | Transfection, selection, cloning | $150K |
| **Process development** | 6-9 months | Optimization, scale-up | $300K |
| **Analytical development** | 3-6 months | Method development, validation | $200K |
| **GMP manufacturing** | 9-12 months | Tech transfer, clinical batches | $1-2M |
| **Total to IND** | 18-24 months | - | **$1.65-2.65M** |

**Manufacturing Scale**:
- Phase 1: 5-10g (small scale, 50L bioreactor)
- Phase 2: 50-100g (pilot scale, 200L)
- Phase 3: 500g-1kg (commercial scale, 2000L)

### 7.6 Risk Assessment

**Manufacturing Risks**:

| Risk | Probability | Impact | Mitigation |
|------|------------|--------|------------|
| Low expression | Low | Medium | Codon optimization, promoter engineering |
| Aggregation | Low | High | Optimized formulation, process controls |
| Glycosylation heterogeneity | Medium | Low | CHO cell line selection, process optimization |
| Charge variants | Medium | Low | Process pH control, storage conditions |

**Overall Manufacturing Risk**: Low (standard IgG process)

*Source: CMC assessment, manufacturing predictions*

Phase 8: Final Report & Recommendations

Report Template

# Antibody Optimization Report: [ANTIBODY_NAME]

**Generated**: [Date] | **Target**: [Target Antigen] | **Status**: Complete

---

## Executive Summary

[Summary of optimization strategy, key improvements, and recommendations...]

**Top Candidate**: [Variant name]
- Humanization: 87% (from 62%)
- Affinity: 1.2 nM (7x improvement)
- Developability score: 82/100 (Tier 1)
- Immunogenicity: Low risk
- Manufacturing: Standard process

**Recommendation**: Advance to preclinical development

---

## 1. Input Characterization
[Section from Phase 1...]

## 2. Humanization Strategy
[Section from Phase 2...]

## 3. Structure Modeling & Analysis
[Section from Phase 3...]

## 4. Affinity Optimization
[Section from Phase 4...]

## 5. Developability Assessment
[Section from Phase 5...]

## 6. Immunogenicity Prediction
[Section from Phase 6...]

## 7. Manufacturing Feasibility
[Section from Phase 7...]

---

## 8. Final Recommendations

### 8.1 Recommended Candidate

**Variant**: VH_Humanized_Affinity_Optimized_v3

**Sequence**:

VH_v3 | Humanized 87%, Affinity optimized, Deimmunized EVQLVQSGAEVKKPGASVKVSCKASGYTFTSYYMHWVRQAPGQGLEWMWGIIPIFGTANY AQKFQGRVTMTTDTSTSSAYMELRSLRSDDTAVYYCARARDDGSYSPFDYWGQGTLVTVSS

VL_v3 | Humanized 90% DIQMTQSPSSLSASVGDRVTITCRASQSISSYLNWYQQKPGKAPKLLIYAASSLQSGVPS RFSGSGSGTDFTLTISSLQPEDFATYYCQQSYSTPLTFGQGTKVEIK

### 8.2 Key Improvements

| Metric | Original | Optimized | Improvement |
|--------|----------|-----------|-------------|
| **Humanness** | 62% | 87% | +40% |
| **Affinity (KD)** | 5.2 nM | 0.8 nM | 6.5x |
| **Developability** | 62/100 | 82/100 | +32% |
| **Immunogenicity risk** | High | Low | -70% |
| **Stability (Tm)** | 68°C | 74°C | +6°C |
| **Expression** | 1.2 g/L | 2.0 g/L | +67% |

### 8.3 Experimental Validation Plan

**Phase 1: In Vitro Characterization** (3-4 months)

| Assay | Purpose | Timeline |
|-------|---------|----------|
| Affinity (SPR/BLI) | Confirm KD | Week 1-2 |
| Cell-based binding | Target engagement | Week 2-3 |
| Thermal stability (DSF) | Tm measurement | Week 3 |
| Aggregation (SEC) | Monomer content | Week 3-4 |
| Expression (CHO) | Titer confirmation | Week 4-8 |
| Immunogenicity (in silico + PBMC) | ADA prediction | Week 8-12 |

**Phase 2: Lead Optimization** (2-3 months)
- Test backup variants if needed
- Formulation development
- Scale-up to 100mg

**Phase 3: Preclinical Studies** (6-12 months)
- In vivo efficacy (tumor models)
- PK/PD studies
- Toxicology (GLP)

### 8.4 Alternative Variants (Backup)

| Variant | Profile | Recommendation |
|---------|---------|----------------|
| VH_v2 | Higher humanness (90%) but lower affinity (1.8 nM) | Backup if immunogenicity issues |
| VH_v4 | Highest affinity (0.5 nM) but lower developability (72/100) | Research tool only |
| VH_v1 | Balanced (affinity 2.1 nM, dev 78/100) | Second backup |

### 8.5 Intellectual Property Considerations

**FTO Analysis Required**:
- Check existing patents on anti-[target] antibodies
- CDR sequence novelty assessment
- Humanization method IP landscape

**Patentability**:
- Novel CDR-H3 sequence (14 aa, unique)
- Specific humanization with affinity improvement
- Combination of mutations (H100aY+H52W+L91E)

### 8.6 Next Steps

**Immediate (Month 1-3)**:
1. Synthesize genes for VH_v3, VL_v3, and 2 backups
2. Express in CHO cells (transient and stable)
3. Purify and characterize (affinity, stability, aggregation)
4. Confirm developability predictions

**Short-term (Month 4-6)**:
1. Develop stable CHO cell line (top candidate)
2. Scale up to 500mg for in vivo studies
3. Formulation development and stability studies
4. Initiate in vivo efficacy studies

**Long-term (Month 7-24)**:
1. GMP manufacturing readiness
2. IND-enabling studies (tox, CMC)
3. File IND
4. Phase 1 clinical trial

---

## 9. Data Sources & Tools Used

| Tool | Purpose | Queries |
|------|---------|---------|
| IMGT | Germline identification | IGHV, IGKV genes |
| TheraSAbDab | Clinical precedents | Anti-[target] antibodies |
| AlphaFold | Structure prediction | VH-VL complex |
| IEDB | Immunogenicity | Epitope prediction |
| SAbDab | Structural analysis | PDB structures |
| UniProt | Target information | [Target accession] |

Evidence Grading System

Completeness Checklist

Phase 1: Input Analysis

• Sequence annotated (CDRs, frameworks)
• Species identified
• Target antigen characterized
• Clinical precedents identified

Phase 2: Humanization

• Germline genes identified (IMGT)
• Framework selected
• CDR grafting designed
• Backmutations analyzed
• ≥2 humanized variants designed

Phase 3: Structure

• AlphaFold structure predicted
• CDR conformations analyzed
• Epitope mapped
• Structural quality assessed

Phase 4: Affinity

• Current affinity estimated
• Affinity mutations proposed
• CDR optimization strategies identified
• Testing plan outlined

Phase 5: Developability

• Aggregation assessed
• PTM sites identified
• Stability predicted
• Expression predicted
• Overall score calculated (0-100)

Phase 6: Immunogenicity

• T-cell epitopes predicted (IEDB)
• Immunogenicity score calculated
• Deimmunization strategy proposed
• Clinical precedent comparison

Phase 7: Manufacturing

• Expression system assessed
• Purification strategy outlined
• Formulation recommended
• CMC timeline estimated

Phase 8: Final Report

• Ranked variant list
• Top candidate recommended
• Experimental validation plan
• Backup variants identified
• Next steps outlined

Tool Reference

IMGT Tools

• IMGT_search_genes: Search germline genes (IGHV, IGKV, etc.)
• IMGT_get_sequence: Get germline sequences
• IMGT_get_gene_info: Database information

Antibody Databases

• SAbDab_search_structures: Search antibody structures
• SAbDab_get_structure: Get structure details
• TheraSAbDab_search_therapeutics: Search by name
• TheraSAbDab_search_by_target: Search by target antigen

Immunogenicity

• iedb_search_epitopes: Search epitopes
• iedb_search_bcell: B-cell epitopes
• iedb_search_mhc: MHC-II epitopes
• iedb_get_epitope_references: Citations

Structure & Target

• AlphaFold_get_prediction: Structure prediction
• UniProt_get_protein_by_accession: Target info
• PDB_get_structure: Experimental structures

Systems Biology (for Bispecifics)

• STRING_get_interactions: Protein interactions
• STRING_get_enrichment: Pathway analysis

Special Considerations

Bispecific Antibody Engineering

• Use STRING tools to identify co-expressed targets
• Design separate binding arms for each target
• Consider asymmetric formats (e.g., CrossMAb, DuoBody)
• Assess aggregation risk (higher for bispecifics)

pH-Dependent Binding

• Add His residues at interface (pKa ~6.0)
• Target: Bind at pH 7.4, release at pH 6.0
• Improves PK via FcRn recycling
• Useful for tumor targeting (acidic microenvironment)

Affinity Ceiling

• Most therapeutic antibodies: KD 0.1-10 nM
• <0.1 nM: May cause target-mediated clearance
• 1-5 nM: Sweet spot for most targets
• Balance affinity vs. developability