Cargando…

A comparison of the binding sites of antibodies and single-domain antibodies

Antibodies are the largest class of biotherapeutics. However, in recent years, single-domain antibodies have gained traction due to their smaller size and comparable binding affinity. Antibodies (Abs) and single-domain antibodies (sdAbs) differ in the structures of their binding sites: most signific...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gordon, Gemma L., Capel, Henriette L., Guloglu, Bora, Richardson, Eve, Stafford, Ryan L., Deane, Charlotte M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10392943/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37533864
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2023.1231623
_version_ 1785083057892491264
author Gordon, Gemma L.
Capel, Henriette L.
Guloglu, Bora
Richardson, Eve
Stafford, Ryan L.
Deane, Charlotte M.
author_facet Gordon, Gemma L.
Capel, Henriette L.
Guloglu, Bora
Richardson, Eve
Stafford, Ryan L.
Deane, Charlotte M.
author_sort Gordon, Gemma L.
collection PubMed
description Antibodies are the largest class of biotherapeutics. However, in recent years, single-domain antibodies have gained traction due to their smaller size and comparable binding affinity. Antibodies (Abs) and single-domain antibodies (sdAbs) differ in the structures of their binding sites: most significantly, single-domain antibodies lack a light chain and so have just three CDR loops. Given this inherent structural difference, it is important to understand whether Abs and sdAbs are distinguishable in how they engage a binding partner and thus, whether they are suited to different types of epitopes. In this study, we use non-redundant sequence and structural datasets to compare the paratopes, epitopes and antigen interactions of Abs and sdAbs. We demonstrate that even though sdAbs have smaller paratopes, they target epitopes of equal size to those targeted by Abs. To achieve this, the paratopes of sdAbs contribute more interactions per residue than the paratopes of Abs. Additionally, we find that conserved framework residues are of increased importance in the paratopes of sdAbs, suggesting that they include non-specific interactions to achieve comparable affinity. Furthermore, the epitopes of sdAbs are only marginally less accessible than those of Abs: we posit that this may be explained by differences in the orientation and compaction of sdAb and Ab CDR-H3 loops. Overall, our results have important implications for the engineering and humanization of sdAbs, as well as the selection of the best modality for targeting a particular epitope.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10392943
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-103929432023-08-02 A comparison of the binding sites of antibodies and single-domain antibodies Gordon, Gemma L. Capel, Henriette L. Guloglu, Bora Richardson, Eve Stafford, Ryan L. Deane, Charlotte M. Front Immunol Immunology Antibodies are the largest class of biotherapeutics. However, in recent years, single-domain antibodies have gained traction due to their smaller size and comparable binding affinity. Antibodies (Abs) and single-domain antibodies (sdAbs) differ in the structures of their binding sites: most significantly, single-domain antibodies lack a light chain and so have just three CDR loops. Given this inherent structural difference, it is important to understand whether Abs and sdAbs are distinguishable in how they engage a binding partner and thus, whether they are suited to different types of epitopes. In this study, we use non-redundant sequence and structural datasets to compare the paratopes, epitopes and antigen interactions of Abs and sdAbs. We demonstrate that even though sdAbs have smaller paratopes, they target epitopes of equal size to those targeted by Abs. To achieve this, the paratopes of sdAbs contribute more interactions per residue than the paratopes of Abs. Additionally, we find that conserved framework residues are of increased importance in the paratopes of sdAbs, suggesting that they include non-specific interactions to achieve comparable affinity. Furthermore, the epitopes of sdAbs are only marginally less accessible than those of Abs: we posit that this may be explained by differences in the orientation and compaction of sdAb and Ab CDR-H3 loops. Overall, our results have important implications for the engineering and humanization of sdAbs, as well as the selection of the best modality for targeting a particular epitope. Frontiers Media S.A. 2023-07-18 /pmc/articles/PMC10392943/ /pubmed/37533864 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2023.1231623 Text en Copyright © 2023 Gordon, Capel, Guloglu, Richardson, Stafford and Deane https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Immunology
Gordon, Gemma L.
Capel, Henriette L.
Guloglu, Bora
Richardson, Eve
Stafford, Ryan L.
Deane, Charlotte M.
A comparison of the binding sites of antibodies and single-domain antibodies
title A comparison of the binding sites of antibodies and single-domain antibodies
title_full A comparison of the binding sites of antibodies and single-domain antibodies
title_fullStr A comparison of the binding sites of antibodies and single-domain antibodies
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of the binding sites of antibodies and single-domain antibodies
title_short A comparison of the binding sites of antibodies and single-domain antibodies
title_sort comparison of the binding sites of antibodies and single-domain antibodies
topic Immunology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10392943/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37533864
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2023.1231623
work_keys_str_mv AT gordongemmal acomparisonofthebindingsitesofantibodiesandsingledomainantibodies
AT capelhenriettel acomparisonofthebindingsitesofantibodiesandsingledomainantibodies
AT guloglubora acomparisonofthebindingsitesofantibodiesandsingledomainantibodies
AT richardsoneve acomparisonofthebindingsitesofantibodiesandsingledomainantibodies
AT staffordryanl acomparisonofthebindingsitesofantibodiesandsingledomainantibodies
AT deanecharlottem acomparisonofthebindingsitesofantibodiesandsingledomainantibodies
AT gordongemmal comparisonofthebindingsitesofantibodiesandsingledomainantibodies
AT capelhenriettel comparisonofthebindingsitesofantibodiesandsingledomainantibodies
AT guloglubora comparisonofthebindingsitesofantibodiesandsingledomainantibodies
AT richardsoneve comparisonofthebindingsitesofantibodiesandsingledomainantibodies
AT staffordryanl comparisonofthebindingsitesofantibodiesandsingledomainantibodies
AT deanecharlottem comparisonofthebindingsitesofantibodiesandsingledomainantibodies