Poster Presentation 50th Lorne Proteins Conference 2025

Advanced Computational Pipeline for Antibody Humanization: Balancing Humanness and Functionality (#315)

Georgii Mamistvalov 1 , Alexei Shishkin 2 , David Ascher 1
  1. University of Queensland and Baker Institute, St Lucia, QLD, Australia
  2. Mathematical and Computer Sciences, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Saint-Petersburg, Russia

The development of therapeutic antibodies typically begins with obtaining naive candidates from animal models after immunization [1]. However, the use of purely animal antibodies carries a high risk of triggering immune responses, often indicated by elevated levels of anti-drug antibodies (ADA) [2,3]. To reduce immunogenicity, naive animal antibodies undergo a process of humanization, wherein they are modified to make them more human-like.

Numerous wet lab methods for antibody humanization have been developed [4,5,6,7,8,9], but in recent years, in silico humanization methods have gained popularity due to advancements in machine learning. Tools like Hu-mAb [10], Sapiens (BioPhi) [11], and AbNatiV [12] utilize various humanness metrics to guide their pipelines, employing both classical machine learning algorithms (Hu-mAb) and deep neural networks (BioPhi, AbNatiV). The primary challenge in humanization lies in preserving the functional properties of the antibody after modifications, such as mutations or non-fuctional framework change.

In this study, we developed a pipeline that iteratively introduces mutations into the original animal sequence while calculating a comprehensive penalty at each step. This penalty is composed of three key components: (1) humanness, (2) preservation of functionality, and (3) proximity to humans and non-animals. The resulting humanized antibody sequences not only meet the formal criteria of “humanized” antibodies established by USAN and INN [13], but also achieve OASis Identity scores (human 9-mer composition metric) [11] comparable to therapeutic antibodies. Furthermore, AF3-predicted structures of these humanized candidates show a lower RMSD compared to their AF3-predicted animal ones. We believe that integrating multiple penalty components allows for more precise selection of mutations, enhancing the degree of humanization while maintaining the functional integrity of the antibody.

  1. Lu, R.-M. et al. Development of therapeutic antibodies for the treatment of diseases. J. Biomed. Sci. 27, 1 (2020).
  2. Hwang WYK, Foote J. Immunogenicity of engineered antibodies. Methods. 2005;36(1):3–10. doi:10.1016/j.ymeth.2005.01.00119.
  3. Harding FA, Stickler MM, Razo J, DuBridge RB. The immunogenicity of humanized and fully human antibodies: residual immunogenicity resides in the CDR regions. MAbs. (2010) 2:256–65. doi: 10.4161/mabs.2.3.11641
  4. Jones PT, Dear PH, Foote J, Neuberger MS, Winter G. Replacing the complementarity-determining regions in a human antibody with those from a mouse. Nature. (1986) 321:522–5. doi: 10.1038/321522a0
  5. De Pascalis R, Iwahashi M, Tamura M, Padlan EA, Gonzales NR, Santos AD, et al. Grafting of “abbreviated” complementarity-determining regions containing specificity-determining residues essential for ligand contact to engineer a less immunogenic humanized monoclonal antibody. J Immunol. (2002) 169:3076–84. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.169.6.3076
  6. Kashmiri SV, De Pascalis R, Gonzales NR, Schlom J. SDR grafting–a new approach to antibody humanization. Methods. (2005) 36:25–34. doi: 10.1016/ j.ymeth.2005.01.003
  7. Safdari Y, Farajnia S, Asgharzadeh M, Khalili M. Antibody humanization methods - a review and update. Biotechnol Genet Eng Rev. (2013) 29:175–86. doi: 10.1080/02648725.2013.801235
  8. Padlan EA. A possible procedure for reducing the immunogenicity of antibody variable domains while preserving their ligand-binding properties. Mol Immunol. (1991) 28:489–98. doi: 10.1016/0161-5890(91)90163-E
  9. Jones, T. D., Crompton, L. J., Carr, F. J., & Baker, M. P. (2009). Deimmunization of monoclonal antibodies. Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.), 525, 405–xiv. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59745-554-1_21
  10. Claire Marks, Alissa M Hummer, Mark Chin, Charlotte M Deane, Humanization of antibodies using a machine learning approach on large-scale repertoire data, Bioinformatics, Volume 37, Issue 22, November 2021, Pages 4041–4047, https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btab434
  11. Prihoda D, Maamary J, Waight A, Juan V, Fayadat-Dilman L, Svozil D, et al. BioPhi: A platform for antibody design, humanization, and humanness evaluation based on natural antibody repertoires and deep learning. MAbs. (2022) 14:2020203. doi: 10.1080/19420862.2021.2020203
  12. Ramon, A., Ali, M., Atkinson, M. et al. Assessing antibody and nanobody nativeness for hit selection and humanization with AbNatiV. Nat Mach Intell 6, 74–91 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-023-00778-3
  13. Mayrhofer, P., & Kunert, R. (2019). Nomenclature of humanized mAbs: Early concepts, current challenges and future perspectives. Human antibodies, 27(1), 37–51. https://doi.org/10.3233/HAB-180347