bioRxiv Science⌕ Search

Biology subjects

Brunner, G.

Publications and source records attributed to Brunner, G..

2 recordsLinked to original sources

What comes after de novo? Automated lead optimization of proteins with CRADLE-1

Lead optimization remains the longest and most expensive step in pre-clinical drug discovery, typically consuming 12-36 months whilst costing $5M-$15M per candidate. We introduce O_SCPLOWCRADLEC_SCPLOWO_SCPCAP-1C_SCPCAP, an automated framework for protein engineering. While O_SCPLOWCRADLEC_SCPLOWO_SCPCAP-1C_SCPCAP supports the full process of drug discovery and industrial protein engineering pipelines, including hit identification and de novo binder design, this work focuses on its application to multi-property lead optimization across protein modalities (VHHs, scFvs, IgGs, peptides, enzymes, CRISPR systems, vaccines). We show it is 4-7x faster than rational design, as measured by the number of wet lab rounds required. We provide in-vitro validation across all of the above modalities, typically optimizing multiple properties simultaneously (single and polyspecific binding down to picomolar, activity, thermostability,...). Technically, O_SCPLOWCRADLEC_SCPLOWO_SCPCAP-1C_SCPCAP starts with pre-trained foundation protein language models (PLMs), which are fine-tuned in unsupervised fashion on evolutionary neighborhoods, in supervised fashion using lab-in-the-loop data, and then deployed in a multi-model workflow. Of additional interest, we find that (a) the end-to-end system may be run in automated fashion; (b) wet lab data may be consumed in black box fashion without knowledge of the underlying biochemical mechanisms; (c) structural data may largely be superseded by sequence-function pairs.

bioengineering↗

How motivational signals disrupt metacognitive signals in the human VMPFC.

A growing body of evidence suggests that, during decision-making, BOLD signal in the VMPFC correlates both with motivational variables - such as incentives and expected values - and metacognitive variables - such as confidence judgments, which reflect the subjective probability of being correct. At the behavioral level, we recently demonstrated that the value of monetary stakes bias confidence judgments, with gain (respectively loss) prospects increasing (respectively decreasing) confidence judgments, even for similar levels of difficulty and performance. If and how this value-confidence interaction is also reflected in VMPFC signals remains unknown. Here, we used an incentivized perceptual decision-making task that dissociates key decision-making variables, thereby allowing to test several hypotheses about the role of the VMPFC in the incentive-confidence interaction. While initial analyses seemingly indicate that VMPFC combines incentives and confidence to form an expected value signal, we falsified this conclusion with a meticulous dissection of qualitative activation patterns. Rather, our results show that strong VMPFC confidence signals observed in trials with gain prospects are disrupted in trials with no - or negative (loss) monetary prospects. Deciphering how decision variables are represented and interact at finer scales (population codes, individual neurons) seems necessary to better understand biased (meta)cognition.

neuroscience↗