How do I improve the specificity of an antibody?
By deciding, before you design, exactly what it must bind and what it must not. Cross-reactivity is not a defect to be discovered at the end of a campaign; it is a specification. We select the epitope so that the conserved surface carries the binding when you need the mouse and cyno orthologues, and so that the divergent surface carries it when you need to miss a paralogue.
Two opposite problems that look the same
You want cross-reactivity. Your preclinical package needs the molecule to work in the species you will dose. A binder that only recognises the human protein means a surrogate molecule, a second campaign, and a toxicology study that does not read on your actual candidate.
You do not want cross-reactivity. Your target has close relatives in the same family. Binding one of them is an off-target effect that will surface in the clinic, where it is most expensive.
Both are decided by the same thing: which patch of surface the binder reads. That is a choice made at design time, and it is the choice most campaigns never get to make.
Why screening finds out too late
A display or immunisation campaign gives you binders against whatever surface was most immunogenic or most accessible. You discover the species profile afterwards, by testing. If it is wrong, your options are to re-screen or to accept it.
Because we choose the epitope, we can align the specification with the biology from the start: map the conservation across the orthologues you care about and the divergence from the paralogues you must avoid, and put the binding site where those two constraints agree.
When they do not agree, we say so
Sometimes there is no surface that is both conserved across your species and divergent from the protein you must not touch. That is a real geometric constraint, not a failure of effort, and no campaign will solve it. We find that out at the assessment stage and tell you, with the map that shows it, before you spend. The honest alternatives (accept a surrogate, relax one constraint, change the target epitope) are yours to choose.
What you receive
- The conservation and divergence map of your target across the species and paralogues you name.
- The epitope specification we designed against, with the reason it satisfies your constraints.
- Binders profiled against the panel you defined, each one measured, not predicted.
- The explicit statement of what we could not satisfy, if the constraints conflict.
- Full ownership of the sequences, the data and the resulting intellectual property.
How it works
- Specification: You name the species that must bind and the proteins that must not. We map them and tell you whether a surface exists that satisfies both. Free.
- Design: Binders designed against that epitope, under the specificity constraint.
- Measurement: Candidates tested against the full panel at the bench.
Why clients come to us
Specificity is designed, not discovered. Choosing the epitope is what lets you specify the species profile instead of inheriting it.
We will tell you when your constraints conflict. A surface that is both conserved and unique may not exist, and that is cheaper to learn from a map than from a campaign.
The profile is measured, not predicted. A specificity claim without a panel behind it is not a claim.
You own everything. Sequences, data and intellectual property are yours.
Name the species that must bind and the proteins that must not. We will map them and tell you whether a surface exists that satisfies both, at no cost.