Ref L1
Computational Service
Confidence Reported
Scoped After Feasibility Review
Service Overview
An antibody–drug conjugate is a system, and its therapeutic index is set by how its parts interact rather than by any one of them. We model that system: conjugation site selection and its effect on stability and homogeneity, cleavable versus non-cleavable linker choice against the target biology, payload hydrophobicity and its consequences for aggregation and clearance, drug-to-antibody ratio distribution, and the bystander behaviour that follows from payload permeability. The result is a reasoned design space rather than a single proposed construct.
Key Features & Advantages
Conjugation Sites Assessed Structurally
Candidate sites are evaluated for solvent accessibility, local stability, proximity to the antigen-binding site and effect on Fc function, which site-specific conjugation makes a genuine design decision.
Linker Chemistry Matched To Biology
Protease-cleavable, acid-labile, glutathione-sensitive and non-cleavable options are compared against target internalisation, trafficking and the intended bystander behaviour.
Hydrophobicity Managed Explicitly
Payload and linker hydrophobicity drive aggregation and accelerate clearance; we predict the effect across DAR values and identify hydrophilic mitigations such as PEG or sulfonate spacers.
DAR Distribution Considered
Average DAR hides a distribution, and the high-DAR species disproportionately affect clearance and tolerability. Designs address the distribution rather than the mean alone.
Where This Service Is Used
1Selecting linker and payload combinations for a new ADC programme
2Choosing and engineering conjugation sites for site-specific conjugation
3Diagnosing aggregation, instability or rapid clearance in an existing conjugate
4Assessing whether bystander killing is achievable and desirable for a given target
5Comparing candidate designs before committing to conjugation chemistry development
Methods and Techniques Applied
1Antibody structural modelling with surface accessibility and local stability analysis at candidate sites
2Conjugation site assessment including effects on antigen binding, Fc function and thermal stability
3Linker and payload property modelling: hydrophobicity, stability, release chemistry and predicted kinetics
4Aggregation propensity prediction across the DAR range with hydrophilic mitigation design
5Payload permeability modelling to assess bystander potential
6Comparative assessment of candidate designs against the target biology and the therapeutic objective
What We Need From You
1Antibody sequence and, where available, structure or format details
2Target biology: expression level, internalisation rate, trafficking behaviour, tumour heterogeneity
3Payload class and mechanism, with any existing conjugate data
4Conjugation chemistry available to you and the intended DAR range
What You Receive
1Ranked conjugation site recommendations with structural rationale per site
2Linker and payload combination assessment against the target biology
3Predicted stability, aggregation and hydrophobicity profiles across the DAR range
4Bystander effect assessment with the payload properties that drive it
5Design comparison table with the trade-offs stated for each candidate construct
What We Compute and Report
1Solvent accessibility, local stability and functional proximity for every candidate conjugation site
2Predicted aggregation propensity across the drug-to-antibody ratio range
3Hydrophobicity metrics for each linker-payload combination assessed
4Payload permeability estimate, which governs whether bystander activity is achievable
5Comparative ranking of candidate designs with the trade-offs stated explicitly
Questions We Are Asked Before Scoping
Can you predict ADC efficacy?
▸No. Efficacy depends on antigen expression, internalisation, trafficking, payload potency and tumour biology. Computation compares designs on stability, homogeneity and predicted behaviour, which is a narrower but genuinely useful question.
Cleavable or non-cleavable linker?
▸It depends on whether bystander killing is wanted and on the payload release mechanism. Heterogeneous tumours often favour cleavable linkers with permeable payloads; highly specific targets may not. We assess your case rather than apply a rule.
Do you perform the conjugation?
▸No. ICDMO is a computational CDMO. We design and assess; conjugation chemistry, analytics and testing are performed by your team or a partner.
Interpretation and Limitations
Computational predictions prioritise hypotheses; they do not independently establish binding, biological activity, therapeutic efficacy, safety or clinical validity. Performance depends on input quality, target class, the structural evidence available and the applicability domain of the selected methods. Scores used for ranking are comparative devices and should not be read as measured quantities. All deliverables are for research use only and are not intended for diagnostic or therapeutic use.
Is This the Right Service for You?
Choose this when
Conjugation chemistry must be chosen before development resources are committed
An existing conjugate aggregates, clears too fast or is heterogeneous
Site-specific conjugation is being adopted in place of stochastic chemistry
Consider another service when
The carrier is a peptide rather than an antibody
Peptide-Drug Conjugate Design The antibody itself still needs engineering
Full-Length IgG Antibody Design What Goes Wrong, and How We Handle It
These are the failure modes that produce confident-looking results which do not survive the next experiment. Each one is designed against rather than discovered afterwards.
Conjugation sites chosen for chemical convenience
Accessibility, local stability, proximity to the paratope and effect on Fc function are assessed for every candidate site.
Average DAR quoted while the distribution causes the problem
Behaviour is modelled across the DAR range, since high-DAR species disproportionately drive aggregation and clearance.
Linker chosen without reference to target biology
Cleavable and non-cleavable options are compared against internalisation, trafficking and whether bystander activity is wanted.
A Worked Example
Diagnosing aggregation in an existing conjugate
The situation
The conjugate aggregated above DAR 4 and cleared far faster than the naked antibody.
What the work involved
The conjugated model was analysed for surface hydrophobic patches, hydrophobicity was accounted across the DAR distribution, and alternative sites away from the implicated region were compared.
What came back
Two of the stochastically modified lysines sat inside an existing hydrophobic patch. Site-specific alternatives were ranked, with a hydrophilic spacer option quantified for its predicted effect.
Illustrative of the shape this work takes. Details are generalised, no client or target is identified, and scope and outcome vary with the system in question.
Service Workflow
1
Scientific Consultation
We discuss the objective, the decision it supports and the data you hold. Nothing is quoted before we understand what the result has to answer.
2
Feasibility Review
We check that the data, target class and available structural evidence can support the proposed approach, and say plainly where they cannot.
3
Technical Proposal
Scope, methods, deliverables, timeline and price are confirmed in writing, together with the limitations we expect to report.
4
Computation and QC
The analysis runs on pinned tool versions in a containerised environment, with quality checkpoints and method comparison where that is informative.
5
Report and Follow-Up
You receive the ranked results, the documented methods, the limitations and a proposed validation plan, plus support in interpreting them.
Service Process
1
Online Consultation
›
2
Solution Matching
›
3
Service Contract
›
4
Project Execution
›
5
Data Delivery
Specifications & Turnaround
Note: ICDMO delivers computational (in silico) services. Results prioritise hypotheses for testing; they do not by themselves establish binding, biological activity, efficacy or safety. All deliverables are for research use only and are not intended for diagnostic or therapeutic use. Downstream experimental work is scoped separately and executed through qualified partners.
Get a Custom Quote
Our scientific team responds within 24 hours with a detailed technical proposal and pricing tailored to your project.
Contact Us Online ConsultationStandard Deliverables
✓Sequence-verified final product
✓Full QC documentation
✓Certificate of Analysis (CoA)
✓Electronic data files
✓Project completion report
Why ICDMO?
Computational CDMO Focus
Reproducible, Versioned Pipelines
Confidence & Limitations Reported
Experiment-Aware Recommendations
Response Within One Business Day