A display library succeeds or fails on its design. Diversity placed where it cannot contribute is wasted, frameworks that fold and express poorly lose a large share of the library before selection starts, and unconstrained randomisation introduces stop codons, glycosylation motifs and chemical liabilities that propagate into every downstream hit. We design synthetic and semi-synthetic antibody libraries with diversity positioned structurally, codon schemes chosen deliberately, and the theoretical diversity checked against what your construction process can actually realise.
Randomised positions are chosen from paratope structural analysis and from natural repertoire statistics, so diversity lands where it can influence binding.
Position-specific amino acid distributions follow observed antibody repertoires rather than uniform randomisation, which improves both folding and the proportion of functional clones.
Codon schemes are designed to avoid stop codons, unpaired cysteines, glycosylation sequons and known chemical liability motifs before the library is built.
Theoretical diversity is compared with the transformation efficiency you can achieve, so the design matches the library you will actually obtain.
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.
| Item | Specification | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Theoretical diversity | 10⁸–10¹¹ | Practical diversity limited by transformation efficiency |
| Typical turnaround | 3–6 weeks | Including in silico quality assessment |
| Formats | scFv, Fab, VHH | Naive, semi-synthetic and focused designs |
| Output | Design + oligo specifications | Ready for library construction |
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.
We check that the data, target class and available structural evidence can support the proposed approach, and say plainly where they cannot.
Scope, methods, deliverables, timeline and price are confirmed in writing, together with the limitations we expect to report.
The analysis runs on pinned tool versions in a containerised environment, with quality checkpoints and method comparison where that is informative.
You receive the ranked results, the documented methods, the limitations and a proposed validation plan, plus support in interpreting them.
The failure modes that produce confident-looking results which do not survive the next experiment. Each one is designed against rather than discovered afterwards.
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.
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.
Tell us about the target, the data you hold and the decision the result needs to support. A scientist reviews every enquiry and replies within one business day.
