Lilly TuneLab Logo
  • Home
  • Connect With Us
  • News
  • Products
  • Events
Lilly TuneLab Logo
Lilly TuneLab Logo
  • Home
  • Connect With Us
  • News
  • Products
  • Events

Products

Find the right model or tool for your drug discovery work.

AI/ML models and tools available now on TuneLab

Model

AbLab v1, v2

Predicts antibody developability across 22 endpoints, including stability, aggregation, and solubility, from sequence alone.

View details ↗
Model

Antibody-Antigen Binding Affinity (ΔΔG)

TuneLab’s Antibody–Antigen Binding Affinity model predicts how a specific mutation changes binding affinity between an antibody and its antigen.

View details ↗
Model

ChemLab v1, v2 Federated

Predicts ADMET and physicochemical properties to help prioritize compounds for synthesis.

View details ↗
Model

Immunogenicity Model (MHC-II Peptide Presentation)

Predicts MHC class II presentation likelihood and 9-mer binding cores for antibody peptides across 12 HLA-DRB1 alleles.

View details ↗
Model

in vivo PK (developed by insitro)

Predicts preclinical in vivo PK, including clearance and Vss, across multi species, developed by insitro for Lilly.

View details ↗
Model

NanoLab (VHH Developability)

Predicts five biophysical developability endpoints for VHH nanobody sequences to rank leads before wet lab testing.

View details ↗
Workflow

Small Molecule Computational Workflows

Configurable workflows that generate, filter, score, predict properties and rank small molecules to automate drug discovery campaigns.

View details ↗
Antibody-Antigen Binding Affinity (ΔΔG)
Model

TuneLab’s Antibody–Antigen Binding Affinity model predicts how a specific mutation changes binding affinity between an antibody and its antigen. Given the structure of the complex, the parent sequence, and the variant sequence being scored, it returns the predicted difference in binding between parent and variant, together with an uncertainty estimate. It is built on an inverse-folding protein backbone and trained on computationally generated labels. It is designed for protein engineers running affinity maturation and optimization campaigns who need to rank a set of variants before committing to expression and characterization.

What does the model provide?
  • Rank-ordering of point and multi-point variants against a fixed parent within an engineering campaign, using either a crystal structure or a predicted complex.

  • A per-variant uncertainty estimate alongside the point prediction. This carries signal of its own and, in parent-relative campaigns, often helps separate binders from non-binders better than the point prediction does.

  • Structure-based scoring that needs no mutant structure and no per-target retraining, so it applies across new targets without modification.

Technical specifications
Modality
Antibody; also applicable to single-domain and designed binders.
Input format
Antibody–antigen complex structure (crystal or predicted), the parent sequence, and the variant sequence being scored.
Output Format
Returns mean predicted binding ΔΔG and its standard deviation across a number of stochastic samples.
Training data type
Synthetic labels — computational binding-change values from single-mutation interface scans across a public structural antibody database. No experimental binding measurements and no proprietary data were used in training.
Predicted endpoint(s)
Rank correlation against measured binding affinity on a public antibody binding benchmark, evaluated strictly zero-shot; additionally assessed on internal affinity-maturation campaigns and on designed-binder datasets.
Connect with us
FAQs
What is this model best used for?
Rank-ordering variants of a known parent antibody within a single campaign — affinity maturation, CDR optimization, and liability repair. That is the setting it was built for and where it performs most reliably. Predictions and uncertainty estimates are computational outputs intended to support variant prioritization — they are not a substitute for experimental validation.
Do I need a crystal structure?
No — a predicted complex works. Structure quality does affect the score, but much less in parent-relative engineering, where the per-structure baseline largely cancels out, than in de novo scoring, where it does not.
Contact Us

This site is intended for users who are 18 years of age or older.

Copyright © 2026 Lilly. All rights reserved.

privacyoptions.pngYour Privacy Choices
lilly_footer_logo.png
TuneLab Service-Specific TermsGlobal Terms of UseGlobal Privacy NoticeConsumer Health Privacy NoticeAccessibility StatementSitemap
Contact Us
TuneLab Service-Specific Terms
Global Terms of Use
Global Privacy Notice
Consumer Health Privacy Notice
Accessibility Statement
Sitemap

This site is intended for users who are 18 years of age or older.

Copyright © 2026 Lilly. All rights reserved.

privacyoptions.pngYour Privacy Choices
Cookie Settings
lilly_footer_logo.png