Anthropic, working with Citrini Research and labs Adaptyv Bio and Twist Bioscience, used its Claude model to design protein binders targeting scorpion neurotoxins. Out of 211 designed proteins, 17 met lab binding criteria across four different toxin types, and researchers tested whether these designs could bind the same site as known working antibodies (called LR and RU1) using a competition assay. The hosts stress that binding to a toxin is not the same as neutralizing it, and Anthropic explicitly did not claim to have created an antivenom or shown protection in an animal or human.
- 01
The LR antibody originated from earlier antivenom research at UNAM in Mexico, where a human-derived antibody fragment was shown to protect mice.
- 02
In the competition assay, Claude's designed protein strongly conflicted with the LR antibody's binding site but only showed about 16 percent conflict with the RU1 antibody, which binds a different location.
- 03
No single designed candidate was able to bind multiple toxins, meaning the four-toxin coverage came from different candidates rather than one universal binder.
- 04
Current clinical treatment for scorpion stings without a matching antivenom relies on supportive stabilization, such as artificial breathing support, while the body metabolizes the venom.
1,288 words · auto-generated from the episode video
1:07:59earlier today we had planned this episode and then this story dropped and I was like oh this will be interesting >> and so this is a last minute edition uh about the other frontier lab that we did not talk about in our last story which is open AI. This is an anthropic story about scorpion binders and the path from AI to real world science. And so what are we talking about? We've seen all these stories like we mentioned every week about AI is going to change science and make all these new discoveries. And today Anthropic published this research article how claw designed protein
1:08:40binders against scorpion neurotoxins. And it was a collaboration with uh uh Citrini research and the laboratories adapt bio and twist bioscience. >> The idea is they're trying to design proteins for these dangerous venoms that are in scorpion venom potentially leading to a treatment. So interestingly there are there are some antivenenoms that exist uh but they're very specific to different species. They're species specific and even with any individual species, there's also some regional things and so it's a very complex as all the biology we talk about it's very
1:09:21complicated and so one of the holy grails is this idea of discovering a universal antivenenom. >> Uh obviously >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> Cuz then you currently see the antivenenoms that have been created are not in underserved areas or areas with less of this clinical and medical infrastructure. Y >> um and so you know the challenge becomes when you don't have these antivenenoms for for scorpion uh stings the the current clinical solution is this idea of aggressive supportive stabilization right you're basically waiting for the body to naturally metabolize but you
1:10:02have to keep the person alive while that's >> like happening right >> that's the stabilization part just like keep them alive >> right and so that can be done by supporting for example uh artificial uh air like if they can't breathe and things like that and they also have this idea of utilizing secondary drugs to counteract the specific damage that the venom is causing which in some cases can work and it impacts the nervous system directly. So the this story was immediately all over the place, okay? >> Because again, marketing, right? >> And so the headline read, "They tested 211 designs in the lab and 17 met their binding criteria for four toxins." So
1:10:43like, what is I'm reading this, I'm like, what is this? >> What does this actually mean? Um, crucially, they've not shown that this can actually neutralize the toxin, protect an animal, or actually help a human patient. Um, and they explicitly made that clear that they did not create an an antivenenom, but this is sort of this incremental stepping stone process that we've talked about previously. Another small detail point is none of the uh candidates also could bind to multiple toxins. So in the journey for a universal antivenenom >> that's not >> it's still not there but it was still an
1:11:25interesting design challenge where they were able to find the ability for the protein to bind. Um which is still interesting and impressive for the system to have hypothesized and designed on its own. So, the first thing I want to look at here is like what did this experiment actually establish? Um, and so they act they have this video overview we'll walk through really quick. So, this was the scorpion from a a Mexican scorpion or scorpion from Mexico that the CH2 is the the toxin. And so, we've talked about sodium ion channels uh that allow things to transition. And so this toxin comes in
1:12:05and activates so that it causes the ion channels to become overactive. >> Okay? >> Right? And so that's obviously a problem. So there are current antibodies, this LR antibodies, actually a lab engineered antibbody that we know can bind to it to prevent uh this from happening. So Claude designed this CN2BI protein that is is able to bind to the venom but it conflicts what it looks like conflicts with where the antibbody is able to connect but not all antibodies this RU1 antibbody uh the anthropic designed one does not have a confliction with and what's interesting is what they were basically trying to
1:12:46identify is with LR the initial one we saw can we bind to the same location for a known antibbody body that we know uh is able to combat the venom cell. So we're going to repeat this one more time and I want to come back to this really quick. So they use two antibodies. >> Yeah. >> The LR and the RU1. They bind to different locations on the on the this phenom itself. >> This binding test was trying to figure out can we design a protein that can bind to the same location as a known working antibbody. And so it was a competition. uh yeah >> uh experiment here. So now again we see the claw designed protein is able to
1:13:28connect. When the LR antibody is there it's saying it's in conflict. >> Yeah. It's in conflict. It's not able. >> So it's it's kind of in the same location. >> But when RU1 is there it's like it's a little bit but it's only at 16%. Right. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And so the idea, what they're trying to say here is that look, we can kind of have a binding in a similar location to something we know that works, but that does not mean it neutralizes the toxin. We're just saying that it can bind, >> right? Am I doing okay so far? >> Yeah. Yeah, I think that makes sense. >> So LR came from an earlier antivenenom research from UNAM in Mexico. They engineered a human derived antibbody fragment that showed that it protected in mice.
1:14:09>> Um, and it's a laboratory reference. A lot of times with these antivenenoms, what they end up doing is they'll inject a horse with the venom, then take the antibodies from the horse and then do some voodoo management and then give it to the human. >> Fair enough. >> Um, and then the >> the RU1 is a similar that just attaches and binds to a different location. So they wanted to see how it worked in in both cases. The idea here is like you know neutralization is the idea of capping the ability of the venom to create that overactivation. Yeah. Um and ultimately like that's the solution here. So the the headlines and the analysis are always really So what we're
1:14:50saying that they've been able to do is they designed a bunch of uh options for what could potentially be successful at binding to a similar location as the LR antibbody. Uh 211 of them. Uh they found as a result of that that they were able to get 17 to meet the binding criteria. >> Okay. >> Across four different toxin types. >> Mh. >> Uh so that's interesting. >> Yeah. It's it's four it's like generalized across four different toxins. That's pretty good. >> It's interesting. Okay. And so but this is still not helping a patient.
1:15:30>> Mhm. >> Right. because we've not even gotten to the point of being able to actually confirm that it neutralizes the toxin. So I wanted to take a step back and say what are the steps between this binding mechanism >> which was the result of this and a medicine to a patient. >> Yeah. >> Um and uh
Animal BehaviorArtificial IntelligenceNeuroscienceProtein Engineering