Antiverse · Technology Wireframe
Announcement Series A closed at $9.3M · Research agreement with the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation
Platform

Convergent Drug Design

Generative antibody design and wet-lab validation running as one loop, under one roof. This page is the technical deep-dive — written for CSOs, lab heads and therapeutic area leads.

Audience — scientific evaluators Est. read 8 min
Page purpose — strategy §Required Subpages + §Audience Architecture. The homepage speaks to the decision-maker. Scientific depth lives here. This is the page a CSO is sent after the BD conversation, and it must answer their questions without a call.
01The loop

Design informs the assay.
The assay retrains the model.

Most platforms hand off between a computational team and an outsourced lab. Every handoff costs weeks and loses information. Antiverse closes the loop.

DRY LAB — GENERATIVE DESIGN WET LAB — EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION TARGET STRUCTURE LIBRARY DESIGN CLUSTERING 400+ CELL LINES PANNING FUNCTIONAL ASSAY CONVERGENCE FUNCTIONAL LEAD CANDIDATES MONTH 06
Signature motif. Same diagram as the homepage, at full technical resolution. Reused in the deck and in infographics so the category name is always attached to a picture.
02Modules

Four modules, one workflow.

Module 01 — Dry

Generative design engine

Antibody libraries generated de novo from target structure alone. No requirement for existing ligands, binders, or prior campaign data — which is what allows programs to start where others cannot.

Diagram — sequence/structure generation
Technical detail + citations →
Module 02 — Dry

Epitope clustering

Candidates clustered by predicted epitope and functional profile, so a partner receives a diverse panel rather than fifty variants of the same binder. Diversity is the hedge against downstream developability failure.

Diagram — cluster map
Technical detail + citations →
Module 03 — Wet

400+ proprietary cell lines

Engineered lines expressing GPCRs at 20× the density of standard lines. Receptors are presented in their native membrane environment, not as a purified proxy — which is why functional, not just binding, candidates come out.

Diagram — expression comparison
Technical detail + citations →
Module 04 — Wet

Functional validation

Panning and functional assay against the disease-relevant receptor. Results feed directly back into the generative model, compounding the data advantage with every program run.

Diagram — assay readout
Technical detail + citations →
Modules — strategy §Required Subpages (/technology). Each module is a placeholder for a real technical diagram from the brand manual. This is the depth the current one-page site is missing entirely.
03The data advantage

Seven years on the hardest class of targets.

Generalist protein models are trained on general biological data. Antiverse's models have been trained exclusively on GPCRs since 2017 — the structural nuance is the whole point.

Since 2017
7 yrs

GPCR-specific training data, accumulated across partner and internal programs.

Wet-lab moat
400+

Proprietary engineered cell lines. Years to build, not purchasable.

Expression
20×

Higher GPCR expression than standard lines, enabling functional screening.

The moat, stated numerically. A funded competitor can hire the AI team. They cannot compress seven years of data or 400 engineered cell lines into a funding round.
04Peer validation

Publications & preprints

For the scientific evaluator, peer-reviewed work is the trust signal. Every paper, preprint and poster in one place.

Journal

Placeholder — peer-reviewed paper title

Author list · journal · volume. Abstract summary, two lines.

DOI →
Preprint

Placeholder — bioRxiv preprint title

Author list · bioRxiv. Abstract summary, two lines.

Read →
Poster

Placeholder — conference poster title

Conference name · session. One-line summary.

Download →
Whitepaper

GPCR Antibody Discovery: State of the Art 2026

Ben Holland and the Antiverse scientific team. Field landscape and Antiverse's position within it.

Download →
Publications — strategy §Trust. Currently absent from the site. For a CSO, a missing publications list reads as a missing scientific foundation.

Have a target you were told
was undruggable?

Submit it. We'll return a preliminary feasibility assessment within 48 hours.