Use case

VHH / nanobody secretion in Pichia

Secreted VHH and nanobody expression in Pichia with ranked CDS panels, secretion-leader design, and structure-confidence checks.

The problem

Where it hurts.

VHH domains and nanobodies are small, stable, and suitable for Pichia secretion. But achieving soluble secreted output depends on codon optimization, signal-peptide selection, and avoiding aggregation-prone sequence features. Teams often default to α-MF without evaluating alternatives, and lack a systematic way to rank construct variants before synthesis.

How Kairos helps

Dry-lab design, cited.

Kairos evaluates your VHH sequence against Pichia usage tables, ranks multiple CDS candidates with per-axis rationales (codon fidelity, synthesis safety, 5′ initiation, developability), and compares secretion-leader options with cited evidence. The structure-confidence check flags aggregation-prone or poorly folded candidates before you spend on synthesis.

Honesty boundary: Kairos ranks dry-lab design quality. It does not predict expression level or titer. The output is a design recommendation grounded in directional evidence.

Leader comparison

α-MF, SUC2, and native signal peptides compared with cited evidence — no defaulting to α-MF.

Folding and aggregation flags

Boltz-2 confidence screens flag poorly folded or aggregation-prone candidates early.

Ranked CDS panel

Candidates ranked with per-axis rationales: codon fidelity, synthesis safety, 5′ initiation, developability.

Worked example

See it in action.

Reviewer-layer worked example →

Bring one VHH. Leave with a secretion-ready panel.

Minutes, not weeks. Every construct scored, every claim cited, every limit stated.