Evidence claim

Seven of the eight de novo binders in Adaptyv round 2 were designed with BindCraft

Evidence concern: excluded from comparisons

The paper prints three different round-1 binder rates and two round-2 expression rates. Section 2.4 gives round 1 as '2.5% (5/201)' and round 2 as 'a 95% expression rate (378 of 400 tested)'; Section 4.1 gives expression as improving 'from 73% to 94%'; Section 4.1 gives the binder percentage as rising 'from 3% in the first round to 13%'. All the printed values are recorded with their locators and none is reconciled here.Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) · Sections 2.4, 4.1 and 4.2

Section 4.1 says Figure 8 shows 'the total number of validated binders across the 3 binding thresholds' but no section of the paper defines those three thresholds. No hit definition is therefore recorded for the Figure 8 counts, and the binding protocol's success threshold is left unstated with a reason rather than guessed.Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) · Section 4.1; Figure 8 caption

Share of de novo binders of BindCraft

Section 3.1, verbatim: 'Overall, 7 out of 8 de novo binders in the second round were designed using BindCraft, despite most de novo designs in the competition originating from the RFDiffusion pipeline.' The paper does not print how many RFdiffusion designs were tested, so no RFdiffusion hit rate can be read from this source. Section 3.1 also states that 'the best R2 BindCraft design does not have any significantly similar structural hits in either the Protein Data Bank (PDB) or AlphaFold Protein Structure Database (AFDB)'.

The paper states that seven of the eight de novo binders found in round 2 came from BindCraft, even though most de novo submissions came from RFdiffusion pipelines. This is a per-method outcome printed in the prose, not a hit rate: the denominators per method are not printed.

Evidence

Source checking verifies the cited claim or transcription. It does not establish independent reproduction.

Evidence table

Inspect claims, sources and review details

Trace each statement to its source and review. A context-only reference supports the record generally; it does not verify an individual field. Source checking does not reproduce an experiment.

One row per statement and cited source. Multiple citations are not independent evaluations. Shared locators are labelled explicitly.

6 evidence rows matching the loaded filters

Claims, original sources and review scope · Release 2026-10-22-1b7cf027e4f6
Property and statement	Original source and location	Review and provenance
Claimed field share_of_de_novo_binders Context-only references	Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) Original source ↗ Section 3.1 Version: bioRxiv preprint version 1 Retrieved: 2026-10-22T12:01:00Z	not individually reviewed No individual claim review recorded Source has a recorded evidence concern. Consult its source page before using the claim. Audit details Field: `attributes.field` Source artifact SHA-256: `17039d69ecc37f45f6c402511b8f4497ce631003689fa95ad1ab221f8f787a4f` Hash scope: SHA-256 of one retrieval of a mutable web page. The hash describes that retrieval, not a stable artifact. Inspected artifact
Source location Section 3.1 Context-only references	Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) Original source ↗ Section 3.1 Version: bioRxiv preprint version 1 Retrieved: 2026-10-22T12:01:00Z	not individually reviewed No individual claim review recorded Source has a recorded evidence concern. Consult its source page before using the claim. Audit details Field: `attributes.source_locator` Source artifact SHA-256: `17039d69ecc37f45f6c402511b8f4497ce631003689fa95ad1ab221f8f787a4f` Hash scope: SHA-256 of one retrieval of a mutable web page. The hash describes that retrieval, not a stable artifact. Inspected artifact
Claimed value Section 3.1, verbatim: 'Overall, 7 out of 8 de novo binders in the second round were designed using BindCraft, despite most de novo designs in the competition originating from the RFDiffusion pipeline.' The paper does not print how many RFdiffusion designs were tested, so no RFdiffusion hit rate can be read from this source. Section 3.1 also states that 'the best R2 BindCraft design does not have any significantly similar structural hits in either the Protein Data Bank (PDB) or AlphaFold Protein Structure Database (AFDB)'. Context-only references	Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) Original source ↗ Section 3.1 Version: bioRxiv preprint version 1 Retrieved: 2026-10-22T12:01:00Z	not individually reviewed No individual claim review recorded Source has a recorded evidence concern. Consult its source page before using the claim. Audit details Field: `attributes.value` Source artifact SHA-256: `17039d69ecc37f45f6c402511b8f4497ce631003689fa95ad1ab221f8f787a4f` Hash scope: SHA-256 of one retrieval of a mutable web page. The hash describes that retrieval, not a stable artifact. Inspected artifact
Description The paper states that seven of the eight de novo binders found in round 2 came from BindCraft, even though most de novo submissions came from RFdiffusion pipelines. This is a per-method outcome printed in the prose, not a hit rate: the denominators per method are not printed. Context-only references	Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) Original source ↗ Section 3.1 Version: bioRxiv preprint version 1 Retrieved: 2026-10-22T12:01:00Z	not individually reviewed No individual claim review recorded Source has a recorded evidence concern. Consult its source page before using the claim. Audit details Field: `description` Source artifact SHA-256: `17039d69ecc37f45f6c402511b8f4497ce631003689fa95ad1ab221f8f787a4f` Hash scope: SHA-256 of one retrieval of a mutable web page. The hash describes that retrieval, not a stable artifact. Inspected artifact
Relationship: subject uc-binder-20261022-pipeline-bindcraft Context-only references	Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) Original source ↗ Section 3.1 Version: bioRxiv preprint version 1 Retrieved: 2026-10-22T12:01:00Z	not individually reviewed No individual claim review recorded Source has a recorded evidence concern. Consult its source page before using the claim. Audit details Field: `links:subject:uc-binder-20261022-pipeline-bindcraft` Source artifact SHA-256: `17039d69ecc37f45f6c402511b8f4497ce631003689fa95ad1ab221f8f787a4f` Hash scope: SHA-256 of one retrieval of a mutable web page. The hash describes that retrieval, not a stable artifact. Inspected artifact
Name Seven of the eight de novo binders in Adaptyv round 2 were designed with BindCraft Context-only references	Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) Original source ↗ Section 3.1 Version: bioRxiv preprint version 1 Retrieved: 2026-10-22T12:01:00Z	not individually reviewed No individual claim review recorded Source has a recorded evidence concern. Consult its source page before using the claim. Audit details Field: `name` Source artifact SHA-256: `17039d69ecc37f45f6c402511b8f4497ce631003689fa95ad1ab221f8f787a4f` Hash scope: SHA-256 of one retrieval of a mutable web page. The hash describes that retrieval, not a stable artifact. Inspected artifact

How to read the evidence

Sources and history

Release 2026-10-22-1b7cf027e4f6 · Record review: source checked

1 source record and release history

Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) · Original source · bioRxiv preprint version 1

Download this release (gzip)

Technical metadata and extraction receipts

Stable ID: uc-binder-20261022-claim-adaptyv-bindcraft-share-of-de-novo-binders

field: share_of_de_novo_binders
review: artifact sha256: 17039d69ecc37f45f6c402511b8f4497ce631003689fa95ad1ab221f8f787a4f; method: source-hash-verification; independent-cell-check; ai-assisted-source-review; method note: Re-downloaded (HTTP 200, 493,217 bytes, the same byte count as the pinned retrieval) but the SHA-256 differs, as expected for a mutable bioRxiv page whose hash describes one retrieval. Every extracted value and every quoted sentence was then located verbatim in the new retrieval, so the difference is in page furniture and not in the evidence. One section attribution and one quotation were corrected.; note: Reviewed in docs/reviews/use-cases/binder-2026-10-22.md. Automated AI review of the source transcription only; it is not human scientific review and nothing here was reproduced experimentally.; retrieval url: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.04.17.648362v1.full; reviewed at: 2026-10-22T15:00:00Z; reviewer: claude; reviewer note: Claude review agent, independent of the extraction agent; no human review claimed
source locator: Section 3.1
value: Section 3.1, verbatim: 'Overall, 7 out of 8 de novo binders in the second round were designed using BindCraft, despite most de novo designs in the competition originating from the RFDiffusion pipeline.' The paper does not print how many RFdiffusion designs were tested, so no RFdiffusion hit rate can be read from this source. Section 3.1 also states that 'the best R2 BindCraft design does not have any significantly similar structural hits in either the Protein Data Bank (PDB) or AlphaFold Protein Structure Database (AFDB)'.

Related records

subject: BindCraft

Suggest a correction