Evidence claim

Cetuximab, obtained by conventional means, measured 9.94 nM in the same assay

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

Same assay reference measurement of Conventional binder discovery

Section 2.3: 'Additionally, EGF and Cetuximab were run as positive controls.' Section 3.2: 'Cetuximab was also used as a positive control in the competition (9.94 nM), allowing for the calculation that this represents an 8.2 x improvement.' Section 4.3: 'Two R2 binders have KD values on par or better than Cetuximab.' Cetuximab is an approved therapeutic antibody obtained by conventional antibody discovery, so its 9.94 nM in this assay is a reference point for what a conventional binder achieves on EGFR, measured on the same instrument as the designs. It is not evidence about the hit rate of conventional methods, because no library selection campaign was run and no candidate set was tested.

The Adaptyv assay ran EGF and cetuximab as positive controls, and cetuximab measured 9.94 nM. This is the only same-assay measurement of a conventionally obtained binder in any source this pass retrieved. It is a control for assay validity, not a design-method arm: there is no candidate set and no denominator behind it.

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 same_assay_reference_measurement Context-only references	Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) Original source ↗ Sections 2.3, 3.2 and 4.3 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 Sections 2.3, 3.2 and 4.3 Context-only references	Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) Original source ↗ Sections 2.3, 3.2 and 4.3 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 2.3: 'Additionally, EGF and Cetuximab were run as positive controls.' Section 3.2: 'Cetuximab was also used as a positive control in the competition (9.94 nM), allowing for the calculation that this represents an 8.2 x improvement.' Section 4.3: 'Two R2 binders have KD values on par or better than Cetuximab.' Cetuximab is an approved therapeutic antibody obtained by conventional antibody discovery, so its 9.94 nM in this assay is a reference point for what a conventional binder achieves on EGFR, measured on the same instrument as the designs. It is not evidence about the hit rate of conventional methods, because no library selection campaign was run and no candidate set was tested. Context-only references	Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) Original source ↗ Sections 2.3, 3.2 and 4.3 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 Adaptyv assay ran EGF and cetuximab as positive controls, and cetuximab measured 9.94 nM. This is the only same-assay measurement of a conventionally obtained binder in any source this pass retrieved. It is a control for assay validity, not a design-method arm: there is no candidate set and no denominator behind it. Context-only references	Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) Original source ↗ Sections 2.3, 3.2 and 4.3 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-method-conventional-binder-discovery Context-only references	Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) Original source ↗ Sections 2.3, 3.2 and 4.3 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-method-conventional-binder-discovery` 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 Cetuximab, obtained by conventional means, measured 9.94 nM in the same assay Context-only references	Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) Original source ↗ Sections 2.3, 3.2 and 4.3 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-cetuximab-positive-control

field: same_assay_reference_measurement
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: Sections 2.3, 3.2 and 4.3
value: Section 2.3: 'Additionally, EGF and Cetuximab were run as positive controls.' Section 3.2: 'Cetuximab was also used as a positive control in the competition (9.94 nM), allowing for the calculation that this represents an 8.2 x improvement.' Section 4.3: 'Two R2 binders have KD values on par or better than Cetuximab.' Cetuximab is an approved therapeutic antibody obtained by conventional antibody discovery, so its 9.94 nM in this assay is a reference point for what a conventional binder achieves on EGFR, measured on the same instrument as the designs. It is not evidence about the hit rate of conventional methods, because no library selection campaign was run and no candidate set was tested.

Related records

subject: Conventional binder discovery

Suggest a correction