Configuration

BindCraft with helical loss -2.0 as entered in Adaptyv round 2

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

BindCraft run with the helicity loss set to -2.0 instead of the default -0.3, so that only beta-sheeted designs from the same design campaign were submitted.

2 evaluations · 2 results

Overview

An explanatory profile has not yet been reviewed for this record.

Consult the linked sources for architecture or protocol details. Missing evidence is not evidence of a missing capability.

Evaluations and results

2 evaluations · 2 results. Different protocols are not a single leaderboard.

Dataset: Adaptyv EGFR competition round 2 tested designs

Sorted by Count (designs with high expression) (higher is better). The best value in each column is highlighted. Decimals are rounded for display; each value links to the printed value and its source.

Tested configuration	Protocol and dataset	Count (designs with high expression)	Dissociation constant (best KD for EGFR by BLI among the round 2 BindCraft entries; the tightest binding de novo binder in round 2)
BindCraft with helical loss -2.0 as entered in Adaptyv round 2Evaluation	Adaptyv EGFR competition cell-free expression rate	all ten showed high expression rates	Not reported
BindCraft with helical loss -2.0 as entered in Adaptyv round 2Evaluation	Adaptyv EGFR competition BLI affinity	Not reported	82 nM

All 2 result rows with coverage, uncertainty and sources

Filter evaluations

Tested model or methodProtocolDatasetEvaluation setupMetricEvidence origin

Applied filters: All linked evaluations

Exact evaluated configurations and original reported results
Tested configuration	Protocol and dataset	Finding	Evidence and details
Configuration: BindCraft with helical loss -2.0 as entered in Adaptyv round 2	Protocol: Adaptyv EGFR competition cell-free expression rate Dataset: Adaptyv EGFR competition round 2 tested designs	all ten showed high expression rates Count (designs with high expression) count · higher Uncertainty: Not applicable: An exact count. Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked 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 Methods, coverage and source BindCraft with helical loss -2.0 in Adaptyv round 2: Adaptyv EGFR competition cell-free expression rate uc-binder-20261022-protocol-adaptyv-expression Aggregation: Not reported Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) · Section 3.1: 'Ten out of the author's submitted beta sheeted designs were tested and - given the lower overall expression rate of the competition in R1 - surprisingly all ten showed high expression rates'
Configuration: BindCraft with helical loss -2.0 as entered in Adaptyv round 2	Protocol: Adaptyv EGFR competition BLI affinity Dataset: Adaptyv EGFR competition round 2 tested designs	82 nM Dissociation constant (best KD for EGFR by BLI among the round 2 BindCraft entries; the tightest binding de novo binder in round 2) nanomolar · lower Uncertainty: Not reported by the source: No interval is printed for this value in the prose; the repository records per-replicate fits. Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked 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 Methods, coverage and source BindCraft with helical loss -2.0 in Adaptyv round 2: Adaptyv EGFR competition BLI affinity uc-binder-20261022-protocol-adaptyv-bli-affinity Aggregation: Not reported Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) · Section 3.1: 'One of those designs bound with 82 nM affinity to the EGFR target, making it the tightest binding de novo binder in R2'

Source checking is not independent reproduction. Release 2026-10-22-1b7cf027e4f6.

Use this configuration

How it works, versions and access

Strengths, limitations and unresolved questions

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.

0 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

No evidence rows match these filters. Choose another scope or clear the search.

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-config-adaptyv-bindcraft-r2-beta

areas: proteins-complexes; protein-structure
contexts: research
method types: specialist
access reuse: Entered by the BindCraft authors; tested by Adaptyv.
foundation model eligible: false
method role: design
parameters: Helical loss set to -2.0 (default -0.3), yielding beta-sheeted designs from the same design campaign as the round 1 entry
reported name: BindCraft
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
selection: Ten beta-sheeted designs from the authors' submission were tested.
source locator: Section 3.1
version: As entered in Adaptyv EGFR competition round 2

Related records

configuration of: BindCraft
system: BindCraft with helical loss -2.0 in Adaptyv round 2: Adaptyv EGFR competition BLI affinity
system: BindCraft with helical loss -2.0 in Adaptyv round 2: Adaptyv EGFR competition cell-free expression rate

Suggest a correction