Configuration

Adaptyv EGFR competition round 2 selected submissions

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

The 400 round-2 submissions Adaptyv selected for testing: the top 100 by a Borda count of ESM2 pseudo-log-likelihood, iPAE and ipTM plus 300 chosen by hand from 1,131 submissions.

2 evaluations · 4 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 · 4 results. Different protocols are not a single leaderboard.

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: Adaptyv EGFR competition round 2 selected submissions	Protocol: Adaptyv EGFR competition BLI binding screen Dataset: Adaptyv EGFR competition round 2 tested designs	53 confirmed binders Count (designs confirmed as binders by BLI) 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 Adaptyv EGFR competition round 2 binding rate uc-binder-20261022-protocol-adaptyv-bli-binding Aggregation: Not reported Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) · Section 2.4: 'R2 saw a 95% expression rate (378 of 400 tested) as well as a much higher binding rate with 53 confirmed binders'
Configuration: Adaptyv EGFR competition round 2 selected submissions	Protocol: Adaptyv EGFR competition cell-free expression rate Dataset: Adaptyv EGFR competition round 2 tested designs	94% Proportion (designs expressing above the 0.02 microgram per millilitre threshold, out of designs selected for testing) percent · higher Uncertainty: Not reported by the source: No interval is printed. 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 Adaptyv EGFR competition round 2 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 4.1: 'We observed an improvement in the number of designs expressed, from 73% to 94%'
Configuration: Adaptyv EGFR competition round 2 selected submissions	Protocol: Adaptyv EGFR competition cell-free expression rate Dataset: Adaptyv EGFR competition round 2 tested designs	95% Proportion (designs expressing above the 0.02 microgram per millilitre threshold, out of designs selected for testing) percent · higher Uncertainty: Not reported by the source: No interval is printed. 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 Adaptyv EGFR competition round 2 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 2.4: 'R2 saw a 95% expression rate (378 of 400 tested)'
Configuration: Adaptyv EGFR competition round 2 selected submissions	Protocol: Adaptyv EGFR competition BLI binding screen Dataset: Adaptyv EGFR competition round 2 tested designs	13% Hit rate (designs confirmed as binders by BLI, out of designs selected for testing; the sentence gives round 1 as 3%, which does not reconcile with the 2.5% (5/201) in Section 2.4) percent · higher Uncertainty: Not reported by the source: No interval is printed. 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 Adaptyv EGFR competition round 2 binding rate uc-binder-20261022-protocol-adaptyv-bli-binding Aggregation: Not reported Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) · Section 4.1: 'Another exciting improvement has been in the percentage of successful binders to EGFR, from 3% in the first round to 13% (Figure 8)'

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-crowd-r2

areas: proteins-complexes; protein-structure
contexts: research
method types: specialist
access reuse: Entrant designs, tested by a third-party laboratory.
foundation model eligible: false
limitations: Three quarters of the tested set was hand-picked by the organisers, so it is not a sample of any method's output.; The paper notes the unnormalised ESM2 likelihood 'was biased towards smaller designs' and that either ranking metric 'could be biased against (or for) certain de novo or underrepresented folds'.
method role: pooled submissions
parameters: 1,131 submissions from 130 participants; sequences under 250 residues, at least 10 residues from a published binder, natural amino acids and single chain; ranked by a Borda count aggregate of ESM2 pseudo-log-likelihood (not length-normalised), iPAE and ipTM
reported name: R2
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: Top 100 by the Borda count plus 300 selected manually, from 1,131 submissions. Each designer had at least one submission validated.
source locator: Sections 2.1, 2.2 and 2.4
version: Adaptyv EGFR Binder Design Competition round 2

Related records

configuration of: Crowdsourced EGFR binder submissions (Adaptyv competition)
system: Adaptyv EGFR competition round 2 binding rate
system: Adaptyv EGFR competition round 2 expression rate

Suggest a correction