Conventional binder discovery
Directed evolution, library display selection and grafting from a known complex obtain a new binder by iterated selection from a library rather than by generating candidate structures.
No reviewed evaluations are linked here in this release. See the sources below.
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.
Use this method
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
| Property and statement | Original source and location | Review and provenance |
|---|
No evidence rows match these filters. Choose another scope or clear the search.
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
Technical metadata and extraction receipts
Stable ID: uc-binder-20261022-method-conventional-binder-discovery
- areas
- proteins-complexes; protein-structure
- contexts
- research
- method types
- conventional_pipeline
- identity scope
- A family of established pre-machine-learning routes to a binder, named here as the comparator the use case needs. No retrieved source runs it as an arm on the same targets as a design method.
- missing metadata
- version: note: A family of laboratory methods, not a versioned tool.; reason: inapplicable
- provenance note
- Created to name the use case's baseline. Its only same-assay appearance in the retrieved evidence is cetuximab, an approved antibody obtained by conventional means, run as a positive control in the Adaptyv assay.
- reported name
- directed evolution, display selection or grafting
- 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 2.3 ('Additionally, EGF and Cetuximab were run as positive controls'); Section 3.2