rewirebio.iobenchmarks
Result

Hit rate (yeast-display binding signal above 0.2, over designs tested; pooled over the AlphaProteo design systems tested for this target) of AlphaProteo, pooled over tested design systems on AlphaProteo binder design target SC2RBD

12% Hit rate (yeast-display binding signal above 0.2, over designs tested; pooled over the AlphaProteo design systems tested for this target)

Methods

Tested configuration
AlphaProteo, pooled over tested design systems
Protocol
AlphaProteo yeast-display binding screen, hit at binding signal above 0.2
Dataset
AlphaProteo binder design target SC2RBD
Procedure
AlphaProteo yeast-display binding screen, hit at binding signal above 0.2
Evaluation
AlphaProteo on SC2RBD, pooled over tested design systems (yeast-display hit rate, Table 1)
Coverage
Not reported scored / Not reported eligible
Uncertainty
Not reported by the source: No interval or replicate count is printed.
Evidence
Author-reported evaluation · source checkedDe novo design of high-affinity protein binders with AlphaProteo (Zambaldi et al., arXiv 2024) · Table 1, 'Experimental success rate (%)' block, row 'AlphaProteo', column 'SC2RBD'

A source-checked result verifies the numerical transcription, not every model or protocol detail. Evaluation metadata: source checked. Source checked does not mean independently reproduced.

Reproduction

Split
Not reported
Adaptation
Not reported
Scoring implementation
Fraction of tested designs with a yeast-display binding signal above the stated threshold

No execution recipe has been verified for this exact configuration and evaluation. A benchmark's general instructions may use different inputs, splits or model settings.

Reproducing this published result requires matching its model configuration, data, split and scorer. Source checking or a successful smoke test does not establish score reproduction.

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.

1 evidence row matching the loaded filters

Claims, original sources and review scope · Release 2026-10-22-1b7cf027e4f6
Property and statementOriginal source and locationReview and provenance
Reported result
12
Individual claims
De novo design of high-affinity protein binders with AlphaProteo (Zambaldi et al., arXiv 2024)

Original source ↗

Table 1, 'Experimental success rate (%)' block, row 'AlphaProteo', column 'SC2RBD'

Version: arXiv version 1, posted 2024-09-12; full-text PDF (49 pages)
Retrieved: 2026-10-22T11:53:00Z

source checked

["source-hash-verification","independent-cell-check","ai-assisted-source-review"] · 2026-10-22T15:00:00Z

author reported

Source has a recorded evidence concern. Consult its source page before using the claim.

Audit details

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.

Field: attributes.printed_value

Source artifact SHA-256: 953b35644c0fa06ff090d7614c2e19525831f8fde50242e176d54474133c5a42

Hash scope: SHA-256 of one retrieval of the arXiv v1 PDF on 2026-10-22.

Inspected artifact

Extraction artifact SHA-256: 953b35644c0fa06ff090d7614c2e19525831f8fde50242e176d54474133c5a42

Extraction artifact

Sources and history

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

1 source record and release historyDownload this release (gzip)
Technical metadata and extraction receipts

Stable ID: uc-binder-20261022-result-alphaproteo-table1-hitrate-sc2rbd

denominator
172
denominator note
172 designs tested, printed in parentheses beneath the rate in Table 1. The tested designs are those the authors' own filter selected from a larger in silico set.
metric
hit-rate
metric direction
higher
metric qualifier
yeast-display binding signal above 0.2, over designs tested; pooled over the AlphaProteo design systems tested for this target
missing metadata
numerator: note: Table 1 prints the rate and the denominator, not the number of hits.; reason: unreported; uncertainty: note: No interval or replicate count is printed.; reason: unreported
numeric value
12
printed value
12
review
artifact sha256: 953b35644c0fa06ff090d7614c2e19525831f8fde50242e176d54474133c5a42; method: source-hash-verification; independent-cell-check; ai-assisted-source-review; method note: Re-downloaded with curl (HTTP 200, 12,333,400 bytes) and the SHA-256 recomputed and matched. Own text layer made with pdftotext -layout (poppler 26.08.0), reproducing the extraction pass's 2,811 lines. Table 1, Table S2, Table S3 and Sections S1.2.1, S2, S4.1 and S4.2 read cell by cell and compared with every record. Column assignment re-derived arithmetically rather than trusted.; 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://arxiv.org/pdf/2409.08022v1; 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
Table 1, 'Experimental success rate (%)' block, row 'AlphaProteo', column 'SC2RBD'
source warnings
Table 1's AlphaProteo column for SC2RBD pools three different design systems, so it is not one method's success rate. Section S2 states: 'We experimentally tested a design system containing the v1 model against all 7 targets, a v1-based system with an improved filter against SC2RBD and PD-L1, and a v2-based system on PD-L1 and TrkA (Table S2) ... For simplicity, the results in Table 1 are pooled over all tested designs for each target.' The Table S2 per-system denominators sum to this cell's denominator (94 + 47 + 31 = 172), confirming the pooling. Use the Table S2 per-system evaluations to say what one design system achieved: changing only the filter moved PD-L1 from 9.6% over 94 designs to 16.1% over 31. Do not read this cell as a single method's rate in any cross-method comparison. Reviewed 2026-10-22 against artifact 953b35644c0fa06ff090d7614c2e19525831f8fde50242e176d54474133c5a42.
unit
percent
unit detail
percent of designs tested
Related records

Suggest a correction