Molecular Rules Underpinning Enhanced Affinity Binding of Human T Cell Receptors Engineered for Immunotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Immuno-oncology approaches that utilize T cell receptors (TCRs) are becoming highly attractive because of their potential to target virtually all cellular proteins, including cancer-specific epitopes, via the recognition of peptide-human leukocyte antigen (pHLA) complexes presented at the cell surface. However, because natural TCRs generally recognize cancer-derived pHLAs with very weak affinities, efforts have been made to enhance their binding strength, in some cases by several million-fold. In this study, we investigated the mechanisms underpinning human TCR affinity enhancement by comparing the crystal structures of engineered enhanced affinity TCRs with those of their wild-type progenitors. Additionally, we performed molecular dynamics simulations to better understand the energetic mechanisms driving the affinity enhancements. These data demonstrate that supra-physiological binding affinities can be achieved without altering native TCR-pHLA binding modes via relatively subtle modifications to the interface contacts, often driven through the addition of buried hydrophobic residues. Individual energetic components of the TCR-pHLA interaction governing affinity enhancements were distinct and highly variable for each TCR, often resulting from additive, or knock-on, effects beyond the mutated residues. This comprehensive analysis of affinity-enhanced TCRs has important implications for the future rational design of engineered TCRs as efficacious and safe drugs for cancer treatment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".