Proofreading does not result in more reliable ligand discrimination in receptor signaling due to its inherent stochasticity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kinetic proofreading (KPR) has been used as a paradigmatic explanation for the high specificity of ligand discrimination by cellular receptors. KPR enhances the difference in the mean receptor occupancy between different ligands compared to a nonproofread receptor, thus potentially enabling better discrimination. On the other hand, proofreading also attenuates the signal and introduces additional stochastic receptor transitions relative to a nonproofreading receptor. This increases the relative magnitude of noise in the downstream signal, which can interfere with reliable ligand discrimination. To understand the effect of noise on ligand discrimination beyond the comparison of the mean signals, we formulate the task of ligand discrimination as a problem of statistical estimation of the receptor affinity of ligands based on the molecular signaling output. Our analysis reveals that proofreading typically worsens ligand resolution compared to a nonproofread receptor. Furthermore, the resolution decreases further with more proofreading steps under most commonly biologically considered conditions. This contrasts with the usual notion that KPR universally improves ligand discrimination with additional proofreading steps. Our results are consistent across a variety of different proofreading schemes and metrics of performance, suggesting that they are inherent to the KPR mechanism itself rather than any particular model of molecular noise. Based on our results, we suggest alternative roles for KPR schemes such as multiplexing and combinatorial encoding in multi-ligand/multi-output pathways.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".