Data-Driven Discovery of Biophysical T Cell Receptor Cospecificity Rules
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The biophysical interactions between the T cell receptor (TCR) and its ligands determine the specificity of the cellular immune response. However, the immense diversity of receptors and ligands has made it challenging to discover generalizable rules across the distinct binding affinity landscapes created by different ligands. Here, we present an optimization framework for discovering biophysical rules that predict whether TCRs share specificity to a ligand. Applying this framework to TCRs associated with a collection of SARS-CoV-2 peptides, we systematically characterize how cospecificity depends on the type and position of amino-acid differences between receptors. We also demonstrate that the inferred rules generalize to ligands highly dissimilar to any seen during training. Our analysis reveals that the matching of steric properties between substituted amino acids is more important for receptor cospecificity than the hydrophobic properties that prominently determine evolutionary substitutability. Our analysis also quantifies the substantial importance of positions not in direct contact with the peptide for specificity. These findings highlight the potential for data-driven approaches to uncover the molecular mechanisms underpinning the specificity of adaptive immune responses.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".