Round 1 campaign targeting PD-L1.
Progress
| Stage | Description | Status |
|---|---|---|
| A | Define goal | Done |
| B | Prep target structure — trim to IgV domain only | Done |
| C | Pick epitope and hotspots (GFCC′ face) | Done |
| D | Choose engine — BindCraft + RFdiffusion cross-check | Done |
| E | Generate backbones | Done · PD-L1/Campaign/PDL1-R1/Run/RF-001 |
| F | Design sequences | Done · PD-L1/Campaign/PDL1-R1/Run/MPNN-001 |
| G | In silico filters | Done · PD-L1/Campaign/PDL1-R1/Run/AF2IG-001 — 24 → 6 |
| H | Diversity/developability triage | Done · PD-L1/Campaign/PDL1-R1/Run/ESM-001, PD-L1/Campaign/PDL1-R1/Run/CLUST-001 |
| I | Gene synthesis and expression | Done — 24 ordered, E. coli cytoplasm |
| J | Binding screen | Done — yeast display |
| K | Biophysics (BLI, SEC, nanoDSF) | In progress |
| L | Function (PD-1 blockade) | Partial |
| M | Structure confirmation | 1 |
| N | Round 2 optimization | Planned |
| O | Format conversion | Not started |
Notes
Computed metrics don't predict affinity. Passing stage G just means "might bind" —
actual strength is set by BLI at stage K. In practice the top i_pTM design wasn't the
strongest binder — see PD-L1/Note/Shortlist rationale.
Related: PD-L1/Note/Epitope choice · PD-L1/Note/Round 2 plan ·
Protocol/BLI · Protocol/SEC · Protocol/nanoDSF · Protocol/Expression and purification