Proofreading does not result in more reliable ligand discrimination in receptor signaling due to its inherent stochasticity.

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.