ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2025
Kinetic Proofreading through Parallel Reactions on a Single T Cell Receptor.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
T cells can recognize a few molecules of cognate antigen amongst vastly outnumbering non-cognate ligands. The T cell receptor (TCR) differentiates antigens based on antigen-TCR binding dwell time through a kinetic proofreading process. Historically, this has been modeled as the ligated receptor undergoing a series of reactions before producing a signal. In such a sequential mechanism, the number of steps is a key determinant of discrimination fidelity. Here, we consider two features of the molecular mechanism of TCR activation that diverge from a sequential process and suggest that an alternative kinetic proofreading mechanism may be at play. First, activation processes of multiple ITAM domains of the TCR represent parallel reaction sequences taking place on a single TCR molecule. Second, the states of the parallel proofreading reactions are integrated to produce a binary output from each TCR in the form of a discrete LAT condensation event, which may or may not occur. We examine a revised kinetic proofreading scheme based on parallel reactions followed by an integration step (multi-thread scheme) and compare its performance with the sequential scheme in a stochastic setting. A distinct difference in a multi-thread scheme is that multiplicity of the parallel reaction threads provides an additional means to increase discrimination fidelity. This relieves the need for fine-tuned kinetics among chemically distinct reaction steps, which is a major hurdle for physical implementation of a sequential mechanism. Lastly, we reinterpret previously reported experimental observations and find that various proofreading behaviors are well described as proofreading through parallel reaction threads. Significance Statement: The kinetic proofreading mechanism by which T cells discriminate antigen has attracted interest from both physical and immunological perspectives. The proofreading process has generally been modeled as a multi-step sequence of reactions, and many experimental observations have been interpreted based on this presumed mechanism. However, these models do not capture key molecular features of the TCR signaling mechanism, including ITAM multiplicity and LAT condensation. Here, we find distinct consequences of these molecular features by examining kinetic models and reinterpreting published experimental data. ITAM multiplicity offers multiple parallel reaction threads, re-integrated by the LAT condensation step, which readily improves discrimination fidelity up to the observed levels. Multi-thread reactions are suggested to play a central role in amplifying TCR kinetic proofreading performance.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.