ArticleSignal transduction and targeted therapy2026
A cell-based kinetic framework enables TCR specificity prediction.
Article in Signal transduction and targeted therapy, 2026. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The ability to predict T-cell receptor (TCR) specificity from sequences could transform immunotherapy, vaccine development, and our understanding of immune recognition. However, progress has been shaped by "edge cases", in which specificity appears to be captured by simplified descriptors, such as sequence motifs or correlations between binding affinity and functional activation. Although informative, these regimes are not representative of the general mode of TCR recognition. Emphasizing such cases has contributed to a drift in the field, where both experimental assay design and computational modeling increasingly rely on nonrepresentative signals, limiting generalizability across antigens and TCRs. We argue that this drift stems from a lack of a clear biophysical definition of TCR specificity and continued reliance on equilibrium binding assays that are not well suited to capture it. These limitations propagate into training datasets, constraining the performance and generalizability of predictive models. To address them, we introduce three key elements. First, we develop a cell-based assay for quantitative measurement of TCR-pMHC binding kinetics in a physiological context. Second, we introduce a mechanistic framework for interpreting these data, showing that the widely used reversible ligand-receptor model is insufficient in the general case and proposing the TCR cycle model as a minimal systems-level description. Third, we describe a strategy for generating multiplexed, high-throughput datasets and integrating mechanistic modeling with machine learning. Together, this work establishes a foundation for a mechanistically grounded and scalable approach to TCR specificity prediction.
Indexed as
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.