CAR Interface Assessment Walkthrough

Beta

A practical guide to generating and reviewing isolated-arm structural hypotheses for a dual-target CAR design.

What This Module Is For

For CD19-BCMA or similar dual-target CAR concepts, this page is a Phase 1 pairwise structural-triage surface. It creates four independent Interface jobs: each isolated binder arm against each antigen. It does not validate fused-chain folding, membrane geometry, binding affinity, or specificity.

Treat pass / review / fail as labels from structural pose heuristics. ipTM, pDockQ, BSA, contacts, and clashes describe generated models; none is direct evidence of affinity, binding, or specificity.

Deferred Research: Fused-construct Geometry

A dual-target CAR binder is often one fused binder-linker-binder chain. Linker length and orientation can change folding, domain packing, and binding-face exposure. The current 2 x 2 mode cannot assess those effects. A single unconstrained sequence-only fold is also not a validated construct-geometry gate; this requires a separate, explicitly annotated research protocol.

Future research mode

Annotate both domain boundaries and linker, then use justified templates/restraints and multiple seeds or samples. Do not infer arm identity from one raw sequence.

Geometry check

Compare the pose ensemble for linker reach, domain separation, clashes, binder-binder packing, exposed binding faces, and convergence.

Phase 1

Use the current 2 x 2 matrix only for isolated-arm pairwise hypotheses, while keeping fused-construct geometry explicitly unresolved.

Workflow
StepActionWhat the platform does
1Paste two isolated CAR binding arms and two antigen ECD sequences.Inputs are normalized and checked for duplicated arms or probable full-tandem misuse before compute is submitted.
2Run the 2 x 2 arm-vs-antigen matrix.The module creates four child Interface jobs: two intended pairs and two cross-target counter-screens.
3Review intended-pair and counter-screen pose support together.The parent heuristic is pass / review / fail, with ipTM, pDockQ, BSA, clashes, notes, PDB, CSV and JSON artifacts. These are pose signals, not binding measurements.
4Open child jobs for structural inspection when a row looks suspicious.Use the child Interface view for detailed contacts, paratope, epitope footprint and downloadable files.
How to Interpret Pose Signals

Strong intended-pair pose signal + weak counter-screen signal

Most coherent modeled pattern; inspect interfaces and seek orthogonal or experimental evidence.

Strong intended-pair and counter-screen pose signals

The model generated plausible interfaces for both; inspect whether the counter-screen pose is biologically credible before inferring specificity risk.

Weak intended-pair and counter-screen pose signals

The prediction is not discriminative; do not infer weak affinity or specificity from absence of a confident pose.

Weak intended-pair signal + strong counter-screen signal

Treat as a model flag requiring structure review and independent evidence, not as proof of binding failure or cross-binding.

Outputs

Report JSON

Parent-level machine-readable report for audit and downstream scripts.

Matrix CSV

Flat 2 x 2 review table for discussion and tracking.

Child PDB / CSV

Per-pair structural model and interface analysis from standard Interface.

Current Scope and Next Iteration

Current scope

Sequence-to-complex triage for four arm-antigen pairs, with persistent history and downloadable artifacts.

Missing before real use

A fused single-chain construct precheck is needed before using pairwise docking as evidence.

Next step

Build Phase 0: fused construct input, full-chain fold, linker/domain plausibility checks, then hand off to this 2 x 2 matrix.