Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
A T cell must respond to a handful of foreign peptide-MHC complexes among roughly 1e5 self complexes. This paper prices kinetic proofreading in full - discrimination, energy, information, and time - using the standard McKeithan cascade with published inputs (dwell times from Aleksic et al. 2010, Govern et al. 2010 and Huppa et al. 2010; step rates and counts from Altan-Bonnet & Germain 2005 and Feinerman et al. 2008; cellular ATP free energy 20 k_B T from Milo & Phillips 2015; foreign fraction 1e-5 from Irvine et al. 2002 and Purbhoo et al. 2004). At headline parameters (foreign dwell 10 s, self dwell 1 s, step rate 0.5/s, N = 4 steps, 310 K) the discrimination factor is 39.06 against a single-step value of 2.50 and an ideal slow-step limit of 1e4, which is reachable only when the foreign completion probability collapses to 0.0123 and the decision time reaches 80 s. A completed cascade carries 5.29 bits of log-likelihood evidence and costs 6.44 ATP per completed foreign complex. At the physiological foreign fraction of 1e-5, however, a completed cascade leaves the complex 99.96% likely to be self, with 2560 false completions per true one: the cascade alone does not classify, and its information per encounter is 2.07e-5 bits at 6.13e-15 J per bit, 2.07e6 times the Landauer floor k_B T ln 2 at 310 K. In a balanced reference accounting the cascade delivers 0.2594 bits per encounter at 164.8 times the Landauer floor. Proofreading is a cheap evidence amplifier - a full scan of 1e5 self complexes costs about 1.48e5 ATP - whose binding constraints are sensitivity and time, not energy, and whose output requires downstream integration to become a decision. Model calculations are labelled SIMULATED, NOT MEASURED. The deposit includes the paper PDF, the computation script (compute.py) that produces every number in the paper, and its outputs (results.json, results.txt).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
William Alexander Aldred (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: