The revised workflow gives teams more control over the design brief. Alongside selecting a binder type, they can specify which target variants matter, which interactions should be avoided, and which molecule properties may affect downstream development. These choices come together before candidates are generated, rather than being treated as separate goals afterwards.
VHH, scFv and Fab are among the supported formats, with additional binder modalities available in the same workflow. The intended format can guide how a team explores candidates for a program, whether it needs a compact single-domain binder or a larger antibody architecture. This connects computational design choices to the molecule researchers expect to evaluate.
Designs may be requested against more than one target, including related proteins from different species. For example, a team can include both a human protein and its preclinical species counterpart in one campaign. Describing that recognition goal upfront helps keep the design objective aligned with later experiments that examine cross-reactivity.
Selectivity also involves deciding what should not bind. The workflow lets researchers identify detarget proteins alongside desired targets, making avoidance part of the computational objective. This can help teams express a more complete profile for candidates, while experimental assays remain necessary to determine whether that profile holds in practice.
Targets do not always occupy a single structure. A campaign can account for multiple conformations, with support for induced-fit contexts and intrinsically disordered regions. Considering these states broadens the range of biological situations represented during design, especially when a target's structure depends on its binding partners or environment.
Other controls let teams describe development preferences, including humanization and how termini should be positioned. These constraints do not replace downstream testing; they make practical considerations visible earlier, so generated candidates can be explored against goals that matter to the intended program.
Taken together, the expanded workflow lets scientists describe binder format, target range, selectivity requirements, structural states, and development preferences in one connected design brief. The resulting candidates are starting points for experimental evaluation, where binding, specificity, stability, and other properties can be measured directly.