ArticleImmunome research2007
In silico characterization of immunogenic epitopes presented by HLA-Cw*0401.
Article in Immunome research, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- T-cell epitope prediction and immune complex simulation using molecular dynamics: state of the art and persisting challenges.Immunome research · 2010Article
- pDOCK: a new technique for rapid and accurate docking of peptide ligands to Major Histocompatibility Complexes.Immunome research · 2010Article
- Article
- Predicting the impact of blocking human immunodeficiency virus type 1 Nef in vivo.Journal of virology · 2009Article
- Evaluation of MHC-II peptide binding prediction servers: applications for vaccine research.BMC bioinformatics · 2008Article
- Immunological hotspots analyzed by docking simulations: evidence for a general mechanism in pemphigus vulgaris pathology and transformation.BMC immunology · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHLA-C locus products are poorly understood in part due to their low expression at the cell surface. Recent data indicate that these molecules serve as major restriction elements for human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CTL) epitopes. We report here a structure-based technique for the prediction of peptides binding to Cw*0401. The models were rigorously trained, tested and validated using experimentally verified Cw*0401 binding and non-binding peptides obtained from biochemical studies. A new scoring scheme facilitates the identification of immunological hot spots within antigens, based on the sum of predicted binding energies of the top four binders within a window of 30 amino acids.
resultsHigh predictivity is achieved when tested on the training (r(2) = 0.88, s = 3.56 kJ/mol, q(2) = 0.84, s(press) = 5.18 kJ/mol) and test (A(ROC) = 0.93) datasets. Characterization of the predicted Cw*0401 binding sequences indicate that amino acids at key anchor positions share common physico-chemical properties which correlate well with existing experimental studies.
conclusionThe analysis of predicted Cw*0401-binding peptides showed that anchor residues may not be restrictive and the Cw*0401 binding pockets may possibly accommodate a wide variety of peptides with common physico-chemical properties. The potential Cw*0401-specific T-cell epitope repertoires for HIV-1 p24(gag) and gp160(gag) glycoproteins are well distributed throughout both glycoproteins, with thirteen and nine immunological hot spots for HIV-1 p24(gag) and gp160(gag) glycoproteins respectively. These findings provide new insights into HLA-C peptide selectivity, indicating that pre-selection of candidate HLA-C peptides may occur at the TAP level, prior to peptide loading in the endoplasmic reticulum.
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.