ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2009
Pan-specific MHC class I predictors: a benchmark of HLA class I pan-specific prediction methods.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 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
56 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Adoptive neoantigen-reactive T cell therapy: improvement strategies and current clinical researches.Biomarker research · 2023Review
- Evaluating NetMHCpan performance on non-European HLA alleles not present in training data.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Article
- MSMolecular & cellular proteomics : MCP · 2022Article
- Building Personalized Cancer Therapeutics through Multi-Omics Assays and Bacteriophage-Eukaryotic Cell Interactions.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- ARTEMIS: A Novel Mass-Spec Platform for HLA-Restricted Self and Disease-Associated Peptide Discovery.Frontiers in immunology · 2021Article
- A comprehensive review and performance evaluation of bioinformatics tools for HLA class I peptide-binding prediction.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2020Review
- Computational MHC-I epitope predictor identifies 95% of experimentally mapped HIV-1 clade A and D epitopes in a Ugandan cohort.BMC infectious diseases · 2020Article
- The Immune Epitope Database and Analysis Resource Program 2003-2018: reflections and outlook.Immunogenetics · 2020Review
- HIV peptidome-wide association study reveals patient-specific epitope repertoires associated with HIV control.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2019Article
- Determinants for Neoantigen Identification.Frontiers in immunology · 2019Review
- Improved methods for predicting peptide binding affinity to MHC class II molecules.Immunology · 2018Article
- Update on Tumor Neoantigens and Their Utility: Why It Is Good to Be Different.Trends in immunology · 2018Review
- A dual-function epidermal growth factor receptor pathway substrate 8 (Eps8)-derived peptide exhibits a potent cytotoxic T lymphocyte-activating effect and a specific inhibitory activity.Cell death & disease · 2018Article
- Determining the Quantitative Principles of T Cell Response to Antigenic Disparity in Stem Cell Transplantation.Frontiers in immunology · 2018Review
- HIV-1 adaptation to NK cell-mediated immune pressure.PLoS pathogens · 2017Article
- HLA class I molecular variation and peptide-binding properties suggest a model of joint divergent asymmetric selection.Immunogenetics · 2016Article
- A combined prediction strategy increases identification of peptides bound with high affinity and stability to porcine MHC class I molecules SLA-1*04:01, SLA-2*04:01, and SLA-3*04:01.Immunogenetics · 2016Article
- pVAC-Seq: A genome-guided in silico approach to identifying tumor neoantigens.Genome medicine · 2016Article
- Immunoinformatics and epitope prediction in the age of genomic medicine.Genome medicine · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
motivationMHC:peptide binding plays a central role in activating the immune surveillance. Computational approaches to determine T-cell epitopes restricted to any given major histocompatibility complex (MHC) molecule are of special practical value in the development of for instance vaccines with broad population coverage against emerging pathogens. Methods have recently been published that are able to predict peptide binding to any human MHC class I molecule. In contrast to conventional allele-specific methods, these methods do allow for extrapolation to uncharacterized MHC molecules. These pan-specific human lymphocyte antigen (HLA) predictors have not previously been compared using independent evaluation sets.
resultA diverse set of quantitative peptide binding affinity measurements was collected from Immune Epitope database (IEDB), together with a large set of HLA class I ligands from the SYFPEITHI database. Based on these datasets, three different pan-specific HLA web-accessible predictors NetMHCpan, adaptive double threading (ADT) and kernel-based inter-allele peptide binding prediction system (KISS) were evaluated. The performance of the pan-specific predictors was also compared with a well performing allele-specific MHC class I predictor, NetMHC, as well as a consensus approach integrating the predictions from the NetMHC and NetMHCpan methods.
conclusionsThe benchmark demonstrated that pan-specific methods do provide accurate predictions also for previously uncharacterized MHC molecules. The NetMHCpan method trained to predict actual binding affinities was consistently top ranking both on quantitative (affinity) and binary (ligand) data. However, the KISS method trained to predict binary data was one of the best performing methods when benchmarked on binary data. Finally, a consensus method integrating predictions from the two best performing methods was shown to improve the prediction accuracy.
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.