Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18996943›Full record

ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2009

Pan-specific MHC class I predictors: a benchmark of HLA class I pan-specific prediction methods.

Hao Zhang, Claus Lundegaard, Morten Nielsen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

56 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. MSMolecular & cellular proteomics : MCP · 2022
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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 · 2019
    Article
  11. Determinants for Neoantigen Identification.Frontiers in immunology · 2019
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Hao ZhangCenter for Biological Sequence Analysis, Department of Systems Biology, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby 2800, Denmark.
Claus Lundegaard
Morten Nielsen

Funding

PHS HHS HHSN2662004 00025CPHS HHS HHSN26620040006CPHS HHS HHSN266200400083C
6 · The paper itself

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

AllelesArea Under CurveComputational BiologyDatabases, ProteinHistocompatibility Antigens Class IHLA AntigensHumansLigandsPeptidesProtein BindingStatistics, NonparametricHistocompatibility Antigens Class IHLA AntigensLigandsPeptides

Identifiers

PMID18996943
PMCPMC2638932

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.