ArticleBioinformation2008
Prediction of MHC binding peptide using Gibbs motif sampler, weight matrix and artificial neural network.
Article in Bioinformation, 2008. 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.
- Personalized cancer vaccine design using AI-powered technologies.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Review
- Identifying neoantigens for use in immunotherapy.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2018Review
- Integrating peptides' sequence and energy of contact residues information improves prediction of peptide and HLA-I binding with unknown alleles.BMC bioinformatics · 2013Article
- Dana-Farber repository for machine learning in immunology.Journal of immunological methods · 2011Article
- Improved prediction of MHC class I binders/non-binders peptides through artificial neural network using variable learning rate: SARS corona virus, a case study.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2011Article
- TAA polyepitope DNA-based vaccines: a potential tool for cancer therapy.Journal of biomedicine & biotechnology · 2010Review
- NN-align. An artificial neural network-based alignment algorithm for MHC class II peptide binding prediction.BMC bioinformatics · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The identification of MHC restricted epitopes is an important goal in peptide based vaccine and diagnostic development. As wet lab experiments for identification of MHC binding peptide are expensive and time consuming, in silico tools have been developed as fast alternatives, however with low performance. In the present study, we used IEDB training and blind validation datasets for the prediction of peptide binding to fourteen human MHC class I and II molecules using Gibbs motif sampler, weight matrix and artificial neural network methods. As compare to MHC class I predictor based on sequence weighting (Aroc=0.95 and CC=0.56) and artificial neural network (Aroc=0.73 and CC=0.25), MHC class II predictor based on Gibbs sampler did not perform well (Aroc=0.62 and CC=0.19). The predictive accuracy of Gibbs motif sampler in identifying the 9-mer cores of a binding peptide to DRB1 alleles are also limited (40 cent), however above the random prediction (14 cent). Therefore, the size of dataset (training and validation) and the correct identification of the binding core are the two main factors limiting the performance of MHC class-II binding peptide prediction. Overall, these data suggest that there is substantial room to improve the quality of the core predictions using novel approaches that capture distinct features of MHC-peptide interactions than the current approaches.
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.