Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19238237›Full record

ArticleBioinformation2008

Prediction of MHC binding peptide using Gibbs motif sampler, weight matrix and artificial neural network.

Satarudra Prakash Singh, Bhartendu Nath Mishra

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Identifying neoantigens for use in immunotherapy.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2018
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Dana-Farber repository for machine learning in immunology.Journal of immunological methods · 2011
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
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

2 authors.

Satarudra Prakash SinghAmity Institute of Biotechnology, Amity University Uttar Pradesh, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010, India, Department of Biotechnology, Institute of Engineering and Technology, U.P. Technical University, Sitapur Road, Lucknow-226021, India.
Bhartendu Nath Mishra

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

ANNepitopeGibbs samplerMHCmotifweight matrix

Identifiers

PMID19238237
PMCPMC2639663

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.