ArticleBMC bioinformatics2011
PeptX: using genetic algorithms to optimize peptides for MHC binding.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lead Informed Artificial Intelligence Mining of Antitubercular Host Defense Peptides.Biomacromolecules · 2025Article
- Physics-based generative model of curvature sensing peptides; distinguishing sensors from binders.Science advances · 2023Article
- A comprehensive review and performance evaluation of bioinformatics tools for HLA class I peptide-binding prediction.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2020Review
- Large-Scale Structure-Based Prediction of Stable Peptide Binding to Class I HLAs Using Random Forests.Frontiers in immunology · 2020Article
- CD4 T Cell Determinants in West Nile Virus Disease and Asymptomatic Infection.Frontiers in immunology · 2020Article
- How peptide/MHC presence affects the dynamics of the LC13 T-cell receptor.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Structure-based Methods for Binding Mode and Binding Affinity Prediction for Peptide-MHC Complexes.Current topics in medicinal chemistry · 2018Review
- Exploring peptide/MHC detachment processes using hierarchical natural move Monte Carlo.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2016Article
- Large scale characterization of the LC13 TCR and HLA-B8 structural landscape in reaction to 172 altered peptide ligands: a molecular dynamics simulation study.PLoS computational biology · 2014Article
- Specificities of human CD4+ T cell responses to an inactivated flavivirus vaccine and infection: correlation with structure and epitope prediction.Journal of virology · 2014Article
- Epitope-specificity of recombinant antibodies reveals promiscuous peptide-binding properties.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2012Article
- Molecular evolution of peptide ligands with custom-tailored characteristics for targeting of glycostructures.PLoS computational biology · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe binding between the major histocompatibility complex and the presented peptide is an indispensable prerequisite for the adaptive immune response. There is a plethora of different in silico techniques for the prediction of the peptide binding affinity to major histocompatibility complexes. Most studies screen a set of peptides for promising candidates to predict possible T cell epitopes. In this study we ask the question vice versa: Which peptides do have highest binding affinities to a given major histocompatibility complex according to certain in silico scoring functions?
resultsSince a full screening of all possible peptides is not feasible in reasonable runtime, we introduce a heuristic approach. We developed a framework for Genetic Algorithms to optimize peptides for the binding to major histocompatibility complexes. In an extensive benchmark we tested various operator combinations. We found that (1) selection operators have a strong influence on the convergence of the population while recombination operators have minor influence and (2) that five different binding prediction methods lead to five different sets of "optimal" peptides for the same major histocompatibility complex. The consensus peptides were experimentally verified as high affinity binders.
conclusionWe provide a generalized framework to calculate sets of high affinity binders based on different previously published scoring functions in reasonable runtime. Furthermore we give insight into the different behaviours of operators and scoring functions of the Genetic Algorithm.
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.