Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30408041›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2018

Systematically benchmarking peptide-MHC binding predictors: From synthetic to naturally processed epitopes.

Weilong Zhao, Xinwei Sher

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 99 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
99citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

99 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Molecular origin, discovery, validation and application of neoantigens.Asian journal of pharmaceutical sciences · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Computational Methods for Cancer Neoantigen Prediction.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

39 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Weilong ZhaoGlobal Research IT, Merck & Co., Inc., Boston, MA, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-8909-5322
Xinwei SherGlobal Research IT, Merck & Co., Inc., Boston, MA, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-3977-3695

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A number of machine learning-based predictors have been developed for identifying immunogenic T-cell epitopes based on major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I and II binding affinities. Rationally selecting the most appropriate tool has been complicated by the evolving training data and machine learning methods. Despite the recent advances made in generating high-quality MHC-eluted, naturally processed ligandome, the reliability of new predictors on these epitopes has yet to be evaluated. This study reports the latest benchmarking on an extensive set of MHC-binding predictors by using newly available, untested data of both synthetic and naturally processed epitopes. 32 human leukocyte antigen (HLA) class I and 24 HLA class II alleles are included in the blind test set. Artificial neural network (ANN)-based approaches demonstrated better performance than regression-based machine learning and structural modeling. Among the 18 predictors benchmarked, ANN-based mhcflurry and nn_align perform the best for MHC class I 9-mer and class II 15-mer predictions, respectively, on binding/non-binding classification (Area Under Curves = 0.911). NetMHCpan4 also demonstrated comparable predictive power. Our customization of mhcflurry to a pan-HLA predictor has achieved similar accuracy to NetMHCpan. The overall accuracy of these methods are comparable between 9-mer and 10-mer testing data. However, the top methods deliver low correlations between the predicted versus the experimental affinities for strong MHC binders. When used on naturally processed MHC-ligands, tools that have been trained on elution data (NetMHCpan4 and MixMHCpred) shows better accuracy than pure binding affinity predictor. The variability of false prediction rate is considerable among HLA types and datasets. Finally, structure-based predictor of Rosetta FlexPepDock is less optimal compared to the machine learning approaches. With our benchmarking of MHC-binding and MHC-elution predictors using a comprehensive metrics, a unbiased view for establishing best practice of T-cell epitope predictions is presented, facilitating future development of methods in immunogenomics.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsAllelesCancer VaccinesDatasets as TopicEpitopes, T-LymphocyteHistocompatibility Antigens Class IHistocompatibility Antigens Class IIHumansImmunogenicity, VaccineLigandsMachine LearningMajor Histocompatibility ComplexPeptidesProtein BindingReproducibility of ResultsT-LymphocytesCancer VaccinesEpitopes, T-LymphocyteHistocompatibility Antigens Class IHistocompatibility Antigens Class IILigandsPeptides

Identifiers

PMID30408041
PMCPMC6224037

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.