Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30446001›Full record

ArticleGenome medicine2018

Footprints of antigen processing boost MHC class II natural ligand predictions.

Carolina Barra, Bruno Alvarez, Sinu Paul, Alessandro Sette, Bjoern Peters, Massimo Andreatta, Søren Buus, Morten Nielsen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

53 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 100 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. New light on the HLA-DR immunopeptidomic landscape.Journal of leukocyte biology · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. In Silico Tools for Predicting Novel Epitopes.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.

Carolina BarraInstituto de Investigaciones Biotecnológicas, Universidad Nacional de San Martín, CP1650, San Martín, Argentina.ORCID 0000-0002-6836-4906
Bruno AlvarezInstituto de Investigaciones Biotecnológicas, Universidad Nacional de San Martín, CP1650, San Martín, Argentina.
Sinu PaulDivision of Vaccine Discovery, La Jolla Institute for Allergy and Immunology, 9420 Athena Circle, La Jolla, CA, 92037, USA.
Alessandro SetteDivision of Vaccine Discovery, La Jolla Institute for Allergy and Immunology, 9420 Athena Circle, La Jolla, CA, 92037, USA.
Bjoern PetersDivision of Vaccine Discovery, La Jolla Institute for Allergy and Immunology, 9420 Athena Circle, La Jolla, CA, 92037, USA.
Massimo AndreattaInstituto de Investigaciones Biotecnológicas, Universidad Nacional de San Martín, CP1650, San Martín, Argentina.
Søren BuusDepartment of Immunology and Microbiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Morten NielsenInstituto de Investigaciones Biotecnológicas, Universidad Nacional de San Martín, CP1650, San Martín, Argentina. mniel@bioinformatics.dtu.dk.
National University of General San Martín · ARLa Jolla Institute for Immunology · USUniversity of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

NIAID NIH HHS HHSN272201200010C
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMajor histocompatibility complex class II (MHC-II) molecules present peptide fragments to T cells for immune recognition. Current predictors for peptide to MHC-II binding are trained on binding affinity data, generated in vitro and therefore lacking information about antigen processing.

methodsWe generate prediction models of peptide to MHC-II binding trained with naturally eluted ligands derived from mass spectrometry in addition to peptide binding affinity data sets.

resultsWe show that integrated prediction models incorporate identifiable rules of antigen processing. In fact, we observed detectable signals of protease cleavage at defined positions of the ligands. We also hypothesize a role of the length of the terminal ligand protrusions for trimming the peptide to the MHC presented ligand.

conclusionsThe results of integrating binding affinity and eluted ligand data in a combined model demonstrate improved performance for the prediction of MHC-II ligands and T cell epitopes and foreshadow a new generation of improved peptide to MHC-II prediction tools accounting for the plurality of factors that determine natural presentation of antigens.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalAnimalsAntigen PresentationCell LineHistocompatibility Antigens Class IHLA-DR AntigensHumansLigandsMicePeptidesHistocompatibility Antigens Class IHLA-DR AntigensLigandsPeptidesAntigen processingBinding predictionsEluted ligandsMachine learningMass spectrometryMHC-IINeural networksT cell epitope

Identifiers

PMID30446001
PMCPMC6240193
OpenAlexW2950977493

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.