Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31204427›Full record

ReviewBriefings in bioinformatics2020

A comprehensive review and performance evaluation of bioinformatics tools for HLA class I peptide-binding prediction.

Shutao Mei, Fuyi Li, André Leier, Tatiana T Marquez-Lago, Kailin Giam, Nathan P Croft, Tatsuya Akutsu, A Ian Smith, Jian Li, Jamie Rossjohn and 2 more

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 94 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
94citing papers in PubMed
7.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

94 citing papers in PubMed, 178 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

34 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

12 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Shutao MeiBiomedicine Discovery Institute and Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Fuyi LiBiomedicine Discovery Institute and Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
André LeierDepartment of Genetics and Department of Cell, Developmental and Integrative Biology, School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, AL, USA.
Tatiana T Marquez-LagoDepartment of Genetics and Department of Cell, Developmental and Integrative Biology, School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, AL, USA.
Kailin GiamDepartment of Immunology, King's College London, London, UK.
Nathan P CroftBiomedicine Discovery Institute and Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Tatsuya AkutsuBioinformatics Centre, Institute for Chemical Research, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
A Ian SmithBiomedicine Discovery Institute and Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Jian LiBiomedicine Discovery Institute and Department of Microbiology, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Jamie RossjohnBiomedicine Discovery Institute and Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Anthony W PurcellBiomedicine Discovery Institute and Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Jiangning SongBiomedicine Discovery Institute and Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Australian Regenerative Medicine Institute · AUUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham · USKing's College London · GBKyoto University · JP

Funding

New Tricks for 'Old' Drugs: PK/PD of Polymyxin Nonantibiotic CombinationsR01AI111965 · NIAID · MONASH UNIVERSITY · PI LI, JIAN · 2014 to 2018
$4.3M
NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI111965
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human leukocyte antigen class I (HLA-I) molecules are encoded by major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I loci in humans. The binding and interaction between HLA-I molecules and intracellular peptides derived from a variety of proteolytic mechanisms play a crucial role in subsequent T-cell recognition of target cells and the specificity of the immune response. In this context, tools that predict the likelihood for a peptide to bind to specific HLA class I allotypes are important for selecting the most promising antigenic targets for immunotherapy. In this article, we comprehensively review a variety of currently available tools for predicting the binding of peptides to a selection of HLA-I allomorphs. Specifically, we compare their calculation methods for the prediction score, employed algorithms, evaluation strategies and software functionalities. In addition, we have evaluated the prediction performance of the reviewed tools based on an independent validation data set, containing 21 101 experimentally verified ligands across 19 HLA-I allotypes. The benchmarking results show that MixMHCpred 2.0.1 achieves the best performance for predicting peptides binding to most of the HLA-I allomorphs studied, while NetMHCpan 4.0 and NetMHCcons 1.1 outperform the other machine learning-based and consensus-based tools, respectively. Importantly, it should be noted that a peptide predicted with a higher binding score for a specific HLA allotype does not necessarily imply it will be immunogenic. That said, peptide-binding predictors are still very useful in that they can help to significantly reduce the large number of epitope candidates that need to be experimentally verified. Several other factors, including susceptibility to proteasome cleavage, peptide transport into the endoplasmic reticulum and T-cell receptor repertoire, also contribute to the immunogenicity of peptide antigens, and some of them can be considered by some predictors. Therefore, integrating features derived from these additional factors together with HLA-binding properties by using machine-learning algorithms may increase the prediction accuracy of immunogenic peptides. As such, we anticipate that this review and benchmarking survey will assist researchers in selecting appropriate prediction tools that best suit their purposes and provide useful guidelines for the development of improved antigen predictors in the future.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsComputational BiologyDatasets as TopicHistocompatibility Antigens Class IHumansMachine LearningReproducibility of ResultsHistocompatibility Antigens Class IbioinformaticsHLAmachine learningpeptide bindingperformance benchmarkingprediction modelsequence analysisweb server

Identifiers

PMID31204427
PMCPMC7373177
OpenAlexW2967717440

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.