Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31888437›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2019

Benchmarking the PEPOP methods for mimicking discontinuous epitopes.

Vincent Demolombe, Alexandre G de Brevern, Franck Molina, Géraldine Lavigne, Claude Granier, Violaine Moreau

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 37% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Peptide Microarrays for Studying Autoantibodies in Neurological Disease.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2023
    Article
  2. Review
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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Vincent DemolombeBPMP, CNRS, INRA, Montpellier SupAgro, Univ Montpellier, Montpellier, France.
Alexandre G de BrevernINSERM UMR-S 1134, DSIMB, F-75739, Paris, France.
Franck MolinaSys2Diag UMR 9005 CNRS/ALCEDIAGComplex System Modeling and Engineering for Diagnosis, Cap delta/Parc Euromédecine, 1682 rue de la Valsière CS 61003, 34184, Montpellier Cedex 4, France.
Géraldine LavigneDepartment of Haematology, University Hospital, Nîmes, France.
Claude GranierSys2Diag UMR 9005 CNRS/ALCEDIAGComplex System Modeling and Engineering for Diagnosis, Cap delta/Parc Euromédecine, 1682 rue de la Valsière CS 61003, 34184, Montpellier Cedex 4, France.
Violaine MoreauCNRS, UMR5048, INSERM, U1054, Université Montpellier, Centre de Biochimie Structurale, 29, route de Navacelles, 34090, Montpellier, France. violaine.moreau@cbs.cnrs.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8298-9999
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nîmes · FRInserm · FR

Funding

ANR ANR-11-LABX-0051
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundComputational methods provide approaches to identify epitopes in protein Ags to help characterizing potential biomarkers identified by high-throughput genomic or proteomic experiments. PEPOP version 1.0 was developed as an antigenic or immunogenic peptide prediction tool. We have now improved this tool by implementing 32 new methods (PEPOP version 2.0) to guide the choice of peptides that mimic discontinuous epitopes and thus potentially able to replace the cognate protein Ag in its interaction with an Ab. In the present work, we describe these new methods and the benchmarking of their performances.

resultsBenchmarking was carried out by comparing the peptides predicted by the different methods and the corresponding epitopes determined by X-ray crystallography in a dataset of 75 Ag-Ab complexes. The Sensitivity (Se) and Positive Predictive Value (PPV) parameters were used to assess the performance of these methods. The results were compared to that of peptides obtained either by chance or by using the SUPERFICIAL tool, the only available comparable method.

conclusionThe PEPOP methods were more efficient than, or as much as chance, and 33 of the 34 PEPOP methods performed better than SUPERFICIAL. Overall, "optimized" methods (tools that use the traveling salesman problem approach to design peptides) can predict peptides that best match true epitopes in most cases.

Indexed as

User-Computer InterfaceAntigen-Antibody ComplexComputational BiologyCrystallography, X-RayEpitopesPeptidesAntigen-Antibody ComplexEpitopesPeptidesAntigen-antibody interactionAntigenicityBenchmarkingDiscontinuous B-cell epitopeImmunogenicityMolecular mimicryPeptide designProtein-protein interactions (PPI)Protein surfaceStructural bioinformatics

Identifiers

PMID31888437
PMCPMC6937815
OpenAlexW2997114117

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.