Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32453790›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2020

Benchmarking predictions of MHC class I restricted T cell epitopes in a comprehensively studied model system.

Sinu Paul, Nathan P Croft, Anthony W Purcell, David C Tscharke, Alessandro Sette, Morten Nielsen, Bjoern Peters

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

51 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 90 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Sinu PaulDivision of Vaccine Discovery, La Jolla Institute for Immunology, La Jolla, California, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-8964-0244
Nathan P CroftInfection and Immunity Program, Biomedicine Discovery Institute, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2128-5127
Anthony W PurcellInfection and Immunity Program, Biomedicine Discovery Institute, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0532-8331
David C TscharkeJohn Curtin School of Medical Research, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6825-9172
Alessandro SetteDivision of Vaccine Discovery, La Jolla Institute for Immunology, La Jolla, California, United States of America.
Morten NielsenDepartment of Bio and Health Informatics, Technical University of Denmark, DK Lyngby, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-7885-4311
Bjoern PetersDivision of Vaccine Discovery, La Jolla Institute for Immunology, La Jolla, California, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-8457-6693
La Jolla Institute for Immunology · USAustralian Regenerative Medicine Institute · AUAustralian National University · AUNational University of General San Martín · AR

Funding

IMMUNE EPITOPE AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM: Transplantation of organs, tissues and cells 75N93019C00001 · NIAID · LA JOLLA INSTITUTE FOR IMMUNOLOGY · PI WILSON, STEPHEN · 2019 to 2025
$23.1M
NIAID NIH HHS 75N93019C00001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

T cell epitope candidates are commonly identified using computational prediction tools in order to enable applications such as vaccine design, cancer neoantigen identification, development of diagnostics and removal of unwanted immune responses against protein therapeutics. Most T cell epitope prediction tools are based on machine learning algorithms trained on MHC binding or naturally processed MHC ligand elution data. The ability of currently available tools to predict T cell epitopes has not been comprehensively evaluated. In this study, we used a recently published dataset that systematically defined T cell epitopes recognized in vaccinia virus (VACV) infected C57BL/6 mice (expressing H-2Db and H-2Kb), considering both peptides predicted to bind MHC or experimentally eluted from infected cells, making this the most comprehensive dataset of T cell epitopes mapped in a complex pathogen. We evaluated the performance of all currently publicly available computational T cell epitope prediction tools to identify these major epitopes from all peptides encoded in the VACV proteome. We found that all methods were able to improve epitope identification above random, with the best performance achieved by neural network-based predictions trained on both MHC binding and MHC ligand elution data (NetMHCPan-4.0 and MHCFlurry). Impressively, these methods were able to capture more than half of the major epitopes in the top N = 277 predictions within the N = 767,788 predictions made for distinct peptides of relevant lengths that can theoretically be encoded in the VACV proteome. These performance metrics provide guidance for immunologists as to which prediction methods to use, and what success rates are possible for epitope predictions when considering a highly controlled system of administered immunizations to inbred mice. In addition, this benchmark was implemented in an open and easy to reproduce format, providing developers with a framework for future comparisons against new tools.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsAllelesAllergy and ImmunologyAnimalsArea Under CurveAutomationEpitopes, T-LymphocyteHistocompatibility Antigens Class IImmune SystemLigandsMachine LearningMiceMice, Inbred C57BLNeural Networks, ComputerPeptidesProtein BindingEpitopes, T-LymphocyteHistocompatibility Antigens Class ILigandsPeptidesProteome

Identifiers

PMID32453790
PMCPMC7274474
OpenAlexW3031211151

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.