ArticlePLoS computational biology2020
Benchmarking predictions of MHC class I restricted T cell epitopes in a comprehensively studied model system.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
51 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 90 citations in OpenAlex.
- Opportunities and challenges with artificial intelligence in allergy and immunology: a bibliometric study.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- A systemic review of T-cell epitopes defined from the proteome of SARS-CoV-2.Virus research · 2023Pooled it
- A Deep Learning-Driven Framework Integrating Organoid-Based Functional Validation Identifies Universal Neoantigens from Recurrent Glioma Mutations.Cancer research · 2026Article
- De novo and scaffold-based design of GDF15 binders for cancer cachexia diagnostics and therapeutics.Experimental & molecular medicine · 2026Article
- HLA-driven variability in human cytomegalovirus immune recognition: Epitope predictions from a kidney transplant Cohort.PloS one · 2026Article
- De-motif sampling: an approach to decompose hierarchical motifs with applications in T cell recognition.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Comprehensive assessment of computational methods for cancer immunoediting.Cell reports methods · 2025Article
- Adoptive T Cell Therapy Targeting MAGE-A4.Cancers · 2025Review
- Targeting Yezo Virus Structural Proteins for Multi-Epitope Vaccine Design Using Immunoinformatics Approach.Viruses · 2024Article
- A large-scale study of peptide features defining immunogenicity of cancer neo-epitopes.NAR cancer · 2024Article
- Transfer learning improves pMHC kinetic stability and immunogenicity predictions.Immunoinformatics (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2024Article
- Host genetic variants, Epstein-Barr virus subtypes, and the risk of nasopharyngeal carcinoma: Assessment of interaction and mediation.Cell genomics · 2024Article
- Splicing neoantigen discovery with SNAF reveals shared targets for cancer immunotherapy.Science translational medicine · 2024Article
- Virus-like particle-mediated delivery of structure-selected neoantigens demonstrates immunogenicity and antitumoral activity in mice.Journal of translational medicine · 2024Article
- In Silico Tools for Predicting Novel Epitopes.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024Article
- Neoplasia risk in patients with Lynch syndrome treated with immune checkpoint blockade.Nature medicine · 2023Article
- HLA Class I Genotype Is Associated with Relapse Risk after Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation for NPM1-Mutated Acute Myeloid Leukemia.Transplantation and cellular therapy · 2023Article
- Antigen-specificity measurements are the key to understanding T cell responses.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Review
- CrossDome: an interactive R package to predict cross-reactivity risk using immunopeptidomics databases.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Article
- Recent developments in systems biology and genetic engineering toward design of vaccines for TB.Critical reviews in biotechnology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.