ArticleJournal of proteomics2020
An input-controlled model system for identification of MHC bound peptides enabling laboratory comparisons of immunopeptidome experiments.
Article in Journal of proteomics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic evaluation of neoepitope predictions challenges clinically observed T-cell responses and their impact on immune evasion.Journal for immunotherapy of cancer · 2026Article
- Article
- Low-dose CDK4/6 inhibitors induce presentation of pathway specific MHC ligands as potential targets for cancer immunotherapy.Oncoimmunology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Characterization of MHC-bound peptides by mass spectrometry (MS) is an essential technique for immunologic studies. Many efforts have been made to quantify the number of MHC-presented ligands by MS and to define the limits of detection of a specific MHC ligand. However, these experiments are often complex and comparisons across different laboratories are challenging. Therefore, we compared and orthogonally validated quantitation of peptide:MHC complexes by radioimmunoassay and flow cytometry using TCR mimic antibodies in three model systems to establish a method to control the experimental input of peptide MHC:complexes for MS analysis. Following isolation of MHC-bound peptides we identified and quantified an MHC ligand of interest with high correlation to the initial input. We found that the diversity of the presented ligandome, as well as the peptide sequence itself affected the detection of the target peptide. Furthermore, results were applicable from these model systems to unmodified cell lines with a tight correlation between HLA-A*02 complex input and the number of identified HLA-A*02 ligands. Overall, this framework provides an easily accessible experimental setup that offers the opportunity to control the peptide:MHC input and in this way compare immunopeptidome experiments not only within but also between laboratories, independent of their experimental approach. SIGNIFICANCE: Although immunopeptidomics is an essential tool for the characterization of MHCbound peptides on the cell surface, there are no easily applicable established protocols available that allow comparison of immunopeptidome experiments across laboratories. Here, we demonstrate that controlling the peptide:MHC input for immunopurification and LC-MS/MS experiments by flow cytometry in pre-defined model systems allows the generation of qualitative and quantitative data that can easily be compared between investigators, independently of their methods for MHC ligand isolation for MS.
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.