ArticleImmunology2021
Comparison of HLA ligand elution data and binding predictions reveals varying prediction performance for the multiple motifs recognized by HLA-DQ2.5.
Article in Immunology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Benchmarking sequence-based and AlphaFold-based methods for pMHC-II binding core prediction: distinct strengths and consensus approaches.BMC medical genomics · 2026Article
- Computational methods and data resources for predicting tumor neoantigens.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Review
- Modeling Peptide-Protein Interactions by a Logo-Based Method: Application in Peptide-HLA Binding Predictions.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Assessment of Novel Proteins Triggering Celiac Disease via Docking-Based Approach.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Human T cells recognize HLA-DP-bound peptides in two orientations.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Binding prediction tools are commonly used to identify peptides presented on MHC class II molecules. Recently, a wealth of data in the form of naturally eluted ligands has become available and discrepancies between ligand elution data and binding predictions have been reported. Quantitative metrics for such comparisons are currently lacking. In this study, we assessed how efficiently MHC class II binding predictions can identify naturally eluted peptides, and investigated instances with discrepancies between the two methods in detail. We found that, in general, MHC class II eluted ligands are predicted to bind to their reported restriction element with high affinity. But, for several studies reporting an increased number of ligands that were not predicted to bind, we found that the reported MHC restriction was ambiguous. Additional analyses determined that most of the ligands predicted to not bind, are predicted to bind other co-expressed MHC class II molecules. For selected alleles, we addressed discrepancies between elution data and binding predictions by experimental measurements and found that predicted and measured affinities correlate well. For DQA1*05:01/DQB1*02:01 (DQ2.5) however, binding predictions did miss several peptides that were determined experimentally to be binders. For these peptides and several known DQ2.5 binders, we determined key residues for conferring DQ2.5 binding capacity, which revealed that DQ2.5 utilizes two different binding motifs, of which only one is predicted effectively. These findings have important implications for the interpretation of ligand elution data and for the improvement of MHC class II binding predictions.
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.