Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35471658›Full record

ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2022

Evaluating performance of existing computational models in predicting CD8+ T cell pathogenic epitopes and cancer neoantigens.

Paul R Buckley, Chloe H Lee, Ruichong Ma, Isaac Woodhouse, Jeongmin Woo, Vasily O Tsvetkov, Dmitrii S Shcherbinin, Agne Antanaviciute, Mikhail Shughay, Margarida Rei and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  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

12 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Paul R BuckleyMRC Human Immunology Unit, Medical Research Council (MRC) Human Immunology Unit, MRC Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine (WIMM), John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Chloe H LeeMRC Human Immunology Unit, Medical Research Council (MRC) Human Immunology Unit, MRC Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine (WIMM), John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Ruichong MaMRC Human Immunology Unit, Medical Research Council (MRC) Human Immunology Unit, MRC Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine (WIMM), John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Isaac WoodhouseCentre for Immuno-Oncology, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Jeongmin WooMRC Human Immunology Unit, Medical Research Council (MRC) Human Immunology Unit, MRC Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine (WIMM), John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Vasily O TsvetkovChief Scientific Officer, ImmunoMind Inc, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Dmitrii S ShcherbininDepartment of Genomics of Adaptive Immunity, Shemyakin-Ovchinnikov Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry, Moscow, 117997, Russia.
Agne AntanaviciuteMRC Human Immunology Unit, Medical Research Council (MRC) Human Immunology Unit, MRC Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine (WIMM), John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Mikhail ShughayDepartment of Genomics of Adaptive Immunity, Shemyakin-Ovchinnikov Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry, Moscow, 117997, Russia.
Margarida ReiThe Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Old Road Campus Research Building, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Alison SimmonsMRC Human Immunology Unit, Medical Research Council (MRC) Human Immunology Unit, MRC Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine (WIMM), John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Hashem KoohyMRC Human Immunology Unit, Medical Research Council (MRC) Human Immunology Unit, MRC Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine (WIMM), John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3640-7043
John Radcliffe Hospital · GBPirogov Russian National Research Medical University · RUUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_MR/S025952/1Medical Research Council MC_UU_00008/7Medical Research Council MC_UU_12010/3Medical Research Council MC_UU_12010/7Medical Research Council MR/S036377/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

T cell recognition of a cognate peptide-major histocompatibility complex (pMHC) presented on the surface of infected or malignant cells is of the utmost importance for mediating robust and long-term immune responses. Accurate predictions of cognate pMHC targets for T cell receptors would greatly facilitate identification of vaccine targets for both pathogenic diseases and personalized cancer immunotherapies. Predicting immunogenic peptides therefore has been at the center of intensive research for the past decades but has proven challenging. Although numerous models have been proposed, performance of these models has not been systematically evaluated and their success rate in predicting epitopes in the context of human pathology has not been measured and compared. In this study, we evaluated the performance of several publicly available models, in identifying immunogenic CD8+ T cell targets in the context of pathogens and cancers. We found that for predicting immunogenic peptides from an emerging virus such as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, none of the models perform substantially better than random or offer considerable improvement beyond HLA ligand prediction. We also observed suboptimal performance for predicting cancer neoantigens. Through investigation of potential factors associated with ill performance of models, we highlight several data- and model-associated issues. In particular, we observed that cross-HLA variation in the distribution of immunogenic and non-immunogenic peptides in the training data of the models seems to substantially confound the predictions. We additionally compared key parameters associated with immunogenicity between pathogenic peptides and cancer neoantigens and observed evidence for differences in the thresholds of binding affinity and stability, which suggested the need to modulate different features in identifying immunogenic pathogen versus cancer peptides. Overall, we demonstrate that accurate and reliable predictions of immunogenic CD8+ T cell targets remain unsolved; thus, we hope our work will guide users and model developers regarding potential pitfalls and unsettled questions in existing immunogenicity predictors.

Indexed as

COVID-19NeoplasmsCD8-Positive T-LymphocytesComputer SimulationEpitopes, T-LymphocyteHumansPeptidesEpitopes, T-LymphocytePeptidescancer neoantigenCD8 T-cell targetimmunotherapypeptide immunogenicitypeptide presentationT-cell response

Identifiers

PMID35471658
PMCPMC9116217
OpenAlexW4226224447

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.