Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35869117›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

An in silico approach to study the role of epitope order in the multi-epitope-based peptide (MEBP) vaccine design.

Muthu Raj Salaikumaran, Prasanna Sudharson Kasamuthu, Veeranarayanan Surya Aathmanathan, V L S Prasad Burra

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Multi Epitopic Peptide Based Vaccine Development Targeting Immobilization Antigen ofInternational journal of peptide research and therapeutics · 2023
    Article
  10. A novel vaccine based on SARS-CoV-2 CD4Scientific reports · 2022
    Article
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

4 authors.

Muthu Raj SalaikumaranCentre for Advanced Research and Innovation in Structural Biology of Diseases, K L E F University, Vaddeswaram, Andhra Pradesh, 522 502, India.
Prasanna Sudharson KasamuthuCentre for Advanced Research and Innovation in Structural Biology of Diseases, K L E F University, Vaddeswaram, Andhra Pradesh, 522 502, India.
Veeranarayanan Surya AathmanathanCentre for Advanced Research and Innovation in Structural Biology of Diseases, K L E F University, Vaddeswaram, Andhra Pradesh, 522 502, India.
V L S Prasad BurraCentre for Advanced Research and Innovation in Structural Biology of Diseases, K L E F University, Vaddeswaram, Andhra Pradesh, 522 502, India. dr.prasad.bvls@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With different countries facing multiple waves, with some SARS-CoV-2 variants more deadly and virulent, the COVID-19 pandemic is becoming more dangerous by the day and the world is facing an even more dreadful extended pandemic with exponential positive cases and increasing death rates. There is an urgent need for more efficient and faster methods of vaccine development against SARS-CoV-2. Compared to experimental protocols, the opportunities to innovate are very high in immunoinformatics/in silico approaches, especially with the recent adoption of structural bioinformatics in peptide vaccine design. In recent times, multi-epitope-based peptide vaccine candidates (MEBPVCs) have shown extraordinarily high humoral and cellular responses to immunization. Most of the publications claim that respective reported MEBPVC(s) assembled using a set of in silico predicted epitopes, to be the computationally validated potent vaccine candidate(s) ready for experimental validation. However, in this article, for a given set of predicted epitopes, it is shown that the published MEBPVC is one among the many possible variants and there is high likelihood of finding more potent MEBPVCs than the published candidates. To test the same, a methodology is developed where novel MEBP variants are derived by changing the epitope order of the published MEBPVC. Further, to overcome the limitations of current qualitative methods of assessment of MEBPVC, to enable quantitative comparison and ranking for the discovery of more potent MEBPVCs, novel predictors, Percent Epitope Accessibility (PEA), Receptor specific MEBP vaccine potency (RMVP), MEBP vaccine potency (MVP) are introduced. The MEBP variants indeed showed varied MVP scores indicating varied immunogenicity. Further, the MEBP variants with IDs, SPVC_446 and SPVC_537, had the highest MVP scores indicating these variants to be more potent MEBPVCs than the published MEBPVC and hence should be preferred candidates for immediate experimental testing and validation. The method enables quicker selection and high throughput experimental validation of vaccine candidates. This study also opens the opportunity to develop new software tools for designing more potent MEBPVCs in less time.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2Enkephalin, MethionineEpitopesEpitopes, B-LymphocyteEpitopes, T-LymphocyteHumansMolecular Docking SimulationPandemicsPeptidesVaccines, Subunitenkephalin-Met, 4'-bromo-Phe(4)-Enkephalin, MethionineEpitopesEpitopes, B-LymphocyteEpitopes, T-LymphocytePeptidesVaccines, Subunit

Identifiers

PMID35869117
PMCPMC9307121

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.