ArticleScientific reports2023
Benchmarking data-driven filtering for denoising of TCRpMHC single-cell data.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- The challenge and promise of studying human antigen-specific T cells.Nature reviews. Immunology · 2026Review
- nuTCRacker: Predicting the Recognition of HLA-I-Peptide Complexes by αβTCRs for Unseen Peptides.European journal of immunology · 2025Article
- Phage display enables machine learning discovery of cancer antigen-specific TCRs.Science advances · 2025Article
- TCRCluster: a novel approach to T-cell receptor latent featurization and clustering using contrastive learning-guided two-stage variational autoencoders.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Deep learning predictions of TCR-epitope interactions reveal epitope-specific chains in dual alpha T cells.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- TCR-pMHC Binding Specificity Prediction From Structure Using Graph Neural Networks.IEEE transactions on computational biology and bioinformaticsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Pairing of the T cell receptor (TCR) with its cognate peptide-MHC (pMHC) is a cornerstone in T cell-mediated immunity. Recently, single-cell sequencing coupled with DNA-barcoded MHC multimer staining has enabled high-throughput studies of T cell specificities. However, the immense variability of TCR-pMHC interactions combined with the relatively low signal-to-noise ratio in the data generated using current technologies are complicating these studies. Several approaches have been proposed for denoising single-cell TCR-pMHC specificity data. Here, we present a benchmark evaluating two such denoising methods, ICON and ITRAP. We applied and evaluated the methods on publicly available immune profiling data provided by 10x Genomics. We find that both methods identified approximately 75% of the raw data as noise. We analyzed both internal metrics developed for the purpose and performance on independent data using machine learning methods trained on the raw and denoised 10x data. We find an increased signal-to-noise ratio comparing the denoised to the raw data for both methods, and demonstrate an overall superior performance of the ITRAP method in terms of both data consistency and performance. In conclusion, this study demonstrates that Improving the data quality from high throughput studies of TCRpMHC-specificity by denoising is paramount in increasing our understanding of T cell-mediated immunity.
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.