ArticleMacromolecular rapid communications2024
A Computational Strategy for the Rapid Identification and Ranking of Patient-Specific T Cell Receptors Bound to Neoantigens.
Article in Macromolecular rapid communications, 2024. 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.
- The Reality of Active Targeting in Nanomedicine: Promise Versus Performance.Chembiochem : a European journal of chemical biology · 2026Review
- Article
- AI/ML-empowered approaches for predicting T Cell-mediated immunity and beyond.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Cancer vaccines: advances, hurdles, and future directions.Exploration of targeted anti-tumor therapy · 2025Review
- A Computational Strategy for the Rapid Identification and Ranking of Patient-Specific T Cell Receptors Bound to Neoantigens.Macromolecular rapid communications · 2024Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
T cell receptor (TCR) recognition of a peptide-major histocompatibility complex (pMHC) is crucial for adaptive immune response. The identification of therapeutically relevant TCR-pMHC protein pairs is a bottleneck in the implementation of TCR-based immunotherapies. The ability to computationally design TCRs to target a specific pMHC requires automated integration of next-generation sequencing, protein-protein structure prediction, molecular dynamics, and TCR ranking. A pipeline to evaluate patient-specific, sequence-based TCRs to a target pMHC is presented. Using the three most frequently expressed TCRs from 16 colorectal cancer patients, the protein-protein structure of the TCRs to the target CEA peptide-MHC is predicted using Modeller and ColabFold. TCR-pMHC structures are compared using automated equilibration and successive analysis. ColabFold generated configurations require an ≈2.5× reduction in equilibration time of TCR-pMHC structures compared to Modeller. The structural differences between Modeller and ColabFold are demonstrated by root mean square deviation (≈0.20 nm) between clusters of equilibrated configurations, which impact the number of hydrogen bonds and Lennard-Jones contacts between the TCR and pMHC. TCR ranking criteria that may prioritize TCRs for evaluation of in vitro immunogenicity are identified, and this ranking is validated by comparing to state-of-the-art machine learning-based methods trained to predict the probability of TCR-pMHC binding.
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.