ArticlePloS one2024
Assessing the predictive ability of computational epitope prediction methods on Fel d 1 and other allergens.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identification of a Conserved Linear Epitope in SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid Protein Recognized by Monoclonal Antibody N179.Viruses · 2026Article
- Deciphering Allergen Peptides for Dermatological and Cosmetic Applications with Explainable Artificial Intelligence.Journal of proteome research · 2026Article
- Design of a global population-covering multi-epitope mRNA vaccine against Lassa virus using immunoinformatics.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Structural and Stability Analysis of GRP Family Allergens Pru p 7 and Cry j 7, Which Cause Pollen and Food Allergy Syndrome.Biomolecules · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While computational epitope prediction methods have found broad application, their use, specifically in allergy-related contexts, remains relatively less explored. This study benchmarks several publicly available epitope prediction tools, focusing on the allergenic IgE and T-cell epitopes of Fel d 1, an extensively studied allergen. Using a variety of tools accessible via the Immune Epitope Database (IEDB) and other resources, we evaluate their ability to identify the known linear IgE and T-cell epitopes of Fel d 1. Our results show a limited effectiveness for B-cell epitope prediction methods, with most performing only marginally better than random selection. We also explored the general predictive abilities on other allergens, and the results were largely random. When predicting T-cell epitopes, ProPred successfully identified all known Fel d 1 T-cell epitopes, whereas the IEDB approach missed two known epitopes and demonstrated a tendency to over-predict. However, when applied to a larger test set, both methods performed only slightly better than random selection. Our findings show the limitations of current computational epitope prediction methods in accurately identifying allergenic epitopes, emphasizing the need for methodological advancements in allergen research.
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.