ArticleFrontiers in immunology2025
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Introduction: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an autoimmune disorder in which the immune system mounts an abnormal response to self-antigens, resulting in chronic inflammation and joint damage. Identifying antigenic regions in proteins that trigger RA is essential for the development of protein-based therapeutics. Methods: We developed predictive models for HLA class II binding RA-inducing peptides using a dataset of 291 experimentally validated RA-inducing peptides and 165 RA non-inducing peptides. Positional and compositional analyses were performed to identify residue preferences. Alignment-based approaches (BLAST and MERCI), machine learning classifiers, deep learning, and protein language model-based methods were evaluated for predictive performance. Results: Compositional analysis revealed significant enrichment of glycine, proline, and tyrosine in RA-inducing peptides. Alignment-based approaches provided high precision but limited coverage. Among machine learning methods, XGBoost achieved the best performance (AUC = 0.75) on the validation dataset, while ProtBERT was the top-performing protein language model (AUC = 0.72). The ensemble model integrating XGBoost with MERCI-derived motifs yielded the highest overall performance (AUC = 0.80; MCC = 0.45) on an independent validation dataset. Discussion: This study presents computational strategies for identifying RA-inducing peptides and demonstrates the advantage of combining motif-based and machine learning approaches for improved performance. The findings are valuable for evaluating the safety of proteins in probiotics, genetically modified foods, and protein-based therapeutics. To facilitate broader use, the best-performing approach has been implemented in RAIpred, a web server and standalone software tool for predicting and scanning RA-inducing peptides, available at https://webs.iiitd.edu.in/raghava/raipred/.
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.