ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2026
ImmunoPepper: extracting personalized peptides from complex splicing graphs.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2026. 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
Abstract
motivationRNA sequencing enables the characterization of a cell's transcript isoforms in healthy and disease conditions. In the context of cancer, local transcript variability may translate to splicing-derived tumor-associated peptides recognized by the immune system. A software tool that extracts such candidate peptides, is of great interest for personalized cancer therapy.
resultsWe present the open-source software tool ImmunoPepper, which extracts a set of biologically plausible peptides from a splicing graph, derived from a set of RNA-seq datasets. This peptide set can be personalized with germline and somatic variation and takes novel RNA splice variants into account. ImmunoPepper supports several filtering options, including subtraction of normal tissue background, prediction of MHC-binding affinity, as well as MassSpec-based validation of identified peptides. We analyzed 32 ovarian cancer (TCGA-OV) and 31 breast invasive carcinoma (TCGA-BRCA) samples, with a strict cancer-specific filtering configuration, and obtained on average 834 and 569 cancer-specific predicted MHC-I binding 9-mers per sample, for each cohort, respectively. MassSpec validation with the target-decoy competition Subset-Neighbor-Search (SNS) showed an average validation rate of 4.5% per TCGA-OV sample and 5.3% per TCGA-BRCA sample. This corresponded to 25 MHC-I binders 9-mers per TCGA-OV sample, and 20 MHC-I binders 9-mers per TCGA-BRCA sample in average. Finally, we draw conclusions about the best framework for generation of splicing-derived neoepitopes and recommend to use joint data structures when processing homogeneously a cancer and a normal cohort and to focus on reproducibility of the candidates across generation pipelines. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: ImmunoPepper is implemented in Python 3 and is available as open-source software at https://github.com/ratschlab/immunopepper. The online documentation can be found at https://immunopepper.readthedocs.io/en/latest/.
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.