2010
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2567.2010.03300.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Major histocompatibility complex class I binding predictions as a tool in epitope discovery

Abstract: SummaryOver the last decade, in silico models of the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I pathway have developed significantly. Before, peptide binding could only be reliably modelled for a few major human or mouse histocompatibility molecules; now, high-accuracy predictions are available for any human leucocyte antigen (HLA) -A or -B molecule with known protein sequence. Furthermore, peptide binding to MHC molecules from several non-human primates, mouse strains and other mammals can now be predicte… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
83
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 114 publications
(85 citation statements)
references
References 103 publications
2
83
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In fact, whether proteasomal cleavage and TAP transport predictions should be incorporated into neoepitope prediction pipelines is another controversially discussed topic. 5,45,48 The fact that we did not see an increase in performance when combining binding and proteasomal cleavage and/or TAP transport predictions should however not be taken to signify that these processes are not relevant. Proteasomal cleavage prediction and TAP transport prediction alone achieved reasonable AUC values, showing that these tools indeed have predictive value, but this value gets lost when combined with binding predictions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 71%
“…In fact, whether proteasomal cleavage and TAP transport predictions should be incorporated into neoepitope prediction pipelines is another controversially discussed topic. 5,45,48 The fact that we did not see an increase in performance when combining binding and proteasomal cleavage and/or TAP transport predictions should however not be taken to signify that these processes are not relevant. Proteasomal cleavage prediction and TAP transport prediction alone achieved reasonable AUC values, showing that these tools indeed have predictive value, but this value gets lost when combined with binding predictions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 71%
“…A total of 76 (38%) of the 200 positive HLA-restricted ELISpot responses corresponded to at least one predicted nonamer epitope with a concordant predicted HLA restriction (see Table S1). This relatively low extent of correspondence among the discovered HLA-restricted immunogenic peptides and predicted HLA binding motifs is comparable to those reported for other pathogens (27) and can be attributed, at least in part, to the fact that HLA binding prediction does not account for the pivotal role of the TCR in the immunogenicity of a peptide (67).…”
Section: Identification Of Hla-restricted T-cell Ligand Sequences Of mentioning
confidence: 63%
“…For example, it is known that HLA-A*0201 and HLA A*0301 share 93% sequence identity but exhibit completely different peptide binding specificities [19]. Thus, clustering on function rather than sequence of MHC molecules is a more important parameter in CTL biology and immunology.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%