» Articles » PMID: 20174654

Limitations of Ab Initio Predictions of Peptide Binding to MHC Class II Molecules

Overview
Journal PLoS One
Date 2010 Feb 23
PMID 20174654
Citations 26
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Successful predictions of peptide MHC binding typically require a large set of binding data for the specific MHC molecule that is examined. Structure based prediction methods promise to circumvent this requirement by evaluating the physical contacts a peptide can make with an MHC molecule based on the highly conserved 3D structure of peptide:MHC complexes. While several such methods have been described before, most are not publicly available and have not been independently tested for their performance. We here implemented and evaluated three prediction methods for MHC class II molecules: statistical potentials derived from the analysis of known protein structures; energetic evaluation of different peptide snapshots in a molecular dynamics simulation; and direct analysis of contacts made in known 3D structures of peptide:MHC complexes. These methods are ab initio in that they require structural data of the MHC molecule examined, but no specific peptide:MHC binding data. Moreover, these methods retain the ability to make predictions in a sufficiently short time scale to be useful in a real world application, such as screening a whole proteome for candidate binding peptides. A rigorous evaluation of each methods prediction performance showed that these are significantly better than random, but still substantially lower than the best performing sequence based class II prediction methods available. While the approaches presented here were developed independently, we have chosen to present our results together in order to support the notion that generating structure based predictions of peptide:MHC binding without using binding data is unlikely to give satisfactory results.

Citing Articles

Immunogenicity Assessment of Therapeutic Peptides.

Li W, Wei J, Jiang Q, Zhou Y, Yan X, Xiang C Curr Med Chem. 2024; 31(26):4100-4110.

PMID: 38275064 DOI: 10.2174/0109298673264899231206093930.


Computational Methods in Immunology and Vaccinology: Design and Development of Antibodies and Immunogens.

Guarra F, Colombo G J Chem Theory Comput. 2023; 19(16):5315-5333.

PMID: 37527403 PMC: 10448727. DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc.3c00513.


Immunoinformatics: Predicting Peptide-MHC Binding.

Nielsen M, Andreatta M, Peters B, Buus S Annu Rev Biomed Data Sci. 2023; 3:191-215.

PMID: 37427310 PMC: 10328453. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-biodatasci-021920-100259.


Computationally-Aided Modeling of Hsp70-Client Interactions: Past, Present, and Future.

Nordquist E, Clerico E, Chen J, Gierasch L J Phys Chem B. 2022; 126(36):6780-6791.

PMID: 36040440 PMC: 10309085. DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcb.2c03806.


Immunogenic epitope prediction to create a universal influenza vaccine.

Mintaev R, Glazkova D, Bogoslovskaya E, Shipulin G Heliyon. 2022; 8(5):e09364.

PMID: 35540935 PMC: 9079173. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09364.


References
1.
Jojic N, Reyes-Gomez M, Heckerman D, Kadie C, Schueler-Furman O . Learning MHC I--peptide binding. Bioinformatics. 2006; 22(14):e227-35. DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btl255. View

2.
Nielsen M, Lundegaard C, Blicher T, Lamberth K, Harndahl M, Justesen S . NetMHCpan, a method for quantitative predictions of peptide binding to any HLA-A and -B locus protein of known sequence. PLoS One. 2007; 2(8):e796. PMC: 1949492. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000796. View

3.
Berman H, Westbrook J, Feng Z, Gilliland G, Bhat T, Weissig H . The Protein Data Bank. Nucleic Acids Res. 1999; 28(1):235-42. PMC: 102472. DOI: 10.1093/nar/28.1.235. View

4.
Phillips J, Braun R, Wang W, Gumbart J, Tajkhorshid E, Villa E . Scalable molecular dynamics with NAMD. J Comput Chem. 2005; 26(16):1781-802. PMC: 2486339. DOI: 10.1002/jcc.20289. View

5.
Zaitlen N, Reyes-Gomez M, Heckerman D, Jojic N . Shift-invariant adaptive double threading: learning MHC II-peptide binding. J Comput Biol. 2008; 15(7):927-42. DOI: 10.1089/cmb.2007.0183. View