IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1007757.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Benchmarking predictions of MHC class I restricted T cell epitopes in a comprehensively studied model system

Author

Listed:
  • Sinu Paul
  • Nathan P Croft
  • Anthony W Purcell
  • David C Tscharke
  • Alessandro Sette
  • Morten Nielsen
  • Bjoern Peters

Abstract

T cell epitope candidates are commonly identified using computational prediction tools in order to enable applications such as vaccine design, cancer neoantigen identification, development of diagnostics and removal of unwanted immune responses against protein therapeutics. Most T cell epitope prediction tools are based on machine learning algorithms trained on MHC binding or naturally processed MHC ligand elution data. The ability of currently available tools to predict T cell epitopes has not been comprehensively evaluated. In this study, we used a recently published dataset that systematically defined T cell epitopes recognized in vaccinia virus (VACV) infected C57BL/6 mice (expressing H-2Db and H-2Kb), considering both peptides predicted to bind MHC or experimentally eluted from infected cells, making this the most comprehensive dataset of T cell epitopes mapped in a complex pathogen. We evaluated the performance of all currently publicly available computational T cell epitope prediction tools to identify these major epitopes from all peptides encoded in the VACV proteome. We found that all methods were able to improve epitope identification above random, with the best performance achieved by neural network-based predictions trained on both MHC binding and MHC ligand elution data (NetMHCPan-4.0 and MHCFlurry). Impressively, these methods were able to capture more than half of the major epitopes in the top N = 277 predictions within the N = 767,788 predictions made for distinct peptides of relevant lengths that can theoretically be encoded in the VACV proteome. These performance metrics provide guidance for immunologists as to which prediction methods to use, and what success rates are possible for epitope predictions when considering a highly controlled system of administered immunizations to inbred mice. In addition, this benchmark was implemented in an open and easy to reproduce format, providing developers with a framework for future comparisons against new tools.Author summary: Computational prediction tools are used to screen peptides to identify potential T cell epitope candidates. These tools, developed using machine learning methods, save time and resources in many immunological studies including vaccine discovery and cancer neoantigen identification. In addition to the already existing methods several epitope prediction tools are being developed these days but they lack a comprehensive and uniform evaluation to see which method performs best. In this study we did a comprehensive evaluation of publicly accessible MHC I restricted T cell epitope prediction tools using a recently published dataset of Vaccinia virus epitopes identified in the context of H-2Db and H-2Kb. We found that methods based on artificial neural network architecture and trained on both MHC binding and ligand elution data showed very high performance (NetMHCPan-4.0 and MHCFlurry). This benchmark analysis will help immunologists to choose the right prediction method for their desired work and will also serve as a framework for tool developers to evaluate new prediction methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Sinu Paul & Nathan P Croft & Anthony W Purcell & David C Tscharke & Alessandro Sette & Morten Nielsen & Bjoern Peters, 2020. "Benchmarking predictions of MHC class I restricted T cell epitopes in a comprehensively studied model system," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(5), pages 1-18, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1007757
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007757
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007757
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007757&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007757?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Weilong Zhao & Xinwei Sher, 2018. "Systematically benchmarking peptide-MHC binding predictors: From synthetic to naturally processed epitopes," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-28, November.
    2. Bjoern Peters & Huynh-Hoa Bui & Sune Frankild & Morten Nielsen & Claus Lundegaard & Emrah Kostem & Derek Basch & Kasper Lamberth & Mikkel Harndahl & Ward Fleri & Stephen S Wilson & John Sidney & Ole L, 2006. "A Community Resource Benchmarking Predictions of Peptide Binding to MHC-I Molecules," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(6), pages 1-11, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hao Zhang & Peng Wang & Nikitas Papangelopoulos & Ying Xu & Alessandro Sette & Philip E Bourne & Ole Lund & Julia Ponomarenko & Morten Nielsen & Bjoern Peters, 2010. "Limitations of Ab Initio Predictions of Peptide Binding to MHC Class II Molecules," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(2), pages 1-10, February.
    2. Peng Wang & John Sidney & Courtney Dow & Bianca Mothé & Alessandro Sette & Bjoern Peters, 2008. "A Systematic Assessment of MHC Class II Peptide Binding Predictions and Evaluation of a Consensus Approach," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(4), pages 1-10, April.
    3. Samuel Rivero-Hinojosa & Melanie Grant & Aswini Panigrahi & Huizhen Zhang & Veronika Caisova & Catherine M. Bollard & Brian R. Rood, 2021. "Proteogenomic discovery of neoantigens facilitates personalized multi-antigen targeted T cell immunotherapy for brain tumors," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-15, December.
    4. Morten Nielsen & Claus Lundegaard & Thomas Blicher & Bjoern Peters & Alessandro Sette & Sune Justesen & Søren Buus & Ole Lund, 2008. "Quantitative Predictions of Peptide Binding to Any HLA-DR Molecule of Known Sequence: NetMHCIIpan," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(7), pages 1-10, July.
    5. Massimo Andreatta & Claus Schafer-Nielsen & Ole Lund & Søren Buus & Morten Nielsen, 2011. "NNAlign: A Web-Based Prediction Method Allowing Non-Expert End-User Discovery of Sequence Motifs in Quantitative Peptide Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(11), pages 1-11, November.
    6. Tomer Hertz & Hasan Ahmed & David P Friedrich & Danilo R Casimiro & Steven G Self & Lawrence Corey & M Juliana McElrath & Susan Buchbinder & Helen Horton & Nicole Frahm & Michael N Robertson & Barney , 2013. "HIV-1 Vaccine-Induced T-Cell Reponses Cluster in Epitope Hotspots that Differ from Those Induced in Natural Infection with HIV-1," PLOS Pathogens, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-14, June.
    7. Aidan MacNamara & Ulrich Kadolsky & Charles R M Bangham & Becca Asquith, 2009. "T-Cell Epitope Prediction: Rescaling Can Mask Biological Variation between MHC Molecules," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(3), pages 1-7, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1007757. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ploscompbiol (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.