4.6 Article

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

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 5, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0009272

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [HHSN26620040006C, HHSN266200400083C, HHSN266200400025C]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据