4.7 Review

In silico T cell epitope identification for SARS-CoV-2: Progress and perspectives

期刊

ADVANCED DRUG DELIVERY REVIEWS
卷 171, 期 -, 页码 29-47

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.addr.2021.01.007

关键词

Coronavirus; COVID-19; Computational prediction; SARS-CoV; Peptide-HLA binding; Immunogenicity; Allergenicity; Toxicity; Reverse vaccinology; Immunoinformatics

资金

  1. General Research Fund of the Hong Kong Research Grants Council (RGC) [16204519, 16201620]
  2. Fellowship Scheme (HKPFS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Growing evidence indicates the critical role T cells may play in combating SARS-CoV-2, highlighting the importance of COVID-19 vaccines that can elicit a robust T cell response. In silico methods have been used for the prediction of SARS-CoV-2 T cell epitopes, revealing potential future research directions.
Growing evidence suggests that T cells may play a critical role in combating severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Hence, COVID-19 vaccines that can elicit a robust T cell response may be particularly important. The design, development and experimental evaluation of such vaccines is aided by an understanding of the landscape of T cell epitopes of SARS-CoV-2, which is largely unknown. Due to the challenges of identifying epitopes experimentally, many studies have proposed the use of in silico methods. Here, we present a review of the in silico methods that have been used for the prediction of SARS-CoV-2 T cell epitopes. These methods employ a diverse set of technical approaches, often rooted in machine learning. A performance comparison is provided based on the ability to identify a specific set of immunogenic epitopes that have been determined experimentally to be targeted by T cells in convalescent COVID-19 patients, shedding light on the relative performance merits of the different approaches adopted by the in silico studies. The review also puts forward perspectives for future re-search directions. (c) 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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