Strength in numbers: achieving greater accuracy in MHC-I binding prediction by combining the results from multiple prediction tools

BackgroundPeptides derived from endogenous antigens can bind to MHC class I molecules. Those which bind with high affinity can invoke a CD8+ immune response, resulting in the destruction of infected cells. Much work in immunoinformatics has involved the algorithmic prediction of peptide binding affinity to various MHC-I alleles. A number of tools for MHC-I binding prediction have been developed, many of which are available on the web.ResultsWe hypothesize that peptides predicted by a number of tools are more likely to bind than those predicted by just one tool, and that the likelihood of a particular peptide being a binder is related to the number of tools that predict it, as well as the accuracy of those tools. To this end, we have built and tested a heuristic-based method of making MHC-binding predictions by combining the results from multiple tools. The predictive performance of each individual tool is first ascertained. These performance data are used to derive weights such that the predictions of tools with better accuracy are given greater credence. The combined tool was evaluated using ten-fold cross-validation and was found to signicantly outperform the individual tools when a high specificity threshold is used. It performs comparably well to the best-performing individual tools at lower specificity thresholds. Finally, it also outperforms the combination of the tools resulting from linear discriminant analysis.ConclusionA heuristic-based method of combining the results of the individual tools better facilitates the scanning of large proteomes for potential epitopes, yielding more actual high-affinity binders while reporting very few false positives.

[1]  Vladimir Brusic,et al.  MHCPEP, a database of MHC-binding peptides: update 1996 , 1997, Nucleic Acids Res..

[2]  Vladimir Brusic,et al.  MULTIPRED: a computational system for prediction of promiscuous HLA binding peptides , 2005, Nucleic Acids Res..

[3]  O. Lund,et al.  novel sequence representations Reliable prediction of T-cell epitopes using neural networks with , 2003 .

[4]  Morten Nielsen,et al.  A Community Resource Benchmarking Predictions of Peptide Binding to MHC-I Molecules , 2006, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[5]  Bjoern Peters,et al.  Automated generation and evaluation of specific MHC binding predictive tools: ARB matrix applications , 2005, Immunogenetics.

[6]  John Sidney,et al.  Examining the independent binding assumption for binding of peptide epitopes to MHC-I molecules , 2003, Bioinform..

[7]  J. Sidney,et al.  Identification of multiple HLA-A*0201-restricted cruzipain and FL-160 CD8+ epitopes recognized by T cells from chronically Trypanosoma cruzi-infected patients. , 2005, Microbes and infection.

[8]  O. Schueler‐Furman,et al.  Structure‐based prediction of binding peptides to MHC class I molecules: Application to a broad range of MHC alleles , 2000, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[9]  E. Reinherz,et al.  Prediction of MHC class I binding peptides using profile motifs. , 2002, Human immunology.

[10]  Alessandro Sette,et al.  Identification of New Epitopes from Four Different Tumor-Associated Antigens: Recognition of Naturally Processed Epitopes Correlates with HLA-A∗0201-Binding Affinity1 , 2001, The Journal of Immunology.

[11]  Arne Elofsson,et al.  Prediction of MHC class I binding peptides, using SVMHC , 2002, BMC Bioinformatics.

[12]  K. Parker,et al.  Scheme for ranking potential HLA-A2 binding peptides based on independent binding of individual peptide side-chains. , 1994, Journal of immunology.

[13]  Ferry Ossendorp,et al.  Efficient Identification of Novel Hla-A*0201–Presented Cytotoxic T Lymphocyte Epitopes in the Widely Expressed Tumor Antigen Prame by Proteasome-Mediated Digestion Analysis , 2001, The Journal of experimental medicine.

[14]  Pingping Guan,et al.  MHCPred: a server for quantitative prediction of peptide-MHC binding , 2003, Nucleic Acids Res..

[15]  Vladimir Brusic,et al.  Virtual models of the HLA class I antigen processing pathway. , 2004, Methods.

[16]  K. Ushijima,et al.  Vaccination with Predesignated or Evidence-Based Peptides for Patients with Recurrent Gynecologic Cancers , 2004, Journal of immunotherapy.

[17]  David J. Hand,et al.  Classifier Technology and the Illusion of Progress , 2006, math/0606441.

[18]  P. Barnes,et al.  Human CD8+ T cells recognize epitopes of the 28‐kDa hemolysin and the 38‐kDa antigen of Mycobacterium tuberculosis , 2003, Journal of leukocyte biology.

[19]  J. Becker,et al.  Spontaneous T-cell responses against peptides derived from the Taxol resistance–associated gene-3 (TRAG-3) protein in cancer patients , 2005, Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy.

[20]  David Heckerman,et al.  Leveraging Information Across HLA Alleles/Supertypes Improves Epitope Prediction , 2006, RECOMB.

[21]  S. H. van der Burg,et al.  Identification of potential HLA-A *0201 restricted CTL epitopes derived from the epithelial cell adhesion molecule (Ep-CAM) and the carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA). , 1997, Human immunology.

[22]  Vladimir Brusic,et al.  Prediction of promiscuous peptides that bind HLA class I molecules , 2002, Immunology and cell biology.

[23]  Channa K. Hattotuwagama,et al.  Quantitative online prediction of peptide binding to the major histocompatibility complex. , 2004, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[24]  V. Rich Personal communication , 1989, Nature.

[25]  A Sette,et al.  Role of HLA-A motifs in identification of potential CTL epitopes in human papillomavirus type 16 E6 and E7 proteins. , 1994, Journal of immunology.

[26]  Vladimir Brusic,et al.  Prediction of class I T-cell epitopes: evidence of presence of immunological hot spots inside antigens , 2004, ISMB/ECCB.

[27]  Hong Zhang,et al.  EPIMHC: a curated database of MHC-binding peptides for customized computational vaccinology , 2005, Bioinform..

[28]  S Brunak,et al.  Sensitive quantitative predictions of peptide-MHC binding by a 'Query by Committee' artificial neural network approach. , 2003, Tissue antigens.

[29]  Vladimir Brusic,et al.  MHCPEP, a database of MHC-binding peptides: update 1996 , 1997, Nucleic Acids Res..

[30]  A. Sette,et al.  Recognition of Variant HIV-1 Epitopes from Diverse Viral Subtypes by Vaccine-Induced CTL1 , 2004, The Journal of Immunology.

[31]  Søren Brunak,et al.  Improved prediction of MHC class I and class II epitopes using a novel Gibbs sampling approach , 2004, Bioinform..

[32]  H. Rammensee,et al.  SYFPEITHI: database for MHC ligands and peptide motifs , 1999, Immunogenetics.

[33]  J. Yewdell,et al.  Immunodominance in major histocompatibility complex class I-restricted T lymphocyte responses. , 1999, Annual review of immunology.

[34]  M. Sathiamurthy,et al.  Population of the HLA ligand database. , 2003, Tissue antigens.

[35]  L. Tussey,et al.  Mapping and binding analysis of peptides derived from the tumor-associated antigen survivin for eight HLA alleles. , 2005, Cancer immunity.