A critical cross-validation of high throughput structural binding prediction methods for pMHC

T-cells recognize antigens via their T-cell receptors. The major histocompatibility complex (MHC) binds antigens in a specific way, transports them to the surface and presents the peptides to the TCR. Many in silico approaches have been developed to predict the binding characteristics of potential T-cell epitopes (peptides), with most of them being based solely on the amino acid sequence. We present a structural approach which provides insights into the spatial binding geometry. We combine different tools for side chain substitution (threading), energy minimization, as well as scoring methods for protein/peptide interfaces. The focus of this study is on high data throughput in combination with accurate results. These methods are not meant to predict the accurate binding free energy but to give a certain direction for the classification of peptides into peptides that are potential binders and peptides that definitely do not bind to a given MHC structure. In total we performed approximately 83,000 binding affinity prediction runs to evaluate interactions between peptides and MHCs, using different combinations of tools. Depending on the tools used, the prediction quality ranged from almost random to around 75% of accuracy for correctly predicting a peptide to be either a binder or a non-binder. The prediction quality strongly depends on all three evaluation steps, namely, the threading of the peptide, energy minimization and scoring.

[1]  E. DeLong,et al.  Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. , 1988, Biometrics.

[2]  Takuya Takahashi,et al.  Prediction of T-cell epitope. , 2007, Journal of pharmacological sciences.

[3]  Karina Yusim,et al.  Immunoinformatics Comes of Age , 2006, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[4]  C. Spearman The proof and measurement of association between two things. By C. Spearman, 1904. , 1987, The American journal of psychology.

[5]  Thomas Lengauer,et al.  IRECS: A new algorithm for the selection of most probable ensembles of side‐chain conformations in protein models , 2007, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[6]  J. Whisstock,et al.  A Structural Basis for the Selection of Dominant αβ T Cell Receptors in Antiviral Immunity , 2003 .

[7]  Uthaman Gowthaman,et al.  In silico tools for predicting peptides binding to HLA-class II molecules: more confusion than conclusion. , 2008, Journal of proteome research.

[8]  Olivier Michielin,et al.  Comparison between computational alanine scanning and per‐residue binding free energy decomposition for protein–protein association using MM‐GBSA: Application to the TCR‐p‐MHC complex , 2007, Proteins.

[9]  Shunzhou Wan,et al.  Large‐scale molecular dynamics simulations of HLA‐A*0201 complexed with a tumor‐specific antigenic peptide: Can the α3 and β2m domains be neglected? , 2004, J. Comput. Chem..

[10]  Adrian A Canutescu,et al.  Access the most recent version at doi: 10.1110/ps.03154503 References , 2003 .

[11]  H. Rammensee,et al.  Allele-specific motifs revealed by sequencing of self-peptides eluted from MHC molecules , 1991, Nature.

[12]  D Rognan,et al.  Molecular dynamics study of a complex between the human histocompatibility antigen HLA-A2 and the IMP58-66 nonapeptide from influenza virus matrix protein. , 1992, European journal of biochemistry.

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

[14]  David S. Goodsell,et al.  A semiempirical free energy force field with charge‐based desolvation , 2007, J. Comput. Chem..

[15]  T. N. Bhat,et al.  The Protein Data Bank , 2000, Nucleic Acids Res..

[16]  T Sasazuki,et al.  Magnitude of structural changes of the T-cell receptor binding regions determine the strength of T-cell antagonism: molecular dynamics simulations of HLA-DR4 (DRB1*0405) complexed with analogue peptide. , 2000, Protein engineering.

[17]  C Grégoire,et al.  Covalent assembly of a soluble T cell receptor-peptide-major histocompatibility class I complex. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[18]  D. Rognan,et al.  Predicting binding affinities of protein ligands from three-dimensional models: application to peptide binding to class I major histocompatibility proteins. , 1999, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[19]  Luhua Lai,et al.  Further development and validation of empirical scoring functions for structure-based binding affinity prediction , 2002, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[20]  Berk Hess,et al.  GROMACS 3.0: a package for molecular simulation and trajectory analysis , 2001 .

[21]  H. Stockinger,et al.  Analysis of key parameters for molecular dynamics of pMHC molecules , 2008 .

[22]  U. Omasits,et al.  Side chain substitution benchmark for peptide/MHC interaction , 2008, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[23]  J. Hanley,et al.  The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. , 1982, Radiology.

[24]  S. Brunak,et al.  Predicting proteasomal cleavage sites: a comparison of available methods. , 2003, International immunology.

[25]  Pedro Alexandrino Fernandes,et al.  Protein–ligand docking: Current status and future challenges , 2006, Proteins.

[26]  Ettore Appella,et al.  Single MHC mutation eliminates enthalpy associated with T cell receptor binding. , 2007, Journal of molecular biology.