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

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.

[1]  Peter A. Kollman,et al.  Computational alanine scanning of the 1:1 human growth hormone–receptor complex , 2002, J. Comput. Chem..

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

[3]  John Sidney,et al.  Measurement of MHC/Peptide Interactions by Gel Filtration , 1999, Current protocols in immunology.

[4]  Hanah Margalit,et al.  A structure-based approach for prediction of MHC-binding peptides. , 2004, Methods.

[5]  H. Margalit,et al.  Ranking potential binding peptides to MHC molecules by a computational threading approach. , 1995, Journal of molecular biology.

[6]  A Sette,et al.  A structure-based algorithm to predict potential binding peptides to MHC molecules with hydrophobic binding pockets. , 1997, Human immunology.

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

[8]  Thomas Lengauer,et al.  ROCR: visualizing classifier performance in R , 2005, Bioinform..

[9]  Markus Meuwly,et al.  Study of the insulin dimerization: Binding free energy calculations and per‐residue free energy decomposition , 2005, Proteins.

[10]  Morten Nielsen,et al.  The PickPocket method for predicting binding specificities for receptors based on receptor pocket similarities: application to MHC-peptide binding , 2009, Bioinform..

[11]  Hongyi Zhou,et al.  An accurate, residue‐level, pair potential of mean force for folding and binding based on the distance‐scaled, ideal‐gas reference state , 2004, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[12]  A. Sali,et al.  Statistical potentials for fold assessment , 2009 .

[13]  Guoli Wang,et al.  PISCES: a protein sequence culling server , 2003, Bioinform..

[14]  U. Şahin,et al.  Generation of tissue-specific and promiscuous HLA ligand databases using DNA microarrays and virtual HLA class II matrices , 1999, Nature Biotechnology.

[15]  Darren R Flower,et al.  Coupling In Silico and In Vitro Analysis of Peptide-MHC Binding: A Bioinformatic Approach Enabling Prediction of Superbinding Peptides and Anchorless Epitopes , 2004, The Journal of Immunology.

[16]  M. Karplus,et al.  CHARMM: A program for macromolecular energy, minimization, and dynamics calculations , 1983 .

[17]  Pedro Alexandrino Fernandes,et al.  Computational alanine scanning mutagenesis—An improved methodological approach , 2007, J. Comput. Chem..

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

[19]  Nebojsa Jojic,et al.  Shift-Invariant Adaptive Double Threading: Learning MHC II - Peptide Binding , 2007, RECOMB.

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

[21]  D. Case,et al.  Insights into protein-protein binding by binding free energy calculation and free energy decomposition for the Ras-Raf and Ras-RalGDS complexes. , 2003, Journal of molecular biology.

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

[23]  J A Swets,et al.  Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. , 1988, Science.

[24]  R. Abagyan,et al.  Ab initio prediction of peptide‐MHC binding geometry for diverse class I MHC allotypes , 2006, Proteins.

[25]  G. Ciccotti,et al.  Numerical Integration of the Cartesian Equations of Motion of a System with Constraints: Molecular Dynamics of n-Alkanes , 1977 .

[26]  Morten Nielsen,et al.  Prediction of MHC class II binding affinity using SMM-align, a novel stabilization matrix alignment method , 2007, BMC Bioinformatics.

[27]  R. Bayliss,et al.  An Autoinhibitory Tyrosine Motif in the Cell-Cycle-Regulated Nek7 Kinase Is Released through Binding of Nek9 , 2009, Molecular cell.

[28]  Zheng Pu,et al.  Amino-Terminal Flanking Residues Determine the Conformation of a Peptide–Class II MHC Complex1 , 2006, The Journal of Immunology.

[29]  Maria V. Tejada-Simon,et al.  Naturally Processed HLA Class II Peptides Reveal Highly Conserved Immunogenic Flanking Region Sequence Preferences That Reflect Antigen Processing Rather Than Peptide-MHC Interactions1 , 2001, The Journal of Immunology.

[30]  H. Bui,et al.  Structural prediction of peptides binding to MHC class I molecules , 2006, Proteins.

[31]  B. Honig,et al.  Classical electrostatics in biology and chemistry. , 1995, Science.

[32]  J. Sodroski,et al.  Structure of an HIV gp120 envelope glycoprotein in complex with the CD4 receptor and a neutralizing human antibody , 1998, Nature.

[33]  Bhartendu Nath Mishra,et al.  Ranking of binding and nonbinding peptides to MHC class I molecules using inverse folding approach: Implications for vaccine design , 2008, Bioinformation.

[34]  Ora Schueler-Furman,et al.  Learning MHC I - peptide binding , 2006, ISMB.

[35]  Claude Beazley,et al.  A Novel Predictive Technique for the MHC Class II Peptide-Binding Interaction , 2003, Molecular medicine.

[36]  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.

[37]  O. Lund,et al.  NetMHCpan, a method for MHC class I binding prediction beyond humans , 2008, Immunogenetics.

[38]  K Schulten,et al.  VMD: visual molecular dynamics. , 1996, Journal of molecular graphics.

[39]  Laxmikant V. Kalé,et al.  Scalable molecular dynamics with NAMD , 2005, J. Comput. Chem..

[40]  Lars Fugger,et al.  MHC class II proteins and disease: a structural perspective , 2006, Nature Reviews Immunology.

[41]  T. Blundell,et al.  Comparative protein modelling by satisfaction of spatial restraints. , 1993, Journal of molecular biology.

[42]  Morten Nielsen,et al.  Quantitative Predictions of Peptide Binding to Any HLA-DR Molecule of Known Sequence: NetMHCIIpan , 2008, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[43]  O. Lund,et al.  NetMHCpan, a Method for Quantitative Predictions of Peptide Binding to Any HLA-A and -B Locus Protein of Known Sequence , 2007, PloS one.

[44]  R. Samudrala,et al.  An all-atom distance-dependent conditional probability discriminatory function for protein structure prediction. , 1998, Journal of molecular biology.

[45]  C. Floudas,et al.  Predicting peptide binding to MHC pockets via molecular modeling, implicit solvation, and global optimization , 2004, Proteins.

[46]  John Sidney,et al.  A Systematic Assessment of MHC Class II Peptide Binding Predictions and Evaluation of a Consensus Approach , 2008, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[47]  O. Michielin,et al.  Structural prediction of peptides bound to MHC class I. , 2006, Journal of molecular biology.

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