Two complementary methods for predicting peptides binding major histocompatibility complex molecules.

Peptides that bind to major histocompatibility complex products (MHC) are known to exhibit certain sequence motifs which, though common, are neither necessary nor sufficient for binding: MHCs bind certain peptides that do not have the characteristic motifs and only about 30% of the peptides having the required motif, bind. In order to develop and test more accurate methods we measured the binding affinity of 463 nonamer peptides to HLA-A2.1. We describe two methods for predicting whether a given peptide will bind to an MHC and apply them to these peptides. One method is based on simulating a neural network and another, called the polynomial method, is based on statistical parameter estimation assuming independent binding of the side-chains of residues. We compare these methods with each other and with standard motif-based methods. The two methods are complementary, and both are superior to sequence motifs. The neural net is superior to simple motif searches in eliminating false positives. Its behavior can be coarsely tuned to the strength of binding desired and it is extendable in a straightforward fashion to other alleles. The polynomial method, on the other hand, has high sensitivity and is a superior method for eliminating false negatives. We discuss the validity of the independent binding assumption in such predictions.

[1]  S Vajda,et al.  Effect of conformational flexibility and solvation on receptor-ligand binding free energies. , 1994, Biochemistry.

[2]  J A Koziol,et al.  Prediction of binding to MHC class I molecules. , 1995, Journal of immunological methods.

[3]  J. Sidney,et al.  Prominent role of secondary anchor residues in peptide binding to HLA-A2.1 molecules , 1993, Cell.

[4]  R M Horton,et al.  Myasthenia gravis: recognition of a human autoantigen at the molecular level. , 1993, Immunology today.

[5]  Charles DeLisi,et al.  Peptide docking using dynamic programming , 1996 .

[6]  J. Hammer,et al.  New methods to predict MHC-binding sequences within protein antigens. , 1995, Current opinion in immunology.

[7]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Parallel distributed processing: explorations in the microstructure of cognition, vol. 1: foundations , 1986 .

[8]  C DeLisi,et al.  HLA allele selection for designing peptide vaccines. , 1996, Genetic analysis : biomolecular engineering.

[9]  D. Wiley,et al.  The antigenic identity of peptide-MHC complexes: A comparison of the conformations of five viral peptides presented by HLA-A2 , 1993, Cell.

[10]  A Sette,et al.  The relation between major histocompatibility complex (MHC) restriction and the capacity of Ia to bind immunogenic peptides , 1987, Science.

[11]  Linda A. Sherman,et al.  Cytolytic T-lymphocyte response to isolated class I H–2 proteins and influenza peptides , 1989, Nature.

[12]  Hans-Georg Rammensee,et al.  MHC Ligands and Peptide Motifs , 1998, Molecular Biology Intelligence Unit.

[13]  R J Albertini,et al.  T cells responsive to myelin basic protein in patients with multiple sclerosis. , 1990, Science.

[14]  W Fierz,et al.  Using a neural network to identify potential HLA‐DR1 binding sites within proteins , 1993, Journal of molecular recognition : JMR.

[15]  C. DeLisi,et al.  Free energy mapping of class I MHC molecules and structural determination of bound peptides , 1996, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[16]  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.

[17]  Myron M. Levine,et al.  Safety and immunogenicity in man of a synthetic peptide malaria vaccine against Plasmodium falciparum sporozoites , 1987, Nature.

[18]  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.

[19]  R A Good,et al.  A potential peptide vaccine against two different strains of influenza virus isolated at intervals of about 10 years. , 1994, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[20]  Z. Nagy,et al.  Precise prediction of major histocompatibility complex class II-peptide interaction based on peptide side chain scanning , 1994, The Journal of experimental medicine.

[21]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  Learning internal representations by error propagation , 1986 .

[22]  A. Vitiello,et al.  The relationship between class I binding affinity and immunogenicity of potential cytotoxic T cell epitopes. , 1994, Journal of immunology.

[23]  D. Zaller,et al.  Prediction of peptide affinity to HLA DRB1*0401. , 1994, International archives of allergy and immunology.

[24]  K. Parker,et al.  The beta 2-microglobulin dissociation rate is an accurate measure of the stability of MHC class I heterotrimers and depends on which peptide is bound. , 1992, Journal of immunology.

[25]  S. H. van der Burg,et al.  Identification of peptide sequences that potentially trigger HLA‐A2.1‐restricted cytotoxic T lymphocytes , 1993, European journal of immunology.