Predicting peptide binding to Major Histocompatibility Complex molecules.

The Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC) constitutes an important part of the human immune system. During infection, pathogenic proteins are processed into peptide fragments by the antigen processing machinery. These peptides bind to MHC molecules and the MHC-peptide complex is then transported to the cell membrane where it elicits an immune response via T-cell binding. Understanding the molecular mechanism of this process will greatly assist in determining the aetiology of various diseases and in the design of effective drugs. One of the most challenging aspects of this area of research is understanding the specificity and sensitivity of the binding process. An empirical approach to the problem is unfeasible as there are over 512 billion potential binding peptides for each MHC molecule. Computational approaches offer the promise of predicting peptide binding, thus dramatically reducing the number of peptides proceeding to experimental verification. Various bioinformatic approaches have been developed to predict whether or not a particular peptide will bind to a particular MHC allele. Currently, peptide binding prediction methods can be categorised into three major groups: motif- and scoring matrix-based methods, artificial intelligence- (AI-) based methods, and structure-based methods. The first two are sequence-based approaches and are generally based on common sequence motifs in peptides known to bind to MHC molecules. The structure-based approach concerns the structural features and the distribution of energy between the binding peptide and the MHC molecule. Although knowledge of the molecular structure of the MHC molecules is expected to lead to better predictions of peptide binding, the development of structure-based methods has been relatively slow compared to sequence-based methods. Comparisons of various methods showed that the best sequence-based methods significantly outperform structure-based methods. This may be improved by producing more structures and binding data desperately needed by many alleles, especially class II molecules. On the other hand, the large number of verification methods and indicators used by structure-based studies hinders critical evaluation of the methods. Adopting commonly used assessment procedures can demonstrate the relative performance of structure-based methods in a straightforward comparison with other methods. This review provides an overview of current methods for predicting peptide binding to the MHC, with a focus on structure-based methods, and explores the potential for future development in this area.

[1]  Alessandro Sette,et al.  Generating quantitative models describing the sequence specificity of biological processes with the stabilized matrix method , 2005, BMC Bioinformatics.

[2]  Debasisa Mohanty,et al.  MODPROPEP: a program for knowledge-based modeling of protein–peptide complexes , 2007, Nucleic Acids Res..

[3]  R. Jernigan,et al.  Residue-residue potentials with a favorable contact pair term and an unfavorable high packing density term, for simulation and threading. , 1996, Journal of molecular biology.

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

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

[6]  Didier Rognan,et al.  Recovery of known T-cell epitopes by computational scanning of a viral genome , 2002, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[7]  D. Flower,et al.  Physicochemical explanation of peptide binding to HLA‐A*0201 major histocompatibility complex: A three‐dimensional quantitative structure‐activity relationship study , 2002, Proteins.

[8]  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.

[9]  P. Dieudé,et al.  Immunogenetics of systemic sclerosis. , 2011, Autoimmunity reviews.

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

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

[12]  T. Hanai,et al.  Hidden Markov model-based prediction of antigenic peptides that interact with MHC class II molecules. , 2002, Journal of bioscience and bioengineering.

[13]  D. Thirumalai,et al.  Pair potentials for protein folding: Choice of reference states and sensitivity of predicted native states to variations in the interaction schemes , 2008, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

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

[15]  J. Kalil,et al.  Autoimmune hepatitis, HLA and extended haplotypes. , 2011, Autoimmunity Reviews.

[16]  Irini A. Doytchinova,et al.  A Comparative Molecular Similarity Index Analysis (CoMSIA) study identifies an HLA-A2 binding supermotif , 2002, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[17]  J. Klein,et al.  The HLA system. First of two parts. , 2000, The New England journal of medicine.

[18]  Oliver Kohlbacher,et al.  SVMHC: a server for prediction of MHC-binding peptides , 2006, Nucleic Acids Res..

[19]  D. Flower,et al.  Toward the quantitative prediction of T-cell epitopes: coMFA and coMSIA studies of peptides with affinity for the class I MHC molecule HLA-A*0201. , 2001, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[20]  Wen Liu,et al.  Quantitative prediction of mouse class I MHC peptide binding affinity using support vector machine regression (SVR) models , 2006, BMC Bioinformatics.

[21]  M. Fraga,et al.  Epigenetic regulation of the immune system in health and disease. , 2010, Tissue antigens.

[22]  A. Saalmüller,et al.  New understanding of immunological mechanisms. , 2006, Veterinary microbiology.

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

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

[25]  H. Amital,et al.  Infectious associations of Celiac disease. , 2009, Autoimmunity reviews.

[26]  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.

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

[28]  D. Flower,et al.  Additive method for the prediction of protein-peptide binding affinity. Application to the MHC class I molecule HLA-A*0201. , 2002, Journal of proteome research.

[29]  J. Bach,et al.  Infections and autoimmune diseases. , 2005, Journal of autoimmunity.

[30]  Taku Suto,et al.  An automated prediction of MHC class I-binding peptides based on positional scanning with peptide libraries , 2000, Immunogenetics.

[31]  Channa K. Hattotuwagama,et al.  Toward the prediction of class I and II mouse major histocompatibility complex-peptide-binding affinity: in silico bioinformatic step-by-step guide using quantitative structure-activity relationships. , 2007, Methods in molecular biology.

[32]  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.

[33]  Pingping Guan,et al.  Quantitative structure-activity relationships and the prediction of MHC supermotifs. , 2004, Methods.

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

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

[36]  Bjoern Peters,et al.  Quantitative peptide binding motifs for 19 human and mouse MHC class I molecules derived using positional scanning combinatorial peptide libraries , 2008, Immunome research.

[37]  T. Huizinga,et al.  Redefining the HLA and RA association: to be or not to be anti-CCP positive. , 2005, Journal of autoimmunity.

[38]  D. Bell,et al.  The influence of HLA-DR4 (0401) on the immune response to type II collagen and the development of collagen induced arthritis in mice. , 2002, Journal of autoimmunity.

[39]  Ying Xu,et al.  Limitations of Ab Initio Predictions of Peptide Binding to MHC Class II Molecules , 2010, PloS one.

[40]  Li Yang,et al.  Structural parameterization and functional prediction of antigenic polypeptome sequences with biological activity through quantitative sequence-activity models (QSAM) by molecular electronegativity edge-distance vector (VMED) , 2007, Science in China Series C: Life Sciences.

[41]  A. Rudensky,et al.  Studies on naturally processed peptides associated with MHC class II molecules. , 1993, Chemical immunology.

[42]  Yang Dai,et al.  Prediction of MHC class II binding peptides based on an iterative learning model , 2005, Immunome research.

[43]  J. Rioux,et al.  Paths to understanding the genetic basis of autoimmune disease , 2005, Nature.

[44]  Yanqing Niu,et al.  A Bayesian regression approach to the prediction of MHC-II binding affinity , 2008, Comput. Methods Programs Biomed..

[45]  W. Taylor,et al.  A sequence pattern common to T cell epitopes. , 1988, The EMBO journal.