Search

The immune epitope database analysis resource (IEDB-AR: http://tools.iedb.org) is a collection of tools for prediction and analysis of molecular targets of T- and B-cell immune responses (i.e. epitopes). Since its last publication in the NAR webserver issue in 2008, a new generation of peptide:MHC binding and T-cell epitope predictive tools have been added. As validated by different labs and in the first international competition for predicting peptide:MHC-I binding, their predictive performances have improved considerably. In addition, a new B-cell epitope prediction tool was added, and the homology mapping tool was updated to enable mapping of discontinuous epitopes onto 3D structures. Furthermore, to serve a wider range of users, the number of ways in which IEDB-AR can be accessed has been expanded. Specifically, the predictive tools can be programmatically accessed using a web interface and can also be downloaded as software packages.

CPHmodels-3.0 is a web server predicting protein 3D structure by use of single template homology modeling. The server employs a hybrid of the scoring functions of CPHmodels-2.0 and a novel remote homology-modeling algorithm. A query sequence is first attempted modeled using the fast CPHmodels-2.0 profile-profile scoring function suitable for close homology modeling. The new computational costly remote homology-modeling algorithm is only engaged provided that no suitable PDB template is identified in the initial search. CPHmodels-3.0 was benchmarked in the CASP8 competition and produced models for 94% of the targets (117 out of 128), 74% were predicted as high reliability models (87 out of 117). These achieved an average RMSD of 4.6 A when superimposed to the 3D structure. The remaining 26% low reliably models (30 out of 117) could superimpose to the true 3D structure with an average RMSD of 9.3 A. These performance values place the CPHmodels-3.0 method in the group of high performing 3D prediction tools. Beside its accuracy, one of the important features of the method is its speed. For most queries, the response time of the server is <20 min. The web server is available at http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/services/CPHmodels/.

Motivation: MHC:peptide binding plays a central role in activating the immune surveillance. Computational approaches to determine T-cell epitopes restricted to any given major histocompatibility complex (MHC) molecule are of special practical value in the development of for instance vaccines with broad population coverage against emerging pathogens. Methods have recently been published that are able to predict peptide binding to any human MHC class I molecule. In contrast to conventional allele-specific methods, these methods do allow for extrapolation to uncharacterized MHC molecules. These pan-specific human lymphocyte antigen (HLA) predictors have not previously been compared using independent evaluation sets., Result: A diverse set of quantitative peptide binding affinity measurements was collected from Immune Epitope database (IEDB), together with a large set of HLA class I ligands from the SYFPEITHI database. Based on these datasets, three different pan-specific HLA web-accessible predictors NetMHCpan, adaptive double threading (ADT) and kernel-based inter-allele peptide binding prediction system (KISS) were evaluated. The performance of the pan-specific predictors was also compared with a well performing allele-specific MHC class I predictor, NetMHC, as well as a consensus approach integrating the predictions from the NetMHC and NetMHCpan methods., Conclusions: The benchmark demonstrated that pan-specific methods do provide accurate predictions also for previously uncharacterized MHC molecules. The NetMHCpan method trained to predict actual binding affinities was consistently top ranking both on quantitative (affinity) and binary (ligand) data. However, the KISS method trained to predict binary data was one of the best performing methods when benchmarked on binary data. Finally, a consensus method integrating predictions from the two best performing methods was shown to improve the prediction accuracy.

NetMHC-3.0 is trained on a large number of quantitative peptide data using both affinity data from the Immune Epitope Database and Analysis Resource (IEDB) and elution data from SYFPEITHI. The method generates high-accuracy predictions of major histocompatibility complex (MHC): peptide binding. The predictions are based on artificial neural networks trained on data from 55 MHC alleles (43 Human and 12 non-human), and position-specific scoring matrices (PSSMs) for additional 67 HLA alleles. As only the MHC class I prediction server is available, predictions are possible for peptides of length 8-11 for all 122 alleles. artificial neural network predictions are given as actual IC(50) values whereas PSSM predictions are given as a log-odds likelihood scores. The output is optionally available as download for easy post-processing. The training method underlying the server is the best available, and has been used to predict possible MHC-binding peptides in a series of pathogen viral proteomes including SARS, Influenza and HIV, resulting in an average of 75-80% confirmed MHC binders. Here, the performance is further validated and benchmarked using a large set of newly published affinity data, non-redundant to the training set. The server is free of use and available at: http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/services/NetMHC.

We present a new release of the immune epitope database analysis resource (IEDB-AR, http://tools.immuneepitope.org), a repository of web-based tools for the prediction and analysis of immune epitopes. New functionalities have been added to most of the previously implemented tools, and a total of eight new tools were added, including two B-cell epitope prediction tools, four T-cell epitope prediction tools and two analysis tools.

Unlabelled: Several accurate prediction systems have been developed for prediction of class I major histocompatibility complex (MHC):peptide binding. Most of these are trained on binding affinity data of primarily 9mer peptides. Here, we show how prediction methods trained on 9mer data can be used for accurate binding affinity prediction of peptides of length 8, 10 and 11. The method gives the opportunity to predict peptides with a different length than nine for MHC alleles where no such peptides have been measured. As validation, the performance of this approach is compared to predictors trained on peptides of the peptide length in question. In this validation, the approximation method has an accuracy that is comparable to or better than methods trained on a peptide length identical to the predicted peptides., Availability: The algorithm has been implemented in the web-accessible servers NetMHC-3.0: http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/services/NetMHC-3.0, and NetMHCpan-1.1: http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/services/NetMHCpan-1.1

Motivation: Immunological bioinformatics methods are applicable to a broad range of scientific areas. The specifics of how and where they might be implemented have recently been reviewed in the literature. However, the background and concerns for selecting between the different available methods have so far not been adequately covered., Summary: Before using predictions systems, it is necessary to not only understand how the methods are constructed but also their strength and limitations. The prediction systems in humoral epitope discovery are still in their infancy, but have reached a reasonable level of predictive strength. In cellular immunology, MHC class I binding predictions are now very strong and cover most of the known HLA specificities. These systems work well for epitope discovery, and predictions of the MHC class I pathway have been further improved by integration with state-of-the-art prediction tools for proteasomal cleavage and TAP binding. By comparison, class II MHC binding predictions have not developed to a comparable accuracy level, but new tools have emerged that deliver significantly improved predictions not only in terms of accuracy, but also in MHC specificity coverage. Simulation systems and mathematical modeling are also now beginning to reach a level where these methods will be able to answer more complex immunological questions.

Motivation: Prediction of which peptides will bind a specific major histocompatibility complex (MHC) constitutes an important step in identifying potential T-cell epitopes suitable as vaccine candidates. MHC class II binding peptides have a broad length distribution complicating such predictions. Thus, identifying the correct alignment is a crucial part of identifying the core of an MHC class II binding motif. In this context, we wish to describe a novel Gibbs motif sampler method ideally suited for recognizing such weak sequence motifs. The method is based on the Gibbs sampling method, and it incorporates novel features optimized for the task of recognizing the binding motif of MHC classes I and II. The method locates the binding motif in a set of sequences and characterizes the motif in terms of a weight-matrix. Subsequently, the weight-matrix can be applied to identifying effectively potential MHC binding peptides and to guiding the process of rational vaccine design., Results: We apply the motif sampler method to the complex problem of MHC class II binding. The input to the method is amino acid peptide sequences extracted from the public databases of SYFPEITHI and MHCPEP and known to bind to the MHC class II complex HLA-DR4(B1*0401). Prior identification of information-rich (anchor) positions in the binding motif is shown to improve the predictive performance of the Gibbs sampler. Similarly, a consensus solution obtained from an ensemble average over suboptimal solutions is shown to outperform the use of a single optimal solution. In a large-scale benchmark calculation, the performance is quantified using relative operating characteristics curve (ROC) plots and we make a detailed comparison of the performance with that of both the TEPITOPE method and a weight-matrix derived using the conventional alignment algorithm of ClustalW. The calculation demonstrates that the predictive performance of the Gibbs sampler is higher than that of ClustalW and in most cases also higher than that of the TEPITOPE method.