Cited by 244vaccines and immunoinformatics approachesMachine Learning in BioinformaticsChemical Synthesis and Analysis

Towards a consensus on datasets and evaluation metrics for developing B-cell epitope prediction tools

Open access
Greenbaum, Jason A., Andersen, Pernille Haste, Blythe, Martin, Bui, Huynh‐Hoa, Cachau, Raul E., Crowe, James, Davies, Matthew, Kolaskar, A. S. +15 more·2007·Journal of Molecular Recognition

Abstract

A B-cell epitope is the three-dimensional structure within an antigen that can be bound to the variable region of an antibody. The prediction of B-cell epitopes is highly desirable for various immunological applications, but has presented a set of unique challenges to the bioinformatics and immunology communities. Improving the accuracy of B-cell epitope prediction methods depends on a community consensus on the data and metrics utilized to develop and evaluate such tools. A workshop, sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID), was recently held in Washington, DC to discuss the current state of the B-cell epitope prediction field. Many of the currently available tools were surveyed and a set of recommendations was devised to facilitate improvements in the currently existing tools and to expedite future tool development. An underlying theme of the recommendations put forth by the panel is increased collaboration among research groups. By developing common datasets, standardized data formats, and the means with which to consolidate information, we hope to greatly enhance the development of B-cell epitope prediction tools.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jmr.815

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Arbitrary molecular surfaces appear to be indistinguishable from epitope regions, suggesting that predictions should be performed with reference to a particular antibody.

    “However, arbitrary molecular surfaces appear to be indistinguishable from epitope regions [167–169] suggesting that predictions should be performed with reference to a particular antibody [116, 118–120].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 43 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Duhovny D, Nussinov R, Wolfson HJ. 2002. Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Algorithms in Bioinformatics (WABI), Guigo R, Gusfield D (eds). Springer Verlag: Rome; 185-200.
  2. Mumey B, Ohler N, Angel T, Jesaitis A, Dratz E. 2006. Proceed- ings of High Performance Computing in Genomics, Proteo- mics, and Transcriptomics. Springer-Verlag: Sorrento.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Greenbaum, J. A., Andersen, P. H., Blythe, M., Bui, H., Cachau, R. E., Crowe, J., Davies, M., Kolaskar, A. S., Lund, O., Morrison, S., Mumey, B., Ofran, Y., Pellequer, J., Pinilla, C., Ponomarenko, J. V., Raghava, G. P. S., van Regenmortel, M. H. V., Roggen, E. L., Sette, A., Schlessinger, A., Sollner, J., Zand, M., & Peters, B.
Affiliations
  • La Jolla Institute for Immunology (US)
  • Technical University of Denmark (DK)
  • Jenner Institute (GB)
  • Vanderbilt University Medical Center (US)
  • John Radcliffe Hospital (GB)
  • Savitribai Phule Pune University (IN)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • Montana State University (US)
  • Tel Aviv University (IL)
  • Commissariat à l'Énergie Atomique et aux Énergies Alternatives (FR)
  • Torrey Pines Institute For Molecular Studies (US)
  • San Diego Supercomputer Center (US)
  • Institute of Microbial Technology (IN)
  • Novozymes (Denmark) (DK)
  • Columbia University (US)
  • University of Rochester Medicine (US)
Corresponding author
Greenbaum, Jason A.
Venue
Journal of Molecular Recognition
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-01-05
Volume
20
Issue
2
Pages
75-82
ISSN
  • 0952-3499 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1352
OpenAlex
W2137575262
Cited by
244
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 5
FWCI
1.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Molecular Recognition (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
  • Technical University of Denmark, DTU Orbit (Technical University of Denmark, DTU) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • University of California, San Francisco
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIH P41)
  • National Center for Research Resources (P41-RR01081, P41RR001081)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › vaccines and immunoinformatics approaches
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Machine Learning in Bioinformatics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Chemical Synthesis and Analysis
Keywords
B-cell epitope prediction, benchmark dataset, evaluation metrics, antibody-antigen binding, standardized data formats, community consensus, immunoinformatics, immunoglobulin variable region
MeSH terms
Animals, Evaluation Studies as Topic, Health Planning Guidelines, Humans, Models, Biological, Models, Molecular, Software, Protein Structure, Secondary, Epitopes, B-Lymphocyte, Peptide Library, Sequence Analysis, Protein, Databases, Protein, Consensus

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review