Cited by 31vaccines and immunoinformatics approachesProtein Structure and DynamicsComputational Drug Discovery Methods

Identification of discontinuous antigenic determinants on proteins based on shape complementarities

Rapberger, Ronald, Lukas, Arno, Mayer, Bernd·2007·Journal of Molecular Recognition

Abstract

Diverse procedures for identifying antigenic determinants on proteins have been developed, including experimental as well as computational approaches. However, most of these techniques focus on continuous epitopes, whereas fast and reliable identification and verification of discontinuous epitopes remains barely amenable. In this paper, we describe a computational workflow for the detection of discontinuous epitopes on proteins. The workflow uses a given protein 3D structure as input, and combines a per residue solvent accessibility constraint with epitope to paratope shape complementarity measures and binding energies for assigning antigenic determinants in the conformational context. We have developed the procedure on a given set of 26 antigen-antibody complexes with a known structure, and have further expanded the available paratope shapes by generating a virtual paratope library in order to improve the screening for candidate residues constituting discontinuous epitopes. Applying the workflow on the 26 given antigens with known discontinuous epitopes resulted in the correct identification of the spatial proximity of 12 antigen-antibody interaction sites. Combining solvent accessibility, shape complementarity and binding energies towards the identification of discontinuous epitopes clearly outperforms approaches solely considering accessibility and residue distance constraints.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jmr.819

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rapberger, R., Lukas, A., & Mayer, B.
Affiliations
  • University of Vienna (AT)
  • EmergenTec (Austria) (AT)
Corresponding author
Mayer, Bernd
Venue
Journal of Molecular Recognition
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-03
Volume
20
Issue
2
Pages
113-121
ISSN
  • 0952-3499 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1352
OpenAlex
W2013366764
Cited by
31
References
44
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 3
FWCI
0.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Molecular Recognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › vaccines and immunoinformatics approaches
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
Keywords
conformational epitopes, antigenic determinants, immune complexes, solvent accessibility, binding energy, epitope prediction, protein 3D structure
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Antigen-Antibody Complex, Epitopes, Binding Sites, Antibody, Models, Molecular, Protein Binding, Protein Structure, Tertiary, Protein Folding, Computational Biology, Imaging, Three-Dimensional

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