Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 617

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Mass Spectrometry Profiling of HLA-Associated Peptidomes in Mono-allelic Cells Enables More Accurate Epitope Prediction

Open access
Abelin, Jennifer G., Keskin, Derin B., Sarkizova, Siranush, Hartigan, Christina R., Zhang, Wandi, Sidney, John, Stevens, Jonathan, Lane, William, Zhang, Guang Lan, Eisenhaure, Thomas M., Clauser, Karl R., Hacohen, Nir, Rooney, Michael S., Carr, Steven A., Wu, Catherine J.·2017·Immunity

Abstract

SUMMARY Identification of human leukocyte antigen (HLA)‐bound peptides by liquid chromatography‐tandem mass spectrometry (LC‐MS/MS) is poised to provide a deep understanding of rules underlying antigen presentation. However, a key obstacle is the ambiguity that arises from the co‐expression of multiple HLA alleles. Here, we have implemented a scalable mono‐allelic strategy for profiling the HLA peptidome. By using cell lines expressing a single HLA allele, optimizing immunopurifications, and developing an application‐specific spectral search algorithm, we identified thousands of peptides bound to 16 different HLA class I alleles. These data enabled the discovery of subdominant binding motifs and an integrative analysis quantifying the contribution of factors critical to epitope presentation, such as protein cleavage and gene expression. We trained neural‐network prediction algorithms with our large dataset (>24,000 peptides) and outperformed algorithms trained on datasets of peptides with measured affinities. We thus demonstrate a strategy for systematically learning the rules of endogenous antigen presentation. Graphical Abstract Figure. No Caption available. Highlights24,000 HLA class I peptides were identified through a scalable MS‐based pipeline.Mono‐allelic data revealed binding motifs that were validated biochemically.Comprehensive analyses provide an updated portrait of antigen processing rules.Neural networks were trained for 16 alleles and outperform standard by 2‐fold. &NA; HLA class I binding prediction has traditionally been based on biochemical binding experiments. Abelin and colleagues present an LC‐MS/MS‐based workflow and analytical framework that greatly accelerates gains in prediction performance. Key advances include the discovery of sequence motifs and improved quantification of the roles of gene expression and proteasomal processing.

Overview

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 · 10.1016/j.immuni.2017.02.007

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 617

Metadata

Authors
Abelin, J. G., Keskin, D. B., Sarkizova, S., Hartigan, C. R., Zhang, W., Sidney, J., Stevens, J., Lane, W., Zhang, G. L., Eisenhaure, T. M., Clauser, K. R., Hacohen, N., Rooney, M. S., Carr, S. A., & Wu, C. J.
Venue
Immunity
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-02
Volume
46
Issue
2
Pages
315-326
ISSN
1074-7613 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2589139221
Cited by
617
References
8
FWCI
23.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.