Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 346

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 96 of the 96 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Integrated proteogenomic deep sequencing and analytics accurately identify non-canonical peptides in tumor immunopeptidomes

Open access
Chong, Chloe, Müller, Markus, Pak, HuiSong, Harnett, Dermot, Huber, Florian, Grun, Delphine, Leleu, Marion, Auger, Aymeric, Arnaud, Marion, Stevenson, Brian J., Michaux, Justine, Bilic, Ilija, Hirsekorn, Antje, Calviello, Lorenzo, Simó-Riudalbas, Laia, Planet, Evarist, Lubiński, Jan, Bryśkiewicz, Marta, Wiznerowicz, Maciej, Xenarios, Ioannis, Zhang, Lin, Trono, Didier, Harari, Alexandre, Ohler, Uwe, Coukos, George, Bassani-Sternberg, Michal·2020·Nature Communications

Abstract

Efforts to precisely identify tumor human leukocyte antigen (HLA) bound peptides capable of mediating T cell-based tumor rejection still face important challenges. Recent studies suggest that non-canonical tumor-specific HLA peptides derived from annotated non-coding regions could elicit anti-tumor immune responses. However, sensitive and accurate mass spectrometry (MS)-based proteogenomics approaches are required to robustly identify these non-canonical peptides. We present an MS-based analytical approach that characterizes the non-canonical tumor HLA peptide repertoire, by incorporating whole exome sequencing, bulk and single-cell transcriptomics, ribosome profiling, and two MS/MS search tools in combination. This approach results in the accurate identification of hundreds of shared and tumor-specific non-canonical HLA peptides, including an immunogenic peptide derived from an open reading frame downstream of the melanoma stem cell marker gene ABCB5 . These findings hold great promise for the discovery of previously unknown tumor antigens for cancer immunotherapy.

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 · 10.1038/s41467-020-14968-9

Cites

96 of 96 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

Show all 96 references

Cited by

See all 346

Metadata

Authors
Chong, C., Müller, M., Pak, H., Harnett, D., Huber, F., Grun, D., Leleu, M., Auger, A., Arnaud, M., Stevenson, B. J., Michaux, J., Bilic, I., Hirsekorn, A., Calviello, L., Simó-Riudalbas, L., Planet, E., Lubiński, J., Bryśkiewicz, M., Wiznerowicz, M., Xenarios, I., Zhang, L., Trono, D., Harari, A., Ohler, U., Coukos, G., & Bassani-Sternberg, M.
Venue
Nature Communications
Published
2020-03-10
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
1293-1293
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3010737707
Cited by
346
References
96
FWCI
18.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Integrated proteogenomic deep sequencing and analytics accurately identify non-canonical peptides in tumor immunopeptidomes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/s41467-020-14968-9
The paper
Chong, C., Müller, M., Pak, H., Harnett, D., Huber, F., Grun, D., Leleu, M., Auger, A., Arnaud, M., Stevenson, B. J., Michaux, J., Bilic, I., Hirsekorn, A., Calviello, L., Simó-Riudalbas, L., Planet, E., Lubiński, J., Bryśkiewicz, M., Wiznerowicz, M., . . . Bassani-Sternberg, M. (2020). Integrated proteogenomic deep sequencing and analytics accurately identify non-canonical peptides in tumor immunopeptidomes. Nature Communications. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-14968-9

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.