PreprintCited by 7vaccines and immunoinformatics approachesMachine Learning in BioinformaticsComputational Drug Discovery Methods

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Assessing the Generalization Capabilities of TCR Binding Predictors via Peptide Distance Analysis

Open access

Preprint — published as 10.1371/journal.pone.0324011 · Paper page

Abstract

Understanding the interaction between T Cell Receptors (TCRs) and peptide-bound Major Histocompatibility Complexes (pMHCs) is crucial for comprehending immune responses and developing targeted immunotherapies. While recent machine learning (ML) models show remarkable success in predicting TCR-pMHC binding within training data, these models often fail to generalize to peptides outside of their training distributions, raising concerns about their applicability in therapeutic settings. Understanding and improving the generalization of these models is therefore critical to ensure real-world applications. To address this issue, we evaluate the effect of the distance between training and testing peptide distributions on ML model empirical risk assessments, using sequence-based and 3D structure-based distance metrics. In our analysis we use several state-of-the-art models for TCR-peptide binding prediction: Attentive Variational Information Bottleneck (AVIB), NetTCR-2.0 and -2.2, and ERGO II (pre-trained autoencoder) and ERGO II (LSTM). In this work, we introduce a novel approach for assessing the generalization capabilities of TCR binding predictors: the Distance Split (DS) algorithm. The DS algorithm controls the distance between training and testing peptides based on both sequence and structure, allowing for a more nuanced evaluation of model performance. We show that lower 3D shape similarity between training and test peptides is associated with a harder out-of-distribution task definition, which is more interesting when measuring the ability to generalize to unseen peptides. However, we observe the opposite effect when splitting using sequence-based similarity. These findings highlight the importance of using a distance-based splitting approach to benchmark models. This could then be used to estimate a confidence score on predictions on novel and unseen peptides, based on how different they are from the training ones. Additionally, our results may hint that employing 3D shape to complement sequence information could improve the accuracy of TCR-pMHC binding predictors.

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 · 10.1101/2023.07.29.551100

Cites

1 of 1 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 67

  1. Alberts, B. , Johnson, A. , Lewis, J. , Morgan, D. , Raff, M. , Roberts, K. , et al. (2017). Molecular biology of the cell (WW Norton & Company) · DOI
  2. 10.1093/nar/gkz874 · DOI
  3. 10.1107/S2053230X2001122X · DOI
  4. 10.7554/elife.70658 · DOI
  5. 10.1038/nsb1203-980 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.7554/eLife.82813 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1093/protein/gzl051 · DOI
  8. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btad027 · DOI
  9. 10.1093/protein/gzae002 · DOI
  10. 10.1002/ange.202213362 · DOI
  11. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp163 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.4049/jimmunol.1900915 · DOI
  13. 10.1038/s41467-024-47461-8 · DOI
  14. 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1128326 · DOI
  15. 10.1038/nri2077 · DOI
  16. 10.1038/ni1502 · DOI
  17. 10.1111/j.1365-2567.2011.03517.x · DOI
  18. 10.1038/nature22976 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.1101/2022.10.20.513049 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btac820 · DOI
  21. 10.3389/fimmu.2022.1014256 · DOI
  22. 10.1186/s13045-019-0812-8 · DOI
  23. 10.1073/pnas.89.22.10915 · DOI · Paper page
  24. 10.1182/asheducation-2013.1.342 · DOI
  25. 10.1046/j.1365-2567.2003.01738.x · DOI
  26. 10.1016/j.immuni.2018.02.010 · DOI · Paper page
  27. 10.7554/elife.93934.2 · DOI
  28. 10.1093/bib/bbae210 · DOI
  29. Jurtz, V. I. , Jessen, L. E. , Bentzen, A. K. , Jespersen, M. C. , Mahajan, S. , Vita, R. , et al. (2018). Nettcr: sequence-based prediction of tcr binding to peptide-mhc complexes using convolutional neural networks. BioRxiv, 433706 · DOI
  30. 10.4049/jimmunol.166.5.3345 · DOI
  31. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btad743 · DOI
  32. 10.3389/fbinf.2023.1274599 · DOI
  33. 10.3389/fimmu.2020.565096 · DOI
  34. 10.3389/fgene.2024.1346784 · DOI
  35. 10.1101/2022.07.20.500902 · DOI · Paper page
  36. 10.1186/s12859-019-3109-6 · DOI
  37. 10.1186/1471-2105-11-363 · DOI
  38. 10.1038/s42003-021-02610-3 · DOI
  39. 10.1126/science.abn9422 · DOI
  40. 10.1093/bib/bbaa318 · DOI
  41. 10.1042/BST20210410 · DOI
  42. 10.1016/j.coi.2019.04.009 · DOI
  43. 10.1101/2024.05.18.594806 · DOI
  44. 10.1016/S0076-6879(09)66015-8 · DOI
  45. 10.1073/pnas.1409155111 · DOI · Paper page
  46. 10.1021/acs.jcim.0c00043 · DOI
  47. 10.1146/annurev-immunol-032414-112334 · DOI
  48. 10.1126/science.272.5269.1755 · DOI
  49. 10.1093/nar/gkx760 · DOI
  50. 10.1146/annurev.immunol.021908.132706 · DOI · Paper page
  51. 10.3389/fimmu.2020.01803 · DOI
  52. 10.3389/fimmu.2021.664514 · DOI
  53. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btx286 · DOI
  54. 10.1038/s42003-022-03269-0 · DOI
  55. 10.1093/nar/gky1006 · DOI
  56. 10.1145/321796.321811 · DOI
  57. 10.1038/s41577-020-0306-5 · DOI · Paper page
  58. 10.1101/2022.12.09.519842 · DOI · Paper page
  59. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btab294 · DOI
  60. 10.1101/2022.07.21.500999 · DOI · Paper page
  61. 10.1093/procel/pwae007 · DOI
  62. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btac820 · DOI
  63. 10.3389/fimmu.2022.1014256 · DOI
  64. 10.7554/elife.93934.2 · DOI
  65. Vanessa Isabell Jurtz , Leon Eyrich Jessen , Amalie Kai Bentzen , Martin Closter Jespersen , Swapnil Mahajan , Randi Vita , Kamilla Kjærgaard Jensen , Paolo Marcatili , Sine Reker Hadrup , Bjoern Peters , et al. Nettcr: sequence-based prediction of tcr binding to peptide-mhc complexes using convolutional neural networks. BioRxiv, page 433706, 2018.
  66. 10.3389/fimmu.2021.664514 · DOI
  67. 10.3389/fimmu.2021.664514 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Castorina, L. V., Grazioli, F., Machart, P., Mösch, A., & Errica, F.
Affiliations
NEC (Germany) (DE)
Corresponding author
Castorina, Leonardo V.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Publisher
openRxiv
Published
2023-07-31
Volume
20
Issue
5
Pages
e0324011-e0324011
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4410535766
Cited by
7
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 1
FWCI
2.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
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 › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Drug Discovery › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
Keywords
generalization, out-of-distribution evaluation, empirical risk, confidence estimation, benchmarking
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Algorithms, Humans, Peptides, Protein Binding, Receptors, Antigen, T-Cell

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