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 accessPreprint — 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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold
Jumper, J., Evans, R., Pritzel, A., Green, T., Figurnov, M., Ronneberger, O., Tunyasuvunakool, K., Bates, R., Žídek, A., Potapenko, A., et al. (2021) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2 · Cited by 43,764
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 67
- Alberts, B. , Johnson, A. , Lewis, J. , Morgan, D. , Raff, M. , Roberts, K. , et al. (2017). Molecular biology of the cell (WW Norton & Company) · DOI
- 10.1093/nar/gkz874 · DOI
- 10.1107/S2053230X2001122X · DOI
- 10.7554/elife.70658 · DOI
- 10.1038/nsb1203-980 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.7554/eLife.82813 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/protein/gzl051 · DOI
- 10.1093/bioinformatics/btad027 · DOI
- 10.1093/protein/gzae002 · DOI
- 10.1002/ange.202213362 · DOI
- 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp163 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.4049/jimmunol.1900915 · DOI
- 10.1038/s41467-024-47461-8 · DOI
- 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1128326 · DOI
- 10.1038/nri2077 · DOI
- 10.1038/ni1502 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1365-2567.2011.03517.x · DOI
- 10.1038/nature22976 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1101/2022.10.20.513049 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/bioinformatics/btac820 · DOI
- 10.3389/fimmu.2022.1014256 · DOI
- 10.1186/s13045-019-0812-8 · DOI
- 10.1073/pnas.89.22.10915 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1182/asheducation-2013.1.342 · DOI
- 10.1046/j.1365-2567.2003.01738.x · DOI
- 10.1016/j.immuni.2018.02.010 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.7554/elife.93934.2 · DOI
- 10.1093/bib/bbae210 · DOI
- 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
- 10.4049/jimmunol.166.5.3345 · DOI
- 10.1093/bioinformatics/btad743 · DOI
- 10.3389/fbinf.2023.1274599 · DOI
- 10.3389/fimmu.2020.565096 · DOI
- 10.3389/fgene.2024.1346784 · DOI
- 10.1101/2022.07.20.500902 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1186/s12859-019-3109-6 · DOI
- 10.1186/1471-2105-11-363 · DOI
- 10.1038/s42003-021-02610-3 · DOI
- 10.1126/science.abn9422 · DOI
- 10.1093/bib/bbaa318 · DOI
- 10.1042/BST20210410 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.coi.2019.04.009 · DOI
- 10.1101/2024.05.18.594806 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0076-6879(09)66015-8 · DOI
- 10.1073/pnas.1409155111 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1021/acs.jcim.0c00043 · DOI
- 10.1146/annurev-immunol-032414-112334 · DOI
- 10.1126/science.272.5269.1755 · DOI
- 10.1093/nar/gkx760 · DOI
- 10.1146/annurev.immunol.021908.132706 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.3389/fimmu.2020.01803 · DOI
- 10.3389/fimmu.2021.664514 · DOI
- 10.1093/bioinformatics/btx286 · DOI
- 10.1038/s42003-022-03269-0 · DOI
- 10.1093/nar/gky1006 · DOI
- 10.1145/321796.321811 · DOI
- 10.1038/s41577-020-0306-5 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1101/2022.12.09.519842 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/bioinformatics/btab294 · DOI
- 10.1101/2022.07.21.500999 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/procel/pwae007 · DOI
- 10.1093/bioinformatics/btac820 · DOI
- 10.3389/fimmu.2022.1014256 · DOI
- 10.7554/elife.93934.2 · DOI
- 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.
- 10.3389/fimmu.2021.664514 · DOI
- 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)
- PMC
- PMC12091837
- OpenAlex
- W4410535766
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 1
- FWCI
- 2.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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