Current perspectives on mass spectrometry-based immunopeptidomics: the computational angle to tumor antigen discovery
Abstract
Identification of tumor antigens presented by the human leucocyte antigen (HLA) molecules is essential for the design of effective and safe cancer immunotherapies that rely on T cell recognition and killing of tumor cells. Mass spectrometry (MS)-based immunopeptidomics enables high-throughput, direct identification of HLA-bound peptides from a variety of cell lines, tumor tissues, and healthy tissues. It involves immunoaffinity purification of HLA complexes followed by MS profiling of the extracted peptides using data-dependent acquisition, data-independent acquisition, or targeted approaches. By incorporating DNA, RNA, and ribosome sequencing data into immunopeptidomics data analysis, the proteogenomic approach provides a powerful means for identifying tumor antigens encoded within the canonical open reading frames of annotated coding genes and non-canonical tumor antigens derived from presumably non-coding regions of our genome. We discuss emerging computational challenges in immunopeptidomics data analysis and tumor antigen identification, highlighting key considerations in the proteogenomics-based approach, including accurate DNA, RNA and ribosomal sequencing data analysis, careful incorporation of predicted novel protein sequences into reference protein database, special quality control in MS data analysis due to the expanded and heterogeneous search space, cancer-specificity determination, and immunogenicity prediction. The advancements in technology and computation is continually enabling us to identify tumor antigens with higher sensitivity and accuracy, paving the way toward the development of more effective cancer immunotherapies.
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
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.
Cites
The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship
Wilkinson, M. D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I. J., Appleton, G., Axton, M., Baak, A., Blomberg, N., Boiten, J.-W., da Silva Santos, L. B., Bourne, P. E., et al. (2016) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/sdata.2016.18 · Cited by 18,423 · cited 1× · see citing works
“140 To facilitate new method development, it is critical to make immu-nopeptidomics data publicly available and follow the FAIR principle 141 in data sharing.”
MethodSemi-supervised learning for peptide identification from shotgun proteomics datasets
Käll, L., Canterbury, J. D., Weston, J., Noble, W. S., & MacCoss, M. J. (2007) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth1113 · Cited by 2,424 · see citing works
A universal SNP and small-indel variant caller using deep neural networks
Poplin, R., Chang, P.-C., Alexander, D., Schwartz, S., Colthurst, T., Ku, A., Newburger, D., Dijamco, J., Nguyen, N., Afshar, P. T., et al. (2018) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.4235 · Cited by 1,840 · see citing works
MS-GF+ makes progress towards a universal database search tool for proteomics
Kim, S., & Pevzner, P. A. (2014) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms6277 · Cited by 1,098 · see citing works
Cancer proteogenomics: current impact and future prospects
Mani, D. R., Krug, K., Zhang, B., Satpathy, S., Clauser, K. R., Ding, L., Ellis, M., Gillette, M. A., & Carr, S. A. (2022) · Nature Reviews Cancer · doi:10.1038/s41568-022-00446-5 · Cited by 229 · see citing works
Self-citationProfiling SARS-CoV-2 HLA-I peptidome reveals T cell epitopes from out-of-frame ORFs
Weingarten-Gabbay, S., Klaeger, S., Sarkizova, S., Pearlman, L. R., Chen, D.-Y., Gallagher, K. M. E., Bauer, M. R., Taylor, H. B., Dunn, W. A., Tarr, C., et al. (2021) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2021.05.046 · Cited by 147 · see citing works
Stopfer, L. E., Mesfin, J. M., Joughin, B. A., Lauffenburger, D. A., & White, F. M. (2020) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-020-16588-9 · Cited by 109 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Explainable artificial intelligence for multi-modal cancer analysis: from genomics to immunology
Zhang, M., & Yin, L. (2026) · Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology · doi:10.1016/j.critrevonc.2025.105040 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
- Authors
- Zhang, B., & Bassani-Sternberg, M.
- Venue
- Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2023-10
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- e007073
- ISSN
- 2051-1426
- Cited by
- 44
- References
- 7
- Language
- en
- Funders
- Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research (N/A)
- Swiss Cancer Research Foundation (KFS-4680-02-2019)
- Swiss National Science Foundation (PR00P3_193079)
- Robert and Janice McNair Foundation (N/A)
- National Cancer Institute (R01 CA245903, U24 CA271076)
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