The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Immunoinformatics and epitope prediction in the age of genomic medicine
Open accessAbstract
Immunoinformatics involves the application of computational methods to immunological problems. Prediction of B- and T-cell epitopes has long been the focus of immunoinformatics, given the potential translational implications, and many tools have been developed. With the advent of next-generation sequencing (NGS) methods, an unprecedented wealth of information has become available that requires more-advanced immunoinformatics tools. Based on information from whole-genome sequencing, exome sequencing and RNA sequencing, it is possible to characterize with high accuracy an individual's human leukocyte antigen (HLA) allotype (i.e., the individual set of HLA alleles of the patient), as well as changes arising in the HLA ligandome (the collection of peptides presented by the HLA) owing to genomic variation. This has allowed new opportunities for translational applications of epitope prediction, such as epitope-based design of prophylactic and therapeutic vaccines, and personalized cancer immunotherapies. Here, we review a wide range of immunoinformatics tools, with a focus on B- and T-cell epitope prediction. We also highlight fundamental differences in the underlying algorithms and discuss the various metrics employed to assess prediction quality, comparing their strengths and weaknesses. Finally, we discuss the new challenges and opportunities presented by high-throughput data-sets for the field of epitope prediction.
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
An integrated map of genetic variation from 1,092 human genomes
The 1000 Genomes Project Consortium (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature11632 · Cited by 7,711
Comparison of the predicted and observed secondary structure of T4 phage lysozyme
Matthews, B. W. (1975) · Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Protein Structure · doi:10.1016/0005-2795(75)90109-9 · Cited by 5,399 · cited 1×
“The MCC describes the correlation between observed and predicted classification [12].”
Reliable B cell epitope predictions: impacts of method development and improved benchmarking
Kringelum, J. V., Lundegaard, C., Lund, O., & Nielsen, M. (2012) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002829 · Cited by 697
Cited by
Kazi, A., Chuah, C., Majeed, A. B. A., Leow, C. H., Lim, B. H., & Leow, C. Y. (2018) · Pathogens and Global Health · doi:10.1080/20477724.2018.1446773 · Cited by 122
Polonsky, K., Pupko, T., & Freund, N. T. (2023) · The Journal of Immunology · doi:10.4049/jimmunol.2300150 · Cited by 41
Challenges targeting cancer neoantigens in 2021: a systematic literature review
Chen, I., Chen, M. Y., Goedegebuure, S. P., & Gillanders, W. E. (2021) · Expert Review of Vaccines · doi:10.1080/14760584.2021.1935248 · Cited by 39
Metadata
- Authors
- Backert, L., & Kohlbacher, O.
- Venue
- Genome Medicine
- Published
- 2015-11-20
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 119-119
- ISSN
- 1756-994X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2177083469
- Cited by
- 208
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 7.59
- 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: Immunoinformatics and epitope prediction in the age of genomic medicine. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/s13073-015-0245-0
- The paper
- Backert, L., & Kohlbacher, O. (2015). Immunoinformatics and epitope prediction in the age of genomic medicine. Genome Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13073-015-0245-0
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.