The DOI matches its Crossref record; 46 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Community Resource Benchmarking Predictions of Peptide Binding to MHC-I Molecules
Open accessAbstract
Recognition of peptides bound to major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I molecules by T lymphocytes is an essential part of immune surveillance. Each MHC allele has a characteristic peptide binding preference, which can be captured in prediction algorithms, allowing for the rapid scan of entire pathogen proteomes for peptide likely to bind MHC. Here we make public a large set of 48,828 quantitative peptide-binding affinity measurements relating to 48 different mouse, human, macaque, and chimpanzee MHC class I alleles. We use this data to establish a set of benchmark predictions with one neural network method and two matrix-based prediction methods extensively utilized in our groups. In general, the neural network outperforms the matrix-based predictions mainly due to its ability to generalize even on a small amount of data. We also retrieved predictions from tools publicly available on the internet. While differences in the data used to generate these predictions hamper direct comparisons, we do conclude that tools based on combinatorial peptide libraries perform remarkably well. The transparent prediction evaluation on this dataset provides tool developers with a benchmark for comparison of newly developed prediction methods. In addition, to generate and evaluate our own prediction methods, we have established an easily extensible web-based prediction framework that allows automated side-by-side comparisons of prediction methods implemented by experts. This is an advance over the current practice of tool developers having to generate reference predictions themselves, which can lead to underestimating the performance of prediction methods they are not as familiar with as their own. The overall goal of this effort is to provide a transparent prediction evaluation allowing bioinformaticians to identify promising features of prediction methods and providing guidance to immunologists regarding the reliability of prediction tools.
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
Measuring the Accuracy of Diagnostic Systems
Swets, J. A. (1988) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.3287615 · Cited by 10,058
SYFPEITHI: database for MHC ligands and peptide motifs
Rammensee, H. G., Bachmann, J., Emmerich, N. P. N., Bachor, O. A., & Stevanović, S. (1999) · Immunogenetics · doi:10.1007/s002510050595 · Cited by 2,314
Parker, K. C., Bednarek, M. A., & Coligan, J. E. (1994) · The Journal of Immunology · doi:10.4049/jimmunol.152.1.163 · Cited by 1,370
Reliable prediction of T‐cell epitopes using neural networks with novel sequence representations
Nielsen, M., Lundegaard, C., Worning, P., Lauemøller, S. L., Lamberth, K., Buus, S., Brunak, S., & Lund, O. (2003) · Protein Science · doi:10.1110/ps.0239403 · Cited by 1,074
Self-citationSette, A., Vitiello, A., Reherman, B., Fowler, P., Nayersina, R., Kast, W. M., Melief, C. J. M., Oseroff, C., Yuan, L., Ruppert, J., et al. (1994) · The Journal of Immunology · doi:10.4049/jimmunol.153.12.5586 · Cited by 830
Self-citationPeters, B., & Sette, A. (2005) · BMC Bioinformatics · doi:10.1186/1471-2105-6-132 · Cited by 512
Self-citationNielsen, M., Lundegaard, C., Lund, O., & Keşmir, C. (2005) · Immunogenetics · doi:10.1007/s00251-005-0781-7 · Cited by 491
Self-citationProPred1: prediction of promiscuous MHC Class-I binding sites
Singh, H., & Raghava, G. P. S. (2003) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btg108 · Cited by 441
Shen, L., Sigal, L. J., Boes, M., & Rock, K. L. (2004) · Immunity · doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2004.07.004 · Cited by 391
Reche, P., Glutting, J.-P., Zhang, H., & Reinherz, E. (2004) · Immunogenetics · doi:10.1007/s00251-004-0709-7 · Cited by 386
Cited by
Nielsen, M., Lundegaard, C., Blicher, T., Lamberth, K., Harndahl, M., Justesen, S., Røder, G., Peters, B., Sette, A., Lund, O., et al. (2007) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000796 · Cited by 719
Self-citationReverse Vaccinology: Developing Vaccines in the Era of Genomics
Sette, A., & Rappuoli, R. (2010) · Immunity · doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2010.09.017 · Cited by 559
Self-citationGeometric deep learning improves generalizability of MHC-bound peptide predictions
(2024) · doi:10.1038/s42003-024-07292-1 · Cited by 18
Metadata
- Authors
- Peters, B., Bui, H.-H., Frankild, S., Nielsen, M., Lundegaard, C., Kostem, E., Basch, D., Lamberth, K., Harndahl, M., Fleri, W., Wilson, S. S., Sidney, J., Lund, O., Buus, S., & Sette, A.
- Venue
- PLoS Computational Biology
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2006-06-09
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- e65
- ISSN
- 1553-734X (ISSN-L)
- 1553-7358
- OpenAlex
- W2094706980
- Cited by
- 288
- References
- 46
- FWCI
- 11.30
- 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: A Community Resource Benchmarking Predictions of Peptide Binding to MHC-I Molecules. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020065
- The paper
- Peters, B., Bui, H.-H., Frankild, S., Nielsen, M., Lundegaard, C., Kostem, E., Basch, D., Lamberth, K., Harndahl, M., Fleri, W., Wilson, S. S., Sidney, J., Lund, O., Buus, S., & Sette, A. (2006). A Community Resource Benchmarking Predictions of Peptide Binding to MHC-I Molecules. PLoS Computational Biology. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020065
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.