Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 288

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 access
Peters, Bjoern, Bui, Huynh-Hoa, Frankild, Sune, Nielsen, Morten, Lundegaard, Claus, Kostem, Emrah, Basch, Derek, Lamberth, Kasper, Harndahl, Mikkel, Fleri, Ward, Wilson, Stephen S, Sidney, John, Lund, Ole, Buus, Soren, Sette, Alessandro·2006·PLoS Computational Biology

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020065

Cites

46 of 46 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

Show all 46 references

Cited by

See all 288

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
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.