Massimo Andreatta1, Thomas Trolle2, Zhen Yan3, Jason A Greenbaum3, Bjoern Peters4, Morten Nielsen1,5. 1. Instituto de Investigaciones Biotecnológicas, Universidad Nacional de San Martín, CP1650, San Martín, Buenos Aires, Argentina. 2. Evaxion Biotech, DK-2200 Copenhagen N, Denmark. 3. Bioinformatics Core Facility. 4. Division of Vaccine Discovery, La Jolla Institute for Allergy and Immunology, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA. 5. Department of Bio and Health Informatics, Technical University of Denmark, DK-2800 Lyngby, Denmark.
Abstract
Motivation: Computational methods for the prediction of peptide-MHC binding have become an integral and essential component for candidate selection in experimental T cell epitope discovery studies. The sheer amount of published prediction methods-and often discordant reports on their performance-poses a considerable quandary to the experimentalist who needs to choose the best tool for their research. Results: With the goal to provide an unbiased, transparent evaluation of the state-of-the-art in the field, we created an automated platform to benchmark peptide-MHC class II binding prediction tools. The platform evaluates the absolute and relative predictive performance of all participating tools on data newly entered into the Immune Epitope Database (IEDB) before they are made public, thereby providing a frequent, unbiased assessment of available prediction tools. The benchmark runs on a weekly basis, is fully automated, and displays up-to-date results on a publicly accessible website. The initial benchmark described here included six commonly used prediction servers, but other tools are encouraged to join with a simple sign-up procedure. Performance evaluation on 59 data sets composed of over 10 000 binding affinity measurements suggested that NetMHCIIpan is currently the most accurate tool, followed by NN-align and the IEDB consensus method. Availability and implementation: Weekly reports on the participating methods can be found online at: http://tools.iedb.org/auto_bench/mhcii/weekly/. Contact: mniel@bioinformatics.dtu.dk. Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
Motivation: Computational methods for the prediction of peptide-MHC binding have become an integral and essential component for candidate selection in experimental T cell epitope discovery studies. The sheer amount of published prediction methods-and often discordant reports on their performance-poses a considerable quandary to the experimentalist who needs to choose the best tool for their research. Results: With the goal to provide an unbiased, transparent evaluation of the state-of-the-art in the field, we created an automated platform to benchmark peptide-MHC class II binding prediction tools. The platform evaluates the absolute and relative predictive performance of all participating tools on data newly entered into the Immune Epitope Database (IEDB) before they are made public, thereby providing a frequent, unbiased assessment of available prediction tools. The benchmark runs on a weekly basis, is fully automated, and displays up-to-date results on a publicly accessible website. The initial benchmark described here included six commonly used prediction servers, but other tools are encouraged to join with a simple sign-up procedure. Performance evaluation on 59 data sets composed of over 10 000 binding affinity measurements suggested that NetMHCIIpan is currently the most accurate tool, followed by NN-align and the IEDB consensus method. Availability and implementation: Weekly reports on the participating methods can be found online at: http://tools.iedb.org/auto_bench/mhcii/weekly/. Contact: mniel@bioinformatics.dtu.dk. Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
Authors: Thomas Trolle; Imir G Metushi; Jason A Greenbaum; Yohan Kim; John Sidney; Ole Lund; Alessandro Sette; Bjoern Peters; Morten Nielsen Journal: Bioinformatics Date: 2015-02-25 Impact factor: 6.937
Authors: Randi Vita; James A Overton; Jason A Greenbaum; Julia Ponomarenko; Jason D Clark; Jason R Cantrell; Daniel K Wheeler; Joseph L Gabbard; Deborah Hix; Alessandro Sette; Bjoern Peters Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2014-10-09 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: Geert P M Mommen; Fabio Marino; Hugo D Meiring; Martien C M Poelen; Jacqueline A M van Gaans-van den Brink; Shabaz Mohammed; Albert J R Heck; Cécile A C M van Els Journal: Mol Cell Proteomics Date: 2016-01-13 Impact factor: 5.911
Authors: Christian Garde; Sri H Ramarathinam; Emma C Jappe; Morten Nielsen; Jens V Kringelum; Thomas Trolle; Anthony W Purcell Journal: Immunogenetics Date: 2019-06-10 Impact factor: 2.846
Authors: Julien Racle; Justine Michaux; Georg Alexander Rockinger; Marion Arnaud; Sara Bobisse; Chloe Chong; Philippe Guillaume; George Coukos; Alexandre Harari; Camilla Jandus; Michal Bassani-Sternberg; David Gfeller Journal: Nat Biotechnol Date: 2019-10-14 Impact factor: 54.908
Authors: Rahul Khetan; Robin Curtis; Charlotte M Deane; Johannes Thorling Hadsund; Uddipan Kar; Konrad Krawczyk; Daisuke Kuroda; Sarah A Robinson; Pietro Sormanni; Kouhei Tsumoto; Jim Warwicker; Andrew C R Martin Journal: MAbs Date: 2022 Jan-Dec Impact factor: 5.857