Cargando…

Comparison of Open-Source Reverse Vaccinology Programs for Bacterial Vaccine Antigen Discovery

Reverse Vaccinology (RV) is a widely used approach to identify potential vaccine candidates (PVCs) by screening the proteome of a pathogen through computational analyses. Since its first application in Group B meningococcus (MenB) vaccine in early 1990's, several software programs have been dev...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dalsass, Mattia, Brozzi, Alessandro, Medini, Duccio, Rappuoli, Rino
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6382693/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30837982
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2019.00113
_version_ 1783396694266740736
author Dalsass, Mattia
Brozzi, Alessandro
Medini, Duccio
Rappuoli, Rino
author_facet Dalsass, Mattia
Brozzi, Alessandro
Medini, Duccio
Rappuoli, Rino
author_sort Dalsass, Mattia
collection PubMed
description Reverse Vaccinology (RV) is a widely used approach to identify potential vaccine candidates (PVCs) by screening the proteome of a pathogen through computational analyses. Since its first application in Group B meningococcus (MenB) vaccine in early 1990's, several software programs have been developed implementing different flavors of the first RV protocol. However, there has been no comprehensive review to date on these different RV tools. We have compared six of these applications designed for bacterial vaccines (NERVE, Vaxign, VaxiJen, Jenner-predict, Bowman-Heinson, and VacSol) against a set of 11 pathogens for which a curated list of known bacterial protective antigens (BPAs) was available. We present results on: (1) the comparison of criteria and programs used for the selection of PVCs (2) computational runtime and (3) performances in terms of fraction of proteome identified as PVC, fraction and enrichment of BPA identified in the set of PVCs. This review demonstrates that none of the programs was able to recall 100% of the tested set of BPAs and that the output lists of proteins are in poor agreement suggesting in the process of prioritize vaccine candidates not to rely on a single RV tool response. Singularly the best balance in terms of fraction of a proteome predicted as good candidate and recall of BPAs has been observed by the machine-learning approach proposed by Bowman (1) and enhanced by Heinson (2). Even though more performing than the other approaches it shows the disadvantage of limited accessibility to non-experts users and strong dependence between results and a-priori training dataset composition. In conclusion we believe that to significantly enhance the performances of next RV methods further studies should focus on the enhancement of accuracy of the existing protein annotation tools and should leverage on the assets of machine-learning techniques applied to biological datasets expanded also through the incorporation and curation of bacterial proteins characterized by negative experimental results.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6382693
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63826932019-03-05 Comparison of Open-Source Reverse Vaccinology Programs for Bacterial Vaccine Antigen Discovery Dalsass, Mattia Brozzi, Alessandro Medini, Duccio Rappuoli, Rino Front Immunol Immunology Reverse Vaccinology (RV) is a widely used approach to identify potential vaccine candidates (PVCs) by screening the proteome of a pathogen through computational analyses. Since its first application in Group B meningococcus (MenB) vaccine in early 1990's, several software programs have been developed implementing different flavors of the first RV protocol. However, there has been no comprehensive review to date on these different RV tools. We have compared six of these applications designed for bacterial vaccines (NERVE, Vaxign, VaxiJen, Jenner-predict, Bowman-Heinson, and VacSol) against a set of 11 pathogens for which a curated list of known bacterial protective antigens (BPAs) was available. We present results on: (1) the comparison of criteria and programs used for the selection of PVCs (2) computational runtime and (3) performances in terms of fraction of proteome identified as PVC, fraction and enrichment of BPA identified in the set of PVCs. This review demonstrates that none of the programs was able to recall 100% of the tested set of BPAs and that the output lists of proteins are in poor agreement suggesting in the process of prioritize vaccine candidates not to rely on a single RV tool response. Singularly the best balance in terms of fraction of a proteome predicted as good candidate and recall of BPAs has been observed by the machine-learning approach proposed by Bowman (1) and enhanced by Heinson (2). Even though more performing than the other approaches it shows the disadvantage of limited accessibility to non-experts users and strong dependence between results and a-priori training dataset composition. In conclusion we believe that to significantly enhance the performances of next RV methods further studies should focus on the enhancement of accuracy of the existing protein annotation tools and should leverage on the assets of machine-learning techniques applied to biological datasets expanded also through the incorporation and curation of bacterial proteins characterized by negative experimental results. Frontiers Media S.A. 2019-02-14 /pmc/articles/PMC6382693/ /pubmed/30837982 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2019.00113 Text en Copyright © 2019 Dalsass, Brozzi, Medini and Rappuoli. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Immunology
Dalsass, Mattia
Brozzi, Alessandro
Medini, Duccio
Rappuoli, Rino
Comparison of Open-Source Reverse Vaccinology Programs for Bacterial Vaccine Antigen Discovery
title Comparison of Open-Source Reverse Vaccinology Programs for Bacterial Vaccine Antigen Discovery
title_full Comparison of Open-Source Reverse Vaccinology Programs for Bacterial Vaccine Antigen Discovery
title_fullStr Comparison of Open-Source Reverse Vaccinology Programs for Bacterial Vaccine Antigen Discovery
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Open-Source Reverse Vaccinology Programs for Bacterial Vaccine Antigen Discovery
title_short Comparison of Open-Source Reverse Vaccinology Programs for Bacterial Vaccine Antigen Discovery
title_sort comparison of open-source reverse vaccinology programs for bacterial vaccine antigen discovery
topic Immunology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6382693/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30837982
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2019.00113
work_keys_str_mv AT dalsassmattia comparisonofopensourcereversevaccinologyprogramsforbacterialvaccineantigendiscovery
AT brozzialessandro comparisonofopensourcereversevaccinologyprogramsforbacterialvaccineantigendiscovery
AT mediniduccio comparisonofopensourcereversevaccinologyprogramsforbacterialvaccineantigendiscovery
AT rappuolirino comparisonofopensourcereversevaccinologyprogramsforbacterialvaccineantigendiscovery