Cargando…
Benchmarking the PEPOP methods for mimicking discontinuous epitopes
BACKGROUND: Computational methods provide approaches to identify epitopes in protein Ags to help characterizing potential biomarkers identified by high-throughput genomic or proteomic experiments. PEPOP version 1.0 was developed as an antigenic or immunogenic peptide prediction tool. We have now imp...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6937815/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31888437 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12859-019-3189-3 |
_version_ | 1783483941788844032 |
---|---|
author | Demolombe, Vincent de Brevern, Alexandre G. Molina, Franck Lavigne, Géraldine Granier, Claude Moreau, Violaine |
author_facet | Demolombe, Vincent de Brevern, Alexandre G. Molina, Franck Lavigne, Géraldine Granier, Claude Moreau, Violaine |
author_sort | Demolombe, Vincent |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Computational methods provide approaches to identify epitopes in protein Ags to help characterizing potential biomarkers identified by high-throughput genomic or proteomic experiments. PEPOP version 1.0 was developed as an antigenic or immunogenic peptide prediction tool. We have now improved this tool by implementing 32 new methods (PEPOP version 2.0) to guide the choice of peptides that mimic discontinuous epitopes and thus potentially able to replace the cognate protein Ag in its interaction with an Ab. In the present work, we describe these new methods and the benchmarking of their performances. RESULTS: Benchmarking was carried out by comparing the peptides predicted by the different methods and the corresponding epitopes determined by X-ray crystallography in a dataset of 75 Ag-Ab complexes. The Sensitivity (Se) and Positive Predictive Value (PPV) parameters were used to assess the performance of these methods. The results were compared to that of peptides obtained either by chance or by using the SUPERFICIAL tool, the only available comparable method. CONCLUSION: The PEPOP methods were more efficient than, or as much as chance, and 33 of the 34 PEPOP methods performed better than SUPERFICIAL. Overall, “optimized” methods (tools that use the traveling salesman problem approach to design peptides) can predict peptides that best match true epitopes in most cases. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6937815 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-69378152019-12-31 Benchmarking the PEPOP methods for mimicking discontinuous epitopes Demolombe, Vincent de Brevern, Alexandre G. Molina, Franck Lavigne, Géraldine Granier, Claude Moreau, Violaine BMC Bioinformatics Methodology Article BACKGROUND: Computational methods provide approaches to identify epitopes in protein Ags to help characterizing potential biomarkers identified by high-throughput genomic or proteomic experiments. PEPOP version 1.0 was developed as an antigenic or immunogenic peptide prediction tool. We have now improved this tool by implementing 32 new methods (PEPOP version 2.0) to guide the choice of peptides that mimic discontinuous epitopes and thus potentially able to replace the cognate protein Ag in its interaction with an Ab. In the present work, we describe these new methods and the benchmarking of their performances. RESULTS: Benchmarking was carried out by comparing the peptides predicted by the different methods and the corresponding epitopes determined by X-ray crystallography in a dataset of 75 Ag-Ab complexes. The Sensitivity (Se) and Positive Predictive Value (PPV) parameters were used to assess the performance of these methods. The results were compared to that of peptides obtained either by chance or by using the SUPERFICIAL tool, the only available comparable method. CONCLUSION: The PEPOP methods were more efficient than, or as much as chance, and 33 of the 34 PEPOP methods performed better than SUPERFICIAL. Overall, “optimized” methods (tools that use the traveling salesman problem approach to design peptides) can predict peptides that best match true epitopes in most cases. BioMed Central 2019-12-30 /pmc/articles/PMC6937815/ /pubmed/31888437 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12859-019-3189-3 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Methodology Article Demolombe, Vincent de Brevern, Alexandre G. Molina, Franck Lavigne, Géraldine Granier, Claude Moreau, Violaine Benchmarking the PEPOP methods for mimicking discontinuous epitopes |
title | Benchmarking the PEPOP methods for mimicking discontinuous epitopes |
title_full | Benchmarking the PEPOP methods for mimicking discontinuous epitopes |
title_fullStr | Benchmarking the PEPOP methods for mimicking discontinuous epitopes |
title_full_unstemmed | Benchmarking the PEPOP methods for mimicking discontinuous epitopes |
title_short | Benchmarking the PEPOP methods for mimicking discontinuous epitopes |
title_sort | benchmarking the pepop methods for mimicking discontinuous epitopes |
topic | Methodology Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6937815/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31888437 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12859-019-3189-3 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT demolombevincent benchmarkingthepepopmethodsformimickingdiscontinuousepitopes AT debrevernalexandreg benchmarkingthepepopmethodsformimickingdiscontinuousepitopes AT molinafranck benchmarkingthepepopmethodsformimickingdiscontinuousepitopes AT lavignegeraldine benchmarkingthepepopmethodsformimickingdiscontinuousepitopes AT granierclaude benchmarkingthepepopmethodsformimickingdiscontinuousepitopes AT moreauviolaine benchmarkingthepepopmethodsformimickingdiscontinuousepitopes |