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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Demolombe, Vincent, de Brevern, Alexandre G., Molina, Franck, Lavigne, Géraldine, Granier, Claude, Moreau, Violaine
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