IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0115745.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Enhancing In Silico Protein-Based Vaccine Discovery for Eukaryotic Pathogens Using Predicted Peptide-MHC Binding and Peptide Conservation Scores

Author

Listed:
  • Stephen J Goodswen
  • Paul J Kennedy
  • John T Ellis

Abstract

Given thousands of proteins constituting a eukaryotic pathogen, the principal objective for a high-throughput in silico vaccine discovery pipeline is to select those proteins worthy of laboratory validation. Accurate prediction of T-cell epitopes on protein antigens is one crucial piece of evidence that would aid in this selection. Prediction of peptides recognised by T-cell receptors have to date proved to be of insufficient accuracy. The in silico approach is consequently reliant on an indirect method, which involves the prediction of peptides binding to major histocompatibility complex (MHC) molecules. There is no guarantee nevertheless that predicted peptide-MHC complexes will be presented by antigen-presenting cells and/or recognised by cognate T-cell receptors. The aim of this study was to determine if predicted peptide-MHC binding scores could provide contributing evidence to establish a protein’s potential as a vaccine. Using T-Cell MHC class I binding prediction tools provided by the Immune Epitope Database and Analysis Resource, peptide binding affinity to 76 common MHC I alleles were predicted for 160 Toxoplasma gondii proteins: 75 taken from published studies represented proteins known or expected to induce T-cell immune responses and 85 considered less likely vaccine candidates. The results show there is no universal set of rules that can be applied directly to binding scores to distinguish a vaccine from a non-vaccine candidate. We present, however, two proposed strategies exploiting binding scores that provide supporting evidence that a protein is likely to induce a T-cell immune response–one using random forest (a machine learning algorithm) with a 72% sensitivity and 82.4% specificity and the other, using amino acid conservation scores with a 74.6% sensitivity and 70.5% specificity when applied to the 160 benchmark proteins. More importantly, the binding score strategies are valuable evidence contributors to the overall in silico vaccine discovery pool of evidence.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephen J Goodswen & Paul J Kennedy & John T Ellis, 2014. "Enhancing In Silico Protein-Based Vaccine Discovery for Eukaryotic Pathogens Using Predicted Peptide-MHC Binding and Peptide Conservation Scores," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-20, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0115745
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0115745
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0115745
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0115745&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0115745?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peng Wang & John Sidney & Courtney Dow & Bianca Mothé & Alessandro Sette & Bjoern Peters, 2008. "A Systematic Assessment of MHC Class II Peptide Binding Predictions and Evaluation of a Consensus Approach," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(4), pages 1-10, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hao Zhang & Peng Wang & Nikitas Papangelopoulos & Ying Xu & Alessandro Sette & Philip E Bourne & Ole Lund & Julia Ponomarenko & Morten Nielsen & Bjoern Peters, 2010. "Limitations of Ab Initio Predictions of Peptide Binding to MHC Class II Molecules," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(2), pages 1-10, February.
    2. repec:arp:sjmhsm:2020:p:71-76 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Regina S Salvat & Andrew S Parker & Yoonjoo Choi & Chris Bailey-Kellogg & Karl E Griswold, 2015. "Mapping the Pareto Optimal Design Space for a Functionally Deimmunized Biotherapeutic Candidate," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(1), pages 1-15, January.
    4. Kyle Saylor & Ben Donnan & Chenming Zhang, 2022. "Computational mining of MHC class II epitopes for the development of universal immunogenic proteins," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(3), pages 1-17, March.
    5. Satyavani Kaliamurthi & Gurudeeban Selvaraj & Sathishkumar Chinnasamy & Qiankun Wang & Asma Sindhoo Nangraj & William C. Cho & Keren Gu & Dong-Qing Wei, 2019. "Immunomics Datasets and Tools: To Identify Potential Epitope Segments for Designing Chimeric Vaccine Candidate to Cervix Papilloma," Data, MDPI, vol. 4(1), pages 1-17, February.
    6. Gouri Shankar Pandey & Chen Yanover & Tom E Howard & Zuben E Sauna, 2013. "Polymorphisms in the F8 Gene and MHC-II Variants as Risk Factors for the Development of Inhibitory Anti-Factor VIII Antibodies during the Treatment of Hemophilia A: A Computational Assessment," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(5), pages 1-11, May.
    7. Masahiko Mori & Kei Matsuki & Tomoyuki Maekawa & Mari Tanaka & Busarawan Sriwanthana & Masaru Yokoyama & Koya Ariyoshi, 2012. "Development of a Novel In Silico Docking Simulation Model for the Fine HIV-1 Cytotoxic T Lymphocyte Epitope Mapping," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(7), pages 1-6, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0115745. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.